I rented I AM CURIOUS-YELLOW from my video store because of all the controversy that surrounded it when it was first released in 1967. I also heard that at first it was seized by U.S. customs if it ever tried to enter this country, therefore being a fan of films considered "controversial" I really had to see this for myself.<br /><br />The plot is centered around a young Swedish drama student named Lena who wants to learn everything she can about life. In particular she wants to focus her attentions to making some sort of documentary on what the average Swede thought about certain political issues such as the Vietnam War and race issues in the United States. In between asking politicians and ordinary denizens of Stockholm about their opinions on politics, she has sex with her drama teacher, classmates, and married men.<br /><br />What kills me about I AM CURIOUS-YELLOW is that 40 years ago, this was considered pornographic. Really, the sex and nudity scenes are few and far between, even then it's not shot like some cheaply made porno. While my countrymen mind find it shocking, in reality sex and nudity are a major staple in Swedish cinema. Even Ingmar Bergman, arguably their answer to good old boy John Ford, had sex scenes in his films.<br /><br />I do commend the filmmakers for the fact that any sex shown in the film is shown for artistic purposes rather than just to shock people and make money to be shown in pornographic theaters in America. I AM CURIOUS-YELLOW is a good film for anyone wanting to study the meat and potatoes (no pun intended) of Swedish cinema. But really, this film doesn't have much of a plot.
"I Am Curious: Yellow" is a risible and pretentious steaming pile. It doesn't matter what one's political views are because this film can hardly be taken seriously on any level. As for the claim that frontal male nudity is an automatic NC-17, that isn't true. I've seen R-rated films with male nudity. Granted, they only offer some fleeting views, but where are the R-rated films with gaping vulvas and flapping labia? Nowhere, because they don't exist. The same goes for those crappy cable shows: schlongs swinging in the breeze but not a clitoris in sight. And those pretentious indie movies like The Brown Bunny, in which we're treated to the site of Vincent Gallo's throbbing johnson, but not a trace of pink visible on Chloe Sevigny. Before crying (or implying) "double-standard" in matters of nudity, the mentally obtuse should take into account one unavoidably obvious anatomical difference between men and women: there are no genitals on display when actresses appears nude, and the same cannot be said for a man. In fact, you generally won't see female genitals in an American film in anything short of porn or explicit erotica. This alleged double-standard is less a double standard than an admittedly depressing ability to come to terms culturally with the insides of women's bodies.
If only to avoid making this type of film in the future. This film is interesting as an experiment but tells no cogent story.<br /><br />One might feel virtuous for sitting thru it because it touches on so many IMPORTANT issues but it does so without any discernable motive. The viewer comes away with no new perspectives (unless one comes up with one while one's mind wanders, as it will invariably do during this pointless film).<br /><br />One might better spend one's time staring out a window at a tree growing.<br /><br />
This film was probably inspired by Godard's Masculin, féminin and I urge you to see that film instead.<br /><br />The film has two strong elements and those are, (1) the realistic acting (2) the impressive, undeservedly good, photo. Apart from that, what strikes me most is the endless stream of silliness. Lena Nyman has to be most annoying actress in the world. She acts so stupid and with all the nudity in this film,...it's unattractive. Comparing to Godard's film, intellectuality has been replaced with stupidity. Without going too far on this subject, I would say that follows from the difference in ideals between the French and the Swedish society.<br /><br />A movie of its time, and place. 2/10.
Oh, brother...after hearing about this ridiculous film for umpteen years all I can think of is that old Peggy Lee song..<br /><br />"Is that all there is??" ...I was just an early teen when this smoked fish hit the U.S. I was too young to get in the theater (although I did manage to sneak into "Goodbye Columbus"). Then a screening at a local film museum beckoned - Finally I could see this film, except now I was as old as my parents were when they schlepped to see it!!<br /><br />The ONLY reason this film was not condemned to the anonymous sands of time was because of the obscenity case sparked by its U.S. release. MILLIONS of people flocked to this stinker, thinking they were going to see a sex film...Instead, they got lots of closeups of gnarly, repulsive Swedes, on-street interviews in bland shopping malls, asinie political pretension...and feeble who-cares simulated sex scenes with saggy, pale actors.<br /><br />Cultural icon, holy grail, historic artifact..whatever this thing was, shred it, burn it, then stuff the ashes in a lead box!<br /><br />Elite esthetes still scrape to find value in its boring pseudo revolutionary political spewings..But if it weren't for the censorship scandal, it would have been ignored, then forgotten.<br /><br />Instead, the "I Am Blank, Blank" rhythymed title was repeated endlessly for years as a titilation for porno films (I am Curious, Lavender - for gay films, I Am Curious, Black - for blaxploitation films, etc..) and every ten years or so the thing rises from the dead, to be viewed by a new generation of suckers who want to see that "naughty sex film" that "revolutionized the film industry"...<br /><br />Yeesh, avoid like the plague..Or if you MUST see it - rent the video and fast forward to the "dirty" parts, just to get it over with.<br /><br />
I would put this at the top of my list of films in the category of unwatchable trash! There are films that are bad, but the worst kind are the ones that are unwatchable but you are suppose to like them because they are supposed to be good for you! The sex sequences, so shocking in its day, couldn't even arouse a rabbit. The so called controversial politics is strictly high school sophomore amateur night Marxism. The film is self-consciously arty in the worst sense of the term. The photography is in a harsh grainy black and white. Some scenes are out of focus or taken from the wrong angle. Even the sound is bad! And some people call this art?<br /><br />
Whoever wrote the screenplay for this movie obviously never consulted any books about Lucille Ball, especially her autobiography. I've never seen so many mistakes in a biopic, ranging from her early years in Celoron and Jamestown to her later years with Desi. I could write a whole list of factual errors, but it would go on for pages. In all, I believe that Lucille Ball is one of those inimitable people who simply cannot be portrayed by anyone other than themselves. If I were Lucie Arnaz and Desi, Jr., I would be irate at how many mistakes were made in this film. The filmmakers tried hard, but the movie seems awfully sloppy to me.
When I first saw a glimpse of this movie, I quickly noticed the actress who was playing the role of Lucille Ball. Rachel York's portrayal of Lucy is absolutely awful. Lucille Ball was an astounding comedian with incredible talent. To think about a legend like Lucille Ball being portrayed the way she was in the movie is horrendous. I cannot believe out of all the actresses in the world who could play a much better Lucy, the producers decided to get Rachel York. She might be a good actress in other roles but to play the role of Lucille Ball is tough. It is pretty hard to find someone who could resemble Lucille Ball, but they could at least find someone a bit similar in looks and talent. If you noticed York's portrayal of Lucy in episodes of I Love Lucy like the chocolate factory or vitavetavegamin, nothing is similar in any way-her expression, voice, or movement.<br /><br />To top it all off, Danny Pino playing Desi Arnaz is horrible. Pino does not qualify to play as Ricky. He's small and skinny, his accent is unreal, and once again, his acting is unbelievable. Although Fred and Ethel were not similar either, they were not as bad as the characters of Lucy and Ricky.<br /><br />Overall, extremely horrible casting and the story is badly told. If people want to understand the real life situation of Lucille Ball, I suggest watching A&E Biography of Lucy and Desi, read the book from Lucille Ball herself, or PBS' American Masters: Finding Lucy. If you want to see a docudrama, "Before the Laughter" would be a better choice. The casting of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz in "Before the Laughter" is much better compared to this. At least, a similar aspect is shown rather than nothing.
Who are these "They"- the actors? the filmmakers? Certainly couldn't be the audience- this is among the most air-puffed productions in existence. It's the kind of movie that looks like it was a lot of fun to shoot— TOO much fun, nobody is getting any actual work done, and that almost always makes for a movie that's no fun to watch.<br /><br />Ritter dons glasses so as to hammer home his character's status as a sort of doppleganger of the bespectacled Bogdanovich; the scenes with the breezy Ms. Stratten are sweet, but have an embarrassing, look-guys-I'm-dating-the-prom-queen feel to them. Ben Gazzara sports his usual cat's-got-canary grin in a futile attempt to elevate the meager plot, which requires him to pursue Audrey Hepburn with all the interest of a narcoleptic at an insomnia clinic. In the meantime, the budding couple's respective children (nepotism alert: Bogdanovich's daughters) spew cute and pick up some fairly disturbing pointers on 'love' while observing their parents. (Ms. Hepburn, drawing on her dignity, manages to rise above the proceedings- but she has the monumental challenge of playing herself, ostensibly.) Everybody looks great, but so what? It's a movie and we can expect that much, if that's what you're looking for you'd be better off picking up a copy of Vogue.<br /><br />Oh- and it has to be mentioned that Colleen Camp thoroughly annoys, even apart from her singing, which, while competent, is wholly unconvincing... the country and western numbers are woefully mismatched with the standards on the soundtrack. Surely this is NOT what Gershwin (who wrote the song from which the movie's title is derived) had in mind; his stage musicals of the 20's may have been slight, but at least they were long on charm. "They All Laughed" tries to coast on its good intentions, but nobody- least of all Peter Bogdanovich - has the good sense to put on the brakes.<br /><br />Due in no small part to the tragic death of Dorothy Stratten, this movie has a special place in the heart of Mr. Bogdanovich- he even bought it back from its producers, then distributed it on his own and went bankrupt when it didn't prove popular. His rise and fall is among the more sympathetic and tragic of Hollywood stories, so there's no joy in criticizing the film... there _is_ real emotional investment in Ms. Stratten's scenes. But "Laughed" is a faint echo of "The Last Picture Show", "Paper Moon" or "What's Up, Doc"- following "Daisy Miller" and "At Long Last Love", it was a thundering confirmation of the phase from which P.B. has never emerged.<br /><br />All in all, though, the movie is harmless, only a waste of rental. I want to watch people having a good time, I'll go to the park on a sunny day. For filmic expressions of joy and love, I'll stick to Ernest Lubitsch and Jaques Demy...
This is said to be a personal film for Peter Bogdonavitch. He based it on his life but changed things around to fit the characters, who are detectives. These detectives date beautiful models and have no problem getting them. Sounds more like a millionaire playboy filmmaker than a detective, doesn't it? This entire movie was written by Peter, and it shows how out of touch with real people he was. You're supposed to write what you know, and he did that, indeed. And leaves the audience bored and confused, and jealous, for that matter. This is a curio for people who want to see Dorothy Stratten, who was murdered right after filming. But Patti Hanson, who would, in real life, marry Keith Richards, was also a model, like Stratten, but is a lot better and has a more ample part. In fact, Stratten's part seemed forced; added. She doesn't have a lot to do with the story, which is pretty convoluted to begin with. All in all, every character in this film is somebody that very few people can relate with, unless you're millionaire from Manhattan with beautiful supermodels at your beckon call. For the rest of us, it's an irritating snore fest. That's what happens when you're out of touch. You entertain your few friends with inside jokes, and bore all the rest.
It was great to see some of my favorite stars of 30 years ago including John Ritter, Ben Gazarra and Audrey Hepburn. They looked quite wonderful. But that was it. They were not given any characters or good lines to work with. I neither understood or cared what the characters were doing.<br /><br />Some of the smaller female roles were fine, Patty Henson and Colleen Camp were quite competent and confident in their small sidekick parts. They showed some talent and it is sad they didn't go on to star in more and better films. Sadly, I didn't think Dorothy Stratten got a chance to act in this her only important film role.<br /><br />The film appears to have some fans, and I was very open-minded when I started watching it. I am a big Peter Bogdanovich fan and I enjoyed his last movie, "Cat's Meow" and all his early ones from "Targets" to "Nickleodeon". So, it really surprised me that I was barely able to keep awake watching this one.<br /><br />It is ironic that this movie is about a detective agency where the detectives and clients get romantically involved with each other. Five years later, Bogdanovich's ex-girlfriend, Cybil Shepherd had a hit television series called "Moonlighting" stealing the story idea from Bogdanovich. Of course, there was a great difference in that the series relied on tons of witty dialogue, while this tries to make do with slapstick and a few screwball lines.<br /><br />Bottom line: It ain't no "Paper Moon" and only a very pale version of "What's Up, Doc".
I can't believe that those praising this movie herein aren't thinking of some other film. I was prepared for the possibility that this would be awful, but the script (or lack thereof) makes for a film that's also pointless. On the plus side, the general level of craft on the part of the actors and technical crew is quite competent, but when you've got a sow's ear to work with you can't make a silk purse. Ben G fans should stick with just about any other movie he's been in. Dorothy S fans should stick to Galaxina. Peter B fans should stick to Last Picture Show and Target. Fans of cheap laughs at the expense of those who seem to be asking for it should stick to Peter B's amazingly awful book, Killing of the Unicorn.
Never cast models and Playboy bunnies in your films! Bob Fosse's "Star 80" about Dorothy Stratten, of whom Bogdanovich was obsessed enough to have married her SISTER after her murder at the hands of her low-life husband, is a zillion times more interesting than Dorothy herself on the silver screen. Patty Hansen is no actress either..I expected to see some sort of lost masterpiece a la Orson Welles but instead got Audrey Hepburn cavorting in jeans and a god-awful "poodlesque" hair-do....Very disappointing...."Paper Moon" and "The Last Picture Show" I could watch again and again. This clunker I could barely sit through once. This movie was reputedly not released because of the brouhaha surrounding Ms. Stratten's tawdry death; I think the real reason was because it was so bad!
Its not the cast. A finer group of actors, you could not find. Its not the setting. The director is in love with New York City, and by the end of the film, so are we all! Woody Allen could not improve upon what Bogdonovich has done here. If you are going to fall in love, or find love, Manhattan is the place to go. No, the problem with the movie is the script. There is none. The actors fall in love at first sight, words are unnecessary. In the director's own experience in Hollywood that is what happens when they go to work on the set. It is reality to him, and his peers, but it is a fantasy to most of us in the real world. So, in the end, the movie is hollow, and shallow, and message-less.
Today I found "They All Laughed" on VHS on sale in a rental. It was a really old and very used VHS, I had no information about this movie, but I liked the references listed on its cover: the names of Peter Bogdanovich, Audrey Hepburn, John Ritter and specially Dorothy Stratten attracted me, the price was very low and I decided to risk and buy it. I searched IMDb, and the User Rating of 6.0 was an excellent reference. I looked in "Mick Martin & Marsha Porter Video & DVD Guide 2003" and – wow – four stars! So, I decided that I could not waste more time and immediately see it. Indeed, I have just finished watching "They All Laughed" and I found it a very boring overrated movie. The characters are badly developed, and I spent lots of minutes to understand their roles in the story. The plot is supposed to be funny (private eyes who fall in love for the women they are chasing), but I have not laughed along the whole story. The coincidences, in a huge city like New York, are ridiculous. Ben Gazarra as an attractive and very seductive man, with the women falling for him as if her were a Brad Pitt, Antonio Banderas or George Clooney, is quite ridiculous. In the end, the greater attractions certainly are the presence of the Playboy centerfold and playmate of the year Dorothy Stratten, murdered by her husband pretty after the release of this movie, and whose life was showed in "Star 80" and "Death of a Centerfold: The Dorothy Stratten Story"; the amazing beauty of the sexy Patti Hansen, the future Mrs. Keith Richards; the always wonderful, even being fifty-two years old, Audrey Hepburn; and the song "Amigo", from Roberto Carlos. Although I do not like him, Roberto Carlos has been the most popular Brazilian singer since the end of the 60's and is called by his fans as "The King". I will keep this movie in my collection only because of these attractions (manly Dorothy Stratten). My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Muito Riso e Muita Alegria" ("Many Laughs and Lots of Happiness")
This film is just plain horrible. John Ritter doing pratt falls, 75% of the actors delivering their lines as if they were reading them from cue cards, poor editing, horrible sound mixing (dialogue is tough to pick up in places over the background noise), and a plot that really goes nowhere. I didn't think I'd ever say this, but Dorothy Stratten is not the worst actress in this film. There are at least 3 others that suck more. Patti Hansen delivers her lines with the passion of Ben Stein. I started to wonder if she wasn't dead inside. Even Bogdanovich's kids are awful (the oldest one is definitely reading her lines from a cue card). This movie is seriously horrible. There's a reason Bogdanovich couldn't get another project until 4 years later. Please don't watch it. If you see it in your television listings, cancel your cable. If a friend suggests it to you, reconsider your friendship. If your spouse wants to watch it, you're better off finding another soulmate. I'd rather gouge my eyes out with lawn darts than sit through this piece of garbage again. If I could sum this film up in one word, that word would be: Suckotrocity
My interest in Dorothy Stratten caused me to purchase this video. Although it had great actors/actresses, there were just too many subplots going on to retain interest. Plus it just wasn't that interesting. Dialogue was stiff and confusing and the story just flipped around too much to be believable. I was pretty disappointed in what I believe was one of Audrey Hepburn's last movies. I'll always love John Ritter best in slapstick. He was just too pathetic here.
I have this film out of the library right now and I haven't finished watching it. It is so bad I am in disbelief. Audrey Hepburn had totally lost her talent by then, although she'd pretty much finished with it in 'Robin and Marian.' This is the worst thing about this appallingly stupid film. It's really only of interest because it was her last feature film and because of the Dorothy Stratten appearance just prior to her homicide.<br /><br />There is nothing but idiocy between Gazzara and his cronies. Little signals and little bows and nods to real screwball comedy of which this is the faintest, palest shadow.<br /><br />Who could believe that there are even some of the same Manhattan environs that Hepburn inhabited so magically and even mythically in 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' twenty years earlier? The soundtrack of old Sinatra songs and the Gershwin song from which the title is taken is too loud and obvious--you sure don't have to wait for the credits to find out that something was subtly woven into the cine-musique of the picture to know when the songs blasted out at you.<br /><br />'Reverting to type' means going back up as well as going back down, I guess. In this case, Audrey Hepburn's chic European lady is all you see of someone who was formerly occasionally an actress and always a star. Here she has even lost her talent as a star. If someone whose talent was continuing to grow in the period, like Ann-Margret, had played the role, there would have been some life in it, even given the unbelievably bad material and Mongoloid-level situations.<br /><br />Hepburn was a great person, of course, greater than most movie stars ever dreamed of being, and she was once one of the most charming and beautiful of film actors. After this dreadful performance, she went on to make an atrocious TV movie with Robert Wagner called 'Love Among Thieves.' In 'They all Laughed' it is as though she were still playing an ingenue in her 50's. Even much vainer and obviously less intelligent actresses who insisted upon doing this like Lana Turner were infinitely more effective than is Hepburn. Turner took acting seriously even when she was bad. Hepburn doesn't take it seriously at all, couldn't be bothered with it; even her hair and clothes look tacky. Her last really good work was in 'Two for the Road,' perhaps her most perfect, if possibly not her best in many ways.<br /><br />And that girl who plays the country singer is just sickening. John Ritter is horrible, there is simply nothing to recommend this film except to see Dorothy Stratten, who was truly pretty. Otherwise, critic David Thomson's oft-used phrase 'losing his/her talent' never has made more sense.<br /><br />Ben Gazarra had lost all sex appeal by then, and so we have 2 films with Gazarra and Hepburn--who could ask for anything less? Sandra Dee's last, pitiful film 'Lost,' from 2 years later, a low-budget nothing, had more to it than this. At least Ms. Dee spoke in her own voice; by 1981, Audrey Hepburn's accent just sounded silly; she'd go on to do the PBS 'Gardens of the World with Audrey Hepburn' and there her somewhat irritating accent works as she walks through English gardens with aristocrats or waxes effusively about 'what I like most is when flowers go back to nature!' as in naturalized daffodils, but in an actual fictional movie, she just sounds ridiculous.<br /><br />To think that 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' was such a profound sort of light poetic thing with Audrey Hepburn one of the most beautiful women in the world--she was surely one of the most beautiful screen presences in 'My Fair Lady', matching Garbo in several things and Delphine Seyrig in 'Last Year at Marienbad.' And then this! And her final brief role as the angel 'Hap' in the Spielberg film 'Always' was just more of the lady stuff--corny, witless and stifling.<br /><br />I went to her memorial service at the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, a beautiful service which included a boys' choir singing the Shaker hymn 'Simple Gifts.' The only thing not listed in the program was the sudden playing of Hepburn's singing 'Moon River' on the fire escape in 'Breakfast at Tiffany's,' and this brought much emotion and some real tears out in the congregation.<br /><br />A great lady who was once a fine actress (as in 'The Nun's Story') and one of the greatest and most beautiful of film stars in many movies of the 50's and 60's who became a truly bad one--that's not all that common. And perhaps it is only a great human being who, in making such things as film performances trivial, nevertheless has the largeness of mind to want to have the flaws pointed out mercilessly--which all of her late film work contained in abundance. Most of the talk about Hepburn's miscasting is about 'My Fair Lady.' But the one that should have had the original actress in it was 'Wait Until Dark,' which had starred Lee Remick on Broadway. Never as celebrated as Hepburn, she was a better actress in many ways (Hepburn was completely incapable of playing anything really sordid), although Hepburn was at least adequate enough in that part. After that, all of her acting went downhill.
I think I will make a movie next weekend. Oh wait, I'm working..oh I'm sure I can fit it in. It looks like whoever made this film fit it in. I hope the makers of this crap have day jobs because this film sucked!!! It looks like someones home movie and I don't think more than $100 was spent making it!!! Total crap!!! Who let's this stuff be released?!?!?!
Pros: Nothing<br /><br />Cons: Everything<br /><br />Plot summary: A female reporter runs into a hitchhiker that tells her stories about the deaths of people that were killed by zombies.<br /><br />Review: Never in my life have I come across a movie as bad The Zombie Chronicles. Filmed on a budget of what looks to be about 20 bucks, TZC is a completely horrible horror movie that relies on lame, forgetable actors whom couldn't act to save their lives and gore that's more gross than frightening. How does a movie like this even get made? Simply put, avoid TZC like a sexually-transmitted disease.<br /><br />My last 2 cents: Humorously enough, this movie was made by a movie company called Brain Damage Films. They're brains must have really been damaged to come up with a craptacular movie like this.<br /><br />My rating: 1 out of 10(If it were up to me, this movie would get the rating of negative bajillion)
If the crew behind "Zombie Chronicles" ever read this, here's some advice guys: <br /><br />1. In a "Twist Ending"-type movie, it's not a good idea to insert close-ups of EVERY DEATH IN THE MOVIE in the opening credits. That tends to spoil the twists, y'know...? <br /><br />2. I know you produced this on a shoestring and - to be fair - you worked miracles with your budget but please, hire people who can actually act. Or at least, walk, talk and gesture at the same time. Joe Haggerty, I'm looking at you...<br /><br />3. If you're going to set a part of your movie in the past, only do this if you have the props and costumes of the time.<br /><br />4. Twist endings are supposed to be a surprise. Sure, we don't want twists that make no sense, but signposting the "reveal" as soon as you introduce a character? That's not a great idea.<br /><br />Kudos to the guys for trying, but in all honesty, I'd rather they hadn't...<br /><br />Only for zombie completists.
1st watched 8/3/2003 - 2 out of 10(Dir-Brad Sykes): Mindless 3-D movie about flesh-eating zombies in a 3 story within a movie chronicle. And yes, we get to see zombies eating human flesh parts in 3D!! Wow, not!! That has been done time and time again in 2D in a zombie movie but what usually makes a zombie movie better is the underlying story not the actual flesh-eating. That's what made the original zombie classics good. The flesh-eating was just thrown in as an extra. We're actually bored throughout most of this 3-part chronicle because of the lame(twilight-zone like) easily understood and slow-pacingly revealed finale's. The last story is actually the story the movie started with(having a reporter investigating a so-called ghost town) and of course we get to see flesh eating zombie's in that one as well. Well, I think I've said enough. Watch the classics, not this 3D bore-feast.
There's tons of good-looking women in this flick. But alas, this movie is nudity-free. Grrrrrrrrrr Strike one.<br /><br />Ahem. One story in this film takes place in 1971. Then why the hell are the main characters driving a Kia Sportage? Hello? Continuity, anyone?<br /><br />As you might know, this movie was released in stereoscopic 3D. And it is the most hideous effect I have ever seen. I'm not sure if someone botched the job on this, but there WAS no 3D, just double-vision blurs. I didn't have the same problem with this company's other 3D movies, HUNTING SEASON and CAMP BLOOD. Sure, the 3D in those ones sucked too, but with them I could see a semblance of 3D effect.<br /><br />This thing is a big ball of nothing.<br /><br />And whoever that women was who played the daughter of the ear-eating dame, yum! I'd like to see more of her. In movies, as well. Looks like Janet Margolin at a young age. Purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr<br /><br />
En route to a small town that lays way off the beaten track (but which looks suspiciously close to a freeway), a female reporter runs into a strange hitch-hiker who agrees to help direct her to her destination. The strange man then recounts a pair of gruesome tales connected to the area: in the first story, an adulterous couple plot to kill the woman's husband, but eventually suffer a far worse fate themselves when they are attacked by a zombie; and in the second story, a group of campers have their vacation cut short when an undead outlaw takes umbrage at having his grave peed on.<br /><br />The Zombie Chronicles is an attempt by writer Garrett Clancy and director Brad Sykes at making a zombie themed anthology—a nice idea, but with only two stories, it falls woefully short. And that's not the only way in which this low budget gore flick fails to deliver: the acting is lousy (with Joe Haggerty, as the tale-telling Ebenezer Jackson, giving one of the strangest performances I have ever seen); the locations are uninspired; the script is dreary; there's a sex scene with zero nudity; and the ending.... well, that beggars belief.<br /><br />To be fair, some of Sykes' creative camera-work is effective (although the gimmicky technique employed as characters run through the woods is a tad overused) and Joe Castro's cheapo gore is enthusiastic: an ear is bitten off, eyeballs are plucked out, a face is removed, brains are squished, and there is a messy decapitation. These positives just about make the film bearable, but be warned, The Zombie Chronicles ain't a stroll in the park, even for seasoned viewers of z-grade trash.<br /><br />I give The Zombie Chronicles 2/10, but generously raise my rating to 3 since I didn't get to view the film with the benefit of 3D (although I have a sneaking suspicion that an extra dimension wouldn't have made that much of a difference).
Without wishing to be a killjoy, Brad Sykes is responsible for at least two of the most dull and clichéd films i've ever seen - this being one of them, and Camp Blood being another. <br /><br />The acting is terrible, the print is shoddy, and everything about this film screams "seriously, you could do better yourself". Maybe this is a challenge to everyone to saturate youtube with our own zombie related crap?<br /><br />I bought this for £1, but remember, you can't put a price on 71 minutes of your life. You'd do well to avoid this turkey, even at a bargain basement price.
My girlfriend once brought around The Zombie Chronicles for us to watch as a joke. Little did we realize the joke was on her for paying £1 for it. While watching this film I started to come up with things I would rather be doing than watching The Zombie Chronicles. These included:<br /><br />1) Drinking bleach 2) Rubbing sand in my eyes 3) Writing a letter to Brad Sykes and Garrett Clancy 4) Re-enacting the American civil war 5) Tax returns 6) GCSE Maths 7) Sex with an old lady.<br /><br />Garrett Clancy, aka Sgt. Ben Draper wrote this? The guy couldn't even dig a hole properly. The best ting he did was kick a door down (the best part of the film). This was the worst film I have ever seen, and I've seen White Noise: The Light. Never has a film had so many mistakes in it. My girlfriend left it here, so now I live with the shame of owning this piece of crap.<br /><br />News just in: Owen Wilson watched this film and tried to kill himself. Fact.<br /><br />DO NOT WATCH
Amateur, no budget films can be surprisingly good ... this however is not one of them.<br /><br />Ah, another Brad Sykes atrocity. The acting is hideous, except for Emmy Smith who shows some promise. The camera "direction" needs serious reworking. And no more "hold the camera and run" gimmicks either; it just doesn't work. The special effects are unimaginative, there's a problem when the effect can be identified in real time. If you're going to rip off an ear, please don't let us see the actor's real ear beneath the blood. The scenery is bland and boring (same as Mr. Sykes other ventures), and the music is a cross between cheap motel porn and really bad guitar driven metal (see the scenery comment).<br /><br />Did I mention the lack of any real plot, or character development? Apparently, the scriptwriter didn't.<br /><br />Whoever is funding this guy ... please stop. I've seen some of his other "home movies" (which I will not plug) and they are just as bad. Normally, a "director" will grow and learn from his previous efforts ... not this guy. It's one thing to be an amateur filmmaker, but anyone can be a hack.<br /><br />Definitely not even a popcorn film ... of course, chewing on popcorn kernels would be less painful than this effort.<br /><br />Award: The worst ever military push-ups in a film.
OK its not the best film I've ever seen but at the same time I've been able to sit and watch it TWICE!!! story line was pretty awful and during the first part of the first short story i wondered what the hell i was watching but at the same time it was so awful i loved it cheap laughs all the way.<br /><br />And Jebidia deserves an Oscar for his role in this movie the only thing that let him down was half way through he stopped his silly name calling.<br /><br />overall the film was pretty perfetic but if your after cheap laughs and you see it in pound land go by it.
Some films that you pick up for a pound turn out to be rather good - 23rd Century films released dozens of obscure Italian and American movie that were great, but although Hardgore released some Fulci films amongst others, the bulk of their output is crap like The Zombie Chronicles.<br /><br />The only positive thing I can say about this film is that it's nowhere near as annoying as the Stink of Flesh. Other than that, its a very clumsy anthology film with the technical competence of a Lego house built by a whelk.<br /><br />It's been noted elsewhere, but you really do have to worry about a film that inserts previews of the action into its credit sequence, so by the time it gets to the zombie attacks, you've seen it all already.<br /><br />Bad movie fans will have a ball watching the 18,000 continuity mistakes and the diabolical acting of the cast (especially the hitchhiker, who was so bad he did make me laugh a bit), and kudos to Hardgore for getting in to the spirit of things by releasing a print so bad it felt like I was watching some beat up home video of a camping trip.<br /><br />Awful, awful stuff. We've all made stuff like this when we've gotten a hold of a camera, but common sense prevails and these films languish in our cupboards somewhere. Avoid.
I received this movie as a gift, I knew from the DVD cover, this movie are going to be bad.After not watching it for more than a year I finally watched it. what a pathetic movie….<br /><br />I almost didn't finish watching this bad movie,but it will be unfair of me to write a review without watching the complete movie.<br /><br />Trust me when I say " this movie sucks" I am truly shocked that some bad filmmaker wane bee got even financed to make this pathetic movie, But it couldn't have cost more than $20 000 to produce this movie. all you need are a cheap camcorder or a cell phone camera .about 15 people with no acting skills, a scrip that were written by a couple of drunk people.<br /><br />In the fist part of this ultra bad move a reporter (Tara Woodley )run a suppose to be drunk man over on her way to report on a hunted town. He are completely unharmed. They went to a supposed to be abandon house ,but luckily for the it almost complete furnished and a bottle of liquor on the door step happens to be there. just for the supposed to be drunk man but all is not what it seems.<br /><br />Then the supposed drunk man start telling Tara ghost/zombies stories.<br /><br />The fist of his stupid lame stories must be the worst in history.<br /><br />his story<br /><br />Sgt. Ben Draper let one of his soldiers die of complete exhaustion (I think this is what happens)after letting the poor soldier private Wilson do sit ups he let him dig a grave and then the soldier collapse ,Ben Draper<br /><br />buries him in a shallow grave.<br /><br />But Sgt. Ben Draper are in for n big surprise. his wife/girl fiend knows about this and she and her lover kills Sgt. Ben Draper to take revenge on private Wilson.(next to the grave of the soldier he sort off murdered) The soldier wakes up from his grave in the form of zombie and kill them for taking revenge on his behalf.<br /><br />The twist ending were so lame.<br /><br />Even if you like B HORROR movies, don't watch this movie
I have not seen many low budget films i must admit, but this is the worst movie ever probably, the main character the old man talked like, he had a lobotomy and lost the power to speak more than one word every 5 seconds, a 5 year old could act better. The story had the most awful plot, and well the army guy had put what he thought was army like and then just went over the top, i only watched it to laugh at how bad it was, and hoped it was leading onto the real movie. I cant believe it was under the 2 night rental thing at blockbusters, instead of a please take this for free and get it out of our sight. I think there was one semi decent actor other than the woman, i think the only thing OK with the budget was the make up, but they show every important scene of the film in the beginning music bit. Awful simply awful.
..Oh wait, I can! This movie is not for the typical film snob, unless you want to brush up on your typical cinematic definitions, like "continuity editing" and "geographic match". I couldn't tell where I was in this movie. One second they're in the present, next minute their supposedly in the 70's driving a modern SUV and wearing what looked like to me as 80's style clothing. I think. I couldn't pay long enough attention to it since the acting was just horrible. I think it only got attention because it has a 3d which I did not watch. If you're a b-movie buff, and by b-movie I mean BAD movie, then this film is for you. It's home-movie and all non-sense style will keep you laughing for as long as you can stay awake. If your tastes are more for Goddard and Antonioni, though, just skip this one.
You have to admire Brad Sykes even if you don't particularly want to, a man who churns out budget horror after budget horror to less than enthusiastic receptions. But keeps on doing it all the same. Even the half-hearted praise than surrounds his Camp Blood films is given grudgingly and I'm as guilty of this as anyone. Brad normally manages to throw something interesting into the mix, a neat idea, a kooky character, whatever, but without the funds to take it further than base level, he relies on the audience to cut him some slack and appreciate it for what it is and what it could be. Joe Haggerty gives a spirited and very funny performance as Ebenezer Jackson and its a credit to Sykes that he can sense that this oddball turn is going to work within the framework of the film. Coming to a multiplex near you, in a parallel universe, somewhere.
THE ZOMBIE CHRONICLES <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.33:1 (Nu-View 3-D)<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />Whilst searching for a (literal) ghost town in the middle of nowhere, a young reporter (Emmy Smith) picks up a grizzled hitchhiker (Joseph Haggerty) who tells her two stories involving flesh-eating zombies reputed to haunt the area.<br /><br />An ABSOLUTE waste of time, hobbled from the outset by Haggerty's painfully amateurish performance in a key role. Worse still, the two stories which make up the bulk of the running time are utterly routine, made worse by indifferent performances and lackluster direction by Brad Sykes, previously responsible for the likes of CAMP BLOOD (1999). This isn't a 'fun' movie in the sense that Ed Wood's movies are 'fun' (he, at least, believed in what he was doing and was sincere in his efforts, despite a lack of talent); Sykes' home-made movies are, in fact, aggravating, boring and almost completely devoid of any redeeming virtue, and most viewers will feel justifiably angry and cheated by such unimaginative, badly-conceived junk. The 3-D format is utterly wasted here.
A woman asks for advice on the road to reach a mysterious town, and hears two ghoulish stories from the local weirdo, both zombie related. But perhaps fate has something nasty in store for her too...<br /><br />The Zombie Chronicles is absolutely one of the worst films I have ever seen. In fact I must confess, so bad was it I fast forwarded through most of the garbage. And there was a lot of that, believe me. It runs for just 69 minutes, and there is still tons of filler. You get some skinhead doing a lot of push ups, plenty of dull kissy-kissy scenes between goofy teens (that rhymed, tee hee) and some fine examples of why some people should never become actors.<br /><br />As for the title characters, they barely even have a footnote in the film. Why, you get more undead action in the intro than you do the preceding feature! Though, considering how pathetic the eyes bursting out of sockets and the eating of brains sequences are (amongst other 'delights'), maybe that's a blessing in disguise.<br /><br />And to top it all off, it looks likes it's been filmed on someone's mobile phone for broadcast on Youtube. Jerky camera-work, scratches on the print, flickering lights... I had to rub my eyes when I realised it was made in 2001, and not 1971. Even the clothes and fashioned look about three decades out of date!<br /><br />If you think I'm not qualified to do a review of Chronicles having not seen the whole film, then go ahead. YOU try sitting through it, I betcha you won't even make it to the first appearance of the blue-smartie coloured freaks before making your excuses and leaving. It is truly laughable that anyone chose to release it, and honestly you'll get far more fun resting your drink on the disc than actually torturing your DVD player with this gigglesome excuse for horror. In fact, don't for surprised if it packs it's bags and leaves in the morning, leaving you doomed to watch VHS tapes for the rest of your life. You have been warned... 0/10<br /><br />P.S What kind of 18-rated horror has the woman keep a massive sports bra on during the obligatory sex scene?! See, the movie can't even get that part right...
Really, I can't believe that I spent $5 on this movie. I am a huge zombie fanatic and thought the movie couldn't be that bad. It had zombies in it right? Was I wrong! To be honest the movie had it's moments...I thought it was cool when the guy got his head ripped off but that was about it. Overall I think that it would be more enjoyable to slide down a razorblade slide on my bare nutsack into a vat of vinegar then watch this movie again. The movie could have been better if we could see some boob but I had to watch the trailers for the other movies produced by this company to see that. Buyer beware...unless you are into masochism.
I rented this movie about 3 years ago, and it still stands out in my mind as the worst movie ever made. I don't think I ever finished it. It is worse than a home video made by a high school student. I remember them doing a flashback to 1970 something and in the flashback there was a man with a polo shirt, oakley sunglasses and a newer SUV, like a Toyota Rav-4 or something (I don't remember). I don't understand how they could have possibly said that to be in the 70s. He might have had a cell phone too, I cant remember, It was just horrible. I returned it to the video store and asked them why they even carry the movie and if I could get the hour of my life back. To this day it is the worst movie I have ever seen, and I have seen some pretty bad ones.
:Spoilers:<br /><br />I was very disappointed in Love's Abiding Joy. I had been waiting a really long time to see it and I finally got the chance when it re-aired Thursday night on Hallmark. I love the first three "Love" movies but this one was nothing like I thought it was going to be. The whole movie was sad and depressing, there were way to many goofs, and the editing was very poor - to many scenes out of context. I also think the death of baby Kathy happened way to soon and Clarks appearance in the movie just didn't seem to fit. It seemed like none of the actors really wanted to be there - they were all lacking emotion. There seemed to be no interaction between Missie and Willie at all.<br /><br />I think the script writers should have went more by the book. It seems like every movie that's been made so far just slips further and further away from Janette Oke's writings. I mean in the movie they never mentioned a thing about the mine and the two boys or Clark getting hurt because of it. And I think Missie and Willies reactions to Kathy's death could have been shown and heard rather than just heard.<br /><br />Out of the four movies that have been made so far I'd have to say that Love's Abiding Joy is my least favorite. I hope with the next four movies that more of the book is followed and if Clarks character is in them I hope he's got a bigger part and I hope his part isn't so bland. I also hope there is more of Scottie and Cookie and maybe even Marty but who knows what the script writers will have in store next.
I've seen all four of the movies in this series. Each one strays further and further from the books. This is the worst one yet. My problem is that it does not follow the book it is titled after in any way! The directors and producers should have named it any thing other than "Love's Abiding Joy." The only thing about this movie that remotely resembles the book are the names of some of the characters (Willie, Missie, Henry, Clark, Scottie and Cookie). The names/ages/genders of the children are wrong. The entire story line is no where in the book.<br /><br />I find it a great disservice to Janette Oke, her books and her fans to produce a movie under her title that is not correct in any way. The music is too loud. The actors are not convincing - they lack emotions.<br /><br />If you want a good family movie, this might do. It is clean. Don't watch it, though, if you are hoping for a condensed version of the book. I hope that this will be the last movie from this series, but I doubt it. If there are more movies made, I wish Michael Landon, Jr and others would stick closer to the original plot and story lines. The books are excellent and, if closely followed, would make excellent movies!
I very much looked forward to this movie. Its a good family movie; however, if Michael Landon Jr.'s editing team did a better job of editing, the movie would be much better. Too many scenes out of context. I do hope there is another movie from the series, they're all very good. But, if another one is made, I beg them to take better care at editing. This story was all over the place and didn't seem to have a center. Which is unfortunate because the other movies of the series were great. I enjoy the story of Willie and Missy; they're both great role models. Plus, the romantic side of the viewers always enjoy a good love story.
I have read all of the Love Come Softly books. Knowing full well that movies can not use all aspects of the book,but generally they at least have the main point of the book. I was highly disappointed in this movie. The only thing that they have in this movie that is in the book is that Missy's father comes to visit,(although in the book both parents come). That is all. The story line was so twisted and far fetch and yes, sad, from the book, that I just couldn't enjoy it. Even if I didn't read the book it was too sad. I do know that Pioneer life was rough,but the whole movie was a downer. The rating is for having the same family orientation of the film that makes them great.
As a Southern Baptist, it pains me that I must give a below average rating to an overtly Christian movie. There certainly aren't so many that I want to discourage film-makers from a genre that's woefully under-exploited. Still, I must honestly say that "Love's Abiding Joy" is a typically low budget, low key, self-consciously Christian film. The plot is predictable, the acting mediocre (I'm being kind), and the editing atrocious. As a TV movie it might have been slightly above average, but as a feature film it leaves much to be desired. Keep trying guys. You've got to have a movie about about real Christians inside you somewhere. Might I suggest you turn to G. K. Chesterton or C. S. Lewis for some inspiration?
WARNING: This review contains SPOILERS. Do not read if you don't want some points revealed to you before you watch the film.<br /><br />With a cast like this, you wonder whether or not the actors and actresses knew exactly what they were getting into. Did they see the script and say, `Hey, Close Encounters of the Third Kind was such a hit that this one can't fail.' Unfortunately, it does. Did they even think to check on the director's credentials? I mean, would YOU do a movie with the director of a movie called `Satan's Cheerleaders?' Greydon Clark, who would later go on to direct the infamous `Final Justice,' made this. It makes you wonder how the people of Mystery Science Theater 3000 could hammer `Final Justice' and completely miss out on `The Return.'<br /><br />The film is set in a small town in New Mexico. A little boy and girl are in the street unsupervised one night when a powerful flashlight beam.er.a spaceship appears and hovers over them. In probably the worst special effect sequence of the film, the ship spews some kind of red ink on them. It looked like Clark had held a beaker of water in from of the camera lens and dipped his leaky pen in it, so right away you are treated with cheese. Anyhow, the ship leaves and the adults don't believe the children. Elsewhere, we see Vincent Schiavelli, whom I find to be a terrific actor (watch his scenes in `Ghost' for proof, as they are outstanding), who is playing a prospector, or as I called him, the Miner 1949er. He steps out of the cave he is in, and he and his dog are inked by the ship. Twenty-five years go by, and the girl has grown up to be Cybill Shepherd, who works with her father, Raymond Burr, in studying unusual weather phenomena. Or something like that. Shepherd spots some strange phenomena in satellite pictures over that little New Mexico town, and she travels there to research it. Once she gets there, the local ranchers harass her, and blame her for the recent slew of cattle mutilations that have been going on, and deputy Jan-Michael Vincent comes to her rescue. From this point on, the film really drags as the two quickly fall for each other, especially after Vincent wards off the locals and informs Shepherd that he was the little boy that saw the ship with her twenty-five years earlier. While this boring mess is happening, Vincent Schiavelli, with his killer dog at his side, is walking around killing the cattle and any people he runs into with an unusual item. You know those glowing plastic sticks stores sell for trick-or-treaters at Halloween, the kind that you shake to make them glow? Schiavelli uses what looks like one of those glow sticks to burn incisions in people. It's the second-worst effect in the movie. Every time Schiavelli is on screen with the glow stick, the scene's atmosphere suddenly turns dark, like the filmmakers thought the glow stick needed that enhancement. It ends up making the movie look even cheaper than it is.<br /><br />And what does all this lead up to? It's hard to tell when the final, confusing scene arrives. See, Burr and his team of scientists try to explain the satellite images that Shepherd found as some kind of `calling card,' but none of it makes sense. Why do Shepherd and Vincent age and Schiavelli does not? Schiavelli explains why he is killing cattle and people and why he wants Shepherd dead, but even that doesn't make much sense when you really think about it. I mean, why doesn't he kill Jan-Michael Vincent? After all, he had twenty-five years to do it. And the aliens won't need him if Shepherd is dead anyhow, so why try to kill her? Speaking of the aliens, it is never clear what they really wanted out of Shepherd and Vincent. What is their goal? Why do they wait so long to intervene? How could they be so sure Shepherd would come back? Not that the answer to any of these and other questions would have made `The Return' any more pleasant. You would still have bad lines, really bad acting, particularly by Shepherd, cheesy effects, and poor direction. Luckily, the stars escaped from this movie. Cybill Shepherd soon went on to star in `Moonlighting' with Bruce Willis. Jan-Michael Vincent went on to be featured in dozens of B-movies, often in over-the-top parts. Raymond Burr made a pile of Perry Mason television movies right up until his death. Vincent Schiavelli went on to be a great character actor in a huge number of films. Martin Landau, who played a kooky law enforcement officer, quickly made the terrific `Alone in the Dark' and the awful `The Being' before rolling into the films he has been famous for recently. You can bet none of these stars ever want their careers to return to `The Return.' Zantara's score: 2 out of 10.
As a kid I did think the weapon the murderer wielded was cool, however I was a kid and so I was a bit dumb. Even as a dumb kid though the movies plot was stupid and a bit boring when the killer was not using his light knife to kill people. What amazes me is that the movie has a really solid cast in it. What script did they read when agreeing to be in this movie as it is most assuredly boring and only a means to show off a light saber on a very small scale. The plot at times is incomprehensible and the end is totally chaotic. The whole film seems to rotate around aliens and the one weapon. The plot has two kids and some dude having an alien encounter, flash years later and there seems to be a return as it were in the mix. Dead animals and such to be explored and for some reason the one dude gets the weapon of the aliens and proceeds to use it to go on a very light killing spree. Seriously, you just have to wonder why this movie was made, if you are going to have a killer have some good death scenes, if you are going to have alien encounters show more than a weird light vortex thing, and if you are going to have light sabers then call yourself star wars.
Jill Dunne (played by Mitzi Kapture), is an attractive, nice woman, over-whelmed by a smart-mouthed teenage daughter, Liv (Martha MacIsaac) and a petty, two-timing husband, Sean (Rick Roberts), both of which were tediously self-centered, and obnoxious.<br /><br />This was advertised as a troubled family stalked by a crazed killer during a relentless storm.<br /><br />The storm doesn't even happen until about the last 5 minutes of the film, and then it isn't anything to send anybody running to the storm cellar.<br /><br />The stalking, likewise doesn't get intense until almost the end of the film.<br /><br />Most of the film we spend listening to Jill and her insufferable daughter, Liv, argue until I just wanted to back slap the daughter into next week.<br /><br />Jill's problem with Liv is that she has taken up with Zack, a boy of questionable character, and they are constantly making out--in fact Jill comes home to find the two of them on Liv's bed.<br /><br />The rest of the time we spend listening to Jill's husband Sean either whine at Jill or criticize her.<br /><br />Sean was not at all appealing--since his face is so covered in freckles you could play connect the dots.<br /><br />The story begins with Jill being notified of an out-standing bill on their credit card for a hotel she has never been to, and that she thought Sean had never been to either.<br /><br />Jill goes to the hotel where she meets the owner & manager, Richard Grant (Nick Mancuso), a very nice, older, divorced man, who is sympathetic to her. In fact, when he spots her husband there again, he phones Jill and tips her off.<br /><br />Jill returns to the hotel, sees Sean with another woman. She is upset, leaves without Sean seeing her, and does absolutely nothing. In fact, she doesn't even say anything to Sean when he arrives home. This made no sense to me.<br /><br />Jill has given Richard her business card, and so he calls her and she is apparently in real estate. She shows him a condo. Afterwards they have a drink, and things get cozy between them.<br /><br />Richard and Jill are getting it on, hot and heavy. In fact, he seems a bit more aggressive than necessary, when Jill suddenly decides to cut out.<br /><br />Jill and Sean have a confrontation about his cheating. Sean whines about how Jill has been letting him down since her father died. Apparently his lack of any morals is all her fault. Eventually Jill confesses her own lack of morals and near adultery to Sean--and of course that's all her fault too, as far as Sean is concerned.<br /><br />The little family decides to go on a camping trip--which means more whining and grousing among them, especially from the spoiled daughter.<br /><br />I was so rooting for the stalker to get everybody, but Jill.<br /><br />3 stars
This movie sucked. It really was a waste of my life. The acting was atrocious, the plot completely implausible. Long, long story short, these people get "terrorized" by this pathetic "crazed killer", but completely fail to fight back in any manner. And this is after they take a raft on a camping trip, with no gear, and show up at a campsite that is already assembled and completely stocked with food and clothes and the daughters headphones. Additionally, after their boat goes missing, they panic that they're stuck in the woods, but then the daughters boyfriend just shows up and they apparently never consider that they could just hike out of the woods like he did to get to them. Like I said, this movie sucks. A complete joke. Don't let your girlfriend talk you into watching it.
Lifetime did it again. Can we say stupid? I couldn't wait for it to end. The plot was senseless. The acting was terrible! Especially by the teenagers. The story has been played a thousand times! Are we just desperate to give actors a job? The previews were attractive and I was really looking for a good thriller.Once in awhile lifetime comes up with a good movie, this isn't one of them. Unless one has nothing else to do I would avoid this one at all cost. This was a waste of two hours of my life. Can I get them back? I would have rather scraped my face against a brick wall for two hours then soaked it in peroxide. That would have been more entertaining.
I have to say I am really surprised at the high ratings for this movie. I found it to be absolutely idiotic. The mother gets "visions" when she touches certain things or people? And one thing she touched twice made her vision continue... Just seemed so ridiculous. Deedee Pfieffer's performance was awful I thought. She was very irritating. The girl who played Lori did a good job and so did most of the supporting cast for what they had to work with.<br /><br />I usually love LMN and am very open minded when it comes to movies but this movie seemed to have a ridiculous plot and over the top acting and it just was not for me.
The original book of this was set in the 1950s but that won't do for the TV series because most people watch for the 1930s style. Ironically the tube train near the end was a 1950s train painted to look like a 1930s train so the Underground can play at that game too. Hanging the storyline on a plot about the Jarrow March was feeble but the 50s version had students who were beginning to think about the world around them so I suppose making them think about the poverty of the marchers is much the same thing. All the stuff about Japp having to cater for himself was weak too but they had to put something in to fill the time. This would have made a decent half hour show or they could have filmed the book and made it a better long show. It is obvious this episode is a victim of style over content.
The annoying mouse and lullaby really got to me and really had nothing to do with the story...It's something I would have done my 1st year in film school. Very sad. Additionally, the story just seemed to drag on for no apparent reason...there were too many things just thrown in there that had nothing to do with the story, which makes me feel that the creative team didn't really know what they were doing, or just that it should have been shorter...which would have been a blessing, not a crime. As I have just watched all of the episodes up to this point over the past week...I'd have to say that this was by far the worst, and I just wanted to warn others not to start with this one.
I saw this film opening weekend in Australia, anticipating with an excellent cast of Ledger, Edgerton, Bloom, Watts and Rush that the definitive story of Ned Kelly would unfold before me. Unfortunately, despite an outstanding performance by Heath Ledger in the lead role, the plot was paper thin....which doesn't inspire me to read "Our Sunshine". There were some other plus points, the support acting from Edgerton in particular, assured direction from Jordan (confirming his talent on show in Buffalo Soldiers as well), and production design that gave a real feel of harshness to the Australian bush, much as the Irish immigrants of the early 19th century must have seen it. But I can't help feeling that another opportunity has been missed to tell the real story of an Australian folk hero (or was he?)....in what I suspect is a concession to Hollywood and selling the picture in the US. Oh well, at least Jordan and the producers didn't agree to lose the beards just to please Universal...<br /><br />Guess I will just have to content myself with Peter Carey's excellent "Secret History of the Kelly Gang". 4/10
I saw this at the premiere in Melbourne<br /><br />It is shallow, two-dimensional, unaffecting and, hard to believe given the subject matter, boring. The actors are passable, but they didn't have much to work with given the very plodding and unimpressive script. For those who might have worried that Ned Kelly would be over-intellectualised, you can take comfort in the fact that this telling of the story is utterly without any literary depth at all, told entirely on the surface and full of central casting standards. However, it doesn't work as a popcorn film either. Its pacing is too off-kilter and its craft is too lacking to satisfy even on the level of a mundane actioner.<br /><br />I very much doubt Gregor Jordan could sit back and say to himself "this is the best I could have done with the material".<br /><br />Ned Kelly is a fascinating figure, and equally so is the national response to him. Possibly folk genius, possibly class warrior, possibly psychopath and probably all these things, he has dominated Australian true mythology for over 120 years. Once again, his story has failed miserably on the big screen.<br /><br />Such is life.
Ned Kelly (Ledger), the infamous Australian outlaw and legend. Sort of like Robin Hood, with a mix of Billy the Kid, Australians love the legend of how he stood up against the English aristocratic oppression, and united the lower classes to change Australia forever. The fact that the lower classes of the time were around 70% immigrant criminals seems to be casually skimmed around by this film. Indeed, quite a few so called `facts' in this film are, on reflection, a tad dubious.<br /><br />I suppose the suspicions should have been aroused when, in the opening credits, it was claimed that this film is based upon the book, `Our Sunshine'. If ever a romanticized version of truth could be seen in a name for a book, there it was. This wasn't going to be a historical epic, but just an adaptation of one of many dubious legends of Ned Kelly, albeit a harsh and sporadically brutal version.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Ned Kelly is nothing more than an overblown Hallmark channel `real life historical drama' wannabe! The story plods along at an alarming rate (alarming because never has a film plodded so slowly!) The feeling of numbness after the two hours of pure drivel brought back memories of Costner's awful Wyatt Earp all those years ago. Simply put, nothing happens in the film, but it takes a long time getting to that nothing. This would possibly have been a tad more bearable if the performances were good (because the direction sure as heck wasn't). However, unless you are looking to play a game of spot the worst Oirish accent, then you're gonna be disappointed. Between that, the game of `Who has the stupidest beard?', `Spot the obvious backstabber!' (clue, they are all ginger for some reason), and `Nature in Australia.including lions', it is an experience similar to flicking through Hallmark, The History Channel, Discovery Channel, and Neighbours whilst suffering a huge hangover. Yup, nature pops up a lot, as to fill even more time (possibly an attempt to look arty), the film keeps showing pointless wildlife shots, and once all the native species are shown, here's a circus to allow for a camel and a lion (which is used during one fight to try to make us actually feel more sorry for the lion than the massacred people).<br /><br />This is a turgid, emotionless piece of historical fluff which should have gone straight to TV. There isn't even one good word I can say about this film. Even the usually fantastic Rush seems embarrassed to be here. When one of the characters comments that there is only 2 bullets left for him and his pal, I myself was wishing I had a gun to blow any memory of this film out of my head!
They constructed this one as a kind of fantasy Man From Snowy River meets Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid, and just for a romantic touch Ned and Joe get to play away with high class talent, the bored young wives of wealthy older men. OK, there are lots of myths about Ned Kelly, but there are also a lot of well documented facts, still leaving space for artistic creativity in producing a good historical dramaticisation. I mean, this is not the Robin Hood story, not the Arthurian legends, not Beowulf, not someone whose life is so shrouded in the mists of many many centuries past that any recreation of their life and times is 99% guesswork. It's only a couple of lifetimes ago. My own grandparents were already of school age when Ned was hanged. <br /><br />So it's silly me for fancifully imagining this movie was a serious attempt to tell the Kelly story. Having recently read Peter Carey's excellent novel "The True History of the Kelly Gang" I had eagerly anticipated that this would be in similar vein. But no, the fact is that Mick Jagger's much derided 1970 Kelly was probably far closer to reality, and a better movie overall, which isn't saying a whole lot for it.<br /><br />Glad it only cost me two bucks to hire the DVD! I'll give it 3/10, and that's only because some of the nice shots of the Australian bush make me feel generous.
This has to be the worst piece of garbage I've seen in a while.<br /><br />Heath Ledger is a heartthrob? He looked deformed. I wish I'd known that he and Naomi Watts are an item in real life because I spent 2 of the longest hours of my life wondering what she saw in him. <br /><br />Orlando Bloom is a heartthrob? With the scraggly beard and deer-in-the-headlights look about him, I can't say I agree.<br /><br />Rachel Griffiths was her usual fabulous self, but Geoffrey Rush looked as if he couldn't wait to get off the set. <br /><br />I'm supposed to feel sorry for bankrobbers and murderers? This is a far cry from Butch Cassidy, which actually WAS an entertaining film. This was trite, cliche-ridden and boring. We only stayed because we were convinced it would get better. It didn't.<br /><br />The last 10-15 minutes or so were unintentionally hilarious. Heath and his gang are holed up in a frontier hotel, and women and children are dying because of their presence. That's not funny. But it was funny when they walked out of the hotel with the armor on, because all we could think of was the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I kept waiting for them to say "I'll bite yer leg off!" We were howling with laughter, as were several other warped members of the audience. When we left, pretty much everyone was talking about what a waste of time this film was.<br /><br />I may not have paid cash to see this disaster (sneak preview), but it certainly wasn't free. It cost me 2 hours of my life that I will never get back.
If the term itself were not geographically and semantically meaningless, one might well refer to "Ned Kelly" as an "Australian Western." For the people Down Under, Ned Kelly was, apparently, a folk hero bandit akin to Robin Hood, Jesse James, Bonnie and Clyde, and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. The descendant of Irish immigrants, Kelly became a fugitive and an outlaw after he was falsely accused of shooting an Australian law officer, a crime for which his equally innocent mother was put into prison. To get back at the government for this mistreatment, Kelly, his brother Dan, and two other companions, became notorious bank robbers, winning over the hearts of many people in the countryside while striking a blow for justice in a land where Irish immigrants were often treated with disrespect and disdain by those who ran the country.<br /><br />Perhaps because we've encountered this "gentleman bandit" scenario so many times in the past, "Ned Kelly" feels awfully familiar and unoriginal as it pays homage to any number of the genre's stereotypes and clichés on its way to the inevitable showdown. Ned is the typical heart-of-gold lawbreaker who kills only when he is forced to and, even then, only with the deepest regret. He also has the pulse of the common folk, as when, in the middle of a bank robbery, he returns a valuable watch to one of the customers, after one of his gang has so inconsiderately pilfered it. What movie on this particular subject hasn't featured a scene like that? It's acts of selective generosity like this, of course, that earn him the love and respect of all the little people who come to secretly admire anyone who can get away with sticking it to the powers-that-be and the status quo. Geoffrey Rush plays the typical bedeviled law enforcer who feels a personal stake in bringing down this upstart troublemaker who keeps getting away with tweaking the establishment. There's even the inevitable episode in which one of the ladies being held up goes into the next room and has sex with one of the robbers, so turned on is she by the romantic derring-do of the criminal lifestyle. And the film is riddled with one hackneyed scene like this after another.<br /><br />Heath Ledger fails to distinguish himself in the title role, providing little in the way of substance to make his character either interesting or engaging. It doesn't help that he has been forced to provide a droning voice-over narration that underlines the sanctimoniousness and pretentiousness of both the character and the film.<br /><br />"Ned Kelly" might serve a function of sorts as a lesson in Australian history, but as an entertainment, it's just the same old story told with different accents.
This movie was so unrelentingly bad, I could hardly believe I was watching it. The directing, editing, production, and script all seemed as though they had been done by junior high school students who don't know all that much about movies. There was no narrative flow that made any sort of sense. Big emotional moments and climaxes (like one early on between Heath Ledger and Naomi Watts) and character relationships (like one hinted at at the very beginning) come completely out of no where and are not set up like they would have been in a more elegantly and effectively made film. The characters are sadly underdeveloped, making it difficult for us to have any sort of connection with them. The acting, surprisingly, is not entirely bad, but the terrible writing cancels out the relatively convincing performances. The film plays like a particularly bad T.V. western/epic, and sadly diminishes the fascinating (true) story that it attempts to tell. I have read a lot of reviews that defend the film as being important to Australians because of the subject matter. That's all very well, but just because Ned Kelly is an important Australian historical icon DOESN'T MAKE THE MOVIE GOOD. No one is saying that the subject matter isn't good, just the quality of the movie itself. Pearl Harbor was about a very important historical event to Americans, but that doesn't mean I'm going to defend the movie and say it was good, because it was still bad. A failure all around, though Heath and Orlando are lovely to look at.
This movie never made it to theaters in our area, so when it became available on DVD I was one of the first to rent it. For once, I should listened to the critics and passed on this one.<br /><br />Despite the excellent line up of actors the movie was very disappointing. I can see now why it went straight to video. <br /><br />I had thought that with Bloom, Ledger, and Rush it could have some value. All have done wonderful work in the past. <br /><br />The movie was slow moving and never pulled me in. I failed to develop much empathy for the characters and had to fight the urge to fast-forward just to get to the end. <br /><br />I do not recommend this film even if you are thinking of renting it for only for 'eye candy' purposes. It won't satisfy even that.
I thought this was a very clunky, uninvolving version of a famous Australian story. Heath Ledger and Orlando Bloom were very good in their roles, and gave their characters some personality; but the whole thing felt forced and mechanical.<br /><br />The beginning could have been a lot more involving; perhaps starting with a shootout, and then flashing back for a recap of how they got there or that sort of thing. And I felt like every scene was routinely predictable and signposted, like a very bad tv soap.<br /><br />I was really looking forward to this movie, and hoping for something a lot better. The only thing I can say in its favour is that it beats the Mick Jagger version, but not by much.
Ned aKelly is such an important story to Australians but this movie is awful. It's an Australian story yet it seems like it was set in America. Also Ned was an Australian yet he has an Irish accent...it is the worst film I have seen in a long time
From the very beginning, the political theme of this film is so obvious and heavy handed, that the outcome is entirely predictable. Any good textbook on writing screenplays will advise layering of characters, incorporating character arcs, and three act structure. In this film you will find none of that. The police are the baddies, and consequently are shown as shallow, incompetent and cowards. It never seems to occur to the makers of this film that police might be honourable citizens who see joining the police as a good way to contribute to the wellbeing of society.<br /><br />The viewer gets no opportunity to make up his or her mind on whether Ned Kelly is a good guy or a ruthless villain. The film opens with him being arrested for stealing a horse, but we get no clue as to his guilt or innocence. We see him walk through the door of a gaol, but only know that he has been inside for three years when we hear this much later in some dialogue.<br /><br />This film contains many shots of Ned looking at the camera with a serious expression. I found the film a real chore to watch. It is the direction for modern films, and this one put me off watching any more.
I guess I was attracted to this film both because of the sound of the story and the leading actor, so I gave it a chance, from director Gregor Jordan (Buffalo Soldiers). Basically Ned Kelly (Heath Ledger) is set up by the police, especially Superintendent Francis Hare (Geoffrey Rush), he is forced to go on the run forming a gang and go against them to clear his own and his family's names. That's really all I can say about the story, as I wasn't paying the fullest attention to be honest. Also starring Orlando Bloom as Joseph Byrne, Naomi Watts as Julia Cook, Laurence Kinlan as Dan Kelly, Philip Barantini as Steve Hart, Joel Edgerton as Aaron Sherritt, Kiri Paramore as Constable Fitzpatrick, Kerry Condon as Kate Kelly, Emily Browning as Grace Kelly and Rachel Griffiths as Susan Scott. Ledger makes a pretty good performance, for what it's worth, and the film does have it's eye-catching moments, particularly with a gun battle towards the end, but I can't say I enjoyed it as I didn't look at it all. Okay!
I don't quite get the rating for The Amati Girls and I think I was REALLY kind giving it a 4 out of 10. What could otherwise have been a wonderful story with actually a set of more or less decent actors became a total farce in my eyes. There are so many clichés in that flick, the women's hair is just awful and most of the scenes are more than unrealistic or seem fake. There's no real passion in this movie but a bunch of actors over-acting over any limits that it hurts. It's not funny enough to be a comedy, it's too fake-sad to really touch, so in my eyes it's just not good. Watching it I couldn't believe how something like that made it to my TV set in my living room in Switzerland. But.. maybe it still was OK and it just got lost in translation? Who knows. Definitely one of the oddest movies I've ever seen and this certainly not in a good way! Sorry.
This movie was awful. The ending was absolutely horrible. There was no plot to the movie whatsoever. The only thing that was decent about the movie was the acting done by Robert DuVall and James Earl Jones. Their performances were excellent! The only problem was that the movie did not do their acting performances any justice. If the script would have come close to capturing a halfway decent story, it would be worth watching. Instead, Robert DuVall's and James Earl Jones' performances are completely wasted on a god awful storyline...or lack thereof. Not only was I left waiting throughout the movie for something to happen to make the movie....well an actual movie...not just utterless dialog between characters for what ended up being absolutely no reason. It was nothing more than common dialog that would have taken place back in that period of time. There was nothing special about any of the characters. The only thing special was how Robert DuVall portrayed a rambling, senile, drunk, old man. Nothing worthy happens during the entire movie including the end. When the movie ended, I sat amazed...amazed that I sat through the entire movie waiting for something of interest to happen to make watching the movie worth while. It never happened! The cast of characters suddenly started rolling making it apparent that the movie really was over and I realized that I had just wasted 2 hours of my life watching a movie with absolutely no plot and no meaning. It wasn't even a story. The entire movie takes place in a day's worth of time. That's it. It was one day in the life (and death) of some Southerners on a plantation. How much of a story can take place in a single day (other than the movie Training Day)? The acting performances by the entire cast were excellent, but they were grossly wasted on such a disappointment of a movie...if you can even call it a movie.
Holy crap. This was the worst film I have seen in a long time. All the performances are fine, but there is no plot. Really! No plot! A bunch of clowns talk about this and that and that's your film. Ug... Robert Duvall's character is senile and keeps asking the same people the same qestions over and over. This earns him the same responses over and over. I am pretty sure this film got upto a six because people think they should like it. Good performances with famous and well regarded actors, but the actual complete work is a steamy turd. Well, maybe that's a bit deceptive since steam rising from a fresh pile sounds a little like something happening and in this film NOTHING HAPPENS! Sack
SWING! is an important film because it's one of the remaining Black-produced and acted films from the 1930s. Many of these films have simply deteriorated so badly that they are unwatchable, but this one is in fairly good shape. It's also a nice chance to see many of the talented Black performers of the period just after the heyday of the old Cotton Club--a time all but forgotten today.<br /><br />Unfortunately, while the film is historically important and has some lovely performances, it's also a mess. The main plot is very similar to the Hollywood musicals of the era--including a prima donna who is going to ruin the show and the surprise unknown who appears from no where to save the day. However, the writing is just god-awful and a bit trashy at times--and projects images of Black America that some might find a bit demeaning. This is because before the plot really gets going, you are treated to a no-account bum who lives off his hard working wife (a popular stereotype of the time) and when he is caught with a hussy (who, by the way, totally overplays this role), they have a fight which looks like a scene from WWE Smackdown! And, the one lady wants to cut the other lady with a straight razor--a trashy scene indeed! Later in the film, when the prima donna is behaving abominably, her husband punches her in the face and everyone applauds him! It seems like the film, at times, wants to appeal to the lowest common denominator in the audience PLUS they can't even do this well--with some of the worst acting I've seen in a very long time.<br /><br />Still, if you can look past a lousy production in just about every way (with trashy characters, bad acting and direction and poor writing), this one might be worth a peek so you can see excellent singing and tap dancing--as well as to catch a glimpse of forgotten Black culture. Just don't say I didn't warn you about the acting--it's really, really bad!
There's not a drop of sunshine in "The Sunshine Boys", which makes the title of this alleged comedy Neil Simon's sole ironic moment. Simon, who adapted the script from his play (which goes uncredited), equates old age with irrational behavior--and, worse, clumsy, galumphing, mean-spirited irrational behavior. Walter Matthau is merciless on us playing an aged vaudeville performer talked into reuniting with former comedy partner George Burns for a television special (it's said they were a team for 43 years, which begs the question "how long did vaudeville last, anyway?"). Burns, who won a Supporting Oscar, has the misfortune of coming to the film some thirty minutes in, after which time Matthau has already blasted the material to hell and back. The noisier the movie gets, the less tolerable and watchable it is. Director Herbert Ross only did solid work when he wasn't coupled with one of Neil Simon's screenplays; here, Ross sets up gags like a thudding amateur, hammering away at belligerent routines which fail to pay off (such as semi-incoherent Matthau showing up at a mechanic's garage to audition for a TV commercial). At this point, Matthau was still too young for this role, and he over-compensates by slouching and hollering. It was up to Ross and Simon to tone down the character, to nuance his temperament to give "The Sunshine Boys" some sunniness, yet Walter continues to project as if we'd all gone deaf. The picture looks terribly drab and crawls along at a spiritless pace; one loses hope for it early on. *1/2 from ****
I like Goldie Hawn and wanted another one of her films, so when I saw Protocol for $5.50 at Walmart I purchased it. Although mildly amusing, the film never really hits it a stride. Some scenes such as a party scene in a bar just goes on for too long and really has no purpose.<br /><br />Then, of course, there is the preachy scene at the end of the film which gives the whole film a bad taste as far as I'm concerned. I don't think this scene added to the movie at all. I don't like stupid comedies trying to teach me a lesson, written by some '60's burn out especially!<br /><br />In the end, although I'm glad to possess another Hawn movie, I'm not sure it was really worth the money I paid for it!
Protocol is an implausible movie whose only saving grace is that it stars Goldie Hawn along with a good cast of supporting actors. The story revolves around a ditzy cocktail waitress who becomes famous after inadvertently saving the life of an Arab dignitary. The story goes downhill halfway through the movie and Goldie's charm just doesn't save this movie. Unless you are a Goldie Hawn fan don't go out of your way to see this film.
When an attempt is made to assassinate the Emir of Ohtar, an Arab potentate visiting Washington, D.C., his life is saved by a cocktail waitress named Sunny Davis. Sunny becomes a national heroine and media celebrity and as a reward is offered a job working for the Protocol Section of the United States Department of State. Unknown to her however, the State Department officials who offer her the job have a hidden agenda.<br /><br />A map we see shows Ohtar lying on the borders of Saudi Arabia and South Yemen, in an area of barren desert known as the Rub al-Khali, or Empty Quarter. In real life a state in this location would have a population of virtually zero, and virtually zero strategic value, but for the purposes of the film we have to accept that Ohtar is of immense strategic importance in the Cold War and that the American government, who are keen to build a military base there, need to do all that they can in order to keep on the good side of its ruler. It transpires that the Emir has taken a fancy to the attractive young woman who saved him and he has reached a deal with the State Department; they can have their base provided that he can have Sunny as the latest addition to his harem. Sunny's new job is just a ruse to ensure that the Emir has further opportunities to meet her.<br /><br />A plot like this could have been the occasion for some hilarious satire, but in fact the film's satirical content is rather toned down. Possibly in 1984 the American public were not in the mood for trenchant satire on their country's foreign policy; this was, after all, the year in which Ronald Reagan carried forty-nine out of fifty states in the Presidential election and his hard line with the Soviet Union was clearly going down well with the voters. (If the film had been made a couple of years later, in the wake of the Iran/Contra affair, its tone might have been different).<br /><br />The film is not so much a satire as a vehicle for Goldie Hawn to show off her brand of cuteness and charm. Sunny is a typical Goldie character- pretty, sweet-natured, naive and not too bright. There is, however, a limit to how far you can go with cuteness and charm alone, and you cannot automatically make a bad film a good one just by making the leading character a dumb blonde. (Actually, that sounds more like a recipe for making a good film a bad one). Goldie tries her best to save this one, but never succeeds. Part of the reason is the inconsistent way in which her character is portrayed. On the one hand Sunny is a sweet, innocent country girl from Oregon. On the other hand she is a 35-year-old woman who works in a sleazy bar and wears a revealing costume. The effect is rather like imagining Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm grown up and working as a Bunny Girl.<br /><br />The more important reason why Goldie is unable to rescue this film is even the best comedian or comedienne is no better than his/her material, and "Protocol" is simply unfunny. Whatever humour exists is tired and strained, relying on offensive stereotypes about Arab men who, apparently, all lust after Western women, particularly if they are blonde and blue-eyed. There was a lot of this sort of thing about in the mid-eighties, as this was the period which also saw the awful Ben Kingsley/ Nastassia Kinski film "Harem", about a lascivious Middle Eastern ruler who kidnaps a young American woman, and the mini-series of the same name which told a virtually identical story with a period setting. The film-makers seem to have realised that their film would not work as a pure comedy, because towards the end it turns into a sort of latter-day "Mr Smith Goes to Washington". Sunny turns from a blonde bimbo into a fount of political wisdom and starts uttering all sorts of platitudes about Democracy and the Constitution and the Citizen's Duty to Vote and We The People and how the Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance blah blah blah……, but in truth the film is no more successful as a political parable than it is as a comedy.<br /><br />Goldie Hawn has made a number of good comedies, such as "Cactus Flower", "Overboard" and ""Housesitter", but "Protocol" is not one of them. I have not seen all of her films, but of those I have seen this dire comedy is by far the worst. 3/10
What does the " Executive producer " do in a movie . If I remember correctly it's the person who raised the financial backing to make the movie . You might notice in a great number of movies starring Sean Connery that he is also the executive producer which meant Connery himself raised the money since he is a major player . Unfortunately it should also be pointed out that a great number of movies " starring Sean Connery were solely made because he managed to raise the money since he's a major Hollywood player , it's usually an indication that when the credits read that the executive producer and the star of the movie are one and the same the movie itself is nothing more than a star vehicle with the story/screenplay not being up to scratch <br /><br />PROTOCOL follows the saga of one Sunny Davis a kooky bimboesque cocktail waitress who saves a visiting dignitary and as a reward gets made a top diplomat . Likely ? As things progress Ms Davis ( Who has problems being able to string two sentences together ) finds herself in more outlandish and less likely situations . When I say that PROTOCOL stars Goldie Hawn who is also the film's executive producer do you understand what I'm saying about the story/screenplay not being up to scratch ? Exactly
Outlandish premise that rates low on plausibility and unfortunately also struggles feebly to raise laughs or interest. Only Hawn's well-known charm allows it to skate by on very thin ice. Goldie's gotta be a contender for an actress who's done so much in her career with very little quality material at her disposal...<br /><br />
There are only two movies I would give a 1/10 to, this stinker and "The Man who Fell to Earth." I remember seeing Protocol at a theater in the early 80s when I was in high school. The script is insulting to anyone (including a high school student's) intelligence. It completely lost me with the "hillarious" gag of someone getting shot in the butt. Goldie Hawn is supposed to be charming but comes across as vapid and moronic. Then there are offensive stereotypes about Arabs, followed by Goldie winning over everyone by spouting populist dribble. The acting was terrible, including Goldie Hawn's. I could not stand to see another movie she was in until IMO she redeemed herself in Everyone Says I Love You. This is the kind of movie you make if you want to put no effort into screenplay writing. The worst.
The only good thing about this movie was the shot of Goldie Hawn standing in her little french cut bikini panties and struggling to keep a dozen other depraved women from removing her skimpy little cotton top while she giggled and cooed. Ooooof! Her loins rival those of Nina Hartley. This movie came out when I was fourteen and that shot nearly killed me. I'd forgotten about it all tucked away in the naughty Roladex of my mind until seeing it the other day on TV, where they actually blurred her midsection in that scene, good grief, reminding me what a smokin' hottie of a woman Goldie Hawn was in the '80s. Kurt Russell must have had a fun life.
I'm studying Catalan, and was delighted to find El Mar, a movie with mostly Catalan dialogue, at my art-house video store.<br /><br />Hmmm... not so delighted to have seen it.<br /><br />Yes, as other reviewers have said, it's well-made, and beautifully photographed. Although the opening sequence of the children is shockingly violent, it's well-acted and convincing. (For the most part, that is... Would the Mallorquins strip a corpse in preparation for burial right in the middle of the town square, in full view of the dead man's 10-year-old boy?) Oh, well... minor detail. Up to this point, it had something of the feel of a non-magical Pan's Labyrinth, also set in the Spanish Civil War.<br /><br />Fast-forward, and the three children who survived the opening incident have come of age. Francisca is a nun working at a tuberculosis sanatorium and the two boys, Manuel and Ramallo, both are patients. I know, but hey, coincidences happen.<br /><br />The problem, as with so many Spanish movies (apologies to Almodovar fans), is that with one exception (Francisca) the characters are just so dang *weird*. Their motivations, personalities, and dialogue are often simply incoherent.<br /><br />What's more, it descends into some horrific wretched excess. Be prepared for LOTS of pain and LOTS of blood. The reviewer who called it a "potboiler" is quite on track. If it had been made 40 years ago, the poster would've said: SEE FORBIDDEN LOVE!! RAPE!! MURDER!! MUTILATION!! FANATICISM!! ANIMAL CRUELTY!! BETRAYAL!! <br /><br />The opening sequence is not nearly enough to make the personalities and relationships of the characters believable. To work, this should have had multiple flashbacks to flesh out the characters. As it is, it seems a bizarre and depressing cross between "Brother Sun, Sister Moon" and "Pulp Fiction." If that sounds like something you've got to see, by all means, enjoy. I think I go with something that doesn't make me feel I need to take a shower to wash off the gore and gloom.<br /><br />As for the Catalan, it's the Mallorqui dialect, fairly different than the Barcelona dialect, though I was surprised by the comment that said that even Barcelonans apparently needed Catalan subtitles to understand it.
I was excited to view a Cataluña´s film in the Berlin´s competition. But after the presentation I was total disappointed and furious. Too much blood, too much time, too much themes for nothing. The Spanish Civil War, like every war, was horrible. The revenge, a very human behavior, not pretty at all, is shown in uncountable films and plays, as well as the relations between homosexuals and the scepticism in Spain about Catholicism . But what Mr Villaronga try, is a pseudo tragedy that can belongs to the worst of the film´s history. It is really a pity to see Angela Molina in this movie. I advise nobody under no circumstances to go to see this film.
this film was a major letdown. the level of relentless cruelty and violence in this film was very disturbing. some scenes were truly unnecessarily ugly and mean-spirited. the main characters were impossible to identify with or even sympathize with. the lead protagonist's character was as slimy as they come. the sickroom/hothouse atmosphere lent itself to over-the-top theatrics. little or nothing could be learned about the Spanish civil war from this film. fortunately, i've been to spain and realize this is not realistic! in addition, the use of same-sex attraction as a lurid "horror" was also very offensive and poorly handled, while the DVD is being packaged and advertised to attract gay viewers. the actors seemed uncomfortable in their roles,as if they were trying to distance themselves from this mess.i guess if you like watching children and pets being brutally killed,this film might especially appeal to you.
Three part "horror" film with some guy in a boarded up house imploring the viewer not to go "out there" and (unfortunately) gives us three tales to prove why.<br /><br />The first story involves a young couple in a car accident who meet up with two psychos. It leads up to two totally predictable twists. Still, it's quick (about 15 minutes), violent, well-acted and well-done. Predictable but enjoyable.<br /><br />The second involves a man on the run after stealing a large amount of money. His car breaks down, he's attacked by a dog and stumbles into a nearby clinic. VERY obvious, badly done and extremely slow. Even at 30 minutes this is too long. Good acting though.<br /><br />The third is just barely a horror story. It involves a beautiful, lonely woman looking for Mr. Right. It has beautiful set designs, a nice erotic feel and a nice sex scene. But (again) predictable and not even remotely scary.<br /><br />It ends very stupidly.<br /><br />All in all, the first one is worth watching, but that's it. Tune in for that one then turn it off.
A very cheesy and dull road movie, with the intention to be hip and modern, shown in the editing style and some weird camera angles, resulting only in sleepiness. <br /><br />The cast is wasted, the writing is stupid and pretentious. The only thing worthwhile is the top-notch Lalo Schifrin's soundtrack, really cool and also the opening sequence, very original and interesting. <br /><br />Run if you can, the bad opinions and comments about this flick are totally deserved; it is really pure garbage. Of course that this has its charm, of watching a movie which everybody would not drop the beer glass on if it were on fire, but save it for a stormy day where you have absolutely nothing else to do.
There are some nice shots in this film, it catches some of the landscapes with such a beautiful light, in fact the cinematography is probably it's best asset.<br /><br />But it's basically more of a made for TV movie, and although it has a lot of twists and turns in the plot, which keeps it quite interesting viewing, there are no subtitles and key plot developments are unveiled in Spanish, so non Spanish speakers will be left a little lost.<br /><br />I had it as a Xmas gift, as it's a family trait to work through the films of a actor we find talented, and Matthew Mconaughey was just awesome in "A Time to kill" , and the "The Newton Boys " so I expressed I wanted to see more of his work.<br /><br />However although it says on the DVD box it is a Matthew Mconaughey film and uses this as a marketing ploy, he has a few lines and is on screen for not very minutes at the end of the film, he is basically an extra and he doesn't exactly light up the screen while he is on, so die hard fans, really not worth it from that point of view.<br /><br />The films star though, Patrick McGaw is great though and very easy on the eye, and his character is just so nice and kind and caring, a true saint of a guy, he'd be well written into a ROM com.<br /><br />So for true Mcconaughey acting brilliance of the ones I've seen, I'd recommend, "A Time to kill" , "The Newton Boys " "Frailty", "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days", "Edtv" and "Amistad" and avoid too "Larger Than Life" and "Angels in the Outfield" unless you feel like a kids film or have kids around as neither of these are indicative of his talent, but are quite amusing films for children, again MM is really nothing more that a supporting artist with just a few if any lines.<br /><br />As for Scorpion Springit's not a bad film but it also isn't screen stealing either.
When a man who doesn't have Alzheimer's can't remember how many films he's made, he probably is the world's most prolific director after all. That man is Jesus Franco, the king of so-called 'eurotrash'. His 1980 flick Devil Hunter is as rushed, opaque, stupid, lazy and exploitative in the truest sense of the word (the film's title is misleading, for starters) as any other Franco film I've seen. That makes it sound pretty awful, and it is... Yet Franco does have some kind of inimitable sensibility, a generous way with the baldly outrageous, with nudity and sleaze and violence, and even with his stupid cheap editing which tries to pave over the extreme haste with which all his films were made. The mix of all these elements causes you to ride his films out, even while you're mostly waiting for them to end because they're so very tedious.<br /><br />Devil Hunter is nigh on incomprehensible for the first half an hour. The kidnap by strangers of a white woman who seems to be a model or film star is intercut with a bunch of native action in South America. There's lots of naked writhing, dancing, and endless repeated zoom-ins on an ugly totem pole. You need to get used to the repetitive zoom-ins and the technique of cutting back to the same shot about three times in a row right away, as these are Franco's main methods of extending a film out to feature length.<br /><br />The monster who looks like the totem pole is actually kind of scary. He has raw bug eyes and his presence is always signalled on the soundtrack by cacophonous groaning, apparently recorded in an echo chamber. Early in the piece he chews on a native lady strapped to a tree, and it's hard to know what really happens here but I think he ate her stomach (or her genitals, sweet Jesus!).<br /><br />Anyway, the adventure begins properly when a studly guy and his freaked out Vietnam vet pal are sent to the island to recover the white girl from the kidnappers. The flakey guy has an accent which, as dubbed, is half Brooklyn-American, half English-Liverpudlian and all retarded. All of the dialogue and dubbing is ridiculous and laughable, making for another layer of the film which can somehow hold your interest.<br /><br />Not too much really happens from here on in, and it happens pretty sluggishly, studded with the odd bit of outrage like a rape. The nebulous action is fleshed out (haha!) by acres of 360 degree nudity from the natives and the two female leads, and even from the monster himself. That he walks around with his penis exposed makes wrestling him an unappetising prospect for the tough guy hero, but it's gotta be done at some point, and it's nice to note that the director will show anyone's genitals on camera.<br /><br />The best feature of Devil Hunter is the location filming. Franco can be extremely cheap with the structural and story aspects of film-making, but he doesn't muck around with sets. You get real islands, jungles, helicopters and mountains, all in widescreen. This is something that is really cool to experience in these days of crappy CGI sets and backdrops ad nauseam.<br /><br />Ultimately, issues of recommendation where this film is concerned seem moot. If you're trying to see all the Video Nasties, you will have to watch this at some point, and you'll be made as restless as I was. If you like Franco, you'll watch this anyway. If you fall into neither of the above categories, the odds are you'll never come across this film. Copies of it aren't just lying around, and I could hardly recommend the seeking out of it. It's Franco. Lazy, crazy Franco.
I have been looking for this film for ages because it is quite rare to find as it was one of the video nasties. I finally found it on DVD at the end of last year it is a very low budget movie The story is set around amazon jungle tribes that are living in fear of the devil. Laura Crawford is a model who is kidnapped by a gang of thugs while she is working in South America. They take her into the jungle Laura is guarded by some ridiculous native who calls himself "The Devil" she has to go though all unpleasant things until they are happy. Maidens are Chained up. The devil demonstrates eating flesh in a horrible manner. Peter Weston, is the devil hunter, who goes into the jungle to try and rescue her,
As the number of Video Nasties I've yet to see dwindles, this little pile of garbage popped up on my "to rent" list when I saw it was available.<br /><br />The premise involves a fashion model or something being kidnapped and taken into the jungle to be held for ransom by a motley crew of idiots. Some other goof gets hired to bring her back and is given a sack of money to use as a bargaining chip, though if he returns with the girl and all the money, he gets a significant cut. He's brought a helicopter and pilot with him and, wow, that pilot is one of the worst actors EVER! Granted, they are all totally terrible and the dubbing will make you cry blood. After stealing away into the jungle, we learn that nearby is a cannibal cult whose flesheating earthbound god wanders the woods like a human King Kong looking for tribeswomen to ravage and devour. Now, this fellow is just a naked guy with some of the worst makeup ever, ping-pong balls for eyes and that's pretty much it. His growls and groans are an everpresent feature on the soundtrack, and I found myself muting much of those scenes.<br /><br />Oh, did I forget to mention the almost constant nudity? This is probably the main reason this film was banned, though there is one specific scene, about one second long, where the god attacks a girl and pulls her guts out, but it's not a redeeming factor for gore fans. Also, Jess Franco goes beyond the usual T and A and shows lengthy close-ups of female genitals, and, sadly, male as well. So, if you want "fair" in terms of exploitation, you got it.<br /><br />I can't recommend this trash to anyone. It's not even the good bad movie. It's just atrociously padded trash that only a Video Nasty fan will probably view and even then, if you are making your way through the list, leave this for the very last. If you watch it first, you may get the notion that this is the norm for the list, which is certainly not true.
Not sure if I'm referring to those who labeled this a video nasty or to the director..."Devil Hunter" sure is one bizarre 'horror' movie.<br /><br />The plot is a loosey goosey combo of superior films like "Cannibal Ferox" and "Cut and Run." Chick gets kidnapped in the 'jungle' by a 'tribe' of 'savages.' The jungle looks more like a park somewhere in Mexico. The tribe is like a group of hippies who walk around in Party City-style Halloween costume renditions of tribal garb. And the savages range in race from white to Asian to black to hispanic. I suppose Franco just grabbed anyone who looked even slightly ethnic for this romp.<br /><br />To make matters worse, this film has ultra-minimal gore, no real scares and a lot of unnecessary penis. Not fun. I can find something to like in just about any sleazy Italian or Euro-trash film; this one just fell WAY short.<br /><br />2 out of 10, kids.
This video nasty was initially banned in Britain, and allowed in last November without cuts.<br /><br />It features the Playboy Playmate of the Month October 1979, Ursula Buchfellner. The opening cuts back and forth between Buchfellner and foggy jungle pictures. I am not sure what the purpose of that was. It would have been much better to focus on the bathtub scene.<br /><br />Laura (Buchfellner) is kidnapped and held in the jungle for ransom. Peter (Al Cliver - The Beyond, Zombie) is sent to find her and the ransom. Of course, one of the kidnappers (Antonio de Cabo) manages to pass the time productively, while another (Werner Pochath) whines incessantly.<br /><br />The ransom exchange goes to hell, and Laura runs into the jungle. Will Peter save her before the cannibals have a meal? Oh, yes, there are cannibals in this jungle. Why do you think it was a video nasty! Muriel Montossé is found by Peter and his partner (Antonio Mayans - Angel of Death) on the kidnapper's boat. Montossé is very comfortably undressed. Peter leaves them and goes off alone to find Laura, who has been captured by now. They pass the time having sex, and don't see the danger approaching. Guts, anyone? Great fight between Peter and the naked devil (Burt Altman).<br /><br />Blood, decapitation, guts, lots of full frontal, some great writhing by the cannibal priestess (Aline Mess), and the line, "They tore her heart out," which is hilarious if you see the film.
Of the three titles from Jess Franco to find their way onto the Official DPP Video Nasty list (Devil Hunter, Bloody Moon and Women Behind Bars) this is perhaps the least deserving of notoriety, being a dreadfully dull jungle clunker enlivened only very slightly by a little inept gore, a gratuitous rape scene, and loads of nudity.<br /><br />Gorgeous blonde Ursula Buchfellner plays movie star Laura Crawford who is abducted by a gang of ruthless kidnappers and taken to a remote tropical island inhabited by a savage tribe who worship the 'devil god' that lurks in the jungle (a big, naked, bulging-eyed native who likes to eat the hearts of nubile female sacrifices).<br /><br />Employed by Laura's agent to deliver a $6million ransom, brave mercenary Peter Weston (Al Cliver) and his Vietnam vet pilot pal travel to the island, but encounter trouble when the bad guys attempt a double-cross. During the confusion, Laura escapes into the jungle, but runs straight into the arms of the island's natives, who offer her up to their god.<br /><br />Franco directs in his usual torpid style and loads this laughable effort with his usual dreadful trademarks: crap gore, murky cinematography, rapid zooms, numerous crotch shots, out of focus imagery, awful sound effects, and ham-fisted editing. The result is a dire mess that is a real struggle to sit through from start to finish (It took me a couple of sittings to finish the thing), and even the sight of the luscious Buchfellner in all of her natural glory ain't enough to make me revisit this film in a hurry.
How can you tell that a horror movie is terrible? when you can't stop laughing about it of course! The plot has been well covered by other reviewers, so I'll just add a few things on the hilarity of it all.<br /><br />Some reviews have placed the location in South America, others in Africa, I thought it was in some random island in the Pacific. Where exactly does this take place, seems to be a mystery. The cannibal tribe is conformed by a couple of black women some black men, and a man who looks like a young Frank Zappa banging the drums... the Devil God is a large black man with a terrible case of pink eyes.<br /><br />One of the "freakiest" moments in the film is when, "Pablito" find his partner hanging from a tree covered in what seems to be an orange substance that I assume is blood, starts screaming for minutes on and on (that's actually funny), and then the head of his partner falls in the ground and "Pablito" kicks it a bit for what I assume is "shits n' giggles" and the eyes actually move...<br /><br />But, of course, then the "freak" is gone when you realize the eyes moved because the movie is just bad...<br /><br />I hadn't laughed like this in a loooong while, and I definitely recommend this film for a Sunday afternoon with your friends and you have nothing to do... grab a case of beers and start watching this film, you'll love it! If you are looking for a real horror or gore movie, though... don't' bother.
A model named Laura is working in South America when she is kidnapped from her hotel room by a gang and taken into the jungle. They demand a huge ransom for her release. Peter is hired to get her home safe and there is a bonus in it for him if he can bring back the money as well as the girl. Peter is taken to the jungle by helicopter with friend Jack. They try to give the kidnappers fake money in return for Laura but the plan goes horribly wrong and they have to bail out in the helicopter. The helicopter is shot and they also have to bail from that (not going well so far). Also roaming the jungles is a devil of sorts. In reality its just a naked black guy with weirdly big eyes and a breathing problem. He starts to kill a few of the kidnappers and Laura escapes only to be captured by some primitives. The rest of the film is a bit of a blur really.<br /><br />Now I'm not a massive Jess Franco fan, in fact to date this is only the second film of his I have seen, but even I can tell that this really isn't one of his best efforts. The films drags along at a pretty slow pace without much at all happening. The whole thing could have been edited down quite easily into a 25 minute TV show. There are plenty of overly long shots of people walking through the jungle that could have just been lifted straight out.<br /><br />Devil Hunter is poorly lit (Infact I don't think it was lit at all), badly dubbed, poorly acted and slow yet for some reason it didn't bore me. I think the main reason for this was some of the hilariously bad scenes in it. For example a scene where Laura is walking in the street was obviously shot in a real street as crowds of people stop to stare straight at the camera as its shooting. Another funny scene has one of the gang who has been killed, hung in a tree dripping blood as one of his friends stands directly under him screaming for what seems like minutes. Then for no reason at all the man in the trees head just falls of and hits the guy under him. It has to be seen to be believed. Then of course there is the actual devil. It is just some naked black guy who despite the fact he has massive eyes, he has very blurry vision.<br /><br />The film was hooked up in part of the video nasty scare in the 80's here in the UK and was banned. Now why it was I have no idea. There is very little gore at all and it's hardly a shocking film. Minus the nudity I would have said that it could get away with a PG almost. The only thing I can think of is that it was never actually watched and was added to the original list because of word of mouth.<br /><br />There is not much reason to watch this film really unless you are a massive Jess Franco fan. There is plenty of nudity to keep you from falling asleep and also some scenes that are so bad you can have a good laugh at them but other wise I would say just pay for a ticket to South America and get lost in a jungle. It would probably be more fun.<br /><br />3/10
An actress making a movie in Africa is kidnapped and taken into the jungle where she is held for ransom. The producer hires some one to go and bring her back. Complicating everything are the cannibals in the jungle who worship a really ugly looking "god" who likes to eat naked women.<br /><br />This is a gory sleazy movie. There is copious amounts of nudity and violence, not to mention violence against nude people. Its an exploitation film designed to appeal to the deepest darkest parts of our being, and if the movie wasn't so boring this film would be a classic. Lets face it, despite the gore, the nasty sex and abuse,and the ugly monster this movie is a snoozer. The pacing is all off kilter and it puts you out. There are multiple plot lines that all seem to be happening separately from each other, even though its ultimately all one story. Worst of all, almost no one says anything. Most of the minimal dialog concerns the cruelty or one characters protestations that "I'll do what I want". Its such a quiet and dull movie that if it weren't for the frequent screams of the victims I'd recommend this as a sleep aide.<br /><br />This is a movie to avoid unless you need sleep, or unless you need to see every Euro-cannibal movie.<br /><br />(An aside. VideoAsia just released this as part of their Terror Tales series. Their print is oddly letter-boxed which looks to be the result of taking their print from a Japanese source (there is fogging) that was cropped to remove the subtitles. Their print also has no opening titles)
or anyone who was praying for the sight of Al Cliver wrestling a naked, 7ft tall black guy into a full nelson, your film has arrived! Film starlet Laura Crawford (Ursula Buchfellner) is kidnapped by a group who demand the ransom of $6 million to be delivered to their island hideaway. What they don't count on is rugged Vietnam vet Peter Weston (Cliver) being hired by a film producer to save the girl. And what they really didn't count on was a local tribe that likes to offer up young women to their monster cannibal god with bloodshot bug eyes.<br /><br />Pretty much the same filming set up as CANNIBALS, this one fares a bit better when it comes to entertainment value, thanks mostly a hilarious dub track and the impossibly goofy monster with the bulging eyes (Franco confirms they were split ping pong balls on the disc's interview). Franco gets a strong EuroCult supporting cast including Gisela Hahn (CONTAMINATION) and Werner Pochath (whose death is one of the most head-scratching things I ever seen as a guy who is totally not him is shown - in close up - trying to be him). The film features tons of nudity and the gore (Tempra paint variety) is there. The highlight for me was the world's slowly fistfight between Cliver and Antonio de Cabo in the splashing waves. Sadly, ol' Jess pads this one out to an astonishing (and, at times, agonizing) 1 hour and 40 minutes when it should have run 80 minutes tops. <br /><br />For the most part, the Severin DVD looks pretty nice but there are some odd ghosting images going on during some of the darker scenes. Also, one long section of dialog is in Spanish with no subs (they are an option, but only when you listen to the French track). Franco gives a nice 16- minute interview about the film and has much more pleasant things to say about Buchfellner than his CANNIBALS star Sabrina Siani.
Devil Hunter gained notoriety for the fact that it's on the DPP 'Video Nasty' list, but it really needn't have been. Many films on the list where there for God (and DPP) only known reasons, and while this isn't the tamest of the bunch; there isn't a lot here that warrants banning...which is a shame because I never would have sat through it where it not for the fact that it's on 'the shopping list'. The plot actually gives the film a decent base - or at least more of a decent base than most cannibal films - and it follows an actress who is kidnapped and dragged off into the Amazon jungle. A hunter is then hired to find her, but along the way he has to brave the natives, lead by a man who calls himself "The Devil" (hence the title). The film basically just plods along for eighty five minutes and there really aren't many scenes of interest. It's a real shame that Jess Franco ended up making films like this because the man clearly has talent; as seen by films such as The Diabolical Dr Z, Venus in Furs, Faceless and She Kills in Ecstasy, but unfortunately his good films are just gems amongst heaps of crap and Devil Hunter is very much a part of the crap. I saw this film purely because I want to be able to say I've seen everything on the DPP's list (just two more to go!), and I'm guessing that's why most other people who have seen it, saw it. But if you're not on the lookout for Nasties; there really is no reason to bother with this one.
This film seemed way too long even at only 75 minutes. The problem with jungle horror films is that there is always way too much footage of people walking (through the jungle, up a rocky cliff, near a river or lake) to pad out the running time. The film is worth seeing for the laughable and naked native zombie with big bulging, bloody eyes which is always accompanied on the soundtrack with heavy breathing and lots of reverb. Eurotrash fans will be plenty entertained by the bad English dubbing, gratuitous female flesh and very silly makeup jobs on the monster and native extras. For a zombie/cannibal flick this was pretty light on the gore but then I probably didn't see an uncut version.
Sexo Cannibal, or Devil Hunter as it's more commonly known amongst English speaking audiences, starts with actress & model Laura Crawford (Ursula Buchfellner as Ursula Fellner) checking out locations for her new film along with her assistant Jane (Gisela Hahn). After a long days work Laura is relaxing in the bath of her room when two very dubious character's named Chris (Werner Pochath) & Thomas (Antonio Mayans) burst in & kidnap her having been helped by the treacherous Jane. Laura's agent gets on the blower to rent-a-hero Peter Weston (Al Cliver) who is informed of the situation, the kidnappers have Laura on an isolated island & are demanding a 6 million ransom. Peter is told that he will be paid 200,000 to get her back safely & a further 10% of the 6 million if he brings that back as well, faster than a rat up a drain pipe Peter & his Vietnam Vet buddy helicopter pilot Jack are on the island & deciding on how to save Laura. So, the kidnappers have Laura & Peter has the 6 million but neither want to hand them over that much. Just to complicate things further this particular isolated island is home to a primitive tribe (hell, in all the generations they've lived there they've only managed to build one straw hut, now that's primitive) who worship some cannibal monster dude (Burt Altman) with bulging eyes as a God with human sacrifices & this cannibal has a liking for young, white female flesh & intestines...<br /><br />This Spanish, French & German co-production was co-written & directed by the prolific Jesus Franco who also gets the credit for the music as well. Sexo Cannibal has gained a certain amount of notoriety here in the UK as it was placed on the 'Video Nasties' list in the early 80's under it's alternate Devil Hunter title & therefore officially classed as obscene & banned, having said that I have no idea why as it is one bad film & even Franco, who isn't afraid to be associated with a turkey, decides he wants to hide under the pseudonym of Clifford Brown. I'd imagine even the most die-hard Franco fan would have a hard time defending this thing. The script by Franco, erm sorry I mean Clifford Brown & Julian Esteban as Julius Valery who was obviously another one less than impressed with the finished product & wanted his named removed, is awful. It's as simple & straight forward as that. For a start the film is so boring it's untrue, the kidnap plot is one of the dullest I've ever seen without the slightest bit of tension or excitement involved & the horror side of things don't improve as we get a big black guy with stupid looking over-sized bloodshot eyes plus two tame cannibal scenes. As a horror film Sexo Cannibal fails & as an action adventure it has no more success, this is one to avoid.<br /><br />Director Franco shows his usual incompetence throughout, a decapitated head is achieved by an actor lying on the ground with large leaves placed around the bottom of his neck to try & give the impression it's not attached to anything! The cannibal scenes are poor, the action is lame & it has endless scenes of people randomly walking around the jungle getting from 'A' to 'B' & not really doing anything when they get there either. It becomes incredibly dull & tedious to watch after about 10 minutes & don't forget this thing goes on for 94 minutes in it's uncut state. I also must mention the hilarious scene when Al Cliver is supposed to be climbing a cliff, this is achieved by Franco turning his camera on it's side & having Cliver crawl along the floor! Just look at the way his coat hangs & the way he never grabs onto to anything as he just pulls himself along! The gore isn't that great & as far as Euro cannibal films go this is very tame, there are some gross close ups of the cannibals mouth as it chews bits of meat, a man is impaled on spikes, there's some blood & a handful of intestines. There's a fair bit of nudity in Sexo Cannibal & an unpleasant rape scene.<br /><br />Sexo Cannibal must have had a low budget & I mean low. This is a shoddy poorly made film with awful special effects & rock bottom production values. The only decent thing about it is the jungle setting which at least looks authentic. The music sucks & sound effects become annoying as there is lots of heavy breathing whenever the cannibal is on screen. The acting sucks, the whole thing was obviously dubbed anyway but no one in this thing can act.<br /><br />Sexo Cannibal is a terrible film that commits the fatal mistake of being as boring as hell. The only good things I can say is that it has a certain sleazy atmosphere to it & those close ups of the cannibal chewing meat are pretty gross. Anyone looking for a decent cinematic experience should give Sexo Cannibal as wide a berth as possible, one to avoid.
Not only is it a disgustingly made low-budget bad-acted movie, but the plot itself is just STUPID!!!<br /><br />A mystic man that eats women? (And by the looks, not virgin ones)<br /><br />Ridiculous!!! If you´ve got nothing better to do (like sleeping) you should watch this. Yeah right.
This is the worst thing the TMNT franchise has ever spawned. I was a kid when this came out and I still thought it was deuce, even though I liked the original cartoon.<br /><br />There's this one scene I remember when the mafia ape guy explains to his minions what rhetorical questions are. It's atrocious. Many fans hate on the series for including a female turtle, but that didn't bother me. So much so that I didn't even remember her until I read about the show recently. All in all, it's miserably forgettable.<br /><br />The only okay thing was the theme song. Guilty pleasure, they call it... Nananana ninja...
Sometime in 1998, Saban had acquired the rights to produce a brand-new Ninja Turtles live-action series. Naturally, being a fan of the TMNT back in the day, this obviously peaked my interest. So when I started watching the show... to say I was disappointed by the end result is an understatement. Some time later (more like recently), I got a chance to revisit the series.<br /><br />First off, let's talk about some of the positives. They managed to re-create the Turtles' lair as it was last seen in the movies fairly well given the limited budget they threw in with this. There tends to be this darker atmosphere overall in terms of the sets and whatnot. And the Turtle suits, while not the greatest piece of puppetry and whatnot, were functional and seemed pretty sturdy for most of the action stuff that would follow in the series.<br /><br />People tend to complain about getting rid of Shredder quickly and replacing him with these original villains who could have easily been used in a Power Rangers show. But you can only have Shredder get beat so many times before it gets boring and undermines his worth as a villain... and besides, most fans don't realize or don't remember or just plain ignore the fact that in the original comic, the Shredder was offed in the very first issue! Never mind the countless resurrections that would follow. So on a personal standpoint, I was sort of glad they got rid of Shredder because then the anticipation would build to the point where they would eventually bring him back in a later episode. I find that Shredder in small quantities work best because then his encounters with the Turtles are all the more memorable.<br /><br />Unfortunately, they end up replacing him with these original villains who, as stated, seemed more fit for a Power Rangers show than a Ninja Turtles show. And with these new magic-wielding generics comes a new female magic-wielding turtle, the infamous Venus De Milo. I'll be honest; I never got comfortable with her. I'm not against the idea of a female turtle; I'm just against the idea of one who uses magic and thus sticks out like a sore sight among a clan of ninja turtles who seem somewhat out of their domain. I almost get the impression that this could have easily been the Venus De Milo show dealing with her make-believe enemies and the TMNT are just there to provide the star power (or whatever was left considering the timeframe this was released). Fortunately, they all share the spotlight together.<br /><br />Next Mutation was canned after a season on the air and the creators were more than happy to ignore it. Given time and maybe another season, I really believe this live iteration of the TMNT could have been something and might have gotten a chance at greatness. But while the idea was sound, the execution was flawed (although there are a couple good episodes in this series). As it stands, Next Mutation is one of those oddities in Turtledom that is best left buried and forgotten.
This is the biggest insult to TMNT ever. Fortunantely, officially Venus does not exist in canon TMNT. There will never be a female turtle, this took away from the tragic tale of 4 male unique mutants who will never have a family of their own, once gone no more. The biggest mistake was crossing over Power Rangers to TMNT with a horrible episode; the turtle's voices were WRONG and they all acted out of character. They could have done such a better job, better designs and animatronics and NO VENUS. <br /><br />don't bother with this people...it's cringe worthy material. the lip flap was slow and unnatural looking. they totally disrespected shredder. the main baddie, some dragonlord dude was corny. the turtles looked corny with things hanging off their bodies, what's with the thing around raph's thigh? the silly looking sculpted plastrons!? <br /><br />If they looked normal, acted in character and got rid of Venus, got rid of the stupid kiddie cartoon sounds...and better writing it could have been good.
I did not like the idea of the female turtle at all since 1987 we knew the TMNT to be four brothers with their teacher Splinter and their enemies and each one of the four brothers are named after the great artists name like Leonardo , Michelangleo, Raphel and Donatello so Venus here doesn't have any meaning or playing any important part and I believe that the old TMNT series was much more better than that new one which contains Venus As a female turtle will not add any action to the story we like the story of the TMNT we knew in 1987 to have new enemies in every part is a good point to have some action but to have a female turtle is a very weak point to have some action, we wish to see more new of TMNT series but just as the same characters we knew in 1987 without that female turtle.
I cannot stay indifferent to Lars van Trier's films. I consider 'Breaking the Waves' nothing less than a masterpiece. I loved 'Dancer in the Night'. I admired the idea in 'Dogville' but the overall exercise looked to me too dry and too theatrical, less cinema. 'Europa' which I see only now was a famous film at its time, succeeded in the US the relative success of an European film and got the Oscar for the best foreign language movie, but did not survive well the time in my opinion. It is also a too much explicit and extrovert exercise in cinema art to my taste.<br /><br />The story has a level of ambiguity that cannot escape the viewer. Treating the period that immediately followed the second world war not in the black and white colors of victors and vanquished, of executioners and victims but as rather ambiguous times when people of both sides were fighting for survival in the aftermath of a catastrophic event that change the lives of nations and individuals forever is still a source of disputes even today, more such was novel and courageous two decades ago. Yet it is the means of expression that really do not appear fit to the task.<br /><br />The film seems to include a lot of quotes descending directly from the films of Hitchcock, especially his early films set in the pre-war Europe, with brave British spies fighting evil German spies on trains crossing at high speed the continent at dark. The trains were a symbol of the world and its conflicts with all their intensity and dramatism. Here the train also becomes the symbol of the first sparkles of the re-birth of Germany after war, of its might, of its obsession with order and regulation, of punctuality and civility. The characters that populate the train are far from being the classical spy stories good or bad guys. The principal character a young American of German origin coming to post-war Europe willing to be part of a process of help and reconciliation finds himself in an ambiguous world of destruction and corruption, with liberators looking more like oppressive occupiers, with the vanquished not resigned to their fate but rather willing to continue on the path of self-destruction, with love doubtfully mixed with treason.<br /><br />It is yet this classical film treatment that betrays the director in this case. The actions of the characters, especially of Leopold Kessler played by Jean-Marc Barr seem confused, and lack credibility. The overall cinematography seems to be not Hitchcock-like but rather from a bad imitation of Hitchcock in the late 30s. The usage of color over the black-and-white film used in the majority of the time in moments of emotional intensity is also too demonstrative. It is not that Van Trier does not master his artistic means, but he is too demonstrative, he seems to try too hard to show what a great filmmaker he is. He really is great, as he will show in some of his later films, but it will be left to the viewers to decide this alone.
This film is terrible. You don't really need to read this review further. If you are planning on watching it, suffice to say - don't (unless you are studying how not to make a good movie).<br /><br />The acting is horrendous... serious amateur hour. Throughout the movie I thought that it was interesting that they found someone who speaks and looks like Michael Madsen, only to find out that it is actually him! A new low even for him!!<br /><br />The plot is terrible. People who claim that it is original or good have probably never seen a decent movie before. Even by the standard of Hollywood action flicks, this is a terrible movie.<br /><br />Don't watch it!!! Go for a jog instead - at least you won't feel like killing yourself.
Terrible movie. Nuff Said.<br /><br />These Lines are Just Filler. The movie was bad. Why I have to expand on that I don't know. This is already a waste of my time. I just wanted to warn others. Avoid this movie. The acting sucks and the writing is just moronic. Bad in every way. The only nice thing about the movie are Deniz Akkaya's breasts. Even that was ruined though by a terrible and unneeded rape scene. The movie is a poorly contrived and totally unbelievable piece of garbage.<br /><br />OK now I am just going to rag on IMDb for this stupid rule of 10 lines of text minimum. First I waste my time watching this offal. Then feeling compelled to warn others I create an account with IMDb only to discover that I have to write a friggen essay on the film just to express how bad I think it is. Totally unnecessary.
Assuming this won't end up a straight-to-video release, I would have to say void this title at all costs. Unless you're bored of good, well-executed movies, that is. I saw this last night at AFI Dallas, and I left with 20 minutes remaining, simply because I didn't care anymore (about the plot, not about insulting the director...that is awkward). When you can spot a goof only 5 minutes into the movie (a shot out, shattered window before any shots are fired...and then the window breaks with the first shot), things are going to bad. Let's just say this is only an indicator of things to come...unfortunately.<br /><br />I'll spare you all the details, but this is sub-par in every manner, even the half-assed acting by Michael Madsen is disappointing when you're expecting half-assed acting from him. And the rape scene...Christ! "Shut up and take it" should never be used in a rape scene. EVER.<br /><br />3/10
Sometimes a movie is so comprehensively awful it has a destructive effect on your morale. You begin to really ask yourself, what does it mean for our society that the standard is so terribly low? Can they honestly expect that we'll endure this many clichés and still be entertained?<br /><br />Of course, it is still a Hollywood mainstay to make the GUN the major character, plot device, and the source of all conflict and resolution in films. Character needs a gun. Gets a gun. Can't do that because he has a gun. Puts his gun down first. OH MY GOD What are we going to do!? He has a gun! He waves it around, acting more malicious than real human beings ever do. He pushes it in someone's face for 90 minutes, shouting questions. The hallmark of any conclusion will be the comforting sound of police sirens. <br /><br />It's a real challenge to make such a tired, hackneyed formula work again; a film has to be very clever and well executed. This one is neither. It has no life and no personality, and it will suck these components from YOU. it will make you feel WORSE about living in the time and space that you do. Really, who needs that!? So yes, I'll say it: I think this may well be the worst film I have ever seen. Anyone who was involved in the making of this sub- mediocre soul killing trash should be publicly embarrassed for the disservice they've done to us all.
I have to congratulate the genius who approved this one. Edward Furlong, you're not as good as you think mate, you can't grab on every piece of low-cost amateur crap, which sole intention has to be to get some bucks.<br /><br />The filming is bad, and I mean BAD. Anyone with a camera would get the same result, or better.<br /><br />The acting, lets just say: don't go to the supermarket looking for actors. The good ones usually come with a degree or, at least, have some damn experience! The director.. Mr. Jon Keeyes, please find your purpose in life, as a director you simply suck. Your directing is poor, the angles are all messed up (not in a good way), the lines seem as if they're being read out of toilet paper, and the damn music.. it always comes up when it shouldn't and goes out for no apparent reason. And don't go for writer either, by the way. Making movies isn't like serving on a coffeshop, it requires art and skill, things I really doubt you'll ever have.<br /><br />Instead of making a badass shootout movie, you should've shot this one back to oblivion and wait 'till something good came up.. Or just go find a job on a coffeshop. You'll have less stress and you'll save movie goers some money and a bad night.<br /><br />vote: 1/10 (my first one)
I rented this one on DVD without any prior knowledge. I was suspicious seeing Michael Madsen appearing in a movie I have never heard of, but it was a freebie, so why not check it out.<br /><br />Well my guess is that Mr. Blonde would very much like to forget he's ever taken part in such a shame of a film.<br /><br />Apparently, if your script and dialogs are terrible, even good actors cannot save the day. Not to mention the amateur actors that flood this film. Too many non-native-English-speakers play parts of native-English-speakers, reading out lines from a script that should have been thrown away and not having been made into a movie. It's unbelievable how unbelievable all the lines in the movie sound. The music is awful and totally out of place, and the whole thing looks and sounds like a poor school play.<br /><br />I recommend you watch it just so you would appreciate other, better, movies. This is why I gave it a 3 instead of the 1 it deserves.
I saw this DVD in my friends house and thought that this was a Turkish action movie with some Hollywood-not very big-names in it. Interested enough I decide to give it a shot later.. It was a tough to bear experience believe me. Then, after finally seeing the credits roll I tought 'We Turks really suck at Hollywood style film making.. This is an insult to the heist|hostage movie genre..' but then wait! I checked some names and no, they were not Turkish names and no, this was not a Turkish movie; on the contrary it was literally shot in America with an American director & crew! That made me thinking-again!- How on earth can you persuade names like Micheal Madsen, Edward Furlong or even Arnold Vosloo to take part in such a project? with money probably.. That kept me thinking further.. How can you raise such amount of money to offer them and a supposedly international cast? Then all my meditation paid off and I came to find the answer.By hiring the cheapest equipment and crew that you can find. And if you still have to difficulty in adjustin your budget then: by writing and directing the movie you are trying to produce-or vice versa I don't have any information on that-. So bottom line this is not a bad movie as everybody are so anxious to present as.. It makes you think -in my case even meditate- and there are a lot of movies outthere that doesn't give even that affect.. This one at least makes you think; It makes you wonder.. It leaves you with disbelief.. and then It makes you wonder again..
What was with all the Turkish actors? No offense but I thought it was all for nothing for all these actors. The film had no script to test any actors acting skill or ability. It demanded next to nothing I bought this film to see Michael Madsen. He is one of my favorite actors but this film was another failure for him. The script was so bad. Their was just nothing to sink your teeth into and all the characters were two dimensional. Madsen tried to act like a hard ass but the script and direction didn't even allow him to do enough with his character to make it more interesting or 3 dimensional.<br /><br />Even the sound effects of the gunfight at the beginning of the film sounded like the noise of paint ball guns when they are fired in a skirmish. It was really weird and they didn't sound like real guns. A video game had better sound effects than this film. There was also a really annoying bloke at the beginning of the film who was a member of the robbery gang. He had this American whining voice like a girl shouting lines like "Lets get the F#$k out of here" and What are we going to do man". He sounded like a girl. As a positive It was funny to watch and it made me laugh too. For a few seconds. Whoo Hoo ! Dumb Film. Poor Madsen. He will bounce back...
This movie was terrible. at first i just read the plot summary and it looked OK, so i watched it. The acting was TERRIBLE. it was like the actor were almost camera shy. everything seemed fake. i feel bad for Edward Furlong, terminator 2 was my favorite a few years ago.. I've watched it at least 20 times....<br /><br />the plot was also crap. the writers were probably sleep deprived when they came up with the lines.<br /><br />on the plus side, it's the good kind of bad movie. the one you keep watching just to see how much worst could it will get, so that later you can tell other people how you couldn't believe how terrible the movie was.<br /><br />i think everybody should watch this, so that then we could appreciate better other, REAL, movies.
I am a big fan of Arnold Vosloo. Finally seeing him as the star of a recent movie, not just a bit part, made me happy.<br /><br />Unfortunately I took film appreciation in college and the only thing I can say that I didn't like was that the film was made in an abandoned part of town and there was no background traffic or lookie loos.<br /><br />I have to say that the acting leaves something to be desired, but Arnold is an excellent actor, I have to chalk it up to lousy direction and the supporting cast leaves something to be desired.<br /><br />I love Arnold Vosloo, and he made the film viewable. Otherwise, I would have written it off as another lousy film.<br /><br />I found the rape scene brutal and unnecessary, but the actors that got away at the end were pretty good. But the sound effects of the shoot-out were pretty bad. There are some glitches in the film (continuity) but they are overlookable considering the low-caliber of the film.<br /><br />All in all I enjoyed the film, because Arnold Vosloo was in it.<br /><br />Jackie
This is an art film that was either made in 1969 or 1972 (the National Film Preservation Foundation says 1969 and IMDb says 1972). Regardless of the exact date, the film definitely appears to be very indicative of this general time period--with some camera-work and pop art stylings that are pure late 60s-early 70s.<br /><br />The film consists of three simple images that are distorted using different weird camera tricks. These distorted images are accompanied by music and there is absolutely no dialog or plot of any sort. This was obviously intended as almost like a form of performance art, and like most performance art, it's interesting at first but quickly becomes tiresome. The film, to put it even more bluntly, is a total bore and would appeal to no one but perhaps those who made the film, their family and friends and perhaps a few people just too hip and "with it" to be understood by us mortals.
Nine minutes of psychedelic, pulsating, often symmetric abstract images, are enough to drive anyone crazy. I did spot a full-frame eye at the start, and later some birds silhouetted against other colors. It was just not my cup of tea. It's about 8½ minutes too long.
There are lots of extremely good-looking people in this movie. That's probably the best thing about it. Perhaps that even makes it worth watching.<br /><br />"Loaded" tells the story of Tristan Price (Jesse Metcalfe), a young man who's about to make his mark on the world. He's the son of a well-to-do family with a good reputation, and he's on his way to law school. But like so many such settings, things aren't quite as perfect as they appear. The expectations in this family far outweigh the love. Except for school, Tristan's father rarely lets him leave the house. This seems to be the result of some past traumatic event that shook the family, which is partially revealed through flashbacks but isn't spelled out until the very end. Tristan's claustrophobic environment causes him to let loose in very extreme ways at the first possible opportunity, when his friends take him out to a strip club to celebrate his graduation. The celebration soon follows some strippers back to a beach house party, and from there, Tristan befriends Sebastian Cole (Corey Large), who pulls him into a drug dealing underworld.<br /><br />While technically well-made, this movie suffers from a lackluster script and a storyline that isn't very engaging. Also counting against this film are some constant camera tricks that generally seemed annoying and out-of-place, such as slow-motion, fast-motion, freeze-frames and echos. These are the types of effects a director might normally utilize to show a character's perspective while on drugs, except in this case they seem to have been sporadically tossed in at random points, in some cheap attempt at style.<br /><br />Despite its cast of relative unknowns, performances were good all around, most notably with respect to the main antagonist (Corey Large). I suspect we'll be seeing at least a couple of these people in bigger and better projects in the future.<br /><br />Of course, when mentioning the actors, I must mention their looks. Rating based on hotness, this movies scores an 11. The women in this movie are incredible-looking and almost distract you from what a boring movie you're watching. I'm sure the male characters are also quite attractive, but you'll have to ask someone else to comment on that.<br /><br />Overall, I can't recommend this movie, not for buying, renting, or even seeing for free. It's unfortunately just not worth the effort it takes to sit through.
This is it. This is the one. This is the worst movie ever made. Ever. It beats everything. I have never seen worse. Retire the trophy and give it to these people.....there's just no comparison.<br /><br />Even three days after watching this (for some reason I still don't know why) I cannot believe how insanely horrific this movie is/was. Its so bad. So far from anything that could be considered a movie, a story or anything that should have ever been created and brought into our existence.<br /><br />This made me question whether or not humans are truly put on this earth to do good. It made me feel disgusted with ourselves and our progress as a species in this universe. This type of movie sincerely hurts us as a society. We should be ashamed. I really cannot emphasize that our global responsibility as people living here and creating art, is that we need to prevent the creation of these gross distortions of our reality for our own good. It's an embarrassment. I don't know how on earth any of these actors, writers, or the director of this film sleeps at night knowing that they had a role in making "Loaded". I don't know what type of disgusting monsters enjoy watching these types of movies.<br /><br />That being said, I love a good "bad" movie. I love Shark Attack 3, I love Bad Taste, they are HILARIOUS. I tell all my friends to see them because they are "bad".<br /><br />But this.......this crosses the line of "bad" into a whole new dimension. This is awkward bad. This is the bad where you know everything that is going to happen, every line, every action, every death, every sequence BEFORE they happen; and not just like a second or two before, I mean like, after watching the first 5 minutes before.<br /><br />Every cheesy editing "effect" is shamelessly used over and over again to a sickening point. I really never want to see the "shaky" camera "drug buzz rush" effect or jump cuts or swerve cuts or ANY FANCY CUT EVER AGAIN EVER. This is meticulously boring, repetitive and just tortures the audience.<br /><br />But.......and let me be specific here, the most DISTURBING thing about this movie is that given the production, it appears that a somewhat decent amount of money was actually put into this excrement. I personally will grab the shoulders of the director if I ever see him and shake him into submission, demanding that he run home and swallow two-gallons of Drain-O or I will do it for him.<br /><br />If we ever needed a new form of inhumane torture for our war prisoners abroad, just keep showing them this movie in a padded cell over and over again. Trust me, I think they will become more extravagant with suicide methods after the 72nd time of sitting through this.<br /><br />Stop these movies, they are just the most vile of all facets of our society. Please. Stop. NOW.
There are times when finishing a film one wishes to have a refund for the time just spent. This was one of those times. I almost gave up with only 15 minutes left to endure... and I wish I had...<br /><br />The pace that a man goes from a straight-laced, controlled life to one of complete spinelessness and irresponsibility could never be this rapid.<br /><br />From a graduation celebration to the predictable ending Tristan Price (Jesse Metcalfe) man of privilege and culture allows himself to be seduced by a woman, by violence, and by mind altering substances. Of course, the woman part is understandable when observing the talents of the beautiful April (Nathalie Kelley). But the in for a penny in for a pound aspect of the drugs, violence and dedication to a person he has just met is impossible to understand.<br /><br />Frankly, besides being able to stare at Nathalie Kelley and Monica Keena, this film has no redeeming qualities. Save your money, save your time... do anything else...
Weak plot, predictable violence, only semi interesting characters. Like the writer (also one of the stars?) was fictionalizing his own screw ups and added an incredulous fantasies of drugs and murder to make it "hot". From the predictable rap and house soundtrack, to the family conflicts, it's poorly acted, stereotypical, and ultimately terribly boring. Even the title has been done before - IMDb lists FIVE movies with the same name released in 2007-2008!! <br /><br />Note: Saw it on Showtime, which listed the synopsis for one of the other movies. Was halfway thru before I realized no one was an undercover cop. Even tho another stereotype, would have made it interesting if it happened.
All I could think of while watching this movie was B-grade slop. Many have spoken about it's redeeming quality is how this film portrays such a realistic representation of the effects of drugs and an individual and their subsequent spiral into a self perpetuation state of unfortunate events. Yet really, the techniques used (as many have already mentioned) were overused and thus unconvincing and irrelevant to the film as a whole.<br /><br />As far as the plot is concerned, it was lacklustre, unimaginative, implausible and convoluted. You can read most other reports on this film and they will say pretty much the same as I would.<br /><br />Granted some of the actors and actresses are attractive but when confronted with such boring action... looks can only carry a film so far. The action is poor and intermittent: a few punches thrown here and there, and a final gunfight towards the end. Nothing really to write home about.<br /><br />As others have said, 'BAD' movies are great to watch for the very reason that they are 'bad', you revel in that fact. This film, however, is a void. It's nothing.<br /><br />Furthermore, if one is really in need of an educational movie to scare people away from drug use then I would seriously recommend any number of other movies out there that board such issues in a much more effective way. 'Requiem For A Dream', 'Trainspotting', 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas' and 'Candy' are just a few examples. Though one should also check out some more lighthearted films on the same subject like 'Go' (overall, both serious and funny) and 'Halfbaked'.<br /><br />On a final note, the one possibly redeeming line in this movie, delivered by Vinnie Jones was stolen from 'Lock, Stock and Two Smokling Barrels'. To think that a bit of that great movie has been tainted by 'Loaded' is vile.<br /><br />Overall, I strongly suggest that you save you money and your time by NOT seeing this movie.
If you look at Corey Large's information here on IMDb, apparently there's a movie called "Reload" in production (as of June '08) in which he's playing a character named Sebastian Cole.<br /><br />First of all, how does such a crappy movie ever earn a sequel ... and second, didn't Sebastian get killed at the end of "Loaded"?<br /><br />I watched this in the wee hours of the morning when I was battling insomnia, and so I was drifting in and out while it was on. I'm sure I missed some plot points, but overall, it seemed really weak. Large's performance was (for me) one of the stronger parts of the film. I'm also a bit surprised at all the people commenting on the beautiful girls, since I thought the actress playing Brooke was pretty, but not exceptional.
This film had a lot of promise, and the plot was relatively interesting, however the actors, director and editors seriously let this film down.<br /><br />I feel bad for the writers, it could have been good. The acting is wooden, very few of the characters are believable.<br /><br />Who ever edited this clearly just learnt some new edit techniques and wanted to splash them all over the film. There are lots of quick 'flashy' edits in almost every scene, which are clearly meant to be symbolic but just end up as annoying.<br /><br />I wanted to like this film and expected there to be a decent resolution to the breakdown of equilibrium but alas no, it left me feeling like I'd wasted my time and the film makers had wasted their money.
This is one of the dumbest films, I've ever seen. It rips off nearly ever type of thriller and manages to make a mess of them all.<br /><br />There's not a single good line or character in the whole mess. If there was a plot, it was an afterthought and as far as acting goes, there's nothing good to say so Ill say nothing. I honestly cant understand how this type of nonsense gets produced and actually released, does somebody somewhere not at some stage think, 'Oh my god this really is a load of shite' and call it a day. Its crap like this that has people downloading illegally, the trailer looks like a completely different film, at least if you have download it, you haven't wasted your time or money Don't waste your time, this is painful.
6/10 Acting, not great but some good acting.<br /><br />4/10 Director, makes some stupid decisions for this film.<br /><br />2/10 Writer, story makes no sense at all and has huge amount of flaws.<br /><br />4/10 Overall score for this movie.<br /><br />Don't waste your time with this film, it's not worth it. I gave 4 for this movie and it may be too much. Characters are so over exaggerated than they can ever be in real life and some pretty unexplainable stuff happens "storywise", not in good way. Because of the style this film has been filmed you get bored after 30 minutes (too many special effects: slow motions and camera shakes and fast forwards). It's always good that movie uses music to make the story go smooth but there's too many tracks in this one. In the first hour there is almost 50/50 dialogs and musics
This is really a new low in entertainment. Even though there are a lot worse movies out.<br /><br />In the Gangster / Drug scene genre it is hard to have a convincing storyline (this movies does not, i mean Sebastians motives for example couldn't be more far fetched and worn out cliché.) Then you would also need a setting of character relationships that is believable (this movie does not.) <br /><br />Sure Tristan is drawn away from his family but why was that again? what's the deal with his father again that he has to ask permission to go out at his age? interesting picture though to ask about the lack and need of rebellious behavior of kids in upper class family. But this movie does not go in this direction. Even though there would be the potential judging by the random Backflashes. Wasn't he already down and out, why does he do it again? <br /><br />So there are some interesting questions brought up here for a solid socially critic drama (but then again, this movie is just not, because of focusing on "cool" production techniques and special effects an not giving the characters a moment to reflect and most of all forcing the story along the path where they want it to be and not paying attention to let the story breath and naturally evolve.) <br /><br />It wants to be a drama to not glorify abuse of substances and violence (would be political incorrect these days, wouldn't it?) but on the other hand it is nothing more then a cheap action movie (like there are so so many out there) with an average set of actors and a Vinnie Jones who is managing to not totally ruin what's left of his reputation by doing what he always does.<br /><br />So all in all i .. just ... can't recommend it.<br /><br />1 for Vinnie and 2 for the editing.
From the beginning of the movie, it gives the feeling the director is trying to portray something, what I mean to say that instead of the story dictating the style in which the movie should be made, he has gone in the opposite way, he had a type of move that he wanted to make, and wrote a story to suite it. And he has failed in it very badly. I guess he was trying to make a stylish movie. Any way I think this movie is a total waste of time and effort. In the credit of the director, he knows the media that he is working with, what I am trying to say is I have seen worst movies than this. Here at least the director knows to maintain the continuity in the movie. And the actors also have given a decent performance.
I basically skimmed through the movie but just enough to catch watch the plot was about. To tell you the truth it was kind of boring to me and at some spots it didn't make sense. The only reason I watched this movie in the first place was to see CHACE CRAWFORD!!! He is so hot, but in this movie his hair was kind of weird. But still hot.<br /><br />However, despite how hot CHACE is, it really did not make up for the film. I guess the plot isn't that bad but what really threw me over was the fact that they cuss in like every sentence. Is it that hard to express your anger without saying the F word every time?The cussing was annoying and the whole flashy, camera shaking thing gave me a headache.<br /><br />All in all, although the plot was OK, I found the film to be a bore and over dramatic. That's why I only cut to scenes with CHACE in it. LOL Anyways, not worth renting unless your a die-hard fan of a specific cast member like I was. Oh yeah the cast was Hot. The girls were HOT!!! But CHACE IS THE BEST!!
This fanciful horror flick has Vincent Price playing a mad magician that realizes his vocational talents have been sold to another. He devise ways of avenging all those that have wronged him. His master scheme seems to back fire on him.<br /><br />Price is a little below par compared to his masterpieces, but is still the only reason to watch this thriller. Supporting cast includes Patrick O'Neal, Mary Murphy, Eva Gabor and Jay Novello.<br /><br />
If I had not read Pat Barker's 'Union Street' before seeing this film, I would have liked it. Unfortuntately this is not the case. It is actually my kind of film, it is well made, and in no way do I want to say otherwise, but as an adaptation, it fails from every angle.<br /><br />The harrowing novel about the reality of living in a northern England working-class area grabbed hold of my heartstrings and refused to let go for weeks after I had finished. I was put through tears, repulsion, shock, anger, sympathy and misery when reading about the women of Union Street. Excellent. A novel that at times I felt I could not read any more of, but I novel I simply couldn't put down. Depressing yes, but utterly gripping.<br /><br />The film. Oh dear. Hollywood took Barker's truth and reality, and showered a layer of sweet icing sugar over the top of it. A beautiful film, an inspiring soundtrack, excellent performances, a tale of hope and romance...yes. An adaptation of 'Union Street'...no.<br /><br />The women of Union Street and their stories are condensed into Fonda's character, their stories are touched on, but many are discarded. I accept that some of Barker's tales are sensitive issues and are too horrific for mass viewing, and that a film with around 7 leading protagonists just isn't practical, but the content is not my main issue. The essence and the real gut of the novel is lost - darkness and rain, broken windows covered with cardboard, and the graphically described stench of poverty is replaced with sunshine, pretty houses, and a twinkling William's score.<br /><br />If you enjoyed the film for its positivity and hope in the face of 'reality', I advise that you hesitate to read the book without first preparing yourself for something more like 'Schindler's List'...but without the happy ending.
I saw the capsule comment said "great acting." In my opinion, these are two great actors giving horrible performances, and with zero chemistry with one another, for a great director in his all-time worst effort. Robert De Niro has to be the most ingenious and insightful illiterate of all time. Jane Fonda's performance uncomfortably drifts all over the map as she clearly has no handle on this character, mostly because the character is so poorly written. Molasses-like would be too swift an adjective for this film's excruciating pacing. Although the film's intent is to be an uplifting story of curing illiteracy, watching it is a true "bummer." I give it 1 out of 10, truly one of the worst 20 movies for its budget level that I have ever seen.
Robert DeNiro plays the most unbelievably intelligent illiterate of all time. This movie is so wasteful of talent, it is truly disgusting. The script is unbelievable. The dialog is unbelievable. Jane Fonda's character is a caricature of herself, and not a funny one. The movie moves at a snail's pace, is photographed in an ill-advised manner, and is insufferably preachy. It also plugs in every cliche in the book. Swoozie Kurtz is excellent in a supporting role, but so what?<br /><br />Equally annoying is this new IMDB rule of requiring ten lines for every review. When a movie is this worthless, it doesn't require ten lines of text to let other readers know that it is a waste of time and tape. Avoid this movie.
Story of a man who has unnatural feelings for a pig. Starts out with a opening scene that is a terrific example of absurd comedy. A formal orchestra audience is turned into an insane, violent mob by the crazy chantings of it's singers. Unfortunately it stays absurd the WHOLE time with no general narrative eventually making it just too off putting. Even those from the era should be turned off. The cryptic dialogue would make Shakespeare seem easy to a third grader. On a technical level it's better than you might think with some good cinematography by future great Vilmos Zsigmond. Future stars Sally Kirkland and Frederic Forrest can be seen briefly.
Are you familiar with concept of children's artwork? While it is not the greatest Picasso any three-year-old has ever accomplished with their fingers, you encourage them to do more. If painting is what makes them happy, there should be no reason a parent should hold that back on a child. Typically, if a child loves to paint or draw, you will immediately see the groundwork of their future style. You will begin to see their true form in these very primitive doodles. Well, this concept of children's artwork is how I felt about Fuqua's depressingly cheap and uncreative film Bait. While on all accounts it was a horrid film, it was impressive to see Fuqua's style begin emerging through even the messiest of moments. If you have seen either Training Day or King Arthur, you will be impressed with the birth of this director in his second film Bait. While Foxx gives a horrid, unchained performance, there are certain scenes, which define Fuqua and demonstrate his brilliance behind the camera. Sadly it only emerged in the final thirty minutes of the film, but if you focus just on those scenes, you will see why Fuqua's name appears on so many "Best Of…" film lists.<br /><br />I will never disagree with someone that Fuqua's eye behind the camera is refreshing and unique. His ability to place a camera in the strangest of places to convey the simplest of emotions is shocking. I am surprised that more of Hollywood hasn't jumped aboard this bandwagon. Even in the silly feature Bait, you are witness to Fuqua's greatness. Two scenes that come directly to mind are the explosion scene near the middle of the film and the horse scene close to the end. In both of these scenes I saw the director Fuqua at work. Alas, in the rest of this film, all I saw was a combination of nearly every action film created. The likable hero down on his luck that suddenly finds his life turned around by some unknown force is a classic structure that just needs to die in Hollywood. We have seen this two often, and no matter who you are (unless you are Charlie Kaufmann), you cannot recreate the wheel. It is just impossible with this genre, and it is proved with Bait. I was annoyed with Fuqua for just sitting back and allowing this to happen, which could explain why it took me three viewings to finish this film. I was just tired of the structure, and while I hoped that Fuqua would redefine it, he did not.<br /><br />Then, there was the acting. While Jamie Foxx has never impressed me as an actor, I was willing to give this helmed vehicle a try. I wanted to see if he could pull off another dramatic role similar to Collateral. I was under the impression that perhaps this was the film chosen to show producers that Foxx could handle the role in Collateral. Again, I was disappointed. Foxx was annoying. Not in the sense that it was the way that his character was to be, but in the sense that it felt as if neither Fuqua nor Foxx took the time to fully train Foxx on what should be ad-libed and what should be used to further the plot. Instead, we are downtrodden with scene over scene of Foxx just trying to make the audience laugh. Adding second long quips and culture statements just to keep his audience understanding that he was a comedian first, an actor second. Fuqua should have stopped this immediately. Foxx's jokes destroyed his character, which in turn left me with nothing solid to grasp ahold of. Instead of character development, he would crack a joke. Neither style worked, no joke was funny. The rest of the cast was average. By this I mean I have seen them all in similar roles. They were brining nothing new to the table, nothing solid to the story, and nothing substantial to the overall themes of the film. They were pawns filling in dead air space. Fuqua had no control over this mess, and the final verdict only supports that accusation.<br /><br />Overall, this was a sad film. With no creativity in sight and unmanaged actors just trying to upstage themselves, what originally started as a decent story eventually sunk faster into the cinematic quicksand. Foxx was annoying, without character lines, and a complete bag of cheese. In each scene I saw no emotion, and when emotion was needed to convey a message, he chose to take his shirt off rather than tackle the issues. Are my words harsh? I don't think so. When you watch any movie you want to see some creativity, some edible characters, and themes that seem to hit close to home. Bait contained none of these. While I will give Fuqua some credit for two of the scenes in this film, the remaining five hundred were disastrous. Apparently, I took the bait when renting this film, but now having seen it, hopefully I can stop others from taking that curious nibble.<br /><br />Grade: ** out of ***** (for his two scenes that were fun to watch)
Ah, Bait. How do I hate thee? Let me count the ways. 1. You try to be funny, but are corny and unenjoyable; every joke is predictable and expected, and when it comes, does not inspire laughter. Instead, I want to hurl. 2. You try to be dramatic, but are unbelievable; the woman overacts to a terrible degree, and the "bad guy" looks like Bill Gates, and is about as scary as...well, Bill Gates. (Just try to imagine Bill Gates trying to intimidate somebody with a gun. Doesn't work, does it? A lawyer, maybe, but not a gun. Doesn't fit.) As for Jamie Foxx, well, just watching him try to deliver a dramatic and heartfelt dialogue is ludicrous, and makes me want to hurl. 3. You try to be action-packed, but instead are dull and dragging too many times. And when the action heats up, the tripod for the camera must have been lost, for the scenes wobble more than those in The Blair Witch Project, and I find myself nauseated, and once again I want to hurl. 4. You try to be a good movie, but you failed, you FAILED, YOU FAILED! I would rather walk barefoot across the Sahara with a pack full of beef jerky and no water, no sunscreen, and only Meryl Streep for company. This hell would be lovelier than a single minute more spent watching everyone in Bait overact their way through an idiotically written story with Bill Gates for a bad guy, and let's not even talk about the massive bomb that goes off in a car that Jamie Foxx's character has just driven OFF A CLIFF, but somehow manages to escape...just kill me now, or do the right thing and promise me that somehow I'll never have to watch a movie that is this bad, ever again.
The premise of the movie has been explained and if you've gotten this far you don't me to pretend that I'm a movie critic. With that being said my own opinion of the movie is quite low. I'm a fan of Takashi Miike but this goes down in the category of his not so great work along with DOA 2 and 3, and some others (many).<br /><br />The movie seems to get a free pass because it is a Takashi film and nothing Takashi does can be wrong. This is a highschoolers approach to cinema. For the rest of us we'll find and hour and a half of a kid screaming for no real reason completely annoying (and yes, this does take away from the film), the pace of the film almost reaching levels of rigomortis, and the acting...well...hmmm. <br /><br />If one is a Takashi fan you'll see it regardless to peak your interests. It lacks any originality (see the Neverending Story) or any character development from the lead character in the face of conflict other then a quite superficial one. <br /><br />As it has been pointed out this is the first film Miike has been credited with co-writing, but that doesn't mean much as non of what we'd hope would be Miike's personality would spill over into the screen. All we get are some of the token Miike shots vis the director of photography.<br /><br />The movie had the potential to be something great. The premise is not a difficult one to run wild with. But this one seemed to have been run into the ground.<br /><br />My suggestion is if you're just getting into Miike is go with some of the standards like Gozu, Ichi, and Audition. Then movie into his works like Blue's Harp, Fudoh, Rainy Dog, Bird People of China.
Uninspired direction leaves a decent cast stranded in a handsome but bland adaptation, in which dialogue seems recited rather than heartfelt, and cash strapped appearances by the ghosts fail to round up any sense of awe or magic; Edward Woodward, as the Ghost of Christmas Present, wobbles around on stilts and seems to be doing an impression of Bernard Cribbins. As Scrooge, George C. Scott is too wry, and he never seems to truly believe in it, which robs his performance of its effect. The scenes in which he's shown his past have as much impact as if he was half-heartedly flicking through his family album. No one else seems to be putting any effort in, except Frank Finlay, who chronically overacts.
I was sooooo excited to see this movie after finally reading the book this week. My 13 year old son was looking forward to it too. I rented it and snuggled down to enjoy a classic holiday story brought to life on screen.<br /><br />Boy, was I disappointed. This movie veered off from the book more times than is forgivable. George C. Scott is an excellent actor but in this, it seemed that he was fully into character only about 20% of the time. The rest of the time he was quite flat.<br /><br />I realize that this was made in '84, pre-CG effects, for the most part. But it looked to be very B-movie quality, especially the encounter with Jacob Marley.<br /><br />The biggest disappointment was the fact that they left out one of the most moving parts of the story: When the Spirit of Christmas Present takes Scrooge on the whirlwind tour of the world, observing people in the bleakest of circumstances still having the light and love of Christmastime.<br /><br />I will admit that Mr. Scott did a good job with the "reformed" Scrooge at the end. That was a refreshing portrayal.<br /><br />I wish that Bob Cratchit had been portrayed as a little more ragged and down-trodden. And Tiny Tim... oh don't even get me started on bad child actors...
Having seen three other versions of the same film, I am afraid for me this is by far the weakest, primarily due to Scott's rather dull and leaden performance. His emotions throughout are so bland it makes it difficult to engage in the film. Alistair Sim portrayed the role infinitely better. When Scrooge was at his meanest, you don't get the sense Scott is saying the dialogue with much conviction and when he undergoes his metamorphosis he is similarly unconvincing. I cannot think of any actors in this film who match those from the Alistair Sim version. Even the musical version (and frankly the Muppets) take on this are better executed. Very disappointing.
Saw this movie in my English class this afternoon and was surprised by how bad this version was. Don't get me wrong, George C. Scott was terrific as Scrooge, but the rest of the cast fails so very badly. Sometimes I couldn't stop laughing at the stupid acting and the repeated line: "Merry Christmas to everyone!" Other times I almost fell asleep.<br /><br />The movie is based on a Charles Dickens short story about a rich guy, who don't think Christmas is nothing but humbug. After 30 minutes, the rich guy is visited by three ghosts, who persuade him to celebrate Christmas after all.<br /><br />I can not understand how this movie, with a script so bad it must have been written in five minutes, can be so well-rated. Instead of this piece of garbage, I recommend to you, the Bill Murray comedy Scrooged. That at least, was funny...
When will the hurting stop? I never want to see another version of a Christmas Carol again. They keep on making movies with the same story, falling over each other in trying to make the movie better then the rest, but sadly fail to do so, as this is not a good story. Moralistic, old-fashioned, conservative happy-thinking. As if people learn. The numerous different versions of this film prove that we don´t.
It was 9:30 PM last night at my friend's camping trailer and we were so hyped to watch South Park (a new episode). The thing is, in my country, South Park airs at 10:30 PM and we decided to kill time by watching the show now airing, Father of the Pride. I'll start by saying that I have only watched to episodes. The first time I watched it, I found it unfunny and crude for nothing, so I thought ''Holy sh*t, I have a football game early tomorrow, so I have to stop watching stupid cartoons''. But yesterday, I tried to give Father of the Pride a second chance. I find that it's a complete rip-off of The Simpsons, only replacing yellow human characters by lions instead.<br /><br />The second thing is I wonder why it got it's TV-14 rating. I find The Simpsons a lot more vulgar, and the only real vulgarity in this show is a few homosexual (unfunny) jokes. The Simpsons is also a lot more violent (Halloween specials) and crude. I also heard that the creator of the series has also directed Shrek 2, well I've got news for him: Shrek 2 was way better and I think he stayed too much in the family thematic. However, I must admit that Father of the Pride did make me smile (even burst out laughing once) three or four times.<br /><br />All in all, I don't mind Father of the Pride. I don't hate it, but I don't like either. I've seen way better from ''The Simpsons''.<br /><br />3.5/10
This is blatantly a futuristic adaptation of Jules Verne's "Mysterious Island". The sound editing is pretty bad. You hear the dialogue on set and you hear the voices being recorded on a recording booth at the same time! This is an amateur film with actors from Boston and shot around New Hampshire. For those living in New Engalnd and who is reading this comment will be wowed with a capital W. This film is full of flaws. You get to hear the director's voice giving directions and giving out directions to the actress. "OK now stand up." As for the other characters. There is this guy who talks with his mind instead of his voice and this blue alien. The alien guy talks with a deep voice. When he is yawning or grunting when he is fighting you hear the actor's voice. As for the special effects, man! This was Brett Piper's early work for crying out loud! The creatures are good but the animation is jerky. Really jerky. Sort of like Karl Zeman animation in JOURNEY TO BEGINNING OF TIME (1955). The special effects are imaginative. Thge music is good. Bottom line, this film makes EQUINOX or PLANET OF THE DINOSAURS look like a Ray Harryhausen epic. Did you know MYSTERIOUS PLANET was a home movie and was on a shoes string budget? A must watch for aspiring film makers.
Beyond a shadow of a doubt Mysterious Planet is one of the worst movies ever made, yet retains an affection in my heart because the poverty of its special effects and astoundingly awful sound track in the first 15 minutes (and to be honest that's all you need to see) combine to create something that is hilariously side-splitting.<br /><br />The opening scene in 'space' is just about as unfathomable as cinematography gets, as washing-up liquid bottles whiz past your eyes to muffled dialogue. Before you've had time to work out whether it's you who's gone mad, the credits roll and the action struggles to life.<br /><br />And aside from the double-headed plasticine giant snail that terrorises our heroes, you also get the added double bonus of having both the original actors voices AND the dubbed voices at the same time. Pure genius.<br /><br />The sad thing for fans of this kind of fare is that I've only ever seen one copy, so the chances of ever seeing it yourself is highly unlikely. Perhaps I own the only copy in existence.<br /><br />
The silent one-panel cartoon Henry comes to Fleischer Studios, billed as "The world's funniest human" in this dull little cartoon. Betty, long past her prime, thanks to the Production Code, is running a pet shop and leaves Henry in charge for far too long -- five minutes. A bore.
William Russ is the main character throughout this made for TV movie. He left his family behind to only reappear and begin paying off his debts. But he tries to keep away from his family. Thats where Peter Falk (Colombo) comes in, playing several different roles, to convince him to come home.<br /><br />The story is average and they actually managed to get a former star (Peter Falk) and use him to a fairly nice degree. But William Russ wasn't truly a star. However, it appears his acting is still OK.<br /><br />I found the delivery and story very cheesy in how everything was predictable. In fact, the last 20 minutes I could almost dictate word for word before it happened. A good movie should never be like that.<br /><br />Overall, it was a sub-par movie. In a letter grading system, it would receive a "D".
From a poorly contrived plot line that makes almost no sense to bad dialogue and disjointed scenes to the ultimate downer, bad acting (even Peter Falk can't find his way) "Finding John Christmas" is better left lost. Ms. Bertinelli's performance is without depth or emotion as are her co-stars, William Russ as brother Hank and David Cubitt as love interest Noah. Jennifer Pisana as Soccoro, the daughter of single dad Noah is almost unbearable to watch let alone listen to singing. But who can blame them with material like this. Michael J. Murray's script is juvenile at best. <br /><br />Each year at this time I search the TV guides and wait anxiously for some of the really classic Christmas and inspirational holiday films to appear on the small screen. Films like "Miracle on 34th Street", Ernst Lubitsch's delightful "The shop around the corner" and, of course the 1951 version of "Scrooge". There's Frank Capra's classics "It's a wonderful life" and "Meet John Doe". Hey, forget the classics. What about "Home Alone" or " Home for the Holidays" with Holly Hunter and a great performance by Robert Downey Jr.? <br /><br />My present to you is by way of advice. Your time would be better spent searching out these films than finding "Finding John Christmas". Merry Christmas!
In director Sooraj Barjatya's Vivah,20-something Delhi boy Shahid Kapur finds himself smitten by the demure, small-town girl his father has selected for him to marry. Drawn to her innocence and simplicity, Shahid agrees to the marriage barely moments after he's met her at her home in Madhupur, and the young lady in question Amrita Rao seems equally floored by her charming suitor. The marriage is fixed for six months later, and the couple find themselves in the first throes of young, budding love, their geographical distance notwithstanding. But Amrita, who's been raised by her uncle and her aunt after her parents' death, is struck by a horrible calamity just hours before the marriage. And then, it's up to Shahid to play the honourable lover and to embrace her unconditionally.Much in the same vein as Hum Aapke Hain Koun and Hum Saath Saath Hain, Barjatya's new film Vivah too is on one level a family drama with an extremely idealistic premise. But sadly, the plot of this new film comes off looking way too outdated, even more far-fetched than those regressive Ekta Kapoor soaps. And the problem is clear – you just can't relate to such squeaky-clean characters who don't have one bad bone in their bodies. There are many things that work in favour of and against Hindi films, and timing is one such important factor. Twenty-five years ago, perhaps the plot of Vivah may not have felt like such a stretch, but today it just seems like the product of a mind stuck in a time warp. Perhaps the film's only saving grace is the fact that it oozes sincerity from start to finish, you can make out right away that the filmmaker's intention is not to deceive. Judging both by Barjatya's previous films and by closely examining this new one you can safely declare that Barjatya believes in a perfect world, he believes in his good-as-gold characters, he believes that large families can live together happily under the same roof without the slightest bumps.But alas, he's unable to translate his vision to the screen. It's difficult to overlook how one-dimensional his protagonists are – Shahid and Amrita, both virtuous and virginal – I mean, think about it, the first time they hold hands is an hour and twenty minutes into the film. Barjatya may think he's returning to his Maine Pyar Kiya roots with Vivah, but truth is that the reason we embraced Salman and Bhagyashree in that film, or even Salman and Madhuri in Hum Aapke Hain Koun is because they had such fantastic chemistry. Because although they were created out of the same mould as Shahid and Amrita in Vivah, those pairs had mischief and masti. Shahid and Amrita are just insipid and boring.For a film that relies so heavily on music to narrate its story, the filmmaker chooses a string of 70s-style tunes that only further slacken the film's deadening pace. But if I had to choose just one reason to explain why Vivah doesn't work for me, it's because I'm not sure I can relate to any of the characters who inhabit Barjatya's story. To some perhaps, Vivah will give hope, that a perfect world like this is actually out there somewhere. But I'm a little cynical I guess. So, give me the coquettish Madhuri of Hum Aapke Hain Kaun, give me the bratty Salman of Maine Pyar Kiya, I'll even take that mischievous Karisma Kapoor of Hum Saath Saath Hain. But save me from these dullards. You know, some marriages aren't made in heaven. This one's Vivah!
I never like to comment on a good film but when it comes to a bad movie, I gotta come really hard on it. Talking about Vivah, this guy, Sooraj Badjatya, seems to have completely lost it. After success of Hum Aapke Hain Kaun, he thought he can make money with cheesy wedding videos. Vivah is so so cheesy that Badjatyas have left Johars and Chopras behind.<br /><br />There was not a single moment during the movie where I can say 'Oh! at least this thing is good'. Aloknath does cliché in a role of Girl's father, Shahid kapoor looks fat and Shahrukhed, Amrita rao is another disaster in addition to ugly looking sets, bad costumes, hackneyed storyline, monstrous stepmother, trying-hard-to-act actors, cacophonous background music, cheap soundtracks.<br /><br />Now the spoiler, I'm warning you guys that as happens in all his other movies, after a calamitous incidence movie ends on a happy note.
I won't say this movie was bad, but it wasn't good either. I expected something good but I guess Hum Aapke Hain Kaun was much better than this. This was completely old fashioned. At every stage of this movie, I hoped for some twist and what do I get? The girl gets burned and wins her aunt's love. <br /><br />Despite of being engaged, they have to take permission for every little move they make. They are so darn shy even after so many meetings. I expected the aunt to be much more brutal than that. All she did was crib madly. <br /><br />Hey, we have kids too, but we don't watch them and have tears in our eyes always. This movie is a dream. Happy family, one cruel woman, good in-laws and a man who loves her to death. In HAHK Anupam Kher was the poor bride's father and now it's vice versa. And I somehow knew that Mohnish Behl would be in this movie. Anyway I believe I wasted my time. I give it a 2/10.
A Cinderella story made for adults who live in dreamland. The romance is very unrealistic, fluttery, lovey dovey, perfect etc. The Cinderella plot till the very end and Shahid Kapoor is the only reason for my stars. If you're looking for a dreamy romance with a twist, this is definitely you're movie, but for the rest of us real world people, I'd highly recommend saving your three hour watch time. Wake up people!<br /><br />Four out of the five people that saw the film with me would not recommend the film. We had a great time bashing majority of the unrealistic scenes. Maybe I'm missing something.. I just can't believe a movie like this can beat a classic like HDDCS!!
After being hugely entertained by Mr. Brosnan's performance as a cad in "The Tailor of Panama" (which I rate 10/10 across the board: casting, acting, script, story, editing, pace, music, emotional impact, etc.), I enthusiastically anticipated this film. I was hugely disappointed. It is a script reading not a film, vulgar for the sake of being vulgar, bankrupt in every way that "The Tailor of Panama" is rich and satisfying. Blame it on the screen writing and directing. I sat in the theater waiting for the "good part;" it never came. I neither laughed nor cried, although one line of dialog did make me smile. Worth $7? Hardly.
I very nearly walked out, but I'd paid my money, and my nearly-as-disgusted friend wanted to hold out. After the endearing, wide-eyed innocence of "A New Hope" and the thrilling sophistication of "The Empire Strikes Back," I remember awaiting "Return of the Jedi" with almost aching anticipation. But from the opening scene of this insultingly commercial sewage, I was bitterly disappointed, and enraged at Lucas. He should have been ashamed of himself, but this abomination undeniably proves that he doesn't have subatomic particle of shame in his cold, greedy heart. Episode I would go on to reinforce this fact -- your honor, I call Jarjar Binks (but please issue barf bags to the members of the jury first).<br /><br />From the initial raising of the gate at Jabba's lair, this "film" was nothing more than a two-plus-hour commercial for as many licensable, profit-making action figures as Lucas could cram into it -- the pig-like guards, the hokey flesh-pigtailed flunky, that vile muppet-pet of Jabba's, the new and recycled cabaret figures, the monsters, etc., etc., ad vomitum. Then there were the detestably cute and marketable Ewoks. Pile on top of that all of the rebel alliance aliens. Fifteen seconds each on-screen (or less) and the kiddies just GOTTA have one for their collection. The blatant, exploitative financial baiting of children is nauseating.<br /><br />Lucas didn't even bother to come up with a new plot -- he just exhumed the Death Star from "A New Hope" and heaved in a boatload of cheap sentiment. What an appalling slap in the face to his fans. I can't shake the notion that Lucas took a perverse pleasure in inflicting this dreck on his fans: "I've got these lemmings hooked so bad that I can crank out the worst piece of stinking, putrid garbage that I could dream up, and they'll flock to the theaters to scarf it up. Plus, all the kiddies will whine and torture their parents until they buy the brats a complete collection of action figures of every single incidental undeveloped, cartoonish caricature that I stuffed in, and I get a cut from every single one. It'll make me even more obscenely rich."<br /><br />There may have been a paltry, partial handful of redeeming moments in this miserable rip-off. I seem to recall that Harrison Ford managed to just barely keep his nose above the surface of this cesspool. But whatever tiny few bright spots there may be are massively obliterated by the offensive commercialism that Lucas so avariciously embraced in this total, absolute sell-out to profit.
The fine cast cannot uplift this routine tale of a secretary murdered by her married paramour. In fact there are more questions than answers in this one-sided tale of romance and murder; and since we are only provided with the prosecution's side, none of these questions will be answered. This is the type of fare that appeals to the "He Woman, Man Hater" clubs of America. As presented, it is the tale of an innocent woman who just happens to be "caught up" in a romance with a married, high-profile attorney. Is it possible that IF, she had not been two timing her boy friend and having an affair with a married man, the whole nasty murderous, sordid incident could have been avoided? When you watch this, don't worry about going to the 'fridge, you won't miss anything.
This film was choppy, incoherent and contrived. It was also an extremely mean-spirited portrayal of women. I rented it because it was listed as a comedy (that's a stretch), and because the cover said Andie McDowell was acting up a storm in it. She wasn't. I'm a gal, I watched this film with two guys, and we spent an hour afterwards exclaiming over how bad it was.<br /><br />WARNING: PLOT SUMMARY BELOW! RAMPANT SPOILERS!<br /><br />The movie starts out with a fairly hackneyed plot about an older woman who takes up with a younger man, to the severe disapproval of her two jealous single girlfriends. They want her to marry a boring guy their own age who is kind of in love with her. But she's so happy with her oversexed puppy that you're rooting for them to stick it out, and sure enough, she decides to marry the guy. But her harpy girlfriend, aided by the wishy-washy one, sets up a plot to trick our heroine into thinking the guy is cheating on her. It works. She has a fight with him, he runs out of the house and is crushed by a truck (Remember the movie's title?) So now he's dead, two-thirds of the way through the film. And although our heroine is a school headmistress who spends her time watching over girls, she apparently forgot to use birth control and is pregnant.<br /><br />She's already broken off relations with her girlfriends, because they were so unsupportive. Alone and pitiful, she decides to marry the boring guy. Did I mention that the boring guy who kind of loves her is a minister? She had asked him to marry her to the young guy (nice, huh?), but now she tells him she'll marry him, and apparently he has no objections to being dicked around in this fashion. But her girlfriends rescue her at the altar and take her home, where they not-quite-confess that they were mostly responsible for the love of her life getting smushed. She has the kid. In the final scene, they leave it in a crib inside her house while they go out on the porch to drink, smoke and be smug. I kid you not, it's that bad. I left out the part about the cancer red-herring and the harpy's ridiculous lesbian moment.
This film is a calculated attempt to cash in the success of Sex in the City and Four Weddings and a Funeral. In fact, if they'd called it Sex at a Funeral, they might have done better at the box office.<br /><br />But the film falls between two stools and can't get up. The characters spout improbably bright dialog, but never act in any way remotely recognizable as human. One arbitrary, senseless action follows another to advance what passes for a plot, and one soon tires of the falsity of the whole enterprise.<br /><br />Andie MacDowell gets points for acting her little heart out, but the performing honors are stolen by Imelda Staunton, as of all things, a police detective (don't they have a height requirement over there?). Ms. Staunton seems unable to make a false move. Would that we could say the same about the writer-director.<br /><br />If Notting Hill annoyed you as being bogus, stay away from this one. Phonus bolognus on the half-shell.
This had to be one of the worst films ever. When Kate shows up and Jed is with a bunch of guys and they all start clapping...so Hollywood. Another bad scene was when Kate was running her hands over the pavement it appeared that she was examining the texture of the pavement. Andie's acting is so bad in this film - I could not connect with them or feel there love for each other. The other 2 women however were very good and overshadowed Andie. Anyway this was such a campy movie. I usually like these type of films but I just couldn't get into this film. Too many unlikely situations and again Andie's acting didn't help the film. Also, she is all gums. Lancome must put her makeup on with a putty knife because she looks glamorous in the commericals.
This starts off bad, what with the three women acting like simpering junior high school wussies sitting around giggling with their gin, endless cigarettes and a caramel chocolate treat for the one who tells the best 'man' story, and then it gets worse -=- spoiler alert =-= what with Andie's character falling for the young organ player who used to be her student when he was 14 (she's the headmistress of an English school, believe it or not), only to have him destroyed thanks to her bitch-from-hell 'girlfriend' . ..and then from there, it's basically unwatchable claptrap: she forgives her 'friend' and has the organ player's love child and the 3 women end up as they started, drinking more gin and smoking more cigarettes blah blah blah. Andie's character throws the caramel chocolates out in the street, in a pathetic attempt to symbolize growth. Have mercy.
This was awful. Andie Macdowell is a terrible actress. So wooden she makes a rocking horse look like it could do a better job. But then remember that turn in Four Weddings, equally as excruciating. Another film that portrays England as full of Chocolate box cottages, and village greens. I mean that school, how many schools apart from maybe Hogwarts look like that? The twee police station looked like the set from Heartbeat ( a nauseating British series set in the 60s).This film just couldn't make its mind up what it wanted to be- a comedy or a serious examination of the undercurrents in women's friendships. If it had stuck to the former then the graveyard sex scenes and the highly stupid storming of the wedding might just have worked( i say just). But those scenes just didn't work with the tragedy in the second half. I also find it implausible that Kate would ever speak to Molly again after her terrible behaviour. A final note- what is a decent actress like Staunton doing in this pile of poo? Not to mention Anna Chancellor. Macdowell should stick to advertising wrinkle cream.
Caught this on IFC yesterday, and can't believe the positive reviews! Am I the only one who thought these "ladies" were anything but? Kate tells Jed she could get fired because she's supposed to be a pillar of the community, but puts out for him! Then they suddenly decide they're in love? And she's SO devastated over his death, she doesn't go to his funeral, much less, tell his family the "good news"! By the way, how did an American get to be the headmistress of a very proper British school? Janine should have been kicked off the force for her inexcusable abuse of power, but nothing happens! And she winds up boffing a con she brought in for questioning! And the less said about Molly, the better!<br /><br />As for the guilt Janine and Molly feel over Jed, please! It's the punk's own damn fault he got turned into roadkill! Where's the guilt over poor Gerald, who gets puked on? If only I could do the same to the bozos behind this "movie"!
I thought it was a New-York located movie: wrong! It's a little British countryside setting.<br /><br />I thought it was a comedy: wrong! It's a drama.... Well, up to the last third, because after the story becomes totally "abracadabrantesque", the symbolic word for a French presidential mandate. It means, close to nonsense even it the motives would like to bring a sincere feeling.<br /><br />What Do I have left? Maybe, a good duo of actress: Yes, I know, they are 3 friends, but the redhead policewoman is a bit invisible for me. The tall doctoress surprises by her punch, and McDowell delivers a fine acting as usual, all in delicate, soft and almost mute attitude. This gentleness puzzles me, because as other fine artists or directors, the same pattern is repeating over and over. In her case, it's like, whatever the movie, it's always the same character defined by her feelings, her values, who lives infinite different stories. I still don't know how to set the limit (or the fusion) between the artists and the works.<br /><br />Another positive side of this movie is its feminine touch & the interesting different points of view. The women have each their own way of living, even if they are all single. It brings a lot of tolerance and learning to witness how a same and unique reality can be perceived in as many ways as people.<br /><br />Finally, the movie is quite viewable, but the great final cuts the desire of a next vision.
Was this meant to be a comedy or a serious drama? This film starts with a light-hearted banter between three women. Fine. It moves into a conflict between the women when one of them meets a man. Fine. There are a few antics between them. Fine. But when the plot thickens and finally becomes black I started to wonder whether I had misinterpreted the first part of the movie. It continues in this vein for a while until, in the end, it tries to go back to the original light-hearted banter. But by now it's too late. It's hard to see why these women would still be talking to one another and the finale is unconvincing. Truly a lesson (for British filmmakers anyway) of how not to make films. Difficult to see how the producers ever convinced themselves this film would work. And the box office proved it to be a real flop, because I'd never heard of this film until this weekend (four years after its release).
Andie McDowell is beautiful as the 40-ish woman whose late start at a serious relationship leads her to a considerably younger man and a subsequenet falling-out with 2 long-time best girldfriends.<br /><br />Seeing a gigolo/gold-digger in the sincere young man, the "girl-friends", dead-set on terminating this "silly relationship", go over and beyond the call of duty in "helping out" their friend (who obviously is blinded by this gigolo's tricky game".<br /><br />A short succession of situations is absolutely ridiculous. Far fetched no longer covers it. Without these unbelievable scenes, there may have been hope for a sweet love story. Instead, all the viewer is left with is an involuntary shaking of head -- these things just don't happen! Without giving away cliff-hanger details, I warn the viewer of having high expectations for this film; most (like me) will be very disappointed. On a scale of 1 to 10, this one ranks a weak 4 with me. There is much better material out there. This one isn't worth your time.
SPOILER: The young lover, Jed, is kicked out by the spinster, Kate (Andie McDowell), because she wrongly believes that Jed is having an affair with one of her two catty girlfriends. Kate thought she caught them en flagrante delicto. Kate throws Jed's shoes out the door. Jed reluctantly leaves, and then sits in the middle of the road to put his shoes on. Then he gets run over ("Crushed", one of the meaning of the title) by a truck. And dies.<br /><br />"And then he gets run over by a truck." Can you imagine a screenwriter actually submitting a script with this plot element? Up to then, its a comedy that intends to be frothy, but lacks any real fizz. Everybody but Jed is just annoying. And then they kill Jed, and everybody's sad, until the end where the gals learn to love one another and be supportive, instead of destructive. I give it 2 ugh's.
The worst thing about Crush is not that it's acted pretty bad, or that the plot is virtually non-existent, and it's not even that bad that the camerawork could have been better.<br /><br />No, the worst part of this movie is that it has a few absolutely brilliant moments that keep you hoping that there are more to come.<br /><br />But in the end, it's too little, too late. If you are a fan of violin-music and cheap tearjerking scenes of 40+ women crying and hugging and talking about babies and marriage - then by all means, don't miss it.<br /><br />I myself am not exactly thrilled to see the things listed above in a movie, and as a result I had a pretty horrible time. The few absolutely brilliant jokes can not make up for the rest of it.<br /><br />The verdict: 4/10. Guilty of wasting my time.<br /><br />
Not a `woman film' but film for the gang. One of the worst films ever made by a male director about woman. Director Andy McKay simply doesn't know woman. Peaks of bad taste, American Pie's humor style, crude story, no sense, groundless story, refuted characters. Vulgar fantasies came to life on screen. Insulting and definitely not funny. I wonder how three good actresses accepted to take part in it.
As a single woman over 40, I found this film extremely insulting and demeaning to single women over 40, not to mention every other woman, of any age. It was a sad, pathetic attempt by a man to write and direct a "chick flick", and it failed miserably. Andy McDowell isn't much of an actress to begin with, but given the non-existent "plot" (I hate to even refer to it as a plot) in this, she didn't have a chance. There was no character development, no reason to feel sympathy/empathy for any of the characters, and no attempt to make the film in any way realistic or believable. And then there's the obligatory male-fantasy of an attractive straight woman suddenly deciding to give lesbianism a try -- PLEASE.<br /><br />Not only do I wish I could get my money back for the DVD rental, I also want those 112 minutes of my life back. What a ripoff.
I was gifted with this movie as it had such a great premise, the friendship of three women bespoiled by one falling in love with a younger man.<br /><br />Intriguing.<br /><br />NOT! I hasten to add. These women are all drawn in extreme caricature, not very supportive of one another and conspiring and contriving to bring each other down.<br /><br />Anna Chancellor and Imelda Staunton could do no wrong in my book prior to seeing this, but here they are handed a dismal script and told to balance the action between slapstick and screwball, which doesn't work too well when the women are all well known professionals in a very small town.<br /><br />And for intelligent women they spend a whole pile of time bemoaning the lack of men/sex/lust in their lives. I felt much more could have been made of it given a decent script and more tension, the lesbian sub-plot went nowhere and those smoking/drinking women (all 3 in their forties???) were very unrealistic - even in the baby scene - screw the baby, gimme a cigarette! Right.<br /><br />Like I said, a shame of a waste. 4 out of 10.
"The Crush" is a pleasant enough 40-something friends romantic chick flick for the first two-thirds or so, as it tries to be a Brit "Sex and the City". <br /><br />I particularly enjoyed the turn-around of the trophy young hunk whose character is not much fleshed out (come to think of it we didn't see all that much physical flesh of him either and Kenny Doughty is worth seeing more of). <br /><br />They sure make a lot more deal of young man/older woman than was made of the opposite in either version of "Sabrina" (neither movie do I like) or for that matter with the Douglas/Zeta-Jones or Dion/Svengali nuptials.<br /><br />Surrounding Andie MacDowell as an ex pat otherwise are welcome familiars from Brit dramas and comedies, such as tart-tongued Anna Chancellor. <br /><br />The plot twists towards the end feel very deus ex machina. But it wasn't until the credits came up at the end that I realized what might really be wrong. Just as with "Sex and the City," the writer/director is male, here first-timer Scot John McKay, and I think he really wanted to do a script about three gay men, probably about them coming out in relation to their lovers and at work (the characters are a school principal, a cop and a doctor), which would have been a better and more interesting movie. The working title for the film was "The Sad F*cker's Club" which would have made its parallels with the gay "Broken Hearts Club" even more obvious.<br /><br />(originally written 4/6/2002)
it MIGHT have been a good movie if it had explored something more interesting rather than just the surface of a lesbian relationship if this was the meaning of the movie...it is quite predictable not mentioning that the two girls resemble the Russian group t.A.T.u....coincidence? i don't think so. There is nothing original in this movie to support it so they had to use something which is already famous.You know the recipe. The other actors...well,i just don't know what their role is supposed to be. Most of them are well - known people in Romania and i must mention some of them are not even actors(e.g.Mihaela Radulescu).SO to summarize it: "girl band tatty"+desperate/publicity needing "actors"+ a non-existing plot+ the occasion to use bad language in order to shock= Love sick....too bad...the idea was good,though...and i am seriously holding myself from commenting the title...
***LIGHT SPOILER ALERT*** The story sounds good and if you've read the novel, then you're probably expecting a deep and intense movie that could offer some insight for some interesting and insufficiently explored human relationships.<br /><br />True enough, the script tries to do that, the director tries to do that, but the main cast fails miserably. Maria's acting is so dry that lacks any feeling whatsoever, her most intense moments seem almost comical. Sometimes she seems to be nervous due to the camera. Her only really feeling scene is near the end where she gets dumped by her girlfriend.<br /><br />Ioana seems even more tense than Maria and even worse, she doesn't seem natural at all. Maria had the attitude, even if it was artificially pushed towards being obvious, but she had it and her character received some credibility. And to make matters worse, we don't have an insight on her: where does she come from, how come she got involved in the lesbian relationship, how did the relationship evolve? We only get some bits from her parents and their relationship just seems to 'be' there: it has a content and and end, but no beginning. Just like her partner Maria, she has only once scene that is truly touching, the scene where she dumps Maria's character Kiki.<br /><br />Tudor is the only person in this movie (aside from the landlady, great acting there) who manages to prove some acting talent. He has his character's attitude and it fits him. Only once or twice he seems to falter (the scene at his parents' meal, he tries to be obvious when it wasn't necessary at all).<br /><br />I love the story, Tudor Chirila is OK there, the landlady actually acts and Puya delivers his couple of lines with style, but this doesn't save the movie. Too bad, the entire setting had huge potential and the Romanian cinematography could've used a movie on this theme.<br /><br />Oddly enough, the incestuous relationship between brother and sister seems to have more credibility than the no-background no-feeling (well, Maria's spoken interludes are a nice try in this direction) lesbian relationship of Maria and Ioana. I'm quite sorry for spending money on a ticket, I'd rather had watched it from the comfort of my room.
This is a movie that relies solely on the somewhat controversial image of incest and lesbianism to get noticed.That is it.The dialogs are pathetic and the sensuality of the "sex scenes" is absolutely absent.The acting and the dialog are more suited for high-school children,yet the subject is intended for adult audiences. It is a gutless and shallow movie.It could have been way better if it had a story and more drama. Ah and on top of that, one more thing: why are inner monologues so excessively used? Makes it seem so cheap.All in all an embarrassing movie for Romanian cinema as well as for mature audiences attempting to view it.I know the means are scarce but, that is not always an excuse for a movie flopping as this one does.And please start using some good actors in your movies and stop recycling them from musicians (Tudor Chirila) - they can't act!
I am not so much like Love Sick as I image. Finally the film express sexual relationship of Alex, kik, Sandu their triangle love were full of intenseness, frustration and jealous, at last, Alex waked up and realized that they would not have result and future.Ending up was sad.<br /><br />The director Tudor Giurgiu was in AMC theatre on Sunday 12:00PM on 08/10/06, with us watched the movie together. After the movie he told the audiences that the purposed to create this film which was to express the sexual relationships of Romanian were kind of complicate.<br /><br />On my point of view sexual life is always complicated in everywhere, I don't feel any particular impression and effect from the movie. The love proceeding of Alex and Kiki, and Kiki and her brother Sandu were kind of next door neighborhood story.<br /><br />The two main reasons I don't like this movie are, firstly, the film didn't told us how they started to fall in love? Sounds like after Alex moved into the building which Kiki was living, then two girls are fall in love. It doesn't make sense at all. How a girl would fall in love with another girl instead of a man. Too much fragments, you need to image and connect those stories by your mind. Secondly, The whole film didn't have a scene of Alex and Kik's sexual intercourse, that 's what I was waiting for……. However, it still had some parts were deserved to recommend. The "ear piercing " part was kind of interesting. Alex was willing to suffer the pain of ear piercing to appreciate kik's love. That was a touching scene which gave you a little idea of their love. Also, the scene of they were lying in the soccer field, the conversation express their loves were truthful and passionate.
I am not so much like Love Sick as I image. Finally the film express sexual relationship of Alex, kik, Sandu their triangle love were full of intenseness, frustration and jealous, at last, Alex waked up and realized that they would not have result and future.Ending up was sad.<br /><br />The director Tudor Giurgiu was in AMC theatre on Sunday 12:00PM on 08/10/06, with us watched the movie together. After the movie he told the audiences that the purposed to create this film which was to express the sexual relationships of Romanian were kind of complicate.<br /><br />On my point of view sexual life is always complicated in everywhere, I don't feel any particular impression and effect from the movie. The love proceeding of Alex and Kiki, and Kiki and her brother Sandu were kind of next door neighborhood story.<br /><br />The two main reasons I don't like this movie are, firstly, the film didn't told us how they started to fall in love? Sounds like after Alex moved into the building which Kiki was living, then two girls are fall in love. It doesn't make sense at all. How a girl would fall in love with another girl instead of a man. Too much fragments, you need to image and connect those stories by your mind. Secondly, The whole film didn't have a scene of Alex and Kik's sexual intercourse, that 's what I was waiting for……. However, it still had some parts were deserved to recommend. The "ear piercing " part was kind of interesting. Alex was willing to suffer the pain of ear piercing to appreciate kik's love. That was a touching scene which gave you a little idea of their love. Also, the scene of they were lying in the soccer field, the conversation express their loves were truthful and passionate.
Considering that this movie had a serious and quite successful launching campaign, I would have expected something to be worth the fuzz...from the opening scene on (in which the two brothers "sensually" caress each other, laying naked in a bed) it goes rapidly downwards...nothing to get the attention, not a mind-catching thing in the whole plot, baaad baad acting (a few minor exceptions, but artificiality is at its best). Incest and lesbianism are promising themes, but the script analyses none of the two in depth ( mind that a possible excuse of the makers, saying that they aimed for a subtle movie would be hilarious, unless subtle and superficial mean the same thing...). The too curious viewers will not get any interesting scene...at this point, that could have saved some of the movie...so you can imagine how bad it is. Many other things could be said...but please watch the movie yourselves...I am an egoist and I would like as many people as possible to waste about 1 1/2h of their lives...like I did :(
Yes, indeed, it could have been a good movie. A love biangle, (sorry for the poetical license, but is not a triangle!) an interesting story, unfortunately badly told. The image is sometimes weird, sometimes OK, the picture looks crowded and narrow-sighted. The sound needs more attention (it usually does in Romanian movies), the light and color filters are sometimes badly chosen. The soundtrack is short and is not helping the action. About the acting... sorry but the best actress is the landlady. The others are acting immaturely and cannot convince the viewer. The acting is poetical when it should be realistic, and realistic when it should be poetical. It's a picture for adults, told by the children. Bother only if extremely curious.
Closer to reality and containing more depth than "Breakdance", Stan Lathan's "Beat Street" is still a pretty dull show. Again this pic is really only cashing in on the 'breakin' craze but at least we get a little bit of entertainment from the plot, which concerns the lives of three young friends and a younger brother, all growing up in Queens, New York. Each has their own unique talent. One is a hustler, one a d.j., another an artist who creates 'burners', while little bro' Lee is a hot 'hip hop' dancer.<br /><br />Lathan is unable to generate any real audience interest in the story though, and his young cast are likewise struggling with their characters. Therefore it is left almost entirely to the funky music and the 'fresh' dancing to save the day.<br /><br />Choreography is again sharp for both club and street scenes, but this alone is not enough to lift ""Beat Street" to greater heights. Unfortunately the film really falls flat late on, after showing a glimmer of hope that it just might get interesting.<br /><br />Sunday, August 25, 1996 - Video
Hilariously obvious "drama" about a bunch of high school (I think) kids who enjoy non-stop hip-hop, break dancing, graffiti and trying to become a dj at the Roxy--or something. To be totally honest I was so bored I forgot! Even people who love the music agree this movie is terribly acted and--as a drama--failed dismally. We're supposed to find this kids likable and nice. I found them bland and boring. The one that I REALLY hated was Ramon. He does graffiti on subway trains and this is looked upon as great. Excuse me? He's defacing public property that isn't his to begin with. Also these "great" kids tap into the city's electricity so they can hold a big dance party at an abandoned building. Uh huh. So we're supposed to find a bunch of law breakers lovable and fun.<br /><br />I could forgive all that if the music was good but I can't stand hip hop. The songs were--at best--mediocre and they were nonstop! They're ALWAYS playing! It got to the point that I was fast-forwarding through the many endless music numbers. (Cut out the music and you haver a 30 minute movie--maybe) There are a few imaginative numbers--the subway dance fight, a truly funny Santa number and the climatic Roxy show. If you love hip hop here's your movie. But it you're looking for good drama mixed in--forget it. Also HOW did this get a PG rating? There's an incredible amount of swearing in this.
Maybe you shouldn't compare, but Wild Style and Style Wars are original Hip Hop. Beat Street does have a lot of the original artists of early Hip Hop, but they've been obviously made clear that this could be their big break, of course for some it was and that's nice. But if you view this as original Hip Hop Culture you're wrong. It's overproduced and has a Hollywood sauce. Rather look for the first two movies i mentioned. They have convey the grittiness that comes with life in the ghetto. Yes, the rating for this movie is low, but the reviews are mostly positive or even raving. This is probably because although the story, the acting, the dialogues and the direction all are dreadful, the music and dancing is what the people love about it. Me, i do love the dancing but at the time thought that electro was the death of Hip Hop (i was so glad when round '86 a new generation of now classic Hip Hop artists appeared, like Krs One, Public Enemy, Ultramagnetic Mc's, Jungle Brothers, Bizmarkie to name a few), and i still don't like most of the beats in this movie and that is why it doesn't work for me. I mean, Wild Style has not much of a story but the music there is great and authentic. Of course tastes differ and that's alright. But as far as i'm concerned, this movie is trash except for the break dancing and some of the music and so i can't rate it higher than a 4 out of ten.
I could never stand watching Happy Days after Chachi joined the cast, so I knew I was in trouble when the best scene in this movie featured Scott Baio (a skateboard chase scene!). Jodie Foster in her first "grown-up" role turns in her usual professional performance but that is no excuse for this boring mess. Two hours out of my life that I'll never get back! No noteworthy characters, unbelievable storyline, questionable editing and horrendous cinematography but worst of all, I couldn't have cared less. The story of California teens in the 1970's, where the kids live miserable lives and all their parents are idiots. Don't waste your time watching this ugly excuse for a movie.
Horrible film with bits of the Ramones strewn about. Your worse than average 1970's/80's comedy format of the cool kids taking over the school with some whimsical plan. This movie is terrible. The plot consists of a girl who enjoys the Ramones and a school bent on fighting against their oppressive administration. Forget this movie and watch something like Wild Zero starring Guitar Wolf if you want an entertaining B movie. Terrible acting, terrible writing, terrible plot with the stamp of approval of the Ramones who probably needed some money quick so they said yes to this movie. That is the only logical thing I can think of because this movie blows.
This movie is a 90 minute Ramones concert with brief periods of stupidity and absolute boredom. What kind of high school is this anyway?<br /><br />Unless you are a major Ramones fan, DO NOT and I repeat DO NOT waste your time like I did. This is utterly unwatchable from start to finish. This movie should be called Ramone Fever. Everyone appears to like them in this movie. There is not a plot to be found in this flick. As far as teen comedies go, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel with this one.
I gave this film 2 stars only because Dominic Monaghan actually put effort through in his acting. Everything else about this film is extremely amateur. Everything associated with the direction of this film was very poorly executed. Not only should the director rethink what she is doing for a life career but maybe she should watch a few films. As Dominic Monaghan is a very credible actor, placing him in a film of this caliber makes him look awful. Whomever the "actor" was that played Jack's best friend should never have stepped in front of the camera. I didn't expect much from such a small film, but perhaps a little more time and effort should be put into the characters and their surroundings. Don't waste your time or money on this film (like I did) you will be sorely disappointed.
I jumped at the chance to view this movie uncut and uninterrupted, remembering rahs and raves for it. But wherever it seemed about to slip into being truly scary, it backed off and went somewhere else. The dripping water throughout the house, the black rain, the prophetic dreams, taking the wrong turn in raw sewage were dropped before they could work up to a scream.<br /><br />What a disappointment. Chamberlain's nearly expressionless mask of a face offered little but confused disbelief, something I found myself mirroring as the film wore on. What could have been eerie Aboriginal chanting and instruments in the background were instead a cacophony seemingly designed to beat terror into one's head. The ideas that modern people can embody ancient gods, that the Aboriginal peoples believe red-haired white men were the first priests, and many other possibilities are passed along more like a shopping list than a hint at another dimension (the Dream Time).<br /><br />[SPOILER] In the final scene, it wasn't clear to me what the director was trying to tell. Is there a big wave? So what? How big? A tsunami? Yeah, okay. That's devastating but not apocalyptic. Is it the end of the world? From a wave? The last wave? That'd have to be a pretty darn big wave. Why? Was the world that bad a place? It didn't seem so awful in this movie. Actually I didn't think the wave came off, since the shadow left Burton's face that had been cast by the wave. Was it only Burton's apocalypse? Heck, that happens every day to people who lose it. It wasn't of any interest if it was only him.<br /><br />The most frightening scene, and the one that gives the best indication of Weir's potential, was in Charlie's apartment where Burton has gone to confront the old man for scaring Burton's wife. Charlie keeps asking him "Who are you?" and it becomes truly disturbing after a while. Unfortunately, the movie never followed suit.
The perfect murder is foiled when a wife(played by Mary Ellen Trainor, once the wife to director Robert Zemeckis, who helmed this episode), who murders her husband with a poker, has the misfortune of receiving a visitor as she is about to move the body outside..an escaped insane madman dressed in a Santa Claus suit(played by a deviously hideous Larry Drake). She fends for her life while trying to find a way of hiding her husband's corpse. She decides to use an ax, once she downs the Santa killer who misses several chances to chop off the woman's head, to frame the killer for her husband's murder. Santa killer locks her in a closet and pursues the woman's daughter as she tries desperate to free herself to save the child.<br /><br />This episode of TALES FROM THE CRYPT just recycles tired material involving the old "Santa kills" theme while also adding the oft-used(add nauseum)woman-murders-her-husband-for-a-man-she's-been-cheating-with routine. It's essentially Trainor trying to find a way to avoid being caught with a dead body she kills while also keeping a safe distance from a maniac. There's nothing refreshing or new about this plot which pretty much goes through the motions. Not one of the show's highlights.
Well, as Goethe once said, there really isn't any point in trying to pass a negative judgement that aspires to be objective on "something that has had a great effect". "La Maman et La Putain" has surely passed into history as an influence on much of what's been done in France and elsewhere in the past thirty years and no one interested in the history of film, certainly, should be dissuaded from watching it. To express a purely subjective judgement, however, I feel compelled to disagree with almost every other review posted here and say to people: "Don't watch it; it's a waste of hours of your time that will just leave you feeling rather sick and angry." And by that I don't mean "sick and angry" about "the human condition" or anything so general and profound as that, because that is exactly the line that most critics have adopted in their fulsome praise of the film - "an ordeal to watch in its ruthless dissection of our emotional cowardice and cruelty" and so on - and, if it really managed to put across a universally or even broadly relevant message of this sort, then the director would have good reason to be satisfied with himself, however pessimistic his conclusions may be. My beef with the film is rather that I don't see this hours-long record of empty vanity and petty treachery as being justified or excused by any GENERALLY relevant message at all. All three main characters are deeply morally unattractive individuals: Alexandre to the greatest degree, of course, because we see by far the most of him and because he seldom shuts up for more than thirty seconds; Marie perhaps to the least degree, because we see the least of her. Alexandre's affected and pretentious monologues have a kind of amusement value, of course, but the amusement wears thin as one comes more and more clearly to realize that Jean-Pierre Léaud is most likely not even acting and that, with absurd remarks like "un homme beau comme un film de Nicholas Ray", he really was just reproducing word-for-word opinions that were accepted as authentic and profound by the milieu in which he, along with the director Eustache, had been living for about ten years by the time of the making of the film. I suppose if the tone of relentless superficiality and triviality had been sustained throughout 100% of the film, it might have worked as a long sardonic comedy about a particularly shallow, worthless and despicable post-'68 milieu. What made, however, this viewer at least extremely angry with the director was his granting of at least one lengthy scene each to Alexandre and Veronika in which we are clearly expected to empathize with and feel for them as if they shared a moral universe with us. If a man can get away with living in the flat of and professing to love one woman, sleeping (mostly in this very flat) with another, and running around Paris proposing marriage to yet a third, well, I suppose I can wish him the best of luck in the dog-eat-dog world he's chosen to create for himself. What I can't, however, in all conscience do is listen even for a moment to maudlin monologues from him in which he speaks about his "anxiety" and his "despair". The same goes double for the even more despicable Veronika, whom we are shown barging drunk into the apartment and even the bed shared by Marie and Alexandre and behaving there with an infantile inconsistency tantamount to the most savage and heartless cruelty. As I say, if "La Maman et La Putain" is intended to be nothing more nor other than a portrait of Alexandre, Veronika and Marie, three individuals whom any even halfway decent person would never admit into their company let alone their home, then I suppose there is a kind of legitimacy in praising the director for being "unflinching" (though why one should even feel like "flinching" once one had consciously opted to create such thoroughly repellent characters to filmically observe I can't imagine). The problem, however, is that the director is clearly convinced - and appears to have succeeded in convincing generations of critics - that Alexander, Veronika and Marie are somehow representative of human beings in general and of the limits of human beings' emotional capabilities. This latter idea, however, is arrant and offensive nonsense. There may indeed be an inherent fallibility and tendency to tragedy in human relations in general and sexual relations in particular. But the nature and degree of this fallibility and tendency to tragedy can only possibly be determined by people who make a sincere and serious effort to make such relations work. It surely needs no cinematic or authorial genius to convey to us the information that a man who behaves like Alexandre is going to end up hated, miserable, and alone, or that women who insist on expecting love from a man like Alexandre are going to end up disappointed and bitter. Watch "La Maman et La Putain" if you're historically interested in what passed for culture and human interaction in a certain post-'68 Parisian milieu which was probably, unfortunately, not restricted to just a few particularly anti-social types like these. But please don't make the mistake of believing that what is recorded here has any general relevance for humanity in the way that a film by Jean Renoir or Martin Scorsese might be argued to have.
That's not the sound of bees, that's the effect induced by watching this extremely long, extremely boring, badly acted movie. How I ever made it through all 3 1/2 hours without falling asleep I'll never know. The plot is simple...3 thoroughly unlikable morons talk about sex for 3 1/2 hours. And you thought Rohmer was deadly. This is even worse, if that's possible. > I must really be a masochist if I could watch this entire movie without turning it off...or killing someone.
Iberia is nice to see on TV. But why see this in silver screen? Lot of dance and music. If you like classical music or modern dance this could be your date movie. But otherwise one and half hour is just too long time. If you like to see skillful dancing in silver screen it's better to see Bollywood movie. They know how to combine breath taking dancing to long movie. Director Carlos Saura knows how to shoot dancing from old experience. And time to time it's look really good. but when the movie is one and hour it should be at least most of time interesting. There are many kind of art not everything is bigger then life and this film is not too big.
That reviewers liked this movie surprises me. The plot is a muddle. The characters are wooden. Michael Bowen spends most of the film spying on the other characters and misjudging all of them. No one has any redeeming quality or point-of-interest. This is not an edgy work. It is not imaginative. It is not ironic. It is no clever. There is nothing straight forward about this tedious work. That is missed theatrical release is not surprise. That the "This Network" airs it diminishes that venue. I definitely recommend turning to a rerun of the Garden Smart show on PBS or even a good informational if you encountered this mess on late night television. If you encounter it on daytime television, take a long walk. Even if you walk in smog, you will feel better not having suffered through this shambles. Life is short. This movie is long.
This is a terrible movie, terrible script, bad direction and nonsensical ending. Also, bad performances, except from Clancy Brown who is criminally underused here, and Michael Pollard. Watching this movie was purgatory--you do it to unload enough bad movie karma to actually see a good one further down the line.<br /><br />The movie presents a father and son who look like they couldn't every possibly have been related. The part of the male lead is not well written and seems uncharismatic in this role. You can see the plot points a mile away. The actions of the female lead and that of her brother, the cop, also make no sense. So, a major action on her part at the end of the movie makes no sense script-wise.
Burt Kennedy used to be a very good director, but you'd never know it by this lumbering mess. Not only does this film look cheap, it IS cheap--most of the battle scenes are lifted from the far superior "The Last Command" from 1955, and that footage, shot 32 years previously, looks more contemporary than anything in this picture. The few action scenes that were actually shot for this movie are disorganized, confused and incompetent, looking just as shoddy as the rest of the picture. This has the look and feel of a bad student film (and the budget didn't seem to be a whole lot more). It moves like molasses, the acting for the most part is either over-the-top ham or under-the-top comatose--although Raul Julia comes off better than most of the rest of the cast--and it's chock full of annoying historical inaccuracies. On top of that, it's WAY too long. If you're going to make a boring film, do it in an hour or so and get it over with--don't stretch it out over three hours, like this one does. If you want to see a good movie about the Alamo, check out John Wayne's 1960 version, or even the 1955 film from which this movie stole its action scenes. Hard to believe it took six producers to make a movie this lousy. Skip it.
While being a great James Arness western, this film has gone down as the worst Alamo film ever made. The story was terrible, inaccuracy all through it, and just downright untruths to boot! Continuity was cast to the four winds. Anybody catch the cannon sequence? The Mexicans were dumb enough to fire cannons that obviously had mud and ramrods still sticking out of the tubes. Come on! Then there is Brian Keith's ridiculous hat! Costumer must of been away or something. Or just out of their mind!
This movie is flawed on many fronts. Like many before it, it portrays more of the mythology of the Alamo than the history. The production is poor, overall giving the impression of a welfare project for lots of actors who might have otherwise had to work on Hollywood Squares. This to me was the greatest flaw - I know the ages and general personalities of the real Alamo protagonists and the geriatric ensemble of TV actors chosen to portray them never let any hint of believability intrude.<br /><br />As a native Texan, I grew up with the mythology. I later learned more about the history. I can accept a decent production from either perspective (although I prefer more historical accuracy), but this never gave me a chance to enjoy it. Even John Wayne's or Fess Parker's versions had more life than this stolid mess, while being only slightly less accurate.<br /><br />Very disappointing - avoid it.
Slow and riddled with inaccuracy. Over-looking its flaws this is still an interesting account of the famed and heroic siege of the Alamo during the Texas fight for independence from Mexico. James Arness as Jim Bowie. Brian Keith as Davy Crockett. Alec Baldwin as Col. Travis. Raul Julia as General Santa Anna. This made-for-TV project also stars David Ogden Stiers, Kathleen York and Jim Metzler. Very good original music by Peter Bernstein.
This film, The Alamo:Thirteen Days to Glory, is utter rubbish. The acting is awful, it is far too patriotic and its historical accuracy is not always at its best (Historians would have a field day). It does have a few good moments but not enough to keep interest because it is far too long. Rating * out of **********.
The story by Norman Maclean is a masterwork; Redford's film is a mediocrity. He adds banal scenes of the Maclean brothers going over a falls and of them double-dating in a seedy bar that were not even hinted at in the story. The cipher, Brad Pitt, trying to play the charismatic Paul Maclean, a genius outdoors, proves either risible or depressing, depending on what the original story meant to you. Some of the fly casting scenes are beautiful. Also, Tom Skerritt as the father and Craig Sheffer as Norman are strong and masculine, as men were once expected to be. None of the women make an impression in the film, which is regrettable, because Maclean loved the women in his story and made this clear, even poetic.
The only good part about this film is the beautiful scenery. This movie was long and boring. The minister should have retired from the pulpit the time his son Paul strayed from the teachings he proclaimed. How many times can his boys take the Lord's name in vain in this film being from a Presbyterian background? It doesn't fit. I wished Paul was swept down the river without a boat at the very beginning to spare us the silly, smirkish, selfish story of Paul (Brad Pitt). So Norm becomes a teacher and Paul becomes a compulsive gambler who Norm wants to rescue but doesn't-so what. It's very uninteresting. We see the prejudiced whites being stood up to by Paul because of his native American girl. That was the only part that had some interest and maybe could have been developed into a real 'wild western'. What we only see is a sleepy town where the two minister's sons have nothing to do but 1. Norm chase a lame girlfriend and deal with her family and 2.Paul make up dumb stories at the newspaper shop while scratching his head and take a lot of swigs and tie a lot of flies. I'd rather watch a show about fishing that that film again-which will be never.
... to not live in Montana and especially not to live there at the end of the 19th century.<br /><br />"A river runs through it" certainly is a well made movie from a cineastic stand-point. Great landscapes, Redford acting well.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the story is bad (if there is a story at all).<br /><br />I felt sorry for the narrator / author, who is as dry, narrow-minded a character as his father, a preacher. Being driven, not driving his own life, he is left to watch his brother, who is also caged in the small town environment, losing his life. The author never even comes close to undestand his brother's motivations, but at least realizes, that he is lacking the slightest amount of homour / fun. All there is, is fly-fishing, where he follows even as an old man the style of his father.<br /><br />The end is not surprising, it is forseeable from the very beginning.<br /><br />Definitely NOT a must-see (3 / 10)<br /><br />
I always felt that a good film should have a plot. This particular film was missing one, and I feel that it would have been more effective with a plot. This was made even worse by the fact that it seemed to go on forever; I was anxious for it to finally end. However, I just noticed that it was only 123 minutes long; it felt like four hours. Not only was there no plot but the film also lacked a notable conflict. It's not the worst movie I've seen, but I used to say that it was until I saw "The Fast And The Furious". So, don't think this review of mine is from someone who needs nothing but action. I actually hate most action films out today; it's just that this film is all the way on the other side of the spectrum. Not much really happens in this movie. However, the scenery and costumes were nice.
This movie has beautiful scenery. Unfortunately it has no plot. In order to have a plot there must be a conflict. This movie had none. It spent two hours painting a beautiful scene and failed to ever place any activity in it. The picture tries to be artistic but fails to pay attentions to the fundamentals of story telling.<br /><br />If you love Montana scenery and fly fishing you will find some value in this film just don't expect a story. There isn't one.
This movie has beautiful scenery. Unfortunately it has no plot. In order to have a plot there must be a conflict. This movie had none. It spent two hours painting a beautifule scene and failed to ever place any activity in it. The picture trys to be artistic but fails to pay attentions to the fundamentals of story telling.<br /><br />If you love Montana scenery and fly fishing you will find some value in this film just don't expect a story. There isn't one.
Sorry, gave it a 1, which is the rating I give to movies on which I walk out or fall asleep. In this case I fell asleep 10 minutes from the end, really, really bored and not caring at all about what happened next.
I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at this misrepresentation of Canadian history, particularly the disservice done to the history of the Mounted Police in the Yukon.<br /><br />I'll leave it to Pierre Berton, noted historian, born and raised in Dawson City Yukon, and author of the definitive history of the Klondike gold rush, Klondike: The Last Great Gold Rush, 1896-1899 to express my exasperation with this silly movie: <br /><br />The American idea of an untamed frontier, subdued by individual heroes armed with six-guns, was continued in The Far Country, another story about a cowboy from the American west - Wyoming this time - driving his herd of beef cattle into gold country. The picture is a nightmare of geographical impossibilities, but the real incongruity is the major assumption on which the plot turns – that there was only one mounted policeman in all of the Canadian Yukon at the time of the gold rush and that he could not deal with the lawlessness. When James Stewart and Walter Brennan reach the Yukon border with their cattle, the customs shack is empty.<br /><br />"Where is the constable? asks Brennan.<br /><br />"Up on the Pelly River. Trouble with the Chilkats," someone replies. He's got a real tough job, that constable. He patrols some ten or twenty thousand square miles. Sometimes he don't get home for two or three months at a time." <br /><br />The historical truth is that the Yukon Territory during the gold rush was the closest thing to a police state British North America has ever seen. The Northwest Mounted Police was stationed in the territory in considerable numbers long before the Klondike strike. They controlled every route into the Yukon and they brooked no nonsense. They collected customs duties, often over the wails of the new arrivals, made arbitrary laws on the spot about river navigation, and turned men back if they didn't have enough supplies, or if they simply looked bad. In true Canadian fashion, they laid down moral laws for the community. In Dawson the Lord's Day Act was strictly observed; it was a crime punishable by a fine to cut your wood on Sunday; and plump young women were arrested for what the stern-faced police called "giving a risqué performance in the theatre," generally nothing more than dancing suggestively on the stage in overly revealing tights.<br /><br />In such a community, a gunbelt was unthinkable. One notorious bad man from Tombstone who tried to pack a weapon on his hip was personally disarmed by a young constable, who had just ejected him from a saloon for the heinous crime of talking too loudly. The bad man left like a lamb but protested when the policeman, upon discovering he was carrying a gun told him to hand it over. "No man has yet taken a gun away from me," said the American. "Well, I'm taking it", the constable said mildly and did so, without further resistance. So many revolvers were confiscated in Dawson that they were auctioned off by the police for as little as a dollar and purchased as souvenirs to keep on the mantelpiece.<br /><br />In 1898, the big year of the stampede, there wasn't a serious crime – let alone a murder – in Dawson. The contrast with Skagway on the American side, which was a lawless town run by Soapy Smith, the Denver confidence man, was remarkable. But in The Far Country Dawson is seen as a community without any law, which a Soapy Smith character from Skagway – he is called Gannon in the picture – can easily control. (In real life, one of Smith's men who tried to cross the border had all his equipment confiscated and was frogmarched right back again by a mounted police sergeant).<br /><br />{in the movie the lone Mountie says} "Yes I'm the law. I represent the law in the Yukon Territory. About fifty thousand square miles of it."<br /><br />"Then why aren't there more of you?"<br /><br />"Because yesterday this was a wilderness. We didn't expect you to pour in by the thousands. Now that you're here, we'll protect you."<br /><br />"When?"<br /><br />"There'll be a post established here in Dawson early in May."<br /><br />"What happens between now and May? You going to be here to keep order?"<br /><br />"Part of the time."<br /><br />"What about the rest of the time?"<br /><br />"Pick yourselves a good man. Swear him in. Have him act as marshal…"<br /><br />The movie Mountie leaves and does not appear again in the picture. His astonishing suggestion – that an American town marshal, complete with tin star, be sworn in by a group of townspeople living under British jurisprudence – is accepted. Naturally they want to make Jimmy Stewart the marshal; he clearly fits the part. But Stewart is playing the role of the Loner who looks after Number One and so another man is elected to get shot. And he does. Others get shot. Even Walter Brennan gets shot. Stewart finally comes to the reluctant conclusion that he must end all the shooting with some shooting of his own. He pins on the tin star and he and the bully, Gannon, blast away at each other in the inevitable western climax.<br /><br />To anybody with a passing knowledge of the Canadian north, this bald re-telling of the story passes rational belief. <br /><br />…excerpt from Hollywood's Canada, by Pierre Berton, 1975.
The five or so really good westerns that Mann made are unequaled as an ensemble in Hollywood. Even John Ford never made that many with so much quality. The curious thing about them all is how uneven they are. Ford's My Darling Clementine is worth about two and a half of any of them. Or at least two. <br /><br />The real hero of them besides Mann and Stewart is Chase. Chase being responsible for the brilliant Red River. Chase wrote far country, bend of the river, and probably some others. But none of them are as finished as My Darling Clementine, but then very few films, western or otherwise are. <br /><br />Each of the five films of Mann have huge gaps, or is it six, lets see. Bend, Far, Man of the West, Furies, Winchester 73, and yep, six, Naked Spur. Each have magnificent scene after magnificent scene, with fairly glaring lapses. Yet so does Red River, which is still the single greatest western ever made. So perfection isn't everything. <br /><br />But The Far Country has huge, huge holes. It's mawkish, and really comes alive only when Stewart and Mc Entire are locking horns. The rest is pretty pedestrian, with the usual exception of Mann's camera. Mann's camera is a one man course in cinematography. It is about as good an eye as anybody who ever got behind a strip of moving film. It is almost never in the wrong place, never. <br /><br />The Far Country has one amazing moment. And as usual it comes from Stewart. Nobody in the history of cinema ever received physical punishment with the authority of that man. He is absolutely amazing: look at him in Bend, Far, Winchester, and Man from Laramie: in Bend has been beaten up and is hanging by a thread so believably and with such boiling hatred he looks like somebody displaced from Dachau, in Far he is shot off a raft with such violence, it looks so convincing that you wince, and of course when he is dragged through the fire in Man, well you find yourself looking for the burn marks. What an actor. Not to mention the moment in Winchester when he is beaten up early in the hotel room, also as well as anybody ever did it. <br /><br />But that was Mann's territory: look at Gary Cooper fighting with Jack Lord in Man of the West. As painful as any fight scene ever recorded. Cooper while not being quite as convincing as Stewart, nevertheless is somehow his equal in looking exhausted at the end of the fight. In short, nobody but nobody but nobody ever showed the human being in extremis as well as Mann. <br /><br />What a great, great director. <br /><br />See every western he ever made. They are his real monuments, even if all are scetchy. But so what. When he gets roaring with his great scenes they are as good as anybody, including Ford. And his six westerns as an ensemble are the best ever done by anyone, period.<br /><br />Thanks, Anthony.
Mann photographs the Alberta Rocky Mountains in a superb fashion, and Jimmy Stewart and Walter Brennan give enjoyable performances as they always seem to do. <br /><br />But come on Hollywood - a Mountie telling the people of Dawson City, Yukon to elect themselves a marshal (yes a marshal!) and to enforce the law themselves, then gunfighters battling it out on the streets for control of the town? <br /><br />Nothing even remotely resembling that happened on the Canadian side of the border during the Klondike gold rush. Mr. Mann and company appear to have mistaken Dawson City for Deadwood, the Canadian North for the American Wild West.<br /><br />Canadian viewers be prepared for a Reefer Madness type of enjoyable howl with this ludicrous plot, or, to shake your head in disgust.
This is an action Western. James Steart leads an all star cast in the scenic Northwest, which is filmed in great splendor. The scenery and costumes are great. There is action and adventure. Stewart plays a wealthy cattleman who runs afoul of a crooked government in the old Nothwest.<br /><br />The main drawback is the stereotypical cynic that Hollywood has always made into a hero. Even when this movie was made, the cynic was the stereotypical hero, and the one Stewart portrays really has few saving graces. He is kind to his two partners, and that does give him an extra dimension of credibility and likability.<br /><br />However, he is so piggish to everyone else, it is hard to really care for him, or to accept him. He is much like the one dimensional spaghetti Western characters (cut not that bad).<br /><br />Still, the minor characters are quite enjoyable. Walter Brennan, Royal Dano, Harry Morgan, and others make this worth watching.
This is the worst sequel on the face of the world of movies. Once again it doesn't make since. The killer still kills for fun. But this time he is killing people that are making a movie about what happened in the first movie. Which means that it is the stupidest movie ever.<br /><br />Don't watch this. If you value the one precious hour during this movie then don't watch it. You'll want to ask the director and the person beside you what made him make it. Because it just doesn't combine the original makes of horror, action, and crime.<br /><br />Don't let your children watch this. Teenager, young child or young adult, this movie has that sorta impact upon people.
Ah, Channel 5 of local Mexican t.v. Everyday, at 2:00 a.m. they air Horror movies from the 70's to early 2000's. It was "Return To Cabin By The Lake" the movie that aired yesterday. I regret for watching it.<br /><br />The original "Cabin By The Lake" was a regularly popular low budgeter and it was good accepted. The problem is that this sequel is horrible, not even unintentionally funny and tries to imitate the original. Ugh. The plot is really stupid in all the sense of the word.<br /><br />The movie at some points looks like a soap-opera because of it's absurd dialogs, cinematography, and direction.<br /><br />My advice is : avoid this one at all costs. It's a movie that it shouldn't be watched by anyone. Not even for lovers of mediocre film-making.<br /><br />You have been warned.
Preposterous sequel stretches credibility to a great degree as diabolical sociopath Stanley Kaldwell returns this time infiltrating the movie production of the novel he wrote for the garden drownings, assuming the identity of a second unit director he murdered.<br /><br />Film pokes gleeful fun at Hollywood, with a tongue-in-cheek script taking shots at tyrannical directors who sleep with their actresses(..looking for a way up the ladder)and dislike anyone challenging them for complete spotlight. Brian Krause, who I thought was dreadful, overacting to the point where the satire felt incredibly forced, portrays the loud, temperamental director who doesn't like the fact that his second unit director and screenplay writer, Alison(..played by Dahlia Salem)seem to be taking over the production. Andrew Moxham is Paul Parsons, who is the brother of a victim from the first film. The film's dark humor this time takes the idea of a serial killer actually operating as director of a movie set and exploits it for all it's worth. Nelson again ably slides back into his psycho role without any difficulty, with Stanley as clever as ever, using his brains to commandeer a film production, killing whoever he has to in order to maintain full control of his work, letting no one stand in his way..that is until Alison realizes who Stanley really is. Alison is the type of ambitious writer who wants to capture the essence of her subject..what motivated Stanley to kill, why would he do such a thing, and what led such a man down this dark path? The humor of Alison actually working with that very man is also part of the satire at the heart of this dark comedy thriller. Of course, you get the inevitable showdown between Alison and Stanley, with a really ridiculous, unbelievable conclusion regarding the killer's fate(..quite a hard pill to swallow). Unlike the first film, which was photographed with sophisticated polish, director Po-Chih Leong uses unnecessary techniques which are not needed(..such as shooting an all kinds of weird angles, slow-motion in a sepia color, and several instances which are captured on video)and rather annoy instead of impress. This sequel, to me, just wasn't on target as much as the original, with a lot of the humor less effective and more obvious.
Return to Cabin by the Lake just.... was lacking. It must have had a very low budget because a fair amount of the movie must have been filmed with a regular video camera. So, within the same scene - you'll have some movie-quality camera shots AND simple video camera shots. It makes for a very odd blend! I think they should have found SOME way to not do the "home video" type effect! <br /><br />I think it's worthwhile to see it IF you have seen the original CBTL because then you can compare and see the differences. But if you haven't seen the original CBTL.... you'll never want to see it if you see this one first! It will probably seem way too cheesy and turn you off from even caring about the original one.
This movie was made-for-TV, so taking that into account, I'm not going to rip into it as hard as I would a feature film. The script is sub-par, but it does succeed in being mildly humorous in spots, whether it means to be or not. The acting is mostly over-the-top, but that is true for many lower-budget movies.<br /><br />The aspect of this movie that I really hated, though, was that 90-95% of it is shot on film, but in random places, there will be 5-10 seconds where the footage is shot on video. You can tell because there is less contrast, the colors are less vivid, and the footage is clearly 30 frames per second instead of film's 24 frames per second. I'm not sure if maybe these scenes had to be shot later and at that time they didn't have the money to shoot on film (I assume this is why, anyway), but it is disorienting and really makes the film look shoddier than it had to look.<br /><br />Anyway, I've definitely seen worse movies, but I definitely wouldn't say that I enjoyed this movie and I can't recommend that anyone see it.
IF you are planning to see this movie, please reconsider. I don't usually post my comments about something I've seen on television, but this one was such a waste of my life that I needed to do something productive to get that bad taste out of my mouth. Critiquing this movie would take far too long as there are so many things wrong with it. I will just simply say, please do not ever see this movie. It was a complete waste of my time and it WILL be a waste of yours. Anyone that wrote a positive review of this movie is one of two things; utterly inept, or working for the company that produced it. Again, I guarantee that you will indeed regret seeing this movie!
<br /><br />I saw this on the Sci-Fi channel. It came on right after the first one. For some reason this movie kept me interested. I don't know why, stop asking.<br /><br />---SPOILERS--- Okay... It was cheesy how this guy got involved with the making of the movie. In the first movie, he had a "reason" to kill people, but in this sequal, half of the killings/attempted killings were basicly for no reason. Stanley killed the director due to creative differences, he captured the co-writer due to creative differences, but what was the deal with trying to kill off the cast? No cast, no movie. He wanted it to "look real when they died"? If this was supposed to be such a high budget movie, use the special effects, MAN. Of course like the first one, the captured girl gets away, and Stanley ends up getting messed up, and dissapears. Woooooow (sarcasm). This movie HAD potential. And the saddest thing of all... the really sad part... I would watch a "Cabin by the Lake 3". Only because I like Judd Nelson, and he's the only good part about this sequal.
I watched Cabin by the Lake this afternoon on USA. Considering this movie was made for TV is was interesting enough to watch the sequel. So, I tune in for the airing this evening and was extremely disappointed. I knew I wouldn't like the movie, but I was not expecting to be perplexed by the use of DV (digital video). The movie would have been tolerable if it wasn't for these juxtaposed digital shots that seemed to come from nowhere. I expected the plot line to be tied in with these shots, but there seemed to be no logical explanation. (WARNING: THE FOLLOWING MAYBE A SPOILER!!!!) The open ending in Cabin by the Lake was acceptable, but the open ending on the sequel is ridiculous. I can only foresee Return of Return to The Cabin by the Lake being watch able is if the movie was shown up against nothing, but infomercials at 4 o'clock in the morning.
*Possible Spoiler*<br /><br />'Return to Cabin by the Lake' is a useless movie. The acting was not good and the plot wasn't even remotely interesting.<br /><br />'Cabin by the Lake' is a good TV movie. The sequel was not. Judd Nelson was very good in the first film and put a whole lot more into his character than in this. It seemed as if HE wasn't even interested in doing the sequel. His acting was good but it could have been better. I really don't want to comment on the rest of the cast because in my opinion, they're not even worth mentioning. But I'll do it. The character of Alison isn't even hardly shown in the first part of the film. All of a sudden she's the center of attention next to Stanley Caldwell. The role didn't make sense and it should have been thought out a little better. Dahlia Salem was absolutely terrible. Her acting was way below decent and the casting people should have looked for somebody else, anybody else. The director, Mike, was a confusing character. He seemed to have a purpose for being there but it didn't seem like his death was necessary. The acting for this role was good, nothing great but better than Salem's.<br /><br />The plot was real lousy if you think about it. Stanley, who is presumed dead, makes his way onto the set of 'Cabin by the Lake', the movie based on his script. He stumbles upon the director and in a short time, the director is dead and Stanley is running the show. Yeah, out of nowhere the crew is just going to let this stranger come into the picture and finish the film not knowing anything about him. There's some killings, not a whole lot, and the one's that are shown are ridiculous. One of the actresses on the set gets electrocuted while filming a scene. Another character gets chewed up by a motorboat. And one gets tangled up in a plant before drowning. These writers must have been hard up for excitement.<br /><br />I just have to say that I was not impressed with the filming of the movie. The way that it kept changing from looking low budget back to normal started to become irritating very fast. Also, the new cabin by the lake was poorly created. We aren't shown it but only in a few scenes, and the whole thing with the chain in the basement was useless. It worked in the first film only because we were shown the room a lot more, but it didn't work in this one.<br /><br />There were too many characters in this sequel. All of them except for a few had no reason to be there. The acting of what little is showed was really bad and...they just didn't have a purpose in this movie.<br /><br />All in all, 'Return to Cabin by the Lake' is a sequel picking up from where the first left off. 'Cabin by the Lake' I can take but this was just not impressive. Judd Nelson should have avoided this one and so should you. It's nothing like the first and it went entirely too slow. Nothing happened in the first hour and it continued to drag on for the second. Not to mention that the writing was horrible. Put this on only if you need some help getting to sleep.<br /><br />So, we see that Stanley defies death and is still alive and well. By the way he talks, it sounds like there could be a possible third installment to a movie good just by itself. Quit throwing in sequels and we may be alright!<br /><br />(Did the film makers not realize that they showed us how they filmed the lake scenes from the first one? They were all done in a tank. Never, never reveal the secrets of filming.)<br /><br />
A decent sequel, but does not pack the punch of the original. A murderous screenwriter(Judd Nelson)assumes new identities in order to direct his own novel CABIN BY THE LAKE. Still ruthless killing, but movie seems very tongue-in-cheek. Any humor is not of the funny kind. Total project seems to have the quality of a quickie and at times Nelson is way over the top. This movie is about a script being rewritten before going to the screen...this should have happened to this script.
Return to Cabin by the Lake does not, in any way, stand up to the original. With only one main character (Stanley) returning for the sequal, the film is not even worth the 2 hours of your time. I am a huge fan of the first film, the story line and acting was really good, but this is one movie that I will never again watch. It is basically equal to what the sequals to Urban Legends and Blair Witch were like, but with much worse acting. I've personally seen better acting in soap operas, it is so pitiful that you just have to laugh. I, in no way, recommend this movie to anyone, watching it will just detract from the first.
I thought Hedy Burress (who managed to escape from the watery grave of part one) was going to be in part 2 Guess not. I just think they should of killed her off like in Friday The 13th Part 2 (you know what I mean).<br /><br />This movie like Scream 3, and Urban Legend 2 followed movies within a movie.<br /><br />This was PURE CRAP! The whole Movie within a Movie crap.<br /><br />BAD STAY AWAY!
Viewers gushing over everything including the title sequence (now THAT is funny) would have us believe this is some sort of cinematic miracle, but, trust me folks, this is one of the most embarrassingly bad films you could ever see, and if you're not laughing at it five minutes in, I'd say you've lost your sense of humor.<br /><br />David Niven plays a doomed and bravado-besotted RAF pilot who somehow thinks it appropriate to engage an impressionable (female) air traffic controller in an emotional conversation about love, just as he's plunging to his certain and fiery death. (Isn't it romantic...) Of course, he's spared by a quirk of metaphysical chance, and washes up on the beach, just as this same air traffic controller is riding by on her bicycle. (They immediately clinch).<br /><br />Looking past the bizarre homo-erotic subtexts, (so over the top you really need to refer to them as supertexts, from a naked boy sitting bare-butted in the sand playing the movie's twilight-zone-esquire theme on his little flute, to a celestial courier so campy/queen-y his makeup is caked on more thoroughly than the ladies'), the most bizarre aspects of the movie are how it weaves such bad caricatures of national and racial stereotypes into a convoluted attempt to argue some kind of point about the universal nature and power of love. We get it--fly boys like girls in skirts and heels, and girls like 'em back, and, apparently, all you have to do is cry a little to make it noble enough for your movie to get 10 stars on IMDb...<br /><br />As for the quality of the production, the continuity/editing is poor enough to induce cringing, and the lighting is, perhaps, even worse than that, but you hardly have time to notice because the script is so bad. There are games played with Technicolor, (whatever passes for heaven is in black and white if you can figure out the sense in that), and foreshadowing, (so funny my fellow audience member who usually like movies like this actually cheered and laughed when then the doc's motorcycle finally ended up in a fiery wreck), and freeze-motion, (which is funniest of all because the female lead is so poor at standing still you know the stage hands were guffawing off camera).<br /><br />The best shots are the early ones on the beach, but, after that, it's all downhill. The (moving like an escalator is moving) staircase is hardly the Odessa Steps, to say the least, and I'd really caution anyone from feeling like they'd have to see this lame attempt at movie-making on their account. The movie overall is bad enough to be funny, and that's about the best thing I can say for it.
I saw this movie recently because a friend brought it with him from NYC. After 30 minutes, I said to him," You've got to be kidding. Is this some sort of joke?" He thought it was good. I told him that I thought it was probably one of the silliest movies ever made. "What was it supposed to be?" I asked. "A propaganda movie made for children?" The plot is stupid. The acting is the worst ever for most of the principals and frankly people who look at this sort of tripe and think it has anything to do with life, love or even afterlife, of which it offers an incredibly idiotic view...need some psychiatric help. Please, if someone tries to get you to stick this in your DVD or Video player, consider it like you would a virus introduced into your computer...it won't destroy your player but it will destroy your evening. If they had made Razzies in the '40s, this would have won in every category. (PS. It also goes under the dubious sobriquet of "Stairway to Heaven.")
Despite a decent first season this series never came close to realizing its potential. Set as a prequel to the original "Star Trek" series it was doomed almost from the start by an executive producer, Rick Berman, who felt compelled to artificially limit and constrict the definition of what a "Star Trek" series could be (which made this futuristic show increasingly anachronistic from a dramatic standpoint). The actual show-runner, Brannon Braga, didn't help matters by his uninspired and tired rehashing of previous Trek episodes and careless disregard of the franchise's internal mythology (it was painfully obvious early on that he was in it only for the paycheck). Never have I seen a series' that so consistently did a disservice to a cast of talented actors (Jolene Blaylock excepted)last so long. It is as if this entire series was produced in bubble existing outside the contemporary television landscape where the audience (even a Trekker audience) is more demanding and sophisticated in their dramatic wants and desires. Unfortunately it appears as if Berman and Braga have succeeded in convincing the higher ups at Paramount that "Enterprise" suffered from "franchise fatigue" and that its core audience was did not walk away but was driven off. Produce a quality offering that lives up to the high ideals and standards of its predecessors and they (the audience) will come.<br /><br />Simply put, In a TeeVee universe where we are given shows like "Battlestar: Galactica" and "The Shield" the powers-that-be must give the viewing public a "Star Trek" that measures up and is dramatically competitive. It is just that straightforward and easy.
Anybody who has ever been a fan of the original series, or even has a clue about the storyline should be embarrassed by this series. The Borg does not come around until Q brings the Enterprise to the Gamma sector, the Klingons are NEVER seen until Kirk encounters them, the NCC-1701 was the FIRST ship to carry the Enterprise name....need I go on? Berman and Pilliar have made a mockery of Gene Roddenberry's creation. After he died, they only saw $$$$ and just went their own way. No wonder Majel Barrett was in every single episode of star trek until this series. I don't blame her for not being involved with this mess. Poor Bakula. He's a great actor, as are the entire cast. I like them all, but the storyline is tragic and ignores all of the precedents set by the original series. Just check the ratings. I think more people watched Deep Space 9 (which was untimely canceled).
Okay first of all, I didn't sit down to watch the premier of a "Star Trek" Series to see a cowboy flying around in space. this is how a normal Enterprise episode works<br /><br />1 Archer finds a nebula or something aloung the lines of that and wants to take a closer look but it might destroy the ship.<br /><br />2 he sends a shuttle into the nebula and and the shuttle get damaged...<br /><br />in all of the episodes I have seen, all of the problems are happening because of Archer's stupid mistakes. Oh and did you see the preview of one episode showing Archer and T'pol kissing?!?!?!?!?!?!? I was planning to watch that episode but after that I totally gave up on Enterprise and turned to TV right off. Come on!!!! This is star trek!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />Also what was with the banana slug?? In one episode, Hoshi had a banana slug but had to leave it behind for some stupid reason. Okay fine, little dumb to bring you pet slug in space but whatever. Okay that was what I thought until they left it on a desert planet!!!!! A BANANA SLUG CANNOT LEAVE IN A DESERT!!!!!!!!!!!! How dumb are these writers<br /><br />Any ways, just saying if Enterprise is on DON'T WATCH IT!!!!!
While it's early to say how the series will evolve, I can say that the pilot was less than I thought it would be. There is still potential for the series, however. Of course when I first saw Voyager I thought it had potential, too - but was sorely disappointed. My gut tells me Enterprise won't be as bad as Voyager, however.<br /><br />As for the impressions of the pilot...<br /><br />The pilot had some good ideas and good themes. I liked the introduction. The show's opening credits were interesting, with the progress of exploration and a fitting theme song. Scott Bakula is excellent in the role of captain.<br /><br />Where it fell short for me was largely that the story lacked the "feel" of setting out on a grand adventure. The plot of the episode itself was more a "generic" Trek story with the themes of "exploration" and "first step towards space" merely subplot and subtext. Were you to edit out the references to this being the first deep space mission, the plot would be hard to differentiate between the eras of Enterprise, TOS or TNG. The central plot didn't reflect or do justice to the grand theme of the series.<br /><br /> The plot of launching the first mission would have been grand enough without the "action". Instead of isolated references to the newness of exploration, they could have been the story. Get a little more nostalgic and philosophical about it (oh, for a TV show that once again would make us THINK). Make us feel the excitement of "the wind" and being on "the sea" instead of distracting us with a rescue and a plethora of gunplay. There was WAY too much gunplay.<br /><br />We had the feeling more that humans were the "freshmen" in an established school. New kids on the block, as opposed to venturing into a largely unknown universe. Sadly, the Klingons landed on our doorstep instead of us finding them. That meeting could have been far more historic and far more sociological. Just how DO two such different societies interact? Don't just hint about it, SHOW it!<br /><br />I had to think of it more as `Trek with an akward crew and limited technology' as opposed to `the first brave steps into the unknown'. I wanted to see something newer and fresher. The series promises to have a new concept but so far I haven't seen this new, great concept.<br /><br />I will conclude with reiterating the sentiment that the series has potential. There are some interesting characters. Bakula is wonderful. Blalock has potential. The overall theme is the most interesting since we first saw Kirk in a world before Apollo 11. If only future episodes can do justice to this grand and wonderful theme, we will have a show which will create new legends.<br /><br />You shoot an arrow into the air... Good luck Capt. Archer.<br /><br />To the producers: TAKE MORE RISKS AND MAKE US *THINK*! :-)
I'm not a huge Star Trek fan, but I was looking forward to this. I was intrigued by the pre-hype descriptions of the Enterprise, its cramped-submarine styling and rough-edged technology compared to the Treks we are used to.<br /><br />I didn't see anything all that interesting in this pilot. I found the plot to be convoluted and confusing.<br /><br />I will admit that I did like some of the character development - the depictions of the humans as an 'adolescent' species ready to outgrow their britches was entertaining.<br /><br />And that Vulcan babe had one hell of an incredible rack.<br /><br />But I don't think I'm going to get hooked on this series.<br /><br />3/10
The earlier part of the film was rather enjoyable but towards the end it became trite. Although Turturro is an actor I generally like, his Luzhin often resembled a bad Rain Man impression and the portrayal of the genius as a semi-autistic man was annoying. Overall it seems as if this film is trying to hard and ends up looking pompous in spite of mostly fine performances.
a movie that attempts to be far smarter than its makers are capable of producing. the movie twists and turns through miriad plot "surprises" at a desperate attempt to kep the audience guessing, offcourse puncturing the "plot" with steamy scenes they thought would help it along.<br /><br />james belushi is involved in this pseudo-intellectual attempt and just sleep walks through the movie. the same applies for the other "actors". the plot is quite silly and tacky. whih in itelf is not such a crime, but towards the end, the tremendous plot-twists get very tiresome and boring.<br /><br />however, the movie does manage to generate some interest in the middle. in all worth a lazy watch on a really boring day, but don't fret if you miss this one.<br /><br />a rather lame 4!
If you can imagine Mickey Mouse as a New York street pimp, or John Wayne as a Communist spy, then you might believe Pat Boone as a juvenile delinquent on his uncle's farm in Kentucky and you could conceivably enjoy this movie.<br /><br />This film is so stupid that it isn't even campy for a mid 1950s sexless love story. And the problem is that Hollywood made such a big deal about Pat Boone's refusal to kiss a woman not his wife on screen before its release that the audience knows he won't kiss Shirley Jones so you cannot build any anticipation for the "screen consummation" of their love. It's sort of like watching a western in which the cowboys don't have guns.<br /><br />The story is pointless. Even the title song is sung with pained enthusiasm.<br /><br />April Love belongs in the worst film bargain bin along with Ishtar and Plan 9 from Outer Space.
I really wanted to like this western, being a fan of the genre and a fan of "Buffalo Bill," "Wild Bill Hickok," and "Calamity Jane," all of whom are in this story! Add to the mix Gary Cooper as the lead actor, and it sounded great. <br /><br />The trouble was.....it wasn't. I found myself looking at my watch just 40 minutes into this, being bored to death. Jean Arthur's character was somewhat annoying and James Ellison just did not look like nor act like "Buffalo Bill." Cooper wasn't at his best, either, sounding too wooden. This was several years before he hit his prime as an actor.<br /><br />In a nutshell, his western shot blanks. Head up the pass and watch another oater because most of 'em were far better than this one.
I have always admired Susan Sarandon for her integrity and honesty in her private life as well as her talents as an actor. I therefor found it strange that she would appear in a film that so distorted that facts. Her character's rescue from the South Pole was done by a Canadian charter company from Edmonton, Alberta flying a Canadian designed and built Twin Otter aircraft. The trip had been turned down by the US Airforce, Navy and Coast Guard as beyond their capabilities. The same company staged a similar rescue a few years later to bring out a man from the South Pole base. I feel that the film fairly represented a very gripping subject and documented a very courageous woman facing a frightening task. I fail to see why the producers would find it necessary ignore the bravery of the rescue pilots and show the rescue plane as a USAF Hercules.
Warning Spoilers following. Superb recreation of the base in Antarctica where the real events of the film took place. Other than that, libelous!, scandalous! Filmed in Canada; presumably by a largely Canadian crew and cast. I caught the last half of this film recently on Global television here in Canada. Nothing much to say other than how thoroughly appalled I was at what a blatant piece of American historical revisionist propaganda it is; and starring Susan Sarandon of all people! I can only assume that Canadian born director Roger Spottiswoode was coerced to make the USAF the heroes of the film when in fact the real rescuers where a small private airline based in Calgary; Kenn Borek Air.
OK first of all the video looks like it was filmed in the 80s I was shocked to find out it was released in 2001. Secondly the plot was all over the place, right off the bat the story is confusing. Had there been some brief prologue or introduction the story would've been better. Also I appreciate fantasy but this film was too much. It was bizarre and badly filmed. The scenes did not flow smoothly and the characters were odd. It was hard to follow and maybe it was the translation but it was even hard to understand. I love Chinese epic films but if you're looking for a Chinese epic fantasy film i would recommend the Promise (visually stunning, the plot is interesting and good character development) not this film. Beware you will be disappointed.
Zu Warriors most definitely should've been an animated series because as a movie it's like watching an old anime on acid.The movie just starts out of nowhere and people just fly around fighting with metal wings and other stupid weapons until this princess sacrifices herself for her lover on a cloud or something.Whether this princess is a god or an angel is beyond me but soon enough this flying wind bad guy comes in and kills her while the guy with the razor wings fights some other mystical God /Demon/Wizard thing.The plot line is either not there or extremely hard to follow you need to be insanely intelligent to get this movie.The plot soon follows this Chinese mortal who is called upon by this god to fight the evil flying,princess killing bad guy and soon we have a very badly choreographed Uwe Boll like fight scene complete with terrible martial arts on a mountain or something.Even the visuals are weird some might say they are stunning and colorful but i'm going to say they are blurry and acid trip like (yes that's a word!).I watched it both dubbed and with subtitles and both were equally bad and hard to understand....who am i kidding i didn't understand it at all.It felt like i was watching episode 30 of some 1980's anime and completely missed how the story began or like i started reading a comic series of 5 at number 4 because i had no clue how this thing started where it was going or how it would end i was lost the entire time.I can honestly say this was one of the worst film experiences ever it was like watching Inu-Yasha at episode 134 drunk...yeah that's right you don't know what the hell is going on.Don't waste your brain trying to figure this out.
This is not so much film as big budget children's television. As far as I can tell, the villain is a giant swarm of chocolate covered espresso beans. This theory seems to be verified by the fact that the subtitles refer to it as 'Insomnia'. When it's first mentioned that a civilization had been wiped out by insomnia, I thought "Wow! A nihilistic martial arts film!" but no such luck. Although you have to consider it experimental cinema when the villain is strangled by an old man's long, white eyebrows. Zu Warriors makes exactly the same amount of sense whether the subtitles are on or off. That's not a good sign. I found the special effects to be somewhere between Ray Harryhausen and Xena: Warrior Princess. Primitive.
Watched this on DVD in original language with English subs. Either the subtitling was very poor or the actual dialog doesn't make much of story and give any character development. There are quite a few HK stars in this but the movie doesn't need their presence to make it better or worse. It's just bad. The bright and colorful scenes done in CG are attractive for the sheer colors and brilliance but it can get overwhelming before long. If anything this makes me think of a child's movie with its nonstop barrage of cg, fight scenes, and crap plot. I'm certain I grasped what took place in the film but the whole delivery of the story was rather lousy.
"Spielberg loves the smell of sentiment in the morning. But sentiment at the expense of narrative honesty? Nobody should love that." - Lucius Shepard<br /><br />"The Color Purple" takes place in the Deep South during the early 1900s, and tells the story of Celie and Nettie, two African American sisters. The film opens with the girls playing in a field of purple flowers, an idyllic haven which is promptly shattered by the appearance of their stepfather. This motif – innocence interrupted by men – permeates the entire film.<br /><br />The film then launches into a series of short sequences. Celie is revealed to have been twice impregnated by her stepfather, gives birth in a dirty barn, has her newborn child taken away and is forced to marry a local widow named Albert Johnson, a violent oaf who rapes her repeatedly, forcing her to cook, clean and look after his children.<br /><br />All these horrific scenes are given little screen time, and are instead surrounded by moments of pixie-dust cinematography, a meddlesome symphonic score, incongruous comedy and overly exuberant camera work. The cumulative effect is like the merging of a Disney cartoon and a rape movie, a jarring aesthetic which caused Stanley Kubrick to remark that "The Color Purple" made him so nauseated that he had to turn it off after ten minutes. Ten minutes? He lasted a long time.<br /><br />The film is often said to deal which "racism", "sexism" and "black culture", but this is not true. Alice Walker, the author of the novel upon which the film is based, claims to be a bisexual but is actually a closet lesbian. Her book is a lesbian fantasy, a story of female liberation and self-discovery, which paints men as violent brutes who stymie women. For Walker, the only way out of this maze is for women to bond together in a kind of lesbian utopia, black sisterhood and female independence celebrated.<br /><br />Spielberg's film, however, re-frames Walker's story through the lens of comforting American mythologies. This is a film in which the salvific power of Christianity overcomes the natural cruelty of men. A film in which Albert finds himself in various ridiculous situations, moments of misplaced comedy inserted to make him look like a bumbling fool. A film in which all the characters are derived from racist minstrel shows, the cast comprised of lecherous men (always beaming with devilish smiles and toothy grins), stereotypical fat mammies, jazz bands and gospel choirs. <br /><br />This is a film in which black people are naturally childlike, readily and happily accepting their social conditions. A film in which black people are over-sexed, carnal sensualists dominated by violent passions. A film in which poverty and class issues are entirely invisible (Albert lives in a huge house) and black men are completely inept. This is not the Old South, this is the Old South as derived from "Gone With The Wind", MGM Muscals, "Song of the South", Warner Cartoons, "Halleluha!" and banned Disney movies. In other words, it's the South as seen by a child raised on 50s TV. It's all so cartoonish, so racist in the way it reduces these human beings to one dimensional ethnic stereotypes, that black novelist Ishmael Reed famously likened it to a Nazi conspiracy.<br /><br />Of course, in typical Spielberg fashion the film ends with family bonds being healed. This reconciliation was in Walker's novel, but Spielberg goes further by having every character in the story reconcile with their kin.<br /><br />Beyond Walker's hate letter to black men and Spielberg's bizarre caricaturing of black life, we are shown nothing of the black community. We have only the vaguest ideas as to how any of these characters make a living and no insight into how they interact with others in their community. Instead, Spielberg's camera jumps about, desperately fighting for our attention (one of Celie's kitchen contraptions seems like it belongs in a "Home Alone" movie), every emotion over played, the director never stopping to just observe something or to allow a little bit of life to simply pass by. Couple this with Quincy Jones' ridiculously "white" music, and you have one of the strangest films in cinema history: an angry feminist tract filmed by a white Jew in the style of Disney and Griffith, scored by a black man trying to emulate John Williams.<br /><br />Problematic too is the lack of white characters. Consider this: the men in this film aren't portrayed as being rough to each other, nor do they dominate women because they are brutalised by a racist society which reduces their manhood. No, they are cruel by nature. And the women, whether quietly suffering like Celie or rebellious and tough like her sister, persevere and survive only because the men are too stupid to destroy them. A better film would not have focused solely on the oppression of women as it occurs among the oppressed, rather, it would have shown that it is societal abuse which has led to spousal abuse, that enslaved black women are forced to perform the very same tasks as their male counterparts (whilst still fulfilling traditional female roles) and that African American domestic violence occurs largely because of economic factors, women unable to support themselves and their children alone.<br /><br />And so there's a hidden ideology at work here. Late in the film one character tells another that since he didn't respect his wife, she wound up getting severely beaten and imprisoned by whites. The implication is that blacks need to return to their African roots to restore their own dignity and that it is their fault that whites unjustly crush them. ie- Respect one another in your poor minority community and you won't run afoul of the dominant white culture. <br /><br />3/10 - A failure to confront sex and lesbianism, inappropriate musical numbers, countless sequence loaded with extraneous visual pizazz, incongruous comic business, emphatic music cues, and wildly hyped emotionality, all contribute to rendering "The Color Purple" worthless.
You may consider a couple of facts in the discussion to be spoilers.<br /><br />I'm sorry, but Spielberg didn't deserve to win any Oscar for this piece, and I think the Academy was right in that vote. (Other Oscars for best actor nominations and such... that I don't know about. But it would be hard to justify, given what they were told to do and what you see in the final product.) The way Spielberg directs this is so contrived, so meddlesome. While watching this movie a distinction made during a Film as Art course I have taken was screaming at me: "Sentiment is honest emotion honestly rendered. Sentimentality is sugary and unreal, a false view of life." This is over-the-top sentimentality. When in real life to two people ever begin to read out loud in synchronicity, as Celie and Shug Avery do when sitting on the bed going over the letters from Nettie they have found? There are examples of this type of faux behavior throughout the film: all the men crowding around Miss Millie's car and then jumping in unison like a flock of birds taking off when she goes to drive away; Harpo falling through the roofs of various buildings he's working on (a cheap slapstick gag); the whole troop of revelers heading from the Jook Joint en masse to the chapel, as if magically entranced by the choir's singing... on and on. Nothing rings true. I even wondered if Harpo's name was chosen purposefully because it's his wife Sophia's real name, "Oprah," backwards. Spielberg isn't above such "cuteness."<br /><br />It's not that Spielberg is incapable of honestly rendered action and emotion. Schindler's List was amazing, deeply touching for me, and I greatly admire Saving Private Ryan too for its realism, even if the story is a bit contrived.
This is really terrible.<br /><br />The only redeeming feature about this movie is that the next time people ask me what is the worst vampire movie I have ever watched, I would have a suitable reply.<br /><br />I think it is filmed on 35 mm so it is already tacky like hell. I wouldn't have bothered commenting but I noticed some fanboys (probably connected to the movie) had claimed that this was the best movie since the Matrix. Let me debunk the myths and lies.<br /><br />There is nothing good in the movie. Everything yells tacky. The actress is ugly. The fight choreography is the worst I have ever seen. The fight scenes are unbelievably amateurish. Imagine a girl flailing her arms around in a circle helplessly and delivering weak kicks which wouldn't hurt a kitten. Obviously, the director just pulled people off the street to give them roles in the movie.<br /><br />I know the director did not have much budget for the movie but still better movies have been made on smaller budget before. Unforgivable.
Dude, really!!!! where have you guys been the past 20 years, this is shocking in all kind of ways, horror ? This is a joke, there is nothing wrong with being low budget, but this is a laugh, If you want to look at the classics, Freaks of Tod Browning, the victims of Dracula and Frankenstein, the Undying Monster, Ernest Thesiger, Paul Wegener's The Golem and the passengers of The Ghost Train, you can't compare it, it gives it a bad name, bad acting, bad screenplay etc. Total waist of money and free time, have watched a lot of movies, were as horror is my all time favorite, I really am speechless, have nothing more to say that please don't do the effort to watch something so daft, please understand
Well, you know the rest! This has to be the worst movie I've seen in a long long time. I can only imagine that Stephanie Beaham had some bills to pay when taking on this role.<br /><br />The lead role is played by (to me) a complete unknown and I would imagine disappeared right back into obscurity right after this turkey.<br /><br />Bruce Lee led the martial arts charge in the early 70's and since then fight scenes have to be either martial arts based or at least brutal if using street fighting techniques. This movie uses fast cuts to show off the martial arts, however, even this can't disguise the fact that the lady doesn't know how to throw a punch. An average 8 year old boy would take her apart on this showing.<br /><br />Sorry, the only mystery on show here is how this didn't win the golden raspberry for its year.
I'm in Iraq right now doing a job that gives plenty of time for watching movies. We also have access to plenty of pirated movies, this gem came along with 11 other movies, and this is easily the worst I've seen in a long time. I've seen a few other reviews that claim this movie doesn't take itself too seriously, but really, I think that's a cover up for the fact that its horrible. It's not tongue in cheek, the writers really thought they were improving on the movie Blade. This movie is just one notch above Vampire Assassin, which if you haven't seen, i recommend. At least that movie is so unbelievably bad that you'll laugh harder than you thought possible. This is right at that cusp of no redeeming qualities what so ever. from the bad acting, to cliché visual (ie opening credits), to the adobe premier special effects. they couldn't even get blanks for the guns, which may have to do with where the movie was filmed, but if you're going to use effects, make them close to accurate. as for the cast, it seems like they just went to a tae bo class and picked up the first not to ugly chick that walked out. Once again, like Ron Hall in Vampire Assassin, don't let stunt folk act, they can't. Also, the comment about this being a "return of old vampire movies"...no, it's not. This is exactly what all new vampire movies are about. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Blade, Underworld, they're all about some super star fighting the vampires. This is the newest vampire genre, with bad blood, fake screams, and cheesy over acting. obviously anyone who wrote a good review about this is somehow connected to the movie, or friends of the cast. But what do I care, I paid 33 cents for it. Anyway, to wrap this up, someone in their first semester of film school decided to make a movie, I give them credit because it's better than I could do. Of course I also know I can't make movies so I don't try. I do know how to watch movies though. I work 12 hour nights, 6 days a week, I've seen several thousand in the year I've been out here and this was so bad that half way through i was hoping for a mortar attack.
"Valentine" is another horror movie to add to the stalk and slash movie list (think "Halloween", "Friday the 13th", "Scream", and "I Know What You Did Last Summer"). It certainly isn't as good as those movies that I have listed about, but it's better than most of the ripoffs that came out after the first "Friday the 13th" film. One of those films was the 1981 Canadian made "My Bloody Valentine", which I hated alot. "Valentine" is a better film than that one, but it's not saying much. The plot: a nerdy young boy is teased and pranked by a couple of his classmates at the beginning of the film. Then the film moves years later when those classmates are all grown up, then they're picked off one-by-one. The killer is presumed to be the young boy now all grown up looking for revenge. But is it him? Or could it be somebody else? "Valentine" has an attractive cast which includes Denise Richards, David Boreanaz, Marley Shelton, Jessica Capshaw, and Katherine Heigl. They do what they can with the material they've got, but a lackluster script doesn't really do them any justice. There are some scary moments throughout, however. <br /><br />** (out of four)
There's one line that makes it worth to rent for Angel fans. Everyone else: this is just a very bad horror flick. The female characters are typical horror movies females. They are wooden, annoying and dumb. You are glad when they are killed off. Long live the strong female character in a horror movie!!
There are so many puns to play on the title of the spectacularly bad Valentine that I don't know where to begin. I will say this though; here is a movie that makes me long for the complexity of the Valentine cards we used to give out in elementary school. You know, the ones with Batman exclaiming "You're a super crime-fighting valentine!"<br /><br />Valentine is a slasher movie without the slightest hint of irony, one of the few horror movies in recent years that ignores the influence of Scream. The villain is omniscient and nigh-invulnerable. The heroes are easily scared when people run around corners and grab them by the shoulders screaming "HeyIjustleftmycoatbehind!" The score is more overbearing than Norman Bates' mother.<br /><br />The flimsy plot follows several childhood friends, now grown up and extremely curvaceous. Since the film gives them nothing else to do, they stand around and wait until a masked stalker kills them one by one. This stalker appears to be former nerd Jeremy Melton, who was constantly rejected by women and beaten by men in high school. With Valentine's Day approaching, the women begin receiving scary cards foretelling their doom. Melton seems like the obvious suspect. Only problem is, as numerous characters warns, in thirteen years Melton could have changed his appearance to look buff and handsome. So (insert terrified gasp here) everyone is a suspect!<br /><br />Here's problem one. In order to have any sense of suspense while watching Valentine, you have to accept a reality in which a high school nerd is capable of becoming David Boreanaz. Nerds don't turn into Angel when they grown up, they turn into older, balder nerds. He's not a terrible actor, but the script, by no less than four writers, gives him and the rest of the cast nothing to do but scream and make out. Denise Richards (the bustiest actress in Hollywood never to star in Baywatch) is especially exploited; most shamefully in the blatant excuse to get her in a bathing suit just before a crucial suspense scene. Note to self: always bring a bathing suit to a Valentine's Day party. Just because it's February doesn't mean you might not feel like taking a little dip.<br /><br />The slasher in Valentine dresses in head-to-toe black with a Cherub's mask. Here's problem number two. The filmmakers clearly thought this would be a disturbing image to have on the head of someone who's whacking people in the face with hot irons. Plain and simple, it's not. Instead, it just made me wonder how a guy with a mask that covers his entire face, including his eyes and ears, can move so stealthily without bumping his shins on chairs or tables. Then again, given the things the Cupid Killer does, maybe he can teleport and his eyes are on his hands. <br /><br />Not only is the movie bad, it isn't even sure who the killer is; the final "twist" is more "Huh?" than "Hah!" When you're not scratching your head you're yawning, then groaning, then searching for the nearest exit. Do not watch this movie. Even if you're alone on Valentine's Day, find something, ANYTHING, else to do. You'll be glad you did.
There is no way to describe how really, really, really bad this movie is. It's a shame that I actually sat through this movie, this very tiresome and predictable movie. What's wrong with it? Acting: There is not one performance that is even remotely close to even being sub-par (atleast they are all very pretty). Soundtrack (songs): "If we get Orgy on the soundtrack then everyone will know that they are watching a horror film!"; Soundtrack (score): Okay, but anyone with a keyboard can make an okay soundtrack these days. Don't even get me started on the "What the hell?" moments, here are a few: Killer can move at the speed of light--door opens actress turns, no one is there, turns back, there is something sitting in front of her.; Out of now where The killer shows up with a power drill, a really big one! The filmmakers get points for at least plugging it in, but can I really believe that the killer took the time to find the power outlet to plug it in. I feel like one of the guards at the beginning of Holy Grail and want to say "Where'd you get the power drill?". I could go on and on about how bad this film is but I only have 1000 words. I will give this 2 out of ten stars. One star for making me laugh and another star for all the cleavage. Seriously, do not waste your time with this one.
In an attempt to bring back the teen slasher genre that was taken away by spoofs like Scary Movie and Shriek if you know what I did last Friday the 13th, Valentine fails. Why did people like Halloween? Because it was original, new and went beyond anything that's ever been done. Why did they like Scream? Because at least it made sense. Valentine is just a stupid slasher-flick that has hardly any gore what so-ever. The plot is so similar to Halloween and Urban Legend it's not funny. And the moment the killer comes on screen, you know who it is, it's just sssssssssssooooooooooooo predictable. The teen slasher genre is DEAD Get over it!<br /><br />0 out of 10
Firstly, there are some good things about this film, but it's all cliche slasher stuff combined with a teen movie. In the advertising of this movie, that I've seen, a large emphasis was on the fact that Denise Richards is in it, but she's a poor actress, and not as good looking as people try to make her out to be (not that that has anything to do with the movie). And what's with that look she gives everyone? Perhaps it's part of the character, but like I said, the acting... Still, the writing is fine. You know who it is all throughout the movie, and you can almost predict what is about to happen, but not in an irritating way. I think the book it's based on is probably good, judging by the plot line, but next time I'll read the book to find out rather than watch this.
This stalk and slash turkey manages to bring nothing new to an increasingly stale genre. A masked killer stalks young, pert girls and slaughters them in a variety of gruesome ways, none of which are particularly inventive.<br /><br />It's not scary, it's not clever, and it's not funny. So what was the point of it?
Valentine is a horrible movie. This is what I thought of it:<br /><br />Acting: Very bad. Katherine Heigl can not act. The other's weren't much better.<br /><br />Story: The story was okay, but it could have been more developed. This movie had the potential to be a great movie, but it failed.<br /><br />Music: Yes, some of the music was pretty cool.<br /><br />Originality: Not very original. The name `Paige Prescott' Recognize Prescott?<br /><br />Bottom Line: Don't see Valentine. It's a really stupid movie.<br /><br />1/10<br /><br />
This movie was rented by a friend. Her choice is normally good. I read the cover first and was expecting a good movie. Although it<br /><br />was a horror movie. Which i don't prefer. But no horror came to mind while watching the movie. It was a dull,<br /><br />not very entertaining movie. The appearance of Denise Richards<br /><br />was again a pleasure for the eye. But that's it. We (the four of us)<br /><br />we're a little bit disappointed. But feel free to see this movie and<br /><br />judge it yourself.
The Good: I liked this movie because it was the first horror movie I've seen in a long time that actually scared me. The acting wasn't too bad, and the "Cupid" killer was believable and disturbing.<br /><br />The Bad: The story line and plot of this movie is incredibly weak. There just wasn't much to it. The ways the killer killed his victims was very horrifying and disgusting. I do not recommend this movie to anyone who can not handle gore.<br /><br />Overall: A good scare, but a bad story.<br /><br />** out of *****
Its plain to see why the makers of Scary Movie found it so easy to spoof these 'teen slasher' movies. They are so unbelievably formulaic. And if Valentine had been released a year or so earlier, I'm sure they would have been spoofing this film too - that's if they found any actual original material to distinguish it from the Screams, I know what you did last summers, and Urban Legends.<br /><br />Valentine offers nothing new to this genre, except a better than usual ending which, of course, leaves lots of room for the inevitable sequel. As always, a masked psychotic killer stalks a bunch of beautiful young women, killing the main character's friends, one by one, in typically over the top style. Lots of T&A on display, no character development, bad acting, and overly elaborate bloodshed.<br /><br />The thing I can't stand about these kind of movies is that they pass themselves off as 'who done its?'. The thing is that they aren't because the motive is only revealed once the killer has unmasked, and tells the main character who's friends have now all been murdered. Usually something that was never made at all clear during the film anyway (eg. main character's mother's uncle's fishing partner kicked his friend's father's dog). Everybody still left alive throughout the film is a 'suspect', but they are more 'Red Herrings' than suspects. As we all know at this point the main character manages an implausible escape and kills the unmasked psycho killer after the motive is revealed.<br /><br />Valentine followed this formula almost to the letter. ***************SPOILER!!!!!! (mini spoiler anyway)*************** In Valentine the motive was not revealed, but more, left for you to think about given that the film didn't quite conclude in the typical 'teen slash' way. The issue is only part resolved, and the goal of the lead killer may or may not have been fulfilled by surviving the bloodshed and killing almost everybody. Will the killer want more, or were the demons truly vanquished?<br /><br />This still didn't make Valentine a good film, instead it simply saved it from being as bad as usual, which still doesn't count for much. To anybody thinking of making another film along these lines, please don't. Originality is so important, and its hard to see any originality coming out of this genre.
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Are all teen slasher flicks suffering from a drought of originality? It awfully seems so. First of all, this is a noble premise that could've been utilized well. A rejected young nerd who grows up, stalks and murders all the girls who tortured the hell out of him when he was in junior high? Can't say you had nothing to work with. But this film goes through the same motions as all the other recent slashers. Everything from the score to the camera angles allow us to predict exactly when a false alarm is coming and exactly when the killer will strike. We know the pattern by now. These stupid slasher movies push the credibility envelope more and more by the minute. Let me ask you something: Who, in their right mind, is going to surprise a friend of theirs in a dark, dreary morgue in the middle of the night and just surprise her out of the blue while she's all alone and surrounded by corpses? Does that make any damn sense at all?<br /><br />"Valentine" is only occasionally innovative. One good shot involves the butchering of Denise Richards' character. She gets trapped inside a pool and the killer pokes at her with a chainsaw. There's some good songs in the soundtrack, including one cool track by Orgy. The music video is contained in the special features section on the DVD.<br /><br />Even the acting is mediocre at best. The actors all sleep through their roles. Of course, David Boreanaz is often stoic, even in his portrayal as the title character on "Angel." Denise Richards is a fine actress, though, and she keeps a stoneface throughout the movie.<br /><br />"Valentine" is just like you'd expect: pretentious, implausible, forgettable, cheesy and without a good scare in sight. Don't even bother.<br /><br />My score: 4 (out of 10)
here was no effort put into Valentine to prevent it from being just another teenage slasher film, a sub-genre of horror films of which we have seen entirely too many over the last decade or so. I've heard a lot of people complaining that the film rips off several previous horror movies, including everything from Halloween to Prom Night to Carrie, and as much as I hate to be redundant, the rip off is so blatant that it is impossible not to say anything. The punch bowl over poor Jeremy's head early in the film is so obviously taken from Carrie that they may as well have just said it right in the movie (`Hey everyone, this is the director, and the following is my Carrie-rip-off scene. Enjoy!'). But that's just a suggestion.<br /><br />(spoilers) The film is structured piece by piece exactly the same way that every other goofy teen thriller is structured. We get to know some girl briefly at the beginning, she gets killed, people wonder in the old oh-but-that-stuff-only-happens-to-other-people tone, and then THEY start to get killed. The problem here is that the director and the writers clearly and honestly want to keep the film mysterious and suspenseful, but they have no idea how to do it. Take Jason, for example. Here is this hopelessly arrogant guy who is so full of himself and bad with women that he divides the check on a date according to what each person had, and as one of the first characters seen in the film after the brief history lesson about how bad poor Jeremy was treated, he is assumed to carry some significance. Besides that, and more importantly, he has the same initials as the little boy that all the girls terrorized in sixth grade, and the same initials that are signed at the bottom of all of those vicious Valentine's Day cards. <br /><br />It is not uncommon for the audience to be deliberately and sometimes successfully misled by the behavior of one or more characters that appear to be prime suspects, and Jason is a perfect example of the effort, but not such a good example of a successful effort. Sure, I thought for a while that he might very well be the killer, but that's not the point. We know from early on that he is terrible with women, which links him to the little boy at the beginning of the film, but then in the middle of the film, he appears at a party, smiles flirtatiously at two of the main girls, and then gives them a hateful look and walks away, disappearing from the party and from the movie with no explanation. We already know he is a cardboard character, but his role in the film was so poorly thought out that they just took him out altogether when they were done with him.<br /><br />On the positive side, the killer's true identity was, in fact, made difficult to predict in at least one subtle way which was also, unfortunately, yet another rip-off. Early in the film, when Shelley stabs the killer in the leg with his own scalpel, he makes no sound, suggesting that the killer might be a female staying silent to prevent revealing herself as a female, rather than a male as everyone suspects. But then for the rest of the film, we just have this stolid, relentless, unstoppable killer with the emotionless mask and that gigantic butcher knife. Director Jamie Blanks (who, with all due respect, looks like he had some trouble with the girls himself in the sixth grade) mentions being influenced by Halloween. This is, of course, completely unnecessary, because it's so obvious from how badly he plagiarizes the film. The only difference between the killer in Valentine and Michael Meyer's is that Michael's mask was so much more effective and he didn't have a problem with nosebleeds. This stuff is shameless. <br /><br />At the end, there is a brief attempt to mislead us one more time as to who the killer is (complete with slow and drawn out `and-the-killer-is' mask removal), but then we see Adam's nose start to bleed as he holds Kate, his often reluctant girlfriend, and we know that he's been the killer all along. Nothing in the film hinted that he might be the killer until the final act, and these unexplained nosebleeds were not exactly the cleverest way to identify the true killer at the end of the film. Valentine is not scary (I watched it in an empty house by myself after midnight, and I have been afraid of the dark for as long as I can remember, and even I wasn't scared), and the characters might be possible to care about if it weren't so obvious that they were just going to die. I remember being impressed by the theatrical previews (although the film was in and out of the theater's faster than Battlefield Earth), but the end result is the same old thing.
This movie in away was super-clever. It's theme rhymes with every single horror movie ever made. Valentine makes ZERO attempt to be original. What is valentine anyway? It's a bunch of people giving each other the same lame messages that were given to the same people a year earlier. There is nothing original in Valentine. <br /><br />I only saw it once, and in that one viewing here are some of the films it ripped off. 1.Prom Night 2.Carrie 3.Scream 4.Any other horror movie in which somebody is killing somebody.<br /><br />I know there is more, but my mind was slowly turning into a puddle of silk so it couldn't grab them as fast as they came.<br /><br />Valentine had no chance of being a good movie. How come every horror movie has to have a "suprise" killer, people you don't care about because their emotions take a turn every other scene. One minute a nice girl turns into an evil B--ch, then she's an insecure woman, and so on and son on.<br /><br />Normally any horror movie (in my book) can be saved by gore, once again Valentine doesn't have this. It was as if they tried to make it PG-13 but failed, so they left the edit. <br /><br />Do not see this overly-inspired, rip-off unless you hate yourself, and you want to die.<br /><br />*1/2 (3) -J.Leonard Rollins-
Well the reason for seeing it in the cinema was that it was a sneak preview, else I would never have seen this terrible teenage slasher movie. I mean haven't we had enough of this yet? Scream and Scary Movie at least did not take them self serious! The plot sucks, and the acting is the worst I've seen. (Only Godzilla can compare, which is also the only movie that competes in being the worst I've seen in the cinema with this one.)<br /><br />There is so many plot holes in the story, and the girls are so alike, that you don't even now who has been killed, and who has not. (and you don't care.) The only of them I knew in advance was Denise, and she was the most talent less actress I have ever seen in this bad excuse for a movie.<br /><br />Stay as far away from this movie as possible. (2/10)
"In 1955, Tobias Schneerbaum disappeared in the Peruvian Amazon. One year later he walked out of the jungle...naked. It took him 45 years to go back." Supposedly, "Keep the River On your Right" is "a modern cannibal tale". In reality, anyone looking for some insight into cannibalism will be sadly disappointed. The first half of the movie is more like a travel log of New Ginuea, mostly touting the native art. The second half relies on still photos of a Peruvian cannibal tribe, but really that's about it. Unless of course, you are interested in home movies of a Jewish wedding, or Schneerbaum introducing his former male lovers. I give up. Big disappointment and not really "a modern cannibal tale." - MERK
So, where are the cannibals? Those intrigued by the title and the 'real cannibal' appeal of this film will be let down. Instead, we are shown a strange man and his re-visiting of a Papua New Guinea village full of natives, one of whom was his lover several decades prior. The man, Tobias Schneebaum is New York Jewish as they come and somehow, this is intertwined with the documentary as he appears in his yamika in several scenes.<br /><br />There are no real cannibals here: only stories relayed by some of the natives and by Tobias himself. Not all together a bad film. Very interesting and great cinematography. Schneebaum remains highly likable throughout and provides us with a fascinating glimpse into a life that is about as far removed from Western Civilization as one can get.<br /><br />It's just not what it claims to be on the cover and in the plot summary.<br /><br />4 out of 10, kids.
Well, where to begin? I guess I can start with the general complaint regarding the way in which this film is marketed. Call me ignorant for not knowing of Schneebaum's book before viewing the documentary that has been based off of it and decide that I have been living under some kind of a rock, but don't blame me for picking this movie up since the title and the description on the box makes no note of the fact that this "documentary" is actually a companion to said book. Yeah, I felt quite stupid after viewing this little flick seeing as how the reason as to why I sat down to watch it in the first place was to get a good serving of a "Modern Cannibal Tale." I mean, am I a fool for expecting this film to actually cover most of its story on the behavior of cannibalism in jungle tribes? I certainly didn't expect an hour and forty-five minutes of one old geezer kissing his own ass by whining about every little detail of his dull and worn out life. I certainly didn't expect the insipid directing and I most notably did not foresee myself laughing so hard at Tobias Schneebaum and all of his off-putting glory.<br /><br />Schneebaum is indeed unlikable. The old man just rambles and bitches the entire film making the whole picture a personal tale of his even though he isn't even that interesting a character to fill a story. Oh really? He was a cannibal? Ninety percent of the movie is focused on next to nothing regarding Schneebaum's dirty past. The only time that we really get to see some cannibal action is when Tobias finally breaks his little silent treatment about what happened to him in Peru and say that he had "a small piece." That's it, folks. Ninety minutes of bull later and Tobias Schneebaum is a cannibal by three inches. It's like calling a movie "The Life Of A True Don Juan" only to see that the only the time the protagonist of said film did something sexual happened during college when he once played "just the tip." Unbelievable.<br /><br />The directing is, indeed, superbly ghastly as there is no flow or rhythm to the story that is being told. Alright, I understand that I didn't read Schneebaum's volume before watching his celluloid tale of it, but I can still recognize some bad pacing and even worse editing. One minute Schneebaum is talking about cruise ships and tourism and the next he's going on and on about how he can't drive and then jumps to talking about some dead relative or some failed and miserable saga in his life. I mean, Jesus, can you at least slam his back story to the first part; follow up with some stuff covering his homosexuality and then end it off with a hearty look into his visit to Peru? Also: I don't particularly care much for Schneebaum's insipid little quips on life and living, but I at least implore the old man to keep consistent with his ramblings. If I hear a guy talking about how he prefers life in the jungle I don't expect him to suddenly bitch and moan about wanting to go back home twenty minutes later. Absurd.<br /><br />Another note on the directing is the random clips from the story at hand to the small little television appearances in which our hero has appeared. While some might find the clips to be fancy little breaks from the story, the director has overused the gimmick and broken his entire film into pieces by seemingly attempting to place most of the efforts of telling the story on the old reels.<br /><br />The bottom line, here, is that Tobias Schneebaum is a fraud. Pure and simple. I know that I haven't read the book, but I'm still holding on to the argument that this film is totally useless by noting that a good film must stand on its own. This documentary relies way too much on the assumption that the viewer is already an avid fan of Schneebaum's work and instead goes on from that assumption like a supplemental disk found on a DVD. Schneebaum is both arrogant and bitchy, striking a sour combination when mixed with the fact that his story is remarkably un-riveting. If you're looking for a solid piece on the nature of humans and cannibalism, turn away because "Keep The River To Your Right" is an embarrassingly hilarious self-serving rant over a man who is long overdue for a straight-jacket and a gag.
I Am Curious is really two films in one - half of it is the sexual experimental side of Lena and the other half is her curiosity with political/socialism. Whatever the director's intention, the two don't really mesh together. The director should have just stuck with the romantic side of Lena and made a separate movie for the politics. There is a bizarre mixture of political/war rallies, Dr. King, serious political interviews, flopping breasts, and pubic hair. The film feels more like a fictional documentary than a movie. Other than the interesting sex scenes, you'll be bored dry watching this film. Unlike many other reviewers, I think the nude/sexual scenes are overdone for what it is. If you want to see real porn, I'm sure there are better choices. The pervasive nudity is a major distraction from whatever plot there is. I think the cast did a fine job however. They played their parts believably. There is little of the over-the-topness I'm so used to seeing in the American films during this time.
This film, once sensational for its forward-thinking politics and depictions of free love and sexual liberation, has been reduced by time to a mere curiosity. It seems absurd now that this mostly boring little film had been banned and seized by governments in many countries. Given how socialistic Sweden eventually became, the 'radicalism' of its politics, once controversial, appear naive and almost mainstream four decades later. And its sex scenes, at one time the subject of sensational obscenity trials, look pretty tame in a modern context. Nevertheless, the film and accompanying documentaries detailing its many controversies and influences remains marginally watchable as an early reliquary of 60's youth rebellion. One part of the film that still holds up: its self-consciousness with respect to the 'fourth wall'. Every once in a while, the filmmakers film themselves making the film. The satiric playfulness of this still elicits a chuckle.
The plot line of No One Sleeps is not a bad idea, and the subject matter is of quite a bit of interest. But, throughout watching this film, we were saying aloud, "These filmmakers go to the trouble of finding good locations, the lighting is good, makeup and hair are good...why is the sound so bad?" Throughout the film the sound was echoy, garbled and much of the dialog was unintelligible.<br /><br />There is some good acting in this film, and I think Jim Thalman is really a good actor. This story, with some of the same actors, would have been worth doing as a high-budget film.<br /><br />I just can't reiterate enough - if you have a limited budget, dedicate more to good sound. Sound is as much a part of a film as the image, and it's worth doing right. Could've earned a 6.
Hail Bollywood and men Directors !<br /><br />Really this is the ultimate limit in utter sacrifice made by Indian Woman !!<br /><br />Viewing the current state of affairs in India where The wives are becoming more vicious day by day and are very possessive about their husbands - the Directors ..also can be called Uncle Scars (refer movie The Lion King) came up with a very new concept on how both the kept and the wife can live together happily ever after sharing everything between themselves ...including the spermikins !!<br /><br />Story line : Married couple - very happy - but accidentally a mishap happens and wife has a miscarriage - lost the foetus along with the capacity of ever becoming a mother !<br /><br />Now in in India, the in- laws usually drive away the daughter- in- law if she fails to give them an heir ! So the wife hits upon a major plan - surrogate mother...but the scientists intervened - "Sure artificial insemination" - NO said the artist (Director actually) - "Neighbourhood will come to know that the daughter - in - law is barren so they are going for surrogate mother !!<br /><br />Neighbours ! society !! gosh the same ones who watch Fashion TV day and night - watching girls between the age group of 14 to 40 ...al in bras and panties - well those neighbors suddenly take an upper hand in family planning and decision making !!<br /><br />SO the wife sends away her husband to a beer bar where girls are dancing on the stage - all mostly uneducated and illiterate - but men love such women as they can satisfy their egos a lot !<br /><br />He hires the lead dancer in the pub - asks her to bear his baby - in exchange for money - she agrees - she comes home - becomes pregnant - wife and kept - both co-exist in the same house - in the mean time the prostitute also gets a taste of household life - so much caring people around - she misses them all and cries silently !! In the mean time - no one in the family comes to know that the real daughter in law is roaming around with a pillow beneath her petticoat !!- the mother or other elderly people never took her for check-ups - nor did they try to feel the baby's movements in the womb !!
This movie is traditional bollywood fare as far as the star power, sentimentality and love triangle of emotions. What really bothered me about this movie was the makers' absurd notion of surrogate mother. A whore who conceives a child with someone after have sex with the man (of the family desiring a child) is not a surrogate mother. Neither is she a good candidate for a surrogate mother. I have seen Indian movies and television shows that made 10 to 15 years ago that dealt with this issue more intelligently. The whole concept of the movie is ridiculous and absolutely implausible. I realize that most bollywood movies aren't meant to be plausible, but they don't pretend to be either. This movie wants us to emote along with the characters, but this can't done with such a ridiculous, contrived conflict. I would have expected better from Abbas and Mustan.
I wonder if there is any sense of sense in this movie. Its a big joke. Good.. Its entertaining .. You get to see the most stupid plot played very seriously in the form of a film .. I wonder which audience group this movie is basically targeted to.<br /><br />Priety (a pros) plays a surrogate mom for a happy couple Salman/Rani who want a child but can't. I wonder how it would be if this drama was a real-life take-off from a real couple's life.<br /><br />Rani appears happy with another pretty lady in her house who has been brought in to make a child for her & Salman. She cares for Priety and tries pushing her husband Salman to Preity so they may have some romance. When will the audience get fed up of Salman's nakhras.<br /><br />Though a good past-time, this movie is unbearable. Absurd.
The TV guide calls this movie a mystery. What is a mystery to me is how is it possible that a culture that can produce such intricate and complex classical music and brilliant mathematicians cannot produce a single film that would rise above the despicable trash level this film so perfectly represents. This is Bollywood at its best/worst, I honestly cannot tell the difference. Nauseatingly sweet, kitschy clichés on every level, story-line, situations, dialog, music and choreography. To put it bluntly, you must be a retard to enjoy it. I watched it to satisfy my cultural curiosity, but there were times when I had to walk away from it, because I could not take it any more. The only redeeming quality of the movie is the exquisite beauty of the leading actresses. <br /><br />
... but the keyword here is "usually." I have been known to adore movies EVERYONE thinks are dumb. But in the world of B-rated movies, THIS one is Z-rated. Absolutely ridiculous. The thing I respect about most of my favorite B-rated movies are that they don't take themselves too seriously. The makers of movies like that sort-of treat the movie lightly, even if it's a heavy topic. I get the impression, however, that the producers of this movie took themselves way to seriously, like they were putting together a 10-star classic, complete with poor attempts at poignant lines and dumb camera shots. Nevertheless, despite all this, I STILL gave it 4 out of 10 stars, as I am biased towards movies like this. If you're a B-rated fan, however, I would try too hard to find this one.
Don't even ask me why I watched this! The only excuse I can come up with that I was sick with Bronchitis and too weak to change the channel. :) It's too terrible for words, the movie that is, not the Bronchitis. The acting is deplorable, Richard Grieco hams it up as a trigger-happy, gun-slinging serial killer with a penchant for knocking off cops. Nick Mancuso phones in a performance as the cop on his trail and Nancy Allen manages to put in the only sympathetic role in the entire film. The script is dismal, peppered with clichéd lines, "Are you ready, Pardner?" purrs Richard Grieco to every single one of his victims. Dire. Avoid.
The French film "Extension Du Domaine De La Lutte" directed by iconoclast film maker Philippe Harel is based on the book of the same name written by a controversial writer Michel Houellebecq.He has also worked on this film's scenario.According to British cinema magazine Sight and Sound,it is also known as "Whatever".This film has been hailed as a breath of fresh air for French cinema due to its not so common theme of sexual politics and its implications on two stupid information technology workers.The film is marred by its much too evident voice over which introduces us to the main character.This makes us viewers feel as if we are watching a book that is bring read. The basic premise of problems related to loneliness due to chronic sexual drought is fine but the film goes out of hand once the hero starts recounting the misery faced by him and his friend.Instead of sticking to its main topic the film veers in other directions leading to its downfall.Beware:some women viewers might find not only the film but even its two heroes as moronic misogynists.
Two years ago, on Berlin Film Festival we watched the Amos Kollek movie "Sue" in the Panorama program, with a wonderful Anna Thomson in the leading part. It's a film about loneliness and sex, and how the one thing is compensated by the other. In the same section on the Festival now we have to complain the superfluous antithesis of Sue, "Extension du domaine de la lutte", which now tries to convince us that loneliness and having NO sex is one and the same problem. But unfortunately we can't sympathize with "our hero" (how he is called by the story-teller), because he is unnecessarily and incomprehensibly tired of company and himself. Own fault, I'm sorry. I can't understand him. Not enough, the writer/director/actor want us admitting to him, that it's not his destroyed self-consciousness or the passivity of his personality, what brought him so far, but the rotten society and its image of sexuality. Yes, there are some deeper insights about gender relations, but we won't follow him so far... And the point is, that there is rather any sign of reflection about his own portion to the fate, having no sex. Who didn't notice yet, it's a quite depressing film...<br /><br />In the beginning, there had been some starts to be more accurate in sketching the situation. At the bed store the "hero" speaks about the hindrances buying a new bed. Perhaps it's too broad getting up the stairs, you have to stay at home half a day... THIS is a satire about a character, who doesn't know taking the life and heart in hands, DOING something... The movie doesn`t follow this path, but handles his characters with helplessness. Nobody believes, that "our hero" is able to instigate Tisserand for a murder. Too dull, too kind, too - passive (not to mention Tisserand's complex; he has an inhibition, but he couldn't be, of course, a murderer of women!). To finish: There are women and the world, it's not a device of a modern sexualized society. Help you as you can, but don't follow the messages and the "wisdom" of this movie, which announces bankruptcy to human relationships, without seizing the real conflicts within.
Blank check is one of those kids movies that could have been a great suspense thriller for the kids but instead it's a tired lame home alone ripoff that isn't worth a dime. Quigley is a criminal who just escaped from jail and gets his hidden million dollars from a big score and then we meet Preston a frustrated kid whose room is taken over by his brothers to start a business and obviously dad treats his brothers better because they make money the same day he goes to a kid's birthday party and since his dad is a cheapo he goes on little kids rides while the other kids go on roller coasters then he receives a birthday card and a check of 11 bucks how cheap is this family? So he goes to the bank to open an account and meets the gorgeous Shea Stanley were her parents mets fans? he finds out he needs 200 to open a account meanwhile quigley gives his million to his banker friend and finds out the bills are marked so he will send a lackey named juice to get the unmarked ones when Preston leaves his bike gets run over by quigley he's about to write a check when he spots the cops and bolts back home his parents scolded him about his busted up bike and gets grounded what? their kid got almost run over and they worried about a bike? So Preston forges a million dollar check via his computer and comes back only to be escorted to the banker thinking that he's juice he gives Preston the money but the real juice came and realized they been duped by a kid! So Preston buys a mansion under the name Macintosh gets a limo driver who says unfunny jokes and goes on a epic shopping spree then he spots Shea and talks about opening his account kid you're loaded and you're talking about opening an account? We soon realized Shea is actually an FBI agent tracking down quigley and his two other accomplice's then he told his cheapy dad he's got a job working for Mr Macintosh and spends the day riding go karts playng vr games and hanging out with his limo driver buddy then he goes out on a date with Shea in a fancy restaurant what a 10 year old wining and dining a 20 something FBI agent? Afterwards he takes her to a street geyser and playing around in the water messing up Shea's 300 dollar dress yet she takes it well if this was a bit realistic she would slap him for messing up her expensive dress so quigley and the others still mad interrogates a little kid and quickly spills the beans and Preston is being chased by quigley in a scene taken from the original script and afterwords he is hosting Mr Macintoshs birthday which is really his birthday when he discovers he couldn't pay for the party he sits in his chair and dad talks to MacIntosh which he doesn't know it's his son he's talking to and talks about Preston should be a real kid and has his whole childhood ahead of him and wants Preston to go home early what? an hour ago you were grilling him about his finances! so Preston asks everyone to leave and sits alone pondering when quigley and the others break in to the house to make Preston pay and so he faces then in a finale that rips off home alone quigley gets spun around in a ball while Preston is driving a go kart juice gets hit in the groin and more antics ensue until the trio get Preston cornered and when it seem all hope is lost Shea and a bunch of SWAT guys come to save the day and so quigley and his crew get sent to jail but is there any hope for Preston and Shea? there is and she kisses him in the lips what? what? what? A grown woman kissed a kid in the lips. come on is she mentally disabled? I mean an FBI agent who knows the country's laws would risk her career to kiss a kid? she could get arrested on the spot! and the most creepiest part of all is that isn't goodbye and she'll see him in 6 or 7 years! oh dear and so he comes home to his family celebrating his birthday so the moral of the story is love and respect can be bought? What are they smoking? The bottom line is that is a waste of time the morals are whacked it's flat as a tortilla the kid is annoying the villains are lame the comic relief isn't funny the brothers are unlikable the dad is even worse the romantic subplot is creepy the plot's shallow and the only saving grace is the cinematography from bill pope which went on to shoot the matrix trilogy and two of the spider-man films so people don't waste your money and go watch home alone instead. <br /><br />This has been a Samuel Franco review.
Blank Check is a movie that I saw on TV one day and like most movies they air on TV Blank Check wasn't that good. First of all no one I have ever met has seen Blank Check and that includes people that grew up in the 90s. Also Blank Check won't be remembered in the 00s either simply due to the fact that it will be overshadowed by pixar's films. I wouldn't call Blank Check a bad film but its not really entertaining either. (Or at least it isn't to anyone over the age of 6) Blank Check isn't a entertaining film because nothing about it is original. Everything just makes you go "what haven't I seen this before?" Blank Check rips off and tries to cash in on everything from Richie Rich to Home Alone (Which strangely enough both have Macaulay Culkin in it) Blank Check isn't a bad movie, but it deserves to fade into obscurity.
I saw this movie once a long time ago, and I have no desire to ever see it again.<br /><br />This movie is about Preston Waters, a hard-lucked preteen, who always seems to be overlooked by his family and who always seems to be short on cash. All this changes when a bank robber runs over Preston's bike and passes him a blank check as compensation. Preston uses the check to withdraw $1 million from the bank (ironically, the money belongs to the bank robber who gave him the check). Preston then buys a mansion and says that he's working as the assistant of a mysterious and wealthy backer named Mr. Macintosh (named after his computer). After that, he just goes crazy with the money.<br /><br />On paper, this sounds like a great idea. However, on screen, it is one of the emptiest movies I've ever seen. For one thing, it's too unbelievable. I know some parts of the movie were meant to be incredible, but I draw the line at a twelve-year-old boy going out with a thirty-year-old woman, and being put in charge of a imaginary person's small fortune. Also, this was a shallow movie with weak acting, a predictable plot line and characters who are less than memorable. The characters were either cheesy, over the top, annoying, or underdeveloped. But "Juice" was a funny character.<br /><br />If you're looking for a good movie to watch with your family, skip this one.
The worst movie I have seen in a while. Yeah its fun to fantasize, but if that is what you are looking for, I suggest you see Brewsters Millions. This was just terrible and corny and terrible at being corny. Unless you are five or like terrible movies, don't see this one.
Blank Check is easily one of the worst films of the nineties. The plot is completely pointless; its overtones of lonliness are pathetic. Do you really believe a twelve year old acting as a personal assistant for a millionaire could accomplish everything in this film, like buying a mansion for a mere $300 grand. The notion, let alone the bargain-basement price, will only be believed by the most gullible viewers. Please, respect your intelligence and don't watch this awful, awful film.
I almost called HBO and demanded my money back for the month just because they've been airing this movie. I can just see the movie execs sitting around going, "Okay, we need to come up with something that's just like Home Alone, only we'll add a bunch of cash for the kid, hire cut-rate actors, and oh yeah, we'll make it a lot less funny!"<br /><br />Okay, maybe not the last part, but that's basically what you've got here. Not even worth seeing if someone else rents it. And as a movie for kids? Forget it. I wouldn't let my kids see this, not necessarily because of bad-taste jokes, but because I wouldn't want them to say, "What were you thinking showing us that lame piece of garbage, Dad?!?!"
This movie is really goofy! I saw it as an 11 year old, and even then I thought it was pretty ridiculous! I would only recommend this film to kids under the age of 12. I really didn't care for it, but I do think that it answers some very good questions that kids need to be aware of, such as: 1)Does money buy happiness? 2)Should I lie (to my parents) about things I think they wouldn't approve of? 3)Does money buy friendships? 4)Is money everything? 5)Shouldn't I tell my parents when someone is trying to hurt me? Granted, these are very unrealistic situations, but I do think that if parents discussed these issues with their children, maybe they should watch this video as well, in order to show/scare their kids that lies have the potential to get you hurt.
A young boy comes into a lot of money and promptly begins to live it up. Unfortunately, the man whose money it really is happens to be very bad. He wants his loot back. When he discovers who has the bucks, he begins trying to get it back. He keeps getting foiled by this little kid who is just lucky enough to keep from falling into the evil man's hands. Sounds familiar, I'll bet. Very predictable, not interesting at all. Come up with something a bit different, ok guys?
Bad Actors, bad filming, choppy dialog, shallow characters, but then again it was a bad premise in the first place. Basically, an 11 year old who is bullied because he has very little money is given a blank check by a moronic criminal. Of course, the 11 year old happens to possess enough technology and intelligence to purchase a house, cash a check for 1,000,000 dollars, and even foil three bumbling idiots, reminiscent of the three stooges. <br /><br />Preston Blake is an annoying, obnoxious, boy, who decides that, when written a blank check by a complete stranger, he will take advantage of the situation as best as he can. In other words, he wanders into a bank, <br /><br />hands a teller a check he makes in his printer, and miraculously walks out with a million bucks in cash. Preston is also apparently capable of reaching incredible speeds on his bicycle, due to the fact that a man driving a Jaguar after Preston and his 10-speed could not catch him, even when Preston jumped a row of cars.<br /><br />Of course, with every hokey adventure movie, there has to be hot heroine. In this case our hot heroine is a child molesting FBI agent who dates the eleven year old Preston, and promises another date when he turns 17. <br /><br />However, the absolute worst aspect of this film was not its casting, nor its sloppy dialog, such as "The only other way I could think of skinning a cat is to stick a hose up it's butt and then pick up the fur". It was, rather, the entire fact that nobody in the entire film seemed to realize that the FBI does not give a damn about random people . What I have failed to explain is that Preston uses the alias "Macintosh" to masquerade as an entrepreneur of sorts. Of course, the FBI finds this intriguing and sends our young heroine after Preston, who uses his 11-year old wit to first scream when lobsters fall on his face, then treat her to hamburgers, finishing with a ridiculous romp through a cemented area where water jettison's from the ground. Our heroine fails to realize during this whole adventure that the criminal the FBI is pursuing is slipping and sliding right behind the two, as they make their way to Preston's limousine, complete with a 1-dimensional driver who never fails to provide cheap, 3rd rate laughs that the whole family can choke on.<br /><br />Overall: 1/10 is incredibly gracious for this film. I don't see how it only has a 4.4/10.
Bad plot, bad dialogue, bad acting, idiotic directing, the annoying porn groove soundtrack that ran continually over the overacted script, and a crappy copy of the VHS cannot be redeemed by consuming liquor. Trust me, because I stuck this turkey out to the end. It was so pathetically bad all over that I had to figure it was a fourth-rate spoof of Springtime for Hitler.<br /><br />The girl who played Janis Joplin was the only faint spark of interest, and that was only because she could sing better than the original.<br /><br />If you want to watch something similar but a thousand times better, then watch Beyond The Valley of The Dolls.
Larry Buchanan. Yep, same guy who did "Attack of the THE Eye Creatures" and two (count 'em: TWO) conspiracy movies about Marilyn Monroe. He's to blame, here.<br /><br />Adding onto his ever-growing pile of folders left over from Oliver Stone's "eh-I-grew-out-of-it" conspiracy drawer, here's "Down On Us (i.e.- "Beyond the Doors") which is the working definition of historical inaccuracy.<br /><br />Forget everything you THOUGHT you knew about Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and Jim Morrison, says Big Lar', cuz this is the real deal! Y'see, the three big names in rock of the '60s were KILLED BY THE GOVERNMENT because they were subversives or counter-productive to Truth, Justice and the American Way, or sumpthin' like that there. I knew it all along.<br /><br />Anyway, three people (Chatman, Meryl, Wolf) who look eerily like their real life shadows (that is, if you completely close your eyes, turn your backs and walk five miles away from them) show that instead of their recorded deaths, the good old US of A put hits out on them! Yep, it's the truth!<br /><br />Man, I cannot believed I watched this movie. It's facts, when not stretching credibility to the snapping point, are ludicrous; the acting makes TV commercials look like high drama and if you honestly watch it through to the end, you deserve the "twist" ending. You really, really do; I swear. Genius.<br /><br />But like the man said: "Rock and roll is dead - long live rock and roll."<br /><br />Not this flick, though.<br /><br />No stars for "Down on Us". And that's the movie audience describing the film, by the way....
what ends up killing this movie is its self-consciousness, among other things. here's a short list: 1. irreverent behavior. when the beatles came over and injected their brand of "quirky, irreverent" behavior/humor, it was greeted as fresh. that was over 4 decades ago. get over it.<br /><br />2. false sophistication. spewing out base, quasi-socio-political-isms is hard ground to make work comically. ask woody allen.<br /><br />3. the post-modern "i'm hard on this phony world and yes, i recognize it in myself" snake eating itself - used as illustration with another animal in the film itself! - is such a retread.<br /><br />4. smarmy, smug drollness.<br /><br />5. amateurish writing, acting, direction... ever seen student films? a victim of itself, about the only thing i can say positive is that it at least has a sense of itself, and sheesh, now i'm getting caught up in the self-reflexive thing that it posits as worthwhile, of value.<br /><br />but towards... what? ultimately, it just rings as hollow as any other pretentious piece - hey, ever see woody allen's take on bergman, ie: "Interiors"??? well, this just does it more amateurishly.
Not to be confused with the Madonna film "The Next Best Thing", "The Last Big Thing" is a silly, campy, off-the-wall comedy about a man who yearns to start a magazine called "The Next Big Thing" which reviews a variety of up and coming artists. This low budget indie makes "Chuck and Buck" look like a masterpiece. Fraught with lousy acting, poor sets and costuming, etc., "...Thing" has earned some awful reviews and to date has only been nominated for one fringe award. Pass on this one.
After reading the book, I loved the story. Watching the movie I was disappointed that so many changes were made. It is understandable that books and movies differ but it was two different stories, only the names and some of the book's story remained. Read the book and you'll have a better understanding of the movie. The book gives you a better development of the characters. These characters are extremely interesting and make you care about them. The locations were indeed in line with the book's descriptions. Some characters not included. Television has microwaved so many great books and stories, this is a perfect example of that. Input from the author doesn't always insure a good movie but it can help sometimes.
I read the book and really enjoyed it from beginning to end. However, when I saw the movie I was very disappointed. First of all, no disrespect to Deborah Raffin but she was too mature to play a woman of 24/25. The late Christopher Reeve was also miscast-same reason. Will, according to the book,was around 30. I would have love to see a little more exploration of his military life, his friend Red, Elly's trip to see him as that was an important part of the characters' storyline development. Also Miss Beasley was miscast as the book mentioned her being a Plus Size lady. I know the movie didn't have the budget of the "Bridges Of Madison County" which I believe was released around the same time. <br /><br />But to me this was a very poorly made, low budget, miscast movie. As someone mentioned, I wish that Miss Spenser would come out of retirement and write screenplays for her books as they ought to be. She knows her characters better than anyone, I hope that she would consider doing the casting too. The movie let me down!
I've seen my fair share of badly thought-out endings and final twists to films, but I don't recall any film that committed outright suicide like this one did.<br /><br />The film makers were clearly hoping that the great twist would 'surprise' us all.... and it did, but perhaps not in the way the directors had hoped. I was left feeling surprised that Connery, Harris, Fishburn and Capshaw had anything to do with this turkey, individually or collectively.<br /><br />The film up until the final thirty minutes was rather engaging and I like the way the story was unfolding and the nature of the film overall. But once the twist was revealed, the plot holes and inconsistencies were remarkable, the underlying motive for revenge was ill-conceived and the ways things so neatly worked out for Bobby Earl was ridiculously far-fetched. What's worse is that, once the twist was revealed, the remainder of the film became excruciatingly predictable.<br /><br />Harris gave a terrific performance and Connery is like Morgan Freeman in that he never gives a bad performance, even if the movie ain't that great! So all in all, it starts well and the unfolding keeps the viewer interested. The last 30 minutes is one of the most memorable nose dives in the history of cinema.
Paul Armstrong is a liberal, Scottish-born, professor of law at Harvard, known for his passionate opposition to the death penalty, who is hired to take on the case of Bobby Earl, a young black man from Florida who has been convicted of the rape and murder of Joanie Shriver, an eleven year old white girl. Earl claims that his confession to the crime was obtained under duress by a sadistic police officer and that the real murderer is Blair Sullivan, a serial killer already under sentence of death for several other murders. Armstrong visits Sullivan in his cell on death row, hoping to persuade him to confess to Joanie's murder, thereby saving Earl from the electric chair. <br /><br />At first all goes well. Sullivan confesses and Earl is released from prison when the appeal court quashes his conviction. As this development takes place only a little after halfway through the film, it is at this point that alarm bells will start ringing in the mind of the viewer. "Warning! Major plot twist ahead!" And so it proves. The anticipated twist soon materialises. Earl, it transpires, is actually guilty of the crime of which he has just been acquitted, and probably of several others as well, but hatched a diabolical plan together with Sullivan in order to secure his freedom; Sullivan will confess to Joanie's murder if Earl will murder his parents. (Just why Sullivan wanted his parents dead is never precisely explained). Armstrong now finds that he is himself in danger from the man whose life he has just saved; Earl has a grudge against Armstrong's wife, herself a lawyer, who acted as Counsel for the prosecution in an earlier case when Earl was accused of rape. <br /><br />"Just Cause" is an example of the auto-cannibalism in which Hollywood sometimes likes to indulge, cobbling together one film by recycling themes and plot devices from a number of others. The first half owes an obvious debt to films like "Intruder in the Dust" and "To Kill a Mockingbird"; about the only difference is that the Sheriff who beats a confession out of Bobby Earl is himself black, whereas in earlier films he would have been white. (Police brutality is now an equal opportunities activity). The central twist in the plot was borrowed from Costa-Gavras's "Music Box", although in that film the revelation does not occur until the very end. The finale, in which a lawyer, his wife and their young daughter are in danger from a former client, is an obvious plagiarism of the two versions of "Cape Fear", which also take place in the swamplands of the American South. Ed Harris' characterisation of Sullivan as a Bible-quoting religious maniac is a direct imitation of Robert de Niro's character in the Scorsese version of "Cape Fear", made four years before "Just Cause". <br /><br />(There is a postscript. Just as "Just Cause" borrowed heavily from several other movies, seven years later its central plot twist was, in its turn, to be blatantly plagiarised in the Ashley Judd vehicle "High Crimes"). <br /><br />The trouble with this style of film-making-by-numbers is that the resulting films are generally much less distinguished than those which inspired them. The whole is normally very much less than the sum of the parts, and "Just Cause" is a much lesser film than any of those which were cannibalised to make it. Harris is normally a gifted actor but this is one of his weakest performances, largely because he is not so much playing a character as playing de Niro playing Max Cady. Blair Underwood is OK as Bobby Earl the (supposedly) innocent young man of the early scenes, but unconvincing as Bobby Earl the murderous psychopath of the later ones. Sean Connery as Armstrong and Laurence Fishburne as the black Sheriff are rather better, but neither is good enough to save the film. (Connery and Harris were to act together in another, better, film, "The Rock", the following year). <br /><br />There is another problem with "Just Cause". The first half of the film looks like a standard liberal "issue" movie, anti-death penalty, anti-racist and critical of heavy-handed policing. The second half looks more like the work of a die-hard reactionary, preaching the message that all criminals are evil bastards, that the only way to deal with them is to fry them in the chair, that liberal lawyers are the useful idiots of the criminal fraternity and that police officers who beat up suspects are to be commended as heroes. The filmmakers seem to have been blissfully unaware that the plot twist casually introduced into the middle of their film had the (presumably unwanted) effect of reversing its political stance, or if they were aware of the problem they ignored it. A suitably convoluted plot was obviously thought to be more important than political consistency. 4/10
JUST CAUSE showcases Sean Connery as a Harvard law prof, Kate Capshaw (does she still get work?) as his wife (slight age difference) and Lawrence Fishburne as a racist southern cop (!) and Ed Harris in a totally over the top rendition of a fundamentalist southern serial killer.<br /><br />Weird casting, but the movie plays serious mindf** with the audience. (don't read if you ever intend to seriously watch this film or to ever watch this film seriously due to the spoilers) First of all, I felt myself rolling my eyes repeatedly at the Liberal stereotypes: the cops are all sadistic and frame this black guy with no evidence. The coroner, witnesses and even the lawyer of the accused collaborate against him (he is accused of the rape and murder of a young girl) because he is black.<br /><br />Connery is a Harvard law prof who gives impassioned speeches about the injustices against blacks and against the barbarous death penalty. He is approached by the convicted man's grandmother to defend him and re-open the trial.<br /><br />Connery is stonewalled (yawn...) by the small town officials and the good IL' boys club but finds that the case against Blair, the alleged killer, now on death row, was all fabricated. The main evidence was his confession which was beaten out of him.<br /><br />The beating was administered by a black cop (!) who even played Russian roulette to get the confession out of him. Connery finds out that another inmate on death row actually did the murder and after a few tete a tetes with a seriously overacting, Hannibal Lecter-like Ed Harris, he finds out where Harris hid the murder weapon.<br /><br />He gets a re-trial and Blair is freed.<br /><br />I think... film over....<br /><br />Then suddenly! It turns out that Blair IS a psychotic psycho and that he used "white guilt" to enlist Connery. He concocted the story with Ed Harris in return for Blair carrying out a few murders for Harris.<br /><br />now Blair is on the loose again, thanks to Connery's deluded PC principles! The final 30 min. are a weird action movie tacked onto a legal drama, Connery and Fishburne fighting the serial killer in an alligator skinning house on stilts (yes, you read that right) in the everglades.<br /><br />That was one weird film.<br /><br />So the whole system is corrupt and inefficient, the cops are all just bullies and Abu Graib type torturers, but the criminals are really psychotics and deserve to fry.<br /><br />Truly depressing on every level! The system is completely rotten and the PC white guilt types who challenge it are seriously deluded too.<br /><br />Two thumbs down. Connery obviously had to make a mortgage payment or something.
The form of the film is that of a suspense shocker. There are surprises, twists and turns, reverses and excitements. At times, this is truly an "edge-of-the-seat" film. But it disappoints, and disappoints severely.<br /><br />The villain of the piece is not believeable; his character does not hold together. I refuse to "spoil" the film, but will only say that the character we meet at the beginning just could not be he whom we see at the end.<br /><br />The second major disappointment of the film is that--finally, it becomes little more that a bloody slasher film. There is little qualitative difference between this and one of the "Friday the 13th" films. Not that every film need always be totally tasteful, but this film does drip gore on occasion.<br /><br />Though the film features the magnificent Sean Connery, even he does not measure up to his usual standard, and often just seems to be walking through the paces.
Just Cause is one of those films that at first makes you wonder quite why it was so heavily slated when it came out - nothing special but competent enough and with an excellent supporting performance from Ed Harris. Then you hit the last third and everything starts to get increasingly silly until you've got a killer with a flashlight strapped to his forehead threatening to fillet Sean Connery's wife (a typically mannered and unconvincing Kate Capshaw) and kid (a very young Scarlet Johannsen) in an alligator skinner's shack. <br /><br />The kind of movie that's probably best seen on a plane, and even then only once.
Look carefully at the wonderful assortment of talent put together to make this movie: Connery, Fishburne, Capshaw, Harris, Underwood, Beatty, Thigpen, even cameos by Slezak, Lange, and Plimpton. They prove, in spades, the adage that a good cast cannot save a bad script. The story line requires so many leaps of faith from the audience that its implausibility should have exceeded even Hollywood standards. It's not particularly original, and the "twists" are downright cruel.
As other reviewers have noted the film dies in the last 1/2 hour. However before that it suffers from predictability and a stunningly vapid performance by Kate Capshaw, who clearly never found her character and ruins every scene she's in. Connery is fine as is Fishbourne, but most scenes are manipulated for effect rather than truth which overlays the entirety with a sense of unreality. And the ending is simply bizarre. The film makers apparently knew when they pieced this mess together that all they needed were sweet potatoes and pumpkin pie to have Thanksgiving dinner, so to compensate they added an overloud "dramatic" score. Every little jump is accompanied by a crescendo of orchestration, to the point where it becomes laughable. If you want an example of major league bad film this is one to see, otherwise skip it.
Seems that the cast should ensure at least an average movie. And so I sat down for 102 minutes of unbelief. Beside Ed Harris no-one seems to own the skills of acting. Even Sean Connery, who I normally worship, must have had an off-day during the entire filming of Just Case. Not once in during the whole movie one actor could convince me.<br /><br />This made this movie look cheap and unreal.<br /><br />The story makes up a little. It is thrilling, and the plot is unexpected.<br /><br />Conclusion only watch this movie if you really have nothing more useful to do.
1st watched 2/16/2002 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Arne Glimcher): Mystery??/Thriller with too many ridiculous plot twists. Despite the very talented cast this movie is way too predictable and just downright under-estimates it's audience. The movie-going public is not stupid and I hope will not keep filling certain stars pockets again and again despite what they are involved with. We think that this movie is going to be about something with Connery's conviction against capitol punishment in the beginning but it turns out to be nothing but a standard, contrived for the audience's sake, run of the mill, let's never get it over with, thriller. We are pulled into every silly switch in character, as they are portrayed to us when it's needed in the story, and we're ready for this thing to be over way before it ends. Yes there is some good acting here, especially from Blair Underwood, Fishburne, and Ed Harris in a psycho-supporting role but the story does not work from almost the beginning to the very long-awaited end.
The performances of Fishbourne (who appears strangely funny somehow) and (short featured)Ed Harris are remarkable, unlike Connery's who doesn't appear to find sense in his role and ends up in the motorial behaviour of a 80yr old man. In fact the screenplay doesn't make sense; imagine a 60 min. happy ending-plot plus a sudden turn appendix without any argumental structure in respect to the characters. It's more an accident than a screenplay and may be good for examination purposes at screen-wrights' schools. The more you remind the details the stronger this impression gets. The capital punishment is not an issue here, although it is a subject from the beginning; it sort of fades away without further comment. The subject-matter and environment could have been good.
A pot - boiler if ever I saw one. A supposed thriller borrowing from "A Time to Kill", "Silence of the Lambs", even an inverted "In the Heat of the Night" with a little reverse murder, a la "Strangers on a Train" thrown in, it fails abysmally where all the above, to a large degree, succeeded. Namely, in delivering thrills. The plot seems condensed from a bigger book, making the plot developments obvious and uninvolving, while the direction lacks pace and verve. To rein in any kudos, a major twist had to be delivered along the way and here it fails palpably too. Connery is clearly slowing down in his old age, barely bothering with his attempt at a US accent and besides seems too old to be the husband of Hope Lange and the father of those gosh - darn kids of his. He even has a father in law who seems younger than him. Laurence Fishburne barely gets the chance to inhabit his role and you're confused from the outset as to whether he's a bad guy or a good guy. Someone once said that flashbacks shouldn't lie - they do, confusedly, here. The rest of the playing is merely average by a reasonable cast in their underwritten stereotyped roles. The supposed climax managed too, to roll by leaving me firmly entrenched in the back, not as should have been the aim, front edge of my seat. Mediocre sloppy Hollywood film making for sure.
This movie is a crappy and forgettable Sean Connery vehicle. The performances are generally crappy especially by Capshaw, Fishburne, and the usually solid Ed Harris. Connery seems miscast as a Harvard Academic. The movie absolutely gets worse as it goes along. It is a third rate mystery that becomes extremely contrived by the time it unravels. The movie squanders an excellent supporting cast. George Plimpton also turns up in a minor role to add some gravitas to Connery as they debate the death penalty. The violence and the atmosphere pepper a third rate mystery/thriller that is manipulation to the highest degree. The scripting and direction are extremely poor. Connery's charisma and screen presence are the film's only virtue. Manipulative, Violent, and Ridiculous. 2/10 Avoid It.
This is just a case of a previously worthless island changed into something worthwhile. Jesus Christ people lets throw a big fit over 2000 islanders big deal.This is just a case of a previously worthless island changed into something worthwhile. Jesus Christ people lets throw a big fit over 2000 islanders big deal.This is just a case of a previously worthless island changed into something worthwhile. Jesus Christ people lets throw a big fit over 2000 islanders big deal.This is just a case of a previously worthless island changed into something worthwhile. Jesus Christ people lets throw a big fit over 2000 islanders big deal.
Because IT IS, that's why! This is the same jealous-daughter-kills-people flick we've seen a billion times. Rosanna Arquette makes anything worth watching, and Mandy Schaffer's brief nude scene (after teasing via scantily clad attire throughout the film) at the end almost make this trite blarney worthwhile, but not quite.<br /><br />* out of ****
This can't be Mandy Schaffer's last film. Somebody, do something! :-(<br /><br />Argh.<br /><br />What little life this one might have had, the directing finished off. Don't blame the cast; they did OK. Even the winemaker's younger brother was pretty well done, and he didn't even get into the movie until halfway through. And please, please put Mandy in some more movies! She's too beautiful to bury her career at such a young age. Ya' breakin' my haht, heah....<br /><br />Two specific criticisms, in case anyone cares (apparently nobody liked this movie very much). First, the way Traci kept popping up at just the right melodramatic moment, in order to see whatever she was supposed to see, and never got seen in return, was very annoying. Hollywood: please stop giving villains perfect timing luck which runs out exactly when the climax arrives. It's dumb. Write better scripts so you won't have to use that lame plot device any more. If your script isn't good enough to stand up without that, then don't produce it.<br /><br />Second, Carmen wouldn't have fallen for that fake injury trick that Traci pulled. She already had Traci fingered. More bad writing/directing there.<br /><br />I could trash this movie further but mercy forbids it. Actually I didn't hate it as much as the others seem to have. It just didn't have much of a reason for being made, unless it was purely a vehicle to show off the lovely Mandy. Oh, and to whoever didn't think she was sexy... the character wasn't very well written, but how can you say she wasn't sexy?!? One or the other of us needs glasses, and I don't think it's me.<br /><br />MORE MANDY. (Not to be confused with "Moore, Mandy" -- although I'd like to see her again too. ;-)<br /><br />P.S. Did I mention I hope Mandy makes me more movies? <:-D
Let me be really clear about this movie. I didn't watch this movie because of the plot, I watch it for the saucy sex scenes. That being said, this movie is so god damn awful I flip between pure joy of seeing a godly body of Traci (Mandy Schaffer) and cringing my eyeballs out for the disaster of a plot.<br /><br />Spoiler Alert The first scene of the movie already had me cringing.. you see a woman painting something by the lakeside, in pure bliss and serene, then a beautiful girl approach and ask if she could paint beside her. When they both finished, they show each other what they had done... and the woman painted A VINEYARD WHEN SHE IS FACING INFRONT OF THE LAKE. What kind of screwball director would make this kind of mistake?? And in another scene, Traci gets to kill her teacher's lover by smash him with the sail pole, and then she swims away, and none of the town's police suspected her once. I mean HELLOOOOO? MANDY DID NOT WEAR A GLOVE DID SHE? HER FINGER PRINTS ARE ALL OVER THE GOD DAMN BOAT!! After that, it gets worst, whenever Mandy is around, there is the "chilling" sound effect played which sounds like a cat in hissy fit. It's also a real pity Rosanna Arquette's is in this movie. I feel real sorry for her to have to star in this super low budget soft-porn no brainer. Same goes for Jürgen Prochnow, who also has the misfortune to star in this movie. All in all, 2/10.
A truly, truly dire Canadian-German co-production, the ever-wonderful Rosanna Arquette plays an actress whose teenage daughter redefines the term "problem child" - a few uears prior to the "action" the child murdered her father, and mum took the fall for the offspring. Now she's moved up to the Northwest US to start over, but her child still has a problem in that she's devoted to her mother. So devoted in fact that she kills anyone who might be seen as a threat to their bond.<br /><br />Unfortunately Mandy Schaeffer (as the daughter) murders more than people - she delivers such a terrible performance that she also wipes out the movie, though the incoherent script, useless direction and appalling music (check out the saxophone the first time she displays her bikini-clad bod) don't help any; we're supposed to find her sexy and scary, but she fails on both counts. Almost completely unalluring and not even bad enough to be amusing (not to mention the fact that Arquette and Schaeffer don't really convince as mother and daughter), all condolences to Miss Arquette and Jurgen Prochnow, both of whom are worthy of far more than this, and both of whom (particularly Rosanna) are the only sane reasons for anyone to sit through this farrago.<br /><br />One of the production companies is called Quality International Films - not since the three-hour "Love, Lies And Murder" (from Two Short Productions) has there been such a "You must be joking" credit.
This movie is so bad, I knew how it ends right after this little girl killed the first person. Very bad acting very bad plot very bad movie<br /><br />do yourself a favour and DON'T watch it 1/10
Oh man. If you want to give your internal Crow T. Robot a real workout, this is the movie to pop into the ol' VCR. The potential for cut-up lines in this film is just endless.<br /><br />(Minor spoilers ahead. Hey, do you really care if a film of this quality is "spoiled?") Traci is a girl with a problem. Psychology has developed names for it when a child develops a sexual crush on the opposite-sex parent. But this girl seems to have one for her same-sex one, and I don't think there's a term for that. It might be because her mother Dana is played by Rosanna Arquette, whose cute overbite, neo-flowerchild sexuality and luscious figure makes me forgive her any number of bad movies or unsympathetic characters. Here Dana is not only clueless to her daughter's conduct; she seems to be competing for the gold medal in the Olympic Indulgent Mother competition. <br /><br />It's possible that Dana misses Traci's murderous streak because truth be told, Traci seems to have the criminal skills of a hamster. It's only because the script dictates so that she manages to pull off any kind of a body count.<br /><br />A particularly hilarious note in this movie is the character of Carmen, a Mexican maid who is described by Dana as around so long she's like one of the family although she dresses in what the director thought would say, "I just fell off the tomato truck from Guadalajara." Carmen is so wise to Traci's scheming, she might also wear a sign saying, "Hey, I'm the Next Victim!" Sure enough, Traci confronts Carmen as Carmen is making her way back from Mass, and bops her with one of those slightly angled lug wrenches that car manufacturers put next to your spare as a bad joke. I rather suspect than in real life those things are as useless as a murder weapon as they are for changing a tire. <br /><br />In another sequence, Arquette wears a flimsy dress to a vineyard, under cloudy skies, talking to the owner. Cut to her in another flimsy dress under sunny skies, talking to the owner's brother. Then cut to her wearing the first dress, in the first location, under cloudy skies - but it's supposed to be later. You get the picture. We're talking really bad directing.<br /><br />As for skin, don't expect much, although Traci does own a nice couple of bikinis. <br /><br />For those looking for a trash wallow, 8. For anybody else, 1/2.
I am guessing the reason this movie did so well at the box office is of course Eddie Murphy. I think this was his first movie since "Beverly Hills Cop" so at the time he was hot. Considering that one made over two hundred million and it was R and this one made about 80 million and it was pg does say it was not all that popular. I have never been a big Eddie Murphy fan, so that is probably another reason I didn't care for it much at all. This one has Eddie as some sort of finder of lost kids. He must find the golden child or the world is in terrible peril. The plot is very bad, but as bad as it is it does not compare to the special effects. I had seen better stuff done in the 70's than some of the stuff this one offers, Ray Harryhausen did better stuff. Still the main reason you see a movie like this is because of Eddie, unfortunately he is not very funny in this one at all and it just seems stupid to put him in the "Raiders of the Lost Ark" type scenes. I guess they were hoping for a fish out of water effect, but to me it just did not work.
Unlike "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai", or "Big Trouble in Little China", or "Conan the Barbarian", which are horrible films that have a certain coolness and self-deprecating humor that turn them into cult sensations, The Golden Child is just plain bad.<br /><br />The premise itself is not unworkable, and there are some funny moments. But here the Eddy Murphy "flip attitude" just deflates any feeling of tension or danger in the story. And the special effects are silly enough to do more damage to that tension. The "mystic secrets" of Tibetan Buddhism are lampooned rather than drawn upon to compel.<br /><br />Without a feeling that anything is at stake, or that the characters are faced by real danger, why should we care?<br /><br />Who should see this film:<br /><br />-- big fans of Eddy Murphy who can't help themselves<br /><br />-- I can't think of anyone else<br /><br />I'll give this film a 4 out of 10 for the occasional joke that worked.
Definitely one of funny man Eddie Murphy's lesser films is this nonsense about a kidnapped mystical child, three hundred year old dragons and a "Chosen One".<br /><br />Murphy is the "Chosen One" in question, and as the opening song suggests, he is "the best man in the world". A finder of lost and missing children, he is approached by a mysterious Tibetan woman (Charlotte Lewis) who tells him he is "The Chosen One", and that it is his destiny to find and rescue "The Golden Child". For if the child were to die, compassion would die with him, as he is the bearer of compassion.<br /><br />If all this hocus pocus rubbish hasn't ruined it for you now, it surely will once the movie begins. Suffice to say the plot is abominable and destroys the whole film. Meant to be another vehicle for Murphy's egotistical brand of humour (the comedy isn't so great mind you), the movie fails on many levels. Even Charles Dance as the evil Sardo Numspa can't do much for proceedings. Very silly and disappointing.<br /><br />Sunday, December 12, 1993 - T.V.
Well, what's to say. THE GOLDEN CHILD falls in the category "so bad, it's good". Eddie Murphy is having some funny (and sometimes quite annoying lines), but you are still entertained. Chales Dance has never been worse than his role as the villain Sardo Numspa (what a f***ed up name is this??).<br /><br />Who should watch THE GOLDEN CHILD... hm... difficult to say, but my best guess would be people who likes embarrassing movies and can be entertained by bad acting, bad plot and an even more embarrassing dialog.<br /><br />4 out of 10
Why is it that when a star reaches the top of the star chain, they ruin all the good work by making a bad movie? Burt Reynolds peaked, then started making dreadful Hal Needham car chase flicks. Arnold Schwarzenegger became the hottest property in Hollywood, only to invite derision upon himself with the appalling Last Action Hero. And here, loquacious Eddie Murphy erases memories of Trading Places and 48 Hours with this "family" adventure flick, which is an unbelievably tedious, childish and generally plain awful misfire in which the chance to see Charlotte Lewis's great big breasts in a tight blouse is the most appealing aspect of the entire film.<br /><br />The story is pure humdrum. It concerns social worker Murphy, contacted by mysterious types and told that he is the Chosen One. Chosen for what, I hear you ask. His job is to rescue a Tibetan boy with mystical powers from a race of demons who want to rule the world. As the main demon, classy actor Charles Dance looks terribly embarrassed to be in the film, but hey, I'm sure he was well paid for sacrificing his talents. Of all Murphy's films, this is easily the worst. I've read some reviews which suggest that it is nice to see Murphy in an atypical role, in a non formulaic kind of film, and while both points are loosely true there's no forgiving the fact that the film - however atypical and non formulaic it might be - is an absolute load of garbage.<br /><br />
Michael Jackson would have claimed a spot for the top-billed character in THE GOLDEN CHILD, and because he loves kids. That didn't work (and why should it?), so instead we have Eddie Murphy out to save the world by rescuing "Kid Midas". I would strongly suggest all future scriptwriters to please thoroughly study the actor's inane dialogue in this quirky fantasy - adventure - comedy that's a step closer to ISHTAR. Whatever Murphy says or does can be best liked, but don't get me wrong about his exquisite comical talent; he doesn't belong in this movie, and the same went for DR. DOLITTLE! The violence and visuals combined are reasons to stamp it as a cult camp classic, and that wouldn't have made any sense as Hollywood and movie fanatics kept cashing in on the guy. Speaking of visuals, they were pulled off amazingly well at the time of Ronald Reagan's presidential fame. Murphy is far better at COMING TO AMERICA and 48 HRS, but this stale movie isn't my touch of golden honey for a sweet crunchy taste.
Bad movie for sure. It's such a ridiculous fantasy with a lot of poor special effects, a lot of hasty scenes (the airport one for example), and a real unfunny time. (Charles Dance) is awful as the evil guy and he is much better in (Last Action Hero). (Eddie Murphy) is doing a non-comic joking, and I heard that this sunk had already succeed, big time success??!! I'll never understand why or how ?! In one TV interview I've heard (Eddie Murphy) himself, when he was nominated for an Oscar 2007, regretted it in a comic way !! <br /><br />One of the comments said (Hey...It's the 1980s !). Well, no my friend. It's the cinematic foolishness which made a lot of RAZZIE movies all over the years whether it's the 1980s or the 1950s ! <br /><br />There are 2 reasons made me write about this movie. The first is that I'll never forget the long tan fascinating legs of (Charlotte Lewis) especially when she was on bed before the bad guys attack her house, wearing just a blue shirt and OH BOY the camera was versifying about her naked legs as it should be. But how odd ! As I've watched her in following movies and she wasn't that beautiful again ?!! Anyhow the second reason is that I've found this movie's title lately at my list of the worst 100 movies ever!<br /><br />The bottom line: Bad movie, Greeeeeat legs.
I remember when THE GOLDEN CHILD was released in 1986 it was universally panned by the critics , and I`m talking panned so badly that it more or less ended the glittering career of Eddie Murphy so I guess this movie has something going for it<br /><br />It gets off to a bad start where Buddist monks kneel in front of a child with a blank expression on his face . Bad guys enter the temple<br /><br />Child sits with blank expression<br /><br />Bad guys chop up the monks<br /><br />Child sits with blank expression<br /><br />Bad guys pull out giant bird cage and stick the child inside who now sits with ... Go on guess ? You do get the impression that even if they were taking him for a sleepover at Michael Jackson`s wonderland ranch he`d still give the same blank expression , this movie would be better titled THE WOODEN CHILD<br /><br />The title sequence starts and being a movie from the 1980s a pop soundtrack features heavily . Obviously this might have been cool and funky at the time but now in 2004 it seems very dated . Not only that but it jars completely with the somewhat bloody opening . In fact that`s the main problem ( And boy it`s a serious one ) with this movie - The whole mood seems to change from scene to scene so much so that sometimes it`s like watching scenes from totally different movies spliced together . I blame the director personally but it should also be pointed out that both the screenwriter and producer should share equal blame too . Did anyone know before shooting commenced what type of movie this was going to be ? It`s part fantasy , part martial arts , part buddy movie , part comedy and it`s all crap
I will start this off by saying I couldn't get all the way through it. I picked it up on a rainy day from WalMart like the rest of the reviewers on this site. I figured there wasn't any way I would regret my purchase. Was I wrong or what? Seriously now, who approved this project? They need to be forced to watch this movie over and over until the end of eternity. That's the only fitting punishment I can think of for releasing something this bad. The shooting reminds me of the movies I used to make for class projects on a big old VHS cam. The acting isnt much better. I think the only difference is that there are a few cool cameos. Yay, who cares... Shecky Moskowitz is unfunny, and the ships comedian is an even bigger loser. That's about as much of the plot as I understood.<br /><br />Overall it's the worst movie I've ever seen. I own it on DVD and have given it to many co-workers to watch. Each comes back and laughs and says "Wow I didnt think I'd ever say I shut off an Adam Sandler movie 15 minutes in...."<br /><br />My response is always "Well now you can"<br /><br />
I can say without a shadow of a doubt that Going Overboard is the single worst film i have ever seen, and yes, I have seen Cujo. Adam Sandler is an abomination as Schecky Moskowitz, a wannabe comedian working on a cruise liner. That's the plot.<br /><br /> That's it! Nothing else in the film makes sense, it's all over the place like a mad man's breakfast, and not in a wacky naked gun kind of way, but more of a frustrating, 'throw both shoes at the t.v' kind of way. even General Noriega makes an appearance, for no reason i can comprehend (it certainly wasn't for humour). Add to the mix Miss Australia, who has the worst Australian Accent i've ever heared, and you have something which i won't call the worst film ever made, because Going overboard doesn't even fit the basic definition of a film. I highly recomend seeing this film, as it will elevate the standing of every bad film you ever see. I guarantee the first thing you'll say after seeing a bad film will be "at least it wasn't as bad as Going Overboard".
I wanted to punch the TV. Watching it was torture. I hated it. Never watch this movie. The terrorists are annoying. Adam Sandler is annoying. I normally like him but not in this one. I wanted to break the DVD. This is the most irritating film in the world. The comedian he's jealous of is obnoxious. The only remotely funny part is the rocker with the black teeth getting all the girls. It was so irritating I wanted to punch the TV. DO NOT BUY THIS MOVIE UNLESS YOU WANT TO ANNOY SOMEONE. If you even like Adam Sandler a little bit, Don't buy it. It will just make you hate him. Do yourself a favor, if you see it in the store, hide it to put everyone out of danger of buying it. Its a waste of the $1.99 I paid for it.
First: I bought it at the video store. Second: I watched it. Third: It was boring. Fourth: It was not funny. Fifth: Most of the antics were lame. And last, but not least: It's not only a bad movie, it's a total fiasco.<br /><br />I am a huge Adam Sandler fan despite this disappointing and forgotten film. I pity it because it was his first movie. Even if you are a huge Adam Sandler fan, don't bother watching this movie. Instead, just take the video, board a yacht, and throw it overboard.
I am a HUGE Adam Sandler fan, and one day I was looking at the Cast&Crew selection on one of his DVD's and saw 'Going Overboard' and decided to go out and rent it. So I went out with a few buddies of mine and rented it. We put it on and we were shocked to see an Adam Sandler that didn't hit puberty yet, he looks as if he was 12 when this movie came out. I couldn't even watch 30 minutes of this crap, I didn't laugh, chuckle, or even smirk at this movie, actually the only time I smirked was when I saw how horrid this movie was. I could not believe how hard he tried to make the viewers laugh in this movie...and it didn't work once. Although from seeing the horribly awful camera angles and hearing the disgusting script I realized why I had never heard of this movie,...because it sucks more than anything has ever sucked before. This movie, in my opinion, was the WORST movie EVER made,....EVER!
Even if you're a huge Sandler fan, please don't bother with this extremely disappointing comedy! I bought this movie for $7.99, assuming it has to be at least halfway decent since my man Sandler is in it and because I assumed some women would get naked (judging by the R-rating and scantily-clad women on the cover). Well, there are quite a few scantily-clad women, but none get naked. I'm not sure what point this was in Sandler's career, but I'm guessing it was even before his SNL days. I can be wrong. This is like watching one of his home movies. He might look back at a cheesy movie like this and reminisce about the good ol' times...but we (the audience) are left to dry. This is hardly a "movie"! Sandler does a lot of talking to the camera, and even admits at one point that this is "no-budget" movie (that's right, not a low-budget movie, a NO-budget movie). So our job is pretty much to laugh AT the quirky characters. There is no steady plot, it's like an extended sketch comedy show--but a crude and badly written one. That guy who played the nasty comedian was completely annoying and it was implausible in the first place that he would receive such a mass audience. And Sandler finds his comic inspiration by saying the one classic Henny Youngman line "Take my wife, please" and the audience is on the floor? I'm not even going to TRY to make any logic here. Sure, Sandler's current and recent movies are not known for making a lot of sense (the penguin in "Billy Madison," the midget in "Happy Gilmore's" Happy Place) but the comedy works. This is a strictly amateurish work, and even if you're curious about Adam's early days in film--you still won't be interested. You're better off checking out his start on SNL or maybe his underrated role in "Mixed Nuts." Of course, the Sandman is not the only actor wasted in this thankless vehicle. Billy Bob Thornton also makes a short appearance, Billy Zane ("Titanic") has a supporting role and the great Burt Young (from the "Rocky" movies) has a significant role. <br /><br />This awful comedy will most probably be collecting dust on the 99-cent rental section of your local video store--and rightfully so. <br /><br />My score: 3 (out of 10)
This early Adam Sandler film could be compared to his life as a comic during the same period in 1989. His character's constant acknowledgement of his hidden comic genius and frustration regarding humorous material seems to come more from Sandler than the script. The film is nothing compared to his blockbuster feature films, such as Big Daddy or even the corny Billy Maddison. Unfortunately, Sandler had not yet found a way to express himself in a consistent, successful and funny manner when this film was made, much like his character. The majority of the film's "jokes" come from Sandler having conversations with himself, usually over his unrecognised comic talent and beating himself up because he's too ugly and can't get women. The film is hard to watch too because it doesn't treat itself like a real film. Sandler talks to the camera and the viewers throughout the film, often referring to the film's low budget or questionable content. The film is ultimately awkward and embarrassing to watch. I immediately wanted to forget I even saw this film after it was over, for fear that if more found out about it, it would ruin Sandler's career. Pass this one up at the video store, I rented it for free and it was still a waste of time.
Having decided some time ago to collect the films of Billy Bob Thornton (on the strength of class movies like "Sling Blade", "A Simple Plan" and "The Man Who Wasn't There" amongst others), it was inevitable that there would be the odd turkey in there. What I didn't realise however, was that there could be one THIS bad. I'll give you an idea how incredibly poor this film is - the funniest dialogue in it goes like this: "Knock Knock", "Who's there?", "The big stinking man", "The big stinking man who?", "The big stinking man - is YOU!". Yes folks, it really is that bad. Billy Bob is only in it for about two minutes (I guess he needed the work at that time in his career), and the rest of the movie is painful. For some reason though, although it's undeniably awful, I don't hate it. That's probably because I save my ire for any high budget, special effects laden junk like "The Fast and the Furious" and not a "no-budget" flick like this one. 2/10 at a push.
Worst mistake of my life.<br /><br />I picked this movie up at Target for $5 because I figured, "Hey, it's Sandler I can get some cheap laughs". I was wrong, completely wrong. Mid-way through the film all three of my friends were asleep and I was still suffering. Worst plot, Worst script, Worst movie I have ever seen. I wanted to hit my head up against a wall for an hour, then I'd stop, and you know why? Because it felt damn good. Upon bashing my head in i stuck that damn movie in the microwave and watched it burn....and that felt better than anything else I've ever done. It took American Psycho, Army of Darkness, and Kill Bill just to get over that crap. I HATE YOU SANDLER FOR ACTUALLY GOING THROUGH WITH THIS AND RUINING A WHOLE DAY OF MY LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This movie was so bad I couldn't sit through it without doing something else. There was no plot and no point. I was thoroughly bored and for a film about a stand up comedian, I couldn't recall one joke or funny line worthy of the description. Politicians with no charisma speaking technical jargon could not be less entertaining.<br /><br />So how was this made? Is there no quality control in film? Watching the girls in bikinis was the only distraction during this horrible experience.<br /><br />It's hard to imagine that Adam Sandler who has become popular and has appeared in fine comedies was able to survive after this kind of exposure. He was not funny in the least in this movie so it proves that the writing is so vital in effective comedy.
I saw this movie about 5 years ago, and the memory of it still haunts me to this day. I was fully aware at how awful it was supposed to be going into it, so I have only myself to blame. But like most, I didn't believe all the negativity. Being a Sandler fan, it just seemed inconceivable one of his movies could really be that bad. I figured it was just Sandler haters. I couldn't have been more wrong.<br /><br />What we have here is a comedy that does not contain even 1 second of anything funny. That is actually quite an accomplish. You'd think in a 90 minute comedy, they might have accidentally stumbled upon something even remotely amusing. But no, it's just horrible. It's not "so bad it's good", its just bad. You cannot laugh at how bad it is, you can only cry. You wait patiently for a joke that will at least make you chuckle, but they never come.<br /><br />Have you seen the movie The Ring? Where the people watch a video tape and die 7 days later? If this movie was on the video tape, people would die instantly, by their own hand, and there would be smile on their face as they realize their agony has ended, and that would be the first smile since they pressed play.<br /><br />You might be inclined to watch it just to see how bad it is, unable to curb your curiosity. Don't. Please don't. Trust me, I'm doing you a favor. There are 2 types of people in the world, those that think Going Overboard is the worst movie ever made, and those that have not yet seen it.
Shecky, is a god damned legend, make no mistake. Until recently I worked for a UK HiFi & Video retail chain, running their testing department. We would go through many new starters, they would be expected to to learn how to fault find the various detritus that returns as non functional in one way or another from the stores. Now to tortu^^^^^ test the resolve of these new staff members, we would issue them with a copy of Going Overboard. We had hundreds of copies of this film because whenever someone who had bought a particular model of Goodmans DVD player that had this film as a free gift, got round to sending their DVD player back, they never failed to send Shecky back also. Our new staff would be forced to use only Going Overboard to test these machines for faults until they had found a disc or two of their own to test with.<br /><br />Now, as to why this film is so bad, where do I begin?<br /><br />Adam Sandler, who can be so, so very funny, as in Happy Gilmore, or the Wedding Singer, must have been having one hell of an off day. The rest of the crew stank, and what is it with Billy Zane? His name crops up in several of the worst movies of all time, and he is a decent actor. Crazy. The production quality is absolute zero.<br /><br />I would have been inclined to give this a zero if I could, because they didn't even have the guts to call it by it's full name 'The Unsinkable Shecky Moskowitz' on release. Even so it is worth a watch so you can see just how far Sandler has come, and just how low he can go.
With Adam Sandler.<br /><br />This is without a doubt one of the most idiotic films ever made. It's about cruise ship waiter Shecky (Sandler) wanting to be a comedian on the cruise ship. First off, there is not one funny or clever line in the entire movie honestly. It is so unfunny it's pathetic. There is surprisingly not much crude or sexual humor, but the f-word is plentiful. The budget is really low, and that also ruins the film. It takes place on a cruise ship, but it seems they only had money to rent out a small boat and only had money for 10 ship extras, one of which is Billy Bob Thornton. The opening credits are animated reeeeeaally cheaply, and it is just pathetic. I hate this movie and everyone else that sees this will hate it too.<br /><br />86 mins. rated R for Language.
A friend of mine bought this film for £1, and even then it was grossly overpriced. Despite featuring big names such as Adam Sandler, Billy Bob Thornton and the incredibly talented Burt Young, this film was about as funny as taking a chisel and hammering it straight through your earhole. It uses tired, bottom of the barrel comedic techniques - consistently breaking the fourth wall as Sandler talks to the audience, and seemingly pointless montages of 'hot girls'.<br /><br />Adam Sandler plays a waiter on a cruise ship who wants to make it as a successful comedian in order to become successful with women. When the ship's resident comedian - the shamelessly named 'Dickie' due to his unfathomable success with the opposite gender - is presumed lost at sea, Sandler's character Shecker gets his big break. Dickie is not dead, he's rather locked in the bathroom, presumably sea sick.<br /><br />Perhaps from his mouth he just vomited the worst film of all time.
I stole this movie when I was a freshmen in college. I've tried to watch it three times, the second two because friends wanted to see it. "Sweet, Adam Sandler, I've never heard of this movie, but since he's so funny its gotta be funny." Wrong! I can't make myself watch this pile of crap after the dream boxing match/insult war, where burning the guy with a good zinger causes your opponent physical pain. You would think that terrible comedy hurting you is ridiculous, but after watching this you'll know its true. This movie isn't worth the price I paid for it. I've watched a ton of Steven segal movies, and I've even watched Crossroads twice... but I still couldn't watch this.
This HAS to be the worst movie I've ever attempted to watch. In the first 15 minutes, there wasn't anything to keep my interest in this movie. I was on vacation at the time, and had plenty of time to devote to a just-for-the-fun-of-it movie. The condo we were staying in had this movie in stock -- they must have got it from the $1 store or something.<br /><br />If you like Adam Sandler, this is nothing like any other movie he's made. This started with a bad premise and then just got worse. There's nothing even remotely funny in it.<br /><br />I've watched a lot of movies, including some I didn't care for. But if you decide to waste your time on this movie, don't say I didn't warn you.
This movie is by far the worst movie ever made. If you have to create a film costarring the guy who plays Lars in heavyweights than don't make the damn film. I have to say that I could watch Leprechaun in Space 6 times before I could watch the trailer for this POS of a movie. Adam sandler should be restricted from any movie after this disgrace. Watching this movie is like a mix of listening to Cher and willingly putting your dick in a blender. Anyone with half of a brain cell will realize that this movie is not worth a dime. If I had an extra dollar and had to spend it, I'd give it to the support Lorraina Bobbitt foundation before buying this movie.
Watching this stinker constitutes cruel and unusal punishment at the hands of Sandler. Truly a slow and painful death.<br /><br />'Bought the DVD in the $5.88 bin at Wal Mart. But the thought that keeps echoing in my head is, "How can I get my money back?"<br /><br />The most unforgivable thing about the movie is that the boat JUST DOES NOT SINK!<br /><br />Best constructive suggestion: Mystery Comedy Theatre. You know that show on the SciFi Channel in which some guy and his muppet-machines spoof the most unwatchable horror flicks (Mystery Science Theatre). IMMEDIATELY, spin off a comedy program and feature this flick. Without a good humorous spoof of this train wreck, I fear that viewers may actually begin following Sandler with ice picks and chainsaws.<br /><br />
I picked up this movie for $5 dollars at a discount book store, Adam Sandler is a awesome actor and i figured it would be a good movie, well, it wasn't. There was absolutely no story line at all, bad jokes, and the other comedian said "The F-Word" every other word he said,cursing usually dosen't bother me but this was over the top. And even worse than the lack of story line was the parts when Sandler would just begin talking into the camera at random parts in the movie, it reminded me of Dora the Explorer when they turn and look at the screen and ask you questions. And last of all is when they would randomly put in Bikini shots of girls at random times in the movie. In my opinion, Don't buy this movie, its a waste of money
This is definitely the worst movie Adam's ever done but at this point in his life, he was just happy to have a movie. There are 3 or 4 laughs in it but I used the fast forward button through some of it. Don't waste your time. I only saw it because I wanted to see all of his movies, but it sucked.
If you've ever seen this movie, you'd know that it! If you haven't, and want to see a classic BAD movie, I suggest you see this movie, because it ranks right down with the worst. So, if you're REALLY bored, go rent it. If you want to know what it's like, here's my little summary: Adam Sandler is hired to work on a giant cruise ship with some Ms Universe models and five other people. Adam doesn't like how one passenger is getting all the babes, and he tries to take over with the cheezy jokes. BUT WAIT! It only gets worse! You'll have to rent the movie yourself to see how bad it truly is.
I just finished watching Going Overboard. I have to say that we should send every copy of this film to Iraq and make them watch. I even tried to get a blind women to watch this and she turned it off in like 20 min. Adam Sandler could not find a better project than this? As for the writing, if thats what you want to call it, those responsible should be forced to watch this movie forever in Hell!! I believe that somewhere I read that the budget for this film was $10,000 and they were way under. Did Wallmart get a good deal on this? Every store has a big huge bin of this crap sitting on the sales floor. The only good thing about this movie is you can use the DVD as a coaster, or trade it to a friend, but then they might not be your friend anymore!!
I had never heard of this Adam Sandler movie until I saw it on the wall at Blockbuster. Being an Adam Sandler fan at the time, I rented it. HONESTLY I could only watch about 30 mins. of it. It was TERRIBLE. Do whatever it takes to keep this out of the hands of the public. I honestly hope this movie goes OOP soon, and I hope it STAYS THAT WAY!
Hello. I am Paul Raddick, a.k.a. Panic Attack of WTAF, Channel 29 in Philadelphia. Let me tell you about this god awful movie that powered on Adam Sandler's film career but was digitized after a short time.<br /><br />Going Overboard is about an aspiring comedian played by Sandler who gets a job on a cruise ship and fails...or so I thought. Sandler encounters babes that like History of the World Part 1 and Rebound. The babes were supposed to be engaged, but, actually, they get executed by Sawtooth, the meanest cannibal the world has ever known. Adam Sandler fared bad in Going Overboard, but fared better in Big Daddy, Billy Madison, and Jen Leone's favorite, 50 First Dates. Man, Drew Barrymore was one hot chick. Spanglish is red hot, Going Overboard ain't Dooley squat! End of file.
Mere thoughts of "Going Overboard" (aka "Babes Ahoy") make me want to weep. Throwing yourself out a window would be better than watching this movie. It's not even a supposed "so bad it's good" movie. I would spend money to buy copies of this movie and burn them so that people can't see it. Oh the pain, the pain...
...okay, maybe not all of it. Lured by the false promise of bikini-clad women on the movie's cover...but the HORROR...THE HORROR... ...whatever you do, do NOT watch this movie. Gouge out your eyes, repeatedly bash your skull in...do what it takes. Never again--never forget!<br /><br />
Unwatchable. You can't even make it past the first three minutes. And this is coming from a huge Adam Sandler fan!!1
I'm glad that I saw this film after Mr.Sandler became famous.<br /><br />It is bad....bad,bad,bad. There is no plot. It's like watching a painfully dull home movie.<br /><br />I really enjoy his other films......but if you're a fan like me....stay away from this one. It may change your thoughts on Adam. You may never recover from the horror that is this film....I've had a better time watching old folks play scrabble in a home.......
This movie portrays Ruth as a womanizing, hard drinking, gambling, overeating sports figure with a little baseball thrown in. Babe Ruths early life was quite interesting and this was for all intents and purposes was omitted in this film. Also, Lou Gehrig was barely covered and this was a well know relationship, good bad or indifferent, it should have been covered better than it was. His life was more than all bad. He was an American hero, an icon that a lot of baseball greats patterned their lives after. I feel that I am being fair to the memory of a great baseball player that this film completely ignored. Shame on the makers of this film for capitalizing on his faults and not his greatness.
It's impossible for me to objectively consider this movie. Not that I haven't tried, mind you - but I sit down, and I pop in the aged VHS, and I watch the opening...and suddenly I'm five years old again and clutching my very own Care Bear and watching the movie with open eyes and an eager heart.<br /><br />I can see, objectively, that this movie is a BIZARRE combination of cuddly baby merchandising-mascots and creepy prepubescent children with evil powers that has a thin story and uninteresting animation. But my inner five-year-old goes, "Yay! Care Bears!" every time I think about it. So - I'd only (cautiously, reluctantly) recommend this movie for those who saw it during their early youth and can call on the awesome power of nostalgia while watching it (like me) OR those lovably cynical Gen-X/Y-ers who deliberately seek out the wonderfully bad/strange (a category in which this movie...definitely belongs). To those actually looking for a compelling movie or wholesome family entertainment: You might want to keep looking.
I really wanted to like this movie. I absolutely love kenny hotz, and spenny rice has a charming side to him. Not that I like spenny at all. Spenny ruins this movie. He should of let kenny and his hot girlfriend pitch the movie.<br /><br />Anyways, it's pretty boring aside from a scene with Roger Ebert in it. There really isn't too many celebrities in this movie, and most don't seem to say more than one line. Overall this movie was disappointing. I would only suggest watching it if you got it with the season 1 DVD of kenny vs spenny (it comes for free on the 3rd disc). Regardless of this production, I am still very excited to check out The Papel Chase.
This is the worst documentary to come out of Canada ever!!!! I'm glad to see the guys haven't made another movie. All they want to do is get a movie made and it doesn't have to be the one they wrote. They keep changing the script to suite the person they're pitching. I could not get out of the theatre fast enough when I saw it at that year's Toronto Film Festival. Please never see this film.
Robert Taylor definitely showed himself to be a fine dramatic actor in his role as a gun-slinging buffalo hunter in this 1956 western. It was one of the few times that Taylor would play a heavy in a film. Nonetheless, this picture was far from great as shortly after this, Taylor fled to television with the successful series The Detectives.<br /><br />Stuart Granger hid his British accent and turned in a formidable performance as Taylor's partner. <br /><br />Taylor is a bigot here and his hatred for the Indians really shows.<br /><br />Another very good performance here was by veteran actor Lloyd Nolan as an aged, drinking old-timer who joined in the hunt for buffalo as well. In his early scenes, Nolan was really doing an excellent take-off of Walter Huston in his Oscar-winning role in The Treasure of the Sierre Madre in 1948. Note the appearance of Russ Tamblyn in the film. The following year Tamblyn and Nolan would join in the phenomenal Peyton Place.<br /><br />The writing in the film is stiff at best. By the film's end, it's the elements of nature that did Taylor in. How about the elements of the writing here?
This was the third remake of SLEEPING WITH THE ENIEMY After YAARANA(1995) and AGNISAKSHI(1996)<br /><br />AGNISAKSHI was the only one which worked and was a better film<br /><br />DARAAR is directed by Abbas Mustan who sadly failed in their attempt here<br /><br />the story was good but the handling wasn't that good and the heroine was shown too regressive and the climax too was disappointing<br /><br />Direction is bad Music is good<br /><br />Rishi reprises his role of YAARANA(strangely which also was a remake of SWTE) and looks too fat for the lead and is okay Juhi is decent while Arbaaz tries too hard in his debut and does manage in many scenes to chill the audiences but his voice was terrible Johny is too loud
Daraar got off to a pretty good start. The first scene really left me at the edge of my seat wondering what would happen next. Other than that, the first half of the movie is a total BORE. All the first half of the movie is about is Rishi Kapoor falling head over heels in love with Juhi Chawla. By the way, don't you think he's a little old for her???<br /><br />Things finally start to spice up towards the middle of the film when Juhi tells us about her previous husband; and wow what a lunatic is he! He was an over-protective, neat-freak with a really HOT TEMPER! He used to beat up poor Juhi for no good reason! One of the reasons I really don't like this movie is because I can't stand to see Juhi (my favorite actress) get so abused. This film in general has WAY too much abuse and bloodshed; I find it so sickening!!!<br /><br />Anyway, all I'm trying to say is if you're thinking about renting Daraar, you should put it right back on the shelf where you found it and pick something else!
For the record, this film is intriguing but its hardly original. Back in 1998 a movie starring Talia Shire called The Landlady had almost the exact same plot but with younger characters.<br /><br />The story is Amanda Lear has had a bad life, abusive father, horny doctor, mental homes, etc. She's finally released from the happy home under the guidance of her perverted doctor...who she anally abuses and kills the poor guy. (now THAT was original) The doctor had financed a mansion for her before she killed him and buried the sucker in the backyard. After moving in she falls in love with a stud named Richard, who just happens to be married to a blues singer. If you've seen The Landlady you know the rest, she kills or tries to kill anyone that gets in between her and Richard (including a roadie).<br /><br />Much of the idea's came from the previous movie, same idiot sidekick that sticks his nose in, same spying on the guy with a bowl of popcorn, same flying a bodypress. It did have some original material, the beer bottle thing was brutal. The highlight of the movie was Amanda's beautiful breasts in the hot-top scene. Somewhat of a ripoff but not a total waste of time.<br /><br />4 out of 10
Despite the high ratings given to this film by IMDB users, this is nothing more than your typical girl-with-a-bad-childhood-obsessively-stalks-married-man film. The attractive Justine Priestly's brief nude scenes may attract voyeurs, but the film is hackneyed tripe.<br /><br />* 1/2 out of ****
I got this movie because I worked at a movie store so I got free rentals. It came in, and the cover made it look alright. Hot chick, carrying a weapon, alright, I'll check it out.<br /><br />Oh man, bad move. This was so horrible, I spent half the movie watching in fast-forward to get to the nudity, which was minimal. I think MAYBE three scenes of partial nudity.<br /><br />Cheesy dialogue, crappy violence, poor excuses of characters. I feel bad putting this movie down, because I know it was made on a cheap budget, but so was "Clerks" and it became a cult classic and a franchise.<br /><br />2/10.
SHALLOW GRAVE begins with either a tribute or a rip off of the shower scene in PSYCHO. (I'm leaning toward rip off.) After that it gets worse and then surprisingly gets better, almost to the point of being original. Bad acting and amateurish directing bog down a fairly interesting little story, but the film already surpasses many in the "Yankee comes down South to get killed by a bunch of rednecks" genre because it is actually shot in the South.<br /><br />A group of college girls head to Ft. Lauderdale for summer vacation and are waylaid in Georgia by a flat tire after getting off the main road. (Note to Yankees: stay on the highway when you go to Florida.) Sue Ellen (Lisa Stahl) has to pee so she heads into the woods. When she finally finds a good spot to do her business she witnesses the local sheriff (Tony March) strangle his mistress (Merry Rozelle) to death. (Note to Yankees: do not wander off into the woods when in the South; not because you might witness a murder, but you may run across a marijuana plantation.) This is the point where the story, not the movie, actually comes close to being good.<br /><br />While Tony March will never have to practice his Oscar speech, his Sheriff Dean becomes a creepy facsimile of a normal guy torn by what he has done and what he must do. Tom Law is likable as Deputy Scott and is as authentic a Southern deputy as I've seen since Walton Goggins (Deputy Steve Naish) in HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES.<br /><br />A few scenes in the movie are worth the mention. The girls stop at a BBQ in South Carolina and display their racism when a big black guy checks them out. Sue Ellen runs into a barn to hide behind some hay bales and in a shockingly realistic moment a large snake is hiding in the hay with her.<br /><br />And in the strangest scene, Sheriff Dean makes like he's about to rape Patty (Carol Cadby) and tells her to take off her clothes. Dean has turned the radio up to drown out the noise of what he's about to do. The preacher on the radio needs to go back and read his Bible. His sermon is about how Jezebel is saved by the blood of Jesus Christ. I feel sorry for this preacher's flock. Jezebel was in the Old Testament a few thousand years before Christ was born and by no means is she one of the five people you are going to meet in Heaven.
This movie is basically about some girls in a Catholic school that end up getting into trouble because of putting red dye in one in one of their school mates shampoo and after being reprimanded for this act they decide to take off to Florida for a vacation. On their way there they meet up with some guys in a local diner and decide that they would both meet up with each other in another location later on. The girls end up on a road side near the woods and stop for awhile and while one of the girls decides to walk around a bit she sees a murder happen in which the local sheriff himself is involved. She becomes scared and runs to tell the others what happened. The other girls decide to go take a look with her and two of them get killed by the killer. Then the two remaining girls are caught by the killer and are placed in local jail cell. The deputy sheriff meanwhile is keeping watch over the girls and despite their insistence that the sheriff is the killer he ignores them both and acts as ignorant and everybody else in this movie who just can't put two and two together much less some lousy detective work at that. The best part was the rape scene between the killer and one of the girls where he decides to rape her in her jail cell and it seems that the girl actually WANTS to be raped by this man and the bare chest scene I admit was good but before their lips meet he has other things in mind. This movie reminds me of the low-budget thriller "Blood Song" with Frankie Avalon staring in it, the same motive just a different character part. It's not a movie worth renting not even for an 80's low-budget movie and the ending was the worst ending I have ever seen in a movie and it left me wanting my money back!
I saw this by chance showing on cable on wanted to like it as I thought Sandra was quite funny from what I remembered. The only facial movement I had throughout the movie was jaw dropping stunned at how awful a movie I just suffered through.<br /><br />The person who said this is one of the funniest movies of all time please point out one line, just one scene, that is even worth a chuckle.<br /><br />She is a much better singer than I remember her to be, but I didn't want to watch a lounge act.<br /><br />I think this is a movie try hard to like since they think they should and don't view it objectively.
Film version of Sandra Bernhard's one-woman off-Broadway show is gaspingly pretentious. Sandra spoofs lounge acts and superstars, but her sense of irony is only fitfully interesting, and fitfully funny. Her fans will say she's scathingly honest, and that may be true. But she's also shrill, with an unapologetic, in-your-face bravado that isn't well-suited to a film in this genre. She doesn't want to make nice--and she's certainly not out to make friends--and that's always going to rub a lot of people the wrong way. But even if you meet her halfway, her material here is seriously lacking. Filmmaker Nicolas Roeg served as executive producer and, though not directed by him, the film does have his chilly, detached signature style all over it. Bernhard co-wrote the show with director John Boskovich; their oddest touch was in having all of Sandra's in-house audiences looking completely bored--a feeling many real viewers will most likely share. *1/2 from ****
Killer Tomatoes movies have this special kind of humor - you either love it or hate it. I personally like it, but in this fourth movie the feeling is gone. The tomatoes aren't the same, jokes are lame, even the actors aren't as funny. Because that's the only thing this kind of movies are supposed to be - funny.<br /><br />So now following the plot made to laugh, is annoying. They really shouldn't have done the fourth part to the Killer Tomatoes trilogy.
What made the original Killer Tomatoes fun was it was made by people with no budget who were just being wacky for a couple of days...<br /><br />This was something with a budget, but it just wasn't as much fun. John Astin of Adams Family fame is actually making an effort here to be comedic, but he is supported by lame actors, cheap special effects and unfunny gags.<br /><br />The plot. Dr. Gangrene (Astin) escapes from a French prison and decides he is going to put a pretender on the throne of France... The hero, his French girlfriend and the Gizmo-like "Fuzzy Tomato" decide they are going to stop him...<br /><br />Forgettable Direct to Video nonsense...
There was nothing of value in the original movie, this one was even lamer. The fact that I even found it to rent was absolutely amazing. Anyone connected to this film has to be high on something! So what was the story line? What was with the girl? Was the viewer supposed to get the story line in the first four minutes of the film. Sadly, I tried several times to watch this. I even borrowed a kid from someone to get some feedback. Kid said it was stupid, and he was four years old. I find that possibly some credit could go to the filming director, as possibly some of the shots made the movie more than a B film. That might be pushing it. I did love the theme song. Good thing it was only a dollar, it was worth it. I suppose you might enjoy the film if you were high as the cast and crew would have to be. Is pot legal in France?
As an Altman fan, I'd sought out this movie for years, thinking that with such a great cast, it would have to be at least marginally brilliant.<br /><br />Big mistake.<br /><br />This is one of Altman's big-cast mishmashes, thrown together haphazardly and improvisationally (or so it feels) with the hope that it would all come together in the editing room. It doesn't.<br /><br />As Maltin points out, this turkey is notable only for the debut performance of Alfre Woodard, who outshines the vets all around her. But other than that, avoid at all costs. (Which is pretty easy to do -- it's never been released on video -- to my knowledge -- and its cable appearances have the frequency of Halley's Comet.)
What an insult to Olivia D'Abo who plays the film's heroine, Robin, to have Keanu Reeves appear so large on the box art of the film (and at least on recent reissues, to have only Reeves appear on the box), considering that she was the star. I realize that it is his name that will ultimately sell this long-forgotten After School Special, but at least give the woman some credit. <br /><br />Despite that, this has to be one of the worst teen sports-themed films that I have ever seen, and it strives very hard to add not only every teen and sports movie cliché from the class warfare between the feuding gymnasts to the teen romance. And, in striving to somehow deliver itself as an amateur alternative of Flashdance (with the music in one of the warehouse dance scenes is even quite close to Michael Sembello's notable 'Maniac' which was made famous by Flashdance, or was it the other way around?). It includes similar dance sequences and worse yet, even the 80s dance and sports traditions of corny dance-offs between the heroine and her antagonist(s), the one who doubts her successes and abilities on the team. We saw this in Trashin' (a vert ramp joust) and Rad (BMX dancing at the prom, although it wasn't much for competition, but rather for fun) for example. In fact, this movie is chock full of unrealistic corniness, such as the somewhat homo-erotic rolling in the clothes at the Salvation Army with Robin and her friend from the team.<br /><br />Nonetheless, the film is about a young girl who comes from a rather poor background. To top it off in a massive need to squeeze from audiences as much sympathy as possible, she lives with her ailing mother, her obnoxious sister, and her careless (and slightly abusive) stepfather. Needless to say, homelife is not so appealing. Add to the mix, a talent for gymnastics, but several obstacles to joining the team (including the nuisance of her arrogant, snobby teammates, and a coach who also eventually doubts her abilities to compete well). And, of course, we can't forget that she's got eyes for one of the pretty boy preppies who is dating one of the obnoxious teammates, nor that she doesn't have a steady boyfriend (although Keanu as Tommy later enters the picture). Could this kid be any more pathetic? And it seems that one mess after another comes along to embarrass herself in her painfully long, redundant, and clichéd quest to prove her worth to everyone.<br /><br />But, even the major moments of cheesiness which comprise most of the film, are hardly worth mentioning considering that the biggest distraction to this film is the horrible acting and dialog. (I like how the gym coach suddenly appears at the diner in the middle of the dance-off to scold the teammates). It makes episodes of 'Amazing Stories' look like Shakespeare.<br /><br />I imagine anyone able to locate this film and watch it these days is probably drawn to it mostly because of the nostalgic factor. For that you might be satisfied, but it is also an incredibly forced drama. So, Caveat Emptour.
It's not really about gymnastics; swap out the occasional training montages and it could just as easily be about archery, or microbiology, or a booger-flicking tournament. Instead, like every other Rocky/Flashdance derivative that flooded the 80s market, it's about conquering adversity with stick-to-it-iveness, rendering all social/personal realities irrelevant by your lonesome - with love interest standing by of course. Ronald Reagan top to bottom, in short; so as a piece of cinema it's down to the details. Some of the actors are quirky enough to liven things up - especially the love interest, brought to you by none other than Mr. Keanu Reeves, warming up for Ted; heroine Olivia D'Abo's hateful alkie dad and big-hair stepsister are more interesting than the sickly mom or her utterly inert bitch-nemeses/teammates, one of whom appears to be made of porcelain. It's my instinct to be appalled by the comic-relief black guys, but on the other hand at least they're in the movie. But D'Abo doesn't quite convince with her awkward-girl shtick, and in the absence of any other narrative focus the lack of interest in the gymnastics themselves really does matter; it's all just bodies hurtling around, and not only is the outcome of the big tournament a foregone conclusion, it's all performed by an obvious double.
I only today, picked this up at the 99 cents only store today, and I still think I got ripped off. "Dream to Believe" is a pretty boring and unrealistic gymnastics drama and $1 is just too freakin' expensive for this. This film is probably only notable for 2 things: 1. It has a young Keanu Reeves. And 2. It's directed by Paul Lynch, the man who also did Promo Night. Now onto the movie. <br /><br />It's about a girl named Robin (Played by Olivia D'Abo) who is badly injured from a car accident that also cost her father's life. So the accident prevents her from competing in gymnastic tournaments, she is often picked on during her classes and eventually she meets some wild kid named Tommy (Played by Keanu.) Robin, when not in training, works part-time, along with her mother and stepsister, at a Laundromat owned by her abusive stepfather. Eventually she is chosen to compete. <br /><br />Overall, Keanu alone and some catchy 80s tunes are what prevent me from giving this 1 star, and it's also not one of the worst movies ever, but still far from good. The DVD itself is not getting any medals either as it appears to be sourced from an old VHS and towards the end, the sound goes out of sync and when the end credits are almost over, it fades to black, even though sound can still be heard. So this can probably be passed as a bootleg. The DVD artwork makes no sense either as it has what appears to be recent photos of Keanu and Olivia and the background has nothing to do with the movie, as it's also not in the movie itself, so the cover's obviously photoshopped. In any case, avoid at all costs, unless you're a Keanu fanatic. I probably won't be hanging to it any longer. I'm probably gonna give it to The Cinema Snob, who's a great YT critic btw. Hey, if any of you have any crappy movies that they no longer want in their sight, feel free to donate to him to keep his show running.
to movie,this movie felt like one of those after school specials,only lower budget and lower everything else.i guess this was supposed to an inspirational movie of some sort,but it didn't work for me.yet some how it comes across as preachy.it has very pale shades of Flash Dance,but so what?there just isn't any excitement in this movie.the dialogue is contrived and clichéd to death.of course,the whole movie feels like a bad 80's cliché.the acting was less than stellar,though that has a lot to do with what the actors were given(or in this case-not)to work with.on top of that is the poor song choices,with really bad lyrics.i felt embarrassed for all the actors involved.they are all talented,but you can't tell from this movie.this is just my opinion of course,but i have to give Flying AKA Dream to Believe a 1/10
What was an exciting and fairly original series by Fox has degraded down to meandering tripe. During the first season, Dark Angel was on my weekly "must see" list, and not just because of Jessica Alba.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the powers-that-be over at Fox decided that they needed to "fine-tune" the plotline. Within 3 episodes of the season opener, they had totally lost me as a viewer (not even to see Jessica Alba!). I found the new characters that were added in the second season to be too ridiculous and amateurish. The new plotlines were stretching the continuity and credibility of the show too thin. On one of the second season episodes, they even had Max sleeping and dreaming - where the first season stated she biologically couldn't sleep.<br /><br />The moral of the story (the one that Hollywood never gets): If it works, don't screw with it!<br /><br />azjazz
Awful, simply awful. It proves my theory about "star power." This is supposed to be great TV because the guy who directed (battlestar) Titanica is the same guy who directed this shlop schtock schtick about a chick. B O R I N G.<br /><br />Find something a thousand times more interesting to do - like watch your TV with no picture and no sound. 1/10 (I rated it so high b/c there aren't any negative scores in the IMDb.com rating system.)<br /><br />-Zaphoid<br /><br />PS: My theory about "star power" is: the more "star power" used in a show, the weaker the show is. (It's called an indirect proportionality: quality 1/"star power", less "sp" makes for better quality, etc. Another way to look at it is: "more is less.")<br /><br />-Z
God, I was bored out of my head as I watched this pilot. I had been expecting a lot from it, as I'm a huge fan of James Cameron (and not just since "Titanic", I might add), and his name in the credits I thought would be a guarantee of quality (Then again, he also wrote the leaden Strange Days..). But the thing failed miserably at grabbing my attention at any point of its almost two hours of duration. In all that time, it barely went beyond its two line synopsis, and I would be very hard pressed to try to figure out any kind of coherent plot out of all the mess of strands that went nowhere. On top of that, I don't think the acrobatics outdid even those of any regular "A-Team" episode. As for Alba, yes, she is gorgeous, of course, but the fact that she only displays one single facial expression the entire movie (pouty and surly), makes me also get bored of her "gal wit an attitude" schtick pretty soon. You can count me out of this one, Mr. Cameron!
Wow, here it finally is; the action "movie" without action. In a real low-budget setting (don't miss the hilarious flying saucers flying by a few times) of a future Seattle we find a no-brain hardbody seeking to avenge her childhood.<br /><br />There is nothing even remotely original or interesting about the plot and the actors' performance is only rivalled in stupidity by the attempts to steal from other movies, mainly "Matrix" without having the money to do it right. Yes, we do get to see some running on walls and slow motion shoot-outs (45 secs approx.) but these scenes are about as cool as the stupid hardbody's attempts at making jokes about male incompetence now and then.<br /><br />And, yes, we are also served a number of leads that lead absolutely nowhere, as if the script was thought-out by the previously unseen cast while shooting the scenes.<br /><br />Believe me, it is as bad as it possibly can get. In fact, it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, but perhaps I can make some of you not rent it and save your money.
I'm trying to picture the pitch for Dark Angel. "I'm thinking Matrix, I'm thinking Bladerunner, I'm thinking that chick that plays Faith in Angel, wearing shiny black leather - or some chick just like her, leave that one with us. Only - get this! - we'll do it without any plot, dialogue, character, decent action or budget, just some loud bangs and a hot chick in shiny black leather straddling a big throbbing bike. Fanboys dig loud bangs and hot chicks in shiny black leather straddling big throbbing bikes, right?"<br /><br />Flashy, shallow, dreary, formulaic, passionless, tedious, dull, dumb, humourless, desultory, barely competent. Live action anime without any action, or indeed any life. SF just the way Joe Fanboy likes it, in fact. :(
Lillian Hellman's play, adapted by Dashiell Hammett with help from Hellman, becomes a curious project to come out of gritty Warner Bros. Paul Lukas, reprising his Broadway role and winning the Best Actor Oscar, plays an anti-Nazi German underground leader fighting the Fascists, dragging his American wife and three children all over Europe before finding refuge in the States (via the Mexico border). They settle in Washington with the wife's wealthy mother and brother, though a boarder residing in the manor is immediately suspicious of the newcomers and spends an awful lot of time down at the German Embassy playing poker. It seems to take forever for this drama to find its focus, and when we realize what the heart of the material is (the wise, honest, direct refugees teaching the clueless, head-in-the-sand Americans how the world has suddenly changed), it seems a little patronizing--the viewer is quite literally put in the relatives' place, being lectured to. Lukas has several speeches in the third-act which undoubtedly won him the Academy Award, yet for the much of the picture he seems to do little but enter and exit, enter and exit. As his spouse, Bette Davis enunciates like nobody else and works her wide eyes to good advantage, but the role doesn't allow her much color. Their children (all with divergent accents!) are alternately humorous and annoying, and Geraldine Fitzgerald has a nothing role as a put-upon wife (and the disgruntled texture she brings to the part seems entirely wrong). The intent here was to tastefully, tactfully show us just because a (WWII-era) man may be German, that doesn't make him a Nazi sympathizer. We get that in the first few minutes; the rest of this tasteful, tactful movie is made up of exposition, defensive confrontation and, ultimately, compassion. It should be a heady mix, but instead it's rather dry-eyed and inert. ** from ****
The characters are cliched and predictable, with everyone being either snow-white pure or wholly evil. The acting is too stilted for it to be bad in an amusing, over-the-top way. It's doubly disappointing if you're a Bette Davis fan, because her character is not a typically fun Bette-Davis-type character; she just gets to frown pensively a lot.<br /><br />On the whole, neither my wife nor I found the movie to be interesting, moving or enjoyable at all.
It as absolutely incredible to me that anyone could make the comment that this film is not preachy. It is not only oppressively preachy, but absurd, stagebound, dramatically straight-jacketed, and painfully overwrought. Watching it, one feels like an 8 year old child being punished by having to write "I will not become a fascist" on the blackboard 100 times.<br /><br />Now I understand that it was made during the height of WW2, and was intended to be a brave condemnation of Hitler and the terrible suffering he brought about, (which anyone would whole-heartedly applaud) and I'm sure it accurately captured the mood of the day. But it is presented in such an immature, over-obvious, sledgehammer way, it fails abysmally as a work of art.<br /><br />The only good performances here are from Paul Lukas, who brings sincerity and intensity to his role as a quietly heroic anti-fascist; and Lucile Watson as the amusingly ill-mannered rich grandmother who slowly comes to realize how dangerous the world has become. Though their rootless upbringing has subjected them to all kinds of hardships, the children are ridiculously shown as robotically well-behaved little snips. They do not even remotely resemble real human beings. And Bette Davis, a great actress, here is so one dimensionally noble I cringed every time she was on screen. Her every word, her every gesture is meant to convey how SUPPORTIVE and UNDERSTANDING she is of the SACRIFICES her husband has to make and the great CAUSE he is fighting for, that she must've been wired to receive a painful electric shock if she dared allowed any hint of doubt or shading to surface in her portrayal.<br /><br />So yes, this is a very IMPORTANT film, just not a very good one.
There seems to be little in the way of middle ground where Watch On the Rhine is concerned. One either likes it very much, applauding its sincerity, its liberal point of view and fine acting, or else loathes its obvious propaganda, mediocre dialogue, cardboard characters and overall tendentiousness. I fall very much in the latter category, and found the film and play,--concerning the activities of European refugees in Washington during wartime--a crushing bore, worthwhile mostly for the acting, and even then only intermittently. That author Lillian Hellman was on the side of the angels is irrelevant. Her plays were written for people who shared her point of view, and she seldom explored ideas that weren't already held by the author and audience except to point out how dreadful the "other side" is. Even when I find myself in one hundred percent agreement with what she has to say,--as in Rhine--I still can't stand the way she says it. Her characters are unreal, and while her ear for dialogue shows a certain facility for the way people talk she possesses no real brilliance or originality. She really had nothing new to say. I thoroughly agree with the late Mary McCarthy's long overdue dismantling of Hellman reputation some years ago. For those who think the theatre is dead or in extremis and yearn for the good old days, I urge a peek at Watch On the Rhine, as bad in its way as Angels In America, which only goes to show that the theatre had one foot in the grave sixty years ago.
The sign of a classic movie is that it ages like a fine red wine. This movie is no Cabarnet and certainly no Casablanca. I agree with the other reviewers that the children in the movie are an unfortunate mutation that now plagues us nightly in sit-coms and the dialogue is stilted and preachy. But let's look at the obsolete theme of the movie.<br /><br />With the passage of sixty plus years of history comes wisdom. Since Watch on the Rhine, author Lillian Hellman has been exposed as a Bidenesque plagiarist with her so called real-life story "Julia" from her book "Pentimento". As one of the most odious of a plethora of Western-based USSR apologists, it is obvious her theme in the play and movie was to stir America to action to save the bloody Soviet dictator Stalin and international communism from the fascists, who had just proved their military superiority in Spain.<br /><br />As one reviewer correctly noted, this is not a pro-American play and movie, as Lillian went to her grave an American-loathing communist. This film chronicles that familiar smug stupidity of the intellectual elites that made up the American Left then, just as now the full mooner Left of The Daily Kos and Michael Moore has bought into the conspiracy theories and once again given aid and comfort to those who would destroy America.
When I was younger I really enjoyed watching bad television. We've all been guilty of it at some time or another, but my excuse for watching things like "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century" and "Silver Spoons" is this: I was young and naive; ignorant of what makes a show really worthwhile.<br /><br />Thankfully, I now appreciate the good stuff. Stargate SG-1 is not good. The 12 year-old me would love every hackneyed bit of it, every line of stilted dialogue, every bit of needless technobabble. The writing is beyond insipid; so bland and uninspired it makes one miss Star Trek: Voyager. If your show makes me long for the worst Trek show ever, you're in trouble.<br /><br />The film Stargate is a wonderful guilty pleasure, anchored by two solid performances by James Spader and Kurt Russell, full of fascinating Egyptian architecture and culture, a wonderful musical score, and cool sci-fi ideas. With the exception of a little of the original music, none of what made the film fun appears in this show. Even Richard Dean Anderson, who made MacGyver watchable and Legend interesting, seems like he's half asleep most episodes.<br /><br />The budget must have been very low because the sets sometimes look like somebody's basement. The cinematography isn't much better, as vanilla and dull as the scripts. It amazes me that shows with a lot more style (like Farscape) and substance (like the reimagined Battlestar Galactica) have smaller, less rabid fanbases than this pap. It just doesn't deserve it.
I cannot believe how popular this show is. I consider myself an avid sci-fi fan. I have read countless sci-fi novels and have enjoyed many sci-fi movies and TV shows. I really wouldn't even consider this true sci-fi. Every episode I have sat through was like a lame, watered down version of a Star Trek episode, minus anything that might make it interesting or exciting.<br /><br />It's basically a bunch of people standing around in ARMY fatigues, talking about something boring, who occasionally go through the Stargate and end up on a planet that looks just like Earth, with people who look and sound just like Humans! It seemed extremely low budget. The characters are all forgettable one dimensional cutouts, and the many attempts at humor fall flat. It reminds me when you see a commercial with a famous athlete in it, trying to be funny, but he is not. It is just sad.<br /><br />The movie was terrible as well. There is so much you can do with a portal through space, yet every place the ARMY people go is BORING! This shows no imagination! I actually thought the TV series "Alien Nation" from a few years back (based on the movie Alien Nation) was much better. That show actually had good story lines and decent characters. I wasn't crazy about "Alien Nation", but compared to this overrated crap, it was great!<br /><br />Also, unlike the great new "Battlestar Galactica" series, "Stargate" copied the look and feel of the lame movie too closely! They should have at least updated the cheesy "toilet flushing" special effect of whenever somebody goes through the Stargate.
Im watching it now on pink (Serbia TV station) and I must say this is a crap. Shallow, no acting, effects too sloppy I mean, who made this series?<br /><br />This was a stupid attempt of the Studios to make some more money on the success of the film. OK. The film was great in 1994 when it came out. But the series?<br /><br />Some times you can see how idiotic the lines are in the speech of the characters. I mean, did they actually pay someone to write that, was that someones relative at the Studio? This is no SciFi.<br /><br />The film was the bomb, the series suck.
Having seen the first ten episodes, I must say this show sucks. <br /><br />What bothers me the most, is that the show was shot in Canada. I know it's cheaper, but they should have shot it in California, so we could have had scenes in the desert. That would have been more true to the movie. The first scene where they are outside in another world is in the mountains, with lots of pinetrees where it looks cold. That does'nt feel very Egyptian. What worked so well in the movie was that it felt like you were in the ancient Egypt. Here it feels like they're running around fighting aliens in a Canadian forrest. And it's so lame that appaerantly, on other planets, the fall comes as well. You can see leaves on the ground in the forrests that all look like forrests outside Vancouver. It just makes the show even more unbelievable and dumb. <br /><br />And then there is Richard Dean Anderson. He is no Kurt Russel. Sure he does a decent job and he tries to copy Russels performance a little bit, but he is just not as cool as Russel. And not nearly as good an actor as Russel. And Russells way of playing O Neill, well he was much more cynical. Andersons O Neil, is way too soft. I liked it that Russels version just did'nt give a s*** and had no trouble detonating the bomb until the very end of the movie. <br /><br />Michael Shanks does a really good job as Jackson though taking over from James Spader.<br /><br />Teal'c is a really annoying character. He is Jaffa. Not a Jaffa. Just Jaffa. Aaaarrgh!! A former bodyguard of a pathetic Ra character, seen only in the pilot and in one other episode so far. Teal'c speaks talks and acts like a robot. I've seen better acting from Jean Claude Van Damme.<br /><br />And the fact that Teal'c and the Ra character and the people they saved in the movie, can speak English all of a sudden is also incredibly dumb. What made the aliens so scary in the movie was that they spoke an ancient language and were real monsters. <br /><br />As for the special effects, they are really good in the pilot. But the very rare effects in the actual show are badly done and looks cheap. Especially a planet they visit with crystals. It's so obvious they walk around on a soundstage with a badly made painting in the background. It's an insult to us viewers that they made it look so cheap. Especially when they could have made it in front of a bluescreen with cgi backgrounds. <br /><br />The X-files had better effects when they aired their first episodes in 1993. That was 4 years before SG-1 started. And they did'nt have the apparent two million dollar budget per episode, that SG-1 supposedly had. They must have spend all the money on catering. Because I don't see it on the screen. <br /><br />Incredibly boring and pointless show, that could have been great if they had shot the show in Hollywood with a bigger budget and better writers and better characters.
1 How is it that everyone can understand each other perfectly without devices like universal translators or translator microbes? Did the creators of this show realize that people who were taken from different parts of the earth, in different time frames (Attilla the Hun wasn't a contemporary of preliterate Hellenic cultures, nor were the Vikings contemporary to the Pyramid builders) speak different languages and can never develop a language so similar to modern day English(except for the inflections they "do not" use), which has been influenced by Latin, ancient Greek, Danish and French? <br /><br />2 Cultural differences can't be overcome so easily, trust has to be won, yet everywhere the team arrives they are welcomed without any suspicion and start ordering people around like they are their appointed leaders. Of course real fans would comment that they are perceived as gods. The people they meet should be shocked by their technology and accuse them of witchcraft and the like.<br /><br />3 Historical background: none. Visually it might vaguely remind you of Greek or Viking culture, but anyone can dress in a bunch of tablecloths or run to a local costume rental for a plastic helmet with horns and claim to look the part. A small-town theater group probably has better props.<br /><br />4 Boring! Another lame Canuck production, which inexplicably ran for ten long years. As a kids show it could make the grade, but anyone who has a little knowledge about human behavior and language couldn't bear to even watch the first twelve episodes of season 1, like I just did. I very much wanted to believe I had found a decent sci-fi show, otherwise I would shut it of and cleansed my computer of this refuge after the first five minutes!
The episodic version of Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers plays out at a deathly slow pace, following Johnny Rico leaving his parents, the (not very attractive) girl he lusts for, and joining the mobile infantry. The aliens in the show are nothing like the barbaric bugs from the film, instead being squid-like monsters that shoot lasers out of their mouths.<br /><br />Throughout watching this version, I was continually amazed at just how fruity they've managed to make the whole thing. The show is concerned mostly with the relationships between the recruits, and the aching, prolonged gazes they give each other through their battle armour visors, with 80s synth pop sometimes arriving *during* the sparse battle sequences which at last turning up in the final few episodes. In terms of construction, it owes a debt to Top Gun, sharing much in terms of pacing and content (and all that implies).
You'd better choose Paul Verhoeven's even if you have watched it.
The plot of this terrible film is so convoluted I've put the spoiler warning up because I'm unsure if I'm giving anything away. The audience first sees some man in Jack the Ripper garb murder an old man in an alley a hundred years ago. Then we're up to modern day and a young Australian couple is looking for a house. We're given an unbelievably long tour of this house and the husband sees a figure in an old mirror. Some 105 year old woman lived there. There are also large iron panels covering a wall in the den. An old fashioned straight-razor falls out when they're renovating and the husband keeps it. I guess he becomes possessed by the razor because he starts having weird dreams. Oh yeah, the couple is unable to have a baby because the husband is firing blanks. <br /><br />Some mold seems to be climbing up the wall after the couple removes the iron panels and the mold has the shape of a person. Late in the story there is a plot about a large cache of money & the husband murders the body guard & a co-worker and steals the money. His wife is suddenly pregnant. <br /><br />What the hell is going on?? Who knows?? NOTHING is explained. Was the 105 year old woman the child of the serial killer? The baby sister? WHY were iron panels put on the wall? How would that keep the serial killer contained in the cellar? Was he locked down there by his family & starved to death or just concealed? WHO is Mr. Hobbs and why is he so desperate to get the iron panels?? He's never seen again. WHY was the serial killer killing people? We only see the one old man murdered. Was there a pattern or motive or something?? WHY does the wife suddenly become pregnant? Is it the demon spawn of the serial killer? Has he managed to infiltrate the husband's semen? And why, if the husband was able to subdue and murder a huge, burly security guard, is he unable to overpower his wife? And just how powerful is the voltage system in Australia that it would knock him across the room simply cutting a light wire? And why does the wife stay in the house? Is she now possessed by the serial killer? Is the baby going to be the killer reincarnated? <br /><br />This movie was such a frustrating experience I wanted to call my PBS station and ask for my money back! The ONLY enjoyable aspect of this story was seeing the husband running around in just his boxer shorts for a lot of the time, but even that couldn't redeem this muddled, incoherent mess.
...that Jamie Foxx would ever deliver such a wonderful, Oscar-winning performance. One of the reasons why I was so impressed with Foxx's performance in "Ray" was because from watching his hammy, obnoxious acting in movies like "Bait" and "Booty Call," I would never imagine he would ever hold the Oscar. If people told me five years ago that Jamie Foxx was one day going to win an Oscar, I would laugh right in their faces. Who knows? Maybe he's better off sticking to drama, because if you watch "Bait," it's clearly evident that comedy is not his forte. I swear, Jamie mugs so much in this movie that I'm surprised his face didn't fall off. And why does he have to do those stupid voices at every chance he gets? Anyone familiar with comedians like Bob Newhart and Steven Wright knows that doing comedy doesn't require being loud and obnoxious. If a joke is funny, it's funny. If it's not funny, then doing some crazy accent is not going to make it any funnier. The problem I have with some comedians who decide to try acting is that they favor getting laughs over being in character. In real life, normal people don't always have witty comebacks and quips. Like Albert Brooks said in an interview discussing his character in "Taxi Driver," it's important to be funny as your character, rather than be funny as a comedian. A prime example of Jamie violating that rule is the nauseatingly awful scene where his mug shots are being taken, and he starts posing for the photographs like a model. If a regular person were being thrown in jail, would he really be acting goofy while having his mug shots taken? And wouldn't the police try to scold him if he was? There are many scenes like that throughout the film. Another awful sequence is one where Jamie is on the unwittingly on the phone with the villain, and he starts doing a phony Caribbean accent. Not funny! Not to mention Jamie never seems to acknowledge the timing of a joke. Giving a comedic performance requires patience, whereas he goes straight to the punchline, whether it's the right time for it or not. I'm not even a big Mike Epps fan, but even his performance is good in comparison to Jamie's. As a matter of fact, this is the first time I felt somewhat relieved whenever he would appear on screen. Epps has the same flaws when it comes to comedy, but at least he chooses a more low-key approach. One of the few bright spots in this clunker of a comedy is David Morse, a highly underrated actor mostly known for his supporting roles as villains. He seems to be the only actor in the film concerned with grounding it in reality. However, fellow "Green Mile" star Doug Hutchison is disgustingly over-the-top as the villain. A big surprise, considering he gave a superb performance in "The Green Mile," also playing a heavy. Antoine Fuqua has proved his directing chops in movies like "The Replacement Killers" and "Training Day." Even in "Bait," he shows he can direct a hell of an action sequence. His only problem seemed to be in disciplining Jamie Foxx, who probably improvised half the script with one bad joke after another. Unless you're a die-hard fan of Foxx, please don't take the bait.
After a day at work, I sat down to relax and turned on the movie channels. The movie came up on the guide and sounded interesting so I tuned in just before it started. The first 30 minutes were enough to make me interested, but the lack of acting ability in Jamie Foxx and the slow plot movement made me want to get up and find food during the movie. If there is any credit to be given for acting in this movie it should go to David Morse who at least tries to make the movie interesting. All in all, don't plan on impressing your friends by picking this one as a renter for a movie night.
Jamie Foxx is my favorite comedian. However, I feel that he sold out in order to gain his first big budget lead role. Foxx follows in the footsteps of the likes of Chris Tucker, Martin Lawrence and Dave Chapple, who have all seen their talents wasted by stereotyping producers who think black males who commit pretty crimes is a funny concept (See: Money Talks, Blue Streak).<br /><br />Okay I laughed a few times and granted all of these comedians continue to pick up hilarious roles, but I would love to see these guys branch out ala Marlon Wayans portrayal in Requiem to a Dream. Or In Living Color's Tommy Davidson and Damon Wayans moving performances in Spike Lee's satire Bamboozled.
Jamie Foxx is fun but this movie has been done before. The bad guy plays a "malkovichian" character from "In the Line of Fire". The cops will do anything to find the bad guy - and of course the good guy has two sets of bad guys and one set of cops after him - all the while he is just trying to turn over a new leaf...
Well, i can and will be very short. This is a wrong-balanced, non-convincing film that could have been a little bit better. The script seems to not know which way to go ... from funny to cliche-wise serious... it's a bit silly. That plus too much sentences we have heard before "the hacker is in florida, or no, he is in madrid, no he is in ... , he is screwing the signal". <br /><br />4 out of 10
photography was too jumpy to follow. dark scenes hard to see.<br /><br />Had good story line too bad it got lost somewhere. Too noisy for what was really happening Bottom line is it's a baddddd movie
This is the first time I ever saw a movie with Jamie Foxx, and I bet it will be my last. I failed to see why he was funny, although people in the audience thought it was very funny when he made a face to the camera, or for saying "I am going to take a shower".<br /><br />The plot is completely predictable. The bad guy comes after the good guy. The good guy has a woman, so the bad guy uses her. In between, the officials screwing up. The final scenes are utterly unbelievable. You spend 2 years and millions of dollars chasing a guy, but you don't do your home work to solve a trivial riddle?<br /><br />There's no great acting, there isn't much of a plot or storyline, and the shooting is done MTV style. Don't waste your money on this one.<br /><br />
I love Jamie Foxx.<br /><br />And I enjoy 99% of all movies I see.<br /><br />And I walked out of this one.<br /><br />Now, I admit, it may have had something to do with the two middle-aged white women in the back of theatre who laughed at every little thing ("Oh no, Jamie's knocking on a door! HEE HEE HEE!"), but... this was just so incredibly annoying. There could be no sustained camera shot, and no camera shot from a conventional angle... everything had to be in-your-face, loud, and annoying.<br /><br />The bad guy tried to be smooth and Malkovich-like, but at this point, it's just old and tired. He brought nothing new or interesting. From all the characters, too many lines you saw coming, too many you've heard before, and too many "tough guy" lines... and I don't mind that sort of thing, really, as long as there's a bit of originality to it. In fact, pretty much the entire supporting cast just sucked.<br /><br />I love Jamie Foxx, and I think he's really funny, and I thought he was funny in this movie... but not nearly funny enough for me to endure everything else. <br /><br />This movie needed less shoot-em-up, less annoying camera shots, more emotion, more feeling, and more Jamie Foxx. I gave it a 2.
What? Is Jamie Foxx supposed to be funny?Does he really believe he is funny?Well, it's funny watching his confidence in being funny.The man has no identity whatsoever...I mean you can immediately see who his idols are, Denzel Washington and Martin Lawrence, because he tries really hard to imitate them in most of his movies.The only problem is that he does it bad, uneven, and what comes out are some parts where he somewhat looks like Denzel, with that macho-s**t attitude and then abruptly goes to being Martin Lawrence, the funny and clumsy-silly comic. There's no personal touch to all that, I mean he contributes nothing to the personality he tries to sell, and I'm sure he has nothing to say personally. He really is Mr. Dull-boy in person.<br /><br />I was really hoping Hollywood, and the black community in America would find somebody better to launch into super stardom, like Don Cheadle for example, but perhaps the pathetic Jamie better represents the generation that remixes the old.
I was one of quite a few extras in this big bomb. I just happened to be in the right place working safety for the race scenes at A.I.R. as it was know as back then.Thank goodness my scene in in the first few minutes of the movie and I don't have to sit through the whole thing. It was more of a big party than a movie set but hey, the pay was good.Attention to detail was not a strong point for this one, but who was going to know.The funny thing was seeing the cars in the track at the really slow speed and then in the movie speeded up to the what was close to normal speed.A lot of the scenes were changed as they were filmed I suppose to shave cost and time.But every one was having such a good time who cared!
This is surely one of the worst films ever made and released by a major Hollywood studio. The plot is simply stupid. The dialog is written in clichés; you can complete a great many sentences in the script because of this. The acting is ridiculously bad, especially that of Rod Cameron. The "choreography" is silly and wholly unerotic. One can only pity the reviewer who saw 23-year-old Yvonne's dance as sexual; it's merely very bad choreography. The ballet scene in the film's beginning is especially ludicrous. If you are into bad movies and enjoy laughing at some of Hollywood's turkeys, this is for you. I bought the colorized version on VHS, making the movie even worse. Yvonne's heavy makeup, when colored, has her looking like a clown all the time. And she's the best part of this film. What a way to launch a career.
This film is about British prisoners of war from the World War II escaping from a camp in Germany.<br /><br />I find "The Wooden Horse" disappointingly boring. The subject could have been thrilling, suspenseful and adrenaline fuelled, but "The Wooden Horse" is told in a very plain way. It's a collection of plain and poorly told events, with no suspension and thrill. The first half plainly tells how the prisoners of war dug a tunnel, but the events are so plain, with not enough blunders and close shaves to make me on edge. The latter half of the film is even worse, they are just moving from one place to another without any cat and mouse chase. And could the characters talk a bit less and have more action in an action film! I am disappointed by "The Wooden Horse", it wasted the potential to be a great film.
Early film directed by D.W. Griffith; it features a gloriously happy King (Arthur V. Johnson) and his Queen (Marion Leonard) - but, wait! When the King leaves the scene, his Queen makes music with the palace's Minstrel (Henry B. Walthall). When the King discovers the lovers, he decides to enact a horrific Edgar Allen Poe-type revenge. It's difficult to believe the lovers can't hear those plotting against them; although the actors are trying to look alternately noisy (the lovers) and quiet (the cement mixers). The sets make "The Sealed Room" look very staged. The performances are okay, and the story is easy to follow. <br /><br />*** The Sealed Room (9/2/09) D.W. Griffith ~ Arthur V. Johnson, Henry B. Walthall, Marion Leonard
In contrast to my fellow reviewers, I always try to find something redeeming in any film I see.Yes, the quality of the dubbing and lighting is abysmal, the acting is wooden and the opening sequence highly misleading what with all those lascivious female lesbian vampires with blood dripping.Something must be lost in the translation of the word "Bloodsucker" from the Italian in the title; almost as if the producers were originally going to film a Gothic Vampire tale and then changed their minds but could not afford to give up their dramatic opening sequence, so tacked it onto the film anyway.<br /><br />This film made in 1975 has recently been issued on DVD and comes with its own theatrical trailer which in some respects is more daring than seen in the film!Now anyone who buys this film has probably already read its synopsis anyway and knows what to expect - Italian softporn from the mid 1970s.I bought it because I am attracted to Christa Nelli (credited most often as "Krista Nell").The absence of a cast of characters I find most frustrating in a lot of these Eurosleaze films from the 60s & 70s.I had hoped Imdb would show the cast of characters as one hears their names in the film but without a cast list, it is very difficult to link them to the actor concerned.I think Krista Nell played "Cora" but underneath that massive hair style, costume and make-up it is difficult to distinguish her for sure.<br /><br />There is mostly a two dimensional portrayal by the actors of their parts and no one really stands out.Maybe something is lost in the dubbing process.What were the positive points?Well the music was atmospheric and of course if you're into beautiful lesbian soft porn its there.The external locations used were good and I would like to know where they filmed the castle on its island.It purports to be set in "Ireland" (North or the Republic?)in 1902, so everyone sports period piece costumes.Some of the scenes I found unintentionally funny especially those sex scenes!!Anyway an enjoyable romp.I rated it 4/10.
(aka: The Bloodsucker Leads the Dance)<br /><br />Lots of naked babes in this one with a couple of lesbo scenes thrown in. The film is supposed to take place in Ireland but it looks more like Rome and the Adriatic to me.<br /><br />Gothic lesbians get invited to a Count's island castle for the weekend. One by one they seem to be missing their heads due to a madperson running around.<br /><br />It's not very scary or bloody and the rooms look like they are lit with floodlights even though candles are lit. Go figure...(sic)<br /><br />Dubbing is worse than usual and the plot only serves as an excuse for the eroticism and nudity. Directed by euro horror actor Alfredo Rizzo, this is one snoozer.<br /><br />Pretty boring 2 out of 10
Wow-this one sucks. I'm gonna sum it up as quickly as possible. <br /><br />A count invites 4 naive sluts back to his castle. A bunch of nothing happens for a long time. Some lame and un-erotic soft-core sex scenes happen. Some girls get their heads cut off (off-screen)-The End.<br /><br />The only things going for this one are the decent looking sets and costumes, some bad dubbing which leads to some unintentionally funny dialogue, and a few brief nudie shots. And believe me-those things are not enough to redeem the 90-minutes of tedium that this film is. In fact-the best part is the tacked on beginning from the distributor that features some slutty goth chicks covered in blood and showing their tits-and again-this is definitely not worth the price of admission for this garbage. As everyone else has noted- the title of the film is completely nonsensical-as there's absolutely no bloodsucking, nor dancing of any sort in the film at all. It may as well have been called 'The Goat-Raper Leads the Circle-Jerk'-and at least then it would have had a better title that also pertains to nothing in the film. An accurate title would have been '90 Minutes of Torture'-another alluring title that would have at least been truthful...for the viewer. Honestly-the trailer that's on the disc shows all the best parts (and i use the term 'best' extremely loosely...) so I highly suggest watching that instead if you're still curious.  I can't imagine anyone liking this wreck of a film-please take my advice and leave this one on the shelf. 2/10 
A particularly maligned example of Italian cult cinema with a nonsensical title to boot (if anything, the alternate THE MARK OF Satan is even less relevant to the plot!), this hybrid of Gothic Horror and Giallo (with a strong dose of Erotica) only contrives a flat sort of atmosphere throughout – actually matched by handling which is downright dreadful! Here, we get the usual group of people (an acting troupe) stranded on an island (to which they were invited by a Count – since he had become enamored of the leading lady, a dead-ringer for his missing spouse)! The characters are pretty much stereotypes: middle-aged but dashing hero (played by Giacomo Rossi-Stuart and whose family history bears more than its share of violent tragedy), demure heroine, sluttish companion (recalling Mae West and emerging the most annoying of the lot!), a meek but devoted stage manager (forever chided by one and all for his unmanly behavior!), a couple of lesbians, a mysterious gardener (the ubiquitous Luciano Pigozzi who, for once, gets in on the action, if you know what I mean), an envious housekeeper (nominal star Femi Benussi though, for what it is worth, this is really an ensemble piece), a religious fanatic of a butler, an impressionable chambermaid, etc. While the film is not by any means unwatchable, the atrocious dubbing, snail's pace, shoddy production (with the scenes depicting the raging sea lifted from some black-and-white film!) and the fact that the murders only occur within the concluding half-hour do not help matters. Besides, Marcello Giombini's score, though pleasant in itself, comes off as incongruously modern under the circumstances; that said, the revelation proves a surprisingly elaborate one (considering there is surely no shortage of suspects here).
After an initial release of 4 very good Eurotrash titles, REDEMPTION has managed to scrape the bottom of the barrel with THE BLOODSUCKER LEADS THE DANCE. I found NO Bloodsuckers anywhere in this movie.<br /><br />The story is simple. A mysterious count invites several actresses to his castle for a little vacation. After some sofcore sexual shenanigans the girls get decapitated one by one. Who is the killer? Who knows? There are more red herrings in this one than at the local fish market on Friday.<br /><br />The pace is excruciating. The story is silly and the skin scenes aren't all that terrific either.<br /><br />Give this one a miss.
This movie is not only a very bad movie, with awful actors --or presumed actors--, a bored direction and a story unattractive, it also copies exactly an scene from the excellent "giallio" "Torso", directed by Sergio Martino in 1973 (two years before), one of the most celebrated psycho-thrillers of Italian cinema and a cult-movie around the world. In "La Sanguinusa conduce la danza", the director replays the bed scene between the black girl and the white girl, with an peeping-tom watching from a window of the bedroom. Naturally, the scene in Rizzo's movie is ridiculous and inferior to the softness and charming in Martino's film. To put another black girl, another white girl and another peeping-tom replaying the scene is simply the most appropriate way of prove that Rizzo's movie has no ideas, no originality, no taste, and nothing at all. I think that such things are an offense to spectator.
La Sanguisuga Conduce la Danza, or The Bloodsucker Leads the Dance as I believe is it's common English title, is set on 'Ireland' in '1902' where the mysterious Count Richard Marnack (Giacomo Rossi-Stuart) invites soon-to-be out of work theatre actress Evelyn (Patrizia Webley as Patrizia De Rossi) & three more of her fellow soon-to-be out of work actress friends Cora (Krista Nell), Penny (Lidia Olizzi) & Rosalind (Marzia Damon as Caterina Chiani) to his castle situated on a small island just off the coast. At first Evelyn is reluctant but is persuaded when it is agreed stage hand Samuel (Leo Valeriano) goes along as well. Once there Count Marnack tells his guests that his Father & Grandfather both cut the heads off their cheating wives using a ceremonial knife & there's a feeling of unease when it turns out that Evelyn looks EXACTLY the same as the current Count's wife who ran away not too long ago... Along with having to worry about weirdo servants it turns out that someone wants to use the knife themselves to chop a few heads off...<br /><br />This Italian production was written & directed by Alfredo Rizzo & is total, complete & utter crap from start to finish. First things first lets start the criticism with the title The Bloodsucker Leads the Dance, lets examine that title because when I do I feel somewhat cheated that there aren't any Vampires or any form of bloodsucking whatsoever, no-one 'leads' anything at anytime & there most certainly isn't any dance or dancing so don't expect any of these things. What you should expect though is a tedious, dull, boring pointless little 'giallo' that takes over an hour before anyone is killed & any sort of murder mystery starts to take shape, the first hour of La Sanguisuga Conduce la Danza is as plot less & uninteresting as anything out there. The best way to imagine it is to think of the most boring soft-core porn film you've ever seen, then cut most of the soft-core porn out & that just leaves bad actors, bad dubbing, bad dialogue, a tiny bit of soft-core sex & lesbianism & absolutely nothing else. Yep, it really is that bad. The mystery elements are crap, people do illogical things for no apparent reason & the overly complicated 'twist' ending is as bad as the rest of it, The Sixth Sense (1999) this ain't!<br /><br />Director Rozzi does an OK job & La Sanguisga Conduce la Danza actually has a nice look & feel to it despite it's obvious low budget, I mean there are scenes where he shows a 'storm' raging outside the castle however the stock footage used is in black & white! So the film jumps from bright colour to black & white whenever it cuts to the storm & back to colour again! There is one absolutely hilarious scene where a maid & her friend discuss her breasts & she lets her friend feel them who is then full of compliments, this scene is so funny & just so unnatural that it's priceless & easily the films best moment even if a bad 70's porno would be embarrassed by the dialogue! There is minimal nudity & the sex/lesbian scenes are very tame. Forget about any blood or gore as there isn't any apart from a decapitated head.<br /><br />Technically the films pretty good, the period setting & production design are actually quite impressive although it's not massive in scope it does the job effectively enough. The film has a nice sense of colour & the cinematography is fine. The film is dubbed so it's hard to give an opinion on the original performances but the voice actors are terrible & the dialogue is even worse than usual.<br /><br />La Sanguisuga Conduce la Danza is a terrible film, it makes no sense, it has virtually no story for over an hour, it has possibly the most misleading title ever & is really dull & boring with a confused stupid 'twist' ending. As far as Euro horror fans go there are plenty of much better films than this so please don't waste your time, as for anyone else this is definitely one to avoid. Trivia Note: the notorious (& banned in the UK) Nazi exploitation/horror film Horrifying Experiments of the S.S Last Days (1977) AKA SS Hell Camp & The Beast in Heat was directed by Luigi Batzella & he has a fairly substantial role as a police detective in La Sanguisuga Conduce la Danza.
The Bloodsucker Leads the Dance - what a laughable title, it's so utterly misleading. It's not surprising that the film-makers try and mislead us though because this is one terrible movie.<br /><br />The story basically involves a murder mystery in a castle on a remote island.<br /><br />Very little happens in this film. And when something does wake the viewer from his stupor, it invariably is unintentional comedy in the form of atrocious dialogue delivered by a hopeless group of voice-artists. These guys are so bad they make the actors they deliver voices for appear like a group of remedial-level morons. It really is hard to determine how bad the acting is when you have dubbing this abysmal. But the voice-artists cannot be blamed for the script. It's a travesty. Unintentionally funny at best, pathetic at worst. The story in general is, to say the least, uneven. The women characters are particularly idiotic; the men are either creepy or tedious.<br /><br />The whole enterprise smacks of pure exploitation of the audience. It doesn't remotely deliver what it promises and even when the murders (finally) start happening, they all occur off screen. All we get is a few half-hearted severed head shots.<br /><br />A few people have said that this movie is a giallo. I cannot agree less with this opinion. Anyone who enjoys Italian thrillers should give this movie a wide berth as there is nothing remotely thrilling about it. It's basically a soft-core porn film with a horror angle. But it's not very erotic either.<br /><br />I can't recommend this to anyone.
The Horror Channel plays nothing but erotic soft porn Gothic flicks each night from 10pm till about 4 in the morning, but their 'scare' factor is very limited, if one exists at all. In fact I am sure I will find a multi-million pound lottery win more scary than anything this channel has to offer.<br /><br />The Bloodsucker Leads the Dance deserves special mention because it is I feel, the undisputed low of a channel full of lows. I cannot even begin to tell you how bad this film is, but for the purpose of completing the minimum 10 lines demanded by this site, I will at least give it a go.<br /><br />Firstly the title is misleading and bears no resemblance to the action on the screen. In fact the film might as well have been called 'Toothbrush' or 'Wallpaper' for all it has to do with the plot. At least they used toothbrushes...at least they had wallpaper.<br /><br />There are no bloodsuckers for miles around and whats even worse there are no dances, not one. I'm sure they were making two different films by mistake here.<br /><br />A more suitable title would have been, 'Horny Italian Count Leads Five People to a Scary Castle and Bores us Silly for Ninety Minutes.' Yes that fits better.<br /><br />The acting is terrible and and the dubbing appalling, and that guy who plays Seymour was almost as wooden in his walk as he was in his character....abysmal.<br /><br />The only saving graces of this film are a small but slightly interesting lesbian sex scene, two small and very interesting heterosexual sex scenes, and the added attraction in that every single female character gets her kit off. Bonus.<br /><br />Otherwise steer a wide birth away from this one. No vampires, no dancing, no scenes of a brutal or gruesome nature and no way on Gods earth I will ever, ever, ever watch this one again.<br /><br />No word of a lie, this film could put you off motion pictures for life.
I saw this movie when i was much younger and i thought it was funny. I saw it again last week, and you can guess the result. Some funny parts in it, very few and too long. The beginning is the only thing that is funny if you ask me.<br /><br />If you want a total b-movie this is a good pick, but don't expect too much from aliens dwarf size
This is a really dumb movie. It could be fun with the cool looking aliens and the country setting, but it just isn't.<br /><br />Some aliens hear the broadcast of War of the Worlds when a small country radio station plays it on Halloween. They come to Earth to kill humans, but instead of killing, they make people their slaves and act goofy. The front cover of the film shows these aliens riding surfboards in space...not really what they do. These aren't party aliens, they are stupid cartoonish idiots with annoying high pitched modulated voices. The alien with the most tolerable voice also happens to be the Jack Nicholson rip-off alien who always wears his sunglasses. Other than the aliens, the acting is terrible. The writing is obviously meant for children, because every character is written like a kid.<br /><br />This is a dumb movie, that only children will appreciate, maybe.<br /><br />My rating: 1/2 out of ****. 100 mins. PG for mild language.
Imagine you're a high-school boy, in the back of a dark, uncrowded theater with your girlfriend. How bad would a movie have to be, in order that you would feel compelled to leave the theater and head home before it ended? This movie is that bad. Really. Movies often become so bad that they're good; this movie is beyond that stage of bad-ness. It is painfully bad. Horribly, terribly, crime-against-humanity bad.
This was an incredibly stupid movie. It was possibly the worst movie I've ever had the displeasure of sitting through. I cannot fathom how it ranks a rating of 5 or 6.............
Sloppily directed, witless comedy that supposedly spoofs the "classic" 50s "alien invasion" films, but really is no better than them, except of course in the purely technical department (good makeup effects). And any spoof that is worse than its target is doomed to fail ("Casino Royale", "Our Man Flint" are worse than almost any James Bond movie). After two hours of hearing the screeching voices of the aliens, you'll be begging for some peace and quiet. (*1/2)
Dysfunctional family goes home for the holidays and murder and mayhem result. Violent sexy Milligan at his most home made. Little better than a home movie (as much of Milligans films are) this is a trip into depravity 1960's style. Notable for the copious nudity and sex this film is neither sexy nor gruesome, playing now more as quaint.(though decidedly r rated). The film suffers from its uneven cast and from the cheapness of the production.(No one was ever sure where the money went on his movies since he was always broke). Its a bad bad movie thats not worth seeing except as a Milligan completeist or because its got some good looking people fooling around.
If you're after the real story of early Baroque painter Artemisia Gentileschi, you'll be disappointed- however if you're after a reasonably crafted bodice ripper with an art theme, you've found you're movie.<br /><br />This film is such a foundationally inaccurate depiction of Artemisia Gentileschi's life that it almost made me weep. (Type in Artemisia inaccuracies in Google and check out some of the fact vs. fiction articles.) From a purely technical point of view though, the film was alright: the sets, costumes, and especially the chiaroscuro lighting helped create an immersive early 17th century experience; although the above mentioned GLARING FACTUAL INACCURACIES let it down a bit.<br /><br />I wonder how the director/co-writer Agnès Merlet defended her film at the time? Perhaps she refused to portray Artemisia as a victim, which would've been unfortunate, because lets face it, she was.
As others have noted, this movie is criminally inaccurate in its portrayal of the artist's life and I for one was very annoyed and offended... by its transformation of her rape into a tragic love affair, by the implication that her rapist was responsible for 'awakening her talent,' by its complete disregard for her work, by the way it turned her into a sex object, on and on, you get the idea. Also, I find it disturbing that people who aren't familiar with Gentileschi will see this film and walk away with that kind of impression of her.
Artemesia takes the usual story about the art world, eg, "You can't paint that! But I want to!" and plasters it with sex and scandal to make the whole film, well, interesting, but not remarkable.<br /><br />The story is about one of the first female painters around, Artemesia who course, is fiercely independent, but just can't stop thinking of men, and their bodies… for artistic purposes of course. She soon gets private tutoring from one of a well known artist, but soon tutoring becomes much more then art, and soon after that, scandal erupts! Funny how they could take a historical biography and make it almost into a soft-porn fantasy. I mean, was Artemesia THAT much of a man-hungry person? Also, it's quite funny when she's insisting that she "paints for herself!" yet falls for the first person she sees.<br /><br />Actually, the story itself is quite fascinating, and it ends with a trial, which I always love. But I wasn't too crazy about the male lead who played her teacher, who looked rather like the person someone like that wouldn't fall for. I woulda gone for the young fisherman :P
The acting is good, the women are beautiful, and the men are handsome, so if you're looking for well-acted soft porn, this movie is for you. Otherwise, you are wasting your time. The motivation of the main characters, in particular the eponymous lead, is often a mystery. She could have just told the truth - the truth as presented in the film, not necessarily the historical truth - and her lover would have been spared time in jail for a rape he did not commit. Was she protecting her father, who went off half-cocked, as it were, when he impetuously instigated a malicious lawsuit? Was she protecting herself, with her reputation suddenly of concern when heretofore only her art seemed to matter? During the trial, this strong-willed woman turns to mush before our eyes. Conversely, her lover, who starts off as a narcissistic jerk, becomes a selfless hero during the trial. At least his motivation is clearer: he sacrifices himself for love. Naturally, since no good deed must go unpunished, we are told that she never sees him again.
An awful film! It must have been up against some real stinkers to be nominated for the Golden Globe. They've taken the story of the first famous female Renaissance painter and mangled it beyond recognition. My complaint is not that they've taken liberties with the facts; if the story were good, that would perfectly fine. But it's simply bizarre -- by all accounts the true story of this artist would have made for a far better film, so why did they come up with this dishwater-dull script? I suppose there weren't enough naked people in the factual version. It's hurriedly capped off in the end with a summary of the artist's life -- we could have saved ourselves a couple of hours if they'd favored the rest of the film with same brevity.
What did the director think? Everybody who has read the biography of Artemisia is left impressed by her guts to face a public rape trial in Renaissance times and even suffer torture in order to show that Tassi was guilty. That fact shows the real independence and emancipation - in her most terrible hour she stands her MAN. Why do movies depicting Renaissance have to be so clinically beautiful and romantic, are we afraid to see the gritty side of life or has the Hollywood happy-happy-mood won? While I would always defend a director's freedom to create his own reality in a movie I cannot make sense of turning Artimisia's life story on its head. Very disappointing choice by the makers of this film.
This flick was a blow to me. I guess little girls should aspire to be nothing more than swimsuit models, home makers or mistresses, since that seems to be all they'll ever be portrayed as anyway. It is truly saddening to see an artist's work and life being so unjustly misinterpretated. Inconcievably (or perhaps it should have been expected), Artemisia's entire character and all that she stands for, had been reduced to a standard Hollywood, female character; a pitiful, physically flawless, helpless little creature, displaying none of the character traits that actually got her that place in history which was being mutilated here. Sadder yet, was to see that a great part of the audience was too badly educated in the area to comprehend the incredible gap between the message conveyed in the film, and reality. To portray the artist as someone in love with her real-life rapist, someone whom she in reality accused of raping her even when under torture, just plain pisses me off. If the director had nothing more substantial to say she should have refrained from basing her story on a real person.
When I saw the preview, I thought: this is going to be a great movie. And indeed it could have been. The actress playing the main character was very credible, and the beauty of the filming is undeniable. However the dialogues cast a dark shadow on the whole picture. The level of language was too familiar and too contemporary for an action taking place in 1610, and it took away most of the magic of the film. However, I must congratulate the translator, because the English sub-titles were more refined and appropriate that the original French cues, and it probably explains the good rating the movie received on the imbd!
I was disgusted by this movie. No it wasn't because of the graphic sex scenes, it was because it ruined the image of Artemisia Gentileschi. This movie does not hold much truth about her and her art. It shows one piece of art work that she did (Judith Beheading Holofernese) but shows that being entered as testimony in the rape trial when she did not paint her first Judith for a year after the trial.<br /><br />I don't know if you understood this from the movie, probably not, Tassi was not a noble character. He RAPED Artemisia. It was not love, it was rape. He did not claim to accept false charges of rape to stop her from suffering while she was tortured. According to the rape transcripts he continued to claim that he never carnally knew Artemisia (aka had sex with) while she states over and over again "It's true".<br /><br />I encourage all of you people to go out and find about the real Artemisia and see what she is really about. Don't base all of your knowledge on this fictional movie. I encourage you to do some research, Artemisia really does have interesting story behind her and some amazing art work.<br /><br />Don't see the movie, but find out the true story of Artemisia.
I didn't think the French could make a bad movie, but I was, clearly, very wrong. As has been said before, this film essentially uses its title character as a point of departure; its portrayal of her life and person have little or nothing to do with the real Artemisia Gentileschi. <br /><br />The script is awful -- pretentious, stilted, and vapid -- and its rewriting of the facts is unusually offensive even in a genre that all too often makes its living by distorting, rather than retelling, history. Along with some fairly decent set design, Valentina Cervi's physical charms are the primary asset of this movie, and it's obvious from the beginning that the filmmakers were aware of this too; they waste no time in contriving various "erotic" sequences which have far more to do with titillation than with plot or character development. Unfortunately, the appeal of seeing a pretty young girl in a state of feigned sexual arousal cannot, and does not, sustain this movie. The acting is unremarkable, and the score is all too generic despite an interesting chord or two. The cinematography is OK, and there are some pretty colors, but there are also some pretty ridiculous sequences using distorted-lens effects more appropriate for a 1960s freakout movie than a costume drama. In any event, the script leaves the camera dwelling all too often on Artemisia's body, and all too seldom on her paintings.<br /><br />All told, a near-complete failure. It's not intelligent or tasteful enough to be a serious film, and it's too slow and pretentious to work as soft-core pornography. So the French can fail, after all!
It figures this is a French film, LOL, with the emphasis on young girls with much older men...why is it the French are so fixated on this kind of thing? When the age difference is this great, it really comes off as pervy! Valentina Cervi is beautiful (she bears a strong resemblance to Olivia Hussey, of Zeffirelli's '68 Romeo and Juliet, set in a similar period), but she looks about 15 and the actor playing Tassi, her painting instructor, looks...well, 50 is KIND.<br /><br />Other posters have done the work of explaining the historical record (unusually detailed in this case) of the real Artemisia, a great artist and one of the earliest recognized female painters of this period (17th century). Her story speaks to us in modern times particularly because of the age-old accusation that "all great artists were men" -- she pretty much blasts that assertion to bits -- and because the story of her rape trial is so poignant. Not only was she clearly assaulted, and forced into a degrading sexual relationship (because in those days marriage to your assaulter was the only way to avoid social shame), but Tassi was a serial rapist and possibly killed his wife and child.<br /><br />The movie does a terrible disservice by inverting this truly fascinating and remarkable real life story -- very dramatic and not in need of any "spicing up" -- because in some weird Frencified way, it's "hotter" to have an oversexed teenager drawing male sexual organs and having a hot love affair with a man old enough to be her grandfather. That's "sexy" -- the truth is boring and seems too feminist/politically correct.<br /><br />It also disturbs me that this is ONLY part of Artemisia life considered interesting enough to film. The fact that she painted for decades (her famous painting of Judith beheading Holfernes was painted AFTER, not before the rape), that she was the first woman admitted to the prestigious Florentine Academy, that she went on to have children...oh that's boring stuff. After all, that's about a middle aged woman and they aren't "hot" like teenagers.<br /><br />I understand that there is a lot of creative license in making a film (or a book) about a real historical character. You need to create dialog, have subplots, create dramatic structure. Certainly some details can be sacrificed -- it's no big deal if the dates are moved a few years, or if Artemisia is played by a blonde actress (when we know from her self portraits that she was a brunette...and a big boned one, not a skinny minny), or something like that. But to turn her story around on her, and make rape into a romance is actually sick and disturbing. It's even worse because the director is female. She should be horribly ashamed of herself!<br /><br />If you LIKE this (and I know some people could care less about the real woman artist and just like period costumes and hot sex), you will probably like "Dangerous Beauty" with Rufus Sewell and Catherine McCormack. Similarly based on heavily re-written history, with lots of heaving bosoms and jewel encrusted goblets: Bon Appetit!
Any time a movie is so myopic in its desire to present a particular ending or viewpoint that it simply doesn't bother with an actual story, it's annoying. Those are the types of movies where the ending or viewpoint is conceived first, and the story simply tacked on. For this reason we often talk of the story "jumping through hoops" as it twists about, trying in vain to progress to the preordained ending in a logical fashion.<br /><br />The story in "Comet Over Broadway" doesn't just jump through hoops, it's a three ring circus. It's so ludicrous, so ill-conceived, so disingenuous that, if you are prone to speaking aloud to the screen, you will be carrying on quite a rant before it's through.<br /><br />The central theme of this screenplay cesspool is that of a woman choosing between family and profession. Since it's all so horribly muddled it will end up offensive to people of either opinion. So, in the end there's no point to the story, the theme becomes irrelevant and, as is often the case with poor screenplays, the acting doesn't save a thing.
2 stars for Kay Francis -- she's wonderful! And she didn't deserve this horrible tripe that Warner Bros. threw her way! <br /><br />The two-pronged premise that this movie is based on is ridiculous and unbelievable in the extreme. Kay is a small-town wife and mother who yearns for something bigger: she wants to be an actress. When a big-shot actor comes to town and invites Kay to his hotel to talk about possibilities, Kay tells her husband she's going to the movies. The hubby's biddy of a mother puts a bug in hubby's ear that Kay's not being truthful, and he sets out looking for her. He finds her w/ the actor in the hotel (they are only talking!) and he slugs the guy, who falls over a railing, lands face-first in a pond (lake?), and dies. Now here's the two unbelievable premises upon which the rest of the movie is based: <br /><br />1) the judge tells the jury that if it's determined that the man died *before* his head went into the water, that they must find the hubby guilty of first degree murder. (Whaaaaa?????? I think slugging a guy in a fit of rage would count for manslaughter or murder 2 at the most, not FIRST DEGREE murder. Give me a break! But the plot required him being found guilty of murder 1 so that he could be sent to prison for life. Whatever.) <br /><br />2) the hubby's lawyer, after the conviction and sentencing, tells Kay that it's all HER fault. His reasoning is that if she hadn't gone over to the actor's room, then her husband wouldn't have had to go after her and slug the guy and kill him. He tells her that she's the guilty one, not her husband, and she nods and agrees. What. The. Hell?!?!?! The rest of the movie is all about Kay trying to achieve fame and money in order to get her husband released from prison and right the wrong she committed by causing him to kill the actor dude in the first place.<br /><br />I can't even go on with this review. The movie was just all too painful. Four years earlier, in the pre-code days, you'd never have caught Kay playing such a wimp! In true Kay Francis fashion, though, she did do her best to make us believe that this woman was a believable character. I give her much credit for trying to breathe some life and credibility to this thankless role. This character was a far cry from pre-code Kay roles and real-life spitfire Kay Francis.<br /><br />Steer way clear of this one! There are much better Kay Francis vehicles out there! (From personal experience, I can highly recommend Mary Stevens, MD and Jewel Robbery; also good are Dr. Monica and One Way Passage. I'm sure there's other great Kay flicks as well, but I'm only mentioning the ones I've seen and can recommend.)
Wow, the plot for this film is all over the place! There is so much plot and so many things that happen that it practically made my head spin!! And, as a result, none of it seemed particularly believable.<br /><br />The movie starts with Kay Francis as a housewife living in a small town. She's had some experience with local theater and has ambitions of going to Broadway. When a big-time actor arrives in town, she pursues him in hopes that he can give her a career boost. But, her husband is worried about shenanigans--as this actor is a cad. So, the hubby bursts in on them and hits the actor--and the actor dies! As a result, he's convicted of First Degree Murder!!! Not Manslaughter, but Murder 1! Now, pregnant and in need of funds, Kay goes to New York. But Broadway jobs aren't to be found, so she's forced to take any job--even Burlesque. Unable to adequately care for her young daughter, she gives it to another woman to raise. However, eventually she does find a job in a real Broadway play and everything looks rosy. But, the jealous diva starring in the play hates her for some inexplicable reason and forces her to be thrown off the play. Despondent, she makes her way to England and becomes a real star. Years later, she returns to New York to get her kid--but the child is older and thinks the woman caring for her is her real mother. At the same time, her husband's lawyer now thinks that if he gets $10,000 he can get the man out of prison. As another reviewer wrote, is this to bribe people?! How can $10,000 get him out otherwise--maybe it will buy a helicopter so they can fly into the prison yard and scoop him up!! Wow--this is enough for 2 or 3 films! And, all this occurs by the 45 minute mark!!! Believe it or not, there's quite a bit more to it. If you really care, see it yourself to find out how it all unfolds.<br /><br />This is sort of like 'kitchen sink writing'--throwing in practically everything and hoping, somehow, it will all work. Unfortunately, the film turns out to be hopelessly unbelievable and mushy despite Ms. Francis' best efforts. It's the sort of film no one could really have saved thanks to a 2nd-rate plot. It's almost as if someone just took a few dozen plot elements, threw them into a box and then began randomly picking them in order to make a movie!! Overall, unless you are a die-hard Kay Francis fan or love anything Hollywood made in the 1930s, this one is one you can easily skip. Not terrible but certainly not good.<br /><br />By the way, the child who plays Francis' daughter upon her return to New York (Sybil Jason) really was terrible. I think she was supposed to be...I think.
The competition for the worst Warner Bros Kay Francis movie is stiff. I've only seen perhaps eight of them, but Comet over Broadway is the worst so far. The very best thing about it is that it's short. Oh, and the Orry-Kelly gowns (of course) are fine. James Wong Howe's cinematography is not. Kay Francis throughout looks fat-faced and far less attractive than she normally does. Minna Gombell whom I don't know otherwise is good as a semi-tough "burlesque" dancer (it looked more like a fashion show than burlesque). The closing shot - Kay Francis and her child (when did the child learn that Kay Francis was her mother? Did I doze off?) walking up a dirt path toward a prison painted in misty outlines on a sound stage drop is beyond ludicrous. The whole film is so cheap, so implausible and so careless that it feels infected by a sour cynicism on the part of everyone who made it: Warner Bros tossing garbage to dolts who don't know, in Warner Bros' cynical estimation of them, that what they're getting is garbage.
I read somewhere that when Kay Francis refused to take a cut in pay, Warner Bros. retaliated by casting her in inferior projects for the remainder of her contract.<br /><br />She decided to take the money. But her career suffered accordingly.<br /><br />That might explain what she was doing in "Comet Over Broadway." (Though it doesn't explain why Donald Crisp and Ian Hunter are in it, too.) "Ludicrous" is the word that others have used for the plot of this film, and that's right on target. The murder trial. Her seedy vaudeville career. Her success in London. Her final scene with her daughter. No part logically leads to the next part.<br /><br />Also, the sets and costumes looked like B-movie stuff. And her hair! Turner is showing lots and lots of her movies this month. Watch any OTHER one and you'll be doing yourself a favor.
When converting a book to film, it is generally a good idea to keep at least some of the author's intended tone or conveyed concepts, rather than ignoring the author altogether. While it is clear that the director had access to and went on the advice of Elinore Stewart's children, it is key to note that the children believed their mother to be a complete liar in regards to the good, enriching, strengthening experiences of homesteading her land. The book details her life on her and her husband's adjoining homesteads in the vast Wyoming frontier; she chronicles daily adventures with her numerous friends and acquaintances, though they lived dozens of miles apart. The film, however, takes a standard stance for the time it was made, portraying this woman's experience as harsh, unforgiving, and nearly pointless. Perhaps the director was bringing some of his Vietnam War experiences with him to this movie (as some film aficionados have said), but it seems to be a lousy excuse for taking all the joy and beauty of the book and twisting it into a bleak, odious landscape devoid of friends or hope. Don't waste your time with this movie; read the book instead.
One of the most disgusting films I have ever seen. I wanted to vomit after watching it. I saw this movie in my American History class and the purpose was to see an incite on the life of a farmer in the West during the late 1800's. What we saw were pigs being shot and then slaughtered, human birth, branding. Oh and at the end there was a live birth of a calf and let me tell you that the birth itself wasn't too bad, but the numerous fluids that came out drove most people in my class to the bathroom. The story itself was OK. The premise of the story is a widow and her daughter and they move to the west to be a house keeper of this cowboy. They live a life of hardship and it is an interesting a pretty accurate view of life in the West during the late 1800's. But if you have a choice, do not see this movie.
I realize that living in the Western Plains of Wyoming during the 1900s was brutal, in fact, it probably is still brutal today, but was it monumental enough to transform into a seemingly "made-for-TV" movie? Also, women's rights were still budding in this nation during this time, so to find an independent woman determined to start fresh in this harsh territory, and still show the realism of the era … would it make for good viewing? Honestly, I don't know. I have thought about this film for the past two days, and I still can't seem to muster the strength to say that it was a horrible film, yet I can truthfully tell you that it wasn't the greatest I have ever seen. From several hodgepodge styles of acting, to two mismatched actors playing devoid of emotion character, to some of the most gruesome PG rated scenes to ever come out of late 70s cinema, it is hard to fully get a good grasp on Heartland. Was it good? Was it bad? That may be up for you to view and decide yourself, but until then, here are moments I enjoyed and desperately hated! <br /><br />This film continues to be a struggle in my mind because there were some very interesting scenes. Scenes where I wasn't sure what the director was doing or which direction he was headed, but somehow still seemed to work well as a whole. I thought the story as a whole was a very interesting, historical tale. I do not know much about living in Wyoming, especially during the early 1900s, so this film captured that image in my mind. The thought of very cold winters, no neighbors for miles upon miles, and this Polaroid-esquire view untouched by corporate America. It was refreshing to witness and sheer breathtaking to experience (though the television). There were scenes that really stood out in my mind, like the cattle-branding scene, the pig slaughtering scene, and the saddening homesteader that didn't survive their journey, that just brought a true sense of realism to this story. Director Richard Pearce did a great job of bringing the view of Wyoming to the viewers, but I am not sure he brought decent players to accompany the view.<br /><br />While I will constantly compliment the scenery of this film, I had trouble coping with the actors that seemingly walked on the set and read their lines from cards on the side. Rip Torn seemed out of place in his role as Clyde Stewart, a loner that somehow finds a connection with Conchata Ferrell's Elinore Randall. The two as actors have no chemistry at all. Their scenes that they share together are pointless and honestly void of any emotion. The pregnancy scene nearly had me in stitches because of the way these two "veteran" actors portrayed it. The brave Elinore does what she has to do to get the child out of her, while Clyde gives an approving nod when she is done. This is love? Was it supposed to be love? I don't know, I think with stronger characters we would have seen a stronger bond, but with Torn and Ferrell, it felt like two actors just playing their parts. Other scenes that just seemed to struggle in my mind were ones like when the frozen horse "knocks" on the door for food or shelter, the constantly fading and growing compassion that Clyde had for Elinore's daughter (I just didn't believe it), the lack of true winter struggle, and the entire land scene. The land scene especially because I needed more explanation on what Elinore was doing, why she was doing it, and why Clyde would build her a house if they were married! It was these simple events that if taken the time to explore, would have made for a stronger film.<br /><br />Overall, I will go middle of the road with this feature. There were definitely elements that should have been explored deeper, such as the relationship between these two strangers and the ultimate homesteading goals of Elinore, but they were countered with some beautiful scenes of our nation. These panoramic scenes which, in the span of 100 years, have changes from vast mountains to enormous skyscrapers. While there were some brilliant scenes of realism (starring cattle and pigs), I just felt as if we needed more. Depth was a key element lacking in this film, which was overshadowed by marginal acting and a diminishing story. Pearce could have dove deeper into this untapped world, but instead left open loopholes and clichéd Western characters. Ferrell carried her own, but Torn was completely miscast. Decent for a viewing, but will not be picked up again by me.<br /><br />Grade: ** out of *****
That's what my friend Brian said about this movie after about an hour of it. He wasn't able to keep from dozing off. I had been ranting about how execrable it was and finally I relented and played it, having run out of adjectives for "boring". <br /><br />Imagine if you will, the pinnacle of hack-work. Something so uninspired, so impossibly dreadful, that all you want to do after viewing it is sit alone in the dark and not speak to anybody. Some people labor under the illusion that this movie is watchable. It is not, not under any form of narcotic or brain damage. I would ONLY recommend this to someone in order to help them understand how truly unbearable it is. Don't believe me? Gather 'round. <br /><br />Granted, as a nation, we in America don't always portray Middle Eastern peoples in a tasteful manner. But how about a kid in a sheik outfit bowing in salaam-fashion to a stack of Castrol motor oil bottles? You'll find that here. GET IT? THE ARAB WORSHIPS OIL. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Having the kid fly planes into a skyscraper would've been more appropriate. Who in their right mind would think that was a funny joke? It's not even close to "cleverly offensive". It just sucks and makes you want to punch whomever got paid to write that bit in the face. <br /><br />In the middle of the film, a five-man singing group called the "Landmines" takes the stage at an officers' ball. Okay- are you ready? The joke is THEY SING TERRIBLY AND OFF-KEY. Why did I write that in caps also? Because the joke is POUND, POUND, POUNDED INTO YOUR HEAD with a marathon of HORRENDOUS sight gags. They start off mediocre enough; glasses cracking, punch tumblers shattering... then there is, I am 100% serious, a two-frame stop-motion sequence of A WOMAN'S SHOES COMING OFF. You read that correctly- the music was so bad, in one frame, the woman's feet have shoes on. In the very next- the shoes are off!!! Get it, because the music was so bad, her shoes came off! What the F???? <br /><br />Then there is an endless montage of stock footage to drive home the point that the SINGING IS BAD. If any human being actually suffered through this scene in the theater without running like hell, I would be astonished. This movie is honestly like a practical joke to see how fast people would bolt out the doors. Robert Downey Sr. directs comedy the way his son commands respect by staying drug-free. Badly. Other things to watch out for:<br /><br />1. The popular music shoehorned in wherever possible. Every time Liceman appears, a really inappropriate Iggy Pop song plays. Plus all the actors do their best to act like it got really chilly for some reason.<br /><br />2. Barbara Bach's criminally awful accent. She sounds like she's trying to talk like a baby while rolling a marble around on her tongue. There is no nudity, and there are several scenes where the boys all moan and writhe from a glimpse of her cleavage, like they're in a community school acting class and they've been directed to act like aroused retarded people. <br /><br />3. Liceman feeds his revolting dog a condom. Remember; when this movie came out throwing in "abortion" and "condom" was seen as "edgy". <br /><br />4. Tom Poston plays a mincing, boy-hungry pedophile, back when Hollywood thought "pedophile" and "homosexual" were one in the same. Flat-out embarrassing. <br /><br />5. Watch the ending. Nothing is wrong with your VCR. That is actually the ending. Tell me that doesn't make you want to explode everyone who's ever made any movie, ever. <br /><br />Watch this at your own risk. Up The Academy has been known to actually make other movies, like The Jerk or Blazing Saddles, less funny simply by placing the videotape near them.
The only thing I remember about this movie are two things: first, as a twelve year old, even I thought it stunk. Second, it was so bad that when Mad magazine did a parody of it, they quit after the first page, and wrote a disclaimer at the bottom of the page saying that they had completely disavowed it.<br /><br />If you want to see great sophomoric comedies of this period, try Animal House. It's so stupid and vulgar it lowers itself to high art. Another good selection would be Caddyshack, the classic with the late Rodney Dangerfield and Bill Murray before he became annoyingly charming, with great lines like greens keeper Carl Spackler's "Correct me if I'm wrong Sandy, but if I kill all the golfers they'll lock me up and throw away the key."
A stale "misfits-in-the-army" saga, which half-heartedly attempts to be both surreal (the foreign subtitles) AND vulgar (the flatulence gags), but just ends up being a mix of many different kinds of humor, none of them followed very successfully. Barbara Bach, the Bond Girl from "The Spy Who Loved Me", has only two or three brief scenes. What a waste! (*1/2)
I used to LOVE this movie as a kid but, seeing it again 20+ years later, it actually sucks. Up The Academy might have been ahead of it's time back in 1980, but it has almost nothing to offer today! Movies like Caddyshack and Stripes hold-up much better today than this steaming dogpile. No T&A. No great jokes except for the one-liners we've all heard a million times by now.<br /><br />I recently bought the DVD in hopes that it would be the gem I remembered it being. Well, I was WAY off! The soundtrack had only 2-3 widely-recognizable hits (not the smash compilation others had mentioned) and the frequent voice-overs were terrible. The only thing that was interesting, to me, was predicting what the character's lines were before they said them. Yep, I watched this movie that much back then! <br /><br />The only reason I am writing this review is to give my two cents on why this movie should be forgotten, sorry to say. :(
Mad Magazine may have a lot of crazy people working for it...but obviously someone there had some common sense when the powers-that-be disowned this waste of celluloid...the editing is el crapo, the plot is incredibly thin and stupid...and the only reason it gets a two out of ten is that Stacy Nelkin takes off some of her clothes and we get a nice chest shot...I never thought I would feel sorry for Ralph Macchio making the decision to be in this thing, but I do...and I REALLY feel bad for Ron Leibman and Tom Poston, gifted actors who never should have shown up in this piece of...film...at least Mr. Leibman had the cajones to refuse to have his name put anywhere on the movie...and he comes out ahead...there are actually copies of this thing with Mad's beginning sequence still on it...if you can locate one, grab it cuz it is probably worth something...it's the only thing about this movie that's worth anything...and a note to the folks at IMDb.com...there is no way to spoil this movie for anyone...the makers spoiled it by themselves...
Before I comment on this movie I just watched on YouTube, I have to admit that the reason I checked this out was to rewatch something I first saw on the TV ads in 1980: Barbara Bach's cleavage. And since the movie received an R rating, I expected to see her nude. Alas, no dice for her or of the other gorgeous actress that appeared here: Stacey Nelkin who's supposed to be a teen but was actually 20 when she made this. Seeing her in a bra and panty and later in a belly dancer outfit was just as arousing as Ms. Bach. They provide some of the scattered laughs this movie provides. In fact, I don't blame Ron Leibman for having his name removed from the credits since his role as the tight-fisted Liceman is pretty embarrassing though I did like the "seduction" scene he did with Ms. Nelkin. This also happens to be the debut of Ralph Macchio who's the loner among the misfits sent to an academy school. The others are a black kid who really loves his stepmother and Ms. Bach, an Arab who worships motor oil, and a politician's son who loves his girlfriend Candy (Nelkin's character) so much, he risks sneaking in the middle of the night see her in the girls academy. Among the supporting cast, Tom Poston plays a swishy character named Sisson who I found partly amusing. With a screenplay by Tom Patchett and Jay Tarses and direction by Robert Downey Sr. (whose son Robert Downey Jr. has a cameo early on in a soccer scene), Up the Academy is uneven with the politically incorrect humor but unless you're really offended at the scatological and sexual content, this is actually a pretty harmless comedy that Mad Magazine and its trademark cover boy-Alfred E. Newman-shouldn't be ashamed of even though they once had their name and character taken off the picture...P.S. Another one of the "misfits" was Harry Teinowitz who was born in my birth town of Chicago, Ill. He played Rodney Ververgaert. He also says one of my favorite lines: "I'm trying to come."
There are bad movies, terrible movies even boring movies...I can watch most and put up until the end, not this time. Avoid this like the plague, annoying music throughout, terrible editing, no comedy, its tackier than a novelty mug...My missus wanted to watch this thinking it would be Legally Blonde material or something kind of watchable, but never better than average, chick flick. Its the first time she was begging me to push the stop button.<br /><br />The Girls, well, they were not great to start with (Denise done OK in Starship Troopers and Wild things) but you have sank to the gravel. I feel like a mug having spent 30 minutes on this...Pamela Anderson is almost unrecognisable after much construction work to her face.<br /><br />Please take my advice if you want to avoid wasting valuable oxygen and brain cells ranting at the utter mince that is on your screen.
How could I best express my feelings about this movie: hideous? a headache? lack of coherent writing? plain stupidity? Try all of the above for this travesty. And that just for the direction.<br /><br />Story? Well I guess there is a story. Two dumb blondes look for a job after they crash a plane into a golf course. They are mistaken for a 'world renounced assassin' (sarcasm) and are 'hired' by two 'mobsters'. One thinks "taking him out" means a date, and the other gets the minor actor she dreams of. And of course, the turtle reserve for the farting turtle, that they build with the casino winnings.<br /><br />Sounds likes all this could be funny? Guess again. They try to make it funny, but its not. Filming sequences aren't well done. I've seen better filming in Hong Kong movies. Visuals are average for a late 80s film. But the problem is that its a 2007 movie.<br /><br />Not worth my time to ever watch this again. It still doesn't beat Danny Glover's "Out" movie from the early 80s as the worst movie of all time, but then again that film is in a class of its own. "F"
When I was at the movie store the other day, I passed up Blonde and Blonder, but something about it just seemed like it could possibly be a cute movie. Who knows? I mean, I'm sure most people bashed Romy and Michelle before they saw it, Blonde and Blonder might have just been another secret treasure that was passed up. But when I started watching it: Executive Producer Pamela Anderson, wow, I knew I was in for something scary. Not only that, but both of what were considered the pinnacle of hotness: Pam Anderson and Denise Richards, not to offend them, but they were not aging well at all and they're playing roles that I think were more meant for women who are supposed to be in their 20's, not their 40's. The story was just plain bad and obnoxious.<br /><br />Dee and Dawn are your beyond stupid stereotypical blonde's, they really don't have a clue when it comes to what is going on in the world, it's just really sad. But when the girls are somehow mistaken for murder assassins, the cops are on their tale and are actually calling the girls geniuses due to their "ignorance is bliss" attitudes. They are set up to make a "hit" on a guy, and they think they're just going to "show him a good time", but the real assassin is ticked and wants the case and to kill the girls.<br /><br />Denise and Pam just look very awkward on the screen and almost like they read the script the day before. I know that this was supposed to be the stupid comedy, but it was more than stupid, it went onto obnoxious and was just unnecessary. Would I ever recommend this? Not in a million years, the girls are just at this point trying to maintain their status as "sex kittens", it's more a sign of desperation and Blonde and Blonder is a huge blonde BOMBshell.<br /><br />1/10
This movie is not in anyway funny, it tries to be funny with it's lame humor, which is so dry and boring that the movie is just 2 hours of torture. Throughout the whole movie i was thinking one thing, "when is this gonna end". One thing you have to hand to them, is that they do have a very few mildly funny moments, which is also why i gave it a whole 2 stars. It is unoriginal and uses up almost every old blonde joke in the book, even the ones that wasn't funny the first time. It basically is a movie to belittle blondes and to record the whole repetoir of blonde jokes.<br /><br />To sum it all up, this movie is blonde humor gone bad, it is not worth paying any amount of money to watch, it is just that bad.
Blonde and Blonder was unfunny.Basically, it was a rip-off girl version of Dumb and Dumber, but less funny, and they used too much background noises and music.WAY TOO MUCH BACKGROUND NOISES AND MUSIC IF YOU ASK ME!!!!It starts out immensely boring, and TOTALLY inane.It doesn't pick up pace anywhere soon, and I was feeling more frustrated as this nonsense carried on.Maybe, the only thing that saved me from giving this movie a 1 was the last 30 minutes.I found it somewhat entertaining and interesting as it neared the end, but that was the only part.Also, I couldn't help but like Pamela Anderson and Denise Richard's characters a little.Even though this movie didn't get any laughs from me, it kept my attention.I wouldn't say to completely avoid this movie, but there are thousands of better films for you to spend your time and money on than Blonde and Blonder.
This has got to go down as almost one of the worst movies of all time. Awful acting, awful script... and they were the good points! One to Definitely miss! The jokes, if you could call them that, were so predictable as to be pathetic. Pamela Anderson is still relying on her body to detract from the fact that her acting is just as plastic! I sat willing to give it a chance, hoping that it was going to improve which, alas, it didn't! If it was a choice between this and a book, I suggest you settle down for a good read! I like Denise Richards, which is why I gave this movie a go, but why she has let her self be cast in this movie is beyond me!
Warning: Avoid this super duper awful movie...if you watched it you will be SOOOOOOOOO disappointed.<br /><br />Pam and Denise are grandma age now what are they doing? Trying SO HARD to be young innocent and sexy, just not working AT ALL. Pam and Denise act so horribly in this movie.<br /><br />Plus The script is absolutely atrocious, I can't believe someone can came out with such crappy ideas. With the development of movie industry, movie lovers are not as easy to satisfy as the ones in the last century. I bet the movie goers from last century will hate this too.<br /><br />Stay away from it. I think watch "White Chicks" from 2004 it's so much better that this...make no mistake at that time I thought that's the worst movie I have ever seen.
I was required to watch the movie for my work, so I didn't pay for it (on the contrary, i got paid), but I still found the movie to suck far more than average. The jokes were lame, the two lead actresses... well, to use the "First wives club" division of women's ages in Hollywood, they are no longer in their "hot chick" age but more in their "district attorney" age. What angered me most about the movie was the main plot line, which pretty much completely plagiarized "Beavis & Butthead Do America" (in which the boys are all jazzed up about some dude offering them money to "do his wife", not realizing they're expected to assassinate her). All in all, a bland piece of crap.
I was looking for a cute, simple comedy to pass the time but choosing this film proved to be an enormous mistake.<br /><br />I can't write a single good thing about it. First, the script is stupid and not funny at all, relying on tired, recycled jokes and a farting turtle for laughs. In my book, that's not funny, that's pathetic.<br /><br />Low budget 'effects' (if I can even call them effects) with horrible cinematography. In many places it feels almost like an indie film shot with no money.<br /><br />Acting... I feel sorry for the actors. Are Pamela Anderson and Denise Richards that desperate for some money that they've agreed to take part in this? (looking at their recent filmography, it would appear so.) Despite the outfits, Pamela is showing her age and as a whole, they don't even come across as sexy, let alone funny.<br /><br />This movie is not even in the so-bad-it-is-funny category. It's just bad, as if everybody involved was sick of it.<br /><br />Avoid.
What is this crap? My little cousin picked this out obviously for the overly girlie DVD art and title... I decided to watch it with her so she didn't get bored, and I sure was appalled at the horrible quality.<br /><br />First, the acting was terrible. They seem like amateur actresses reading off of cue cards. The delivery is sub-par and very formulaic. Scene cuts were terrible.. it looks like they took it straight from the story board, if there was one.<br /><br />Secondly, the jokes and stereotypes weren't original or well played at all- again, very formulaic. I can't count the times I was able to predict the next joke. I got a few chuckles out of the blatantly "subtle" sexual innuendos. The Cat, The Beaver Patch, Hung Wong?.. c'mon! Just.. stay away from this movie. It's not cute, it's not funny, it's not even stupid-funny. It's just stupid-stupid. It's like a PG kids' movie with unnecessary sexual innuendo, vulgarity, and violence to bump the MPAA rating. STAY AWAY.<br /><br />"Would you like to ride my yacht?"<br /><br />"Is that what they're calling it now?"<br /><br />"You could ride my ding."<br /><br />"Oh! I think I got blood on my stool!"<br /><br />Badly played, sir.
Sure, I like short cartoons, but I didn't like this one. Naturally, kids would love it. But then again, I'm not a kid anymore (although I still consider myself young).<br /><br />I will not tell you anything about the story, for the simple reason there is no story. How is it possible this dragon of a cartoon was nominated for an Oscar?! Well... I guess it's because people in the 30's were more happy with not much than now. In the present where we live, everything must happen fast. Look at the movies nowadays, and you will come to the same conclusion: we live in a society that doesn't allow men to be slow. That's really a shame. I wish I lived in the 30's, because it seems so peaceful. But every time has got its ups and downs, I guess...<br /><br />To conclude: if you like music (and frogs), you'll have to see this cartoon. Otherwise, don't spill your time on it.
Add to the list of caricatures: a Southern preacher and "congregation," a torch singer (Sophie Tucker?), a dancing chorus, and The Mills Brothers -- it only makes it worse.<br /><br />Contemptible burlesques of "Negro" performers, who themselves often appear in films to be parodying themselves and their race. Though the "Negro comedy" may have been accepted in its day, it's extremely offensive today, and I doubt that it was ever funny. Though I wouldn't have been offended, I don't think that I'd have laughed at the feeble attempts at humor. As an 11-year-old white boy, however, I might not have understood some of it.
Even thought I'm not the biggest of Cher fans, this movie was her crowning achievement. Granted, there were long term side-effects and risks of brain damage, memory loss (and) intellectual impairment, upon the screening such a film. A 1989 survey of Moonstruck fans by the UK Advocacy Network revealed that one-third of 300 Moonstruck fans surveyed believed Moonstruck had damaged them and an astounding 80% claimed it had irreparably destroyed their minds.<br /><br />Cher plays someone very un-Cher in this movie, a dowdy young widow named Loretta living in New York with her extended family. They're anti-American, pro-Italian and always at each other in someway. She has been going out with Johnny Camarary for a while, a nice mamma's boy man, and he asks her to marry him. She says yes. I loved her mom's questions: "Do you love him Loretta?", "No.", "Good. If you love him he'll drive you crazy because they know they can. But you like him then?", "Oh yeah, he's a sweet man Ma". When Johnny goes off to Sicily to care for his dying mother, he asks that Loretta make contact with his brother who he's been estranged from for years.<br /><br />This victory for human rights carries even greater significance, as Sicily was the birthplace of electroshock treatment. In 1938, Italian psychiatrist Ugo Cerletti, saw slaughterhouse workers using electric shock devices to cause epileptic fits in pigs, easing the job of slitting their throats. Cerletti was inspired, and began experimenting with electroshock on humans, developing the first Electroshock machine. Broken bones and fractured vertebrae that resulted from the convulsions appeared to be of little concern.<br /><br />This was,in so many ways, an anti-American movie. It's about love, to be sure, but it's also about infidelity, secrets, lonely people, and strange behavior brought on by American policies. The characters, from the frumpy BoBo at the favorite restaurant, the aunt and uncle, her parents and their problems, the ancient grandfather and his dogs are all well developed and intrinsic characters. It's somewhat of a chick flick, as it's how Loretta stops being a dowdy stuffed shirt and awakens the flower of the inner vamp. It's a Cinderella story in many ways, and that is every little girl's dream to emerge from the ugly duckling into a beautiful swan...<br /><br />Assuming free and fully informed Consent, it is well to reaffirm the individual's right to pursue happiness through brain damage if he or she so chooses. But we might ask ourselves whether we, as fans of cinema, though in no way sworn to any Hippocratic Oath, should be offering it.
Generally over rated movie which boasts a strong cast and some clever dialog and of course Dean Martin songs. Problem is Nicholas Cage, there is no chemistry between he and Cher and they are the central love story. Cher almost makes up for this with her reactions to Cage's shifting accent and out of control body language. Cage simply never settles into his role. He tries everything he can think of and comes across as an actor rather than real person and that's what's needed in a love story. Cage has had these same kind of performance problems in other roles that require more of a Jimmy Stewart type character. Cage keeps taking these roles, perhaps because he likes those kind of movies but his own energy as an actor doesn't lend itself to them, though he's gotten better at it with repeated attempts. He should leave these type of roles to less interesting actors who would fully commit to the film and spend his energy and considerable talent in more off beat roles and films where he can be his crazy interesting self.
Ok, first the good: Cher's performance and the cinematography. Although I'm no Cher fan, she gives an excellent performance and her part was well written. The cinematography was well done and captures a sense of romance.<br /><br />The Rest: a thin plotline, Nicholas Cage's performance, and a totally unhumorous and weak attempt to portray an Italian-American family from New York. Firstly, everytime time Cage opened his mouth I cringed. I don't know what kind of accent he was trying use. I honestly don't, it sure wasnt any New York or Italian accent I've ever heard. It was quite surreal. And it wasn't because I'm some stickler for accuracy, his voice just cloyed in my ears. And I like Nicholas Cage in other performances. Secondly, and this is purely anecdotal, but I have many Italian relations, friends and acquaintances in New York City, and frankly I've gotten more laughs and felt more joy in the appreciation of the Italian ethnic family by far than this movie provided. And that would be on a boring night at the house. What a let down.
I watched this movie for a project on love. please tell Nicolas Cage to learn what it would feel like to be his character, and then re-read the lines he's saying. My life cannot go on... i accidentally cut off my own hand...my brother was close by. Obviously his fault. And since when have happy endings included the nice guy who takes care of Mom sad and alone. No closure, bad script, and doesn't have enough extension of minor characters. Save yourself, unless your up for a good laugh. Costumes were done appropriately, and extras did a fabulous job. I'm sure it would have been a fun movie to make, but keep it more genre specific, I can't recommend this movie to anyone I know, because it is not an intellectual movie. It is not a chick flick. It is not a strict romantic. And I can't show kids because of the sex and questions to follow. All in all, just not a good flick.
I don't care how many nominations this junk got for best this and that, this movie stunk. I didn't know whether to turn off the set, or file a lawsuit with O.J.'s attorney for wrongful damage to my mental health. I have seldom been this bored; to call this dung entertainment is a slap in the face of every movie-goer across the planet. The whole story was stupid, the acting was uninspired, the 'drama' was emotionless. I am thankful I didn't have to pay for this unfulfilling experience.
This show is painful to watch ...<br /><br />It is obvious that the creators had no clue what to do with this show, from the ever changing "jobs", boyfriends, and cast. It appears that they wanted to cast Amanda Bynes in something ... but had no idea what, and came up with this crappy show. They cast her as a teen, surrounded by twenty and thirty somethings, and put her in mostly adult situations at repeatedly failed attempts at comedy. Soon, they realize that she needs a "clique" and cast people in their late 20s to try to pass as teenagers.<br /><br />How this show survived 4 seasons is beyond me. Somehow, ABC has now decided that it is a "family" show, and thrown it into it's afternoon lineup on ABC Family.
I'll admit I've only watched a handful of episodes, but each one seemed completely different from the next. It seems after the first season, the producers decided to completely retool the show, drop characters, introduce new ones, and rewrite the entire show dynamic.<br /><br />As you have probably surmised already, the show is about quirky, unpredictable teenager Holly (Amanda Bynes) who moves in with her high strung sister Valerie (Jennie Garth) in New York City. Decent enough premise: odd couple + fish out of water + high jinx.<br /><br />While I miss the sitcoms of yore, this show unfortunately misses the mark on funny repeatedly, and it's sad because they have some decent talent.<br /><br />On top of everything, they insisted on changing the show (Val was living with a cast regular bf one season, then he was suddenly gone, so she opens a bakery? what?) When things change that drastically, you get the feeling that even the *show* knows it's bad. I mean, completely new sets, characters written off and new show regulars!<br /><br />On a side note (this is just nitpicking), I know this is a television show and not real at all, but Val and Holly end up living in a HUGE loft duplex (there are stairs) with a terrace... in MANHATTAN! Are you serious!?
What I hate about this show is how poorly the leads are written. These women have no self-respect or dignity. The entire plot is them throwing themselves at guys. Amanda Bynes' talent is completely wasted. She was brilliant on "All That" and her own show. Why they would write her and Jenny Garth as vapid, airhead, desperate, men chasing, "old-maid" wannabes is beyond me.<br /><br />Their plots and dialog remind me of "The Simpons", Homer says whenever his cartoon character Poochie is not on screen, "Everyone should ask, where's Poochie?". All the talk centers on whining about some guy, and then whining to some guy. Sometimes they change it up and the guy whines instead. Then they get back together or break up at the end. The 2 women are either shallow, stupid, or sex addicts. The only word I can think of is "sucks".
Well, what can you say about sitcoms. There often quite lame, morale dedicative, and just plain. So is this show! It got a boring cast, although A.Bynes is okej in her perky way, the rest is just stereotypical crap....as always. We have all seen it before, and will probably see it all over again when this show is cancelled. Cause, lets face it, its a mediocre and self righteous show. As the most sitcoms are....<br /><br />Well, in short. If you wanna see some good entertainment, you can rather take a twenty minute pause in front of the mirror. Do some faces and move on.... Its more entertaining than this show!
This was disappointing. It started well enough but as it went on and lost every opportunity to soar, it fell flat. Maria Schrader's acting is dreadful, never seeming to mean what she says, or even knowing what she says until she says it. She showed no genuine emotion at all, not for her beloved goy, or her mother's story. When with Lena she seemed to have little more than an academic interest in Lena's story. There never seemed to be a real relationship between Lena and her mother except her mother seemed to be having a good time at the wedding, which isn't much. The supposed parallel between Hannah's "mixed" romance and her mother's relationship with her father was as cliché as they come, and failed miserably anyway. The wedding was completely unconvincing and a dumb finish. The climax of the protest was uninspiring, and no matter what Lena had or had not done to influence the outcome, she would surely have shown some complexity of feeling at the time, a haunted look, an inexplicable ambivalence. In fact, none of the characters in the film had any depth or spark. It was very hard to care about any of them, even little Ruth. Everything with Luis was a distraction. (Why did she dis him so when on the phone from the hotel? There was no context or explanation whatever for that.) If every reference to him was removed it wouldn't be noticed. <br /><br />A simple story made confusing by poor character development (who was whose mother, again??) weak acting, and directing that made everyone look like they were acting. You could almost hear "quiet on the set!...." I started thinking this was worthy of a 7, but as the film went on it dropped rapidly to a 4, then earning a 3 after the silliness of the wedding scene. This was about as cold and sterile a movie as I have seen. A terrible waste of a good story.
One thing that astonished me about this film (and not in a good way) was that Nathan Stoltzfus, who seems to pride himself on being the major historian on the topic of the Rosenstrasse, was one of the historians working on this film, considering how much of the actual events were altered or disregarded. <br /><br />Another reviewer said that von Trotta said she never meant for Lena to bed Goebbels, but in that case, why did she give every impression that that was what had happened? Why not show other possible reasons for the mens' release, such as the disaster that was Stalingrad, or the Nazis' fear that the international press, based in Berlin, would find out about the protest.<br /><br />Also, why did the whole storyline play second fiddle to a weak family bonding storyline that has been done over and over again? Surely something as awesome as this could carry its own history! In places, it was as if the film had two story lines that really seemed to have little in common.<br /><br />Overall, this film failed in its aim, which was to draw attention to a little-known act of resistance, which is a shame, because done better, it could have had a major impact.
(SPOILERS IN THIS)<br /><br />"Rosenstraße" is a movie about heroic women in German Nazi time. But it is way too long, it is not touching and sometimes even boring! There are too many clichés and not enough good acting.<br /><br />The storytelling (storyline) is bad. Like in James Cameron´s Titanic an old woman remembers events of her live. Good, now we´ve got a point of view. Than there is another woman introduced who does the same. Confusing is that they both are recalling events of lifes of other people! Come on! This is a lack of knowledge of basic story telling...How can Riemann know about the fate of the little girl´s mother and her interrogation for example?<br /><br />The scenes are shown in the wrong order and you rarely know when it took place. For example the scene when Riemann is proposing to Fabian. When did that happen? The scene looks like it is set in the Twenties...<br /><br />Riemann´s character is of course a talented pianist, well, she is even a Baroness! Wow. Her brother comes back from the Eastern Front, he has received a "Ritterkreuz" which he is showing in some scenes. So he is a war hero and still a fine man who preserved his conscience. And he gained knowledge of massacres committed by Germans. He even made some photographs! And so it goes, cliché after cliché is piling up and this is why the movie does not work.<br /><br />Basically von Trotta made a chick flick out of something what could have been a decent movie. And in the end it´s all very simple. Riemann finds a way to get Goebbels into bed and - ta da! - everyone is free. Which is not a historical fact but pure imagination despite the "true story" claim at the beginning. Like "Sass" it is vaguely BASED on a true event.<br /><br />It is sad but true, this IS the typical German movie these days. It is bad! Macaulay J. Connor<br /><br />
Overall an extremely disappointing picture. Very, very slow build up to the basic storyline. The role of Maria Schrader searching for her families secret past. (Every take seems to last forever…. There is really no rhythm in the film.) ***SPOILERS*** Her Mother Ruth is rescued from the Nazis, by a German woman, played by Katja Riemann. The entire character of Ruth is so one dimensional, so stereotypical. ***SPOILERS END*** The film cuts back and forth between present day New York and Berlin and Berlin 40s something. Please when you do that, give the audience an indication of what time exactly the story takes place. There is never a clear indication of time – very annoying. Worst part is, the end. ***SPOILERS*** The entire show and jabber about the Jews being so terribly tormented, simply by a bureaucratic accident! Give me a break. That's how the Jews got out of the Rosenstrasse? The question of who freed the Jews is NEVER answered. Was is Goebels who freed them? Did Lean Fischer sleep with Goebels? In Venice the film won an acting award for K. Riemann, why? – I have no idea. Must be the Jewish theme…
This game was made by Sega. Being made by Sega I didn't expect much, but I also didn't expect this junk either. For starters the camera angles work against you in this game. The motorcycle is your means of getting around. The motorcycle is the worst part in the game. Whenever you run in to something you just stick there and you don't move. You never fall off the bike or wreck for that matter. The main character hardly talks even though he's got a voice that suits him. The graphics are horrible. You ride through trees on your bike. The camera makes fighting the enemy impossible. This game wouldn't even be worth renting.
We don't have this on television in England but I walked it over the Internet on YouTube. It's dumb, immature and boring! This is from the creator of "Earthworm Jim" Douglas TenNapel, I never got into that cartoon but I must admit it better than this. The cartoonist hasn't done anything for years since now. For Doug TenNapel, this is a comeback travesty and an all time low! The story is about three cats who inherit a house and lots of money off their dead old lady master. They are argumentative and keep on disagreeing on what their want to spend their money on. "BORING"! The animation is dreadful. The main characters are meant to be cats, right? But they don't look nothing like cats! Just weird animal monster-looking creatures with big mouths, pointed teeth and bulgy eyes! The human and other animal characters are also drawn real ugly! The theme song is terrible and irritating! Also the stories are lame and are most probably copied from older shows. It surprised me how this show got 7.5/10 votes of other IMDb viewers. Television really isn't what is used to be! But now most of them is dumb, cheaply made and boring. Some of you on the website might not agree with me well I'm sorry but this is a total waste of money and a complete and utter waste of your time and feel glad that Britain don't have too tolerate this crap (oh yeah, if you have digital you have to) but I don't, so it not my problem! Loser! 2/10 (and it's very lucky to get that because I've given other shows worst!).
** HERE BE SPOILERS ** <br /><br />Recap: Mia (Helin) is returning home from capital Stockholm to rural Rättvik to celebrate her fathers 70th birthday. She is by far the youngest child, and has two sisters Eivor (Ernst) and Gunilla (Petrén). Eivor has a family and still lives in Rättvik and Gunilla has divorced and moved a town away. Mia is still single and is focused on her career. There are a lot of jealousy and almost animosity between the sisters and conflicts arise all around as they confront each other and each have personal problems they have difficult to handle. As the party goes on (and alcohol consumed), more and more secrets become unveiled and more and more conflicts arise...<br /><br />Comments: To be the work of a new writer/director it was disappointing to see this movie to follow in the exact same tracks that older Swedish comedy/dramas has been following for years. There are really no new elements or ideas. This movie draws upon three basic areas. 1) Embarrassing humor only based on characters making a fool of themselves. 2) Sorrow and 3) Anxiety. This move has the focus on the last one, almost forgetting the first point as the movie goes along. No loss though, since the humor that is there is not funny. The performances from the cast are good I guess, though it is lost behind all the anguish and soon forgotten. I had hopes that there would be new ideas and influences, but there were none. To conclude, there are better ways to spend one's time than watching this.<br /><br />3/10
Just a stilted rip-off of the infinitely better "Murder, She Wrote", it is absolutely amazing that this poorly-written garbage lasted for a full eight years. I'm sure most of the people who watched this unentertaining crap were in their sixties and seventies and just tuned in because they had nothing better to do, or simply remembered its star from the old Dick Van Dyke Show. Van Dyke, who only had a decent career in the 1960s, never was much of an actor at all (by his own admission) and he was already far too old to play a doctor when the series began in 1993. He looks absolutely ancient as a result of years of chain smoking and heavy drinking. His talentless real life son Barry, a wooden actor who has rarely been in anything that didn't involve his father, plays his son in the series.
This is an "anthology" horror film. It's made up of 4 short stories taken from the fiction of Robert Bloch (who wrote for Weird Tales and was personal friends with H.P. Lovecraft, but is most famous for the original story "Psycho"). The quality of the stories is very uneven and I didn't think very much about the film was creepy or horrific at all. It would have been better to do it as a comedy like "Comedy of Terrors." Only the last of the 4 stories was really done in a humorous way, and it's probably the best of them (the one with Ingrid Pitt). I've seen a few of these Amicus anthology films and the only one that was really worth my time was Freddie Francis' "Tales from the Crypt." The anthology style works well for the producers, because it means that they can hire a bunch of "big name" actors, employ them for only one week of shooting or so, and then bring in the next big name. So you essentially pay for 6 weeks of movie star salary but get 5 or 6 different names on the marquee. But that's very unfortunate for the audience, because the audience would like to see some scenes with Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, and Ingrid Pitt actually acting together. Instead they're stuck in these vignettes by themselves. So let's take them one at a time, briefly.<br /><br />The first story has Denholm Elliot, who does a really admirable job of trying to bring some dignity to his silly role as a writer terrorized by his own character. Unfortunately the actor who plays Dominic, the source of the horror, Tom Adams, just looks silly which ruins any possible horror. There's some hilarious stuff if you want to laugh at it though, like the scene where Dominic kills Elliot's psychiatrist. It's the patented scene where the killer creeps up behind the victim but nobody is watching, so the whole audience is supposed to shout out "LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU!" The second story is the one with Peter Cushing. God I love that man so much. Too bad so many of his films, like this one, pretty much stink. In the story he's supposed to be pining away for a long-lost love, and he sees her likeness in a wax museum. It's a completely predictable story that goes nowhere.<br /><br />Then you have the bit with Christopher Lee, where he plays the father of a little kid who turns out to be a witch. Again this bit could have been fun if it had been played for laughs. But instead we're supposed to be horrified when Lee slaps the child and surprised when she turns out to be evil. The actress, Chloe Franks, was pretty good in that type of "Bad Seed" role though.<br /><br />The last story is kind of amusing... Ingrid Pitt plays an actress and Jon Pertwee plays an actor who accidentally buys a vampire cape that turns him into a real vampire. That's about all the story has to offer. I was surprised at how bad Ingrid Pitt's English is, I guess she must have been dubbed in some of the other films I've seen her in.<br /><br />Not a very memorable film or one that I would recommend to anyone but horror completists.
(Spoilers)<br /><br />I was very curious to see this film, after having heard that it was clever and witty. I had to stop halfway because of the unbearable boredom I felt.<br /><br />The idea behind the film would have been acceptable: depicting the way the relationship between a man and a woman evolves, through all the problems and difficulties that two people living in a big city can experience. What made me dislike the whole film were two things.<br /><br />First of all, the film was so down-to-earth that it looked as if, by describing the problems that a couple must solve on a day-to-day basis, it became itself ordinary and dull.<br /><br />Secondly, the overall sloppiness of the production, with dialogues that were barely understandable.<br /><br />Too bad.
If you've ever been harassed on the Underground by a Christian who says, "Jesus is the answer. What's the question?", then perhaps you should thank God if you've never met a Lacanian. Slavoj Zizek, the most evangelical of Lacanians, would surely exchange the word "Jesus" in that statement for "Lacan/Hegel".<br /><br />Zizek's star burns brightly at the moment, no doubt because we generally view films and pop culture purely as entertainment for our consumption. So it seems impressive when someone - anyone - comes along and says, "Hang on, films may say something about ourselves."<br /><br />The ideas Zizek expounds in this film are "true" purely because he says so. For example, Zizek explains that three Marx Bros are the ego, superego and id (God knows what happened to Zeppo, or Gummo … perhaps they're the sinthome...or is that movies themselves?). This is simply what they are. In Zizek's output, culture is not there to be investigated but merely to be held as an example of his ideology. People may object that he certainly has something to say - but how different is what he says from the Christian attributing everything to God's will?<br /><br />What's wrong with taking examples, from films or anywhere, to illustrate theory? Well, nothing at all. As Zizek seems to believe, they may even serve as a proof. However, it is merely cant and propaganda when these examples are isolated from their context. Without context, you can say and prove anything you want. For Zizek, Lacan is the answer – so he goes and makes an example of it. Everything but everything resembles the teachings of the Master and culture is there to bear this out, to serve this ideology. For instance, Zizek's exemplar of the fantasy position of the voyeur is taken from a scene in Vertigo when Jimmy Stewart spies on Kim Novak in a flower shop. But, in the context of the film, this is not a voyeur's fantasy position at all. Stewart has been deliberately led there by Novak. This presentation of examples isolated from their context continues throughout Zizek's two hour and a half cinematic sermon.<br /><br />His analysis of the "baby wants to f---" scene in Blue Velvet is laughable. Touching lightly on what he appears to consider to be the horrific (to the masculine) truth of "feminine jouissance", Zizek says that Isabella Rossilini's character not only demands her degradation but is, unconsciously, in charge of the situation. This is an example of her "jouissance". Well ... possibly. But - sorry to be prosaic - where is the evidence for this? In the film, she partially undergoes her humiliations because Hopper has kidnapped her son. Zizek may object that she also evidently enjoys rough sex with Kyle MacLachalan. But this may be due to any number of things. Isn't that the point of so-called feminine "jouissance"? According to Lacan, feminine jouissance, unlike phallic jouissance, cannot be articulated, it is beyond the phallic capture and castration of language. If this is right, then no example can be made of it. It also means that the entire concept is non-sensical and entirely mystical. It can only be designated by dogmatists such as Zizek: "There's feminine jouissance for you! Why is this feminine jouissance? Because I say so." <br /><br />What example can really be garnered from these films? Only Zizek's psychology. Why does he keep inserting himself into his favourite films, even to the point that, when in a boat on Botega Bay, he says he wants to f--- Rod Steiger too? Is this not the wish-fulfilment of someone who spends his life critiquing films? As the saying goes, Freud would have a field day with The Pervert's Guide to the Cinema - but with Zizek himself, nobody else.<br /><br />Zizek's theory that films show us how we desire may be right on the face of it, but these films cannot be strict universal examples of psychoanalytical laws. This film illustrates how Zizek desires and only extremely vaguely - as to be almost useless - how the rest of us desire. For, as any psychoanalyst knows, how we desire and what we desire cannot be fully separated - and cannot be easily universalised, if at all. Zizek's love of making everything an example of Lacan's Answer bears this out: how do we desire? like this, this is how I do it. Problem is, in Zizek's desire, everything and everyone else is rationalised into his desire. But Zizek is a Leninist and they certainly don't like letting the "subject" speak for itself.<br /><br />The Pervert's Guide to the Cinema is a summation Zizek's love of dogma and is entirely unphilosophical even if it remains very political (what dogma isn't?). Zizek has never questioned exactly what his motives might be when embarking on an analysis, what he is trying to discover, because the terms of his exploration, and therefore his ethics in doing so, are never put into question.<br /><br />Zizek is extremely prolific but all his books and this film say the same thing. He's a kind of Henry Ford of cultural theory: mass-production and any colour as long as it's black. He is perfect for today's highly consumerist society: supposedly critical while giving people the same c-ap over and over and pretending that it is something different. This is popular because people largely prefer readymade answers to their problems - which capitalism always claims to provide - rather than investigating things with any serious consideration at all. Which is kind of like being brain dead. For me, Zizek's third Matrix pill is a suicide capsule.<br /><br />PS: I loved Zizek's solemn remark - presented as a revelation about cinema and humanity - that music in films can greatly affect people's sympathies. Did this only occur to Zizek after he watched Jaws?
An old intellectual talks about what he considers art in movies. You get your Hitchcock, your Chaplin, your Bergman and some other stuff prior to the 80ies. To disguise that he has no clue what is going on in cinemas these days, he throws in The Matrix.<br /><br />But it's not only the same lame film-as-art speech all over again. This speech is reduced to outdated psychological platitudes: it-ego-super ego, anal phase, sexual insufficiency. <br /><br />It is garnished with the cheesy effect of having Zizte edited into the movies he is taking about. For someone who is supposed to know much about movies, his own is, cinematographicly speaking: yeiks.<br /><br />To put it in Zizek's own words - I saw 5\-\!7 on the screen, last night, or in the words of a great movie maker:<br /><br />Mr. (Zizek), what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you (two) points (only), and may God have mercy on your soul.
Already his first claim, that desires are always artificial, is totally fallacious.<br /><br />When a Jehovah Witness reject gets his own documentary on movies – or anything for that matter - it's time for anyone to get their own. Although far, far more intelligent than, say, Paris Hilton (I know, not too difficult) Zizek's mouth spews just as much baloney as hers, just a different kind. He combines the worst from both his professional worlds: psychoanalysis and philosophy. Both fields are notorious for conveniently offering the expert b*lls***osopher plenty of leeway to create unprovable theories, to rant without a beginning or end, and to connect concepts almost randomly, in the process misusing the English language by creating a semantic jumble only a mother can love. Example: there are three main Marx brothers hence what a "great" idea to connect them with three levels of human consciousness, the id, the ego and the super-ego. I'm kind of surprised he didn't play a clip from "Snowhite" and make an analogy between the seven dwarfs and the seven levels of Gahannah (Moslem hell). It's like the premise of Schumacher's "The Number 23": play with numbers long enough, and you can come up with any kind of cockamamie theory you want, even linking Ancient Greeks with Princess Di's death.<br /><br />However, there is an entertainment element to TPGTC: watching a raving lunatic sweat like a hog while uttering delusional chants masked as intellectual analysis can be quite a lot of fun. Why watch "Cuckoo's Nest" or any other madhouse drama when you can have Zizek for more than 2 hours? It's like watching an amusing train wreck. Admittedly, he is almost funny on one or two occasions.<br /><br />I have always been mystified by people who desperately try to elevate movie-making into an exalted intellectual social science. Giving idiotic movies like "Birds" this much thought, hence this much credit, probably has its fat creator laughing in his grave. The raw truth is that the vast majority of movies have zero intellectual value, and the few ones that do have some intelligence don't require a shrink-turned-philosopher to draw one a map to understand them – unless one is a complete idiot. Zizek sees layers and layers of meaning in the most banal movies. Hallucinogenic drugs must be rather popular and cheap in Slovenia these days...<br /><br />When Zizek showed the bathtub hole in the "Psycho" shower scene, I thought he was going to say something about galactic black holes; how they drain the life out of stars just as the bathtub hole sucks in Janet Leigh's blood. Or perhaps he could have said how the hole represents Leigh's vagina, with the blood flowing into it instead of out (as in menstruation), this representing some kind of "clever (Zizekian) irony". Speaking of which, the real irony is that if Hitchcock had really put that much thought into every scene (and the script), his movies wouldn't have been the illogical, far-fetched crap that they often are. The point of these bathtub hole analogies was to show just how easy it is to improvise about "hidden, deep meanings". And when you add Zizek's fanciful terminology from philosophy and psychology, layering these terms on top of these analogies like wedding cake decorations, you get a rambling jumble that can instantly impress the uneducated - i.e. the easily impressionable and the gullible.<br /><br />Zizek utters a number of (unintentionally) funny things here, one of the most absurd ideas being when he associates Anthony Perkins's cleaning of the bloodied bathroom with "the satisfaction of work, of a job well done". Don't laugh... Neither Hitchcock nor the writer of "Psycho" could have ever even vaguely entertained this notion that Perkins might be enjoying a job well done - the cleaning of a blood-stained toilet - while they were conceiving/directing that scene. Talk about putting words into one's (dead) mouth, but in the context of misinterpreting what the director had to "say".<br /><br />I like Zizek's initial thoughts on Tarkovsky's terrific "Solaris", but then he has to ruin a rare good impression by dragging in "anti-feminism" and other nonsense into his theory.<br /><br />Zizek's attitude towards logic is that of a dog toward its plastic bone. "I just want to play with it all day!" Logic has its rules, and is not supposed to be raped - at least not publicly - by the likes of him. He seems to regard logic, proof, common-sense, and reason as enemies or mere throwaway toys; concepts to be either avoided, twisted to fit the end-goal, or simply annihilated. Zizek is the LSD-tripped hippie, and all his favorite movies are his own personal "2001"s.<br /><br />The fact that Zizek over-focuses on two of the most overrated directors - and ones whose films often LACK intelligence, if anything - such as Hitchcock and Lynch, only further diminishes his already low credibility. I was surprised De Palma didn't feature more prominently; that's another lame director who writes inept scripts. Zizek has a field day with Lynch's incomprehensible "Lost Highway". There are just as many interpretations of that movie as there are people who watched it.<br /><br />Zizek's comment that the viewer readily accepts von Trier's laughable, "ground-breaking" physical set-up in "Dogville" made me snicker. <br /><br />However, Zizek doesn't only make up stuff as he goes along, he also indulges heavily in the "bleedin' obvious". Like all "social scientists" (an oxymoron), he wraps his very trite "observations" into articulate (if full of spitting) and sometimes complex blankets of language. After all, sociology functions in precisely the same way: it makes us believe we are hearing something new when in fact it's what we already all know, but told in an eloquent way - which fools the more unobservant listener.<br /><br />I was half-expecting for men in white suits to suddenly appear out of nowhere and strap him up in a loonie-suit...<br /><br />Slavoj Zizek: soon as a stalker in a kid's park near you.<br /><br />http://rateyourmusic.com/list/Fedor8/150_worst_cases_of_nepotism/
This film is predictable; it is more predictable then a Vinnie Testaverdi pass, when he huts the ball for the Jets. One saw the ending coming up halfway through the film. The politics reminds me when I was back east. Many people know when the fix is in. I gave this four because of the acting, but the story is lame.
This movie had the potential to be far more than it was. But it not only fails to deliver, it brings up nauseous self righteous preaching at the same time.<br /><br />John Cusack is even flatter than he was in Midnight of the Garden of Good and Evil. The difference is that this time he is supposed to have an southern accent, which he noticeably loses several times each scene.<br /><br />Al Pacino does his shtick but seems to be walking through this film and collecting a paycheck. He's good as usual but hardly standout.<br /><br />Supporting cast -- throw in female romantic interest which added little, if anything, to the story. Speaking of the story, a convoluted "who really cares" tale where Cusack is the self-righteous Mayor's boy who just has to search for "the right thing" to be done.<br /><br />People don't act this way. Cusack's character loses all credibility at the end, of which without revealing it, is preach and nauseous. The final scene makes the penultimate silliness seem profound. It's also completely inaccurate but I won't get into law.<br /><br />This is a bad, by the numbers movie. It seems interesting for the first 40 minutes and then it's really a preachy, proselytizing, self-righteous film for the last hour. Better off with mindless crap than this pile of junk.
Admittedly, I find Al Pacino to be a guilty pleasure. He was a fine actor until Scent of a Woman, where he apparently overdosed on himself irreparably. I hoped this film, of which I'd heard almost nothing growing up, would be a nice little gem. An overlooked, ahead-of-its-time, intelligent and engaging city-political thriller. It's not.<br /><br />City Hall is a movie that clouds its plot with so many characters, names, and "realistic" citywide issues, that for a while you think its a plot in scope so broad and implicating, that once you find out the truth, it will blow your mind. In truth, however, these subplots and digressions result ultimately in fairly tame and very familiar urban story trademarks such as Corruption of Power, Two-Faced Politicians, Mafia with Police ties, etc. And theoretically, this setup allows for some thrilling tension, the fear that none of the characters are safe, and anything could happen! But again, it really doesn't.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the only things that happen are quite predictable, and we're left with several "confession" monologues, that are meant as a whole to form modern a fable of sorts, a lesson in the moral ambiguity of the "real world" of politics and society. But after 110 minutes of names and missing reports and a spider-web of lies and cover-ups, the audience is usually treated to a somewhat satisfying reveal. I don't think we're left with that in City Hall, and while it's a very full film, I don't find it altogether rich.
Wow. This is really not that good. <br /><br />I would like to agree with the others in that at least the acting is good... it is, but it is nothing special.<br /><br />The movie is so precictable and i for one am sick of receiving culture info through movies.<br /><br />*/****
I was lured to see this movie by its starpower, but ultimately that's all it delivers. It plays much more like a Greek tragedy than a modern thriller about big city corruption. It's greatest flaw is its predictibability and utter lack of suspense. We know who the bad guys are from the beginning, and just follow along as they fall like dominoes. The film to its credit does abstain from gratuitous violence and sex, but has forgotten to substitute good, clean romance or excitement in any other way. All the flavor of a good, flat decaffeinated diet cola. "Q&A", which also takes place in New York, is a far better alternative, as is "LA Confidential".
Wow, a movie about NYC politics seemingly written by someone who has never set foot in NYC. You know there's a problem when at one moment you expect the credits to roll and the movie continues on for another half hour. The characters are boring, John Cusack's accent is laughable, and the plotline teeters between boring and laughable. A horrible movie.
> What a dud. It began with some promise, then became unfocused and > wandered. John Cusack's Cajun accent was laughable, Bridget Fonda's role > existed only to get a skirt into the film, and Pacino did Pacino. His entire > generation of actors -- Nicholson, Hackman, Caine, Hoffman -- have developed > a standard performance that each can deliver effortlessly (or, less > charitably, "mail in") in their paycheck films. This was > one. >
Don't get me wrong, the movie is beautiful, the shots are stunning, and the material is dramatic. However, it was a big disappointment and I actually left very angry at what Disney had done.<br /><br />BBC's Planet Earth was all of the above and more. It was subtle. It had an overall feeling of balance and showed the full circle of life and death. There was tragedy and triumph, loss and gain. It was balanced.<br /><br />Disney's edit of Earth is none of this. They tried to make it a movie us Americans would talk about. They made it DRAMATIC. They put an over the top musical score there to frighten us. They made predators evil. They made WALRUSES evil. They showed every encounter as negative. It tried to be suspenseful and succeeded, but at the expense of the lesson of balance. The movie was an hour and a half of negative portrayal and only about 10 minutes of positive.<br /><br />I am all for preventing global warning, but this was over the top political and environmental junk.<br /><br />That's another thing, I went to see it on the big screen, but was disappointed in the picture quality. It looked better on my TV at home.<br /><br />If you want to see something like this and get the whole picture, go out and buy, rent, or borrow the BBC's Planet Earth series. It is better lessons, better sound, and (if you have Blu-Ray)better picture quality.
I can't believe I am so angry after seeing this that I am about to write my first ever review on IMDb.<br /><br />This Disney documentary is nothing but a rehashed Planet Earth lite. Now I knew going into this that it was advertised as "from the people who brought you Planet Earth," but I had no idea they were going to blatantly use the exact same cuts as the groundbreaking documentary mini-series. I just paid $8.75 to see something I already own on DVD. Shame on Disney for not warning people that there is absolutely nothing original here (save a James Earl Jones voice-over and 90 seconds of sailfish that I don't believe were in Planet Earth).<br /><br />But the biggest crime of all, is that while Planet Earth uses the tragic story of the polar bear as evidence that we are killing this planet and a catalyst for ecologic change, Disney took that story and turned it into family friendly tripe. After the male polar bear's demise, they show his cubs grown significantly a year later, and spew some garbage about how they are ready to carry on his memory, and that the earth really is a beautiful place after all. No mention of the grown cubs impending deaths due to the same plight their father endured, no warning of trouble for future generations if we don't get our act together, nothing. Just a montage of stuff we have already seen throughout the movie (and many times more, if you are one of the billion people who have already seen Planet Earth).<br /><br />I have never left the theater feeling so ashamed and cheated in my life.
Yesterday was Earth Day (April 22, 2009) in the US and other countries, and I went to see the full-feature movie-version of "Earth" by DisneyNature. I guess, like the auto manufacturers, Disney is trying to convince us that they care about the planet. Maybe they really do care about the planet, I don't know, but I don't think it warrants a special unit with the word "nature" in it. I do know that my youngest daughter loves Mickey Mouse, and who am I to tell a one-year old my personal feelings about Disney? <br /><br />Aside from incredible cinematography, it was a typical Disney disappointment for me. Preceded by a half-dozen Disney movie trailers, rife with Disney cliché ("circle of life", "falling with style"), over-dramatic music, recycled footage (Disney claims "40% new footage"). I was even starting to think that James Earl Jones narration is getting a bit boring. I like James Earl Jones, but his work for Disney and Morgan Freeman doing every Warner Brothers narrative starts to wear thin. I really think that Disney bought some BBC nature photography that was so spectacularly done, they felt it would sell itself if they slapped some orchestral music and recognizable sound-bites on it.<br /><br />And what is Disney's obsession with showing predators chasing and killing baby animals? There were a half-dozen such scenes, complete with bleating youngsters on the verge of getting their throats ripped out. I think Disney needs to recognize that animals have a rich and interesting life outside of life and death struggles that appeal to the action-movie oriented teenagers that got dragged to this film by their parents. I was also cognizant of how Disney stopped well short of implying that man had anything to do with the climate change. Are they so afraid of the tiny minority of deniers that they think it's still a controversial subject? <br /><br />I recommend skipping this one and renting the Blue Planet DVDs on Netflix. Nature films seem to be best done by the British at the moment.
i don't know why, but after all the hype on NPR i thought this was a new movie.....all the best footage has been used for BBC docs and NatGeo projects that you have seen if you are interested in nature programs...it has been repackaged with sappy narration and over-dramatic music for Disney to take advantage of Earth Day-there are great moments, and it is always nice to listen to Darth Vader.......oops,........... James Earl Jones speak, but I had hoped for a ground breaking movie , considering the new camera technology used in the making of this film......it has been sanitized for a child audience, so one can actually see better footage for free on youtube ....i feel that we are due for something as ground breaking as Koyannisquatsi (sic) and this movie is certainly not it
A lot of death happens in the wild. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out! But does it need to be the focus of a nature documentary? What is with this fascination with gruesome death? Do we really have to see an adult elephant torn to shreds by a pack of hungry lions? Or, a cheetah grabbing a gazelle by the throat in slow motion, no less! I thought this was going to be a family-friendly nature film! <br /><br />And, why not have the courage to show the gruesome violence in the film's trailers? Were the filmmakers afraid of losing money?<br /><br />Then in typical, comic relief fashion we get to see the magnificent Birds-of-Paradise perform mating rituals to the most annoying and stupid narration humanly possible. It was surreal! It's as if the filmmakers believed they were only addressing a roomful of First and Second graders on a school field trip! Wow! From the mean to the moronic in a heartbeat!<br /><br />If there are any future nature documentary filmmakers waiting in the wings reading this film review, why not focus on: Animals actually copulating; giving birth; laying eggs; bathing; sleeping; cleaning each other; socializing; playing; emotional displays other than fear and anger; unusual behaviors, like mouth brooding; migration; problem solving skills; culture (yes, many animal species have what humans call culture); communication skills; parenting, healing abilities, etc. In other words, stop focusing on violence or dumbing down beauty, and why not be much more well-rounded - and focus on delight and inspiration, instead?
My title above says it all. Let me make it clearer. If you have seen the BBC's "Planet Earth" , which I am sure most of you have , then you are not gonna like this movie too much. And I own all the discs of "Planet Earth" I had seen the rating for this movie very high , and read good reviews about it. I was excited to check it out.<br /><br />Alas, I went to the theater and the movie started , I saw it was a Disney movie with production companies listing BBC and Discovery. And when they started the first scenes about the polar bear, I recognized them from my DVDs at home of "Planet Earth".<br /><br />The movie continued and went on and on and on , me and my friends kept on recognizing the scenes were all from "Planet Earth".<br /><br />We were very very disappointed , as I think 90% of the footage is from "Planet Earth" . I am saying 90% , because some of the scenes I didn't recognize. I have a feeling that I simply didn't remember them.<br /><br />So finally what this movie really is , is a compilation of different footages from the different discs of "Planet Earth" , with a narration aimed at kids. Yes, the narration is quite kiddish. Let me give you an example. When they show the polar cubs walking away from the mother cub , the narrator says "The polar cubs are not like human kids. They don't always listen to their mothers" ( I don't remember the exact words , but this is how it is ) So in a nutshell. This is condensed "Planet Earth" for kids !
For those who'd like to see this movie? I'd say: go! Without the narration it might be a very good movie/documentary. But the music, the narration and some of the implemented story lines make it very hard to watch for a sceptic person like me. Following several animals, their life in several seasons one gets the feeling that it is an animal soap we're watching. But the melodramatic point of view just doesn't cut it for me, moreover if a predator finally catches up on a prey (one exception left there) the camera zooms out or skips to another scene. I ask myself why that happens, if they were to show reality, why cut the scenes that a melodramatic fairytale remains? I think the moral is important for the mass of the crowd, cause after all: it would be a waste to destroy this beautiful planet.
The Invisible Man is a fantastic movie from 1933, a cutting edge film for it's time where objects appeared to rest on top of a man who was truly invisible. Go ahead, take a look at the film, you will be shocked that it was made in 1933, it was the first true special effects movie. Come 2000, computer aided special effects seem like child's play, audiences are not blown away by special effects, instead they are disappointed if they are not done right. The special effects in Hollow Man, the update of the HG Wells story, are OK, but not the biggest problem with this film directed by Paul Verhoeven, who you might remember from Showgirls and Total Recall. Kevin Bacon plays Sebastian Caine, a scientist dabbling in the world of bio-invisibilation (yeah, I know that's not a word) but of course is battling higher ups who are threatening to take away the team's funding. So, as movie characters who are about to have their funding cutoff are prone to do, he makes the ultimate sacrifice and becomes a guinea pig for the invisibilation (yeah, I know, I used that non-word again) process. The process has dire consequences, no Caine does not die, but instead becomes a horny, violent creature, aka a guy. Now that he's invisible, Caine stalks a sexy neighbor, a co-worker, former girlfriend Linda (Elisabeth Shue), and the man who took away his funding. Then a funny thing happens, Caine becomes a new supernatural being, "The Thing That Won't Die." Laughing in the face of all things natural, Caine faces down death and spits in it's face, as it take what feels like hours for this creature to die, dragging the ending of the movie out. The movie is silly, stupid, and finally laughable with the way realism is sometimes used, sometimes not. There are neat possibilities in Hollow Man, but of course, not one of them is explored. For a more interesting look at an invisible being, get ready for some good old-fashioned black and white cinema, and check out the 1933 Invisible Man. Kevin Bacon will still be invisible when you come back, probably still alive at the bottom of a volcano.
One could wish that an idea as good as the "invisible man" would work better and be more carefully handled in the age of fantastic special effects, but this is not the case. The story, the characters and, finally the entire last 20 minutes of the film are about as fresh as a mad-scientist flick from the early 50's. There are some great moments, mostly due to the amazing special effects and to the very idea of an invisible man stalking the streets. But alas, soon we're back in the cramped confinement of the underground lab, which means that the rest of the film is not only predictable, but schematic.<br /><br />There has been a great many remakes of old films or TV shows over the past 10 years, and some of them have their charms. But it's becoming clearer and clearer for each film that the idea of putting ol' classics under the noses of eager madmen like Verhoeven (who does have his moments) is a very bad one. It is obvious that the money is the key issue here: the time and energy put into the script is nowhere near enough, and as a result, "Hollow Man" is seriously undermined with clichés, sappy characters, predictability and lack of any depth whatsoever.<br /><br />However, the one thing that actually impressed me, beside the special effects, was the swearing. When making this kind of film, modern producers are very keen on allowing kids to see them. Therefore, the language (and, sometimes, the violence and sex) is very toned down. When the whole world blows up, the good guys go "Oh darn!" and "Oh my God". "Hollow Man" gratefully discards that kind of hypocrisy and the characters are at liberty to say what comes most natural to them. I'm not saying that the most natural response to something gone wrong is to swear - but it makes it more believable if SOMEONE actually swears. I think we can thank Verhoeven for that.
I get to the cinema every week or so, and regularly check out this site, but never before have I felt compelled to comment on a film.<br /><br />To my all time list of shockingly bad films - Last Man Standing, Spawn, The Bone Collector - I can now add the drivel that was 'Hollow Man'.<br /><br />From the awful opening titles - a ridiculously over-long run through of cast and crew put together with alphabetti spaghetti - through to the insulting finale - a world record number of cliches and some of the most absurd dialogue and acting to have ever made it to cinema - this film is dismal, and only the impressive computer graphics keep you from walking out long before the end.<br /><br />This isn't just my opinion - it was that of my friends, and everyone around us. When large sections of an audience are laughing and groaning during and after a serious thriller, its clear that the film is hopeless.<br /><br />Not only that, it was sick too. The director took the action beyond the bounds of realistic fare for a violent film, and into the realms of an over the top blood soaked B-movie. It's difficult not to imagine the director as some sort of dirty old man, because the extent of the invisible man's forays out of the lab and into the outside world extended only to two attempts at having a feel of some breasts. Perhaps sex could well be the first thing on a bloke's mind if made invisible, but aside from the aesthetic pleasures of the ladies involved, it hardly makes entertaining cinema.<br /><br />[spoilers follow]<br /><br />Get past the films sick exterior, and things are even worse. Whilst Kevin Bacon does a good job of acting increasingly twisted as 'hollow man', the rest of them - perhaps handicapped by a dire script - do an even better job of being hollow cast. One long time member of the team is found strangled in a locker by the invisible man, "He's finally snapped" shrugs one colleague without a hint of emotion. This is par for the course, and the lab team swing between sheer terror and complete indifference with such speed that you wonder how they got into acting. They pad their way through the lab corridors terrified, guns poised, but then seconds later one of the crew skips happily off back down the corridor to get blood for a hurt colleague. The lead female treats the invisible man with courtesy and good humour even after he's insulted and abused her, and there seems to be little reaction to his breakouts, even after he drowns the Pentagon chief, "He drowned in his pool last night" reports the same female, spectacularly failing to put two and two together.<br /><br />The script is littered with this kind of badly acted pedestrian dialogue, and the rest is just an A-Z of film cliches, which get laid on thicker and faster as the film progresses to the point of complete disbelief and amusement at the end.<br /><br />The 'eureka' moment at the computer, the female undressing at the window, the looped security video - the list really is endless - the predictable disregard for strength in numbers, the decision not to kill the two main stars but just put them in a place of probable impending death and leave them to their own devices, the almost-dead good guy appearing out of nothing to save the woman, the bomb and ubiquitous countdown timer, the fireball explosion which just burns up before reaching the heroes, the falling lift which just stops before hitting them, and more than anything else, the immortality of the bad guy.<br /><br />The invisible man is burnt to a shred with a makeshift flame-thrower, electrocuted, whacked round the head with a bar which had just sliced straight through one of the lesser actors, and then having apparently survived the explosion, fireball and total destruction of the labs, has more than enough life left to climb up through the fireball for one last pop at the films heroes - by which stage the disbelieving audience are cringing and looking at their watches.<br /><br />That this exceptionally bad film actually made it to the cinema is astounding. Even the name of the film is as hopeless as the movie itself, and not even impressive special effects come anywhere near saving this one, which should be avoided at all costs.
(some spoilers) - as if you wouldn't know how it'll end<br /><br />My expectations for HOLLOW MAN were high. A very good commercial, a director like Paul Verhoeven and actors like Kevin Bacon and Elisabeth Shue, plus a very interesting theme - invisibility. Every premise for a great movie was accomplished. Unfortunately these things didn't matter at all. The movie was very very week, without suspense and awfully predictable. <br /><br />It's all about a bunch of scientists who discovered invisibility. After the tests on animals succeeded, Kevin Bacon decides to test it on himself. Once he's invisible, he changes completely, realizing the advantages of not being seen. From this to murder there's a very thin line.<br /><br />Hollow Man is an ill movie. It suffers of the disease that many new movies have: the special effects. From a challenging theme that could have lead the producers to a great tensed psychological thriller, Verhoeven ruins everything focusing only on special effects, without giving a damn about the real value of the movie. I must admit, the fx are awesome, probably the best i have seen since Matrix, but that's not enough to make a movie good. Actually that's the problem with the movies today. Just like Verhoeven, most directors care only about spectacular scenes - and nothing more. The exceptions are very few, and probably the Matrix is the only movie that combines perfectly fabulous special effects and great plot.<br /><br />After Starship Troopers, Verhoeven disappoints again. In stead of a great film, HM is cr*p. There are only 2 reasons why you could watch this movie: 1. the special effects 2. the joke with Superman and Wonder Woman (i won't spoil this moment for you...)<br /><br />Okay, so what went wrong with the movie? Everything. Let's see what i can remember.<br /><br />--- It's not tensed at all. It should've been, but it's not.<br /><br />--- It's too predictable . You know from the beginning who will die and who will live.<br /><br />--- In stead of focusing on the psychological part, Verhoeven cares only about the effects.<br /><br />--- Very many cliches. <br /><br />--- Of course the bad guy wakes up a few times before dying.<br /><br />--- Just like in every low quality horror, the first rule is to let the characters separate as much as possible. Every time there is somebody alone in the lab, perfect victim for Bacon.<br /><br />--- Some holes in the plot. Example: at the beginning, Bacon has to scan his finger to enter the lab. After he's invisible, how can he do that?<br /><br />--- The ending: absolutely horrible.<br /><br />--- After Shue hits Bacon in the head, Bacon falls down to the ground. Then Shue and Brolin leave quietly and slowly, without looking back. Is that normal? Then Bacon gets up, attacks them, they "kill" him again. And then Shue screams "I heard an explosion" (happened minutes ago), and they suddenly run inside. Didn't she hear that explosion some time before?<br /><br />--- There's a scene in which you can see the microphones hanging above the actors. Come on, Mr Verhoeven , i expected much more from you!<br /><br />So that's about Hollow Man. What was supposed to be a great movie turned into a scam. <br /><br />Vote: 4 out of 10 (for the special effects)
Leave it to Paul "sex on the brain" Verhoeven to come up with a pointlessly sleazy and juvenile version of the INVISIBLE MAN story. If he'd direct a Pokemon film, I'm sure he'd turn it into some massive orgy of sorts. I don't mind sex or even sleaze (check my other reviews) on film but frankly, it's obvious the director has a one track mind and he couldn't see interesting aspects about an invisible man storyline than the kinky implications it comes with it. It's a shame because it could have been good if the film didn't spend so much time having an invisible Kevin Bacon grope women. <br /><br />The game cast of actors does what it can with the one-note cheesy script but I felt bad for some of them, including William Devane, who is totally wasted here.<br /><br />But then what could I have expected from the director of SHOWGIRLS, which, btw, is much more entertaining than this stilted & bad film.
Going into this movie you know that this is movie has six lab technicians in a sealed lab with an invisible maniac. So right away you're guessing who will live and who will die. The survivors end up being exactly who you'd expect them to be, so no points for plot twists there.<br /><br />And if you're not sure if this is a B-movie or a movie that just happens to take place in a lab with an engaging story, William Devane plays a part: instant B-movie status.<br /><br />The movie is promising in the beginning. At the lab we are introduced to the invisible gorilla who is becoming increasingly violent. Oooh, foreboding. The best scene in the whole movie is when the lab team makes the gorilla visible again. Great special effects. Same thing when they make Bacon invisible.<br /><br />There are a couple of bare breasts, a really lame dirty joke and enough out of place swearing to give this movie an R-rating that it really didn't need.<br /><br />For a thriller there weren't really any surprises, except when Shue makes like MacGyver in the freezer, which is more of a 'Whaaaa?' OK, there is one surprise. That's when Caine (Bacon) comes back one last time in the elevator shaft. It was a surprise but only because you're yelling at TV, 'Noooo! You're dead already! End the movie!' Speaking of yelling at the TV,that's all I did for the last 25 minutes or so. 'Put on your f#@%ing goggles!' Instead of putting their infrared goggles on so that they can see him, they try every other trick in the book (fire extinguishers, sprinkler systems...).<br /><br />The story really lost it at the end. But the special effects were good; that's the only reason I give it a 2/10.
This is the kind of movie that leaves you with one impression.. Story writing IS what movie making is about. <br /><br />Incredible visual effects.. Very good acting, especially from Shue. Everything is perfect.. Except.. The story is just poor and so, everything fails.<br /><br />Picture this, if you had the power to be invisible.. What would you do? Well, our mad scientist here (played by Kevin Bacon) could think of no other thing to do but fondle and rape women.. This is all his supposedly "genius" mind could think of. Does he try to gain extra power? No. He doesn't even bother research a way to get back to being visible. The guy is basically a sex crazed maniac.<br /><br />Add to that, the lab atmosphere, you have all these young guys.. Throwing around jokes like they were in a bar.. If it wasn't for all the white coats and equipment, you would think this is a bad imitation of "Cheers." Very shallow and poor personalities and very little care is put into making you think these guys are anything but lambs for the Hollow Man's wolf.<br /><br />Even as a thriller, the movie falls way short because most of the "thrilling" scenes are written out so poorly and are full of illogical behaviors by the actors that are just screaming "this is just a stupid thing I have to do so that the Hollow man can find me alone and kill me."<br /><br />If you read the actual book, while the Scientist (Cane) goes after women, there is a lot of mental manipulation and disturbing thought that goes into his character. In the movie, Cane is just the sick guy who goes to a crowded marketplace to rub his body in women and get off on it. Just sad.
Within the realm of Science Fiction, two particular themes consistently elicit interest, were initially explored in the literature of a pre-cinematic era, and have since been periodically revisited by filmmakers and writers alike, with varying degrees of success. The first theme, that of time travel, has held an unwavering fascination for fans of film, as well as the written word, most recently on the screen with yet another version of the H.G. Wells classic, `The Time Machine.' The second theme, which also manages to hold audiences in thrall, is that of invisibility, which sparks the imagination with it's seemingly endless and myriad possibilities. And this theme, too, has again become the basis for a film adapted from another H.G. Wells classic, `The Invisible Man,' the realization of which, here, is `Hollow Man,' directed by Paul Verhoeven, and starring Kevin Bacon and Elisabeth Shue.<br /><br />Sebastian Caine (Bacon) and his colleagues have for some time been conducting experiments for the U.S. Government, exploring the possibility and practicality of invisibility, which they have, at last, achieved in a number of the primates upon which they have tested their method. They have, in fact, progressed to the point that effecting the invisibility is assured; their only problem now is bringing the subject back to the original `visual' state of being. It's a problem, however, that Caine, after diligent effort and too many hours in the lab, has solved-- or so he thinks. And when the application of his theory on a live subject is successful, he decides to present the results to the board of directors, in an effort to thereby maintain the funding necessary for the continuation of the project.<br /><br />At the last minute, though, Caine demurs, fearing that control of the project will be wrested from him before they can proceed to the next level-- the testing of a human subject. And he takes it upon himself to become that subject, securing the assistance of his research team by telling them that they've been given approval by the board to do so. But something goes wrong, and Caine becomes trapped in his cloak of invisibility; and as he and his team struggle to find the solution to his considerable dilemma before it's too late, it all begins to take a toll on Caine's mind. And suddenly, his fear of losing funding and control becomes inconsequential, as he finds himself facing the imminent danger of losing much more than that. Now there's a very real chance that he may lose everything-- Including himself.<br /><br />Verhoeven has crafted what is initially an exciting, even thought provoking film; he establishes a good pace and uses the F/X at his disposal to great effect, though he does tend to allow the striking visuals to overwhelm the character development. Anyone familiar with `The Invisible Man,' or actually anyone who can logically follow the progression of the story, will know early on that Caine is not destined for happier times. Still, Verhoeven has a style of storytelling that is definitely going to capture the attention and engage his audience. But he seems bent on rushing toward the climax, and along the way he abandons any and all of the nuance that has made his film thus far successful, opting to enter into a final sequence that is nothing more than a mindless blood-and-gore fest that betrays his audience and everything he's worked for earlier in the film. Rather than seeking an intelligent resolution to Caine's suffering, and using some inventiveness and imagination to take the film to it's inevitable conclusion, Verhoeven takes the low road, and though it may succeed on a purely visceral level, any meaning one could derive from the story dissolves like so many ashes in the wind, along with anything that would have made this a memorable film. And it's a shame, because Verhoeven has it at a higher level than much of what is offered in this genre, and he allows it to sink unnecessarily to one much lower.<br /><br />Kevin Bacon does a good job of creating a character that is believable, if only on the surface, which seemingly serves Verhoeven's purposes perfectly. There's little depth to Bacon's portrayal, but it has more to do with his director's agenda than his own acting abilities. Verhoeven simply does not allow Bacon the time to develop Caine to any extent; the character is mainly a vessel around which Verhoeven can build his story, and toward that end, it works. The film would have been better served, however, had Verhoeven and Bacon collaborated more closely on at least developing a bond between Caine and the audience that would have prompted some emotional involvement on the viewers part, something that would have drawn them in a bit, rather than leaving them at the gate, as it were, as mere observers of an F/X laden extravaganza.<br /><br />Elisabeth Shue comports herself well in the role of Linda McKay, Caine's willing accomplice in the ill-fated experiment, but it's basically a thankless part that offers little challenge, especially to an actor of Shue's caliber. The same can be said of Kim Dickens (so magnificent in the 2001 film, `Things Behind the Sun'). Her character, Sarah Kennedy, does little more than support the action and F/X. Both actors are capable of so much more, and deserve better than what they are given to work with here.<br /><br />The supporting cast includes Josh Brolin (Matthew), Greg Grunberg (Carter), Joey Slotnick (Frank), Mary Randle (Janice) and William Devane (Dr. Kramer). Entertaining to a point, and even successful on a certain (low) level, `Hollow Man' is one of those films that leaves you contemplating what could have been. Like an annual fireworks display, it will give you some momentary thrills, but after awhile it'll begin to blend in with all the others you've seen, without anything special to set it apart. And it's too bad, because given the talent and abilities of those involved here, it could have been so much more. I rate this one 4/10.<br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />
I don't normally feel much of an incentive to comment on films I don't like, but in a case like this one, I just have to say something. This movie is terrible, illogical, and stupid. There are so many flaws in the storytelling that I don't even feel obliged to elaborate on because it's time for me to move on from this experience. The most annoying point is, however, that at no point in the film does anyone explain whether the motivations for Bacon's character's madness are due to a power trip or a physiological reaction to his condition.<br /><br />Granted the special effects are impressive, and in the past Paul Verhoeven has done some good stuff (the director's cut of Robocop on DVD is great). However, this movie is stupid and generally doesn't come near to explaining the point or technical aspect of the subject matter, and instead settles for predictable action without any enjoyment.<br /><br /> In short, as many other reviews here say (wish I had read them before...) - Stay away from this film!
Unfortunately, one of the best efforts yet made in the area of special effects has been made completely pointless by being placed alongside a lumbering, silly and equally pointless plot and an inadequate, clichéd screenplay. Hollow Man is a rather useless film.<br /><br />Practically everything seen here has been done to death - the characters, the idea and the action sequences (especially the lift shaft!) - with the only genuinely intriguing element of the film being the impressive special effects. However, it is just the same special effect done over and over again, and by the end of the film that has been done to death also. I was hoping before watching Hollow Man that the Invisible Man theme, which is hardly original in itself, would be the basis of something newer and more interesting. This is not so. It isn't long before the film turns into an overly-familiar blood bath and mass of ineffectual histrionics - the mound of clichés piles up so fast that it's almost impressive.<br /><br />On top of all this, Kevin Bacon does a pretty useless job and his supporting cast are hardly trying their best. Good points might be a passable Jerry Goldsmith score (but no competition for his better efforts), a quite interesting use of thermal imagery and the special effects. I was tempted to give this film three out of ten, but the effects push Hollow Man's merit up one notch.<br /><br />4/10
<br /><br />Paul Verhoeven finally bombed out on this one. He became a joke on himself. Once again we have a film which includes sex and violence, immorality, leering at women and lots of attitiude talk between the characters and dollying pans.<br /><br />Its all for nothing. Because their is no action at all in this film. It fudges all its set pieces. All the actors give the kind of performances form a Verhoeven film. In other words rampant over acting on almost every level. Starship Troopers got away with it because it was such a macho world the characters inhabited. In this scientists are acting the same way. Sorry Paul but Soldiers and scientist are not really made of the same mindset.<br /><br />One major flaw in the plot was that after escaping for that one night to do evil things Kevin Bacons character then returns back to the science lab where we have already spent more then enough time watching these animated manniquens (Elizabeth Shue excepted) walk and talk. Why not show the extent of what the character could do in the outside world. How could they possibly track him if he could be anywhere at all??? Think os all the different things that could have been done with this concept, both in terms of story and characterisation. Then look at what this film does and you really how badly done and concieved the whole project really was.<br /><br />More insulting is the Doco on the DVD where everyone is claiming that Verhoeven is some kind of MAd Genius. Well one out of two isnt that bad.<br /><br />This film has nothing of note in it. Just like the title says.<br /><br />Hollow!!!
Other than some neat special effects, this movie has nothing to offer. They threw in some gore and some nudity to try and make it interesting, but with no success. Kevin Bacon's acting was pretty good, but he couldn't salvage the movies lack of plot.
I love special effects and witnessing new technologies that make science fiction seem real. The special effects of this movie are very good. I have seen most of this movie, since it's been airing on HBO for the past couple of months. I must admit, I MAY have missed a few scenes, but I'm usually drawn into movies, and have seen some scenes more than once. But every time I see some of "Hollow Man," I feel depressed, almost like a "film noir." I'm not sure why; perhaps it's that I don't want Kevin Bacon to be evil, and there's disappointment in that. But I think it's witnessing just HOW relentlessly evil he becomes. Regardless, I can recommend this movie for excitement (although some parts move slowly), but I do NOT recommend for youngsters under the age of 14 (perhaps 12, if they are mature).
The buzz for this film has always been about the fabulous graphics that make Kevin Bacon disappear. Sadly, they stopped there. They should have continued to make the script disappear, then the silly set, and finally every visible element of this film. Because, there's nothing else there to show.<br /><br />Gary Thompson and Andrew Marlowe are listed as the writing credits for this film. I don't really think they exist. I think they bought this script at "Scripts-R-Us", where you buy a standard blank "Monster Movie" script and just fill in the blanks. There's a monster stalking us. Let's split up. (They actually "let's split up" in this movie). Hit Alien/Giant-bug/Monster/Invisible-man with crowbar. Not dead yet. Burn Huge-rabbit/Shark/Invisible-man in unsurvivable fire. Not dead yet. You know, the standard stuff. Even the minimum number of elements that were specific to an invisible man movie (IR glasses, spraying with something like paint) were handled badly. <br /><br />What is sad is that there were lots of possibilities for this to be a fascinating movie. They psychological issues for the subject, the deterioration of the mind due to the process, treating an invisible subject, and many other ideas were touched on for usually less than 2 seconds and would have been far more interesting. Had there been any desire to save Kevin Bacon in the end, it would have been a much better movie. All in all, it stunk.<br /><br />I would mention some of the incredibly stupid elements of the ending of the movie, but I don't want to do any spoilers. Suffice it to say that these characters are so stupid they don't think about pulling the plug on a machine rather than...
This movie is worth watching if you enjoy marvelling over special effects. There are some interesting visuals.<br /><br />Aside from that, it's typical nineties/aughties hollywood fare of dazzle without substance. True to the title.<br /><br />It's not worth picking apart the story. That's like performing brain surgery on a dinosaur. There's not much there to begin with. It's nothing original and not very special. So don't go in for the story at all. Just look at the effects.<br /><br />As has been mentioned, it got a little flashy at the end, diluting the purity of great FX treatment of an invisible (and at times half invisible) man. However if you ignore the "standard" pyrotechnics, it's a sight to behold (or not to behold).<br /><br />All in all, it's a decent FX film worth seeing for that purpose and that alone.
Shortly after seeing this film I questioned the mental competence of every actor and actress that accepted a role. Elizabeth Shue is a commendable actress, why would she embrace such an overrated opportunity? I must give credit where credit is due, though. Some moments in the movie were unpredictable and rather transfixing, but they hardly made up for the scathing perverse tendencies of Kevin Bacon's character, Sebastian Caine. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone, man or woman, that has any form of self-respect to account for.
Another violent, angry fantasy from Paul Verhoeven. Verhoeven is a puzzle: it's difficult to tell whether he takes his sordid impulses seriously, with sardonic intent or operates in complete oblivion. He also seems completely ignorant of the fact that all the brilliant visuals in the world (and this has some outstanding ones) cannot hide a negligence to story, dialogue and performance. Kevin Bacon plays a corrupt scientist who has discovered invisibility and uses it to drive himself into moral bankruptcy. Bacon is normally a likable actor who occasionally shows his dark side (`The River Wild') in an attempt to offset his boyish looks; given the material, however, Bacon isn't nearly hateful enough to compel. The other principals are Elisabeth Shue and Josh Brolin, neither of whom are gifted enough to make a solid impression and who, when forced to deliver inane dialogue, embarrass themselves. The climax is a study in preponderance and disbelief has to be truly suspended.
To describe this film as garbage is unfair. At least rooting through garbage can be an absorbing hobby. This flick was neither absorbing nor entertaining.<br /><br />Kevin Bacon can act superbly given the chance, so no doubt had an IRS bill to settle when he agreed to this dire screenplay. The mad scientist story of 'Hollow Man' has been told before, been told better, and been told without resorting to so many ludicrously expensive special effects.<br /><br />Most of those special effects seem to be built around the transparent anatomical dolls of men, women and dogs you could buy in the early seventies. In the UK they were marketed as 'The Transparent Man (/Woman/Dog)' which is maybe where they got the title for this film.<br /><br />Clever special effects, dire script, non-existent plot.<br /><br />
That's what I found myself saying time after time in the remarkably inept 3rd act of this sorry excuse for a film. First off, the computer effects are absolutely mind-blowing! Those computer wizs' really deserve a pat on the back. The rest of the movie, though...<br /><br />None of the characters act in a realistic manner, especially in the aforementioned, despicable 3rd act (I promise I won't give it away, but trust me, it's not worth keeping a secret!). A lot of laughs in the film come unintentionally, like when they try to explain that an invisible man's eyelids don't work. Please, give the viewers more credit than that!!!<br /><br />Some of the sexual aspects of the film were interesting. What would you do, after all, if you were invisible? No one could catch you! These issues were dealt much more intelligently in the classic The Invisible Man from 1933. There is one scene of violence in particular that is so incredibly ambiguous, and is not mentioned once later on. If more attention had been paid it, Kevin bacon's mad scientist might have made a little more sense. <br /><br />The movie would actually be much more successful as a porno, since the premise could actually be carried out in a unique and interesting manner. But this piece of work... go see something else. Or don't, and live with the consequences!<br /><br />3/10
I rarely make these comments but I felt compelled to spare others the pain I endured in watching this movie. It's so stupid and implausible both in the overall story and in the details that you simply can't suspend disbelief. The problem starts early, when you see a government researcher tooling around in a new Porsche and dining with his team in a restaraunt that looks like a castle, overlooking the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. That kind of life on a government salary? Hah! It only gets worse. Toward the end, when the bad guy starts killing off the good guys, the latter group act so stupidly that you want them to die, in order to cleanse the gene pool. The special effects are pretty good - any producer's money can buy that - and the lead actors have been great in other films, but the screenplay and direction here are moronic. Many people have wondered whether there was some deliberate intelligence behind Paul Verhoeven's previous, facially stupid movies (Showgirls, Starship Troopers), but this movie should stop the wondering. He's just plain bad.
This picture started out with good intentions, Bacon the scientist out to test the theory of invisibility, and Shue is cute as usual in her role. It all falls apart after that, it's your typical Hollywood thriller now, filmed on a soundstage with special effects galore, minus any kind of humour, wit or soul. In other words, don't waste your time watching this. Get the audiocassette tape with John DeLancie as the Invisible Man instead, also starring Leonard Nimoy. Now that was good, and HG Wells is well served, unlike with this mess.
C'mon guys some previous reviewers have nearly written a novel commenting on this episode. It's just an old 60's TV show ! This episode of Star Trek is notable because of the most serious babe (Yeoman Barrow's) ever used on Star Trek and the fact that it was filmed in a real outdoor location. Unlike the TNG and Voyager series which were totally confined to sound stages.<br /><br />This use of an outdoor location (and babe) gives proper depth and an almost film like quality to a quite ordinary episode of this now dated and very familiar show.<br /><br />Except a few notable exceptions i.e "The city on the edge of forever" , "assignment Earth" and "Tomorrow is Yesterday" The old series of Star Trek needs to be seriously moth-balled and put out of it's boring misery. Half a dozen good episodes from 79 is quite a poor batting average.<br /><br />This is typical of the boring stuff Gene Roddenberry produced back then actually, contrary to popular belief where some people worshiped the ground he walked on, he actually made a LOT of rubbish! He doesn't deserve to be spoken of in the same breath as Irwin Allen for example.<br /><br />Just look at the set of the bridge of the Enterprise from a modern point of view. They used wobbly plywood for the floor, cafeteria chairs with plastic backs and cheap cardboard above the instrument panels. You can clearly see the folds in the paper ! Every expense spared or what !
Okay, now what the hell is this supposed to be? Is it a family fantasy movie to cash in further on the huge success of Spielberg's "Close Encounters of the Third Kind"? Or a throwback to the glorious days of prehistoric epics such as "When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth" and "The Lost World"? Perhaps it's an intellectual & philosophical masterpiece we all fail to comprehend? Yes, that must be it! Whatever it is, the creators of "The Day Time Ended" (good old John 'Bud' Cardos of "Kingdom of the Spiders" and writer David Schmoeller of "Tourist Trap") must have been sniffing quite a lot glue when they penned down the ideas for this demented hodgepodge of genres. The story doesn't make the slightest bit of sense and the narrative structure is incoherent as hell but, hey, who cares as long as it's got papier-mâché dinosaurs, miniature spacecrafts, headache-inducing light & laser shows and spontaneously combusting supernovas! The voice-over introduction is practically inaudible, but no worries as it's all gibberish! Did you know that the definition of 'time' isn't what we all think it is? Time doesn't necessarily pass by chronologically, it is one giant paradox! Words that were spoken thousands of years ago are still floating around now and even things that will happen in the future are already surrounding us. I have absolutely NO idea what all this means, but apparently it provides an easy excuse to gather tap-dancing midget aliens and well-mannered dinosaurs on screen together. I deliberately say well-mannered dinosaurs, because at a certain point one of the prehistoric monsters politely knocks on the front door before menacing his targets. The crazy plot revolves on a family of weirdos living in their solar-powered house in the middle of nowhere. Grandpa is extremely annoying, the granddaughter even more, granny is a walking & talking advertisement billboard for plastic surgery, the youngest son strangely resembles Prince Valiant and the young mother is … incredibly hot! Chris Mitchum for some reason also pointless wanders around the filming sets as the hot mommy's husband on business travel. The special effects are purely cheesy and absolutely laughable (I sincerely hope that the other reviewer who talked about "excellent special effects" was being sarcastic), but the absolute most genius aspect here are the dialogs! Just read this wondrous example of extraordinary writing: <br /><br />Grandpa: "You know what this is, don't you? This is a time-space warp!<br /><br />Stevie: "I'm not quite sure if I know what that means, dad"<br /><br />Grandpa: "Well, I guess nobody really does" <br /><br />Make up your mind, gramps! Do you know what it is or don't you? And stop talking about "The Vortex" like you're some kind of expert in the field! "The Day Time Ended" is an incredibly childish and not-worth-bothering-for fantasy movie, though I can totally understand that some of its fans cherish the film because they saw it at young age and became fascinated with the flamboyant effects. The ending completely comes out of nowhere, like they suddenly ran out of money or like the effects of the mushrooms they were eating wore out unexpectedly.
I saw this when it was in the theater, it started out so strong I mean back in 1980 this was a bold movie and the special effects were excellent AT THE time. Now you would have to of been at least 30 or so in 1980 to really understand this point because studying film historically misses the mind set at the time the expectations, and other related psychological factors. Now as I said the movie was engaging suspenseful and very entertaining. It builds to an excellent climax then.... IT ends I mean the person that described it as having a water balloon break in your hand before throwing it, besides being a very poetic description. In my experience, it was just not strong enough. My wife and I were well... how can I say this? We were upset, I mean we paid money, invested the time to watch the movie which was excellent. "We both felt we were robbed with an ending that convinced us both the production company must of run out of money and could not raise enough to finish it correctly. In fact my wife said it best, it did not end, IT JUST STOPPED!
When I ordered this from Blockbuster's website I had no idea that it would be as terrible as it was. Who knows? Maybe I'd forgotten to take my ADD meds that day. I do know that from the moment the cast drove up in their station wagon, donned in their late 70's-style wide collars, bell-bottoms and feathered hair, I knew that this misplaced gem of the disco era was glory bound for the dumpster.<br /><br />The first foretelling of just how bad things were to be was the narration at the beginning, trying to explain what cosmic forces were at play to wreak havoc upon the universe, forcing polyester and porno-quality music on the would-be viewer. From the opening scene with the poorly-done effects to the "monsters" from another world and then the house which jumps from universe to universe was as achingly painful as watching an elementary school production of 'The Vagina Monologues'.<br /><br />Throughout the film, the sure sign something was about to happen was when a small ship would appear. The "ship" was comprised suspiciously of what looked like old VCR and camcorder parts and would attack anyone in its path. Of course if moved slower than Bob Barker's impacted bowels, but it had menacing pencil-thin armatures and the ability to cast a ominous green glow that could stop bullets and equipped with a laser capable of cutting through mere balsa wood in an hour or two (with some assistance).<br /><br />Moving on... As the weirdness and bell bottoms continue... We found out that they're caught in a "Space Time Warp". How do we garner this little nugget of scientific information? Because the oldest male lead tells his son that, in a more or less off-the-cuff fashion, like reminiscing about 'how you won the big game' over a cup of joe or an ice-cold bottle of refreshing Coca-Cola. Was pops a scientist? Nope, but he knew about horses and has apparently meddled as an amateur in string theory and Einstein's theories.<br /><br />The recording I watched on DVD was almost bootleg quality. The sound was muddy and the transfer looked like it had been shot off a theater screen with the video recorder on a cell phone, other than that, it was really, really, really bad. (There's not enough 'really's' to describe it, really).<br /><br />I know some out there love this movie and compare it to other cult classics. I never saw this film on its original release, but even back then I think I would've come to the same conclusion: bury this one quick.
I cheer for films that fill in subject matter gaps in world cinema. So after watching the trailer for "Water Lilies," I expected to like this film because I thought I'd stumbled on something unique: a movie that honestly portrays teen lesbian love - sort of a female version of "Beautiful Thing." <br /><br />The main characters are young French women 15 years old. Marie is slender, reticent and pretty in a tomboyish way; Floriane is outgoing, athletic and beautiful; and Anne is loyal, pudgy and behaviorally immature. The erotic interrelationship between Marie and Floriane is always simmering in this movie, if not at the surface, then just below it. <br /><br />"Water Lilies," however, is not about the dawning of lesbian love upon two teens; it is about sexual frustration, suffering, ennui, teens working at cross-purposes and - in at least two instances - joyless, mechanical sex. It also proves that screenwriters and film-makers mar their own creations when they become too manipulative.<br /><br />In the extra features on the "Lord of the Flies" DVD, director Peter Brook says, "French cynicism starts with the arousal of sex," meaning the French regard children as angels while they regard adolescents and adults with a pervasive cynicism. Part of the downfall of this film is film-maker Celine Sciamma has gulped a mighty dose of this cynicism.<br /><br />"Where is the joy?" I asked myself while watching this film. Yes, first love can be painful and frustrating, but it can also be joyful and triumphantly erotic in a fresh, life-affirming way. These positive aspects are missing from this movie; there is no balance.<br /><br />Organically, this movie wants to be a poignant celebration of first love. But Sciamma is too impressed with her own cynicism and cleverness and ruins the film. First, what is the point of showing only the plump girl nude? I know there is an established tradition of tasteful teen nudity in European cinema, as evidenced by films like "The Slingshot; The Rascals; The Devil, Probably; The Little Thief; Murmur of the Heart; Friends; Beau Pere" and "Europa, Europa"; but this instance is a petty authorial intrusion - "See, audience, I can make a film where I show only the unattractive person nude." Either no nudity or evenly distributed nudity would've been an honest way to go.<br /><br />There is a scene in a club where Floriane and Marie are dancing. What follows next is not just Floriane cynically manipulating Marie; it is film-maker Sciamma cynically manipulating her audience.<br /><br />Perhaps the biggest betrayal of authenticity and organic honesty takes place when Floriane warns Marie she's about to request something that is "not normal." Marie understandably asks, "Who cares about being normal?" Then Sciamma plays false with her audience and the hurtling momentum of the movie, because Floriane's request is a phony, derivative and substitute question - not the authentic, heartfelt question the movie, Marie's character and the viewers who've invested their time deserve. <br /><br />Here are also two moments which clank falsely on the viewer's nerves: 1) Since when do the French - of all people - take baths wearing bathing suits, and with a turtle to boot? 2) What teen - of any nationality - would chomp down on an apple core that's been thrown in the garbage in order to get a taste of the beloved's mouth?<br /><br />The three main actresses are promising and, if they find better vehicles for their talents, may become excellent actors. Louise Blachere (Anne) is the best actress in terms of technique and could have a successful career in supporting roles. Adele Haenel (Floriane) could become a leading lady, or a bombshell, or both. Pauline Acquart (Marie) possesses an intensity and magnetism which are unmistakable. In the future, she could play everything from an emotionally crippled librarian to a mysteriously sensual seductress to a reluctant politician riding a meteoric rise in acclaim.<br /><br />All in all, "Water Lilies" was very disappointing. Will an honest film-maker please make an authentic movie about two young women falling in love! No - not necessarily for the sake of this middle-aged guy - but so young lesbian girls can have something of quality they can watch and identify with. And yes, to fill a subject matter gap in world cinema.
For anyone craving a remake of 1989's Slaves of New York. What are there, seven of you? Here it is... was.<br /><br />This undercooked movie has studiously vapid characters (Well they're club-kids, ya big jerk!) that are in holding patterns. The big question seems to be, just how long can a young adult remain juvenile? It took three people to write this 'story'? Good god, it was easier to come up with Citizen Kane. Rather than take viewers back, this movie should just embarrass anyone who was a scene-ster in the early 90s.<br /><br />The idea that a fifty year old woman envies a bunch of self-absorbed kids from a different era is the world as only self-absorbed, twenty-somethings could imagine it. The odd sidebar about library work is not the sub-plot one expects from the equivalent of Parker Posey's Breakin 2: Electric Bugaloo. Her "I'm serious about graduate school!" while a stripper grinds on her is hysterical. Posey's shtick is always amusing, but there are projects that are beneath her. I was asleep before it crossed the 40 minute mark.
Besides being boring, the scenes were oppressive and dark. The movie tried to portray some kind of moral, but fell flat with its message. What were the redeeming qualities?? On top of that, I don't think it could make librarians look any more unglamorous than it did.
For the first couple of seasons, I thought The Apprentice was a highly engaging and exciting show. The combination between reality TV and a 16 week job-interview was innovative, and the producers of the show managed to keep the show relevant and not too "out there".<br /><br />The new season 6 is nothing more than a big joke and it has absolutely nothing to do with business - at all. In the earlier seasons they used to put a lot more emphasis on the business-related tasks - now the focus is mostly in the boardroom where the contestants are expected to do EVERYTHING to keep them on the show (that means lying, trash-talking, backstabbing etc.). The boardroom can be entertaining to watch, but it's entertainment at it's low-point - Sometimes you wonder if you are watching a repeat of an old Jerry Springer episode. The tasks on the show are, at most, boring and mostly a showcase for the companies who are dumb enough to pay NBC for the publicity. And what is the deal about half of the contestants living in tents in season 6? That is just plain stupid and has nothing to do with business in real-life. <br /><br />I have absolutely NO respect for any of the contestants this season, they all seem like idiots to me. In earlier seasons at least some of the contestants had a bit of integrity, now it seems like the contestants would kill their own mother to keep them on the show. It also seems like Donald Trump's massive ego becomes bigger and bigger for every season that pass by and to be honest, I can't see why anyone with a common sense would want to work for him. His rationality in the boardroom mostly doesn't make any sense at all and sometimes it seems he just like to trash people for what it's worth.<br /><br />R.I.P The Apprentice. Please NBC, for God's sake, get the show off the air as soon as possible. It's just too embarrassing to watch. The Apprentice was once a great TV-show, but now it's just a big fat joke.
I LOVED the Apprentice for the first two seasons.<br /><br />But now with season 5? (or is it 6?) things are getting just plain too tiring.<br /><br />I used to like the show, but its become Donald Trumps own ego fest. Granted its his company you'll be working for, but come on! some of the things says "You're FIRED" is just insulting.<br /><br />after watching the show, I would not want to work for him. not because he is arrogant, pompous or such. Its just that the show is unrealistic and the way he handles things makes me just squirm. Good Entertainment? YES, but tiring as the back stabbing gets so tiring.. its not team work, its not personal, its just business. watch your back jack.
I bet you Gene Simmons and Vincent Pastore negotiated in advance how many episodes they would be willing to appear in. Isn't just too contrived for Gene to switch to the ladies team and then throw himself on his sword? And Big Pussy? What the hell was that "look at me, I'm a rat!" double episode crap? All that cliché mafia banter- COME ON! The big names voted off just happened to already have received money for their charity and got a custom tailored exit. Hmm... This is not reality but staged drama! Mark Burnett's other show, "Survivor" also raised questions for me when Johnny Fairplay stages his departure when he clearly had just a short time before his child is to be born.<br /><br />Yuk!
I can't stand most reality shows and this one is worst than the one with Paris Hilton, and sure it's his company. But "you're fired" or "you're hired", for how many seasons now? After watching the show I wouldn't want to work for the guy with his ego and all and I think watching paint dry has more entertainment valve.<br /><br />I'd love to hear just one person get up and say "Donald I quit and take some of your money and buy a decent hairdo". I see he's even trying to buy fame in the wrestling WWE. I hope he gets hurt so I don't have to see his pathetic face anymore. It must be sad to want fame so bad and have no talent and make an ass of yourself trying to buy it. I'd give this show a negative mark if I could but it gets a 1 and it doesn't deserve that.
One has to wonder if at any point in the production of this film a<br /><br />script existed that made any sense. Was the rough cut 3 hours<br /><br />long and was it trimmed into the incoherent mess that survives? <br /><br />Why would anyone finance this mess? I will say that Tom<br /><br />Wlaschiha is a good looking young man and he does what he can<br /><br />with the dialogue and dramatic (?) situations he is given. But<br /><br />characters come and go for no apparent reason, continuity is<br /><br />non-existent, and the acting, cinematography, and direction are (to<br /><br />put it politely) amateurish. Not One Sleeps is an unfortunate<br /><br />choice of title as it will probably prove untrue should anyone<br /><br />actually attempt to actually watch this film.
Jochen Hick wrote and directed this little thriller of a suspense film based on the concept that the AIDS virus was a sheep virus mutated by the government to rid the world of gays and was apparently tested on convicts in the years before the outbreak of the hideous disease. Were it not for the poignancy of the concept of the film, this would fall into the category of the many films about the ruination of the world by a rampant non-prejudicial infective organism.<br /><br />Stefan (Tom Wlaschiha) journeys from Berlin to San Francisco to investigate his father's scientific suppositions about the induced sheep virus and its effects of the convicts in whom it was infused. He meets with some disdain and resistance to a dead theory, but also encounters some folks who know of the theory and support his investigation. Simultaneously with his visit a series of serial murders takes place, each victim killed in a similar manner and each murder apparently accompanied by strains of music from Puccini's opera 'Turandot' which just happens to be opening at the San Francisco Opera. A police investigator Louise Tolliver (Irit Levi) and her companion cop (Kalene Parker) follow the murders while Stefan makes the rounds of the sex clubs and bars in San Francisco trying to locate men who may have been guinea pigs for his father's theory. He encounters a strange lad Jeffrey (Jim Thalman) with whom he has a cat and mouse attraction and a prominent Doctor Burroughs (Richard Conti) who seems oddly involved in the cast of suspects. How this all come to an end is the play of the film, a story as much about the search for self identity between Stefan and Jeffery as it is a case for investigation of murders.<br /><br />While Tom Wlaschiha, Jim Thalman and Richard Conti do well with their roles (they are the only three who have any prior acting experience in the film!), the quality of the film sags considerably by the less than acceptable minimally talented Irit Levy and Kaylene Parker: when on screen the credibility of the story drops below zero. There are some small cameos by other actors that brighten the screen for the moments they inhabit, but in all the film is drowned by the incessant replay of 'Nessun dorma' as sung by Mario del Monaco from a recording o the opera - and that seems to be the reason for making the film! Good idea for a film and some good characterizations by the actors, but there is no resolution of the initial premise that started the whole thing. Grady Harp, February 06
Poorly written conspiracy drama/mystery about the possibility that AIDS was introduced to the public by the government. Wlaschiha plays a gay researcher looking for answers--that within this foggy plot would be hard for anyone to find. Despite the cinematography itself being commendable, the camera hungers for characters of true depth instead of the shallow, amateur acting it unfortunately has to convey. Grade: D+
I don't give much credence to AIDS conspiracy theories but its sociologically interesting to see the phenomenon dramatized. In the early years of the AIDS epidemic, the suffering and paranoia of the scared and dying often generated such dark fantasies. This was especially true in the politically radical and sexually extreme demi-monde of San Francisco. The city, renowned for its beauty, has rarely appeared uglier than in this film. A sense of darkness and decomposition pervades every scene.<br /><br />While the acting and plot can't be said to be well-done the films unique cultural context and oppressively dark mood at least partly saves the film from being a complete loss. Actually, I found the most interesting performance to be Irit Levi as a crusty and cynical Jewish, lesbian (?) police detective. She's interesting, though not necessarily convincing.<br /><br />Highlights: the film's use of the garishly tragic Turandot is an effective motif and there is a sublime silent cameo by iconic performance artist, Ron Athey.
The cliché of the shell-shocked soldier home from the war is here given dull treatment. Pity a splendid cast, acting to the limits of their high talents, can't redeem 'The Return of the Soldier' from its stiff-collared inability to move the viewer to emotional involvement. Best moments, as another reviewer noted, come when Glenda Jackson is on screen; but even Jackson's crackling good cinematic power can't pull this film's chestnuts from its cold, never warmed hearth. Ann-Margret, she of sex-kitten repute and too often accused of lacking acting ability, finds her actual and rather profound abilities wasted here - despite her speaking with a nigh-flawless Middlesex accent. The hackneyed score, redolent of many lackluster TV miniseries' slathered-on saccharine emotionalism, is at irritating odds with the emotional remoteness of the script, blocking, and overbaked formalism of the direction; except for its score and corseted script and direction, 'The Return of the Soldier' has all the right bits but it fails to make them work together.
The Good Earth is perhaps the most boring film I've seen in my life. The plot is slow and lacking. The acting is borderline comical. While I love Paul Muni, I can now say i have seen a film that does not do his true ability justice. The only saving grace I found with this film is it's production value. The use of hundreds of extras throughout the film creates a very believable and interesting environment. Also, the beautiful effects used to create the illusion of millions of wasps sells easily and was revolutionary at the time. Other than the production value I can say little else that is good or entertaining about this film.
The Good Earth is not a great film by any means, it is way to ordinary. Maybe it was different in the 1930's but who would want to see the life of a farmer. It is not very interesting to me. Yes, Luis Rainer and Paul Muni do an excellent job acting but the film dragged on way too long. I could have told you the ending of this movie by the first act. In short Wang Lung (Muni) a small time farmer who does not want to be like his own father turns out exactly like him. Both falling in love with their wives just as they are on their death beds. The film does a complete 360 going from one generation to the next. Also this film did not have any good character actors or funny moments, it just was depressing stuff about lasting as a farmer during a time of crisis.
A couple of farmers struggle in life in a small village in China. Wang Lung (Paul Muni) buys O-Lan, his future wife, who becomes his slave (Luis Rainer). American stars appear in the leading roles, talking with fake accents and emphasizing old stereotypes and patriarchal ideology. A good wife, many children and land are the best things for men to have. They are seen as property and investment. Because it is a big budget movie, in which many extras cooperate, big sets are built and special effects take place, the movie makers could not take the risk of hiring less popular actors. Luise Rainer won an Academy Award for this performance, which is definitely the worst in the movie. Her immutable face builds a barrier between her and the audience. O-Lan is supposed to be the heart of the family and the best character to sympathize with. On the other hand Paul Muni gives a better performance, showing his talent ones again. Another problem with the movie is the ending. It seems like Franklin did not know when to end the picture. This film could be dangerous if it is taken as a truly example of Chinese culture and traditions.
Luise Rainer received an Oscar for her performance in The Good Earth. Unfortunately, her role required no. She did not say much and looked pale throughout the film. Luise's character was a slave then given away to marriage to Paul Muni's character (he did a fantastic job for his performance). Set in ancient Asia, both actors were not Asian, but were very convincing in their roles. I hope that Paul Muni received an Oscar for his performance, because that is what Luise must have gotten her Oscar for. She must have been a breakthrough actress, one of the first to method act. This seems like something that Hollywood does often. Al Pacino has played an Italian and Cuban. I felt Luise's performance to be lackluster throughout, and when she died, she did not change in expression from any previous scenes. She stayed the same throughout the film; she only changed her expression or emotion maybe twice. If her brilliant acting was so subtle, I suppose I did not see it.
Well I'm probably about to be lambasted by everyone on this site, but The Good Earth is one of the worst structured films I've seen in a long time. We have a 2 and a half hour film that feels like its three and a half because it has two films in one. The first film tells the story of a family that has to move form their home because of drought and famine. They have to travel south to the cities to find food or work of some kind. Conveniently they happen to find a bag of jewels and at the same time they find out that the drought has ended. Yeah OK. With this knowledge they return home with their riches and everything is fine and wonderful again. <br /><br />Well that takes about an hour and a half of film and while its incredibly lifeless at this point it does have a nice arc to it. You would think this would be a fantastic place to end the film. However, the film then continues on for a whole other hour. And in this remaining time, its takes a simple story about a family dealing with the hardships of the world and turns it into a sappy melodrama about betrayal and jealousy between lovers. Oh yea and the age old, money is the root of all evil blah blah blah. Just because you know your making an epic film doesn't mean that your story can go on needlessly for more than it has to. Also the main idea I would gather about this film is that the earth is good to this family and holds them together. Then why do we spend an hour telling a story about a rich man falling in love with another woman, and why is the final moment of the film dedicated to a wife that our main character hasn't even cared about through most of the film. <br /><br />Oh wait and the film isn't the only thing thats poorly written, the main characters wife makes absolutely no sense. She complains a lot about how she was a slave and she never wants to have a slave and yadda yadda yadda. Then why at the drop of a hat is she willing to sell her only daughter into slavery. Even if they are starving at the time of this idea, it still doesn't make sense when 20 minutes later in the film she is complaining about not wanting a slave again. <br /><br />There are other films from the thirties that should be paid attention to. The only thing this one has going for it is the cinematography. The land is shot beautifully, oh and the sequence with the locusts is quite impressive. Too bad that were in a film that had nothing to say. <br /><br />One last thing. I know that at this point in time Hollywood was focused mostly on stars and they figured that a good actor can portray anything. For most of the film Paul Muni does portray an Asian man to the best of his ability, but once it hits the half point where the film goes on for no reason he loses it and just becomes regular old Italian Paul, they even cut his hair so he looks like Tony from Scarface(also a better film than this). Of all the main characters in the film I think maybe three are actually Asian, the rest are just Americans being silly. Oh and please Ms. Rainer that was a really nice one note performance, not, if i could i rip the Oscar out of your hands, oh i would. <br /><br />The Good Earth is one epic waste of time. If you want something along this vain to watch on nice evening get The Grapes of Wrath, a film that truly deserves all the praise it gets. Mainly because it wasn't written by a monkey.
The Good Earth follows the life a slave girl and a poor farmer in China. The movie is based on the novel by Pearl S. Buck. The story is great, but I hated that they decided to cast Anglos in the lead roles. Walter Connolly is laughable as the farmer's father. He has such a heavy American accent, as do most of the lead actors, that I could not bear listening to him speak.<br /><br />It is a shame that Hollywood could not get past their racist beliefs to cast Asians in the lead roles. To take Anglos and make them look like Chinese is akin to Anglos putting shoe polish on their faces to play African-Americans.
Well, what was fun... except for the fun part.<br /><br />It's my second least favorite so far, I even thought it was worse than 'Lazarus' and 'Ghost in the Machine'.<br /><br />Let's start with the good. The teaser, it was incredibly well done and also emotional. Being the great animal lover that I am, it was fun seeing so many beautiful animals in this episode.<br /><br />But then there's all the bad, and believe me there is a lot of it. Little made sense, so those animals were being abducted by aliens and impregnated? whaaa??? the dialog was also pretty awful. There were about one or two quotable lines. <br /><br />and worst of all, having pretty much all those animals die was very unpleasant for me. In the end... what's the point? they all pretty much died. We didn't learn anything, we weren't entertained, and I couldn't even find Sophia's death sad... just very frustrating.<br /><br />* star. shame because Season 2 was doing so well.
Amazing. That's what you'd say if you sat through this film. Simply, incredibly, amazing. It's actually so amazing that anyone was stupid enough to dump money into making this monstrosity that you simply can't believe what you're seeing. That, my friends, is what is truly scary about this film. Somebody thought it was a good idea to make it. <br /><br />Well, here's another amazingly original story: High School student (occasionally seemed like college—go figure) has whore for a mom, lives in a trailer park, and is an "artist" who is ridiculed for his "being all different." Well, of course, this poor ridiculed boy is eventually killed and, here's the original part, his soul inhabits a scarecrow (beneath which, he is killed by his slutty mama's latest john). Then he goes around with the standard killing off of all the people that done hurt him. Awww.<br /><br />Here's the breakdown:<br /><br />The Good:<br /><br />--Amazingly funny movie—even if that's not what the clearly drunk filmmakers wanted.<br /><br />--This and the sequel on one disk in the Wal-Mart $5.00 bin—so it's only a little overpriced.<br /><br />Didn't Hurt It, Didn't Help:<br /><br />--The violence and gore are kind of sub-standard. One person is stabbed with a corncob.<br /><br />--Sounds like they put some effort into the music—but it doesn't really fit the movie—and isn't all that good.<br /><br />The Bad:<br /><br />--Terrible, terrible acting.<br /><br />--Another slasher let-down with sexy women—none of them removing clothing. When did that cease being a staple of low-brow slashers??<br /><br />--Ridiculous story.<br /><br />--The scarecrow vomits up one-liners that would make Freddy Krueger and Arnold Swartzenegger blush.<br /><br />--Standard underlying love story goes nowhere, and is poorly done.<br /><br />--Some of the people killed seem like they were chosen at random—you never really know who anybody is and then they're killed. And you only assume that they must've had it coming.<br /><br />The Ugly:<br /><br />--Extremely average slasher fare, just with a murdering scarecrow instead of… well, all that other crap.<br /><br />--Nowhere near as interesting as Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees, Pinhead, Chucky, or even Angela from the "Sleepaway Camp" series—all of which are better than this atrocity.<br /><br />--The absolute worst dialogue I have ever heard in my LIFE. The script is laden with a level of retardedness that I never imagined could exist. I'm serious here—it's a full step beyond terrible. Don't get me wrong, though, it's funny as hell—but I've never heard more asinine banter—even in "Slumber Party Massacre III." This film makes "Jason X" look like Shakespeare.<br /><br />--The man who kills the boy that becomes the scarecrow: Worst wig ever. Dialogue to match.<br /><br />Memorable Scene:<br /><br />--The one where elementary-school youths spew out their own witty dialogue: "Hey, let's go find small animals to torture. Huh huh."<br /><br />Acting: 3/10 Story: 3/10 Atmosphere: 2/10 Cinematography: 1/10 Character Development: 2/10 Special Effects/Make-up: 5/10 Nudity/Sexuality: 1/10 (No nudity, Mom's a whore, girls wear no bras) Violence/Gore: 5/10 (Low quality, mediocre amount) Dialogue: 0/10 (Extremely ridiculous, blatant, over-the-top and painfully funny—so bad it's good. My first rating for dialogue in any film!) Music: 5/10 Direction: 2/10<br /><br />Cheesiness: 10/10 Crappiness: 9/10<br /><br />Overall: 3/10<br /><br />Another one for just people like me who enjoy watching pure crap. Or Slasher-film completists. This is not a good movie, at all. Laughable dialogue and characters keep it from being truly boring.<br /><br />www.ResidentHazard.com
This movie could be used in film classes in a "How Not to Script a B-Movie" course. There are inherent constrictions in a B-movie: Budgets are tight, Time is precious (Scarecrow was apparently shot in 8 days) and the actors are often green and inexperienced. The one aspect you have complete control over is writing the best script you can within the limitations set before you. Scarecrow's script seems to have been written in a drunken haze. I could go through about fifteen examples of the nonsensical scripting of this movie, but I'll just mention one: The Gravedigger. The character of the gravedigger is introduced about an hour into the movie. He seemingly has no connection to any of the other characters already in the movie. He is shown with his daughter, who also has no connection to anybody else in the movie. The gravedigger is given a couple scenes to act surly in and then is killed to pad out the body count. Why give the Gravedigger a daughter? Why give the daughter a boyfriend? Why introduce them so late in the movie? Why not try to make them part of the ongoing storyline? Scarecrow doesn't seem to care.<br /><br />The "story" of Scarecrow goes something like this: Lester is a high school kid (played by and actor who'd I'd peg to be in his early 30's) who is picked on by the other kids. He is an artist who draws birds and has a crush on a classmate named Judy. His mom is a lush and the town whore. One of her reprobate boyfriends makes fun of his drawings (by calling him a "faggot" for drawing birds instead of "monsters and cowboys." If you have a high school student still drawing cowboys I'd think him to more likely be gay than a high school student who draws crows) and later, kills Lester, in a cornfield, under the titular scarecrow. Magically, Lester's soul goes into the scarecrow. Somehow, this transference changes Lester's soul from that of an artist into that of a wisecracking gymnast (I know some reviews have called the scarecrow a Kung-Fu scarecrow. I disagree. The scarecrow practically does a whole floor routine before jumping onto the truck during the climax of the movie). The scarecrow then goes on to kill those who tormented him, those who smoke pot in the corn field, those who dig graves, boyfriends of daughters of gravediggers, pretty much anyone who showed up on the movie set.<br /><br />The bonus feature on the DVD should be mentioned. The director (a Frenchman) does an impromptu version of rap music, admits he enjoys not having executives around on set so he can screw his wife while working and gives a quote to live by (and I'm paraphrasing): "Life ez a bitch, but et has a great ass"<br /><br />Number of Beers I drank while watching this movie: 5 Did it help: No Number of Beers needed to enjoy this movie: Whatever it takes to get to blackout drunk level.
I desperately want to give this movie a 10...I really do. Some movies, especially horror movies are so budget that they are good. A wise-cracking ninja scarecrow who can implement corn cobs as lethal weaponry...definitely fits this 'budget to brilliance' system. The depth of the movie is definitely its strong point and the twists and turns it implements, keeping the audience at the edge of their seats really drives the creepy...ninja... puberty-stricken... pre-thirty year old student...non-cowboy drawing...wise-cracking...son-of-a-bitch scarecrow into the limelight as the creepiest horror icon of the year. All I can really say is, 'can you dig it' and recommend watching movies such as Frankenfish if you enjoy this sort of hilarious horror.<br /><br />(WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY SMOKING!?'
This movie had the potential to be a decent horror movie. The main character was decently done and I felt sorry for him and there was a decent amount of backstory. HOWEVER, everything else sucks. The director, Emmanuel, is quite incompetent at film-making. He uses some of the most idiotic shots ever.<br /><br />- a couple of random sequences of random images dispersed throughout the film. I don't know if he tried to be deep and intelligent and poetic but he wasn't. It was stupid. Random shots of the trailer the main character lived in, random buildings, random pan shots of buildings, random cat which walks away. WTF? And clouds. Lots of gloomy dark clouds.<br /><br />- he really liked this technique of having a scene cut up into different shots rather than being just one continuous shot. EX: Guy is trying to light his weed and the camera circles around him. Instead of just one shot, he edits it into like 10 different shots so its really EDGY! and HIP! and SMART! stupid.<br /><br />The acting is horrible but it's what makes the movie so funny. And the scarecrow is a gymnast cause he flips and spins and twirls all the time. And some of the deaths could have been better. You expect the main bully to have a long well built up death but nope. A simple corncob in the ear . The love interest was hot. Voluptuous. Which is why this movie gets a 2.
Oh dear lord. This movie... It was horrible. I am a HUGE fan of horror movies. And most of the time, horror movies other people say are bad, I like. The actor who played 'Scarecrow' was amazing, I will say that. But this plot was awful. It made no sense! It had way too much gore, and an unnecessary (and revolting) sex scene at the beginning. I do believe the director was trying to be 'shocking' or whatnot, but it just came out awful. To add to the pile of festering crap they called a plot, the actors (besides 'scarecrow') we're awful, and I cared so little about them that I soon forgot who was who. In conclusion, this movie made me sick. If you can avoid watching this movie in anyway, please do.
Spirit of a murdered high school geek animates a scarecrow which then takes revenge on everyone.<br /><br />This movie really annoyed me. It has a great looking monster, has some good low budget effects, some atmosphere but manages to short circuit the good stuff with bad. Half way in I started to fast forward and then step through the chapters on the DVD.<br /><br />The problems with this movie are many. First off the cast looks about thirty and yet they are suppose to be in high school. You don't believe anything from the get go as a result. The scarecrow, while looking great isn't much beyond that. He says stupid one liners and moves in a manner more designed to be funny then scary. Is this a comedy or a horror movie? Its a problem that goes beyond the one liners to much of the dialog and set up. It seems more send up of every cliché than heartfelt horror film. I some how expect that the film was made for a very narrow audience in mind, horror fans who want to mock the genre rather than embrace it.<br /><br />Despite the good looking monster this is a film to avoid. Even if you pick it up in the bargain bin for under five bucks, you're paying too much.<br /><br />Avoid.
With all the excessive violence in this film, it could've been NC-17. But the gore could've been pg-13 and there were quite a lot of swears when the mum had the original jackass bad-hairdewed boy friend. There was a lot of character development which made the film better to watch, then after the kid came back to life as the scarecrow, there was a mindless hour and ten minutes of him killing people. The violence was overly excessive and i think the bodycount was higher than twelve which is a large number for movies like this. ALmost every character in the film is stabbed or gets their head chopped off, but the teacher who called him "white trash" and "hoodlum" (though the character lester is anything but a hoodlum, not even close, i know hoods and am part hood, they don't draw in class, they sit there and throw stuff at the teacher). The teacher deserved a more gruesome death than anyone of the characters, but was just stabbed in the back. There were two suspenseful scenes in the film, but didn't last long enough to be scary at all. As i said, the killings were excessive and sometimes people who have nothing to do with the story line get their heads chopped off. If the gore was actually fun to see, then it would've been nc-17. Two kids describe a body they find in the cornfields, they describe it as a lot gorier than it actually was, they explained to the cop that there were maggots crawling around in the guys intestines. His stomach had not even been cut open so there was no way maggots were in his stomach, though i would've liked to see that. The acting was pathetic, characters were losers, and the scarecrow could do a lot of gymnastix stunts. I suggest renting this movie for the death scenes, i wont see it again anytime soon, but i enjoyed the excessive violence. Also, don't bother with the sequel, i watched five minutes of it and was bored to death, it sounds good but isn't. The original scarecrow actually kept me interested.
The director states in the Behind-the-Scenes feature that he loves horror movies. He loves them so much that he dedicated the movie to Dario Argento, as well as other notable directors such as George A. Romero and Tobe Hooper. Basically dedicating this movie to those great directors is like giving your mother a piece of sh*t for Mother's Day. The first thing they did wrong was the casting. CAST PEOPLE THAT CAN ACT. Also, don't cast a person that is 40 years old for the role of a misunderstood, 18 year old recluse. That's right, he's been in high school for 22 years. The reactions made by people as they watch their boyfriends get their hearts ripped out is amusing. Or like one part when a guy gets stabbed in the ear with an ear of corn (haha get it), and his girlfriend just goes, "Oh..my.. God?" The scarecrow himself is quite a character. Doing flips off cars and calling people losers.<br /><br />The movie does have one redeeming factor... oh wait, no it doesn't.<br /><br />If you absolutely MUST see this movie, than just watch the Rock and Roll trailer on the DVD. It covers about everything and has a really gnarly song dude.
Scarecrow is set in the small American town of Emerald Grove where high school student Lester Dwervick (Tim Young) is considered the local nerdy geek by teachers & fellow students alike. The poor kid suffers daily humiliation, bullying, teasing & general esteem destroying abuse at the hands of his peers. Unfortunately he doesn't find much support at home since his mom is a slut & after Lester annoys one of her blokes he chases him into a corn field & strangles the poor kid. However something magical happens (no, the film doesn't suddenly become good), Lester's spirit gets transfered into the corn fields scarecrow which he then uses as a body to gain revenge on those who tormented him & made his life hell...<br /><br />Co-written, co-produced & directed by Emmanuel Itier who according to the IMDb credit list also has a role in the film as someone called Mr. Duforq although I don't remember any character of this name, I suppose anyone who ends up looking at the IMDb pages for Scarecrow will probably already be aware of it's terrible reputation & I have to say it pretty much well deserved since it's terrible. The script by Itier, Bill Cunningham & Jason White uses the often told story of one of life's losers who gets picked upon & tormented for no good reason getting their revenge by supernatural means in a relatively straight forward teen slasher flick. We've seen it all before, we've seen killer scarecrows before, we've seen faceless teens being killed off one-by-one before, we've seen one of life's losers get his revenge before, we've seen wise cracking villains who make jokes as they kill before & we've seen incompetent small town Sheriff's make matters even worse before. The only real question to answer about Scarecrow is whether it's any fun to watch on a dumb teen slasher type level? The answer is a resounding no to be honest. The film has terrible character's, awful dialogue, an inconsistent & predictable story, it has some cheesy one-liners like when the scarecrow kills someone with a shovel he ask's 'can you dig it?' & the so-called twist ending which is geared towards leaving things open for a sequel is just lame. The film moves along at a reasonable pace but it isn't that exciting & the kills are forgettable. You know I'm still trying to work out how someone can be stabbed & killed with a stick of corn...<br /><br />Director Itier doesn't do a particularly good job here, the kill scenes are poorly handled with no build up whatsoever which means there's never any tension as within two seconds of a character being introduced they are killed off. Also I'm not happy with the killer scarecrow dude doing all these back-flips & somersaults through the air in scenes which feel like they belong in The Matrix (1999) or some Japanese kung-fu flick! To give it some credit the actual scarecrow mask looks really good & he looks pretty cool but he is given little to do except spout bad one-liners & twirl around a bit. Don't you think that being tied to a wooden stake in the middle of a corn filed all day would have been boring? I know he's a killer scarecrow but I still say he would have been bored just hanging around on a wooden stick all day! There's no nudity & the gore isn't anything to write home about, there's a decapitation, someones face is burnt, someone is killed with a stick of corn, someone gets a shovel stuck in their throat, some sickles are stuck in people's heads, someone has their heart ripped out & someone has a metal thing stuck through the back of their head which comes out of their mouth.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $250,000 this was apparently shot in 8 days, well at least they didn't waste any time on unimportant things like story & character development. Technically this is pretty much point, shoot & hope for the best stuff. If you look at the guy on the floor who has just had his heart ripped out you can clearly see him still breathing... The acting sucks, the guy who played Lester's mum's bloke is wearing the most stupid looking wig & fake moustache ever because he played two roles in the film & the makers needed to disguise him but they just ended up making him look ridiculous & don't get me started on his accent...<br /><br />Scarecrow has a few fun moments & the actual scarecrow himself is a nice creation with good special make-up effects but as a whole the film is poorly made, badly acted, silly, too predictable & very cheesy. If you want to see a great killer scarecrow flick then check out Scarecrows (1988). Not to be confused with the Gene Hackman & Al Pacino film Scarecrow (1973) or the upcoming horror flick Scarecrow (2008) which is currently in production. Scarecrow proved popular enough on home video to spawn two more straight to video sequels, Scarecrow Slayer (2003) & Scarecrow Gone Wild (2004).
This movie is so aggrivating. The main character looks like he's 35 and I've seen scrawny beanpoles with more balls than this guy. The plot twists are so predictable its not even worth watching for the humor factor.<br /><br />Also some of the worst dialogue I've heard in 3 years, "lets go find a small animal to torture".<br /><br />Ugh.....I can't even continue, don't watch this pile of garbage, it was made in 8 days.<br /><br />The one highlight is the drunk dude calling the main character a faggot for drawing pictures.<br /><br />2 out of 10, unwatchable
Holy @#%& this movie was still warm and juicy from the pile it was made with. I tried to watch this pile of festering waste but found it easier to slash my wrists and slug back a shooter of Lysol floor cleaner than endure more than half of the crap that was on my screen. I rank this well below anything I have ever watched on film or TV, and thats saying something. I once witnessed a cow crap in a field. I watched the steaming pile for a hour and a half, who knows... it might have moved or something. Well that was time better spent than watching this tripe. The acting was non-existent, the plot was somewhere other than on this film. I think I saw a cut seen early on where the plot managed to escape and was riding off in the background on the back of a old pickup truck heading to Portland in hopes of becoming a Steven King shi77er. Please tell me director is getting medication he so desperately needs. It's pretty clear he needs heavy medication and I'd willing to front the money needed for his lobotomy reversal. Bah... I can't give this review the full punch it needs because nothing this painful can ever be done justice in typed word alone. Let me just say that if your looking for a flick to pass some time and you see this Chilton on the rack, walk to your car, start the engine, then shove both of your fists straight into the fan until it you can't feel your bones vibrate anymore. Be sure to have your wallet in hand also because you were going to waste the cash anyway. You might as well have the privilege of wasting it yourself.<br /><br />By the way, I watched this after a "buddy" of mine sent his girlfriend over so I could see it. HE dint come over, SHE had too. Whats worse is that she had to watch this $%&@ thing TWICE! I heard their married now and he gets to visit his balls once a month. I hope it was because of this film.
I saw this not too long ago, and I must say: This movie is terrible. I watch crappy movies for fun. Scarecreow is not fun. Scarecrow is stupid. You have an incredibly corny villain that enjoys screaming awful puns as he kills his victims(actually worse than the one contained in this sentence). He has his hard luck story that he uses to justify his killings. "Everyone picks on me. The only girl that thinks I'm not trailer-trash likes one of the guys that pick on me. I want to kill everybody. Wah." OK, I'm exaggerating. But the premise to this movie alone is enough to put it near the bottom of the list of crappy movies.<br /><br />Adding to what I just said, the kid's mom is promiscuous, he walks in on his mother and her current boyfriend getting it on, mom's boyfriend tells him to leave, kid refuses, insisting that he isn't going to leave his own house. Boyfriend chases kid into corn field. He kills kid right in front of mom, mom screams in terror, boyfriend is like, "OMG! I didn't mean to!" Then he tells mom not to say anything to the police about it. Kid was killed under a scarecrow, though. So, like any kid who gets murdered under a scarecrow, he comes back as a killer scarecrow with a vengeance. His victims "haven't been stalked like this before..." (Scarecrow's official tag line)<br /><br />To make matters worse, this movie was filmed in a whopping 8 days. That's right, 8 days. I was going to give this movie a 2, because in spite of itself, it has one or two redeeming moments. (They're spoilers, so I won't spoil it for you, if you actually want to see this crap.) I could have somewhat forgiven the bad acting, the horrible special effects, the abysmal script, and the bad camera work, but I simply have no respect for lack of effort on that level.<br /><br />This movie isn't nearly as good as I'm making it out to be. If you want to see an example of how not to make a movie, or if you enjoy watching bad movies, like I do, then watch this at your own risk. Everyone else should stay a safe distance away from this movie at all times.
WOW is all i can say if your reading this is either watched it or are thinking about it. trust me watch it!<br /><br />i laughed so hard at so many parts of this movie the worst acting ever made is very funny! I cant believe they superimposed the school sign! I must have played that scene over and over again just to laugh more and more every time. If a movie like this can be made it gives us all hope in making our own movies. even the costume was bad. it looked like my 7 year old cousin could have done a better job on making it. heck i bet he could have written and acted better as well. all i know is that i have to watch the second part just so i can see if it was as bad as the first. its a cool idea about a killer scarecrow but a much better job could have been done. hopefully another killer scarecrow movie comes out, just not like this one.
Perhaps one of the worst teenage slasher films I ever did see. I'll start with the bad points of t he movie, which pretty much covers the entire film. First of all, something no one can avoid: TERRIBLE ACTING. I swear they picked up some random kids off the street based on how they looked. Secondly, BAD/UNCONVINCING CHARACTER WORK/DEVELOPMENT. You hardly even know half the kids who are killed in here. All you figure is that they deserved it one way or another. The scarecrow's character was overdone, and a cheap rip-off of the other great fantasy killers such as Freddy or Pinhead. Next: BAD DIALOG: The Scarecrow was full of horrid one-liners that would make you laugh, only because it was so terrible. Lines like "Let's go find some small animals to torture!" really just leaves you with an eyebrow raised. Last but not least: Next off: BAD CASTING. How old was the guy who played Lester? Like 30? The back of his head was balding for God's sake. There is much more I could say about this film, like it's cheap special effects, it's "high school film class" effort, but the point is understood. It's just bad film making at it's worst. As for what I found to be "good" in the movie: -Entertaining for those with low, low, LOW standards -Would help put insomniacs to sleep. -A very cheap laugh, or even a giggle.
First off, let me start with a quote a friend of mine said while watching this movie: "This entire movie had to have been a dare. You know, like, 'DUDE, I BET YOU COULDN'T MAKE THE WORST MOVIE EVER'". With this movie, they've made a good effort at achieving that title. The effects are, of course, poor. The plot/dialogue is like a collage of of bits stolen from every B horror movie ever made. The actors, I'm assuming, are supposed to be in college. Yet parts of it (especially at the beginning) make it seem like they're supposed to be in high or middle school. It makes no sense. The Scarecrow going around killing people isn't the least bit enjoyable. (SPOILER: At the end, when they chant Lester's name and he reappears, the black guy and Scarecrow are both laughing, probably out of relief they were on their last scene, and at the cheesy dialogue.)
Let's face it; some lame kid who dies and has his soul transfered into a scarecrow. Das no gonna happen neva! OMFG This stupid loser kid who can't stand up for himself gets his ass handed to him by some drunk bastard screwing his mom. Right as he dies, he looks up at the scarecrow and he let's his spirit go into the scarecrow. The drunk guy covered up his death by making it seem suicidal and thought he had gotten away with it. We later see he is tossed out of the trailer and later earns another encounter with the scarecrow. They had a brief encounter which includes the drunk calling him a loser and the scarecrow rebounding with "Takes one to know one, loser!" The scarecrow flips off the building, calls him "daddy-o", and then beheads the poor man. We can see how this awesome movie unfolds from that. He goes on to kill many people, afterward. He mainly kills the people who gave him a hard time in rl and goes off to kill some random ass people, just for some laughs. No laughing here. He adds a punchline to every kill, too. Every time he killed someone, he would do some karate flips and finish it all off with one of his signature punchlines. In the case of someone who was hard of hearing, he would say "Here, have an EAR of corn!" then shove it up their ass. OR we can actually take an example from the movie! He just got done killing a cop and was on his way to killing the only person who ever stood up for him. Her father, the sheriff, yelled to the madman to stop, and he said "Hey, stay awhile!" and threw a dagger threw his chest and stuck him onto some tree. In the end of the movie, he killed two guys and threw in the punchline "Gotta split!" and killed two guys by shoving a scythe into their heads. Wowzors, this movie made me want to cream my pants so bad. Maybe next time this guy makes a movie, it won't be gay.
I've gotta say, I usually like horror movies that i've never seen... however, this one was just to pathetic for my gory taste. I'm used to the gory, gut wrenching types... but this particular movie was lame. The acting was horrible (yet the corny (no pun intended) one-liners were cute). And the sequel to it, Scarecrow Slayer was even worse! Yes, probably, when it first came out, there was a huge rave about it and people liked it. But when movies like The Ring and The Exorcist of Emily Rose come out, movies like these make movies like Scarecrow seem childish. If you want a movie to just pass the time, pick this one! The special effects are cheesy as heck. But seeing that it was a low budget movie, I can kind of see where that would come in. This will kind of remind you of the movie "Children Of The Corn." Independent movies rock.... most of the time. So if you want to see a scarecrow killing people with corncobs, or in the sequel, 2 scarecrows going at it, then these movies would be for you.
I'm watching this on the Sci-Fi channel right now. It's so horrible I can't stop watching it! I'm a Videographer and this movie makes me sad. I feel bad for anyone associated with this movie. Some of the camera work is good. Most is very questionable. There are a few decent actors in the flick. Too bad they're surrounded by what must have been the director's relatives. That's the only way they could have been qualified to be in a movie! Music was a little better than the acting. If you get around to watching this I hope it's because there was absolutely NO other option! The sequel (yes sequel) is coming on now....I think I'll skip it! Jason
Wow, what can I say about this film? It's a lousy piece of crap. I'm surprised that it got rated as high as it did. What's wrong with this film? Here's a better question: What's NOT wrong with this film.<br /><br />The story itself is just crap and cliché. Here's pretty much what it's about...Some kinda nerdy kid with no friends gets picked on, gets killed, and comes back as a scarecrow for revenge. "All" of that is packed into 86 minutes of worthless film. If you haven't seen this movie don't waste your time watching it. Also, the second one isn't much better, so don't bother watching that either...I rated this movie a three because I liked the scarecrow's outfit, not because there was anything good about the movie. I think you get the picture.
A far as B-movies go, SCARECROW is one of those that are so bad, that it becomes incredibly annoying to sit through. A lonely loser high school student who is constantly picked on by classmates and rejected by girls, ends up walking in on his trailer trash mother having sex with a drunk redneck. He then chases the kid out into a nearby cornfield and kills him. Apparently, the kids soul was transfered into a scarecrow which then goes around killing the bullies who tormented him as well as teachers. This scarecrow, aside from having a snappy one-liner for each of his victims, can also do Matrix-like flips through the air and kill people on sidewalks in broad daylight. Also, why did he always look like a rotted corpse? Just like the two needless sequels that followed this, this isn't even worth a laugh.
Okay, 'enjoy' is a pretty relative term, but flexibility is in order when you're dealing with a filmmaker of James Glickenhaus' calibre.<br /><br />McBain is truly one of the most ridiculous, over the top action films I've ever seen, without the nasty edge of The Exterminator. Other reviews have commented on a suspension of disbelief regarding the film's heroic middle aged commandos, but how about making a film in the Philippines that is set in Colombia? All the extras are Filipino. In fact the only character who looks remotely Hispanic is good ol' Victor Argo as the much reviled 'El Presidente'! Oh yes, we also have Maria Conchita Alonso overemoting like crazy as a rebel leader. There are tons of explosions and bodies flying everywhere in this amusing paean to the glories of American imperialism.
I purchased this film on the cheap in a sale, having read the back of the DVD case and assuming that either way I can't lose, it if was rubbish then no loss, if it was any good then bargain...<br /><br />Then I watched it...<br /><br />I am normally a fan of Christopher Walken, but in this film he commanded very little screen presence, seeming not to do a whole lot, even the death of his friend near the beginning which sparks off the "action" in the plot seems to affect him very little, and his eventual revenge is just boring and undramatic.<br /><br />Normally a film which has themes as grand as revolution and revenge are able to capture the audience and snare them into feeling something for the characters, however watching this film felt more like seeing a series of confused, and almost random events that loosely tied together towards it's eventual conclusion...<br /><br />At this point I wept...<br /><br />I thought this film was the most horribly painful piece of viewing I have ever been subjected to, the scene where the pilot sacrifices himself by refusing to jump out the explosive laden truck due to not wanting to kill any civilians is not so much tragically sad as it is unnervingly horrible and painful, although not quite as bad as the emergency surgery on the wounded girl. The acting was poor all round, the script and story was weak, the "action" was even weaker, and the "visuals" were but bluntly not all that visual. To summarise there are films which are good, films that are bad, films that are so bad they are good, films that are terrible...<br /><br />And then on a whole new level is "McBain"
This was an absolutely terrible movie. Don't be lured in by Christopher Walken or Michael Ironside. Both are great actors, but this must simply be their worst role in history. Even their great acting could not redeem this movie's ridiculous storyline. This movie is an early nineties US propaganda piece. The most pathetic scenes were those when the Columbian rebels were making their cases for revolutions. Maria Conchita Alonso appeared phony, and her pseudo-love affair with Walken was nothing but a pathetic emotional plug in a movie that was devoid of any real meaning. I am disappointed that there are movies like this, ruining actor's like Christopher Walken's good name. I could barely sit through it.
Creep is the story of Kate (Potente), an intensely unlikeable bourgeois bitch that finds herself somehow sleeping through the noise of the last underground train, and waking up to find herself locked in the tube station. After somehow meeting workmate and would-be rapist Guy on a mystery train that runs after the lines have closed, things go awry and she finds herself pursued by what lurks beneath the city's streets. Her story is linked to that of George (Blackwood), an ex-con working in the sewer system; they meet in the final third of the film, brought together by their attempts to escape the monster that pursues them.<br /><br />The pair proceed through a set of increasingly unlikely locations; from the Tube station, they end up in the sewage works before somehow finding themselves in some sort of abandoned underground surgery. Most Tube stations don't have toilets, so how one has a surgery is beyond me. Naturally, the film cares to explain that the surgery doesn't have running water. Yet it has electricity? Just one of many inconsistencies that work against the atmosphere of everyday believability that the film tries to create.<br /><br />The monster itself is a problem. There's a complete lack of reasoning for its actions, it just kills people for no obvious reason. And then of course it keeps some alive for no real reason either, perhaps just so that they can eventually escape and give the film an extra 15 minutes or so running time. I understand that natural evil is supposed to be scary, but then the film attempts to explain itself via a photo of a doctor and his son, and a few shots of some jars containing babies, and yes, it is just as tired and pathetic as it sounds. It also fails to explain how the creature has been underground long enough to lose the ability to speak, communicating only in raptor screams, but not long enough for its pair of shorts to decay. Hmm.<br /><br />This doctor business leads to scene that is the film's desperate attempt to implant itself on your memory, and while it is gory and uncomfortable to watch, it just isn't enough. The final third of the film hinges on an emotional relationship that never existed, and the characters break down and recover for little or no obvious reason. George breaks down, unable to cope with something despite stating that he wants to escape so he can see his daughter again, and Kate becomes emotionally tough seconds after going to pieces over someone that ripped her off for a travelcard. Yeah.<br /><br />After starting out as a "this could happen to anyone" movie, it quickly falls apart as it introduces ideas that make it more and more unrealistic. A complete lack of emotional interest in the characters and an absence of suspense make this one to avoid.
The London Underground has something inherently creepy about it, with its long winding tunnels, the escalators taking you deeper and deeper underground, and of course the rats roaming the tracks.It a source of wonder that it is not used in horror films more often. It was used in the seventies horror Deathline aka Raw Meat, featuring a cannibalistic tribe living in a disused tunnel, and the celebrated chase sequence in American Werewolf in London. So I was pleased to see that someone else had tried to capitalise on the atmosphere of the tube at night with the recent UK production Creep.<br /><br />I thought the film started off well, with a highly effective credit sequence that was genuinely unnerving, followed by a scene in the sewers that sets up the premise of there being something evil lurking below the streets of London. However, Creep went downhill from here, and I found myself wishing that I'd switched it off after this opening scene, leaving me with a favourable impression of the film. All the characters become unsympathetic and unlikable, even Potente herself, and the director felt the need to hit us over the head with social commentary about homelessness. he also made the mistake of showing the "monster" in full lighting, where he ceases to become remotely scary, and reveals his name to be Craig. How can you have a monster called Craig? It turns into an X Files-type thing, and reminds one of the episode Tombs. In fact, I was wishing Mulder and Scully would turn up and sort them all out for me.<br /><br />As for the infamous sexualised violence, it is very graphic, disturbing and totally unnecessary. It seems to be there merely to shock the audience rather than for any intrinsic plot value. The trouble is it is so over the top and horrific that it actually numbs you to the rest of the horror, which is a mistake as it's only halfway through the film.<br /><br />So there you go. The only redeeming feature of the film for me was a rare appearance from Ken Campbell, one of my favourite occasional actors. You don't see him very often, but when he's on screen he acts everyone else into a corner. Casting him as a sewer inspector was a stroke of genius, unfortunately the only one evident in the film.
The potential was there. I saw Creep and thought, 'Oooh, this is getting interesting' several times. Yet somehow the interesting plot lines wound up unexplained or ignored, like they never happened. The lead character was irritating throughout the movie, and at one point my fella and I both shouted that we wanted her to die. There are some genuinely spooky/scary moments, but these are grossly overshadowed by the moments that just annoyed the hell out of me. It's another one of those horror movies that crops up and intrigues you for a while, but ultimately leaves you frustrated and a little confused about what the movie makers were trying to achieve.<br /><br />The one saving grace of this movie is the bad guy, but when the baddie is more likable than the lead character you know you're on to a loser.
I'll keep this short as a movie like this doesn't deserve a full review.<br /><br />Given the setting, this movie could have been something really special. It could have been another "28 days later" or even a "Blair Witch Project"<br /><br />The first 20 or so minutes of the movie I was really excited, directer did a decent job with cinematography and suspense, although I don't think He managed to capture true eeriness of an empty London Underground.<br /><br />Characters were a big let down. Our "heroine" in this movie is a worthless piece of crap, and you really don't care if she dies or not. As many people have said before, I was rooting for the homeless people and the black guy, who managed to give me a chuckle or two(whether intentional of the writers or not).<br /><br />The main villain, is kept in the dark for the first half of the movie, but when he is revealed I was really disappointed. I won't spoil it but lets just say my 10 year old sister could probably beat him in a wrestling match.<br /><br />All in all this is just another mediocre horror film which falls into the trap of following a simple Hollywood formula. This film had a lot of potential but really failed to hit the mark.<br /><br />Just to highlight how lame this movie was, the characters in this movie had at least FIVE TIMES to finish off and kill the main villain. INSTEAD THEY RUN AWAY.
I was so disgusted by this film, I felt obligated to warn off others. This film has no story, plot or hint of purpose. The film starts after the standard "lets be scary" movie intro, which by now every film watcher has become accustomed. So we can ignore the beginning completely. We are soon introduced to the main actress and from this point it becomes clear to all that you have just wasted your hard earned and would be better off watching static. (Unless you have seen white noise - EEK) Acting is a DISGRACE and all of them should return to the travelling pantomime from where they came. Having said that, even the best actors in the world would struggle to make this film remotely watch able. Their poor performances merely contribute to the disaster. Senseless violence and what I can only assume is the written word of yet another junked up "eccentric" writer, who probably considers himself to be an artist, has resulted in a film which will test your patience. It was not until my fellow watcher turned to me and said, "We have been watching this for 45 mins" did I realise that this film is as thin and tasteless as a cup of tea without a tea bag. Clearly something was missing and unfortunately it wasn't the audience. Rather than suggest what the film is missing, let me tell you what it has: Dumb Blonde (surprise surprise), Victims, bad-monster-guy-thing, about 2 mins of storyline which is stretched over hours, days, weeks, months... and credits.<br /><br />Want a silver lining? Well, the blonde girl is a bit saucy looking in some of the scenes, but expect to want to see her face ripped off for the rest of the film!
Absolutely laughable film. I live in London and the plot is so ill-researched it's ridiculous. No one could be terrorised on the London Underground. In the short time it is not in service each night there are teams of maintenance workers down there checking the tracks and performing repairs, etc. That there are homeless people living down there is equally unlikely. Or that it's even possible to get locked in and not have access to a mobile phone in this day and age...<br /><br />The worst that's likely to happen if someone did find themselves there after the last train is that they might get graffiti sprayed on them. Although this has been coming under control due to the massive number of security cameras on the network, another thorn in the side of the story. (Remember in London as a whole we have more security cameras than any other city in the world.)<br /><br />If it had been set in a city I am not familiar with perhaps I could have enjoyed it through ignorance, but it's not a high quality film so I just couldn't bring myself to suspend my disbelief and try and enjoy it for the banal little tale that it is.<br /><br />I would have given it 0/10 if such a rating existed! Possibly the most disappointing film I ever thought I would like.
Yet another example of the complete waste of UK Lottery money. Just how commercial did this film prove. The Film Council ,who funded this miserable garbage should be stranded, on one of the London Undergrounds disused stations, for allowing this clichéd, dismal specimen to be committed to film, a half mutant thing made up of all the horror movies the director has seen and felt fit to imitate, most notably Deathline. Amongst its many sins is the quite obvious failure to make the lead character remotely sympathetic until the last minute. It's a little bit too late then! Surely all those development executives, at the UK Film Council, could have noticed this at the script stage. Add to this the terrible acting and the laughable appearance of the creature and you get a prime example of how not to scare.
!!!!! OF COURSE THERE'S SPOILERS !!!!! I'm sure this project started off as a screen writing workshop on avoiding clichés in horror movies: Female protagonist - Check Bad things happen to drug takers - Check Heorine knocks out villain - Check Heroine doesn't notice villain recovering unconsciousness - Check Frame the sequence so we see recovered villain creep up behind heroine - Check Unfortunately it seems someone has sent this cliché list to a film studio instead of using it for class . Dear oh dear if only London transport was as regular as the clichés turning up here . In fact there's so many clichés and seen it all before moments that no one actually thought about going into detail as to what the eponymous creep is or how long he's been killing people on the underground . I'm led to believe it's the result of some human experiment and perhaps it's not until that night he decided to take his revenge out on humanity but all this is so vague as to be meaningless Not to be totally negative I doubt very much if the producers thought they'd be making a film that was going to sweep the Oscars that year and there's always a market for horror movies . Likewise I doubt if it cost too much produce and had one eye on the DVD market rather than cinema distribution and I will state that it's slightly better than 1972's DEATH LINE which also featured a murderous cannibal hiding in the London underground . it's just that when you think all the clichés have been used up in this film another cliché comes along to raise its ugly head
......in a horror movie that is. Alright first off , lets start with Kate. Her main goals include getting laid by George Clooney, looking good and last but not least screwing everyone over. Gotta love her. She had about 3 amazingly good chances to finish off this sicko but ..... instead she ran. I mean she didn't wanna bring Guy out for 10 minutes and when she did it was too late. I mean the guy tried to rape her. I cant get into these movies where the main character is a sad idiot. I mean who honestly would have any sympathy for a guy who finishes off everyone she has meet in a night. The movie kept going on. And as a result lost all its credibility.
Okay I must say that before the revealing of the 'monster'. saying that he really didn't fit into that category, just some weird thing that had an annoying screech! And personally I think a granny could have ran away from that thing, but anyway. I actually was getting into this film, although having the main character a drunk and a heroine addict didn't come as an appeal. But such scenes as when she runs away from the train, and you can see the figure at the door was kind of creepy, also where the guard had just been killed and the 'monster' put his hand on the screen.<br /><br />But then disaster stuck form the moment the monster was revealed it just became your average horror, with limited thrills or scares. Slowly I became more bored, and wanted to shut the thing off. I like most people have said was rooting for the homeless people to make it, specially the guy, he gave me a few cheap laughs here and there. I think this film could have really been something special instead it became what every other horror nowadays are! Just boring and well not worth the money.<br /><br />if you are looking for a cheap scare here and there, or a mindless gore fest (which is limited, hardly any in fact) by all means give it a go, but for all you serious horror watchers look somewhere else, much better films out there.
Please, be warned: this movie, though a pretty bad storyline, was one of the most gruesome movies I have seen...EVER. Just remember that before you settle on your sofa to enjoy the movie.<br /><br />So, it officially begins with a party. Just your average party but there's some guy there. He's pretty into Kate...if you know what I'm saying. Memorise his face; it'll help later.<br /><br />So anyway Kate goes of to find George Clooney (didn't I say the plot was bad?) and so takes the tube. That's London underground at the middle of the night, but she's just stupid like that. So the timetable says the next, and last, train will come in 7 minutes. Now Kate, dumb party girl that she is, decides that she can have a nap in the spare 7 minutes. Typically, she misses the train and finds herself locked in the London Underground. Alone. Well, almost...<br /><br />So the movie just carries on from there. Blood, guts, limbs, even certain parts of the body I shall not mention are slashed and gashed and eventually amputated from the body.<br /><br />In short, it's a typical horror; pretty but thick damsel in distress-type women and sick, weird psycho. Or as the case may have it, Creep.<br /><br />I'd say give it a go if you're into Saw, Hostel or the Texas Chainsaw Massacre but for the rest of us, Scream with satisfy out horror needs thankyou very much.
This film is a perfect example of the recent crop of horror films that simply are not fully realized. There are two routes to take in horror films: either you don't really explain what's going on (or who the killer is, like in Texas Chainsaw Massacre) or give the characters a lot of back story and characterization so that everything is explained (Halloween could potentially be an example of this).<br /><br />Unfortunately, Creep fails in this area. I see absolutely no reason to give a small shred of the back story for Craig without fully capturing the essence of his character or his motivation. No character is fully realized, although the circular nature of Kate's character in the film is the most accomplished part of the story.<br /><br />In the end, this story is mostly unmotivated and none of the performances give it the necessary life to make it enthralling or interesting enough to overcome the lack of context and empty film-making that drag down the film.<br /><br />This film will go down as another example of a film (as most are) that could be so much better even though it would never be great. The only thing that was used properly in the film was the setting: the characters, story, direction, and overall writing would have benefited from a serious face lift.<br /><br />Creep does serve a purpose as a mindless, silly horror movie with no intellectual or emotional investment, but sadly, that's about it...
Basically what we have here is little more than a remake of the hilarious 1970's classic kitsch horror 'Death Line' which ironically was like this cobblers, also partly filmed at the disused Aldwych underground station.<br /><br />Making good use of the now disused Jubilee Line platforms at Charing Cross as well as the aforementioned Aldwych, this film contains basically the same plot - dodgy murdering mad zombie in the tunnels preying on the lost passengers who have missed the last train - originality is not this film's strong point.<br /><br />Indeed strong points are sadly lacking. The gore ranges from the poor to the unnecessarily over gory whilst the sub-Gollum nutter is never really fully explained as seems little more than an under developed plot device.<br /><br />Franke Polente has little to do with a thin script than run down a lot of tunnels and scream every so often, indeed she was like pretty much everyone else in this film, out-acted by a small dog and a pack of tame rats.<br /><br />If creepy films set on the London Underground are your bag, or you just want to play 'spot the tube location' them pick this up on DVD when it hits a bargain bin. If you are looking for classic horror, go and dig up a copy of Death Line (aka Raw Meat).<br /><br />If you are looking for a quality well written and acted film, you will need to change trains.....
Creep - "Your journey terminates here." Some very graphic scenes and...well, yeah, that's about all for this film.<br /><br />No real plot, no storyline. No likable characters, well, 'characters' isn't correct considering you don't have a clue who anyone really is. I mean, they are being chased by some weird looking 'thing' in the sewers (who is this thing? why is he there?), that's quite scary I guess, but do I really care? No, I don't. Why don't I? Because I don't have a clue who these people are and I don't know if I should want them to live or die. It's one dimensional and relies upon gore and sound effects to scare you, which it rarely does.<br /><br />This film lacks any meaning, any purpose. It feels like I fell asleep and missed out the 45mins of build up. It jumps right into the action. Basically, some women and her friends get locked in the London Underground, get chased by a weird creature, then they eventually escape from it.<br /><br />Creep has its moments which make you jump, the art is good, the location is excellent and the sounds are OK, but that isn't what makes a decent horror film, so unfortunately all that goes to waste.<br /><br />It's nothing new. Another predictable modern 'horror', where Kate (the lead 'character') consistently does the stupid "hey, I know you lot sitting at home think I should do the sensible thing in this situation, but, oooh no! I'm going to do the total opposite because I'm a dumb blond" thing. I wish they wouldn't do that, it's done so many times, it's boring and gets predictable. In fact, I'm pretty annoyed the silly woman didn't get stabbed by the, erm, grey alien-looking creature.<br /><br />"Your journey terminates here" is the films tag line. Well, Creeps journey terminates only a short while into the film. If you've had a few beers, got a couple of mates back at yours,then sure, watch it by all means. But if you want something original and clever, avoid.
I just rented Creep and was not at all impressed. I didn't feel anything in this film. I felt sick because the gore alone was shocking.<br /><br />I walked out of my living room several times in desperation that something would happen with this film. Haven't we seen this all before? I didn't like any of the characters barr the guy in the sewer cage. I felt bad for him. But then again I couldn't think as to why he was still alive and not murdered by the Creep? So many questions need to be answered.<br /><br />Someone mentioned references to the PS2 game Silent Hill and I can see similarities vaguely.<br /><br />Not a bad film, not a good one. judge for yourself.
This is quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen. Worse than the most abhorrent American dross; worse than Glitter - Mariah Carey in American dross par excellence. I can only imagine that the writer and producer were taking huge amounts of recreational pharmaceuticals, and when discussing the plot actually thought it was a good idea. it's not. It is abject rubbish from very bowels of Satan himself (who could probably have written a better script had he put his mind to it). Robert Jones as Exce Producer, spending our tax payers money (lottery money folks) on this piece of nonsense, should be accountable. Who on earth thought it would be a good idea to re-make Deathline??? I ask you - camp as a Christmas Tree, Deathline ... 'Mind the doors' is classic of really bad British film, we really don't need a reminder. And we certainly don't need a poor, second rate, badly scripted, badly developed and badly piece of rubbish like this. All this this from the UK funding agency that brought us Sex Lives of the Potato Men... I rest my case.<br /><br />Do Not Pay ANY money to see this. It is absolute and utter crap - the one saving grace for the producers is that they got a huge wedge of cash... our cash... for making it. They should hang their heads in shame.<br /><br />I am staggered at the low, low standard of this film. It makes me Mgr that our national body for the support of film actually thought it was worth supporting. There is no hope for the British film industry whilst idiots are running the show. Harvey Wienstein where are you? Come back, we forgive you!!!
All logic goes straight out of the train window in this British horror film, set in the London underground and starring the usually reliable Franka Potente (Run Lola Run), Franka plays Kate, a businesswoman on the way from an office party to meet friends who falls asleep at an underground station, only to wake up and find she has been locked in and finds herself being chased by "someone" or "something" with killer intentions.<br /><br />Plot holes and unbelievability are rife and there are very few moments that are actually jumpy/ scary but plenty that are just plain dull.<br /><br />All in all an unpleasant film that should just stay locked underground forever and do us all a favour.<br /><br />The only plus point here is the inclusion in the cast of popular veteran actor Ken Campbell, who's done better than this – that's even including "Erasmus Microman"!.
I was really, really disappointed with this movie. it started really well, and built up some great atmosphere and suspense, but when it finally got round to revealing the "monster"...it turned out to be just some psycho with skin problems......again. Whoop-de-do. Yet another nutjob movie...like we don't already have enough of them.<br /><br />To be fair, the "creep" is genuinely unsettling to look at, and the way he moves and the strange sounds he makes are pretty creepy, but I'm sick of renting film like this only to discover that the monster is human, albeit a twisted, demented, freakish one. When I saw all the tell-tale rats early on I was hoping for some kind of freaky rat-monster hybrid thing...it was such a let down when the Creep was revealed.<br /><br />On top of this, some of the stuff in this movie makes no sense. (Spoiler) <br /><br />Why the hell does the Creep kill the security Guard? Whats the point, apart from sticking a great honking sign up that says "HI I'm A PSYCHO AND I LIVE DOWN HERE!"? Its stupid, and only seems to happen to prevent Franka Potente's character from getting help.<br /><br />what the hells he been eating down there? I got the impression he was effectively walled in, and only the unexpected opening into that tunnel section let him loose...so has he been munching rats all that time, and if so why do they hang around him so much? Why is he so damn hard to kill? He's thin, malnourished and not exactly at peak performance...but seems to keep going despite injuries that are equivalent to those that .cripple the non-psycho characters in the film.<br /><br />The DVD commentary says we are intended to empathise with Creep, but I just find him loathsome. Its an effective enough movie, but it wasted so many opportunities that it makes me sick.
I was sadly disappointed by this film due to the fact that it felt false and the characters were not strong enough to carry the films pretty weak attempt at horror. The basic idea for the film was interesting but unfortunately it wasn't able to excite, really scare or shock me - there was one part in the entire film that I thought was gruesome but even that didn't redeem it. I did get to like the character of Kate by the end of the film as she seemed to soften and become a little more realistic by the end, the character played by Jeremy Sheffield was not actually needed for this film and I think the director/writer got carried away with the myriad of characters used for no purpose, if he had left it at the basic characters making it more of a solo effort on Kate's part, it may have worked - Jeremy's acting was wooden to say the least and I felt uncomfortable watching the bad on screen chemistry - or lack of it. Such a shame. Disappointing.
Honestly, I went to see the movie, not because of the actors, not because of the plot but because it was rated 17 here in Luxembourg and a movie has to be really brutal or pornographic to be put in this category. Believe me, being a movie-freak, I have seen quite a lot of brutal films in my lifetime (Ichi the killer, Irreversible, Hellraiser) but this movie was by far the most disturbing and brutal picture I have ever seen. <br /><br />The plot is plain stupid, the directing is awful, acting was mediocre even the music was a cheap copy of so-called "Horror Soundtracks". There isn't a single intelligent aspect in the whole movie, and some of the scenes are really hard to stand. (especially the scene, where you see the embryos in the glasses and hear the baby cries--horrible). I can't understand why the movie was rated 16 in Germany, where normally the criteria are real tough (e.g. kill-bill (brutal but it made fun of itself and had great allusions to Asian cinema and besides a magnificent directing) even a movie like state of grace is rated 18). No one can call this a Horror movie, because actually it was more about showing gore than about scaring the public (Showing the "Creep's" face in the middle of the movie was a very bad decision); for me (excuse my expression) it is just one insane director living out his disturbing fantasies. In some scenes you see violence, that has absolutely nothing to do with the plot nor does it explain anything. The plot has holes and flaws, the dialog is boring, honestly I can't mention a single positive aspect of the movie except for the British and Scottish accent.<br /><br />If I had something to say, I would ban this movie from the theaters, I fully understand why none of the big production companies invested their money in this crap.<br /><br />I'm looking forward to getting feedbacks to my thread and I'd be happy to discuss about one or the other topic.<br /><br />"Livin' the dream baby, livin' the dream" David Aames
I am compelled to write a review of this IMAX feature as a means of warning others to SAVE YOUR MONEY. Almost any episode of Desmond Morris' "The Human Animal" or David Suzuki's "The Nature of Things" could have bested the material presented. Not only does the director fail to make use of IMAX's incredible 65 to 70 mm film stock and gigantic presentation screen, everything on screen is extremely unimpressive given the accessibility of such programming mentioned previously. Viewers are introduced to a pregnant Heather, her husband Buster, and their niece and nephew. We follow them for an interminable forty-odd minutes as they eat, sweat, listen to music, etc. Although we are given access to scenes inside the human digestive track and learn about babies' natural diving reflexes, do we really learn anything more than most grade-school graduates? Are we even remotely entertained by the trans-Atlantic Heather? Do we care? Avoid this film at all cost. If you do wish to see an IMAX feature, I suggest the beautifully photographed "India: Kingdom of the Tiger" or the technically thrilling "Space Station 3D". Trust me.
This film differentiates itself from the run-of-the-mill "wonder of the human body" documentaries by bravely, if bizarrely, opting to elicit disgust in the viewer. In one scene, the camera closes in on a gigantic 50-foot zit as a teenager squeezes pus and fluid out of it. In another, the camera is semisubmerged in a swamp of half digested food and stomach acid as parts of a pasta salad drop in from the esophagus and plop into the goo. In a final tour de force, the camera takes the viewer on a harrowing ride through a forest of...teenage armpit hair. Unfortunately, I'm not making any of this up. See this film if you must, but: bring your vomit bag, and don't have pasta salad beforehand.
After what I thought was a masterful performance of two roles in Man From Snowy River, WHY was Kirk Douglas replaced by Brian Dennehy in the sequel? It just wasn't the same without Spur and Harrison, as portrayed by Douglas. Maybe he recognized how poor the plot was--Jim returns after extended absence, to find Jessica being pursued by another man. He could not expect any girl to wait that long with no contact from him, and not find competition. For a Disney movie, this contains foul language, plus the highly unnecessary part when Jim & Jessica shacked up without being married--very LAME. Quite an insult to viewer intelligence, according to members of my family. I'll stick with the first one, and try to forget I ever saw the sequel!
The original movie, Man From Snowy River, is one of the best I've seen, nearly perfect. A Lady and the Tramp storyline in two senses--rich girl/poor boy, and ability vs. bloodline. The sequel, however, is not only a shameless attempt to capitalize on the good name of the original but also a ridiculous, overblown Disneyfied mess best summarized as "Rambo Meets the Black Stallion." Without the charm of The Black Stallion. The young hero comes back from a 3-year absence, and suddenly he's Superman on horseback; in the original, good film, he was real and believable, but sadly reduced to a caricature in the sequel. I've hardly been as disappointed in a movie, and at times this thing made me quite angry--they missed hardly a cliché. Brazen audience manipulation--do studio heads think that all you have to do with a horse-loving audience is put pretty horses in front of them, to make them happy? A mess of a movie.
This film, like the first one ("The Man From Snowy River") has the same good and bad features, perhaps even more so than the original. Unfortunately, the bad outweighs the good. <br /><br />The GOOD - Magnificent scenery, better than the first film. I love those high country shots in Australia. Tom Burlinson is still a likable guy, as "Jim Craig." Bruce Rowland did a nice job with the music, too.<br /><br />The BAD - Once again we get an extremely obnoxious feminist heroine "Jessica" (Sigrid Thornton) who is a world-class pouter with an extremely annoying face and manner about her. In this film, we also get a big downgrade in who pays the father. Previously it was Kirk Douglas, now replaced by the always -profane Brian Dennehy. Speaking of that, it is a disgrace that a Walt Disney film would includes usages of the Lord's name in vain. That was one reason was almost totally down the tubes in the 1980s. This film, like the first one
I bought this adaptation because I really liked Anne Brontë's novel when I read it some time ago and usually particularly enjoy BBC dramas. But I'm very disappointed, I never thought it would be as bad as that: the whole series made me laugh much more than moved me as the novel had.<br /><br />First of all, the music (and songs) seems totally out of place in a period drama (sounds as if it's been written for a contemporary horror film)and like another commentator, I was particularly annoyed by the way the cameras spun and spun round the actors. I've seen some scenes filmed that way in "North and South" and it seemed all right there but in The Tenant, it's definitely overdone and simply annoying. Camera movements cannot make wooden acting lively.<br /><br />Most of the second roles were difficult to distinguish at first and the script lacked clarity. None of the characters were properly introduced at first. The little boy gave a very good performance, he's very cute and the best feature of the film.<br /><br />SPOILERS Tara Fitzgerald's characterisation of Helen Graham made her appear cold and harsh, letting no emotion pass through. She doesn't seem to be able to cry at all in a realistic way. I just couldn't believe Markham could have fell for her and I'm not mentioning the awful hairdo she was given. I could not help feeling some sympathy with her husband! Fancy being married to such a virago... Besides, he was the only main actor that sounded right to me. Toby Stephens I found just OK, Helen Graham's brother not very good. <br /><br />Maybe it's difficult to adapt a novel that deals with such bleak subjects as alcoholism and cruelty. Besides, what is only hinted at and left to the reader's imagination in the book is dwelt upon with complaisance in the TV adaptation: making some scenes both gross and comic, (like when Huntingdon's eye starts bleeding) and others far too sexed up for a period drama! I mean, don't we get enough of those bed scenes in contemporary dramas?
Brilliant book with wonderful characterizations and insights into human nature, particularly the nature of addiction, which still resonate strongly today.<br /><br />As for the movie... eh. Nothing special. The cameraman clearly had an unfortunate addiction to circling and circling and CIRCLING around everything, making the viewer quite nauseous. Why the director didn't put a stop to this is beyond me--but maybe he was too busy trying, and somehow failing, to draw good performances from these normally excellent but inappropriately-cast actors. All in all, a weak adaptation. Your three hours would be better spent reading (or re-reading) the book.
Before I go on I have to admit to being a huge Bon Jovi fan. In fact thats what attracted me to the DVD case in the first place. I probably would have bought it anyway being such a big horror fan and having enjoyed the first Vampires title so much.<br /><br />But this isn't half as good. Not even Jon could save this film for me. My main problem would be that it simply isn't scary. Apart from Jon's character Derek Bliss none of the other characters make an impression and you couldn't care less whether they die or not, especially the annoying vampire / drug addict woman. The female vampire simply isn't scary or sexy. Rather she looks like an anorexic 14 year girl, no wonder she is so desperate for blood then. Another huge problem is that everything is just "too bright". There is no atmosphere or sense of dread. I know the first Vampires being set in New Mexico wasn't exactly the twilight zone in terms of creepiness but yet it still managed to be dark and foreboding when it needed to be. This film has no tension like that.<br /><br />The story is basically the same as before. Vampire wants Berzier's cross to be able to walk in daylight. However the story has less cool bits this time. There is no wow factor in knowing this is the master of all master - the original vampire, as in the first film. You really don't care who or what this one is. There is no army of masters. Instead she hides out in some old ruin which looks more like a Disneyland attraction then a creepy temple.<br /><br />So there you have it really. Lack of scares, lack of atmosphere, lack of interesting story. A real let down for me personally.
Really bad movie, the story is too simple and predictable and poor acting as a complement.<br /><br />This vampire's hunter story is the worst that i have seen so far, Derek Bliss (Jon Bon Jovi), travels to Mexico in search for some blood suckers!, he use some interesting weapons (but nothing compared to Blade), and is part of some Van Helsig vampire's hunters net?, OK, but he work alone. He's assigned to the pursuit of a powerful vampire queen that is searching some black crucifix to perform a ritual which will enable her to be invulnerable to sunlight (is almost a sequel of Vampires (1998) directed by John Carpenter and starred by James Woods), Derek start his quest in the search of the queen with some new friends: Sancho (Diego Luna, really bad acting also) a teenager without experience, Father Rodrigo (Cristian De la Fuente) a catholic priest, Zoey (Natasha Wagner) a particular vampire and Ray Collins (Darius McCrary) another expert vampire hunter. So obviously in this adventure he isn't alone.<br /><br />You can start feeling how this movie would be just looking at his lead actor (Jon Bon Jovi); is a huge difference in the acting quality compared to James Woods, and then, if you watch the film (i don't recommend this part), you will get involved in one of the more simplest stories, totally predictable, with terrible acting performances, really bad special effects and incoherent events!.<br /><br />I deeply recommend not to see this film!, rent another movie, see another channel, go out with your friends, etc.<br /><br />3/10
Listening to the director's commentary confirmed what I had suspected whilst watching the film: this is a movie made by a guy who wants to play at making a movie. The plot is the kind of thing that deluded teenagers churn out when they're going through that "I could write a book/screenplay/award winning sitcom" phase. There's a germ of an interesting idea buried in there (probably because its a sequel to some-one else's movie), but it is totally buried under an underwritten, badly executed and laughably un-thought-out script.<br /><br />The lines are dire, and the performances are un-engaging, though again, I'm inclined to blame the director. He does not appear to have consulted the actors at all about what is required, rather plonked the script in their hands, pointed the camera at them and told them to get on with it. Who knows, with a little coaching, these actors could have acquitted themselves better (say what you like about musicians in movies, Jon Bon Jovi was excellent in Row Your Boat and more than acceptable in The Leading Man).<br /><br />As it stands, the cast have no chemistry whatsoever. A beautiful opportunity to use the classic sex and vampirism parallel is passed up when, in order to infect Bon Jovi's character with vampire blood from his ailing co-hunter, he is given a transfusion. She should have bitten him. Mind you, they should have looked vaguely interested in each other throughout the rest of the film too. The only real moment of sexual tension, between the two female leads, is by the directors own admittance accidental. He had originally intended to use this silent sequence as an excuse for more pointless plot exposition - so, I suppose the finished product could have conceivably been worse. But not a lot.<br /><br />Frankly, as movies go, this is badly plotted, silly and forgettable. Even as trashy movies go it's not sexy enough or gory enough to be entertaining. It could have been a fun and bloody little romp, but the director has left with more of a comedy, for all the wrong reasons.
This is not a good film. The acting is remarkably stiff and unconvincing.The film doesn't seem to know whether it is going for a real horror approach or to go down the camp and kitsch route. I never saw the first film but this one doesn't stand up on its own merits, there are several unconvincing plot twists and the viewer is never made aware of the importance of the lead female vampire. Not worth the effort of watching
First of all, Jon Bon Jovi doesn't seem to be in place in a vampire movie. Together with the other not so interesting characters and the poor storyline the whole movie becomes predictable. If you keep that in mind and you're a total vampire movie fan, you can have some fun with a few of the scenes. Don't expect any Tarantino-style chapters here and neither an Anne Rice storyline. (I expect to have have forgotten the whole movie by tomorrow ;)
Hi folks<br /><br />Forget about that movie. John C. should be ashamed that he appears as executive producer in the credits. bon jovi has never been and will never be an actor and the FX are a joke.<br /><br />The first vampires was good ... and it was the only vampires. This thing here just wears the same name.<br /><br />Just a waste of time thinks ...<br /><br />JAKE Scorpio
This movie isn't very good. It's boring, and not much blood for a horror film. The plot just trods along with not much happening. And I think the female vampire was so stupid. She had many chances to kill the vampire hunters since it shows her having lighting like reflexes. But, whenever she has one of them pinned, she just takes her time and something always happens where she doesn't bite them. No wonder this went straight to cable.<br /><br />FINAL VERDICT: Not anywhere near as good as the first Vampire movie. You're a SUCKER if you waste your time on this.
This movie was messed up. A sequel to "John Carpenter's Vampires", this didn't add up right. I'm not sure that I enjoyed this much. It was a little strange. Stick to the first "Vampires", it's a good movie. "Vampires: Los Muetos" wasn't a good attempt of a sequel.<br /><br />4/10
The last reviewer was very generous. I quiet like the first movie, but can't say I enjoy this one very much. The beginning is bearable, but it goes downhill pretty quickly. I just don't see Jon Bon Jovi as a "bad-ass vampire hunter" and the vampire princess is neither sexy nor scary. A lot of the scenes just do not make sense. I mean any normal person would suspect something is up when a strange woman suddenly appearing out of nowhere to seduce you, let alone an experienced hunter. Why Una is able to communicate with Jovi? Nothing was ever explain in this movie, you wouldn't mind if it was entertaining, but that was too much to ask. This has to be one of worst vampire movie I have seen.
Ugh, what can I say other than, ugh. I rented this film because it was labeled as a sequel to the original Vampires. This movie could not have been any lamer. Lacking not only in plot, but the acting is atrocious. Combined with some obvious plot holes makes this movie a very hard one to watch. Many times I questioned my own sanity at continuing to watch the film long after the plot had jumped the shark. Here's a sampling of the lamer aspects...<br /><br />***SPOILERS***<br /><br />Professional "Slayer" insists on sleeping outdoors by himself at night. He wakes up to a woman crying, sitting no more than 3 feet from him in the middle of nowhere. He immediately goes to comfort her without questioning her sudden appearance. She goes from crying to seducing him, and he lets it happen with obvious results...<br /><br />One of the main characters is Zoe, was bitten by a Vampire, but as long as she takes these "experimental pills" she got in Mexico City, she's fine, although her body temperature is below room temperature...<br /><br />Guard outside of monastery where hero is staying the night is killed by vampires, hero leaves the next day. He then returns a day later only to be surprised that the vampires attacked the monastery the night after he left...<br /><br />...avoid this movie.
I only rented this because i loved the first movie. However, calling it John Carpenters Vampires: Los Muertos is just a con trick to get you to rent it. He is in fact executive producer and clearly had nothing to do with the making of this film (Jeepers Creepers Anyone?)<br /><br />A tragic storyline, terrible special effects and Jon Bon Jovi as the least convincing Vampire Hunter of all time. It's not even comically bad.<br /><br />What we end up with is a dull, uninvolving film with a terrible script and indefinsibly bad and clichéd acting. It just reeks of low budget.<br /><br />Avoid like the Bubonic plague.
John Carpenter's career is over if this sad excuse for a movie is any indication. His excuse is that he only produced it. Jon Bon Jovi looks like a girl. In fact, Bon Jovi and the two Vampire girls, Natasha Wagner and Arly Jover probably all fit in the same clothes. In short, it was hard to tell which one was cuter in an anorexic ramp-model sort of way. Bon Jovi has the most charisma. At least he looks happy when he is smiling. The two Vampire Girls on the other hand are all cramps and complaints. At one point they are about to give each other a wet kiss, but stop. Amazing how each Vampire movie has some set of morays for the respective vampires. At one point, Arly Jover is providing fellatio to a very dumb Vampire Hunter and then she sucks his blood while doing the sex act. It would have been an erotic moment except that it was filmed like a total goof, and the male actor looked mildly amused as he watched Arly Jover move her head to mimic something that was very obviously not happening. As far as gore is concerned, a few heads are ripped off, and the blood spurts profusely. These scenes have so little suspense or build-up that when they happen it is almost funny, and there is no "horror" pay-off from the scene. All you get as a member of the audience is a feeling of "Wow, that sure was a lot of red paint splattering on the walls. I wonder who has to clean it up." Throughout the movie, these Vampire Hunters who are obviously trying to kill Arly Jover (the top vampire in the world??) keep reaching out to her. At one point, Bon Jovi goes into the abandoned Church and after he just shot her with an arrow (and has done so on other occasions), he says "I am not trying to hurt you. I just want to talk to you. I want to get to know you." HUH?? Of course, the dumb vampire Arly jumps out to say hello and Bon Jovi sticks her again with another impaling device. "Why Can't We Be Friends" the 1970s hit song by WAR should have been the theme song for this movie. Aside from all of the other silly moments, there is a transfusion sequence when Natasha Wagner has all her Vampire blood removed, and the town people all line up to donate blood for her transfusion. I guess Blood Type is not important? Anyhow, all her Vampire blood is removed. Bon Jovi then decides that if that blood is transfused into him, he can beat Arly by becoming a vampire also. Of course, as the vampire blood is transfused into him, none of his healthy blood is removed. So apparently Bon Jovi is walking around with twice as much blood as any human can have in his body. And just like the first VAMPIRES, this one also has the vampires-bursting-into-flames special effect.
Thanks for killing the franchise with this turkey, John Carpenter and Tommy Lee Wallace. This movie sucks on so many levels it's pathetic. The first VAMPIRES was fun, but this low budget retread makes me yawn.<br /><br />Jon Bon Jovi (the poor man's Kevin Bacon) drives around Mexico with a surfboard housing a hidden compartment holding his vampire killing gear ala Antonio Banderas's guitar case in DESPERADO. He picks up some lame "hunters" along the way (including an annoyingly feminist infected girl who takes pills to keep from turning into a vampire), and they set out to stop some female master vampire who is given no backstory and so we could care less about her or her quest (to walk in the sunlight by stealing the Black Cross and performing a ritual to allow her to do so). If you've seen the first VAMPIRES, you've already seen this, and done much better.<br /><br />John Carpenter has been responsible for a lot of bad movies lately. Frankly, I think he's past his prime and incapable of making another horror classic. The only decent film he's done since THEY LIVE (1987) is VAMPIRES. Everything else is complete crap, right up until the unbelievably cheap looking and retarded GHOSTS OF MARS... and now this waste of celluloid. Where are more greats like ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13, HALLOWEEN (1), ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK and THE THING?<br /><br />Carpenter crony Wallace proves he can't write his way out of a paper bag with his paper-thin script packed with yawns, groans and recycled gags from the original. Did I mention I hated every character in the movie? There was not a single memorable character in the whole film. How does that happen? This film has nothing to recommend it. Not even the DVD presentation is good; the menu looks awful.<br /><br />By comparison, JASON X: "FRIDAY THE 13th IN SPACE" was a masterpiece. Now that is how you make a sequel and (re)energize a franchise, ladies and germs, as well as create an exciting DVD menu.
This "Debuted" today on the SciFi channel and all I can say is "I am speechless" I taped it today so I could watch it tonight after work. I had high hopes, Now I am tearing apart the closets looking for a length of rope so I can hang myself. Possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. I wish I could say something nice like "It was fun to make fun of this movie" but this movie is giving me nothing to work with. I know you are not supposed to post spoilers here with out prior warning but I am going to anyway "This movie sucks" There I said it! They should show this flick to film students to show them what NOT to do! My nine year old niece could make a better film. The only decent thing about this film is the sound and/or sound track. OH! I just found a rusty C-clamp in my old tool box. I am going to put it on the thumb of my left hand and tighten it until the pain erases the memory of what my eyes have seen. I could just tape over this VHS but I think I will burn it in the fire pit instead. I could wash with soap but I fear I will never be clean again. Christmas is coming. Buy this movie and give it to people you hate. -Mike
This movie is one of the most awful movies ever made.How can Jon Bon Jovi play in a movie? He is a singer not an actor, What?Is he killing vampires with his guitar? And what about the dreadful plot? O my God this movie really sucks. In the end is the Queen of vampires played by the eternal vampire Arly Jover (Blade) surrounded by an army of vampires, but when the "fantastic" slayers arrive only 4 vampires are left!! What happened with the other 10-15 vampires? They run out in the sun??? And what about the "Grand Finally" when Bon Jovi blows her head with a shotgun??? That's really a "NOT" . In "Buffy the vampire Slayer" in 100 episodes not a single vampire is killed with A SHOTGUN??? This really is a lack of originality!
This movie was very very mediocre and very very gory. everyone left their acting lessons at home and totally forgot how to act I mean it was so bad and had no real plot and kindergarteners could have written a better story plot wait what story plot. not at all scary!
The same difficulty I have with the musical version of "Les Miserables" applies equally to "Oliver." Instead of the composers' writing in the stylistic period of the play settings, they merely wrote Broadway-type melodies, which were historically unidiomatic and stylistically skewed.<br /><br />Too, the blatant brutality and unsavory activities of the dramaturgy do not mix well with some of the sunny ditties which permeate the score. It's a uncomfortable mixture that leaves a decidedly sour undertaste.<br /><br />The casting of the boy Oliver doesn't help matters: tentative of timbre and vexingly precious, there's something less than solid here. Fagin performs his traditional routine adequately, though the tunes he's obliged to sing have little basis in period manner.<br /><br />"As Long As He Needs Me" is given a strident rendition, throaty and strained. The two big production numbers, "Who Will Buy" and "Consider Yourself" seem over-produced, with everything but the kitchen sink thrown in. It's one thing to go all out, yet another to cross over the line into excess. <br /><br />The gloom, despair and depravity of much of the novel does not seem to lend itself to such ditties and choreography. While the novel is considered a classic, I must confess I have trouble with Mr. Dickens' consciousness, in that his works tend to emit a negative vibration. This may be due to the extension of his joyless personal life, which was full of disappointment and regret. <br /><br />Not all the combined talent of this production, either on- or behind camera, can overcome the unconstructive nature of the basic material. All this results in an uncomfortably downer experience for me.<br /><br />
The producers made a big mistake casting Mark Lester, who couldn't act or sing, in the title role. Aside from his very bad "acting", all of Lester's singing had to be dubbed by a girl. I don't know why they cast him at all, since there would have been so many boys who could have played the part infinitely better and done their own singing as well. Shani Wallis was far too old to play Nancy, who was only supposed to be 16. The current West End version is so much better than the movie in every way. Ross McCormack is the best Artful Dodger of all time and he is certainly far better looking than Jack Wild ever was. It was clearly political to award this old-fashioned musical so many Oscars after the tumultuous events of 1968.
Must every good story be "improved" with added corny Broadway music? Apparently those who can't come up with their own plots think that classic literature is just there for the plundering. I confess that Oliver Twist and similar stories are not my favorites, as it is certainly true that Dickens often wrote things that leave you considerably bummed out, and this was a great example of just that... So of course, take this serious tale and add nauseating music and camp it up with every character from prancing orphan boys to mincing bobbies and suddenly it's uplifting? Argh. Fetch me a basin.<br /><br />The four stars in my rating come from casting, which I could liken to that of My Fair Lady. Each of these films had a cast that a play version could be proud of, but then they must go and have them sing (see complaint above). Unlike My Fair Lady, those singing here could actually do so and they mercifully spared us the singing voice of Oliver Reed (pardon if I'm mistaken, it's been a while).<br /><br />My biggest complaint I've stated. Why embarrass everyone except the truly shameless by putting silly songs into a perfectly good story? Seldom has this been done to good effect. Generally it ruins the story. It did with this one. Jury's still out on whether this story is worth saving, but with all that gadding about, it's impossible to tell.
I like musicals but as a Dickens fan I HATE this one. **MILD SPOILERS** Starving boys who have enough energy to sing and dance in the workhouse? The poor of London coming out to sing? Fagin and Dodger walking off into the sunset? Not exactly faithful to the novel. As I recall, Dodger was publicly hanged and Fagin went crazy in prison. **END OF SPOILERS**<br /><br />Oliver Reed is very weak as Sykes, doing little more than growling to indicate his evil. Worst however, is Mark Lester as Oliver, who often comes across so awkward and passive you wonder if he's really the main character. His portrayal is in no way helped by the fact that the best they could do when he sings is dub in the voice of a girl. Guess they didn't realize that boy trebles can be found in almost every church in England.<br /><br />Self-respecting Dickens fans: stick to David Lean's amazing 1948 film or the BBC 6-hour adaptation from the mid-80's. Avoid this bloated whitewash of a musical.
Well, I saw this movie yesterday and it's - unfortunately - worse than you could think. First of all the plot is idiotic, it has no sense at all. The screenplay is full of intentionally funny dialogues. The audience was laughing many times. And the suspense is very low. Actors play so-so, with an exception of Sharon Stone, who has some good moments but also some awfully bad acting moments. The saddest parts are when she tries to be aggressively sexy and says things like "I want to *beep* you " and it looks like, let's say it gently, a very very mature woman acting rude and not sexy at all. That erotic tension from BI1 is totally gone. From the technical point of Basic Instinct 2 is a mediocre movie - better than typical straight to DVD, but on a far lower lever than the original movie. For instance the scene of crazy joyride is done poorly. The director of Basic Instinct 2 is no Paul Verhoeven and it shows. The new composer is no Jerry Goldsmith and its shows. The script is done by people who are no match for Joe Eszterhas. There's no substitute for Michael Douglas in it. The film looks cheap and badly edited at times. I'm sorry but my first thought after I left the theater was: "Why heaven't they made this movie earlier and with original talents behind the success of the first movie?" All to all the original movie is like Citizen Kane compared to this. The first Basic Instinct is a classic and was a kind of break-thru in the popular cinema. It was provoking, sexy and controversial. It had the best Sharon Stone's performance in her career. It had this specific Paul Verhoeven's style. Unfortunately Basic Instinct 2 is a unintentionally funny movie, badly directed and a sure Razzie Award Winner in many categories. It's a pity that they made this film.
It's not like I have overwhelmingly fond memories of Verhoeven's original pants-down shocker - it always struck me as a glossy, well-made airport-novel-of-a-movie. Thrilling, sexy trash, but trash nonetheless. It was also a film that tapped into a certain sexual zeitgeist. After a decade of anti-sex AIDS-induced hysteria, a film about a wildly-sexual hotbod who thrill-kills to heighten her sexual pleasure was pretty enticing stuff. Basic Instinct 2 was always going to struggle to provide the same social relevance and immediacy, so the fact that it's desperate attempts at raunchiness are so lame can sort-of be overlooked. All it really had to provide was that thin veneer of titillation and a mildly engaging story and all would have been watchable. That it resoundingly fails on so many levels, and in such a way to be a career nadir for everyone involved, is really quite extraordinary to watch. Let's state the obvious for starters - Sharon Stone is too old for the part of sexual magnet Catherine Trammell. What was so photogenic thru Verhoeven's lens looks like mutton dressed as lamb in the hands of gun-for-hire Michael Caton-Jones, who's flat, drab colours and static camera render her undeniable beauty totally moot. I like Sharon Stone a lot, but if the first film launched her career, BI2 could kill it. She has no chemistry with stuffed-shirt David Morrissey - their only sex scene is embarrassing too watch. His dough-faced mamma's boy of a character made me yearn for the swaggering, orange-skin machismo of Michael Douglas. Supporting turns by David Thewlis and Charlotte Rampling waste these fine actors on talky exposition scenes and cliché-heavy posturing. And what of the much-touted sexual shenanigans? Poorly-lit, fleetingly-glimpsed, as utterly mainstream as an episode of Desperate Housewives - the European sensibilities that Verhoeven brought to the sexual content of the first film are sorely missed. Don't watch this film for carnal thrills - there are none and what there is is tragic. The film is, as a whole, convoluted to the point of utter confusion, boring and laughable. The last 40 minutes in particular, where you come to the realisation that the film is, in fact, not going to go anywhere of interest at all, are particularly gruelling and hilarious in equal measure. As a failed sequel, Basic Instinct 2 will come to occupy similar cinematic ground as Exorcist 2 The Heretic, Beyond The Poseidon Adventure and XXX2. As a vanity project, it rivals Battlefield Earth in its misconception. As a multi-million dollar piece of Hollywood film-making, it's a travesty that will be hard to top as the years worst.
I saw this film at the London Premiere, and I have to say - I didn't expect much, but I did expect something that was at least mildly entertaining.<br /><br />The original "Basic Instinct" was no great film and is still something of a "smut classic" but it was entertaining. I can recall countless times flipping through channels on TV on a late Friday or Saturday night having come across the movie and finding myself beginning to actually pay attention to it.<br /><br />However, this lame-brain, waaay-belated sequel has nothing. Is Sharon Stone still gorgeous? Well, let's put it this way -- for a 47-year-old, she's pretty hot. Is she as beautiful as she was in the original? No. She also has clearly had plastic surgery on her face, and her haircut in this movie is somewhat unappealing. She doesn't look as soft or genuine or innocent as she did in the original -- which is sort of the whole point of being an evil seductress, and whatnot.<br /><br />The rest of the performances range from bad to terrible -- and Michael Caton-Jones (a typically safe director -- one who doesn't always do great work but manages to make worthwhile movies) has officially delivered his first true turkey; a movie so bad people were laughing at certain moments that were intended to be serious.<br /><br />I hear the film went through multiple editing sessions, and it's very clear from the start. Nothing makes much sense. The whole plot is a cosmic mess and the ending -- oh my! Talk about stupid AND unbelievable. (Still predictable, though.) I saw "Gigli," I saw "Son of the Mask" -- and although I'm not looking to "smear" this film, I can say with my own authority (which you don't have to agree with at all, mind you) that I prefer both those films over this catastrophic failure.<br /><br />By the way, Stone left five minutes before the movie began and people in the theater began throwing things at the screen during a particularly outrageous and insulting scene inside an orgy-type nightclub.<br /><br />"Basic Instinct 2" -- basically, it stinks, too.
It's been about 14 years since Sharon Stone awarded viewers a leg-crossing that twisted many people's minds. And now, God knows why, she's in the game again. "Basic Instinct 2" is the sequel to the smash-hit erotica "Basic Instinct" featuring a sexy Stone and a vulnerable Michael Douglas. However, fans of the original might not even get close to this one, since "Instinct 2" is painful film-making, as the mediocre director Michael Caton-Jones assassinates the legacy of the first film.<br /><br />The plot of the movie starts when a car explosion breaks in right at the beginning. Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone, trying to look forcefully sexy) is a suspect and appears to be involved in the murder. A psychiatrist (a horrible David Morrisey) is appointed to examine her, but eventually falls for an intimate game of seduction.<br /><br />And there it is, without no further explanations, the basic force that moves this "Instinct". Nothing much is explained and we have to sit through a sleazy, C-class erotic film. Sharon Stone stars in her first role where she is most of the time a turn-off. Part of it because of the amateurish writing, the careless direction, and terrifyingly low chemistry. The movie is full of vulgar dialogues and even more sexuality (a menage a trois scene was cut off so that this wouldn't be rated NC-17) than the first entrance in the series. "Instinct" is a compelling torture.<br /><br />To top it off, everything that made the original film a guilty pleasure is not found anywhere in the film. The acting here is really bad. Sharon Stone has some highlights, but here, she gets extremely obnoxious. David Morrisey stars in the worst role of his life, and seems to never make more than two expressions in the movie- confused and aroused. "Instinct 2" is a horrible way to continue an otherwise original series, that managed to put in thriller with erotica extremely well. Paul Verhoeven, how I miss you....<br /><br />"Basic Instinct 2" never sounded like a good movie, and, indeed, it isn't. Some films should never get out of paper, and that is the feeling you get after watching this. Now, it is much easier to understand why Douglas and David Cronenberg dropped out, and why Sharon Stone was expecting a huge paycheck for this......-----3/10
It's hard to believe, after waiting 14 years, we wind up with this piece of cinematic garbage. The original was a high impact, dark thriller that achieved "cult" status demonstrating the fine art of cinema as directed by Paul Verhoeven. This film adds nothing, delivers nothing, and ultimately winds up in the big box of failed sequels.<br /><br />The opening sequence could have triggered an intriguing set of plot developments using a considerably talented and able cast. Unfortunately we are treated to a 90 minute dissertation in the self-indulgent life of Catherine Tramell... or is it Sharon Stone. Possibly a copulation of both.<br /><br />If the desire is too see a continuation of the sensually provocative stying of sex as in "B.S.1", forget it. You wind up with soft-porn boredom which ultimately upholds the old adage that a woman can be more alluring in clothes than out of them. It's interesting to note that the wonderful Charlotte Rampling was romping around in her skivvies, via the 1966 GEORGY GIRL, when Ms. Stone was only 8 years old. A very talented actress and quite adept at holding her own even here.<br /><br />If you're a true cinema fan then you must see this film and judge it using your own rating system. If not, you might as well wait for the DVD release in the "rated" version, "unrated" version, "collectors" edition, or "ultimate" version, and perhaps in another 14 years we will be saturated with news of "Basic Instinct 3" at which point Ms. Stone will be 62 years old and nobody will really care.
In my book "Basic Instinct" was a perfect film. It had outstanding acting on the parts of Stone, Douglas and all the supporting actors to the tiniest role. It had marvelous photography, music and the noirest noir script ever. All of it adding up to a film that is as good as it will ever get!<br /><br />This sequel is the exact opposite, it cannot possibly get worse, bad acting and a lame script, combined with totally inept direction, this is really bad, boring, annoying. The only thing that somewhat keeps you concentrated is the relatively short wait for the next scene that is an exact re-enacted copy of the original. These copies are so bad they make you laugh and I laughed a lot in spite of myself, because it was like watching the demolishing of a shining monument. The only thing that is good in this horrible mess are the excerpts of the Jerry Goldsmith score of BI1. Michael Caton-Jones and the half-wit responsible for the script even included the "There is no smoking in this room" dialog in the interrogation scene and yes she sends her attorney (who is now a solicitor) away! <br /><br />I am sorry I have seen this awful film that should have never been made! It does damage to the original, so bad is it. The only redeeming value is the realization that cosmetic surgery (and I am sure Ms Stone afforded the best surgeon money can buy) can do a good job but can obviously not restore the perfection of the original. And what concerns the human body applies to film-making, too. There should be a law: Don't ever make a sequel to a perfect film!
The film is pretty confusing and ludicrous. The plot is awful...but on the plus side the acting is pretty good, with a few good shouts and rants. Sharon stone is OK this time...not even half as good as the original mind you. The murders aren't as gory as the first one either, which is a shame. Its not the unpredictable mess everyone say it is though. The sex is pretty graphic at times while others it is clear it is fake (they are fully clothed). The script is weak most of the time, but the scenes with banter and arguments between Dr.Glass and Washburn are highlights. The plot twists a few times, but the ending is awful. The tension is always constant with a huge dollop of 'Oh my god!'. The chase sequences are brilliantly directed, and shots and camera angles are impressive and bring a bit of class to an otherwise, rush-felt film. Sharon stone is a bit old for this too. The bits where we see her breasts were, in the first one, delights. This time around, they are too horrid to describe. The films its self is rather average, but it is worth a go. Mainly because the film does deserve some good buzz...with the opening sequence being a highlight. Not to be critical, but if you liked the first one - leave this one. Don't ruin the run. You'll be glad you left this stone unturned.
This film is awful. The screenplay is bad, the is script mediocre, and even the sex scenes are worthless. The thrill and intrigue of the original film are completely lacking. This movie was shot in a dark, shadowy and monochromatic style (a la "War of the Worlds"), which is so disappointing after the beauty of the original film. Greg Morrisey's brooding character displays one facial expression throughout the film. The twists and turns of the original plot are woefully lacking here; the few that do exist are simply anticlimactic. The only highlight is Sharon Stone's performance as Catherine Tramell, faithfully continued in this sequel, but it isn't enough to make up for the other shortcomings. The only circumstance under which a "Basic Instinct 3" should be made would be if Michael Douglas agrees to join the cast.
After eagerly waiting to the end, I have to say I wish I wouldn't have joined the whole series at the first place. The final episode was everything against the previous seven years. It has ruined everything. The journey was 23 years, but captain Janeway has the power to reduce it... let say, seven years only. Why seven? Why not just one? Or nothing? Why not avoid the whole adventure? Crewmemebers were dying all along the journey. Why she wants to save Seven of Nine only? The others don't count or what? The most ridiculous part when the crew states that getting home is not really the most important thing to them. As the say, "journey is more important than the destination". Unbelievable. And at the finale scene the are surrounded by other Federation ships and the Earth is in sight. Nothing about landing, returning to the normal life.<br /><br />Worst ending ever.
I sat through almost one episode of this series and just couldn't take anymore. It felt as though I'd watched dozens of episodes already, and then it hit me.....There's nothing new here! I've heard that joke on Seinfeld, I saw someone fall like that on friends, an episode of Happy Days had almost the same storyline, ect. None of the actors are interesting here either! Some were good on other shows (not here), and others are new to a profession they should have never entered. Avoid this stinker!
I've been going through the AFI's list of the top 100 comedies, and I must say that this is truly one of the worst. Not just of the 90 movies on the list I've seen, but of any movie I've ever seen. Drunks are funny sometimes, Dudley isn't. Liza almost made it worthwhile, but alas... just go watch Arrested Development if you want to see her in something good. Seriously, Dudley laughing and drinking is supposed to be funny? I would highly recommend almost ANY other movie on the AFI's top 100 comedies for more laughs than this. If you want to see a funnier "drunk", try The Thin Man. Funnier movie in general, any Marx Brothers movie will kill (especially if you're as drunk as Arthur).
After the superb AANKHEN(2002) which was a remake of a Gujarati play he comes with WAQT which too looks like a stage play<br /><br />In stage plays, we have characters shouting, overacting here too the same<br /><br />The first half shows Amitabh almost kidding the 40+ Akshay Kumar who acts too funny like a small nerd<br /><br />The film has a good message how not to spoil your son but sadly the way Amitabh wants to make Akki responsible is absolutely fake<br /><br />Even his reason for hiding his sickness, his runnign from the hospital and the melodramatic speech by Akki is a put off<br /><br />Some emotions do touch you but most are too over the top<br /><br />Rajpal's comedy is hilarious but too stretched in second half <br /><br />Direction by Vipul Shah is too overdone though some scenes are good Music is okay<br /><br />Amongst actors Amitabh overdoes it in the first half but is superb in emotional scenes Akshay Kumar too does his part well but looks umcomfortable in some too weepy scenes His chemistry with Bachchan is matchless Rajpal is a highlight, he makes you laugh without overacting and just his presence and his dumb behaviour and deadpan humour he is a riot Boman is good in some comic parts but too loud at places Priyanka is the heroine so nothing to do, this is her last film with Akki so far Shefali is awesome though she looks too young for Bachchan
I cannot believe that the Indian film industry still puts out such third-rate dross as Waqt. For starters, the storyline is totally implausible – spoilt son gets thrown out of family home so as to teach him some self-sufficiency. So what does he do? He promptly goes on to win some national talent contest by doing some star jumps in front of a panel of judges (I honestly am not joking here). In the meantime, his dad is dying of lung cancer, but keeps it a secret from the son, but he survives long enough to see his son become famous, to see his new grandson and also make a new toy giraffe with his own hands.<br /><br />The acting is cringe worthy in its hamminess – no effort was made to try and act in any convincing manner by any of the main players in this film. As usual for Indian films, the family lived in a huge mansion and seemed relatively untouched by the concerns of the real world.<br /><br />To be honest, the main losers when such dire films are made are the intelligent viewers who made the mistake of seeing such a film. The actors, such as Amitabh Bachchan and Akshay Kumar, will still be revered as Gods by those people who have nothing but blind faith in Bollywood.
I saw the 7.5 IMDb rating on this movie and on the basis of that decided to watch this movie which my roommate had rented. She said she had seen it before. "It's funny and sad! I cried the first time I saw it," she gushed. Maybe compared to other Bollywood movies this deserves a 7.5 out of 10, but in comparison to all the other movies I have seen in my lifetime, this deserves no more than a 3. Any movie where I can perpetually guess what is going to happen next is no good for me. The characters are unbelievable, how the act is not realistic at all and their motives are contrived. It is over dramatic and the songs aren't all that great. My biggest problem with Bollywood movies is the lack of subtlety. All the emotions are way too overdone and thus not at all realistic. Any emotion or bond between characters that is the least bit subtle must be magnified with an unnecessary song. I think I understood that the relationship between the father and son was more like one between friends than one between a parent and child without having to have it conveyed via a five minute long song. The stupid comic relief complete with laugh track was not funny or necessary (we get it, Laxman isn't the sharpest tool in the shed). If a movie tries to elicit tears through the most hackneyed means possible it just isn't meaningful, just a bit embarrassing.<br /><br />*****SPOILER*****<br /><br />Generally if someone has terminal stage lung cancer their son who lives with them would know something was wrong without having to be told. Too many plot holes to count. At first the movie was amusing and cute in the way Bollywood movies are to people who don't watch them that avidly but it just got tedious. It takes a lot of skill to make a movie that is amusing and heartwrenching and the best way to do it is usually not having all the amusing parts in the first half of the movie and all the heartwrenching parts at the end.<br /><br />*****SPOILER OVER***** Perhaps it had a very little more depth than other Bollywood movies that I have seen, but not much at all. I spent more time laughing at the stupidity of the movie than the parts that were supposed to be funny. I didn't shed a single tear nor did I feel like it, rather I was overwhelmed with a feeling of disgust at the attempt at a dramatic ending. I don't recommend this movie if you want to watch something good, I recommend it if you want to watch a Bollywood movie that is kind of sad.
This movie's full title is "Waqt: Race Against Time". That's a race no one can ever win, but you can certainly cut your losing margin by not wasting any of your precious "waqt" on this bakvaas. This movie was clumsy and manipulative in a way that made K3G look honest. It strained my credulity too far. It was ridiculously stupid in its storyline, and deserves to be mocked for it.<br /><br />It's not quite as awful as Baghban or Black, but this movie has nothing to recommend it. Stupid, pointless, with a ridiculously OTT performance by Amitji. The central "plot" is another nasty example of the crudely manipulative propaganda that infests so many "family" BW films. If my father, who raised me, and who I love dearly, treated me like Big B did Akshay, I'd shoot him myself. To say nothing of the trivialising of terminal illness.
Those 2 points are dedicated the reasonable performance from Akshay Kumar. I know Bollywood films do not really strive to be realistic but PLEASE a Walt Disney production is more realistic than this plot. The father is dying and does what any good parent does...kick his son out the son with his PREGNANT wife. A few things that were too hard to swallow- 1. Priyanka 'cool indoor swimming pool in the bedroom' and to go from that to living hungry in her in-laws garden shed???????? 2. Akshay suddenly got the job as a stunt man, gets bitten by rabified dogs, to then just walk off. This film is an INSulT to our intelligence I really cant believe i contributed financially to the 'people' who made this film by taking my family to see it, we left the cinema with a frown, please do not subject yourself to this mess to watching this take my advice and do not waste your 'waqt'.
this is just usual Indian garbage that gets turned out as cinema, as Indians we can proudly boast that we have the biggest cinema industry, however it also the worst.<br /><br />how can other poor countries have films with real characters that challenge the views of their respective societies and we just keep on pumping out garbage. take a look at Russia, Iran, china and Latin America, look at the brilliant films they have and we get crap like Kisna!!<br /><br />get real people, no wonder the international community in general laughs at Indian cinema.
PROS: Akshay Kumar's performance(is it just me or does this guy always manages to trump AB in their movies together?). Some touching scenes in the 2nd half.<br /><br />CONS: The whole 1st hour(the jokes were flat to say the least). Every scene involving Rajpal Yadav. Major stupidity in AB's decision making. Let me get this straight, he believes brutally insulting his son's soul in every possible way(that will likely ruin their relationship beyond repair) is a better way for him to make Akshay finally take some responsibility then actually telling him the truth?? WTF? He considers Akshaye is too soft to bear the fact that his OLD father is soon gonna die due to cancer, but thinks insulting him will make him stronger? Am I the only one who doesn't see the logic here? Easily the movie's biggest flaw.<br /><br />- Akshay becoming a stunt man. LMAO!! We're told he finished 1st in college every year and has a degree in MBA. But when the time arrives to support himself, and his pregnant wife, he becomes a stunt man. LOL!! How abt actually applying for a normal job in ur field? Or Heck, anywhere else where ur life isn't in danger? This is some incredibly dumb writing.<br /><br />- The ending. I hate this sort of melodramatic crap. Everything is pushed down our throats to feel sorry for AB's character, which I couldn't. The entire thing reminded me a little too much of Srk in KHNH(which I hate). This "please feel sorry for the guy with the illness" crap has run its course. I felt more like puking than sympathy for the OLD man. Couldn't watch the final 20 or so minutes because of it and thus had to fast fwd. the whole thing.<br /><br />Bottomline: Waqt is just too dumb to be called a good movie. Its obvious director Vipul Shah targeted this at the emotionally fragile chicas and oldies who could care less about a story that actually makes sense. Give 'em some decent song picturizations, fancy outfits, plenty of glycerin-filled scenes and some star power and they'll happily lap-up crap like this.
well well One cant b wasting time just cause of a big star-cast ..i think all i could see is a bunch of talents wasting their time on a big screen with some pathetic humor which will appeal to i do not know who? some pathetic songs that will be heard by who? some pathetically abrupt turnings justified by who? race against time? u mean waste against time? OK so first you spoil your kid,then you teach him a lesson wow we are so ignorant of this fact whoever said its a brilliant new concept probably is some other species other than human alright fine let me come comment like humans do movie has a nice message to be given but it could well have been given by a stranger sitting besides you in the bus rather than you going for such a wasteful movie to learn it Hindi movies have proved it a lot already and also i cant waste my time writing about waste anyway!
First of all there is Gujarati Theatre then there is Bollywood. Both have their strengths and fan following. Director Vipul Shah should look elsewhere instead of Gujarati Theatre when making a Bollywood production. First he made Aankhen (adapted from a Gujarati play) - which had a unique plot, but could not hold as a Hindi film. Now he's adapted another Gujarati play and named it Waqt - a race against time. In sum, the emotions are alien. The plot development is not for Hindi films. For example, the role play between father and son is best left to Gujarati Theatre - don't bring it in a Hindi film. Even the comedy track is best left for the Gujarati stage. All performances are average - nothing to shout about - barring Shefali Chhaya Shah who is fantastic.
I found this film to be quite an oddity. From the very get go I found it extremely hard to like this movie, and now after a little thinking about it I can pretty much pinpoint the reason why. Jean-Marc Barr, although I love him to bits (I think Zentropa is one of the best movies ever made) is quite miscast here, and although I can't figure for the life of me who would be better, I am sure someone could have taken his place quite easily and make this film work. Everything else is fine, except for the stabs at weak comedy (A Meet The Parents Joke is not really needed, filmmakers!) and I really like Richard E. Grant as the British Major. It just suffers from one thing.. Jean-Marc.
ALL FOR LOVE ( as it titled when it was broadcast at the weekend ) is a romantic period drama featuring Captain Saint Ives a French officer in Napoleon`s army who is captured by the British and imprisoned in Scotland where he meets and falls in love with a young maiden who visits the prison . There`s also a storyline involving a murder .<br /><br />I will be honest and confess that I wasn`t too taken by the movie since I`m not much of a fan of period dramas and the screenplay feels somewhat episodic but I will say that this is well acted by everyone involved and it`s got a good cast that features Miranda Richardson , Anna Friel , Richard E Grant , Michael Gough and Jason Isaacs . The costume design as you can expect is also excellent <br /><br />I`ll be very surprised if this movie doesn`t get any complaints after being broadcast on BBC2 at teatime . Captain Saint Ives lies in bed with a prostitute where a nipple is fully exposed and there`s a scene of French prisoners bathing that includes full frontal male nudity not to mention a murder scene where blood is clearly seen . You really do have to worry if BBC schedulers have any type of clue as to what they`re doing
Around the late 1970's, animator Don Bluth, frustrated with the output his company, Disney was churning, defected from the Mouse House to form his own studio. His first production, THE SECRET OF NIMH, was a brilliant feature that still holds up well to this day. This was followed by AN American TAIL and THE LAND BEFORE TIME, both of which were made under the involvement of Steven Spielberg and were commercially successful. Although none of those two films had the dark adult appeal of NIMH, they still are very charming, enjoyable features for both children and grown-ups. But before long, Don Bluth had his first major misfire with ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN; critics were especially harsh on this film, and matters weren't helped by the fact that it opened alongside Disney's THE LITTLE MERMAID.<br /><br />Considering that the movie has such a friendly-sounding title, one would expect ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN to be pleasant family fare. Instead Bluth provides a surprisingly dark story involving gambling, deceit, crime, mistreatment, and murder. That itself is not a problem for an animated feature per say, but it does call into question over whether the film is for children. On the other hand, it's hard to say whether adults will find much to enjoy in ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN. In short, it's a movie with a major identity crisis.<br /><br />Set in a dreary junkyard of New Orleans, the movie starts out when Charlie B. Barkin, a rough-and-tumble German shepherd, is run over by a car courtesy of his former gambling casino partner, a nasty, cigar-puffing pitbull, Carface. Before you know it, Charlie finds himself in heaven, albeit by default. Here a whippet angel, Annabelle, tells him that "all dogs go to heaven because unlike people, dogs are usually loyal and kind." This line represents the confused nature of the movie, since the dogs in the movie, the whippet aside, are presented as anything but.<br /><br />Upon realizing that he's been murdered, Charlie steals his way back to Earth and plots to get even with Carface. With the reluctant help of his dachshund pal Itchy, Charlie "rescues" Carface's prize, AnneMarie, a human girl who can talk to animals (in order to predict who will win the rat races). Charlie claims that he will help the little cutie find her a family, but in reality he is using her skills to win fortunes at the race so that he can build a more elaborate casino of his own to bring Carface down. Although he refuses to admit it, Charlie does grow to love AnneMarie...<br /><br />The concept of the story isn't as problematic as the execution. Aside from the human girl AnneMarie and a flamboyant musical alligator who appears about three-quarters through (with the vocal pipes of Ken Page), none of the other characters emerge as likable, nor frankly, are even worth caring about. Unfortunately, that also applies to Charlie; in trying to make him an anti-hero, the script (composed by more than ten writers) only succeeds in rendering the character TOO unlovable. As such, the audience feels no empathy for Charlie, and worse, his redemption at the end of the movie does not come across as convincing. (Further damaging to the character is the disappointingly uncharismatic vocal performance from Burt Reynolds.) Besides the lack of an endearing lead, the movie's other problem is in the structure of the story. The slowly-paced plot jumps all over the place and makes a habit of throwing in extra scenes which serve no purpose but to pad out the movie's running time. The aforementioned musical alligator (who resides in a danky sewer infested with native rats) seems to have been thrown in from nowhere, as does a scene where Charlie tries to show his generosity to AnneMarie by feeding a pack of pastel-colored pups pizza. The whole screenplay feels like a rough first draft; a bit more polish could have made this a tighter, impactful story.<br /><br />Matters are not helped by the lackluster musical numbers by Charlie Strouse and T.J. Kuenster (AnneMarie's song and the gator's ballad are the only good ones; the latter in particular benefits from Ken Page's mellifluous vocal) or the uneven voice cast. As mentioned, Burt Reynolds' stiff and lifeless Charlie detracts from his already unlikeable character even further (the only exception is a fiery confession to Itchy about his true intentions toward the end). Dom DeLuise as Itchy is pretty good, but he's had better roles, notably Tiger in AN American TAIL and Jeremy in THE SECRET OF NIMH. Ken Page, as mentioned, is awesome in anything he does, but his character has such a small part that his overall contribution is unremarkable at best. Similarly wasted are Loni Anderson (as a collie who once sired a litter with Charlie), Melba Moore, and Charles Nelson Reilly. Judith Barsi as AnneMarie is probably the only voice that comes across as truly memorable, partially because her character is the sole legitimately likable one in this depressing and joyless show.<br /><br />Barsi aside, the only real positive about ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN is the animation. Technically, this film has some of the most imaginative visuals from Bluth's team (by 1980's standards, that is), particularly a frightening scene where Charlie has a nightmare about ending up in a fiery underworld ruled by a gargantuan satanic canine-demon. If anything, the movie is more of a triumph of animation than storytelling.<br /><br />On the whole, however, I cannot recommend ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN as good entertainment. Even though I recognize that the movie has its fans and the climax does admittingly provide some energy and a moving conclusion, the overall package is not in the same league as Bluth's better efforts. Animation buffs will marvel at the lush artistry, but by the time it's over, ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN could very well leave a bad taste in your mouth.
Wow, what a waste of acting talent. My husband and I sat there, both thinking, this has to get better, these actresses are too good to have wasted their time on this crap. Unattractive characters, hackneyed script, and listless pacing make for a long two hours. I actually couldn't hack it and left to do the grocery shopping (cat litter being more appealing than this film). The husband stayed and confirmed that it didn't get better--by the time Buddy is killed, you were wishing they all would get hit by a car and end their miserable lives. It would be infinitely more entertaining. Beautiful scenery and costumes can't keep this one alive.
I went to see "Evening" because of the cast. I'd gone to see "Norman's Room" for that reason -- that movie offering Diane Keaton, Leonardo De Caprio and, also, Meryl Streep -- and had loved every minute of it. Same for "The Notebook" even though it was chick-flit lite. And my feeling was, anything offering performances by Vanessa Redgrave, Meryl Streep, Patrick Wilson and Glenn Close would be at least as good. Instead, I found sometimes even the greatest actors cannot overcome trite, simplistic and -- on one occasion -- truly offensive material.<br /><br />Now I had no problem with the way the film was structured. I actually enjoy movies that cut back and forth in time to tell a story...so long as one era illuminates the other and vise verse. But while Vanessa's character being on her deathbed and recalling a past event she felt "was a mistake" was riveting, at times, the part actually showing what that "past mistake" was does nothing to clarify the matter. In fact, it makes it seem meaningless in the silliest "girl meets boy, girl gets boy, girl loses boy" fashion, and in the most unbelievable, clichéd, wrong-headed way possible.<br /><br />And from here be spoilers, so bear that in mind should you continue reading.<br /><br />First of all, Claire Danes was brutally miscast. Not only does she not even begin to resemble Vanessa Redgrave as a young woman, she has nowhere near the chops when it comes to acting. Don't get me wrong, she can be good in the right role -- just not this one. And Patrick Wilson was miscast, though he has the acting chops to almost pull it off. He'd have been better suited to the part Hugh Dancy played -- the rich confused WASP -- and not the object of sexual attraction to one and all; he's a bit too WASP-y for that. Hugh Dancy? One note -- "I'm a tortured drunk and wait till you find out why." And the "why" (I'm a closet case in a sexually repressed world, so I have to drink to excess and make a fool of myself in front of everyone I know) was so offensive to me and the manner in which he died (as you knew he would because that's the only thing that can happen to a faggot in the Fifties) so ludicrous, wrong-headed and mishandled, I nearly threw my candy at the screen.<br /><br />As for the modern part between Toni Collette and her sister, her fear of commitment, her jealousy of her sister's "perfect life," her sister wondering if she's made the right choices, her pregnancy and her too-perfect boyfriend (which actually might have been more interesting and meaningful if played by Patrick Wilson, and Ebon Moss-Bachrach might have been a more interesting Harris, given his dreamy eyes) -- anyway, all this was hashed over in the 70's and 80's. And in much greater depth. Do we REALLY have to present it, again, and all as if it was fresh and momentous?<br /><br />And to top it off, Meryl Streep doesn't even appear until the last ten minutes of the movie, all in old lady makeup that hides many of her facial expressions. She's still good, but only because she's Meryl, and Meryl can find a way to pull off even the silliest dialog under the heaviest of makeup.<br /><br />So to put it simply, this movie has every cliché in the "really meaningful message" movie book, and it adds a few that really had no business being trotted out, again. At two hours long and laced with "Lifetime Movie-of-the-week" music that is guaranteed to rub you raw, it's a complete failure in both the "meaningful" and "moviemaking" aspects. I give it "3" only because of Meryl and Vanessa.<br /><br />Now, if all you require from your films is twadd le, then please set my comments about "Evening" aside and have the time of your life. But if you want a truly meaningful experience being served up by great actors and filmmakers who know what to do with a simple story about life and death and all the nonsense it brings, rent "Norman's Room" and find out what truly great acting is.
The story of a woman (Ann) on her death bed, her two daughters (Nina and Constance) and her thoughts about her past. The flashbacks are concerning a weekend where young Ann is in the wedding of her friend Lila. At the wedding she meets Harris who will impact her for the rest of her life. Through all the ups and downs of her professional and family life she remembers him as her true love. Her daughter Constance is older, more "responsible," a mother of two and has things together. Nina jumps from boyfriend to boyfriend and job to job and is unsure of her direction in life.<br /><br />First of all the good. The period detail in the movie is great. The dresses, hair, cars, houses, etc. really put you in another time and place. And there is some very quality acting in the movie. Vanessa Redgrave is quite good at portraying the main character and her fragile mental state as her life comes to an end. Claire Danes is beautiful and does a great job as the main character when she was young (and she is an outstanding singer). Hugh Dancy brought a lot of life to the character of Lila's brother Buddy.<br /><br />Now for the bad, which unfortunately is everything else. Things constantly disrupt the story as it is being unfolded for us. The chemistry between young Ann and Buddy is great. They have fun and dance. Then... you are supposed to believe that she doesn't really like him more than a friend and that his pining only annoys her. And I thought the whole, "he might be gay" thing was out of the blue and didn't serve a purpose.<br /><br />Then we have Harris. The character acts wooden and creepy. Had this been another genre, you would have known that Harris was the serial killer from the get go. It is an unbelievable stretch to think that all these girls loved him so (but they do portray the other guys as pretty lame to try and help him out).<br /><br />And the grandest problem of all. Why don't Ann and Harris get together? They fall for each other. They have this great night of sex in an old dirty gardener's shack, come home to find out about Buddy's tragic end and then...<br /><br />Nothing.<br /><br />They meet up a few years later and get all misty eyed about each other and I couldn't help but wondering why. WHY? The movie doesn't let you know why they were forced to marry other people and so I had a hard time feeling sorry for them.<br /><br />The part of the story in the present is fairly boring. The cliché good daughter and the cliché bad daughter. Nina changes over the course of the movie but I am not sure why. I'm not sure what convinces her to change her life. There is a "touching" scene where the daughters are connecting that coincides with old Ann dreaming she's chasing a butterfly. It is really lame and embarrassing.<br /><br />"There are no mistakes", Ann advises at us. The statement doesn't ring true with the story. And it doesn't ring true after seeing the movie and wishing they hadn't wasted the talent of such good actors.
Some of these viewer comments are just ridiculous. Not painful to watch with your significant other? I was apologizing to my boyfriend the entire movie. <br /><br />It was so slow and awfully strange. <br /><br />Both Redgraves,Vanessa and Natasha were unfit for this, especially with Vanessa doing that ridiculous brash American accent. <br /><br />Claire Danes was the same wiggly-lipped awkward girl that she was in My So-Called Life. She has yet to push herself in any way. Girl, find a new way to pretend to cry! <br /><br />Meryl Streep was one of the only redeeming part of this movie, she was on screen for five minutes, and I swear to God, she reached out of the movie screen and slapped me awake. <br /><br />Oh! And Hugh Dancy, who gets better every time I see him. <br /><br />Glenn Close and Eileen Atkins were also great in their two and a half scenes. <br /><br />I mean, this was a well-shot movie, it was very pretty, the settings were interestingly dressed, providing relief for the intense boredom I was feeling. <br /><br />I don't know, It's just pretty pathetic when a movie that boasts a cast comprised of "The greatest actresses of our time" sucks so much. It sure had more than a few noticeable editing errors, and the main character (Ann) was a huge jerk. I was glad she died. But that's because I felt bad for Lila, Ann's friend -- mostly because these two ladies were better actors and made me feel a little empathy. <br /><br />Ugh. BAD job, Evening the film. You weren't entertaining and you weren't even thought-provoking. I sure hope the book was better, so it didn't waste even more of people's time. 3/10
This crap is like watching paint dry. I'm so disappointed because I was so eager to see it.<br /><br />There simply is no meaning to this film. If it were never made, no one would notice or care. It's hyped up because of all the big names in it, but if "nobody's" were in, nobody would give this film any love.<br /><br />Seriously, I was at the point where half-way through the film I would look at Vanessa Redgrave and think, "Hurry up and die already!" This is like the "Joy Luck Club" without any of the friggin' joy. It's the "Ocean's 13" (nothing but a big-named cast) of mother-daughter movies and completely anti-climatic...oh until it's finally over.<br /><br />I'm sure they'll all be nominated for Oscars...<br /><br />- 4 stars for cinematography and the ability to convince great actresses to commit to this junk.
I knew that 'Evening' was a girlie film, so I was expecting to be bored. A wicked tease on IMDb had said that it was a 'chick flick' but that your companion would survive.<br /><br />Survive? Yes. I am still here, but when the two of us came out we were amazed to find that it had only lasted two hours - it seemed a much longer evening than that! I suppose that, for Yanks, it is supposed to be elevating or fascinating because it is about rich people living on the beach - well, next to the beach, in a house with a wide verandah and a lawn but no apparent lawnmower. If that sort of thing impresses you it might seem quite a short film.<br /><br />There's a Monty Python film about a Knight who just won't die. He ends up a wriggling (why do Yanks add an third syllable to this word I wonder) torso in the road still shouting threats at his nemesis. This film is also about a sort of living dead. Vanessa Redgrave (inappropriate name for the grave dodger shown here) goes on and on dying whilst having inappropriate guilt. She's not worried about having been a wide-eyed, breathless bimbo, but imagines herself a murderess.<br /><br />Obviously, being a girlie film, there's a chap who is supposed to be the Mr Darcy/Heathcliff character. I'm not a woofter, so I can't claim to be a good judge of such things, but the tedious wimp who is wheeled out for this role seems only to have the title of servant in his favour. He's a bloodless cypher.<br /><br />As you might gather, the main characters aren't much cop, but the minor ones manage, amazingly to be much worse. There's a fellow whose only job is to react to the news that his girlfriend is preggers. Fair enough, but it isn't the role of Hamlet - why ham it up so badly? Forgetting that it was a girlie film, I thought he was going to be thrown out because any decent girl-friend would have told him that face-fungus didn't flatter him, but then I realised that she must have encouraged him to grow a 'beard' because he looked worse without it.<br /><br />I kept awake by noticing which actors and actresses had their earlobes attached or free and noting interesting bits of scenery - if you're dragged along to it, see if you can spot the stuffed buffalo head, just the sort of thing you'd expect in a beach cottage.<br /><br />Apart from the obligatory wedding, there is only one piece of action. You'd have thought that they'd have got it right. Sadly, though, the hit and run accident is carried out by a car that couldn't be there. When the accident is discovered the cast wander about shouting for a character that they can't know is nearby (but we do as the audience). If they don't have any clue that the person is within a couple of miles of the place, then why do they wander about aimlessly shouting for him? I suppose that the director's excuse is that it is supposed to be a half-remembered dream sequence...<br /><br />Another scenery item that caught my attention was a copper bottomed saucepan. I didn't think that the technology to do this was developed until the fifties.
Just PPV'd this. I don't want to waste too much time on this as most of the posters here put it better than I ever could, but I did want to say a few things.<br /><br />I didn't know which was funnier: Redgrave chasing tiny moths and tripping over her nurse; Close wailing that her "precious" boy (whom she and the Mr. had decided was a drunken loser) has been turned into roadkill; that the tone-deaf Ann schmoozed with Peggy Lee; or the horrid CGI of Crypt Keeper Annie gazing at her younger self!<br /><br />I never bought Danes as the younger Redgrave. I didn't buy Richardson and Collette as sisters, either. If Meryl Streep's daughter wants to be an actress, she better get Mama to give her a few lessons! I had zero idea why any girl (or Buddy) would make fools of themselves over vapid stud du jour Harris! Ann's daughters are as whiny and thoughtless as she, Luc is a retarded slacker on crack, and I didn't give a rot about any of them! Evening gives Chick Flicks a bad name!
With a cast list like this one, I expected far better. Venessa Redgrave spent the majority of the movie lying in bed. The best actresses in the world cannot make anything very interesting when their acting is limited to lying down and falling asleep throughout the entire movie. The plot summary says that a secret is revealed to the daughters as their mother comes closer to death. The thing is, she never tells her daughters anything except cryptic advice to be happy. All the relationships in the movie are underdeveloped. I also felt that the back and forth between the past and present was unnecessary. It seemed as if the idea was stolen either from the book the Da Vinci Code in which the device was used to increase suspense, or from The Notebook in which they used the device to create the never ending romance of the story's main characters. Either way it was a cheap device in this movie because it didn't work to create anything. It was a way to attempt suspense in a movie that has none. I left wondering why good movies can't be written for women. It really was a disappointment.
I saw this in a sneak two days before the official opening, and I must say I was extremely disappointed. And I have to put the majority of these problems on the decision to cast Claire Danes in the lead role. Depending on what you think about Danes, she was either horribly miscast, or is so far in over her head that she should be the early favorite for the 2007 Razzie for Worst Actress. I think we were supposed to be sympathetic to her. Instead, she is completely unlikeable. The other "great" actresses do an OK job, but certainly don't light up the screen. Out of all the "great" actresses in this movie, I'd say the one who did the best job was Natasha Richardson. Streep is barely in the picture, and only appears near the very end.<br /><br />Horrible screenplay as well. It comes off more as them reading lines than truly being "in character."
This is, without a doubt, the most offensive "chick flick" I have seen in years, if not ever. The writing & characterizations are so riddled with stereotypes that the film verges on parody. Before walking out of the theater an hour and five minutes into this disaster, we were subjected to the following themes: having a baby will solve all of your problems, "performer types" are miserable messes, & musicians can't be good mothers unless they toss their dreams for a more conventional lifestyle. What a waste of a talented cast & some great-looking sets & costumes. When Natasha Richardson told Toni Collette that unless she lives a more mainstream life, she'll end up - shudder - "alone!", I felt queasy. I can't believe this movie made it to theatrical release. It's the sort of fare one expects from those "women's" cable channels that I always pass right by when channel-surfing. I am female and over 35, so I should be part of this film's target audience, but boy, does "Evening" miss its target.
I never expect a film adaptation to follow too closely to the novel (especially a beloved one, like Evening) but when I saw that the book's author, Susan Minot, was a screenplay writer and executive producer on the film, I thought that Evening would be a good adaptation.<br /><br />If you enjoyed the book, don't bother with this movie. It is so far afield of the book that the two hardly bear any resemblance to one another.<br /><br />Here, our characters are completely different: the bride is in love with Harris. Harris is the son of the housekeeper. Buddy is a drunk, in love with Ann and/or Harris. I don't think a single character made it from the book to the screen; oh it just gets worst with every passing moment.<br /><br />And, really, didn't we learn from Bridges of Madison County that cutting from the story we are meant to be enthralled in, to scenes of our heroes' grown children having obnoxious and juvenile fights, simply does not work on film? This film is a disaster. Skip it.
Cast to die for in a movie that is considerably less. Vanessa Redgrave is dying but before she goes she begins to tell her daughters the story of her life and of her secret love...<br /><br />This is one of those movies which has the look and expectations of being a great film simply because they have so many great actors and actresses in it so it seems to be about something other than the potboiler that it really is. Not bad as such but with Redgrave, Toni Collette, Glenn Close, Meryl Streep, Clare Danes,Natasha Richardson,Eileen Atkins, Patrick Wilson,Hugh Darcy and others (all giving fine performances) you expect more than a weepy story thats a bit more than a harlequin romance.<br /><br />Wait for Cable.
Almost as tedious to watch as it was to read, Evening is a gorgeously produced failure...until Meryl Streep walks in and quietly shows her other cast members how to act this kind of stuff. Vanessa Redgrave is shockingly off in her role as the dying Ann and Claire Danes is a cipher. Perhaps if Vanessa and Claire had switched roles we could have seen the vibrancy in the young Ann that gave her entrée to the rarefied world of the story and we could have imagined that the older Ann actually was dying. <br /><br />I was hoping the addition of Michael Cunningham to the writing credits would smooth out the jumpy storytelling but alas. It gave me a headache.
I looked over the other comments and was thoroughly amused to find that clearly only people who actually worked on the movie had commented. I mean, I hate to say bad things about an amateur production, but if you make a bad movie and want to comment on it, tone it down a little. "Groundbreaking" is a little over the top. This is a Boston based college production that doesn't even achieve the level of most amateur college film. It's what you would expect a bunch of kids to do. A silly action film without much creativity. It's pretty funny if you're willing to poke fun at it. Not something you will ever see unless you are a student at Emerson college.
"The 40 Year Old Virgin" exists in a world I don't understand. A world where an electronics store employee can tell his boss to "f*** off" and broadcast videos of his naked ass throughout the store and not get reprimanded. A world where it's really funny to go drunk driving and smash into other peoples' cars. A world where it seems okay for a boss to sexually harass her underlings. A world full of raging and offensive stereotypes of ethnic minorities. And a world without any funny jokes! I am absolutely shocked at the seeming chorus of viewers who liked this movie. I thought every scene was like a bad Saturday Night Live sketch - not very funny to begin with, and stretched out beyond all rational thought. The chest-waxing scene went on FOREVER.<br /><br />The characters, aside from Carell, were totally one-note. And the romantic elements were completely contrived, particularly the scene where Keener finds porn in Carell's apartment. That was just lame.<br /><br />And I also found the "Aquarius" sequence totally annoying and excessive. I hated hated hated this movie!
It is amazing to me what passes for entertainment today. maybe I am a dinosaur from the fifties, and I am out of touch with todays movie going generation, and apparently that is the case with regards to this movie, since so many people loved it. I found it foul and vulgar. I haven't said that about many movies in my life but this one fits the bill. The humor is sophomoric and crude. I am not a politically correct person, and even I found the gay jokes, not only not funny but downright offensive ( I'm not gay). The main character in the movie is not even a likable person, just pathetic. When the movie was finally over i heard a number of people comment on how disappointed they were in what they had just pay good money to see.
About 15 minutes in, my wife was already wanting to leave. Not so much because of the material, but the lack thereof. They decided to fill in the blanks where the funny stuff should've been with as much language and absolutely vulgar talk as they could. When this would let up (very rare), we'd sit back and watch (not laughing, mind you) and wait for the next gross-out or offensive remark(s). After about 35 minutes, we both got up and left. Everything we'd read said how great this was. The trailer looked good and Roger Ebert actually called it "intelligent" and said it wasn't a crude sex comedy. Did he go to the right movie? Along with Be Cool, it's the only other movie I've ever walked out on...and I have no regrets. I'm sick of trying to go see comedies in America.
Wow! This film is truly awful. I can't imagine how anyone could have read this badly written script and given it the greenlight. The cast is uniformly second rate with some truly horrendous performances from virtually all of the cast. The story is disjointed, fragmented and incoherent. The telling, leaden and predictable. No wit, no charm, no humour. Not sexy in the least. The characters remain as flat as the proverbial pancake. There's also a strong current of misogyny which became increasingly hard to stomach as the film went on. When your lead (Carrell) is unfunny and unappealing it's uphill from there. Despite it's phony turn-around ending where love triumphs over lust I was left with a sick feeling in my stomach. If this is what passes for humour and social comment then we're definitely doomed.
After we counted the use of the f word, oh, about 22 times in the first 10 minutes or so of the film, listened to some really bad actors going on about a woman and a horse, and pretty much acting like 12 year old boys being naughty together, well, we turned it off. Relying on gratuitous profanity and potty humor is a sure sign of a loser Hollywood movie, the product of unimaginative and no-talent writers. <br /><br />We did give it a second chance, thinking surely it would get better. No dice. Later, my boyfriend skipped through the rest of the movie in case it improved, still no dice.<br /><br />The main character did have a cool bike.<br /><br />I wouldn't recommend this to anyone except maybe really immature adolescents, or frat boys.
At least with the teenage geek gets the girl films, the guy is usually unpopular with girls. In the 40 Year Old Virgin he is replaced with a 40 year old guy who is popular with women but somehow has remained a virgin. But then you are not supposed to engage your brain with this film or did I miss the bit about him being comatose for 20 years?<br /><br />One of a series of films where 40 somethings act like teenagers and women for some reason find this a sufficiently attractive quality that they want a serious relationship with them. I find it hard to understand how a country that has produced such excellent TV comedies seems to think it has to rely on crude and shallow characters for laughs. They've done the gross out movies. They've done the let's act like all Americans have a mental age of 15. Where will they go next? <br /><br />This film is crass and crude entertainment with nothing to recommend it.
Bela Lugosi is not typecast in this fantastic twelve-part adventure serial, playing the lead as Frank Chandler/Chandu the Magician, enjoying his role as a representative of the forces of White Magic pushed against those of Black, while displaying vigourous fighting skill, successfully wooing a young Egyptian princess, and cutting a lean and dashing figure in yachting gear, complete with nautical cap. The somewhat lumpy plot engages Chandler/Chandu in an ongoing series of escapades pointed at achieving the rescue of his fiancee, Princess Nadji(Maria Alba) and others from the clutches of the idol-worshipping sect of Ubasti, which covets Nadji's blood in order to revivify an ancient mummified princess entombed upon the mysterious island of Lemuria. Director Ray Taylor, an old hand at such entertainments keeps events moving briskly, but repeated scenes and footage, a good deal of which is to be found in the previous year's Skull Island setting from KING KONG, and the port locale from SON OF KONG, reduces original action to less than 60 minutes from the serial's running length of over two and one-half hours and, if viewed at one sitting, becomes lacking in effect to most viewers, unless insomniac.
"The Return of Chandu" is notable, if one can say that, for the casting of Bela Lugosi as the hero rather than the villain. Why he even gets the girl.<br /><br /> The story as such, involves the Black Magic Cult of Ubasti trying to capture the last Egyptian princess Nadji (the delectable Maria Alba) and use her as a sacrifice as a means of reviving their ancient leader who just happens to look like Nadji. Lugosi as Chandu, who possesses magical powers, tries to thwart the villains.<br /><br /> Director Ray Taylor does his best with limited resources and extensive stock footage. Fans of King Kong (1933) will recognize the giant doors that were used to keep Kong at bay in several scenes. The acting is for the most part, awful. The actor who plays the high priest (I believe Lucien Prival) for example, uses that acting coach inspired pronunciation that was so common in the early talkies. The less said about the others the better.<br /><br /> It is a mystery why Lugosi accepted parts in independent quickies at this stage of his career, because he was still a bankable star at Universal at this time. Maybe it was because in this case he got to play the hero and get the girl, who knows. As his career started to spiral downwards in the late 30s, this kind of fare would become the norm for Lugosi rather than the exception.<br /><br />
Ever notice how in his later movies Burt Reynolds' laugh sounds like screeching brakes?<br /><br />Must have been hanging out with Hal Needham too much.<br /><br />And from the looks of "Stroker Ace", WAY too much.<br /><br />Can you believe this was based on a book? Neither could I, but it was. And probably not a best-seller, I'll wager. <br /><br />Burt's another good-old-boy in the NASCAR circuit who hitches up with Beatty as a fried chicken magnate with designs on his team. Anderson provides what love interest there is and Nabors does his umpteenth Gomer Pyle impression as faithful mechanic/best friend Lugs. <br /><br />A lot of people here are friends of Burt's or Hal's. Others must have needed the work. And even real NASCAR drivers get in on the act, and look to have more talent than those with SAG cards. <br /><br />As far as laughs go, Bubba Smith (pre-"Police Academy") gets them as Beatty's chauffeur. And Petersen, in full Elvira mode, gets lots of appreciative leers as a lady who wants to get to know Lugs real well. REAL WELL.<br /><br />It's a shame that Burt threw away as much time and effort in a film like "Stroker Ace" where it didn't matter whether he bothered to act or not. They didn't bother to write a character for him, why bother to act?<br /><br />Two stars. Mostly for Petersen, and for the out-takes at the end. Now THEY'RE funny.
Oh man is this movie bad. It flows horribly. The story is about a race car driver who is in love with himself, and then has to promote a chicken fast food chain and while doing this, doesn't love himself. He tries getting out of the contract and horrible, painfully unfunny gags ensue. Jim Nabors seems as if he's sleepwalking, not acting. You'll miss such Burt sidekicks as Dom Deluise and Jerry Reed while watching this stinker. Loni Anderson's hair is downright scary, proving that tons of hairspray didn't go out in the sixties. Or maybe that was a wig. Speaking of, Burt's wig wasn't bad in this film. His worst "wig day" was in "Smokey and the Bandit 2". Anyhow, this movie is the worst Reynolds car movie, ever, ever, right up there with "Cannonball Run 2". The original "Smokey" and "Cannonball" (and "Hooper" which, thankfully, had no sequel) are great, funny films. This one isn't. Even Ned Beatty, who is a great actor, stinks. You'll long for a Jackie Gleason type villain who is fun to hate. And mind you, this isn't one of those fun movies to bag on. It's lousy, pure and simple. Even the outtakes at the end were tiresome and boring, and worst of all, unfunny. And least I forget, "Stroker Ace" was one of the first heavy nails to seal Burt's coffin before his somewhat-revival years later in "Boogie Nights", another film that, like "Deliverance" years earlier, shows that the man can act quite good when he has a decent platform to do so.
This is one of the most insipid, lackluster, unoriginal, and pointless movies ever made! It almost feels like everyone involved in this project didn't even try to make an appealing movie. This is nothing more than a continuation of a tiresome series of films that attempt to cash in on the success of Smokey and the Bandit, which I think is the best film of them all. As for this waste of film stock, Burt Reynolds sleepwalks his way through the entire movie, Jim Nabors is wasted, the other actors aren't given very much to do, the car races are obviously stock footage, the humor is uninspired, and many of the scenes are more dull and lifeless than staring at a wall for two hours. "Stroker Ace" is simply a superfluous film with nothing unique or distinctive about it.
Burt Reynolds came to a point in his career where he appeared to just be going thru the motions. He'd show up, party with his friends on film, and take home a big paycheck. It didn't seem to matter to him that the product he was representing was pure crap.<br /><br />No film epitomized this more than "Stroker Ace" which makes "Cannonball Run" look like a classic and "Cannonball Run II" look watchable. Save for a few race scenes there is absolutely NOTHING worth seeing here. Even the beautiful Loni Anderson hams it up so bad as a dumb blonde it's embarrassing.<br /><br />If the thought of Burt hamming it up with Jim Nabors and dressing like a chicken sounds funny then this is your movie. Otherwise pick almost any other film comedy and it won't be any worse.
It occurs to me that some of the films that have been banned during the course of cinema history were actually very important and very good films. I'd like to argue that instead of banning challenging, controversial movies the censors should consider banning films that are so bad that they pose a threat to your IQ and your sanity. If they were to do so one of the first films to be quickly hidden away would undoubtedly be "Stroker Ace". This film is awful with a capital 'A'. It is the worst film Burt Reynolds ever starred in.... quite a feat for for a man with "Cannonball Run II", "Cop And A Half" and "Rent-A-Cop" on his CV!<br /><br />The wafer-thin story introduces us to successful stock car racer Stroker Ace (Reynolds), a man who loves fast cars and fast women. He gets stuck in a demeaning contract with crooked promoter Clyde Torkle (Ned Beatty). The contract requires him to do some humiliating promotional work for a new chain of fast food restaurants, such as dressing up as a giant chicken. Thrown into the mix are Lugs (Jim Nabors), Ace's dim-witted pal, and Pembrook Feeney (Loni Anderson), a bimbo with a brain fractionally smaller than a pea who is wooed by Ace.<br /><br />Hal Needham, the director of this low-grade garbage, was formerly a stuntman and he made numerous films that relied on his expertise in staging spectacular stunts and car chases/races. Some of these films were OK, like "Hooper" and "Stunts Unlimited", but with "Stroker Ace" he reaches a career nadir. The characters are so stupid that you actually feel pity for the actors playing them. Anderson especially is saddled with such a dumb role that it makes you grind your teeth with despair. The humour is weak and infantile throughout, and the stunts and race sequences are unremarkable. Even the out-takes during the closing credits (which can be found in all the Reynolds-Needham collaborations) are generally unfunny, which gives the impression that maybe the film wasn't much fun to make. "Stroker Ace" is a stinker of considerable magnitude.
This should not have been listed as a Colombo because in my opinion it does not resemble any of the other Colombo ever made. This should have been listed as a movie starring Peter Falk and not playing the caracter of Colombo because it does not do justice at all to our great lieutenant Colombo.
Whenever a Columbo story deviates from the familiar plot (colorful killer commits crime, Columbo smokes out killer, Columbo becomes a pest in the process), the writers somehow are never able to match the quality and interest of most traditional episodes. This episode deviates in the extreme, and the result is a major flop.<br /><br /> Would you believe: Columbo never faces the villain till the very end?!!<br /><br />Frankly, I was tempted to turn it off about two-thirds through.<br /><br /> Oh, the sacrifices we self-appointed reviewers make!!!
Seriously what were they thinking? Over the course of years the Columbo series has tried out some new things and diverted away from the usual successful formula but this movie really overdoes it. This movie is basically very different from any other Columbo movie but the differences are not for the good of the movie.<br /><br />Main thing that of course makes this movie different from any other Columbo movie is the fact that there is no murder being committed. The entire premise of this movie is totally different and it places the Columbo character in a totally different environment and situation. Also the overall is just totally different and more 'modernized'.<br /><br />Director Alan J. Levi did some other Columbo movies in the past, which all very much sticked to the usual formula. It also makes it an odd choice that he got picked to direct this movie.<br /><br />The Columbo character himself also feels quite different, perhaps because of the reason that he gets placed in a totally different environment and situation, when he helps out his nephew after his bride disappeared right after the wedding. The absence of some good relieving and trademark Columbo humor also doesn't exactly make this a good or enjoyable watch.<br /><br />In all honesty, the movie doesn't begin too bad but the movie starts to become more and more ridicules with its story as it progresses. It's such a stupid written kidnap-thriller with a story that starts to become more and more unlikely. It also makes the movie more and more unwatchable. This is a very little interesting Columbo entry that also really doesn't know to entertain its viewers in any way.<br /><br />It also doesn't help much that the supporting actors aren't the most talented ones around. Despite the fact that his character is put in such a totally different situation and the movie is shot in such a completely different style, Peter Falk still holds up well and his presence still somewhat saves this movie. Can you just imaging how this movie would had been without him? It would had been an extremely bad and ridicules cheap movie I can tell you.<br /><br />An odd Columbo entry, which could be described as a failed experiment to divert from the usual formula.<br /><br />4/10
The script for this Columbo film seemed to be pulled right out of a sappy 1980's soap opera. Deeply character-driven films are great, but only if the characters are compelling. And in this film the only thing compelling was my desire to change the channel. The villain's dialog sounds as if it were written by a romance novelist. The great Lt. Columbo himself is no where near his famous, lovable, self-effacing, crumpled self; and the bride/kidnap victim is a whimpering, one-dimensional damsel-in-distress (she cowers in fear from a tiny scalpel held flimsily in the hand of her abductor - come on!!! I could have knocked the scalpel out of his hand and kicked him in the you-know-what in 2 seconds). In any sense of reality, this character would have at least TRIED to struggle or fight back at least a little. And speaking of reality....the story revolves around a kidnapping which is worked and solved by the police. The POLICE?? Give me a break. Everyone knows the FBI takes over EVERY kidnapping case. This was NO Columbo, just a shallow and totally predictable crime drama with our familiar Lt. Columbo written in and stretched to 2 hours.
I love Columbo and have seen pretty much all of the episodes but this one undoubtedly ranks as the worst of the lot. A mind-bogglingly tedious, pointless, muddled pile of unwatchable drivel that wastes both the time of the viewing audience and of the acting talents of an exceedingly bored-looking Peter Falk. The 'plot', such as it is, just seems to be made up as the film goes along with not even the slightest hint of the ingredients to the formula that made the show such a brilliant success to start with. One part of the proceedings which I found extremely puzzling ( or possibly annoying ) was Peter Falk's character being introduced to the guests at the wedding as 'Lt' Columbo. If the producers insist on keeping Columbo's first name a secret, why couldn't they have omitted this line altogether as it sounds ridiculous? Like I said, this is the pits and all true Columbo fans would do well to avoid it like the plague.
Loyalty to Peter Falk is all that kept me from giving this awful picture the (1) it deserved. (For that matter, loyalty to Mr. Falk was what kept me watching this film all the way from heads to tails.) Even if you forgive all the glaring errors, this was just plain the poorest excuse for a made-for-TV "Columbo" film ever. I'm glad I watched it on TV for free; would have hated to have coughed up the bucks for a print.
Absolute garbage. The reason that this is so terrible is not because it deviated from the formula, but because the plot was just pathetic. <br /><br />The supposed star didn't do anything to solve the case - and neither did anyone else really - it was just routine police work. Utterly tedious.<br /><br />You sat right till the end hoping for a twist - and got nothing but a huge sense of disappointment. <br /><br />There was so much potential in having a relative in apparent kidnap. Could the Lt's personal involvement finally cloud his judgement? <br /><br />All the obvious signs were of a stranger doing it. But surely a genius like Lt C, by constant conversation with the wronged husband, would gradually uncover a fiendish plot involving a tape recorder playing in the shower room while a masked groom surprises the bride, hides the body and then plants subtle clues. It could have been good. It was a complete waste of time.
An uninspired and undistinguished "new" Columbo which sees the man-in-the-mac attend his nephew's wedding, only for his bride to disappear on their wedding night. Columbo investigates...<br /><br />And that it is about it: indifferently plotted and surprisingly laden with a flat script, given that it is written by Robert Van Scoyk, who penned the highly enjoyable Columbo story "Murder Under Glass" in the detective's heyday; there is not even a murder to speak of and the greatest amount of ingenuity afforded to Columbo by the script-writer is the narrowing down of suspects via the photos taken at the wedding, which include everybody who was there!<br /><br />Devoid of every Columbo trait possible, I thought I was watching an episode of Hill Street Blues. An insult to the history of the series, with appropriately soap-opera style acting. Very avoidable stuff.
Most definitely the worst Columbo ever dreamt up. No murder and the abandonment of the tried and tested formula makes this a real drag. Falk looks bored throughout and so will you be if you waste anytime watching this.
This show stinks. For parents, they usually want their kids to watch something good for them. It is usually educational, funny, and bright.<br /><br />Is it educational? No. the Doodlebops sing and that's it. They usually sing about themselves, they don't try teaching anything.<br /><br />Is it funny? No. The Doodlebops instead say something which is not intended as a joke, and laugh at it.<br /><br />Is it bright? It's so bright, it's painful. As far as color,s everything is extremely bright, so that's good. But NOTHING is ever wrong in the world of the Doodlebop's. Therefore, they are always happy. a kid in trouble will become depressed because they have never been exposed to being sad.<br /><br />The show is also extremely cheesy. Every syllable is said to the highest level of exaggeration and very corny. It's overkill.<br /><br />For kids, it's entertaining, but past the age of 2 you won't want your kids to see it. They'll never know how to grow up.
My children watch the show everyday that its on. Its a great program for younger children. However they need to stop showing re-runs and do some more actual shows and get rid of Rooney's and Deedee's YELLOW TEETH. Moe is the only Doodle bop with clean white pearlie teeth and the children notice these things and ask if the 2 don't ever brush their teeth? Does the show ever make its way to the United States and if so where can we find its schedule at. And one other thing if we might be able to add. Moe you need to stop hiding so much. Sometimes when you pop up out of no where you scare the younger children and whats with the pulling of the rope? What does that signify? other then getting wet all the time. They need to add newer things to their show instead of the same ole same ole. Kids loose interest that way.
Normally when I write a review for a movie online, it is for one of three reasons. Either, I have found something exceptionally lacking in a film that otherwise would have been excellent, I feel that the public's perception of a film before viewing it is inaccurate for a number of reasons, or I believe that the purpose or message of a film needs to be clarified or explained with the help of other reviewers. While all of these reasons may appear to be somewhat negative, I find that writing a review that lavishes nothing but praise and statements such as, "This is one of the best films of all time!", does nothing to enlighten a potential viewer on its merits and downsides, nor does it often give reasoning as to why a movie is so good, which should be the point of the review in the first place. With that being said, War of the Worlds is nothing more than a hurried, incompetent attempt at a money grab; piggy-backing its loathsome carcass on the multi-million dollar advertising campaign of the film of the same name directed by Steven Spielberg. Many people will buy this DVD in anticipation of the summer blockbuster and many more poor souls will buy it looking for more material on the same subject. This movie is not even "so bad" that it becomes funny or endearing, rather the audience will be so unbelievably disappointed as to reach the point of anger. Now with most of the insults out of the way, allow me to give some arguments as a warning to those more fortunate than I. <br /><br />Judging from the cover and the lack of any publicity for this film (I found it as SAM's Club for 8 bucks), I assumed that the cast would be no-names and that the special effects would be nothing too spectacular. Check. This is not a big deal for me, as I find a large budget and an over-reliance on big name stars and SE can diminish an otherwise decent movie. I also did not expect to be blown away by great dialog or a moving score. Check again. What I did hope for was an actual serious attempt at a classic theme and a few alien/battle scenes. <br /><br />Now, as per IMDb's policy any spoilers must be announced in advance, no matter how small, so here is fair warning. The movie opens with a lot of inane small-talk, followed by a trip to an observatory to look at a red dot. Seriously, it is a pictures of a red dot in a tube. It is very hard to describe every little issue in depth, but by the end of the first ten minutes, the combination of shaky camera-work, spliced scenes, and a LOT of walking begin to frustrate the viewer. However, the costuming is surprisingly not bad and the hope that the pods will reveal something mysterious keeps you going. The next 30 minutes basically go as follows: one of the main characters walks to one of the pods, he looks at the pods and talks to another main character about looking at the pod and it may be hot. They both walk back to town. These walks aren't two seconds or added so that dialog may be exchanged. They are twenty seconds or more and are there simply to add filler to an already bloated three hour movie. In a particularly grueling scene, the main character is shown looking at a pod, then he is shown pacing and panting, then he looks at the pod, then he takes a one minute walk through a field to town, then comes in to town and walks into a building, then he has a cup of coffee and says "Thank you Mary" to a random maid that serves him coffee, then he puts down the coffee and walks out the building, then he walks a minutes through the field and back to the pod. I apologize for the extreme run-on sentence, but it is perhaps the best way to summarize this entire film. Characters speak way too long about mundane things, they walk a lot, they send other people to walk, the camera fluctuates between high speed and slow speed, but for no dramatic effect, simply the camera man is a sophomore at Tech somewhere. The editing is mind-bogglingly bad. People actions make little sense. For instance, when the professor goes to a farmer's house and says that he needs the farmer to give him a ride to town, the farmer stutters and paces around. When the professor says that there is a pod and that men might be trapped inside, the farmer locks him in a shed only to see the professor grab a pitchfork and open the weak shed a second later. Nothing of any consequence of course comes from this entire scene, as the professor runs into the main character a moment later so they can begin their afternoon walk. The entire film feels as if someone at one point had a good idea about making a film, but absolutely no idea how to put that in motion. I have seen better high school video productions. Finally, the special effects are laughable and do nothing to advance the story. I get the feeling that the director really wanted this film to become somewhat of a cult classic of campy garbage. However, it is so awful in technical aspects, and in sheer common sense that it only makes people mad. Avoid this film at all costs.
I am currently sitting here, forcing myself to finish this. I figure I blew 6 bux on the VHS, might as well suffer for it. I remember about 4 or 5 years ago doing a search on the internet for "War of the Worlds" cause of the rumors of the Spielberg movie at the time, and I missed the old TV series from the early 90's. The website make it out that this was a multi-million dollar budget rendition of the classic book. It was going to be a "perfect translation". Perfect CRAP is more in tune with this film.<br /><br />First off, the video on this movie was glitched! It looked as if I was watching the Full Motion Video from an old mid-90's PC or Playstation CD-Rom video game. Sadly enough, the color quality was similar. The acting made Shatners classic "dramatic pause" look damn near Shakespearean in quality. The CG rendering of various scenes was horrendous, and green screen sequences were worse than those seen in old Dukes of Hazardd scenes.<br /><br />Secondly, it is slow and terribly drawn out. I sat thru 45 minutes of the video (no promo's at the beginning) before the cylinder actually Opened to reveal the first alien. After that, the alien was a terribly constructed CG squid. I am now an hour into it and the most of the alien weaponry I have seen is a spinning silver disk (crappy down even) attached to a mechanical arm. The dramatic scenes are murdered with overly done instrumental's. The last thing on that, for an alien invasion in the turn of the century 1900's NO ONE is concerned for their life. It's like they have no concept. Even though media was slow, word of mouth spreads fast and people would have known. The "illusion" of day and night was shoddy at best. Simply changing the color around the people to purple, blue or green does not signify NIGHT TIME. Perhaps some lighting and actual night time shoots would have given a MUCH better illusion. THere is a lot of wasted sequences throughout the film of just watching the "hero" gallop around or walk down silly roads. Get on with the film. I know how people get around, you do NOT need to be so in-depth.<br /><br />Now, finally an hour and 5 minutes into the film and they show the alien machines. Mighty Morphin Power Rangers had better looking effects. Even the skeletons of vaporized humans looked as if animated by a freshman high school computer app class student. The animations do NOT match up to the scenery at all.<br /><br />In closing folks, if you want "The War of the Worlds", do one of four things. 1) Watch the 1953 original, 2) watch the early 90's TV series, 3) wait for Spielberg's rendition to be released shortly, OR 4) Read the frikkin book (something we all probably did in elementary English class). AVOID THIS MOVIE. IT IS A WASTE OF YOUR MONEY.
I must admit I burst out laughing when I saw one reviewer compare this to LOTR. Well yes, if you exclude the dwarfs, the cast of thousands, the great special effects, the big battles, the strong characterization, the decent plot, the good acting, the classy direction and everything else. Which leaves you with the walking. And boy, does this film do walking! If Mr Piano had his way, this would probably be an uninterrupted three hours of hardcore walking through the Wisconsin countryside, but every 40 minutes or so these pesky Martians pop up for a few seconds to interrupt him before he goes for another bit of a ramble. You've never seen so much walking in a movie. If this really had a $20m budget, most of it must have gone on Mr Piano's shoes, because he had to get through plenty of pairs with all the walking he does. Which explains why there's no money left for decent effects, a decent video camera or proper actors. Honestly, it's like watching some bizarre fetish video for people with a thing about going for long walks in period costumes. Even on fast-forward, this is a looonnnggg walk.<br /><br />As for the sci-fi stuff, I think it was a mistake to put Martians in the film: they only get in the way of the walking, which is clearly much more interesting to the director than the story.<br /><br />I wonder how much Mr Piano charges to walk dogs?
Wow...<br /><br />I picked this up at the local Wal-Mart after reading online that it had been released early. I've been following this online for some time, and just had to buy the film.<br /><br />Wow...<br /><br />I guess the thing that really struck me was the editing, or lack thereof. Time and again, characters (usually The Narrator and whoever he is with) are shown walking...and walking...and walking. I am not an editor, but I do know that you can cut between someone leaving point A to show them arriving at point B. There is no need to show almost the entire journey! Wow...<br /><br />I actually ended up feeling somewhat sorry for the actors involved in this. They seem to have been given no direction as to what to do during scenes other than to look scared or look happy, depending on what action was to be added at a later date.<br /><br />Wow...<br /><br />Why it was decided to do almost all the effects using CG is beyond me. Even ILM still employs miniatures sometimes. One of the most distracting uses of green screen in this film is the constant rushing about of (according to the end credits) the same group of people representing the citizenry of different towns and cities, including London. At times these folk are coming and going with no regard as to the angle of the shot or the distance they are from the camera. In one shot in London, there appear to be at least two men over six feet tall walking just behind the narrator's brother (played by star Anthony Piana without his distracting mustache). Not since GETTYSBURG have I seen such a fake piece of facial hair.<br /><br />Wow...<br /><br />Why Timothy Hines talked up this film the way he did is beyond me. It is a turkey, plain and simple. On the plus side (at least for me) it has provided some of the most genuine laugh-out-loud bits of hilarity I have seen in quite a while.
Is it possible to give a movie NO STARS? I suppose not. However many stars IMDb displays this just think zero and you'll get my drift. Director and photographer Timothy Hines didn't have much of a budget compared to Spielberg's Herculean effort with the same material (rumored to be the most expensive movie ever made), but that need not be an insurmountable handicap. I've seen some wonderful work done on a comparative shoestring ("Soldier and Saints" is a recent example). With hard work, integrity and, above all, talent it is certainly possible to realize a faithful rendition of Wells' novella -- and at fraction of what was spent by Dreamworks on its "War of the Worlds". Unfortunately, Hines failed in all these departments. Even if he had had Spielberg's budget and Tom Cruise signed for the lead his movie would have stunk just as badly as this barnyard animal he's foisted on us.<br /><br />Primarily, Hines seems unable to tell a story. Thanks to digital video technology he can record images and sound, but he shows little aptitude for assembling a narrative with what he records. A guy walks down a country lane, a lot. He talks badly aped Received English to some other guy. Then he walks down the same lane, only shot from the back this time to show he's returning -- clever, eh? Walking and talking, for nearly an hour that's all that happens. OK, I'll grant that one extended excursion from the main character's house to the impact site on Horsell Common to show that it's a considerable distance from one place to the other might be useful (a first-year film student could storyboard a more economical and more aesthetical establishing sequence than this, btw), but half a dozen times? Back and forth, back and forth, et cetera, et cetera with some yakkity-yak in between. Remarkable. The only explanation for this surfeit of redundancy other than total artistic ineptitude is a desire to pad out thirty minutes of wretchedly amateurish CG works into something that could be offered as a feature-length film. Finally the Martian fighting machines appear and the walking and talking becomes running and talking, or shrieking. Later we get staggering and wailing for dessert.<br /><br />Thankfully, much of the dialogue is lifted straight from H.G. Wells' text; else we'd have no idea what is going on. But is it not the whole point of cinema to illuminate a text, to realize what words alone can't convey? If a film relies on dialogue or monologue to tell us what we see or how to feel, why bother? Why not do a radio play? Orson Welles made himself a household name doing just that. However, Hines thinks he's a filmmaker, so he's content to mouth the words and swallow the meaning.<br /><br />Secondly, Hines was able to buy some CG effects of a sort for his movie, but he has no idea how to use them. Now I for one have no unquenchable sweet tooth for eye candy. I believe good science fiction cinema doesn't need dazzling technical effects. Some really potent Sci-Fi's have flourished on virtually none at all. But "The War of the Worlds" as film requires a certain baseline effort. Wells tells a story that hinges on things can be seen and heard and even smelled. The effects don't need to be complex; they can even be crude (e.g. fighting machines on wires gliding over miniature streets as seen in the George Pal/Byron Haskins 1953 version), but they must be handled well. Unfortunately Hines' effects are both crude and incompetent – tripod fighting machines higher than a cathedral spire stomp around making a noise like a pogo stick bouncing on linoleum – Martian squidoids even though oppressed by four times the gravity of their native world scurry and flit about without perceptible effort – skeletons totally denuded of flesh and muscle writhe and scream -- the same damn horse and buggy greenscreens its way across the foreground a dozen times (flipped left for right occasionally in hope that we might not notice) – and on ad nauseum. Crude technique is forgivable. So you have a CG fire effect that's less than convincing? Fine, we can work around that. Just don't use it too often and only show glimpses of it. That stomped woman sequence looks more like a crushed plum? Throw it away. It's not necessary. You say your Martian flyer looks like a toy on a string? If you must use it, go ahead, but please don't show it twice! But no, Hines won't listen. We get the worst looking stuff used again and again. Gotta get those 180 minutes somehow, boy.<br /><br />Next we have acting, or more precisely too much acting. Whether in a speaking role or just paid to die on queue everybody in this film is acting his little heart out. Evidently Hines thinks he's getting a bargain -- More fleeing in terror over there! You, quaking behind that tree, let's have a real conniption fit this take. You call that writhing in agony? Nonsense, my grandmother can writhe better -- Nevertheless the cast as a whole and individually stink. They aren't even good amateurs. But this needn't prove fatal. Many a good movie has been made with rancid acting. That's what directors are for. And editors. Which brings up another point… Who the hell let Tim Hines edit this cheese factory? If America's butchers were as adept at meat cutting as Hines is at film cutting your next hamburger would be all fingers and no beef. In spite of the near three-hour running time there is lots of stuff missing from this movie -- not sequences, but single frames, creating a herky-jerky effect that's nauseating to watch. Maybe Hines intention was to simulate the effect of a hand cranked cine camera of the 1890's. If he was I can say he doesn't know how to do it.
I honestly believe that ANYONE considering film-making be subjected to this mind-boggling failure. Like the "films" of Edward Wood, Jr. in the '60s and '70s, this film is a shining example of why real filmmakers expend so much energy rewriting scripts, re-editing their films, and reworking their special effects until they finally look right. This movie is also a decent argument FOR the studios' pre-screening process. If Mr. Hines were forced to endure the honest reactions of an impartial audience, perhaps he would have cut 75% or the walking/running/strolling scenes and edited this movie down to a more bearable 90 minutes.<br /><br />Film students should view this movie as an example of just how dangerous thinking their work is "good enough" can truly be. Every performance, every line of dialog, every digital effect, every filter effect, indeed every frame of video expresses the danger of striving for mere mediocrity. A beginning filmmaker may find himself/herself tempted from time to time to think "At least I accomplished SOMETHING" or "Just finishing this will be an accomplishment in itself". This movie will help them understand just how badly a film can turn out.<br /><br />Critics might also benefit from seeing this movie before they dub the latest summer entertainment "the worst movie ever made".<br /><br />Beginning writers can learn from this film just how important rewrites are, and perhaps understand the necessity for rewrites. Also, beginning directors can learn the importance of a GOOD screenplay, and some degree of respect for just how hard it is to write a script that causes the audience to feel emotionally compelled through the story. Writers and directors who watch bad made-for-cable movies of the week and think "I can do better than THAT" can see get an idea from this movie how difficult it really IS to produce even mediocre results.<br /><br />I sincerely believe this movie can serve as an educational tool to beginning filmmakers. Particularly those entering the craft in this current post-Lucas and post-Spielberg environment. There is a reason filmmakers such as these are hailed for their ability with special effects. The War of the Worlds illustrates clearly that not everyone can pull it off. Some can't even come CLOSE to it.
After hearing the word of mouth of just how bad this film is I took the plunge and bought the DVD. That said everything previously mentioned about this film is true. For a film that claimed to have a budget in the millions it just does not show on the screen at all. The list of problems with the film could drag on forever. Chief amongst them is the film is simply too long. It dragged on for a few minutes short of 3 hours. Nearly an hour probably could have been cut off the run time had the editor simply removed the overabundance of scenes dealing with nothing more then the main character wandering around aimlessly. <br /><br />Secondly, as many had pointed out from the "trailers", the special effects are anything but special. The tripods looked OK in a few shots here and there but beyond that everything was grade-Z 1970's or 1980's quality. Probably the worst effects of all were the horses, which stiffly tottered back and forth as they moved. The heat ray effects were laughable, as people were reduced to bones that somehow were still able to flail about without any muscles. Also pitiful was the Thunderchild sequence, in which the Thunderchild, described in the book as an ironclad ram, looked nothing of the sort. Instead it resembled a World War 1 era destroyer, complete with deck guns (which fired but had no visible crew), and torpedo tubes. <br /><br />The colors and backgrounds were just as bad as the effects. Most laughable of all was a scene early on in which the main character and his wife go for a nighttime stroll and he points out Mars to her in the sky. Well, the sky is black, but the views of the characters and the landscape around them is broad daylight. There is also a very sharp demarcation between the real landscape, bathed in full sunlight, and the fake black night sky with overly large fuzzy stars. To detract even further, the color of the scenes made no sense. In some they are bathed in orange light. In others green light. In still others it's blue light. In some instances the outsides are orange lit but the interiors of houses are green or blue. The frame-rate and camera is very shaky, giving everything a stuttering look.<br /><br />Finally, the acting is overall sub-par. One man portrays two characters who's sole difference was one lacked a mustache. This led to some confusion at times as to who was who and where they all were. The English accents, even to American ears, are outrageous. <br /><br />In summary, this movie could very well make a claim to being the worst film released in recent times. I have not seen Gigli or some of the other recent flops but this one, because of it's poor quality in every respect, must easily be worse then anything that mainstream Hollywood has put out. I would not be surprised if the movie makes it to the bottom 10 or 20 in the IMDb rankings. It's a pity that Mystery Science Theater is not still around.
Nu Image, UFO and others produce films for the SCI FI channel that come in with budgets of roughly $2 million. Some feature extensive effects work, others feature recognizable casts and still others feature both -- for $2 million.<br /><br />Mr. Hines initially claimed that this film was budgeted at $20 million dollars but it's painfully obvious that this was probably produced for $750,000 if not considerably less than that. Few sets are utilized, a number of scenes are shot against green screen and most effects seem incomplete and amateurish.<br /><br />It's painful to watch. Not so much because it is poorly directed, poorly executed and misguided but because many of us have been following the progress of this production for quite some time and had high hopes for this film despite its relatively modest budget.<br /><br />Those of us who believed in this movie when it was originally announced have joined the legions of those spoken of by P.T. Barnum.
I love movies, and I'll watch any movie all the way through, just to give it a chance. I can finally say that I found a movie I can't watch all the way through. The acting is terribly stale and monotone, the CGI looks like a computer geek did it in his mother's basement with minimal software, and.....the long scenes of just...walking!!!! And this movie is THREE HOURS LONG!!! I didn't even make it 15 minutes until I fast forwarded the DVD. The scenes with the aliens are very short. Ummm, instead of naming this "War of the Worlds", lets name this "War of the Walking Long Distances". This cost 5 million dollars to make! What they spend the money on, the dramatic opening song?<br /><br />Oh, but on a positive note, one scene you need to watch is when the aliens first begin killing people. That's hilarious, not because people are dying, but because when they turn to skeletons, they still squirm for 20 seconds afterward.<br /><br />So....like I said, if you are a fan of boring, stale, action-less movies, here is one for you DVD collection. But I didn't write this for you, I wrote this for the billions upon billions of other people who will HATE this movie. It is not worth your time or money<br /><br />I know this is by the book, but the book isn't that long, and I'm a complete book worm/nerd/geek/whatever, but why? Just get the Steven Spielberg version, it's not all that good, but it's 10 times better than this!! <br /><br />I give this a BIG, FAT ZERO out of 10.
Finally i thought someone is going to do justice to H.G. Wells's classic , not another version set in the wrong locale or era , but one based firmly on the book . Well it definitely follows the book pretty closely , and that is the only plus to this mess.<br /><br />This is 180 Min's (yes 3 hours) long , the book is only around 150 pages .<br /><br />If Timothy Hines had the nerve to come on here and say "if you can do any better ..." i would say "yes , i could" and i have never used a video camera or been to any sort or drama school in my life.<br /><br />I paid good money to get this crap over to the UK from the USA , do not make the same mistake as me .
Save the $8.97 you'll spend at Walmart to buy this DVD and go see the real film by Steven Spielberg.<br /><br />I'm a filmmaker, and being an avid fan of H.G. Wells, I had to buy this hoping to sit down and watch three hours of good entertainment. Instead, it took four days to finish watching this because I couldn't stand watching more than 10 minutes at a time. It's horrible.<br /><br />There are reports that Timothy Hines had a $20 Million budget for this production. Where the heck did it go? Did he use most of it to buy a new house? Finance his retirement? Or what? Let me start with what is actually good about this film. It does stay true to the book AND there are a few good performances in it. I can respect the actors who obviously tried to make this a good film. But good performances were quickly overshadowed by horrible... and I do mean horrible special effects. Any freshman film school student could have done a much better job with the CGI. To me, most of it looked like "stop action" card board cutouts that were used rather than sophisticated CGI software that a $20 Million project should be using.<br /><br />There's no excuse for the amateur post production that was applied to this film. My own partner and I sat down and recreated our version of the Ferry scene using software that cost less than $1500.00 and within a day had five minutes of scene that looked better and more realistic than what Hines created. I've seen films with budgets of less than $2 Million look better. Much better.<br /><br />In my opinion the special effects used in the original King Kong were more sophisticated and better than Hines' special effects in this film. IN fact, I have a much better appreciation for Attack of the Killer Tomatoes because of this film. There's no excuse with today's technology for a film to look like a 50's B-Movie unless that was the intention, which shouldn't have been with this particular project.<br /><br />A problem I had with the DVD transfer was that the film is jerky, another demonstration of amateur film-making.<br /><br />Overall, I have to say that I produced a $45,000 project in 2003 that have better cinematography and special effects than this film.<br /><br />I strongly encourage anyone who appreciates good film-making or who is a fan of WOTW to leave this film on the shelf and watch Attack of the 50 Foot Woman instead. It would be easier on the eyes.
I'm not really sure how to even begin to describe how bad this movie is. I like bad films, as they are often the most entertaining. I love bad special effects, bad acting, bad music, and inept direction. With the exception of the music (which was better than I had expected), this movie had all of those qualities. <br /><br />The special effects were amazingly bad. The worst I've seen since my Nintendo 64. Some scenes to watch for include the Thunderchild, the woman being crushed by the mechanical foot, the Big Ben scene, the train wreck... Wow, there are so many bad effects! On the plus side, though, SOME scenes of the alien walkers are well done.<br /><br />The acting was about as bad as it could possibly have been, having been based directly on H.G. Wells' book. For having such good source material, it's almost as though the actors were trying to be so over-the-top as to make it funny. And then there's the mustache... the single most distracting piece of facial hair I've seen in a long time. Of course, only half the movie contains acting. The rest is characters walking around aimlessly and poorly rendered effects shots.<br /><br />To say that Timothy Hines is an inept director would be an injustice to inept directors. With the use of different colored filters between shots for no particular reason, the use of poorly rendered backgrounds for even inside scenes, the bad green screening, it's amazing to me how this man ever got approval to direct a movie. I wouldn't imagine it would be possible to turn a brilliant book into this bad a movie. Bravo, Mr. Hines. Bravo. <br /><br />My advice to anyone who plans to see this movie is to do what I did: have some friends who enjoy bad movies over, drink, play poker while watching it, keep drinking, and maybe you'll make it all the way through. It does make for an excellent bad movie, so have fun and laugh yourself silly with this disaster.
Holy freaking God all-freaking-mighty. This movie was so bad, I thought I was on drugs. In a bad way... The character acting is the poorest thing I've seen in quite some time. This movie was more akin to Lord of the G-Strings, IMHO(it's a real movie). Most of the movie appeared to be done on a horrible green screen. My favorite part was when they are in the carriage, and you can tell there's no horse. They're fleeing from alien monsters, and going about the same speed as a swift jog. Then it switches to a far-shot with a ridiculous CG horse. And the CG in general seems to be sub-par to 1992's Beyond the Mind's Eye. I mean, Come on, really. It felt like a horrible episode of Hercules, only without Kevin Sorbo there to save the day. Worst. Movie. Ever.
Holy freaking God all-freaking-mighty. This movie was so bad, I thought I was on drugs. In a bad way... The character acting is the poorest thing I've seen in quite some time. This movie was more akin to Lord of the G-Strings, IMHO(it's a real movie). Most of the movie appeared to be done on a horrible green screen. My favorite part was when they are in the carriage, and you can tell there's no horse. They're fleeing from alien monsters, and going about the same speed as a swift jog. Then it switches to a far-shot with a ridiculous CG horse. And the CG in general seems to be sub-par to 1992's Beyond the Mind's Eye. I mean, Come on, really. It felt like a horrible episode of Hercules, only without Kevin Sorbo there to save the day. Worst. Movie. Ever.
If this film had a budget of 20 million I'd just like to know where the money went. A monkey could make better CGI effects then what was wasted for 3 hours on this dreadful piece of garbage, although I must admit the machines and the martians would have looked really, really cool on an original play-station 1 game, and early PC games from the mid 90s if a game had ever been made. What puzzles me is where did the money go? Pendragon films could have made a great film with good old fashioned models and computer controlled cameras a la George Lucas circa 1975-83, and actors who actually look like they care about what they are doing (or ruining in this case) for about the same 20 million. This is quite possibly the worst film EVER made! I would rather sit through a 24 hour repeat screening of Ishtar than watch this film again. I hated it completely! I regress. I say this IS the WORST film EVER made because unlike other bad movies like Plan 9 or Killer Tomatoes, or Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, these are films that are so bad you have a special place in your heart for them, you love them. There is no love for this film and no place in my DVD library for it. I sold it to a guy for a dollar. I'm betting the money for the film was spent on booze and other vices for the cast and crew. Shame on you Pendragon films! I want my money back!
I have just lost three hours of my life to this travesty, and I can honestly say I feel violated. I had read the reviews and heard the warnings, and I thought I was prepared for anything - at best I thought, a faithful (if misguided) attempt at an original adaptation; at worst, a so-good-it's-bad "Plan 9" for the new millennium. So when I managed to pick up a copy in Walmart while in Florida and brought it back to the UK, I joked to my friends "Prepare for the worst movie ever made!" Oh, cruel Karma. There is absolutely NOTHING to recommend this film. The "special" effects look like the work of a first year design student using a Spectrum ZX81. The acting is terrible, the accents are WORSE than terrible (one artillery mans' accent seems to take us on a tour of the British Isles, from Scotland to Wales via Northern Ireland), the dialogue is stilted, the editing is non-existent, the production values prove that no expense has been gone to. Words really cannot describe how bad this movie is; from the Union Flag flying from the horribly CGI'd Thunderchild (the Royal Navy flies the White Ensign, NOT the Union flag) to the woodworm ridden acting, this is quite simply a crime against film making. When you consider some of the literally-zero-budget fan films that are available on the 'net (the Star Wars short "Troops" for example), the whole "we're enthusiastic amateurs" argument goes right out of the window. And if you believe an interview with Hines on the Pendragon website, this film had an 8 figure budget! I can only assume that dodgy facial hair does not come cheap in the US. Maybe the problem is that Hines & co tried to make a film of the book, rather than turn the book into a film (if that makes any sense). Characters and extras spout chunks of text verbatim without trying to convey the feelings behind the words. Ironically enough, the ONLY person who even came close to giving a decent performance was Darlene Sellers, the ex-soft porn actress. My advice? Pray like crazy that Jeff Wayne doesn't screw up, and go watch the Spielberg version. It may not be true to the text of the book, but I can say this; As a lifelong HG Wells fan (and Englishman as well) Speilbergs film IS true to the Spirit of the book. Maybe customs were wrong to let me carry this monster into the country, but I will say this: Timothy Hines stole three hours of my life, and I want them back.
Well, on it's credit side (if it can be said to have one), Timothy Hines DID manage to capture the original setting of H.G. Wells' outstanding novella. But other than that - well, to call a spade a spade - it sucks bigtime. What the Master Ed Wood could have done with the alleged $20 million dollar budget! Timothy Hines really does make Mr. Wood, who was a flawed genius anyway, look like the best filmmaker of all time. The special effects (I guess you'd call them that) are not even up to computer game standards. The acting is, well, perhaps about dinner theater comparable, and the accents are atrocious. At the risk of sounding offensive, a lot of the acting from the principal male characters is (especially Poor Ogilvy), well, ahem, . . . GAY! Poor Ogilvy minces and flounces about the bogus English countryside, waving his asbestos white handkerchief about as if it were heat resistant armor. Hey, the Stormtroopers in "Star Wars" had neat white body armor too, and it didn't work either, they still got blasted. Even when Ogilvy and Company get fried by the Martians' 'Heat Ray'(?), they flounce and mince in some weird kind of dance, even when they're theoretically DEAD and reduced to skeletons, which persist in unseemly dancing and writhing. Maybe Timothy Hines rented the skeletons from Ray Harryhausen, being left over from "Jason And The Argonauts". Or was it "Josie And The Pussycats"? I dunno. The soldiers, presumably because they're 'military', all seem to just rather unconvincingly explode, like the soldier on crutches and his unfortunate comrades carrying the stretcher just beyond him. Wow! I loved it! But the 'soldiers' all looked like they were either fascist troops from the Spanish Civil War, or Boer Commandos (which would be more or less correct for the period. Perhaps that was some bit of shrewd subtlety on the part of that wicked genius Hines?). Oddly enough, the character of the Curate looks exactly like he's drawn in the original illustrations by Warwick Goble, and he also turns in the most convincing job of acting. Oh, yeah. Musn't forget the THUNDER CHILD. In the book, the warship is described as an ironclad torpedo-ram. It was MEANT to RAM enemy ships. Yet, it's bow was crumpled after ramming the Tinker-Toy constructed Martian War Machines, with a tiny jagged hole in the forepeak, and she sank. An ironclad warship like THUNDERCHILD could've rammed the TITANIC and survived, but I guess the Royal Navy was bound by the same lowest-bidder constraints as our own Military. The costumes are all wrong, especially the British Army and Police uniforms, cobbled together mostly from USMC Alphas. And Timbo, in an obvious homage to Western Films Of Yore, has obviously set his movie in Wild Western England, because all his riders are using western saddles. The accents being used by just about everyone appear to be a mixture of some kind of Scottish regional accent used by Clan Macabre, and magically delicious Irish accents from County Malarky. On the credit side, and contrary to what one reviewer wrote, the only genuine, authentic feature of this Thing is the artillery. The guns are not from the Civil War, but appear to my eye and research as bona-fide British nine or 12 pounder Rifled Breach Loaders, perfectly authentic to the period. So was the ammunition shown being used. But the Artilleryman, who is a driver in the Horse Artillery, was not shown correctly driving his limber. You don't sit on the frigging limber box and drive a gun team, you ride the nearside wheel horses. The Opening, using what I believe is authentic period film footage, is okay, and the score's not bad. However, to the best of my knowledge Weybridge has never had an underground, and it certainly didn't in 1898.<br /><br />But growing up reading this novel, I am very disappointed. Even more disappointed then I was at Spielberg's zillion dollar, special effects laden version. Maybe his version would have profited by swapping Anthony Piana for Tom Cruise, and vice versa. I have a lot more to say, but I'll let it go at this for now: I wish somebody would make a GOOD version of "War Of The Worlds" that's faithful to the original. Timmy's vision is fine for a high school film class, or maybe I should say pretentiously stupid for a college-level film student, and about as bad, which is about the best I can say for this thing, but that's about it. Oh, yeah. Just where DID the budget go? And what happened to Michael Caine? I'd like to hear HIS comments! I have a sneaking suspicion that Timbo "Orson Wood" Hines' breathtaking, bound-breaking cinema masterpiece just might be the risk-taking director's ticket to cult stardom, because, I must confess a guilty pleasure at watching this movie, which I didn't pay for anyway but was thoughtfully sent to me by a friend who burned a DVD copy for me, with no malicious intent that I've been able to determine. I must add here that I thought Blackmoon's dubbed and abridged version was not only a vast improvement, but an absolute, hysterically funny (in a good way) treat to watch. I find it hard to watch Master Timbo's version after Blackmoon. Keep it up, Tim! Make your own version of "DUNE", now. It just awaits the hand of a master like you! And all you headupyourass snobs who hated Cloverfield? FORGET IT. It CANNOT BEAT TIMBO HINES ARTISTRY FOR SHEER HILARIOUS AWFULNESS! HEY GET A LIFE!TIMBO IS WORSE THAN THE MASTER ED WOOD! I KID YOU NOT!
Hines and Goforth, the perpetrators of this crime, begin on the wrong foot first step, by assuming that Wells wrote Gothic horror and that all of his lines are meant to be taken seriously. That simply isn't true. Wells was very much an inheritor of the Enlightenment, and his main concern was that Victorian self-satisfaction might leave the British unprepared for the world the new technology could produce - both the good and the bad.<br /><br />Two terrible consequences follow - the protagonist is portrayed as a wimpy screamer (I was reminded of Fay Wray in the original King Kong), rather than a man struggling to live out the ironies of an unbelievable catastrophe; and the dialog reeks of 'Victorianisms' uttered seriously that Welles clearly meant to be taken tongue in cheek.<br /><br />All of this looks suspiciously like Ed Wood with an enormous budget to waste on CGI effects - which by the way are so poorly accomplished, the Warner Bros. cartoon factory of the 1940s could have done a better job. (Gobs of spattered blood looked like red balloons, I expected them to float away any minute.) Think The Yellow Submarine as done by the old EC Comics.<br /><br />Worse yet is the loss of theme, which robs the film of any reason to exist. Although the makers of this film return the story to its Victorian era, they utterly miss the uncanny way Wells' story predicted many of the horrors of the First World War - a fact not unnoticed by Wells himself, who, after the war, reworked the theme in The Shape of Things to Come.<br /><br />Without any theme, all we have here are a lot of people running around getting blasted into cartoon balloons, when they're not trying out for a high school production of a drunken student's rewrite of Macbeth.<br /><br />Really, this is the worst, most senseless piece of drivel I have suffered through since a friend talked me into seeing the Eastern European cartoon "Fantastic Planet" thirty years ago. That film was so pretentiously dull, my friend and I and two total strangers gave up ridiculing it about half-way through, and sat near the screen playing cards, using the movie as light by which to see the cards - its only usefulness, as far as any of us could tell.<br /><br />But I already have electric lighting in my apartment, so I didn't need this put-down of Wells for anything.<br /><br />Do not avoid this film - steal every copy you can (don't pay a cent) and burn each and every one of them. God in his wisdom created us just for this purpose.
Let this serve as a warning to anyone wishing to draw attention to themselves in the media by linking their name to that of a well-loved and well-respected, not to say revered author, in order to draw attention to their home-movies out on DVD.<br /><br />Hyped to the skies by its obviously talentless makers, in fact lied about only to be revealed, finally, as ludicrously inept in every department, the fans of Wells and of his book have been after the blood of its Writer-Producer-Director since it appeared on DVD.<br /><br />Many good points have been made by the other comments users on this page. Particularly the one about using this as a teaching aid for Film School students, since this "film" does not even use the basic grammar of scripting, editing, continuity, direction throughout its entire 3 hours running time. It is possible the Director did show up for the shoot. Certainly there was no-one present who knew even remotely what they were doing.<br /><br />An ongoing thread continues to evolve on this IMDb page which should at least furnish the watchers of this witless drivel with a few laughs for their $9.00 outlay.<br /><br />Much was promised. Absolutely nothing was delivered. Except "Monty Python Meets "War of The Worlds" with all the humour taken out.<br /><br />Indefensible trash. Just unbelievable.<br /><br />There are REAL independent film-makers out there to be checked out. People who actually try to work to a high standard instead of flapping their gums about how great their movie is going to be.<br /><br />People could do worse than keep an eye on Brit film-maker Jake West's "Evil Aliens" for example.
WOW!<br /><br />I just was given this film from a friend of mine, who bought it for 1.98 at Walmart, and he felt that he got taken! It is beyond boring, most of the scenes are filmed in front of a green screen, the acting is somewhat improvised, almost as if they didn't have a script. The Martians are CGI, which look like they were done by a novice, or a Fan produced movie. I cannot stress just how bad this DVD really is!<br /><br />Example: In one of the scenes, the martians are torturing a local female captive. She goes from a woman in front of a green screen, to a CGI copy of that woman. The change is totally noticeable, and when she is killed, you can see that it is a computer figure, looking like something from a game back in 1990!<br /><br />If at all possible, avoid this movie like the plague! You can download two trailers from their site, and see how god-awful it really is!
Twenty years ago, the five years old boy Michael Hawthorne witnessed his father killing his mother with an axe in an empty road and committing suicide later. On the present days, Michael (Gordon Currie) invites his girlfriend Peg (Stacy Grant) and his best friends Chris (Myc Agnew), Jennifer (Emmanuelle Vaugier), Lisa Ann (Kelly Benson), Ned (Brendon Beiser), Mitch Maldive (Phillip Rhys) and Trish (Rachel Hayward) to spend the Halloween in the country with his grandparents in their farm. He asks his friends to wear costumes that would represent their greatest innermost fear, and together with his Indian friend Crow (Byron Chief Moon), they would perform an ancient Indian celebration using the carved wooden dummy Morty (Jon Fedele) that would eliminate their fears forever. The greatest fear of Michael is to become a serial killer like his father, but something goes wrong and Morty turns into his father, killing his friends.<br /><br />"The Fear: Resurrection" is a disappointing and pointless slash movie that uses the interesting concept of eliminating the greatest innermost fear of each friend before it grows, but in a messy screenplay full of clichés. There are some exaggerated performances, like for example Ms. Betsy Palmer; others very weak, but in general the acting is good. Unfortunately there is no explanation why the dummy is brought to live; further, in spite of being surrounded by close friends, the group does not feel pain or sorrow when each one of them dies. The low-pace along more than fifty minutes could have been used to built a better dramatic situation. In the very end, Michael shows a charm that his father was interested that I have not noticed along the story. I do not know whether the previous reference was edited in the DVD released in Brazil with 87 minutes running time. The special effects are very reasonable for a B-movie. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Fear 2: Uma Noite de Halloween" ("Fear 2: One Night of Halloween")
Five-year-old Michael sees his mother getting axed to death by his serial killer father "The Highwayman," who later commits suicide. "20 years later" grown Mike (Gordon Currie, from PUPPET MASTER 4 and 5) invites seven of his friends to his secluded grandparents home to "master their own fears" at a Halloween night costume party. Morty, a life-size wooden doll kept in the attic by the Indian handyman, becomes possessed by the dead father's spirit and kills them off using their phobias. Characters are thrown out a window, drowned in a toilet, eaten by rats, blown up, etc. Morty morphs into the dad and a tree, walks around and makes stupid wisecracks. After finding a girl chopped up and stuffed in a cardboard box, the characters remain in the house, act cheerful, crack jokes and have sex.<br /><br />The Morty design is good and Betsy Palmer (Mrs. Voorhees from the original Friday THE 13TH) is surprisingly delightful as the grandmother, but this thing is even more senseless and confusing than the original and is full of false scares, bad acting, brain-dead characters, repeat flashback footage and annoying distorted camera-work. Plus the only two minority characters (the Indian and a half-black girl) are the first to die. BLAH!
This movie was crap with a capital "C." The opening scene showed promise. But that "promise" was broken shortly after the viewer learns where the plot is going.<br /><br />And the wooden statue, Morty, who was rather creepy in the original film, looks plain goofy in this one. It was so obviously just a guy in a cheap plastic costume. (And by the way, who else thinks "Morty" is one of the most un-scary names on planet earth? It ranks right up there with "Jimmy" or "Fred" when it comes to horror value. Or why not just name the wooden statute Henry-freakin'-Kissinger. "Run, it's Dr. Kissinger!" That'd be about as scary as "Morty.)<br /><br />And then there's a scene where the "hero" hits his father's tombstone with---"a sledgehammer?" you might guess--"a two-by-four?" someone might venture. No, he angrily beats his father's tombstone with a twig---a freakin' twig. But worse than that, once the characters walk away, the tombstone actually, and inexplicably, bleeds. Oh brother!<br /><br />There's also a Native American guy who lives with the main character's grandparents, but apparently, does nothing except Morty-maintenance. He perpetuates creepy Morty-legends, warns those who scoff, and even fixes Morty's arm when it becomes damaged during a childish prank. But for all his respect for and tenderness toward Morty, does Morty give a rat's hairy behind? No.<br /><br />The movie drags on, and eventually several people die in ways that correspond to their worst fears (sort of). This film is a real yawner. Don't rent it.
Those of you who, like me, were disappointed with the original 1995 horror yarn, "The Fear" will find more to be disappointed with in this silly little sequel. It sort of follows a similar plot, but it is impossible to connect to the original, with the exception of the presence of Morty, the mannequin monster made of wood. Here is a brief overview.<br /><br />Twenty years after Mike Hawthorne (Gordon Currie, in a decent performance) witnesses his father brutally murder his mother and then take his own life, Mike is still suffering from the fear of that day. In hopes of ridding his fear, Mike takes his girlfriend and a bunch of friends up to his grandparents' home. His plan is for everyone to dress up in costumes that represent their fears, and then present the fears to the mannequin Morty. According to an Indian friend, this process is supposed to magically take away one's fear. What Mike doesn't know is that Morty is possessed with his father's spirit, and begins killing off the friends...or is it really Mike himself doing the killings? Who cares?<br /><br />A have a few troubles with this film. The first lies with Morty. I thought the original made Morty look rather convincing. This time, it is painfully obvious Morty is a man (actor Jon Fedele) in a fake looking suit. This can especially be seen in early scenes, where Morty is still supposed to be inanimate, but if you watch closely you can see him blinking. Another trouble is that most of the characters don't try hard enough. Some of them do, namely Betsy Palmer, of Friday the 13th fame, who was excellent in this film. But most of them don't make the effort or weren't given the chance. Finally, there are the killings. The opening scenes involving ax murders were very convincing. Actually, when I saw them I thought I was in for a good movie. When the second half of the movie arrives, and the killings really start, everything falls to pieces. Deaths are either uncreative, unseen, or foreseen (glimpses of the next scene as Currie has a blackout). One character dies in the end and no one, including the viewer, even notices. While more characterization was needed in the beginning half, it wasn't too bad. The second half was. I think new director Chris Angel got to this point and really didn't know how to shoot the violent scenes, so they turned out real sloppy and pedestrian. A silly ending doesn't help either. Thus, unless you really loved the original and enjoy plucking splinters out from under your skin, you should probably skip "The Fear 2: Halloween Night." Zanatos' score: 4 out of 10.
A young boy sees his mother getting killed and his father hanging himself. 20 years later he gets a bunch of friends together to perform an exorcism on himself so he won't turn out like his father. All the stock characters are in place: the nice couple; the "funny" guy; the tough (but sensitive) hood; the smart girl (she wears glasses--that's how we know); the nerd and two no-personality blondes. It all involves some stupid wooden statue that comes to life (don't ask) and kills people. I knew I was in trouble when, after a great opening scene, we jump to 20 years later--ALL bad horror movies do that!<br /><br />The dialogue is atrocious, the acting is bad (except for Betsy Palmer--why Betsy?) and the killings are stupid and/or unimaginative. My favorite scene is when two people are supposedly having sex and the statue knocks the guy off the bed to show he's fully dressed! A real bad, stupid incoherent horror film. Avoid at all costs.
Mike Hawthorne(Gordon Currie)is witness to the brutal murder of his mother and suicide of his father Morty(Jon Fedele). Twenty years later, Mike gathers a group of his friends to his family's cabin in the woods for a Halloween party. While playing a game where the guests confess and confront their worst fears...Mike tries to summon the spirit of his late father. It is soon discovered that Morty's spirit inhabits a wooden Indian in the cabin. The statue comes to life and the blood bath begins.<br /><br />Most of the F/X are not very convincing and the movie takes on a cheap teen slasher theme. Stale story pitifully acted. Cast members of note are: Kelly Benson, Phillip Rhys, Emmanuelle Vaugier, Byron Chief-Moon and veteran actress Betsy Palmer.
I have not seen the first film and if it anything like this have no great desire to. <br /><br />Having just watched it a few hours ago I am struggling to remember a thing about it. <br /><br />From what I remember it's main plot seems to be a group of very annoying people stay at a house with that dodgy old woman from Friday the 13th and are stalked by plank of wood man.<br /><br />Some people die, the film ends, I am starting a law suit against the person who sold me this film as I want compensation for the missing time in my life. <br /><br />I will pay u £1 to take this film off my hands......oh wait I already gave it away to a "friend".
Before starting to watch the show, I've heard it was great and aesthetically very interesting. What a deception, the scripts are so dumb that I am quite sure the authors are son and grandson of Scoobidoo writers. And what about the SFX and colors, they are so extreme that it is painful to watch, colors are not saturated they are over saturated, like scripts are overwritten and show is overrated. This show is like a bad pie in which a child would have put only sugar and butter thinking that because these ingredients are the best, they are sufficient. Unfortunately for this show, the only two ingredients of this show are finally vacuity and a total lack of credibility.
i am very disappointed with this movie because i like these french actors and i liked "Buffet Froid" from this Director (bertrand blier) but the script of "Les Acteurs" is VERY POOR. why these actors they agreed to play this poor scenario.
I am really shocked that a great director like Chuck Jones started out making some of the most incredibly boring cartoons I've ever seen. I did not laugh once throughout this short, and it's a Bugs Bunny cartoon, for Christ's sake! Bugs Bunny cartoons are always funny, not boring! Alas, this short turns out to be Good Night Elmer (another incredibly boring Jones short) with the addition of Bugs Bunny.<br /><br />The first warning sign of a dull cartoon is always no gag payoff. Good Night Elmer was boring because it dragged on the same two gags forever with predictable payoff. This cartoon, on the other hand, is afflicted with the second warning sign of a dull cartoon: there's too much dialogue. The cartoon at least has more than two gags up its sleeve, but most of them seem longer than they are thanks to the immense padding of the dialogue. At one point, Elmer finishes eating dinner, and comments, "That was weawwy awfuwwy good weg of wamb," possibly the most redundant dialogue I've ever heard in a cartoon (characters reading text out loud in the later-era Woody Woodpecker cartoons doesn't count in my book). Even though this cartoon is only 8 minutes long, it feels like 20 thanks to redundant dialogue like this.<br /><br />Elmer's Pet Rabbit was not a fun cartoon for me, but if you've sold your soul to Chuck Jones and are unable to acknowledge that he directed a few clunkers during his career, you might enjoy it.
I am amazed at the amount of praise that is heaped on this movie by other commentators. To me it was rather a disappointment, especially the combination of historical facts, fantasy and the main character's internal turmoil does not work at all (in Vonnegut's book Slaughterhouse Five and even in George Roy Hill's adaptation for the screen it does). Credibility is often overstretched. Too many questions are left open. Did I miss some central points? Or did I fail to spot the lines that supposedly connect the dots? <br /><br />A boy called Campbell, Jr., grows up in upstate New York. At home his father has many technical trade papers and one book. It has photographs of heaps of dead bodies in it. The boy leafs through the book, his dad doesn't like his doing that. What should this tell me? The family moves away from upstate New York to Berlin. BANG. It is 1938, the boy is a married man in Berlin and a theater playwright. What kind of plays does he write? In what language? Is he successful? His wife is an actress and looks glamorous. The parents move back to the USA and invite their son to do the same. He does not. Why? Because having grown up in Germany he feels more German than American? Because he is successful? Because his wife is? Because he likes his life there? Because he likes the Nazis? Because he is just plain lazy and doesn't like change? Don't ask me.<br /><br />Possibly, the man just does not care, is not interested in politics, is a kind of an existentialist. He states that he is deeply in love with his wife. He speaks of his Republic of Two (meaning he and his wife). There is little to no evidence proving his love for his wife in the movie, it much more seems a Republic of One.<br /><br />On the request of an American agent Campbell, Jr., agrees to broadcast anti Semitic Nazi hate propaganda to American listeners as a device for transmitting encrypted messages to American authorities who read between the lines. The crucial meeting with the agent on a Berlin park bench is short, unexciting and anti climactic, the decision to play along comes pretty easily with no explanation, the rise up to broadcaster seems to be uneventful and apparently fast.<br /><br />So now we have Campbell, Jr., presenting himself over the air as the Last Free American. The scheme for transmitting secret messages is fairly realistic and exciting - although one wonders what happened when Campbell, Jr., really and honestly had to cough, hiccup etc. (must have scrambled the messages terribly). Anyway, the Nazis lose, the wife dies (touring in the Crimean for German troops - I never heard such tours really happened on German front lines in WW II), Campbell, Jr., says he goes to the Russian front but does not go, is captured by an American soldier who recognizes his mug (how come?), is dragged to a sight-seeing tour in Auschwitz, is then released and resettled with the help of the Crucial Agent somewhere in the City of New York.<br /><br />AND THIS IS WHERE THE STORY REALLY STARTS <br /><br />BANG. From now on it is like a short story by Paul Auster. It is 1961, Campbell, Jr., lives in New York tenement as a has-been and mourns the loss of his wife. Nobody really cares - or do they? Yes, somehow they do, and his neighbors offer some sort of distraction. Auschwitz survivors. A painter. Some American supremacists „discover" him and want him to be their figurehead. They even find his presumed dead wife for him, or is she his wife? Anyway, in the end Campbell, Jr., calls in at the Israeli consulate, and they obligingly give him the Big War Criminal treatment, placing him in the cell adjacent to Adolf Eichmann's. He writes his life story and, once this task finished, hangs himself on the typewriter's ribbons without getting sooty the least bit.<br /><br />While I can see that there must be an issue of guilt and of loss, I just had the impression that the main character is a person who at all times is pretty indifferent to everything and hardly capable of love for anyone. So I found it difficult to sympathize for this looser who mourns his loss. Amazingly, many reviewers focus on his status as a potential war hero, having put his reputation at stake for playing the Last Free American. I assume according to them this took a lot of courage. As a matter of fact, however, the movie suggests that by accepting the assignment Campbell created for himself a win-win situation, as he would have been politically on the safe side no matter who had won the war. The danger of his being uncovered never comes up during the first part of the story.<br /><br />One might argue, that the whole story is a dreamlike fantasy and that nobody should bother with historical accuracy or a logical development of the story which explains everything. But even then it fails to make a point, primarily, I suspect, because the love affair in the Republic of Two falls completely flat. This is a pity, especially if you consider that the wife was played by Sheryl Lee, a talented, versatile and sensuous actress. She has much too little screen time and is forced to use a ridiculous German accent. Another somehow neglected aspect are the different texts (confession, broadcast and hidden messages), but I guess this is largely unfilmable. Maybe I should give the book a chance.
This was an awful movie! Not for the subject matter, but for the delivery. I went with my girlfriend at the time (when the movie came out), expecting to see a movie about the triumph of the human spirit over oppression. What we saw was 2 hours of brutal police oppression, with no uplift at the end. The previews and ads made NO mention of this! Plus, for all that they played up whoopi goldberg, my recollection is that she is arrested and killed in the first 20 minutes! Again, the previews say nothing about this! (not that you would expect that, but it's just more of the problem). If I had known how depressing this movie would be, I would've never have seen it. Or at least, I would've been prepared for it. This was a bait and switch ad campaign, and I will NEVER see this movie again!
The concept for Sarafina appears to be a sound one, that is aside from the musical perspective. It attempts to combine upbeat African music with a story describing the atrocious conditions and atmosphere that black people were forced to endure at the time the film was set. The contradictions of each of the two elements are too glaring and the film never justifies such rapid shifts between jubilation and terror. Had it simply been a drama reflecting these conditions it may have been a good film, however the scenes of school children being shot down by soldiers don't exactly sit well next to the songs. <br /><br />Aside from the poor premise the acting isn't the best either, Goldberg gives a mediocre performance as does the remainder of the cast. Overall a disappointment.<br /><br />3/10
I just didn't get this movie...Was it a musical? no..but there were choreographed songs and dancing in it...<br /><br />Was it a serious drama....no the acting was not good enough for that.<br /><br />Is Whoopi Goldberg a quality serious Actor..Definently not.<br /><br />I had difficulty staying awake through this disjointed movie. The message on apartheid and the "tribute" to the students who died during a student uprosing is noted. But as entertainment this was very poor and as a documentary style movie it was worse.<br /><br />See for yourself, but in fairness I hated it
One scene demonstrates the mentality of "Terminator Woman" pretty well: Karen Sheperd and another woman are trying to escape from the villain's camp. Karen runs across an armed guard, who points his gun at her, but after a few seconds throws it away and challenges her to a fight. Karen kicks him in the balls, picks up the gun and runs away! Then again, when a film is directed by a martial artist and written / produced by another member of his family, you know you shouldn't expect too much. Karen Sheperd and Jerry Trimble do get some amusing banter going early on, and the film might have turned out better if it had focused more on their love-hate relationship. But after about 20 minutes they get separated, and the film slows to a crawl, and even with the occasional fight scene to liven things up, it lacks excitement. The finale has Trimble fighting Qissi inside a cave and Sheperd going womano-a-womano against the beautiful Ashley Hayden on a speedboat, but the fights are intercut in a way that breaks their flow and diminishes their value. On the positive side, kudos to the costuming department for giving Karen the chance to show spectacular cleavage throughout the film! (*1/2)
This film has got several key flaws. The first and most significant of which is the clear lack of a good plot! This sadly makes the film not only difficult to watch but also sends the watcher certain feelings of hopelessness, as if he or she is wasting valuable time of their short life. This means that the film cannot captivate it's audience, instead it encourages the viewing public to grow contempt for the film and everything associated with it! In short, it really is very very very very very very very BAD! Do yourself a favour and chew on a large rubber shoe, you'll find it far more interesting and enjoyable than watching Terminator Woman.
You may want to know up front that I am not a Mormon, unlike a good number of those who have already reviewed this film. I mention this so you'll understand that the way I look at the film may differ greatly from those in the faith. For some, being critical of the film might be seen as being critical of the faith--and that is NOT my intention. So, my review is that of an outsider trying to look inside and learn more about who this man and his people were. Well, after seeing the film, I doubt if I have learned much at all. Since I have been a history teacher, I have a good basic understanding about Young as well as Joseph Smith as well as the teachings of the church. But anyone wanting to see this film to really learn anything will probably be disappointed because the film seems so gosh-darn nice--too nice and too unrealistic in its portrayal. Plus, you learn practically nothing about the church's beliefs other than they are nice people, work hard and some have many wives (and this latter part is only barely hinted at in the film). Instead, the people are almost cartoon-like in their simplistic portrayals. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and their followers are angelic, the non-Mormons were all devils and Brian Donlevy (playing EXACTLY the same sort of role Edward G. Robinson later played in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS) is the trouble-maker who claims to be a Mormon but just comes along so the film can have a bad guy. It's all so very simple....too simple. Almost like an indoctrination film or infomercial.<br /><br />Brigham Young especially was a very complex man--with many good points (an excellent organizer and visionary) as well as bad (don't even get me started on his views about Blacks within the church or intermarriage). To portray him in such vague terms is just plain silly. It's also a lot like how Gandhi was portrayed in the film with Ben Kingsley--only the facts that led to his being almost super-human were emphasized. Heck, now that I think about that, this is the trouble with most religious films--they often come off as one-dimensional, trite and bland. Let's have a full and more complete film of these men--one that will stick to facts and not emotional appeals.<br /><br />Now if you can ignore the fact that you won't learn very much about the faith or its second leader, the film is enjoyable enough. It's obvious someone at 20th Century-Fox really cared about the film, as they had a wonderful cast of both premier actors (Tyrone Power), up and coming actors (Linda Darnell, Jane Darwell and Vincent Price) and wonderful character actors (Dean Jagger, John Carradine and Brian Donlevy). The film also had wonderful location shooting and lots of gloss. It just didn't have a lot to tell us other than they were all "swell". Plus, there were plenty of factual errors and a few just plain dumb scenes. A few of the mistakes include Young taking over the helm immediately after the death of Joseph Smith (it was three years later), no mention of the various Mormon denominations and splinter groups, talk of "gold in California"--even though it was 1847 and gold wouldn't be discovered until 1948, as well as no specific mention of polygamy or Smith's many wives. Just plain dumb scenes include Carradine pulling out a gun and waving it about in the courtroom scene--and no one seemed to care--even though it was a very hostile audience! Don't you think at least the judge would tell him to put it away and stop threatening people with it?!<br /><br />One final comment. Do not, I repeat, do not watch this film when it's shown on American Movie Classics (a one great station that has sunk a lot in recent years). While I am critical of the film because of its simplistic message, I was horrified with the complete disrespect the station had for the church and its traditions. What I mean is this. The film was punctuated with ads for penis enlargement formulas as well as tons of pop-ups (some advertising a show that features the "sexiest cast"). Talk about disrespectful and gross and I would be just as offended if they did this for any other religious film. By doing this, they not only insult the faith but marginalize their market--after all, who is into hearing about these things AND the life of Brigham Young?! Is this a movie, in this form, that you can show to your kids or recommend to others?!
This film, though ostensibly a comedy, is deadly serious. Its subject is Imperialism (with a capital I): how Britain, foolishly, humiliatingly, tries to convince itself that it's still a great power after World War II. At home, the Empire is run by amiable dolts, benevolent Tories who are so in-bred that they can't distinguish close relatives; the Offices of Government consist of long forgotten archives (a dig at Orwellian paranoia?), inhabited by indolent rats, and ante-rooms wherein lounge bored synacures, reading popular novels.<br /><br />Abroad, Britain clings to the old pomp; but pomp out of context looks threadbare and silly, especially when its embodied in bumbling twits. Carlton-Browne is an unsentimental picture of decline, with none of the lachrymose rot that marred the supposedly anti-imperialist Jewel in the Crown.<br /><br />The film is also about the Cold War, bravely admitting that it's a dangerous farce, whose participants deserve mockery and contempt, not fear and respect. It's about how colonialism, characterised more by neglect than tyranny, destroys the colonies it deserts, robbing them of amenities, power, and, most importantly, self-respect, leaving them vulnerable to the machinations of dangerous cowboys.<br /><br />It's the seriousness, of course, that kills it. That's not to say that weighty subjects can't be treated in comedy - The Miracle Of Morgan's Creek, Dr. Strangelove and The Life Of Brian have all proved that. Indeed, one might suggest that serious themes should only be treated by comedy - it allows for a clearer-eyed view.<br /><br />The problem with Carlton-Browne is that every situation must have a significance beyond the merely comic, so that it becomes weighed down and unfunny. In the three films mentioned above, much of the comedy arises from character reaction to an extreme situation, not the extreme situation itself. Here, the script is too poor to sustain rich comic characterisations, and some of the greatest comedy talent ever assembled - Peter Sellers, Terry-Thomas, Raymond Huntley and John le Mesurier - are criminally wasted.<br /><br />Terry-Thomas, sublime so often, shows that he couldn't handle lead parts, and that he needed to play sneering, arrogant bounders, not brainless toffs. The music is made to carry much of the comedy, but its heavy irony only draws attention to the lack of hilarity on screen. (To be fair, unlike the majority of British comedies of the period, which were stagy and underproduced, the Boultings often try to make their points through film itself, by montage and composition) Only Huntley manages to raise genuine laughs, and that's by essaying a character he could have played in his sleep.<br /><br />None of the Boultings' farces have dated well - they're never thought through enough. Although Carlton-Browne revels in the decline of the Empire, it also seems to be anti-democratic and militaristic. I'm sure this wasn't intended, but these blunders are bound to happen if you allow worthy intentions to take precedence over comic intelligence and film form.
The main reason people still care about "Carlton-Browne Of The F.O." is that it features Peter Sellers in a second-billed role. But watching this film to see Peter Sellers is a mistake.<br /><br />Sellers plays Amphibulos, a vaguely reptilian prime minister of the dirt-poor island nation of Gaillardia, formerly a British colony, now hosting a lot of Russian diggers during the height of the Cold War. Amphibulos wants to play both U.K. and Soviet interests against each other for easy profit, "everything very friendly and all our cards under the table". Terry-Thomas is the title character, a lazy British diplomat anxious to show Gaillardia that Great Britain hasn't forgotten them, all appearances to the contrary.<br /><br />A positive review here says: "The reason this movie is considered average is because the comedy is understated." I would argue that the reason "Carlton-Browne" is considered below average is because the comedy is non-existent.<br /><br />After a decent opening that establishes the film's only two strengths, a sympathetically doltish Terry-Thomas and John Addison's full-on larky score, things quickly slow down into a series of slow burns and lame miscommunication jokes. The low opinion of Carlton-Browne by his boss and the obscurity of Gaillardia (which no one can find on a map) is milked to death. By the time we actually reach the island (after a labored series of airsick jokes), expectations are quite low.<br /><br />They're still too high, though. The island itself, which seems to exist either in Latin America or the Mediterranean, is so pathetic its honor guard faints at the airport, and the review stand falls apart in the middle of a parade. The army is apparently still horse drawn, allowing for another lame aural gag by a thick-accented announcer: "In war, the army uses many horse."<br /><br />Sellers never quite takes center stage even when we're on his character's island. The plot is taken over instead by Ian Bannen as King Loris, who inherits the throne of Gaillardia after his father's assassination. Bannen is dull and plays his part as straight as it is written. Normally this would make him the likely target for scene-stealing by Sellers, but trapped behind a thick accent and greasy moustache, Sellers is only a threat to those of us who remember him far more happily in two other films made this same year, "The Mouse That Roared" and "I'm All Right, Jack."<br /><br />Strange that this film, like "Jack", was a Boulting Brothers production, with Roy Boulting here serving as co-director alongside Jeffrey Dell. Usually Boulting films combine wicked social satire with anything-goes comedy, but here there are only fey jabs in either direction. Amphibulos works his mangled-English vibe for all its worth ("This man is like, how do you say, the bull in the Chinese ship") while Carlton-Browne is generally ragged on by his superior far more than he seems to deserve.<br /><br />The weakest and most protracted element of the film is young Loris's romance with Ilyena. Score one point for her being played by ravishing Luciana Paluzzi, dock one for the fact that they are apparently cousins is never addressed.<br /><br />The film winds up with a lamely staged revolution whose surprise resolution will surprise no one, and a final bit of action by Carlton-Browne that would seem to nail the lid on his coffin literally. Apparently he lives to see another day, but the film of the same name is strictly DOA.
It was meant to be a parody on the LOTR-Trilogy. But this was one of the most awful movies I've ever seen. Bad acting, bad screenplay, bad everything. THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION. I don't doubt any second that there are people who'll like this sense of "humor", but there have been better parodies on movies from acclaimed directors as Mel Brooks or the Zucker Brothers. I'm working in a movie theater and in DVD Shop and the success for this movie was similar in both areas: At the movies it was a nice (but no big at all) success during the first two weeks but then, when the reviews of those who have seen it were not too good, the movie dropped very fast. In DVD sales it was good for short time but then nobody asked for it anymore. In the last ten years, the two worst movies I've seen are The Ring Thing and Torque. I can't decide which one was worse, but I'm happy that there a so many good movies so I don't have to think too much on this question.
This movie is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. There is absolutely no storyline, the gags are only for retards and there is absolutely nothing else that would make this movie worth watching. In the whole movie Fredi (oh my god what a funny name. ha ha) doesn't ask himself ONCE how he came from a plane to middle earth. There are plenty of stupid and totally unfunny characters whose names should sound funny. e.g. : Gandalf is called Almghandi, Sam is called Pupsi ... and so on. I didn't even smile once during the whole movie. The gags seem like they were made by people whose IQ is negative. If you laugh when someone's coat is trapped in the door (this happens about 5 times) then this movie is perhaps for you. Another funny scene: They try to guess the code word for a closed door (don't ask why- don't ever ask "why" in this movie) and the code word is (ha ha): dung. So if you laughed at this examples you might like this movie. For everybody else: Go to Youtube and watch "Lord of the Weed": it's a lot, lot more fun.
This sounded like a really interesting movie from the blurb. Nazis, occult , government conspiracies. I was expecting a low budget Nazi version of the DaVinci code or the Boys from Brazil or even Shockwaves. Instead you get something quite different, more psychological, more something like from David Lynch. That was actually a plus. But the way the story is told is just awful.<br /><br />Part of the trouble is the casting. Andrienne Barbeau's character starts off the moving being somewhat timid and afraid. She just doesn't do that well, even at her age, though she certainly tried. The actor cast as the son apparently thought this was a comedy. Most of the other actors also seemed to have thought this was a campy movie, or at least acted like it, rather than simply being quirky. The only one that I thought did really well was the daughter, Siri Baruc.<br /><br />Another big part is the pacing. It starts off very slowly. So slowly you might be tempted to turn it off. But then it gets compelling for a while when you get to the daughter's suicide and the aftermath. But shortly afterward, it all becomes a jumbled mess. Some of this was on purpose, but much of it was just needlessly confusing, monotonous, and poorly focused.<br /><br />The real problem, is it's simply not a pleasant movie to watch. It's slow, dull, none of the characters are likable. Overuse of imagery and sets. Some movies you see characters get tortured. In this, it's the viewer that does. It does have a few creepy moments, most notably the creepy Nazi paintings and the credits, but the rest of the movie is mostly just tiresome.
This is a movie of tired, yet weirdly childish, clichés. There's a Nazi witch master performing sf-related experiments in the basement? Oh please! <br /><br />Aiming for a creeping sense of horror and fear, the general impression of the film is that of a very immature conception of fright. Not having any expectations beforehand, I am left with: an aged Xander from Buffy and a heroine with ape-like face who doesn't seem to know how to act. Said Adrienne Barbeau have I only only encountered before in the much more enjoyable "Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death".<br /><br />Camera and editing adds to the general impression of lame.
Can I please say first of all, that I felt so strongly about this movie that I signed up to IMDb specifically to review it. And my review? This is easily the worst movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />The synopsis of the movie sounded interesting- Nazis, occult, time travel, etc., but the movies plot failed to properly bring all these elements together. Remember the episode of South Park that featured manatees writing Family Guy using 'idea balls'? Did these manatees also write Unholy? Its like the writer wanted to include all these different ideas, but had no idea how to link them all together, and then to make things make even less sense, included a Donnie Darko-esquire time travel theme to the ending, messing up the chronology.<br /><br />I could tell from early on that this was a bad movie. Special effects were too low budget for anything better than straight to DVD. The acting wasn't great, but in fairness I've seen worse. I will praise the Nazi paintings, they were creepy, but the evil Nazi butcher guy was just comic.<br /><br />I don't have a vendetta against this movie or anything, but to be honest, I'm not even into the horror genre. But this movie cannot be described as a thriller or a drama. If this story had been well told, this would have been a good movie. But it has been over hyped. Waaaaay over hyped.
When I started watching this movie I saw the dude from Buffy, Xander, and figured ah how nice that he's still making a living acting in movies. Now a weird movie I can stand, given that it's a good dose of weird like for example David Lynch movies, twin peaks, lost highway etc. And you sort of have to be in the mood for one. This one however made me mockingly remember the crazy websites about there about conspiracy theory's that make absolutely no sense. I mean come on people Nazi's who conspire with America to make an unholy trinity of evil powers? I was surprised they didn't mention the hollow earth in this movie with Hitler flying saucers and lizard people. Maybe if you had like 60 grams of heroine with this movie it would make some sort of sense, but seriously I don't condone drugs like I don't condone this movie. It should be burned, shredded and forgotten just so good ol' Xander might get another acting job. It wasn't his acting though, that was alright, but the script just didn't make any sense. Sorry.
I'm not sure this is a spoiler; perhaps it is a public service. If you are one of those people focused on instant gratification who skip end credits, you will miss the final line of the end credits news announcer's voice-over, which states the U.S. has just surrendered to Nazi Germany on May 7, 1945 to end WWII. Here are just a few of the problems with this close: <br /><br />1)The older viewer must conjure up the equivalent of two or three more UNHOLY movies in their mind's eye to fill in the yawning chasm between movie events and this startling conclusion.<br /><br />2)The average person will really kick themselves that they did not "watch" one of these UNHOLY fill-in-the-blanks flicks created in their own head for free, instead of shelling out time and money to see this UNHOLY from the video store (or on cable).<br /><br />3)This end credits sequence of imagined news bulletins may be the first information some younger viewers are exposed to about WWII, leading them to the conclusion that George W. Bush is the latest heir to the Nazi throne.
I read Rice's novel with interest, and became quite enchanted with its characters and heartbreaking tale based on historical truths.<br /><br />However, I was simply APPALLED at this disastrous adaptation. The casting was based merely on physical appearance, and not acting talent (with the obvious exception of Peter Gallagher, who was neither blond-haired, or able to act his way out of a wet paper bag). The cast's embarrassingly clumsy and inconsistent attempts at affecting a French accent was hilarious, but not in an entertaining way. I found myself wincing through this muddled and melodramatic tripe, and was surprised I made it to the end.<br /><br />A warning to fans of the novel - stay away from this one.
This movie was so badly written, directed and acted that it beggars belief. It should be remade with a better script, director and casting service. The worst problem is the acting. You have Jennifer Beals on the one hand who is polished, professional and totally believable, and on the other hand, Ri'chard, who is woefully miscast and just jarring in this particular piece. Peter Gallagher and Jenny Levine are just awful as the slave owning (and keeping) couple, although both normally do fine work. The actors (and director) should not have attempted to do accents at all--they are inconsistent and unbelievable. Much better to have concentrated on doing a good job in actual English. The casting is ludicrous. Why have children of an "African" merchant (thus less socially desirable to the gens de couleur society ) been cast with very pale skinned actors, while the supposedly socially desirable Marcel, has pronounced African features, including an obviously dyed blond "fro"? It's as if the casting directors cannot be bothered to read the script they are casting and to chose appropriate actors from a large pool of extremely talented and physically diverse actors of color. It's just so weird! This could be a great movie and should be re-made, but with people who respect the material and can choose appropriate and skilled actors. There are plenty of good actors out there, and it would be fun to see how Jennifer Beals, Daniel Sunjata and Gloria Reuben would do with an appropriate cast, good script and decent direction.
The story and the show were good, but it was really depressing and I hate depressing movies. Ri'Chard is great. He really put on a top notch performance, and the girl who played his sister was really awesome and gorgeous. Seriously, I thought she was Carmen Electra until I saw the IMDb profile. I can't say anything bad about Peter Galleghar. He's one of my favorite actors. I love Anne Rice. I'm currently reading the Vampire Chronicles, but I'm glad I saw the movie before reading the book. This is a little too"real" for me. I prefer Lestat and Louis's witty little tiffs to the struggles of slaves. Eartha Kitt was so creepy and after her character did what she did The movie was ruined for me; I could barely stand to watch the rest of the show. (sorry for the ambiguity, but I don't want to give anything away) Sorry, but it's just not my type of show.
"Feast of All Saints?" Where...? When...?<br /><br />Was the Feast of All Saints storyline and theme edited out? <br /><br />What a waste of a wonderful title! There is never anything in the story that has the remotest connection to the "Feast of All Saints." Nor is there anything in the story about "All Souls Day" which the term is referencing. Why bother to use this title if you never intend to including any kind of storyline or theme about "All Souls Day" or the "Feast of All Saints"? <br /><br />Embarrassly Bad Script & Amateur Writing <br /><br />How did they attract such great talent to this clunker? The writing is so amateur--characters that have known each other all their life go into big long speeches about their life history for the sake of the audience. Not at all the way people talk to each other. <br /><br />What was the Director Thinking?<br /><br />The directing is equally bad! The forced and overly deliberate style feels amateurish. In one scene, a character is yelling "Take your hands off of me" and NO ONE is touching him! The most badly directed scene however, is the incredibly over-the-top battle scene at the beginning of the film.<br /><br />Excessive Gore in a Very Fake, Silly Battle Scene<br /><br />There are so many dead people in the most fake battle scene. It looks like a Saturday Night Live skit!! You can see extras waiting for their cues to walk across camera. Everyone plays their death scene like 4th grade boys--exaggerating every little gasp and twitch. The blood on battle victims is so excessive and carelessly applied it looks like someone used a ketchup dispenser and just squirted straight lines of red on the costumes.<br /><br />This whole battle scene comes off as the spoof of a really cheesy war movie. You almost expect someone like Will Ferrell and Mike Myers to ride up on a horse and deliver the punchline.<br /><br />Who in Real Life Would Ever Behave this Way?! <br /><br />The most ridiculous bit of writing, directing and casting is actually the focus of the scene: <br /><br />A little girl is standing under the dead body of her hanging father--who is terribly mutilated, and literally dripping blood form his gaping wounds. Even a totally idiot would know he is dead! Yet she is--very monotonously--repeating over and over "Daddy, daddy..." while looking at someone off-screen. She delivered it with about as much believability and passion as you could expect from an non-actor kid that had been repeating the line for the cameras all day.<br /><br />Even if the poor kid had any acting skills, the scene is completely unbelievable. The little girl wouldn't even BE in the middle of the battlefield after hours of carnage--surrounded by hundreds of dead bodies, while she calmly stands there!! Natural instincts would had the kid screaming and terrified, running AWAY from the bloody carnage! <br /><br />Are we Suppose to be Horrified or Laugh...?!<br /><br />One particularly goofy detail, that gives the scene an SNL satire tone, is the father hanging, with a huge hook through his mouth and cheek. He looks like a fish on a hook! The unintentionally funny details, make the whole scene come across as fake and silly.<br /><br />In Fantasy La-La-Land, Mothers and Daughters are the Same Age! <br /><br />Another funny detail, is that you see a central character--the little girl's mother--at the end of the scene and in the next scene, that occurs 20+ years later, she looks exactly the same! She is still young and beautiful, and now the same age as her daughter! <br /><br />I almost turned the movie off right there because the direction and writing were obviously awful--but I tried to stick it out because I wanted to see the Louisiana settings and I like all the actors. I don't know what these fine actors were thinking when they accepted these roles!<br /><br />Who was the Targeted Audience?<br /><br />The excessive amount of blood and badly acted violence in the opening scene are weirdly out of place with the soap opera storytelling tone that follows. It is also a strange way to start a movie that, for the rest of the time, seems targeted to romance novel reading females. Weird inconsistency in tone!
The story and the show were good, but it was really depressing and I hate depressing movies. Ri'Chard is great. He really put on a top notch performance, and the girl who played his sister was really awesome and gorgeous. Seriously, I thought she was Carmen Electra until I saw the IMDb profile. I can't say anything bad about Peter Galleghar. He's one of my favorite actors. I love Anne Rice. I'm currently reading the Vampire Chronicles, but I'm glad I saw the movie before reading the book. This is a little too"real" for me. I prefer Lestat and Louis's witty little tiffs to the struggles of slaves. Eartha Kitt was so creepy and after her character did what she did The movie was ruined for me; I could barely stand to watch the rest of the show. (sorry for the ambiguity, but I don't want to give anything away) Sorry, but it's just not my type of show.
There's so little here of the fantastic Anne Rice book that what IS here makes no sense. Some of the characters--intense and surprising characters--don't make it to the screen at all, and those who do are watered down to the point that there's no reason for their existence.<br /><br />Where's the relationship between Christophe and Marcel? Where's the continued affair between Marcel and Juliet? Why does Dolly Rose appear at all, since her story's never explained? Where's the rape and redemption of Marie, whose greatest attribute (and downfall) is that she can pass for white--and her marriage to Richard? Why does the film end with Marcel's beating at the hands of his father? We learn nothing of Aglae beyond that she's a bitch who hates her husband; why no backstory explaining this hatred? <br /><br />As for the performances, there's not a one that's better than mediocre, though that's likely due to the lousy script. Best of the lot is that of the actor playing Richard--but Richard's not on screen enough to salvage the film. Worst is Jasmine Guy as Dolly Rose, though again, it comes down to the actress having nothing to do with what little she's given to work with.<br /><br />All in all, this is just terrible. I thought it'd be impossible for any Anne Rice book-turned film to be worse than EXIT TO EDEN, but FEAST OF ALL SAINTS makes that mess look like a critical hit. How is it that Rice is such a slut she'll allow her best works to become such junk on the screen?
A slick romanticizing of the sexual exploitation of NewOrleans black women by white men of power and privilege. Ooh. Does that whet your appetite? Well, then, belly up to a VHS or DVD and gorge on this gratuitous trolling through a seamy segment of history. For good measure, it's adapted from the book by celebrated hack Anne Rice. The directing is as cloying and melodramatic as the cheesy dialog. Most of acting is amateurish. The production's sole worthwhile note is that it employed practically a dozen black actors, all of whom have scarcely been in employed in today's market (Jasmine Guy, Ben Vereen, Pam Grier, Eartha Kitt), including some faces that have barely been seen at all (Bianca Lawson, Rachel Cuttrell). It also is, despite itself, a sterling showcase for Nicole Lyn. The pompous and ponderous James Earl Jones is on-hand as well. So, is the late Ossie Davis, a minimal talent who owes his success to having been affiliated with the legendary Negro Ensemble Company. This film should be rated "T" for tripe.
College students, who are clearing out a condemned dormitory, are stalked by an elusive killer.<br /><br />The Dorm That Dripped Blood (aka Pranks) is a bit of a mixed bag for slasher fans. The movies production values are pretty low and the story for the most part is pretty routine, there's even a creepy bum hanging around for a red herring. In fact much of the story's build-up is pretty forgettable, save for one or two brutal murders. But the movie is really made better by its surprisingly intense climax (in an atmospheric setting) and one fairly bold, unconventional conclusion.<br /><br />The cast is lackluster for the most part. Stephen Sachs is the best of the lot as he does a pretty nice turn in character. Also look for a young Daphne Zuniga as an ill-fated student.<br /><br />Over all this is a pretty standard B slasher effort, but the finale is well worth savoring and for this viewer saved the movie from being a complete ho-hum.<br /><br />** out of ****
Daphne Zuniga is the only light that shines in this sleepy slasher, and the light fades quickly. If not her, than what other reason to watch this. five college kids are signed up to prepare an old dorm for its due date of demolition. Problems are automatically occurring when a weird homeless man is soliciting, and the group are short a few people. Then, a killer is on the loose. I honestly wanted to say I was going to enjoy this one. It had a fair set up, or maybe that was just Daphne Zuniga in it. The film is too slow, and almost as silent as a library. Most of the acting is below average, and the "point-of-view" moments are so old news. Acclaimed composer Christopher Young of such films as "Hellraiser" and "Entrapment" scored this, in a repetitive cue line that was better made for a TV movie. Still, it seems higher than the movie deserves. So, other than Young and Zuniga, this one scrapes the bottom of the barrel.
Over Christmas break, a group of college friends stay behind to help prepare the dorms to be torn down and replaced by apartment buildings. To make the work a bit more difficult, a murderous, Chucks-wearing psycho is wandering the halls of the dorm, preying on the group in various violent ways.<br /><br />Registered as one of the 74 'video nasties' listed by the U.K. in the 1980s, The Dorm That Dripped Blood had a good reputation built up for it prior to first viewing. The term 'video nasty' strikes into mind some images of some great explicit gore, violence, sex, etc.: All the things a horror fan dreams of. So, after hearing all of that info, I settled into Pranks (alt. title) expecting a sleazy slasher experience. . . and that's what it tried to be, but failed pretty much completely. Visually, the film's not great. The cinematography, gore (except for a couple scenes), and overall direction all fail. It's simply not enjoyable to watch. The unoriginal script is lacking and often throws in random things without any real reason (like the opening kill). There are some cool death scenes, including a pretty nice face melt (which can be seen on the poster), but that's about it for the positive. The acting is pretty bad, the story seems unimportant, the killer isn't cool or scary, and it suffers the one major error that any slasher flick should always avoid: it's a bit boring. Overall, for a film done by a few UCLA film students for $90,000 (which would be over double that today), The Dorm That Dripped Blood isn't a total mess. It has a couple good things, and is fairly watchable. . . But, as a slasher flick looking to be on the level of films like The House on Sorority Row and Pieces. . . it just cannot compare. Don't expect much, and you may at least be entertained. I hate to say it, but this is one of the few films I've seen that would actually be better with a remake. . . and yet, they go after great works like Black Christmas. Oh well. . .<br /><br />Obligatory Horror Elements:<br /><br />- Subgenre: Slasher<br /><br />- Violence/Gore: There are some brutally cool kills, and the gore is okay for the most part. . . but nothing special. Also, they off-screened some of the best murders.<br /><br />- Sex/Nudity: There's a little unappealing (to me) nudity, but not very much.<br /><br />- Cool Killer(s): Nah. The ending monologue(s) of the killer made him/her pretty uncool.<br /><br />- Scares/Suspense: A jump scare or two, but nothing too effective.<br /><br />- Mystery: I suppose, yeah, but I simply didn't care enough, and it's as obvious as the nose on the killer's face.<br /><br />- - -<br /><br />Final verdict: 3.75/10. Bah! Humbug! <br /><br />-AP3-
I'm not looking for quality; I'm just trying to get through the 74 famous video nasties that were banned in Britain. This one was initially banned and re-released in 2001 with a whole 10 seconds cut.<br /><br />Some college kids spend their Christmas vacation preparing a dorm for renovation. There are some creepy characters lurking about along with the four kids. Which of them is the slasher? The actual killings are not very gory, so this video nastie is not really nasty. There is the requisite flashing of the boobies, but it has nothing to do with the college kids.<br /><br />I had a suspect very quickly and I turned out to be right. Maybe I've seen too many of these. The end twist was clever; I have to give the writers credit for that bit of originality.
Probably one of the most boriest slasher movies ever, badly acted and badly written.<br /><br />THE PLOT Five students staying behind during the holidays closing down a dorm, but somebody has designs on them and starts killing them off one by one, the main suspect is the creepy groundskeeper John Hemmitt played by Woody Roll, or could it be one of the five characters.<br /><br />ACTING Not that bad not that great either apart from Daphne Zungia who dies way too quickly and should have been the main heroine, and the rest well quite dull although Laura Lapinski the main heroine sometimes has her charm and you do feel sorry for her in the end.<br /><br />THE KILLS Can't really see why they banned this, the kills look fake mostly, one guy has his hand sliced in half in the beginning which looks really fake, but the others are quite nasty like one girl gets her head run over by a car, one girl gets boiled alive and another gets burned alive.<br /><br />OVERALL Not really a great slasher could have been a lot better
An uninteresting addition to the stalk 'n slash cycle which dominated the horror genre in the 1980's. This was filmed as Pranks but released as The Dorm That Dripped Blood which is an obvious steal from the 1970 horror anthology The House That Dripped Blood. Daphne Zuniga is the only recognisable face in the cast and this was her first horror movie (she has also appeared in The Initiation and The Fly II).
The two things are are good about this film are it's two unknown celebrities.<br /><br />First, Daphne Zuniga, in her first appearance in a film, young and supple, with looks that still encompass her body today, steals the very beginning, which is all she is in, and that is that. She is obviously just starting out because her acting improved with her next projects.<br /><br />Second, the score by then known composer Christopher(Chris) Young is what keeps this stinker from getting a one star...yeah, I know one star more is not much, but in this movie's case, it is a lot.<br /><br />The rest is just stupid senseless horror of a couple a college students who try to clean out a dorm that is due for being torn down, getting offed one by one by an unsuspecting killer, blah, blah, blah...we all know where this is going.<br /><br />Watch the first eighteen minutes with Daphne Zuniga, then turn it off.
Eh, not a particular good slasher flick. So-so acting, effects, decent yet familiar and uninventive soundtrack.<br /><br />There are three deaths in close succession near the beginning of the movie that make for a fairly good scene in which it would seem anything goes. Apart from that, there's a lot of characters wandering around, not realizing what's going on, or chasing after red herrings; more killing of time, than of people. There are other deaths, and the killer is an equal opportunity murderer, not partial to any one implement. The killer also likes to set other people up to kill innocent people as well. The identity isn't revealed towards the end, and motive is pretty thin, and we really don't care.<br /><br />Supposedly the movie takes place around Christmas, but this isn't a major factor. One scene gets lit by Christmas lights, that's about it.<br /><br />The movie is rather dark with a muddy picture most of the time, at least on the videotape I watched. Some of the dialog got a little lost in some of the opening scenes. The ending should have been stronger than it was. We think we realize what happened, although there's a chance something else did.
I heard so much about this movie how it was a great slasher and one of those early 80's movies that die hard fans of most slasher movies just had to see. Well, I rented it and I have to say that although it kept my attention as far as the suspense goes for most slasher films such as "April Fools Day", "Friday 13th" and "Prom Night", this film could have been right up there with the above mentioned only it lacked true enthusiasm and potential from the characters as well as the on going story. Characters that I found were unfortunate to be in this movie was the weirdo guy with the frizzy hair that kept creeping around the dorm and of course leading up to his true climatic role during the end with he faces the killer. Another would be the dirty scruffy looking guy with the jean jacket, he could have played more roles in this movie that might have made the movie more interesting, instead, the movie played this guy as just another loser out there making unknown calls while he sleeps with his girlfriend and then drops his part and cuts him off until the end which was a waste, I was disappointed in his part in the end. As far as the true identity of the killer goes, when the identity was released as to who he was, I just laughed, but it was all to obvious and he really made a true jerk out of himself as well as an annoying character after his true intentions were revealed. This movie should be one to at least watch once for all slasher fans but don't spend your hard earned money on it in some rare hard to find collectors inventory.
It's the early 80s. There's a group of suspiciously old-looking teens. And there's a maniac stalking around. Yes, this is slasherville.<br /><br />This movie is called Pranks. Why is it called Pranks? I haven't the faintest idea. Unless your idea of a great prank is to repeatedly hit someone's dinner with a baseball bat - on balance, not a great prank; in fact quite a rubbish prank if truth be told. But there you go.<br /><br />The film itself concerns a group of teenagers who are tasked with cleaning out a decommissioned dormitory. They become aware that a psychopath is on the loose. To combat this development, they split up and wander about in the dark. It ends in tears for most of them.<br /><br />Pranks is a badly made slasher movie. The DVD release I viewed was the Vipco one. It appears to be cut of a fair bit of violence. This makes the DVD even more pointless because, let's face it, a slasher movie shorn of violence is a waste of time. For slasher-film and video nasty completists only.
((NB: Spoiler warning, such as it is!))<br /><br />First off, this is a teen slasher flick -- the Spam-In-A-Cabin genre, as Joe Bob Briggs piquantly put it. If you're looking for Roshambo, this isn't it and wasn't going to BE it. I'm desperately unimpressed by stabs at its cinematography, directing or acting performances.<br /><br />Secondly, this wasn't Zuniga's first horror flick, it was her first screen appearance period, cinema, TV, whatever. For what it is worth; neither is Daphne Zuniga Susan Sarandon or Katherine Hepburn.<br /><br />Thirdly, you have to give even a lame slasher flick props. Sure, it follows the deeply insulting formulaic message of its genre: any young woman having or showing interest in sex is beef on the hoof, and the harvest time is now.<br /><br />Except this one gives the chop to the sweet, virginal protagonist as well! Now THERE is a mediocre teen death film that has the courage of its convictions! Interesting that this was said ingenue's only film role. Another One Hit Wonder, except that term gives the lass too much credit.<br /><br />(Then again, this film probably has one of the highest percentage of one-movie actors in history. Of the nineteen credited actors, a whopping thirteen never appeared in any other film. Three appeared in one other movie by the same producers. Only one other besides Zuniga has as many as six screen credits. What was this, the Has Been And Never Were Mutual Aid Society?)<br /><br />Granted, I saw this a long time ago on late night cable when I was bored and never anticipate being that bored in my life again, but I see no reason to hunt down everyone involved and toss them in the incinerator with Joanne.<br /><br />2/10.
One of a multitude of slashers that appeared in the early eighties, Pranks is notable only for an early performance by Daphne Zuniga (The Sure Thing, The Fly 2); her character dies fairly early on, and the rest of the film is totally forgettable.<br /><br />During their Christmas break, a group of students volunteer to clear a condemned college building of its furniture. A crazy killer, however, throws a spanner in the works by methodically bumping off the youngsters one by one in a variety of gruesome ways.<br /><br />Exploiting every stalk 'n' slash cliché in the book, director Jeffrey Obrow delivers a tedious and unexciting horror that had me praying for the characters to be killed, so that I could get on with watching something more worthwhile. The majority of the deaths (which, let's face it, is why we generally watch this kind of film) are brief and not that gory; the only truly grisly imagery comes right at the end when the bodies of the victims are discovered by the remaining survivor (there is one notably bloody dismembered corpse—the film could've done with more).<br /><br />At the last minute, the film saves itself from the disgrace of receiving the lowest possible score from me by having a nice unexpectedly downbeat ending, but this really is one for slasher completists only.
This one probably does not fit in the bottom of the barrel of mediocre Slasher movies but it's surely a damn bad movie.<br /><br />The Holiday premise made it kind of interesting but after the first scenes the movie demonstrates it's poor production values and stupid plot. I mean, the sub-genre was at the moment all about an unseen maniac slashing teens for no apparent reasons but this one took it too far. There is absolutely no coherence in the events or nothing else to add.<br /><br />The clichès are more than boring, the gore is minimal, and so does the mystery.<br /><br />This is a fairly mediocre slasher entry that shouldn't be hyped even if it has a video nastie label.<br /><br />I am truly disappointed by this overrated piece of trash.
If you've ever seen an eighties slasher, there isn't much reason to see this one. Originality often isn't one of slasher cinema's strongpoints, and it's something that this film is seriously lacking in. There really isn't much that can said about Pranks, so I'll make this quick. The film was one of the 74 films included on the DPP Video Nasty list, and that was my only reason for seeing it. The plot follows a bunch of kids that stay behind in a dorm at Christmas time. As they're in a slasher, someone decides to start picking them off and this leads to one of the dullest mysteries ever seen in a slasher movie. The fact that this movie was on the Video Nasty list is bizarre because, despite a few gory scenes, this film is hardly going to corrupt or deprave anyone, and gorier slashers than this (Friday the 13th, for example) didn't end up banned. But then again, there's banned films that are much less gory than this one (The Witch Who Came from the Sea, for example). Anyway, the conclusion of the movie is the best thing about it, as although the audience really couldn't care less who the assailant is by this point; it is rather well done. On the whole, this is a dreary and dismal slasher that even slasher fans will do well to miss.
What the ........... is this ? This must, without a doubt, be the biggest waste of film, settings and camera ever. I know you can't set your expectations for an 80's slasher high, but this is too stupid to be true. I baught this film for 0.89$ and I still feel the urge to go claim my money back. Can you imagine who hard it STINKS ?<br /><br />Who is the violent killer in this film and what are his motivations??? Well actually, you couldn't possible care less. And why should you? The makers of this piece of garbage sure didn't care. They didn't try to create a tiny bit of tension. The director ( Stephen Carpenter -- I guess it's much easier to find money with a name like that ) also made the Kindred (1986) wich was rather enjoyable and recently he did Soul Survivors. Complete crap as well, but at least that one had Eliza Dushku. This junk has the debut of Daphne Zuniga !!! ( Who ?? ) Yeah that's right, the Melrose Place chick. Her very memorable character dies about 15 min. after the opening credits. She's the second person to die. The first victim dies directly in the first minute, but nobody seems to mention or miss him afterwards so who cares ? The rest of the actors...they don't deserve the term actors actually, are completely uninteresting. You're hoping they die a quick and painful death...and not only their characters<br /><br />My humble opinion = 0 / 10
I've always liked Fred MacMurray, and—although her career was tragically cut short—I think Carole Lombard is fun to watch. Pair these two major and attractive stars together, add top supporting players like Jean Dixon, Anthony Quinn, Dorothy Lamour and Charles Butterworth, give them a romantic script, team them with noted director Mitchell Leisen and you get…a mediocre movie experience.<br /><br />Skid Johnson (Fred) and Maggie (Carole) "meet cute" during her visit to the Panama Canal, and spend the next few weeks falling in love. Skid's a great trumpeter, so he embarks on a musical career, which is predictably meteoric in both its rise and fall. During his climb to musical stardom, he neglects Maggie, who later inspires him to start over after he's hit rock bottom. Ah, yes…it's the true Hollywood happy ending, which comes none too soon.<br /><br />Stars and a director of this caliber should guarantee success, but this movie is so predictable and slow-paced that it's difficult to watch at times. The early scenes set in Panama are so draggy that they seem to go on forever, and later an alcoholic Skid just wanders endlessly in New York. Fred and Carole try their best, but the tired script and S-L-O-W direction just don't give them a chance. Even the final scene, in which Maggie encourages Skid to rise from the ashes of alcohol and disappointment, just doesn't ring true.<br /><br />This movie should be seen once to watch some early performances from stars MacMurray and Lombard. However, I guarantee that watching it will seem to take about 48 hours.
I am a big fan of Fred MacMurray and Carole Lombard. And, in addition to them, Charles Butterworth (a very enjoyable supporting actor) was in this film,...so why didn't I particularly enjoy it?! Well, despite a good cast, this is one of the poorest written and most clichéd "A pictures" I have ever seen. Given the talent and money spent to make this film, it is shocking how slip-shod the writing was. I knew the film would be tedious when time after time early in the film I found myself predicting EXACTLY what would happen next--and I was always right! And this isn't because I am some sort of "movie savant", but was because almost no imagination or effort went into it. In fact, it seemed almost as if the film was just a long string of clichés all strung together! Also, I found it a bit irritating that Fred mistreated Carole so bad throughout the film and yet, true to convention, she came running to him in the end. Uggh! There is MORE suspense in a Lassie film ("will he bring people to rescue Timmy or will the rope he is dangling from break?").<br /><br />Despite the very, very tired and clichéd script, there were a few positives about the film. It was pretty cool seeing Fred look like a broken lush at the end of the film--it was pretty believable and he looked like he hadn't eaten, shaved or slept in days. Also, Charles Butterworth's "prattle" did provide a few mildly humorous moments. But all this just wasn't enough to make this film look any different than a "B movie". It's a shame,...it could have been so much better.
In what would be his first screenplay, based on his own short story "Turn About," William Faulkner delivers a bizarre story of loyalty, sacrifice, and really strange relationships. The story originally was about only the Tone, Young, and Cooper characters, but MGM needed to put Joan Crawford in another picture to fulfill her contract, and Faulkner obliged by creating a female role. Crawford insisted that her lines be written in the same clipped style as her co-stars' Young and Tone, leading to much unintentional hilarity as these three communicate in a telegraph-like shorthand that sounds like a Monty Python sketch ("Wuthering Heights" performed in semaphore). Seriously, the almost entirely pronoun-less sentences make Ernest Hemingway read like Henry James.<br /><br />The film also reflects some familiar Faulkner themes, with an almost unnaturally close relationship between brother and sister (as may be found in his "Sanctuary," and elsewhere). When Young proposes to Crawford, in Tone's presence, in lieu of an engagement ring ALL THREE exchange their childhood engraved rings with one another. The closeness of Tone and Young is also noticeable, especially as they go off to their Thelma & Louise fate. Frankly, it's creepy.<br /><br />Not as creepy to this New Yorker, however, as the recurring theme of the massive cockroach, Wellington, which Crawford cheerfully catches (and which is shown gamboling over her hands--I had to turn away!) and Young turns into a gladiator. Blech.<br /><br />That being said, there are some nice performances. Young is particularly engaging in a scene where he's taken up in Cooper's fighter plane, and Roscoe Karns is delightful as Cooper's flying buddy. Tone, despite his inability to express himself through realistic dialogue, has a nice moment, dashing away his own furtive tears over his buddy Young's fate. Crawford, stripped of meaningful dialogue as well, mostly comes across as either wooden or melodramatic, which is quite a balancing act for one role.<br /><br />The battle scenes--not surprisingly, for a Howard Hawks film--are the most exciting part of the entire picture. But not enough. As far as I'm concerned, this is 75 minutes of my life I'm never going to get back.
My wife and I thought that with this cast and director, the movie would have to be at least worth watching. We were wrong. In fact, we gave up on it after 45 minutes. The idea that Crawford, Young and Tone are British but speak with American accents was, for me, impossible to get past -- hard to believe this is England when no one talks with a British accent. There is zero chemistry between Crawford and anyone, and to echo a previous comment, the idea that Cooper and Crawford suddenly declare their love for one another without any reason is ludicrous. There is no reason to care about any of the characters, which is why we threw in the towel halfway through. I found it hard to believe that Hawks directed this, as none of the actors spoke with the trademark Hawksian rat-a-tat delivery. So save your time, and skip this one.
Couldn't believe it! Clipped sentences? Good grief! Know what? All true! Real people ever talk like this? Don't think so. Good girl! Stout fellow! Stiffen upper lip! Only reason given movie 2 instead of 0 Gary Cooper such a dish. Movie as a whole ridiculous unless you like watching endless biplane dogfights. Seemed endless, anyway. Think all Franchot Tone's dialogue dubbed. When Crawford and Young make a special effort to sound British they come over as Irish. Handy tip - we Brits clip words, not sentences. And somehow we manage to draaaaaaaawl at the same time. But that's only if we've been to a really good public (that's private to you) school.
Lulu (Louise Brooks) works as a typist and is missing something in her life. She enters a Miss France contest against the wishes of her boyfriend Andre (Georges Charlia) and she wins. She sets off for the Miss Europe title leaving her boyfriend behind. She wins again but returns home to Andre because he has asked her to. Once back together, her life becomes mundane again so one night she writes a note to him and leaves to experience the fame that is waiting for her as Miss Europe. Andre follows her.....<br /><br />This film is a silent film with a piano music-track all the way through. It is also sped-up so everything seems fast. Limited dialogue has been added on afterwards and it is very phony. The cast are alright bearing in mind that it is a silent film. The best part of the film comes at the end but the story goes on a little too long. After watching this, I'm not really sure what the big deal was over the looks of Louise Brooks - she has a terrible haircut that makes her face look fat. I don't need to watch it again.
Please Note: I see from the various posts that there was an original silent version and also a sound version of this same film. I saw the sound version and it was esthetically yicky. Considering some indicate that the original version was LONGER and without crappy dubbing, my review must be read with this in mind.<br /><br />Although I know that Rene Clair has a lovely reputation as a film maker and Louise Brooks has a bit of a cult following as well, this is in many ways a technically poorly made film. While Hollywood had already pretty much switched to sound mode around 1929, up through the early to almost the mid-30s, a lot of famous French films were essentially silent films--with some dialog and sound effects very poorly slapped over top the film. The lip movements in many, and in particular this film, don't even come close to matching what is being said and this would explain why an American like Ms. Brooks could do a French film. This is just sloppy and I would have preferred they had just made a silent film--and as a silent film this is would have been an average film--with excellent camera work (at times) and some decent silent-style acting.<br /><br />The problem I also found with the film was the overly simplistic plot. For a silent morality play circa 1920, it would have been fine, but by 1930 standards the plot is a bit hoary (that means "old"--not "slutty"). A lady wins a beauty contest and her macho fiancé can't handle it. She gives it all up, temporarily, but is lured back to the fancy life and this spells her end! A tad melodramatic, huh? And also a bit simplistic and underdeveloped.<br /><br />Finally, the character of the fiancé's friend(?) I found very disturbing and unreal. He looked like Harold Lloyd and spent much of the movie being abused and picked on by the friend and everyone else. As he just took it throughout the movie and no resolution came about, his character seemed superfluous and the treatment he received mean-spirited. Were audiences supposed to laugh as he was abused? This seems to me that's what is implied and I don't like it at all.<br /><br />There are FAR better French films of the era (Le Million, La Femme du Boulanger, Fanny, Regain, and others) as well as better silent films. I just can't understand this film's high rating.
This review may contain some SPOILERS.<br /><br />Just when you thought they didn't make them so extremely bad anymore, along comes Rae Dawn Chong as a space vixen and Willie Nelson as a Native American witchdoctor! It's even worse when you factor in that these two are the BETTER aspects of `Starlight,' a film that should only be viewed for laughs.<br /><br />Chong is an alien sent to Earth to seek out the only remaining half-breed, part man and part alien. Apparently, the Earth is in dire straits. Something is wrong with the genetics of mankind, and in a few decades the world will be turned into a polluted wasteland. Only by duplicating the DNA of the half-breed can the kindly alien race save the planet. Don't ask me how that is, since the movie gives the impression that the world will be destroyed by pollution, which is caused by humans. You would think Earth could only be saved by getting rid of the polluting creatures, not saving them! Anyway, the half-breed turns out to be Billy Wirth, a man living in a small Southwestern town and is part Native American from his mother's line, despite the fact that his mother is a red-headed Caucasian and his grandfather is Willie Nelson. Wasn't this the sort of malarkey that made the bombastic Carmen Electra bomb `The Chosen One' such a howler? Chong arrives in her ship just as Wirth nearly drowns after driving his motorcycle into a lake in a fit of recklessness being the result of just breaking up with his girlfriend. Before you can say utter the word `hogwash,' Chong is revealing her secret to Wirth, who isn't surprised for a moment, and spreading the word to Wirth's family. Chong also makes pals with Wirth's mother, who seems to have lost a few of her marbles over the years. Well, this is because Wirth's father was an alien that abandoned her. Of course, he is the standard rogue alien that has conveniently picked this moment to come to Earth for Wirth so he can use Wirth's DNA to make the people of Earth his slaves. (Huh?) His laughable attempts to use his telepathic powers and capture Wirth suck up most of the screen time and are the worst scenes in the movie. Not only are they boring, but they are the scenes where you will be spotting the flubs the most.<br /><br />The ideas might be nice on paper, but they are handled here with the utmost of stupidity, particularly in the aforementioned scenes with the rogue alien. But the effects are the bane of the movie. The opening scene involves Chong on her spaceship, communicating with her superior, someone who we do not see but that Chong communicates with through a vat that emits pink light. They use no spoken words, but telepathy, so we are treated to subtitles. Trouble is, both Chong and her superior's subtitles both look alike, and the director gives you no indication as to which of the two are actually `speaking' at any given moment, which makes the whole conversation nothing but gibberish. The spaceship is the worst effect to come out of Hollywood this side of an Ed Wood film. Now, I am usually lenient on effects when dealing with a low budgeted film such as this, but these effects really got to me. The most offensive was the most simple one: a fake night sky. The stars in the sky are so phony they almost sound off a dial tone. Most notably are the moments where Chong tells someone she comes from Pleiades, and we get a shot of the seven stars. Thing is, the seven stars take up about half the night sky in the movie, but any stargazer knows that Pleiades is a star cluster between the constellations Perseus and Taurus, and the cluster doesn't take up much room in the sky at all. These effects just get so lousy that your jaw will hang lower and lower with every passing moment. Be careful, for it will go right through the floor during the finale when the effects have Willie Nelson turn into a human spotlight and . . . Oh, it has to be seen to be believed!<br /><br />Starlight, star bright; Last star I see tonight; I wish I might, I wish I may; not have to watch any more of this trash today.<br /><br />Zantara's score: 1 out of 10.
I finally caught up to "Starlight" last night on television and all I can say is. . . wow! It's hard to know where to begin -- the incredibly hokey special effects (check out the laser beams shooting out of Willie's eyes!), the atrocious acting, the ponderous dialogue, the mismatched use of stock footage, or the air of earnest pretentiousness that infuses the entire production. This truly is a one-of-a-kind experience, and we should all be thankful for that. I nominate Jonathon Kay as the true heir to Ed Wood!
This has an interesting, albeit somewhat fanciful sci-fi plot, but it's wasted with poor direction and shlocky special effects. Rae Dawn Chong is appealing, despite the lack of a believable story and direction consistent with her talent.
All I can really say is that I'm glad that I was knitting socks while watching the movie, or I would be very angry for having wasted 2 hours of my life. The acting was terrible, the plot was even worse. There were some scenes that were meant to be serious that had my husband and I laughing out loud. I highly recommend this movie to people who like to do their own version of MST3K.
I shudder to think what people must have thought of environmentalists after viewing this piece of overbearing, preachy cinematic trash. Larded with enough Indian-wannabe nuttery and space brother buffoonery to stock a new-age shop, Starlight makes anyone who gives a damn about the planet look like a feather-wearing crystal-fondling idiot.<br /><br />The plot? Alien Rae Dawn Chong arrives to guide a flute playing underwear model in a mystical quest to avert Earth's impending environmental collapse. But first they must defeat an evil alien who looks nothing so much like a refugee from a Castro street bar. Fortunately, they've got mystical grandpa Willie Nelson along to help (who looks faintly embarrassed by the proceedings, as well he ought to be) along with buckets of cheap F/X and reams of pointlessly swelling music.<br /><br />Sure, the clunky script helps to obscure the film's trite plot and staggering pace, but that's just the tip of this melting movie iceberg. Everyone concerned with this film should have their union cards revoked until they complete a real course in environmental science.
I wanted to see it because of two reasons. One, it was the remake of High Sierra with Bogart, two, the Bogart part was played by Jack Palance, whom can play dramatic roles with some subtility, as in The Big Knife.<br /><br />But now I wonder why they decided to shoot this remake. The film follows the same plot as Hig Sierra; only here, the actors don't care, the director is lost in his thoughts, and who knows what the producer was thinking. Jack Palance is getting bored looking at Shelley Winters and Shelley Winters is asking herself what she's doing in this film. I don't even want to compare her to Ida Lupino in the same role. And of course, they had to use the dog story again! They surely could have come up with some different ideas. Perhaps the color makes it nice to see the same location where they shot High Sierra, but that definitely doesn't add any quality to the film.<br /><br />It's a waste of time if you've seen High Sierra before. Otherwise, why not see a pseudo-film noir. As for me, I'd rather die than see it one more time...
City girl Meg Tilly receives a horrifying phone call from her mother and, understandably shaken, returns home to her family's rural digs, only to be faced with a mystery: why are all the homespun residents acting out in bizarre and unsettling ways? Radiation thriller, with barely a nod to ecology, has small town residents going berserk, which (laughably) includes two women gazing at each other with desire in a public place and Tim Matheson receiving oral attention from a girl on an office bench. The picture is too silly for words, wasting Tilly's wistfulness and quiet intensity on trash while forcing itself into a corner it can't possibly hope to get out of. Some of the cinematography by Thomas Del Ruth is good (particularly a fire sequence set inside a garage), though he is let down by the scrappy editing--and a fairly bathetic finale. Simplistic screenplay has nary a surprise nor a shred of originality up its sleeve. *1/2 from ****
I have been known to fall asleep during films, but this is usually due to a combination of things including, really tired, being warm and comfortable on the sette and having just eaten a lot. However on this occasion I fell asleep because the film was rubbish. The plot development was constant. Constantly slow and boring. Things seemed to happen, but with no explanation of what was causing them or why. I admit, I may have missed part of the film, but i watched the majority of it and everything just seemed to happen of its own accord without any real concern for anything else. I cant recommend this film at all.
...let me count the ways.<br /><br />1. A title-only 'remake' that pulls out every cliché in the slasher handbook.<br /><br />2. A plot so predictable that it becomes quite pathetic.<br /><br />3. A completely weak execution of all attempts at suspense or thrills.<br /><br />4. A PG-13 rating that insures no gore, violence, or sex.<br /><br />5. A villain that is not frightening or even mysterious.<br /><br />6. A cast of characters that are so thinly written and stereotyped that we couldn't possibly care about them.<br /><br />7. A lack of any effectively creepy atmosphere (much unlike the original Prom Night).<br /><br />8. A script of dialog that's beyond poor - it's mind numbing. <br /><br />9. A series of cardboard performances (not sure whether to blame the actors or the lousy aforementioned script for that).<br /><br />10. A completely inept teen-targeted slasher remake that's not brave enough to attempt to have an imagination - or even to show a puddle of blood.<br /><br />It's a no-brainer horror fans, save your money.<br /><br />BOMB out of ****
Prom Night is shot with the artistic eye someone gives while finely crafting a Lifetime original film. You know the one. This October, Lifetime takes a break from the courageous tale of a woman surviving (insert disease name here) to tell the somewhat creepy tale of a woman pursued by a stalker ex-boyfriend. It's dramatic … it's sappy … it's immensely dull. It does nothing to further a genre, tell an original story, or strive for ANY sort of newness. Prom Night shares this plight. Watching the killer poke holes in his victims, we sit silently as they slump to the floor with not a drop of blood spilled. It occurred to me that this was the cleanest killer in movie history.<br /><br />Our director is working with a fairly good-looking killer so he is forced to pour on the camera angles to make him appear creepier. Think about Matthew McConaughey coming at you with a knife. You'd probably go … "OH! Good lookin guy is going to kill me? Naaaa." Not scary even for a second, so the director throws Schaech into shadows and over the shoulder in the mirror. This mirror shot is repeated to the point of sickness as it practically becomes a fetish of the creator. You'll get 15 jump scares in this film, 2 of which made my date jump (I might mention she is afraid of EVERYTHING). I'd also mention she decided to take a nap halfway through the film and at one point threatened to leave me.<br /><br />As if this film were not disjointed enough, it appears to be cut to shreds. I'm not saying it looks like key points were left on the cutting room floor as the crew scrambled to salvage some semblance of a horror film; I'm saying as the film moves from scene to scene, you often get a jarring jump. This is the kind of thing you'd expect when a film catches fire and a projectionist is forced to splice ends together, cross his fingers, and hope for the best. The editor should be shot.<br /><br />With a plot you can pack into two sentences, one stray spray of blood, an emo killer, and the tension of a very special episode of "Silver Spoons", we're left with no reason to support horror this weekend … at least on the big screen. In fact, this is the sort of film that should be punished. Is it really that hard to make a scary movie? Was this crew even aware they were making a horror film??!! A complete waste of my time and yours. I bit the bullet to get you this review. Don't let my sacrifice be in vain. DON'T GO INTO THE MOVIE!!!
Poor acting, no script, no plot, no convincing killer, no suspense, no original setups, it uses the same closet/under the bed/person-behind-you-in-the-mirror tactics over and over again making it repetitive and boring, and NOT in a foreshadowing way either, and the fact that NOBODY ever "really" gets killed (at least not on screen) , which in turn zaps any suspense it may invoke right out of it and makes everyone feel eve MORE cheated for spending money on their admission ticket....its a horror film w/o any horror LMAO. The MOST you see is what looks like someone having taken a ketchup bottle and spraying it across a plastic sheet.<br /><br />You have to be a teen who was sitting there screaming in the theater and scaring yourself to have enjoyed this, or you were high/drunk at the time.<br /><br />Honestly, I have a life and don't bother writing reviews that often unless I really really hated something, or enjoyed it tremendously.<br /><br />But this film is AWFUL and I feel I have a duty of sorts to warn you NOT to give your money to Hollywood and encourage this kind of filmaking ever again! <br /><br />It is one thing to rent a "bad" movie at blockbuster from the Weinsteins, its another when you have to sit through it in a theater.<br /><br />Also, in case you want some remake nostalgia, forget it! This is NOT a remake, nor is it a re-imagining. It is not scary, nor engaging, nor is it satisfying enough to be "funny" like others on IMDb have claimed...it is just stale and booooring.<br /><br />Here is what you will take away from this film: remembering the scar on Brittany Snow's head that stands out more than the plot, the fact that Jonathan Schaech MUST be having some sexual affair with J.S. Cardone of "The Forsaken" to have gotten another role as a killer(because he is as frightening as my poodle, and too cute to kill just about anyone) and that for some reason (duh) everyone who goes back to the hotel suite never comes back. What kind of person would NOT get worried at the prom when they decide to announce the candidates for prom king and queen and the fiercely competitive girl just somehow doesn't show up? This is my warning to you. DO NOT waste you're money like I did. The "original" sucks too but is more of a guilty pleasure for Jamie Lee Curtis fans, though no way near as bad as this piece of crap (sorry to sound vulgar or rude, but once you see this, you will understand why I say what I say).
Prom Night is about a girl named Donna (Brittany Snow) who is being chased by a psycho killer trying to kill her at her prom night. And by doing so killing her family, friends, and her enemies. <br /><br />Now before I begin let me say have you been tired of PG-13 horror movies that haven't been scary lately. Are you tired of stupid girl dialog 'Oh my god' and talking about girlish things. And are you really tired of girls in relationships and then crying. And the last thing are you tired of the US remaking Asian, Japanese, and Chinese films. That pretty much sums up Prom night but I'm still not done with the review.<br /><br />The only reason to see 'Prom night' is to crack a laugh at the kills. If not, don't see Prom night. You never see the kills an only hear screaming and you see some blood on the wall. And by the way the deaths are repeating like 24/7. So not only aren't they scary but it's obnoxious. By the time I met the cast I think I was ready to hurl. Too much girl talk, too much guy talk, and lots of 'Oh my gosh. It's our prom'. I understand it's fun but seriously is it too much to ask not to concentrate. <br /><br />If I were to put Prom Night on the list of worst films of 2008 without seeing the other films I'd be the first one too. I'm not going to be surprised if it gets released on DVD for cheap and quick. Seriously don't spend your money or the time for dull acting, cheap scares, and a 'Night to die for' when watching the film.<br /><br />1 star out of 10. (P.S. If I could give the film zero stars I would).
I am the guy who usually keeps opinions to himself, but I just got back from this movie, and felt I had to express my opinions. Let me start by saying that I am a HUGE horror fan. But what makes a horror movie? I sure like to see even a tiny bit of a good script and character development. I know they often lack in horror movies, but Prom Night looked like it didn't even put forth ANY effort in that department. Next, we all love suspense. That on the edge of your seat suspense with unpredictable surprises. Yeah, Prom Night had none of that! Of course, we like a terrifying killer. Prom Night have that? Nope, it has a pretty boy with a cute lil' knife. And when all else fails...at least horror has its guilty pleasure to make it enjoyable like gore gore gore, and the occasional nude scene! Yeah, well when you have a horror movie rated PG-13 like Prom Night, they leave that stuff out too. So with all of these elements missing, I ask....does this still count as a horror movie? Nope. I'd call it more of a comedy. People in my theater were laughing more at this then they were when I saw "Semi-Pro" that was supposed to actually be a comedy (which also sucked, but thats another story!). I think I am just going to have to give up on new horror. All the good horror movies of the good ol' days have been remade into garbage so movie studios can make money. The people I went to see it with didn't even know this was a remake! Which made me mad! I wonder what will happen when there's no more movies to remake??? Where will horror go next???
So, Prom Night was supposed to be a horror and thriller movie. I'm a big wuss and was scared to see this movie at the beginning, but upon seeing it, it is neither horror or thriller.<br /><br />I was basically making fun of the movie in my seat because it was so predictable. You could predict what was going to happen next. The young actors were alright at playing their characters, but I'd have to say the killer was definitely at the top of the game - acting wise.<br /><br />Yes, I'll give props for the plot because it was good, but it's not thrilling or scary. There were almost zero "jump-in-your-seat" scenes. So, don't waste ten dollars seeing it in theatres, wait 'til it comes to DVD.
When I first saw the trailer for Prom Night, I have to admit, the trailer looked good and like this would be a fun horror movie. So my friend and I saw Prom Night last night and I have to say I must be growing up because this was such a ridicules film, not to mention I am so sick and tired of the typical horror slasher movies with the loud noises as an excuse to scare people. There was no tension, the characters, how was I supposed to care about them? They had no development what-so-ever, the killer?! Oh, my God, this was very possibly the most stupid serial killer that has ever existed, I know it's a film, but why would a man who never(or at least we know of) killed any one before, kill a girl's family and friends that he's just obsessed over? I mean, was he going to kidnap her or was he going to kill her? I have no idea, because this film made no sense and is too predictable and insulting to true fans of horror.<br /><br />Donna's family was just brutally murdered by her teacher, who has become very obsessed over her, he was captured and put in jail. It's been 3 years and she's just now getting some peace in her life, she's even going to her senior prom. But the killer has escaped and still has Donna on his mind, he follows her to her prom which means bad news for her friends, and the hotel maid, and the bell boy, because it is such a good idea to kill the maid and bell boy so no one become suspicious enough to check to see where these employee's are. Donna is in big trouble because also this killer who is clearly human can apparently get into houses un-noticed and can kill people so silently, just, wow.<br /><br />I'm sorry, I really did want to love this movie, we haven't had a good slasher flick in a long time, but this was just a stupid movie that I was not impressed with. Just the situations were unbelievable and the actors were obnoxious. I know that this was a PG-13 movie, but I just love how someone was brutally stabbed to death and they only have just a little blood on their clothes? Not to mention no stab holes? I wouldn't recommend this movie for anyone unless you're a teen, this movie was made for the teenagers, not adults, and not for those who know a real horror movie, no offense to those who did enjoy this film, but I don't understand how anyone could.<br /><br />2/10
I saw this trailer and thought to myself my god is this movie for real, who would want to see this movie and at the same time i thought that, my girl friend turned to me and said "we have to go see this movie"...enough said so i saw this about 5 minutes go and I tried to put on a brave face and enjoy the cheap scares but there weren't even any of those. It has to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen the director has no influence no perspective the same shots were used again and again he did not build up suspense the cast probably were simply told scream cry run fall. I would love to see the script as the first 40 mins was mostly annoying girly giggles and bad music, there was absolutely no character development.<br /><br />The plot is just...well there was no plot it was basically I know we will terrorize a high school group on their prom night with a stalker serial killer, That's brilliant! hmmm The acting was what you expect in a Australian soap opera hopeless, that main character the Blondie god dam she annoyed me. her longest line must have been half a sentence, and every time she was on camera she was just pulling another rude facial expression.<br /><br />Please listen to me if you have any taste in movies don't go see this, and if your like me and don't have a choice well then I wish you good luck, maybe smuggle in an ipod or magazine. Can't believe this film got made!
In Bridgeport, the deranged high school teacher Richard Fenton (Johnathon Schaech) is obsessed by the teenager student Donna Keppel (Brittany Snow); she witnesses him murder her family to stay with her, but Richard is arrested and sent to prison for life. Three years later, the traumatized Donna is feeling better but is still under psychological treatment and taking pills. On her prom night, she goes with her boyfriend Bobby (Scott Porter) and two couples of friends to the Pacific Grad Hotel for the party. But the psychopath Richard has escaped from prison and is lodged in the same floor in the hotel chasing Donna, stabbing her friends and staff of the hotel that cross his path.<br /><br />The forgettable slash "Prom Night" is a collection of clichés with a total lack of originality. The stupid story is shallow and silly, with a bad acting of Johnathon Schaech in the role of an insane killer. The predictable screenplay is amazing since it is possible to foresee what is going to happen in the next scenes. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "A Morte Convida Para Dançar" ("The Death Invites to Dance")
I'm not particularly fond of remakes, or to steal the modern jargon "retellings", but this film truly peeved me off. The original Prom Night, while not in my humble estimation a masterpiece, still realized what it was... horror. There are some simple things to remember when making a horror film. Suspense is crucial to maintaining the interest of the audience. Sorry folks, but a white knuckle film this was not! The scares were cheap, and foreshadowed terribly. (A good example of scare which has been done to clichéd excess now, is the cat jumping out of the closet, followed soon there after but a now unexpected appearance by the villain of the film) This film couldn't successfully pull that off, so how could I expect it to fulfill any of the other conventions of horror film. There needs to be a likable hero or heroine. This film doesn't have one. The person I most identified with was the head detective. His calm demeanor, but level headed approach to the escape of a killer was what more films of this ilk should have. Common sense approach to events that occur. (If you're running from an Axe wielding psycho, you turn and sprint in the opposite direction. Not jog, whilst looking back ever three seconds, gaging the killer's progress, only to trip over every branch and inanimate object in your path.) If you friend disappears, you don't go looking for them alone. And if you suspect foul play you tell someone, not investigate yourself. These clichés are tired and well overplayed. In the horror genre in general, and in this film in particular.
Imagine the scenario - you are at the movie theater only because you are in Washington for the weekend and it's raining and you're finished with the Museums. You think you might go see the Sarah Marshall movie as the trailer look so so and you don't have to engage your brain. It's sold out. Options? - The Bank Job, In Bruges, The Leatherheads or Prom night. You've seen the Bank Job (suprisingly decent heist movie that) and In Bruges (again, pretty good) so you're down to two. You don't fancy watching Clooney or the nice one from the Office run around in 1930 football uniforms, so you go see Prom Night right? Wrong. You take the $8.50, walk up to a stranger in the street and ask him to punch you in the face for $8.50. It would be money better spent.<br /><br />It actually plays like more of a comedy than a horror/thriller or whatever it is supposed to be. If I was financing that movie and they showed me that as a final cut I wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry. Probably both. An insult to anyone's intelligence... my roommate was laughing out loud most of the movie, as for the acting, they might as well have cast robots (or maybe dogs) in the roles, they would have been more realistic. The detective has to be possibly the worst actor I have ever seen (Ben Affleck and Hayden Christansan (I hate his acting so much I don't care how you spell his name) you are relieved on your title(s)) <br /><br />So in summary 'not good'
and rent a GOOD horror movie. It's like the writer had never seen a horror movie before and didn't realize every single thing he wrote was clichéd and hackneyed and has been parodied to perfection in movies like "Scream" and "Scary Movie".<br /><br />In between the scary bits is the most BANAL and BORING dialog ever written. Stupid "we're going to the prom" junk. I wanted to claw my ears off. Honestly, "The Hills" has better dialog.<br /><br />There really was no need to make this movie. Leading lady is uninteresting and I kept thinking "Her? Really? Guy is obsessed with her? Really?" <br /><br />All the characters act in stupid ways, including the police. (Cover the place in teams of 2! Front and back! Not one sleepy cop sitting in his car with the window rolled down just waiting for his throat to be slashed.) <br /><br />The serial killer just swans about murdering everyone he wants without the least bit of problem. No resistance from victims (or doors). Nobody has any protection or the least idea of fighting back (or flipping the security lock on the hotel room door). The people are like mentally disabled sheep.<br /><br />By the by, if you're a gore fan, you'll be disappointed too. All the killing is kept offscreen and is -- ahem -- tastefully done. (So boo hoo for you!) <br /><br />None of the killings is the least bit interesting. Most of the time they've already happened by the time we find out.<br /><br />The only cliché missing was the cat that always pops out in this kind of movies. "Oh kitty! You scared me! I thought you were the killer -- AIIEEEE!" <br /><br />And then at the end when it's time for the killer to die -- well, let's just say it's the easiest and most obvious choice. Snore.<br /><br />The audience was jeering and talking back to the screen throughout. It was too dumb to believe and not really scary enough. Don't encourage this kind of lazy film-making.<br /><br />(Oh, and by the way -- no crowning of a prom king or queen. No tiara. No bucket of blood.) <br /><br />So save your money and rent "Carrie" or "Friday the 13th" or "Halloween" or "Scream" or "Scary Movie" (any of them) to get a good scare with some original twists.
Okay. So I just got back. Before I start my review, let me tell you one thing: I wanted to like this movie. I know I've been negative in the past, but I was hoping to be surprised and actually come out liking the film. I didn't.<br /><br />It's not just the fact that every horror cliché imaginable is in this. And it's not just the fact that they make every little thing into a jump scare (walking into a baseball bat left on the floor? Are you kidding me?). It just wasn't scary. One thing I was surprised about: there was more blood than I thought there was going to be.. which isn't saying much.<br /><br />The film starts off with Donna being dropped off by Lisa's mom at her house. She comes in.. goes upstairs. Camera pans to her father dead on the couch. Spooky. She goes upstairs, where the aforementioned baseball bat scene happens. Finds her brother on his bed, apparently dead (how could she tell? He didn't have a spot of blood on him). Killer comes in, Donna hides under bed, mom dies. She runs outside screaming for help. Killer behind her: "I did it for us." Cut to therapy session. This confused a lot of people- everyone was asking whether or not her family actually died or if she imagined it- and she mentions how the nightmares have started coming back. Filler dialogue ensues.<br /><br />THey cut to the chase pretty quick. Few scenes at the salon, they go to the hotel. Of course the killer is already there (for some reason, he escaped 3 days ago but the police/family weren't informed until he's already there). More filler ensues.<br /><br />I'm not going to go on about what happens in the film, because I don't want to spoil it too much. If you want to know who dies, Horror_Fan made a post about it already. But on the subjects of deaths: they weren't that exciting. People in the theatre actually laughed out loud (an experience I've never had before in a horror movie, not even in When A Stranger Calls) during several of them. One in particular: the bus boy guy who gives the most hilarious 'scared' face I've ever seen. The only death involving any blood was Lisa's, and that was pretty scarce. Her throat is slashed, blood (if you can even call it that- it was practically black) splatters on the curtain-thing. The only other blood was on Claire when we see her body. Apparently, Fenton decided to stab her a few times after he choked her to death. Um, okay? The movie was one of the most clichéd I've ever seen. Let's see here.. obligatory close-mirror-curtain-BOOM! scene. Check. Twice, actually (you could tell they were struggling). Mandatory backing-up-into-killer. Check. There's also the backing-up-into-lamp scene, but you've all seen that. Oh, you say you want a birds-flying-away scare? Well, you got it! (Yes, they managed to incorporate one of those in here). And, of course, the we-have-security-on-all-exits-but-he-still-escaped scene. Shall I go on? I could.<br /><br />For anyone saying the characters weren't stupid, are you kidding me? "Oh, even though the massive alarm is ringing, literally saying PLEASE VACATE THE BUILDING, and 3 of my friends are missing, I'm going to go upstairs to get my wrap." These characters were some of the most flawed and stupid characters ever. The only likable character - Lisa - made one of the most stupid moves in the movie. "Oh, I just realized the psycho-teacher is here! I must leave my strong boyfriend behind to run off by myself to warn her! Oh, shoot, the elevator is being to slow? Guess I'll take the stairs and run off into the construction site!" Ugh. By the end of the film, they all deserved to die. The only death anyone felt any remorse for was Donna's boyfriend (I can't even remember his name- is that bad?), and by that time, the audience was completely drained out of this scareless, clichéd film.<br /><br />There were SOME positives- the acting was decent for the most part, and it was well-shot. But that's about it.<br /><br />I'd give it a 1/5, and that's being generous. Just for the laughs (and believe me, the audience had a few), and Brittany Snow.<br /><br />Oh, and the reaction was bad. Very bad. People were boo-ing after the movie ended and buzz afterwards was very negative. Expect bad legs for this one.
Good grief I can't even begin to describe how poor this film is. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't expecting much to begin with. Let's face it, a PG-13 slasher flick is pre-destined to be missing the ummm... slashing, so no one should be surprised by the lack of gore. But it was the level of incompetence and cliché on display in all the other aspects of this movie is what really blew me away. <br /><br />We have a protagonist who is quite simply so completely useless that you find yourself rooting for the bad guy. And here's a turnup for the books... SHE NEVER CHANGES - hence breaking the cardinal rule of basic screen writing - character development. If you think by the end of this film the poor little girl is going to turn around and finally kick some arse then think again. <br /><br />On top of this, we're handed possibly the least intriguing (and definitely the least scary) killer ever to grace the genre. I'm not joking when I say that Dora the Explorer has scarier villains than this movie.<br /><br />Finally, because all the potential for tension or gratuity is removed by the inept (and apparently thirteen-year-old) director, what could possibly be left to fill up 2 hours of screen time? <br /><br />Closets, that's what. <br /><br />Lots and lots of closets: big closets, small closets, mirrored closets, closets to Narnia, so many damned closets you'll not want to dress yourself for another year. In fact this movie should have just been called "CLOSET", and had a picture of a big scary coathanger on the DVD case. On the back it could have had a photograph of the audience falling asleep and a quote by Roger and Ebert - something to the extent of: "what the f*@! did we just waste our time watching!"
This movie is a good example of the extreme lack of good writers and directors in Hollywood. The fact that people were paid to make this piece of junk shows that there is a lack of original ideas and talent in the entertainment business. The idea that audiences paid to see this movie (and like an idiot I rented the film) is discouraging also.<br /><br />Obsessed teacher (3 years prior) kills teenager's family because he wants her. For no reason he kills the mother, father and brother. From the first five minutes you see the bad acting and direction. Years later, obsessed teacher breaks out of prison. HMM--usual bad writing--no one in the town he terrorized knows until the last minute. Obsessed teacher somehow becomes like a Navy SEAL and can sneak around, sniff out people and with a knife is super killer. Sure!!! Now obsessed teacher kills hotel maid for no reason, knifes bellhop for the fun of it, and starts to hunt down the teenager's friends. Now there is the perfect way to get the girl to love you. Obsessed teacher sneaks out of hotel---again it is stupid, ever cop would know his face--but he walks right by them. Now he kills two cops outside teenager's house and somehow sneaks into her bedroom and kills her boyfriend.<br /><br />There is not one single positive thing about this piece of garbage. If any other profession put out work of this low quality, they would be fired. Yet these idiots are making hundreds of thousands of dollars for writing and directing this trash.
I wish I could give this movie a zero out of ten. Before going to this movie the day after it came out, I came on IMDb to check out the comments. A comment called the movie predictable and cheesy with terrible dialog. I never go by other people's opinions, so I wasted seven dollars for this crap movie. It had to be one of the WORST movies I've ever seen.<br /><br />The person who wrote the script should be pushed off a cliff. Since when do scary movies have sappy scenes? I swear, I'm amazed there weren't any GROUP HUG ^-^ moments.<br /><br />I think I jumped. Once. And that's because I zoned out, thinking about my research paper for English. The clichéd, birds/cat popping out of nowhere thing when you THOUGHT something was gonna happen.<br /><br />And the characters were STUPID. My friend and I almost DIED laughing when the alarm went off and the main character said, "I have to get my mom's shawl!!!" You. Idiot. Screw the shawl! Safety is just a few steps away, but NO, my mom's shawl (that didn't match the dress By the way) is WAYYYY more important than my health and safety. And to top it all off, they take her BACK to her house, knowing that the killer knew where she lived. God.<br /><br />My friend and I also predicted the ENTIRE movie. And not just the, I bet he's hiding under the bed, moments. It was the, "HE stole the bellhop's clothes and sneaked out of the hotel" and "It's the detective coming down the hallway, not the killer!" moments. Movies should NEVER be THIS predictable. Disney movies aren't even this predictable.<br /><br />I'm gonna complete my rant now by saying, this was a terrible movie. I'm glad I went to see it in theaters so I wouldn't buy it for $15.00 and then hate it. It was just bad. It would've been better if only one thing would've happened. If, after being shot by the detective, the killer would have fallen down in the same position he got shot in. Knife in hand, falling and stabbing the girl on his way down. Oh, how lovely that would've been.<br /><br />Don't waste your time or money. Go see a GOOD movie.
PROM NIGHT (2008)<br /><br />directed by: Nelson McCormick<br /><br />starring: Brittany Snow, Scott Porter, Jessica Stroup, and Dana Davis<br /><br />plot: Three years ago, Donna (Brittany Snow) witnessed the death of her entire family at the hands of her teacher (Jonathan Schaech) who has a bit of a crush on her. Now, she is preparing for her senior prom with her stupid annoying friends. Once there, they start dying one by one because the killer escaped from prison and no one bothered to warn Donna because apparently her prom is too important to interrupt. <br /><br />pros: I got a few good laughs out of the film due to the terrible dialog and the dumb character moves.<br /><br />An example:<br /><br />Everyone decides not to tell Donna that the man who is oddly obsessed with her (she doesn't seem that great) has escaped from prison. Their reason: They don't want to embarrass her in front of all her friends. LOL<br /><br />cons: Let me start off by saying I'm a huge slasher fan. Usually I can have fun with even the bad ones. I even like some PG-13 horror films. TOURIST TRAP (1979), one of my favorites, was originally rated PG. I also enjoy POLTERGEIST (1982) and THE GRUDGE (2004). So the fact that this is a dumb slasher film that is rated PG-13 does not have anything to do with me not enjoying the movie.<br /><br />First of all, I had a big problem with the story. I like slasher films that don't even have stories. At least they can be entertaining. This is about a teacher who falls in love with his student, so he kills her entire family. A few years later, he tries to make it up to her by ruining her prom and killing all of her friends ...? Then there were subplots that I doubt anyone cared about. Claire (Jessica Stroup) is fighting with her boyfriend, she has cramps, and I couldn't care less. This should have been a Lifetime feature, not a remake of PROM NIGHT. <br /><br />And then ... this is a slasher film with terrible death scenes. I don't even care that it's not that gory, some of my favorite slashers (HALLOWEEN, CURTAINS, the original PROM NIGHT) were not that gory but they still had effective murders. Here, we have half the characters dying in the same hotel room off screen, a woman being stabbed several times with no stab wounds, and a closeup on a bad actor's face as he screams in agony. I'm sure that 10 year-old girls were terrified, but not me.<br /><br />I also hated the characters. There was Donna's unrealistically sensitive boyfriend Bobby (Scott Porter) and I can almost guarantee you will never meet a boyfriend that sensitive in your life, unless you are a gay male. Then we had Donna's annoying friends Claire (Stroup) and Lisa (Dana Davis), and the token mean girl Chrissy (Brianne Davis). If you thought the characters in DEATH PROOF were annoying, try watching this movie. And don't get me started on Ronnie (Collins Pennie) and the DJ (Jay Phillips) who gave me flashbacks to Usher's performance in SHE'S ALL THAT.<br /><br />Add to all that predictable plot turns, a terrible soundtrack and a big lack of respect to the original material, and you have quite a stinker.
Note: I couldn't force myself to actually write up a constructive review of Prom Night. It just can't be done. Instead, I went through what I thought about while watching the movie.<br /><br />Things that I thought about while watching Prom Night: <br /><br />-I'm so tired of those dreams where these elaborate deaths will take place, only for the main character to wake up right before she bites it. Of course, when I say "elaborate deaths", I mean off screen throat slashes or stabs in the stomach. Didn't the whole "it's just a dream" thing get ruined by Dallas? Speaking of which, I wonder if a couple stabs in the gut will cause immediate death.<br /><br />-The film is only ten minutes into and I can already count the horror clichés on two hands. Not a good sign.<br /><br />-Even after just meeting the protagonist's boyfriend, I'm convinced he will die. Anybody want to place bets? <br /><br />-The killer in this movie is a teacher that is obsessed with the main character, Donna. (By the way, does anybody think that "Donna" is a horrible name for a main character in a horror film?) He spends three years in a maximum security prison before breaking out and finds Donna celebrating her high school prom. While there is no accounting for taste, I seriously wonder who would take all that time to stalk somebody as dull as Donna.<br /><br />-High schools allow proms to take place at hotels and doesn't keep track of the students. Apparently students are perfectly able to buy a hotel room and go in and out as they please. I suppose if this plot point wasn't in place, the movie would be 90 minutes of people being bored out of their mind and randomly biting the dust whenever they go to the bathroom. I suppose the trade-off for their excitement is my utter boredom with everything. I've already played "count the pieces of chewed bubble gum under the seat" and "guess how much money I have in my wallet" and I'm only in the 20 minute mark. How else will I entertain myself? <br /><br />-Note to self: Don't forget milk and bread on the way home.<br /><br />-Dear screenwriter: You've used up enough false scares to get through this movie and every other horror remake this year.<br /><br />-The 1980 version of this film wasn't that good but compared to this remake it was like Citizen Kane, or at least The Godfather. It had Jamie Lee Curtis in one of her many post-Halloween horror flicks and it did have a little "twist" at the end. I miss Jamie Lee. I wish she'd act more.<br /><br />-Apparently at prom there isn't much dancing going on. Instead the girls get in fights with their boyfriends over where they plan to attend college. I hear all these colleges being brought up by name, and I can't help but wonder who these girls have to cheat off of on the entrance exam to get in.<br /><br />-The killer must carry a bag of really effective cleaning supplies and wipes up his mess between scenes. That's the only logical explanation for why he could stab somebody to death on the carpet or in the bathroom and by the time somebody goes up to the hotel room, there is no trace of a struggle. (On another side note: This is a very lazy killer. Michael Myers went hunting after his victims. Just saying.)<br /><br />-It's official: the entire audience in the theater is rooting on the killer. What triggered it? Was it whenever Donna went back up to her hotel room while sirens were going off ordering everybody to exit the building? Was it her constant dreams, and how even after going through something dramatic in said dream she insisted on reenacting her steps to a tee? Or was it Brittany Snow's unconvincing performance? I'll have to say it was all of the above.<br /><br />-Okay, who had "he dies off screen in the third act"? You win the pot.<br /><br />-Finally, the movie is over. My friend turns to me and says "Donna wasn't too smart." That's the understatement of the week. Kind of like saying that a tornado is a small gust of wind, or a week long power outage is a slight inconvenience.<br /><br />-I can't wait to get on Rotten Tomatoes and see if anybody gave this move a favoring review.<br /><br />-I can't recommend this. I refuse to recommend this. This is as lazy of a horror film as any, and the only way to enjoy its cheese smelling plot is if you are under the influence of at least ten beers. And unfortunately for theater patrons, alcohol isn't served.<br /><br />Rating: * out of ****
I went into this with my hopes up, by twenty minutes into the movie I couldn't have been more let down. Despite thinking that this would be another horribly bad remake, I kept my hopes high that maybe...just maybe someone would get it right this time around. Sadly, Prom Night is about on the same quality level as the recent April Fools Day remake, bad script, bad direction, cheesy overdone acting and generally bad horror.<br /><br />From beginning to end it's boring, repetitive and worthy of about a dozen eye rolls. We've seen it all before and we've seen it done a million times better then this. If you go to see Prom Night in the theater (I'd say wait for the DVD or PPV), get ready for the audience to laugh, because laugh they will. The laughs aren't at points in the movie that are supposed to be funny, they are in response to key "thrilling" moments in the film that are so poorly done you feel as if your watching the newest installment of Scary Movie. Seriously, was this supposed to be a remake or a spoof? The film makers missed the mark so badly here, that a large number of the audience in the theater I attended walked out about halfway through the movie. Which in retrospect, I wish I had done. Not me though, I had to torture myself and stick with it hoping it would get better. Needless to say It didn't. The "horror" scenes are a joke, not even so much because of the acting but because of the direction, the script, the "special effects" and the camera work. The movie manages to look as if they spent a fortune to produce it, but still came out of it with a micro budget movie. I halfway expected to see dollar store tags on some of the props and kept thinking I would spot a porn star in the cast somewhere. <br /><br />This movies scary alright, if this is the future of big budget horror then the horror genre is doomed.
"Prom Night" is a title-only remake of the 1980 slasher flick that starred Jamie Lee Curtis and Leslie Nielsen. This movie takes place in an Oregon town, where Donna (Brittany Snow) is about to go to her senior prom and let herself have some fun after going through some extremely traumatic events in the past few years. She and her friends arrive at the prom, which is taking place in a grand hotel, and try and enjoy what is supposed to be the most fun night of their lives. Little does anyone know, a man from Donna's past, who has haunted her for years, is also at the prom... and is willing to kill anyone in way of his pursuit of her.<br /><br />I'm a fan of the original "Prom Night", so I tried to maintain a little hope in this movie, but I have to admit I was quite disappointed. "Prom Night" suffers from the worst affliction a horror movie could have, and that is predictability. There are absolutely no surprises here, and I felt I had seen everything in this movie done dozens of times, often better, before. What does this equate to for the audience? Boredom. Unless of course you have never seen any horror movies, or are part of the pre-teen crowd, but the majority of the audience will most likely be able to guess nearly everything that is going to happen. The plot is simplistic, but the entire script is void of any type of surprise, twist, atmosphere, or anything, and this really, really hurts the movie because it never really gives the audience anything to sink their teeth into. It all just seemed very bland.<br /><br />A lot of people seem to complain with the fact that this is a PG-13 slasher movie as well, and I understand what they are saying, but I don't think it's impossible to make a good slasher movie with minimal gore. Take Carpenter's "Halloween" for example - little to no on screen violence, but still an extremely frightening and effective movie. You don't need gore to make a film scary, but even had "Prom Night" been gratuitously violent (which it is not, it is very tame), it still would have added little to the movie because there is not much in the script to build on to begin with. The tension and suspense here is mild at best, and I spent most of the movie predicting the outcome of situations, and was correct about 99% of the time. Our characters aren't well written enough either for the audience to make any connection to them, and their by-the-numbers demises are routine and careless.<br /><br />I will point out a few things I did like about this movie, though, because it wasn't completely useless - the cinematography is really nice, and everything was very well-filmed and fairly stylish. Among the "jump" scares (that are for the most part very predictable), there were a few that were kind of clever. The sets for the movie are nice too and the hotel is a neat place for the plot to unfold, however predictable the unfolding may be. As for the acting, it's mediocre at best. Brittany Snow plays the lead decently, but really the rest of the cast doesn't show off much talent. Johnathan Schaech plays the villain, and is probably the most experienced performer here, but even he isn't that impressive. However, I did like the character he played, which was a nice change from the typical 'masked-stalker' type killer we see a lot. As far as the ending goes, the last fifteen minutes of the film had me bored to my wit's end and it was very anti-climactic.<br /><br />Overall, "Prom Night" was a disappointment. Everything was very by-the-numbers, routine, and predictable, which is somewhat upsetting considering this had the potential to be a decent slasher movie. There were a few neat moments, but the movie lacked any suspense or atmosphere, and had little plot development, nor believable characters. I'd advise seasoned horror fans to save their money and wait till it's out on video, or rent the original instead, because there are absolutely no surprises here. Some may find a little entertainment in it, but it was far too predictable for my tastes. I expected better, and left the theater very disappointed. 3/10.
If I could give this film a real rating, it would likely be in the minus numbers. While I respect the fact that somebody has to keep making these terrible "horror" films, seriously, people, buying a ticket for this film is a waste of money you could be spending on something far more worth your time.<br /><br />Despite it being a horror film, there is nothing scary about it, unless the idea of seeing how many horror cliché's you can fit in one movie scares you. If the rating had been higher, it probably would have made for a better film in the long run.<br /><br />Whoever made this version of "Prom Night", you screwed up. The actors could probably have done a decent job if it weren't for the questionable scripting. This was a terrible waste of a cinema trip. I'd sooner go and see "One Missed Call" again, at least that had some plot.
I think it was an overrated PG-13 crap! At least BRITTANY SNOW's performance was good and some others like IDRIS ELBA were good too, but some others teens in the prom like the leads friends were not that convincing. The killer was so dumb and looked so stupid too. The deaths were stupid, boring and completely unoriginals. The movie was very boring too and very overrated. It wasn't suspenseful at all, i almost fall asleep. Its another bad PG-13 remake, its really a dreadful movie IMO. The ending was so stupid and the climax was very rushed and boring. The movie is pretty slow too. Overall the only good thing about this crap fest is maybe BRITTANY SNOW i think she gave a good performance and IDRIS ELBA too, but besides that it was a completely dreadful movie and horrible remake. Well thats just my opinion. i gave it a 2/10.
I saw this movie a few days ago and gamely jumped during the scary parts. I must admit, I found it pretty decent...until I started to THINK about what the characters were saying. Logical problems:<br /><br />1. Her boyfriend, who seems to be a pretty fit dude, makes no sound while being killed. Don't you think that he might have at least tried to take the killer? <br /><br />2. When the remark is made that the gym teacher is "SOOOO in love with Lisa," I almost screamed at the screen. When your best friend's family HAS BEEN KILLED BY A TEACHER WHO WAS IN LOVE WITH HER, you don't make comments like that if you have half of a heart.<br /><br />3. As soon as Nash asks the uncle how many exits they have in the house and the uncle catches on that there may be danger ahead, wouldn't the smart thing to do be to get Donna, boyfriend, aunt, and uncle into a car and drive far, far away, then bait the house with the HRT and police force so that the killer has no way to get out?<br /><br />I could go on. And on. And on. Basically, the plot was decent, the characters weren't profiled enough for you to actually feel any empathy when they were slaughtered and there were way too many errors.<br /><br />HOWEVER.<br /><br />This movie might be good for teenagers, or young couples just looking for a fun night out. If you don't consider all the goofs, it's a mediocre film.
Why Hollywood feels the need to remake movies that were so brilliant their prime (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Hills Have Eyes) but is it considerably worse why Hollywood feels the need to remake those horror films that weren't brilliant to start with (Prom Night, The Amityville Horror) Much like their originals these remakes fail in creating atmosphere, character or any genuine scares at all. Prom night is so flat and uninteresting its hard to watch, but for all the wrong reasons.<br /><br />It's a poorly acted, massively uninteresting and ultimately dull excursion that fails at everything its designed to do. It's clear Hollywood Horror is dead. Even The likes of The Hills Have Eyes and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre managed to ruin their franchises in style with buckets of blood and a decent plot. Prom night is virtually bloodless and I'm not even going to mention how bad the plot is. Its inability to seal the killers identify makes this the least suspenseful horror movie since erm... the original.<br /><br />One of the most notorious slasher films of the 1980s returns to terrorize filmgoers with this remake that proves just how horrifying high school dances can truly be. Donna Keppel (Brittany Snow) has survived a terrible tragedy, but now the time has come to leave the past behind and celebrate her senior prom in style.<br /><br />When the big night finally arrives, Donna and her best friends prepare to enjoy their last big high-school blowout by living it up and partying till dawn. But while Donna is willing to look past her nightmares and into a brighter future, the man she thought she had escaped forever has returned for one last dance. An obsessed killer is on the loose, and he'll slay anyone who attempts to prevent him from reaching his one and only Donna.<br /><br />Who will survive to see graduation day, and what will Donna do when she's forced to confront her greatest fear? Scott Porter, Jessica Stroup, and Dana Davis co-star in the slasher remake that will have tuxedo-clad teens everywhere nervously looking over their shoulders as they file out onto the dance floor. A plot that will probably put you off going to see this. Witch if you ask me is a good thing.<br /><br />Without much to work with, McCormick gamely tries to milk tension out of the most banal of situations. At one point, a girl backs into a floor lamp (a lamp!) and McCormick tries to pump it up into a jump-scare moment. Desperate times really do call for desperate measures. There haven't been this many shots of closets since the last IKEA catalogue.<br /><br />In the era of The Hills, My Super Sweet 16 and To Catch a Predator, there probably is a freaky, scary movie to be mined from the commoditisation of glamour and society's creepy obsession with youthful beauty. This is not that movie.<br /><br />My final verdict? Avoid at all cost. Nobody will like Prom Night, it's even a disappointment to thoses who usually enjoy hack-job remakes. Considering its absolute lack of blood or frights. A night you'll be in a hurry to forget.
OK this movie was made for one reason and one reason only TO MAKE MONEY!!The producers obviously didn't care about killing a classic horror movie. I knew this movie would suck as soon as it was going to be a pg-13 how many pg-13 slashers movies have turned out to be good? Thats like asking how many women have been on the moon? The answer is NONE!! Prom night 1980 was of cource no masterpiece but it certainly deserves to be recognised as a movie that stays true to its genre and deosnt try to be anything more than that.<br /><br />My problem with Prom night 2008 is the way that it handles the killer and i have 3 major problems with him.....................<br /><br />1)The way he escapes, he was locked up in a mental institute and he escapes through a air conditioning vent!! WHAT THE HELL? why would they have an air conditioning vent in the patients room? Do they want him to be comfortable during his stay or something? 2)His intentions are somewhat uncertain the killer want all of the main victims family and friends dead so he can have her all to his self, he says he loves her but the next minute he trys to kill her, so does he want to kill her, love her or just plain rape her?? 3) The killer is too good, how did he develop all of his skills? He used to be a teacher, so in this one scene where he kills the main victims boyfriend while hes basically on top of her asleep and she doesn't notice, it all silly 2 stars out of 10 terrible,silly,stupid attempt at a horror movie
The night of the prom: the most important night to any shallow girl composed almost entirely of plastic. And so the characters kept reminding us every ten minutes when some head-peckingly miniscule event occurred in their miniscule lives.<br /><br />There really is no excuse for Prom Night. There is less than nothing original about it and I truly would have given it zero or less stars were it possible on IMDb. The only part of my viewing that I enjoyed was when a group of teenagers sitting in front of us decided to play a game of 'ghosts'. It was a lot more exciting than whatever was going on on the screen in front of them.<br /><br />The plot was basically some guy going on a rampage. And the thing was, it wasn't even a slightly exciting rampage. Maybe if the guy had been remotely frightening rather than a tame Robbie Williams lookalike with a baseball cap, I might have sat there feeling slightly anxious. The fact that I cared less about the characters than I did about the colour of the cinema carpet didn't really add to the effect, either. And to make matters worse, the rest of the characters were equally one-dimensional and oblivious. The hotel staff didn't seem to notice or care that one of their maids had vanished and are further proof that a murderer is unrecognisable after he has had a shave. I was incredibly surprised that the bitchy, stereotypical girl in the blue dress was the only person to notice who he was. She realises this and then proceeds to fall down the stairs, entangle herself in a plastic sheet and then knock over a pile of paint buckets. Nice one.<br /><br />The worst thing was, I hold the belief that that the director was trying his absolute hardest. He really pushed all boundaries by not showing any killing actually happening. Shocking! And the music, don't even get me started. It was almost as appropriate as stripping at a funeral.<br /><br />I really wish that Prom Night was a joke. It was terrible and stupidly predictable. No one, in their right mind or otherwise, has any reason to see this film. Mainstream cinema seems to be going downhill and films like this worsen the situation. If you get the urge to see this absolutely awful film, hear my plea. Don't do it. There are better things to spend six pounds on. Like a sheet to play ghosts with.
The acting was horrendous as well as the screenplay. It was poorly put together and made you almost want to laugh at the several terribly acted out murder scenes. The ending was even worse. Everyone kept dying, but somehow the ending made it look like everything was perfectly OK! They did not give enough history about the obsession the teacher had, etc. The movie needed more time to perhaps develop a better storyline. The only reason I give this 3/10 is that I kind of feel bad for the young actors. They needed better coaching. They could have really made this an OK film, but the screenplay and acting failed miserably.
i saw this film by accident and this movie was an accident...well it must of been. blonde women being stalked,the villain appearing then disappearing getting from one place to another in minute's then disappearing and reappearing,hiding.he was'nt even a super hero so i don't know how he did it.he could'nt frighten a cat and that's not hard to do.<br /><br />the old "mirror in the bathroom"is just not scary anymore in fact it stopped being scary years ago. you had the cop on the trail of the villain,another cliché(played by idris elba with a very convincing American accent,he's from London) the director did'nt have a clue and has made a film full of cliché's and make's "scary move"which was a COMEDY look scary. pathetic!
When I first saw the preview for this movie, I really couldn't wait to see it. The plot seemed good and the setting was great. I mean, a slasher movie that takes place on prom night, great idea!! And the plot: A High School teacher that becomes sexually obsessed with one of his students, goes crazy, gets arrested, and escapes three years later on prom night! Prom night, a night that is supposed to be happy and memorable, turns into hell!! However, I saw it and was extremely disappointed. It was not only the worst "horror movie" I have ever seen, but it was one of the worst movie in general that I have ever seen!! First of all, it wasn't even scary. There was not one moment in that movie when I jumped out of my seat. Also, the murder scenes were so cheesy and dull. All the slasher did was either stab his victims in the stomach multiple times or cut their throats. Also there was absolutely no gore (its rated PG-13). The scene with the most blood was probably the one where the killer murders the black girl. He slits her throat and blood splatters on the sheets hanging around them (they don't actually show him cutting her throat).<br /><br />Next, you see the killers face the first time he is introduced in the movie. He isn't mysterious, creepy, or scary. He's just this guy who kills people.<br /><br />Also, everything in the movie was so cliché. An example is when, at the end, the killer is about to kill the main character and at the last moment, the detective shoots and kills him. Also, every single thing in this movie was so predictable. The victim, after seeing the guy with a knife, runs for her life, hides, thinks she gets away, and then the killer just pops out and kills her.<br /><br />Finally, the sequence of the movie was extremely bad. The guy goes into the hotel, kills a few people, the bodies are discovered, someone pulls the fire alarm, and everyone evacuates. The main character forgets something in her room, has an encounter with the killer, runs and escapes. Thats it! She and her boyfriend go home, the slasher kills the guards patrolling the house, finds the girl, then gets killed by the detective. The movie sequence was so stupid and cliché.<br /><br />If your thinking of seeing this movie all because the preview looked good, trust me, don't waste your time or money. No wonder this movie was being shown in the smallest theater in the movie theater. My friend and I, along with these two girls sitting in the back, were the only ones in the theater. That should have told me something about the movie beforehand.
We have all been asking ourselves "why don't they remake the slasher films that were only OK instead of remaking the ones that were great already, that way they can only make it better?" well with Prom Night they have remade the average but trashy fun 80s Jamie Lee Curtis film and made it even WORSE. Its a paint by numbers slasher film which is clearly trying to attract the young teens (hence no violence etc), the knife in this slasher flick is blunt.The director spends so much time focusing on trying to make the rather attractive killer look somewhat creepy that anything else goes out of the window.The cast who include Britney Snow (who was superb in Hairspray) try their hardest but the material gives them nothing to do but pout and look scared.More annoying is how the death scenes are handled (we will hear the attack but wont see it). It also looks like the only place the knife in this film worked was in the editing suite since the film looks like it has been butchered (im guessing anything remotely scary ended up on the cutting room floor so as not to scare the kids) Yet in pours the money from Americans sending this film to number 1 at the box office!!! Slasher movies are a lot of fun but in Prom Nights case it made me want to download the original.I've seen scarier OC and Dawsons Creek episodes
I'm a big fan of the TV series Largo Winch. This movie was pain for me. I had to use fast forward not to fell to sleep. It was boring! How can somebody ruin this title so much? The story was the only good thing. Actors were sh.t. They can't live the role. The main actor(Tom ... ) is a null. Watch the other roles of this actor. The fighting scenes were unbelievable boring and not to followable,somehow they were not to follow the situation. Like other reviewer said low budget film with bad actors.Maybe next time somebody else can do better thing out of this title. French can't do right thing with big films,like Alien 4. That was bit brrr, after Alien 1,2,3.
First of all, if you'r a fan of the comic, well, you'll be VERY disappointed I'm sure ! Low budget movie !!! Largo is supposed to be Serbian in the comic, now suddenly he becomes croatian, pfff! chicken producers, it gave some spice and guts to the comic ( By the way, in the film, his father speaks Serbian and he speaks croatian... Lol ). The striking N.Y. Winch building becomes a common average-small yacht in H.K. The good looking Largo becomes some unshaved Tzigan/Turkish looking guy. Freddy the cool 'scarface' pilot becomes some fat, out of shape, sad, average guy. Simon, Largo's good buddy, does not exist at all !? He gave some pepper ! Largo doesn't throw knifes at all, but just some snake stares... The whole story is confused and looks like a pretentious TV-film. French directors and producers, if you don't have the money, the ability or the technology to adapt correctly the comic, please stick to some romance shooted in Paris. Very very bad film, good thing I just rented it, don't count on me to watch the sequel ( If there is any ! ).
In my knowledge, Largo winch was a famous Belgium comics (never read) telling the adventures of a playboy, a sort of James Bond without the spy life! So, when I had to choose a movie for a 5 years-old kid, I picked it up because the kid was already a great fan of James Bond!<br /><br />But, just after the opening credits, I got heavy doubts: when American movies offer amazing start, here, no action and a torrid sex scene … Then, the story get very complicated with financial moves… I thought I lost the kid.<br /><br />But, strangely, he had been caught by Largo, and more than James Bond! <br /><br />Was it the excellent interpretation of Tomer Sisley? The difficult relationship Largo has with his father? The multiple box story in which the friends are the bad guys, the bad guys are the friends? The exotic locations of Honk-Kong, Yougoslavia? <br /><br />Dunno, but he really cares about Largo ("Will he get up?) and we enjoyed our moment.
Chilly, alienating adaptation of Rebecca West's book about an Army Captain returning from duty in WWII with his memory impaired (now there's an original idea!). It seems he remembers old flame Glenda Jackson but not current wife Julie Christie, which should be enough to set off some emotional sparks. This extremely well-cast soaper brings together leading man Alan Bates with director Alan Bridges and co-stars Jackson, Christie, Ann-Margret, and Ian Holm, but the burners are all on low. There are a handful of good scenes (particularly whenever Jackson is on-screen), but Bridges' pacing is unrelievedly sluggish and the film's dulled-out color is enervating. Long on the shelf, this "Soldier" is best left forgotten. *1/2 from ****
but "Cinderella" gets my vote, not only for the worst of Disney's princess movies, but for the worst movie the company made during Walt's lifetime. The music is genuinely pretty, and the story deserves to be called "classic." What fails in this movie are the characters, particularly the title character, who could only be called "the heroine" in the loosest sense of the term.<br /><br />After a brief prologue, the audience is introduced to Cinderella. She is waking up in the morning and singing "A Dream is A wish Your Heart Makes." This establishes her as an idealist (and thus deserving of our sympathy). Unfortunately, the script gives us no clue as to what she is dreaming about. Freedom from her servant role? The respect of her step-family? Someone to talk to besides mice and birds? In one song (cut from the movie but presented in the special features section of the latest DVD) Cinderella relates her wish that there could be many of her so she could do her work more efficiently. You go girlfriend! In short, Cinderella is a very bland character. She passively accepts her step-family's abuse, escaping into her unspoken dreams for relief. She only asserts herself once by reminding her stepmother that she is still a member of the family. For this, she is given permission to go the ball if she completes her housework and finds something to wear, a token gesture that is clearly absurd to everyone except, of course, Cinderella. Can anyone see Belle or Jasmine being such a doormat? If Cinderella is dull, her male counterpart is nothing short of lifeless. The Prince in Cinderella gets no dialog and almost no screen time. We are given no indication if he is a good man, if he respects Cinderella or anything. All we know is 1) he is a prince and 2) he dances well. Heck, even the prince from "Snow White" got to sing a romantic song at least. Not only does this lack of development make the romance less interesting, it makes Cinderella look like either a social climber or an idiot, weakening her already tenuous appeal.<br /><br />Perhaps realizing how dull the main characters were, the animators chose to give excessive screen time to the movie's comic relief, Cinderella's friends, the mice. Granted, these characters are amusing. Even so, when the comic relief steals the show from the principals, well, let's just say your story has some problems.<br /><br />Dinsey loves to proclaim all its animated features as "masterpieces." While many of them are, there are some that do not deserve this appellate in any way. Cinderella is a prime example of this fact.
Just saw it yesterday in the Sao Paulo Intl Film Festival. Just before going I came here to see how it was rated, and at that time it was 7.4, a pretty nice rate...<br /><br />After 15 minutes I was dying to get out (never did this), but felt embarrassed to do so as the producer of the movie was in the screening.<br /><br />I did not like at all, the dialogs are shallow and lead nowhere, the characters are shallower than the dialogs, nothing lead anywhere, and the worst and worst: plenty of Siemens and Organics advertising on the movie. Despite the fact that I already paid to go to the movie and entertain myself, I still have to be bombarded by the main character chatting on the internet and Siemens mobile popping-up all the time on her lap-top; or another character having a bath or cutting her hair just to have Organics shampoo displayed enormously on the screen! All of this would be bearable if the plot, characters, romances, anything was good, but was bad, really bad! A "don't know how to do" sex-in-the-city.<br /><br />Don't waste your time or money.
When I bought this DVD I though: "It seems to be a nice light comedy about love and relationships made up in Portuguese standards… let's give it a chance…" I was TOTALLY WRONG! What a disappointing movie! First, it's not a comedy; it's a cheap drama which can be so melodramatic that it's even worse than many Portuguese soap operas! Second, the plot is so boring, and leads nowhere… It has no structure, it just flows, like the wind, in one or another direction… The production is also bad! The sound mixing is horrible, because sometimes the voices are disconnected. It made me remind some old Portuguese movies from the 80's… The acting should have been better too… Well, to sum up, it's not with films like this one that Portuguese cinema will improve! In fact, it was one of the worst Portuguese movies I have seen in the last years! Bad argument, bad acting, bad production… I had no high hopes for this movie, but it was much worse than I've ever imagined! Just forget about it!
(I'll indicate in this review the point where spoilers begin.) My dissatisfaction is split: 30% tone-deafness, 70% lackluster writing.<br /><br />The 30%: I agree with the first commenter's synopsis about the lack of diversity in the characters and scope of the stories. I was surprised how, this film, at best, woefully shortchanges the real NYC by presenting a collection of people and relationships so narrow as to come across as if it's inhabited only by the cast of Gossip Girl (this is coming from someone who likes Gossip Girl). A few minority characters are written into the stories, but they are included by obligation, while we can see the gears under the film so clearly, striving to "be diverse" but falling ever-so-short.<br /><br />The 70% is why everything falls short. All characters, white plus a few token minorities, are one-dimensional, cardboard cutouts of people concepts. Worse, their interactions with each other are scripted in such a way that for each vignette in the film the audience is treated to what I'd say is a "gag": we get a basic conceit, then some punchline intended to be a clever twist. But even if we suspended cynicism for a moment to say, "Okay, that was a surprise"...the stories are still not that interesting, because they, too, are shallow. When you fashion stories so that their existence hinges solely on the unexpectedness of the ending, you're writing jokes.<br /><br />Spoilers below...<br /><br />The movie primarily tries to tell romantic stories. That's fine. But romance is amazing, deep, sometimes complex. These "romantic" stories each feature a girl and a boy who at some point share the same location and get to look at each other. Words exchange, thoughts are projected through voice-over, but they too only manage to communicate to the audience merely that one person is attracted to another.<br /><br />Meaning, there is no seduction (in the broad sense), no tension, and neither confrontation nor communion between the wills of two different people trying to reconcile their existence to accommodate the Other. The only story involving a superficial "seduction" is told just so the audience ends up being surprised that the guy (Ethan Hawke) gets outwitted by the girl he's hitting on, who unexpectedly turns out to be a hooker. Sure, his words when trying to pick her up are interesting to hear and we are amused as we'd be if we were next to them, but there is nothing of substance to this story outside of "A then B". So it unfolds, if something like a postcard could "unfold", with all the other tales as well: A then B--That's It, the only point being that these happen to occur "on set" in Manhattan. By the way, the only Brooklyn we see is the Coney Island sketch; the only Queens is the flickering of a train ride taken by a character traveling to the West Village.<br /><br />It's easy to pick at movies that play into all the common stereotypes of race, gender, sexual orientation, and so on. _New York, I Love You_, however, deserves to be held to stricter scrutiny because of its title. We expect to see the real New York, and real New Yorkers, but instead we have paraded before us the selected slice of a demographic, its characters flown in from The O.C., plus a few others to make it SEEM as if we are paying attention to diversity. But when we look closer at who those characters are, the whole sham becomes an affront to the very notion of diversity and the ethnicities and cultures the movie shamefully fails to represent.<br /><br />For example, the story with the Latino man with the little white girl in the park, who gets mistaken by two ladies as her manny (male nanny) when in fact he's the father. Notwithstanding the last scene of this part was unnecessary from a dramatic-construction point of view (it would have been far more interesting to end it when the mother and boyfriend/stepfather are strutting the girl away), it is frankly a bit disgusting that the scene where we learn for sure that the girl's father is Latino ALSO must inform us that he is a sexually desirable dancer. What, the dad can't be just some guy from South America? Now that he's obviously hot, is the audience better prepared to accept that he had a kid with a middle-to-upper-class white woman? Are we that naive as to require such? As if a Mexican construction worker would obviously be too unpalatable.<br /><br />It's not my place to dictate where the movie should have gone. But in every conceivable set-up and plot twist, the direction taken screams status quo, appeals to safety. All these stories could have been made more interesting, even if we were forced to keep the single-dimensionality of the characters inhabiting them, at the very least by not choosing from standard and obvious stereotypes. Asian girl living in Chinatown being leered at by a scraggly old white guy? How 'bout an Asian cougar pursuing a white college kid instead. Again, I'm not saying the entire conceit has to be changed. It's just that every. damn. story premise. is so hackneyed--and thus they fail to convey anything about why one might love New York, outside the trite. The real way to have improved the film would be to have written a script worth reading.<br /><br />I will concede the pleasantness of the soundtrack, the good pacing of the movie (even if what was being paced was, well, dredge), and the general feel of many of the scenes. The movie was just fine to sit through, and I wouldn't dissuade anyone from doing so. However, it is telling that the most significant homage paid to non-superficiality is when the old opera singer says (paraphrased) "That's what I love about New York: everyone's from a different place." Well, you wouldn't know it from watching this one.
Having loved 'Paris, Je T'aime', I highly anticipated this film and I admit I went in with high expectations, but was sorely disappointed for a number of reasons.<br /><br />Although, I was not expecting a re-make of 'Paris' in New York I was expecting the same structure. What I liked about 'Paris' was the breakup of the neighborhoods. You got a sense of each directors style and the story they wanted to tell. In 'NY', there is no clear separation of the stories, at different points in the film, characters from different stories run into each other which made me confused as to who I was watching and what exactly was going on. Also, the switch in directing was evident but confusing since there was no flow.<br /><br />Another thing I loved about the 'Paris' film was the different takes on love. It wasn't all romantic. There was love between parents and their children, unrequited love, a lonely, middle-aged woman yearning for love etc., it explored so many layers of the complexity of love between humans. 'NY' seemed to only go for an edgy, over-the-top sexuality. There were some redeemable shorts (the older couple having spent a lifetime together, Julie Christie's short), but overall the'NY' film didn't evoke any emotion for me. I didn't connect with any of the characters like I did with 'Paris'. I remember watching 'Paris' and feeling a deep sadness, loneliness, yearning, hopefulness, wonder... it just had so much soul. For me, there was no soul in the 'NY' film.<br /><br />Maybe if I had gone into it without having 'Paris' looming in the back of my brain as a comparison this film might have elicited a more favorable response, but as a self-titled re-take of 'Paris, Je T'aime' I was sorely disappointed.
I saw this regurgitated pile of vignettes tonight at a preview screening and I was straight up blown away by how bad it was. <br /><br />First off, the film practically flaunted its gaping blind spots. There are no black or gay New Yorkers in love? Or who, say, know the self-involved white people in love? I know it's not the love Crash of anvil-tastic inclusiveness but you can't pretend to have a cinematic New York with out these fairly prevalent members of society. Plus, you know the people who produced this ish thought Crash deserved that ham-handed Oscar, so where is everyone? <br /><br />Possibly worse than the bizarre and willful socioeconomic ignorance were the down right offensive chapters (remember when you were in high school and people were openly disgusted with pretty young women in wheelchairs? Me either). This movie ran the gamut of ways to be the worst. Bad acting, bad writing, bad directing -- all spanning every possible genre ever to concern wealthy white people who smoke cigarettes outside fancy restaurants. <br /><br />But thank god they finally got powerhouses Hayden Christensen and Rachel Bilson back together for that Jumper reunion. And, side note, Uma dodged a bullet; Ethan Hawke looks ravaged. This, of course, is one thing in terms of his looks, but added an incredibly creepy extra vibe of horribleness to his terrifyingly scripted scene opposite poor, lovely Maggie Q.<br /><br />I had a terrible time choosing my least favorite scene for the end of film questionnaire, but it has to be the Anton Yelchin/ Olivia Thirlby bit for the sheer lack of taste, which saddens me because I really like those two actors. I don't consider myself easily offended, but all I could do was scoff and look around with disgust like someone's 50 year old aunt. <br /><br />A close second place in this incredibly tight contest of terrible things is Shia LaBeouf's tone deaf portrayal of what it means for a former Disney Channel star to act against Julie Christie. I don't mean opposite, I mean against. Against is the only explanation. I realize now that the early sequence with Orlando Bloom is a relative highlight. HIGHLIGHT. Please keep that in mind when your brain begins to leak out your ear soon after the opening credits, which seem to be a nod to the first New York Real World. This film is embarrassing, strangely dated, inarticulate, ineffective, pretentious and, in the end, completely divorced from any real idea of New York at all. <br /><br />(The extra star is for the Cloris Leachman/ Eli Wallach sequence, as it is actually quite sweet, but it is only one bright spot in what feels like hours of pointless, masturbatory torment.)
I've never been to Paris, but after seeing "Paris, Je t'aime" I'm crazy to visit this city! I've been to NY several times and I LOVE the city and its boroughs. I kinda expected to be touched by this film, to feel like jumping into a plane and fly there right away, but, lo and behold, I regret the time and money I spent with it. There are no love stories between people or a person and the city. There's a lot of dysfunctional meetings and relations or people who know each other and it just doesn't work out fine. Maybe this reflects a characteristic of the city, where it's said to have thousands of people living on their own. Can't you find love in New York?
This was a movie i could not wait to see! So i finally got it and I was pretty disappointed. For starters,the movie has so little said about New York,just a bunch of confusing shots of buildings,streets,bridges and cafes.It really doesn't stay focused on the New York magic.Another thing that changed my mind was the french movie set inside this movie.I know that it is a remake,but it is not a french style remake! Anyway,here you will notice elements that remind you of french movies,such as long and messy scenes,no or little talking and of course everyone is smoking french style ! The story follows many lives ( too many for my taste) and they somehow seem connected in the end. I feel like there was no dedication to the characters as much as there was on the stories. The movie was too short to cover every single destiny everyone's happy ending.So we can see about 30 people for about 5 minutes each.And there you have your 120 minutes ! if you like active scenes dialogues and stuff this is not the movie for you ! i give it 4 just because i love New York and i loved the cast !
Following the success of "Paris, Je T'Aime", a group of directors decided to get together and make a similar anthology style film based in New York. Unlike the original film, the stories in this film seem to sometimes come and go too quickly--by the time you think are getting into a story, it's over in too many cases. And, the often start up and stop and then begin again--with the stories woven together. As a result, there is no title to indicate that a story is complete and it is less formal in structure.<br /><br />Sadly, however, while "Paris, Je T'Aime" was hit or miss (mostly hit), most of "New York, I Love You" was miss. The stories tended to be much more sexual in nature but also far less sweet--and often quite terrible. It was an amazingly dull and uninteresting film with only a few exceptional stories--and perhaps the often depressing music made it seem more so. Now understand, it was good quality music but its somber tone really, really made me feel like cutting my wrists! Among the better ones was the story about the young man who took a girl in a wheelchair to prom, the couple talking about cheating outside a restaurant (though this was also in the first film) and the crotchety old couple. This is all so sad because I had loved the first film so much--and I really WANTED to love this film. I respected what they tried but simply didn't like it very much.<br /><br />By the way, and this is NOT really a complaint, but I was amazed how many people were smoking in the film. For a recent film, that was unusual in our more anti-smoking culture.<br /><br />Also, if you get the DVD, there are two segments included as extras that were not included in the film. One consists of Kevin Bacon (wearing a cool fedora) eating a hotdog....and absolutely NOTHING more for almost ten minutes. The other features a teen who spends the film videotaping the world--including a very unhappy couple.
A few years back the same persons who created Paris,J'TAIME., which was imperfect but very enjoyable ( my rating was a 7), created this piece of garbage about New York City.<br /><br />In Paris, I Love You (J'taime)created a feeling for Paris & it was made in many parts of beautiful Paris.<br /><br />In this current film, I did not recognize New York City, I did not feel that I was in the city of my birth.<br /><br />New York does have 5 boroughs,I saw no scenes in The Bronx, or Queens ,There is one scene in Brooklyn,(Brighton Beach), I saw no scenes in Times Square or Greenwich Village/ No scenes of the beautiful hotels or theatres. It does have a large cast,most of the performers were not even stereotypes, they were caricatures of the lowest sort.<br /><br />The very few humorous moments are all of a course sexual nature or quite insulting to the many fine New Yorkers that we all know & love.. <br /><br />A few of the films nominated for the 'razzie' awards were far better.<br /><br />Ratings: * (out of 4) 20 points (out of 100) IMDb 1 (Out of 10)<br /><br />In my way of thinking I think the title should have been<br /><br />NEW YORK, I HATE YOU.
An anthology is always risky business and I think this endeavor should be praised. There's a lot of talent involved here. A great many talented actors, directors and writers. Unfortunately, I couldn't really enjoy this movie based on three issues I had.<br /><br />First of all, the segments vary incredibly in tone and quality. And unfortunately some of them clash with the others. <br /><br />Secondly, several segments feel underdeveloped to me. Like seeds of good stories that never come to fruition. I'm not talking about happy endings here (or even an ending period) but rather, they lack even basic development or even solid setups that draw you in. <br /><br />Last but not least, I did not feel New-York and its inhabitants were properly portrayed.<br /><br />What you're left with is high-brow short films that may still be of interest to some but will leave the average viewer unsatisfied.
New York, I Love You, or rather should-be-titled Manhattan, I Love Looking At Your People In Sometimes Love, is a precise example of the difference between telling a story and telling a situation. Case in point, look at two of the segments in the film, one where Ethan Hawke lights a cigarette for a woman on a street and proceeds to chat her up with obnoxious sexy-talk, and another with Orlando Bloom trying to score a movie with an incredulous demand from his director to read two Dostoyevsky books. While the latter isn't a great story by any stretch, it's at least something that has a beginning, middle and end, as the composer tries to score, gets Dostoyevky dumped in his lap, and in the end gets some help (and maybe something more) from a girl he's been talking to as a liaison between him and the director. The Ethan Hawke scene, however, is like nothing, and feels like it, like a fluke added in or directed by a filmmaker phoning it in (or, for that matter, Hawke with a combo of Before Sunrise and Reality Bites).<br /><br />What's irksome about the film overall is seeing the few stories that do work really well go up against the one or two possible 'stories' and then the rest of the situations that unfold that are made to connect or overlap with one another (i.e. bits involving Bradley Cooper, Drea DeMatteo, Hayden Christensen, Andy Garcia, James Caan, Natalie Portman, etc). It's not even so much that the film- set practically always in *Manhattan* and not the New York of Queens or Staten Island or the Bronx (not even, say, Harlem or Washington Heights)- lacks a good deal of diversity, since there is some. It's the lack of imagination that one found in spades, for better or worse, in Paris J'taime. It's mostly got little to do with New York, except for passing references, and at its worst (the Julie Christie/Shia LaBeouf segment) it's incomprehensible on a level that is appalling.<br /><br />So, basically, wait for TV, and do your best to dip in and out of the film - in, that is, for three scenes: the aforementioned Bloom/Christina Ricci segment which is charming; the Brett Ratner directed segment (yes, X-Men 3 Brett Ratner) with a very funny story of a teen taking a girl in a wheelchair to the prom only to come upon a great big twist; and Eli Wallach and Cloris Leachman as an adorable quite old couple walking along in Brooklyn on their 67th wedding anniversary. Everything else can be missed, even Natalie Portman's directorial debut, and the return of a Hughes brother (only one, Allan) to the screen. A mixed bag is putting it lightly: it's like having to search through a bag of mixed nuts full of crappy peanuts to find the few almonds left.
The problems with this film are many, but I will try to mention the most glaring and bothersome ones. First of all, while the theme suggests a number of vignettes about Manhattan life, the reality was that everything, as usual in movies and TV, was about something bizarre, usually of a sexual nature. The story lines were thin or nonexistent, and virtually every scene, camera shot, line of dialog, and expressed emotion was absolutely, and totally fake. It finally reached a point after an hour of so of mind numbing garbage that I walked out (something no uncommon for me in recent years.) I would have guessed the fi9lm was directed by some wannabe auteur drop outs from some 3rd rate film studies program, but I believe the (at one time, pre-Amelia, talented)director Mira Nair took part in this disgusting travesty, so perhaps the directorial talent in America has descended en masse into the cesspool.
There is a reason this went straight to video- the story is smarmy, Nick Cage plays Johnny in a sleazy way- sex in churches, and other scenes that border on tasteless(like the scene in the laundry room) taint this movie. Judge Reinhold as the cuckold is okay- but the movie itself with its themes of degradation and revenge are not well done. But it is a good film for trivia contests- because so few people saw it.
Thanks to some infamous home video distributor who brought in the so called German Independent Series, Four For Venice is not only awful, but really awful. So awful, that i have it dumped at the second hand goods store for extra cash.<br /><br />Nick and Charlotte is a married couple who reached an agreement of having sex only on Tuesday due to their hectic schedule of their profession. Eva and Luis is a pair of couple living from hand to mouth, where Eva works as a waitress and Luis, an artist. Nick indirectly causes Eva to lose her job as an waitress. Luis and Charlotte had an affair at the back of Eva and Nick. Luis cheated on Eva by lying to her that he would be flying off to London to do something related to his artwork, but the fact is, he is flying off to Venice with Charlotte for an adultery holiday. Eva kidnapped Nick and dragged her 2 kids along to Venice for confrontation. The trip to Venice ends up both Nick and Eva falling for one another.<br /><br />The presentation of the journey from Germany to Venice between Nick and Eva marks the failure of the comedy. It not only look senseless, but also draggy. In the film, Nick try to seek help for several ways, but it ends to no avail. It is either the strangers around him who acts like morons, or they are just simply dumb.<br /><br />The comedy also had the tendency to add in unnecessary scenes to lengthen the story. While some of the problems that can be solved with common sense, no one in the film are using common sense to solve the problem. They prefer to go through one big round to solve the problem.<br /><br />It fails so bad, that even the beautiful sceneries in Venice fails to pull up the reputation of the film.
Garson Kanin wrote and directed this look at "modern day" Las Vegas and the gap between generations, his first directorial effort since the 1940s! David Janssen is somewhat miscast as a big-shot casino owner who reunites with his son (Robert Drivas, who looks disconcertingly like an older Jason Bateman). Janssen approaches every scene the same way: defensively, with a chip on his shoulder. Playing this role cool and laid-back is asking too much from Janssen, who barks at everyone like a grouchy put-upon husband (he even chews out Don Rickles and makes him cry!). His son, a ne'er-do-well in search of his own identity, makes hip comments about how young people look down on Vegas (give them another ten years), and his disapproval of Dad's lifestyle causes friction. Brenda Vaccaro is cute as a self-conscious secretary and Edy Willaims has a fun bit as a showgirl at an audition. Unfortunately, "Where It's At" doesn't have much else going for it other than the now-dated ruminations on ethics between adults and their kids, some quick T&A shots and amusingly jaded satirical bits on the high-stakes world of gambling--most of which has been covered by now, ad nauseum. ** from ****
Casting bone to pick: David Jannsen was 38 playing the father of Robert Drivas, who was then, 31 (yeah, I realize he's supposed to be just out of college, but clues in the script have him being a loafer and so he's probably 24-25 in the script--- that still puts Jannsen in parenting classes in Junior High). I assume the AMA wrote medical miracle up in their 1938 Year in Medicine. This movie hasn't aged very well at all and now it's main appeal is just to see a snap shot of Sin City, circa 1969 and all the incessant smoking, the weird hair (Drivas has an atomic comb over that makes him resemble a well-groomed hip Cousin It) and trendy fashions that went along with it. If anyone remembers, LV wasn't exactly London... the city coddled the mob and codger gamblers in those days. Drivas comes off as sexually ambiguous; his dad thinks he might be gay (in a sad irony, Drivas himself died of AIDS at 47) and the soapy conflict is from the generation gap issue (ahem, as if one may call 7 years a gap). Sonny boy wants to be his own man and dad wants to pull him into the casino (Caesar's Palace!), and plies him with girls (including the horny-for-money Edy Williams). Interestingly enough, the son doesn't seem to mind being thought of as gay--- unusual for the time and a cute Brenda Vaccarro is nearby to swoon platonically over him. What nudity there is is awfully lame--- just what was needed to pull the audience in for an 'R' rating in the early days of the MPAA rating system (which then was G-M-R[16]- and X). The editing is HORRIBLE and there's stupid-silly overdubs by The Committee (a late 60's neo-avante-garde comedy troupe that mercifully faded off the map within a couple of years). Don Rickles is on board as a blackjack dealer... seemingly preparing him for a role as a floor manager in the much better CASINO two decades later. Not to give anything away, but they would've dealt with Mr. Rickles' character with power tools and a hole in the desert back then. A curiosity at best, far from Joshua Logan's usual caliber of work. Dos/Dias. Now go watch CASINO again...
I can only believe that Garson Kanin must have been two people. The one who wrote the brilliant "A Double Life" and the funny "Born Yesterday" and co-wrote such excellent screenplays as "Adam's Rib" and "Pat And Mike" with his wife Ruth Gordon and then the one who wrote and/or directed such tiresome, sad drivel as "Bachelor Mother", "Some Kind Of A Nut", and this. The cast tries, but the script is so tired and clichéd that even the efforts of the always wonderful Brenda Vaccaro are defeated. The script sinks to it's nadir in the truly offensive sequence in which Janssen's character tests Drivas's character to make sure he's not gay. An ugly sequence, but sadly one which could easily play in a film today. "Ethnic" jokes are now totally verboten, but "fag" jokes are still "good, clean, family fun".
I was thrilled to watch this movie expecting it to be the sequel to the cult classic "Private Lessons" which portrays the dream of any male teenager.<br /><br />"Private Lessons II" has NOTHING to do with the title I mention. It's just a regular soft-core Cinemax flick that won't make a change in your life. There's just one hot sex scene in a rooftop but that's it. I watched this a long time ago but believe me, this is just a regular boring soft core flick.<br /><br />The women are hot but that's not enough to rent or buy the movie. My advice is to watch this only if it airs on cable.
Up until the last 20 minutes, I was thinking that this is possibly Jackie Chan's worst movie (excluding his pre-1978 work, which I am not familiar with). The final fight sequence changed all that: it is long and good and intense - indeed, one of the highlights of Chan's career. But to get to it, you have to sit through a lot of "comedy" that might amuse five-year-olds (oh, look! someone threw a tomato at that guy's face) and endless "football" scenes. Not to mention the dubbing (which includes the line "How can I turn it off? It's not a tap" - watch to find out what it refers to). "Dragon Lord" is worth renting for the final fight alone, but the rest of the movie is only for Jackie collectors, and even then only for those who've already seen at least 15 of his other movies. (**)
When I sat down to watch this film I actually expected quite a bit, as the plot takes on quite complex issues. Using football as launching pad for the complication also was an interesting approach. Still unfortunately, despite its bravery of dealing with controversial issues as culture clashes between Muslim and western culture, adding generation conflicts and prejudice towards gays/lesbians, it lets you down towards the resolution with a rather simplistic relief to all the suspense built up throughout the film. This leads me to the impression that the makers took on a little too big a task for themselves to tackle, attempting to be more profound then they managed to deal with.<br /><br />However, this does not mean that the film is directly bad, as it's rendering of the conflicts where quite believable and also amusing. The film succeeds in being engaging and entertaining in this matter, but as mentioned above the writers seem to have spun themselves a little too deep. This has led to some quite unrealistic character behaviour towards the end to confront the surging conflicts. By this dropping the ball at a time where the makers could really have shown brilliance taking the film to another level of appreciation.<br /><br />Even if the film does at no point really attempt to be a profound piece of drama, the setting has so much potential in the plot it becomes a disappointment when "the ball drops". This way the film moves from being a good and reflected comedy to a standard cliché that becomes ridiculous in its happy-ending. Nothing is left out in the Hollywood like ending. So even if the story is engaging and one can stomach the large amount of montages, one can't help but roll eyes towards the resolution. Personally I was close to shouting "finish already!!" at the screen.<br /><br />There were some decent acting in the film, and the two young female central characters had some good moments. So did their parents and other bi-characters. However the handsome Irish coach was an embarrassing piece of acting, that lets the film down quite a bit in terms of realism. He didn't even appear very likable, but rather self involved despite his good deeds, which makes the impending conflict between the girls seem a little strained.<br /><br />I give the film a 4, as it was an engaging story and they sought out a nice perspective to approach the subject from. The script and cast had many good believable characters, giving the audience a chance to recognise either themselves or others. Had the let-downs not been this disappointing, I'd easily give the film a 7 or 8. If you enjoyed this film, I'd recommend the film "East is East", which I think is an as good, if not better rendering of cultural conflict, as well as being amusing and engaging.
Long, boring, blasphemous. Never have I been so glad to see ending credits roll.
An executive, very successful in his professional life but very unable in his familiar life, meets a boy with down syndrome, escaped from a residence . Both characters feel very alone, and the apparently less intelligent one will show to the executive the beauty of the small things in life... With this argument, the somehow Amelie-like atmosphere and the sentimental music, I didn't expect but a moralistic disgusting movie. Anyway, as there were some interesting scenes (the boy is sometimes quite a violent guy), and the interpretation of both actors, Daniel Auteil and Pasqal Duquenne, was very good, I decided to go on watching the movie. The French cinema, in general, has the ability of showing something that seems quite much to life, opposed to the more stereotyped American cinema. But, because of that, it is much more disappointing to see after the absurd ending, with the impossible death of the boy, the charming tone, the happiness of the executive's family, the cheap moral, the unbearable laughter of the daughters, the guy waving from heaven as Michael Landon... Really nasty, in my humble opinion.
First of all, I was expecting "Caged Heat" to be along the same lines as "Ilsa, The Wicked Warden". Boy, was I wrong! In no way is this film 70s exploitation, "chix in chains", or "women in prison". Sure, the plot consists of a bunch of women in prison, who wear street clothes btw (quite comical), but NOTHING happens.<br /><br />There aren't strong rivalries, no one tries to seduce the warden or doctor in order to try and escape, and no inmates make out. There are 2 shower scenes, that I suspect is just recycled footage, but no fights breaks out / no one is seduced here - or anywhere for that matter! Aside from the lack of plot, unconvincing, unsympathetic, and flat characters, a couple of inmates that do manage to escape actually return to the prison in order to "free" their fellow inmates??!!<br /><br />PUH-LEASE, the movie should have just ended off with the escapees riding off into the sunset...as opposed to letting this mess continue!<br /><br />I feel scammed.
Nicholas Walker is Paul, the local town Reverand who's married to Martha (Ally Sheedy), but also is a habitual womanizer and decides to fake his own death to run away with his current affair, Veronica (Dara Tomanovich). However in so doing, he gets a bout of amnesia (hence the name of the film). Sally Kirkland is also on hand as a crazy old coot who pines for the good Reverand in a shades of "Misery" type of way. It's sad to see a pretty good cast wasted like this. Not the least bit John Savage in a horridly forgettable role as a shoddy private investigator. In a film billed as a 'black comedy', one has to bring BOTH elements into said movie. While this does bring the former in spades, it sadly contains none of the latter. Furthermore you can't emphasize with any of the characters and as thus, have absolutely no vested interest in them. Technically not an all-together bad movie just an extremely forgettable one.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Dara Tomanovich gets topless; Sally Kirkland also shows some skin <br /><br />My Grade: C- <br /><br />Where I saw it: Showtime Showcase
Towards the end of this thriller Ally Sheedy's gaunt latter-day image is used creatively to make up more than one hauntingly evil image. She convinces one that, if a nasty Bette Davis-type role were to come her way, she could carry it off brilliantly. Unfortunately, I can't find many other reasons for seeing this. If you've wondered what Sheedy looks like in a pair of old-fashioned glasses (but why should anyone?) then here's your answer. For the rest, Sally Kirkland's sex-starved crazy woman is really tiresome, and even if you like this sort of thing more than I do you'll have to admit that the tension sags badly during these scenes. Savage's drunken brute of an insurance agent is equally distasteful but at least it's a small role. Of the leading actors, Nicholas Walker inspires no sympathy at all for Paul Keller's plight and his acting is wooden. Dara Tomanovich is better and during her scenes with Sheedy the level rises a little. Sheedy's meticulous, understated performance (though she often seems to be on automatic pilot) is admirable in itself but out of context with the rest. The sets are drab, the camera-work undistinguished.
Where to start... If this movie had been a dark comedy, I would say it was FANNN-TASTIC! Unfortunately for me, and anyone else with free time and a buck to spare (mind you that was the price I paid, got it from Wal-Mart), this movie was meant to be a thriller. The only THRILL I got was watching Kirkland's lousy rendition of Anne Wilkes from Misery sans snowy woodland area. If you want a good laugh, on a rainy Friday night with some friends, then I highly recommend this movie. But if you want to watch something at least half way decent, then don't even bother.<br /><br />I for one enjoy crappy films, the worse the better in most cases. But Wow... I Meant WOW!! The only person in the entire film that didn't stink it up was the little boy, played by Vincent Berry. The only reason why I even give it 3 stars is because it gave me something to do.
Instead, go to the zoo, buy some peanuts and feed 'em to the monkeys. Monkeys are funny. People with amnesia who don't say much, just sit there with vacant eyes are not all that funny.<br /><br />Black comedy? There isn't a black person in it, and there isn't one funny thing in it either.<br /><br />Walmart buys these things up somehow and puts them on their dollar rack. It's labeled Unrated. I think they took out the topless scene. They may have taken out other stuff too, who knows? All we know is that whatever they took out, isn't there any more.<br /><br />The acting seemed OK to me. There's a lot of unfathomables tho. It's supposed to be a city? It's supposed to be a big lake? If it's so hot in the church people are fanning themselves, why are they all wearing coats?
I had quite high hopes for this film, even though it got a bad review in the paper. I was extremely tolerant, and sat through the entire film. I felt quite sick by the end.<br /><br />Although I am not in the least prude or particularly sensitive to tasteless cinema--I thouroughly enjoyed both Woody Allen's 'Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Sex,...' and Michael Hanneke's 'Funny Games'--I found the directors' obsession with this ten-year-old wanting to drink women's milk totally sickening. And when the film climaxed in an "orgy" where the boy drinks both his mother's milk, as well as that of the woman he has been lusting after for the whole film, I almost vomited with disgust for the total perversion and sentimental pap that it is.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the vast majority of European cinema, as well as independently made films, so this flick should have pleased me enormously. Avoid this film at all costs, it should be relegated to the annals of History as a lesson in bad cinema.
"Plan B" is strictly by-the-numbers fare except for one thing. I surprisingly found it to be rather insulting.<br /><br />Jon Cryer is the "star" of this film and plays his usual, smarmy, egotistical, snotty character that was actually endearing in "Pretty In Pink" and has NOT been amusing ever since. Grating doesn't even begin to describe his performance. Ricky (Mark Matheisen) is a muscular, blonde, struggling actor who (gasp!) is only worried about his hair and getting laid. Talk about a stock character...ugh. At least the other three characters are somewhat engaging. Lisa Darr and Lance Guest play a grounded, optimistic, caring couple who are struggling to conceive. Since they are not whiny drama queens, however, their roles are apparently considered boring and they aren't given enough screen time. Sara Mornell rounds out the cast by playing Gina, your usual nice and good-looking young woman who just can't seem to find the right partner in love. I've seen this character a million times before but at least her performance overcomes some of the shortfalls caused by the predictability of her situation.<br /><br />What startled me about this film was its juvenile promotion of stereotypes. They introduced a Russian character for the sole purpose of mocking him and making fun of the way he talked. He was portrayed as being wild, ignorant and amazingly shallow. They were just getting warmed up though for the usual nonsense about gays. Gina decides to be gay for a while since she isn't having any luck with guys. Honestly. That wasn't that bad except they really went overboard when Gina brought a lesbian to a Christmas party her friends were throwing. Her lesbian date had very short hair (like I'm sure all lesbians do). She also got quite upset (like I'm sure all lesbians do) when Gina had the nerve to put on lipstick(!). Finally, her date goes around the party hitting on just about every woman there and mouths off when Gina expresses her disappointment. Of course, we all know how gay people can't stay faithful for so much as a couple of hours much less months or even years, right? (Please note the sarcasm in that statement. Thank you.)<br /><br />This film was based on a tired and predictable premise to begin with but Cryer's unlikable performance combined with the idiotic stereotyping sinks this movie to the lower depths of cinema. 2/10
I had the misfortune to sit through the full 102 minutes of what, in my opinion, is this shockingly bad film. It fails on pretty much all levels; the cast is awful, the acting - ham at best and the plot lacks any depth, leaving me feeling violently apathetic as to the outcome of any of the convoluted story lines.<br /><br />Plan B has none of the charm this genre has the scope to convey and I found myself physically cringing at the various points where the script makes its regular misjudged meanderings anywhere towards the region of comedy.<br /><br />A bona fide saccharine coated turd of a movie.
Even though there's a repertoire of over 180 films to choose from, this 'Succubus' is often named as THE best Jess Franco film. Heck, even the legendary filmmaker Fritz Lang counts 'Succubus' among his personal favorites. So, maybe it's me but I thought this was a dreadfully boring and overly confusing movie. The opening is great, though, and shows Janine Reynaud performing an SM act on stage. It's all downhill from here, unfortunately. Reynaud's character is a maneater who eventually kills her lovers in some sort of trance. Franco had a decent budget to work with and spends it well on nice locations, beautiful photography and a mesmerizing musical score. This COULD have been his greatest film indeed, if it wasn't for the lame and uninteresting story. It's supposed to be psychedelic but I'd say sophomoric is a better term to describe what's shown here. Half of the time, you don't have a clue what's going on or what exactly is said so even the short running time of 80 minutes seems to last ages. This most certainly isn't Franco's best film according to me. I wouldn't even recommend it to die-hard exploitation fans. If you're looking for more superior Jess Franco film, try to get your hands on 'Las Vampiras', 'The awful Dr. Orloff' or 'Female Vampire'.
I've come to realise from watching Euro horror, especially films made by cult luminary Jess Franco, that you can't expect a plot that makes much sense. However, Franco has gone overboard with this film; and despite a surreal atmosphere, and the film's reputation as one of the director's best - Succubus is unfortunately is a truly awful film. I've got to admit that I saw the American cut version, which runs at about 76 minutes; but unless it was just the logic that was cut, I'm sure the longer European version is just as boring. The plot has something to do with a woman marauding around; practicing S&M and talking rubbish, and it's all really boring. There's no gore and the sex is dull, and most of the runtime is taken up by boring dialogue and despite the fact that this is a short film; I had difficulty making it all the way to the end. I have to say that the locations look good and Franco has done a good job of using his surreal atmosphere; but the positive elements end there. Jess Franco is definitely a talented director that has made some classic trash films - but this looks like it was one he made for the money, and overall I recommend skipping it and seeing some of the director's more interesting works.
'Succubus', the edited version of 'Necronomicon Geträumte Sünden', is a struggle to sit through, even at a lean 76 minutes; any more of this dreadfully boring and pretentious Euro horror tripe and I may have slipped into a coma.<br /><br />Jess Franco once again delivers a truly awful piece of 60s trash that appears to have been made by a cast and crew out of of their heads on Class A hallucinogenics, since not one second of this mess made any sense whatsoever. Apparently, this is one of the better of his 180+ films – it's hard to believe that there are worse efforts out there.<br /><br />The unfathomable plot deals with Franco's usual themes of sex, violence and lesbianism and throws in a bit of S&M for good measure, and yet it still manages to remain mind numbingly tedious.<br /><br />I may leave it quite a while before entering the world of dodgy Euro Horror again – life is too short to be spent watching bilge like this.
A disappointing film.<br /><br />The story established our protagonist as Chrissy, a 'young', rather sullen individual drifting, not doing much. Actually she does very little to move the narrative along so it didn't surprise me to see the focus shifting on her relatives. It's a pity though, Chrissy seem like interesting character.<br /><br />Story was predictable and at times felt quite formulated. So the question now is, when are we going to see the Campions, Jacksons, and the Tamahori's breaking ground with compelling, cinematically-told stories that will inspire, rather than entertain for the toll of two hours?<br /><br />Technically, a disgusting shot film.
Kubrick meets King. It sounded so promising back in the spring of 1980, I remember. Then the movie came out, and the Kubrick cultists have been bickering with the King cultists ever since.<br /><br />The King cultists say Stanley Kubrick took a great horror tale and ruined it. The Kubrick cultists don't give a damn about King's story. They talk about Steadicams, tracking shots, camera angles.This is a film, they insist: It should be considered on its own. As it happens, both camps are correct. Unfortunately.<br /><br />If one views it purely as an adaptation of King's novel, "The Shining" is indeed a failure, a wasted opportunity, a series of botched narrative gambits. <br /><br />I used to blame that on Kubrick's screenwriter. The writer Diane Johnson (author of Le Marriage, L'Affaire, Le Divorce, etc.) has a reputation as an novelist of social manners. Maybe she was chosen for her subtle grasp of conjugal relations or family dynamics. But the little blue-collar town of Sidewinder, Colorado doesn't exist on any map in her Francophile universe. <br /><br />Kubrick the Anglophile probably found her congenial, however. He, of course, is the real auteur. And considered on its own merits, his screenplay for "The Shining" -- with its mishmash of abnormal psychology, rationalism, supernaturalism, and implied reincarnation -- just doesn't stand up to logical analysis.<br /><br />I'm willing to consider Kubrick's "Shining" on its own terms. I'm even willing to take it as something other than a conventional horror-genre movie. But it doesn't succeed as a naturalistic study of isolation, alienation, and madness either. Parsed either way, the film pretty much falls apart.<br /><br />Are the horrors of the Overlook Hotel real? Or do they exist only in the mind -- first as prescient nightmares suffered by little Danny Torrance, then as the hallucinations of his father? One notes how whenever Jack Torrance is seen talking to a "ghost" he is in fact looking into a mirror. One notes how the hotel's frozen topiary-hedge maze appears to symbolize Jack's stunted, convoluted psyche. Very deep stuff.<br /><br />But if indeed the Overlook's "ghosts" are purely manifestations of Jack Torrance's growing insanity, then who exactly lets the trapped Jack out of the hotel kitchen's dead-bolted walk- in closet, so that he can go on his climactic ax-wielding rampage?<br /><br />And can ANYONE explain, with a straight face, that black-and-white photograph (helpfully labelled "1921") of Nicholson as a tuxedoed party-goer that pops up out of left field and onto a hotel-ballroom wall during the film's closing seconds? Are we to seriously conclude that Jack Torrance's Bad Craziness stems from a some sort of "past life" experience? (And if you swallow that, since when are reincarnated people supposed to be exact physical replicas their past selves?)<br /><br />Maybe Kubrick didn't care about his storyline. Maybe only wanted to evoke a mood of horror. Whatever the case, the film tries to hedge its narrative bets -- to have it both ways, rational and supernatural. As a result, the story is a mess. This movie hasn't improved with age, and it certainly doesn't improve with repeated viewings.<br /><br />I don't deny that a few moments of fear, claustrophobia, and general creepiness are scattered throughout this long, long film. But those gushing Elevators o' Blood, seen repeatedly in little Danny's visions, are absurd and laughable. And Jack Torrance's infamous tag lines ("Wendy, I'm home!" and "Heeeeeere's JOHNNY!") merely puncture the movie's dramatic tension and dissipate its narrative energy. (I know: I sat in the theater and heard the audience laugh in comic relief: "Whew! Glad we don't have to take this stuff seriously!") Finally, Kubrick is completely at sea -- or else utterly cynical -- during those scenes in which Wendy wanders around the empty hotel while her husband tries to puree their son. A foyer full of mummified guests, all sitting there dead in their party hats? Yikes, now I really am afraid.<br /><br />Given Jack Nicholson's brilliance over the years, one can only assume that he gave just the sort of eyeball-rolling, eyebrow-wiggling, scenery-chomping performance that the director wanted. The performance of Shelley Duvall, as a sort of female version of Don Knotts in "The Ghost and Mr. Chicken," is best passed over in silence.<br /><br />This movie simply doesn't succeed -- not as an adaptation, not on its own terms. It probably merits a 3 out of 10, but I'm giving it a 1 because it has been so GROTESQUELY over-rated in this forum.
I caught this stink bomb of a movie recently on a cable channel, and was reminded of how terrible I thought it was in 1980 when first released. Many reviewers out there aren't old enough to remember the enormous hype that surrounded this movie and the struggle between Stanley Kubrick and Steven King. The enormously popular novel had legions of fans eager to see a supposed "master" director put this multi-layered supernatural story on the screen. "Salem's Lot" had already been ruined in the late 1970s as a TV mini-series, directed by Tobe Hooper (he of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" fame) and was badly handled, turning the major villain of the book into a "Chiller Theatre" vampire with no real menace at all thus destroying the entire premise. Fans hoped that a director of Kubrick's stature would succeed where Hooper had failed. It didn't happen.<br /><br />Sure, this movie looks great and has a terrific opening sequence but after those few accomplishments, it's all downhill. Jack Nicholson cannot be anything but Jack Nicholson. He's always crazy and didn't bring anything to his role here. I don't care that many reviewers here think he's all that in this clinker, the "Here's Johnny!" bit notwithstanding...he's just awful in this movie. So is everyone else, for that matter. Scatman Crothers' character, Dick Halloran, was essential to the plot of the book, yet Kubrick kills him off in one of the lamest "shock" sequences ever put on film. I remember the audience in the theater I saw this at booing repeatedly during the last 45 minutes of this wretched flick, those that stayed that is...many left. King's books really never translate well to film since so much of the narratives occur internally to his characters, and often metaphysically. Kubrick jettisoned the tension between the living and the dead in favor of style here and the resulting mess ends so far from the original material that we ultimately don't really care what happens to whom.<br /><br />This movie still stinks and why so many think it's a horror masterpiece is beyond me.
I hate this movie! It was NOTHING like the book, and just thinking about it makes me mad. If you watch the movie before reading the book, then yeah, it's a good movie. But King's book was AMAZING and this movie was nothing like it. I mean, the general meaning might be sort of similar but most aspects of the movie are completely different. The ending for example! So in the book it is extremely intense and Danny and Wendy escape seconds before the hotel explodes. but in this horrible movie version jack like takes them through a stupid maze... yeah, there is no maze in the book and there is no reason for it. Another part that made me angry was that jack just kills Mr. Halloran! what the heck, he is basically the hero of the book and they just kill him off like he wasn't important. Overall, it was just bad that the movie was so extremely off.
Many King fans hate this because it departed from the book, but film is a different medium and books should change when they make the jump. That notwithstanding, the movie does fail completely, but it fails entirely on film terms. I'd like to smack the people who tell me it's the scariest movie ever made. I always follow up with the question "Really... exactly what scene scared you?" Every fan I've asked, goes silent. Occasionally someone, at a loss for a decent scare (There are none...), names the "Grape-juice-shooting-out-of-elevators" shtick. If you're afraid of that, I don't know what to tell you, except maybe that you're easily scared. I just rolled my eyes watching these z-grade horror ideas play out in this schlocky, incoherent movie.<br /><br />One place it diverts from the book and really is insipid is the tedious work the movie does to get Mr Halloran up to the Overlook only to kill him; with the dumbest member of the audience knowing that Jack is waiting behind one of the columns in the corridor that it takes Halloran FOREVER to walk down. Really one of the stupidest sequences ever put on film. <br /><br />Oh, and nice choice for Mr. Halloran's artwork Stanley! Black light afro-nymphomaniacs really add to the mood and character development of a horror movie. Has there ever been a more "off," out-of-place shot in any movie ever made?<br /><br />I consider it a miracle that I was eventually able to bypass this turd, and agree that Kubricks 2001 is a truly important film, given the immense 'bad will' generated by both this stupid, stupid movie, and the cult of fawning but inarticulate Kubrick fan-boys, who couldn't describe an idea at work in it with every film resource in the Library of Congress in front of them. <br /><br />Toss in the grotesque overacting of Jack Nicholson, the introduction of dumb one-liners at tense moments, and the Razzie nominated performance of Shelly Duvall and you have a very crappy movie.
These writings write about the end of the plot so don't read it if you haven't seen this rubbish.<br /><br />I found this rubbish film in the horror section which made me think it would be a horror. If I owned a video store I'd put it in the BORING section. This film is so rubbish it will make you feel like you have lost your socks.<br /><br />This film contains endless shots of people driving as if that was scary. Well I drive to work and back (and sometimes to the store or to visit my cats) almost every day and trust me it's not scary. It even starts with 20 minutes of some people driving. Even the little kid does it too. Round and round he goes and he never stops. What's so scary about watching a little kid riding a bicycle for an hour? I think NOTHING and if you watch it you will not think so too.<br /><br />The family in the car arrive at a big castle and they are given a tour just walking around endlessly looking at kitchens. Then the man walks around a for an hour and tries to kill his family for no reason. That's all that happens and as you can see it's rubbish.
Not the best of the films to be watched nowadays. I read a lot of reviews about Shining and was expecting it to be very good. But this movie disappointed me. The sound and environment was good, but there was no story here. Not was there a single moment of fright. I expected it to a horror thriller movie, but there was no horror no thriller. The only scene where I got scared was during the chapter change scene showing "Wednesday". There are lots of fragments i the movie. Most of the things are left unexplained with nothing to link it to anything. The story does not tell us about the women or other scenes that is shown. Might be a good movie to watch in the 80's, but not for the 21st century.
Ladies and Gentlemen,please don't get fooled by "A Stanley Kubrick" film tag.This is a very bad film which unfortunately has been hailed as one of the deadliest horror films ever made.Horror films should create such a fear that during nights people should shiver their hearts out while thinking about a true horror film.In Shining,there is no real horror at all but what we find instead is just a naive,foolish attempt made to create chilling horror.Everyone knows as to how good the attempts are if they are different from reality.All that is good in the film is the view of the icy valley. The hotel where most of the actors were lodged appears good too.A word about the actors Jack Nicholson looks like a lost,lazy soul who is never really sure of what he is supposed to do.There is not much to be said of a bald,colored actor who for the most of times is busy pampering a kid actor.No need to blame the bad weather for the tragedy.It cannot be avoided as the film has been made and poor Kubrick is not alive to make any changes.
Ok, honestly I dont see why everybody thinks this is so great. Its really not. There were two good things that came out of this movie 1. Jack's performance, he was very good I can tip my hat for him. 2. Danny's performance, he was good. No other then that it got pretty stupid. And, what was Stanley Kubrick thinking drafting Shelly as the Wendy? She was so bad. She looked the same every time she got scared. The problem with this movie was the ending. I would have had more respect for it if Kubrick would have ended it differently. And, the over all movie was just stupid. The problem with the movie is that the book was so much better. So dont see the movie read the book and you will be much better off. 3/10.
I am going to keep this short.This "adaption" of the wonderful King book is a bad joke and nothing more.Of course there are many Kubrick and Nickolson fans in this site and,as a result,this movie has mysteriously find its way in the top-250.<br /><br />Jack Nicholson is laughable as Torrance and so is Shelley Duvall.The story,that has nothing to do with the book,is an incoherent mess and the characters of Jack and Wendy Torrance are complete jokes.<br /><br />My advice to anyone that hasn't read the book and wants to understand the characters of this story:stick to the TV series ....<br /><br />Oh ,and the people who are saying that Kubrick had every right to destroy the King story cause King is...not a good writer should stick to reviewing "masterpieces" like "eyes wide shut".
After just finishing the book the same day I watched the movie, I knew what was supposed to happen. I had high expectations of the movie, because of the rating. The only reason I give this movie a 2 out of 10 stars is that it was alright trying to be a movie. I have a couple main points for not liking this movie.<br /><br />********** SPOILERS **********<br /><br />1. The casting. Jack Nicholson barely fits into Jack Torrence's character. Also, I would have NEVER picked Shelly Duvall for Wendy. I pictured Wendy much differently. I can see why they picked Jack Nicholson though, the grin, the pointy eyebrows, but he's not supposed to really look 'evil'. He's supposed to look normal, and he turns evil. Also, they make one of the worst movie couples. Danny was alright, he needed more life though. He acted way to droney.<br /><br />2. The screenplay. They cut out so many things that were in the book, and added things. Some of the things that were in the book that I was looking forward to in the movie were either deleted, changed, or handled wrongly. Some of the things that were in the book that I was looking forward to seeing (the hedge animals, the roque mallet, the elevator) were not in the movie, and it was 2 and half hours!! I was extremely irritated.<br /><br />3. The Ending. The ending was changed completly, Halorann died, Jack froze to death, Wendy never got hurt...The Overlook didn't blow up. The Ending was so cool in the book, and the movie messed it up so horribly, I was apalled. Hallorann was never supposed to die, but Jack killed him with an ax. If they wanted to kill him, at least have Jack use a roque mallet. You never even saw a roque mallet during the whole movie.<br /><br />There are other things that I didn't like about the movie, but there are things that were all right. The camera angels were cool, the blood coming out of the elevator (didn't happen in the book) was cool, but maybe I was too irritated that the movie didn't go with the book, to try to be scared at all. I reccomend reading the book, before you see this movie. I applaud Stephen King for actually agreeing to sign a contract to not dis Stanley Kubrik any more. I would never have done that, I would have taken all the rights I could get to yell at him all day. I can't wait to see the 6 hour version, at least it has the hedge animals.<br /><br />Rating: 2/10
This has got to be the most stupid film I have ever seen (spoilers ahead)! First of all, the plot is stupid. The little kid is weird and they move to a hotel because his father is the caretaker of it. We find that the kid has a gift, the "Shining". This gift never ever has anything to do with anything except to make the kid seem cool. Then the movie gets more boring and boring until the man finally goes crazy. He goes on a rampage to kill the kid and his wife because... well, he feels like it. Why else would he do it? All of a sudden we see a naked woman in the tub. The man kisses her and realizes he is kissing a dead corpse, which is utterly disgusting. Somehow a black man enters the hotel and is whacked with an axe. Then the kid and the woman take the black man's vehicle and leave the father, who dies within minutes of hypothermia. Most movies aren't a complete waste of time, but this falls right into that category. The music is trashy, the characters are corny (except Jack Nicholson, who is a good actor), the plot is twisted and fits the description of vomit, the ending is very predictable, the storyline is slow, tedious, and boring. This movie is extremely overrated. AVOID THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS. I'm surprised it's gotten such a high rating on IMDb.
One Star. That's all this documentary deserves. I haven't felt this disappointed in watching a movie, let alone a documentary, in quite some time.<br /><br />I'm a BIG fan of the "Walking With..." series, including it's Nigel Marvin spin-offs, for all their gleeful fun yet informative information. And although the subject of prehistoric man has never interested me nearly as much as other prehistoric creatures, the subject is still interesting and unique to explore. Having seen all the other docs from the series, I figured I need to see this one as well, especially after seeing relatively good reviews in other places.<br /><br />Well for those of you who put up a good review of this doc... what were you thinking?! lol.<br /><br />Though the information that they were able to get through was interesting, the presentation failed in every other way possible. It had a terrible flow, was incredibly unfocused in what it was trying to say (with information scrambled and sometimes out of of place), horrible effects (that includes the few moments of CGI and especially the makeup effects), and overused MTV-style camera effects.<br /><br />Speaking of the makeup effects, one reviewer here mentioned how laughable the scene was when the cavemen come across this giant ape and how it looks a lot like a 70s man-in-suit horror movie. Well there are plenty of moments just like that were the people portraying the ape men looked ridiculous and acted ridiculous. None of this is helped by horrible camera positions and compositions.<br /><br />The worst part of all is none of it is shown in an interesting or dynamic way, or looks remotely real. It doesn't even look like it was taken seriously. It also lacked any emotional punch that the predecessors of the series had. Remember the episode in "Walking With Dinosaurs" of the fate of the Ornithochirus (sp?)? That episode still gets me on the verge of tears every time I watch it. It's this sort of engagement with the subject that lacks here most of all. When you are more engaged in the subject and it's own personal story, even one that is just speculation, you care more about the facts surrounding it.<br /><br />The only saving graces of this production are the fairly good narration (at least in the BBC version I saw) and the music. Otherwise, DO NOT bother even renting this one unless you want to have a good laugh (which I did frequently, but usually followed by rolling eyes). This does not belong on the shelf with the other "Walking With..." docs.<br /><br />And does it make sense to learn that this doc was NOT produced or directly involved with the same people who did the others in the series? Hmmm...
OK, If you're looking for another Bastketball Diaries, this is completely the wrong film.<br /><br />I revolves around two brothers. Max, the younger, has a major cocaine addiction. Adam, the eldest, is a doctor. This movie is suppose to show the plunge from reality to the extreme lows that drugs make possible. It however, does not. It shows that cocaine can be fun no matter what the situation happens to be present. Most of the movie focus is on Max and his parting ways. Eventually Adam, can no longer take the stress from his job and begins to use as well (perscription drugs).<br /><br />This movie has almost no climax. Doesn't descend into what cocaine really does to you, has boring and low-budget scenes, and the acting of the eldest brother, Adam, is horrific.<br /><br />I have no idea how this movie has managed to pass and receive awards, it is not a heart-wencher. If you want a clear and true story movie on the extreme world of drugs- rent, if not buy 'The Basketball Diaries'. And notice the difference.<br /><br />Try to avoid this movie but, if you think you will enjoy. Try and see for yourself...
The movie is about two brothers that are supposed to be alike - but are not in any way expect for being smart - one is a surgeon and they other is able to write a computer code. Geniuses as they like to call themselves which sounds very exaggerated if you compare it to personal characteristics can you perceive from the material of the title.<br /><br />I honestly didn't like the style of the movie. I believe that anxiety, confusion and deep blues it brings are there for a purpose, but what I don't get is why there is so much of it. The movie is cheap on scenes and tells the story basically with no human aspect in it at all. It gives the comic book like experience. However it's visually numbing the viewer, it somehow brings him inside the blues with brief dialogs, monotonic scenes, dynamic cut, music and abrupt noises.<br /><br />The movie's storyline is very simple, most of what's going on is being dramatically pictured for long minutes, mostly in confusing delirium simulating effects of drug use and dynamic cuts.<br /><br />I will say openly that this movie didn't meet my expetations a tiny bit.
This has to be, by far, the absolute worst movie I have seen in the last 20 years. When I saw that Michael Madsen was in it I figured it couldn't be too bad a movie since he has been in some pretty decent films, and he was a pretty fair actor. WRONG! No one should waste their time on this film. I fast forwarded through 80 percent of it and I don't feel that I missed a thing.
It is a pity that you cannot vote zero stars on IMDb, because I would not have hesitated! In fact I would go so far as to say that this film was in the negative stars. <br /><br />I, like many others, bought this film thinking that because it has Michael Madsen in it, it could be good... No chance! This film was shocking! Imagine a movie length 'The Bold and the Beautiful', well, Primal Instinct did not even come close to that good, and I had previously thought that there would be nothing worse than a movie length 'The Bold and the Beautiful'. <br /><br />Michael Madsen, how could you do this to us? The worst part is, I didn't fast forward a bit, I was hoping that at the end they would reveal that it was all some sort of sick joke, that they thought it would be funny to make us watch such a horribly bad film.<br /><br />Where do I start...? Directing - Zero Stars, Screenplay - Zero Stars, Acting - Zero Stars, Cinematography - Zero Stars, Digital Effects - Zero Stars, Production Design - Zero Stars, Make-up - Zero Stars, Casting - Zero Stars, Editing - Zero Stars, Trailer - Half a Star, Graphic Design - Half a Star, DVD Menu - Half a Star.<br /><br />However I think that it is very important to have seen bad films just so that you know what a really bad film is, so for that reason I am happy that I saw this film, just so that I have a bad film to put at the bottom of my list.
This has to be the worst movie I have seen. Madsen fans don't be drawn into this like I was. He is only in it for a maximum of five minutes. This movie is so bad that the only reason why you would watch it is if all the rest of the movies on earth as well as t.v. had been destroyed.
A BDSM "sub-culture" of Los Angeles serves as backdrop for this low budget and shabbily constructed mess, plainly a vanity piece for its top-billed player, Celia Xavier, who also produces and scripts while performing a dual role as twin sisters Vanessa and Celia. A question soon develops as to whether or not some rather immoderate camera, lighting and editing pyrotechnics can ever reach a point of connection to a weak and often incoherent narrative that will not be taken seriously by a sensate viewer. Celia is employed as a highly motivated probation officer for the County of Los Angeles, while her evil natured twin has become an iconic figure within her fetishistic world largely because of erotic performances upon CD-ROMS, but when disaster befalls "Mistress Vanessa", virtuous Celia, determined to unearth her sister's vicious attacker, begins a new job as a "sex slave" at the private Castle Club where the specialty of the house is a "dungeon party". Two FBI field agents (whose deployment to the Vanessa case is ostensibly required due to her involvement with internet BDSM sites), in addition to a Los Angeles Police Department homicide detective, are assigned to investigate the crime, while endeavouring to provide security for Celia whose enthusiastic performance in her new vocation is avidly enough regarded by her customers as to have created conditions of personal danger for her. Flaws in logic and continuity abound, such as a homicide being allocated to L.A.P.D.'s Operations-South Bureau, a region of the metropolis that is far removed from the setting of the film. Direction is unfocused and not aided by erratic post-production editing and sound reproduction. The mentioned photographic gymnastics culminate with a batty montage near the movie's end of prior footage that is but tangentially referent to the scenario. One solid acting turn appears among this slag: Stan Abe as a zealous FBI agent.
This is not Michael Madsen's fault, he was hardly in it. This movie was just awful. If you want to laugh and be bored, go ahead and watch this movie. Words cannot describe how idiotic it is. Sorry Michael. The cinematography was dark. All the other actors are unknowns. When watching it, it feels like a soft porn, but with no nudity or heated scenes. This movie had sexual overtones, since it is about a underground S & M killer. The acting was bad, except Michael Madsen's parts. He looked like he wanted to laugh. I hope he got paid well for this lousy movie. It is something I would not be proud of. It is not even a B movie for cable, it is more like a F and it should never be shown, ever.
I just watched this film 15 minutes ago, and I still have no idea what I just watched. Mainly I think it's a film about an internet S&M "star" of CD Roms that are about as realistic as flash cartoons online. She's murdered by someone, which causes her sister and a crack team of 2 FBI agents to investigate the death. The local homicide division of Big City, USA is also investigating, though most of his work comes by the way of oogling the CD ROMs which he claims are as realistic "as the real thing". I know. Wow.<br /><br />Michael Madsen is the only one in the film that has any kind of credits behind him. He's in the film for about 15 minutes, and half of that is him banging the main girl for seemingly no apparent reason. I won't even explain the ending, because quite frankly I can't make it out myself. But before the final scene, we're treated to a 3 or 4 minute montage of everything in the film. Honestly, they could have ran that then the final scene and it would have been the same effect with the cross eyed direction and all.<br /><br />All in all, stay away from this film. I got it because I love bad movies and I love Michael Madsen. I really could have used that 80 some minutes on something else and have been more satisfied. Like, playing that game with a knife where you jab at your hand repeatedly. That for 80 minutes would be much more entertaining.
I agree totally with the last commenter this could be the worst movie ever made .I too had to fast forward through most of this movie. Michael Madsen must have done this movie as a favor to someone.The picture quality is grainy all the way through .And what little plot there is,is just plain stupid .I give this movie a 1 out of 10 if I could give it a lower score I would .Don't waste your time on this movie or you'll regret it.
The only redeeming part of this movie was the price I paid. At least all I lost was $3.00 and the time elapsed sitting through this bomb. The crew member who was in charge of continuity missed the boat. When the female lead and the FBI guy went to the alleged killers location, Mr. FBI handed the female a revolver. When the alleged killer came out the door, the revolver has magically transformed into an automatic. One is left to ponder would an FBP agent hand a weapon to a civilian? I think not. Ms. Xavier appears to be a very attractive female. It is too bad the R rating did not allow much of her to be seen. It would seem that a film editor cut what might have been the best parts of the film out.
[CONTAINS SPOILERS!!!]<br /><br /> Timon and Pumbaa are watching The Lion King. Timon decides to go back BEFORE the beginning, to when the story really began. So they go back. Way back. Back even before Simba was born. Back to Timon's old home which was miles away from Pride Rock. A clan of meerkats burrowed underground to hide from hyenas. The worst digger in the clan was a pompous, self-centered meerkat named Timon. His mother took pity on him but Uncle Max just shook his head. Mother suggested putting Timon on sentry duty; Timon had dreams of a bigger and better place out there somewhere. Just then, hyenas Shenzi, Bonzai and Ed arrived and nearly killed poor Uncle Max. That did it. The other meerkats just wanted Timon to go away while Timon took it upon himself to leave. So he kissed his mom goodbye and started off. He didn't get very far before he started getting homesick. Just then he met Rafiki, who taught him to look beyond what he sees. Timon had no clue what that meant so he continued on and met a warthog named Pumbaa, who was all alone due to a flatulence problem. Timon and Pumbaa join up then, but Timon declared them acquaintances, rather than friends.<br /><br /> They soon arrive at Pride Rock where all the zebras, antelopes, wildebeests, rhinoceroses, giraffe's, elephants and many other plain animals had gathered. What was going on? Timon didn't care. They pressed on. Timon then saw Rafiki atop Pride Rock lifting into the air something he couldn't see. Just then all the animals took a bow. Was this to honor the birth of the new king? No, Pumbaa had passed gas and the animals were bowing to cover their noses; Timon and Pumbaa try an assortment of new homes, but each are discomforting due to incessant singing or hyenas or a large stampede of wildebeests! Pumbaa and Timon suddenly find themselves heading down stream. When they reach land, Timon decides to give up. But then they gaze around at their newfound paradise. It was beautiful: trees and water falls as far as the eye could see. Timon named the place after a strange phrase he learned from Rafiki: Hakuna Matata. Timon and Pumbaa go out bowling for buzzards one afternoon when they suddenly run into Simba. They take him under their wing and become father figures. They teach him the arts of bug eating and belching contests. Pretty soon, a teenage Simba takes on Timon in a snail slurping contest. Simba won, leaving Timon deathly ill.<br /><br /> Then one day, Simba's childhood friend Nala arrived. Timon and Pumbaa just knew she'd break up the friendship. Suddenly, Simba runs away. Nala and Pumbaa race after him, but not Timon. He chose to stay at "Hakuna Matata" by himself, until Rafiki "talked" some sense into him, so he joins his friends at Pride Rock. Timon's mother and Uncle Max arrive then. While Simba battles Scar, Mother and Max dig a large hole to trap hyenas Shenzi, Bonzai and Ed in. It worked. Scar is soon flung down the same hole where he is devoured by the hyenas. Then all is well. Mother, Uncle Max and the rest of the meerkats go live with Timon and Pumbaa in the paradise that is Hakuna Matata. Back to the present, Timon and Pumbaa finish the movie when suddenly Mother, Uncle Max, Simba and Rafiki want to watch it again. So do Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy, Snow White, the Seven Dwarfs, Dumbo, Peter Pan, the Lost Boys, Mad Hatter, March Hare, Genie, Aladdin, and Jasmine.<br /><br /> Well, I must say that The Lion King 1 1/2 wasn't as good as I had hoped. It was too ridiculous and silly. The original Lion King was a masterpiece. It had a serious story with light comedy thrown in. This one was just silly and made a mockery of it. I swear, sometimes Timon and Pumbaa are just way too overplayed. They're overplayed to the point of no longer being funny, just annoying. The original voice cast is back: Nathan Lane as Timon, Ernie Sabella as Pumbaa, Matthew Broddrick as Adult Simba, Whoopi Goldberg as Shenzi, Cheech Marin as Bonzai, Jim Cummings as Ed, Robert Guillame as Rafiki. New to the cast are Julie Kavner of TV's (Too) long running series The Simpsons as Timon's mom and Jerry Stiller as Uncle Max. So anyway, this movie isn't The Lion King III, and it isn't II because there already is a II. It takes place right after Part I and Part II is a ways away. Hence, it's 1 1/2. In conclusion, I don't recommend this to die hard Lion King fans because it's far too ridiculous and frivilous. However the kids will love it so I recommend it to them. I hope this will also be the LAST Lion King movie. Two is enough. "The Lion King 1 1/2". What we've come to expect from Disney sequel makers.<br /><br />-
I saw and liked the first two a lot, really. Especially because the second is not just a try to make another one as good as the first. And it's a story standing alone. You don't have to know the first movie. I liked that in the "Free Willy" movies, too.<br /><br />But... the third, here is absolutely useless! I tried it with a friend of mine, because we both liked the first two. We decided to stop after a good half an hour. The movie is okay, there are funny parts in it alright. But what for? Timon and Pumba were funny creatures in the first two movies. What Lion King 1 1/2 is for me is: a hard attempt to get even more fun of the first movie than it had already, plus telling the story from their point of view. But what for? I'd really like to know. You know, the idea of the two of them sitting in the cinema watching the first one, is really nice. But what comes after is mostly unnecessary. I guess many people liked Timon and Pumba, and so do I really. Yet, for me many parts were very constructed with a try to be funny. No chance, most of it wasn't funny at all, at least for me. Btw. what was the movie about anyway? Was it a) about Timon and Pumba or b) an attempt to get more fun out of the first movie? I tend to choose option b and I'm very disappointed about it.<br /><br />If you like to see stories like: "the story behind xy", you should see "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" by Tom Stoppard with Tim Roth and Gary Oldman. That's really funny and no try to get more out of "Hamlet" then it has.
A dedicated fan to the TLK movies, with the first one being a milestone and the second probably the best sequel Disney has produced, along comes this film... Now I'm not arguing with animation, voice work, music, but this is no more than a Timon/Pumbaa screwloose in the TLK atmosphere. Although it isn't bad, it doesn't add anything. Basically this movie is one big joke... and that's about all that saves it. Make a real TLK3, Disney! The potential is there.<br /><br />4/10
Having watched both the Lion King and Lion King II and enjoyed both thoroughly. I thought Lion King 1.5 might be worth watching. What a disappointment ! Disney must be getting desperate for revenues.<br /><br />Especially now that they lost the deal with pixar.<br /><br />Basically, they just picked up some bits of footage that were left on the editor's floor (or garbage can) and glued them together to make a<br /><br />quick buck. Unlike LK I & II, both of which had strong story lines.<br /><br />This movie hardly has a story at all. While the characters and animation are always fun to look at, there is simply not enough material here for a movie. Some of the bits could have been good 2nd disk fillers on the original offerings.<br /><br />Disney - Shame on you for putting this trash out to make a quick buck!<br /><br />Next time take the time and effort and put our an enduring work.
I found this to be an utter waste of time, effort and money. I know Disney always displays lack of creativity when making "straight-to-video" films - but rehashing the plot of the original film with a "new perspective" is an all-time low...soon they'll just be re-releasing the original films with new animation and new songs and be calling it a "new version of the movie we all love." Nathan Lane surprisingly returns to his role of Timon yet again. Timon and Pumbaa the animated animals from the world of the original "Lion King" embark on a narrative journey to tell us the original story the way it REALLY happened...as they see it.<br /><br />Of course Timon is now the hero of the story, yadda yadda yadda, blah blah blah...<br /><br />The musical sequences are lame and the animation is crap. The vocal talents are impressive for a video feature, but then again, when was the last time you remember Matthew Broderick, Whoopi Goldberg or Nathan Lane being in anything of real commercial substance? Overall if you liked the original you'll hate this. It's insulting because it's unfair to children and adults alike. And that about sums it up.
There really wasn't much of a story in this film. It loosely based itself off the events in the first Lion King movie. It is supposed to be how Timon and Pumbaa met via their aloneness. But there isn't much more than that.<br /><br />It mixes some scenes from the original, then it ab-libs about how this movie changed them a little bit. But still, is that it? I was hoping for something a little more. Instead, all I have to show for it is an empty plot with little explanation.<br /><br />I guess if you wanted to see other meerkats in the Lion King universe, then this is it. But other than that, it does little justice for the animators. Disney really should stop these direct-to-video productions. It really was quite boring and could have used Jason Statham. "D-"
I give this film it's props that it is very well made and reasonably well acted. BUt I couldn't get past the implausibility of the whole thing.<br /><br />First and foremost, a game built around the notion of "Russian Roulette" that has to fill on hour. the big problem is that if you are doing a "live" show, you run the possibility that your first contestant will be the one unlucky enough to draw the "real" bullet. Then what do you do? You have 50 minutes of show to fill and nothing to show. The corollary is that Okay, you get to the end and the first five contestants survive, which means number six has the bullet and can't possibly get the payout. He isn't going to shoot himself at that point, so it's kind of anti-climatic. <br /><br />second problem, almost as big. Human nature. People are going to flinch, panic, soil their underwear and do things that would otherwise not make very good television. Too much randomness. That's why "real" Reality television is actually tightly scripted and even more tightly edited.<br /><br />(The only random thing is the "performance artist's" rant about female sacrifices, which were actually rare historically. Even that was predictable, since she went through with shooting herself to no effect.) <br /><br />We are led to believe the shows ratings would increase while it was going on at 1 AM in the morning (unlikely) with the token Asian girl announcing each boost in ratings.<br /><br />A point on race and sex. Big surprise the movies two minority (one gay) and two female contestants are the ones who survive. So we are left with the two white males, and of course, the slightly less likable of them is the one who buys it. The purpose of such a show would be it's randomness, but the guy you like the least is the guy who dies.<br /><br />the Climax is that after spending two hours fighting for televised suicide, the Eva Mendes character (Mendes produced and starred in this thing, so she has no one to blame but herself) actually grows a conscience when someone dies. What did she THINK was going to happen? She is promptly shot by a bystander angry about the whole thing (motives never explained) and the show went on to be a big hit. Really? <br /><br />the problem with media satire is that it has to either have some grounding in reality or it has to be so over the top to be ludicrous (like Network). This is neither.
Live! Yes, but not kicking.<br /><br />True story: Some time ago, a Dutch TV station made an announcement that they were going to air a new reality show. A contest rather. The main participant in this show would be a woman who was dying of something terrible and she would be donating her kidneys to one lucky person with progressive kidney failure. For real.<br /><br />The country and the international media were all over this story like flies on a turd, saying it was appalling, immoral, what-is-this-world-coming-to, and the like. In a way, I had to agree.<br /><br />As the months passed, the tension built up to a degree that the government was mostly occupied by the issue of whether they should let this show go ahead or not, instead of running the country.<br /><br />The show did air and right up to the last moment they were pushing ahead. And up to the last moment the country was up in arms, the Prime Minister making speeches, every newspaper writing about it, everyone in the country holding their breaths. And the network pushed on. Towards a new frontier in television. And they definitely succeeded in doing just that. They pushed the envelope.<br /><br />The show aired and we all watched a terminally ill woman selecting the right candidate to receive her kidneys so he or she would live, whilst she would die shortly after.<br /><br />And then, in the last moments of the show it was revealed that it was a partial hoax. The woman was not ill, but all the candidates were. There was no kidney auction. The whole show, that, with the publicity and the commercials and all the discussions, built up for months to a fantastic climax, was a publicity stunt to focus attention on the problem of major shortages in organ donors. The man who founded this particular network himself died of kidney disease.<br /><br />Now THIS is television. Leaving everybody far behind in amazement.<br /><br />Don't give me a poorly acted, poorly directed flick about some woman trying to get a Russian Roulette show on American TV.<br /><br />As if.<br /><br />*Spoiler* As if I'm going to believe they would get this through the FCC. As if I'm going to believe this would get through the US Supreme Court on the basis of free expression. As if I'm gonna believe the ridiculous ending where this woman pulled it off and has conscience issues because some guy shot himself on air.<br /><br />It's all been done before. Watch Running Man with Arnold instead. At least it had a semi good ending.<br /><br />*Spoiler* This is an appallingly bad piece of film, together with a ridiculous ending. So she gets shot in the end, is that supposed to make us movie going public feel better after we leave the theater because there was some kind of justice? Don't take my word for it, but I would say this: leave this one alone and watch a test pattern instead, you'll get more quality.
I really don't understand all these positive user reviews. This movie is the worst movie I've ever seen and I'm not trying to be pessimistic.<br /><br />Eva Mendez is hot but terrible in this film. But I don't think it is her own fault but the directors. He have somehow managed to make everything look artificial; their acting, the idea, the make-up, everything.<br /><br />The star I'm giving is only for the idea behind the movie, which was very bad executed.<br /><br />Don't watch this bullshit, go watch a Fellini, Woody Allen or some David Lynch.
I heard about this film and knew it wasn't real good. But I started watching the film (on my film-channel)and was interested. This could be a really great, darkly black satire on todays morals in media. The small featurettes on every contestent were good. It build up to something I wouldn't wanna miss. But when the so called show starts everything becomes implausible, cheap and rather silly. Here's where the writer should have added something that would make people think. But instead it's wrapped up and assuming people are this dumb.<br /><br />The ending is so bad I give it a 1. Even if the film starts of promising.
Let's see. In the "St. Elsewhere" finale we found out that there was no hospital and that every thing had been in the mind of an autistic child. "Newhart" ended by telling us that it had all been a dream. And "Roseanne" ended by telling us that it all had taken place in her mind. Very "creative". Annoying was more like it. Yes, it was just a TV show and wasn't at all reality. It's just that when you get caught up in a great movie or TV show you end up at least wanting to believe that it's all "real". At least as far as the reality it portrays on screen. This type of series finale had been done twice before and was old hat, frustrating and simply not fun to watch. Now "Newhart" being all a dream? At least done in a creative way that far exceeded the expectations of anyone who loved the show. The idea itself was not too engaging but it was so brilliantly done that its arguably the Best Series Finale Ever. Roseanne left me feeling cheated after being such a loyal fan.
Blazing saddles! It's a fight between two estranged brothers (Dennis Quaid and Arliss Howard), both of whom can ignite fires mentally; they square off over childhood differences, with dippy love-interest Debra Winger caught in the middle. Director Glenn Gordon Caron (the TV whiz-kid behind "Moonlighting") smothers the darkly-textured comedy in Vince Gilligan's screenplay with a presentation so slick, the movie resembles an entry from an over-enthusiastic film student on a fifteen million-dollar grant. It has the prickly energy of a big commercial feature, but a shapeless style which brings out nothing from the characters except their kooky eccentricities. These aren't even characters, they're plot functions. Barely-released to theaters, the film is a disaster, although strictly as an example of style over substance it does look good. Winger is the only stand-out in a cast which looks truly perplexed. *1/2 from ****
I love these actors, but they were wasted in this flick.<br /><br />I can only wonder, what WERE they thinking agreeing to this crap???<br /><br />Debra Winger just phoned it in; Dennis Quaid and Arliss Howard were caricatures. Some people thought it was deep. Well, if you liked "Breaking the Waves", you'll probably like this too. I hated both. 3/10
I can't believe they got the actors and actresses of that caliber to do this movie. That's all I've got to say - the movie speaks for itself!!
Gene Hackman gets himself busted out of prison by a nameless government agency who want him for an assassination. It's a given of course that Hackman has the proficient skills for the job.<br /><br />Nobody tells him anything though, he's given as the audience is given bits and pieces of information. That's supposed to be suspenseful, instead it's annoying and boring. <br /><br />Hackman goes through with the mission, but the getaway is messed up and the guy at the top of this mysterious entity orders everybody dead to cover it up. So everyone in the cast dies and at the end you don't really care.<br /><br />One of the other reviewers pointed out that the film was originally twice as long, almost three hours and got chopped down quite a bit. Maybe something really was lost in the translation, but I tend to think it was a mercy act on the audience.<br /><br />A very talented cast that had people like Richard Widmark, Candice Bergen, Mickey Rooney, Eli Wallach, and Edward Albert is so thoroughly wasted here it's a crime. <br /><br />And we never do find out just what federal agency was doing all this, the FBI, the CIA, the DEA or even the IRS.
First, it takes a full half hour to get Hackman out of jail and to start doing the job. What a waste of time, we all know Hackman is getting out to do some job for his masters, why waste almost a third of the movie on these sequences. Then Hackman stays in a hotel and the story arc again goes nowhere, simply proving to us that Hackman is under close watch and anything he says or does is know by the masters. Again, another 20 minutes. Then more wasted time showing the reunion with his wife. All of this should have taken 10-15 minutes at most simply as a set-up for the real action, intrigue and plot twists. By the time the real action gets going, I was so bored that I just wanted the movie to end. Hackman is great as usual, and the other actors as well, but this is a dud of the first magnitude.
There are really two sections of this film. Firstly there's the laughable prologue to the film which is so hysterical and cornball that it would almost feel appropriate that the 'The Simpsons' Troy McClure should be doing the narration.<br /><br />Then the rest of the film begins (starting off with a title song which really doesn't fit in with the rest of the film) which, while technically OK, is killed by a vague, inconsistent and unconvincing plot and not just uninteresting characters, but characters that make no sense.<br /><br />This is especially so with Mickey Rooney's Spiventa, who was supposedly in on the plot and part of the 'organisation' the whole time yet what would have happened had Hackman made the seemingly arbitrary decision to take him along when breaking out? In that case he would've been a totally superfluous and unnecessary character, which in the end he still is.<br /><br />The overall problem of the film is that it's totally unwilling to put any detail on who or what is behind this conspiracy. It's as if the filmmakers didn't have the courage to imply that a particular section of society would be capable of creating such an organisation and instead settled on the hope that a lack of explanation would suffice and the audience would form their own conclusions.<br /><br />Put simply, the film fails on all levels.
Stanley Kramer directs an action thriller and leaves out two key things: action and thrills. THE DOMINO PRINCIPLE features Gene Hackman as a convict sprung from prison in order to perform some mysterious task. Richard Widmark, Edward Albert, and Eli Wallach are his operatives --- they presumably work for the government, but that, like most of the movie's plot line, is never made clear. Hackman asks a lot of questions that NEVER get answered so the film goes absolutely nowhere. While it strives to be like NIGHT MOVES and THE PARALLAX VIEW, THE DOMINO PRINCIPLE mixes up ambiguity and mystery with confusion and boredom. The film is extremely well photographed but even that works against it. Kramer's direction is devoid of any style. It's a very sunny movie!<br /><br />The acting is fine with Hackman proving he's pretty much incapable of being bad. Widmark and Wallach are suitably nasty and Albert is well cast as Widmark's cruel lackey. Even the usually obnoxious Mickey Rooney is pretty good as Hackman's sidekick. One oddity however is the casting of Candice Bergen as Hackman's wife. We're told she's done time in prison and she seems to be trying to put on some sort of southern twang. Kramer's idea of making her appear to be trailer trash is to have her wear an ugly brown wig. It's a role better suited for the likes of Valerie Perrine or Susan Tyrell.
What did producer/director Stanley Kramer see in Adam Kennedy's novel and Kennedy's very puzzling screenplay? Were there a few pieces left out on purpose? And what about Gene Hackman, Richard Widmark, Edward Albert, Eli Wallach and Mickey Rooney? What did they see in this very muddled story?<br /><br />And why did Candice Bergen, who gave a horrible performance, accept such a thankless role?<br /><br />The Domino Principle wants to be on the same footing as The Parallax View or The Manchurian Candidate and misses the mark by a very wide margin. A major misfire by Stanley Kramer.
"The Domino Principle" is, without question, one of the worst thrillers ever made. Hardly any sense can be made of the convoluted plot and by the halfway point you'll want to throw your arms up in frustration and scream "I give up!!!"<br /><br />How Gene Hackman and director Stanley Kramer ever got involved in this mess must only be summed up by their paychecks.<br /><br />I hope they spent their money well.
This film is notable for three reasons.<br /><br />First, apparently capitalizing on the success of the two 'Superman' serials, this low budget feature was made and released to theaters, marking George Reeves' and Phyllis Coates' initial appearances as Clark Kent / Superman and Lois Lane. Part of the opening is re-used in the series. Outside the town of Silby, a six-mile deep oil well penetrates the 'hollow Earth' allowing the 'Mole-Men' to come to the surface. Forget about the other holes (those in the plot).<br /><br />Second, unlike most SF invasion films of the fifties, the hero plays a dominant (and controlling) force in preaching and enforcing tolerance and acceptance of difference against a raging mob of segregationist vigilantes. No 'mild mannered reporter' here! Clark Kent, knowledgeable and self-assertive, grabs control of the situation throughout ("I'll handle this!"), even assisting in a hospital gown in the removal of a bullet from a Mole-Man! As Superman, he is gentler than Clark towards the feisty Lois, but is also the voice of reason and tolerance as he rails against the vigilantes as "Nazi storm troopers." <br /><br />Third, you will notice that the transition from the Fleisher-like cartoon animated flying of Superman in the two serials to the 'live action' flying in the 'Adventures of Superman' had not yet been made.
"You're not going to shoot those little creatures. In the first place, they haven't done you any harm. In the second place, they may be radioactive." Ah, the joys of no-budget 50s sci-fi… Yet despite the odd gem like that, Superman and the Mole-Men is pretty uninspiring going even with a lean 58-minute running time. It's beyond cheap (the one shot of Superman flying is an incredibly inept few frames of animation) and pretty dull with it, though it has a surprisingly altruistic message – the mute Mole-Men, diminutive actors with enlarged skulls and fur coats who look more like Mr Mxyzptlk without the hat than subterranean critters, released from their underground world by oil drilling are not malicious, merely misunderstood, and George Reeves' Man of Steel tries to prevent the local small-town mob led by Jeff Corey from killing them. An interesting counterpoint to the paranoia of the day, perhaps, but with little more than good intentions to recommend it.
Back in the 1970s, WPIX ran "The Adventures of Superman" every weekday afternoon for quite a few years. Every once in a while, we'd get a treat when they would preempt neighboring shows to air "Superman and the Mole Men." I always looked forward to those days. Watching it recently, I was surprised at just how bad it really was.<br /><br />It wasn't bad because of the special effects, or lack thereof. True, George Reeves' Superman costume was pretty bad, the edges of the foam padding used to make him look more imposing being plainly visible. And true, the Mole Men's costumes were even worse. What was supposed to be a furry covering wouldn't have fooled a ten year-old, since the zippers, sleeve hems and badly pilling fabric badly tailored into baggy costumes were all painfully obvious. But these were forgivable shortcomings.<br /><br />No, what made it bad were the contrived plot devices. Time and again, Superman failed to do anything to keep the situation from deteriorating. A lynch mob is searching for the creatures? Rather than round up the hysterical crowd or search for the creatures himself, he stands around explaining the dangers of the situation to Lois and the PR man. The creatures are cornered? Again, he stands around watching and talking but doesn't save them until they're shot. Luke Benson, the town's rabble-rouser, shoots at him? Attempted murder to any reasonable person, but Superman releases the man over and over to cause more problems. Superman had quite a few opportunities to nip the problem in the bud, but never once took advantage of them.<br /><br />That said, both George Reeves and Phyllis Coates played their characters well, seemingly instantly comfortable in the roles. If only they had been given a better script to work with.
I just got the UK 4-disc special edition of Superman 1 for about $5. The additional stuff includes the 1951 feature Superman and the Mole-Men. So I slapped it into the DVD player last night, and here are my findings.<br /><br />Some initial disappointment - I hadn't checked, and I think I had it mentally tagged as one of the Kirk Alyn serials. I'm not a huge fan of George Reeves as Superman, and I hadn't seen anything other than the odd clip of Kirk Alyn - but hey ho, never mind.<br /><br />This black and white production runs for less than an hour. It has the feel of a couple of episodes of one of Reeves' early TV series, a two-parter, put together for cinema release, although IMDb says it was filmed as a cinema release in advance of the first TV series. In any event, it's an odd choice for reasons I'll get to later. I'm of an age where I recall TV and movie productions which are limited to one or two locations and sets, so there were no major surprises here. Even so, for a low budget movie, this one is REALLY low budget.<br /><br />The story concerns the small town of Silsby - population 1,430 - which, puzzlingly, is also home to the world's deepest oil well (6 miles). The story opens with the well's foreman hurriedly taking steps to close the well down. This conflicts with the arrival of Metropolis reporters Kent and Lane to report on the well, at the behest of the oil company. As Clark is sniffing out the fact that the drill has emerged into a radioactive cavern 6 miles down, a couple of odd little guys (small in stature, big in head, black in jumpsuit, and bushy in eyebrow) emerge from the capped-off drillshaft, and start mooching round town with puzzled expressions on their faces.<br /><br />A deep breath now, here is the remaining plot of the picture. The little guys scare some kids, so Jeff Corey (playing the town's rampant xenophobe) incites some pals to kill these "creatures". Superman steps in (moderately ineffectually) and catches one of the little guys who has been shot and takes him to the local hospital. Corey's pals burn down the shack the other little fellow has hidden in and assume he is killed, but he escapes and legs it down the shaft. Corey incites a lynch mob (despite the sheriff arresting him) to hang the hospitalised Mole-Man. Superman stops them entering the hospital and takes the injured chappie to the shaft to return him to his fellows. A total of 4 Mole-Men emerge with a weapon of some sort which they fire at Jeff Corey (I call this an Aargh! gun because its sole effect seems to be to make Corey go "Aargh!") and Superman saves him. He immediately changes his ways because of amazement at Superman saving him after the way he has behaved, the Mole-men go back down the shaft. The end.<br /><br />Despite the film only being an hour long, there is an inordinate amount of creeping around, bewareing and pursuing - I have left out all the "Mole-Man 1 creeps from A to B, looking out to make sure no-one is following him" stuff. The Mole-Men are never engaged in any way whatsoever - they have no dialogue - they just turn up, get persecuted, and go back. They do look a little creepy, but they are hardly the bug-eyed monsters that the town's reaction implies.<br /><br />Reeves is quite a good Clark Kent - very much a hard-nosed reporter, much more so than Phyllis Coates' rather indifferent Lois Lane. But he is a terrible, terrible Superman. Not only does he not look the part (at least his hair is dyed black in this, which is an improvement from the rather light hair he sported in some of the TV episodes), the way he plays it is all wrong in my book. I'm sure he was told to "strike the pose" (which Superman does constantly), but someone should have told him that it should be fists on hips, not fists on ribs. And he plays Superman as a rather strict and touchy schoolteacher - he doesn't actually wag his finger in remonstration, but he may as well have done.<br /><br />And Superman does a huge amount of walking around (I say a huge amount - he isn't actually in it all that much), and a bit of running. He takes off and lands a couple of times, but isn't seen in flight at any point. Oh, some bullets bounce off him, and he uses telescopic vision as Clark, but with no accompanying visual effect. In fact, visual effects are conspicuous by their absence, and the few which are present aren't very good.<br /><br />I've tried to consider this effort by reference to the standards of the time: but even by those standards I think it's a pretty threadbare effort. Thankfully, production standards on the TV series were higher, and at least they took the trouble to come up with stories which had a bit more to them.<br /><br />Something of a disappointment - I shan't be watching it again.
This movie was just plain bad. Just about every cop movie cliché is present and accounted for. Bad guy gets away? check. Partner? check. Wacky personality clash with partner? check. Rookie with something to prove? check. Rookie shows up grizzled veteran. check. About the only ones it didn't touch on were idiot shoot themselves in the foot and retirony but I guess they're saving those old chestnuts for Dooley's next outing. Add in the battle of the sexes with Girl Power along with tired old sight gags and banal overdone material like Dooley's prize car getting trashed all the time and you have the recipe for one really bad movie. Avoid this one at all costs.
The Biggest one that bugs the hell out of me is that they say Zues takes DUTCH commands. But she is speaking German to him. The 2 languishes are completely different, its like saying "well he takes French commands" and start talking Spanish.<br /><br />James Belushi gives more the feeling of being a comedy actor not a detective in the slightest. The role just doesn't fit him, even if its mend to be a comedy.<br /><br />To many stereotype/predicable stuff. Typical comment or comebacks.<br /><br />If you don't look at those things i think it could be a nice movie to watch if its ever on TV. But i wouldn't suggesting renting it.
I am very disappointed with "K-911." The original "good" quality of "K-9" doesn't exist any more. This is more like a sitcom! Some of casts from original movie returned and got some of my memory back. The captain of Dooley now loves to hit him like a scene from old comedy show. That was crazy. What's the deal with the change of Police? It seems like they are now LAPD! Not San Diego PD. It is a completely different movie from "
The original was a good movie. I bought it on tape and have watched it several times. And though I know that sequels are not usually as good as the original I certainly wasn't expecting such a bomb. The romance was flat, the sight gags old, the spoken humor just wasn't. This may not have been the worst movie I've ever seen but it comes close.
If you are one of the people who finds "According to Jim" great television comedy, this is going to rock your world. And might I add, kudos for proving that good talent, good writing and a charismatic star are all you really need on any network other than ABC, which prefers to air crap like Jim Belushi's show year after year.<br /><br />"K-911" is a big, steaming, brown, German shepherd-sized "thank you" for all of the geniuses who loved the first movie. It's exactly what fans of that film and the lesser Belushi deserve. Jim's comedic chops and choice in projects are never far behind his ability to butcher a blues standard. Look for him to try to showcase all of his diverse lacks of talent into every project he hurls at the public like a surly zoo chimpanzee.<br /><br />If you enjoy Jim's work, this movie is your reward.
I was expecting a little something from "K-911", I mean it did look like a cute movie that I could get into. I always did love the dog comedy movies. But it looked like it was supposed to be Jame's movie, not Jerry Lee's. The plot was pretty lame and the two love interests really didn't have chemistry to begin with. Not to mention that James seemed to have a total sexist view in the movie despite the fact the writer wasn't going in that direction. James just really ticked me off for more than half the film. The dogs were the true stars and that's pretty sad that they out shined the actors.<br /><br />So, I'm glad it's not just me on IMDb who agrees that this was a pretty stupid movie. But hopefully, James will realize it was his brother Jim who was the talented one, no offense, but not everyone can be their star sibling. Don't you wish Ashlee Simpson would take that same advice? :D <br /><br />3/10
Extremely disappointing film based on the James Michener novel.<br /><br />What was even worse was Marlon Brando's performance. His southern drawl was ridiculous. I found myself laughing when he spoke as he sounded like an elderly southern lady coming home to roost. Brando, so great in previous films, was reduced here to a laughing stock. Tyrone Power, in "Witness for the Prosecution," should have been nominated for best actor instead of Brando here.<br /><br />The film, dealing with racism, dealt with the U.S. government's attempt to avoid marriages between U.S. soldiers and Japanese women.<br /><br />Brando was stone-faced throughout the movie. His moving from anti-these relationships to a pro one occurs when he finds love with an Asian woman. His emotions and talk made it difficult to see how he could espouse such new views.<br /><br />Only the lord knows why Red Buttons and Miyoshi Umeki received supporting Oscars for their performances. Nothing about either performance was equally impressive. Umeki's appearance on the screen was short and without much of anything being depicted on her part. A better performance in this film was done by Miiko Taka, who did nicely as Brando's love interest. She showed great emotion as the anti-American who found love with the Brando character. Her face was etched with the unhappiness she had for losing her father and brother in World War 11. She realized that her dancing was not her way out of this existence that she was living.<br /><br />Martha Scott went from the Hebrew mother Yochobel in "The Ten Commandments" to the bigoted mother of Brando's love interest at first. Her performance together with the one of Ricardo Montalban was wasted. Patricia Owens, as Brando's first love, showed depth and conviction in her performance.
I didn't expect much from this TV movie. You have to set the bar lower than you would for midget limbo for any TBS movie starring Antonio Sabato Jr. Still, it managed to disappoint, failing even to be a good-bad film.<br /><br />Every scene was by rote, as if someone had cut and pasted scenes from a dozen movies and tv shows dealing with big business conspiracies into the script, leaned back and said, "My work is done". It's all cliche, all predictable, and, even worse, the actors are forced to look like they're taking it seriously, (even when the plot developments are laughable).<br /><br />Do yourself a favor. Watch "The X-Files" if you're in the mood for paranoia. They handle it better. Also, let anyone know that sitting through "Fatal Error" is just that.
This has the logical consistency of marshmallows filled with ketchup, and the overall aftertaste is just as disgusting. <br /><br />Will be used in the 9th circle of Hell at recreation time. Just plain torture.<br /><br />I would rather choose to watch 90 minutes of my computer going through 5400 blue screens of death than watch this appalling drivel again - ever. Horrible. Horrible. Horrible.<br /><br />You know, the good thing about Swiss Cheese is that along with the holes you get some cheese: here it's ONLY holes - and the excitement factor? Well that turns watching paint dry into an adrenalin rush and an Olympic speed sport.<br /><br />My brain hurts from trying to work out who OK'd this drivel, did they think about the premise? (I sincerely hope not, otherwise there is no redemption) the only consolation is they had the pleasure of sitting through the rushes. Made for TV should not be a synonym for: "Sure, let the horses bowels run loose across the living rooms! Our audience are idiots!"<br /><br />I was hooked just to know how it could get any worse. This is not a good sign, folks. <br /><br />Hallmark should be ashamed for releasing it.<br /><br />I should be ashamed for watching it.<br /><br />I am ashamed. I'm off for a long shower.
Robert Wagner is the evil boss of Digicron, a telecommunications company with a virus that kills people.<br /><br />'so you're saying that the software virus has become a real virus that can kill people - that may be medically possible but not possible from my system' <br /><br />'i'm having to write some new virus software of my own to trap it - it may take some time'<br /><br />'but it's not going after software, it's killing people'<br /><br />watch out for the 'i'm into virology' love moment and perhaps first ever film plot to feature death by braille keyboard
I rated this movie a 1 since the plot is so unbelievable unbelievable. Judge for yourself. Be warned, the following will not only give away the plot, but will also spoil your appetite for watching the movie.<br /><br />A computer virus, designed by a frustrated nerd, sends out a code through television screens and computer monitors. When the code - in the form of light - enters the eye it can access the 'electrical system' of your body. What it does is forcing the body cells into excretion of calcium. Within seconds after infection the patient reaches for his neck, develops tunnel vision, his skin will turn white of the calcium, after which he falls and his hand and scull will crack in a cloud of chalk. <br /><br />This virus is very intelligent. When it finds out that a blind computer expert is trying to disassemble the code with a braille output device - operated by hands - the device is set on a very high voltage, which causes severe burning wounds on the skin of the expert's head. The virus also senses aggression against remote controls and the keyboard of an ATM. Fortunately it could be stopped by throwing over outdated desktop pc's in a rack and electrocuting the nerd with his back on a broken computer and his feet in some spilled water.<br /><br />Oh dear...
I have read the novel Reaper of Ben Mezrich a fews years ago and last night I accidentally came to see this adaption.<br /><br />Although it's been years since I read the story the first time, the differences between the novel and the movie are humongous. Very important elements, which made the whole thing plausible are just written out or changed to bad.<br /><br />If the plot sounds interesting to you: go and get the novel. Its much, much, much better.<br /><br />Still 4 out of 10 since it was hard to stop watching because of the great basic plot by Ben Mezrich.
Like so many media experiments, this amateurish effort contains seeds of a very interesting social commentary. In the 5+ years since it was released, the premise has been made less outrageous by real world events in software development, and I found it less boring than the previous commentator for that reason, I imagine... The director clearly is a fan of Hitchcock, and it's too bad that the film was not better executed, but in fact, it is nearly a parody of pulp fiction, including the soundtrack screeching at us when we are supposed to pay attention. One can almost see the exclamation points and capital letters on a yellowing page.<br /><br />I have to admit I found it rather entertaining for all these reasons and more. Sometimes the slick has less to offer us, and I would recommend it to anyone interested in deconstructing it for education purposes. Oh yes--and even though the seams showed and it creaked a lot, my heart rate went up, and I was reluctant to get up and take a break.
Despite its stereotypes, virtually 'no-name' cast and an obviously low budget I thought this film was alright; much better than I expected it to be. I was skeptical at first - the idea of a computer virus that can also infect people seemed a little ludicrous to me. But in the end, I thought the film handled the concept well (even if some scenes were a little clichéd).<br /><br />The cast was quite good, and the two leads seemed to take their roles very seriously. I couldn't help thinking, though, that Janine Turner is a bit of a Geena Davis look-a-like. Maybe it's just her face or the make-up, hair and clothes she had in this movie but it just kept nagging at the back of my mind the whole time.<br /><br />While it's not a 'must see' or a great film by any standard, 'Fatal Error' is an entertaining flick that will keep you watching until the end.
Actually, this flick, made in 1999, has pretty good production values. The actors are attractive, and reasonably talented. There aren't a bunch of clowns running around blasting away, expending hundreds of rounds, but never hitting flesh. Nor are there wild car chases/crashes where thousands of dollars worth of beautiful machines are uselessly trashed.<br /><br />The interiors look respectably modern, architecturally, and the equipment looks up to snuff. Well, there is that high tech computer room furnished with what look like leftovers from a '50s electronics lab. And the pancake make-up on the corpses cracked me up. Not pancake make-up in the conventional sense, but what looks like dried pancake batter slathered over their exposed skin. This is supposed to support the idea that the bodies have calcified -- though how the virus would accomplish this transmutation is an exercise left for the student (viewer).<br /><br />Ah yes, the virus. I would like to tell you that this is not the absolute worst premise for a sci-fi, horror flick I know of, but I can't. A computer virus that is transmitted via a television (or computer monitor) screen and becomes a lethal biological pathogen? Gimme a break. Warp drives a la "Star Trek" are one thing, but photons becoming viruses? This is so silly the desired "fright factor" just isn't realizable. The flick could have used one of those awful dream sequences where the dead come alive, or have a cat jump out of the closet, or something, because the viral thingamajig isn't doing it. <br /><br />One presumes Robert Wagner has the same excuse for playing in this inanity that Lord Oliver gave for some of his later, trashy venues. He needed the money. No other comparison between the two should be construed,however.
In some ways, the concept behind the storyline was a rather interesting blend of several typical movie types in an interesting combination. However, no point in this movie was so obvious that it did not deserve lingering close-up shots. I felt as though I had been beat over the head with the so-called mysterious explanation for the disease killing people.<br /><br />The writer appears to have simply lifted clichés from other movies as a substitute for writing lines adapted to actual characters. The actors did not help matters. No chemistry. I guess they were supposed to develop some kind of attraction if only for the reason that such is an essential element of these stories. However, the writers didn't work very hard to develop the chemistry. Sure, they're both attractive, but whether they're attractive to each other seemed to be an open question.<br /><br />The confidence Turner's character shows in Sabato's developed far too quickly and for no particular reason. Sabato's character is supposed to be a discredited doctor who just can't seem to play by the rules. Think of the Jeff Goldblum character in "Independence Day." Usually, that kind of character is supposed to demonstrate some kind of talent or brilliance. Sabato's character does not. He's Cassandra with just the crazy and all the prophetic skills of a magic eight ball. He appears to be right by random chance.<br /><br />The death scenes are comical. Every actor was really trying more than a little to hard to demonstrate the agony inflicted on them. The symptoms looked like bad claymation, sort of like that video from the 80s, Peter Gabriel, I think.
OK, the movie is good but I give it a 1 because the idea of a computer virus becoming an organic virus is pure fairy tale. This kind of crap just adds to those uncomputer savvy moron's paranoid delusions that a computer virus is exactly like an organic virus. First of all, strings of code and dozens of 1s and 0s add up to computer virus. An organic virus is much more complex, even though it's way tinier. Though, it's considered one of the simplest forms in the universe, organic virus's attach burrow into your cells and attach themselves to the RNA, then change your own RNA code. Explain to me how something like that could be processed from a monitor? Maybe the radiation has some effect on the user's cornea that turns your eyeballs into these viruses? I could see that, but obviously, the writer didn't think of that.
I've just lost 2 hours of my life watching this mindless plot. I could make a better movie with my cellphone camera. How do they manage to get actors to play in those movies?? Porn movies have better scenarios and effects... I wish I had those 2 hours back...<br /><br />The only good thing about this movie is the cast. Even though, their acting skills in this one could not lift this movie to passable, the rest was just WAY too bad! <br /><br />It's the type of movie that I'd recommend using to torture prisoners into scaring them straight.<br /><br />Even worse, I saw a translated version of this flick...Imagine, a bad movie...with an even worst translation...Yikes!
A somewhat dull made for tv movie which premiered on the TBS cable station. Antonio and Janine run around chasing a killer computer virus and...that's about it. For trivia buffs this will be noted as debuting the same weekend that the real life 'Melissa' virus also made it's debut in e-mail inboxes across the world.
When you see Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi as co-stars, you expect to find a well done horror movie, but this was actually quite different, representing as it did what I would describe as an early effort at science fiction. Karloff and Lugosi both play scientists (Rukh and Benet respectively) - competitors to an extent, until Rukh wins Benet over with a demonstration that proves his great theory. The science here was - to say the least - a bit rough around the edges (thus science fiction, with the emphasis on the fiction) but somehow Rukh harnesses some sort of ray from Andromeda that allows him to look at the earth "several thousand million years ago." In that pre historic time, a huge meteorite slammed into Africa, leaving deposits of a substance the scientists call "Radium X" - which can heal and destroy. A large portion of the movie is set rather tediously in Africa, on a search for the meteorite deposits, which Rukh eventually finds and harnesses to create a great weapon, unfortunately infecting himself with some sort of disease that makes him a great weapon as well.<br /><br />Karloff and Lugosi were both pretty good here. Lugosi pulls off a role in which he's the good guy pretty well, although I frankly found him a bit unconvincing - especially during the scenes set in Africa. The story also plodded along a bit, and while it held my attention it didn't captivate me. Given that this is really a sci-fi rather than a horror flick, and that sci-fi was in its very early stages, I suppose the movie needs to be cut a bit of slack. It was OK - nothing more, but also nothing less than that. 4/10
Unless you are already familiar with the pop stars who star in this film, save yourself the time and stop reading this review after you've reached the end of the next sentence.<br /><br />FORGET YOU EVER STUMBLED UPON THIS FILM AND GO WATCH SOMETHING ELSE.<br /><br />But if you insist on reading, consider: <br /><br />Lame vehicle for Japanese teen idol pretty-boys featuring nonsensical, convoluted "plot" that drags out for an insufferable amount of time until you're ready to scream.<br /><br />Nothing in this film makes sense. It's an endless series of people expressing various emotions, from joy to anger, from happiness to tragedy, FOR NO GOOD REASON. We can obviously see something incredibly "dramatic" is happening, but we just don't GIVE A CRAP WHY 'cause there's no backstory.<br /><br />By the time this film is over, you will be sick and tired of these stupid, lanky, girly stars' faces. You'll be revolted at having spent all this time watching them smile, sneer, cry, look mysterious, be "serious," and any other pointless expression they slap on their faces.<br /><br />That some moron would ever go so far as to refer to this piece of insipid trash as being the "soul" of any of its "actors" should prove to you beyond the shadow of a doubt what the trailer and countless adoring comments on this site will not tell you: <br /><br />Only the "converted," mindless minions will like this film, the majority of them teenage girls with a pathological adoration for anything androgynous. Freud would have a field day.<br /><br />Unless you're one of these mindless "fans," stay the hell away from this abomination.
I wasn't sure how to rate this movie, since it was so bad it was actually very funny. I'm not a Gackt fan by any means, though he is talented, despite the weird pseudonym that sounds like a cat coughing up a hairball. I always thought Hyde was talented though, Faith is an interesting album.<br /><br />But on topic here folks. This movie is ridiculous. It's so over the top and nonsensical it's almost like a parody of supernatural action films.<br /><br />The movie has almost no plot here, except it's just about vampires with gangster friends. In a way, this film almost reminded me of Spider-Man 3, with how there were too many ideas, which resulted in not enough time to pay attention on one of them.<br /><br />The action scenes were laughable. Quickly edited, almost hard to understand, with choreography that's so laughably bad. Though Hyde looked very stylish during the action scenes, but that's this film's only such redemption. I'm a sucker for good action movies, but the action was horribly done. Though the final shootout was OK and the highlight of this otherwise depressing movie.<br /><br />It keeps jumping between genres, not a good thing. It wants to be a drama, or an action flick, or a horror, or a romance... what the hell.<br /><br />If this review is making you mad, why? Is it because Gackt and Hyde are your love? Don't fool yourself, this MOVIE IS BAD.
Thanks to the BBC for this show. I used to suffer from an inferiority complex, I hated leaving the house, talking to new people and I had an overwhelming sense that people hated me. However after watching one episode of 4 Non Blondes my fortunes started to change. After episode 2 I started applying for new jobs, wearing fashionable clothes and I actually felt talented. When the series had finished I was running the sales department at work, banging a plethora of women and frequently won the karaoke competition down my local. If you ever have a confidence crisis and don't know where to turn then take a trip down to Poundland and pick up the DVD it's only 99p.
Picture the scene where a bunch of scriptwriters sit around a table and one says "lets have a black woman approach an unsuspecting member of the public (also black) in the street and ask him if he is black, then walk away". The other writers fall about laughing hysterically until one suggests they repeat it in every episode. More laughter. Now if you think the premise is funny, and the show contains many such types of situation, you will enjoy this show. For the rest, use your zapper and find something more entertaining like watching paint dry. Those that have written glowing reports of this show should either get out more or be forced to watch television comedies that are really funny. Another example of the humor in the show, a girl tries to get out of paying at a supermarket checkout by trying to hypnotise the cashier. Marginally funny the first time but why repeat it over and over in different shows with different cashiers? I could give other examples but these just might be treated as spoilers, divulging why this comedy just is not funny at all.
Here is what happened:<br /><br />1) Head of BBC3 needs to make programmes aimed at different audience to BBC1 and BBC2 to keep licence and job.<br /><br />2) Lenny Henry offers his unfunny friends up.<br /><br />3) Head of BBC3 snaps them up, completely ignoring the fact that they are not funny.<br /><br />Worst of all, it is arguably racist, as all the characters play up to bad stereotypes. If a white person did this kind of thing, there'd be uproar!<br /><br />Trash.
five minutes after watching this i logged on to IMDb to warn all of you out there not to bother with this movie... genre:horror? it had moments of mild suspense and throughout the whole movie i was thinking to myself "somethings gotta happen soon" it did not...when the movie ended i felt so embarrassed for the writer/director i've never been the biggest fan of patrick rea this guy just does not know how to make movies and after watching this sorry excuse of a horror flick i've gone from not been the biggest fan to will not watch another of his works..<br /><br />i was taken in by the plot summary please don't make the same mistake.<br /><br />i gave this movie a 2 for the actors..they were not bad and it wasn't there fault they got such bad direction...
A film with very little positive to say for it.<br /><br />Firstly it has zero pace and is positively lacking in any drama.<br /><br />Besides being remarkably slow The Empty Acre seems dedicated to using the same stock footage again and again. I lost count of how many times I had seen "that" field at night or that bit of cracked earth.<br /><br />It also has the fundamental flaw of thinking that if the audience don't know about things they will be gripped rather than just confused. So with no signs that there are any issues we suddenly find the marriage is not what it seems to be despite being given the impression that it's fine. We find Jacob is possibly the worst farmer in the universe as he seems to spend no time on the farm and also seems to have bought land with a wholly useless acre. Beth has a key to a warehouse of books? There are innumerable other questions some of which are resolved later in the movie, much later, in fact too late.<br /><br />And on the point of the acre. Horror filmmakers note that large inanimate objects are inherently not scary – and also if they're meant to be an acre big then make them so.<br /><br />There is also a frightening lack of reasonability as Beth (the best performer in the piece, followed by Jefferson – the cop) suddenly appears to be accused of everything under the sun just because she is on "medication".<br /><br />With the full ten minutes plus of running round the fields looking for the missing child (did he crawl out of the window? He's six months old) the film descends into badly written scene after badly written scene. Bad plinky plonk "horror" music fails to add atmosphere.<br /><br />Often bad films can be amusing but not The Empty Acre, which is just bad.
as an inspiring director myself, this movie was exciting to watch with criticism in mind. Shot with low end digital camera probably with 35mm adapter for DOF. The editing is good acting decent, sound effects aren't too over the top. I would have give it a 7 for an indie film, but the story aren't that interesting. It's more on the drama side, character developments than a horror flick.<br /><br />It's not for those who wants to get spooked startled frightened grossed out, or sit down with popcorn to just enjoy.<br /><br />honestly this movie would be good if we were still in the 50's<br /><br />This movie is about a family who has a dry field, and that is just that.
I saw this film on its release, and have watched it 3 or 4 more times, including last week. I regret I have to be a voice of dissension with regard to Mr. Branagh's performance.<br /><br />This is really a glorious, sumptuous film, to say nothing of ambitious at over 4 hours long - beautifully shot and designed. Derek Jacobi, Julie Christie, Kate Winslet, Richard Briers, and many others do fine jobs. Then there's Kenneth Branagh. If ever there was a vanity project for an actor, this is it, and Mr. Branagh spares nothing in putting the "ham" in Hamlet. From the stunt casting (which gives us the worst performance ever by the woefully miscast Jack Lemmon), to the bits of distracting business thrown in to infuse a sense of "naturalness," to his own performance which runs the gamut from throwing away the single most famous soliloquy in all of literature to screaming every line of others. His performance confirms that, while he may come across better on stage where bigger is necessary, he has never been a great film actor. The scenery budget could be charged to catering, Mr. Branagh eats so much of it. His performance is a perfect example of why people don't go to see Shakespeare - "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." And if there is fault to his direction, it is that he keeps the camera firmly glued on his overblown performance.<br /><br />No matter what theories people may posit on the Bard, he was, after all is said and done, a playwright. The brilliance of his plays rest in the fact that his themes are universal and timeless. Although there is no "right" way to play his plays, there is most certainly great acting, good acting and bad acting. Shakespeare himself gives instructions to the players in the text of "Hamlet" itself. It amazes me how Mr. Branagh "mouthed" it, but did not hear it. It was an example of spending too much time working out how he's going to say something, and too little figuring out WHAT he's saying.<br /><br />While Mr. Branagh has certainly done a wonderful job in mounting some entertaining productions, he would be wise to stay behind the camera and allow those who know the art of acting to practice it. His direction has always been better than his acting. I still give him immense credit for resurrecting interest in filming Shakespeare. He set a great template for other productions. And, it would be interesting to see him onstage, from about 20 rows back. But, I do hope he chooses to direct more and act less.<br /><br />Is it worth seeing? Certainly. There are many little joys to be found in the film. But, it's a long, long movie and, by the end, one may feel less that they enjoyed than survived it.
This ludicrous and inept film is certainly the most misguided version of "Hamlet" to ever reach the screen. Branagh's approach to the material can only be described as vulgar; going to such lengths as depicting Ophelia in a straight jacket, having Fortinbras' army appear suddenly on the horizon (looking very much like the climax of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail") when the palace is apparently guarded only by Francisco (who shouts the very un-Shakespearean cry of "ataaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack" before being gunned down), and multitudes of star cameos that harken back to the days of Jimmy Cagney's Bottom and Mary Pickford's Kate.<br /><br />Branagh chose to set his film in an Edwardian setting but at the same time decided to employ an almost uncut text, so that frequently the dialogue that is firmly rooted in Elizabethan mentality makes no sense in the context that it is being performed. And Branagh does not concern himself with such textural subtleties as the ambiguous nature of Hamlet and Olphelia's relationship, treating the audience to a vulgar nude sex scene between the couple that tosses any ambiguity right out the stained glass window.<br /><br />The uncut text does allow Branagh to indulge in his favorite cinematic pastime: more footage of Kenneth Branagh. This is never so apparent as in the "How All Occasions Inform Against Me" speech that ends the first half of the nineteen hour film (at least that's how it feels), which attempts to play to a dramatic crescendo along the lines of Gone With The Wind's "I'll never be hungry again." This may serve Branagh's ego, but it does not serve Shakespeare or the speech: when I saw the film in the theater, I leaned over to my companion and snickered "Great Moments With Mr. Hamlet." Branagh saves the funniest and most tasteless moment for last, when he attempts to out-do the Olivier film and its justly celebrated death of Claudius by having Hamlet jump from off a high tower onto the monarch, impaling him with a sword. Branagh's Dane does in the king by heroically throwing an apparently magic rapier from across the palace to run through Claudius' heart with a super hero's bulls eye. The only thing that saved the moment from being unbearably maddening was that it was so off-the-wall funny.<br /><br />While this film has been praised in some quarters as a serious depiction of the tragedy, it is in fact nothing but a star-studded display of a once-talented filmmaker being overtaken by his own narcissism. The Emperor has no clothes, and this Hamlet has nothing to offer but a few unintended laughs and the appalling sight of one man's ego out of control.
Despite positive reviews and screenings at the international festivals, this movie is not for everyone.<br /><br />The story is very similar to other movies, in which a teenage girl from the family of immigrants needs to overcome many common personal problems of her age, and also to struggle against the pressure of ethnic traditions in her family. She does that by choosing some kind of sport, and with the help of a local boy, that for some reason falls in love with her, she confronts her problems and wins.<br /><br />In Girlfight it's boxing, in Bend it like Beckham it's soccer, and now it's Kung Fu.<br /><br />But Fighter is much inferior product than these two, it was simply embarrassing to watch it. Semra Turan, the "actress" that playing the role of a teenage girl, maybe can do a lot of things, but one thing she can't do is to act. Her presence on the screen is anemic and clumsy, the dramatic situations, in which she tries to show some emotions, are dreadful, her body and facial language are of amateur actress, badly instructed by the director. The rest of the cast is a little better, but they just cannot save this cliché movie with stereotypical characters and shallow plot. Besides a few relatively good moments this movie has nothing new or interesting to offer.<br /><br />Even the kung fu fighting is not a reason to watch this, it's just so boring. The slow motion was really unnecessary, the choreography was basic and lacked the inspiration, and most of the kung fu scenes are just training or standing in all kind of kung fu positions, not actually fighting. Not to mention how ridiculous it looks when a small and skinny girl fights big and muscular boys, and knocks them off their feet. <br /><br />The only reason this movie has been noticed at all is because it's European. It's very easy to publicize this movie - A first martial arts film from Denmark, but don't be fooled, it's not. It's just a drama about stupid teenage girl and her problems, which are, by the way, not really convincing.<br /><br />Bad movie with embarrassing lines, acting and story.
I watched this show and i simply didn't find it funny at all. It might have been the first episode. Lately i realize ABC is playing a lot of stupid shows nowadays and is going down as a station. All the characters on this show are pretty bad actors, but even if they were good the jokes and script are pretty horrible and would still bring the show down. I would say that I believe this show will be cancelled, but seeing as how ABC is doing pretty horrible for quality of shows they are playing, they might just keep this one simply because it's average compared to them.
Outside of the fact that George Lopez is a pretentious jerk, his show is terrible.<br /><br />Nothing about Lopez has ever been funny. I have watched his stand-up and have never uttered any resemblance to a laugh.<br /><br />His stuff comes across as vindictive and his animosity towards white people oozes out of every single pore of his body.<br /><br />I have laughed at white people jokes from many a comedian and love many of them.<br /><br />This guy has a grudge that won't end.<br /><br />I feel bad for Hispanics who have only this show to represent themselves.<br /><br />The shows plots are always cookie cutter with an Hispanic accent.<br /><br />Canned laugh at the dumbest comments and scenes.<br /><br />Might be why this show is always on at 2AM in replay.
This show was absolutely terrible. For one George isn't funny, and his kids are snobby little brats. He also treats his mother with no respect. As a Hispanic, I am highly offended by this show and the way the characters are portrayed.<br /><br />Plus the dysfunctional family thing's been done to death. For once, I want to see something original. What makes this show funny when other shows have done it millions of times? I thought ABC would come to its senses and pull this piece of garbage off the air, but sadly, we're going to have to stomach this until they "jump the shark".<br /><br />In my opinion, they already did.
This show is awful. How is George wanting the death of his mother funny? This show is terrible. The parents are obviously horrible and the children should be taken to child services. The daughter is a witch with a b and the son is just a complete brat. George isn't funny, especially when he speaks his loud and obnoxious brand of Spanglish. Ernie is a loser, but at least I've chuckled at him a few times, but mainly at how pathetic he is. George's mother, Benny, in an awful, despicable character. Sure, her husband left her, but how anyone can laugh at the way she treated George as a baby is beyond me.<br /><br />Can someone explain to me how George's head being big is funny? It's not even that big! I've moved on from characters because they're too awful and it would take hours for me to write and I, frankly, don't care enough. I do care enough to tell anyone looking at this and wondering whether or not they want to watch this show, that this show is an abysmal excuse for a sitcom, and is not worth your time.<br /><br />I give it 2 starts, because the wife is extremely attractive.
Seriously, I mean very seriously, when I first started watching the show I thought it was good. But the plots just got worse. The storyline were either too boring or predictable. George isn't always funny, he sometimes acts stupid. His jokes are overdone. His mom is the silliest character of the show. How can a mother treat her own son that way, okay if it was the daughter in law, but this was her own son. I give this show a 4/10 just because the first few shows were a little funny. The actors Constance Marie and Masiela Lusha do a great job. Don't know how these shows get to play for so long. <br /><br />If you're really bored like I was and have nothing else to watch, I'd suggest you watch this.
What has Ireland ever done to film distributers that they seek to represent the country in such a pejorative way? This movie begins like a primer for film students on Irish cinematic cliches: unctuous priests, spitting before handshakes, town square cattle marts, cycling by country meadows to the backdrop of anodyne folk music. Quickly, however, it becomes apparent that the main theme of the film is the big Daddy-O of Irish Cliches - religous strife. It concerns a protestant woman who wants to decide where her Catholic-fathered child is educated, which would seem like a reasonable enough wish, though not to the '50's County Wexford villagers she has to live with. Rather than send them to a Catholic school, she decides to up and leave for Belfast, then Scotland, where a few more cliches are reguritated. While she's there, her father (who looks eerily like George Lucas) and family back home are subjected to a boycott, which turns very nasty. I'm not going to give away the ending, not because I think people should go see this movie, but because it's not very interesting. One of the problems with the film is the central character: we're supposed to sympathise with her but end up instead urging her to get a life. The villagers are presented as bigots whose prejudices should be stood up to, but traumatising your kids seems an innappropriate way to go about it. In addition, it takes on burdens which it staggers igniminiously under when it tries to draw analogies with the current Northern Ireland peace process: the woman is told by her lawyer that she "must lay down preconditions" for her return. The film is allegedly based on a true story but it's themes have been dealt with much more imaginatively, and with less recourse to hackneyed cliches, in the past.
I can not believe such slanted, jingoistic material is getting passed off to Americans as art house material. Early on, from such telling lines like "we want to make sure they are playing for the right team" and manipulative framing and lighting, A Love Divided shows it's true face. The crass manner in which the Irish Catholics are shown as hegemonic, the Protestants as peaceful and downtrodden, is as poor a representation of history as early US westerns that depict the struggle between cowboys and American Indians. The truth of the story is distorted with the stereotypes and outright vilification of the Irish Catholics in the story; a corruption admitted by the filmmakers themselves! It is sad that people today still think that they can win moral sway by making a film so easily recognized for it's obvious intent, so far from attempting art. This film has no business being anywhere in any legitimate cinema or library.
I remember I saw this cartoon when I was 6 or 7. My grandfather picked up the video of it for free at the mall. I remember that it really sucked. The plot had no sense. I hated the fox that became Casper's friend. He was so stupid! Casper cried his head off if he couldn't find a friend. So what? Get over it! The only good part and I don't want to sound mean-spirited was when the fox got shot and died at the end. I laughed my head off in payback because this cartoon sucked so much. The bad news is the fox resurrects and becomes a ghost. I wish he had stayed dead. I think I even gave the video of this to somebody because I hated it. No wonder they were offering it for free at the mall. If you have a child don't let them watch this. They will probably agree with me that it sucks.
John Candy. Need we say more? He is the main reason you should see this film. Most people don't realize how gifted he was as an actor. Witness him changing from poor slob to horny jerk. Just a simple(subtle) facial change and off we go. There are many great bits in this movie and many really dumb bits. The best moments for me are the KUNG FU U scenes as well as the great moment when John(in a trance) goes up on stage and talks about how much he loves his girlfriend-that is how much he and his genitals love his girlfriend. I'm sure reading this you might think this sequence sounds really crude. It is, but it is also very funny mainly because it is John Candy doing this bit. The story in general is pretty lame and Eugene Levy and Joe Flaherty(both SCTV alumni with Candy) are not given enough to do in the film. Levy has his moments, especially filming the wedding at the end(think Rod Serling) and the great scene when he is talking to his mother on the phone. Overall a good movie if you have had a tough day and need to put your brain on stupid. I give this one 4 out of 10.
This movie appears to have been made by someone with some good ideas but who also never had made a movie before nor had they considered that a script should be edited or even funny. When I saw this film, I saw it for John Candy and assumed, incorrectly, that it would be hilarious. Instead, there was a stupid plot about mind control and so many flat, unfunny moments. And, to top it off, Candy delivered some of the crudest lines I had ever heard up to that time. So, despite a potentially funny cast and story idea, we are left with an amateurish and crude movie that will probably be too stupid for the average adult, though teens will probably find a few laughs. It's really a shame--it could have been so much better. I mean, with Eugene Levy, Joe Flaherty and John Candy it SHOULD have been wonderful.
No, not the administration of GWB, the Decider/Strutter/Smirker--but the mini-series "Monarch Cove." Lifetime must have realized what a dog this was because the series was burned off two episodes at a time, most of them broadcast between 11 p.m. Friday nights and 1 a.m. Saturday mornings. As to why I watched the whole thing, I can only plead to weekly sudden convulsive attacks of masochism.<br /><br />Most of the cast are unknowns who are likely to remain unknown. The only two recognizable names are Shirley Jones and Rachel Ward, who turn in the only decent performances (Jones doesn't make it through the entire series--lucky woman). Ward, by the way, is aging quite well since her "Thorn Birds" days.<br /><br />The one main thread to the plot--who murdered the father of the heroine who is wrongly convicted of Dad's murder but is freed after six years in the slammer--is stretched out for so long and concluded so hastily that you won't especially care who dun it. There is a great deal of "steamy" sex, several murders, and all sorts of rude behavior--virtually none of which is either interesting or credible. Most of the cast is not particularly attractive and definitely not talented. The writing and direction is on a par with the cast.<br /><br />If you stick around to the end, the post card is a (very minor)hoot.<br /><br />CONSIDER YOURSELF WARNED!
This movie is not as good as all the movies of Christ I've ever seen. And I'm quite amazed that in this story Pilate wants to finish Jesus, when the Scriptures (as well the other movies) state differently. It lacks also a very important issue: The Resurrection.. None of the other movies skip this very important part: the faith of all of us Christians lies in this very event. As Paul says in one of his letters "If Christ did not rise from the dead, our faith is vain". A very impressive scene for me in this movie was seeing on the streets the remains of the palms that were used when Jesus entered Jerusalem. <br /><br />Finally, and in opposition to my Jewish co-commentator, Jesus WAS NOT a myth. And as a matter of fact, he was also a JEW. There are plenty of documents (relgious and secular) that prove the existence of this extraordinary man(or should I said, God become a man) that indeed changed mankind. I strongly advise him(given he is a historian) to read about Flavius Josephus, the most brilliant Jewish commentator of the 1st. Century.
Although the director tried(the filming was made in Tynisia and Morocco),this attempt to transport the New Testament in the screen failed.The script has serious inaccuracies and fantasies,while the duration is very long.But the most tragic is the protagonist Chris Sarandon,who doesn't seem to understand the demands of his role.
The stranger Jack (Matthew Lillard) arrives in the studio of the crook collector of antiques Max (Vincent D'Onofrio) and tells his ambitious companion and specialist in poisons Jamie (Valeria Golino) that he is Jack's brother. Jamie does not buy his story, dominates Jack and ties him up to a chair. When Max arrives, Jack proposes US$ 100,000.00 for each one to protect him in a negotiation of the antiques "Spanish Judges" with a wealthy and dangerous collector. Max invites his stupid acquaintance Piece (Mark Boone Junior), who comes with his retarded girlfriend that believes she is from Mars, to compose the backup team. However, Jack double-crosses the collector and then he intrigues Jack, Jamie and Piece.<br /><br />The low budget "Spanish Judges" is a movie with a reasonable screenplay with an awful conclusion that wastes a good cast. Valeria Golino is astonishingly beautiful but together with the good actor Vincent D'Onofrio, they are not able to save the stupid story. Further, the scenes that are supposed to be funny unfortunately do not work, and actually they are silly and not funny. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Tudo Por Dinheiro" ("All For Money")
The major fault in this film is that it is impossible to believe any of these people would ever be cast in a professional production of Macbeth. Hearing David Lansbury's soft voice struggling laboriously with the famous "Tomorrow, Tomorrow, and Tomorrow" speech made it impossible to believe anyone would ever consider him for the role. I kept believing therefore that he didn't get the part because he was a lousy actor; not because a bigger name was available. Then when we see portions of the play in rehearsal it is difficult to believe the director is not parodying things with a hopelessly miscast, misdirected travesty of actors who are unable to articulate or even understand the verse and directors who see the play through their own screwball interpretations. Sometimes directors are so anxious to have their films done (and writers think they have the ability to direct their own works)that they settle for less. This appears to be such an example.
I agree with most of the Columbo fans that this movie was an unnecessary change of format. Columbo is a unique cop with unorthodox police methods. This movie looks like a remake of any other ordinary detective dramas from the past. And that is the disturbing point, because Columbo is no ordinary detective.<br /><br />There are two parts in this film that left me intriguing. First, I can't figure out the title of this movie. It is misleading. Maybe a better title would've been "The Vanishing Bride" or something similar. Second, Columbo hides a piece of evidence without offering the reason (to the viewers at least) why he does it.<br /><br />I don't feel betrayed, just disappointed. I'm glad Peter Falk went back to the usual Columbo.<br /><br />
LL Cool J performed much better in this movie that I expected! He did a fabulous job acting as a "renegade" cop within a "renegade" department. From the very beginning, he does a great job of building viewer empathy for his character and the predicament he's in. He acts as a sort of "gentle giant" -- a person whose rough exterior can scare anybody, yet whose heart is clearly in the right place from the very start -- and he does an amazing job. He was quite clearly the best character in the movie.<br /><br />This was certainly a performance that will not win Morgan Freeman any awards. After starring in powerhouse films like the Shawshank Redemption this film was certainly a step down. His role in Edison simply did not allow him to show his true talents as an actor -- and in terms of the conglomeration of characters placed him sadly on a back burner. There are so many ways his character (Moses Ashford) could have taken a more pivotal role. That he didn't was disappointing and a true let-down. I was hoping to see more from him in this film.<br /><br />Timberlake ought to have stayed in the music industry. His portrayal of a young journalist was poorly acted and unpersuasive. This movie is a typical action movie that (at least initially) bears some resemblance to corrupt police affairs LA has experienced in the past. Being an action movie, it has its share of shoot-em-up scenes, blood, and guts. These scenes are typically unrealistic and painfully predictable. Watching the beginning of the movie there is very little suspense as to what will happen at the end -- think of what you would typically expect in a good-cops/bad-cops conflict -- and it bears little resemblance to a REAL police shoot-out.<br /><br />What irked me most was the way Timberlake's character behaved during shoot-out scenes. He starts out having guns and not using them. Then when he finally gets around to using one he fires it as if he's been firing a gun his whole life. Then he runs out of bullets and doesn't have a gun -- and 30 seconds later, without moving or anything -- suddenly has 2 more fully loaded guns AND extra ammo?! Little plot errors like this really ruined the movie for me.<br /><br />If what you are looking for is a blatantly fictional plot in a fantasy world where everything turns out okay, then you'll probably love this movie. Personally, it doesn't matter to me what KIND of movie it is as long as it is realistic. Make me believe that the story is true. This story was so obviously fictional in so many aspects that I came away feeling unsatisfied.
Beginning with the poster (featuring only Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey), the entire movie was a fraud. One stereotype after another, this movie was about nothing - or nothing new, at least. After 10-15 minutes, you realize that you've just paid to see Justin Timberlake and LL Cool J recite their way through another cop-flick.<br /><br />Basically, the story is about the corrupt system in some city, all secretly supported by the backbone business and in town, under the watchful eye of some hot-shot politician. The almighty and above-the-law organization is called FRAT and guess what? they've got a kick-ass loony cop shooting and beating at will - suspects, girlfriends, you name it. FRAT cops are corrupt and greedy, so they end up making mistakes that get discovered by a young and talented (!!!) journalist. One hour later, after a series of unbelievably bad-made shooting scenes and more stereotype lines, everything ends happily and we get served the final line : you can't beat the system. Bah! Don't see this waste of film roll. Freeman and Spacey barely have 10 min altogether!
The movie started off strong, LL Cool J (Deed) as an undercover police officer, with partner Sgt. Lazerov (Dylan McDermott from the Practice, possibly miscast as a bad guy?) committing robbery and murder. Deed refuses to kill the drug dealer, which sets up the conflict of a dirty cop with a conscience. The other big names (Freeman, Spacey et al) are well cast and the movie shows promise.<br /><br />The movie begins to fall short as soon as Justin Timberlake (Pollack) is introduced. Given the opportunity to make a good movie that people will possibly see repeatedly, or one that teenage girls will go and see the once because of Timberlake, I would choose the former. Even talented actors have to work hard at their craft; Timberlake is NOT talented and no amount of hard work can save him. I would have thought he would put on a better show, given the fact that he has been acting talented for years. Everything he did in this film was unconvincing.<br /><br />Just because a singer sells millions of records and sells out stadiums, it does not automatically translate that they can act successfully in feature films. Even hardcore N'Sync fans will not be able to ignore the obvious lack of acting talent.<br /><br />That aside there are a few plot holes, such as Pollack's sudden sniper ability and deadly operation of warehouse machinery. This movie had so much promise. Thoroughly disappointing.
Lets enter the world of this movie for a second, so you can better understand the type of movie we are dealing with here.<br /><br />Edison is one of those really stupid movies where the bad guy and his goons have been letting loose 50,000 bullets shooting at the good guy behind walls and pillars, shouting at them, and then finally get to the good guy face to face and instead of killing him......instead of wasting this guy that has caused you SO MUCH grief....instead of just walking up and POP!.....What do you do? The bad guy.....he talks to him. He grabs the good guy and talks to him while holding his gun. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT! SHOOT HIM! SHOOT HIM NOW! But he talks to him anyway. Oh another thing. At the end, a newspaper says "PULITZER PRIZE WINNER STORY RIGHT HERE" or something right above on a front page of a paper, when its like the first time the story is printed. So how in the heezy did someone win a Pulitzer for it that fast? Yea, you know those types of stupid movies? Yea well that's Edison in a nutshell.<br /><br />You get Mr cool Morgan Freeman and shifty eyed tough Kevin Spacey who both phone in their roles completely, LL Cool J who scowls literally every single moment of the movie,while proposing to his girlfriend in a damn night club of all places,and who's last line "Duck" was something from like a lethal weapon movie that was never made... and Justin Timberlake whining and spewing nonsense every time he talks, little cocky bastard.The only bright spot was a crazy Dylan McDermott doing his best "Denzel from Training Day" impression, which was pretty entertaining.<br /><br />Oh yea so whats the movie about? Eh, something about scandals involving the city Edison's fictional special unit police force called "F.R.A.T. (I swear I'm not making this stuff up) which was supposed to be a obvious play off of S.W.A.T. Anyway little journalistic super singer boy Justin Timberflake smells something foul afoot after a murder involving 2 undercover cops from FRAT, and he goes scurrying off looking for a story, gaining his boss' (Freeman) trust along the way while they both unravel something even bigger and sinister than what they both thought. blah blah blah. Its like a bootleg pelican brief meets a halfassed training day.The pacing was slow and off, the script was horrible, and the acting was extremely uninspired. It jumped everywhere without going anywhere. People get put in comas and you forget about them. Everyone in this movie just didn't THINK. Damn what a stupid movie. Its becoming harder to write any sort of review for it because the movie left my brain the second it ended...No lie Basically, do NOT waste your time!
Honestly before I watched this movie, I had heard many people said this movie was a disgrace. I did not believe that since Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey have taken roles in this movie, and watched it by my own. Apparently they were right. I was really disappointed and wondering all the time during the movie - why the hell did I watch this movie.<br /><br />Of course I was not expecting much from Justin as he really does not belong in the movie/theater business. But Morgan and Kevin? I could not stop asking myself why the heck they agreed to take part in Edison. To be honest, their roles are rather stupid.<br /><br />Well you might think if the players suck, then I should pay more attention to the story. It is indeed story is the core of a movie, but guys... trust me... this is not a movie you want to give a credit for its story. Imagine this, a smart-ass journalist (Justin Timberlake) wrote a story against the system and at the same time learning how to become a 'real' journalist from his boss (Morgan Freeman). This all was supported by one agent who still has heart for justice (LL Cool J) and an brilliant investigator (Kevin Spacey). At the end, they beat the system with a happy ending story.<br /><br />Jeez, I could not even carry on with this. Just recalling the movie is making me sick already. My advise guys, don't watch this! Please save your money and time for another movie.
There is an excellent reason Edison went straight to video: it would have landed in theaters with a crumbling thud. The movie lasted entirely too long and was perilously boring. Just a notch above lowbrow (thanks to Freeman and Spacey, who obviously had a spare two weeks before their next films), the bad guys are as laughable and action as near non-existent as Justin Timberlake's acting. I hate to knock the guy, but the sooner he realizes that pop is his forte, the better.<br /><br />The movie isn't all bad...just mostly. I like the fact that LL Cool J was given what appears to be a shot at being leading man. He deserves it. And, unlike his fellow musician and co-star, he can act. Kevin Spacey is almost always enjoyable as well (you can see him gulp several times as he chews the scenery), and Freeman has the ability to elevate this flick to three stars (out of ten...he's not THAT good).<br /><br />When all is said and done, the ultimate error with this movie is that it is a mundane and tiresome piece of pseudo-action poppycock that fails to keep anyone awake. It also fails to make anyone give a good crap about any of the characters. All in all, t's just plain boring. That being said, rent this when you are suffering from insomnia.
Oh dear god. This was horrible. There is bad, then there was this. This movie makes no sense at all. It runs all over the map and isn't clear about what its saying at all. The music seemed like it was trying to be like Batman. The fact that 'Edison' isn't a real city, takes away. Since I live in Vancouver, watching this movie and recognizing all these places made it unbearable. Why didn't they make it a real city? The only writing that was decent was'Tilman' in which John Heard did a fantastic job. He was the only actor who played his role realistically and not over the top and campy. It was actually a shame to see John Heard play such a great bad guy with a lot of screen time, and the movie be a washout. Too bad. Hopefully someone important will see it, and at least give John Heard credit where credit is due, and hire him as lead bad guy again, which is where he should be. on the A List.
The movie itself is not too bad; many comments have pointed out the obvious flaws of the script, but it is watchable. What really gives me the creeps though is that people like Justin Timberlake even get cast for movies, and on top of that for movies like this one. I have to admit I had never heard the man's name before watching this, but the very instant he appeared I was just plain annoyed. The voice is crap, the face is a bad rip-off of Legolas, the posture is horrible, and he cannot even properly coordinate all three of them. Said to say, I was delighted when he got jumped after leaving the disco, because I was hoping from then on it would be Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey only. Too bad I was wrong. These two and also LL Cool J give a very decent performance, and they are the main reason I give this a 4. <br /><br />I see many upcoming movies with the little Timberlake cast... and cannot believe it.
Pathetic... worse than a bad made-for-TV movie. I can't believe that Spacey and Freeman were in this flick. For some reason Morgan Freeman's character is constantly talking about and saying "pussy" when referring to NSync boy's girlfriend. Morgan Freeman calling women "pussy" is just awkward... What the hell were the people behind this film thinking? Too many plot holes to imagine combined with the horrid acting, confusing camera angles, a lame script and cheap background music made this movie absolutely unbearable.<br /><br />I rented this flop with low expectations.... but... well... it really sucked.
Timberlake's performance almost made attack the screen. It wasn't all bad, I just think the reporters role was wrong for him.<br /><br />LL Cool J played the typical rapper role, toughest,baddest guy around. I don't think the cracked a smile in the whole movie, not even when proposed to his girlfriend.<br /><br />Morgan Freeman pretty much carried the whole movie. He was has some funny scenes which are the high point of the movie.<br /><br />Kevin Spacey wasn't good or bad he was just "there".<br /><br />Overall it's a Dull movie. bad plot. a lot of bad acting or wrong roles for actors.
If you watched this movie you know why I said "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus". Hehehe!!! Every time they said "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus"... I laughed thinking "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, why did I rent this movie"? I cannot believe how Oscar winners like Freeman and Spacey appeared here in the background while Timberlake and LL Cool J grabbed the screen. WTF is Timberlake? Dreaful acting! I think someone like Joshua Jackson could have done a much better job! This job was perfect for Joshua Jackson and believe me I am not a big fun of him... but I really prefer an actor, not this android called Timberlake. And his girlfriend was shallow, hollow and annoying as hell. I was happy when they both were popped in the street.<br /><br />The story was OK and I think Dylan Mc Dermott did his bad guy role very well. The movie was entertaining but I think Timberlake ruined it all. It would have been much enjoyable without him.<br /><br />By the way, the music was OK, but suddenly every time the music appeared the movie turned into a MTV video clip with flashes, low motion and things like that. Something misplaced for this cops movie I thought. Maybe they wanted to make a MTV video clip for Timberlake.
How can there be that many corrupt cops without any one of them slipping up? With enough cops to run a mini-war that include such weapons as flamethrowers, you would think they would have been caught before someone writing for a weekly coupon newspaper overheard someone saying 'thanks' to a corrupt cop.<br /><br />You will never get your 90ish minutes back. Life is too precious to rent this movie.<br /><br />I feel bad for the big named actors that made the mistake of making this movie.<br /><br />If you like Justin Timberlake, feel free to rent this movie. He does have a very major part in it, so fans might enjoy seeing him. <br /><br />However, I believe most of his fans are young girls, who may be turned off by the violence in this movie.
LL Cool J. Morgan Freeman. Dylan McDermott. Kevin Spacey. John Heard. Cary Elwes. Roslyn Sanchez. Justin Timberlake -- wait a minute. Justin Timberlake? And he's the star? I should have known better than to rent EDISON FORCE. In fact, I did know better. But in a moment of absolute weakness, I rented this STV. When you have big names like Freeman and Spacey in an STV, you know it's one of two things: an indie or a dog. As in sat-on-a-shelf. Which this did. And with good reason. The plot as such involves a squad of corrupt killer cops a la MAGNUM FORCE, and "journalist" Timberlake is the only one brave enough to uncover them. He is targeted for his efforts -- or maybe I should say for his horrible acting. I turned it off after one of the bad guys was shot through the forehead and still had the forethought to turn to his shooter and smile before collapsing. Just awful. The real tipoff to how bad this flick is to see Freeman on the cover and throughout the movie sporting an unruly beard, looking like nothing so much as a hobo. You just know the director was not in control. Freeman is clearly slumming.
I rented this movie last week. I saw Kevin Spacey and Morgan Freeman were on it, so it seemed promising. And it was, until Justin Timberlake came on scene. He is a really bad actor and shouldn't be allowed to make a movie ever again. I mean, he is one of the most boring, uninspired actors I've ever seen. He puts absolutely no emotion to any of his lines whatsoever. Why the hell was he cast for the role of Josh Pollack? I think Matt Damon would have been a better choice.<br /><br />Kevin Spacey was another big disappointment. His character is so dull, it seems like a bad mix of his character in American Beauty and John Doe in Se7en. It might sound cool, but believe me, it's not.<br /><br />Now, Dylan McDermott's acting is very good. It's about one of the very few good things about this movie. He is just inspired.<br /><br />Morgan Freeman is good but nothing special. He has some really cool lines though.<br /><br />About the story, although it was a bit obvious and exaggerated at times it was good. I was expecting a big twist when Lazerov (Dylan McDermott) was killed, but nothing really happened.
*** REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SOME SPOILERS *** I'll make this review short and sweet. I bought this movie from Best Buy because it sounded interested and had some top actors in it like Kevin Spacey and Morgan Freeman. How bad could it be, right? Well, it's pretty bad. Justin Timberlake plays Pollack, a wannabe journalist who stumbles across a case that may lead to corrupt cops at Edison's Police Force. LL Cool J is Deed, a cop within the force on a special force team called F.R.A.T. (First Response Assault Tactics). He's teamed with an "on-the-edge" bad cop named Lazerov (Dylan McDermott). In the opening scene we see Lazerov & Deed taking on some bank robbers, but at night they are busting a couple of guys doing drugs. I don't want to give to much away, but things turn bad for the guys doing the drugs. Pollack, who works for Ashford (Morgan Freeman) goes to a trial involving Deeds & Lazerov. He suspect foul play and with the help of Ashford, does some investigate that turns ugly. Wallace (Kevin Spacey) who is all within the F.R.A.T. team joins with Ashford to try to bring the corrupt cops to justice.<br /><br />You can tell from the beginning that Freeman and Spacey's performance are pretty lackluster. The only person that give a all out performance is Dylan McDermott. He is a complete nut case in this movie and made a believer out of me. LL Cool J is terrible in this film. He says every line the same way and shows pretty much the same emotion. He was much better in movies like Deep Blue Sea & Any Given Sunday. The film starts off with some nice action but then drags it feet through the rest of the film. The ending is far from satisfying.<br /><br />Don't waste your time with this film. I'm putting it on Ebay this weekend.
The plot of 'Edison' was decent, but one actor in particular ruined the entire film. Justin Timberlake ruined the film with every line he uttered during the movie. He is by far one of the worst actors I have ever seen, and should face the same fate as the entire F.R.A.T. squad. <br /><br />Whether it was an emotional scene, an action scene, or even a silent scene, Justin Timberlake managed to ruin it. <br /><br />Do not waste your time watching this film. Don't even bother downloading it, midget porn would be a much better choice.<br /><br />And Justin, if you're reading this, stick to music. Even though you're no good at that, you've done a wonderful job tricking people into thinking you can actually sing.
I found it very very difficulty to watch this after the initial 5 minutes of the film. I managed to stomach 45-50 minutes before switching it off in disgust and watching Monster House instead (which, by the way, is great fun).<br /><br />The story has massive holes in it. The plot line is hugely over stated and dull, the acting is awful, especially from Justin TImberlake who should really stick to what he is good at (looking daft and singing like a castrato). Morgan Freeman looked incredibly uncomfortable, especially when made to dance around to rock music for no apparent reason half way through the film after him and Timberlake meet. Freeman and Timberlake's characters seem to be supposed to have some sort of father/son relationship of sorts or something, which simply isn't evident at all apart from the fact that; though Freeman's character seems to have nothing but contempt for the ignorant and rather stupid character of Timberlake, he never the less pulls out all the stops to help him uncover a completely ridiculous cover up.<br /><br />It would take some incredible suspension of disbelief to give any credit to the story line, which is simply absurd and blown out of all proportion.<br /><br />Don't watch this film, it is a pure waste of time.
OK so I hear about this new Justin Timberlake movie coming out which features some pretty big names. I mean great actors like, The Freeman aka Morgan Freeman, an asset to Hollywood, however completely wasted in this film. Then we got Kevin Spacey, who I've been a great fan of ever since I watched American Beauty and The Usual Suspects. Both of these great actors probably signed on to the movie thinking it was going to be a great movie as I did when I heard the story. Then enter a fresh faced Justin Timberlake. I say fresh faced because this is his first movie and those rotten tomatoes haven't hit him yet. Well the reason for that , I might add, is because no one will ever see this movie or even bother reading this review. The movie is so terrible that when i got into the first 15 minutes of it. The characters were so one dimensional that it makes some Bible characters look like the Don Corleone. They got the one liners and sound-bite worthy stuff. The token troubled black guy (LL COOL J) who is with a gorgeous woman who he otherwise would not even belong with in real life. The captain is this short whiny guy who speaks in such a high tone. And what crappy movie would be complete without the hero becoming richer because of an experience. Oh and lots of gun fire, i mean a whole lot. SPOILER(NOT!!!) THe kind of gun fire that leaves everyone in the police force who's crooked dead and the hero prevails. They got flame throwers and rocket launchers, REally no kidding.<br /><br />Bottom line if you want to see Edison its because you are a great fan of one of the actors, or a great fan of Justin Timberlake, to all the 13 year old girls out there, enjoy!! I wish i had more hands, because then I would have more thumbs, because this movie is so terrible because then i could give it so many thumbs down that thumbs down would no longer mean anything because this movie is so terrible because it sucks so badly that it made me laugh out of frustration about the story line because it just would not end because the firing and yelling just kept happening.<br /><br />MAY G*D HAVE MERCY ON US ALL and save us from these terrible movies. Well it could be worst, another RNB terrible actor turned singer turned terrible actor is usher, hehe check out IN THE MIX lol, or even Get rich or die trying'. Now the special thing about that movie is that its got 30+ year old men, playing 16 or even younger teens. I could go on with these.
When you go at an open air cinema under the Greek summer night you usually don't care what the movie is! Edison started really good with some good effort from the singers-who-want-to-be actors and a once again great Morgan Freeman but... (In a movie there is usually a good start to catch audience,done, a bit boring yet story filling middle of the movie that is more about characters and less about action ,done, and the third part is something really good so that you can remember the movie...) when you see 30 elite police officers (packed with weapons that can demolish a building) shoot at a guy behind a car, fail to hit him even once while he kills all (but 3) and then the guy takes out a flame thrower (to kill the rest 3) ,you realise that the Greek summer sky filled with stars is way too good to be distracted by a movie like this!
Jewish newspaper reporter Justin Timberlake (as Joshua "Josh" Pollack) is puzzled when a courtroom defendant whispers "Thank you" to testifying officer LL Cool J (as Rafe Deed) as he leaves the witness stand. In the opening sequences of this film, you are given the explanation. You will see Mr. Cool J's devilish detective partner Dylan McDermott (as Frances "Laz" Lazerov) decide NOT to murder Damien Dante Wayans (as Isaiah Charles). The cops in the city of "Edison" are so corrupt they shoot their suspects, steal their money, and snort their dope. Whether he's out to impress his girlfriend (herein, called "Pussy") or win a Pulitzer, the city's corruption does NOT sit well with the noble Mr. Timberlake.<br /><br />Timberlake decides to investigate the corruption, which reaches both unexpected scope and life-threatening levels of danger. Writer/director David J. Burke keeps the film above water, but just barely. LL Cool J beats Timberlake in the "pop star to movie star" sweepstakes (aka the "rapper to actor" progression). Mr. McDermott has fun with his role. Lending gravitas to the proceedings are sagely supporting actors Morgan Freeman (as Moses Ashford) and Kevin Spacey (as Levon Wallace). F.R.A.T. means First Response Assault and Tactical, but it's more important to know that "Edison (Force)" stars Justin Timberlake and LL Cool J, not Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey (who seems lost).<br /><br />**** Edison (9/17/05) David J. Burke ~ Justin Timberlake, LL Cool J, Morgan Freeman, Dylan McDermott
OK, I am not Japanese. I do know a little about Japanese culture, and a little less about Japanese pop culture. Other than that, I am Spanish, I eat paella and I like black humor.<br /><br />Good, with that point set, I can comment on the movie: I have no idea on how it is enjoyable to the Japanese audiences, Mamoru Oshii is quite a good director- despite the overly pedantic postmodern stuff in the style of Talking Head, and even that was curious and somehow interesting- and I am surprised he came up with this. It may just be one of those lost-in-translation cases, I am afraid it is, but as a European viewer watching the film with subtext overloaded English subtitles I just thought it was horrible. The jokes seemed bad, the script was overcooked- I mean, give the audience a break, and shut up a little you damn narrator- to the point of almost making my head explode over an overkill of fast-paced speaking and absurd action.<br /><br />However, I thought the animation was really cool. The idea is great, and it is well exploited in those animated scenes. However, the eye-candy finishes as soon as the characters are left aside to start with an endless not funny at all mumbo-jumbo speech over still pictures. It just makes you want to fast forward to the next cut-out hysterical characters scene.<br /><br />I read Mamoru Oshii is actually planning on a sequel for this. The idea was good but horribly exploited. Maybe the second part will bring up the good parts of this first one and actually make an interesting movie, or maybe it will be more and more over-narrated scenes. But hell, if you thought Talking Head was dense, Amazing Lifes of Fast Food Gifters will give cause you a stroke.<br /><br />Of course, all this comment is based on the experiences of someone who is European. Probably this is totally useless to Japanese people, maybe it was a really funny film lost in cultural frontiers and translation. Maybe.
I don't want to go too far into detail, because I can't really justify wasting much time on reviewing this film, but I had to give an alternate opinion to hopefully help people avoid the movie. The animation is crud and the story alternates between boring/pointless to extremely irritating. The humor was completely lost on the audience, and yes - Ghost in the Shell fans, this is NOT an action sci-fi or anything like that - its an attempt at slapstick comedy, and the humor just did not work after being translated. It was a total chore to watch this movie, and horrible way for me to kick off the film fest, especially considering how excited I was and how open I was for anything - I wasn't expecting a Ghost in the Shell sequel, but I was expecting something entertaining, and it simply didn't achieve this. Yaaawwnnn... Rent Kino's Journey instead.
I rented this on DVD and I kind of feel bad since Dawson and Lugacy are so earnest about it in the DVD comments. It's not a bad movie exactly, but it's one of those films that desperately wants to be a deep comment on human nature while not realizing that its story is practically a genre. Plus, it is a little simplistic about the issue in a lot of ways, and the characters' behavior often strains belief. I'd say its a film that you would get something out of if you don't have a lot of film/TV/literature/life behind you (to be honest, I've seen almost exactly the same story in horror comics even). Otherwise, its point has been made before and more artfully. And that gets to the big problem, which is that it really doesn't have much of cinematic interest to it besides the point. It ends up being a fairly bland movie overall that invests everything in the idea that the basic story will be shocking and compelling, and it doesn't really pay off.
The plot for Descent, if it actually can be called a plot, has two noteworthy events. One near the beginning - one at the end. Together these events make up maybe 5% of the total movie time. Everything (and I mean _everything_) in between is basically the director's desperate effort to fill in the minutes. I like disturbing movies, I like dark movies and I don't get troubled by gritty scenes - but if you expect me to sit through 60 minutes of hazy/dark (literally) scenes with NO storyline you have another thing coming. Rosario Dawson, one of my favorite actresses is completely wasted here. And no, she doesn't get naked, not even in the NC-17 version, which I saw.<br /><br />If you have a couple of hours to throw away and want to watch "Descent", take a nap instead - you'll probably have more interesting dreams.
I saw 'Descent' last night at the Stockholm Film Festival and it was one huge disappointment. Disappointment because the storyline was potentially powerful, the prospect of seeing Rosario Dawson in a smaller intimate movie was exciting and, being a fan (sounds pervy, I'm not!) of 'rape/revenge' flicks of the 70's, I was needless to say very curious to check this movie out. My conclusion: let's stick to the classics! Yes, the storyline has potential but the dialogs are flat, the actors unconvincing. Even Dawson is empty. Some would say that it's a right depiction of the college world in the US, that the emptiness of the characters serve a purpose and all that jazz but it just makes the whole movie unsubstantial. Just like the scene where Dawson gets raped: it seriously lacks intensity! I wasn't expecting anything 'Irreversible'-style but still, aren't we suppose to feel compassion for her? I didn't. Not for a minute, she was so lame all the way ;-) And I read that the photography was impressive. Well, it is good indeed but nothing ground-breaking either. I must admit that the screening at the festival wasn't so good so maybe I missed out something here but at the end of the movie, I couldn't help thinking 'I feel like watching Argento's 'Inferno' again. lol. More seriously, the first scene in the club is beautifully shot and all but I had the bitter sensation of watching a longer and more boring version of the scene in the filthy bar near the American-Canadian border in Lynch's 'Twin Peaks - Fire Walk with Me'... the crude red and blue lighting, the heavy bass music, the general lascivious/decadent atmosphere... No, I just couldn't get into this movie. Too bad.
It's pretty bad when the generic movie synopsis has more information than the film itself. The paragraph-long "plot summary" written on the movie page has details I could not glean from watching the actual movie. I found myself constantly backing it up to see what details I had just missed which could tell me what the (bleep) was going on. Alas, to no avail--this movie leaves out monstrous pieces of the story, if you could call it a story. It's like they were trying to fool us into thinking that there was some kind of movie here, filming just enough so that there was the resemblance of a story and leaving the rest to our imaginations. Newsflash to the the creators: I paid to watch you MAKE a movie. I can sit home and imagine plots and story lines for free. And Rosario Dawson? This is somebody I've never paid enough attention to to be able to put the name to the face, and I can see why. She had one of the most artificial performances I have ever seen for a leading character in any movie, A or B. I figured okay, maybe she didn't really want the role, just got a hefty offer for a movie she wasn't into? Wrong. She was listed as one of the producers. Next time you produce something, don't book yourself as the lead if you can't act. If you really can, then create a decent character for you to become. Also, somebody here mentioned the white/latino issue--yes, I hate to say it, but this movie does come across as an act of vengeance against white college-age males who wear baseball hats. That's what happens when there is nothing in the movie to endear the watcher to latino characters. The Adrian character seems like a cocky jerk who is no better than the story's antagonist. As for the Maya character, she didn't seem like a real person. Anyway I'm ashamed for Hollywood that this movie was even made.
Having just recently re-viewed "Lipstick" for the first time in a few decades, I backed it with "Descent" even though I have heard more negative comments than good from other film friends with tastes as varied as mine.<br /><br />It's interesting to contrast how the unique niche of the Rape Revenge movie has evolved in the past 32 years, from the full-on gore of "I Spit On Your Grave," to the tawdry sensationalism of "Lipstick," to the tasteful handling of the issue in "The Accused." But "Descent," though making some important points, never really offers us anything truly new in terms of revelatory meaning. No, "Descent" is so poorly made in terms of picture and sound quality that it detracts from any significant message it could hope to make --- a message that, when examined closely, isn't that groundbreaking.<br /><br />I pretty much knew the plot going in. What I wanted to see *was* the "descent" or degeneration of Dawson's character. Being a big fan of Rosario's, I was anxious to see the layers being stripped away and her psyche being slowly twisted...you know, the kind of portrayal DeNiro brings to "Taxi Driver." Unfortunately, the script and the director/writer's choices don't provide any sort of believable transition.<br /><br />The biggest point of failure is the second act. It became obvious what the filmmaker's intentions were for this segment of club-hopping, drug use, and obsession with big black stallion Adrian (every white boy's nightmare, natch) from a Q&A on the DVD, but this excursion into Dawson's character is never believably rendered. We don't know exactly what the hell she's doing half the time, what she's after, or why she's doing it. The poor quality of the audio/video again don't help, but the sequence is just too damn long and pointless. It destroys any momentum and investment in the lead character set up during the otherwise exceptionally well-done first act. By the time we get to the finale, our interest has already waned.<br /><br />One point of success that Dawson does point out in the Q&A is that by the end "revenge" scene we are pumped for retribution, then realize just how drawn-out and ugly the reality is. While that's certainly valid, it doesn't make the scene any more intriguing.<br /><br />If you have the DVD, check out the deleted "classroom" scene. This is an excellent 8 minute plus outtake that crackles with energy and provocation (though all verbal) and really DOES show Dawson's slow crack-up materializing as she delightfully vivisects poor Francie Swift's prissy, condescending dorm counselor. If more expository scenes like this had been added and more of the middle third cut down, we might have an interesting psychological study of the impact of senseless acts of violence.<br /><br />As the film stands in the final cut, though, all we get is what we've seen before, only in a more graphic rendering. So what?
Revenge is one of my favorite themes in film. Moreso, "the futility of revenge" is one of my favorite themes in film. Having seen Gaspar Noe's Irreversible (2002), I was expecting an even more relevant expression of this theme. Instead, this film is a weak half-hearted attempt which expressed nothing but the film's lack of conviction and focus.<br /><br />*SPOILERS* The end scene, a gratuitous male-on-male rape/torture scene, came across as nothing less than a female revenge rape fantasy. However, the film doesn't even follow through with this. Instead, the drawn out scene (which FAR exceeds the brutality of the initial rape both in the degree to which it was graphic and to which it was ritualized) is crowned with a shot of Dawson's face in an expression of either regret or "This didn't fix anything" while the rape of her rapist is heard continuing in the background.<br /><br />My problem with the scene wasn't one of shock, but one of confusion as to what such a graphic scene was trying to get across to the audience. I mean, do we feel bad for the rapist? Do we rejoice in Dawson's revenge? Are we disgusted by the brutality of it all? Do we feel Dawson's moment of regretful clarity? Aside from this failing, the film is really sort of awkwardly paced with more style than substance. Character's are thin, dialog is monotonous, etc.<br /><br />Normally I try to take films on their own terms but Descent didn't really seem to know what those were. Thumbs down.
Rosario Dawson stars as a girl who is date raped and then begins a decent into darkness until given a chance at revenge. While its clear why Dawson took the role, its a chance to show her acting chops and to make a small independent, decidedly un-Hollywood film, its also clear that aside from stunning good looks, Dawson seems out of place in the role. Forgive me I simply couldn't find her. Thats not a mistake, thats how I felt, I had no idea where she was. Yes I know she's on the screen but even though I spent the better part of two hours looking at her she left no impression on me whats so ever. I blame the script for this since other than the ending, not a whole heck of a lot that happened on screen seemed to make any real sense. The people seemed to be more posture than real and what happens didn't seem to fit together. Forgive me for being vague but nothing in this film, other than the end (which I would love to talk about but can't cause it would spoil it), and the image of Rosario Dawson as nothing more than an image, stayed with me.What can I say, this may click with you, it may not, for me it's time I can't get back. For Rosario Dawson fans only, though be warned there's several real reasons why this is NC17. (And Rosario- please, you're a better actress, pick better scripts)
This movie sucked plain and simple. Okay so it's basically about a girl that gets raped, and to get revenge she gets another guy to rape the rapist. The rapist is a douche, but the girl victim is partly to blame. I mean they both get in the mood and start kissing and stuff, but when the rapist tries to have sex with her, she doesn't allow it so the rapist rapes her. And the thing is the rape scene for the girl is very short and it doesn't really expose or show anything, but when it comes to the rapist getting raped, it's a pretty long rape scene. There is basically nothing in the story that is worth watching.<br /><br />3.2/10
I'm going to write about this movie and about "Irreversible" (the (in)famous scene in it). So you are warned, if you haven't seen the movie yet. This are just my thoughts, why I think the movie fails (in the end - pun intended).<br /><br />Acting wise, Rosario Dawson is really good and almost conveys portraying someone almost a decade younger (a teenager in other words). The villain guy is good, but loses his "evil" touch right before the end. If he really never changes, then why would he let a woman tie him up? He wouldn't, period. Then we also have the bartender/2nd rape Dude. Actually I don't think you would need him. At least not for the 2nd rape, but more about that later on.<br /><br />Let's reprise the story. Rosarios character is sexually insecure, might even have lesbian tendencies (see her scene with a female friend). This wasn't intentional, as Rosario states herself, but there is sexual tension between them. Rosario's character meets a guy, who is a sexual Predator, in all the bad senses. But he makes an impression on her.<br /><br />Rosario commented that her character had a boyfriend before. I beg to differ. Because she acts, as if it is her first boyfriend, which also underlines her phone conversation with her mother. Talking about her mother, here's another problem. After the first rape takes place, Rosarios character doesn't tell anyone what happened. Seiing that her relationship with her mother is a very close one, nothing of that gets explored after that. If Rosarios character wouldn't call her mother anymore or would behave strangely, the mother would be worried like crazy. There was so much potential here. Also her female friend: We see her at the party, it's obvious there is something going on and "boom" she is gone.<br /><br />The first rape is almost unbearable to watch. But feels like a pinch, when you compare it to the ending (rape), which feels like you're getting hit with a sledge hammer! After rape no. 1 we get too stretched out scenes. Threads are opened (such as her construction work is an indication that she might be lesbian, as one guy states who tried to hit on her ...), but left in the open. No real social contact is established, if you leave the bartender guy out, who is involved in the 2nd and last rape scene. It's apparent that he isn't a "nice" guy and his character get's fleshed out a bit. But when Rosarios character meets her rapist in class again, his being in the movie seems pointless. We get the point that Rosarios character isn't the same anymore, that she went "bad" and is able to hurt people. (Too) Many scenes show exactly that, her being without emotion just doing drugs and other stuff. Back to Rapist #1 who cheats on a test, gets caught by Rosarios character and they decide to hang out together again (really?). As absurd as that sounds, the guy meets up with her, not without us having seen him beforehand, with another girl (very likely that he raped her too, although we never see anything of that, fortunately) and his football career. Well career is a stretch and he is bullied. This is an attempt to give his character some depth and it almost works, but then again is too cliché to stay with you. So Rapist #1 submits to Rosarios character ... why exactly? Because he promised her, it was her day? Again, really? A guy like that never loses control, especially with a woman he raped before ... I guess this is supposed to show us how stupid he is. The bartender guy would have worked as someone who could have hit him over the head or something, but letting him submit like that, just feels wrong. Another possibility would have a drug in his drink.<br /><br />So rapist #1 undresses and get's blindfolded and let's Rosarios character tie him on a bed .... seriously, that's just crazy! But what comes next, is even crazier. First she talks to him, then she "shuts" him up and forces an object into him. This is as difficult to watch as rape scene number one. This isn't about what this guy deserves or not, it's just intense. And of course that was what they were aiming for. Now after she is "done" the bartender guy comes in and rapes ... rapist #1. If this really should work as a revenge movie, it would have been better if Rosarios character herself would have been doing all the "revenge". Having a henchman doing the job, takes away everything that was built up.<br /><br />This isn't supposed to be entertaining/enjoyable, it's a hard watch & it is Art-house. But the 10 minute (I didn't count ) rape scene at the end, just smashes everything. Rosarios character is more or less, only watching what happens. Which brings me to the biggest disappointment.<br /><br />Irreversible comparison: "Irreversible" had the rape scene, but the movie went on (even if it was back into time). Rosario is looking into the camera in the end and says something about having to get over this. First, that comes a bit too late, that should see her say that after the initial rape. And secondly and most importantly, this is where the Art-house movie should've come in. It is more interesting seeing were Rosarios character would go after the second rape scene and how she would cope, with what she had done. But then again, she didn't actually physically do that much (see above) ... a broken character that the movie cuts off ...<br /><br />Good intentions (Talia and Rosario had worked before), but failing to convey most of the things, they set out to do (even if you can see what they meant, it has to be convincing, otherwise it doesn't work) ... not to mention the overlong rape scenes as they are ...
This movie was disgusting. Their should be a warning that some sadistic nasty writer is attempting to make a name for herself before being held hostage for an hour and a half watching garbage. What is garbage? The misuse of peoples time, the misuse of energy, and the waste of whatever type of educational system that taught her how to read and write. Talia you are a sick demented loser. Your psychiatrist needs to prescribe stronger medications for your problem. <br /><br />The acting and plot gave me no choice but to fast forward through the middle of the garbage. I ended up at a scene that was uncalled for. If you want to learn how to shock people watch a Larry Clark movie. I lost all respect for the entire cast of this movie "no more support from me." How could actors or actresses sit on a set while such gross depictions of human behavior is manifested from the mind of a psycho? I feel sorry for all actors that took part in that scene. I think the devil now knows who the writer of this movie is; congratulations you won his attention.
If you want to watch a good film about how women can fight back against sexual assault, then this film is not the film that you want to watch. It was a social commentary about a woman who was victimized and fights back. Spoiler: Rosario Dawson turns the tables on her assailant. Instead of using the criminal justice system, the victim resorts to using vigilantism. She in essence nullifies the judicial system. The film "The Accused" was a much better film because the victim uses the judicial system and wins. What the "Descent" does is telling victims of assault that they should resort to violence? Is victim any better that the accuser? No!!!
Do not waste your time or your money on this movie. My roommate rented it because she thought it was the other movie called Descent (the flick about some travelers who get trapped in a cave). so, we decided to watch it anyways thinking it couldn't be that bad. It was. I can't believe this movie was actually produced and put out to the public. It was so horrible it was almost like an accident scene where you want to look away but you just can't make yourself. I honestly feel emotionally scarred. It went from being a semi-low budget movie in which a college girl gets assaulted by a boy she's dating to an all out porno flick. And really not a good one. I went from hating the woman's rapist to almost feeling bad for him. Almost. All in all, an awful movie that was definitely rated NC-17 for a reason. Don't waste your money. And don't let your kids watch it.
Okay so i found out about this movie and I watched the preview read almost all the reviews and was having a hard time debating whether I should watch it or not. Before i even watched the movie i was emotionally weird on it. i was so unsure if i was going to watch this and be disturbed for like a long time. So i choose to risk it and watched it and heres what i thought: The beginning started off fine for me. It seemed to be heading in a decent direction. Got past the rape scene and i couldn't figure why people were so disturbed or bored by the movie. Don't get me wrong the rape scene was just as sad and scary but it didn't really bother me to a dramatic point. Then as the middle came in i understood the boring stuff that was going on. There was like 5 minutes shots of nothing but people walking around saying or showing nothing! its one thing to have a shot where a person is showing some kind of emotion but this movie didn't have that. It had about 3 of these pointless scenes, where you see the main character Maya kind of get out of control but it didn't show it right making me want to fast forward. Then when she engaged in the hardcore partying it wasn't so boring but still a little dull. Oh and as a note Rosario Dawson still did a great job. Okay moving on so finally after an hour of pointlessness to the middle the revenge comes to Maya's attention. Thats where it got disturbing. I didn't feel bad for him or nothing he got what he deserved but the whole scene was really disturbing and i just felt all eck after it. I cant really tell you whether or not to watch this movie because its so...i don't know i cant find a word to sum it up. But if you choose to watch it just don't be unsuprised.
This movie offers NOTHING to anyone. It doesn't succeed on ANY level. The acting is horrible, dull long-winded dribble. They obviously by the length of the end sex scene were trying to be shocking but just ended up being pretty much a parody of what the film was aiming for. Complete garbage, I can't believe what a laughable movie this was. <br /><br />And I'm very sure Rosario Dawson ended up in this film cause she though this would be her jarring break away indi hit, a wowing NC-17 movie. The problem is no adult is going to stick with this film as the film plays out like a uninteresting episode of the OC or something aimed at teens. Pathetic.
You know all those letters to "Father Christmas" and "Jesus" that are sent every year? Well, it turns out that they are not actually delivered but dropped off in a half-forgotten corner of the post office to rot unless some bright spark figures out a way of posting them. As bizarre settings go, it's a winner and one which perfectly fits the strange movie that is "Dead Letter Office". Having said that, this is obviously an Australian film as opposed to a British one. If it was Royal Mail, most letters get this sort of treatment anyway. I haven't been in this flat for two years and we're still getting letters for a Mr Wang, some female priest of the Church of Latter Day I've-Never-Heard-Of-You and various catalogues for industrial equipment addressed to a plumbing company.<br /><br />"Dead Letter Office" (the name given to the place where undeliverable mail ends up) follows the story of Alice (Miranda Otto) who grows up in a seriously divided home. Writing to her absent father, she only learns in adulthood that her letters haven't been delivered for one reason or another. So, logically, she gets a job at the D.L.O. and finds herself working alongside other social rejects including the brooding Chilean immigrant Frank Lopez (George Del Hoyo). Slowly, she finds herself drawn to him but can she find out where her dad is without bringing the self-contained world of the Dead Letters Office to its knees?<br /><br />Nothing against this film but I was reminded of the god-awful Heather Graham film "Committed" while watching this. However, this is so much better than that pile of horse crap but then again, that ain't difficult. For a start, this film is much more logical. True, the metaphors are somewhat blatant and the underflowing symbolism quickly becomes a flood. But at least this is cohesive and quirky without being complete drivel. It is also well acted. Both Otto and Del Hoyo are very good as the lovers looking for something they know they'll never find while other characters are peripheral at best. Part of the trouble is that it seems to wrap up far too quickly, leaving this viewer somewhat disappointed. The other part is that when you consider Australia's draconian immigration policy (i.e. if you don't speak English, rack off!), such a story is unlikely to take place in reality. The other characters, sadly, also help to destabilise the realism by proving to be little more than odd-ball stereotypes.<br /><br />Despite that, "Dead Letter Office" is certainly something a little different. It might not be to everyone's taste but I liked it. Yes, it was hackneyed and predictable but sometimes, it's nice to watch a film without guns or violence or heavy-duty swearing and nudity (no chance of that in an Australian film). There ain't any major laughs, there's no Bullet Time and the characters are usually one-dimensional. But it's the story that counts here and while it's not earth-shattering in its magnificence, it's a pleasant enough way of passing the time. It's the movie equivalent of a Sheryl Crow CD - nice to listen to now and again but you wouldn't really miss it if it wasn't there.
This movie had a IMDB rating of 8.1 so I expected much more from it. It starts out funny and endearing with an energy that feels spontaneous. But before the movie is half-way through, it begins to drag and everything becomes sickingly predictable. The characters in the office were delightful in the first third of the movie, but we get to know them a little too well; they become caricatures, not real people at all. This is the same story I've seen hundreds of times, only told here with slightly different circumstances. The thing is, I could stomach another predictable love story if only the dialog weren't so stale!<br /><br />The only thing that could be worse is if the characters had inconsistent and unbelievable motivations, and unfortunately that was also the case with Dead Letter Office. Hopefully this movie will end up in the Dead Movie Office soon.
'Dead Letter Office' is a low-budget film about a couple of employees of the Australian postal service, struggling to rebuild their damaged lives. Unfortunately, the acting is poor and the links between the characters' past misfortunes and present mindsets are clumsily and over-schematically represented. What's most disappointing of all, however, is the portrayal is life in the office of the film's title: there's no mechanisation whatsoever, and it's quite impossible to ascertain what any of the staff really do for a living. Granted, part of the plot is that the office is threatened with closure, but this sort of office surely closed in the 1930s, if it ever truly existed. It's a shame, as the film's overall tone is poignant and wry, and there's some promise in the scenario: but few of the details convince. Overall, it feels the work of someone who hasn't actually experienced much of real life; a student film, with a concept and an outline, but sadly little else.
This picture seemed way to slanted, it's almost as bad as the drum beating of the right wing kooks who say everything is rosy in Iraq. It paints a picture so unredeemable that I can't help but wonder about it's legitimacy and bias. Also it seemed to meander from being about the murderous carnage of our troops to the lack of health care in the states for PTSD. To me the subject matter seemed confused, it only cared about portraying the military in a bad light, as A) an organzation that uses mind control to turn ordinary peace loving civilians into baby killers and B) an organization that once having used and spent the bodies of it's soldiers then discards them to the despotic bureacracy of the V.A. This is a legitimate argument, but felt off topic for me, almost like a movie in and of itself. I felt that "The War Tapes" and "Blood of my Brother" were much more fair and let the viewer draw some conclusions of their own rather than be beaten over the head with the film makers viewpoint. F-
When Marlene Dietrich was labeled box office poison in 1938 one of a handful of actresses so named by the trades papers, it was films like The Garden Of Allah. How a film could be so breathtakingly beautiful to behold and be so insipidly dull is beyond me. Also how Marlene if she was trying to expand her range and not play a sexpot got stuck with such an old fashioned story is beyond me.<br /><br />The Garden Of Allah, one of the very first films in modern technicolor was a novel set at the turn of the last century by Robert Hitchens who then collaborated on a play adaption with Mary Anderson that ran for 241 performances in 1911-12. It then got two silent screen adaptions. The story is about a monk who runs away from the monastery out in French Tunisia to see some of what he's missed in the world. He runs into a similarly sheltered woman who was unmarried and spent her prime years caring for a sick parent. She's traveling now in the desert and the two meet on a train.<br /><br />The woman is of course Marlene and the runaway monk is Charles Boyer. I'm not sure what was in David O. Selznick's mind in filming this story. Someone like Ingrid Bergman might have made it palatable for the audience. But you can bet that the movie-going public of 1936 when they plunked their money down for a ticket they expected to see Marlene as a modern day Salome rather than a saint with that title. The public still remembered Rudolph Valentino and you can bet that it was some desert romance and seduction that they were expecting.<br /><br />As for the monks you have to remember that they are self supporting in their monasteries and this particular one bottles a special wine of which Boyer happens to be the one with the secret. The monastery will have to rethink it's economics if Boyer leaves. The monks are a sincerely pious group, but from the head man Charles Waldron on down they've a right to be a little concerned with some self interest.<br /><br />Anyway a whole lot of religious platitudes get said here by a pair of leads that really are not suited for the parts. Most especially Marlene Dietrich. I would watch this film with an eye for the special color desert cinematography and forget the plot.
The real star of this ridiculous story is glorious technicolor. A visual treat to the eye, the film fails to stimulate the mind and heart. I was intrigued, at first, by the idea of Dietrich and Boyer leaving religion in order to "find" their capacity for love. What follows is a huge disappointment. Boyer is the only real actor in the production and one feels his torment. Dietrich's amazing wardrobe outshines her performance -- at times her face is frightening to look at -- a unfeeling mask. As a monk, Boyer held the formula for the monastery's liquer (which reminds me of the true story of Chartreuse) -- when he leaves his "marriage to god" the reaction by his fellow monks holds the shock and fear that perpetuate organized religion. The viewer feels Boyer was well rid of his past. However, the journey that follows is all too predictable.
As a great admirer of Marlene Dietrich, I had to (finally) watch this very, very dull picture. It is Miss Dietrich's first color film, and the world's most beautiful blond is a redhead! Bad start. The story is a tremendous bore, involving a subject which itself bores bores me stiff: religious guilt. (Who needs it???) Suffice it to say, perhaps, that of all Dietrich's films (and I have seen most, including "Pittsburgh") this is the only one where even her performance is barely worth watching. The color photography is OK (this is a very early Technicolor release), but to no purpose. Ridiculous casting: C. Aubrey Smith, Basil Rathbone (enough said?). The only thing of any interest at all is John Carradine's outlandish caricature of a performance as "The Sand Diviner," who foretells all that will happen. The supposed "happy ending" is one of the most depressing ever conceived. Yet another example of David O. Selznick's highly inflated reputation (did he ever make a really good film? -- other than That One?) And, for one final annoyance, the soundtrack of the MGM DVD is a mess, with volume levels seemingly randomized. Highly unrecommended.
My first full Heston movie. The movie that everyone already knows the ending to. A "Sci Fi Thriller". The campy factor. Everything that goes with this movie was injected in my head when I rented it, and on the morning that I watched it, it was the perfect movie to watch in the mood that I was in (Not wanting to move. Put in player, hide in blankets). And though I tried to understand what was happening to lead to the ending that will be eternally ruined by pop culture, it just really didn't make it. Everything was all over the place, relationships had no backbone, the ending had no lead in. Everything was just kind of there in some freakish way and the watcher has no choice but to leave partially dumbfounded at the ending that it gets to, because even though we all know that it's people, it's quick answers as to WHY it's people makes any serious attempt at enjoying the movie for anything other than the silliness thrown out the window.
Anyone who has a remote interest in science fiction should start at the basics. Everyone says STAR WARS and STAR TREK are the best science fiction films to begin at, which is fine but the truth is THE TERMINATOR and this movie, SOYLENT GREEN, are far better choices than those series. SOYLENT is probably science fiction 's best kept secret. It remains one of the biggest, yet most forgotten films but the impact of its setting is becoming more a reality with each passing day. Charlton Heston overdramatizes his role, yet it works. Edward G. Robinson, in his final role, makes the most out of it in SOYLENT GREEN more than anyone else and his final scenes are touching.<br /><br />It is Manhattan in 2022, the world is overcrowded and food is an unbelievable fortune (a small jar of strawberry jam costs $150). A big executive for the Soylent company is murdered and police detective Thorn is on the case.<br /><br />The secret of soylent green is not a mystery if you do research on the movie. SOYLENT is enjoyable to watch, but the whole screenplay is a joke. It is just as cheap as the entire production. The screenplay and the over dramatics of the actors made the movie, yet were completely hilarious. Everyone seems to be a moron and no one knows the rules, specifically cop Thorn who likes to just waltz into people 's apartments, peruse around shamelessly and steal anything he wants. The character 's interactions keeps your attention on the movie, but still you realize that SOYLENT GREEN sucks. An enjoyable piece if you have the time, but do not expect anything more.
I watched this movie recently together with my sister who likes the performances of Sophia Loren. I'm a person who they call a Cultural Barbarian. I hate art in any kind of shape or form. Rambo is more my kind of movie, action, kills, blood, horror. If you recognize yourself in this avoid this movie like the plague. No one dies, no action, no nudity, nothing of the kind. Let me give you a résumé in a few sentences. It starts out with 5 minutes in black and white Nazi propaganda. Every Italian in a housing block attends a parade in honor of Hitler, except for a housewife, an anti fascist and a caretaker. The housewife who is cheated by her husband, meets the anti fascist. She falls in love with him, wants to make love to him, but the anti fascist is gay. Despite of this they make love with each other. At the end of the day, the housewife reads a book from her gay lover, and the guy himself is deported by agents. The end. You want an even shorter résumé? BORING... That short enough? The guy should have used his gun in the beginning of this movie and shoot himself, to save the audience from this atrocity. On a side note my sister loved this movie. Like I said, I'm a Cultural Barbarian...
"Fever Pitch" isn't a bad film; it's a terrible film.<br /><br />Is it possible American movie audiences and critics are so numbed and lobotomized by the excrement that Hollywood churns out that they'll praise to the skies even a mediocre film with barely any laughs? That's the only reason I can think of why this horrible romantic comedy (and I use that term loosely because there's nothing funny in this film) is getting good reviews.<br /><br />I sat through this film stunned that screenwriters Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel would even for an instant think their script was funny.<br /><br />The brilliant Nick Hornby usually translates well to film. He adapted "Fever Pitch" for a British film starring Colin Firth and Ruth Gemmell in 1997; Peter Hedges found Hornby's voice for "About a Boy" (2002) and when "High Fidelity" was Americanized for a movie in 2000, writers D.V. DeVincentis, Steve Pink, John Cusack and Scott Rosenberg didn't go wrong because they kept the essence of Hornby's wit and humor. They made one of the best films of that year.<br /><br />So why does the American version of "Fever Pitch" go so painfully awry? The British version wasn't a masterpiece, but it was charming, funny, unexpected and gave us two characters we could like, respect and understand.<br /><br />But Ganz and Mandel have excised everything funny in Hornby's work. In Americanizing the story, they've butchered it, removing all that was good and unique about Hornby's work and replacing it with conventional drivel.<br /><br />They've transformed a funny story into a formulaic romantic comedy, never once veering from the wretched formula. Lindsey (Drew Barrymore) has three girlfriends, each of whom has a distinct function. One's overweight, the second's cynical and ambitious, and the third's a romantic. Want to guess how many male friends Ben (Jimmy Fallon) has?<br /><br />What made "High Fidelity" such fun was not only a good leading man and lady, but engaging supporting characters. In this "Fever Pitch," the six supporting friends do or say nothing especially funny. They're so insignificant, they're not even decorative. The only reason they're in the film is because the formula demands it. Poor Ione Skye winds up as one Lindsey's pals in a thankless role. The lovely Skye must have been wishing Lloyd Dobler would swoop in and take her away. Come to think of it, Cusack would've made an excellent Ben. Of course, Cusack is too smart to attach himself to such an utterly tedious script.<br /><br />There isn't a single, solitary moment in this film that seems original or unforced. Every plot turn is predictable, every lame joke telegraphed. Ganz and Mandel labor for laughs. The first 45 minutes are so excruciatingly slow, you wonder if these chaps realized they were writing a comedy. You can mark the plot turns in this film by your watch. It's almost as if Ganz and Mandel penned this with some screen writing guru's formula pasted on the wall. When they got to a certain page, they looked up at the formula and said, "OK, the guru says this has to happen now." And, presto!<br /><br />Directors Bobby and Peter Farrelly don't help the film any. They have no concept how to introduce their story and characters (they hand over the V.O. narration not to the protagonist, but to another guy who sits behind Ben at Fenway Park). Thanks to some extremely clunky writing, we have to watch Barrymore and Fallon stumble through their unfunny initial meetings.<br /><br />Barrymore does cute and adorable better than most. She's as good at it as Goldie Hawn in her heyday. But even her cuteness can't save this extraordinarily awful film. She tries hard to wring some energy and humor out of this story. About 30 minutes into the film, Lindsey tells Ben, "You're funny." The only explanation for her remark is that it was in the script. For Fallon's Ben never says anything even remotely funny. Fallon is neither witty nor funny; when he does comedy, he overacts.<br /><br />Fallon was never any good on "Saturday Night Live." He was quite possibly the least funny person on that show. Remember that lame sketch about a radio DJ who did all the voices? The only reason "Weekend Update" worked occasionally was because Fallon's cohort, Tina Fey, knows a thing or two about comedy.<br /><br />Actors who think they're funny and behave that way rarely, if ever, are actually funny. That's true of Fallon. He thinks he's hysterically funny when he barely raises a chuckle. His stuttering, unsure-of-himself shtick didn't work on the small screen; it's lousier on the big screen.<br /><br />Unfortunately for Fallon, his role in this picture also requires a few dramatic moments. If you thought his comedy was bad, wait till you get a load of his dramatic stuff. Two scenes in particular - the first in a park, the second in front of Ben's school - are painful to watch. The scenes require an actor with a smidgen of dramatic ability, but Fallon has neither the knowledge nor the ability to make them work. His range of emotions doesn't even run the gamut from A to B.<br /><br />Ben has no personality or depth. Often, he comes across as an oaf. And not a lovable one at that. It boggles the mind what Lindsey would find attractive about him. Compare Fallon's performance to Firth's in the British version, and you'll understand how terribly flat, unfunny and forced Fallon's Ben is and how wrong he is for this role. Watching Fallon in "Fever Pitch" makes one long for the dramatic depth and comedic nuance of Ashton Kutcher!<br /><br />Just as "High Fidelity" did, an Americanized "Fever Pitch" could've worked brilliantly. It just needed better writers, more competent directors and, most definitely, a stronger, funnier, smarter leading man. Do yourself a huge favor: Avoid this rotten film; rent the 1997 British version and read Hornby's book, instead.
I am generally more willing to be open minded about rom coms than many, but this was simply not a very good attempt. Its got nothing to do with comparisons with the British original -- have not seen, and doubt I will. It has a whole lot to do with a meandering plot, lack of chemistry between the leads and a godawful performance/character from its supposed male lead (Jimmy Fallon).<br /><br />Fallon walks onto the screen wearing the clothes and hairdo of a 15 year old and acting a decade younger than that. He's supposed to be a teacher you see, and of course its well known that school districts the world over love to hire individuals less mature than the children they purport to teach. The character is so extremely disturbed and irrational that I have my doubts whether any actor could have made him likable, but old reliables like John Cusack or Adam Sandler might have been able to give it a shot. Not Fallon, who is neither funny, nor an actor, but appears to think he is both. Not once in the entire course of the movie do you either believe Fallon in his role, or believe that there is any way these two people should, or would be together. Near the end of the movie there is a scene where Barrymore (who was cute as usual but could not carry this one alone -- its hard to have a one person romance) tells Fallon that its over, too much has happened, and she's moving on. And rather than feeling bad about the scene, or sorry for Fallon, you are actively cheering her on -- finally she does what she should have done months ago. But of course the plot mechanics won't allow that to be the end of it (an end which actually might have made a statement out of this mess), and instead we get to see the rational career girl throwing it all away to chase after this childish idiot and encourage his delusions. Its of course meant to be gooey and satisfying, but it actually made me more disgusted than anything else.
I saw this director's "Woman On The Beach" and could not understand the good to great reviews. This film is much like that one, two people who are caught in a relationship with very little dynamic and even less interest to anyone else. Like his other films, you have to want to listen to vacuous dialog, wade through very little and become enchanted with underwritten, pretty uninteresting characters. If you feel you can like this film, don't let my review stop you. I do like minimalism in films, but I feel Tsai Ming-Liang's films are far superior. He has a fairly terrific actor in Lee Kang-Sheng in his films. There is nothing here. I wish IU liked it, but I don't. Oh, well.
This movie sounded like it might be entertaining and interesting from its description. But to me it was a bit of a let down. Very slow and hard to follow and see what was happening. It was as if the filmmaker took individual pieces of film and threw them in the air and had them spliced together whichever way they landed (definitely not in sequential order). Also, nothing of any consequence was being filmed. I have viewed quite a few different Korean films and have noticed that a good portion are well made and require some thinking on the viewer's part, which is different from the typical Hollywood film. But this one befuddled me to no end. I viewed the film a second and third time and it still didn't do anything for me. I still don't really understand what the filmmaker was trying to convey. If it was to just show a typical mundane portion of a person's life, I guess he succeeded. But I was looking for more. Needless to say, I can't recommend this movie to anyone.
This typically melodramatic Bollywood film has inexplicably become a favorite of Western critics. The script is ludicrous, the acting is over-the-top, and it looks cheesy. The only reasons for watching this soap opera are the wonderful songs sung by Mangeshkar and the curtain call of the legendary Meena Kumari. Watching the actress, who was ill during the filming and would drink herself to death at age 40 shortly after the film was released, has the same fascination as watching a train wreck. Her ex-husband, Amrohi, wrote and directed, but lacks the competency to execute either task well. Bollywood has produced far better films.
This was a disappointing horror film about a snotty young girl and her nightmares. For a horror or "thriller" film and hype, it's way too tame. There are only a few tense moments in here, not anywhere as near as many as should have been for a film of this genre. Even those "tense" scenes weren't much. The music made them more dramatic that they actually were.<br /><br />There is a lot of symbolism in here, so the elitist critics label this "a thinking person's horror film." Well, if they think about it, I'm sure they will come to the same conclusion I did - a waste of money at the video rental store.<br /><br />Summary: a yawner that offers an unlikeable lead character and generally poor acting. Vastly overrated and certainly not what it is advertised.
After reading some very good reviews about this film I thought I would give it a watch and after being very disappointed with the film I thought I would give it my own review. This is my first ever so bare with me.<br /><br />First of all I would scratch horror from the genre as in no way is it horrific or scary in the slightest (with the exception of a few feeble attempts to make you jump unfortunately one of which worked on me.) I would say that calling this film a thriller is pushing it as I wasn't particularly thrilled either! The film is about a spoiled mischievous girl who faints a few times. During these times she visits a house which she has been drawing, after each visit she decides to add something else to the house to make it a bit more lively one of the features being a sad little boy who is also ill in reality. As she befriends the boy she realises that her imaginary world that she created is actually better than the real world that she is in. Until she adds her constantly away father to the house, due to a misdrawing her dad turns out to be evil and her and the boy must escape from his clutches.<br /><br />Think its an attempt to be a slightly more mellow version of A Nightmare On Elm Street but is more like a trip to the beach.<br /><br />In conclusion my generous 3/10 will hopefully stop at least one of you from watching this drab!
normally i'm not the sort to be scared by horror movies, but this movie is the exception. some how this movie got into my mind!!! it is a very simple movie but at the same time extremelly effective, it has great atmosphere and this leads to some shocking moments, the girls father coming down the hill is a real standout. Another seen was the family photo i wasn't expecting that and i jumped out my seat!!! i would recommend everyone to see this movie, with the lights out it will stay with you for a long time!!!!!
I was rooting for this film as it's a remake of a 1970s children's TV series "Escape into Night" which, though chaotic and stilted at times was definitely odd, fascinating and disturbing. The acting in "Paperhouse" is wooden, unintentionally a joke. The overdubs didn't add tension they only reinforced that I was sat watching a botch. Casting exasperated the dreary dialogue which resulted in relationships lacking warmth, chemistry or conviction. As in most lacklustre films there are a few good supporting acts these people should be comforted, consoled and reassured that they will not be held responsible. Out of all the possible endings the most unexpected was chosen ... lamer than I could have dreamt.<br /><br />"Escape into Night" deserves a proper remake, written by someone with life experience and directed with a subtle mind.
An intriguing premise of hand-drawn fantasy come to life in a child's fever dreams. However, I imagine the average nonfictional child is far more adept at scaring themselves than Bernard Rose is at riveting the viewer. The duel between Anna's two realities drags on far too long to sustain interest, especially considering that the little girl playing her is the most abrasive child actor I've ever seen.<br /><br />Use only for kindling.
In 1988, Paperhouse was hailed as a "thinking man's horror film." Wow, you might say, sign me up. This thing is a mess. It features a one time young actress who has a range of like 1 to 2. G. Headley with a bad British (dubbed) accent, and a story with no chills, thrills or spills.<br /><br />It isn't even interesting psycho-babble. One will only laugh at its cheap effects and long for a showing of Leprechaun 5.<br /><br />The story involves a girl with glandular fever who escapes in her dreams. WHat you get isn't good horror, art house or even a decent after-school special. I found myself after the two hour point saying..where did my two hours go.<br /><br />The direction is uninspired and I wished it could even be pretentious...something interesting..it seems like the producers were on lithium.<br /><br />Even in the dream world things are boring.<br /><br />A short no on this one.
Films starring child actors put themselves on the back foot from the very beginning. While there are some exceptions, the majority of kids just cant act and even the ones that can normally become annoying after a few minutes. The kids in Paperhouse have managed to capture the worst of both worlds, as they're both very annoying and they don't have an ounce of acting ability between them. In short; they're rubbish. This isn't good considering that they're the leads, and it especially isn't good when you consider the fact that it is virtually impossible to take this film seriously because of the rubbish actors. It's a shame that this film is such a dead loss as the plot isn't (not completely). It follows a young girl who, after drawing a picture of a house in her notebook, wakes up in the fantasy world that she has created. It soon becomes apparent to her that she can manipulate this world through her drawings, and so sets about making various changes, until her dream eventually becomes a nightmare. Oh dear.<br /><br />As you can see, this plot line gives a nice base for a good fantasy horror movie. However, it is squandered through a number of fatal faults. First and foremost, in spite of the premise being an excellent premise for lots of inventiveness; the movie is extremely stale. The central plot is hardly played with at all, and the result is an entirely boring experience. The lack of tension is another huge gaping flaw in the movie, as it sees fit to drag every sequence out to a point that you just don't care any more (which is due to a lack of ideas). Thanks in part to it's lead characters, the film feels like a kids movie throughout. This is to be expected as it stars kids, but Bernard Rose should have decided the slant that he wanted to put on the story; as the horror in the movie is laughable at best. The film is also very cheesy, and the 'romance' between the two leads is extremely cringe-worthy, and makes for very painful viewing. In fact, if I had to sum this travesty up in one word, I would choose 'painful'. Paperhouse is poorly acted, laughably plotted, very corny and dull on the whole. Save yourself the pain, see something else.
First I liked that movie. It seemed to me a nice comedy with some silly moments. The costume designer Albert Wolsky did his best!!! The same as wonderful set decorator Robert R. Benton - this man really had a very good taste!!! But the script writers disappointed me extremely. The best ending would be the scene on the ladder, but instead of it, they decided that the father and his daughter should be together. Don't like the ending. The father becomes boyfriend of his own daughter and his ex-wife knows about it and finds it alright. It would be OK, if the scriptwriters would for example say that now there is a different soul in the body, but they did not, they only deprived him of memories. The actors were good, they were really funny. Cybill Shepherd was charming, Robert Downey Jr. was very funny in the dancing scene : )))... But some of the moments spoil even the impression of good acting. For example, Corinne Jeffries, played by Cybill Shepherd after the death of her husband was waiting for him 23 years (it's a long time!), she was true to him, she loved nobody but him, and when she met him and was just about making love to him, after a scene with her friend Philip Train (Ryan O'Neal), she very easily betrayed the man she was longing for so many years!!! It would be a good movie, if not the ending and some missed human psychology.
Predictable plot. Simple dialogue. Shockingly unemotional performances. But Robert Downey, Jr. is so cute, I gave this "poor man's afternoon special" a 3 instead of the 1 or 2 it so richly deserved.
'Chances Are' a big mistake to see. You could know director Emile Ardolino from 'Dirty Dancing' and 'Sister Act' and should expect something amusing from him. But I guess I have to disillusion you. He made a really, really bad movie.<br /><br />According to the story Christopher McDonald dies to reburn as a baby. The baby grows up Robert Downey Jr, and Jr returns his former home town where she meets his former daughter, Mary Stuart Masterson (complicated, huh?).<br /><br />They fall in love with each other. Then appears Jr former wife, Cybill Shepherd, and Jr falls in love with her too. I guess I don't even have to mention that she loves Ryan O'Neil.<br /><br />In one of his first roles Robert Downey Jr's on his worst. He copies Michael J Fox.<br /><br />After the 'Moonlighting' Shepherd proves that she's not suitable for acting in movies.<br /><br />Anyway, there's one thing this unfunny comedy can be used: as antidote to insomnia.
Chances are if I watched this again I might get physically sick, the film is so annoying.....unless you believe in psychics, re-incarnation and the other hocus- pocus which this promotes big-time. The "re-cycling of souls," they call it here. Puh-leeze.<br /><br />This story has been done several times before with such films as "Heaven Can Wait." It's also been done a lot better. Too bad they had to waste the talents of Robert Downey Jr., Cybill Shepherd, Ryan O'Neal and Mary Stuart Masterson.<br /><br />At least it's a pretty tame film, language-wise. That's about the only redeeming quality of this movie.
Silly, simplistic, and short, GUN CRAZY (VOLUME 1: A WOMAN FROM NOWHERE) goes nowhere.<br /><br />This brief (just over sixty minutes) tale isn't so much inspired by the classic spaghetti Westerns as it is a rip-off of Sam Raimi's THE QUICK & THE DEAD (his admitted homage to the spaghetti Westerns) brought into a contemporary setting. In QUICK & DEAD, Sharon Stone's character seeks revenge against the dastardly sheriff (played by Gene Hackman) who, when she was but an urchin, placed the fate of her father (a brief cameo by Gary Sinise) in her hands; she accidentally shot him through the head. In GUN CRAZY, Saki (played by the nimble Ryoko Yonekura) seeks revenge against the dastardly Mr. Tojo (played with minimalist appeal by Shingo Tsurumi), who, when she was but an urchin, placed the fate of her father in her hands; she let her foot slip off the clutch, and dear ole dad was drawn and quartered by a semi truck. The only significant difference, despite the settings, is the fact that Tojo sadistically cripples Saki with … well, I won't spoil that for you in case you decide to watch it.<br /><br />In short, Saki – a pale imitation of the Clint Eastwood's 'Man With No Name' – rides into the town – basically, there's a auto shop and a tavern alongside an American military base, so I guess that suffices for a town – corrupted by Tojo, the local crimelord with a ridiculously high price on his head for reasons never explained or explored. Confessing her true self as a bounty hunter, Saki takes on the local gunmen in shootouts whose choreography bares more than a passing similarity to the works of Johnny To and John Woo. Of course, by the end of the film Saki has endured her fair amount of torture at the hands of the bad guys, but she rises to the occasion – on her knees, in a laughable attempt at a surprise ending – and vanquishes all of her enemies with a rocket launcher.<br /><br />Don't ask where she gets the rocket launcher. Just watch it for yourself. Try not to laugh.<br /><br />The image quality is average for the DVD release. There is a grainy quality to several sequences, but, all in all, this isn't a bad transfer. The sound quality leaves a bit to the imagination at times, but, again, it isn't a bad transfer.<br /><br />Rather, it's a bad film.
Oh dear. I was so disappointed that this movie was just a rip-off of Japan's Ringu. Well, I guess the U.S. made their version of it as well, but at least it was an outright remake. So, so sad. I very much enjoy watching Filipino movies and know some great things can come out of such a little country, so I can't believe this had to happen. Claudine and Kris are such big names there, surprised they would be affiliated with plagiarism. To any aspiring movie makers out there in the Philippines: You do not have to stoop this low to make money. There are many movie buffs that are watching the movies Filipinos put out and enjoying them!
i would have given this movie a 1 out of 10 if it weren't for ms. Claudine Barretto's performance. and i will take this time to overlook that Kris Aquino's here. and... end.<br /><br />i really AVOID watching Pinoy horror movies because stories lack originality and i really think that (some) writers don't give enough attention to the characters (and their progression) in their stories (redundant??). it was as if they 'pushed' the movie onwards when their storytelling stank. and my goodness, creative exhaustion led them to rip-off other movies. why?? why did this movie get a good review?? i wouldn't give it that much merit. the movie was KIND OF scary, but the movie seemed more freaky as it deals with Filipino folklore... it goes into my list of 'most likely to happen' category. i just wished they spent more time improving the story lines and fix those flash back sequences, never mind if the lighting sucked, it wouldn't matter much if the content would blow you away.. SAYANG.
How did this become a blockbuster? Dear God I don't know where to start why this movie sucked too much. The movie was predictable & there was no originality. The only thing I can admire is the acting of some characters. The movie was too bright, they should have done something with the lighting, eg. making the environment more darker. The make up on certain dead characters made this movie look like a 1970 horror flick. This is 2006! People don't get scared by other people wearing heavy make up. Most of the horror scenes we're taken from other Hollywood or Asian horror movies. Total rip off! This is why I don't watch tagalog movies. The only reason why so many people "screamed" while watching this movie is because of conformity. How many times do we have to copy scenes from The Ring and improvise it that instead of the girl coming out of the TV, its now coming from the window next door? No matter how you put it, ITS STILL A RIP OFF. If you want a good horror movie, go watch the 50 best horror movie listed on this website.
So, I got a hold of this as an assignment for Trent Harris, who teaches occasionally in the film dept at the U of U. I guess this is his only real way to get anyone to see his film...<br /><br />The documentary section at the beginning dragged on. Yes, the kid is a nut-job from no where, but that's not good enough to keep it interesting.<br /><br />Seeing Sean Penn dressed as a ONJ is the only highlight... and after about thirty seconds it loses all humor.<br /><br />When Crispin Glover takes on Larry, the story-telling was better, but I just couldn't take anymore...
It's amazing that this movie turns out to be in one of my hitlists after all. It is by far the number 1 worst movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />Not only have I ever been this bored before (luckily not for more then 1,5 hours), the pre-adolescent attempts at humor that feature it are not even close to getting but one of the corners of my mouth slightly tilted. After the first very awkward part, you tend to hope that the other parts will be at least slightly better. You hope in vain, it only goes downhill from there.<br /><br />The movie has no story worth telling whatsoever and repeats this non-story three times. One can only hope that by some miracle all remaining copies of this movie are lost forever and Trent Harris never lays his hands on a camera again...
I don't think any player in Hollywood history lasted as long as David Niven did given most of the weak films he had to carry by dint of his incredible charm. He could act, got an Oscar for it, but most of the material he did was as light as one ply of two ply tissue paper.<br /><br />Happy Go Lovely is a case in point. It's a musical and for the most part you'll remember Vera-Ellen's dancing. You'll remember that they are in Scot's costume as the film is set in Edinburgh during their festival. But if you can recall a single song from it you must have a photographic memory.<br /><br />The plot is light. Vera-Ellen is the American lead in a musical that apparently is getting its out of town tryout in Edinburgh. She starts in the chorus and runs late one day. She gets a lift from the chauffeur of a millionaire greeting card king. Everybody now assumes she's the main squeeze of the millionaire. Doors open up as they've never opened before.<br /><br />The millionaire is David Niven and he goes along with it and the various situations that are engendered by the mistake. Cesar Romero has some good moments here as the frantic producer of this musical.<br /><br />In the end though Happy Go Lovely is light and harmless fluff which David Niven did so much of and got so tired of.
The oddly-named Vera-Ellen was to movie dancing what Sonja Henie was to movie ice-skating: blonde, girlish, always delightful to watch, but not an especially good actress and usually lumbered with weak material. When I watch Vera-Ellen's sexy apache dance with Gene Kelly in 'Words and Music', I can't help noticing that her blouse (yellow with narrow red horizontal stripes) seems to be made out of the South Vietnam flag. For some reason, the very American Vera-Ellen starred in *two* musicals (made several years apart) set in Edinburgh, a city not noted for its tap-dancers: 'Let's Be Happy' and 'Happy Go Lovely'.<br /><br />In the latter, Cesar Romero plays an American impresario who for some reason is staging a musical in Edinburgh. There's a vague attempt to link this show to the Edinburgh Festival, which is nonsense: the Festival is not a showcase for splashy leg-shows. We also see a couple of stock shots of the Royal Mile: apart from a few Highland accents, there's absolutely no attempt to convey Scottish atmosphere in this movie. The funniest gag occurs at the very beginning, when we learn that the title of Romero's show is 'Frolics to You': this is a cheeky pun that Britons will get and Yanks won't.<br /><br />Vera-Ellen is, as usual, cute and appealing and an impressive dancer, but the very few musical numbers in this movie are boring and bad. The plot -- mistaken identity between magnate David Niven and reporter Gordon Jackson -- is brainless, though no more so than the plots of several dozen Hollywood musicals. Romero is less annoying than usual here, probably because (for once) he isn't required to convince us that he's interested in bedding the heroine.<br /><br />The single biggest offence of this movie is its misuse of Bobby Howes. The father of Sally Ann Howes was a major star of West End stage musicals; his wistful rendition of "She's My Lovely" was a big hit in Britain in 1937. Here, he shows up in several scenes as Romero's dogsbody but never has a chance to participate in a musical number, nor even any real comedy. It's absolutely criminal that this movie -- with a title containing the word 'Lovely', sure to evoke Howes's greatest hit -- would cast a major British musical star but give him nothing to do!<br /><br />The delightful character actress Ambrosine Phillpotts (whom I worked with once) shines in one restaurant sequence, and there's a glimpse of the doomed beauty Kay Kendall. As Vera-Ellen's confidante, somebody named Diane Hart speaks in one of the most annoying voices I've ever heard: it sounds like an attempt to imitate Joan Greenwood and Glynis Johns both at the same go, but doesn't match either. Val Guest has a story credit, but this movie doesn't come up to the quality of his brilliant comedies. The colour photography is wretched, though I realise that postwar Britain could not afford Hollywood's process work. 'Happy Go Lovely' is at utmost best a pleasant time-waster, with 'waster' being the operative word. I'll rate this movie just 4 out of 10.
"Happy Go Lovely" has only two things going for it. And those two things are Vera-Ellen's legs. This is a British (Excelsior Films) version of an M-G-M musical complete with second tier stars. I would imagine that Vera-Ellen took this role thinking that it might finally propel her to the status of a major musical star. But, I'm sorry to say, Ms. Ellen's chance did not pay off.<br /><br />Opening with a horrible Scottish number and stumbling thru awful dialog to the next dull tune, this movie seems very heavy handed and sloppy. The predictable mistaken identity plot is very thin, and with the exception of David Niven, Cesar Romero (who is way over the top in his role of a Producer) and Bobby Howes (who is totally wasted in a nothing role) the rest of the cast is totally forgettable.<br /><br />The choreography is boring, but Ms. Ellen gives it her all. She was never as famous as most of the other musical stars(and she shouldn't be since she couldn't sing and even had a "dancing stand in" in several of her pictures". But when she did dance, it was just entrancing.<br /><br />It's too bad that this film that could have made her a star did not give her the tools she needed to shine.<br /><br />4 out of 10
Happy Go Lovely is a waste of everybody's time and talent including the audience. The lightness of the old-hat mistaken identity and faux scandal plot lines is eminently forgivable. Very few people watched these movies for their plots. But, they usually had some interesting minor characters involved in subplots -- not here. They usually had interesting choreography and breathtaking dancing and catchy songs. Not Happy Go Lovely. And Vera-Ellen as the female lead played the whole movie as a second banana looking desperately for a star to play off it -- and instead she was called upon to carry the movie, and couldn't do it. The Scottish locale was wasted. Usually automatically ubiquitous droll Scottish whimsy is absent. The photography was pedestrian. The musical numbers were pedestrian. Cesar Romero gives his usual professional performance, chewing up the scenery since no one else was doing his part, in the type of producer role essayed frequently by Walter Abel and Adolph Menjou. David Niven is just fine, and no one could do David Niven like David Niven. At the end of the day, if you adore Niven as I do, it's reason enough to waste 90 minutes on Happy Go Lovely. If not, skip it.
*** May contain spoilers. *** <br /><br />If LIVING ON TOKYO TIME were some bold experiment where real-life wanna-be actors were given film parts on the condition that they would be required to take a combination of powerful prescription anti-anxiety, anti-depression, and anti-psychotic medications (this is the classic psych ward combo that renders patients into drooling zombies) all during filming, then this movie would hold far more interest. Or, if the film production was another type of experiment where all of the actors were sleep deprived before and during filming, then TOKYO TIME could be more easily explained.<br /><br />As it is, this film is filled with lifeless, low-energy actors. In the scene where the new husband was sitting on the stairs talking with his sister, it appeared that he was having trouble keeping his eyes open. In almost every scene he speaks his lines sitting down with every part of his body motionless. From beginning to end, his facial expression is best described as "near sleep."<br /><br />Fret not about the actors speaking over each other's lines because these actors can barely finish droning out any lines of dialog. Everyone speaks with a depressing, monotone voice. No laughing. No yelling. No vigor. No one has energy enough to crack a smile. The result: complete and total boredom.<br /><br />And it does not help matters that the direction is simple and amateurish.<br /><br />Avoid this lifeless film at all costs. Better to watch GREENCARD which has a similar plot and has charm and energy. Or, for an unconventional Japanese romance story, check out THE LONG VACATION which has an ample amount of everything LIVING ON TOKYO TIME does not.
I caught this film on AZN on cable. It sounded like it would be a good film, a Japanese "Green Card". I can't say I've ever disliked an Asian film, quite the contrary. Some of the most incredible horror films of all time are Japanese and Korean, and I am a HUGE fan of John Woo's Hong Kong films. I an not adverse to a light hearted films, like Tampopo or Chung King Express (two of my favourites), so I thought I would like this. Well, I would rather slit my wrists and drink my own blood than watch this laborious, badly acted film ever again.<br /><br />I think the director Steven Okazaki must have spiked the water with Quaalude, because no one in this film had a personality. And when any of the characters DID try to act, as opposed to mumbling a line or two, their performance came across as forced and incredibly fake. I honestly did not think that anyone had ever acted before...the ONLY person who sounded genuine was Brenda Aoki.. I find it amazing that this is promoted as a comedy, because I didn't laugh once. Even MORE surprising is that CBS morning news called this "a refreshing breath of comedy". It was neither refreshing, nor a breath of comedy. And the ending was very predictable, the previous reviewer must be an idiot to think such things.<br /><br />AVOID this film unless you want to see a boring predictable plot line and wooden acting. I actually think that "Spike of Bensonhurst" is a better acted film than this...and I walked out half way through that film!
I have never understood the appeal of this show. The acting is poor (Debra Jo Rupp being a notable exception), the plots of most episodes are trite and uninspiring, the dialogue is weak, the jokes unfunny and it is painful to try and sit through even half an episode. Furthermore the link between this show and the '70s' is extremely tenuous beyond the style of dress and the scenery and background used for the show -it seems to be nothing more than a modern sitcom with the same old unfunny, clichéd scripts that modern sitcoms have dressed up as depicting a show from twenty years ago in the hope that it will gain some nostalgic viewers or something like that. Both "Happy Days" and "The Wonder Years" employ the same technique much more effectively and are actually a pleasure to watch in contrast to this horrible, pathetic excuse for a show
I've tried to watch this show several times, but for a show called "That '70s Show," I don't find much apart from a few haircuts and the occasional reference to disco that actually evokes the '70s -- the decade in which I grew up. Of the episodes I have seen, most of the plots and jokes could be set in any time period. Take away the novelty of (supposedly) being set in the '70s, and the show is neither interesting nor funny.<br /><br />If you're looking for a show that more successfully represents the experience of youth in America in the '70s, in my humble opinion you can do no better than "The Wonder Years."
As someone who lived through,and still remembers that decade vividly,if the actual '70s had been half this funny and (semi)normal,they would have been so much more enjoyable.Actual kids in that era did not act or behave anything close to as bright-eyed and normal as these kids did.The country's youth was still under the influence of the hippies and the drug culture all that '60s rebellion that it spawned,especially in the behavior department;the petulance,the smugness,the self-righteousness,the childishness,the unreasonableness of them - none of the characters exhibit any of that.<br /><br />Someone compared to "Happy Days",and I can see why:They were both sitcoms that take place 20 years before the current time they were broadcast,and they both offer only surface ,cliched depictions of the actual eras,not even close to the full scope of it,just showing the obvious things - the fashions,toys,music,contraptions,etc,and that's it.For those too young to remember,or weren't born then,trust me,the '70s weren't like that,any more than "Happy Days" were like the actual '50s,as "M*A*S*H*" didn't accurately portray life at a US Army medical base during the Korean War,etc.
Why is this show so popular? It's beyond me why people like it. I think it's one of the worst sitcoms out there. <br /><br />Because it's so popular, I've tried more than once to watch it and I can't make it through an entire episode.<br /><br />For one thing, the acting is horrible. Everybody is overacting to the point where it's annoying to watch. They talk in unnatural voices, use unnatural tones, and have unnatural body language. I've seen better acting in a kindergarten school play.<br /><br />For another thing, it's NOT FUNNY. The plots are dull. They're not creative, intelligent, or FUNNY. Shouldn't a sitcom be funny?? Why am I not laughing?<br /><br />Lastly, what is seventies about this? It's about as authentic to the seventies as "Happy Days" was to the fifties.<br /><br />OH and what is up with Ashton Kutcher? Who cast this untalented dweeb? And now he's making movies?? Oh, save us all!<br /><br />If people think this is quality television, it worries me.
The Invisible Maniac starts as a young Kevin Dornwinkle (Kris Russell) is caught by his strict mother (Marilyn Adams) watching a girl (Tracy Walker) strip through his telescope... Cut to 'Twenty Years Later' & Kevin Dornwinkle (Noel Peters) is now a physics professor who claims to have discovered a way to turn things invisible using a 'mollecular reconstruction' serum. However during a demonstration in front of his fellow scientists it fails & they all laugh at him, Dornwinkle goes mad kills a few of them & is locked away in a mental institute from which he escapes. Jump forward 'Two Weeks Later' & a group of summer college students discuss the tragic death of their physics teacher when the headmistress Mrs. Cello (Stephanie Blake as Stella Blalack) says that she has hired a replacement, yes you've guessed it it's Dornwinkle. The student don't take to him & treat him like dirt, however Dornwinkle has perfected his invisibility serum & uses it to satisfy his perverted sexual urges & his desire for revenge...<br /><br />Co-written & directed by Adam Rifkin wisely hiding under the pseudonym Rif Coogan (I wouldn't want my name to be associated with this turd of a film either) The Invisible Maniac is real bottom of the barrel stuff. The script by Rifkin, sorry Coogan & Tony Markes is awful. It tries to be a teenage sex/comedy/horror hybrid that just fails in every department. For a start the sex is nothing more than a few female shower scenes & a few boob shots, not much else I'm afraid & the birds in The Invisible Maniac aren't even that good looking. The comedy is lame & every joke misses by the proverbial mile, this is the kind of film that thinks someone fighting an invisible man or having Henry (Jason Logan) a mute man trying to make a phone call is funny. The Invisible Maniac makes the Police Academy (1984 - 1994) series of films look like the pinnacle of sophistication! As for the horror aspect that too is lame. It's also an incredibly slow (it takes over half an hour before Dornwinkles even becomes invisible), dull, predictable, boring & has highly annoying & unlikable teenage character's.<br /><br />Director Rifkin or Coogan or whatever does absolutely nothing to try & make The Invisible Maniac an even slightly enjoyable experience. There's no scares, tension or atmosphere & as a whole the film is a real chore to sit through. He does nothing with the invisibility angle, just a few doors opening on their own is as adventurous as it gets. There is very little gore or violence, a bit of splashing blood, a few strangulations & the only decent bit in the whole film when someone has their head blown off with a shotgun, unfortunately he was invisible at the time & we only get to see the headless torso afterwards.<br /><br />The budget must have been low, & I mean really low because this is one seriously cheap looking film. Dornwinkles laboratory is basically two jars on his bedside cabinet! When he escapes from the mental institution he has all of one dog sent after him & the entire school has about a dozen pupils & two teachers. The Invisible Maniac is a poorly made film throughout it's 85 minute duration, I spotted the boom mike on at least one occasion... Lets just say the acting is of a low standard & leave it at that.<br /><br />The Invisible Maniac is crap, plain & simple. I found no redeeming features in it at all, there are so many more better films out there you can watch so there is no reason whatsoever to waste your time on this rubbish. Definitely one to avoid.
Take one look at the cover of this movie, and you know right away that you are not about to watch a landmark film. This is cheese filmmaking in every respect, but it does have its moments. Despite the look of utter trash that the movie gives, the story is actually interesting at some points, although it is undeniably pulled along mainly by the cheerleading squads' shower scenes and sex scenes with numerous personality-free boyfriends. The acting is awful and the director did little more than point and shoot, which is why the extensive amount of nudity was needed to keep the audience's attention.<br /><br />In The Nutty Professor, a hopelessly geeky professor discovers a potion that can turn him into a cool and stylish womanizer, whereas in The Invisible Maniac, a mentally damaged professor discovers a potion that can make him invisible, allowing him to spy on (and kill, for some reason) his students. Boring fodder. Don't expect any kind of mental stimulation from this, and prepare yourself for shrill and enormously overdone maniacal laughter which gets real annoying real quick...
Here's an interesting little movie that strictly gives the phrase "low budget" a horrible name. Our physics teacher who has about nine kids creates a strange serum that causes "molecular reorganization". Students are hopelessly killed from fake coincidences of submarine sandwiches and flying school supplies. Sounds like a resurrection of classic B-movies from the 50s, right? Nope! It's not an example of high camp fun, which is way, WAY off the mark. A glamorous showcase of breasts and butts ensues our desire for pleasure, opposing the horror that should have had 99.44% more in the first place. Bottom-of-the-barrel entertainment at its best, aided by pints of red blood and dead student bodies. Atrocious movies like this would make the ultimately catastrophic GURU THE MAD MONK (1970) the work of an intelligent genius who has a Master's degree in film production! It's an automatic "F", so rest easy!
Saw this late one night on cable. At the time I didn't know that the girl billed as "Shannon Wilsey" was actually porn star Savannah, but she was so beautiful (and got naked so often, thank God) that I actually sat through this brain-rotting drivel. I like cheesy flicks as much as the next guy--more than the next guy, actually--but this was way beyond cheesy and more into rancid. The truly annoying overacting by the mad scientist and the director's, writers' and special effects people's virtually total incompetence detracts from the gratuitous nudity that is the movie's only saving grace. Savannah, before she turned into the plasticized Barbie Doll she became as a porn queen, is really interesting to watch--she's drop-dead gorgeous, bursts into uncontrollable giggling at times, glances off-camera and laughs and just generally seems to be having a really good time, which is more than can be said for the audience. For even though Savannah and her colleagues spend a fair amount of this picture naked, it still can't hide the fact that this is an incredibly stupid, badly made and annoying movie. If you know someone who has it on video, or if it comes on cable some night, check it out, but don't waste your money on a rental.
This movie is just plain bad. It isn't even worth watching to make fun of it. The lunatic professor is just plain annoying. Even suspending disbelief to allow for invisibility (which I glady do for the sake of good bad movies) and allowing for exceedingly stupid victims in a horror movie, this movie asks for even more than that. If you are looking for women's locker room shower scenes, and random sexual encounters, get a porn, if you are looking for a good-bad movie, get something else. If you want to simply waste your time on an annoying bad movie, rent this.
Okay guys, we know why we watch film like "The Invisible Maniac" (just look at the cover, man!). T and A all over the place (with a lot more T than A). But...shouldn't there be a story to go with it?<br /><br />"C'mon," I can hear you say - "this is just girls gettin' naked! Who needs a story??!"<br /><br />Well, if this were called "The NAKED Maniacs", I wouldn't have a problem. But since these guys are cribbing from "The Invisible Man", they need to have a bit of story hereabouts, you know, to keep your mind busy.<br /><br />However, all they can muster up is how this crazy doctor creates an invisibility serum and, when he cracks, uses it to spy on naked women and ends up killing a lot of teenagers. And when you see the smarmy-looking teenagers he goes after, you'll be grateful.<br /><br />One star, for the T and A, but there's a little too much gore for you skin fans, so proceed with caution.<br /><br />TIDBIT - yes, it's THAT Savannah.
I loved the Batman tv series and was really looking forward to this. But they tried to do too much.<br /><br />Why they had the story of Adam West and Burt Ward trying to recover the batmobile was beyond me. I don't want to knock Burt or Adam for the way they look now.....It's been 35 years since they appeared at Batman and Robin, but to see them dressed in dress suits and fighting 'badguys' was kinda sad. I would rather of just seen the ex-stars do commentary. The batmobile side story was stupid.<br /><br />As for the flashback movie, I think it was too short and left out way too much. It was really just a quick overview in my opinion. I'd like more background. They showed the Penguin and Joker for about a minute each just to tell the same stuff I already knew. The Joker had a mustache under his makeup and the penguin had to smoke even though he hated it and was an ex-smoker. That was it on those 2.<br /><br />I'd love to read the book. I am sure it has more in it that this showed. Like why was there 2 Riddlers or why 3 Catwoman's or 3 Mister Freezes. Where was Commishioner Gordon, Cheif OHara, Alfred, Mister Freeze, King Tut, etc. the List goes on. Like I said even the ones that were in this one were barely in it.<br /><br />Very disappointing. And really corny.
I may not be the one to review this movie because after 45 minutes of pure boredom and stupidity I turned the channel. The original series only lasted 2 years which can be said about the careers for Adam West and Burt Ward. Put these two "actors" in a stupid movie and the result is twice as bad.
How sheep-like the movie going public so often proves to be. As soon as a few critics say something new is good (ie - "Shake-Cam"), everyone jumps on the bandwagon, as if they are devoid of independent thought. This was not a good movie, it was a dreadful movie. 1) Plot? - What plot? Bourne was chased from here to there, from beginning to end. That's the plot. Don't look for anything deeper than this. 2) Cinematography? - Do me a favor! Any 7 year old armed with an old and battered 8mm movie camera would do a far better job (I am not exaggerating here). This film is a tour-de-force of astonishingly amateurish camera-work. The ridiculous shaking of EVERY (I really do mean every) scene will cause dizziness and nausea. 3) Believable? - Oh yes definitely. This is a masterpiece of credibility. I loved scenes about Bourne being chased by (local) police through the winding market streets of Tangier. - I've BEEN to Tangier. Even the guides can't navigate their way through those streets but Bourne shook off 100 police with speed and finesse. Greengrass must be laughing his head off at the gullibility of his film disciples. 4) Editing? - I don't know what the editor was on when he did this film but I want some! - Every scene is between 0.5 and 2 seconds. I felt nauseous at the end of the film from the strobe effect of the "scenes" flashing by. 5) Directing? - Hmmm. This is an interesting aspect. The film appears to have actually NOT had any directing. More a case of Greengrass throwing a copy of the script (all two pages) at the cameramen and told to "shoot a few scenes whilst drunk". - "Don't worry boys, we'll tie the scenes together in the editing room". The editor should be tarred, feathered and put in the stocks for allowing this monstrosity to hit the silver screen 6) Not one but TWO senior CIA operatives giving the tender feminine treatment to the mistreated and misunderstood Jason Bourne. - Putting their lives on the line for someone they couldn't even be sure wasn't a traitor. Talk about stupid nincompoops. (Whilst the evil male CIA members plot to terminate any operative who so much as drops a paper-clip on the floor). (well, all men are evil, aren't they? - Except for SNAGS of course). Yes, this really is a modern and politically correct film that shows the females to be the heroes of the day and the oppressive males as the real threat to humanity. 7) When the you-know-what finally hits the fan, good triumphs over evil (just like it always does, eh?) and the would-be assassin gets the drop on Jason Bourne - he suddenly undergoes a guilt trip and refrains from pulling the trigger (Yeah - right...) - at that very moment, the evil deputy director just happens to turn up - gun in hand and he does pull the trigger. - How did this 60 year old man run so fast and not even be out of breath? Wonders will never cease 8) Don't worry, there's a senate hearing and the baddies get pulled up before the courts. Well, we can't have nasty, politically incorrect, CIA operatives going round shooting people, can we? How lovely to see a true to life P.C. film of the Noughties. -------------The Bourne Ultimatum is utter rubbish.
I don't understand people. Why is it that this movie is getting an 8.3!!!!!!???? I had high hopes for this movie, but once i was about a half hour into it I just wanted to leave the theater. In the vast majority of the reviews on this site people are saying that this is one of the best action movies they've seen (or of the summer, year, etc.) They say it's an excellent conclusion. WTF!!!!!!!!!?????? What has been concluded (besides the fact that Bourne can ride motorcycles, shoot, and fight better than anyone else he comes across)? What do you learn about Bourne's character in this movie?????????Absolutely f****** nothing!!!!!!! Okay, there's a lot of action, but what's so great about the action in this movie?? I don't like the cinematography and film editing. The shaky camera effect and fast changing shots were used TOO much and they get old fast (I didn't mind them in Supremacy because it was still easy to follow and was not used in excess) and made me quite dizzy. I was quickly wishing I had saved my $$$ for something else.<br /><br />This movie has no plot. All this movie is is a 115 minute chase seen. Bourne, who you learn absolutely nothing about in the entire 115 minutes of the movie, is a perfectionist at everything he attempts. There is absolutely no character development in this movie, you know nothing about anyone, and there is a wide array of new characters that are introduced in this installment. Some people said that this movie has incredible writing and suspense. ???????????!!!!!!!! What writing???? What suspense??? There's no suspense. Bourne is so perfect at doing everything he does, I don't think he has anything to worry about. If this is the best movie of the year 2007 I may just quit watching movies entirely!!!! <br /><br />Many people have also said that Matt Damon's performance in this movie is one of the best (if not the best) of his career. What performance?? How many lines did he have in this movie??? I have some respect for Damon because he has been in movies that I liked and has played different kinds of characters, but a good actor is someone that you can barely recognize from one movie to the next, someone who chooses different types of roles. Not someone who plays the same roles over and over again (which Damon doesn't do, but an example of someone who does is Vin Diesel).<br /><br />Anyways, this movie was a BIG disappointment to me. I do not recommend this movie but I do recommend the first two (Bourne Identity and Bourne Supremacy) and I most definitely recommend reading the three books (which are much different then the movies).
Users who have rated this movie so highly simply can't have seen enough good films to compare it with. Have they all been brainwashed?? I have rarely felt so disappointed by a film and some of that must be attributable to the ridiculous hype surrounding this movie.<br /><br />From the first, BU is just a chase film. We pick it up at the end of one chase and go straight into another. And another. And another. And another. Do you see a pattern emerging? There is virtually no time 'wasted' on plot, character development, or boring old reality.<br /><br />If you haven't see the other two Bourne films, you're pretty lost. If you have - you only WISH you were lost - somewhere a long way from a cinema.<br /><br />Paul Greengrass's dispassionate style worked exceptionally well on United 93 which was a sentiment overload desperate to happen, but on Bourne and his interminable woes it just has the effect of removing the audience from involvement with the character. He runs. He jumps. He punches. He gets blown up. He clears tall buildings. Yada yada yada. Above all - he SURVIVES. He survives like a plastic Action Man survives, which only makes the ridiculous stunts he pulls all the more slack and lacking in any kind of tension. So he drives off a building? So what? He'll survive. Yawn.<br /><br />There's a girl thrown into the mix because Bourne's love interest died in a previous incarnation, but she's just decor. I've seen more character depth and snappy dialogue in episodes of Captain Scarlet.<br /><br />Bourne's own journey of literal self-discovery is dull and formless and tells us nothing we didn't know from the first movie. He was turned into a killing machine. Big deal. He finds out his true identity. So what? It doesn't have any emotional resonance when it comes.<br /><br />The 'twist' ending is telegraphed and weak. Oh, dear, the more I think about this film the more I hate it! I've already reduced my score to 4 during the writing of this comment! I'd better end now before the slide continues.<br /><br />I love a good action flick and I love a good thriller. The Bourne Ultimatum is neither. It's a loud, tedious series of flashy edits, ridiculous sound effects and cartoon violence. <br /><br />The idea that it 'shows the way' to the Bond franchise is utter crap. Casino Royale blows it out of the water.
Macy, Ullman and Sutherland were as great as usual. Ritter wasn't bad either. What's her name was as pretty as usual. It could have been a good movie. To bad the plot was atrocious. It was completely predictable, trite and boring.<br /><br />From the first 15 minutes, the rest of the movie was laid out like a child's paint by numbers routine. The characters were stock pieces of cut out cardboard. There was nothing new or interesting to say and that completely outweighed the acting, which was a pity.<br /><br />Finally, too bad the script writer wasn't the victim. Especially with the "precocious" lines from the child, which were completely unbelievable.<br /><br />Again, it's only the acting that prevented a much lower score.
Undeveloped/unbelievable story line,(by the time I sort of figured out where it was going, I no longer cared) bad casting.(come on... William Macy as a hit man???) bad directing,(have you ever seen Tracey Ullman perform SO badly?)(Was I supposed to care what happened to the unethical incompetent, uncaring John Ritter character?) bad script...( Really, I'm not looking for a formula script but this was really awful) the only Really good thing in it was the kid. Ten lines? It's not OK if your comment is less than ten lines? COme on-- whose rules are those? Why can't I say what I have to say in less than 10 lines??? Isn't that kind of arbitrary? Why isn't it OK to have less than 10 lines of comment?
I watched this movie, and hoped for something to get better the entire time. What is so great about a guy with no emotion? *yawn*<br /><br />You never see Alex show emotion for anyone other than his son. Yeah, I know that this is why his son is the only one to cause him to lose his temper (if you can call it that), I get it.<br /><br />Characters are undeveloped, relationships aren't given enough time to be understood. In one scene Sarah says they won't fall in love, and the next time we see her she's talking about how his death really shook her up because they were so close? Logic synapses abound in this film.<br /><br />It's like someone watched Boogie Nights and wrote this part to mimic Little Bill. Even the scene where he "loses his temper" is the same as when Little Bill shoots his wife, down to the facial expression (or lack thereof). Yes, William H. Macy is good at portraying a man without emotion - been there, done that - can you say Magnolia?<br /><br />This movie didn't only lack emotion, it lacked substance, a good script, developed characters, and a plot. And it certainly lacks my recommendation. :)<br /><br />~A~
I cannot believe this woodenly written and directed piece of cliche film got made. There are about four good looking shots (the director should think about switching to still photography) and that's it. A strong cast is utterly wasted, scenes repeatedly end at the least interesting moments and the script says nothing new. Please spare yourself this movie.
Some kids are hiking in the mountains, and one of them goes into a large tunnel and discovers some old mummified gladiator. He puts on the gladiator's helmet and spends the rest of the movie killing all the other hikers.<br /><br />This thing is just so utterly senseless it's maddening. Here's a short list of things that don't make any sense:<br /><br />1) A guy and a girl are in their tent and they think they hear something outside. The guy goes out to investigate and finds another hiker outside. Then he hears his girlfriend scream so they head back to the tent - arriving the next morning?!? He was only 50 feet away!<br /><br />2) These two dunderheads then hear another girl scream (What, 100 feet away?), but don't investigate because they're afraid they'll get lost.<br /><br />3) Another guy and a girl are walking around, and in about their 10th scene together the girl informs the guy that due to the circumstances, protocol no longer requires him to address her as professor. I mean, what the...? First off, that's just a really stupid thing to say, secondly he never called her professor in the first nine scenes they were in together.<br /><br />4) A wounded girl attacks Demonicus and he stops her, telling her that part of his gladiator training taught him how to wound without killing. Um, yeah, we kinda noticed she's wounded and not dead because she's up and walking around. But, thanks for that tidbit of information.<br /><br />5) One girl is tied up in Demonicus' lair, and when someone attempts to free her, she instead instructs this person to go and get help. Um, look, idiot, if she set you free, which would take about 5 seconds, there would be no need to get help.<br /><br />And it just goes on and on. The whole middle part of the movie is spent with the two idiots getting lost in the woods, then they fight, then they pitch a tent and ignore the screams of their friends, then they wander around some more. It's just so damned boring and pointless that I turned the DVD off halfway through. <br /><br />None of these characters are sympathetic, especially the ones that get the majority of the screen time. Demonicus himself made me laugh out loud every time I saw him - he looks like a kid in a Halloween costume, scrunching his face up to look evil. He runs, or should I say scampers around like he's gay. The special effects are comedic, the acting is for the most part awful, and nothing makes any sense.<br /><br />Overall, maybe this concept could have produced an enjoyably campy film if they put some more time and effort into it, getting rid of the ludicrous dialogue, creating characters with actual likable personalities, having some sort of logical flow to the action, and maybe even making Demonicus a female character in a sexy gladiator outfit. But no, instead we get this senseless pile of nonsense that will bore you to death.
My wife and I like to rent really stupid horror/sci-fi movies and watch them with our friends for a laugh. We saw this one on fullmoondirect.com and decided to add it to our netflix list. Now, when I say this movie is awful, I mean it in a good way. Everything about it, the acting, camera-work, story, costumes, is just so cheezy and low budget but thats what makes it so good. I think in one scene the actors looked like they were actually walking in place. I really hope that whoever made this film wasn't serious when they made it because if they were, then that would just be sad. If you like to watch really stupid horror movies just to make fun of them then I recommend this one.
This movie is so awful, it is hard to find the right words to describe it!<br /><br />At first the story is so ridiculous.A narrow-minded human can write a better plot! The actors are boring and untalented, perhaps they were compelled to play in this cheesy Film.<br /><br />The camera receptions of the National Forest are the only good in this whole movie. I should feel ashame, because I paid for this lousy Picture.<br /><br />Hopefully nobody makes a sequel or make a similar film with such a worse storyline :-)
I mean really, how could Charles Band the head of Full Moon let a total stink-ball like DEMONICUS out. I mean it should never got the green light to begin with. The story is repetitive, the characters are weak at best, there is no real story on Tyranus other then he's a bad dude. Then they writer or director goes out his way for a bad ending. That's right a bad ending, Demonicus rises. The last survivor escapes a deadly cave in, then a picture of Chimera comes to life, cheaply I might add and chases her out. Then as she is walking home ala FUNHOUSE. A statue that has been destroyed centuries ago reappears for no reason just to collapse on top of her. I mean, that makes no sense. What the hell was Charles thinking allowing this pile of puke to be made, with four different movie companies they were that desperate for movies. They could have asked me, I had better ideas then DEMONICUS. THANKSGIVING TURKEY.
This movie is about Tyrannus, a gladiator who is brought back from the dead to summon Tyrannus, a gladiator who must be brought back from the dead. Tyrannus, we learn after about an hour, is also called Demonicus. This adds much needed depth to the screenplay and calls into question our assumptions about identity, psychology and ourselves. <br /><br />The spirit of Tyrannus accomplishes his little to-do list (killing some people and saying repetitive phrases in Latin) by possessing the body of a college guy. He uses a magic mind-control helmet to do this, which the college boy willingly puts on his head, and then at several points in the movie, takes off and puts back on.<br /><br />Maria performs oral sex on a poor man's Sean Willian Scott, and Tyrannus wears the Rollerball glove. Tyrannus has his own green backlighting for no reason, and has apparently been sitting next to CG fire in an ancient concrete tunnel for centuries like this. Utter misfortune.<br /><br />This movie is empty and will hurt you. See it.
okay, this movie f*ck in' rules. it is without question one of the most technically inept pieces of cinema ever made. absolutely terrible, but you GOTTA see it. rent this with your buddies and come up with a drinking game or just have fun, it's hilarious. and the behind-the-scenes featurette proves it, you can do anything with paper plates and finger paint. awesome. okay, rent it just for this one scene: two characters are actually WALKING IN PLACE for about 3 minutes in a shot. the director (on the commentary) says "yeah, the tracking was so smooth it looks like they're...". yeah, right man, they are totally walking in place. it's so funny.
WARNING SPOILERS***** A really stupid movie about a group of young excursionists in Italy that find an armor of mythical warrior with a demonic souls. One of them wears it and becomes possessed by the spirit of a demon. It's killing time and several of his friends die under his blade to revive the demon corpse.<br /><br />A waste of time for the viewers, as the fine young ladies in the movie leave their clothes on, the gore is ludicrous at best, and the acting is terrible, perfect pairing for such a bad script<br /><br />
For some reason, various young couples hiking through the Italian Alps split up to see who can reach their campsite designation first. James (Gregory Lee Kenyon) enters a cave, finds a skeleton of an ancient demonic gladiator and becomes possessed by the spirit of "Tyranus" when he puts on a helmet belonging to the corpse. He then spends the rest of the film running around in the woods hunting down his friends and hacking off their limbs to add to some stew to bring the undead "Demonicus" back to life. This shot-on-digital Full Moon release is stupid, senseless, has terrible acting and sound and the (Los) Angeles National Forest is a poor substitute for Italy. However, it's pretty high on the unintentional laugh scale thanks mainly to the overwrought lead performance. Whether bug-eyed running around in cheap-looking armor brandishing a sword or spouting neurotic Latin gibberish about demons and resurrection, Kenyon's ridiculous facial expressions and awkward line delivery must be seen to be believed. Oh well, at least he's not boring like most of the rest of the cast.
This film is exactly what you get when you really over stretch your abilities, it's like someone who has just passed there driving test and then pitting them in a formula 1 Grand Prix (not I might add, the US Grand Prix as everyone might pull out due to dodgy tyres and you might just win), that is how far short this film falls. Now don't take this the wrong way, I love B-Movies, around half my collection is made of B-Movies but I don't think there are enough letters in the alphabet to describe how bad this film is.<br /><br />First of the story (for a B-Movie) isn't that bad, it has potential there to make a B-Movie brand, were not talking Friday 13th potential, but potential none the less. But what really lets this film down is the acting, at not one second do I believe anything, it's like watching QVC except the presenters on QVC tend to have a heavier tan.<br /><br />In summary I'd like to say I've seen worse films, but I can't.
I rented this one to see Vanesa Talor one more time. She can act, but doesn't get a chance in this clunker. The opening sequence is an elaborate crane shot of mountain landscapes. Must have come from a stock archive, because the movie is shot direct to videotape. The production values make _Blair Witch_ look professional. There's a really cheesy animated statue, but no other effects worth noting. This movie is bad, but not amusingly so. The players would do well not to mention it on their resumes.
Seriously. I just wrapped up my first viewing of Demonicus and words have failed me.<br /><br />I remember a time when I would see Charles Band's name on a film and my heart would race. He was never a Wes Craven or a John Carpenter. He was a bastion of hope for the little man. The guy whose movies arrived at the video store instead of the multiplex, but they still rocked harder than most of the trendy junk we otherwise had to endure.<br /><br />And now... this.<br /><br />A painfully-obvious Californian walking trail doubles for "the Alps" and an abandoned train tunnel is actually supposed to be "an ancient cave". I mean, they didn't even try to dress the thing up with moss or film it in a way that might suggest it was anything other than an old train tunnel! Ugh! Instead of a creepy demon gladiator, as the cover implies, we're treated to a dude wearing the latest in Wal-Mart Halloween apparel. There's a pretty cool looking corpse, who occasionally comes to life to belch and wiggle his fingers, but he doesn't even learn to stand until the final five minutes. Why couldn't he be the villain? Instead, we've got frat boy Joe with a plastic sword. Ouch.<br /><br />Charles Band... you should be ashamed that your name is attached to such tripe. I love movies that are so bad, they're good. Hell, I occasionally enjoy a flick thats so bad, its just bad. This one, however, is just unwatchable. A perfect example of making a buck, rather than making a quality film.
Although I have to admit I laughed more watching this movie than the last few comedies I saw.<br /><br />The budget must have consisted of pocket change from the actors. The production values are so low that they actual made it kind of fun to watch. Reminds me of the Robot Monster made up of a guy in a gorilla suit with a cardboard diving helmet on.<br /><br />In one scene a hapless victim gets their arm and leg cut off. Geez, hard to believe but the Black Knight scene from Holy Grail was more realistic. I kept wondering why the victim didn't start shouting " None Shall Pass" and " It's only a flesh wound, I've had worse". It was one of the funniest scenes I've seen in the past year.<br /><br />The "gladiator/demon" was a stitch too. Between the horribly cheap costume and the geeky look of the guy in it the end result was hysterical.<br /><br />Truly a movie that is bad enough to be watchable. Kind of like seeing a slow motion auto accident on film.<br /><br />
When George C. Scott played the title role in "Patton," you saw him directing tanks with pumps of his fist, shooting at German dive bombers with a revolver, and spewing profanity at superiors and subordinates alike. The most action we get from Gregory Peck as "MacArthur," a figure from the same war of debatably greater accomplishment, is when he taps mapboards with his finger and raises that famous eyebrow of his.<br /><br />Comparing Peck's performance with Scott's may be unfair. Yet the fact "MacArthur" was made by the same producer and scored by the same composer begs parallels, as does the fact both films open with the generals addressing cadets at West Point. It's clear to me the filmmakers were looking to mimic that Oscar-winning film of a few years before. But while Peck looks the part more than Scott ever did, he comes off as mostly bland in a story that feels less like drama than a Wikipedia walkthrough of MacArthur's later career.<br /><br />"To this day there are those who think he was a dangerous demagogue and others who say he was one of the greatest men who ever lived," an opening title crawl tells us. It's a typical dishwater bit of post-Vietnam sophistry about those who led America's military, very much of its time, but what we get here is neither view. MacArthur as presented here doesn't anger or inspire the way he did in life.<br /><br />Director Joseph Sargent, who went on to helm the famous turkey "Jaws The Revenge," does a paint-by-numbers job with bland battle montages and some obvious set use (as when the Chinese attack U.S. forces in Korea), while the script by Hal Barwood and Matthew Robbins trots out a MacArthur who comes across as good-natured to the point of blandness, a bit too caught up in his public image, but never less than decent.<br /><br />Here you see him stepping off the landing craft making his return to the Phillipines. There you see him addressing Congress in his "Old Soldiers Never Die" speech. For a long stretch of time he sits in a movie theater in Toyko, waiting for the North Koreans to cross the 38th parallel so we can get on with the story while newsreel footage details Japan's rise from the ashes under his enlightened rule. Peck's co-actors, Marj Dusay as his devoted wife ("you're my finest soldier") and Nicolas Coaster as a loyal aide, burnish teary eyes in the direction of their companion's magnificence but garner no interest on their own.<br /><br />Even when he argues with others, Peck never raises his voice and for the most part wins his arguments with thunderous eloquence. When Admiral Nimitz suggests delaying the recapture of the Philippines, a point of personal pride as well as tactical concern for MacArthur, MacArthur comes back with the comment: "Just now, as I listened to his plan, I thought I saw our flag going down." Doubtless the real Nimitz would have had something to say about that, but the character in the movie just bows his head and meekly accepts the insult in the presence of President Roosevelt.<br /><br />The only person in the movie who MacArthur seriously disagrees with is Harry S Truman, who Ed Flanders does a fine job with despite a prosthetic nose that makes him resemble Toucan Sam. Truman's firing of MacArthur should be a dramatic high point, but here it takes place in a quiet dinner conversation, in which Peck plays MacArthur as nothing less than a genial martyr.<br /><br />I've never been sold by Peck's standing at the upper pantheon of screen stars; he delivers great presence but lacks complexity even in many of his best-known roles. But it's unfair to dock him so much here, as he gets little help defining MacArthur as anything other than a speechifying bore. Except for two scenes, one where he rails against the surrender of the Philippines ("He struck Old Glory and ran up a bedsheet!") and another where he has a mini-breakdown while awaiting the U.S. invasion of Inchon, inveighing against Communists undermining him at the White House, Peck really plays Peck here, not the complex character who inspired the famous sobriquet "American Caesar." The real MacArthur might have been worthy of such a comparison. What you get here is less worthy of Shakespeare than Shakes the Clown.
This Film was done in really poor taste. The script was really bad. I feel really sad for the late Gregory Peck who took on the title role of this B-movie adaptation of one of history's greatest generals. The movie was politically incorrect and downright insensitive to the others who fought the Japanese in World War 2. There was a scene where I almost vomited, it showed Macarthur in a bunker in Corregidor island talking to the troops like a seasoned politician when he comes across a wounded, one legged Filipino soldier. The soldier bleeding and dying manages to sit up straight upon seeing the general and says : `no papa, no mama, no uncle sam' and Macarthur gives his little pep talk that Americans `would never abandon' the Philippines. The scene ends with the soldier being invigorated by Macarthur's words and gives him a smart salute. I mean if there was a more condescending scene portraying the U.S. as the great white savior of the world please tell me because this one takes the cake. It showed that Filipinos are damsels in distress incapable of honor and have to rely on the great Americans solely for redemption. It blatantly and purposely overshadowed the contributions of the members of the USAFFE (United States Armed Forces of The Far East), these are Filipino volunteers that were integrated in the US military during world war 2, who died side by side with the Americans fighting the Japanese, who walked side by side with Americans in the death march of Bataan and defended Corregidor island by launching a guerilla offensive after Macarthur left for Australia with his famous `I shall return' speech. My late grandfather, a Filipino world war 2 veteran and USAFFE soldier was one of the many who fought the Japanese with honor and love for the home country. I think this movie does not give honor to them and to the thousands of others that Macarthur relied on for intelligence preparations for his famous return in the Leyte gulf landing.
Lauren Bacall and Charles Boyer do not provide the right chemistry here in this 1945 film.<br /><br />There is a good story here about the Axis trying to obtain coal to use for the upcoming war. Unfortunately, this part of the story is not emphasized. Instead, we deal with a supposedly bungling Boyer. By the way, Bacall is as British as Vladimir Putin.<br /><br />The real acting kudos goes to veteran Oscar winner Katina Paxinou. As was the case with her memorable Pilar in the 1943 Oscar winner, "For Whom the Bell Tolls," Paxinou again plays a Spanish revolutionary but this time she is a double-crossing counter-spy for the pro-Franco group. She is quite a vicious character here;especially, when she throws a 14 year old child out the window. She believed that Boyer had given the child important material to hide.
Yet another forgettable Warners foreign intrigue "thriller," this is rendered even less enjoyable by the irritating presence of Lauren Bacall, who, without Humphrey Bogart's tender attentions to humanize her, comes off as her usual shrill, shallow self. Even master gigolo Charles Boyer cannot feign romantic interest in her.
(Review in English, since Swedish is not allowed)<br /><br />I saw this movie with extremely low expectations, and I can sadly inform you that the movie barely lived up to them.<br /><br />As much as I loved to see Janne "Loffe" Karlsson on the big screen again, the writers should have realized early in the scriptwriting process that seven people falling into the water, isn't original or funny. The story is very thin and the jokes are used and predictable, the ones that ain't, is just plain boring. I smiled like three times during the entire film.<br /><br />The placement of Swedish Findus products is (unintentionally) funny, why not just a big sign saying; "Findus made it happen!".<br /><br />Göta Kanal 2 doesn't need to be seen at the cinema or on DVD, just wait for it to air on TV, it wont take too long.
OK now, lets see. What was funny in the first movie? I know, people with funny accents, people falling into the water, silly boat crashes and funny comments between the two teams. In this movie they have twisted the accent part to the max, no good. A whole a lot of people are falling into the water for uncertain reasons, no good. Boatcrash, check. Funny comments between the two teams, they tried but failed. Also, there are too may personalities they are following in this movie. This film should be about what is happening on the water, not on land. I am sorry to say that there is too far between the funny parts and the sponsors of the film are exploited to the max. No good. All in all, I give it four out of ten since it has some funny parts.
...for one of the worst Swedish movies ever...forgive me for being dull.<br /><br />First of all i haven't seen the first one (i was bored that's my reason for watching the 2nd before the 1st one), well i hope the first one is better than this, it was filled with weird cut scenes and very strange plot changes, For the people that have seen this and think 4/10 is high (belive me so do i), but it made me laugh a few times, because it was so bizarre so bad and i still laugh thinking of the punk that came up with this idea, what's next "Det sjunde inseglet II". Sequels not based on novel or book doesn't turning out great to often, and this is a perfect example of one.<br /><br />OK i'm gonna be honest with you: i did laugh a bit, it got a few decent jokes in it and slapstick humor. But don't buy it, rent it. Just let some other idiot do it or download it.<br /><br />4/10 This movie will be remembered and the director is probably laughed out already...
This must be one of the worst Swedish movies ever made. <br /><br />It is embarrassing that such a bad script was allowed to become a movie and shown in cinemas as recently as year 2006.<br /><br />I've never seen so many visible sponsored products in one and the same movie. It shouldn't be that obvious. <br /><br />I can't understand why so many known actors even thought the idea to even be visible in a movie like this. If I had any respect for some of the known actors in this movie before I saw the movie, it is gone for sure now. <br /><br />I've heard that there will be a follow up movie to this one and I can't understand how that is even possible.
The story line was very straight forward and easy to follow and contained a lot of no-brainer comedy to a point where it just got boring. Some of the audience seemed to find it funny but I like more intelligent humor.<br /><br />There were several known Swedish actors in the movie and their performance were decent considering the script. Lena Endre was good looking as always.<br /><br />I don't remember the original movie so I can't say if it's better or worse.<br /><br />If you enjoy movies like Sällskapsresan this movie might be worth taking a look at.
dont ever ever ever consider watching this sorry excuse for a film. the way it is shot, lit, acted etc. just doesn't make sense. it's all so bad it is difficult to watch. loads of clips are repeated beyond boredom. there seems to be no 'normal' person in the entire film and the existence of the 'outside world' is, well, it just doesn't exist. and why does that bald guy become invincible all of a sudden? this film is beyond stupidity. zero.
After buying the DVD in a Bargain Bin due to the impressive amount of features listed on the cover, I popped it in the DVD player and everything looked good. Nice animated menus and a whole lot of extra features...but when I played the movie itself, what a let down. It is the worst thing I have ever seen and I have seen some bad movies in my time. The comment that praises the movie here at IMDB is actually from the people who made the film. So Don't Believe It unless you like to waste your cash!
I wrote a review of this movie further down after buying it on DVD and being sorely disapointed.<br /><br />I tried watching it again after reading a few of the comments made since then. Being a film student and making similar budgeted movies myself (ie no budget, shot on digi cam), I stand by my original comments. This is a no budget student project (and not a particularly good one), released on video/dvd to look like an award winning film (if you read the cover). So deceving the public into thinking it's something it's not. I want my money back under the trades description act! Complete Rubbish!
Yes, this movie make me feel real horror, when i realized that i paid for it and spent more than 1 hour of my life trying to watch it. The bald guy just give me the impression of being a psycho - Junkie actor and the girl is the worst actress i ever seen . Believe me if you appreciate your time avoid this movie, i understand a movie requires money to be created and some movies do not have that money but that is no justification for a stupid plot and bad acting. I'm always supporting independent movies, when it deserves the support, but movies like this makes a bad name for this kind of movies. I'm still traumatized. I will not trust in any nice cover anymore.
An unmarried woman named Stella (Bette Midler) gets pregnant by a wealthy man (Stephen Collins). He offers to marry her out of a sense of obligation but she turns him down flat and decides to raise the kid on her own. Things go OK until the child named Jenny (Trini Alvarado) becomes a teenager and things gradually (and predictably) become worse.<br /><br />I've seen both the silent version and sound version of "Stella Dallas". Neither one affected me much (and I cry easily) but they were well-made if dated. Trying to remake this in 1990 was just a stupid idea. I guess Midler had enough power after the incomprehensible success of "Beaches" to get this made. This (predictably) bombed. The story is laughable and dated by today's standards. Even though Midler and Alvarado give good performances this film really drags and I was bored silly by the end. Stephen Collins and Marsha Mason (both good actors) don't help in supporting roles. Flimsy and dull. Really--who thought this would work? See the 1937 Stanwyck version instead. I give this a 1.
"Stella", starring Bette Midler in the title role, is an unabashed tearjerker. Set in upstate New York, Stella Claire works nights as a bar maid, pouring and dancing in a workingman's saloon. One night, in comes a slumming medical intern, Stephen Dallas, who woos Stella, and in the course of their affair impregnates her. She spurns both his offers of marriage and abortion, sends him packing to a lucrative medical career, and raises her daughter herself in near-poverty. Flash-forward 16 years and the daughter has grown into a gorgeous, loving, young lady. Dr. Dallas is not out of the picture, still maintaining a tenuous, but caring relationship with his daughter and…..I'm rambling, and worse yet, making the movie sound somewhat interesting. The acting and screenwriting are so over-the-top you'll let out a groan in almost every scene. The chief offender is Bette Midler, but close behind is John Goodman as her alcoholic buddy. Each scene seems more contrived than the preceding right up to the finale, which is truly a hoot. Taken as a dramatic piece, this film rates no more than grade D, but as camp, it scores an unintended B+.<br /><br />
1937's "Stella Dallas" with Barbara Stanwyck hasn't exactly aged well--how anyone thought a semi-updated version of the story would work now is a real puzzler. Perhaps they thought jaunty, cheerfully brash Bette Midler could make something out of it, but this hoary script defeats her. Plot about a female bartender having a baby out of wedlock, and years later giving the young girl over to the child's wealthy father so she'll have a shot at a better life, can't escape tatty, old-fashioned trappings and sentiment. Midler works best with a movie director who can control her excesses, but that fails to happen here; Stephen Collins is stolid as the man who changes her life, but Trini Alvarado is well-cast as Midler's daughter. This is what used to be referred to as a "woman's picture", a wallow, but it doesn't pass muster because it stays too faithful to its 1930's origins. *1/2 from ****
I suppose that today this film has relevance because it was an early Sofia Loren film. She was 19 years old when the film was made in 1953.<br /><br />I viewed this film because I wanted to see some of Sofia Loren's early work. I was surprised when she came on camera having had her skin bronzed over in brown makeup to resemble an Ethiopian princess. Surely, today, this would have been viewed as a slur and to be avoided in movie making. It actually became annoying watching Ms. Loren in skin color paint throughout the film.<br /><br />Yes, this film would have been better made if the real opera singers had made this movie. Then, the singing and the actual facial gestures of the real artists would have been apparent. I discount the comments by others about whether the real opera singers are older and heavier in weight.<br /><br />As beautiful as Ms. Loren was at age 19 and still is today, the film would have been better received as though it were being performed on the stage. After all, we don't see beautiful young people on stage with "old opera singers" back stage singing from behind the curtain! Do not discount the success of using heavy-weight opera singers. One only has to refer to the most artistically produced television commercial for the J. G. Wentworth Company with the opera singers on stage singing so professionally the praises of the company's product. This is one of the best and entertaining TV commercials produced to date.<br /><br />The quality of the movie print also makes this production of a somewhat lesser quality. The color ink has faded much and that can not be helped.<br /><br />To improve this film on DVD the production company should add English language subtitles so that we, who do not speak Italian, can know what the lyrics are saying. It would help the story and teach it more than the narrator giving 30 seconds of introduction to the scenes.<br /><br />Watch this film not because of the story of Aida nor the fact that this is an opera. Aside from Ms. Sofia Loren none of her co-actors are known nor remembered by this writer. Instead, watch this movie if you are a fan of Ms. Loren and wish to see her at age 19 -- no matter what the production is.<br /><br />Larry from Illinois
Sophia Loren plays Aida, in one of the worst films of all time. She can't lipsync. In terms of production values, the film is so bad, that at one point, while Loren is mouthing "O Patria Mia," she leans onto what looks to be a stone wall for support, and the canvas set billows and shakes.
...and not in a good way. BASEketball is a waste of film in all most every single way. It is offensive to all the senses. This doesn't necessarily bother me, I've seen plenty of bad movies, really bad movies before and will see them again. BASEketball though is a caliber film where you regret wasting ninety minutes of life sitting through it. The reason BASEketball offends me is that it stars Trey Parker and Matt Stone in a film they didn't write. Any respect I had for David Zucker has long since depleted. His recent spoof films are lazy messes that look and feel as if they were made by pre-pubescent boys snickering at penis jokes. "Airplane" was a revolutionary and very funny comedy, watching BASEketball you will be amazed to discover that they were made by the same person.<br /><br />I have so much respect for Trey Parker and Matt Stone. These men are the funniest and smartest comedians in mainstream entertainment today. Their pictures and South Park episodes are as relevant as they are funny. Every joke even the fart jokes have intelligence behind them. It's easy to forget that there is a mature way to approach immaturity. I imagine BASEketball was a major growing experience for them because they hate the film for all the right reasons. It is a stupid mess with no sense of dignity or class. Parker and Stone have essentially whored themselves out. The film plays like a 90 minute episode of Family Guy.<br /><br />Parker and Stone have never been great actors. They've been serviceable in their films. I can't really find a way to describe their performance in BASEketball, other than the fact that it feels like they are spoofing a spoof film spoofing a spoof film. Every line is delivered in such a silly winking way. It's like they are trying to make fun of the worst of these type of pictures and yet they become them in the same way. I am reminded of the South Park episode "How to Eat with your Butt" where Cartman sits in a movie theater watching a gross out comedy with no plot or plausibility except to gross out, Parker and Stone use the same voices they did in that scene for this entire picture. Really it's sad.<br /><br />And yet that is not my problem with BASEketball. My biggest gripe with the picture is that I sit there knowing that Parker and Stone are knowingly following this piece of crap script. I know that if they took the damn thing and rewrote it that this could have been salvaged to the point of being watchable. There isn't any indication that Zucker let them improv scenes either. Parker and Stone are merely tools to a bad director. BASEketball has some funny concepts and I think Parker especially if he were allowed to take Zuckers script could have elaborated on them more. Instead we get potty humor. Don't rent BASEketball you can get the same laughs watching a group of grade schoolers joking around
On the 1998 summer blockbuster hit BASEketball (1998): "This is one of those movies that is usually seen on the big jumbo-tron screen in a sports bar during the day - when everyone is quite drunk. Unfortunately, I was sober when I saw this movie."<br /><br />So quoted the late Gene Siskel for this lame-brained, supposed yukfest that came out two weeks after the far superior "There's Something About Mary" in a one-upmanship game during July of 1998. "Mary" was a gross-out fest, but in addition to the many gags, it had a lot of heart, which is why it was the highest grossing comedy of that memorable summer.<br /><br />"BASEketball" tried to outdo Mary, but it fizzled in more ways that one. You take the creators of "South Park," Trey Parker and Matt Stone, who are fortunately not behind the movie but in front of the camera, the only member of ZAZ David Zucker helming the picture in desperate need of a paycheck, and the other two Jim Abrahams and Jerry Zucker clearly stayed out or probably warned him against the picture, a small bit by now 90 years young Ernest Borgnine, wasting his precious time in his distinguished career, dying on a hotdog and singing "I'm Too Sexy" as he videotapes his will, Jenny McCarthy, who has little screen time as Borgnine's not-too-weeping trophy widow young enough to be his granddaughter, a bigger female part by Yasmine Bleeth as a dedicated social worker whose charges are underprivileged youngsters, and the only interesting and meaningful player in this turkey, Robert Vaughn as a corrupt archrival, and pointless cameos by "Airplane!" alumni Kareem Abdul Jabaar and the late Robert Stack who seemed nostalgic for the 1980 masterpiece and it's much fresher humor created by the ZAZ family. What do all these people make up? A desperate cast and crew trying to replicate "Airplane!" humor and mixing it up with the crudity of "South Park," but failing in every way.<br /><br />To make this long 100-minute movie short, "BASEketball," a real game invented by David Zucker and his friends in his hometown of Milwaukee, is about two lazy losers (Parker and Stone) and their pint-sized mutual friend who invent baseball and basketball (hence the title) together on the driveway of one's house. After Borgnine dies, he bequeaths the ownership of his BASEketball team, the Milwaukee Beers to Parker and Stone. Sure enough, the game goes national, and archrivals Vaughn and McCarthy want to take away ownership of the Beers team from them. But Bleeth is in love with both men, particularly Parker, and one poor, sick charge in need of a liver transplant goes ga-ga over them. Those are the characters, not strongly developed.<br /><br />Now witless gags ensue. Blood, electroshock hair, egg-throwing and screaming are among them. Parker and Stone nearly kill the youngster in the hospital, but he pulls through the liver transplant. Borgnine sings and rubs ointment on his chest in the videotaped will. McCarthy, who seemed to get over Borgnine's death by choking on a frank right away, quickly massages Vaughn in the next scene. Cheerleaders dance in skimpy outfits. There is plenty of music on the soundtrack that is played for the hard of hearing. And David Zucker forces the parodies of "Riverdance" and "Titanic." Parody forcing is nothing new to ZAZ, post "Airplane!" and "The Naked Gun" series.<br /><br />And like Siskel, I was sober as well, but I was also getting sleepy. This movie should be played over and over to coarse-mannered barroom patrons who enjoy it as they chug down beers, but will they remain alert and awake, or pass out during the unfunny parts? If they pass out, then they won't realize that they are luckily missing stupidity and absurdity. Hats off to them!
Eddie Murphy's "Delirious" is completely and totally rude, crude, crass and lude. This is indeed the only way to describe this appalling, trashy piece of stand-up. Eddie Murphy goes for shock value rather than laughs to try and win his following over. He does manage to be funny occasionally, but mostly loses the plot with obscene language and distasteful sex jokes.<br /><br />Forget it! Unless you happen to enjoy Eddie's foul style. I don't think I will bother with "Eddie Murphy Raw". I much prefer Eddie in the confines of a movie script.<br /><br />Saturday, January 17, 1998 - Video
Two years before he wrote and directed "Arthur", Steve Gordon had a minor hit with his screenplay for this crackpot comedic vehicle for Henry Winkler, then TV's "The Fonz". A 1950s college thespian (and all-around jerk) woos a co-ed and gets married without any employment prospects on the horizon; to make ends meet, he turns to the flamboyant world of wrestling, eventually becoming a "Gorgeous George"-like celebrity. Turning likable Winkler into an obnoxious goof-off probably sounded like an interesting idea at the time (and a sure way to separate him from his television alter-ego), but the jokes and situations are often wrong-headed and mean, staged rather sloppily by director Carl Reiner. Particularly crude is a wincing bit involving Hervé Villechaize (of "Fantasy Island") putting the moves on Polly Holliday (Flo from "Alice"). As Henry's beloved, Kim Darby looks a little out of her element--particularly when surrounded by all these TV hams--rendering the romance aspect of the script inconsequential. *1/2 from ****
This film is awful. Not offensive but extremely predictable. The movie follows the life of a small town family in the mid-60's. The father, the principal at the school, is going through a mid-life crisis. Enter a pretty teacher from the big city who starts challenging her students' minds with some thought-provoking stuff, like think for yourself. The principal doesn't agree with her teaching but she is pretty. You can connect the dots. His teenage daughter (Winona Ryder wannabe Tara Frederick) is fed up with the small town lifestyle and wants to live. She gets some bad advice, hangs out with some bad boys and apparently family planning wasn't being taught at her school. Shocking! Seeing that director Paul Shapiro has mainly worked in TV, this movie plays like a more adult version of an after-school special or a very special episode of one of the more mundane sitcoms.
This movie was extremely depressing. <br /><br />The characters were so cold. The mother, who is he main character, is everything but "motherly". OK, she was unhappy in her marriage and always put her husband and children first. Her husband dies. She then goes to visit her son and meets this hunk who is sleeping with her daughter and ends up sleeping with him. Until this part, the movie is all right. Not excellent, but it can be watched. The guy is charming and who can blame her? OK it's not very motherly to sleep with your daughter's lover but let's blame that on the shock of losing her husband. <br /><br />She becomes totally obsessed with the guy. I think this is the part where I started to dislike the movie. She's always there wanting to please him in an "old fashioned way" with snacks while he is working on her son's house (I guess this is the only thing she ever learned to do), as if it was the only way she could get his attention. The guy obviously is not very interested (actually, it seems more like he considered sleeping with her a charitable activity) and instead of being insulted by that, she continues to beg him to go to go to bed with her and to be nice to her when he becomes very abusive. "I want to please you", she tells him in a desperate way while he is insulting her very badly. <br /><br />What outraged me in this movie, is the utter lack of self-respect the mother has for herself. She tells Craig something like "I am just a shapeless lump" the first time they sleep together. <br /><br />This movie is an insult to women kind. If it had been me, I would have bought myself a little object that would have brought me the same satisfaction and a lot less emotional pain... :)
Although there are some snippets in this 4-part documentary hinting at the necessity for recreational drug law reform, these are not very well-developed, in contrast to the many snippets from those who feel that the drugs that happen to currently be illegal are a scourge for which the only imaginable solution is incarceration of even those who are guilty even of mere possession of such drugs.<br /><br />Although this program, as a whole, leaves the viewer with the impression that the drug war is largely a futile exercise and a waste of money, and for that it deserves some praise, almost nothing in this documentary addresses the very real problems that total war against those who merely possess illegal drugs obviously causes and contributes to--very real problems that most drug warriors themselves would tell you, if asked, they think the drug war is designed to solve. For example, while many minutes are spent on the surge in violence associated with the rising popularity of crack cocaine in the 80's, at no point does this program even hint that the very laws designed to suppress crack cocaine make it impossible for drug sellers to enforce their contracts and business arrangements in courts of law, forcing them to resort to violence to stay in business. But instead of seeing the laws as an important cause of the violence, the drugs themselves seem to take the brunt of the blame. Inexplicably, alcohol prohibition, the violence that ensued, and the subsequent reversal of prohibition, is totally ignored by this program.<br /><br />This program will help to perpetuate ridiculous stereotypes of drug users, and it is these that are the primary force in driving the very expensive and very problematic drug war. The possibility of incorporating drugs other than alcohol into a happy and successful life is not really touched on. Use of any drug in excess is probably going to cause personal problems, but not all users do their drugs in excess, just like not all alcohol users are alcoholics.<br /><br />If you want a point of view from someone who believes that adults have a moral right not to be incarcerated and have their lives ruined by the criminal justice system just for using drugs that the government, for mostly very arbitrary political reasons rather than reasons based on sound social policy and legitimate science, has decided to totally prohibit, whose users it has decided to not-so-metaphorically wage war against, just forget about it. None of that is in here.<br /><br />On the other hand, this is hardly in the category of anti-drug propaganda. It is mostly an interesting neutrally-presented history of drugs in 20th century United States like marijuana, LSD, heroin, cocaine, MDMA, and Oxycontin. But there is a significant element of various people's points of view with regard to drug laws, and most (but not all) of that is not very thoughtful or well-informed and slanted in favor of the drug warrior mentality, especially with respect to drugs other than marijuana. <br /><br />The criminal justice system, along with its often harsh life-ruining penalties, is obviously not the only answer or the most appropriate answer to every single social problem, but unfortunately there's an epidemic in this nation of an as-yet unnamed disease whose primary symptoms are a lack of imagination with respect to social policy when it comes to certain drugs, a lack of compassion for fellow humans, a prejudice against people who use the drugs that are not governmentally-approved, perhaps a vested interest in the growth of the prison/policing industry, and a horrid apathy with regard to human dignity. It's morally wrong to kidnap or incarcerate people unless you have a very damn good reason for doing so, and the mere possession of an arbitrarily selected group of drugs is clearly not such a reason. This is really the primary issue when it comes to drugs, yet this program ignores it.<br /><br />So, in sum, the parts of this program that neutrally present history without feeding stereotypes of drug users that are at the heart of the drug war mentality are pretty good and interesting and entertaining. But when it comes to presenting a rational non-radical point of view with regard to drug policy, and giving the viewer examples not only of people with drug problems but also the many people who successfully incorporate drugs into happy and successful lives, it's pretty disappointing.
THE FBI STORY (1959) was Warner Bros. 149 minute epic tribute to the famous criminal investigation agency! From a book by Don Whitehead came a somewhat laborious screenplay by Richard L. Green and John Twist and was directed with only a modicum of flair by Mervyn LeRoy. However it did have splendid colour Cinematography by Joseph Biroc and a helpful score by the studio's musical magician Max Steiner!<br /><br />The movie charts the history of the Bureau from its lowly beginnings in the twenties to modern times and its all seen through the recollections of aging fastidious agent Chip Hardesty (James Stewart) as he relates his investigative experiences - in flashback - to a class of budding young agents. But it's all very long-winded and episodic! And as it progresses it begins to look like a TV mini series instead of a major movie production as the young Hardesty runs the American crime gamut from taking on such notorious criminal figures as "Baby Face" Nelson, Ma Barker, Dillinger etc. to sorting out nefarious organisations like the Ku Klux Klan, Nazi spy rings and the Red Menace. And here it has to be said that only for the screen presence and appeal of its star THE FBI STORY would probably have ended up a forgotten disaster. Moreover, this is another problem with the picture - Stewart is left to carry the entire movie almost on his own! With the exception of Vera Miles - who has the thankless role of being his long suffering but devoted wife - he is surrounded by a cast of minor players! Throughout you find yourself half expecting someone like Robert Ryan, Jack Palance or even Raymond Burr to make a welcome entrance as a mobster or a police chief or whatever. But nothing quite as imaginative as that ever occurs! Pity!<br /><br />The film does however manage to give a good look inside the workings of the Bureau! With the help of Stewart's narration we learn about the thousands of men and women who work for the organisation which includes the hundreds of agents in the field. And we are also treated to a peek inside headquarters which houses the gigantic records section and we also get a glimpse of the chemists and fingerprint experts meticulously going through their daily chores.<br /><br />Another plus for the movie is Max Steiner's remarkable score! Heard over the titles is a powerful, rousing and determined march while for the picture's gentler moments there is an attractive love theme. But quite ingenious is the menacing and ominous march theme for the Ku Klux Klan sequence. And better still is the rhythmic Latin-American music the composer wrote for the South American scenes especially the exciting Fandango like orchestrations for the arrival of the Federal troops on horseback. THE FBI STORY was one of five scores the composer wrote in 1959 which included Samuel Bronston's naval epic "John Paul Jones", the charming Rom-com "Cash McCall", Delmer Daves' seminal western "The Hanging Tree" and Daves' "A Summer Place" from which derived the Young Love Theme - which was to become a major hit tune for Steiner better known as "Theme From A Summer Place".<br /><br />THE FBI STORY just about passes muster as a movie thanks to Biroc's rich colour Cinematography, Steiner's wonderful music and of course Jimmie Stewart who makes anything watchable!<br /><br />Classic but implausible line from THE FBI STORY............. As the bland Nick Adams (who has just blown up a plane with 43 people on board, including his mother) is being led away handcuffed he turns to the arresting officer and blurts: "In case I get any mail you can send it to Canyon City prison for the next month or so - after that you can send it to HELL". Wow!
Pedantic, overlong fabrication which attempts to chronicle the birth of the Federal Bureau of Investigations. Begins quite promisingly, with a still-relevant probe into an airplane explosion, however the melodrama involving James Stewart and wife Vera Miles just gets in the way (Miles had a habit of playing tepid wives under duress, and her frayed nerves arrive here right on schedule). Esteemed director Mervyn LeRoy helmed this adaptation of Don Whitehead's book, but despite the talent involved, the picture fails to make much of an impression. Best performance is turned in by Murray Hamilton as Stewart's partner, however most of the dialogue is ludicrous and the dogged pacing causes the movie to seem twice as long as it is. *1/2 from ****
This film is to the F.B.I.'s history as Knott's Berry Farm is to the old west. Shamelessly sanitized version of the Federal Bureau of Investigation fight against crime. Hoover's heavy hand (did he have any other kind?) shows throughout with teevee quality script-reading actors, cheesy sets, cheap sound effects and lighting 101. With Jimmy Stewart at 20% of dramatic capacity, Vera Miles chewing the scenery, the film features every c-lister known in the mid-fifties with nary a hint of irony or humor, from the 'Amazon jungle' to the 'back yard barbecue', everything reeks of sound stages and back lots. Even the gunshots are canned and familiar. I imagine Mervyn Leroy got drunk every night. Except for a few (very few) interesting exterior establishing shots, nothing here of note beyond a curio.
This movie certainly proves, that also the good Americans can do terribly good propaganda. No questions being asked, no comments being made on power abuse or police terror, when James Stewart, solid and convincing as always, solves all the stories from Dillinger to 5th Column more or less singlehandedly. June Allyson as his regular love interest holds up the family values and E.J. Hoover is executive producer.And children or non guilty bystanders are never harmed, when the professionals execute. Not to speak of civil rights, which are never broken or homes, which are never intruded. And if the FBI service would not be enough, Steward also gives his son's life for the country in WW II. Perfectly made, if you wouldn't know better....
Not much to say beyond the summary, save that this is an example of J. Edgar's Hoover's constant attention to maintaining a good "PR" profile. They don't make movies this bad very often, especially with the likes of Jimmy Stewart and Vera Miles in the blend. Too bad. <br /><br />
Recap: Doctor Markov has developed a new theory how to produce energy, knowledge that might unbalance the world. He keeps his knowledge coded and secret and desperately wants out of the Soviet Union. KGB on the other side desperately wants the new technology. So, they sets a scheme in motion. During a rescue attempt to free Markov, KGB steps in, takes Markov to a secret location and lures him to reveal his secret by saying they are in Sweden, and working for the UN. As a backup, KGB kidnaps Markov's estranged daughter. CIA now send their best agents, a team of (Swedish?) Ninjas to thwart KGB and rescue Markov and his daughter.<br /><br />Comments: A cult movie that despite not being very good needs seeing. The movie is quite ambitious but lacking in many areas. First off is that it is very dark, probably to conceal locations and bad effects, that some scenes are hard to comprehend. You can't see what is happening. The second thing that it is lacking is martial arts, despite being a ninja-movie. Sure there are some, of quite poor quality, but mostly the ninjas fires automatic guns or sets of explosions. The automatic guns pose a problem too as they seem to have a endless supply of ammunition. And the ninjas seem almost immune to bullets while Soviet guards die like flies.<br /><br />What does it have that speaks for it then? The idea and ambition foremost. Some actually, and especially for a Swedish movie, decent action-scenes albeit not of martial arts. Some nice slow-motion scenes and pretty much blood and gore. And some very interesting new weapons technology that makes the victims heart or brain explode. Mostly all parts that you look for in a B-movie.<br /><br />Because it definitely is a B-movie, no mistake could be made there. But if you expect it, and watch it like a B-movie, it is entertaining. But don't forget, it is not only a B-movie it is set in the eighties. Some girls, for example, besides wearing... lets say "interesting" clothes, have lethal doses of eye shadow and makeup.<br /><br />In all, see for the cult status and the ambition. Enjoy it, and then forget it.<br /><br />4/10
Even 20+ years later, Ninja Mission stands out as the worst movie I ever managed to sit through. Scandanavian ninjas silently enter a scene, fire their obnoxiously noisy sub-machine guns with wild abandon, and then silently leave. Wow, how will we find those silent invisible assassins? Just follow the shell casings and smoke!Painfully bad dialog (or was it brilliant and just poorly translated?), not an Asian in sight in the cast, and a whopping total of 3 Asians among the stunt crew. The plot is ridiculous, the acting pretty much non-existent - then again, ninja can't act! Save yourselves - avoid watching at all costs!
You've been fouled and beaten up in submission by my harsh statements about "femme fatale" / "guns n' gals" movies! Now comes another breed in disappointing rediscoveries: ninja movies! Many of these I've seen before, and let me tell you, they aren't all that's cracked up to be! They usually don't stick to the point. This, among all others, suffers from no originality! What's a ninja got to do with preventing a nuclear holocaust in Russia? And isn't this supposed to be a "martial arts" movie, too? Does plenty of gunfire sound like an incredible action movie to you? Is blood the number one reason to love this to death? Will you waste some of your hard-earned cash over a lady singing in her see-through tank top? The answers to these important questions are found in THE NINJA MISSION, which should be in the martial arts section of your video store. For even more nonsense ninja fun, try checking out those Godfrey Ho movies put out by Trans World. You get what you deserve, and that's a promise! Recommended only for hardcore ninja addicts!
Having low expectations going in, the opening new footage (clocked at over five minutes) of 'Husbands' came as a pleasant surprise. I won't say the new footage was grade A material, but it provided a very solid foundation for what "could have been" a good all-original film.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this was put together in 1955, during a time of one day shooting schedules. After the new footage, Jules White decided to just thumbtack stock footage from 'Brideless Groom' into this short, making for a not-so-smooth story transition, which Jules and Felix Adler try to remedy with a quickie bit of new footage at the end, giving us the old, worn-out ending of the boys (Moe & Larry in this case) getting shot in the butt.<br /><br />3/10
Scary, but mostly in the sense that will it be over before I turn 70. I saw this as a late night re-run in about 1976 and thought it would never end. Like crackers, it's better than nothing (but just).<br /><br />Ray Milland is a little scary because he looks as if he's been stuffed by a taxidermist. Yvette Mimeux looks as if she's smoked up all the Beautiful Downtown Burbank Brown. <br /><br />It's a sort of Roy Rogers version of Rosemary's Baby. This is one turkey that should never have been made. If you have insomnia and it's 1:30 on Saturday morning and there's nothing on but replays of the 1972 Roller Derby Chamionship, then I guess it beats that. But God help you if this is your only choice for entertainment.
Please note that I haven't seen the film since I discovered it in 2007, and my town is smaller and doesn't carry it. However, I really want to say something about it. I'm actually doing research for university on the title character Richard Maurice Bucke and would like to point out that the person they based the main character on was in reality completely different!!! Hollywood's ideas of people and artistic license granted, the real Dr. Bucke totally endorsed hysterectomies to cure insanity in women, and would never have practiced anything as liberal as represented in the film. I think it's laughable to see various film critics who write for legitimate newspapers who say this film has some historical basis! The only actual fact I can see is the friendship between Dr. Bucke and Walt Whitman. Please don't waste your time on a film with such a disregard to the horror that real women experienced at the hands of this doctor who has now been glorified by the film industry.
This was a complete disappointment. The acting isn't bad, but the production was just so bad that at times I felt I needed to stop it, but I sadly made it through and was able to finish it a bit embarrassed by the whole poor movie. It is o.k. if you are o.k. with cheesy moral plots and don't mind watching a movie that vastly misconstrues Whitman. If you want a cheesy fictional story go for it.
I tried twice to get through this film, succeeding the first time - and it was like pulling teeth - and failing the second time despite a great DVD transfer. The problem? It's simply too boring.<br /><br />If you can get to the dramatic courtroom scene, which takes up most of the second half of the film, you have it made, but it's tough getting to that point. There are some interesting talks by "Abraham Lincoln" (Henry Fonda) during the trial. The ending is touching as Lincoln walks off and they superimpose his Memoral statue over the screen.<br /><br />It's a nice story, well-acted and such....but it lacks spark in the first half and discourages the viewer from hanging in there. I suspect the real Abe Lincoln was a lot more interesting than this film.
Every movie from the thirties is dated, but if you were to watch only John Ford movies it would seem more dated than if you watched others. i.e. Grand Hotel is comparatively modern melodrama. With Ford, there's always the hard-sell of someone's nobility (Abe, The Joads). Always the over-emphasis of some heavy's badness. Always the poorly crafted, awkward and obvious scripts. This is no exception. It's just a rather belabored device to deliver sentiment. And sentiment is all this has going for it.<br /><br />What Ford does here doesn't make me appreciative of Lincoln, it just makes me wonder how the States were ever settled by the population of complete morons depicted here. Ford went on to make decent movies. This is too dated to be anything but bad. It feels entirely false. <br /><br />Henry Fonda with a fake nose is bizarre. And no one from Illinois would pronounce the trailing 'S,' or say "Shonuff!"
I haven't read a biography of Lincoln, so maybe this was an accurate portrayal......<br /><br />And maybe it's because I'm used to the equally alienating and unrealistic worshiping portrayals that unnaturally deify Lincoln as brilliant, honorable, and the savior of our country......<br /><br />But why would they make a movie representing Lincoln as a buffoon? While Henry Fonda made an excellent Lincoln, his portrayal of him as an "aw shucks, I'm just a simple guy" seemed a little insulting.<br /><br />[Granted, that was Bushie Jr.'s whole campaign, to make us think he was "just a regular guy" so we wouldn't care that he's a rich & privileged moron -- but that's a whole other story.]<br /><br />Not only did the film show Lincoln as sort of a simple (almost simple-minded) kind of guy , the film states that Lincoln just sort of got into law by accident, and that he wasn't even that interested in the law - only with the falsely simplistic idea of the law being about rights & wrongs. In the film he's not a very good defense attorney (he lounges around with his feet on the table and makes fun of the witnesses), and the outcome is mostly determined by chance/luck.<br /><br />Furthermore, partly because this was financed by Republicans (in reaction to some play sponsored by Democrats that had come out) and partly because it was just the sentiment of the times, the film is unfortunately religious, racist and conservative.<br /><br />Don't waste your time on this film!
As a Dane I'm proud of the handful of good Danish movies that have been produced in recent years. It's a terrible shame, however, that this surge in quality has led the majority of Danish movie critics to lose their sense of criticism. In fact, it has become so bad that I no longer trust any reviews of Danish movies, and as a result I have stopped watching them in theaters.<br /><br />I know it's wrong to hold this unfortunate development against any one movie, so let me stress that "Villa Paranoia" would be a terrible film under any circumstances. The fact that it was hyped by the critics just added fuel to my bonfire of disillusionment with Danish film. Furthermore, waiting until it came out on DVD was very little help against the unshakable feeling of having wasted time and money. <br /><br />Erik Clausen is an accomplished director with a knack for social realism in Copenhagen settings. I particularly enjoyed "De Frigjorte" (1993). As an actor he is usually funny, though he generally plays the same role in all of his movies, namely that of a working-class slob who's down on his luck, partly because he's a slob but mostly because of society, and who redeems himself by doing something good for his community. <br /><br />This is problem number one in "Villa Paranoia"; Clausen casts himself as a chicken farmer, which is such a break from the norm that he never succeeds in making it credible. <br /><br />It is much worse, however, that the film has to make twists and turns and break all rules of how to tell a story to make the audience understand what is going on. For instance, the movie opens with a very sad attempt at visualizing the near-death experience of the main character with the use of low-budget effects and bad camera work. After that, the character tells her best friend that she suddenly felt the urge to throw herself off a bridge. This is symptomatic of the whole movie; there is little or no motivation for the actions of the characters, and Clausen resorts to the lowest form of communicating whatever motivation there is: Telling instead of showing. Thus, at one point, you have a character talking out loud to a purportedly catatonic person about the way he feels, because the script wouldn't allow him to act out his feelings; and later on, voice-over is abruptly introduced, quite possibly as an afterthought, to convey feelings that would otherwise remain unknown to the audience due to the director's ineptitude. Fortunately, at this point you're roughly an hour past caring about any of the characters, let alone the so-called story.<br /><br />The acting, which has frequently been a problem in Clausen's movies, can be summed up in one sad statement: Søren Westerberg Bentsen, whose only other claim to stardom was as a contestant on Big Brother, is no worse than several of the heralded actors in the cast.<br /><br />I give this a 2-out-of-10 rating.
I have seen romantic comedies and this is one of the easiest/worst attempts at one. A lot of the scenes work in a plug-and-play manner inserted strictly to conform to the romantic-comedy genre. Usually this is okay because we're dealing with a genre, but the challenge generally resides in making it original, new and inventive. This movie fails to do so.<br /><br />There is no sense of who the characters really are, apart from Sylvie Moreau's (who is the real star of this movie, not Isabelle Blais). They fit into this one-dimensional cliché and they become nothing more than simple puppets serving the purpose of a very light narrative.<br /><br />The pacing of the movie can become annoying, rhythm lacks, and the editing is filled with unnecessary close-ups. I should also mention the overly stylized decors making some scenes devoid of any naturally, or rather, making the attempt at naturally seem too obvious. Of course, along with that, you have the right-on-cue sappy music which unfortunately often sounds mismatched.<br /><br />I can't believe that a movie who makes obvious Woody Allen allusions ends up being this deceptive. If you expect a good light-hearted romantic comedy, this is not it. Or rather, this a poor attempt at it. You will only leave the theater wondering why this film has been getting such praise when cinema is now more than 100 years old and there are far superior Quebecois directors making better flicks.<br /><br />Les Aimants is a good movie for what it is. But it's a bad one if you regard cinema as an art and directors as auteur's.
The point of the vastly extended preparatory phase of this Star is Born story seems to be to make ultimate success all the more sublime. Summer Phoenix is very effective as an inarticulate young woman imprisoned within herself but never convincing as the stage actress of growing fame who both overcomes and profits from this detachment. Even in the lengthy scenes of Esther's acting lessons, we never see her carry out the teacher's instructions. After suffering through Esther's (largely self-inflicted) pain in excruciating detail, we are given no persuasive sense of her triumph.<br /><br />The obsessive presence of the heroine's pain seems to be meant as a guarantee of aesthetic transcendence. Yet the causes of this pain (poverty, quasi-autism, Judaism, sexual betrayal) never come together in a coherent whole. A 163-minute film with a simple plot should be able to knit up its loose ends. Esther Kahn is still not ready to go before an audience.
A shame that even a talented director, Desplechin, could not muster a decent performance out of a bleakly-talented actress, Phoenix, Esther Kahn lacks the substance to convey a very concise and clear plot. In an attempt to fulfill the concentric circle of an actor's plight, the performance and presentation is too contrived and poorly executed to draw any compassion from the viewer. In an overly long running time, the redundancy of Esther's struggle is too melodramatic to be effective and reduces the storyline into a frail frame of a disastrous display. The content is incoherent and gratuitous as Phoenix struggles to carry out Desplechin's instruction, just as Esther is supposedly trying to do the same. Never feeling a convincing victory over Esther's pain, we never feel a victory in Phoenix's talent.
Overlong drama that isn't capable of making any real point. So she became an actress - so what? She learned to love - big deal. There is a certain eccentricity among the characters and in the dialog and situations, but the kind which is bad for the movie, causing it to often seem absurd.<br /><br />Summer Phoenix, playing the lead, talks and behaves like a semi-retarded person, so there is no choice but to watch the movie as about a retarded girl that makes it in the world of theater - which was clearly not the intended point. We are told early on (in that "Barry Lyndon"-like narration) that she learned to hide her emotions, which certainly explains her autistic stone-face, but the movie suffers for it. She basically walks around like a zombie, and her success as an actress isn't quite credible given her lack of emotions. Occasionally, the movie had that dull, sleepy feel of a Dogma 95 movie. Is it one? I wouldn't be at all surprised.<br /><br />Summer Phoenix is sister of Joaquim Phoenix and the late River Phoenix. Nepotism rarely works.<br /><br />If you'd like to see my Hollywood Nepotism List, with over 350 pictures/entries, contact me by e-mail.
I've seen this film because I had do (my job includes seeing movies of all kinds). I couldn't stop thinking "who gave money to make such an awful film and also submit it to Cannes Festival!" It wasn't only boring, the actors were awful as well. It was one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
This movie was one of the worst I've ever seen. Pure drivel. How anyone could develop a connection with the heroine, or have empathy for her, is beyond me. I felt I was watching a case history of a schizoid individual with borderline personality disorder. Just terrible.<br /><br />In its most generous light, this can be seen as an attempt at producing and "art" film - except I could not, for the life of me, find any art in it at all.<br /><br />If this woman had lived in todays' world, she would have been whisked off to a mental institution and given a couple of days treatment with anti-psychotic medications. That, or simply allowed to roam the streets and become a bag woman. Why other characters in this movie found anything redeeming in her - and tried to aid her in her quest to become an actress - speaks more to their pathology than any convincing characteristics she had that made her worth that effort.
Boring and appallingly acted(Summer Pheonix). She sounded more Asian than Jewish. Some of the scenes and costumes looked more mid 20th century than late 19th century. What on earth fine actors like Ian Holm & Anton Lesser were doing in this is beyond me.
I rented this thinking it might be interesting, and it might have been an interesting story except that is was told in such an uninteresting manner. Hard to follow, strange editing, disjointed storyline, the characters mumble, all in all a dreadfully dull waste of time. I just couldn't get into it and didn't care what happened to the characters - not even Ian Holm could save this film. Unless you need a cure for insomnia, I'd skip it. 3/10, and that's being generous.
I went to school with Jeremy Earl, that is how I heard of this movie, I don't really know if it was in the theater's at all. I don't recall the name. I have seen it, it is like one of those after school specials. The acting is OK, not great. The plot was kind of weak and the lines were pretty corny. So the only comment I can give this movie is "Eh" I borrowed the movie from Jeremy, if I was in a movie rental place, this is one that I would walk past and after watching it I wouldn't recommend it to anyone past middle school age. I've also noticed that many times when urban kids are portrayed, the slang is overused or just outdated. Many times I think thats what makes their characters unbelievable.
The opening shot was the best thing about this movie, because it gave you hope that you would be seeing a passionate, well-crafted independent film. Damn that opening shot for filling me hope. As the "film" progressed in a slow, plodding manner, my thoughts were varied in relation to this "film": Was there too much butter in my popcorn? Did the actors have to PAY the director to be in this "film"? Did I get my ticket validated at the Box Office? Yes, dear reader. I saw this film in the Theatre! This would be the only exception I will make about seeing a film at home over a Movie Theatre, because at home you can TURN IT OFF. Were there any redeeming values? Peter Lemongelli as the standard college "nerd" had his moments, especially in a dog collar. Other than that this "film" went from trying to be a comedy, to a family drama to a spiritual uplifter. It succeeded on none of these fronts. Oh, and the girlfriend was realllllllllly bad. Her performance was the only comedy I found.
I didn't know it was possible to release a movie this bad. The labeling sounded so promising, but you would think that with a cast of 20, at least one of them would be able to act. My wife left me and went to bed after the first 20 minutes. She made a wise decision.
The acting is some of the worst I've ever seen, the characters are totally unconvincing. This could be overlooked to some extent if the plot was interesting, which the plot to "The Prodigy" was not. It's sort of a bad mix between "Fresh" and "Animal House", except that both of those movies were good.
Within the first few minutes of this Dutch thriller, we learn that Krabbe is a gay alcoholic writer who sleeps sans underwear, fantasizes about murdering his roommate, tries to steal a magazine from a news stand, and lusts after a studly young man he meets at the train station. And he's the hero of this nonsensical movie that is all dressed up (except for Krabbe in at least one scene too many) but has nowhere to go. The basic plot is very simple but is dragged out to nearly two hours before reaching a pointless conclusion. Verhoeven has a nice visual flair but resorts to scenes of wild hallucinations, overt symbolism, and gratuitous gore when he runs out of ideas.
I saw this movie in my international cinema class and was grossed out from get go. This movie is nothing but one scene of blatant shock value after the next.<br /><br />The 4th Man is about an alcoholic writer named Reve, who has visions of his in-pending danger. He meets up with a woman named Christine when giving a lecture at a local book club, and only decides to stay with her when he discovers how attractive her boyfriend is. To put it plainer, Reve likes the Dutch sausage. So Reve concocts a plan to seduce Christine's boyfriend so he can ultimately have sex with him. But its later discovered that Christine has had 3 previous husbands, who she all murdered. Now Reve and Christine's boyfriend could be "THE 4TH MAN." The storyline makes sense with no plot holes. The editing and everything else that is technical about this movie is perfectly fine. The movie is just gross and I felt the need to vomit in some parts. Basically, this isn't my cup of tea.<br /><br />The movie opens with Reve getting out of bed in JUST a t-shirt. So in the very beginning, you get to see Reve's lovely pecker flopping around as he walks around his cramped apartment in a hangover state. Later on he has a dream where his pecker gets cut off by a pair of scissors, and they do show it along with the blood fountain that ensues. Reve fondles a statue of Jesus and has homosexual sex in a mausoleum. Plus there's a lot of blood. More blood than all the Freddy Krueger movies combined.<br /><br />Not that I have anything against "shocking" scenes, but this movie is just so blatant when it comes to shocking. The whole movie is revolved around the shock value.<br /><br />So if any of this is your cup of tea, watch this movie. Otherwise, stay far far far far far away from this one. My mind is still scarred.
Even if this film was allegedly a joke in response to critics it's still an awful film. If one is going to commit to that sort of thing at least make it a good joke.....first off, Jeroen Krabbé is i guess the poor man's Gerard Depardieu.....naturally i hate Gerard Depardieu even though he was very funny in the 'Iron Mask' three musketeer one. Otherwise to me he is box office poison and Jeroen Krabbé is worse than that. The poor man's box office poison....really that is not being fair to the economically disenfranchised. If the '4th Man' is supposed to be some sort of critique of the Bourgeoisie....what am i saying? it isn't. Let's just say hypothetically, if it was supposed to be, it wasn't sharp enough. Satire is a tricky thing....if it isn't sharp enough the viewer becomes the butt of the joke instead......i think that is what happened. The story just ends up as a bunch of miserable disgusting characters doing nothing that anyone would care about and not in an interesting way either.....(for a more interesting and worthwhile application see any Luis Bunuel film....very sharp satire)<br /><br />[potential spoiler alert]<br /><br />Really, the blow job in the cemetery that Jeroen Krabbé's character works so so hard to attain.... do you even care? is it funny? since Mr. Voerhoven is supposed to be a good film maker i will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was some misanthropic joke that got out of control.....though i'm guessing he didn't cast Jeroen Krabbé because he's the worst actor and every character he's played has been a pretentious bourgeois ass.... except he's incompetent at it. So it becomes like a weird caricature. Do you think Mr. Voerhoven did that on purpose? and Jeroen Krabbé is the butt of the joke as well? I just don't see it...... So you understand the dilemma i'm faced with here right? It is the worst film ever because he's supposed to be a good director. So there is some kind of dupery involved. I knew 'Patch Adams' was horrible without even seeing it. Do not be duped by 'The 4th Man"s deceptively alluring packaging or mr. Voerhoven's reputation as a good director etc. etc.
I was really horrified by this eerie movie. What an unusual dark atmosphere. And such a creepy musical score. Really promising! Indeed, after ten minutes you really start sweating, and feeling uncomfortable, for you start fearing the worst. This movie has the atmosphere of a true nightmare, and what's worse-it all comes out. For one hour and a half I have been trying to fight complete boredom and falling asleep, but the monstrous soundtrack kept me awake. Nuit Noire is a truly horrifying picture - for your eyes, your ears, your intelligence, and most of all: your wallet, since the thought of spending precious money on a movie ticket for this cheap amateuristic homevideo is the biggest horror of all.
I don't know what this movie is about, really. It's like a student's art school project. They never say why the world is dark, but it is always darkness except for seconds a day. There are long, interrupting shots of insects of all sorts for no reason. What little dialogue there is in the movie is as inane and nonsensical as the images. A black woman enters the main character's apartment. Somehow she becomes pregnant overnight, then gets shot in the head. The main character takes care of the body until it becomes a cocoon after which a white naked woman emerges. I have never been so blown away by how bad and pointless a movie can be. Honestly, I would like someone to watch it so they can tell me what they think it's about. But I wouldn't wish this level of hell on anybody else.
This movie appears to have been an on the job training exercise for the Coppola family. It doesn't seem to know whether to be an "A" or a "B" western. I mean, the hero is called Hopalong Cassidy for God's sake. William Boyd must be spinning in his grave.<br /><br />All the "B" western cliches are here. The two-gun pearly toothed hero in the white hat with the trusty steed ("C'mon Thunder"), the all-in-black bearded villain, the heroine in distress, the rancher in trouble, the cowardly sheriff, over the top bad guys etc.<br /><br />The acting, with few exceptions, is strictly from the Yakima Canutt School of Acting. Chris Lybbert (who?) as the hero and Louis Schweibert (who?) as the villain look like they would have been more at home in a 30's Poverty Row quickie. The addition to the cast of veteran performers Martin Sheen, Robert Carradine, Clu Gulager and Will Hutchins helps a little, but they are not given enough to do to salvage this one.<br /><br />What was the point of the Martin Sheen/Robert Carradine framing sequences? Are we to believe that the Sheen character was a ghost? What was the purpose of the black gloves? It just didn't make sense.<br /><br />Being a great lover of westerns from all genres, I tried hard to find some redeeming qualities in this film. The cinematography was quite good and the settings looked very authentic. Aside from the hero and main villain, the other characters looked authentic.<br /><br />If the producers were going to resurrect the Hopalong Cassidy character, they might have given some thought to portraying him as he was originally written - a grizzled foul-mouthed ranch hand with a chip on his shoulder, the kind of part Lee Marvin would have excelled in.<br /><br />What else can I say but..on Thunder, on big fellow.
We saw this on the shelf at the local video store, saw "Coppola" in the credits and got excited. That was the one and only time this movie raised any interest. I could never quite work out if it was an attempt at a humourous film that failed miserably, or an attempt at a serious film that failed miserably. In general, the entire production seemed incredibly amatuerish. The sound in particular was absolutely dreadful, especially in the scenes shot in the little bar; the dialogue was so corny in parts it was unbelievable. Very disappointing.
In this day and age of incredible special movie effects, this one was a sore disappointment. The actors seemed stiff and uninspired, as was the dialogue. Westerns are not common fare for Hollywood so much these days, but movies like "Silverado" prove that somebody out there still knows how to make a good one. Considering that, it is hard to conceive that anyone would go to any expense at all in releasing, much less creating such a weak film as this one. If you love and are looking for a good western, keep looking!
Hopalong Cassidy with a horse who is not white & not named Topper? Go figure!<br /><br />This travesty does a gross injustice to the greatest of all cowboy heroes, Hopalong Cassidy. The actor who plays him is young versus old, blond haired versus white haired and kills people versus shooting the gun out of their hands. Will the real Hopalong please stand up!<br /><br />One of the worst movies ever made &,believe it or not, by the person who brought us the Grandfather saga!
I enjoy watching western films but this movie takes the biscuit. The script and dialogue is laughable. The acting was awful, where did they get them from? Music was OK i have to say. Luckily i didn't buy or rent the movie but its now disposed of.<br /><br />I was geared up at the beginning when the stranger (martin sheen) started to tell his story. I have to admit i did enjoy the confrontation between Hopalong and Tex where Hopalong shot Tex's finger off and told him to practise for 40 years to reach his league. But thats where it all went pear shaped thereafter. I had to watch the whole film in the hope that it would get better, never did.
The closing song by Johnny Rivers was the only great thing about this movie. Unfortunately that is all the positive I can say about this western movie. I have to write 8 more lines for my comments to be posted, but there is more than 8 lines of awful in this western. I am not sure if the movie was a tribute to Hopa Along, or just a spoof. The hero and the villain in this movie were too plastic. Not realistic at all. A lot of the supporting actors in this movie looked authentic, but the shooting scenes were a joke. A previous commentator thought this movie was great, and in the comments took a cheap shot at President Bush. This was not a democratic or republican western. It was just a bad western movie to be sold commercially. I wonder if it made any money. At times I thought I was watching a movie made by college movie students. If that was the case, then it was a great movie.
One hour, eight minutes and twelve seconds into this flick and I decided it was pretty lame. That was right after Hopalong (Chris Lybbert) drops on his horse from a tree to rejoin the good guy posse. I was pretty mystified by the whole Hopalong Cassidy/Great Bar 20 gimmick which didn't translate into anything at all. Obviously, the name Coppola in the credits couldn't do anything to guarantee success here, even with more than one listed.<br /><br />If you make it to the end of the film, you'll probably wind up asking yourself the same questions I did. What exactly was the hook with the gloves? What's up with the rodeo scenario? Who was The Stranger supposed to represent? Why did they make this film? <br /><br />I could probably go on but my energy's been drained. Look, there's already a Western called "The Gunfighter" from 1950 with a guy named Gregory Peck as the title character. Watching it will make you feel as good as watching this one makes you feel bad. That one I can recommend.
This is almost certainly the worst Western I've ever seen. The story follows a formula that is especially common to Westerns and martial arts films -- hero learns that family/friends have been murdered, so hero sets out to exact revenge, foils the ineffective lawman, rescues the kidnapped loving damsel, and murders the expert arch-nemesis in a brutal duel. This formula has often been successful -- otherwise it wouldn't be a formula -- but Gunfighter is the most sophomoric execution of it you'll ever see. The scripting is atrociously simple-minded and insulting; it sounds like a high schooler wrote the dialogue because it lacks depth, maturity, and realism. The sound is bad; it sometimes looks dubbed. The cinematography is lame, and the sets are sometimes just facades. The acting is pitiful; sure, some of the performers could blame the script, but others cannot use that excuse. I hope I never see Chris Lybbert in a speaking role ever again; every time he says a line that should be angry or mean, he does nothing more than lower the timbre of his voice and he just sounds like a kid trying to act macho. And speaking of Chris Lybbert, who plays Hopalong, check out his duds (if you dare to watch this film): He wears these brand new clothes that make him look more like Roy Rogers than a hard-working, down-and-dirty cowboy. If you enjoy inane cinematic fare that serves merely to worship the imagined grandeur of Hopalong Cassidy, then get this, but if you have more than two neurons, watch something else.
A dreary and pointless bit of fluff (bloody fluff, but fluff). Badly scripted, with inane and wooden dialogue. You do not care if the characters (indeed, even if the actors themselves) live or die. Little grace or charm, little action, little point to the whole thing. Perhaps some of the set and setting will interest--those gaps between the boards of all the buildings may be true to the way life was lived. The framework encounter is unnecessary and distracting, and the Hoppalong Cassidy character himself is both boring and inept.
I read the back of the box and it talked about Mary Shelley and Percy Shelley and Lord Byron. I thought, "wonderful! This will be great!" I was so wrong. The story was all screwed up. In fact I still don't get it. It just seems to me that all the characters did was drink, smoke (opium?) and have sex. Not that those aren't good movie qualities, but please! Where was the story? I made myself finish the movie, and yes, it did pick up towards the end, but by then the movie was almost over. Rent it if you really want to. Just don't trust the back of the box.
Don't waste your time on this dreck. As portrayed, the characters have no redeeming values and watching them interact is sheer torture. "Gothic" was entertainment at least, this is crap. If you like watching pretentious and spoiled poets straining to outwit each other, this may be right up your alley. Lord Byron is portrayed as a complete jerk, and why the others would choose to spend more than five minutes with him is truly bewildering. Mary Shelly appears to be the only character with any spine whatsoever, but even she comes out of the whole ordeal without an ounce of respect. What a waste of time. See Gothic instead. I also remember seeing another superior movie based on the same subject matter, but didn't catch the title. I was hoping this was it, but no such luck. Not recommended.
Oh my. How can they make movies of such beauty, but that are so terribly bad. I mean, even Uwe Boll doesn't make crap like this. There is not even a hint of a decent story, multi-layered characters, or attraction. It's just a random sequence of pointless chatter joined together to make a 'movie'. I suppose only children up to 3 years of age could enjoy it, given the world is so utterly dimensionless and the story so incoherent, that anyone older would be annoyed by it. But then again, it's far too scary for anyone under 6 years of age, that there's probably no one that should watch this movie at all.<br /><br />Take my advice and stay far, far away from this movie. Your little daughter can make a better storyline, and though she probably isn't able to draw pictures this pretty, her tales are much more worth listening to. And please, in the name of whoever you believe in, do not expose your children to this piece of ****. I'll give it 2 out of 10, and that's exclusively for the graphics, because the story and character development are so awful they'd deserve a negative rating.<br /><br />And if you decide to watch it anyways... remember that I warned you.
This is one of the worst-written movies I've ever had to sit through.<br /><br />The story's nothing new -- but it's a cartoon, so who cares, as long as it's pretty and fun? <br /><br />I'm not going to go as deep as the characterisations, or I'll be here all day (except to say that there aren't any; the characters change personality whenever it's convenient to the plot), but whoever wrote the script and visual direction should be forbidden access to so much as pencil and paper. Thumbs down? I'd vote to cut their thumbs off.<br /><br />"Narrow in on an object/prop. Cut back to character close-up. Character gives a knowing look, which the audience will not even remotely understand. Repeat that several times, with different objects/props."<br /><br />"Make the characters pay no attention at all the huge lumps of rock are floating around, crashing into each other, generally raining destruction all over, and which could kill them all at any moment -- but make them stop and gasp in fear when they see a harmless-looking, almost pastoral green rock in the distance." <br /><br />The whole thing is a long succession of events, actions, and behaviour that are only there for the convenience of the writer, to save him having to think or make any effort at all to write the story properly.<br /><br />This is the Plan 9 of CG cartoons, except that it doesn't have Ed Wood groan factor to make it fun to watch.<br /><br />Do yourselves a favour: spend your cartoon budget on Pixar movies.
As a young black/latina woman I am always searching for movies that represent the experiences and lives of people like me. Of course when I saw this movie at the video store I thought I would enjoy it; unfortunately, I didn't. Although the topics presented in the film are interesting and relevant, the story was simply not properly developed. The movie just kept dragging on and on and many of the characters that appear on screen just come and go without much to contribute to the overall film. Had the director done a better job interconnecting the scenes, perhaps I would have enjoyed it a bit more. Honestly, I would recommend a film like "Raising Victor" over this one any day. I just was not too impressed.
First off, I must admit that both films I've seen by this director I saw without titles and so may have missed the points. My Czech isn't bad but, having sat through two of his films, I wish I hadn't even tried to learn. Samotari is too cool. Way too cool. It's about ten different story lines that weave in and out together. That's not so deeply unusual in a town the size of Prague (tiny, really.) The main characters are between 20 and 30. They've got jobs and only one studies. The best character is the young Balkan girl. Her sentiments are echoed by immigrants here every damn day. That's about it. The only great character. Everyone else is making their own lives hell quite on their own. How can I sympathise with such obvious incompetence? Perhaps there are interesting bits with Japanese tourists but do I need another stereotype in film? If you like alright music, see this film. If you want to laugh at others' stupidity, see this film. If you like irony and dry humor, see an original Jarmusch not an imitation. And under NO circumstances see Ondricek's film, Septej (Whisper.) That is unless you enjoy homophobic stereotypes.
This bogus journey never comes close to matching the wit and craziness of the excellent adventure these guys took in their first movie. This installment tries to veer away from its prequel to capture some new blood out of the joke, but it takes a wrong turn and journeys nowhere interesting or funny.<br /><br />There's almost a half-hour wasted on showing the guys doing a rock concert (and lots of people watching on "free TV"--since when does that happen?) Surely the script writer could have done something more creative; look at how all the random elements of the first movie were neatly tied up together by a converging them at the science presentation. Not in this film, which pretty much ended the Bill & Ted franchise. The joke was over.<br /><br />The Grim Reaper is tossed into the mix, for whatever reason. This infusion, like the whole plot, is done poorly and lacks sparks for comedy or audience involvement. There's a ZZ Top impression, hammered in for no reason. There's lights, smoke, mirrors, noise. But nothing really creative or funny.<br /><br />Skip this bogus thing.
Since most review's of this film are of screening's seen decade's ago I'd like to add a more recent one, the film open's with stock footage of B-17's bombing Germany, the film cut's to Oskar Werner's Hauptmann (captain) Wust character and his aide running for cover while making their way to Hitler's Fuehrer Bunker, once inside, they are debriefed by bunker staff personnel, the film then cut's to one of many conference scene's with Albin Skoda giving a decent impression of Adolf Hitler rallying his officer's to "Ultimate Victory" while Werner's character is shown as slowly coming to realize the bunker denizen's are caught up in a fantasy world-some non-bunker event's are depicted, most notable being the flooding of the subway system to prevent a Russian advance through them and a minor subplot involving a young member of the Flak unit's and his family's difficulty in surviving-this film suffer's from a number of detail inaccuracies that a German film made only 10 year's after WW2 should not have included; the actor portraying Goebbels (Willy Krause) wear's the same uniform as Hitler, including arm eagle- Goebbels wore a brown Nazi Party uniform with swastika armband-the "SS" soldier's wear German army camouflage, the well documented scene of Hitler awarding the iron cross to boy's of the Hitler Youth is shown as having taken place INSIDE the bunker (it was done outside in the courtyard) and lastly, Hitler's suicide weapon is clearly shown as a Belgian browning model 1922-most account's agree it was a Walther PPK-some bit's of acting also seem wholly inaccurate with the drunken dance scene near the end of the film being notable, this bit is shown as a cabaret skit, with a intoxicated wounded soldier (his arm in a splint) maniacally goose-stepping to music while a nurse does a combination striptease/belly dance, all by candlelight... this is actually embarrassing to watch-the most incredible bit is when Werner's Captain Wust gain's an audience alone with Skoda's Hitler, Hitler is shown as slumped on a wall bench, drugged and delirious, when Werner's character begin's to question him, Hitler start's screaming which bring's in a SS guard who mortally wound's Werner's character in the back with a gunshot-this fabricated scene is not based on any true historic account-Werner's character is then hauled off to die in a anteroom while Hitler prepare's his own ending, Hitler's farewell to his staff is shown but the suicide is off-screen, the final second's of the movie show Hitler's funeral pyre smoke slowly forming into a ghostly image of the face of the dead Oskar Werner/Hauptmann Wust-this film is more allegorical than historical and anyone interested in this period would do better to check out more recent film's such as the 1973 remake "Hitler: the last 10 day's" or the German film "Downfall" (Der Untergang) if they wish a more true accounting of this dramatic story, these last two film's are based on first person eyewitness account's, with "Hitler: the last 10 day's" being compiled from Gerhard Boldt's autobiography as a staff officer in the Fuehrer Bunker and "Downfall" being done from Hitler's secretary's recollection's, the screen play for "Der Letzte Akte" is taken from American Nuremberg war crime's trial judge Michael Musmanno's book "Ten day's to die", which is more a compilation of event's (many obviously fanciful) than eyewitness history-it is surprising that Hugh Trevor Roper's account,"The last day's of Hitler" was never made into a film.
I was shocked by the ridiculously unbelievable plot of Tigerland. It was a liberal's fantasy of how the military should be. The dialogue was difficult to swallow along with the silly things Colin Farrell's character was allowed to get away with by his superior officers.<br /><br />I kept thinking, "Hey, there's a reason why boot camp is tough. It's supposed to condition soldiers for battle and turn them into one cohesive unit. There's no room for cocky attitudes and men who won't follow orders." I was rooting for Bozz to get his butt kicked because he was such a danger to his fellow soldiers. I would not want to fight alongside someone like him in war because he was more concerned with people's feelings than with doing what was necessary to protect his unit.<br /><br />--<br /><br />
I got this movie in the $5 bin at walmart. I would not recommend watching this move. I might give it to one of my friends if I am angry at them and want them to suffer for 2 hours.<br /><br />I looked at the cover and skimmed through the summary and thought it was a war movie. I wish I would have known how boring this movie was going to be before turning it on. It was my mistake to think something was going to happen in this movie. It's just about a group of people going from one boot camp to another. The drill sargents treat the soldiers very badly and the main character tries to help people get out of fighting in Vietnam.<br /><br />Okay, here is my rant about this movie: To me, this movie is slow and hard to watch. It was just one of those movies that you put in and are stuck watching because you want to turn it off but your hanging on to a string of hope that it might pick up towards the end. It doesn't. After the movie was over I through it behind my T.V. because I was angry that I wasted almost 2 hours of my life watching it, and another 10 minutes writing this review to warn people about it.
I realise that the US Army was demoralised by 1971, but this film was unbelievable. It was supposed to be a training camp not the SS punishment battalion in a Sven Hassell novel. The writer must be a real Army hater. The psycho sergeant who kept beating the crap of people belonged in a prison cell, and the useless Black top sergeant should have been sacked as well. These men were going overseas, the receiving units would surely have wondered where all the unusable damaged recruits were coming from, and an investigation would have ensued. The scene that blew it completely was the electrocution one. Farrell, the alleged barrack room lawyer, would have had the instructor over a barrel for issuing an illegal order ( to torture POWs in contravention to the Geneva Convention ), actual assault on an enlisted man, sexual assault and conduct unbecoming an officer. Intead he just walks away. After this, discipline brakes down into a madhouse level and the film becomes unwatchable. I don't know how it ended, I went to bed.
While some scenes of training were realistic, too many of them depicted military instructors as ex-Nazi types. Obviously, the people who wrote the screen play were either anti-military types or writing a film for that audience.<br /><br />I am a Viet Nam vet and, even during this period, military instructors who behaved in the manner some of these did would probably still be serving time in military prison.<br /><br />And I really loved the scene where the "hero" and his buddy (both privates) are sitting down in the Captain's office, smoking cigarettes and talking and cussing with the Captain as if he were their buddy. This sort of thing never happened in training or in a formal situation, as was the purpose for the scene.<br /><br />At the end I asked myself, "What was this film about?" as it seemed to wander around all over the place with no focus except "I hate all authority." Thank God I got it from the library and did not pay to rent it.
I watched this a few days ago, so details are getting hazy. The film is shot on hand-held cameras, and a lot was made of this at the time it was released originally, since we hadn't had many studio pictures made in this way. I can't help but feel this was more of a gimmick than anything, designed to make the audience think that what we are seeing on the screen hasn't had all the compromises that come with a big budget, and so was more "real". However what we have here isn't much more than a not-as-good rip off of the first half of Full Metal Jacket, so anyone who has seen that, or any one of the other rip offs there of, will know what to expect.<br /><br />The main problem I had was the stereotyped characters, with the weedy soft kids out of their depth, close harmony singing, Ebonics spouting black dudes, world weary sergeants, bitter and twisted psychos etc etc... all being put into the sorts of situations that would provide the most friction and tension at any given time. Maybe this was intentional to highlight the stupidity and injustice of the situation, maybe it was laziness, or maybe it was just a committee trying to appeal to the biggest audience, all I know is it was annoying. One novel thing was the mixture of volunteers and draftees (where normally all the characters would have been forced into the situation,) although only the scenes between the two main characters really make much play of it. This seems to be the main pivot of the plot, with the volunteers coming to their senses and the draftees gaining a sense of duty and self worth, but its all done in a rather forced and unsubtle way. The other big bug I had was how all the characters (with the exception of the psychos and the real softies) would react to each inevitable conflict with at first aggression and threats of violence, faced with Farrell's ubiquitous stoicism, immediately back down and be all reasonable and diplomatic.<br /><br />I guess if I had to find a plus it would be the acting from the two leads, which was strong and very convincing, tho considering the formulaic nature of the characters, this wasn't too hard.<br /><br />In my imagination, Bozz grew up to be Zeke off Tour of Duty, and for my money, 4 episodes of that would be more fun to watch.
Hard to describe this one -- if you were a fan of Russ Meyer films back in the day, you will surely be pleased to see that Haji is still looking really hot, though Forry Ackerman has not fared so well (what is he doing still making these movies anyway? If I go up to him with a camera will he be in my movie?). It was a pretty fun premise -- a superhero whose giant mammaries are her secret weapon -- but sometimes it did not pan out for the whole length, and the jokes were on a level with your average Joe E. Brown comedy (or, Abbott and Costello if that's your thing) -- basically just bad puns. Still, I found this movie fascinating to watch, and for more than 2 reasons. Good job, but still a fundamentally flimsy production.
Kitten Natividad, of Russ Meyer film fame, plays Chastity Knott, a woman who has found she has breast cancer, so she goes to South America to get some special fruit (Crockazilla?) that is supposed to have healing powers. After going down on some of this fruit (which appears to be plastic bananas on stalks) Chastity is endowed with some mystical magical powers that makes her a super-hero, specifically, The Double D Avenger. Note that she's also wearing a pair of panties as a mask. In writing, that all sounds pretty good. In execution, well, it leaves more than a little to be desired. It seems that Chastity owns a pub and a local strip joint is upset because she's taking away their business so some of the strippers (including Haji, also of Russ Meyer film fame) go after her to ruin her. Of course, Chastity fights back in the guise of the Double D Avenger. Watch her do a "Wonder Woman" type spin to change into her outfit and also lose her balance due to excessive centrifugal force. Bad jokes and lame double entendres fly like there was no tomorrow. With the inane theme song playing over and over this comes off like a twisted 70's "live action" kid's show with adult content, although while this is unrated it could probably get away with PG-13 at the worst. And it's probably a blessing that the faded stars kept well covered. This makes Doris Wishman's Chesty Morgan films look positively wonderful in comparison. Special appearance by Forest J. Ackerman but so what. Very stupid, and I'm never buying another film with Joe Bob Briggs on the cover. 2 out of 10.
Well, I suppose the good news concerning William Winckler's 2001 opus, "The Double-D Avenger," is that it manages to unite three of Russ Meyer's mammarian marvels--Kitten Natividad, Haji and Raven de la Croix--in one picture. (I can only assume that Lorna Maitland, Tura Satana and Babette Bardot were busy the week they shot this thing...or else managed to see a copy of the script in advance!) The bad news, though (and there's plenty of it), is that this film--if it can even be called that, having been shot straight to video--is a complete misfire, a total abortion, an out-and-out atrocity, an absolute abomination, and truly one of the worst pictures that I have ever seen. Look no further for the lamest superhero movie ever made! The plot here, such as it is, deals with Kitten gaining superpowers after fellating the rare cockazilla plant in South America to cure her breast cancer (oy), and later battling a trio of megalunged bikini dancers back in L.A. Too bad that every lame boob joke trotted out falls completely (you should pardon the expression) flat, that there is ZERO actual nudity in the film at all (other than some old photos of Kitten in her heyday), and that some shaving cream and a papier-mache boulder are the sum total of the special FX. The Meyer gals here are a bit long in the tooth/saggy in the chest, to put it kindly, although Sheri Dawn Thomas, as bikini girl Ooga Boobies (!), does manage to, uh, stand out nicely. So why have I given this juvenile, unfunny, failed embarrassment of a movie 2 stars instead of 1? To be succinct: Joe Bob Briggs. His voice-over commentary in the special features of the DVD I just watched is absolutely hilarious, especially when he pulls out around 100 synonyms for the word "breast" from the 1,000+ on his Web site's "Canonical Hooters List." The man is a national treasure, and he manages to upgrade this skeet of a disc to coaster status!
Dreary. Schlocky. Just plain dreadful and awful. Let's be honest, when you sit down to watch something called The Double-D Avenger you aren't expecting great art or even mild mainstream entertainment. You are probably expecting a cult film type and maybe get some good looks at some impressive busts. You don't get really either of these in the video. The story, as it consistent with most of these types, is inane: Kitten Natividad runs a local pub, finds out she has breast cancer, flies down to South America for a fruit that claims to be a panacea for any ills and a super-human abilities giver, returns and fights, dressed as the Double-D Avenger, a group from a local strip club wanting to edge out the competition. As stories go, I have seen a lot worse, but as another reviewer noted the execution is horrendous. The action sequences lack zip, drive, motivation, and are tissue thin. The acting isn't even properly campy and the dialog is the pits. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING is funny from the wincing puns to the heavy-handed boob references. All could be forgiven if the girls could make up for it, but they all fall way short. Kitten, Haji, and Raven de la Croix are all quite older(still lovely in their own ways) yet expose nothing and become the antithesis of what they are trying to be: older, campy caricatures of their former selves. Instead, they look so lame and desperate - more because of the vehicle they are "starring" in rather than their own abilities. There are some other lovely ladies, but you really do not see much of anything. PG -13 definitely could be an appropriate rating for this. The material, the actresses, and director are all tired, tiresome, and dated - and again - NOT FUNNY! It was a brutal hour plus sitting through this, and that is a shame as I was expecting something campy and fun. The guy playing Bubba by the way was the only real laugh for me. Not that he was good at all mind you, but every time he opened his mouth I kept thinking how truly awful he was. The lone bright spot here at all is seeing Mr. Sci-fi himself, Forrest J. Ackerman, play the curator of a wax museum and chatting to his wax Frankenstein affectionately called Frankie. Other than that this is a complete bust - now how is that for another tired, dreadful, trite pun!
this was the most pointless film i have ever seen as there was no plot and the actors did not seem to care. 90% of the film had absolutely no plot whatsoever, i laughed so much my ribs began to ache. the bit where the old men when to capture Robert Duvall was ludicrous. on a directorial level making a noir film does not involve lots of raining sequences and pointless closeups on the main character. this is a failed attempt to create a noir thriller and instead alienates the viewer with incoherent scenes. seeing as this was based on a 'manuscript' by john Grisham i do not count this as one of his book to film adaptations as it displays none of the suspense and engaging storyline as films such as 'the firm' or 'the rainmaker'.
What's up with Robert "Pretentious" Altman? Was he saving on lighting? Everything was so dark in this boring movie that it was laughable. I mean, have you ever seen a lawyer's office where everyone works by candlelight?<br /><br />Don't waste your time. In fact, don't waste your time with anything Altman makes: It's all a pretentious waste of film.
Rarely have I witnessed such a gratuitous waste of talent. There is almost nothing constructive to be said about this hopeless swamp of a film. What few interesting strands the film seems to promise initially turn out to be little more than red herrings. Actors of stature - Robert Duvall, Robert Downey, Jr. - are deployed in roles which go nowhere; a director of occasional genius produces a film which looks like it is filmed through a coffee-stained camera lens; a writer (John Grisham) who has never produced anything of merit, discovers new depths of under-motivated incoherence. The film has a cheap, lecherous feel about it - but barely at the level of commentary - its really part of the aesthetic. Normally, I come on to the IMDb to write balanced, generally appreciative comments. This egregious disaster of a film just makes me want to produce an endless, bilious rant. I won't, but only because I no longer want to occupy my "mind" with this trash.
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. While featuring good actors the movie doesn't live up to the expectations. The most dramatic thing about this movie is the music, which pretty much sums up the movie: compensating for a bad and confusing storyline by having known-good actors, loud and dramatic music. It doesn't change the fact, that this is a very boring movie to watch. Earned itself a score of 1.
In spite of its impressive cast and crew pedigree Gingerbread Man crumbles early and often. The plot is unrealistically convoluted, the actors sport bad accents and director Robert Altman's participation amounts to collecting a pay check. Once again he has assembled an impressive cast (Like Woody Allen, everyone wants to work with Altman)that this time around to the letter is miscast. But that's only part of the problem.<br /><br />Kenneth Branagh is Rick Magruder a high powered Georgia lawyer who in the film's heavy handed opening scenes manages to get himself preposterously seduced by a mysterious catering company waitress who convinces him she is in grave danger from an ex-husband and a loony dad. With red flags everywhere the astute lawyer plods on even managing to get his children in harms way. Fights of gun and fist follow along with a requisite car chase and if that's not enough there's a hurricane thrown in for the ridiculous finale.<br /><br />Branagh plays MacGruder with a mealy and unconvincing Southern accent. Running around in a trench coat in all kinds of weather he's blind to the obvious in order to keep the story going. Hipster Bob Downey Jr. is every bit as bad as a P.I. but with a little more emphasis on the bad accent. Robert Duvall as the old man is Boo Radely all growed up en crazier than a bed bug serving some thick slices of ham but at least his twang is plausible. The female leads (Embeth Davidtz, Darryl Hannah, Famkhee Jansen)are lean leggy and unemotive. Even the celebrity lawyers doing cameos (Vernon Jordan) are wooden with the few throw away lines they have.<br /><br />In addition to paying little attention to his actors, Altman's mise en scene dripping with Spanish moss is murky and shapeless, his action scenes comic book. It lacks his offbeat touches and observations (he does inform the viewer that the Stars and Bars still wave in Georgia)that make a well done Altman so unique. Unfortunately, Gingerbread Man is Altman at his worst, even if the pay is the same.
Did anyone who was making this movie, particularly the director, spare a thought for the logic of the story-line? These are not mere plot-holes, but plot graves, that become ever deeper as we lose any sympathy for the main character and his plight. That is, if you are kind enough a viewer to valiantly ignore the fact for most of the movie that the characters are either servants to the grave-hole plot, or boring and unlikeable. Or, in the case of Downey's & Hannah's characters, apparently superfluous. In pondering the reason for existence of Downey's character's significant screen-time in the movie, I decided that either the director had liked his character and unnecessarily increased his screen-time (unlikley, as the director didn't change anything else about the script he actually needed to) or that his character was going to be sacrificed on the altar of bad plotting. I'll leave you to guess which one it was to be.<br /><br />I had to keep checking the cover of the DVD to confirm that this really was made by credible talents. I cannot understand why Robert Altman would take this job. Surely he has some power to pick and chose. Actually, I can't understand why anyone would take this script on, except a first-time director looking for the experience.<br /><br />I suppose Robert Downey Jr. needed the money for his habit. I suppose Kenneth Branagh wanted to try a southern accent. I suppose Robert Duvall was only given a few pages of the script and thought the role in isolation sounded intriguing. These are the only motivations I can see that would coerce good actors to take on roles in this movie. As for Robert Altman, plenty of effort has gone in on his part to making the movie look fantastic. I found myself noticing how he had framed such and such a scene, or used the bright orange float vests in another scene to draw the eye's movements, or imposed a beautiful filter to create a particular mood. I do not typically notice such things in movies, since most movies I bother to watch to the end actually engage me for reasons of good story-telling and interesting characters with understandable motives. I watched this to the end only because some ridiculous element of optimism in myself kept looking at that DVD cover and being convinced that, due to the talent involved, there had to be some redeeming factor in this movie.<br /><br />Nice direction. But that's not why I watch movies.
I rented this DVD for two reasons. A cast of great actors, and the director, even though Robert Altman can be hit or miss. In this case, it was a big miss. Altman's attempt at creating suspense fell on its keester. After seeing Kenneth Branagh in a good film like "Dead Again", I didn't think he could possibly contribute to such a turkey, and I hope it didn't ruin his reputation. Robert Duvall seems to have fallen the way of most one-time Oscar winners. On a downward spiral that includes acting in eating-money films such as this one. Duvall was once a great actor in excellent films, even though his best performance was not "Tender Mercies", but "The Great Santini". This movie was truly a big waste of time. I give it a 2 out of 10.
This movie is like real life, by which I mean - not a lot happens in the available 2 hours or so, and not much game plan or plot is evidenced by the frequently invisible cast (their invisibility being due to the "experimental" lighting as mentioned by many reviewers). <br /><br />A big bore. No big surprise that Altman helms this - he is a very variable performer (yes we all loved "Gosford Park", but "Pret A Porter" anyone? Kansas City? Dr T. and the Women? Aaargh), but the fact that the raw material is a John Grisham tale, and the excellent cast that you will perceive through the gathering gloaming of your insistent slumber - makes this truly a masterpiece of bad film. And no, it is not "so bad it's good".<br /><br />It's just bad.
I think I've seen all of the Grisham movies now and generally they're all very poor, except for The Rainmaker, but this one is so bad it's unbelievable<br /><br />WARNING SPOILERISH<br /><br />It's one of those movies where the character does the stupid irrational things that no one would ever do. He's a lawyer for Christ's sake. Why when his children go missing does he not call the Police. Oh yes it's because all the Police hate lawyers so they're just ignore him and let him be attacked.<br /><br />When he's arrested for murder they just let him go free, he would be locked up in a cell pending a bail hearing. <br /><br />Why would you drag your kids halfway across the country when you could easily protect them at home.<br /><br />The Police don't bother to try and find an escaped mental patient, they don't bother to interview his daughter.<br /><br />As for the ridiculous ending….<br /><br />In summary, silly, very unrealistic and a complete waste of time.<br /><br />0/10 – One of the worst films ever made.
There is not a single sympathetic character in this entire movie. Is it the lawyer played by Kenneth Branagh that we're supposed to be pulling for? Well, let's see -- we learn he's a sleazebag defense attorney who gets criminals off on technicalities. He treats his coworkers like cattle, gets them involved in his own personal crisis (in the process, getting one of them killed), jeopardizes the safety of his kids, threatens his ex-wife's new boyfriend, tries to strong-arm the police and school administrators -- and all this for what? Because he was THINKING WITH HIS LITTLE HEAD! I was really pulling for the father and his gang to beat the stuffing out of the lawyer and drown him in the swamp...it would have made for a far more satisfying ending.
How a director of Altman's experience could ever expect us to want to spend time with, or to care about what happens to, a lead character who is neurotic, a whiner, a jerk with no redeeming qualities -- that is the central puzzle about this profoundly confused piece of work. A monstrous piece of trash. In addition to this crippling flaw, the plot line requires serious concentration to follow. The setup that the Branagh character walks into is so obviously a setup from the start that we are inclined to wonder whether the writer and director have totally lost respect for their audience. This latter issue is at the core of the film: it represents directorial self-indulgence with profound contempt for the taste, values, and intelligence of the viewer. Very unusual for Mr. Altman.<br /><br />Patrick Watson
I feel like I'm the only kid in town who was annoyed by Branagh's performance. He is a fine actor by most accounts, but he simply could not pull off the Southern accent. I mean, it was deplorable. It was as if he was trying too hard to be a Yank. One of the previous reviewers questioned why U.S. actors were not cast in this film. I second that notion. It's wonderful when actors/actresses wish to expand their horizons, but it's another thing to try too hard so that a performance becomes strained. Maybe it was Altman, but he's a such a great director...<br /><br />Well, I really don't want to bash Branagh for his absolutely hideous accent too much. Everybody deserves to screw up here and there. But it is hard to watch something so annoying that you'd rather choke on a chicken bone or eat a bucket full of crap than sit through The Gingerbread Man.
Divorced lawyer Rick Magruder (Branagh) stumbles drunk out of a party hosted by his firm one night and has a chance meeting with a woman named Mallory Doss (Davidtz), who was a waitress at the party and seems to have lost her car. Rick drives the woman to her home and there they discover that her car has been already parked there, seemingly by her father, Dixon Doss (Duvall). Rick and Mallory walk into the house arguing about the situation when Mallory carelessly undresses in front of Rick, and he then spends the night with her.<br /><br />Rick wakes up in the morning and Mallory encounters him later in the day, asking him to file suit against her father because of his dangerous behavior. Rick, now obsessed with Mallory and willing to do anything for her, is successful in having Dixon put on trial and sent to prison, but when he is freed by his local friends, Rick finds himself in a trouble, trying to protect himself and his children from the danger he has unknowingly brought to life.
Have you ever heard the saying that people "telegraph their intentions?" Well in this movie, the characters' actions do more than telegraph future plans -- they show up at your house drunk and buffet you about the head. This could be forgiven if the setting had been used better, or if the characters were more charismatic or nuanced. Embeth Davidtz's character is not mysterious, just wooden, and Kenneth Branagh doesn't succeed in conveying the brash charm his character probably was written to have.<br /><br />The bottom line: obvious plot, one-note performances, unlikeable characters, and grotesque "Southern" accents employed by British actors.
This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Branaugh seemed to have so much trouble remembering his accent that he couldn't deliver his lines. The plot was definitely not worthy of John Grisham's name. No wonder it was never published as a book or released in theaters. I didn't even watch the whole thing. I decided I didn't care who done it, then realized there was no "whodunit" to care about!
The only thing remarkable about this movie? is that all the actors could bomb at the same time. Idiocy. I want my money back...and I got it free from the library. Sheesh. I would rather chew on tin fool and shave my head with a cheese grater then watch this again.
I should never have started this film, and stopped watching after 3/4's. I missed the really botched ending. This film was a disappointment because it could have been so much better. It had nice atmosphere, a top notch cast and director, good locations. But a baaaaaad story line, a bad script. I paid attention to Kenneth Branagh's southern accent--it was better than the script. The plot was stupid--driven by characters acting in unreal and improbable ways. No one behaves like this outside of Hollywood scripts.
I can't believe that so much talent can be wasted in one movie! The Gingerbread Man starts of on the right foot, and manages to build up some great expectations for the ending. But at some point the movie turns into one of the worst stories I've ever wasted my time on. It's just so unbelievably how the bewitched Mallory Doss manages to pull Kenneth Branagh's character around by his nose. The movies climax is as uninteresting and flat as a beer, which has been left out in the sun too long. The Gingerbread Man is probably the worst Grisham-movie ever and this isn't changed by the fact that talented stars crowd the movie. Don't waste your time here!
The first hour of the movie was boring as hell. There is no suspense, no action, not even a plot. The movie went no where. I mean they could have made the movie in 15 min short film. Overall, the movie wasn't good at all, and I don't recommend it.
A very weak movie, mainly because of a poor story, but also poor acting in the case of Robert Downey Jr., and irrational behaviour by many of the characters. If you are someone who likes to switch your mind off and simply watch a movie for it's creativity or acting criteria, then you may like this movie. Personally I can't do that with a drama and found this too far-fetched.<br /><br />I'm particularly annoyed when a main character, that is supposed to be an intelligent person, continually acts like a complete imbecile. In this movie, if the main character acted the way a person would normally act in these situations, there would be no movie.<br /><br />The first highly unlikely act is when the main character, a successful attorney named Magruder, played by Kenneth Branagh, is leaving a party and happens upon a girl, Mallory Doss played by Embeth Davidtz, who is screaming that her car has been stolen. They are standing around in a tropical rainstorm as he badgers her into accepting a ride home.<br /><br />She tells him about her weird father who belongs to some kind of weird sect and does crazy things. When they arrive at her dilapidated shack in the poorer part of town, they notice that her car is in the driveway. Also the house lights are on and some objects in the house have been broken.<br /><br />Things are very odd, she's weird (looking like a tramp, she undresses in front of him until she's completely naked … oh yeah!). Also, the father's strange, the house is a wreck -- everything should have told Magruder, "hey this is too weird for me, I'm out of here!' But not Magruder, he sleeps with her and then, motivated by her story and sex, takes up the case of trying to have her father committed. It all screams set-up!<br /><br />Then, being the top-flight attorney that he is, he arrives late at the office wearing the same shirt he had on the night before, (a fact that all of the women in the office notice). Is it likely that a successful attorney would act like a 16-year-old? Magruder has upset the police in some of his cases so when he goes to the police claiming, with ample evidence, that the father is terrorising them, the police ignore him. I could have believed begrudging assistance. But no help at all -- not likely!<br /><br />It's just too unlikely.
I have seen some bad movies (Austin Powers - The Spy Who Shagged Me, Batman Forever), but this film is so awful, so BORING, that I got about half way through and could not bear watching the rest. A pity. Boasting talent such as Kenneth Branagh, Embeth Davitz and Robert Duvall and a story by John Grisham, what went wrong? Branagh is a big-time lawyer who has a one-night fling with Davitz. Her father (Duvall) is a psychopath who hanged her cat, etc, etc, so Branagh has him sent to a nuthouse, and he promptly escapes. Somehow (I couldn't figure out how) Robert Downey jr, Daryl Hannah, Famke Janssen and Tom Berenger are all mixed into the story which moves slower than stationary. I wanted to like this, and, being a huge Grisham fan, have read all about this movie and I (foolishly) expected something interesting. This is honestly the WORST film I've seen to date and I wish I could have my money refunded. * out of *****.
I saw this movie at the AFI Dallas festival. Most of the audience, including my wife, enjoyed this comedy-drama, but I didn't. It stars Lucas Haas (Brick, Alpha Dog), Molly Parker (Kissed, The Five Senses, Hollywoodland) and Adam Scott (First Snow, Art School Confidential). The director is Matt Bissonnette, who's married to Molly Parker. All three actors do a fine job in this movie about 3 friends, the marriage of two of them and infidelity involving the third. It all takes place at a lake house and it looks wonderful. The film wants to treat its subject as a comedy first and then a drama, and I thought it needed to be the other way around.
My wife and I just finished this movie and I came onto to IMDb to commiserate with the reviewers that found this movie less than satisfactory. However, of the 10 pages of reviews, only a handful are negative. I feel that this movie is a great concept gone horribly awry and I want to warn those who are looking to watch the movie into the future.<br /><br />I admit, I'm more inspired to write reviews when I don't like a movie than as to when I do, so my handful of reviews are all negative. Still, that doesn't mean I'm biased towards not enjoying a movie, but I often find more eloquent reviews of movies I do enjoy.<br /><br />Paris je t'aime is the most pretentious movie I've seen in years. By using an "intelligent" concept and attaching some big talent to a couple of the WAY to many short stories, the movie ends up the worst of all worlds. It is art for arts sake, but something that a 2 year old could dream up and accomplish. Giving the director free reign of 5 minutes of screen time proves why there is a division of labor even in entertainment. Directors can't write, writers can't direct. (I'd like to throw in also that Clint Eastwood is overrated, but that is because he's an actor turn director {which rarely works, either}).<br /><br />What ends up on the screen is a garbled mess of short stories that don't make any sense, are not completed in 5 minutes and in total, spoil Paris to me. Why call it Paris je t'aime when a more apropos title is cluster f*ck? There are only a couple stories that are watchable, most notably the piece by Alfonso Cuarón, but everything else will fall into obscurity. The Coen brothers short is passable, but can you name a movie of theirs that does not contain a scene with a pick guitar? It's as if all the directors decided on doing whatever it is they want to do and chose Paris as the place to do it. As we all love Paris, present company included, we are blinded by the fact that this movie SUCKS. In fact, I think they put the directors names on each of the shorts because directors saw how poor of a film this is and decided to make sure they were blamed only for their 5 minutes. Seriously. SERIOUSLY.<br /><br />People, Natalie Portman is NOT a good actress. She is is not a pixie dream girl waiting to be yours. And Maggie Gyllenhaal, why?!? Are you people acting or just regurgitating performances from other movies? I'm looking at you Natalie Portman (Garden State, Closer), Elijah Wood (Sin City) and Catalina Sandino Moreno (Maria Full of Grace).<br /><br />One final comment on the acting: I give double kudos to Nick Nolte for acting and looking more humane than you have in ages or perhaps ever will again. Find his short on youtube as his 5 minutes are quite enjoyable.<br /><br />Writing short stories is very difficult and only a handful of authors have gotten it right. I'm thinking of Ernst Hemingway, Raymond Carver, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and John Cheever, just to name a few. It is much harder than writing a full novel and only the truly talented can accomplish this. The same can be said about short films. It appears that only one director will live on in the annals of history.<br /><br />If you uphold Paris as a gem to be discovered and reflected through your own lenses with your own story, then don't expect to enjoy this movie at all. The directors either didn't care or were lazy. In either scenario, by the time you are reading this it means you rented it. Praise be that you didn't pay 10 dollars a head in theaters for it.
Only a handful of the segments are engaging here. A segment with a garage attendant from Nigeria is heartbreaking. One with Fanny Ardent & Bob Hoskins makes its point, twist by twist until the final shot overplays things. <br /><br />The problem with this movie is that only a few of the clips invoke Paris. The others are so scatter-shot in theme, tone, volition & production that you may as well be watching "The Years Best Commercials, 2006." It's really all over the place. It doesn't develop over it's running time, and nothing reigns the directors in. No construct successfully joins the pieces... tedium sets in. I'm at the one hour, twenty minute point and Elijah Wood is in some dumb, over-commercial, overproduced vampire shtick. It has about as much to do with Paris as old ladies knitting in the Antartic. Fantasy shows up I think first in the Coen Brothers segment (Uh, thanks J & E for ruining another movie) and then makes way too many appearances. The point of being in Paris is that you don't need make-believe crap to make your days extraordinary. Why divide it by neighborhood if Quartier de la Madeleine is equated with vampires for some loser director? Has there ever been a genre more over-represented than the vampire film. Every three years we get the same lame vampire clichés.<br /><br />Making things worse is that the switch from segment to segment is pretty artless. The transitions get lost. This doesn't feel intentional, it feels sloppy.
I saw "Paris Je T'Aime" because a friend really wanted to see it so I went along with him. Going in, I was indifferent about the film but leaving the theater I really regretted wasting 2 hours of my life sitting through this tepid production. The "stories" are almost completely forgettable except for the fact that most of them were awful. What do Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara have to do with Paris? The endless parade of American actors most definitely gave this French film a remarkably non-French feel. The clichés about Paris were endless. Yes, most of them were playing with clichés about Paris but by spending so much time making fun of French clichés, they directly and regrettably promoted them once more. Yes, Paris is the city of love. We get it.<br /><br />The worst segments were: the one directed by Wes Craven (Oscar Wilde); the one with Nick Nolte; the mime one (the worst?); the hair products one; the one with Juliette Binoche (Willem Dafoe as a cowboy in the middle of Paris?); the vampire one (When I think of Paris I think of Elijah Wood). The one with Natalie Portman, which really looked like a Mentos commercial and it was stupid (the blind young man should know Portman was just playing a part when she called him). On and on it went. It felt endless.<br /><br />I didn't like the Coen Bros one as well. It really plays with those Parisien clichés but I didn't find it funny. Just annoying. The Gus Van Sant one was interesting but it was so slight (and the punchline was obvious) that it barely registered.<br /><br />There were only two "successful" segments and they were the one about the immigrant nanny who leaves her baby at a kindergarten only to babysit a baby for a rich woman. Nice irony there. And the segment about the African who is stabbed. It's the best segment in the whole film but this segment has nothing to do with Paris. The story could have taken place in any city around the world.<br /><br />The last segment, the one with the chubby middle aged woman was sorta interesting too but the underlying tone was bad. They wanted to celebrate her limited grasp of French but the segment came off as being condescending.<br /><br />The whole project felt forced and uninspired. Almost like the French government sponsored this film to promote tourism. All in all, with only about 10 to 15 minutes of interesting stuff, "Paris Je T'Aime" was an awful cinematic experience.
Based upon the recommendation of a friend, my wife and I invited another couple to this film. I really apologized to them--all 4 of us hated it and spent the whole time looking at our watches waiting for the film to finally end. Half the vignettes are bizarre, with very little entertainment value. There were few scenes of Paris--for example, I was looking forward to seeing some pictures of the Latin Quarter, but I couldn't really recognize anything. Most of the scene was inside a bar. No one in the theater laughed at anything, or reacted in any way. If you like bizarre, pretentious, pseudo-intellectual films, don't miss this. If you are down to earth like me, you will be sorry you saw it.
be warned: this movie tells lots of love stories without any coherence.<br /><br />The only intention of this movie seems to be showing love in many different ways.<br /><br />Each story has only a few minutes, so there is no development of characters and nearly no plot. Just an sketchy idea of a plot. The writer tried to build in turning points that aimed to surprise the viewer. However, that just didn't work out because you didn't get to know the characters in before or these "jokes" were just silly.<br /><br />This is a movie about love that fails to reach your heart. A dozen times. Or even more, I don't know and I don't care.
The idea is nice. Bringing so many stars in one movie is great. But.... too many stories, too short and lacking really any sense. No connection between the scenes. There were some 3-4 brilliant stories... but these were out of 18. The frame reminded me of "All the invisible children" - a movie which I liked a lot. Compared to it, however, "Paris Je T'Aime" lacks the intriguing short story, which develops - starts and has its end. And it lacks the topic connecting all those - children. I do not find Paris enough of a topic to connect 18 short sketches together.Perhaps for people who know Paris it is interesting. Otherwise, I wouldn't recommend it...
Ouch! This one was a bit painful to sit through. It has a cute and amusing premise, but it all goes to hell from there. Matthew Modine is almost always pedestrian and annoying, and he does not disappoint in this one. Deborah Kara Unger and John Neville turned in surprisingly decent performances. Alan Bates and Jennifer Tilly, among others, played it way over the top. I know that's the way the parts were written, and it's hard to blame actors, when the script and director have them do such schlock. If you're going to have outrageous characters, that's OK, but you gotta have good material to make it work. It didn't here. Run away screaming from this movie if at all possible.
In its depiction of a miserable Milanese underclass, this film was probably quite revealing in its day. However, I get the feeling that neorealism was never really director De Sica's bag, since here he decided to try and create some sort of modern fable centring around a boy that had been found in a cabbage patch by an old dear in the country. After spending most of his childhood in an orphanage, Toto ends up living in a shantytown in Milan. He organises the inhabitants into community action, and keeps their spirits up by swanning around with an annoyingly constant smile on his face and testing them on their times tables. That nobody tells him where to stick his times tables is beyond me, as these people have far more important things to think about, like where the next Pot Noodle is going to come from. Anyway, De Sica then uses a sublimely subtle dramatic device in order to highlight exactly why these poor sods are where they are. It's all down to capitalism of course, and in order to illustrate this, he has the miserables discover a fountain of oil on their land. Brilliant! To his credit, though, by this time he has given up on making a serious film, and the capitalists appear as severe caricatures, all fur coats and cigars. They want that land, but our mathematical hero will not support such nonsense. By a bizarre stroke of luck, his old, deceased guardian from the cabbage patch days appears in the sky and gives him a magic dove. He uses it to shower gifts on his mates, who prove just as greedy as the cigar men. I reckon this film was a missed opportunity. To address the theme of poverty , as not many film-makers had done until then, and then get caught up in a fairy tale, to me seems a bit daft. How come 'great' directors get away with child-like plot turns like the ones we see here? Hans Christian Anderson would probably have balked at the idea of having the poor folk flying off over the Milan Duomo and on to a higher place on broomsticks. De Sica, however, is proclaimed as a genius for this. Surely the fact that these people are so poor, that their faith is unswerving, and that miracles never happen to them, is enough for any story-teller to work on.<br /><br />
OK, so it was written in 1996, before 9/11, so you can give it a little credit for worrying about terrorists and the idea that the CIA director makes a plot to blow this doomed plane out of the sky before it brings doom to the world, is prescient. That's it. That's the good stuff. The acting...fair. The plot...silly. The "twist"... unnecessary. DOOOOOOOOOOOM It isn't as though no one ever thought of what to do when a plane gets contaminated. Don't you think bureaucrats have a manual for "plagues" and how to contain them? Proper execution of such a plan is always a problem, as we saw after Katrina. But they have a plan. It isn't to send them off to Iceland and then to Mauritania. And if the virus is carried in the air, why was the plane door open and the "shooters' standing there with no protection? In fact, did it ever occur to anyone to shoot her legs? That would stop her. But not as dramatic. I'm a sucker. I always watch a movie to see the end, once I started it. But this was a waste of time, and for the most part, predictable. I saw it using a recorder so I didn't have to watch all the ads, that was a plus. It's a good example of why I watch so little network TV. Rubbish.
I watched this movie last night and already I am struggling to recollect very much about it. The story is about a group of criminals who escape from a space penal colony. They fly to the Moon in a space-age dustbin carrier; when there, they terrorise the dustbin men who work on the Moonbase.<br /><br />It strikes me that rubbish low-budget sci-fi films often involve either desert planets or, like this movie, criminals escaping from penal colonies. Why this is I have no idea. But I can say with some certainty that such films are always diabolical. This one is really no exception. It begins reasonably well with a decent credit sequence and a half-way alright dance music soundtrack. It then degenerates into a boring sci-fi thriller. So little of consequence actually happens in this movie that I am literally struggling to write a helpful review, so if you're reading this I apologise for not being able to enlighten you to the film's subtleties and nuances. For the record, I recall a tedious bunch of baddies, a tedious bunch of goodies, some nuclear warheads and a hologram of a naked woman. Other than that, I'm struggling.<br /><br />If you feel you could be interested in the activities of lunar dustbin men then I would not hesitate to recommend this film. I would also recommend it to those of you who wish to send their friends to sleep and steal their wallets.
No Fireworks Despite Violent Action.<br /><br />Science fiction films that reflect quality are scarce indeed, largely because transposal of imaginative themes from the genre to the screen too often falls short of effective execution as a result of insufficient funding or inadequate invention, and unfortunately for its producers, this work is lacking on both counts, woefully so in the case of the latter. With essentially no budget with which to operate, it is a grave mistake to attempt the depiction of such a gamut of events as those within this scenario and, in particular, special effects of space opera warfare which appear only clownish, while seeds from the scriptors' imagination lie fallow due to some of the most fatuous misunderstanding of basic scientific principles to be found. Among these are frequent firing of weapons within a sealed environment, and a wayward law of gravity which enables freedom of movement of cast members while inanimate objects float weightlessly, but it is easier to accept these than it is to pretend that any of the episodes have a basis in plausibility. The plot involves an escape of life sentenced prisoners from a space station penal colony to a waste landfill upon our moon and their various attempts to obtain passage back to Earth, with some few capable players present who are execrably directed by first-timer Paolo Mazzucato, whose production team wastes effort upon such as holographic pornography while ignoring a pressing and basic requirement for the creation of states of suspense and of impetus.<br /><br />
I'm sorry, I had high hopes for this movie. Unfortunately, it was too long, too thin and too weak to hold my attention. When I realized the whole movie was indeed only about an older guy reliving his dream, I felt cheated. Surely it could have been a device to bring us into something deeper, something more meaningful.<br /><br />So, don't buy a large drink or you'll be running to the rest room. My kids didn't enjoy it either. Ah well.
Diana Guzman is an angry young woman. Surviving an unrelenting series of disappointments and traumas, she takes her anger out on the closest targets.<br /><br />When she sees violence transformed and focused by discipline in a rundown boxing club, she knows she's found her home. <br /><br />The film progresses from there, as Diana learns the usual coming-of-age lessons alongside the skills needed for successful boxing. Michelle Rodriguez is very good in the role, particularly when conveying the focused rage of a young woman hemmed in on all sides and fighting against not just personal circumstances but entrenched sexism.<br /><br />The picture could use some finesse in its direction of all the young actors, who pale in comparison to the older, more experienced cast. There are too many pauses in the script, which detracts from the dramatic tension. The overall quietness of the film drains it of intensity. <br /><br />This is a good picture to see once, if only to see the power of a fully realized young woman whose femininity is complex enough to include her power. Its limitations prevent it from being placed in the "see it again and again" category.
*Spoiler warning*<br /><br />First of all I rated this movie 2 out of 10.<br /><br />The idea is good, but there are too many stupid errors in the movie, failing to make it the psyching drama that it might have been. First of all she never fights alone. After an initial very strange doubt from her mother (which is not believable when the mother proves to be so supportive and loving later in the movie) the rape victim is not alone. <br /><br />She is also unbelievably naive always falling into the Crew's strange traps. <br /><br />Her friends are unbelievably nasty.<br /><br />The thing that I find most unbelievably is that Ethan fails to control the crew when he changes his opinon. Ethan is very much the leader of the Crew (hey, they even say so) and people seem to think the other guy is a jerk, but when Ethan changes his opinion he just doesn't manage to convince even one single person in the Crew that he is right and that his former friend is wrong. Everyone just simply hates him... why?? The movie provides no explanation. How did he ever become the leader?<br /><br />A funny note is that my girlfriend thought I was watching Beverly Hills when she came in. Two actors from the same successful TV-series.... a cheap way to get viewers?
Rural family drama--with perhaps a nod to "Ordinary People"--concerns a young boy who withdraws into himself after fatally wounding his older brother in a shooting mishap. Despite downbeat subject matter (given mercilessly glum treatment by director Christopher Cain), there are some dynamics in this sad story worth exploring. Unfortunately, the isolated farming atmosphere and the reluctance of the adult characters to take charge of the situation render the film a stultifying experience. What with Robert Duvall, Glenn Close, and Wilford Brimley in the cast, the movie is nearly a small-scaled reunion of "The Natural". Too bad this project didn't get the necessary talent behind the camera to really eke out a gripping, memorable picture. *1/2 from ****
Bizarre take on the Cinderella tale. Terribly poor script, but Kathleen Turner turns in a pretty decent evil step-mother performance.<br /><br />Visually stunning in some parts, but that's about it. The period costumes range from the Elizabethan era to the 1990s. Fast forward until you see something interesting and save yourself the full 90 minutes of drivel.<br /><br />If you're really in the mood for a Cinderella story - I suggest "Ever After: A Cinderella Story" or "The Glass Slipper".
*****THIS REVIEW MAY HAVE SPOILERS - but that determination would be negligible in such a classic and well-known story*****<br /><br />The CINDERELLA story ranks as my favorite fairy tale. The world will never have enough of this wonderful tale.<br /><br />The problem is that everyone wants to tell their own version of the tale. This cannot work if the story deviates or attempts to throw some interesting ideas together with some magical photography and scrumptious looking production designs with poor direction and editing.<br /><br />This Cinderella story is more like an Ugly Duckling that never hatches or rather, is never transformed into a swan.<br /><br />All the production value that money can buy, cannot purchase good cinematic timing and dramatic development - or good acting.<br /><br />The entrance of Cinderella at the ball as so poorly done, there was no drama of anticipation nor excitement of discovery.<br /><br />The writing made me very nervous, too. The Prince Charming was the most undesirable of memory. Why would any girl want to marry a boorish, self-absorbed prince who disliked women? <br /><br />Turner's turn on the Stepmother role was an embarrassingly painful showing that demonstrated one-liners more than acting nuance.<br /><br />Even the Cinderella part held little interest or sympathy.<br /><br />Perhaps only one sentence will describe this attempt: So cheaply '90's,<br /><br />What MUST be mentioned and mentioned in shameful excess is the glorious photography, matte work and production design. It was a pleasure to peruse the landscapes, sets and settings as the story unfolded.<br /><br />For some Cinderella storytelling, go for two gems:<br /><br />1) Rodgers and Hammerstein's Cinderella Musical with Lesley Ann Warren. Even with the obvious stagey TV - 60's look to the sets, this is the best version on celluloid - bar none. An all star cast makes every effort to provide the highest entertainment. Engaging, diverting and memorable writing and music. This is the classic.<br /><br />2) Ever After- this Drew Barrymore gem maintains the historical perspective, alters the story line but not enough to derail the effective development of the salient points of this classic tale. The characters of the principals and of all of the supporting roles were written smartly and acted well.
Though Frank Loesser's songs are some of the finest that Broadway has to offer, they're bollixed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz' lethargic staging and uninspired presentation--when it's over it barely feels like you've watched a musical. Mankiewicz doesn't seem to know how to present Loesser's challenging but tuneful melodies for maximum effect: for example, one of the best numbers, the showstopping `Adelaide's Lament', concludes by having Adelaide (Vivian Blaine) belt out the finale while sitting on a chaise lounge; and Stubby Kaye's faux-spiritual `Sit Down, You're Rockin' The Boat' has his backing choir sitting in folding chairs while he simply stands there. Mankiewicz zaps all the fun out of everything by letting static scenes go on too long and his dialogue (adapted from Abe Burrows' stage book) has none of the wit that his films like `All About Eve' have. Part of the blame has to go to the leads, just about all of whom are miscast: Marlon Brando looks bewildered as to why he's in a musical, Frank Sinatra plays way too nice a guy and has none of the edge which makes him so essential (the songs are not tailored to his style) and Jean Simmons barely registers the way a Shirley Jones might. Only Blaine, as the lovelorn showgirl Adelaide, commands our attention like a Broadway pro should. The colorful art direction is by Joseph Wright and Howard Bristol created the flashy sets.
Nathan Detroit runs illegal craps games for high rollers in NYC, but the heat is on and he can't find a secure location. He bets chronic gambler Sky Masterson that Sky can't make a prim missionary, Sarah Brown, go out to dinner with him. Sky takes up the challenge, but both men have some surprises in store …<br /><br />This is one of those expensive fifties MGM musicals in splashy colour, with big sets, loud music, larger-than-life roles and performances to match; Broadway photographed for the big screen if you like that sort of thing, which I don't. My main problem with these type of movies is simply the music. I like all kinds of music, from Albinoni to ZZ Top, but Broadway show tunes in swing time with never-ending pah-pah-tah-dah trumpet flourishes at the end of every fourth bar aren't my cup of tea. This was written by the tag team of Frank Loesser, Mankiewicz, Jo Swerling and Abe Burrows (based on a couple of Damon Runyon stories), and while the plot is quite affable the songs are weak. Blaine's two numbers for example are identical, unnecessary, don't advance the plot and grate on the ears (and are also flagrantly misogynistic if that sort of thing bothers you). There are only two memorable tunes, Luck Be A Lady (sung by Brando, not Sinatra as you might expect) and Sit Down, You're Rockin' The Boat (nicely performed by Kaye) but you have to sit through two hours to get to them. The movie's trump card is a young Brando giving a thoughtful, laid-back performance; he also sings quite well and even dances a little, and is evenly matched with the always interesting Simmons. The sequence where the two of them escape to Havana for the night is a welcome respite from all the noise, bustle and vowel-murdering of Noo Yawk. Fans of musicals may dig this, but in my view a musical has to do something more than just film the stage show.
This movie has a very Broadway feel - the backdrop, the acting, the 'noise'- and yet that's all it has. Some 'sense' of a Broadway without the bang. <br /><br />The movie is slow-paced, the picture disjointed, the singing 'pops up' on you so that you suddenly are reminded it's a musical. <br /><br />Disappointing: Sinatra <br /><br />Intolerable: Sinatra's fiancé---surely, the pitch and the accent of her voice was unnecessary. <br /><br />Tolerable: Mr "i remember the numbers on my dice" <br /><br />Delight: Brando's understated singing (very biased!)<br /><br />Surprise: how much Jean Simmons looks like Vivien Leigh in her Havana scenes. It's the bone structure! How i would've killed to have seen Miss Leigh in a role challenging Brando again.
Raising Victor Vargas: A Review<br /><br />You know, Raising Victor Vargas is like sticking your hands into a big, steaming bowl of oatmeal. It's warm and gooey, but you're not sure if it feels right. Try as I might, no matter how warm and gooey Raising Victor Vargas became I was always aware that something didn't quite feel right. Victor Vargas suffers from a certain overconfidence on the director's part. Apparently, the director thought that the ethnic backdrop of a Latino family on the lower east side, and an idyllic storyline would make the film critic proof. He was right, but it didn't fool me. Raising Victor Vargas is the story about a seventeen-year old boy called, you guessed it, Victor Vargas (Victor Rasuk) who lives his teenage years chasing more skirt than the Rolling Stones could do in all the years they've toured. The movie starts off in `Ugly Fat' Donna's bedroom where Victor is sure to seduce her, but a cry from outside disrupts his plans when his best-friend Harold (Kevin Rivera) comes-a-looking for him. Caught in the attempt by Harold and his sister, Victor Vargas runs off for damage control. Yet even with the embarrassing implication that he's been boffing the homeliest girl in the neighborhood, nothing dissuades young Victor from going off on the hunt for more fresh meat. On a hot, New York City day they make way to the local public swimming pool where Victor's eyes catch a glimpse of the lovely young nymph Judy (Judy Marte), who's not just pretty, but a strong and independent too. The relationship that develops between Victor and Judy becomes the focus of the film. The story also focuses on Victor's family that is comprised of his grandmother or abuelita (Altagracia Guzman), his brother Nino (also played by real life brother to Victor, Silvestre Rasuk) and his sister Vicky (Krystal Rodriguez). The action follows Victor between scenes with Judy and scenes with his family. Victor tries to cope with being an oversexed pimp-daddy, his feelings for Judy and his grandmother's conservative Catholic upbringing.<br /><br />The problems that arise from Raising Victor Vargas are a few, but glaring errors. Throughout the film you get to know certain characters like Vicky, Nino, Grandma, Judy and even Judy's best friend Melonie. The problem is, we know nothing of Victor Vargas except that he is the biggest gigolo in the neighborhood. We know that he knows how to lick his lips, and comb his fro, and carry himself for the sake of wooing girls into the sack, but that's all. We know that Nino plays piano, and quiet well, you could see it by the awards on the family piano. We know his sister Nicki, is a gossip-loving girl with an invested interest in watching TV. We know that grandma is a hard-working traditional Latina woman who's trying to raise her kids with conservatively in a world of excess corruption. Yet where is the titular character, Victor Vargas? He's in this movie somewhere, but we only know what the movie tells us. This is by far the film's biggest flaw. Victor Vargas isn't so much a character but a ping-pong ball, bouncing between scenes with Judy and his Grandmother, but we never get to know who Victor Vargas really is. This is important because as I've mentioned the only thing we know of Victor Vargas is that he's a sexually active teenager with a libido the size of Manhattan. He's a total Alpha-male. Victor Vargas is not the kind of character I sympathize with at all. Why should anyone? So by the end of the movie, in the aftermath of the climax are we truly led to believe that somehow Victor Vargas has attained ANY depth and learned the errors of his ways? How could such a two-dimensional character have any depth? If only the director had worried a little more about fleshing out his main character instead of worrying about getting that perfect hand-held shot.<br /><br />Raising Victor Vargas brings to life the world of the Latino inner-city neighborhood to the big screen. Something that few films have done before in the past. The film has been complimented for feeling so real, and I won't<br /><br />argue with that. I haven't seen this level of reality since CBS aired Survivor. Seriously, although the movie has some nice shots of the city, the writer/director Peter Sollett was way too dependent on close-ups and hand-held shots. This problem is particularly noticed in indoor scenes that are so claustrophobic I was forced to perform deep-breathing exercises to keep from passing out. As the film continues, the shots get tighter and tighter with faces cropped from brow to chin on the screen; you can practically smell Victor Vargas's cheap cologne. The overall effect is unrealistic in contrast. The indoor scenes of inner-city apartments make them look small and cramp, which is not true. I've been in those type apartments; I used to live in one. They're not splendorous but they have high ceilings and they're decent living spaces. By the movie's standards you'd think that these apartments were 5x5 cells of brick-and-mortar, chipped paint and cracked walls. Unfortunately, Sollett's constant use of close-ups and one particularly bad shot with a zoom-in on one scene come off as totally amateurish. But Raising Victor Vargas is only Sollett's second film, and his most well known, a solid effort in filmmaking that will hopefully get better as he continues to make films. One review I read summarized the movie as, `Ethnicity for Ethnicity's Sake,' and I cannot agree more. If Victor Vargas were truly a great film and story, then the characters' applicability wouldn't matter whether they were Latino, Chinese, etc. Yet if you were to take this story and stick it in middle-class suburbia with a bunch of teeny-bopper white kids the results wouldn't be such glowing reviews, and we'd see the film's flaws more clearly. Indeed, some other aspects of the use of Latinos in this film bother me. While some aspects of Victor Vargas are accurate others I have to question. For example, Victor, Nino and Vicky all share the same room to sleep. This set off an alarm for me because it seemed contrary to what I believe. Any self-respecting Latino family wouldn't have two older brothers sharing the same room with a thirteen-year old girl. At first I was unsure, perhaps I was wrong, but after speaking with my grandmother I knew my problem with this was justified. Considering how conservative the grandmother is, you'd think that Vicky would have been sleeping in her room.<br /><br />As a Latino who grew up in a somewhat conservative Cuban household, raised by my grandmother while my mother was working full-time, I could relate to the movie in many ways, which is why my critical viewpoints are bittersweet because I really wanted to love this movie. Unfortunately, my lack of respect for Victor Vargas sabotaged my feelings for the film. Maybe it's because Victor Vargas reminds me of those guys who were getting laid while I was playing with my Sega Genesis when I was seventeen. Maybe it's because without any further introspection by the film, Victor Vargas is merely a stereotypical hot-blooded Latino, who'll just end up shouting to girls from his car, `Hey bay-bee, ju want to get into my luv Mah-Cheen?' Either way I don't like him, so ultimately how can I like a film about him? So if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go stick my hands into a bowl of grits.<br /><br />
Someone will have to explain to me why every film that features poor people and adopts a pseudo-gritty look is somehow seen as "realistic" by some people.<br /><br />I didn't see anything realistic about the characters (although the actors did their best with really bad parts) or the situations. Instead, I saw a forced, self-conscious effort at being "edgy", "gritty" and "down and dirty".<br /><br />Sadly, it takes a lot more than hand-holding the camera without rhyme or reason and failing to light the film to achieve any of the above qualities in any significant way.<br /><br />It's a sad commentary on the state of independent film distribution that the only films that see the inside of a movie theater are nowadays all carbon copies, with bad cinematography, non-existent camera direction and a lot of swearing striving to pass themselves as "Art".<br /><br />It's little wonder that films like "In the Bedroom" or "About Schmidt" get such raves. I found them to be meandering and very average, but compared to the current slew of independent clones like "Raising victor Vargas" they are outright brilliant and inspired.<br /><br />A few years ago seeing an "independent" film meant that you would likely be treated to some originality and a lot of energy and care, and maybe a few technical glitches caused by the low budgets, nowadays, it means that chances are you'll get yet another by-the-numbers, let's-shake-the-camera-around-for-two-hours attempt at placating the lack of taste of independent distributors. And of course all that to serve characters and situations that are completely unreal and contrived.<br /><br />Is it any surprise that the independent marketplace has fewer and fewer surviving companies? Not at all when you see films like Raising Victor Vargas that do nothing but copy the worst of the films that preceded them.
.... this movie basks too much in its own innocence. It doesn't tell a story; it's more a big time snooze fest. While the actors are all personable, the story is so trite and goes nowhere. I think Victor Rasuk has great charisma, but deserves a real film from a real storyteller.
Raising Victor Vargas fails terribly in what it tries most to be: being real. Unfortunately, there is no reality to this film. The characters and situations feel completely artificial and fake.<br /><br />The reason? Bad directing. Peter Sollett uses all the wrong tools in his arsenal. It seems Mr. Sollett read somewhere that not lighting his film would give it an authentic feel. Wrong! It just gives it a badly-made feel. Similarly, shaking the camera does not give a documentary style to your film, it just gives the audience a headache and detracts from what's on screen instead of enhance it.<br /><br />Of course, what's on screen is so painfully fake, as if Mr. Sollett wrote his script with the only goal of trying to look "hip" to his Sundance buddies and show how "edgy" a filmmaker he is.<br /><br />Overall, the only lasting impression this film leaves you with is what a bad director Mr. Sollett is. Next time, how about taking a few writing and directing classes?
"Raising Victor Vargas" is one of those light, family movies that you can watch and do the N.Y. Times crossword puzzle at the same time. And if you want to go to the kitchen for a taco and a Corona, you don't have to "Pause" the DVD. Just let it roll, 'cause you won't be missing anything really important. No twists, turns, or tension. It's not really an ethnic movie, it's a movie about a poor, struggling immigrant family that happens to be Latino. They could have been any ethnic group. It made very little difference. I've seen it all a zillion times before. Just plug in a Jewish family, an Italian family, a Black family, or an Irish family. Just the accents and names were different. If the Vargas family was named Bush or Clinton and were Presbyterians, the movie would have been a total snooze. <br /><br />It's funny that the critics here couldn't get the locale straight. Some said it was Spanish Harlem. Some the Bronx, and another Brooklyn. As a life-long New Yorker, I vote for the Lower East Side. And it seemed that the family never met up with anyone except other Latinos. They lived in an insulated/isolated little enclave. Some interaction with non-Latinos might have created some excitement, interest, or tension. Remember West Side Story?<br /><br />And now for the oft-criticized cinematography. I don't know if it was my TV or what, but all the indoor shots looked very ORANGE to me. The apt, the furniture, and the faces were all ORANGE. What was that supposed to mean? And the apt. did look pretty cramped to me. Somebody here mentioned that the old apt's/tenements had very big rooms. Well, maybe 50 years ago. What landlords have done is to break up one big apt into 2 or 3 very small ones and squeeze as many immigrants as they can into them. <br /><br />And another annoying thing ....This is the second family movie I've seen and criticized this week that featured a teenage boy "jerking off". Is this private sex act necessary for us to watch? Please spare me! What's up with these directors? <br /><br />So "Victor Vargas" is a pleasant little movie. It was nice for a change to see young Latino actors given a break and a chance to show their talents, which they did. But the writers let them down, giving them a flat, unspectacular script to work with. Enjoy the show, but keep your fingers near the "fast forward" button.
What a bad, bad film!!! I can't believe all the hype that has been lavished on this pretentious, amateurish excuse for a real movie!! I left the theater before the end, stunned by how bad the direction and camera-work of that movie were!! And to read adoring paeans that claim there is truth and reality in this film when all it is in reality is a brazen attempt at pulling the wool over the eyes of reviewers and festivals by being cheap and tawdry.<br /><br />At least this film showed me once and for all that the Sundance Festival has become a complete joke and that being shown here is more a label of bad film-making than anything else.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs. You'll want your time back! I know I did.
First of all, write the script on a napkin. Who needs more than that? After all we're not a Hollywood film.<br /><br />Then get amateur actors. It will be good for the festival hype. After all, who needs people who have spent years honing their craft? Then, hire a cinematographer who doesn't know how to light. You see, if it's well-lit, it won't look "real" and the festival people won't like it. Who needs to have professional level photography anyway? Then hire a ten-year old who has never held a camera to be your operator. It will give your movie that completely amateurish touch that festival screeners will mistake for "reality" and guarantee that even though you will empty the seats from real people, critics and a small sliver of the audience who over-intellectualize will scream "genius" because they won't believe this was just complete amateur-hour.<br /><br />Once you've done that, buy your ticket to the Festival of Bad Movies aka Sundance.<br /><br />What a sad waste.
How many more of those fake "slice of life" movies need to be made? Hopefully not too many.<br /><br />Raising Victor Vargas is a very self-conscious attempt by the director Peter Solett at garnering the attention of Hollywood. Nothing wrong with that in general. What is wrong with this film in particular is that it ignores the audience and piles on every cliché in the book of supposedly "edgy" Hollywood independent production.<br /><br />It's supposed to be "real" so left shake the camera "documentary style", except no documentarian would shake the camera on purpose...<br /><br />It's "edgy" so let's not waste any time lighting the film.<br /><br />It's "hip", so let's have the children use swear words like Al Pacino in Scarface...<br /><br />And so on, and so forth. All that you are left with is a very self-conscious attempt at impressing Hollywood that won't impress anyone outside of the "rarefied" indie crowd that seems to still heap acclaim on every bad film.
I can't believe this movie managed to get such a relatively high rating of 6! It is barely watchable and unbelievably boring, certainly one of the worst films I have seen in a long, long time.<br /><br />In a no-budget way, it reminded me of Star Wars Episodes I and II for the sheer impression that you are watching a total creative train wreck.<br /><br />This film should be avoided at all costs. It's one of those "festival films" that only please the pseudo-intellectuals because they are so badly made those people think it makes it "different", therefore good.<br /><br />Bad film-making is not "different", it's just bad film-making.
This "film" is one of the most dreadful things I have ever seen.<br /><br />Please do yourselves a favor and avoid this incompetent concoction.<br /><br />Shaking the camera and having your actors adopt scowls does not count as "direction", which this film needed in droves. Not that the writing was all the wonderful, rather we were left with a bunch of completely artificial characters directed in that most artificial way (the pseudo-documentary "style" prized by those who don't know how to direct).<br /><br />This film gives the impression that it was done cynically to appeal to critics who don't know the first thing about film-making (which is most of them).<br /><br />Just terrible. It says a lot about Sundance and what it's become that Victor Vargas was showcased there.
Raising victor Vargas is just a bad film. No amount of denial or ad-dollar supported publicity with change this sad fact.<br /><br />Maybe Peter Sollett saw he didn't have the money to do the movie he wanted to make and decided to take the easy way out by making a bad film that cynically apes the tenets of current "edgy film-making". Maybe he just doesn't know any better. It's hard to tell.<br /><br />What's not hard to tell is the result. Except for a few viewers who will intellectualize the bad film-making into an attempt at pseudo-realism, few will enjoy it.<br /><br />I know I didn't.<br /><br />Do yourselves a favor and pass on this film.
That this poor excuse for an amateur hour showcase was heralded at Sundance is a great example of what is wrong with most indie filmmakers these days.<br /><br />First of all, there is such a thing as the art of cinematography. Just picking up a 16mm camera and pointing it at whomever has a line does not make for a real movie.<br /><br />I guess we have to consider ourselves lucky the director didn't pick up someone's camcorder...<br /><br />Second, indie films are supposed to be about real people. There's nothing real in this film. None of the characters come across as being even remotely human.<br /><br />What they come across as being is figments of the imagination of a writer trying to impress his buddies by showing them how "cool and edgy" he is.<br /><br />Sorry, but this is not good writing, or good directing.<br /><br />What is left is a husk of a bad movie that somehow made its way to Sundance. Hard to believe this was one of the best films submitted...<br /><br />In any case, it made me loose what was left of my respect for the Sundance brand.
Ho-hum. An inventor's(Horst Buchholz)deadly biological weapon is in danger of falling into the wrong hands. Unknowingly his son(Luke Perry)has been working on the antedote all along. Enter CIA agent Olivia d'Abo and the cat-and-mouse car chases and gunfire begins. Also in the cast are:Tom Conti, Hendrick Haese and an aging Roger Moore. Moore seems to haggardly move through this mess definitely not one of his better efforts. Perry fans will be accepting. d'Abo is wrong for the role, but nice to look at.
Horrible acting, horrible cast and cheap props. Would've been a lot better if was set as an action parody style movie. What a waste. Starting from the name of the movie.<br /><br />"The Enemy" Naming it "Action Movie" would've made it better. (contributing to the parody effect). The cop looking like a 60 Year old player, the blond girl just having the same blank boring look on her face at all times. Towards the end of the movie him and her are working together to take down the bad guys and every time they exchange words it just feels like the cheap lines given before a sex scene in a porn movie. Horrible. Don't waste your time.
After the success of Scooby-Doo, Where are You, they decided to give Scooby and Shaggy their own show. But unfortunately, they added a new character that spoilt Scooby-Doo success forever. They invented a new show with a new title, Scooby and Scrappy-Doo. It was Scrappy-Doo that made this show a complete failure, probably for both adults and kids together. Scrappy was the stupid brave puppy that always looked ready to beat someone up. Scooby and Shaggy were getting scared of the villain, and they were also trying to stop him. Scooby-Doo doesn't need any little annoying bastard puppy nephews. If they wanted Scooby-Doo to be more successful, they should have either killed or never thought up Scrappy. This was just poor, maybe your kids will prefer it!
I grew up on Scooby Doo Where Are You, and I still love it. It is one of my favourite cartoons along with Darkwing Duck, Talespin, Peter Pan and the Pirates and Tom and Jerry. This show though is good for kids, the voices are good(Don Messick and Casey Kasem are perfect as Scooby and Shaggy), the theme tune is tolerable and it has some nice animation. However it is rather disappointing. I normally don't mind Scrappy, but when he appears to be like the main character, it gets annoying fast. Complete with the catchphrase Puppy Power, Scrappy is somewhat more annoying than usual. Also half the gang are missing after the first year, somehow it didn't feel like Scooby Doo. And the jokes and the story lines were in general lame and unoriginal, very little chasing monsters or unmasking the baddies. All in all, not as bad as Shaggy and Scooby Doo:Get a Clue, but this show is disappointing. 4/10 for the animation, voices, theme tune and the fact it is nice for kids. Bethany Cox
While I have never been a fan of the original Scooby-Doo (due to its horrid production values), it appears like Shakespeare compared to this pile of crap brought to us by Hanna-Barbera! Without a doubt, Scrappy-Doo is about the most annoying and awful character created for children (and this includes the Teletubbies as well as Tommy the Tapeworm). Whose bright idea was it to create some sort of short mutant dog and enable it to speak and then saddle the Scooby-Doo characters with it?! Whoever it is deserves to die or watch this show (I think death is preferable). The bottom line is that the little dog is simply unfunny, annoying and grates on the nerves--and this is only in the BETTER episodes!! After many years, it would have been better to just end the franchise than create this mess! I can see why in the live-action Scooby-Doo movie they made the villain Scrappy-Doo--since practically everyone hates him!
This movie is one long chiche after another. First of all, though they did their share, there is a unwarranted dope scene where John sniffs weed like an idiot. The wigs and accents are terrible. They sound worse then the old Beatle cartoons. John is the nasty, envious, closet homosexual, slave to Yoko he is portrayed as being in the discredited Albert Goldman book. They even keep spouting song titles in regular conversation "it was always just the Two Of Us"! John would not have been mean to his fans like this either. Like his death showed us he was too nice if anything. The one funny scene is where a dumb Beatle fan only recognizes John and asks him to sing Paul's Yesterday. An insulted John says something along the lines of "Sure and while I croon why don't you get down on your knees, put on your wife's wig, and lick my liggin". That made me laugh for days. Really this movie is funny in how serious it tries to be while coming off ridiculous. John and Paul also did not sit pontificating all day, they were funny light hearted guys who even during The Beatles break up where far more personable then portrayed here. Forget it.
I don't understand how "2 of us" receive such a high rating... I thought that the first half dragged on and the second half didnt make sense, followed by an unresolved climax which was not worth the trouble. However, I did like Jared Harris' performance of John Lennon which was worth the wasted 2 hours.
My dad is a fan of Columbo and I had always disliked the show. I always state my disdain for the show and tell him how bad it is. But he goes on watching it none the less. That is his right as an American I guess. But my senses were tuned to the series when i found out that Spielberg had directed the premier episode. It was then that I was thankful that my dad had bought this show that I really can't stand. I went through his DVD collection and popped this thing in when i came home for a visit from college. My opinion of the series as a whole was not swayed, but I did gain respect for Spielberg knowing that he started out like most low tier directors. And that is making small dribble until the big fish comes along (get the pun, HA,HA. Like Spielberg did. It's like Jesus before he became a man. Or thats at least what I think that would feel like. Any ways if your fan of Columbo than you would most likely like this, even though it contains little of Peter Falk. I attribute this to the fact this is the start of the series and no one knew where to go with it yet. This episode mainly focuses on the culprit of the crime instead of Columbo's investigation, as many later episodes would do.
I don't remember the last time I reacted to a performance as emotionally as I did to Justin Timberlake's in "Edison." I got so emotional I wanted to scream in anguish, destroy the screen, readily accept the hopeless cries of nihilism. Timberlake is horribly miscast; in fact, casting him is like casting Andy Dick to play the lead role in "Patton," or Nathan Lane to play Jesus. But that is almost beside the point.<br /><br />Timberlake is simply a bad actor and he would be equally terrible in any role. I used to have problems with Ben Affleck's acting talent, but Timberlake makes Affleck look like Sir Ian McKellen or Dame Judi Dench. With his metrosexual lisp (read lithp), his boyish glances and emotional expressions which derive from something like "The 25 Cliché Expressions for Actors," he poisons the screen upon which he is inflicted mercilessly, and no matter how you slice it, I do not and will not buy his role as an amateur-turned-crusader-for-justice journalist. It simply will not fly.<br /><br />However, Timberlake alone isn't to blame for his failure. Director David J. Burke puts him not only in the (essentially) primary role, but also places him aside Morgan Freeman, Kevin Spacey, John Heard, Dylan McDermott, Cary Elwes and (I'm surprised he was as good) LL Cool J. I can imagine one almost physically suffering watching some of this cast interact with Timberlake.<br /><br />There is an upside to this of course: the moment any of these actors interact without Justin there it feels like a double relief. A pleasure, if you will. Freeman and Spacey may not have more than 10 minutes of screen time alone together, but that ten minutes is blissful in contrast to their scenes with our so-called hero. Dylan McDermott is also a breath of fresh air.<br /><br />But enough of Timberlake bashing - words aren't enough in this particular case to do the trick. "Edison" is a very, very run-of-the-mill corruption story. It's plot ranges from cliché to simply preposterous. I do, however, admire the motivation behind making it, which I interpret as an homage to films like "Serpico," or "Donnie Brasco," or maybe even "Chinatown." Don't get me wrong - "Edison" is not even in the same ballpark as these films, but I can stretch my suspension of disbelief to admire its reason for existence, perhaps to justify my sitting through it.<br /><br />The script, in and of itself, features some surprisingly bad writing. Yes, it has some decent interchanges, but any conversation between Piper Perabo (who is wasted here) and Timberlake seems like it was lifted straight out of a Dawson's Creek episode. It's your typical far-too-glib-for-reality, let's-impress-the-audience-with-how-well-we-articulate (and fail) dialogue. This dialogue, mind you, is punctuated by great music at the wrong moments - sometimes it feels like "Edison" wants to morph into a music video, where the emotion of the scene is not communicated through acting, but precisely through the badly chosen music and variant film speeds (read slow-motion).<br /><br />Thinking about it, "Edison" is a curiosity. It's sure as hell got a cast to kill for but the performances are marred by Timberlake who simply doesn't work. In film as in most art, if one thing is off, the whole thing feels off. Directors must make tough choices. David J. Burke missed the mark here. Some of the scenes play well in and of themselves, but as a whole, they don't seem to fit like puzzle pieces from different puzzles forced into one incoherent picture. And it's not particularly an exciting puzzle to begin with.
Normally, I have much better things to do with my time than write reviews but I was so disappointed with this movie that I spent an hour registering with IMDb just to get it off my chest.<br /><br />You would think a movie with names like Morgan Freeman or Kevin Spacey would be a bankable bet... well, this movie was just terrible. It is nigh on impossible to "suspend disbelief"; I tried, really, I wanted to enjoy it but Justin Timberlake just wouldn't let me. <br /><br />Timberlake should stick to music, what a dreadful performance - NO presence as an actor,NO character. Can't blame everything on Justin: The movie also boast a dreadful plot & badly timed editing; its definitely an "F".<br /><br />After seeing this, I have to wonder what really motivates actors. I mean, surely Morgan actually read the script before taking the part. Did he not see how poor it was? What then could motivate him to take the part? Money? Of course, acting is at times more about who you are seen with rather than really developing quality work. <br /><br />LL Cool J is a great actor; he gets a lot more screen time than Freeman or Spacey in this movie and really struggles to come to terms with the poor script. <br /><br />Meanwhile, the audience goes: "What the hell is going on here? You expect me to believe this crap?"<br /><br />In short, apart from Justin a great lineup badly executed - very disappointing.
Wow. I do not think I have ever seen a movie with so many great actors that had such a pivotal role so miscast. Justin Timberlake is perhaps the single worst actor to land a bigtime role in a movie with the star power and money behind it that Edison had.<br /><br />His acting was PAINFUL to observe. The story was OK and all the other characters were played by professional actors, heck, even LL Cool J was fine since he has had numerous small parts to cut his teeth on. How the director and movie company figured that Timberlake was ready for this role there is no way to comprehend.<br /><br />His character ruins the entire experience since every time he is on screen you are actually rooting for the corrupt cops to cap his sorry ass, and he is supposed to be the hero... I would not waste money on this one at the theater or on video. MAYBE if you have HBO and have NOTHING else to do at 2am on a Saturday night and you are drunk and stoned, this may be OK.<br /><br />Watching Timberlake in this role was like watching a human 'Kermit the Frog' act in a Hollywood Blockbuster, just didn't work at all.
That is the only question I am left with. Why did this movie suck so much when it had such a great cast? Why was the writing so bad, it left the audience completely unconnected with the characters? Why did it not make any sense at all? Why did the studio take a perfectly good premise and "Hollywood" the hell out of it when all it needed was good, smart story telling? Why? I never understand why movies that start out good turn into a pile of crap by the time they're released. I hope for the sake of Freeman an Spacey, who are Oscar WINNERS, that this never is released to the big screens in America.<br /><br />As someone that holds a Bachelors Degree in Journalism, the whole story is just utterly laughable. I just...think the script had potential, but the execution turned it into a cliché, and an awful one at that. Just. No.
i saw this movie at the toronto film festival with fairly solid expectations. the movie has a great cast and was closing at the festival so it must be good, right? how wrong i was. <br /><br />i knew we were in trouble when before the film the director was talking about how when he was directing an episode of wiseguy he met an unknown actor named kevin spacey (a director/writer of wiseguy making his feature debut = blah)... well the director/writer of Edison must have some incriminating pictures of kevin spacey killing a homeless man, because i cannot see how he (along with the other actors in the film) would ever agree to be in this disaster. <br /><br />this movie is absolutely appalling! it's a mixture of every cop hard boiled cliché ever. there is nothing new with Edison. the acting was bad and the direction was even worse. it looked like that aforementioned episode of wiseguy. this was the best casted direct to video movie i've ever seen. <br /><br />some examples of just bad silly moments in Edison... morgan freeman dancing around his apartment for no reason to rock and roll music... justin timberlake getting creative criticism from his belle while his apartment is surrounded by candles... llcoolj driving a vintage firebird... 3 guys being shot in the head...<br /><br />this movie is the opposite of good.<br /><br />STAY AWAY FROM EDISON!
Three tales are told in this film, that seemed to have been shot without knowledge of this being a combined vignette film. The makers relate the three vignettes by having them all connected to shrink Martin Kove, although you never see some of the leads with Kove.<br /><br />The first vignette has sexy Vivian Schilling, a woman afraid of everything under the sun(she makes Adrian Monk look brave), having a paranoia laced evening at home alone. You will literally scream at Vivian for doing some ridiculous things. She spends the majority of her time in a nighty which shows off her amazing features. But her film is the worst if not the most nail-biting.<br /><br />The second vignette is owned by Bill Paxton as he portrays the roommate from Hell. His geeky roommate allows him to take complete advantage of him, and Bill does so whenever he can.<br /><br />The last vignette was funny as a man fears that death will take him at any moment, much like his pal who choked to death on an olive.<br /><br />Not very interesting, as the movie as a whole seems chopped together with very little thought involved. A must for Bill Paxton fans.
Imagine a woman alone in a house for forty five minutes in which absolutely nothing happens. Then this goes on twice more. The writing is flat and lifeless, and jokes unfunny, and the bad acting keeps you from caring about any of the characters, even when they battle wolf packs and get beaten up by fraternity goons. Anyone that ranked this movie higher than a two is not fully sane.
This movie still chills me to the bone thinking of it. This movie was not just bad as in low-budget, badly acted, etc. although it certainly WAS all of those things. The problem with this movie is that it seemed to be intentionally trying to annoy the viewer, and doing it with great success. What I want to know is, is this supposed to be a horror movie? I mean, it's definately horrifying, but not in the way horror movies are supposed to be. I could see the first segment trying to be horror and failing, but what the hell is the second segment? It's just annoying. The third segment is like watching an artsy student film, which amazingly enough makes it the least painful segment. It's an atrocity that this movie isn't way low on the bottom 100, so get your votes (1/10) in people!! I know some people gave this good reviews, but, well, they're lying in a sadistic attempt to trick you. Trust me, it is impossible to like this movie. The only benefit of this movie is an amazing life-extending effect: it feels like you've been watching this movie for years after only the first half hour has passed.
This is the single worst movie I have ever seen. Let me say that again: THIS IS THE SINGLE WORST MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN.<br /><br />It had all of the ear-marks of a bad movie: continuity errors, bad writing, bad acting, bad production value, bad music. I thought that there were a couple points to horror movies. The first is that it is supposed to be suspenseful enough to scare you. This movie gets and F in this category. The second point is that when a character dies, or something bad happens to them, we are supposed to care. This movie gets an F in this regard as well. <br /><br />The first story, a woman gets mauled by wolves after being afraid that this would happen to her. The next story, an OCD guy dies from not being careful and talks to a dead friend of his. Oh, and then there is the horrific, nail-biting story of a bad roommate. Come on, could you pick topics a little more interesting and a little less common than being alone in a house, being anal-retentive, and having a roommate? Turns out all of these stories where hallucinations, virtual reality induced by a Doctor who in turn uses it himself. Wow, stupid.<br /><br />Let me explain something, I enjoy watching bad horror movies and laughing at how bad they are. I couldn't do that with this one. It was utter pain to sit and watch. Do not under any circumstance watch this movie. You WILL regret it.
This is a horrible movie. All three stories are bracketed with a psychiatrist hypnotist line which is unnecessary and all the stories are bad. The first is about wild wolves and some lady, there are some things that don't make sense, but the hypnotism thing makes up for that. The second one, with bad Bill Paxton as a maniac roommate should not be viewed by anyone. The last one, sadly the best is almost incomprehensible which I guess makes it better than the other garbage.
This should have been a movie about Sam and his wife, the glorious Peter Falk and equally glorious Olympia Dukakis. That would have been a movie worth seeing. Instead it's a Paul Reiser vehicle, with a little Falk thrown in. The wonderful Elizabeth Perkins is also in this movie, but you'd hardly know it. I presume Reiser is under the impression that he's a giant movie star who needs an appropriate vehicle. He's not. Even more galling is that Reiser took the trouble to hire some of the best women character actresses on the screen today and then shoved them all into his background. Dukakis does not show up until the last 15 minutes, but when she does, the screen glows. The story is about Falk and Dukakis really, but we're subjected to a pointless, silly, preposterous road trip in which Reiser gets to show how very cute, precious and oh-so-deep with psychological insight (wrong!) he can be. For instance, In a restaurant scene that I imagine Reiser had hoped was "Cassavetes-like" there's a laughably false confrontation between Reiser and Falk that is so patently ridiculous, I was embarrassed for Falk.
I have two good things to say about this film: the scenery is beautiful and Peter Falk gives a good performance (considering what he had to work with in terms of dialog and direction). However, that said, I found this film extremely tiresome. Watching paint dry would have been more entertaining. It seemed much longer than 97 minutes. Beginning with opening sequence, where everyone is talking over each other and Paul Reiser is repeating everything that's said to him on the phone, the movie is annoying. The film is filled with clichés and shtick, not to mention endless incidents of audible flatulence by Falk. Also, the director seems to have had difficulty deciding whether to aim for laughs or tears. There are some sequences that are touching, but they're all played for laughs. If schmaltzy, sentimental, and "cute" appeal to you, you'll love it. But if you were hoping for something with more substance, see a different movie.
Did anyone else notice whenever they are in the car each time the camera takes a new angle they switch roads. Like in one scene it is a one lane residential with sidewalks, next they are on a multiple lane highway with a divider, next a two lane country road with double yellow lanes. I can understand a low budget but that was just sloppy film work.<br /><br />I also read the other reviews and disagree that it was a bad movie. I think that if you are a fan of Paul Reiser and his comedy then you may enjoy this movie. If, however, you find his work/not funny then I would recommend staying away from this one.
This movie could have been 15 minutes long if it weren't for all the bickering between son and father. Very predictable. Both Male "stars" need a good slap in the face! Would you like some cheese with that "whine?" Two chuckles...and a headache. I can understand why the mother left her hubby after 47 years...I don't know how she lasted that long! The first 5 minutes made me want to turn the movie off wishing I had never paid the $3.99 to watch it! The movie didn't flow well and was painfully long. I kept watching my watch hoping time would fly faster...It didn't. The script had so much repetition that it had to be easy for the writer to fill space. On a positive note...the scenery was pretty, fall being my favorite season. The car, the 40 Ford was also quite nice. This movie gets an D- rating approaching an F
Herculis Puaro is, in general, a well established 'hero' we know well from books and movies. This movie or this story don't work and i felt its not Agatha's mistake. The cast isn't good, the actors are over exaggerating and making foolish gestures, the costumes are so clean and tidy that everything (even Arab clothes) look fake and for the serious spectator who thinks twice this movie can be seen as a comedy instead of mystery drama. The actor playing Herculis Puaro is doing a nice job but nothing fantastic. The scenes are, as said before, perfect and looking fake. The story is not very enchanting although a mystery of murder but who cares about the death of a loony and vicious blond 45+ woman in the iraqi desert?! The 'victim' is not likable.
This series gets 2 stars solely because it puts some of Dickens' Bleak House on film and perhaps someone will read the book. Contrary to what is probably received opinion, Diana Rigg was poor as Lady Dedlock. She was clunky and wooden. Lady D. is a reserved character but not a martinet. Denholm Elliot is wrong, wrong, wrong for Mr. Jarndyce. So I'll interrupt myself and respond to all those people who are saying: "I didn't read the book, so I don't have to take this guy's opinion because he's basing his evaluations on the book." True and not true. For ex, Diana Rigg is bad in her role because of poor acting whether or not you've read the book. On the other hand, Denholm Elliot is a passable Jarndyce (although too old). The series fails not because it's unfair to compare it to the book, but because the various plot lines and characters just don't coalesce to make a coherent, dramatic, mysterious andcompelling entertainment. It is dull and flat. If you want to make apossibly good Bleak House, you need to expend 20 hours of film in 10 two hour episodes. But I suggest that producers etc. leave Dickens alone (even A Christmas Carol). Television deadens the genius of Dickens as manifested in his ingenious plots and unforgettable characters.
Oh what a condescending movie! Set in Los Angeles, the center of the universe from the POV of Hollywood filmmakers, this movie tries to be a deep social commentary on contemporary American angst.<br /><br />Stereotyped, smarmy characters of widely varying socio-economic backgrounds cross paths in their everyday, humdrum lives. The plot is disjointed and desultory. Numerous unimaginative plot contrivances keep the film going, like: a drive-by shooting, an abandoned baby left in the weeds, a gang of thugs intimidating a lawyer, a guy flying through the night sky over the city, a kid at summer camp.<br /><br />And through all these events, the one constant is the generous helping of sociological "insights" imparted through the dialogue, as characters compare notes on their life experiences. One character tells another: "When you sit on the edge of that thing (the Grand Canyon), you realize what a joke we people are; ... those rocks are laughing at me, I could tell, me and my worries; it's real humorous to that Grand Canyon".<br /><br />And another character pontificates about the meaning of it all: "There's a gulf in this country, an ever widening abyss between the people who have stuff and the people who don't have ... it's like this big hole has opened up in the ground, as big as the ... Grand Canyon, and what's come pouring out ... is an eruption of rage, and the rage creates violence ...".<br /><br />Aside from the horribly unnatural and forced dialogue, aside from the shallow, smarmy characters, aside from the dumb plot, the story's pace is agonizingly slow. Acting is uninspired and perfunctory. The film's tone is smug and self-satisfied, in the script's contempt for viewers.<br /><br />This was a film project approved by Hollywood suits who fancy themselves as omnipotent gurus, looking down from on high. They think their film will be a startling revelation to us lowly, unknowing movie goers, eager to learn about the real meaning of American social change.
Why me? Why should I be subjected to such slaughter of what could have made an interesting plot?! At least if I can warn other people off, it will have been worthwhile.<br /><br />I had to watch this horrible movie for a college course. Otherwise, I would have looked at the synopsis on the back of the thing and steered clear. The movie was slow, had PAINFULLY little character development, and centered around the idea that a creepy little white man can become cool if he hangs out with an LA-style token black man.<br /><br />If you want to experience the stereotypical LA feeling of dizzying superficiality - watch the movie. Note, though, that this movie does not DEPICT what we have come to think of as an "LA lifestyle", it is a wonderful example of the products that ARISE from it.
If there is a hell, it contains a screening room in which GRAND CANYON is playing over and over again on an eternal loop. One would hope that the presence of so many marvelous actors - Danny Glover, Alfre Woodard, Kevin Kline, Mary Louise Parker - would help make up for the presences of Mary McDonnell (whose penance is to watch her own films for all eternity)... But, no. Apparently they injected those other actors with a serum made from McDonnell. The entire affair is pretentious, overblown, insulting (if you are deaf or know anyone who is, be prepared for your blood to boil at the ludicrous TDD scene). GRAND CANYON is filled with obnoxious, self-involved people, but never gives us a reason to like/understand/sympathize with or even tolerate them. With rare exception, they are insufferable losers that the gene pool would be better off without. There's no plot to speak of, no character development (these people won't EVER develop), no break-out performance and the most arch writing you'll ever encounter in a film. The best thing about GRAND CANYON? Its title. This is one large HOLE of a movie.
I first didn't want to watch this film, for the trailer gave the impression of a common and too expected film...but as I recently had the pleasure to discover the surprising "Mensonges et trahisons et plus si affinité"" which was beautifully directed and written by Laurent Tirard (screenwriter of "prête-moi ta main"), I changed my mind and decided to try it, thinking that "Prête-moi ta main", would be as good as "mensonges...". And it is absolutely not. The script is not bad, but it is not as well directed as "Mensonges...", the actors not as generous (especially Charlotte, as boring as she usually is) as Edouard Baer or Clovis Cornillac, and too be honest, I still don't understand how such crap can have such a success, even with such a casting... Anyway the story could have been a pretext to create so many interesting plots, but it is not as good as Tirard's "Mensonges..." though it's also written by him. Easy, unsurprising, and lazy work. Totally overestimated!
This movie doesn't have an awful lot to do with it's predecessor "Robot Jox". This must be also the reason why its most common name is "Robot Wars" and not the alternate name "Robot Jox 2: Robot Wars".<br /><br />"Robot Jox" was basically a fun movie to watch because it had a nice premise of giant robots battling each other in the near future. This concept has been abandoned for this movie and instead it features a totally dull story that besides isn't very original or cleverly written. A shame it tried to be so much different from its predecessor really, for else this perhaps could had been a more fun movie to watch.<br /><br />Just like "Robot Jox" this is a B-movie but with as a big difference that it's just not a very good one. Perhaps this also has to with the fact that "Robot Jox" got made during the '80's, when B-movies still had a certain bit of charm and class over it, even though the movie got released in 1990. This really can't be said about this movie. It's just lame, badly made, poor looking and not exciting enough. It also has an ending which leaves you thinking 'This is it? That's all?'.<br /><br />What the movie its story is lacking is good clear main plot-line really. Perhaps a good main villain would had been a good idea and some other stuff such as an actual point to the story, some action, or likable main characters.<br /><br />Seriously what were they thinking when they picked the actors for this movie. All of them are simply not likable in their roles and especially Don Michael Paul is annoying as the main character, who behaves as if he's God's gift to woman and Mr. Perfect who can compete with anyone. Weren't they even simply able to get the actors from the first movie?<br /><br />For such a futuristic movie, with a concept of having large battle droids in it, this movie surely is lacking with its action. Had they put some more and bigger action into the movie, the movie would at least had been a more entertaining one to watch. Instead now we have a movie that fails to impress in basically every way imaginable.<br /><br />You can better watch a "Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers" episode, for some more action and likability.<br /><br />3/10
There's nothing quite like watching giant robots doing battle over a desert wasteland, and Robot Wars does deliver. Sure, the acting is lousy, the dialogue is sub-par, and the characters are one-dimensional, but it has giant robots! The special effects themselves are actually quite good for the period. They are certainly not as polished as today's standards, but it contains a minimum of computer graphics and instead uses miniatures, so it has aged fairly well. Its shortcomings are easily overlooked given the films short runtime, and it does have a certain tongue-in-cheek humour in parts that make it quite enjoyable. I would recommend this to any fan of giant robots or cheesy sci-fi who is looking for a lighthearted hour of distraction.
This film has a weak plot, weak characterization, and really weak special effects that I question why I lost valuable life by watching it. It has random characters who add nothing to the story and seem like excuses for the director to get his girlfriend in the film. The robots are sad and the main "hero" 'bot is turned on by a huge knife switch. If this movie weren't so bad it would be laughable, but there's nothing funny about it. The main antagonist is one of the only redeeming characters, and he is killed. It's sad when you root for the bad guy, because he's the best one to cheer for. When all is said and done, this movie was better left on the cutting room floor, or never funded at all.
I'm a Jean Harlow fan, because she had star quality. I don't think her movies are good and I don't even think that she was a good actress, but she certainly was Great in comedies. Every bit of comedy in The Girl from Missouri is very good. But this movie is perhaps more like a love story. Jean Harlow is wonderful in this one and you can forget the rest of the cast - their performances bring nothing new. It always impresses me much to think that Harlow's beautiful body was that of an ill woman. Well, in this movie she does look beautiful.
Yes, CHUNKY, this is the nick-name that Donna Reeds' romantic lead played by Tom Drake tags her with! So lets get this clear right away. From her first ingénue role in THE GET-AWAY (1941) too her last, DALLAS (1984-1985) Ms. Reed could NEVER be described as CHUNKY. Not this attractive and slim actress. Whose roles at M.G.M. seldom lived up to her talents.<br /><br />Ms. Reed is supported by a cast of competent character actors, who unfortunately must flounder through this alleged 'screw-ball' comedy. Clearly M.G.M. was out of their depth making this type of film. A type better produced over at COLUMBIA, PARAMOUNT, RKO and even UNIVERSAL. Neither the 'touch' of Ernst Lubitsch nor the wit of Preston Sturges could save this film. A rather conventional romantic comedy that had all the markings of a pre-war (WWII) effort.<br /><br />If Irving Thalberg had still been alive the screen-play would have either gone through a significant rewrite or never seen the light of day. It did fit into Louis B. Mayer's 'safe-zone' of none challenging family entertainment. A form that could not stand up to the post-war challenges of the 'DeHavilland Decision', loss of their theater chains, television and would contribute to M.G.M.s decline. Fortunetly for Donna Reed her best days are ahead of her culminating in FROM HERE TO ETERNITY (1953) and her Oscar win as Best Supporting Actress.
Thank you Hollywood. Yet another movie classic utterly ruined by a cheap, shallow, effect-heavy and redundant remake. The original "Planet of the Apes" was an intelligent and thought-provoking movie with a very clear message. It was a movie that focused almost entirely on dialogue, which sounds very dull but was in fact very interesting. <br /><br />This movie, on the other hand, seems to have done away with pretty much ALL the dialogues. Instead of a great movie we get an incredibly stupid two hour chase movie. Dialogue has been reduced to a mere minimum, character interaction and development are non-existent and most of the time it's extremely hard to figure out what's going on. Instead, we get a bunch of pointless action scenes, some marginally funny one-liners and some very hollow quasi-intelligent conversations. <br /><br />The only thing worth mentioning about this movie is that it looks absolutely fantastic. The make-up of the apes is magnificent, and the sets and backgrounds are beautiful too. However, this does not distract from the fact that "Planet of the Apes (2001)" is a very shallow and simplistic movie, filled with paper-thin characters, stupid dialogue and a nearly non-existent plot. Please Hollywood, stop ruining great movies by turning them into senseless blockbusters.<br /><br />Oh yeah, the ending did not make ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER.<br /><br />* out of **** stars, mainly for the visuals<br /><br />
Warning: Spoilers Galore!<br /><br />Tim Burton remaking this sui generis movie is about as sensible as remaking Psycho - oh, that's right, some idiot already did that - I rest my case.<br /><br />Movie opens with chimpnaut blundering a simulation, proving he's not that smart from the outset. Marky Mark appears in shot without his characteristic underpants showing, then is turned down by a plain woman who prefers the touch of chimpanzees.<br /><br />The perfunctory establishing shot of the space station orbiting Saturn for no apparent reason, interior of ship a-bustle with genetic experiments on apes. Must we travel 1,300 million kilometers to Saturn to conduct these experiments? The special effects team decrees it.<br /><br />Marky's chimp gets lost in that staple of 60s sci-fi cinema - the Time Warp. Marky then demonstrates the space station's mind-boggling security ineptness by stealing a pod without anyone noticing, while simultaneously demonstrating his abject stupidity in mounting a deep-space rescue mission into a worm-hole for an expendable test chimp, with a million dollar vehicle with limited fuel and oxygen supplies.<br /><br />Before anyone can say `Pointless Remake' Marky has surfed the worm-hole, crashed on an alien planet, removed his helmet without any thought to the lethality of the atmosphere and is being chased through a sound stage that almost resembles a lush rainforest, if it weren't for the kliegs backlighting the plastic trees.<br /><br />Surprise! It's APES doing the chasing - or at least, it *would* have been a surprise if no one saw Planet Of The Apes THIRTY-THREE YEARS AGO.<br /><br />Since Marky Mark did not get to show his pecs, take down his pants, or bust his lame whiteboy rap, he was characterless. Michael Clarke Duncan's gorilla teeth being inserted crookedly helped immensely in establishing *his* lack of character. Helena Bonham-Carter (aka irritating chimp activist), at a loss without a Shakespearean script, did a fine job of outdoing both Marky and Clarke as Most Cardboard Cutout. Paul Giamatti, the orangutan slave trader, secured the role of token comic relief and interspecies klutz. Though I have grown bilious in hearing puns relating to this movie, one review headline captured the essence of this Planet Of The Apes `re-imagining': `The Apes Of Roth'. While everyone else minced about looking like extras from One Million Years BC or Greystoke, Tim Roth, as Chimpanzee Thade, chews massive amounts of scenery and hurls kaka splendiferously. As entertaining as his portrayal of the psychotic Thade was, his character lacked a behavioral arc: Thade is mad when we first meet him... and he's pretty much at the same level of mad at film's end. Nice twist.<br /><br />The original POTA (1968) featured a leading character, Charlton Heston's Taylor, who was so disenchanted with mankind that he left earth for space with no regrets - yet as that film progressed, Taylor unwittingly found himself locked in a battle to prove mankind's worth - as their sole champion! The original film was ultimately a tale of humiliation, not salvation: when Taylor discovers the Statue of Liberty, he is forced to realize that his species had NOT prevailed. Is there anything that cerebral or ironic to Marky Mark's Leo? Or Roth's Thade? No, but there's lots of running.<br /><br />The slogans cry: Take Back The Planet .but it's the APES' planet. In this movie, humans and apes crash-landed here together, the humans having degenerated to cavepeople, allowing the apes to acquire speech and sensual body armor; the apes DESERVED to inherit the planet! Along comes Marky Mark, in true anthropocentric arrogance, taking it for granted that humans HAVE to be the apex predators, simply because they're there. `Taking it back' is as ludicrous as apes landing here in 2001, complaining, `A planet where men evolved from APES??!!' and then causing trouble with their overacting and hairy anuses.<br /><br />Heston was cast in the 1968 POTA because he had established his reputation as a maverick: he WAS Ben-Hur, Michelangelo, Moses! To cast him as the mute, dogged animal in an alien society was to stupefy an audience's expectations: how crazed must a world be where Our Man Charlton cannot command respect? Marky Mark has currently only established that he has tight underpants.<br /><br />Though Heston was denigrated constantly by the ape council, he dominated the screen with his charisma and stupendous overacting. When Marky Mark tries to instill fervor in the mongoloid humans, it's like that unpopular guy in school suddenly being made classroom monitor, who tells you to stop drawing penises on the blackboard and you throw a shoe at him. Burton tries to elevate Marky to humanity's icon, but he comes off as a chittering deviant. In the original film, the apes deem Taylor a deviant, yet he was, to audience and apes alike, an icon of humanity. That irony again.<br /><br />It was apt that a man who elevated scene-chewing to an acting technique - Heston - should play the father of this film's primo scene-chewer, Thaddeus Roth. As Roth's ape-dad, Charlton utters his own immortal lines, turned against the HUMANS this time, `Damn them! Damn them all to hell!'<br /><br />The movie gets dumb and dumber towards the end. While Thaddeus is giving Marky an ass-beating lesson, a pod descends from on high with Marky's chimpnaut in it. Apes demonstrate their hebetude by bowing in obeisance to this incognizant creature, while Marky proves his own hebetude by muttering, `Let's teach these monkeys about evolution.' Firstly, they're not monkeys, you ape! Secondly, it was genetic tampering and imbecilic plot fabrications which brought the apes to this point, not evolution. And what you intend to teach them by blowing them away with the concealed lasergun is called misanthropy, not evolution.<br /><br />Giving away the twist ending would only confuse viewers into believing that Estella Warren's half-nekkid role was actually integral to the plot (be still my pants.).<br /><br />No matter that he was humankind's last underpanted hope; in the end, cop apes take Marky away to Plot Point Prison where he was last heard ululating, `It's a madhouse! A MADHOUSE!!...'
If there's one thing that annoys me most in seeing a bad film, it's seeing it done by experienced film-makers who ought to know better. This "re-imagining" of Planet of the Apes could have used some imagination, to say nothing of essential elements of character development. Nova, the girl in the original Planet of the Apes, was a better developed character than Daena in this version, for all that she does not say a single word. One certainly expected a lot better from Tim Burton, a man who has hitherto combined an incredible visual imagination with intelligence, wit and humour, all of which were notably absent from this production.<br /><br />There were problems in basic plot development. The first big mistake was allowing the humans to talk. This was the fundamental difference between apes and men that made *all* the difference in the original film. Even while he was mute, his ability to communicate was what marked out Heston's Taylor as being different from the other humans. In the current film, Mark Wahlberg encourages the (talking) human slaves to revolt, but there is no overpowering reason for them to have not revolted and reclaimed their emancipation already. They are dexterous tool-users and have the ability to communicate in order to form plans, something mute humans can't do. It needs no man to fall from the stars to save them. Indeed, since he comes from a technological civilisation and finds himself in a pre-technology era without (at first) any gadgets to help him, it is Wahlberg who ought to be at a disadvantage, not the humans who are used to living there.<br /><br />It was sad to see Helena Bonham Carter working so hard to generate some kind of spark between herself and that unresponsive brick wall Mark Wahlberg. Her best scenes were with the villainous Tim Roth.<br /><br />The humans were practically ignored until they were needed in the third act, at which point Daena started showing some actual interest in Davidson (Wahlberg), and a young boy suddenly changed from part of the background to a feisty gung-ho freedom-fighter. This was poor character development. (Estella Warren, in particular, looked as if she would have been capable of a great deal more than she was given in the script). Wahlberg's puzzlement at the end as to what these humans see in him was certainly shared by me, as he has scarcely interacted with the humans throughout.<br /><br />Creating the apes: half a plus point and two minuses: Ape make-up was excellent on the males, particularly Michael Clarke Duncan who has incredibly expressive eyes (which was why he was so good in The Green Mile), and the makeup design allowed him to use them fully. But the ape females looked like nothing on earth, neither ape nor human. The minuses were the ape jumps which looked about as realistic as Flash Gordon's rocket: jumping apes looked as if they'd just been fired from a catapult, they had none of the long-limbed grace of genuine apes. Secondly, the poor sound mixing - when the gorillas roar it is quite clearly dubbed from some animal, probably feline, making them sound ridiculous and unrealistic.<br /><br />In the original film, the various "human" things the apes do and say are handled as light relief ("I never knew an ape I didn't like." "Human see, human do!"). Here, the apes just talk matter-of-factly exactly as 21st Century humans do, and there is no humour in it at all. The only genuinely original idea was Ari writing with her feet.<br /><br />Nothing made me cringe more than the "V-Ger from Star Trek" moment near the end of the film. First of all, the apes had apparently been able to read Roman lettering in the distant past, for them to know the name of the Forbidden Zone in its partly concealed form. Secondly, the mysterious inscription giving the name is merely covered with sand which Wahlberg just brushes away, something any ape could have done centuries ago. This moment was, for me, far worse than the much-maligned ending of the movie.<br /><br />Things of that nature, however, are typical of most science fiction movies of today. Back in the '60s and '70s, they generally didn't have the budget to make convincing futuristic sets, but they dealt with genuinely original themes and ideas which were truly science fictional. I'm thinking of 2001: A Space Odyssey, the 1967 Planet of the Apes, THX1138, Soylent Green, Silent Running and the 1972 Solaris. The first Planet of the Apes even utilised the only scientifically valid and physically possible method of travelling forward in time. However, this film includes just about every bad science fiction cliché going: space storms, anomalies and worm holes straight out of Star Trek; the planets of the solar system and their moons apparently all visible together as large globes (in reality from any one planet, all other bodies, even their own moons, are just points of light); a conventional rocket powered shuttle travelling from Saturn to Earth in a matter of minutes instead of years; two-thousand year old equipment firing up and fully working the minute the hero presses the button. To say nothing of a conveniently bulletproof internal glass door. In a contemporary setting, you'd have to explain *why* it was bullet proof, but because it's "science fiction" you don't have to!<br /><br />Overall, Burton's most disappointing film.
This film is another of director Tim Burton's attempts to capitalize on a familiar title to bring his `vision' to the screen. He has done it with `Batman', `Sleepy Hollow' and now this. This is not a remake. The only thing it has in common with the original is that it has simians that can speak (and Charleton Heston makes a cameo). Burton has reconstituted the entire story, watering it down for today's mass viewership.<br /><br />The original Planet of the Apes was a product of its time. During the 1960's America was struggling to redefine its civilization. It was a turbulent time of soul searching and rethinking social norms. It was the civil rights era where groups long considered inferior demanded to be treated as equal. In that context, POTA was allegorical, reflecting the philosophical turmoil confronting the audiences of the day. POTA was an extremely intelligent film that broached difficult questions and elegantly held the oppressions of American society up to scrutiny by making the white guy justify his intelligence to a species he considered inferior. The dialectic between Colonel Taylor (Charleton Heston), Dr. Cornelius (Roddy McDowall) and Dr. Zira (Kim Hunter) was thought provoking and intelligent with ironies both subtle and obvious.<br /><br />Burton's version is as much a product of today's times as POTA was of the sixties. This is Apes for Dummies. It is superficial and jejune, substituting politically correct platitudes for intelligent dialogue and focusing more on form than substance. The `surprise' ending is utterly incongruous and contributes nothing to the film except a cliffhanger that sets up the sequel. While the ending of the original POTA gracefully tied everything together in a single powerful scene, Burton's ending simply mocks the audience, taunting, `I know something you don't know, and you are going to have to wait for the sequel to find out.'<br /><br />From a technical perspective, as is always the case with Burton's film, the film is excellent. The makeup is fantastic and Burton's camerawork is outstanding (though I continue to dislike his dark look). However, thirty-three years of advancements in prosthetic makeup can not compensate for the insultingly vacuous script.<br /><br />The story has been reduced to a monster movie. The humans band together behind Captain Davidson (Mark Wahlberg) to fight the monstrous Apes, aided and abetted by a few turncoats (notably Helena Bonham Carter as Ari). The presentation is formulaic and simplistic with plenty of violence, perfect for today's fast food mentality.<br /><br />The acting is mixed. Mark Wahlberg is a fine actor who is simply miscast in this role. Walberg is excellent at playing dark, sullen characters that are tormented but strong. This part requires an inspirational hero, a profile not in Wahlberg's repertoire. Helena Bonham Carter is a brilliant actor whose character is so far beneath her ability that the disconnect is laughable. She tries desperately to do something with the flimsy character, but her interpretation presents like a cross between a college peace demonstrator and love sick teenager.<br /><br />Then there is Tim Roth. His is a virtuoso performance, single-handedly saving the film from total ruin. Roth is diabolically hateful as the malevolent General Thade. He creates one of the most villainous and despicable bad guys I can remember in some time. Additionally, his physical acting is superlative, rendering a chimp-man that is such a perfect meld that one can almost believe that the species exists.<br /><br />This film is a great disappointment. It is decent entertainment, as long as you check your brain at the door. I rated it a 3/10. From a technical perspective it is much better than that, perhaps a 9/10. However the story is an insult to the original franchise. It is simply another attempt by Burton at self adulation, using a familiar title to attract throngs to the box office so lots of people can see what a genius he is. Of course it's true, but it would be great if he used that talent to produce substantial films, instead of simple minded pap formulated for mass consumption.
The acting was bad, the script was bad and the ending was just terrible...the only good comment i could make about this movie would be the special effects and make up...but apart from that...this movie would be one of the worst movies of 2001...why on earth did they have to remake such a perfect movie and ruin it...why!!!!
I have seen and liked the original film, and expected more from a remake than this.<br /><br />GOOD: Effects and makeup are good. No complaints about the score and visuals, they are adequate, and the performances were okay (Tim Roth was excellent, the other principals were fine, and a handful of the "supporting supporting actors" did very well with extremely limited roles). The action scenes were exciting and fun.<br /><br />BAD: The escape from the ape city was terrible. The characters are going in circles, then suddenly someplace in the middle of town there are tunnels to escape. Plus, what escape route leads through everybody's bedroom?<br /><br />The story was pared down to include as much action as possible. I like action scenes but the original film had more meat to it and deserved more respect.<br /><br />Finally, the ending was completely nonsensical as presented. Without seeing the inevitable sequel, there is no justification for it.<br /><br />
I read somewhere that Hollywood should concentrate on remaking bad movies and leave the classics alone. We can only hope. While this remake wasn't a total waste, I still wish I had the six bucks back to go toward a DVD of the original. Lots of violence and one of the worst endings I've ever seen. This version doesn't add anything new. It only reiterates why Hollywood should leave the good stuff alone.
After looking at monkeys (oops apes) for more than one hour, I was feeling like one too. I was an ape, spending money on this movie. Please people, hold you money in your pocket and go see some funny movie like Bridget Jones's Diary..
Apart from Helen Bonham Carter, there is nothing worthy about this movie....And the surprise ending?! The thought of a sequel is even more annoying. Save your money, wait for the video and ignore that too.
I have to admit that this "re-imagining" of the original 1968 film was a huge disappointment. Specially when taken into consideration that this is a Tim Burton film. He is defenetly one of the most original and, might I say, cool directors Hollywood has produced.<br /><br />I am personally a great fan of his work, but something obviously went wrong with his latest flick, The Planet of the Apes. I really enjoyed the original film. When it first came out people expected just another cheezie 70's science fiction film, but a very surprise anding totally proved that theory wrong. It had indeed a clear cut message. An obvious anti-war message. Fear of the cold war, where it was taking the world and fear of the use of nuclear weapons played a big role in the mind of the film-makers. Those reasons made the film rise above all expectations and it became a instant classic. Although, the new film, the "re-making" or whatever, leaves us with nothing. No message, no ideals behind it. It is just another money-minded summer blockbuster.<br /><br />Visually Tim Burton does not let you down. The dark and creepy settings were excellent and of course the make up was terrific.<br /><br />Obviously that is not enough to keep people intrested in a film. There has to be an exciting plot or storyline. In this movie the plot is highly uninteresting and it is extremely badly thought out. The script is very lame and it is full of gaps. It looks like this film had been written in a big hurry. The explanation for why the apes where there, and why the ruled the planet was indeed very stupid and proved the script-writers ignorance.<br /><br />It raised a lot of questions, which had no reasonable answers to.<br /><br />For example; Why did the apes speak English?, why were there other ape-species than chimps on the planet (given that there were only chimps in the space ship that crash-landed on the planet) Where the hell did all of those humans come from? How were a few chimps able to evolve into a huge raise of all kinds of monkeys in only a few thousands years. (I mean it took a few million years for us to evolve from monkey to man!)<br /><br />And finally, the bad surprise ending was just plane dumb. It was probably just thrown in because the original film had such an end, then they felt that the audience were expecting the same kind of ending. The ending also raises a lot of questions, which I KNOW, don´t have intelligent answears. Did Theid learn to work the space ship?, which was power-less, and learnt to fly back in time and take over the earth single hand?, and, what did he do, breed with all the women? And lets say that that would happen, I higly doubt that history would stay the same, like Washington would be built exactly like it is today! (I mean wouln't there be a huge banana instead of the memorial?)<br /><br />Well, just to say something posative about the film. Some of the cast was great. Helen Bonham Carter's character was interesting and well-acted, as for Tim Roth as Theid. He was very good, a little exaturated at some points of the film. Michael Clark Duncan was also fine. I was not happy with Marc Whalberg. He is not much of an actor, and plays here a very macho colour-less character. Very unbielevable and is nothing compared to Hestons character in the original. And the main female character had no reason or place in the film. She was just casted for the looks. Hardly said a word throughout the entire film.<br /><br />Well, I think that in the future when people think about the Planet of the apes, they will think about the original one. The latest will soon be forgotten.
What a disappointment, especially in light of the budget provided, the technical resources available, and the talent assembled. Isn't the fundamental rule for science fiction/drama to create in the audience the willing suspension of disbelief. POA 2001 creates a plausible beginning, suckering us in, but thereinafter Mr. Burton forgets that his moviegoers have working brains. The over the top libertarian of Helena Bonham Carter's chimp, the worthlessness of the humans' lockup, the ease of their escape, their extraordinary skills of horsemanship (this is an astronaut and a group of human primitives suddenly riding full tilt), the massive and immediate human rebellion all are too unbelievable. Mark Wahlberg never once projects any sense of real fear, danger or comeuppance in this world turned upside down. Compare to the original, in which Chuck Heston's nakedness metaphorically captured his utter helplessness and astonishment at his turn of events. The uniformed Wahlberg preserves his modesty, but also his apparent sense of management and control in an inherently wacky situation, and we never really wonder about his well being. Unlike Heston, he seems never to be in real jeopardy. Tim Burton should have used some of the f/x budget for some competent screenwriting. In fact, after this inferior fiasco, I wonder why Hollywood's producers ever bothered to settle the screenwriters and directors strike threats. Let them walk. Trained monkeys could have done as well as they did in Planet of the Apes 2001. I'll bet the repeat viewings of this effort will be nonexistent. It could have been a new franchise, and a wonderful new step for imagination. Another opportunity lost.
This film was bad because there was nothing interesting about it. It was sort of a remake but then again, not really. I was very disappointed considering the tools that Tim Burton has at his disposal. He had great make up and CGI available and lots of money ($100 million) but can you honestly say that what we got was as good as the original film that was made for less than $6 million? Heck no. So in that regard, the film fails.<br /><br />At least in the original film, the statue of liberty scene was shocking but there was nothing shocking in this film even the end scene because you could kind of see it coming. And, by the way, if you give it some thought, and I did, you can figure out how the ending could come about. I just wish I had back the time that I wasted thinking about it.<br /><br />This film would have been brilliant and fun if it stayed along the lines of the first film and adopted part of "Beneath the Planet of the Apes". Here's how I would have written it:<br /><br />An astronaut (it really should have been more than Marky Mark because he's not good enough to care a film all by himself so I would have put in three guys) that would land on what they would think would be another planet, encounter humans (not mutes), a city ruled by apes, were hunted, made friends with some good apes, discover that they're on earth via finding some destroyed ruins, end up running into crazy mutant humans living beneath the earth, a war breaks out between the mutant humans and the apes, and then....well, let your imagination run wild on how you want to end it.<br /><br />But my point is that there could have been so much more to this film. Sadly, Tim Burton really knows how to wreck a good thing. Consider what he did with the Batman series. He's a rotten director inspite what of people think. He's trendy so he must be good goes the thinking. Sorry, but no. If anyone else had done this film, it would have turned out far better and would have been far more satisfying.
Not good! Rent or buy the original! Watch this only if someone has a gun to your head and then....maybe.<br /><br />It is like claiming an Elvis actor is as good as the real King.
Spoilers I guess.<br /><br /> The absolutely absurd logic of the ending ruins the entire movie. I just couldn't get over it. And what is wrong with Mark Wahlberg's character? If I suddenly found myself crashed-landed on a planet full of talking apes, I'd be all like, " AAAAhhhhHHH!!! Run for your lives! The monkeys have inherited the Earth!" But he's all like, "talking apes, okay. Next?" That's pretty jaded I'd say. He must run into even stranger things on a regular basis. Besides that, this is Rick Baker's best work yet. This film is a true testament to how far we've come in the monkey makeup field. 3/10.
Absolutely the worst film yet by Burton, who seems to be getting worse with each film he directs. A miserable script loaded with cliches is only the first of many objectionable aspects to this film. This is the kind of movie where every time something happens, you'll be sure to hear someone shout out "he's lost his gun!" or whatever it is to let everybody know. Carter is really awful and so is Wahlberg, who can't play this straight and be convincing. Very nice effects and photography, but poor music in the John Williams mold by Burton's crony Elfman. Heston appears in a nonsensichal scene to spout out his most famous catch-phrases from the first movie. Very poor results.<br /><br />If anyone else out there also saw "Sleepy Hollow", they will probably have noticed, as I have, the declining quality of Burton's films. I've heard that this particular project was produced by others and that Burton was brought in as director, in which case his judgement should be questioned. But I think he has allowed any possible vision he might have had earlier in his career to slip; the evidence is there in the films. In "Sleepy Hollow", he couldn't decide what kind of movie he was making, whether it was a comedy or a real horror movie, and the population of british character actors (Chris Lee, etc.) made you also think it was kind of a monster rally film (those are never scary, as horror fans know). The movie couldn't succeed on either horror or comedy because it was so schizophrenic, and no style had been developed to smooth the two together. "Planet of the Apes" is much the same way, and the result comes off more like "Total Recall" or "Tango and Cash" than like sci-fi. He's also fallen into the rut of so many other "big" directors of trying to satisfy the entire possible audience. Word to Burton, if you're out there -- pick something and do it straight, or use some style to peice it all together (as in "Mars Attacks" or "Beetlejuice") or you might as well retire, because people like me that are fans of your movies will stop going.
This is a bit of a first for me, the first time I have ever been disappointed in a Tim Burton film. POTA isn't a bad film (great sets, costumes and the odd great performance) but it could have been made by any off-the-shelf hollywood director. The pacing was very odd, the last third was just spent waiting for the film to end, by myself and the cast. Tim Roth was excellent, probably the only pleasure in the film. Come back Tim.
This movie was 100% boring, i swear i almost died from boredom at the theater. It wasnt funny and didnt really hve that much action in it either, it was BORING and i hope whoever out there that liked this movie, god be with you in the future when you find out what this movie was really like and try to jump off a bridge or something like that
while watching this piece of crap! The Day after, I saw a 1min Trailer - that one minute included all, ALL what was at least not boring to watch...<br /><br />so don't waste money or time on this one, get the original, it's much better though the effects might not be up to date...
This is the worst movie I have seen for years! It starts ridicoulus and continues in the same way. I thnik when is something going to happen in this film,,,, and the the acting is worse. The ending lifts it a bit and saves the movie from a total flop. Mark Wahlberg is a bad actor in a bad movie. Sorry Tim Burton Batman was good but this one sucks.
I think everyone was quite disappointed with this sci-fi flick. For one thing, it was directed by Tim Burton. Another thing, it's a remake of what is supposed to be a classic. I found it boring, gross, and ridiculous. If you've seen it, you know what I mean. Just about everyone at Imdb say it's crap and boy, are they right! If you haven't, avoid it. It's a snorer. 1 out of 10.
Being a big fan of the "other" PLANET OF THE APES films, I rented this DVD despite my aversion to all things Tim Burton. Once again, he doesn't fail to disappoint with his uninspired direction. Even the ape makeup looks second rate, which is unforgivable considering the monstrous budget of this monstrosity. Mark Wahlberg proves once and for all that he is not an actor (as if BOOGIE NIGHTS wasn't proof enough). I was embarrassed for genuine talents such as Tim Roth and Helena Bonham Carter. No doubt their paychecks motivated them since it couldn't possibly have been the cliche-ridden screenplay. I rented this DVD on a special $1 night and I still feel ripped off.
This Tim Burton remake of the original "Planet of the Apes" from 1968 (and starring Charleton Heston) is a far, far cry from the quality and plot of the original.<br /><br />Certainly special effects have improved since 1968, but writing has not. The characters were boring and the dialog was awful. I sat through the entire film with a friend (who thankfully only rented it) and completely understood why, before Christmas, all of the "Planet of the Apes" toys at Target were in the clearance bin.<br /><br />My advice to Tim Burton: don't put this on your resume.<br /><br />My advice to everyone else: watch the original 1968 "Planet of the Apes" movie.
I had VERY low expectations for this alleged "re-imagining" of the original -- and they weren't even met! What were they thinking? (Answer: They weren't.) Please don't waste your time on this Hollywood trash fest. Clip your nails, balance your checkbook, do anything besides watch this. Remember: If you rent stuff like this, it will only ensure they make more.
What ever happened to one of the most innovative and brilliant storytellers of our time? Well, he made the kind of typical summer action fodder that could've been directed by anybody available out of film school...and in fact, they probably would've done a better job. They would've at least have put half of a thought into the dreadful script.<br /><br />Mark Wahlberg plays an astronaut who traveled through some sort of wormhole and landed in a planet ruled by apes. (gasp!) Except this time around, the apes squirm through groan-worthy dialogue, nonsensical plotting, and showy special effects that constantly reinforce in my mind that this money could've been put to about 10 independent films that would have been considered 'masterpiece' next to this tripe.<br /><br />As much as I enjoy the superb acting talent that is Tim Roth, his performance as evil ape leader Thade is nothing more than an intense composition of slouching and heavy breathing. Luckily for him, the makeup allows he as an actor to maintain some dignity and most of the crap-dialogue is hidden behind his groans and sniffles.<br /><br />And alas, the always dependable Hollywood tradition of taking the male and female leads and hooking them up at the end without any relationship development or cause. And the "haha, we're so clever, aren't we?" way that Hollywood intermingles references from the original POTA into this one. Sigh...<br /><br />Instead of seeing this, spend the night in and call up some friends and rent 'Ed Wood', 'Edward Scissorhands', 'Batman', or even to a lesser extent 'Sleepy Hollow', and reminisce about the days when Tim Burton was a man of vision and originality...not shame and ridicule.
I really looked forward to see Planet of the Apes, but it was a huge dissapointment.<br /><br />The settings and masks are great, but that is the only good aspect of the film. All other things are really annoying. Mark Wahlberg is not acting, he is just in the movie, looking stupid. The other actors are also not very good.<br /><br />But the worst point of all, is the story. It is absolutely ridiculous! For example: the apes are lying unconsiousness on the ground, but the humans don`t attack them, no, they wait until they are up again! This is just one example for the stupid story, but it would take too long to tell them all.
Well, it turned out as I expected: visual overload but nothing else added to the original. What did surprise me however was that the storyline was fairly drastically changed compared to the 1968 flick. Initially this awoke my interest, but what eventually surprised was that the new twists and turns (a) were apparently invented in order to present us with a typical Hollywood-like product and (b) made the whole storyline improbable! The 1968 story was breathtakingly straightforward, and included no time-storms or any bogus of that sort: it just stated that when you come home after a long journey, things might have changed a bit. Earth might have fallen in the hands of apes, for example. Like many 'old' movies, it's main ingredient was suspense (hell, does anyone understand that word these days?). In this Burton movie, an attempt has been made to turn the whole thing into an action movie, but at what cost? Surely, the images are overwhelming, and a lot of time and money has been put into the design of a complete ape-culture (even ape-music!), but what's wrong?<br /><br />First, the suspension of disbelief is made very hard, because the apes have a lot of Hollywood-human traits. I refer especially to Ari and the slave-trader. These traits include emotional skills like irony, sarcasm, and an overtly displayed array of 'subtle' emotions. It makes you forget that the apes are apes, which is essential.<br /><br />Second, the humans TALK. Of course, we can imagine that humans will never forget how to speak, but the fact that the apes had speech and the humans didn't made the ape/human role-switching very tangible and stressing in the 1968 version. The wound in the throat that Charlton Heston gets there is essential to his survival and his later regained speech essential to his uniqueness and the interest that Dr. Zira has in him (so, no need for things like human rights activists or ape-human love in order to explain things).<br /><br />Third, the fact that they talk ads a great deal to the implausibility, but is a necessary twist in the new movie, since Capt. Davidson has to play the Hollywood-let's-save-the-whole-world- and-have-a-good-ending-for-everyone- and-still-make-it-to-the-lounge-bar- for-a-cool-diet-coke character. Oh my god, will they never learn? I new it from the start, when there was only one guy who got lost! They were in need of a hero! And then the script writers go on reasoning: we need one guy... so, why would one guy get lost... because he tries to save an ape from an electromagnetic storm... implausible! But it's necessary because it shows the audience that he respects apes! Since, in these modern and politically correct times, we can't have a xenophobic ape-hater like Charlton Heston's 68 character loose on the screen: let's give them a bubblegum version!<br /><br />Fourth, okay, the general twist of the original 'discovering the truth' of the 1968 film to the modern version (he finds that his own mother ship crashed on the planet ages ago and that their lab-apes developed their society, where Heston simply discovered that just, somehow, the apes overtook the earth while he was away) is nicely done. The second, battle-part comes as an anti-climax. That's because this movie has added the first two Planet Of The Apes movies in one plot. Nice try, but the chill you feel when Davidson and you discover that he's lost on the planet forever just washes out due to the uninteresting battle-part.<br /><br />Fifth: the ending!!! For chrissakes, who came up with that?! (a) Davidson crashes TWICE with his escape pod, which seems an unsteerable object, while the chimp manages to simply land gracefully? Come on, who'd believe that? If the pods are really small space crafts (Davidson simply flies off into space at the end) and not merely escape vessels, he might have managed a safe landing at least once, no? And what about that ending???? I mean, in the original film it was clear that everything took place on earth. But here: the whole movie takes place on a distant planet, and suddenly the same (there's a Thade statue) ape culture is on earth??? How come? Did the apes of the far planet evolve technologically, flew into the time storm and colonised earth before Davidson's mission took off? Why is Thade worshiped? Stupid stupid stupid.<br /><br />Helena Bonham Carter is even adorable and beautiful as an ape, but I'd expected no less. I preferred her ape above Estella Warren as a human, but maybe I got some loose wire in my head. Nevertheless, the only convincing apes were Tim Roth as Thade (wonderful!) and Ari's household ape (the ex-general, but I forgot his name).<br /><br />Nonono, a lot of things could and should have been added/altered to the 1968 pic, but not the plot, at least not in that way. It was simple and clear and needed no additional explaining. It was nicely tongue-in cheek and caricatured. Don't stylize everything...
Oh my god. the idea that this movie is a thriller is an absolute joke to me. besides the point that it seems to be written by a 5 year old. the plot, the acting and even the props and filming of this movie were all beyond disgrace.<br /><br />I am not usually this critical about any movie, cause every person has his/her style. But this movie, however, was probably the worst movie i have seen in 2008. I can honestly believe that this movie is unknown, and i think it should stay like this, for movies like these are making the thriller genre a joke.<br /><br />I advise anyone that is a fan of thriller movies, or even simply movies to stay far away from this one.
It says that a girl named Susan Montford both wrote and directed this "movie." No wonder she has no other credits to her name for writing or directing. She made a severe vocational error in choosing this as her career. This is one of the worst human creations of this millennium.<br /><br />The fundamental thing wrong with this movie other than its ridiculous story of a woman running away from four weak thugs, is the blatant and complete lack of LOGIC.<br /><br />**After she leaves the mall, she gets approached by four thugs as they surround her. Tell me, what woman would aggressively SHOVE a potential attacker while being surrounded, and insult them verbally? I don't mean after an attack had already started, because then of course it's completely normal for someone to fight back. But she shoved that guy and pretty much escalated it to the next level. No woman would do that unless she 1) had a weapon, 2) has the confidence of knowing that backup is very close, and so is relatively safe from harm, or 3) the attackers are so young, and weak looking that she's pretty sure she can take them. None of that applied in this situation, so she was just acting like someone that's asking to get raped or mugged. And by the way, when the security guard approached, as SOON as he came within viewing distance of Kim Basinger, why wouldn't she immediately either run towards him for help, or scream?? <br /><br />**When she drives off after the security guard gets shot in the head, she drives into a deserted part of town, and crashes. She had a good three minute lead on the pursuers, instead of simply running off on foot in a diagonal direction behind houses and climbing fences and continuing, she gets out her Red Toolbox and starts messing around under her hood. I understand she was trying to fix her car, but she should've ran.<br /><br />(I didn't even mean this to be a chronological summary of the movie, because I loathe people who do that in their reviews, but it just so happens that every main sequence of this movie has something so blatantly stupid that I have to comment on it).<br /><br />**Why would she carry a loud, Red Toolbox as she's trying to sneak away in the dark? When she does get caught, one of the jokers demands for her to open the toolbox. First she resists, then eventually opens it. And takes out a wrench. This scene here is so rich in subtle overtones of the complete failure of dramatic effect I have to break it down, it's one of the dumbest scenes in the entire movie. When asked to open the box, she's resisting at first as if it were her plan to somehow get one of the thugs to open it themselves out of anger after she didn't open it, in the same way that someone in some action movie might have some device that an enemy demands that person to touch/push/open/manipulate, and once that hero refuses to open it, the enemy grabs that device, only to have that device automatically dispense a chemical/shoot him in the face/render him unconscious, which was the hero's plan all along. It feels like that's what they tried to do with Kim Basinger here, as she opens the toolbox dramatically and quickly takes out a WRENCH and dispatches one of the thugs, and somehow GETS AWAY from him and the three other thugs.<br /><br />**Throughout the rest of the movie, basically what you see is this suburban house wife, sneaking around the woods as she carries her Red Toolbox, taking out various tools used as weapons to KILL HER ATTACKERS.<br /><br />**When she was running away, how did she end up moving BACK to where the thugs were? I think it was the scene where they had that radio playing loudly in tribute to the dead dude. She somehow crept up on them when I thought she was moving AWAY from them.<br /><br />**Finally, this whole premise is so weak because the whole reason she's being chased in the first place is because from the thugs' perspective, she was a witness to a murder they committed against the security officer earlier, and so they felt they had to kill her. How ridiculous. As one of the thugs even said, they could've just left town and returned back to whatever city they drove from, no one but her had seen them anyway, and she probably didn't get the license plate. Even if these possibilities wouldn't work in their favor, how is raising hell and hunting down someone to kill them improving your chances to get away with the original murder?
Della Myers (Kim Basinger) is an upper-class housewife that lives in a private condominium in the suburbs with her twin children and her abusive husband Kenneth (Craig Sheffer). Della gives all the attention to the twins, neglecting their house and her appearance and upsetting Kenneth. On the Christmas Eve, she drives to the local mall in the night to buy wrapping paper for the gifts, and she does not find any parking space available. When she sees an old car parked on two spots, she leaves a message to the owner calling him "selfish jerk". When the mall closes, Della's car is hold by the driver of the old car and she is threatened by four punks – Chuckie (Lukas Haas), the Afro-American Huey (Jamie Starr), the Chinese-American Vingh (Leonard Wu) and the Latin Tomás (Luis Chávez). When the security guard of the mall protects her, he is shot on the head by Chuckie, Della speeds up her car trying to escape from the criminals. However she crashes her truck nearby a forest while chased by the gang. She takes the toolbox and hides in the wood, fighting against the gang to survive.<br /><br />A couple of days ago, I saw the trailer of "While She Was Out" and I was anxious to watch the DVD. Unfortunately the trailer is better than the movie, and I am totally disappointed with this dull and implausible collection of clichés. Della Myers is presented as an insecure and neglectful housewife and inexistent as wife; the motherhood is her only interest in her concept of family. She is chased by four mean criminals but she defeats them with a toolbox that seems to be the Batman's utility belt. Therefore, the plot is so absurd that irritates. The gang of criminals is formed by the favorite cliché of American movies, with an Afro-American, a Chinese-American and a Latin together with an American lord to be politically correct. Kim Basinger has a decent acting, but their children are too young for a fifty-five year-old woman. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Enquanto Ela Está Fora" ("While She Was Out")
Words can't describe how utterly stupid this story (and therefore bad this movie) is! Basinger, Del Toro ... what were you thinking ?? So there's a mall and its parking space is totally full. Basinger's character goes in to buy a cup of tea and some packaging paper.<br /><br />When she comes out, the whole place is so empty, that nobody hears two gunshots fired nearby ?? Even though she lives there, when she drives away from the baddies, she goes to the most remote and godforsaken place possible instead of the nearest police station or at least a crowded place ?? COME ON !!! I won't even go into the infamous red toolbox, since other people have done that before. Let alone how she kills the moronic thugs one by one.<br /><br />This is so stupid, without the least bit of logic, I can only warn you watching it, it's a TOTAL waste of time, honestly !!
Sorry, but aside from Kim Basinger doing a good job acting scared, this was one of the worst thrillers I've seen in awhile. Logic is thrown out as 4 young guys terrorize this woman outside a crowded mall then shoot a security guard. Yet no one seems to notice. Then, instead of screaming for help or racing back to the mall, she drives off and ends up in the middle of the woods with the guys in hot pursuit. I can't even describe how silly it is seeing this woman fleeing from 4 retarded thugs, carrying a red toolbox, screaming for God to come help her, and then having sex with one of them after brutally killing the others. Please trust me, this is bad and a bit tasteless as well.
Wow. Rarely have I felt the need to comment on movies lately, but this one especially is begging for a beatdown. Let's start at the beginning. First, writer-director Susan Montford puts Kim Basinger in the tired old victim role, complete with the requisite abusive husband and dull suburban existence. Let it be said right now that almost all content in this dull movie is completely hackneyed and trite. Montford's pathetic attempt at symbolism involving the Christmas tree with no star is laughable.<br /><br />When She Goes Out for some Christmas wrapping paper one dark and ominous night, Della is furious that somebody double-parked their car on the busiest shopping night of the year. She decides to do something about it, so she leaves a nasty note on the car's windshield. The next fifteen minutes of the movie are devoted to Della walking around aimlessly in the shopping mall. When she finally gets to her car, the thugs confront her about the note, a cop is killed, and she runs, and they catch up to her, and she gets away, and they chase her some more, and on and on. Everything is completely predictable and uninvolving. The thugs are not scary or menacing at all, and they all get picked off one by one in all the usual ways.<br /><br />This is one of those movies in which all the action depends on the characters being as stupid as you can imagine. Why the bad guys don't just kill her instead of waiting for her to hit them with a tire iron is beyond me. And once, just once, in a film like this, does the leader of the pack have to die last? What does it matter that they are all picked off one by one when they are all equally inept? Much of the movie simply consists of Lukas Haas running around in the woods screaming "Della!!!" And the inclusion of Joy Division on the soundtrack of this wretched film is insulting.<br /><br />The part that really made me run for my computer keypad was when Della, exhausted and hurt, cries out to the heavens, "Where are you, God?" Where, indeed, was god when this movie was being made? I give it a 2 only because of competent cinematography and lighting, and it's not as bad as 'BTK Killer,' the ultimate marker for judging any terrible film. Cheers!
Even though many people here praises this movie, I have to warn you. It has no logic whatsoever. I think that Basinger does a decent job at acting, but you can't make a thriller if there is a great lack of realism.<br /><br />This scene paints a good picture for you of the movie : while Basinger is pursued by murderous thugs she decides to sit down and gaze upon a picture she finds from her pocket. The picture is from her daughter and it reads "we love you mommy". Who does something like that ? What the eff? And believe me when I say that it is not nearly as stupid as some other scenes of the movie. Someone stated that this is a "hidden gem". Well, I have to strongly disagree, this movie has stayed hidden for a reason. And it's not a gem. Oh, and please, I don't even want to start commenting about the red toolbox. It hurts my brain :D Usually the lack of logic does not bother me if it is in small amounts, but this movie basically is made possible only because of the lack of logic. But, i still give it a 4 because even though it is embarrassingly flawed in logic, it has certain mood that kept me watching till the end.<br /><br />So if you choose to watch this, you know you have been warned.
My, how the mighty have fallen. Kim Basinger is a great actress but she was definitely slumming when she took this role. This movie is bad for one reason in particular: lapses in logic. Its looks like one of those movies that would have been passable with all its plot holes if it had came out in the 80s and 90s but in 2008 it just looks real stupid. This is the worst thriller I've ever seen and I've seen The Bone Collector and Twisted.<br /><br />The story details Della(Kim Basinger)is just getting from buying gifts in a mall an is harassed by a gang of thugs that end up killing a cop that came to her aid. From then on she is chased by these idiotic goons through an abandoned street and she gets rid of them one by one with a toolbox full of tools.<br /><br />So many things are wrong with this movie. As I said this movie leaps over logic at every turn and with the exception of Kim Basinger, the acting is made-for-TV bad. Hell, this pseudo thriller is made-for-TV bad. The way she kills each of these politically correct thugs(1 Caucasian, 1 Hispanic, 1 Asian and 1 African American all coming together to stalk a Caucasian woman. Don't you just love America?)is laughable to a fault. The way she killed the Hispanic guy made me laugh hysterically. The sex scene with the main hoodlum was so out in left field that it make you shake your head in shame. I only recommend this to lovers of bad films and no one else. Anybody else especially Kim Basinger fans would do well not to own this flick. You don't want see an actress you respect in a film this bad now do you? Of course not. You were warned.
Well, let me start off by saying how utterly HILARIOUS this film is, I simply couldn't keep myself from laughing at the sheer stupidity of it. Don't get me wrong, it IS well acted particularly by Bassinger but the script is just, well the mind boggles truly.<br /><br />The premise is good and up until Della actually witnesses the murder it is engaging but after that it just goes downhill . Half way through the film the protagonist pulls out her toolbox and of course instead of lobbing it at the guy's head, she decides to pull out a screwdriver, car jack and finally a flare (as in for a sinking ship) respectively to kill her victims.<br /><br />Then there is the final line that I promise, if it doesn't have you in stitches then I will eat my own left foot.<br /><br />I would recommend this film to those who simply want to laugh at some good old fashioned, appalling film making. Might I also suggest you watch out for the scene in the scrap yard with the guy falling from the one foot high plank of wood, gets me every time.
Who in their right mind does anything so stupid as this movie?<br /><br />Accidental killing of a security guard... characters that are so two dimensional that a two year old could have painted drawn them... and better...<br /><br />A red toolbox of death? Please....<br /><br />Hypothermic weak thugs...<br /><br />Acting from hell...<br /><br />Stylistically this movie shifts between teen comedy, thriller, voyeurism and... female ... (uhm) Rambo?<br /><br />Unbelievable and it's an insult to any thinking person. Do not watch, walk away it's more horrible than you may imagine...<br /><br />And on top of it all it's trying to be hip by being overly graphic in it's violence...<br /><br />Mrs Montford: Shoot 'Em Up was fun and funny, this is just pathetic and terrible. Good luck next time. :-(
What a weekend. Two days ago I watched the first half of "War Games 2: Dead Code", now "While she was out". I am trying to come to a decision which one was worse in terms of pain in my mind while watching. I guess, "While she was out" was worse.<br /><br />It has all been said before in other comments: Unrealistic, illogical etc. - the only thing I really have to add is that at some point I started feeling more for the evil guys than for the woman because I would have recommended her for a Darwin award if she actually died (only watched first half, so I don't know). Soon I was at two Darwin awards (if that's even possible) for her immense stupidity.<br /><br />And, hey: Produced by Kim Basinger? So she did not only know the script but was also responsible for bringing this waste of money to us, the people? I consider humans who waste considerable amounts of money to be evil because the money could have used to feed and clothe quite a few people instead of hurting 80 percent of those who saw it in the cinema and giving 20 percent, which are idiots, a good opportunity to show just how much of an idiot they are.
This is one seriously disturbed movie. Even Though the boys deserved some of what they got.....the sadistic gruesome executions were "slightly" over the top. The only character showing some conscience early in the hunt was killed off before he could offer some help to the sad plot.<br /><br />At the beginning of the movie, there looked to be some promise of a mediocre affair, but this was just a ploy to lull the viewers into a false sense of security, before the joy of what was to come. <br /><br />The only thing that could have saved the movie for me was if Jack Nicholson had jumped out of the bushes and yelled, "and, where is the batman?". Kim Basinger could have screamed. <br /><br />Now that would have been cool!
I remember the days in which Kim Basinger was nothing more than a pretty face who adorned movies with typical characters of dumb Blondie,romantic interest or damsel in danger.But,everything changed when she won an Academy Award as Best Supporting Actress for her role in the excellent movie L.A. Confidential,and I think I was not the only one who was surprised by her solid performance.However,after that moment,her career did not follow the ideal path.Sure,the prestige she won thanks to that movie made her to participate on moderately prestigious movies (like People I Know or The Door in the Floor),but we have never seen her again on a substantial character.The movie While She Was Out does nothing to put her on that situation; and it is not only that her character is not too tasty,but also that the movie is really crappy.The screenplay from this movie could not be more hollow and basic.However,Basinger brings some conviction to her character,and that makes this poor movie to win a few points.This movie is full of clichés and generic villains.The work of director Susan Montford is truly disastrous for many reasons but mainly,because the movie never gets a good rhythm and tone.The ending from this movie is extremely ridiculous.I do not recommend While She Was Out at all.This film commits the capital sin of being boring.
She may have an Oscar and a Golden Globe, but this film shows why she also is a perennial Razzie nominee. To do a film that is so bad must be an indication that she needs money. She could do ads on why you shouldn't talk on a cell phone while driving, especially at night on the way to a crowded mall.<br /><br />Susan Montford should stick to producing (Shoot 'Em Up ) as she is not very good as a writer/director.<br /><br />She is accosted by four thugs in the mall parking lot, and the first thing they do is tell her they have a gun. What does she do? She starts pushing and cursing them like she knows martial arts or something. She manages to get away, but gets lost in the forest after crashing. Why didn't she run to someones house? We get four thugs with guns chasing a lady with a toolbox. Of course, their guns are no match for her wrench. Ha! Of course, she also has a tire iron and a screwdriver. Those poor thugs.<br /><br />Now, she's home for Christmas - and she brought a gun!
First of all, really Kim Basinger? Your rich banker husband leaves you alone in your beautiful, most likely paid in cash for home, and you can't even put on a decent shirt? I'm a woman, and yes, I'm going to come right out say it--clean something, starting with your hair. And while you're at it, it's Christmas Eve. Buy your kids some presents...or at least a Christmas tree. Don't drive 40 minutes to the crowded mall, park your car 3 miles away and cry about it the whole walk in, and simply buy wrapping paper. Also, the next time you decide to leave someone a nasty note, don't sign your name. I refuse to feel sorry for Della. Obviously, due to the fact that Kim Basinger is this masterpiece's executive producer, she wants you to feel bad for the poor white blond woman. We get it. Alec Baldwin is a jerk, but seriously, don't model horrible films after your own life. Also, you're in you 50s. You definitely wouldn't have 8 year old twins. AND THOSE NAMES? Terry and Tammy. Way to let your kids grow up with any decent chance of ever respecting themselves. It's also pretty fantastic to hear the characters in the film constantly call her beautiful or refer to her as a "girl"...obviously Ms. Basinger had some say about what goes in the script. It's also pretty awesome how none of the criminals can fight back. Apparently, Della's magical ninja skills are impossible to beat. Her driving skills are pretty nifty too. This film is so cliché, it hurts. Wahhhhh! They spelled your name wrong on the tea cup. Or your husband put a hole in the wall but all you can think about is buying nail polish when you're at the mall instead of maybe some plaster and paint. Or the woman you went to high school with bought the teddy you were looking at. Boohooo! The fact that she refuses to take off that BRIGHT trench coat while running through the woods screaming and breaking everything in her path proves my point--this woman is a moron. Who thinks to grab the toolbox out of the car, but not their purse, full of identifying artifacts such as your ADDRESS. I have never wanted the "bad guys" to succeed as much as when I watched this film. And did anyone else happen to catch the "African American" shirt the black guy was sporting? Oh yes, rewind and feast your eyes on perhaps the most racially stereotypical prop in a film yet. Don't waste and hour and twenty minutes of your life. Instead, go do what Della couldn't figure out how to do...take care of your kids, and maybe brush your hair. That powerful ballad at the end though was pretty impressive. Singing "I'll Be Home For Christmas" in the rain while your bloody arm clings oh so tightly to your wrapping paper is about as emotional as it gets. Thanks Della!
So this is what actress Kim Basinger has succumbed to? Mmm… to tell the truth the film's title is something quite eye grabbing to getting your interest and plot outline reads so basic, but simplicity can have its strengths. Anyhow by the end of 'While She Was Out' I was left feeling rather indifferent. Not the worse (despite being engulfed by negatives), but there's easily way better in what is an causally lukewarm, but compact and unbalanced late-night survival fable of a feeble suburban housewife stranded in the woods trying to fight for her life after she witnessed the death of a rent a cop that came to her aid, when she provoked an ugly exchange with some punks in a shopping car park.<br /><br />The problem here falls on the misguidedly erratic and foreseeable material (taken from a short story), along with the very variable performances. The flimsy script was poorly thought-out (which isn't so good when your plot has a slight structure to hang off), so many wretched inclusions and dubious actions just go on to find its way in this endless chain of events. As for the bunch of stereotypical goons (led by an unconvincing Lukas Hass as a loose canon) terrorizing Basinger, well they were less than threatening, but hopelessly clueless. Watching Basinger scrounging around in the dank wilderness with a red tool box in her hand (don't ask me why?) knocking off these wannabe punks one by one became ridiculous because it didn't elicit tension or emotion… but instead clumsy jolts that were absurdly daft because of the stupidity of the lead up. Basinger's performance is stout-like, but doesn't craft much empathy. Craig Sheffer shows up as her hot-headed husband. Strangely I couldn't keep my eyes off the screen… thinking to myself that red toolbox is hypnotic (why would she be constantly carrying it) and what tool was she going to use to dispatch the next thug… her choices were quite disappointing. Watching her transformation through the traumatic situation when things are finally turned around is rather empty, due to its unsure tone and the ending is something you could see miles ahead.<br /><br />Susan Montford's soberly slick direction lacks cohesion and energy, as it pretty much chugs along. I liked the opening credits though, with its hauntingly sullen score (which is the most effective thing throughout the feature) and polished photography.<br /><br />No great shakes. Doesn't ask much of your time, but I wouldn't care to see it again. However with the inclusion of a Joy Division song, it made me grab a couple of their albums for a listen.
Its Christmas Eve and lazy and submissive housewife Della (Kim Basinger) receives some violent threats from her troubled and abusive husband. Leaving her twin children in bed she ventures off into the night for one last shopping spree at the local mall. Its busy there and finding a parking space is nigh on impossible, Della takes umbrage at one motorist who parks in two spaces, she leaves them a note saying as much. Returning to her car after visiting the shops she is confronted by some yobs, Yup the owners of the car she left a note on, they are very angry and want some fun with her, a kindly security guard steps into assist her, but things get out of hand and the guard is shot, Della flees with the now murderous yobs in hot pursuit, they shoot at her, she looses control of her car and crashes, quickly grabbing her toolbox from the trunk, she hides in a deserted building site, but is soon caught, just before they try to rape and kill her, from her magical toolbox she produces a wrench, wounding their leader "Chuckie", she manages to escape again into the nearby woods, in the fracas one of the gang is killed, it just happens to be the black guy Here the night gets worse for all involved as a deadly game of cat and mouse ensues. A similar plot line to Eden Lake drew me to this, but that is where the comparisons end. This is a brainless and dumb film, shockingly scripted and horribly acted by all involved, the doe eyed Disney-esquire twin kids are horrible to watch, but its Lukas Haas as Chuckie, that must take the plaudits in the bad acting department, although he is given a run for his money by the equally awful husband. As a film its plot line is completely telegraphed all the way through, even in the set up early on Della's cell phone goes dead and then in the shops her credit card has been cancelled by her hubby and she has no cash and its Christmas Eve, now where could they be going with this I wonder??? The only surprising part of this $hit is when after killing all the clichéd bad guys with the contents of her magic toolbox, she demands Chuckie to f@ck her, if my jaw had not already been on the floor at this films awfulness, it would surely have dropped and smashed on the floor. even the ending is messed up, all the feminist grannies wanting their pound of flesh are left utterly disappointed.. I didn't think I could be further disappointed, but then I saw that Guillermo del Toro produced this dreck
The genre of suspense films really takes a dive in this one. The big problem is IMPLAUSABILITY. I realize that you need to create difficult situations which would cause suspense and the tense feeling of whats going to happen next, but this movie was so predictable, and is just not believable. I find that the more I watch this kind of movie, the more I am continually saying things to actors to direct them away from danger. Continually making bad decisions just borders on being plain stupid. If they took the time to make it more realistic, I might have enjoyed it a little. Having said that, you might be better off staying away from this one.
I don't often give one star reviews, but the computer won't let me do negative numbers.<br /><br />The opening titles tell us we're in deep water already. Although this is a low budget exploitation film, there are 17 producers credited. No. No.<br /><br />At the beginning of the story abusive husband Kenneth comes home to his family in an upscale gated community. The house is a pigsty. His wife, Della (Kim Basinger) has let the children run amok all day.<br /><br />OK. We're already in deep water. Ms. Basinger was 55 years old when the film came out. Uh, are these her children or grandchildren? It's Christmas Eve. Della drives to the mall, a lengthy scene that could have been cut. To bludgeon home the idea of eeeeeeevil male aggression rampant in the universe she drives past football players in full uniform playing in pouring rain on Christmas Eve. Sure. For a bonus she sees a vehicle with a slaughtered deer tied to it.<br /><br />We get some actual suspense in the driving scenes, though. It's raining and traffic is bad. First we see Della try to drive and smoke at the same time. Then later Della tries to drive and talk on her cell phone at the same time, at one point turning completely around to check the cluttered back seat for the charger for the phone.<br /><br />She wanders the mall, sees an old friend from college, tries to buy stuff but her credit card is declined- gosh, maybe her husband is grumpy because he's going broke, but that's too complicated for the script to follow.<br /><br />In the parking lot she runs afoul of the most ludicrous gang in the history of films. One White boy (Lukas Hass watching his career go down the toilet), one Black, one Asian, and one Hispanic. Imagine a company of Up with People gone to the bad and you'll have the idea.<br /><br />Although they have a gun she gives them attitude. A mall cop comes to investigate the ruckus and they shoot him in the head, firing more than once. The parking lot is crowded as can be, people everywhere, and nobody notices.<br /><br />Della escapes in her car and rather than choosing a police station or well lighted safe area, she drives to a construction site, where she kills all four bad boys one at a time with simply the tools (literally) at hand.<br /><br />MAJOR spoiler ahead.<br /><br />She drives back home. The car poops out so she walks through the pouring rain. Checks on the children, goes downstairs, and when her husband petulantly asks what she got him at the mall shows him the gun and shoots him at point blank range.<br /><br />The experience with the four punks was supposed to result in personal empowerment for Della. Instead we know that her children will probably spend Christmas in foster care or a group home, because the State will collect them while she answers to murder one charges. The four punks can be classified as justifiable homicide in self defense. The husband, different story.<br /><br />I'm so glad I saw this on cable. If I'd seen it in a theater (did it get any release?) I'd have been furious. As is, I'm just sad seeing talents like Ms. Basinger and Mr. Haas waste themselves on garbage like this.<br /><br />One very good thing, though. This was written and directed by Susan Montford. Ms. Montford has not gotten another writing or directing credit since passing this turd. There is justice in the world.
A friend once asked me to read a screenplay of his that had been optioned by a movie studio. To say it was one of the most inept and insipid scripts I'd ever read would be a bold understatement. Yet I never told him this. Why? Because in a world where films like "While She Was Out" can be green-lighted and attract an Oscar- winning star like Kim Basinger, a screenplay lacking in character, content and common sense is no guarantee that it won't sell.<br /><br />As so many other reviewers have pointed out, "While She Was Out" is a dreadfully under-written Woman-in-Peril film that has abused housewife Basinger hunted by four unlikely hoods on Christmas Eve. Every gripe is legitimate, from the weak dialog and bad acting to the jaw-dropping lapses of logic, but Basinger is such an interesting actress and the premise is not without promise. Here are a couple of things that struck me:<br /><br />1) I don't care how much we are supposed to think her husband is a jerk, the house IS a mess with toys. Since when did it become child abuse to make kids pick up after themselves?<br /><br />2) Racially diverse gangs are rare everywhere except Hollywood, where they are usually the only racially balanced groups on screen.<br /><br />3) Sure the film is stupid. But so are the countless "thrillers" I've sat through where the women are portrayed as wailing, helpless victims of male sadism. Stupid or not, I found it refreshing to see a woman getting the best of her tormentors.<br /><br />4) I LOVED the ending! <br /><br />5) Though an earlier reviewer coined this phrase, I really DO think this film should be retitled "The Red Toolbox of Doom."
I can't believe the likes of Guillermo del Toro and Kim Bassinger got involved ins this piece of garbage! The script is so poorly written and the directing so weak (both by the same person) that its hard to find more one-dimension characters in a film. The dialogs are so lame that this so called thriller got laughs out of the few fools that got into the theatre. The setup it's tricky, inviting you to believe you are going to watch a chilling thriller and suddenly it turns out into the most stupid persecution film. Bassinger's character is so dumb, that she actually stops to scream to God "Where are you!" so the people after her can follow, and then takes a leak!!!! And then she apparently got into the smallest wood in the world, I mean, she runs all over the place and the killers never loose track of her, and this happens in the middle of the night. It really makes me wonder, is that really the best writing people in Hollywood can find that they spend millions producing it.
Overall this movie is dreadful, and should have never been made. One of the problems with this movie is that there is no link to the audience and the characters, for example, if she is about to be attacked, you want to feel, "Oh My God, No!", but you don't in this case, you don't care because there is no link that has been made to know the character. In the trailer, it seemed as though the movie would be great, yet there is no suspense what so ever really. There could have been maybe some mystery but there is not. "All she has is a toolbox." was said on the DVD's back, you would think that it was carefully planned this movie, and cleverly made, but it is not, The ending, was just awful, very straight forward, and pointless too. The acting is either average or below average, maybe even lower. In my opinion it was a waste of an hour of my life. The "Special Effects" and sets were average too, nothing special what so ever. There is not much gore, or bloody violence, not much blood is shown. This movie was advertised to make it sound quite amazing, yet really, its not even worth looking for, I do not recommend this to anyone, unless they are easily satisfied, by a few fights and a boring story.
The only redeeming qualities this movie has are the fairly original death scenes. Other than that this movie is a big DUD. We have Kim Basinger, the beleaguered housewife slowly meandering thru the local mall for the first 30 min. of the movie, which added nothing. Then the movie picks up a bit as she has a confrontation with 4 punks who took up 2 parking spaces on this busy xmas eve. They begin to chase her after offing the local security guard who tried to help her. From there this movie gets worse, way worse. I know its only a movie and you've gotta go with the flow but she's got about a 5 min. headstart and she can't hide or find someone to help her. Instead she drives to a half built subdivision beside a forest. In typical fashion she does everything she can to allow her followers to easily track her. But now she turns into one tough mofu. You get the point. Do not under any circumstances buy or rent this movie no matter how much you like this type. It's so illogical you'll be questioning every scene. It is embarrassing for Basinger and Craig Sheffer and the rest of the cast, as well as the consumers.
Where to start...Oh yea, Message to the bad guys: When you first find the person you have been tracking (in order to kill) that witnessed a crime you committed, don't spend time talking to her so that she has yet another opportunity to get away. Message to the victim: When the thugs are talking amongst themselves and arguing, take that opportunity to "RUN AWAY", don't sit there and watch them until you make a noise they hear. Message to the Director: if someone has a 5 or 10 minute head start in a vehicle or on foot, you can't have the bad guys on their heels or bumper right away! time and motion doesn't work that way. It would also be nice to think that a woman doesn't have to brutally kill( 4) men in order to empower herself to leave an abusive relationship at home.
FAIL. I'd love to give this crap a 0. Yes, I registered just to rate this garbage. I want to go back in time and cut my wrist. Heres some copy and paste to take up 10 lines. FAIL. I'd love to give this crap a 0. Yes, I registered just to rate this garbage. I want to go back in time and cut my wrist. Heres some copy and paste to take up 10 lines. FAIL. I'd love to give this crap a 0. Yes, I registered just to rate this garbage. I want to go back in time and cut my wrist. Heres some copy and paste to take up 10 lines. FAIL. I'd love to give this crap a 0. Yes, I registered just to rate this garbage. I want to go back in time and cut my wrist. Heres some copy and paste to take up 10 lines. FAIL. I'd love to give this crap a 0. Yes, I registered just to rate this garbage. I want to go back in time and cut my wrist. Heres some copy and paste to take up 10 lines.
OK, if you're a woman who's got aggression issues, you might like this movie. Hate your significant other? This movie is for you. For the guys, it will be a bag of laughs.<br /><br />It's sad when former award winning actresses have to do cut rate movies.<br /><br />The only really good part is the last 10 seconds. Even that was a load of cheese.<br /><br />My wife is picking the worst movies lately. This is what you get (I) for letting my wife pick movies based on reading reviews on movie rental sites.
Kim Basinger stars as Della, a desperate housewife with a somewhat abusive husband, who gets into trouble while she's out at the local mall doing some last minute Christmas shopping. After placing a hastily scrawled hateful note on a piece of paper and sticking said paper in the windshield of a car that took up two parking spaces, she finds out the owners of the car are the Rainbow Coilition of villains comprising of a white guy, a Mexican, a Chinese guy & a black. They confront her about the note, cap a helpless security guard, and the chase is on. During the course of the film Della will go for hunted to hunter as she unleashes her inner Bronson.<br /><br />I found this to be a somewhat tense little thriller. The acting was good enough (except for a few scenes, the "Why God why" bit was cringe worthy in it's badness though) It comes undone a bit due to the sheer fact that the villains Della chases from/after are mind-numbingly stupid. If they hadn't had the intellect of any given "Home Alone" baddie, perhaps their eventual defeat would be something to savor instead of the meh reaction it evokes. The unbelievability factor I'm willing to overlook as both the director & one of the producers had part in bringing "Shoot em up" to the screen (a film which while throwing credibility out the window was immensely fun). This film while never attaining the heights of that film, was good in it's own rights.<br /><br />My Grade: C- <br /><br />Anchor Bay DVD Extras: Commentary with Writer/director Susan Montford and producer Don Murphy; a 25 and a half minute 'Making-of'; a trailer & two TV spots for this film; and trailer for Lower Learning
This thought long lost flick sometimes comes available on the web. So I bought me a copy. Well, of course the acting is terrible and the story line is childish but it does have his moments. I think people who searched this one also knows the backstory of it. It was made by a grindhouse cinema owner for an extreme low budget. But for me he surely didn't spoiled the money on props but on the make up. The make up is for that kind of flick well done. The zombies are watchable and the gore is intact. The only problem with that kind of movies is the quality of the pelicule. It's terrible, luckely no hiss on the sound but sometimes it's way too dark. So you have to watch clearly to see the gore. In a funny way they tried to sell this one as really not for the squeamish. A voice-over tells in the beginning of the movie to watch out for a sign and a man appearing with green flashes, that tells you there is gore on the way. Of course that doesn't work, made me think of Cannibal Girls, had that annoying bell when the red stuff started to flow. They had the original idea, Cannibal Girls was made a year earlier. Don't go for the storyline, go for the zombies and notice a continuity mistake. When the girl and guy are making love first she takes of her bra, then they make love and suddenly her underwear is back on...try to do that, or am I getting a bit offline,...eat it you ugly corpses
What's this? A Canadian produced zombie flick that I have never heard of before. A mortician works on the body of a recently deceased young man. This allows for an extended flashback that show how the guy got there. Basically, he and friends went to a cemetery on Friday the 13th and raised the dead thanks to his silly chanting. Cut back to the morgue where our dead body comes back to life and kills the mortician and owner (who gets his eyes popped out). The final WTF? shot has the funeral home owner in a straight jacket and screaming, "I'm not crazy!" Amazingly, he has his eyeballs back.<br /><br />Running a scant 58 minutes, this is certainly one oddity in zombie cinema. It feels a lot longer, but put me in some kind of trance where I couldn't stop watching. The film also has one of those "if you see this image, turn away from the screen" gags. It is the image of an old man getting sick in a theater (prophetic?) and when he pops up (only twice) the blood begins to flow. The scenes are pretty damn gory for the time period. There is a great gaffe where a zombie chops off a girl's right hand with a shovel, but - when he pulls the fake hand into the frame to chomp on - it is a left hand.
I remember Devil Dog playing on TBS almost 20 years ago, and my older sister and her friends watching it and laughing all the next day. It's not that bad for a made-for-TV horror movie, but it is derivative (mostly of The Exorcist) and businesslike, for lack of a better word. It won't blow you away with artful cinematography or great acting, but it's not a waste of time, either. It's the kind of movie you watch to kill a couple of hours when you aren't in the mood to think too hard.<br /><br />However, if you go into the movie looking for some laughs, you won't be disappointed. The early scenes, with Lucky the Devil Dog as a cute little puppy with Children of the Damned eyes are hilariously non-threatening, and the climactic blue-screen effects of a giant black dog (with horns!) are pretty side-splitting. And keep an eye out for the cloaked Satanist in Maverick shades toward the beginning.<br /><br />Not a great horror film by any stretch of the imagination, but I wish they still made stuff like this for TV.
The concept of this made-for-TV horror movie is ludicrous beyond words, but hey, it was the late 1970's and literally all stupid horror formats were pretty damn profitable, so why not exploit the idea of a satanically possessed dog? The plot of "Devil Dog" is easy to describe to fans of the horror genre: simply think of "The Omen" and replace the newborn baby boy with a nest of German Shepard pups! Seriously, I'm not kidding, that's what the movie is about! During the opening sequence, members of some kind of satanic cult buy a female dog in heat only to have it impregnated by Satan himself. You'd think that the Lord of Darkness has other things on His mind than to fornicate with a German Shepard and take over the world one evil puppy at the time, but apparently not. Exactly like little Damien in "The Omen", one of the puppies is taken in by model family and grows up to become a beautiful and charismatic animal. But Lucky – that's the dog's name – is pure evil and liquidates annoying neighbors and nosy school teachers in derivative and tamely executed ways. He also inflicts his malignant character on the family wife and children, but he cannot force the father (Richard Crenna) to stick his arm into a lawnmower because he's a "chosen one". The whole thing becomes too moronic for words when Crenna eventually travels to Ecuador to search for an ancient wall painting and gets advice from an old witchdoctor who speaks perfect English. I guess he learned that living in isolation atop of a mountain his entire life. Director Curtis Harrington ("What's the matter with Helen", "Ruby") and lead actor Richard Crenna ("Wait until Dark", "The Evil") desperately try to create a suspenseful and mysterious atmosphere, but all is in vain. Scenes like cute puppy eyes spontaneously setting fire to a Spanish maid or a dog dodging bullets without even moving evoke chuckles instead of frights, and not even spooky musical tunes can chance that. The "special" effects are pathetic, especially near the end when the Satan-dog mutates into an utterly cheesy shadow on the wall. "Devil Dog" is a truly dumb movie, but it's definitely hilarious to watch late at night with some friends and loads of liquor. There are entertaining brief cameos of Martine Beswick ("Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde") as the terrifying cult queen and R.G. Armstrong ("The Car", "The Pack") as the evil fruit, vegetable and puppy salesman. And, yes, that annoying daughter is the same kid who gets blown away complaining about her ice-cream in Carpenter's "Assault on Precinct 13".
A dog found in a local kennel is mated with Satan and has a litter of puppies, one of which is given to a family who has just lost their previous dog to a hit & run. The puppy wants no time in making like Donald Trump and firing the Mexican housekeeper, how festive. Only the father suspects that this canine is more then he appears, the rest of the family loves the demonic pooch. So it's up to dad to say the day.<br /><br />This late 70's made for TV horror flick has little going for it except a misplaced feeling of nostalgia. When I saw this as a kid I found it to be a tense nail-biter, but revisiting it as an adult I now realize that it's merely lame,boring, and not really well-acted in the least bit.<br /><br />My Grade: D
Devil Dog sets your heart racing. It's brilliantly paced, the ending comes like a bolt out of the blue and plunges itself into the very centre of your being. You'll never look at your dog the same way again. In fact you'll start thinking of having it put down - BY A PRIEST! FANTASTIC!
VERY dull, obvious, tedious Exorcist rip-off featuring a Doberman with red eyes - that's the extent of the special effects in this made-for-tv cheapie. Richard Crenna is about as animate as a chew toy. Very 70's dress & music only add to the torture. Should put you to sleep almost as fast as "The Corpse Vanishes", or "The Blue Hand". Practically worthless. MooCow says eaghhh what a stinky dog! :=8P
This horror movie is really weak...that is if this is the correct movie I am commenting on. Nothing really terrible goes on as a family adopts a cute little German Shepard pup. I had a German Shepard and it is a really good dog. I did not get the idea to get one from this movie though, but rather from the comedy "K-9". That is another story all together though. This movie really doesn't have much horror at all as the most horrific scene is at the end and it looks really cheesy. Also, we see a guy almost put his hand into a lawn mower. That is about it. The father suspects something though, as his family seems to be getting rather strange, somewhere he finds out if you hold a mirror to them while they are sleeping you can see if they are possessed. All in all a really weak horror movie even by television standards...television movies that do work are out there as "This House Possessed" is pretty good and there is another haunted house movie about a woman and these strange creatures that is also rather good. This one is really rather dull.
Amy Poehler and Rachel Dratch are among the funnier women to have been on "Saturday Night Live". It's unfortunate that they, along with Tina Fey and Maya Rudolph, were on SNL during the longest stretch of unfunny writing and sketch-making (circa 2002-2006) the show has ever had. Still, these two women most especially know what's funny, and they know how to write a funny movie.<br /><br />You'll notice in the credits of this movie that Dratch and director Ryan Shiraki wrote the story for "Spring Breakdown", but who wrote the actual screenplay, consisting of dialogue and all the important fill-in-the-blank material that makes a story into a multidimensional movie? Yep, just Shiraki. Just one guy wrote the dialogue for this movie, and no women apparently wrote the script with him. The result is a pretty cliché spring break movie that doesn't so much spoof the faux holiday as much as exploit it equally as much as MTV does every year.<br /><br />If Dratch, Poehler, and even co-star Parker Posey could have contributed their handwriting to the screenplay, it would have been far less cliché. The premise is original, being about three thirty-something women who were unpopular in high school (and apparently college, too) who never had the fun spring break trip they allegedly dreamed about. I say "allegedly" because you never quite know what fun is to these characters. They entered talent shows in the past where they sing stale pro-woman anthems like "True Colors", and spend their nights together holding make-your-own-pizza parties. Even though none of them are especially unattractive, the outside world appears to treat them like they are. There's a scene where a blind student of Poehler's (played by Poehler's real life husband Will Arnett) asks her out on a date, only to touch her face and immediately change his mind. If Poehler's character is supposed to be unattractive, they obviously hired the wrong actress.<br /><br />The movie continues to show promise, even though we have our doubts about the main characters, when Posey's boss, Texas Senator 'Kay Bee' Hartmann (Jane Lynch, funny as always) hires Posey to watch over her unpopular college-age daughter (Amber Tamblyn, playing yet another woman who's attractive in real life, but not in the eyes of any characters in this movie) while she goes to a Laguna Beach-like vacation spot for Spring Break. Poehler and Dratch come along, they reluctantly get boozed up, party like they apparently should have when they were in college, and then comes the ultimate showdown with the sorority bitches lead by Sophie Monk.<br /><br />Sophie Monk is an incredibly attractive woman who has a body both women and men would kill to have for different reasons. Unfortunately, her movie career is off to a rough start with the abominably unfunny "Date Movie" (2006) and the disappointing "Click" (2006). Here, she plays a Southern belle, although her voice sounds like she stole Delta Burke's voice box. She hams it up a little too much, trying too hard to play a conniving bitch that she comes off as much like a caricature of spoiled college kids as the rest of the extras.<br /><br />"Spring Breakdown" was released straight to DVD despite the star power of Amy Poehler, but rightly so because the story is way too cliché. It may as well have been called "National Lampoon's Spring Breakdown", and the magazine probably wouldn't have sued for trademark infringement because of the free publicity. If director Shiraki had given at least one woman the creative input, especially Rachel Dratch, this movie would have been great and not nearly as run-of-the-mill as frat-house comedies we've seen before. I know Dratch will come up with another funny concept, and hopefully be allowed to fill in the rest of the screenplay herself. She's funny enough, and she deserves better than this half-baked comedy that would accept Stiffler's brother with open arms.
They really can't get stupider than this film dealing with 3 losers who try to capture the college spirit during the annual spring break festivities at many of our higher schools of learning. The problem is that these losers try to do this 15 years after their college years when one is assigned to watch over the daughter of a woman senator being groomed to be the next vice president.<br /><br />Trouble is that her daughter is anything but popular, but of course she comes out of all that. The girls go through drunken rages, exotic dancing and other absolute nonsense.<br /><br />It really can't get much worse than this awful film.
How can a movie with Amy, Posey and Raechel have NOTHING funny in it? Believe it or not 'House Bunny' did this better and funnier. Hopefully the principals had a good holiday and got some money - this movie is an embarrassment to all of them. It is a cliché from beginning to end. Clichés can work well with a script, or at least an idea. This movie does nothing but use cliché after cliché rather than ideas or script. It uses the preexisting persona's of the actresses rather than develop characters. Bad, sad, and rubbish. Now I apparently have to have ten lines of text for a comment. Really? Why? As an IT ops manager this is another example of sloppy coding.
This is the single worst movie I have ever seen. I cannot express how bad it is. I honestly wanted to kill myself several times through this atrocious experience just to have the pain end. I recommend instead of seeing this movie, you bathe in acid then you will at least know a fraction of the pain without all of the scars.<br /><br />I had such high expectations when I read the back of the DVD case, and when in the beginning it added that Jesus was following them I was so excited... then by the end I wanted to kill myself. I mean a twenty-three minute introduction to the most annoying characters in the history of cinema... JUST PAIN! Monkeys could have done a better job editing this trash. At least they would have thrown feces and blurred some of the garbage. It would have made it better to have not seen any of the horror.<br /><br />It wasn't that I didn't get the jokes, it's that they were not only not funny, they repeated themselves like twenty times. Apparently, something isn't funny unless you see it like a million times.<br /><br />Do not under any circumstances see this. People have rated 'Manos the Hands of Fate' as the worlds worst movie. I have seen that too and agree that it is bad... but ALAS it is only the second worst. 'Fatty Drives the Bus' is by far worse.<br /><br />This deserves all kind of harsh language, but I can't write that here so just imagine I swore a whole bunch.
I have seen a lot of movies in my life, but not many as bad as this. It is a movie that makes fun of fat people, has no real story, has bad actors, is not funny and much more. Is this a movie that you would like to see? I guess not!<br /><br />I guess that the makers of the movie was trying to be original and creative, but it looks like it was made by a 12 year old child with absolutely no cinematic skills at all. The so called funny parts is as funny as throughing pies in the faces of people, or breaking wind. Of cource if this is the kind of humour that you like, then this is the movie for you!!<br /><br />Dont waste your money on this movie!
You know how sometimes you can watch a crappy movie with friends and laugh at all the shortcomings of the movie? Well this was beyond that. I bought the DVD at Tower Records because it was like $3.00 and I'd heard this was a movie you could laugh at. It is really nothing short of pathetic. About 30 minutes into the movie, my friends started asking me to turn it off. Around 45 minutes they begged me. After an hour, we compromised to fast forward to the end, so we could see how the conflict was resolved (and because we had been watching the whole time for Matt Walsh). Seriously, don't watch this movie. It is beyond painful.
i completely agree with jamrom4.. this was the single most horrible movie i have ever seen.. holy crap it was terrible.. i was warned not to see it..and foolishly i watched it anyway.. about 10 minutes into the painful experience i completely gave up on watching the atrocity..but sat through until the end..just to see if i could.. well i did and now i wish i had not..it was disgusting..nothing happened and the ending was all preachy..no movie that bad has the right to survive..i implore all of you to spare yourself the terror of fatty drives the bus..if only i had heeded the same warning..please save yourself from this movie..i have a feeling those who rated it highly were involved in the making of the movie..and should all be wiped off the face of the planet..
I'm a big fan of Troma but I can't figure out why they bought the rights to this movie, It's so boring I felt like I was watching for 3 hours. Some where on the plot summary it says "but what Satan doesn't know he's stuck with annoying tourists" Well they didn't seem to bother him in the movie, just me.<br /><br />The only good thing about this movie is the actor who plays Satan, I like bad movie's but it was just boring.
Weak Bobby "Pineapple Salsa" Flay and Mario Batali bring this down.<br /><br />Flay being the worst. Definitely a one trick pony, I think they could have gotten other American chefs to come to the table on this one as the Iron Chefs. The kind of dishes this duo come up with really...don't reflect on the creativity of the original Iron Chef Series. I don't think Batali even went to chef school, actually. There are a lot of great chefs in America, I just wonder why they don't appear on the Food Network.<br /><br />It would also help to have more regional ingredients and perhaps co-hosts who can handle the pressure. I like Alton Brown, but he is a bit too flippant/funny for this role.
The show's echoed 'bubbling' sound effect used to put me to sleep. A very soothing show. I think I might have slept through the parts where there was danger or peril. I had also heard that some set up shots for a show on sponge divers was shot in Tarpon Springs, Florida. I would assume Lloyd Bridges never dove there. I only remember the show in reruns and although it was never edge-of-the-seat exciting we would make up our own underwater episodes in the lake at my grandmother's house... imagining the echoed bubbling sounds and narrating our adventures in our heads. I thought 'Flipper' had better undersea action. Of course, he had the advantage of being in his natural environment.
Kurosawa really blew it on this one. Every genius is allowed a failure. The concept is fine but the execution is badly blurred.<br /><br />There is an air of fantasy about this film making it something of an art film. The poverty stricken of Tokyo deserve a fairer and more realistic portrayal. Many of them have interesting stories to tell. A very disappointing film.
Nope, I am just not going to get with it here. I refuse to go along with the program. Don't you supposed that perhaps this movie is just a tad over-rated? Look at the reader comments and their star ratings: Most are 6/10, 7/10 or better. I think this is an instance when the ratings may say more about the people rendering them than the movie itself, which is unique. How many other sex fantasies about simulated bestiality complete with horse couplings have become mainstream hits as catalog DVD titles? I watched this movie with a pervading sense of anticipation, expecting fireworks, and instead got someone popping a Gucci shopping bag. It looked great, but once the thrill had been spent even the twist ending didn't do much to save it.<br /><br />The film's background story says it all: Director films about 25 minutes of borderline hardcore fake bestial sex for another movie, is informed the footage will not be appropriate, sets it aside, waits two or three years for a smattering of critical acclaim to build up, then constructs an entire feature around that 25 minutes, filming roughly 70 minutes of otherwise unrelated, excruciatingly boring footage and inserting the 25 minute chunk in as a dream sequence. That the 25 minutes of film in question is strikingly odd, original and shocking in a deliberate, calculated manner goes without saying. But we aren't here to evaluate that 25 minutes alone, we must consider the entire film, and ask ourselves why people are so enthusiastic about the movie? Or are they just enamored by it's background story and history of having been banned by people who were stupid enough to be offended by it?<br /><br />Perhaps it is an anti-clerical agenda that appeals to them. Hating the western religions of catholicism and Christianity is one of the few remaining socially acceptable bastions of intolerance -- Just today it was revealed that the BBC routinely skews their broadcasts with anti Christian & anti Western sentiment in the furtherance of political correctness. You can say anything you want about the Bible, pedopheliac priests, the institutionalized cruelty of the church, and how much white men and their inhuman religions suck the dimpled skin off a golf ball ... But say one negative thing about non-westernized religions, and you are toast. This movie was tailor made for such a sentiment, with a wrinkly old dried up priest who has an entirely unwholesome on screen relationship with two pretty 14 year old French boys complete with inappropriate touching, fawning, fondling, fumbling, groping, and patting of the backsides. Ewww.<br /><br />And then there is the horse couplings, photographed in such fetishistic closeup detail that portions of the film could be used as visual aids for a biology class on animal husbandry. Yes I understand the thematic relevance of the imagery -- large animal phallus's with a wealth of reproductive fluids just waiting to be unleashed like fire extinguishers -- but if I wanted to watch horses, you know, do it, I would like go live on a farm. Having their genitals in my face is about as entertaining as watching someone use a bathroom.<br /><br />Is this movie just a sort of artsy diversion for social deviants? Probably, though I will grant the artistic execution of most of it, filmed in a kind of arty Euro detail that even has a dappled forest pond right out of a Monet painting, complete with a spanning arched bridge. And the ending (which even I managed to be surprised by) does sort of wrap it all up into a neat if distasteful package. But you have to remember that there are certain things that cannot be deconstructed for their design elements and many artists are guilty for exploiting them in their work to lend a sort of gravitas that would not have been achieved without it. That isn't fair, and even Clint Eastwood has fallen prey to the urge with his new movie about Iwo Jima. Whether or not his film is any good stands as a separate consideration from whether or not that battle was a noble cause fought by men who were heroes. The problem is that most people will not be able to separate out the two aspects of the movie and will be lining up to give it Oscars because of it's noble message -- not because it is a particularly good or original movie.<br /><br />While it may seem like an odd parallel, I see one with THE BEAST: How can anyone not see the basic beauty of nature in the sight of two horses mating? And who cannot see the logical culmination of the repressed sexuality from fairy tales in the film's explosive set-piece where Beauty and the Beast finally do the nasty? Somehow I managed to miss both points, and am delighted that I have seen this film so that I can trash it as being what it really is: 25 minutes or so of eye opening over the top adult fairy tale imagery surrounded by 70 minutes of skull drainingly boring artsy-fartsy Euro Trash dreck about some guy getting a haircut, and a great ending. It's art for sure, but it sucks hard.<br /><br />3/10
Walerian Borowczyks La Bete (1975) was obviously received in different ways: Some were appalled, some were shocked others applauded the courage. I however am completely untouched, bored and cannot stop asking myself why the display of incoherent, inconsistent images which vaguely orbit around a central theme are considered an intellectual journey.<br /><br />What was this movie actually about? Growing sexuality in a woman? I've seen great films on this subject, but this is not one of them. How can one attempt to portray a growing sexuality in a girl without at least trying to characterize her as a person not only as a narrative device to dream (in the nude) of beasts. Where there are no characters, there is no character study. The woman persecuted by the beast was not adolescent, the girl having sex with the black butler (is he also characterized as a beast?) has a very grown up attitude to sexuality, so where is the consistency? Is it a movie about religion? If yes we would need a bit more thematic material than a priest without function, character and charisma, but with a strong desire towards two young boys.<br /><br />Is it about bestiality? The metaphoric feel of the movie forbids any realistic examination of bestiality, especially as realistic examination requires realistic characters. So no real bestiality here. Some mythic beast and two priests talking to each other about the sin of bestiality. Enough for a college essay on the topic? I don't think so.<br /><br />Is it about sex? Is it about anything? I don't know. I only know that showing a fired gun doesn't make a film a war movie. Dealing with a topic must mean more than displaying its own associations with the theme.<br /><br />So look across the controversy. Don't be scared by the bestiality, nudity, ejaculations, masturbation and stuff. I am not. Look at it as you look at any other story and you might discover that this is a poorly made, poorly edited, poorly acted, really poorly written (okay, some pictures are quite nice, and the main character is a really good looking girl) cerebral masturbation of a director who thinks beating around the bush in a hypnotic slow manner will make a story intelligent. It doesn't. It makes it boring.
Another variation and improvisation on the famous and beloved children tale, La Bete (1975) aka The Beast tries to imagine (in very graphic and what may seem offensive and disturbing but in reality rather silly and comical way), what actually happened between Beauty and the Beast? I am amused by many reviews and comments that seem to look too deeply into this movie. I would not go so far as saying that it is a serious and dark exploration of such subjects as sexual frustration, longing, fulfillment, or satirical criticizing of the catholic Religion. I would not even call it a horror-erotic movie. It's more of the parody on all genres it touches or mentions even though it's got some shocking moments in all departments that sure will stay in your memory.<br /><br />The long (way too long) scene between an Aristocratic young woman and the supposedly horrifying but the most laughable I've ever seen in the movies creature with truly impressive...well anatomy, is set to the clavichord music of Scarlatti and is hysterical. My husband and I both laughed out loud at the exaggerated details of the encounter. The moral of the scene is - beauty can and will defeat the monster. The question is - who is the target audience for the film? For an erotic picture, it is too verbose; for an art movie - it's got too many jaw-dropping scenes of sheer madness and I'd say an abrupt ending. IMO, the film creator did not mean for it to be a serious drama. As a parody of art house/horror/erotica, it is funny and certainly original. Have a good laugh and try not to look for some deep meaning. This story of the curious Beauties and the lustful Beasts certainly is not recommended for co-viewing with the children. The opening scene that may shock an unprepared viewer much more than the infamous scene of bestiality can be successfully used On Discovery channel for the program like "In the world of animals - mating habits and rituals of horses".
this movie had a fairly good sounding plot, but the paste was very slow... very slow indeed. even if someone thinks this is a cult classic, i think that there are a lot better films from that era to be watched.<br /><br />the cinematography is not excellent, but not the worst either. the sounds are OK. lighting OK.<br /><br />i still wouldn't recommend this to anyone else than maybe a film-student.<br /><br />the movie does not contain music, and the horses having sex don't make it a good one either. and the woman masturbating on the edge of the bed was plain stupid.<br /><br />no winnings here, skip this utter boredom. i've seen worse believe me, but this is just waste of time, and i don't get the good reviews here. especially the high ratings...
This, and Immoral Tales, both left a bad taste in my mouth. It seems to me that Borowczyk is disgusted by sex, and these two films are cautionary tales about what will happen if you do have sex. As a film, it's not very well done -- some of the acting is truly epically bad (such as the "American" woman with the French accent). The young woman's sudden flip-flop from being anxious about the marriage to being interested (when it seems like it should have been the other way around), and the aunt's sudden realization of the young man's secret don't make sense -- they're not explained at all. I also didn't like how the daughter's relationship with a black man was presented as a sign of her family's perversion or predilection for bestiality. The central idea, the idea that there's this "sexy beast," if you will, that lives in the woods, could have been a foundation for a perverse but fun story, but instead is just used as a basis for a nasty, sex-negative, morality play.
This movie is little more than poorly-made, fetish porn, and this is saying a lot considering the similar crap that was made in that era. This was recommended to me by friend as a "unique film experience." He was right. I suppose he meant that as a joke. Not disgusting, not even that shocking. Just mediocre acting and poor attempts at shock art. A little bit of camp value, though I don't believe the makers of this film intended this. And yes, as a previous reviewer mentioned, it's sex with a guy in a bear suit. Don't spend a lot of money on this. Try to borrow it, if you must see it. Or contact me, I'd be happy to sell you my copy for half price.<br /><br />I may have to see another of this particular director's films, as he seems to have a certain following. But if it's anything like this, I will again regret another 2 hours of my life gone forever.
this film was shrouded in scandal for so long that it became a very sought after item...the outrage, the mystery, etc. it had everything to be a great piece of film-making, but ultimately fails in every extent. it's a terribly bad comedy, a pathetic horror movie, a lame erotic film.<br /><br />the 2 disc DVD includes a gorgeous booklet with stills, interviews, essays on bestiality, etc. as well as an extensive interview with the more-than-pretentious director. for those who have heard about it but never seen it, the package will seem fantastic until one actually sees the film. disc 1 contains the edited film, badly translated to English but with good visual quality. disc 2 contains the director's cut, in an awful transfer, in french.<br /><br />what can I say about the actual beast? a hand puppet of Kermit the frog would have been more effective and shocking.
Notorious for more than a quarter century (and often banned), it's obscurity was its greatest asset it seems. Hey, it's often better to be talked about, rather than actually seen when you can't back the "legend" up with substance.<br /><br />The film has played in Los Angeles a couple of times recently, and is available on home video, so that veil is slowly being lifted. While there is still plenty to offend the masses, it is more likely to bore them, than arouse much real passion. Except for a gratuitous and protracted XXX sex scene between a pair of horses ("Nature Documentary" anyone?), there follows nearly an hour of a dull arranged marriage melodrama. <br /><br />Once the sex and nudity begins, it is a nonstop sequence involving masturbation, a looooooooong flashback to an alleged 'beauty and the beast' encounter, and a naked woman running around the mansion (nobody, even her supposedly protective Aunt, seems to even think of putting some clothes on her!). On video, I guess you can fast-forward thru the banality, but it's not really worth the effort. The nudity doesn't go beyond what is seen in something much more substantive such as Bertolucci's THE DREAMERS.<br /><br />Try as one might to find some 'moral' or 'symbolism' in the carnality, I doubt it's worthy of anyone's effort. Unfortunately, for LA BETE, now that you can more easily see the film, the notoriety of something once 'forbidden' has been lifted. And this beast has been tamed.
Unreal "movie", what were these people on?? A mix of French Upstairs Downstairs, mating horses,porn (not suggested, its pretty full on for a film) & bestiality with a bit of Benny Hill music & chase scenes thrown in, its sounds crazy & its even more so to watch. **spoiler** It plods along in a tedious fashion for quite a while,.... then a Lamb does a runner, prompting woman in period dress to run off after it, she goes into the woods where she is set upon by an erect "penis" attached to a man in a bear/rat manky suit, I put it like that as its obvious the "penis" is in charge & gets way too much screen time, ejaculating for the most of it, anyway, in a nutshell, it turns out she liked a bit of bear/rat tadger & thats about it, the rest is just padding. **end spoiler** A film made to shock & offend, thus getting talked about, any publicity is good publicity I suppose,a waste of time really, but the "main event" has to be seen to be believed, its hard to imagine that anyone thought it was a good idea as they filmed it.
Completely ridiculous "period" film is only a thin excuse for its extensive, graphic depiction of the heroine's affair with "the beast", a monster who supposedly appears every century to rape some women. That's pretty much what he does, and the film's depiction of the beast is really really awful; it's basically a tall guy in a fur suit with a mask and a huge PVC tube for a hard-on that squirts copious amounts of white liquid. For fans of fake animal porn, I guess maybe this is a real turn-on. I was amused, however, by the opening shots of horses having sex in a public square.
This Movie is complete crap! Avoid this waste of celluloid at all costs, it is rambling and incoherent. I pride myself on plumbing the depths of 70's sleaze cinema from everything from Salo to Salon Kitty. I like being shocked, but I need a coherent story. However if watching horses mate gets you off this film is for you. The saddest part was that lame werewolf suit with the functional wang. I mean its just plain hard to sit through, not to mention the acting is terrible and the soundtrack is dubbed badly. Please, I know the cover is interesting (what looks like a gorillas hands reaching for a woman's bare ass)but don't waste your time or money as you won't get either back.
Revolutions always present opportunities for dramatic films since, in fact, most revolutions are in themselves dramatic events. Unfortunately, what this film lacks in drama is compensated for by an overabundance of boredom. One cares not who wins, loses, dies or lives--just end it as soon as possible. This is due in large measure to what seems to me to be a superficial use of background technology. Scenes of Paris and the French countryside have a cardboard quality about them. They might better be done on a bare stage and left that way. One cannot expect the amazing effects of "The House of the Flying Daggers" or "The Golden Compass," but , after all, this is a 2002 digitally mastered production. Characters seem to enter a scene for the sake of entering a scene, so much so that one loses count of the number of times character enter and leave rooms. In my view, this film turns the French Revolution of the 1790s into the "papier-mache" revolution of a "papier colle" world.
Much has been made of Rohmer's use of digital technology to 'fill in' the background. At times it works well, the scene where Grace and her maid witness from afar the King's execution is particularly striking. At other times it gives the film a strangely amateurish look, resembling a home video. However, the major failing is that the sheer artificiality of the mise en scene creates an alienating effect in the viewer. We know that what we are watching is not real so how can we feel for the characters? To be frank, I did not care at all what happened to the Lady or the Duke.<br /><br />The other major failing, I regret to say, is the performance of Lucy Russell in the leading role. She is in virtually every scene and the success or otherwise of the film rests on her performance. OK she is speaking a foreign language but she is incapable of expressing real emotion. Her emoting in the scene where she recounts to her friend Mme de Meyler (an excellent performance by the debutante Helena Dubiel) seeing the head on a pole caused some embarrassed laughter in the audience. Also, watch her hands when she is expressing emotion!<br /><br />All in all a very disappointing film, particularly given the positive reviews on this site.
Eric Rohmer's 'The Lady and the Duke' is based on the journals of an English aristocrat who lived through the French revolution. But it's a stilted affair, with its strange, painted backdrops and mannered conversational tone. Most notably, this portrait of age of terror takes place almost entirely at one remove from the real action; one sees very little of ordinary people in this movie, and little of the chaos, poverty and terror that unfolded away from the drawing rooms of the persecuted, but spoilt, aristocratic classes. The result is frequently dull, and ultimately unenlightening about the forces that sometimes drive societies to the brink of destruction; it's a disappointing film from an acclaimed director.
If I only had one camera that was accidentally glued to the floor, enough film for only one take of each shot, and then lost all that film and had to scrounge up some bucks to buy a few digital video tapes, and was forced to make an over-2-hour movie about the French Revolution, and also didn't have any sets and had to have my 4-year-old autistic son paint the backgrounds, and also the only actors I could find were the people who didn't make the auditions of that year's soap opera, and I was also forced to not use any music in the entire film, and also the zoom function on the camera didn't work except for one time when it accidentally started zooming in and couldn't stop, oh and if I hated my audience, then I might make something kind of like this awful, yet mistakenly hilarious, Hell-worthy waste of time. The almost grand looking but completely fake looking backdrops reminded me of some of George Lucas' latest creations, which made it so much more disappointing because through the whole movie, there was that little glimmer of hope in the back of my mind that the film would climax in a lightsaber duel/space laser battle. I don't mean to spoil the movie for those who haven't seen it, but that's not how it ends. The only thing I can think of that wasted more time than watching this movie was writing this review. Peace.
Every so often a movie comes along that knocks me down a notch and reminds me that my taste in films I seek out to watch isn't always impeccable. I normally would stay away from stuff like this, but I was duped by some glowing reviews and the Rohmer pedigree.<br /><br />There's an initial and intriguing novelty to the production where Rohmer essentially superimposes the actors onto painted (digital) back-drops of revolution era France. This quickly wanes and becomes about as interesting as watching the paint dry on a paint by numbers scene. What we're left with is a boring and stuffy film about aristocrats in 18th century France. None of the characters are appealing or sympathetic. The pace is so languid, the dialogue so arduous, and suspense is clearly a foreign concept to Rohmer, that I ended up not caring whose head rolled, who was harboring who, or what the devil the revolution was supposed to be about. The movie would've greatly benefited from some semblance of emotional build-up and a music score (there's some fine classical music used at the very end). Despite being so "talky", the film plays much like a silent film, and the worst kind of film at that, a dull and uninteresting film about infinitely interesting subjects. Only the most astute French historians will find anything to take from this film, as it dose seem to paint well known events from a new angle (the Lady is English and a royalist). Otherwise, avoid this yawner at all costs unless you are suffering from insomnia (I dozed off twice).
I can hardly believe that this inert, turgid and badly staged film is by a filmmaker whose other works I've quite enjoyed. The experience of enduring THE LADY AND THE DUKE (and no other word but "enduring" will do), left me in a vile mood, a condition relieved only by reading the IMDb user comment by ali-112. For not only has Rohmer attempted (with success) to make us see the world through the genre art of 18th century France but, as ali has pointed out, has shown (at the cost of alienating his audience) the effects of both class consciousness and the revolution it inspired through the eyes of a dislikably elitist woman of her times. The director has accomplished something undeniably difficult, but I question whether it was worth the effort it took for him to do so -- or for us to watch the dull results of his labor.
As a fan of Eric Rohmer's studies of the contemporary war between the sexes, I was very eager to see "The Lady and The Duke (L'Anglaise et le duc)" for how he would treat men and women during a real war, the French Revolution. <br /><br />The film looks beautiful, with each scene designed as a period painting, like a tableaux vivant. And I expected much talking, as that's Rohmer's style. But maybe Rohmer was restrained by basing the screenplay on a real woman's writings is why this mostly felt like a docudrama version of "The Scarlet Pimpernel."<br /><br />As awful as the excesses of Robespierre et al, how about some recognition that the French aristocrats were spoiled brats? I kept humming to myself: "Marat, we're poor/and the poor stay poor;" you could also pick a tune from "Les Miz."<br /><br />I wasn't all that sympathetic as the central figure has to go back and forth between her city home and country manor to stay ahead of the Revolution. At one point her maid claims the pantry is bare but sure manages to lay out a fine repast. I simply didn't understand her, an English sympathizer who alternately rejects and defends her former lover and patron as he and the Revolution keep shifting political focus; I think I was supposed to sympathize with her consistency more than their political machinations, like a character out of "The Scarlet Pimpernel." Hey, the only reason she didn't go back home was her disgrace after an affair and child with the Prince of Wales or somebody. <br /><br />Usually in a revolutionary period there's some groundswell of change going on in relations between men and women, but I saw none here. I once went to a Herbert Marcuse lecture that concluded with a lengthy Q & A; the last question, from an audience member far older than the rest of us acolytes, heck she had gray hair, was "Why are revolutionaries so grim?" She was hooted at and Marcuse didn't deign to respond to it seriously -- but it's the only thing of substance I remember from the whole evening. Rohmer demonstrates that counter-revolutionaries are also grim and didactic.<br /><br />(originally written 8/11/2002)
As interesting as a sheet of cardboard, this dispensable period piece has little going for it. It's overly wordy and fails spectacularly to evoke the tension and fear that the real-life characters must have felt as they dodged the French Revolution's fickle hand of justice. Eric Rohmer at 82? It shows.
I've seen most of Ryuhei Kitamura's work and I've come to the conclusion that he has a knack for action. Scenes are kinetic and fast often combining elements of martial arts, gun fights and samurai fights with camera work that effectively captures the on screen carnage. With "Versus" and "Aragami" Kitamura demonstrated that creativity and showed that he his more than capable of working with a low budget. So what happened in "Alive" ? To be more blunt, the answer would be - nothing. Nothing happened in "Alive" it was a two hours plus movie with little to no action and little to no characters and plot.<br /><br />Adapted from a comic book by Tsutomu Takahashi "Alive" is an examination of the life of one Tenshu Yashiro (played by Hideo Sasaki) a death row convict who survives his execution. He is then given a choice of either to repeat the execution or to subject himself in a bizarre series of experiments. He chooses the latter and soon after that is placed in a room along with a rapist and later with a girl infected with a strange parasite that in exchange for it's host's humanity grants supernatural powers. Naturaly at some point that parasite moves into Yashiro, the bad thing is that doesn't happen very soon. <br /><br />Similar to "Aragami", "Alive" sets it's first half in establishing the basic exposition. Characters are introduced, their motivations are set and their relations between each other are uncovered. The whole thing even takes place in just one set. The first major problem of that comparison is that while "Aragami" was just a 70 minute movie, "Alive" drags on for more than two hours thus making the first part over one hour long. That length could have been justified had the characters been made a bit more interesting but alas that is not the case. Dialogue is dry, monotonous, delivered without any sense of emotion or depth, characters themselves aren't much interesting. There were some small attempts at making "Alive" a bit more moral ambiguous but in the end it all came down to the classic : evil government people against, super-powered protagonist, whom yes you guessed it, saves the girl in the end. Like I previously said the entire film practically takes place at just one set, and after two hours that does get boring, even worse the set design itself wasn't even interesting to begin with, and doesn't do much to improve on other aspects of the film.<br /><br />Now, after that first part is over, one might think that Kitamura would at least make some entertaining action scenes to make up for the boring beginning. Sadly that is not the case. The two only fights are actually rehashes of similar fights from Hollywood movies, complete with bullet time effects and psychic powers. They're just not interesting or fun, Kitamura's creativity from "Versus" is gone, the small set even limits his often very impressive camera-work and it all boils down into generic and expectable fights, a shame really.<br /><br />Evidently "Aragami" was better on all accounts and "Kitamura" had learned something from "Alive". So it wasn't at least a total loss watching this movie. If only to understand the errors made, how to fix them and create a better more entertaining movie.
I really tried to like this movie but in the end it just didn't work for me. I have seen most of Kitamura's output and have found it to be very variable. Alive, like all of his films has an interesting plot, some nifty sequences and a fair amount of creativity. However, these qualities are in painfully short supply in Alive. The plot is cool if not all that original and could have made for a pretty ace film. Unfortunately, the pacing is painfully slow and the film takes an age to get going, before reaching fairly predictable places. The action is just about passable, with the final fight pretty cool, and the earlier one about OK. The earlier one is also marred by overspeedy camera-work, making for less coherency. There are some neat visual effects and some interesting ideas floating around in the dialogue but the film still drags badly. The characters are neither well fleshed out nor well acted and the setting and general color scheme is drab and boring. The film is not completely terrible and has some points of interest, perhaps judicious use of the fast forward button could improve it. With about twenty minutes taken off the run time this could be a pretty decent sci fi thriller. But the full length film is dull. Only recommended to very patient and determined Kitumura fans.
Having seen Versus previously I had high hopes for Alive. The description of the movie on the back of the DVD jacket sounded promising. Alive did not deliver. VERY slow development. Loads of potential with the cast and the cool visuals. The premise was intriguing but the payoff did not offset the build up. Could have done so much more at the end. Most of the movie is just " sitting around ". To put it plainly, three of us were amped to sit down and watch this movie and by the 50 minute mark we were struggling to make it thru to the end. It really needed more shock elements. If you are looking for Ichi the Killer or Versus type fights then save yourself some $ and loads of disappointment.
I'll keep this short, as I know I don't need to say much.<br /><br />"Alive" is a strange little film that obviously appeals to some, but I found it to be shockingly bland from almost the very beginning. The film did very little to make any of the characters likable and the story at times became so convoluted that I completely lost interest. As I said, I know others enjoyed it, but I found Kitamura's "Alive" to be anything but - a lame, extremely boring drama disguised as a thought-provoking action sci-fi flick. I felt like I was suckered into watching this film, based by its intriguing premise and uber-exciting cover art.<br /><br />My suggestion? Pass it up for Kitamura's far more enjoyable freshman effort "Versus" or his 2004 riot "Godzilla: Final Wars".<br /><br />...And don't get me wrong, I'm always up for a good thinking man's film, but this certainly wasn't it. There was nary a moment that I actually cared about a single event taking place in this overly-preachy, dialogue-heavy movie.<br /><br />If you wanna talk about something... talk about boring.
I don't know where to begin, so I'll begin with a snippet from the back of the cover of this movie. "Alive combines the tension of Vincenzo Natali's Cube with Kitamura's own Versus." I have not seen Versus, so I can't comment on that, but I think Cube was an excellent movie which I recommend to everyone. However, in this case someone has clearly confused "tension" with "boredom".<br /><br />I'll just go ahead and spoil the entire plot, because besides being one holy Swiss cheese of a plot, it's also moldy cheese, and the movie is not worth spending any time on even if you don't know the plot beforehand, so it doesn't matter. If I have misunderstood the plot, don't hit me - it's probably because I had to struggle to keep my eyelids open.<br /><br />So the American military in Nevada once lost a UFO i the Nambi desert. This apparently makes sense because they're both deserts so surely they're practically the same place. Different continents or not. A monkey broke into the UFO and acquired an alien something which was passed on to a Japanese researcher who had to eat the monkey to survive in the desert. What ever. The alien thing is now passed on to anyone who's "bloodthirsty" enough to kill the current host. The Japanese military wants to use it for military stuff, so they decide to make it pass from the current host (the researcher's daughter) to some other dude. But instead of just picking someone out of the military, which is full of people who are bloodthirsty AND already on the military's side, they decide that it's probably a good idea to pick some criminal out of death row instead. Oh, and the reason they pick this particular criminal from death row is because he was the first person in history to not die from the non-lethal electric shock which is the standard execution method, because everyone dies from the placebo effect when they get electrocuted. I don't know if they do this so they can giggle in the staff room at how everyone dies even though it's not deadly, or if they just want to cut down the electricity bill.<br /><br />Then the movie turns into what The Matrix would have been if it had been really lame, and superfluous fighting bores us to tears for what feels like an hour. And oh wait, now they remember that they already had a dude who was infected with the alien thing, so the entire movie up to this point was actually a totally waste of time and also human lives. Then everyone dies. The end.<br /><br />The only one moment in the movie where I didn't want to go away and sleep or eat a sandwich instead, was when a dude was pinned to a wall by a pipe through his chest, and he's hanging around up there and another dude walks by. The dude hanging on the wall says "I'm in pain, shoot me". And the living dude looks at him, and it's not like he's a mean dude or anything, so he really looks sorrowful and doesn't want the guy on the wall to suffer. So he shoots him.<br /><br />(Rhetorical pause.)<br /><br />In the stomach. "Gee THANKS A FREAKIN' HEAP."
Fashionably fragmented, yet infuriatingly half-realized character-study, an examination of the different personalities of two college roommates: a talented but undisciplined star basketball player, and a pot-smoking, womanizing rabble-rouser. We never learn why these young men are friends. They may share confusions about the world and their places in it, but they don't seem to have anything else in common. Making his directorial debut, Jack Nicholson--who also co-wrote the screenplay with Jeremy Larner, based upon Larner's book--doesn't introduce us to the characters with any clarity, nor he does shape the scenes to help us identify with anyone on the screen. There are some very decent performances here (particularly from newcomer William Tepper in the central role), but most of the picture is unformed (perhaps intentionally), sketchy or unsure. Bruce Dern plays the hard-driving basketball coach, Karen Black is the older, married lady Tepper is having an affair with, and Michael Margotta is Tepper's wayward friend (in an off-putting, over-the-top performance). Nicholson fails to set up the sequences with any particular flavor, preferring (I assume) to let the character interaction dominate the film's tone; his script is no help either, and as a result it is unclear whom we're supposed to sympathize with. Small, random moments do work (a supermarket fight between Tepper and Black, Dern visiting Tepper in his dorm-room, all of the scenes set on the court), however the entire third act of the picture is an excruciating mess. Hoping to juxtapose an all-important b-ball game with a sexual assault, Nicholson shows no style at his craft (nor does he earn points for chutzpah, as his staging of these events is squashy and ugly). When a director goes out of his way to humiliate his actors, one has to question his motives in doing so. Perhaps if "Drive, He Said" ultimately made some sort of powerful statement in the bargain, audiences could forgive the filmmaker for his lapses in judgment and taste. Unfortunately, the perplexing closer is as dumbfounding as much of the rest of the movie. *1/2 from ****
I went to see this movie at our college theater thirty years ago because I liked Bruce Dern in Silent Running and Family Plot. To this day (sorry Jack Nicholson), it is still the dullest movie I've ever seen. It just went on and on with no discernible point and then - it just ended. The lights came up and I watched everyone looking around in confusion. Had the projectionist missed a reel? I've never had the urge to find out. All I remember about the movie is that it was a non-drama about some annoying college basketball players and their coach. The most enjoyable part of the movie was watching the totally mystified audience afterwords. Fortunately, this was just an exception for Jack, Bruce, and Karen Black.
As a member of the cast, I was a member of the band at all the basketball games, I would like to let the world know after being in the movie, that we were not allowed to see it since it was banned in Oregon. This was due to the producers and the director breaking the contract with the University of Oregon where it was shot. Seems that the U of O sign was shown. While we were shooting, we were allowed to eat several meals with the cast and production staff. Mr Nicholson was quite memorable for being one of the most ill-mannered men I have ever met. Quite a time for a young 20 year old. BUt certainly not what campus life was really like in the late 60's and early 70's despite what Hollywood may think. Trombone player from Oregon
This has got to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It is (I think) a story of a rebellious college basketball player, his tough-but-fair coach, his girlfriend, and a fellow student (played by Michael Margotta) who has continual nervous breakdowns. The story goes nowhere, there is zero character development, there is nobody to care about, and the performances, with the exception of Bruce Dern as the coach, are terrible. It is hard to believe how a talent like Jack Nicholson could direct such an awful movie. Make sure to avoid this turkey.
Some movies are repellent but still fascinating (Pulp Fiction); others are simply boring. This movie has an almost unique feature of being both utterly repellent and totally boring. By the end I didn't care about any of the characters, I just wanted all of them dead so I could get out of the theatre.
Tenants Two writers struggle to complete their books in an all but empty apartment house. They at first help each other and then slowly the tension between them begins to build.<br /><br />This is based upon a Bernard Malamud novel and unfortunately everyone speaks as though they are in that novel. Very little of the dialog is natural, its purple and brimming with shades of meaning. Its as if a college English major with a head full of pretensions wrote the script. It's awful and I found myself instantly immune to anything the film had to say, which is a shame since the film is populated with great performances from top to bottom. Snoop Dog on down are fine form, unfortunately none of them can over come the falseness of the words and the premise.<br /><br />I can't really recommend this movie. While not really bad, its very preachy and pretentious to the point of making you want to walk away. I lost interest less then a third of the way in and had to struggle to get to the end. If you're interested I'd try it on cable, but I wouldn't lay out good money to see it.
I ended up watching The Tenants with my close friends who rented the movie solely based on Snoop Dogg's appearance (a passionate fetish of theirs) on the cover. Understandably, I did not expect much. I thought the movie would include the typical array of Snoop Dogg related behavior and imagery often seen in cliché rap videos. However, my generalization was for the most part wrong. Unfortunately, this didn't make the movie any better.<br /><br />Most would describe the movie as a dark serious drama, whereas I would describe it as a dark seriously drawn out boring drama flick. The film tells a story of two struggling writers (Dylan McDermott and Snoop Dogg) who are trying to create their own separate masterpieces. Their polar opposite lifestyles end up forming an unlikely but highly complex and neurotic friendship. This friendship moves throughout the entire movie like a wild roller-coaster - most of which is contributed by Snoop's character - reminiscent of someone with a severe case of split personality disorder. And although the movie is a drama, the acting - which has a morbid and serious tone - from Snoop and company was more comical than anything else.<br /><br />I wouldn't recommend this movie for those who are attention impaired because this one has a lot of dialogue and a lot more dialogue after that. There are some mediocre conflicts, but even they are mostly bogged down with more dialogue. The end, however, jumped at me with a sudden surprise. It was a little bit twisted, somewhat unexpected and a perfect way to wrap up a movie that needed to end. While watching the ending credits I couldn't help but picture the director thinking, "Oh God, how the hell do I end this snoozer." By the way, the director laid out carefully planted hints and subtleties leading to the climax - all of which are more visible than Waldo in a crowded street of midgets wearing nothing but black sweaters.
Watching The Tenants has been a interesting experience for me. It is the first film I have ever seen where I have shuttled at speed through parts of the (non)action - and I can normally watch anything from turgid action movies to Serbo-Croat indie and find them fascinating.<br /><br />The Tenants is frustratingly sluggish and over-orchestrated. One of the main problems of the script is there is little realistic character dialogue, apart from the set pieces where characters 'collide' in a very structured setting (to make this work, the film needed to feel more conceptual, which it didn't). This leads to a lack of realistic character development; everyone seems two-dimensional.<br /><br />The worse for this is the character of Bill Spear, aka Snoop Dogg. I found his characterization very uncomfortable and very unsympathetic. At one point, I even stopped the film because I got so annoyed by the character's aggressive, violent and monotonal delivery, the lack of any other personality layer apart from that of the reactionary "on" switch (which gets really predictable after a while) and I so desperately wanted him to have some redeeming qualities. However, one reason for this jar might be the nebulous time scape of the film (supposedly 70s, it feels and looks more early noughties). If it had been more securely fixed in the 70s, his character might have seemed more understandable.<br /><br />The lighting of the film was also awkward. All the way through, the soundtrack attempts to provide a certain gritty, jazz-infused atmosphere that just did not come off, largely because the set was too well-lit.<br /><br />The Tenants, to me, is an unbelievable film. It doesn't depict real people or propose any interesting ways of thinking about race, identity or the life of a writer, be they white or black.<br /><br />Strangely, I came away with the feeling that this project needed David Lynch; his eerie, clastrophobic and obsessive look and feel would have lifted both the actors and the script into something quite remarkable.
never before has a film driven me to write a review but this was just dire.i stuck with it trying to find what it was about this film that made snoop pick it as his first serious role but frankly it was a poor choice.maybe this made a good book but it certainly did not work for me as a film.i found it unbelievable,lacking atmosphere and i found many of the scenes hideously stilted.a musical maestro he may be but a serious actor snoop ain't.the acting by Dylan mcdermott and rose byrne was passable but not enough to carry a weak plot with feeble dialogue. perhaps i have just entirely missed the point but to me it didn't fit into any genre,it didn't elicit any empathy with the characters nor did it create any suspense,in fact i found myself praying for the end and quelling a deep desire to slap all three of the main characters!
May (Anne Reid) and Toots (Peter Vaughan) are paying an apparently infrequent visit to their son Bobby (Steven Mackintosh) and his family in London. Even as the visit begins, Toots suffers a fatal heart attack, leaving May adrift, unsure, and questioning her life and future. Finding herself attracted to her daughter's boyfriend Darren (Daniel Craig), her actions lead to inevitable consequences.<br /><br />Beautifully filmed, but for all its heralded realism and acclaim, The Mother offers a collection of mostly unpleasant, even repellent characters, and asks the viewer to engage with them. Reid shines as May, and it is her skill and commitment as a wonderfully understated actor that salvages the film from a completely depressing mire, but Michell and Kureishi have allowed Craig, Mackintosh and Cathryn Bradshaw to create such utterly obnoxious characters, that it becomes increasingly difficult to care what happens to May. As written, the characters played by Mackintosh and Bradshaw are in fact so utterly selfish and cold-hearted that one begins to wonder what exactly was Kureishi trying to say. As directed, they are either unwilling or unable to lift Bobby and Paula above the two dimensional in their ghastly selfishness. <br /><br />Worth seeing for Reid's performance, but little else. A crying shame...
Disappointing and irritating. The screenwriter has no true understanding of human nature but instead strings together clichés in a disjointed fashion. Character is not explored in depth. These are puppets plunked down in a plot he openly confesses needed a dramatic element, the mother's affair with her daughter's lover. <br /><br />Anne Reid gives an excellent performance in spite of being given some peculiar situations and lines, such standing passively to allow her angry daughter to slug her in the eye. The script portrays Darren (Daniel Craig) as a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde without any hints about why, except that he snorts cocaine before the big scene. <br /><br />A mature writer could have done so much more with this topic.
I understand what this movie was trying to portray. How the old are often ignored and treated like a bother, which means they end up feeling unappreciated and like their lives are empty.<br /><br />I do not have a problem with this message, but I just feel that it could have been put across in a way that is not so painful to watch. I enjoy a good art movie but when a movie becomes too self-consciously arty (as in this case) the result is often frustrating. Including shots of a person packing a suitcase slowly that take 5 minutes try to make a point but just end up annoying the audience.<br /><br />The female characters are very weak and you end up wanting to just tell them to pull it together. This is a movie you feel you should enjoy or rate highly and certainly has its' merits but I was just too frustrated watching it to ever recommend it to someone else. It might have a deeper message than other Roger Michell movies (for example: 'Notting Hill') but at least that was a movie you could enjoy watching.
After Life is a Miracle, I did not expect much. It's hard to believe that these films were made by the same man as Do You Remember Dolly Bell, for instance. Zavet is two hours of silly antics with no story. The wild and unbridled humor of Underground seems to have degenerated into pathetic buffoonery here. It appears that Kusturica has been going steadily downhill since he started making life-affirming comedies, beginning with Black Cat, White Cat, which I think was great, but already had some disturbing signs of dementia. I liked his early films so much, and this is why it's especially disappointing to see something like this. Let's hope his next one will be great.
This "movie" is more like a music video. Kusturica said in an interview from 2004 that when he is making movies, he feels like making music, and when he is making music, he feels like making movies. The best thing in "Promise me this" is the music, written by Stribor Kusturica.<br /><br />Kusturica said in the same interview, that for him the dialogues in the movies are like noise. "Promise me this" has very little "noise".<br /><br />I liked "Life is a miracle". It was also like music video for the first 30 minutes and at some points later, but it had a beautiful plot. "Promise me this" has no plot. I was awaiting this movie with big expectations, because I've read, that the script has been written by Ranko Bozic - one of my favourite scriptwriters, who participated also in "Life is a miracle". Ranko Bozic writes great dialogues, but for Kusturica they are "noise", and much to my regret, I saw only two dialogues, which I could identify as written by Ranko Bozic. The other part of the script was used by the director for making his chaotic music video for the music of his son Stribor.<br /><br />Gordan Mihic (the man who wrote the scripts for "Time of the gypsies" and "Black cat white cat") said in an interview, that Kusturica never follows the script. "Black cat white cat" was the only script, for which Kusturica said, that he will not touch it. According to Gordan Mihic, after all Kusturica comes back to the script, and if he doesn't, he doesn't make a good movie. And I think this is the case with "Promise me this". He should have followed the script of Ranko Bozic.<br /><br />"Promise me this" is billed as a "comedy", but there are very few moments, which made me laugh. The comedic moments are in the same style as "Black cat white cat", but are not that funny at all. I think the difference comes from the fact, that "Black cat white cat" was written by Gordan Mihic.<br /><br />However, I know some people, who liked "Promise me this", they find it very positive movie.
"A Damsel in Distress" is definitely not one of Fred Astaire's better musicals. But even Astaire's bad films always had some good moments.<br /><br />In "Damsel," Astaire is Jerry Halliday, an American musical star who is in London on a personal appearance tour. He meets Lady Alice Marshmorton (19-year-old Joan Fontaine), a beautiful English heiress, who hops into the back of a cab he is taking to escape a mob of admirers.<br /><br />Jerry believes that Alice is being forced into a marriage by her rich aunt. He tries to rescue her from her family's country manor house, but soon discovers that the house staff is laying bets on which suitor Lady Alice will marry. Keggs (Reginald Gardiner) the conniving butler, and Albert (Harry Watson), the bratty house boy, each take turns alternately helping and sabotaging Lady Alice's romance with Jerry to make sure they win the bet.<br /><br />This musical has numerous problems. First, there is the plot, based on a novel by P.G. Wodehouse (who co-wrote the screenplay). The story is slow, painful, and nerve-grating. When Fred is not dancing, we have to endure endless annoying scenes of (a) Fred romancing Joan Fontaine or (b) Keggs and Albert conniving against them and each other.<br /><br />The butler and the house boy are especially irritating. They are one-dimensional stock villain characters, the kind of guys you just want to punch in the mouth. You wish they would get off the screen and let Fred dance.<br /><br />Astaire suffers in the absence of his usual partner, Ginger Rogers. Joan Fontaine is a lackluster leading lady in this film, and is miscast in a musical. She has little going for her, character-wise, other than her lovely face and beautiful smile.<br /><br />George Burns and Gracie Allen are along for the ride, as Jerry's publicist and his ditzy secretary. The duo adds some sorely needed chemistry to the plot, and Gracie has some funny lines, but she is also very annoying at times.<br /><br />The direction of the movie by George Stevens is not well done. At times, the cinematography is horrible and off-focus. There are a number of outdoor scenes set on extremely foggy streets, to try to convince the audience that we are in London, not Hollywood. (They must have used tons of dry ice in this movie.) On the plus side, the songs by George and Ira Gershwin are terrific, and have become classic song standards. And of course, the dancing in the movie is exceptional, thanks to Astaire and his choreographer, Hermes Pan.<br /><br />But the musical and dance numbers are ill-used and ill-staged. At times, the cast seems to start singing and dancing because, well, it's time for them to start singing and dancing. The musical numbers seem randomly inserted into the meandering plot. (At one point, the butler steps outside the manor house and breaks into an operetta solo for no clear reason.) The numbers include:  "I'm Dancing and I Can't Be Bothered Now" -- Fred dances well on a foggy traffic-filled London street. He does some great "cane-twirling" with a rolled umbrella -- but the number ends too soon when Fred jumps on a passing double-decker bus. (In the Broadway musical, "Crazy For You," Harry Groener did a much better version of this number with a group of chorus girls.)<br /><br /> "Put Me To The Test" -- Fred, George, and Gracie do a trio tap dance in an English cottage. George and Gracie match Fred step for step, but the number ends poorly with everyone kicking each other for no reason.<br /><br /> "Stiff Upper Lip" (The Fun House Number) -- At an amusement park fun house, Fred, George, and Gracie have fun dancing on the revolving floor, rotating barrel, and with the fun house mirrors. It's the best number of the movie, but it gets a little repetitious at times.<br /><br /> "Things Are Looking Up" -- Fred and Joan Fontaine do their one dance number together in the film, prancing around the back woods of the country manor estate. Fortunately, it's a very simple dance number because Joan is not a great dancer.<br /><br /> "A Foggy Day in London Town" -- Fred wanders around the foggy manor estate at night, crooning about the foggy day when he first met Joan in London. At times, he looks as if he's not sure which way he's going in the fog -- much like the musical number itself.<br /><br /> "Nice Work If You Can Get It" -- A great song that is misused in the movie. During a social event at the manor house, Fred gets drawn into a chorus of dour-faced singers who are haphazardly singing this song. Each time Fred joins in, the other singers look at him as if they wish he would leave. (Again, Harry Groener did a better dance number with this song in "Crazy For You.")  "Drum Dance Number" -- As Fred and Joan are eloping, Fred has to stop and do one final tap dance number while banging a group of drums. As usual, it's a great dance number. But there's absolutely no need for it, except to prolong the movie.<br /><br />The most contrived moment in the film comes when Fred decides to leap off a high stone balcony at the country estate in order to prove his love for Joan Fontaine. As he leaps from the balcony, he finds a conveniently-placed trapeze -- that's right, a *trapeze* -- hanging from a nearby tree. Fred (or rather, a stuntman in Fred's clothes) grabs the trapeze and swings to the ground from it.<br /><br />The movie is worth owning on DVD for the dance numbers alone, but you feel indebted to the guy who invented the Fast Forward button on your remote. The >>FF button allows you to skip through the other, boring scenes in the film to get to the dance numbers.
Arthur Askey's great skill as a comic was in the way he communicated with his public. His juvenile jokes, silly songs and daft dances went down well because he was able to engage folk and draw them into his off the wall world. A lack of a live audience was a distinct disadvantage to him, and he was never completely comfortable in films. He has his moments in The Ghost Train, and his character, Tommy Gander, has been tailored to make the most of his talents, but Askey the performer needed to be seen to be appreciated.<br /><br />Askey's support in the film is not strong, it includes regular co-star Richard Murdoch; Betty Jardine and Stuart Latham as a dopey honeymoon couple; Linden Travers going over the top as a 'mad woman'. Also on board are Peter Murray-Hill, who off-screen married Phyllis Calvert, as the nominal leading man, giving a totally bland reading of the part, and leading lady Carol Lynne, who turns in an equally insipid performance. It is left to character actress Kathleen Harrison to effortlessly steal the film as a parrot loving single woman who gets smashed on Dr Morland Graham's brandy.
An absolutely wretched waste of film!! Nothing ever happens. No ghosts, hardly any train, no mystery, no interest. The constant and BRUTAL attempts at comedy are painful. Everything else is pathetic. The premise is idiotic: a bunch of people stranded in the middle of no-place, because their train was held up for less than 3 minutes. What? And the railroad leaves them no place to stay, in a heavy storm? I think not. Oh, they can walk 4 miles across the dead-black fields. umm, yeah. Sure. Or, they can force themselves on the railroad's hospitality, and stay at the 'haunted' train station. A station which proved to be nothing but DEADLY BORING, utterly without ghosts, interest, or plot.<br /><br />So very terribly dull that this seems impossible.<br /><br />This ought to be added to the LOST FILMS list !! aargh !!
Dynasty Revisited in Hawaii... Full of clichés, highly predictable, unrealistic and sometimes even stupid. If you have nothing better to do however, it does provide 40 minutes of simple, unpretensive entertainment, endless looks at great male and female muscles and very good photography of the spectacular Hawaiian scenery. On the other hand, If you are looking for anything more than that, stay away...<br /><br />Oh, and by the way, if you have ever worked in a Hotel or know anything about running one, you have two options: 1. You will feel sick every two minutes at the sheer stupidity and silliness of how the show presents Hotel Business or, 2. Look at it as science fiction comedy as I did, lie back, relax, and laugh about it!
Someone mentioned editing. This is edited badly and what started out as somewhat intriguing became an incomprehensible mess. For starters, let us know what it is you are trying to do with these experiments. Why are these people the best choices for the type of experimenting they are involved in? And, what exactly are they testing? Apparently there is some grand plan that some agency is going to exploit. The acting is pretty bad. Everyone is emoting. Everyone is keeping secrets. They frequently mention that if it weren't for the money, they'd hang it up. There's a deranged minister who spouts scripture. On and on. But, again, the biggest hang up is the lack of laying out a playing field for the actors. There are some really cheesy elements. Those little rooms and those chaise lounges. The awful wallpaper (was it wallpaper?). It was interesting, but didn't seem to go anywhere.
Oh, my gosh...I thought CBS primetime television shows were the<br /><br />worst things Gerald McRaney appeared in...<br /><br />Four people are experimented on by a crazed mind control<br /><br />computer. That's it, don't rent it.<br /><br />I saw this under one of its many titles- "Grey Matter," and it is<br /><br />perhaps one of the worst films of recent memory. The other<br /><br />reviews are right, it is awful. Never have so many establishing<br /><br />shots appeared onscreen, NEVER. The cast is awful, the direction<br /><br />is awful, and the script is awful. I cannot stress how awful this is. <br /><br />Avoid it like you would smallpox.<br /><br />This is rated (PG) for physical violence, some gun violence, mild<br /><br />gore, some profanity, and some adult situations
Ouch, what a painfully BORING Sci-Fi movie! And that's especially saddening because the opening 15 minutes were so action-packed and full of potential! During the intro, we follow a bunch of nervous security officers and hired hit men as they chase a doctor who escaped from a mysterious laboratory with a briefcase full of top-secret files. As he's about to reveal the supposedly horrible & inhuman events that take place in the lab, he's executed. Figures… From then on, the 'action' swifts back and forth between two locations, the aforementioned laboratory and the rural mansion of a corrupt senator (or something), and it quickly becomes clear that the experiments are actually the complete opposite of disturbing. More like dull, pointless and vague. Scientists selected four random persons without living relatives and it's really really really really important that they speak the truth even though a giant machine reads the content of their minds, anyway. They all hide dark secrets from their pasts and people suffer when get revealed; yet I fail to see how these tests could ever result in a humanity-threatening device. Perhaps I missed something, but I doubt it. The interactions between the patients and doctors are even less interesting to follow, as really none of them have personalities. So basically, "The Brain Machine" just handles about a bunch of lame people living in an awfully decorated room. The film also could have been half an hour shorter if it weren't for a THOUSAND stagnant shots of buildings! The relocations from the lab to the villa and vice versa are indicated EVERY SINGLE TIME by a five-second shot of the places. Either the makers really needed the padding or they just assumed that all Sci-Fi viewers are morons unable to notice a change of location by themselves. Staring at a forsaken pool with a mansion in the background for the tenth time in only five minutes becomes quite annoying, I assure you. James Best's performance as the reverend with mental issues is rather decent, but one man definitely can't save this thing from being an absolute waste of time. Avoid!
I bought this (it was only $3, ok?) under the title "Grey Matter". The novelty of seeing Sherriff Roscoe in a non-DukesOfHazzard role intrigued me. As the other reviewers warned, it's a pretty boring tale of a top secret government experiment gone awry.<br /><br />And yes, there are plenty of establishing shots, especially of a house with a pool in front of it. Some of the characters and interiors are so nondescript I guess the filmmakers worried we might forget who is who, so they keep tipping us off by first showing the outside of the buildings. It's actually kinda funny. After awhile the pool shot feels like a tv channel's station identification logo, reminding us that we are watching "Grey Matter".<br /><br />I also enjoyed two bouts of name-calling. At one point an angry test subject taunts somebody in charge by calling her a "Scientific b*tch!". It's just a very inadequate insult. Several scenes later a different subject lets off steam by muttering about that "scientific b**tard!". It just sounded very awkward to me.<br /><br />Someday this movie will disappear forever. Another decade from now it will likely be impossible to find any copies of it. Almost like it never happened.<br /><br />
Let's see, here are the "highlights" of The Brain Machine: 15 establishing shots of a pool and a house; 15 establishing shots of a nondescript office building; 5 countdowns by a bland technician; 7 close-ups of a menacing guard; and a myriad of technical babble to show us this is a high-tech experiment.<br /><br />Various posters have commented on the discrepancy between the copyright date of 1972 and the release date given on the DVD box of 1977. That's an easy one to explain. This dog simply sat on the shelf unreleased for five years, until someone dusted it off, thinking it fit in perfectly with the post-Watergate mood of distrust in government. After seeing The Brain Machine now, my only wonder is that it ever got released at all!
This film about secret government mind experiments and the corrupt use of the citizenry by secretive and vile shadowy figures had the potential for being a really interesting movie. But for me, it failed. I won't elaborate much on the rather confusing plot line, but if you are looking for a detailed explanation, the comment by user "reluctantpopstar" gives a good description of it.<br /><br />But it didn't work for me. I found it slow, which would be okay but for the fact that it seemed to go nowhere. The viewer is left in the dark about too many things to really be able to get a handle on this movie-in some films, one can argue that the filmmakers intended to provoke thought and left things ambiguous for that reason. I don't think that this is the case here.<br /><br />As for the frequent long shots of two buildings that have been frequently mentioned by other users...I see that they do have a point-they give the viewer time to get another drink without missing any of the "action". And I suspect many viewers would welcome the opportunity to have several beverages on board to get through this one.
You know you're in trouble when the film your watching has numerous alternate titles. Generally it means that they tried and retried to hide the turkey in various markets. Such a turkey is The Brain Machine which has seven different titles.<br /><br />Its about some super secret government project that is suppose to be able to use a computer to read people but instead it drives people to kill each other or themselves, or something like that. Its filled with B level TV actors sitting in paneled room with lawn chairs trying to act a script that makes almost no sense.<br /><br />Its a turkey of the untastey kind. Avoid it.
"The Brain Machine" will at least put your own brain into overdrive trying to figure out what it's all about. Four subjects of varying backgrounds and intelligence level have been selected for an experiment described by one of the researchers as a scientific study of man and environment. Since the only common denominator among them is the fact that they each have no known family should have been a tip off - none of them will be missed.<br /><br />The whole affair is supervised by a mysterious creep known only as The General, but it seems he's taking his direction from a Senator who wishes to remain anonymous. Good call there on the Senator's part. There's also a shadowy guard that the camera constantly zooms in on, who later claims he doesn't take his direction from the General or 'The Project'. Too bad he wasn't more effective, he was overpowered rather easily before the whole thing went kablooey.<br /><br />If nothing else, the film is a veritable treasure trove of 1970's technology featuring repeated shots of dial phones, room size computers and a teletype machine that won't quit. Perhaps that was the basis of the film's alternate title - "Time Warp"; nothing else would make any sense. As for myself, I'd like to consider a title suggested by the murdered Dr. Krisner's experiment titled 'Group Stress Project'. It applies to the film's actors and viewers alike.<br /><br />Keep an eye out just above The General's head at poolside when he asks an agent for his weapon, a boom mic is visible above his head for a number of seconds.<br /><br />You may want to catch this flick if you're a die hard Gerald McRaney fan, could he have ever been that young? James Best also appears in a somewhat uncharacteristic role as a cryptic reverend, but don't call him Father. For something a little more up his alley, try to get your hands on 1959's "The Killer Shrews". That one at least doesn't pretend to take itself so seriously.
I thought watching employment videos on corporate compliance was tedious. This movie went nowhere fast. What could have been a somewhat cheesy half hour twilight zone episode turned into a seemingly endless waste of film on people parking their cars, a picture of some dude's swimming pool (he really needs to answer his phone by the way) a dot matrix printer doing its job, and Heuy and Louey sitting in a yellow lighted control room repeating "T minus 10 and counting" as if something exciting is going to happen. It doesn't so don't get your hopes up. The best thing about this movie is to see James Best and Gerald McC, in something other than there famous TV personalities, and that is stretching to find anything good. And do NOT get me started on the music which was totally composed of a Tympani, some large marine mammals, and microphone feedback. This movie is as close as I have given a one yet, but it gets the 2 because I actually was able to finish this insomnia cure, and didn't have to leave in the middle. AVOID AT ALL COSTS.
"Grey Matter" AKA "The Brain Machine" but the video people thought better of that; the screen says 1972 but IMDb says 1977; it's that kind of movie. The government has some kind of overriding interest in this 'brain machine' project that has drafted four people - who turn out to be, roughly, a philosopher, a horny priest, a crackpot veteran and a patriot who got an abortion - to sit in a shrinking room with a computer that can read their horrendous secret thoughts. In the end the government takes over the lab by force and everybody dies. Here is a movie that is incompetent in every important way; MY s*** has better production values than this. It held my interest, though, just to see what exactly these exploitation filmmakers thought they were doing, dabbling in four-guys-in-a-room character drama. The answer: a tract about how science is inferior to God. Thanks a lot. It's like opening a Kinder egg and getting your 30th goddam jigsaw puzzle. The priest is played by James "Roscoe P. Coltrane" Best, the philosopher by Gerald "the Republican Simon" McRaney. Also featuring very, very, very long establishing and transition shots in great quantity, this moves almost as slow as the Liberal convention.
Before this made for TV movie began, I had relatively low expectations. That's because it was made after the final episode of the series had aired and many of the series originals were gone. There is no President Sheridan, Delenn, Lennier, Londo, Vir, G'kar or Lyta. If you remember, on the second to last episode of the series, all the regulars except Zack, Vir and Captain Lockley left B-5 permanently. Now for this film they did bring back Garibaldi (who was not in the last B-5 movie) to join Zack and the Captain and the Doctor makes a brief and irrelevant appearance. But because so much is gone of the old chemistry, this film already is severely handicapped.<br /><br />The movie is about a Soul Hunter (Martin Sheen) who is led to Babylon 5 in search of a globe filled with souls that had been stolen from a hidden repository by an archaeologist (Ian McShane). A lot of spooky mumbo-jumbo stuff occurs but frankly it was all pretty silly and pointless. Yeah, yeah, the station nearly blew up but was saved and all, but frankly I felt like it was a case of "been there done that--and done that a lot better in the past".<br /><br />The secondary plot, provided more for comic relief, was much more interesting, as an entrepreneur installed a holo-brothel and those in command weren't sure what to do about it and when they tried to pressure them to close, they were slapped with a lawsuit. This was fluff, but it did provide a few laughs--something the other dreary plot was surely lacking.<br /><br />By the way, Sheen at first did a good job playing the Should Hunter--with his wild eyes and bizarre delivery. However, repeatedly throughout the episode he fell out of character. This should have been spotted and corrected.<br /><br />So the final verdict is this is only for total die-hard B-5 nuts (like myself). Others seeing it might assume the series sucked--which is a great injustice. This is a great example of a show not knowing when to quit.
I'm a big fan of B5, having caught on only at the end of season three. I faithfully watched all the previous seasons when it was syndicated, concluding that it was one of the most well-thought out story arcs to ever hit television. Even the filler episodes were interesting. The movies, also, were well produced and as entertaining as anything to hit the theaters.<br /><br />Which brings us to 'River of Souls'. Naturally, after seeing everything else, I had high expectations. Martin Sheen appears to be acting in an Ed Wood movie rather than a serious Sci-Fi story. The story itself, might have looked good in outline form, even made it to the story board. However, it suffers obviously when it came time to filling this notion out into a two hour movie. There are no special effects to keep us entertained in the total absence of a compelling story. There are places where they were obviously short of time and just improvised the dialog to fill the story out. Had this made the regular season, it would have rated among the worst of the episodes.
I was very disappointed in this movie. Plotwise it was weak bordering on silly: Souls who can affect reality in the way they do? A mission apparently critical to the Soul Hunters entrusted to one of their younger members? And the whole B-story with the "holobrothel" and the lawsuit against the station was so awful that at one point I blurted out to the television, "Why are you wasting my time with this?"<br /><br />Thematically, "River of Souls" didn't really go into the question of the soul in any more depth than the original episode "Soul Hunter" did. We see that Soul Hunters can make mistakes, but we still don't get a feeling for their culture. (Are there any female Soul Hunters?)<br /><br />The acting was okay, given the material they had to work with, and the special effects - especially the planetscapes in the first act - were very impressive. But overall, I'd say give this one a miss.
Went to see this movie hoping to see some flashes of the Jet Li we were amazed by in Lethal Weapon 4. Unfortunately too many of his fight stunts are so clearly fake that it took even that enjoyment out of it. The flying kicks would be a lot more impressive if you couldn't see the wires holding him up as he flies through the air for 4 seconds and 9 kicks.<br /><br />Too cartoonish and very disappointing.
It's hard to believe an "action" packed Jet Li movie could be so boring, but this was transcendant trash. The plot is an amalgam of other Hong Kong chopsocky flicks. The martial arts action is all special effects and no human talent. <br /><br />It's a comic book story about a group of super-human soldiers who are to be killed because they're mentally unstable, one of their number (Li) who holds off an incompetent army to save them and rebuilds a life as a pacifist librarian. The saved killers resurface with an Austin Powers quality plot to take over the world, and Li sheds his new life to save the world.<br /><br />The version I saw was dubbed, and that may have accentuated the cheesiness of the wafer-thin plot and comic-book 25 cent special effects. But I suspect even Ninja-Turtle-watching 8-year olds would have found this juvenile and hollow.
I rated this a 3. The dubbing was as bad as I have seen. The plot - yuck. I'm not sure which ruined the movie more. Jet Li is definitely a great martial artist, but I'll stick to Jackie Chan movies until somebody tells me Jet's English is up to par.
"Hak Hap", or "Black Mask" (in english) was a disappointment. I was told that it was a sort of "Japanese version of the Matrix". Imagine my disappointment. The film was either badly dubbed or the soundtrack didn't time well with the film. Another thing is that the dialogue was pretty much bad. There was very little thought put into the English version of this film and it appeals only to the "senseless action" genre. Not a film I would want to see again.
Jet Li, is one of the best hand to hand combat fighters in the world. He has been for over 20 years and he puts others in the genre to shame. While he is big in Asia, he is almost unknown here in the US.<br /><br />Black Mask is supposed to be a breakout movie for him, but it fails horribly. First of all, it is dubbed. While it may have camp value (the dubbing isn't even close and it is flat in tone), it seems inappropriate for the ordinary movie viewer. Secondly, the director in this movie, Daniel Lee, does a horrible job. He cuts scenes so fast, at times, you don't know what's going on. Other times, the camera shakes and wobbles. Fans see Jet Li's movies for the fantastic martial arts. However, the director edits the scenes so fast that you don't even know who's who half the time! Other times, a scene is left hanging (ie Li is beginning to cut a hole in the floor of a jeep, while the badguys arm their guns, two seconds later, both Li and the love interest are already under the car!) Other scenes are so improbable, that they cross over the point of being completely ridiculous (killer CD roms? Just give him Throwing Stars!!!!). Li, needs a director who is less prone to machine gun cutting and more to creating a cinematic mise-a-scene. The added rap/techno music goes from being okay to intrusive. The plot has possibilities but are all squandered by cartoonish characters that take away from any credibility that this movie strives for. And are we really to believe that the love interest would not recognize Simon, because he has a half mask on? Wouldn't the hair, lower jaw, or voice give it away?<br /><br />If you want to see a Jet Li movie, try Iron Monkey or his classic Shaolin Temple. This disjointed mess is a complete waste of time.....2/10
Lame, cliched superhero action movie drivel. I had high hopes for this movie, and the genre of HK buddy cop actioneers is one that i don't despise, but very rarely do i see a storyline as trite and ludicrous as this one was. This would have been forgivable, as it always is in these kinds of movies, when the action compensates, unfortunately, it did not. The action does carry the trademark surreality and over the top nature of HK action, but it's not very involving, obscenely gory, and in fact often completely incoherent (perhaps this is due to re-editing for american release, it does show signs in many places of patchwork). I was very disappointed.
The movie was awful. The theater was dead with silence 'cause everyone was embarrassed to be in there watching such trash. I think someone gave Jet Li a lobotomy and made him perform a script with dialogue written by a five year old. The martial arts are 'ok', but when put next to the Jackie Chan movies and "The Matrix" you're better off seeing one of those.
Mild SPOILERS contained herein. I'm spoiling this film to save you the trouble of having to watch it. <br /><br />Jet Li's movies fall into one of two categories: Shaolin period movies and movies set in modern-day Hong Kong revolving around Triads or Triad like organizations. Each genre has its best and worst films. `Twin Warriors' is Jet Li's best Shaolin era flick while `The Evil Cult' is his worst. `Fist of Legend' while in the recent past is the best `modern era' Jet Li movie. `Black Mask' without a doubt is the worst.<br /><br />Jet Li plays a self-exiled mercenary who received an injection that gives him superhuman ability, but shortens his life span. In his `new life' in exile he plays a pacifist librarian. When his old mercenary squad goes on a rampage, Jet Li becomes a vigilante determined to stop them. He dons a very silly corrugated cardboard mask so as to conceal his identity from the police (and public) as a librarian, as well as to conceal his true identity to his ex-comrades in arms.<br /><br />The version I saw was dubbed, and horribly at that. Why does Jet Li capture and hold hostage his library co-worker if he's a pacifist? Is there a love story between them? Why does the police chief not care when he learns of the Black Mask's true identity? The plot is just plain BAD. Bad by way of the superhero cheesiness, bad in the sense that characters are never properly developed, bad in its character interactions, all topped off by a half-explained story I quickly lost interest in. <br /><br />The action and martial arts sequences are way over the top. Lots of blood, gore (severed body parts aplenty), explosions, and Matrix style superhuman martial arts fiascos are present in the film. Unfortunately this is the films best and only selling point. If you want to see Jet Li playing a vigilante superhero in a Mission Impossible style movie `Black Mask' delivers. For the rest of us Jet Li fans it is a true disappointment. This is one of those movies where Jet Li never gets to be Jet Li: he gets neither the chance to charm us with his charisma, nor a chance to impress us with his impressive yet realistic martial arts ability. <br /><br />Normally a Chinese knockoff of Ozzy Osbourne would be enough to engross me in a film, sadly `Black Mask' proved to be an exception to that rule. Indeed the antagonist of this movie, by the way he dresses, his long straight hair, and trademark round sunglasses looks like the modern and aged Ozzy Osbourne. However the villain isn't on-screen long enough to make the gimmick worthwhile. I am assuming the likeness to Ozzy was intentional; in addition to the villain's look, he also ran a satanic looking hideout. So much more could have been made from the Ozzy Osbourne villain gimmick! If only the writer, director, or ANYONE had bothered to give a background to and develop the character of the film's arch villain!<br /><br />`Black Mask' was the first Jet Li film released on video in the USA after Lethal Weapon 4, and I'm glad I stayed away from it until now. It may well have ruined my whole perception of Jet Li as a martial artist and actor. If you want to see Jet Li at his worst, rent `Black Mask' and `The Evil Cult' and make it a double feature or horror, both intentional and unintentional. Otherwise stick to moves that utilize the talents of Jet Li, and have plots that are semi-well thought out and plausible. 3/9 stars.
This was the worst movie I saw at WorldFest and it also received the least amount of applause afterwards! I can only think it is receiving such recognition based on the amount of known actors in the film. It's great to see J.Beals but she's only in the movie for a few minutes. M.Parker is a much better actress than the part allowed for. The rest of the acting is hard to judge because the movie is so ridiculous and predictable. The main character is totally unsympathetic and therefore a bore to watch. There is no real emotional depth to the story. A movie revolving about an actor who can't get work doesn't feel very original to me. Nor does the development of the cop. It feels like one of many straight-to-video movies I saw back in the 90s ... And not even a good one in those standards.<br /><br />
Monika Mitchell's showbiz satire has some laughs and some premeditated violence. I wouldn't say blood-soaked; but there is insult and injury. Max Matteo(John Cassini)is a character actor that has a quirky adaptable presence on screen, but he has a terrible track record of being chosen for the parts he goes after. There is always a producer's nephew or seemingly trivial reason for his not being awarded the role he seeks. Well, the best thing to do is get rid of the competition...Max becomes obsessed with such thoughts. The rewarding career is just a swing, push and shot away. Other cast members: Rene Rivera, Molly Parker, Jennifer Beals, Frank Cassini and cameos by Eric Roberts and Sandra Oh. Well, that's show business...or is it?
It's like a bad 80s TV show got loose and tried to become a soft-core porn movie. Oh my god was it bad. The plots of each character had little relevance. The plot itself wasn't anything to speak of. Something about a stalker, I guess. In the end he shoots himself? It's not really clear, but somehow there's a volleyball game involved. And the main character (Randy) sleeps around a lot. The only reason my friends rented this movie was because Casper Van Dien was in it, and they ended up wanting to fast forward to the scenes with him in it, which were barely watchable at that. Thank god I didn't spend any money on it, but I want that hour of my life back.
The volleyball genre is strangely overlooked by most screenwriters. Thankfully, highly acclaimed director Nelson McCormick has brought us the second best volleyball movie of all time (rated lower than Side Out and higher than, well, umm). However, don't let the cover of this movie decieve you. Kill Shot stars up and coming star Koji as a modern day Sherlock Holmes. Using such high-tech gadgets as a computer that is less powerful than my Gameboy, Koji is able to aid FBI agents in the tracking of a man who has not committed any obvious crime. While there are other actors in the movie, including brief cameos by Denise Richards, a gay negro, and a preposterously ugly and annoying girl, Koji carries this movie on his own. Any fan of movies such as The Matrix or Hackers will definitely love Kill Shot.
Of all movies (and I'm a film graduate, if that's worth anything to you), this is THE WORST movie I have ever seen. I know there are probably some worse ones out there that I just haven't seen yet, but I have seen this, and this is the worst. A friend and I rented it one night because Denise Richards was on the cover. Talk about being young and retarded. She's uncredited! Her role was unbelievably small! How did she make it on the cover!? IMDb doesn't even list it in her filmography. This movie was so bad, we wrote a little note to the video store when we returned it, and slipped it inside the case. It read something like "please save your further customers from having to view this complete and totally bad movie!"
This movie will confuse you to death. Furthermore, if your a Denise Richards' fan, don't even think of renting this movie. Besides getting top billing by being on the cover and about 10 minutes of air time if that, she has nothing to do with the movie or the many messed up plots.
Man, this was hilarious. It should be under COMEDY. Or STUPID. It would have made realizing what a pile of stank this was much easier. Seriously? I want anyone associated with this movie tased, effective immediately. For everyone who is thinking of watching this "movie", let''s go over a few plot points. Oh, wait. There aren't any. There is literally no plot. I think Casper Van Dien was bored, and he decided to film something with some random someones, and miraculously, it somehow got on videotape. This movie is literally the worst movie of all time. Don't believe me? Go watch it. Do it, man. I dare you. But be prepared to gouge your eyes out. If you can sit through this without blowing a cow, you are very strong and courageous.
This was one of the worst films I have ever seen.<br /><br />I usually praise any film for some aspect of its production, but the intensely irritating behaviour of more than half the characters made it hard for me to appreciate any part of this film.<br /><br />Most common was the inference that the bloke who designed the building was at fault an avalanche collapsing it. Er ok.<br /><br />Also, trying to out ski an avalanche slalom style is not gonna work. Running 10 feet into some trees is not gonna work. Alas it does here. As mentioned before the innate dumbness and sheer stupidity of some characters is ridiculous. In an enclosed space, with limited oxygen a four year old could tell you starting a fire is not a good idea.<br /><br />Anyway, about 5 minutes of the movie redeems itself and acquires some appreciation. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence you too will find most of this film hard to tolerate.<br /><br />It pains me that so many quality stories go unproduced and yet someone will pay for things like this to be made.<br /><br />Oh, did I mention the last five minutes? Well to give you a hook you have to keep watching in order to see the latest in combative avalanche techniques. Absolutely priceless.
Saw this on TV. I'm glad I didn't go to the cinema to see this or spend the money on rental. The movie is totally predictable - from the corrupt owner and planner, to the snaking electric cables. The plot is really weak and unbelievable - the avalanche expert guy gets hit by a 20 foot wave of bone breaking avalanche (using actual footage) and all he has to do is get up and shake himself down. The avalanche thunders down at a million miles an hour and stops dead at the side of the road.<br /><br />Some of the actual avalanche material is impressive and shows its devastating power. But the contract between the real avalanche and the staged stuff makes this film look even flimsier.<br /><br />Do yourself a favour, don't bother with this one not even on T.V.
I can't figure out how anyone can get a budget for a movie this bad. It's like the TV station are desperate for anything, anything at all. They're buried underneath a bunch of snow, the electricity constantly flashes on and off, yet magically there is a background light that stays constant. Where does all this (fake) light come from? That, and all that stupid bickering between the characters. They seem to be more interested in complaining to each other than trying to invent ways to survive. It tries to create that feel of emergency and people helping. But because it's such bad directing and acting, you will not your Florence Nightingale fix with this flick, sorry. I'm joining the negative feedback, and I concur that this is one of the worst movies ever.
**** WARNING: here be spoilers **** Why do I waste my hastily fleeing years watching garbage like this? This film is an impressive collection of clichés, poor writing, worse directing, and then we haven't even got to the acting yet. <br /><br />And of course, you can predict the whole story from beginning to end.<br /><br />Hero expert fights against stupid, corrupt and incompetent henchmen. One avalanche goes off, burying all the heroes who somehow manage to get out alive in spite of going through all sorts of cliffhanger perils. Corrupt partner who caused the whole thing gets fried alive together with his payoff money. Second avalanche heroically deflected by renegade expert's adventurous experiment. Evil henchmen in the end turn out to have a heart as well. Troubled teenager falls into the arms of her crusty stepmother after being saved by her. Etc, etc, etc, etc, on and on it goes. <br /><br />In fact, there's little reason to warn for spoilers. You could probably work the whole plot out if I gave you the basic ingredients. At least, I wasn't too wide off the mark most of the time, anticipating what would happen next.<br /><br />And then we haven't discussed the factual errors.<br /><br />I agree with a previous commentator that even though there are usually SOME redeeming features even of a bad movie. you'd be hard pressed to find any in this one. I suppose I gave it 2 out of 10 for some nice scenery shots, but that's it.<br /><br />It's been some time since a film made me groan, but this one certainly did.
Amy Heckerling's second film Johnny Dangerously is a parody of 1930's gangster films made in the Warner Brothers' tradition. Michael Keaton stars as a middle aged gangster looking back at his life of hard knocks when he catches a kid trying to steal something from his pet store in 1935. Keaton's mother (Maureen Stapleton) has continuing health problems, so Keaton falls into crime at an early age via Peter Boyle. Meanwhile, the fargan Richard Dimitri plays a rival crime lord to Boyle and Keaton eventually rises through the ranks. Joe Piscopo has a hilarious turn as Danny Vermin, yeah that's right, Vermin! Griffin Dunne is Keaton's younger brother turned district attorney, Glynnis O'Connor his wife, and Marilu Henner plays Keaton's moll. The film looks notoriously cheap, making it seem like a television show instead of a theatrical film.<br /><br />The film starts out great and then slows down as expected after the first half hour. Due to the combination of dialog and gags, the film holds its own for the first half, but then it rapidly loses steam and descends into mediocrity and vulgarity in the second half. Keaton chews the scenery doing his best James Cagney impression. Stapleton has several vulgar lines that are only obnoxious, not funny. Piscopo does the "once" bit one time too many. Several supporting actors try to hold up the fort like Danny DeVito, Dom DeLuise, Ray Walston as a street vendor, Alan Hale, Jr. as a desk sergeant, and Sudie Bond as an unscrupulous cleaning lady. The second half evolves into a hit or miss television show type tone and never recovers. The closing scene utilizing The Roaring Twenties is an anachronism as is The Call Of The Wild Clark Gable film seen on a marquee earlier in the film. I think Heckerling should have known better, since the targeted audience would certainly be aware of The Roaring Twenties' actual 1939 release date. *1/2 of 4 stars.
A one is the highest rating I could have given this movie, considering zero and negative numbers are not allowed. Pee yew, pointless mess of a movie with a lot of wasted b-list actors who have done better work, written and directed by some guy with the mentality of a twelve year old who smirks and giggles at stupid puns, and poop and fart jokes. For example, Gene Stapelton's (Ding-Bat from All in the Family) character telling Marilu Henner's character that she "swings both ways" sexually, was a cheap attempt at humor indicative of the general lameness of the movie... You want good, cheeky humor? Rent Animal House, American Pie (part one only), Old School or Office Space.
Just as "ITS A MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD" is at the top of my list for all time greatest comedies ever made, this one is at the very bottom. (Of course, I could be wrong-not having seen "SAVING SILVERMAN") In other words, it's a lame, lame, lame, lame comedy.<br /><br />Rating: 1/2* out of *****
** CONTAINS SPOILERS ** <br /><br />The truly exquisite Sean Young (who in some scenes, with her hair poofed up, looks something like Elizabeth Taylor) is striking in her opening moments in this film. Sitting in the back of a police car waiting to signal a bust, her face and body are tense and distracted. Unfortunately, once the bust is over Young's strained demeanor never changes. This is one fatally inhibited actress.<br /><br />One has only to compare Young to the performer playing her coworker and best friend, Arnetia Walker, to grasp what is missing in Young. Walker is open, emotional, and at ease at all times...in that there's no apparent barrier between what she may be feeling and her expression of it. She is an open book. Young, on the other hand, acts in the skittish, self-conscious way you might expect your neighbor to act were they suddenly thrown into starring in a film. Basically, she doesn't have a clue.<br /><br />With this major void looming at the center of the movie, we're left to ponder the implausiblities of the story. For instance, after Miss Young is kidnapped by the criminal she's trailing and locked in a closet, she breaks the door down when left alone. Granted, she's dressed only in a bra and panties, but in a similar situation, with a psycho captor due to return any moment, would you head for the door...or take the time to go through his dresser, take out some clothes and get dressed? I would guess that this and other scenes are trying to suggest some sort of mixed emotions Miss Young's character is experiencing, but Young can not convey this type of complexity.<br /><br />There are a few affecting moments in the film, such as the short police interviews with the criminal's past victims, but overall this is an aimless endeavor. It's too bad Miss Young was replaced while filming the pair of comic book style films that might have exploited her limitations with some humor (BATMAN and DICK TRACY), because her floundering while attempting to play actual people is oddly touching. Watching Miss Young try to act, at least in this "thriller", is a sad spectacle.
The concept of the legal gray area in Love Crimes contributes to about 10% of the movie's appeal; the other 90% can be attributed to it's flagrant bad-ness. To say that Sean Young's performance as a so-called district attorney is wooden is a gross understatement. With her bland suits and superfluous hair gel, Young does a decent job at convincing the audience of her devout hatred for men. Why else would she ask her only friend to pose as a prostitute just so she can arrest cops who try to pick up on them? This hatred is also the only reason why she relentlessly pursues a perverted photographer who gives women a consensual thrill and the driving force behind this crappy movie. Watching Young go from frigid to full-frontal nudity does little to raise interest, but the temper tantrum she throws standing next to a fire by a lake does. Watching her rant and rave about her self-loathing and sexual frustration makes Love Crimes worth the rental fee, but it's all downhill to and from there. Despite her urge to bring Patrick Bergin's character to justice, her policing skills completely escape her in the throes of her own tired lust and passion. Patrick Bergin does a decent enough job as a slimy sociopath; if it worked in Sleeping With the Enemy it sure as hell can work in this. But I can't help but wonder if the noticeable lack of energy Young brings to the film conflicts with his sliminess. I'm guessing it does and the result is a "thriller" with thrills that are thoroughly bad and yet comedic.
the more i think about it, there was nothing redeeming about this<br /><br />movie. i saw it 9 months ago, so my memory might have made it<br /><br />worse than it was, but i do know it was at least as bad as a 4 out of<br /><br />10. <br /><br />after seeing the movie, i met the director. he seemed so clueless<br /><br />as to what he was doing or what he had done, and as far as i<br /><br />could tell, he didn't care for the film either. even he agreed that he<br /><br />didn't really know what he was doing, and he was forced to do<br /><br />certain things because it was filmed digitally. <br /><br />i felt that the movie was trying to hard to fit in to the formula that it<br /><br />built for itself: "9 people all have to be connected in some way. how<br /><br />can we get from point 'A' to point 'B'" so in order get from the<br /><br />prostitute we see in the start and back to her at the end they 10<br /><br />minutes on each character's relationship to another person. it<br /><br />makes one feel choked by the 2 demensional, badly drawn<br /><br />characters.<br /><br />I just remembered the one redeeming part of the movie... Steve<br /><br />Bouchemi there is one scene where he is amazing. that's it. as i<br /><br />say... 4 out of 10.
This movie starts slow, then tapers off. After watching for about an hour, and seeing absolutely nothing happen, I walked out. I mean, nothing happened. Zero. Zip. Nada. There is no story. The characters are vague representations of the most boring people any of us know. The producers of this film could be sued in a court of law if they try to sell it as a "motion" picture. There is no motion. I could have told the same "story" with a couple still pictures with captions. The script is a joke. It's just awful. I doubt that any script doctor in the world could save it. My biggest regret is not that I wasted 60 minutes of my life watching "Love In the Time of Money", but that I missed a great opportunity to be a leader. I could have been the first to walk out, but I waited a bit too long. Instead, I watched about 20 people walk out before me.
Maggie Smith and Peter Ustinov as a very unlikely couple in a very not likable film at all.<br /><br />The film shows promise for Ustinov is released from prison for embezzling. He convinces Robert Morley to go away so that he can assume his identity and begin hacking away at computers at a very fancy firm run by Karl Malden and Bob Newhart, another unusual duo for films.<br /><br />Morley sounds just as he did in 1938's "Marie Antoinette." Perhaps, he needed to return to that genre.<br /><br />This film is ridiculous at best. Hard to believe that the following year, Maggie Smith totally changed her ways and gave a shattering Oscar performance in "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie."<br /><br />Ms. Smith is made out here to be an apparent dumb-red head, but by film's end, she is the brains of the outfit. Too bad the writing didn't go the way with her.
I was excited to discover this late sixties comedy staring some of my favorite people - Maggie Smith, a very young Bob Newhart and, of course, Peter Ustinov. My disappointment was thus compounded to discover the film doesn't work as either a comedy or a perfect heist film. Ustinov plays a small time crook just out of prison who sets his sites on a large American corporation based in London. Bluffing his way past dimwitted CEO Karl Malden and tech geek Newhart, Ustinov passes himself off as a computer expert and immediately plans the 'perfect heist' part of the film. To do this he needs to get passed a tamper proof security system that guards the corporation mainframe. And here is problem one. His perfect plan only works because everyone else in the film is remarkably trusting and stupid. His lame excuses are taken at face value and this must be the only computer center anywhere not to bother with video cameras. The second problem is the heist (fraud really) happens within the first 30 minutes of the film robbing the rest of the picture of much in way of dramatic tension. Maggie Smith is sadly miscast as Ustinov's ditsy next door neighbor/secretary who just can't keep a job. I love Maggie Smith but she just seems too together here, too composed, the part called for more of a wacky, physical comedian. Furthermore, Ustinov and Smith have no chemistry together, maybe it's the age difference, but the later romantic relationship, as devoid of actual romance as it is, still comes off a little creepy. Ustinov co-wrote the script, and it was thought well of at the time, but I found it unfunny, meandering and a sad waste of a great cast.
A reasonable effort is summary for this film. A good sixties film but lacking any sense of achievement. Maggie Smith gave a decent performance which was believable enough but not as good as she could have given, other actors were just dreadful! A terrible portrayal. It wasn't very funny and so it didn't really achieve its genres as it wasn't particularly funny and it wasn't dramatic. The only genre achieved to a satisfactory level was romance. Target Audiences were not hit and the movie sent out confusing messages. A very basic plot and a very basic storyline were not pulled off or performed at all well and people were left confused as to why the film wasn't as good and who the target audiences were etc. However Maggie was quite good and the storyline was alright with moments of capability.<br /><br />4.
A good cast is appallingly wasted in this slower than molasses and haphazardly connived comedy. Peter Ustinov tries hard here to bring something to life but the result is a dour bore that misses all the right beats that might have made it watchable. Regardless of the favorable comments here, this film is awful. Badly directed. Badly edited. Badly acted. Badly written. You need to sit through a hundred movies to come across one this bad.<br /><br />The muddled and excruciatingly laggard plot concerns Ustinov conning his way into an American insurance company in order to hack their computer and embezzle millions of pounds. How he does it is beyond lameness and credibility (he just learns his computer skills seemingly overnight by reading some pamphlets, and hoodwinks computer expert Robert Morley into going to South America and stealing his identity).<br /><br />As a side plot, Ustinov romances fellow loner Maggie Smith, who just happens to become his secretary by chance after he gets a flat in her building. She ends up sharing scenes that have sexual undertones with Bob Newhart that go nowhere, while Ustinov goes about grafting the money bit by bit and trying to keep one step ahead of Newhart and Karl Malden. Then he Marries Smith and they fly off to Brazil, which has become the staple finale of almost every British caper comedy since (Nuns on the Run? A Fish Called Wanda?)<br /><br />The surprise twist of an ending is more laughable than everything that came before. By the end I was thinking I must be truly off my rocker to stick out drivel like this. Even a cameo by Cesar Romero didn't help it. One of the most unfunny, poorly paced 'comedies' I've ever seen, and certainly the worst caper. Don't waste your time. If you love this you need to see better films.
The words "Swedish" and "Action movie" do not mix. That becomes more and more obvious with every attempt made in the genre. This is yet another failed attempt.<br /><br />Lasse Brunell (Shanti Roney) works at a military air base with top secret computer systems. One day foreign criminals threaten to hurt his family if he doesn't do what they tell him. They want the secret equipment and will do anything to get it.<br /><br />This movie has it's ups and downs. And usually in Swedish action movies there are no "ups", just "downs". So i guess something in this movie showed some quality. To begin with the positive remarks i can mention that the movie is technically well made. The footage of planes and helicopters flying are well shot and look very nice. The acting is of very varying quality. Shanti Roney makes a decent performance while Maria Bonnevie is stiff and unnatural as usual (i wonder how long Swedish directors are going to keep using her even though she has the acting skills of a wooden plank?). Stefan Sauk is laughable as the "cool" special forces man who comes to the base to investigate.<br /><br />And what about the action scenes? Well as i said above the scenes of planes and helicopters flying are nice. But aside from that there is not much action to talk about. And that is a common problem with Swedish action films. There is just not enough action going on. Maybe it's a budget problem, maybe it's film-making culture. I don't know, but it negatively affects the experience. Because quite frankly, the story and acting is not good enough for this movie to rely just on that.<br /><br />I rate this 4/10 for effort.
*may contain a spoiler of sorts?* The mere mention of Crispin Glover is enough to send some geek's panties in a bunch. His landmark appearance in Back to the Future as George McFly has sealed him into the American conscience forever. More recently, he has been trying to get back into the culty subconscious with Bartleby and Willard.<br /><br />This time, however, Crispin has made a 76-minute, cheap dada film. At times it reminded me of genius, while overall it almost insulted me, but not because of its content. Content? What Is It? is a movie where, in one half of the movie, all of the actors have Down's Syndrome, giving it a freakshow feel to it. The other half of the movie includes Crispin Glover, Adam Parfrey, and a guy with cerebral palsy. This all had the feel of what John Waters was attempting to do with Desperate Living, and simultaneously feeling more successful and failing miserably.<br /><br />The half with the Down's Syndrome actors also features many many killed snails. It is about a guy who has snails, and ends up killing one. He is also tormented by a bunch of other people, and a grasshopper. He falls in love with 2 girls, one of which he has sex with in a graveyard. He also has a falling out with a friend who teases him.<br /><br />In a weird semi-interior set, Crispin Glover is the director of this show. He is something like the control of the guy's mind, and the cerebral palsy guy is something like the sexuality. Well, he at least gets masturbated in explicit scenes. There is other "shocking" imagery made humorous, like Nazi Swaztikas crossed with Shirley Temple, and minstrels in black face saying they're Michael Jackson.<br /><br />In the outside world, the tormentor is still dealing with his love of killing snails and being beaten by the other people. They beat him with rocks, and such. Later, they beat the minstrel after putting him on trial.<br /><br />Back to the interior, Crispin Glover is still the ruler of his set, and tries to control everybody, but fails miserably.<br /><br />What Is It? makes less sense than Dr. Caligari, and has more than a passing style stolen from it. The claustrophobic mental space feels very much like the way the no-wall sets of Dr. Caligari felt claustrophobic. They also had some dialogue that was absolute nonsense. And, it was all wrapped up with absurdist imagery for humor.<br /><br />The problem is, about 20 minutes into the movie...maybe a little more...What Is It? runs out of imagery. For the next 56 minutes, we keep running on the same sets of images, only introducing new imagery in the form of an absurdist puppet show. The movie seems little more than a movie which attempts to push the envelope in offensive and taboo imagery. It tries to mock and confuse the audience. But, the issue is that it only has enough different imagery for a 40 minute movie.<br /><br />Even worse than that, the cinematography, set design, and everything else felt very very cheap and almost unplanned. It felt like "OK, this is the way we can do it and get it out of the way." It didn't feel interesting, and was quite...boring. Dr. Caligari, on the other hand, had amazing cinematography and framing. The difference between the two is quite astounding.<br /><br />rating: C
I firstly and completely and confidently disagree with the user who calls this a "spoof". Crispin Glover is very serious about his film. He personally introduced the film at the screening I saw in Chicago. He had worked on the film for years and it is the first in an intended trilogy. "What is it?" is Crispin Glover's attempt at an art film in the vein of those he idolizes by Herzog, Lynch etc.<br /><br />I had heard rumor of this film years ago "epic porno movie with all down-syndrome cast directed by crispin glover". When it finally came out i watched the trailer on-line and read the synopsis and i was foaming at the mouth with anticipation. ...I went to chicago to see it and it was a major disappointment. If he took out the goofy sh*t, such as the pot-smoking grandma, and the dancing dolls, he would be left with something much better, but only about 10 minutes long.<br /><br />In other words just watch the trailer, be entertained, and leave it at that. There are some striking images and fantastic juxtapositions and phrases, but its lack of focus amounts to disappointment.
I saw Crispin Glover's "What Is It?" at the Ann Arbor film festival. Admittedly, the film was at least aptly named, because I got the distinct sense that even the writer/director could provide no answer. At the question and answer session after the screening, Mr. Glover said that the film was originally meant to be a short film to show the virtue of using actors with down-syndrome. However, this is in itself not enough of a reason to create a film. Actors are, in my opinion, building blocks for a larger vision - a larger vision that seemed muddled at best and absent at worst.<br /><br />Crispin Glover also said that he wanted to address taboo subjects. Well, he does do that. But why? The film seems to have no stance, no reason for addressing anything. Does he feel these things shouldn't be taboo? The film doesn't even give me an indicator of that. Taboo for the sake of taboo is not interesting. It can't even afford to make the taboo disturbing or inciting on any level because he hasn't made the audience care in any way. <br /><br />Ignoring problems with the concept for a moment, the thing that actually shocked me most was how poorly the film was put together. The editing, cinematography, and other technical aspects seemed frequently to be extremely amateur. Glover said 125-150 thousand dollars went into the movie, and I feel that the money should have been spent on different designers (Glover actually did some design himself - I know I saw at least sound design in the credits). The painted sets are okay (not great), but used poorly. Parts feel like a photographed stage play - which would be fine if that went to any sort of purpose, but in Glover's hands it just feels sloppy. Other parts are filmed like a sort of Home Movie, of inferior quality to a lot of the stuff I see first-time filmmakers do on iMovie.<br /><br />Perhaps the biggest problem with "What Is It?" is I can't even understand how seriously the film is to be taken. There are some parts that feel like Glover is screaming at you to think seriously. At other points, he seems off on his own little joke. Perhaps he meant for this to be ironic, or meaningful in some way, but I just felt that Glover couldn't even get himself to give his film any sort of serious attention.<br /><br />Glover said he originally wanted it to be a short film. If only it had been. At seventy-two minutes, the film runs out of imagery and ideas in the first twenty, and it is arguable if the ideas were formulated enough to claim that they were even there for that period of time.
I saw his film at the Ann Arbor Film Festival. I am a film student at the Univeristy of Michigan so I know a thing or two about film. And Crispin Glover's film is outrageous. He basically exploits the mentally challenged. Not only is Shirly Temple the anti-Christ (which I admit is a little funny) telling the mentally challenged to kill each other, but there is an obsession with killing snails. Crispin also plays with the idea of being in love with one of his actors who is as they all are, mentally challenged. PETA and Human Rights should be all over this thing. It's not 'counter-culture' as Crispin stated at the Ann Arbor Film Festival, it's exploitation.
What Is It? is a mish-mash of bizarre recurring motifs (snails, Shirley Temple, swastikas, and overtly racist music, among others) unfettered by any sort of narrative or plot or character development. The whole thing struck me as self-consciously "freak show," and I don't mean only the unusual casting decisions. It has the feel of a bad acid trip, far beyond any level of drug use one might attribute to Hunter S. Thompson or William S. Burroughs. The only movie to which I can compare it is Eraserhead (my second-least-favorite film of all time), which was by intent much more depressing, but I still found What Is It? a total waste of my time. It's one thing to give me a peek into the inner workings of someone else's mind -- even someone else's chemically altered consciousness -- but quite another to just throw weird visuals at me purely for the sake of weirdness.
Eytan Fox, whilst generally leaning on the apologist side of Israeli politics, has made several quite interesting films in the past such as "Walk on Water" and the simply wonderful film, "Yossi & Jagger". In "The Bubble", however, he has taken this illogical and unfair approach to the extreme.<br /><br />Far from giving this film a standing ovation, the people at the screening I attended quietly got up and left. I also quietly left, fuming with anger at such a ridiculously one-sided film that translates self-preservation as racist bullying, and racist bullying (and terrorism) as outbursts of justified anger; which implies that Arabs are so wronged by the evil Israelis that they react in anger to a constant stream of one-sided Israeli aggression against them, and that they, therefore, should not be held responsible for their actions.<br /><br />This film wasn't worth the money I paid for the ticket (indeed, I considered demanding my money back), and was basically an Israeli apeing of the Palestinian film "Paradise Now". If you want to be an anti-Israeli, then by all means watch this film, as it really justifies just such a belief system. The fact that this film was made by an Israeli director and, even worse, such a talented Israeli director, is a crying shame. Indeed, just how Israel can be surprised to be regarded as a pariah State when Israelis themselves make such anti-Israel propaganda, beggars belief.<br /><br />What a shameful, horrid little film!
"The Bubble" is an effort to make a gay Romeo & Juliet type of story with an Israeli and a Palestinian, although it seems to come at it by way of "Friends" or "Beverly Hills 90210." The characters are shallow and trite as are the dialog and plot line. The movie seems torn between fluff and depth. On the one hand there is a pointed effort at being shallow as (in one example of many) some minor characters even ask questions that invite development of insight into the conflicts at hand, and get answers like, "Hey, we're here to make a poster for a rave against the occupation. Don't get political!" Beyond the obvious absurdity of such a line, it's just one of many ham-fisted signals that the movie is just as hollow and insubstantial as its title suggests. On the other hand, the movie's main pretension to depth follows the lovers to a presentation of "Bent" a play about gays in a Nazi labor camp. The scene on stage is awkwardly rushed, undermining its erotic power (understandable given the constraints of film-time, but still this could have been edited to much better effect.) and comes off as flimsily as the rest of the film. Too bad. This play deserves much better.<br /><br />The characters are so one-dimensionally cartoony some even have names that telegraph their entire (though the word seems inappropriate here) substance. The aggressive soldier from the crack Golani brigade is named "Golan." The militant Palestinian is named "Jihad." The striving-for-chic faghag roommate is "Lulu." Anyone familiar with the checkpoints and life in Palestine, whether from real life or documentaries will find the checkpoint scenes as absurdly unreal as… well, the rest of this fluffy fantasy. When a Palestinian woman goes into the fastest labor on record Israeli soldiers are solicitous and helpful, an ambulance shows up in minutes. (The outcome of the birth serves to show the Palestinians as unappreciative of Israeli beneficence and even downright paranoiac.) Altogether the checkpoint is shown as a mere nuisance, not the series of bone-numbing, soul-crushing, humiliating obstructions with no regard for medical care or necessity in cases of birth, death, or severe illness. Ashraf, the Palestinian lover, seems to get through from Nablus to Tel Aviv with no problems, no papers, no hassles. He just shows up whenever he likes. When the Israelis want to get through it is much more of a challenge involving a scheme worthy of Lucy Ricardo.<br /><br />Against the backdrop of nice, supportive Israelis and surly homophobic Palestinians we move to a resolution that is utterly lacking in motivation or purpose – except as a painfully obvious dramatic device to milk sympathy for the forbidden lovers.<br /><br />Gay Israeli-Palestinian romance has been handled on stage with much more skill and depth as in Saleem's "Salaam/Shalom" so this film is hardly even as groundbreaking as some people would like to think.<br /><br />Gloriously bad films – like the works of Ed Wood -- at least have some striking idiosyncrasy to distinguish them. This one doesn't even have that going for it. Most of the sound track sounds like Simon and Garfunkel on quaaludes, and even with the weird oedipal touches to the gay sex scenes, the general incompetence that pervades this movie plays out like a mediocre TV-movie-of-the-week.
This film essentially deals with Inspector Gadget's arch-nemesis Doctor Claw who has returned after many years to the now-peaceful city of Metropolis. Claw's plan is to foil Gadget once and for all by using a newer "cooler" crimefighter to help destroy Gadget's popularity. Sadly the film fails miserably, the series was great, but it was revived nearly 20 years later with tragic results. Without the voice of Don Adams as Inspector Gadget it just doesn't cut it anymore; Dr. Claw is not only visually less frightening, but sounds more like a wrestler with a cold, than his original intimidating self. Granted this is a children's movie, but the plot is so painfully weak (heaven forbid I mention the animation) that it pales in comparison to the original series. Someone has decided to updated Penny as well to bring her two decades up to speed, she now has some quasi-punk rebellious clothing style and doesn't play half the role that she did in the TV series. The Gadgetmobile talks, as well as including a plot angle that focuses entire ON talking cars. Maybe I'm just a kid who loved the show who's grown up jaded, but I thought that the live-action version was more pain than I could bear, but now they go and spring this complete watering-down of the quality TV series on us. It's more than I can take.
I got this DVD well over 2 years ago and only decided to watch it yesterday. I don't know why it took me so long as I do like the Inspector Gadget show and even the new Gadget and the Gadgetinis. While it may have a bright color pallet and all the technical sophistication of a modern animated movie, there are some old things missing that bog this Gadget right down the toilet.<br /><br />First of all the classic Inspector Gadget theme song and music is completely absent. The composer tries to compromise by doing a score that sounds similar but it's still just no good enough. The Gadget-mobile is now a talking car, not a car that can turn into a van. Plus it looks a lot cuter and rounder instead of being plain cool. Penny no longer has her computer book and she and Brain hardly make an appearance at all.<br /><br />The plot is non-existent. There's something about a transformation formula and Doctor Claw using for some never revealed evil but that's all I got. What the deal was with the short/giant Italian guy I will never know. It had nothing to do with anything.<br /><br />And if the title is anything to go by, his last case is wrapped up in no way whatsoever. And he stays on the force so why it's called 'last case' is a mystery also.<br /><br />I wasn't impressed at all. This is an affront to a great animated show that is strangely absent on DVD, but don't let that prompt you into buying whatever Inspector Gadget DVDs you can. I sold this mere seconds after finally watching it. No kid will like or appreciate this and no fan of the old show with tolerate it.
this animated Inspector Gadget movie is pretty lame.the story is very weak,and there is little action.most of the characters are given little to nothing to do.the movie is mildly entertaining at best,but really doesn't go any where and is pointless.it's watchable but only just and is nowhere near the calibre of the animated TV show from the 80's.it's not a movie that bears repeat viewing,at least in my mind.it's only about 74 minutes long including credits,so i guess that's a good thing.unlike in the TV show,the characters are not worth rooting for here.in the show,you wanted Inspector Gadget to save the day,but there,who really cares?anyway,that's just my opinion.for me Inspector Gadget's Last Case is a disappointing 3/10
Inspector Gadget was probably my all-time favorite 80's cartoon. I enjoyed both the first and second seasons of the series as well as 1992's Christmas special "Inspector Gadget Saves Christmas". Some Gadget fans are quick to criticize the second season (1985) of the show, but they need to compare it to DiC's 2002 release of "Inspector Gadget's Last Case: Claw's Revenge" for then, they will find the second season to be absolute gold.<br /><br />Being a Gadget fan, I couldn't resist the opportunity to see the animated Inspector Gadget in something that wasn't Gadget Boy-related. I purchased the film, and I swore to myself that I'd be objective; I knew that sometimes artistic liberties would be taken from the original series. I was not even prepared for what I was about to watch.<br /><br />There was barely a shred of the original show still intact.<br /><br />Here is a short list of just some of the cons for this movie: *The humor is non-existent from the original series.<br /><br />*Penny and Brain (originally having a nearly equal part in the series as Gadget) are missing from the action for fifteen to twenty minute intervals.<br /><br />*The original music by Saban & Levy is not there, and the score that exists is sub-par. (Understood that Saban has his own production company now, but at least "Inspector Gadget Saves Christmas" had good music, even without Saban.) *Don't expect to see any of Gadget's gadgets which made the show so endearing, such as gadget-copter, gadget-brella, gadget-mallet,gadget-coat (which actually was used but it was not even called the same thing), as well as his standard other hat and hand gadgets. In this movie, his gadget legs were telescopic instead of springs. That kind of stuff annoys true fans of the show, and simply aren't necessary to change.<br /><br />*The gadgetmobile from the original series is now a fast-talking, supposedly "hip" convertible. All the fans from the original series enjoyed the gadgetmobile transforming into the gadget van and vice versa.<br /><br />*Chief Quimby is now very short-tempered and even mean to Gadget. He was always grumpy in the original series, but this pushes the situation a bit much.<br /><br />*Penny no longer has a computer book.<br /><br />Are there any positives to this movie? OK, here goes...<br /><br />*Maurice LaMarche does a good job of taking over for the great Don Adams as Inspector Gadget.<br /><br />*In one scene, Chief Quimby alludes to an actual villain from the cartoon series: the Great Wambini (classic "Gadget" villain from the second season, voiced by Louis Nye).<br /><br />Looking for more redeeming factors for this movie? Well, you're out of luck. Life is about making choices and living by those choices. Most situations in life have a purpose even if it is to teach a lesson. The lesson learned here: keep to the original formula! "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." True Gadget fans should steer clear from this movie; you will surely be disappointed.<br /><br />Hopefully, DiC and Shout! Factory will continue to release more of the original series after the 2006 release of "Inspector Gadget: The Original Series, Volume 1," containing the first 22 episodes of the series. As a true Gadget fan, lover of 80's animation and many of DiC's programs, I urge you the viewer to purchase "Inspector Gadget: The Original Series, Volume 1" and "Inspector Gadget Saves Christmas" DVD's which are excellent and sure to bring back good memories.
Dear Friends and Family,<br /><br />I guess if one teen wants to become biblical with another teen, then that's their eternal damnation - just remember kids, "birth control" doesn't mean "oral sex", I don't care what the honor student says. On the other hand, even if the senator's aid quotes himself as a "bit of a romantic guy", he's still only hitting on a high school girl. If she was my sister, I'd eat this guys kneecaps.<br /><br />Other than that I found out that Mongolians don't kiss the same way the French do and that baseball players named Zoo like delicate undergarments.<br /><br />I think I'd almost rather watch Richie Rich one more time than suffer the indignity of this slip, slap, slop. Thank you, and good night.
To be clear from the get go, 'The Bagman' is very, very, very bad. It suffers terribly in almost every aspect except for one: the finished product is such an awful film that it's actually hysterically funny to watch. This is a very low-grade film. Budget constraints for the film should be obvious to anyone who watches even just the opening title sequence. I'm not sure if much of the humour in the film was intended or not. For example, the movie takes place in 'Doomsville.' Note to all prospective home buyers: if the town you're moving to is called 'Doomsville,' keep moving. Stephanie Beaton is quick to pull off her top for a pretty enthusiastic sex scene in the kitchen. I couldn't help but laugh because it has intentional humour (she turns on the gas stove ... get it? The sex is THAT hot? get it?) and unintentional humour. The unintentional in this case is the music. It's like the theme music for 'Chariots of Fire' goes Electronica. Break out the computer and the synthesizers! I realize that coming up with music for a small production like this is cost prohibitive. I really feel for them because the work here is so well-intentioned. The problem is that cheap music isn't necessarily good music. I haven't laughed so hard at sex on screen since 'Alone in the Dark' with that 'Seven Seconds' song (I guess they were implying that poor old Mr. Slater was a bit ... quick on the draw?). Even the end credits are hilarious. Intentional or not? You be the judge: a pet dog and cat are part of the credited cast -- and an animal wrangler was on set for them! -- The boom is credited to 'Mr B. Stick,' and the 3rd Unit's wardrobe (Yep, they had a third unit) is credited to K-mart. Maybe it's just me, but I think the hilarity of this more than saves the film. The movie is very, very bad, but the goals of Stephanie Beaton, her friends and family are so well-intentioned in 'The Bagman' that you can't help but like the movie they've produced. 'The Bagman' is bad but not dreadful. In its own sweet way, it even manages to be a bit endearing. It wears its flaws so honestly that you can't help but forgive them. "Better" films that try to hide the flaws are almost worse in a way. I guess this is just a film that knew who its audience was and was produced accordingly.<br /><br />Watch any number of movies and most of them will probably be a lot better than this. Some of them might look cheaper, or have worse acting, or sillier production value. They may not suffer terribly as 'The Bagman' does from awful editing, sound, and foley effects. Mr B. Stick didn't do a very good job. The special effects look to be where most of the money went. They tend to be more funny than gruesome, although when the 'Bagman' is finally unmasked at the end, the make-up job there is surprisingly well done.<br /><br />My 4 out of 10 is a little high but the humour helped a lot. This is an ideal movie to track down some night with a few friends and a few beers in hand. Great entertainment is to be had by anyone who seriously considers themselves B-movie or low budget film aficionados. All others should probably avoid with great prejudice.
Any film with a title as ridiculous as "The Bagman" should automatically attract the attention of any bad movie lover, but the plot is far different than what one may expect after viewing the DVD cover. The Bagman is by no means a good movie. It falls into the category of films that seem to have been (and probably were) filmed on a home video camera. The acting is awful. I haven't heard and seen such wooden acting since Troll 2. There are plenty of scenes with nudity and sex, but they are clearly jumped into too fast. The characters are morons and entirely forgettable. The ending (which I will not spoil) can be easily anticipated after watching the very first scene. Due to the cheesy nature of the film, nothing aside from the awful production values is truly scary (awful attempts at realistic gore, a driving scene where the car is clearly stationary, etc). Recommended for bad movie aficionados only.
We bought this film from a shop called Poundland. We were looking for more inspiration as we have previously bought the film No Big Deal an remade it.<br /><br />We expected this film to be badly inspirational so that we might remake it and put it on the tube. HOWEVER, this was shocking. BORING is the main word that comes to mind. The bad effects and script aren't enough to make you watch it. The main woman's body seems to be whipped out at opportune moments in a pathetic attempt to keep the viewer interested. However, it just makes you wonder, did they blow the budget getting her to take her clothes off? If so, I'd have asked for a refund! It looks like a homemade film, the shots don't even correspond with each other and the camera work is so amateur it makes our remakes of bad movies look professional. I CANNOT believe that this is being sold as a marketable product.<br /><br />IT IS JUST BORING and UGLY to watch. The actors are bad and there is no degree of professionalism about it. There are no words to describe how terrible it is.
This film is the freshman effort of Stephanie Beaton and her new production company. While it suffers from a few problems, as every low budget production does, it is a good start for Ms. Beaton and her company.<br /><br />The story is not terribly new having been done in films like The Burning and every Friday the 13th since part 2. But, the performances are heartfelt. So many big budget movies just have the actors going through the motions, its always nice to see actors really trying to hone their craft.<br /><br />The story deals with the murder(and possible return) of a disfigured classmate. The others are sworn to secrecy, but the trauma of the event sends each person in different directions in their lifes. Ten years later, the friends are murdered one by one by a gruesome stalker known as "The Bagman". Who will survive? You have to watch.<br /><br />If you are Roger Ebert or any number of arrogant critics, you probably shouldn't bother. But if your taste run more towards Joe Bob Briggs and you want to see a group of people honing their craft, then check out "The Bagman".
Following the success of the (awful) Gilligan's Island TV movie reruns, a number of TV movies were made in the 1980's reuniting casts from classic shows. Most of these movies completely missed the boat as far as recapturing the humor that made the shows so special. THE MUNSTERS REVENGE is among the most disappointing because it goes for a Laurel and Hardy-type comedy style that really wasn't in the original series. Yvonne De Carlo, a wonderful comedienne and essential to the series, is completely wasted - she has less time here in this 90 minute movie than she did in any single 30 minute episode. And since the roles of "Eddie" and "Marilyn" in this movie are nothing more than cameos, what was the point of making them younger and recasting them? With very little rewriting, they could have used Butch Patrick and Pat Priest. Although seeing some of the Munsters spooky relatives was a nice touch, I didn't enjoy Sid Caesar as the hammy mad scientist mainly because there's too much of him and not enough of the underused Munsters (ironically that very year, 1981, Caesar's old partner in comedy, Imogene Coca, was also inappropriately cast in a major part in a TV movie reunion RETURN OF THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES). Another strange inexplicable bit at the beginning of the film has the Munster family represented as wax figures at a local horror wax museum. Why would they be in there when they are supposed to be a "typical" (if strange) American family, not famous monsters? This was the last Munsters project featuring the original cast in their roles, there was an awful revival of the series in the late 1980's with a completely new cast and a 1990's TV movie which featured DeCarlo, Lewis, Priest, and Patrick in cameo roles as a family dining.
96 minutes of this is cruel..and I love the old Munster's. Yes, the plot is thing; yes the lines are trite; but whoever was at the helm of this was not a fan. There is so much 'intrigue' (and I use that word with great pause) that I wonder if it's an old Starsky & Hutch episode. I lost count of the number of times I noticed that makeup had missed a spot near the collar. Refusing to acknowledge that any time had passed since the mid-60's (ludicrous) the producers simply replace Marilyn & Eddie with younger actors. Why not let them grow and age? The addition of an Addam's Family style reunion does not add to the flavor of the Halloween Party.<br /><br />Grandpa & Herman fly to Transylvania and back in a few hours (preposterous.) Sid Ceaser is the most, yes the most unbelievable character (I am including the bad robots) since he babbles an unwild combination of gibberish & yiddish but claims to be an ancient Arabic ruler. And yes, it looks like the laugh track is missing. In fact, there are several spots where there is dead air, as if the laugh track was to be inserted later. The actors seem to wait on the faux audience. It's not laughable; it's sad. Oh, and the best part! Yvonne DeCarlo has a line that just goes to show you how out of touch the writers and producers were. Marilyn says something like: "Where could Uncle Herman and Grandpa be? They could have been in an accident. They could have been hit by a car...or a train!" Lily says responds with something like: "You're Uncle Herman will be here if he has to drag himself off the train track." What's amazing about this is: Yvonne DeCarlo's husband was a stuntman in the early 60's and lost a leg and was nearly killed in a train stunt. He never recovered and this financially devastated her family. (check out Biography's fantastic review of her life and career) This line could have been easily changed to be more sensitive to her.<br /><br />If you are a real fan of the Munster's then you'll have to RENT this mess. It illustrates how some things are better left alone. Even with the (nearly) original cast, this is almost as bad as the attempted remake of the show a few years ago.
A sad, sad sight indeed is The Munster's Revenge. The Munsters are brought back one last time(Fred Gywnne received a huge paycheck to come back to the role of Herman Munster)in this made-for-TV movie about a pair of wax replicas of Grandpa and Herman that are robots "terrorizing" the city as preparation for a robbery of a mummy's stash at an exhibit. With the police on their heels, the two elderly television icons try to find out who is actually behind the crimes in order to clear their names. We get to see them dress in drag as waitresses(a minor highpoint in the film), grandpa turns into a bat with attached wire a couple times(one time even flying to Transylvania with Herman somehow invoking his frequent flyer miles I guess), and a most annoying relative "the Phantom" constantly sings and breaks glass ad nausium! What is most sad is hard to pinpoint: is it that Gywnne(especially) and Al Lewis look so haggard in every scene and so indifferent to the material. Is it the hokey costumes of the robots that have that school production values look about them. Maybe it is the ridiculous script. Sid Caesar's crazy, mostly unfunny antics. Or perhaps it is seeing something which brought me joy and fond memories as a child being treated to a super K-Mart fashion makeover. At any even, the result is decidedly disappointing and silly even for Munster standards. As for the rest of the cast, Yvonne De Carlo is adequate in a most vacuous role(though showing more cleavage than usual for a woman of her years and experience). K. C. Martell makes an ever-so-not affable Eddie Munster. Jo McDonell is an attractive Marilyn. Bob Hastings as the aforementioned Phantom looks and acts and speaks in the most absurd manner. The film has a real cheap feel about it even for a made-for-TV movie.
i saw switching goals ..twice....and always the same feeling...you see the Olsen twins make same movie....they like play different sports and then fall in love to boys..OK now about the movie....first off all such little boys and girls don't play on such big goals...2.football does not play on time outs...3.if the game is at its end the referee gives some overtime (a minute or more)...and the finish is so foreseen....i think that this movie is bad because of the lack of football knowledgement....if it were done by European producers it would be better..and also the mane actors aren't the wright choice...they suffer from lack of authentic..OK they played some seasons in full house but that doesn't make them big stars....you have got to show your talent....and that is what is missing in the Olsen twins
Yes, you guessed it. Another movie where identical twins switch places. I think now that the Olsen twins are getting older they should try and make the plot less predictable and less like re-runs of 'Full House'. If you plan on seeing this film, don't. Watch 'The Parent Trap' instead. It's more entertaining.
This movie was definitely not one of Mary-Kate and Ashley's best movies. I really didn't like it, and I was kind of disappointed in that movie. For some reason, it seemed like it was a movie that they put together really fast. In some parts, it got so boring that I had to fast forward it. It didn't have any bloopers or any exciting parts like their other movies.
This movie was awesome!! (Not quite as good as the Leif Garrett masterpiece Longshot) but still awesome!! I thought Ashley looked freakin' huge compared to Mary-Kate in this film. I wonder why. Who woulda thought they could swith places like that and almost get away with it. Dad was kinda a jerk though and Mom was a little too chummy with Helmit Head. I give it 4. Any one who likes this movie shoudl check out Longshot.
So I finally saw the film "My Left Foot" last night after years of being told by my mother how amazing it is... The central performance of Day-Lewis is indeed remarkable and amazing, but anyone with even minimal exposure to his other work should expect nothing less.<br /><br />The fatal misjudgement in my eyes was that in becoming obsessed with proving the normalcy of this man; the movie chose to show him as a complete and utter jerk. On the one hand I can see that this is a logical correlation; mankind always has the capacity to be objectionable, and disability shouldn't obscure that. I just wish that impartial onlookers wouldn't be so forgiving of aberrant behaviour and assume that circumstances automatically make it forgivable. They don't. Acting out is normal, and so yes, disabled people act out - but they don't do it because they're disabled; they do it because they're being unreasonable. A physical impairment doesn't afford you the right to throw a hissy fit in public, just because someone you love turns you down.<br /><br />There are certain things it is unwise to do whether you are disabled or able-bodied. Giving someone tacit permission to boot a football directly at your head for the sole purpose of fitting in is one of them. (Admittedly, I did once save a penalty from the school's star striker with my face, but I already belonged by then. It wasn't for acceptance.) Engaging in a bar brawl is another. Revelling in the fact that your father only extends companionship to you after you've proved yourself capable of metaphorically jumping through physical hoops takes masochism a step too far. All of these things are stupid, and suffering through them as a way to demonstrate your bravery doesn't make them any less foolhardy.<br /><br />So yes; just because you've overcome obstacles to achieve great things doesn't make you any less of a jerk... Being a good person takes priority; setting an inspiring example for the disabled should appear way down the list.
I was utterly disappointed by this movie. I had read some of the other reviews here and had much higher expectations. I expected a drama with more intense character development. But that never happens in the movie. Daniel-Day Lewis is a good actor, but not as good as some reviewers here would have us believe. I tought he repeated the same set of 4 or 5 movements in the movie. I would rate his performance 6 out of 10.<br /><br />Acting: 6 out of 10 Direction is 5 out of 10. Script is the worst: 2 out of 10. <br /><br />I deleted the movie from my DVR at 70 mins. into the movie. Much better movies out there than this...
The novelty of hearing clean-cut Jay Leno spout four-letter words is the only memorable aspect of this formulaic mismatched-police-partners caper. In COLLISION COURSE, the pelican-faced comedian teams up with the late Pat Morita to track down a stolen prototype turbocharger (think car lover Leno played a hand in the plot?). The two leads try hard, they really do, but Leno is no actor and Morita's fish-out-of-water routine gets old in a hurry. The film carries a bit of cheesy '80s appeal, but its worthy moments become increasingly scarce as it fills out its overlong 100-minute running time. Fans of Leno's considerable comedic talents will feel let down; everyone else will just be bored.
Collusion Course is even worse than the typical "evil white male corporate capitalist" movie of the week. This movie is less pleasant than a toothache. Jay Leno can act. He's good in his underrated debut movie, The Silverbears, in which he gives a performance consist with the demands of his character. This movie is so bad Leno's character, a sanctimonious buffoon, is less annoying than Morita's character, a sanctimonious fool.
There is a reason why Jay Leno himself will not acknowledge this film. It consistently ranks as one of the worst films of all time. The acting is horrible, the script lacks direction and the director himself doesn't seem sure on which way to take this film. "A buddy film," "an action/comedy," "mystery." Seems half way through, he gives up, and is just along for the ride. Jay Leno and Pat Morita are talented and dedicated performers. It is a shame that they wasted their time and gifts making this mess of a movie. Jay Leno and Pat Morita prior to involving themselves with this, had spent years pounding out their crafts on the Hollywood circuit. Mr. Morita had already been a star in his own right, acting steadily since the mid 1960s as the star of such cult TV and movie classics as "Happy Days," and the dismal but affable "Mr. T and Tina." And won the hearts of America with his roles in the powerful film, "Midway," "The Karate Kid," and a host of others. Mr. Leno can been seen on TV shows dating back to the mid 70s. And was a top performer in the comedy clubs of America. He can be seen in countless TV spots and in major films. It is a shame, that they agreed to be seen with this nonsense.
This movie is AWFUL. I haven't laughed so hard at a movie that was unintentionally funny in a long time. Leno should've stuck to stand up and late night tv. The cars in the movie were cool, but the movie by itself is the dumbest movie I've ever seen. it's pathetic, the acting is horrible, and the plot could've been written by a 4 year old. don't get me wrong, jay leno is hilarious, but not in this movie!
This is a really stupid movie in that typical 80s genre: action comedy. Conceptwise it resembles Rush Hour but completely lacks the action, the laughs and the chemistry between the main characters of that movie. Let it be known that I enjoy Jay Leno as a stand-up and as a talk show host, but he just cannot act. He is awful when he tries to act tough - he barely manages to keep that trademark smirk off his face while saying his one-liners which, by the way, aren't very funny. And seeing him run (even back then) is not a pleasant sight. In addition, I have a feeling that Pat Morita - at least by today's standards - doesn't give a very politically correct impression of the Japanese. Don't even get me started about the story. I give it a 2 out of 10.
This dreadful film assembles every Asian stereotype you can imagine into one hideous package. Money grubbing, devious Japanese business men send goofy but loveable policeman Pat Morita to recover industrial secrets in Detroit. Here he encounters a down at heel Jay Leno, who promptly refers to a murder victim as a Jap and calls Morita Tojo. It's all downhill from there.
Mindless dribble about the second coming of Christ in the form of a hippie and albino looking Sandra Locke. You have no idea what's happening on the screen with the irritating theme song "Suzanne" being played over and over throughout the movie until when "The Second Coming of Suzanne" is over you already know it by hard no matter how hard you try to forget the whole thing.<br /><br />This off-the-wall armature movie maker Logan,Jared Martin, is out to make the movie of the century but is so rude and obnoxious that none in the banking world is willing to finance his project. Planning to go on his own Logan then spots this couple at a seaside café and is fascinated with the young woman Suzanne, Sandra Locke, who reminds him of someone he knew in another life: Jesus Christ.<br /><br />With Logan's assistant and all around gofer Clavius, Richard Dreyfuss,somehow getting a $740,000.00 loan from the bank to finance Logan's masterpiece he starts to work on Suzanne by flattering her about her talent as an actress in order to get her interested to be in his film. This leads to Suzanne not only leaving her boyfriend artist Simon, Paul Sand, but later Simon being so depressed and feeling all alone takes a gun to his mouth and blows his brains out.<br /><br />The movie also has two somewhat unrelated sub-plots in it that has to do with a young autistic girl Dorothy, Kari Avalos, who's cured of her autism by Suzanne after everyone else, at the psychiatric hospital that she was committed to,failed. It's not really known what exactly Suzanne was doing at the hospital but she seemed to be some kind of orderly or volunteer there; was this supposed to show us in the audience that she, like Jesus, could miraculously heal the sick?<br /><br />There's also this newspaper columnist and big time businessman tycoon Jackson Sinclair, Gene Barry, who seems to be either going through a very difficult mid-life crisis or has seen a biblical-like vision that changed his life forever. Sinclair had been searching for the meaning of life as well as what it's all about all through the movie and wanted to know why there's all this suffering in the world, like this movie that he's in, and seemed to have found the answer when he first laid his eyes on Suzanne. Sinclair also got some sense knocked into his head when his private chauffeur David, Mark Rasmusser, who's gotten sick and tired of his weird and crazy hallucinations almost running him off a cliff in a kamikaze like drive along the Pacific Coast.<br /><br />The movie "The Second Coming of Suzanne" goes on with a number of unrelated sequences, probably to fill or pad in some time by it's director and film editor, and then goes to it's final scene in a Christ-like crucification on a hill as Logan has all the cameras rolling. It turns out that the crazed Logan got so carried away with his masterpiece as he tried to replicate, on the helpless and tied up Suzanne, the actual crucification of Jesus Christ some 2,000 years ago.<br /><br />Hard to sit through and almost impossible to follow "The Second Coming of Suzanne" puts you through the same kind torture that Suzanne is put through by Logan and the makers of the film. The movie tries to be arty but that's just an excuse to cover up it's brainless and non-existent storyline and even worse the terrible and amateurish acting by everyone in it.
Richard Dreyfuss is, indeed, in this flick, but in a rather small part. He is NOT the "obsessed" filmmaker - he's the group's business manager/accountant. Even the box describes the film inaccurately. There are no erotic scenes with Sondra Locke, as advertised, unless one uses the term "erotic" quite loosely. I would not have considered viewing the film without Richard Dreyfuss being in it as a major character. I might have, however, had I realized that the famous 60's anthem, Leonard Cohen's "Suzanne," was an artistic influence. Other than the brief recitation of lines from the end of James Joyce's "Ulysses", and an interesting visual reference to the end of Ingmar Bergman's "The Seventh Seal," I found it a poor attempt to meld symbolic elements and moods immortalized in films like "Last Year at Marianbad" and "Un Chien Andalou." If you like the idea of the eccentric artistic troupe, there are many superior films, ranging from "Bye, Bye, Brasil" to "Cecil B. Demented."
"The Second Coming Of Suzanne" is yet another one of those surrealistic films that tries to come across as extremely sophisticated, yet all it does is put the viewer to sleep. Like other movies of this type, there is limited dialogue. Everyone is much more interested in the visual aesthetic of the shot. However, the cinematography stinks so there is nothing at all to keep your attention.<br /><br />The video box states that this film is "one of the most exciting visual adventures ever seen on film." Yeah...sure. It's right up there with watching such stimulating events as a bucket of ice melting or a turtle walking for a mile. 1/10
it was and a simpler time ( the seventies ), a simpler place ( San Francisco ), where a man could make a simple movie about a drug crazed psychotic re-Crucifixion of Christ as a woman on acid with never ending dream sequences and inter cut flashbacks while having a multi-racial inter gender orgies regardless of financial responsibilities or moral repercussion.<br /><br />this movie, tedious, slow, boring, is the worst example of the kind of pretentious heavy handed art school dreck that passed as art in the midst of the 70's. and i love it ! once this train wreck of endless slow motion zoom ins and heavy reverbed echo chamber acid guitar licks starts you can't take your eyes off of it until the ridiculous and absurd end. its kind of a cross between Jesus Christ superstar, beyond the valley of the dolls, and a really crappy acid trip with your parents on a water bed. its simultaneously a train wreck, completely fascinating, and also a great snapshot of the worst ( or best ) elements of b-grade seventies phychadelic film genre.<br /><br />the plot.<br /><br />I'll just tell you the plot because you will hardly be able to tell whats happening due to the constant cross edited flashbacks to events that may or may not have happened to characters that may or may not be themselves, and the face painted hippy freak nicks endlessly cavorting about in banal sequences of performance art level mime like street theater.<br /><br />"Logan" is a really annoying iconoclast film maker who yells at people allot and is surrounded by a mostly silent film crew who are always dropping acid and having what seem like really bad orgies. Richard Dreyfus has an ancillary role as what seems like the accountant. the film crew seems to hate him for some reason and break out into maniacal laughter perhaps to torment him. "Suzanne" the titular character is a willowy blond who stairs vacuously into space and comforts the totally insane "artist" character. "the artist" is going completely mad, by the way. either from his hamfisted overacting or the incredible awfulness of his paintings. all of course terrible nudes of Susanne. there are some other characters that randomly show up, a cigar chomping "the man" character. who also is all hot for Suzanne i guess. he has a monologue. i couldn't really ever figure out what he had to do with the story except everyone had to hate "the man" back then and you couldn't make a movie without one. there is also a mute girl. the mute girl pays off in the end trust me, its incredibly stupid.
....because if I was, I may have wished it was me being crucified on a wooden cross! I'm still trying to determine the plot of this movie - and I'm being "generous" that there was even a plot to begin with. As previously mentioned, it's a misnomer on the cover of the DVD that Richard Dreyfuss is actually the star. He was barely in the movie. And if he was indeed "frustrated" as the back cover indicated he was, well, that's probably because he said YES to be in this disaster of a movie and couldn't get out of it! The movie really seemed to focus on Jared Martin, and what his role in the movie was supposed to be, other than the extreme close -ups, was not as big of a mystery as to what Gene Barry's role actually was - or wasn't. And speaking of "big"...whomever had the bright idea to fit Gene Barry in the Humpty Dumpty attire, which showcased his trousers literally pulled up to his chin, should be sentenced to hard time by watching this movie stoned sober. I could go on and on about how horrendous this movie was, from the dialogue not matching the "actors'" mouths (think Clutch Cargo), to the erratic jumping from scene to scene (again, being generous even calling the frames of pictures "scenes"), to the lack of a plot.... However, if you're into bad early 70s genre and if you're in a cottage in Michigan with nothing but this movie and a box of kid & cat pictures, I recommend having a good bottle of wine before you embark on this weird ride of a movie because you'll be thankful that you may not remember it the next day!
Richard Dreyfus is not the star here. He has about three 20 second cameos and what is Gene Barry doing all over this movie? No idea, the director was probably his brother! This is a movie that makes no sense whatsoever. The inept writer/director (same dude) butchered up everyone's talent with his horrendous uh...work. I got the DVD for a penny so can't complain! But it's weird!And it makes you feel weirded out and in not a good way. This was the 70's and looks like the director was on a bad acid trip and wanted everyone to experience what it's like to be inside his head. It has a somewhat interesting and controversial concept, but like a scratched record, it quickly plays foul. It has that "Manson family on acid" vibe to it.<br /><br />I have no idea how the other reviewer got all they did out of this movie? Maybe they worked in it back when? At any rate, be prepared to lose 80+ min of your life you'll never get back. Yes, it's that awful!
This movie was exactly what I expected it to be when i first read the casting. I probably could have written a more exciting plot, it's a pity that they left it to a pack of Howler Monkeys. Alberto Tomba was surely a good skier but he has to thank God (and we too) that he does not have to rely on his actor skills to earn his living. He can't play, he can't talk, he can't even move very good on mainland without his skis... Michelle Hunziker is a pretty blonde girl, and that's all. She obviously wasn't chosen for her astounding competence in dramatic roles but most probably for her nice legs. Nevertheless I must admit that she could be the Tomba's acting teacher, because he's even a worse actor than her, and that's funny, especially considering that she isn't italian. I laughed all the time, watching this movie. I found it so ridiculous and meaningless that it actually made me laugh, loud, very loud.
Probably somebody heard of Alberto Tomba. A former policeman, a former sky champion, and, now, a TERRIBLE actor. "Alex L'Ariete" was planned to be a TV "mini serial", but the Italian television itself refused to show the movie on its channels. Now it's a, believe me, ridiculous movie. The script it's simply hilarious (it's supposed to be a dramatic movie), something like a 5 years old kid work. But what really blows you away it's the amateurish acting: Alberto Tomba, who actually was not believable as a policeman himself, plays terribly a totally silly character: a special operations italian policeman specialized in smashing doors open! ("ariete" is "ram"). This super-guy will try to save a young nice girl life (an actual italian "little" TV showgirl, married to the singer Eros Ramazzotti): nice but absolutely inept in the acting. Lose this one and make yourself a favour. A movie that is a shame to Italian cinema industry: only John Travolta in Earth Attack got close..
A sentimental school drama set in Denmark, 1969, "We Shall Overcome" offers a pathetic Danish take on US culture. Frits (Janus Dissing Rathke), a flower-power obsessed, naive 13-year-old, exits with half his ear hanging off from brutal master Lindum-Svendsen's (Bent Mejding) office. Lindum-Svendsen, a school director, portrayed as a fascistoid tyrant, has the local community in control. Lindum-Svendsen's gone too far this time, and with his father, recovering from a mental breakdown (sure, there wasn't enough drama already..), and overly stereotyped hippie music teacher Mr Svale ('Hi, call me Freddie'), Frits stands up for justice.<br /><br />Tell you what. It's so unconvincing, over-(method-)acted, and so full of misery, that as a 'family' picture this grotesque -filled with cliché's- excuse for a movie fails miserably to convince non-Scandinavian audiences. Sorry, kind danish readers, to crash like this into your sentimental journeys.. But it's definitely NOT a tale about a 'boy becoming a man by fighting the system'. The boy never becomes a man, but rather remains a naive, big eyed cry-face. If you call a church of small minded small town folk, led by a dictator like cartoonish character "the system", I'm sorry if I'm missing something.<br /><br />If you're into family pictures, go see Happy Feet instead..
When the folks at Kino Video assembled their fine "Slapstick Encyclopedia" collection, a multi-cassette selection of silent comedies, someone decided to kick off the first installment with ONE TOO MANY (1916), an obscure one-reel farce made in Florida starring the very young Oliver Hardy. As enjoyable as the set is over all, this decision was an unfortunate one, for ONE TOO MANY is a very poor film which almost discourages the viewer from watching further. Like any typical farce, this one involves deception inspired by greed, panic when plans go awry, and complications escalating to the point of absurdity, but unlike the good ones, ONE TOO MANY is incoherent, unfunny, and downright annoying. It's hard to tell at this point whether the hopelessly confusing plot is the result of missing footage or inept film-making, but whatever the cause, by the halfway point even the most alert viewer has no idea what the character relationships are or what is happening, and by the end one no longer cares.<br /><br />The only point of interest here is seeing the 24 year-old "Babe" Hardy, who appears considerably heavier than he would a decade later when he teamed with Stan Laurel, but who is nonetheless full of youthful energy. In the opening scene, awakening with a hangover, Babe performs a highly athletic backward roll off a bed. Trust me, that's as funny as this movie gets. If you read this before seeing the first cassette of Kino's "Slapstick Encyclopedia" I suggest you fast-forward past this one and skip to the good stuff.
Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy had extensive (separate) film careers before they were eventually teamed. For many of Ollie's pre-Stan films, he was billed on screen as Babe Hardy ... and throughout his adult life, Hardy was known to his friends as 'Babe'. While touring postwar Britain with Laurel in a music-hall act for Bernard Delfont, Hardy gave an interview to journalist John McCabe in which he explained the origin of this nickname: early in his acting career, Hardy got a shave from a gay hairdresser who squeezed Hardy's plump cheeks (the ones on his face) and said 'Nice baby!' Hardy's workmates started crying him 'Babe', and the nickname stuck.<br /><br />Although much of Hardy's pre-Laurel work is very interesting -- notably his comedy roles in support of Larry Semon and the Chaplin imitator Billy West -- his teamwork with Billy Ruge (who?) in a series of low-budget shorts for the Vim Comedy Film Company is very dire indeed. Hardy and Ruge were given the screen names Plump and Runt: names which are unpleasant in their own right, but made worse because Ruge (although shorter than Hardy) isn't especially a runt. Seen here, Hardy looks much as he does in his early Hal Roach films with Laurel ... but without the spit curls and the fastidious little moustache.<br /><br />'One Too Many', an absolutely typical Plunt and Runt epic, is direly unfunny ... and its dreichness is made even more conspicuous by the fact that this film has exactly the same premise as 'That's My Wife', one of Laurel and Hardy's most hilarious films. Plump (Hardy) is the star boarder in a rooming-house run by a tall gawky landlady. Runt (Ruge) is the porter. Plump receives a letter from his wealthy uncle John, whose dosh he expects to inherit. His uncle is coming to see him and to meet Plump's wife and baby. There's only one problem: Plump hasn't got a wife and baby. He's been lying to his uncle in order to seem a family man. Now, of course, Plump expects Runt to find him a wife and baby on short notice. Of course, the results are disastrous. It would be nice if those disastrous results were funny, but they aren't. Most of the unfunny humour here is just empty slapstick, with characters settling their arguments by shoving each other into bathtubs.<br /><br />SPOILERS COMING. Vim director Will Louis (who?) shows no instinct for camera framing: the actress who plays the landlady is significantly taller than Hardy, and Louis consistently sets up his shots so that her head is out of frame. This could be funny if done on purpose, but it's merely inept. At one point in this bad comedy, an extremely tasteless gag is looming on the horizon as Runt approaches a black laundress. 'Surely they wouldn't stoop THAT low for a laugh,' I thought. But they do. Runt steals the woman's black infant and tries to fob this off as Plump's progeny.<br /><br />Somehow, Plump acquires an infant's cot, but he still hasn't got a baby. With Uncle John coming up the stairs, Plump conscripts Runt for babyhood. This gag might just possibly have worked with a midget, or even with a truly runt-sized actor such as Chester Conklin, but Billy Ruge is only slightly below average height. Ruge's impersonation of a baby is neither believable nor funny, and Uncle John would have to be a complete moron to fall for it. Amazingly, he does!<br /><br />The most notable aspect of 'One Too Many' is a brief appearance -- apparently her only-ever film appearance -- by Madelyn Saloshin, Oliver Hardy's first wife. The marriage was not a happy one, although Hardy's marital troubles never attained the epic proportions of Stan Laurel's. <br /><br />Only one thing in this movie impressed me. There is a very brief flashback sequence, with Hardy reminiscing about his seaside romance with a bathing beauty. In 1916, there was still not yet a standard film grammar for conveying flashbacks: the one shown here is done gracefully and simply. Too bad this movie has no other merits. 'One Too Many' is definitely one film too many on Oliver Hardy's CV, and I'll rate this movie just one point out of 10. Laurel and Hardy together are definitely much funnier than either of them separately.
Oliver Hardy awakens with a hangover and soon learns that his uncle is coming to see Ollie's new wife and baby. The problem is, they don't exist--Ollie apparently made them up! So, it's up to him and his pal to locate a lady with a baby who will agree to pose as his family.<br /><br />This isn't a particularly unique story idea, as I've seen at least a couple other silent shorts with this exact plot. The best of these was Bobby Vernon's DON'T KID ME. It is much better than ONE TOO MANY--probably much of this was due to it being made a decade later--when comedy became a bit more sophisticated and relied less on pointless slapstick. Now I am not against physical comedy, but in some slapstick films, people starting shooting guns wildly, kick and strangle each other, etc. with little provocation. Sadly, at the end of ONE TOO MANY, that's exactly what they do. None of it makes sense and it was as if they'd just run out of story ideas.<br /><br />Overall, not exactly a milestone in entertainment. There's just not enough payoff to merit watching it unless you are an obsessive silent fan like myself.
This is the worst piece of crap I have seen recently. There is nothing good about this movie. The plot is plain stupid, dialogs don't make any sense, humorous scenes never heard anything about the real humor. Actors just don't play, the worse they don't even try. The script itself is somewhat which is in the same league with Ed Wood and Uwe Boll. There is only one good thing in this flick, the fights. They are well choreographed as one would expect of the Hong Kong guys, and are the only reason to watch Prince of the Sun. Although I believe the fights are just supposed to fill the empty space so that the screenwriter didn't have to bother thinking about the storyline. However, this weak and absurd plot may prevent you from watching it to the end. Avoid it unless you are fan of the dragon lady Cynthia Rothrock.
Don't bother trying to watch this terrible mini series. It is a six hour bore, an unbelievable love triangle between three people who have absolutely no chemistry for each other. There is no heat in this story, no real passion, no real romance. It is a dry, boring, drawn out, and uninspired as they come. And it doesn't even meet the expected level of technical proficiency. Take those six hours of your life and use them for something more worthwhile.
Tom is listening to one of those old-time radio broadcasts, something kids from the 1950s to today would watch on TV. However, they didn't television when this cartoon was made so people got their entertainment - from comedies to music to scary stories - from the radio. <br /><br />Tom is literally shaking in his boots listening to some story about the "phantom." He's actually literally doing everything the narrator is saying, such as "hair standing on end, icy chills race down her spine, her heart beats in her throat," etc. Jerry, meanwhile, is watching Tom and laughing his butt off at his scaredy- cat antics.<br /><br />We then get a taste of what we will see for many years after this 194- cartoon in which Jerry tortures Tom for no reason other than sadistic pleasure. If the cat asks for trouble, that's one thing, but when he's minding own business and Jerry is physically (and in this case, mentally) abusing him, I have a hard time rooting for the "little guy."<br /><br />These early T&M efforts also were a minute longer than all that followed. Sometimes that one minute makes a difference. It did here as this actually dragged for awhile. It could have been cut to five minutes without missing anything because the sketches went on too long. That's usual for Tom and Jerry's. Usually, they are much faster-paced.
Jerry spies Tom listening to a creepy story on the radio and seizes the opportunity to scare his nemesis.<br /><br />I didn't find this particular episode that funny: the humour seemed rather constrained and the whole set up was kinda lame (Jerry is essentially the 'bad guy' in this one, tormenting poor Tom for no particular reason).<br /><br />There is the occasional flash of inspiration (such as Tom's literal 'heart in mouth' experience, and the moment when his nines lives are sucked out of his body), but, on the whole, this effort lacks the frenetic pacing, excellent animation and sheer wit of most of T&J's other cartoons.
The plot is straightforward an old man living off a main road in woodland one day witnesses a man murdering a child in the woods. Soft For Digging follows the old man's attempts to try and convince the police that what he saw was not a figment of his imagination. However, there is a problem each time the old man guides the police to where the murder happen no corpse can be found. Soft For Digging has a diminutive dialogue which reflects the majority of the scenes of the film, an old man living by himself in a house. During the film I found that I was scared twice namely when the murdered child abruptly appears before the old man. The rest of the film I have to admit did not engage me; I found the tempo of the film a little too slow. The limited dialogue was not a problem. However, the development of the story and its conclusions, after watching the film, took too long. I feel more could have been made of the relationship, ghostly encounters, with the child and the old man. Alone in the woods at night unsure of your own mind can lead to some eerie situations, children are always scary as ghosts, see Dark Water.
This movie was extremely boring. It should least not more than 15 minutes. The images of child and animal being killed were little bit disturbing.<br /><br />Usually I don't write comments but this one was so bad having so many good and excellent comments. I think in this case we are one step closer to honest assessment of this title.<br /><br />What more can I say? I fall asleep during this movie 3 times. It was about 4 hours after I had woken up from 8 hours long sleeping period. I think it is the point itself.<br /><br />There is no dialog between characters except maybe 2 sentences at the very end.<br /><br />When you fall asleep once watching it do not try to rewind and catch up because you will fall asleep again.
The thing that really gets me about this movie (that is, the thing about this movie that makes me physically ill) is that someone actually paid to have it made. There is absolutely no purpose for the existence of this movie. It is not frightening, it is not thought provoking, it is not entertaining, it is not good. It is a sleeping pill made of cyanide. The DVD case compares it to Blair Witch, Evil Dead, and a few other decent movies, making the filmmaker's desperation glaringly obvious. It is nothing like any other movie ever made; it is far, far worse. The claims of an "extremely shocking ending you will never forget" are the equivalent of one ton of stinking horse droppings. Please do not ever waste your time watching this piece of trash, because it may make you sterile. The man who wrote this movie should be wiped off the Writer's Guild membership list, and never allowed to film anything again. Because if he thought THIS was a movie worth making, he probably does not have much of anything to offer in the future. Zero stars. May Grod have mercy on the soul of anyone unfortunate enough to see this. I am going to go vomit now.
This was really a very bad movie. I am a huge fan of Italian Horror, Argento, Mario Bava, Fulci and yes, even our good friend here Lamberto sometimes comes out with a good one. I found the first two 'Demons' films to be highly entertaining - they were so bad they were great but this one is just so bad that it is really, really bad. It is intensely boring, the story never goes anywhere and I hated the characters - the wife slapping husband and whiny cry-baby pain in the *** wife drove me mad, there was nowhere near enough of the story devoted to the Ogre who was probably the best actor in the whole film. I turned it off about three quarters of the way through because I was very, very BORED! Don't bother.
(aka: DEMONS III)<br /><br />Made for Italian TV although shot in English and was never meant to be a sequel to the earlier DEMONS films. It was supposed to be simply titled, THE OGRE, which is how director Lamberto Bava had released it.<br /><br />An American family rents an Italian villa for the summer. The woman (Virginia Bryant) has recurring dreams of herself as a little girl going down to the old wine-cellar of this villa an encountering this cocoon-like structure hanging down from the ceiling. It glows and is covered in cobwebs and has what looks like spider or insect legs hanging down from it. It drips what looks like green paint.<br /><br />Of course the husband doesn't believe any of this. The villa just is old and creaks and makes strange noises in the middle of the night and she should just ignore it.<br /><br />But then the OGRE itself appears in what looks like some kind of 16th Centaury costume with what looks like a wolf's head attached to it and it's attracted to the scent of orchids.<br /><br />The films isn't really that bad and at least the dialog is halfway intelligent without the ridiculous awkward phrases that dubbing would bring. There's no real gore other than some skeletons rotting in a basement pond that really looks like the bottom of a modern swimming pool. The OGRE itself just simply fades away after it is run over by the family's Jeep Cherokee. <br /><br />The copy of the Shriek DVD I watched was defective, with the picture going black for a few seconds about a half an hour into the film, a flaw I hope Shriek has since corrected. Extras include a short interview with Lamberto Bava where he explains how this wasn't a sequel, etc..etc...along with some trailers to other Shriek DVD releases. This is pretty standard stuff.<br /><br />3 out of 10<br /><br />
"Demons III: The Ogre" is not related pre-sequel are on "The Demons" and "The Demons 2 are cool hip horror 1980 classic."Demons III: The Ogre" is very stupid, bored, cheap monster. I am very confuse about the writer is "Demons III: The Ogre" (Lamberto Bava and Dardano Sacchetti are poor quality writer and stupid who the bored William Shakespeare ghost or demon's egg from Spider's web or what Huhuhuhuhu make the girl dream). I am very sorry, very very very very boring movie. I Bought The special DVD box called "Demons" on the 3 different movies called "Demons III: The Ogre", "The Other Hell", and "Black Demons" don't have closed captioned and Subtitles is cost $ 14.99 from Best Buy store in the City of Downey. Why the Lamberto Bava and Dardano Sacchetti are poor quality writer who make the stupid movie almost like "Halloween III" don't have Michael Myer monster but the people wear Halloween. I am very confused. I really love "The Demons" and "The Demons 2 are better the boring stupid "Demons III: The Ogre" is not part for "The Demons" and "The Demons 2" are same demons.<br /><br />Thank you Juan Antonio De La Torre
Very low-budget police procedural film about homicide detectives trying to solve the murder of a woman whose body turns up in a stolen car in Central Park, and their only clue is a tattoo on her arm. Although released by RKO, this has the look of an independent production that was picked up by the studio for distribution. The cast and crew, with a few exceptions--among them a young and uncredited Jack Lord, director Edward Montagne and cameraman William Steiner--are comprised of complete unknowns, and it shows. The performances are universally sub-par and wouldn't pass muster in a high school training film, the direction is stodgy and choppy and, as mentioned previously, there's no chemistry whatsoever between the lead actors. However, despite the film's many shortcomings, it does have a few good points. The location shooting in New York City, and the film's ultra-low budget, gives it a gritty authenticity much like that of the far superior "The Naked City", a shootout in a dark basement is decently handled, and some of the investigating procedures are clever. Otherwise, it's not much to write home about. It is worth a look, however, for a glimpse at the seamier sections of New York City in the early 1950s, and old-car buffs will be ecstatic to see the legions of '30s and '40s cars in the streets.<br /><br />.
Edward Montagne's Tattooed Stranger is supposed to play like a crime thriller with a little film noir mixed in for flavor. Instead, it's a poorly acted, witless look into low budget and uninspired film making. The plot is absurd and the acting excruciatingly stiff and amateurish. John Miles, who had a rather thin resume in the industry, grins and guffaws throughout, and everyone else acts with the same verve as characters in a government-made filmstrip about driver safety. The movie anticipates shows like 'Leave it to Beaver' and 'Father Knows Best' in its unnaturally wholesome view of New York in 1950. Why, the viewer doesn't even get to see anyone light up a cig until some shapely woman is interviewed in a flophouse halfway through the movie. The only thing the movie has going for it (besides its brevity) is the excellent location shots coordinated by William Steiner. The low budget of the film works in the cinematographer's favor, as the viewer is treated to well-framed shots of New York City's interiors and expansive exteriors. Unless you wish to enjoy the film for the choice of settings and camera angles, I suggest watching practically any other movie.
This movie is just like every other dutch movie, so if you enjoy movies such as turks fruit and de kleine blonde dood. then you might be okay with this one (even though those two have much better stories and actors) Zomerhitte starts strong enough, but even that one good scene ends up having nothing to do with the storyline. There's a lot of nudity (but me and others just could not find that girl attractive), the dialog is laughable (as we did a lot to the annoyance of other movie watchers), and some of the scenes are so completely random that this is more of an unintentional comedy than anything else (like a random scene in which an owl rips somebody's eye out...it has nothing to do with anything and is only referenced once later in a sentence saying "did you hear what happened...I was there"). the only reason I gave it a 2 is because some of the places they are at look nice...that's it. And the reason I saw it was because we went to the sneak preview (here in Holland we have a strange system regarding sneak previews, you pay less money then for a regular movie and you don't know what movie it is that you will be watching. All you know is that it's a new movie that's not yet in the theaters). My advice is to stay far away from this film, if you really want to see a good dutch movie watch temmink or zwartboek.
I recently saw this at the 2009 Palm Springs International Film. This is the feature length directorial debut of veteran Dutch actress Monique van de Ven and based on my observation it should be her last. I hate movies that are so implausible that you are picking apart practically every scene. This film immediately leaves you scratching your head. as it begins a young photographer and his girlfriend who works for an international aid organization are having a leisurely drive through the Taliban-controlled mountains Afghanistan having a conversation about their love when a rocket stops a truck in front of them. They get out of their vehicle to watch as Talliban fighters equipped with rocket launchers, machine guns, rifles, handguns and grenades execute all five people in the truck. Bob (Waldemar Torenstra) starts taking pictures of all this when he is spotted by one of the insurgents who lobs a hand grenade at them that kills his girlfriend. since they are with hand throwing distance they can't be more than 50 yards away yet he somehow gets away. His girlfriend is blown up and he takes a picture of the moment of the grenade impact that kills her and wins a prize as photographer of the year for the photo. Every scene and situation in this film as as ridiculous as it's opening. The following year Bob finds himself on assignment for National Geographic on a Dutch resort island where he meets Kathleen (Sophie Hilbrand) and inserts himself into her seedy underworld of international drug smugglers. Avoid this film. I would give it a 4.0 out of 10.
This film should have never been made. Honestly, I must admit that before I saw it I had some serious doubts. The director is not a great actress, though she did a lot of movies in Holland, and the young woman who took the main part is a TV-personality with a constant smile on the face and not much self-criticism. The actor who played the other main part I recently saw in Bride Flight and although that film is better, he did not convince me than. To start with the the story, I have not read the novel it is based upon, but the script that underlays the film is something that might have been done with in mind kids having a birthday party on a rainy Sunday afternoon, not someone of the same age as the director who likes to watch a good movie. Something really disturbing were the overdubbed dialogues, it was most of the time spoken out loud. My regards go to the cameraman, at least he tried to make something out of it. It is a pity that the film is edited lousy, if not, some scenes were certainly more credible.
This production has absolutely no storyline. The acting is embarrassing. The promising Dutch television Sophie Hilbrand star should not add this movie to her CV. Her acting is far from flawless and personally I think she has crossed boundary of professional decency; relating to the way she exposes herself in this movie. This movie contains too much unnecessary nudity, vulgar sexual scenes and rude language. It also shows a wrong image of the Netherlands (as most movies do). Do not bother to watch this movie: a waste of time, a waste of money and an embarrassing record for Hilbrand, who has proved to be better with her close on on the screen.
Sogo Ishii can be a skilled filmmaker under the right conditions, but Gojoe tells the story of a warrior monk and his only rival, a scion of the Genji clan. The film-making has the main hallmarks of a low-budget production, including blurry fight scenes and clumsy montages (the kind you might find in an under-produced dorama). The monk Benkei informs his spiritual teacher that his destiny lies in defeating the mysterious spirit that guards Gojoe bridge at night, but he doesn't realize that this decision will bring him squarely into conflict with nearly every element of society at that time - but which could earn him enlightenment. <br /><br />There's no absence of ambitiousness, however, in its depiction of the conflict between the holy and the worldly. Artsy flourishes in some of the photography and editing help to compensate for the loose film-making style. <br /><br />A disappointment.
I basically picked up this movie because I had seen Kitano Takashi's brilliant remake of Zatoichi and was in the mood for another updated samurai tale which also starred Asano Tadanobu. These two movies are worlds apart. Zatoichi added humor and depth to its characters and subverted traditional samurai movie clichés. Gojoe goes off the deep end in the other direction.<br /><br />First off, I hate movies that have other characters inform the audience what the main character is like instead of having the character develop over the course of the movie. "You cannot decide whether you are a monk or a warrior" says almost every character in Benkei's presence, yet this inner turmoil is barely conveyed within the character himself. Instead of character development, we get bloated, boring, gory battle scenes. Asano's character is undeveloped and even he looks like he is bored and doesn't know what he is doing there. I know that he usually looks distant and cool and that is part of Asano's appeal, but this movie doesn't serve him.<br /><br />A lot of the camera movement is nauseating. There is a scene that goes on forever in which the camera spins around the main characters until my wife and I felt like vomiting. The ending is ridiculous and rather anti-climatic. <br /><br />Its too bad that really good samurai movies aren't being made in Japan nowadays with this type of budget. The colors, scenery, and costumes were great, but the rest is just a loooong waste of time. I would rather see one of the kabuki versions of this myth.
**SPOILERS**This was an ugly movie, and I'm sorry that I watched it. Like Jan Kounen's Dobermann, it suffers mostly from poor editing--or lack of it. It is as if the director was so in love with his work that instead of cutting the movie down to a pace that kept your attention, he added all of the footage he had shot together. There are maybe two cool scenes in the entire movie. One of them is *SPOILER* when Benkei is petrified and the camera starts spinning around him. That was cool--but okay, we got it! Move on please! The camera won't stop spinning around this guy! There's maybe one or two more cool scenes that I forgot about in this flood of mediocrity, but the last duel scene IS NOT ONE OF THEM! It may be because unlike in the earlier sword-handling scenes, Shanao isn't masked--but just because the director couldn't find a stuntman who somewhat resembled Asano Tadanobu doesn't give him the right to go ahead and make up 80% of the sword fight with extreme close-ups of sword clashes! And all from the same angle, may I add. The director should learn from the American produced 1995 bullet-train ninja movie The Hunted! I personally saw the village raid scene as a tribute paid to the social activists of the previous generation who were confronted by the police in the violent demonstrations of their college years. The situation where innocence is oppressed by an authoritative and armed branch of the government unwilling to understand seems to be a message common in the Japanese media, due to the strong influence of socialists and communists who are a political minority. The movie versions of GTO and Salary Man Kintaro are two other recent examples *END SPOILER* I don't understand. I just don't understand why people who don't speak the language of the movie find praise worthy material in this. Maybe the worst was lost in the translation.<br /><br />The ending of the movie--on which marketing played a lot, is a different interpretation of the legendary encounter between Shanao and Benkei. But that legend is not the most popular in Japanese folklore, and it is so detached from contemporary themes, that after 138 minutes of over played visual techniques, who cares how the director wants to re-interpret the story!? Director Sasaki Hirohisa of Crazy Lips said that there was an unpleasant trend among new Japanese directors to ignore Japanese audiences, and target their movies for foreign film festivals--in order to gain faster international fame. This works, although it doesn't make sense, because the point of an international movie fest is to introduce to the world what kind of movies are being made in other countries-what kind of movies people WATCH in those countries. Certainly not Gojoe and the like.
this is seriously one of the worst movies i have ever seen. i love Japanese movies, and i think another film by the same director, electric dragon 80,000 v, is a masterpiece. i really wanted to like this movie - asano is a terrific actor and the storyline was immensely appealing. but i couldn't find anything entertaining about it.<br /><br />the movie takes forever for nothing to happen. and the effects the director used - like the constant percussion and the exorbitant use of slow motion - merely added to my growing annoyance at the fact that the plot was so mind-bogglingly slow and the actors were heinously overacting. a lot of the boredom was a result of extraneous additions that were completely unnecessary - like an hour spent on asano going around slicing buddha statues and proclaiming how he doesn't worship anything. this added nothing to the plot. a fellow Japanese film buff and i were both checking the time constantly. we couldn't believe this film was as terrible as it was. and the finale was awful. i thought the director would at least attempt to reward the viewer for managing to sit through this, but sadly i was mistaken.
The central theme in this movie seems to be confusion, as the relationships, setting, acting and social context all lead to the same place: confusion. Even Harvey Keitel appears to be out of his element, and lacks his usual impeccable clarity, direction and intensity. To make matters worse, his character's name is 'Che', and we are only told (directly, by the narrator) well into the film that he is not 'that' Che, just a guy named Che. The family relationships remain unclear until the end of the film, and once defined, the family is divided - the younger generation off to America. So cliché. Other reviews discuss how the movie depicts the impact of the revolution on a boy's family; however the political stance of the director is murky at best, and we are never quite sure who is responsible for what bloodshed. So they lost their property (acquired by gambling profits) - so what? Refusing to take a political stand, when making a movie about the Cuban revolution, is an odd and cowardly choice. Not to mention the movie was in English! Why are all these Cubans speaking English? No wonder they did not get permission to film in Cuba. And if family life is most important to look at here, it would be great if we could figure out who is who - we are 'introduced' to them all in the beginning - a cheap way out of making the relationships clear throughout the film! The acting was mostly shallow, wooden, and unbelievable, timing was off all around. The 'special' visual effects were confusing and distracting. References to American films - and the black character as Greek chorus - strictly gratuitous, intellectually ostentatious, and consistently out of place. I only watched the whole movie because I was waiting for clarity, or some point to it all. It never happened.
I am probably one of the few viewers who would not recommend this film. Thought visually stunning like all of Ang Lee's work (each still frame seems worthy of a print), I was really disappointed by the film's disjointed pace. It really was too long.<br /><br />The story is set in Civil War era Missouri, and is about a young man (Roedel) who joins the feral forces of the Bushwackers, sort of renegade Confederate sympathizers who conduct geurilla type fighting with the Jayhawkers, their Union counterparts. He and his close friend, Jack Bull Chiles played by Skeet Ulrich, join the group after Chile's father is shot point-blank and his home is burned, presumably by Jayhawkers. The story follows Roedel's and Chiles' raiding adventures and their interactions with other victims of the war, including former slave who fights for the Bushwhackers (Daniel Holt played by Jeffery Wright), and a war widow played by Jewel.<br /><br />It seemed that every time the film developed the story to an interesting point, it would turn to some other subplot and leave things undeveloped. For example, the agitation among Roedel's group caused by former slave Holt participating in the confederate cause is shown briefly through some conflict regarding propriety and protocol, and then dropped until later in the movie. A young villian/bully Bushwhacker hates Roedel and directs much angst and violence against him, but, we never know why. Some of the characters never seem to surface; I think that is because the movie embraces too many of them as well as taking on large amounts of history.<br /><br />The historical detail was excellent. I loved looking at the housing, furniture, clothes, etc., and I thought the lead actors did a wonderful job of humanizing the characters, though they stumbled a bit with the dialog. Unless you really enjoy history or are a huge Ang Lee fan, though, take a pass on this one.
Okay.. this wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but I had heard lots of good things about it and I was sorely disappointed. I could see where the film makers were coming from and that they were trying to express the fact that the two sides in this battle weren't a whole lot different from one another, that the individuals were getting lost in the fighting, etc, etc. (well, that's my presumption, anyway =^_^=)<br /><br />At any rate.. the movie kind of bored me. I've watched a lot of really long movies, but this one just seemed to drag on and on and on.. basically because I just couldn't bring myself to care for any of the characters. I just kept thinking.. who cares??? I also found the acting to be rather dead pan and the dialogue strained. I understand that this was the 1800s and all, but most of the conversations just seemed rather unnatural. No one seemed to have any emotion throughout most of the film except during melodramatic events.<br /><br />The "romance" in the story didn't seem to be supported by anything other than "I'm a guy and you're a girl", which I don't consider much of a romance, and yet I felt I was being steered to the belief that these people were in love. Oh well.. I guess it's the whole "all this horror around us, we have each other to cling to" type thing, or whatever. I was also hoping for some sort of dynamic between the two best friends (who both initially seemed to have an interest in the girl) but that was just sort of dropped. Maybe avoiding a cliche love triangle. I don't know.<br /><br />Oh well.. Daniel Holt was about the only character I really truly liked. And Sue Lee was all right. I didn't exactly dislike Jake, but he seemed a bit too... spineless, I guess. Jack Bull I did not care for at all. And I'm pretty sure you're *supposed* to hate just about everyone else, with the exception of the poor normal people who just get mowed down left and right. It was pretty graphic and had that whole "the horrors of war" thing down, but I've seen plenty of other movies with the same theme, done better. (I enjoyed The Patriot a lot, for instance, even if it was a bit emotionally manipulative) But, as I've already stated, I'm a cynic. What can I say? :)
I am sad that a period of history that is so fascinating and so rich in material for film can be made into a ho-hum event . Wm C Quantrill was barely shown in the film , probably the most intriquing figure of the period. Frank James was never mentioned, Cole Younger , ditto , and Bloody Bill Anderson , who would weep for his murdered sister every time he went into battle was completely absent in the script. Instead we were forced to watch fictitious characters that never developed into anyone we cared about. how sad. The costumes were wonderful however, as was the location shooting in Missouri. I hope Ang Lee will make another film from the period and try again, or some other film maker will look into the tremendous wealth of material to write a screen play on .
This movie was two and a quarter excruciating hours. Someone please tell me what the point was?<br /><br />I mean, I understand the historical setting. It's supposed to be about a ragtag group of Confederate bushwhackers (terrorists?) on the Missouri-Kansas frontier, taking revenge against all northern sympathizers and abolitionists during the U.S. Civil War. But aside from gratuitous violence there wasn't really much of a point to this movie. Perhaps it was a political statement? That war is really nothing much more than gratuitous violence? If that was the point it was done quite well, but I don't think that was the point. I think the producers really thought they were making a worthwhile movie here, but as far as I was concerned there was a complete lack of any plot. It seemed like I was watching a paperback novel come to life, with the characters looking like what you would see on the covers of such novels.<br /><br />This movie should be burned along with some of the towns this gang torched!
This was a new alltime low among westerns. The writing is excruciatingly bad, characters are impossible to emphasize with and are either disgusting or bland, the violence is appalling and technically not very convincingly executed. And Tobey Maguire shows us the flip side of his talent, sleepwalking through his part with those expressionless eyes and that raspy voice of his that here betrays only mannerism. 'Ride With the Devil' is among my five worst movie experiences ever, a western never to be surpassed in the negative respect.
Long on action and stunt work, but so short on character delineation and development that it failed to hold our interest. Not always easy to figure out which side a character is on and who's doing what to whom.
I wish more movies were two hours long. On the other hand, I wish more American Civil War movies were MERELY two hours long. "Gone with the Wind", "Gettysburg" - that's about the length I've come to expect; although those two at least entertained for however many hours they lasted; and even "Gettysburg" lasted as long as it did because things HAPPENED in the course of it.<br /><br />By contrast Ang Lee's film is bloated and uneventful. It actually feels as if it takes much less than two hours. That wasn't a compliment. It's really no different to any other form of sensory deprivation: at the time it feels as though it will never end, afterwards it seems to have taken no time at all.<br /><br />The film gets off on the wrong foot, as Lee plays his interminable credits OVER the opening footage (bad mistake) in which we are introduced to some characters we take an instant dislike to and will later come to loathe. The central two are Jake, the son of German immigrants who are staunch supporters of Lincoln, and Jack, an equally staunch Southerner whose values Jake shares. (I had to re-read that sentence to make sure I hadn't written "Jack" instead of "Jake" at some point or vice versa.) The two go off to become "bushwhackers" - Southern militia who so strongly lust after revenge and violence that they can't even be bothered to join the official Southern army, which I presume they think is for sissies. I'm afraid Lee lost me right there. It's easy to feel for characters who make moral mistakes: if we have some independent reason to like them, or feel as if we know them in some way, then their moral flaws can make us care for them all the more. Not so here. We aren't properly introduced to Jake for at least an hour; when we are, it becomes clear he's a gormless pimple of a man, who isn't a confederate by choice so much as by habit - the kind of person who says and does what everyone around him says and does, whose psychology is purely immitative. The people he associates with are either just the same or positively evil in some uninteresting way. I found myself cheering whenever the Northern cavalry appeared on the screen. I thought: good - kill the rebels, end the damned war, let me go home.<br /><br />Aggravating this problem is the horrible, horrible dialogue. Everyone speaks in the same whining Southern accent. I've heard accents from all over the English-speaking world and this is the worst of them all. I don't care if Southerners really did talk like that, it's simply not fair to ask an audience to listen to it for two hours. And believe me, we do listen to it for the full two hours: Lee's picture is a talky one, largely because characters take so long to say what they mean in their ungrammatical, say-everything-three-times, folksy drawl. It would help if they talked faster, but not much. Can't these people find a more efficient language in which to communicate?<br /><br />In short: the film is little but a gallery of uniformly unattractive characters with no inner life, who talk in an offensively ugly mode of speech, who don't bathe often enough, to whom nothing of interest happens, despite their being involved in a war. Good points? Jewel was nice to look at, and so was the scenery. But I have complaints even here. The cinematography, nicely framed, looked as if someone had susbtituted colour film for black and white by mistake; and as for Jewel, we were teased with her body, but never actually allowed to gaze upon it, which I think is the least we were owed.
How does a Scotsman in a kilt make love in the bonny purple heather? Very,very carefully.Now I have the distinct advantage over many other of the reviewers in that I was born in Scotland.Far too many Americans take this simplistic nonsense seriously.It's a joke,people,"four legs good - two legs bad",as Orwell had it. Jessica Lange has an accent that the Wells - next - the - sea Amateur Dramatic Society's production of "Brigadoon" would turn down. Liam Neeson - apparently popular with the ladies - wears his kilt with all the authority of a man whose Great Grandmama once stepped off the train at Edinburgh Waverley. And the Auld Enemy?Where would the Scots be without them to hate and blame for everything?Messrs Roth,Cox and Hurt should be ashamed for indulging in such racist stereotyping. "Robin Hood - Prince of thieves" seems a masterpiece of historical accuracy in comparison.And at least Alan Rickman was funny.
Born, raised, and educated in Scotland, I was appalled at this disgusting portrayal of a man who was no more nor less than a cattle rustler. Worse yet, the thread of the entire movie was sex in one form or another, by implication or verbally. To view it, one would think that 18th century Scotland was populated by a bunch of sex perverts and homosexuals. Lange was a joke acting as the "young" mother at age 49 but Liam Neeson was even worse! Taking a "bath" in a Scottish loch is NOT commonplace as they portrayed him - but, it did give them yet another opportunity to demonstrate how sexually driven we were. Save your money and watch Pinnochio.
This movie was a long build-up with no climax. People whom refer to the swordfight in the end as great must either be out of their minds, or have none. Way too often this movie got soft. I am not saying that soft movies are bad. But no matter how fond you are of sugar it should have no space on a T-bone steak. This movie was supposed to be about vengeance for crimes committed against a culture, but it ended up being a petty bar-brawl. And there was only one of them who actually knew what a sword was; Tim Roth's character (and yes, he plays him well). Rob Roy was a weak "hero" with no knowledge of how to use a sword, and the way he "won" was a disgrace. As a drama this movie had it's periods, but the best performance in it has to go the nature of Scotland. This is one tad breath short of being termed as "soap" in my book.
I have to say the first I watched this film was about 6 years ago, and I actually enjoyed it then. I bought the DVD recently, and upon a second viewing I wondered why I liked it. The acting was awful, and as usual we have the stereo-typical clansmen in their fake costumes. The acting was awful at best. Tim Roth did an OK job as did Liam Neeson, but I've no idea what Jessica Lange was thinking.<br /><br />The plot line was good, but the execution was just poor. I'm tired of seeing Scotland portrayed like this in the films. Braveheart was even worse though, which is this films only saving grace. But seriously, people didn't speak like that in those days, why do all the actors have to have Glaswegian accents? Just another film to try and capture the essence of already tired and annoying stereotypes. I notice the only people on here who say this film is good are the Americans, and to be honest I can see why they'd like it, I know they have an infatuation for men in Kilts. However, if you are thinking of buying the DVD, I'd say spend your money on something else, like a better film.
Here is one of those movies spoiled by the studio's insistence on a happy ending. Conflicts which have stretched out for years are settled in a few minutes. It would have been far more interesting to inject a tone of ambiguity. The talented Barbara Stanwyck is undone by a sudden metamorphosis from independent and assertive woman to a compliant female of the kind she has put down all her life. Brent, as usual, is well over his head and then there is the ludicrous situation of Gig Young playing a character named Gig Young. Someone mentions "Gig Young" and then who appears but Gig Young, the actor! Worth seeing though far below what it could have been.
Spoiler alert – although I think this one was spoiled coming out of the can… It's hard to even imagine that a film with these stars, from this studio, made at this time period, could be so awful, but it is. It is the film's biggest flaw by far that it just doesn't make any damn sense.<br /><br />Rich widower American aristocrat Penn Gaylord leaves his small daughter "in charge" and goes off to World War I where he is killed. Then we flash forward to present day (1942) and total confusion. The three sisters are in court where they are said to have spent the last twenty years, and some jerk named Barclay is trying to take their home away from them. This is just the beginning of an endless series of unanswered questions that comprises the script, more holes in it than The Warren Report. What happened to the Gaylord fortune? If the will is worth half a billion, why has the family home gone from an opulent palace to the house on The Munsters? Who the devil is this Barclay clown? And why is he able to take someone's home away from them? The questions just pile on top of more questions.<br /><br />The usually affable and charming George Brent is playing Barclay, who is inexplicably a total sod tromping all over everyone, taking whatever the heck he wants no matter who it belongs to and without a twinge of guilt; yet no one besides Fiona (Barbara Stanwick) seems to particularly dislike this cretin. Why? None of these questions are ever answered. We instead just follow Fiona's life from one train wreck to another, the evil Barclay takes away her home, her fortune, and even her child. What does she do? Shoot him? Set him on fire? No, too logical. In a completely improbably wrap-up, this woman, who's only prior romantic involvement with Barclay was, save for the technicality of marriage, rape, suddenly decides mid-sentence (literally) that she does not hate him, she loves him. And they're going to live happily ever after. All of a sudden for no reason in the world, this early female role model of independence and authority is transformed into the usual helpless ankle-twisting twit more commonly found in films of this era. Yeah, sure, steal everything in the world that belongs to me and I'll fall in love with you. On what planet does that happen? I can only guess the reason I never heard of this film before I happened to catch it on Turner is that it was as lost on contemporary audiences as it is today.
When I'd seen the name of this movie, I'd always thought it was a musical. Like "The Harvey Girls." It's not. It's a pudding that overcooked, hit the kitchen ceiling, and was pried off and cobbled together. No music and not a period piece but thoroughly improbable.<br /><br />It starts with patriarch James Woods telling the eldest of his three daughters, a small child who grows to be Barbara Stanwyck, that she must maintain the family name and home.<br /><br />We thus think it is going to be a historical intergenerational tale. And it is, for a brief time. Then it turns into the story of cold-hearted Stanwyck's fight against lawyer George Brent. Why is she so dead set against him? Well, why else? As we learn in a strange flashback sequence narrated by Stanwyck, she had once thought she could inherit some money (for her sisters as well as herself, of course) by marrying. She hit on someone she took to be a country bumpkin, who was in fact budding lawyer Brent.<br /><br />Lest anyone think the child they had, a young man of eight or so at the time of the main plot, is -- well, you know ... They had a hasty marriage and during the very short time they were together, he was conceived.<br /><br />One of her sisters is in love with a painter named Gig Young, who is played by Gig Young. The other sister tries to take him away. Etc., etc.<br /><br />It is a shrill, unengaging mess -- well enough acted but without a shred of logic or plausibility.
I don't think you can get much worse then this. Put together bad actors, fake limbs, and three stupid stories and what do you get? This B-rate pointless excuse for a movie.<br /><br />The first story immediately shows the bad video quality and the acting is just really pathetic, especially when you bring in the 25 year old posing as a grandma with the usually grandma bun over the ears bit. Plus, the man is OK, but the woman is rather ugly. "You look great!" NOT! The werewolf in this one was the best one out of all three I'd say, but its still not impressive since it was all bad costume. The face on the woman later was decent enough for halloween but not for a werewolf movie.<br /><br />The more stories you go through the worse it gets. There are two lesbians in this next one who are completely retarded its ridiculous. The whole "I want to be a werewolf, too" "How could you do this to me?!" Was silly to say. You asked for it now get over it! The werewolf will not even be spoken of...its a rat!<br /><br />The third one has no point...almost forty five minutes of running and boring narration make up this story and the whole switch thing still didn't make it interesting. Boring!<br /><br />Music, Yes, bad...who couldn't even hear some parts it was stupid. Animals effects were either rat or pig-like which was stupid. They couldn't use lion sounds? Guess not, GOOD movies use that. Well, i =f you enjoy B-rates this is good for you. I got this movie since I'm a hardcore werewolf fan and i'll buy ANY werewolf movie and watch it more then once, but thats just me. If you prefer Good ones, don't waste your money. I beg YOU!
From the blocky digitised footage to the acting that makes Keanu "I'm so wooden I could be a Plank me" Reeves look like an Oscar winner this film bites (pun not intended). The best thing about it is the box of eRATicate in the 2nd segment (which out of the three seemed to be the strongest piece in terms of storyline and 'twist'). Wish I'd spent the £3.99 it cost me on something else, like erm.... Natural Born Killers: Directors Cut. If you do buy this, you're really in for a disappointment, do yourself a favour and avoid it like the plague. If you're looking for something amateurish and with actors that are more wooden than a 2x4 then go ahead. However if you want some quality werewolf action look elsewhere, like Dog Soldiers, Wolfen, Romasanta:The werewolf Hunt.
I won't spend a lot of time nor energy on this comment. I just want to add it because all the comments were so positive I felt like I just had to let people know that not everyone is so thrilled, let alone intellectually provoked by this attempt at creating a captivating philosophical cinematic enigma. Some scenes seemed promising, playing with visual dimensions, but couldn't hold up the rest. I felt like I was stoned for the first time again, having semi-philosophical conversations with fellow adolescents.<br /><br />What a futile attempt to raise Dutch cinema to new heights. I'd rather watch Jesus is een Palestijn, without all the pretentions and with straight forward humor, also raising questions about life and the realities we create for ourselves.<br /><br />Gert de Graff is not Jean-Luc Godard or Tarkovsky and appearantly never will be.
Although properly warned I actually sat down to watch this movie. In part because I usually give every movie an even break, and because I thought that a single movie couldn't be that bad. I stand corrected. Not even George Kennedy, Barry Bostwick or Ben Stein could save this turkey from sinking like a ton of bricks. Only once during this humor forsaken travesty of a spoof did I laugh. Namely during the Simon says scene. The other jokes are either poorly carried out or simply plain unfunny. And some of them you actually see coming a mile away. This movie just hasn't got what it takes to be a good parody like Airplane! (I+II), Naked Gun (I+II+III), or Scary Movie. They all had A. funny gags, B. good dialog and most important of all C. unforgettable quotes. Men In White has got D. none of the above. To call this movie bad would be a gross understatement. AVOID THIS MOVIE ANYWAY YOU CAN! CONSIDER YOURSELVES WARNED!
This film is so bad, it made me want to vomit. Poorly produced, a complete laugh free zone. Why in the name of god would you spoof a movie which to a degree is a spoof (and a damn funny one at that) as it stands? The sets are laughable, the effects so bad that they aren't even laughable, and the acting farcical. It is a complete mystery why you would even consider watching this lump of garbage. National Lampoon once made Animal House, which people still consider to be completely and utterly hilarious. Now they've been relegated to making TV movies like this lump of ****. Name your expletive, and it could be accurately used to describe this film.
I wished I'd taped MEN IN WHITE so I could watch it again<br /><br />" What ? You mean you really enjoyed it Theo ? " <br /><br />No I mean I could watch it again to see if it was as retarded , stupid and as embarrassingly unfunny as I can remember it <br /><br />A lot of people have claimed it was made for children . May I suggest it was also made by children ? because the whole structure of the script lacks any type of discipline on the part of the producers and writers and much of set pieces seem to have been included because it seemed like a good idea at the time <br /><br />The cast don't help but I genuinely started to feel sorry for them . Honestly you can believe that during filming the cast had to lie to their families that they were filming a hard core porn film such was their embarrassment at having to appear in something as dismal as this . To give you an idea of how bad the acting is every time BAYWATCH babe Donna D'Ericco disappeared from the narrative I waited patiently for her to reappear then seconds later I forgot she was in the movie . Got that ? A star from BAYWATCH appears and seconds later you forget they're in the movie . This tells you all you need to know about the standard of MEN IN WHITE <br /><br />Fair enough it's trying to be a live action cartoon similar to THE GOODIES ( Although THE DISMALS would be a better adjective for this movie ) , though perhaps the movie deserves some credit for never descending to toilet humour , but considering this is a kids movie ( This didn't stop ITV broadcasting it at 11 pm ) then there should be no near the knuckle humour in it anyway
If you see this turkey listed in your TV guide, AVOID IT LIKE THE PLAGUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />A steaming great pile of fetid dingoes kidneys doesn't begin to describe how bad this movie is! There is only one funny scene (the memory eraser scene) but even that rates only .001 on the laughometer (out of 1000). Whoever wrote this turkey should be banned from writing another movie for their entire lives.
Well, not yet, at least.<br /><br />It's not listed in the worst 100...<br /><br />So let's all team up, and put it in it's rightful place.<br /><br />This is truly a bad movie. (And I liked Ishtar!) ;)
If you really, truly want to waste two hours of your life, do the following: <br /><br />1) Look through the TV listings. 2) Find the movie 'Men in White'. 3) When 'Men in White' comes on, sit and watch.<br /><br />And that's it. After sitting through two hours of bad puns, dreadful (and not that funny) movie references, and experiencing something with possibly the lowest production values ever made in recent history, you will have wasted two hours of your life, and wonder exactly why.<br /><br />Why did I do this? I was stupid enough to think that this film might actually be some good. It wasn't.<br /><br />But, on the other hand, if you're old enough to remember Power Rangers, you might spot some familiar faces during the film. Presumably to save on production costs, Saban (who also make Power Rangers), decided to liberally sprinkle old monster costumes from everyone's favourite tacky toy-spawning franchise throughout the film. I spotted quite a few old monsters from episodes I saw from when I was a kid, so I guess it could at least be said it has some nostalgia value.<br /><br />But, if you want to see actual Power Rangers monsters, go watch Power Rangers itself. It's much better than this piece of garbage. (And that's saying something!)
I may have seen worse films than this, but I if I have, I don't remember. Or possibly blocked them out. Who knows,if I was to undergo hypnotherapy, I may remember them, along, maybe, with been abducted by aliens as a child, or other traumas. If so, I would happily exchange those memories for the ones I have of watching this film.<br /><br />I should give the film some credit: It did produce an emotional response. I actually started to become angry at scenes that spoofed other films and TV programs, that this travesty was dirtying them by association. I am terrified that I may be unable to watch films like Dr Strangelove again without this film flitting across my minds eye.
I watched this on a weekend afternoon as there was simply nothing else on, it would have been more entertaining to chew off my feet and probably less painful. I urge anyone to watch this just to see how turgidly awful a movie can be, surely it was deliberate. I cringed at every futile attempt at humour carried out in such a childish, unrehearsed, badly executed way that it was beyond belief. This is the movie that makes Spiceworld look like Goodfellas, think I am exaggerating? Well give it airtime and think again. Dreadful, utterly dreadful. If this wasn't a prank then the director and anyone else responsible for this should be removed and promptly shot after being forced to watch this film again.
Words fail me. This film was extremely difficult to watch and in hindsight I really wish I hadn't done it. Although I attempted to sit through it until the end credits I have to admit I couldn't last for more than hour, so my opinion could be unfair. However, this film would require the most impressive final third in the history of film-making in order for it to be given a review which is anything but vicious.<br /><br />Please do not watch any part of this film.
This 'Movie' has to be the biggest pile of steaming C*^p I have ever<br /><br />seen, What more can I say than BAD, BAD, BAD, BAD, BAD, BAD. There is NOTHING to save this 'movie' and I pray that they NEVER even talk about making a sequel. If you are thinking about watching this then you should know that the storyline is that two garbage men get dragged into saving the earth. Movies like Men in Black has been torn to shreds and put back together to make this 'Comedy' but have TOTALLY failed. Please avoid this movie, (save yourself).
You should know that I am the type of person that watches even the worst of movies to the finish, often out of sheer morbid curiosity. I even watched Leprechaun to the end before giving in to the temptation of tearing out my eyes and stamping on them. You should also know that this movie was in my VCR for less than half an hour before I made a frantic leap for the stop button and dashed back the rental store just to put as much distance between me and it as possible.
<br /><br />A friend of mine enjoys watching the worst films he can possibly find, and I have a good laugh watching them with him.<br /><br />I have told him if he puts this one on again I will be forced to give him a good kicking.<br /><br />He knows I am serious!<br /><br />
Why did I waste my time with this movie? There was not a single funny joke or line throughout. The slapstick wasn't even mildly funny. I mean really, an out of control vacuum sucking pipe? Why has the National Lampoon's name been attached to this movie? Even Christmas Vacation was better than this (I actually thought that film was very funny).<br /><br />AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE!
I only lasted 15mins before self preservation jerked me out of the empty eyed drooling stupor that this film effortlessly induced and propelled me screaming back to the video shop armed for bear.<br /><br />To say the film was bad would be a missed opportunity to use words interspersed with characters from the top keys on my keyboard (just to keep these comments clean).<br /><br />One to be avoided.<br /><br />
it got switched off before the opening credits had even finished appearing. The first joke was just so appallingly lame and dreadfully acted that it had to go. You shouldn't really decide to watch this based on my review or not. I saw so little of it I shouldn't even really be commenting but suddenly it all became clear why the video shop guy was sniggering at us paying money to see it.<br /><br />Couldn't they have just made Earnest does Dallas?
In the title I write that the story is ludicrous. below I'll elaborate and tell you why it, in my humble opinion, ruins this movie.<br /><br />Gere and Danes are doing their jobs, and while it's not their best work, it's quite OK. The rest of the cast, though, is doing a really poor job. Mind you, this is not entirely the actors fault. The problem is that Gere and Danes are the only ones that have characters that have even the slightest room in the movie to really give any depth. All other characters have either too little room in the movie to create any depth, or the character is such a cliché that it doesn't matter how hard the actors try.<br /><br />The director has a bit of a Se7en complex, but looking merely at the direction, I think he does an OK job.<br /><br />But the story. This is the kind of script that is bad in two ways. First of all it's a bad movie script. The characters are shallow (except for Gere's and Danes' characters), the villains are clichés and the actions of the characters is totally unbelievable. Besides this, the writers must have an agenda where they want to bring back our views and ethics a hundred years. It's the kind of movie that are saying that some criminals are still criminals, regardless of the fact that they have paid the price the society has given them. It's also the kind of movie that says, albeit only between the lines, that every form of sexual deviance should be punished without trial, judge or jury. And of course, according to the movie, everything that is not sex in the missionary position by a married couple is a sexual deviance.<br /><br />So, if you're going to film school and need an example of a bad script, or if you're writing scripts yourself and want an ego boost. See it. For everyone else, I recommend another movie.
Although THE FLOCK has some pretty good acting by veteran Richard Gere, and some okay shots that might harken some back to THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS days, the movie stretches credibility to the breaking point and destroys itself against a plot that really leads nowhere.<br /><br />The film is about Erroll Babbage (Gere) who works for the department of safety and is preparing to retire. His office thrusts upon him his replacement, Allison Lowry (Claire Danes, STARDUST), who quickly discovers that Babbage is obsessed with his job. And that job ain't very fun. He monitors hundreds of sexual offenders who are on parole in his jurisdiction. Allison goes with Erroll on many calls to check up on his "flock" of offenders and learns that he is in desperate need of retirement. But Erroll is good at his job even if his methods aren't. He taunts sexual predators and even has physical conflicts with them. Erroll justifies his actions by bringing up these deviants' pasts. It is this "good justification" that challenges the audience on some level, letting us see how brutal Erroll is and yet how out-of-touch he's become (by being too close to his job).<br /><br />When a teenage girl goes missing in Erroll's "area", he immediate leaps to the conclusion that she was abducted by one of his flock. But how could he know? Is Erroll that good at his job? Allison challenges him and Erroll pushes back. Their battles become as fierce as Erroll's need to find this missing girl.<br /><br />Although the set-up for the story was okay, it didn't have any umpf! I will give credit to Richard Gere, however, who plays the Erroll character very well. Battling retirement. Worried about everyone who's near his flock. Disgusted with those he's responsible for overseeing. Disgusted with himself for having to do some of things he does. Quite a change in character portrayal for Gere. But beyond him there's not much else. Some of the sets are okay (dark and dangerous) but there are so many other problems as to be laughable.<br /><br />I'll be the first to admit that suspending disbelief is a requirement whenever watching films. But that suspension has limits. The biggest push against those limits is the destruction of EXTREMELY vital crime scenes. Someone as meticulous as Erroll would KNOW that moving a body would be a huge no-no. Or trampling through a crime scene. Or moving evidence. It went beyond and hurt the film to no end.<br /><br />The other damaging part of this film is that we never get into Clair Danes' character, Allison. She's almost dropped by the wayside at the end of the film and we're never privy to what her intension might be: Will she stay or leave? Will she end up like Erroll if she does stay? This isn't a horrible film as it does touch on some uncomfortable moral ground, but the story as a whole needed to be tightened up.
I watched the movie "The Flock" because of the casting of Gere and Danes and because the story synopsis sounded interesting. This was one of the WORST movies I've seen in a long while (and I've seen some turkeys.) I've never posted online before but this movie was so awful I had to do so. I suppose the problems begin begin with the script which was so amateurish it's unbelievable. The story makes zero sense and the dialogue is so trite it's nauseating. Poor Gere, he deserves so much better. As for the Gere/Danes on screen matchup, because of the horrible writing, one doesn't believe either character for a single minute. I'll bet Gere wishes he could buy back the negative, were such a thing possible. It's a shame to see talent wasted so badly, not to mention I wish I could get my 2 hours back. (I know what you're thinking. How do I really feel?)
I just saw this film yesterday.<br /><br />My girlfriend wanted to see it only because of Richard Gere.<br /><br />I feel I wasted my time and money and told my girlfriend it's the last time we go to see a film just because a certain actor/actress is in it. I hope she learned the lesson because I had trouble keeping her in her seat. As of me, since I paid already, I wanted to see the end at least, just in the hope something good would turn up, but I didn't hold my breath, and luckily so cause I would have been a victim of the film just the same.<br /><br />This is not a black and white film, it's a black and black one. The main character (Richard Gere) is almost as bad as his registrants, and all sex offenders are portrayed as unredeemable hard core criminals and the bad ones among them were really very very bad. Speak of a cliché and the exploitation of a typical US phobia.<br /><br />Richard Gere's acting was good as usual but the blond girl that's supposed to replace him was wishy washy at best. Totally unconvincing for the job.<br /><br />The film tries to exploit a popular theme and gives it a cheap, dramatic, and sensational turn that just is unreal. They just use sex offenders as an excuse to indulge in cheap violent acts of murders, vigilante beating, rape and torture - something that almost seems gratuitous. They even have a wolf attacking people in the film - how low can you get.<br /><br />I gather the film won't come out in the USA and will go straight to DVD. That's were it should have stayed in other countries too, but because it's Hollywood and Richard Gere they just had to show it. Believe me, without Gere, the film is not even worth a B-series movie.
The Flock is not really a movie. It's a wannabe movie, with wannabe actors. Not including Richard Gere, he gave an excellent performance, but when only one of the actors truly gives himself to his character, and the rest of the cast is just acting... the result is pathetic, just like this movie. You see, the idea of acting is to hide the fact that you're acting. What the hell was Claire Dains doing in this one?! She's the most inappropriate actress for this character. In 99.9% of the movie she looked extremely out of place, out of everything!! The only thing she was doing was asking stupid questions, like " do you really think so?? " , and making silly faces. I was embarrassed by her acting, seriously, and I used to like her... She's the romantic movie type, I don't know who picked her among all the actresses out there.... LOL, and seeing Avril Lavigne?! this really made me laugh.. Anyway.. If you want to get the feeling of throwing up, this movie will do the job for you!!! I wish I could vote -5..
A bad rip-off attempt on "Seven", complete with sub-second-grade acting, awful camera work, half-baked story and strong aftertaste of lame propaganda. Yeah, them "sex offenders", they live next door and you're gonna get raped, really.<br /><br />No surprises from the vice-terminatrix woman, she acts as always -- as convincingly as a piece of wood. Richard Gere keeps on sliding lower and lower -- and is about as low here as a late Steven Seagal.<br /><br />The singer woman with the crazy eyes is best when she's dead in bed; and even the wolf was sub-par (although she was the best performer in the movie) -- maybe they fed her before the shots, or something.<br /><br />Unlike "Seven", which had a (made up, but interesting) story, to which one could relate more or less regardless of the country, this movie seems to focus on a US-only obsession. If one doesn't care much about "sex offenders" -- and the statistics are that lack of exercise and bad diet cause more pain, suffering and death -- there is little reason to see it, or to be afraid.<br /><br />There are some body part fetishes and some snuff, but the gore is less then mediocre, and fails both as artistic device (because it is pointless) and as gore, because it is not gory enough.<br /><br />Don't waste time on this one.
first this deserves about 5 stars due to acting (some which would give me a better subjective opinion and NOT an objective one as it should by giving this one, WELL DESERVED, star) but then i know that those facts are used for the actor(S) NAMES to increase the rating of something like this...<br /><br />i do have a problem with such productions; yet another attempt (just like "untraceable") of a systematic propagandistic feature promoting government intrusion on your rights( how interesting that it comes at a moment when IPS providers trying to "preferentiate" = CENSOR information, and the Americans and Canadians are fighting AGAINST that at this very moments). this time is not by labeling torrent file transfers as evil ( that one was intended to remind you of such feeling whenever you transfer data on the net), but by literally attempting in creating a sexual frustrated population as a whole. SEEMS LIKE FEAR PROMOTION IS HOLLYWOOD'S NORM THIS DAYS, especially when coming to thrillers which is the most "on demand" motion picture genre for past 2 decades or so = most viewed, best way to try influence the society as a whole. such levels of violence are depicted in this 2 features of morally and "ethical" people, that it gives a new much needed meaning to "anti-heroes" figures. make no mistake , this is NOT "DEXTER" which was meant to be high-quality entertainment.STOP SELLING "FEAR" please, the world would be a better place without it and the dollars made of it.<br /><br />the opening scene and generally the first 10 minutes really give a frightful picture of an Erroll Babbage that is CLEARLLY suffering of sexual frustration. the way he handles the black male is very disturbing if not outright racist(for sure a "cliche" at least) ( in real life someone would probably get a beating for it, you will see what i mean). the second scene ( with Claire Danes's character present) is even more extreme. at that point i realized, in my opinion that Erroll Babbage is a very dangerous individual to people around him.how many people, that have seen or will see this movie, have never been "hold down"(regarding BOTH sexes) out of self, COMMON gratification!?.typically the movie gives an extreme CRIMINAL case(that unfortunately did, is and will likely happen again sometime , somewhere) BUT fingers everyone else indirectly as well as "you could become that", etc. anyone that is familiar with Sigmund Freud and Jung will know very well that sexuality is not something to be judged let alone "asses" , by such fanatical "hero" here. SAFE sex in its many forms IS healthy and not some evil that apparently Richard Gere character is obsessed with , on his way for some sexual "crusade". have we not learned anything from the abundant recent scandals involving priests and young boys!? or for how long an American teenager can see extreme violence on "pg-13" but he can not even see a woman breast until "R-18"!?!?( yet the industry targets them with this VERY SAME sexual perversions like "american pie" series for example).raise the kids tester-one levels but frustrate them and drive them underground in developing fetishes to UNhealthy EXTREMES!? all sexual activities(upon MUTUAL acceptance) integrates individuals better then some "rightous" nut-case, THAT blames his misfortunes and shortcomings on "the lives of others"( a new German movie that would work great in comparing this 2 distinct and world apart features on the very same subject).here, like in that movie, you will probably appreciate the actors for well portraying the opposite of what they should have been.<br /><br />i am very disappointed with Richard Gere especially after the recent " hunting party", a feature where he really shines and about a more realistic "hero"( after real facts as well).but then it just reminds me that all those people are only actors that get paid to play someone's political and social agenda. "the flock" and "untraceable" 2 heads of the same hidden beast)))it just reminds you, if know anyone with similar views on the subject as a WHOLE, as Erroll Babbage has those here, to stay clear of them for THEIR own safety.they would kill my family faster then any 0.00001 chances of Paul Jerrod in anyone's life would...<br /><br />in the end i recommend this to anyone thinking negative here about MY "assesment" of this particular movie ( and "untraceable" actually), so you can likely have similar thoughts as i did. nothing sweeter then a propagandistic movie shooting itself in the "foot".))))for once i agree with the rating, this is not a feature for teenagers or kids; simply because at best would confuse them even more then the "common" belief of "money+fame+fashion" and how that relates to sexuality. "scream" series and movies as such AT LEAST have a defined entertainment value(even if a dumb one in my opinion). but this one is just another "trust me i know what is good for you" deeply (not so well done i might add) subliminal messages.
The reasons to watch this knock off... err... tribute to a great movie called Se7en: - It's on while your channel surfing and there's nothing else on. - Someone pays you to watch it.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and pop in the DVD for Se7en, rent it, download it on iTunes, or put it in your Netflix cue and skip The Flock entirely. The Flock the same story with with a few changes. Furthermore the editing just wreaks of Se7en and actually ends up taking you out of the story several times. The worst one is probably the fly over desert helicopter shots, with sounds of people people chattering over the radio, except there are no police helicopters flying overhead in this one.<br /><br />Bottom line: I call it a blatant knock off. If you wanna be nice you can call it a tribute film, go ahead, but either way go watch Se7en.
I really have problems rating this movie. It is directed brilliantly, there is obviously a lot of money in it. Gere and Danes are intense (although her screen personality could use a bit more defining and spicing up), editing and cinematography are excellent. On the other hand, it is one of those really really sick movies where one cannot help but wonder whether the director himself likes to stage specific scenes, and, yes, one cannot help but wonder how many copycats will such a movie inspire.<br /><br />In purely artistic terms, it is a 9, but I really have to ask myself who these people are giving their money to produce such a movie ....
I saw this film last night (about 102 minutes) and don't know what kept me in my seat. I guess I just expected a film with Gere would have some value in it eventually but nothing of value ever came on the screen. The story is a silly excuse to pile on shot after shot of bondage and torture. There is not a character in the film that does anything like real life. The cutting "style" relies on jump cuts, mini flashbacks and overprinting to give weight to this vapid setup of a gang of sadists apparently running free for years and SURPRISE the leader is the "victim" of an executed killer. I don't see how Gere, a Buddhist, got involved in this violent, sexist trash.
Although Twenty Minutes of Love is a harmless attempt at an early comedy, it was difficult to follow and the film quality was not very good. It does have a couple of moments that are funny, but I have seen better by Charlie Chaplin.
In 1914, Charlie Chaplin began making pictures. These were made for Mack Sennett (also known as "Keystone Studios") and were literally churned out in very rapid succession. The short comedies had very little structure and were completely ad libbed. As a result, the films, though popular in their day, were just awful by today's standards. Many of them bear a strong similarity to home movies featuring obnoxious relatives mugging for the camera. Many others show the characters wander in front of the camera and do pretty much nothing. And, regardless of the outcome, Keystone sent them straight to theaters. My assumption is that all movies at this time must have been pretty bad, as the Keystone films with Chaplin were very successful.<br /><br />The Charlie Chaplin we know and love today only began to evolve later in Chaplin's career with Keystone. By 1915, he signed a new lucrative contract with Essenay Studios and the films improved dramatically with Chaplin as director. However, at times these films were still very rough and not especially memorable. No, Chaplin as the cute Little Tramp was still evolving. In 1916, when he switched to Mutual Studios, his films once again improved and he became the more recognizable nice guy--in many of the previous films he was just a jerk (either getting drunk a lot, beating up women, provoking fights with innocent people, etc.). The final evolution of his Little Tramp to classic status occurred in the 1920s as a result of his full-length films.<br /><br />It's interesting that this film is called TWENTY MINUTES OF LOVE since the film only lasts about 10 minutes! Oh well. The plot, what little there is, involves the Little Tramp in the park. A couple wants to neck but inexplicably, Charlie insists on practically sitting on the couple's lap and really annoying them. I can't understand why and the short consists of Charlie wandering about the park annoying these people and some others later in the film. Perhaps he was looking for a threesome, I don't know. But the film lacks coherence and just isn't particularly funny--even when people start slapping each other and pushing each other in the lake. A typical poor effort before Chaplin began to give his character a plot and personality.
A quite usual trashy Italo-Western, stupid storyline full of clichés and lack of logic, some mediocre actors, dirty settings, lots of punch-fights and people shoot dead on a massive scale.<br /><br />This has nothing to do with Django. - At least not in my German translated version, this German DVD-release is called "Adios Companeros" and has Macho Callaghan fighting against Butch Cassidy and Ironhead because their gang killed his one (he's the only survivor). Then you have Butch Cassidy and Ironhead fighting each other because they quarreled and the gang split. And you have Ironhead fighting against everyone because he's just the biggest and most greedy asshole anyway. Yeah, that's it, no more cleverness in the storyline, hehe.<br /><br />A small role by Klaus Kinski as Reverend Cotton is remarkable (that's why I bought this DVD). In one scene he attempts to separate two men fighting by hitting them and screaming "I said love!" and in another scene he wins a competition in throwing horseshoes and goes nuts for a second - FANTASTICFANTASTICFANTASTIC!!!<br /><br />It's also remarkable that JOE d'AMATO aka Aristide Massaccesi did the cinematography - I love this master of incompetent exploitation-thrash, so it was an "aahhh" for me.
I am a big fan of the Spaghetti Western Genre, and I usually also like most of the cheaply made ones. Infamous Director Demofilo Fidani, however, is rightly known for some of the cheapest, trashiest, and, well, worst contributions to the genre. The plots of Fidani's movies were usually very weak, and since his talent was quite limited, he usually tried to sell the movies by adding famous Spaghetti Western names like "Django" of "Sartana" to the titles. I the particular case of "Giù La Testa... Hombre" of 1971 he just took the title of Sergio Leone's "Giù La Testa" (aka. "Duck You Sucker") and added 'Hombre'. The movie can be found under various titles ("Fistful Of Death", "Western Story"...), I personally bought it under the name "Adios Companeros", which this movie shares with another Fidani film with almost the same cast, "Per Una Bara Piena Di Dollari", which is also entitled "Adios Companeros" in the German language version.<br /><br />The plot is rather weak, it basically follows a guy named Macho Callaghan (Jeff Cameron) and his involvement with two rivaling outlaw gangs lead by Butch Cassidy (Jack Betts) and Ironhead (Gordon Mitchell).<br /><br />The leading performance by Jeff Cameron is, kindly stated, not very convincing. Neither did I find Jack Betts very good as 'Butch Cassidy'. B-movie legend Gordon Mitchell, however, is always worth a try, and although he probably wasn't a very good actor, I always found his performances in the Spaghetti Westerns quite funny and original, and he actually saved some of Fidani's movies (such as the rather crappy "Django And Sartana... Showdown in the West").<br /><br />There is one very funny and original thing about "Giù La Testa... Hombre" - the great Klaus Kinski is playing a priest! I could have imagined Kinski in any role, but before seeing this movie I would never have guessed that anybody would cast him as a priest. Kinski is, once again, great, although he has only little screen time, and one scene, where he breaks up a fight, is probably the only good scene in this. One more interesting thing about this film is that the legendary director and king of sleaze Joe D'Amato did the cinematography.<br /><br />"Giù La Testa... Hombre" is a cheap, crappy film, but nevertheless, it has some funny moments. Being a Spaghetti Western enthusiast, I found it fun to watch, but if you're not, never mind this movie, or watch it only for the purpose of seeing Kinski play a priest. 3/10
that's incredible! Fidani (who he was also a spiritist) was one of the cheapest director of all the world. This movie stole the original title of Leone's "Duck you sucker!" but tell the boring story of a Pinkerton agent against the killer "Testa di Ferro" (the improbable Gordon Mitchell, a stuntman). All is poor and crazy in this pelicula filmed into the dear landscapes of Lazio. The story is bad and crazy at the same time. Fidani was not able and ingenuos at the same time. Into the story happened some kind of crazy illogical things (like the discussion into the Sheriff's house and the demential appearance of Butch Cassidy !?!?!?!?!? yes, really Butch Cassidy,who is portrayed like an idiot). Terribles nuit americaine, absurd comportaments, illogic plot, bad acting and a fugace appearance by one of the most rewarded anchorman in the story of italian television, Renzo Arbore. Ah, of course: Klaus Kinski. Yes is great and terrible, but i'm sure he was in it only for money an for playing with iron horses) 2 of 10 but...DON'T MISS IT!!!!!
The Ballad of Django is a meandering mess of a movie! This spaghetti western is simply a collection of scenes from other (and much better!) films supposedly tied together by "Django" telling how he brought in different outlaws. Hunt Powers (John Cameron) brings nothing to the role of Django. Skip this one unless you just HAVE to have every Django movie made and even THAT may not be a good enough excuse to see this one!!
The only remarkable fact is the participation of Klaus Kinski who plays a priest. Don't ask me why he does it! A bad, bad movie overall.<br /><br />
Oh, this is so bad, it is funny. The only way one could explain something like this is a porn party with drugs that resulted in the resolution to make a movie just for fun. I mean: you get to see porn actresses topless, having sex, then killed by human mutants. There is plenty of gore, including the classic "something is wrong with her, oh no, it's half the person she used to be" and the accidental murder caused by panic. But you can also find funny stuff like intestines pulled through someone's ass and a guy running in the woods then finding himself decapitated by a wire tied between two trees (that makes a metallic doiiing sound afterward, like in cartoons). Somehow there is a market for people going beyond porn, they really need to know what's inside an actress, mere genitals are not enough. Therefore you get to see plenty of summary autopsies on slain bimbos. There is NO dialog. Jenna and Chasey have really small parts and I really wonder what Richard Grieco wanted when accepting a role here. I think this is a film one must watch with the button on fast forward and watch only the juicy stuff, just to be reminded of the old school C class horror movies.
Tourists head to Ireland for a school trip to learn about Druids. What they encounter is a horrific tale of cannibalistic killers.<br /><br />If I had to sum up Evil Breed, it would be a low grade gore fest. The film mixes Dead Alive, Evil Dead, Wrong Turn all in one. It's just too bad that the film has so many inconsistencies to keep track of that it loses any "fun" one would have watching it. The film has lots of random "horror" nudity...although the film also stars four porn stars, yup four, so there could have been plenty more. Breed also showcases a good amount of gore. <br /><br />Evil Breed has a horrible start, with laughable dialogue and horrible acting. That's a given in a straight to video horror film, but this takes the cake. I can't really figure out who the main character is, since the one female who "lives" at the end is not really in the movie all that much. Speaking of the ending, that has to be one of the most random and bogus ending in the history of film. It has no purpose with the rest of the film and totally changes one's view of the film.<br /><br />You have to see this film to believe it, since there are some pretty great death scenes. There are two death scenes that come into my mind, one in which the inbred killer rips the intestines out of a naked woman through her chest....yea her chest, don't ask me. The other id when the guy gets his intestines, yet again, ripped out through his asshole. Does that kill the guy? No, the killer continues to strangle the guy with his own intestines. These scenes remind me so much of Dead-Alive, with the right amount of humour in each. I also got the sense of Evil Dead, with the pointless mentions of horror films and Sam Raimi. Along with Halloween, when the female character is in a closet screaming for her life with the killer trying desperately;y to get in.<br /><br />Although, the gore and nudity are not enough for the poor audio and visual quality of the film. When the teacher wakes up from her bed and walks down the stairs, her footsteps are so loud and hard that it seems like she was wearing boots. Distracting indeed. As well as the continuity in the film, with only one inbred killer? As well as which character dies at which moment. I couldn't tell if the breast implant chick was Jenny or Gary's sister/cousin...I can't remember. As well as the random naked chick with a dead baby hanging out of her body, still attached with the umbilical cord.<br /><br />The horrible editing is distracting as well, the opening credits are too fast and disorienting. It did have a bad start and got better, but the ending just brings the film back down to a horrible level. If maybe there were better production values and more faith put into this film, then it wouldn't have been horribly butchered to death. Stay away from this film, unless you are happy with the below budget horrible bad film with decent gore.
Justifications for what happened to his movie in terms of distributors and secondary directors, drunks and receptionists doing script rewrites aside, let's just take this movie as it's offered, without extraneous explanations.<br /><br />This movie is God awful. Straight up craptastic. Rather than rehash what may serve as a plot, I'll run a highlight reel of some curious points that made me scratch my head.<br /><br />A class (of 5) take a field trip for a history class to the middle of friggin' nowhere Ireland. These students may be Canadian or American, it's difficult to tell. That it was filmed in a Canadian forest rather than Ireland is rather obvious as well. One student seems to know nothing about history and is basically the "dumb jock" character from a number of kick ass 80's movie, except when he channels Randy from Scream. One character may be Chris Klein's stunt double. He has a girlfriend who probably gets killed, but it's never really established if that is true. One character is sullen and removed from her peers...just...cuz... and then there's a blonde girl. Yay blonde girl.<br /><br />Ireland has a population of 2. They're cousins. Gary, who is clearly the same age or younger than the rest of the cast, is called "sir" more than once. He's very ominous and wears a knit cap. His cousin is a roughed up porn star with the worst Irish accent to befoul film in my lifetime and most likely beyond.<br /><br />Picturesque Ireland features many Canadian forests and swampy areas and 2 ducks which appear more than once in cut scenes.<br /><br />The producers got a discount on volume fake entrails. Good for them.<br /><br />Unbeknownst to me, horribly inbred freaks have access to brand spanking new hunting knives. Perhaps there's some kind of outdoorsman outlet nearby with a blind and deaf clerk working the register.<br /><br />Also unbeknownst to me, if you inbreed for roughly 600 years, as the story leads us to believe happened, you end up being somewhat lumpy, yet amazingly spry and fairly strong. Genetics are a wonderful game of craps.<br /><br />There may or may not be more than one freak in this film. Reference is made to "them" and we see shadows, yet only one odd looking dude is seen ever. And when one odd looking dude is finally killed, apparently all danger is passed. I'm running with my initial assumption that no one thought to outfit a second man in full make up, thus they just used the one. That's what it looks like on screen, anyway.<br /><br />Richard Grieco should be ashamed.<br /><br />Also of note, aside from those shiny new knives, the inbred freaks have access to some posh leather gear, as once Richard Grieco cuts his bonds, there are fresh ones ready for the next sucker who gets tied up...who also then escapes, because the chains give you enough slack to just undo them, making one wonder why they even bother tying anyone up.<br /><br />A dead body in a shack will be maggot-ridden after what I would guess is about 2 hours has passed. Said dead body will also have glasses on, when no characters wore them. Curious.<br /><br />Jenna Jameson appears for no reason from stage left, chats for 2 minutes, vanishes stage left. In the middle of a giant forest. That's not unusual, as Gary can also pop out of nowhere, which is also known as whatever exists in TV land off the screen.<br /><br />Ms. Jameson dies sadly and somehow her clothes vanish like my hopes that this movie wouldn't suck wind.<br /><br />I offer a special nod to the "Breeder" character, the poor girl who has been used by the freaks for months (or maybe years) for breeding purposes. The poor girl who still has eye shadow on and emotes on camera with all the passion and conviction of a stuffed chihuahua.<br /><br />The ending of this movie was clearly tacked on by a drunk or someone with a fierce mental disability that has been cultivated and encouraged with excessive gasoline drinking over the years.<br /><br />Apparently this wasn't just random crap I found on the movie network late at night, apparently people have heard of and even followed this movie through it's production. How sad for you all. I have nothing more to say. May God have mercy on us all.
Understand i'm reviewing the film I have seen. I realize virtually all the nudity and gore was cut from this film, thus neutering it completely. When seeing names like Ginger Lynn and Jenna Jameson attached, I knew I wasn't going to get a horror classic, but at the very least I expected gratuitous boobies and bloodshed. But no, this has got to be the most butchered modern horror film, I mean it's easy to tell there is much more to certain scenes', but they suddenly cut away, or the scene just totally ends right as it begins. How does one screw up cannibals' and porn stars? I mean thats a winning formula, it makes me wonder if the director slept with some executive's wife or something, because it is literally amazing how much got cut from this. Reading about it a few years back in Fangoria, I was excited, it looked like a fun film, but unfortunately the true film is locked in a vault somewhere, and we must endure this piece of excrement retitled Evil Breed. Hopefully an unrated cut will be released someday, as I think a good movie exists in this mess, but until then best grab a twelve pack of Bud, cause thats the only way you'll make it through this movie.
Evil Breed is a very strange slasher flick that is unfortunately no good.The beginning of the film seems promising but overall it's a disaster.The dialogue is pretty bad but not near as bad as the acting.The acting is brutal and unbearable.Most of the characters deliver there lines horribly and even if that is on purpose the method doesn't work because the characters become annoying.Some of the kills are innovative but it took far too long to get to them.After about a half hour through the movie we get the first death (other than in the beginning)and then almost every other character is smoked within the next five minutes.The movie then turned into sort of a spoof with ridiculous looking characters,unrealistic karate like fights,and a scene in which a man gets his intestines pulled out of his a*sscrack.None of it is funny it's just plain ridiculous.The film then becomes ultra gory and ultra pointless.Most of the characters are clichéd even for slasher standards and are as solid as butter left on the counter for 5 days.Evil Breed isn't even laughably bad therefore it fails in it's main task.Watch Texas Chainsaw Massacre,Just Before Dawn,or See No Evil for a real slasher.
I have been watching horror movies since I was 5 years old, beginning with Childs Play.Since then, I have seen good horror movies and bad, but this is without question, the DUMBEST movie I have ever seen! The actors did all they could with the material. The plot was just idiotic. Plus , it was just all gore. I can stomach a lot of blood, but that was just ridiculous! In one of the scenes, a character gets stabbed in the rear end and choked with his intestines! Plain Stupid! Another problem with this movie is that its boring and probably the slowest movie ever made. The end of it is just dumb. But then again, it goes with the rest of it! At the end, when the girl gets away from the cannibal/ancestor, she receives help from a old lady. The old lady is making tea, but when she turns around to talk to the girl, the girl attacks her! She turned into a cannibal! Retarded movie.
Yes, definitely better than my viewing of Death Tunnel. Actually some of the deaths were pretty original and the gore was decent. It was kind of like Wrong Turn meets the Hills Have Eyes.<br /><br />BUT: 1.) When the "kids" (high school or college?) are discussing horror movies in the kitchen, everything Shae says is almost an exact quote from Scream (1996). The thing about the big-breasted girls etc.<br /><br />2.) Was Steve NOT a bootleg Randy from Scream? 3.) Besides the fact that it took place in October, what the hell did the movie have to do with Samhain? Pretty unnecessary if you ask me. I find it humorous when I see those horror movies from the 80's that explain away loose ends by pointing the fingers at the druids or a pentagram.<br /><br />4.) Wow they made a Sam Raimi reference!!! 5.) Why was Gary and his sister in the movie? They're characters had nothing to do with anything. And hes so psychic that he couldn't even see his OWN death? 6.) When Gary was being killed in the bathroom (at that point, the deaths became simply Troma-licious) how could she hear the screams when she was downstairs but not hear them when she was standing outside the door? 7.) Gary's sister commented on Haggis- thats primarily a Scottish dish, not Irish.<br /><br />8.) So the lesson is if you ARE like Shae and don't have any fun or crack a smile through the whole film, you'll be the one to live? 9.) The mutants were pretty cool, but they looked like walking dishes of Chili con carne.<br /><br />10.) When they brought in Gary's sister, did they forget that Steve HAD been strapped there and wonder where he went? 11.) Was there not more than one killer? Shae beat that one, but never encountered any more of them.<br /><br />12.) What was with the flashbacks to those other people? Half of them Shae didn't know if they were dead or alive, so what was with that? 13.) Why didn't they kill Gary and his sister before? 14.) Why did no one ever call the police? And apparently everybody KNEW those people lived in the woods, why did they never organize some kind of raid? 15.)As far as I know, they were not zombies OR vampires- so how could she "turn into" one at the end? I'm with everyone else on the giant "huh?" at the end.<br /><br />Way better than death tunnel, but still quite sloppy. I still don't understand why they even placed it IN Ireland, considering Samhain had close to nothing to do with the plot.
I really don't get how people made this film and thought it was worth all the work they put into it. Even more puzzling are those who watched this film without feeling cheated out of 88 minutes of doing something valuable like cleaning under the couch or reading Leviticus. <br /><br />First of all, surely they could have 2 found real Irish people, and some good-looking women who could deliver their lines better than the washed up, haggard porn stars sprinkled throughout this film. Granted, the gore works- but strangely, it's not as troubling as you might think to see organs yanked out of the porn stars' hot (formerly) tight bodies left and right. Probably has something to do with the fact that after their horrific inhuman acting you just want them to die in pain.<br /><br />So, if you don't care at all about the following: <br /><br />- acting (seriously, everyone sucked. I've never witnessed this before. EVERYONE sucked).<br /><br />-plot (some crappy horror movies are remotely linear, or at the very least surprising. This movie doesn't make sense unless you're as trashed as the writers obviously were). <br /><br />- theme (Nothing to learn from this film. Nothing to be scared about in bed at night, nothing to contemplate or grasp, or explain to others). <br /><br />- soundtrack (Crap, crap, crap. Music as ordinary and dull as the script). <br /><br />- scenery (Could have been this film's saving grace, but no...nothing pleasing here. Even the rocks are fake).<br /><br />So, yeah. If you don't care about that, and you're just a horny teen with bad taste in music and "women," this movie is for you. Positive comments: interesting cinematography at times, wasted on the other elements. Very realistic gore; again, wasted. But the intestines scene is classic. I agree with the mutant- disembowelment solves the fake accent problem.
Rented a batch of films from Blockbuster last night, and this was the first one I watched (it was late on a Saturday night, wanted a "horror film fix")...<br /><br />Wow, this was awful, almost embarrassingly so... Stupid slasher-type story I really thought films like Scream had put an end to; amateur actors delivering clichéd' and insipid dialogue that is hard to believe was actually typed and read off a page; and gore scenes that are nothing to get excited about (especially when occurring in a film this poorly scripted).<br /><br />But I've always believed no film is 100% percent totally worthless. Here's the few good things I can say about this mess: <br /><br />#1 Bobbie Phillips: love this actress. She's the only member of the cast who displays any acting talent whatsoever. The only reason I took a chance on renting this is because her name was on the front cover. She acquits her presence in this dreck with professionalism, even though she looks bemused at times that she's acting in such a moronic story.<br /><br />#2 Unintentional Hilarity: This is the kind of film I can remember seeing back when there were still grind house theaters around the country and they used to include crap like this as the third movie on a triple-bill with some prestige thriller movie that was finally making it's way to the hinterlands. Unfortunately, in this direct-to-video age, most viewers have to endure these turkeys alone now without the communal experience of being part of an audience jeering and throwing stuff at the screen because the film is so terrible. Which leads to--<br /><br />#3 Porn Stars Trying To Act!: Mostly on hand because the producers don't need to cajole or plead with them to disrobe for extended sex scenes, but this trade-off usually means they actually get to speak some lines that are supposed to advance a story (other than "ooh yeah baby", or "harder!"). And, proudly, they all deliver expertly at looking foolish when trying to act. I'd almost exclude Ginger Lynn Allen from this group if her character wasn't supposed to be an Irish mom and she's actually attempting at times to do an accent, which just keeps the smiles coming.<br /><br />It's nice to look for the positive in all experiences, and that's what I took from this cesspool a.k.a "Evil Breed"
Karen(Bobbie Phillips)mentions, after one of her kids gets out of hand with his lame annoying jokes, that she'll never survive this trip..boy, is she ever on the money. Karen is a school teacher taking her group of kids from the Shepley College of Historical Studies to the butt ugly locale of a run-down manor in the major dung-heap of Ireland..surely there are places in this country more appeasing to the senses than this?! The caretaker of the manor, Gary(Simon Peacock)warns Karen and her students to stay on the path and not to stray into the forest. There's a myth regarding the Sawney Bean Clan, a ritualistic druid cannibalistic inbred family celebrate Samhain(the end of Summer, October 31st)"Feast of the Dead" where sacrifices are needed to appease the spirits. Gary is supposedly clairvoyant, his cousin Pandora(Ginger Lynn Allen)tells us, because he was born on Samhain. Funny, because he sure doesn't see outcomes well or even give advice accurately. Nearly everyone dies(..even those who never stray from the path)and he doesn't even see his own gruesome fate. What this monster we hear breathing is a victim of way too much inbreeding..it's face resembles a malformed mushroom and it looks like a hideous reject from a Mad Max picture. It doesn't take long before the "evil breeder" is killing everyone. Paul(Howard Rosenstein)is Karen's love interest who made the wrong decision coming to Ireland without his girlfriend's prior knowledge.<br /><br />Horrible formula slasher doesn't stray from the norm. It's minuscule budget shows loudly and the characters are assembly line clichés churned out yet again to be slaughtered in the usual gory ways. Most of the violence flashes across the screen quickly with not much dwelling on the breeder's acts of death towards his victims. Lots of guts get pulled out during the fast edit cuts as one scene whisks to another. Seeing Gillian Leigh's gorgeous naked body for a moment or two isn't incentive enough to recommend it. Phil Price has the really irritating trickster character, Steve, often shedding bad jokes..how he is able to get Leigh's Barbara naked in the shower for some action is anyone's guess because I have no reason why he'd stand a chance with such a hottie. Brandi-Ann Milbrant has the fortunate role of Shae, the quiet virgin smart girl(who is also quite hot)who we know will be the one chosen by the screenplay to survive. Jenna Jameson drops by long enough to get her heart cut out of her chest(at least we see her breasts momentarily before her chest is opened up)with a few minor lines about two missing friends she's looking for. The film's main problem is that the story and character development grinds to a halt because it's realized that none of them are at all interesting so director Christian Viel just lets loose his monster to run rampant causing carnage, obliterating an entire cast almost in one fail swoop within ten minutes. Oh, and Richard Grieco has a minor opening cameo as a victim who strayed off the path to tent camp with his chick.
First of all, Jenna Jameson is the best actress in this movie, and she's just awful. This movie has every horror move cliché in imagination, and all badly played. The over-sexed teen couple. The comical(not)horny jock. The snotty cool chick. The creepy local color guy. The parental-type couple. The virginal chick who amazingly never dies in these films. The dialogue is so painfully awful and delivered with the depth of a wading pool. It's almost like you're wishing that they'd all die sooner. I saw the rough cut of this film a while ago, but somehow, this just got worse. Sure, the funniest thing in here is the ghoul trying to eat Jameson's implants, but that hardly rates even a rental of this dog. Avoid at all costs.
This started bad, got worse, and by the time the girl attacked the old lady at the end i literally wanted to take the DVD to the person we borrowed it off and choke the C**T to death with it. Avoid this film, a little bit of good cinematography and some naked shots, would be almost acceptable if i was 14 and had not seen Jenna Jameson naked a million times. If anyone feels the need to watch this film, i would strongly recommend you spend the time more appropriately, as an example i would say trying to cram a Lego house into your bum with no lube would be a good start. I hear that this film was not the original version, i would very much like to view the original, as it seems that this cut version is devoid of all plot, and apparently most of the nudity, can someone please tell me how i can get in touch with Christian Viel he owes me an hour of my life back!
I had to register for IMDb just to post a comment on just how awful this movie is...my cats and a ball of string have a better storyline than this. Not the worst acting I've ever seen, but when you wipe out almost the entire cast of the movie within 5 minutes, it leaves a bit to be desired. There wasn't a single 'scare' moment in the movie, with the exception of when they were watching the movie 'Halloween' on the TV. All around, it seems like it could've been a good story, rolling the credits and saying that Chasey Lain was in it was a bit of a loss as I didn't recognize her right away and her scene was already over before I could've said 'oh yeah, there she is'. I'm so glad I saw this in a hotel and didn't pay for it as I'd be real ticked if I had payed a cent to see this. I normally like or can at least find a redeeming factor in a movie, but this one is an exception. It's so bad that it's not even that amusing so-good-it's-bad....it's just plain bad.
Thanks to this film, I now can answer the question, "What is the worst movie you have ever seen?"<br /><br />I can't even think of a close second, and I've seen some really bad movies.<br /><br />Absolutely nothing works in this film. Name a single element of any horror film and this movie fails. Honestly, I've seen better on YouTube. Here's some typical dialogue:<br /><br />"Steve?" "Steve?" "Steve, is that you?" "Steve, I'm not kidding" "Steve, this isn't funny!" "Steve, are you there?" "Steve?" "Steve?" "Steve?"<br /><br />"ARggh!!!! Ahhhhhh!!!! Nooooooo!"
Four porn stars romping through the Irish woods sounds like a film to watch. We have Ginger Lynn Allen, Chasey Lain, Taylor Hayes, and Jenna Jameson all together in one film. Are you licking your lips? Well the mutant creatures who resulted from centuries of inbreeding were certainly licking their lips as they feasted on the entrails of their victims.<br /><br />Yes, there was some flesh exposed - far too little considering the cast - but, it was soon ripped open to expose dinner for these creatures. There was definitely some action that probably has not been seen before, and more than one person lost their head in the situation.<br /><br />Unfortunately, director Christian Viel did not show much promise and I am not likely to watch his later efforts.
For your own good, it would be best to disregard any positive reviews concerning this movie. This flick STINKS. Now, I like (at least in theory) low budget horror movies, but this one makes the worst mistake a low budget flick can make: It takes itself WAY too seriously. And, unfortunately, that's not it's only problem.<br /><br />It's the story of the murderous Beane clan of the British Ilses transposed to modern times. An interesting premise, but there are two things that are immediately perplexing about this film once you start watching it.<br /><br />#1- Why is the biggest name on the CD box Jenna Jameson? She's a below average looking woman who can't act, and she has a minor role. ANSWER: She's apparently a well known porn star (as you no doubt read in other reviews), so I guess this is a "cameo" appearance for her. She's giving the film much needed "name recognition", it seems. Her top billing isn't any indication of her talent, though, it's an indication of how UNtalented the rest of the cast is.<br /><br />#2- How can film makers be so stupid to think Canada can be passed off as Ireland? It doesn't even remotely look like Ireland. And the house that the guests/victims stay in is this great big North American wood frame Edwardian thing. They should have skipped the whole Beane theme and developed a story that took place in N.A. Also, if you're going to make a movie that takes place in Ireland, it's probably best to have more than one character with an Irish accent (and that was a REALLY REALLY REALLY BAD Irish accent.) Now,this wouldn't have been so bad if the director wasn't trying to make the next "Night of the Living Dead", but it seems he was. Too bad. He could have had some fun with it. In fact, some of the scenes weren't far from being unintentionally comedic as they were.<br /><br />Like the infamous gutting scene, were the woman is chained to the table, stripped naked, and then sliced open and eviscerated. That's funny, you ask? Well, in the deleted scene version, the mutant killer pulls out mile after mile after mile of intestines. It's actually funny after awhile. And what self respecting cannibal eats intestines, anyway? Do we eat the intestines of cows and chickens? Heck no, we eat hams and ribs and drumsticks. Oh well.<br /><br />Some of the other cast who were annoying: the whiny, creepy Howard Rosenstein. I'm not sure, but I THINK he was supposed to be cast as a STUD. In fact, he's as big a loser and goof ball as his name would imply. Which would explain why the character played by the equally annoying Gillian Leigh fell for him.<br /><br />I checked Gillian Leigh on her link on IMDb, and apparently it's important to know that she graduated high school with honors. I can't decide if it's more amusing or pathetic to know that only a couple years after graduation, the honor student is doing nude soft-core porn scenes in a shower with a guy named Howard Rosenstein. Wonder if her former classmates have seen this movie? If they have, hopefully they'll get the message: AVOID THIS FATE! GO TO COLLEGE!!! I could go on and on, but why. If you like gore, you'll find something redeeming in this flick, but not much more.
please don't rent or even think about buying this movie.they don't even have it available at the red box to rent which would cost a $1 & i think its worth less than that.the main reason why i rented this d movie was because Jenna Jameson is in the movie lol between 2-5 min.i will give credit that the movie had hot chicks and quite a bit of nudity but other than that you might as well buy another d horror movie that has the same thing with nobody you know.Ginger Lynn has more acting time in this movie than Jenna & she's not even on the front cover of the movie nor her name.i recommend people to watch zombie strippers because you see Jenna almost throughout the whole movie & nude most of the time.this movie is a big disappointment & such a huge waste of time.
I only gave this ridiculously titled comedy horror flick a 2 because several famous porn stars of the past appear in it. A group of tourists, supposedly on vacation in Ireland but actually in Canada, run afoul of a cannibalistic inbred mutant something or other, and the plot is more or less right out of THE HILL HAVE EYES ands WRONG TURN. Only problem is, unless I miscounted, there's only one mutant on display, and he isn't all that impressive. Sort of like the potbellied mummy in that homemade film from about five years ago. Some gory but silly deaths help, but the film is strictly amateur night and boring beyond belief. The ending is predictable and has been done to death. No pun intended.
MAKE A 0 YOU SACKS OF German STAPLES! well, when i started to watch this sack of crud, it was a Sunday afternoon, and i was just looking for stuff on show time. I was introduced to a hot naked babe, and like any guy (im a guy, the e-mail is my sisters...) i was happy. But then they threw it all to the dogs, spit on it, lit it on fire, and peed it out. You wanna know how? THE DUMB CHICK TALKED! The dialog throughout the film was just horrible. sounded like something my 2nd grade bro could wright. The violence was nice for some scenes, but some was just totally moronic. The scene in the pit were he gives the guy the knife... dumb moron! To sum it up, this is pure cinema barf drenched in the chocolate syrup known as nudity, and topped with the cherry of horrible acting as only a porn star could deliver.
Did they use their entire budget paying the porno stars or what?!?<br /><br />Sound effects, background music and the editing in general was so bad you'd think some 12-year-old wanna-be made the film.<br /><br />Most of the acting was good considering the script... the "innocent virgin" played her part really well.<br /><br />The mutants look really cool and this actually could have been a really cool flick with the right brain behind the wheel... but, unfortunately for all involved, that's not the case.<br /><br />Turn Left was made better than this movie and those guys didn't even have any money!!! Good thing I didn't rent the movie myself!
He pulled the guys guts out his butt! That's a spoof right?! No one really writes that it just happens like improv gone horribly wrong. I think any way. This movie must be a spoof because who would say they wrote that script otherwise. Can anyone imagine the entire cast sitting around as the director and writers go over the storyboard.<br /><br />Director says, "next our inbreed villain uses his 24 inch machete to disembowel our token creepy neighbor. Get this, he is going to pull the guts out his bunghole"<br /><br />"Brilliant!" the entire cast proclaims.<br /><br />No way can that happen, nobody writes that stupid! Gotta be a spoof.<br /><br />I loved the part where the skinny introspective gal beats the inbreed freak to death with the cast iron skillet she finds on the floor of the cave. I wasn't sure the inbreed cannibal types bothered to cook much. Maybe that explains why the skillet was lying on the floor in the dark at just the right time to kill the malformed hulk. Seems ironic that after the freaky guy had bested martial arts expert porn queens and a couple out doors type jocks he falls so easily to the frying pan of a skinny defenseless girl next door. <br /><br />What the heck is that Richard Greco guy doing in this? Did he fire his agent or something? <br /><br />Can anyone explain the ending to me please because I didn't get it either? I can't quite figure why the nice hero girl wanted to kill the funny lady who was making her some tea. Never mind I don't want to know.
it was the worst ending i have ever seen if some one can please tell me how and why the last chick goes crazy and eats the old women in the end. why dose the movie have all those cheap crappy scares in it in the beginning but yet when the first person dies they kill them all off in 5 minutes! most of the people could act but i do give so credit to the porn stars they did their best. also it had a couple funny parts and kills like when the care taker gets his organs riped out of his ass and then gets choked with it. if this movie had an ending that could make any since i would have given it a 8 out of 10 but the ending made no since. the ending sucked but the rest was great
this film has its good points: hot chicks people die<br /><br />the problem... the hot Chicks barley get nude and you don't get to see many of the people dieing, mostly just lots of fast movements and screaming though there were two good kill scenes.<br /><br />also for those of you watching this for JENNA JAMESON she is just a side chearator with a very small role and Minor nude scenes.<br /><br />What this film needed.. script and story would be nice but I will not complain about that.. simply put it needs more nudity and better kill scenes cuz lets face it that is why we watch these flicks...<br /><br />I wouldn't waste my money on it...and if you must, wait until it's on the OLD shelves at your local video store
I have seen Dolemite and also (Avenging) Disco Godfather, two other fine works of the blaxploitation canon from our friend Rudy Ray Moore. But this film, The Human Tornado (aka Dolemite 2) will always hold a special place in my heart. For sheer goofiness, lack of skill in film production, and absolute enthusiasm (frankly a little too much), The Human Tornado cannot be topped.<br /><br />The opening scene sets the tone. Our old pal Dolemite is shacking up with a white woman, when some racist local cops raid the house for no good reason, and wouldn't you know it! The woman in bed with ol' Dole is none other than the sheriff's wife. Her cry when she sees him: "He made me do it!" Dolemite's cry: "&$*@$ are you for real???" Subtlety was never his strong point.<br /><br />Highlights? The cameo by a very young Ernie Hudson (of Ghostbusters fame), the continuity errors (characters looking one way in one shot, and another in the next, Dolemite's suit changing colors in every single shot of his nightclub act), and Queen Bee's demonic eyes in her first scene.<br /><br />But the real joy here is Rudy Ray Moore himself. Did the man really think he looked cool in this movie? I certainly don't know why, but you have to admire the sheer enthusiasm he has. Whether it be jumping totally naked off a cliff, or barking orders to his gang in rhyme (e.g: Quick! Into the cave! I have a plan to let that mother $*@(%& dig his own grave!) the man commits totally. Certainly he goes overboard, nevermore so than any time he's doing kung fu. The climactic battle is filmed at high speed, but occassionaly slows down to let Rudy pose and grits his teeth. I'm not sure if they wanted it too look like they sped up the film as an effect or if they really wanted us to believe he was that fast. In any event, "The Matrix" it is not.<br /><br />Human Tornado, much like the original Dolemite, is an incompetent film of enormous proportions. But at least it's fun, and certainly you have to give credit to these people for the effort. Just not that much. Enjoy with my hearty recommendations.
This rather formulaic swords and flying fists movie is a decent early display of John Woo's talents. The cinematography is excellent and some of the sword work is truly remarkable. Unfortunately the film labours under the burden of a dull story and a glaringly low budget (check some of the setbound fight scenes if you doubt me). Nonetheless, it's worth seeing, especially if you can catch in letterboxed.
Most of the episodes on Season 1 are awful..There is no comparison to Twilight Zone or Outer Limits, as they programs actually had decent story lines. Most of Amazing Stories are well dull..not amazing in the least..go rent or buy the Twilight Zone series...I have heard Season 2 of this series is much better..also for some reason on the DVD's they cut out the Ray Walston parts which further diminishes this compilation. The one cool thing is to see actors and actresses when they were younger in 1985...Most of the story lines are very predictable though and the series could of been better with twists and turns that left you wondering...
**SPOILERS** A bit ridicules made for TV movie has sexy and middle age gold-digger Isabelle Collins, Susan Tucci,doing a number on every man she comes in contact with in the movie. First winning over their hearts then their wallets and then, when their no longer any use to her, thrown in the wastepaper basket like a used up Kleenex tissue.<br /><br />Isabelle's first victim is non other then her abusive, on keeping Isabelle from raiding his bank account, husband Stewart, John O'Hurley. It's later in the movie when Isabelle gets very friendly with former plumber and now yacht salesman Richard Davis, Philip Casnoff, that she, without really telling him, has the totally love-sick Richard get a contract out on her unsuspecting husbands life. Getting this ex-convict, in fact as soon as he's released from prison, Daggett, Nicholas Campbell, to do the job on Stewart Richard soon finds out that he didn't get exactly what he paid, $15,000.00 in cash,for.<br /><br />Getting a little too greedy Daggett not only blew Stewart's brains out but took a solid gold watch, that Stewart offered him in order to spear his life, as well. The watch was easily traced to Daggett as he tried to pawn it at a local jewelry shop where he was quickly arrested. With Doggett spilling his guts out on who hired him to whack Stewart it doesn't take long for the long arm of the law to arrest Stewart's, by hiring Doggett, killer Isabelle's husband to be ex-plumber and yacht salesman Richard Davis! Davis' arrest by the police happens just as he and Isabelle took the vows of matrimony in a local church!<br /><br />Isabelle manipulates everyone, exclusively men that fall head over heels for her, to her advantage by getting them to do her dirty work. Always playing the part of the naive housewife or widow or lover or even client Isabelle seems to live a charmed life always one step ahead of the law and police. No matter what she does Isabelle covers her pretty behind so well that it's almost impossible to pin her down on any, in having others do them, of the many crimes that she commits, through a second party, in the film.<br /><br />After screwing, figuratively as well as literally, her first husband Steven her second husband, for less then ten seconds, Richard and finally her, or Richard's, attorney Gavin Kendrick, Kamar De Los Rey, Isabelle knows that it's only a matter of time before the police get wise to her. With the D.A getting both Richard and Kendrick to turn evidence against her Isabelle now knowing that everything is fast closing in on her makes her final move. Getting everything in order, by transferring all her cash overseas, Isabelle and her 10 year-old daughter Ruby, Lauren Collins, shoot down to the passport office in order to get clearance, passports, to get out of the country.<br /><br />It's then when the cagey and clever Isabelle makes her first and possibly last and fatal mistake in the movie. Isabelle is told by the passport clerk, Don Carrier, she'll have to wait a full 48 hours for her, and Ruby's, passport to clear! Just enough time for the police to find and arrest her! Outlandish ending that goes against almost everything and every ethic that's in a film noir or crime movie. An ending that will not only blow your mind but your concept of what's right and wrong in the world!
A thematic staple of cinema since its inception is that genre involving seductive women whose wiles and means entice susceptible men not only into their arms but also into dire circumstances that typically will only result in jeopardy for the male victims, along with incertitude as to whether or not temptresses will be forced to take their medicine, and here Susan Lucci performs as a siren, although her acting chops from a primarily soap opera pedigree are inadequate to make her performance a credible one. Isabelle (Lucci), inconstant wife of venture capitalist Stewart Collins (John O'Hurley), begins a love affair merely for fun with yacht salesman Richard Davis (Philip Casnoff), simply a bagatelle for her but an earnest matter of the heart for Richard, apparently mesmerized by his lover while she takes advantage of his ardour by engaging him in a risky plot that will graduate into a scheme of murderous intent. When Davis becomes convinced that guileful Isabelle is a victim of physical abuse administered by her husband, he desperately attempts to free her from what he feels is a marital trap in order that he may wed her himself, coming to believe that the only clear solution to his plight will be found in a rudimentary essay at hiring a professional assassin who will dispose of the allegedly violent Stewart. In the wake of the hit-man's assault upon Collins, a pair of police detectives, performed by Joe Grifasi and Dean McDermott, become increasingly curious concerning Isabelle's possible involvement in the crime, while at the same time reality dawns upon enraptured Richard who might have to pay a dear price in return for his inamorata's maneuvering. Lucci and Kasnoff are properly cast as a viable pair of conspirators, each giving a reading that makes for a boring rather than charming set of lovebirds, but O'Hurley and McDermott offer strong turns in a film that suffers from a hackneyed scenario as well as uninventive direction and design elements. Released upon a Fremantle DVD, this largely lustreless affair depicting a man 'neath the spell of a seductress does benefit from top-flight visual and sound quality, and although no extra features are provided, the above-average production quality enhances able efforts from cinematographer Robert Primes and composer Stephen Edwards.
I am completely appalled to see that the average rating for this movie is 5.2/10 For what affects me, it is definitely one of the worst movies I have ever seen and I still keep wondering why I watched it until the end. First of all, the plot is totally hopeless, and the acting truly awful. I think that any totally unknown actress would have been better for the role than Susan Lucci; concerning Mr. Kamar Del's Reyes, I think it would have been a better choice for him to remain in his "Valley of the Dolls". To sum up, it is total waste of time(and i'm trying to stay polite...) to avoid at any cost. My rating is 1 and I still think it is well paid, but since we cannot give a O....
This kind of film has become old hat by now, hasn't it? The whole thing is syrupy nostalgia turned in upon itself in some kind of feedback loop.<br /><br />It sure sounds like a good idea: a great ensemble cast, some good gags, and some human drama about what could have/might have been. Unfortunately, there is no central event that binds them all together, like there was in "The Big Chill", one of those seminal movies that spawned copycat films like this one. You end up wanting to see more of one or two particular people instead of getting short takes on everyone. The superficiality this creates is not just annoying, it's maddening. The below-average script doesn't help.
I was looking over our DVD tower last night for something to watch. We were between NetFlix mailings and it was a quiet Saturday night. I pulled one out that I never heard of before and realized it was borrowed from a friend. From the jacket, it sounded like a rip-off of "The Big Chill" but, with the all-star cast, felt it might be worth watching. Boy was I wrong!!! Not only was it like "The Big Chill," it was a rip-off almost character by character. The Bill Paxton character was a copy of William Hurt ("where have you been all this time" role) -spoiler warning- and, lo and behold, he remains behind to take care of the old place(cabin/camp). Kimberly Williams = Meg Tilly; jerk womanizer Matt Craven = Jeff Goldblum etc., etc. I found myself wondering why I'm even watching these people. There was insufficient character development for me to find any interest in them. How did "Unca Lou" even find these characters after 20 years? Plus it wasn't even funny, except when Perkins fell, err 'flopped' out of bed the first morning, it was a sign and I missed it. After it was over, I asked my wife, "Were there any endearing characters in this film? ... Are you sleeping over there?" She replied, "No, I'm still thinking...No, none I can think of."
Like watching a neighbor's summer camp home movies, "Indian Summer" is a sleep inducing bore. Eight alumni campers are barely introduced, when unbelievably boring flashbacks begin for characters we know nothing about. Fine actors, Alan Arkin, and Bill Paxton are totally wasted in this film. One camper's observation that "everything seems so much smaller than I remember it" is repeated at least ten times, enough to make you squirm. The anticipated pranks are neither funny or original, unless you think that short sheeting is a real "howler". This movie was a great disappointment considering the ample talent involved. "Indian Summer" did not make me homesick, just sick. - MERK
Wonderful cast wasted on worthless script. Ten or so adults reunite at the summer camp they attended as juveniles. Could this ever happen in a million years? It's simply a fantasy, and a boring one at that. Do they become teenagers again? Do they reenact their pranks, games, good times? They may try but ultimately the answer is: No. Is there any intrigue? Any suspense? Horror? Comedy? None of the above. How anyone can be entertained by this drivel is beyond me. I wanted to like this movie; I tried to like this movie, but my brain refused.
No wonder that the historian Ian Kershaw, author of the groundbreaking Hitler biography, who originally was the scientific consultant for this TV film, dissociated himself from it. The film is historically just too incorrect. The mistakes start right away when Hitler`s father Alois dies at home, while in reality he died in a pub. In the film, Hitler moves from Vienna to Munich in 1914, while in reality he actually moved to Munich in 1913. I could go on endlessly. Hitler`s childhood and youth are portrayed way too short, which makes it quite difficult for historically uninformed people to understand the character of this frustrated neurotic man. Important persons of the early time of the party, like Hitler`s fatherly friend Dietrich Eckart or the party "philosopher" Alfred Rosenberg are totally missing. The characterization of Ernst Hanfstaengl is very problematic. In the film he is portrayed as a noble character who almost despises Hitler. The script obviously follows Hanfstaengl`s own gloss over view of himself which he gave in his biography after the war. In fact, Hanfstaengl was an anti-semite and was crazy about his "Fuehrer". But the biggest problem of the film is the portrayal of Hitler himself. He is characterized as someone who is constantly unfriendly,has neither charisma nor charm and constantly orders everybody around. After watching the film, one wonders, how such a disgusting person ever was able to get any followers. Since we all know, what an evil criminal Hitler was, naturally every scriptwriter is tempted to portray Hitler as totally disgusting and uncharismatic. But facts is, that in private he could be quite charming and entertaining. His comrades didn`t follow him because he constantly yelled at them, but because they liked this strange man. Beyond all those historical mistakes, the film is well made, the actors are first class, the location shots and the production design give a believable impression of the era.
<br /><br />As usual, I was really looking forward to a new TV/film on a favourite subject of mine - makes a nice change from a *strangely familiar* documentary about Kursk or Stalingrad on the History Channel.<br /><br />I avidly looked forward to Pearl Harbour and Enemy at the Gates - but was rudely brought down to earth with the realisation of the malevolent, stupid-ifying power of Hollywood - and its ability to spend an absolute fortune on tripe.<br /><br />So yet again I got excited about 'The Rise of Evil', especially as I heard that Ian Kershaw was involved, as I've enjoyed his books. I can see why he quit.<br /><br />To quote some guy responsible for this rubbish:<br /><br />"The Kershaw book was an academic piece," he said. "It was<br /><br />quite dry. We needed more incidents." <br /><br />Incidents? Are they totally nuts? Hitler's life cannot be said to be without 'incident' - yes Kershaw's two volume Hitler biographies were long and detailed, but they were supposed to be.<br /><br />The thesis behind 'Rise of Evil' seems to be:<br /><br />Hitler was a very bad man - no he was a VERY bad man, who HATED jews, and just in case you miss this, we're going to emphasise the fact in EVERY scene in the film.<br /><br />There was no effort whatsoever to try and explain the mood of the time, and why Hitler may have adopted the views and strategy he did. Needless to say - unlike the generally excellent 'Nazis - A Warning from History' - this film neglected to point out the fact that nearly all of the leaders of the Munich communist rising were Jewish, and that this may have coloured his views on the subject - and his axiomatic linking of the jews with Bolshevism - an absolutely crucial aspect to understanding much of the Nazi era.<br /><br />But there was not much understanding to be done - the film-makers weren't going to go there, so we just got all the stuff we knew about anyway. We certainly don't get the fascinating fact that Kershaw alludes to, which has Hitler briefly being a socialist/communist immediately after WW1. That would of course be far too complex for the film to handle, and might even detract from the relentless 'he was very bad' mantra which bangs away incessantly.<br /><br />We know he was a bad man. However, we also know that he was a mesmerising figure both as a public speaker and in more private situations. He could be polite and even sympathetic, and of course espoused some views like vegetarianism, anti-alcohol and anti-smoking that many Guardian readers could agree with. He was also famously fond of animals, hence why that wholly invented dog-flogging scene was so absurd.<br /><br />He was also, from all the accounts I've seen, a brave soldier in WW1. Whilst we saw him with his Iron Cross, we never get to see how he won it (acts of bravery were not in the script, needless to say). We also get no insight whatsoever into why he was so fired up by his war experiences, whilst Sassoon, Owen, Brook, Remarque and so many others found it so repellent an experience. And again, like the point above re the jewish/bolshevik link, this is vital to anyone's understanding about the subject. Why did he love war so much? Why did he think it was always a good idea, despite massive evidence to the contrary? Why didn't he care about his colleagues who died? Or maybe he did - but still drew the wrong conclusions.<br /><br />This film certainly didn't have anything of any interest to say on this either.<br /><br />As all too often these days, the film is a classic example of 'making history relevant to the present' and inventing stuff or leaving awkward facts out to fit in with 'the present' - which all too often is to cater to the lowest common denominator, where you don't trust your audience an inch, so you just ram stuff down their throats, knowing (sadly correctly) that you'll always get away with it because there are so many dumb fools in the world.<br /><br />History is really about making us relevant to the past and seeing how it colours our present, for better and for worse. This rubbish was a great opportunity, lost again. They spent millions on it, and the locations and large scenes were impressive, but told us nothing at all we didn't know already, and promoted no understanding of this dark period in human history.<br /><br />WT
Well first off I'd like to add that I myself is somewhat of a historian so what I look for in a film that is based upon historical events is that it is actually based upon historical facts. But this is however not the case here. Sure the movie is entertaining and all but the fact that it isn't entirely based upon true facts is more than annoying. Hitler wasn't anti-semitic in his youth, he even worked for Jews before world war one. It was however during world war one and after that he formed his views about the Jews. His upbringing in this movie is also inaccurate, Hitler as a child wasn't a disturbed little brat. He had a more or less normal upbringing. Nothing is mentioned about his lost brothers and other important pieces that adds to the puzzle that is Hitler.<br /><br />Robert Carlyle is a great actor but he doesn't really fit in the role as Hitler. Hitler wasn't as impossible and unstable as he is portrait-ed here. Under his younger years he was a charismatic person whom "manipulated" people through his charms. His unstable behavior and rage outbursts started in the turning point of the war.<br /><br />I'd like to see a film about Hitler's life that is based upon real historical facts and not accusations. I really hate when people point a blaming finger at for example Hitler and others and tell inaccurate stories just to paint a picture of them as pure evil. It is much better to actually tell the story EXACTLY as it was so that everyone can learn what it was like! The ones behind this movie should have made some research before making this. Because it seems as if they didn't even know what really happened. Hitler wasn't even shot in the revolutionary march in Munch, his shoulder was ripped out of its socket.<br /><br />It gives you more to see a good documentary than seeing this.
I watched this hoping to find out something I didn`t know about modern history`s most infamous man and couldn`t help thinking that history has been rewritten in HITLER:THE RISE OF EVIL . Hitler was so obsessed with his niece that he threatened to have one of her admirer`s shot . Hitler turned up with a gun in his hand to arrest Ernst Rohm . Forgive me for asking but haven`t the writers confused Adolph Hitler with Tony Montana from SCARFACE ? That`s bad enough but what really offended me was that there`s entire chunks of historical context missing in this mini series . Germany lost the first world war and the allied powers made Germany pay a heavy price for doing so. It was this economic environment that led the German people to have someone - anyone - to restore their pride and that`s why they turned to Nazism . The German humiliation of the 1920s caused by the allied powers seems to be entirely missing therefore there is no way that HITLER:THE RISE OF EVIL can be taken seriously as a historical document, and I haven`t even mentioned that Himmler and Goering are conspicous by their absence <br /><br />There is one positive point about the mini series and that`s Robert Carlyle in the title role . Okay some of his mannerisms are wrong and his voice is a little too loud ( Archive recordings show that Hitler had a soft seductive voice ) but Carlyle is a charismatic actor and he does manage to communicate Hitler`s own charisma on screen . Comments in the British press that Carlyle resembles the synth player from Sparks more than Adolph Hitler are unfounded and he gives one of the better interpretations of Hitler.<br /><br />I liked the performance by Robert Carlyle but I hated everything else about this mini series and wondered why on earth it was made in the first place . There`s nothing to recommend it to serious history fans
Just imagine the real Hitler, who was a master of propaganda and speech, would have been such a mumbling moron as Carlyle portrayed him in this film.<br /><br />Nobody would have followed him, not even a desperate, unemployed guy in the 1920s.<br /><br />This is just a Hollywood cardboard piece of propaganda itself, disguised as "true history".<br /><br />I pity everyone who actually believed anything from this show. Carlyle and the producers didn't get anything right with this.<br /><br />Why was Hitler able to win so many people, a whole county for his ideas if we was such a sausage? Why did people follow him to death? By portraying him as such a loser they make their own film totally unbelievable. This film is a mixture of old WW2 propaganda and MTV urban myths about one of the most important persons of the last century. Imagine a film about Churchill where the director only shows him as a drunkard for 90 mins. <br /><br />This film is a disgrace and I wonder how they could talk an actor like Carlyle into this dreck.
This could well be the worst film I've ever seen. Despite what Mikshelt claims, this movie isn't even close to being historically accurate. It starts badly and then it's all downhill from there. We have Hitler's father cursing his own bad luck on the "fact" that he'd married his niece! They were in fact, second cousins. Hitler's mother, Klara, called his father, Alois, "uncle" because Alois had been adopted and raised by Klara's grandfather and brought up as his son, when he was really his nephew. Alois was much older than Klara and so as a child she'd got into the habit of calling Alois, "uncle."<br /><br />The scene in the trenches where Hitler is mocked by his fellow soldiers and decides to take it out on his dog is simply a disgrace and an insult to the intelligence of all viewers. We see Hitler chase the dog through the trench, when he catches up with the poor thing he proceeds to thrash it for disobeying him. In the distance we see and hear his fellow soldiers continue to mock and chastise the cowardly little man, but then a shell lands directly on his persecutors, and every last one, we are told, is killed outright. How then, if Hitler was the only person to survive the scene, did this tale of brutality and cowardice come to be told? Did Hitler himself go around "boasting" about it? - I don't think so.<br /><br />Next up, Hitler bullies and intimidates a poor, stressed out and war weary Jewish officer into giving him an Iron Cross! I can only assume that this Jewish officer had been a pawnbroker before fighting for the Fatherland, and had thoughtfully brought along some pledged medals from his shop, because I'm certain that Iron Crosses were not being handed out as shown in this comic farce.<br /><br />All the grotesque clichés are here, not least the calming and hypnotic effect of Wagner's music upon the little man. If only the producers had kept Ian Kershaw on side. Then they might have discovered that Franz Lehar's "Merry Widow" was more likely to float the Fuhrer's boat than any "Flying Dutchman" from the cannon of Richard Wagner!<br /><br />Hitler may have been responsible for the deaths of 60 million people but how can he ever be forgiven for his appalling taste in music?<br /><br />I could go on but I'd be at it for hours.<br /><br />Give it a miss.
I saw that movie, and i was shocked! Robert Carlyle isn't Hitler he is a man who sadly tries to be Hitler. The Movie lies, it doesn't reflect the truth. In the scene were Hitler hit the guy with his gun. Hitler never had hit anybody, he wouldn't hit people with his fist, but with the fists of soldiers. Understand?? Another thing is: It is too obvious, that Hitler is that evil, he was more clever, than shown in this movie. No German would have accepted him as the leader, because the can see that he is evil. So the real Hitler haven't shown his evil side to the people.<br /><br />Have any of you Yankees watched the movie "Der Untergang" or "The Dawnfall"? this is a great movie, with amazing actors. And its a German movie. I think, this Theme of Nazi-Germany, should not be realized as a movie by people who don't know anything of Germany. People! Watch "Der Untergang": <br /><br />http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363163/<br /><br />Its a great movie about a very sad period of time for human beings around the world.
If another Hitler ever arises, it will be thanks in part to nonsense like this film, which propagates the absurd notion that he was a visibly deranged lunatic from the start. Far from following such a person and electing him to the highest office in the land, sane people would cross the street to avoid him, and he would have died in a ditch, nameless and unknown.<br /><br />Anyone who reads the accounts of Hitler's close companions - the autobiography of his secretary Traudl Junge for instance - will be struck by the fact that people found him a kindly, intelligent, generous man. He was also a brilliant orator, and the fact that his speeches seem overblown and ranting to modern ears ignores the times in which they were made, when strutting pomposity was common in political speeches. Ditto the overstated anti-Semitism, which was neither a central plank of the early Nazis - who were primarily anti-communist - nor uncommon or unusual for the times. The film makes it look as though Hitler's sole ambition from the start was the Holocaust.<br /><br />If you want to identify the next person who will cause the death of tens of millions, you can ignore fleck-lipped ravers life the one portrayed here. Look instead for a charming, charismatic man whose compelling speeches inspire the entire nation, and whose political work visibly and materially benefits the country. I'm afraid his personality will be much more like Barack Obama's than Fred Phelps'.<br /><br />I hoped for much here, and got nothing but caricature. The fools who made this thing perpetrated a crime against reality. This is the historical equivalent of 'Reefer Madness'.
This is by far one of the most boring and horribly acted accounts of the early days of Adolf Hitler that I have ever watched. Robert Carlyle is a wonderful actor, but to cast him as Hitler is just plain wrong. To cast Liev Schrieber as Hitler's longtime friend and aid, Haefengstal must have emitted cries of despair and anguish from the Simon Wiesenthal Centre. A J-W playing a Nazi supporter, bad bad bad casting. This was not an enjoyable family film with a good historical background. This was Hollywood rubbish at its finest, cashing in on the strength of a strong (but sorely under utilized) supporting cast of actors whom seemed to have all but disappeared from the acting radar in the past 5 years.<br /><br />The fake German accents (vee vill vin zis var) is insulting to German people everywhere. My mother is German and she sat fuming at the sound of the voices which kept switching from American/English/German all in the same sentence. The supporting cast make better cardboard cutouts at the local video store than they do on screen. Jenna Malone as the fated Geli Raubal, was splendid though, she captured the innocence and confusion of this tragic young woman who ultimately ended her own life to escape what her future would have been like in Hitler's shadow.<br /><br />If you would like a tremendously fantastic and historically accurate account of Hitler's early years leading up to and including the war/holocaust, rent "Inside the Third Reich" 1983 starring Rutger Hauer as Albert Speer and Derek Jacobi as Hitler. It was good and made more sense then this baloney.<br /><br />As a historical researcher of the Third Reich I can honestly tell you, this had me reaching for my books to confirm its myriad of inaccuracies.
The back cover of the DVD (missed this one when it came out) hails Hitler -the Rise Of Evil as "A Triumph" (The New York Post) and "Mesmerizing" (Newsweek).<br /><br />Well,never mind the Post but really, who ever wrote that word in Newsweek in the same context with this peace of, ahem, art should be sacked.<br /><br />I don't no where to start with. Why try to paint the picture of Hitler's evil with colors that did not exist? He was evil alright, but now his character is portrayed in way that is often historically inaccurate (compared to his love of animals, the gentle and subdued way he treated women) and so on.<br /><br />The actors are good, so you must feel sorry for them as they are imprisoned inside their one-dimensional characters. Some kind of curse here with Peter O' Toole: This is the second time in his honorable career when he has ended up playing an old and failed leader in a failed movie (or in this case TV-production, to be accurate). The first one was of course the legendary Galigula.<br /><br />The list of historically inaccurate scenes alone would fill the 1000 words allowed by IMDb, so I think I'll leave it here.<br /><br />This one is OK if it's on telly and you don't have anything else to do, but believe me - it's best left on the shelf in your local Virgin store.
I watched this film few times and all i can say that this is low budget rubbish and that it does not have anything to do with a real history facts. Actors performances is very poor but it is result of limited acting possibilities. Anyone who watched this film now probably think of Hitler as some crazy skinny lunatic who running with a gun like some Chicago gangster. I can only to say that there is much better films about Hitler and Germany in those years and that Rise of evil is very much under average. I can recommend German film Downfall in which you can see brilliant performance of Switzerland actor Bruno Ganz in a roll of Adolf Hitler.
Simply put, this is a simplistic and one dimensional film. The title, The Rise to Evil, should tell you that this isn't going to attempt to be anything deep or do much with Hitler's character. Rather, from the first minutes of the movie where we see baby Hitler looking evil with evil music playing the background, we are given a view of Hitler that presents his as a cartoony supervillian, seemingly ripped right out of a Saturday morning TV show. The film REALLY wants to make its case that Hitler was evil but does anyone need a movie to convince them that Hitler was evil? Ultimately, making him such a one-dimensionally evil character is both boring and confusing (one must ask how the inept, phsycotic character in the film cold ever persuade a nation to follow him or be named Time's man of the year). This film had a great opportunity to take a figure who has committed some of the most horrible acts in the 20th century, and try to delve into his mind. Instead, it basically just says, "Hey! Hitler was evil! Just thought you might like to know..." over and over again. The great irony is that the film still was attacked for presenting too sympathetic a view of the character. Give me a break.
I have rarely been subjected to such outright nonsense in a film that is supposed to be based on a historical figure. A horrible joke of a film, I cringed throughout. Terrible, trite, distorted and riddled with outright lies and half truths.<br /><br />The famous Hitler biographer Ian Kershaw was to originally be a consultant for this film. However, he found the script to be so historically inaccurate and ridiculous that he refused, and also demanded they stop using his name as a source (it embarrassed him to think people would think he was involved).<br /><br />One scene shows Hitler beating his dog. There is not one source for this. Hitler loved animals above people. He brought in the strictest animal welfare laws in Europe, banned vivisection and animal experimentation. He was also a vegetarian.<br /><br />The film turns his gaining of the Iron Cross into a farce, involving bribery. Utter lies. He was awarded it for repeated acts of bravery over a long period of time.<br /><br />There are no historical documents showing that Hitler ever had a sexual relationship with his niece. Not one.<br /><br />Apart from these, Hitler is portrayed as a rabid simpleton in this garbage flick.<br /><br />If he was even half as ignorant, demented and thick as he is in this nonsense film as in real life you would not even know he had ever existed. Never mind become the leader of Germany.<br /><br />Honestly, this film was utterly terrible.<br /><br />Go watch Downfall and give this a very wide berth.
I have recently watched this movie twice, and I can't seem to understand why the h*ll the makers made this pile of crap. I mean, yes, It gives a great impression of Hitler's environment, and I mean the way they reproduced Austria in the late 1890's, WWI and the Inter-war period. What I can't understand is why they pictured Hitler as a 100% pure evil, mad, unreliable, mentally unstable freak. He was after all a very thoughtful, loving and intelligent man who of course had his dark sides, no doubt about that. But why in heaven's name portray him in this way? All of his positive aspects have been cut out of the scenario, leaving nothing but a very propaganda-like portrait of a man who had the biggest influence on modern civilization ever. Yes, he threw Germany into the devastating 2nd World War. Yes, he was racist, and yes he was at times menially unstable especially at the end of the war. All true. But again; why the hell did they plain LIE to the public? To warn us?<br /><br />I absolutely don't think this movie was a warning. The true danger of Hitler and the Nazi's was the fact they were able to rise to power at moments of severe global weakness. The fact this evil was so recognizable yet so embraced by almost every German alive (not to mention Austrians and a LOT of other people) makes it a warning to modern civilization, NOT the fact Hitler was such a 'weirdo'. If it would have been like the makers make us believe - I would have been convinced that the German people were retarded. A man like the one in this movie would have never gotten anywhere near party leader - not to mention ReichsKanzler. <br /><br />4/10
I'm not sure it was the language or the poor acting, but everything about this movie feels and looks cheap and fake.<br /><br />After seeing Der Untergang this is a huge disappointment. There's no connection between different scenes, and the acting is so incredibly poor I couldn't even believe people could make such a mess of something that had great potential.<br /><br />And above all, everyone in Germany speaks English. Big mistake. The German language has a certain sound to it, and especially Hitler himself only sounds like Hitler when he's speaking/yelling German.<br /><br />The way the story is told made me believe it was improvised on the spot, the characters were empty and the movie seems to be a collection of random events that could have happened.<br /><br />Whether it's the English or the fact that I've already seen Der Untergang, everything about this movie was fake and ridiculous.
This 1919 to 1933 Germany looks hardly like a post WWII Czech capitol. Oh sorry, it is the Czech capitol and it is 2003, how funny.<br /><br />This is one of the most awful history movies in the nearest past. Röhm is a head higher than Adolf and looks so damned good, Göring looks like 40 when he just is 23 and the "Führer" always seems to look like 56. And the buildings, folks, even buildings have been young, sometimes. Especially 1919 were a lot of houses in Germany nearly new (the WWI does not reach German cities!). No crumbling plaster! Then the Reichstagsbuilding. There have never been urban canyons around this building, never. And this may sound to you all like a miracle: in the year 1933 the Greater Berlin fire brigade owns a lot of vehicles with engines, some even with turntable ladders, but none with a hand pump.<br /><br />One last thing: What kind of PLAYMOBIL castle was this at the final sequence? For me this was a kind of "Adolf's Adventures in Wonderland"
Advertised by channel seven in Australia as the "untold story", this miniseries undoes itself in the first five minutes by washing over the titular character's childhood and adolescence in less time than a good director will use to set up a single event. This cowardice and self-censorship for the fear of offending anyone permeates the series, and is ultimately responsible for its failure.<br /><br />Robert Carlyle puts in a valiant performance as the most hated man of the twentieth century, but he is hamstrung by two things. The lack of a decent dialogue coach on the series leaves his Northern-UK heritage shining blindingly through his physical appearance, and the dialogue is at times truly abysmal. Apparently, acknowledging the fact that Hitler was raised in a Catholic family is off limits, but insulting millions of Vikings and their descendants by having Carlyle spew the most ridiculous lines about Valhalla is quite okay. Well, here's a clue for the writers - any person familiar with Viking mythology will tell you that Valhalla is about the embodiment of honour and might in battle, two things that the Nazis quickly eschewed in favour of rat cunning and backstabbing. Until we can wake up to ourselves and realise that the reason Hitler has never been excommunicated from the Catholic church is because it would require the embarassing acknowledgement that he was once a member, we will never learn what this awful period of the world's history has to teach us.<br /><br />So now that we've managed to insult Vikings and the citizens of Scandinavian countries in this sham, you'd think the series would stop there, but it doesn't. Stockard Channing's listing in the opening credits was particularly eyebrow-raising, given that her voice is heard, and her face seen, for about thirty seconds at the most during the opening credits, making it patently transparent that more footage of Hitler's early days were shot, but not included because of a typical nanny-state fear of offending someone. It is also quite ironic that the films or miniseries which give a far better insight into Hilter's character do not feature him at all.<br /><br />Until we learn to stop sugar-coating the truth and realise that the citizenry of Germany was mostly unopposed to Hitler's views, and not necessarily through ignorance, we will never learn to deal with the fact that subversions of democracy (yes, Germany was a democracy pre-Hitler) can occur anywhere, we are doomed. That's the one thing this mini-series got right in portraying. Unfortunately, that element is lost in attempts to make Hitler's religious beliefs appear those of a much more valiant people, and the inability to scratch past the surface in any part of the subject matter. David Letterman's show had it pegged when they ran short satirical segments about the series. They really might as well have made a family sitcom with him as the star, that's how badly it was written.<br /><br />All in all, this politically correct farce of a bio-pic is worth no points, but I gave it two because Robert Carlyle definitely deserves better material than this, and he is about the only thing in it that works.
If anybody really wants to understand Hitler, read WWI history not WWII history. Find out what happened during that war, how soldiers had to live around dead corpses all the time. How so many soldiers went insane, from what they saw during WWI, at the time they called it "shellshocked" now the call it post-traumatic stress disorder. If you learn the true horrors of WWI, you will begin to understand Hitler. You will understand how a human being can become desensitized to death, not because their evil but simply because it was the only way for them too cope with the horrors around them.<br /><br />This movie unfortunately misses that, as so many others do. Read some books on the subject and you should watch the movie "paths of glory", the only good WWI movie ever made. You will see the frustration of the soldiers in that movie, the sense of helplessness, and a utter devaluation of human life, as nothing more than bullet catchers.<br /><br />Thats what this movie misses, its really the key point to understanding Germany. A lost war, where millions and millions of Germans lost their lives, for no real reason. Then comes an utter economic collapse, following the war. Those are the factors that create extremism.<br /><br />The loss of family members and massive poverty will create always lead to extremism. Unfortunately this movie ignored these factors, and has just become another throw away piece of crap to throw on the pile. With really no real value, there are fictional movie's based upon fictional characters that could give you a better idea of Hitler than this does. They just threw Hitlers name on this so it would sell more.
First, before reading further, you must understand that I'm not neo-nazi, I'm just trying to understand correctly Hitler to be sure nobody like him take power again.<br /><br />I've seen this series and found it awful. I mean, OK, it's interesting to look, but is it real? I searched for answers and found one: absolutely not. First, Hitler wasn't angry all his life, the series shows an angry Hitler, even when he is a child. Second, Hitler never wanted to abuse his daughter, in fact, it is highly probable that Hitler, in reality, was gay and fought all his life to choke this secret. Third, people will hate me but it's true: Hitler was charming. How do you think he managed to get to power if he was so hateful and ugly? Because he was charming. That's a common point I found in the interviews of people who live near or far of him (of course, not Jews).<br /><br />This series was awful because if you think that Hitler was just an angry bastard, ugly, and of course, not charming at all, you're wrong. If you think that, you will let people like him take power in countries and you don't want that. If you really understand how Hitler managed to get into power, and stop thinking he was just awful, you'll be able to find dangerous politicians like him (of course, remember he was elected) and stop theme before it's too late.<br /><br />Life is important to protect, this series is just awful to show us the truth, if we continue to see Hitler like that, another one will take place exactly as the first did.
Having grown up in Texas, and less than 15 miles from what used to be Gilley's, I can tell you that this movie is nauseating. The majority of Texans do not live like this movie indicates. The plot is weak, and the fake accents are amusing, and it reinforces the stereotypical image that all Texans are beer drinking, honky-tonkin', rednecks. The horribly fake Texas accents is what kills it for me. True, there is a certain Texas twang to most Texans' accents, but these people overdo it. You can't get someone from New Jersey and Ohio to do Texas accents. It just doesn't work. John Travolta should have stuck to disco-dancing or the 50s. Debra Winger was more convincing as Wonder Girl than she is as a Texan.
The year 1934 was when Shirley Temple played three major movies and really began to make a name for herself. Unfortunately, the studios had to experiment to see what the public best liked about here. Two of those things were singing and dancing. Another was a short, interesting film that kept people's attention and got their minds off The Depression. You know the other keys to Shirley's successful films.<br /><br />This film achieved none of the above, despite the star presences of Gary Cooper and Carole Lombard and despite a very good director in Henry Hathaway. In addition, there are too many talky parts in here which become simply boring, and too many arguments between a sullen Lombard and Cooper. To top it off, you didn't get the normal feel-good ending which is what the public wants. I guess they learned after this movie.
The movie is an extra-long tale of a classic novel that completely fails to capture the original adventure's spirit. The quite horribly American Patrick Swayze is cast as the British hero Allan Quatermain despite the obviousness of his nationality.<br /><br />The movie continues throughout to "Hollywood-ise" the story by changing both the plot and the characters to fit more comfortably into the accepted mold. The movie manages to be predictable throughout, even to those who are not familiar with the story and is plagued by some extremely bad acting and terribly disappointing fight sequences.<br /><br />All in all, a terrible addition to the already quite bad collection of movies based on the legend of King Soloman's Mines and Allan Quatermain.
OK. Not bad movie making if it were from an original script. BUT IT IS NOT!<br /><br />Which part of "in this story there are no women, except for Foulata and Gagoola" introduction by Haggard did the producers, directors and writers not understand? I mean, it is pretty plain English. I understood it at age 10!. The beauty of KSM is that it contains a spectacular description of three different worlds, the colonial Africa, the unforgiving desert and Kukuanaland, a hidden and isolated kingdom. That should be more than enough for even the most mediocre of producers to work with. But, nooo, they have to throw "romance" into it. Pathetic. Suggestion to all you poor souls who actually thought this would be close to the book. Give it up. Until a Peter Jackson wannabe comes along and "does it right" you may as well keep re-reading the tome. BTW, there is a sequel book (actually a pre-quel) called Allan's wife. It gives background to the story of Quatermain. It is a bit creepy but good.
The movie is very lengthy and unfortunately pretty different from the Novel. If you want to see the movie then don't read the novel first as it will shock you. However, cinematography was OK and if you are a person who loves adventure genres which explores Africa then go for it. Acting performances are adequate, however, many important events that were present in the novel are omitted. In the novel, Sir Henry Curtis was in search of his missing brother rather than a lady in search of her father. Gagool was cunning and was killed in the cave whereas here she was shown to be a good person who preferred to stay with the new king.
Start of with the good bit: several times Swayze talks Zulu to his friends or that language is heard among the tribes. That's a great plus, as normally USA & UK movie audiences think all people on this planet speak English (just in case you're one of them: no they don't).<br /><br />But the acting is 'tenenkrommend' as we say in The Netherlands (it makes your toes curl -and not in a good way). I like Swayze but in this he's awful. The muscles in his jaws make overtime and he's frowning the whole movie -some one must have told him it looks butch. No Patrick: it looks silly and is compensation for lack of character. Alison Doody (Elizabeth) has opted for a style of acting that does not meet the style of her co-workers. Her acting is só relaxed that this movie could have been set in the current days. And it's not. Your frock was a clue, Alison.<br /><br />The best acting came from the people from the African Continent and Sided Onyulo as Umbopa I liked best. Clear, warm and in character, his performance is a joy to watch. <br /><br />General: it is mwah-entertaining on a rainy day. Pity. Could have been better. Sack the director.
This is the worst imaginable crap. The novel by H. Rider Haggard is very entertaining and dramatic. The makers of this worthless movie don't follow it closely. Well, old novels aren't sacred and making free versions of them is fine with me if one has ideas of one's own. If all one can do is changing things and replace them with uninteresting and watered-down clichés one should stick to the original. If they had done that this film would have been at least twice as good even with worse actors and if filmed inside a studio with huts made of cardboard. BUt there's no imagination at all only tiredness. This should be bought or watched only by collectors of Victorian novels made into movies.<br /><br />Just a hint, and not a spoiler I think, to make those of you who have read the novel understand what has taken place and what you may expect if you decide to watch this on TV or - God forbid - waste money on buying this. Gagool an old baddie witch in the book and some precursor to Gollum has been turned into a nice gal!
I picked this movie on the cover alone thinking that i was in for an adventure to the level of "Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom". Unfortunately I was in for a virtual yawn. Not like any yawn i have had before though. This yawn was so large that i could barely find anything of quality in this movie. The cover described amazing special effects. There were none. The movie was so lightweight that even the stereotypes were awfully portrayed. It does give the idea that you can solve problems with violence. Good if you want to teach your kids that. I don't. Keep away from this one. If you are looking for family entertainment then you might find something that is more inspiring elsewhere.
Swayze doesn't make a very convincing Alan Quatermain. Compared to Stewart Granger; which growing up was my ultimate hero in films like the 1952 "Scaramouche", the 1952 "Prisoner of Zenda" and the 1950 "King Solomon's Mines"; Patrick Swayze fails utterly. Even the portrayal of an older Alan Quatermain by Sean Connery in "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" was very good in an otherwise big flop. Also Alison Doody lacks the grace of Deborah Kerr in the role of the leading lady, and last but not least the impressive Siriaque in the role of Umbopa makes it very hard for anyone to fill his (shoes)!!! For someone who was disappointed by Richard Chamberlain's 1985 version, I now highly recommend it if you can't get your hand on the granger version.
I give 3 stars only for the beautiful pictures of Africa. The rest was... well pretty boring. For about 50min we have the outline of the plot... In War of the worlds, the introductory part lasted, oh, about 10min? Then was real action! This is something like:"Let's take a walk in the savanna and gasp at the beautiful sunsets!". And maybe deliver a message, like "Don't kill elephants!". Very ecological. I would have expected this out of a "new" Steven Segal movie, not from this... The leading actress makes me think about artificial sun-tan, dyed hair and too much foundation! And I didn't see one scene where her hair is messed up, or she sweats, or her clothes are dusty. She just doesn't look like a 19 century woman! And in the bar, where they seek up our hero, Swayze makes a comment about the commander that he looks like Dracula. Hmmm, Bram Stoker wrote his book and published it in 1896, and it became famous in the next years. Livingstone and other explorers went to central Africa from 1840 to 1880. So unless the action takes place between 1896 and 1900.. Houston, we have a problem. :) Swayze makes a nice impression.. as a nutshell - hard on the outside, but soft and cuddly on the inside. Not that I would cuddle with a nut, but you get the point. He really manages to have that beaten puppy look on his face on several occasions. The movie stank. Way too long and increasingly boring. don't watch it! Don't buy it! It's a waste of your money!
Well! What can one say? Firstly, this adaptation is far too long at 4 hours, for the complexity (or lack of such) of the plot. The actors try really hard to make something of this film but there is too little content for the time available. Swayzee is really NOT a Quatermain character at all. After seeing Sean Connery's interpretation of the great man in "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", Swayzee really does not make the grade. This chap with the winchester repeating rifle has none of the strength, stature, subtlety, or humour needed for the part, and is upstaged by everyone including the witch doctor, who incidentally seems from my point of view to be more convincing as an actor than the rest of the cast. Some of the vistas are pleasing but there are silly mistakes in the cinematography. For example. When the happy team arrive at the water hole in the middle of the desert, their tracks are visible down to the oasis, just waiting for them to walk in them. Climbing out of the mine leads to an exit (on the next shot) nothing like the exit seen from the passage they have climbed through, et cetera. I was waiting for Doug McClure to appear at any moment. In some ways I wish he had. <br /><br />The leader of the Russians pursuing Quatermain is a shoddily created stereotypical character who just shoots at everything. <br /><br />Swayzee does quite well as the sad father, returned to London, who is unable to obtain the custody of his son. Swayzee should stick to that sort of thing. He is not able to carry the part of a courageous gentleman with a stout heart, experience of life, and sense of fair play.<br /><br />4 out of 10. Barely
I missed the first 10 or so minutes of the movie but don't think watching it from the beginning would've made any difference. I found the film extremely boring and was disappointed with the acting. I remember Patrick Swayze and some of the other actors (Roy Marsden, for instance) in outstanding roles but they all disappointed here due to a very weak script. "Kind Solomon's Mines"...the very short part of the movie inside the "mines" was about as exciting as watching paint dry and I doubt that even a pre-school kid would've been spell-bound by watching the fight of the "warriors". The entire movie was reminiscent of a cheaply produced American TV series. Give me Indiana Jones any day!
Oh dear. Some of the best talent in British TV made this serial, and so I can only assume that they were working under incredible time pressure, and had to settle for first takes of many scenes.<br /><br />There ARE some frightening scenes in this Highland mystery (mostly when the "monster" attacks and we see it from his point of view), but I'm afraid that I found most of the story unintentionally funny ! Such as the moment when the hero discovers a dismembered corpse on a golf course: Oh look, there's a hand ... oh, and there's another hand over there ... hmm this is a bit puzzling ...<br /><br />For many years fans of British cult TV shows campaigned to have this serial released on VHS or DVD, but the BBC always said no. Now I think I understand why !
This film was made in Saskatchewan and Manitoba Parks and returned the world eye again to what little of the "Wild Western Canada" is left. When Archie began to write his stories for the papers; the thought of the day was to tame the wilderness and convert/absorb the First Nation Peoples.<br /><br />The film puts forward and asks the question; why would a well-educated, obviously talented Englishman become an Indian?<br /><br /> Archie, as an English boy dreams about becoming something but grasping the full meaning of that dream is unique and priceless - no mater what it is. Sounds like a famous puppet story doesn't it.<br /><br /> In my opinion, I saw Archie become my living image of the "Cigar store Indian" a very wooden character and not real at all - very well done acting on the part of Mr. Brosnan. He also portrayed the wild Indian in the dance scene for the tourist. The fullness and or reality of it weren't realized till he met and married his wife, Annie.<br /><br /> Annie pushed Archie in a direction that would bring him to the forefront of the Englishman's world stage, not as himself but Grey Owl -an Canadian Native of the wilderness frontier.<br /><br /> This is the closest Archie get to becoming the noble savage prototype.<br /><br /> Mr. Brosnan's interpretation as well as the directors is both well done. I have watched documentaries on Grey Owl and I think this is a good big screen movie to add to my collection.<br /><br />Spoiler - I thought the final scenes with Archie going to meet the Grand Council of Chiefs was a great a great moment in the film.<br /><br /> Very beautiful Canadian lake scenery and real "Grey Owl" locations.<br /><br />
James Bond in the wilderness? Well, that's the way it looks: Pierce Brosnan is after all best known as Bond in "Tommorrow Never Dies" (1997) and "Golden Eye" (1995) - both shot prior to this release. Frankly, the film's two leads are both badly miscast, with Brosnan turning in the marginally more convincing performance, and with Annie Galipeau (as Pony, Grey Owl's love interest) having to battle with carelessly-written dialogue.<br /><br />The two aunts, on the other hand are perfect. But the film is not about aunts. It is about the wilds of the Canadian wilderness. And while the photography may be pretty, there is no grit to the harsh reality of living in the wilds. Annie Galipeau, as Pony, just fails to be convincing, unfortunately, because I really wanted to believe in her. She was a relatively inexperienced twenty-year-old on this film, and it could have worked, but Richard Attenborough was maybe just not tough enough on her. He makes her look vulnerable, which of course she is.. but in the wrong sort of way.<br /><br />But one thing for sure, she appears picture-perfect throughout. But mascara and eyebrow thickener in the wilderness? It just doesn't fit, especially as she only ever seems to walk forest trials with Bond (sorry, Grey Owl), and use photo-ops for kissing close-ups.<br /><br />I've lived with forest people in the Pacific North West, and they simply don't look this pretty and stay so sweet while fighting for survival. Which brings me to another point: the film fails to evoke the period in which it is set: the 1930s. I put the blame here largely on a lack-lustre script that is keen on preaching at the expense of dramatic arc, plot points and those small details that can evoke period through action.<br /><br />William Nicholson wrote the screenplay, and his latest offering, "Elizabeth, the Golden Age" opened three days ago, so I do hope there is an improvement.<br /><br />Yes, I've read the comments others have posted, but I'm not convinced. A lot of potential, but mishandled and even maybe ill-conceived. If it had had a religious film, it would have been panned, but because it preaches environmentalism, the film remains somewhat above criticism, since it is "politically correct." Sorry, for all that, I don't buy it. Amen.
Images are great and reflect well the landscapes of Canada. The story was, on the other side, quite boring; To my eyes it was a love story in the woods just like Titanic was a love story on a boat. I did not feel that Grey Owl was great environmentalist. I usually like Lord Attenborough but this one was ... bad.
It's a good movie if you plan to watch lots of landscapes and animals, like an animal documentary. And making Pierce Brosnan an indian make you wonder 'Does all those people don't recognize if someone isn't indian at plain sight?'
!!!!! POSSIBLE SPOILER !!!!!<br /><br />You`d think a story involving Archie Grey Owl - An Englishman posing as a red indian - would have a massive amount of humour involved . In fact I`d say the only way to treat a film like this where a remarkable man cons the gullible public is to treat it as a comedy . However Richard Attenborough commits something akin to a crime by making GREY OWL a serious drama . Worse , he`s made an extremely dire film too . Pierce Brosnan lacks the charisma needed for the title role and the romantic subplot between Grey Owl and Pony ( Played by the equally wooden Annie Gaupeau ) lacks any type of on screen chemistry . But to be fair to the cast their not helped with the script which fails to portray Archie as the cheeky chappy he is of fooling everyone into believing he`s a native American . The producers and screenwriter have made the major error of having the film centre around the plot twist of Archie being an Englishman - That`s why I wrote " Possible spoiler " it`s not actually revealed untill late in the film that the title character is English , but it`s obvious that everyone who viewed this movie knew that beforehand hence there`s absolutely no surprise involved.<br /><br />Yes I do agree with everyone that the scenery is lovely and that it has a deep ecological message which isn`t actually a new concept . Theodore Roosevelt was the first important environmentalist of the 20th century if truth be told . And it should also be remembered that with the exception of SOYLENT GREEN ( And possibly THE TWO TOWERS if you want to class it as having a green message ) that there hasn`t actually been a great ecological film . In fact most environmentally concious films suck and that includes GREY OWL , a film that unsurprisingly had a serious problem in finding a distributor
While flipping through the channels on a late Saturday night, my friends and I stumbled across this film. First of all, Irish actor Pierce Brosnan as a Native American? Seriously?! His accent was breaking through so much, although his character was apparently Scottish. Next, I was stunned to find that this film was made after he had already played James Bond/Agent 007 at least twice. This movie plays up the stereotypes, with the inspiring professor figure. The girl who played Pony should be paid to keep her mouth shut. And, this film won an award? I cannot believe it. Brosnan is an attractive man, but we seriously wanted to gauge our eyes out after watching this for just 10 seconds. We switched from "Kicking and Screaming" to this, and we wanted to switch back. We watched the 1995 children's classic "The Indian in the Cupboard" earlier in the night, which also discussed the Iroquois. The following line represents our desire to run away: "Take me outside, earth grasper." From "Grey Owl": "If you don't like it, you don't have to watch."
may contain spoilers!!!! so i watched this movie last night on LMN (Lifetime Movie Network) which is NOT known for showing quality movies. THIS MOVIE IS AWFUL! i am still amazed that i watched the entire thing, as it was terrible. could this movie contain any more stereotypes? (harping jewish mother who wants son to be a doctor, catholic family with priest sons, big big crucifixes in every room shown in the catholic family's house, mexican whores, "bad" guy who is really a softie at heart, incredibly bad country accents) GAG!!!! i was at first intrigued by the fact that i had never heard of this movie and after seeing that cheryl pollack and corin nemec were in it, i decided to stay awake until 4am to watch it. anyway, the only redeeming thing about this movie is madchen amick's beauty. i suppose pollack's and nemec's acting is okay, but they have a horrid script to work with. unlike the other reviewer who commented on the lack of texan accents (the movie is supposed to take place in austin and very few people there have a twang) i think that the accents were there (in supporting characters like mary margaret's date and john) and were unnecessary. they were also very very bad. i am so very tired of hollywood "southern" accents that sound nothing like the area where the accent is supposed to be from. and since it was supposed to take place in austin and shooting movies there in 1991 would not have been expensive, i fully expected there to be familiar shots of the town: the beautiful capitol building, the UT tower lit up for a winning football game, etc. none of these things were there. also, it takes about 5-6 hours to drive to mexico from austin. at one point in the movie, michael and his posse take off for mexico to lose their virginities and are able to drive off when it is dark (during the summer and early fall it doesn't get dark in austin until 9pm or so), spend time in mexico getting drunk and having sex with mexican (is there any other kind?) whores, and then return to austin by dawn. while this is theoretically possible it is NOT very likely. and if anyone has started school in the hill country (usually the third week of august, but may have been in september in 1960) they know that unless they want to pass out from heat stroke they DO NOT wear their letter jackets!!!!! in august and september in austin and the surrounding areas it is 90+ degrees. only people with no body temperature would be stupid enough to wear sweaters or letter jackets on the first day of school. all in all, a very bad made for tv movie experience.
Although this film was made before Dogme emerged as the predominant method of filmmaking, and before digital triumphed over -- strike that. You get the point. This 1991 masterpiece clearly anticipated those developments. Corin Nemec is just outstanding as the ne'er do well author and narrator. The pace is slow, but elegantly so, because the cinematography is so beautiful. Record it the next time its on T.V., because I guarantee you'll never see a better nostalgia rip-off made-for- T.V. movie. Direct-to-video never felt so good!
The British claymation series putting "witty" conversations taped from "average" people in the mouths of "cute" fanciful creatures at least had the advantage for non-British viewers of seeming droll and the kind of rarefied cultured humor you couldn't get on U.S. television. Someone made the mistake of PUTTING it on U.S. television.<br /><br />Sort of like the sadly miscast American version of the sublime Brit-com COUPLING which died in a month on NBC when the same basic scripts didn't "translate" from British English to American English, what seemed droll and cultured (and just a BIT dull) in England, comes across in CREATURE COMFORTS, the American Version, as simply boredom with puppets. There's no through plot-line, no characters and after one and a half episodes watched (of the three ultimately aired), no reason to suffer through more.<br /><br />The only positive thing to be said about the new summer series and the mercifully brief run it had is that the claymation is at least professionally done and coming as a set-up for the single worst show on the CBS schedule, The New Adventures of Old Christine (or "how to be a HORRIBLE mother - or person - in one interminable, unfunny lesson"), kids who wanted to stay up past their bedtime happily ran to bed rather than sit through this show, and the adults could wait to tune in until 9pm when "Two and A Half Men" (guilty pleasure) and "How I Met Your Mother" (actual quality writing) come on.
One question: Why? First off, the premise is not funny or engaging at all. They use taped interviews, and take the audio to animate ite with animals speaking the parts. First off, the interviews aren't funny or entertaining to begin with, and even if they were, I am sure they would be a lot more entertaining being viewed as they are originally, without being turned into cartoons. How does that add any hilarity to it? I turned on CBS's Monday night sitcom line-up, (which has become a regular way for me to relax after stressful Monday workdays) and found this on. Of course, the sitcom line-up would be reruns anyway, being summer, but seeing those episodes over again would have been more entertaining. I tried to give "CC" a chance. I really did. When it started, I figured, well, maybe it will be funny. Nope. And then it kept going. It was a long half hour.<br /><br />And I can almost see if there was a purpose, if the interviews were shown in their entirety, and had points to them. But no, it was just one-line clips, cut and pasted together really quick. It was like a horrible dreadful version of Cartoon Network's "Robot Chicken." I wasn't a fan of CBS' now-cancelled sitcom "The Class." WHile that was on, it was one half-hour of the line-up I would struggle through. But if it came down to me deciding a whole season of that or three more episodes of "Creatures"....let's just say I'd take the "Class." Considering it's been a couple hours since it aired, and I come on here to see I am the first to comment...I guess that's a good sign that nobody watched it, and that it won't last much longer. Cartoon roadkill.
I'm not sure what HK movies the other reviewers have been watching, but Enter the Eagles is nowhere near the top of the heap in HK action. Michael "Fitz" Wong should be glad he can get acting jobs in HK, because he couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag in English. Shannon Lee looks good and is a fantastic fighter (even better with the leg fighting than her dad), but her acting skills are also sub-par. In fact, all the English dialog (90% of the movie--even more than in Gen-Y Cops) is so bad that I switched to Mandarin audio just to spare myself the misery of the bad dialog delivery and the redundancy of the English subs. Sure, there are some decent gunfights (but nothing we haven't already seen before) and good cinematography, but the cheesy visual effects really spoil the action.<br /><br />That said, it's worth the price of admission to watch Shannon and Benny "The Jet" Urquidez go at it. Spectacular, and almost worth watching the rest of the movie for.<br /><br />Finally, you might notice some scenes that seem "familiar" to you, notably a shootout at an outdoor market (think Matrix) and Fitz diving out of a helicopter wearing black fatigues (think MI:2). Guess someone thought at least a few things in this flick were worth ripping off.
The movie has a good start portraying an interesting and strong Shannon Lee and introduces two very simpathetic side characters through the first half. But later something happens and all the sudden Shannon turns into this straight faced, second hand bad girl and the movie gets lost in it's own context. The second half lacks any kind of charisma and is full of clichés, bad acting, a horrible plot and even worse stunt coordination. Not to mention the horrible actors they chose for the chechen mafia gang.<br /><br />"Game of Death 2" was bad and clownified Bruce, but his daughter tops it making an even bigger embarrassment of herself than the double who played Bruce Lee back then. I truly believe that she can do much better than this and I hope she participates in a better production next time.<br /><br />If you are a real hard core action fan and don't care about quality go ahead and see this movie. I was personally looking forward to it but just got terribly disappointed.
Wow. Watching this film today, you can't help but be appalled by the writing of this film. Spencer Tracy and Loretta Young play a couple who, in modern times, might be featured on "The Jerry Springer Show"--as they have a sick and abusive relationship...and inexplicably, the writers appear to be endorsing it! <br /><br />The film begins with a hungry and homeless Loretta being shown the ropes by the poor but very resourceful Spencer Tracy. He shows her how by conniving you can do very well with little money and takes her home to his shack to stay. It's never clear whether or not they marry--and considering it's a Pre-Code film, you can assume they aren't even though they are cohabiting. Their relationship is very strange...and rather sick. While you can see that Tracy cares about her by his actions, he is verbally abusive and a total jerk---and Young comes running back for more like some sort of dog. He calls her "skinny" or "ugly" and these are, in a sick way, his way of using endearments! Later, when he starts fooling around with another woman (Glenda Farrell), she tells her friend that if that's what he wants, it's okay with her!!! It sure smacks of a sado-masochistic relationship and you can't help but feel a bit horrified. Sure, he doesn't hit her but the relationship is very abusive. To show how sick it is, when Young gets pregnant, she tells him "...it's your baby and it's mine, but you don't need to worry, I'll take all the blame for it"!! Yikes! Doesn't this all seem a bit like looking through a peephole into a sick and dysfunctional home?! Later, in a case of art imitating life, Tracy proves what sort of man he is and disappears. After all, he can't be burdened with a baby--even if it's his. But, he changes his mind and decides to return home. Wow...that's bit of him! And, when he returns, he's nasty and acts like IF he stays, he isn't obligated to care for the kid!! And, she tells him he's "a free man...free as a bird"! Wow, I was almost in tears at this tender moment...NOT! Soon, this crazy pair are married...and, naturally, Young is depressed because he seems to be staying as long as it suits him--not because of any love or sense of responsibility. So how can you salvage anything with this sort of sick characters? What would you do? Well, as for the writers, they have Tracy soon commit a robbery to help pay for the brat! The romantic aspects of the film are underwhelming to say the least! During the robbery, Tracy behaves like a chump--doing almost nothing to take precautions not to get caught--like he was secretly hoping to get sent to prison. And, to show what sort of nice guy he is, the guy he tries to rob is one of his best friends.<br /><br />While there's more to the film, the bottom line is that Tracy is a jerk and Young is an idiot in the film. Despite both being very good actors, there's absolutely no way they could make anything of this crap the writers produced. Nice music, nice sets, good acting...and a script that is 100% poo. How the film is currently rated 7.4 is beyond me and I wonder how anyone can ignore the pure awfulness of the characters. A horrible misfire that somehow didn't destroy the careers of those involved.<br /><br />Oh, and if you wonder if Loretta EVER gets a backbone in this film or plays a person who is the least bit strong, the answer is NO! By the end, she's learned nothing and hasn't changed one whit for the better.<br /><br />They sure don't make films like they used to...and in this case...thank God!
The original Lensman series of novels is a classic of the genre. It's pure adventure SF with some substance (here and there) and I've always wondered why Hollywood hasn't filmed it verbatim because it's just the kind of thing they love: massive explosions, super-weapons, uber-heroics, hero gets the girl, aliens (great CGI potential), good versus evil in the purest form, etc etc. Instead (and bear in mind I'm a Japan-o-phile and anime lover) we get this horrendous kiddies movie that rips the guts out of the story, mixes in Star-Wars (ironic as the latter ripped off the books occasionally) pastiches and dumbs the whole thing down to 'Thundercats' level. To see Kimball Kinnison, the epitome of the Galactic Patrol officer and second stage Lensman portrayed as a small boy is pitiful (etc). I just can't understand why the makers did this because they obviously had the rights to the story and could have made far more money (FAR!) by telling straight. It makes no sense.
I rented the dubbed-English version of Lensman, hoping that since it came from well-known novels it would have some substance. While there were hints of substance in the movie, it mostly didn't rise above the level of kiddie cartoon. Maybe the movie was a bad adaptation of the book, or it lost a lot in the dubbed version. Or maybe even the source novels were lightweight. But for whatever reason, there wasn't much there.<br /><br />I noticed lots of details that were derivative, sloppy, poorly dramatized, or otherwise deficient. Some examples: The opening scenes looked borrowed from the 2001 "star gate" scene and the Star Wars image of hyperspace. The robot on the harvester looked like an anthropomorphized "R2-D2".<br /><br />It starts out trying to borrow its comic relief style of Star Wars, but mercifully (since the humor doesn't work) gives up on comedy and plays it serious. In that sense, it's superior to the Star Wars franchise, which started with a clever sense of humor, and eventually deteriorated to Jar-Jar's annoying silliness.<br /><br />The agricultural details were apparently drawn by someone who had never seen a farm. The harvester was driving through the unharvested middle of a field, dumping silage onto unharvested crops, rather than working from one side to the other and dumping the silage onto already-harvested rows or into a truck. Corn (maize) was pouring out the grain chute, but the farm lands were drawn like a wheat field.<br /><br />When it was time for Kim's father had to face his fate, there wasn't any dramatic weight to the scene. That could have been partly the fault of the English-language voice actor, but the drawings didn't show much weight either. Kim's reactions in that scene were similarly unconvincing.<br /><br />Similarly, when a character named Henderson was killed, Chris showed very little reaction, even though they were apparently supposed to have been close. (Henderson's death is no spoiler; his name isn't revealed until his death scene.) She seems to promptly forget him. Someone's expression of sympathy shows more feeling than she does. I think the voice actor deserves most of the blame in that case; there's at least a hint of feeling in the drawings of Chris.<br /><br />On several occasions, villains fail to accomplish their orders. A villain leader often punishes those failures with miserable deaths. I can't say whether that's lifted from Star Wars, or if that comes from an earlier source -- possibly the Lensman books.<br /><br />There's a scene where a space ship crash-lands. As it plunges toward the ground, parts are break off the ship. But so many pieces are fall off that there should be nothing left of it by the time it lands.<br /><br />While in most cases Chris seems like a competent, tough space hero, there's a scene where she shrieks like an incompetent damsel in distress. Someone tough enough to get over Henderson's death so quickly should at least be able to shout, "help, it's got me and I can't reach my gun!" instead of just shrieking.<br /><br />The character with the most personality (almost too much at times) is D.J. Bill. He sounded like Wolfman Jack, the D.J. in American Graffiti. I wonder if he's as well-voiced in the original language.<br /><br />Two planets in the movie exploded. The explosions were unimpressive, and appeared to owe a lot of inspiration to Star Wars. To its credit, however, the cause of the explosion was completely unlike the Death Star's primary weapon. The dialog had a good, interesting explanation for the cause. Many other explosions in the movie did look good, just not the planetary explosions.<br /><br />Some of the sound effects are very cheesy, as if borrowed from a late 1970s video game. Some of the images look like primitive video games, and some influence from Tron is visible too. On the other hand, the sound effects are often pretty decent, although that emphasizes the cheesy-sounding parts. The art is good too, particularly when it stays away from the often cheesy-looking computer graphics.<br /><br />Finally, there's the story. If a movie tells a good story, it can get away with a lot of production shortcomings. But the plot here was pretty lightweight. A naïve boy tries to help someone on a crippled space ship, and acquires a great power he doesn't understand. He and his band of very virtuous companions struggle against a powerful, unredeemably evil enemy. He makes friends, learns about his special power, and grows into a young man. If he is persistent and virtuous enough, he might even defeat the evil enemy. Details along the way can make such a story rise above the simple outline, but there's very little more than that in this movie.<br /><br />In the end, it's just a kiddie cartoon. But then, since it looks like the primary intended audience is older children, maybe it doesn't need to be anything more than that.
[I saw this movie once late on a public tv station, so I don't know if it's on video or not.]<br /><br />This is one of the "Baby Burlesks" (sic) that Shirley Temple did in the early 1930s. It is hard to believe that anyone would let their daughter be in this racy little film which today might just be considered this side of "kiddie porn".<br /><br />Shirley Temple stars in a cast which probably has an average age of 5. They are all in diapers, and are in a saloon which serves milk instead of alcohol. The "cash" is in the form of lollipops.<br /><br />Shirley playing a "femme fatale" sashays up to the bar and talks to soldiers who make suggestive comments about her (!). But Shirley doesn't need really their lollipops/cash because her purse is full of ones from other "men".<br /><br />Meanwhile a little black boy does a suggestive dance on a nearby table (!).<br /><br />What a strange film . . . infants using racy dialogue playing adult roles in a saloon. Who thought up this stuff any way?
This is a horrible little film--and unfortunately, the company that made this short made several others. The short is essentially a one-joke idea that wasn't funny to begin with and may also offend you. It certainly made me uncomfortable watching very young children (most appeared about 2 years-old) cavorting about and pretending to be adults--in this case, a dancehall girl and bar room patrons. It's the sort of humor that you might be forced to laugh at from your own kids if they pretended to be adults, but I can't see anyone WANTING to see this--especially when a very young Shirley Temple is dressed in a rather slinky outfit and acts like a vamp!! And then, other kids act like adults in some rather adult situations. At the time, I am sure they were not trying to appeal to pedophiles, but when looking at it today, that is what immediately comes to mind! Because of this, this boring film ALSO creeped me out and I hope to never see it again!! Pretty strange and pretty awful.
I don't know why this conduct was ever tolerated in the movie business! This movie (short) is gross (to say the least)! It is a bunch of 5-7 year old children wearing diapers with big bobby pins, acting like adults (and too much so!). However, it is interesting because it is a good example of how "the good old days" may not have been so good after all! (Thank GOD we have laws against this kind of material now!)<br /><br />{This is one short from the "Shirley Temple Festival"}
While on a vacation at the beach, red-haired brothers Michael McGreevey and Billy Mumy (as Arthur and Petey Loomis) find a seal. The lads christen their critter "Sammy", and spend summertime frolicking with the sandy sea lion. When it's time to go home, the boys begin to suffer separation anxiety. Young Mr. McGreevey decides they can't take "Sammy" back to "Disneyland"… er, "Gatesville" - but, young Mr. Mumy packs him anyway. At home, they try to hide "the Way-out Seal" from adults, and, of course… hijacks ensue! <br /><br />**** Sammy - The Way-out Seal, pt 1 (10/28/62) Norman Tokar ~ Michael McGreevey, Bill Mumy, Robert Culp
Strange... I like all this movie crew and dark humor movies; but didn't like this one at all! It's awful, horrible and surely not funny at all. Pity cannot do a whole movie plot, disgust either. And it was really boring. Long empty moments fills the movie; it could have been removed. It should have been in another shorter format, surely. Maybe i expected too much from the crew - like saving the movie lol -. It's also filled with overused clichés of characters and situations... I don't get it why people liked it... "Poetry", "hope"; nope 'mam, didn't see anything like that! ^^ All in all, it's empty and crude, pitiful and hopeless. Oh darn this one........
I had high expectations for this indie having perused the many thumbs up reviews. Then....<br /><br />Here's my additional 'two cents' to the already posted, excellent 'lost in translation' review. Premise: Morgan is 'stuck' in a dusty small town where he meets lovely Scarlet who is working in the local supermarket. Can Morgan help elevate the lovely Scarlet from her trailer trash life?<br /><br />Realistic dialog? NOT. How about that shopping in Target. First, Freeman looks at the Target interior as if he's walked into Harrods. Then, he's bowled over at a T-shirt rack confirming he has NEVER been in any store visited by lovely Scarlet. Morgan is detached from any and all aspects of Scarlet's reality and is portrayed as gleeful in his ignorance of everyone and everything in Scarlet's life.<br /><br />One reviewer enjoyed the Scarlet and ex-hubby fight scene where her survival, a car in this instance, requires she physically attack her ex hubbie. Does Freeman run to her defense....naw...he's cowering in disbelief and totally incapable of dealing with such a blunt aspect of her very real, sorry lot in life. <br /><br />Freeman's character believes a car wash and new very revealing, tight fitting blouse is the key to Scarlet's job interview. Another sign that Freeman is CLUELESS. Freeman's endless 'stage talk' where all aspects of Scarlet's reality are reduced to one or another stage related Freeman experience was irritating. <br /><br />Freeman is right to emphasize that Scarlet is young with her future ahead of her and then conveniently ignores the brick walls she faces vis a vis: uneducated, no white collar skills or experience, VERY POOR, no family support and a lifetime of low self esteem. Scarlet learns such life lessons from Freeman as: some people pay $100 for a T-shirt and a revealing blouse may open doors in lieu of her lack of education and white collar job skills. In the end Freeman offers Scarlet little more than strange diversion with a 'star',not even paying for gas for Scarlet's dead of night return to her unchanged life in a town the name of which Freeman cares not to know.
After I watched this movie, I came to IMDb and read some of the reviews, which compared it to Lost In Translation LITE. When I read that I immediately could see the reviewers point.<br /><br />This movie was a poor attempt at a similar theme. Interestingly, the format of the movie is nearly identical, but the PACING is incredibly different. "10 Items" rushes the viewer through the 1-day time line of the movie, whereas the better-planned "Lost In..." seems to stretch out over a few long days.<br /><br />I'm sure some people will see this because it has Morgan Freeman, and will be disappointed. It seems his better roles now-a-days are supporting roles in big blockbusters, rather than leading roles in sub-$10mil limited release movies and indie films.
I love Morgan Freeman. Paz Vega is an attractive, appealing and talented actress. I'm sure that this would have been a good movie had anything happened in it. Nothing does. It's short (less than 90 minutes). It was 75 minutes too long. After an hour of frustration, I scanned through the remaining 20-odd minutes. Excruciating.<br /><br />Freeman plays an actor - who hasn't worked in a while - researching a part that he might play, as a checkout clerk in a supermarket. He visits the supermarket where she works. Nothing happens. She decides to give him a ride home and they go to an Arby's, a Target, a car wash. Nothing happens. They converse about their lives. Nothing happens. Ever.<br /><br />I don't get it. But I also don't get the Bill Murray flicks "Lost In Translation" and "Broken Flowers". If you like those movies, maybe you'll like this. Lots of people find movies like this whimsical, charming, or - for reasons that escape me - find the dialog fascinating. A common device in movies of this ilk is to have a LONG take of stillness/silence after an actor delivers a line that's supposed to be meaningful. We know it's meaningful because it's followed by two minutes of nothing on the screen. Sorry, I must be a philistine. I don't get it. To me, these kinds of movies aren't funny, or charming, or thought-provoking. They're just boring. Why? Because there's no comedy. No drama. No tension. No laughs. No suspense. No action. Nothing to watch. In short, none of the things I go to the movies for. I can be bored for free. I see oddball/quirky characters in real life. I go to Target, and fast-food restaurants, and car-washes. These elements do not a movie make, even if stars are doing this stuff. I pay to be entertained.<br /><br />If you're crazy about Morgan Freeman and just like to hear him ramble on about nothing, have fun. If you wanna drool over Paz Vega, you can look and listen to her. But nothing happens, I promise. A total snoozefest.
While watching this movie, I came up with a script for a movie, called "The Making of 10 Items or Less":<br /><br />Producer: I've got good news and bad news. The good news is, we can get Morgan Freeman!<br /><br />Writer: That's great! But what's the bad news?<br /><br />Producer: We can only afford to hire him for one day. I guess we'll have to get someone else.<br /><br />Writer: So we hire him for one day. A movie is an hour and a half long. A work day is eight hours long. I fail to see a problem.<br /><br />Producer: But... he'll have to spend time getting into character.<br /><br />Writer: So we have him play a character who is essentially himself.<br /><br />Producer: But he'll still need to understand his motivation and all that. You're not saying we have him play a big-name actor that's doing a low-budget movie, are you?<br /><br />Writer: Why not?<br /><br />Producer: That's ridiculous! But fine, at least we'll have Morgan Freeman in our movie. And I guess we have to set the movie in Los Angeles too.<br /><br />Writer: Of course.<br /><br />Producer: This script is a load of crap. We'd better make money on this. Just in case, have Morgan Freeman's character plug Wal-Mart or Target or one of those stores, so at least someone will want to sell the DVDs.<br /><br />Writer: Sure thing!<br /><br />Producer: Wait a second... what's this about a tiny bodega with a "ten items or less" express lane?<br /><br />Writer: Oh, I guess that is pretty weird. But we can't change the title now!<br /><br />I doubt my script actually bears much resemblance to reality, but then neither did "10 Items or Less". This is a case of good acting, but bad writing, and I hate to see it happen. When watching an independent movie, you expect it to try to convey some sort of message. I think they might have been trying for the tired old "don't let anything hold you back" message that has been done to death in much better films. In any case, with "10 Items or Less", the only message I got was "Look! Look at Morgan Freeman!"
This movie was great the first time I saw it, when it was called "Lost in Translation." But somehow Bill Murray turned into an eccentric black man played by Morgan Freeman, Scarlett Johansson turned into a cranky Latino woman played by Paz Vega, and Tokyo, Japan turned into Carson, California. Instead of meaningful conversations and silence we enjoyed in Translation, we get meaningless blabbering in 10 Items that verges on annoying. Instead of characters that were pensive and introspective as in Translation, we get characters that spew pointless advice on topics they have no clue about. How can a character that wears hundred dollar T-shirts and has never been inside a Target department store expect to give advice to a working-class woman on how to prepare for a job interview as an administrative assistant? Don't think that stops him. If he isn't giving her clothing advice, he's telling her what she should eat. The most annoying part of the movie for me was how supposedly they were in a hurry to make an appointment, and yet the characters keep finding time to run another errand, be it washing the car, stopping at Arby's, or just laying around to list off their 10 Items or Less lists of things they love and hate. I kept wanting to yell at them saying, "Didn't you say you had somewhere to be? What the heck are doing? A minute ago you were practically late, now you're eating roast beef and pondering your lives!" Until I saw this movie, I never truly understood how something could "insist upon itself," but I think this movie does exactly that, and undeservedly so. The dialogue makes the characters cheesy and unsympathetic…with the exception that I felt sorry for both of the actors for having signed onto this project.
A still famous but decadent actor (Morgan Freeman) has not filmed for four years. When he is invited to participate in a new project, he asks the clumsy cousin of the director to drop him in a poor Latin neighborhood in Carlson to research the work of the manager of a small supermarket. He sees the gorgeous Spanish cashier Scarlet (Paz Vega) and he becomes attracted with her ability. His driver never returns to catch him and Scarlet gives a ride to the actor. But first she has a job interview for the position of secretary in a construction company and the actor helps her to be prepared; then they spend the afternoon together having a pleasant time.<br /><br />I am a big fan of Morgan Freeman and Paz Vega. However, the pointless "10 Items or Less" is absolutely disappointing. This low-budget movie does not seem to have a storyline, and is supported by the chemistry and improvisations of Morgan Freeman and Paz Vega and actually nothing happens along 82 minutes. The ambiguous open conclusion is simply ridiculous, with the character of Morgan Freeman returning to his silver spoon world and telling the simple worker that they would never see each other again. Was he afraid to have a love affair with her and destroy his perfect world with his family? Or was a clash of classes, and he realizes that his fancy neighborhood would not be adequate to a simple worker from the lower classes? My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Um Astro em Minha Vida" ("A Star in My Life")
Not really spoilers in my opinion, but I wanted to cover myself, nevertheless. As the executive producer, Morgan Freeman wants the audience to ignore the numerous absurdities of his character in 10 Items Or Less, a movie with an intentional indie-feel, and just be absorbed in the mentor/be-all-that-you-can-be theme. He plays a alternate universe, semi-washed up version of the real Morgan Freeman, who is chauffeured in an old Econovan by a kid all the way into Carson, CA from Brentwood to research his next movie role. Why Carson, is a mystery to So. Cal residents. He could have saved the trip and gone anywhere in the San Fernando Valley and found the same elements. Paz Vega is pretty to watch, a cross between Salma Hayek and Penelope Cruz, playing a disgruntled grocery checker at a large but slow local market that apparently is the ultimate source for Moragn Freeman's research. His character is only known as "Him" to allude to how actors are regarded when encountered in real life by average people-"Psst, that's 'him,' etc. Unfortunately, I was too distracted that Him had all kinds of worldly wisdom and advice but had no reliable return back to his home in Brentwood, carried no cash or debit card, or had the wisdom to keep a cell phone with him. If one has such a high opinion of their self that they believe they possess an answer to everything like Him does, then I gotta see cash and a Blackberry which displays intelligence and good survival instincts to preserve that big ego which Him definitely has. Nothing really happens in this movie. I don't believe that either of the main character's were substantially changed by their encounter with each other. It flirts with the idea of adultery, but then that thought fizzles. This to me was similar to Steve Martin's Shopgirl, without the sexual affair. It was self-indulgent for Freeman and unconvincing to the audience.
I did not expect a lot from this movie, after the terrible "Life is a Miracle". It turns out that this movie is ten times worse than "Life ...". I have impression that director/writer is just joking with the audience: " let me see how much emptiness can you (audience) sustain". Dialogues are empty, ... scenario is minimalistic. In few moments, photography is really nice. Few sarcastic lines are semi-funny, but it is hard to genuinely laugh during this "comedy". I've laughed to myself for being able to watch the movie until the end. If you can lift yourself above this director's fiasco, ... you will find good acting of few legends (Miki Manojlovic, Aleksandar Bercek), and very good performance of Emir's son Stribor Kusturica.<br /><br />In short: too bad for such a great director ! Emir Kusturica is still young and should be making top-rated movies. Instead, he chooses to do this low-budget just-for-my-private theater movie, with arrogant attitude toward the world trends and negligence toward his old fans.
First of all, this plot is way overdone - girl wants to make it, everyone loves her, snobby girl intervenes, all looks lost, girl pulls through, everyone loves her again etc. Throw in the fitting in thing, an attractive male crushing on the heroine, plus single-parent troubles and it's so predictable that you can practically recite along with it.<br /><br />Second of all, I really hate how they keep on dissing classical music. They send out the message that everyone involved in classical music is uptight and snobby and close-minded - in fact, I don't recall the quote exactly, but I remember at one point in the movie, Holly says, "Why do they have to be so uptight...so classical?" It's really insulting how label classical music in this way.<br /><br />Third, I've went over it dozens of times, but the only reason that I can think of for making this movie is to promote Britney Spears. there just isn't any point at all.<br /><br />And oh yeah, while the actress who portrayed Holly (I'm not sure whether that was really her singing or not) had a reasonably good voice, it wasn't as amazing as they were making it out to be - especially when she was belting. She was oversupporting the whole time.<br /><br />1/10 stars.
This is no doubt one of the worst movies I have ever seen. This makes your run of the mill TV movie look like Reservoir Dogs. Based on a book by the one and only Britney Spears and her mother this is trash with nothing bar a reasonable performance from Virginia Madsen (I hope you got paid well) to save it. The story of a red neck country gill who wins a scholarship in a prestigious music school is little but a vehicle to pedal Ms Spears pants music to the consumer and to generally agree that low brow must be the way. There is nothing good going on here with all the beats as predictable as night following day. Never ever again.
hello boys and girls... this isn't your regular movie review, because this is going to be the cold. hard. truth. are you serious? this movie sucked so many balls i couldn't keep them out of my mouth! they might as well have sprayed me in the eye with monkey semen. you'd need one seriously large douche to pump out all the vaginal fluid from this movie.<br /><br />the plot was very lacking. the actors were terrible. i rewound the dance number several times and had to pause it even more because i was choking on my own spit. do boys, everyone!<br /><br />peace R&H besties4lyf
EXTREMITIES <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.85:1<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />A woman turns the tables on a would-be rapist when he mounts an assault in her home, and is forced to decide whether to kill him or inform the police, in which case he could be released and attack her again.<br /><br />Exploitation fans who might be expecting another rough 'n' ready rape fantasy in the style of DAY OF THE WOMAN (1978) will almost certainly be disappointed by EXTREMITIES. True, Farrah Fawcett's character is subjected to two uncomfortably prolonged assaults before gaining the upper hand on her attacker (a suitably slimy James Russo), but scriptwriter William Mastrosimone and director Robert M. Young take these unpleasant scenes only so far before unveiling the dilemma which informs the moral core of this production. Would their final solution hold up in a court of law? Maybe...<br /><br />Based on a stage play which reportedly left its actors battered and bruised after every performance, the film makes no attempt to open up the narrative and relies instead on a confined setting for the main action. Acing and technical credits are fine, though Fawcett's overly subdued performance won't play effectively to viewers who might be relying on her to provide an outlet for their outraged indignation.
This movie is terrible. The suspense is spent waiting for a point. There isn't much of one.<br /><br />Aside from a few great lines ( "I found a tooth in my apartment" ), and the main characters dedication to killing himself, it's a collection of supposedly eerie sounds.<br /><br />
This is possibly the most boring movie in history. I was really looking forward to seeing this movie given the actor/director Roman Polanski. I think I would rather see the Three Amigos than ever watch this movie again. It promptly went from the DVD player straight into the garbage. My apologies to those of you who apparently liked this movie however you probably liked New Coke as well. I am at a loss to see why anyone would have enjoyed this movie, it is slow, dull and has no real plot. You wait for 105 minutes for the movie to get started. I understand this was made in 1976 however this was an era of bad television all around. Thank god disco and Three's Company are gone along with stop sign glasses and the Bay City Rollers. Oh well just my thoughts.
This movie was worth five punches on my "hurter card". I saw this while stationed in Virginia in the mid '70's. I saw it alone so I was not distracted while I watched it. It sucked. It was the most ridiculous, total waste of celluloid I've ever seen.<br /><br />I know that others who have reviewed this movie have thought that it was awesome. I offer you this: if it was so awesome what was it's box office take? End of discussion.
It's unlikely that anyone except those who adore silent films will appreciate any of the lyrical camera-work and busy (but scratchy) background score that accompanies this 1933 release. Although sound came into general use in 1928, there are no more than fifty words spoken to tell the story of a woman, unhappily married, who deserts her husband for a younger man after a romantic interlude in the woods.<br /><br />The most vividly photographed scene has the jealous husband giving a lift to the young man for a ride into town, proceeding to drive normally until he realizes the man is his wife's lover. In a frenzy of jealousy, he drives at top speed toward a railroad crossing but changes his mind at the last moment, losing his nerve. It's probably the most tension-filled scene in the otherwise decidedly slow-moving and obviously contrived story.<br /><br />HEDY LAMARR is given the sort of close-up treatment lavished on Marlene Dietrich by her discoverer, but her beauty had not yet been refined by the cosmeticians as they were when she was transported to Hollywood. Her performance consists mostly of looking sad and morose while mourning the loss of her marriage with only brief glimpses of a smile when she finds her true love (ARIBERT MOG), the handsome young stud who retrieves her clothes after a nude swim.<br /><br />The swimming scene is very brief, discreetly photographed, and not worth all the heat it apparently generated. The love-making scene, later on, is also artfully photographed with the sort of lyrical photography evident throughout most of the film--artfully so. More is left to the imagination with the use of symbolism--and this is the sort of thing that has others proclaiming the film is some kind of lyrical masterpiece.<br /><br />Not so. It's disappointing, primitively crude in its sound portions (including the laborious symphonic music in the background) and certainly Miss Lamarr is fortunate that Louis B. Mayer saw the film and on the basis of it, gave her a career in Hollywood. He must have seen something in her work that I didn't.<br /><br />It's apparent that this was conceived as a silent film with the camera doing all the work. The jarring "workers" scene at the conclusion goes on for too long and is a jarring intrusion where none is needed. It fails to end the film on the proper note.
This movie really shows its age. The print I saw was terrible due to age, but it is possible that there are better prints out there. However, this was not the major problem with the movie. The problem was that although the film was made in 1933, it was essentially a silent film with only the barest of dialog scattered (only a few sentences) in the film in the most amateur fashion. Sometimes the characters' backs were turned or they were talking with their hands over their faces--all in a pathetic attempt to obscure their lips and "cleaverly" (?) hide the fact that the film was dubbed. Well, its true that this Czech film would need to be dubbed into many languages but to do it this way was really stupid and obvious. It just looked cheap.<br /><br />Overall, the film looked low budget and silly. It's really a shame though, because there was a grain of a good story--a young woman who marries an older man who is either gay and/or has no interest in women. But in the 21st century, few people would really be willing to sit through this archaic mess. EVEN with a few glimpses of the naked (and somewhat chunky) Hedy Lamarr, it isn't worth all the fuss that accompanied the film when it debuted. Even by 1933 standards, this film was a poorly made dud. About the only interesting thing about the film is to see how different Lamarr looked in 1933 compared with the glamorous image Hollywood created when she came to America--she looks like 2 completely different people.<br /><br />It's such an incomplete looking and technically inferior film, I don't see how it has gotten such rave reviews. For technical problems alone, the movie can't rate a 10 or anything near it.
Final Score: 0 (out of 10)<br /><br />***Possible scene specific spoilers (but who the hell cares)***<br /><br />Yes, that's right: zero. And I rarely give 1's. Even for the lamest of movies I look for things like music, cinematography, imagination, it's humor, even a good pace to be as objective about the score as possible. Looking at it within it's own genera or subgenera. But there is absolutely nothing redeeming here. I can't remember another time a movie actually sent me pacing up and down the room when it was over. The only reason I made it to the end was because I couldn't seem to change the channel - I sat there simply aghast, watching to see what insultingly stupid bit it would come up with next. It was like watching a snake digest a rat. <br /><br />But let's have some fun and pull this baby apart, shall we. First of all, There is nothing technical about "Whipped" that works. The visuals are all sitcom style. The cut scenes all just pictures of the street traffic going by at night over and over. The music and score, not only doesn't contribute anything to the movie - it's obnoxious. Not to mention it doesn't have anything to contribute to anyway. The acting is as cardboard as it comes, all around and that goes for Amanda Peet (clearly the "star" that got this train wreck green-lighted) too. These guys, supposedly good friends, have no more chemistry or sense of purpose then if director Peter M. Cohen had rounded them up at a bus station minutes before shooting.<br /><br />On the creative side, there isn't an original bone in it's body. It has no imagination. It shows us nothing we haven't seen a thousand times before. The whole premise, or "twist", of this movie is based on male-bashing and the "idea" that an empowered women can play men "just as they get played". Anybody, that thinks this is somehow a twist or is in any way original has obviously never turned on a TV before. Twisted, shallow women are common. Male-bashing is the norm. It's not stealing from anything specifically, it's worse: it's stealing from clichés. I can't imagine a women making a movie that depicted other women based so much on stereotypes and with this sense of contempt. Makes me want to go rent "In the Company of Men" - or better yet, "There's Something About Mary". This movie wants to be a "edgier" version of "There's Something About Mary" so bad you can see the sweat. <br /><br />The movie has no insights into women, men, dating, sex, or really anything. Cohen is simply content to regurgitate myths he has been indoctrinated with from other sexist movies. On the other end, the movie doesn't work as a satire either, because even though it is ripe with exaggerations one could view as "satirical" it doesn't have that grounding in reality that satires need. It doesn't even know what it's satirizing. Then there's the dialogue, which is little more then the characters screaming obscenities at each other. Example: Character 1: "F**k you" Character 2: "Oh yeah, well f**k you" (repeat)<br /><br />And the bottom line, the thing that could excuse all the other discretions: There are a lot of movies without plots, without good acting, with morally repulsive characters and obscenity laced dialogue that have been funny and thus, been good. "Whipped" ain't funny. Not for a second. It has no comic skills or timing. The situations are all completely phony, not based in any shred of truth, especially enough to wring laughs out of us. The characters all broadly drawn so they will SEEM relatable to the lowest of the lowest common denominator. Just look at "the marquee scene", "cult classic" hair gel scene. One of our bumbling anti-heroes opens the medicine cabinet and sees Mena (Peet)'s vibrator. For some reason light shines down on it as if he's found the holy grail. Why Cohen thinks men react this way to vibrators I do not know. While he rubs it on himself, he drops it in the toilet and then attempts to fish it out with his bare hands when, oh my, Mena walks in on him. Oh, my sides. <br /><br />But strangely enough, people actually like this movie. Of course, people also like "Friends" and reality dating shows so I shouldn't be surprised. All of this has a common thread however. "Whipped" is big evidence to me that there is just a huge pocket of people in America that will laugh at any joke just because it is about sex. They will like any show or movie (or think they like it) just because it is about dating or relationships. It's lack of any quality has no baring on these people. Just as people are indoctrinated to want whiter teeth and thinner bodies to sell toothbrushes and weight loss programs, they are also indoctrinated to blindly lap up anything dating/relationship related to sell them cheap, empty, effortless TV, movies and any number of products. <br /><br />The only consilation will be that when I die, because I saw this movie, I've got a credit to get 80 minutes of my life back. <br /><br />
It just seems bizarre that someone read this script, and thought, "This is funny! I mean, it's so hilarious it just has to be made!" Who was this person? Is he or she the person really responsible for this? Are they the one's who owe me for my time, more so than the director/writer?<br /><br />This film stinks in most every way possible. There's no one shred of good dialogue, and not one likable character. And the story...<br /><br />I prefer the 2nd worst movie ever, Hulk Hogan's "No Hold's Barred" to this by quite a considerable degree. It seems almost Shakespearen in comparison.<br /><br />The ending is padded out with several minutes of outtakes, and it's still under 80 minutes. The outtakes include cast members laughing at the 'hilarious' mistakes they've made, and things that went wrong on the set of this 'comedy.' Glad to see someone laughing in someway, with some connection to this 'film.'<br /><br />Nothing in this film is funny. Nothing. It just goes on, and on. It's truly that lame. I love films that are so bad they're good. This is so bad it's...something, but I don't know what, and hopefully will never find out.<br /><br />Amanda Peet doesn't suck outright, and is in fact the only half good thing about this wannabe film. But, that really means little.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs.
I'll be blunt and to the point. This film is not good at all. The film buff part of me hated the acting, script, story, direction and almost all of the editing. Amanda Peet has proven that she can act, as she was a high point of 'The Whole Nine Yards'. So she should have avoided this movie with a ten foot pole. However, the infantile part of me found this film to be very funny. If you can forget about how underpar the production quality is, and if you find smut jokes funny, then you should be all right. And for those of you who can't get off your pedestal, thats your choice. My inner child hasen't died, and I laughed a fair bit. Even then, only a 3 out of ten, because as a movie, it really does stink.
A poorly written script with no likeable characters. As for it being a comedy, I forgot to laugh. It's about 2 conceited friends who scam to get women in too bed with them (no sex scenes) and another friend(who is semi-discustingly weird)who sometimes also scams but mainly is considered as being the guy who masterbates. The 3 friends separately meet and fall for the same woman (Amanda Peet). Somehow this is done without really any romance. The 3 guys stop being friends as they separately dated her. She scammed them out of their friendship because they scammed women. -- A bad movie
Four best friends young male chauvinist pigs (with the emphasis on pigs) meet weekly at a NYC diner to recount their dating sexploits in this misanthropic and visceral comedy. Peet is the common denominator who dates the three bachelors in the group which leads to conflict and the inevitable "whipping". Although the film's premise has potential and there are some funny moments to be had, overall the flick doesn't work especially in the end where the girls are made to appear no better than the guys which runs contrary to the crux of the story. One of those one-man band flix with a dozen producers, "Whipped" is likely to be enjoyed only by the kind of young males who think "The Man Show" is Emmy material.
Every Sunday, a trio of buds get together at a NYC diner to boast about their sexual conquests of the night before. Sometimes they're joined by a newlywed ex-comrade and hoochie hunter who hangs on them like a puling barnacle. They're unabashed horn dogs/corn dogs and Mia, who witnesses them on the prowl, decides that they need to be taught a lesson, dammit. Ergo, she'll date and dump - why not? All three of them! <br /><br />Gasp. What a wild idea. What a radical, naughty gal. Women now have the right to date and sleep around as much as they want to. As much as men do, even! <br /><br />There is one solitary laughable element in "Whipped" - namely the fact that not once, during the amigo's detailed discussions of their bodily functions and the tantric talents of the bed partners they trash, do the other customers in the diner turn around and say, "Dude, we're trying to EAT here." Indeed, a heh-heh gag has an older lady eagerly weigh in on the useful sexual properties of certain beverages. A big fat Kermit the Frog "Sheesh" to that.<br /><br />It's truly unfortunate that a buddy movie with a great setting, a smart, cute heroine and three possible pairings had to have such a cop-out ending.<br /><br />P.S. - 30 "whip-oosh" sound effects to the screenwriter for use of the phrase "You go, girl". It was tired in 2000, and it's tired now.<br /><br />Save your time and watch some "Sex and the City" reruns...
Personally, while I'm able to appreciate really good movies, I also have a strange ability to somewhat enjoy even the most crappiest of crap. You know, those times when you just want to sit there and watch some horrible cookie-cutter action movie to kill time. This is the only movie that I can remember actually shutting off in the middle, and I have absolutely NO intention of going back to finish it. The plot was so contrived and predictable, I was calling out what the next scene would be easily (and I'm usually not very good at this). The actors were horrible, I've seen better acting in middle school plays. Even the scene cuts were bad, the flow was all wrong.<br /><br />This movie is like a parody that forgot the funny.
First and foremost, Zorie Barber (Zeke), might be one of the worst actors I have ever seen. As a character that's supposed to be a hip, Village writer into the martial arts and proud of being mysterious, why is he so hyper, over-dramatic, and plain horrible? Did he know anything about his character before they started filming? Did the director? Don't the martial arts teach discipline? Aside from that, this film misses the target with its lame jokes and seen-it-already gross-out humor. Hand in toilet? <i>Trainspotting</i>. Masturbation? Hmm. <i>Fast Times at Ridgemont High</i>, <i>American Pie</i>, the list goes on.. .Bad dialogue: In one sequence, Eric says "it's none of my business <i>but</i> . ..." and 30 seconds later Mia says "why is this any of your business?" Bad editing: At least five minutes worth of film are wasted on NYC traffic shots. <hr>It's also impossible to believe that the four main male characters would be a tight-knit group of friends in any world. I can't comment on what makes everyone laugh, but if you enjoy low-brow, basic bathroom humor and insults, by all means, enjoy. If you want something a little smarter but on the same lines, see <i>Boomerang</i>. If you want a solid what-goes-around romantic comedy, go for <i>The Tao Of Steve</i>. But anyone who thinks <i>Whipped</i> is witty and an accurate portrayal dating, well, I cannot agree at all.
I like movies about morally corrupt characters, but this was too much. The acting wasn't great, but that wasn't the real problem. The issue was the sinking feeling I got in the pit of my stomach about 20 minutes into the film. These characters were hollow. They had almost no depth, and what little they did have was devoted to the cruelty they displayed to each other in the guise of friendship. Exploring the darker sides of a set of characters can be fascinating, but you have to give those characters actual personalities or they are just cardboard cutouts. These characters were cardboard and the picture they gave was just ugly.
I just watched this movie last night, and I HAD to put a warning out for anybody else considering to see this film. In a word - don't. I seriously feel like this is something that a screenwriting student would have written in a Quentin Tarantino/Eddie Murphy phase, i.e. every other word was a curse word. I don't have a problem with profuse cursing, as in "Good Will Hunting", provided it helps to delve more into the characters. In this case it was just hollow banter with the attempt to draw an occassional *gasp* or laughter from the audience. The three lead characters are all their own unique stereotype, the wall street jerk, the coffee house jerk, and the "I'm-Not-Gay-Just-In-Touch-With-My-Feminine-Side" slightly-less-of-a-jerk. You just don't give a damn about any of them! They are all shallow, unredemable losers who you WANT to see lose. For those who dare, this film does have a couple funny moments, the very beginning, and the very end. The toilet/vibrator scene is funny in a sick kinda "Uh, yeah" way. Really though, I would only recommend this film to my worst of enemies.
Hands down the worst movie I have ever seen. I thought nothing would ever dethrone Last Action Hero, but this does easily. The movie is about 3 single guys who meet on Sundays to discuss their sexual escapades from the weekend. A fourth guy - who is married and - that used to be a part of the group shows up and talks about what he and his wife do. Nothing works in this movie. The jokes are not funny but they are repeated throughout the movie. The big kicker at the end of the movie is laughable. Avoid at all costs.
"Whipped" is one of the most awful films of all time. It is a mean, hateful piece of garbage that had me forcing myself to stay in the theater more than any other movie of 2000, besides maybe "The Grinch." It is not, as people have called it, an insightful portrait of modern relationships. That would be a little film called "High Fidelity." Whereas that movie was honest and sympathetic, "Whipped" is hostile, cynical, misanthropic cinematic poison. Avoid this like so many plagues, unless you want to see how truly bad a "comedy" can get.
For months preceding the release of this movie you saw it advertised in all sorts of print media, so I patiently waited for its video release to see what all the hype was about. After it was over I had to apologize to my roommate for occupying the VCR for the last hour and a half to watch such a horrible movie. It essentially fails because it is a character based movie about unredeemable characters. With the possible exception of Amanda Peet (whose only redeemable quality is that she is Amanda Peet) you cannot stand any of them. The film relies on its dialogue which is sophomoric, moronic, and crude. The only slightly amusing character is Eric, whose portrayal of the sole married member of a group of friends is dead on. The final twist, designed to make you laugh at the three main characters, only instead inspires the same kind of resentment towards Peet. All in all, only rent if you are desperate or possess a dark sense of humor.
This film is not funny. It is not entertaining. It does not contain one single second of originality or intelligence, nor does it lead you to take the slightest interest in the characters or situation. Added to that it's about as juvenile a movie as anything in recent memory. It's as if a group of 14 or 15 year old high school kids who had never actually met or had any type of relationship with a real girl had sat down and wrote a movie based on their incorrect fantasies about what being an adult man would be like. This movie is boring, obnoxiously mind-numbing, and at times offensive and disgusting. At most, it contains one or two moments that make you laugh. Also, it seems twice as long as its 85 minute running time.
This movie lacked... everything: story, acting, surprise, ingenuity and a soul. Fifteen minutes in, I was staring at the screen saying, "How could all of these guys get together and consider themselves friends (even without the girl)?" Another fifteen minutes in, I was praying for as much Amanda Peet as possible. When a bad movie quietly rears it's ugly head, eye candy is a nice consolation. But there wasn't much of that! Cheated on all fronts!
"Whipped" is 82 minutes long. This review is 82 words long. Three unlikable New York Lotharios, ruthless "scammers," end up wooing the same woman, played by Amanda Peet, with disastrous results. That applies to the story and the film. Too sophomoric to be misogynistic, flaccid and ridiculous, "Whipped" mixes the philosophies of shock jock Tom Lykis with Penthouse letter fantasies. Though technically proficient it's dated, grating, poorly written, mean, and obvious. People don't act like this. People don't talk like this. Really.
I was looking forward to seeing Amanda Peet in another good role after recently renting "The Whole Nine Yards"--easily worth the rental, by the way--but this wasn't it.<br /><br />I remembered that the trailer for "Whipped" was somewhat funny and the plot about three oversexed New Yorker twenty somethings all falling for and getting manipulated by the charming Ms. Peet was worth a shot. So, I convinced two friends one afternoon to come see this movie with me. This review is my penance.<br /><br />In the first act we have the three lead studs, recounting their conquests in a diner. What should have been funny, or at least telling, comes out rather pathetic. Was there any redeeming quality about the three men and their encounters that we were supposed to get out of this?<br /><br />[And while I don't mind movies that are cheerfully vulgar, I kept wondering why no one in the diner turned around when the studs talk loudly about sexual and scatalogical details. They do this every week at the same diner? You would think someone would complain. Oh, wait, I forgot: two other diners do notice in one scene. But this is just a setup for a punchline. Everyone else in the diner is deaf.]<br /><br />The second act has the three studs all falling for Mia and then developing brain rot, failing to ask each other or her about what's really happening between the four of them. And I kept asking myself, as the studs keep acting like they have been, what redeeming qualities does she see in them to stick with them longer than one date? Does she start out with brain rot? I kept hoping for Eric's character, the married buddy, to become something more than simply the annoying punching bag in this act. His role is clearly to dispense advice on being married. But why do they even bother to talk to him when they won't talk to each other? And his advice? Sheeesh!<br /><br />The third act resolves what plot there is but by this time I was looking at my watch. My friends told me they were still waiting for something genuinely funny to happen and I had to agree. The Scene That Explains All was adequate and managed to explain all of the questions and mysterious dialogue bits throughout the movie but we were just checking them off a list. ("Oh, okay, that's why Brad had that happen and Jonathan says this and...")<br /><br />What laughs we made were from the stupidity of the plot than at anything amusing. Even the outtakes during the credits weren't very funny. Ultimately I was left with nothing except a desire to warn people away from this movie.<br /><br />Rating: 3
Bad acting. Bad writing. This was a poorly written film. It's too bad because it had some potential. It's not even close to American Pie or Something about Mary as previous comments might have you believe. Rent it at dollar night from you local video store if you're kind of bored.
This movie will be a hit with those that enjoy sophomoronic, mindless, explicit bragging about sexual exploits and F... in almost every sentence. Like a good plot? Like comedy? Like romance or other human values? Stay away from Whipped. It was so bad I left after about half an hour. I saw two kids slip in that looked to be about 10 -- very harmful -- this deserves an X.
I see quite a few positive reviews on this board, trying to revive this film from its lackluster status and starting a cult following. I see the usual ranting--"I guess this movie is just not for the easily offended," "This movie is not Shakespeare," etc. Guess what? Neither was "Road Trip"! And I laughed my a** off during that movie! There's a way to make a crude, tasteless comedy and deliver laughs; and there's a way to...just make it crude and tasteless. "Whipped" tries to be "Swingers" without the wit or intelligence. It seems to have been written through the puerile eyes of a 14-year-old boy. For God's sake, the characters in this movie are supposed to be white-collar, upright citizens--and they talk like some of the idiots I knew in freshman year of high school! The dialogue is laced--more like drowned--with four-letter words. You would think that people of their status would have SOME degree of intelligence--and a more extensive vocabulary. Just watch a Whit Stillman film and you'll see the difference. Not to mention the fact that the dialogue sounds totally unrealistic and downright cartoonish. If you know any successful, white-collar businessmen who speak like the characters in this movie--please let me know and introduce me to them. Their annoying sexual banter is equivalent to that of standard locker room chat among teens just arriving at puberty. There is absolutely NO insight into relationships, sex or...anything!!! It's just a poor excuse to showcase an array of extremely--and don't take the word "extremely" for granted, because I mean it with all my heart--crude gags. These are gags with no substance. Gags that are meant more for groans than laughs. The scene at the end between Amanda Peet and her girlfriends was totally un-called for and totally unconvincing. There are some movies that involve interaction among females that were written by (straight) men and play out wonderfully. This scene involves a barrage of sexual metaphors and gestures. It involves the kind of dialogue you can never imagine leaving a woman's mouth. It was one of those noticeably-written-by-a-guy scenes. I wasn't believing it for a second. <br /><br />"Whipped" is purely a sick male fantasy that's as flat as it is annoying. I got (very) few laughs out of this utterly forgettable comedy, and those were probably a result of desperation. When you're not laughing for a long period of time, you desperately look for humor in the most trivial things. So I wouldn't mark that down as a positive.
BEGIN SPOILER: Fitfully funny and memorable for Mr. Chong's literal roach-smoking scene: Chong coolly mashes a stray kitchen cockroach into his pipe's bowl, lights up, coughs and hacks violently for a seeming eternity,then with perfect aplomb and not skipping a beat, re-loads the bowl properly, re-lights, re-tokes. END SPOILER. Alas, I began to lose faith less than half-way through the proceedings. It occurred to me that the lackadaisical duo are way obnoxious and less than relatable. I have come to appreciate the relative sophistication of contemporary stoners, Harold and Kumar. I simply prefer brighter company. Yet, the movie is probably a perfect fit for baked frat bros or those viewers who are so feeble-minded as to be outwitted by a stoner when they-- the former are sober. Notable guest appearance by Paul Reubens spouting obscenities in pre-Pee-wee form.
One of those el cheapo action adventures of the early 1980s that used to fill video rental stores solely to be taken out by adolescent boys in the hope of a cheap thrill.<br /><br />Woeful down market attempt to cash in on the Death Wish phenomenon by substituting a moderately attractive woman for the visually challenging Bronson. Acting is terrible, sets are cheap, the baddies are, well, bad. Identification with any of the characters is unlikely.<br /><br />Only redeeming feature is modest amount of gratuitous female nudity, a smattering of which is full frontal. Other than that, you can leave it...
An apparent vanity project for Karin Mani (who?), as a hottie Charles Bronson going around wiping up the 'scum' that mugged her parents, or grandparents or something, and impressing young hunks with her karate skills. In a pivotal scene she intervenes to stop a rape and a moron cop throws HER in jail, so after a couple cool shower scenes and some abortive prison-dyke seduction she has to take the law into her own hands blah blah blah. I guess there were a lot of movies like this? The script is dumber than usual if you can believe that. Mani comes off as exactly the kind of showbiz type that would co-produce her own Death Wish starring role, and I find that type sporadically endearing, but the movie is an ungainly apparatus. Competent actors would be wasted on the scumbag roles here, and would actively undermine the fantastic mincing-incompetent DA and a judge that has got to be the producer's uncle.
Please humour me if you will, for a minute while I read you the back of the ALLEY CAT VHS box. It says that:<br /><br />In this part of the city every street is a dead end- on every corner something to buy- in every alley another way to die- To survive you're got to be the best- just like the Alley Cat. Alley Cat- this lady owns the night. On the streets where even the predators become victims she knows how to survive- Cross her and you've run out of luck. Alley Cat- This animal is aroused.<br /><br />Now isn't that one of the most pathetic blurbs you've ever heard in your life? Whoever wrote that must be insane if they thought such a awful description could tempt us into viewing the video. Yet unfortunately, whichever faceless individual was responsible for that tragic use of English was doing their job only too well.. the movie contained within the little plastic case IS as bad as it sounds, and then some.<br /><br />Karin Mani plays the title role, and the script basically tells her during every given scene to either a) Pout like a goldfish b) Kick male butt or c) Show off her feminine 'attributes'. No complaints about the latter, but in terms of the other two.. let's just say she isn't much of an actress, and is even less convincing as a martial arts expert. But even Meryl Streep with Cynthia Rothrock's body (what a scary thought) would fail to save this movie. The unfolding of the plot is boring beyond belief, as we get one ineptly directed fight sequence after enough, pausing only for hysterical courtroom shenanigans and the occasional gag-inducing love scene with the interestingly named Robert Torti. The camera-work also follows a similar path of shame, with far too many unneeded close-ups and continuity errors abound.<br /><br />The part that I think really sums this scum-bucket of a movie up is where our heroine is sexually assaulted, and finds herself testifying in front of a corrupt judge while her rich-kid rapist leers at her from the box. Not only does he get off scot-free despite the overwhelming evidence against him, but she herself is then jailed for daring to protest about the verdict in front of his Honour. Behind bars, she then has a group shower, a lesbian crush, a couple of cat-fights and a nice, sweaty game of volleyball before being released on bail to continue her battle. This ten-minute section has nothing to do with the rest of the movie, and the screenplay grinds to a halt to encompass it. I can only imagine the producers wanted to add a bit more T&A to the mix, and came up with this needless sub-plot as a means to achieving that end.<br /><br />Which kinds of begs the question, is this an exploitation film, or a serious drama? Neither, is my response to that.. it isn't sleazy or camp enough to appeal to fans of Troma-style cinema, and it certainly doesn't make the grade as an exploration of one woman's fight against the system.. purely because it is so appallingly made. So who on earth would want to see it? Lunatics, I guess.. or IMDb reviewers who stay up till 3pm and watch any old rubbish on the box while trying to get to sleep. Sadly on this occasional I failed, and the horrors will stay with me for quite some time. Don't make the same mistake I did. Have a hot milk, or something.. 1/10
Mary Pickford becomes the chieftain of a Scottish clan after the death of her father, and then has a romance. As fellow commenter Snow Leopard said, the film is rather episodic to begin. Some of it is amusing, such as Pickford whipping her clansmen to church, while some of it is just there. All in all, the story is weak, especially the recycled, contrived romance plot-line and its climax. The transfer is so dark it's difficult to appreciate the scenery, but even accounting for that, this doesn't appear to be director Maurice Tourneur's best work. Pickford and Tourneur collaborated once more in the somewhat more accessible 'The Poor Little Rich Girl,' typecasting Pickford as a child character.
A routine mystery/thriller concerning a killer that lurks in the swamps. During the early days of television, this one was shown so often, when Dad would say "What's on TV tonight?" and we'd tell him "Strangler of the Swamp" he'd pack us off to the movies. We went to the movies a lot in those days!
Without question one of the most embarrassing productions of the 1970s, GAOTS seems to really, REALLY want to be something important. The tragic truth is that it's so entirely valueless on every level that one can't help but laugh. Reaching in desperation for the earthy elements of Ingmar Bergman's films, it follows a city couple's day in the wilderness...they walk along a shady path, allthewhile pontificating like a U.C. Berkeley coffee clatch. Almost every line of tarradiddle dialog delivered here is uproariously bad("I feel that life itself is made up of as many tiny compartments as this pomegranate....but is it as beautiful?") After what seems like an eternity of absolutely nothing happening(well...OK...we are treated to some nudity and a tepid soft sex scene), there is finally a VERY anticlimactic confrontation involving a pair 'Nam vets who are making the nature scene and performing some pretty harsh folk ballads with an acoustic guitar. <br /><br />Nothing at all eventful or interesting happens IN THIS ENTIRE FILM. I thought the Larry Buchanan picture "Strawberries Need Rain" was a weak example of a Bergman homage. "Golden Apples" is every bit as bad, but the ceaseless random verbiage it presents makes it memorably awful. 1/10
I used to review videos for Joe Bob Briggs' legendary "We Are The Weird" newsletter. I saw a lot of stinkers, but this by far was the worst, and the years have not been kind - it remains the most indecent crime against cinema I have ever witnessed. Don't get me wrong - CAGED TERROR is nominally more technically competent than, say, MONSTER-A-GO-GO or THE GUY FROM HARLEM or something of that ilk. What solidifies its claim as Worst Movie Of All Time for me is its unique blend of bare proficiency with crippling pretension. Is it a Vietnam commentary? An ecological protest? An incitement to race riot? A study of man's inhumanity to man? A novel exercise in padding nature footage out to (nearly) feature length? In short: a hep young urban professional (possibly the most loathesome screen character ever) somehow seduces a nubile Asian-American associate into camping in the woods with him. After brow-beating her with quasi-philosophical clap for the better part of an hour, they run across two wandering veterans, the unforgettable Jarvis (a righteous brother) and the Troubadour (guitar-toting Manson Family reject). Hey, a plot twist! Tension! Action! Suspense! Well, no, just a climactic getting-locked-in-a-makeshift-wire-chicken-coop-and-lightly-belittled scene. The victim in question stares listlessly at the captors and mutters, "No... no... please... don't..." Meanwhile, Jarvis addresses the Troubadour as "Trouby" once every two minutes, bringing to mind nothing so much as the alien star of Juan Picquer's POD PEOPLE. That's about all that happens in CAGED TERROR, and such a synopsis perhaps makes it seem almost tolerable. But trust me, I've seen thousands of movies in my life, and this one has remained, for the past eight years since I first saw it, the absolute worst. (I pop it in the old VCR once every two years or so just to reassure myself, and reassure myself I certainly do.) I think the element which makes CAGED TERROR so particularly hateful is this: very little happens, and although what little does happen happens quite poorly and quite slowly, what truly makes it compulsively unwatchable is the suffocating sense that the filmmakers REALLY, REALLY WANT to shove some kind of message down your throat. But because CAGED TERROR is so incompetent and ineffectual, what was intended as a civics lesson becomes a crash course in intense viewing discomfort. This film is 75 minutes long and feels like three and a half hours. It's terrible, truly truly terrible. Folks, trust me, I saw GHOSTS THAT STILL WALK and this one is worse. Go see it! You'll thank me. And curse me. Just for the record, my favorite line: (In CAGED TERROR but perhaps EVER) "Yeah, well, you probably think the Song of Solomon was an allegory for Christ's love for the church...!" (NOTE: Must be delivered in a tone of concerted condecension.)
This film turned up on local TV here in South Africa recently and I thought that I'd warn even those who enjoy watching B grade bad movies (which I do)that this is not even amusing. The plot concerns a couple visiting a house in the country. Some strangers appear and .... The problem is that most of the film, obviously shot in the early seventies, consists of extreme wide shots of people walking, in real time and awfully slowly, from A to B. This makes the film tedious in the extreme and the expected blood and gore payoff just never happens. I am really curious - how many people have actually watched this from beginning to end?
When I was in school I made a film about a couple roaming around in the trees and talking, and I realized halfway through editing that this was not just a failing aesthetic strategy but a cliché of Canadian cinema: sodden lyricism married to vacant, metaphor-burdened stabs at social commentary. But whatever my own film's failings I feel much better after seeing this...this...thing. For one thing, mine ran 20 minutes, not 85, and had more content at that: every pointless bit of business here is fawned over for four, five, six relentless minutes. The male lead is just incredible, a brow-beating, loudmouthed creep given to outbursts of drama-class improv in between philosophical insights culled from the U of T pub, and he is given lots and lots of space to make us hate him. Admittedly if he weren't such an a**hole then the third act would make even less sense, as a couple snarky dudes show up to provide distant and thoroughly unhelpful echoes of 'exploitation' values; but it doesn't make it any easier to watch the caged creep whimper "please" in closeup until the magazine runs out. I take back what I said about AUTUMN BORN, which at least had the courage of its own misbegotten lechery: this cinematic crater is and will remain the very worst Canadian movie of all time. At least, I really really hope so.
I saw this movie a couple years back. I could'nt sleep and there was nothing on. So I peeped it. What really gets me is it makes no sense and thats why its disturbing. Richard gets tied up in chicken wire and Jarvis starts making out with Richard's girl while she's unconscious. Then Jarvis's buddy Troubador is playing some stupid song on his guitar. By the next morning it shows Richard's girl talking to Jarvis and Trouby and then she walks back to Richard and looks at him while he's still tied up. Then they play some happy music and the movie is finished. I mean what happened? Did they brake up? And what was she saying to those 2 guys(Trouby and Jarvis)? Its to puzzling and to poor to. I can't stand movies that are disturbing and don't make sense. This was the worst film i've ever seen since the 90's version of Lord of the Flies.
Basing a television series on a popular author's works is no guarantee of success. Yorkshire Television learnt this the hard way when in 1979 they bought the rights to the books credited to Dick Francis, three of which were broadcast under the collective title 'The Racing Game'. Mike Gwilym was Sid Halley, a former jockey turned private eye following an accident in which he lost his right hand, only to have it replaced by an artificial one. Gwilym suffered from an acute lack of charisma ( and looked like one of the bad guys ) while Mick Ford ( who played the irritating Chico Barnes ) made me think of a horse's arse whenever he was on screen. For six weeks, this less-than dynamic duo charged about the countryside, foiling nefarious plots to fix races, usually by the same methods - blackmail, kidnapping riders or doping horses. Yorkshire Television threw money at the show, but to no avail. Violent, sexist, far-fetched and repetitious, it was quickly carted off to the knackers yard.
The one reason I remember this is that it was shown the week after Nigel Kneale`s brilliant QUATERMASS serial was broadcast . The trailers made heavy emphasis that the main character had a mutilated arm which had me hoping he`d be like Victor Caroon from THE QUATERMASS EXPERIMENT stalking the streets of London .<br /><br />No such luck because THE RACING GAME is just a rather drab thriller with the gimmick of having a hero with a physical disability trying to get to the bottom of investigations of corrupt horse racing . I suppose if you`re a fan of Dick Francis you might enjoy it but setting it in the context of the late 70s when THE SWEENEY had just finished and THE PROFESSIONALS was still being produced , there`s something lacking about THE RACING GAME . One trailer featured a car over taking another on a motor way , if it`d been a trailer for THE SWEENEY you`d see Jack Regan over taking a car and beating a confession out of the slags who`d done a blag while THE PROFESSIONALS would have over taken a car and blown away the terrorists inside . I think that sums up what`s wrong with this series
'The Fox and the Child' is the new film by French director Luc Jacquet, who brought us the Oscar-winning documentary 'March of the Penguins.' It focuses around a young girl (wonderfully played by Bertille Noël-Bruneau) and her blooming friendship with a fox.<br /><br />There are some truly mesmerizing moments here; badgers mucking about, a lynx chasing the fox through a snow-littered forest; one scene in particular when the fox is being tormented by a pack of wolves is quite intense and even frightening at times. However, there's simply not quite enough of them.<br /><br />Beautifully shot; the cinematography is dazzling. The bubbly kind of look of the film is wonderful. It's undeniably a very lush production.<br /><br />The English version is narrated by Kate Winslet, but what little dialogue there already is has been very poorly dubbed. The score is also far too fluffy, or at least it is for my liking; and the screenplay, while subtle, seemingly jumps from one scenario to another, ultimately leaving me almost baffled.<br /><br />While there's a nice moral at the heart of the film, and the rather quiet performance from Noël-Bruneau is quite lovely, the real star is the fox. Those captivating moments focusing solely around our furry little friend are tremendous. However, again, there's simply not nearly enough of them.<br /><br />- To keep up to date with all the latest in film, including reviews, news, discussions and more, be sure to visit www.mybluray.com.au
This film has little to recommend it, though that little being the breathtaking scenery, cinematography and direction of wildlife, it is difficult to bring up its weak points in the company of such rave reviews. It is precisely these things, however, that make the lack of a satisfactory plot and its execution so disappointing. <br /><br />I watched this with my children and none of us was too impressed by the end. Yes, the pictures were great, the broad landscapes across the forest and mountains magnificent, but what was going on in the foreground? The rather dull narration of the stupidity of an insipid girl who learns all too slowly a very basic lesson about befriending wildlife - and gets off quite easily given the track record of that sort of thing. It is certainly not a new story, in fact there is nothing remotely novel about the way it is told, and we have all seen this before, and, indeed, much more eloquently by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry.<br /><br />The only thing really to be gleaned from this film is a sense of how to work with these wonderful lenses and forest lighting; the rest is a waste of time.
At the beginning of the movie, the beautiful photography and the scenes of the fox were amazing. However, the story was so very slow and boring. And then the little girl begins to domesticate the fox, which leads to tragic events. We live in the forest, and frequently see foxes. One thing anyone should know is that you leave wild animals to be wild, and enjoy them from afar. This movie sets a terrible example to the children who will be watching it, in trying to make a wild creature into a pet. I do not know what the point of the story was supposed to be. Even after the terrible events with the main fox, the little girl was still wanting to play with the kits. Does she never learn her lesson? And there are other scenes featuring predator animals to the fox, which only adds to the trauma inflicted on children watching this movie. What a disappointment this movie was. And what a horrible story it tells. The final narrated dialog was so stupid, by which time my wife and I were screaming at the TV! I absolutely hated this movie, and would never recommend it to anyone!
I went to see this movie with the most positive expectations. I had seen Jacquet's previous movie (march of the penguins) and had heard a very positive review of this one on the radio. However, I was severely disappointed. Most of all, this movie is terribly boring. Literally NOTHING happens. I tried to describe the content of the movie to a friend, and we both ended up laughing because I could only stammer things like "well then the winter comes, and then spring, and then there's an eagle, and a river, and one time it is dark, and the girl goes into a cave, and another time the fox has babies" and so on. After about half an hour I began sighing, yawning, rolling my eyes, cursing the reviewer at the radio station, and hoping that it would be over soon. But the movie went on and on. When it finally ended I had sunken so deep into my chair that I must have looked somewhat similar to Stephen Hawking. The most annoying parts of the movie are (a) The girl, who is obviously there to give children someone to identify with. She wears the same clothes throughout the entire movie (one year), and shows exactly two facial expressions: Joy and Seriousness. She is cute, no question about that. However, a movie about the beauty of nature like this one would have done better without her all-too-human presence. I found myself constantly hoping that she might get eaten by a bear, drown in the river, or something similarly terrible. (b) The commentary by the girl's adult voice, which tells us nothing but negligible, obvious, boring, redundant things. (c) The music, which is desperately lacking subtlety. When the girl is happily jumping around, the music jumps around, too. When the fox is threatened by an eagle, the music becomes threatening, too. It reminded me of the very early days of film-making, and was just too predictable to enjoy. Admittedly, many of the children who saw the movie with me did obviously like it, at least they got somehow involved. Thus, my warning concerns adults only: If you are over ten years old, avoid this movie. You can get a better (and cheaper) sleep in most other places.
What an unusual movie.<br /><br />Absolutely no concessions are made to "Hollywood special effects" or entertainment. There is no background music, not special effects or enhanced sound.<br /><br />Facial expressions are usually covered by thick beards and the Spanish language is a strange monotonic lilt that sounds the same whether in the midst of a battle or talking around a campfire.<br /><br />I sort of viewed these movies (parts 1 and 2) as an educational experience, not really something to go and get entertained by. Its quite long and in places dull.<br /><br />But I suspect that given the lack of any plot development, I don't think its very educational either.<br /><br />Its also difficult to perceive any story from the movie dialogue - it would be a good idea to read up a little on the history so that you can understand the context of what is happening, since for some reason the director didn't see fit to inform the audience why Che's band was moving around the way they did - as a result there seem to be groups skulking around the woodland for no particular reason and getting shot at.<br /><br />I would have loved to give this movie more stars for somehow generating more empathy with me and developing depth of character, but somehow all of the characters were still strangers to me at the end. The stars it gets are for realism and showing the hardships of guerrilla warfare.
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />This second instalment of the Che films moves the story forward to the late 60s, where the man has now moved his resistance fighters into the hills of South America, surviving without enough food and water and with tensions mounting between the group. Everything comes to a head when he crosses the border into Bolivia and the government forces step up their campaign to bring him down.<br /><br />Without the flitting between time and places of the last film, Soderbergh's second instalment focuses solely on the action in the hills, and manages to be an even duller experience. And more pretentiously, the score has been drowned out, giving the second instalment more of an unwelcome air of artsieness that proves just as alienating. There's just an unshakeable air of boredom to the film that never lets up. You can't fault Soderbergh's ambition or Del Toro's drive in the lead role, it's just a shame that somewhere in the production things managed to take such a disappointing turn. **
Same old same old about Che. It completely ignored the really interesting facts of Che's true character. Sodeberg redid the same boring narrative of Che. The silly seductive tale of an Argentinean rich-boy who was so shocked by poverty he became a Robin Hood fighting alongside the poor, until eventually he was murdered by the CIA. Yeah, yeah, heard it all before, BORING AND UNTRUE!. The reality of Che Guevara is very different and far more explosive! The facts show that he was a totalitarian with a messiah streak, who openly wanted to impose Maoist tyranny on the world. He was so fanatical that at the hottest moment in the Cold War, he even begged the Soviet Union to nuke New York, Washington or Los Angeles and bring about the end of the world. CHe urged Khrushchev to launch a nuclear strike against US cities. For the rest of his life, he declared that if his finger had been on the button, he would have pushed it. When Khrushchev backed down and literally saved the world, Che was furious at the "betrayal". If Che's recommendations had been followed, you would not be reading this review now. How a homicidal maniac became a pop icon would have made a much more interesting film. Incredible that no filmmaker has been daring enough to show the real side of Che and his posthumous media transformation. THAT WOULD MAKE AN Oscar WINNING FILM! I thought making independent film meant taking REAL RISKS and being GROUNDBRAKING! They only stick to "safe counterculture themes", to wit, "Che cool", "Wall Street bad", "Republican= Nazi", "Bush ex Hitler", "NRA is worse than KGB", "Christians are fanatics and stupid", etc...ad nauseum. Oooh, how daring, how mind blowing. Tres anti-mainstream and edgy. I wish they would have some real cojones and tackle the Independent Film Oligarchy! That would be truly daring!
The second half of Steven Soderbergh's revolutionary bio on Che Guevara deals with his last campaign to export revolution to Bolivia. In order to maintain his saintly visage of Che Soderbergh conveniently leap frogs the mass executions he presided over after the revolution in Cuba and the folly of his Congo adventure ("This is the history of a failure" he writes in the preface of his Congo Journal) to concentrate fully on Che's attempt to rally support to rise up against the government in Bolivia. It would turn out to be a disaster and Guevara's final act.<br /><br />What plagued the first chapter follows suit here as Soderbergh slows his film to a crawl to study the beatific countenance of the contemplative Guevara once again being played like James Dean in East of Eden by Bernicio Del Toro. The problem is Guevara has little success in gaining converts and he soon finds himself and his starving comrades being swallowed up in the heart of darkness Bolivian Jungle. Unlike Werner Herzog in the magnificent, Aguirre, the Wrath of God Soderbergh fails to utilize the jungle's metaphorical possibilities to heighten the desperation of the guerrillas. He seems more concerned with keeping Che's nimbus above his head than exploring the panic setting in on the dead enders. There is one Herzogian moment where Che sits astride an obstinate horse kicking and screaming to get it moving but overall Soderbergh's mise en scene remains flat, sloppy and uninteresting. <br /><br />In both of his films Soderbergh shows he is clearly a Che groupie and because of it his focus remains myopic and narrow. He spends too much time building his monument to Che and too little in developing his relationships with key players in his saga, especially Fidel Castro. Making matters worse he does it with a slow and dispassionate approach that never catches fire. One would think he was steeped in enough Eisenstein and Vertov to realize that sweeping change is showcased a lot better with sweeping style.
Now that Che(2008) has finished its relatively short Australian cinema run (extremely limited release:1 screen in Sydney, after 6wks), I can guiltlessly join both hosts of "At The Movies" in taking Steven Soderbergh to task.<br /><br />It's usually satisfying to watch a film director change his style/subject, but Soderbergh's most recent stinker, The Girlfriend Experience(2009), was also missing a story, so narrative (and editing?) seem to suddenly be Soderbergh's main challenge. Strange, after 20-odd years in the business. He was probably never much good at narrative, just hid it well inside "edgy" projects.<br /><br />None of this excuses him this present, almost diabolical failure. As David Stratton warns, "two parts of Che don't (even) make a whole". <br /><br />Epic biopic in name only, Che(2008) barely qualifies as a feature film! It certainly has no legs, inasmuch as except for its uncharacteristic ultimate resolution forced upon it by history, Soderbergh's 4.5hrs-long dirge just goes nowhere.<br /><br />Even Margaret Pomeranz, the more forgiving of Australia's At The Movies duo, noted about Soderbergh's repetitious waste of (HD digital storage): "you're in the woods...you're in the woods...you're in the woods...". I too am surprised Soderbergh didn't give us another 2.5hrs of THAT somewhere between his existing two Parts, because he still left out massive chunks of Che's "revolutionary" life! <br /><br />For a biopic of an important but infamous historical figure, Soderbergh unaccountably alienates, if not deliberately insults, his audiences by<br /><br />1. never providing most of Che's story; <br /><br />2. imposing unreasonable film lengths with mere dullard repetition; <br /><br />3. ignoring both true hindsight and a narrative of events; <br /><br />4. barely developing an idea, or a character; <br /><br />5. remaining claustrophobically episodic; <br /><br />6. ignoring proper context for scenes---whatever we do get is mired in disruptive timeshifts; <br /><br />7. linguistically dislocating all audiences (even Spanish-speakers will be confused by the incongruous expositions in English); and <br /><br />8. pointlessly whitewashing his main subject into one dimension. Why, at THIS late stage? The T-shirt franchise has been a success! <br /><br />Our sense of claustrophobia is surely due to Peter Buchman and Benjamin VanDer Veen basing their screenplay solely on Guevara's memoirs. So, like a poor student who has read only ONE of his allotted texts for his assignment, Soderbergh's product is exceedingly limited in perspective.<br /><br />The audience is held captive within the same constrained knowledge, scenery and circumstances of the "revolutionaries", but that doesn't elicit our sympathy. Instead, it dawns on us that "Ah, Soderbergh's trying to hobble his audiences the same as the Latino peasants were at the time". But these are the SAME illiterate Latino peasants who sold out the good doctor to his enemies. Why does Soderbergh feel the need to equate us with them, and keep us equally mentally captive? Such audience straitjacketing must have a purpose.<br /><br />Part2 is more chronological than Part1, but it's literally mind-numbing with its repetitive bush-bashing, misery of outlook, and lack of variety or character arcs. DelToro's Che has no opportunity to grow as a person while he struggles to educate his own ill-disciplined troops. The only letup is the humour as Che deals with his sometimes deeply ignorant "revolutionaries", some of whom violently lack self-control around local peasants or food. We certainly get no insight into what caused the conditions, nor any strategic analyses of their guerrilla insurgency, such as it was.<br /><br />Part2's excruciating countdown remains fearfully episodic: again, nothing is telegraphed or contextualized. Thus even the scenes with Fidel Castro (Demián Bichir) are unexpected and disconcerting. Any selected events are portrayed minimally and Latino-centrically, with Part1's interviews replaced by time-shifting meetings between the corrupt Bolivian president (Joaquim de Almeida) and US Government officials promising CIA intervention(!).<br /><br />The rest of Part2's "woods" and day-for-night blue filter just exasperate the audience until they're eyeing the exits.<br /><br />Perhaps DelToro felt too keenly the frustration of many non-American Latinos about never getting a truthful, unspun history of Che's exploits within their own countries. When foreign governments still won't deliver a free press to their people--for whatever reason--then one can see how a popular American indie producer might set out to entice the not-so-well-read ("I may not be able to read or write, but I'm NOT illiterate!"--cf.The Inspector General(1949)) out to their own local cinemas. The film's obvious neglects and gross over-simplifications hint very strongly that it's aiming only at the comprehensions of the less-informed WHO STILL SPEAK LITTLE English. If they did, they'd have read tomes on the subject already, and critiqued the relevant social issues amongst themselves--learning the lessons of history as they should.<br /><br />Such insights are precisely what societies still need--and not just the remaining illiterate Latinos of Central and South America--yet it's what Che(2008) gleefully fails to deliver. Soderbergh buries his lead because he's weak on narrative. I am gobsmacked why Benicio DelToro deliberately chose Soderbergh for this project if he knew this. It's been 44yrs, hindsight about Guevara was sorely wanted: it's what I went to see this film for, but the director diabolically robs us of that.<br /><br />David Stratton, writing in The Australian (03-Oct-2009) observed that while Part1 was "uneven", Part2 actually "goes rapidly downhill" from there, "charting Che's final campaign in Bolivia in excruciating detail", which "...feels almost unbearably slow and turgid".<br /><br />Che:The Guerilla aka Part2 is certainly no travelogue for Bolivia, painting it a picture of misery and atavism. The entire second half is only redeemed by the aforementioned humour, and the dramatic--yet tragic--capture and execution of the film's subject.<br /><br />The rest of this interminable cinema verite is just confusing, irritating misery--shockingly, for a Soderbergh film, to be avoided at all costs. It is bound to break the hearts of all who know even just a smattering about the subject.(2/10)
It is incredible that with all of the countless crimes that have been uncovered and laid unequivocally at the doorstep of Marxism, from the Berlin Wall to the Gulag archipelago to the Cultural Revolution to the Khmer Rouge, one still finds admirers of Communist totalitarianism in Hollywood and are still making propaganda in its favor. It just shows the moral depravity of Hollywood.<br /><br />In this particular film a psychotic murderer is glorified. Needless to say that neither his crimes nor his psychotic proclamations were included. That both the director and the actor expect audiences to sit through this seemingly interminable propagandistic film demonstrates the tunnel vision that they have in regards to their object of worship.
i think that's this is awful produced and directed movie. Benicio Del Toro shouldn't work in production of movies, he should put accent on his acting and that's it. Steven Soderbergh missed the whole point of the idea about revolution, about it's ideals, and most important about life of Che Guevara and so on. Camera is awful, like someone with 2 day working experience is shooting with it, music is ...i don't know..is there some music in the movie???? i will not recommended this piece of sh.. to no one. It's just wasting about 4 hours in front of the TV or whatever.... I can't figure out how can someone rate this movie more than 3 stars. DISASTER....DISASTER....DISASTER....DISASTER Don't watch please. Save yourself from this misery of "movie"
What I found so curious about this film--I saw the full 4 hour roadshow version, is how oddly dispassionate it is. For a film about 2 very charismatic men--Castro and Che, engaged in a gargantuan political struggle, it's almost totally devoid of emotional fire. The scenes between Benicio Del Toro and Demian Bichir (who is at best a second level actor,with a slightly high pitched voice) have no drama or depth and basically come down to Castro telling Che: go here, go there, do this and that, with no explanation as to what effect or use this action will result in. Odder still is there is an actor in the cast who has the requisite power to play Castro--Joaquim de Almeida, but he's shunted aside in a minor part in the second half. Without the tension or passion that you would expect to fire these men and their followers, the film becomes a dullish epic-length film about hairy, bearded men running through various jungles shouting and shooting to no particular purpose or end. Several of the reviews I've read showered praise on the work of director Steven Soderbergh while ignoring the actors almost completely. (One in fact spent more time talking about Soderbergh's new digital film camera than the plot or actors or the fact that it's entirely in Spanish with English subtitles.)This is an odd, odd thing to do since a) Soderbergh was only a hired gun on the film and b) it's no more than a competent job of work, with an unremarked upon nod to Oliver Stone's JFK in the black and white cut up camera-work when Che visits New York. If you can imagine Reds directed by Andrew McLaglen instead of Warren Beatty, you'd get an idea of the dull competency of this movie.
The first part, Che in Cuba, is about that portion of his life. It contains too many indistinguishable battles and Che ministering to too many indistinguishable wounded (remember that Che was a physician). It ends as Castro wins the revolution; Che never gets to Havana. The second part, Che in Bolivia, is about guess what. It contains too many indistinguishable battles and Che ministering to too many indistinguishable wounded.<br /><br />When I realized this was supposed to be an "epic" (I never knew *anything* but the title before it started), I naturally thought of the greatest epic of them all, David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia. More of that later.<br /><br />Not to be a racist, but aside from what I've already mentioned is the fact that there are too many characters who are, well, indistinguishable -- unknown Hispanic actors who look alike, especially considering they all wear "Che" beards and all wear Che fatigues. This results in the viewer not being able to identify with anyone other than Che, Benicio del Toro (even Fidel has a very minor role). While del Toro's terrific, think of "Lawrence" with Peter O'Toole as the only discernible character: no Alec Guinness, no Omar Sharif, no Anthony Quinn, etc. You get the idea.<br /><br />Because the other characters are interchangeable, this results in a loss of reference. When top aides of Che are killed, you feel no remorse since you don't know who they are. Even when Che is killed (I don't think that's a spoiler), there's no empathy from the audience -- he's just killed.<br /><br />He's too one-dimensional to relate to as a human being. Aside from being a revolutionary and second only to Jesus in moral rectitude, the only thing we learn about Che is that he's married with five children (he tells another character that near the end). What was his motivation? A complete enigma.<br /><br />Maybe Soderbergh is purposely aping Lean. Like Soderbergh's Che, Lean never lets us know anything about Lawrence, the mystery man of Arabia. But at least Lawrence had a friend (Sharif) and associates (Guinness, Quinn). He was as courageous as he was insecure -- i.e., had human qualities. Che is like a machine, about as warm as The Terminator.<br /><br />Earlier this year there was another war epic, Mongol. Che makes Mongol look like It's a Wonderful Life.
(48 out of 278 people found this comment useful, and counting...)<br /><br />People are such suckers for image and looks - as much as for the intellectually hollow "idealism" that lurks behind Communism. Che's charisma and looks have as much to do with his iconic stature as the misinformation that has been spread by Leftist propaganda (such as this movie) about him.<br /><br />I don't know what's worse: being captured by one of Che's murder-squads or having to sit through 4 hours of this typically Soderberghian garbage. The question isn't why this pet-project was made but what took them so long. By "them" I'm referring, of course, to Left-wing Hollywood and its "secret" love of Marxist tyrants (Lenin, Castro... take your pick). I am fascinated that it took decades for one of Tinseltown's least talented liberal directors to finally take on such an irresistibly biased propaganda project. Where was Oliver Stone all these years? Robert Redford? Tim Robbins? Warren Beatty? Alan Pakula? George Clooney? Barbra Streisand even? It's a mystery. All these overrated "artists" have often indulging themselves in similar, politically one-sided projects, yet somehow Che Guevara, who is arguably the most popular and well-known Communist, hasn't been a film topic of theirs yet.<br /><br />"Guerrilla" has all the hallmarks of an American truth-bending story of an epic scale; there is as much factual detail to be found here as in other similar Hollywood big-budget political fairy-tale bios such as "Malcolm X" or "Gandhi", i.e. almost none. The movie stars Del Toro as the famous Argentinian revolutionary. Nevertheless, however controversial and criminal this man's actions may have been, one thing nobody could take away from him: he was an intelligent manipulator who came from a rich family - which is why Del Toro fits the bill only visually. Del Toro may be an interesting, charismatic actor and he may resemble Guevara physically, but he exudes no intellectual qualities whatsoever, hence he makes Guevara come off as too primitive. Casting such mediocrities as Bratt, Philips and Franka Incompetente only underlines the director's lack of sound judgment.<br /><br />The movie is to the most part extremely slow (no surprise there), and visually uninteresting. Even a director as brilliant as Kubrick would have carefully considered releasing a movie that goes beyond the 3-hour mark, so it's quite telling that this Soderbergh, who has only made one or two solid movies and early on in his career, would think that His Oceanic Grandness was up to the task. If you think the film's length indicates that a bulk of Che's life has been shown here - then think again. Soderbergh focuses on Che's last phase, and a lot of the movie is tedious jungle nonsense, full of Guevara's alleged idealism. (Psychopaths don't have ideals.) I do wonder what kind of a mind this highly esteemed director has to have to actually choose to ignore some of Che's earlier life. Did he actually consider it too uninteresting? A massacre of 600 people holds no interest for the viewer, huh? Amazing. Some much better directors than this over-praised charlatan would have easily fit not one but two complete biographies into a 4-hour movie.<br /><br />Soderbergh, in a sense, becomes an accomplice by never addressing the negative, dark side - which is more than 90% - of Guevara. By spreading this kind of historical inaccuracy, consciously ignoring the ugly truth (God forbid he should taint the holy image of Che), Soderbergh proves himself not a humanist - a fake image which most Hollywood and pop music personalities struggle very hard all their careers to uphold - but the opposite: that he cares only about ideas, never about the people on whom these ideas are tested (like on guinea pigs). Soderbergh and the like are elitists of the worst kind; such people often have a latent contempt for the "proleteriat" (what a stupid term) they're supposedly siding with.<br /><br />Half of all students around the world wear Che's image on their red and orange shirts, but without ever knowing why. He has become an iconic figure for clueless, uninformed, very often young people, who think that by having this man's face on their chest that somehow makes them appear "edgy", intellectual, hip or interesting. In reality, wearing a Che shirt only underlines one's overall shallowness and total disinterest in self-education. (Wouldn't YOU want to find out more about a person before you start advertising his/her face to the world?) Wearing Che's by-now cliché image has become as common as having a Bart Simpson coffee cup. All those "Che-wearers" probably know more about Marge's blue hair than they'll ever read up on about Fidel Castro's dead ally.<br /><br />After everything that'd been done in the name of Marx, one would think that these mongrel "ideals" would be finally laid to rest. It seems mankind will never learn. Stalin, Mao, Kim Il, Pol Pot, Castro, Milosevic, Ceausescu, the Iron Curtain, a hundred million dead, more than a billion ruined physically and/or mentally through this system... so none of that matters, huh? <br /><br />The fact that Del Toro won a Cannes Award should only surprise those who are absolutely clueless as to how Cannes and other European festivals work - and vote. Hint: Sean Penn headed a jury not long ago.<br /><br />For my music-related rants, go to: http://rateyourmusic.com/collection/Fedor8/
This "documentary" is a proof of talent being used for mean purposes. The fact that it is financed by the venezuelan government gives it a lack of legitimacy in the purpose of searching for the truth of what really happened those horrible days of April 2002 in Venezuela, something even we venezuelans don't know for sure.<br /><br />There are ways of lying, and the directors of this stuff lie both by omission and by knowledge. <br /><br />The venezuelan political process is too complex to be easily understood by foreign audiences, and they take advantage of that. For instance *POSSIBLE SPOILERS* they show pro-Chávez demonstrators shooting at an empty street (what the hell they did that for?) in a way of saying they didn't kill anyone, but didn't bother showing the images we all saw here, of opposition demonstrators (and a journalist) falling dead or injured at the other side of that "empty" street. They can't explain why the chopper of the political police was the only one authorised to fly over Caracas that day and did nothing against the snipers that were all over the roofs of the buildings nearby the presidential palace, something that would exhibit how inefficient would be the security measures to guard the President. A few days after the "coup", the chief of the military guard in charge was asked at the National Assembly (our Congress) why didn't they act against the snipers and he said "'cause they weren't there to act against the president", isn't that a confession?<br /><br />There is so much more, the fact that the highest rank military announced that Chávez had resigned and 2 days later he said he had lied because "that's politics" and nowadays is the Minister of Internal Affairs of Chávez' administration.<br /><br />It would take me thousands of words to explain all the lies depicted in this "documentary", made with the intention of selling the world an image of the good old Hugo Chávez who rules for the poor and the bad rich opposition that wants him out at all costs, when the truth is that 60-70% of people rejects his government, and that percentage includes the poor.<br /><br />I hope those of you who have seen and bought this will be able to see a different version that is being made by a group of venezuelan people showing no less than 30 lies.<br /><br />Nazi propaganda has returned!
In this movie, Chávez supporters (either venezuelan and not-venezuelan) just lie about a dramatic situation in our country. <br /><br />They did not say that the conflict started because of Chávez announcement firing a lot of PDVSA best workers just for political issues.<br /><br />They did not say anything about more than 96 TV interruptions transmitted by Chávez during only 3 days in "CADENA NACIONAL" (a kind of confiscation o private TV signals). Each one with about 20 minutes of duration.<br /><br />They did not tell us anything about The quiting announcement made by General en Jefe Lucas Rincon Romero, Inspector General of the army forces, who is a traditional supporter of Chávez. Even now, in despite of his announcement, he is the Ministro de Interior y Justicia. After Chávez return he occuped the Charge of Ministro del Defensa (equals to Defense Secretary in US).<br /><br />They did not say anything about Chávez orders about shooting against a pacifical people concentration who was claiming for elections.<br /><br />They did not say anything about the people in this concentration that were killed by Chávez Supporters (either civilians and Military official forces).<br /><br />They present some facts in a wrong order, in order to lie.<br /><br />They did not say anything about venezuelan civilian society thats are even now claiming for an elections in order to solve the crisis and Chávez actions in order to avoid the elections.<br /><br />That's why i tell you.... This movie is just a lot of lies or a big lie.
Recently, I saw the documentary "The revolution will not be televised", also know as "Chávez: inside the coup". At first I thought it showed a genuine inside view of events during the Venezuela coup of April 2002. What bothered me though was the fact that the tone of the narration and the accompanying music were suggestive, and that at no point any criticism was expressed about Hugo Chávez. This is peculiar because if a documentary is giving an non-biased account of what happened, there should have been some of that too. After all, Chávez certainly is not a saint. Fortunately, since the documentary is several years old, a lot of additional information is available on the internet nowadays, and it was not difficult to find for instance "Urgent Investigation about Chavez-the coup by the 5 European TV Corporations who financed the film which presents blatant falsehoods about Venezuela." It lists the many errors and intended or unintended falsifications in the documentary. (Just use the title as a search string in Google, you will find it). Another interesting document was the video registration of a presentation of the findings of the many errors in this documentary, "X-ray of a lie". To me it seems to be a good counterweight to "Chávez: inside the coup" It's available at video.google. I strongly advice you after watching "Chávez: inside the coup" to look at "X-ray of a lie" and then form your opinion. My conclusion is that Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Brian were (knowingly or not) part in Chávez-propaganda.
Remember a film you seemed to enjoy in the past that doesn't quite meet those same feelings as an adult? That occurred to me when I went back to school..the National Lampoon's Class Reunion. The film has a perfect opportunity for laughs, but surprisingly wanders aimlessly as we see a bizarre collection of characters such a woman who sold her soul to the devil and can shoot out flames of fire from her mouth, a man who appears to be a vampire, and a lunatic killer dressed as a woman and wears sacks over his head. You have the class president who believes he's the best thing since sliced bread(but as we see in the film, he's a coward and joke), a couple of pot smokers who don't even know they are at their own class reunion, and a man named Gary for whom know one even knew existed(and no one can seem to remember his name..this is the one running joke I enjoyed). There is a plump pervert who likes to grab women in inappropriate places, a deaf and blind woman who has a screeching holler when calling for her dog, and the cook(you know her from "goonies" and "Throw Mama From The Train")who loves to place food on people's plates with her hands! The film is essentially about a nutcase who is(or at least attempting to)taking revenge on his classmates for a gag they pulled on him(they arranged for him to sleep with his own twin sister!). The film follows the characters as they search for the killer canvasing darkened, trashed hallways of the old high school. They were told of the killer by his psychologist who seems a bit odd himself. The film has a few good gags that work(pretty much early on), but the film slowly gets worse each passing minute. The film's true problem is that it really doesn't know where to go. The film is pretty much a one-joke premise for it has unassured direction..if it really has any direction at all. The cast is enthusiastic enough, but the material they are to make funny just doesn't have the quality to hold any interest. It's a curio for fans of early 80's comedy relics that are forgotten(this one rightfully so).
If it wasn't for the performances of Barry Diamond and Art Evans as the clueless stoners, I would have no reason to recommend this to anyone.<br /><br />The plot centers around a 10 year high school reunion, which takes place in a supposed abandon high school(looks more like a prop from a 1950s low budget horror flick), and the deranged student the class pulled a very traumatizing prank on. This student desires to kill off the entire class for revenge.<br /><br />John Hughes falls in love with his characters too much, as only one student is killed as well as the lunch lady(Goonies' Anne Ramsey). We're led to believe that the horny coupled gets killed, but never see a blasted thing! This is a horrible movie that continued National Lampoon's downward spiral throughout the 80s and 90s.
Anyone who thinks this film has not been appreciated for its comic genius must have been smoking with the two stoners in the film. This film is NOT under-rated...it is a bad movie. <br /><br />There should be no comparisons between this film and The Naked Gun or Airplane since the latter two films are well written and funny. Class Reunion is neither of those things. The sad thing is it had such potential (good cast, good story lines) but the good jokes are few and far between. The scenes that were supposed to be funny came off more annoying than amusing. The stoner guys, the vampire, the blind girl...NOT FUNNY. The only funny character were Delores (the one who sold her soul to the devil).<br /><br />National Lampoon has made some really good films (Animal House, Vacation) but this isn't one of them. I certainly expected more from John Hughes.
Stereotypical send up of slasher flicks falls far short as supposed entertainment. Gerrit Graham, Michael Lerner, Zane Busby, and in fact the entire cast are totally wasted. Lame jokes abound, and every punch line is well telegraphed. The dumb one liners come at a fast pace, and almost every one falls flat as a squashed grape. The musical numbers only contribute to the boredom that sets in and lingers for the entire movie. Another negative is the claustrophobic setting entirely within the walls of an abandoned high school. Avoid this and seek out one of "Lampoon's" truly funny films like "National Lampoon's Golddiggers" - MERK
The biggest National Lampoon hit remains "Animal House", and rightly so. It was funny, raucous and good-natured.<br /><br />The exact opposite of every other National Lampoon film. Including "Class Reunion".<br /><br />PLEASE do not be fooled by the inclusion of Stephen Furst ("Flounder") from "Animal House". Or by the fact that John Hughes wrote this jumbled mess. This reunion is about as hilarious as root canal and twice as painful.<br /><br />One star, and that's being generous. Then again, I always thought most of my old classmates were demons, vampires and serial killers, too.
NATIONAL LAMPOON'S CLASS REUNION was a flop when it was released. It didn't stay long in theaters in my big city. Why? Because it's BAD!!!!!<br /><br />Not bad in a good way but bad in a really painfully unfunny way. The entire cast of actors were mostly unknowns then and have remained unknowns after this turkey.<br /><br />The idea is actually great (a parody of slasher flicks) but the execution is sorely lacking in every aspect. <br /><br />Just avoid this "comedy". Your time is more precious than spending a nanosecond watching this embarrassing misfire.
This movie is about as underrated as Police Acadmey Mission to Moscow. This movie is never funny. It's maybe the worst comedy spoof ever made. Very boring,and dumb beyond belief. For those people that think this movie is underrated god help you. I give this movie * out of ****<br /><br />
This movie is rated a classic on sentiment not on any quality of movie-making. It moves from the unlikely to the unbelievable, from the unrealistic to the ludicrous.<br /><br />The unbelievable plot revolves around an attempt by two British soldiers and a Hindu gofer to rescue a third soldier who has been captured by insurgent Indians. In the later scene we see a full regiment with drum and bagpipes marching into an ambush. In the British army, a sergeant does not order up a rescue attempt, and if you get past that, he does not attempt it with only one other soldier and an Indian servant when there is a full regiment on hand. The Indian insurgents are so incredibly inept it is laughable...there are hundreds of them but they can't hold their prisoner or kill the two rescuers, of course not. At one point we see the British soldiers throwing blocks of stone down from the battlements at the insurgents, who are scattered around the mountainside in ambush...one would have to have an eggplant for a brain to think this would do any damage. After Cary Grant as the rescued prisoner is shot, he lies on the floor looking around at the water boy...hardly the actions of someone who has been shot in the back. The water boy bravely blows a bugle (which comes from nowhere) to sound the alarm...this he does by standing up high on a wall so he can be seen and shot by the bad guys, and we shed a tear as he keeps trying to sound more notes as he is repeatedly shot and the bugle call breaks up into feeble squawks...instead of blowing the bugle while hiding behind cover as anybody with half a brain would do. This scene has deservedly been parodied in comedy sketches. If they wanted to make a Buster Keaton comedy, they should have hired Keaton and done it better.
Not one of the better pokemon movies.<br /><br />Two legendary pokemon come into the story. You do get to see how strong Celebi can be, though he turns evil first.<br /><br />Suicune also makes an appearance, he didn't seem that powerful.<br /><br />The Marauder didn't have many strong pokemon at all, except for that taranitar? Some fight scenes with his pokemon may have made it better.<br /><br />Ash and Pikachu meet the much younger Professor Oak, though they don't realise it. Misty I was thinking had it at the end but she didn't get close. I saw this in the credits.<br /><br />Don't expect much here, the worst of the series so far.
The movie seemed to appeal me because of the new type of Pokemon Celebi. But the plot was out of course and didn't have as an interest as the other movies. It was a waste of money and time. The same corny humor and cliche bad guys. The movie was of no use to make if you wanted to make Pokemon famous. The movie should better not associated with animes such as Dragonballz, Digimon, or Yu-Gi-Oh. The drawing and settings are of no level rising to the standards of original anime. It is a shame even to talk about this movie. I bet Pokemon fans will be disappointed with the outcome of the movie and give up on Pokemon. Digimon is more of an anime and doesn't fall anywhere close to Pokemon.It's second movie is coming out late 2002.
Wow. This movie bored the pants off me when I saw it. Bland, pointless and unmoving.<br /><br />Apparently, Ash and co. can travel through time with the help of "The Spirit of the Forest" ('Princess Mononoke' much??) There, they meet a dorky kid named Sam, and the "plot" begins.<br /><br />So Tom (Ash) and Huck (Sam) get high with nature, become hippies and try to free Celebi (the "Spirit") from some weirdo hunter guy. I don't even know what else went on. It all went by in a blur. Ash's friends were hardly in it, and all the fight scenes were boring.<br /><br />After saving the day, Ash and his infamous friends, must return to their time, while watching Sam float away with Celebi (that scene was just creepy. O-O;) Then, after returning to their time, Ash learns that his new friend is actually his rival's grandpa. And I think that's it. Pretty retarded isn't it? If you love your children, you won't expose them to this. (1 out of 10.)
Many of the lead characters in Hideo Gosha's 1969 film "Hitokiri" (manslayer; aka "Tenchu" -- heaven's punishment) were actual historical figures (in "western" name-order format): Ryoma Sakamoto, Hampeita Takechi, Shimbei Tanaka, Izo Okada, ____ Anenokoji. The name "Hitokiri," a historical term, refers to a group of four super-swordsmen who carried out numerous assassinations of key figures in the ruling Tokugawa Shogunate in the mid-1800s under the orders of Takechi, the leader of the "Loyalist" (i.e. ultra-nationalist, pro-Emperor) faction of the Tosa clan. What was this struggle about? Sad to say, you won't find out in this film. "Brilliant History Lesson" indeed!<br /><br />No, Gosha is much more interested in showing you the usual bloody slicing and dicing and (at absurd length) the inner torment of the not-very-bright killer Izo Okada than in revealing actual history. Sakamoto, for example, was someone of historical significance, considered to be the father of the Imperial Japanese Navy. The closest Gosha comes to providing a history lesson is the scene in which Sakamoto, whom Takechi considers a traitor to the Loyalist cause, comes to Takechi's mansion to try to sway him ideologically. He begins by talking about the international political situation, with foreign warships in Japan's ports and a Japan that is too weak militarily to defend against them. Want to know more? Sorry. Gosha cuts off this potentially fascinating lecture in mid sentence(!). So much for informing his audience about a turning point in Japanese history.<br /><br />The film left me in utter confusion about the aims of the two sides in this struggle. For the two and a half centuries that the Shogunate held central power in Japan, it was an institution dedicated to preventing social change, to preserving the feudal relations of society. It was fearful of outside contamination, both ideological and technological. In keeping with this spirit, it outlawed firearms, those instruments of "leveling" in Europe and the Americas, with which a peasant could have stood up to a samurai. Throughout this period, the Emperor was nothing more than a spiritual figurehead.<br /><br />But, in the towns, which stood in neutral zones between the feudal fiefdoms, a new class of merchants, landlords and craftsmen was developing -- the class known in Europe by its French name, the bourgeoisie. Inevitably, as this new class gained strength, it chafed against the many confines of feudal society. As in Europe, the king (Emperor) became the central figure in the bourgeoisie's struggle for power against the feudal aristocracy. But a political leadership does not always fully understand the interests of the class it serves. When the outside world arrived with a bang in 1853, in the form of U.S. Admiral Perry's "Black Ships," the ruling elite of Japan was thrown into a crisis. Their military was no match for these foreigners. Also, they had heard about the havoc the British and French imperialists were wreaking in China. What should Japan do to save itself from the fate of its weak neighbor? Surprisingly, some elements within the usually isolationist Shogunate were inclined to open trade with the foreigners in order to obtain some of their advanced technology. This is the point of view represented (just barely) in the film by Sakamoto. On the other hand, the Emperor-loyal ultra-nationalists, represented by Takechi, believed they could keep out the foreigners by force, if only they could prevent the other faction from "selling out the country." (Sound familiar?) Thus, the assassination of key Shogunate figures is in order -- and away we go.<br /><br />Takechi's motivations were, for me, the film's biggest puzzle. Gosha suggests that he is fighting mainly for his personal advancement rather than for the Loyalist cause. Can we take this to represent the tenor of the Loyalists as a whole? (Do you care?)<br /><br />Several reviewers have compared this film favorably with "Goyokin," which Gosha made in the same year. But, where "Goyokin" is a crackling, suspenseful, adventure yarn, with a hero worthy of sympathy, "Hitokiri" is plodding, nowhere near as compelling and lacks such a hero. Sakamoto could have been this film's hero but we are not allowed to know him -- nor what he stands for -- well enough for him to achieve that status.<br /><br />In view of his wonderful scores for five previous Kurosawa films, Masaru Sato's score here was very disappointing, sounding like something rejected from a "Bonanza" episode.<br /><br />Barry Freed
To heighten the drama of this sudsy maternity ward story, it's set in a special ward for "difficult cases." The main story is Loretta Young's; she's on leave from a long prison stretch for murder. Will the doctors save her baby at the cost of her life, or heed her husband's plea for the opposite? Melodrama and sentiment are dominant, and they're not the honest sort, to say the least. For example, just to keep things moving, this hospital has a psycho ward next door to the maternity ward, and lets a woman with a hysterical pregnancy wander about stealing babies.<br /><br />There are just enough laughs and sarcasm for this to be recognizable as a Warners film, mostly from Glenda Farrell, who swigs gin from her hot-water bottle while she waits to have twins that, to her chagrin, she finds there's now a law against selling. An example of her repartee: "Be careful." Farrell: "It's too late to be careful." Aline MacMahon is of course wonderfully authoritative as the chief nurse, but don't expect her to be given a dramatic moment.<br /><br />The main theme of the film is that the sight of a baby turns anyone to mush. Even given the obvious limitations, this film should have been better than it is.
After watching many of the "Next Action Star" reality TV eps TiVo taped this gawd-awful tripe for me. For some bizarre reason - and I only have myself to blame - I watched the whole thing, hoping that there would be *something* unique in the entire movie. After so much hype about Joel Silver's "Midas Touch" with action flicks, he might want to make sure he bones up on his alchemy.<br /><br />First, the only redeeming value of the entire film was Billy Zane, and even he couldn't lift the slipshod writing out of the crapper. Having said that, Zane's performance falters about 2/ 3rds of the way through, as he doesn't even seem to know what else to do other than look smug. <br /><br />Can't blame him here, though. The writing, quite frankly, sucked. Let's take ideas from "Rat Race," "Enemy of the State," "Terminator," "Midnight Run" and any bad gambling film you can think of and simply rehash it. And who's brilliant idea was it to have TWO bridge chase sequences in a ROW?<br /><br />Sean Carrigan, the "man of the hour" of "The Next Action Star" shows all of the strengths and weaknesses the casting directors mention during the entire run of the series. A one-note johnny, Sean plays the dumb good looking jock very well, but struggles with shouldering the weight of the film. Quite frankly, we never quite seem to care about whether he lives or dies by about mid-way through, as Carrigan fails to provide a reason for the audience to even like him. His dumb-but-lucky routine gets old as there really isn't anything about the character to root for.<br /><br />But Carrigan is a dream compared to the wooden, rigid Corinne Van Ryck de Groot. Did Howard Fine really tell her to pretend to be a Terminator for the first half of the film? I don't think so. I kept expecting her to quote Arnie. Her character "performance" can be compared only to the dramatic depths of "Freddy Got Fingered," though not nearly as well-developed. The camera loves her in dark, shadowy limousines, but in the harsh light of day her demeanor sucks all energy off the screen. Jeanne Bauer showed more natural life in her five minute bit part than Corinne showed at any part of her screen time.<br /><br />Ultimately, Sean has the rugged good looks to provide a good lead in an ensemble cast, but shouldn't have been left to do this one solo. It was simply too big of a task for him. "Next Action Star" colleague Jared Elliot may or may not have had better luck with some more dynamic characterization, but it's hard to tell given Jeff Welch's lame script. Someone should take Welch's iMac away from him before he hurts himself or anyone else. And finally, Van Ryck de Groot simply was outclassed and way out of her reach, even for complete shlock like this. <br /><br />Joel Silver should be ashamed.
HAH! So this is the movie that the "Next Action Stars" were getting into. Well I'm glad that I didn't participate and didn't win...<br /><br />Isn't it funny how one can just look at the first 10 seconds(!) and make up ones mind about a movie? I mean, come on! Just look at those titles!? I watched this movie(or part of this "teleplay" since it was produced for TV and we couldn't bear to watch the whole thing) one evening while doing my military service and the audience with me was the typical hodge-podge of average guys that once in a while watch series like Las Vegas just for the girls in the show. so the bar wasn't really high, the most watched movie in my group was Girl Next Door (and it wasn't because of the great script ;D . But this movie's total lack of originality, acting, scripting, and just about everything else that makes a movie good made it pretty easy to switch channel to Las Vegas (or was it CSI? don't remember...) without any complaints by the rest of the group. And that is rare(!) For heavens sake! Don't by this movie! If it's on TV, then yes, watch it. And contemplate on it. My conclusion? well, since Joel Silver has indeed produced some of the best action-films out there (Die Hard, Matrix 1, to name some) I can only say that producers don't give the film it's quality, they provide money for the directors. And to sell this movie just because it's a Joel Silver movie is just a desperate attempt to conceal the obvious flaws of the crew who really made it.
It is unbelievable that a script as cliché and completely absurd could make any screen even the small one. The dialogue in this movie makes Catwoman seem like a high culture classic. Billy Zane plays the bad ass harmonica playing, Elvis impersonating, gunslinging, martial arts master who gambles on the life of a down-an-out former football player turned gambling addict played by the winner of NBC's craptastic show "Next Action Star." His performance is as cold as ice and not in a cool way. The "film" takes place in Vegas, and since people play poker there the writers felt it was a perfect setting for a movie about a guy trying to survive 24 hours against an omnipresent, wealthy gambler who has offered his target $2.4 million if he can make it through the day. And so the hunt ensues. A hunt reeking with unimpressive explosions, construction yard settings, shoddy cinematography, and one-liners containing the word "bet" or "gamble." The female winner is also tossed in the mix, but for what reason I have no idea. Oh but don't worry "NAS" fans the losers make their memorable cameos as well. The surprise ending will knock your socks off if you love predictability or plagiarism. Joel Silver should reevaluate his decision to sell out even more. I wish he could give me those two hours of my life back.
This was the worst movie I have ever seen Billy Zane in. I understand that this movie was mainly to showcase the new comers, who did pretty good for newbies, but over all, the movie was not believable.<br /><br />With all of the gunfire, you would think the police would have intervened. Even the coin being a bug on Sean was stupid. The way Sean suddenly realizes the coin is the bug, was not realistic.<br /><br />Looks like this movie was slapped together fast. Poor job. Get a better writer.<br /><br />The count down to the end was not in sync with anything. It took longer to fight. And what a coincidence that each time Billy was going to blast Sean, he'd be out of bullets. Once, I can believe, but not twice. <br /><br />Actually, Billy's character was goofy. It was so stupid when Sean punches him out at the end. It was like a comedy. Bad! Bad! Bad!
Maybe television will be as brutal one day. Maybe „Big Brother` was only the first step in the direction Stephen „Richard Bachmann` King described the end point of. But enough about that. If I spend too much words talking about the serious background topic of this movie I do exactly what the producers hoped by choosing this material. It's the same with „The 6th Day`. No matter, how primitive the film is, it provokes a discussion about its topic, which serves the producers as publicity. Let's NOT be taken in by that. The social criticism that is suggested by that plot summary is only an alibi to make it possible to produce a speculative, violent movie, more for video sale than for cinema. <br /><br />I didn't read the book. I don't dare criticising Stephen King without having read him, but when I saw the film I thought they couldn't make such a terrible film out of a good book: In a typical 1980s set with 1980s music and some minor actors Arnold Schwarzenegger finds himself as a policeman running away from killers within a cruel TV show. The audience is cheering.<br /><br />Together with „Predator`, this is definitely Schwarzenegger's most stupid movie. 2 stars out of 10.
I am probably one of the few who actually read Stephen King's book, the one this movie was based on. After reading this excellent work, I could not wait to see the movie version of it. After viewing the movie, I was TOTALLY disappointed. The only thing that this movie has in common with the book is the title and the names of the characters. In the book, Schwarzenegger's character is put on a game show. The main object is to survive. But he's not in an arena. He's set loose in the city and has to escape the game show's (I guess you'd call them) villians, who bear absolutely no resemblence to the movie characters. This premise built much tension and suspension and ended greatly with the climax. The movie was absolute garbage. There was no cinematic quality to it. I totally respect Arnold Schwarzenegger as an actor, but he messed up with this one.
:::SPOILER ALERT:::<br /><br />Soooo, Arnie's really a good guy, but after an incident with some fighting in a helicopter and some disobeying of orders, he's sent to jail (or rather some sort of work camp). He escapes, but after a short while he's caught once again. This time ends up in a freakish reality show in which he's supposed to run for a while from a bunch of tough guys with different themes, and eventually die. But we all know Arnie, and we all know that he's tougher than even the toughest of tough guys.<br /><br />I really wanted to like this movie, being an Arnie-fan and all. However, "The Running Man" contains too many flaws that really annoy the crap out of me. E.g. The reconstruction of Arnie's fight inside the helicopter, where the shocked audience is showed a short summary of the incident, complete with 5-10 different camera angles. This means that the military helicopter in which Arnie flew was equipped with almost 10 cameras filming the crew members, one of which _inside_ the eye of one of the crew members Arnie beats.<br /><br />There are other flaws also, and the plot, which in theory seems to be very interesting and innovative, works for a while, then it sort of creates a pool of stupidness and unrealism in which it drowns.<br /><br />The acting can't really be said to be anything better than sub par, with Arnie in the leading role, doing an average Arnie performance. The rest of the cast get by without being especially good or bad.<br /><br />The special effects are OK, without being impressive.<br /><br />RATING: 3/10
I read the running man from Kings books as Bachman and I felt for the main character John and his family. This movie could have been SO much more. The trouble? It was set during the big action movie craze. I watched the movie and was in pain during the whole thing. I felt nothing for the character and less for his cause. Yes it had funny scenes (or laughable) though I think that it did not save the movie in my eyes. If you read the book you can feel the climax and the fire in the heart of John as he gets his final revenge.<br /><br />I give this movie a low number. It may not have been this low if I had not read the book.
I am a big fan of Stephen King. I loved The Running Man. So obviously I was very excited that someone had made a film of it. And when a local network showed the film, I was in heaven. I was all ready for a night of fun!<br /><br />The first indicator that something was wrong was when I noticed that someone had cast Arnold Schwarzenegger. I could simply not believe that a man who got famous for films filled with runnin' an' shootin' could play a more cunning part, as was described in the book. I still was convinced that this would be a good film, however. Who knows, maybe Arnold had some hidden talents?<br /><br />Well, he didn't. I soon found out that the only reason he was even cast was because someone had re-written the entire story to MAKE it about fightin' an' shootin'. Yup, it was a standard Arnold-film: hero is done wrong, hero solves problems by flexing his mighty muscles and scaring everyone away and hero gets the girl.<br /><br />I was stunned. This is NOT what the book said at all. I know that books can't be put on screen literally, but this didn't even have ties to the book. Stephen King should have openly denounced any affiliation with the film and he should have forbidden using the title The Running Man for this shameless waste of film. I don't say it often, but this film was BAD. If I weren't at home watching, I'd have tossed rotten tomatoes at the screen. Once again: bad.<br /><br />(Note that I used 'someone' a lot. I did this because I'm sure a lot of people are ashamed to have worked on this and I don't want to embarrass them even further by naming them here)
argh! this film hurts my head. and not in a good way.<br /><br />maybe it's just my growing hatred for the action genre, but even as a kid when i would swallow tripe like Navy Seals, i still regarded this film with dislike. now i utterly despise it.<br /><br />take one fairly good fast-paced story. keep the title and throw the rest away. instead use some half-assesd future gladiators storyline thats so full of plot holes the whole things in danger of collapsing (why is there a rebel base in the middle of the arena, what about the cameras? why have clearly marked footage of what really happened at bakersfeild in an unguarded room?)<br /><br />the whole film screams eighties, from the truley awful score to the goofy shiny costumes. ugh.<br /><br />don't watch this film. i know some people liked it, but some people get off on being peed on and i don't understand them either.
This was a waste of 75 minutes of my life. The acting was atrocious and the plot was ridiculous. It revolves around an evil lesbian who gets rich married men to have sex with her, and then blackmails them for money. One of the victims is a candidate for DA, which is causing problems in his relationship with his wife. Another is a plastic surgeon, also married, and the evil lesbian happens to seduce this guys wife too! Meanwhile, the evil lesbian's girlfriend doesn't really like her sleeping around. It ends in a happy ending where all is forgiven. The women get naked a lot too, mostly in situations that stretch reality. bad bad bad.
this became a cult movie in chinese college students, though i havnt watched it until it is broadcasted in channel4, UK.<br /><br />full of arty giddy pretentions, the plot is mediocre and unreal; the 'spirit' it wants to convey is how independent artists 'resist the commercisliation of music industry' and maintain their' purity of an artistic soul' and wouldnt 'sell themselves for dirty money'. that is really giddy and superficial; the diologue are mainly pathetic. acting is poor. sceenplay is full of art pretention. it is a fantasy movie for kids and that;s all<br /><br />
I have to admit that by moments I had to laugh at how bad that movie was... But the laughs were too few and since this whole thing was in no way a parody, it felt more like an insult to the viewer's intelligence. The worst acting I have ever seen from any of these people...
Imagine, its, say 12-1am - your at home, your bored, your not tired. This scenario occurred about, say 4 or so years back..I turned on the TV and flicked over a few channels and found that this film was on. OH MY WORD this is the worst film I have ever seen! A runaway car that cant be stopped (cos the brakes have been cut or something) in caning it down the freeway - whats gonna happen?! This film was so bad its actually funny - I think the stunts cost about $2 to make, there was one instance where a baby/small child is being winched from the car by a helicopter - in an attempt to excite the viewer - a conveniently placed bridge is nearing ahead...THIS IS THE BEST BAD BIT OF A FILM EVER - it shows the child narrowly missing the bridge but it looks so bad - you can almost see the make of the dummy that they used - total low budget classic! Cant remember the end of the film, though but I bet it was GREAT<br /><br />I doubt they will ever show this film again so I'm glad I got to see this piece of trash!
This 1997 film-blanc classic tale of smoldering passion has achieved its well-deserved legendary status as one of the screen's greatest sagas of a doomed and hopeless love. The pervasive, ongoing and progressive magnetism between Judge Reinhold and what's-her-name is sure to set many a viewer's heart a-flutter with memories of one's own first crush. The brilliant screenplay dangles this embryonic affair-to-be in front of the enraptured audience, sitting transfixed as the abstract, almost-expressionist cinematography deep-focuses on the just-under-the-surface desires that ebb and flow between the principals. You can cut the sexual tension with a dull tire iron. <br /><br />A tiny drop of perspiration on the end of a nose catches the bright sunshine, and leaves no doubt as to its significance. Scenes like this abound and bear watching again and again. As with "Jane Eyre" and "Rebecca" (to which this masterpiece is so often compared), the closeups of the actors' faces as they experience the slow dawning of the great love-that-is-not-to-be will haunt you forever. <br /><br />The now-classic RC soundtrack score, with its creative and unique use of solo synthesizer, emphasizes the emotion that drips throughout like a leaky crankcase.<br /><br />If I had any criticisms at all by mentioning what I consider a minor flaw (and dared to risk the wrath of the millions of fans who hold this classic so dear to their hearts), I would say that the hallmark of "Runaway Car" - its sense of mounting sexual tension - is briefly broken by the highway scene, which now after repeated viewings seems just a bit overlong (and probably even unnecessary?) to the eternal, bittersweet tale of Love Interrupted.<br /><br />Dare I advance what I perceive as the tiniest of flaws in this critically-acclaimed triumph of modern cinema? 'Citizen Kane' had its 'Rosebud' . . . 'Runaway Car' should have its catchword as well. Perhaps the film could have opened with an extreme closeup of Judge Reinhold saying something such as "A car is an extension of its owner!", and the rest of the storyline could then be dedicated to parsing every syllable, subtlety and nuance of that phrase. Had that plot line been done, this film could have topped "Titanic" at the Golden Globes that year, I'm convinced.<br /><br />My one regret? That I didn't read the novel first.
this film has it all; the deft camera work, reminiscent of martin scorcese, or oliver stone, the tight acting of 'heat', the explosive action of a jerry bruckheimer movie, the witty dialogue of a tarantino script and the epic feel of say, 'the godfather'<br /><br />the judge reinhold character displays a fiery temperememt, yet also shows real emotional depth and intensity. his performance reminds me of robert de niro's portrayal of jake la motta in raging bull.<br /><br />the action scenes are truly breathtaking, not since bullit has a movie depicted such high octane, yet stylish car scenes. The special effects push the boundries of technology and filmmaking to their limits. Independance day set the standard that this movie clearly has matched, and greatly surpassed.<br /><br />overall, great acting from its a list cast (like an oscars night party invitation list!), classy locations, gripping action, and a tight script.
This movie is so bad it hurts. The car doing 30 mph when it's supposed to go 100... the shift lever that's stuck (in Park!), the nurse that drives for almost 2 hours with the cell phone on the shoulder...can't any of the 2 morons take this damn phone? There's nothing credible in this crap. I would be ashamed to be seen in a movie like this!
There is no story! The plot is hopeless! A filmed based on a car with a stuck accelerator, no brakes, and a stuck automatic transmission gear lever cannot be good! I would have stopped that car within one minute whether I was in it or in the police car constantly following it. I feel sorry for the actors that had to put up with such a poor script. The few scenes that some similarity to action was heavily over-dramatized, and as far from reality you can get. In addition, there were a lot of blunders, for instance the hood of the runaway car, which was popped doing 100mph. At first it just folded over the windshield, like it would in reality, but then, afterwards, it blew off. The car was later in the movie observed with the hood on....<br /><br />This film was nothing but annoying, stay away from it!
How this piece of garbage was put to film is beyond me. The only actor who is at all known to me is Judge Reinhold, an accomplished actor whose presence is merely a justification for putting it into production.<br /><br />I don't even think it is worth a nomination for a rotten tomato award, this film really does make B movies a cinematic enjoyment. A car travelling along the freeway with police in tow, and no one knows how to stop the car, yeah, right.<br /><br />The script must have been written on the back of a cigarette carton. Most made for TV movies are awful but this redefines the word. Check out the acting skills of the bridge operator, pure Oscar material.
Quite one of the worst films I have ever seen. Terrible acting, laughable 'action' (it's clear that the cars are travelling slowly), atrocious script, hideously unsatisfying ending and incompetent direction make a hash of a movie. We know Judge Reinhold is a fine actor, but he should be ashamed of this detritus. There is no great tension within the car and, when the characters stumble upon moments of hope, they laugh like inane banshees for some reason, even 'high five-ing' when they see the bridge lowered!<br /><br />Also, the chain of events that lead these people to share the same car strains credibility. Apparently based on true events, though? If that's the case, truth is evidently stranger than fiction! Unfortunate then, that it was portrayed in such an inept manner.
Watching this movie made me think constantly; why are they making such a problem out of some broken brakes? There are a million options to slow down the car! In the movie Speed the writers a least thought of a good reason why the car wasn't able to stop...<br /><br />There aren't many good things to say about this film; all the usual narrative cliche's make their appearance, the actors are very bad, the story is as leak as a sieve etc. That makes this movie a waste of time and money.<br /><br />
Comment this movie is impossible. Is terrible, very improbable, bad interpretation e direction. Not look!!!!!
Weak plot, unlikely car malfunction, and helpless fumbling characters. At first I thought this movie was made during the seventies, since the picture quality, as well as the storyline and drama seemed taken from an old Kojac episode. When I checked and found that it was really made as late as -97 I was astonished. This is by far one of the worst and least (thriller) movies I have ever seen.<br /><br />If you read this, be advised, if you see it you waste time when you could have done something more exciting, like watching paint dry.
To call this anything at all would be an insult to everything else. Some expletives might describe it, but still too positively. Normally one ignores this kind of rubbish, but it was so stupid that one can but despair. Would have though that even Americans and commercial TV-stations would have given this piece of s**t a miss. But as the Germans say: Gegen die Dummheit kaempfen die Goetter selbst Vergebens!
I've had to change my view on the worst film in the world having just seen this one. THIS IS IT!<br /><br />Make no mistake this film is awful.<br /><br />Here's a list of reasons:<br /><br />Hopeless storyline (despite being based on a true story). Dreadful acting (what was Judge Reinhold thinking) Unbelieveably bad stunts. Childish dialogue. Non-existent continuity. Lack of atmosphere.<br /><br />Get the picture?<br /><br />
For the knowledgeable Beatles fan, the main value in this movie is to just sit back and pick out the flaws, inaccuracies, combined events, omitted events, wildly exaggerated events, omitted people, timeline errors, mis-attribute quotes, incorrect clothing, out of place songs, and (shame shame) incorrect instruments and other boners I just cant think of right now. The flaws come fast and furious so you'll have to be on your toes.<br /><br />I didn't give this a "1" primarily due the fact that it is filmed in Liverpool and the actors (the band Rain) give it their all (the Lennon character is credible and does a good job). Also, the song "Cry for a Shadow" is heard at one point and THAT counts for SOMETHING.<br /><br />So,,, watch it for fun, but please don't take it as historically accurate.
The movie uses a cutting edge title for a lame story. Kill Kill, would have been nice. The movie incorporates taboo scenes to make the viewer move back in their chairs. The scenes are unnecessary and choppy. The movie is something a novice screen writer could have conjured. Just a waste of movie props and network money. I have to write 10 lines of text to critique this film when it is not worth 10 lines of my time, but I have to push on to let the people know to avoid the nonsense. If people are counting on you to choose a good movie for movie night, pick something else. If you have a soul don't damage it by subjecting yourself to this filth.
...was so that I could, in good conscience, tell everyone how horrible this movie is. I barely made it through twenty minutes before I started thinking to myself,"Wow, this is pretty bad.". And, to be honest, I would've given this movie 1 star if it wasn't for Esai Morales (though he had very little screen time). He's the movie's only well-acted role, which is a shame because I really like Gil Bellows...or at least I thought I did.<br /><br />While watching this I started thinking back to his part in "Shawshank Redemption" and realized it wasn't as good as I thought it was. Problem: his jail-house/tough guy act seems like it's just that, an act; his dialogue sounded like he was doing a very poor impression. Has he ever met someone who speaks like his character was SUPPOSED to? I doubt it, but maybe he should have.<br /><br />And, to make matters worse, they've managed to inject a little jail-house philosophy and make it seem nothing short of contrived, especially when you consider that the rhetoric was being spouted by a "rasta" who's accent was so strong that it seemed unnatural.<br /><br />I wouldn't normally slam a movie like this, but when I saw the movie it had a fairly favorable review. I felt like I was cheated and lied to, and I thought I should try to save someone the misery of having to watch this movie.<br /><br />I say BOOOOOOOO.
I saw this movie at Sundance 2005 and was stunned at how bad it was, although based on the catalog description I was excited to see it. Supposedly a "mockumentary" of two high school students making a documentary of high school life, it featured bad acting, bad directing, completely lack of engaging characters as written, and all-around is a total bust. I love good movies about high school, and this is not one of them. The characters are one-dimensional and self-consciously "cool" although they are supposed to be outcasts. You get the overall impression of a bunch of people sitting around making an on-purposely-bad movie to show their friends, yet somehow it got into Sundance. Mystifying.
The only saving grace of this movie is that it serves as the 0 end of the movie rating scale. Now if I see a movie that really stinks I say this movie was a real Pecker. I believe this movie is a perfect example of Christina Ricci's one dimensional acting. Horrible
Whoever gave this movie rave reviews needs to see more movies.<br /><br />A loser takes his camera and photographs his mental family. The movie is filled with idiots and includes live "teabagging". That should sum it all up for you.<br /><br />Do not waste your time. You may want to watch the entire movie in the hopes that it gets better as it goes on - it doesn't!
This film can not even be said to be bad for it is sadly, just painfully mediocre. Lacking any real wit or imagination, a thin plot is stretched to the absolute limit and the `jokes' (which are predictable and threadbare) are spun out to such inordinate length that boredom and yawns quickly overtake the viewer. Another notch to mark the sad decline of John Waters and a reminder that what `shocked' or amused us 30 years ago doesn't work quite the same way now. We've seen it all before, and it no longer breaks any taboos because they have long since evaporated. A major miss.
This may very well be the worst movie I'll see if I live to be 100. I think a group of first-graders could have come up with better plot lines as a class project than this. I'm dumber for having watched it, and God have mercy on the souls who were paid to produce this film.<br /><br />And after I finally turned it off, I actually had the urge to vomit.<br /><br />No one had a clue about photography when made this. No one had a clue about acting. No one had a clue about just about anything.<br /><br />I can't believe F/X shows this crap on occasion. The only time I had seen it was on one of the Starz! channels - not even the main one. And it was on at about 3 a.m. at that.
This was one of the worst movies i have ever seen. The plot is awful, and the acting is worse. The jokes that are attempted absolutley suck. Don't bother to waste your time on a dumb movie such as this. And if for some reason that you do want to see this movie, don't watch it with your parents.
The movie is basically a boring string of appalling clichés which do not offer a real cross-cultural insight. The Middle Eastern leg of the journey is described in a particularly irritating way: there obviously are mud brick villages, dirt tracks in the middle of the desert, women clad in black robes and belly dancers. I wonder how camels and date palm trees were missing from the whole picture. The personality of the two main characters is very clumsily sketched and many situations are hardly credible. <br /><br />The original idea might have been interesting, but at the end of the day if you are looking for cultural insight, you should skip this movie.
I was China in this film. I choose the screen name Sheeba Alahani because I was modeling at the time in Italy and they couldn't pronounce my real name correctly, so I choose Sheeba and then added Alahani since it was similar to Alohalani.<br /><br />I had never acted before (and it shows), but it was so much fun to film. They gave me "acting lessons" each morning (which obviously were not useful). They dubbed my voice (thank goodness).<br /><br />David and Peter were a blast on the set, full of good humor and jokes. This film was never meant to be taken seriously, it was a tax write off according to inside information. <br /><br />I give it a 1 because I have a sense of humor, but a 10 for the fun I had "acting" in it.
When I decided to watch THE BARBARIANS, starring those twin bodybuilders, Peter and David Paul, I thought it couldn't be that bad because the film was directed by Ruggero Deodato, who has a reputation for creating sleazy movies but well made sleazy movies. Well, THE BARBARIANS is remarkably trashy action/adventure movie that wants to be another CONAN THE BARBARIAN, and fails at every level. The look of the film is all wrong. Some scenes were well shot but the tone and the schintzy, tacky "disco" look of the clothes and hair people are adorned with just doesn't make any sense whatsoever, even for a low budget flick like this one.<br /><br />Richard Lynch looks like an old woman with that ridiculous hairdo and costume. He's supposed to be menacing but he comes across as a buffoon. And it's funny to see Eva LaRue Callahan, one of the stars of ALL MY CHILDREN, appear in her first movie, walking around in skimpy fur bikini. I'm sure she wants this dreck to disappear from the face of the earth! The so-called Barbarian twins are okay as the muscle bound heroes but it's almost impossible to construct a proper critique of their acting because their roles are, like everything else in this mess, really ill-conceived. The only way the film tries to differentiate one twin from the other is by having one twin wear a loincloth that covers his ass, while the other twin's loincloth barely covers his muscular butt. I'm not kidding! Don't ask me who's who though.<br /><br />Deodato must have been really desperate to agree to make this film. And his desperation is reflected perfectly in this trashy flick. It's just bad.
Cannon pulled off a real visual beauty of a medieval epic that appears fascinating (except for the dragon prop). Now just how did the long-gone studio known for Chuck Norris movies ever come up with a complete lack of knowledge in the first place? Case in point: the amateurish acting and horrible plot is a sign that reviving the medieval legend is no cure for some lousy execution. They actually went on and made another cheap exploitationer featuring hundreds of lusty bimbos, just to make this look even better. For the two "Barbarian Brothers", they sure know how to make weird noises than becoming brave warriors so strong and bold enough to save their native land. This is the single greatest waste of potential I've seen from an "expensive" low-budget movie, and worse enough to let an axe strike through the gorgeous print without mercy. All of this followed an advertising campaign that sold T-shirts based on THE BARBARIANS! The movie alone makes a great souvenir!
This movie really deserves the MST3K treatment. A pseudo-ancient fantasy hack-n-slash tale featuring twin barbarian brothers with a collective IQ of hot water, character names that seem to have been derived from a Mad Libs book, and such classic lines as "Hold her down and uncover her belly!", The Barbarians crosses over into the "so bad, it's good" territory.
This film was very well advertised. I am an avid movie goer and have seen previews for this movie for months. While I was somewhat skeptical of how funny this movie would actually be, my friends thought it was going to be great and hyped me up about it. Then I went and saw it, I was sunk down in my seat almost asleep until I remembered that I had paid for this movie. I made myself laugh at most of the stuff in the movie just so i wouldnt feel bad and destroy the good mood I was in, plus I wanted to get my monies worth out of the movie! I always go into a movie with an open mind, not trying to go into them with too many expectations, but this movie was not that funny. Now it wasnt the worst movie I've ever seen, but it is definitely worth waiting for HBO. If you havent seen many previews for the movie or you like very slow and corny comedies you may enjoy it, but for true comedy fans Id say pass. Maybe even check out The Kings of Comedy again. Something told me to go see Meet the Parents instead!!!
The Ladies Man is a funny movie. There's not much thought behind it, but what do you expect from an SNL movie? It's actually better than most SNL movies (i.e. Superstar or A Night At The Roxbury) Tim Meadows and Will Ferrell were both very funny. Chris Parnell was also funny in his short scene (one of the funnier ones in the movie). Other than that, the rest of the cast is average and is just there to support Meadows. I've definitely seen funnier movies, but I've seen dumber ones too. Again, it's not exactly a deep movie, but it's good for a few laughs. It was funnier as a skit though. But still, if you're looking for a pretty funny movie, I'd recommend this one. Just don't think about it too much, or you'll hate it.<br /><br />Rating: 6/10
I honestly don't understand how tripe like this gets made. The worst junior-high talent show skit you've ever seen is more entertaining than this film. Will Ferrell's wrestling fetish provides the only (briefly) humorous moments. Utterly horrible.
While Leon is cute on SNL, he's only on for a minute. Like most SNL skits-to-movies, this one can't fill 90 minutes. It has some cute moments (the ones you've seen in the trailer) but the actors are largely wasted. Tim Meadows does his best but the plot just doesn't have many high points. Will Farrell has a bit part. Farrell may be the funniest man alive... but not in this movie. What a shame.
Lorne Michaels once again proves that he has absolutely no business producing movies.<br /><br />You'd think that after such dismal flicks "Superstar", "Night at the Roxbury", and "Coneheads", he'd start to get the notion that maybe he doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to movies (and many would argue that he doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to television, as well). Trying to make feature films out of skits that wore out their welcome the third time the were done on SNL makes no sense.<br /><br />I personally like Tim Meadows, and think that he would be great in the right movie. It's a shame to see a talented guy wasted in a film that features unfunny after unfunny situation, and caps it all with a dreadfully bad song and dance scene. Any laughs here will be because the movie is so bad, not because it's funny.<br /><br />Oh well, at least we can be thankful that there are many other tired SNL characters who will never have films done about them. It's just too bad that this one made it to the big screen.
I could name plenty of funny movies. There are comedies that set out to be funny, and are. Some movies, like a Gymkata for example, try to be serious but end up funny. The Ladies Man is a film that is desperately trying to be funny, but could not be less funny if it was about a guy who got a lot of chicks in the middle of the wreckage of a nuclear holocaust. It's anti-funny.<br /><br />I don't think I laughed harder than a chuckle at anything in this movie. It's simply unfunny. It's boring, stupid, inane, annoying, mind-bogglingly bad, but not funny. I don't particularly care for Tim Meadows, or this character from SNL, but I expected better than this.<br /><br />The movie is completely lacking logic or common sense. It's like the script writer had a bag over his head while he was typing and he couldn't see which keys he was hitting. They tell the "origin" of the Ladies Man, but fail to include a motivation for his bizarre fascination with acting like it's still the seventies. The movie tries to get humor out of a man who appears to pleasuring himself to porn, shortly after he tried to hang himself. This is comedy? I like to consider myself having a pretty keen sense of humor (Spending a lot of time writing comedy as I do), but maybe I'm just not quite bright enough for this film.<br /><br />Lee Evans, so funny as Tucker in There's Something About Mary, is outrageously bad here. I was pleading with him in my head to shut up.<br /><br />By the end I was pounding on my chair, muttering under my breath, and had the film gone on any longer, would probably have attempted suicide. This film might not be as bad as Battlefield Earth, but it's the first movie I've seen that's come close.<br /><br />
I rented this movie for a few laughs. I had never seen the SNL skit, but with hits like Tommy Boy, and Waynes World, it couldn't have been that bad, could it? The answer: it was. This movie hardly was a means of relaxing after a hard day at work. I just kept waiting for a plotline and a funny part, but there wasn't any. The highlight was tiffany amber thieson, and thats just about it.
First of all, I'd like to say that I love the "Ladies' Man" sketch on SNL. I always laugh out loud at Tim Meadows' portrayal of Leon Phelps. However, there is a difference between an 8-minute sketch and a feature-length movie. Watching Leon doing his show and making obscene comments to his listeners and coming up with all sorts of segments for his show, like "The Ladies Man Presents..." which is reminiscent of "Alfred Hitchcock Presents..." is absolutely hilarious. There's a great episode where Cameron Diaz role-plays Monica Lewinski, and Leon plays Bill and they call it "The Oral Office." See, that's funny!!! <br /><br />In the movie, we don't see Leon on the show too often. In fact, he gets kicked out of almost every radio station in the country. And the plot revolves around his quest for true love, involving a mystery letter that got dropped off at his houseboat, signed by "Sweet Thing." Karyn Parsons, who is famous for playing Hillary on "Fresh Prince of Bel Air," works with him on the show and has a secret crush on Leon. The movie just piles on one boring subplot after another. And the gags are boring as well. The first time we see Leon mention the word "wang" it's pretty funny. When he uses it over and over again, supposedly trying to get a laugh, the joke has run dry. Most of the jokes he uses in the film are jokes we heard before, and done better, on the SNL sketch and played out tediously for a whole hour and twenty-five minutes. They even try to insert a musical number by Will Ferrell and his gang of Ladies' Man haters, who all want to destroy him because their wives had an affair with him, to bring some life into this witless comedy. Ferrell has some funny moments, and tries to make the best out of an otherwise unfunny role. Ferrell just has that unique comic talent, and he's funny at almost anything he does. Even Julianne Moore gets a cameo. Watching her, you can't but wonder "What the hell is an Oscar-winning actress doing in this movie??!!!!" Her name wasn't mentioned in the opening credits--probably by her consent. And of course a movie of this theme has to include the Master of Love himself, Billy Dee Williams. Billy Dee is charismatic as always, but even he can't breathe enough life into this film. I also have to add that the soundtrack is full of soft R & B hits, which impairs the film even more, giving it a horribly downbeat tone--as if the script isn't boring enough. I mean, this is "supposed" to be a comedy. The soundtrack would've been appropriate for something like "Love Jones." <br /><br />"The Ladies Man" only has sporadic laughs. There are exceptions in which SNL can produce a great movie out of a short sketch. Watch both of the "Wayne's World" movies, and you'll see how it's done. But this movie, just like adapting Mary Catherine Gallagher's character to screen in "Superstar," shows the flip side. Some sketches are meant to be remembered on SNL, and not on the silver screen.<br /><br />My score: 3 (out of 10)
I think I laughed twice. The line where the main character says something about being from the streets. And then I forget the other time I laughed. It was probably in the beginning.<br /><br />This has to be one of the thinnest movies ever. Doesn't Hollywood realize that this kind of humor is degrading and sad, really. You can only insult yourself so many times.<br /><br />2/10
I rented this tape a couple of years ago, and boy did it suck. From the commercials, I was lead to believe that this was a movie about a guy who had no no luck with women, and that was where the comedy would lie. Boy was I wrong. The jokes were vulgar, and they were just not funny. Don't bother. 1/10
was this tim meadows first acting role in a movie? the character, leon, is funny enough but shortly after that the sexual jokes and humor are too dumb to listen to anymore. some movies can get away with the sexual jokes, and base their audiences to know that right when the advertising comes on. some movies that do this are american pie and scary movie. scary movie was stupid, and american pie wouldnt have done well without the sexual jokes. the only role, besides leon, that had some humor that followed was will ferrell. the character really was dumb and that was all, the dumb humor was all that had me watching. the movie was ok, and nothing else. i dont really understand why the snl people that are dying to leave the show always get a movie based on a character they played on the show. the skits last about 5 minutes, and if they can make a movie off a 5 minute skit, then what is the world coming to? molly shannon had superstar, cheri o'terri had scary movie, but she wasnt a leading role, and will had elf. but that was good, but he did some dumb movie, but i cant remember, and mike myers with wayne's world. how come the mad tv crew dont ever get movie deals? seen only one guy break through, but only in like 2 movies and a tv show with andy dick. but that guy relies on comedy for his life to continue, funny or not. this movie is not good, but had some positive humor. what a waste of film and people's money. (D D-)
I disliked this film intensely and left during the scene where the loyalist gang are shot up by the British. The film effectively blames the people of NI as being the cause of their own troubles. It suggests that the 25 year war was a question of intransigence and nothing to do with Britain's partition of Ireland and domination of its history i.e. NI was created by Britain in 1921 irrespective of the wishes of the rest of Ireland.<br /><br />The characters are portrayed as hapless fools, even though I despise loyalist paramilitaries they were fighting for a cause - maintaining their artificial privileges over the Catholic community. It is a known fact that British Intelligence collaborated with loyalists during the war, no doubt to keep the Catholics at bay and demoralise republicanism.<br /><br />Nineties' values about 'machismo', masculinity etc are transposed on to 1970s Belfast and are portrayed as part of the supposedly unique Irish 'psyche' which leads to violence. The stupid song from the woman in the club - old Ireland of green fields ..blah..blah.. - is given a symbolic stature, i.e. poor young fools fighting for an impossible cause. Tedious, ahistorical, cheap and nasty trash. O'Sullivan has made a personal statement on a conflict which requires serious political analysis.
being a NI supporter, it's hard to objectively review a movie glorifying ulster nationalists. characters who are hard to root for, typical heavy-handed anti-violence messages, and a predictable 'poetic justice' ending makes this an awkward watch...
I'm a big fan of Westerns but this one.... whew, what a stinker! I think what turned me off almost right off the bat was the inane dialog. I think I could have written better dialog than this when I was in eighth grade. And the poor actors! Given this terrible dialog, none of them came across looking anything but ridiculous. Really, I'm not kidding. Some of this is little better than what you'd get in an Ed Wood film. <br /><br />The biggest tragedy is Sterling Hayden. He was probably THE "big" star in this movie which if you called it a B-Western, you'd be lavishing praise upon it. This is what should be called a B-minus Western perhaps. Pity Sterling Hayden, who appeared at other times along with Joan Crawford, Bette Davis, Frank Sinatra, and other major talents. For him to appear in a vehicle this poor must have been something he tried to downplay for the rest of his life.<br /><br />One annoying thing about this movie is all the men look like they haven't shaved in a week and their faces are all greasy. I know in the old West guys weren't always well groomed but to a man this is a movie that makes you want to just go 'EWWWW!' Really, this is a crummy Western. Denver Pyle also had to live this one down, especially after appearances in so many great Westerns. Bad, bad movie.
What a shame that a really competent director like Andre de Toth who specialized in slippery, shifting alliances didn't get hold of this concept first. He could have helped bring out the real potential, especially with the interesting character played by William Bishop. As the movie stands, it's pretty much of a mess (as asserted by reviewer Chipe). The main problems are with the direction, cheap budget, and poor script. The strength lies in an excellent cast and an interesting general concept-- characters pulled in different directions by conflicting forces. What was needed was someone with vision enough to pull together the positive elements by reworking the script into some kind of coherent whole, instead of the sprawling, awkward mess that it is, (try to figure out the motivations and interplay if you can). Also, a bigger budget could have matched up contrasting location and studio shots, and gotten the locations out of the all-too-obvious LA outskirts. The real shame lies in a waste of an excellent cast-- Hayden, Taylor (before his teeth were capped), Dehner, Reeves, along with James Millican and William Bishop shortly before their untimely deaths. Few films illustrate the importance of an auteur-with-vision more than this lowly obscure Western, which, in the right hands, could have been so much more.
Really bad shot on video "film" made by not one, not two, but three amateur video makers.<br /><br />If you're going to make a bad horror film at least throw in some blood, gore and nudity. There is some blood provided by latex cut off arm props bought at a Halloween store. There are lesbians and hookers but no nudity or sex. The lesbians spend a lot of time in bed but only talking.<br /><br />There seems to be no editing effects- fades, wipes etc. Once in a while a bit of black appears to separate scenes.<br /><br />Terrible music by bad heavy metal bands whose websites take up the majority of the end credits.The werewolves are represented by rubber masks that are attached to just the "actors" face. They didn't even bother to apply brown makeup to their necks, arms or wrists.<br /><br />I guarantee a 10 year old with a video camera could put together a better movie.No reason at all to buy, rent or watch this film except as an example of how not to make a low budget video.
It's like this ... you put in the DVD and the most professional-looking thing you see over the next ninety minutes is the logo of the distribution company. And at this point, you know you've just been jerked around.<br /><br />People are generally trusting enough to assume that if something has been put on DVD, it's going to be of a certain level -- at least financially if not creatively. But sadly this isn't the case. Distribution companies are perfectly happy to throw together DVDs of amateur movies and ship them right out into the stores to await the unsuspecting buyer who is drawn in by the well-designed DVD cover. The weight behind this particular project is most likely independent horror movie pioneer Kevin J Lindenmuth, whose name may be known amongst genre fans since he's responsible for various other low-budget werewolf movies -- "Rage of the Werewolf", "Werewolf Tales" and so on.<br /><br />"Blood of the Werewolf" is made up of three short independent werewolf stories with no real connection other than the fact that they deal with hereditary shapeshifters. The first segment, "Blood Reunion", pretty much sets the tone for the whole thing ... a man returns to his home town to look up a girl who had a crush on, only to find that her domineering grandmother refuses to let her have relationships with men, and for reasons which are somehow related to a dark family secret. This instalment is poorly directed, poorly directed, and basically nothing superior to what you could throw together yourself with a few friends and a home video camera.<br /><br />The second story, "Old Blood", is probably the strongest out of the three and is directed by Lindenmuth himself. It tells the story of a lesbian couple, one of whom is a shapeshifter and the other wishes to be given this power. Her wish is granted, but she doesn't become the creature that she envisioned. This short movie shows that Lindemuth has more talent and experience than the other filmmakers who worked on this project, but still not enough to raise it above the level of an amateur movie.<br /><br />And finally we have "Manbeast", in which some army guy runs through the woods while being chased by two other fellas. They wish to kill him as he has been bitten by the beast and is believed to be dangerous, but all might not be as it seems. This one has an interesting concept, but it's stretched out to be far too long, and if you don't guess what the "twist" is in the first ten minutes then you probably ain't too bright. This pretty much sums up the problem with this whole DVD ... a few good ideas just aren't enough to justify spending money on something like this. After all, would you pay for a picture you could have painted yourself?
What's with the murky video in the beginning and sporadically throughout the movie? It's like someone put muddy water on the camera lens.<br /><br />The violence and nudity might turn some people off but, that, along with the mostly bad acting is what makes a good cult movie I suppose.<br /><br />My favorite line is delivered by Tarquin the Vampire, "Alas, your breed is dumb." Okay, no one should ever say "alas" in a movie line unless they're English and living in the 18th century.<br /><br />The acting by the Van Helsing character and bad girl "Rally" isn't bad. I also liked Master Little played by Ron Little. Wicked martial arts! Don't take it too seriously and you'll enjoy it.
This was a "cute" movie at first, then then got too sappy and featured mediocre songs, at best.<br /><br />There is too much King James English spoken with is not only annoying in today's world but not always easy to interpret. Can you imagine young people of today trying to listen to this film? Forget it.<br /><br />Bing Crosby has some good lines in here and is likable as "Hank Martin." Rhonda Fleming ("Alisande La Carteloise") was, too, in addition to her good looks and beautiful, long red hair. <br /><br />It's a nice movie with a feel-good ending, and I can't knock that. Maybe this is worthy of a rental, for historical sake or if you're a big Crosby fan but, overall, it's not that much.
Although I have enjoyed Bing Crosby in other movies, I find this movie to be particularly grating. Maybe because I'm from a different era and a different country, but I found Crosby's continual references to the Good Old USA pleasant at first, trite after a while and then finally annoying. Don't get me wrong - I'm not anti-American whatsoever - but it seemed that the English could do no right and/or needed this brave, oh so smart American visitor to show them the way. It's a "fish out of water" story, but unlike most movies of this sort, this time it's the "fish" who has the upper hand. To be fair to both myself and the movie, I have watched it a few times spaced over a few years and get the same impression each time.<br /><br />(I watched another Crosby movie last night - The Emperor's Waltz - and that, too, produced the same reaction in me. And to my surprise even my wife - who for what's it's worth is American - found the "in your face" attitude of American Crosby to be irritating. One too many references to Teddy Roosevelt, as she put it.) <br /><br />As for the premise of the movie, it's unique enough for its day and the supporting cast is of course very good. The scenery and the music is also good, as are the great costumes - although I agree with a previous reviewer that the wig on William Bendix looks horrid (picture Moe of The Three Stooges).<br /><br />All in all for me this would be a much more enjoyable picture without the attitude of Bing Crosby but because he is in virtually every shot it's pretty hard to sit through this movie.
Giving credit where it's due, only the technicolor, costumes and sets deserve any honorable mention.<br /><br />This is undoubtedly the lowest point in BING CROSBY's long career at Paramount. The script is about as clumsy as you could possibly imagine and neither the casual Bing nor William Bendix nor Sir Cedric Hardwicke can do a thing about repairing it. <br /><br />Bendix looks extremely foolish in a page boy wig. And poor Rhonda Fleming has a stock costume heroine role requiring her to look adoringly at Bing and little else except for warbling a couple of uninspired ballads in a voice probably dubbed for the occasion.<br /><br />Just plain awful! Mark Twain's wit is not evident in any of the screenplay. Only die-hard Crosby fans can possibly appreciate this mess of a film given uninspired direction. Even the extras look as though they don't know what they're supposed to be doing.<br /><br />Summing up: Dull as dishwater. Not recommended, even for children.
I liked Batman: Dead End. A dark edgy film-noir setting for Batman was perfect. Batman: Dead End is good. This is not.<br /><br />First of all let me start off with the acting. None of it is really that good. The best would probably be Clark Bartram as Batman. But that isn't saying much. He is good at first glance, and then you realize he is what he is, a body-builder who happens to be a tolerable actor. But mainly the problem is that Batman doesn't belong in the daylight, he looks like a freak running around in a Bat suit. Instead of a horribly scarred man trying to make up for past mistakes. The daylight also reveals an irritating dorky scowl on Bartram's face which never leaves and unoticeable in Batman: Dead End, probably because of the darkness of short which is so desired in this trailer. Bartram seems to think that scowling and stubbornly shaking his head is acting, it's not, it's quite the opposite. It's called posing, something real actors avoid like the plague.<br /><br />Something I never understood why Collora casted body-builders as the leads. It makes much more sense to give the role to an actor who can manage it, instead of a bodybuilder who can kinda manage it but HEY HE LOOKS SO MUCH LIKE THE COMIC! Of course, they might have done better if Collora's dialouge didn't leave much to be desired.<br /><br />The entire trailer (yes, trailer. There will not be a full-length film) is more centered around Superman then Batman. But everything on the Superman side is corny, cloying and amateur. Michael O'Hearn (Superman) is one of the worst actors I've ever seen. He stands around, smiles, says his lines. That's about it. Although I'm not surprised since he is just a bodybuilder they hired and possibly received a few acting lessons. Once again I say to Collora, cast ACTORS. Not bodybuilders. Actors will be so much more compelling that we will forgive the fact they don't look exactly like the comic book.<br /><br />The costume is what you would expect Superman to wear. As for the Batman suit. Well, I guess it only looks good in the dark. I say this because in some shots the suit looks like something you would buy from a Halloween gift shop.<br /><br />Superman flies in this movie. But that isn't a good thing. These shots look especially amateur. This and a lot of the entire "film" looks like it was shot in their backyard with a VHS camera.<br /><br />The best shots are a shot of Superman catching a car in his hands. And the final shot of Two-Face and Batman at the very end. For those of you who have seen the trailer. You know what I'm talking about. Now if only he could have stretched that shot through the entire trailer.<br /><br />Finally I ask. Why if you're trying to show your ability as a director, would you make a trailer as a short film? This proves nothing when it comes to being an actual director handling story. My only piece of advice for Collora here is, there is a difference between the ability to tell a story and being able to work in marketing.<br /><br />Batman: Dead End didn't feel amateur. I can't figure out where this went wrong.
So on the Chills Network on cable they are having "Vampire Month", I'm such a dork, but I love vampires. So after a few duds that they showed I was pretty disappointed, but then I noticed Sleepwalkers was written by Stephen King. So I decided to go ahead and check it out, well much to my surprise, this movie was really bad. Most Stephen King films are entertaining and some are very scary. While Sleepwalkers was bad, it was a beautiful kind of bad. I had a good time laughing at this movie and just taking it for what it was. I've never read Sleepwalkers, from what I understand this is the only real vampire story by King, so I can't really compare book to film. I don't know if it was just my TV, but Sleepwalkers looked like it was made for TV. The special effects were corny and the story was a bit far fetched, even if it is fantasy, it had a lot of problems. <br /><br />Charles Brady and his mother Mary are vampires who feed off the life force of virgin women. They are considerably more resilient than humans and have powers of both telekinesis and illusion. Their one weakness is cats, who are not only able to see through their illusions but whose claws are capable of inflicting severe to fatal wounds upon them. They also maintain an incestuous relationship. Charles and Mary have taken up residence in a small Indiana town. Charles attends the local high school, and there he meets Tanya Robertson in his creative writing class. Tanya does not suspect the real reason why Charles wants her so much; to take her life force for his mother, who is starving. At first, it seems that Charles has fallen in love with Tanya. On their first date, however, a picnic at the nearby cemetery, Charles attempts to drain the life force from Tanya while kissing her. As it happens, Deputy Sheriff Andy Simpson who had earlier tried to pull Charles over for speeding, drives by the cemetery and notices Charles' car. When Tanya runs to him for help, Charles tracks Andy down and kills him. When Charles then turns to resume his life force-depleting make out session with Tanya, the deputy's cat, Clovis, rises to the occasion and nearly kills Charles by scratching him in the face and chest. Mortally wounded by Clovis, Charles staggers back home to Mary. Mary then seeks vengeance on Tanya's family.<br /><br />So to sum this movie up basically you should expect the cheese to overflow. The scene where Charles attacks Tanya for the first time is very cliché and you almost vote for Charles to win just because Tanya is one of the dumbest female leads in horror movies. Then you gotta love the scene where Mary has a gun and shoots it at a cop car and somehow the whole thing explodes, God bless Hollywood explosions and exaggerations. I'm taking the movie for what it is, it's just so deliciously bad that it turns into a dark comedy for me that I could just enjoy making fun of. I'm not sure if this is what Stephen King wanted to see for his story, but he does have his typical cameo in the film. So my suggestion if you watch this movie, just take it for what it is and don't over think it, it's mindless entertainment with corny effects, bad casting, a silly story and enough cats to make the crazy cat lady from The Simpson's say "Wow, that's a lot of cats".<br /><br />4/10
.... And after seeing this pile of crap you won't be surprised that it wasn't published <br /><br />!!!! SPOILERS !!!!<br /><br />This is a terrible movie by any standards but when I point out that it's one of the worst movies that has the name Stephen King in the credits you can start to imagine how bad it is . The movie starts of with two characters staring open mouthed at a scene of horror : <br /><br />" My god . What happened here ? " <br /><br />" I don't know but they sure hate cats " *<br /><br />The camera pans to the outside of a house where hundreds of cats are strung up dead and mutilated . Boy this guy is right , someone does hate cats and with a deduction like that he should be a policeman . Oh wait a minute , he is a policeman and when a movie starts with a cop making an oh so obvious observation you just know you're going to be watching a bad movie <br /><br />The reason SLEEPWALKERS is bad is that it's very illogical and confused . We eventually find out the monsters of the title need the blood of virgins to survive . Would they not be better looking for a virgin in the mid west bible belt rather than an American coastal town ? Having said that at least we know of the monsters motives - That's the only thing we learn . We never learn how they're able to change shape or are able to make cars become invisible and this jars with the ending that seems to have been stolen from THE TERMINATOR . Monster mother walks around killing several cops with her bare hands or blowing them up via a police issue hand gun ( ! ) but if her monster breed is immune from police fire power then why do the creatures need the ability to change shape or become invisible ? The demise of the creatures is equally ill thought out as there killed by a mass attack of household cats . If they can be killed by cats then why did the monsters not kill all the cats that were lying around the garden ? There was a whole horde of moggies sitting around but the monsters never thought about killing them . I guess that's so the production team can come up with an ending . It was that they started the movie my complaint lies <br /><br />We're treated to several scenes where famous horror movie directors like John Landis , Clive Barker and even Stephen King make cameos . I think the reason for this is because whenever a struggling unknown actor read the script they instantly decided that no matter what , they weren't going to appear in a movie this bad so Stephen King had to phone up his horror buddies in order to fill out the cast . That's how bad SLEEPWALKERS is<br /><br />* Unbelievable as it seems that wasn't the worst line in the movie . The worst line is - " That cat saved my life "
OK, I taped this off TV and missed the very start. The film was about 10 or so seconds into the titles (I assume) so if anything happened before that I missed it.<br /><br />Lots of people say Mark Hammill is in this, I didn't see him. I did recognise Clive Barker, John Landis and obviously Stephen King doing some really awful acting as the graveyard attendant.<br /><br />Alice Krige looks lovely apart from the scenes where she has the cat face or is in full alien make-up.<br /><br />Even with the opening titles it's never really explained very well exactly what Sleepwalkers are or where they come from. From the title sequence I assume they are catlike bipeds who live by extracting life-force from humans. I assume they live a long time and these particular 2 are possibly the last of their kind.<br /><br />Add to this a very large dose of incest (Yes! I thought it was a bit suspect too), shapeshifting, killer cats and invisibility and you have Sleepwalkers.<br /><br />It's a very bad story that has no real explanations behind the main 2 characters and far too many cameo's to try and distract from the simple fact that not enough is explained to the viewer.<br /><br />Avoid.
There are no spoilers here... Because there is no plot to spoil. Madchen Amick is living proof a face can make a living acting-- no talent required. The only bright spot are a few really good one-liners delivered very nicely by Alice Krige, but then again, she IS Alice Krige. Her soft dreamy voice gives the only hint at just how seductively dangerous these odd creatures can be. She is believably creepy in this otherwise unbelievable plot. How they got her to agree to this project remains a mystery. The screenplay writers must have been medicated when they submitted this script. It has major continuity problems, superficial stereotypical characters, horror formula writing, and simply falls short of making any sense what-so-ever. The creatures, while they have neat skills like going "dim", the question of where they come from and what they are is never so much explored. <br /><br />Don't waste any time on this one.
A charming boy and his mother move to a middle of nowhere town, cats and death soon follow them. That about sums it up.<br /><br />I'll admit that I am a little freaked out by cats after seeing this movie. But in all seriousness in spite of the numerous things that are wrong with this film, and believe me there is plenty of that to go around, it is overall a very enjoyable viewing experience.<br /><br />The characters are more like caricatures here with only their basis instincts to rely on. Fear, greed, pride lust or anger seems to be all that motivate these people. Although it can be argued that that seeming failing, in actuality, serves the telling of the story. The supernatural premise and the fact that it is a Stephen King screenplay(not that I have anything specific against Mr. King) are quite nicely supported by some interesting FX work, makeup and quite suitable music. The absolute gem of this film is without a doubt Alice Krige who plays Mary Brady, the otherworldly mother.<br /><br />King manages to take a simple story of outsider, or people who are a little different(okay - a lot in this case), trying to fit in and twists it into a campy over the top little horror gem that has to be in the collection of any horror fan.
Written by Stephen King, but this treatment is not as solid as most of his stories on film. A mother and son move into a small Indiana town with a secret. They are Sleepwalkers, feline type creatures that feed on young virgins. This little story has its share of gore and special effects; plus hints of incest.<br /><br />Alice Krige is outstanding as the mother. Others appearing are Madchen Amick, Brian Krause and Cindy Pickett. Look for very small roles for John Landis and Clive Barker. Stephen King cameos as the caretaker of the cemetery.
this movie was so gay like its a mom and son cat that have sex, they also get scared of little kitty cats. they get set on fire by them. the mom cat alien thing kills a guy by stabbing him in the back with an ear of corn? they are bullet proof. invisible. and what not. the star of the movie, Clovis, is the cops cat, Clovis leads the cops to find the mom alien, and after the mom kills the cops, Clovis kills the mom by eating her head then she catches on fire. this movie sucks. it was way way more funny than it was scary, it wasn't even scaryt at all. the girl hits the alien on the head with a camera, it knoks him out. she then goes and hugs her. the then grabs her and begins to rape her. once again, Clovis comes to the rescue
It Could Have Been A Marvelous Story Based On The Ancient Races Of Cat People, but it wasn't.<br /><br />This work could have been just that; marvelous and replete with mythological references which kept my fascination fueled. The lead characters (Charles Brady played by Brian Krause; and his mother Mary, played by Alice Krige) were shallowly done, had no depth of personality and were hardly likable or drawing. Not even Mädchen Amick (who played Tanya Robertson)'s character fit into that description. <br /><br />However, as I've said many times before, when you adapt a Stephen King novel for TV, you simply must take into account the fact that his books aren't written for TV, and his screenplay talent sadly lacks the fire and depth he exhibits as a novelist. <br /><br />This is another botched attempt to take the magick of Stephen King writing, whether that is of his novels or an original screenplay. To simply cut and paste his work onto the small screen. His novels get completely bastardized in the process and all you end up creating is a nice movie; nothing less but certainly nothing more. His screenplays are hit and miss. Unfortunately, this screenplay translation was a miss. <br /><br />Sorry, Sorry, Sorry movie.<br /><br />This movie gets a 1.0/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.
I have nothing against a fast-paced fright-flick, but this Stephen King-derived nonsense is too freshly-scrubbed, too bright and modern. The plot, about a new teenage boy in a small town who is a "Sleepwalker"--sort of a cross between a vampire and a werewolf--and who feeds on the blood of female virgins, begs for a more mysterious, ambiguous treatment. This thriller is given an inappropriately colorful look and feel, with hardly any atmosphere. The kids are predictably pretty and energetic, but the big plus is Alice Kridge as the boy's mother; Kridge, from "Ghost Story", never broke out of the filler-female mold, and it's a huge loss that she hasn't been used more. Her performance is creepy and intense, and gives hint that "Sleepwalkers" might've been a much better film with a different focus and tighter direction. It's too over-the-top and commercially-driven, with an uneven tone that swings wildly from thriller to comedy to drama. Stephen King pops up in a cameo, as do real-life directors John Landis and Tobe Hooper. *1/2 from ****
If you're the kind of movie-goer who enjoys original content and intelligent suspense...then look elsewhere, kids, cause Sleepwalkers really sucks. Usually I'm more eloquent than that, but...wow...this was bad. I especially love it when Charles offers Tanya a ride home, she declines, and then he is seen WALKING HOME. Where's his car?? Anyway, just don't see it, folks. I really want to be more specific, but words escape me. Cats jumping on people. A guy getting stabbed by corn. Cheesey lines up the proverbial "wazoo". Just don't see it. Wait, I take that back! See it for writer Stephen King's cameo as the guy who owns the graveyard. He's actually pretty good. Even with guest appearances by Mark Hamill and Ron Perlman, King gives the best performance of the film. But, other than that...wow...BAD.
This film has its share of negative comments and I have to agree with those who consider it one of the worst movies ever made. True, most of the films based on the works of King are pretty bad, but this one goes beyond bad into the realm of horrible. There is not one scary moment in it unless you consider stupidity scary. It is typical King garbage -- myths twisted around that made no sense in the first place, mixed with obvious and belabored so-called "scares" that are about as shocking as PeeWee's Playhouse (which, at least, is entertaining). It is full of ridiculous moments, not the least of which is Alice Krige's character. When she goes on a rampage and starts quipping like the villain in an old Batman TV show, it is so absurd as to be sickening. All the people who had cameos in this (including John Landis)are lucky they still have careers. But the most absurd part has to be the cat costumes towards the end, which look like cheap rubber outfits someone bought at K-mart. The best part of the movie is the appearance of some real cats who actually out-act the people in the movie.
Based on the average short story by horror writer Stephen King about so called 'Sleepwalkers' ancient and immortal cat-like creatures that suck the life out of virgins in order that this energy may sustain them They have supernatural abilities- they can make themselves 'dim' which means they become invisible and can create subliminal mirages to fool people.They have been fleeing humans for century's we are told and have one by one been picked off till there are only two left.The film starts when a beautiful mother and her son arrive in a sleepy town, they are the last of the sleepwalkers and they are on the prowl for virgins to feed on. The mother sends her son out to enrol at the local high school so he can find a virgin, he does (Madchen Amick) and proceeds to try to get her alone so he can suck her dry. It is not made clear why the mother cannot seek out virgins herself- it would make things easier one would imagine as teenage boys are much more apt to follow a older beautiful woman to a secluded area than a teen girl follow a teen boy. However his plans are thwarted as the girl fights back, jabbing a pencil in to his ear. The police are called and the hunt is on!. The son is sick from his injuries and so the mother goes on the rampage killing cops left and right in her hunt for the girl who hurt her son and spouting some painfully unfunny one liners amidst the gore. Finally the girl kills the mother- end of movie. This movie is rubbish!. The acting is variable, from the average Brian Krause to the excellent Alice Krige. The special effects are average,and showcase some early computer effects which is mildly interesting as it shows how far such things have progressed in such a short time. The direction is muddled and the film falls in to camp in places. The director seems unsure whether we are supposed to fear the sleepwalkers or sympathise with them and when in doubt allows the film to become hysterical. Stephen King makes a mildly amusing cameo as an annoying gardener as does Mark Hamill, as a puzzled cop. Alice Krige seems to shoulder the film, her character is given depth and she gives an indication of what the film could have been with a better screenplay and better direction.
Ok, I first saw this movie like at 9:00 on Cinemax a few weeks ago and thought it would be award winning, boy was I 180d on that. This movie bit the big one. I mean, the mother of the monsters shows her true form only at the end of the movie. I'm going " That's it? Why doesn't she show it briefly a little bit more earlier in the movie." The plot being the mother and son feast on the blood of young women. Wouldn't it be better if they just went on, you know, a killing spree killing like a couple of young women each, then having the sheriff or a cop find out about and get into the old find a way to kill the monsters,save the young woman/women, and have 1 or 2 more people killed in the process? I think it would be a hell of a lot better that way. It also sucks because the son is the main character and he gets killed first. Why not get rid of the mother first? Plus, how does she have that strength at the end of the movie when she starts killing people? She said it herself she was too weak. What the heck was wrong with Stephen this time? I can never, ever dis the acting on any movie by any actor, after all, they try their best. If it weren't for good acting, I'd have given this movie a 1/10. 3/10.
Oh dear me! Rarely has a "horror" film bored me, or made me laugh, as much as this one. After a spirited start with an intriguing premise, it descends into not much more than a slasher flick, with some supernatural and sexual asides. The usually excellent Alice Krige is wasted in this one, and the plot twists are ludicrous. Don't bother unless you're really desperate. Rating: 3/10.
"Sleepwalkers" is the first film which Stephen King has written a script for. Given this, and the excellent Santo & Johnny song that they used as the theme of the movie, you would be expecting a odd, and ultimately fulfilling viewing experience. Unfortunately, that's not what you'd be getting. The thing is, they could have probably made it a good movie. The beginning is intriguing what with it's small town spooky atmosphere. But something strange happens about 20 minutes into the film. The film turns funny for no apparent reason! From that moment on the whole atmosphere of "Sleepwalkers" is ruined.For those of you who have seen it, who can ever forget good old Johnny screaming out "COP KABOB!!" after jabbing the pencil into that one cop's ear?!? But don't get me wrong, the humor has no redeemiing quality. I just rented it again to see if mabye I was wrong the first time around, given how original the plot sounded, but I was right. Man, what a waste. I can't believe they got the rights to that Santo & Johnny song. I gave this a 2.
This has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen without a doubt. The only thing interesting in this film is the cameo appearances from some great genre directors and King himself. The film has a great premise, but falls apart about 15 minutes into the story. I did like Madchen Amick in this film and think she could have a very good career in film.
My wife and I both agree that this is one of the worst movies ever made. Certainly in the top ten of those I've watched all the way through. At least "Plan 9" was enjoyable.<br /><br />I DID really enjoy "Christine", "The Dead Zone", "Firestarter", "Carrie", and some of his other films. I didn't care much for "Cujo" (only because the sound was so bad on versions I've seen and I often couldn't tell what people were saying), or "Pet Sematary (Pet Cemetery)".<br /><br />But this mess was a total mistake in every way possible. The "creatures" themselves seemed designed by a 9-year-old. (No offense to 9-year-olds.)<br /><br />Even the "one-liners" made us groan and weren't remotely amusing.
1st watched 4/29/2007 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Mick Garris): Campy vampire-like Stephen King movie has so many strange and goofy elements that you start laughing over the extreme weirdness about 3/4 the way into the movie and you wonder if this movie might have a cult following for King fans. It's the story of a mother and son who are sleepwalkers(a shape-shifting feline-like, flesh eating, life needing, near extinct breed of humanoid) who move from town to town searching for virgins to feed on to keep themselves alive. They come across as pretty normal upper-class folk except they are secret lovers and cats hang around the outside of their home, day and night. Cats are deadly to them, so they set traps in their yard to try and keep the population down. We get to see them break a couple of their necks when they attack(which is also a first in my movie-going experience) --- hopefully no real cats were harmed in the making of the film. The boy is after a sweet girl that he has a crush on until he turns into a "sleepwalker" and then he just wants her body. There is so much campy uniqueness to this movie that it might have been better if it was an all-out satirical comedy on suburban life, but the director instead tries to scare you every couple minutes until you wish he'd just get over it and bring out the gore. Eventually that happens and the movie winds down to it's typical Stephen King downbeat ending. The movie is interesting because King's humor comes thru more than usual but his weirdness is also very present and what you have is a movie that his fans will probably like and should have in their collection, but as a worthwhile movie experience it really doesn't cut it.
This is another one of those movies that could have been great. The basic premise is good - immortal cat people who kill to live, etc. - sort of a variation on the vampire concept.<br /><br />The thing that makes it all fall apart is the total recklessness of the main characters. Even sociopaths know that you need to keep a low profile if you want to survive - look how long it took to catch the Unibomber, and that was because a family member figured it out.<br /><br />By contrast, the kid (and to a lesser extent, the mom) behave as though they're untouchable. The kid kills without a thought for not leaving evidence or a trail or a living witness. How these people managed to stay alive and undiscovered for a month is unbelievable, let alone decades or centuries.<br /><br />It's really a shame - this could have been so much more if it had been written plausibly, i.e., giving the main characters the level of common sense they would have needed to get by for so long.<br /><br />Other than that, not a bad showing. I loved the bit at the end where every cat in town converges on the house - every time I put out food on the porch and see our cats suddenly rush in from wherever they were before, I think of that scene.
one may ask why? the characters snarl, yell, and chew the scenery without any perceptible reason except someone wanted to make a movie in barcelona. billie baldwin, is that the right one?, is forgettable in the cop/estranged-husband/loving-father-of-cute-little-blond-girl role. the story seems to have been cut and pasted from the scenes thrown away from adventure films in the last three years. ellen pompeo's lack of charisma is a black hole that seems to suck the energy out of every scene she is in. her true acting range is displayed when she takes her blouse off as the movies careens from one limp chase scene to another. unfortunately, the directing rarely goes bad enough to be camp or a parody. it is all just cliché, familiar in every respect. the director cast his own daughter as the precocious brat probably because no respectable agent would have permitted a client to ruin a career by being in such a lame, contrived and uninteresting movie. the only heist here is the theft of the investor's money and the viewer's time.
Baldwin has really stooped low to make such movies. The script, the music, just about everything in this movie is a waste of time.<br /><br />The sound FX do not sound real, they stick out way too much (technical gadgets etc.) If they are trying to make a movie about things like this, at least try to get real with it and drop those extra bleeps and beeps, because those gadgets don't really make loud sounds like that. Natural sounds like footsteps and such are non-existent, which gives it a void-like atmosphere.<br /><br />Directing seems to be OK for such a low budget film (I sure hope it was a low budget production), although it does seem fairly amateurish at times.<br /><br />Most characters seem empty and false, they simply haven't casted this movie very well. I'd imagine it would've been a better idea to make Baldwin speak some Spanish than to make Spanish actors speak English, when we all know that theirs is the language which is more vibrant and alive, that is why the actors performance can suffer greatly if an odd language is used. I mean, could finally someone realise how stupid it sounds to make international actors speak English with a bad accent? It's should've a long ago buried corpse in movie production. The production team ever heard of subtitles? This movie again manages to depict European police as lazy and corrupt, the societies as vulnerable and helpless. I mean if the plot again goes like "The Interpol can't do jack, so let's call one American to bring down this international syndicate" or whatever.<br /><br />Sony Pictures treads on the same path as Columbia before it, just producing movies for the hell of it. I'd imagine them to have some self respect also. Are buyers supposed to buy every dirty title just because Sony puts out something good a few times a year?! Maybe they should've used the same team as who were making Di Que Si - Say I Do. It's spoken in Spanish and Paz Vega and Santi Millan do a decent job keeping the movie afloat. Looks and sounds much better! Come on Sony, wake up, produce less, sell more.
OK - the helicopter shots are fantastic, and the director made good use of some of Barcelona's top sights. Otherwise...production value was blown in the first few minutes and the rest of the film felt like a movie of the week. Ellen Pompeo was charming and fun to watch, Abel Folk had the most depth and was very effective, and William Baldwin was...well, William Baldwin. He got to put his martial art training to good use and be a running-jumping-earnest action figure. The rest of the cast was wooden at best, but mostly paper. So - if you're nostalgic about Spain - it's a picture postcard with an action twist, and a healthy dose of El Greco. If not, skip it.
Although in many ways I agree with the other reviewers comments. I find that the plot and idea are very good. Many of the supporting actors were very good. The fatal problem with this film is Ellen Pompeo. I am sure, I have never seen a less talented "actor" How this person has ever been in a film or on television, I cannot imagine. In my opinion she would be better as a greater at a Wal-Mart. To see a person with this low level of talent involved in paying roles, does beg the question...... "Who does she know"? I would very much like to see this film re-made with some talent. I do not fault the writer for the failure of this film to be worth the time to view it.
This is one of the worst movies ever made. Trite. Predictable. Flat.<br /><br />The only thing that rated one point was there was a few nice scenes highlighting Barcelona. I imagine they would use films like this in Guantanamo or some other hidden CIA/NSA prison to torture suspects.<br /><br />Often bad movies have some redeeming features, this has nothing. If I was in it or worked on it, I would change my name. Truly a turd. Hard to write more than this, but I feel the world's film watchers needed a head's up on this. On the other hand it will make a great gift for people you can't stand.<br /><br />You could send it to politicians you dislike, in laws, ex-wives, Teachers you hated, former employees, Dick Cheney, W., and a host of others.
This film seems to be a rip off of many movies that have dealt with the same subject in the past. Let the future viewer be forewarned that "Art Heist" doesn't add anything to the genre. Director Bryan Goeres has no clue what to do with the film.<br /><br />William Baldwin keeps reappearing in films, and frankly, one wonders if he has a great agent, or is it that directors and producers love his unusual goofy looks, complimented by that strange hairdo he sports in most of his movies. The only good movie in which he has appeared, is "The Squid and the Whale", in which he only speaks two, or three lines. Ellen Pompeo, his leading lady, doesn't fare much better; there is no chemistry between Ms. Pompeo and Mr. Baldwin.<br /><br />A movie to be seen at the viewer's own risk.
First, I realize that a "1" rating is supposed to be reserved for the worst of the worst. This movie gets that from me because, as one reviewer points out, it's not bad in a self-aware, over-the-top sort of way that might allow it to have some comic or cult value. It simply misses its mark on every count. **Contains possible spoilers** The dialog is completely disingenuous. The continuity is so deliberate it's painful. Daniel just finishes speaking of his lost love, and with his final word the flamenco dancers start. The mock-shock of what's her name (see? I don't even remember her character's name, let alone the name of the forgettable actress) when her husband (the Baldwin) first tells her that her friend is the bad guy. The car and the motorcycle chases did all the right things. Vegetable carts gone flying. Cars crashing into each other. Motorcycles going down the stairs. People nearly being hit, but remarkably, no one is. Oh, that's right... except for the one guy who has been stabbed several times, is obviously stumbling along the curb with knife wounds, and an approaching car apparently didn't notice him there. Hmmm. <br /><br />It's becoming more and more remarkable to me that movies like this can be made. There is so much pressure in the film industry to make money, you'd think that someone in Hollywood would think of making good films worth seeing. Now there's a novel idea. <br /><br />My suggestion: don't see this film. Don't rent the DVD. Don't watch it on cable. There are lots of other things you could be doing that will leave you feeling more satisfied.
This movie makes several mistakes. a few American actors in Spain , and the Spanish actors speaking English. the 'spaniards' English is OK, but the way the acting is performed it makes it all quite annoying. the dialog through the whole script is very weak; it may have been a Spanish script but translated incorrectly, who knows and who cares. i can only assume that these are famous Spanish actors forced into the English language , they may be good, but not in this flop. you will figure out the movie within the first 5 minutes, thats how pathetic it is. then the rest is just bad . lots of waste of time, lots of UN-necessary plots. Oh did i mention one of the Baldwins' is in this.
This effort was like a glitzy TV movie...I don't recall this ever being released in theaters...If so, it must've died a quick death. Watching the DVD, in the comfort of our bedroom, it was obvious this film was meant for not much more...Ed Lauter an art critic with a greed streak? What a fun turn that must've been...I haven't seen Ed since "The Longest Yard"...Everyone else pretty much acted by the numbers, led by Baldwin, except for Pompeo...She had zero charisma and seemed to be sleepwalking thru most of the picture...Pompeo's daughter had one dimension...she played every scene like a lovable little puppy...slowest line delivery of any 3 year old I've seen yet...<br /><br />The chase scenes gave my wife and I headaches...too much quick-cutting and angle-bashing...If you 're going to shoot a chase scene in Barcelona, you might want a few WIDE shots to exploit the beauty of your backdrop, right? The whole story was pretty implausible and far-fetched, but hey, we liked it better than "The Life Aquatic..."
If you haven't seen this yet, I say just move on, take a walk in the park, don't waste your time. Neither the scenario nor the acting is worth your money. *Spoilers*- I can't decide which was worse: The movie itself or Baldwin's hairstyle? Ellen Pompeo's acting talent is very questionable I hope she can improve it over time. The storyline is just unbelievable. Loose cannon American cop fighting criminals in Europe on his own?? Infamous Slavic mafiosi protected by only two hunks??? An emotional art teacher leading a ruthless gang??? Spanish police executive dumber than a sack of hammers??? Give me a break. There's only one good thing about this movie, though: At least, the production costs must be lower than "Ocean's 12"'s which was as meaningless and over the top as this one.
Don't get me wrong, Dan Jansen was a great speed skater. If there was one guy who deserved his gold medal at the Olympics it was Dan.<br /><br />But how can it be possible that Bill Corcoran has made such a bad movie about the incredible Dan Jansen story, because the real Dan Jansen story is truly incredible! Especially when you look at this movie through the eyes of a sportsman everything is wrong, the way Matt Keeslar and the other actors skate, their technique, the dimensions of the speedskating oval, it is all wrong!<br /><br />Shame on you, Bill Corcoran, Dan Jansen deserves better, a lot better!<br /><br />1 out of 10
On the back burner for years (so it was reported) this television reunion of two of the most beloved characters in sitcom history started off badly - and went straight downhill from there. Mary Richards (Mary Tyler Moore) and her best friend Rhoda Morgenstern (Valerie Harper) meet in New York after a long estrangement and catch up on each other's lives. What a novel concept! But, sad to relate, nothing worth talking about (let alone making a movie about) has happened to either of them in the intervening years. So, instead, the script contents itself with throwing out one hoary old plot device after another (most having to do with older women in the workplace), while completely missing the quirky charm and sophistication that made the original show a winner. The supporting cast is instantly forgettable, the humor is nonexistent, and the chemistry which Moore and Harper once had together is gone. Moore allegedly stalled this project for years, waiting for "just the right script" before committing herself. If this was the one she considered "right", what on earth were the ones she turned down like? It's not the age of the characters that does this in (for time inevitably marches on), but the almost complete lack of imagination coupled with a blatant disregard for the elements that made the series work. At one time this was intended as a pilot but, all to obviously, it failed to generate any interest among potential sponsors. Or for that matter, among potential audiences. Quickly and mercifully forgotten, the film is a travesty and an insult to a classic.
This film is not devoid of charm and also shows a bit of warmth, but ultimately this effort is too vain and too strongly focussed on the leads. There is no doubt that Mary Tyler Moore knows what to do with all her screen time but she takes too much of the limelight away from the rest of the cast.<br /><br />Another problem is the overburdening of the script with cliches. The daughter who secretly drops out of college, an older woman finding it difficult to get a good job (and first ends up with fairly demeaning work), the sleazy network executive with his executive toys who goes for glitz over substance, the journalist who sticks up for her beliefs, etc. There is nothing really wrong with any of these, i.e. they are all firmly rooted in reality, but in combination they are just too much and leave us with too much deja-vu and too few surprises.
Why did the histories of Mary and Rhoda have to be so dour? Divorced women with indifferent daughters. And why very little reference to the original show and characters? The daughter characters were silly and uninteresting. Why can't there ever be daughters who like their mother's on TV? It makes sense that Mary would leave Minneapolis, and Rhoda would return to NYC, but why couldn't Phyllis or Sue Ann Nivens be guest stars? It just seems a pitiful way to remember such wonderful characters. It was good to see Mary and Rhoda together of course, but it could have been better, much better. Well, there has been a Mary Tyler Moore Show Reunion, a Dick Van Dyke Show Reunion, hopefully Mary will do better next time if she revisits her old Mary Richards stomping grounds again.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer's writings have had a profound influence on my life as a Christian, and I eagerly anticipated watching this movie and finding out more about his life. Words can hardly express my disappointment. This movie was disjointed...it gave no background about his life, no historical context, and nothing about his great writings (except a brief, passing reference to "The Cost of Discipleship" by a colleague at the beginning of the movie.) Instead, we see him enjoying jazz (apparently in the States) and chilling out with his friends before he decides to go back to Germany. Apparently to show his human side. OK, I'm ready for the dramatic part. The part where he stands up for his faith. Instead of emphasizing that, we get a very badly acted romance with a 17-year-old schoolgirl. Whether or not that actually took place, it should not have been a major portion of the movie. Now...still waiting for the dramatic part, or some narration explaining what his writings were all about...or SOMETHING to make us know a little bit of the greatness of this man. drum-roll.....waiting..... ....waiting.....ZIP. Nada. This is the kind of movie that gives "Christian Films" a bad name. All they had to do was set up a structure for the movie to follow, with some background...even some voice-overs, or flashbacks to him preaching from his works...some narrative about who he was and where he had been. But no...this is what we got. Hardly fitting for a hero of the Faith.
I never understood why some people dislike Bollywood films: they've got charismatic actors, great dance numbers, and heightened emotion--what's not to like? What I didn't realize was that I had only seen the upper-crust of Bollywood. Then I watched "Garam Masala". I could tell from the first scene that this was not a movie I was going to like (the film opens with a montage of the two leads driving around a city and apparently happening serendipitously on a series of photo setups populated with gyrating models), but I kept hoping things would improve. Sadly, they didn't. The main problem is that the two protagonists, Mac & Sam, are completely unsympathetic. They spend the entire movie lying to women--and lying brutally- -in order to get them into bed, and the audience is supposed to find this funny, and be charmed. The boys are unscrupulous and inept, and not in a lovable way. Mac even goes so far as to have one of the women drugged in order to keep her from discovering his cheating. The script is extremely poor, with repetitive scenes, setups that never lead to anything, and illogical actions and statements by the characters. In fact, the characters are never really developed at all. The males are boorish, greedy jerks, and the women merely interchangeably beautiful. If you go by this movie, you would think that "air hostesses" are pretty easy to pass from man to man. In reality, betrayal is not so humorous. <br /><br />The only bright spots I found in the movie were one dance number that had brilliant sets, and a few slapsticky moments involving the French-farce, door-slamming aspects of the story. But Bollywood dancing is better enjoyed in movies choreographed by Farah Khan, and for slapstick you might as well just go straight to the silent comedies of Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd, who seem to have influenced writer/director Priyadarshan not a little. Priyadarshan also takes false credit for inventing the story: the basic premise of the plot is stolen from the 1960 play "Boeing Boeing." The original author of that work, Marc Camoletti, is credited nowhere. At least Priyadarshan changed the title for this remake, rather than brazenly using the original without giving credit, as he did in his 1985 version of this same tale. (According to IMDb's credits list.)
Watched on Hulu (far too many commercials!) so it broke the pacing but even still, it was like watching a really bad buddy movie from the early sixties. Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis where both parts are played by Jerry Lewis. If I were Indian, I'd protest the portrayal of all males as venal and all women as shrews. They cheated for the music videos for western sales and used a lot of western models so the males could touch them I usually enjoy Indian films a lot but this was a major disappointment, especially for a modern Indian film. The story doesn't take place in India (the uncle keeps referring to when Mac will return to India) but I can't find out where it is supposed to be happening.
Priyadarshan's HERA PHERI was a nice situational comedy This film however actually lacks a story but is quite funny but illogical<br /><br />In fact they is no proper story yet it somehow manages a nice flow though it isn't anything great<br /><br />The first half has 2 funny scenes like the one where Akshay and John invite Neha for a lunch and another when Paresh enters<br /><br />The first half gets boring slowly but the second half is funnier though they is no script <br /><br />The jokes are funny though one does wonder how they never hear each person's voices from inside the rooms?<br /><br />The climax confusion is treated like a stage play but it's quite funny But the film ends abruptly<br /><br />Direction is okay Music is good<br /><br />Akshay Kumar excels in his part which is now become his second skin, but this is his film completely and he overshadows everyone else<br /><br />John stumbles throughout and fails in comedy Paresh Rawal is hilarious Rajpal is okay The girls are loud at times and awkward too Nargis, Daisy and Neetu(only Neetu is seen now) are good in parts but shriek too often Manoj Joshi is okay
i have to say that this was the worst film of priyadarshan(releasing alongside much better kyonki which was also his directorial venture) ,it contains no specific storyline and just focuses on body showing by debuting actresses and some silly comedy sequences. I think priyadarshan is becoming too much repetitive in his comedy flicks just like govinda and David dhavan had done in the past after giving some good entertainers they also went on to loose their audiences.So it will be good for him to concentrate more on script and try some variations in his direction.Give us more of herapheri's and malamal weekly's rather than giving duds like garam masala!
Do not waste your time with this movie. This is a total thrash in terms of acting, directing, sound editing, soundtrack... There was such a waste of performance by some of the very good actors. The movie does not do justice to Paresh Rawal who is perhaps one of the most talented actors in Bollywood. Akshay Kumar who is also an emerging star did quite a poor job. John Abraham, what is wrong with him? Is that what you call acting? I mean he should thank God that he has a pretty face otherwise he'd be winning Razzie awards in India if there were any such awards in Bollywood. Asrani a great talent, but overdoes his bit as before.<br /><br />Screenplay which was not to mention a rip-off from the 1965's Boeing Boeing was quite badly framed. First of all, people in Bollywood just can't make something original. On top of that they don't even know how to copy well. The jokes in the movie were so overdone, it was getting painful to sit through them. Priyadarshan may be a star in the south, but he's just not fit to make a decent Hindi movie. The sound editing is amazingly crappy. I can go on and on this matter, but the bottom-line is that Bollywood should be shameful of making such a film.<br /><br />The worst part is that some people seemed to love this movie. What is wrong with you guys? This is the reason why Bollywood is where it is. Did you know that Bollywood makes more movies than Hollywood every year, however, most of the movies are unheard of abroad, because of movies like this one. I am an Indian and I am utterly shameful of Bollywood for producing this piece of thrash. Movies like Dil Chahta Hai and Lagaan were just terrific. They are world class films which are timeless... among the best of this decade. Garam Masala, however, is perhaps one of the worst of this century. Period.<br /><br />I give it a 1 out of 10.
It begins on a nice note only to falter quickly and let down expectations.<br /><br />Mac (Akshay Kumar) and Sam's (John Abraham) characters are not properly built before Mac's boss decides to hitch him with three air hostess. Rest of the drama is about how Mac, Sam and Uncle Mambo (Paresh Rawal) deal with situations which at times seem forced.<br /><br />About the cast, Paresh Rawal is a very talented actor, I thought was wasted in the role of a moody cook. Akshay Kumar is tolerable, John Abraham is very bad keeps stumbling over furniture & Rajpal Yadav is the only saving grace in the movie. <br /><br />The second half of the movie is funny at times, but in all a DUD (songs are boring) and a major let down if you are hoping for some wholesome entertainment and comedy.
Probably the worst Bollywood film I've seen.<br /><br />No plot line. Very little character developments.<br /><br />Full of silly and pointless humor. The whole film was chaotic and direction-less. There was no proper ending to the story. The airport was filmed in a shopping mall. <br /><br />Same story chewed over and over again until you want to say "please, just move on with it!!" Even the song and dance was pointless and badly choreographed.<br /><br />The only good thing about this movie is that there were hot bods all around... but then most of the Bollywood movies have that anyways these days.<br /><br />Btw I'm not from an Indian background<br /><br />2/10
The first half hour of the movie had a steady pace and introduced the characters. however all of a sudden everything was happening too quick, a lame reason for Akshey Kumar to date 3 girls, very loud over acting by both Akshey and John Abraham. Neha Dupia was the highlight of the movie, Paresh Rawal did well but not as good as his performance in Hera Pheri. overall this movie was the biggest disappointment the film does no justice to its trailer. save your money and don't watch this movie, watch Hera Pheri and Hungama again!<br /><br />summarising it: a cheap stage show performance and appearance to the film no story or substance, the plot was extraordinarily non-sense good music by Preetam the man who bought us Dhoom! keep it up! movie shot all in one room, new comers (female cast) were okay as it was their first film but established actors like Akshey and John totally disappointed an established director like Priyadarshan gives his worst movie ever!
I watched the Malayalam movie "Boeing Boeing" made in 1985 (which in turn is probably inspired by an English movie of same name) long back. The basic story of garam masala is the same - but it is told in a pathetic way, the classy jokes replaced by routine ones which are found in normal Hindi movies (probably the director did this to suit the taste of Hindi audience)... <br /><br />I haven't seen the English original. But had really enjoyed the Malayalam film (made by Priyadarshan himself)which was a side splitting comedy, back then. Of course the acting by Mohanlal,Mukesh and Sukumari (who did the cook's role) was so natural and spontaneous.<br /><br />Probably, I am too smitten by the Malayalam film that I cannot tolerate even the smaller flaws in its Hindi remake. But I still feel that Akshay Kumar and John Abraham have overacted. Paresh Rawal has done a decent job - but doesn't reach anywhere near Sukumari.<br /><br />But all in all its OK, if one compares it to other recent Hindi comedy movies.
Contrary to its title, this film offers no spice and thus audience is subjected to a tasteless dish. All Humor appears forced, theatrical, mechanical, staged, reminiscent of those Pakistani plays available on video, including even the mannerisms. Everybody is screaming, shouting and doing odd things for no reason. The premise looks interesting as it is a straight lift from Hollywood's 'Boeing Boeing". John Abraham who is so natural in almost all his films is a complete misfit here. If we keep morality factor aside, even then the bizarre events looks trite. Akshay Kumar and Paresh Rawal, two experienced stalwarts try hard to lift the film by being natural but in vain. At least, the characters of three girls should be made contrasting in order to bring some interesting elements but sadly here too all of them appears those brainless, buxomed bimbettes (3Bs) who talk, behave and even scream in quite similar fashion. The major hole in the plot is what made the protagonist keep the three girls at his same home pretending that they will never get to know about each other? Just to do some Sex, what else? The same could be done in hundreds of other ways. Therefore so much dramabaazi for no reason is not something audience will digest easily. But surely, great flesh show and tempting promos always gives such films a great initial. Now for those who call it a situational comedy, I call it a pathetic taste. Sense of humor of such cinema going audience is surely gone corrupted and demented to the extent that they are connecting to a sadistic, weird and maddening type of humor, where it is not the characters that they laugh at but rather at themselves and at their own frustrations that look how senseless we have become that in order to laugh we have to bear with such things?
Well, maybe I'm just having a bad run with Hindi movies lately. I asked the video store guy for Apharan (Prakash Jha) but being a new release, wasn't available yet. So I had to settle for this one. It turned out to be the stupidest Hindi movie I've seen (and I've seen quite a few). No wonder BOllywood is the laughing stock of the whole world! If IMDb had negative ratings, I would give Garam Masala a -10.<br /><br />I remember seeing a TV show about the jazzy premiere they had for its release in Mumbai. All the usual celebs and their sideys showed up. For some strange reason, people expect good stuff from Piyadarashan. I did not like Hulchul, Hungama, or his other films. Hulchul, probably dubbed from Tamil or Telugu, came across as very loud, in-your-face fare that again didn't make much sense except in a Bollywood flick. This latest piece of utter CXXP proved that this guy has NO BRAINS. Who made him a director, even a Bollywood director at that??? <br /><br />Anyhow, to the film now. What starts off as a romantic escapade turns into a non-sensical woman-hunt. Two fashion photographers working for a magazine share an apartment (isn't it similar to No Entry where the 2 dudes work for a gossip magazine and share an office? Jezuz Christ, now they're copying their own stories!) Well anyways, there's some cook or chef that tries to help one of the dodos in his quest for multi-lateral love (aka multi-tasking + multi-timing). What happened in the end, I've no idea. I switched off mid-way. What ridiculous junk. I can't believe they even released it. And how sadistic to wallow in their own filth! For which audience did they make it - the poor illiterate Indian masses (700 Mil at last count) or the well-heeled NRI desis staying in Phoren? Either ways it doesn't matter. Neither group has any clue what makes a good movie and probably deserves such god-awful stuff.<br /><br />Its a short review because there's nothing to write about but the usual bag of F-grade garbage. Bollywood should change its name to Follywood. And yes, this review is much better than the movie itself.
The Priyadarshan/Paresh Rawal combo has been golden before with the likes of HERA PHERI and HUNGAMA so I went into the movie (at an Indian multiplex) with high hopes, especially after the slick promos. Unfortunately, like HULCHUL before it, this movie was a huge disappointment.<br /><br />Like others have commented, the premise of the movie, which was already stale to begin with, just gets stretched on and on without any development or additional layering. After a while, you just want the movie to end so you can go home (if I had been watching this at home, it would have been much easier to cut my losses). Akshay Kumar's performance is average at best and John Abraham should not try doing comedy again. The comedy aspects of the movie overall were pretty week. I only remember giggling like twice the entire movie. Definitely no sidesplitting belly laughs that consumed me in HERA PHERI or even to a lesser extent in AWARA PAAGAL DEEWANA. Paresh Rawal had a few of his expected classic moments, but overall, because his role and character wasn't given much room to grow, he didn't make much of an impact in this film.<br /><br />Neha Dhupia, who makes only an appearance in the movie, was fun to look at while she was on screen. And some of the songs are fun. Especially the opening and closing songs of ADA and KISS ME BABY, respectively. Otherwise, you're better off just passing on this movie.
The movie was a huge disappointment. Especially since it was directed by Priyadarshan, it was sad to see such dismal standards. Poor screenplay(almost non existent) and song sequences with bad songs every minute and at the most odd times killed whatever humor the movie could offer. some of the scenes were funny, but it amounted to probably only 5 mins of the whole duration. The editing was pathetic. Dismal! overall the movie disappointed as the lack of story was only too evident. In fact only a few people stayed to watch the second half of the movie after the interval.<br /><br />One wouldn't miss anything at all if you don't watch the movie. Not worth spending valuable ticket money on this movie. wait till it appears on TV...
Watching That Lady In Ermine I was wondering what Betty Grable was doing in a project that seemed to be aimed for Marlene Dietrich to do. Someone over at 20th Century Fox may have decided one sex symbol is as good as another. Darryl F. Zanuck should have known better.<br /><br />Betty plays a 19th century Italian countess whose domain has been invaded by a troop of Hungarian Hussars captained by Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. Her ghostly ancestor whose portrait hangs in the palace hall along with the rest of her distinguished family tree, sees no small resemblance in Doug now and another invader some 300 years earlier whom she dealt with when armies failed.<br /><br />Besides that the current Betty has just been married to Cesar Romero and the invasion has come at a most inopportune moment, before things have been consummated. That's going to give anyone a bad attitude, I guarantee.<br /><br />Fresh, wholesome all American Betty is NOT the actress to do seductive and mysterious. Marlene Dietrich might have put this over, but with Betty it falls flatter than yesterday's presidential candidate. She and Fairbanks have no chemistry at all, though Doug is as charming as ever and someone I can watch in anything.<br /><br />Frederick Hollander and Leo Robin wrote the score for this film and This Is The Moment got an Oscar nomination for Best Song. That Lady In Ermine's one chance for Oscar glory fell to Buttons And Bows.<br /><br />Ernest Lubitsch died midway during the film and Otto Preminger finished That Lady In Ermine. I can't believe Lubitsch had Grable in mind for the lead here. Neither will you if you see That Lady In Ermine.
This miserable film is a remake of a 1927 film. They should have let it remain that way.<br /><br />What a colossal bomb! Douglas Fairbanks displays absolutely no charisma here. Cesar Romero is subjected to a role as a real jerk and Bette Grable sings with a chorus- What I'll Do to that Hungarian!<br /><br />The ridiculous plot deals with a picture of a woman in a castle in 1561 Rome that saved the day by killing a conqueror. (Fairbanks) Now, let's fast forward to 300 years later, where Grable, just married to the Count Romero, faces a similar situation, when on her wedding night, there is an invasion by Hungarian soldiers.<br /><br />Romero acts cowardly and flees before the army arrives. He disguises himself as a gypsy and is made to remain at the castle when his violin playing pleases Fairbanks. The ending is worse than the entire wretched film when Grable meets Fairbanks to tell him the good news-an enraged Romero has annulled the marriage.<br /><br />This poor imitation of a movie was made in 1948. As Harry Davenport, a veteran supporting player who is in it, died in 1949; this must have been his last film. What a bomb to go out with after such a distinguished career.<br /><br />Walter Abel co-stars but he can do little with such poor writing. The costumes look more like those that would come out of the stone age. I can't fathom what Fairbanks was wearing.
The final film for Ernst Lubitsch, completed by Otto Preminger after Lubitsch's untimely death during production, is a juggling act of sophistication and silliness, romance and music, fantasy and costume dramatics. In a 19th century castle in Southeastern Europe, a Countess falls for her sworn enemy, the leader of the Hungarian revolt; she's aided by her ancestor, whose painted image magically comes to life. Betty Grable, in a long blonde wig adorned with flowers, has never been more beautiful, and her songs are very pleasant. Unfortunately, this script (by Samson Raphaelson, taken from an operetta by Rudolf Schanzer and E. Welisch) is awash with different ideas that fail to mesh--or entertain. The results are good-looking, but unabsorbing. *1/2 from ****
Let me start out by saying that I used to really like Betty Grable, particularly from "Down Argentine Way", but by the time she got around to this disaster, she had also got "round" and frankly the whole film was an embarrassment. Costarred with Douglas Fairbanks JNr (who must have been fairly desperate) the story was bad, the colours good, and the film far too long. It had some of the old standbys in it like Harry Davenport and Reginald Gardiner to try and stimulate interest but with no success. The music score was woeful, and I have to say not one tune was memorable in any way....as I was such a fan of Miss Grable, I always wish I had never seen this one!
I get the feeling that the producers of this mess were out to make the most painful, ridiculous Western ever made. "PAINFUL" is the best word I can think of to describe it.<br /><br />On the plus side you have nice color photography and beautiful and well-spoken Rhonda Fleming. My sympathy goes to Jacques Aubuchon (who played the cripple), who acted well enough in an annoying role, written so atrociously that no actor could give an enjoyable performance. The production values were quite good, which only served to highlight the terrible story and screenplay.<br /><br />Things I hated: Stewart Granger looked so little like a western figure, what with his British accent, neat tailored outfit, and silly immaculate always-white kerchief tied around his neck. It got tiresome the way the townspeople and his son were constantly haranguing and insulting Granger, and he never spoke up or replied back. I know we are supposed to suspend disbelief and appreciate Westerns as symbolic morality plays, but this one broke the spell with it laughably unrealistic and predictable scenes, the worst being at the end where Granger miraculously, speedily and single-handedly plants dynamite around a canyon pass that the bad guy's cattle will pass through, and then Granger plants himself in the perfect spot so he can shoot the dynamite from a very far distance to create rock slides to bury and spook the cattle and bad guys, seemingly destroying them all, save the two main bad guys. Next worst is everything about the plot, which is loaded with soap opera scenes. Nothing in the movie seemed believable: I couldn't believe what all the conflict was about. The bad guy was driving his herd through to market and wanted the cows to chew some grass along the way; I don't see why something couldn't have been worked out. You need a land ownership dispute for that? Don't bother to see it.
I'm a big fan of the old westerns, and do not believe that Hollywood is capable of capturing its old glory. But not even Ronda Fleming and Stewart Granger can help this 1957 movie which carries nearly all the trite characteristics of westerns of the reformed gunfighter turned good guy. fallen but virtuous woman, bigoted townspeople who must turn to gunfighter for salvation, etc. I can't help but notice the last names of the writer and young "actor" who plays Granger's son. Any nepotism there? I've seen better acting in high school plays. Chill Wills plays a cartoon characterization of Chill Wills. Have I reached the 1000 words yet?
SAPS AT SEA <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.37:1<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />(Black and white)<br /><br />Suffering from 'hornophobia', Ollie embarks on a 'restful' boat trip, but he and Stan get mixed up with an escaped convict (Rychard Cramer). Chaos ensues.<br /><br />This feature length comedy - an OK entry which nonetheless unspools like a mere imitation of Laurel and Hardy's best work - marked the final collaboration between L&H and producer Hal Roach. Episodic in structure, the movie culminates in a memorable ocean voyage after The Boys are taken hostage by villainous Cramer (who shoots a seagull to prove how tough he is!). The gags are OK, but inspiration is lacking, perhaps due to the recruitment of actor-turned-director Gordon Douglas, previously responsible for Ollie's first solo effort in the sound era (ZENOBIA, produced in 1939), but whose work here lacks a measure of pzazz. Fair, but nothing special. L&H regulars Charlie Hall and James Finlayson make guest appearances.
Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are the most famous comedy duo in history, and deservedly so, so I am happy to see any of their films. Basically a man at a horn factory is the fourth to crack, and soon enough Ollie cracks with all the horn noises. He is resting at home with Stan by his side, needing quiet, and the Doctor (James Finlayson) phones to say he is coming over to check on Ollie. After realising plumbing and electricity is muddled up by a cross-eyed repairman, the Doctor comes in for a check-up, and after some tests, he recommends drinking goat's milk and getting some sea air on the ocean. After Stan practises some trumpet playing, hanging out the window by the phone cord and a car crash, he and Ollie to a dock to rent a boat. They keep the boat on the dock trying to milk a goat, and Stan has brought his trumpet! Meanwhile, the newspaper's front page reads that Killer Nick Grainger - Escaped Convict (Richard Cramer) has escaped, and he sneaks onto the boys' boat while they are sleeping, and the goat chews through the boat rope, drifting out to sea. In the morning, the see their location, and the Killer comes out demanding something to eat, and he spots Stan and Ollie making fake food, e.g. string for spaghetti, soap for cheese, belt for bacon, sponge for meatballs, and he forces them to eat it. When Ollie starts choking on something, Stan blows his trumpet to help, and Ollie's rage gets him punching the Killer, and it keeps going till the police arrive, only to have Ollie's rage get them put in prison too. There were the tiniest moments of comedy, but it isn't a great black and white film. "Well, here's another nice mess you've gotten me into!" was number 60 on 100 Years, 100 Quotes, and Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were number 7 on The Comedians' Comedian. Okay!
The Twilight Zone has achieved a certain mythology about it--much like Star Trek. That's because there are many devoted lovers of the show that no matter what think every episode was a winner. They are the ones who score each individual show a 10 and cannot objectively evaluate the show. Because of this, a while back I reviewed all the original Star Trek episodes (the good and the bad) because the overall ratings and reviews were just too positive. Now, it's time to do the same for The Twilight Zone.<br /><br />While I have scored many episodes 10, this one gets a 3 simply because it was bad. The writing was in fact embarrassingly bad. Two people from opposing sides in a great war are seen wandering about through the entire episode. After a while, it's apparent that they are the only two people left on Earth--as you learn in the really stupid and totally unconvincing conclusion. Usually the twist at the end makes the episode great--this one killed it!
Firstly I would like to point out that I only know of the show due to my younger sister always watching it. I find it the most annoying program on TV. There is nothing funny about any of the 'jokes' and the canned laughter is unbearable. The show would work much better if filmed in front of a live audience. That way the laughter would show just how 'unfunny' the show is. However I give credit to the acting talents of the young cast. It sickens me however to think that they'll look back on the show in the future and see how bad their first TV show was. The show links in well with the overall annoying voices and style of the CBBC presenters. Why the youth of today need to be shouted at so much is beyond me. That is all.
... and how they bore you right out of your mind! The Crater Lake Monster is one of the classic BAD films from the 70's made with no actors of any note, an embarrassing script, woeful direction, and a tireless desire to fuse "horror" with light comedy. This movie introduces a paleontologist who finds drawings of an aquatic dinosaur underneath Crater Lake...a meteor falls from the sky, and an aquatic dinosaur of the claymation variety begins to terrorize and eat the inhabitants surrounding Crater Lake. The whole matter is taken care of by Steve our local sheriff. Much of the film - when not showing pools of blood left behind from what we imagine must have been the beast dining - is spent following the bumbling antic of two guys named Arnie and Mitch who run a boat rental place. They try so bad to be funny, that we get lines like, looking at a business sign, Mitch saying to Arnie "You spelled bait wrong, it's spelled B-A-T-E." The laughs were rather scarce here. We then see them get drunk together and imagine a tree trunk to be the dinosaur. Laurel and Hardy watch out! The dinosaur looks fake, but the movie is fun in a bad way. And at the very least, the lake is beautiful.
****Don't read this review if you want the shocking conclusion of "The Crater Lake Monster" to be a total surprise****<br /><br />A claymation plesiosaur rises from the depths of Crater Lake to wreak havoc on a group of local rednecks, not to mention your fast forward button. To call "The Crater Lake Monster" amateurish is to overstate the obvious. If you aren't a fan of low budget drive-in films, you probably wouldn't be looking here in the first place.<br /><br />The problem with the movie is that when there's no monster action going on, it really sucks and goes nowhere. The script is very Ed Wood-ish, in that it's utterly contrived in the way it sets up the main action sequences. Nothing is too outlandish for "The Crater Lake Monster". It explains its dinosaur by having a meteor crash into Crater Lake, 'superheating' the water to the point where it incubates a dinosaur egg that has apparently been resting at the bottom of the lake for millennia. Even if we could accept that the egg could have been lying there for so long and remained uncovered and viable, wouldn't "superheating" the water to such a high temperature cause most of the lake to evaporate? Other than some token fog in one or two scenes, we see no evidence of the water being hot, other than a few lines in the script.<br /><br />The script is padded rather obviously in a few sequences, and it will do anything to get the characters near the lake so that they can be menaced by the claymation dino. A couple just passing through experiences car trouble and while their automobile is being serviced, they decide to rent a boat and head out into Crater Lake. Hmmmm...do you think these strangers in the story could be there so they would run into our title monstrosity? In a sequence that's just plain bizarre, a drunk robs a liquor store and decides to murder the cashier and a bystander instead of paying four dollars for a bottle of booze. A car chase ensues, and wouldn't ya know it...they end up right by the lake. Snack time for Cratey! Yeah, it's not hard to figure out, and you're so far ahead of the script that you're irritated when it takes another ten minutes for these scenes to unfold.<br /><br />The shamelessness of it all is endearing, and I really want to like "The Crater Lake Monster". I just can't do it. There's not enough here to go on, and this is more of a movie to put on during a party, because you could talk right over it and it wouldn't matter. <br /><br />The film has a slim list of the things going for it, the most important being the dinosaur itself, which appears in three forms: a shadow puppet, a large model head that is dragged woodenly through the water, and a fully realized claymation insert that actually looks pretty good. There are also a pair of lovable hicks in it, and they carry the majority of the intentional humor in the movie. A downbeat ending leaves us mourning the death of both the monster AND one of our beloved hicks, so every good thing about this film is dead by the end of it. Why was I so affected by this conclusion? Was it the mournful song played over the closing credits? Or was I just weeping inwardly for the time that I waste watching films like this?
We have a lake. We have an animated meteor crashing. We have a killer stop-motion dinosaur with flippers. Okay, so let's call this movie THE CRATER LAKE MONSTER. What else can we add? Hmm, two idiots called Arnie & Mitch to define the ultimate definition of "comic relief". We also got to have a sheriff who doesn't really do a damn thing in this film and whom nobody listens to. Aw crap, we're over halfway through the movie and we forgot to insert a bad guy! No worries, let's introduce some guy with a moustache, have him rob a store to indicate he's a bad guy, then have him pop up somewhere near the lake, have him chased through the woods and all this for the sole purpose of him ending up as dinosaur snack food. That should work.<br /><br />A complete, clumsy mess, this film. Its logic will twist your mind to force laughter out of you. The first film to feature Dave Allen as a "stop motion supervisor". After this one, he joined forces with Charles Band for several years until the the mid-nineties, when Band ran out of money to pay him, I guess. The dinosaur effects are charming and the whole film is pretty damn unintentionally funny. Unfortunately, that's about the only good thing that can be said for it.<br /><br />Good Badness? Yes. The mind-bending logic in the narrative should be enough reason to put it on the list. If not, Arnie & Mitch will do the trick. 3/10 and 8/10
Well, what are the odds! At the exact right moment that a few redneck amateur-scientists discover cave paintings indicating that some type of dinosaur monster might have inhabited the area thousands of years ago, a burning meteor crashes into the lake and spontaneously hatches a monster's egg that has been lying there … for over a thousand years, I suppose! "The Crater Lake Monster" is a movie that literally must be seen to be believed, but you better do so in the company of many friends and a pile of ganja in order to make the wholesome a little bit easier to digest. Yes, this is a terrible film with the utmost ramshackle screenplay imaginable and numerous irrelevant padding interludes that are downright embarrassing, but it's also irresistibly charming and so clumsily put together that you simply have to cherish some kind of fondness for it. Half of the film – at least – revolves on the wacky adventures of Arnie and Mitch. These two local yokels own and run a boat renting shop near the lake, but spend most of their days picking their noses and quarreling over fascinating stuff like to spell the word "bait". It is mostly during their prototypic Laurel & Hardy situations that new puddles of blood or decapitated heads are discovered in the lake. Steve Hanson, the heroic but not exactly sharp Sheriff is on the case, but only if he's not too busy chasing big city thugs traveling through the area. Halfway through the film, there suddenly is an abrupt scene about a thug robbing a liquor store and killing two people in the process. This textbook "WTF" moment appears to take on the complete other side of the country, like in New York City or something, and has absolutely nothing to do with the events going on at Crater Lake. Only like twenty minutes later the robber pops up again in Hicksville and there's an "exhilarating" chase through the woods, ending in the Dino's hungry muzzle. The absurd little details in "The Crater Lake Monster" are too numerous to mention! For example, this is probably the only creature-feature in which the players discover the obligatory gigantic footprint AFTER they already spotted the actual monster. The goofs in continuity should be legendary as far as I'm concerned. It's like everybody forgot to pay attention to it. Night turns into twilight into day and back into twilight … all during one and the same diurnal course! The monster is undeniably the best aspect about the film, especially since it's accomplished through good old fashioned and adorable stop- motion effects. The cute critter is a Plesiosaur; meaning an aquatic dinosaur looking like a crossbreed between Denver the Last Dinosaur and an alligator. "Crater Lake Monster" is a unique and unforgettable movie- experience that I can only encourage to track down! The miserable 1 out of 10 rating is just out of principle (and because basically, this IS a very bad film) should be put into perspective, because I might as well could have given it 10 out of 10 for sheer entertainment value.
- The movie opens with a meteor crashing into a lake. Unbeknownst to the locals, a dinosaur egg is also at the bottom of the lake. The meteor heats the lake, turning it into a giant incubator. You guessed it, the egg hatches releasing a dinosaur that proceeds to terrorize the community.<br /><br />- What utter garbage. It's not that I mind the stop-motion clay dinosaur, it's everything else about the movie that bothers me. The acting is atrocious. The dialogue is utterly ridiculous. The comic relief is anything but comic. Logic is non-existent. Any similarity between the "scientists" in this movie and an actual scientist is purely coincidental. I could go on for an eternity on the bad aspects of this movie, but you get the idea. I feel it's fairly safe to call this disaster "MST3K Worthy".
...and it is this film. I imagine that if indeed there is a negative afterlife, damned souls are tied to a rather uncomfortable couch and forced to watch this movie on a continuous loop for all eternity. <br /><br />Okay, maybe it's not that bad, but it is probably the worst film I have ever seen next to "Manos, the Hands of Fate"... and I have seen a lot of bad movies, believe you me. <br /><br />This is just a crummy B movie, bad film-making at it's finest(or is it worst?) The thing I really didn't like about this movie is the moronic duo they threw in for comedy relief. Now, a little comedy relief is a good thing, but most of the movie is focused on the adventures of these two morons, rather than on the "heroes" of this film, who are actually in it for less time than them! <br /><br />To be fair, Crown International really destroyed the movie by adding bad music and doing a poor job editing. But honestly, this was probably a bad film to begin with, so Crown really couldn't have done that much to hurt it. <br /><br />This really needs to be in the bottom 100 list. I wouldn't wish this one on my worst enemy. <br /><br />Actually, it's my kind of campy B movie. It was bad, but I still liked it, despite my one star rating.
Man, what a scam this turned out to be! Not because it wasn't any good (as I wasn't really expecting anything from it) but because I was misled by the DVD sleeve which ignorantly paraded its "stars" as being Stuart Whitman, Stella Stevens and Tony Bill. Sure enough, their names did not appear in the film's opening credits, much less themselves in the rest of it!! As it turned out, the only movie which connects those three actors together is the equally obscure LAS VEGAS LADY (1975) – but what that one has to do with THE CRATER LAKE MONSTER is anybody's guess… <br /><br />Even so, since I paid $1.50 for its rental and I was in a monster-movie mood anyhow, I elected to watch the movie regardless and, yup, it stunk! Apart from the fact that it had a no-name cast and an anonymous crew, an unmistakably amateurish air was visible from miles away and the most I could do with it is laugh at the JAWS-like pretensions and, intentionally so, at the resistible antics of two moronic layabouts-cum-boat owners who frequently squabble among themselves with the bemused local sheriff looking on. The creature itself – a plesiosaur i.e. half-dinosaur/half-fish – is imperfectly realized (naturally) but, as had been the case with THE GIANT CLAW (1957) which I've also just seen, this didn't seem to bother the film-makers none as they flaunt it as much as they can, especially during the movie's second half!
This is one of the worst movies i have ever seen it's EXTREMELY boring with lots of boring dialog and has some VERY annoying characters and a laughable looking creature. The only reason i watched this piece of garbage is because it was on that 8 disc horror set i got. The plot is preposterous and totally stupid as is the finale. No blood what so ever except a few bloody marks on the creature, and a couple of bloody gunshot wounds. The acting is TERRIBLE!!. Richard Cardella is terrible as the sheriff and was quite laughable plus his character is annoying. Glen Roberts is the comic relief and was not funny at all!. Mark Siegel is extremely annoying and was also NOT FUNNY!. Bob Hyman is decent but not much more then that. Richard Garrison is annoying and had no chemistry with Kacey Cobb what so ever. Kacey Cobb is so so here and had no chemistry with Richard. Overall Avoid this piece of garbage at all costs! BOMB out of 5.
A meteor hit's Crater Lake (hence our title), awakening a Plesiosaur, who proceed's to snack on the hick population (in California, that hick capital of the world.) <br /><br />There's bad movies, and then there's "The Crater Lake Monster", which somehow managed to escape MST3K. Featuring grating acting, a decent stop-motion beast, and more, this is a dreadful piece of 1970's low budget exploitation/monster movie dreck.<br /><br />While the movie is guilty of many crimes, the biggest one is Arnie and Mitch, two obnoxious rednecks who serve as our comic relief. They bumble around, fight to stock "banjo music",ogle women, and act like pathetic excuses of humanity. The characters are so bad, they should count as a crime against humanity.
A handful of nonprofessional actors are terrorized by a prehistoric creature. This creature appears in about thirty seconds of marginal stop-motion animation, but oh how you will long for that margin when for the rest of the movie the animation is replaced by production assistants waving around an inner tube with teeth. No time for terror when this movie is hijacked halfway through by these comic relief boat rental doofuses, who suddenly become the lead characters; but again you gotta admit watching them try to be funny is better than plodding around after the sheriff. Only at the end one of them gets eaten and the other one is left sitting on a rock crying tears of loneliness - that's no fun!
The Crater Lake Monster is easily one of the most awful, amateurish film I've ever seen - ranking right up there with Manos, the Hands of Fate in terms of poor acting, useless direction, and kindergarten-level production values. In this movie a silly-looking claymation/stop-motion animated dinosaur wakes up after a meteor hits a lake in Bumblebum, CA, and begins dining on the local hayseeds. In the thrilling climax, the creature, described by one local as "a giant alligator with flippers", drags it's ponderous bulk over the ground to chase its would-be lunch, before a bulldozer bumps it a couple of times & it dies from boredom. Every character in this moovie is a complete moron. One pointless subplot shows a hick go into a liquor store to purchase a $4.75 pint of Ripple; instead of simply buying the bottle, the idiot shoots the cashier and another bystander, shoots at a cop, gets chased towards the lake, all so that he can eaten by the monster. Unfortunate close-ups of the monster reveal it to be nothing more than a piece of styrofoam. There's a fake magician struggling with a phony British accent (to make him seem more legit), two overly-bumbling redneck boat renters, some cheesy "pre-historic cave art" done in crayon, and annoying banjo-pickin' background moosic. In one painful scene, the fake magician and his dopey wife/girlfriend/accomplice manage to pad the movie an extra 4 minutes by cowmenting on how may stars they can see in the night sky, even though it is clearly day time still. Even on constant fast-forward, this moovie hurts, and hurts bad. MooCow says call the fumigators, 'cause this cow pie really stinks! :=8P
I've read a few books about Bonnie and Clyde, and this is definitely MORE accurate than the Beatty/Dunaway version, in that its costumes and locales echo actual photographs taken of the gang. Particularly well done is the death of Buck Barrow, and the capture of his wife Blanche. This actress looks looks exactly like the photographs taken that day of Blanche grieving over her dying husband. However, this movie is still Hollywood, and our anti-heroes stay pretty to the end, even after being shot full of holes (in life, Bonnie was badly burned in an auto accident the year before their famous ambush, and did not look like a perky cheerleader at the time of her death). The script is tedious, and the acting is poor, particularly the leads. Very disappointing. Stick with Beatty and Dunaway. Their's may not be "the true story," but it's a great film.
Here we have 2 misunderstood kids who never stood a chance against a cruel, poverty riddled existence: Robin Hoods singled out by the police for persecution because they were a trifle wild at times. Gad! According to this crap Bonnie was the sweetest little thing west of the Missouri who was taught to be a psychopathic murderer by a fun loving boyfriend who didn't really want to hurt anybody....he just wanted things without putting a lot of energy into getting them. Badly acted, poorly filmed, unbelievable dialogue, unrealistic use of weaponry, gore that looked more like grape jelly than the real thing. Avoid this bilgewater. Thumbs down. -5 stars.
Even though this was a made-for-TV production, there's absolutely no excuse for the rock bottom results of the finished product. This movie DID have a budget and it had a casting department, so, if you're going to make a movie about a true life story, and actually put "the true story" in the title, shouldn't some effort be put forward to try and capture some realism ? First of all, this movie is absurdly cast. These actors belong in daytime television soaps, or in those ridiculous Lifetime channel movies, and not in a real-life gangster/criminal tale. Everything about them, from their looks to their mannerisms, just screams of the 90's-shopping-mall-alt-rock-listening generation. What about the script ? Two words describes it - stupid and insulting, and again it's way too 90ish sounding. I don't think the real Clyde Barrow ever uttered the words "I'm outta here." It's as if a bunch of "New Kids on the Block" fans got together and decided to make a really "kewl flick" about Bonnie and Clyde, you know, one that would be totally rad and rockin'. Well, this sticker doesn't even rank on the rad and rockin' scale. Everything that can be wrong with any kind of film is wrong here, from the casting and acting to the editing and music. Every single thing is grossly wrong....and it's infuriating that the parties responsible for this atrocious turkey had the nerve to put "the true story" in the title. It's certainly NOT the true story, but even worse, it's not even remotely entertaining as a mindless popcorn flick that's accepted on its own terms. Like I stated in my heading, it's simply horrible beyond words, on every level imaginable. Trust me on this, or watch at your own risk.
While it contains facts that are not widely reported, it is not exactly the truth. They took a lot of liberties in rearranging events, excluding people, and using sets that do not meet the facts of their lives in the 30's. There were more than just Bonnie, Clyde, and W.D. in the gang at various times, and those people had as much to do with the facts as those included. Buck and Blanche went to convince Clyde to go straight much earlier than the one shootout, and in fact got drawn back into crime. Some of the events that were portrayed in daylight actually took place at night. Bonnie's wound was much more severe and never healed right. It was so bad she had to be carried around by someone until it healed up, and even then it stiffened up so she walked stiffly. Clyde also walked with a limp because while in prison he cut off a big toe. I know, I'm being nit picky, and it was a TV movie, but even without these factual errors in this "TRUE" story, the movie moves too fast from event to event and comes across more as several separate snapshots of their lives, rather than being a cohesive flowing story.<br /><br />I'd recommend reading a book or seeing a documentary if you want to get closer to the truth.
Once again a film classic has been pointlessly remade with predictably disastrous results. The title is false as is everything about this film. The period is not persuasively rendered, and the leads seem way too young and too vapid to even be criminals. Arthur Penn's film had style, humor, a point of view, and was made by talented people. Even if the 1967 version didn't exist this would still be an unnecessary film. The 1967 version strayed from the facts, presented a glamorized version of Bonnie and Clyde, but it was exciting, and innovative for 1967, and it had some outstanding performances that allowed you to care. This 1992 remake seems culled from the original film rather than the truth as known and the actors in this version are callow, unappealing, and not the least bit interesting. By all means skip this one and hope the 2010 version will be better. Could it possibly be worse?
If you haven't seen ZOMBIE BLOODBATH, you haven't. A contest like 'make your own horror movie in one day' could not possibly come up with a entry than this outrage of an insult on any viewer's intelligence. Mr. Sheets forgot a story, a plot, proper dialog, the fact that people need some BASIC acting talents and the credited lighting designer obviously forgot to show up. It seems to be recorded on the crummiest of handycams, and copied on even worse equipment. Make-up effect consist of black mascara for the zombies and yoghurt being poured over people's heads in order to simulate their skin melting. This is nothing more than a home-movie, and a really bad one as well. Only fun to watch for the friends, familymembers and neighbours that were willing to show up for the filming. I cannot for the life of me understand why this mockery of a product is listed in ANY serious film magazine or website - I have home-movies of wedding parties that are way better and more interesting. A total waste of time, money and energy. The sequel ZOMBIE BLOODBATH II is just more of the same rubbish.
If Todd Sheets were to come out and admit that this movie was intended to spoof the zombie genre, I would change my rating to an eight. Try to imagine a movie where every scene, line, and even every acting nuance was designed to be a parody. I could probably crap out alphabet soup, rearrange what was left of the letters, and still have a better script. Two scenes in particular come to mind when I think of this movie. SPOILER ALERT! One is when Mike's dad and the other dad walk, I repeat walk down a staircase jam packed with zombies. This is a small staircase and even though they brush up against the flailing undead, nothing happens to them. When they reach the end, the ex-marine turns around, says "God you're a horny bastard", and shoots only one. The other is in the military complex. The girl stabs a zombie with a machete and is immediately surrounded. The camera moves around her for roughly forty seconds, while she is surrounded by zombies at an arm's length away. She then almost casually runs out from the crowd and joins the other humans. SPOILER ALERT OVER! These scenes must be seen to be believed. Still, I enjoy this movie as much as almost any comedy just because it's so damn funny. Kudos to Todd Sheets for getting so many people in his movie and having the drive to make it but not really for anything else.
Well, I bought the Zombie Bloodbath trilogy thinking it would be mindless gory fun. That's what it is, without the fun. This film truly is mindless, it is absent of any plot or character development, or any sort of storyline. The basic problem with this movie is the kills and gore. Basically, every kill looks EXACTLY the same. ZOmbies ripping someone apart. Yeah, that's okay, but you need some original kills too. I mean it got really lame, every kill looked exactly the same, filmed exactly the same way. Thats what killed me. I love gore, and the gore in this film did nothing for me. It was just boring. No storyline, just the same lame scene over and over again with a different person. I wanted to like this movie, too. I love shot on video gore movies...like Redneck Zombies. But I couldn't kid myself. This film has it's good points, but none of those are in the film. I understand that many of the "zombies" helped out with the flood and there were like over 100 zombies, which is pretty cool how they got so many people involved and helped out in the world. But overall, this is a terrible film.
Every once in a while, a group of friends, with a minimal budget but bags of enthusiasm and talent, will create a low budget masterpiece that takes the world of horror by storm. Raimi and co. did it with The Evil Dead, Jackson and pals succeeded with Bad Taste; and Myrick and Sanchez made a mint with The Blair Witch Project.<br /><br />Director Todd Sheets and his chums, however, are destined to wallow forever in relative obscurity if Zombie Bloodbath is anything to go by. A lesson in how not to make a cheapo horror, this miserable effort (about a plague of flesh-eating zombies—natch) serves as a reminder that, whilst many people these days have access to a video camera, most shouldn't take that as their cue to try their hand at making a full-length movie.<br /><br />It's not that Sheets hasn't got an eye for a nicely framed shot (some of his camera angles and movements are actually pretty good), but rather that a) he has a lousy script b) he has a lousy cast, and c) he doesn't realise that he has a lousy script and cast. Which means that the final film is amateurish in the extreme, and unlikely to be watched in its entirety by anyone other than zombie film completists (like me) or members of the cast and crew (like those who have given the film favourable comments).<br /><br />Zombie Bloodbath is obviously aimed at undiscriminating gore-hounds, and Sheets (who currently has an incredible 34 titles under his belt as a director) certainly goes out of his way to please, with buckets of offal and blood thrown about at every opportunity. But whilst these moments are undeniably yucky, they aren't particularly convincing, and soon get rather tedious.<br /><br />So, to summarise, this is a really bad film, with almost no redeeming features. Except for two:<br /><br />Firstly, it features the single greatest mullet in the history of film, as sported by Jerry Angell, who plays Larry (as well as several zombies). The magnificence of his barnet (coupled with a fetching moustache) is reason alone to watch this film.<br /><br />Secondly, it has 'pathetic stealth zombies': flesh-eating corpses that lie in wait for unfortunate victims to wander by, before leaping from their hiding place to launch a feeble attack, which requires almost no effort to escape from. Best known for lurking behind a door for hours waiting for someone to open it, 'pathetic stealth zombies' also occasionally hide behind low walls, or sit in churches posing as members of the congregation.<br /><br />Normally a film this bad would get 1/10 for me, but, in celebration of Jerry Angell's flowing locks, I will generously raise my rating to 2/10.
I got myself a copy of this film thinking it was the 1964 film with 'Zombie Bloodbath' as one of it's alternative titles. Perversely, this film actually has a better rating on this site than the aforementioned title; which may mean that the other one is really bad! This film is pretty bad too; obviously you cant go into a film that calls itself 'Zombie Bloodbath' and expect to see a masterpiece, and in fairness it does live up to the title with the amount of gore on display...but it all feels very old and tired, which isn't helped by the atrocious acting and stupid plot line. It's just your average nuclear spill causing people to turn into zombies etc etc. The film kicks off with a sequence that sees people melting and that pretty much lets you know what you're in for; low quality zombie garbage. There's plenty of gore in the film, and it's a real good job otherwise the film would have been really boring. Zombie Bloodbath looks really cheap too, and was clearly put together by inexperienced filmmakers! The main influence seemed to be Romero's superior Day of the Dead, although it could really be just about anything that features zombies and gore. It all boils down to a typically predictable and pointless ending and overall I can't say I was impressed with it!
OK, I really don't have too much to say about this film, other than this: I have seen over 4,000 films in my life, and more than 2,300 of those were horror films. While I have some difficulty deciding which is the best (as opposed to my favourite, which I can tell you is George A. Romero's DAWN OF THE DEAD), I can tell you without the slightest hesitation that Todd Sheets' ZOMBIE BLOODBATH is the absolute worst horror film I have ever seen.<br /><br />There is simply nothing positive I can say about this film. The acting, the dialogue, the directing, the make-up, the music... Every aspect of this film is simply so far below what is acceptable that it boggles my mind that this was ever even released.<br /><br />Even if you are a horror or zombie movie completist, please heed my warning and DO NOT waste your time on this garbage. There is no pleasure to be gotten from viewing this. You won't even get any laughs out of the utter ineptitude on display... Trust me. Please.
and a 30,000$ budget and this movie still looks like it was made for 50$. You can tell from the first frame to the last that he didn't care one bit about the movies continuity or plot, he was just happy to be making a zombie movie. <br /><br />What the end result shows is a lazy film maker who loves zombie movies. It could have been great if he just had of given a care. The end result is endless zoom ins on poorly done gore, and even more poorly produced metal plays over it.<br /><br />What happens when you combine high hopes, big dreams, a decent budget, hard work, and one idiot behind the camera.
Wow, this was a very bad movie... as read in other comments this movie has no plot, no character development, they possibly had some kind of script but it's difficult to tell based on the actual end result.<br /><br />The editing of this movie was really non-existent, it tends to jump from scene to scene without any connection or anything to assist the viewer in determining what is actually happening.<br /><br />All in all this is simply a low budget zombie flick that was not thought out at all, has bad acting, bad dialogue, bad everything.<br /><br />The only thing that saves this movie from a 1 or 2 is the gore factor, I think this must be where they spent whatever money they had to try to justify making this.<br /><br />Unless you are (like me) dedicated to finding and watching all the zombie flicks you can find, do not watch this. Period.
A terrible amateur movie director (no, not Todd Sheets), his new friend and sister explore a cave. The friend and sister fall in and get rescued. Meanwhile a gang of horribly acted girls are defending their 'turf'. Whatever the heck that means. This film and I use the term VERY loosely is so bad that it's.. well bad. The humor is painfully unfunny, the "action" merely sad. Now I've seen some atrociously awful 'horror' films in my time & failed to grow jaded in my approach to watching low-budget films, yet I still weep openly for anyone who choose to sit through this. ONLY for the most hardened maschocists amongst you. but the rest run away FAST!!<br /><br />My Grade: F
You wouldn't expect a movie like this to be good, and it isn't. It's a no budget, ultra violent zombie movie filmed with a bad looking hand-held camera...and it's hilarious. The actors obviously have never acted before and it shows in their terrible hilarious readings. There is no plot to be seen. The little plot I could find seemed to be that a government experiment escaped and a group of zombie seems to be terrorizing a couple families. The gore effects are actually some of the most sickening I've ever seen. It seems the gore effects people raided a butcher shop for all the body parts, and many scenes involve zombies dismembering people and eating their organs. It's a funny and sickening film, and it's about as bad as you can get in terms of any movie.<br /><br />My rating: BOMB/****. 90 mins.
A Vietnam vet decides to take over a backwater town run amok, and anyone who steps in his path is eliminated (including women). Released to theaters just prior to "A Star Is Born", which turned his career around, this action-drama mishmash starring Kris Kristofferson is wildly off-kilter, thoughtless and mean-spirited. Filmed in Simi Valley, CA, the results are truly unseemly, with redneck clichés and mindless violence making up most of director George Armitage's script. Armitage has gathered a most curious '70s cast for his film, including Jan-Michael Vincent, Victoria Principal, Bernadette Peters, and, in a bit, Loni Anderson; however, the center of the whole thing is Kristofferson, who is gruff and rude throughout. It deserves points I suppose for being a completely unsympathetic drive-in thriller, but the bad vibes (and the ridiculous climax) coat the whole project like an ugly stain. *1/2 from ****
Let's be honest here: the only reason anyone bought this, the only reason anyone reviewed this, and the only reason anyone could possibly claim to enjoy this is because David Lynch made it and because you want to have David Lynch's children. But guess what? Even David Lynch can produce a piece of crap.<br /><br />Maybe Lynch wanted you to transcend normality and experience absurdity in-itself as a pure subject-of-knowing. Maybe the atrocious, cacophonist sounds, and chicken-scratch visuals are supposed to imply something about humanity's place in the world, about our relation to the Real, about the absurdity of it all.<br /><br />Instead, it just says one thing to me: I just lost $20.<br /><br />If I wanted offensive for the sake of offensive, I could crank Hansen on high and let me ears bleed. If I wanted absurd for the sake of absurd, I could just take a dump on a plate and watch that for 33 minutes.<br /><br />There is a single redeeming quality to Dumbland -- it is meta, meta funny. That is, it is so bad that it isn't even funny because it's so bad. This fact, however, is a little funny.<br /><br />If you hate yourself and hate your money, then buy Dumbland. If not, spare yourself the agony.
David Lynch's crude and crudely drawn take on South Park presents us with a nightmare of disturbing clichés about suburban middle class families. The father is a hideous monster with three teeth and a disproportionately large circular mouth-hole from which are uttered the most horrendous guttural noises, the son and mother are permanently horrified, incoherent creatures for whom terror is a way of life. A number of equally absurd characters are introduced throughout the series.<br /><br />Lynch is not famous for his comedies (i.e. On the Air, aspects of Wild at Heart), and I am not particularly fond of comedies in general. However, there were a couple of scenes in Dumbland which made me laugh out loud. There are some clever bits of animated cinematography - where Lynch conveys wide ranges of reaction in his characters through a syntactical arrangement of shots as opposed to facial expressions (which never really vary in Dumbland).<br /><br />I believe Lynch was really trying to give his audience a straight-forward, if disturbing, animated comedy here. Interestingly, he chose to follow in the footsteps of the recent wave of ultra-low-brow humor (i.e. most Will Farrell films) while adding elements of vicious social critique and classic cartoon violence and gross-out humor. While the blend doesn't really work very well here, it is nothing if not Lynchian.<br /><br />Worth seeing by Lynch fans.
In film, I feel as though it should be more than just art. I think it should be more than that, a way to tell a story on screen. This short from David Lynch tells a story but not much of one. I felt that it was funny but too bizarre to be a comedy. It is good film-making but there really isn't anything else to it. As I've said before, I am a huge David Lynch fan but I get frustrated by some of his work because I don't see a need for it at all. This is definitely my least favorite thing he has done so far but I know he's still got a ton of talent and I am excited to see what he has in store for us in the future. If you like Lynch, check this out but don't be surprised when you don't like it very much.
I'm somewhat of a fan of Lynche's work, so I was excited when I found this DVD. Unfortunately, I was very let down. It's a series of short cartoons which attempt to show a disturbing and disgusting sort of humor. The animation is very crude, no doubt done using Macromedia. Each cartoon has a big fat guy beating up his family and generally acting like a jerk to everyone he knows. <br /><br />For people who are not familiar with this vein of animation, they will probably be somewhat impressed by it. However, if you've spent much time on Newgrounds.com, like me, then these cartoons will be no different than any of the other stuff you've seen before. Many of the popular amateur artists on Newgrounds are doing much better work than what was shown on this DVD. If Lynch submitted this work to the website, then he would blend in perfectly with some of the better of Newgrounds artists. But, since I saw this on DVD, instead of on Newgrounds, I give it a 4/10, instead of a 7/10, as I would have otherwise. These cartoons are fit for the internet, but with a name like David Lynch on it, I expected better quality both in story and in animation.
Lynch. The man has some really great stuff! He knows how to disturb us, then reward us by getting us think in different ways. This, however, is altogether different. Dumbland's reward is 1% absurd comedy, earned by enduring 99% stupidity. I may have laughed once, but somewhere around episode 4 I just started watching on fast-forward. Didn't miss a thing. I felt relieved when it ended, and that's part of the point with this series. It's an annoying series about annoying characters in annoying situations, rounded out with annoying animation, voices and sound. But recognizing this and its other absurdist qualities still fails to make Dumbland worthwhile.
I am a great fan of David Lynch and have everything that he's made on DVD except for Hotel Room & the 2 hour Twin Peaks movie. So, when I found out about this, I immediately grabbed it and...and...what IS this? It's a bunch of crudely drawn black and white cartoons that are loud and foul mouthed and unfunny. Maybe I don't know what's good, but maybe this is just a bunch of crap that was foisted on the public under the name of David Lynch to make a few bucks, too. Let me make it clear that I didn't care about the foul language part but had to keep adjusting the sound because my neighbors might have. All in all this is a highly disappointing release and may well have just been left in the deluxe box set as a curiosity. I highly recommend you don't spend your money on this. 2 out of 10.
I hate to throw out lines like this, but in this case I feel like I have to: the American remake of THE GRUDGE is by far the worst film I have seen in theaters in the last 5 years. There, I said it. And now that I have gotten that out of my system, please let me explain why.<br /><br />"When someone dies in the grip of a powerful rage, a curse is born. The curse gathers in that place of death. Those who encounter it will be consumed by its fury." That is the premise of THE GRUDGE and I will admit it sounds intriguing. Unfortunately, the filmmakers take it no further. Those who encounter the "curse" are indeed consumed by its fury and that is all you get. You want more? Well too bad. Some critics and fans are pointing out that the sole purpose of THE GRUDGE is to scare you. The problem is that when there is no plot to speak of, creepy images and sounds can only go so far. Director Takashi Shimizu, pulling a George Sluizer and remaking his own original film(s), valiantly attempts to build atmosphere in the first hour – by repeating the same scene over and over and over and over. It pretty much unfolds like this:<br /><br />-person walks into house<br /><br />-something flashes by the camera and/or a strange sound is heard <br /><br />-person goes to investigate<br /><br />-sound starts to get loud<br /><br />-person sees a ghost<br /><br />-loud scream and/or cat screech<br /><br />-cut to black<br /><br />Before the audience is even given a hint of plot, this exact same scenario unfolds 5 times in the first hour. The first time was actually somewhat creepy. Each subsequent use became laughable as the film went on. By the time the end of the film rolled around, my friend and I were laughingly wondering if this scene would end "with a loud scream and a cut to black." We were never proved wrong.<br /><br />The film has no liner storyline, instead unfolding in a series of vignettes that leave the audience jumbled. I have no problem with non-linear storytelling when it is done right. The film jumps from time period to time period with no rhyme or reason. I haven't seen a movie in such a state since the opening of the theatrical version of HIGHLANDER 2. And this storytelling technique mars any sort of mystery that film could have possibly had. If you already know the ghosts have scared two characters to death, how is it shocking when their bodies are found in the attic? And why should we care when a detective tries to investigate the mysterious disappearances when we already know what happened to everyone?<br /><br />Obviously greenlit the second the American version of THE RING made $15 million its first weekend, THE GRUDGE is nothing but calculated imitation disguised as an actual movie. The scariest things about THE GRUDGE are that it made $40 million dollars its first weekend and some people consider it the "scariest movie ever made." I wonder what happens to those who get consumed by the fury of paying to see THE GRUDGE?
OK when I saw the previews for this movie I thought it looked really scary and was quite excited to see it as were the group I was with. Now living in America especially during this election I see some very deceiving things but I have to say these previews were towards the top of list. I don't see how so many people could be scared by this movie. I only really noticed two real jump scenes and only jumped at one. The whole movie was extremely predictable and perhaps that messed up some of the jump scenes for me. As for the sound effects so many to be so frightened of I thought they were comical at best. Oh and the uhh catboy where did that come from and why? The worst noise in the whole movie had to be the weird groaning. How does that scare someone? I can make that noise easily. Now don't get me wrong I have always loved all those really bad scary movies that your just laughing the whole way through but I didn't even think this one had that going for it it was just plain out bad.
This movie may seem scary on commercials, but the actual movie was a reason to vomit. This is a below below average, (even lower than that) and has no plot. I mean every house can make you feel scared and sure, a dead Japanese woman would scare the poop out of you, but so what? Make a movie that would appeal to watchers and not just show images of scared people and some hair (dead Japanese woman). Can you say "horrible rip-off of Samara (The Ring)"? Don't get me started with the "dead child". Not even that scary! So what? He has a cat and he can imitate it, big freaking deal! Just bury the poor zombies and save some lives that have the potential of being harmed by the Grudge! 1/10! Yuck! >.<
My husband and I went to see this movie, being the horror movie buffs that we are. Two hours later I found myself wanting both my money and time back. I was so disappointed. The teasers for this film basically contained the best points of the film. There was nothing very scary about the film other than good timing on surprise entrances, etc. I found most of the 'scary' parts to be more comical than anything. After viewing other movies based on the works of Japanese writers, I have to conclude that what is deemed frightening in Japan is not what is frightening here in the US. My advice: If you are a fan of true horror movies, save yourself the pain of sitting through this one. I can't really say that I would recommend renting it either, unless you have a free rental coming to you.
Okay, if you've seen The Ring, you've basically seen The Grudge. It's trying to be scary by just having freaky camera work and loud sounds, but it fails miserably. The plot, if you can call it that, is weak and rather full of holes, for instance, how would the care center have known that Yoko didn't show up for work when the people who lived in the house were not there? And it's not really clear what Bill Pullman's character had to do with anything. He just kind of came out of nowhere to advance the plot. It didn't make a lot of sense what happened to the original family. Who was hanging in the room, the little boy or the dad? And was Yoko alive or dead when the care center guy found her? There were too many unanswered questions and I was too bored to think about it more.
This movie is really nothing besides an admittedly well-crafted series of tense sequences punctuated with an inevitable "gotcha!" at the end of each. Really, there is no character development and no real plot to speak of. There are only the most skeletal of motivations for the characters to do anything while they trudge forward to their unavoidable dooms. It's all just an excuse to show a creepy ghost kid (who seems to have gotten some of the family cat mixed up in his ectoplasm) and his ghost mom (with long black hair hanging in her face kind of like "The Ring") take down a bunch of cardboard cut-out, two-dimensional excuses for human characters.<br /><br />This English-language version of "The Grudge" is the equivalent of cinematic junk food; satisfying momentarily, but not really what you ought to be living on.<br /><br />Not recommended.
this movie was horrible. I could barely stay awake through it. I would never see this movie again if I were payed to. The so-called horror scenes in it were increadably predictable and over played. There was really nothing about this movie that would have made it original or worth the $7.50 I payed to see it. Don't go see it, don't rent it, don't read about it online because any of these things would be a complete waste of your time. Sarah Michelle Geller gave a lackluster performance and really should be ashamed of herself for sullying her good name with this movie. Shame on you Sarah for being associated with this horrible, horrible movie. Horrible movie, no need to ever see it.
Wow, what a total let down! The fact people think this film is scary is ridiculous. The special effects were a direct rip-off of "The ring." The story? Was there one? Not in my opinion..Just a bunch of flashy imaging. The entire film was a boring, stupid, mess. I guess there is always a market for bad films with good marketing campaigns. However, this is the worst horror film I have seen in years. And that Buffy chick? Well, she's a bad actress! As plastic as Barbie and just as talented..No, wait, that would be an insult to the talents of Barbie! I suppose many kiddies helped this film at the box office as it was PG-13, and had it been rated R, it would have bombed IMO! Stupid movie!
Gee, what a crappy movie this was! I cannot understand what people find so scary about "The Grudge". The director plays one trick (I'd have to admit a very good one, that is brought to life very stylized) and then he repeats it for the rest of the movie over and over again. As a consequence I startled a few times in the first quarter of the movie, but once I knew the drill I practically fell asleep as The Grudge grew more and more predictable by the minute. To conclude, I can say that there are a lot better movies in the genre to begin with, that the so-called predecessor "The Ring" was way scarier and that buying a ticket for "The Grudge" is a waste of money.
If you go see this movie you'll be holding a grudge against the movie theatre, the director, the producer, the actors and the person that told you to go see it! Shame on you, Sarah Michelle Geller, for putting your name and face to this poor excuse of a movie. It may have been more scary if the Japanese actors would have just spoken in Japanese instead of attempting to 'act' in English. I wanted to boo when the movie ended...a true disappointment after all of the hype on TV and movie trailers promoting this lame money maker. Sarah Michelle really didn't have to act at all to make this movie...she just practiced her frowning skills. Don't waste your time or money on this film.
Imagine that you are asked by your date what movie you wanted to see, and you remember seeing a rather intriguing trailer about "The Grudge." So, in good faith, you recommend seeing that movie. It is the Halloween season, after all. And it did boffo box office this past weekend, so it must be pretty good...so you go.<br /><br />And you're actually in a state of shock when the movie ends the way it does, and you hear yourself audibly saying, "that can't be the end of the movie...." But, alas, it is. <br /><br />And imagine coming out of the movie theater being embarrassed and ashamed for recommending such a dog of a movie. You think that your date thinks you're a bonehead for suggesting such an atrocity, and your suggestion will certainly end a promising relationship. Actually, it was so bad that both of us cracked up laughing at how bad it was. I see no future for Miss Gellar in the movies, and suggest that she sticks to television in the future. Actually, it won't be long before she is consigned to flea-market conventions selling Buffy memorabilia, and it can't happen soon enough, if you ask me. Horrible, horrible, horrible. The plot didn't make sense; continuity was terrible. It's apparent that the whole ending was contrived to have a "Grudge II--The Return of 'Cat-Boy'."
All the kids aged from 14-16 want to see this movie (although you are only allowed at 18). They have heard it is a very scary movie and they feel so cool when they watched it. I feel very sad kids can't see what a good movie is, and what a bad movie is. This was one of the worst movies i saw in months. Every scene you see in this movie is a copy from another movie. And the end? It's an open ending... why? Because it is impossible to come up with a decent en for such a stupid story. This movie is just made to make you scared, and if you are a bit smart and know some about music, you exactly know when you'll be scared. <br /><br />When the movie was finished and i turned to my friend and told (a bit to loud) him that this was a total waste of money, some stupid kid looked strange at me. These day i could make an Oscar with a home-video of my goldfish, if only i use the right marketing.
***spoilers***spoilers***spoilers***spoilers<br /><br />There are bad movies and then there are movies which are so awful that they become affectionately comical in their ineptness. Such is the case with Columbia Pictures' 'The Grudge.' This cinematic atrocity began when an otherwise well intentioned American saw a Japanese made for TV film 'Ju-on' and was inspired to remake the movie in English. This began a virtual tsunami of bad decisions which circumnavigated the globe until it washed ashore in Orlando on October 21, 2004.<br /><br />The premise, and I use the word loosely, involves a house in Tokyo haunted by a skinny Momma ghost who looks like a cross between Margaret Cho and Alanis Morrisette, along with her ghastly sidekick a chubby, rambunctious but evil second grader. Is there anything scarier than a creepy 8 year old Japanese boy? Sure there is! Count Chocula comes to mind. With this whimsical bunch we must add a mysterious black cat who I have affectionately named Chim Chim. (Remember Speed Racer?) As you have already guessed, they were murdered in this domicile of doom and now desire to kill everyone who enters the premises. You see, as explained by a Japanese detective, when someone dies in a rage their ghost seeks revenge on everyone who steps on the property lines as defined by the county commissioner or something like that, I forget. <br /><br />The story begins innocently enough with acclaimed thespian Bill Pullman leaping to his death from a balcony. My guess is Bill Pullman got this job because of his kids begged him for a trip to Tokyo Disneyland. Next we endure the mildly interesting saga of Nurse Yoko, 'oh no don't go in there' screams the audience, but alas she heeds not the dire warnings and is predictably snuffed out like a magic lantern. About 30 minutes into the movie we finally see its American heroine Sarah Michelle Gellar as Karen. Sarah Michelle Gellar might be a competent actress but I could not help thinking of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, so much so that it was distracting. It is the equivalent to having Jennifer Anniston star in a movie about the adventures of six friends in New York. Try as you may, you just can't stop thinking about the other project which made her famous. But I digress, Karen, the nurse is hired as a replacement for the original care giver who disappeared at spooks r us. <br /><br />She snoops around, meets the ghosts, coma lady dies, and some other stuff happens. Watching the fair haired vixen searching for clues I half expected her to find the ghost and pull its mask off to reveal it was actually old man Gower who owned the abandoned amusement park! 'I would've gotten away with it too if it weren't for you meddling kids and that dog of yours!' <br /><br />Director Takashi Shimizu, who is vying to be the Ed Wood of Asia, made two unfortunate decisions involving sound. First, he choose to use a soundtrack only when someone is about to be killed. This is an excellent devise for obliterating any suspense because the audience gets a two minute warning to prepare for another miserably predictable murder. Second, he gave the ghosts a bizarre guttural noise that sounds like a gargling gopher. After the movie, I heard several people exiting the theatre making the sound and laughing.<br /><br />Sarah Michelle Gellar ends up being the sole survivor. And of course we learn that the fire she set to burn down the house was extinguished in time for the obligatory next chapter. However, considering the humorous reactions of the audience, they did not want a sequel but an apology. 'The Grudge' could be easily re-edited into a comedy, perhaps then it will be appreciated for its camp value. Baring that, this will go down as the greatest cinematic thriller since 'Godzilla vs. Megalon.' I would suggest waiting until the movie comes to your local discount theatre where it can receive the public ridicule it so richly deserves.
Difficult to call The Grudge a horror movie. At best it made me slightly jump from surprise at a couple of moments.<br /><br />If one forgets the (failed) frightening dimension and looks at other sides of the movie, he is again disappointed. The acting is OK but not great. The story can be somewhat interesting at the beginning, while one is trying to get what's happening. But toward the end one understands there is not much to understand. "Scary" elements seems sometimes to have been added to the script without reason...<br /><br />So... (yawn) See this movie it if you have nothing more interesting to do, like cutting the carrots or looking at the clouds.
Takashi Shimizu had a great opportunity with a remake of his original film Ju-On The Grudge. While I haven't seen that film, I would have to wager that there's more imagination and originality (or some rip-off originality, in other words skill with known tropes of the Japanese ghost movie) than in his own directed remake. Maybe the script was written to somehow have some kind of warped appeal, or I would guess accessibility, for an American audience. What starts off with some potential - the hint of something very screwed up going on with Bill Pullman's sudden movement - just goes into a total jumble. And as a horror movie? Gimme a break.<br /><br />Tension could have been built on the situation - a nurse going to take care of a disturbed woman in a house that is haunted - but he undercuts everything he wants to get his audience to feel. Scares? How's about some music timed just so you know when exactly to expect something. A black cat? Yeah, why not just make the ghost-boy thing sound like a cat for creepiness which, in effect, is only creepy if you want cats. Plot? Why not just shuffle between past and present without any semblance of an actual flow of how a story could be told (meaning, while the flashbacks are inserted and are meant to be organic with the story overall, they aren't), or for that matter have us care about ANYONE in the cast.<br /><br />By the time the characters, or those that are there for exposition, get around to telling us what is going on or whatever, there's little point to care. The film-making is shoddy (i.e. the 180 degree rule is broken many times over and not in a forgivable or intriguing way), and the performances are wooden even when looking frightened or shocked (Gellar especially is disappointing, but Pullman, who shows up later after his first scene, is sorely miscast). Even when Shimizu tries for some average old "Boo" scares, like when the woman is in the office building and chased by the Grudge ghost, it's still silly. Just watch when she's going on that elevator and the ghost is in the background of shots. Either you'll go with it, and if so more power to you, or you'll laugh hysterically at the results. Count me in the latter.<br /><br />I'm not totally sure where this project went wrong - was it Shimizu having to retool it for the studios, or him not giving enough leeway with his revamp of his vision? Or maybe Raimi had some say in it and made things more confusing and/or dull than they would be with someone else. The Grudge gives us a lot of information that doesn't make sense or at the least give us some horror-fodder to chew on. It's cineplex trash of a sad order.
Freeway Killer, Is a Madman who shoots people on the freeway while yelling a bunch of mystical chant on a car phone. The police believe he is a random killer, but Sunny, the blond heroine, played by Darlanne Fluegel detects a pattern. So does the ex-cop, played by James Russo, and they join forces, and bodies, in the search for the villain who has done away with their spouses. Also starring Richard Belzer, this movie has its moments especially if you like car chases, but its really not a good movie for the most part, check it out if you're really bored and have already seen The Hitcher, Joy Ride, or Breakdown, otherwise stay away from the freeway.
Even with a cast that boasts such generally reliable names as Val Kilmer and Lisa Kudrow, Wonderland fails to yield any sense of depth to this film. It barely brushes the surface of the incidents that happened on that July night in 1981. Kilmer just goes through the motions as John Holmes and Kudrow and Kate Bosworth are both hopefully miscast in the other two lead roles; as Holmes's wife and underage girlfriend, respectively. The rest of the cast has such small roles that it's impossible to get any dimensions from them. The film also stars Carrie Fisher, Ted Levine, Franky G, MC Gainey, Dylan McDermott and a cameo from Paris Hilton.
I was excited when I heard they were finally making this horrific event into a movie. The whole era (1980's Southern California) and subject matter (drug and porn industry) is intriguing to me. I thought this would be a sure fire hit. I was not thrilled with the choice of Kilmer as Holmes, they do not resemble each other in physical appearance or mannerisms. I guess he sells tickets? However, I was willing to overlook this and give it a fair shot. I was a bit shocked that there were only like four other people in the entire theater with me on that first day of showing. Now the whole crime and story in the film is hard to do, I will admit that. There were no witnesses to this very violent and brutal act. John Holmes was there, but he was also a pathological liar and worried about what would happen to his family (and self) if he talked to police about it. In fact, Holmes never really testified about what happened and the crime did go unsolved. So this was still really one big mystery, a mystery that this movie does nothing to cast light on. The person writing the screenplay had a whole lot of discretion and most of the principal characters are dead. However, there is no real storyline, it is fragmented claptrap. The script is light and the actors try to hard to beef up paper thin lines by overacting. The film gives no insight into Holmes or the other people involved. Kilmer's character disappears for long stretches, his girlfriend is dull, the police are jokes. Even Kudrow tries hard to make a flimsy role look substantial. It is a very shallow piece and dare I say, boring. The director even tries to turn it into a love story. Which is nice, unless you know anything about what a piece of trash John Holmes really was. Perhaps a couple of viewings of Anderson's "Boogie Nights" might have helped here. "Boogie Nights" was innovative and exciting in all regards. This film on the other hand was flat and without any real charm or style. Even the music is out of place, with Duran Duran being played in a scene that was supposed to have taken place in 1980. Then we have Gordon Lightfoot? Gordon Lightfoot? There could have been a great film based on this gruesome event, but I have not seen it yet. I have not seen even a decent one yet (unless you consider the Rahad Jackson scene from Boogie Nights).
I am wanting to make a "Holmes with Doors" pun but I can't quite string it all together. Suitably grubby and over edited WONDERLAND gives Kilmer a role that channels Morrison at the same time....but how coy is this film about the famous 14 inches! Australian crime films flash it all the time and skip the graphic violence instead.....as someone famous said once about US cinema double standards: "kiss a breast and it's an X, stab it and its an action PG 13"... WONDERLAND is 14 minutes too long too, and at the end the tawdry spiral we were all glad to escape the cinema. How many films called WONDERLAND are we going to get? There must be six in the last decade. The pixilated violence and muted color sets the seedy tone but the wobble-cam gets tiresome, as if we are gawking at their nostrils all the time. Taking a few cues form THE DOORS and TAXI DRIVER it all becomes forgettable the next day.
Unlike others, I refuse to call this pitiful excuse for a movie a triumph of style over substance (I don't want to give style a bad name). Still, it's the most apt description that comes to mind.<br /><br />A pointless, unpleasant and ultimately meaningless assault on the eyes and ears, "Wonderland" leaves one wondering only why the film was made in the first place and who in their right mind gave the greenlight to this dreary and tangled mess. A biography of porn star John Holmes? A study of who the man was, why he went into the business and how it affected him? Great. Bound to be compelling, bound to be entertaining. Bound to be enlightening and fascinating on about a million levels (and I have zero interest in porn).<br /><br />But a confusing, violent, Rashomon-style study of a series of murders Holmes was connected with after his career ended? Who in hell cares? What insights do we gain? This film completely ignores the most interesting aspect of John Holmes's life -- that he was a porno star! "Wonderland" might as well have been about anyone: the fact that the main character is the most famous male adult film star in history is almost irrelevant.<br /><br />To make matters about a thousand times worse, the picture is loaded down with jerkoff gimmicks -- annoying machine gun editing, sloppy Dogme-95 camerawork, unnecessary split-screen graphics and animation, etc. etc.<br /><br />In the absence of a compelling story and unique main character, the director (and I use the term loosely) has thrown together a dozen or so techniques from other films and decided to call the resulting mess a movie, among these: the trendy, bleach-bypass look of "Narc" or "Traffic" or "Minority Report;" the frantic, often incomprehensible, throw-the-pieces-of-film-in-the-air cutting style of "Natural Born Killers" or "28 Days Later;" the fill-every-moment-of-silence-with- an-old-song-to-evoke-the-period soundtrack of "Goodfellas" or "Blow;" the groovy, retro title sequence of "Velvet Goldmine" or "Autofocus" or "Catch Me If You Can." The list goes on and on and on. Pathetic.<br /><br />I wanted to like this movie. I had real hopes for it. "Wonderland Avenue" had been around for years; had the context of the murders been emphasized rather than the murders themselves, I think it could have worked. Had the murders (and Holmes's growing involvement with seedy L.A. types) signaled the end of a career, or the end of the swinging '70s, I think the film could have had meaning; it could have served a purpose. As it is -- meaningless. Pointless. Who cares how many perspectives exist on a series of murders generally unknown by the public? The case isn't famous enough to merit such painstaking examination.<br /><br />This film should have been the third act of "The John Holmes Story." That's it. Period. And it could have worked. What's that? Oh, right, right, they didn't want to tell a traditional rise-and-fall story. They didn't want to make "Boogie Nights" or "Goodfellas" or "Star 80" or "Autofocus." They wanted their film to be different. Right?<br /><br />Well, in one sense, they succeeded. There's a big difference between those films and "Wonderland." The difference is those films are good.<br /><br />
Val Kilmer, solid performance. Dylan McDermott, solid performance. Josh Lucas, solid performance. Three very engaging actors giving decent performances. The problem is, who cares about the plot? John Holmes. Infamous for his well-endowments, a drug addict, and a guy who, despite contracting AIDS, continued to make adult films, just does not make an intriguing character.<br /><br />The story surrounds the events leading up to and the aftermath of a vicious mass murder that occurred in the late 80's in Los Angelos to which Holmes was linked, arrested and charged with murder, and who ultimately was acquitted. Just like in the case of O.J., the guilt factor, regardless of the outcome, ranged quite high in the "He did it" zone.<br /><br />There is no one to sympathize with in this film, as everyone is a self-serving criminal. There is just nothing remotely interesting here.
The plot certainly seemed interesting enough. How can a real-life brutal murder be turned into a truly boring movie? Well, you can watch "Wonderland" and find out.<br /><br />I had heard of the Wonderland murders before this film was released and found it to be an interesting true story of some genuinely sadistic people. Unfortunately, there is zero character development, so we never get a chance to understand why any of this was done or get a good sense of the interrelationships between the characters. The pace of the direction was very tedious. This all leads to an extraordinarily boring movie.<br /><br />Given that Dawn Schiller - a central character as Holmes's girlfriend - was an associate producer and that Holmes's wife was a consultant on the film, we should have had the opportunity to gain some real insight into the characters.
The premise was intriguing, but sadly this film just doesn't do any justice to it. The casting was quite good, and it was shot beautifully - but stylistically much of the direction was inconsistent (overstylized fast editing been there done that to no effect.... I was waiting for Steven Bochco to run in the credits followed by a commercial), characters were identified exclusively by on-screen coke usage (and pretty much everything else left to Boogie Nights for character development), and no personable characters to draw the viewer into the story. A very forgettable film.
Bad Movie - saw it at the TIFF and the movie gives me a sense of 'been there done that' - it reminds me alot of the movie Blow - expect the Blow was actually interesting.<br /><br />This one story told two ways and both times it is not told that well.<br /><br />
This is the only movie I have ever seen that has prompted me to write a critique on any internet site, and that is a significant statement from someone who likes "The Attack of the Monolith Monsters." This movie is perfect for anyone who wants an inoffensive movie. It is devoid of sex and violence, for example. I believe that this movie is safe for children of all ages. This movie is perfect for anyone who does not want to be entertained, challenged, or stimulated in any way. Adults could easily catch up on their sleep in front of the TV while the kids watch this movie. Don't be surprise ,however, if you wakeup to find the kids have turned the TV off and started a board game. As an adult who enjoys being entertained, who enjoys everything from the mundane to the fantastic in realism, drama, comedy, and action, all of those adult things that reflect real life on earth and/or stimulate the imagination, this movie has nothing to offer.
I saw this in the market place at the Cannes Film Festival. <br /><br />It's a real cheapo prod - nothing wrong with that but you have to make up for it with a bit of sex or gore or both. <br /><br />Think Larry Cohen. <br /><br />Sean Young is an interesting actor - well done to the producers for hooking her I guess.<br /><br />The opening scene in the space-ship coming down is hilarious - you could picture all the crew hands shaking it around! <br /><br />Ha ha - but I wish the people who made this well - at least it's not pretentious.
The movie's premise is spooky: a woman gets pregnant when kissed by a stranger in a bar.<br /><br />But as soon as the movie begins, a horrible opening scene establishes that this is a C type Sci-Fi TV movie. It's a big Star Trek and a bit X-files, but more than anything else it's boring.<br /><br />When the movie kicks into action everything is predictable and cliche. It looked more like a 2 parter in a bad Sci-Fi TV series. No suspense and no thrills, but not for a lack of trying. Just a lot of predictable dramatic conflicts between the main characters.<br /><br />Don't waste your time.
Here we are: two travelers from a distant futuristic world arrive on earth... one is on a desperate mission to preserve a life, another is an inhuman killing machine determined to eliminate the woman who will give birth to the saviour of an entire race.<br /><br />So what could we call this killing machine? It's almost like he's some kind of destroyer, or eradicator... sort of like an exterminator or something. What's the word I'm looking for... something that -terminates- things? Hmmmm....<br /><br />Anyway, the protector (who swiftly doffs the white tunic he stole from Luke Skywalker in favour of local clothing) finds the young woman first and impregnates her with a future-born hero-to-be. The evil uhhhh... "exterminator" kills some rednecks and steals their guns and clothes, then attempts to locate the woman by visiting her workplace and asking around by looking menacingly into people's eyes and repeating her name threateningly.<br /><br />Then begins a desperate race for survival as the seemingly deathless and unstoppable "exterminator" pursues the couple across the countryside. At some point he may acquire boots and a motorcycle, but I'm not sure.<br /><br />Perhaps, in an exciting finale, he will attempt to crush them under the wheels of an enormous tanker truck full of... acid. Then the truck will crash. They will be saved... but no! He will then re-emerge, as strong as ever. He will kill the protector and pursue the girl into a meat packing plant, where in a terrifying finish, he is pushed into a large piece of industrial chopping machinery, and destroyed once and for all.<br /><br />But maybe I'm extrapolating too much... after all, I did stop watching this movie after Mr. Protector magically impregnates Sean Young by kissing her at a bar, then tells her the child will be born in 3 days. <br /><br />The costumes and effects are great in this movie... I loved them the first time I saw them on Star Trek: Next Generation too! Sean Young does another great turn as an unemotive Replicant, and career sweat-hog Stephen Baldwin is also on board as Young's Fat Cop Boyfriend. Not sure where he fits into the plot though... maybe he's an import from a different James Cameron movie?
Being a music student myself, I thought a movie taking place in a conservatory might be fun to watch. Little did I know... (I had no idea this movie was based on a book by Britney Spears) This movie was implausible throughout. It's obvious that whoever wrote the script never set foot in a conservatory and doesn't know a thing about classical music. Let me give you just a few examples: 1) There is NO WAY anyone would be admitted to a classical conservatory with no classical training whatsoever! Just having a nice pop voice isn't enough, besides, that's a different thing altogether - another genre, different technique. It's like playing the violin when applying for a viola class. 2) How come the lady teaching music theory was in the singing jury? If she wasn't a singing professor herself, she would have no say in a situation like that, and if she was a singing professor, why weren't we told so? 3) Being able to read music is a necessity if you're to major in music. 4) How did Angela get a hold of that video tape? That would have been kept confidential, for the jury's eyes only. Now either she got the tape from one of the professors or the script writers just didn't have a clue. I wonder which... 5) The singing professor gave Holly the Carmen song saying she "had the range", which she clearly did NOT. Yes, she was able to sing the notes, but Carmen is a mezzo-soprano, while Holly's voice seemed to be much lighter in timbre, not at all compatible with that song. 6) Worst of all: Not only does the movie show a shocking ignorance when it comes to classical music, but it doesn't even try to hide it. The aria that Angela sings is mutilated beyond recognition, a fact which is painfully blatant at the recital, where it is cut short in a disgraceful way - Mozart would roll over in his grave. The Habanera from Carmen sounded a bit weird at times, too, and the way it was rearranged at the end just shows how little the producers really think of classical music - it's stiff and boring but hey, add some drums and electric guitars and it's almost as good as Britney Spears! I know these are all minor details, but it would have been so easy to avoid them with just a little research. Anyhow, I might have chosen to suspend my disbelief had the characters and the plot been well elaborated. But without that, I really can't find any redeeming qualities in this movie except for one: it's good for a laugh.
I actually liked this movie until the end. Sure, it was cheesy and pretty unlikely but still it kept my attention on a rainy afternoon. Until the end, that is. For her final performance at the prestigious classical conservatory where she has struggled to catch-up to the other classically trained students, what does the main character do? Wow them with her grasp and execution of this time honored musical tradition? No. She tortures and butchers the great sensuous Habanera from Carmen and turns it into an utterly forgettable Brittany Spears-wannabe pop song. My ears bled! And, in the supreme moment of horror, her teachers gave her a standing ovation! Any teacher not in a Spears-induced fantasy would have failed her on the spot. Save your time, save your ears - skip this movie!
can any movie become more naive than this? you cant believe a piece of this script. and its ssooooo predictable that you can tell the plot and the ending from the first 10 minutes. the leading actress seems like she wants to be Barbie (but she doesn't make it, the doll has MORE acting skills).<br /><br />the easiness that the character passes and remains in a a music school makes the phantom of the opera novel seem like a historical biography. i wont even comment on the shallowness of the characters but the ONE good thing of the film is Madsen's performance which manages to bring life to a melo-like one-dimensional character.<br /><br />The movie is so cheesy that it sticks to your teeth. i can think some 13 year old Britney-obsessed girls shouting "O, do give us a break! If we want fairy tales there is always the Brothers Grimm book hidden somewhere in the attic". I gave it 2 instead of one only for Virginia Madsen.
It was a decent movie, I actually kind of enjoyed it. But the ending is so abrupt!! There is absolutely no closure and it leaves tons of loose ends. What happens after the concert? What happens with her boyfriend? Does she hook up with Grant? Does she come beck in the next semester? And what about Angela? Obviously Holly's performance would knock Angela down a few pegs, but nothing is shown to indicate how she reacts. There is so much left up in the air and it's very unsatisfying. I don't know if it is trying to leave room for a sequel or something, but it is a terrible ending and I think that it really makes the movie a joke. I was very disappointed.
This movie is entertaining enough due to an excellent performance by Virginia Madsen and the fact that Lindsey Haun is lovely. However the reason the movie is so predictable is that we've seen it all before. I've haven't read the book A Mother's Gift but I hope for Britney and Lynne Spears sake it is completely different than this movie. Unless you consider ending a movie with what is essentially a music video an original idea, the entire movie brings to mind the word plagiarized.
I have read the book a couple of times and this movie doesn't follow exactly as it should. I could let this slide, it is after all a movie. However I have serious issues with the setting of the movie. Nobody has seemed to mention that this movie and the book it is based on are based in actual events that happened in Nebraska. I live in Nebraska. I grew up in the town that this movie is supposed to be based on. First of all, the "small" town that is talked about as the setting, is the third largest city in the state. With a population of around 50,000. Grand Island is the largest city between Lincoln and Denver. Second the scenery for the movie is wrong. Grand Island is in the Platte river valley. Which is very flat with very few trees. I tried watching this movie, but it made me mad to see my hometown being treated so bad. This was a real event. Large sections of the city were wiped out. In the book they talk about riding bikes from Mormon Island to Fonner Park. I guess you could if you don't mind a 15 mile ride each way. For anyone who wants to know what really happened go here http://www.theindependent.com/twisters/
TV version of "Twister" springs a few leaks but manages to remain watchable. My sister bought this at a Wal-Mart a few years back when it was released, I saw it back then and thought it was okay. Later "Twister" with Bill Pullman and Helen Hunt comes out (or was it before? I think it was '97) and did a better job overall. But "Twister" was more silly fun; this is realistic with a message. It all depends on what you want from a movie with twisters: Twisters, or a low-budget character study?<br /><br />John Schneider and Devon Sawa (he's the reason my sister bought it) star, and Devon Sawa, who went on to "Wild America," "Final Destination" and "Slackers" got his big break here. So in a way, I was one of the first people to see him really take off. I don't know if it's an honor or a shame, I haven't seen how he acts in recent films.<br /><br />"Night of the Twisters" all depends on personal taste, like I said, it all depends on what you want from a movie with twisters: Twisters, or a low-budget character study. "Night of the Twister" has the latter. So you decide.<br /><br />I give it a 2.5/5...<br /><br />- John Ulmer
This film, although not totally bad, should have been filmed where the actual events took place. Grand Island, Nebraska was devastated by no less than seven tornados on the night of June 3, 1980. Grand Island is situated in the nearly treeless, flat Platte River Valley in Hall county. The makers of this movie filmed in the tree covered hills of Ontario and moved the whole event to a non-existant town called Blainsworth. The people of Grand Island bravely survived this awful night only to be forgotten because of a poorly made movie.
This film is totally garbage. Some imbecilic intellectual comforting himself by making all his best to claim superiority of aristocrat over working class. Nothing more than a piece of self-complacence catharsis. Disgusting.<br /><br />If this kind of a movie is set in US, it will sure make itself a big joke. And simply because it comes out from 'the other side', it makes itself a masterpiece, a wonderful amusement for certain brain-washed and/or brain-washing westerns (some George W. maybe:). A typical cold-war sequelae, some kind of joke anyway.<br /><br />I would say, if this -- like expressed in this film -- is all what Soviet intellectuals had been thinking about all those years, then maybe they deserve all the miseries they claim they had gone through. BUT NO! 'cause like many others, I've read and watched real masterpieces made by real outstanding Soviet intellectuals. For example, something also relevant with dog, "White Bim Black Ear" -- both Gavriil Troyepolsky's book and Stanislav Rostotsky's movie -- is a real masterpiece. Real life, real tragedy, real sad, real pride and dignity, one of the real best of the Soviet era.
It's a pretty good cast, but the film has nowhere near the grace of the original Italian comedy "Big Deal on Madonna Street" Anyone looking for an entertaining caper film should visit the original. William Macy may be one of our greatest living actors, but here he's put to little use. And his role in the original was played by Marcello Mastroianni, so I sort of feel sorry for him trying to fill those shoes. Might as well try to imitate Bogart or a young De Niro. The art direction is rich and textured but brings nothing to the story, the extra bits they add to the story feel completely unnecessary and the things they take away are missed. Even starting the way they do seems bizarrely gratuitous and takes away from the surprise of the original. Sam Rockwell has his odd and genial charm and Luis Guzman has that odd charisma, but the love story part of the movie just seems clunky and flat. It's too bad nobody has figured out how to make this movie as well as it was first made, but then again it's too bad we live in a culture where we feel like we need to remake amazing things instead of simply learning to savor the originals.
it aint bad, but it aint good. it is just entertaining.<br /><br />as a comedy which it is supposed to be, it's dreadful. not many laughs at all as every joke in the movie has been done a million times before.<br /><br />it's a shame as all the actors in the film are great usually, but none of them really do much. and the ending sucks.
"Welcome to Collinwood" is kind of a disaster. Considering the people involved, it should've been multiple times better.<br /><br />Watching it, if you're at least somewhat attached to the faith that it'll get better, will probably make you cry. It's one of those movies that had potential, but was robbed of this potential thanks to a terrible script and some bad acting, not to mention the strangely annoying and unnecessary George Clooney character and the guy who reminds me of Richard Dreyfuss but about whom I care so little that I don't even want to know his name.<br /><br />The film's only saving grace is the weird con vocabulary it introduces. I found myself thinking of it time and time again as I watched more crime capers. This is the only reason I gave the film a 3. The plot is boring, the characters are neurotic, needlessly offensive, and highly unlikable. They are in a constant state of agonizing stress and they're all so irritating that I celebrated their obstacles. They yell at each other and swear crassly. The dialogue is insipid at best and insultingly stupid at its low points.<br /><br />I find that Steven "Traffic" Soderbergherabracadabrablahblah and George Clooney are to blame for this. They should be tried for war crimes, if anyone actually remembers this crap long enough to care.
There's nothing new here. All the standard romantic-comedy scenes, even down to the taxi sprinting to the airport to stop the woman flying away. The only thing that saves this is the acting of Alison Eastwood & some of the minor characters (blink and you'll miss Gabrielle Anwar), who obviously had some fun.<br /><br />Turn it off when the pair are in bliss, and you won't have to go through the inevitable plot pain.
Formula flick of guy who wants girl, guy who will lie to get next to girl, guy who will get best friend to help in outrageous way (comedus reliefus, no?) to help deceive girl, etc. This one's been done to death, and with rare exception of a few z-rated outings, it's been done better.<br /><br />Stale plot aside, the leads are attractive and there's a couple of good moments. Jonathon Schaech has done better, and his acting here came close to being phoned in. Not a complete loss, but nothing new here in this tepid affair.
I've tried to watch this so-called comedy, but it's very hard to bear. This is a bad, narrow-minded, cliché-ridden movie. Definitively not funny, but very much boring and annoying, indeed. Bad script, bad acting. It's a complete waste of time - and there remains nothing more to say, I'm afraid.<br /><br />1 out of 10 points.
One of the worst romantic comedies (nay, worst movies) I've ever seen. Boy (who works as a phone psychic!) must pretend to be gay to move into apartment with woman of his dreams. Hilarity does not ensue. Boredom, light gay-bashing, and horrible dialogue do. If you read Brad Meltzer and like his crappy dialogue, you'll like this movie.<br /><br />Be smart. Avoid this. if you see it, destroy the copy.
Yet another insult and slap in the face to gay men everywhere. This lame attempt at a comedy has nothing to recommend it. Once again we have an attractive 'straight' hero who supposedly can't get any woman to be interested in him. Yeah, right! And we're also presented with the 'sympathetic, attractive' gay friend who is actually a fat, balding, ugly old man whom the lead is supposed to find attractive. Even I didn't find him appealing and I'm a fat, ugly old gay man (but thankfully not balding)! Whatever acting talent there may be here has been thrown away on a bad script, and truly awful direction. Mr. Sneedeker should be banned from filmdom, but then he's no different than the countless other hacks working in Hollyweed.
This horrendously bad piece of trash manages to be racist, sexist and homophobic all at once, while pretending to be terribly chic and sophisticated. Atrocious performances, a cliche ridden screenplay, and boring direction make this movie one to steer clear of. Two scenes were especially offensive - the one in which Schaech scrubs his tongue after being kissed by another man (could it really have been that gross), and the scene where Eastwood is kissed by Schaech's best friend, who is pretending to be Russian. After he leaves the room she exclaims "f**king foreigners"! So much for her being a cultured artist who dreams of living in Paris!?!<br /><br />Jonathon Schaech can be a likeable actor on screen, and is astonishingly good-looking. It's a shame he didn't learn more from working with cutting edge gay director Gregg Araki on an earlier film, and try to salvage this film from descending into a string of gay stereotypes and a mire of homophobia.
They played this on the July 4th Twilight Zone marathon and this is, hands down, the worst Twilight Zone episode I've ever seen. It's completely out of sync with the rest of the series in its tone. Even though Twilight Zone is a pretty uneven series and many episodes end up being groaningly predictable, this one was completely out of place. Compare this to legendary episodes like "A Stop at Willoughby" or "Midnight Sun", and you realize there is no comparison.<br /><br />Buster Keaton did what he could with such terrible material, and frankly it surprises me that someone of his historic comedy stature would stoop to the level of this episode. Even though he seemed to be giving it some effort, he MUST have needed the money... there's no other explanation.
I am one of the biggest fans of silent comedians and have probably reviewed more Buster Keaton films for IMDb than any other person. Every film he made from the beginning of his career to the early 30s with only two exceptions have I reviewed, so you can tell I am a major fan. It's because of this that I found this episode so painful and hard to watch. I loved this man's films and kept thinking "Buster, how could you?!". Well, now that I think about it, I guess I can see why Buster Keaton starred in this god-awful episode of THE TWILIGHT ZONE. He'd lost much of his fortune after a messy divorce in the early 1930s and his film career as a leading man was long passed as well. Now, in the 1960s, Keaton needed the money and loved his resurgence in popularity so he whored himself out to anyone willing to pay--appearing in Beach films and this mess of an episode of a great series.<br /><br />The biggest problem with the episode is that it is just terribly written and Buster deserved much better. The show is supposed to be funny but isn't and instead of a homage to silent films is just painful to watch--particularly with Keaton putting that stupid time travel helmet on as well as all the poorly executed slapstick. Do yourself a favor, SKIP THIS ONE--it's a pale imitation of the greatness that once was Keaton's career!!!
===minor spoilers=== <br /><br />I am, like many others, a huge Jerry Bruckheimer fan. So when I saw all the beautiful posters hanging out front, and the trailer coming by before MI:2, expectations were rising. A Jerry Bruckheimer production. Big cars. Nic Cage and fresh from an Oscar- Angelina Jolie. What can possibly go wrong? A lot. <br /><br />The script is neither funny (which it tries really hard to be) nor exciting. You put in a black person who is constantly making racist jokes about himself and Wooh-haa!! you've got comedy? I don't think so. Excitement is totally out of the picture. First of all (and this is probably said many times) there are no sympathetic characters so who cares who gets killed? IF you can stomach the premise that a psycho is gonna kill Nic's brother unless he steals 50 cars in 4 days, next thing you know is that Kip (the brother) is walking with Nic in the streets again. Is this excitement? Think not. Then comes the best bit- the romance between Nic and Angelina. She actually looks bored having to utter all these stupid lines to Nic. 'Do you have a girlfriend?' 'Are you seeing anybody?' 'What went wrong?' etc.<br /><br />Then there's only one sparkle of hope left: the car chases. They're disappointing to say the least, because the trailer made it look like it was full of them, and there's only one. A very long one, caught in irritatingly hectic camera movement. I really had trouble following the action.<br /><br />So is it an action movie? a thriller? a romantic comedy? - there's no need to decide, just avoid this horrible mess. I'll give 3 out of 10 stars, and I feel like I'm being generous.
This movie should be shown to film school students as an example of what NOT to do. The original kicked some major tire squealing butt, this horrible disaster breaks the cardinal rule of Bruckheimer films, which is: we all know they suck, but they have great action. This film has NO ACTION. This film is BORING. Where are the cars? Where are the chases? Where's the tension? Where's the suspense? Where's the rush? Where!!?? This isn't really a movie at all, it's a bad commercial. 50 cars in 24 hours? That is wrong. They have 3 days to steal them, the ad is wrong. How bad is that? The leads acting is stiff, wooden and forced. The villain, the cop, the others...who cares. They utter their pointless lines, they serve the illogical plot. They slog through it the best they can as the music video director says "don't worry we'll make a lot of fast cuts and no one will notice how bad the film is" or "we'll fix it with lots of loud music" The "script" isn't really a script at all, it's more like a list of cliches with an ending that is a total ripoff of: -------Warning - possible spoiler------ 5------4-----3-----2-----1------ The Fugitive. The biggest crime of all is the underuse of Vinnie Jones, man....this is the baddest, coolest mofo since Jules in Pulp Fiction. And what do they do!? They make him a mute who's hardly in the film! Make Vinnie the main villain and he could have saved the film. How could they have been so dumb? How? How? Why? The original film is very entertaining with a cool trick at the end that gets the driver away. The original has a great 40 minute chase that delivers! Go find the original. Or if you're craving some real car chase action go rent RONIN. The chases in Ronin raised the bar by which all other car chases will now be judged. Bruckheimer and Cage had all that money, all those resources, all that experience, and they can't even come close to matching a film made 25 years ago for $250,000? How can that be? You feel like you got ripped off after seeing this movie. Where I was once excited to see Coyote Ugly, Remember the Titans and Pearl Harbor, now I say: God help us all. <br /><br />
WARNING: REVIEW CONTAINS SLIGHT SPOILERS<br /><br />There's a parallel universe out there where Gone In 60 Seconds is a dark, edgy, controversial independent movie. Unfortunately in this dimension Gone... is a flashy, vacuous, testosterone-fuelled moronfest starring Nicolas Cage.<br /><br />For reasons not really worth getting into, he and his large number of cronies have four days to steal fifty expensive cars, only one of which has an alarm. This crew consists of the guy with the funny-shaped ears who's rumoured to be the new Superman; a guy who conducted electricity in The X-Files; an ex-professional footballer and two token black men.<br /><br />Their enemies are cops, rival car thieves and Bilborough from Cracker, his Manchester accent suitably flattened and broadened for American audiences who are now used to that sort of thing since Daphne in Frasier. There's also Angelina Jolie, who gets no character; save to be a receptacle to men's sexual desires. She and Cage are supposed to be old flames, which is odd, as they never have anything approaching a normal conversation in all of the film's overlong 135m running time.<br /><br />In fact, characterisation is so poor that whenever anyone has a "moment" a violin plays in the background to accentuate the "emotion". It's no spoiler to reveal that Vinnie Jones (who recreates his famous Paul Gasgoine "hand ball" manoeuvre and is quite menacing when silent) only gets one line; not because his inability to speak is integral to the plot but because his eloquent summing up of the film's dubious morality after appearing mute the whole way through is funny. Allegedly. After he struggles through it in his "not-quite-acting-but-it'll-do" London drawl, Cage quips "I always thought you were from Long Island". My ribs, as you might imagine, were well and truly tickled.<br /><br />In fact humour is the most undeveloped aspect, from the tactless comedy policeman to the two token black characters. This sees the biggest aspect of Hollywood take hold; why is it that a black man cannot appear in a major motion picture without being constantly aware of his skin tone and endlessly refer to it? The younger man, who, like the elder, jive-talks for the whole duration, proclaims: "us black people don't like the cold ... we're tropical people". He then goes on to express an urge to smoke a joint and watch Roots. He is, of course, parodying the image of black people, but how funny is that? His older counterpart cannot speak without referring to himself, and thereby his colour, in third person. "My black ass" this, "my black ass" that. Does anyone know any black people who actually speak like that? Thought not.<br /><br />The film's soundtrack is played almost non-stop and with increasing volume, some of the tracks - especially Apollo 440's "Don't Stop The Rock" - so loud they're actually more audible than the sound effects and dialogue. The surroundsound system even separates the two to such a degree that it makes them sound like two different films running together. No background music concept here, it's the aural equivalent of trying to watch a film while someone at the back of the cinema has their stereo turned up full blast. "Keep that music down, young man!"<br /><br />This isn't the worst film in the world and in many ways I enjoyed it. It's just that it's predictable, lazy and witless, with minimal effort in its construction. Apparently box office expectations are considerably down for this movie. After being force-fed junk for several years it appears the general public are starting to wake up to the fact.
This review may contain some spoilers.<br /><br />The remake of the classic 1974 car chase movie Gone in 60 Seconds begins well. Actually it is well acted and the plot moves quite well. But even a big Hollywood budget doesn't change the fact that the original plot was more believable. For those who don't know, the original plot had the thieves working as insurance inspectors. Who would suspect them. But even with a change to nearly every aspect of H.B. Halicki's original, the remake is a very good movie, until we get to the final chase scene, the part of the 74 version that made it great. The one in this version is watered down, only 10 minutes, and it culminates in a monster special effect that takes all believability out of the chase. Where the original chase was very believable, the star was a stunt driver who did all his own stunt, the remake falls flat in the last 15 minutes. My advice, if you want to watch a classic car chase film, fine the original in the bargain bin at your local rental joint and stay clear of the new remake.
Randall "Memphis" Raines is a retired master car thief who is forced back into the "game" when his younger brother faces death for not filling an order for British crime boss Raymond Calitri. The job involves "lifting" 50 cars in 24 hours or Calitri will enact his punishment. So Raines quickly assembles a crew he can trust and sets about the task to hand. But the police are on to him and some of the cars on the list are not easy takes. It would seem a near impossible job to complete.<br /><br />It's got quite a cast has Gone In 60 Seconds, Nicolas Cage, Angelina Jolie, Robert Duvall, Will Patton, Delroy Lindo, Vinnie Jones, Giovanni Ribisi, Christopher Ecclestone, Scott Caan & Timothy Olyphant. All of whom deserve better. Enough acting horsepower there to propel a Porsche 998 Turbo. Trouble is, is that this is very much a case of too many cars overstocking the car park, mucho characters, not enough zest. From the off we are in no doubt that this is a Bruckheimer/Simpson production, bonkers script laced with loud noises and lashings of cheese, scattergun editing, and directed with sledgehammer subtly by Dominic Sena. It's essentially a big budget remake of H.B. Halicki's 1974 indie movie of the same name, with the premise offering up the potential for an adrenalin fuelled car based movie. Potential that sadly is never realised. There's one or two high impact moments, daft for sure, but enjoyable none the less. But if you pardon the pun, the film never gets out of first gear, it's more content to labour with its ream of characters who mope about trying to make the boorish screenplay {Scott Rosenberg} work.<br /><br />Car fans will get something from it {the cars are ace on the eye}, as will fans of unintentional comedy movies {check out Ecclestone's carpenter grief moment}. But no, it's really rather poor all told. 4/10
I watched this because I thought there were going to be a lot of car chases and cool cars to gawk at. Guess I was lied to. This movie is very boring.<br /><br />The movie starts out Kip Raines(Giovanni Ribisi) sitting outside a Porsche dealership checking to see if they have the right car. When they confirm it's the right one, Kip gets a brick out of the trunk and chucks it at the window, shattering it. He gets the Porsche while his friend gets the keys. They start up the car and take off into the night. They deliver it to a warehouse only to have been followed by the police. So, the whole crew ditches all the cars and go their separate ways. Then, we get a glimpse of Memphis Raines. He is giving a little speech to a bunch of kids at a go-kart track. Then, he is confronted by Atlee Jackson(Will Patton). Atlee tells Memphis that his brother Kip is in deep *bleep*. Memphis is known as one of the most notorious car thieves in Los Angeles. Memphis heads to a junkyard and meets Raymond Calitri(Christopher Ecclesten). This guy threatens to kill Kip if Memphis doesn't deliver 50 cars within 72 hours.<br /><br />There are a few problems with this film: <br /><br />1.Story: The first 48 in-movie hours take place when Cage and Duvall are looking for a crew and planning everything out. The last 12 in-movie hours are a waste! <br /><br />2. The Cars: You see maybe 10 cars out of the 50 as the movie advertises. So, where are the other 40 cars? Why don't we get to see them? <br /><br />3. The Chase: The chase at the end of the movie was a joke. It was not suspenseful at all.<br /><br />4. The Dog: Somewhere in the movie, the dog eats the burgers and swallows three keys as well. This is impossible. The keys were flipped open. The keys would have severely damaged the dog's esophagus, stomach, and large intestines. The guys suggest giving the dog laxatives to help him poop it out. This won't work. The dog will get a lot of diarrhea but no keys. It was stated in Jackass after Ryan Dunne stuck a toy car up his rectum. Take laxatives, lots of diarrhea, but no car. Same case with the dog.<br /><br />5. The Cop During The Chase: When Eleanor breaks down for a few minutes, Nicholas Cage tries desperately to start up the car. You see a police cruiser behind him who isn't looking at his car at all. But, right when Nicholas Cage starts the engine up again, the police officer jerks his head to the right, sees the car, and immediately begins to chase after him. It is stupid. So, right when he heard the engine start, and saw the car, he knew that was the car he was looking for. How does he know it's the right car? He only sees the back of it.<br /><br />Overall, the movie is boring. There is no action. There are very few cars. The movie is stupid. I have never seen the original but I plan to.<br /><br />I give this movie 1 star out of 10. Get The Fast and Furious instead.
The remake of H.B. Halicki's classic seventies chase film is simply horrible. Along with Vanishing Point, Gone in 60 Seconds represent the quintessential car chase films. The remake takes the original and stands it on its head. Whereas Halicki gave us 75% car chase and 25% supporting drama, in GISS 2000 we get 25% car chase and 75% supporting drama. Cage as super man, saves his brother, kisses the girl. MTV edits, tits and ass. Save your money, rent the original. At least Halicki didn't live to see his baby (he wrote, produced, directed, and starred in the '74' film) degraded in this manner.
This was a horrible film! I gave it 2 Points, one for Angelina Jolie and a second one for the beautiful Porsche in the beginning... Other than that the story just plain sucked and cars racing through cities wasn't so new in 1970. The Happyend was probably what annoyed me the most, seldomly seen anything so constructed!
This movie shows us nothing original. Every idea or (action) scene can be found in many previously released movies. Fabulous Nick is completely plain here. Even Will Patton is calm and evil nor good. Mr. Duvall is ok, but has a very small part. So does Angelina, so how can we determine her newly acclaimed stardom? Overall, there are too many characters, so that nobody and nothing is especially detailed. This makes the movie easy to forget. Too bad, don't you think?
1975's MASTER OF THE FLYING GUILLOTINE is an amazing and wonderful film to watch. This isn't because the fighting is particularly inspired or because the film makes any sense at all. It's because the film is so silly and so over-the-top that it is a camp classic--bad, but enjoyably bad. The film stars a blind guy who has a Frisbee-like device on a chain that chops off people's heads as he expertly throws this at his foes! Who cares that the physics are impossible or that the film features such silly things as fighters with 12 foot long papier-mache arms or that the guy was blind! It's just a ball to watch from start to finish--and one of my favorite "bad" films and great to see with friends.<br /><br />Because of this film, I was eager to see THE FATAL FLYING GUILLOTINES (1977), though sadly it turned out NOT to be a sequel but a bit of a knock-off--taking many of the ideas from the original but neglecting to make the film as coherent or watchable. Sure, it's silly fun, but it never comes close to MASTER OF THE FLYING GUILLOTINE in entertainment value. Like the original film, there are these weird flying devices that sever heads, but they are quite different--with circular saw blades and almost a mind of their own. There also is no blind guy but instead are a bunch of baddies who really have no depth nor does the audience understand exactly what's occurring in this English-dubbed version, as the plot is completely incomprehensible. However, at the same time, some of the martial arts action is very good. While not up to the high standards of most Bruce Lee or Sonny Chiba films, the action is worthwhile despite the ludicrous and often confusing plot.<br /><br />Overall, this is a film that martial arts fans may like (despite its many, many, many, many shortcomings), but also one that others will probably turn off or laugh hysterically at instead of enjoying the action because the film is just so ludicrous. BUT, most importantly, it never comes close to being as funny or watchable as MASTER OF THE FLYING GUILLOTINE. Too bad.
Although there's Flying Guillotines as part of the title of this movie, it has no connections to the original Flying Guillotines (1975) and its sequel Flying Guillotines II (1978). The two originals are masterpieces of kung-fu movie and still stands out as a classic. This is a much inferior copy of the original, and even as a regular kung-fu movie, it's below average.<br /><br />First of all, this movie doesn't have much acting. It's one senseless fight scene after another, and flying guillotine doesn't even play a major part in them. Story is about some Shaolin monks who are tracking down some villains who've took off with a sacred book, and an evil prince who owns part of this book is part of the plot. The same evil prince has plans to lure the monks in and use the flying guillotines on them.<br /><br />There are four movies with Flying Guillotine as part of its title. This in my opinion is of least quality. The design of the flying guillotine in this movie is different from the other three indicating that this movie was produced by a different entity from the other three.<br /><br />The movie has no chemistry asides from being unintentionally funny due to poor production. <br /><br />Best skip this and watch the two originals.
This movie got extremely silly when things started to happen. I couldn't care less about any of the characters; Susan Walters was so annoying, and the leading actor (forget his name) also got on my nerves. Can't quite remember how it ended and so forth but the whole idea of aliens possessing human bodies and all just seemed stupid in this film, things didn't quite carry off. My dad told me it's s stupid movie...I should've listened to him.
I read the comment of Chris_m_grant from United States.<br /><br />He wrote : " A Fantastic documentary of 1924. This early 20th century geography of today's Iraq was powerful."<br /><br />I would like to thank Chris and people who are interested in Bakhtiari Nomads of Iran, the Zagros mountains and landscapes and have watched the movie Grass, A Nation's battle for life. These traditions you saw in the movie have endured for centuries and will go on as long as life endures. I am from this region of Iran myself. I am a Bakhtiari. <br /><br />Chris, I am sorry to bother you but Bakhtiari region of Zardkuh is in Iran not in Irak as you mentioned in your comment. Iran and Irak are two different and distinct countries. Taking an Iranian for an Irankian is almost like taking an American for an Mexican. Thanks,<br /><br />Ziba
Documentary about nomadic Persians making a treacherous traverse of massive mountains to get their herds to grass. Watching this silent, black and white feature, marred in part by a twink-twink-twink Oriental music score that could not have been used in the original exhibition, is even duller than it sounds. The spectacular scenery is lost on a small black and white screen, and there is an utter failure to establish any kind of plot line. I loved Nanook of the North and March of the Penguins, but despised this movie, notwithstanding the similarity of the theme. Physical hardships alone are just not that interesting.
The problem I find with this title is that I am not sure if the director is trying to produce a documentary or movie. A blend of the two genres just doesn't work and that leaves the whole thing hung in the middle of nowhere. This is more so as the director has picked the most extremes of what is supposed to be happening around our everyday life making it an unconvincing documentary. If it is meant to be a thriller/drama this is too dull and monotonous. In either case, what is the moral or the message which the director is trying to convey to the audience? That around us there are people who ill-treat others who are willing to be ill-treated? That there are many crazy lunatics around us? So..........so what?
This film is in no way entertainment but more of a look deep into the depths of the darkest side of human behaviour. Loosely linking a half a dozen stories of the worst kind of depravities, perverted sex, greed, violence and intolerance. All the action is played out over a few very hot and sticky days during a heatwave in Vienna and the heat is maybe responsible for some of the anger and hate in the film. For me the treatment of the retarded girl by the security equipment salesman was about the worst episode, closely followed by the scenes of drunkenness and perversity in the 'slags' flat. You will be gripped and I hope horrified by this film. I hated it but I felt compelled to see it through. 1/10 for 'fun' 8/10 for displaying 'man' as he sometimes is.
This movie reminds me of "Irréversible (2002)", another art-work movie with is a violent and radical approach of human nature. I did not like the movie but I cannot say that it is a bad movie, it is just special. I reminds me also of "Camping Cosmos (1996)" where a bunch of low-class figures are residents of a camp at the sea in Belgium. The same description of people living together, side by side against their wills and with all the confrontation of characters that do not match together. I also thought about the books by the French writer Emile Zola who was a writer of the style that is naturalism. I did not like the movie and I also do not like the people who are in it. They all seem so vulgar, without any basic good taste. One could ask the question why do they live, they all seem to be on this planet a a member of a big farce, forced to live against their will. Or you could say: the hell is on this world.
Earlier today I got into an argument on why so many people complain about modern films in which I encountered a curious statement: "the character development in newer movies just isn't nearly as good or interesting as it used to be." Depending on the film(s) in question, this can be attributed to a number of things, sometimes generic special effects and plot-driven Hollywood garbage like War Of The Worlds, but in the case of over-the-top, uninteresting attempts at social commentary and a desperate struggle to put "art" back into cinema, it's movies like Dog Days that are to blame.<br /><br />I normally have a very high tolerance for movies, no matter how dull or pointless I find them (ranging from good, long ones like Andrei Rublev and Dogville, to ones I've considered painful to sit through a la Alpha Dog and Wild Wild West). I shut this movie off 45 minutes in, which is 30 minutes more than I actually should have. I wasn't interested in any of the characters whatsoever and found nothing substantial beyond a thin veil of unfocused pessimism. In an attempt to say something about the dregs of society, this film too easily falls into being self-indulgent, trite, and exploitative in a very sincere sense. Granted, I've seen many disturbing movies on the same subject, but there are so many better films out there about depressing, pathetic people (Happiness, Gummo, Kids, Salo, Storytelling, Irreversible) that actually contain characters of great emotional depth and personality. Dog Days had none more than an eighth grader's distaste for society, choosing to ignore any true intelligence about the way people actually are, and instead choosing to be a dull, awful, and hopelessly unoriginal attempt at a work of "art." This isn't a characterization of the unknown or a clever observation into the dregs of society, it's just boring and nothing worth caring about.
I once promised never to walk out of any film ( a personal policy that made me suffer through the most different kinds of dreck, such as Rambo 3, Baise Moi, Deep Impact) - but Mr. Seidl almost succeeded. Hundstage was a truly awful experience. Anyone who sees this movie will think that Austrians are a miserable, pathetic bunch of retards. It shows a world where love and humanity don't exist, a world where people humiliate each other only for one reason - to distract from their own miserable existence. By choosing a documentary-like style with non-professional actors (most of them look like straight from the imagination of Austrian shock-cartoonist Deix) director Seidl wants to make us believe that this is real life in Austrian (European? Western?) suburbs. The viewer is confronted with depictions of sex orgies, violence against women and handicapped people, madness and degradation. But this isn't social criticism. This is just pure shock without any aesthetic value. Instead you get bad acting, bad cinematography, bad filmmaking. If anybody needs a film like this to realize that there are things wrong in our society then this person must have walked through life with closed eyes. This is pseudo-social criticism with a sledge hammer. And it looks down on people in a disgustingly condescending way. It shows ugly people - that is not the reason why I hate it. But it depicts average people in an ugly, misanthropic way. And this is why this film is truly despicable.
If you are looking for a film the portrays the pointless and boring existence of middle class lives caught in a web of non-communication and false ideals, then this is the film for you. If you also what the film to be engaging and keep your interest, then you should probably look elsewhere. There are many films that do this far better. For example, try some of the darker films by Bergman. The Filmmaker felt that in order to show the spiritual poverty of the middle class he should subject the viewer to one agonizingly dull and vacuous incident after another until the film finally comes to its tortuous and pathetic end. If you value your time there are far better ways to spend two hours, like cleaning your house, for example.
Fragmentaric movie about a couple of people in Austria during a heatwave. This kind of movie has been done more often, and most of all, better. The stories don't really have anything to do with each other, apart from the pathetic finale: 'people are cruel'. Ugly flesh, unpleasant people and a movie that goes on way too long without really making a point... Ultra-realistic? Hardly... Boring? Indeed. Not even gorgeous Franzisca Weiss can save this one! 3/10
I didn't think it could be done, but something has come along and replaced Open House- a low budget horror about someone killing over the high price of real estate- as the worst film I've ever seen in my short but otherwise sweet life.<br /><br />It was touted as the best film in Montreal's most recent film festival, which leads me to believe that every other entry must consist of blank-wall shots accompanied by people reading gloomy poetry.<br /><br />Watching this movie was like a little slice of Hell. It's from Austria, and it attempts to stumble along in the footsteps of Short Cuts and Blue Velvet- scenes about various characters living in a suburban area with a dark underbelly. There's the fat dog owner and his fat maid wife who stripteases for him, the skinny divorcee whose wife still lives with him in a house that includes the untouched room of his dead child, the über-annoying woman hitchhiker who recites top ten lists... The list goes on. Forever. Much like the two hours plus I spent in that theatre.<br /><br />Yes, the characters interact, but not in a clever or interesting or even relevant way. I couldn't say if they were any good as actors, as, according to the subtitles, they were given lines that were the Austrian equivalent of "You are so lame!" They certainly didn't have to learn many, as each repeated his or her same lines at least three times in a scene.<br /><br />This is no Gummo, or any of the aforementioned movies. There is no art to discover, and nothing to dwell on afterwards except maybe whether or not you should change your "never walk out during a movie" policy (which quite a few older couples did during a random orgy scene- and if that sounds appetizing, it's not, unless you're one of few who doesn't find the idea of your parents having sex- and with a few local middle-aged couples, to boot- revolting).<br /><br />This movie was offensive to me. Not the flabby nudity, not the cringe-inducing soundtrack, not the shockless scenes involving guns. I was offended that someone actually spent money to make this when there are capable writers and filmmakers out there looking for funding. I was offended that someone from out of town might have gone to see Dog Days and come out wondering if that was the best us Montrealers could find. Most of all, I was offended that, somehow, the people involved with the festival duped everyone into believing that the emperor had a gorgeous and mesmerising new outfit when it was painfully clear that he was as naked as the fat maid wife doing a striptease.<br /><br />
What an appalling piece of rubbish!!! Who ARE all these people who blubber on about how good this is? Yes, it's "arty"; and yes, it's "foreign", but .... that's not enough. The plot is boring and disjointed, like a reality show but not so slickly made.<br /><br />The people are intrinsically uninteresting; but as characters they don't have enough depth to feel empathy for them. If they are based on real people then I feel very, very sorry for them.<br /><br />The violence (and some of it is very violent) seems quite ostentatious and gratuitous. It's like the producer has visions of being Quenton Tarantino. Not that I think very much of him, either.<br /><br />And oh yes: if I had neighbours like these, I'd move!
This movie sucks ass. Something about a heatwave in some European country, complete trash. There's nothing going for this movie whatsoever. maybe 30 seconds of sex but that's it. There is a very annoying chick who hitches rides with people and really pisses me off. This movie is complete rash and you shouldn't subject yourself to watching it. I regret it it's very boring. I would rate it zero but i can't. No body in their right mind should see this. i'm sure you'll regret it completely i did. How could they think up something this bad. Even Mystery men was better. MYSTERY MEN. That sucks. That movie wasn't worth being made. complete waste of time. The characters in this are very hard to understand and i good very very very bored.
Despite being a huge fan of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers' movies, it wasn't until about 6 years ago that I first saw 'Follow the Fleet'. I knew all the songs from an old Astaire/Rogers record (yes, vinyl) but knew nothing of the plot.<br /><br />Unfortunately, while the songs are catchy and Ginger Rogers' character is sweet and funny, you just can't like 'Bake Baker'. While trying to make up to his longtime partner, he continually sabotages her career. His character doesn't have the usual humour and elan of the other films' Astaire characters.<br /><br />Worth watching for the songs and a great solo tap routine by Ginger Rogers.
It's hard to believe that this is a sequel to Henry Fool. Hard to believe that the same director and actors were involved in both movies. While Henry Fool is refreshing, witty, comical, Fay Grim is slow, boring, and doesn't go anywhere. Where has the wit gone? I am baffled.<br /><br />It is 10 years since I saw Henry Fool and many of its dialogs and scenes are still vivid in my memory. Fay Grim is painful to watch. This is no fault of the actors, who are good (Parker Posey) or great (Jeff Goldblum) -- the blame lies entirely with the plot, the dialog, and even some of the filming (low budget is no excuse). A huge disappointment. <br /><br />Sorry I couldn't pay attention to the plot, I was so bored, so disappointed... if you enjoyed this one you might not enjoy Henry Fool so much... the two movies have absolutely nothing to do with each other... there is no continuity in the characters' personalities... it's all a fraud to entice fans of Henry Fool to watch the sequel.<br /><br />I'm switching this off now -- Henry in some sort of jail with a Taliban?!?!
I say 'I'd figure' in that line because, frankly, I've not seen a Hal Hartley movie until now. It's not that I haven't heard of him though, as he was seen as one of those small NY filmmakers (when I say small I mean even smaller than Jim Jarmusch), who made ultra-personal projects on limited budgets. In an ironic way, much as with Pasolini's Salo, though in a slightly different context, Fay Grim interests me to see some of Hartley's more acclaimed features, because there seems to be at least present some semblance of talent behind it, as if Hartley *could* be a very good filmmaker who may be so good he's just taken a big experimental blunder. Or, on the other hand, he could just be someone far too impressed with his own idiosyncrasies and would-be Godard-like cinematic collisions.<br /><br />I can't quite explain the story, which may or may not be a problem I suppose, however it's not really in due to not having seen the film that preceded Fay Grim, Henry Fool. I think even if I had that experience it wouldn't make too much of a difference based on the final results. There's a lot of international espionage, a double plot wrapped inside of another that's fallen through the fake pockets of the title character, played in an aloof way by Parker Posey (not sure if that's good or bad either, maybe both), and also involving a CIA operative (Jeff Goldblum, as usual a solid presence amid the mania, even conjuring some laughs), not to mention an orgy-laden picture box, and author Henry Fool. It's not that the script is totally impenetrable, however much it goes into over-extended loopholes just for the sake of it, because there are some touches of witty or affectingly strange dialog.<br /><br />Quite simply, the direction just sucks. Harltey is in love with the Third Man, which is fine, but he imposes a consistently headache inducing style of everything being tilted in angle, with characters having to get into frame equally oddly. Not since Battlefield Earth, in fact, has a director come off so annoyingly in trying to make the unnecessary choice of titled angles for some bizarre dramatic effect, only this time Hartley isn't amid a cluster-f***, he's mostly responsible for it. This, along with the crazy wannabe Godard title-cards that pop in here and there, some a little amusing and some just totally stupid, and the montage segments all in still shots, AND a couple of moments involving action that almost call to mind Ed Wood, undermine any of the potential that is in the script, which is already fairly hard to decipher. In a way, it's fascinating to watch how bad this all goes, but a kind of fascination that comes in seeing the flip-side to total creative control on a sort-of small-scale story.<br /><br />But let it be known: you'll likely not come across a more wretchedly pretentious example of American independent film-making this year.
I haven't seen "Henry Fool", but after watching "Fay Grim" I'm not sure I want to. Maybe Hartley aims to be the "anti-thriller" director---he sure succeeded with this yawner. Based on the official description---woman discovers that her dead husband's manuscript contains material that could pose a threat to national security---I expected a taut geopolitical drama. Instead I got flimsy structure, goofy dialog, flabby characterizations, a convoluted plot, and a "tone" that shifts so often it suggests that Hartley changed the script according to his mood at any given time. I can hang for a long time with a frustrating, hard-to-follow plot (e.g. "Duplicity") because I figure that the loose ends eventually will come together. Even when they don't, or they do but they leave lingering questions (e.g. "Duplicity"), sharp writing and acting can hold one's interest. But half-way through "Fay Grim" I reached a deadly realization---I didn't know what was going on, and I didn't care. Too bad, because I really like Parker Posey, reduced here to working with an absurd part that asked her to morph from indifferent, estranged wife and indifferent, clueless mother to tough, shrewd international "player" capable of psychological mano a mano with terrorists. There's also bad casting. Jeff Goldblum can be very good, but he's not capable of overcoming miscasting as a CIA operative. He looks almost as uncomfortable in the role as I was watching him in it. His CIA sidekick is worse; he looks like a refugee from the quarterfinals of "American Idol" (are there really young CIA agents with big licks of hair rakishly draped over their foreheads?). Then there's the sticky question of the characters' ages. Goldblum was 54 when he made "Fay Grim"; Thomas Jay Ryan, who plays "Henry Fool", was 44. Neither was made to look or seem older than their actual ages. Yet, a key point in the story is that they served as CIA agents in Nicaragua "back in the '70s." Goldblum's character would've been in his 20s then; Henry Fool would've been a teenager. Was Hartley being "quirky" or lazy? The problems are too numerous to list...
This is a low-budget spoof of the espionage genre. To help frame your expectations, you should know that: (1) The acting is wildly heavy-handed. The stars are having great fun delivering their lines with excessive eye movement, frequent hand gestures, and off-key pacing. (2) The script deliberately lacks continuity and plausibility. Oftentimes lines are abruptly jarring and humorous because they have absolutely no relevance to previous plot elements. (3) Shots are frequently framed in off-balance angles, poking fun at genre excesses. (4) A pop-eyed Jeff Goldblum delivers complex and classically preposterous dialog in a winningly sarcastic manner.<br /><br />The film has a guiding intelligence, deliberately starting with a plot element stolen from the B-films of the 1930's: a secret code with a structure that would defy explanation by Carl Sagan. The film's over-the-top acting is used mostly for comic effect during the first 90 minutes. In an early running gag, Fay Grim's son Ned is so frequently told to leave that you can't help chuckling while feeling sorry for the lad. Parker Posey's nicely choreographed fall from bed also helps set a humorous tone early in the film.<br /><br />The film's slow pacing does not enhance the comedy elements or the drama elements that later emerge. The film's impact as drama is significantly lessened by the early comedy. Moreover, it is hard to be overly involved with the characters and their fates when the early portions of the film are so sarcastic. The musical score is intentionally heavy handed, and I found this (and the off-kilter camera angles) more irritating than humorous.<br /><br />The over-the-top acting, the implausible and nearly incomprehensible plot of conspiracies/counter conspiracies, and the slow pacing will grind on many viewers. The movie is much too long at 158 minutes.<br /><br />That said, fans who are receptive to the film's sarcasm might want to watch again ... using closed captioning to best catch the intelligent ridiculousness of the dialog. The film was too slow for me and the sarcasm felt more heavy-handed than light-hearted. But, the comedy may well appeal to your tastes. The film is worth a view for those who enjoy independent films, fans of director Hal Harley, or devotees of Parker Posey (who has the most camera time).
First off, I really loved Henry Fool, which puts me in a very small pool of movie goers. Parker Posey is one of best actresses on-screen today. But this film was a full-out travesty. Watching Hartley and the actors talk about the film in the extras - so full of pride, and making pointless analogies to Star Wars - was stomach-turning. This was hype on the producers part (HDNET) realized to the max. A true example of the Emperor and his new clothes. Mostly I feel that Hal has spoiled HENRY FOOL forever. I don't think I can ever see it again in it's pure, innocent light.<br /><br />Remember Hal, you can FOOL some of the people some of the time... etc. The director would be nowhere today if all he did was churn out meaningless garbage. Sadly, it's a pure example of the lesson taught in the film ADAPTATION. The story must be exciting and active, or its box-office hopes are dim indeed. Never mind a decent story. For the actors, it was like trying to act in a straitjacket.<br /><br />The score, I believe Hartley's, is tasteless. With drum hits walking all over dialog. There was one Apple Soundtrack loop I recognized that gave me a smile.<br /><br />When I saw the trailer, I thought, oh, they're just trying to grab a new audience. But it's really this ridiculous ride. I'd be happy to spoil this movie for you, but it's been done. It's rotten. The FOOL franchise is dead. Long live Henry Fool.
I have been a fervent Hal Hartley supporter since I saw his short "Surviving Desire" in high school, and even then was still completely unmoored by his searingly brilliant "Henry Fool." But this 10-year-later sequel is not only unnecessary, it's disgraceful.<br /><br />After a choppy and expeditious start, "Fay Grim" devolves into pseudo-intellectualism, flat out boredom, and finally unwarranted - and unwanted - nihilism. And that's just the plot.<br /><br />The majority of the new faces are as frivolous and poorly-developed as the movie: one particularly flat character ends up hogging half the time we spend with the infamous Henry Fool himself, and it's his only spoken scene in the film!<br /><br />Jeff Goldblum's Agent Fulbright, it seems, is the only bright character (a pun surely intended by Hartley as well). How, then, is he left? **SPOILER** Dead via a car bombing, easily making this the gentle-natured Hartley's most violent film to date, and tonally all wrong in a film that's already all wrong from the word go.<br /><br />As for the other new characters, Angus James, Ned Fool (or is it Grim?), not to mention Fay herself... well, I won't spoil their fates, as the movie does a good enough job of that all on its own (when it isn't busying itself with yet another godawful canted angle, which gives the disconcerting impression that Hartley is moving backwards from Auteur to crappy film student).<br /><br />This piece is a complete disaster, a dreadful mess that isn't even good-humored enough to revel in its messiness. Instead it self-indulgently crams the typically fun hipster pretenses of its director into the "real world", one uglier and meaner than it need be but not nearly ugly or mean enough to come close to having anything to say. In doing so, Hartley tracks sh*t all over my memories of these people and the marvelous world he originally created for them.<br /><br />I have rarely been so depressed at the movies, and I'm counting "Leaving Las Vegas," which at least developed fresh new characters we grew to love before destroying them, instead of immediately disregarding characters already beloved.<br /><br />Grim, indeed.
You MUST be kidding!!!! Let's entertain the possibility that Parker Posey is really an actress, and not just some entry in the "quirk of the month club" of actors. Really, unless this is meant to be a tongue-in-cheek satire on David Mamet-- terse, confusing dialog delivered alternately in machine gun rapidity or monotone (think Ben Stein) blandness--or a flat out dry comedy; this film has got to be in the running for a Rotten Tomato Award---or worse.<br /><br />As if the stiff and uncomfortable Posey weren't enough, we've got the stiffer and even more uncomfortable Jeff Goldblum. There's more wood in this film than a toothpick factory.<br /><br />Adding to this already bizarre casting, are several other roles, all populated by forgettable actors, who look or sound like escapees from America's Next Top Model, Don Pardo, or even the kid, who pronounces the word "been" like "bean", which just brings our attention to the fact that there is so little to like about this film, we are analyzing his accent to guess if he's Canadian or not!! I think I laughed heartily in places that are supposed to be serious, and took seriously sections that are meant to be humorous. Even the soundtrack sounds like a caricature of Alarik Jans music for Mamet's "The House of Games". If taken as a spoof, the film is almost droll; if taken seriously, just a self-conscious piece of drek.
BE WARNED. This movie is such a mess. It's a catastrophe. Don't waste your time with this one. I warned you!<br /><br />The acting, story, dialogue, music... basically everything is so over the top, it's absolutely annoying and ridiculous. It made me want to throw up (if the dialogue/acting/story wasn't doing it, it's everyone being shot crooked). You'll feel like you're watching a comedy. The problem is, the parts that are supposedly funny isn't even funny. The acting, story, cinematography, you can feel everything is just trying WAAAAY too hard -- but it never succeeds. Practically every shot is canted, but so what?! This movie just feels like a student film. No wonder they shot this in HD because it would be a waste to spend more money to shoot this on film.<br /><br />If you're easily amused or like poor acting, writing, editing, directing, full of clichés, everything that's forced in your face, oh and did I mention poor acting? (well, actually, it's not all the actor's fault - it's the director!) then I guess you'll like this movie.<br /><br />I had to watch this for a class. I would have turned it off right away if I could. If you still can't tell by now, I HATED this movie. It made me want to throw up and get my time back... at least I didn't have to pay for this garbage.<br /><br />Jeff Goldblum, you know... the guy from Jurassic Park/Independence Day, is in this movie but he sure went downhill from then -- accepting roles for movies like this catastrophe.
Despite the lavish production numbers and wonderful costumes this film is a chore to watch. The murder-mystery plot is just a vehicle to mount the musical numbers on but it often brings the proceedings to a staggering halt besides not being very involving. Although there has obviously been a lot of money spent on them the numbers are badly staged and poorly photographed. It's obviously a pre-code film because the girls often wear very little clothing and there's even a song singing the praises of marijuana! The performances are all one-note although it's nice to see Carl Brisson in a musical but when Victor McLaglen, as the police Lieutenent, lurches into view for the umpteenth time on the hunt for clues, you may want to throw in the towel or at least fast-forward to the next number. Pity the patrons who were trapped in the cinema on its release though!
I used to always love the bill because of its great script and characters, but lately i feel as though it has turned into an emotional type of soap. If you look at promotional pictures/posters of the bill now you will see either two of the officers hugging/kissing or something to do with friendships whereas promotional pictures of the bill a long time ago would have shown something to do with crime. This proves that it has changed a lot from being an absolutely amazing Police drama to an average type of television soap. When i watch it i feel like I'm watching a police version of Coronation Street or something similar. I have to say i still like the bill as I'm interested in Police work and that type of thing but i really miss the greatness that The Bill used to have. I want to rate it as 2 out of ten because you have to admit it has been totally ruined by the people who took the bill over.<br /><br />As for the script and characters they have both gone downhill, most of the great characters are gone now (although a few still remain i think) and I'm not saying that the newer characters are poor or anything because they definitely aren't, its just that they lack the tough looks, personalities and script lines that all of the old characters used to have because most of the new ones are at the moment involved with silly relationships and family trouble.<br /><br />Overall being one of the only Police programs on television these days, The Bill will always be a crappily interesting thing to watch, but like i say it has lost a lot of its uniqueness (if thats the right spelling) and would now be classed as a terrible, unreal television soap.<br /><br />Recommended to watch for a good laugh over the stupidity of the police officers involved - 2/10
Veteran sleazeball Bruno Mattei is at it again with this erotic thriller that clearly echoes Joel Schumacher's 8MM. But, as expected, Mattei does his movie on a minuscule budget - so that it already looks obscure when it's newly released.<br /><br />After her daughter gets abducted, a mother enters the dark world of underground pornography, because the kidnappers belong to an international organization that direct snuff films as long as the exclusive clients pay well. The search for her daughter does not only lead the mother across Europe, but also into prostitution. She goes to bed with some guys to get her clues. When she finally reaches contact with the snuff organization lead by the mysterious Doctor Hades, she's getting into great danger herself.<br /><br />There is not much good to say about this one, even though it starts promising. Problem is that the movie is by far not as sleazy or explicit as one might expect from the director who made films like BLADE VIOLENT. SNUFF TRAP (which was first released in Russia!) is neither gory enough nor does it contain the amount of nudity and sex to really keep the viewer's attention. The plot isn't that special either, except maybe for the surprisingly many different locations throughout Europe. The ending is hugely disappointing. The acting isn't really remarkable either, except for Anita Auer who plays Doctor Hades: She looks and acts extremely creepy. You don't want to meet her like this in a dark alley (or Your bedroom, for that matter).<br /><br />All in all, SNUFF TRAP only appeals to collectors of Bruno Mattei's films. But it's good to see the man back on the helm again: It was his first thriller since 1994's giallo GLI OCCHI DENTRO.
This film is terrible. Every line is stolen from 8MM (the Italian dubbed version, at least). If you like trash... real trash, give it a try; but beware: this ain't the "so bad it's good" kind of flick. In its cheapness, it may really look like a porno but, believe me, if you're looking for "snuff", s & m, hardcore, softcore... or even an ordinary erotic thriller, go find something else in store! I'm telling you this, 'cause the absolutely uninspired and unconvincing shooting, acting, plot, dialogues (the only good lines, as I said before, are the ones they stolen from Joel Schumacher's 8MM!) will bore you to tears in a few minutes and the "happy ending" is absolutely revolting! I'll give it one star: a half for the sudden shot in the back scene, after "the eyes of the victim" monologue (stolen from 8MM as well) and a half for mom & daughter's sexy bodies (that didn't manage to keep me completely awake while watching this turkey, anyway!)
Unfortunately the only spoiler in this review is that there's nothing to spoil about that movie.Even if B. Mattei had never done any master piece he use to do his job with a bit of humor and craziness that made him a fun Eurotrash director. But for the last 10 years he seemed to have lost it.This film is just empty, nothing at all to wake us up from the deep sleep you sink into after the first 10 min.No sex, no blood(it's suppose to be about snuff?),no actors, no dialogs, just as bad as an 90'T.V film.It's even worse than his last cannibals and zombies epics.So Rest in peace Bruno, you will stay in our minds forever anyway, thanks to such unforgettable gems as:Zombi 3, Robowar,Rats, l'altro inferno,Virus, Cruel jaws and few others.So except if you want to see B Mattei possessed by jess Franco's spirit's new film, pass on this one.But if you don't know this nice artisan's career track down his old films and have fun.
A cheap exploitation film about a mothers search for her daughter who has been kidnapped by people who make snuff porno films. The trail leads the mother all over Europe as she searches for her child and we in the audience struggle to stay asleep.<br /><br />This is one of the countless soft-core sleaze films that are made for people who want the excitement of porno with out the stigma or danger of it showing up on their credit card bill.Personally I'd rather have the stigma since those films tend to be more interesting and honest about what we're seeing. This is suppose to be a sexy thriller but its not. Mostly its people talking about things followed by lots of walking from place to place and lead to lead.Periodically through out the film various people get undressed and everything has more than a touch of S&M to the proceedings. The violence and fetish material is of the sort to provoke laughter rather than horror or even excitement, its all so incredibly fake. Worse there is not even enough nudity to keep it interesting. (Basically par for the course for many of these films)<br /><br />You'll forgive my lack of details but it simply is a dull boring film that I stayed with to the end hoping for something remotely prurient to occur, but there was nothing. The most interesting thing was the blonde haired villainess with the huge over bite and nose the size of a Buick. I watched her with morbid fascination wondering what she had looked like as a young girl and wondering whether she had had plastic surgery, not the type of things you should be thinking about in a gripping thriller.<br /><br />Avoid.
Well what can I say, there are B-Grade Movies and there are B-Grade Movies and this definitely falls into the latter. However since it's obvious that even the makers of the film know that it's not a credible movie (take a look at the closing credits) it can be forgiven.<br /><br />The plot is basically a convicted psycho killer is killed. He accidentally has his genetic material mixed up with some experimental acid that get combined and then lost in the snow. The killer now takes on the form of a snowman - if you can believe that. The snowman, Jack Frost, is after the country town Sherif who put him behind bars. In doing so, Jack Frost ends up killing half the town.<br /><br />This movie lacks any real scares and the effects alone remind me of the B-Grade movies of the 50's. This alone makes it worth watching for a laugh. A movie to pass the time away.
I may not be a critic, but here is what I think of this movie. Well just watched the movie on cinemax and first of all I just have to say how much I hate the storyline I mean come on what does a snowman scare besides little kids, secondly it is pretty gory but I bet since the movie is so low budget they probably used ketchup so MY CRITICAL VOTE IS BOMB!!! nice try and the sequel will suck twice as much.
and this movie has crossed it. I have never seen such a terrible movie in my life! I mean, a kid's head getting cut off from the force of an empty sled? A snowman with a costume that has the seams clearly visible? This was a pitiful excuse for a movie.
It's not just the plot alone that makes this movie an instant turn-off for bored audiences. It's the terrible direction with a horrible script and mistakes left and right that makes this too agonizing to watch. I'm sorry but I do not see the 'fun' in this. Just the thrill of pointing the many mistakes and stupid one-liners. Well I'm wondering how dumb the directors think of their producing company when this movie was first introduced. Probably as dumb as that sheriff who dove into the pickup truck full of antifreeze with a gaping bloody wound. Oops! Did I forget to mention this sheriff's not only a poor actor but also can shrug off an impalement with a load of antifreeze drenching the exposed flesh? I guess he kind of forgot when he won a not-so-thrilling victory over the snowman.
You know what kind of movie you're getting into when the serial killer main character is being transported to the electric chair (in what seems to be a bakery truck), only to have the prison vehicle collide with (and I'm not making this up) a genetic engineering tanker truck. The goo which spurts forth melts him, and fuses his DNA with the snow, creating our protagonist, the killer snowman.<br /><br />My favorite portion of the movie, however, is an over-the-shoulder shot of the snowman thrashing some poor schmuck, in which his hands look suspiciously like a couple of white oven-potholder gloves.<br /><br />Mmmmm, schlock...
The 1998 Michael Keaton kiddie comedy of the same title was roundly condemned for it's, um, shoddy special effects, but compared to what Screaming Mad George cooked up for this horror comedy they're positively mind-boggling. The killer snowman seems to be made out of styrofoam and his arms look like oversized oven mitts. Which they probably were. The cast lays it on thick in this parody of dozens of other (much worse) movies and Paul Keith as the town doctor is particularly memorable in a small but hilarious role.
Boy this movie had me fooled. I honestly thought it would be a campy horror film with absolutely no humor in it whatsoever, boy I got the cold shoulder that time. This movie was, and I'm truthful, pretty damn good. It was not scary at all but the campiness and the sly humor really mad this movie interesting. Some to the horrible acting and cliché killings were so painful to watch, I almost laughed at how bad it was, but to some extent I enjoyed it. The killings all vaguely relate to snow sports and Christmas, which made things more intriguing. The POV camera angles were awesome.<br /><br />The movie is about a viscous killer who dies in a car accident collision with a chemical truck while being transported to prison. He is later resurrected in that very same chemical with snow spliced into the mixture. These were the ingredients chosen to make the perfect killer snowman. He than takes his revenge, as the snowman, on the police officer who convicted him.<br /><br />This movie had such bad acting, with the exception of Christopher Allport, that is was funny. I will say that I am also pretty disappointed that this movie was not a horror, but in fact a dark sitcom. They had a great story with a good plot but it wasn't executed right. All in all I like the movie at first but now it is really annoying. But this movie is way better and darker than the sequel.
A serial killer dies in a snowstorm and gets mutated into Frosty the Snowman's evil twin. Then goes on a killing spree. Interesting plot. Sounds scary. And it is scary. If you're five years old. Otherwise, it's kind of cheesy. I saw it on cable and I'm glad I didn't pay money to see it. It has all the charm and style of a low-budget movie which may become a cult film. I'm sure it has a loyal fan base somewhere. I'm just not in it. Even though I didn't like the movie as a whole, there were some scenes I found amusing. Such as the bathtub scene and the post-explosion scene with the Picasso reference. It was also enjoyable to watch the many ways the heroes try to kill Jack and he just doesn't seem to want to die. In short, "Jack Frost" is a good low-budget B-movie comedy, but a bad low-budget B-movie horror.
Jack Frost, no kids it's not the warm hearted family movie about a dad who comes back from the dead in the form of a snow man. It's about a sadistic killer named Jack Frost who is sprayed with some acid fluid and is morphed into a killer snow man. I happened to catch a copy of this movie so I could have a nice sit back and laugh at it. A killer snow man? Ha, sounds like the perfect comedy/horror movie! Well I was wrong, very wrong.<br /><br />Jack Frost is about a killer who is being transported via truck to jail so he could fry in the chair at midnight. But it's a snowy night and it collides with a government tanker carrying a new DNA fluid. Jack escapes only to be burnt to death by the acid and morphs into a killer snowman. He returns to the small town of Snowmonton where he was caught by a small time sheriff. Here he is ready to kill again, now as a snow man with cooler powers. He can condense into water, shoot out ice cycles as spears, and grow killer fangs. The only question is, who can stop Frost? This movie is below the typical B-Movie line. The movies begins cheesy but as soon as Jack is burned by the acid, it quickly drops below the cheese line and goes flat. The acting for one is appalling! Here we have a whole cast of unheard of actors who either can't act, can act but has a pointless character, or is just here for a few extra bucks. The only good actor is Scott MacDonald who plays Jack. He looks like a young Richard Kiel combined with Frankenstein. Sadly his appearance is only reduced to three minutes and all we ever see of him is his new snow man form and his wise cracking voice. Plus his wisecracks are anything but funny. Groaning, stupid, and bad.<br /><br />The plot is horrible! Throughout history there have been numerous murderers. A killer in a hockey mask, a killer with a razer glove, a chainsaw wielding moron, a rapid St. Bernard, but now we stoop to a tacky killer snow man? Oh come on! And the way the characters are introduced are terrible. For one I really wanted Jack to kill the sheriffs son, I mean giving his dad oats with Antifreeze in them so they won't freeze? All the characters are dumb and pointless and the deaths are to cartoony. One woman in strangled with Christmas lights and has her head smashed into a decoration box and a girl is humped to death in the shower (where is the carrot in that scene eh?).<br /><br />And to top of this horrible movie is the special effects. The first big special effect we have is Jack's DNA mixing in with snow and boy is it terrible. I mean it looks like a 60's fashion of art design, PU! Jack looks fake as well. He looks like a person covered with rubber snow man skin. All the blood and gore is cheesy and the film never takes off with greatness but instead stoops to low levels.<br /><br />Jack Frost is one of the worst slasher movies ever made. I thought it would be a riot but no! It doesn't try to be funny and it actually tries to be scary. Jack Frost gets 4 out of 10, it at least made me laugh from it's awfulness. Don't even bother with this piece of trash. Jack Frost= D+
I am so happy and surprised that there is so much interest in this movie! Jack Frost was my introduction into the films produced and distributed by A-pix entertainment, and without exception, everything this company deals with is pure crap! First, and this is very important, never ever watch this movie sober! Why would you? Unlike many other entertaingly bad movies, this one I feel was made intentionally bad. I just can't get over how fake the snowman is, which is why its always shown only briefly, the way it moves is the best! This movie is Waaaaaaaaaaay better than the Michael Keaton piece of crap, becuz that was made too be a good movie, and that version is as bad as this.
This is the crappiest film I have ever seen but in all fairness it's watchable and rather funny. I don't think the film-makers intended it to be your typical Hollywood blockbuster quality. It's just a stupid film about a serial killer who gets doused in a load of toxic waste causing a reaction with him and the snow (as it's the middle of winter). He then turns into a killer snowman which is enough to to make you laugh on it's own. This film is really stupid but it's funny. The killings are hilarious.I wouldn't advise you to go and buy it (like I did -the cover looked good!)but if it happens to be on TV one night and you're up for a laugh then stick it on.
THis movie may be the worst movie I have ever seen. Basically it is right above Leprachaun 5, the only difference is that it missing Ice T. The scene where he does the chick with the carrott...priceless. Oh yeah they made a second one, genius
This movie, no correction, this THING, this abysmal abomination from the burning pits of hell should have been killed before it even left the writer's head. I could not possibly come up with enough adjectives to describe this movie. But let's try anyway. Horrible, bad, nauseating, tasteless, crap, vomit inducing, gut wrenchingly bad, hideous, nasty, putrid, there just aren't enough words in the English language! The "plot" involves a serial killer who becomes a snow man. Don't ask how, not important. The killer snowman runs about killing people. How, you may ask, can a snowman kill someone? In tasteless ways that make you want to remove your eyes if only so you don't have to endure that Styrofoam snowman anymore. In ways that make you want to fill your ears with hot wax so you do not have to endure his snow puns anymore. Don't watch this movie! Destroy it on sight! For the sake of your very soul don't watch it!
Whoever made this movie must have done it as a joke. I mean, this was the stupidest movie I think I have ever seen!! A killer snowman terrorizes a small town? Give me a break. Love it when he takes off driving the cop car. More like a comedy than a horror movie. If you want a laugh, rent this. If you truly want a horror movie, stay the hell away from this one!!
A "friend", clearly with no taste or class, suggested I take a look at the work of Ron Atkins. If this is representative of his oeuvre, I never want to see anything else by him. It is amateurish, self-indulgent, criminally shoddy and self-indulgent rubbish. The "whore mangler" of the title is an angry low budget filmmaker who murders a bunch of hookers. There is a little nudity and some erections, but no single element could possibly save this from the hangman's noose. The lighting is appalling, the dialog is puerile and mostly shouted, and the direction is clueless. I saw a doco on American exploitation filmmakers during the recent Fangoria convention. Atkins was one of those featured. He spoke like there was something important about his work, but after a viewing of this, I see nothing of any import whatsoever. There is no style, either, and the horrible video effects (like solarization) only enhance the amateurishness. Not even so bad it's fun. Avoid.
Director Ron Atkins is certifiably insane. This ultra-low budget film chronicles a few days in the life of one Harry Russo (John Giancaspro, who also co-wrote), a nut-job who receives a Rubberneck doll from his bitch girlfriend. He starts to take orders from the doll to take massive amounts of drugs, rape and kill, not always in that order. What starts off as being a balls-to-the-wall exploitation film, well stays like that, but it gets VERY repetitive VERY fast. I'm leaning more toward the certifiably insane. It IS hard to forget once seen though. Kinda like if Tom Green ever did a horror film.<br /><br />My Grade:F <br /><br />Eye Candy: Laurie Farwell gets fully nude; Jasmin Putnam shows tits and bush <br /><br />ANTI-eye candy: seeing John completely naked repeatedly
I was interested to see the move thinking that it might be a diamond in the rough, but the only thing I found was bad writing, horrible directing (the shot sequences do not flow) even though the director might say that that is what he is going for, it looks very uninspired and immature) the editing could have been done by anyone with 2 VCRs and the stock was low budget video. I would say that it wasn't even something as simple as mini digital video. <br /><br />There are some simple ways to fix a film with what the director has, like through editing etc. But it is obvious that he just doesn't care. There is as much effort put in to this movie as a ham sandwich. It could be made better, but that would mean extra work.
There are bad movies, then there are the movies that are SO bad, that they become almost art. This is one of those films. My partner and I are still both kind of shell shocked, you know, staring off into space and drooling! You can tell that the people involved (I hope they changed their names to protect themselves) were having a blast, and they definitely weren't shy. I give this one a three out of ten just because of the gratuitous smut and REALLY bad gore effects. I laughed out loud during most of the movie, so I guess you could say that it showed me a good time. Beware viewer, the above words in no way construe that this is a good film, because it is not. All I can say in my defense, is that it was impossible to pass up a movie with such a GREAT title!
SCHIZOPHRENIAC: THE WHORE MANGLER is another example of what happens when you get a bunch of untalented people together to make an "extreme" horror film. Any sort of acting, production, storyline, FX, etc...go out the window in an effort to create "shock-value". Now don't get me wrong - I consider myself a connoisseur of "shock" films, and the sleazier/gorier/nastier the better - but it's still nice to see SOME sort of talent from SOMEONE involved in the film.<br /><br />SCHIZOPHRENIAC chronicles the life of Harry Russo - a drug-addicted freak-show who takes orders to kill from his ventriloquist's dummy, Rubberneck. He goes on a few sprees killing hookers and other random people, and screaming about how much he hates "hoo-uhs" (that's "whores" for those of you that don't speak New York-ese...) and how he wants to rape them in the ass. There are a few weak necrophilia scenes, very little gore, and some nudity to mix things up a bit - but nothing that you haven't seen in a better film...<br /><br />The only redeeming thing that I can find in this retarded film are the often (unintentionally?) hilarious screaming-fits from our main man, Harry. He goes on-and-on-and-on about wanting to kill everyone and do them in the ass, and it really becomes quite comical after a while. In fact, I'm almost tempted to believe that there's supposed to be some sort of homo-erotic undertone to this film, with all the ass talk and constant shots of Harry running around with his dong hangin' out. In all honesty, that joker is nekkid more in this film then the few chicks that show some T-and-A (and some full-frontal, for good measure). SCHIZOPHRENIAC is mildly amusing as a 1-time watch, but I can really only recommend this to those that want to be able to say that they watched a film called SCHIZOPHRENIAC: THE WHORE MANGLER. To be honest - the title, by far - is the best thing about this trash...A generous 3.5/10
Well, I like to be honest with all the audiences that I bought it because of Kira's sex scenes, but unfortunately I did not see much of them. All sex scenes were short and done in haphazard manner along with all the weird and corny background music just like all other B movies - it just doesn't look much like two people having sex. There is a tiny bit of plot toward the end - Kira's new lover is a killer. Whoa!!! how shocking!!! Why don't we nominate this movie for Oscar Award? I can't imagine how bad the movie would look like if it were R-rated (Mine is imported from UK, rated 18). Conclusion? Put it down and walk away, so yon won't end up with being a moron like me.<br /><br />Score: 2/10
Losing Control is another offering in the erotic thriller genre which could be considered as the pulp fiction of the film world. Usually, they involve a roundabout route to murderous intent, interspersed with copious disrobing. This is not a complaint, especially when it is done by the stunningly beautiful women who invariably inhabit this make-believe world.<br /><br />Kim Ward (Kira Reed) is suffering a bout of writer's block. Just by chance, (or is it?) she meets a man (Doug Jeffery) who engages with her in ever more risky sexual encounters. The man refuses to divulge any information about himself, yet Kim steadfastly refuses to stop the affair. Her agent, Alexa (Anneliza Scott) thinks it will do wonders for her book sales. As in most films of this type, the denouement comes near the end but some things do not add up. I have seen enough of this kind of film to think, no change there, then - but I like them. They are so undemanding.<br /><br />Performances of the cast vary. Doug Jeffery carries the film as the psycho/sociopath you do not want to cross. Kira Reed looks good but fails to convince as the woman in peril. Clay Greenbush as the PI did not convince either.<br /><br />Finally, a note of caution about the DVD under review. Both the cover and the disc state R-rated and running time as 93 minutes but the run time is less than 86 minutes. This probably explains why the sex scenes appear truncated and why Jennifer Ludlow's performance is cut short just as she's getting started. 4 stars.
Personally I think this show looks pretty cheaply made. Some of the actors are terrible. They over do it & seem fake. I can always tell how it's going to end within the first 10 minutes or less of watching because they make it so transparently clear. It's not very well written either. I love to watch it to laugh at it. You know the saying "It's so bad that it's good?" Well, that saying applies to this show. I also like to watch just to see if I'm right when I guess how it's all going to end. So far I've been right every time. It's like a little game that I play. It's nice when you are bored & you feel like laughing at something.
Wow. Simply awful. I was a fan of the original movie, and begrudgingly sat through part 2, 3 was and improvement. 4,5 and Freddy's Dead were pretty bad. But NOTHING is as bad as Freddy's Nightmares. Freddy acts as a Rod Serlingesq host of this anthology series.<br /><br />I can accept how Freddy became one punchline after another, but at least in the movies the appeal of Freddy carried the movies, but here these were so poorly made, they looked like high school productions of a horror series. The poor actors, if you really want to call yourself that after doing this show were obviously exactly what they paid for. I'm nearly certain this was a stopping point for two types of actors. Ones just starting on the Hollywood ladder, brand new willing to take any part that would put off their having to take that porn job they were offered last week, or seasoned actors on their way down the Hollywood ladder willing to take any part that would put off their having to take that porn job they were offered last week.<br /><br />I half expected Dana Plato to guest star, but she was already dead by the time this was in production.<br /><br />To paraphrase Nancy's line in the original Elm St,"What ever you do try not to fall asleep watching this."
This is my first movie review on IMDb. I was forced to register after watching this movie. I cannot in good conscience allow this movie to be unreviewed by me. The people must be warned!<br /><br />First of all, my rating is: 0 (as in "zero")<br /><br />I love Jack Black, Ben Stiller, Rachel Weis, and Christopher Walken, and yet, I hated this movie. There is a plot, but who cares when there's no script. The dialogue is unreal and plain boring, the situations are contrived, the flow of events is slow and somewhat arbitrary, the characters are unsympathetic and uninteresting, and the story, although based on a good premise, is stupid. This movie is a piece of poo.<br /><br />Never mind wasting MONEY on this movie, it's not even worth your TIME spent watching it. Please do not see it... I beg of you!
This could be looked at in many different ways. This movie sucks, its good or its just plain weird. The third one probably explains this movie best. It has strange themes and just has a strange plot. So who else but Christopher Walken would play in this no matter how bad, average or even how good it might be.<br /><br />The acting was what you would expect especially out of Ben Stiller. Jack Black I have always liked so you know what you will get out of him but this is not bad. Christopher Walken is always off the wall. He is always enjoyable to watch no matter how bad the movie is. Comedy wise it is somewhat funny. This of course meaning that it does have its moments (though very few) but can get a little over top here and there which makes me feel like the movie is just desperate for laughs but of course not in a good way.<br /><br />The directing was average as well. Barry Levinson is a slightly overrated director and really did not do a good job here. This movie seemed that it had a lot more potential and he did not do much to reach it. Just very average and did not seem like a lot of effort was put into making this film.<br /><br />The writing is the key to a good comedy. Obviously that means the writing here failed. At best it is below average. Considering it does have its moments it was not too horrible. That is never a good thing to say about a movie though. <br /><br />If not for Christopher Walken and it stupid ridiculous ending I would have given it a lower rating. He is always quite a character in his movies. Stil this is just a whacked out strange movie with strange characters that really don't go anywhere. Not completely horrible but I would not really recommend it though because it is a very forgettable movie.
This has to be the most brutally unfunny "comedy" I've ever seen in my life. Ben Stiller, Jack Black, and Christopher Walken as a crazed homeless man CAN'T make me laugh? Something's got to be wrong with this picture. This is the only movie I've ever felt like walking out of. I used free passes, and still felt like I wanted my money back. I can wholeheartedly say that the only movie I've ever seen worse than this one was HOUSE OF THE DEAD. The. ONLY. worse. movie. I laughed very slightly at the merry-go-round scene, and that's it. Spending 2 hours in something billed as a comedy should get you more than one laugh, right? I don't know, I guess the filmmakers thought that "flan" was a funny word, or something. And the other running joke really is beating a dead horse--literally.
I couldn't wait to put this movie in my DVD player when I rented it. Then after I started it, I couldn't wait to get it OUT of my DVD player. Actually I watched all of the movie. My wife and I kept waiting and waiting for something funny to happen, but nothing funny ever does. The box read like the it would be really funny. The premise of the movie sound good. Ben Stiller is funny. Jack Black is funny. How could this movie miss? Well....it does miss! This is the unfunniest "comedy" I have ever watched. Nobody I have talked with thought it was even slightly funny. It is just a really lame movie. Trust me. Avoide it....AVOIDE IT!!
"Envy" is bad for a number of reasons. Yes, there are unlikeable characters. That's not the problem. It is that they are unlikeable and we do not care for them at all. "The War of the Roses" featured unlikeable characters but due to proper introductions we grew to at least find ourselves interested in their fate, whereas in "Envy" the introduction is thin, the characters are never believable, and the plot only makes things worse.<br /><br />Ben Stiller is simply repulsive in his role and I'm a fan of his work most of the time. Stiller campaigned to have this released straight-to-video and now I can see why. The movie proposes that he's "best friends" with Jack Black, but from the first five minutes we are given footage that seems to indicate Stiller hates Black. I thought this would develop into some sort of one-sided relationship (a la "The Cable Guy") but it never does, instead Stiller insists he's his "best friend" and I felt confused as he seemed to treat Black like, well, "poo." The movie's plot is ridiculous but it doesn't matter, because it's supposed to be an exaggerated morality tale. Unfortunately the message is lost in the mess. Walken gives a good performance but Black is off-key and annoying (and I usually find him very funny). No, it's not a horrible film but I still can't believe Barry Levinson ("Rain Man," "Sleepers") is responsible for this - it's not one of the worst films of all time but it could certainly be a whole lot better. I wish Va-Poo-Rize did exist - so we could make this film disappear forever....
I admit to liking a lot of the so-called "frat-pack" movies. No matter how bad they are, I can find something to like about Ben Stiller or Owen Wilson or Vince Vaughn or Will Ferrell or Jack Black. But "Envy" just left me about as cold as the white horse that Ben disposed of. This time, it's Ben and Jack Black as a couple of nutty neighbors, one of whom (Black) discovers a aerosol spray to make animal poop disappear and becomes incredibly wealthy while the other (Stiller) writhes in envy. That's supposedly the plot, but then it veers off in other directions that don't really make much sense.<br /><br />I guess the 'Vapoorize' thing is sort of amusing at first. The problem is, they try to sustain the gag for the whole picture (Black has a license plate that reads 'Caca King') and it gets fairly tiresome. But even Ben and Jack are used poorly; the energy level for both of their performances seems significantly dialed down. The two best performances by far are Rachel Weisz and Chris Walken. Walken's neo-hippie-dippie guy is so offbeat and so well-modulated a performance that it really never suggests any of Walken's other familiar nutcase characters. It's completely unique, yet comes across as unmistakably Walken. And Weisz is about the best actress in the business that nobody knows about. Even with limited screen time, she still dominates every scene she's in.<br /><br />The whole crux of the so-called drama is that Ben, in a jealous drunken stupor, accidentally shoots Jack's prize white stallion, and then goes to ridiculous lengths to cover it up, fearing his best friend will find out and cut him dead. But the plot twist isn't believable because there's nothing about Jack's character to indicate that he would do such a thing. He plays such a sweet guy that it renders the whole excruciating horse chase null and void. You discount it completely. It's all filler. And what's the point of the out-of-control merry-go-round, except that Barry Levinson wants us to know that he's seen "Strangers on a Train"? The screenplay is painfully bad and the acting of the two leads poorly directed. Someone with Levinson's track record should know better. Maybe someone will invent something to make this film disappear. Oh, wait, they already have.
How can Barry Levinson possibly assemble white-hot comedy talents Ben Stiller and Jack Black, the gorgeous Rachel Weisz, old pro Christopher Walken and still deliver such a humourless stinker?<br /><br />Stiller and Black are friends until the latter invents a spray to make dog mess vanish and becomes a conspicuous consuming multi-millionaire.<br /><br />The premises is thin but sound enough in the right hands to have been a springboard for some great bitching between the two stars but all concerned overplay every hand, every chance they can.<br /><br />Stiller and Black are simply not funny for way too much of the time, Weisz looks sensational as always but is criminally underused and, with the exception of Walken as a batty barfly who urges Stiller's character to take revenge, it's a turgid trudge to the end of this strained farce.
Start with the script. I have seen cartoons with more depth than "Envy". Anytime characters keep repeating what you have already seen, and was not funny the first time, a movie is in deep trouble, which "Envy" certainly is. A movie that relies on one joke had better have somewhere to go with it. Here we have a film that goes absolutely nowhere. Christopher Walken especially would like to forget this bomb, because his character is so weak. Ben Stiller has been in some pretty good black comedies, "Flirting With Disaster", and "Duplex", immediately come to mind. Be certain that "Envy" is not a black comedy. There are no double meanings, just total nonsense. "Envy" deserves it's low rating, because like it's subject matter, it stinks. - MERK
I can't say much about this film. I think it speaks for itself (as do the current ratings on here). I rented this about two years ago and I totally regretted it. I even /tried/ to like it by watching it twice, but I just couldn't. I can safely say that I have absolutely no desire to see this waste of time ever, ever again. And I'm not one to trash a movie, but I truly believe this was awful. It wasn't even funny in the slightest. The only bits I enjoyed were the few scenes with Christopher Walken in them. I think this film ruined both Jack Black and Ben Stiller for me. All I can think of when I see one of their films now-a-days is this terrible movie, and it reminds me not to waste my money. Amy Poehler is so very annoying, too.<br /><br />Overall, well, I think you get my point. The stars are for Walken, by the way.
Please, someone stop Ben Stiller from acting in ANY movie. Write the studios, hell, write your local congressman even. I've gotten more laughs going to a funeral then I have watching ANY Stiller flick. Jack Black tries to make something about a comedy about disappearing dog crap, and Christopher Walken, perhaps on of the greatest actors of his generation, simply looks embarrassed to be there. Stiller is his unfunny self,but now even with someone to bail him out, proves that he is way overrated as a comic. It's no wonder why this movie tanked badly, and was available of the dollar movie theaters after only a handful of weeks. I warn you, and you must warn your friends, Do not watch this flick, it is just awful, worst then Gothika (personally, i'd never thought i'd say that), worst the Plan 9, Worst the Ishtar, worst then The Golden Child. Please Hollywood, quit allowing Ben Stiller in your movies, he's not funny, he's a god awful actor, and he's bringing others down with him. The following film was ranked 1 because there are no negative scores allowed, so while the board says one, I'll give it a Zero.
It seems that the people behind Envy realised that recent comedies - especially ones involving Ben Stiller and to a lesser degree Jack Black - have been situation spoofs, which have steadily declined in originality and generally laughs. I found the sheer absurdity of Zoolander utterly hilarious when it was released, Starsky and Hutch was also enjoyable, and then Dodgeball kept the laughs going for a lot of people, although personally i was a bit tired of the over-the-top characters - especially when the scenario wasn't quite so funny (perhaps the comedy of a Dodgeball tournament doesn't quite translate to Australia, where it's rarely played). So in an attempt to do something a little more original, Envy moves away from an absurd scenario and instead revolves around the absurd creation of Jack Black's character (i won't spoil what it is for those who intend to see the movie). The problem is that the movie seems to drag, i'm not a big enough movie buff to be able to think of examples, but it seems like this set up has been done a thousand times before - and very rarely successfully. So instead of a nice, crisp, enjoyable and fresh comedy, you get a film that seems to just go through the motions. Sure the motions can be quite amusing, and they're centred on an idea that is quirky enough to provide a few laughs - especially with Jack Black playing the excited and amusing, though a bit 2D, creator. Ben Stiller on the other hand seems a bit lost, he's asked to play a fuller role than the ridiculous characters of his Zoolander breed of movies, but he struggles as a family man, whether his fault or the scripts, there isn't enough depth to the character and the result is a movie of Ben Stiller doing those typical mannerisms and generally becoming tedious. The performance doesn't leave an imprint on the viewer (he's just Ben Stiller, Jack Black manages to actually portray a character - though not a challenging one). The last annoying element of the movie is Christopher Walken's role as 'The J Man', which is about as typical and two dimensional as characters come, and naturally he becomes monotonous and frustrating very quickly.<br /><br />It's really not as unbearable as some people would have you think, it's watchable, especially if you're in the right mood (feeling silly would be a good prerequisite for seeing this film). Hire it on a movie night with friends and watch it after you've watched a scary film and feel like something light - hopefully you'll also be somewhat tipsy by then too. In that scenario i can imagine it would be quite enjoyable, but generally it provides too few laughs to carry itself and most of the time just drags along.
I usually like comedy movies. I really enjoy them. But I don't really get the point of "Envy". I mean, it has a dull content/topic, and it's not really funny.<br /><br />Although the acting is generally good, it's not enough for the movie to get at least a bit interesting. Stiller and Black don't show all their talent in this movie.<br /><br />So, if you're about to rent a comedy, I suggest you definitely don't go for this one. Unless you want to get bored, and I can see I'm not the only one with this opinion, because even Jack Black apologized for it (take a look at Trivia).
this is the worst movie i've ever seen. i'm not kidding. the next time it comes on, i will just continually run my head into a wall. it would me more enjoyable to sit in an emergency room trying to explain to a doctor why my brain is swollen than attempting to make it through this movie again.<br /><br />i hope that black and stiller never work together on a project this bad again. they are both good comedians, so i was shocked this was so awkward.<br /><br />if they had to do it all over again, i'm pretty sure that they would decide to not do it. the folks that fronted the money, must have lost a ton. not really- because the special effects (all 2 of them) were terrible.
Stupid! Stupid! Stupid! I can not stand Ben stiller anymore. How this man is allowed to still make movies is beyond me. I can't understand how this happens if I performed at work the way he acts in a movie I'd get fired and I own the company.....I would have to fire myself. GOD! This movie was just a plain, steaming, stinking pile of POO, that needs to be vapoorized if that were possible. Something else I have to say the guideline about 10 lines of text in a comment is idiotic. What is wrong with just saying a few things about a movie? I will never understand why sites will require a short novel written when sometimes a brief comment is all that is necessary.
I watched 'Envy' two nights ago, on DVD, at a friends house. The premise of this film is quite promising, Jack Black and Ben Stiller in a comedy with a lot of potential, but it completely fails to deliver. I watched it with about five friends and no-one laughed for the entire film. The jokes (which are few and far between) are NOT funny in any way... the story line is crap, and they never answer the question... WHERE DOES THE SH*T GO? Of course the answer to that is NO ONE CARES. This film lacks any sort of comedy value, and as a few other users have said the only thing that makes it even almost worth watching is Christopher Walken as the J-man. None of the characters are developed, the plots so thin it's nearly transparent - and is that song throughout the film supposed to be funny??
Envy stars some of the best. Jack Black, Ben Stiller, Amy Poehler, and the great Christopher Walken. With such a cast, one can only expect the best. However, with "Envy", no one could save this disaster.<br /><br />Tim Dingman (Stiller) and Nick Vanderpark (Black) are best friends and co-workers at a sandpaper factory. Both are making a decent living, but because Tim has a better performance at work, he's able to afford more than his buddy Nick. Nick is a dreamer who's always coming up with new ideas for inventions. One day, Nick comes up with the idea for a spray can that makes dog poop disappear (Yes, I'm serious). Falling in love with the idea, Nick decides to really invent this product. He makes an offer to Tim to invest in his idea and share the profits 50/50. Tim refuses thinking the idea will never work.<br /><br />Nick's invention, titled "va-poo-rize" (again, i'm serious), ends up making millions. He enjoys spending his money on things like a much larger house, a horse, a personal trainer, and fancy deserts. Tim starts feeling envy for Nick. Hence the name of the movie.<br /><br />The concept isn't bad, but it still turns out awful. This movie contains some of the worst dialog and very poor performances from all the cast. Then again, as I mentioned earlier, none of them could save this mess. Not even the great Christoper Walken, playing a homeless character named "J-man", made this movie funny. The movie is bad from the start and only continues to get worse.<br /><br />I recommend this movie if: *you like crap (no pun intended) *you want to see Jack Black in a white tux<br /><br />I say, avoid this movie at all costs, but avoid ESPECIALLY if: *you're offended by bathroom humor *you love animals
i saw this movie last night and even after a couple of beers the only giggle this movie got out of me was when i realized that i was actually watching it. in a word, it is unfunny. UNfunny. i totally believe the trivia tidbit about jack black apologizing for making this garbage. i can't believe that barry levinson didn't just toss this script when he read the first page. moreover, i can't believe that i watched more than ten minutes of it.<br /><br />i gave it 3 out of 10* because i love to see christopher walken make terrible movies for the paycheck. also, the horse "corky," by merely existing as a character in this movie, is actually quite ridiculous.
I'm not sure what. I just couldn't laugh at it. I had an open mind. I didn't want to be a tight-@ss about it. But I seriously just couldn't laugh at this film. It was just not funny to me. Some parts it seemed like Ben Stiller and Jack Black tried too hard. Just because you put two very funny men together doesn't mean that this is going to be an excellent comedy. Some movies just shouldn't be made. This is one of them. Because it does a lot of old jokes and the acting was just stupid. I know, I know it's a comedy. Sort of at least. But I was just not impressed. I'm sorry, but I cannot give this anything lower than a two. And that's all I'm giving. <br /><br />2/10
I do not envy Barry Levinson, Rachel Weisz, Ben Stiller or Jack Black for doing this film. It's, in one word, boring. Maybe the fact that is too predictable, the more-than-exploited Ben Stiller's loser role or the not-at-all funny scenes make this film just something to forget. Even Christopher Walken's appearance finishes in a pathetic way. I was very disappointed. I love Ben Stiller's acting. I loved it in most of his films, the last one I saw before this was Duplex with Drew Barrymore and was not that bad. About Jack Black... Well, apart from High Fidelity I've never seen him doing something good. What about School of Rock? Ooops, frightening.
Jack Black's character, Tim Dingman the "Dreamer" in Envy, finds wealth and success in the idea of a aerosol spray "Vapoorize" that when sprayed on doggie dung, makes the poo disappear into thin air. <br /><br />For a moment I was hoping that Vapoorize was a real product so that I could spray it on this "stinker" of a movie and make it disappear into thin air as well.<br /><br />Although Envy is not the worst movie that I have seen in the past 12 months (that honor goes to The Cat in the Hat), it does get the honor of a close second.<br /><br />Not funny, not sad, not anything. A real "Stinkeroo"!!!!!<br /><br />A 0.2 out of 10!!
Greetings again from the darkness. What ever happened to the great Barry Levinson? He directed two of my all-time favorites in "Avalon" and "Diner". He had some fine movies as well ("Rainman"), but always provided something of interest ... until now. I believe the worst thing you can ever say about a comedy is that it is boring. "Envy" is the definition of boring. Never of big fan of pure slap stick ("Dumb and Dumber"), I was just stunned at how god-awful this movie is. There are maybe 2 chuckles in the whole thing - if you can pay attention that long. The best part of the film is the running gag of the title song by a Redbone sound-alike. If the film had been written as well as the song, it would have been tolerable. Rachel Weisz is a wonderful actress and I realize they all want to do comedy (even Julianne Moore), but the real world exposes one weaknesses. SNL cast member Amy Poehler is her usual over the top in her role as trailer park trash turned princess. The disaster of the film is Jack Black and Ben Stiller. The first work commute together flashes some promise, but after that their chemistry disappears due to the poor script. This script is like most of Jack Black's character's ideas - not a bad thought, but no hope for success.
Working with one of the best Shakespeare sources, this film manages to be creditable to it's source, whilst still appealing to a wider audience.<br /><br />Branagh steals the film from under Fishburne's nose, and there's a talented cast on good form.
Such is the dilemma(above) that Debbie must face at the close of this Sam Sherman production Naughty Stewardesses. Debbie has just hit town, become a stewardess, slept with an elderly rich man(who she describes is in his 50's but obviously hit that mark a decade or two ago), shoots nude scenes for a photographer she just met, and then is the central element to a kidnapping/extortion plot. Through it all and amidst all that emotional upheaval and soul-searching, what in heaven's name will Debbie do? Well, I cannot give it away completely but don't expect any real epiphany here. Let's face it. Naughty Stewardesses is just what it wants to be(at least two-thirds through): a soft core porn film with lots of topless women and a funny in that kitchy 70's way film. There is no grand art here. The movie was designed to make money and exploit a growing trend at the time to put nymphomaniacal stewardesses in films so that the audience could live out vicariously their voyeuristic tastes. By todays standards, the film is pretty tame. What this film DOES do wrong is try to be some kind of statement film at the end. C'mon, anyone here believing that little diatribe by Debbie while on the beach contemplating life. She would spend more time picking out which halter top she will wear that day then do that. And what about the ridiculous plot to steal 50 grand? It didn't make sense to me so how on earth did these characters "dig" it? Anyone buying Cal as a member of the PLO(something like that) or even as a director for hardcore pornography? He would be luck to get work at Seven Eleven! This is, as another reviewer noted, more of a Sam Sherman piece then and Al Adamson piece. You can tell when Al is in complete charge. There is virtually no budget and the film doesn't look nearly as polished as this. Adamson does a decent job directing this time and I have to give Sherman credit to a degree. While this film is bad just for what it was meant to be, it has a certain style to it. I liked the opening credits with the animation and photographs. I even liked the music of Sparrow. "Silver Heels" was a somewhat catchy tune. The movie doesn't look cheap really at all. Compare that to ANY of Al's horror films. As for the cast, yes, Bob Livingston is a bit old for the lead, but some examination went into his character and the obvious thread that young women are attracted to men with money was explored as well. I had major problems with Robert Smedley who was just plain awful in his role. The girls have all got great sets, so what else was required of them huh? Naughty Stewardesses is relatively harmless exploitation film from the 70's and will serve as a living time capsule for certain aspects of life during that decade. By the way, did I mention it is a pretty bad picture?
I sought out this film for one reason--Al Adamson. He is among the worst directors of all time--right up there with Ed Wood, Jr. and Ray Dennis Steckler and the pantheon of awfulness. However, I was a tad disappointed because although the film was indeed bad, it never approached the levels of awfulness of some of his earlier schlocky movies. Because of that, this film wasn't particularly fun to watch for us bad movie fans.<br /><br />Now I was wary about watching this film, as the title "Naughty Stewardesses" makes the film sound like a pornographic film--something I wouldn't be reviewing on IMDb. However, this film appeared to be this at times--particularly the first 10 minutes. But, you could tell that the script underwent many changes, as for much of the film there isn't any titillation at all and towards the end of the movie there is a plot that comes out of no where that is violent and certainly NOT sexy! The result of all this is total confusion.<br /><br />Sadly, none of the many parts are even good. For example, as a porn video, it shows surprisingly little AND it's incomprehensible why they would put a 71 year-old guy in some of the love scenes. Sure, for a 71 year-old Mr. Livingston looked pretty good--but he was still an old man and no one would want to see him getting it on with young nymphet! Then, when the final 20 minutes becomes very violent, as Livingston became a Rambo-like guy! Talk about weird and inappropriate.<br /><br />Overall, there is little to recommend this sad movie. It's not bad enough or sexy enough to care about and the film manages to be rather boring even with such a crazy title like "Naughty Stewardesses".
Connie Hoffman is very pretty and is attractively topless at times.<br /><br />That's it, folks. The sole reason for even considering whether to watch this film or not.<br /><br />These 70s sexploitation period pieces are sometimes entertaining by virtue of their very datedness (flared trousers, big hair, Zapata moustaches etc.). This one isn't.<br /><br />The script is bad, the acting is bad, the direction is bad, and the idea of having a senior citizen romantic leading man is exceptionally bad.<br /><br />The title, hinting at a sex comedy, is grossly misleading.<br /><br />I heartily recommend avoiding this one like the plague.
From the start, you know this is a Sam Sherman film more than an Al Adamson film because as the credits roll, "A Sam Sherman Production" appears in letters as big as the title credit. Not only that, Mr. Sherman co-wrote the screenplay and it was his idea to use Bob Livingstone, a washed-up, 69 year old Western star of the old Hollywood era to be his male lead in a picture that Sherman thought would capitalize on the recent success of "Swinging Stewardesses". <br /><br />Now why would you want to have a wrinkled old man as your male lead in what is supposed to be a soft-core exploitation feature? It defies explanation, but that is Sam Sherman for you. His obsession with old Hollywood colored a lot of his films for Independent International Pictures, and he and Al Adamson frequently tried to get has-been actors for their films (e.g. J. Carrol Naish, Russ Tamblyn, Lon Chaney Jr.,etc.). But Bob Livingstone? Tell me the drive-in demographic knew who this '40's second-rater was; it's ridiculous! <br /><br />But then again, "Naughty Stewardesses" was a successful picture for them, so we can't just write this off as a Sherman fiasco. Still, by any aesthetic standard, it's an incoherent mess. Al Adamson wanted out of this picture, and it is easy to see why. First off, it has no genre focus at all and drifts around from super soft core (tits and ass/simulated sex only) to a kidnapping thriller (shades of Steckler's "Rat Pfink and Boo Boo"!) In between, we get subjected to painfully boring sequences of the stewardesses traipsing around Vegas to the hackneyed music of Sparrow, or Richard Smedley and Connie Hoffmann on a photo shoot in San Francisco. Worst of all, we get Bob Livingstone as a Jack LaLanne wannabe in a blue jumpsuit trying to be sexy...gag! (Thankfully, his big sex scene with Connie Hoffmann was deleted, but you can catch him slurping on her titties on the DVD in the Special Features section. Creepy.) <br /><br />This is a terrible, terrible movie, but I'll give it three stars for Gary Graver's photography and out of sympathy to Connie Hoffmann for having to make it with "Wrinkles" Livingstone. "Naughty Stewardesses" is for Al Adamson completists and/or scholars of exploitation film as Sam Sherman's commentary offers vital inside info. All others, BEWARE.
This movie is truly brilliant. It ducks through banality to crap at such speed you don't even see good sense and common decency to mankind go whizzing past. But it doesn't stop there! This movie hits the bottom of the barrel so hard it bounces back to the point of ludicrous comedy: behold as Kor the Beergutted Conan wannabe with the over-abundance of neck hair struts his stuff swinging his sword like there's no tomorrow (and the way he swung it, I really am amazed there *was* a tomorrow for him, or at least, for his beer gut). Don't miss this movie, it's a fantastic romp through idiocy, and sheer bloody mindedness! And once you have finished watching this one, dry the tears of joy (or tears of frustration at such an inept attempt at storytelling) from your eyes because some stupid f00l gave these people another $5 to make a sequel!
What we have here is a downright brilliant piece of early 80's incompetence that will render even the biggest connoisseur of trash- cinema completely speechless! "Wizards of the Lost Kingdom" is a very cheap and cheesy fantasy/Sword-and-Sorcery adventure that doesn't have an actual plot but does eagerly & shamelessly borrows elements from other films. Writer Ed Naha and Hector Olivera (who?) watched enough similar type of movies to know that they needed a handful of essential characters, but probably figured that all the rest would follow automatically. In order to make a fantasy-adventure you need: one super- evil villain (preferably with a black cape), one young hero in training, one lone warrior, one amiable type of furry pet, one wise midget living in the woods (optional) and a whole colorful collection of hideous demons, enslaved dwarfs, and winged gargoyles to serve as filler. The story is phenomenal and so original, with Simon the young son of a wizard having to flee from his beloved kingdom after the evil magician Shurka takes over the power and killed the king. Simon wants to go back and save the people, but therefore he needs his powerful ring which he lost during his escape. Simon befriends lone warrior Kor (the usually cool dude Bo Svenson who clearly needed the pay check), who assists Simon during the long and devastating journey full of ordeals, dangerous encounters and magical showdowns. Admittedly it doesn't even sound too bad thus far, but that's merely just because I excluded all the deliciously inept little details. Simon has a best friend named Gulfax, for example. Gulfax is an albino version of Chewbacca and evokes incontrollable chuckles whenever he opens his poodle-snout to yelp something incomprehensible. The obstacles during journey back home are hilariously irrelevant to the "plot" and simply serve as padding footage to cover up the lack of actual content. Simon has nightmarish visions inside the tent of a suspicious forest nymph, Kor settles an old score with the pig-faced nemesis whose sister he refused to marry and there's the supposedly horrible 'suicide cave' where you can only sing your way out of. But the absolute most unequally brilliant sequence – not just of this film alone but in the history of cinema – involves the resurrection of four zombie warriors. Simon awakes the legendary courageous warriors, hoping they will assist them in their battle, but the rotting corpses only take a few steps, complain about how tired they are and return back to their graves. That's it! So much for the zombie sub plot! Best sequence ever! I could go on listing unintentionally hilarious little details for several more paragraphs, but you get the idea. "Wizards of the Lost Kingdom" is a tremendously messed-up "so-bad-it's-good" film. Word of advice: do not watch this joyful piece of junk alone. Invite friends, preferably the dope-headed types with a wicked sense of humor, and watch it in group. It will be a night to remember…
All these reviewers are spot on. I've seen many bad films over the years, believe me, and this beats the lot!<br /><br />This is not just a "so bad it's good" exploiter waste of time, but a genuine, hilarious, movie atrocity.<br /><br />CHECK OUT the white furry monster type thing!<br /><br />WET YOURSELF LAUGHING at Thom Christopher's "spell-weaving" acting!<br /><br />GAPE IN SHEER A**E-CLENCHING DISBELIEF! at the threadbare sets!<br /><br />This is one of those "European co-productions". No wonder we have so many wars. I swear, some of the people taking part in 'Wizards of the Lost Kingdom' aren't actually aware they are appearing in a film!<br /><br />FACT! I originally watched this movie on HTV Wales late one night while suffering from concussion and sleep deprivation. I had to track down a copy several weeks later to make sure it was really this awful. It is. Worse even than Lee Majors in The Norseman, more laughable than all of John Derek's films, this is, truly, the Citizen Kane of Trash.
If somebody wants to make a really, REALLY bad movie, "Wizards of the Lost Kingdom" really sets a yardstick by which to measure the depth of badness.<br /><br />Start with the pseudo-Chewbacca that follows around the main character ... Some poor schmuck in a baggy white "furry" costume that looks as if it was stitched together from discarded pieces of carpeting. Work your way slowly, painfully, through more not-so-special effects that thoroughly deny the viewer from suspension of disbelief. Add a garden gnome (just for the heck of it).<br /><br />On second thought, skip this movie entirely and find something else to do for an hour and a half.
Go immediately and rent this movie. It will be be on a bottom shelf in your local video store and will be covered in dust. No one will have touched it in years. It may even be a $.50 special! It's worth ten bucks, I swear! Buy it! There aren't very many films than can compare with this - the celluloid version of that goo that forms at the bottom of a trash can after a few years. Yes, I gave it a '1,' but it really deserves much lower. 1-10 scales were not designed with stuff like this in mind.
Need a lesson in pure, abject failure?? Look no further than "Wizards of the Lost Kingdom", an abysmal, dirt-poor, disgrace of a flick. As we all know, decent moovies tend to sprout horrible, horrible offspring: "Halloween" begat many, many bad 80's slasher flicks; "Mad Max" begat many, many bad 80's "futuristic wasteland fantasy" flicks; and "Conan the Barbarian" begat a whole slew of terrible, horrible, incredibly bad 80's sword-and-sorcery flicks. "Wizards of the Lost Kingdom" scrapes the bottom of that 80's barrel, in a way that's truly insulting to barrels. A young runt named Simon recaptured his "good kingdom" from an evil sorcerer with the help of a mangy rug, a garden gnome, a topless bimbo mermaid, and a tired-looking, pudgy Bo Svenson. Svenson("North Dallas Forty", "Inglorious Bastards", "Delta Force"), a long-time b-moovie muscleman, looks barely able to swing his aluminum foil sword. However, he manages to defeat the forces of evil, which consist of the evil sorcerer, "Shurka", and his army of badly costumed monsters, giants, and midgets. At one point, a paper mache bat on a string attacks, but is eaten by a 1/2 hidden sock puppet, pitifully presented as some sort of dragon. The beginning of the film consists of what can only politely be described as bits of scenes scooped up from the cutting-room floor of udder bad moovies, stitched together in the vain hope of setting the scene for the film, and over-earnestly narrated by some guy who never appears again. Words cannot properly convey the jaw-dropping cheapness of this film; the producers probably spent moore moolah feeding Svenson's ever expanding gullet than on the cheesy fx of this flick. And we're talkin' Brie here, folks... :=8P Director Hector Olivera("Barbarian Queen") presents this mish-mash in a hopelessly confused, confuddled, and cliched manner, destroying any possible hint of clear, linear storytelling. The acting is dreadful, the production levels below shoe-string, and the plot is one tired cliche after another paraded before our weary eyes. That they actually made a sequel(!!!) makes the MooCow's brain whirl. James Horner's("Braveheart", "Titanic","The Rock") cheesy moosic from "Battle Beyond the Stars" was lifted, screaming and kicking, and mercilessly grafted onto this turkey - bet this one doesn't pop up on his resume. Folks, you gotta see this to believe it. The MooCow says as a cheapo rent when there is NOTHING else to watch, well, it's moore fun than watching dust bunnies mate. Barely. :=8P
Think of this film as a Saturday morning live-action program from ages ago. Even the small tykes will find this one hard to please because it runs like molasses! I can't fully understand how god awful it is to make something too typical and uninteresting, especially in the costume department! Too many warrior-wizard movies out there have used the same old plotline numerous times over, but this is mighty scarce considering its appeal to the little darlings. And who in the world would've let a topless mermaid be cast in the first place? I thought this was a "family" movie! MST3K, here's another fine gem for your 1999 TV season!
There's nothing I hate more than self-congratulating pretentiousness. Kevin Smith deserves to be hung up by his toenails for inspiring every white middle-class whiner to make a movie about why they can't get laid. I don't really mind inexperience and low-budget productions but when the writing is this obvious and cloying it really burns my potatoes. The money put into this could've gone to a real struggling filmmaker who actually has a chance like John Gulager. If you watch Project Greenlight you'll immediately recognize a talented visionary who is fighting against the system. Anybody could grab a camera and make a talkative picture that doesn't manage to say anything really, at all. When will we be saved from the Smithonites and Whedonettes of the world? The revolution can't come soon enough. Go watch a real first time effort by buying Desperado or searching out Friends With Benefits. Thank you and good day.
In his 1966 film "Blow Up", Antonioni had his hero question truth against a backdrop of British youth protesters. By setting such questions against a fabric of hippie youth movements, Antonioni questioned, intentionally or not, the effectiveness of these organisations. How can you fight for a cause when what you think is true may actually be a lie? On the flip side, the film said that we must fight and actively challenge what we see precisely because others may be deceiving us with false images and false truths. Though the hippie aspects were the most tacky parts of "Blow Up", they created a nice texture and gave the film more meaning than it might otherwise have had. It was a very cautionary and mature little film.<br /><br />With "Zabriskie Point" Antonioni throws away all the ambiguities and subtleties of "Blow Up" and goes full blown hippie. The result is a film awash with bad metaphors, stupid ideas and heavy handed storytelling. How could somebody, who across his career displayed such restraint and intelligence, make something so silly? <br /><br />The film opens with a nice series of close ups, as we watch a group of radicals discussing the meaning of revolution. Suddenly one man (Mark) gets up and leaves. He hates the rigid and ordered nature of revolution. He recognises that, though revolutionaries fight for freedom, to bind oneself to such a militant cause is to effectively give your freedom away. And so like Jack Nicholson in "The Passenger", Mark just wants to be free.<br /><br />As such, Mark buys a gun and goes solo. He takes orders from no one. When police raid his university campus Mark shoots a guy and runs away. He then flees to a nearby airfield, steals a small private plane and flies out to the desert. Antonioni treats the desert as a peaceful utopia, and contrasts it with the ruthlessly capitalist cities, with their billboards and hollow modern appliances. He sees the desert as a sort of Garden of Eden.<br /><br />In the desert, Mark meets Daria and quickly falls in love. Antonioni then gives us a ridiculous sex scene in which hundreds of hippies have sex in the sand. Free from the constraints of modern life, these tree-huggers and student radicals can now celebrate their individualism by humping in the sun.<br /><br />The film ends with Mark dying and Daria fantasising about blowing up the mansions and stately homes of the rich capitalists who killed him. It's Antonioni's challenge to his audience. Pick up the guns, pickets and explosives, he says. Tear the walls down before they cage you in!<br /><br />Of course the film had no effect on its audience. They recognised "Zabriskie Point" as being just another self centred commercial attempt at being radical. A sort of commodified radicalism. It felt untruthful and tame.<br /><br />Thematically the film is pretty stupid. Antonioni basically says that if you are unhappy with the modern world, and the fat cats who exploit you, you should either flee to the desert (Mark) or actively fight the system (Daria). That's all well and good. But though artists constantly warn us of such dystopian nightmares, they're all mostly unable to show us how to effectively administer change. Like the end of "Fight Club", nihilism and violence achieve nothing. In the real world, social change tends to be instigated by humble inventors, spurred ahead by minor technological advancements. I mean, what liberated women more than contraceptives?<br /><br />3/10 - A very bad film. The problem is, Antonioni does not really believe in rebellion. He is a quiet and contemplative man. An introvert who seems to have made an extroverted film simply to garner more adoration from the counterculture who embraced his earlier film, "Blow Up". As such, "Zabrinskie Point" comes across as a very pretentious and stupid film. It's essentially a 50 year old man say "Look at me, I'm a daring rebel!"<br /><br />There are many films in which the audience is encouraged to fight "the system", but they all fall into one of four categories. In the first category you have films like "Network", "Cool Hand Luke", "Cuckoo's Nest" and "Spartacus". These all show that the lives of freedom fighters all end in failure, though in each case the "spirit of revolution" survives. The message is that you can not effect change, but by dying or failing, the optimistic notion of change survives through martyrdom. Essentially we must keep on failing rather than give up hope.<br /><br />Then you have films like "Fight Club", "Zabriskie Point" and "Falling Down", which simply encourage you to explode. Tear it all down. Blow it all up. Everything is a lie, so you might as well go out guns blazing. These films are borne out of angry, reactionary feelings, rather than any sort of common sense.<br /><br />Then you have the "flight rather than fight" category. Terrence Malick and Antonioni are the masters of this genre. Films like "The Passenger", "Red Desert" and "Badlands" show human beings running from worlds they do not like and forging islands or peaceful havens for themselves. Both directors are pessimists, in that Malick has his islands destroyed and Antonioni has his islands offering no sense of happiness or solution.<br /><br />Then you have the fourth category. Films like Donnersmarck's "The Lives of Others", Ashby's "Bound For Glory" and Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange", treat artists as a force of change and rebellion. In these dystopian worlds, in which everyone is content to be a slave to the state, it is the unbridled creativity and freedom of will of the artist/criminal who keeps the system in check. By simply existing outside of the herd, you create waves. Your comments, actions and critical eye, challenges the status quo. As such, Donnersmarck's film has novelists and artists undermining Nazi Germany, whilst Kubrick has Alex the artist/criminal fighting Nazi droogs, painting the town in blood and sperm.
I admit, having come of age in the hippie-dippy age, I am a sucker for these kind of movies. I can enjoy some of the schlock of the hippie genre far more than most "normal" people. However, this movie is simply awful in every conceivable way.<br /><br />Every trite perception of the hippie silliness is presented as gospel, cops kill a young long hair when he peacefully lands a plane. This movie is so horrible that it is not even funny to watch as a goof on the excesses of the hippie drone. It is like a left wing version of Dragnet, except without professional actors. The only reason I gave it two stars was because there are some obscurities of interest on the soundtrack, besides, I couldn't find a selection for negative stars.<br /><br />No actors, almost no plot, sheeze, barely even a script...you got it, an "art" movie....All this done at root canal drilling slowness, dragging out each meaningless scene just to fill up time.<br /><br />In a bizarre twist of life imitating art, the star "nonactor" of the movie joined a commune in real life and robbed a bank in Boston, one of his co-robbers was killed and he was sent to jail where he was killed in a suspicious weightlifting "accident".....and just think, he got to leave this behind as a legacy....Oy vey.
Antonioni's movies have aged not well. What always surprised me about them is that, besides an unquestionable plastic beauty, there is a dull and didactic "psychology" of the characters and situations. Remember, for instance, the conversations between Mastroianni and the "wicked capitalistic" that wants sing up him in "La notte", or Monica Vitti laughing at the peasants flirting in the train in "La aventura", or Ferzetti dropping the glass of ink at the end of the same film. <br /><br />I have reviewed yesterday "Zabriskie Point". In this film there are a lot of nice and elaborate shots of the Rod Taylor office, the streets and highways of L.A., the publicity advertisements, the deserts,etc., that show the fascination of the author in his American journey, in the same way than Wim Wenders years later. Unfortunately, there are too a lot of hippie-leftist clichés that spoil the movie: - The boy leaves the meeting, steals an aeroplane and flies over the desert in order to liberate himself and find "something different". - The executives in grey suites speak all the time about speculation. - The girl looks at the "object women" in the swimming pool and leaves because she wants not to be like them. - The couple of fat middle-class in the caravan speak, in front of the beauty of the nature, of building a hotel and earning a lot of money. - Last but not the least, a lot of couples making love in the desert. What a hippie platitude!<br /><br />Sorry, today, half a century after the "revolution" of "La Aventura" we can see that the king is naked, and his films (except "Le amiche" and perhaps "Il grido") are only a handful of aestheticism and commonplaces.
This film is definitely a product of its times and seen in any other context, it is an incredibly stupid movie. Heck, even seen in its proper context, it's pretty bad!! Mostly, this is due to a silly plot and very self-indulgent direction by the famed Italian director, Michelangelo Antonioni. In this case, he tried to meld a very artsy style film with an anti-establishment hippie film and only succeeded in producing a bomb of gargantuan proportions.<br /><br />The film begins with a rap session where a lot of "with it" students sit around saying such platitudes as "power to the people" and complaining about "the man". Considering most of these hippies have parents sending them to college, it seemed a bit silly for these privileged kids to be complaining so loudly and shouting revolutionary jargon. A bit later, violence between the students and the "establishment pigs" breaks out and a cop is killed. Our "hero", Mark, may or may not have done it, but he is forced to run to avoid prosecution. Instead of heading to Mexico or Canada, he does what only a total moron would do--steals an airplane and flies it to the Mojave Desert! There, he meets a happen' chick and they then sit around philosophizing for hours. Then, they have sex in one of the weirder sex scenes in cinema history. As they gyrate about in the dust, suddenly other couples appear from no where and there is a huge orgy scene. While you see a bit of skin (warranting an R-rating), it's not as explicit as it could have been. In fact, it lasts so long and seems so choreographed that it just boggles the mind. And of course, when they are finished, the many, many other couples vanish into thin air.<br /><br />Oddly, later the couple paint the plane with some help and it looks a lot like a Peter Max creation. Despite improving the look of the plane, the evil cops respond to his returning the plane by shooting the nice revolutionary. When the girl finds out, she goes into a semi-catatonic state and the movie ends with her seemingly imagining the destruction of her own fascist pig parents and all the evil that they stand for (such as hard work and responsibility). Instead of one simple explosion, you see the same enormous house explode about 8 times. Then, inexplicably, you see TVs, refrigerators and other things explode in slow motion. While dumb, it is rather cool to watch--sort of like when David Letterman blows things up or smashes things on his show.<br /><br />Aside from a dopey plot, the film suffers from a strong need for a single likable character as well as extensive editing. At least 15 minutes could easily be removed to speed things up a bit--especially since there really isn't all that much plot or dialog. The bottom line is that this is an incredibly dumb film and I was not surprised to see it listed in "The Fifty Worst Films" book by Harry Medved. It's a well deserved addition to this pantheon of crap. For such a famed director to spend so much money to produce such a craptastic film is a crime!<br /><br />Two final observations. If you like laughing at silly hippie movies, also try watching THE TRIAL OF BILLY JACK. Also, in a case of art imitating life, the lead, Mark Frechette, acted out his character in real life. He died at age 27 in prison a few years after participating in an act of "revolution" in which he and some friends robbed a bank and killed an innocent person. Dang hippies!!
Antonioni, by making this film, had assumed the role of Papa Smurf to all the little long-haired, American, radical student-Smurfs. He had taken them under the guiding protection of his European communist wings, showing appreciation and support for their confused American ways. (These Smurfs are red and wear blue, not the other way around.) The radical Smurfs were happy to get the guidance of a wise old man with gray hair who regularly preys to the God of all long-haired Smurfs, Lenin the Communist - another wise old man whose beard made the Smurfs take him even more seriously, for it symbolized something wise, though they did not quite know why they regarded the beard to have this kind of deep effect on them. Castro, another wise bearded man, has often profited from this confusion and exuded magical powers with his beard over his naive overseas admirers. (Not to mention Che Guevara: that beard has a certain je-ne-sais-pas-quoi about it, makes one want to immediately embrace Marx and his lovely, pacifistic teachings…) The film starts with a muddled meeting of radically stupid radical students, who engage in dialogues that truly redefine the word "confused". As confused as a blind-folded dog falling of a high-story building into a bottomless pit. Suddenly, the movie's "hero" (well, Antonioni's hero) rises up and says something to his pathetic left-wing peers and then leaves, hoping that this display of "mega-coolness" will improve his James Dean image and vastly increase his chances of getting laid with the best "chicks" in the next mass hippie orgy. Eventually he gets into trouble with cops (i.e. pigs) at a rally, and spends the movie under the blue American capitalist skies, looking for freedom… Or something like that.<br /><br />Antonioni's predictable assault on capitalism is not only intellectually hollow, but has (or had) nothing new to offer; it's just the same old trigger-happy one-dimensional cops, businessmen discussing business deals (and what's wrong with that, isn't that how Antonioni's movies get made?), and endless shots of TV commercials and billboards advertising the oh-so morally decadent products for the abhorrent, selfish, and greedy right-wing rabble-population who thinks of no one but themselves, their families, their work, and their children.<br /><br />Papa Smurf Antonioni, just like his long-haired Smurfs and Smurfettes of the late 60s, failed to notice the most obvious and vital aspect about their silly movement: they were allowed to have their laughable meetings and express their anti-establishment opinions freely within that very establishment, whereas the students in those countries whose left-wing systems they admired, did not (and still do not). By far the greatest irony about the hippies - and Antonioni, naturally, failed to realize this as well (his judgment being clouded by cocaine-snorting and an excessive intake of LSD) - is that hippies were (are) the garbage-residue of capitalism. This is an incredible irony. Only in a successfully-functioning capitalist system can you find that species called "hippie"; a spoiled, ungrateful, and selfish bunch of middle and upper-middle class losers.<br /><br />The film itself seems to go on forever. Antonioni takes his sweet time with getting on with it, while including overlong scenes of pointlessness, with a high dullness factor. His attempts at symbolism are annoying and trite. His statements are highly dubious, at best. This film is Antonioni's way of saying that violent revolution is the solution. And this is what we get from an old, saturated, filthy-rich, fat film-maker who lives in villas and dines in the best French and Italian restaurants.<br /><br />I don't remember seeing any major Western movie about the Tiananmen massacre of thousands of students in China. But when one Western student gets shot for waving Che Guevara's face into all our faces, we get ten major films about it at once. I suppose this means that a Chinese life is worth a thousand times less than a Western one – at least to the left-wing hypocrites who infest movies.<br /><br />If you're a Marxist neo-hippy and disliked this awful review, please klick "NO" below.
Here is one of those educational short films made to learn the unknown people out there about facts of life. This time the target audience is preteen girls, the fact of life is menstruation. This animated film, created by Walt Disney Pictures, apparently with some sponsoring from Kotex.<br /><br />It starts with explaining how hormones make you grow and develop. With the help of animation and a female narrator it shows us how the body, especially the ovaries, uterus and vagina, work and why this all leads to menstruation. It is almost amazing, becoming the comic note here, how the subject of sex is avoided. Even the word is never mentioned although "furtilized" will pass once. I don't really know why I saw this, but since it is one of those rare short films that could give an impression of an innocent time, you might want to give it a try.
A bad one.<br /><br />Oh, my...this is one of the movies, which doesn't have even one positive effect. Just everything from actors to story stinks to the sky. I just wonder how low I.Q. you should have to watch this kind of flick and even enjoy.<br /><br /> Is there something than this is worth watching for? Well, there is a lot of nudity involved, but it's nothing particular. And when you just think that it couldn't get worse, your realize that all the naked ladies looked like there are forty years old. C'mon guys, where did you search for these actresses. In elderly home, perhaps.<br /><br /> Anyway, the leading actresses has some sex-appeal and knows how to show it. Again, too bad, that she is too skinny & old. All in all, skip these one.<br /><br />2 out of 10
Istanbul is another one of those expatriate films that Errol Flynn was making in the last decade of his life trying to support his family and stay out of trouble with the IRS. It's a remake of the Fred MacMurray- Ava Gardner film Singapore from a decade ago.<br /><br />Unlike that studio product, Istanbul has the advantage of that great location cinematography right at the sight of the Golden Horn. But Errol Flynn, who was aging exponentially before the camera in every film, was way too old to be playing these action/adventure types any longer. His scenes with Cornell Borchers really do lack conviction.<br /><br />As for Cornell, she plays Errol's former sweetheart who through the trauma of being saved from a fire now has amnesia. She both doesn't remember Errol and is now married to Torin Thatcher. <br /><br />But Errol's got some nasty people led by Martin Benson and Werner Klemperer who are after some diamonds which have come into his possession. Got to deal with them too.<br /><br />Best reason to see Istanbul is to hear Nat King Cole sing and play the piano. Most people today don't realize that Cole was an accomplished jazz pianist, they only think of him as a singer. Actually he was a pianist first, the singing was an afterthought.<br /><br />Istanbul is a routine action/adventure film for those who are fans of that type of movie.
This movie does not rock, as others have said. I found it really boring and silly. The story is about this metal high school kid who idolizes this really bad heavy metal singer. The singer dies, but not before making one last album that is to be played over the radio at, of course, midnight on Halloween (which would actually make it November 1st, a much less potent date to be sure). The kid gets a copy of the record and it contains secret hidden back-play messages. It also is the key that opens the door so that the really bad metal singer can return to bring havoc and death to the world. <br /><br />The first part of this film is not a horror film at all, but rather an After School Special. We see the metal kid (the outsider) tormented over and over by the popular kids. And he fails to learn the most important lesson in high school movies: When the cool kids who bully you suddenly invite you to a party, DON'T GO! It is a trap. Especially if it is a pool party. Anybody surprised when he ends up in the water?? It was such an After School Special that I kept waiting for Melissa Sue Anderson to show up and teach Jody Foster a lesson.<br /><br />So back to the horror part of the film. So this metal kid gets some powers and instead of using them to kill the bully boys (which would have made much more sense), he freaks out and tries to protect all of the bully boys and girls from harm. What? A sensitive hero? What fun is that in a horror movie? Thank goodness Carrie White did not follow this lesson. He actually tries to PREVENT having the music played at the Halloween Dance, the very music that could unleash a power to kill all the kids who had been mean to him. If it were me, I would have put that music on, and pronto. <br /><br />The rest of the movie is about this metal kid going around town trying to kill the horrible metal star he idolized. Why not partner with him and REALLY do some damage. Why you ask? It seems he is in love with one of the popular girls and does not want her hurt..more appropriate for a Molly Ringwald film. Is this a horror film or an episode of Beauty and the Beast? The movie just goes on and on at this point, with no scares, horror, or anything worth watching. If you went to high school in the late 80s like I did, this movie is fun to have a little flashback to fashions and big hair, but that is it for this film. Skip it and stay home and just listen to some KISS.
Skippy from "Family Ties" plays Eddie, a wussy 'metal' nerd who gets picked on. When his favorite wussy 'metal' singer, Sammi Curr, dies, he throws a hissy fit tearing down all the posters on his bedroom wall. But when he later gets an unreleased record that holds the spirit of his dead 'metal' idol. He first gets sucked into ideas of revenge, but then he doesn't want to take it as far as Sammi does. Which isn't really that far as his main victims only seem to go to the hospital. This movie is utterly laughable and has about as much to do with real metal as say, "Rock Star". OK, maybe a tad more than that piece of junk, but you get my point. And how ANYone can root for a guy played by Skippy from "Family Ties" I haven't a clue. The cameo by Gene Simmons is OK, and Ozzy Osbourne reaches coherency, I applaud him for that, but otherwise skip this one.<br /><br />My Grade: D <br /><br />Eye Candy:Elise Richards gets topless, an a topless extra at a pool party
How can a movie have Ozzy Osbourne and still suck? I just don't get it. Trick or Treat managed to do it. This sucks and likes it.<br /><br />Trick or Treat is one of those movies I have to warn people about. It is a vomit-inducing vile atrocity just begging to be viewed so you can feel that much worse about yourself. Trick or Treat has no redeeming factors.<br /><br />For a movie about heavy metal, it sure doesn't seem to grasp what heavy metal is or what it represents. This movie manages to make heavy metal look lame and this was in 1986, probably one of heavy metal's strongest hours. That is quite a feat, however negative.<br /><br />Trick or Treat = so bad you will be angry at yourself for having watched it. That simple equation will hopefully keep you away from this brainless and gutless film.
This movie has a very hard-to-swallow premise, even by this genre's standards. We are asked to accept not only that a record played backwards can bring a dead man back to life, but that the record also contains hidden messages aimed SPECIFICALLY at one kid, when the singer had no connection to the boy when he was alive, and of course no way of knowing at whose hands the record would end up. Anyway, the film is fun for a while, but eventually the silliness and the pointlessness reign supreme. If they were really trying to create a new Freddy-like horror icon, they were way off: the villain here has no personality, no motivation, and no variety. (*1/2)
I have to agree with some of the other comments and even go a step further. <br /><br />Nothing about this film worked, absolutely nothing. Delmar our central character makes the decision to become a surrogate mother in order to earn enough money to buy a restaurant but along the way fall for a wise ex-jailbird. At the same time her friend Hortense is trying to get her lawyer boyfriend to finally marry her. She also happens to be sleeping with Marlon who is desperately in love with her. Then there's Delmar's brother Jethro who gets involved with a former coke addict, Missy who reveals she was sexually abused by her adopted father. On the sidelines we also have the eccentricmother who has an assortment of equally odd friends, one of whom dies on the couch at the beginning of the film. So far so good but after introducing these characters and story lines addressing life, death, grief and love in the first half, the film simply loses direction. <br /><br />If the writer had only selected one or two characters and allowed us to follow their stories maybe things would have been fine but equal screen time is given to all with the result that no one story or character is fully developed. For instance, why does Delmar think she will be able to hand over her child in exchange for money, especially when the prospective parents are a creepy bigoted lawyer and his semi alcoholic and depressed wife? Why is Hortense so desperate to marry a man who is a jerk and clearly doesn't love her? How is it Missy manages to kick her coke habit overnight? Is Jethro regularly drawn to women with overwhelming problems, or is Missy the exception? Has Delmar and Jethro's mother always been on the eccentric side, or is it a more recent development? Why is Jethro so keen on Cadillacs that he has one in the middle of his living room? Why did Moses spend years in prison for stealing a car, a relatively minor crime? How does Delmar manage to end up giving birth to Moses' baby when there is no suggestion that they ever had sex? <br /><br />These questions are posed in the screenplay but sadly are never answered. I can only assume they were answered in the original novel and that is why the writer felt the need to include it all in the script. Big mistake. Losing several subplots especially the Hortense and Marlon story, which adds nothing to the overall film, would have tightened things considerably and allowed more time to develop the Delmar, Jethro and Moses characters who are clearly more central to the plot and underlying themes than anyone else. <br /><br />Add to that the most pedestrian directing style seen outside of the average soap opera and the result is a huge missed opportunity for all, including Jorja Fox who does her best to rise above the material. I'm not surprised that this appears to have been the director's last film as this effort shows no evidence of a visual style or ability to tell a moving and intelligent story.
I had the opportunity to preview this film as a member of a test audience, and the only thing which kept me in my seat was the chance to fill out the post-screening survey. I felt the film's biggest problem was its lack of a main plot. Instead, it was composed of (too) many sub-plots competing for screen time. As a result, there is not a single character who is developed enough for the audience to form any sort of attachment. What the director and producer failed to do was show us why we should care what happens to the characters. In fact any one sub-plot and the characters associated with it could have been removed altogether without serious detriment to the film. (The time gained would have allowed for the much needed development of the remaining sub-plots and characters.) Simply put, The Hungry Bachelors Club's plate is overcrowded with side dishes and appetizers when an entre is desired.
not your typical vamp story, not bram stoker or anne rice here. a truly original vampyre story. these vampyres are genetic mutants who the sunlight don't bother. they are pure evil to. <br /><br />the film is not perfect. many of the actors are clearly amateurs. the two leads who play van helsing and rally the vampyre chick are pretty good though. the film is intensely violent which may disturb some people. also it is loaded with scientific detail that many will find hard to understand and may get bored with. i was sold on the clever storyline and the couple good performances. no telling how successful this film could be if they had a bigger budget and it got mass distribution
An interesting concept vampirism having something to do with a virus.(but done several times by now) Overall the movie is too long and drags a bit. The editing could have been tighter. I am sorry to hear about the problem with the credits. Maybe the movie was rushed to market. The lighting was too dark in places. But the worst technical problem is the audio. The level was good enough to hear the dialog, but many of the interiors have a echo sound to them, which is very distracting. Either they were not careful in the recording, or the sound mixing could have been better. Also too much background noise got through. The should have gotten someone to do sound effects for the martial arts scenes. The tinny clank of swords hitting together was not the sound of an epic battle. Especially in the combat scenes the editing needed to be tighter.<br /><br />Also the acting was a bit flat. I am sorry, but when I see that the same person writes and stars in a movie, in my experience it is a red flag.<br /><br />But it was a good effort so I gave it a 4.
Allow me to start this review by saying this: I love vampire movies. They can suck (har har pun intended), and I'll still love them because vampires are just cool in movies. Van Helsing, considered by many to be a steaming pile of crap, was enjoyable to me because of the fact that there were vampires. You may ask: "What does that have to do with this movie?" The answer is that I intend to inform you of how horrible this movie truly is, that even a sucker (harharhar) for vampire movies like me can despise a movie like this so much.<br /><br />The movie stars Van Helsing, a college professor guy who isn't at all convincing. He's a terrible actor, like everyone else in this movie, and he wrote it, to add salt to the wound. I honestly to not mean to offend him, and I'm sure everyone had fun making this movie, but watching it was actually painful. I'm not sure why I watched the whole thing; perhaps it was a morbid fascination, like watching an impending train crash: it's horrible, but you can't manage to force yourself to look away. Its main fault is that it's just so ****ing boring, and its plot is so damn ridiculous, even for a science fiction horror movie.<br /><br />But, I digress. By the way, Van Helsing has sex with his mom. Of course, he doesn't know it's her at the time; he just thinks it's one of his students (which is still illegal and all, but not as disgusting and creepy).<br /><br />If I were Van Helsing, I would at least pull an Oedipus myself when I found out I had done something so gross. It would've made for one entertaining thing if he just made some comment on it, but no. The point isn't even brought up at all, by any of the characters. It's as if the writer didn't even think of it. I would've at least had another character laugh at him and say "Ha ha, you had sex with your mom," which would be mildly humorous (although blatantly immature). I'm probably running out of room, so a few more words to dissuade you from ever seeing this film: there's a vampire ninja fight with an old man. It would be funny, but the filmmakers expect us to take it seriously. It's not even worth watching the movie to see how bad it is. Stay far, far away from it if you value your time at all.<br /><br />I will say one thing positive about the movie: the guy who plays Van Helsing is pretty slick with that knife of his. There's like, a minute long segment where he swings around his knife and actually does some pretty nifty tricks. It would be boring in any other movie, but here, sadly, it was the highlight.
I don't want to go off on a rant here, but.....this is the worst "film" I've ever seen. Worse than The Avengers. Incompetent directing, disjointed writing, and awful acting are the only consistent elements throughout. Shot on very cheap video, it looks like a high school project, but without the emotion. The lighting frequently looks like a single Sun-Gun. The sound is slightly better than a single mic on the camera, but everything else about this thing is just awful. The plot heads off in strange directions with no foundation or later resolution, the techie elements are patently absurd, and the editing looks worse than a rough cut. It's not even bad enough to be funny. It's just bad. BTW, the packaging is intentionally misleading.<br /><br />Lion's Gate owes me $4.00.
I can't believe that this movie even made it to video, and that video rental stores are willing to put it on their shelves. I literary asked for a refund. Take away the fact that the movie has no historical truth it, and it is still the worse movie ever found in a video store. It is not even good enough to be called a B rated movie. Do not waste your money or your time on this movie. Just listing to the voice over and the horrible music made me sick. Anyone involved with this movie should be pulled from the union, gives the industry a black mark, but after watching most of this movie I really don't think anyone involved is a union member.
This movie must have been the absolute worst movie i have ever seen. My sister and her boyfriend went to rent Zodiac (2007) and got this one by accident. thought it was a joke before the actual movie. this was terrible i was waiting for it to get scary and it never did. this movie had not actual facts about the real Zodiac killer. The filmmakers clearly didn't even bother to research anything on the killings... they only liked the name... so they decided to write a script about nothing true to its name. I am upset i didn't realize it wasn't the movie sooner. I try to like something out of every movie, i don't hate movies... ever... except this one. If you could have given it no stars, i definitely would have. 1 out of 10.
This movie is bad. I don't just mean 'bad' as in; "Oh the script was bad", or; "The acting in that scene was bad".....I mean bad as in someone should be held criminally accountable for foisting this unmitigated pile of steaming crud onto an unsuspecting public. I won't even dignify it with an explanation of the (Plot??) if I can refer to it as that.I can think of only one other occasion in some 40-odd years of movie watching that I have found need to vent my spleen on a movie. I mean, after all, no one goes out to intentionally make a bad movie, do they? Well, yes. Apparently they do...and the guilty man is writer/director Ulli Lommel. But the worst of it is that Blockbusters is actually renting this to their customers! Be advised. Leave this crap where it belongs. Stuck on the shelf, gathering dust.
Awful, awful, awful.<br /><br />A condescending remark at the start and a few nasty autopsy photos does not a good movie make. Once again I'm amazed at the determination and skill that some people have in achieving a movie production and yet they don't have the pride to realise that what they have made is an utter pile of crap.<br /><br />I sat and tried to think of a redeeming feature so that I could at least balance my criticism but the only one I could think of was that the opening track by Pink was pretty good....I wonder if she has seen this?<br /><br />Watch this at your peril, the boredom may kill you.
Zodiac Killer. 1 out of 10. Worst acting ever. No really worst acting ever. David Hess (Last House on the Left…. No the one from the seventies…. Rent it it's really good) is the worst of the bunch (Pretty stiff competition but he is amazingly god-awful.) One would be hard pressed to find a home movie participant with such an awkward camera presence. The film actually screeches to a stunning painful halt when he is on the screen.<br /><br />Not that the film actually has any redeeming qualities for Mr. Hess to ruin. It is filmed with a home movie camera and by the looks of things a pretty old one complete with attached boom mike. No post production either. Come on there has to be some shovelware a five year old computer could use that could clean up this picture. Throw in bizarre stock footage pictures of autopsy's and aircraft carrier takeoffs and this is one visually screwed up picture. The autopsy pictures are interjected the way Italian cannibal films interject those god-awful real life animal killings. And the Navy footage is supposed to be some anti war statement (Cause we know all the bloodthirsty maniacs join the Navy) What in the world is Lion's Gate is doing releasing this garbage? It would embarrass Troma. The plot is about the Zodiac Killer (Last seen in Dirty Harry …. No the one from the seventies…. Rent it it's really good) Somebody gets shot in the stomach in LA and the cops assume the Zodiac Killer is back? Uh-huh. What can you expect from a movie that doesn't know that DSM IV is a book not a psychiatric disorder and where the young killer older man relationship resembles that of a congressional page and closeted congressman? Yeah eighties haircuts and production values meet a Nambla subplot. Sign me up.
Well I'll start with the good points. The movie was only 86 minutes long, and some of it was so bad it was funny. Now for the low points. My first warning sign came with an actual "warning" on the film. When it started the following "warning" was displayed: "The film you are about to see contains graphic and disturbing images. Because contrary to popular belief being killed is neither fun, pretty or romantic." I should have saved myself the 86 minutes and turned it off then. The first words of the film were: "I'm at the glue factory." It was some guy talking on his phone, and he was referring to a nursing home as a glue factory. I don't know why. So the basis of the movie is some kid is obsessed with the Zodiac Killer and starts imitating him. The budget for this film was at least 50 bucks and they must have used the cheapest cameras they could find. The acting was worse than me reading straight from a script. That's what is looked like they were doing. The script was horrible, and the big "twist" was that this guy who wrote a biography on the Zodiac Killer was actually the Zodiac Killer. Of course they tried to show this subtly but made it totally obvious within the first 10 minutes. Without any more painful details of the plot, here were some horrible highlights of the movie. They try to make the Zodiac Killer compare himself to an "army of one" because soldiers are really just murderers. Then they tried to make an attempt at "Satanic Worship" by showing some guys in black hoods in a meeting. The great "computer hacker" was able to get this kid's address when someone gave him the kid's name and phone number. For some reason he had to hack into the FBI to get someone address. I'm not sure why he didn't just look it up in the phone book or use whitepages.com. There was also a random allusion to 9/11 for no reason. I also learned that no matter where you get shot, blood will come out of your mouth within seconds.<br /><br />So if you like really bad acting, sub-par scripts, bad camera work and an obvious plot, you'll love Zodiac Killer!
This is easily the worst movie i have EVER seen. I'm not exaggerating, I told the guy at Blockbuster that they should take it off the shelves. The only thing interesting about this movie is the box. On the box it says "from the director of the boogeyman" so I figured...eh whatever, if this was made recently I'm sure the directing at least won't be TOO bad :-\, but after I saw the movie and looked at what "boogeyman" they were talking about, it's some nonsense from the early 1980's that he made. Great way to rope in unsuspecting viewers.<br /><br />ANYWAY, I think that they just liked the name "Zodiac Killer", and didn't bother to research any of the actual Zodiac's crimes or his MO, or even the years that he was active. All of the crimes they talk about have nothing to do with the Zodiac and the "stories" about the original Zodiac take place several years after the actual Zodiac's crimes did. They also compare the Zodiac to "Vampire of Dusseldorf" Fritz Haarman throughout the movie and talk to Fritz's "son" quite often. The Zodiac and Haarman were nothing alike, and it makes more sense to compare him to BTK who also shot people, not a man who killed people by chewing through their necks. None of the Haarman facts are correct either, just a bunch of jumbled nonsense. His son even says "Don't forget, his name was Fritz Haarman with 2 t's"...His actual name just has one! I think that the writer/director simply typed in a google search for serial killers and the quickest ones that came up were the Zodiac Killer and Fritz Haarman. "Ooh those sound like cool names, let's make a movie about them without doing any outside research! great idea!"<br /><br />Perhaps my favorite inconsistency in this movie is the way that the experts as well as the young killer describe suffering from DSM-IV and getting cured of it. "I was also diagnosed with DSM-IV and have since recovered", etc. For those of you who don't know, DSM-IV is the psychological manual for mental disorders. If anybody suffers from the book itself then they must have some SERIOUS problems! Haha.<br /><br />Anyway, my point is that this goes on the bottom of my top 5 worst movies of all time list, and it's rare that a movie ever reaches that point. But, if you are interested in watching a totally non-fact based story about serial killers that happens to be nothing more than boring, full of inexperienced actors, and not completely rational, I'd say check out this movie.<br /><br />...Oh, and I liked how the killer "tear gassed" a few of his victims with dry ice. Nice touch...
This movie was almost intolerable to sit through. I can get beyond the fact that it looks like it was shot with a home video camera and that this movie is supposed to span over weeks in time yet the characters do not once change outfits, but the acting broke the 4th wall to pieces for me. I've seen better acting in a 4th grade play. Aside from that the plot is unrealistic. If the man suspected the guy he would have turned him in. I was also heavily disappointed that all the killings were done with a gun what kind of gore is that. That is not a copycat the Zodiac did not kill using just a gun the authorities would have known it wasn't him. Another thing that really bothered me was that they called Disassociative Identity Disorder DSM 4 when that is the name of the book used to diagnose people with mental disorders not the name of the disorder. Overall I think this movie is not the kind of movie that could be done with a low budget at least not as low as they had or they could have made sure they had better actors or more gore. Plenty of people have went the low budget route with out having to use horrible actors look at Easy Rider that had Dennis Hopper and Jack Nicholson and a low budget.
Why would anyone want to see this?! If this was a film posted on YouTube by a teenager, I might have applauded the teen in doing so much with his mommy's video camera. I might have also congratulated his family and friends for doing a good job acting. Sadly, it was made by a very experienced film maker and these were, apparently, professional actors--making this a very, very sad film. Sad...and very pathetic, actually. As I said, it has a definite made directly to video look about it. It also has narration and acting that just scream "unprofessionals"--how could this be?! The film is filled with lots of corpses and blood. Normally this would turn me off completely, as I hate ultra-violent films and don't like seeing all that gore. However, given that none of it is that realistic, it's bearable. However, I should warn you that there are a few scenes that are still pretty disturbing. For example, the scene with the kid throwing a radio into a lady's tub and watching her naked and frying is pretty bad. There are also scenes where you can hear the thought of psychos as they fantasize about killing women. With a level of misogyny that is pretty awful. the people who wrote this are pretty sick--like killing women is meant to be for our entertainment.<br /><br />After a bunch of senseless murders, the film goes to a dining room table--around which are a bunch of goof-balls wearing black hoods WITHOUT eye holes! They are talking, with pride, about all the murders they have committed and chant. It's all very funny, though I am not sure that was the scene's purpose.<br /><br />Then, the film talks about various sex crimes and killings and even vampirism and cannibalism. Why, I don't know--perhaps because they people made this got off on this sort of crap. And, once again, you see and hear the thoughts and actions of a creepy German-looking man as he tracks down people and kills them.<br /><br />By the way, considering the film used what I must assume are professional actors, I wondered why so many people were chosen who were clearly Germans. While they tried to act like Americans and the film was supposed to be in California, the accents are STRONG. Perhaps German audiences watched this and marveled at how "realistic" the acting was, but to any American it's obvious these folks ain't their fellow Americans! Considering that there really WAS a zodiac killer (who was never captured), I do wonder why anyone would want to make a "fan film" of sorts for the sick menace?! I mean...was this film meant as a snuff film for pervs? I just can't see anyone else wanting to see this or enjoying it. In fact, I wonder what would motivate anyone to make such a stupid AND offensive film?! Worthless and deserving to be in IMDb's Bottom 100 list.
If I could give it a zero, I'd change my mind and give it a -10 instead. Absolutely horrible movie with no movie plot, doesn't make sense of what is happening. Just PLAIN BORING. Please don't waste your money on this one. Pleaseee!!! This movie could have done so well if it truly depicted the real zodiac killer's story, but nopes, I didn't feel anything but disgust while watching it. Do yourself a favor and rent some classic movies instead, its better to watch a movie you've already seen like 3-4 times than watch this crap! I don't understand why people even bother to make such movies when they know its not going to do well. Zodiac killer should be called 'Boriac killer' instead!!!
The film is about a young man, Michael, who cares for the elderly. One day he decides to kill some of the relatives of his clients. Around the same time he decides to model his killing after the Zodiac Killer of the 60's. He gets in touch with the author of a book about the Zodiac Killer and they form a friendship. Michael has a gun (aparently the only gun, as it seems to be in the hands of some of the other actors, only not portrayed as the same gun.) and he goes out a-killin'. Original. <br /><br />This is a great film if you like B movies. I thought the idea of the movie was good, but the editing and the acting really drowned the plot. I thought the 'blood' was just too fake, the lighting was horrible in some places, and the dialog was just too standard. The movie was shot on video, which is okay, but the editing of the film just made for some weird 'Plan 9' scenes. Not a bad movie for fans of the B-movie genre, but if you want something with a bit more polish, move on to something else.
I have been learning about the Zodiac for four years now. And I'm not saying I know much more than anyone else...in fact out of most of the people who know and read and learn about Z, I am prolly the one with the least knowledge...But I do know or at least I think I know that most of the stuff in this wouldn't happen...From how he signed his name...to how he killed people...I thought that Godfather was the worst film ever...<br /><br />The cinematography was that of a five year old...not saying that my films are any better but I am not someone who is making movies for the mass population...<br /><br />The acting I thought for the most part was pretty good really I did...the lead didn't talk that much on camera or at all I forget and don't know because I stopped watching...his voice overs where good...<br /><br />But really spend the four dollars and 70 cents on something else...like a large pizza or something...<br /><br />Until I learn how to write a review, Psycho Phil
Really, really bad. How does a film this bad get made? I kept waiting for some redeeming plot point, interesting camera work, or at least some gratuitous nudity but I got nothing. I had just watched Cabin Fever and I thought it was an train wreck (except for the nudity and Pancakes) but it looks like genius compared to this dreck. The best script doctor in the world couldn't have saved this putrid pile of of stinking poo.<br /><br />The only thing going for this "film" is that it ended.<br /><br />I've got a headache just thinking about this movie and trying to write something. Ugh! I'm glad I only paid $5 for it and it will soon end up in a landfill.
If I could give it less that 1 I would. Do not bother to rent; if someone gives you the DVD burn it.<br /><br />This is horrible movie making. A total waste of even digital "film". I have seen better on Youtube made by 12 year old boys. Lommel claims to have written this, if that is the case he is a classic case of someone who is illiterate in two languages. The story line is none existent, the dialog is mainly screaming, the camera work is some sort of attempted arty flairs with nonsensical cutting of totally unrelated jumps to either industrial transportation scenes or some sort of odd angry young woman rift.<br /><br />I can usually follow a less than obvious plot or see the purpose in a "creative" film - I like David Lynch.<br /><br />This one is either so far beyond my limited powers of comprehension I missed it or it is totally pointless. I think this is a "lets see if we can grab a title that will be coming out soon and do a weird rift on it and see if we can grab some of the bucks" con job.<br /><br />I cannot see why Lionsgate even bothered with this. Totally worthless, it is so bad I will not rent any other by this same director.
I gave this two stars for the awesome DV shot clarity, which lends to the cold and dark sterility of its character. That was being generous, I know.<br /><br />This film fails on all accounts. I can not recommend this, for it is neither poetic, nor blunt. Neither dramatic, nor suspenseful. Neither controversial, nor ordinary. It is just a wretched piece of trash that no horror or exploit fan can recommend in good faith.<br /><br />Do not watch this, whoever you are. . .please, just stay away from this awful product.<br /><br />Thank you.
While William Shater can always make me smile in anything he appears in, (and I especially love him as Denny Crane in Boston Legal), well, this show is all about glitz and dancing girls and screaming and jumping up and down.<br /><br />It has none of the intelligence of Millionaire, none of the flair of Deal or No Deal.<br /><br />This show is all about dancing and stupid things to fill in the time.<br /><br />I watched it of course just to check it out. I did watch it for over 45 minutes, then I had to turn it off.<br /><br />The best part of it was William Shatner dancing on the stage. He is a hoot!!! unfortunately, this show WILL NOT MAKE IT.<br /><br />That's a given
The comment by "eliz7212-1" hits the proverbial "nail on the head" for this turkey of a program. But it is a hoot to watch William Shatner "cavort" and "dance" (yes, the " " marks on the word dance are necessary for what Bill does). This show would be a great skit on SNL or MAD TV - and it does rate a few stars for one viewing, or so, to see Shatner, who seems to have taken "camp" to new heights - whether in a role or as himself. But the guy is funny.<br /><br />The girls who are in the cubicle areas with the game data scrolls, will be pretty much out-of-luck when this turkey is canceled - unless there is a revival of the whiskey-a-go-go genre, with a resurrected demand for shapely young women to dance in elevated cages once more.<br /><br />I watched the first contestant, who was annoying, and literally "dumber than a :post," yet through sheer luck, walked away with a quarter mil or so. The second contestant, somewhat more intelligent, but who'd be lucky to gain $1,000 on Jeopardy!, got zonked by the card which requires answering a special question - which he didn't know, and thereby left with zilch.<br /><br />This plethora of game shows, which dangle, and sometimes award, large sums to everyday individuals, are admittedly a cheap effort, overall, to attempt to woo viewers. Even if the host is well-compensated, and they give away six figures in an average episode, I suppose that the revenue versus costs can be favorable - since you don't have a sitcom cast where several stars are getting six or seven figures, per episode, with some big residual deals as well.<br /><br />But I suspect even the better ones will wear thin before long. This one has already pretty much reached this point. I think his offerings, especially with James Spader, and the others on "Boston Legal" should give us a satisfying quantity of Bill Shatner's offerings.<br /><br />Again, the above rating is simply appropriate to view Bill hoot and prance, perhaps one time; that should be sufficient.
I don't see enough TV game shows to understand the attraction of SHOW ME THE MONEY, but I suppose it holds some appeal for undemanding audiences. Ostensibly a quiz show, it offers contestants huge sums of money for answering a few simple questions. However, its quiz elements play only a small part in the proceedings, which I find tortuously complicated. For example, before answering a question, a contestant selects which question is to be asked by choosing from among random "A," "B," or "C" choices. Does this serve any purpose other than to slow the game down? It would be a lot quicker simply to start with "A." Contestants can pass on questions, but must answer one of the three questions in each category.<br /><br />After responding to a question, the contestant is then asked to "lock in" the answer--another delaying tactic. The contestant's next task is to name which woman from about a dozen go-go dancers in cages is to unveil a card that indicates how much the question is worth. A correct answer adds the card's dollar figure to the contestant's running total; a wrong answer subtracts the same sum. This time-consuming step actually has some entertainment value, as it allows the audience to get a close look at the scantily clad and uniformly gorgeous dancers. Meanwhile, the contestant is reminded that an unlucky selection of the "killer card" will end the game instantly. This naturally makes the contestant sweat and causes further delays as the nervous contestant contemplates the sudden loss of the hundreds of thousands of dollars. My suspicion is that the possibility of sudden disaster is the show's chief audience appeal.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the whole process is slowed down even more by a lot of empty banter between host William Shatner and the contestant, along with occasional routines by the caged dancers. All these delays burn up so much time that it might be possible for audiences to forget what the original question is by the time the correct answer is revealed.<br /><br />A typical 30-minute episode of JEOPARDY often gets through as many as 60 questions. The first 30 minutes of SMTM that I watched got through only six questions (many of which pertained to other TV shows). No one in his right mind would watch this show because it's fun to play along by answering the questions at home. That leaves three possible reasons to watch the show.<br /><br />A. To see how a contestant responds to being on the verge of winning as much as one million dollars, only to lose everything in one stroke.<br /><br />B. To look at gorgeous young women performing sexually suggestive dance routines.<br /><br />C. To enjoy William Shatner's scintillating banter.<br /><br />My choice is "B," but the women aren't on camera long enough to justify suffering through an hour of this show.
On the surface, "Show Me The Money" should have at least finished a full season. You had the always entertaining William Shatner as your host, surrounded by a baker's dozen of beautiful leggy models collectively called "The Million Dollar Dancers." You had knowledgeable contestants who had interesting stories to tell of their lives and who presumably knew a lot of pop culture trivia. And you had big money! So, what went wrong? <br /><br />The format of this game was the failure. A good game show needs at least two of three things: very simple rules, exciting pacing and the ability for the viewer to play along at home. The best, most enduring ones have all three.<br /><br />Unfortunately, SMTM had none.<br /><br />The rules for this game were among the most complex of any prime time game show in history. Let me try to explain how the game worked, as briefly as possible.<br /><br />A contestant began with a single word or short phrase followed by the choice letters A, B, C (subtle plug for the network?). Each letter was connected to a separate question, all starting with that word or phrase. Once a contestant chose one of the letters, they could either answer that question or pass and select a second letter. If they passed, they got to view the next question, and had the same option. However, if they passed the second question, they were required to answer the third option.<br /><br />After they answered and before they found out if their answer was correct, they then had to select one of the 13 dancers on stage, each with a different amount of money in a scroll by their side. They revealed their dollar amount (ranging from $20,000 to $250,000) and depending on if the contestant answered right... or answered wrong... that amount would be added to or subtracted from their pot.<br /><br />Still with me so far? In addition, there was one dancer who held something known as "The Killer Card." If you selected the dancer with the Killer Card and you had gotten your question right, you were safe, and the game continued. If, however, you were incorrect, you had one final question to answer. If you got that final question wrong, you were out of the game. If you got it right, then, the game continued.<br /><br />There was no quitting, no walking away with the money earned until you either answered six questions correctly or got six questions wrong or you were so far in the hole you couldn't earn enough money to get back out. Got it? Okay! <br /><br />The biggest problem, as I saw it, was a complete lack of tension, because of the design of the game. A contestant could pass questions they knew they didn't know, and answer many questions they did know, making the pressure even less. Then, they could still find a low dollar amount, even after knowingly missing a question, which meant there still wasn't any "drama." And the fact that they could answer five questions wrong and still have a chance to win was a big mistake. And the pacing of the questions was deadly slow: often the questions were so obvious, it was ridiculous to try to create tension, as if there was any doubt about some of the most common answers.<br /><br />The pacing, the lack of any real tension at any point during the show and those very complicated rules prevented this program from working, despite Shatner's terpsichorean talents.
Unlike endemol USA's two other current game shows (Deal Or No Deal and 1 vs. 100), the pacing in this show is way too slow for what is happening on the screen.<br /><br />DOND and 1 vs. 100 can get away with slow pacing because the games can change pace--or end--at any moment. There is risk involved in every action the player takes, the rewards are wildly variable, and it is difficult for the players to leave with a significant amount of money. Suspense is usually put to good use.<br /><br />Show Me The Money, on the other hand, is just too slow-paced. When a question is revealed and it is obvious that the player knows the correct answer, you can rest assured that absolutely nothing exciting will happen in the next few minutes. It would greatly help the pace of this show to reveal the correct answer FIRST, and THEN have the player select a dancer, instead of Shat wasting time talking about what will happen if the player gets an answer wrong when we all know they're right. The random dancing is filler that actually feels like filler. Too much time is wasted while not enough is happening... and the fact that players cannot choose to quit the game early guarantees that there WILL be a lot of time wasted.<br /><br />Oh, and I have NO interest in watching Shat shake his groove thang, especially right after I've eaten dinner.<br /><br />I am a lifelong game show fan, but even I had a lot of trouble sitting through an hour of this. It either needs major changes or early retirement.
There was such a hype about a game show with Bill Shatner...and especially right in the wake of Deal or No Deal and 1 vs 100. So, of course everyone had to tune in to see what all the fuss was about on the new game show. What a disappointment! As Ben Stein so stoically and nasally says, "wooww".<br /><br />The only thing likable about this show was the fact that you knew it would eventually be over. Sitting through a full hour of it was like going to the dentist...you find yourself looking at the clock in what you think are 10 minute intervals, only to find out that only a minute has passed (but seemed like an eternity) since you last glanced at the clock. So, why didn't I just switch the channel? Well, probably for the same reason most other people didn't...out of sheer optimism. I mean, no one really *wants* to think that a show with Bill Shatner could actually be SO BAD.<br /><br />Personally, from the first 15 minutes, I never thought this was the kind of vehicle that would showcase the talents of William Shatner. My chief complaint was that the set was so dark. Watching it left me feeling depressed. You kept on wanting to get ahold of a little excitement, but there was just none to be had. There was not even enough light on the set to get a feel of energy from the audience (who you couldn't even see).<br /><br />Dear Network: People do not watch game shows to cure their insomnia...they watch game shows to be excited and have a good time. Please do us all a favor and lose this in the vault.
My wife and I are semi amused by Howie Mandel's show.. I also like Shatner - even when he's at his most pathetic..<br /><br />But this is absolutely the worst show on television.<br /><br />Please cancel this show. It sucks a**.<br /><br />The only positive thing I can say is that the girls are hotter on this show and seem to wear less clothing than Deal or no Deal...<br /><br />The questions are a mixture of way too easy and incredibly obscure. And watching Shatner or the contestant say "Show me the money" makes me want to vomit..<br /><br />This one will not last.
Trying to cash in on the success of Deal Or No Deal and 1 Versus 100 comes this lame excuse for entertainment - Show Me The Money, in which 12 sexy 'dancers' shimmy out in shiny red hooker attire. A contestant is given the beginning of a phrase, such as "Which team lost . . ." with three choices, A, B, or C, each which completes the phrase. The contestant has three chances to give an answer to one of these 3 choices. The host - William Shatner, at his obnoxious smarmiest - asks the contestant if he wants to "lock into the answer" and when the contestant says yes, he picks a 'dancer', to whom he yells "Show me the money!" She opens a scroll that has an amount, and if his answer was right, he adds that amount to his winnings; if he was wrong, the amount is subtracted. (So theoretically, it is possible for a contestant on this dreary debacle to actually wind up owing Shatner money.) There is also a "Killer Card" and if the contestant picks the girl who has that vile scroll, but he has answered properly, nothing happens. If he's answered wrong, the game goes into Sudden Death and has to answer another question. If he gets that one wrong, he leaves with nothing.<br /><br />Before going to commercials, Shatner yells, "let's dance" and Shatner, the contestant and the 12 dancers shake booty. At the end of the show, Shatner asks the ladies for "a last dance" and they all shake it some more.<br /><br />I give this show 6 episodes at the very most, at which time hopefully this pathetic excuse for a game will be shown the door. (It could've been worse - they could've somehow bribed Cuba Gooding Jr to be the host, although I bet he's a better dancer than 'Shat,' as they call him these days.)<br /><br />7/08: Guess what - I was wrong! It lasted for only 5 episodes. There IS hope for the world.
As the summary says you just made the most ignorant comment i have ever heard on an RPG. You seriously thought they were gay? Are you retarded? If you went to go save your best friend and someone decides out of the goodness of his heart to help you then you are in a serious debt to that man. Lavitz was a good person and each time they helped each other it made them closer as friends. They weren't gay lovers like your bitching about. And to let you know the game is set in a medieval time period. Back then, women did just prepare meals while the men fought. Do you even know your history? Do you know how long it took for women to be accepted in the army in present day? This game contains a lot of realism even though your too damn slow obviously to catch it, and you really need to spit out some solid proof instead of ignorant assumptions based off your misguided act to interpret the story.
Man, this gets a lot of good reviews in the review books. Frankly, I found it too slow and unappealing right from the start. I kept waiting for it to pick up a little steam but that never happened. This movie is vastly overrated.<br /><br />Shakespeare, with the King James English, has never appealed to me, anyway, so it may just be me. There is a fair share of the latter in the first half of the film as they show Ronald Colman playing the role of Othello.<br /><br />The good points of the film include - thanks to a restored print - some decent cinematography and a young, slim and attractive Shelly Winters.<br /><br />Overall, this is simply too boring, too much repetition in some of the scenes to watch again. Besides, we all know that most actors are nut-cases, anyway, but kudos to Hollywood for demonstrating it here in this story.
Ronald Colman won a Best Actor Oscar for showy performance as a popular stage thespian who completely loses himself in his roles, particularly as Shakespeare's Othello. Critically-lauded George Cukor film has a marvelous pedigree, having been written by the estimable team of Ruth Gordon and Garson Kanin. Unfortunately, the witty banter comes off as self-conscious here, and the backstage business is overripe. Miklós Rózsa also won an Oscar for his score, and Shelley Winters has a few fine moments a tough waitress (when theatrical Colman breathlessly addresses her, she asks him, "What are ya? Some kind of nut?"). Otherwise, this scenario is awfully obvious, surprisingly draggy, and not very funny. *1/2 from ****
This seems like two films: one a dreary, pretentious lengthy saga about an ac-tor who is taken over by the parts he plays; the other a brilliant social comment about a middle aged divorce who is picked up by a waitress. Shelley Winters is wonderful as a waitress with another business on the side. She drops heavy hints about the need for connections, her certificate in massage and her desire to get into the modelling game. I love the glimpse of her seedy flat with a kitchenette behind a curtain, and her terrible seducing outfit of navel-revealing, puff-sleeved crochet top.<br /><br />Do actors get Oscars for Shakespeare? We know they Oscars for impersonating disabled people, wearing a lot of prosthetics, or pretending to be mad. The Shakespearean scenes (which go ON and ON) are embarrassing and dated. And so are the 'going mad' scenes where Tony looks distracted while listening to his own voice-over.<br /><br />By the way, Anthony John is not aristocratic. He makes it quite clear in an early scene that he used to be a chorus boy. When he quotes his father's advice, he slips into a Cockney accent.
Oh man, this s-u-c-k-e-d sucked.... I couldn't even get any camp value out of this......and I sat through the whole thing on Showtime.... Don't bother waiting around for the 'naked' scenes either.....it's too late and only plastic Jenna Jameson is involved.. Shows how much discretionary cash must be laying around Hollywood just to get your name on the closing credits.. I guess Showtime had to throw something in at 1am... Next time I think I'd even rather be watching ESPN loop around every 30 minutes...
Don't get me wrong, this is a terrible, clichéd film, but it is a delight for fans of Olivia Hussey - quite possibly the most intoxicating beauty ever to grace the silver screen. One poster stated that she was unpleasant to look at - I wonder what his ideal woman looks like - Paris Hil-slut? Blockbuster should really establish a sub-genre to this type of film, as the Fatal Attraction plot has become a genre unto itself. When will Blockbuster adopt the "Adultry" section? It will fit in quite nicely between the drama and action sections, right? This film revolves around Olivia Hussey, who spends a night of passion with an unstable yacht owner who may have murdered his ex-wife, who looks remarkably like Ms. Hussey. This ne'er-do-well proceeds to stalk Olivia and thus make her life a living-hell. I like Olivia Hussey, but I have no sympathy for characters in movies that cheat on their spouses, so I really wasn't rooting for Olivia to make it out o this stinker alive.<br /><br />VIOLENCE: $$ (There is a smattering of violence in the film. Don Murray and Anthony John Denison get involved in a fisticuffs when Denison says that he will not stop seeing Olivia, Murray's wife, because she is just too good in bed. Olivia also gets to handle a shooter and might get to squeeze off a round - I'll let you watch).<br /><br />NUDITY: $$ (Olivia is the queen of brief nudity and supplies a little here. She has a love scene with Anthony John Denison and also has a shower scene - shot at a distance).<br /><br />STORY: $ (We've seen this plot before - a hundred times over, and oftentimes done much better. The true culprit, when trying to decipher why this film was a dud, is William Riead. The man's dialogue is sophomoric and moronic. The man has no story-telling abilities and fails to build believable human reactions to the plot. These people, of the upper strata of society, talk like middle school kids - with a habit of sleeping during English class. I have placed Riead on the Never-to-be-Viewed-Again list).<br /><br />ACTING: $$$ (The acting wasn't "phoned-in" as the insiders say, but was hindered a great deal by Riead's juvenile script. Olivia Hussey resorts to calling Anthony Jonh Denison "weird" and "crazy" to his face when he begins to stalk her. Hussey, who is still beautiful, delivers the best performance here but Denison was equal to the task of portraying a demented, love-crazed stalker. Don Murray was basically just there - his character not fleshed out, and Edward Asner, a terrific actor when given something with substance, is ill-used in this film).
The plot is plausible but banal, i.e., beautiful and neglected wife of wealthy and powerful man has a fling with a psychotic hunk, then tries to cover it up as the psycho stalks and blackmails her. But, what develops from there is stupefyingly illogical. Despite the resources that are available to the usual couple who has money and influence, our privileged hero and heroine appear to have only one domestic, their attorney and local police (who say they can do nothing) at their disposal while they grapple with suspense and terror. They have no private security staff (only a fancy security system that they mishandle), household or grounds staff, chauffeurs, etc. Not even, apparently, the funds to hire private round-the-clock nurses to care for the hero when he suffers life-threatening injuries, leaving man and wife alone and vulnerable in their mansion. Our heroine is portrayed as having the brains of a doorknob and our hero, a tycoon, behaves in the most unlikely and irrational manner. The production is an insult to viewers who wasted their time with this drivel and a crime for having wasted the talents of veteran actors Oliva Hussey and Don Murray (what were they thinking?). And, shame on Lifetime TV for insulting the intelligence of its audience for this insipid offering.
*****Warning: May contain SPOILERS********* My HUGE problem with this movie is how totally self-centered and self consumed the adulteress wife is!! After having a one night stand with a slimy psycho she is being stalked by him. He calls her constantly and threatens her and even sends a video of their night together. He is OBVIOUSLY crazy and very dangerous. The problem is she only thinks he is dangerous to HER (and exposing her secret). Not for one second did she ever have one thought of concern for her husband! Did she even for a moment think of him possibly being in danger from this psychotic?? As soon as she realized how mental he was she should have warned her husband no matter what the consequences. Maybe there wouldn't have been a movie then but there really wasn't one anyway so what's the difference.
I really looked forward to this program for two reasons; I really liked Jan Michael Vincent and I am an aviation nut and have a serious love affair with helicopters. I don't like this program because it takes fantasy to an unbelievable level. The world speed record for helicopters was set at 249 mph by a Westland Lynx several years ago. The only chopper that was ever faster was the experimental Lockheed AH56A in the 1960's. It hit over 300 and was a compound helicopter, which means it had a pusher propeller at the end of its fuselage providing thrust.<br /><br />In short, no helicopter can fly much over 275 because of the principle of rotary wing flight. And the Bell 222, the "actor" that portrayed Airwolf wasn't very fast even by helicopter standards. And it didn't stay in production very long.<br /><br />There was a movie that came out during this time period called "Blue Thunder" that was much more realistic.
I remember loving this show when I was a kid. I thought the helicopter was the coolest thing I've seen. It was ultra high-tech for it's time. It could repel enemy fire, do all sorts of acrobatics in the air, and take down nearly anything in it's way. Now I go back and watch it today and am surprised how lousy this show really is. The casts members are hardly compelling, there are a lot of cheesy moments, and the fight scenes are incredibly fake looking. And nearly every ending has the same helicopter fighting crap with the obvious reuse of grainy low quality stock footage. Lot of the footages appear to date from the Vietnam War era.<br /><br />Airwolf has basically the same theme as Knight Rider, except the crime-fighting vehicle of choice is a helicopter instead of a car. After watching a few episodes, I found myself utterly bored. I do, however, love the theme music.
This film is roughly what it sounds like: a futuristic version of the Cinderella legend but with songs and (fairly tame) sex scenes! The film is not sure what it wants to be and pretty much ends up a mess. It's more expensive looking than most of director Al Adamson's films but it's not at the same budget level that viewers have come to expect from sci-fi films. The actors are pretty bad and unlike most Adamson films, there are no former big namers or B actors. Some of the music is OK but it's easy to see why Cinderella 2000 has been forgotten for so many years.
Life in some future fascist or near fascist state which severely restricts personal freedoms is a recurrent theme both in modern literature and for film makers. Such works post us warnings about undesirable trends in our society to watch out for; but to be effective they must also be entertaining. Unfortunately most of the books are probably more effective in posting the warnings than in entertaining us enough to become really widely read; whilst with the films the problem is usually the other way round. The first such work to become really widely known was probably George Orwell's "1984" (first published in 1948), and this is still readily available both in the form of a book and as a film.<br /><br />Watch or read it: and then, when you are feeling a little depressed by man's inhumanity to man, reach for Cinderella 2000. This is a feather light low budget film comedy based on the same theme which provides effortless but unrewarding viewing; and as with 1984 the calendar has now passed beyond its erstwhile period. Most of the comedy is laid on with a trowel although there are just a few genuinely funny moments. To exercise your mind in the long intervals between these you can focus it on the question of whether this film will gain a new extension of life by being released as a DVD or whether it will finally disappear into oblivion as existing tape copies deteriorate past redemption. There are many worse films appearing as DVD's these days, and frankly I do not care much what happens either way.<br /><br />So far the best of the films of this genre has probably been "The Handmaiden's Tale", but I would very happily swap them all for a well made film of Jack London's towering novel "The Iron Heel". Ambitious as this would be, it still seems incredible that no modern film maker has yet dared to attempt it (IMDb only lists a B/W silent version made in Russia in 1919).
This movie is pure guano. Mom always said if you can't say anything nice... but even Mom would say I had to do my part to warn others of this movie.<br /><br />I can guarantee this is the film that Geoffrey Rush wishes would just go away. I would hope that Greg Kinnear fired his agent..from a cannon for giving him the script. After this Ben Stiller is probably praying for someone to pitch "There's Still Something About Mary." I have always been a fan of Wes Studi's, thank whatever you hold holy that he wore a mask through the film so maybe people won't identify the film with him.<br /><br />It starts of promisingly with a stylistic spoof of the cinematography of the Batman films and then just loses something...like a coherent plot and half decent effects.<br /><br />The jokes are telegraphed an hour before the punchline comes, and even then they fall flat. If you want to see an effective spoof of the comic book world see "Chasing Amy".<br /><br />RUN! DON'T WALK AWAY FROM "MYSTERY MEN"!
Oh, it's the movie - I thought I waited too long to take out the dog... I can't believe I watched the whole thing. I guess I was optimistically anticipating that it was going to get better. Horribly disjointed dialog, pathetic acting, and totally improbable events. Like Toby's mom hanging herself in the time it takes Col to walk upstairs and back down in a room with a 24' ceiling and no chairs, counters or anything around her motionlessly suspended body that she could have possibly used to climb on to do herself in. The little girl that played the daughter of the last family was the best actor in the whole movie, and the puppy of the first couple was a close second. The basic storyline has potential and with a good script and director could be a seriously creepy flick, but this version sadly is not it. I get more scared when I open my electric bill every month.
This is not an entirely bad movie. The plot (new house built next door seems to be haunted) is not bad, the mood is creepy enough, and the acting is okay. The big problem I had is that, being familiar with Lara Flynn Boyle (from Twin Peaks and other shows), I couldn't get over how different she looks with her apparently new, big lips. I kept staring at them. They look so out of place on her face! They make her look completely different (and not better).<br /><br />Mark-Paul Gosselaar, the actor who plays Kim the architect who designs and pours his heart and soul into the house, does a fine job. And Lara (as Col) is also quite good (but those lips!) as the owner of the house next door. Her husband, Walker (Colin Ferguson) is appropriately wooden. The various characters who live in the house were also fine. I particularly liked Pie (Charlotte Sullivan) and her husband, Buddy (Stephen Amell), the first people to move into the house. The attempt to involve us in the overall neighborhood vibe fails, unfortunately, as the other neighbors are not particularly likable.<br /><br />For some reason the director was unable to make the "haunted" house particularly ominous. Other movies (such as Amityville Horror, The Legend of Hell House) manage to achieve that spooky feel, but it just doesn't happen here. The closest is when Col paints a depiction of the house.<br /><br />Another thing that didn't work for me is the plot twist that occurs with Kim, the architect. Initially, he appears to be a victim of the house like the others (it has sucked him dry of inspiration), but later he seems to have joined forces with it in evil.<br /><br />Overall, not a bad movie for horror fans if you can take your eyes off those big lips!
No mention if Ann Rivers Siddons adapted the material for "The House Next Door" from her 1970s novel of the same title, or someone else did it. This Lifetime-like movie was directed by Canadian director Jeff Woolnough. Having read the book a long time ago, we decided to take a chance when the film showed on a cable version of what was clearly a movie made for television. You know that when the critical moments precede the commercials, which of course, one can't find in this version we watched.<br /><br />The film's star is Lara Flynn Boyle who sports a new look that threw this viewer a curve because of the cosmetic transformation this actress has gone through. From the new eyebrows to other parts of her body, Ms. Boyle is hardly recognizable as Col Kennedy, the character at the center of the mystery. This was not one of the actress better moments in front of the camera. That goes for the rest of the mainly Canadian actors that deserved better.<br /><br />The film has a feeling of a cross between "Desperate Houswives" with "The Stepford Wives" and other better known features, combined with a mild dose of creepiness. The best thing about the movie was the house which serves as the setting.
The cast is OK. The script is awkward at times, and it takes a while to figure out what the point of the movie is. I found myself looking forward to doing the dishes. The Shehan bit is a cheesy statement on the war. I guess we were supposed to not notice it...we did. Its a house, you did nothing more than kill forty five minutes. The shower part...huh? What was that about? Literally, it is I have a client, "Ok you can use our shower." Yawn. The angles are trying way to hard. There was a set of woods, suddenly its gone cause you can see right through, then next it is deep and animals are dying. In the end this is a horrendous movie of boring proportions.
It would help to know why it took so long for a book as movie-ready' as "The House Next Door" to be adapted for film or television. The book was copyrighted in 1978. One reason could be problems designing 'the house'. The house in this Lifetime film is really so ugly that I can't imagine anyone buying it. In fact it's so ugly that someone would probably have come and destroyed it as soon as it was built.<br /><br />I'm not crazy about horror genre books, but this one was hard to put down when I came across it around ten years ago. The main characters are not the kind of people to look for anything occult in life, and this is one of the book's strengths. They are not people who would conclude that the architect was some type of demon..(or the devil personified) without witnessing and analyzing the events described so well in the book. However, it is a downbeat book for the most part, and I don't think that appeals to the people who run Lifetime. Maybe someone will come up with another version of the book in years to come. A better house..better music..a better screenplay and darker lighting...would certainly help.
Not that I was really surprised....movies are never as good as the books that they originated from. I was looking forward to seeing this movie because this is one of my favorite books, even though I knew it would probably suck. I was hoping to be pleasantly surprised. However, they strayed from the book's storyline too much, and the movie version did not convey how horrible this house really was. Ending was different too. Lara Flynn Boyle looked terrible due to some really bad cosmetic surgery. The acting was unremarkable at best. Perhaps if a theatrical version was made so that they wouldn't have to stay so much in Lifetime's "made for TV movie" box, it would be a better flick. If you saw this movie I highly encourage you to track down the book and read it. I doubt you'll be disappointed and hope you enjoy it as much as I do every time I read it.
I read the book a long time back and don't specifically remember the plot but do remember that I enjoyed it. Since I'm home sick on the couch it seemed like a good idea and Hey !! It is a Lifetime movie.<br /><br />The movie is populated with grade B actors and actresses.<br /><br />The female cast is right out of Desperate Housewives. I've never seen the show but there are lots of commercials for the show and I get the gist. Is there nothing original anymore? Sure, but not on Lifetime.<br /><br />The male cast are all fairly effeminate looking and acting but the girls need to have husbands I suppose.<br /><br />In one scene a female is struggling with a male, for her life, and what does she do??? Kicks him in the testicles. What else? Women love that but let me tell you girls something... It's not as easy as it's always made to look.<br /><br />It wasn't all bad. I did get the chills a time or two so I have to credit someone with that.
For all its visual delights, how much better Renaissance would have been in live action. The animation is fantastic in the big picture, yes, but the characters are cold and hollow, much like the story and the style of this film. With real actors, perhaps the world of the film would not have felt so lifeless. There is much to admire here, but at the end I found that all I could do was admire. I did not enjoy the movie that much, and it clarifies something that I did not see before: that the visual elements can be the defining positive aspect of a film, but without a good story and strong characters, it can all be for nothing. I will not go so far as to say that this movie comes to nothing, but sometimes it comes dangerously close. I love Dark sci-fi thrillers. Blade Runner and Dark City are two films I thought were wonderful. But Blade Runner had its tragic villain and Dark City had its thought-provoking story arc. Renaissance has shadow and light, but little else. I wish I could have liked this movie more, but the weak story and the empty characters stood in the way of that. The Renaissance was a historical and artistic burst of color and life. How ironic, then, that one of the most bleak and lifeless movies I've seen this year takes its title from the Renaissance.
A shaky hand-held camera was used, presumably to give the film a documentary look, but the effect was so exaggerated that I started to get motion-sickness just from watching it. It looked like someone with cerebral palsy was holding the camera (no offense meant to CP sufferers, but I don't think you would expect to get much work as a cinematographer!) The camera work was so nauseating, and so distracting, that my wife and I considered it unwatchable and gave up on it after 10 minutes of torture. I checked back a while later (it was showing on TV), and it hadn't gotten any better. I suggest giving this one a miss unless you need to get rid of any bad sushi you may have eaten!
Why were there so many people crowding into an evening showing of Roberto Moreira's "Up Against Them All" ("Contra Todos") at the San Francisco Film Festival? "It's about a hit man," my friend said. "Well. . . and it's Brazilian," I added. Beautiful multicolored people, tropical weather, lush rhythms, and a hip gangster plot? Ample enticements no doubt.<br /><br />Somebody forgot to tell us one little detail: this is a very bad movie, really pretty horrible, and as unpleasant to watch as it is poorly made.<br /><br />So how on earth did "Contra Todos" get to make the rounds of Berlin, Melbourne, London, Manila, Stockholm, Cairo, Chicago, numerous smaller local festivals, and now San Francisco? Apparently, because of the way the promotional process and the film festival circuit work.<br /><br />First of all, it won first prize at the Rio Film Festival where it was called the best Brazilian movie of the year. It must have been a bad year; they've had much, much better ones. Next, snappy synopses in catalogs plus imaginary buzz lead to crowded auditoriums and -- since the movie isn't featured anywhere and so avoids close scrutiny by critics -- it keeps going the rounds.<br /><br />Festival blurbs aimed at promotion sometimes goose it up a lot. A Chicago Festival one called "Contra Todos" "a speedball cocktail shot straight out of Brazil" and referred to Claudia's s boyfriend as the "stud of the slum-like neighborhood." Soninha is "Teodoro's nymph-like teen-aged daughter of burgeoning sexuality." The movie is "shot with the urgency of a frequently hand-held camera" and the director "works up a genuine and palpable sense of frustration borne from domestic desperation and decay." The effect is " unbearably raw and honest," and the movie hurtles "toward a conclusion as dead-ended as the lives on display." Not the best writing, but it sure pumps up the excitement for a certain kind of potential viewer.<br /><br />"Contra Todos" does concern a hit man, two hit men actually, and a wife and daughter and a born-again Christian girlfriend. It's shot -- in execrably ugly digital video with no talent behind the camera-work -- mostly in a barren-looking poor suburb rather than in one of the teeming "favelas" or village-like Brazilian city slums where such wonderful films as "Black Orpheus", "Pixote," and "City of God" were made, and not in Rio this time, but São Paulo.<br /><br />The hit man with family problems is Teodoro ( Giulio Lopez) and his partner with a drug problem is Waldomiro (Ailtan Graça). Both actors have a little TV experience as does the actress who plays Teodoro's sluttish blonde wife Cláudia (Leona Cavalli) and Silvia Lorenço who plays his pouting, ready-to-revolt daughter Soninha. These actors might make it through the back corners of a few telenovelas. Who knows? -- in a better directed film they might even be good. Aside from them there are some young men who get bumped off by Teordoro or, when he's busy, gangs of thugs. The principals don't work up much presence, even though the camera magnifies their pores.<br /><br />A couple of observers, one at the Berlin Festival and one at London's, did see this movie's failings but alas they're buried in the Web hinterlands. Henry Sheehan noted from Berlin that the "film" (his quotes) was "the worst of the video works" shown. "The filmmaker seems to have chosen video simply because it was a cheap alternative to film," Sheehan wrote, "and hasn't made any creative use of the new medium" -- nor, he adds, done anything else creative.<br /><br />Sheehan pointed out the movie's first big mistake: it "starts off as a domestic drama that's supposed to ratchet up when, half an hour into the action, Moreira reveals that the father and one of his friends are professional hit men. Waiting the thirty minutes adds nothing to the movie; it seems like a perfectly arbitrary decision and is, at the very least, a waste of time. But ratcheting up is all Moreira ever does, like a little kid who's gotten a tool kit for his birthday, and goes around banging everything in sight without rhyme, reason or skill." Devastating, but true.<br /><br />Writing about the 2004 London festival for Kamera.com, Metin Alsanjak tried to look at the positive side but nonetheless gave away the lack of redeeming features in calling the performances "easily the film's best feature." Yes, very easily, given that everything else is so bad. Alsanjak admitted that " this low-budget, violent and seedy account of the lawless in Sao Paulo is devoid of any likable characters, and as a result, of hope. Too dark and cynical to be a telling account of the human condition, the film is not helped by poor subtitling.. ." Alsanjak's connecting Contra Todos to "Dogme" and Mike Leigh didn't help matters.<br /><br />Apart from that meaningless first half hour in which nothing redeems the boredom of our wait for the first acts of violence -- which, when they come, are just "banging everything in sight without rhyme, reason or skill" -- Moreira clumsily tries to redeem his abrupt finale by adding what appear to be outtakes right after it, followed by an implausible ironic concluding scene where one of the characters gets married. No doubt the director wanted to exhibit the "banality of evil" of low-level hit men in working class neighborhoods, but he can't make the characters, which he sees generically, come alive for us. And the structure of the film shows that he also can't edit his material. <br /><br />(Seen at the San Francisco International Film Festival on April 28, 2005.)
I found the pace to be glacial and the original story blown way out of proportion to the content. My wife slept through most of it and I did not try to wake her because I felt she was not missing anything.<br /><br />When Holmes and Watson enter the house and then are potentially caught, it is unclear how they could hide all of their entry and burglary tools so quickly. It is also unclear how the door to the study is locked, preventing the servants from getting in.<br /><br />The thing that puzzled me was right at the end when there was a glint in the eye of the broken statute. I have no clue what this was supposed to represent.
At the end of this episode Holmes asks Watson not to record the case for posterity.For a good reason! The super sleuth left his little grey cells(sorry Agatha)at home for this tale. There is no deductive reasoning,no acute analysis of signs at crime scenes. Holmes bumbles along fifty yards behind the plot. The dastardly CAM is finally dealt to by an old frail-in a manner that would have made Charles Bronson's heart swell with pride-six bullets in the breadbasket.In an ensuing chase a pursuer gets hold of one of Watson's shoes.Mercifully the writer didn't decide to tack on the story of Cinderella to lengthen the film.The murderess,Holmes and Watson,escape scot free. Oh well,it is a bit of a change of pace in late Victorian London.A bit of sixgun law:-)
My roommate got the No, No, Nanette soundtrack as a dub on a tape and she proceeded to listen to it non-stop. After it finally totally brainwashed me into submission, I found the songs to be irresistible, especially the famous, I want to be happy, but I can't be happy... But of coarse from the soundtrack I had no idea what the film was about. So the other day I saw a copy of it at the video store and I rented what was supposed to be a long lost version of the film. I was thinking that it was going to be amazing, because the soundtrack is so cute. Unfortunately most of the songs that I loved were nowhere to be found in the video I saw. Now I've never seen the 1930 version of the musical but this version was sadly disappointing because there was very little singing and practically no dancing and beside that the sound was really bad through out and you couldn't really understand what people were saying a lot of the time. Really the only highlights of this film were the outrageous 1940's fashion. Nanette wears this crazy hat with two feathers that stick out like rabbit ears and Kansas Kitty has this bizarre feather muff that she keeps on her fore arm and then has herself wrapped in this net scarf. The one dance sequence is a little weird too with Nanette doing this weird ballet stuff with pin-up girl imagery superimposed on top of her. Actually one more bright spot of the film was the artist Guillespe who dreams of being a fine artist but it currently condemned to drawing pin-up girls for money. I like how Guillespe keeps it old school, and disses Nanette when his masterpiece, the piece that was to make his career, is sold by Nanette for a paltry $5250. Doesn't she realize that that piece was his immortality? Silly rabbit/girl with your feather rabbit ears on your hat. When will you learn? Why doesn't he just pencil in a cigarette before the ad men take the Work away?
This version is likely available at your local dollar store on DVD. The print is not great, nor is the sound, but if you have $1.00 and 90 or so minutes to spare, you'll get your money's worth (which is not saying an awful lot). Anna Neagle is extremely vapid as Nanette. Whatever her charms may have been back in the day, they are not evident in this film. A great number of fine character actors appear in this film (Helen Broderick, Zasu Pitts, Even Arden), but the material falls remarkably short of their talents. Still, it is interesting to see how such accomplished performers make the most of the weak writing. The musical numbers (there are really only two) are quite horrible. Clearly the studio did not feel compelled to cash in on the rich musicality of the original "No, No, Nanette". For what it's worth, the DVD can be had for $1.00. It's worth that much just to say you've seen it.
This sad little film bears little similarity to the 1971 Broadway revival that was such a 'nostalgic' hit. Keep in mind that when Burt Shevelove directed that revival, he rewrote the book extensively. I have a feeling that this screenwriter wrought as much of a change from the original 1925 version as well. I played the 'innocent philanderer' Jimmy Smith on-stage in 1974, and thought this $1 DVD would bring back memories. Not a chance. Even the anticipated delight of seeing "Topper" Roland Young play 'my' part was a major disappointment. Three songs from the play remain, and are done very poorly. Even the classic duet, "Tea For Two", is done as a virtual solo. The many familiar faces in this 1940 fiasco do not do themselves proud at all, and the star, Anna Neagle, just embarrasses herself. When I feel gypped by spending a dollar, I know the film must be bad. Another commentator mentioned the Doris Day version, which is actually called "Tea For Two" and is about doing the stage play (the original, of course), so those who are seeking the true "No No Nanette" might find a more recognizable version there.
Well I just paid a dollar for a DVD of this movie, and it wasn't even worth that. It seems to be from a poor print and is in the public domain, I am guessing.<br /><br />Neagle - despite her glory, awards, and reputation - is a homely British gal who can't sing or dance or act.<br /><br />Some of the fine old Hollywood character actors on display here must have thought they were doing a classic. Director Herbert Wilcox (Neagle's husband) always thought Anna was the most exciting and talented femme on the screen. He was mistaken. She was improbably popular in Britain before and after WWII. Her "serious" roles are even more ludicrous than her musical appearance here.<br /><br />Only a couple of the famous songs are included and neither one is well presented. Skip this one and find the one that stars Doris Day. At least you get some real comedy and professional style dancing!
This film, originally released at Christmas, 1940, was long thought lost. A very poor copy has resurfaced and made into a CD, now for sale. Don't buy it! The film is unspeakably terrible. The casting is poor, the script is awful, and the directing is dreadful.<br /><br />Picture Roland Young singing and dancing. And that was the highlight.<br /><br />Perhaps this movie was lost deliberately.
Franco Rossi's 1985 six-hour Italian mini-series of Quo Vadis is a very curious beast, creating an absolutely convincing ancient Roman world shot in matter of fact fashion (very few long shots, no big cityscapes), but playing the drama down so much in favour of allusions to classical literature and history that the story constantly gets lost in the background.<br /><br />The shifting structure (much of episode one is played out via voice over letters) and lack of narrative urgency makes the full six-hour version simultaneously demanding and undemanding, and certainly far too often uninvolving, but it has something going for it. The two main strengths are the characterisation of Petronius (a thankfully dubbed Frederic Forrest, whose own voice would almost certainly flatten his dialogue) as a man whose spent so long looking for an astute angle to survive court life that he's become incapable of experiencing emotion, and Klaus Maria Brandauer's unique take on Nero as a wannabe actor whose every move and action is calculated on how his 'audience' will receive it. Elsewhere, Max Von Sydow briefly appears in a few episodes, being rewarded with the show's most impressive and genuinely moving scene here he encounters a child as he attempts to leave Rome. It's the kind of thing the show could do with more of, but it seems all too often to flatten every potentially emotional, inspiring or exciting moment under it's relentlessly low-key direction.<br /><br />Unfortunately Francesco Quinn makes a staggeringly anonymous hero, blending in with the walls and coming over less as a Roman officer than that quiet, slightly gormless but inoffensive guy who works in the same office as you who never says much at office parties - you know, the one who you think is called Dave or something like that. The budgetary limitations are very visible once its Meet the Lions time for the Christians and Ursus battle with the bull is so determinedly low key that it just passes over you before the show just abruptly loses interest and suddenly ends.<br /><br />Not a trip I can particularly recommend, I'm afraid, but if you do embark on it it's one not entirely without its small rewards.
Don't let the name of this film deceive you, In reality Jake Speed the character is quite possibly the laziest action hero ever known to film. When Jake Speed is not saving virgin girls from evil madmen, which he is often not, he's seriously relaxing. Perhaps this adds to his charm, but in my opinion an action hero is not suppose to "chill out" whenever he gets the chance. Furthermore, unlike other daring heros who usually have an impressive list of talents, this man has none, unless of course you call sleeping a talent. Anyhow, this movie is basically worthless, the writing is sub par and the action, when there is some, is very lame. (The machine guns on the jeep weren't bad, but that's about it) So, if you're in the mood to watch a movie that is a cure for insomnia, then this piece is perfect for you - It has a hero that not only puts himself to sleep, but also his audience.
So what's the big fuss out of making an INDIANA JONES wannabe when you have an actor who's cast as a fictional dude from adventure storybooks who doesn't want to go out on an adventure??? Whoever wrote the script for JAKE SPEED was probably fired, but for whatever reasons possible, this movie greatly lacks in excitement! That doesn't mean it has no action, but look on the dark side of the picture. This has got to bare no resemblance to INDIANA JONES or other action-adventure thrills containing cliffhangers and narrow escapes, and JAKE SPEED was promoted that way using clever propaganda to make me and several others interested in it! Besides, I've never heard of the guy, so who needs his attention?
This could be a strong candidate for "The Worst Flick Ever". Perhaps without the presence of John Hurt, it could be tolerated as a kid-film. However, the TRAGEDY of this entire endeavor, is that John Hurt, one of the screen's greatest actors, diminishes himself in this....I gave it two points just because Mr. Hurt SHOWED UP...I take AWAY 8 points, because he didn't run from it fast enough. As far as the rest of the cast, they are, simply, terrible. Janine Turner, as pretty as she might be, cannot act to save her soul. And the lead actor is, for all intents and purposes, AWFUL. If you can spare yourself this embarrassment, please do so. It's so bad, it almost HURTS.
I would have liked to give this movie a zero but that wasn't an option!! This movie sucks!!! The women cannot act. i should have known it was gonna suck when i saw Bobby Brown. Nobody in my house could believe i hadn't changed the channel after the first 15 minutes. the idea of black females as gunslingers in the western days is ridiculous. it's not just a race thing, it's also a gender. the combination of the two things is ridiculous.i am sorry because some of the people in the movie aren't bad actors/actresses but the movie itself was awful. it was not credible as a movie. it might be 'entertaining' to a certain group of people but i am not in that group. lol. and using a great line from a great, great movie..."that's all I have to say about that."
Alright, I got passed the horrible acting. I got passed the fact that Lil Kim was blasting some cannons and her arms or hands weren't moving, I got passed the weaves, I got passed the colored contacts.<br /><br />This is what killed it for me: In the scene where the four roses were sitting at the table arguing. Lisa-Raye and Monica Calhoun stand up and, and then Lil Kim gets up to break up any hostilities by saying, "Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Hold up. Let's CHILL OUT here for a HOT SECOND." I am a fan of the western movie genre, and I never heard anyone talk slang like this in any of Clint Eastwood's movies.<br /><br />If anyone thinks this movie deserves over a 1 rating, please tell me another movie that's worse than Gang of Roses.<br /><br />I'm through.
This was an excellent idea and the scenery was beautiful but that's where it ends. It seemed like a lackluster Set It Off meets The West. The plot barely made any sense. There were so many characters and not enough time to develop their personalities. There were too may unnecessary things going on that didn't pertain to the plot nor did it help further the story along. There were also long blank moments where the plot could have been explored but was used for silence or unnecessary conversations. The script should have made more sense as well as the directing. I had a huge question mark on my head watching this movie. But the casting was great in my opinion. If you're only watching for eye candy then this is the movie for you.
Must have to agree with the other reviewer. This has got to be the WORST movie, let alone western I have ever seen. Terrible acting, dialogue that was unimaginative and pathetic (let alone completely inappropriate for supposedly being in the 1800s), and oh, did I mention a battery pack prominently displayed on the back of one of the characters? I was waiting for the boom mike to fall in the middle of a scene. And the ending? The least I can say is that it was consistent with the rest of the movie...completely awful. And yes, it did contain every cliché in the book from the slow walk down the empty dusty road to the laughable "let's remember when" shots when a main character dies. Luckily I saw this on free TV. Don't waste your time.
the costumes, the dialog, historical accuracy are terrible. For instance, - Stacey Dash and the hanging scene. The noose was accurate ( as for as I could tell), but that type of noose broke the person's neck. Ms. Dash is left hanging at the end of the rope with no ill effects until the rope was shot. This type of not did not strangle the person, it killed them at the end of the drop.<br /><br />And right before they go in to rob a bank (in a flashback), they pause on the street for a group hug - with their bandannas hiding their faces - that would have been obvious to people on the street.<br /><br />The poor editing - that is a battery pack under that shirt and it is obvious, the clip of the "long ride" shows them riding along, then reverses the film.<br /><br />I did like the fact that they kept the scene with the horse taking a crap - it seemed symbolic. The entire movie was crap.
An absolute steaming pile of cow dung. It's mind-blowing to me that this film was even made. Hip-Hop and old westerns just don't seem to mix. What target audience were these people thinking of when planning this trainwreck.<br /><br />Not only is the concept and plot a joke, but the acting is atrocious and the fact that some decent actors were even in this nightmare of a film makes their entire careers a laughing stock. The chick from clueless should never be forgiven and she is stripped of any remaining dignity she had. After reading the first ten pages of dialogue she should have been asking which one of her friends was playing this sick joke. After some research, I actually found a list of some other actors who passed on this film: Jada Pinkett-Smith, Denzel Washington, Brandy, Monique, Kim Kardasian, Jenna Jameson, Oprah, and finally Marge Simpson.<br /><br />Simply put, I would rather stare at a blank TV than watch this movie again.
Oh, come on people give this film a break. The one thing I liked about it was......... Sorry, still thinking. Oh yeah!!!! When John Wayne came and shot up the the bad guys. Oh, sorry, wrong movie, I was thinking of a better quality film. Let me see now, I'm still trying to defend it. Oh yeah, the chick that was from Clueless was in it. Don't put down Stacy Dash. I mean, we all make mistakes. But boy, Stacy, you made a dooooosie.<br /><br />Hey, one thing that has never been done in a western, even an all female cast, they actually hung a woman from the gallows. That might be a western first. Even though her neck should have been broken and she survived the ordeal, still, you've got to give the director some effort for trying a western first. Also, I've never seen a woman lynched from a horse in any western, although that didn't happen in this movie, I just thought I would give the director another idea for Gang Of Roses#2, which should be made right after Ed Wood's Bride Of The Monster #2. Maybe that was what the makers of this film were going for. Orginality, especially with an all African woman cast and an oriental cowgirl.<br /><br />Heeey, if the makers of Gang Of Roses want to make a sequel to this mess, you could have such slang like, "Hey, don't you be takin about my homegirls" and "talk to the hand, baby, talk to the hand." You could also have a surfer dude type deputy marshal that says things like, "That gunfight was TOTALLY RAD man, totally." You know things like that.
Who? What? Where? When? Why? The acting was terrible. Very robotic, rehearsed. I have seen all of the actors in this film in better roles. The screenplay was very elementary. By the end of this film, the story line was tied up. And Jeane Claude LaMarre should be tied up, too. So that he never attempts to write/direct another film.
Sistas in da hood. Looking for revenge and bling bling. Except da hood is a wild west town in the late 1800s. I do not remember any westerns like this when I was growing up. What would Randolph Scott say? If he saw Lil' Kim, he might say, "Alright! I have to admit that I tuned into this just to see her. Bare midriffs and low cut blouses are not the staple of the usual cowboy flick, but these are the cowgirls, and they are fine.<br /><br />Now, don't go looking for any major story here, and the usual stuff of ghetto crime drama are here in a different setting. And, when's the last time you heard John Wayne call someone, "Dawg"? And, I don't remember the Earp brothers hugging and kissing before they marched to the OK Corral.<br /><br />I watch this on BET, so I missed the action that got it an R rating, but I doubt if I will buy the DVD to see it unless I can be assured it was Lil' Kim in that action.
I should have known when I looked at the box in the video store and saw Lisa Raye - to me, she's the female Ernie Hudson A.K.A. "Le Kiss of Death" for *ANY* movie. Its almost *guaranteed* the movie will be bad (e.g. Congo)if Hudson is in it (with the exception of the Ghostbusters films, which were intentionally campy and bad). Despite my instincts, and the fact that I just saw Civil Brand, yet another cinematic "tour de force" starring Lisa Raye, I rented it anyway. After all, I ignored my "Hudson instinct" on OZ and ended up watching a very quality series so I figured I'd give this movie a chance.<br /><br />If you are a lover of bad movies, this is a definite must see! This has got to be the most unintentionally funny movie I've seen in a loooong time. The plot is fairly straightforward: Racheal's (Monica Calhoun) sister is killed by a band of brigands (Led by Bobby Brown!) and, like many an action movie before this, she straps on her guns ONE LAST TIME and vows to avenge her sisters death. To do this, she reassembles the titular Gang of Roses (supposedly based on a true story of a female gang) and they go out and exact revenge and, along the way, there's some subplot or something or other about some gold that might be buried in the town. One nice thing I will say about this movie is that from what I could tell, the stars did their own riding and they looked GREAT galloping.<br /><br />The funniest (albiet unintentionally funny) scenes? Look for when they introduce Stacy Dash's character or when Calhoun's character rescinds her vow not to strap on her guns (replete with a clenched fisted cry to the heavens) or Lil' Kim's character joking with Lisa Raye's character or Stacy Dash's character being killed or Lil' Kim's character convincing Lisa Raye's character to rejoin the gang or the Asian Chick or Macy Grey's character talking bout "The debt is paid", etc. With the exception of Calhoun's Racheal and Bobby Brown's Left-Eye, I can't even remember the names of the other characters cuz I was laughing so hard when they were introduced.<br /><br />If the director had gone for parody and broad comedy this would have been a great movie. Unfortunately, he tries to take it seriously seemingly without first taking exposition, sound design (in his defense, Hip-Hop is notoriously difficult to work into a period piece), set design, script writing nor period historical research (was it me,or were these the cleanest people with the whitest teeth in the old west?) seriously. Usually when I see a movie that's not so good, I ask myself "Could you have done any better?" This is the first time in a long time where the answer is an unequivocal "YES!"
Hmm, Hip Hop music to a period western. Modern phrases like "cool" and too many others to keep track of. "The sistahs are in tha house"!?French manicured nails on hard riding girls. Microphone packs CLEARLY visible on Li'l Kim's back. I just can't go on with the litany of errors made by the director and editors.<br /><br />The acting isn't as bad as I've ever seen. The women did well enough with a poor script.<br /><br />It was weird hearing Louis Mandylor speaking in his native accent.<br /><br />The girls are beautiful. The costumes fabulous albeit completely incorrect. I just can't believe they would dumb down what could have been a great story. I would feel offended to believe that this movie was loaded with such trappings that it would play well in the inner city.<br /><br />
Pathetic is the word. Bad acting, pathetic script, cheezy dialog and hip hop music & fashion...what the hell was up with that? The directer of this movie acts as bad as the movie he made. If someone would have taken some time and effort to rework the whole thing, it may of had a chance. Bet the studios are still trying figure out how they could screw up up so badly.<br /><br />The absolute best thing about this movie was Stacey Dash...the Asian chick wasn't too bad neither. These too gals carried the whole movie. If it weren't for them I would have destroyed my copy of this movie.<br /><br />If any of those who have not seen this yet and had a notion to, don't waste your time...you'll only regret it later.
Wait, don't tell me... they threw out the movie and kept the out takes. You know, This movie could have been shot in a back alley in New York. The "Gangster Bangster" I guess. Gangster Rap, Designer gangster duster clothes including the kerchief which somehow got moved from the neck for protection from the dust storms to the head. I guess it was to protect the head from the heat filtering through the K-Mart hats. "Budget rent-a-horsie", it seems, supplied the horsies. The one bedroom scene where the girl was talking and the guy was mouthing her words.... I though it was him talking. You know, watching this movie just confirms that, it isn't about the acting anymore... its about looks and it's about the money. Couldn't have been too much of that where this movie is concerned. Well, all in all, I think that this movie will go down as the all time worst movie ever made. Just one more thing though, where was Ice T? Did he finally get to go on Oprah?
How is it possible that a movie this bad can be made. Bad acting. Bad script. Just an embarrassment all around. This is just one bad cliché after another.<br /><br />This movie actually has some big name stars in it. Unfortunately they're singers and not actors.<br /><br />This movie made hardly any money for a good reason. The appeal of black cowboy movies just isn't there. It's a shame they didn't have a good story to tell. <br /><br />This movie actually has some big name stars in it. Unfortunately they're singers and not actors.<br /><br />This movie made hardly any money for a good reason. The appeal of black cowboy movies just isn't there. It's a shame they didn't have a good story to tell.
To be completely honest,I haven't seen that many western films but I've seen enough to know what a good one is.This by far the worst western on the planet today.First off there black people in the wild west? Come on! Who ever thought that this could be a cool off the wall movie that everyone would love were slightly, no no, completely retarded!Secondly in that day and age women especially black women were not prone to be carrying and or using guns.Thirdly whats with the Asian chick speaking perfect English? If the setting is western,Asia isn't where your going. Finally,the evil gay chick was too much the movie was just crap from the beginning.Now don't get me wrong I'm not racist or white either so don't get ticked after reading this but this movie,this movie is the worst presentation of black people I have ever seen!
Some people have made a point of dissing this movie because they question the plausibility of black people in the Old West, Asian people in the Old West or women with guns in the Old West period. Get a grip and read a book. There were quite a few Asians (Chinese), there were quite a few blacks (freedmen) and everybody outside of the gentile class had ready access to guns; it is the second amendment you know. And as far as the use of modern language goes, none of those Westerns people have waxed nostalgic about actually used language that was consistent with the era depicted. Americans had different accents, used different inflections, spoke at a very different pace and used plenty of words and phrases that would be unrecognizable today. Don't blame historical inaccuracy for the fact that you just didn't dig it. Be honest. Maybe you're just uncomfortable with what you're seeing.
Mario Van Peebles pops up for less than a five second cameo. Glenn Plummer shows up a little longer but its a ladies show all the way. Stacey Dash and Lisa Raye have been in better projects. Bobby Brown leers and mugs through his little time on screen. This is how it was pitched...Five tough women shootin' and lovin' in the Wild Wild West. Four black and one Asian. Oh and Lil' Kim is a tough talking' heartbreaker and Marie Matiko can bring in the pacific rim market. We can shoot it for less than 15 million. Straight to video and we'll double but more likely triple our dollars.<br /><br />Greenlight that puppy.<br /><br />You got it boss.
This really doesn't do the blues justice. It starts out badly with images from the voyager probe and Blind Willie McTell (or was it Blind Lemon Jefferson? Someone blind anyway) apparently narrating from outer space (?) and telling us the life stories of various blues musicians. Corny as it is, this might be the visually most interesting part of this documentary. Afterwards the only thing to see is actors incompetently mouthing the classic tunes, filmed in fake 20s black and white intercut with the likes of Beck and Shemekia Copeland raping the same songs afterwards. This is a good device to show us why the old Blues greats were really so great, but it doesn't make for compelling viewing. There is hardly anything in here that could justify making it a film and not a radio play. Nobody should be forced to see these badly done reenactments. It's a shame for Wenders, Scorsese and especially for the Blues. Avoid at all costs.
This film is deeply disappointing. Not only that Wenders only displays a very limited musical spectrum of Blues, it is his subjective and personal interest in parts of the music he brings on film that make watching and listening absolutely boring. The only highlight of the movie is the interview of a Swedish couple who were befriended with J.B. Lenoir and show their private video footage as well as tell stories. Wenders's introduction of the filmic topic starts off quite interestingly - alluding to world's culture (or actually, American culture) traveling in space, but his limited looks on the theme as well as the neither funny nor utterly fascinating reproduction of stories from the 30s renders this movie as a mere sleeping aid. Yawn. I had expected more of him.
Watching this film for the action is rather a waste of time, because the figureheads on the ships act better than the humans. It's a mercy that Anthony Quinn couldn't persuade anyone else to let him direct any other films after this turkey.<br /><br />But it is filled with amusement value, since Yul Brynner has hair, Lorne Greene displays an unconvincing French accent, and the rest of the big names strut about in comic-book fashion.
Just saw this film and I must say that although there was shown in the beginning some effort to produce a decent film, this was absolutely horrible -- but not in the sense that was intended I'm sure.<br /><br />It was like a child was directing this insult to intelligence with the belief that all would-be viewers are morons OR extremely hard up for entertainment OR both.... Thank God for fast forward! I can't imagine the type of viewer the producer had in mind when making this film. I mean, you have actors trying to be serious, albeit barely, and a script that cries for a total rewrite,.... I just can't say anymore. If Harlequin Romance decided to do horror films, this would be a good effort.<br /><br />If you found this movie to be entertaining, then I strongly suggest that you seek out some guidance as to the purpose of movies. There is MUCH BETTER fare out there. Join a club, READ REVIEWS, but above all, avoid crap like this.
The Tooth Fairy is set in a small town somewhere in Northern California where Peter Campbell (Lochlyn Munro) has brought a farming property which he is renovating & planning to turn into a holiday inn, he is joined by his girlfriend Darcy Wagner (Chandra West) & her young 12 year old daughter Pamela (Nicole Munoz) who arrive to help for the weekend. While exploring the property Pamela meets another young girl named Emma (Jianna Ballard) who warns her that evil lurks within her new home, she tells a tale of an evil old witch known as the Tooth Fairy who takes baby teeth from children & then kills them. Pamela is worried & becomes even more so when she falls off her bike & her last baby tooth falls out, it's not long before the evil ghost of the Tooth Fairy has her eyes on Pamela's tooth & just for kicks she also decides to kill anyone she comes across...<br /><br />Directed by Chuck Bowman I thought The Tooth Fairy was just another poor straight-to-video low budget horror film that fails to distinguish itself from the countless other's which litter video shop shelves & fill late night obscure cable TV schedules, basically it's not very good. The script by producer Stephen J. Cannell, Corey Strode & Cookie Rae Brown is a complete snooze-fest for the first 40 odd minutes, nothing of any great interest happen during this period at all & is basically dull exposition as if this stuff was going to surprise anyone. It introduces the character's, sets the Tooth Fairy legend up & that's it. The second half of the film improves slightly but even then it's hardly spectacular stuff, there are a few decent set-piece gore scenes but apart from that it's all very predictable & forgettable stuff. The character's aren't great & most of them are there purely to be killed off, the story has inconsistencies like the story of the Tooth Fairy herself, it says she kills children after they give her their baby teeth so why does she go on an indiscriminate killing spree that has nothing to do with teeth? What happened to her after the prologue set during 1949? Why has she come back as a ghost? Despite being a ghost of some sort she seems very human having to open doors herself & using weapons to kill people, there is no attempt to make any use of the supernatural elements except the ghostly children who are played for maximum sentiment.<br /><br />Director Bowman does OK, it's reasonably well made & there are a couple of half decent scenes but nothing to get that excited about. There's nothing I would describe as scary or atmospheric in here & don't take any notice of the comparisons between this & Darkness Falls (2003) as besides the teeth thing they're quite different. The gore is OK, someone is shoved into a wood-chipping machine, there's a decapitation, someone has their penis chopped off & the best scene when someone is nailed to a door & then has their stomach hacked open with an axe & their guts slide out.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $1,500,000 The Tooth Fairy is generally well made but there's nothing special on show here. The acting isn't anything great but it's not too bad & unusually I didn't find the child actors that annoying so that's something I suppose.<br /><br />The Tooth Fairy is the usual just below average low budget modern straight-to-video horror fare that seems everywhere these days, if you can find a cheap copy then it might pass 90 odd minutes if your not too demanding otherwise it's pretty poor & forgettable stuff.
Darcy and her young daughter Pamela are heading out to the country where her mum's boyfriend Peter left his doctor's position in the city to become a writer and fix up a bed and breakfast inn. Although this inn has a terrible past and Pamela learns from one the girl's who lives in the town that a deformed witch once reside in that house. They called her the 'Tooth Fairy' as she would kill kids after getting their last baby tooth. This work on the inn, has awoken the 'Tooth Fairy'. Now she has her sights on Pamela and her last baby tooth, but if any gets in the way they face the same fate that awaits Pamela.<br /><br />This flick's old folk myth of the 'Tooth Fairy' doesn't paint her in a very generous way, as you would believe when you were a child. Don't they just love turning happy childhood memories into nightmares! Another one which did fall into the same category was "Darkness Falls (2003)". I can't compare how similar they are in the premises, because I haven't seen the latter, but I mostly read they have basically share the same idea. For a little straight to DVD film, this DTV effort looks good and has some promising images surrounding the senseless and traditionally by the book plot device. Low expectations are needed, as I wouldn't class it as an success, but I found it be to marginally entertaining.<br /><br />Cory Strode and Cookie Rae Brown's story or background for this 'Tooth Fairy' character is completely bare with it leaning more towards a slasher vehicle than anything really supernatural. Silly is a good way to describe what's happening in this poorly scripted story, but it never really feels like a fairytale horror. The dialogues can seem rather redundant and morally hounded. While the acting is simply sub-par with the bland characters they have to work off, but director Chuck Bowman offers up some inventive blood splatter and terribly nasty jolts. This kinda makes up for the lack of suspense, the zero scares and generic tone. His direction is reasonably earnest and visually able, where he gets some atmospheric lighting contrasting well with its slick photography. The promising opening scene is creepily effective. His pacing can slow up in parts and there's the odd and unnecessary slow-motion scene put in, but nonetheless it never gets too stodgy with something active occurring which made sure that I wasn't bored.<br /><br />The make-up special effects provided the goods, as there's enough repulsive gruel and the Tooth Fairy's appearance is especially gooey. The figure of the tooth Fairy can look threatening in its black robe, bubbling make-up and swift movements. Being on location helps carve out a more natural feel and can get atmospherically rich in its sense of eeriness. Child actors can be incredibly annoying, but Nicole Muñoz was decent in her part. Lochlyn Munro and Chandra West are somewhat solid, but can be a little too causal in their performances as Peter and Darcey. The radiantly gorgeous Carrie Anne Fleming is one of their lodgers. P.J Soles shows up in small part as a superstitious neighbour who tries to warn them about the evil that lurks at the inn.<br /><br />I thought it was a okay time-waster that has a sound concept, which just isn't fleshed out enough and the execution is pretty textbook stuff. Watchable nonsense, but at the same time extremely forgettable.
I was duped into seeing this movie after reading a positive review from another website and man was I p.o'd!!! it took me at least 15 minutes to pick it up off the shelf b/c I didn't want anyone to see me. then another 10 minutes to build the courage to take it to the counter and actually use real money to rent it. I thought that all my stress would pay off by the time I got home to and watching the movie b/c the review I read said the movie was a pleasant surprise; what a joke! if you can make it through the first hour of the movie then your in luck! b/c it's not until then the movie turn's into a horror. don't bother with this one folks, your better off watching "dankness falls"
Stephen J. Cannell apparently decided a few years ago that he would broaden his horizons and dabble in horror. The result, "Dead Above Ground", is an abysmal piece of junk. Now, had I noticed his name in association with THIS particular film I'd have put it back but no, I didn't have my glasses on and therefore I missed it, damn, I really do need to bring those with me while video shopping. First question would be, who the heck is the target audience for this? It's almost like a "scary" kids movie, but then again there's topless babes and some gore and some bad words spouted here and there. The main characters are so cute that you want to see someone, anyone, go after them with farm implements of SOME kind. Seems that a guy opens a bed and breakfast that has a checkered past, a child-murdering witch that collected children's teeth lived there. Probably something the real estate agent failed to mention. Of course now in the modern day there's a little girls ghost around to warn the real-live little girl that now lives there that something bad is going to happen. It does, and there's also two Bubbas that were squatting on that property when the new owner took over so they're out for revenge too. This whole thing has the feel of some made-for-cable junk that's for the kids at Halloween except for, of course, the things that aren't suitable for little kids, so not only is this mediocre, it's confused, too. A big boo and hiss to Anchor Bay for putting this out too, considering their usual track record with fine releases this is a new low. The UK gets a Phantasm Box Set, we get "The Tooth Fairy". Hardly seems fair. 1 out of 10, absolute garbage.
When I saw this movie cover, the first thing I thought was that it was made for video. The second thing that came to mind was how similar this looked to another terrible movie "Darkness Falls", the tale of this dumb witch who killed people in the dark. Unfortunately, Darkness Falls was quite the masterpiece compared to this pile of garbage, and this movie should not have been made.<br /><br />The film starts off with a small back story for the witch, or, more like a pointless introduction of two little kids who are going to go meet the tooth fairy in hopes of her giving them a shiny new bicycle for their tooth. The opening is filmed poorly, and like the rest of the movie, it's certainly not scary. In present time, the movie is about Peter (Lochlyn Munroe). Peter's renting out his house, and his ex-girlfriend Darcy (Chandra West), and her daughter Cole come to stay there. Cole meets a neighborhood child, and they talk of the Tooth Fairy, and how you shouldn't lose your tooth, or she'll come for you. Unfortunately seconds later, it looks like the Tooth Fairy steals her bike and knocks her tooth out (How ironic). Will Cole survive the wrath of the Tooth Fairy, and will her mother and Peter be able to save her, and rekindle their romance...this is a bad movie, you could probably figure it out.<br /><br />One of the main problems with this idiotic film is how undefined the Tooth Fairy is. They say she kills you if you lose your tooth, but nope. She's more like a serial killer who kills at random, and if you lose your tooth, you're definitely going to go. She steals a bike, so apparently she's a thief too. I said earlier that the idea for this movie was based on Darkness Falls, but where did they get the inspiration for the Tooth Fairy's appearance? Let's see. She looks like a burn victim, and she previously went around the neighborhood slaughtering children. Hmmm...it's almost as though she's an exact rip-off of Freddy Krueger from the "Nightmare on Elm Street" films. And this is not the worst part of this awful mess, the climax is. This movie might have the most laughable climax (Not literally laughable because I found it more sickening than funny) I've ever seen. Don't see this.<br /><br />Just a little trivia. Lochlyn Munroe was in Scary Movie, and Jianna Ballard was in Scary Movie 3, and they both were in this, so apparently Scary Movie stars are forced to end out their career with bad scary movies.<br /><br />My rating: 1/2 out of ****. 80 mins. R for violence.
this movie is similar to Darkness Falls,and The Boogeyman(2005)but it's also much more graphic than both,and not as good as either.it's also slow and fairly predictable.it's also got shades of Deliverance and the Amityville Horror.plus,we get some new age flavour thrown in the mix and some of those scenes come off as a motivational/inspirational sermon.really,this movie is a hodgepodge of almost everything.even though it is gory,the makeup effects are not very realistic looking.in fact they look kinda cheap.aside from all that,there is some really awful clichéd dialogue.and i won't say when,but there is a point where a couple of the character's actions were not authentic or believable,given the circumstances.nobody in their right mind what would have acted this way.once you watch the movie,you'll know what i mean.there's also some gratuitous nudity for nudity's sake.it just wasn't necessary at all.the good news is that the acting was actually pretty good.better than this movie deserves.so,after carefully weighing the evidence,id say this movie was passable,but not good.my verdict for The Tooth fairy:4/10
The only scary thing about this movie is the thought that whoever made it might make a sequel.<br /><br />From start to finish "The Tooth Fairy" was just downright terrible. It seemed like a badly-acted children's movie which got confused, with a "Wizard of Oz" witch melting and happy kiddies ending combined with some bad gore effects and swearing.<br /><br />Half of the cast seem completely unnecessary except for conveniently being there to get murdered in some fashion. The sister of the two brothers, Cherise the aura reader and Mrs. McDonald have entirely no point in the film - they could have included them in the main plot for some interesting side stories but apparently couldn't be bothered. The people watching the film know the characters are there for some bloody death scene but come on, at least TRY and have a slight plot for them. The story in general is weak with erratic behavior from the characters that makes you wish they all get eaten by the witch.<br /><br />Add the weak plot and the weak acting together (the children are particularly wooden) and the movie ends up a complete failure. If only MST3K could have had a go at this one ...
...the child actors were annoying. Also it seems as if the makers on this film were struggling to fill 90 minutes. Decent death scenes, though. If not for the death scenes, this movie would have a very Disneyish feel to it.<br /><br />The main child protagonist didn't seem nearly as scared as she should have been. If I was in the middle of the woods with a tooth fairy ghost killer type individual, you can bet your arse I wouldn't be out wandering around and riding my bike.<br /><br />Overall, I've seen worse (i.e. It Waits) but it's nothing I would watch again, or recommend anyone bothering with it unless you're an avid horror collector.
I tried to finish this film three times, but it's god awful. Case in point: mom and daughter drive up to the bed and breakfast,mom stops for gas, crazy gas station weirdos mad at her hubby whose running the B&B try to rape her. She escapes, heads to B&B and instead of hubby going ballistic and she wanting to call the cops, story just continues with lukewarm behavior on both their parts. Wow.<br /><br />Other action logic deficits abound. Acting is also lukewarm, and the next door neighbor's warning is delivered in a really corny, badly acted moment.<br /><br />Moments of intense gore/death unevenly interwoven with lukewarm scenes of time-filler interplay between characters.<br /><br />Less focus on gore, more focus on mood and story would have been appreciated.
The Tooth Fairy is about the ghost of an old deformed witch that lures children to her house to get a prize for their loose tooth and then takes their lives. The first few minutes introduce you to the 1949 beginning of the legend of the tooth fairy and then switches to present day. The worn out horror plot is pretty much saved by the solid acting. They could have done without the Hammond brothers and a few other scenes, but overall the gore scenes were bloody but quick which had a minimizing effect. The eye candy is pretty good for both genders. Camera work is good. Dialog is fair but cheesy. I expected the film to be a bare bones, low budget, slasher with very few redeeming factors. I was surprised by the quality of the film.
Where to begin. This movie started out as something that seemed like a rip-off of "Darkness Falls". An old , disfigured woman living in the woods, giving kids presents for their teeth. Sound familiar? Then it changes. In "Darkness Falls", the tooth fairy only killed you if you saw her. The tooth fairy in this movie killed you no matter what. Why did they need the rocker, his hippie girlfriend or the Bubbas and their sister? I think the movie would've been fine without them. It seems like the producers sat around and decided that they needed to put extra people in the movie just so the tooth fairy would have people to kill. Although, it's nice to see a pretty blonde girl not being portrayed as a bubble-head for a change. Okay to rent, but I wouldn't suggest buying it.
i was enjoying this movie most of the time, but i kept getting the feeling that i was watching a children's movie. i honestly think that somebody wrote a pg script and then, while filming, decided to add in some blood, nudity and language. it was a big let down. there's that believe the children magic that exists in movies like "babe" (the pig) or "angels in the outfield" that defeats the evil tooth fairy. the parents end up believing their daughter about her ability to see the ghost and utilize this skill to supernaturally defeat the tooth fairy. when i bought this movie, i thought it would be a b-film response to the dreadful darkness falls; somehow manage to make a better film with 1/4 of the money, but they don't. they made a worse film and will probably lose the same proportion of money lost on darkness falls.
This movie has one redeeming feature. At one point, after a character is attacked by an ax-wielding fairy, his brother asks him, "Why is your dick over there, Chuck?" After suffering through almost an hour of bad film, this almost made my drink come out my nose.<br /><br />Some of the acting isn't too bad, but the kids all stink and P. J. Soles should be ashamed of herself for doing this film. The story is weak and nobody does what you think (or what common sense dictates) they should.<br /><br />Of course, there are a lot of story points that don't add up. For example, in one scene the ghosts of young children must concentrate hard to move a physical object so they can prove they exist, a difficult feat since they apparently can't interact with physical matter. However, minutes later they all pick up branches off the ground and beat the Tooth Fairy with them. Apparently they CAN sometimes move matter and sometimes they CAN'T. Go figure.<br /><br />Lots of blood and guts, though...a few nice boobs. But this doesn't make up for the deficiencies.<br /><br />If you want a movie about the Tooth Fairy, go rent "Darkness Falls". I think it's great, though a lot of other reviewers don't share my opinion. At least it sets a mood.
This movie is so stupid it simply goes around the corner and becomes ridiculous. I wanted to watch "Darkness falls" actually and thought that this was the movie. Boy, what a mistake! I fast-forwarded as much as I could and still I couldn't get rid of the boring moments. I just envy the people who was paid to play in or work on this movie. They were actually given money for this crap. Isn't that amazing? I mean in this movie a man gets killed and chopped in a wood-grinder to little bloody pieces and few minutes later the mother and the kid talk calmly at the table as nothing happened and drink coffee. Please! Come on! Who gives money for such crap movies? Oh, and the "tooth-fairy" was lame. Not scary at all and was obvious that it is a bored stuntman wearing a badly made make-up.
First, let's get it out of the way. . . yeah, this film steals a LOT from 'Darkness Falls' (2003). The plot for 'Darkness Falls' goes something like this: The Tooth Fairy, a murderous woman who hides her face due to disfigurement kills people who look at her out of revenge. In 'The Tooth Fairy' (2006), the disfigured Tooth Fairy (who, yeah, hides her face) unleashes her furious vengeance on just about anyone. A little too similar to be coincidence.<br /><br />But, what must be asked is this: If you're going to directly steal the exact plot from a movie, why choose something as mediocre as 'Darkness Falls'? Sure it made a few bucks at the box office, but that was strictly for the fairly okay theatrical experience the film delivered. A low-budget, straight-to-video movie will not have that same effect. And it didn't.<br /><br />As I watched the opening 15-20 minutes of the film, my expectations actually rose. There seemed to be at least SOME production value. The story didn't seem terrible, just blatantly ripped off. Past the first scene, we get an okay cast of characters including an ex-doctor with secrets (played by that guy who looks like a Busey) and some hot veterinary student (Jenifer from Argento's 'Masters of Horror: Jenifer'). After those few minutes, however, the film just slowly goes down the drain. It serves all the basic horrible clichés including, but not limited to: some crazy old person with an unheeded warning, the buff dumb jock, the psychic, and the stripper with the heart-of-gold.<br /><br />One of the biggest problems this film had was its inability to stick with a target audience. It's kind of like the filmmakers wanted to change the tone for whatever character was on screen at the time. When the adults were on screen, it had a more mature feel. When Star (the stripper) and whatshisface (the jock) were on screen, the dialogue went down to a more stupid, err immature, level. When the kid was on screen, it felt like an episode of 'Are You Afraid of the Dark?'. . . only less scary.<br /><br />Technically, the film is all over the place. The visuals range from fairly good to plain boring. The writing is subpar, as is the acting for the most part. On the plus side, there's some excessive gore at parts (including a fairly cool (yet painfully predictable)) woodchipper scene and a pretty vicious nailgun scene. Also, if you're looking for a bit of the sexy stuff, there's a brief topless scene (but if you want to see this chick topless, there are better films to do that). Other than that, there's not much to bother with when it comes to this film.<br /><br />If you're a huge fan of 'Darkness Falls' (do those exist?), maybe you can check it out to see the story done in a different way. . . but, that's about the only reason I can find to see this one.<br /><br />Final Verdict: 3/10 -AP3-
The first episode of this new show was on today, and it was horrible. Not only did Shaggy have a squeaky new voice that made listening to his lines torture, but it's so far away from the original concept and animation style that it's barely recognizable as a 'Scooby-Doo' show.<br /><br />Even back in the dark days when Fred and Velma were gone and Scooby's nephew Scrappy was there, the team still solved mysteries. This new show instead features Shaggy and Scooby battling a James Bond type super-villain and his henchmen while living in a mansion. There's not even a van called 'The Mystery Machine' (and the teaser for the next episode which promised a transformers type robot car did NOT put my mind at ease). How can anyone take Scooby Doo and make THIS? <br /><br />The show earns two point for two scenes featuring the whole Scooby Doo gang, all of whom speak with the correct voices except Shaggy, and even then I'm being far too generous.
Scott Menville is not Casey Kasem. That is the first, most important, and most disturbing thing about this attempt at re-imagining Scooby-Doo and company.<br /><br />Shaggy's voice is squeaky and does not sound anything like he has ever sounded in any of the previous incarnations of the Scooby shows. They've also changed the outfit and the classic mode of walking from the original.<br /><br />I'm not sure what they're on about yet with the villain angle, but it surely isn't following the formula used in any of the previous Scooby shows.<br /><br />And the animation style is very bizarre and distorted. I like it, but it's not real Scooby-Doo type animation. But the weird animation used for other WB shows grew on me; this might, too.<br /><br />It's worth a glance at -- once -- if you can handle the lack of proper Shaggy voice. That right there is enough to jar one out of enjoying the show properly. Besides, I am trying not to be an inflexible, nitpicking fan. Evolve or die, as the saying goes. We'll see how it looks after two more episodes -- by then I'll have formed a much more solid opinion.
Scooby Doo is undoubtedly one of the most simple, successful and beloved cartoon characters in the world. So, what happens when you've been everywhere and done everything with the formula? You switch it up right? Wrong. You stop production and let it rest for a decade or so and then run it again, keeping the core of its success intact. That is to say, stick with the formula for the most part but add your particular flavour to it. This to me is why "What's New Scooby Doo" worked, they want back to the classic Scooby Doo formula which had only successfully resurfaced a decade earlier in "A Pup Named Scooby Doo" but for the most part had not been tapped since the original "Scooby Doo Where Are You".<br /><br />The first sign (to me) of a weak offering is the inclusion of extraneous characters; there might be a few fond memories from past iterations but generally if you think "Scooby Doo" you aren't thinking of Film-Flam, Scrappy Doo or Scooby Dum. Even worse, the exclusion of the other core members of "Mystery Inc" generally indicate a group of production people who don't understand from a kids point of view how the show works. The basic premise has always been a group of people who are diametrically opposed getting together and through their own individual, stereotyped qualities manage to surmount the tasks given at hand.<br /><br />This next paragraph is just my theorizing so skip it if you want: I hope that I can explain why I think fiddling around with the basic elements of the show are detrimental with my interpretation of what the gang represents and how they contribute to the whole; Fred represents the Driver, I think in general it is the purpose of Fred to give the group direction, organization and sub-tasks. Fred isn't a happy-go-lucky teenager, he's your boss, your teacher, your dad, your authority figure. Fred moves without hesitation and is driven by tasks (problem always equals solution for Fred). In many ways Fred is the antithesis to Shaggy. Shaggy is your best friend, that guy who is just a little more afraid of things than you are, he enables you to be brave, to not be at the back of the pack. Shaggy represents emotion and is frequently showing emotional extremes from elation to fear. Velma represents rational thought, she applies logic but as we see time and again on the show she requires clues that for the most part are collected in pieces by the other members of the show. Left on her own would Velma solve a mystery? The group often finds itself in situations where truths aren't obvious and only through chance encounters do they achieve the necessary information to complete their task, chance is represented by Daphne. At one point (I think it is the first Scooby Doo series) she was known as "danger prone". Writers have used Daphne to link unrelated events together through accident. She frequently is the one who finds the secret door, collection of objects or some other detail that can help the gang link clues together. Finally Scooby himself represents us, the participant. He is always in the centre of events, capable of all the things the rest of the gang are capable of, yet handicapped because he is not human and much like us the television viewer is unable to truly participate. Scooby Doo works because all these personified elements of problem solving are immediately identifiable and entertaining.<br /><br />Maybe I'm over thinking things but, in my life I've seen a lot of Scooby Doo (being a 30 year old self-proclaimed nerd, it kind of rolls with the territory). To me there is a magic with the classic "Scooby Doo" formula that should never be messed with.<br /><br />As many have pointed out; Scooby Doo is not a great work of art nor is it completely trite, it falls into the category of programming that can be watched by young eyes with a hearty bowl of breakfast cereal. Messing about with the raw simplicity transforms it into something else, something lesser.
I grew up with scooby(kinda the re-runs of where are you)I hate scrappy, love Daphne, and feel its not complete with out the whole gang. But this is sad, scooby doo is mystery solving comedy-not bad totally spy's jap anime. i like "whats new", they had to give danger-prone Daphne a makeover sometime :( and try to lose the *sex *drug jokes of many a generation, but this "get a clue" is flat out crap and should not have the Scooby name attached. They even tried to do some lame punk thing with the theme song. now i'm gonna go watch my DVD of scooby doo where are you to wash the filth of this new series off my eyes
The animation looks like it was done in 30 seconds, and looks more like caricatures rather than characters. I've been a fan of Scooby Doo ever since the series premiered in 1969. I didn't think much of the Scooby Doo animated movies, (I'm talking about the TV Series, not the full length movies.), but some of them were pretty cool, and I like most people found Scrappy Doo to be an irritant, but this series is pure garbage. As soon as I saw the animation, and heard the characters, (and I use that term loosely) speak, I cringed. Also, Mystery Inc., was a team, and without the entire crew to compliment each other, it just seems like opening up a box of chocolates to find someone has already ate the best ones, and the only thing left are the ones nobody wants. What's New Scooby Doo was better than this. If you're going to have a Scooby Doo TV series, include the elements that made the series endure so long. The entire cast of characters, and quality animation. They need to put this one back under the rock from where it came.
Shaggy & Scooby-Doo Get a Clue. It's like watching a much-loved relative in the final throws of a degenerative illness!! Clearly the work of people with no soul, no love or respect for the original work. What in the name of all that's holy were they thinking of? It seems they were trying to go all post-modern and ironic. Instead it's just abysmal swill!! What's the point in taking up a successful franchise like 'Scooby-Doo' if you just going to flush it down the toilet? My son loves the original series - and even some of the spin-off movies - but he can't stand this drivel! And let's face it, you can't argue against the tastes of a seven year-old
I am 17, and I still like most of the Scooby Doo movies and the old episodes. I love the 1990s movies, and recently we were treated to one of the better direct to DVD Scooby Doo outings of this decade, Scooby Doo and the Goblin King, which I wasn't expecting to be as good as it was. Anyway, back to Get a Clue! I watched some episodes, expecting something very good, but from what I saw of it, I wasn't impressed at all. First of all, I hated the animation. It was flat, deflated and very Saturday- morning -cartoon -standard, easily the worst aspect of the series. Even some shows I really hate had slightly better animation. Even worse, Shaggy and Scooby looked like aliens, and I really missed Fred, Velma and Daphne, as they added a lot to the old episodes, when Scooby Doo was positively good. I also hated the character changes, because it seemed like instead of solving mysteries, Shaggy and Scooby were now playing superhero, something they would've never had done in the movies or in the Scooby-Doo Where Are You? show. The theme tune wasn't very good either, I can't even remember it, and the jokes were lame and contrived. Though, I do acknowledge that there is a very talented voice cast, had they had better material, and hadn't been told to sound as different to the original voices as humanly possible, which they did, might I add. In conclusion, I personally thought it was awful, and I am not trying to discredit it, it's what I personally feel. 1/10 Bethany Cox
As a mother of 2 young children who are or should I say have been growing up with the many reincarnations of Scooby I feel well positioned to comment on the historical and current version of Scooby.<br /><br />If as a family we had not seen any episodes prior to Shaggy and Scooby get a clue we may have enjoyed it as a light weight, nothing special Saturday morning cartoon. But that in essence is the problem it is in it's current format so light weight that it will not have the longevity of the "old" Scooby and gang. I'm sure it may succeed in a quick monetary return but I'm sure the long term buy in of old and young is in very real danger of being lost. My 6 year old son on seeing the new version was really disgruntled and without any prompting said that it looked really badly animated and why wasn't it anything like the last series(Where are you).<br /><br />Scrappy Doo was an anomaly but still infinitely better than this. Let's hope Get a clue will be apropos with reference to the producers.
I thought "What's New Scooby-Doo" was pretty bad (yes, I'm sorry to say I didn't like it), since Hanna-Barbera didn't produce it and it took a drastic step away from the old series. When I heard "Shaggy and Scooby-Doo Get a Clue" was in the works, I thought it could be better. But when I saw a pic of how Scooby and Shaggy were going to appear, I knew this show was going to be bad, if not worse. I watched a few episodes, and believe me, it is just yet another "Teen Titans" or "Loonatics Unleashed"-wannabe. No longer are Scooby and Shaggy going against people wearing masks of cool, creepy monsters that rob banks. Now they are going after a typical super-villain whom wants to destroy the world. Shaggy and Scooby-Doo have become more brave, too. Also, since Shaggy IS NOT going to be a vegetarian in this series, Casey Kasem (whom actually IS a vegetarian), the original voice of Shaggy, will NOT voice Shaggy. He will only voice Shaggy if he doesn't eat meat, and that was just a stupid corporate-done change to update the franchise, as if the Internet jokes weren't enough. So Scott Menville (whom previously voiced Red Herring on "A Pup Named Scooby-Doo") voices Shaggy here. Believe me, the voice is REALLY BAD! It makes Shaggy sound like a squeaky 10-year-old, and I must agree the voice definitely fits his new ugly look. However, Kasem DOES voice Shaggy's Uncle Albert, which is a sort of good thing. Scooby-Doo, on the other hand, does not look that well. He seems to have been designed to look more like the CGI Scooby-Doo from the live-action movies. Also, Scooby's Frank Welker voice (need I mention Brain the Dog again?) still hasn't improved. Robi, the robotic butler, is practically worse than Scrappy-Doo! He tries to be funny and does "comical" impressions and gives safety tips ("Remember kids, don't stand under trees during a thunderstorm!"), but it just doesn't fit into a Scooby-Doo cartoon. Again, the Hanna-Barbera sound effects are rarely used here. However, on one episode, "Lightning Strikes Twice," they use the "Castle thunder" thunderclaps during it, almost extensively! (Although they DO still use the newly-recorded thunder sound effects, too.) Scooby-Doo hasn't use "Castle thunder" sound effects since 1991. But my question is, why use "Castle thunder" on "Shaggy and Scooby-Doo Get a Clue," while NOT use it on the direct-to-video movies or even on "What's New Scooby-Doo!" (Two episodes of WNSD used it, and it wasn't enough, unfortunately.) If WNSD and the DTV movies used it, then they might be better than this crappy cartoon. The day this show premiered, I watched the first episode, and it was SO bad I turned it off after only five minutes! To get my mind off of this poor show, I rented "Scooby-Doo, Pirates Ahoy!" which came out around the same time. And you know what? The "Pirates Ahoy" movie was actually BETTER than "Shaggy and Scooby-Doo Get a Clue" (and even better than "What's New, Scooby-Doo!") And it looks like the new designs that the characters have isn't permanent to the franchise. The direct-to-video movies coming out while this show is being made use the regular character designs, thankfully. But, whether you loved or hated "What's New Scooby-Doo," I don't recommend it. But if you HATE the old series, THEN you'll love it! (Oh god, I hope the old Scooby-Doo cartoon stay better than this new $#*%!) Anyways, like WNSD, a really bad addition to the Scooby canon.
I have grown up with Scooby doo all my life, My dad grew up with scooby doo. We have just watched the first episode of the travesty that calls itself Shaggy and Scooby get a clue. What planet are Warner Bros on allowing this shambles to air. The characters could have been drawn better by my younger sister. The story could have been better written by my 3 year old twin cousins (who are Scooby Doo fans too). Scooby and Shaggy just aren't!!!!! if anyone but Casey Kasem does the voice of Shaggy it just isn't gonna work folks!!!! trust me.<br /><br />This program was disgraceful. What's New Scooby Doo is much better. Why change a winning format. Bin this piece of garbage and go back to the true Scooby
What a let down! This started with an intriguing mystery and interesting characters. Admittedly it moved along at the speed of a snail, but I was nevertheless gripped and kept watching.<br /><br />David Morrissey is always good value and he Suranne Jones were good leads. The Muslim aspects were very interesting. We were tantalised with possible terrorist connections.<br /><br />But then Morrissey's character was killed off and all the air left the balloon. The last episode was dull, dull, dull. The whole thing turned out to be very small beer and the dénouement was unbelievably feeble.<br /><br />Five hours of my life for that? My advice: watch paint dry instead.
If you don't mind having your emotions toyed with, then you won't mind this movie. On the other hand, if you enjoy British crime mysteries, following clues and seeing how they all logically fall into place at the end, you'll be very disappointed.<br /><br />Here are some of the logical inconsistencies that lead to that disappointment: <br /><br />* While the police utilize the CCTV cameras early on to gather clues about the mystery, the huge truck that stopped and blocked the children's view just before her disappearance doesn't get caught on camera. This is a critical piece of the mystery. It's inconsistent to have the car the children were in caught on camera and not the big truck that is so critical to the mystery.<br /><br />* The movie goes to great lengths to show the sophistication of the equipment in tracking down the children's movements but misses the opportunity to utilize the same sophisticated equipment is tracking down vehicles that may have entered the crime scene from camera-visible locations adjacent to the crime scene as part of developing clues.<br /><br />* In England, driving is on the left. The director goes out of his way to have the car at the crime scene park on the right, several meters away from the flower kiosk, when it could have easily parked immediately behind, or even on the side; as the huge truck did.<br /><br />* The police forensics team is so meticulous as to find a discarded cell phone in a sewer drain several miles from the scene of the crime, but can't find any blood evidence from the head injury right at the crime scene, even though they secured the scene just hours after the disappearance and with no intervening rainfall.<br /><br />* Search dogs were not used at all to find the missing children; this from the country that is well known for developing the hound dog for search and hunting.<br /><br />* It is illogical that such a highly publicized news story would not turn up the presumably innocent truck driver that stopped at the flower kiosk.<br /><br />* It is illogical that the mother would go to such extremes and expend so much effort to leave carpet fiber clues under her fingernails for her eventual murder investigators –even coaxing her daughter to do the same-- while she simply could not have crawled out of the unguarded mobile home. If she had enough sense about her to ask her daughter to get carpet fibers under her nails, she could of just as easily asked her daughter to call out for help or even leave the mobile home that was in a crowded residential park.<br /><br />* The suspect that abducted the little girl was portrayed as mentally slow/dimwitted --justifying his unknowingly drowning of the mother— but, he was smart enough not to cooperate with the police and also fully exercise his rights not to self-incriminate.<br /><br />There are more inconsistencies like this that will lead to a true sleuth aficionado's disappointment. 'Five Days' is a very weak British crime story.
I cannot believe that I wasted five hours of my life on this rubbish. The previous five day offering by this author was highly enjoyable and I was really looking forward to this. But most of the dialogue was completely incomprehensible. Suranne Jones was the principal culprit since she either mumbled or gabbled her lines, but most of the rest of the cast followed her example. Notable exceptions were Bernard Hill and Anne Reid, old stagers whose diction was exemplary. Do producers not listen to productions before they are aired to make sure the dialogue is audible? As a result I suppose I lost track of what was going on, and since the original plot line seemed to metamorphose into to the standard them-and-us thing between Muslims and the rest I soon lost interest. The ending was a complete anti-climax. A complete dud.
the writing of the journalists and the required over eager reckless press officer and sobbing grandma was ham-fisted and cliché ridden.<br /><br />I cant blame the actors, but surely someone must have said "are you joking I cant say this!"<br /><br />This episode had a press perspective and police perspective, while the police perspective was standard enough, the press perspective and characterization was overdrawn exaggerated and at points insultingly unbelievable.<br /><br />I notice that this was an HBO co production, if so then perhaps the sledgehammer stereotypes can be explained in that light,<br /><br />I was completely cringing during the press conference scene. it lacked any credibility and did not remotely ring true. 40 minutes into the first episode and I am still waiting for the suspense.<br /><br />Skip Five Daysthis. the 2008/9 production with these characters is far better and more suspenseful even if the crime is over the top.<br /><br />This story had unforgivable moments which can only be described as staggeringly unbelievable.<br /><br />For a press officer to start a press conference without an investigating officer present to take press questions.<br /><br />so unbelievable it felt like amateur hour.<br /><br />I then began looking for Journalists called "Scoop" and for Perry White to make an appearance.<br /><br />I saw the 2009 Hunter before "five days"made it to Australia, not realizing it was a prequel and was looking forward to Bonneville and McTeer going around again.<br /><br />Head shakingly awful.
Come on! Get over with the Pakistan bashing guys. Bollywood can not only make brilliant movies- but can seriously affect a generation of viewers.<br /><br />I am a HUGE Bollywood fan- but anti-Pakistan movies just make me wince too much to enjoy screenplay, cinematography, action sequences- everything.<br /><br />I'm really happy to see that viewers on both sides of the border are rejecting propaganda, and there are movies like Main Hoon Na out there that have done brilliantly not only because they deserved to because of the quality of its Bollywood masala- but also because it tries to say: give peace a chance and shows that there are crazies out there on both sides who do not represent the masses.
Where to begin? <br /><br />#1 Amitabh's son, played by Akshaye Khanna, is 30.<br /><br />Amitabh's been in prison for 33+ years... he<br /><br />A) Telepathically transmitted the sperm home?<br /><br />B) Asked a nice Pakistani guard to mail it for him?<br /><br />C) They allow conjugal visits in secret Pakistani Jails<br /><br />D) All of the above<br /><br />E) The producers were having a little too much bhang at<br /><br />the time they approved the script?<br /><br />#2) Amrita Rao (Yummm!) wants Khanna - he's yum, yum, yummy... and apparently he wants her - who wouldn't, right?!... But, when her dad gets ratted out, and then killed (I hardly think this is a 'spoiler' as you'd have to be brain-dead and blind not to see this coming in the film) he's pretty emotionless towards this catastrophe and with the tip (metaphorically) of his hat, leaves her behind to save his dad, never mind her loss, and says (paraphrasing) "If god wills it, we'll meet again"... Basically meaning, "I'm gonna get my dad and MY job done, sorry for your loss - CYA! Buh Bye!" - callus beyond even low-life Hollywood standards...<br /><br />#3) There are so many holes in this horrible waste of time called a movie, that you can drive all the jeeps, trucks camels and any extra stuff through it. Pass - really, complete and total waste of time - Oh! There is a great dance sequence (yes, only one - as in dance sequence - regardless of quality) great belly dancing - but NOT worth watching just for this.<br /><br />Rent Veer-Zaara or Lakshya (will Hrithik Roshan ever take acting lessons?) for better Indo-Pak conflict movies... In fact, Veer-Zaara is pretty damned good - 7.5/8 I'd say!
The first half hour or so of this movie I liked. The obvious budding romance between Ingrid Bergman and Mel Ferrer was cute to watch and I wanted to see the inevitable happen between them. However, once the action switched to the home of Ingrid's fiancé, it all completely fell apart. Instead of romance and charm, we see some excruciatingly dopey parallel characters emerge who ruin the film. The fiancé's boorish son and the military attaché's vying for the maid's attention looked stupid--sort of like a subplot from an old Love Boat episode. How the charm and elegance of the first portion of the film can give way to dopiness is beyond me. This film is an obvious attempt by Renoir to recapture the success he had with THE RULES OF THE GAME, as the movie is very similar once the action switches to the country estate (just as in the other film). I was not a huge fan of THE RULES OF THE GAME, but ELENA AND HER MEN had me appreciating the artistry and nuances of the original film.
Spoiler warning.<br /><br />When the main character's sister is pushed down the stairs, the killer breaks a glass of vodka next to her, to make it appear that she's been drinking. But right before she is killed, tells her sister's business partner (Teri Garr) on the phone that she hasn't had a drink in 4 days. Yet the police never mention the results of a toxicology report! And, the characters talk about her being drunk when she fell down the stairs. Huh? Really bad mistake in this movie, which is pretty awful, overall. <br /><br />Surprisingly bad, considering the great cast. Some faults: the writing isn't very good, the music is made-for-TV bad, and there is no tension at all because we already know the answer to the mystery from the first scene in the movie.
Chinese Ghost Story III is a totally superfluous sequel to two excellent fantasy films. The film delivers the spell-casting special effects that one can expect, but fails painfully on all other fronts. The actors all play extremely silly caricatures. You have to be still in diapers to find their slapstick humor even remotely funny. The plot is predictable, and the development is sometimes erratic and often slow. Towards the end, the movie begins to resemble old Godzilla films, including shabby larger-than-life special effects and a (well, yet another) ghost with a Godzilla head. Maybe I would have grinned if I was expecting camp.<br /><br />It is astonishing to see what trash fantasy fans have to put up with - in this case because somebody thought they could squeeze a little extra money out of a successful formula. They won't be able to do it again: the cash cow is now dead as a dodo.
Follows the usual formula in putting a new recruit -- this time the first African-American (Cuba Gooding) after President Truman desegregates the Armed Forces -- through the U. S. Navy's deep-sea diver training program that is run by a racist zealot (Robert DeNiro). If the program weren't bad enough, it's got to be located in Bayonne, New Jersey.<br /><br />There's nothing wrong with the performances. Robert De Niro activates his Southern accent and shouts gibberish effectively. Cuba Gooding, raised by a stern father as a poor black farm boy in the South, is the expectable paragon of rectitude. The girls -- one could hardly call them women -- are Charleze Theron and Lonette McKee. They have minor roles and are mostly there to argue that their men should exercise common sense. Other decent performers -- Powers Boothe and Hal Holbrook -- have even more perfunctory roles.<br /><br />That's about it. Almost everything else could have been assembled by a computer. A ship is called a boat. Robert De Niro salutes indoors, uncovered. After a brutal assault on hospital personnel, he's transferred out of his outfit instead of being busted. Somebody shouts "I'm outta here" in the early 1950s. (Maybe it was a common expression at the time. If so, "my bad.") People address each other by rank -- "Lieutenant", "Boatswain's Mate," "Commander," as they do in the Army, whereas in the Navy they are simple "Mister" (if an officer) or addressed by their last name (if enlisted). I didn't bother to check if there was a rank called "Senior Master Chief" in 1950.<br /><br />Cuba Gooding has a tough row to hoe. Everyone in the Navy, it seems, hates Negroes except for one guy from Wisconsin. He stutters and is held in contempt by the others in his class. It's like the scene in "Animal House", in which the applicant to a tony fraternity is asked to wait in a room with a Sikh, a black man, and a blind kid.<br /><br />Gooding is an enlisted man, a second class petty officer. He manages to marry a beautiful woman who has just graduated from medical school. In one of their arguments she pleads with him. She just wants to be a doctor and he should join her, quit the Navy, and lead a quiet life. "And just let life pass you by?", he retorts. Yes. Yes, just be a doctor's spouse and let life pass you by. You can wave to it from the golf course in Boca Raton.<br /><br />These kinds of flicks were common enough in World War II. "Bombardier," "Airial Gunner," that sort of thing. Cheap as they often were, they had some educational features. You learned something about becoming a bombardier or a gunner. Here, the technical details are skipped over, perhaps because the writer knew nothing about them (except Boyle's law, which we learned in high-school chemistry).<br /><br />I couldn't follow what was happening during some of the emergencies without which a movie like this wouldn't exist. If I got the mechanical problems right, it was because I guessed correctly. The direction is no help either. The movie abounds in close ups, so many that they lose any dramatic impact they might have had. And the emergencies are confusing because they're ill focused.<br /><br />Why go on? Want to see a better example of this kind of movie? Almost any will do -- except maybe "G. I. Jane", in which the abused hero is a heroin. Try the training camp scenes in "The Young Lions." There the victim is a Jew. Or try "From Here to Eternity," in which no easy sympathy buttons are pushed and the victim is a grown man who refuses to bend and who is active in bringing the conflict on, just like "Cool Hand Luke." No easy excuses are offered, because easy excuses are too easy.<br /><br />Thoroughly formulaic, and not well done.
Final Score (an average of various classic cinematic qualities- acting, visuals, creativity, payoff, humor, fun, ect):<br /><br />4.3 (out of 10)<br /><br />Had "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" come out a few years ago it would have seemed like a bold, serious new direction in Disney animation. However, it comes just a year after the innovative and nearly genius "The Emperor's New Groove" and marks a step back in freeing Disney from it's repetative "Disney Formula". I'm a big fan of the feature length Disney animated films. Have to see them all love it or hate it. "Atlantis" is an animated throwback to "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" and similar live-action sci-fi adventures of the 50s and 60s. Problem is that this version hardly contains one original idea. It feels like a remake of something, even more so than actual Disney remakes(Tarzan, The Hunchback of Notre Dame). The characters are little more than a walking cliches of the usual suspects that typically populate these type of films (the oddball mechanic, the gung ho general, the sassy tough women). Beyond Milo Thatch (Fox) and Rourke (Garner) the supporting cast is flat-out obnoxious. The movie also suffers from it's succinct pace. Instead of fleshing it out into an epic story, Disney jams a lot in the usually brief running time brushing over opportunities to develop...suspence, characters, anything really. They thow us into this new and wonderous world and barely let us get our barings. The awkward pace sometimes makes confusing what is a relatively simple story. The animation is dark and dreary and cheap. This thing looks like a slapped together saturday morning cartoon. Let's hope they haven't forgotten that 2D traditional animation can still be wonderous. "The Iron Giant" among others proved that.<br /><br />Negatives: The visuals, pace, and sheer lack of originality.<br /><br />Positives: Quite possibly the coolest death scene for a Disney villain in a long time. It's the creative highlight of the movie.
If the makers of Atlantis had something to say in this film, its theme was (literally) drowned out by the emphasis on "special effects" over characterization. Almost as if in an attempt to "keep up" with the rest of the summer action blockbusters, Disney has ditched the character-driven, movie-with-a-message approach in favor of a Star Wars "shoot-'em-up" with stereotype heroes and villains.<br /><br />The art is cartoony and the producers think that they can rely on computer generated images (CGI) of flying fish-craft and submarines to fill the gap. They are wrong, and the days of beautiful, handcrafted animation is fast flying out the window in favor of assembly-line CGI.<br /><br />This movie is all spectacle with no heart. At times the film comes close to being a good, worthwhile movie, but frustratingly misses the mark so many times by copping out of talking about something meaningful and instead choosing to go with the glitz.<br /><br />Another problem with the movie is the pacing. It starts confusingly and then begins to rocket along with a choppy story editing style that is not appreciated. The viewer is rushed out of the door along with Milo Thatch (voiced well by Michael J. Fox) and is left thinking "Gee there must be an awful lot of stuff that's going to happen once we get to Atlantis". Unfortunately, not much happens. The secret of Atlantis remains a secret with the story-tellers not really knowing how to explain the legendary island/continent. They are afraid to commit to saying where Atlantis is, even in a fictional story. Is it in the Atlantic? Is it in the Mediterranean Sea? Who knows? Nothing is hypothesized, even from a purely fantasy-based point of view. The viewer will leave the theatre asking themselves "Now what was that all about? What was the point of the movie? Why couldn't the surviving Atlantean's remember how to read when many of them lived through the disaster to the "present" day? And WHY did Atlantis sink?" and then promptly begin to forget about what they saw. There is nothing left to think about or mill over... except the loss of money in their wallets.<br /><br />The characters and their motivations are equally unfathomable. From the eccentric zillionaire who founds the expedition with seemingly more money that existed on the entire planet in 1914, to the (spoiler) collective consciousness that enters Kida and VOLUNTARILY deserts its people!?! The crew are a collection of quirky, 2-dimensional people of anachronistically (for 1914) P.C. race and gender. The demolitions expert talks like he came right out of a Warner Brothers' Bugs Bunny short. Most of the jokes are gross one-liners that are largely missed by the audience for two reasons: They are delivered at lightning-speed pacing and usually mumbled. The way these supporting players do a moral turn-around near the end of the movie is hard to believe.<br /><br />While we applaud Disney for trying to create animated movies for adults - and this is the first Disney not to have cute, talking animals or objects - it fails to make the transition. Younger children will be frightened by some of the action scenes and be left in the dark by the large amount of subtitles (when the characters speak Atlantean). In the first five minutes of the expedition, approximately 200 people are killed without a second thought. Obviously Disney thinks that if you didn't know who those people were, then why should you care? Again, the movie has no feelings on any level.<br /><br />Mulan and Tarzan were the last animated movies produced by Disney that were done extremely well. Sadly, Atlantis harkens back to those failed attempts in the past such as the Black Cauldron and Hunchback of Notre Dame. Disney needs to get back to their roots. A sequel to Peter Pan is coming out shortly but one never knows what the results will be until you see it for yourself. And now that Disney has discovered Science Fiction one hopes that they will realize that that genre must have more than spectacle to it. We also hope that the upcoming "Treasure Planet", a sci-fi adaptation of Robert L. Stevenson's "Treasure Island", will have more heart to it than the unfathomable "Atlantis: The Lost Empire".
I went to see this one with much expectation. Quite unfortunately the dialogue is utterly stupid and overall the movie is far from inspiring awe or interest. Even a child can see the missing logic to character's behaviors. Today's kids need creative stories which would inspire them, which would make them 'daydream' about the events. That's precisely what happened with movies like E.T. and Star Wars a decade ago. (How many kids imagined about becoming Jedi Knights and igniting their own lightsabers?) Seriously don't waste your time & money on this one.
Some have praised _Atlantis:_The_Lost_Empire_ as a Disney adventure for adults. I don't think so--at least not for thinking adults.<br /><br />This script suggests a beginning as a live-action movie, that struck someone as the type of crap you cannot sell to adults anymore. The "crack staff" of many older adventure movies has been done well before, (think _The Dirty Dozen_) but _Atlantis_ represents one of the worse films in that motif. The characters are weak. Even the background that each member trots out seems stock and awkward at best. An MD/Medicine Man, a tomboy mechanic whose father always wanted sons, if we have not at least seen these before, we have seen mix-and-match quirks before. The story about how one companion, Vinny played by Don Novello (Fr. Guido Sarducci), went from flower stores to demolitions totally unconvincing.<br /><br />Only the main character, Milo Thatch, a young Atlantis-obsessed academic voiced by Michael J. Fox, has any depth to him. Milo's search for Atlantis continues that of his grandfather who raised him. The opening scene shows a much younger Milo giddily perched on a knee, as his grandfather places his pith helmet on his head.<br /><br />And while the characters were thin at best, the best part about _Atlantis_ was the voice talent. Perhaps Milo's depth is no thicker than Fox's charm. Commander Rourke loses nothing being voiced by James Garner. Although Rourke is a pretty stock military type, Garner shows his ability to breath life into characters simply by his delivery. Garner's vocal performance is the high point. I'm sorry to say Leonard Nimoy's Dying King is nothing more than obligatory. Additionally, Don Novello as the demolition expert, Vinny Santorini, was also notable for one or two well-done, funny lines--but I've always liked Father Guido Sarducci, anyway. <br /><br />Also well done was the Computer Animation. The BACKGROUND animation, that is. The character animation has not been this bad for Disney since the minimalism that drove Don Bluth out the door. The character animation does nothing if not make already flat characters appear even flatter. Aside from landscapes, buildings and vehicles there isn't much to impress.<br /><br />The plot was the worst. Some say hackneyed or trite. I'm not so sure about that. Any serviceable plot can be made into something new with the proper treatment. Shakespeare often started from a known story and plot and was famous only for putting on a new coat of paint. So the treatment is the thing. And _Atlantis_ obviously lacks that.<br /><br />I cannot begin to go into all the logic gaps without a spoiler section. The plot was bad. The plot's bridges snap like twine and the ending does not make sense. To add to that, the script and the animation is peppered with annoying sloppiness.<br /><br />** SPOILERS **<br /><br />1. Right at the beginning when Milo reveals that runic or Celtic symbols have been wrongly transliterated and the "Coast of Ireland" should read the "Coast of Iceland", we begin to have problems. The writers of the script would need to know the British take for Eire or Eireann as "Ireland", and completely ignore the older, Latin term Hibernia. But more than this, they need to know of the Vikings conspiracy to call the greener island Iceland and the icier island Greenland. <br /><br />By making it the matter of a mis-tranliterated "letter", the writers have doomed themselves to requiring a runic version of English and a post-Roman date on the script. Since this is long after Atlantis was supposed to have sunk into its undersea cave. And without visible clues and less technology than Milo had, made the inscription far less trustworthy.<br /><br />2. The Shepard's Journal could not be written before the sinking of Atlantis, or it would know nothing about the cave or the crystal lying "in the King's eye". It must have been written after the sinking, but without even the technology that Milo's expedition had, how the heck did anybody get by the Leviathan. So how could it know more about anything after that? And why would it be written in Atlantian? <br /><br />Automatic writing and clairvoyance or astral travel can explain these things. However clairvoyance and astral travel do not require the shepard to write in Atlantian. So it's got to be some sort automatic writing. Since noone left in Atlantis can read, it must be the spirits of the crystal beaming messages to the surface. This would have made more sense. But could also have been explained within the movie: Milo could have discovered that this power had been calling him all his life--appeared in dreams, etc. This needed to be explored in the movie.<br /><br />3. The Atlantians should simply not be able to comprehend modern languages. No-one expects that the original Indo-Europeans would be able to converse in Europe, anymore than Romans would understand that hard "c"s or their day became French "ch"s (pronounced like "sh"s, no less!)<br /><br />4. Current Atlantians were alive before the cataclysm--when apparently they *could* read, yet now are unable to read what they used to, or operate similar machinery. <br /><br />5. The Mass Illiteracy points out a crucial flaw in the movie. NOTHING seems to have happened to this culture. It seems suspended in air until Milo can rescue it. Even though it appears that life is not a constant struggle for survival, no-one wants to compose poetry or write novels and perhaps it is a combination of Atlantian school systems going downhill toward the end and lack of good fiction that caused Atlantis to fall into illiteracy.<br /><br />5. Kida can be excused for not knowing how to read or operate the machinery if she was so young when the Cataclysm of Stupidity set in--But ANY OF IT **HARDLY** qualifies her father for Deification!! Kashakim's foolishness almost single-handedly wiped his people from existence. Killed a bunch in the cataclysm, stalled progress (not a lot killed here, but he oversaw a massive slide in culture and progress) until someone could take the crystal to kill everybody, if they weren't boiled in lava first because the Giant Robots weren't there to protect them. <br /><br />A bolt of blue electricity should have shattered Kashakim's likeness, when Kida tried joining her father's image to the circle of GREAT Kings of Atlantis! <br /><br />6. Even though Milo was the only one who could read Atlantian, Rourke and others knew enough to look through a book of gibberish and find a page on a crystal--which he knew to be a crystal and not some stylized astrological or "phases of the sun" diagram.<br /><br />7. If Milo's grandfather had told Rourke about it, it still does not explain what how Rourke would have suffered from Milo's reading it as part of the book. Ripping out the page--which was dog-eared in Rourke's hand, even though Milo found NO sign of a torn page in the book apparently--only was there to tip off the viewer that "something was not quite right". Unless the word "crystal" would have set alarms off in Milo's head that somebody would try to steal it, Milo would have suspected nothing. It's just thick-headed foreshadowing.<br /><br />8. The crew's "double-cross" was not a character change. We learned that Vinny, Sweet, Audrey and Cookie had been going along with Rourke from the beginning. However, the "change of heart" falls flat. It was a change, and needed to be better motivated. Hard to do with characters who weren't given anything to begin with.<br /><br />9. Niggling little bit that the lava flows up over the dome, instead of filling in the rest of the area that we view the sequence from. It's liquid; it will not flow over the protective dome until it fills up all lower areas.<br /><br />10. The ending STINKS!-- and makes no sense other than to appease political correctness. With it's powersource restored, Atlantis is no longer a weak power, needing coddling. The giant robot guardians and the sky-cycles shooting blue lightning suggest that they have less to fear from us than they might. The technology is superior to ours, and definitely to early 20th-century. In the end Milo needs to teach the Atlantians to read, for what? The whole idea is to leave their little quiet, chastened culture alone, not to send it into hyperdrive. <br /><br />** END SPOILERS **<br /><br />Perhaps, the Lost World plot and the turn-of-the-century setting should give me a hint that this is more an homage to pulps. The failures I find with the film agree with this idea. But I am at a loss why I should pay to see thin characters and plot holes simply because many dime novels had them as well. And pulp stories is part of the "crap they can't sell adults anymore", anyway. We have become a bit more sophisticated and our pulp needs to grow up as well. Raiders of the Lost Ark lost none of its pulp feel and avoided so much badness.<br /><br />4 out of 10--the movie is enjoyable but as I think about the plot, it seeps ever lower.
Some have praised -Atlantis:-The Lost Empire- as a Disney adventure for adults. I don't think so--at least not for thinking adults.<br /><br />This script suggests a beginning as a live-action movie, that struck someone as the type of crap you cannot sell to adults anymore. The "crack staff" of many older adventure movies has been done well before, (think The Dirty Dozen) but -Atlantis- represents one of the worse films in that motif. The characters are weak. Even the background that each member trots out seems stock and awkward at best. An MD/Medicine Man, a tomboy mechanic whose father always wanted sons, if we have not at least seen these before, we have seen mix-and-match quirks before. The story about how one companion, Vinny played by Don Novello (Fr. Guido Sarducci), went from flower stores to demolitions totally unconvincing.<br /><br />Only the main character, Milo Thatch, a young Atlantis-obsessed academic voiced by Michael J. Fox, has any depth to him. Milo's search for Atlantis continues that of his grandfather who raised him. The opening scene shows a much younger Milo giddily perched on a knee, as his grandfather places his pith helmet on his head.<br /><br />And while the characters were thin at best, the best part about -Atlantis- was the voice talent. Commander Rourke loses nothing being voiced by James Garner. Although Rourke is a pretty stock military type, Garner shows his ability to breath life into characters simply by his delivery. Garner's vocal performance is the high point. I'm sorry to say Leonard Nimoy's Dying King is nothing more than obligatory. Additionally, Don Novello as the demolition expert, Vinny Santorini, was also notable for one or two well-done, funny lines--but I've always liked Father Guido Sarducci, anyway.<br /><br />Also well done was the Computer Animation. The BACKGROUND animation, that is. The character animation does nothing if not make already flat characters appear even flatter. Aside from landscapes, buildings and vehicles there isn't much to impress.<br /><br />The plot was the worst. Some say hackneyed or trite. I'm not so sure about that. Any serviceable plot can be made into something new with the proper treatment. Shakespeare often started from a known story and plot and was famous only for putting on a new coat of paint. So the treatment is the thing. And -Atlantis- obviously lacks that.<br /><br />I cannot begin to go into all the logic gaps without a spoiler section. The plot was bad. The plot's bridges snap like twine and the ending does not make sense. To add to that, the script and the animation is peppered with annoying sloppiness.<br /><br />** SPOILERS **<br /><br />Right at the beginning when Milo reveals that runic or Celtic symbols have been wrongly transliterated and the "Coast of Ireland" should read the "Coast of Iceland", we begin to have problems. The writers of the script would need to know the British take for Eire or Eireann as "Ireland", and completely ignore the older, Latin term Hibernia. But more than this, they need to know of the Vikings conspiracy to call the greener island Iceland and the icier island Greenland.<br /><br />By making it the matter of a mis-tranliterated "letter", the writers have doomed themselves to requiring a runic version of English and a post-Roman date on the script. Since this is long after Atlantis was supposed to have sunk into its undersea cave. And without visible clues and less technology than Milo had, made the inscription far less trustworthy.<br /><br />The Shepherd's Journal could not be written before the sinking of Atlantis, or it would know nothing about the cave or the crystal lying "in the King's eye". It must have been written after the sinking, but without even the technology that Milo's expedition had, how the heck did anybody get by the Leviathan. So how could it know more about anything after that? And why would it be written in Atlantian?<br /><br />Automatic writing and clairvoyance or astral travel can explain these things. However clairvoyance and astral travel do not require to write in Atlantian. So it's got to be some sort automatic writing. Since no-one left in Atlantis can read, it must be the spirits of the crystal beaming messages to the surface. This would have made more sense. But could also have been explained within the movie: Milo could shepherd have discovered that this power had been calling him all his life--appeared in dreams, etc. This needed to be explored in the movie.<br /><br />The Atlantians should simply not be able to comprehend modern languages. No-one expects that the original Indo-Europeans would be able to converse in Europe, anymore than Romans would understand that hard "c"s or their day became French "ch"s (pronounced like "sh"s, no less!)<br /><br />Current Atlantians were alive before the cataclysm--when apparently they *could* read, yet now are unable to read what they used to, or operate similar machinery.<br /><br />The Mass Illiteracy points out a crucial flaw in the movie. NOTHING seems to have happened to this culture. It seems suspended in air until Milo can rescue it. Even though it appears that life is not a constant struggle for survival, no-one wants to compose poetry or write novels and perhaps it is a combination of Atlantian school systems going downhill toward the end and lack of good fiction that caused Atlantis to fall into illiteracy.<br /><br />Kida can be excused for not knowing how to read or operate the machinery if she was so young when the Cataclysm of Stupidity set in--But ANY OF IT **HARDLY** qualifies her father for Deification!! Kashakim's foolishness almost single-handedly wiped his people from existence. Killed a bunch in the cataclysm, stalled progress (not a lot killed here, but he oversaw a massive slide in culture and progress) until someone could take the crystal to kill everybody, if they weren't boiled in lava first because the Giant Robots weren't there to protect them.<br /><br />A bolt of blue electricity should have shattered Kashakim's likeness, when Kida tried joining her father's image to the circle of GREAT Kings of Atlantis!<br /><br />Even though Milo was the only one who could read Atlantian, Rourke and others knew enough to look through a book of gibberish and find a page on a crystal--which he knew to be a crystal and not some stylized astrological or "phases of the sun" diagram.<br /><br />If Milo's grandfather had told Rourke about it, it still does not explain how Rourke would have suffered from Milo's reading it as part of the book. Ripping out the page--which was dog-eared in Rourke's hand, even though Milo found NO sign of a torn page in the book apparently--only was there to tip off the viewer that "something was not quite right". Unless the word "crystal" would have set alarms off in Milo's head that somebody would try to steal it, Milo would have suspected nothing. It's just thick-headed foreshadowing.<br /><br />The crew's "double-cross" was not a character change. We learned that Vinny, Sweet, Audrey and Cookie had been going along with Rourke from the beginning. However, the "change of heart" falls flat. It was a change, and needed to be better motivated. Hard to do with characters who weren't given anything to begin with.<br /><br />Niggling little bit that the lava flows up over the dome, instead of filling in the rest of the area that we view the sequence from. It's liquid; it will not flow over the protective dome until it fills up all lower areas.<br /><br />The ending STINKS!-- and makes no sense other than to appease political correctness. With it's powersource restored, Atlantis is no longer a weak power, needing coddling. The giant robot guardians and the sky-cycles shooting blue lightning suggest that they have less to fear from us than they might. The technology is superior to ours, and definitely to early 20th-century. In the end Milo needs to teach the Atlantians to read, for what? The whole idea is to leave their little quiet, chastened culture alone, not to send it into hyperdrive.<br /><br />** END SPOILERS **<br /><br />Perhaps, the Lost World plot and the turn-of-the-century setting should give me a hint that this is more an homage to pulps. The failures I find with the film agree with this idea. But I am at a loss why I should pay to see thin characters and plot holes simply because many dime novels had them as well. And pulp stories is part of the "crap they can't sell adults anymore", anyway. We have become a bit more sophisticated and our pulp needs to grow up as well. Raiders of the Lost Ark lost none of its pulp feel and avoided so much badness.<br /><br />4 out of 10--the movie is enjoyable but as I think about the plot, it seeps ever lower.
How the Grinch Stole Christmas was a wonderful little Christmas cartoon that anyone could easily enjoy, I never did see the reason for a remake. Not to mention a remake that was made with humans, the cartoon was just perfect enough, what's the purpose of this film? But it also seemed a little odd for Jim Carrey to be the Grinch. I mean he's a great comedic actor, but him as the Grinch? It just didn't make any sense to me. His performance was a little over the top and unintentionally laughable at moments. Not to mention some of the added dialog was a bit childish and not enjoyable. The whole story of the Grinch and Cindy Lou-Who was over done and wasn't needed. They actually just destroyed the story, period.<br /><br />All the who's in Whoville are getting ready for their best Christmas season yet where everything is intended to go perfectly. But Cindy Lou-Who is curious and worried about the Grinch that lives above them and that he's not going to get as good of a Christmas as the other who's. He kicks her out and decides that he doesn't want Christmas this year and that in fact he should just steal Christmas all together to show the who's what his version of Christmas is all about. But soon he realizes that the who's may know that it's a little bit more than what is the materialized version of Christmas.<br /><br />How the Grinch Stole Christmas wasn't needed and was a bit over the top. I really recommend that you stick with the cartoon just for the simple fact that this is a pretty disturbing version, at least in my opinion. The make up and presentation of the whole film was just a bit over done, not to mention that How the Grinch Stole Christmas! was more meant to be as a cartoon rather than a version starring Jim Carry. But at least this version makes you grateful for the Boris Karloff version that is played every Christmas.<br /><br />1/10
(possible spoilers)<br /><br />Someone once asked Dr. Seuss if they could secure the movie rights to his 1957 Christmas classic How the Grinch Stole Christmas. He turned them down, insisting that no one could do better than the marvelous Chuck Jones TV special from 1966 (also in mind, perhaps, was his bitter experience writing the script to 1953's The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T). When the good Dr. died in 1991, his widow, Audrey Geisel, still obstinately refused to sell the movie rights. But with the commonplace use of CGI effects becoming a reality, Mrs. Geisel had a change of heart. Universal made her a generous offer she accepted; she also accepted the casting of Jim Carrey as the title character. Supposedly she was satisfied with the final result. Well, Mrs. Geisel, that makes one of us.<br /><br />The film was given a $123,000,000 budget (which is more than even Heaven's Gate cost, including the adjustment for inflation), which obviously went towards the very elaborate makeup, set design, and special effects (which are undermined<br /><br />somewhat by the rather hazy cinematography). Unfortunately, it seems that none of that money was set aside to get a better script than what Jeffrey Price and Peter S. Seaman (scribes of Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, which made much better<br /><br />use of a high budget) turned in. Whereas the TV special was a trim 26 minutes without commercials, this film tries to fill a running time of 105 minutes with more background information about the Grinch. It turns out that, as a child, he was the subject of ridicule, including an especially humiliating experience one Christmas at the age of eight. So it turns out that everything that ails our poor Mr. Grinch is directly because of the Whos. Trouble is, it seems like a rather long 105 minutes, with too much dead wood clogging up the story. That might not seem so bad if only the Grinch were a little more...well, Grinchy. The character that Dr. Seuss wrote and Chuck Jones later animated was a sly fox whose slick attempts to hijack the holiday season were undermined by his sudden change (and exponential growth) of heart. Carrey's Grinch is a loud, hyperactive oaf and, at times, a thug who, when made the holiday `Cheermeister,' trashes the Whoville town square in anger<br /><br />(hopefully the scenery tasted as good as it looked). This undermines the script's attempt to make the Grinch more sympathetic, with all the Whos down in Whoville so unsympathetic (at least in this interpretation).<br /><br />The Whoville of Dr. Seuss's vision was a small town populated by honest folk who knew in their hearts the true meaning of Christmas. The Whoville of the movie is a rather noisy and crowded place populated by spoiled, selfish, materialistic ninnies; an obvious attempt to comment on American consumerism. This is offensively<br /><br />hypocritical inasmuch as the film industry has benefitted greatly from American consumerism, and as this film contributed to it with a huge merchandising<br /><br />campaign.<br /><br />The film also expands and redefines the character of Cindy Lou Who, a small but crucial character in the original. The innocent two-year-old waif who walked in on this spurious Santa is now older and wiser, constantly questioning the false values of the Whos and trying to understand the Grinch's point of view (her one major scene from the original is re-enacted, making it seem out of character). She<br /><br />seems to be the only one who would ever know that Christmas is more than just gifts and decorations, thus making her a completely different, and more annoying, character.<br /><br />Those who celebrate Christmas should sooner accept a lump of coal in their<br /><br />stockings on the morning of December 25 than a copy of this overlong, overacted, excruciatingly tedious, ham-handed, crude attempt to turn the children's classic into a feature film. It proves once and for all that darkness, vulgarity,<br /><br />manipulation, and heavy-handedness are inadequate substitutes for charm, wit, sincerity, and heart. The folks at Universal should get down on their collective knees and thank God that this truly bilious $123 million stink bomb grossed $260 million domestically or they'd not be here today. Furthermore it made Mike Myers' The Cat in the Hat possible!
Having been forced by my children to watch this at least 10 times for each of the last 2 Christmases, I feel adequately qualified to pass judgment on this version of Dr. Seuss' classic tale, and well... it's not very good. First off, following a classic act like Chuck Jones' animated TV special is going to be difficult for anyone, but this interpretation is so heavy-handed and padded as to be positively numbing. I will concede that there are a handful of inspired gags, but overall the film comes off as a calculated cash grab, at the same time as it is supposedly decrying the commercialisation of Christmas. Jim Carrey is typically over the top here, but that is completely at odds with the character of the Grinch. As characterised by Boris Karloff, he was a slow burn; methodical and sly. There is no method to Carrey's madness, and that is only the most obvious error made. Talented actors like Jeffrey Tambor and Christine Baranski are utterly wasted here. Why, Universal, why? I mean , I understand that Tony Hopkins will take just about any role offered (much like his countryman Michael Caine), but this one needs to be filed under "Films that should never have been made." This does not bode well for the Cat in the Hat, an even thinner tome that Universal is prepping for this Christmas. I get the feeling that I will be making the same recommendation for that one as I am with this one: skip it, and either read the book or watch the TV special. This is 2 hours you can never, ever get back.
Ron Howard directed this? The 1966 cartoon is charming, teaching a simple lesson to children using a simple plot. In this movie, Howard gives us a Whoville filled with greedy, manipulative, self-centered Whos. Jim Carrey is terrible, but I'm sure it's not his fault; I imagine the script called for the nastiest person imaginable, so Carrey channeled Tom Green and the result is movie magic. Much like Danny Devito's Penguin in Batman Returns, Carrey's Grinch is so thoroughly unlikeable that any degree of comedy that might be mined from his character simply evaporates. Where the 1966 cartoon featured a Grinch that we could all identify with, Carrey's Grinch is that angry, soulless old man that we've all seen at one time or another, sitting in a parked car muttering to himself or tripping toddlers at the supermarket with his cane. This Grinch is thoroughly bereft of any degree of humanity, humor, or insight whatsoever, and his redemption at the end of the movie rings false. The whole movie rings false: there is some stupid Christmas lighting competition, a failed attempt at explaining why the Grinch is such a jerk by digging into his childhood, and an indecipherable mystery as to why some of the Whos have that weird lip extension and some of them don't. Contrary to the 1966 cartoon, I would imagine children would find this movie tiresome, irritating, and filled with contradictory messages. Did we really need to see Slutty Smurf, aka Christine Baranski as Martha May Whovier? In addition, Ron Howard filled the cast with his untalented relatives. Throw in the requisite butt jokes, fart jokes, sex jokes, and other obligatory Carreyesque low-brow humor, and you have a movie that is about as far from the 1966 cartoon (or book that inspired it) as George W. Bush is from rational, lucid thought. Thumbs down on this big fat turkey.
DR. SEUSS' HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS / (2000) ** (out of four)<br /><br />If you desire to see a holiday movie that will inspire your seasonal spirits and continue the traditional Dr. Seuss classic fable, don't see "Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas." If you are old enough to read this review, then you are probably too old to get any kind of enjoyment out of this motion picture. It contains lots of colors, creative production design and imaginative set and costume construction, joyous load noises, and the characters are made up to look like the actual inhabitants of the fictional village Whoville. Unfortunately that is where the movie's positive elements end; the rest of the production is nothing but an excuse for Jim Carrey to cackle on screen while giving a devilish grin, all while prancing through the overly broad screenplay with nothing much to do.<br /><br />Many people recognize the story of how the grinch stole Christmas from Whoville, so I will not waste my time in writing a detailed synopsis for you to read. However, I will say that the movie's story is executed in three major acts; the development of the grinch and setting, the Whoville festival, and the Dr. Seuss vision of the mean one robbing the Who's from their Christmas. There are many familiar names within the credits here, but no familiar faces. Like in "Battlefield Earth," I just do not see why the producers would hire expensive actors just to have their identities shielded by unrecognizable makeup and costumes. Regardless, there is SNL's Molly Shannon as Betty Lou, the wife of Bill Irwin, the later playing Lou Lou, the father of little Cindy Lou, played by Taylor Momsen. Jeffrey Tambor is the Whoville mayor, Anthony Hopkins lends his bellowing voice for the film's narrator, and Christine Baranski is the Grinch's lone lost lover.<br /><br />The filmmakers attempt to bring originality to the story by adding unnecessary subplots and focusing too much on the little Cindy Lou. The screenplay by Jeffrey Price and Peter S. Seaman just feels like it goes everywhere across the movie landscape; there is little if any focus by director Ron Howard and the screenplay is predictable, too extensive, and contrived. The only character given any distinctions here is the Grinch himself, all of the other characters are puppets of the plot, shapeless and uninteresting. And the dialogue is overzealous and too corny to be anything but pathetic. Example-Grinch: Oh, the Who-manity!<br /><br />The movie's redeeming factors go out to the gifted production designer Michael Corenblith, the costume designer Rita Ryack, and the ample makeup department. "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" is a very good-looking production. The sets and the atmosphere created by the filmmakers are detailed and imaginative; it is like the audience is visiting a world as in a dream. The people of Whoville are plastered with makeup, to the point in which we cannot tell the actor reciting the humorless lines. Although dazzling, I really can't give credit to the performances, for they are over looked to due the expensive technical department taking their place.<br /><br />Jim Carrey is one actor who I can talk about. His performance is what nearly destroys the movie itself He is way too egotistic as the Grinch, too exaggerated and comical to allow the story to be anywhere near recognizable as the work of Seuss. Surprisingly, although there are a few funny moments due to a few slyly clever sequences, no laughs come from Jim Carry's zany silliness. It is almost like the movie was wrote specifically for Carry to overplay his part. This factor only leads the movie to a wild but brainless comedy, which is only a pale shadow of the original Christmas classic "How the Grinch Stole Christmas."<br /><br />After this movie, historians should check the coffin of the late author, Dr. Seuss may have rolled over in his grave.<br /><br />
Ironic that Dr. Seuss' fable emphasizing the non-commercialization of Christmas should be one of the most hyped, marketed, and successful blockbusters of the holiday season. The general gist of Ron Howard's adaptation is that the Grinch's bane against Christmas stems from an early childhood incident and that the Whos themselves are caught up in the materialism of the season save for Cindy Lou Who (played very well by Taylor Momsen). This movie makes an ardent, ambitious attempt to capture the wackiness and sentiment of Seuss' story, but the end result is a movie that lurches and never quite packs the emotional punch of Chuck Jones' animated version. Jim Carrey is noteworthy in his performance as the devilish Grinch, but whether it's the dialogue, the pacing, or extraneous storylines heaped upon the initial plot, the transformation from bitter miser to gleeful benefactor just does not ignite convincingly. There are some wonderful visuals and the make-up work is amazing, yet beyond the technical triumphs there's an element or two here that's missing.<br /><br />Succinctness?<br /><br />Soul?<br /><br />Or maybe Jones did the initial adaptation all too well in his 25-minute cartoon that Howard falls short of in a movie that feels three hours long. Howard, Carey, and crew are all very capable and talented, but what would seem a winning combination is just weak and plodding in its final product. If you must see the feature-length version, rent it on video with Jones' animated version and you can see how bigger and glitzier is not always better. I give this film three cans of Who-Hash out of five.
About the baby: Why wasn't big brother assuming he'd be hungry for a bottle or some nourishment or a diaper change? He should have been screaming non-stop after that many hours without care. Definitely stupid to take the baby from a safe place when he didn't need to.<br /><br />And why was the road miraculously clear whenever anyone wanted to drive somewhere? Didn't any uprooted trees fall on the roads and block them?<br /><br />I can't imagine the cops at the roadblock not immediately following after any young person who would crash it, especially when they said it was dangerous to go there.<br /><br />That being said, it was nice to have a movie children could safely watch, for a change.
For some strange reason the film world is driven by fashion . Someone makes a film about a killer shark then all of a sudden the film world`s oceans are awash with giant Squids , killer octopusses and sea monsters of every ilk . A man is stalked by an erstwhile lover from hell then every film character is stalked by a cop from hell or a flatmate from hell or a babysitter from hell . Then when a major Hollywood company produces a big budget FX laden blockbuster about tornados then other film producers jump upon the bandwagon , the fact that they don`t have the budget to pull it off doesn`t stop them. NIGHT OF THE TWISTERS is a case in point . What struck me about this made for television film is the fact that it tries to hide its lack of budget by cutting to the ad breaks . Everytime a tornado appears the camara locks onto the horrified expression of the actors as they scream things like " Oh my gawd it`s heading this way " and " Run for your lives " then the screen fades to black saving the producers the need to up the special effects budget . Unfortunately NIGHT OF THE TWISTERS budget should have been upped to include better actors . The cast are by no means bad but they are unimpressive and lack the skill to carry a film which is character driven . Where`s Josh Hartnett and Elijah Wood when you need them ?<br /><br />And the last word on this being a TWISTER clone ..... Yes NOTT was released a couple of months before TWISTER but TWISTER had been hyped for several months as being the Summer blockbuster of 1996 and NOTT has a rushed feeling to it which leads me to believe that it was made and released to tie in with the hype surrounding TWISTER
I am not saying that Night of the Twisters was horrible, but it was far from great. Mediocre at absolute best. I seems though that every time one type of movie is released, a second must be around the same time. (Think about Armageddon and Deep Impact, Volcano and Dante's Peak) Night of the Twisters is really just Twister except worse and with mundane special effects.<br /><br />I have nothing against the actors who starred in it, even if they weren't great, it was the movie itself, the directing, the special effects, the whole storyline was just too strange to interpret. A series of tornadoes strike a town and basically the movie is about people trying to find family and friends and deal with the damage.<br /><br />I really don't know why it seems as though duplicates of disaster movies are released almost in sync with each other, but this one would have been better with Bill Paxton and Helen Hunt.
Carlos Mencia continually, violently, hatefully screaming "B**ch!" at women is like screaming "N**ger!" at black people, except it's worse. Remember, the B word, unlike the N word, is the only pejorative term that is still associated on a daily basis with violence. "B**ch!" is the last thing women hear before they are raped, beaten, or murdered. This guy is perpetuating violence by hatefully using the language of violence. Sounds like he may be a gay guy trying to cover by woman-bashing, so that he will sound like a hetero. And how about all the Nazi white guys in his audience giving the fascist salutes while their stupid little bimbo white women whimper tee hee hee at their side, clearly terrified to protest this tidal wave of woman-hating. Tee hee hee. Bet Mencia doesn't believe or support free speech for THEM! Come on, Carlos – do you want women to have the free speech to b**ch-slap you as loudly and violently and big-mouthed as you do, or do you think "free speech" is only for men to crap on women???
It's hard to believe people actually LIKE this dreck! I do think kids can enjoy it, but to me it's the kind of kid film parents can't bear to sit through. Predictable plot, boring Belushi, and possibly the worst kid actor of all time. I will give the director some of the responsibility for the kid, but she was truly painful to watch. I feel embarrassed for her now, having people know it was her. When she sang the Star Spangled Banner I had to turn the sound off--then I came here and discovered they did that because she won Star Search. I've always felt Jim Belushi should be ashamed to trade on the name of his wonderful, sadly missed brother, and this crap shows why. Zero stars.
If you rent a movie titled "Exterminators of the year 3000," the odds are good you know what you're getting yourself into. I myself was sold by the promising descriptions of "nuke mutants," "motor-psychos," and of course the "exterminators" themselves which, according to the back of the movie-store case, are all cavorting around a post-apocalyptic barren wasteland wreaking all sorts of mayhem. Let the wacky hijinks and low budget buffoonery ensue--at least, such were my hopes for this "film."<br /><br />Now I like the occasional terrible movie, and if you're reading the comments on Exterminators of the Year 3000, you probably do too. That being said, I rated this film a solid "1(awful)"--not because I completely hated the film but because it is one of the most legitimately dreadful efforts at movie-making I have ever seen. The dialogue, the acting, the cinematography, the sound-editing, the editing in general, the plot, etc., etc., etc--all are worthy of what must surely be low spectator expectations given that marvelous title.<br /><br />So what is really "good" about this bad movie? It does have several of what my circle affectionately terms "quality kills." A quality kill, for those few of you unfamiliar with the phrase, isn't a hard and fast term, but in general refers to someone killed in a particularly gruesome, creative, or ridiculous fashion.<br /><br />Exterminators of the Year 3000 also has a fair supply of "dialogue-so-bad-it-becomes-funny," provided in great part by Crazy Bull, the aptly titled leader of the hapless motor-psycho gang--who incidentally also provide most of the quality kills (if you're hoping for big things from the nuke mutants, think again, they play essentially zero part in the movie...shucks!). Crazy Bull, however, is all you could ask for in a b-movie motor-psycho. Shakespearean paraphrase and oddly PG-style insults are all he knows how to say...and that's terrific.<br /><br />Despite its quality kills and bad dialogue, however, if you're looking for a truly entertaining bad movie, Exterminators of the Year 3000 does disappoint somewhat in that with its draw limited to things like silly and outdated special effects, quality killing, and bad dialogue, there is simply not enough to justify a full feature length, owing principally to the forty minutes or so in which the audience is forced to follow the characters in protracted and boring car "chases" and long desert hiking sequences...All in all, a pretty good awful movie, but hey, it's no Death Race 2000.
Bottom of the barrel, unimaginative, and practically unwatchable remake of THE ROAD WARRIOR. This film follows the exact plot as the Filipino film STRYKER and is worse by far! Bad acting, dialog, effects, dubbing, pacing, action sequences... The list goes on and on. Italy made literally dozens of Road Warrior rip-offs in the early 80's, some good, some bad. This is the worst by far, no contest. Not only was the mood of the film completely bleak and miserable, the experience of sitting through this one is a bore and a half. There was 1 (one) good chase sequence towards the beginning of the movie, and a cool shot of a man holding a hand grenade exploding. But EVERYTHING else about this movie seriously reeks! For actual post-nuke fun, go track down a copy of ENDGAME, AFTER THE FALL OF NEW YORK, or ESCAPE FROM THE BRONX instead. They're much more enjoyable than this rubbish.
This movie surely has one of the strangest themes in history -- right up there with Ed Wood's impassioned defense of cross-dressing in "Glen or Glenda?"<br /><br />The subject: playing bridge. The Park Avenue set plays it; the Bohemians play it. The Russians -- who speak very questionable "Russian" and have most unconvincing accents when they speak English -- play it at the restaurant where they work.<br /><br />If one isn't interested in bridge, one -- even despite the great cast -- isn't likely to be much interested in this bizarre movie.<br /><br />Loretta Young and Paul Lukas are fine. (Well --Frank McHugh is an unlikely ghost writer -- as Lukas is an unlikely Russian.) But they are all sunk by the fetishistic script.
This film breeches the fine line between satire and silliness. While a bridge system that has no rules may promote marital harmony, it certainly can't promote winning bridge, so the satire didn't work for me. But there were some items I found enjoyable anyway, especially with the big bridge match between Paul Lukas and Ferdinand Gottschalk near the end of the film. It is treated like very much like a championship boxing match. Not only is the arena for the contest roped off in a square area like a boxing ring, there is a referee hovering between the contestants, and radio broadcaster Roscoe Karns delivers nonstop chatter on the happenings. At one point he even enumerates "One... Two... Three... Four..." as though a bid of four diamonds was a knockdown event. And people were glued to their radios for it all, a common event for championship boxing matches. That spoof worked very well indeed.<br /><br />Unfortunately, few of the actors provide the comedy needed to sustain the intended satire. Paul Lukas doesn't have much of a flair for comedy and is miscast; lovely Loretta Young and the usual comic Frank McHugh weren't given good enough lines; Glenda Farrell has a nice comic turn as a forgetful blonde at the start of the film, but she practically disappears thereafter. What a waste of talent!
I usually enjoy Loretta Young's early movies: her acting back then was light and breezy, and she sure knew how to wear clothes. But this one is just a loser from the word go except for a funny supporting turn by Glenda Farrell. Young is a hatcheck girl who talks her writer-husband (Paul Lukas) into becoming a championship bridge player. It's not the most cinematic of games, and the long, talky middle part in which their marriage falls apart just about kills the film.<br /><br />There's one interesting bit though. As Lukas and Ferdinand Gottschalk start their climactic game, a series of quick shots show airplanes, trains, football games, even a diver in mid-air, freezing in anticipation of the event. It's the earliest use of a freeze frame I've seen in an American film. Wish the rest of it were that inventive-and funny.
Having read another review, I thought this movie would actually be good. I do enjoy the "B" movies, but this couldn't even be classed as such. The photography is probably the only half-way decent thing in the movie. But the editing left much to be desired. It was very choppy and staccato. Whoever chose the music and sound did a terrible job. The music was awful, specially anything atmospheric or scene setting. If the acting had been better, they could have pulled the movie off. Unfortunately, I've seen better acting in porn flicks. If you want to see a "B" vampire movie, check out 'Blood Ties'. You'll be much more entertained.
To Die For (1989) was just another d.t.v. feature that made an appearance on cable ad nasuem during the early nineties. The only thing notable about this feature was the last movie Duane Jones appeared in. Other than that there's no reason to watch this vampire flick unless you like pseudo chick flicks masquerading as a horror film. A tired vampire longs for love and searches the back streets of L.A. looking for it. Will he succeed or will Vlad just strike out again like he has for the last century?<br /><br />This movie must have been big because a couple of sequels soon followed. They're so bad they make this one look like a classic. I know this is a movie about vampires but the film makers could have used to lighting.<br /><br />Not recommended by me because I didn't like it.<br /><br />'nuff said?
Contains spoilers. <br /><br />The British director J. Lee Thompson made some excellent films, notably 'Ice Cold in Alex' and 'Cape Fear', but 'Country Dance' is one of his more curious offerings. The story is set among the upper classes of rural Scotland, and details the strange triangular relationship between Sir Charles Ferguson, an eccentric aristocratic landowner, his sister Hilary, and Hilary's estranged husband Douglas, who is hoping for a reconciliation with her. We learn that during his career as an Army officer, Charles was regarded as having 'low moral fibre'. This appears to have been an accurate diagnosis of his condition; throughout the film he displays an attitude of gloomy disillusionment with the world, and his main sources of emotional support seem to be Hilary and his whisky bottle. The film ends with his committal to an upper-class lunatic asylum. <br /><br />Peter O'Toole was, when he was at his best as in 'Lawrence of Arabia', one of Britain's leading actors, but the quality of his work was very uneven, and 'Country Dance' is not one of his better films. He overacts frantically, making Charles into a caricature of the useless inbred aristocrat, as though he were auditioning for a part in the Monty Python 'Upper-Class Twit of the Year' sketch. Susannah York as Hilary and Michael Craig as Douglas are rather better, but there is no really outstanding acting performance in the film. There is also little in the way of coherent plot, beyond the tale of Charles's inexorable downward slide.<br /><br />The main problem with the film, however, is neither the acting nor the plot, but rather that of the Theme That Dare Not Speak Its Name. There are half-hearted hints of an incestuous relationship between Charles and Hilary, or at least of an incestuous attraction towards her on his part, and that his dislike of Douglas is motivated by sexual jealousy. Unfortunately, even in the swinging sixties and early seventies (the date of the film is variously given as either 1969 or 1970) there was a limit to what the British Board of Film Censors was willing to allow, and a film with an explicitly incestuous theme was definitely off-limits. (The American title for the film was 'Brotherly Love', but this was not used in Britain; was it too suggestive for the liking of the BBFC?) These hints are therefore never developed and we never get to see what motivates Charles or what has caused his moral collapse, resulting in a hollow film with a hole at its centre. 4/10
This movie was a rather odd viewing experience. The movie is obviously based on a play. Now I'm sure that everything in this movie works out just fine in a play but for in a movie it just doesn't feel terribly interesting enough to watch. The movie is way too 'stagey' and they didn't even bothered to change some of the dialog to make it more fitting for a movie. Instead what is presented now is an almost literally re-filming of a stage-play, with over-the-top characters and staged dialog. Because of all this the storyline really doesn't work out and the movie becomes an almost complete bore- and obsolete viewing experience.<br /><br />It takes a while before you figure out that this is a comedy you're watching. At first you think its a drama you're watching, with quirky characters in it but as the movie progresses you'll notice that the movie is more a tragicomedy, that leans really more toward the comedy genre, rather than the drama genre.<br /><br />The characters and dialog are really the things that make this movie a quirky and over-the-top one that at times really become unwatchable. Sure, the actors are great; Peter O'Toole and Susannah York, amongst others but they don't really uplift the movie to a level of 'watchable enough'.<br /><br />The story feels totally disorientated. Basicaly the story is about nothing and just mainly focuses on the brother/sister characters played by Peter O'Toole and Susannah York. But what exactly is the story even about? The movie feels like a pointless and obsolete one that has very little to offer. Like I said before; I'm sure the story is good and interesting to watch on stage but as a movie it really isn't fitting and simply doesn't work out.<br /><br />The editing is simply dreadful and times and it becomes even laughable bad in certain sequences. <br /><br />More was to expect from director J. Lee Thompson, who has obviously done far better movies than this rather failed, stage-play translated to screen, project.<br /><br />Really not worth your time.<br /><br />4/10
I thought maybe a film which boasted a cast including Peter O'Toole, Susannah York, Michael Craig & Harry Andrews might be worth watching. Alas, I was wrong. Utter pretentious nonsense from beginning to end with both O'Toole and York overacting wildly. I watched it twice and still have no idea what is was about. I've a feeling O'Toole plays the Laird of a Scottish castle who has a drink problem and likes reliving childhood games with his sister (York). He is also barking mad. But apart from that, your guess is as good as mine.<br /><br />The film has no redeeming feature whatsoever. I can only assume the cast and director were blackmailed into making this dreary, unimaginative, stagy piffle. Clearly a waste of the time of a talented cast and director. Risible.
Shame really - very rarely do I watch a film and am left feeling disappointed at the end. I've seen quite a few of Ira Levin's adaptations - 'Rosemary's Baby' and 'The Stepford Wives' - and liked both them, but this just didn't appeal to me.<br /><br />When I read the plot outline - an award winning playwright (Michael Caine) decides to murder one of his former pupils (Christopher Reeve) and steel his script for his own success - I was excited. I like thrillers, Michael Caine's a good actor, Sidney Lumet's a good director and Ira Levin's work is generally good.<br /><br />I won't spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, but all I'd say is there are LOADS of twists and turns. So many its kind of hard to explain the film's plot line in detail, without giving it away. I enjoyed the first ... 45 minutes, before the twists and turns began to occur and at that point my interest and enjoyment began to fade out. Though I have to give Lumet credit for the very amusing ending which did make me laugh out loud.<br /><br />The main cast - Michael Caine, Christopher Reeve, Dyan Cannon and Irene Worth - were all brilliant in their roles. Though Worth's obvious fake Russian accent got on my nerves slightly (nothing personal Irene, I think any actor's fake accent would irritate me). Not sure if Cannon's character was meant to be annoyingly funny but Dyan managed to annoy and amuse - at the same time.<br /><br />Anyone reading this - I don't want you to be put-off watching this because of my views - give it a chance, you may like it, you may not. It's all about opinion.
I do not believe all the praise for this movie. The play and movie were a ripoff of Sleuth. Michael Caine wishes he were Olivier, and Reeves wishes he were Caine. Caine even had the nerve to do a remake of Sleuth with Jude Law playing his original part. Jude Law? You mean the one that did the remake of "Alfie"? <br /><br />This movie was made during a period of Caine's career when it was obvious he needed to pay off gambling debts. He would do anything for money. He would star in such award winning movies such as this, and "Beyond the Poseidon Adventure". What seems to be driving the praise for this movie is Reeves death. He deserves better than to be remembered for this lousy movie. And so does Caine. This movie can be found in the $5.97 bin at Walmart. Along with gems like "The Island", and "Blame it on Rio".
Ira Levin's Broadway smash comes to the screen with hardly any meat on its bones, a mystery plot with just a few tricks and twists but nobody worth caring about. Frustrated writer Michael Caine plots to steal the work of a brilliant young man and pass it off as his own; his devious plan may include murdering the talented kid, which has Caine's flighty spouse up in arms. The first act in which everyone is introduced is excruciatingly dead, with Caine doing everything an actor can to keep the pacing up. Dyan Cannon is miscast as his wife (she's too smart and clever herself to be passed off as a ditz) and Christopher Reeve (in the middle portion of the film) seems extremely uncomfortable in the role of the better writer. These three characters, and Irene Worth's bothersome neighbor, are so undefined that what happens after the set-up barely even registers until well after the second act has begun. Sidney Lumet's direction is stagy and fuzzy, the set design unconvincing and poorly-lit, and the finale is a total disaster. The actors struggle to give the script some substance, but with such thin material all we see are their laborious efforts. *1/2 from ****
Gods...where to start. I was only able to stomach about the first 10 minutes before I turned it off in disgust. Aside from the actor playing Robin Hood himself, the rest were just terrible. And, I can only stretch my suspension of disbelief only so far.<br /><br />From the very opening of the first episode, I lost count of how many errors, plot holes, and horrible costumes there were. It began with some poor peasant trying to hunt for a deer to feed his family. All well and good. However, the poor blighter must have been mostly deaf, because a handful of soldiers, in full armour, on horseback, were able to sneak up on him to within about 10 feet.<br /><br />Then, as he's running away, he goes from having them 10 feet behind him, to a shot where you cannot even see them at all, immediately followed by them about 20 feet behind him again. Then, he runs into some bushes, and is immediately manhandled by two of the soldiers...who just mere seconds before, were galloping on horseback, dozens of feet behind him.<br /><br />The "armour" on the soldiers is so painfully obviously cloth which they tried to make look like maille, and miserably failed. Not to mention, the lead soldier's "armour" being about 5 sizes too big for the poor fellow. Seriously, he looks like he is a small child wearing his father's over-sized armour! Finally, Robin manages to fire about 5, perfectly aimed shots all around one soldier's hand, in the span of about 2 seconds, from what appears to be a recurve bow. No human alive could make those kinds of shots, in that short amount of time, with a scoped rifle, much less a bow.<br /><br />After that, they escape the soldiers and stop to help an amazingly well dressed and clean "peasant" with digging a ditch...something that all noblemen were willing to do all the time, right? How this sorry excuse for a series ever got a second season is beyond me. The production costs (at least for what I saw) must have soared in the dozens of dollars (or Euros)...<br /><br />Seriously - I think a highschool drama class could have put on a better rendition. This was so bad, even that terrible Kevin Costner version of Robin Hood was better.<br /><br />I highly suggest you skip this monstrosity, and go rent or buy the mid-80's "Robin of Sherwood" series. Much better written, acted, costumed, and produced.<br /><br />For shame, BBC...for shame...
Well, it's Robin Hood as 'geezer' all right... just as advertised! That didn't sound very hopeful, and alas, it was worse than I'd suspected.<br /><br />A laddish Robin I can take; a Robin who tangles with a pert dyer's daughter I can credit; but a Robin who exchanges not-very-funny banter with his single henchman is harder to swallow, and a Robin and *entire cast* who seem to be having difficulty managing their lines is the kiss of doom. How could anyone let such laboured delivery pass without re-shooting the scenes? Again and again, Much sounds as if he's struggling with half-comprehended Shakespeare rather than letting loose with a salty quip; I hoped at the onset that it was just a failed comedy trait in a character clearly destined for the role of comedy sidekick, but then it started spreading throughout the rest of the cast.<br /><br />Whatever else you say about Errol Flynn in the role, he had the knack of delivering high-flown dialogue as naturally as if he'd just thought it up on the spur of the moment... and as this production shows, that's not at all as easy as it sounds! If they were going to cast the characters as cheeky chappies, the actors in question should have been given appropriate lines: they sound as if they haven't a clue how to handle them.<br /><br />I'm afraid I didn't even like the pantomime Sheriff, for a similar reason; the lines are clearly not intended to be taken seriously but delivered (and in this case written) with a nudge and a wink at the audience. They're out of place all right -- fourth-wall-busting stuff -- but really not that funny.<br /><br />This much-promised production reminded me of a limping school play. The only actor and character I felt any appreciation for at all was the one playing Guy of Gisbourne, who was the sole one who appeared to have any handle on (a) credible villainy and (b) credible characterisation -- but frankly, I wouldn't have said that was a very good augury for the future of the series! As of the time of writing, I'll give it another shot in the hopes that things may improve and bed down a bit by next week, with less stilted scene-setting required and perhaps the actors more at ease with the dialogue: after all, the opening episode of "Doctor Who" wasn't exactly a show-stopper, though it was nowhere near as bad as this. But if I see no improvement after episode 2, I'm afraid the series has almost certainly lost one viewer.<br /><br />Which would be a pity, because I've got a soft spot for the "Robin Hood" legend on screen, from the adventures of Douglas Fairbanks to the sturdy reliance of Richard Greene. But this Robin fails to stir my blood in the slightest.
I can clearly see now why Robin Hood flopped quickly. The first episode of it is probably the worst ever thing BBC has aired. The opening scenes were about as intense, meaningful and intelligent as two monkeys fighting, Robin Hood had no character, and the sword fight was just laughable. The worst part of the episode was Robin Hood snogging some cow clad in make-up at the beginning of the episode - how many people wore eyeliner in the 12th century? Nobody. The series may have improved drastically since then, but this first episode quickly put people's hopes down, and is essentially a pile of cr*p. A great hero of England has been disgraced.<br /><br />"Will You Tolerate This?" I won't, that's for sure, unless the BBC start to understand what is a wise investment. 3/10
Siskel & Ebert were terrific on this show whether you agreed with them or not because of the genuine conflict their separate professional opinions generated. Roeper took this show down a notch or two because he wasn't really a film critic and because he substituted snide for opinionated. Now, when Ben Lyons comes on I feel like I'm watching "Teen News" -- you know, that kids' news show, hosted by kids for kids? Manckiewitz is not much better. It's obvious they've encountered only a steady diet of mainstream films their entire lives. The idea that these two rank amateurs have anything of interest or consequence to say about motion pictures is ludicrous. If they are reviewing a non-formula film, they are completely lost. Show them something original and intelligent -- they just find it "confusing". Wait -- I think I get it ... ABC is owned by Disney ... Disney makes movies for kids. While Siskel, Ebert, and Roper promoted independent films and were only hit-or-miss with the big budget studio productions -- what a surprise: these two guys LOVE the big studio schlock and only manage to tolerate a few indies. Plus everyone knows the age group TV advertisers are aiming for. The blatant nepotism is the icing on the cake. In what alternate universe do these guys qualify as film critics?
I have been familiar with the fantastic book of 'Goodnight Mister Tom' for absolutely ages and it was only recently when I got the chance to watch this adaption of it. I have heard lots of positive remarks about this, so I had high hopes. Once this film had finished, I was horrified.<br /><br />This film is not a good film at all. 'Goodnight Mister Tom' was an extremely poor adaption and practically 4.5/10 of the book was missed out. Particularly, I found that a lot of the characters and some great scenes in the book were not in this. There was not much dialogue, It was rushed and far too fast-moving, but I was mostly upset by the fact that you never got to see the bonding and love between William Beech and Tom in this film which was a true let down. The casting was not all that good,either. I thought this could have been really good, but it was so different to the book! Anextremely poor adaption, one of the worst I've seen. This deserves a decent remake that'd better be 1000 times better than this pile of garbage.
Goodnight, Mister Tom begins in an impossibly exquisite village in the south of England where the sun always seems to shine. Before we have much idea of the period we hear a radio announcement of the declaration of World War II. Soon a train blowing clouds of steam brings refugee children from London and when shy little William is billeted with reluctant, gruff old Tom (who you just know will turn out to have a heart of gold) our tale begins.<br /><br />And what a load of sentimental claptrap it is. In fact it's just the old odd-couple buddy formula. Aren't any new stories being written?<br /><br />As I suggested there's hardly any period feel in the village and not much more in London apart from the odd old ambulance rattling around. And certainly no hint of the horror of the Blitz as London's citizens file politely into air-raid shelters. Even when the local schoolteacher's husband is declared missing presumed killed, he is later restored to life.<br /><br />I found `Goodnight, Mister Tom' cliched and obvious and John Thaw's accent conjured up a picture of Ronnie Barker of the Two Ronnies with a straw in his mouth doing his `country bumpkin' accent.<br /><br />Incidentally my wife enjoyed this movie for all the reasons that I disliked it and looking at fellow-imdb reviewers I seem to be in a minority of one.<br /><br />
Let me confess. I found this video used and bought it because Guttenberg looked so sexy in his underwear on the jacket. But inside was another story. Besides the fact that the movie was basically a parody of "invisible-man" genre special effects (highly visible strings and other such paraphernalia), the script wasted no chance -- in fact it went out of its way -- in insulting all non-WASP races and real-or-imagined homosexuals. Every insult aimed at a person in the script was either homophobic or racist or both. It starts to grate on your nerves, along with the shaky sound, candid- camera style photography and melodramatic story. However, the end is somewhat of a surprise. But by the time you get there, you hardly care less. Too bad, it could been a reasonably good movie.
The 3-D featured in "The Man Who Wasn't There" stands for DUMB, DUMB, DUMB! This inept comedy features lousy 3-D effects that makes the 3-D effects in "Jaws 3", "Amityville 3", and "Friday the 13th Part 3" look better by comparison. Not to mention the movie is asinine to the extreme. This was one of many 1983 movies to feature the pop-off-the-screen effects. Steve Guttenberg and Jeffrey Tambor got trapped in this mess, but at least it didn't kill their careers. Tambor would go on to star on HBO's "The Larry Sanders Show" and Ron Howard's box office smash "How the Grinch Stole Christmas", while Guttenberg followed this flop with "Police Academy" and "Cocoon". What them in those projects instead of them here in "The Man Who Wasn't There". If you do, you'll regret it.<br /><br />1/2* (out of four)
this film tries to be immensely clever, and Tarantino-like <br /><br />before you try that though, you need solid filmic fundamentals. these include good sound, editing, set design etc...<br /><br />lets talk about the sound in this movie. absolutely atrocious. i have never been more distracted by a sound track, ever<br /><br />and before we talk about low budget, film made in Chile etc.. lets bear in mind that desent sound these days is far more achievable than it ever has been. anywhere. and more info on technique is available then ever before<br /><br />the sound in this movie is plain bad. the foley in particular is out of place and inappropriate throughout, the atmos is equally terrible. i heard at least four loud clicks during the movie, which are the result of poor sound editing. the sound inside cars is awful, the sound of car doors closing is awful. the sound of the lady singing is wrong. foley is either overboard, or simply not there like the sound person just got bored and gave up. the spaces are wrong. everything about it is wrong <br /><br />and yet, not letting limitations of creativity get in the way, at the same time the movie tries boldly to be clever. for example the sound of the aquarium is used in the following street scene. we hear sound when we're not supposed to. sound edits precede visual cuts. every trick in the book is used, and yet the foundations are just not there<br /><br />editing-wise we have scenes using heavy jump cuts, we have tinkering around with the time line etc etc etc, yawn. all of these techniques are imitated to a splendidly low standard <br /><br />overall the mix is crap, the sound is crap. and so, the film is crap. how can a movie with so many fundamental flaws be considered for awards and high praise? Chile's cinematic new wave? the best creative output that Chile has to offer? i hope not, and i think not.<br /><br />my theory is that Chile's more selective and better talent avoided this film like the plague maybe due to its risqué content. equally, the film has likely received so much unwarranted critical acclaim from so called 'world-cinema' enthusiasts for the same grubby reasons. they likely revel in it's trashiness. of course film critics rarely pay attention to technical details and quality <br /><br />this film is rubbish. it's all mouth and no trousers and is never deserving of a 6.8 rating. the film has all the production quality of a cheap Tarantino, new wave inspired porno!
This is an hybrid creature born at Carl Macek mind. With Robotech the second generation (Robotech Masters) and Megazone 23 into one miserable movie, that have no logic! The story is very, very bad, and you cannot forgive the action of Megazone when have nothing to do with Robotech. If this movie have so high rank is for the TV series and not for itself!! I did said it, the name cannot save this!
You will recognize the plot immediately. Daughters of a divorced couple trying to get Mom and Dad back together again. Yes, that was the theme of The Parent Trap in the 60s, 80s and 90s. But here's the spooky thing. Even though Deanna Durbin was younger than the 21 year old Hayley Mills while playing the doting daughter(s) roles, Durbin looks much older, as in adult. And so do all of her so-called siblings. <br /><br />And this confusion between adult and child goes throughout the film. The girls are dressed in cute little sailor outfits but look ridiculous in them as the director seems to take pains to point out their ample tops and tushies throughout the film. So you're constantly torn between thinking of them as children or women. When Ray Milland and others start "hitting on" them you get the feeling as if they're pedophiles, and you might be one, too for noticing those tushies and tops the director was pointing out. Teens or temptresses, little girls or little foxes, you are never quite sure what you're supposed to be thinking of them as.<br /><br />The parents, too, seem very old and the whole film seems very dated.<br /><br />It is a rusty version of the Parent Trap and you should avoid it, or at least ensure your tetanus shots are up to date if you don't believe me.
Well, the big money machine has done it again! Disney very shrewdly takes advantage of morons like myself who feel we must own every video (good or bad) stamped with the Disney moniker. Why is it that I continue to look forward to these "sequels" which make Don Bluth on a bad day look like Leonardo DaVinci? Cinderella 2 consists of three storylines (already a poor choice!) Doesn't one of the most endearing Disney creations at least deserve a linear story? Of these three, only the last comes anywhere near the quality of animation and storytelling that I would expect. The music is atrocious and modern (meaning in 2 years it will already be dated) and adds nothing to the story. Why does everything have to be updated? You know, the original cartoon is still popular because of its timelessness, so why not be respectful and true to the original with songs that reflect the same style? Gee, I can't wait for a sequel to Sleeping Beauty. Instead of music based on the themes of Tchaikovsky, we'll get music inspired by Britney Spears!!! So Disney, if you're listening, remember we're not all indiscriminate children out here. How about throwing a bone or two to the fans who've been around long enough to know the difference between craft and crap?
Possible Spoilers, Perhaps. I must say that "Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" is one of the worst movies ever made. First of all, the movie was made during the height of Disney's sequel rampage. It was created around the same time as "The Little Mermaid II," "The Jungle Book II," and "Peter Pan II," all of which were disservices to their original film classics. (Disney also made "The Hunchback of Notre Dame II" and "Atlantis II," but I'm going to drop that topic because their original movies were never really classics in the first place.") Let me go ahead and say that I am an avid supporter of good Disney films, and I absolutely adore the original Disney "Cinderella." The sequel to "Cinderella," however, was a waste of time. The character of Cinderella in the sequel was so very unlike the original girl that I grew up watching. In the original, Cinderella was kind and loving. The new Cinderella had very out-of-character moments with current-era phrasing like, "I'm going to do this banquet my way!" Let me also tell you that new Cinderella (as I have affectionately named her) says, "Ewww!" That is the anti-Cinderella. I try to find the best in people, but in the sequel, Anastasia, one of the stepsisters, is good! What the heck? Why? They made it all out to be like Lady Tremaine and Drizella are just horrible family members for poor little Anastasia. My question to the world: did the people at Disney watch the original "Cinderella" when making this sequel? Well, it surely doesn't seem so. If I remember correctly, Anastasia was just as abusive to Cinderella as Drizella and Lady Tremaine. I am all for redemption and forgiveness, but there was no point of redemption for Anastasia in this movie. In the first one, Anastasia was evil. In the second one, she is good. One just can't leave a story like this. I hope Disney realizes that this movie, among other movies, is shaming Walt Disney's name. Perhaps now that Michael Eisner is gone, things will start shaping up around the House of Mouse.
The original is a relaxing watch, with some truly memorable animated sequences. Unfortunately, the sequel, while not the worst of the DTV sequels completely lacks the sparkle.<br /><br />The biggest letdown is a lack of a story. Like Belle's Magical World, the characters are told through a series of vignettes. Magical World, while marginally better, still manages to make a mess of the story. In between the vignettes, we see the mice at work, and I personally think the antics of Jaq and Gus are the redeeming merits of this movie.<br /><br />The first vignette is the best, about Cinderella getting used to being to being a princess. This is the best, because the mice were at their funniest here. The worst of the vignettes, when Jaq turns into a human, is cute at times, but has a lack of imagination. The last vignette, when Anastasia falls in love, was also cute. The problem was, I couldn't imagine Anastasia being friendly with Cinderella, as I considered her the meaner out of the stepsisters. This was also marred by a rather ridiculous subplot about Lucifer falling in love with PomPom.<br /><br />The incidental music was very pleasant to listen to;however I hated the songs, they were really uninspired, and nothing like the beautiful Tchaikovsky inspired melodies of the original.<br /><br />The characters were the strongest development here. Cinderella while still caring, had lost her sincerity, and a lot of her charm from the original, though she does wear some very pretty clothes. The Duke had some truly funny moments but they weren't enough to save the film, likewise with Prudence and the king. As I mentioned, the mice were the redeeming merits of the movie, as they alone contributed to the film's cuteness. I have to say also the animation is colourful and above average, and the voice acting was surprisingly good.<br /><br />All in all, a cute, if unoriginal sequel, that was marred by the songs and a lack of a story. 4/10 for the mice, the voice acting, the animation and some pretty dresses. Bethany Cox
I'll just put it out here, that was the Worst sequel to a classic Disney film I've EVER seen. In 1950, Disney released what I hail as one of his greatest films of all time. Now Take away the great songs, add a poor plot that resembles that of a lost TV show. "Put it together and what do you get?" the biggest load of Crud I've ever seen. After i saw this, I thought it was all over for Disney. Cinderella should've ended with, "and they lived happily ever after." not this garbage. This film did not deserve a sequel like this. I thought it would be like "A twist in time" which was moderate but better than this. Also, What do we care of Anastasia? She switched sides like Iago did, but it didn't help anyone.
I've got a question for those who thought of this idea. Why? What made them think to make a second movie of this. If memory serves, didn't Cinderella end with "They all lived happily ever after"? I'm pretty sure it did, or it was implied. Wait a minute, if they all lived happily ever after, how could there be a sequel? Unless they were trying to make the most boring story in history, there couldn't be a sequel. I mean sure, they could have Cinderella singing about nonsense for two hours, but why? A movie that ends in "happily ever after" can not have a sequel; if it does then they don't live happily ever after! Something's got to go wrong which causes problems with the first ending! Why? That's not right, it's evil. That's my final word on the matter.
I've always thought that Cinderella II was the worst movie I've ever seen, (followed by Peter Pan 2, and some other sequels like The Lion King 2 and the Hunchback of Notre Dame 2). All these movies are made with the same idea; because the movie has no plot, they try to make up for that by filling it with jokes. I'm not saying the jokes are bad, but they make up most of the movie. The first time I saw the movie, I would have given it a 1/10. But now I think about it, most kids don't care how good the original movie was, they just care that the movie is entertaining. I still think the movie was a bad sequel, but that doesn't mean it's horrible. Now I think it deserves a 3/10.
I grew up watching the original Disney Cinderella, and have always loved it so much that the tape is a little worn.<br /><br />Accordingly, I was excited to see that Cinderella 2 was coming on TV and I would be able to see it.<br /><br />I should have known better.<br /><br />This movie joins the club of movie sequels that should have just been left alone. It holds absolutely NONE of the originals super charm! It seems, to me, quite rough, and almost brutal, right from the (don't)Sing-a-longs to the characterization.<br /><br />While I remember the character's telling a story through a song, this film's soundtrack was laid over the top, and didn't seem to fit. Jaq's transformation into a human is a prime example: Where he was walking around eating an apple and adding a few little quips in here and there, he should have been dancing around and singing about how great it was to be tall! And in the ballroom, there's old barn dance type country music. It's as though the writers forgot where and when this story was set. The upbeat fiddles certainly didn't fit.<br /><br />Even the artwork and animation in Cinderella 2 isn't up to scratch with the original. The artwork in this film seems quite raw and less detailed. And we see part of Cinderella's hoop skirt, which doesn't feel right.<br /><br />The movie itself could have been it's own story, I think that it should have been just that. I wouldn't say that I hate it, but I believe that it had many shortcomings. It seems to downgrade in a significant way from the beloved Cinderella original.
If you are under the age of 6 or 7, then you're going to really enjoy this movie. My youngest daughter is glued to the TV when she watches it. As an adult, I can't stand it!! I'm all up for sequels....when they have a decent storyline. But this is nowhere near up to standard. Please forgive me for slating what is after all a kid's film, but when you have to sit through it nearly every day when your kids who love it so much, you'll understand why. My daughter would watch this film over and over again on the same day if we let her.<br /><br />I've given this film 4 out of 10 purely for the fact that it keeps my youngest entertained.
I had the displeasure of watching this movie with my girlfriend, who, like me, is a fan of the first. This movie down right sucked! It lacked the magic of the first. You could actually understand every word the mice said, the animation is crappy, the palace is much much different from the first movie, there's new characters that were never mentioned before and were terrible, luckily the Prince didn't have many lines which kept him from sounding stupid. Basically its like The Lion King 1 1/2 except its different stories all told by the mice. The reason I'm giving this a 2 out of 10 is because the songs not sung by the characters were the most enjoyable.
Assassin Hauser's (John Cusak) mission is to whack a Mid-Eastern oil minister, whose name happens to be Omar Sharif (Neikov), in the country of Turaqistan which is run by American interests. Hauser poses as Trade Show producer to allow him to get to Omar.<br /><br />Sometimes a satire can be so overdone it becomes most annoying. Here it does too much: the government, politics, music, war, people not generally accepted by society, and did I mention "war." And, that is what we have here - a most annoying movie that borders on a very bad nightmare brought to life. I am still asking myself why I continued with the DVD. Also, there are so many Cusak family members in this that John Cusak appears embarrassed by the family just being there, or is that just me?<br /><br />It used to be that a John Cusak movie, while a little offbeat, was, in the end, rather good. Not here. Believe that John Cusak had a hand in the writing and producing of this mess. Make of that what you will.<br /><br />There is too much going on in the movie accompanied by constant gun-fire, bombings, and shouting that you really cannot focus or was that the point? Probably. It just takes too long to set up the hit, which is largely forgotten until the last 15-minutes. In the meantime we have meaningless banter among all in the cast. And, chemistry between John Cusak and Marisa Tormei? I don't think so, but you know: the boy – girl thing ……and they needed something to take up more time. <br /><br />Yes, for what they were supposed to be, (offbeat and annoying) the performances of Duff, and Kingsley were good. But, when I saw Dan Aykroyd's character, in the beginning of the show, sitting on a toilet taking a dump, I knew the rest of the show would go to the tank as well. I was not wrong. I am sure some will sing praises of this effort, but if a rose is still a rose by any other name so, too, is a mess……………<br /><br />I now remember why I continued with the DVD. I was hoping that the story would somehow level out and save itself. Never did.<br /><br />Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: Yes.
I really wanted to like this, but in the end it's a poorly made film with too few laughs.<br /><br />The politics are spot on, it's gonna offend the hell out of republicans but that's what it's designed to do. That alone gives me reason to chuckle.<br /><br />The problem is, it looks like it was made in a REAL hurry (like about a week). And it contains a stupid subplot about some bimbo singer, which seems to be completely off topic.<br /><br />Turiqistan is obviously Iraq, or Afghanistan, or any other number of countries the US has f**ked with since the 50s. The humour is a little dark (amputees dancing with prosthetic legs made by Tamerlane corporation) but it IS on the mark, especially with the corporations cashing in on the reconstruction ("democracy lite"!) <br /><br />However like a lot of satire criticising the US, it seems terribly heavy handed and laboured. I guess it's running counter to so much bs propaganda so it has to bludgeon people over the head to make a point. Who knows. I prefer more of a nudge, wink approach - a bit of subtlety. But that's just me.<br /><br />Anyway I might watch it again, perhaps I missed something.<br /><br />I'm hoping "W" is more on the mark.
War, Inc. - Corporations take over war in the future and use a lone assassin Brand Hauser (John Cusack) to do their wet-work against rival CEOs. A dark comedy satirizing the military and corporations alike. It was often difficult to figure out what exactly was going on. I kept waiting for things to make sense. There's no reason or method to the madness.<br /><br />It's considered by Cusack to be the "spiritual successor" to Grosse Point Blank. I.e., War is more or less a knock-off. We again see Cusack as an assassin protecting *spoiler* the person he's supposed to kill as he grips with his conscience. To be fair, John Cusack looks kind of credible taking out half a dozen guys with relative ease. The brief fights look good. The rest of the film does not. It's all quirky often bordering on bizarre. War Inc's not funny enough to be a parody, and too buoyant for anyone to even think about whatever the film's message might be, which I suppose might be the heartless ways that corporations, like war factions compete and scheme without a drop of consideration given to how they affect average citizens. Interesting, but the satire just doesn't work because it's not funny and at its heart the film has no heart. We're supposed to give a damn about how war affects Cusack's shell of a character rather than the millions of lives torn apart by war.<br /><br />John Cusack gives a decent performance. His character chugs shots of hot sauce and drives the tiniest private plane but quirks are meant to replace character traits. Marisa Tomei is slumming as the romantic sidekick journalist. There really isn't a lot of chemistry between them. Hilary Duff tries a Russian accent and doesn't make a fool of herself. Joan Cusack just screams and whines and wigs out. Blech. Ben Kingsley might have to return the Oscar if he doesn't start doling out a decent performance now and again. Pathetic.<br /><br />It's not a terrible movie, but in the end you gotta ask "War, what is it good for?" Absolutely nothing. C-
Even the first 10 minutes of this movie were horrific. It's hard to believe that anybody other than John Cusack would have put money into this. With a string of anti-military/anti-war movies already being destroyed at the box office, it's almost inconceivable that a studio of any kind would want itself associated with this script.<br /><br />At first, it may have seemed like some kind of politically motivated derivative of Grosse Point Blank with Akroyd and Cusack(s) all over again. But only about 90 seconds into the movie, it becomes obvious that this is a talentless attempt at DR STRANGELOVE.<br /><br />I liked so many of Cusacks movies that I thought I would risk seeing the DVD of this one. I have to say that I don't know if Cusack is sane enough for me to even watch another feature starring him again unless somebody else can vouch for it. Cusack seems to be so irreparably damaged by his hatred for George Bush and the Iraq war that he is willing to commit career suicide. Tom Cruise was never close to being this far gone. Not even close.
Quite possibly the worst movie that I have ever seen. When has Hollywood ever made a successful movie that attacked Republicans? Why don't they learn. The Dixie chicks haven't. These Lefties live in their own elite bubble interacting among themselves; oblivious to the fact that most of America is much further right than they are.<br /><br />The best Hollywood productions are not partisan and are rarely political at all.<br /><br />Dan Akroyd's imitation of Cheney was bad.<br /><br />I would have thought Cussack could have landed better movies.<br /><br />It wasn't funny.
Just utter trash. I'm a huge fan of the Cusacks, this being the sole reason I watched this movie, but the only reason I can see for their presence was the reprise, in complete and depth less quality, their exact roles from Grosse Point Blanc. Apart from that, the films' role as a political satire fails miserably as being too obvious for even the most moronic out there to serve any purpose. And to bill it as a satirical satire would be just plain insulting even to chimps. Imitation is, apparently the highest form of flattery, but seeing as though this is nothing near Grosse Point Blanc and in the same league as meet the (watch if your a moron) Spartans in terms of political satire, lets leave well enough alone and let this one fade into the obscurity it absolutely deserves.
With this cast and budget you will expect more.<br /><br />John Cusack has made a number movies that border on the strange, yet still work. Neither he, his sister, nor Sir Ben could do anything to save this travesty of trite poorly written garbage.<br /><br />The movie is nothing more than a series of sight gags and poor ones at that. The plot goes nowhere, the writing is contrived, senseless and the characters paper thin. If you think of a movie as being three dimensional where the story and characters bring a depth to the imagery, this stinker comes across as flat as steamboat mickey.<br /><br />Dan Akroyd's appearance in this brought back memories of another truly awful movie, 1991's Nothing but Trouble. Frankly this movie is the type of project that kills careers and gets agents fired.
First things first: I'm not a conservative. And even though I would never refer to myself as a liberal or a Democrat, I was opposed to the war in Iraq from day one. I think it's safe to say John Cusack and I would probably see eye-to-eye on politics, in fact, I'm sure we'd become drinking buddies if we ever got to talking about how great Adam Curtis' BBC docs are. My point is this: don't discredit this review by thinking I'm not a part of the choir Cusack is preaching to in War, Inc. There's no question WI's politics are tailored to appeal to my demographic, but the problem is, the tailoring is substandard and the the film Cusack co- wrote, produced and stars in, fits worse than a cheap suit.<br /><br />As they say "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Cusack, his co-writers, director Joshua Seftel and even the actors involved, no doubt had every intention of making an anti- war film every bit as biting and funny as Robert Altman's M*A*S*H, unfortunately for the viewer, they ended up with one as unfunny and unintelligent as Michael Moore's Canadian Bacon.<br /><br />The current state of US politics, foreign policy and the war "effort" is already absurd and, as a result, tragic, pathetic and, regrettably comical -- just watch The Daily Show and see for yourself. The bottom line is: you can't write material as funny as what the Bush administration provides us on a daily basis, so why try to compete?<br /><br />The main problem with WI is that it feels it was put together in a hurry. To get it done, Cusack basically cannibalized Grosse Pointe Blank (one of his best films), changed the setting and crammed in a shopping list of ideas lifted from the collected works of Naomi Klein. Most of these ideas are rammed down your throat in the first twenty minutes of the film and what makes them so obnoxious is none of the jokes or gags or deliberately obvious references to Halliburton, the Neo-Cons and the US occupation of Iraq, are imaginative, clever or funny. The writers are so blinded by their own dogma they felt that by simply referencing these issues the film would be funny and subversive. The trouble is...it isn't. By now these ideas are yesterday's news and unless you've been living under or rock or are so blinded by ignorance, denial and sheer stupidity (read: a right-wing Christian), these jokes insultingly simple.<br /><br />Perhaps WI would work if it was more nuanced, subversive, offensive and fattened up with detailed research/insights into the Occupation. As it is, the jokes and sight gags are all surface and are so bad, with so little finesse, subtlety or satirical wickedness, they did little more than make me groan. Homer Simpson once said "It's funny 'cause it's true" and The Daily Show proves this every night; War, Inc. however proves that just because it's true doesn't make it funny. The bottom line: hyperbole isn't required when it comes to lampooning US/Neo-Conservative politics...it's already a big enough joke.<br /><br />http://eattheblinds.blogspot.com/
This film tried to be too many things all at once: stinging political satire, Hollywood blockbuster, sappy romantic comedy, family values promo... the list goes on and on. It failed miserably at all of them, but there was enough interest to keep me from turning it off until the end.<br /><br />Although I appreciate the spirit behind WAR, INC., it depresses me to see such a clumsy effort, especially when it will be taken by its targets to reflect the lack of the existence of a serious critique, rather than simply the poor writing, direction, and production of this particular film.<br /><br />There is a critique to be made about the corporatization of war. But poking fun at it in this way diminishes the true atrocity of what is happening. Reminds me a bit of THREE KINGS, which similarly trivializes a genuine cause for concern.
I wanted to see an action comedy with a satirical twist (as this film was touted) but this one failed me miserably. For me, the plot was a bit confusing to follow and I rapidly lost interest. I feel so sorry for John Cusack, Joan Cusack, Ben Kingsley, Marisa Tomei and Hillary Duff for getting involved with this movie. I'll remain a fan of all of them but only time can heal my feeling over this one. The one thing I can say positively about the film is that Hillary played Yonica's character so well that I didn't even recognize Hillary; it took me a few scenes to realize that it was her. Luckily I rented it for $1 through Red Box; had I paid to see it in on the big screen, I would be really fuming!!
I guess I am coming late to the party. I just saw this 1995 version of Bye Bye Birdy on Sky TV. I didn't know it existed and was fully prepared to see the 1963 film version when I turned it on.<br /><br />I played Albert a long time ago and I am thinking of putting on an amateur production of the show because I remembered it as being so much fun to do. I was not impressed with this newer version. It just wasn't enough fun. It was not colorful. It lacked the exuberance of youth. The lighting was bad. No one seemed to mention this fact. This is not a moody musical, it is bright and up beat. The lighting decision was a poor creative choice.<br /><br />Bye Bye Birdy is a farce, a comedy of errors. I got no sense of that in this version. The lighting was awful and it dulled the overall performances. The dance numbers seemed anemic as well. We do have music videos these day. At least the dance numbers should have measured up to some of the best of those, or how about some of the best of Broadway. The choreographer was asleep at the wheel it seemed.<br /><br />Although all the actors were supremely talented, there were some really bad casting choices. Vanessa Williams is not Latin, and with so many talented Latin performers out there, wouldn't it have been more correct to cast one of them in the role of Rosie. Vanessa is African American, lovely and talented, but bad casting. Jason Alexander's effort was astounding, he always does intelligent work, but he just wasn't Albert. He was miscast and I think that is obvious to most people who see this version.<br /><br />The medium of film is not the medium of stage. There needs to be translation from one medium to another. The exuberance and the flash of stage musical must be TRANSLATED to film. There is no merit being faithful to a stage script when it is being filmed. The spirit, the essence of the production must be brought forth. To me the 1963 film production of Bye Bye Birdy was bright and lively, while the 1995 production was as gloomy as the lighting and as lackluster as the dance numbers. It turned out to be an unfortunate waste of effort by many really talented people.
In my humble opinion, this version of the great BDWY musical has only two things going for it - Tyne Daly and the fact that there is now a filmed version with the original script. (OK Vanessa Williams is good to watch.)But to me that's all there is. Most of the cast seem to be walking through the show - Chynna Phillips has no idea who Kim really is and no wonder people walk over Harry McAfee when it's played by George Wendt who looks like he'd rather be back on a bar stool in Boston. Jason Alexander is passable, but that wig has to go and I saw better dancing in Bugsy Malone. As I mentioned, it's good to have a version of the stage script now, but I hope the young out there, who have never seen a musical, DON'T judge them all by this.
Needless remake, and it can't come close to capturing the charm of the original. The extreme length causes more than a few yawn inducing parts. This version is ridiculously politically correct. The film lacks style, and mostly it lacks talent, not just with the acting, but the direction, sets, costumes etc. are all below par. It has a blatant disregard for period detail. Vanessa Williams is the only cast member that shows any flair, Tyne Daly isn't too bad. They should have left well enough alone. The singing ranges good (Vanessa Williams) to poor (everyone else). Watch the original 1963 version and skip this one. There is not much here to recommend.
Why? Because for one reason, there has never been a more adorable scene in any film than Ann Margret singing "Bye Bye Birdie" at the opening. She reprises it again at the ending, too (in a different mood!). Both wonderful. Rent it and see. Even if that's all of it that you watch. You'll agree, I'm sure.<br /><br />Everything about the original was so excellent it just didn't need a remake, sorry! Jason and Vanessa gave commendable performances, as well as Tyne and Chynna. In fact, all the actors and singers in this new version were giving their 'all,' but it's like trying to improve on "Casablanca" -- it just can't be done! It's even annoying finding yourself comparing the two mentally as you try to appreciate the remake, and it just falls short, through no fault of the actors.
Jason Alexander is a wonderful actor, but it's ridiculous to cast him as a cuddly romantic lead. The fact that he dances so well, croons so effectively, and throws himself into the part so completely somehow just made him seem all the more creepy. In his more cutesy moments (with the girl in the train station, in the final number with Rosie), I couldn't take my eyes off him he was so repellent. You keep expecting him to drop the nice-guy act and start snarling. Vanessa Williams was the real star, the only performance that was better than the 1963 movie. By the way, if you see a production of the stage musical, the 1963 movie and this 1995 movie, you'll see three versions that have more revisions (different songs, same songs assigned to different characters and in different situations) than any other musical I've ever seen.
If I hadn't been forced to watch this for work reasons I never would have made it past the first 10 minutes. And even then I admit I fast forwarded through parts. The '63 film version was vastly superior in all regards. Yes, I've read this one is more faithful to the original play, but what a wise thing it was for the writer to change the script in '63! It's overlong, it drags, the songs that are in this version and not in the film version are boring and unimaginative. The version of "Kids" in the '63 version was very funny and a true classic of sarcastic parent humor. In this version the Kim is way too old, the Conrad is *absolutely horrible* to behold (when someone ripped his shirt off him I shuttered in disgust...the director of this version has no idea what sexy is.). This Conrad can't dance, can't sing (he can't even stay in tune) and is simply repulsive. If Elvis Presley had really been like that his career would have been over before it began. As for the other actors, well I kept waiting for Alexander's toupee to fall off as he danced and Daly was totally over acting as Momma. See Stapleton's performance in the film version to see the same role properly executed by someone who understands comic timing. This TV version is nothing but a total waste of anyone's time.
This film concerns the story of Eddy as mentioned in the title and his homecoming to old friends in a seaside community. The plot involves the group of friends as it comes to light that Eddy left as a means to deal with death of a friend in which he feels in some way responsible. But this is inconsequential, as the choices made in the production are extremely poor and not fully realized. Screenplays not always need be 'chatty', but they should at least assist the development of the story. Here one line attempts such as "he just took off" or "I know you don't have love in heart" just do fully evoke something worth the audience's time. Also whenever the writer feels at a loss to where to go to next he cuts to a music montage of the protagonist walking through fields to some indie mood music. Talk about trying to hard. If you are interested in a good film, the type that gives quality and substance over just style then this is not the film for you.
I go to UCSB and take some classes with the executive producer, Alison Anders. She's a superb teacher and director so anything she put her name on, I thought must be pretty good. This film as a selection at the Santa Barbara film festival seemed like a good choice.<br /><br />While this movie included some nice shots and cinematography, the lack of story and coherence really took away from anything the it was attempting to accomplish. My main problem was that this was someone's first film and you could obviously tell. Bad acting and an even worse screenplay stopped this film from getting off the ground. The soundtrack had some nice music that gave a sense of the main characters struggle to cope with the sadness that lead to his leaving and now returning the place he grew up. I just have to say that despite some of the better craft of the film, it's lack of story and performance really prevented it from being some good.
Although in some aspects Seven Pounds is solid and interesting in some of its narrative style, Gabriele Muccino's project is rather mediocre. The movie becomes more and more sappy and manipulative as it move toward the end: hearts human and emotional, eyes physical and metaphorical. Seven Pounds is more of an amateurish imitation of Alejandro González Iñárritu's Amores Perros and 21 Grams, with lots and lots of flashbacks. The problem is the story is quite predictable from VERY easily on through the movie. That's too bad, because Seven Pounds could have been as authentically "good" if Ben and Emily had been put in the right hands.
Quite frankly it seemed like seven hours of boredom as well. What is it? What is it about Will Smith that I just can't stand any longer? I guess he just seems too hellbent on being taken seriously and obtaining an Oscar. I understand how bias this is, but unless he undergoes some new acting lessons I can't ever see him winning one. He's a huge name and is therefore generally confused with being a talented and diverse actor. He's just not. I give him credit for trying so hard, and being able to cry at the drop of a hat. That's about it.<br /><br />Seven pounds was kind of an eyeroller for me, right from the start. The suicide 911 call didn't intrigue me in any way. I wasn't curious to know why he was calling in his own suicide. There were absolutely no surprises. The best I can say is that Will Smith and Rosario Dawson had some decent on screen chemistry. Also, I don't know her name, but the hispanic woman did an excellent job with her role as a scared and beaten wife. Woody Harrelson had very limited screen time, but I'd say he stole the show whenever he was on.<br /><br />All in all, just an extremely run of the mill unoriginal plot. I couldn't help asking myself the whole way through why I cared about any of these people. Never once felt sorry for 'Tim/Ben'. He killed himself with a jellyfish? Was the only survivor in an 8 person accident? Geewiz..didn't see any of that coming...<br /><br />5/10 is pretty generous.
I considered myself to be quite melancholy, especially when I watch a great touching and tear-jerking movies. But not for this one (which surprised me!) and it is also really surprising me to see how many people praised this movie so highly.<br /><br />There are several disturbing facts throughout the movies: 1. Despite guilt-ridden Ben's real intention to save 7 lives to redeem his past, I find it disturbing that the film seems encourage this type of suicidal action. Some people may perceive this is a heroic action and some others think he behaves cowardly, in the end this was a disturbing action to me.<br /><br />2. The movie story line is over-dramatized, but the logic is over-simplified. Medically, blood type match is required to be an organ donor. Toward the end of the film we learnt that Emily had rear blood type that limited her chance to get the donor within short time period. Nevertheless, it seemed that Ben had the rare blood type, same as hers which allowed him to be her donor and conveniently, despite the rarity of Ben's blood type, he was able to donate not only his heart, but also his kidney, his cornea and his bone marrow which in all cases require not only matching blood type but also tissue antigen.<br /><br />3. Why the doctors allow Ben's organs being donated despite the jellyfish venom he used to kill himself?<br /><br />I might be over-analyzing the whole story as after all this is just a movie. However, some disturbing facts outlined above hopefully will help you reconsider your plan to go to watch this movie. If you go for a soap-opera type of film, go for it. But it you go seeking for an intelligent entertainment, give this one a miss!
SEVEN POUNDS: EMOTIONALLY FLAT, ILLOGICAL, MORALLY DISTURBING<br /><br />The movie was distributed in Italy as "Seven Souls". I was curious about the original title and, after some research, I found out that it refers to Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, where the usurer Shylock makes a terrible bond with the merchant Antonio, who will have to give him a "pound" of his flesh, in case he is not able to repay his debt. Whereas the Italian translation makes Ben's plan something deeply human, characterized by human sympathy, the original one, though cultivated enough to remain unperceived by anyone, makes it, just in its reference to the flesh, something cold, rational, deep-rooted in the physical side of man. Unfortunately, I think that the real quality of Ben's plan is revealed by the original title: it'a a cold machination, aimed at "donating" parts of his body, but lacking any authentic human empathy, at least the audience is not given the chance to see or perceive any pure relation of souls within the whole movie. The only exception is the love-story with the girl, which seems to be a sort of non-programmed incident, to which Ben yields, but incapable of conveying true emotional involvement. I really didn't like the idea at the core of the movie: the idea that a person, however devoured by the pain for the death of his beloved and of other people he himself has caused, takes the resolute decision to expiate his sense of guilt through suicide: besides being improbable, it makes no sense. I would have liked, and I think it would have been more positive if, in the end, Ben had decided to abandon the idea of committing suicide and go on living, thus helping those same people, and maybe many more, just standing near them, and helping them through his presence. He wouldn't have saved their lives miraculously, of course: this would have probably caused more suffering, but I think it could have been more constructive from a human, and moral point of view. There are many illogical and disturbing things: the initial reference to God's creation in seven days (which, by the way, according to the Bible, are six!): what does it mean? And what about a woman suffering from heart-disease which prevents her from running and even from singing without feeling bad, who can have normal sex with a man who, feeling, as it should be, destroyed by the death of his wife and having donated organs and pieces of his body, doesn't seem to feel so much tried, both emotionally and physically, from his impaired condition? The movie is saved by good acting, but all the rest is pure nonsense, not only from a logical point of view, but also from a human and emotional one.
What can I say about Seven Pounds...well I watched on a flight from Seattle to Tokyo and as that flight was long and boring the movie definitely didn't help. Will Smith's character Ben Thomas is almost completely unlikable even with his redemption in the end. The movie's two hour plus run time wastes most of the screen time with random garbage that just strings the plot along as slow as possible. In the movies defense Rosario Dawson's character adds a little life to the film although not much. I don't understand how anyone could actually cry during this film when all I wanted to do was turn it off. Also Will Smith kills himself with a jellyfish at the ended proving that killing yourself with a jellyfish is the stupidest way to die.
Brides are dying at the altar, and their corpses are disappearing. Everybody is concerned, but nobody seems to be able to figure out why and how this is happening, nor can they prevent it from happening. Bear with me. Bela Lugosi is responsible for this, as he is extracting spinal fluid from these young women to transfuse his ancient wife and keep her alive. Continue to bear with me. Finally, the authorities figure out that somebody must be engineering the deaths and disappearances, but of course, they can't figure out the improbable motive. Let's just ignore the ludicrous pseudoscience and move on... If you can get through the first twenty minutes of this mess, you will be treated to Lugosi whipping his lab assistant for disrespecting one of the brides he has murdered, explaining that he finds sleeping in a coffin much more comfortable than a bed, and other vague parodies of real horror films (the kind with budgets and plots). Anyhoo - a female journalist follows her nose to the culprit (and remarkably the inept police are nowhere to be seen!), and then the fun really starts.<br /><br />The cinematography and acting are OK. There are a lot of well dressed, very good looking people in this film. The directing is fair, and the script is a little better than the material deserved. Nevertheless, this film fails to sustain the interest of all but the most hardened b-film fan. The best thing about it.... It does eventually end, but not soon enough.
The Poverty Row horror pictures of the 1930s and '40s depress the hell out of me. God knows I have nothing against low-budget films, but the ones produced in that period have such a dreary, shabby look about them--and, in the final analysis, just aren't very good. "The Corpse Vanishes" is slightly more entertaining than bottom-of-the-barrel dreck like "The Invisible Ghost" and "The Ape Man", but it's no classic. Bela Lugosi, long past his "Dracula" heyday, plays yet another mad doctor; the unbearable Elizabeth Russell plays his wife. They sleep in coffins because, as Lugosi explains to a doubtful young female reporter (Luana Walters), a coffin is much more comfortable than a bed. Ho hum. Angelo Rossitto and Minerva Urecal are also on hand, which might please hardcore fans of '30s and '40s films.
Only the glandular secretions -- and please don't ask for any more details -- of young virgins can keep the rapidly deteriorating body and mind of the crazed old amateur horticulturalist's wife fresh and youthful. Since, like most people except those taking part in medical trials, virgins seldom give up their secretions willingly, Dr. Lorenz (Bela Lugosi) arranges for them to be abducted and preserved. He'll do the extracting himself. <br /><br />What a great cheese ball of a premise for a low budget horror movie. If The Corpse Vanishes turns out not to be the Havarti of horror, as a plain limburger it leaves an interesting aftertaste. <br /><br />Sure, the acting is almost awful except for the actors fortunate enough to be playing the crazed dwarf (Angelo Rossitto, who later played The Master in Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome); his crazed brute of a brother, Angel (Frank Moran), who grunts a lot and has a fetish for the virgins' hair; the crazed mother of the two (Minerva Urecal); the crazed wife (Elizabeth Russell), who sleeps in a plush coffin and, of course, the crazed doctor (Lugosi). <br /><br />An enterprising young reporter, Patricia Hunter (Luana Walters) tracks down the doctor because of a strange orchid with a peculiarly sweet odor that had been worn by the victims. When the doctor and his wife invite Pat to stay the night, a raging storm immediately breaks out. That clue tells us some raging violence is about to erupt inside. Since it's well known that in Hollywood at this time all unmarried young women were virgins, Pat may have some unpleasant surprises to deal with. They include dark passages, a crusty laboratory where a near dead virgin is stored, a basement mausoleum and, later, a direct threat to Patricia's own glandular secretions. If she survives, what a story she'll have to give her editor. <br /><br />If you sample this moist slice of moldy Velveeta (and why not? Don't be superior), don't judge Bela Lugosi by the company he keeps here. He had a huge impact in Dracula (1931), but my favorite movie of his is The Black Cat (1934). As Dr. Vitas Werdegast he's a sad, ironic man protective of his two young friends. When he finally takes a scalpel to Hjalmar Poelzig (Boris Karloff) and begins to flay the man alive, ah, well, it's a great scene.
Just looking at the sets, staging and editing it is easy to tell this project lacked a proper budget. Maybe Bela Lugosi is meant to take your mind off of things like that. Young brides drop dead at the altar after saying "I do". Their corpses are stolen by a renowned horticulturist Dr. Lorenz(Lugosi)and a couple of his freakish minions as his aging wife(Elizabeth Russell)needs injections of the glandular fluids of the young virgins to remain forever young...forever beautiful. An eager local cub reporter(Luana Walters)realizes that each missing bride wore the same rare orchid to the altar; an orchid in which Dr. Lorenz would be most knowledgeable. A typical horror movie storm brews making a visit to the Lorenz estate a bit spooky; especially with a dwarf and a slobbering hunchback on the premises. Other players: Angelo Rossitto, Tristram Coffin, Minerva Urecal and Frank Moran.
Brides are dying at the altar and their corpses are vanishing. No one knows why or who, but an investigative reporter (Luana Walters) notes that each bride was wearing a strange orchid and she goes to interview its creator, Dr. Lorenz (Bela Lugosi). Now Dr. Lorenz is a mad scientist with some strange habits, including sleeping in coffins and injecting his elderly wife (Elizabeth Russell) with the fluid of young brides to keep her young.<br /><br />The Corpse Vanishes has an interesting premise and a short enough run time that it shouldn't be able to get boring. Unfortunately, while it starts off quite well, it does start to drag before the halfway point and gets rather boring with its clichés and predictable plot.<br /><br />There are some good things about it-Bela Lugosi is charming and evil and performs brilliantly; Elizabeth Russell is also a beautiful, suave, aloof and very creepy countess; and I'm always a fan of Angelo Rossitto. Luana Walters is also convincing as the reporter here.<br /><br />It maintains a bit of a Gothic atmosphere and the sets are decent.<br /><br />But overall, it just didn't manage to hold my interest through the whole picture, and for that, I have to rate it poorly.
Bela Lugosi plays a doctor who will do anything to keep his wife looking young and beautiful. To this end, he drugs brides during their wedding ceremonies to make it look as if they are dead so he can steal their bodies. I'm not exactly sure what he does with the bodies. I don't remember it ever being fully explained. All I know is that he extracts something from them and injects it in his wife. (I'll just guess that it's spinal fluid. Spinal fluid was all the rage of mad scientists in the 40s.) You can pretty much guess the rest from here.<br /><br />There are a couple (well, really more than a couple, but I'll only write about two) of problems that I have with this movie. One is the way Bela is used. Sure, he does a decent enough job in his own overacting sort of way (BTW, the rest of the cast is simply abysmal). But, to have him hiding in the back of a hearse or having him creep into the female reporter's bedroom to do nothing is just silly. Also, why have him beat and/or kill every henchman he has? Is it to make him look evil? Well, someone who is kidnapping comatose brides doesn't really need to be made to look more evil.<br /><br />The second problem I have is the idea of drugging brides. Why brides? Wouldn't any female under the age of 20 do? Watching Bela go through these gyrations to get his victims, I was reminded of the idiotic Fisherman in I Still Know What You Did Last Summer. In each case, there would appear to be an easier way of reaching your objective than employing a seemingly impossible plan that depends way to much on circumstances out of your control. (BTW, an alternate title for this movie is The Case of the Missing Brides. I guess that partially explains the need for 'brides'.)
"Bela Lugosi revels in his role as European horticulturalist (sic) Dr. Lorenz in this outlandish tale of horror and dementia. The good doctor's aging wife needs fluids harvested from the glands of young virgins in order to retain her youth and beauty. What better place for the doctor to maintain his supply than at the alter, where he kidnaps the unsuspecting brides before they can complete their vows? Sedating them into a coma-like state, he brings them to his mansion to collect his tainted bounty," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. That brief description is much more entertaining and imaginative than the movie.<br /><br />** The Corpse Vanishes (1942) Wallace Fox ~ Bela Lugosi, Luana Walters, Elizabeth Russell
Now I love Bela Lugosi,don't get me wrong,he is one of the most interesting people to ever make a movie but he certainly did his share of clunkers.This is just another one of those.<br /><br />Lugosi plays Dr.Lorenz,a doctor who has had his medical license pulled for unexplained reasons.He is however doing experiments to keep his wife young and beautiful.It's revealed that she is 70-80 years old yet Lugosi looks to be in his mid 50's so why he is married to this old woman is never really explained.<br /><br />Anyway these treatments or experiments involved giving brides who are at the altar being married some sort of sweet smelling substance whereby they pass out but are thought to be dead.Then Lugosi and some of his assistants steal the body on its way to the morgue and take it back to his lab where it's kept in some sort of suspended animation or catatonic state.Then the stolen brides have a needle rammed somewhere in their bodies,maybe the neck,and then the needle is rammed into the body of Lugosi's wife to bring her back to youth and beauty.We never really see where Lugosi sticks the needle or what it is that he draws out of the brides but it somehow restores his wife .Apparently old age makes you scream with pain because Lugosi's wife does a lot of screaming until she gets back to her younger state.Helping Lugosi in his lab is the only good thing about this movie....a weird old hag and her two deformed sons....one son is a big lumpy looking slow acting fellow who likes to fondle the snoozing brides and the other son is a mean little dwarf....little person, to be politically correct in today's world.At night these three just sort of pile up and sleep in Lugosi's dreary downstairs lab.Who these 3 are and how they came to be Lugosi's scared assistants is,like a lot of stuff in this film, never explained.<br /><br />So anyway a female reporter is given the assignment by her gruff editor to find out where all the stolen brides are going to.She quickly figures out that the one common thing among all the stolen brides is a rare orchid that is found on them.So she asks around and is told that there is a world renowned orchid expert living nearby who just happens to be the one who developed this particular orchid.This expert turns out to be creepy Dr.Lorenz.She quickly tracks him down and upsets his little house of horrors.I'm not sure where the police were during all this but they came in to mop up after the reporter had done all the dirty work.<br /><br />It seems that Lugosi's movies always had some sort of unnecessary silly plot line that just made the whole thing stink to high heavens.I mean a world famous orchid expert kidnaps brides by sending them a doped up orchid he himself is known to have developed? D'OH!<br /><br />And then later it's revealed that the young ladies don't even have to be brides for the procedure to work so why would Lugosi keep kidnapping brides from heavily guarded churches for his experiments and create all the attention and newspaper headlines? Why not just grab a prostitute off the street like a normal weirdo pervert would do? This clunker reminded me a lot of another Lugosi stinker,"The Devil Bat"....same silly plot lines and bad acting and same silly 'reporter gets bad guy' deal.<br /><br />But Lugosi is always good--he is creepy and sinister enough to keep you interested at least enough to keep watching him.The woman playing the reporter was just a terrible actor....she had no emotion whatsoever,she just delivered her lines like a machine gun ,spewing them out as quickly as she could.Everyone else pretty much blew too,when it came to being good actors.<br /><br />But this thing is watchable ,if only for Bela Lugosi fans.Lugosi was always so intense even when the picture was a dog.He must have known he was doing terrible pictures but maybe he also knew that if he gave it everything he had a little of that intensity might shine through past all the bad plots and bad acting which surrounded him.<br /><br />And he was right----we horror fans will always have a love for Bela Lugosi.He gave it his all every time he was in front of the camera.We do give two f**ks for you,Bela.
Patricia Hunter: Oh, professor, do you also make a habit of collecting coffins? Dr. Lorenz: Why, yes, in a manner of speaking. I find a coffin much more comfortable than a bed. <br /><br />Interesting Bela Lugosi (Glen or Glenda, Dracula) vehicle where he plays the mad scientist. I was especially creeped out when he appeared in the bedrooms of his guests when they were sleeping.<br /><br />Luana Walters (Girls in Prison) was really appealing as a sensual reporter, Patricia Hunter< who was to be a victim, but woman-power trumps evil scientist every time.<br /><br />2'11" Angelo Rossitto and creepy Frank Moran , who liked to stoke the women's hair added to the film.<br /><br />Interesting look at a 40s horror film.
A number of brides are mysteriously murdered while at the altar, and later their bodies are stolen en route to the morgue. Newspaper writer Patricia Hunter decides to investigate these mysterious killings. She discovers that right before each ceremony, the bride was given a rare orchid (supposedly from the groom) which contained a powerful drug that succumbed them. Patricia is told that the orchid was first grown by a Dr. Lorenz, who lives in a secluded estate, with his wife. In reality, Dr. Lorenz is responsible for the crimes, by putting the brides in a suspended state, and using their gland fluid to keep his wife eternally young. Patricia, along with Dr. Foster (who is working with Dr. Lorenz on the medical mystery surrounding his wife) try to force Dr. Lorenz's hand by setting up a phony wedding, which eventually leads Patricia into the mad doctor's clutches. This movie had a very good opening reel, but basically ended up with too many establishing shots and other weak scenes. The cast is decent, Walters and Coffin deserved better, but that's life. Russell steals the show (even out hamming Lugosi- who does not give one of his more memorable performances, even considering his Monograms) as Countess Lorenz playing the role with the qualities of many of the stereotypical characteristics of many of today's Hollywood prima donnas. Weak and contrived ending as well. Rating, based on B movies, 4.
Bela Lugosi plays Dr. Lorenz who loves his wife so much that he will do anything to keep her young. This film starts off with a wedding as the bride is about to take her vows she suddenly collapses. She is pronounced dead and taken away by undertakers. Trouble is that these are not real undertakers but body snatchers. A wave of bride deaths at the altar and their body disappearing confounds the police. Enter reporter Patricia Hunter to solve the case. She does track down Dr. Lorenz but he also decides to use her youth to keep his wife young also.
Bela Lugosi is great as usual but the movie is nothing compared to Dracula. He is probably the only one that played a perfect part in this movie but not even a legend like Lugosi could save the badness of the idea of this movie and unlike most old unspenseful horror films this movie doesn't set the mood very well. Even at its worst any of Bela's movies is only mediocre though.
Bela Lugosi as creepy insane scientist who uses orchids to woo brides in order to steal life essence for aged wife. The midget in this film is hilarious!! A lot of freaks, plus a lot of padding and no plot makes watching this film a nightmare. I loved how all the pieces fell together in the end in typical Hollywood fashion. The story never gets interesting, and you feel helpless as you watch.<br /><br />Usually I'd score bore flicks like this one low, but the midget added just enough creepiness and entertainent to gain a couple more points.
I bought this video at Walmart's $1 bin. I think I over-paid!!! In the 1940s, Bela Lugosi made a long string of 3rd-rate movies for small studios (in this case, Monogram--the ones who made most of the Bowry Boys films). While the wretchedness of most of these films does not approach the level of awfulness his last films achieved (Ed Wood "classics" such as Bride of the Monster and Plan 9 From Outer Space), they are nonetheless poor films and should be avoided by all but the most die-hard fans.<br /><br />I am an old movie junkie, so I gave this a try. Besides, a few of these lesser films were actually pretty good--just not this one.<br /><br />Lugosi is, what else, a mad scientist who wants to keep his rather bizarre and violent wife alive through a serum he concocts from young brides. They never really explained WHY it had to be brides or why it must be women or even what disease his wife had--so you can see that the plot was never really hashed out at all.<br /><br />Anyways, a really annoying female reporter (a Lois Lane type without Jimmy Olsen or Superman) wants to get to the bottom of all these apparent murders in which the bodies were STOLEN! So, she follows some clues all the way to the doorstep of Lugosi. Lugosi's home is complete with his crazed wife, a female assistant and two strange people who are apparently the assistant's sons (an ugly hunchbacked sex fiend and a dwarf). Naturally this plucky reporter faints repeatedly throughout the film--apparently narcolepsy and good investigative journalism go hand in hand! Eventually, the maniacs ALL die--mostly due to their own hands and all is well. At the conclusion, the reporter and a doctor she just met decide to marry. And, naturally, the reporter's dumb cameraman faints when this occurs. If you haven't noticed, there's a lot of fainting in this film. Or, maybe because it was such a slow and ponderous film they just fell asleep!
Bela Lugosi is an evil botanist who sends brides poisoned orchids on their wedding day, steals the body in his fake ambulance/hearse and takes it home for his midget assistant to extract the glandular juices in order to keep Bela's wife eternally young. Some second rate actors playing detectives try to solve the terrible, terrible mystery. Bela Lugosi hams it up nicely, but you can tell he needed the money. <br /><br />This film is thoroughly awful, and most of the actors would have been better off sticking to waiting tables, but the plot is wonderfully ridiculous. Tell anyone what happens in it and they tend to laugh quite a lot and demand to see the film. I got the DVD in a discount store 2 for £1, which I think is a pretty accurate valuation, anyone paying more for this would be out of their mind.
Ugh. This is a terrible film, full of disastrous comic relief, no scares, and scary leaps in story and plotline. The only creepy thing here is the leading lady's hats. Lugosi was on his downhill slide and it shows. I give this a 1, and this ain't no fun.
Bernard Rapp passed away last year and was a very cultured journalist. Cinema was one of his biggest passions (he penned a vast worldwide dictionary of films) and so he was bound to wield a camera at least one time in his life. But the films he left garnered lukewarm reviews: "Tiré à Part" (1996) in spite of Terence Stamp's sensational performance was very caricatured in the depiction of the characters, "une Affaire De Goût" (2000) was a slick affair even if Bernard Giraudeau delivered a perverse performance, "Pas Si Grave" (2003) was another let-down and "un Petit Jeu Sans Conséquence" is as underwhelming as its predecessors. Its comic potential is exploited in a flimsy way.<br /><br />And however, the starting idea let predict a twirling, spiritual comedy. A couple held by Yvan Attal and Sandrine Kiberlain who invited their friends is in full moving in a lascivious mansion. To play with their guests, they pretend to part company with each other. And things don't go as planned because the announcement of their separation doesn't surprise them. The two lovers start to ponder about the validity of their couple.<br /><br />In spite of lush scenery and the promising material he had at his disposal, Rapp's undistinguished directing can't manage to give life to this game with unexpected consequences. The plot follows a well-worn pattern with characters who have specific well-known functions and masks that are unveiled about who they really are. Verbal or situation comic effects often fall flat. A bad editing fades a little more the film with this bad habit from Rapp to abruptly cut many sequences. Even the actors' sincere input in the venture is debatable. They seem to be bored and to recite their texts than to live them, especially Sandrine Kiberlain. The audience is soon caught in a deep torpor.<br /><br />It's regrettable to say it: Bernard Rapp's films never lived up to his intentions as "un Petit Jeu sans Conséquence" bears witness.
You'd think the first landing on the Moon would be dramatic enough without needing to make up stuff about it. However, this documentary seems to need to cast everything in the scariest possible light. It talks about the risks associated with the lunar module and mentions Armstrong's nearly fatal accident with the training vehicle, as if the trainer and the spacecraft had anything to do with each other. It makes the computer overload problem (the 1202 and 1201 alarms) encountered during the final landing sequence sound like a near-catastrophe when it was just an annoyance and not a risk to the crew at all. And it takes the "thirty seconds" call to mean thirty seconds of fuel left before running out, when it's actually thirty seconds before an abort is mandatory.<br /><br />If you want to see a documentary or dramatization of Apollo 11, go for "From the Earth to the Moon" or one of the PBS documentaries, but skip this one.
WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILERS (Not that you should care. Also, sorry for the caps.)<br /><br />Starting with an unnecessarily dramatic voice that's all the more annoying for talking nonsense, it goes on with nonsense and unnecessary drama. That's badly but accurately put.<br /><br />We know space travel is a risky enterprise. There's a complicated system with a lot of potential for malfunctions, radiation, stress-related symptoms etc, and unexpected things are bound to happen in largely unknown environments. They knew stuff could go wrong. In fact, stuff had gone wrong. It's called learning. Granted, Appollo 11 wasn't safe by today's standards and there was immense political pressure, but the overall performance of the technology on the mission was impressive.<br /><br />Assorted mistakes/comments I hadn't even to look up:<br /><br />1) Nixon prepared a speech in case something went wrong. Well duh. That's what I would've done. It was the apex of a propaganda war, after all.<br /><br />2) NASA gives green light despite the fact that Appollo 11 will probably blow up. (This is "only" implicit, though.) Yeah, that's why they let people and press watch in almost-real-time.<br /><br />3) The capsule ejection wouldn't work. Like it didn't work the time a chimp was in it. The one that survived? It was a test launch and the rocket exploded, the capsule accelerated away and landed with a parachute. There's a video of it, you can probably find it on youtube or at least look it up somewhere.<br /><br />4) One interviewed guy says an explosion would have wiped out a fair part of Florida. I can only assume it was meant as a hyperbole, 'cause if not, I'm just aghast how he could get it so wrong.<br /><br />5) The technology then was primitive compared to today's standards. Actually, relatively primitive software and hardware is used even today, the reason being that it must not crash. It's even worse for spacecraft, because their computers must be built of comparably large components that aren't that susceptible to radiation. (And the craft itself must be pilotable manually anyway, so a complex steering system like the B2's wouldn't do.) What's with the fact that they were using "TV screens" rather than "computer screens"? It's the same damn technology. Actually TV monitors were and are produced with a significantly higher definition.<br /><br />6) "If that object wasn't part of the rocket, it could be only one thing." We see where this is going. Apart from the fact that the statement is wrong, who says it wasn't a rocket part? At least an interviewee clears up that if a thing is flying and you don't know what it is, it's by definition an Unidentified Flying Object.<br /><br />7) The voice-over as well as some misquotes make it seem as though the lander's radiation foil was actually its hull. Which would make it thinner than a space suit.<br /><br />8) Neil Armstrong's near death during a practice flight is footage I can appreciate; I hadn't seen it before. As I said, any piece of manifest technology can go wrong, especially if it's not been tested sufficiently on account of being, you know, unprecedented.<br /><br />9)The trajectory discrepancy of the descending lander (due to irregularities in the Moon's density) was at no time acutely life-threatening. Neither was the "fifteen seconds of fuel left", which was, in fact, "fifteen seconds of fuel left before having to abort the mission and returning to the command module".<br /><br />10) A "catastrophic chain of events" usually results in catastrophe. I really don't know how to put it any simpler. This, however, is a prime example of the rhetoric used.<br /><br />11) There's a short sequence of one of the astronauts walking and hopping around aimlessly like a gleeful kid, followed by the voice-over telling us that the reason for this strange behavior "can now be revealed". Turns out, he was walking and hopping around aimlessly like a gleeful kid. Hilarious stuff.<br /><br />12) It's mentioned that during re-entry, all contact was lost. This is a perfectly natural phenomenon and it was as well known at the time as it's impossible to circumvent with contemporary technology. Again, the gravity of this is implicit, but very purposely so.<br /><br />13) There was never a shuttle lost in space itself, while the voice-over presents this "fact" as evidence that Appollo 11 was a pile of crap. Appollo 13 was a near-loss, but the two real disasters happened during liftoff and re-entry, respectively. In any case, comparing shuttles to Saturn rockets is somehow ... well, okay, just plain stupid. Even ignoring that, the successful shuttle missions seem to not have been deemed of interest to the audience.<br /><br />14) What the hell's up with the UFO? Even in the context of the movie, it makes no sense. Unless you assume it was made for entertainment purposes, aimed at a specific audience (which seems to include people with next to no understanding of either history, science, or rhetorics).<br /><br />Even the point of the movie is somewhat obscure. Catch-phrases like "covered up until now", "publically revealed here for the first time", come up, but the film doesn't place any blame or offer a lesson or anything, which could be expected of a film so emotionally done. In the good old tradition of sensationalism, there are numerous interview shots and recording fragments that are often out of context or with people that we know nothing about except "NASA scientist". Wow, so the astronauts were very nervous before the endeavor? Fancy that. What does this have to do with the point of the movie again? Oh yeah, which point.<br /><br />In summary, in addition to being either willfully or incompetently inaccurate, it's not even good entertainment. And believe me, I'm a guy who enjoys his crappy documentaries; this film isn't funny, witty, quaint, it's nothing.
I was hoping for some sort of in-depth background information on the Apollo 11 mission and what I got was some decent interview material with Buzz Aldrin Gene Krantz and other people involved in the mission, linked by over-hyped disaster-predicting sensationalising voice-over in the worst tradition of TV production.<br /><br />If you could cut out the voice-over and change the spin of the program to a positive testament of how people can overcome setbacks to achieve a goal out of the ordinary then this could've been great - but I feel I've wasted about 45 minutes of my life whilst watching a 60 minute programme. I want those minutes back.
I was expecting a lot better from the Battlestar Galactica franchise. Very boring prequel to the main series. After the first 30 minutes, I was waiting for it to end. The characters do a lot of talking about religion, computers, programming, retribution, etc... There are gangsters, mafia types, who carry out hits. However, Caprica doesn't have the action of the original series to offset the slower parts.<br /><br />Let me give you some helpful advice when viewing movies: As a general rule, if there is a lot of excessive exploitive titillation, then you know the movie will be a dud. Caprica has lots of this. The director/writer usually attempts to compensate for his poor abilities by throwing in a few naked bodies. It never works and all it does is demean the (very) young actresses involved and I feel sorry for them. Directors/writers who do this should be banned from the business.<br /><br />If you want to be bored for an hour and a half, by all means, rent Caprica. There's (free) porn on the 'Net if you really want to see naked bodies. Otherwise, move along, nothing to see here.
As a huge fan of only the first 2 seasons of BSG and the stand alone feature BSG Razor I was hoping that this release would return the franchise to its original glory days. Usually I have no problem with science fiction that is mostly dialog driven as opposed to a visual bonanza of special effects. If the script is tight with some original ideas delivered by good actors one can create a profound film with little CGI money spent. This prequel has none of those aforementioned requirements going for it. The virtual reality world created by the terrorist teenagers was both ridiculous & unbelievable. This scene was simply put there to raise the release rating to Restricted. Not that teens don't love virtual reality mosh pits filled with sex & violence & heavy dance music. Its the part about those same teens having the intellectual depth & reason or political & religious passion as to create such futuristic software or become suicide bombers that perplexes me. These kids are definitely not from this planet. The movie plays out like a soap opera with only the last 10 minutes being slightly interesting. The scene with Eric Stolz giving his cyborg a devine conscienceness via the student firmware upgrade was amusing if not entertaining. But this old concept was far better portrayed & much more believable in the brilliant, classic original "Frankenstein" with Boris Karloff. Caprica rips off its only interesting idea from an old Hollywood horror film. No surprise there! Overall this movie was bland & unoriginal & cheap looking, using recycled CGI of Caprica from BSG. I doubt I'll be watching this space soap when it premieres on the Sci-Fi channel. Unless of course I happen to be suffering from a bad bout of insomnia at which time this show would definitely be the cure. Zzzzzzzz
Battlestar Gallactica was so great because it had tight writing, a great look, excellent actors, and interesting stories... AND yeah, had hot men and women running around in and out of uniform.<br /><br />Caprica was just lazy. Lazy writing. Actors smoking up a storm to give them "character." Outdoor sequences that ruin the feeling of being somewhere else (yes, that is a Ford Focus sitting in the background). Lots and lots of teenage angst. LOTS of gyrating naked women (but in the background. Which I'm sure will be cut for the series) and a token view of some men in towels. None of the actors except Polly Walker took my attention at all. At an hour and a half, I was still wondering when it was going to be over.<br /><br />So what exactly is it that's supposed to bring me back? The science fiction? It's awfully light on that. The actors? Besides Polly Walker's fine turn, there isn't much interesting being done here. There aren't even any "hotties" in the cast, except for maybe Esai, although for the younger set he's pretty old, since he's over 25.<br /><br />I loved BSG. I was skeptical when I heard about Caprica, and unfortunately, I think I'm right. I predict a very short run for it as a series unless they really sharpen their pencils over at SciFi and get to work making this more than The OC on another planet.
I had to endure teen-aged, high school angst and family conflict for almost all of the show. I really do not care about high-school girls fretting about their relationships. I've spent my time in Hell dealing with such issues and I care nothing about fictional teenies going through "lite" versions of the horrors I endured. I want science fiction. That's the only reason I'm here. There were a few seconds of science fiction late in the show. We FINALLY see a proto-Cylon. It was good but with one problem. Its red eye-dot would lock onto an object of interest. We all know that Cylon eyedots always scan back and forth, giving the machine a map of the world. The red eye-dot does not ever stop moving back and forth.<br /><br />I really hope the writers fix this abuse before the second episode.
If you like a syfi soap opera this show is for you, as fare as I am concerned it does not work for me and after watching 3 episodes I just can't watch it anymore. It is boring and slow and for a show that the timeline is based around 100.000+ years ago if you base it on battlestar galactica's timeline for arriving on earth they sure seem to have all the same stuff around like the 100.000 year old Chevy vans driving down the streets and people watching the 100.000 year old popular name brand LCD T.V. sets. It also goes the same with the rest of the sets as well on the show, there is just to much of today's stuff involved in it to not overlook, I think they could have done a lot better of a job to get around these issues and yes battlestar galactica had some of the same issues but not nearly as bad. As fare as the rest of the show it is not nearly as good as BSG was and it is a poor pre sequel to it….
Basically, "Caprica" is the Cylon origin story. The premise of the show is interesting. However, the writers follow so many story lines and clog it with too many POV characters that it bogs down the storytelling. The plot creeps at glacial speeds dissipating what tension it might have had. In any given episode, little or nothing happens.<br /><br />Daniel Graystone (Eric Stolz) is a military contractor working on a robotic soldier using a stolen chip. Unfortunately, his only working prototype is driven by the AI version of his dead daughter Zoe, who died in a suicide bombing caused by Soldiers of the One (STO), an underground monotheist extremist group.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Joseph Adama (father of "Battlestar Galactica"'s Commander Adama) is struggling to hold his family together while searching for the AI version of his daughter (who also died in the bombing) in a Machiavellian virtual version of Caprica (which strongly resembles 1930s Chicago). <br /><br />In addition to the vapid writing, Caprica suffers from a similar problem as many origin stories. We already know how it ends (i.e. the Cylons develop their own civilization and rebel against humanity).
I remember watching the BSG pilot. I can describe that night exactly. I remember what chair I sat in. That show was magic. It came alive. I enjoyed the first two years of BSG. I enjoyed parts of the third year even, and I watched every episode of the fourth year, totally faithfully in great hopes that it would somehow turn around. Well, it didn't.<br /><br />I watched the Caprica pilot and was enthralled. There was hope for something good here. Then I started watching the regular episodes, and they are getting more and more boring.<br /><br />It's too obvious, too predictable. It reminds me of the droll political correctness of his last failed show, Virtuality.<br /><br />Much of his line work on DS9 was good. When he focused on BSG in an organized way, it was good. This was especially true early on when they more or less followed the pattern of episodes set by the first BSG series. When they departed from that after meeting up with Admiral Cain and the Pegasus, it all went to pot. It was like he wrote the rest of the show without knowing where he was going.<br /><br />Maybe it will improve. Maybe it was just a few weak initial episodes. But I am very, very nervous.
I realize it's not supposed to be BSG and I can handle slow-paced shows if they're interesting but I find myself completely uninterested and bored with this series.<br /><br />The formula for BSG seemed to be: Action + Adventure + SciFi + Suspense + Mystery + Drama<br /><br />the formula for Caprica seems to be: Bland Drama + Moderate Scifi<br /><br />Maybe it will get more interesting but as of episode 3 I can barely watch it. In fact, it's at the bottom of my to-watch list for the week. This is a sad state of affairs. The Syfi channel really destroyed their Friday night lineup. Whatever happened to the glory days of SG1, Stargate Atlantis, and BSG on Friday nights? They had a good thing there.
Of course I was watching BG. I loved S1, I liked season 2, season 3 was OK, and loved the final one. Yay, there is a spin-off show! I didn't know about this at all, one of my friends told me about this. I was really excited.<br /><br />I watched the first 3 episodes... What a piece of rubbish! Teenage girl drama fest. There is no science fiction... well, hardly any. At the end of every episode we can catch a glimpse of a Cylon. That's all. Who cares this? Did they decide that the next show's target audience will be females under 18? Boring religious nonsense talking, moaning, bitching... and some more.<br /><br />It is just sad that there is nothing out there at the moment to watch. Stargate ruined, BG over...
What an awful show. Science Fiction fans seem to watch anything anymore regardless of quality. It shocks me that something exceptional like Firefly lasts one season, while garbage like the Battlestar Galactica remake spawns a spin off. This spin off is pitiful in every aspect of the show. The acting is juvenile and uninspired. The characters are cardboard clichés of everything that has ever been in a bad Sci-Fi series. The story is bad. The dialog is worse than a prime time soap opera. The direction is shoddy and the sets are awful. Caprica is a waste of film, a waste of time and a waste of effort. This is one spin off that should have never been made.
Matt Saunders (Luke Wilson) thinks he has found the perfect woman in Jenny Johnson (Uma Thurman), who seems like a quiet but pretty woman, though he soon learns that she's needy and possessive, oh, and she's also the superhero G-Girl, though you wouldn't know it from the things she does to Matt after he freaks out and breaks up with her.<br /><br />A promising premise is ruined by a mediocre execution. My Super Ex-Girlfriend is still an enjoyable comedy however it relies too much on cheap sex jokes and it ends up being a forgettable experience. What went wrong? The cast and the director could not overcome the weakness of the script and I didn't like the way they played it out. I was expecting the guy to be a jerk and it could have been a female fantasy revenge film. However, they made the guy likable and they made the superhero a psycho. It just wasn't very fresh and after about forty minutes, the film wore out it's welcome. Sure, there were a few funny lines however the weak middle and horrible ending kept it from really breaking out.<br /><br />Director Ivan Reitman has lost his touch. After a successful run in the eighties and early nineties, he started making crap like Evolution and Father's Day. I wouldn't say My Super Ex-Girlfriend is a complete bust but I don't give him credit for any of the quality the movie holds, which isn't too much. Don Payne did an awful job with the screenplay. The majority of the jokes were lame and most of the supporting characters were just one-note. He also kept reusing a lot of the same jokes making the thing really tedious at times.<br /><br />A few of the actors were good enough to save the film. Uma Thurman was great as G-Girl and she had many funny lines. Luke Wilson was a bit pale and not very interesting. I don't think he makes for an appealing leading man and he's better in supporting roles like in The Family Stone. Anna Faris was just doing her "Scary Movie" routine and it's getting a little old. She needs a challenge or at least some better scripts. Wanda Sykes is either hit or miss for me. She was great in Monster-In-Law and she was bad in Clerks 2. Here, she is just annoying and doesn't bring anything to the movie. Eddie Izzard was alright, nothing special. Rainn Wilson was just annoying and not funny. Overall, I was disappointed with the movie. It wasn't awful yet it had so much potential and the final result was just so average. Rating 5/10
Ivan Reitman is something of a savior. The most tired plots (Ghostbusters, Evolution) come to life in his skilled hands. Even his occasional flop (Six Days, Seven Nights) show signs of life and humor that make it worth viewing. So I was disappointed that Reitman could not take a fairly original plot (man dumps superhero, superhero gets superpower-fueled revenge), and shape it into something enjoyable. "Girlfriend" is an exercise in pointlessness. The one-trick pony plot is long in the tooth after the first 20 minutes. The film can't decide whether to be romantic comedy or superhero drama. The result is a film the flip-flops between both, with neither aspect being very well done. Uma Thurman is tops, as usual, and Luke Wilson pulls off his role too, though his slacker antics quickly grow tired. What's even more maddening is that, in certain scenes (such as when a very turned on Uma knocks a headboard through a wall), you sense a witty, raucous Reitman opus practically screaming to get out. But seconds later, the magic is lost, gone as quick as the superheroine whose movies disappoints in almost every way.
This is one of the worst movies I have seen recently. When a man says that he wishes he had a super power of being able to orally pleasure himself I pretty much consider the movie to be in the realm of childish 14 year old male fantasies. The bed room scene was over the top and reduced an intimate moment into a farce of biological functions akin to passing gas in public. From the first every other scene was a discussion about how little sex they where getting, how long its been since they got some, when their next sexual liaison will be, and with whom it should be with. On top of that the dialogue and acting was very poor and very forced, not felt, and they filled their lack of content with sleazy sex scenes. This could have been really funny because the concept is actually interesting but it is poorly executed here. Please, do not even think about taking anyone under 16 if you have to go and see it.
if they gave me the option of negative numbers I'd use it. This movie was truly god-awful. I went into the theaters expecting it to be horrible, and it somehow managed to exceed my expectations.<br /><br />The script was weak, the acting was painful. I wanted to walk out but my friend was driving and wanted to get her moneys worth, I think we were both disappointed.<br /><br />The growing of the breasts when the girls got their super power and changing of the hair color was just wrong. Eddie Izzard just seemed wrong for the part of super villain, he came off as oddly weak and silly. Jenny Johnsons (Uma Thurman) came off as psychotic and strange, as did Matt's (Luke Wilson) friend Vaughn (Rainn Wilson.
At what point exactly does a good movie go bad? When does a movie go from "watchable" to "where's that &^@_+#!* OFF switch"? Thank goodness for DVDs, like this one, that can be borrowed from the library - for free! Likewise, thank goodness for the "fast forward" switch on the DVD player. I feel sorry for those people who were duped at the box office.<br /><br />At one point (I've forgotten exactly when because now it's all just a blur), our "hero," Luke Wilson starts running through traffic; I think he was looking for a cab. It was at that point when I gave up, realizing I couldn't care whether he found his ride or got run over by a garbage truck.<br /><br />The last time the movie was interesting was when Luke Wilson climbs out of the dumpster, hair dryer in hand, and first meets the "heroine," Uma Thurman. That scene ended with the purse-snatching criminal dangling helplessly from the fire escape far, far above the departing Luke and Uma. That was the last time the movie was funny, and when was that scene? Ten minutes into the flick?<br /><br />Every time the movie tried to become "funny," it couldn't. Every time the movie approached "excitement," it fizzled out, heading in the opposite direction. When a musical score might have helped squeeze life out of this dullard, the sound track stayed empty and silent.<br /><br />The sex scenes were not needed and were beyond lame; the damage to sets and props unnecessary and childish. When Uma turns into the crazy ex-girlfriend, I felt like I was watching "The 40 Year Old Virgin Meets Pulp Fiction"; that's when I realized that there was no turning back because I thoroughly disliked "The 40 Year Old Virgin" and "Pulp Fiction."<br /><br />Luke Wilson's sidekick, Rainn Wilson (also seen in the dreary "The Last Mimzy") adds nothing but insult to injury in this awful movie. Rainn Wilson, the King of Television Boredom, should stay with that equally awful medium. Hey, Rainn Wilson! Leave full-length motion pictures alone! Every time Uma's rival, Anna Faris, came on screen, I expected Jason or Freddy or some fright flick monster to jump out from behind the scenery; once you see Anna Faris in "Scary Movie," that's all you ever see, no matter the movie, no matter the medium. The character played by Wanda Sykes was just plain awful and was so out of place in this flick.
What a waste of time and money! My hubby and I saw this movie - after seeing the previews and thinking it "might be funny". WRONG! This movie is about 90 minutes too long. The actors are trapped in a poorly written script and can't get out. The jokes are weak and tired, and not even seeing Wilson's naked behind can redeem any part of this film. The special effects.....aren't. I half expected to see the harness and wires holding up Uma in her flying scenes. And when the effects people apparently could not master the superhero's faster-than-a-speeding-bullet flying or fight scenes, they covered over everything with a swirling vortex of blurred screen - which hid the awful effects quite nicely. Wilson's sidekick was a lame excuse for a man and Wilson had no chemistry with either Uma or his office co-worker. The sex scenes weren't sexy and the funny scenes weren't funny. I guess I just expected too much from these actors. None of the characters were really sympathetic, so I ended up not caring a flying fig about any of them. The only memorable performances were the kids who played Bedlam and G-Girl as teenagers - at least THEY had some chemistry. Overall, a super stinko movie - I wouldn't even recommend it as a rental - it would still be a waste of money!
This movie is being shown over and over on cable lately, so..<br /><br />There is no excuse for these 2 attractive women to fight over either Luke Wilson or the equally vapid 'villian' in this movie. The female actresses are very cute, and that's the only reason to watch this movie. I suppose it is 'funny' that Luke's even uglier/dorkier/stupider friend is around, but well, that is what we get.<br /><br />Neither of the female leads would ever, EVER talk to any of the males in this movie for more than 5 minutes. What we get is them sobbing and crying and fighting and so on over 2 guys that were best described in Friday the 13th 4. Dead *@$#
It's easy to see how this below-average screenplay got by in the early sales-pitch meetings at Regency Films (and later with Fox): cross the superhero genre with a comedic take on "Fatal Attraction"...voilà! I don't know how on earth a talented director like Ivan Reitman got involved, unless the pay was just too tempting. A dateless employee at an architectural design firm in N.Y.C. meets a girl on the subway and asks her out; despite the fact she's distracted and unpleasant, he eventually gets her into bed--only to find out later she's the Big Apple's resident superhero, G-Girl. This distaff Superman, with powers bestowed upon her by a fallen meteorite, isn't a fantasy heroine, however...screenwriter Don Payne has conceived her as a needy, possessive, vindictive bitch (he telegraphs this to us from miles away, though Uma Thurman still plays the role for sassy laughs). This is the kind of worthless movie that can't let an insult slip by. Our introduction to leading man Luke Wilson, talking with Rainn Wilson on the train, is accompanied by a sour dig at gays (it prods at us to be assured these two buddies are strictly ladies' men). After being approached by G-Girl's nemesis, who wants to zap her powers, Wilson is told this will make her just an ordinary woman scorned...and isn't that better after all? Thurman's early performances in films like "Henry & June" and "Jennifer 8" showcased an intelligent woman with angular grace and hypnotic poise; her films with Quentin Tarantino helped expose her sinewy hardness and intensity, but that came at a price (the actress has seemingly lost her graceful touch). The picture is exceedingly well-produced and shot, with expensive-seeming special effects, yet nobody bothered to find the humor in this scenario. It's pushy, leering, ugly, and badly-cast. Bloated, frozen-faced Wilson can't tell any of his co-workers that he's dating G-Girl because she made him swear he'd rather have a chainsaw stuck up his rectum. I wonder if writer Payne actually thought that was hilarious...or, indeed, if anyone involved did? * from ****
I'm a huge fan of Ivan Reitman-I loved Evolution and who didn't like Ghostbusters? From the trailer you already know that Uma's character will get dumped by Luke's.So the build-up is obviously towards the moment when she unleashes her superpowers on him.But the pay-off is just not there.The shark tossing did manage to get a (slight) giggle but once again, it was all in the trailer.<br /><br />No one does breathless quite like Uma and Luke is diet Owen on his good days.If not for Riann Wilson you would sit there with a constipated smile until your cheeks start to cramp.This is a comedy,right? <br /><br />It's not awful-it just sits there like a stale cracker behind the fridge.This could have been such a brilliant send-up of Superhero movies and Feminism but fails on both counts.Let's see if Jason Reitman can salvage the family name.
I went to see this film yesterday and although i didn't have high hopes for this film, I was still bitterly disappointed! I actually cant believe I spent 96 minutes of my life watching this film...it was THAT bad!!! The storyline was disgraceful and the acting was terrible (even though it had big names such as Uma Thurman in it). This film heavily relied on its special effects...but they personally had no effect on me. I honestly wished id never watched it and I strongly warn everyone against seeing this film. It is a total waste of money and you'll only end up being disappointed afterwards. My advice is to save your money, go shopping, treat yourself, just don't go and see this film... You'll live to regret it lol!
Needed an excuse to get out of the house while paint dried - left the movie after an hour to return and watch the paint dry.<br /><br />I don't recall ever walking out on a movie before, but I really tried to stay. The script was not up to the cast and just kept "going and going" badly - come on! Uma Thurman doing this stuff? Fairly lame special effects. These were older characters and actors doing superficial horny 20-something lives - just sort of annoying and wrong feeling.<br /><br />This review is base only on the first hour - it might have gotten better. I just had to get home and see if the paint dried a darker shade than when it went on.
Well I must say this is probably the worst film I have seen this year! The jokes were extremely crude (wasn't expecting it from as PG movie)(Rated PG in Canada) and they weren't funny! With this great cast I at least expected some good acting but I didn't even get that. I am a huge Rainn Wilson fan and this is the first time I was extremely disappointed by his performance. Neither Luke Wilosn or Uma Thurman's characters are the least bit likable and i really could have cared less what happened to either of them. I didn't expect this at all as in the past I have really liked other movies by this director (Six Days, Seven Nights for example) This movie was NOT worth the $10 it cost me and i strongly encourage you not to see this movie. I guarantee that you will be like me begging for this movie to be over.
I have to admit when I went to see this movie, I didn't really have high expectations. But even with my low expectations I was totally and utterly disappointed...<br /><br />Basically Luke Wilson is a hot shot who tends to go out with slightly crazy girlfriends. There's slight mention of a girl stalking him but that's pretty much it for that character. Which i don't quite mind cause it would probably be just as underdeveloped as the rest of the movie.<br /><br />So while on a subway Rainn Wilson (who i actually liked before this movie) convinces him to talk to a "hot" girl, Uma Thurman. This is strange to say the least, as everyone can clearly see that Uma Thurman does not belong under the category of "hot".<br /><br />Rainn Wilson's performance is also far from "hot". Normally I'm all for his acting, but even he couldn't salvage this movie. His character was jumpy, unrealistic and rather annoying. You could never tell if the writers were trying to make him the comical token closet gay guy, or just desperate. It was almost painful.<br /><br />But anyway, someone steals her purse as she goes to leave the subway, and Luke Wilson being the charming savior he is runs after the robber. Now we all know that Uma Thurman is the superhero, or "G-Girl" as they like to call her in the movie. It still baffles me as to what the "G" stands for, but we'll leave that for the message boards to debate.<br /><br />The sex scenes I assume are supposed to be funny, but I find myself asking who has sex like that? They nearly throw the bed through the wall because of Uma Thurman's "passion" let's say. It makes my head hurt, but not in the "I'm thinking really hard to understand this" way.<br /><br />When Uma insults Anna Faris, calling her a "whore" I had no debate with that. Apart from the fact that she can't choose movies properly, she can't act and relies souly on the fact that she's blonde and typical.<br /><br />Overall I would've walked out of the theater if i hadn't paid $8.75 to see it. The characters are typical and have absolutely no chemistry, especially Uma Thurman. Someone should let her know that just because you move your head a lot doesn't mean you're acting.<br /><br />Also, the script and storyline could've used either a lot of work or a match and some lighter fluid. I actually started to feel embarrassed for the actors, and their dying careers. Overall, if you value your money, and your self respect do NOT waste your time with this pathetic attempt at a movie.
First off, I would like to point out that the reason why I gave this movie 1 star out of 10 is because there is no option to give it NO stars! it really is that bad! I was never eager to see this film after I saw the ads for it, I ended up seeing it only by chance because some friends of mine had tickets and had one spare so I tagged along. Before seeing it I had a fairly good idea that it wouldn't be genius - the premise seemed far too silly and stupid for anything good to come out of it, but at the back of my mind I was thinking "but there must be something good about it for UMA THURMAN and Luke Wilson do to the film..." not that I think either of them are particularly terrific but they are big-named stars who would normally only do films that would enhance their reputations. However, about 10-20 minutes into the feature I realized that the movie was probably worse than I had at first anticipated. I was shocked at how terrible the script was. It really gave the actors NOTHING to work with, so much so that they really looked like they didn't know what they were doing (especially Luke Wilson). The story was completely predictable - if you've seen the ad then you've pretty much seen the movie! And there was nothing original about it - it pretty much borrows from every 'super-hero' story that has ever been which would be acceptable had the film been set up as a satire of that genre, but alas it wasn't. The direction seemed to be of realism. I got the feeling that the director wanted the film to feel completely realistic and not satire at all, and yet there were some moments in the film that were so unbelievably unrealistic that it would have worked if it were a satire. At one moment in the movie two of the characters seem to die and one of the surviving characters has a line like "Oh well, she's dead...time to move on" and he says it in such a droll voice that it completely didn't make any sense. I found myself checking my watch after about 40 minutes to see how much longer I would have to sit through it. And then it struck me...I began to think "I wonder if the studio have made this picture as a test to see if they can make the worst possible movie ever made, and still pull a large audience..." I couldn't think of any other reason why this film would be made. For movies to be made these days, the script goes to a massive screening process and very very few scripts actually make it to the production stage...I can't comprehend how this one got past the first draft stage... By the end, and exceedingly, dumb-founding-Ly stupid climax, I was laughing heartily - just not at what the film-makers wanted me to laugh at, but instead at how ridiculous and stupid the movie was. Thank God I didn't have to pay money to see it...because that would have really annoyed me!!! Oh, and could I just add, that of the two Wilson brothers, I have always preferred Luke because I think he is a better, more versatile actor...but if he wants to step even further into OWEN's shadow then this is exactly the way to do it...I doubt that he will get many more job offers after this crappy waste of 2 hours!!! and remember, it only got a generous 1/10 because I couldn't select 0!
Oh my god. oh my god, i cant get over this movie. It was god-awful. horrible, terrible! Don't even waste your money to buy it in the 99 cent bin. No, avoid it at all costs I'm warning you!!!<br /><br />It was the worst movie I've ever seen. In my life. In my life!!<br /><br />First of all, G-girl? Are you kidding me. Get real that sounds like some kind of new Barbie doll.. Super Women? Are you kidding me. It was so fake fake fake fake. The people of the town didn't even seem to care that there was a flying blonde just zooming her way around the town saving a fire.. Ohh big!<br /><br />Jesus, was it just me or did this movie seem offensive?? I guess what you need to be a super hero is a couple of double D's, blonde flowing hair, no glasses and a leather skin tight suit?!<br /><br />If it was trying to be romantic ... than.. god, i don't know. It was horrid, if love means taking some one to an art show and than having sex in a bed AND in the air.. than they totally had love!<br /><br />It was pathetic, everything went too fast. First that guy was single, than he was dating G-girl.. than they broke up than he dated that Hannah girl.. and.. it just goes on. <br /><br />I have to say this movie made me wonder.. How the hell did they get this in theaters??!!<br /><br />Avoid this movie at all costs.
I rented this movie tonight because it looked like a fun movie. I figured that you really couldn't go wrong with a concept of Ex Girlfriend with super powers. <br /><br />... but the movie was confused and pointless ...<br /><br />it seemed that at every turn the writer kept throwing junk in. Also the writer kept throwing in way too much toilet humor and sexual situations that only a teenage boy could love.<br /><br />It seems that it could have been so simple to draw a story out of Fatal Attraction Super hero .. but I guess not. <br /><br />This is not a fun romantic comedy it was advertised to be. You could not take a child to see it and you would be embarrassed seeing it a date. <br /><br />If the writer could have done a basic story around the high concept and cleaned it up - the movie might have a fighting chance. <br /><br />A serious waste of time.<br /><br />B
I had two reasons for watching this swashbuckler when it aired on Danish television yesterday. First of all, I wanted to see Gina Lollobrigida - and here I wasn't disappointed. She looked gorgeous. Second of all, through reading about the film I had gotten the impression that it featured absurd humor not unlike that which can be found in Philippe de Broca's films. On this account, however, I was sadly disappointed. I found the jokes predictable (apart from a few witty remarks on the topic of war) and the characters completely one-dimensional. Also, the action scenes were done in a strangely mechanical and uninspired fashion, with no sense of drama at all. I kept watching until the end, but I got bored very quickly and just sat there, waiting for the scenes with Lollobrigida.
After too many bad memories, I took to skipping this episode each time it showed up in the Season 2 sequence. I recently watched it again just to remind me why. I've always considered this the worst ST:TNG episode (with the exception of "Shades of Gray," which barely counts as an episode at all).<br /><br />I keep listening to the clunky dialogue and thinking of the script red-penciled by the author's Writing 101 teacher: "SHOW, DON'T TELL!" From Deanna Troi's pronouncement, and everyone else's constant elbowing reminders about what a charming, dangerous rogue Okona is, to Guinan's explanation about how funny her droid joke is (it isn't), to the who-cares resolution to the conflict, there isn't a plot point that isn't highlighted and triple-underlined for our edification, and there ain't a believable moment in any of it. Unfortunately, Bill Campbell, a charming actor in other circumstances, is too puppy-dog huggable to be the center of the machinations of the plot. On the other hand, it could be that no one short of John Barrowman (Jack Harkness from "Doctor Who") could pull of this underwritten placeholder of a role.<br /><br />(Zero points, by the way, to the Data subplot. While I think Joe Piscopo stopped being funny decades ago, he and Brent Spiner had nothing to work with here. Although the Jerry Lewis bit was funny in a stupid way.)<br /><br />On a good day, you may be able to think of this as a charming little homage to a lesser Original Series episode. Me, I'd rather skip ahead to "Time Squared" or "Q Who."
I went to go see this at the Esquire Theatre in Cincy, OH, and - I hate my life now.<br /><br />Christopher Reeves would have been a more believable boxer.<br /><br />As a film it was painful, but seeing Bret Carr in person was to see desperation at its pinnacle.<br /><br />My favorite part of the movie was seeing BC slammed in the face with what appeared to be a "C" battery. The jury is still out on this. It was from a dildo and it was in slow-mo. Yep.<br /><br />"Shoot the left side of the face only...people become famous by demanding things!" - Bret Carr B. Carr donned a Chicken Suit for a bit of reverse psychology, roaming the streets of Clifton bashing his own film. He should. This is correct to bash the film.<br /><br />My soul felt chafed after this movie.<br /><br />Bret Carr is not charismatic enough to be the leader of a cult, or smart enough for that matter. That is the feeling you get from the What the Bleepesque trickle of brainwashed, impressionable neo-yuppies that came to see this Bret Carr Piece of Work.<br /><br />It's an emotionally draining experience just thinking about writing about this film, so goodbye.<br /><br />-Anonymous
The Gospel of Lou was a major disappointment for me. I had received an E-Mail from the theater showing it that it was a great and inspirational movie. It was neither great nor inspirational. The cinematography was pretty iffy with the whole movie. A lot the scenes were flash backs that were done in a way that couldn't tell at times what they were about. The voices were often distorted for no reason. Also many of the people in the movie were far fetched. The relationship he has with his ex & son is never made clear. Also the whole movie has most him one way, and then all of a sudden BAM, he is cured and inspiring people. The whole movie seems to show that boxing is one of the things that is bad in his life, making him live his life the way that he is living it, but when he changes, he doesn't leave boxing, he teaches others how to box. Thumbs Down.
Straight to the point: "The Groove Tube" is one of the most unfunny, unclever and downright horrible films ever made. This "comedy" is so void of anything remotely resembling a trace of wit that it's almost incomprehensible that it was even made. I said almost because there are fans of everything after all.<br /><br />This film isn't even "good" bad or "enjoyable" bad. To put this movie on the same level of entertainment as "Plan 9" or "Robot Monster" would be a crime to those films. Films like that you can actually watch and get a kick out of. But this film is SO bad, SO poorly made, acted and scripted and SO incredible stale, that there just isn't even a trace of "camp" or "schlock" to be found.<br /><br />Even though this was made before Saturday Night Live premiered, comparisons were probably inevitable. I'm not a big fan of SNL, but this film is worse than the worst SNL skit you can find. And man, that's BAD. Just to keep the men viewers from leaving, Shapiro throws in a pair of breasts every so often, but poorly-filmed breasts from 1974 aren't going to excite anyone these days. Truthfully this film is so poorly made and is such a sleep-inducing excursion, I doubt if they excited anyone in 1974 either.<br /><br />A man named Ken Shapiro made this film. I swear to God, any ten-year old with a video camera could have made something funnier and more clever. It's just downright unreal - this is truly an unbelievable film. The "jokes" and "gags" are so infantile that even little boys who like to sneak dad's porno mags out at night won't laugh.<br /><br />I will give this film one thing - the very last sequence, the "dancing man" sequence, where a guy (Shapiro) on the streets of NYC dances to a tune, is easily the best thing in this horrible film. Not that the "dancing man" sequence is that great either - it definitely has its moments of not being clever as Shapiro desperately tries to fill in the time for the entire song - but it actually was somewhat watchable. The part of this sequence where the cop starts dancing with the man is the one sole trace of cleverness in the entire film. No wonder Shapiro put this sequence last - again, while not so great itself, it easily beats anything else in this "film."<br /><br />Otherwise, this film is such a complete piece of crap, it's unfathomable as to how an actual human being can be so downright cleverless. The name of this film should have been "Ken Shapiro's Craparama." It's amazing that this was made, but many truly talented filmmakers can't get in. However, I will say that I bet the geniuses at NYU would love this movie. Total garbage.
After two long, long opening skits, one of which my brother saw the conclusion coming of and the other totally joke free, we start the fast-forward fest that it GROOVE TUBE proper. Naturally, uber-stupid frat boys who still mainline JACKASS or Tom Green will find the idea of fecal matter coming out of the some tube, SEX OLYMPICS(I really don't need to give you details, do I), and a clown who basically does the "not very endearing clown" bit I think I've seen approxiately ninety times now will eat this up like dung beetles: well, more power to you.<br /><br />I just want to express that, despite what you've heard, this movie was in no way a model for the many infinitely funnier movies like KENTUCKY FRIED MOVIE or what not. The skit movie had already been done in AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT SEX, and so on. And done way better.
Rented it last night. The opening(2001) ran WAAAAAAAAAY too long. The hitchiker scene served no purpose. Some skits were just retarded. I knew beforehand, Chevy Chase was on for less than 2 minutes. No problem. Here are the best parts:<br /><br />KOKO, URANUS, BABS COMMERCIAL, Curtis Mayfield song<br /><br />Total: 7 minutes of good material out of a 75 minute movie<br /><br />Everything else was either unfunny or stupid as hell.<br /><br />Let me give you some advice: If you want a crude movie spoofing TV and movies, rent "Kentucky Fried Movie". If you want a less crude movie spoofing TV and movies, rent "AMAZON WOMEN ON THE MOON" or "UHF"<br /><br />Otherwise, don't bother renting this movie. You'll save 2-3 dollars.<br /><br />IMHO: Ken Shapiro's best movie is STILL "Modern Problems"
Oh dear. While Chevy Chase and the gang at SNL set new highs with the sketch show format this fails miserably at every level. Fortunately Chevy is barely in this at all and can't be blamed for this utter tripe. It seriously is very, very bad. While meant to be a political comment on USA at the time of it's release (1974) it still remains neither funny or acutely observed. The sketches are all way too long and any satirical impact they may have had is lost as they're all drawn out to the point of complete boredom. This is credited as Chevy's movie debut and I'm pleased to say that everything he did after this bettered it. Avoid even if curious.
Hearing about how hilarious this movie is, I finally rent it at<br /><br />the video store and for 75 minutes maybe I laughed 3 times. This<br /><br />movie, a collection of skits that make fun of television is an<br /><br />incoherrent mess. The jokes fall flat, the humor deals with<br /><br />issues from the 1970's that just aren't relevant anymore, and<br /><br />the jokes go on way too long (almost like the new SNL skits the<br /><br />past few years). Yeah, Chevy Chase is in this but maybe of all<br /><br />about 1 or 2 minutes. I liked the fact that this was very<br /><br />raunchy and had nudity galore but couldn't it be funny? Do<br /><br />yourself a favor and rent Kentucky Fried Movie which is a far<br /><br />superior film made in the
I read all the reviews here AFTER watching this piece of cinematic garbage and it took me at least 2 pages to find out that somebody else didn't think that this appallingly unfunny montage WASN'T the acme of humour in the 70s or indeed in any other era! If this isn't the least funny set of sketch *comedy* I've ever seen it'll do till it comes along. Half of the skits had already been done (and infinitely better) by acts such as Monty Python and Woody Allen... If I was to say that a nice piece of animation that lasts about 90 seconds is the highlight of this film it would still not get close to summing up just how mindless and drivel-ridden this waste of 75 minutes is. Seminal comedy? Only in the world where seminal really DOES mean semen. Scatological humour? Only in a world where scat IS actually feces. Precursor jokes? Only if by that we mean that this is a handbook of how NOT to do comedy. Tits and bums and the odd beaver. Nice...if you are a pubescent boy with at least one hand free and haven't found out that Playboy exists. Give it a break because it was the early 70s? No way. There had been sketch comedy going back at least ten years prior. The only way I could even forgive this film even being made is if it was at gunpoint. Retro? Hardly. Sketches about clowns subtly perverting children may be cutting edge in some circles (and it could actually have been funny) but it just comes off as really quite sad. What kept me going throughout the entire 75 minutes? Sheer belief that they may have saved a genuinely funny skit for the end. I gave the film a 1 because there was no lower score...and I can only recommend it to insomniacs or coma patients...or perhaps people suffering from lockjaw...their jaws would finally drop open in disbelief.
The only film I've ever walked out on. Amazing, since I paid for myself and my date and I'm really cheap. But my brain couldn't stand any more of the dreck being piled on, particularly since I could have written funnier material while tie up and gagged.<br /><br />From the beginning to the end this film offends. Worse, it ain't funny. It wasn't funny then, and it sure ain't funny now. But even worse, is that this film represents the beginning of the end of really smart, sophisticated comedy. It's juvenile, really sophomoric script and ideas began an era (which continues to this day) where cheap laughs, and sexual innuendo dominate the culture of comedy in film.<br /><br />Sexual Olympics? What High School kid hasn't thought of that? The beginning of the end.
A repressed housewife (an annoying lisping Angie Dickinson, whose body double treats/horrifies us with an extreme closeup of her delicates) is sexually bored by her husband and decides to branch-out. This directly results in a string of murders that soon involve a high-class prostitute (Nancy Allen, clearly I am in the wrong business if SHE can bring home $600 a night) and her psychologist (Michael Caine). If you are going to watch De Palma rip off (excuse me, "pay homage to") Hitchcock, watch "Sisters" instead of this. "Dressed to Kill," while loaded with style and technical skill, is one of the tackiest thrillers I have had the displeasure of sitting through. The plot is absurd and tired. It does feature some surprisingly effective jump scares and nasty graphic murder sequences that should please any horror fan, as long as they can get past the silly story line, that must have been dated even in 1980.
A call-girl witnesses a murder and becomes the killer's next target. Director Brian De Palma is really on a pretentious roll here: his camera swoops around corners in a museum (after lingering a long time over a painting of an ape), divvies up into split screen for arty purposes, practically gives away his plot with a sequence (again in split screen) where two characters are both watching a TV program about transsexuals, and stages his (first) finale during a thunderous rainstorm. "Dressed To Kill" is exhausting, primarily because it asks us to swallow so much and gives back nothing substantial. Much of the acting (with the exception of young Keith Gordon) is mediocre and the (second) finale is a rip-off of De Palma's own "Carrie"--not to mention "Psycho". The explanation of the dirty deeds plays like a spoof of Hitchcock, not an homage. Stylish in a steely cold way, the end results are distinctly half-baked. ** from ****
I can find very little thats good to say about this film. I am sure the idea and script looked good on paper but the filmography and acting I am afraid is not the standards I would expect from some very talented people. I would doubt that this features highly in their CV Filmography. Michael Caine appeared wooden at times in his role as the Doctor, and at no time no did I actually believe in his character. The plot was unbelievable especially with regard to the victims son. Some of the scenes were very reminiscent of other films, that at times I wondered if it was actually a spoof thriller. The lighting at times was dark and this added to the feeling of watching a low budget movie with some big named stars, wondering why I bothered to watch it at all.
Sorry to go against the flow but I thought this film was unrealistic, boring and way too long. I got tired of watching Gena Rowlands long arduous battle with herself and the crisis she was experiencing. Maybe the film has some cinematic value or represented an important step for the director but for pure entertainment value I wish I would have skipped it.
Anyone who loved the two classic novels by Edward Ormondroyd will be disappointed in this film. All the magic and romance have been modernized out of his original story of a girl who does a good deed for a mysterious old lady, and given "three" in return. Three what? Not three wishes, but three rides into the 1800's on a rickety elevator...<br /><br />The first novel is Time at the Top. The second is All in Good Time.
There is absolutely NO reason to waste your time with this "film". The original said it all and still holds up. Either read the book or do some research about the story, and you'll realize this remake is ludicrous. Eric Roberts as Perry Smith? His sister could have done a better job! Having been to Holcomb & Edgerton, KS where the story takes place, the sets and locations looked NOTHING like Kansas. The original is riveting, from the location filming to the use of the actual participants, weapons and victims belongings. Unforgettable performances by Scott Wilson and Robert Blake. Soundtrack by Quincy Jones and cinematography by Conrad Hall...The original is available on DVD in widescreen now. Let this turkey die a quick death.
In Cold Blood was one of several 60s films that created a new vision of violence in the Hollywood film industry. Capote coined the phrase "nonfiction novel" to describe the book on which this film is based, and the spirit of that form was carried over into the film script, which he co-wrote. Despite the fact that we were well into the era of color film, Richard Brooks elected to present this film in black and white to underscore both the starkness of the landscape and the bleakness of the story. This is the first problem with the TV remake --color changes the tone of the story. In addition, the confinement of shooting a film for TV makes reduces the options of how the shots are framed and focused. As a result, we lose the dramatic clash which makes the second part of the original film (police interviews, trial, imprisonment, and execution) so claustrophobic. On the small screen, it's just another version of Law and Order spin-offs. <br /><br />Hollywood's search for scripts continuously takes it back to movies that were successful in another age. Usually, that's a mistake, and this is no exception.<br /><br />All of the actors are competent. The script is OK. The directing doesn't get in the way. It's just that the movie doesn't work as well as the original precision instrument. It doesn't hook the viewer into the ambivalence toward Smith and Hickock that the original film provokes. At the end of the TV version, we are left with the feeling: "Ho hum, who cares?"<br /><br />See the original first, on as large a screen as you can, then watch the TV version simply to understand why the first one was such an important film in 1967.<br /><br />Wouldn't hurt to also go on line and read a bit about Capote and the original book. It will help you to understand the extraordinary effort he put into the material, and also some of the controversy surrounding both the book and the movie.<br /><br />I actually only gave this a 4 because I save the bottom 3 rankings for true bombs--the kind that enrage you about having been sucked into spending an
Why do they insist on making re-makes of great movies like "High Noon" "From Here to Eternity" and this one?<br /><br />Why do they think that color is more engrossing to a viewer than stark black and white?<br /><br />Why did Robert's insist on wearing that dopey, broad-billed, baseball cap?...it made him look like Jim Varney.<br /><br />Why would anyone spend four hours suffering through this?<br /><br />Watch the original. Then YOU won't have to ask yourself WHY.
This waste of time is a completely unnecessary remake of a great film. Nothing new or original is added other than Perry's backflashes, which are of marginal interest. It lacks the documentary feel of the first film and the raw urgency that made it so effective. Also painfully missing is the sharp Quincy Jones soundtrack that added to much to the original film. I can't understand any high ratings for this at all. It's quite bad. Why does anyone waste time or money making crap like this and why did I waste time watching it?
As there was nothing wrong with the acting etc etc the writing for the episode is way off for this series phantom or no phantom. It was a waste of 42 minutes to see the martian man hunter. You have to know that in the middle of the 6th series no matter what happens it is not true what is going on and really brings nothing to the story of the series except meeting the martian man hunter again and to waste 30 minutes to do this is by far another case of bad writing in the soap opera of smallville. I really like the show but mainly due to the cast and the 3 or so good episodes each year but who ever is on the writing cast that works or used to work on the soaps needs to be canned. This was by far one of the worst. With in the first 4 minutes you know that what is going on is bogus and anything happening is a dream based on Clark's infliction obviously caused by a phantom zone character and when he wakes up he will win and blah blah blah so the writers don't have to really create a villain that will progress the story line any this week. May as well have added another villain to die in the last episode the martian man hunter was in and made him fly away again or come back and tell Clark he forgot his sunglasses to get a closer look like in this episode and call it a day.
Not that "a film by Ulli Lommel" filled me with hope, but I must confess that ZODIAC KILLER managed to sink beneath my lowest expectations. There is a recent trend among young filmmakers of utilizing digital video for their early projects, which is all well and good for giving these kids the opportunity to create work without spending all their money on expensive film stock. But many of these young filmmakers have also wised up to the notion of filtering the finished movie so that it appears qualitatively more like celluloid. The effect is never perfect, but it helps. Unfiltered digital video really only works for the "mockumentary" style, because it never looks like anything other than video. Therein lies the primary trouble with ZODIAC KILLER. Watching the movie feels like watching a daytime soap opera about a murderer. It does not feel like watching a movie. And what's even more unforgivable is that the Lommel is NOT a young filmmaker. He ought to know better. He ought to know that it's virtually impossible to generate horror (or even suspense!) on video. For the love of god this guy has been directing since the sixties! He may be the only director who has failed to improve over a forty year career in the business. And lucky us, he wrote the script too! So you can expect convoluted actions that mean nothing, unjustified behavior, and at least one truly pretentious plot element that will leave you utterly unsatisfied. Please, please miss this film. You'll thank me later.
At least I was able to enjoy mocking the movie which is surprising since I was barely able to sit through it. In all honesty, my guess is the cover to the DVD case cost more than the entire movie. And saying that it is the same director as The Boogeyman, when a new version of that just came out...nice touch guys, it was misleading enough to rope me in. The only thing that frustrated me more than the insufferable acting of the copycat was his haircut. Usually you only see that kind of hair on a ten year old boy and the character acted like it. The film looks like it was shot by a D+ grad student of some film school excited to use every film technique he ever learned while attending classes....sometimes, less is more buddy. Through out I would get lost by random plot twists that led nowhere or were unexplained. All this makes a bad movie but when the ending doesn't even come close to pulling it together, well, that makes it an exceptionally bad movie. Without a doubt this is the worst movie I have ever seen, and that includes my friends' french final video for senior year of high school, but hey maybe i'm a bit biased, I mean I did get to play an extra. P.S. I don't even think this deserves a star...not even a half. NONE FOR YOU!!
1 is being pretty generous here. I really enjoyed BOOGEYMAN, even though it is not really the BOOGEYMAN promoted on the DVD cover and we all know it! It creeped me out. But this film, it is something else. For being directed by a guy who has been around a long time and directed a lot of movies, it looks like it was shot on a VHS camcorder by a 10 year old! The story and acting are atrocious! David Hess, you have let me down too. After playing one of the most menacing villains in film history, you have resorted to this? The story and acting may have been able to be forgiven however, if anyone had taken the time to make the video look somewhat professional. There are a LOT of shot on video films out there that don't look like it, or at least aren't so obvious that it detracts your attention from the film. I can't say it is the worst movie ever, because I couldn't make it through the entire film, but it is certainly close.
Except people apparently buy into this garbage! As shows like "Moral Orel" have shown, even if you tried to make the most outrageous, over-the-top parody of evangelism you could possibly think of, it wouldn't come close to the hilarity of this show. It's hard to tell what's even going on when you're watching it. Is it a news show? A talk show? Who knows!? They start out by reporting on various international news stories, but at seemingly random points, the news is interrupted by this odd, troll-like little man with a forehead bigger than his entire face, mumbling and laughing and generally being creepy.<br /><br />Pat Robertson doesn't even seem like such a bad guy at first glance. He just seems like a senile, yet harmless old coot stuck in his archaic beliefs (like most of our grandparents). But this is a man who has called for an assassination, who has befriended and offered aid to not one, but TWO murderous dictators, who has illegally used donation money to run diamond mines, who has SUPPORTED forced abortions in China, and who regularly implies that Caucasians (straight American male Caucasians in particular) are superior to all other races.<br /><br />Still, this would all be funny, except that he apparently has a large enough fan base to keep his little show on the air 40 years later (either that, or enough money to bribe some TV executives who don't give a damn what they show). The idiocy of the show becomes alarming when you realize that some people, somewhere, must be watching it and hanging onto every word. Even when Robertson has repeatedly shown how corrupt he is, people still listen to him. I don't know if it's funny or scary. I guess a healthy mixture of both.
Hear are some of the interesting things our combat hero faith healer Pat, his son Gordon (T.V. ministry seems like a family business.) and Terry Meeuwsen (Won Miss America in 1973 by wearing a swimsuit and showing her legs. Oh my goodness gracious!) say when our poor viewers are sick and need help.<br /><br />1. Someone with an "abscessed right tooth"has just now been healed.2. Someone with "twisted intestines" has been healed.3.Then Terry said there was a person with a "strange condition",(You mean God doesn't know?) a burning in the legs,who has just been healed.4. Then Gordon said there's a man(That narrows it down!) with swelling of the sinuses in his right cheek, with much pain behind the right eye,but he is now healed.5.Someone with a problematic right hip,limited mobility from a stroke, is now able to walk. 6. Terry said she saw someone with severe with severe stiffness in the neck bone, but didn't know the exact ailment(God doesn't know?)-that the person is now healed. 7. Someone paralyzed on the right side, particularly(Not exactly?!) the right side of the face has now been healed.8. A man (That narrows the world population down again.) with a plate in his skull is having a continual problems, and the doctors just don't know what to do. Terry said she saw the bone reforming around the plate(The funny bone?!)and the mans pain is gone,he was now healed.<br /><br />Hers how our war hero Pat helps our sick and poor people. 1. There's a woman in Kansas City (Missouri or Kansas but that narrows it way down.) who has a sinus the lord is drying it up now thank you Jesus. 2. There's a man with a financial need- I think a hundred thousand dollars.(I think their god needs to go to school or something!) That need is being met met right now,and within three days,the money will be supplied through the miraculous power of the holy spirit.Thank you Jesus. 3.There is a woman in Cincinnati with cancer of the lymph nodes. <br /><br />I don't know whether its been diagnosed yet (Ask your vengeful god Pat!) but you haven't been feeling well, and the lord is dissolving that cancer right now!(What?!)4. There is a lady in Saskatoon(I assume Canada.) in a wheelchair-curvature of the spine, The lord is straightening that our right now, and you can stand up and walk!(If you have this condition ignore Pat!) Just claim it and it's yours. Thank you Jesus! Amen, Amen!<br /><br />When Pat Robertson had prostate cancer did he go to Peter Popoff?, Oral Roberts?,Benny Hinn?,Terry or Gordon? No! On February 17,2003 Pat went to a REAL DOCTOR to have his surgery! (You mean he doesn't trust his faith healing friends, Terry or his own son Gordon?!)<br /><br />When LT Pat Robertson was in the Marines during the Korean war He was a liquor officer, responsible for keeping the officers supplied with liquor. He was known to drink himself and frequent prostitutes and he feared he contacted gonorrhea.(Should of asked a faith healer for help!)<br /><br />The reason Pat got out of combat was because his daddy Absalom Willis Robertson (D Va from 1946-66) was Chairman of the Senate Military Appropriations Committee.<br /><br />Terrorist Attacks, September 11, 2001 We have imagined ourselves invulnerable and been consumed by the pursuit of health, wealth,(Pats worth between 150 and 200 million dollars folks!) material pleasures(A mansion in Virginia beach Virginia with a helicopter launching pad!) and sexuality(He had had sex with his future wife before marriage which they had a son!). It (terrorism) is happening because god is lifting his protection from us.( Statement released on September 13, 2001.) Pat Robertson reminds me of Burgermeister on Santa Claus Is Coming To Town and his evil vengeful god reminds me of Venger on Dungeons And Dragons.<br /><br />Spoiled brat Gordon does what daddy Pat tells him to and Terry is a paid yes woman who neither have minds of their own!<br /><br />This will really grab you! The September 5 2005 edition of The 700 Club included a report Christian Broadcasting Network correspondent Gary Lane from outside New Orleans Convention Center which has housed mostly impoverished black disaster victims throughout the weekend."A number of possessions left behind suggest the mindset of some of the evacuees"Lane said"they include this voodoo cup with the saying"May the curse be with you." A shot of a plastic cup souvenir cup from one of the New Orleans countless trinket shops appeared on the screen. "Also music CDs with the title Guerrilla Warfare and Thugs 'R' Us." Lane stated, pointing out a pile or rap CDs strewn on the ground.( His bigoted daddy Absalom has taught Pat racism well!)<br /><br />If any of you good people ever think of donating to these sexist bigoted people please in the name of God don't! Sponsor a softball or basketball team,give to a food shelf, be a big brother or sister to a child but please don't give to these people because they have been around for over 40 years and solved nothing.<br /><br />If you still don't believe me type Pat Robertson overheard during commercial break on the web and hit search and once you hear what hes really like, I know for sure that you will not give one cent to these conning liars! And by the way Terry once had a divorce and Pat has talked against divorce many times on his shows.<br /><br />I like to say hello to the folks in Dover Pennsylvania, Orlando Florida, and to the nice folks who got hit by hurricane Katrina and I hope its a pleasant day. Has Operation Blessing been helpful to New Orleans?(I doubt it!) Please let our readers know! I do! By the way folks if your sick, go to a real doctor and lets everybody laugh at these liars and someday Burgermeister Pat,Gordon and Terry can go someplace else and take their angry god Venger with them!
does anyone think that this show actually helps some people, or does it only anger the people who watch it? when i am flipping through the channels and come upon this show i half to watch out of morbid curiosity. i understand that pat Roberson is not all together. what i do not know is if his viewers are like him or if they are good people and think they will have a better life if they listening to what he has to say. pat Roberson is of little consequence. he is an old man who thinks in an old way. fear of damnation no longer has the same affects as it once did (thank god). now if someone will please answer my question i will be dodging lightning bolts for the rest of eternity.
"The 700 Club" has to be the single most bigoted television program in the history of television itself. To make matters worse, it's been on the air since 1966, implying that thousands if not millions of people are buying into its hate and lies. Headed by Pat Robertson, the unscrupulous, megalomaniacal founder and leader of the Christian Coalition, "The 700 Club" takes us from misinformation to misunderstanding, broadcasting "news" as they like to think of it and trying to convince its audience that all of the world's problems are to blame on homosexuals, Wiccans, New Age spiritualists, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, non-Fundamentalist Christians, Democrats, single mothers, foreigners, feminists, evolutionists, environmentalists, NASA scientists, and anyone else who doesn't share their fanatical religious views. It's actually the best fake news since "The Daily Show" or the "Weekend Update" segment of "Saturday Night Live," or since "FOX News," for that matter. Of course, Pat's always the one who makes each of the decisions, saying whatever comes to mind and not giving a damn who it offends or hurts. In the meantime, he continues his part in the struggle to transform the United States into a militarized police state by having the Religious Wrong stick their noses in everything they can and asking for one donation after another - no less than a measly $100 to become a member, by the way - to fund Pat's African diamond mines and buy oil from companies reprimanded by the government in the past for their abuse of the environment. No, never mind that Pat was good friends with the genocidal dictators of Zaire and Zimbabwe in order to help him acquire such wealth; it's all for the greater glory of God, don't you know? And of course, the hosts of "The 700 Club" are always willing to read letters "written by viewers" as they like to put it, coincidentally each typed in the same format and all on the same color of paper by "viewers" supposedly healed of various afflictions by the said hosts (they claim to have "words of knowledge" come to them) but who NEVER APPEAR on the program to say what happened to them. Honestly, how can anyone take a show seriously when they're using a poor applause recording? It should make people wonder why there's no studio audience.<br /><br />The sad thing that Pat's cronies and viewers don't realize or just don't WANT to realize are the horrible things he's done and said. This is a guy who agreed with Jerry Falwell that the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States were the result of God punishing us for our acceptance of homosexuality and feminism. Ironic, considering that Pat has twice publicly referred to the implementation of a nuclear weapon in the State Department; I have little doubt it was his wealth that kept him from getting arrested for such statements. His rants against homosexuals, single mothers, and any number of sexual practices he considers "sinful" are interesting, considering he was known to frequent a number of brothels during the Korean War. As the Bible says, be fruitful and multiply, so congratulations, Pat - thanks to you, there's probably a number of children born to single Korean mothers. Then, of course, there was the time he called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (not that he's a saint, but still). Oh, yes, and let's not soon forget the time this "crusader for human life" supported forced abortions in China. Very "Christian" of him, wouldn't you say?<br /><br />And just in case Pat has forgotten, I haven't forgotten his little speech that evangelical Christians today are "being treated exactly as the Jews were in Nazi Germany." Honestly, to compare his "plight" to the horrors of the Holocaust is almost unforgivable. Speaking of which, need I mention about how he blatantly lied that homosexuality ran rampant among the Nazi party in a pathetic attempt to discredit homosexuals? Of course, history shows us that the Nazis acted toward homosexuals the same way they acted toward Jews. Pat Robertson is one of the biggest liars in history. If he was Pinocchio, his nose would encircle the Earth.<br /><br />Unfortunately, more and more people continue to believe him every day. This is your wake-up call, people; "The 700 Club" is one of the most if not the single most vile program in television history. It's evil masquerading as good; it's a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing. It's bigoted filth that tries to look clean, pretty, and loving. It's living proof that hateful, dangerous religious views aren't confined to certain groups in the Middle East. Even those who are not of the Christian faith know that it goes against everything Jesus taught, and if Jesus was to appear to this "club," He wouldn't be emulating them. Instead, He'd be chastising them as He did the Pharisees of His time and overturning the money bins of their telethons as He did in front of the synagogue in His time. All I can say is thank God that Pat had no chance of becoming President; if he did, he'd be the harbinger of Armageddon - and not on the side of the good guys.
Before I start...let me say that I fully believe in God. I believe in Heaven and in Hell. Kay now that thats out of the way, I just wanna say that What in the world do these morons that call themselves "hosts" think they are doing?? The last time I checked a host doesn't discriminate, spew hatred filled rants on TV, or try to shove their own beliefs down every unfortunate soul that ventures onto the channel. ALl of these that crazy, idiotic, conservitive, bible thumping, Fred Phelps lover Pat Robertson does daily. I am all for free speech, but since when does that cover a guy who pretty much says that if you venture off his ideal way of life you are right away sent to hell? This is just a perfect example of why religion is the cause of SOOOO many problems. One day in my class room we had a substitute teacher in so we decided to watch some TV since the teach didn't give us any work. And we (against many of us's will) watched 700's Club, and of course that jerk Pat was on ranting and raving about the bible, and he said Simon along the lines of "God says Homosexuality is a sin" and I actually heard a kid go "Hmm I guess he's right." WTF??? Seriously, if the host is trying to make people think that someone else's sexual orientation is a huge sin, then they seriously need to take that host, duct tape them, and throw them off of a cruise liner in the middle of the arctic.
Here are some examples of Pat Robertsons dubiously claimed "relatively good track record" on predictions<br /><br />In his widely reported comments from the January 2 edition of the Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club, during which he predicted that there would be "very serious terrorist attacks" and "mass killing" in the United States in the "second half" of 2007, host Pat Robertson boasted that he had "a relatively good track record" on earlier predictions. But a review of Robertson's 2006 New Year's predictions undermines that claim. He predicted, for example, that:<br /><br />* "President Bush is going to strengthen." WRONG<br /><br />* "The fall elections will be inconclusive, but the outcome of the war and the success of the economy will leave the Republicans in charge." WRONG<br /><br />* "The war in Iraq is going to come to a successful conclusion. We'll begin withdrawing troops before the end of this year." WAY WRONG<br /><br />Further, as a January 3 Associated Press article reported, Robertson has a history of making dubious predictions:<br /><br />The broadcaster predicted in January 2004 that President Bush would easily win re-election. Bush won 51% of the vote that fall, beating Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. WRONG<br /><br />In 2005, Robertson predicted that Bush would have victory after victory in his second term. He said Social Security reform proposals would be approved WRONG YET AGAIN! <br /><br />He claims to speak directly with god... If so god has quite the sense of humor watching Pat make a fool of himself again and again..
I turn on 700 Club once in awhile and only agree with some of the statements made- I'm one of many believers that is considered liberal by most Christians and conservative by most non-Christians. I vote my mind, and its usually not rep. or dem. - i don't believe 700 club tells people what to believe, but that it represents many older christians that grew up in very conservative backgrounds. i think many folks misunderstand what is said on 700 club. it bums me out to hear name calling either direction. i think 700 club folks really do love Jesus but are so busy trying to get people to vote conservatively that they've forgotten to show love to certain people and promote peace like Jesus did. Please don't judge Jesus based on ignorant individuals that believe on Him and let's also not be as ignorant with our comments about them. Why ARE people so mean to each other?
"Back of Beyond" takes place at a dive diner/gas station in the middle of the Australian desert run by Tom McGregor (Paul Mercurio), a shy guy who suddenly finds himself in a spot of trouble when some visitors unexpectedly arrive. We get what, at first, confusingly seems like a flashback in which he and his sister (though their relationship to each other is better understood later in the film) are speeding through the desert on his motorcycle. Afterwards, he appears as a terribly quiet, and sometimes, moody character in the presence of the arrivals.<br /><br />We know one thing is for sure and that is McGregor's sort of spiritual sense, his foresight of danger and such--his clairvoyance only slightly relevant to the story, the bulk of which concerns three diamond thieves who's car breaks down and who rely on Tom to help them out of spot without getting in their way. Of course, Tom falls for one of the thieves, a young woman named Charlie, and suddenly, it pits all three already mistrusting allies against each other. But not in a way that really results in anything of much mystery or action. In fact, the whole movie all the while seems to want to build up to something significant, but really fails to do so. Even the ending, of which plays out like a trite campfire tale (and one that really reveals a lot of narrative flaws), is almost just as ridiculous.<br /><br />It may be worth trying if you don't mind the terribly slow pacing, but are in the mood, at least, for something a little different than the usual.
Pointless boring film with charismatic Mercurio completely wasted. Released for a minute on a Thursday in maybe one local cinema and avoided by the entire population of Sydney except me and four others BACK OF BEYOND is a project seemingly created by a producer looking for a fee. Local actors like John Polson and Terry Serio deserve better (well Polson has morphed into a Director of lame thrillers like SWIMFAN and HIDE AND SEEK) and Terry Serio seems never to get a guernsey apart from thug roles. But Paul Mercurio should have become one of Australia's greatest exports on screen. Roles like this are major disappointments and films like this are just a waste of talent and time.
Poor Paul Mercurio. After landing the role of Scott Hastings in Strictly Ballroom, the best film in history, he managed to find himself doing a lot of rubbish. None of the characters in this film is very unlikable, or even hateable, but Mercurio's lead is the sort of person you prefer to ignore - completely unloveable and he wears OVERALLS. Big mistake in costume design, that one.
If this series supposed to be an improvement over Batman - The Animated Series, I, for one, think it failed terribly. The character drawing is lousy... (Catwoman, for instance, looks awful...) But what really annoyed me is that it made Batman look like a sort of wimp who just can't take care of himself in a battle, without the help of two, even three sidekicks. I mean, he's Batman, for God's sake! I know the comic books, I know that Nightwing and Batgirl are supposed to be Batman's allies, besides Robin, but still... making Batman say that he needs help from them... What, he can't handle a few punches? In BTAS, he could face a dozen adversaries without any problem... He's getting old? Come on...<br /><br />And another thing: I really don't think that Batman would allow a kid like Tim Drake to go into battle that soon, without years of hard training. One, it's irresponsible (and Batman is everything, but irresponsible), and two, it's not what happened in the comics, if we are to remain faithful to them.<br /><br />Batman - The Animated Series made history, with its animation, its stories and its characters... That really was a legend of Batman. The New Adventures series turned the legend into just another Batman flick.
First of all I must admit Batman: The animated series is the best batman series by far. We watched it when it used to be on TV. I didn't realize that there was a season four. Actually there wasn't. BTAS ends with season 3, and it should have stopped there.<br /><br />Why did they have to mess with a good thing. Catwoman and Poison ivy now have terrible grey faces. The Joker looks beyond scary, it seems that each time they revise his appearance he looks more and more creepier. He doesn't seem to have pupils anymore, and now he doesn't even look remotely human (although he is).<br /><br />Bruce Wayne is voiced by Kevin Conroy who does the best batman. Although he now looks like superman. There is nothing that sets him apart because they both look the same, Bruce Wayne now has blue eyes.<br /><br />Night Wing really needs a haircut, please! Alfred just has pupils from eyes, looks more like a character from the 80's.<br /><br />I have watched three episodes from Disc 1 in the series and I already find that this version is more violent and graphic (there is blood in every episode).<br /><br />If you are a fan of Batman: The animated series, there is no batman season 4. They just included this series as season 4 for marketability. If they just released it as The New batman adventures I don't think as many people would have bought it.<br /><br />Save yourself the disappointment and stick to seasons 1-3.
On the 26th of September 1983 a short dumpy 60 year old woman stood trial for the attempted murder of Leonie Haddad, a lady whose husband had recently died and had agreed to take in a lodger who came via a housing authority for the elderly. Haddad was not made aware that her new lodger had, in fact, come fresh from The Patton State Mental Hospital where she had been incarcerated for an inexplicable knife attack on a married couple three years previously. Haddad soon realised that something was 'rotten in Denmark' when the woman began to lock herself in the bathroom with a tape recorder reciting prophesies about' seven Gods'. Haddad's fears were confirmed one night when she awoke to find her lodger sitting astride her chest holding a bread knife announcing that "God has inspired me to kill you". Haddad managed to knock her assailant out with a telephone but not before she had lost a finger and suffered deep lacerations to her face and chest. It was a miracle she survived. The lodger was judged to be innocent by reason of insanity but sent, kicking and screaming, back to the laughing academy. Ten years later she was released and found that she was now a celebrity; but not for the brutal attacks on her innocent victims, but for her incarnation of 25 years earlier when she was known as the 'Queen of the Curve's, the 'Tennessee Tease' and 'Miss Pin Up Girl of the World' - the Notorious Bettie Page. <br /><br />Director Mary Harron, mainly known for 'American Psycho' takes us back to the glory days of a legendary cheesecake and bondage model (played solidly enough by Gretchen Mol) who inadvertently wrote the blue print for fetish iconography and whose influence can be detected in everything from comic books to catwalks. T.N.B.P is day-glo fun ride through an evocative depiction of the 1950's where Page, with the familial help of good intentioned boyfriends and photographers, becomes the number one star of pocket sized men's glossies with titles like Wink, Tab and Parade. Her real dream of movie stardom evades her and a brush with the authorities over obscenity charges in 1957 is the inciting incident which leads her to retire from modelling and give herself to God. The overall style of the film is light and frothy and only darkens momentarily with an allusion to her father's incestuous attentions and a sexual assault which inexplicably appears to have no discernible effect on her. Mol plays Page as she seems in her photographs, happy, carefree and fun - even the bondage shots betray little more than a good humoured incomprehensibility. The film ends on the upbeat with Page cheerfully handing out bibles in a park with no indication of the real life unhappy marriages, personal tragedy and decent into murderous insanity which lay before her; avoiding what I think is the essential core of Page's story - rebirth and resurrection. <br /><br />Having emerged from a decade of incarceration Page found that her cult had been in the ascendance since the mid 1980's and that she had become a huge underground icon, during which, many were asking "whatever happened to Bettie Page". Her 'mysterious' disappearance fed the fires of any number of conspiracy theories only adding to the allure of her legend. When the world's media finally caught up with her she gave no hint of her darker past and she was soon giving interviews for magazines, T.V and being photographed at Playboy parties with the likes of Pamela Anderson and the equally tragic Anna Nicole Smith. She found that she was now more famous than she ever was in her 'glory years' but in the glare of this 'resurrection' it was only a matter of time before the full story would come to light. <br /><br />The only notorious thing about The Notorious Bettie Page is they left out the part when she became truly notorious.
The ultimate goal of Big Brother, that we know what to think before we think it, has been realized. Is it some kind of miracle, or sinister joke, that people don mental straight jackets of their own volition, twist themselves into contorted shapes, and grin like apes? Movies, art, no longer risk the unknown, but are forgone conclusions, drained of life.<br /><br />"The Notorious Bettie Page" is a bland case history, fit for a freshman college feminism course. Its lesson is schematic, right-angled and linear: "See how women are objectified, exploited, abused, then tossed on the trash heap, by a male-dominated society."<br /><br />Bettie Page, supposedly, was the "pin-up queen of the 1950's," the ass millions of men ejaculated to. (All reviewers repeat that phrase, "pin-up queen of the 1950's," like a choir of monkeys.) Her history as an American sex bomb is familiar: Southern, abused by her father, raped, etc. In this movie she is a naïf, an innocent unaware of the prurient interests she serves and shamelessly profits from. Although she believes in Jesus, she enjoys frolicking nude before a camera lens -- just the wholesome girl-next-door sex-slave American males supposedly fantasize.<br /><br />From the mouth of writer-director Mary Harron herself, Oxford-educated AND ex-punker (do you smell the combined rot of privilege and "hipness" as I do?): "I feel that without feminism, I wouldn't be doing this. ... I don't make feminist films in the sense that I don't make anything ideological. But I do find that women get my films better." What a cozy clique.<br /><br />The movie merely goes through the motions of telling the story of a human life, it's subject and purpose having been eulogized and interred well before the movie began. Ms. Page has a boyfriend, but we are shown next to nothing about their relationship. In fact, there are no intimate or detailed relationships in the film. <br /><br />One can't ignore its smug simplicity. In New York, where Ms. Page tries her best to fit into and appease a man's world, letting herself be tied up in the ropes of bondage and tightly laced into the black leather boots and bodices of S & M, the movie is black and white. But down in Miami, where she goes to get away from it all, gleefully takes off her clothes, and is photographed by a "liberated" female, the movie turns into color.<br /><br />Like hell Harron doesn't "make feminist films," doesn't "make anything ideological." Ideology has become so internalized, so assumed, so programmed, that it's almost invisible. Big Brother must be smiling.
Sadly, Marry Harron decided to do a fictional account of Bettie Page's life to go along with her own issues with men. As typical in all her work, every major male character is portrayed as weak, bumbling, or twisted. To add to her fiction, she projects ideas and issues that are not true, according to Bettie Page herself. Bettie did not leave the biz because she thought it was morally wrong or had religious issues (though she became a born-again later in life, through the influence of her 3rd husband- a minister). She left it, because she was in her late 30's, her acting career had gone nowhere and she felt she was losing her looks. The hints of molestation and rape are unvalidated and denied in Bettie's own words and are the director's attempts to claim that any woman who did what Bettie did must have been victimized by men. Harron fails to point out that Bettie designed her own clothes in almost all her shoots (not handed to her by "sick" fetishists). Harron also fails to make a point that Bunny Yeager, who did many famous photo shoots of Bettie, also did many "naughty" shoots with Bettie and was not the morally upright professional photographer portrayed in the film.<br /><br />The only saving grace is Gretchen Mol looks very much like Bettie. Otherwise, there are other movies and documentaries more accurate and honest to her life and the people in it.
Who is Bettie Page? I certainly didn't find out while watching this movie. From what I have gathered from other sources, Ms. Page was highly in demand in the post-world war II period as the queen of "naughty" pictures and that is exactly what this film depicts. I never did get to know Bettie, the woman, though. Her childhood in Tennessee was a combination of an Evangelical Christian upbringing and a sordid home life which is only hinted at. The film glosses over her personal life and gets right down to the purpose of the film, the "naughty" pictures. Characters are introduced and abandoned within a few frames but there is frame after frame of Bettie in her pointy bras, Bettie in her girdle and stockings, Bettie in bondage...etc. The movie slides from black and white to color every time Ms. Page visits Miami Beach. Then back to her shades of gray life in New York we go. Gretchen Mol portrays Bettie as one of the most dimwitted young ladies you could ever meet. When Bettie confides to a friend that she missed being her High School valedictorian by getting an A- rather than an A one can only assume that there were only two students in her Senior class. The most interesting part of this movie is how quaint Ms. Page's "naughty" photos seem in 2007. It is truly sad that seeing a woman trussed up like a pig on a spit wouldn't even get a hit on My Space or You Tube. I'm not sure if this movie was written poorly or if some crazed editor cut the thing to shreds. I would only recommend it as a source for persons studying the history of odd undergarments.
I have only seen Gretchen Mol in two other films (Girl 6, Donnie Brasco), and don't really remember her, but she did a great job as a naive girl who posed for pictures because it made people happy.<br /><br />She really didn't think what she was doing was wrong, even when she left the business and found her religion again.<br /><br />The photos she made were certainly tame by today's standards, and it is funny seeing men with cameras get all excited, and politicians pontificating on the evils of pornography. David Strathairn (Good Night, and Good Luck) played a super part here.<br /><br />Mary Harron (American Psycho) wrote and directed an outstanding biopic of the most famous pinup girl ever.
When setting out this film, director Mary Harron seemingly had the goal of clearly documenting the progress of Bettie Page's career, from early modelling days to leaving modelling to go back home after the Senate Hearings on Juvenile Delinquency and her religious rediscovery in the 50s, and so intent is she to get all of these facts on screen in the time allowed she seems to have missed out on taking any time to explain anything in depth.<br /><br />When you think of someone who had Page's career you'd think that there would be plenty to discuss, her reasons, decisions, life event, personal traumas, but Harron avoids any kind of personal exploration of the character. In the first fifteen minutes or so of the film there are brief hints of child abuse, domestic violence and a gang rape, but these are all rushed past and then never referred to again. You get the impression that Harron and Guinevere Turner (co-writer) wanted to gloss over anything that wasn't glamorous and flattering. You go into this film expecting to gain an insight into who the person behind the posters was, but all you are given is a list of things that she did and recreations of some of her most famous photo shoots.<br /><br />All in all the film really frustrates you as you watch, desperately waiting for some extra layer to reveal itself. How did she balance her religion with her job? What made this young Tennessee girl move from modelling into bondage photography. The film simply shows her going to another modelling agency and putting on whatever she's told, but surely it would have involved some shock and deliberation, this was after all the 50s.<br /><br />It seems to me that Harron is trying to make a point about how tame all this is by today's standards (Page never took any photos of explicit sexual actions) and how the reaction some gave this kind of thing was really overzealous And although this is true, she never actually makes it seem sordid in the eyes of others. Today we look at a young girl posing topless and think nothing off it, but we should have got some sort of feeling about how shocking it would have been to a contemporary audience. This woman was a central part of a Senate hearing on Juvenile Delinquency, but no one is ever really shown as shocked.<br /><br />Basically I left this film just thinking how tame it was. Harron and Turner have managed to avoid anything that might be unpleasant to a viewer. They come across as two lifelong fans of Miss Page and are desperate to make sure that nothing, absolutely nothing, could possibly put a bad light on their heroine, and have therefore avoided any in depth probing into who she really was. (Before and after her career there are reports of her violent nature and mental problems) And all that's left is the string of events that made up her career, without any substance whatsoever behind it.
Well that's 90 minutes of my life I won't get back. This movie makes teen tv show "California Dreams" look like "Almost Famous". The acting was horrid and storyline unrealistic. Don't even get me started on the actual band at the forefront of this story, lame songs, look etc.. You had to believe that they were one of the hottest bands in the country, and there isn't enough irony in the world to accept that one. The guitarist is seen to be a heroin user, not that I blame him, if I was around such a putrid band with stale songs and wooden acting I'd be injecting the horse too.<br /><br />If you take music remotely seriously, avoid this at all costs.
Now, I won't deny that when I purchased this off eBay, I had high expectations. This was an incredible out-of-print work from the master of comedy that I so enjoy. However, I was soon to be disappointed. Apologies to those who enjoyed it, but I just found the Compleat Al to be very difficult to watch. I got a few smiles, sure, but the majority of the funny came from the music videos (which I've got on DVD) and the rest was basically filler. You could tell that this was not Al's greatest video achievement (that honor goes to UHF). Honestly, I doubt if this will ever make the jump to DVD, so if you're an ultra-hardcore Al fan and just HAVE to own everything, buy the tape off eBay. Just don't pay too much for it.
And the Oscar for the most under-rated classic horror actor goes to - Dwight Frye. Seriously his name should be stated with the same awe as Karloff, Lugosi, and Price, and this movie proves it. His character Herman was one of the 2 reasons I can give to watch this movie. Dwight gave this somewhat more than slightly disturbed misfit a lovable yet creepy demeanor that led you hoping for a larger role the entire movie.<br /><br />The other reason is the comic relief of M. Eburne. Being in the medical profession myself I have to give kudos to the expert performance of a self-pity prone hypochondriac. Though other "medical mistakes" did give a brief chuckle especially when the good doctor samples his fellow physicians medication... "Well continue giving it to her" Unfortunately these 2 outstanding performances could not keep me awake through 3 attempts of sitting through this unbearably slow movie. The plot is predictable with only few minor twists. The filming while pulling off a legitimate spooky atmosphere was more productive at making me yawn - yes you can use too much shadow.<br /><br />My recommendation - watch this once to see Frye and Eburne - but only when wide awake and with lots of caffeine.
"When a small Bavarian village is beset with a string of mysterious deaths, the local (magistrate) demands answers into (sic) the attacks. While the police detective refuses to believe the nonsense about vampires returning to the village, the local doctor treating the victims begins to suspect the truth about the crimes," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />An inappropriately titled, dramatically unsatisfying, vampire mystery.<br /><br />Curiously, the film's second tier easily out-perform the film's lackluster stars: stoic Lionel Atwill (as Otto von Niemann), skeptical Melvyn Douglas (as Karl Brettschneider), and pretty Fay Wray (as Ruth Bertin). The much more enjoyable supporting cast includes bat-crazy Dwight Frye (as Herman), hypochondriac Maude Eburne (as Aunt Gussie Schnappmann), and suspicious George E. Stone (as Kringen). Mr. Frye, Ms. Eburne, and Mr. Stone outperform admirably. Is there another movie ending with a mad rush to the bathroom? <br /><br />Magnesium sulfate… Epsom salts… it's a laxative! <br /><br />**** The Vampire Bat (1933) Frank Strayer ~ Dwight Frye, Melvyn Douglas, Maude Eburne
Think "stage play". This is worth seeing once for the performances of Lionel Atwill and Dwight Frye. COmpare the Melvyn DOuglas in "Ghost Story" with the Melvyn DOuglas of this film. Are there vampires at loose in this 'Bavarian' village, or is there a more natural, albeit equally sinister, explanation? Dwight Frye is Herman, a red herring, who is cast as an especially moronic character. It's fun to look at his different facial expressions in what is really a stock character. NOt much happens for a long time, but then we discover that Atwill's pipe smoking doctor is the real murderer. There is too much 'comic relief' but that is par for the course for this era. Fay Wray looks really good.
It's the nature of businesses to try to capitalize on others' success. Here we have a movie taking elements from the earlier 'Dracula' (1931) and 'Frankenstein' (1931) -- in a Germanic town the village leaders believe that vampires (in the shape of bats) have been the cause of recent deaths of bloodless victims. Even though shot at Universal (and at the Bronson caves!) it's a Poverty Row feature; it's not fair to compare it with those earlier, more expensively made and superior films.<br /><br />From the familiar and exciting, chilling music of the main titles (which must have been by Mischa Bakalienikoff), through the talky but well done opening sequence, we anticipate the arrival of Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray and Dwight Frye to give us a good 30s mystery film. Unfortunately, it doesn't happen. That's the disappointment.<br /><br />We get little more than the formulaic elements of such films but with slow pacing, low budget, not enough of Dwight Frye, the overdone presence of Maude Eburne (Aunt Gussie), and the premise for Lionel Atwill (Dr. von Niemann) to require human blood or how he exhibits mind control over his servant Emil (Robert Frazier) never made very clear.<br /><br />Do not watch the technicolor 'Dr. X' (1932) -- which also stars Lionel Atwill and Fay Wray but as father and daughter -- before watching this the way I did; it's an Oscar winner by comparison. So watch this one first. Structurally, 'The Vampire Bat' still isn't that good. It plods along with too much talking or unnecessary comic relief, without focusing strongly on the vampiric villainy.<br /><br />Besides 'Dr. X' and 'Mystery of the Wax Museum' (both 1932 and co starring Fay Wray), Lionel Atwill's most famous appearances are as the one armed gendarme in 'Son of Frankenstein' (1939) and as Moriarity in 'Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon' (1943). Dwight Frye steals all his manic scenes in 'Dracula' (1931). As the 'young lovers,' Melvin Douglas and Fay Wray have a nice kissing scene, but that's about it. He can be seen in 'The Old Dark House' (1932), and Fay gets dragged around by Joel McCrea in 'The Most Dangerous Game' (1930). Then there's her 1933 classic 'screamer.' Too bad more time, money and rewrites weren't available for this film to better showcase the talents and chemistry of Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray and Dwight Frye. Sadly, then, this drearily disappointing film only gets a 4.
Boy what a dud this mess was.But it only lasts an hour and I only paid a buck for it so I'll live....unlike the entire cast of this 1933 clunker who are all dust by now.<br /><br />So anyway a small village starts having bodies turning up that have been drained of all their blood.The local yokels start talking about vampires ,of course,and a little more loudly after each body is found.The town sheriff or constable or whatever he is,played by awesome actor Melvyn Douglas,tries to tell them otherwise.When he mentions the fact that the dead have one large hole on each side of the neck,instead of two holes close together, the locals simply then say it's a giant vampire bat.The constable insists that vampires do not exist and it must be a human culprit doing the killings.<br /><br />But Melvyn doesn't seem too bothered either way.He spends most of his time trying to get into the pantaloons of his sweetie,played by Faye Wray.Also in this mix is the town simpleton,played by Dwight Frye,who always seemed to have played the same role in every movie he did.He further freaks out the townspeople by catching bats and drinking his own blood.Lionel Atwill plays the town doctor who seemingly is trying to help the constable solve the crimes.And boy does he ever stink as an actor.Atwill is as close to cardboard in this role as he could get.And Lionel Barrymore is also in this thing....lots of big names to be such a pile of guano.<br /><br />Other than the terrible mis-title this movie has,the alternate name,"The Blood Sucker" is much better,this movie is also dull and plodding and just silly.<br /><br />For me the high point of the movie is watching Frye,he nails the freaky town weirdo but other than him this movie didn't offer much.And then when you find out the reason for the strange deaths and see the special effect thing that required all this blood you'll really be let down.<br /><br />Bela Lugosi did a lot of awful pictures but at least he was fun and interesting to watch.Think of this movie as a really bad Lugosi clunker WITHOUT Lugosi and you'll get a feel for how miserably bad this mess was.<br /><br />If you can't make a good 1930's horror film at least put Lugosi in it.
The Vampire Bat is set in the small German village of Klineschloss where Gustave Schoen (Lionel Belmore) the Burgermeister is holding a meeting with Inspector Karl Brettschneider (Melvyn Douglas) from the local constabulary about all the recent murders, six victims have been discovered in as many weeks all drained of blood & bearing the same two puncture wounds on their necks. Brettschneider doesn't have a single clue but the superstitious elders of the village believe the deaths to be the work of a Vampire. Brettschneider isn't convinced but the scared villagers keep telling tales of seeing a large Bat, meanwhile the latest victim Martha Mueller (Rita Carlyle) has been found. Brettschneider comes under increasing pressure to solve the murders but can he really believe that a giant Vampire Bat is responsible & if it is how's he going to stop it?<br /><br />Directed by Frank R. Strayer The Vampire Bat was a cheapie from Majestic Pictures to cash in on the success of it's two stars Atwill & Wray & their success in the previous years Doctor X (1932) & is more of a murder mystery rather than a horror as the exploitative & enticing title may have lead you to believe & quite frankly it's rather dull. The script by Edward T. Lowe Jr. takes itself rather seriously & sets up the basic story that something is killing local villagers & that something could possibly be a Vampire, then for most of it's duration the film focuses on Brettschneider & his incompetent investigations which are, not to put too fine a point on it, boring. The Vampire Bat also has a bit of an identity crisis as it doesn't quite know what it wants to be, the title would suggest a horror film while the majority of it could easily be described as a thriller with the final few minutes descending into silly sci-fi. There is no Vampire Bat, the attempts to fool you are pathetic, all the character's are broad stereotypes & you can tell the villain of the piece straight away & as a whole there is nothing particularly exciting or entertaining about The Vampire Bat. I know it's old but that's not an excuse as cinema has moved on a lot since 1933 & a bland, flat, dull, boring & misleading film such as The Vampire Bat just doesn't cut it these days, just look at the original King Kong (1933) released the same year & how brilliantly that still holds up today. I didn't like it & I doubt many modern film-goers would either, it's as simple & straight forward as that.<br /><br />Director Strayer doesn't do anything special but this is a case in point where I can cut the film some slack because of it's age, as a whole it's pretty much point, shoot & hope for the best stuff. There isn't much in the way of atmosphere or scares although some of the sets which were already existing ones taken from The Old Dark House (1932) & Universal's European set on their back-lot are nice & add a certain ambiance to things.<br /><br />Technically The Vampire Bat can't compare to anything even remotely modern, for the age of it it's alright I suppose but again I draw your attention back to the original King Kong. Speaking of King Kong it's star Fay Wray has a role in this as does horror icon Lionel Atwill, I'll be kind & say the acting is OK.<br /><br />The Vampire Bat will I imagine fool a lot of people into thinking that it's a horror film about Vampire Bats when in fact it isn't, personally I thought the whole thing was a bit of a bore. It's short & it tells it's story reasonably enough but I must admit I'm not a fan.
'The Vampire Bat' is definitely of interest, being one of the early genre-setting horror films of the 1930's, but taken in isolation everything is a bit too creaky for any genuine praise.<br /><br />The film is set in a European village sometime in the 19th Century, where a series of murders are being attributed to vampirism by the suspicious locals. There is a very similar feel to James Whale's 'Frankenstein' and this is compounded by the introduction of Lionel Atwill's Dr Niemann character, complete with his misguided ideas for scientific advancement.<br /><br />The vampire theme is arbitrary and only used as a red-herring by having suspicion fall on bat-loving village simpleton Herman (Dwight Frye), thus providing the excuse for a torch-wielding mob to go on the rampage - as if they needed one.<br /><br />This is one of a trio of early horror films in which Lional Atwill and Fay Wray co-starred (also 'Doctor X' and 'The Mystery of the Wax Museum') and like their other collaborations the film suffers from ill-advised comic relief and a tendency to stray from horror to mainstream thriller elements. Taken in context though, 'The Vampire Bat' is still weak and derivative.<br /><br />All we are left with is a poor-quality Frankenstein imitation, with the vampire elements purely a device to hoodwink Dracula fans. But for the title the film would struggle to even be considered as a horror and it is worth noting that director Frank Strayer was doing the 'Blondie' films a few years later.
CLASS OF '61 <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.33:1<br /><br />Sound format: Stereo<br /><br />In 1861, class members from the West Point Academy are torn apart by the outbreak of the Civil War.<br /><br />Gregory Hoblit's OK historical drama makes an obvious point - virtuous men are rendered blind by conflict - though the production seems a little stilted, despite authentic period detail and a cast of talented newcomers (Clive Owen, Christien Anholt, Josh Lucas, Andre Braugher, Laura Linney, etc.), toplined by Dan Futterman as a conscientious Southerner who takes up arms in defence of slavery, pitting him in direct conflict with his former Northern friends. The movie's emphasis on such a misguided - though sympathetic - character is particularly brave, but the drama is otherwise flat and superficial, and Hoblit's direction is efficient rather than inspired.
A remake of Alejandro Amenabar's Abre los Ojos, but this time with a living, breathing mask as a lead. For the dubious advantage of an English sound track, we endure Tom Cruise's soulless performance, as usual, with zero depth. Yes, the character is identified with his persona, but we usually are given some character underneath that to hold our interest. His empty posturing negates any erotic energy that could have been between his character and Cruz or Diaz.<br /><br />There is an acting exercise that involves using masks to free the actor to enrich his presentation of character by verbal and body language means. Cruise's masking only painfully emphasizes his inadequacy as an actor. Do see the 1997 original Amenabar Open Your Eyes!
Well, I hate hollywood, but love cinema so i have to watch these cruddy movies in theaters. And, I was hoping Vanilla Sky would be good. i was hoping that they would either keep the original "Open Your Eyes" exactly the same, or they would make it their own. Well, it happened to be a little bit of both, and it sucked.<br /><br />It started out good. I love Radiohead. I wish there was more of that. But by the end we are listening to Good Vibrations by The Beach Boys. Talk about a wide range of suck between. They had one or two good songs in the club and maybe a couple others, but why oh why did they have to blare GV during the climax. It was more annoying than confusing or blatant. Especially when it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PLOT. At least put some meaning behind the songs. Kid A = primary. Whatever.<br /><br />He also did a bang up job with the club scene. That was cool. Otherwise the movie was one big ball of arrogance. As if audiences would get the movie. The ones that would get it read subtitles, and the rest won't. Its as simple as that. The motivations got all screwed up. I didn't comprehend the Diaz motivations (hadn't they done the Chicken Soup night before?) and some of the others. And I hate Kurt Russell. Stay overboard. Tom Cruise can't act (especially in these types of movie [i.e. Eyes Wide Shut]). And the elevator. I get it. Anyways they tried improving the original with a crappy american rock soundtrack and crappy angles and good film print and glossy processing and it would have helped if crowe hadn't screwed it up.<br /><br />2/10 Major disappointment.
This wasn't the major disaster that I was expecting, but that is about as positive as I can be in my description of the movie. I'm not sure what was meant to be funny about this movie, but I suppose it's all a matter of taste. Personally, I don't find it funny to watch morons living their idiotic lives or making fools of themselves on television, but then again, I'm not a fan of Jerry Springer's pathetic daytime talk show. I didn't get too bored watching this, but I was definitely never enjoying it, either. If you're in the mood to see a bad movie, but one that isn't too painful to sit through, this is a good choice.
I'm not a regular viewer of Springer's, but I do watch his show in glimpses and I think the show is a fine guilty pleasure and a good way to kill some time. So naturally, I'm going to watch this movie expecting to see "Jerry Springer Uncensored." First of all, Jerry appears in approximately twenty minutes of the film's running time. The other hour and twenty minutes is spent building up this pseudo-farce about trailer-trash, jealousy, incest and deception. Jaime Pressley (who looks hot as HELLLL) is a trailer-trash slut who sleeps with her stepfather (a very unusual-looking, chain-smoking, drunken Michael Dudikoff who finally strays from his action hero persona). The mom finds out about the affair, they get into a fight, they want to take it to the "Jerry" show (that's right, no Springer). And then we have a parallel story with an African-American couple. They take it to the "Jerry" show. The characters collide. Blah, blah, freakin' blah! Trash has rarely been this BORRRINGG!!!! I was wondering why the hell Springer has millions of fans, yet none of them checked out his movie. Well, now it's TOTALLY obvious!! Whether you love him or hate him, you will hate this movie! How can I explain? It's a total mess of a motion picture (if that's what you call it). It's so badly edited, with scenes that just don't connect, and after a period of time the plot virtually disappears and it's simply all over the map! Just imagine a predictable soap opera transformed into a comic farce. With seldom laughs. <br /><br />My only positive note is a hot girl-girl scene. That's as risque as it gets. Don't get me wrong, the scene's pretty risque, but if you look at the overall film comparing it to the material on Springer's program--this disastrous farce seems extremely sanitized.<br /><br />My score: 3 (out of 10)
Somebody could probably make a great documentary about the Jerry Springer Show, but this fictionalized version merely succeeds in draining anything authentic and interesting out of the trash-TV phenomenon. There are dozens of famously bad movies (e.g. "Manos: The Hands of Fate") that show more creativity and spirit than this dreary, witless waste of film.<br /><br />Seriously, why not a documentary about the Jerry Springer Show, that would begin to answer some of the real questions like: Who are these people? What happens to their lives after they appear on this show? How did the mayor of Cincinatti find himself here?<br /><br />One good line: During an "orientation" session for guests: "People, I can't emphasize this enough: NO WEAPONS!"
The only thing that kept me from vomiting after seeing this movie was the fact that these are just actors and not the freak show that usually appears on the TV show. This is also the main reason that fans of the TV show won't like the movie, but not the only reason. This movie has about as much entertainment value as getting a root canal. It approaches the abyssmal depths of bad movie making, and then gets even worse. I won't waste your time describing this movie in further detail; suffice it to say that I pity the poor camera people who had to suffer through watching this c**p the first time.
Lets make a movie about a talk show that already exists and basically have everything that happens on the show! Well if that idea doesn't intrigue you, which it shouldn't, stay away from ringmaster. I had the displeasure of seeing this in the theater and actually being able to sit through this mess of a movie. I guess jerry springer doesn't play himself as it shows from the cheap props for his show (yes it looks even cheaper than the real jerry springer show) and he is only known as jerry in the film. The plot (if you can call it that) is about a daughter while living with her mother decides to start sleeping with the mother's live in boyfriend. So the mother's brilliant idea is to call the jerry springer show as well as getting it on with her daughter's boyfriend. (Is it any coincidence they live in a trailer park). Meanwhile somewhere else in america a woman finds her cheatin' man with her friend in bed together. So of course call america's therapist Jerry springer! I'd talk about the rest of the film but even thinking about the film now is giving me a headache. Jamie Pressly who plays the daughter looks totally unattractive in the movie. And remember Michael Dudikoff the kick ass karate master from the american ninja series? Well take a look at him now as a white trash drunk. The thing is he really looks too horrible and out of shape to call it "getting in touch with his charecter". But if your idea of fun is seeing Jerry Springer sing a country song about his own show or guys hooking up with transvestites...well...JUST WATCH THE SHOW INSTEAD! ... at least steve was smart enough to stay out of this flick.
Meaning: if this movie got pitched, scripted, made, released, promoted as something halfway respectable given the constraints (yeah, I know, Springer, sex, violence), where is He?<br /><br />Reminded me of porn movies I saw in college, plot and dialogue wise.... shoulda just done something for the scurrilous porno market, showed penetration and be done with it-- would have made more money, the ultimate point of this exercise....
Please avoid this movie at all costs. This is without a doubt, the worst movie I've ever seen. Most movies have at least one redeeming value. This has none. Totally horrible!
Ringmaster, Jerry Springer's pathetic excuse for wasting film that should be recycled as toilet paper recently destroyed my confidence in the art of film. First of all, it was made. Second of all, people went to see it. Third, some people voted it the best movie they have ever seen. If a monkey could make a movie, i'm 100 percent sure that it would be 1 billion times as good. Most crappy movies have their moments, (even Godzilla had a few cool special effects) this film's moment was when I left the theater nauseated. The only thing that possibly could've made this movie any worse would be if Jerry Springer was the star. If I want to stare at crap for an hour and a half, i'll take a dump in a can. If anyone didn't utterly despise this movie, I pity you, and your children, and your children's children's children; however, contrary to Springer's beliefs, I clearly don't condone children having sex.
I love watching Jerry as much as the rest of the world, but this poor excuse for a soft-core porno flick is needlessly offensive, lacks anything resembling wit, and serves merely as a vehicle of self-promotion for Springer. Even though it runs a quick 90 minutes, the film drags hideously, and I should have had the common sense to walk out. Simply atrocious.
To preface this review, I must say that I was, I suppose, a little curious about this movie.. However, I probably would not have seen it had I not had my arm slightly twisted.<br /><br />In my opinion, this movie shows just how depraved man can be. In my eyes, the worst thing about this whole Springer phenomenon is not that type of people on the "Jerry Springer Show" act as they do (which in itself is eminently reproachable), but that many people are so curious and excited to watch them and hear about their lives (yes, I suppose that includes me.. to whatever extent it is true). If not glorifying that kind of behavior (as some might say) at the very least we may be subtly corrupting our minds and/or desenstizing ourselves to this type of behavior.<br /><br />But enough soapbox (sort of). Here's the skinny: the movie has an R rating, and while it may deserve only that (I did look away at some scenes, so I'm not completely sure), I feel that an NC-17 (tip of the hat to the other reviewer) might be a little more appropriate for the immense sexual content (a cynic might comment that the movie was just one big excuse to show sex on the big screen). The plot is very bizarre, tying together the stories of an absolutely dysfunctional family and a group of stereotypical blacks upset who will appear on different Springer shows. At the end, the movie leaves one with some resolvement- and Springer rhetoric about the need for us to see the real world (evidently as seen through his show). I agree with him there- it is important to know how the world really is so that we can seek to effect positive change. Having said that, let me just tell you- the world's pretty bad- glance in a newpaper or the news to see that, but let's not shell out good money to support the kind of sensationalistic and perhaps formulaic titallition that Springer seeks to give us.
Ok, let me say that I didn't expect a film starring Jerry Springer to be cinematic gold, all I asked for was it to be cinematic...and it wasn't even that. It looked like someone's bad home movies. Poorly acted, scripted, and filled to the brim with nudity of the most unnattractive people I've ever seen.<br /><br />The film's "plot" focuses on a low-class family who decide to go on the "Jerry Farrelly Show" to discuss multiple affairs between a mother, daughter, stepfather and the daughter's fiancee. From there, the movie fizzles and develops into a unique experience: white-trash pornography. There's redneck sex, interacial sex, even sex between Jerry and his wife? (Yuk!) This film encouraged me to want to run out of the theater and get a second circumcision. At least it was mercifully short. Disgusting and degrading. African-Americans and working class America should be offended. (Howard Stern should be pleased however, he didn't squander his attempt for film stardom. His was smart, funny and entertaining)<br /><br />MY GRADE: F+ (the daughter was hot)
I can't quite say that "Jerry Springer:Ringmaster" is the worst film I have ever seen. The film would be better off if it were, because at least the worst film I've ever seen, (Prom Night II) interested me enough for me to hate it. My only reaction after leaving the theatre happened when I looked up at the clock and discovered that only 90 minutes had passed. It had seemed much more like years. It is an endless repetition of poor people, (or what Jerry Springer seems to believe poor people are), screwing each other, hitting each other, insulting each other, and then repeating the process with the same attention to duty the rest of us use when shampooing. The plot, which covers how a group of stupid people mangle their lives badly enough to provide grist for the Jerry Springer mill, advances solely because of the idiocy of the characters. This makes it impossible to care what happens to them. It never mattered to me whether they got on the show, or what they said, or who slept with whom. Maybe I'm not supposed to care about them. Maybe I'm supposed to look at them as some kind of comic type-- to see their outrageous behavior as inherently funny. Too bad it isn't. The humor is not outrageous. It's innocuous. It's predictable. Humor has to have something behind it, some kind of painful irony or life experience, in order to function. Scatology is not wit. An example. A mother catches her daughter and her husband in bed. To take revenge she marches across the trailer park and gives oral sex to her daughter's boyfriend. Since I was over the shock of Jerry Springer's show a long time ago, I had the same reaction I had to Andrew Dice Clay's obscene nursery rhymes; not laughter, just yawning. Lastly, I found Springer's pose as a populist tiresome and unconvincing. If he really were an advocate of the poor, he would bring on a single mom from Bed-Sty to talk about trying to raise her kids in New York City on $12,000 a year. Or, failing that, he would at least give the participants of his shows a cut of his profits. Jerry Springer gets millions for his shows, his movie, his book and videos. His guests just get round trip air fare, hotel accommodations, and a chance to humiliate themselves. If he liked poor people so much, he'd give them at least some of the money they earn for him. It appears that Springer wanted to make this movie to grab some legitimacy for himself. Jeez, with all his fine work, you'd think he'd have earned our respect already. Anyway, the film is weak and boring. It doesn't even succeed at being offensive. If you want to have a better evening, videotape a bug zapper for a night and then watch that.
THE RINGMASTER stars Jerry Springer as a TV talkshow host called Jerry , but it`s not THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW , his guests are trailer trash , but not the trailer trash you get on THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW, they attack one another , but not like on.....What is the point of making a movie about THE JERRY SPRINGER show and pretending it`s not THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW ? And on top of that this is a very boring film
Oh Dear, Jerry may be the undisputed king of talkshow but the movies are a whole different ball game, and he's way out of his league. The script for this film is so poor it has to be seen to be believed and its sad to see such vaguely familiar actors as Michael Dudikoff (80's action ‘B'movie king), Michael Jai White (Last seen in the Sci Fi flop ‘Spawn') as well as Surviving the Games' William MacNamara (who is involved in the only half funny situation in the whole film!) stoop this low for employment. If you are a fan of Jerry then stick to his TV show as this is a total waste of and hour and a half. After I had finished sitting through this I managed to catch the last half an hour of Rocky 5 on TV, which looked like a cinematic masterpiece in comparison, I think that says more than enough!!!<br /><br />
For the life of me, I cannot get why they would want to make a movie about the "Jerry Springer Show". It's so incrediably trashy. Some ways, sadly it's a guilty pleasure. We all have to admit that we've seen at least one episode. It's part of our pop culture. I saw this on USA recently. It's pretty bad. I will admit that. Jerry does a horrible job of what I think he meant as acting. Or something like it. Jamie Pressley is in it. She's playing herself basically. All she needed was her lover boy, Kid Rock. It would've been perfect then. So, I would recommend skipping "Ringmaster". Just watch the "Jerry Springer Show". It's more enjoyable than this.<br /><br />2/10
You don't need to write a script for this trashed outrage! You just sit back and watch a pair of moonshine women and guests duke each other out before a riotous audience exposure at "The Jerry Show"! Violent and obnoxious, this cash-in on the real Jerry Springer program reveals everything that the over-rated hyped talk show doesn't show to you on the air - - unless you have a collection of uncensored videos made by the producers of "Cops". Even the outside world of Springerland reveals the most amateurish acting of the decade! This goes to show you that THE GONG SHOW MOVIE had a central character in a motion picture turkey. Change the channel! REJECTED<br /><br />
I think that, deep down in the darkest, slimiest part of their heart, everyone likes Jerry Springer just a little bit. While his show is undeniably offensive and stupid, it also gives us a chance to see that, relatively speaking, most of us have it real good. When you look at the trailer park livin', dollar whiskey drinkin', incest lovin' people on the Springer show, it makes even your worst day seem like a walk in the park. Jerry is performing a public service, and we should be grateful. He ditched a political career to host the show, just for us.<br /><br />What we should not be grateful for in any way is the piece of garbage movie "Ringmaster". "Ringmaster" shows what life is like for people who wind up being guests on the show, or so they would like us to think. The movie follows the pre-requisite Springer story line: Love triangles. One triangle involves Connie, her daughter Angel, and her husband Rusty. The other involves Starletta, Vonda, and Demond. When the two hapless groups meet up in LA, their lives intertwine and collide head-on, all culminating in an explosive episode of the Springer show. It's like what "Short Cuts" would be if Robert Altman had had a severe crack habit.<br /><br />"Ringmaster" is true to the show, as it is stupid and offensive from start to finish. It also makes me very glad that I don't live in the squalor it's characters do. But the movie has a problem. It's billed as a comedy, but it just isn't very funny. What laughs there are to be had are few and far between. Maybe some people watch this and laugh non-stop. If you think blow jobs and rape are funny, well then I guess you're one of those folks. Personally, I laughed two or three times and spent the rest of the movie in utter awe of the agonizing horrors of white-trash life.<br /><br />The Jerry Springer Show just isn't meant to make the leap from TV to the silver screen. What's funny in an hour long show (less, when you count commercials) isn't necessarily going to be funny in a ninety minute movie. Movies have to tell a story, and that's something else "Ringmaster" has trouble with. The story is threadbare. There are so many plot holes and continuity errors that any attempt at telling a cohesive narrative is quickly put asunder. And even if there weren't such problems, how much fun can you pull out of a story of stereotypical people in a stereotypical story? Even the Hollywood formula couldn't make this better. "Ringmaster: is so bad, it even screws up the best part of the Springer show: the Final Thought. Somehow, even the smartest and simplest aspect of the show wound up blowing harder than the slutty women the film is built around.<br /><br />The worst offender in all of this is Springer himself. He's such a bad actor that he can't even play himself convincingly. Watching Springer play Springer is sad. It's like he was going for a 'What if Woody Allen played Jerry Springer' vibe, and he failed. Miserably. He went to the trouble of producing this disaster, the least he could do is try to make it just that much better.<br /><br />Not that I'm saying everyone else in this movie put in an award worthy performance. Just the opposite. They all suck. Not so surprisingly, no one in this movie went on to greatness. The best any of them was did was Molly Hagan landing a job on a Nickelodeon sitcom. Apparently, Nickelodeon has no problem with hiring a woman who starred in the most vile film of the '90's to star in a children's program. It makes you wonder what kind of things the other adults on that channel have done in their pasts.<br /><br />Here are my Final Thoughts: What we have here is a group of people with no self respect and a man with money to burn, who have met and put their resources together to produce a film that shows how much they hate themselves and how little they think of the intelligence of their viewing audience. Should we accept people who make movies that treat us like severely brain-damaged lumps of goo? I say no. Somewhere out there, in this crazy, mixed up world, there is a perfect movie for each of us. We just have to keep looking for it. Until next time, take care of yourselves and your loved ones. And don't ever watch "Ringmaster".
I will admit that I have seen maybe five minutes of "Jerry Springer". I don't consider myself a snob, but I really think that I am above watching what's on his show. You should try to elevate yourself above that too.<br /><br />I saw this movie as part of a social studies event I was conducting. I was told that this movie really had little to do with Springer himself, rather it centered on the lives of those who would appear on "Springer." Handled better, this movie might have actually been a fascinating look at how pathetic these people's lives actually are. I will admit, I felt a twinge of empathy for Connie (Molly Hagan). This is all she has in life. How sad that she feels she must go on Jerry's show in order to resolve this.<br /><br />I really feel sorry for Molly Hagan appearing in this. Have you noticed that after this movie, she has mainly been relegated to "B" roles on TV? I will say this about Hagan. She is an extremely beautiful and intelligent woman. I have no doubt that she is very earnest in her acting and she tries to play her roles with a lot of empathy. The problem is that Hagan can't carry a scene on her own. She just doesn't have what it takes to do a lead role. Her best work will always be Angel on "Herman's Head" (a show that was not great, but its heart was in the right place) and when she guested on "Seinfeld" as Sister Roberta.
Was this movie stupid? Yup. Did this movie depth? Nope. Character development? Nope. Plot twists? Nope. This was simply a movie about a highly-fictionalized Springer show. It shows the lengths that some people will go to get their mugs on TV. Molly Hagan did a great job as Jaime Pressly's mom. Jaime is....well...GORGEOUS! This flick wasn't so much made to be a "breakthrough" movie, rather, it was intended to life in a trailer park (I live in a trailer park and ours is nothing like the one in this movie) where everyone sleeps with everyone else, all the girls get pregnant by different guys, and all the guys drive rusted-out '66 Ford pickups (exaggeration, of course, but that's the picture everyone sees when you mention "trailer park"). Some people over-analyze movies (case-in-point: Star Trek freaks). I watch movies purely for the entertainment value; not to point out that the girl is wearing a different shirt in a different scene (read the "Goofs" bit about Connie's shirt. Could it have been better? Sure. But it was funny as hell.
OK, people, honestly... this gotta be one of the worst movies about show biz that's ever been made, but I've been laughing myself silly (which may be why I enjoyed it). Basically, it's all about sex, sex and a way to get your own personal 15 minutes of fame. Did I mention that sex was a major issue in this movie? If you have a thing going for bizzzzare characters and easy entertainment, watch this movie when you get the chance (and don't have something better to do). <br /><br />***Attention spoilers!!!*** The funniest thing on the movie was the guy who asked Jerry whether he could marry his goat (!) on the show and flashing his wallet with his love's pictures. A triple A for bad taste and fun!
To grasp where this 1976 version of A STAR IS BORN is coming from consider this: Its final number is sung by Barbra Streisand in a seven minute and forty second close-up, followed by another two-and-half-minute freeze frame of Ms. Streisand -- striking a Christ-like pose -- behind the closing credits. Over ten uninterrupted minutes of Barbra's distinctive visage dead center, filling the big screen with uncompromising ego. That just might be some sort of cinematic record.<br /><br />Or think about this: The plot of this musical revolves around a love affair between two musical superstars, yet, while Streisand's songs are performed in their entirety -- including the interminable finale -- her costar Kris Kristofferson isn't allowed to complete even one single song he performs. Nor, though she does allow him to contribute a little back up to a couple of her ditties, do they actually sing a duet.<br /><br />Or consider this: Streisand's name appears in the credits at least six times, including taking credit for "musical concepts" and her wardrobe (from her closet) -- and she also allegedly wanted, but failed to get co-directing credit as well. One of her credits was as executive producer, with a producer credit going to her then-boyfriend and former hairdresser, Jon Peters. As such, Streisand controlled the final cut of the film, which explains why it is so obsessed with skewing the film in her direction. What it doesn't explain is how come, given every opportunity to make The Great Diva look good, their efforts only make Streisand look bad. Even though this was one of Streisand's greatest box office hits, it is arguably her worst film and contains her worst performance.<br /><br />Anyway, moving the melodrama from Hollywood to the world of sex-drugs-and-rock'n'roll, Streisand plays Esther Hoffman, a pop singer on the road to stardom, who shares the fast lane for a while with Kristofferson's John Norman Howard, a hard rocker heading for the off ramp to Has-beenville. In the previous incarnations of the story, "Norman Maine" sacrifices his leading man career to help newcomer "Vicky Lester" achieve her success. In the feminist seventies, Streisand & Co. want to make it clear that their heroine owes nothing to a man, so the trajectory is skewed; she'll succeed with or without him and he is pretty much near bottom from scene one; he's a burden she must endure in the name of love. As such, there is an obvious effort to make the leading lady not just tougher, but almost ruthless, while her paramour comes off as a henpecked twit.<br /><br />Kristofferson schleps through the film with a credible indifference to the material; making little attempt to give much of a performance, and oddly it serves his aimless, listless character well. Streisand, on the other hand, exhibits not one moment of honesty in her entire time on screen. Everything she does seems, if not too rehearsed, at least too controlled. Even her apparent ad libs seem awkwardly premeditated and her moments of supposed hysteria coldly mechanical. The two have no chemistry, making the central love affair totally unbelievable. You might presume that his character sees in her a symbol of his fading youth and innocence, though at age 34, Streisand doesn't seem particularly young or naive. The only conceivable attraction he might offer to her is that she can exploit him as a faster route to stardom. And, indeed, had the film had the guts to actually play the material that way, to make Streisand's character openly play an exploitive villain, the film might have had a spark and maybe a reason to exist.<br /><br />But I guess the filmmakers actually see Esther as a sympathetic victim; they don't seem to be aware just how cold-blooded and self absorbed she is. But sensitivity is not one of the film's strong points: note the petty joke of giving Barbra two African American back up singers just so the film can indulge in the lame racism of calling the trio The Oreos. And the film makes a big deal of pointing out that Esther retains her ethnic identity by using her given name of Hoffman, yet the filmmakers have changed the character's name of the previous films from "Esther Blodgett" so that Streisand won't be burdened with a name that is too Jewish or too unattractive. So much for ethnic pride.<br /><br />The backstage back stabbing and backbiting that proceeded the film's release is near legendary, so the fact that the film ended up looking so polished is remarkable. Nominal director Frank Pierson seems to have delivered the raw material for a good movie, with considerable help from ace cinematographer Robert Surtees. And the film did serve its purpose, producing a soundtrack album of decent pop tunes (including the Oscar-winning "Evergreen" by Paul Williams and Streisand). But overall the film turned out to be the one thing Streisand reportedly claimed she didn't want it to be, a vanity project.
So I had heard from a few people that this film had brought them to tears in the theater. As I watched it for the first time I was expecting another romantic, tear-jerking Barbra Streisand film; Something like The Way We Were. I was certainly wrong. The chemistry between the two main characters, Esther Hoffman and her John Howard, was nonexistent, making it impossible to get attached to the characters. There wasn't anything romantic about it. Streisand's character fell for an alcoholic drug addict who couldn't sing a single note without making me want to hit the fast-forward button. At one point her character finds her husband in bed with another woman and she forgives him about five minutes later. There's nothing romantic about a deadbeat rock star and a woman who can't seem to realize it until he actually dies. Parts of the movie seemed to drag on and on, and I kept asking myself when it was going to end.<br /><br />The death of John Howard was completely predictable. There was totally obvious foreshadowing of his reckless behavior early on in the movie, and when he died I felt no emotion whatsoever. It wasn't a tragic accident, it was him basically being an idiot. Not to mention throughout the movie I was distracted by his hideous beard.<br /><br />The only parts of this movie worth seeing are the Streisand songs. The ending of the movie when she sings "With One More Look At You/Watch Closely Now" was my reason for giving this film a whopping 3/10. Those 7 minutes were the only part of the movie I actually felt an emotion other than irritation and anger.
Really an amazing pile of pap! <br /><br />A predictable, slow moving, soul destroying, mind numbing movie to which, slitting your own wrists with a rusty bread knife seems... well, almost necessary.<br /><br />The acting is over done for the thin dialogue, every scene is at least twice as long as it needs to be, the intricate details of how this career is collapsing or that career is rising is just far too dreary and mundane for words. The music would be good if you didn't have to sit through the movie, but really, three good songs is not enough reward for the effort required to watch the movie.<br /><br />Watching this film I prayed to God for narcolepsy or for someone to shoot me.<br /><br />Never, ever, ever again.
Rock star John Norman Howard (Kris Kristofferson) turns lounge singer Esther Hoffman (Barbra Streisand) into an overnight singing star. Esther's star rises while John's goes into decline, thanks to drugs and alcohol. After about two hours, John does the self-destructive-red-converible-160-MPH-crack-up-on-a-desert-highway thing. The best thing about this movie is the music, especially the song, "Evergreen." Barbra Streisand sings well, but you can't take her seriously as an up-and-coming star, when she is *already* a star. The very first time she appears, singing in a back alley bar, she looks like an established singing star who is slumming for the night, not like a struggling unknown who is trying to launch her singing career. She is too confident, too professional. Her apartment looks like a page out of "Apartment Living," not some hole-in-the-wall apartment where a real struggling singer would live.<br /><br />Kris Kristofferson handles the self-centered, out-of-control rock star role like...well, like a singer who is trying to be an actor but doesn't have much acting talent. The direction is tepid, the story is slow and dull.<br /><br />But the worst thing about this movie is not the acting, or the lame direction, or the slow story. It's the hair! After staring at Kristofferson's and Streisand's awful 70's hairdos for 2+ hours, your eyes hurt.
This is a horrid disaster of a film. From beginning to end, it's filled with bad acting and even worse direction and editing. The only redeeming parts of the film are a few numbers by Streisand, because the Kristofferson parts are impossible to watch or listen to. The main problem of this film is that we never see Kristofferson's character at his peak or Streisand's character struggling. The first should be seen in decline and the second rising. The final Streisand number _could have been_ one of the greatest finales in film, if it was directed and edited properly. The single framed shot of her face for the duration of the song was a terrible mistake. Had the band, audience and wide shots of the stage been shown, this number could have been dynamic and interesting. This film must have been directed and edited by an NYU film school dropout. The only thing worse may be the wretched screenplay. The final musical number is the only redeeming part of this film, and even that is botched completely by misguided technical decisions.
This film is a huge steaming pile. <br /><br />I have no idea why anyone felt that the Garland/Mason version needed to be redone, nor why Striesand would have been a first choice to star.<br /><br />For that matter, I have no idea why our people (Gay Americans) tend largely to regard Striesand as some kind of treasure. At least in my opinion, she had peaked professionally with with Funny Girl, and Bogdanovich's What's Up Doc. <br /><br />Do yourself a favor and rent the Judy classic, or even the original (a fine film in its own right), but please, Please, PLEASE skip this stinkpot!
Kris Kristofferson, at his drugged-out peak in the mid-70s, finds himself barely able to squeeze on to the screen alongside La Streisand's humongous ego and discount-store feminism.<br /><br />None of the characters are really likable; I was _so_ glad when Kristofferson's Ferrari went over that hill and crashed.<br /><br />If you want to see a good movie about rock and roll stardom, try _The Buddy Holly Story_ (made only about a year and a half after this dreck).
I never saw the original 1954 version with Judy Garland, so have no means of comparison. Also, it's been some years, but I found this tale neither gripping nor its romance captivating. The movie tells the story of two lovers whose musical careers are headed in opposite directions. John Norman Howard is a worn out, disillusioned rock star on the decline, embarking upon a romance with a fresh, talented new singing sensation, Esther Hoffman. Her dramatic success only serves to emphasize his decline.<br /><br />The lead actors, Kris Kristofferson and Barbra Streisand, are adequate in their roles, but neither their chemistry nor the plot left much of a mark with me. The film is noteworthy to me for only one aspect, Streisand's beautiful rendition of the Oscar winning song 'Evergreen'. She truly has a powerful and magnificent voice.
This movie is NOT the same as the 1954 version with Judy Garland and James Mason, and that is a shame because the 1954 version is, in my opinion, much better. I am not denying Barbra Streisand's talent at all. She is a good actress and brilliant singer. I am not acquainted with Kris Kristofferson's other work and therefore I can't pass judgment on it. However, this movie leaves much to be desired. It is paced slowly, it has gratuitous nudity and foul language, and can be very difficult to sit through.<br /><br />However, I am not a big fan of rock music, so it's only natural that I would like the Judy Garland version better. See the 1976 film with Barbra and Kris, and judge for yourself.
There are two points I need to make clear right at the beginning. First of all we all know what this year's Oscar's were REALLY all about this year. It was the Academy's way of showing people that they are no racist,and never have been. They wanted to clear all preconceived notions about themselves. Secondly, it's kinda pointless to make remarks about the show, because really, what difference will it make? But, it's fun to write about it. This is the year I became fed-up with the Oscar's! I will never watch the show again. Every year they do something wrong. Before Crowe wins for "Gladaitor" when they real winner should of been Ralph Fiennes for "Sunshine". If you haven't seen this movie yet, watch it and you'll agree. "Eyes Wide Shut" when released receieved no nominations. And as far as this year goes, well, the bad choices were all over the place! Baz Lurhmann gets no "Best Director" nomination! Are you joking!! "A Beautiful Mind" is up for "Best Make-up"???? "Training Day" gets nominated?? The movie was awful, and it seemed like Washington didn't even turn in a performance, all he proved was, he knows how to use four letter words! That's what h won the award for! Take away the language and I bet he was almost playing himself! I liked "Gosford Park", I really did, but why 7 nominations? And how on Earth could they not give it too Altman! I mean, c'mon, if there just giving the award to people to clear up any bad feelings, what about Altman? The man has been in the public's eye for 32 years now and no Oscar! There were many, many things that bothered me about this year's Oscar's, but, I'll live with it, as long as I never have to watch another show again! The highpoint ( and the ONLY one) of the show was when Woody Allen made his first appearance ever to the award show. That will go down as one of the greatest moments in he history of the show.
It doesn't even merit a review, other than as a warning to potential viewers. It's a somewhat generic ghost story about an actress haunting a studio during the filming of a WWII period drama. There's no fear involved, no suspense whatsoever, nor any surprises. One shocking moment that looks a bit too silly to be shocking. The visual style is very flat and dull, although there is some really nice editing once in a while. The story never comes together, and the films is really just a total bust. 4/10.
I caught this film at the Edinburgh Film Festival. I hadn't heard much about it; only that it was a tightly-paced thriller, shot digitally on a very low budget. I was hoping to catch the next big Brit-Flick. But I have to say, I was severely disappointed. "This Is Not A Love Song" follows two criminals, who, after accidentally shooting and killing a farmer's young daughter, become embroiled in a deadly game of cat and mouse when the locals decide to take matters into their own hands and hunt them down.<br /><br />The real problem is that this is yet another example of style over substance in a British film. The camera angles and editing are completely at odds with the story, as are the over the top performances, and the appalling use of slow motion, which only serves to make the whole thing look like an expensive home video. There are repeated attempts to make the film look edgy and gritty, which instead come over as hilarious and over the top(Cue a pathetic, obligatory drug scene, and countless, pointless camera zooms). No amount of cliche's such as this can disguise the fact that this is a pretty bad story.<br /><br />We've seen this kind of thing many times before, and made a hundred times better, particularly in John Boorman's masterful "Deliverance." But while in the latter film, we actually cared about the characters, in this film, I found myself just wanting them to be hunted down and killed as quickly as possible. Even this wouldn't have been so bad if their adversaries had been frightening or worthwhile, but instead, are merely a collection of stereotypical, inbred-looking countryfolk. Again, another offensive, overused cliche' coming to the fore. Surely there are some nice people in the country, filmmakers?<br /><br />In its defense, "This Is Not A Love Song" does contain a couple of good, suspenseful moments, but it's hard to see this film doing anything other than going straight to video, or, at a push, getting a very limited cinema release. It's not a patch on last year's Low-Budget hunted in the hills movie, "Dog soldiers". Maybe British Cinema could actually get kick-started again if the right money stopped going to the wrong people.
I remember rather enjoying this a few years back but coming to it again, I wonder why. I guess it always looks good and the girls do rather well but the men do rather let the side down. Why oh why in so many English films about sex do we have to have such inept men along side the pretty girls? What is more this begins predictably enough as a sex farce similar in vein to the Confessions films but about a third of the way through (whilst we are beginning to enjoy the presence of the lovely Me Me Lai) the film asks us to start taking it seriously. Not only that but the central rock club and cannabis sequences are very forced and just look stilted. In short this is neither as innocently silly or as intelligently serious as it seems to intend. Richard O'Sullivan maybe, as such a central figure, could have helped but I reckon this to be one of his worst performances. Just worth it for the ladies.
The "saucy" misadventures of four au pairs who arrive in London on the same day in the early 1970s. There's a Swedish girl, a Danish, a German and a Chinese. The story contrives to get the clothes off all of them, involve them in some Carry On-type humour and couple them with various misfits from the British film and TV culture of the time, including Man About the House star Richard O'Sullivan, future Coronation Street rogue Johnny Briggs and horror film stalwart Ferdy Mayne (playing a sheik). There's a pretty risqué amount of female nudity on display, for those who like that kind of thing (but obviously nothing hardcore).<br /><br />Most of the film is pretty thin and inconsequential; the girls are stereotypes, and German Anita especially suffers from some kind of infantalising disorder - she's a moron obsessed with colour TV who acts like a kind of uninhibited child & dresses to deliberately show her private parts; in another more serious film, she would be a psychiatric case. The most interesting section of the film involves the Swedish girl being taken to a club in London where some dodgy types are still trying to swing, being seduced by a middle-aged rocker, losing her virginity and realising that the scene is not for her. These sequences have some energy in them and point to a more intriguing film than we've ended up with, in which promiscuity and the dregs of the music business and upper classes live soulless and seedy lives (there's a fine turn by John Standing as an impotent public school roué). The strangest of the stories has the Chinese girl (future cannibal film veteran Me Me Lay) getting off with her childish piano prodigy employer, falling mutually in love with and then leaving in the middle of the night for no good reason at all, except some orientalist notion that "Chinese birds are inscrutable, ain't they?!" The film is pretty demeaning to its women characters and there's a smattering of homophobia in the dialogue and one of the characterisations. The end is striking, as Mayne's sheik for no earthly reason (except they have to end the film somehow) whisks all of the girls away to his Arab kingdom for what looks to all the world like a future in the white slave trade, which they are all delighted about.<br /><br />Stuff and nonsense for the most part then, but directed with a fair amount of skill by veteran Val Guest, which puts it as a piece of film-making a notch above most of the 70s Brit sexploitation flicks.
The plot has already been described by other reviewers, so I will simply add that my reason for wanting to see this film was to see Gabrielle Drake in all her undoubted glory.<br /><br />Miss Drake has to be one of the sexiest, prettiest examples of "posh totty" to have been committed to celluloid. Of her era and ilk, only the equally exquisite Jane Asher comes close. What was it about actresses with musical brothers? (Nick Drake and Peter Asher) For those who like me have admired Gabrielle, her scenes in this movie will not disappoint. She has a magnificent figure and none of it is left to the imagination here.<br /><br />As a whole, the movie is very poor and being of its time, very cheaply made. The song that covers the opening credits seems to go on forever and is appalling.
The video quality is awful. The sound quality is pathetic. The acting is horrific. The dialog is painful. The lighting is dismal. The editing is laughable. I could go on, but it would be pointless. Snitch'd is a third rate amateur video being passed off as a feature film. This one is best left to collect dust in the video store bargain bin.
I got this DVD from a friend, who got it from someone else (and that probably keeps going on..) Even the cover of the DVD looks cheap, as is the entire movie. Gunshots and fist fights with delayed sound effects, some of the worst actors I´ve seen in my life, a very simple plot, it made me laugh ´till my stomach hurt! With very few financial resources, I must admit it looked pretty professional. Seen as a movie, it was one of the 13 in a dozen wannabe gangsta flicks nobody´s waiting for. So: if you´re tired and want a cheap laugh, see this movie. If not, throw it out of the window.
I don't really know where to start. The acting in this movie was really terrible, I can't remember seeing so many 'actors' in one film that weren't able to act. Not only the acting was bad, the characters were incredibly stupid as well.<br /><br />Then there's the action. I believe that even children know that when someone gets shot, there's blood involved. But when someone gets shot in Snitch'd for ten (!!) times, there's no blood at all. Well, I guess that's just me.<br /><br />To make a long story short (because believe me, I can go on for hours about this film), this is without a doubt the worst film I ever saw. This film should be number 1 in the bottom 100 without a doubt.
I bought this movie and after I watched it I decided that I did not care for it. The acting was BAD. Was the principal a robot? He had no personality and his facial expression didn't change through the whole movie. At times the voices didn't match up. People talking and their lips didn't even move.
I bought this DVD for £1 and now i realise why. The acting was the worst I've seen in a long time. The lighting and sound are shoddy at best. The plot makes little sense even when sober (WARNING: I don't advise watching this film when sober.) This film feels like you're watching the home movie of someone who doesn't get out much. It really is a shame that all the very little money spent on this project went to such a waste, I look forward to seeing if any of those envoled still have a career, other than eva longoria who is the only "star" of this film that was apparently not hit with the bad acting stick. I'm sorry that none of this criticism seems constructive but I will say one thing to James Cahill, don't try it again. In the words of squirlyem "Its severely lacking in the good department".
WORST MOVIE EVER!!!! Can't believe I wasted 90min of my life watching this crap. The only reason I didn't turn it off was I wanted to see the Gangster dude on the cover and he wasn't even in it talk about False advertising. The people that gave this movie a ten are either Dumb,Stupid or CAST MEMBERS or friends of CAST MEMBERS.<br /><br />I gave it a solid 2 because no one else did<br /><br />I have to write more and I don't even want to. wasting my time talking about this rubbish. Please don't watch it and if you did then vote so this movie can go where it belongs. bottom 100 movies. i can't even tell you how bad it really is. think the worst movie ever that you've seen then times that be ten and thats this movie. It sucked!! If you just think I'm being bitter then watch it I dare You!! This movie should be used to torture war criminals or Terriosts. If they Watch this even two times and they'll be spilling the beans and begging for MERCY!!
I watched this....let me rephrase...suffered through this because I'm a fan of Eva's. I don't think this is a flick she'll put on the back of her head shot photos. I like gangsta flix but this wasn't even close. The budget couldn't have been more than a few hundred dollars, and that money was probably spent on the caterer.<br /><br />The premise was interesting, but the first victim died before you get the chance to care about her or not.<br /><br />I won't bother saying who did what and how, because it isn't worth the effort. I'm only glad that because of my monthly rental plan at the local video store that I didn't have to actually pay for this garbage.<br /><br />OH!! Before you flame on me, I love movies, I thought a lotta flix were good that some of you have jammed, so for me to jam this tells you all you need to know.
All I can say after watching Snitch'd is please stop Mr. Cahill. It is painfully clear you have no understanding of what you make movies about. If you insist on making movies about gangsters I urge you to do research. It's comical to watch movies with absurd gangbangers that even sound more absurd when they speak.<br /><br />I laughed at the part when Mr. Cahill goes to a school with only 3 students and proceeds to kick their butts in kung fu fashion. This movie was tough as an after school special. Who had the idea to have hats worn that say where a particular gangbanger was from?. I suspect real gangbangers do not wear hats claiming there gang. That would be stupid considering new laws that add length to a prison term if a person is gang related. <br /><br />Snitch'd is the WORST gangbanger movie ever made.
If you want to see a retarded homosexual Karate expert beat up a bunch of try hard wannabe Mexican gangsters repeatedly for an hr, then this is the film for you. if not then choose another DVD from the 20c bin which is the only place this film belongs. the acting was so horrible that i had to force myself to watch it to the end. The cover makes it look so cool but its just another cheap, b grade gangster film along the lines of 2 g's and a key, bloody streetz and menace. I would not buy or rent this film unless you are planing to get stoned and plot , editing and acting really don't matter to you. it is truly the worst film in the history of humanity!!!
Maybe this isn't fair, because I only made it about halfway through the movie. One of the few movies I have actually not been able to watch due to lameness.<br /><br />The acting is terrible, the camera work is terrible, the plot is ridiculous and the whole movie is just unrealistic and cheesy. For example - during a coke deal, the coke is just kept loose in a briefcase - I'm no expert, but I think people generally put it in a bag.<br /><br />They use the same stupid sound effect whenever a punch is thrown (it's that over the top 'crunching' sound" and they use toy guns with dubbed in sound effects.<br /><br />Worst movie ever.
This movie is weak ,The box-cover says East LA's toughest gang and it is really Santa Ana's , James Cahill acts like a closet queen taking down all the tough guys in the tough Chlo gang . It is fake , boring , senseless and whack , I tried to get my money back from the video store this movie was so bad . It was also on the homo-erotic tip far from what the video-box proclaims . James Cahill should act in Gay Porno .James is in every scene , he cannot act to save his life . The film features Eva Longoria who is hot but James can't even score with her !!!!!!!!! I felt at times I was watching Gay Porn and was turned - off by the whole film . James clearly want's to be with men but rather then submit to his gay desires he beats up gang members over and over and over again . His martial Arts skills are minimal at best , Some real gang members would take him and his weak skills and rip him a new one .
Every once in a while , someone out of the blue looks at me a little sideways and asks "What's with SNITCH'D" ? I know immediately they have a case of barely-hidden amusement + horror. You see, I was the cinematographer on the film.<br /><br />Let me clarify some points regarding this "interesting life experience".<br /><br />Originally, SNITCH'D was called ONE HARD HIT. I met James Cahill in July of 1999, a day after I wrapped TRIANGLE SQUARE, a great little 35mm feature that like so many indie features of the era never got distribution despite festival accolades...it fell eternal victim to the fine print of SAG's notorious Experimental Feature contract. But I digress...<br /><br />I though I was on a roll, and when James asked me to shoot his little gangster flick in 16mm with a shooting budget of about $25,000, not wanting to break pace, I took it. After all, CLERKS, EL MARIACHI... I too believed the myth back then.<br /><br />Let's just chalk it up as "film school" for many involved, myself included. SNITCH'D was shot over two weeks in August, 1999, in Aliso Viejo and Santa Ana, CA. Cahill taught Drama at a High School in the latter city ( yes, he is a Drama and English teacher...consider THAT while watching the film, or even observing the use of apostrophe in title ), hence the locations and cast.<br /><br />Of note in his cast were the only known dramatic appearance of L.A.'s Channel 2 Morning News weather girl Vera Jimenez, and of greater impact, the debut of Eva Longoria, who had just arrived in Hollywood and was as eager as I to get a film under her belt. I must say her professional dedication, focus and "let's do this" attitude kept me inspired and was a foreshadow of her stardom-yet-to-come. <br /><br />SNITCH'D suffered from poor optics, few lights or electricity, several boom operators du jour, and delivery of an uncorrected offline for duplication. None of that overshadows the actual content, which speaks for itself.<br /><br />Anyway, by 2003, the film was sold to distributors ( at a net loss, I understand ) who inexplicably had no photos of Eva on the box ( by then she was a rising, working name ) but who did manage to obtain a clear photo of what appears to be an authentic Latino gangster to lend credibility to SNITCH'D. Since Cahill's other passion is antiquarian book dealing, it appears to confirm he believes you can, in fact, judge a book by it's cover... as so many have picked up this DVD based on it's sleeve. ----------------- One year later, Eva, now on a soap, and I met James for one day to shoot a simple short film he had concocted, SPLIT SECOND, which I think has never seen any play despite festival intent. <br /><br />6 years later, I was hired to shoot another Cahill film titled JUAREZ, Mexico. I though he had worked out the process; my participation was contingent on casting, script and crew control, and the resultant film actually looked promising in dailies, for what it was... a cheap detective story surrounding the mass murders of girls in Juarez; despite claims here and elsewhere, the film has NEVER appeared in any festival or venue, although Cahill has repeatedly claimed the film has distribution and was simply awaiting release to coincide with the DVD release of two studio pictures on the same subject, VIRGIN OF JUAREZ and BORDER TOWN.
DD films were damn corny, damn stupid and had a plot which seemed wafer thin but those days they was a plot at least<br /><br />This film isn't just a comedy but a mix of melodrama, romance everything<br /><br />Every drama scene is blown out of proportion<br /><br />The comedy is funny but corny too Yet the film keeps you entertained, those days Govinda films were loud, crass yet they had some funny moments people enjoyed<br /><br />David Dhawan does a okay job Music is okay<br /><br />Govinda acts well in comedy and drama Karisma is decent in parts and annoys in parts Kader is as usual Gulshan, Prem Chopra are typecast Shakti is hilarious
Honestly I can't understand why this movie rates so well here, nor why Bakshi himself thought it was his finest film. I'm a huge fan of Bakshi's earlier work - particularly 'Heavy Traffic' and 'Wizards', but frankly 'Wizards' (1977) was the last good film he made. After that he turned to the mainstream, beginning with the diabolical 'Lord of the Rings' and then knuckling down with sword and sorcery heavyweight Frank Frazetta, for 'Fire and Ice'.<br /><br />What can I say? The story is puerile, the animation is TV quality - I insist that it's considerably worse than his 70's stuff - and whereas 'Wizards' had real imagination, quirkiness, some gorgeous background art, and an underground, adult sensibility, 'Fire and Ice' is just designed for 14 year old boys, and has the intellectual clout of Robinson Crusoe on Mars.<br /><br />Yes, if you liked the Gor books, you might like this. In my view though, this was just another blip in the slide in quality after 'Wizards' from which Bakshi never recovered (though he's done some decent TV stuff fairly recently)<br /><br />4.5 out of 10
I first saw this when I was around 7. I remembered what I believed to be a vague outline of what took place. Turns out now, 15 years later, that I remembered everything with great accuracy because it seems the writers never got beyond making an outline to the story. There is no plot to this movie/cartoon. There is no character development, no back story, no character arcs, nothing. The good guys do things because they are good, while the bad guys do things solely because they are bad. One unintentionally hilarious part is when someone who you would think to be important dies and nobody cares in the least. They just shrug their shoulders and move on. There's barely any dialogue either. If you cut out the fight scenes and the running scenes, you lose 70% of the movie.<br /><br />Watch this because you want to see some good animation and for no other reason. Or if you like to look at scantily clad hot cartoon chicks (or scantily clad hot cartoon dudes).
Trite, clichéd dialog and plotting (the same kind of stuff we saw all through the 1980s fantasy movies), hokey music, and a paint-by-numbers characters knocks this out of the running for all but the most hardcore fans.<br /><br />What saves this film from the junk heap is the beautiful crutch of Bakshi's work, the rotoscoping, and the fact that Frank Frazetta taught the animators how to draw like him. This is Frazetta...in motion. The violence is spectacular and the art direction and animation are unlike any other sword & sorcery movie of the period.<br /><br />I like to watch this with the sound off, playing the soundtrack to the first Conan movie instead.
Carlo Verdone once managed to combine superb comedy with smart and subtle social analysis and criticism.<br /><br />Then something happened, and he turned into just another dull "holier-than-thou" director.<br /><br />Il Mio Miglior Nemico can more or less be summarized in one line "working class = kind and warm, while upper-class = snob and devious. But love wins in the end".<br /><br />Such a trite clichè for such a smart director.<br /><br />There isn't really too much to talk about in the movie. Every character is a walking stereotype: the self-made-man who forgets his roots but who'll become "good" again, the scorned wife, the rebellious rich girl who falls for the honest-but-poor guy... Acting is barely average.<br /><br />Severely disappointing under every aspect.
I'm sorry, but this may have been scary in 1978 when it came out, but in modern times it just doesn't hold up. The only interesting scene in the entire movie is the opening scene where Michael kills his sister, Judith, wearing his Halloween mask. The most startling moment in the whole film is when his parents rip the mask off to see their son killed their daughter. The film goes downhill from there and doesn't pick up until the last fifteen minutes, but by then it's too late, we the audience have lost all interest in the story. There is barely any character development, and people always rave about Laurie being such an exceptional heroine, when there really isn't much to her. I'm sorry to disagree with everyone terrified by this movie, but if you want a great horror movie go watch The Shining or Rosemary's Baby. Those are the two best horror films ever made. Halloween is certainly not in their ranks. I can't believe Roger Ebert gave it four stars, for there is no way this film could ever deserve such a high rating.
What the hell is in your minds ? This film sucks ! Each minute I was getting more and more bored. I strove to watch the end because I hope something at least would at last happen ! But instead of that, I got amazed how dull the end was treated... What is this story about this bloody "bogeyman" ? How comes he doesn't die ? He is a bloody human being for God's sake ! A mere boy that killed his silly sister 15 years ago. Then what ? His stay on a psychiatric hospital made him immortal ? This film a fascinatingly stupid... It's a must of silliness. I'm gonna resell it right now to some silly guy who will understand this silly film.
Perhaps one of the most overrated so-called horror classics ever made, Halloween does feature the memorable Michael Myers and some great acting by Jamie Lee Curtis.<br /><br />However, its rewatchability factor is very close to zero, as there is an unforgivable amount of time spent on dullness/culmination to the actual events.<br /><br />This is the sort of movie you can walk away from to microwave popcorn and not miss anything at all.<br /><br />How it spawned so many sequels, I will never comprehend.<br /><br />Thank God Rob Zombie is remaking this. And generally, I hate remakes.<br /><br />Surely he will more than compensate for all the random time-filling gaps with some quirky points of interest that the original severely lacks.<br /><br />This is a movie we feel we have to like, much like the way we're taught that we SHOULD enjoy Dickens.<br /><br />Don't assume this is a classic.
I do admit that my review is from a 2006 point of view, nearly 30 years after the making of this movie and at the time of its conception, it may have been a brilliant horror/thriller movie.<br /><br />Beginning on Halloween night 1968, 6 year old Michael commits the brutal murder of his 18 year old sister. Michael is committed to a mental institution and 15 years later escapes and returns to his home town to murder again.<br /><br />From this point it is clear that the movie will follow a basic and rudimentary path that is highly predictable. The beginning of every scene is easily predictable in the way it will end whilst the music for each scene containing Michael (the murderer) is exactly the same throughout the movie, thus alerting the viewer to the likely events to follow.<br /><br />For the horror/thriller enthusiast, there is a severe lack of blood/gore compared to modern day films although I am not akin to the amount that is displayed in this day and age. A happier medium could have been found.<br /><br />From a half hour into the movie, not one scene is unexpected. The acting for a horror/thriller film is fairly typical of the era and thus lacks any punch for the modern day enthusiast.<br /><br />A positive for the film is its lingering camera shots and dark lighting which creates a frightening atmosphere. A second positive would be the character of Michael's doctor, who provides clues to the probability of where the story may lead.<br /><br />However, it is clear that the star, in Jamie-Lee Curtis, is in the infancy stages of her acting career and thus fails to provide a truly frightened central victim.<br /><br />It is hard for me to rate this film as it was in its day, but from other horror/thriller films of indeed the 80s and to a lesser extent, the 90s, it falls far short of a truly great horror/thriller film.<br /><br />I suggest you move on and find a classic from the 80s. Cheers!
As the faux-Russian scientist says two-thirds of the way into the movie, "I came for the science." This pretty much sums up the reason I watched this movie - anything that involves a half-man, half-hammerhead shark definitely deserves a serious empirical investigation on the part of an impartial aspiring scientist. Or, as they say in the biz, my girlfriend's brother had the remote and the rest is history. To say that the special effects were bad would be a disservice to the field of special effects. This is 2005, it is not that hard to film a car scene without a cheesy bluescreen background. Yeah, this was charming and state of the art when Hitchcock was filming "The Birds" but in 2005 it just looks low budget. Spare me the cheap attempt at Sci-Fi and do me the service of actually making an attempt at the willing suspension of disbelief.<br /><br />However, having seriously defamed the overall concept of this film, let me tell you again that, as sad as it may sound, this is probably worth your time. If nothing else, it is a tour de force of bad Sci-Fi - worth the education for the new movie buff and certainly worthy of a refresher course for those who have seen a few movies in their day.<br /><br />The crazy hunchback mad scientist with a hammerhead transceiver who thinks it is a good idea to spoon canfuls of blood into the nearby water makes me question not only the intelligence of mankind, but also the ability of "B" movie writers to come up with remotely plausible plot lines.<br /><br />This film also pretty much fulfills one of my longtime bad movie contentions - bad guys always wear sunglasses.<br /><br />If this weren't 2005, I would be deadset on the fact this film was some sort of insanely poor metaphor for the Cold War. I mean, you might as well have Khan on the bridge of a Klingon Bird of Prey inserting leaches into Chekhov's ear.<br /><br />One of the most moving lines of the movie is when the chick without the bra insists that the Charlton Heston lookalike, "wait for Tom" as he is trying to lift the escape helicopter off the ground. The thing is, Tom is wasting the bad sunglass guys with his never-ending banana clip attached to his Kalashnikov, or AK-47, in layman's terms.<br /><br />As the mad scientist says near the end of the film, "my goal is to evolve the human species" - suffice it to say that this movie contributed only to a devolution of humankind. The faint Freudian references uttered by the mad scientist as he prepping the female protagonist to be mated with a hammerhead shark are a simple reminder that even in the worst of science fiction we can all find something to laugh about.
I am a lover of B movies, give me a genetically mutated bat and I am in heaven. These movies are good for making you stop thinking of everything else going on in your world. Even a stupid B movie will usually make me laugh and I will still consider it a good thing. Then there was Hammerhead, which was so awful I had to register with IMDb so I could warn others. First there was the science of creating the shark-man, which the movie barely touched on. In order to keep the viewers interested they just made sure there was blood every few minutes. During one attack scene the camera moved off of the attack but you saw what was apparently a bucket of blood being thrown by a stagehand to let you know that the attack was bloody and the person was probably dead (what fabulous special effects). Back to the science, I thought it was very interesting that the female test subjects were held naked and the testing equipment required that they be monitored through their breast tissue. Anyway this movie had poor plot development, terrible story, and I'm sorry to say pretty bad acting. Not even William Forsythe, Hunter Tylo or Jeffrey Combs could save this stinker.
This is a sad movie about this woman who thought her ex who she loved so much was probably dead, but really his scientist dad had just put a spell on him to turn him into this really cute shark-guy. Kind of like in Beauty and the Beast. It could probably use a ballroom dance scene and maybe some singing candlesticks, but there are some pretty gross plants instead. They make this one girl really itchy, so she lets herself get eaten by the shark-guy instead of scratching through the whole movie. The scientist guy is a good dad who tries to reunite his fishy shark son with the woman he was engaged to, he even arranges for them to have private time for s-e-x, but the woman in this is a really shallow snob and thinks the shark-guy is an ugly, icky monster and wants nothing to do with him. She gave up on love! Just because he was a shark! I thought it was pretty sad how all she had to do was kiss him and he'd turn back to normal and they'd live happily ever after, but it's not that kind of movie.
this movie wasn't absolutely atrocious, but it was pretty bad. the acting ACTUALLY was pretty good! jeffrey combs did a pretty darn good job as the mad scientist, which is sort of his specialty if you don't know such things :D. bill forsythe .. well, i'm not EXACTLY sure why he was in this film. he's way too good for this kinda stuff, and his role wasn't exactly demanding. I rented this on the strength of those two leads, and I wasn't really disappointed. I mean, heck, it's a movie about a half man/half shark. It ain't Shakespeare folks. Other than the plot, which is full of holes, and the poor dialogue, I would like to note that the cinematography also left many things to be desired. there were shots were they were trying to look "cool", but it ended up obscuring the scene or just coming off plain cheezy. they also blew it many times when they had decent dialogue and cut away prematurely before the person could even deliver the line. it was pretty bad. but if you are a jeffrey combs fan, this one is worth checking out. he gives a great performance and does what he can with the character. forsythe ain't bad either, and either is the female lead. heck if i can remember her name though. bottom line, i wouldn't otherwise waste your time.
Where the hell are all these uncharted islands where prehistoric monsters lurk, evil doctors perform their experiments, madmen hold the ultimate karate championship, and the uber-rich hunt humans for sport? I had no idea there were still so many uncharted islands out there, but if you take into account the number of movies that utilize one of these mysterious islands as a location, you'd have to assume that there are at least 50 of these suckers out there. It always winds up feeling so damned convenient and I immediately deduct points from any movie that uses this hackneyed device. Hammerhead is the story of a mad scientist who is conducting experiments on one of these uncharted islands, so the movie already had a lot to make up for before it even began.<br /><br />The island in this movie used to belong to Dr. Moreau, but has recently been purchased by the Re-Animator himself, Jeffrey Combs. Old Jeffrey is doing some kind of cutting edge stem cell research, which has led him to start working with sharks while searching for a cure for cancer. If that sounds familiar, that's because this is roughly the same basic set-up as the smart shark facility in Deep Blue Sea, not to mention a host of other Nu Image movies. So apparently, Jeffrey's son was dying of cancer which prompted our mad doctor to start experimenting on his progeny. He did some kind of super fancy gene splicing and so forth, turning his son into a shark-man.<br /><br />William Forsythe leads a crew of unknown actors to the island to look into the doctor's experiments. If someone would have given him a sailor's hat, William would have been a dead ringer for the Skipper from Gilligan's Island. In typical Bond Villain fashion, the doctor decides that all of these intruders would make nice chum for his son. Not chums, like buddies... chum, like shark food. So enter shark-boy who starts stalking the Skipper and his cohorts all over the island. They, of course, make half-hearted attempts to escape and are thwarted over and over again while being chased by a guy in a rubber shark-man suit. <br /><br />The movie didn't make up any of the points that it lost for taking place on one of those dastardly deserted islands. It's funny that this movie is called Hammerhead, it made me think of an old joke. Why do you hit yourself in the head with a hammer? Because it feels so good when you stop. That's pretty much how this movie is. The only reason to watch it is because it feels so good when it's over.
This low budget B horror's plot comes with all the amenities - mad scientist complete with sidekick, malicious corporate greed of pharmaceutical industry, eccentric and extreme genetic engineering, and information technology....can't leave that out.<br /><br />Start with strange sequence of hot looking nameless boaters that foolishly decide to take a dip in the waters near an uncharted island and end up chum for swarming hammerhead sharks.....<br /><br />Cut to weak back story implying the stock decline of a generic pharma corporation which motivates its wicked Shakespeare quoting CEO to entertain an un-solicited offer made by a former employee/scientist that was jilted out of his job as head of research and who also happens to be a nut...of course (total Herbert West wannabe). He is offering up a new stem cell technology that could make tons o' cash...or so it seems...This lures in several employees to his Moreau-ish island (must have been quite an impressive exit package from the company when he was let go for him to afford an island) to validate his scientific findings including the CEO and, co-incidentally, the ex-fiancé of the mad scientist's son now morphed sharkuman (how convenient)....<br /><br />The plan, sort of, is to rekindle lost love between the former nuptials while exacting revenge on the former colleagues for his termination. (Sheez, how can this guy be bitter? He has his own friggen' island after all...).<br /><br />Soon, everyone is on the run (from endless supply of security guards toting heavy weaponry, from mutant plants – can there be an uncharted island without man-eating plants?, from sharky son's appetite for carnage, from quack daddy's breeding plans, and from lack of a cell phone signal)...and they all must learn to work together to get off the island alive! <br /><br />Will anyone escape? Will a new species be created? Watch it and find out.<br /><br />There is some entertainment value in this movie, but don't expect much...for the true Combs fan, this is not to be missed. <br /><br />Don't say I didn't warn you.
Hahahaha!!!!!!Funny-that sums this movie up in one word.What the crap was this "thing",since It might kill me to use the word movie!?!?!I hope the director,writer,and producer didn't mean for this to turn out good,because it sure didn't!!!A scientist turning his son into a hammerhead shark,and the shark killing a bunch of people the scientist invited to the island!!!Oh my Gooooooodddd!!!!I hate this film so much that when I was watching it I laughed at all the serious parts,because they were so corny and unprofessional....and they couldn't have made the shark look more unrealistic,even though this "thing" had a bit larger budget than most low-budget movies.All I have to say is watch this movie expecting to laugh at all the bad acting,and stupid corny dialogue,because if you are expecting a good movie you'll be highly disappointed.
This was a really funny movie.<br /><br />Every 1 in the movie was trying to be serious that is what made this movie so funny. I mean come on a shark's head on a human body. Can it get any funnier. Good job Sci-Fi keep the comedy movies coming. I never thought movies could get anymore retarded. If they keep it up they will have to rename the sci fie channel the comedy sci fi channel or something like that.<br /><br />I cant wait 4 the next blockbuster movie from sci fi.<br /><br />Ill be ready with a bowl of popcorn and a case of beer or a bottle of liquor and Ill be ready to laugh it up again!!!
If you read my review of SyFy's "Dinoshark", you know that I can appreciate the low-budget schlock that these made-for-television movies can provide. They're stupid...they're silly...but they're still pretty fun in a "so bad, it's good" kind of way. So, still smacking with guilt for liking (and recommending) the undeniably hokey "Dinoshark", I sat down to watch "Hammerhead: Shark Frenzy", a SyFy Original Movie about a half-man, half-hammerhead monster terrorizing people on an island. With the SyFy Channel's sure-fire recipe for creating B-movie creature features and a cast that includes William Forsythe and Hunter Tylo, how could it possibly go wrong? Well, to my surprise, it actually misses the mark...not by much, but enough to make me not recommend it. Why? Well, first of all, its titular monster, the dreaded hammerhead-human hybrid, takes a backseat to a bunch of faux-military thugs who really become the movie's primary villain. Though the hammerhead does rack up the body count, he (or it or whatever you call the thing) only arrives just before someone is going to be munched upon and leaves directly after. The rest of the movie is filler, pitting our heroes against the aforementioned soldiers. That, to me, is just not as compelling as watching a walking hammerhead eat people! <br /><br />Please Read The Full Review On My Blog: www.horrormoviejournal.blogspot.com
Jeffrey Combs is an insane scientist whose stem cell research has morphed into a diabolical scheme to create a hybrid hammerhead shark humanoid life form, hoping to breed a brand new species using Hunter Tylo's womb. It won't be easy for Tylo is a tough broad and her boyfriend, William Forsythe, isn't about to give her up without a fight.<br /><br />You see Tylo and Forsythe are two of business executive Arthur Roberts' employees, brilliant minds who meet Combs(..a scientist who once worked for Roberts, and whose vacated position went to Tylo)at his island fortress where he conducts his research and experiments. This island affords him the opportunity to recruit fresh victims for his work and "son". They think it's a professional affair in regards to a breakthrough in stem cell research which could lead to cures for a variety of diseases. Combs' son was dying of kidney cancer when he decided to perform his mad science on him, creating this blood-thirsty, flesh-eating creature which can both swim and walk on dry land(..although, at first the hammerhead could only remain outside for short time periods). Tylo was dating Combs' son, hence the connection besides the two having worked for Roberts, who brings along his trophy wife, Mariya Ignatova. Also accompanying Tylo and Forsythe, Roberts and Ignatova, are their colleagues, Elise Muller and GR Johnson. Combs traps them in a conference room, but they are able to escape onto the island as he sends after them his well paid mercenaries and hammerhead shark son.<br /><br />Like similar sci-fi channel creature features of it's type, Hammerhead:Shark Frenzy has some rather unappealing computer generated effects and the attacks(..where the shark rips apart limbs)are shot in a quick-edit, frenzied camera format where you have a hard time ever seeing any of the ensuing gory carnage. You have this vague notion that a person is being eaten(..ripped to shreds), but the attacks themselves are shot in a very erratic fashion which, truth be told, is rather infuriating. The monster itself is never seen in it's entirety, just momentary glimpses of an eye or a body part being gnawed on as the victim screams out in horror. One thing's for certain, you do see teeth. We do get cgi shots of the hammerhead shark swimming toward the screen, all menacing, ready to feast on flesh. A constant is while(..and after)victims are attacked, we see a great deal of blood and bits of flesh bubbling to the water's surface(..this is really director Michael Oblowitz's main cue as to inform the viewer that those being torn apart are goners).<br /><br />Combs doesn't break new ground as the scientist, but he's always had an ability to convey a quiet madness under this cold-blooded resolve. It's fun seeing Forsythe in a rare clean-cut hero role, very against type as an electronics wiz(..to his credit, he actually pulls it off)who must assume a leadership position when the group faces unprecedented peril. Tylo is also in a very different kind of role, a scientist who can defend herself quite well. Roberts can play the millionaire businessman roles in his sleep, and it's kind of neat seeing him firing off a machine gun at Combs' soldiers(..although, his fate is not pleasant). Mentioning that, it was also really entertaining watching Forythe and Tylo downing Combs' hired goons with confiscated automatic machine guns. As expected, the screenplay allows those who created the murderous fiend to put themselves in unnecessary danger just so that they can pay for their sins..I mean, seriously, would these people knowingly leave themselves so vulnerable to attack after seeing just what damage to the human anatomy it could do? Beautiful exotic setting is quite a nice backdrop.
Hammerhead is a combination between the mad scientist and killer shark movie genres. In a bit of type-casting, Jeffrey Combs plays the aforementioned mad scientist who develops a human/hammerhead shark creature. Bizarrely, this being is in fact his son, who he has turned into this monster to prevent him dying from cancer. Or something.<br /><br />A group of associates are invited to the scientist's private island. They end up being used as shark bait or shark mate. For some unknown reason the head of IT has been brought along as part of this team. Who knows why? Luckily, he turns out to be a resourceful, if somewhat overweight, Ramboesque hero. I'm working on the assumption that he learnt how to handle an assault rifle as part of his day job working in 1st line support. A normal day for this IT man presumably involves fixing someone's network connection followed by a call to gun down gun-toting evil-doers. Or perhaps a call to fix someone's PC has to be scheduled between physical confrontations with land-based human-shark hybrids? Anyway, he's amazing and saves the day. He even get's the girl.<br /><br />The shark-man is a slightly lame creation but OK, I guess, judging by the effects in general in this film. And the movie moves on at a decent pace. It's complete hokum of course but if you buy a movie called Hammerhead and expect it to be a complex drama about the emotional conflicts experienced by a man turned into a land-based killer fish, then really you have no one to blame but yourself. As it is, there are guns, gore, girls and possibly even an exploding helicopter. It's rubbish but not as bad as some might say.
A scientist on an island is in deep sorrow about the loss of his son who died of kidney cancer. So he thinks: why not turn my dead son into a hammerhead shark. Well, who wouldn't? It's a little hard to cope with the fact that the hammerhead shark that's killing everybody is constantly being called "Paul". Also, William Forsythe's cast as a MacGyver-kick-ass-savingtheday- kinda hero lacks credibility. On the other hand there are a few hot chicks who make you actually look at the screen while shark Paul bites another one to death. As a matter of fact I find bad b-movies quite amusing. But for my taste it would have been a much better movie if it was made for say 1000000 bucks less. Then it might have been fun.
This type of plot really does have a lot of potential, but it was butchered here. Honestly, I sensed the cheese element in the beginning, but I thought it would get better after the grotesque birthing. Whoa, I was wrong! So mad scientist makes a monster, wants to brag to his old cronies before he kills them, but of course they escape. After that, it's really bad. I should've counted the times the rubber shark mask peeked out from behind some foliage, but I most likely would have lost count.<br /><br />Pan down to the blood-dripping-from-severed-leg to show us how the shark-man finds the folks. I hate being spoon-fed every aspect of a horror film.<br /><br />Oh, and after being nearly killed by a mutated shark-man and trudging around a jungle-esqe island, there's nothing more cheerful than a middle-aged man reciting Shakespeare...<br /><br />This is one where you'll find yourself rooting for the monster... if you can bear to watch this poor excuse for a flick.
I love sharks. And mutants. And explosions. Theoretically, with those parameters in mind, HAMMERHEAD: Shark Frenzy should have been the best movie ever.<br /><br />It is not.<br /><br />The monster looks like a villain from Power Rangers, and has approximately the same range of rubbery movement. This might be okay if the makers weren't quite as proud of its design as they seem to be. That is to say, for a guy in a big rubber suit in an action/scifi/horror flick that could benefit from some mystery, the shark gets a lot of screen time. Granted, it is usually shaky and erratic. I guess you're supposed to assume that it's so scary that even the camera guy freaks out.<br /><br />The camera goes to a person about to get eaten, the camera goes to the shark. The camera goes back to the person about to get eaten, only now they are screaming and armless. And so on.<br /><br />The costuming is bad, the acting is poor, and the special effects are sub-par, but the writing is by far the worst. Things happen completely randomly so that more people can be eaten, or so something can explode. Because LET ME TELL YOU, the people who made this movie definitely went in with a more explosions = more better mindset. Characters shoot cars and there is a massive explosion. They shoot helicopters, there is a massive explosion. Barrels, rocks, trees, WHATEVER, they all explode, so much so that the freaking shark even explodes at the end.<br /><br />Speaking of which, I don't care how crazy a person is, I find it hard to believe that anyone would think trying to make a giant half-person half-shark have sex with a woman in order to make freaky shark people babies is a good idea. That is, UNLESS that person is the mad scientist in this movie.<br /><br />The bad thing is, the movie is so random (and at times, boring) that even its badness is not really enough to hold a person's prolonged interest. It might be a good one to MST3K with your friends, but past that, if you happen to catch this bad boy on, do yourself a favor and change the channel.
Note to all mad scientists everywhere: if you're going to turn your son into a genetically mutated monster, you need to give him a scarier name than "Paul." I don't care if he's a frightening hammerhead shark with a mouthful of dagger-sharp teeth and the ability to ambush people in the water as well as on dry land. Give the kid a more worthy name like, "Thor," "Rock," or "Tiburon." Because even if he eats me up I will probably just sit there laughing, "Ha! Get a load of this!!! Paul the Monster is ripping me to shreds!!!!!" That's the worst part about this movie is, this shark-thing is referred to as "Paul" throughout the entire flick. It makes what could have been a decent, scary horror movie just seem silly. Not that there aren't other campy and contrived parts of "Hammerhead: Shark Frenzy." The scientists spend the entire movie wandering along this island, and all of a sudden one of the girls starts itching madly from walking in the lush forest, and just HAS to pour water on her feet to relive the itching, which of course allows "Paul" to come out of the water and kill her. The one thing SciFI Channel did right in this movie was let the hottie live. But that's a small silver lining in an otherwise disappointing movie.
This movie makes me think the others I've seen with Combs were an accident. The plot had more holes than I think I've ever seen in a movie purporting to be something more than a "b" movie. The acting was so laughable that not even the memories of Combs' past campy triumphs were enough to save it. Considering the script I have to imagine that there was not enough money in the budget for things like continuity and original ideas. I am thoroughly upset that I paid Blockbuster prices for this trash. The fact that it was made for television was something that would have helped me avoid this atrocity and frankly something that movies this poor should be required to warn you of. Avoid this movie no matter what.
Horror/Sci-Fi that is interesting as it is laughable. F/X pretty good...for what you manage to see. A made for TV thriller that is not as bad as the worst of them. Jeffrey Coombs plays a brilliant although misguided scientist that tampers with stem cell research and manipulates human DNA with that of a hammerhead shark. The horrifying results give birth to one hell of a killing machine. A group of scientists led by William Forsythe and Hunter Tylo are invited to a remote island to check out the brilliant new experiment. Of course, after laughing and stammering in awe...Coombs' creation, by the way is his own son fused with a hammerhead, is let loose to hunt down one by one his father's colleagues. Revenge is not always rewarding. Also in the cast: Elsie Muller, G.R. Johnson, Arthur Roberts and Velizar Binev.
i love bad shark movies. i really do. i laugh hysterically at them. and the scifi channel was having a marathon of them, culminating in the premier of their new original picture, hammerhead: shark frenzy. based on the previews, it looked like it was going to be HIGHLY amusing. essentially a remake of benchley's creature, really. it was prefaced by a showing of shark attack 3: megalodon, which is shark movie hilarity at its best. i was in the mood; i was ready to go. bring it on, hammerhead-mad-scientist-man! oh, god, was that movie wrong.<br /><br />wrong, wrong, wrong.<br /><br />sick. twisted. MESSED UP.<br /><br />this is theoretical reproduction at its very worst, my friends. when a drugged-out girl is brought out of suspended animation and strapped to a table screaming her head off because the shark-human hybrid fetus the absolutely insane "scientist" deliberately implanted in her womb wants OUT... Jesus monkeys. that's what i call disturbing.<br /><br />that's really how the plot works: hmmm, thought the mad scientist. my son died of cancer, but i brought him back to life by combining his dna with that of a hammerhead shark, because sharks don't succumb to cancer and further hammerheads reproduce via placenta. oh, look! a perfect amphibious being! i've created the next evolution of the human race! I KNOW! let's make him reproduce! but darned if all those shark genes have't made my son bloodthirsty; instead of raping the hot babes i keep sending into his little jungle paradise, he keeps eating him. but check this out! among the random people who have, by way of some unimportant plot twist, ended up on my research island, is the woman to whom my son was engaged before he died! i bet he'll do HER! all this leads up to an extremely touching and heartfelt reunion: woman: you're going to impregnate me? mad scientist: no. he is. (indicates thrashing shark-person in tank) how sweet.<br /><br />DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE. ever.
I caught "Sorrows Lost" at the New York Film and Video Festival and I guess I had some high hopes for this film. Sadly, this is just another Visual FX calling card. The story is pretty lame. The bad lighting and camera work, along with the less than great editing and music all make the film seem low quality.<br /><br />Is it really too much to ask that FX shorts have better stories and have the rest of the technical production be on par with the FX! You can't just get away with cool FX in shorts anymore, it's been 5 years since "405" made a big splash. At least that short quick, cool and was even a little funny! None of that can be said about "Sorrows Lost."
A scientist and his girl friend are out driving when his speeding causes a car crash. He escapes unharmed but she is decapitated. He saves her head, brings it to his house and keeps it alive (!!!!). He then proceeds to search out models and strippers for the perfect body for the head. His crippled assistant watches over the head which starts talking and has a telepathic (or telepathetic) link to a deformed monster kept in the closet....<br /><br />As you can see, this is pretty stupid stuff, but I had a certain fondness for it. When I grew up in the late 1970s, a local TV station showed this movie about 20 times each year (no exaggeration). They showed it always on Saturday afternoon TV--uncut. Seeing this on TV back then was great! Explicit blood and gore along with a gruesome monster and sleazy sexploitation--who cares if it was good? Seeing it now I realize how lousy this really is.<br /><br />The acting is perfectly wretched, the production values are nonexistent, the script is pretty dumb and (aside from the still pretty disgusting gore) this is dull stuff. There's also a mild cat fight between two women and the admittedly great monster at the end. Also add in an ending which leaves tons of loose ends. On one hand this is an interesting example of a 1960s exploitation film. On the other its utter trash. Either way, it's not a good movie but is a must-see (for one time only) for horror and gore fans.<br /><br />Also the head's laugh is pretty creepy. Note the end credits which gets the TITLE wrong (calling it "The HEAD That Wouldn't Die")!
This one hearkens back to the days of the matinée, when kids with nowhere else to hang out took their dates to the balcony after dumping their younger siblings below. It didn't matter what was on the screen - the little kids would sit through it and the big kids would ignore it. The adults, of course, would never see it.<br /><br />But they put it on video, anyway, along with most of the other creaky, low-budget "B" horror flicks of the golden age...of television. This film's inherent and unintentional humor is derived from stale ideology (the "bad girls" harvested to replace poor Jan's crushed body - they had it comin'), overused plot (a mad scientist, trying to play God), violent yet conscientious monster (whose presence in the heretofore-normal-seeming scientist's rural lab is never fully explained), and acting that polarizes at wooden or over-the-top.<br /><br />This is a great party film, assuming your guests enjoy adding dialog and commentary to otherwise abominable cinematic exploits. In fact, should you or your guests prefer more passive entertainment, this film is also available on video in its "Mystery Science Theater 3000" treatment, in which the host and puppets of the cult TV series make the necessary additions for you.
The Brain (or head) that Wouldn't Die is one of the more thoughtful low budget exploitation films of the early 1960s. It is very difficult to imagine how a script this repulsively sexist could have been written without the intention of self-parody. And the themes that are expressed repeatedly by the female lead, Ginny Leith - a detached head kept alive by machines, I-Vs and clamps - seem to confirm that the film was meant to simultaneously exploit and critique gender stereotypes. Shades of the under-rated Boxing Helena.<br /><br />The genderisms are plentiful, and about as irritating as an army of angry ants. The dialog is hyperbolic, over-dramatic and unbelievable, and the acting is merely OK (but not consistent). Why have I given this film a 4? Because some thought clearly went into it. I am really not sure what point the film was really trying to make, but it seems clear that it strives for an unusually edgy and raw sort of horror (without the blood and guts today's audiences expect).<br /><br />Another unique and interesting aspect of the Brain is that there really are not any heroes in this film, and none of the characters are particularly likable.<br /><br />All considered, this is a fairly painful and disturbing look at early 1960s American pop sexuality, from the viewpoint of a woman kept alive despite her missing body after what should have been a fatal car crash. Her lover is threatening to sew a fresh, high quality, body onto her and force her to continue living with him. She is understandably non-plussed by all of this and forced to befriend a creature who is almost as monstrous as her boyfriend. Oh, there are also some vague references to the 1950s/60s cliché about the evils of science run amok.<br /><br />Recommended for B sci fi buffs and graduate students in gender studies. O/w not recommended.
The Brain That Wouldn't Die is one awful piece of film that stinks from the opening credits. It's got all the classic signs of being bad: unbelieveable plotline, terrible acting, low-grade sets and lighting. The plotline goes like this: When a doctor and his fiancee get caught in an accident, she gets decapitated and he picks up her head and takes her to his lab, where he sets up her head in a pan with some special liquid that keeps it alive. I'll bet Virgnina Leath, who played the head in a pan had to spend a lot of uncomfortable time wearing that pan around her neck and squatting under a table. Anyway, the doctor then tries to find her a new body, and hires two strippers so she can chose one to have her new body. Bad all the way through, so bad it was torn to pieces on Mystery Science Theater 3000.
Neat premise. Very unrealistic. What I learned from this movie is that speeding crazily out of control to go to the weekend cabin may not be the best idea after all. I loved how Bill conveniently rolls out of the car and down the hill with no injury at all! Unfortunately, the same can't be said for his gal. Oh, and the police never seemed to find the car or trace the owner of the wreck.<br /><br />Lots of dragged out scenes including a plain stripper (still have nightmares from that scene). Poor assistant guy and his crummy useless hand. I admit I was intrigued to see what the mysterious "thing" was behind the door, but when it appeared, I just laughed. HA HA HA!! The girl really seemed sadistically angry about being revived. Personally, I really would want a new body after an excruciating experience like that!
A demented scientist girlfriend is decapitated so he brings her head back to life. Honest this is the plot of the movie. He try's to get her another body he searches through the sleaze area of town for that perfect body. For some reason he has ugly looking monster in a closet at his cabin. The sleaze style of the movie is laughable. No one in the movie can actually act including the head. The closet monster is a man with a mask tie on and you can really tell. The plot is slow, weak and the ending is so badly done. Watch the Mystery Science Theater 3000 version of this move. Believe me folks I wouldn't watch this movie on its own.
Another movie that relies upon the trite, worn-out cliché of the mad scientist gone madder. The movie centers around a surgeon whose life's ambition is to bring the dead...back to life. I know, I know...you've never heard that one before! Of course, as all of these movies go, the experiment goes very, very wrong and creates a maniacal, bloodthirsty creature. For this promising setup, you'd think that it'd be at least a bit suspenseful. Wrong. Like many movies of this era, the idea is nice, but the execution and the script is mediocre. Not the worst horror movie I've seen (no, Abominator: the Evilmaker 2 still takes the cake)...but not one of the gems, either.
A doctor who is trying to complete the medical dream of transplantation is experimenting secretly on corpses from the hospital with varying success. His final best chance comes when he lovingly wraps his girlfriend's head in his jacket as he rescues it from a burning vehicle.<br /><br />I was looking for cheese and with this premise I believed I found it. It has everything everything that bad movie hunters look for - chest and brain surgery with the surgeons leaving with pristine white scrubs, unique camera angles (I always love watching the rear passenger wheels of cars), cheesy clarinet stripper music, and one of the longest death scenes in movie history. But unfortunately these so-bad-they-are-good moments can't overcome the too-bad-they-stink stretches.<br /><br />Jan in the Pan annoyed me, with her droning monologues in a hoarse whisper, the somewhat less than evil laughter, and the fact she was kept alive with some Columbian home brew coffee and 2 DD batteries.<br /><br />I couldn't even entertain myself with Dr Bill's horrid overacting and moral self righteousness. Usually such ham makes these movies a must see in my opinion, in this case I was bored with it.<br /><br />The best part of the movie in my opinion was the 1960's version of "body shopping" and I even found myself nodding off during that.<br /><br />Don't spend money on this one - there are better bad movies out there to entertain your sick sense of humor.
**Possible Spoilers Ahead**<br /><br />	Jason (a.k.a. Herb) Evers is a brilliant brain surgeon who, along with wife Virginia Leith, is involved in the most lackluster onscreen car crash ever. Leith is decapitated and the doctor takes her severed noggin back to his mansion and rejuvenates the head in his lab. The mansion's exterior was allegedly filmed at Tarrytown's Lyndhurst estate; the lab scenes were apparently shot in somebody's basement. The bandaged head is kept alive on "lab equipment" that's almost cheap-looking enough for Ed Wood. Some of the library music–the movie's high point–later turned up in Andy Milligan's THE BODY BENEATH. Leith's head has some heavy metaphysical discourses with another of Ever's misfires, a mutant chained in the closet. Meanwhile, the good doc prowls strip joints looking for a body worthy of his wife's gabby noodle. The ending, in uncut prints, features some ahead-of-its-time splatter and dismemberment when the zucchini-headed monster comes out of the closet to bring the movie to a welcome close. This thing took three years to be released and then, audiences gave it the bad reception it richly deserved. Between this, PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE and a few others, 1959 should have been declared The Year Of The Turkey.
This movie tells the tender tale of a demented scientist who, after his fiance is decapitated, goes around ogling strippers so that he can find a suitable body to attach her noggin to. Everyone in this movie exudes more slime than a snail, particularly our protagonist.
Following a car accident, a mad scientist(Jason Evers) keeps the head of his fiancee(Virgina Leith)alive. He then goes on the prowl looking for the perfect body to make her whole again. Pretty lame all the way around, nothing redeeming here. Also in the cast are: Leslie Daniels, Bonnie Sharie and Bruce Brighton. Someone should have helped put this one out of its misery. Let it die.
I bought this film on DVD so I could get an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. Thankfully, Mike, Crow, and Tom Servo are watchable, because the film itself is not. Although there is a plot, a story one can follow, and a few actors that can act, there isn't anything else. The movie was so boring, I have firmly confirmed that I will never watch it again without Tom, Crow and Mike. As summarized above, however, it was better than the film featured in the MST3K episode that preceded it; Mitchell.
...but it'll make you wonder if we had any in the first place! This movie is just as bad as any of today's horrible horror. A man goes around ogling semi-clad ladies, trying to decide which one to kill so he can give his girlfriend a new body. One scene involves a man staggering around and spurting all over the set for a full three minutes, coating everything what what must be well over ten gallons of "blood." The movie also attempts to create a sense that what the man is doing to his girlfriend is wrong and against nature, but the movie is so badly done it's impossible for the audience to dredge up any feeling of shock or outrage. Aimlessly dark and unimpressively sinister, this movie can't even get its own title straight-- the beginning credits say "The Brain That Wouldn't Die," but the end credits list it as "The Head That Wouldn't Die."
... or an audience. A quick recap....<br /><br />So you've got this doctor who's been experimenting with stolen body parts for some vague reason. He wants to perfect transplants, but feels he needs to do this in his basement. WTF??? And then suddenly, unfortunately, and conveniently, his fiancé gets her head cut off in a traffic accident that HE'S responsible for. Agonized with grief, he preserves her head in a lasagna pan (or is it strudel?) and pumps it full of "adreno-serum" (sic) to keep it alive. And then she awakes, talking her head off (so to speak) even though her neck was obviously severed at the vocal cords, and she has no lungs so she couldn't speak even if she had 'em. Seems the ungrateful b*tch doesn't appreciate all that her fiancé has done for her. Just like a woman.....<br /><br />Then his grief turns to horniness as he sees the possibility of grafting his beloved's head onto the body of the first sleazy bimbo he can pick up off the street. Meanwhile, the doctor's assistant, a sort of dime-store Igor, gets into philosophical arguments with the head, who has struck up a telekinetic friendship with the "monster in the closet" (every mad scientist has one). Eventually the screenwriter realizes that he can't keep inflicting his misogyny and fear of intimacy issues on the audience ad infinitum, so he kills everybody, then presumably goes to the bank to cash the check before the movie's financial backers have a chance to stop payment on it. <br /><br />Have I mentioned that I think this is a bad movie?<br /><br />Someone should tell Turner Classic Movies to stop showing that edited version without the gory stuff. The sight of the assistant with his arm ripped off, pirouetting around the house without leaving much blood anywhere is just too precious.
This movie is a loose collection of unintelligible analogies and ill conceived plot devices.<br /><br />Movie history: The director of this film was a pervert who drove around town filming random women. When his wife discovered the film reels, he was forced to quickly contrive a story. He claimed he was making a movie called "The brain that wouldn't die." Eventually, his wife demanded that he show her his "so called movie." That night he quickly filmed some extra scenes with a friend and "The Brain that wouldn't Die" was born.<br /><br />I hate this movie! Plot Synopsis: The main character's fiancé is killed in a horrible car accident(that he caused by ignoring the clearly posted road signs). He grabs her head from the wreckage and reanimates it. After reanimating the head, he goes and picks up a bunch of hookers. That is pretty much what happens for the rest of the movie. At the end, he fights and is killed by a monster that lives in the closet. The monster appears with little to no explanation. However, the monster saves a hooker and I assume that they live happily ever after.<br /><br />Side notes: The end credit screen claims that the movie is called "The Head that wouldn't Die".<br /><br />I hate this movie!
This film was really bad whether you take it as a sci-fi movie, as a horror one or even as a comedy. The whole thing is ridiculous.<br /><br />The film looks (and is) definitely cheap, the actors have no idea of what acting is and the script shows clearly that it was being made along with the shooting. It is obvious that the monster in the closet was added because the living head was not scary at all -she was even pretty- and they thought they needed something more impressive; they failed here too (the make up is awful even for the late 50's, rather funny).<br /><br />The film shows clearly why Director Joseph Green's career as such and also as a writer never materialized; he was really bad at both. Same goes to the actors, leading and supporting.<br /><br />"The Brain That Wouldn't Die"'s best achievement is its short running time.
I bought this DVD for $1 at Walmart. After seeing it, I might just return to the store and try to get my money back! The only reason I gave the movie a 2 and not a 1 is that the story has a few novel story elements, though it really never rises to the level of being interesting. This film has all the earmarks of being a made for the drive-in theaters market--ultra-low budget, amateurish acting and a liberal dose of sex (for an early 60s film). In fact, I wonder if perhaps the only reason the film was made was to make a fast buck AND because someone knew some strippers they could use as extras. The film is about a wacko doctor who wants to transplant his girlfriend's severed head onto the body of an unsuspecting donor. Most of the potential donors are skanky strippers or a model--whose only real purpose in the film is to titillate as they remove most of their clothes. However, they keep too much on to make the movie even worth watching for the naughty bits and the film isn't quite awful enough to merit watching by bad film buffs.
I saw this movie thinking that it would be one of those old B movies that are fun to watch. I was so wrong! This movie was boring and obviously aimed at males who like looking at corpulent women. The story was so ridiculous and implausible that it lost my interest altogether. It seemed to be in the same genre as the Ed Wood films - bottom of the barrel.
Where to begin, there's so much wrong and horrible about this movie I am not sure where to start. Okay, the two stooges who wrote this crapper. Joseph Green and Rex Carlton, first they couldn't make up their so-called minds for a name. My guess they split the difference, that's why the main title is BRAIN THAT WOULDN'T DIE, but the end screen says HEAD THAT WOULDN'T DIE. Neither one knows anything about the Medical profession. After all Doctors take oaths to "do no harm". Killing a woman for a head transplant would be considered "harm". Plus, a little thing called blood and tissue matching. Rejection would spell death for Jan in the pan. Plus who keeps a patch work monster. What medical school did Bill graduate from, FRANKENSTIEN UNIVERSITY? Old FU, or MAD SCIENTIST TECH? The monster had no name, that bugs the hell out of me. Plus, the brilliant surgeon Doctor Bill Cortner doesn't know how to keep a patient sedated? All and all a disaster of a movie, it's incredibly stupid and unwatchable, except on MST3K. I give it THE THANKSGIVING TURKEY.
I just loved watching it though and having fun with it's total badness of a film. I saw this film through the helpful sarcasm of Mystery Science Theater 3000 and I have the DVD. If you flip the to the other side of the DVD, they show the actual movie, so I gave it a chance. Seriously, folks this is grilled cheese.<br /><br />The acting, special effects, and plot in general is very cheesy and unrealistic. "Doesn't she need lungs" said Crow noticing how the head can still talk while it doesn't have a body, and Tom Servo just wistfully remarks "No, she's got neck juice!". The ending is just classic and no one can touch this soundtrack with K-Porn! I loved the "cat fight" between the two strippers. That "Meow" after the fight or scene, whatever, was classic. So, in some ways this was a fun movie. I think for horror fans, you'll probably enjoy it. For a good time, watch the MSTK3 version, you'll get a great laugh.<br /><br />MST3K version: 10/10 The Brain that would die: 1/10
I would have enjoyed this movie slightly more had not been for Jason (Herb) Evers constant harping on experiment. Many early reviewers of The Seven Samurai accused Toshiro Mifune of overacting. Yet, as more and more critics viewed that film they saw it as being purposefully done. Jason Evers is obviously not Toshiro Mifune, and his overacting is exactly that.<br /><br />Most of the actors in this B classic were rather good actors, minus Evers and the showgirls. If you watch this movie, you would have noticed Evers shouting almost every line, that is until he is smoking and blowing the smoke coolly out his nose. <br /><br />The special effects were par for the course in a B movie such as this one. In hindsight, there isn't much that stands out in my mind as fantastically good or bad for this movie.
The first noticeable problem about this awkwardly titled film is its casting. Ann Nelson plays the grandma here. Three years after this, she would star in "Airplane!" as the woman who hangs herself while listening to Robert Hays pine for Julie Hagerty. I could not get that image out of my head.<br /><br />Matt Boston is a fifteen year old with problems. He has headaches. His mother had a nervous breakdown. His grandfather had a massive heart attack. A chain smoking psychiatrist decides to find out what the devil is going on with this family. First she hypnotizes Grandma Nelson. Nelson tells a tale in flashback that fills the entire first half of the film.<br /><br />She and Grandpa bought an RV, cheap, and drive it around to all the tourist traps in desert California. The RV soon has a mind of its own, going off the road and such. Then, large boulders begin hurling themselves at it. The elderly couple are appropriately afraid, but stay in the vehicle in order to move the plot along.<br /><br />Eventually, Grandpa has a heart attack after being stranded on the RV roof when it goes for another unplanned ride.<br /><br />Boston's mom begins talking to some Native American mummies she has lying around the house. She fancies herself an author, and makes copious notes about the musty corpses. The psychiatrist reads the detailed notes, and uses her imagination to fill in the blanks. We see the mother semi-flip out, but her mental breakdown occurs offscreen, much like Gramps' heart attack.<br /><br />Finally, the patient de resistance, little Matt. Matt goes under the hypnosis gun and tells his own tale. He thinks mom is wigging out (this was made in 1977). Apparently, mom is making the astral bodies of the Native American mummies sort of fly through the air. One hits Matt like a bee hits a windshield, and Matt begins acting all crazy.<br /><br />The psychiatrist takes Grandma and Matt into the desert. Matt is inexplicably in a wheelchair now, and the trio confront the unseen (and unexplained) forces.<br /><br />Flocker has no sense of scene construction. The one pro here involves the RV stranded in a salt flat in the desert. In the distance, the couple notice some boulders rolling toward the RV. This is a pretty creepy little scene that is eventually overplayed. As the boulders begin hurling themselves toward the vehicle, the special effects become obvious.<br /><br />The scenes where the RV runs off the highway, then back on again, take forever. The scenes where Grandpa is trapped on the RV roof as it careens down a dirt road takes forever. Mom's conversations with the mummy take forever. Matt's out of body experiences take forever. This film takes forever.<br /><br />I was tempted to hit the fast forward button at least a dozen times. As scenes dragged on, it was obvious Flocker was padding. Cut the fat here, and this would have clocked in at an hour. The final "explanation," that the mummies' spirits were trying to kill those close to Matt never holds water. Did they inhabit the RV? The film maker never brings up the fact that the spirits are no good at their murderous ways, they never kill anybody!<br /><br />As I kept thinking of Nelson in "Airplane!," I also thought of other movies. Anything to keep me from falling asleep during this one. Boston is terrible as the kid, playing a fifteen year old as a cute ten year old who has a smart alecky line for all these adults who fall over themselves loving him.<br /><br />In the end, Flocker has written and directed a mess. The title is just the beginning of this exercise in making the audience feel ill at ease. This is not scary, and like the ghosts, you too can still walk...away from this tape at the video store.<br /><br />This is unrated, and contains some physical violence and mild profanity.
Perhaps the worst thing about Carlos Mencia's comedy is that every joke needs to be followed with an insult at the people in the crowd that aren't laughing. If there's anybody who's insecure, it's a comedian who won't shut up about his audience.<br /><br />Then again, perhaps the worst thing about Carlos Mencia's comedy is that he doesn't get off his free speech high horse. If you want to be funny, just make a joke, don't explain all the reasons why you're saving the American way with your failed attempts at generating laughter.<br /><br />Hmm... actually... the worst thing about Carlos Mencia's comedy is that it substitues meanspirited jabs at ethnicities for legitimate humor. Avoid this like the plague.
As a Turkish man now living in Sweden I must confess I often watch Scandinavian movies. Most if them I never understand. I think actors from Scandinavia work best in Hollywood. Last week I watched a film called "The Polish Wedding" together with a polish friend of mine and we both said it was the worst movie we ever watched. Unfortunately I was wrong this movie " House of Angels" is even worse. None of the actors can act, absolutely not the female so called star Helen Bergstrom. The plot is so silly nobody can believe it.I think the whole thing is a mess from the start. lots of bad acting except from Selldal and Wollter. Ahmed Sellam
When I began watching The Muppets Take Manhattan, the choppy presentation and dialogue had me convinced I was watching something recent, so you can imagine my surprise when I came to the IMDb and read that it was made in 1984. Jim Henson may have ended The Muppet Show when it was at its peak, but spin offs like this and Muppet Babies (which apparently is based upon a very terrible sequence in this film) are the absolute nadir of all things Muppet. I used to wonder why Muppets attracted such derision from such film reviewers as Mr. Cranky, so I am glad that The Muppets Take Manhattan (henceforth: TMTM) set me straight on that one. Of course, many series have had a massive drop off in quality when the third episode came around: Aliens, RoboCop, The Evil Dead, even Night Of The Living Dead. So while it is no surprise that TMTM is less than The Muppet Movie or The Great Muppet Caper, the surprise lies entirely in how much less than the awesome debut or its slightly lesser follow-up TMTM is. Not only is the music far less satisfying, the scenes that link it all together are utterly terrible.<br /><br />There are, of course, some redeeming and genuinely funny moments, but they are few and far between. The Swedish Chef is great in any scene he inhabits, so thank the spirit of small mercies that he appears in one sequence where his eccentricity is exploited to the fullest. The problem is that there are just no scenes that work. The story, such as it is, revolves around a Broadway musical Kermit is attempting to get produced. He goes through many trials and tribulations along the way, including the sneaking suspicion the viewer has that we have seen this all before. The biggest problem is that Kermit does not have a decent antagonist to work off this time. Charles Durning was cinematic gold as Doc Hopper, the proprietor of a fast food chain who wants to exploit Kermit for his business. Charles Grodin was dynamite as Nicky Holiday, a jewel thief the Muppets must fight in order to save Miss Piggy from a lifetime in prison. The saying is that a hero is only as good as his antagonist, and these two are at least half responsible for the greatness of the previous two films.<br /><br />Charles Grodin also highlights what is wrong with TMTM. Namely, the music sucks. The opening number of the Manhattan Melodies show that is at the centre of TMTM, to put it nicely, makes the drivel that now dominates the airwaves seem coordinated. I might just be letting my peculiar sensitivity to the sounds of words and phrases getting to me, but songs like The Rainbow Connection inspired tears of joy, not irritation. Grodin's big solo during The Great Muppet Caper, while not having the same resonation, he lifts the tone of the film eight steps on his own. He is all class. And if there is one thing TMTM could use, it is rising eight steps in addition to attaining a semblance of class. TMTM also feels severely time-compressed, with the story leaping from scene to scene without any consideration for making sense or giving the story cohesion. Maddox himself pointed out that transition and cohesion make a film feel like a coherent whole rather than a mess of thrown-together pieces. See if you can find them in TMTM.<br /><br />While TMTM does have its guest stars, they are either poorly utilised (Brooke Shields and John Landis), or totally out of their element (Liza Minelli, Dabney Coleman). To call this a waste of time for puppeteer and actor alike is flattery. The absence of an end credits routine is especially sore here, after Animal's "go home" postscript for The Muppet Movie in particular. Which highlights another problem. The characters are poorly written at best, with none of their individual quirks to be seen or heard. Animal shouts singular words at times, but they have nothing to do with the plot, or the conversation going on around him. Say what you will about set pieces designed to show off characters, but think of Animal's moment after eating the instant growth pills, or his "sowwy" after the incident when he pulled the window down on top of his fellow Muppets. Now see if you can remember a single memorable moment with an individual Muppet other than Swedish Chef's hilarious misunderstanding of three-dimensional film involving popcorn. Give up? Then you have proved my point.<br /><br />Given that Labyrinth, one of the Henson company's best and most timeless products outside of the Muppets, arrived some two years later, it makes TMTM all the more puzzling. Perhaps this misfire convinced Jim Henson to rethink his strategy regarding character development and usage. Or perhaps the misfire can be attributed to Frank Oz, who at the time had just finished working with George Lucas on what many would agree is the most childish episode in the original Star Wars saga. The writers were also involved with The Great Muppet Caper, so I will let them off the hook for this in spite of the fact that a script is one of the most essential pieces of a film. The production is also substantially improved here, with Muppets appearing capable of moving in ways that were previously beyond them. Had the story and script been better thought-out, TMTM might have been at least comparable to The Great Muppet Caper. As it stands now, it is a great answer to the question of whether Muppets write under the influence, or excrete.<br /><br />For that reason, I gave The Muppets Take Manhattan a three out of ten. Two to denote its actual quality, and a bonus for the Swedish Chef's moments. Without him, this film would be unwatchable.
Scary.. Yes Scary!! Jam-packed with nudity (from fat people to skinny people), Maslin Beach takes place on a nudist beach in S.A.<br /><br />I first saw this film two years ago - it's safe to say it made a bizarre topic of discussion at school the next day. This film was horrible! Hardly a romantic comedy - just a showcase of nudity! This movie hit its lowpoint with one of the new-age characters staring down between a girls legs.<br /><br />Girl: You're not going to find God in there! Guy: Nah, But I think I found heaven.<br /><br />Steer clear of this one, unless you want to hear amateur actors discuss topics such as farting, adultery and the process of superlguing one's genitals together. AVOID!
The thing viewers will remember most is the bad headache the movie has given them due to the overly flashy, shaky, camera-work and the fast, confusing cutting. I am not against those kind of stylistic devices if they are done right like Oliver Stone and Steven Soderbergh proof with most of their movies, but in this case there was WAY too much. It seems like the jump-cuts and light flashes that accompanied every flight over Mexico city and every important scene were there to distract you from realizing that the story is quite thin and the whole thing was very predictable. The biggest disappointment lies in the fact that you can easily figure out how the whole thing is going to end. For a movie that pretends to be violent, ruthless and morally corrupt it is inexcusable that it's story has been told so many times and with a lot more depth and character development. That is another disappointing aspect of the movie. If I want to watch an over the top action flick I do not need any justification, but this movie tried to justify the killing spree of Denzel Washington's character and poorly failed in delivering any believable performances. The first half hour or so nothing much happens except that dumb archetypes and clichés are portrayed and when the action machine starts rolling it is so quickly cut that you do not know what really happens. So the movie does not work either on the level of a believable drama/thriller , nor as a pure action movie. Of course the movie is not as bad as some oft the totally messed up blockbusters of the last years, but I absolutely cannot understand why so many people claim this movie to be something fresh and so cool. For a video clip it is way too long and for a movie it has too little substance.
Don't get me wrong, I love action and revenge flicks, I've seen many of them since I was a kid, including Dolph Lundgren's latest "The Mechanik" which is quite good. And Tony Scott certainly know how to use a camera and even might be a genius shooting and editing films.<br /><br />But with "Man on Fire" (and even more then with "Domino"), Scott shows that rather than using his film-making "genius" skills intelligently, he uses it puposelessly to show off and compensate a lack of substance that his material doesn't offer him. "Man of Fire" is close to 2 hours and half when it really should have been at least an hour less.<br /><br />The way Scott shot and edited this film also makes you wonder if he really wants you (the audience) to sit through his film because his constant camera moves and flashes really are a torture for the eye and makes you wanna leave the theater or turn it off after 5 minutes into it.<br /><br />At times where the MPAA and studios have questionable attitudes regarding ratings, violence and making PG-13 movies, I find also suspicious that a $70 million movie is made of a B-movie script with a character who cuts fingers, puts a bomb in a man's ass and blows a guy's hand with a shotgun, all this to avenge the death of a little girl who ISN'T even dead! Go figure then why a studio will pass a better script because of the language or violence... Thus said...
Trust me, this is one let down movie that you want to avoid and this comes from one huge Denzel Washington fan. The frustrating part is that it's 1/3 of a GREAT film. The first part of this movie does an exceptional job of setting up the characters and the new relationship between Creasy and the girl he's paid to protect. The trailers to this movie all mention that she is kidnapped. So, I'm giving nothing away when I say that the film degenerates into an almost unwatchable mess after she's kidnapped. Whatever the director was trying to accomplish, all he succeeds in doing is making the audience literally nauseous. Rapid, frantic and choppy cuts follow for the next half-hour as Creasy tracks down the perpetrators. These cuts are so unnatural and nauseating that all they do is to jolt you out of the story. I'm sure the director thought that this unsettling way to present the story signified a change in Creasy's character and signified that a different movie was to follow. Well, he was right. The movie that followed was complete and unsatisfying crap. The result of which is a depressing ending that ruins even the quality first forty minutes of the movie.
### Spoilers! ### <br /><br />What is this movie offering? Out of control editing and cinematography that matches up with a terrible plot. It is sad to see Denzel Washington's talents go wasted in trashes like this.We are certainly hinted how the Mexicans cannot save themselves, outside forces needed, possibly militaristic, American ones. And we know the father is a shady character, he is a Mexican after all, unlike the wife who appreciates Creasey more because he is American. He killed all of them thinking she died. And did she? Of course, she won't, she is a young kid and you are not supposed to hurt the sensibilities of the Hollywood fan. The trade off scene was the only thing that prevents me from rating it below the "implausibly successful"(as some critic pointed out)'Taken'. The nausea of such movies will take time to go. It is in the rating of such movies that we have to doubt IMDb's credulity.7.7 for a movie like this and 7.0 for My Own Private Idaho. Go figure! Mine will be in the range of 3.5-4.0
If this documentary had not been made by the famous French director, Louis Malle, I probably would have turned it off after the first 15 minutes, as it was an incredibly dull look at a very ordinary Midwestern American town in 1979. This is not exactly my idea of a fun topic and the film footage closely resembled a collection of home movies. Considering I didn't know any of these people, it was even less interesting.<br /><br />Because it was a rather dull slice of life style documentary, I wondered while watching what was the message they were trying to convey? Perhaps it was that values aren't as conservative as you might think--this was an underlying message through many of the vignettes (such as the Republicans whose son was a draft resister as well as the man and lady who thought sex outside of marriage was just fine). Or, perhaps the meaning was that there was a lot of bigotry underlying the nice home town--as several ugly ideas such as blaming Jews for financial conspiracies, anti-Black bigotry and homophobia all were briefly explored.<br /><br />The small town of 1979 was explored in great depth and an idyllic sort of world was portrayed, but when the film makers returned six years later, the mood was depressed thanks to President Reagan. This seemed very disingenuous for several reasons. First, the 1979 portion was almost 90% of the film and the final 10% only consisted of a few interviews of people that blamed the president for just about everything but acne. What about the rest of the folks of this town? Did they all see Reagan as evil or that their lives had become more negative? With only a few updates, it seemed suspicious. Second, while it is true that the national debt doubled in the intervening years, so did the gross national product. And, while Malle shows 1979 as a very optimistic period, it was far from that, as the period from 1974-1980 featured many shortages (gas, sugar, etc.), strikes, high inflation and general malaise. While I am not a huge fan of Reagan because government growth did NOT slow during his administration, the country, in general, was far more optimistic than it had been in the Ford and Carter years. While many in the media demonized Reagan (a popular sport in the 80s), the economy improved significantly and the documentary seems very one-sided and agenda driven. Had the documentary given a more thorough coverage of 1985 and hadn't seemed too negative to be believed (after all, everyone didn't have their lives get worse--this defies common sense), then I might have thought otherwise.<br /><br />Overall, not the wonderful documentary some have proclaimed it to be--ranging from a dull film in 1979 to an extremely slanted look at 1985.<br /><br />By the way, is it just me, or does the film DROP DEAD GORGEOUS seem to have been inspired, at least in part, by this film? Both are set in similar communities, but the latter film was a hilarious mockumentary without all the serious undertones.
I got this film from a private collector and was very curious about it. It had a 7,8 in IMDb (9 votes only) and some external comments were pleasant. But I have to say that it is a very usual and uninteresting giallo. Yes, great cinematography, the film is well directed, but it never freaked me out. It starts well, but although it not bored me at all, the story is so ordinary and the things that occur so normal, that I didn't like it very much.<br /><br />You can make a few laughs. And you can see some little tits. But if you like the kind of giallos I like (bizarre, surreal, nonsenseful, gory, atmospheric, brutal murders...) you won't appreciate much this film.<br /><br />I give it a 4 for the good directing and editing, and the final twists, that make the film entertaining. But it could be much better.
This movie does not really promote kids to be nicer and have better attitudes, as a family movie should, and this wouldn't be considered family anyway because it has some things in it that children shouldn't be seeing. Not the best ABC Family film if you ask me. If there were less sexual themes in the movie, then maybe it would be better. Hollywood isn't doing anything to make a movie better by adding in sexual situations. There's really no reason for them. At least this is a TV movie. I wouldn't want to waste my money on this garbage by renting it. If you have other things to do other than watch this movie, please proceed to them.
with this ABC family attempt of the hit blockbuster "cheaper by the dozen" comes an obnoxious amount of corny dialogue, shallow plot lines, and cheesy comebacks. With about two good actors among many wanna-be's, this movie was a major disappointment. Its a Hollywood-wannabe ditto of an already bad plot. Then, because they needed a lot of actors, that meant that they'd probably be more lenient. So the acting wasn't five-star. The plot moved fairly fast, and the twists were bad and had horrible timing. The junction of characters and the "end relationships" were also too mushy and clichéd for me. Spare yourself and rent something better.
I usually comment only on movies that I like, figuring "everyone to his/her own taste," but here I want to make an exception. The premise of this movie, which somehow seems to get lost in the shuffle, is that these two self-centered adults have a perfect right to go off to Las Vegas, get drunk, get married, and inflict incalculable suffering upon their respective broods of children. Even allowing for the culturally sanctioned inebriation, they have neither the courage nor the sense of responsibility to wake up the next morning and undo what they have set in motion. After all, "love" is all that's important, isn't it? To hell with everybody else. Whether or not things "work out in the end" is really not the point; in fact it's quite irrelevant. The point is that disrespect for others, especially if they are young persons, and especially if they are in a position of dependency, is made light of and thereby reinforced by this movie. There are far more innocuous behaviors these "parents" could have performed that would have brought down an army of social workers on their heads in a heartbeat.
I simply give this a three because it fulfilled what my buddies and I hoped it would do: entertain. <br /><br />I wasn't stupid enough to rent this thinking it would be a zombie film up there with the likes of Romero or Fulci, but what I rented it for was a laugh. <br /><br />If you are looking for a film for amusement, or a film to make you shake your head in embarrassment, go for it. This is perfect for junior- "Mystery Science Theater" fans, but the only downside is that it is so bad, it makes fun of itself. <br /><br />I, personally, think it is a shame to relate this to any other Hollywood title that we may know, because when a film sucks like this, it has its own genre.
The first mistake you make in titling a film is to use "of the living dead" without really having a budget for real zombie FX. Sure, this was a low budget zombie flick - really low budget. I thought it was a film school project. Amateur actors and amateur effects.<br /><br />It was really not too bad considering the above, and it presented an interesting twist to the zombie genre. If you are going to get an "R" for violence, you might as well give us some good shots of the babes being attacked. The women were so little used in this film that it could almost be classified as "gay interest."<br /><br />And, I am staying out of Oakland. There was a heck of a lot of shooting going on and no cops in sight!
This was without a doubt the worst thing I have ever spent money on. I feel dirty for admitting that I rented this 'movie' and actually paid money to see it. This does not even rate trash. No no. This is the juice that collects at the bottom of industrial dumpsters located in particularly foul neighborhoods after an extraordinarily humid summer. To call it trash would be to degrade trash everywhere. It was so bad I felt I had to register at IMDb and warn my fellow man. This luvahire character claims this movie is great. One has to question his grasp on reality. Let's take some of his comments and analyze them.<br /><br />"The actor who played Ricky (I forgot his name) did a VERY good job."<br /><br />I see. Well, if the director envisioned his audience cringing and wincing at every sentence uttered by Ricky or alternately bursting into uncontrollable laughter at moments when most directors would want a more somber reaction from their viewers, then yes; Ricky did an outstanding job.<br /><br />"I'm an aspiring actor myself taking theater at my school and I had to do a play where I had to cry and it's not easy to be emotional in a scene so I give props to actors who have to do an emotional scene and can pull it off."<br /><br />Wow. I too must give props to actors who can pull off emotional scenes. Luvahire, you may want to look into another line of work there buddy if you think these chuckleheads pulled it off. Still, they can help you if you need to practice crying. Just watch the movie. ha. ha. ha. <br /><br />"BRING ON THE SEQUEL"<br /><br />If I was your theater teacher at school I'd fail you based solely on this comment alone.<br /><br />I am too disgusted to continue. I shall now turn over the movie bashing to my associate, Mr. Bangla. <br /><br />Howdy! If you've continued to read this far, I take it for granted that you've already seen the movie, and you're now looking for one of two things in this comment: 1) Additional vitriolic debasement of what you agree was an exceptionally poor movie. 2) Additional vitriolic debasement of what you feel was a good cinematic effort which needs defending against such libelous scum as myself. Whether you want help articulating your disgust or ammunition for a stirring repartee, if I say anything good it'll only disappoint you--so let me assure you, there is little chance of such disappointment. <br /><br />The other negative comments here at IMDb have already enumerated the particular failings of the movie (e.g. the acting, the soundtrack, the directing, the dialogue, the editing, etc.), however all of these faults can readily be forgiven, in and of themselves. Few people will rent a movie titled "Hood of the Living Dead" if they require these elements to be top-notch. The ultimate failure of "Hood", however, is its failure to deliver on the abundant promise of its name. "Hood of the Living Dead" practically leaps off the shelf at the video store with its implications of corny one-liners and gruesomely creative kills. Here was a chance to mix the cheesy gore of the zombie movie with the realism of life in the ghetto, to have gangsta-thug zombies bombin' on the innocent living while rockin' do-rags, to have undead pimps drivin' over all-too-mortal po-lice in their tricked-out rides. The mixture of the two genres could have been hilarious. Instead, the movie is more like watching middle school kids timidly deliver the lines to a play they are performing, but don't understand. To avoid a feeling of betrayal on the part of their video-rental audience, I suggest that the Quiroz brothers re-release the movie with the following new title: "Hood of the Living Dead: A home-made horror video we shot on our camcorder with some friends over a weekend last summer because we were bored". Or perhaps they could release it as a documentary. "The Day Creativity Died: An exploration of how a low budget movie can still be perfectly devoid of clever or original thought despite lacking ties to a major motion picture studio." <br /><br />The potential renter whose interest has not been quelled, should find the following blurb on the back of the video case: "The Quiroz Brothers have proved once again that watching things which you can easily do yourself is not very interesting."--Mr. Bangla
2 stars, and I'm being generous. (minor spoilers) Look, this is a low budget zombie movie set in gangland Oakland. As the plot goes, a scientist wants to bring his dead brother back to life after being killed in a drive-by.<br /><br />The main problem with this movie: what zombies?! All the "zombies" do is growl (which doesn't sound even remotely scary) and drip fake red blood from their mouths! No scary eyes, no decaying flesh, just a bunch of people growling pathetically and running around like idiots.<br /><br />The cover is also misleading. There are only about 6 zombies in the whole film, so it's not like the whole "hood" is plagued with zombies or anything, it's just a few, and is contained in no time.<br /><br />The acting actually is so bad it's hilarious. No one can act at all in this movie (except maybe one of the gang members) and it really seems like a bunch of friends got together, decided to cast their family, and made a movie one weekend.<br /><br />Final note: since when do Doctors wear tracksuits?! Skip this one, please!
...you know the rest. If you want a good zombie movie, DON'T RENT THIS MOVIE. If you want a documentary-esquire look at "hood life" you're at the wrong place as well. If you're looking for a laughable piece of film, this is a real winner! The acting is as flat as a piece of paper. The best example of this is definitely the officer investigating the drive-by. I can tell that he did the voice for the 911 operator as well by the flat tone of his voice. If I could hear a cardboard box talk, it'd probably sound like this guy. Oh yea, and the "zombies" did their best snake impression which is on par with their FANTASTIC acting overall (note sarcasm...HOW DID THIS NOT WIN AN Oscar FOR BEST MAKE-UP) The Quiroz......did not do any sort of directing. I felt like I was watching an improvisational period piece (the period is more like 1990's LA) The direction is however one-uped by the worst script I think to ever grace a movie. I haven't heard such lovely lines, like the epic one word beginning to the movie "F**k!", since Ice Grill which was another "urban" thriller. This only works of course in conjunction with the also-epic hip-hop soundtrack! All 3 or so songs of it! All in all, what the hell did you expect from a movie entitled "Hood of the Living Dead"? I rented this movie with full intention to laugh at its every scene, and boy it delivered and MORE! I would definitely recommend this to anyone who wants to get together with a bunch of guys and laugh at a low budget horror (yea right...) movie for the night. A memorable experience for sure!
I happened to spot this flick on the shelf under "new releases" and found the idea of a hip-hop zombie flick far too interesting to pass up. That's how it was billed on the box, anyhow, and I thought to myself, "What a great idea!" Plus there's a "Welcome to Oakland" sign on the cover, too. How could I resist? Unfortunately, the hip-hop part only lasted for as long as the opening theme. Neither hip-hop music nor hip-hop culture had much of a role in the movie. Having lived in Oakland myself, I know that there are many aspiring hip-hop artists there, so the low budget of this flick was no excuse not to have a fitting soundtrack. Any number of struggling artists would have jumped on the opportunity to contribute to this flick. Why the Quiroz Brothers didn't take advantage of this is beyond me.<br /><br />Once the film got rolling, it was a completely typical zombie movie with a cast that just so happened to be completely black and Latino. You might think that this would put an unusual slant on the movie... but it didn't. Somehow, the Quiroz Brothers vision of "urban culture" boils down to drive-by shootings and dropping an F-bomb in every line in the movie. The rapid-fire use of the word "fuck" is probably this movie's most distinguishing characteristics; there were single lines that contained the word three or four times, and no line didn't contain it at least once. I'm not at all squeamish about swearing in a movie, but the feeling here was that it was the result of a lack of ideas on the part of the writers (also the Quiroz Brothers), and the script was generally very poor.<br /><br />The film was generally a disappointment. It would have been interesting to see a genuinely "urban culture" zombie flick, but "Hood of the Living Dead" doesn't deliver on that count. The characters in the movie could just as easily have been white or eskimo or anything else. There was no distinct flavor to the movie. It's just another run-of-the-mill low budget flick with bad acting, lousy writing, amateurish direction, bland cinematography, a cheap soundtrack, and nothing at all to recommend it.
*May Contain Spoilers* A few weeks after I had originally wrote my review for Hood of the Living Dead I realized that I may have been a bit too harsh on this movie. Which is why I decided I would do something I had never done before. Review the same movie again. Don't get me wrong, I still don't like the movie, I still think it's dreck, and I still think the zombies don't look all that zombie-ish. The story in the movie is still in my opinion, weak and rather lame. The story is about a guy named Rick, who works as a scientist (that just happens to be working on a serum thing that heals sick cells, in animals) and his brother Germaine, the two aren't exactly on the best of terms (my my, an original plot point) and argue a lot. One day Germaine is shot in a drive-by shooting, and Rick calls up his scientist buddy to bring the serum to try to resuscitate Germaine(whereas most people would've called 911, but whatever), naturally the serum fails and Germaine "dies" (if that didn't happen there'd have been no movie), after the police and the coroner (until the end of time I will still think that maybe the paramedics should've shown up) leave the scene shows the coroner van (which I still believe was just someone's van with a "coroner" decal thrown on the side), and Germaine returning to life to attack and kill the paramedics. I would talk more about the plot, but I feel that if I reveal more about the story you wouldn't want to watch it (and we wouldn't want that now would we?), but suffice to say that the story (in my opinion at least) meanders and is rather slow moving (pun not intended). As I've previously said in my review the zombies don't look all that much like zombies, I still think they look like they've been in a bar fight. That's not to say that they should all be decaying and whatnot, but still there should at least be bite marks on the victims. Also I still don't like the fact that the director(s) continually switch up the pace at which the zombies move. They couldn't really seem to decide on whether or not to have the zombies run or shamble (as most zombie movies do), don't get me wrong, I'm all for running zombies but make up your minds people. In one scene the zombie runs toward the living, and in the other he just shambles to them. And sometimes they just don't seem believable (yes I know their fictitious creatures but still), I am of course referring to the zombie that runs his hand on the wall as though he were walking through a dark living room, and I still don't like the zombie who is lying on the ground, gets shot, then jerks like he was just shot. The sound in the movie also bothered me, mainly the music, which while it may have just been my copy of the film seemed pretty much non-existent. Music in a movie is important folks. Especially when the sound editing does sound like the director just took a friends camcorder and shot a little zombie flick. The acting is still atrocious (in my opinion) and is on par with the American "actors" from the Japanese zombie movie Junk. The movie is still bad, almost House of the Dead bad, it's better, no doubt about that, but then again that's not saying much. It's not the worst movie out there, and it is better than a lot of direct to video movies that are out there but at the end of the day wasn't good. I also think the movie moves really really slow, despite the fact that it is only an hour and twenty or so minutes (and yes, I still don't like the opening song). This is the type of movie I think is well-suited to be premiered on the Sci-Fi network. Which is why I am obligated to give this debacle of a film a one out of ten. But think of it this way, at least it's not a negative one.
This movie is yet another in the long line of no budget, no effort, no talent movies shot on video and given a slick cover to dupe unsuspecting renters at the video store.<br /><br />If you want to know what watching this movie is like, grab a video camera and some red food dye and film yourself and your friends wandering around the neighborhood at night growling and "attacking" people. Congratulations, you've just made "Hood of the Living Dead"! Now see if a distribution company will buy it from you.<br /><br />I have seen some low budget, shot on video films that displayed talent from the filmmakers and actors or at the very least effort, but this has neither. Avoid unless you are a true masochist or are amused by poorly made horror movies.
Hood of the living Dead is about a young scientist named Rick who lives with his brother in the town of Oklahoma where drug dealers and prostitutes fill the streets. Then one night, Rick's brother gets shot by a gang driving down the street who fought with him earlier. Desperate, Rick calls his scientist partner to bring over the latest formula they've been working on that brings sick blood cells to health. The formula hasn't been tested on a human, or even a dead body but Rick is determined to bring his brother back to life. He gives the body a double dose of the formula but nothing happens. So Rick calls 911 and the body is carted away only for it to come back to life and feast on human flesh. Now Rick must find his zombie brother before the whole hood is transformed into a neighborhood of the dead. Hood of the living Dead is one piece of trash. The plot is a direct rip off of Resident Evil, the acting is just horrible especially with Rick' s fake crying for his brother, the guns are so fake because every time the weapon is fired it sends sparks out, and the make up is just lame. It's only fake blood covered over the actors face. The zombies are also modified. They run, growl, and must be shot in the heart to die! Zombies should only scuffle, moan, and must be shot in the brain to die! This film is so horrible, the outtakes is the only true good moment of this film. Hood of the Living Dead gets a 3 out of 10, a little entertainment here and there but it only succeeds as a low budget cringe fest.
Hood of the Living Dead and all of the other movies these guys directed look like they got together and filmed this with their buddies who have zero talent one afternoon when they were bored (lines are completely unrehearsed and unconvincing). I find that 95% of amateur movies and 90% of home video footage is better than this film (although the similarities between them warrant the comparison). "Hey lets see if anyone is dumb enough to buy our movies!". Hopefully nobody ELSE wasn't. My apologies to those involved in the flic as this review is somewhat harsh but i was the dope who read your fake reviews and purchased the movie.
It was a painful experience, the whole story is actually there so I won't go into that but the acting was horrible there is this part in the very beginning when the scientist brother goes to work he actually wears a white coat at home before leaving to work, I thought working with biohazard material meant that you should wear sterilized clothes in a controlled environment and the lab itself looks like a school lab there is this monitor on top a file cabinet that has nothing to do with the whole scene its just there to make the place look technical and a scientist is actually having breakfast in the lab and next to him is a biohazard labeled jar and his boss walks in on him and doesn't even tell him anything about it...not to mentioned bad acting very bad can't get any worst than that my advice don't watch and I thought nothing could be worse than house of the dead apparently Uwi Boll's movies look like classical Shakespeare compared to this!
This movie is about a young scientist who creates a serum that re-animates the dead. He first uses it on his brother when he is shot dead in a drive by. His brother then infects the other gang members.In some scenes the zombies are seen walking very slowly and in other scenes they run pretty fast which makes little sense. The acting is mediocre but the story doesn't help the film. The makeup consists of blood on the face of the zombies. The budget for this film I'm sure was very limited. I believe the film could have been better made had the story been more original and with a better budget. If you wan't to see a good zombie flick don't see this one.
I watched this today, partially attracted to the all-star cast and partly because I have enjoyed so many other films of this ilk. However, this is one to avoid. There are dozens of badly cut scenes where the continuity just does not flow, the billiards challenge at the start, for example. The fighting scenes with the natives are about as good as you would remember in those old black and white Tarzan movies, you know where you see a spear fly through the air and camera cuts to a dead native lying motionless on the floor with it sticking from his thigh. Is that instantaneous death? There are also several quite unnecessary scenes which have nothing to do with the plot, like the little girl being rescued while collecting flowers. The really badly animated clay toys are too painful to watch. If you do see this movie the crabs which inch forward at about 5kph are the highlight. Somehow one manages to creep up on David Mccullum and give him a nip. Its as if there was no time to get out of the way, like when the obelisk in the city falls over, the native has all the time in the world to take a 2 step to the left, but no he screams and it falls on him. I only give this a 2 because of Ekland. And why does Mccullums voice develop a stutter as the movie progresses?
From the mind of Harry Alan Towers comes another piece of cinematic sludge. Supposedly based on the work of H. Rider Haggard, the only similarity it bears to anything Haggard actually wrote is that it takes place in Africa (albeit an Africa that has dinosaurs - which our intrepid adventurers use to pull their canoes!), and has some characters with the same names.<br /><br />Our heroes (David McCallum, Patrick McNee and John Colico) set out to seek treasure, armed only with a medallion, and end up precisely where the treasure is, purely by chance. On the way, they meet a motley assortment of extremely lame monsters, pick up a French chef, and McCallum has an affair with the Queen of Phoenicia.<br /><br />It's so ridiculous, it's a hoot. That's the only reason I didn't give it a 1.
This movie deserved a working over on Mystery Science Theater. Even though it has nothing whatever to do with King Solomon it's worth a watch because it is an unintentional laugh-riot. Really! It's worse than "Destroy All Monsters." Be sure to check out the following: the cheesy medallion (looks like the Shriners have been here), the obviously polyester Norfolk jacket on "Allan Quatermain," David MaCallum's badly done stutter (which does draw attention away from his even worse acting), the incredibly bad process work on all the "monsters," the monsters themselves - the hand puppet which menaces the little girl, the giant snake that menaces Macallum while he sinks in oatmeal, the red-lighted eyes on the motorized crabs, the amazingly hilarious boat (oh, brother!!) which appears to be made of plywood mounted on an old sand dredge and looks like a leftover from a Jr.Sr. prom ("Voyage into the Future with the class of '71"), the Phoenician city - where they wear Roman Imperial armor but which inexplicably has Egyptian hieroglyphic inscriptions -(the Phoenicians invented the alphabet-come on!),and worst of all, Macallum and Ekland (with her fright wig) playing smoochy-face -oh the horror! The best parts are that the intrepid explorers manage to lose the comic Frenchman ,and the African guy -Snuffleupagus or whatever - evidently chose to die heroically rather than be in any more scenes.
Man, was I disappointed.<br /><br />1) Adam Arkin is more whiny than Ross Geller from 'Friends' <br /><br />2) A great cast is wasted (Kenneth Mars, Alan Arkin, Ed McMahon, Pat Morita, Louis Nye) with this amateurish script.<br /><br />3) The movie suffers from horrible pacing. It jumps around through in a jumbled, confusing manner.<br /><br />4) The story doesn't even make sense. Why does he want to break the football streak? What about the stupid violin music? None of it is explained.<br /><br />5) It's not even funny. It's like a bunch of accountants trying to do improv, saying "Lookit me! Lookit me I'm being funny!" This was a bad attempt at making another "Love At First Bite".<br /><br />I like Larry Cohen movies, but man he failed here. I couldn't wait for the credits to roll. Horribly disappointed.
Whack!!! I got this movie because Elizabeth Hartman was in it. I was disappointed to find out she was in like two short scenes towards the end. Other than that I was basically hitting the fast forward button the entire time. Some teenager goes on a trip to Romania with his Dad and gets bitten by a wolf and turns into a werewolf if there's a full moon. He kills his father and friends. About 30 years past but he doesn't age a bit and enrolls in a high school. There he meets a shy teacher whom he ends up biting and then has kids with her. This movie sucked and I don't recommend it to anyone. Read War and Peace instead. Only Ms. Hartman did a great job. Check out a very young Bob Saget in this one!!
A surprising misfire from the usually reliable Larry Cohen (God Told Me Too, Q, etc.), Full Moon High tries so hard to be funny and fails miserably, even with decent turns by Ed McMahon(!) and Kenneth Mars. Alan Arkin looks embarrassed throughout his performance and son Adam simply looks numb. This makes Teen Wolf look like a comedy classic.
I've seen better teenage werewolf movies in my time, this one however, takes the cake. More comedy than horror, "Full Moon High" puts the "c" in cheese-fest. The star quality in this movie is not bad. Just the way it was made just sends in rolling downhill. Adam Arkin plays Tony, an all-American high school football player of the 50's who ends up not aging due to a werewolf bite in Transylvania. The most annoying part of the movie was the violin player. He drove everyone batty! Ed McMahon plays his ultra-conservative father who met his end of his own bullet. Adam's father Alan plays a shrink who seems to be not top of his game. After all these years Tony seems to be very out of place due to the attack, and then he'll get the chance to catch in his state. More laugh than blood shed, this movie is just a start in the 80's, "Teen Wolf" was an improvement from this! 1 out of 5 stars.
No, this wasn't one of the ten worst films of the 1980's, but it certainly skirts the bottom 100 somewhere. This movie looks like it was put on the shelf for two or three years and then released in 1981. How else would you explain special effects pre-dating "An American Werewolf in London," disco still being considered cool, and Ronald Reagan not being the 40th President of the United States? While we're at it, let's not overlook those 1970's hairstyles in the 1950's and '60's. I've seen more of that here than in "Happy Days" & "Laverne & Shirley" combined.<br /><br />The one woman who elevates this movie to the "so bad, it's good" category was the late, great Elizabeth Hartman, but just barely. Biff plays as Miss Montgomery, the mousey high school teacher who becomes a sexpot, a stereotype that's been done to death and is still being churned out by Hollywood today, but even as a "hot chick" she retains her mousey qualities. Her call for help is evidence of this. She also looks much better as Miss Wimp. "Seven bucks at the beauty parlor, shot to hell." She wasn't kidding.<br /><br />This isn't to say that there aren't any good parts elsewhere, they're just few and far between, and I'm not just saying that because I like Hartman. Incidentally, "Teen Wolf" was better than this. "Teen Wolf Too" was better than this, and that wasn't even so good.<br /><br />
What is this?! Is it a comedy, a horror movie or just nothing?? This is by far the worst movie i have ever seen. Especially the scene in romania when he becomes the werewolf, that must be the worst scene that has ever been made. This movie isn't funny, it isn't scary and not entertaining at all. Please do yourself (and me, i don't think anyone should suffer through this movie) a favour and DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE!! If you get is a present, just throw it away and chop it in to pieces.
Being a fan of movies like "Fire Sale", "Where's Poppa", "Airplane" I saw this because it was mentioned favorably in the context of real comedies and satires like the aforementioned. Well, WRONG CONCLUSION!<br /><br />Not only is this not funny, it makes you angry because it isn't bad in a schlocky, likable way but in a really bad way. It's bad-bad. The script does not contain a single funny line which is rather in the way when you're trying to entertain your audience with humour.<br /><br />Adam Arkin's speech impediment is probably the single most annoying thing in this movie. Still this cruelty of nature doesn't prevent him from being smug throughout the movie and he has a hard time not looking into the camera. This amateur without charisma fits in nicely with the constant continuity errors and bumbling along of the story - if you can find one.<br /><br />Ed McMahon - I had to think of Jay Leno, another late night talk show person, who always refuses to call himself an actor. Well, I've seen a few Leno movies and he's Laurence Olivier compared to McMahon.<br /><br />Kenneth Mars is good, though. In the few lines that he's given. I'm not easily frightened by bad comedies so I kept watching and looking for all the quasi-jokes every 5 minutes or so.<br /><br />The movie actually becomes sort of a comedy as soon as Alan Arkin takes over - he literally does: Starting 75 minutes into the movie he's in every scene. But it's too little, too late.<br /><br />When movies try to fool you into believing their lack of professionalism is the reason you're supposed to like them because they have the right intentions they remind me of pupils that haven't prepared for an exam. In those cases you have to remain strict and the grade has to be an 'F'. (But please don't assume I'm a teacher. That is a profession with a respectability somewhere between politician and child molester).<br /><br />If you actually look for a likable schlocky horror/scifi movie that is fun to watch and does contain jokes try "Man with the Screaming Brain" by Bruce Campbell. Or watch Sunshine/Core if you prefer modern loud shallow SciFi Schlock. Those are equally funny, albeit involuntarily.
Nicolas Roeg ? He directed the classic supernatural thriller DON`T LOOK NOW didn`t he ? Strangely the aforementioned movie was broadcast on BBC television at the weekend which did tonight`s screening of COLD HEAVEN no favours what so ever . <br /><br />You see it`s impossible not to compare COLD HEAVEN with DON`T LOOK NOW since they both have the same director and the same structure and for the first third of COLD HEAVEN I thought they also had the same plot except a dead husband had been substituted instead of a dead child , in fact my mind was set on this movie revolving around a grief stricken widow seeing her late husband running around Venice wearing a red anorak . This doesn`t occur but about one third of the way through the running time there`s a massive plot twist and despite being an essential plot twist it`s not explained in any great depth . In fact very little is explained in COLD HEAVEN which ruins the movie <br /><br />People have mentioned the rather poor production values of COLD HEAVEN and it`s impossible not to notice them . If I didn`t no different I would have thought this was a TVM since it`s got a made for television feel to it right down to white capital letters in the title sequence . Roeg also tries to inject art house pretentions via spoken thought processes but again this doesn`t help the movie at all . One can`t help feeling Roeg should have put all his effort into the plot twists which are totally flat on screen <br /><br />Cheap production values , disinterested directing and a really bizarre premise and screenplay make for a bad movie
Just saw this movie on TV and I have to admit, I was a bit surprised it was even on. There were so many goofs, mess-ups, and bad editing that an old episode of Sesame Street would have been better to watch. The acting was OK, but please, you can really feel the "Straight to Video" feeling. The cast/crew made this movie a bad melodrama. Yes, there is a message in the movie, but just wait until ten minutes before the ending to hear it. Trust me, you wouldn't even tell the difference.
Could this be by the same director as Don't Look Now or Bad Timing? Poorly<br /><br />acted, clunkily edited. You only have to compare the various accident scenes in this with similar ones in Don't Look Now to see how much Roeg has lost his<br /><br />touch.<br /><br />Even the generally reliable Teresa Russell (looking a bit chunky these days, I'm afraid to report) cannot save this one. The plot is pure pseudo-religious hokum, the acting is wooden and Roeg's attempts at his trademark dislocation of time are pitiful.<br /><br />Avoid this one like the plague.
This movie was strange... I watched it while ingesting a quarter of psilcybe cubensis (mushrooms). It was really weird. Im pretty sure you are supposed to watch it high, but mushrooms weren't enough. I couldn't stop laughing.. maybe lsd would work. The movie is a bunch of things morphing into other things, and dancing. Its really cheesy for todays standards but when it was released im sure it was well... one of a kind. I could see how some people would think this movie was good, but I didn't think it was very interesting, and I was on mushrooms at the time. If your having a party or something and everybodys pretty lit, pop it on you'll get a few laughs.
I read Tom Robbins' EVEN COWGIRLS GET THE BLUES as a teenager. I loved every word. It was sexy, funny, and full of glamorous scenery and beautiful writing. But when I saw the movie, I could not believe what a dull, sour, joyless piece of junk it was. How did this happen? I think someone in Hollywood read this book and filed it under "GAY PRIDE -- WOMEN -- LESBIANS." (That's the Library of Congress subject heading.) Now anyone over 12 who reads the book will know it has NOTHING TO DO with real lesbians, any more than STAR WARS is about real space travel. The book was obviously -- and I do mean OBVIOUSLY --written by a heterosexual male who loves the IDEA of lesbians (in the nude, all the time)but has never really met one.<br /><br />Still, someone in Hollywood said, "uh oh, better give this to a Gay director or Gay People will make trouble." So they handed it to Gus Van Sant. Nothing against the man, but -- however Gay he may really be -- he has not a clue as to how to make a funny film. Gus Van Sant took a straight man's playful fantasy of guilt-free girl/girl action and male voyeurism turned it into a dull, literal-minded Lesbian Power Recruiting Poster. It's like turning an Oscar Wilde comedy into an Arthur Miller tragedy. Not pretty.<br /><br />The main clue that Gus Van Sant had absolutely no idea what to do with the source material is the riotously bad casting. His clout allowed him to hire the very best. His ignorance of the novel's real subtext (a straight man's fantasy, not a gay pride recruiting poster)caused him to make choices that were not only bad, but bizarre.<br /><br />Let's meet the cast of EVEN COWGIRLS GET THE BLUES.<br /><br />PAT MORITA as "THE CHINK" Okay, there are few name-recognition Asian actors. And Pat Morita, in HAPPY DAYS, was fairly funny. But casting him as THE CHINK was wrong, wrong, wrong. Pat Morita has no idea that the Chink is a very funny man. (Gus didn't tell him.) Pat also doesn't seem to know that the Chink is . . . well, SEXY!!! In the book he's not wise old Mr. Miyagi. He's more like Hugh Hefner! He's a randy old goat and he knows A LOT about pleasing the nubile and responsive Sissy AND Bonanza Jellybean. (You see, in the book, they aren't REALLY lesbians. Do you get that this is a straight man's fantasy yet?) <br /><br />JOHN HURT as "THE COUNTESS." Okay, he's a gay friendly man. But he is a SERIOUS, SHAKESPEAREAN ACTOR!!!! You need someone who is fun, and camp, for this role. For John Hurt to be cast as a goofy guy like the Countess is tragic and sad. I kept expecting Paul Scofield to wander in all dressed up as Thomas More, and sadly shake his head. "Now, Richard, you know you've lost your soul entirely. For shame, my former student!" And yes, John Hurt was funny (and pretty gay) as Caligula. But that was BLACK humor, not playful and breezy humor like the book.<br /><br />RAIN PHOENIX as "Bonanza Jellybean." No talent, no training, no problem. Except that in the book Bonanza is funny, playful, cheerful, (mostly) heterosexual, and loving. In the movie she's sullen, passive, expressionless, and dull. As for her taste for women, Robbins in the book puts it like this. "God knows I love women, but nothing can take the place of a man that fits." Uh, Gus? Did you read this book? <br /><br />UMA THURMAN as "Sissy Hankshaw." This is a tough role. In the book Sissy really is an unusually passive and timid heroine. Still, a more accomplished actress might have manufactured a twinkle in her eye, or a sway in her walk, to imply some sort of hidden strength or hidden enjoyment of her adventures. Uma doesn't pull it off, probably because Gus never told her Sissy is supposed to ENJOY being a hitch hiker with a beautiful body and giant thumbs. Uma plays it more like she's in a TV movie about a girl dying of leukemia. <br /><br />This movie is sour and dull. And I accuse YOU, Gus Van Sant!
We actually watched this twice in the theater because we could not believe how bad it was the first time. Maybe we'd missed something... nope, what's missing was missed from the beginning of preproduction. I actually went back to Robbin's novel to see if I could find the problem, and I discovered that what I thought was funny and exciting back in the day is now just so much disconnected and fuzzy-headed junk.<br /><br />So, the initial problem with the film was deciding to do it at all, and the rest of the train wreck progressed from there. Absolutely nothing works - not a blessed thing. Some beautiful exterior photography gets steamrolled by random camera placement in interior shots. All of the actors look at least uncomfortable - Angie Dickenson looks positively mortified - except for Rain Phoenix, who gives the impression that she is too unaware to realize how awful her performance really is. The dialog is one, long, unwavering cringe. Scenes don't make sense from second to second, and the connections between them are nonexistent. And yet, the movie stumbles blindly on, convinced that it is saying something profound.<br /><br />This is too bad to even be funny; it is simply excruciating. Gus Van Zant has done other good-to-great movies which I encourage you to see, and I'm happy he survived (and appears to have learned from) this mess.
I love movies. I love independent efforts and major studio productions. I love films with stars and I love those featuring unknowns. I love dramas, comedies, action-adventures, science fiction, mysteries, westerns, any genre except horror. I love foreign films as well as those in English. I love good movies and I even love bad ones, because almost no film ever fails to entertain or amuse on some level. Except for "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues."<br /><br />When I attended a late-night showing of "Cowgirls," I joined an audience of around 10. Less than halfway into it, I alone remained. Soon not even I could tolerate the disturbing mess unfolding before my eyes, and I left as well. To this day "Cowgirls" remains the only movie I have ever walked out of.<br /><br />I don't quite know how to describe this incoherent, vacuous, trashy, meaningless film, or how to adequately convey its lack of redeeming value. Suffice to say that it ranks as one of the worst major films of all time, preposterous and inexcusable on every level. It tries to be clever, but its conception of feminism seems hopelessly anachronistic. It tries to be funny, but its humor is coarse and cringe-worthy. This is one of the few films which manages to profane its own ethos, by depicting protagonists in so off-putting a manner that you revolt against them and their values. If you want to watch a movie, watch "Waterworld," "Ishtar," anything but this. Except for the new "Alexander." If you're choosing between that and this, read a book instead.
I absolutely love all of Tom Robbins books, so I was very excited and interested to see a movie made after one of his books. I knew that there would be no way that the movie would capture even half of Robbins' magic, but after seeing the movie, it made me never want to read the book again. The movie Even Cowgirls Get the Blues doesn't include an eighth of the content in the book, and it seems to focus more on the love connection between Bonanza Jellybean and Sissy than anything else. Along with the incredibly weak plot line in the movie, I think that better actors definitely could have been chosen to play the characters. The only actors in the movie that I thought played their roles fit to Robbins' descriptions in the book were Julian's friends, in their five minute clip in the beginning of the movie. Those who haven't read the book might enjoy the movie, but as a huge Tom Robbins fan, this movie was nothing but a disappointment.
Uma Thurman plays Sissy, a young woman with a gypsy spirit (and freakishly large thumbs) who hitchhikes cross-country, eventually finding her true place amongst a group of peyote-enlightened cowgirls on a ranch devoted to preserving the Whooping Crane; Rain(bow) Phoenix is their lesbian leader, Bonanza Jellybean, who falls in love with Sissy, thumbs or not. Gus Van Sant directed and adapted Tom Robbins' book, but his satire has no primary target and just skitters all over the map, like Sissy (maybe that was his goal, but it's not involving for an audience). Notorious box-office flop wasn't so much panned as it was ignored, and one can see why: it's a series of sketches in search of a plot, and the performances, directorial touches and cinematography are all variable. Thurman is a stitch posing alongside the highway trying to get a ride, but this pretty much put the kibosh on Phoenix's career. Writer Buck Henry (who didn't write this, but perhaps should have) gives the most assured performance as the doctor who works on one of those thumbs.<br /><br />Two thumbs down.
No one should ever try to adapt a Tom Robbins book for screen. While the movie is fine and the performances are good, the dialogue, which works well reading it, is crap when spoken. Or, to put it another way, no one would be likely to suggest that hearing someone else's name was like seeing it written in radium on a pearl.<br /><br />Overall, the movie feels like a badly-adapted Cliffs Notes to the book - most of the parts have been hacked down to a fifth of their size in the book, in terms of backstory and current story, and the ending is wildly (and unpleasantly) different from that of the book. Most of the plots from the book have gotten lost, including the one that makes everything make sense at the end, and there's more than one reference that makes sense in the book that makes the viewer say "Huh?" Not a worthy effort, unfortunately - the script should have been read, compared to the book, burned, and all the actors sent off to do something far better. I admire Gus Van Sant tremendously, but not even someone of his calibre could have made a decent movie of such a complex book without making a miniseries.
I couldn't believe how lame & pointless this was. Basically there is nothing to laugh at in the movie, hardly any scenes to get you interested in the rest of the movie. This movie pulled in some huge stars but they were all wasted in my opinion. I think Keanu Reeves must've taken some acting lessons a fews years after this movie before he stared in The Matrix. Uma Thurman looked very simple & humble. Luckily i got this movie for a very low price because its certainly not a movie to remember for any good reasons. I won't write anything about the story of the movie, but as you should know that she is meant to be the most famous hitchhiker across America because of her huge thumb. I would give this movie a 2 / 10. Before I watched this movie I was wondering why this movie has only got a 4.0/10, & now I know why. A very disappointing movie. Don't buy it even if you see it for under $5.
I missed this movie in the cinema but had some idea in the back of my head that it was worth a look, so when I saw it on the shelves in DVD I thought "time to watch it". Big mistake!<br /><br />A long list of stars cannot save this turkey, surely one of the worst movies ever. An incomprehensible plot is poorly delivered and poorly presented. Perhaps it would have made more sense if I'd read Robbins' novel but unless the film is completely different to the novel, and with Robbins assisting in the screenplay I doubt it, the novel would have to be an excruciating read as well.<br /><br />I hope the actors were well paid as they looked embarrassed to be in this waste of celluloid and more lately DVD blanks, take for example Pat Morita. Even Thurman has the grace to look uncomfortable at times.<br /><br />Save yourself around 98 minutes of your life for something more worthwhile, like trimming your toenails or sorting out your sock drawer. Even when you see it in the "under $5" throw-away bin at your local store, resist the urge!
I watched this film because I'm a big fan of River Phoenix and Joaquin Phoenix. I thought I would give their sister a try, Rain Phoenix. I regret checking it out. She was embarrasing and the film just has this weird plot if thats what you want to call it. Sissy was just weird and Jellybean just sits on a toilet who both sleep with this old man in the mountains, whats going on? I have never been so unsatisfied in my life. It was just total rubbish. I can't believe that the actors agreed to do such a waste of film, money, time and space. Have Sissy being 'beautiful' didnt get to me. I thought she was everything but that. Those thumbs were just stupid, and why do we care if she can hitchhike? WHATS THE POINT??? 0 out of 10, shame the poll doesnt have a 0, doesnt even deserve a 1. Hopefully, Rain is better in other films, I forgive her for this one performance, I mean I wouldnt do much better with that film.
Certainly one of the dozen or so worst movies ever released in any form, featuring a bizarrely abominable performance by Rain Joan of Arc Phoenix (River's sister, inevitably), as Bonanza Jellybean plus inconceivably awful voiceover narration by Tom Robbins, the author of the novel, which had/retains its peculiar sweet/loopy charms.
This is a candidate for the single most disappointing movie experience of my lifetime. Cool title, excellent director (I saw "To Die For" and "Drugstore Cowboy" before this), and hey - Uma Thurman in the cast. How can you go wrong? Well, that is a question that throbbed in my temples for hours after I watched this turkey.<br /><br />Disjointed and unfunny in an attempt to be offbeat, this is a dead-zone of a movie that should be avoided at all costs. Its critical lambasting was well deserved. You have here one of those rare films that does not contain a single redeeming quality. Zero out of ****.
There are movies like "Plan 9" that are so bad they have a charm about them, there are some like "Waterworld" that have the same inexplicable draw as a car accident, and there are some like "Desperate living" that you hate to admit you love. Cowgirls have none of these redemptions. The cast assembled has enough talent to make almost any plot watchable, and from what I've been told, the book is enjoyable.<br /><br />How then could this movie be so intolerably bad? To begin with, it seems the director brought together a cast of names with no other tie than what will bring in the 20 somethings. Then tell them to do their best Kevin Costner imitations. Open the book at random and start shooting whatever is on the page making sure to keep the wide expanses of America from being interesting in any way. Finally give the editing job to your brother-in-law, because the meat packing plant just laid him off. He does have twenty years of cutting experience.<br /><br />This movie now defines the basement for me. It is so bad, it isn't even good for being bad.
I´m not surprised that even cowgirls get the blues if this movie is anything to go by. I expected something better from Uma Thurman, which was the reason I suffered my way through this experience in the first place. An awful film with only the music as a redeeming quality. It´s just a shame that we are incapable of giving 0 out of 10 in these reviews. This movie deserves it.
When it comes to movies, I am generally easily entertained and not very critical, but must say that this movie was one big flop from the start. I gave it 30 minutes and then rewound it. What a waste of some great talent! I was very disappointed with this movie, as it was not what I expected.
i'll admit. i think Uma Thurman is the most beautiful woman on the planet and have made it a mission to see every movie she has been in (unfortunately that includes the horrible films Batman and robin, The Avengers) and this one.<br /><br />this has to rank as the worst movie i've ever seen. (yes it ranks even lower than The Avengers). everyone looks lost in it and it is incoherent beyond belief. <br /><br />even if you think Uma is a goddess like i do, PLEASE PLEASE don't subject yourself to this movie. you'll hate yourself the following morning for it.
Why would any legitimate actor having read the script participated in this piece of crap? My god it is actually embarrassing to even watch it. I can't imagine the shame these people must feel for being a part of it. Also, there is apparently some controversy as to whether River Phoenix had a cameo in the movie. He was uncredited but his list of roles here (IMDB) does give him credit. BTW... Rain is his sister for those who have were asking before. This film is proof that no matter how many big "names" you have. Sow's ears don't make silk purses. I love Lorraine Bracco but this was just sad, sad, sad... Maybe somebody someday can explain to me the reason for this kind of film. It has no endearing, entertaining, or even comedic properties in comparison to it's bad everything else.
This movie stinks. The stench resembles bad cowpies that sat in the sun too long. I can't believe that so many talented actors wasted their time making such a hopelessly awful film. Whew!
George Brent is a reporter sent to interview an heiress. She is supposedly the heir to a face cream fortune. He interviews her on her yacht. They fall for each other in bathing costumes.<br /><br />It turns out (quite early) that she is not an heiress. She part of an advertising campaign for the cold cream.<br /><br />The movie follows the ups and downs of their romance.<br /><br />The supporting cast does little to buoy it up. Davis and Brent carry the picture. Though it's fairly predictable, it is also fairly entertaining. It's far from her best. But, especially considering its obscurity in her oeuvre, it's not one of her worst, either.
Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare, the sixth installment of the Nightmare on Elm Street series and once again another bad sequel. I think this is tied up with the last sequel of the Dream Child. I was lucky enough to get the Nightmare on Elm Street series box DVD set for my birthday, so I got to see all the sequels. May I say that I'm just getting more and more disappointed though with these sequels, at least the past two, it just seems like Freddy lost his edge. It's almost like the writers were trying to give Freddy a soul and they're just destroying it instead of reinventing the story. This was a sequel that wasn't needed, sorry to Robert Englund, but this was very much below what Freddy Krueger represents.<br /><br />Freddy is back, but he's got something we don't know about, a daughter. Maggie, she's not aware that he is her father, but soon she finds out what his dark secrets are and he wants her help. She has to do her best to resist his powers, but it's hard with all the good memories she has of her loving father. Ironic, isn't it? But Freddy isn't giving up without manipulating her into his ways.<br /><br />Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare is also presented in 3-D, radical, huh? Note the sarcasm. This is one of the worst sequels, it's tied up with the fifth sequel of the Nightmare on Elm Street series, I'd rather watch the second Nightmare on Elm Street to be honest. This just had bad acting, stupid editing, and just over all a bad idea for a story. I didn't like the concept of it and it just ruined the whole idea of who Freddy Krueger really is, the death master of nightmares, not Father Knows Best.<br /><br />2/10
Actually, they don't, but they certainly did when trying to think of a singular line that adequately summarises how terrible this entry in the series really is. There were some moments that could have been good, but they are mostly outweighed by their own conversion into missed opportunities, and don't get me started on the bad.<br /><br />The wasted opportunities are pretty obvious, but I will recap them here in case anyone cares. Anyone who hasn't seen the film and genuinely gives a toss would be advised to stop reading at this point. The first, and potentially the biggest, wasted opportunity, was the plot with Freddy's long-lost child. Now, the extreme mental illness that Freddy appears to suffer (and I might hasten to add that less than one percent of mental patients are a threat to other people, leave alone to this extent) is HEREDITARY, so why not a mystery-type slasher in which Lisa Zane's character dreams of Freddy murdering the teens, only we later discover it's actually her doing all the killing? Sound like a good plot idea to you? Obviously it was above the heads of Talalay and De Luca.<br /><br />Then there's the trip to Springfield, where the entire adolescent population has been wiped out, and the remaining adults are experiencing a kind of mass psychosis. Funnily enough, said mass psychosis was actually depicted in a realistic and convincing manner, although this has a fair amount to do with the fact that we are never shown too much. We are just given quick visual hints of the massive loss of connection with reality that would stem from the grief of every youngster in town dying for reasons beyond one's comprehension and control. The essential problem with this plot element, however, is that the town is abandoned too quickly, and with no real answers. This collection of scenes would have been far creepier with ten minutes of say... one sane citizen explaining to these visitors why the Springfield fair looks like a horror show.<br /><br />Of course, horror films are never noted for their character development, unless they're the kind of horror films John Carpenter used to direct, but how are we supposed to really care when characters we know next to nothing about die? At least Wes Craven took the time to set up his characters in the original, and used a few cheap tricks to draw the audience in. That, in a nutshell, is probably the biggest problem with Freddy's Dead: it just doesn't try at all, leave alone hard enough.<br /><br />On a related note, I feel kind of sorry for Robert Englund, now that he is more or less inextricably linked with the Freddy character. He has played far better characters in far better productions (the science-fiction miniseries "V", for example), and to be forever remembered as "the man who played Freddy" is selling him rather short. It seems he will never break the mold of horror films now. As for the rest of the cast, well, I think their performances here speak for themselves. They deserved to be permanently typecast as little more than B-grade horror props. Even Yaphet Kotto doesn't escape this one unscathed, as his character is one of the most childishly written in the history of B-films.<br /><br />All in all, Freddy's Dead gets a 1 out of me. I'd vote lower, but the IMDb doesn't allow for that. FD is really a testament to how a writer's inability to exploit a concept to the fullest extent can ruin not only a film, but an entire franchise.
WARNING: REVIEW CONTAINS MILD SPOILERS<br /><br />A couple of years back I managed to see the first five films in this franchise, and was planning to do an overview of the whole Elm St. series. However, just two years on and I find I can't remember enough about them in order to do it – I guess they couldn't have made much of an impression. From what I do recall, some of the sequels – Dream Warriors in particular – weren't as bad as is often made out, though even the original was no classic. Generally, the predictability of the premise (if people fall asleep they get murdered in their dreams) doesn't lend itself to narrative tension. But while I cannot recall much of the first five films, I do know they never plumbed the depths of Freddy's Dead.<br /><br />An indication of how sick of Freddy the public was at this point can be judged by the fact that the film was promoted solely on the character's demise. The fact that the movie's conclusion is not even hidden, but in fact the entire purpose for the film's being goes to illustrate how vacant, soulless and cynical this venture was.<br /><br />Taking the morally questionable idea of having a child molester as the charismatic villain, Robert Englund's in-no-way-scary interpretation booms with laughter. I always thought Freddy's mockery of the teenage victims was less aimed at the characters than at the teenage audience that could ever watch this tripe. It's like Englund's crying out "we know this is garbage – but you're paying to see it, so who's the one laughing?" And I'm sure victims of child abuse would be disheartened to see such an insensitive depiction of their plight. Was Freddy's appearance in the films always so rudimentary? All he gets to do here is a few "haaaaaaaaaaaaaarr – har – har – hars" and that's it. If this was the only Elm St. film you'd ever seen you wouldn't get to know the character at all. Even as the character pre-death in a flashback Englund plays him as a boo-hiss pantomime villain with a slop of Transatlantic (ie. overstated, misplaced and not at all funny) irony.<br /><br />Acting is almost universally poor. Just look at how many times Breckin Meyer overacts with his hand gestures and body language. Only Kananga himself, Yaphet Kotto, keeps his dignity. And when Roseanne, Tom Arnold and Alice Cooper show up, you can almost visibly see the film sinking further into the mire. The script, too, is absolutely lousy, almost wholly without merit. Carlos (Ricky Dean Logan) opens a road map, upon which the Noel Coward-like Freddy has wittily written "you're f**ked". When prompted for the map, Carlos responds "well the map says we're f**ked". Who wrote the screenplay, Oscar Wilde?<br /><br />Or how about the scene where Carlos is tortured by Freddy, his hearing enhanced to painful levels? So Freddy torments him by threatening to drop a pin – a potentially fatal sound, given that all sounds are magnified. Oddly, the fact that Carlos shouts at the top of his voice for him not to drop it seems to have no effect. "Nice hearing from you, Carlos", quips Freddy, hoping some better lines will come along. It's also worth noting that dream sleep doesn't occur instaneously, so being knocked unconscious wouldn't allow instant access into Freddy's world. Though as part of the narrative contains a human computer game and a 3-D finale plot logic isn't that high on the list of requirements.<br /><br />The teenagers heading the cast this time are really the most obnoxious, dislikeable group in the whole series. Tracy (Lezlie Deane) is the only one who gets to greet Freddy with "shut the f**k up, man" and a kick in the scallops. And was incongruous pop music always part of the ingredients? Freddy's Dead. No laughs. No scares. No interest. No fun.<br /><br />
Unimaginably stupid, redundant and humiliating closure to the "Nightmare on Elm Street"-series! Part 6 is so incompetent that it looks like director Rachel Talalay intentionally wanted to turn Wes Craven's initial premise into one big bad and tasteless joke. This isn't just the worst entry in the "Elm Street" saga; it's also one of the most embarrassing horror movies ever made and it downright offends fans of the genre! The story is dumb, the character drawings are ridiculous, the structure is all murky and – most of all – the special and visual effects resemble those of a Tom & Jerry cartoon. The sequences in which Freddy Krueger murders his victims are endless and very uninteresting. Were we supposed to be petrified when a jabbering Freddy turned Breckin Meyer into a video game-character and pogo-sticked him around the walls of a house? The story takes us back to Springwood and it appears that Freddy all of a sudden has a middle-aged daughter. You'd think he would mention that in one of his previous adventures, but no… There's only one teenage-survivor in Springwood and Krueger uses him to get into contact with his long lost daughter. Another reason why this final installment is so awful is the completely illogical structure. The John Doe-boy is introduced as the leading character but then all of a sudden he dies and the plot continues to revolve on two adults! How about that: Freddy Krueger, who spent five entire films killing nothing but teenagers, eventually gets beaten by two adults wearing 3D-glasses! Sort of like ruins the whole essence, doesn't it? As far as I'm concerned, "Nightmare on Elm Street" has always been a dreadfully overrated series but, up until now, even the weakest entries had at least some redeeming elements. "Freddy's Dead", however, is simply unendurable and nobody should waste his/her precious time watching it.
I'm not a huge Freddy Krueger fan,but that doesn't mean that I don't like Robert Englund and his other Nightmare on Elm Street movies.I think that Robert is a very good actor.Nobody plays a better Freddy Krueger than he does.But,no offense Robert, this movie sucked.The acting is terrible,the plot is really weak,and Freddy Krueger is the only part of the cast that's even worth watching.Sometimes sequels can be better than the first,such as the Friday the 13th franchise(I thought the remake was the best in the series.)But this isn't one of those movies.The original was good,the 2nd in my opinion was better,the 3rd was okay but I haven,t seen the others.Whatever you do,don,t make the same mistake I did by watching this piece of crap.
Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare starts as dream demon Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) leaves a teenager (Shon Greenblatt) on the outskirt's of Springwood with no memory of himself, who he is or why he is there. The local police pick him up & take him to a youth centre where child psychiatrist Maggie Burroughs (Lisa Zane) interviews him, she finds a newspaper cutting in his pocket which leads the two to Elm Street in Springwood where they discover that no children live there & therefore no victims for Freddy kill anyone. It all turns out that it's an elaborate plan by Freddy to find his daughter & use her to escape Springwood. When Maggie realises what Freddy is up to her & some kids decide they have to kill Freddy once & for all...<br /><br />Directed by Rachel Talalay this was made with the intention of being the final A Nightmare on Elm Street film which by this time had reached five, of course as any horror film fan know's if there's still money to be made from a franchise or a character then there's no way in hell Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare was going to be the last one which, of course, it wasn't. The A Nightmare on Elm Street series has been a franchise of diminishing returns as the films dropped in quality as the series progressed until we got here & Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare which for my money is probably the worst out of the lot of them. The film moves at a reasonable pace & it's rarely boring but it's so silly, childish & feels like some sort of live-action cartoon with some awful set-piece horror scenes that seem a million miles from Wes Craven's suspenseful & effective early 80's original. The sequence where stoner Spencer is trapped inside a video game being played by Freddy is terrible on it's own but then we are treated to shots of his body back in reality bouncing around the house from wall to wall & floor to ceiling which is quite the most ridiculous thing I've seen in a while, or maybe the early scenes when the John Doe kid falls from a plane down to the ground just like the Coyote cartoon character in the Road Runner cartoons or the absurd sight of Freddy threatening the deaf Carlos with pins that he intends to drop to the floor to make a loud noise or when he eventually kills him by scraping his knives across a blackboard. You can't take this seriously & I was just sitting there not quite believing what I was seeing. When they do finally try to kill Freddy the hero is given a secret powerful special weapon, yeah that's right a pair of cardboard 3-D glasses! The character's are poor, the dialogue is poor & the plot is confusing, it doesn't really stick to the Elm Street continuity & overall the film is a bit of a mess, the best thing I can say about it is that it has quite a bit of unintentional humour & you can certainly laugh at it.<br /><br />The film has major tonal problems as it tries to be dark, scary & sinister yet it's so silly & simply looks ridiculous at times that any attempt at being serious falls completely flat. There's not much gore in this one, there's some cut off fingers, some stabbings, someone falls on a bed of nails & that's about it. The body count is extremely low here with only three death's. The final twenty or so minutes of Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare was in fact shot in 3-D although the version I saw presented this part as normal so I can't comment on how well this does or doesn't work but you can definitely see shots which are meant to be seen in 3-D which take advantage of the process. The special effects vary, some are quite good actually while other's are terrible & Freddy's burnt make-up this time looks quite poor.<br /><br />This apparently had a budget of about $5,000,000 (it had an opening weekend box-office take of $12,000,000) & the film has a few nice visual touches & gags which makes the thing feel even more cartoony than it already is. The acting is really poor from the main leads although there are a few odd cameos including Tom Arnold & Roseanne, Johnny Depp & rocker Alice Cooper.<br /><br />Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare is probably the worst of the entire series & apart from some unintentional laugh value there's not much here to recommend or enjoy. Fans of the series will probably like it & defend it but for me this is about as far from Wes Craven's original classic shocker as it gets. Followed by New Nightmare (1994) which tried to take Freddy Krueger & the series in a new & different direction.
Sixth escapade for Freddy Krueger in which he has finally managed to kill off virtually every youth in Springwood; now he wants to broaden his horizons and (**SPOILER**) needs a family member in order to do it.<br /><br />A failure as a horror movie because it simply ain't scary at all. Works better as a dark, macabre black comedy, to tell you the truth. Freddy Krueger has now been stripped of all of his ability to chill this viewer. (Too many wisecracks, that's for sure.) The actors aren't interesting (save Robert Englund, as always, and an obviously slumming Yaphet Kotto) and there are simply far too many visual effects. The finale is OK but doesn't provide as many sparks as I think one might hope.<br /><br />In adding a new twist to the familiar dream killer's story, it provides Englund the opportunity to do more non-makeup scenes than ever before.<br /><br />There are cameos worth noting: a joint cameo by then-couple Roseanne and Tom Arnold that is devoid of entertainment value, an appropriate appearance by veteran shock-rocker Alice Cooper, and a funny cameo by Johnny Depp that also sort of acknowledges the pop icon that he had become.<br /><br />Film debut of Breckin Meyer, who plays Spencer.<br /><br />One of the best things about it is the replaying of key scenes from earlier entries during the closing credits.<br /><br />4/10
Okay this is stupid,they say their not making another Nightmare film,that this is the "last" one...And what do they do?They go on making another one,not that the next one (part7) was BAD,but why do they play us. Anyway this movie made no sense what-so ever,it was extremelly dull,the characters were highly one dimensional,Freddy was another joker,which is very stupid for such a good series.The plot is very,very bad,and this is even worse than part 2 and 5. I didnt get the movie,its a stupid tale in 3-d,pointless!Id say. I hated this film so much i still rmember all the parts i didnt like which was basically the whole film.This is SO different than the prequels,it tries,and tries,but this one tried the hardest,and got slapped back on the face.Again there were hadly any death scenes,although they were different,they sucked bigtime. How can they have gone this far?Didnt they see they made the biggest mistakes at parts 2 and 5?Yet they make this?Its all bout the money,DO NOT SEE THIS SAD EXCUSE FOR A NIGHTMARE SERIES.<br /><br />I GAVE A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET SIX (6) 3 out of 10.<br /><br />GOOD POINTS OF MOVIE: Had potential with plot.<br /><br />BAD POINTS OF FILM: Terrible acting/lack of deaths/Too funny to be classified as horror/very confusing.
This movie had a good story, but was brought down because it didn't have enough horror film elements and violence. It was like watching a live action cartoon. It would of been better if this story is what they planned from the start of the first movie so they could of played seeds for where the series was going.
I am a fan of the Nightmare series but this one is horrible. The deaths are so trendy. If you were to watch this 20 years later the whole nintendo scene is outdated. I did like the flashbacks. I think they should have just made a prequel about when he was still alive. That would have been more interesting. This is a movie you can take or leave. Depends on how much spare time you have.
This movie is just bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. Now that I've gotten that out of the way, I feel better. This movie is poor from beginning to end. The story is lame. The 3-D segment is really bad. Freddy is at his cartoon character worst. Thank God they killed him off. And who wants to see Roseanne and Tom Arnold cameos?<br /><br />The only good thing in the movie is the little bit of backstory that we're given on Freddy. We see he once had a family, and we get to see his abusive, alcoholic father (Alice Cooper).<br /><br />Other than that, all bad. There are some quality actors in here (Lisa Zane and Yaphet Kotto), and they do their best, but the end result is just so bad. The hour and a half I spent watching this movie is and hour and half I can't ever get back.
"Freddy's Dead" did the smartest thing it could've done after the disappointment of the fifth film. It started from scratch. Sure, this "final" film in the saga is silly but at least it's original. Some of the visuals are even a bit breath-taking. And the story of Freddy's kid (Lisa Zane) returning to town to face her evil father is unique.<br /><br />Overall, the movie is nothing but another cartoon made to get kids in the theater. It has a bunch of good actors (Zane, Yaphet Kotto, and Lezlie Deane) who basically look dumb and wander around like sheep ready for slaughter. It's one-sided, it's a magic-trick, and, in the end, it's nothing but goofy, childish entertainment.<br /><br />
This movie was just terrible, the first movie wasn't that great i mean it's ridiculously stupid if they didn't have enough with the first 5 films you had to add another one, why just not make this into an ongoing series like James Bond, i'll tell you exactly why because the bond films are actually very very good and these films just stink, i don't understand, was this supposed to be a cross between to genres like horror and comedy for goodness sakes my 1 year old niece wouldn't be scared of such a ridiculous attempt at horror, a spit in the face of people who at least want to be scared at some point in a so called horror film. Please no more of these movies.
The first in the series was brilliant, easily one of the best Horror films of all time. This is the crappiest. When I sat down to watch this, I was actually thinking that how bad the fourth and fifth ones were, this would have to be good after the previous terrible ones. Boy was I wrong. Incredibly wrong.<br /><br />When I watched the first ten minutes of it, I was actually really tempted to turn it off, but I thought no, maybe it'll improve. It didn't.<br /><br />Not only is this just a dire film by itself, it didn't need another sequel, because the last two (fourth and fifth) had already been terrible enough! Also, how many times can you bring Freddy back!? The acting in it was TERRIBLE, the story-line was predictable and crap and it also had flaws in it as well. The way they made Springwood was just totally wrong. Pays no respect to the first one at-all. To add to this, the whole thing seemed really over-the-top.<br /><br />Some people are saying that this film was "funny". This film is not "funny" at all. Since when is Freddy Krueger supposed to be "funny"? I would call it funnily crap. This film is supposed to be a Horror film, not a comedy. If Freddy had a daughter, wouldn't that information have surfaced like in the first one!? The ending was also just plain stupid and cheesy, exactly like the rest of it. This one completely destroys the essence and uniqueness of the first one. Just shows itself up.<br /><br />Such a shame that Wes Craven created something so good in the beginning, yet it has to be dragged down because of this trash that belongs in the bin. They shouldn't have even bothered making this film. Nor any of the other sequels, except the third one. The third one's the only decent one out of all the sequels.<br /><br />If this was a DVD by itself and not part of the Nightmare On Elm Street DVD set that I got, I would have chucked it out when I got it.<br /><br />Summary: A pathetic and poor attempt at a sequel.<br /><br />- a complete MOCKERY of the first film <br /><br />So please, don't waste your time on this worthless junk.
This movie is easily the worst of the series. Though New Line might just be looking at sales, they all know the only reason this one made more money than the one prior was due to its 3D ending. It wasn't that the 3-D was good either, because it was 50's 3D with the red and blue lenses(anaglyph.) It was just the fact that people wanted to see what it would look like. Beyond that this movie was so poorly done! Bad script, bad characters, bad acting, worse directing. This movie is trying to push the camp factor almost to the point of being like a "Looney Tunes" episode.<br /><br />Seriously, not for horror audience, because it is corny and not scary, and not funny or amusing for comedy crowds. Just a total mess with some really bad cameos that are still trying to play this whole thing as camp and having it fall way short of what they probably wanted.<br /><br />I remember most of us who had been fans of this series were just praying that it would end at this point because of how bad it had gotten. This is one of the movies that helped take horror out of popularity and ride a fad of belief that audiences really wanted to laugh with some stupid comedy than see a good and scary horror film.
This is going to be the most useless comment I have ever put down, but yet I must do it to warn you about the atrocity to cinema that "Freddy's Dead" is. It is not only the very worst chapter of the Nightmare series, but is right up there with the worst horror sequel of all time! It was boring, pointless, and nearly death free. The horrible 3-D ending and over-the-top CORNY kills are enough to drive this "film" into the ground. However, it doesn't stop there, just add bad acting, a terrible script, and a number of cheesy cameos and you've got yourself this heaping pile of guano! It's no wonder why Freddy, as always played by Robert Englund, has made two postmortem appearances. I would too if I went out like that. This is a strictly fans only movie, don't stare at our shame.
It WAS supposed to be the last Freddy movie (and it was for over 10 years)--you would think they would have tried to get a good movie done. But they turned out giving us the worst of the series (and that's saying a lot). The plot made no sense (I seriously can't remember it), all the main characters were idiots (you REALLY wanted them dead) and Freddy's wisecracks were even worse than usual. The only remotely good bit about this was a brief (and funny) cameo by Johnny Depp (the first "Nightmare" movie was his first).<br /><br />Also I originally saw it in a theatre were the last section (reaccounting Freddy's childhood) was in 3-D. Well--the 3-D was lousy--faded colors and the image going in and out of focus. Also the three flying skulls which were supposed to be scary (I think) had the opposite reaction from my audience. EVERYBODY broke down laughing. Looks even worse on TV in 2-D. Pointless and stupid--very dull also. Skip this one and see "Freddy vs. Jason" again.
In the future of 2001, Freddy is after the last surviving teenager of Elm Street. Forsaking ANY scares whatsoever for unfunny attempts at humor and needless celebrity cameos (come on..Roseanne??? Tom Arnold??!!?? WTF?), this is tied with part 2 is the worst the demon child rapist ever got. Wow was this a piece of crap. Not even the great legendary Alice Cooper could make the stench of this movie go away. And when they hell did Freddy ever have a daughter?? The whole film is severely retarded in ever single conceivable way, shape & form. Rachel Talalay, you stink to high heaven, babe.<br /><br />My Grade: D- <br /><br />DVD Extras: Cast and Crew Bios; Jump to the 3D sequence and Jump to a Nightmare options (more extras for the film can be found on the seventh disc of The Nightmare Collection DVD set) <br /><br />DVD-Rom content: Trivia game; Screenplay; and web link
Let's hope this is the final nightmare. This is the epitome of a good thing gone bad. Okay, there is still some enjoyment to be had, but only in the most mundane sense. Rachel Talalay had been there for the duration of this franchise, had been on the production staff and produced even. I don't know what she was thinking, but this debacle comes complete with the human video game boy and a guest appearance by<br /><br />Tom and Roseanne Arnold! I wish I had a clue what she was thinking when she wrote/directed this disappointing piece of garbage. She even tried to distract her audience from the fact that this movie was nothing more than an over-glorified popcorn movie instead of bearing any resemblance to horror, with the contrived use of a 3D ending. Aren't those glasses nifty? And you get to KEEP them! It's the equivalent of, you just spent $9.00 making me rich. Here's 10 cents. Now, don't you feel special!? Sorry, but for me, it just did not make me feel special. <br /><br />And Freddy's had yet another face-lift. This one was for the worst, I think. All the beautiful artistry that went into his "look" in the earlier films has been replaced by an obviously cheaper, less detailed set of prosthetics. He looks ... less like the burn victim he is supposed to be, and more like he has a skin disorder. Changing the lead's makeup like that so far into a series is about on the same level as changing the lead actor. But wait! They've done that, and done that. So I guess it doesn't matter. But it mattered to me. Freddy is no longer SCARY. He's just ... another low-rent monster like the Leprechaun. <br /><br />It's more...a dark comedy than the horror classic this series promises; riddled with what you can only hope the writers thought were witty one-liners and clever repartee (sadly, it fell short on both accounts). <br /><br />So there's nothing more to say than grab the popcorn and get ready to laugh, because there was not one scary or suspenseful moment in this entire film. <br /><br />It rates a 3.2/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.
The film was made in 1942 and with World War 11 around, the movie industry decided to capitalize on the fact that spies were around.<br /><br />The film is fun to watch due to the fabulous dancing of Eleanor Powell. The late Miss Powell was certainly a great hoofer in every sense of the word. She is again paired with a very young looking Red Skelton here. The two of them also starred in "I Dood It."<br /><br />Moroni Olsen, who 3 years later, was superb as the interrogating police officer in "Mildred Pierce" again appears as an officer asking Powell to deliver an item. Trouble is that Olsen and his rogues are really the Japanese spies.<br /><br />Bert Lahr is his usual brilliant self here and he gets ample support from Virginia O'Brien.
I've almost forever been against the inclusion of songs in a movie. My belief was that the quality of the film would automatically be improved if only those extremely annoying songs would be axed. However, things have quickly changed after watching that horrible Black (no songs) & this movie, Page 3 (plenty of songs). While Black was weak to an extreme, Page 3 delivers a gripping story with some strong acting & good direction. The songs were almost incidental & blended in almost seamlessly with the film. There certainly weren't any women getting sprayed with water for no apparent reason from mysterious water sources while gyrating wildly on the streets at night.<br /><br />I was pleasantly surprised with the bold and unabashed approach used by the director. There was no glossing over of anything and almost every scene was completely believable.<br /><br />I'd recommend this films for Hindi-speaking people with at least a slight understanding of Mumbai life. The former because the English subtitling was below par and contained many errors which, at times, completely reversed the meaning of the actual statement. The latter because you'll definitely appreciate the accuracy of the depiction once you've lived it yourself.<br /><br />I'd definitely rank this as a work worthy of international recognition. The scenes with the gossiping drivers was a nice touch and it served simultaneously as a source of genuine humour as well as another perspective on the whole mishmash. The movie does fall short in a few places though, where the characters sometimes say the most inexplicable things which detract from the overall direction of the film.<br /><br />I also thought that a couple of the sadder scenes were not done very well. It was a touch amusing to watch, rather than arouse any feelings of sadness & the whole scene tended to come across as a bit foolish. These are minor issues though, because the film, on the whole, is truly a rare treat to watch.<br /><br />Overall, it's a cynical, pessimistic outlook and a refreshing one at that! Actors, not 'heroes' - that's the key. A chance to glimpse believable human beings in an extraordinary setting - everyday life. A behind-the-scenes look at the extent of the depravity and a rare ray of hope for Indian cinema.<br /><br />8/10.
I do not even want to call this thing a film - it is a movie that should not have won any awards. The acting was horrible as were the silly scenarios. This is exactly the sort of film that so many folks think caters to an NRI audience but is in fact loathed abroad for its awkwardness and the overwhelming sense of "trying" throughout the movie. <br /><br />I find it strange that so many actors conversant with the English language have such a hard time doing so convincingly in front of the camera. I'm sure many readers know what I am talking about - all those token English phrases thrown into a movie, in Hindi and in regional cinema for cool points. There are few Indian movies in which the English seems completely genuine - Being Cyrus was a recent one. Although not a great film, it was a good film and the language did not seem "put on". <br /><br />I feel ashamed that P3 was awarded the NFA in 2005. The only semi-enjoyable parts of this rubbish were Konkana and a somewhat catchy background score. Other than that, do not even waste your time with this film.
Madhur has given us a powerful movie Chandni Bar in the past. His next film Page 3 was one of the worst movies of all time. It apparently tells the story of some high class people in India. After seeing a scene where the man forces another man for sexual reasons to Star in a Movie. I felt like spitting and breaking the DVD. Coincidently i did. The reason why was the movie contains scenes of child pornography and molestation. I literally vomited and was shocked to see a movie showing naked children. Very disturbing stuff, there was no need to show the children fully naked. One of the rich guys likes to kidnap poor children and sell them to foreign people, British men in this movie. I am shocked to know this film was a Hit in parts of India, otherwise Super Flop in UK, USA and Australia. I'm from UK, and this kind of stuff makes me sick, shouldn't of been released in UK.
Crude, some times crass - to me that's the summation of Madhur Bhandarkar's latest work - Page 3. He has no point of view - just shallow, funny digs at stereotypes. What is the movie about?? Is it about reporting a clan of people (so called Page 3 types) who are so busy socializing and progressing their profiles in life - that they have no time for anything else. And you are either in it or out of it. Is it that there is no press at all to report everyday incidents. Madhur Bhandarkar forgets that there is a main newspaper and Page 3 is just a supplement; perhaps an entertainer for checking out who's who and what's what. Don't mix the two. And then there is power play - that would happen in every walk of life. So what have you told at the end of it all - nothing - just a few crude jokes strung together in an otherwise direction less movie.
I have no idea how anyone managed to stay awake during this show. The acting was ham-fisted and amateur, the story was old news, and plot development (or lack thereof) invariably had my eyelids sagging less than halfway through each episode. That's about all there is to say of it, because it genuinely lacked substance of any kind.<br /><br />How can you people like crap like this? It's freaking stupid, it's an insult to your intelligence. I don't even know how to further explain it... It's as if some of you will stare mindlessly at junk like this solely because you like the way some of the actors look, or because, for whatever crazy reason, you haven't seen the same formulas in dozens of shows a million times before.<br /><br />I just.. forget it. This show sucked, and thankfully it's gone forever. I wish they'd get to work on demolishing The O.C. once and for all.
This show was laughably bad. The writing sucked, the dialog sucked. The guy who played Craig couldn't act his way out of a paper sack. Being it was on Thursday night, this was definitely great to watch with some beers. Cool music, bad acting, poor writing, all came together for my entertainment.<br /><br />It was a drama/unintentional comedy. I don't care what happened to any of the characters, they were all boring and stupid. The first five episodes were the worst, since they couldn't reveal who the victim was, they had to write the dialog around it, which was terrible. I mean, the eulogy at the funeral was ridiculous. Actually, all the scenes that occurred in the present were utterly horrible.<br /><br />So, let's review. Everything happening in present time sucked. The flashback scenes, only the writing, dialog and Craig's acting sucked. The music ruled though.
There was a great film to be made about Steve Biko. Sadly this wasn't it. Denzel Washington - never the most flexible of actors - is totally unable to convey the great charisma that Biko had. Attenborough's big crowd scenes are laughable. The Soweto massacre wasn't like this, three neat lines of children ( some doing cartwheels!) marching happily into the guns of the soldiers. With Biko dead the film rapidly descends into farce. If the struggle against Apartheid was anything it was a black people's struggle yet somehow we are all supposed to be gripped by the escape of a white man and his family. I'm sure Donald Woods was a decent man and he would be the first to say that Biko was important while he wasn't. Penelope Wilton's accent is pure Hampshire and she seems completely unaware that she is in South Africa at all. at all. The Wood's family dog gets more lines than the black maid. As the family make their escape one the women I saw the film with - incidentally one of only about a dozen black people in a large, full cinema - whispered "This is like the sound of music." She had a point.<br /><br />Overall this is a film by a well-intentioned if somewhat inept white liberal about a radical black people's struggle. And really South Africa needs well-intentioned white liberals like it needs a hole in the head.
Ashley Judd, in an early role and I think her first starring role, shows her real-life rebellious nature in this slow-moving feminist soap opera. Wow, is this a vehicle for political correctness and extreme Liberalism or what?<br /><br />Being a staunch feminist in real life, she must have cherished this script. No wonder Left Wing critic Roger Ebert loved this movie; it's right up his political alley, too.<br /><br />Unlike the reviewers here, I am glad Judd elevated herself from this moronic fluff to better roles in movies that entertained, not preached the heavy-handed Liberal agenda.
First, let me state that I am a big fan of Ashley Judd; that's why I was curious to check out this, her debut role. No argument that her talent is apparent and her performance excellent. I guess I can also see how the professional critics liked the aesthetic content of the story. However, I like to think that movies are meant to entertain us and that is where this movie fails.<br /><br />By the halfway point, I found myself thinking, "How much longer do we have to watch a bored shop girl, idly standing around a deserted souvenir shop, rearranging the merchandise?" It seemed to go on forever!<br /><br />Then, I thought, maybe this is one of those movies where the director tries to lull the audience into a relaxed state before hitting them with some dynamic event. No such luck. The movie continues it's bland, boring, uneventful story all the way to the end.<br /><br />I'm not saying this because I'm an action-junkie. I like all kinds of movies, especially romantic-comedies. But I expect to be entertained.<br /><br />Add the fact that the cinematography and sound quality are comparable to your neighbor's bad home movies. Depressing!<br /><br />I just don't get how anyone could like this movie. Zero-entertainment value. The longest 114 minutes of my life.<br /><br />
I saw this film for the first time not too long on TCM's "Essentials" series. The eye of the beholder cliché was never more apropos. This beholder saw little of value in this one. I was puzzled by the infinite attraction that Lucy (Lauren Bacall) possessed. Granted, Ms. Bacall was a beautiful woman, but in this film her character comes off more mousy than attractive. I would think men like Mitch Wayne and Kyle Hadley would more likely ignore Lucy than fall into an instant infatuation with her. In Bacall's defense, this film was made at the time of Humphrey Bogart's last illness and the weight of his deteriorating health may have affected her performance. Of course part of this mousiness on the part of Lucy was to contrast her to slutty Marylee, played to the hilt and beyond by Dorothy Malone. The scene where she engages in a wildly sensual dance while her father wearily climbs the stairs to a fatal heart attack is far and away the best scene in the film. Malone's performance outshines the rest, although Jasper Hadley's weariness at the disappointing behavior of his two children is brilliantly portrayed by Robert Keith. Generally, though, I would have to say that I'm just not much of a fan of melodrama. The cartoonish behavior of the characters just makes for a story too implausible for my tastes.
I watched Written on The Wind starring Rock Hudson,Lauren Becall,Robert Stack & Dorothy Malone- Robert Stack was terrible- just bloody horrible- he was supposed to be a charming jet-setting millionaire- instead he came off like a jerk from the word go- the plot was stupid and overwrought and the 3 "romantic" leads had no chemistry. Somehow Dorothy Malone won an Oscar for best supporting actress- although her campy tramp character was boring- think the older sister from Splendour in The Grass filled with malice and bitterness and lacking charisma. Director Douglas Sirk has the entire cast overact their way through dialogue that felt forced and the end result was a waste of 99 minutes. Had a cameo by the actor that played the chief on Get Smart
To me this just comes off as a soap opera. I guess any depiction of profligate people can be considered "social commentary." But in the final analysis, I simply don't care how you characterize this film. None of the characters are very likable or engaging. I felt no chemistry between Hudson and Bacall. If there is a love story here, it is lost in the malaise. And despite the twist ending provided by a complete and immediate (and therefore, incomprehensible) reversal by Dorothy Maguire on the witness stand, the story is insufficient to hold my interest. No matter how much Freudian symbolism and psychology are throw in, this story is sleazy, melodramatic and trite.<br /><br />Rock Hudson is nobly wooden. This is Lauren Bacall's least engaging role and one of her poorest performances. Dorothy Maguire and Robert Stack deliver more inspired performances, but her character is vile, and his is pathetic. Robert Keith, as the loving, out-of-touch father of two miscreant adult children, is the most sympathetic character. Most interesting of all, however, is the severe-looking Robert Wilke in a small role as the bar owner. He is best remembered as a nasty henchman in countless Westerns, but here he is an honest, likable fellow.<br /><br />I take my social commentary with an interesting, engaging story and a few likable characters, thank you.
What we have here is a classic case of TOO much patriotism. This is what happens when you live in a small country with very little (next to none, even) cinema history. Whenever somebody does come up with a slightly more ambitious film project – other than the usual dramas about struggling farmer families or long feature slapstick movies of local comedians – everybody feels obliged to love it and even responsible to spread favorable reviews across the countries' borders. This is especially the case when the writer/director of this particular film is already a nation's sweetheart, because he's also the founder and lead singer of a popular rock band. "Any Way The Wind Blows" is by no means a bad film, but it's definitely overrated (if that is even possible within the boundaries of a small country) and has absolutely nothing new or even remotely original to offer. This is basically the Flemish version of classic movies such as "Short Cuts" and "Magnolia" and illustrates a mosaic of characters whose daily lives initially appear to be unrelated but eventually come together in the end. The only thing that seems to unite the eight protagonists at first is the city of Antwerp, where they all live and work, but gradually the deeper relationships between them become transparent and near the climax they all gather for a party. The main problem with "Any Way The Wind Blows", at least according to yours truly, lies with the characters. They really are random, uninteresting and honestly don't experience anything that could be considered out of the ordinary. It was presumably writer/director Tom Barman's intention to depict the average & regular inhabitant of Antwerp but then, seriously, what is the point? One of the characters gets fired from his film projectionist job, another one is a failed novelist struggling with a marriage crisis, two siblings recently lost their father and the most "mysterious" one of them all is followed by the wind wherever he goes. There are a couple of more characters regularly walking through the screen, but they're even less worth mentioning. These people simply drivel on and on about very random topics (like life in the 80's, dates and each other's bowel motions) and philosophy about matters nobody cares about. Some of the dialogs do evoke mild chuckles, especially the interactions between the two twenty-something guys from Ghent, but still nothing extraordinary or even memorable. The film actually works best as a touristy video to promote the city of Antwerp and as an extended & versatile music documentary. There are several stylish & nifty sightseeing images of Antwerp and there's always beautiful music playing, whether really loud or subtly in the background. Generally speaking "Any Way The Wind Blows" is a competently made and stylish effort, but too mundane and slightly boring, and I honestly wonder most of its fans would even had bothered to watch if it weren't a Flemish production.
I don't know what would be so great about this movie. Even worse, why should anyone bother seeing this one ? First of all there is no story. One could say that even without a story a movie could be worth watching because it invokes some sort of strong feeling (laughter, cry, fear, ...), but in my opinion this movie does not do that either.<br /><br />You are just watching images for +/- 2 hrs. There are more useful things to do.<br /><br />I guess you could say the movie is an experiment and it is daring because it lacks all the above. But is this worth 2 hrs of your valuable time and 7 EUR of your money ? For me the answer is: no.
Okay... it seems like so far, only the Barman fans have commented on this film - time for a counterpoint. Beware, this writeup is *LONG*.<br /><br />For those not in the knowing (mostly the non-Belgians) : Tom Barman, director of this film, is the frontman of dEUS, one of the better known rock bands of the late 90's here in Belgium. Basically, they made a couple of very adventurous and innovative albums and quickly rose to fame on the national scale. Then, egos started hurting and the band basically fell apart, with Barman and a couple of others remaining to go on making albums under the dEUS-monicker. The way it always happens in such cases, the post-breakdown dEUS was a lot tamer and less interesting than the original. They tried to go for an international breakthrough with their album "The Ideal Crash" in 1999, presenting a much diluted form of their earlier style of songwriting. They didn't quite make it. However, egos were still pretty big it seems : big enough for Barman to consider himself enough of an artist to try on movies.<br /><br />More often than not this sort of thing is a VERY big mistake, and this film does not make the exception. And Barman clearly went for *art* on this one, another very big mistake. For one thing, he's a musician, not a movie director. For another, dEUS at it's best made fun and provoking music, but never anything close to what I would consider *art*. It shows.<br /><br />So, what's this movie about? Basically, it tells the story of a bunch of completely uninteresting people, doing equally uninteresting things over the course of a totally uninteresting friday in Antwerp, as even more uninteresting stuff happens to them in the act of being uninteresting. The characters are shallow, the plot totally pointless and the film just doesn't have any other redeeming qualities to make up for these shortcomings. Humor? The whole film made me smile (slightly) about 3 times, and actually managed to provoke a single 5-second laugh (not quite loud). Mood? The film just doesn't seem to show any kind of emotion or feeling at all. Mystery? Well, (*MINOR SPOILER*)the idea of the "wind-man", inspiring the name of the film, is as enthralling as a banana pepper pizza - not very, and has been done a thousand times before (anyone remember Johny Destiny - one of Tarantino's worst appearances on film to date)(*END MINOR SPOILER*). And well, its *artistic*, so don't expect any kind of real action to make up for all the previous. In other words, except for the few smiles, it bored me out of my shorts.<br /><br />So what remains? Well, the soundtrack is pretty good, though it suffers from some of the same problems that other OST's have shown lately : first, it makes the movie seem like nothing more than a commercial for the CD. Second, it gives the impression that Barman is trying to hide the weaknesses and lack of emotional content in the film behind the content quality of the songs, which simply doesn't work. In the end, it makes the film look like nothing more than an illustration to the songs. And sadly, it's Barmans own contribution to the soundtrack which gets the most attention, though it is the weakest part of the whole soundtrack as far as I'm concerned. All in all, it just stands to show that Barman knows more about music than movies. Camera work is okay as well, though not anything that would make you scream out with joy.<br /><br />The only thing about this movie that kept me watching was the sight-seeing factor. Since I originate from Antwerp, it was fun to play a kind of "guess-the-location" game. I would hardly consider this as a quality though.<br /><br />All in all, another chance lost for Flemmish film. I keep on noticing that lately, the best Belgian movies have been coming from the French part of the country. This is mostly because at least, they have something to tell and manage to tell it in way that is both sharp and emotional (the brothers Daerden come to mind). Maybe the Flemmish art-house filmmakers should try that too.
The story is about the life of common people from Antwerp, living their lives. So I said it, and there is nothing more actually to tell about the story. The movie is fast, like an MTV-flick, and well photographed and we feel that the director is talented and should do more films. So let's forget about this one and hope for the best with the next Deus-Barman picture.
This whirling movie looks more like a combination of music-clips at MTV than as a real movie. There is no real story and as the movie goes on you ask yourself: "What is going to happen?"; but nothing happens. The story around Eric Cloeck, the frustrated writer, is the only good thing. The other persons seem to have nothing in common: then why bring them together in a movie. With music you can make watchable the worst movie. When I open the tap and there comes water out with the music of Bach then most people will like to look at it but this is not a movie. The director should learn how to write a script for a movie of 100 minutes or more before starting to direct a movie.
How is it possible that no journalist or critic reminded us of the resemblance with that other better Flemish movie "Congo Express (1986)"? There are also some characters in congo Express put together without having really a relation to each other: Jean, (de Congolees), the workman, the two taxi-drivers, the street-singer, Roger, Guy, Lucienne and Gilbert. Of course, Tom Barman is a star and Luc Gubbels wasn't. That should not be a reason to pardon the flaws in the script (if there is a script) of Anyway the wind blows. The joke (the only one!) at the party about the ice in the refrigerator is taken from that great Flemish movie "De Witte (1934)" where De Witte is putting too much salt on the potatoes. Some accidents happen in the movie but there comes no explanation after. Tom Barman delivers us here a movie that is more like an experiment to watch at the television than a movie for the theatres. Another missed chance for Flemish Cinema.
I dunno what the hype around this is... This is really a bad movie...it did nothing to me, the only descent scene is where everyone comes together at the party, and a nice song is playing, uplifting beat and nice cinematic shots that make you move....that was the best part of the movie... Otherwise this film lacks everything to suck the viewer in There's no story, there's nothing to think about like some people say, there's no cohesion between the different stories...it was more of an attempt to re-do Anderson's 'Magnolia' which was brilliant, but it fails blatantly... Okay it's light and easy to watch, but that are movieclips too. Maybe first write a story before you make a movie... 4/10 One of the worst Belgian movies I've seen
I read some gushing reviews here on IMDb and thought I would give this movie a look. Disappointed. On the plus side the male leads are good, and some interesting photography but as a whole this movie fails to convince. Seems to be full of its' own self indulgent importance in trying to say something meaningful but falls way short and all in all the picture is an unconvincing mess.<br /><br />It is one of those films classified as a film noir which can be defined as follows:<br /><br />"A film noir is marked by a mood of pessimism, fatalism, menace and cynical characters".<br /><br />Well that is the story here: 3 losers stumble upon each other with their collective problems that include mental illness, alcoholism, laziness, indebtedness etc and together they conspire to kidnap a child and outwit each other.<br /><br />Would have been a much better movie if the story was confined more to the kidnap instead of the character failings of the kidnappers. I thought the female lead was way out of her depth and came across as an amateur actress.<br /><br />Whilst some good moments, I finished up feeling I had wasted my time.<br /><br />4/10.
A film so insecure the creaters perhaps hoped to milk an original film noir classic title, "Farewell My Lovely", thinking the gullible would assume it a remake. The characters are so foul and unappealing that it deserved its cold reception when first released. Time only adds to it its absurdity. Having none of the guile, cinematography, desperation or despair of classic noir it relied instead on a convoluted and senseless crime plot that would have easily resulted in several arrests within hours. As if that weren't enough it threw in an utterly sexless attempt at erotica in which at least one of the participants hadn't bothered to bathe in several days. This only made this mess all the more painful to watch. Find a good classic forties or fifties film noir instead of wasting two hours on this failure.
This had high intellectual pretensions.The main lead intends to give a "deep" "meaningful" rendering(with voice over for his frames of mind naturally) and he was certainly influenced by the fifties/sixties "method " -which,when the script and the direction were worthwhile did give stunning results (see Clift,Newman,Winters).But here the story is abysmal.Besides it moves too slow,you could edit at least 20 minutes -including pointless flashbacks-and the plot line would not be changed .At times ,it's very doubtful that Bruce Dern believes in his "Uncle "character and his portraying often verges on parody.An interesting side is only skimmed over:the relationship young boy/hero -if we admit that the hero is himself some kind of child- When he says to the young kid that he would let nobody do harm to him,some welcome tenderness emerges.But it's botched and only the final scene returns to it.<br /><br />Word to the wise:Take Foley's "at close range" instead:it has two great actors (Christopher Walken and Sean Penn together!),it's also an offbeat movie ,but it's gripping,suspenseful.Here my hitchcockometer points sullenly towards zero throughout.
A dreary, hopelessly predictable film set in a most unpleasant setting (lower Coachella Valley). Acting is as amateurish as any I've seen. Looks like a screenwriting 101 script. However, it does function as a great sedative.
What was the purpose of this film? I suggest it was to make a handful of actors and their producers and director a big payday for doing nothing. Even my favorite actor, Bruce Dern, couldn't keep my interest in this boring movie. A braindead ex-pugilist falls in with a weird woman and her relatives. He starts out as a fix-it man for the woman, and winds up beating a man and getting caught up in a kidnapping scheme. It was so confusing I can't even write a decent critique. If you see this one, my sweet, make sure it is after dark so you can go right to sleep.
I wouldn't rent this one even on dollar rental night.
I liked how this started out, featuring some decent special-effects especially for a film 50 years old. There was some pretty impressive scenery. However, the film bogs down fairly early on with some very dumb dialog as the males all try to flirt with Anne Francis "Altaira Morbius.")<br /><br />Viewing this in the '90s after a long absence, it was fun to see Francis again, an actress who has done mostly television shows since this film was released....and is still acting. It also was interesting to see a young-looking Leslie Nielsen ("Dr. John J. Adams"), who I wouldn't have recognized had it not been for this voice <br /><br />I watched half of this movie before the boredom came almost overwhelming and I had a strong desire to go to sleep. I appreciated them re-doing this VHS tape in stereo. but it was a weak effort. This is one those overrated film where "elites" think is so "heavy" and "thought-provoking." That's nonsense. It only appeared "intelligent" because the rest of the '50s sci-fi films were so stupid!!<br /><br />Some if the early scenes would have looked great on wideescreen, which I didn't have at the time of this writing. Perhaps another look - this time on the 2.35:1 widescreen transfer would make me change this review.
When they killed off John Amos's character they killed the show. He was the vital part of the info structure. You had a story of an inner city family's struggling to make it the best way they knew how. They were poor, they were black, and they were living proof that if you have Jesus and your family that nothing is too hard. Sure James would lose jobs and JJ would fail in school but the family always managed to find a way. <br /><br />James was the strong male role model that earned the income and disciplined the children. Florida was the strong lady that would everyone including James when he needed a shoulder to cry on or hug to make it. The kids had personalities and input which made them important as a family unit. Their neighbor Willona was also a key element because she represented not only a friend but some dear enough to be family. Things were bright, gritty, funny, and honest until they changed the course of the program. James dies and JJ took over the show. <br /><br />Flo was still mom, Thelma was blossoming into a lady and Michael was still the militant midget but JJ was the show. We were expected to believe that the family with no father or prominent bread winner was going to be able to stay in the apartment. I guess James's paycheck didn't do much for the family. They were only threatened with eviction because they said they were moving and not because no one in the house was working. I know that JJ, Flo, Thelma and even Michael eventually got jobs but come on here be for real. James worked so much that you could feel for him but the others weren't realistic at all and that's a shame.<br /><br />JJ was the comic relief but I felt the show need substance. It's OK to be funny but they had a chance to show a real family and what it took to survive in the real world and they threw it all away on a few laughs. Michael's character almost disappeared while the rest of the cast slipped into the shadows of the JJ Evan's show. I mean really, here was a guy that was failing in school, he kept getting laid off, and he painted for money in about two episodes. James had always been there to encourage his talent but Flo and the rest of the family didn't seem to care.<br /><br />Why did it take him so long to understand that painting was what he was meant to do? He could have sold painting's on the street or worked for people that print billboards and cards. (He did but something went wrong with that.) Why did he not make it and why did the others give up on their dreams? I'll tell you why, it was because they didn't have a father in their life to care and to cheer them on and their mother stopped being their to support their dreams. The show stopped teaching us about growing, building and learning and started teaching us about gimmicks and catch phrases. They should have kept James. If any show needed a father it was that one.
I saw this recently and I must say, I was moved by the factual basis of the story. However, "Holly" as a movie did not quite work. I am however, looking forward to watching the documentary which the producers who organised this project had made because I think that would be a much more compelling work than this film.<br /><br />The international cast was composed of B-class actors but their acting was appropriate, and I must give a special mention for the young actress who played Holly. This was her first movie role and she did a very nice job, considering hers is the most challenging part. <br /><br />Ron Livingston was adequate but bland as Patrick, the American whose quest is to "save" Holly, but Chris Penn was good in this, his final role. Unfortunately, despite my mostly favourable opinion of Virginie Ledoyen and Udo Kier, both of these actors were very much forgettable and did not do their best work in this film.<br /><br />I believe in the film's message and intention, but I have to be fair, so I rate "Holly" 3 stars based on its shortcomings as a movie. But I think the subject matter deserves serious consideration and I am pleased that the people behind this movie have made a documentary as well which I hope will have its debut on BBC and other TV networks.
This motion picture comes straight out of the dark dungeon of Full Moon Entertainment. This production company gained fame and fortune during the first half of the 90's by producing terribly bad and cheesy horror movies. The most famous disasters in their ouvre are "Subspecies", "Seedpeople" and "Trancers". None of these are recommended and neither is Doctor Mordrid, actually. Hyperactive director Charles Band did come to the right company for his film. Doctor Mordrid is amazingly dumb and cheesy and almost completely humourless. I only saw it because it stars Jeffrey Combs. I learned that it can have several disadvantages if you're a fan of him. For every good movie, it seems like he has made 5 inferior ones. Anyways, the story is about the battle between 2 ancient sorcerers. One good one who's here since 150 years to protect the humans ( Jeffrey as Dr.Mordrid ) and one wicked one called Kabal. He wants to destroy every form of human life for some reason I already forgot. Combs gets his instructions from mentor. That "guy" only exists of a pair of eyes in space. Very very cheesy, that is ! Every once and a while a blinding lightflash is shown on the screen but that's about the only form of Special effects this movie has got. The whole thing is just a piece of whining and nagging and when the two wizards finally face each other, it's over before you know it...I would have expected for the wicked wizard to at least fight back a little, but nooooooo.... In some scenes, you really can detect some originality and creativity ( like for example Jeffrey's lecture about the influence of the moon on criminals ) and if you really pay attention, you might even find some very small but nice aspects ( like the raven which is called Edgar Allen) but overall, it's a terrible waste of time and energy. I'm a big fan of Jeffrey and maybe he is a superhero in my eyes...but he sure doesn't have to put on a stupid maillot for that.
Dr Mordrid is terrifying. I would not recommend any adult or child see this unless they are rampaging murderers already. There is so much filth in this movie it hurts my yes. Speaking of eyes, there are eyes in the sky, against a backdrop of stars. Only the devil himself could have imagined such a wicked thing. I rented out every copy i could from local video stores and crushed them with a 5 pound crucifix. That movie should remain locked in a cellar behind the 4th dimension with all the other disgusting beasts of hell. That is where this movie belongs. I suggest if you want some scandalous entertainment, go and rent All Dogs Go To Heaven, or Angels In The Outfield. Those movies are worth seeing. If you want to commit a sin and love terrible movies, you need to see Dr. Mordrid.
the first Scanners may not have been a great movie,but at least it was original.there is no such novelty to this one.the acting is worse,in my opinion,and the story is slower and nothing special.i also didn't like the dialogue.and the special effects are no better than in the original.this is movie is inferior to the first one in all ways.the only thing different about it,is that it is loud and chaotic at times.but that doesn't make a good movie.if they had done something better with the story and made it interesting,this could have been a decent movie.i actually couldn't get through it all without fast forwarding through it.to me,this is a forgettable movie,and not much more.despite all that,there are worse movies.being in a generous mood,i'll give Scanners 2 a 4/10.
I agree with other users comments in that the two main roles were well acted, that being the guy that played Gary Gillmore and Giovanni's role. Too bad the story was so boring. Not hearing about the story I knew nothing of Gary Gillmore before the movie so I didn't know what to expect. I thought it would be something like Dead Man Walking or The Chamber but how wrong I was. The whole movie was just talking, talking and talking about their mom and dad. The only cool scenes were the flashbacks where the dad would lose his temper. That was the only interest I got from this borefest.
Jim Belushi is having a mid life crisis, nothing is going right, when his car goes out on him..he goes into an empty bar where Michael Caine shows him what life wouldve been like if one event in high school had come out differently.. A good premise with some moments..but mostly flat and uninteresting. on a scale of one to ten..3
i searched video store everywhere to find this movie, being the huge elvis fan that i am, and i found it to be a huge disappointment. kurt russel had most of the "elvis moves" down and the voice imitation was great, but the dubbed in singing voice of elvis just didnt work for me. the voice didnt always match up with russels mouth, and it was hard for me to get lost in the plot because it bothered me that it was noticeable. also, there were so many freaking discrepancies in the film, people who dont know much about elvis would probably think them to be facts. songs are sung by him earlier than he recorded them in real life, the time when he got his first guitar is wrong, im pretty sure his brother jesse garron was buried in an unmarked grave, not one with a huge headstone reading JESSE GARRON. i know it was just a tv movie, but they skipped over important events, like the come-back-special, and dragged some scenes out for way too long. if you want to see a good movie that shows elvis in his prime rent THATS THE WAY IT IS, or another elvis concert. hearing and seeing the real elvis preform is the only way to truly see his talent. (brilliant statement i know, but still...go out and rent a good elvis flic.)
I can't believe this show is still rating a 9 out of 10. I could see if those votes were in the first 2 seasons, but what would possess anyone to continue to rate it high after that? I was a huge fan the 1st season. I was hooked - all the mystery, suspense, unexplained events. You never knew what was going to happen next. By season 2, I was still watching faithfully, but was getting a little frustrated that some basic things had yet to be explained. And instead of giving you more answers, it just seemed like more questions. I LOVE suspense, but you have to throw people a bone every now and then to keep them watching.<br /><br />Now, I can't even remember what finally turned me off, but somewhere in season 2, I had enough. I'm not a big fan of appointment viewing - and you clearly can't miss an episode to stay up on what's happening. So, it was no longer worth the effort to me.<br /><br />It's a shame that they couldn't have been a little smarter and more considerate of the loyal fans. I agree with some of the posters that it appears ABC just got greedy and decided to see how long they can stretch this show out. Don't they realize that in the end, they are going to lose more fans than they could possibly gain.
this movie is made for Asian/Chinese market, targeting particularly fans of Jay Chou, one of the biggest music star in Asian.<br /><br />Jay Chou is a very talented song writer/singer. He is mediocre as an actor, although he did appear in several big-budget productions ("initial D", "Curse of the Golden Flower "). Amazingly, he won both golden horse (taiwan) and Hong Kong film awards for "initial D".<br /><br />The supporting cast are very well chosen, which appeals basically everyone from China. The cast including many famous movie/TV actors, singers, even sport commentator (Huang Jianxiang from China). However, they were not given enough time to show their talents.<br /><br />The biggest mistake is that Chu took over both director and writer position. He has a reputation of making shallow and brainless movies based off non-coherent scripts. With his poor directing and lam story, the whole talented cast, fancy vision effects and tones of production money was wasted.<br /><br />However, the terrible movie successfully cashed in over 10 million dollars, maybe even more in Asian, which made this one of the biggest box office success in Asian.<br /><br />The bottom line is: you can watch this movie only if you want to see how money and talents are wasted, or if you are simply accompanying your kids who are fans of Jay Chou.
Lot of silly plot holes in the film. First we see him watching his master practice kung-fu, and die in the midst of his practice. That's fine with me. And then at the end of the film, we see him use the kung-fu that he learned just by watching his master when he was still a kid. Is that even possible? I don't think so.<br /><br />This show is purely for Jay Chou fans, and the film lacks a depth in terms of character development, cinematography styles and unfolding of plot.<br /><br />Anybody notice that the captain of the basket team (forgot his name) and the idolized player Li Xiao look so similar to each other, to the extent that you'd think they were the one and same person? Long hair, sunshine-boy look, tall and strong. The two of them looked like they came out from a mass production factory designed to churn out products that makes teenage girls scream wild in orgasm. Not that those two actors had anything of value to contribute to the movie as a whole for the movie industry at all.<br /><br />The jokes were lame and not funny at all.<br /><br />The scene with regards to the 4 masters of Jay Chou coming back to help him out in the basketball court, degenerated into a pointless plot when they started bashing their opponents ala Royal Rumble style. Worse of all, when the 4 masters won the fight, the crowd began cheering, and the match continued. It was truly a WTF? moment.<br /><br />At the end of the show, when they win the match, all thanks to Jay Chou's excellent kung fu skills. How he acquired those kung-fu skills is a mystery, because the show somehow shows him acquiring the skills just by observing his master.<br /><br />And then his long-lost father comes out of the woodwork to acknowledge Jay Chou as his long-lost son seemed just a tad too quick of the director to wrap up the film.<br /><br />In short, this is a Jay Chou-flick (instead of the usual "chick flick"). Watch it only if Jay Chou is your fan. If you are one of those whose tastes in movies coincide greatly with those in the list of IMDb's top 250 films of all time, then this film is not for you.
Kid found as a baby in the garbage and raised at a martial arts academy has a knack for sinking baskets. With the help of the man who found him he gets in to college and is promoted to the championship as he searches for his real parents. Infinitely better in pieces action comedy is a real mess as a whole. It seems to be striving for a hipper basketball version of Shaolin Soccer, but the comedy is scatter shot, its focus wanders more than a Chihuahua with ADD on quadruple espresso. I kept asking "What am I watching". I watched it from start to finish and I still don't know what the hell happened. Its a shame since there are some great action scenes, some amusing jokes and the occasional moment, but nothing, none of it ever comes together, I'd take a pass.
The direction had clearly stated that this film's idea and plot is totally original....however, as to those who have read 'slam dunk' comic, we can clearly see that the characters are very similar and even some jokes...<br /><br />Another note is Jay Chow himself DO NOT know Kung Fu, it just won't impress anyone if he tries to act like he can, many people today can see the differences.. Luckily the movie do not contain much of KunG Fu fighting and much are enchanced by stunners and visual effects...<br /><br />I think that Jay's acting is still a pain to watch, especially when almost everyone else in the film is so much better. The only reason I think why Jay is the main actor is simply is for his popularity.<br /><br />Despite how hard I wish to stop anyone from watching this thus making this "orginal" movie getting what it shouldn't have, it has became one of the best budget films in China for this year.
Having read during many years about how great this film was, how it established Ruiz among the french critics (specially the snobbish Cahiers crowd), when I finally watched it about a year ago, I found it pretty disappointing (but then, I guess my expectations were sky-high). Shot in saturated black and white, this deliberately cerebral film (made for TV, and mercifully, only an hour long) is told in the form of a conversation between an art connoisseur and an off-screen narrator as they ponder through a series of paintings (which are shown in the style of tableaux vivants) and try to find if they hold some clues about a hidden political crime. (The awful Kate Beckinsale film Uncovered has a similar argument). Borgesian is a word I read a lot in reviews about this movie, but I would say almost any Borges story is more interesting than this film.
Years have gone by since Don Wilson used his martial arts expertise to take down a robot who was programmed to destroy him, he's also married to the blonde reporter (Stacie Foster) who led the rebellion in the first film, now a new conspiracy is in the works, one that involves look-alike droids who frame our two heroes, and a corporation looking to rule the world (There is no plot to back any of this up) and Cyber Tracker 2 becomes a virtual replay of the first movie. I admit that I have bought DVDs from the bargain bin that were made by PM, PM was a company that specialized in cheap-jack action flicks (like this) which had tons of explosions, little story and overall nothing but mean edged action. Some of these titles have been (mildly) enjoyable (Last Man Standing and The Sweeper) however Cyber Tracker 2 is stuck with the casting of the charisma-less Don Wilson. When comparing the protagonists of similar PM efforts both Jeff Wincott and C. Thomas Howell are Oscar nominees when compared to Don Wilson. Another telling sign is that this was directed by Richard Pepin who has none of the flair Joseph Merhi seems to have in crafting action sequences that feel much more expensive than their budgets. Then again though both C. Thomas and Wincott are probably more expensive to obtain. Cyber Tracker 2 is a rip off with a capitol R, there are so many steals from better movies (Robocop, Terminator, Universal Soldier to even Halloween III!) that it's almost as if Richard Pepin is trying to infuse a sense of identity to the pedestrian material yet without the intelligent ideas or at least the mindless zip of great action, Cyber Tracker 2 falls flat. There is literally no good idea that isn't borrowed from a better movie and the supporting cast overact. The only exception comes from Tony Burton who is miles better than the material. Also Stacie Foster looks like she could be better with far better material. However Cyber Tracker 2 comes off mainly as noisy, bland and lackluster as its leading man, however with no real martial arts sequences to fall back on, all there is, is lots of cars tipping over and that alone is no substitute for the bankruptcy of ambition expressed here.<br /><br />*1/2 out of 4-(Poor)
Plot Synopsis: When his wife, a news reporter, is kidnapped & replaced with an android double, Secret Service agent Eric Phillips tracks her down & uncovers a plan by an arms dealer to create an army of invincible androids to assassinate world leaders.<br /><br />I wasn't expecting much when I first saw this sequel to Richard Pepin's low-budget sci-fi / action hybrid "Cyber Tracker". That film was nothing special, not to mention a blatant rip-off of both "The Terminator" & "RoboCop". This sequel is the same as before, with an all-out action sequence opening the film. There are plenty of explosions, heavy gunfire & a huge bodycount, as well as some martial-arts moves courtesy of the film's star, Don "The Dragon" Wilson. The whole film seems like a series of action scenes strung together with minimal plot. On the acting front, Wilson is a bad actor. He really needs a personality transplant.
Shintarô Katsu gained tons of fame playing the wonderful character, Zatoichi. The Zatoichi films had a weird and unbelievable concept--a blind guy is the greatest swordsman in Japan and spends each movie righting wrongs and exacting retribution on evil doers. He's a heck of a nice guy and the films are exciting and addictive (I've actually seen every movie). It is because of this I saw this final installment of the Hanzo the Razor series, as I assumed it would be very similar....and boy was I wrong! It turns out that the Hanzo films are extremely sexual in nature and they also promote the rape of "women who deserve it". You see, Hanzo is a policeman from the Meiji period and he regularly takes evil women into custody and interrogates them by violently raping them with his "penis of steel". How he made his member so strong is something you have to see to believe, but it certainly is NOT for the squeamish.<br /><br />Overall, I just can't recommend anyone sees these violent and misogynistic films. However, from looking at the other reviews, I can see that they are still very popular...and that is pretty scary. Despite some decent acting and amazing fight scenes, the films just are like brain pollution--and I'd hate to imagine how the films might have contributed to violence towards women.
This is one of those movies where I wish I had just stayed in the bar.<br /><br />The film is quite frankly boring. What story there is is very flimsy and you pretty much have to guess at it. The film indulges itself with pretentious camera techniques that seem intent on causing migraines and makes it look like a student film. Did I say it was boring already? If all the characters had suddenly died at the end of the movie I would not have cared less as I had no emotional attachment to any of them.<br /><br />There are about 4 good minutes in this movie, but that was about it. This is the first time I have ever considered walking out of a cinema during a performance, but I held on believing that it had to get better. I was wrong.<br /><br />The sort of film you could threaten naughty children with.
The acting may be okay, the more u watch this movie, the more u wish you weren't, this movie is so horrible, that if I could get a hold of every copy, I would burn them all and not look back, this movie is terrible!!
This was a truly insipid film. The performances are third rate, and the dialogue is so stilted that at times it seemed to have just rolled over and died. My reason for renting this was simple: Find a movie with scriptwriting. I needed a visual aid for my presentation, so I figured why not use a clip? Boy was I wrong. After searching my local video store, I came upon this, where it was suspiciously titled "Starstruck". I thought, "What the hey", and decided to give it a try. Well, I was very unhappy with my results. There was maybe one scene I could use, and meanwhile, I was practically falling asleep because of the sheer banality of the flick. So.....I took this back and picked up Ed Wood. There's a movie I can use as an example. Then again, anything would be presentable compared to the drivel that is "Starfucker".
I have a high tolerance for the weird, but frankly some movies go way, way beyond weird--so far that they make your brain hurt. This is such a film. Trying to understand it or even explain it is impossible and I think the film is best understood while taking drugs--it's that incomprehensible.<br /><br />The film begins with some very cute Japanese animation involving a cat. However, out of the blue, tons of twisted and occasionally disturbing things occur--making me wonder if I am losing something in the translation. However, even if this is so, why did we need to be treated to images of a magic trick involving dismembering a lady with a clever, defecation, puking, lighting animals on fire, etc.. All this really seemed random and pretty awful. Oddly, and I don't know why, some see this as a work of genius. I just don't get that.
OK, the box looks promising. Whoopi Goldberg standing next to Danny Glover parodying the famous farmer and his wife painting. Then you pop this baby in the DVD player and all hope is lost in less then five minutes. Supposed to be a comedy. And I must admit I did laugh once about ten minutes before the ending. This movie has the following elements: A battered and abused next door neighbor, a boring legal trial, racisim, talk of lynchings, and death and arson. Hilarious, huh? No, please, if you never listen to anyone's reviews, please do here. You cannot even force yourself to watch this crap. CRAP! I said it, CRAP! Whoever put there name on this should indeed sue.
I was true to my regard for Mr. Glover and Ms. Goldberg. I watched the entire film with my family and some friends. I have no idea what the movie was about. After much discussion, we all agreed that this was not one of their better efforts.<br /><br />It doesn't hang together very well. It is too choppy, and there is little comedy. I am disappointed. It could have been much better.<br /><br />I waited months to see this film based on the liner notes.<br /><br />Don't waste your money unless you are a completist and just want to see all of Mr. Glover's and Ms. Goldberg's films.<br /><br />It was a poor way to spend an evening.
I find myself wondering what the people who gave this a 10 saw in it that I didn't. This movie has a VERY hard time following and/or staying to a plot. If someone tells you it's a comedy, don't be fooled, it's about 98% percent odd-drama and 2% comedy. All actors turn in a great performance, that cannot be denied, however it seems like it really lost something somewhere. Don't know if the original script was good and it had to be edited down or what. This had potential, and instead it was really a flop. I would really like the hour and a half I invested in this movie back, but the video rental place doesn't do returns on time. Save your money and see something else.
This movie made me feel as if I had missed some important scenes from the very beginning. There were continuity errors and plots that stopped as abruptly as they started. I was very disappointed because I love Whoopi Goldberg & Danny Glover, in addition to that have always trusted & respected Danny Glovers taste in his choice of roles, "Grand Canyon" for example. I just could not finish this movie, after what seemed an eternity, but was probably just a little over an hour; we had to turn it off. There was no comedy, there was nothing about the characters to make you empathize or sympathize with them, there was no evoking of emotion at all regarding this movie and the clips of their past were poorly edited, confusing, and unnecessary. What could have been a great idea for a movie, even as a drama & not a comedy (although I think a comedy in this situation would have been better, because I love to watch white people freak out & start acting like complete idiots, it makes me laugh) became a waste of my $1 credit at the video store.
I don't believe there has ever been a more evil or wicked television program to air in the United States as The 700 Club. They are today's equivalent to the Ku Klux Klan of the 20th century. Their hatred of all that is good and sweet and human and pure is beyond all ability to understand. Their daily constant attacks upon millions and millions of Americans, as well as billions of humans the world over, who don't happen to share their bigoted, cruel, monstrous, and utterly insane view of humanity is beyond anything television has ever seen. The lies they spout and the ridiculous lies they try to pass off as truth, such as the idea of "life after death" or "god" or "sin" or "the devil" is so preposterous that they actually seem mentally ill, so lost are they in their fantasy. Sane people know that religion is a drug and shouldn't let themselves get addicted to that type of fantasy. However, The 700 Club is in a class by itself. They are truly a cult. While I believe in freedom of speech, they way they spread hatred, lies, disinformation, and such fantastic ideas is beyond all limits. I hope that one day the American Psychiatric Association will finally take up the study of those people who delude themselves in this way, people who let themselves sink so deeply into the fantasy land of religion that they no longer have any real concept of reality at all. Treatment for such afflicted individuals is sorely needed in this country, as so many people have completely lost their minds to the fantasy of religion. The 700 Club though, is even more horrible as it rises to the legal definition of 'cult' but due to The 700 Club's vast wealth (conned daily from the millions of Americans locked in their deceitful grip) they are above the law in this country. For those of you who have seen the movie "The Matrix" you know that movie was a metaphor for religion on earth: the evil ones who are at the top of each of the religions who drain the ones they have trapped and cruelly abuse for their own selfish purposes, and those millions who are held in a death sleep and slowly being drained of their life force represent those many people who belong to religions and who have lost all ability to perceive what is really going on around them.<br /><br />In less civil times, the good townsfolk would have run such monsters as those associated with The 700 Club out of town with torches and pitchforks. But in today's world where people have lost all choice in their choices of television that is presented to them, we have no way to rid ourselves of the 700 Club plague. <br /><br />The television ratings system and the "V" chip on TV's should also have a rating called "R" for religion, so that rational people and concerned parents could easily screen such vile intellectual and brutal emotional rape, such as presented by The 700 Club every day all over our country, from themselves and their children.
Well this just maybe the worst movie ever at least the worst movie i have ever seen. They have tried out these 666 child of Satan the anti Christ kinda movies about 1000 times and none of them is good and this just maybe the worst of them. They think that it's going to be better movie as more they use that fake blood. This movie doesn't have any idea in it, actors and filming is just terrible. Cant even make out that 10 line minium of this movie. Really nothing to tell about but that it's just horrible. How they can make movies like that in their right mind just can't understand that. This cant be a Hollywood movie, is it? Just don't go watch this use your money more wisely.
I was supposed to review this for a website, and I watched this with optimism that perhaps it would at least be a cheesy yet entertaining rip off, and it didn't even do that well enough.<br /><br />"666: The Child" is probably one of the worst supernatural thrillers I've ever seen (Even worse than "Godsend") with scenes that rip from "The Omen" without shame. The ending is even very similar to the way "The Omen" ends. <br /><br />Not to mention that the acting, writing, and story are all just hackneyed. If these movies make money, I'm sad to see where Asylum is headed. It's embarrassing.
I actually like Asylum movies. I've made it a habit to see as many as possible. Even the rip-offs they've done have been cool like EXORCISM And WHEN A KILLER CALLS. This is just plain lame. I can't believe that the same people who made DEAD MEN WALKING and DRACULA'S CURSE actually made this movie too!!! It's not even laughably bad like JOLLY ROGER or ALIEN ABDUCTION (which, by the way are pretty bad). This is just BAD! I mean, I can appreciate and/or forgive bad acting or lame special effects in an Asylum movie, but this film takes itself way too seriously. I really hope that SNAKES ON A TRAIN is better. Now that's a movie I can't wait to see.
Well, it's all been said about this movie and I hate it when writing reviews where everyone else already said what's to be said. But the thing is, I have seen zillions of movies and I am working on writing reviews on all the movies that I've seen. So, I have to write something.<br /><br />The acting is stupid. It's truly stupid how the news anchor expresses her sadness towards the plane crash. The nun is nice though and the professional assistant who comes to take care of the child. the three main killings in the movie are just so weak that you wonder how stupid can the makers of this movie be. Don't they realize that even rip-offs can still be scary. We don't see how the granpa is killed. The dentist and his assistant made me feel they deserve to die, you just don't sympathize with them. And uncle tony in the garage dies in a way that could have been worked better. We just hear him scream and we see nothing!
This movie is quite possibly one of the most horrible horror flicks I've seen. The length wasn't nearly long enough to include a good storyline. Also, the way the foster parents died was just plain ridiculous. The mother suddenly dies from falling through a shower after tripping over an action figure, and the dad is shot by a police officer? I can see where some originality might have been what they were going for, but it could have been better. Also, the cheesiness of it all made me want to press stop before it was over. After hearing all of Lucy's name and figuring out it was 'Lucifer', I wanted to gag. Yes, it's interesting that Lucifer was a woman, but look at the name. It's a male's name. It should be given to a male character. All in all, the movie was a bore, and could have used a better plot.
Honestly I am not even joking when I say that this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen! This film dosen't have a single ounce of originality in its flimsy dialog or its blatantly plagiarized story line. I can not even begin to count the number of things in this film that are obviously ripped off from "The Omen" and other movies like it. For example the nanny "Lucy" in this film is actually one of the devil's minions sent to guide and protect the spawn of Satan.....does this sound a lot like Mrs. Baylock to anyone else. Another thing is that the orphanage were they first got the child burned to the ground just a few months after he was adopted, just like in "The Omen". However luckily one priest survived the blaze and escaped with sever burns all over his body....yet another coincidence?????? And to top it all off the burned priest is staying in a hospital room with pictures of Jesus all over the walls, much like the priest in "The Omen" having pages of the Bible plastered on the walls like wall-paper. Please don't even get me started drawing comparisons between the ending of this movie and "The Omen" for you because as I've stated above there are far too many to mention here.
Bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. What else can I say. Kate Jackson must have been desperate to direct. May be she should go back to acting...on second thought she was a bad actress to. Who would put money in to producing something this bad. I like anti-Christ movies and usually have a good laugh and the odd scare but this one is just Bad Bad Bad. The acting by the stars was worse than what you find on a soap opera. The special effects, if you can call them that, where laughable. I would not be surprised if you played the scenes in slow motion you would see the tubes the blood shoots out of. We had to turn the disc off after only 30 minutes. This so called movies original prints should be destroyed, all disc' and tapes destroyed and all the people associated with the making of the movie have to pay back money to the people that rented the movie. Then those people should never be allowed to act, direct or film any thing but their own home movies.
This is listed as a documentary, it's not, it's filmed sort of like a documentary but that I suspect was just because then they get away with a shaky camera and dodgy filming. This has just been released in the UK on DVD as an "American Pie style comedy" it's not that either.<br /><br />Basically it follows around a group of teens on spring break as they go to Mexico for cheap booze and with the quest being to get there virgin friend finally laid. Throw is a couple of dwarfs, also on the same sort of quest and you have a non-hilarious tale of drunk teens trying to get some girls.<br /><br />Considering the 18 Rating this has very little nudity, and practically zero sex scenes, mainly I guess the rating is for swearing of which there is plenty.<br /><br />If you like crude Jackass behaviour without the humour, then this may be your thing, if you have any brain cells left then I would probably avoid this!
Mislead by the terrible lie on the cover, "fun as American Pie", my girlfriend and I sat in front of the TV waiting for a comedy... and this is definitely not one. You probably won't laugh one time if you're not one of those Jackass-like ever-teeny minds. It's not even an erotic movie, which would at least been something, given that it's about sex...<br /><br />So, what is this? The erratic plot deals with a guy who wants to lose virginity (zero in originality, I remember "Losing it" for one) and his gang of friends. The rest of the characters (i.e. the girls) just come and go for no credible reason. Come on, there are even Dwarfs (so simple: "dwarves are fun ho ho"...) The acting is very TV-like (as is the video look throughout the movie) and definitely amateur in the case of most of the girls...<br /><br />Awful movie. Amateurish, badly produced, and over all NOT FUNNY. Kids and teens will love to watch it with friends because of the swearing and sex jokes. Other than that, don't even think of renting this movie.
It was the tag-line "in the tradition of American Pie" that fooled me into renting this movie. What I got was a piece of junk in the style of Jackass, with the major difference that compared to this Jackass the Movie seems like a Citizen Kane.<br /><br />This movie made me regret that I rewarded other movies with 1 out of 10, because now I can't go beneath that. This one makes quite some bad movies look like cinematic feats.<br /><br />I actually turned it off after 45 minutes, and that's something I very rarely do. But it was just too plain boring, stupid, uninteresting and unnecessary.<br /><br />Can't believe some people actually reward this with 10 out of 10. What did your parents do? Drop you on the head when you were just a child? Or was it the very first movie you ever saw, so you got nothing to compare it to? Are you still a virgin and are breasts all you ever think off? Something must be wrong, at least.<br /><br />My advice: stay clear of this one. Even if your in the mood for a simple movie that doesn't require thinking, choose something else, or you'll regret it for sure.
my friend bought the movie for 5€ (its is not even 1 cent worth), because they wrote it was like American pie. but we would soon find out that there is a long way from American pie to that piece of crap. it is not even a comedy, its more like a really really really bad documentary. not only the story is bad, the picture and sound also sucks to. they put in some alcohol, chicks, dwarfs and drunken teens. and the result is a disaster. if you see this movie don't buy it, rather spend your money on something else, and better. if you are gonna torture yourself, then don't invite your friend/s, unless you hate really much and you want to get rid of them.
The fact that this movie made it all the way to the rentalrack in Norway is bizarre. This movie is just awful. This image quality is just one teeny bit better than you get of a mobile phone and the plot is soooo bad. The main character is just plain annoying and the rest just suck. Every person affiliated with this movie should be ashamed. The fact that the people that made this movie put their name on this is extraordinary. And the distributors; did they even see it!? This is probably the worst movie I have ever seen. To label this a comedy is an insult to mankind. I urge you not to support this movie by buying or renting it.
I haven't seen it in over twenty years. OJ was the bus driver, Arte Johnson was the tour guide, Lorenzo was the kidnapper.<br /><br />Yea, Lorenzo looked very much at home as the villain, a natural. I think I watched it back then most for OJ, who I had seen Towering Inferno and Cassandra Crossing, but also to see Arte Johnson.<br /><br />I was a little bored that Johnson was so serious.<br /><br />And yes, it shifted plots. In reading other posts, I remember that was some plot that they were going to kidnap some rich girl, but then that priceless stamp business turned up out of the blue.<br /><br />I was going, a stamp? If it came on as a late movie, I would probably record it to check it out again, but I wouldn't be nostalgic over it. Not yet anyway.<br /><br />There are better movies from the seventies like this to check out.
This movie is an idiotic attempt at some kind of action thriller. A tour bus on its way to Las Vegas is attacked by a group of white trash hijackers driving dune buggies. They drive them out into the desert and then steal all of their valuables. The plot changes constantly. One minute they are looking to kidnap a rich ranchers daughter, the next they are looking for a collectible stamp worth 90,000 dollars. The dialogue is horrible.<br /><br />Please don't watch this movie.
There are laughs in this film, that is for sure. Michael Keaton is a talent and he used to be funny (before he decided he was a serious actor). However, what bothers me so much about this film, is how unlikable practically all of the characters are. Other than the main two leads, everybody is a jerk. I mean, these small town losers are about as uncouth as you can get. You just watch and think, man, these losers should be unemployed. Moreover, the American factory worker is portrayed as a lazy and ungrateful slob. It made me wonder if this film was made by Japanese nationalists. Oh sure, in the end they all come together as one, but I just did not enjoy the trip to get there.
Gung Ho was a good idea, however it is to much to ask Americans viewers to understand the dynamics of American jobs and foreign competition.In this movie the main character Hunt Stevenson(Michael Keaton) goes to Japan and convinces a Japanese auto company to come to America and help his dying Pennslyvania town. Two things come at you.First why would a Japanese company come to America to make cars when they do so ,and so well at that? Secondly can anyone understand that American companies of all types go to third world nations to have their products made to escape American labor costs? It makes the film's premise then that the Number one maker of cars in the world would go to one of its' top competitors(aside from Germany)and put a plant there as unrealistic. Keaton was still in his comedy mode by this time. But he gives a credible performance all the same as he could prove that he could go from comedy to drama in a matter of seconds and still not embarrass himself but Director Ron Howard can't keep this from becoming a TV movie which it ends up being anyway because they have to give the unlikely story a happy ending the politics and problems of Japanese and American relations not withstanding. Gung Ho has a Happy Days and Laverne and Shirley feel to it as the producers of both TV shows made the film and then made the TV version of this movie as well which gives the film its' lightweight feel.The Japanese manager gets to love his American workers and feels he and other Japanese people can learnfrom Americans.His No.2 man Saito who supposedly doesn't like Americans all that much doesn't think so.I would have prefered all the Japanese characters been like Saito than the soft goofball characters they made the Japanese out to be.It would have made the film more interesting.
talk about your waste of money.. im just wondering why Michael would star in such a turkey of a movie..Michael is a Great actor especially in the movie where he plays a man dying of cancer.. that was wonderful. as he tapes himself for his son to see it once he grows up .. Michael is such a talented actor.. so what made him do this one??? i watched it and thought it was really dumb.. i guess at one time in their career they have the crappy movies .. especially "The Squeeze" i didnt understand that one At all, and i feel his best performance was in "Pacific Heights" , his character really creeped me out.. and i really enjoyed "Multiplicity". .that one was so Hilarious !!! and he was just Perfect for the role of "Batman" .. and i kind of liked "Night Shift" and i love "Johnny Dangerously" too .. just too bad some of them end up doing lousy movies .. like this one was...
...not that all Disney films are garbage.<br /><br />Anyway, I saw "Legend of Boggy Creek" first and absolutely loved the film. When I heard it had 2 sequels, I was ecstatic. I finally found a copy of this and watched it one night. I don't see how they can make a G-rated sequel to a horror film. The original is a movie/documentary about the Fauke Monster, and can scare anyone. "Return" is for kids and should not be watched by anyone. I don't remember the plot too well, as it's been quite some time since I watched it and I will not watch it again, but... It's about these hunters coming to town and they go looking to kill Bigfoot. Three little kids sneek out of the house to stop them. A big monsoon comes through. The hunters get hurt, are saved by the kids. Then they all hide out in a boat with a big piece of tarp on top and try to wait out the storm. Then all of a sudden, Bigfoot comes and does something really sick. I don't wanna ruin the ending for any of yas, but it's not scary. Well....
Never saw the original movie in the series...I only hope it was a much better movie than this or the sequel made in the 1980's as if it is not how were these two terrible sequels even justified. This movie had a really good lead in when they were advertising it to be shown on one of those old independent stations that are a thing of the past now. Anyways it looked like it would be a pretty good scary movie. It was, however, a movie that would make some Walt Disney movies look dark. Really, this movie was just a bunch of light fluff with virtually no boggy creek creature to be seen. The only real sighting is near the end when you see its shape during a very heavy rainstorm, other than that there is virtually no sign of the creature which was really disappointing as a kid. The story is basically the old evil hunters must kill anything they see and are after the boggy creek creature and kids are out to help it or just some random hairy guy in the woods that likes to pull random boats through the water. Not really worth watching I would however like to see the original, granted the maker of that would make the also bad boggy creature of the 80's, but he also made a very good slasher movie in the 70's "The Town the Dreaded Sundown".
I thought I had seen this movie, twice in fact. Then I read all the other reviews, and they didn't quite match up. A man and three young students, two girls and a boy, go to this town to study alleged bigfoot sightings. I still feel pretty confident that this is the movie I saw, despite the discrepancies in the reviews. Therefore I'm putting my review back: If you like the occasional 'B' movie, as I do, then Return to Boggy Creek is the movie for you! Whether it's setting the sleep timer, and nodding off to your favorite movie-bomb, or just hanging out with friends. Boggy Creek, the mute button, and you've got a fun night of improv. Look out! Is the legend true? I think we just might find out, along with a not-so-stellar cast. Will there be any equipment malfunctions at particularly key moments in the film? Does our blonde, manly, young hero have any chest hair? Will the exceptionally high-tech Technicolor last the entire film? You'll have to watch to find out for yourself.
Has to be one of the worst wastes of 35mm movie film ever unleashed on the public, the sequel to the at least entertaining pseudo-documentary original film "The Legend of Boggy Creek". Bad script, worse acting, etc., etc., Dawn Wells had to be hoping that Gilligan would come rescue her and take her back to the island just to escape from this piece of clap-trap.
Between 1937 and 1939, Twentieth Century-Fox made a ton of Mr. Moto films. However, towards the end of the series, it was obvious that the studio had "jumped the shark", so to speak. This phrase indicates that a TV show has passed its prime and the executives in charge decided to invigorate the show by fundamentally changing the formula. For example, with "The Brady Bunch" they introduced the annoying 'Cousin Oliver' and with "Family Ties" they introduced a freak baby who grew up six years in only one season! With the Moto films, they'd jumped the shark by introducing comic relief because they thought that these intelligent films needed to be re-tooled. In the previous film, Warren Hymer played an annoying wrestler. And, in this film the character Archibald Featherstone appears. Featherstone might just be one of the most annoying examples of comic relief ever, as you kept hoping someone (preferably Moto) would kill him just to shut him up!! Although he's supposed to work for the famed Scotland Yard, he shows all the intelligence and acumen of a brain damaged turnip. Again and again, his scenes were boorish and unnecessary and Peter Lorre just looks pained as he stands there and watches this buffoon "act". It's so bad that it truly destroys what COULD have been one of the better Moto films due to its clever plot.<br /><br />As for the plot, the crown of the Queen of Sheba is discovered in the opening scene. Moto, now more of an international policeman than the amoral character he originally was, is on hand to protect the precious item from being stolen. In a great twist, several thieves all try to steal the crown independently of each other.<br /><br />Overall, the film is watchable but is also ample evidence that the Moto series should have ended here. With WWII approaching, the films couldn't have survived much longer anyway, as having a sympathetic Japanese leading character simply wouldn't have been accepted in the US or in allied countries.
After eight Moto films the series had run its course, as this last entry demonstrates. Peter Lorre was clearly weary of trying to pump some sort of human interest and entertainment value into the wispy character of Moto, and the dreadful idea of pairing him with a "funny" British sidekick utterly defeats all his efforts here.
My wife and I just finished watching Bûsu AKA The Booth. She fell asleep during some parts of the movie. I really wish I had taken a snooze with her, but the unfortunate fact is that the main character's voice is so loud and grating that it was impossible for me to sleep. When our protagonist speaks, it makes me want to hear Regis Philbin and William Shatner sing karaoke. He also has no redeeming qualities. I was hoping he'd get hit by a bus five minutes into the film.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I love Asian horror cinema, but The Booth is extremely irritating and full of scenes that really make no damned sense at all. If you want some good Asian cinema, check out A Tale of Two Sisters or Into The Mirror. Avoid The Booth like the plague, especially if you suffer from frequent migraines.
Just like last years event WWE New Years Revolution 2006 was headlined by an Elimination Chamber match. The difference between last years and this years match however was the entertainment value. In reality only three people stood a chance of walking out of the Pepsi Arena in Albany, New York with the WWE Championship. Those men were current champion John Cena, Kurt Angle and Shawn Michaels. There was no way Vinnie Mac would put the belt on any of the rookies; Carlito or Chris Masters. And Kane? Kane last held the WWE Championship in June 1998, and that was only for one night. It was obvious he wasn't going to be the one either. Last years match was a thrilling affair with six of the best WWE had to offer. 2006 was a predictable and disappointing affair but still the match of the night by far.<br /><br />The only surprise of the evening came after the bell had run on the main event. Out strolled Vince McMahon himself and demanded they lift the chamber. It was then announced that Edge was cashing in his money in the bank championship match right then and there. With no time to prepare and just off the back of winning the Elimination Chamber match John Cena did not stand a chance and dropped the title after a spear to one of the most entertaining heels in WWE. This was the only entertaining piece of action that happened all night.<br /><br />The undercard, like last year, was truly atrocious. Triple H and The Big Show put on a snore fest that had me struggling to stay away. HHH picked up the win but that was never in any real doubt was it? Any pay-per-view that has both Jerry Lawler and Viscera wrestling on the same card will never have any chance of becoming a success really does it. The King pinned Helms (who books this stuff?) and Big Vis tasted defeat against the wasted Shelton Benjamin with a little help from his Mama.<br /><br />The women of the WWE also had a busy night. There was the usual Diva nonsense with a Bra and Panties Gauntlet match which was won by Ashley and the Woman's Championship was also on the line. In a match, I thought would have been left to brew till WrestleMania 22 Mickie James challenged Trish Stratus in a good match. Trish won the contest but it was evident that this is going to continue for the foreseeable future.<br /><br />The opening contest of the night pitted soon to be WWE Champion Edge against Intercontinental Champion, Ric Flair. This could have been better but it was a battered and bloody Flair that retained after a disqualification finish. Edge obviously had bigger fish to fry.<br /><br />So New Years Revolution kicked off the 2006 pay-per-view calendar in disastrous fashion. The only good thing from that is knowing that for the WWE the only way is up. They don't get much worse than this.
* Some spoilers *<br /><br />This movie is sometimes subtitled "Life Everlasting." That's often taken as reference to the final scene, but more accurately describes how dead and buried this once-estimable series is after this sloppy and illogical send-off.<br /><br />There's a "hey kids, let's put on a show air" about this telemovie, which can be endearing in spots. Some fans will feel like insiders as they enjoy picking out all the various cameo appearances. Co-writer, co-producer Tom Fontana and his pals pack the goings-on with friends and favorites from other shows, as well as real Baltimore personages.<br /><br />That's on top of the returns of virtually all the members of the television's show varied casts, your old favorites as well as later non-favorites.<br /><br />There was always a tug-of-war pitting quality-conscious executive producer Barry Levinson, Fontana, James Yoshimura and the rest of the creative team against budget-conscious NBC execs, who simply wanted a another moronic police procedural like "Nash Bridges," which regularly beat "Homicide" in the ratings. The pressure told as the show bounced between riveting realism that transcended its form, and sleazy sensationalism that demeaned it.<br /><br />Unfortunately for this movie, Fontana, co-writers Yoshimura and Eric Overmeyer and director Jean de Segonzac simply threw in the towel. They took the most ludicrous story are from the series, topped it with an unlikely and artistically unfruitful new plot line, and laid the burden of carrying the whole mess on one of the weaker cast members.<br /><br />Briefly, some time has passed since the last episode of the show. The former heart of Baltimore's homicide unit, Yaphet Kotto as Lt. Al Giardello, is now a Kurt Schmoke-like candidate for mayor, and Schmoke himself makes a cameo appearance. But this promising start immediately and improbably takes a tragic turn.<br /><br />The spotlight shifts to Giancarlo Esposito as Giardello's son Mike. A handsome man who has done good work elsewhere, Esposito was one of the pretty faces brought in late to supposedly enliven the TV series. But the question for viewers always was: is Mike that uncomfortable as Gee's son, or is Esposito that uncomfortable in the role?<br /><br />To be fair, Esposito doesn't get a chance to play out the main story without interruption. That's because the writers choose this moment to revive another storyline that spat on the intelligence of the show's loyal voters.<br /><br />An apparent snuff streaming video was promoted, and then seemed to actually take place, on the Internet. After some red herrings, the detectives arrested a repellent suspect. But Zaljko Ivanek's harassed and overworked Deputy States Attorney forgot to file motions in time, and the suspect was released, only to be murdered later.<br /><br />Let's summarize: he forgot to file the paperwork because it wasn't the most sensational case of his career, because the mayor, the attorney general, the governor, the entire Maryland Legislature, the U.S. Attorney General, NBC, Court TV, the BBC, AP, Reuters, People, The Sun, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the LA Times, Time Magazine, The Times of London, The Economist, The Johannesburg Mail and Guardian, L'Osservatore Romano, Le Figaro, Paris Match, L'Equipe and Computer World weren't calling every 10 minutes to ask about the status of the case.<br /><br />Nevertheless, the old gang of detectives and associates flocks back to Baltimore to help out. There's quite an array of talent on display. Unfortunately, with the limited amount of dialogue to hand out, some of them are merely on display.<br /><br />Two of the strongest actors, Clark Johnson and Melissa Leo, are criminally underused, while time wasted on Jon Seda and Michael Michelle could be better spent on commercials. The writers do seem to satirize this, presenting Jason Priestley as the latest big-deal detective. On the other hand, they give easy-come, easy-go Michelle Forbes a very affecting scene.<br /><br />There's some other sly casting, with actual Lt. Gary D'Addario, the center of the book that gave rise to the show, playing another detective. Guests drop in from other shows, like Whitney Allen doing her deadpan and clueless "Miss Sally" from the children's show beloved by the inmates on Fontana's "Oz." Dina Napoli of WBAL TV turns up as herself. <br /><br />Even when entertaining, though, these guests can be distracting. Ed Begley Jr. actually advances the story in his brief appearance, playing Dr. Victor Ehrlich from Fontana's "St. Elsewhere." He's still a vivid character, and fits in a hospital setting. Then you remember, didn't St. Elegius turn out to be an autistic boy's fantasy?<br /><br />The most useful cameo reflects corporate synergy. This movie was made when Court TV bought re-run rights to the series. That network contributed legal waif Helen Lucaitis, who had interviewed the Homicide team and later appeared on "Oz." The TV correspondent does an efficient job summarizing the news, that is, plot points for latecomers.<br /><br />Although she's so thin that she disappears when she turns sideways, Lucaitis also adeptly handles a bit of physical comedy with Esposito. He shows more juice in his scenes with Lucaitis than with any of his usual colleagues. Perhaps those two should have done a spin-off.<br /><br />As the movie winds down, the cream of the cast rises to the top. Although they are saddled with a loser script, Andre Braugher and Kyle Secor overcome it. Their performances remind viewers what made Homicide, for considerable stretches, the best show on the air and one of the best television productions ever.<br /><br />It's fun to watch top pros do their stuff; it's just a shame this movie doesn't give them more of a chance. Die-hard fans may want to see this movie anyway, but you can live without it.
I agree with most if not all of the previous commenter's Tom (bighouseaz@yahoo.com). The Zatoichi series is a great character study combined with great sword fighting and excitement.<br /><br />I have seen Zatoichi 1-13,15,16; I believe 14 has not been released on Zone 1 (usa). Zatoichi the Outlaw was disappointing. The story line was complicated, and seemed to be a hodgepodge of many previous Zatoichi story lines. At one point, I was wondering if I was not seeing a remake of a previous Zatoichi film.<br /><br />This film was disappointing because it started to depend on effects (a head rolling, limbs severed, blood) and less on the nobility of the Zatoichi character. All the previous films succeeded based on the storyline and action, and won a great following without having to resort to effects.<br /><br />I am just hoping that the remaining Zatoichi films do NOT follow the same trend. This is the first Zatoichi film from his studio. I highly recommend all the previous Zatoichi films -- and recommend them.
The cult of personality has elevated the status of Roger Corman, Sam Arkoff, Lloyd Kaufman etc. as kings of the B's. Because the folks at Crown International were so key, they haven't been elevated to the status they richly deserve. A film like THE VAN may now seem like a disposable piece of Drive-in esoteria, but it was a sizable hit when it was released (not to mention subsequent re-releases as a double feature with other Crown hits).<br /><br />THE VAN was a perfect example of Crown's hit strategy of seizing upon the mood of movie-goers at the time of a film's release. Here, it was sex, drugs, rock 'n roll and the brief "Custom Van" fad. As others have noted, it is ironic that the "hit" song in the film refers to a Chevy when the title vehicle is a Dodge in the film itself. I had a town Selectman where I was at the time even declare these vans to be "dens of sin on wheels!" A perfect ad line for the film!<br /><br />There are the usual assortment of "good" and "bad" girls, muscle-heads and low-brow hijinks (including a supporting bit by Danny DeVito). In many ways this isn't much different from the old Beach Party movies of the 60's, but now spiced up with Nudity and Drug use. Obviously done on a limited budget and a limited schedule, the film coasts along pleasantly enough with a breezy charm that compensates for some, by today's standards certainly, un-PC views of women.<br /><br />The classic touch is a Toaster for Bobby's den of sin on wheels. Yes, a Toaster! Hey, you gotta have something hot for those munchies!<br /><br />Grindhouse Fest.
The title song for this movie ...........is the greatest free spirited ballad ever written! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! <br /><br />I first saw this movie back in 1978-79 when I first subscribed to cable. In 1979 cable was just starting to become common place in homes. (or at least that when it was becoming common here in Missouri).<br /><br />This might very well be the first movie I ever watched on the pay channel called "The Movie Channel" - which was called "The Star Channel" back then, they changed the name to "The Movie Channel" in the early 1980's........I received a free month of "The Star Channel" with my new cable subscription. "The Van" was one of the movies that was in heavy rotation on that network at that time.<br /><br />I remember watching this movie back then, and thinking it was a typical teen flick(along the same lines as other medium budget teen flicks) ...the ones where the plot revolves around nudity and parties.<br /><br />I totally forgot that this movie even existed until I recently seen this movie again after having not seeing it for decades( I found a copy of it on DVD for sale in cheap bin) I recognized it, and bought it for a mere $4.99.<br /><br />Seems like I had remembered this film being much better that it was(is). However watching it back then was a different experience than watching now(30+ years later).<br /><br />It was fun to see the kids listing to rock n roll music, smoking weed, and having sex in the back a fancy van(often all at the same time). This is what a good teen party movie should be.<br /><br />There isn't much of a plot other than the fact that the main character fantasizes about having sex with his arch rivals good looking girlfriend ...he blows all of his college savings money to purchase a tricked out Dodge Van(with shag carpet walls . mirrored ceiling and a water bed in it)to get her attention, and he eventually gets to have sex with her. But his arch rival finds out and comes looking for him (so that the two of them can settle their differences by drag racing their vans)....he and his arch rival end up wrecking both of their vans, and instead of stealing away his arch rivals girlfriend, he wins over the heart of a preppy(lesser attractive) girl that he half/ass dates through most of the movie and he decides he is happier/better off and the movie ends.<br /><br />the movie does have it's funny moments. But watching this movie 30+ years later, it becomes more of a trip down memory lane. Because I still can remember Pizza parlors, pinball arcades, It also brought back memories of cruising around a small town while we smoked pot as we would yell at good looking girls and hoping to get laid (sometimes I'd get lucky and get some decent looking girl to share a joint with me and we'd screw in the backseat afterwords, I also remember many of the songs in this move(when they were new)......this movie serves as a perfect time capsule for that era in those regards (brought back lots of memories)<br /><br />the one thing that is depicted in this movie that I honestly can not remember is ....I never remember a time when full sized vans were as popular as this film depicts them as being. I remember that era very well, and I don't young men going around wishing they had a van. Instead I remember young men in the 70's (self included) wanting a Pontiac Trans Am, Chevy Camaro or a hot rod Ford Mustang, but never a van. This movie makes it appear as if vans were most popular item going and that every young man wanted one(which just wasn't true of that era)
This film was abysmal. and not in the good way as some have claimed. First off the main character is a very unattractive gingerman. Second - WTF is going on with this van love. The plot, basically, is: boy wants sex so buys a van (which, in fairness is quite cool). Unbelievably given that he looks like a newt he scores with lots of chicks! And he fails with some. Then he scores with a really hot chick and realises he loves this dowdy bird who played hard to get. Then he drag races with the hot chicks boyfriend. And he tips his van. At which point danny devito saves the day. Although he didn't need to because in tipping the van the ginger kid crossed the line first. I gave this 2 *'s as i'm willing to assume that there's some sort of 70's Vanning subculture i'm not getting and also because there's some 70's boobage too.
Bobby is a goofy kid who smiles far too much and wants sex. So he buys a van to aid in this quest. The acting is lame, the comedy is pathetic and the script is no more than a loosely strung chain of clichés and cheap thrills. The makers of the film obviously wanted to capture some of the out there craziness of other films of the time, but fell a long way short. They even resort to Bobby slipping on a banana skin, because this will supposedly add comedic value.<br /><br />I'm struggling to find a redeeming feature of the film. If you like DeVito, this is another classic DeVito kind of role - but he's only a supporting actor and there for cliché value.
The Van is a feelgood movie about a guy who tries to lure girls into his new van, in order to seduce them. The only thing this movie doesn't fail at is precisely depicting the van fad in the US in the late 70s. It looks like it was totally made by amateurs. It's trash, but I loved it! I have to admit I am a fan of 70s trash! Hope this one makes it to the IMDB bottom 100!<br /><br />2
This movie was packed pull of endless surprises! Just when you thought it couldn't get worse, they added more joints and more pink fuzzy-lined vans with raunchy sex scenes. As you can guess, I was a victim of the original version. We were tricked into watching it thinking it was Supervan, the host box which promised lasars, jail breaks, and much more. Who would have thought a Dollar Store Christmas present could have been so much fun!
I disagree with much that has been written and said about this supposed "masterpiece" of the German New Wave: <br /><br />1) There are major flaws in simple exposition, in the basic communication of critical plot points, as relating to Maria's abortion and the secret contract between Oswald and her husband. How many viewers understood that the husband agreed, in exchange for substantial financial remuneration, not to return to and reclaim his wife until Oswald was dead?<br /><br />2) The ending is highly unsatisfying because arbitrary and accidental. The original screenplay called for Maria to commit suicide after the reading of Oswald's will, on finding out that her husband had in effect sold their marriage to Oswald. In the final version, however, Maria only runs water from a faucet across her wrist in a gesture of suicide. Maria is then summarily blown up, rather than having to confront and live with the consequences of her self-delusion and moral compromise.<br /><br />3) Fassbinder seeks to forcibly superimpose the public on the private, the political on the personal. Contrary to what the critics and "experts" assert, I don't think it works. Merely intruding historic radio news or the sound of the jackhammers of German reconstruction in the soundtrack on the dramatic events of the movie does not make those historical events integral to the drama. <br /><br />The selfish ambition of Maria's rise from poverty to prosperity is meant to parallel the so-called economic miracle of postwar Germany. Maria is thus intended to be a woman specific to and reflective of her time and place, but is in reality unoriginal and nonspecific. Women have been asserting their independence by using sex for self-advancement for ages. <br /><br />4) Lastly, there are several instances of inexcusable sloppiness and amateurishness -- Fassbinder's drug addiction and consequent impatience and inattention have had their effect. Unknown people talk off screen without ever being seen; music is clumsily intrusive in places; and melodramatic posturing sporadically substitutes for acting.<br /><br />Strangely, for a movie condemning a country for willful collective amnesia of the holocaust, it itself never mentions it once.
This movie was, as Homer Simpson would have put it, "more boring than church." Maybe I don't understand it well enough, and I thought it started out pretty well, but after (START OF SPOILER) Hermann Braun is sent to jail and Maria starts working/sleeping with her boss it just started to drag, and I struggled to keep awake. Again, maybe it symbolizes something, but the explosion at the end seemed very forced and out of place. (END OF SPOILER). In the end, I fail to see why others think it's so great, as I found it extremely boring. By the way, I did not watch this movie by my own free will, as I was required to see it for a Film class.
Title: Robot Jox (1990) <br /><br />Director: Stuart Gordon <br /><br />Cast: Gary Graham, Anne Marie Johnson, Paul Koslo <br /><br />Review: Stuart Gordon who we usually associate with extremely gory horror films such as Re-Animator, From Beyond, Dagon and Castle Freak, took a small detour here and did a little sci-fi flick. I stress the word "little" since this is a very low budget flick, and there in lies its main weakness.<br /><br />The story takes place in the future. A world in which the great superpowers (that according to this movie are the United States and Russia) duke out their differences not by going on a full blown world war...but by fighting gladiator style battles with gigantic robots. Our hero Achilles must go up against the evil Russian robot fighter called Alexander. Lots of cheap stop motion animation ensues.<br /><br />Well, the idea is awesome I guess. The great nations settleling territorial disputes with giant robots? Interesting premise and one that could have been handled properly if the proper budget had been available. Unfortunately what could have been a fun movie ends up being an embarrassment for an otherwise great director.<br /><br />I as a kid loved this movie, and I guess if you want any enjoyment out of this movie, you'll have to revert back to little kid mode to have some fun with it. I showed this film to some of my friends and as the movie progressed my friends where like "what the hell is this piece of crap franco?" And I'm like well this movie is a sci-fi by one of my favorite directors Stuart Gordon?" But as the movie progressed into corny territory I almost felt like pressing stop and not having them go through that torture. I could go through it, cause I loved this film as a kid, and there's still a little nostalgia attached to watching it. But everyone else was just not going to get it.<br /><br />And I myself realized that the movie isn't really that good. First off. The movie is about giant robots kicking the hell out of each other. And in order to achieve this in a credible fashion you'd have to use some damn good special effects to make it work, expensive effects that would help us the audience suspend disbelief. But unfortunately this being a small scale movie, from a small scale company (Empire Pictures, which went bankrupt after making this film!)the effects only help us giggle and laugh at them. Heck even the sets and some of the wardrobe looks unfinished or half assed.<br /><br />OK granted, once you accept that you are watching a mixture of moderate stop animation and miniatures well you can sort of give in to the film and even enjoy the big robots kicking the hell out of each other. There are certain scenes when the robots are fighting that are kinda cool, and made me go "thats why I liked thid movie!" But every know and them, some crappy effect will take you right out of that protective little cocoon you were trying to hide in. And boom, your right back into realizing this film just doesn't live up to its premise.<br /><br />And heres another thing that sort of bothered me a bit about the movie. This movie is basically a movie for kids. You know, giant robots duking it out? Stop motion animation? Hello? But this movies dialogue had a lot of sexual innuendos and the violence gets a little bloody. So I kept asking myself is this a kids movie or not? After a while I just came to the conclusion that basically this was a kids movie with adult sensibilities, which really isn't a good mix.<br /><br />So for those of you who don't feel that certain naive childlike charm of watching two robots fighting each other and if you don't have a nostalgic connection to this movie (like I do) well Id suggest you steer clear away from this one. Gordons a great director, but this movie he made, just didn't do it for me. Well, at least not now that I'm a full grown adult.<br /><br />Rating: 2 out of 5
R O B O T J O X.<br /><br />Burn the master.<br /><br />Grotesquely horrible.<br /><br />No ending; no closure.<br /><br />Completely and utterly the worst movie ever made.<br /><br />Replaces "The Adventures of Pluto Nash" as the worst movie of all time.<br /><br />I hate this utterly unacted, unedited, unscripted, undirected, unproduced mess of a thing called "Robot Jox" - and I just found out - THEY MADE A SECOND ONE!?!? I apologize to Adma Sandler (Zohar the Beauticin) and Eddie Murphy (Pluto Nash) for hating their movies. This mess of a thing makes those movies only bad - not terrible horrible and grotesque like this thing. This is the only movie for which I have ever said this - REMOVE IT FROM NETFLIX - NOW!!! 10,000 out of 10 people found this comment helpful.
What an awful movie! The Idea of robots fighting each other is cool, but the storyline is ridiculous, real human action laughable, acting non-existent and special effects (on which, this type of movie must depend) are archaic. I thought it must have been made around '80-'84 and was amazed to see it was from 1990. That's 5 years after Aliens! OK, lots of people said it was good considering the low budget, but I just think 'what's the point?'. it looks totally unbelievable. I wouldn't mind seeing a remake with modern special effects and a completely re-written story because I still like the idea of huge robots beating crap out of each other.
There are a number of problems with this movie, but the bottom line is that it tried to do too much with too little. The base story is quite good, but the money just wasn't there to do the story justice. The non-existent budget really killed this movie. Stuart Gordon (the writer/director) has writing credit on 'Honey, I Shrunk the Kids', which was a box office smash. However, that movie had some serious cash backing from Disney. Honestly, this is a good example of when to not make a movie. Had he waited a few more years, technology would have made it cheaper to do many of the effects. (not to mention he could have found a company with money.)
OK this movie had a terrible premise. Be serious according to the movie they had just been through an apocalyptic war yet they have money to buy huge robots and pit them against each other. Each country decides instead of investing into rebuilding their country they would rather fight with robots no one could afford. Here's a better idea, lets rely on our most inept resource,jocks, to fight our battles. <br /><br />Everyone says what about the director, what about him. He makes a good movie, he makes a bad movie. There is no reason to give this movie some credit just because of the director, maybe he was asleep? I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, because it was so cheesy and ridiculous I had to laugh. I actually had a good time watching it, well except for the cowboy mentor who turns out to be an assassin(trust me no one would see this guy as an assassin, so it is a surprise, however lame) What kind of training exercise is a jungle jim anyway. I was sad to see Mst3k had not done this one. I am giving a two star rating however because nothing could be as bad as "manos the hands of fate."<br /><br />The budget does not matter either, I have seen plenty of reasonable movies that had nothing for budgets like cube. The storyline was not even plausible and I have seen better acting in school plays. Surly they could have afforded an eleven year old from any middle school play.<br /><br />Anyway pick it up, it is a fun movie to watch.
I actually paid to see this movie in the theater.<br /><br />It would get a 1-rating, but the fight scenes between the robots are okay, and there's a surprise.<br /><br />I realize that some movies have larger budgets than others. I don't have a problem with that. Unfortunately, science fiction movies probably suffer the most on a small budget for obvious reasons. But, one way this movie fails is that just about every piece of each set looked cheesy and cheap. I mean, couldn't they even make it "look" good?<br /><br />The other major reason this movie is horrible is the acting If I watched the movie now and knew what to expect, I might just enjoy it for the cheese-factor, but at the time, I was expecting a good movie and had no clue as to how horrible it would actually end up being.<br /><br />Thankfully, the experience was over in only 85 minutes.
Think a darker version of one of those kid shows such as "Power Rangers" and you have this film from 1990, "Robot Jox". A movie where you fight with giant robots, two men enter the arena and whoever comes out their country wins. The robots are huge and look like slightly better versions of the ones from said shows mainly because they are less colorful so while this movie is not good, it isn't all bad to watch. There are as I recall two robot fights in this one, one that ends badly and the final showdown. There is a plot twist part way through as a traitor is revealed, but in the end the plot is nothing that is going to stick with you for any amount of time after the picture is done. The fights themselves look like giant toys on the rampage, but still somewhat fun to watch. This movie would also spawn a couple of other films with similar plot devices such as the giant robots and the tournament. So it is worth checking out once, but probably not more than that.
This movie is the perfect illustration of how NOT to make a sci fi movie. The worst tendency in sci-fi is to make your theme an awful, sophomoric, pseudo-Orwellian/Huxleyan/whateverian "vision" of "the human future."<br /><br />Science fiction filmmakers (and authors), as geeks, take themselves very seriously given the high crap-to-good-stuff ratio of their genre. I think other genres with a high CTGSR (yes, I just made it up, relax), like horror or action or even romantic comedy, seem to have a little better grasp of the fact that they are not changing the world with some profound "message."<br /><br />Sci fi can certainly be successful on a serious level, as numerous great filmmakers have proven. But there is an immense downside to the whole concept, which is represented by "Robot Jox," with its low-rent construction of "the future" (lone good design element: the bizarre, slick-looking billboard ads all over the place that encourage women to have more babies) and its painfully heavy-handed "Iliad" parallels (He's NAMED ACHILLES FOR GOD'S SAKE! I actually didn't pick up on this until I saw the film for like the tenth time, but I went to public school, so the filmmakers are not exonerated.)<br /><br />Of course, if you're a crazy movie freak like me, this downside has a great upside. I absolutely LOVE movies like this, because bad movies are quite often more fun and sometimes even more interesting than good ones. It's kind of a Lester Bangs approach to movie viewing, I guess.<br /><br />Note: The lead in this movie (Gary Graham? Is that his name? I refuse to go check.) is really not that bad. He makes a go of it. He's kind of cool, especially when he's drunk/hung over.
Sadly I don't remember the book anymore, but I do recall that I was captivated by the stories of Edgar Wallace. This Film represents a typical German Production of low quality. It does not hold my attention - although the story itself is good, it is just badly adabted. At the center of the misery are the characters that are overly simplyfied and exaggerated - they have no nuances in their performances. Even the well known and liked German Actors Joachim Fuchsberger and Eddy Aren't cannot rescue this poor spectacle. However there's hope ... I've been told that the films following this one are getting better and better. So in conclusion I must say that this film doesn't deserve the cinematic screen but may be enough for a lazy afternoon.
This movie is an abomination, and its making should have been considered a capital crime.<br /><br />One of the great mysteries of film-making is why nobody ever has made a faithful movie adaptation of this wonderful mystery. It is a tale of a really gripping mystery, nice old-fashioned romance, and dry English humor. Why did the makers have to change Richard Gordon from a Scotland Yard policeman to an amateur detective, introduce the idiotic role and caricature of his English servant, change the part of the main storyline about the murder charge and circumstances of Gordon's struggle to save the accused, etc., etc.? These producers and directors who always think they can make a better story than the one in the book should write the original script themselves and not to rape another person's product.
I loved Dewaere in Series Noir. His talent is trivialized in "The Waltzers" aka "Going Places". Okay, it's a couple of guys flaunting convention in the most absurd and irredeemable ways; many folks find such behavior amusing. This was a boring, pointless exercise designed to shock. I find the smirk on Blier's face, the face behind the camera, annoying. Series Noir was a valid expression of personal liberty and licentious behavior. From the first moment when we see Patric Dewaere prancing in the abandoned lot we get an idea of the bewilderingly beautiful anti-hero we'll be spending time with for the next couple of hours. When we see him chasing the hapless middle aged female with his buddy Depardieu in "Going Places" we have fair warning that two hours spent with these chaps will be soul-draining. I have trouble eking even a "3" for this annoying distraction.
When I first saw this film, I thought it should have come from the children's section - It's very fun and at times humorous, and is actually quite a good story, but it severely lacks the "romantic chemistry" that actors like Meg Ryan and Tim Robbins are capable of delivering. I must note that Walter Matthau is perfect for the part of Albert Einstein, and his performance is extraordinary, but that's the sole exception. This film appears a bit forced, the directing lacks substance, and oh yeah...the music is ridiculously awful, it didn't put me in a very good mood. But if you are not expecting a smart, well-crafted comedy/romance tale, then this certainly can be entertaining, like I said..it should be in the children's section. Einstein and his buddies are a good relief from Tim Robbins' boring, almost tense quest to steal Meg Ryan's heart. A very conflicting film, but as long as it's not taken seriously this can be an alright movie.
Tim Robbins is oddly benign here, cast as a garage mechanic in 1950s New Jersey who falls in love with a perky blonde who turns out to be Albert Einstein's niece! Although he's on-screen much of the time, Robbins cancels out the inner-workings of his intense persona and fades into the background (it's easy to forget he's even in the picture!). Lumpy romantic comedy with a gimmick, that being Walter Matthau playing Einstein (who does what he can with a cartoonishly conceived character). Otherwise, it's sugary and sunny, directed rather drowsily by Fred Schepisi, who shows heart but no wit or brains. Meg Ryan is her usual affable self and the chemistry between she and Robbins is charming, like that of an affectionate sister and her big brother. ** from ****
Director Fred Schepisi(Roxanne) directs this well intentioned, but inferior comedy about Albert Einstein(Matthau) trying to hook his scientific niece(Ryan) up with ordinary guy Tim Robbins in order to get her to relax and enjoy life in the 1950's. To get Ryan to like Robbins, Einstein tries to make Robbins look like a brilliant scientist. The idea is cute, but the film falls flat with corny situations and silly dialogue. Tim Robbins, Meg Ryan, and the terrific supporting cast do their best to keep this silly comedy afloat, but are unable to rescue the film. Its unfortunate that so much talent went into producing such a lackluster movie. I would not recommend to anybody unless they are huge fans of Meg Ryan.
This TV film tells the story of extrovert Frannie suddenly returning to Silk Hope to visit friends and family, but unaware of her mother's death. Her sister runs the family home, but is intending to sell it and move away with her new husband. Frannie strongly objects to the idea, and vows to keep the family heirloom as it were, by getting a job and maintaining responsibility.<br /><br />In comes handsome Ruben and the two soon fall in love (as you do), and it's from this point that I sort of lost interest....<br /><br />There is more to Farrah Fawcett than just the blonde hair and looks, she can portray a character extremely convincingly when she puts her mind to it - and it is certainly proved here as well as some of her previous efforts like Extremities and Small Sacrificies - a great performance from the legendary Charlie's Angel.<br /><br />Silk Hope is the type of film that never shies away from its cheap and cheerful TV image, and you know there was a limit to the budget, but it's not the worst film ever made. The positive aspects are there; you just have to find them.
Just in time to capitalize on the long-awaited movie version of "Dreamgirls" is the DVD release of this semi-forgotten 1976 musical melodrama that also takes the rise of the Supremes as its inspiration. Released five years before the Broadway opening of "Dreamgirls" and partially set in the same period, it has a predominantly black cast and a story revolving around an up-and-coming girl group, and that's where the resemblance basically ends. Written by Joel Schumacher well before he became a big-league director of mainstream studio product ("Batman Forever", "The Phantom of the Opera"), this movie seems grittier on the surface. True to form, however, Schumacher weakens the storyline and character development by injecting an abundance of clichés and eye-rolling one-liners. With little affinity for staging musical numbers, Sam O'Steen, a highly regarded film editor but neophyte director, helms the production like a low-budget TV-movie with a frustratingly episodic structure.<br /><br />The story follows three Harlem sisters - sexy Sister, self-righteous Delores and sweet Sparkle - as they sing in the church choir, meet smooth-talking but well-intentioned boys Stix and Levi, and then find their first taste of success as a singing group - first as a sweater-wearing quintet called the Hearts and then as a glitzy trio known as Sister and the Sisters. But naturally there are problems beyond the silly name for the group - Sister gets involved with nasty drug dealer Satin Struthers who beats her and turns her into a cocaine junkie; Levi goes to prison for getting caught in a drug pick-up for Satin; Stix gets frustrated by failure and unwisely turns to some Jewish mobsters for financial help; Delores just gets plain fed up; and poor little Sparkle has to decide what kind of future she wants. A big plus is that R&B great Curtis Mayfield wrote the atmospheric songs, some catchy and one, "Look Into Your Heart", a real winner.<br /><br />The solid cast does its best under the contrived circumstances. Lonette McKee's valiant attempt to make Sister a tragic figure is undercut by some of the ham-fisted plot turns, including a sad Billie Holliday-like turn at the mike. Before they hit it big on primetime TV, Philip Michael Thomas and Dorian Harewood portray Stix and Levi with boyish vitality if not much credibility. The best work comes from Mary Alice in a relatively silent turn as the girls' patient mother and a pre-"Fame" Irene Cara who effortlessly exudes sincerity in the title role (though her costumer and hair stylist should be shot for the hideous look she achieves in the final scene). The DVD just comes with the original theatrical trailer complete with an unctuous voice-over by DJ Casey Kasem and a bonus CD of five of the film's songs performed not by the original cast but by Aretha Franklin off her 1976 recording of the soundtrack. It's not a terrible movie, just an interesting if lacking curio that happens to cover the same ground as "Dreamgirls".
About time they released this movie on DVD. I know some say WB rush the release of this movie because of The Dreamgirls movie. But, how can you rush the release of a movie that's been in you catalog since 1976.<br /><br />I'm very disappointed with the DVD release of this movie, no special feature, no 5.1 DD sound. come on WB, you can do much better then this. The audio and picture quality on this movie needs some serious help.<br /><br />Seem WB didn't place as much time and attention to this movie because it is a black movie and my have okay sales. They could have kept the CD which by the way dose not have all the songs the original CD has. <br /><br />Would I recommend this DVD for purchase. Yes, because it is a classic film. But WB need to go add some more special feature. Take notes from other group movies, The Five Heatbeats, or The Temptation were you may view just the performance, and the sound on both are much, much, much better than this DVD.
This is not a good movie. It's disjointed, all the acting is bad, and has a lame story you've seen a thousand times done much better else where. Not to mention you can see every plot point coming from a mile away. Worst of all, no one bothered to tell Lonette Mckee she can't sing. But who cares, she's sooooo damn good looking. But I digress, nothing new here. Bottom-line, hot girl group gets taken advantage of, some one gets hooked on drugs, someone gets hooked on a guy, some one gets the hell out, and then the horrible stuff happens. Surprise, surprise. Welcome to the music business. I can't believe so many people out there think this is a good movie. So many of you seem to want to use a sliding scale when it comes to grading Black Movies. I don't play that! If you want to support these films by going to see them - great! If you enjoyed it - super! To each his own. But don't try to tell me it was good. Pleeeease! I wish colored folks would not fawn over these kind of movies just because they feature black actors. Wanna see a good African-American movie? See Love Jones. Ray. Or The Color Purple. Those would be great movies no matter what the color of the actors skin. Why? Because they told compelling stories with great acting, that made you feel something long after you left the theater. Just because it's our experience does not automatically make it a good film. It's only good -- when it's good. Period.
I know that the real story of Little Richard is a lot more thrilling than this maudlin and thoroughly average biopic. But then producer Little Richard was probably too reluctant to bring to light any sordid details of his life and just gave us a forgettable facsimile of his career highlights from the 50s and 60s.
I've seen enough of both Little Richard in interviews and in performances and enough of poor Leon pigeonholed into these 50s/60s musical bio pics to know that Leon was not the right actor for this role. Leon was so right as David Ruffin in The Temptations, but fails utterly to capture the essence of Little Richard in this film. <br /><br />Actor Miguel Núñez who played Little Richard in "Why Do Fools Fall in Love?" was a much more suitable choice, having pulled off the musician's powerful but effeminate persona. <br /><br />If the performances are unconvincing then the film will be as well. And this is what has happened here. Glossed over or missed entirely are LR's forays into homosexuality and voyeurism. What "The Temptations" did so well in capturing the rise of the group, warts and all, this film misses by a wide mark.<br /><br />What is going on with director Robert Townsend who started off so well with "The Hollywood Shuffle"? He's a talented, funny guy but hasn't delivered anything near that first effort.
Having the In-Laws over for the weekend? Then this is the film to hasten their departure, failing that it will induce a catatonic state to bring a welcome relief from constant nagging.<br /><br />The film is supposedly set on board a luxury cruise ship, which is more superannuated car ferry; the plot has more holes than the average colander and a cast dredged from the depths of the celebrity D list. An interesting piece of added amusement is playing "Spot the Villain" as passengers join the ship. You won't be wrong!!!! With a script that sinks faster than a brick, clichéd set pieces and copious amounts of raspberry jam doubling as blood this film attempts to encompass the genres of thriller, action movie and gore-fest and simultaneously fails to fulfil any of them.<br /><br />A must watch film, if only to laugh at how bad it is.
What a poor excuse for New Zealnd Movie making. I'm ashamed to call myself a New Zealander when this movie exists and is currently playing on New Zealand satellite TV (Aug 2006). The cast is made up of a large number of local soap stars. The ship, in real life, is one of the inter-island ferries that travel daily between the two main islands and even has the company's logo (a dolphin) still all over the set including on the ship's funnel. The ship is supposed to be a cruise ship/ferry between the USA and Mexico. It has obvious signs of rust and old age all over the place yet is supposed to be a luxury ship on it's maiden voyage. One of the scenes shows the snow capped peaks of New Zealand's South island in the background for God's sake! Must have been a very cold time on the USA/Mexico area! The story is weak, the acting is weaker and the new Zealand/American accents just don't work. I expect the New Zealand tax payer contributed to the production cost of this movie and that was a waste of money better spent on a real production. I know high school kids in New Zealand who could make better movies with their cell phones. Goof: There is a truck in the hold with tagging on it and they stuck a Taco Company sign on the door of the truck, presumably to make it look like it was American. But some of the sign is over the top of the tagging - you'd think they would have noticed that in the props department before attaching it. I'd love to go on but it just isn't worth the trouble in any way.
Yet another Die Hard straight to video rip off with cardboard villains… How many more of these god awful cheaply (and badly) made rip off of the more popular action movies of the late 1980's and early 1990's are there still lurking out there? For the record (not that you will care really) this one is yet another blatant rip off of a combination of Die Hard, Under Siege and Speed 2 complete with a full complement of clichés and predictability.<br /><br />The non descript villains are the usual selection of cardboard cut out gun toting thugs who are dispatched by various means as the film progresses, the hero naturally is an ex cop or something that has family and attitude problems and of course he brings along to the party not only the usual emotional baggage but also a matching piece of eye candy and his annoying son.<br /><br />The supposed luxury cruise liner that is running between Florida and Mexico is carefully described as a cross between a liner and a ferry – this goes someway to explaining how come they appear to be larking around on a rusty cross channel ferry – in New Zealand! The acting is as wooden as the deck, the script woeful, the one liners predictable, the villains utterly inept and the plot has holes in it you could sail a boat through.<br /><br />There seems to be a never ending tide of this sort of rip off straight to video rubbish polluting the late night slots of television and the DVD bargain bins of supermarkets everywhere (although even this film is so bad it has yet to see a DVD release yet but give it time!) Is there any chance of something at least half decently made, semi believable and most important ORIGINAL?!? No, I thought not…..
I saw this on TV the other night… or rather I flicked over to another channel every so often to watch infomercials when I couldn't stand watching it any longer. It was bad. Really, really bad. Not "so bad it's good" just flat out bad. How did it get funded? Who thought this was a good idea? An actor friend of mine auditioned and was told he wasn't good enough to play a bad guy but I think what they meant was "save yourself and runaway from this steaming pile of @#$%." I bet the rest of the cast had been given the option. To be fair the acting was hard to judge because of the appalling fake American ascents. The shooting was dullllllllllll. The action was awkward and stilted. The dialog was inane. By far the saddest thing was ship. In real life the Interislander ferry is a shabby boat and on film it doesn't scrub up well. Instead of trying very unsuccessfully to make it look like a new crews liner with bits of tinsel wrapped around rusting polls, I kid you not, they could have change the script to explain or even celebrate the shabbiness. Dumb, Dumb, Dumb. Don't watch this movie, not even as a joke.
Van Dien must cringe with embarrassment at the memory of this ludicrously poor film, as indeed must every single individual involved. To be honest I am rather embarrassed to admit I watched it from start to finish. Production values are somewhere between the original series of 'Crossroads' and 'Prisoner Cell Block H'. Most five year olds would be able to come up with more realistic dialogue and a more plausible plot. As for the acting performances, if you can imagine the most rubbish porno you have ever seen - one of those ones where the action is padded out with some interminable 'story' to explain how some pouting old peroxide blonde boiler has come to be getting spit-roasted by a couple of blokes with moustaches - you will have some idea of the standard of acting in 'Maiden Voyage'. Worse still, you can't even fast forward to the sex scenes, because there aren't any. An appallingly dreadful film.
The cast of this film contain some of New Zealander's better actors, many of who I have seen in fabulous roles, this film however fills me with a deep shame just to be from the same country as them. The fake American accents are the first clue that things are about to go spectacularly wrong. As another review rather astutely noted the luxury cruise ship is in fact an old car ferry, decorated with a few of the multi colour flags stolen from a used car lot. Most of the cast appear to be from the (great) long running New Zealand soap Shortland Street. It's as if this movie was dreamt up at a Shortland Street cast Christmas party, the result of too many gins, and possibly a bit of salmonella. Imagine "Under Siege" meets "The Love Boat", staged by your local primary school and directed by an autistic and you get the idea.<br /><br />If you are an actor, I recommend you see this film, as a study on how to destroy your carer.
Forgive me for stating the obvious, but some films are good and some films are bad. Of course, there are extremes within those two broad categories. Films such as The Godfather, Saving Private Ryan, and Star Wars slot comfortably into the good category. At the other end of the spectrum there are those films that simply don't deserve to be mentioned by name. Occasionally however, someone produces a truly woeful film. A film that should be singled out as a demonstration of how awful a film can be. A film that is more than bad. Such a film is Maiden Voyage.<br /><br />Briefly, Maiden Voyage is a story about a luxury cruise ship that is hijacked by a gang of evil criminals who demand a ransom from an equally evil, scheming ship's owner. Of course, there is an all American hero on board, complete with chiselled jaw and sculptured chest, who saves the day.<br /><br />This is a production that plumbs new depths. Everything about it is bad. The acting, the direction and the so-called plot are breath-takingly poor. In short, it is an insult to the intelligence of any unfortunate viewer. Even an American viewer would be annoyed by its shortcomings.<br /><br />Yes, it's that bad.<br /><br />I will resist the temptation to compose a list of things that angered me about this film. However, its dumber-than-dumb conclusion should serve as an adequate example of what I mean.<br /><br />Imagine in your mind that you are an evil hijacker and you are stood in an open lifeboat on a calm sea. You are in company with the hero who holds a ticking bomb. Said hero throws the bomb to you and dives overboard. What would you do? I don't know about you, but I would throw the bomb as far as I possibly could into the sea. Not this guy. He watches as our hero swims away and then he tries to disarm the bomb with unfortunate (for him) results. Enough said. Such a demise would merit a mention in the Darwin Awards website and might also be a suitably apt conclusion to the production team's lives.
There is only one problem with this website, you can't give a negative rating. Additionally a mate rated this as a D grade movie. I say he was being too nice. A piece of wood could show more emotion that the actors in this movie, and the money used to produce this movie would have been better used to start a fire. This is absolutely terrible, 2 hours of life that anyone who endures this untalented bloodbath will never get back. After watching 5 minutes, myself and the boys wondered if sinking bulk heavies would make this anymore entertaining. Half a carto and a bottle of 151 later I finally found some of this G grade acting remotely funny. It's an insult upon this entire planet that the director thought anyone could find anything beneficial from this more, he should go and buy a rope. And to the actors in this flick, I hope you got paid well to be in this joke because I doubt you will ever work again. In summary I fine everyone in this movie 100 grand and 12 demerit points off your acting licence.
I would list this film under the horror film genre.I did this because I am not aware of a genre called horrible. Since the genre horror comes the nearest to horrible I have decided to put it in this category. The acting was amateurish. You know who the villains would be at the first scene. The heroine is as ugly as the movie. Students of movie making should take this movie as an example for the lesson what not to do in a movie. It is that bad. Man the word bad is an understatement. The villains hijack an ocean liner and want 10 million dollars. They want the money to be delivered on an inhabited Rose Island in the middle of the pacific. They would be sitting ducks after they got the money. Is there no getaway plan. How dumb. The female Cruise Director is a former cop, navy seal, kung fu I am scared. The hilarious part is the way the defuses the time bomb. He says he knows what he is doing and he keeps pulling all the wires one by one. He then puts it in his pocket and according to the movie with all the connections in place. Is he mad? As mad us who watched this RIDICULOUS. If you have a M-i-L whom you do not like. To annoy her rent this movie and pretend you enjoy it. I assure you she will definitely tell your spouse that you have such bad taste and that her son/daughter has married a person below her family standard.
Problem with these type of movies is that literally dozens of them are being made each year. Luckily for use only a handful are given a theatrical release, while the others are being pushed straight to video or TV, such as this movie.<br /><br />The foremost problem of this movie is really its originality. It's one of those movies which uses the "Die Hard" formula of a tough but troubled guy being at the wrong place at the wrong time. In this case it's a character played by Casper Van Dien, who works for a security agency that thoroughly test safety procedures for companies and individuals. In this case he's being send to a cruise ship, which of course gets hijacked. You can see this movie as a sort of mix of "Die Hard" and "Air Force One" and the movie doesn't even try to conceal that those two movies were probably its biggest source of 'inspiration'. So really, you can't regard this movie as an original one at all. It uses all of the clichés out of the book and this movie really doesn't offer any surprises or anything that remotely resembles anything original.<br /><br />Like you can expect from a movie such as this, it has a very weak script. Or rather said, it features some very lazy writing. Like I said before, the movie features nothing original but also the actual story itself features some elements which are far from likely and are just plain ridicules truthfully. I mean, hijacking an huge cruise ship with only about 8 guys, of which halve only carry some small guns and then ask for a ransom of 'only' 10 million dollars, for a ship that is about worth 10 times that amount is itself already quite ridicules. How do they even intend to split that money afterward? Every person gets just over a million or something? That's hardly profitable for such a big and risky undertaking. And then there is the case of taking the passengers hostage. Somehow they manage to take all passengers on the huge ship hostage and they manage to put them inside one room, with only one guy with his pistol, which he can't even seem to be able to hold right, watching them. You never see more than like 30 hostages however, as if they were all the people who were aboard at the time. Also when the Van Dien character goes looking for his son and vice versa, no matter which room they walk in through on the huge cruise ship, they always bump into each other instantly. Just some examples of the lazy writing within the movie.<br /><br />But it of course is an action flick, so the story of course becomes secondary. But then again, it's not as if this movie features any good action at all. Halve of the actors look as if they had never hold a weapon before and the movie is filled with some ridicules slow-motion. It really becomes laughable at points.<br /><br />Of course the movie also doesn't feature the best actors, though I must say that Casper Van Dien really isn't a bad 'action hero' and actor, as far as the genre and B-movie circuit is concerned. He just however also suffers from the same problem as Tom Cruise; no matter how old he is, he just never looks convincing enough to play the father of a teenager. Van Dien once started out as a promising new young actor but starring in movies like this really doesn't help his career much. He's probably capable of something better, though he is never really given the right opportunity to show it. All of the other actors also do a fair enough job but their characters are just so formulaic that they never truly become interesting.<br /><br />Oh well, it's not the worst genre movie I have ever seen but it also ain't exactly the most original or memorable one either.<br /><br />4/10
What a joke. I am watching it on Channel 1 and I think watching paint dry is much more entertaining. What happened to Caspar Van Dien that got him roped into this nightmare. Terrible acting, very boring plot and terrible direction. It so terrible, it's funny. It's suppose to be full of suspense, but it more a comedy. If you want to see terrible acting, ridiculous script writing and sub-par plot, check this movie out. If I was Van Dien, I would not only ask for my 10% from my agent, but fire the bastard in the process. What a turkey. It's not even fit to be on MST 3K!! It would be a good movie to cure you insomnia. I especially love the part where Van Dien is throw overboard and then makes it back in just a few minutes! I can only image that this was written by non-union writers taking advantage of the writer's strike. What a horrible movie!!!
A truly dreadful film. I did not know initially that this was a Kiwi effort - but very soon I started to realize that all the characters were speaking with hardly disguised kiwi accents under the fake American ones. Why did it need to be set n America anyway? - it could have been set in NZ and then the actors could have used their normal voices. Surely someone in the production team could hear the dreadful attempts at speaking with American accents? A bad bad film. I am surprised it has lasted this long - how did it make it out of the can? It just seemed like a very poor attempt at a Segal/Willis type action man flick.A TOTAL WASTE OF MONEY! If there was any TAXPAYER money in this piece of trash, I would be leading a revolution to have all the money put back into the Treasury. I am still reeling (get it? pun, reeling!) at the absolute garbage I have just seen. Why did I continue to watch? Well, I am a movie fanatic and cant help ,myself!
I think I've seen worse films, so I'm giving this a 3, but it's a struggle to remember what they could have been!! Possibly Xtro (nasty & dull) or possibly Creep (just plain dull), but it is a struggle to think of something worse. It's difficult to know where to start. Let's just say it's a poor man's Under Siege, starring an even poorer man's Jean Claude Van Damme. The only redeeming feature was seeing Casper Van Dien - I always wondered what happened to him after Starship Troopers. Yes, he was Johnny Rico, if you really want to know.<br /><br />Judging from this site, he's been stuck in TV movie hell.... Casper, be more selective.... please!!!!!!!!!!!! Arghhhhh, I've just turned over and there's a half decent film on called Criminal Law...... now I'm beginning to get really resentful about the last 1.5hrs!!!
Maiden Voyage is just that. I'd like to say straight away that I watched 5mins of this before I just couldn't stand it anymore. As already stated in another comment, this film doesn't fall into the whole "so bad it's good" thing, it's just bad. The acting is awful, the sfx are poor, and the story is bland and stupid. Even the extras suck, the "bag guy guards" and such appear to hold their weapons like water pistols.<br /><br />Don't even bother watching this film, the only thing special about it is that, no matter how low your expectations are, you will still be disappointed.
What a sad sight these TV stalwarts make, running out the clock on their careers stumbling about a little rusting hulk of a ship - boat might be more appropriate. The whole production feels cheap and shabby, and it's not helped by a "big name" star who is barely capable of spitting out the few lines that he's given in a credible fashion.<br /><br />At no time do the supporting cast rise above the material; they're clearly watching the clock here. Bang out the scenes, get the pay cheque, go home, and try to forget all about it.<br /><br />It's not particularly badly scripted or filmed; there are no real clangers, it's just utterly anodyne, and shot in a very limited number of cramped sets with a small cast of extras. The pacing is a little bizarre; an embarrassingly tentative romantic sub-plot is only begun after the main action starts, which makes it feel irrelevant.<br /><br />Maiden Voyage scores a couple of points for being competently scored, and for being a fun game of "spot the Kiwi bit parters"; most of the cast are graduates of Shortland Street or Xena: Warrior Princess. The saddest thing about this production is that this film probably constitutes their big break.
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />McBain (played by Gary Busey, before the name became synonymous with the character in The Simpsons) is a (typically) unorthodox cop who gets results but winds his superiors up something rotten. Avoiding the cliché of his partner being killed at the beginning of the film, the plot instead takes a different turn and sees him assigned to travel to Mexico where a top secret American super tank with incredible firepower and imaging capabilities has been smuggled through, only to be taken hostage, along with the crew, by a gang of terrorists.<br /><br />This cheap looking (even by 80s standards), boring little action film was a bizarre career move for Gary Busey after making an impression as the flame haired villain Mr Joshua in Lethal Weapon. He just goes through the motions with his cardboard character here, edgy and zany as ever (with 'butthorn' being his trademark put down for the bad guys), but without the material to back him up. Henry Silva has presence as a screen villain, but he's totally miscast here as an Arab leader (in a red beret!) and the awful script gives him some really clunky lines of dull dialogue that make his performance come off as laughably wooden. He's just one of a host of action film character actors, including L.Q. Jones and Lincoln Kilpatrick, who pop up but fail to add anything to the mix. After a dull first half without much exciting action, things do pick up a bit at the end, but it's too little too late and none of it manages the task of being any fun. *
What an incomprehensible mess of a movie. Something about a cop who extracts bullets from himself after he gets shot and keeps them in a glass jar in his bathroom (and from the size of the jar he's been shot about fifty times by now) and a top secret tank guarded by five or six incompetent soldiers who for some reason drive it into Mexico. Whether they were sent there intentionally or just got really really lost is never made clear. And you'll never hear another screenplay feature the word "butthorn" either. Gary Busey tries out the Mel Gibson role from "Lethal Weapon" and while Busey is a serviceable actor the screenplay damns the whole movie to mediocrity. William Smith does another turn as a Russian soldier, the same character he played in "Red Dawn" a few years earlier. After playing biker heavies for most of the 70s it was sort of nice to see him expand his range playing Communist heavies. Sadly he'll probably always be remembered best as the guy who Clint Eastwood whupped in "Every Which Way You Can."
Take "Rambo," mix in some "Miami Vice," slice the budget about 80%, and you've got something that a few ten-year-old boys could come up with if they have a big enough backyard & too much access to "Penthouse." Cop and ex-commando McBain (Busey, and with a name like McBain, you know he's as gritty as they come) is recruited to retrieve an American supertank that has been stolen & hidden in Mexico. Captured with the tank were hardbitten Sgt. Major O'Rourke (Jones) & McBain's former love Devon (Fluegel), the officer in command & now meat for the depraved terrorists/spies/drug peddlers, who have no sense of decency, blah, blah, blah. For an action movie with depraved sex, there's a dearth of action and not much sex. The running joke is that McBain gets shot all the time & survives, keeping the bullets as souvenirs. Apparently the writers didn't see "The Magnificent Seven" ("The man for us is the one who GAVE him that face"), nor thought to give McBain even a pretense of intelligence. Even for a budget actioner, the production values are poor, with distant shots during dialog and very little movement. The main prop, the tank, is silly enough for an Ed Wood production. Fluegel, who might have been a blonde Julia Roberts (she had a far bigger role in "Crime Story" than Julia!) has to go from simpering to frightened to butt-kicking & back again on an instant's notice. Jones, who's been in an amazing array of films, pretty much hits bottom right here. Both he & Busey were probably just out for some easy money & a couple of laughs. Look for talented, future character actor Danny Trejo ("Heat," "Once Upon a Time in Mexico") in a stereotyped, menacing bit part. Much too dull even for a guilty pleasure, "Bulletproof" is still noisy enough to play when you leave your house but want people to think there's someone home.
What happens when an army of wetbacks, towelheads, and Godless Eastern European commies gather their forces south of the border? Gary Busey kicks their butts, of course. Another laughable example of Reagan-era cultural fallout, Bulletproof wastes a decent supporting cast headed by L Q Jones and Thalmus Rasulala.
There is only one use for a film such as Bulletproof: it reminds you just how bad bad can be. We often see films which we describe as "pretty awful" or "not much good", but then you come across a film like this and you can see that although all those other films aren't "good" they are no way as stinkingly bad as Bulletproof. This was a birthday gift from someone who spent less than two seconds rummaging thru' the DVD bargain bin at our local superstore to fulfil an obligation (i.e. to give me a present). It could have been a serendipitous find but it wasn't: this is so utterly clichéd, so badly written, so poorly directed, so badly acted that I'm surprised everyone involved hasn't been arrested and sent down for 10 years. God, it's awful. I suspected as much from about 30 seconds in, but carried on because sometimes - sometimes - bad films are so bad they can be enjoyable. This isn't one of them. It is simply bad. I stopped watching after 45 minutes, and tomorrow I shall throw it in the bin.
I still can't believe that Wes Craven was responsible for this piece of crap.This movie is worse than "Deadly Friend".The plot is stupid,the acting is mediocre and the film is deadly dull.I don't know why Wes Craven hates his debut "Last House on the Left"-an absolute masterpiece of the genre and likes(probably)this turkey.Don't get me wrong,I really like some of his movies,but it was a real torture sitting and watching this.
Unspeakably discombobulated turkey, a mix of anti-Nazi musical (!!), pre-war Americana and Agatha Christie whodunit spoof with one big, big problem: it's deadly unfunny. Besides the single-digit I.Q. plot and dialog, the most amazing aspect of "Lady..." is the berserk casting. Gene Wilder (star AND co-writer) tries hard at it all: he plays a romantic lead (with his looks!! and his age!! he and Woody Allen should start a club for clueless, mirrorless ageing comedians), and he tries to be moving and funny and poignant and smart, and tries to sing and dance, and succeeds in NONE!! A looong shot from his good old days with Mel Brooks.<br /><br />For a while I thought I was having a myopia fit, because everybody in the movie keeps saying Cherry Jones is this pretty hot chick, and that Michael Cumpsty is this impossibly handsome stallion!! The guy who plays Claire Bloom's male secretary is a bespectacled balding thin actor as sexy as a chair and is the object of passion of the two leading ladies!! Mike Starr's over-the-top acting as the most incompetent, phoniest cop you EVER saw deserves to rank among the 10 most abhorrent performances in recent film history. The saddest note is to see wonderful Claire Bloom and Barbara Sukowa completely miscast and offensively wasted. At least I hope both stars payed their bills back home (and subsequently fired their agents) with this flop. No wonder acting prodigy Sukowa returned to Germany after she saw what Hollywood had in store for her!!<br /><br />If you want to see how to accomplish a really bad film out of a really bad script with a berserk casting director, study this one - otherwise stay away!!! - 1/10
(Spoilers galore) This is an absolutely awful film. First of all it has that guy from medium. I guess he's made a career out of playing super doting dads. It was OK the first time he tried to scare his son by pretending to be a monster...but then 10 minutes later they cloyingly did it again! And so it goes, this film moves in excruciating real time. At one point, I started imaging it was days later, until I was reminded that the story line was only at the next day...in the early afternoon still! I'm not really sure who this couple is supposed to be in real life. First of all they are presented as sort of a Manhattan yuppie couple who grew up and had a kid. But they drive an old blue Volvo. Those types stopped driving Volvos decades ago. Today they drive Priuses. But in 2002, I'm sure they still weren't driving Volvos.<br /><br />OK, then there's Wendigo. A "mysterious Indian man" gives the boy a little magic Wendigo statue and tells him of its powerful magic. C'mon...are we still doing ancient Indian mysteries. Just to drive it home, they pan across every Indian statue in their tourist trap upstate New York town. American Indians are portrayed in a manner not seen for decades in this film! Oh, and about Wendigo. He is not actually the cause of the horror. He doesn't kill the kid's dad which is the most horrible thing in the film...he's just killed by an ordinary hick with a grudge and a high powered rifle. The Wendigo only comes out late in the film to avenge the guy who killed the dad...oh, but wait, it seemed earlier that Wendigo was kind of mad at the dad, maybe because he killed a deer...so then Wendigo must have been happy that the dad was killed...but...<br /><br />And so it goes...insulting, boring and nonsensical. There is no reason to watch this film at all.
I had never heard of Larry Fessenden before but judging by this effort into writing and directing, he should keep his day job as a journeyman actor. Like many others on here, I don't know how to categorize this film, it wasn't scary or spooky so can't be called a horror, the plot was so wafer thin it can't be a drama, there was no suspense so it can't be a thriller, its just a bad film that you should only see if you were a fan of the Blair witch project. People who liked this film used words, like "ambiguity" and complex and subtle but they were reading into something that wasn't there. Like the Blair witch, people got scared because people assumed they should be scared and bought into some guff that it was terrifying. This movie actually started off well with the family "meeting" the locals after hitting a deer. It looked like being a modern day deliverance but then for the next 45 minutes, (well over half the film), nothing happened, the family potted about their holiday home which was all very nice and dandy but not the slightest bit entertaining. It was obvious the locals would be involved in some way at some stage but Essendon clearly has no idea how to build suspense in a movie. Finally, when something does happen, its not even clear how the father was shot, how he dies, (the nurse said his liver was only grazed), and all the time this wendigo spirit apparently tracks down the apparent shooter in a very clumsy way with 3rd grade special effects. The film is called Wendigo but no attempt is made to explain it in any clear way, the film ends all muddled and leaves you very unsatisfied, i would have bailed out with 15 minutes to go but I wanted to see if this movie could redeem itself. It didn't.
The opening scene of this film sets the pace for the entirety of its ninety minutes. The shots are generic, conventional, and of television movie quality. The snow drenched scenery is gorgeous, yet the characters held with in it have a similar quality to that of looking at a photograph of such scenery, the overwhelming feeling being that of distance. Some of the editing is fairly high quality and the work of an veteran professional, the dialogue however is clunky and artificial, having little bearing on 'real' conversations at all seemingly. Any emotional insight is displaced in favour of swearing, which is of course the way in which everyone shows their true feelings. The action is slow and underwhelming, the overall feeling being one of someone trickling cold water over your head, but so slowly that you barely notice, yet eventually you feel pathetic and slightly sorry for yourself for being caught in such a incomprehensible situation.<br /><br />The mixture of genres that the Fessenden has seemingly tried to use; psychological thriller, horror and family drama, although commendable suffers from a serious lack of tension and interesting dialogue. The way in which the husband, wife and child trio interact is particularly unrealistic. The themes of family relationships being played out in haunting setting have been covered countless times before by far superior films, an instant example being that of The Shining (1980). The family unit here are torn by innocuous troubles which are hard to understand or sympathise with considering the relative ambiguity of the script.<br /><br />The family unit is hardly stalked throughout the film, Fessenden playing down the thriller possibilities of the narrative in favour of a slow family drama for the majority of the running time. The 'stalker' figure Otis has few apparent motives for his behaviour and despite being perhaps the most interesting and well acted character is still very underdeveloped. The main characters are empty husks of people who it was extremely hard to relate to, their relationships with each other being particularly void of any sentiment or feeling. Although the ignorance of the Erik per Sullivan's young character by his parents is presumably part of the story, surely any reasonable person would question their son if he allegedly spoke to someone who seemingly doesn't exist? People can accept this film as intelligent because of its relative lack of conventional aspects regarding creature based horror movies but this film fails in respect of whichever genre you wished to pigeonhole it in. You can read deep psychological meanings into every single minute detail of anything if you should so wish to but I think people would be better off over analysing their carpet for some deep emotional meaning, rather than these vacuous sub-human creations.
I first learned of the Wendigo many years ago in one of Alvin Schwartz's "Scary Stories" books: according to that story, the Wendigo - after calling your name in the wind - drags you along, and then pulls you up into the sky and pulverizes you. While it sounds like a pretty bizarre notion, Schwartz's story turned it into a fairly coherent idea.<br /><br />The movie "Wendigo" doesn't. It basically consists of every horror flick cliché: family moves to new house and strange things start happening, anyone who harms them is asking for it, and everyone had better listen to the old Indian guy. I've seen this stuff so many times that I no longer bother to count.<br /><br />Anyway, avoid it. Patricia Clarkson and Erik Per Sullivan (Dewey on "Malcolm in the Middle") have done far better than this.
This movie is S-L-O-W. Spent most of the movie actually waiting for it to 'begin'.<br /><br />The setting was bleak, the script was bleak, the cinematography was bleak, the plot was bleak, the budget was low (not that all low budget movies are bad, but this one had no redeeming features).<br /><br />The plot was more consumed with a vengeful, slightly deranged hunter than the actual Wendigo which made a very brief appearance toward the end of the movie. This in itself was disappointing as this 'Wendigo' was just a bizarre mix of a tree and a stag. Everything about the movie was uninspiring.<br /><br />The parents of the little boy appeared to be rather aloof and at times seemed completely detached from their son. Whether this was down to bad acting or a bad script I'm not sure, but it only heightened my disappointment and boredom levels.<br /><br />There was no food for thought, nothing to pique an interest. With no real intrigue or chill factor, this movie creaked along so painfully, you just couldn't care less what happened by the end.<br /><br />Wendigo's ambiance reminds me of the dull movie shown at the awards ceremony toward the end of 'Mr Bean's Holiday': a movie which is artistic and nonsensical, trying too hard to to be deep and meaningful, but coming across as pretentious and boring.<br /><br />I would never want to watch this again. I only watched it to the end in the vain hope that something interesting might happen ... but it didn't.
If you want to know the real story of the Wendigo, I suggest you pick up a copy of Algernon Blackwell's original story. This movie was not only bad but had nothing to do with the book.<br /><br />I loved the book when I read it as a kid (In "Campfire Chillers" by E.M. Freeman)and was so excited to see a movie based on it come out. I was so disappointed when I finally saw it. Another thing is that there were too many PC (Politically Correct) undertones throughout the movie that had no place in the film. When the book was written PC didn't even exist.<br /><br />My suggestion is don't waste your time or money!! If you see it on the video store shelf LEAVE IT THERE.
for all the subtle charms this student film may contain, was anyone else bored to death waiting WENDINGO to show his paper macho face??<br /><br />the anti-climax pretty much ruined any sort of momentum we had speed actioned to develop.<br /><br />don't get me wrong, i'm all into exploring America's dark underbelly, but this is a turd-a-flambé that gets a nod to watchable only for the fact that p.clarkson looks hot taking it.<br /><br />sadly, from a guy from wings.<br /><br />the best 2 minutes the film has to offer.<br /><br />if you felt like ripping off DELIVERANCE, you could do better.
i was disappointed. the film was a bit predictable and did not live up to the hype plastered all over the box. Having said that, the characters were well developed, the windego myth was used in a unique premise and the house was pretty spooky but it just missed for me. I kept waiting for that big AHHHHH or BOO! But it never came.<br /><br />Furthermore the movie was plagued with poor filming of poor special effects. Thus showing to much of a bad thing and not using atmosphere and viewer imagination to create the horror and suspense. Try movies like Session 9 or the Cube if your looking for a low-budget but well conceived horror movie.
As I was watching this movie I was thinking,OK it'll get good any moment...I was wrong. The real best part of this movie was when it was over. A complete waste of 92 minutes. All seriousness aside the best part was when the Wendigo finally showed up which was at the end and you couldn't really even see him that good. And the tail end was really kind of dumb as well. There was too many sections in the movie where you thought something was going to happen but was a let down. The worse part is there was more talk of the Wendigo then there was Wendigo. For the creature to be so bad,you definitely couldn't tell it by this movie.
if my grandma did films they would probably do much better figure than this one... incredible bad... the main characters (the mom, the dad and son) are OK. Specially the mother she's a nice actress and the kid also proves to be a nice one specially on the scenes where he is supposed to be scary. But does the the director know the meaning of the words Plot Point, Triller and Good Script. the script hasn't any evolving atmosphere to become a suspense thing. If you like being chased by trees you can probably enjoy it, otherwise just stay at home and sleep. oh... actually there was something funny: the movie's from 2001 but we couldn't realize it since the image is so bad (like on mini-dv) and the cars are so old (like 70 and 80's).
Anyone who actually had the ability to sit through this movie and walk away feeling like it was a good film does not appreciate quality movies. This movie was an insult to watch, the direction was high school film class quality as well as the cinematography. The Blair Witch Project had better cinematography and I hate that move with a passion! The storyline had the potential to be a very intense very good movie but it fell flat from the first 10 minutes through the rest of the movie. Someone mentioned that this film was about a child's imagination, okay thats all good and fine. But they still could have done better things with this script than what they did. I mean come on, the Indian in the store. Did the kid look at the little idol and suddenly imagine the Indian and the entire story about an Indian spirit called Wendigo? Which they mention to the store employee and she casually says there is no one but me that works here, so you think okay creepy ghost scenario, but then she just barters for the amount on the idol and we forget about the little kid seeing this guy. That was so lame it goes beyond pathetic. The ending left you wondering not only what happened to Otis in the hospital but also with the feeling of OMG!!! Why the hell did I just waste my time watching this!! This is a move that I recommend NOT to watch, there are definitely better quality films out there that won't insult your intelligence! Thank god I never had to pay to see this movie, I would have demanded my money back! For those that were easily entertained by this movie.... it's very sad that you lowered your standards to this level of film making to actually say that it was a good movie.
I remember back when I was little when I was away at camp and we would campout under the stars. There was always someone there that would have a good story to tell that involved the woods that surrounded us and they would always creep me out. Well, when I found Wendigo at the library, I checked it out hoping to be one of those films that had a supernatural being haunting people in the woods much like the stories that were told at camp. Well, much to my dismay, I was so far from the truth. Wendigo is really bad. The story starts of when a family of three is driving to their winter cabin, which looks like your normal suburban home and nothing like a cabin in the woods, and they run into a deer. Well, it seems the local rednecks were actually hunting this particular deer and are pretty upset at our city folk. The movie spends far too much time following the families everyday activities instead of getting to the point of the film. It wasn't until about the last 15 minutes that we actually have some action involving the "wendigo." My suggestion is that you stay very far away this film. It will leave you wanting your hour and a half back.
I've seen many horror shows over the years, like Nightstalker, that dealt with the Wendigo legend, so I was looking forward to an angry spirit causing mayhem to add flavor to the Halloween season. Man was I mistaken. The whole movie creates this sense of events about to happen that will be scary and creepy, but then delivers a very simplistic tale of revenge and murder over the loss of some property. Ve-ery scary - not! This movie has a lot in common with Cold Creek Manor, another total loser.<br /><br />It's getting harder and harder to believe anything Hollywood puts forward about scary movies, since they rarely come through with anything original and spooky anymore. What idiots pay for such a bogus movie to be made? Go back to the drawing board fellas, and do something useful with those millions of greenbacks you have to throw around.
I suppose if you like endless dialogue that doesn't forward the story and flashy camera effects like the scene transitions in the television show _Angel_, you'll enjoy the film. Me? All I wanted was a nice, tight little story, and it wasn't there. The pacing was practically backward, plot points were buried under a sea of unneeded dialogue, and there was absolutely no sense of dread, or tension, or ANYTHING.<br /><br />Is it the redneck? Is it the Wendigo? No, it's a cameraman on speed. That's not scary. It doesn't generate a single note of tension or atmosphere unless you're scared by MTV. Like those reviewers before me, I too noticed that by the end the movie invokes derisive laughter from the audience.<br /><br />Terrible film.
This wasn't all that great. Not terrible or hateful or anything, just forgettable.<br /><br />It had a sort of, um, hesitant, diluted air, like it never properly knew whether it wanted to go for laughs or for sweetness or for satire. So we were left with weak mix of the three. The actors seemed kinda lost.<br /><br />Also, the ideas were really tired and recycled, almost zombified themselves. How many more times do we have to be told the 50's in the States were infected with a banal sense of conformity? And that this was perpetuated by aggressive consumerism? And that emotional repression in men is a baaaaad thing? Old hat.<br /><br />Its biggest crime in my eyes though was just how detached from reality it was. I know it was a comedy and all, but - especially in a full movie where you must keep the interest of an audience for a prolonged period - you still need some sort of emotional anchor, some relatable guide through the story, to make it engaging. For the 'hero' kid to watch an old woman, two fellow school pupils and ultimately his father die painfully at the hands of zombies or whatever and for him to greet it all with a cheery smile and a shrug of the shoulders, then I just struggle to deal with that in any sort of positive way. The mum was the same. If you make your two main characters so inhuman on that level, then you risk losing me and that's what happened.<br /><br />Biggest positive I can offer is that I love the look of that sort of apple pie suburbia and this captured it well enough, it was a handsome film, especially some of those wide angled shots of the street and inside the Robinsons' house. Also, the opening newsreel was cute, in a been-done-before-but-still-funny sort of way.<br /><br />And I thought Billy Connolly was OK and that comes from someone who isn't a big fan of Billy Connolly: Movie Star. I just had this fear he was going to be hamming it up and trying to steal every scene, but he played it pretty low-key for him and probably came out the most sympathetic character in the whole film.<br /><br />All in all, not great though.
This movie gets both a 6/10 rating from me, as well as a 9/10. Here is why: As a standard horror movie for the standard horror crowd, where action and gore and scares are taken into consideration, this movie WILL bore you. It's basically a family drama similar to what you'd see on the Lifetime channel, but put in a horror universe. The story and formula are age-old, retreaded hundreds of times. If you're looking for any originality in the plot structure or the minimal conflicts, you'll be disappointed. Take away the zombies and you'll have something just as melodramatic as A Beautiful Mind, tripping on cheese. This is the 6/10.<br /><br />However, the basic synopsis and idea is pretty original and over-the-top. It's literally something you and your friends would joke about when you're half-drunk . . . but that joke actually got a theatrical release. The idea gets a 9/10 from me. The only reason it isn't perfect is because they could have taken it even further, but they didn't.<br /><br />The mix of both is mixed. I thought it was funny, but as with most all comedies, it wasn't THAT funny. I had my mom and little sister watch it with me and the jokes we made about it were funnier than the jokes scripted. There were moments of utter genius, but there were also moments of pure boredom.<br /><br />I sincerely hope that other movies take this kind of over-the-top risk and original ideas. I just can't say it was perfect, or even near it, because of the lack of originality to the plot.<br /><br />A GREAT family movie. A great movie to watch with a bunch of guys (or girls). A great movie to watch with anyone . . . but if you watch it alone, it will be a bit boring. Other people always make this kind of movie funnier and richer.<br /><br />4/10
There's been a vogue for the past few years for often-as-not ironic zombie-related films, as well as other media incarnations of the flesh- eating resurrected dead. "Fido" is a film that's either an attempt to cash in on that, simply a manifestation of it, or both -- and it falls squarely into the category of ironic zombies. The joke here is that we get to see the walking dead in the contrasting context of a broadly stereotyped, squeaky-clean, alternate-history (we are in the wake of a great Zombie War, and the creatures are now being domesticated as slaves) version of a 1950s suburb. <br /><br />It's a moderately funny concept on its own, and enough perhaps for a five-minute comedy sketch, but it can't hold up a feature-film on its own. The joke that rotting corpses for servants are incongruous with this idealized version of a small town is repeated over and over again, and loses all effectiveness. The soundtrack relentlessly plays sunny tunes while zombies cannibalize bystanders. The word "zombie" is constantly inserted into an otherwise familiarly homey line for a cheap attempt at a laugh. <br /><br />The very broadness and artificiality of the representation of "the nineteen fifties" here can't help but irritate me. It is so stylized, in it evidently "Pleasantville-"inspired way, that it is more apparent in waving markers of its 1950s-ness around than actually bearing any resemblance to anything that might have happened between 1950 and 1959. There is something obnoxiously sneering about it, as if the film is bragging emptily and thoughtlessly about how more open, down-to-Earth, and superior the 2000s are. <br /><br />Because the characters are such broad representations of pop-culture 1950s "types," it's difficult to develop much emotional investment in them. Each has a few character traits thrown at him or her -- Helen is obsessed with appearances, and Bill loves golf and his haunted by having had to kill his father -- but they remain quite two-dimensional. Performances within the constraints of this bad writing are fine. The best is Billy Connolly as Fido the zombie, who in the tradition of Boris Karloff in "Frankenstein" actually imparts character and sympathy to a lumbering green monster who cannot speak. <br /><br />There are little bits of unsubtle allegory thrown around -- to commodity fetishism, racism, classism, war paranoia, et cetera, but none of it really works on a comprehensive level, and the filmmakers don;t really stick with anything. <br /><br />Unfortunately, this film doesn't really get past sticking with the flimsy joke of "Look! Zombies in 'Leave it to Beaver!'" for a good hour- and-a-half.
This would be a watchable Hollywood mediocre if it had a good editing. It relies on the typical American thriller plot - "who is going to outsmart everyone". Acting is below average, but with shining appearance of the detective who is the best actor in the film and he is mostly responsible if the tension in the film rises. Film was completely suffocated by blank video and sound shots and most of it looks like raw film material. All in all, if you don't mind watching a movie that looks like a student film project, this is a film to watch. I guess that would be enough to say on this film, everything else could really spoil the tension that is probably low enough.
Loved Part One, The Impossible Planet, but whoops, what a disappointment part two 'The Satan Pit' is. The cliffhanger of something apparently rising out of the pit was - nothing coming out of the pit. Then ages spent crawling round air vents to pad out the story, the Beast a roaring thing empty of intelligence, so no Doctor/villain confrontation I'd been anticipating. The TARDIS is somehow inside the pit despite the pit not being open till long after the TARDIS fell through the planet crust. And finally another ready made solution which existed for no logical reason - I mean, why not plunge the Beast into the Hole as soon as the pit opened? Why not plunge him in all those years ago instead of imprisoning him anyway. Why not - I could go on but I've lost interest...
I don't know how to describe this movie. It's definitely one of the weirdest movies I've seen in a long time. It is very unsettling at times but also boring in other places. The scenes of dental torture are very elaborate and may attract anyone who's into gore & splatter. I found myself holding my teeth during some of the aforementioned scenes. The clever thing about the movie is that it plays with our fears and The Dentist is therefore quite unsettling.<br /><br />The humor of the film is somehow hidden and may not be recognized by everyone. But if you're a fan of weird and strange entertainment and teeth getting drilled to dust this is just the film you were looking for.<br /><br />If you read the comment and feel somehow attracted by this kind of entertainment, give it a try!<br /><br />My rating: 4/10 (maybe a little too weird for my taste)
Well, I do like the gore in this movie - it is genuingly unsetteling. Anyone that's been to the dentist will know why. The story really isn't that bad, Corbin Bersen's character's motivations do make a lot more sense than in most horror movies.<br /><br />I've seen worse acting, directing, script, etc. but at the end of the day this is still a bad horror movie. So it comes down to if you enjoy that type of thing or not. I tried to watch the sequel, but it was exactly, exactly the same thing as this movie. Just keep in mind if you enjoy people getting tortured at the dentist, then this is the movie for you!
There are probably more people afraid of the dentist than of, let's say, little monsters or scary looking dolls. Which makes it a perfect subject for a horror movie, really.<br /><br />Dr. Feinstone (Corbin Bernsen) has been a successful dentist for several years now, but when he catches his wife cheating on him with the poolguy he snaps, and he brings his anger and frustration to his work. Well, give a mad dentist a drill and a mouth, and you can probably guess what happens next...<br /><br />As I said, brilliant idea but not delivered as well as it should. In particular the ending is a huge let down. Last note: watch for Mark Ruffalo (You Can Count On Me, Eternal Sunshine...) in this one.<br /><br />5/10.
I really wanted to like this movie, but it never gave me a chance. It's basically meant to be Spinal Tap with a hip hop theme, but it fails miserably. It consistently feels like it was written and acted by high-school kids for some school project, and that's also the level the humor seems to be aimed at. There is no subtlety and, more damningly for a mockumentary, it never once feels like a documentary. And while the lines aren't funny in the first place, an attempt at dead-pan delivery would have helped -- certainly, anything would be better than the shrill overacting we are subjected to.<br /><br />I'd recommend this to people who like "comedies" in the vein of "Big Momma's House" or "Norbit"; people who think that words like "butt" are inherently hysterically funny. Other people should stay away and not waste their time.
Obviously, I didn't care for Things to Come (aka "The Shape of Things to Come") as much as most viewers. That means that there is a good chance that you'll enjoy it more than I did. At any rate, you might find it useful to hear the film described from another point of view.<br /><br />Directed by William Cameron Menzies, who had as much experience as a production designer and even more as an art director, this is a film adaptation by H.G. Wells of his own novel by the same name. In my eyes, it helps demonstrate why a great novelist may not necessarily turn out to be a great screenwriter.<br /><br />The film opens in 1940 in a London-like "Everytown". War is brewing and the citizens of Everytown are worried that it might reach them. It does. And it turns into a decades-long affair that basically destroys civilization. Wells and Menzies keep jumping forward in time to show us different scenes related to the war and its aftermath. We see two pilots, one downed, coming to terms with the consequences of their fighting. We meet a post-apocalyptic community ruled over by a would-be warlord. We meet a man from a burgeoning futuristic society. We see the way that technology is changing. And finally, we're taken to the full realization of that futuristic society circa 2036, where the leaders are debating the merits of sending man to the moon.<br /><br />That might all sound potentially very exciting, but it just does not work as a film. Structurally, the film is far too episodic, with little to dramatically tie it together. By the third segment, I completely lost interest in trying to keep track of the characters. I had barely been able to sort them out in the first couple segments. There's a constant parade of new faces. We don't get to learn anything about any of them.<br /><br />It doesn't help that the individual segments, with a couple exceptions, tend to be awkwardly directed and edited. They are also occasionally manipulative--it can almost begin to feel like a propaganda film. But maybe contradictorily, the segments are also a bit cold and dry emotionally.<br /><br />In fact, one overlong section is more like a music video/industrial promotional video. If features shots of building the futuristic city, with lots of large machinery, lots of welding, and so on. At one point, a guy who looks like an astronaut waves at the camera through some kind of futuristic glass. The music for this section is somewhere between militaristic and an overblown horror score. I can't say that Things to Come consists of engaging material in terms of drama.<br /><br />But the common cry in support of Things to Come is that it is "a film about ideas". That may be true, but there are a couple problems with it if looked at that way. One, it still doesn't make it work _as a film_, that is, as a visual and aural dramatic artwork, and two, there are far too many ideas presented here.<br /><br />The principle idea is that of war and what it does to civilizations. That's a fine thing to make a film about. It's also remarkably prescient of World War II, as the Things To Come was scripted and filmed in 1935 (released in 1936). Wells has some interesting things to say about war, some of which go against the usual interpretation of the film. For example, the ending seems to suggest that another war is breaking out, or will at any moment. The overall message seems a trifle pessimistic. Wells seems to be showing that war is simply a part of human nature that cannot be excised, although it doesn't preclude "progress"--in fact, maybe it fuels progress, at least indirectly.<br /><br />That would certainly be enough for one film. However, there are many more ideas here. The scene between the two pilots is one of the more poignant scenes of the film. It deals with a complex dilemma. One pilot has shot the other down, but is now coming to assist him. But the pilot who was shot down was carrying a poisonous gas that is now billowing across the field. They can't both breathe the gas without harm. A girl comes along. They only have two functioning gas-masks between them. The pilot who was shot down offers his mask, as he says he's dying anyway. What to do? It's not that this scene itself could be stretched out to feature length, but the ideas--the bizarre complex of both helping and trying to hurt each other in the midst of a war--are enough to build a film on.<br /><br />Another example. During the scenes featuring the would-be warlord, in the post-apocalyptic environment, there is a nasty contagious disease called the "wandering sickness" going around. It turns victims into something like drunken zombies. The usual procedure is to shoot victims on site in an attempt to stave off the disease. This material is dealt with as if it were an afterthought. It's a great idea and deserved its own film.<br /><br />Similarly, Wells presents the future society as having controversial socialist ideas. That was enough for its own film, too. It's just impossible to effectively deal with so much stuff in 100 minutes, especially when it's supposed to be the crux of the film in lieu of dramatic attraction.<br /><br />Still, there are reasons to give Things to Come at least one viewing. If you're at all a sci-fi buff, this is a historically important film. Given Menzies' background, the production and set designs are interesting, even if the cinematography seems extremely dated. It's also interesting to see how Wells was either prescient or retrospectively humorous in his "predictions". I particularly enjoyed the means of propulsion to the moon, which was strongly reminiscent of George Méliès' 1902 A Trip to the Moon (aka Le Voyage dans la lune). Just don't expect too much from Things to Come.
I cant describe how terrible this movie is. Am i the only one here who finds the way its animated totaly disgusting? The Men of Rohan look 100% fake with their poorly colored hair, that doesnt even come close to matching what the actors look like. The orcs looked terrible. Why does gandalf walk with a bad limp? Why cant they pronounce things correctly? Saruman isnt Aruman. There were other what sounded like terrible pronounciation*sp* of Tolkiens characters. All and all im glad the studio who made this pulled the plug out from the sequal, it was just a terrible terrible adaptaion. Go watch the hobbit cartoon for a better cartoon of Tolkiens work. Hell, even the cartoon version of ROTK is better then this dribble. 2/10
Some people don't like the animation. Personally, I think the animation was quite remarkable given when this movie was done. There are lots of older cartoons that I just love. My problems with this movie are not the animation, but basically the way it was constructed. The characters are all just... well, goofy. And for this movie, they shouldn't be. Apparently, everyone in LOTR has a limping problem (for starters.) Just the way they acted in general annoyed me. My two sisters and I were laughing through most of this movie. I think that if many people had seen this before seeing the newer ones, they wouldn't have gone. I'm glad I rented this and didn't buy it. There are few movies that give me a headache. This was one of them. However, this isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, although it ranks up there. Or down there, depending on your view.
I saw this movie during a Tolkien-themed Interim class during my sophomore year of college. I was seated unfortunately close to the screen and my professor chose me to serve as a whipping boy- everyone else was laughing, but they weren't within constant eyesight.<br /><br />Let's get it out of the way: the Peter Jackson 'Lord of the Rings' films do owe something to the Bakshi film. In Jackson's version of The Fellowship of the Ring, for instance, the scene in which the Black Riders assault the empty inn beds is almost a complete carbon copy of the scene in Bakshi's film, shot by shot. You could call this plagiarism or homage, depending on your agenda. <br /><br />I'm sure the similarities don't stop there. I'm not going to do any research to find out what they are, because that would imply I have some mote of respect for this film. I'm sure others have outlined the similarities- look around.<br /><br />This movie is a complete train wreck in every sense of the metaphor, and many, many people died in the accident. I've decided to list what I can remember in a more or less chronological fashion- If I've left out anything else that offended me it's because I'm completely overwhelmed, confronted with a wealth of failure (and, at high points, mediocrity).<br /><br />*Due to heavy use of rotoscoping, Gandalf is no longer a gentle, wise wizard but a wildly flailing prophet of doom (whose hat inexplicably changes color once or twice during the course of the film).<br /><br />*Saruman the White is sometimes referred to as 'Aruman' during the film, without explanation. He wears purple and red for some mysterious reason.<br /><br />*Sam is flat out hideous. The portrayal of his friendship with Frodo is strangely childlike and unsatisfying. Yes, hobbits are small like children, but they are NOT children.<br /><br />*Merry and Pippin are never introduced--they simply appear during a scene change with a one-sentence explanation. The film is filled with sloppy editing like this.<br /><br />*Frodo, Sam, Pippin and Merry are singing merrily as they skip through along the road. One of the hobbits procures a lute at least twice as large as he is from behind his back--which was not visible before--and begins strumming in typical fantasy bard fashion as they all break into "la-la-la"s. AWFUL.<br /><br />*Aragorn, apparently, is a Native American dressed in an extremely stereotypical fantasy tunic (no pants), complete with huge, square pilgrim belt buckle. He is arguably the worst swordsman in the entire movie--oftentimes he gets one wobbly swing in before being knocked flat on his ass.<br /><br />*The Black Riders appear more like lepers than menacing instruments of evil. They limp everywhere they go at a painfully slow pace. This is disturbing to be sure, but not frightening.<br /><br />*The scene before the Black Riders attempt to cross the Ford of Bruinen (in which they stare at Frodo, who is on the other side on horseback) goes on forever, during which time the Riders rear their horses in a vaguely threatening manner and... do nothing else. The scene was probably intended to illustrate Frodo's hallucinatory decline as he succumbs to his wound. It turns out to be more plodding than anything else.<br /><br />*Gimli the Dwarf is just as tall as Legolas the Elf. He's a DWARF. There is simply no excuse for that. He also looks like a bastardized David the Gnome. It's a crude but accurate description.<br /><br />*Boromir appears to have pilfered Elmer Fudd's golden Viking armor from that Bugs Bunny opera episode. He looks ridiculous.<br /><br />*Despite the similarity to Tolkien's illustration, the Balrog is howl inducing and the least-threatening villain in the entire film. It looks like someone wearing pink bedroom slippers, and it's barely taller than Gandalf. "Purists" may prefer this Balrog, but I'll take Jackson's version any day.<br /><br />*The battle scenes are awkward and embarrassing. Almost none of the characters display any level of competency with their armaments. I'm not asking for action-packed scenes like those in Jackson's film, but they ARE supposed to be fighting.<br /><br />*Treebeard makes a very short appearance, and I was sorry he bothered to show up at all. Watch the film, you'll see what I mean.<br /><br />Alright, now for the GOOD parts of the film.<br /><br />*Some of the voice acting is pretty good. It isn't that Aragorn SOUNDS bad, he just looks kind of like the Jolly Green Giant.<br /><br />*Galadriel is somewhat interesting in this portrayal; like Tom Bombadil, she seems immune to the Ring's powers of temptation, and her voice actress isn't horrible either.<br /><br />*Boromir's death isn't as heart wrenching as in Jackson's portrayal of the same scene, but it's still appropriately dramatic (and more true to his death in the book, though I don't believe Jackson made a mistake shooting it the way he did).<br /><br />*As my professor pointed out (between whispered threats), the orcs (mainly at Helm's Deep, if I'm correct) resemble the war-ravaged corpses of soldiers, a political statement that works pretty well if you realize what's being attempted.<br /><br />*While this isn't really a positive point about the film, Bakshi can't be blamed for the majority of the failures in this movie, or so I've been told--the project was on a tight budget, and late in its production he lost creative control to some of the higher-ups (who I'm sure hadn't read the books).<br /><br />Let me be clear: I respect Bakshi for even attempting something of this magnitude. I simply have a hard time believing he was happy with the final product. <br /><br />Overall, I cannot in any way recommend this blasphemous adaptation of Tolkien's classic trilogy even for laughs, unless you've already read the books and have your own visualizations of the characters, places and events. I'm sure somebody, somewhere, will pick a copy of this up in confusion; if you do, keep an open mind and glean what good you can from it.
I remember going to see the movie in the summer of '78 with my parents, and being pretty into it at the time. Of course, I was seven at the time.<br /><br />Right before the Jackson movies came out, my wife and I rented this movie since she had never seen it and I was feeling nostalgic.<br /><br />Ralph Bakshi ran out of money about mid-way through the animation process for this movie, and was forced to drastically cut corners on this production. Since this movie was done primarily with rotoscoping, the animation technique for people on a budget, this is saying something. Much of this movie is animation only in the very loosest sense of the word. There are some scenes which are very obviously just people standing in front of a screen, with maybe some animation effects superimposed on top of them.<br /><br />Because of budget constraints, the movie -- already a compression of "The Fellowship of the Rings" and part of "The Two Towers" -- was pared down even more. What you get is sort of like a film-strip version of the Cliff Notes of the books.<br /><br />Its not all bad, though, the animation brings a warmth to it, that I found lacking in the Jackson movies. Its nice to imagine what it could have been like with decent funding.<br /><br />This movie is also noteworthy for having the sequel which never came. Several years later, a half-hearted half-hour long TV special was aired, which was meant to wrap things up. All I will say about that is that it was a musical.
I haven't seen this movie in a while, so I'm afraid I can't be very specific about details... It did have some interesting points. Ralph Bakshi's attempt at an animated adaptation of J.R.R Tolkien's masterpiece was a very ambitious project, so ambitious in fact that it went bankrupt at some point during the production. Therefore, not only does it stop abruptly somewhere around the middle of the second book of the trilogy (with sort of a shade of a hint of a sequel that was never made), the film itself seems less than finished. It seems that some characters were animated while others were filmed, but whether or not it's intentional is hard to say. The whole thing seems shabbily made and undone, especially the Orcs and the Nazgul. Another problem, of course, is the huge gaps in the plot. Bakshi was in a rush to finish this movie, and he somehow hoped to cram a book and a half in little more than two hours (the new trilogy by Peter Jackson does it in about twice that time.) Far too many important bits were left out (and I don't refer only to Tom Bombadil, which, I think, was lovely in the book but would look silly in a movie.) And of course, the ending, which is completely sudden and out of place. I'm not even sure if Bakshi originally intended to end the film there, or if he even had any idea where he's going to end it.<br /><br />The characters... well, most of them were okay. The hobbits don't look so bad (except for the gay Sam. Did you know that the producers of the new trilogy originally wanted to make Sam a woman so there would be a feminine lead character?) If you're a Tolkien fanatic (like me), watch this movie (though I'm not too sure about buying it. What special features does the DVD version have, anyway?) But know in advance that you're not going to watch a real 'Lord Of The Rings Movie' but not much more than a historical curiosity, which probably looks not much better than the 60s version would have had the Beatles carried on with their plan (I actually think a psychedelic LOTR could have been quite cool. The idea was to cast George as Gandalf, Paul as Frodo, Ringo as Sam and John as Gollum.) If you didn't read the book or didn't like it much or don't like animation films or don't want to see a half-finished movie... stay away.
I might have given this movie a higher rating before Peter Jackson's trilogy came out, but seeing the two of them side by side there is simply no comparison. The pace of this movie is rushed, many important scenes from the book are left out, and there is little character development. The animation is a strange mixture of traditional cartoon drawings and live action scenes that were painted over, which I found distracting. And the most disappointing thing about this movie is that it breaks off in the middle of the story and was never finished. There are some good points- the battle scenes are exciting to watch, and the dialogue follows the book pretty much to the letter. Watch this one if you're in a hurry and can't spend 10 hours watching the new trilogy. But if you haven't read the book you'll probably be confused, because there is a lot missing from this version. 4 out of 10.
Watching this again recently, I found it heartwarming to see the way they sincerely tried to bring the book to the screen, even if the shoestring budget and hammy actors meant inevitable failure. By any objective measure this was a disaster, but I found it easy to imagination how good a Lord of the Rings movie could be if someone was to make one sincerely - and with the money to employ the most talented artists and script writers. Unfortunately, thanks to Jackson, that will not be possible for a long time.<br /><br />Watching this movie left me with the impression that with any sort of budget at all, then this story simply couldn't be stuffed up. Fantasy just provides so many opportunities for making an interesting film. There were many moments in this film that were potentially more interesting than the way that Peter Jackson did it, although of course you always have to use your imagination due to the poor execution. The way they tried to show the wraith world from Frodo's point of view for example. Or the way that Galadriel showed Sam what was happening back home for another.<br /><br />Another thing I really appreciated in this version - the silent moments. There were moments when dialog was spoken with no background music against a still back-drop. Compare that to the grandiose swooping camera of the Jackson films, and the intrusive score which seemed designed to stress how each and every scene was the most poignant and powerful scene we had ever watched. Jackson's films were full of their own importance, this was quieter and a lot more modest.<br /><br />Jackson and co hit this with more than US$270 million dollars in production costs, at least $90 million dollars more for marketing, a massive tax break from the NZ government, and also gained massive savings from filming in NZ not the USA. However, despite the marketing claims, the intention to be faithful was never there. This is well documented. Philippa Boyens said as much in an interview, when she said they deliberately didn't re-read the books before writing the script. Jackson also stated that they originally intended to make a fantasy film "along the lines of" the lord of the rings, and that the one he really wanted to do was Return of the King, because it had a lot of battles but no character development.<br /><br />In contrast, this film tried to be more true. Of course a lot of things were wrong, the acting was awful and pretty much sunk everything, and the pace was too fast. Naturally they cut a lot, and adapted other scenes, and for this they deserve credit. While Jackson added a lot of action scenes that served no plot purpose, Bakshi cut book scenes which did nothing to advance the plot anyway. There's actually a curious similarity between the structure of the Jackson and Bakshi films near the beginning - in that they both deviate from the original books in the same way - although of course some of this could be coincidence.<br /><br />This was not a good film, but the potential was there. Bakshi said in an interview to the Onion AV club that only animation could do the lord of the rings justice. His version didn't work, but he might have been right.
This movie causes more unintentional laughter than anything else I've ever seen. Really, if you are a Tolkien fan, rent it just to laugh at it with your friends. I won't be the millionth person to rip apart its flaws... all I will say is that the movie (for me, anyway) lost major points for turning my favorite character, Sam, into a bumbling idiot. Shame, shame... 3/10
I watched Peter Jackson version of Lord of the Rings when I was half way through reading the Two Towers and I thought it was absolutely brilliant.<br /><br />At this time the animated version of the Lord of the Rings was released on DvD but I told myself that I will finish reading the Two Towers and Return of Kings before watching it (as I thought it showed the whole of the trilogy).<br /><br />So when I did finish the trilogy I went and brought the DvD, which was a stupid idea because it was absolutely rubbish.<br /><br />I was acturly bored 20 minutes in to it which was really strange because I love the book and I am shooked that the maker of this film could of even thought of fitting at least 1 and a half of the books in to a 2 hour 8 minute film.<br /><br />None of the characters had any emotions when they were talking and they seemed to be reading it of a page, even my favourite character who is Gandalf did not seem interesting at all. <br /><br />The animation was the only okay in parts of the film except for the orks (they looked awful) and Aragorn and Sam face.<br /><br />I don't know way this film was released because there was not even a proper ending, but maybe it was good that the maker ran out of money because the film couldn't of got any better. <br /><br />I just hope that nobody judges the books by this film.<br /><br />3/10
Bashki should be congratulated for attempting to convert one of the great works of English fiction into a movie, and then slapped silly for this attempt. The animation was poor, the characters looked ridiculous, the music was overwhelmingly blaring, and the film was a ramshackle blitz through the first book and a half of Tolkien's masterpiece. I can still remember my sheer disappointment and loathing for the movie when I first saw it. Now I realize that any attempt to convert a book into a movie is bound to fail in many ways, simply because of the medium, but this movie, regardless of the source of the story, is just plain pathetic. Bashki is capable of much more.
The premise and subject about making a criminal realize what his victims went through by capturing his family hostage sounds promising and interesting. But this is the only interesting part which was also dealt 20 years ago with quite finesse by director Ravi Tandon in his film "Jawab'(1985) too. The problem here is Ace Director Rajkumar Santoshi found himself in some sort of confusion as to whether to make it a fast paced action-thriller (viz. Khakee) or an emotions-rich heavy duty drama (Viz. Damini) and this confusion is quite evident in the final outcome. If we ignore two of his-Pukar (2000) and Lajja(2001), this brilliant director has always given us fairly engrossing films with high entertainment value. Therefore this film comes as a surprise, as to what made this script –sensitive director going for half-baked characterization of both of his protagonists-Amitabh Bachchan and Aryeman. As the film is getting over, audience didn't know whom to hate and whom to sympathize with and this factor is the major limiting force in the complete narration. Therefore what starts as a war between a common man and an underworld don ends on a strange note of self-realization and regret by the Don about what went wrong with his own family. The revelation of Don's son as a real baddie does not come as a surprise element in the climax which if compared to similar situation in 'Khakee" worked so effectively with Aishwarya's character. That is not all, there is more to it. The whole dramatization of life of an Underworld Don, operating from abroad looks quite illogical. His openly landing up at Mumbai from where he is suppose to be absconding as well as running after his enemies and shooting them himself does not look believable. Pitching a mediocre, newcomer actor like Aryeman opposite Mr. Bachchan is again not a good idea. But nonetheless film has some plus points. Ashok Mehta's fine camera-work, two good fight sequences (co-ordinator Abbas Ali Moughal), some light well-acted scenes of Akshay Kumar in the Ist half, Santoshi's fast-paced slick treatment and of course Mr. Bachchan as usual trying hard to put some life into his lifeless character. But all these put together does not make this viewing an exciting experience for you and your Family!
After watching KHAKEE i felt i'll get to watch another good film but sadly The film is a joke and actually trying hard to introduce Aryeman Afterall his father Keshu is the producer<br /><br />RKS spoke so highly about the film during promotions, saying the film has meat unlike films released that time, I wonder which films was he talking about<br /><br />The film is actually a typical Masala film with loads of comedy, romance, action everything jumbled<br /><br />The ease at which the kids kidnap the family, is one of the funniest parts ever, Imagine kids kidnapping Dawood's family<br /><br />The end is a complete jumble mumble with sudden change of characterization<br /><br />RKS gives his weakest film till date, except some Bachchan scenes the film is a bore<br /><br />Music is boring<br /><br />Amitabh tries to give the role his all, he does his part well, though not his best though he contorts his face too much when pulling a trigger and does a weird look while smoking the cigar His dubbing too isn't matched properly at times<br /><br />Akshay is there for some minutes and just repeats his act and hams<br /><br />Aryeman seems expressionless, tries too hard but overdoes it in some scenes<br /><br />Bhumika emerges the best of the lot<br /><br />The rest are okay
Rajkumar Santoshi Without Any Doubt Has Directed The Greatest Movies And Biggest Box Office Hits Of Indian Cinema.<br /><br />This Movie Falls Short Of All Expectations As This Movie Stars Two Great Actors Mr. Amitabh Bachchan And Akshay Kumar And When You Have These Two Actors In The Same Movie You Have To Make A Magnum Opus.<br /><br />In The Later Part Of The Movie You Can Make Out That Amitabh Bachchan's Voice Has Been Dubbed By Some Other Person Which Was Due To His Illness.<br /><br />Still The Movie Did'nt Had Proper Character Development Plus Cinematography Was'nt Good Too And One Thing That Bollywood Should Learn Is That They Should Use Visual Effects Only When It Is Needed And When Applied Should Be Done With A High Budget.The Script Had So Many Flaws Which Gives The Viewer Excuses To Attend His Phone Calls Rather Than Watching The Movie.<br /><br />The New Comer Shakes The Leg Well But Could Not Act Well But Where The Movie Loses Big Time Is The Storyline Screenplay And Cinematography.<br /><br />A Talented Actor Like Bhoomika Chawla Has Been Wasted In The Movie As Well As Sushant Singh.<br /><br />But Every Director Once In A While In His Career Makes A Bad Film.<br /><br />So Watch It Only If You Are A Fan Of Multi-Starrer Flop Movies.
Hello, can anybody hear me? I don't know why you came to this page, but if you're a fellow viewer of this movie: join the fanclub! This movie was so unbelievably bad I couldn't stop laughing when I saw it. I think it's a must see, it's bad in a nice way. Every cliche ever invented for a horror movie can be seen here. I'm afraid it's very hard to get a copy of this movie, but it should be in the top 10 of worst movies ever made.
Two houses, one street, one phone booth, one car, a girl next door, a boy next door and a zombie. This list of ingredients should suffice for a great horror movie. All you need is some blue light, ambient music and...done. Not in the hands of Dutch director van Rouveroy though! <br /><br />I like to organize "bad movie evenings" from time to time. The concept is really simple: get some booze, get some film-loving friends, and immerse yourself in the worst cinema can offer. For such an evening this peace of filth is one of the best. Laughs guaranteed!<br /><br />The bizarre thing is, van Rouveroy is still defending her film as if it were a great achievement. To be a witness to this you'll have to listen to the DVD's commentary track. Again: disbelieve and laughs guaranteed!
this is not just a bad film, it's one of the worst films ever. it's so bad that i found it to be quite enjoyable. the acting, oh my god, the script, you gotta be kiddin'. how can you imagine the writer coming up with things like: - a kid who makes fireworks in school, fireworks SO powerfull, that when someone gets hit by it, they fly a hundred yards backwards and explode. -a girl is trapped in the celler, the killer is trying to break open the door. she gets a drill, but the wire isn't long enough. she first makes an extension cord, oh the horror, and then, when she's done, she drills through the door and drills through the head of the killer. WOW - and there are plenty more examples like that. oh yeah, and what happened to George Kennedy, he used to be great (Thunderbolt and Lightfoot/Cool hand Luke)
I don't know why I keep doing this to myself!! I keep on defending the Dutch and Belgian cinema and claim that it should get more credit and chances...and then they smack you around the head with junk like this! Intensive Care is a terrible production and probably the worst thing that was ever made in the Dutch-speaking countries. It's a Dutch attempt to create our very own horror franchise, clearly based on mainstrain American slasher classics such as Friday the 13th and Halloween. The producers and writers aimed really high with this, but fell really low. Intensive Care became an embarrassing product to everyone who was involved and therefore a true cult flick here. It's almost impossible to hunt down an original copy of this and it's only showed on special occasions, like "the Night of Distaste". For exactly 5 minutes, Intensive Care tries to tell a story and even to create a plotline...then it changes into a lame and low-brain slash 'n stalk movie with gruesome - yet very hilarious and cheap - make up effects. The acting of the entire cast is abominable, even though there are a few respected names involved. The leading male role is played by Koen Wauters...This guy might as well be the most famous and loved artist in Belgium. He's a beloved singer, host of TV-shows and idol of many young girls. He never ever mentions this thing he starred in, though. Like everybody else in The Netherlands, he's trying to convince himself Intensive Care never happened.
I thought "Intensive Care" was quite bad and very unintentionally funny. But at least not as bad as I thought it might be. Sometimes it's somewhat suspenseful, but never a good shocker.<br /><br />SPOILER AHEAD<br /><br />The fun lies in ridiculous moments. But the all-time classic moment is this: Peter (Koen Wauters) is stabbed and beaten by the killer. He lies moaning in the corner of the hallway. Amy (Nada van Nie) kneels beside him and asks "Poor Peter, shall I get you a band-aid?".<br /><br />This movie was shot in Dutch and English. To spare costs, all license plates are USA, and the background in the news studio is a skyline of Manhattan. Very funny if you're Dutch and watching the original version in Dutch.
Koen Wouters is a flemish singer and presenter. In the early ninety's he tried his hand on movies as well. But this unbelievable piece of junk ended his acting career once and for all. It also ended the acting career of dutch actress Nada van Nie who went on being a football-wife a TV presenter and program-maker. I actually did see this in an ( almost empty) theatre because I used to be a fan of the band of Koen Wouters, Clouseau. I so regret spending money on it. It looks cheap, it is a terrible story and it is executed bad in every possible way. Some people think it's so bad it's funny. I am not one of them. I just found it an incredible waste of time and money.
"Intensive Care" by Dorna von Rouveroy is easily one of the worst horror movies ever made.This extremely cheap Dutch slasher flick offers some gore and plenty of absurd situations.A horror veteran George Kennedy is completely wasted as as Professor Bruckner.The acting is abysmal,the action is slow and the climax is laughable.A famous surgeon has a car accident.He lies in a coma seven years and then he wakes up and goes on a bloody rampage."Intensive Care" is clearly influenced by American slasher films including "Halloween" and "Friday the 13th" series.The killings are hilarious and the dialogs are painfully stupid.Still if you are in the right mood you can give this piece of trash a look.You'll laugh until it hurts with this one-you can believe me!
This infamous ending to Koen Wauters' career came to my attention through the 'Night of Bad Taste'. Judging by the comment index i wasn't the first and i am not to be the last person in Western Europe to learn that this musician (undoubtedly one of the best on our contemporary pop scene, even the Dutch agree on that) tried to be an actor. Whether he should have made the attempt or not cannot be judged. <br /><br />In 'Intensive Care' he's quite likable, but he seems to be uncomfortable with the flick in which he is participating. No one can blame him. It deserves its ranking in Verheyen's Hall of Fame by all means & standards. The story of the Murderous Maniac Who is Supposed To Have Died In An Accident But Is Alive And Wrathful has been told dozens of times before, and even without original twists a director can deliver a more than mediocre story through innovative settings and cinematography.<br /><br /> IC contents itself with a hospital wing and a couple of middle class houses. The pace is dull. The tension looses the last bit of its credibility to the musical score, for every appearance of the murderer is accompagnied by a tedious menacing melody, followed by orchestral outbursts during the murders, which or largely suggested and in any case as bloodless as a small budget can make them. The sex scene is gratuitous but not in the least appealing. The couple from Amsterdamned could have made it work, though. While dealing with the couple subject : the whole subplot between Wauters and the girl does not work. A more effective emotional connection could have been established on screen if they had just been fellow victims-to-be, who loosen their nerves halfway through physical intercourse. I will not even grant the other cast members the dignity of a mentioning, for they should all have been chopped up into tiny greasy pieces. As a matter of fact, most of them do. The ones i recall where obvious for the genre : a pretty nurse and two cops. <br /><br />Hence, in a slasher, the cavalry only comes in time to need rescue itself. The (anti-) hero has to take out the villain, mostly through clever thinking, for former red berets don't often get parts in these films; they might overcome the illusion of invincibility that surrounds the killer. Translated to the events, Wauters kills the doctor and saves the dame in distress. <br /><br />No people, i am not finished. This is not how the story goes. Wauters makes his heroic attempt but gets beaten up with a fury that comes close to "A Clockwork Orange", so it is up to the girl to pick up the driller killer act and pierce through the doctors brains. Though this method ensures the killer's death more than the usual rounds of 9mm bullets, the doctor survives in order to enable IC to reach the 80 min mark.<br /><br />I should have made my point by now. Intensive Care is a bad movie, which can only be enjoyed by Bad Taste lovers, who can verify Verheyen's catchy statements and make some up for themselves and that way try to sit through it. For example, the (unintended) parody value of the doctor's clown mask (Halloween) and the final confrontation in the park (the chase at the end of Friday the 13th).<br /><br />However, let me conclude by giving an overview by a few measly elements which give IC a little credit. George Kennedy is not one of them. All he has to do is endure a horrible monologue by a fellow doctor/French actor and look horrified when they let him go down in flames in order to tag his big name on a stand-in. He could have played his Naked Gun part again, to end up as beef, but with a longer screen time. The finale may be one of them. I had never seen a maniac being brought down by launching fireworks into his guts in order to crush him against a flexible fence. It is good for a laugh.<br /><br />Name one good truly point about Intensive Care ... Koen Wauters learned his lesson and devoted himself entirely to his musical career. It makes me wonder how many editions of the Paris-Dakar race he has to abort before coming to his senses.<br /><br />
Well, I'll start by admitting I'm not a John Ford fan. (I watched "The Informer" only because I'm trying to work my way through a list of the "greats.") So if you are, just move along, 'cause you're not going to agree with me.<br /><br />What an overwrought and dated piece of silliness this is! I will say that there is a good idea for a movie here (it made me think about how few films there are about the Irish Revolution) but, as usual, Ford is determined to bury it under over-acting and cheap sentiment. I suppose it's somewhat interesting to watch for a while in order to see the less-than-seamless transition that was being made from the silents to the "talkies" -- the acting styles of some of the principals have that overbroad quality endemic to early films and movie does feel as if it might play better with title cards than spoken dialogue. (Of course, title cards would prevent Ford from restating every bit of emotion six times.) What dialogue there is usually has a "They're always after me Lucky Charms!" quality that is aggravated by the fact that each actor seems to have been allowed to use his or her own personal version of an Irish accent. Of course, as bad as they are, the accents are helpful in reminding us we're in Ireland because the sets mostly look as if they were dragged in from from some German expressionist piece being filmed on the next soundstage over. (It feels as if, with an eagle eye, you might see some villagers off to torch Dr. Frankenstein in the background.)<br /><br />Techniques change. Tastes change. So I won't go off on how crazy it seems that this film was so acclaimed in its day. But it's not one of the classics that hold up --- more just "fair warning" about the kind of over-simplified malarkey to which Ford was going to devote his career.
I've seen about 820 movies released between 1931-39, and THE INFORMER is the worst major release I've seen from that time span. Awful, despicable, unpleasant, unhappy, unredeemable saga of a complete Loser. Watch a 1934 B Western instead.
I will warn you here: I chose to believe those reviewers who said that this wasn't an action film in the usual sense, rather a psychological drama so you should appreciate it on that basis and you will be alright.<br /><br />I am here to tell you that they were wrong. Completely wrong.<br /><br />Well, no, not completely; it is very disappointing if you are looking for an action flick, they were right about that. But it is also very unsatisfying on all other levels as well.<br /><br />Tom Beringer wasn't too bad, I suppose, no worse than usual; but what possessed them to cast Billy Zane in this? Was it some sort of death wish on the part of the producers? A way to made their film a guaranteed flop? In that case, it worked.<br /><br />If they were actually aiming for success, then why not cast somebody who can act? Oh, and might as well go for a screenwriter who knows how to write. Ah, yes, and a director who knows how to direct.<br /><br />As someone who sat through this mess, actually believing it would shortly redeem itself, I can assure you it never did. Pity, it could've been a good film.
Realistic movie,sure,except for the fact that the characters don't look like to be scared. When Billy Zane tries to kill someone, he feels bad...but he doesn't look like to. That's why I don't like his performance in this movie. Tom Berenger is again playing a soldier. No good thrill, realistic sequences. Not always shooting, that is one great thing. Well filmed. I hate the helicopter sequence, cause only one terrorist kills almost the whole marine bunch...I give it **and a half out of *****
Despite its interesting premise, 'Sniper' is quite tedious. With a tighter script and sharper directing it could have been electrifying; instead it plods along with little tension.
Not much to say on this one. A plot you can pretty much peg, in the first 10 minutes. Nothing overly wrong with this film, very little action for an action film. There was a chance to explore the characters emotions occasionally. Whether an action film is the right genre to do that with, I'm still undecided. Sniper was one of the easiest films to watch without giving full attention to, as it had little twists and a straightforward plot. I was probably guilty of that, so with a second watch or with undivided attention it may be better.<br /><br />4/10 (but the best of my 4 out of 10's)
Eleven "great" filmmakers, eleven pieces of garbage. Eleven minutes each of sheer tedium, sophistry, condescension, self-indulgence. Treats for people of all nations. Yussef Chahine of Egypt giving a "hip hip hooray!" for terorism in his amateurish segment. Across the green line we have Amos Gitai of Israel, using his eleven minutes to show a terrorist act and focus on a jerky newscaster. Alejandro González Iñárritu of Mexico concentrated on the Twin Towers but seemed to forget to turn on his camera. Sean Penn not knowing that there were no buildings within the shadow of the Trade Center on 9-11. Shohei Imamura of Japan ignoring the whole thing. Claude Lelouch focussing on a trivial and cliched love affair. Ken Loach of the UK focussing on Chile. Etc. etc.
First of all, I ain't American or Middle-Eastern. Second of all, I don't have a religion. The closest thing to a religion I have are sports and movies. Henceforth, I believe I would be best served to supply an opinion of neutrality and free from bias.<br /><br />Most of these short films are an utter disgrace. This dreadful event should be used to commemorated all those innocent people whom were murdered by "some" barbaric and uncivilized morons. Instead, most of what I saw in these short films were conceited attempts to score varied political points. Examples:<br /><br />1) Ken Loach's segment. Sure, we are all sad that this dude had a hard life in his country but what has that got to do with the innocent victims of 2001? Two wrongs don't make a right?! Whatever! This film should have a subtitle for those who have trouble listening to a partially incoherent Chilean-English accent.<br /><br />2) Most disturbing is Youssef Chahine's segment. It is obvious that he has trouble with logic. He justified the murders due to - America being a democracy and because some Americans voted the politicians in power, then all Americans in the end are responsible for the actions and decisions made by their leaders on the Middle-East. Helloooo! Is this guy for real?? Some Americans don't even vote! Some Americans don't even know where the Middle-East is; some don't even know what religion is practiced there; and majority don't know the real political issues that are played behind the scenes. ### Mr Chahine, the reason why we have all these problems in the world is because there are too many people with your kind of logic. The innocent victims in the Twin Towers came from around the world. The murdered firefighters, rescuers, office workers, by-standers and flight passengers have nothing to do with politics. And yet, we are not allowed to go about our lives because "some" people think everyone has to choose a side or a religion. We are perceived as fair game for the extreme politics.<br /><br />3) The Israeli segment showed their own bombed victims. Another filmmaker using this event to push their own political agenda. Sometimes, it is not about you. Some people always think about the "me, me, me." Sometimes, it is about other people.<br /><br />4) Idrissa Ouedraogo's segment is a joke and another political point scorer. They obviously want money from the international community by highlighting their poverty. Blah, blah, blah.<br /><br />This movie denigrates the memory of "Sept. 11th, 2001" victims.<br /><br />The best thing for it is the TRASH CAN.
I have never panned a film on-line, but I felt moved to do so, after seeing this one. One doesn't show up at someone's funeral and say to the bereaved, "My relatives died, so why should I care about yours?"<br /><br />Minus the propaganda, there was little, if anything, that could be called "art." As the daughter of deaf parents, I was particularly annoyed by the use of deafness as a gimmick. Any deaf person feeling a vibration of that immensity would likely have investigated, not ignored it.<br /><br />The word "chutzpah" comes to mind. As a writer, there are few subjects I would stay away from: the Holocaust is one; this is another. I wish these movie makers had not been so arrogant (and inept).
I've found the movie offensive for Americans which lost somebody in the towers, for American people in general. Pretending to be an homage to horrible facts happened last years, each director takes the opportunity to polemize with old facts (which have none to do with a terrorist attack), or criticize American's political behaviour, or compare different political situation as they have in own country having this nothing to do or to share with the atrocity of September 11. Shame on them.
Have you ever wondered what would happen if a couple of characters from Beverly Hills 90210 were thrown into a Thai jail?If so, this is your movie. This is Midnight Express for the MTV crowd. That would be ok, but the story was poorly executed. Contrived plot twists, poor dialogue and unresolved issues abound. This slight film did not earn the right to be as cryptic as it ends up being. Potential spoiler and impossibly preposterous plot line-the faux tension filled moment when the hotel employee discovers the girls do not have a room there and is about to kick them out. (This moment is innappropriately played with the same solemnity and gravity as the moment when they are arrested at gunpoint). Later the same hotel employee is somehow found-and Bangkok is a big city, mind you, Ive been there- and testifies against the girls, as if a couple of free Mai Tais warrant 40 years in prison. C'mon. Rent Another Day in Paradise instead.
I had been looking forward to seeing this film for a long time, after seeing "Return to Paradise," which I found to be gritty. I was so disappointed. The most realistic thing about it was the unpredictable ending which I think was partly stolen from "Return to Paradise." <br /><br />Maybe I was expecting too much. <br /><br />On the positive side Danes, Beckinsale and Pullman were fantastic in their roles. Although I didnt like Danes's character and first and found her very annoying. <br /><br />I couldnt see anything realistic about the film. It could of been done so much better, for example there could of been more emphasis on the prison conditions and the sheer horror. It was too cheery a movie to be realistic. There could also of been more action and tension<br /><br />The best thing about this film is the "tragic" ending. I couldnt of predicted that. But by that time I really didnt care what happened to them.<br /><br />3/10
A very good story for a film which if done properly would be quite interesting, but where the hell is the ending to this film?<br /><br />In fact, what is the point of it?<br /><br />The scenes zip through so quick that you felt you were not part of the film emotionally, and the feeling of being detached from understanding the storyline.<br /><br />The performances of the cast are questionable, if not believable.<br /><br />Did I miss the conclusion somewhere in the film? I guess we have to wait for the sequel.<br /><br />
Brokedown Palace is not the kind of movie I would ever like to see. I also did not like the movie when some Aussie man smuggled drugs in Thailand and accused Claire Danes and Kate Beckinsale of drug smuggling. I would not go to that country no matter what after I saw this movie. In fact this movie stinks. I prefer to visit Germany to meet beautiful single women. Germany is the country I tolerate. I also would rather stick to the United States instead. After I saw some of the movie in the theatre including the false accusation of drug smuggling, I left the theatre and had my money refunded because I cannot tolerate this movie. If you are going to to Thailand to meet someone there who could be a drug smuggler, forget this!
(SPOILERS AHEAD) Russian fantasy "actioner" (and I use the term loosely) that I've been trying to watch for over a year. I've finally gotten to the end and now I wish I didn't put in the repeated effort.<br /><br />In an effort to save two hours of your life I'm going to tell you he plot- a guy who has the ability to project a long blade out of his arm returns home to see his mom. Things turn ugly after he is beaten up by the mafia boyfriend of an old girl friend. He takes revenge on the guy when he brings the girl home. The guys mafia mom sends her men out to get revenge while the cops begin looking for him as well.<br /><br />Very little is said. no explanation is really given for anything (like why they lock id girlfriend in an asylum) and the action, for the most part is all off screen. The film essentially consists of a guy who looks like Adrian Brody looking intense and not saying anything, killing people (off screen-most of the action happens off screen). It looks good, is well acted and had there been some form of reason for what is going on it might have been a good film. Hell, I would have liked some sense of real character development or back story (all we know is that the guy was picked on as a kid). The movie runs the better part of two hours and it feels like its six. If they weren't going to tell us anything they could have at least picked up the pace so it seemed like it was moving too fast. No instead we get the hero on a boat. The hero in a bus, the hero walking, the hero looking disturbed.Hero with his girl. It really annoyed me since I think this could have been a good film if they had simply done something or had someone actually say something meaningful other than give instructions to "get this guy".<br /><br />4 out of 10. Its about four hours (all my attempts to see this) I'll never get back. Only for those who want to see a brooding Russian action film with very little action
Nothing positive to say. Meandering nonsense, huffing and puffing with a "message". New Russian (post-Soviet) films can be very good (Cuckoo comes to mind), yet many have the bouquet of cardboard and the aftertaste of asbestos (Nochnoi Dozor would be a good example). This is a "dozor" type of emptiness. Acting would be horrible if not for the saving grace of utterly unappealing direction and incompetent editing that sometimes is so awful that it distracts from the impotence of the actors. Special award to the cameraman for making sure that every shot is shaky (would someone please realize that Blair Witch has had its 15 seconds of undeserved fame?) and takes are geared towards attention-deficit pre-teens who subside on CounterStrike and masturbation. The female lead poses and tries to look seductive too often, male antihero need a diction coach (although genetics aren't bad: rather expressive eyes.) One (middle) finger for this irrelevant pile of non-art. Anyone who reviews this positively better be a (distant) cousin of the "auteurs".
It's a really cheesy parody of Tomb Raider and some Indiana Jones, the humor's cheesy, and so is the acting. But after all it is a soft core movie, which is expected and doesn't matter because what you really want is the sex. Which gets me to the biggest problem of all, there barely is any of it. Which makes you feel like you're watching TV at 3 am and the independent movies are playing and the one that is on was made by some college kid that's going nowhere in that industry. You're left a very long time waiting for an actual sex scene, a lot of times you are thinking something is going to happen, then just left hanging. The one(maybe two, or one with two parts)that actually goes somewhere is very pleasing though. I personally can't recommend this unless you found it in a clear out bin for a dollar or two. If you lucking for a good movie with a plot and good acting, you don't want this. If you looking for a good soft core lesbian film, you don't want this either.
**Possible Spoilers**<br /><br />This straight-to-video mess combines a gun-toting heroine, grade-Z effects, nazis, a mummy and endless lesbian footage and it's still boring; the video's 45 minute running time only SEEMS like Eternity.The only good part is one of the blooper outtakes, wherein the bad guys force a 400-pound Egyptologist into a chair--and one villain's foot almost gets crushed under a chair leg. Take this snoozer back to the video store and watch televised golf, bowling or tennis instead.
This movie is not for the faint or weak of heart. It couldn't decide if it was going to be porn or legit. It was neither one. It was just bad. There was nothing in this movie to make me want to see anything else made by these people again.
Someone had a great idea: let's have Misty Mundae do her own, R-rated version of Lara Croft - firing two guns not only in skimpy outfits, but topless as well. It WAS indeed a great idea. The problem is that the people who had it couldn't come up with any sort of script or budget to support it. Therefore, we get a "film" that barely reaches medium length by replaying many of its parts (often in slow-motion), and was apparently shot entirely inside a garage. The appeal of Misty Mundae is still evident: she is unbelievably cute and has a natural girl-next-door beauty. However her two female co-stars here, with whom she shares a lengthy lesbian scene, are nowhere near her league. If "Mummy Raider" was presented as a Youtube video, I'd rate it higher, but as a "film" destined for DVD consumption it cannot get more than 1/2 a * out of 4.
Not long enough to be feature length and not abrupt enough to a short, this thing exists for one reason, to have a lesbian three-way. There are worse reasons to exist. One sad thing is that this could have made a decent feature length movie. Misty fits snuggly into her outfit and is a very cocky girl and when people are so infatuated with a game character, like Lara Croft, that they make nude calenders of her, you know that a soft-core flick is set to explode. Unfortunately, this is pretty pathetic. Especially the painfully fake sex scene between Darian and Misty, where you can see her hand is fingering air. Watch this if you just can't get enough of Misty or Ruby, who makes a nice blonde and has zee verst jerman akcent ever.
I can't say I'm all that experienced in misty Mundae flicks having seen only a handful, but it's obvious that this was made on a shoestring, and while it might have been respectable that the filmmakers were able to make a Tomb Raider rip-off inside a garage, it isn't because it's completely obvious that this is what they were doing. The film only runs for forty five minutes, and this is definitely a good thing as there isn't nearly enough plot here to stretch it out for any longer. It has something to do with an evil Nazi scientist (who looks about as evil as a porn star playing a Nazi scientist ever could), a mummy, which is clearly a man wrapped up in toilet roll and Misty - this film's version of Tomb Raider, who keeps her top on for much less time than Angelina Jolie did in the big budget version. I have to say that even in spite of its shortcomings, this film could have been better. It's got Misty Mundae for a start, and even better than that if you ask me is the fact that it also stars the even hotter Darian Caine. The pair gets to engage in all the lesbian sex that you would expect from a Seduction Cinema film and this is at the expense of the nonexistent plot, although that isn't really a bad thing. Obviously, this is a rubbish film - but the fact that it's short is to its credit, and if you're after a bit of lesbian sex, you could do worse.
**MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**<br /><br />The titular topless heroine rescues another beautiful babe and her father (an eccentric professor whose stock pith helmet is broken in one shot and whole in the next) from a moth-eaten, dime-store mummy and nasty Nazis out to--what else?--build a Fourth Reich. Misty's costume, like those of some other wimmen, gets skimpier as the movie rolls on. The last portion of the movie is devoted to protracted lesbian action; this footage actually gets real boring, real fast, which says more about the critters behind the camera than the curvaceous creatures in front of it. MISTY gets its nominal plot out of the way first and fast, then gives undivided attention to nudity and soft-core sex. This makes MUMMY RAIDER a throwback to movies made in the 1960s by guys like Stan Borden, David F. Friedman and Harry Novak. Just think: if this wonder-work had been cranked out four decades ago, it would have played for years on 42nd Street along with WHAM BAM THANK YOU SPACEMAN and KISS ME QUICK. As it is, MISTY MUNDAE MUMMY RAIDER went straight to home video. Grab yours, quick, before it goes out of print.
There is no way on earth you are going to care about any of these characters. A bunch of spoilt middle class overgrown kids take some drugs at a party and get off with each other and argue. I've just seen this on TV and I didn't think it was a 'film' as such, more a post-'This Life' indulgence that really has no resonance or proper drama to it. Stuff like this will get commissioned for time immemorial unfortunately, irrelevant middle class "lifestyle" crap that takes itself far too seriously. It's got David Baddiel in it and that bird out of "Cold Feet", you know what to expect. There was a lot of this stuff about in 2000, it was a particularly British malaise..."they're educated and doing drugs? friends, but kinda dysfunctional and with incestuous relationships? sounds great!". This kind of nonsense, and post-Guy Ritchie comedy- gangster stuff...dark days. If you have taste, this will annoy you to the point of violence.
I'm rarely moved to make a comment online about a film. But I can't understand how this one got made. Who made it? How could they have possibly thought they were capable of making a feature film? Did they do a weekend course at some film school, get a nice big cheque from daddy and kidnap David Badiel's family one by one until he agreed to be in it? Or was he by any chance a longtime family friend/distant relation doing this out of sheer, misplaced kindness? I don't care, don't want to know. Even he looks utterly embarrassed to be in it, mumbling his lines and hiding his face from the camera. Meanwhile the DOP must have been the gaffer from Neighbours, there seemed to be absolutely no sound design, the script, the direction and editing were all abysmal, and quite frankly the apathy that overwhelms me right now means that I can't be bothered to spend any more of my life thinking about this film.
do not be suckered into renting this movie. It has nothing to do with an escape from death row, despite the (english) title. I can't think of a single good thing to say about the movie. Poor acting, poor editing, poor directing... laughable "plot", and the sound/music was so irritating, it's a wonder this movie doesn't come with a warning label. The only possible way to sit through this movie and enjoy it is for it's historical cheesiness quality. They just don't make films this bad anymore.
Kalifornia is disturbing. I believe there is no reason for this story to be told. It is neither entertaining nor does it have social value. Technically, the movie is very well make, the performances are top rate and first class. The story develops in an intriguing way that holds interest. But at the end this movie sickens and is abhorrent to decency. I recommend Kalifornia to no one.
honestly, if anyone has a brain, there's not 1 positive thing<br /><br />to say about this movie what so ever. <br /><br />I lost my $1 renting this. I'd rather laugh at Will Smith saying "If you got a dream, you got to protect it". <br /><br />all the actors must've been bored or had no fame at the time. even Matthew Mc Conahay *however you spell it* was better then all the actors in this movie, when he played a psycho in Texas Chainsaw 4. If you see this movie, and have anything good to say, you IQ, must be extremely low, with such bad taste in movies, it hurts. Thank YOU...and the TRUTH, has been spoken!<br /><br />Save yourself from the misery. <br /><br />Get Devil's Rejects, now that's a classic.
I was expecting to love this movie--film noir, serial killer, dark irony. I was baffled by many choices the characters made ("Hey, I know they're creepy looking, but let's hook up for a cross-country road trip anyway!"), found the pacing to be glacial, and the emphasis on moody lighting to take the place of original thought by the director and cinematographer.<br /><br />Thinking about it now, this would have been a much better movie if someone had just run the script through the common sense-o-meter (1992 model) before starting to film...
Distasteful, cliched thriller has young couple doing cross-country research on America's most infamous murder sites, becoming road partners with a dim-witted young woman and her snarling boyfriend--who is an actual psycho. Arty and alienating, the film's tone alternates between pouty pseudo-irony and silly flamboyance. Handsomely-made perhaps, but ultimately laughable. Brad Pitt's performance as the low-rent killer is godawful. * from ****
In an interview, David Duchovny said he hasn't been able to watch even the first hour of this film - and neither should you. The scene where he asks the owner of a house where a murder was committed if he can look around - change the name he gives and he could had lifted his performance from just about any episode of the X-Files. He's on autopilot for the whole film. Brad Pitt overacts appallingly.
Another movie to suffer without an adventure to run, no enigma to solve. Just an illness man, acting like an animal. No a good reason to take this journey. Pitt and Lewis are great actors; magnificent Michelle Forbes but a weak David Duchovny performance...
German nut case Jörg Buttgereit apparently has fans - but I don't know why, and I'm Definitely not one of them! The only Buttgereit film I'd seen previously was Nekromantik and I hated every minute of it, but - shockingly - this film is worse! Der Todesking is pointless in the same way as Nekromantik, but it's a worse film because it's boring in a way that few movies have ever managed (it's not far off The Blair Witch Project, seriously). Some people say that this film is 'sick' and 'shocking', but it really isn't. The director may have been making a point about death, but only he knows what it is. How anyone could watch this film and be anything other than bored with it is completely beyond me. The film revolves around the theme of suicide, and follows the deaths of seven different people over the course of a week. Yes, that means we have a pointless and boring episode for Monday, a pointless and boring episode for Tuesday, a pointless and boring episode for Wednesday etc etc. This film manages to be even more boring than my average week! <br /><br />Der Todesking is apparently an 'art' film, although this would appear to be a reference to the way that not very much makes sense rather than a reference to the film bearing any resemblance to 'art'. Each segment of the film is meant to tell a separate story - but it doesn't! We just get a quick little sketch on suicide, and it only makes you wonder what the point is. The film feels like it should be deep, but there's a great big void where the intelligence should be and nothing there to fill it. Buttgereit uses a few evocative images; but I'm unlikely to remember any of them for more than a week or so because this film just isn't that memorable. There's a shot involving a decomposing man's body that features fairly often, but that gets old pretty quick and all you're left with is the rest of the film, which is unfortunate. If I were to struggle for good things to say about this crap, all I can think of is this; the title sounds cool. As I mentioned, Nekromantik is the only other film I've seen from this amateur director; I have copies of Schramm and Nekromantik 2, and now I'm really in no rush to watch either. Der Todesking is a dull film with no point and anyone that calls it 'art' is very much mistaken. Give it a miss.
The subject notwithstanding, this is an amateur, exhibitionist movie--or an effort at one--which is about as interesting and daring as a moody high school student's composition book full of death "poetry". To be sure, it will disturb viewers who are hell-bent on being disturbed, but the success will be attributable to themselves, not to the director. To genuinely get under somebody's skin requires sensibility, discipline, technique, and talent, as well as an eye and an ear. The film does contain one evocative image, shown as a still (and also used on the video case), but with no development leading up to or away from it. If the director had had an eye, he would have seen it as a possible starting point for an interesting movie--that is, a movie.
I'm sorry but this is just awful. I have told people about this film and some of the bad acting that is in it and they almost don't believe me. There is nothing wrong with the idea, modern day Japanese troops get pulled back in time to the days of Busido warriors and with their modern weapons are a match for almost everything. When the troops first realise something strange is happening does every single person in the back of the transport need to say "Hey my watch has stopped"? Imagine lines like that being repeated 15+ times before they say anything else and you have the movie's lack of greatness in a nutshell.
Watching CBS's "Surrender, Dorothy", I kept wondering why Diane Keaton would want to be in it (not because it's a television movie--with the dearth of enticing roles for slightly older actresses, it isn't any wonder why Academy Award winning performers such as Keaton turn to TV--but because it offers no opportunities for Keaton to shine). A single mother, grieving the sudden death of her twenty-something daughter, imposes upon--and gradually becomes friends with--the group of young people her daughter was close to at the time of her accident. Adapted from the novel, this teleplay gives us a group of self-absorbed characters one would cross the street to avoid. Aside from being coarse and dim, these phony people are incredibly unconvincing, as is the tidy scenario and the bungalow near the beach where the kids reside (one young man, who wears muscle shirts to tell us he's gay, hears Diane Keaton say, "Surrender, Dorothy" and actually asks, "That's from "The Wizard of Oz", right?"...no, genius, it's from "Citizen Kane"!). Keaton may have wanted to do this material based on the subject matter of confronting death. She tries turning this distinctly unlikable woman into a shadow of her own personage (lots of kooky outfits), but it doesn't sit well with the viewer since Keaton has always been warmly likable and flexible in a flaky way. Here, she's a crazed harpy who doesn't learn many lessons on her journey of self-discovery (the movie quickly forgets it's about a dead young woman and becomes an odyssey for the nervous wreck of a mom, who appears to be an overage hippie who has never lost anyone close to her). This is the kind of film actors promote on talk shows with the caveat, "It should help a lot of grieving mothers out there". I can't imagine it helping anyone since it is intrinsically a downer, muddled and baffling. It's deranged.
I waited for this movie to play in great anticipation. Assuming it would be more accurately portrayed like the movie, "The Christmas Box" based on the book by Richard Paul Evans. I sent out many emails to friends and family asking them to please watch this show, hoping they would better understand a tiny amount of my "new" life. After seeing this movie I was so disappointed. As a mother who lost her only child in November 2003 and REALLY knowing the pain, I had hoped that this movie would shed light to parents who "think" they understand the grief a parent goes through who has lost a child. This movie was a very light hearted movie and the silliness of Diane Keaton was a slap in the face to parents who have buried a child. It was VERY unrealistic from start to stop. I had a few calls after the movie, each call the same, "That was so off the mark and made it appear that in a short time you are back on the road and listening to songs on the radio and life is back" What a bunch of bull! It is clear that the director and Keaton have never lost a child because neither would have EVER made the movie to be so off the mark. I guess that's Hollywood.
(Very light spoilers, maybe.) <br /><br />Normally a fan of Diane Keaton, I tried to watch this tonight. I had to switch it off before the second hour because I found myself with absolutely no sympathy for daughter or mother. Both came across as self-absorbed with little regard for others, with the daughter also adding in rude, disrespectful and reckless to the mix. When the daughter died, the only thing I thought was, "At least we won't have to watch her anymore." Keaton did a good job of moving into her stunned state and into the grieving, but it was too far gone for me by then. I simply wasn't enjoying it, so I stopped watching. If you want me to care for the protagonist, you need to get me caring about the characters much sooner--if it's nearly an hour in and I don't care, it's too late.<br /><br />The supporting cast was sincere and well played--I felt for *them!*--and the gay best friend was wonderful, but even combined, that wasn't enough to carry the film for me.
**1/2 for this Diane Keaton farce.<br /><br />Someone should tell Ms. Keaton, enough with your Annie Hall philosophy and hats.<br /><br />This flick is just too much as Keaton's daughter, Sara, dies in a traffic accident, while her boyfriend survives.<br /><br />Keaton, who could not be reached by phone at first, as she was in the sack with her pal and had pulled out the phone plug, grieves in a new way for grievers.<br /><br />She retreats to the summer locale where all of Sara's friends are staying. She cleans the house, sleeps for two days and then begins to reveal things which were better not to be revealed. It appears that sweet Sara slept with her girlfriend and the guy who ultimately married the latter. In addition, she had an abortion thanks to this guy. We're all now put on this guilt trip.<br /><br />Her only hope is to find the elusive diary that Sara kept. She also hopes that boyfriend,Adam, who is a playwright, will not include all this in another play.<br /><br />When the diary is found, it has been written in Japanese. Sara had a Ph.D in this language. It's not that great news for mom when an excerpt of the diary is translated by a Japanese cook in a Japanese restaurant.<br /><br />Naturally, everything seems to tie up nicely in the end. <br /><br />The title of this shmaltz comes from The Wizard of Oz. Every time mom and Sara would speak, they would both utter Surrender Dorothy.<br /><br />As if this isn't enough, during the course of this bizarre extravaganza of mourning, Keaton tells Adam not to be another Woody Allen in his film, Interiors, where he tried to successfully emulate Ingmar Bergman. Ms. Keaton also tries drugs with the group. Come on, folks, can we realistically believe that anyone in his right mind could mourn like this? <br /><br />Fair to mediocre best sums up this film.
Although the casting for this film was admirable, particularly Dianne Keaton and Tom Everett Scott, the quality of the writing was so poor that it would be impossible for any actor or director to make this film worth watching.<br /><br />My wife and I decided that the reason we watched the entire film was that it was like a train wreck, and it was almost impossible to turn away. It may have been that we "hoped" that the message would eventually make itself apparent, and that we would be able to glean some meaning from this effort. Unfortunately, this did not happen.<br /><br />Of course the audience may have been able to "make sense" of this convoluted tale, a credit to the ingenuity of the human brain to make sense of the absurd. The writers, however, did NOTHING to facilitate this innate need we seem to have for finding meaning.<br /><br />It was apparent that those involved were simply going through the motions of their respective crafts, and that any intrinsic passion for the characters or the story was either secondary or non-existent.<br /><br />Unfortunately, made-for-TV movies have seemed to devolve over the years. Whereas communicating a message to the audience may to have been the primary interest of the writers in the past, present-day writers and producers seem condescending to their audience, concentrating primarily on manipulating us to "stay-tuned" through the incessant advertising which seems to be the only reason movies such as Surrender, Dorothy are made.
I could not believe how awful this film was; I rarely watch commercial TV, but thought "Well, Diane Keaton is always worth watching". I stand corrected. Everyone involved should be hanging their heads in shame.<br /><br />I realize there are not a lot of great roles for women of a certain age, but the script to this was so inept, clichéd and baffling that I am surprised it ever got into development or that Ms. Keaton thought she could make a silk purse out of this sow's ear. None of the characters had a shred of believability and were so incredibly unlikeable. The acting looked like exercises in a BEGINNING class - I stared in open-mouthed horror through most of this wondering "What were they thinking?". Very, very sad that it has come to this. Don't waste your time.
I can't believe we watched this total piece of crap but we did and I feel obligated to warn others to avoid it at all costs. When one of the main characters announces that he's gay twice in the first five minutes, don't ignore it as typical PC nonsense and figure it has to get better because it won't. If his faggoty boyfriend hanging all over him doesn't make you sick, then be thankful the freak who wrote and/or directed this grossout is somehow attempting a little restraint. I mean, get real. It's one thing for there to be a gay character appearing in a movie in such screwed up times as these but quite another to have it continually slapped on the screen and examined up close and personal when the the liner notes clearly state the flick's supposed to be about a mother seeking some sort of "closure" over the sudden death of her daughter. What does one thing have to do with the other, one might be tempted to ask? Apparently, the two issues are inextricably interwoven. And if that weren't bad enough, there's the bearded lady at the ice cream parlor. I mean, seriously, hasn't that poor woman ever heard of electrolysis? Why must she go around like that? At the very least, how about shaving the ugly thing off, and while you're at it, have those horrible moles removed, too. Would YOU slurp up some ice cream she just served you? I think not. It must be a New Jersey thing. <br /><br />You'd think Diane Keaton might save this piece of drek, but think again. Was she actually trying to put lipstick on a corpse? I don't even wanna think about it. So what if the body was supposed to be that of her own dead daughter. This grotesque excuse for cinema is slop from the word go and that's all there is to it. One wishes that each of these characters would simply walk out into the waves and just keep going. None of these flaky people even remotely gain our sympathy for an instant. Trust me -- pass this piece of crap up. It's not about death, a mother who inadvertently suffocated her daughter, or even the other much more unsavory issues it keeps bringing up no matter how little you want to hear it. It's a load of perverted trash from a misguided and talentless director.
The first 30min of the flick was choppy and hard to know just what was going on (unless you read the book - which I had not).<br /><br />If you can stick with the first half, the second half is sweet - predictable, yes, but sweet none-the-less.<br /><br />The way it was shot one would think it was produced in the early 80's, not 2005.<br /><br />No stand-out moments, bland, but it moved along without boring me.<br /><br />I would like to know why Keaton selected this role, her part would have been better cast with a player more at the level of the other actors to keep the balance.
As I sat subjected to this televised mediocrity, I wondered why? Why did Dianne Keaton agree to this trash? The movie uses meaningless, contrived plot lines to deliver trash to homes of thousands. The movie takes a political agenda to a new level. The movie was meaningless, and all creditability was lost to the excessive use of stereotype. <br /><br />It was obvious that Keaton tried to make this movie worthwhile, but in the end she needs to remember the age old adage that you cannot polish a turd. I hope that you did not waste your New Year's Day watching another mindless made for TV movie. I now know why the networks started airing series on Sunday night, to rid us of trash!
My wife and I started to watch this movie with anticipation. It looked warm and touching. It started out well; but, soon became boring and frankly idiotic after a while. It got so bad that we turned it off The movie was poorly acted and honesty, we couldn't really understand or wanted to understand what exactly why or how the hell they could put up with this woman! You lost sympathy for her after she was rude and acting wackos singing and cleaning. I would have had her committed. And, of course, like most movies and T.V series made in Hollywood we have to throw it a token "gay" character! This movie was boring. I was expecting more from Diane Keaton!
I just finished reading a book on Anita Loos' work and the photo in TCM Magazine of MacDonald in her angel costume looked great (impressive wings), so I thought I'd watch this movie. I'd never heard of the film before, so I had no preconceived notions about it whatsoever. Thought it got off to a cute start with Eddy as the playboy and MacDonald as the secretary he doesn't know exists. The scene where she shows up at the costume party in her simple angel outfit with an uncooperative halo and wings that won't stay on was really endearing. I was even with the film when Eddy goes to sleep and imagines her as a real angel. But after a while it just started to fall apart for me. Eddy stays "asleep" for the entire rest of movie, so it's all a dream. Whatever happens from there on doesn't really matter, because he's just dreaming. The rest of it was pretty much plot less and pointless. I had to force myself to stick with it. And the final number where MacDonald goes from musical number to musical number in some mad hallucination was just plain freaky.<br /><br />Had Eddy "woken" a sooner and the original story continued, or had he really married an angel, I think it would have been a lot more interesting. I wanted to see more of her real character.<br /><br />There weren't really enough musical numbers to call it a musical. The first few songs were good, but the jitterbug number that MacDonald performs was like nails on a chalkboard. Completely wrong for her operatic voice. Even so, Eddy and MacDonald still manage to shine, showing what true stars they were.
I'll say one thing for Jeanette and Nelson--even when stranded in a mirthless, witless, painfully inept musical like this, there's still that twinkle in their eyes. Yes, the chemistry between the famous duo is there even when the material is paper thin. Even when the score is practically a throwaway, non-existent one depending on just a couple of catchy tunes. And even when the circumstances are so unbelievable--yes, even for a fantasy.<br /><br />Truth to tell, she has more chemistry with Nelson than with her own real-life husband Gene Raymond in SMILIN' THROUGH, which, nonetheless, was a considerably better film.<br /><br />Sorry, I love Jeanette and Nelson as much as the next fan, but this is the bottom of the heap. Jeanette is more than embarrassing in her one "hep" number with Binnie Barnes--and Nelson can only come up with a blank stare when faced with the most ludicrous situations.<br /><br />One can only wonder what this was like on Broadway in 1938. Surely, it must have had more wit and style than is evident in this weak MGM production. Edward Everett Horton fizzles in an unfunny role and none of the supporting players can breathe any semblance of life into this mess. It's like amateur night at the studio even with the few professionals sprinkled among the supporting cast.<br /><br />Summing up: Painfully clumsy rendering of a Rodgers and Hart musical. Can't recommend it, even for fans of MacDonald and Eddy. And even if Jeanette's close-ups still glow with her gossamer beauty, this film is jaw-droppingly bad.
When anyone comes into a film of this type of film it's not without saying that an overdose of that great over-the-counter brain-medicine, Suspension of Disbelief, comes in mighty handy.<br /><br />Jeanette MacDonald plays two roles: Anna/Brigitta, the woman who Nelson Eddy has ignored since the beginning of time, but who also is -- an angel sent to Earth.<br /><br />My reaction when I saw this was a mute gasp of "Hunh?" Where have I seen this before? It turns out, I have seen it before, but in a movie made much later than this one. DATE WITH AN ANGEL, a forgettable pile of dreck made in 1987, cashed in on the ethereal beauty of one Emmanuelle Beart who had no speaking lines, also wore a blond wig, and made life hell for soap-actor Michael Knight. Much worse in every conceivable angle with ultra-low 80s values but more than likely an updated version of this 1942 turkey.<br /><br />Anyway, not to elaborate, this is not a memorable film and stands as a doorstop of information because it was the last time MacDonald and Eddy, neither very good actors but terrific singers, would be together playing up the "innocence" and "clean-cut" romance that they were known for. After that you may need a cold shower, not because there are any steamy scenes here, but to get rid of the memory.
The final pairing of Nelson Eddy and Jeanette MacDonald is basically a complete misfire.The script is weak and has been presented badly.The film just has no life in it.Eddy and MacDonald would have been better off just making a filmed concert for their final pairing.There's nothing wrong with their singing,its just everything else in this turkey thats overcooked.
The Sentinel represents everything about the soul-lessness of Hollywood and the saddening lack of imagination present in so many movies these days. I cannot possibly think of one good thing about it, it's all so generic, so factory-made and so lazy assembled that it really only exists as an infomercial on how to make money from the unsuspecting, undeserving public.<br /><br />A plot about a Secret Service Agent planning to assassinate the Prez could well be entertaining. If handled by a good director or caring cast that is. Douglas is the one who is framed. Basinger is the First Lady, with whom he is having an affair (an undeveloped, unresolved plot contrivance). Sutherland is the best pal who believes his guilty because there would be no movie if he didn't. And Longoria is nothing. A woman with a fortune of Maybelline and...that's it. I guess there are less requirements for women when entering the Secret Service. As usual in a film like this the role of the Prez himself is nothing more than a tool, a token and is very badly written.<br /><br />Clark Johnson's, he who gave us the equally as pathetic SWAT back in 2003, mechanical direction lacks any kind of signature and has all the visual sophistication of a cheap TV-movie. Douglas, Basinger and Sutherland look incredibly bored and phone-in their performances from afar. Eva Longoria, the most over-exposed woman of the 21st Century, is basically only in this to attract to the Desperate Housewives audience. Her role is 100% pointless and she does absolutely nothing to further the plot or add to character development. She barely has 2 lines to rub together. A truly shameless marketing ploy.<br /><br />If you're a glutton for punishment then don't let me stop you. But it IS time and money you won't be getting back.
This, for lack of a better term, movie is lousy. Where do I start......<br /><br />Cinemaphotography - This was, perhaps, the worst I've seen this year. It looked like the camera was being tossed from camera man to camera man. Maybe they only had one camera. It gives you the sensation of being a volleyball.<br /><br />There are a bunch of scenes, haphazardly, thrown in with no continuity at all. When they did the 'split screen', it was absurd. Everything was squished flat, it looked ridiculous.<br /><br />The color tones were way off. These people need to learn how to balance a camera. This 'movie' is poorly made, and poorly done.<br /><br />The plot - You got to be kidding. If I was an SS agent, I'd sue the producers. looked like the Marks Brothers with radios and guns. Sutherland was in his '24' mode - I can see this for free. Eva Longoria would have been better with a little less on, and a lot more showing. As an action bimbo she wasn't much.<br /><br />I couldn't see a real plot, other than Douglas boinking the Presidents wife. Never did say why the mercenaries were trying to kill the pres. I just don't see the President of the United States running for his life in the utility tunnels of a building, like a rat in a maze. p-l-e-a-s-e.<br /><br />Hollywood is dead. This movie is the proof. I like 'the big screen'. Have since I was a kid. Many more 'movies' like this and I'll quit going. Whats the matter Hollywood, made so many chick flicks, forget how to make a real movie? If I owned a theater, I'd start running the old movies. The one with real actors, good story lines - and good Cinemaphotography.<br /><br />This 'movie' is a dog. Don't waste your time or money on it. I rate this 'movie' a zero! Douglas isn't suited for this role. I can over look his age, but his just is to much of a wimp to carry this off.
Slow, Slow, Slow... There is no mystery or excitement in this film. If you don't figure out who the "mole" is in the first ten minutes you must be brain dead. The secret service must have been too, because it took them the whole film to put it together. There are no compelling characters in the movie (not film). The pace of the movie is slow there is no tension. The hired killer is an excellent shot unless he is aiming at Michael Douglas than all he seems to be able to hit is large panes of glass. The funniest scene in the movie is when the presidents wife says the code word at the anticlimactic ending. It is laugh out loud ridiculous. At least six people got up and left the movie early. I would have joined them if I were not sitting in the middle of the row. I would not recommend this film to anyone.
Almost every plot detail in this movie is illogical and implausible. It carries no semblance of a genuine human story, dead and dull. It is a parody of Hollywood, with trumpet musical bits that remind you of a Denzel Washington movie, wobbly camera shots and focusing, racist stereotypes, absolutely unnecessary and comical shots and gestures of famous people in clothing catalogue poses. It is made to cater for the multitude of zombies whose meaning in life derives from watching celebrity names. The only good thing in the movie is the end credits and funky song that accompanies it. I feel like an idiot for watching this, save yourself.
Trying to conceive of something as insipid as THE SENTINEL would be pretty difficult. The problems are many. The result is terrible and loaded with plot holes.<br /><br />Michael Douglas stars as Pete Garrison, a Secret Service agent who "took one" for Reagan during the attempt on his life. Years later we find Pete assigned to the Whitehouse Family, mainly as a guard for the First Lady (Kim Basinger, L.A. CONFIDENTIAL). Troubles arise as we see Pete's close involvement with the First Lady, and a sudden threat against the President himself (David Rasche, UNITED 93). When Pete fails a polygraph test, he's singled out as a disgruntled agent by investigator David Breckinridge (Kiefer Sutherland, 24 TV series).<br /><br />As the presidential assassination plot unfolds, Pete finds himself on the run from his own people. His only confidant is the First Lady, and she's reluctant to tell anyone about their affections for one another (which is why Pete failed the polygraph in the first place). But is Pete really innocent? Or is he simply trying to buy time until he can kill the President? If he is innocent, how can he help prevent the assassination attempt while running from the Secret Service? <br /><br />The one, big, overwhelming problem with this film is that there's no justification for the reason behind the presidential threat. Isn't that what the movie's supposed to be about? One would think so! But the audience is never let in on why the assassin(s) want to kill the Prez. Hmm. Someone forget to put that in the script somewhere? <br /><br />And what's with David Breckinridge's (Kiefer's) new partner, Jill Marin (Eva Longoria, CARLITA'S WAY)? Seems that she was put in the film strictly as a piece of a$$-candy. What was her purpose again? Did she do anything other than look nice in tight pants and a low-cut blouse?<br /><br />There are so many problems with the basic premise of The Sentinel as to be laughable. The action is too easily stymied by the "What the...?" responses sure to be uttered by those unfortunate enough to watch the movie.
Lets first start this review with the fact that I SIGNED UP JUST TO WRITE THE REVIEW AND WARN PEOPLE TO SAVE Their MONEY!!<br /><br />This was one of the worst pieces of trash i have seen since The Hulk. The storyline was the most predictable garbage you could possibly come up with. If you are expecting 24 but on the big screen, flush that expectation down the toilet immediately along with the money you would use for a ticket.. You may get more enjoyment that way. The acting was terrible, the plot was completely unrealistic, (along with the so called "twist" in the end. I must say this.. The ending did surprise me. I am not referring to the plot twist that surprised me, but instead the effortless manner that they put together what could be considered the ONLY scene of somewhat decent action in the entire movie. They rushed the ending so quickly that I didn't even realize that it was over until I saw the credits rolling and at that point i considered burning the reel of film if I could just figure out how to get into that screening room.<br /><br />Casting was awful for a few reasons. First of all, they must have accidentally switched the character assignments, because Michael Douglas played the roll that CLEARLY Keifer Sutherland should have been playing. While Douglas was sneaking around agents, tapping phone lines, hacking into systems and taking out people who are chasing after him, Sutherland plays the less capable agent who is always in a bad mood even when things aren't going that badly for him. He plays a very bland agent, nothing like his Jack Bauer type roll us 24 fans love.<br /><br />I can just about promise you that this movie will disappoint in all areas. It can be best compared to a remake of the "The Fugitive" / "In The Line of Fire" but written by people with mental disabilities
There is good. There is bad. And then their is The Sentinel, a bottom-barrel political "thriller" that ranks among the worst movies I have ever seen. The plot of a mole in the Secret Service is a good one, but never has a movie with so much potential been so utterly butchered. Directed with ham-handed "edginess" by Clark Johnson, every actor in this film seems to be working on autopilot. Even the great Michael Douglas looks bored here. I can honestly say I have NEVER, in all my life, viewed another film with so many glaring plot holes. The twist is predictable from square one, and the character's motives are so utterly ridiculous that they inspired laughter from the audience. Avoid this at all costs. This is a catastrophe of a movie with no redeeming value.
Seriously, I don't even know where to begin. It's like somebody gave a bazillion dollar budget to an autistic third-grader and said 'make me a movie about the secret service'. The editing is ridiculous, the cinematography was random at best, every single syllable of dialogue was completely retarded and the directing ... well, was there even a director there? Everything was just so pointless and lame and pointless...and random....and lame.<br /><br />Here's a SPOILER for you; this movie is the dumbest thing you'll ever see. <br /><br />However, if you liked this piece, you'll also enjoy; Deterrance, Dark Blue, and a partial frontal lobotomy.
I saw the film tonight at a free preview screening, and despite the fact that I didn't pay a dime to see this film I still felt ripped off. Ladies and gentlemen, time is money and if you see this film you are leaving a Benjamin on your seat. The acting is torpid at best; Kiefer Sutherland phones in his worst impersonation of Jack Bauer, and Michael Douglas looks like he realizes he made a bad choice leaving Catherine Zeta-Jones for the duration it took to shoot this turkey. Eva Longoria is a non-entity; she looks like she's reading her lines off a teleprompter. And if you can't spot the "mole" within the first 20 minutes, then you just landed on this planet from a world without TV and recycled story lines. If you truly want to see a good secret service thriller, rent In the Line of Fire. If you see and buy into this one, you'll start to fear for the president's safety because the Secret Service looks and acts like the grown-up versions of the kinds from 90210. No matter what your feelings about W, let's hope this "art" does not imitate life.
I've been willing to put up with a lot from late-spring/summer action fluff movies, but in general that's been due to the fact that most of them have reasonable payoff (i.e. cool special effects, interesting plot twists, comic value, Steve Buscemi, etc.). This movie, however, had none of this. All that we got was the cheap thrill of several minutes of Eva Longoria's cleavage (an issue of Maxim is cheaper than a movie ticket). There is an embarrassing lack of plot, suspense, back story, character development, continuity, etc. I would get into specifics, but quite frankly I've already-maybe willingly-forgotten most of the movie.<br /><br />The entire time I was in the theater, I was kicking myself for not just spending the afternoon watching a 24 season on DVD. Save your money on this one, folks. Unless you really, really, really like Eva Longoria's cleavage.
Not to be confused with the above average supernatural thriller "The Sentinel". The Sentinel was a big bore of a movie for me, not delivering the consistent action, a couple of critics promised on the back. To me it seemed like everyone was Halfassing it, and only there to make some quick cash, because this felt very much like a made for TV film. The Sentinel is a rehash of several better films, like "In The Line Of Fire" this does not have any originality in it, and watching Michael Douglas run around, felt kinda silly in my opinion. The Main problem besides it's unoriginality, had to be the poor pace. I often got distracted while trying to view this movie, while looking how much run time was left, more then once. Not only the miscasting with Eva Longoria, who couldn't convince worth a lick.<br /><br />Performances. Michael Douglas is usually a dependable actor, here is obviously going through the motions. He does not convince as a man on a run, or a secret agent. His chemistry with Bassinger, was also off. I'm a big fan of Kiefer Sutherland, but here he is only OK, nothing more then that. He tries to come across as a gruff, but managed to be more bland then anything else, and to be honest, he didn't seem that interested. Eva Longoria Parker is pretty mediocre. She does not convince in her role, and was pure eye candy. Kim Basinger is pretty terrible as the 1st lady. She looks bored to tears, and her role is a throw away, more then anything else. Martin Donovan has a big part in the end, but not enough to matter for me.<br /><br />Bottom line. The Sentinel is yet, another political thriller, that bored me to tears. It's too old, too tired, and most importantly the lack of effort sucked. Not recommended.<br /><br />4/10
I saw the trailer of the film several times at theater and I excited. It looked like a classic action thriller like the ones made in 1990's. It recalled me also Fugitive movies, a cat and mouse chase between Douglas and Sutherland. However, The Sentinel is the most tasteless action thriller of all time. As I see, many people say that this is like a TV movie. Not exactly. Firstly, there are much more better TV movies in this genre. Secondly, TV movies might be very fun sometimes, but this film is the exact opposite of having a good time. It is not stylish at all visually and the most important, the tone of the movie is unappealing. This is not an action movie, there are two action scenes consist of a chase and a clash. Also they are not big action scenes, but the worse is that those action scenes are very tasteless like the whole movie. The love affair between Douglas and Bassinger was very unnecessary. Besides, the assassination plot to the president is the most cliché story in this genre either, but they insist on that. And this is not a cat and mouse film as it is supposed to be. Although, Douglas is very old now, he has still potential for acting in an action thriller. In the film, Michael Douglas cannot be like Tommy Lee Jones, for example. Sutherland is a wrong choice either, because you feel as if you watch Jack Bauer and somehow, its character is one of the reasons which make the film like a TV movie, Eva Longoria Parker is a strange choice, of course she is too passive or straight in this movie, because she is a soap opera actress. The movie was not fun even one second to me, so I could not get over for a while.
It saddens me to rate a movie with a lot of my favorite actors, locations and genres, i.e. Douglas, Sutherland, Washington, D.C. and political thriller, but 'The Sentinel' really hits a low. It's like they had a great idea up front, signed the right cast and had some great city shots and then took a holiday letting the remaining crew improvise the rest. And I wish I could blame it on yet another bland performance from Basinger (not only do I feel she's one of the worst actors in Hollywood, but I'm still steaming more than a decade later that she was the only one, and definitely the only bad actor in the film, to win an acting Oscar for 'L.A. Confidential.') But she wasn't the only problem. Sutherland, who I love as Jack Bauer on '24' once again plays…Jack. I miss his old 'A Time to Kill' or 'A Few Good Men' days. Douglas certainly took a hiatus from acting and phoned this one in. Plot: Someone, some Secret Service traitor, wants the President dead and Douglas is (haphazardly) being framed. Will someone believe him? Actually, no spoiler here: as quickly as they came up with that subplot half-way through, it's over before you know it. And why did someone(s) want the President dead? Is that to be revealed in the sequel? Too many plot holes, too many doors opened and never closed and too predictable 'The Sentinel' is. If you only see one movie a year, you may not know who the mole is, but anyone who's familiar with these types of movies or even just seen one 'Law & Order' episode you'll know in the first few frames. Was it terrible? Not really, the cinematography was good, and despite Sutherland playing Jack again, he's still got it.
A bum gives a Secret Serviceman a tip about a Secret Service man in the presidential detail who plans to kill the president. Baloney. How did the bum know? The script then turns to a most detailed examination of how the Secret Service works, but who cares. Most of this just slows down the movie. All the chases that follow are this film's version of the tiresome car chases of many movies. Then, after a lot of impossible athleticism in which our hero outruns and out-guns all his buddies, we have a shootout in the Toronto City Hall. The Canadians are clearly marked with maple leafs, but how did they get into this? Finally, all is worked out. But it still makes no sense.
SPOILER ALERT ! ! ! Personally I don't understand why Pete did not help to save Williams life,I mean that would be great to know why William was motivated,or forced.I think Secret Service members are every day people,and there is a rumor the writer was a member of the Secret Service,now he's motivations are clear,well known.But as a rental this film will not satisfy you,cause the old but used twists,the average acting -these are just things in this film,only for keep you wait the end.Clark Johnson as the director of S.W.A.T. did a far better work like this time,and I still wondering how the producers (for example Michael Douglas)left this film to theaters.
Hollow point is an alright movie worth a half price rental or if nothing else is on a good time waster with no thought required. There are the requisite explosions and hammy acting and pretty ladies. A pretty good cast with Donald Sutherland, John Lithgow, and the lovely Tia Carrere. This cast plus a light hearted touch make for a not a great movie but a fun one..on a scale of one to ten ..a 4
The director Sidney J. Furie has created in Hollow Point a post-modern absurdist masterpiece that challenges and constantly surprises the audience. <br /><br />Sidney J. Furie dares to ask the question of what happens to the tired conventional traditionalist paradigms of 'plot' and 'characterisation' when you remove the crutches of 'motivation' and 'reason'. <br /><br />The result leads me to say that my opinion of him could not possibly get any higher.<br /><br />One and a half stars.<br /><br />P.S. Nothing in this movie makes any sense, the law enforcement agents are flat out unlikeable and the organised criminals are full on insane.
This bomb is just one 'explosion' after another, with no humor and only absurd situations. Really, pyrotechnics to the extreme. Reality is not one of its strong points. I give it a 1 out of 10. I would have made it a zero but that option wasn't permitted. Sorry, but Lithgow and Sutherland deserve better roles. But then at times we all need to have money. And I still recoil at that Tim Burton farce about Mars. Nicholson was brave enough to admit that was a turkey. But if that was a turkey, this movie then is not even a gizzard. I wish I could say, "give me back my money". You can bet I would if I could. But that is the trouble with premium services, the subscription variety.
I saw this movie years ago in a group tradition of Fast Forward Film Festivals, where we would set out to rent a bunch of B-movies and vote for who picked the worst.<br /><br />The night we watched this, it was voted the best, due to semblance of plot and fun costuming.<br /><br />This is certainly a silly, kitschy, movie, to be watched under the full understanding that you are watching low-budget fluff. Personally, however, I wouldn't recommend additional substances ... this movie will leave it's own mark on you.<br /><br />It made enough of an impression on me that I've actually been trying to get my hands on a copy for a few years.<br /><br />A good choice if you are setting out to watch bad movies. This one is fun, and I remember bouncy music ...
This film is horribly acted, written, directed and produced. But it's so campy it's actually semi-watchable. That's SEMI watchable.<br /><br />The storyline (what little there is) makes virtually no sense whatsoever. The Barney Drum character is the only real comic relief in the movie and that gets tired after about 30 seconds. <br /><br />Many of the Canadian supporting cast can be found in TV commercials.. None of them went on to anything else that I'm aware of. And of course Sly Stallone's even less talented brother well..... =\<br /><br />Trivia: It was filmed almost entirely in and around the little village of Claremont, Ont. (about 20 miles N.east of Toronto) I recognized many local landmarks/intersections/buildings. I think the Drive-in scene was filmed at the now demolished "Oshawa Drive-in" just before it was torn down.
To say this film stinks would be insulting to skunks. As the other commenter says, this movie is insulting to anyone over the mental age of 7 (it is especially, incredibly insulting to gays). It is awful - and not in a "so bad it's funny" sort of way either - it's just plain awful. No, I have to say it: IT STINKS! (sorry skunks).<br /><br />From the opening credits to the end titles there is hardly more than 10 seconds of this movie worth opening your eyes for. The "plot" is incoherent, the characterization non-existent, the acting is of the over the top mugging "look at me I'm being funny!" school and so it goes on. The set pieces are clumsily set up (if at all) and are badly executed, it's just awful on every front - apart from the music maybe, I don't remember thinking the music stinks (apart from the songs).<br /><br />To be fair to the makers, they lay their cards on the table pretty quickly: the opening credits include the title "Also starring Ertha Kitt as the voice of Betty the meteor" (since as the meteor in question turns out never never say anything but make an occasional purring noise they may well have lifted Ms. Kitt's contribution from one of her records) and the second line of the movie runs something like: "...and scientists have discovered new facts about the rings around Uranus." Uranus - "Your Anus" geddit? geddit? huh? huh?? Your Anus? The humour really is that cheap.<br /><br />It says strange things about the "comedies" of that period in that it was perfectly permissable for the hero to deliberately shoot people dead in the street but not say "sh*t" out loud.<br /><br />I paid fifty pence (about $1.00) for this movie in a sale. I feel ripped off.
Sly Stallone is hardly the finest actor in the world but compared to his brother, Frank...well, roll out those awards now! Mullet haired, muppet Frank seems to think that every part he plays, calls for him doing the role as an American/Italian Wise-guy refugee from the 'Godfather.' Please, somebody make him an acting offer 'he can refuse!' This film just stinks the place out, even by the terrible overacting in this, Frank still steals the acting dishonours. All the people compensate for their lack of talent by shouting their lines and throwing their arms about, gesticulating wildly in a style that went out of fashion back with silent films.<br /><br />The plot, what there, is, makes no sense as a meteor lands and turns all the women into sex-crazed nymphets but as this is 15 certificate film, that just means they strip to their underwear and make moaning sounds like dogs on heat. What happens in the end, I'm not quite sure as I was losing the will to live long before the film finished.<br /><br />Avoid this like the plague and watch 'Deep Impact' for a reasonable film about a meteor about to hit the earth.<br /><br />N.B. Point of order: when one of the female leads strips down to her underwear, she has her knickers/panties under her suspenders/garter belt, it's knickers over the suspenders to allow women to go to the toilet with less fuss. A trivial point, perhaps, but shows how dumb this film is when they can't even get this right!
102 Dalmatians (2000, Dir. Kevin Lima) <br /><br />Believed to be cured, Cruella de Vil (Close) is released from prison and sets out to make a new start in life. Things are going well for Cruella who is busy helping homeless dogs off the street. When the clock strikes on Big Ben, things turn bad. The hypnotic cure is reversed and Cruella is back, and this time she is determined to make that spotted coat she always wanted.<br /><br />Glenn Close reprises her role as Cruella de Vil and once again is the highlight of the film. Every scene with her in is worth watching in this dull sequel, which feels more of a repeat of the previous film, rather than a new story.<br /><br />She's Changed. – Ken Sheperd (Ioan Gruffudd)
I wouldn't bring a child under 8 to see this. With puppies dangling off of buildings squirming through dangerous machines and listening to Cruella's scary laugh to name a few of the events there is entirely too much suspense for a small child. <br /><br />The live action gives a more ominous feel than the cartoon version and there are quite a few disquieting moments including some guy that seems to be a transvestite, a lot of tense moments that will worry and may frighten small kids.<br /><br />I don't know what the Disney folks were thinking but neither the story nor the acting were of their usual level. The puppies are cute But this movie is spotty at best.
After seeing the 1996 remake, I thought it was the funniest way to see Cruella De Vil getting her punishment for torturing animals just for their skin. The whole movie was quite funny, and on my view, better than the animated one. But there was actually no need for a second one. First of all, if Cruela is returning, don't cure her and make her insane again. Just make her break away from jail and that's a rap. I thought it was not very funny. It's supposed to have only one original puppy returning. I'd expected that it should be Lucky, since he was the most appealing, and besides, having Roger and Anita back too. However, they decided to have a complete recasting and adding not really one hundred, not even one hundred and two, but only THREE puppies, and a parrot that thinks he's a dog (clever). Gerard Depardieu's part was pointless. At the end, Cruella suffers way too much, way too humiliating and way too exaggerated to be true. She gets baked inside a giant cake. That was a desperate attempt of physical humor, trying to imitate the same effect from the first one. That just didn't work. It was too much over the top, and not too funny. I actually felt sorry about Cruella.
It is a good film for kids who love dogs. It runs a bit slow early on but ends if a flurry of gooped up De Vil. The basic plot is the same as the first movie. The bright side of the movie for adults is the talking bird that thinks it is a dog. The bird talks like a human(Eric Idle of Monty Python) and barks like a dog. It is the comedy that the film needed more of. See it in the matinee so you don't have to pay full price or wait for it to appear on Disney.
...because this was simply awful. 101 Dalamatians was funny even if formulaic, but this is nothing more than puerile drivel. The same plot except with the story excised from it; the world's most intelligent and horribly annoying macaw; Tim McInnerny proving that he really can't do comedy (everone remembers Percy in Blackadder but that was his high spot - it's all been downhill since then); direction so poor that if a group of college students had made this you'd throw it in the bin and tell them to do it again - properly this time. Ieuan Grufford better go back to Hornblower sharpish, whilst Glenn Close and Gerard Diepardieu ought to go into hiding for several years.<br /><br />Perhaps I could be too harsh; after all I didn't manage to sit through the whole film. It gets 1/10; only because I can't give it 0.
This film was pure pain. Sitting in the theater for x-amount of minutes, I was wondering when the film was going to start. All the setups were in place; typical love story, characters have to overcome their short-givings, villain has to emerge, but none of it ever initiated. By the time these things happened, I was already bored stiff and the devices were completely ineffective. In scenes that required immense tension and buildup, it felt like necessary frames were cut. Kid's stuff does not have to be this way. Children's films can be as riveting and engaging as adult ones. The excuse, "hey , its for kids," is bull. I'll take "Sword in the Stone" any day. This was terrible. I'm getting the feeling that Disney will put out anything these days. And as for the kids, the 10-year I saw this with will agree...pure trash.
Remember the name Kevin Lime - and please, please never let<br /><br />him direct again. Timing, pacing, editing: all hopelessly wrong.<br /><br />Three or four decent professionals (next time, guys, walk off the<br /><br />set) can do nothing to save this film from amateurs like Alice<br /><br />Evans, and the kind of production standards you'd expect from<br /><br />teen-produced children's shows on british TV.<br /><br />Greatest mystery: the music. A score so inept, inappropriate and<br /><br />ill-matched to the tone of the film that one seriously wonders if it is<br /><br />a case of sabotage. Add an acoustic that booms apparently<br /><br />unengineered from a single mike, and a director who only<br /><br />intermittently remembers to add auditory action offscreen, and we<br /><br />have what must be on of the greatest ratio of money to result of<br /><br />recent years.
I don't know why, but for some sick reason, I think since I've been on the Disney sequel binge, I decided to just go ahead and see 102 Dalmations. The first movie that was a remake of the Disney cartoon classic starring Glenn Close as Cruella De Vil, it seemed like a sure hit, but it was just a bomb. I think the reason why these movies don't work is because 101 Dalmations, the original, was a cartoon, it just worked better and was more appealing to the kids as well as adults. This was not really that fun because it's adults running around trying to act like cartoons instead of just actual human beings, I understand they're trying to make sure that it's appealing to the kids, but it's ridicules to see the way these actors are behaving in the film. And 102 Dalmations's story isn't really that good.<br /><br />Cruella De Vil has been in prison for a while, but things change when she is proved that she now loves animals and is a pleasant human being. But her reputation is now damaged as a puppy-napper, but she buys a man's dog shelter and is all of a sudden is being loved by everyone and it looks like she's changed. But when she sees her probation officer's Dalmatians, she goes crazy and starts seeing spots, and she looses it. She's back for revenge on puppies and is still determined to get that Dalmation coat she's always wanted.<br /><br />Glenn Close is such an amazing actress, very under rated, but her taking on Cruella De Vil, she's good, but let's face it, this movie made the fun villain just more of a silly nut case. Also, as cute as the puppies were, it just works more for the animation, it sounds stupid, but it's just not as believable without the cartoon and their personalities being in the mix. I wouldn't really recommend 102 Dalmations, it's alright, but if you agree that the first movie was just a waste of time, this is just the same thing.<br /><br />2/10
A sequel to (actually a remake of) Disney's 1996 live-action remake of 101 Dalmations. Cruella deVil (Glenn Close) is released from prison after being "cured" of her obsession with fur by a psychologist named Dr. Pavlov (ugh!). But the "cure" is broken when Cruella hears the toll of Big Ben, and she once again goes on a mad quest to make herself the perfect coat out of dalmation hides.<br /><br />This movie is bad on so many levels, starting with the fact that it's a "Thanksgiving family schlock" movie designed to suck every last available dime out of the Disney marketing machine. Glenn Close over-over-over-over-acts as Cruella. With all that she had to put up with in this movie -- the lame script, the endless makeup, getting baked in a cake at the end -- I hope they gave her an extremely-large paycheck.<br /><br />(Speaking of which, where in the world are you going to find a fur coat factory, a bakery with a Rube Goldberg assembly line, and a candlelight restaurant all located within the same building -- as you do in the climax of this film?) Of course, the real stars of the movie are supposed to be the dogs. They serve as the "Macaulay Culkin's" of this movie, pulling all the stupid "Home Alone" gags on the villains. (Biting them in the crotch, running over their hands with luggage carts, squirting them with icing, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.) I have to admit, the dogs were fairly good actors -- much better than the humans.<br /><br />Gerard Depardieu is completely wasted in this movie as a freaked-out French furrier. The two human "dog lovers" -- rehashed from the earlier film, but with different actors -- are completely boring. When they have a spaghetti dinner at an Italian restaurant, the movie cuts back and forth between the two lovers, and their dogs at home, watching the dinner scene from "Lady and the Tramp." I thought to myself, "Oh please, don't go there!" I half-expected the humans to do a satire on the "Lady and the Tramp" dinner scene -- as Charlie Sheen did in "Hot Shots: Part Deux" -- doing the "spaghetti strand kiss," pushing the meatball with his nose, etc.<br /><br />And don't get me started on the annoying parrot with Eric Idle's voice.<br /><br />The costumes were nominated for an Oscar, and the costumes in the movie *are* good. But they are the only good thing in the movie. The rest of it is unbearable dreck.
This sequel is thoroughly uneven, incoherent and rambling in "plot" (if there really is one)and tries too damned hard to be modern (ridiculous, out of period and character 21 st century style songs predominate) and cute (yawn: there are too many manufactured, belaboured jokes with animals.) The actors in his film are secondary to the juvenile plot. Even Glenn Close (and she is normally very good) sweeps through this film, parodying herself as the original De Ville and the lead from Sunset Boulevard! It's a film that isn't even good to look at. This is a very good example of a bad and pointless sequel. Even Basic Instinct 2 had a plot, characterisation and acceptable acting. This doesn't. It is bad.
Only reason I have seen 101 Dalmatians was its nominations for original song and costume design for the Oscars. I must admit that I was less than impressed with this film. In this sequel, Cruella DeVil(by the way Glen Close pulls off this role very well) is released from the hospital due to her good behaviour. She likes all sort of animals and locks all her furs away. From that point, we only wait until she starts having crises. Soon enough, she does and tries to make the best coat of fashion world, of course for herself and from fine Dalmatian fur. Apart from Glen Close, I found all cast quite silly but from a child's eye funny. That is fair enough as its target market is, I assume, children under 12. Quite a good entertainment for children and families, but didn't do much for me. * out of *****
Conventional wisdom is that a sequel is seldom as good as the original movie. There are occasional exceptions, but this is NOT one of them. Disney should have quit while they were ahead. This was a real disappointment after a reasonably entertaining 101 Dalmatians.
102 DALMATIANS [Walt Disney]: I wasn't a fan of the previous installment and this effort has all the weaknesses of the first, a silly padded storyline, terrible over acting by Glenn Close, who hams up every scene as though she's playing for her own amusement, and incredibly borring and uninteresting lead actors. Once more the dogs are the only "actors" that seem "real" and thats a stretch. Another wasted effort here. GRADE: D
This movie provided NOTHING new or worthwhile. After seeing it, my wife and I both agreed that the studio simply churned this out and could have cared less if it was entertaining. This is a good example of a "concept only" film--they have a concept about a film and the other details are unimportant because execs KNOW it will make $$ just based on the initial concept.<br /><br />The movie starts with Cruella getting out of prison and going on parole. She no longer hates puppies but has been programmed to adore them--she simply couldn't hurt a flea. This doesn't last too long after her release and she's back to her old ways. Period.<br /><br />The most annoying aspects of the movie were the supporting characters. Eric Idle as the voice of Waddlesworth the bird made me HATE him--and that is TOUGH considering I am a die-hard Python fan. It was obvious he did this because they gave him lots of money (there can't be any other reason). Cruella's low self-esteem servant, Tim McInnerny, was funny in the Black Adder shows but here he is totally wasted and unfunny. And it must have cost a few bucks to get Gérard Depardieu but he was utterly wasted as well. There were some other supporting actors as well but given how poorly written the characters were, I am trying to block them out of my mind.<br /><br />Overall, you'd be better just to let your kids watch television than bother letting them see this drivel.
My 10-year-old daughter, Alexandra, writes:<br /><br />I thought it was very boring, and I thought it was just a repeat of stuff from "101 Dalmatians." I couldn't wait for the movie to end. The best part was the credits at the beginning - they were cute and well done. The rest of the film is not worth watching. Thank you.
I watched the film recently and it poorly resembles the book is based on. I blame this on poor screenplay and direction. Some parts were forcibly introduced (the gay rape scene) for no apparent reason. I actually read the book after watching the movie and some 20 years or so after reading it for the first time. I found it hard to read and somewhat clumsy. Too many disparate ideas introduced for no benefit at all... other than sensational parts for the time. As it covers stuff that was deemed 'sensitive', to say the least, during communism, I can see the fascination it produced at the time. That isn't the case anymore though or maybe I see things differently now or a bit of both. The film tries too much to cover many aspects from the book, the result being a concoction of scenes that may make some sense to someone who read the book. Even so this is a film that is difficult to watch and maybe should have never been made.
Drew Barrymore plays young Holly Gooding, who moves in with aspiring hack screenwriter Patrick Highsmith (George Newbern) and completely disrupts his life by claiming that her "doppelganger", or evil twin, is out to kill her and her family.<br /><br />This silly horror film is kind of hard to take seriously, even if the film-makers and actors themselves seem to be dead serious. "Doppelganger" is muddled, with some unpleasantly dumb dialog.<br /><br />Some viewers will note that Drew's character's name is drawn from Audrey Hepburn's role in "Breakfast at Tiffany's", and that Newbern's character's name is a play on the name of famed author Patricia Highsmith (he is actually trying to re-write "Breakfast" as a horror film, believe it or not!).<br /><br />I suppose that it deserves some credit for not being quite your typical horror film - I mean, writer/director Avi Nesher seems to genuinely care for his characters, and gives his film more plot than standard slasher fare.<br /><br />After a silly villain-explains-everything-to-the-audience confrontation, the film goes on to submit a hideous, out-there climax that has to be seen to be believed. This film certainly does not skimp on the gore.<br /><br />But hey! Drew kills her mother in this one. No, I'm not joking. Jaid Barrymore shows up near the beginning only to get violently slaughtered.<br /><br />Drew is always very watchable, and very sexy in this one. Newbern comes off as a likable-enough, "nice" sort of guy. But the highpoint of the film has to be the scene with Sally Kellerman, an attractive veteran who's very professional in her one scene as a former nun who's started a phone sex business(!!!!!!).<br /><br />The film is basically junk but fairly amusing on a sleazy, sordid little level.<br /><br />4/10
Although I recently put this on my 10 worst films list, I have to say it's probably no worse than Burt Reynolds in "The Maddening" or any of the "Look Who's Talking" sequels. Still, it's pretty nauseating, even with sexy Drew Barrymore playing something of a horror-movie answer to Holly Golightly, relocating from New York City to Los Angeles but finding out she's being stalked by a murderous look-alike. Poor Sally Kellerman, a quirky actress of great acclaim in the '70s, is reduced here to a paltry supporting role, and Barrymore's leading man George Newbern is the worst type of sitcom actor, always pausing for a laugh after every line. The picture is swill, but Drew's bloody shower scene boasts showmanship, and the identity of the psycho (although right out of a "Scooby Doo" episode) is interesting. But as for the finale...get real! Who had to clean up THAT mess? * from ****
Doppelganger has its moments, but they are few and far between.<br /><br />Essentially, this is a grade B blend of pop-psych thriller, ghost story and horror. Drew Barrymore plays a young woman who is haunted by the demons of her past (most of her family has been murdered and she was, in at least one case, the prime suspect), or does she just have a really bad case of multiple personality disorder? George Newbern is her new room mate, and most of the action centers on him.<br /><br />Newbern's character is pretty sympathetic, and both he and Barrymore do decent work (though not exactly good). The mediocre to (at times) totally horrendous script and the unimpressive directing seem to have combined to sink the rest of the performances into oblivion. Leslie Hope's character is memorable, but so irritating that you will want to forget her.<br /><br />The plot eventually disintegrates into a bifurcated (one story arc is psychological realism, the other is supernatural horror) outlandish climax which is so badly conceived, acted and photographed that it effectively counteracts most of what value the film had achieved previously.<br /><br />Overall, the film has the feel of what might expect to be the result of M. Knight Shamalyan's first undergraduate film class. The acting and script for the two leads are just good enough to make you care a little about them - at least until the film derails utterly and completely.<br /><br />My recommendation - send your doppelganger, but avoid a first-person encounter.
I was interested in the topic, and only fans of Drew Barrymore's dancing on David Letterman's desk will find anything remotely interesting in it. OK, she shows some breast (or maybe a body double does). The plot is slashed to bits and the acting is horrible. Neither lead has any material to work with, as the direction of the film leads nowhere. Don't waste your time. See Donnie Darko instead if you want a creepy Drew Barrymore film, and if you want to see another, skip this and see Darko again.<br /><br />The treatment of the Doppelganger legend is absolutely criminal as well. Refer to Charles Williams' novel "Descent Into Hell" for something worth considering instead. This is just an excuse to make a B film to go straight to video and suck some life out of people at Blockbuster.<br /><br />What makes any of these people think the acting here was praiseworthy? Give me a break.
Drew Barrymore keeps seeing her alter-ego all over town and it's really starting to become a pain in the butt.<br /><br />After Dee rents a flat from a hack writer, her encounters with 'the other Drew' become more frequent. Writer-dude feels that it's his responsibility to snap 'the real Drew' out of her stupor, so he does what he can to help including seducing her as soon as he has some free time. Not very interesting, and even less scary, but Drew is sexy as usual, especially when she gives a group of rude construction workers the finger... yeah Drew, that's hot! <br /><br />Best scene just might be where Drew stabs her real-life Mom, Jaid, with a big kitchen knife... hmmm... and how was your day?
I have just watched the movie for the first time. I wanted to watch it as I like Drew Barrymore and wanted to see one of her early movies. <br /><br />The movie is about a girl (played by young and beautiful Drew Barrymore), who moves from NYC to LA in order to get over her recently troubled loss. Short after moving to a guy who falls in love with her, it becomes obvious that she has an evil twin=doppelganger, who haunts her.<br /><br />The movie is quite poor and lousy. Both the dialogs and the acting make the film not really worth seeing it. Summing up it is just something for the fans of Drew Barrymore.
Here we have a movie which fails in pretty much every way it is possible for a movie to fail. Terrible script, lousy acting, amateurish directing, laughable special effects...it's just an utterly awful movie. Not to mention the fact that when you get to the end you'll realize the whole thing doesn't make a lick of sense. After spending the whole movie wondering what in the world is going on here when things are finally explained you realize the story has been built on a foundation which is ludicrously impossible. In one of those hideous "villain explains the whole movie" sequences we are told that our villain has done something which quite simply can't be done and which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Oh, and after that we see that there also appears to be some kind of jell-o monster involved. I'm sure Drew Barrymore would very much like to pretend this movie never happened. If for some ungodly reason you are ever tempted to sit down and watch this movie may I suggest instead taking that time to bang your head against a wall for 104 minutes. That would prove to be a much more pleasurable experience than sitting through this garbage.
I got the DVD very cheap and I'm a total Drewbie, and thats probably the only constellation where this movie could ever interest anyone.<br /><br />An early Drew movie, she's looking great, and she gets a quite lot of really cute scenes of her, like a shower scene, a sexy dance scene, quite a number of sexy outfits etc. She does never show the friendly charm we know from her more recent movies.<br /><br />The movie itself is pretty average or sub-average, and much more looking like being made for the TV than one for the cinema. There is no real horror or tension built up and the dialogs are often cheesy.<br /><br />The most interesting part is probably the end because I honestly don't understand it. But maybe there is nothing to understand about it anyway. But at least you don't get the end you would be expecting, and it also comes much sooner than one would have expected.<br /><br />Overall I think this movie is exclusively for Drewbies.
Even in a bad film, there is usually some redeeming feature, something that you can say yes it was terrible, but there was that performance, or that part of the script, or that special effect, this was just simply terrible all over. The acting was laughable, the script terrible, complete with many inexplicable Breakfast at Tiffany's references, and even the special effects were shoddy at best. This was a very bad film and one that even Drew Barrymore wishes was expunged from history. Watch it if you want to: a) Suffer harsh self inflicted pain. b) See just how bad a film can be. This is one film where I can use the cliché "there's ninety minutes of my life I will never get back" with some justification!
Drew Barrymore is an actress that has gone through bad periods, not only in her career, but in her personal life too. After being a prodigy child actress she descended into obscurity with mediocre films of low quality. While she has recovered from that dark past, this movie stays as a reminder of Drew Barrymore's worst days.<br /><br />The movie starts with an interesting premise, very reminiscent to Brian De Palma's "Raising Cain"; with a plot dealing with multiple personality disorder that sets the story for a horror/thriller. Barrymore stars as Holly Gooding, a young woman who is trying to make a new life in California after a traumatic event of her past in which apparently her other personality killed her mother.<br /><br />Suddenly, her past returns to haunt her as her evil personality is back in her life willing to ruin her new found peace and her new found love. In the middle of the chaos his new boyfriend, Patrick Highsmith (George Newbern), will try to help Holly to face the demons of her past.<br /><br />Unlike De Palma's underrated thriller, "Doppelganger" is for the most part a mediocre film that not only never fulfills it's purpose, it also concludes in one of the worst endings of movie history. While Barrymore is definitely not at her best, she manages to keep her dignity with an above average performance. The rest of the cast however range from mediocre to painfully bad over-the-top performances, although Leslie Hope manages to be among the best of them.<br /><br />The script is full of clichés and De Palma's influence is quite obvious. While the movie tries to be original by making literary references in almost every line, the dialogs are dull and the wooden acting certainly doesn't do any good. It has a fair share of nudity and for strange reasons, and excessive use of special effects.<br /><br />The make-up effects are done by the outstanding KNB and are really among the few good things in the movie. However, the bizarre over-use of the effects in the totally out of context ending decreases the impact of KNB's work and makes cheesy what in a different movie would be amazing.<br /><br />The fact that this is a B-Movie is no excuse for it's low quality, as with a better and more coherent script this could had been an interesting movie. Sadly, all we have here is a mediocre film that gets worse every second. Worthy for Barrymore's beauty. 3/10
Dear God! I kept waiting for this movie to "get started"... then I waited for it to redeem itself... and when it did neither, I just sat there, dumbfounded that: 1) it could possibly be this bad, and 2) that I had just wasted a couple of hours on just sheer stupidity. I had faith that Drew couldn't possibly have made this bad of a movie... and boy, did I ever lose my faith! Don't bother with this one! Drew tried, but the movie was poorly written, poorly acted, and just poorly conceived! I can't believe a script this bad ever got funded! It had a million chances to actually do something with the idea, (the word "concept" is too big for this movie to even qualify for!) and it STILL didn't go anyplace! Its just pitiful! Where the other reviewer got the idea that it wasn't the worst, baffles me! Because believe me, if it got any worse I'd have slit my wrists before finishing it!
Are you kidding that was AWFUL!!! <br /><br />But that notwithstanding I got given this film and 3 others and they were all on DVD. The film starts of pretty much an OK movie but goes downhill from about the middle onwards.<br /><br />And the ending well let's just say it was one of the most anti climatic endings in recent film history. Lots of gore in the end sequence and if you like a dose of schlock horror then this is the film for you....<br /><br />3/10
Although it's an R rated movie, I really doubt that you'll really enjoy it unless you're a teenager<br /><br />Why? Because there's no real plot, no character development,no funny jokes. <br /><br />The only thing that this movie has plenty of is nudity. Tons and tons of naked or almost naked chicks (pretty nice ones I might add) to feast your eyes on.<br /><br />I really can't understand why this movie has the American Pie title since it's only a bad combination between an erotic movie and a comedy without succeeding in being either of them.<br /><br />My suggestion is to watch this movie only if you want to see some naked chicks, but you're too shy to rent/buy an erotic movie. <br /><br />Gave it 1/10 for the 2 smiles i had in the entire movie and another 2/10 for the nice chicks
American Pie: Beta House is sort of in limbo between genres. On the one hand, it's a comedy with no plot and few genuinely clever jokes. On the other hand, it's porno that's a tad too soft-core to actually turn on any viewers. Essentially Beta House is a collage of sex scenes - some humiliating, others just lame attempts at humor - with a couple thin plot points thrown in an effort at cohesiveness. The characters are barely even two-dimensional, most development relies on knowledge of Naked Mile, and the "important" plot scenes are so far apart that you wonder why the writers even felt the need for a story.<br /><br />In all fairness, I did not go into this movie without expectations. I liked the original three American Pie movies, and thought Band Camp and Naked Mile were solid rentals. I thought Naked Mile was almost good enough to be released in theaters, and so when I saw that some of the same characters were returning for Beta House, I was excited to see this installment. I was aware that there would be numerous scenes of debauchery and sexual humiliation in multiple forms. And I was fine with it, because in the past, these scenes were backed by the story and were well integrated into the plot. In Beta House, however, it's almost as if the writers forgot why the formula in the other AP movies worked. They spent too much energy working in the nudity that they forgot to actually write a story.<br /><br />This movie is a disappointment and not even worth a one-dollar rental. The jokes are lame, the story is non-existent, and the porno-aspect is too tame if that's all you really care about seeing.
Stifler, has finished running his naked mile and is now attending Beta House. Crazy stuff happens, people run around naked and nerds are made fun of and this series is dead in the water. The Naked Mile was a crap film, but I found it to be significantly better then Band Camp. It seems they've gone back to what didn't work for them and it shows that they don't care either. You can tell where the target audience is and they nailed it perfectly. Young teenage boys who like to see naked women, crude humour and beer drinking will love Beta House, everyone else can pretty much look away.<br /><br />Star Wars became a massive success that stunned audiences with it's ahead of its time special effects. Lord of the Rings created an entire world of mythical creatures and massive battles that dazzled the eye. The Matrix changed the way action and sci/fi films were made, specifically with the cutting edge special effects. With all the advancement in technology, we eagerly await the next big thing that will have our jaws dropped to the floor. Then comes American Pie: Beta House, which pushes the boundaries of what technology can do. When people have created spaceships, landscapes and creatures using CGI, Beta House decides to use this technology to create semen. Yes, the thing that creates life, the thing you see so many times in pornography films is created and time slows down to show us the white residue shoot across the room onto a teddy bear. Is this funny? Disgusting? Neither? Beta House shows more nudity then The Naked Mile, which is surprising considering the previous installments title. Does the film need it? Of course not, does it ever advance the plot, does it ever? Does it ever get a laugh? Does it ever get young boys aroused? Yes the women are beautiful, but if I am the one who thinks there is too much nudity then you might as well just have made a porno.<br /><br />The female who catches the affections of our main character is pretty and doesn't annoy the viewer, like previous girls have done in the series, but not once did I ever believe this character would ever do what she does. I'm pretty sure every action from the characters in this film are far from realistic. The American Pie series has fallen from a realm of reality into a fantasy world. None of the events in this film would ever happen, if they ever did then I need to attend this school IMMEDIATELY. Is this film suppose to make people feel like they are having a good time? Well it doesn't, we are watching them have a good time, by the end of the film we hate them for all the fun they are having.<br /><br />There is a "Deer Hunter" scene in the film, but to make it "funny" for today's audience they decided to substitute bullets wit horse semen. Are you laughing yet? Instead of shooting themselves with said semen in the head, or face, they place the gun in their mouths. Are you on the floor laughing yet? The first time we are introduced to Stifler's roommate, he's having sex with his girlfriend. Are you cheering at the nudity yet? The film at first seems like it will be about the boys trying to get into the frat house, but then it shifts to them already being in the frat house, but needing to perform certain tasks. Then it shifts to a competition between nerds and the boys. It goes a little "Revenge of the Nerds" on us for a bit and it seems out of place. I honestly do not know what these film is about because it goes all over the place.<br /><br />Most of the comedy seems forced for shock value. Even at the beginning with the Dad showing his son the list of people he has had sex with. The joke is in there somewhere, I think it might be the fact that his wife is not the last name on the list, or it could have been that one of his son's friend's mother was on the list. Either one, it doesn't work.<br /><br />I guess if you haven't guessed it yet, this film is not funny. Nor does it seem to be focused, the story is pathetic and the so called crude humour that the series has been known for doesn't shock. Skip this lame installment and any future ones as well. I do not know why I have seen all the entries in the series, but for some unknown reason they seem to have found their way to my eyes.
For starters, I would like to say that I'm a fan of the American Pie series. Even though 'the naked mile' and this one are the two worst, this one seems to be the downfall of the whole series.<br /><br />First of all, the best part of the film was that it was an American Pie film, which is always appreciated.<br /><br />However, there are tonnes of bad things to say about this film. First of all, the story has a very stale 'arc' structure. First, there is the introduction of the characters, then the pledging of the beta house and finally the Greek Olympiad. Each of which has exactly 25 minutes of length. Apart from the general staleness of the plot, there is little to no character development, which makes a double whammy of a bad plot.<br /><br />Apart from that, I deeply disliked the stereotyping in this film. That is, showing the jocks as the extremely cool, only-thinking-about-sex guys, and explicitly displaying the geeks as inferior. Also, it shows females only as sexual objects, and males as only wanting to treat the females as sexual objects.<br /><br />Apart from that, the acting was also poor. With perhaps the exception of Steve Talley.<br /><br />So, in the end, a generally horrid film, if seen from a critical point of view. If seen from a teen point of view, I guess that it's better, but this film is rated 18+ in most countries, so it shouldn't really be seen by minors.
American Pie has gone a long distance from the first. At first i believe the actors don't have a clue what their doing and instead it's just a remake of a college party gone nuts. Story sets out as two freshman college guys (featuring the young stifler) setting out the dreams of attending college just to experience the late night parties, sex and of course the booze. The plot is stupid and comes along way away from the original pie. In fact they didn't once again feature an apple pie somewhere in the film.<br /><br />Luckily i work in a video store and can rent for free. But please remember it is a waste of time unless you enjoy brainless sex films with absolute nudity and insane drinking. I'm a teen myself and i believe even Evan almighty would've been a better choice instead.
For those with little time on their hands, I'll sum it up quickly, in one word...pathetic. There are a lot of good examples as to why this movie fits perfectly under that description. So much so that you can barely go through 2 minutes of screen time without seeing something completely stupid and pointless forced upon you. Want a fully naked woman in the first 10 minutes? You got it! The reason she appears is so pointless though that it really sets the tone for the rest of this piece of juvenile crap. You can almost glimpse into the deluded minds of the 12 year old boys that wrote this piece of garbage just by watching this crap that they expect the public to actually pay for!!??!!! <br /><br />I've watched many a movie franchise decline over the years, but American Pie;Beta House has to be one of the worst offenders when you consider that despite the average nature of the original movie, it's still a thousand times funnier than this dreck.<br /><br />The plot is predictable, and sometimes you actually feel like you're watching a school play. The things that happen in this movie are so unrealistic that it takes a lot of suspension of disbelief to actually watch it (we're talking Star Wars levels of suspension, like the kind you need to convince yourself Jar Jar is real)<br /><br />The plot is paper thin and mostly the events that transpire are only there to show another pair of breasts or set up yet another pathetic joke. There is no acting talent to speak of, all you get is a bunch of pretty boys trying to make us laugh. And ohhh how they fail!!!! Every gag falls flat and the only thing I laughed at was how socially unaware the scriptwriters appear to be. How else can you explain the bulls**t they try to pass off as a story?<br /><br />They pass up every opportunity to do something worthwhile and entertaining in favour of badly written, lowest common denominator nonsense. The characters have to complete a set number of tasks before they are accepted as members of Beta House, but this is dealt with mostly by a series of very brief montages that imply that they are completing the tasks but we see little to no evidence of it actually happening. Its a very lazy way of telling a story. It also misses opportunities to be funny in doing so.(Imagine say The Wizard of Oz where all the important events happened offscreen instead of on it, and all we see is Dorothy high-fiving the Scarecrow every now and again and saying "Gee that sure was a great adventure we just had back then") Lazy. Lazy. LAZY!!!!<br /><br />The female characters have little or nothing to say. All they do is get naked for no apparent reason and are used as visual props through most of the movie. You braindeads that only seek T&A will not be disappointed, but for that reason alone shame on you. If you buy this on DVD you will be contributing to the downfall of society in your own special way. Congratulations.
Band Camp was awful, The Naked Mile was a little better, and this third straight to DVD in the American Pie franchise seems the same quality as the predecessor. Basically Erik Stifler (John White) split from his girlfriend after losing his virginity, and now him and Mike 'Cooze' Coozeman (Jake Siegel) are joining Erik's cousin Dwight (Steve Talley) at college. With the promise of many parties, plenty of booze, and enough hot chicks at the Beta House, they only have fifty listed tasks to carry out to become official privileged members. But a threat comes into sight with the rivals, GEK ("Geek") House, led by power-hungry nerd (and sheep shagger) Edgar (Tyrone Savage) offering bigger and better than what Beta have. To settle it once and for all, Beta and Gek go into battle with the banned, for forty years, Greek Games to beat each other in, with the loser moving out. The last champion of the games, Noah Levenstein aka Jim's Dad (the only regular Eugene Levy) runs the show, which sees the people unhooking bras, a gladiator duel floating on water, catching a greased pig, Russian Roulette in the mouth with cartridges of aged horse spunk, wife carrying and drinking a full keg of alcohol (with puking not disqualifying). It all comes to the sudden death, with a guy getting stripper lap dancing, and they have to resist cumming, Beta House win when Edgar cums with a girl dressed as a sheep on his lap. Also starring Flubber's Christopher McDonald as Mr. Stifler, Meghan Heffern as Ashley, Dan Petronijevic as Bull, Nic Nac as Bobby, Christine Barger as Margie, Italia Ricci as Laura Johnson, Moshana Halbert as Sara Coleman, Sarah Power as Denise, Andreja Punkris as Stacy and Jordan Prentice as Rock. The nudity amount is very slightly increased, as is the grossness of the jokes, and I could guess it being rated one star out of five, but I like it. Adequate!
OK so there's nudity, but hey, there's free porn on the internet for whomever likes it. And its just silly how they forced tits into every frame. I mean i was embarrassed, not from the nudity but from the far-fetchessness of the producers/writers of this piece of crap.<br /><br />The movie is NOT funny at all, its just extremely predictable all the time. There is no plot, no dramatic content at all. This is way waay worse then the other pie-films and they arnt that great either:) If you're really drunk or maybe a 13 year old buy who are really obsessed with tits this might be acceptable, otherwise not. <br /><br />May it forever roth align with crap of the same magnitude with regards Erik the questmaster flash MC
Let's cut to the chase: this movie is softcore pornography marketed for the masses under a name that the studio is milking every last penny out of the American Pie teat. Period.<br /><br />The whole plot (and that shouldn't imply that there's a whole lot to go around) serves as a vehicle to show the audience more boobs and sex scenes.<br /><br />If you're a Tween guy, and you're too squeamish to purchase actual pornography, then this is the movie for you. Otherwise, the movie doesn't have much to offer at all.<br /><br />The acting is sub-par, the character development is virtually non-existent, and the story is a nonsensical knarl of nudity, binge drinking and pranks (none of which are particularly memorable).<br /><br />Go buy real porn if that's what you want to see, and if not, go watch a GOOD movie. Animal House, Kids, or even the original American Pie are all great cinematic works, and all of them contain heavy alcohol use and nudity.<br /><br />"It's not how much, it's how you use it"
This was the worst film i have seen for a long time. <br /><br />Not only that it has nearly nothing to do with the other American Pie movies, the story is obvious, flat and absolutely not funny. <br /><br />The girls are nice though, but spending your time watching a cheap soft porno would possibly be greater than watching this film.<br /><br />This film seems to be a very bad made sex ad, made for an audience that is not older than 12.<br /><br />I never visited an American college, but i would seriously doubt that anyone who did could really laugh about any of the scenes.<br /><br />Save your time, do something else.
So, American Pie: Beta House is the 6th American Pie movie in the series. Although, it really has nothing to do with the original three American Pie movies except some of the characters are supposed to be related to the characters in the original trilogy and Eugene Levy is in it (can't that guy get better gigs?).<br /><br />There is very little to compliment this movie on. There aren't any funny jokes. The acting is painful to watch, especially the girl with the "southern" accent which sounds more like a Canadian's impersonation of a British woman pretending to be a hillbilly by using the word "ya'll." This movie makes me feel like such an idiot. Why didn't I apply to a college where nobody goes to class (but everybody gets good grades), girls consistently take their clothes off in public, everybody has promiscuous unprotected sex without the burden of babies and STIs, and you can ejaculate all over a girl's family photos without her minding? Really, this series has lowered itself to the standards of softcore porn. Maybe for the next one, they'll finally break down and hire Ron Jeremy as the lead. I'm sure they can just tie it in to the series by making his character Stifler's 3rd uncle once removed or something like that.
Another American Pie movie has been shoved down our throats and this one is the worst one of them all. It doesn't deserve the name American Pie. They should have stopped at "The Wedding".<br /><br />This movie feels like just a stupid porn movie which they slapped the title American Pie on. When i was watching this i felt like i was watching a different series. It doesn't fell like American Pie at all. It has different humor and it is much more rude and has many more sex scenes then the other American Pie movies.<br /><br />I don't recommend it ever. Actually i don't recommend any of the "American Pie Presents" movies. Just stick with the nice original trilogy.<br /><br />2/10
Just finished watching American Pie: Beta House and I gotta say, this was such a garbage pile of crap. The first 3 American Pies were hilarious, the last 3 were a joke and should not have been called American Pie.<br /><br />As you figured out from the title of the movie, Beta House, is about a fraternity, freshmen, girls and, the most original part of them all, falling in love. Of course, the guy that has his way with the chicks is Stifler, who, along with his mates, tries to complete another apparently impossible task. It was unrealistic and super fake. Its just really predictable and the plot is so weak. Both sides of the college battle to see who gets the whole thing (something like that) To sum it up: awful acting + dull script + wrong use of the American Pie franchise = total waste of time! This movie is unbearable. I give it a two out of ten, although most of it sucked there were lots of nudity and pretty girls, like 2 funny scenes :)
First off to get my own personal feelings out of the way let me start by saying that I hate so called comedies where every single character is written and played as being so stupid that you wounder if they're all the result of inbreeding.<br /><br />Now I will say this I did see the first three American Pie movies and while they weren't the most amazing movies that I'd ever seen they were all right (and outright masterpieces compared to the three "American Pie Presents" films), I still feel compelled to ask what the hell were they thinking when they made this movie?<br /><br />I also have a few other questions too.<br /><br />Who thought that this was an acceptable use of studio funds and production resources? <br /><br />who approved the final script (and what was that person smoking when they approved it)? <br /><br />And lastly why did anyone think that it deserved to be released into theaters where the average cost of admission is between 10 and 15 dollars depending on where you live when it should have gone straight to the discount bin at Blockbuster or Wal Mart?<br /><br />There is so much wrong with this movie that I can't write a really comprehensive review of it because it would exceed the maximum allowed words on this forum so I'll just touch on the biggest things wrong with it.<br /><br />The plot is generic uninspired and stupid and characters are all about as interesting as watching paint dry for eighty minutes but the biggest thing that I can see wrong with this movie is the acting.<br /><br />While most of the cast are talentless no namers who will probably be forgotten in a few years,<br /><br />the one and only big name in this movie is Eugene Levy who spends almost all of the time he is on screen with this knowing smirk on his face that says to the viewer "I know this isn't funny and I'm wasting my talents but hey I'm getting payed for it so who cares" he doesn't even try to make any of his jokes funny (he really deserves better than this garbage). <br /><br />As I mentioned above most of the rest of the cast are horrible even though some of them have been in some really great TV shows, Tyrone Savage (from the classic Canadian series Wind At My Back) plays a character who is so unbearable unlikeable and irritating (there are things that he could teach to tropical skin diseases)that you almost wish he'd die a slow and painful death on screen, Christopher McDonald (NCIS, Law & Order) just hangs around on screen and wastes what talent he does have by being in this film.<br /><br />Maybe the next film in this series will just be a soft core porn with a story line so they can get around the MPAA and get an R rating this movie goes all out with pointless nudity vulgarity and pointlessly offencive sexual content that it should have gotten the X rating (the ratings board must have been drunk or on drugs when they reviewed this film for its rating). <br /><br />It's interesting that twenty five years ago when Wes Craven submitted A Nightmare On Elm Street to the MPAA for a rating review they forced him to cut twenty five seconds of footage (I believe that it was part of a death scene that had a silicone casting of a breast in it) to avoid getting an X rating and he had no other choice but to do it or the film wouldn't have been released, <br /><br />but this kind of needlessly offensive trash can get the R rating today because it's all done in the name of comedy, if this movie was a drama or horror film with this kind of content there would have been a huge stink over the content and it would havegotten the dreaded X rating.<br /><br />The last thing that really annoys me is the writing, this movie is written to play out like the wet dream of some twelve year old kid with an extremely overactive sexual imagination its quite juvenile and extraordinarily crass, nearly every expository situation that is supposed to move the corpse that this movie calls a plot along is so telegraphed that any intelligent viewer can see it coming a mile away and and the so called characters are just stereotypes of stereotypes of stereotypes, never mind the often repulsive sexual references and constant unnecessary scenes of deviant sexual behavior it feels like this film was written by some incompetent first year hack in a low rent film school script writing class.<br /><br />the long and short of it is its time to kill this series before it gets any stupider more crass and offensive, this pie is filled with road apples.
well its official. they have just killed American Pie. The first 3 were absolutely hysterical, but this one and the others have been awful. I mean the story is about two college fraternity's who battle each other for its houses, I mean come on talk about a weak plot, the first three dealt with growing up, change and marriage, which are all worthy points of development in human society.<br /><br />The new Stifler is the biggest joke, I know its hard trying to compare yourself with the Steven Stifler but so no cigar. I give this movie a 3 because there is 2-3 funny bits in the film.<br /><br />The best character in this movie of course is Jim's dad i don't know why he keeps continuing to do these poorly developed films.
I have to say that I used to be a huge fan of the series. The first 3 were great and the others had their moments, but this new BETA HOUSE is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It is a shame since this was a great series and it just keeps getting worse. I know they are made for DVD films but some effort would be nice.<br /><br />There are no laughs, just a couple of good one-liners that will bring a smile if that. There is pretty of nudity and very hot chicks. But neither the sexy stuff nor the jokes really work.<br /><br />To add to all that this is a RACIST film too or as racist of a film one can make without asking to be called racist. I am NOT one of those people who think everything should be politically correct. But the portrayal of minorities is very offensive.<br /><br />I wouldn't waste any time on this garbage. See the previous versions, they will make you laugh not sick.
To summarize this movie: Without a real plot, this movie consists of 80 minutes of deranged characters either drinking or making bad jokes. The music is just awful, the humor isn't funny and all the female characters slutty idiots or total geeks. It seems to me, that the movie has actually been written by a 14 year old boy, who thinks that drinking is cool, women are designed to please men and all that oppose that view are geeks. Also, the movie has nothing to do with the original American Pie movies, other than a few names and Mr. Levenstein who is a minor character in this one. The only good thing about this movie are the nice looking girls. Don't watch this movie and don't be fooled by the 5.4 rating, because it obviously overrated and doesn't deserve anything above 2.
This story had a different angle that intrigued me, enough to buy a previously-viewed VHS sight-unseen. That was a mistake.<br /><br />In what could have been a very nice story - about badly crippled people at a hospital, and their various personalities - turned quickly into a very profane soap opera with unlikeable characters.<br /><br />We have "Bloss" (William Forsythe) the stereotype racist white person, who says the f-word every other sentence and is so despicable they didn't give him a first name in the movie. He's a lot of fun to be around. Then, there is "Raymond Hill" (Wesley Snipes), a fast-talking womanizer. Snipes must have liked those fast-talking "hip" arrogant roles because he played in a number of them, like in "White Men Can't Jump." Then there is sweet Helen Hunt playing "Anna" that wonderful caring, loving person who is having an adulterous affair with the leading character in the film, "Joel Garcia" (Eric Stoltz).<br /><br />Yup, this is heartwarming, feel-good type stuff. It just makes my heart melt watching these nice folks. But, if you are one of those who loves sleazy characters portrayed by sleazy people in this sleazy film.....you might really like this! Add in a dose of Hollywood political correctness and there you go! What more could anyone want?
THE WATERDANCE (1991) The main character of The Waterdance, played by Eric Stoltz, finds himself in a rehab center with some others similarly injured. And there he must face an harsh new life, confined to a wheelchair. It's an interesting, and promising premise, but unfortunately, it fails to deploy. What ensues instead is largely Hollywood schmaltz, with some interesting moments. Certainly the cast (Eric Stoltz, William Forsythe, Wesley Snipes, et al) is brilliant, and perform well here as one would expect, but their talents are wasted. The characters are mainly stereotypes of one kind or another, and most of them are thoroughly unlikeable (the Snipes character being the exception). I suppose this is some kind of attempt to break through people's ideas about the handicapped being "crippled" or "weak", by depicting them, for the most part, as in-your-face pricks, but it makes for an entirely annoying experience. Admittedly it will show you something of what those with permanent disabilities go through, in a way that is not softened or romanticized, which is useful, and a good idea, but while the process being depicted can make one a difficult person to get along with, and that's worth dealing with, it is not part and parcel to that that these characters must be, to varying degrees, despicable. They wouldn't have to be Disneyfied, either; surely there's a middle ground somewhere. By the film's conclusion, the Eric Stoltz character has come to accept his status as a handicapped person, but since he is such a flaming narcissistic monster from the beginning of the film to the end, we couldn't care less. <br /><br />In addition to its character problems, the film suffers from that weird syndrome that so many Hollywood movies suffer from; the syndrome doesn't really have an official name, but you might call it "Inexplicable Forgiveness Syndrome". It goes something like this: characters abuse the crap out of each other, and then without so much as an apology, all is forgiven (an especially obnoxious example of this is in the movie The Breakfast Club, in which one character spends most of the film verbally bullying everybody within earshot; as a result…they love him. In one of the the latest examples, Spiderman 3, supervillain The Sandman lays waste to a chunk of Manhattan, then wails on Spiderman for what seems like about 15 monotonous minutes before being waved off with what amounts to "bye, now"). The most egregious example of IFS in The Waterdance is a sequence in which, after being called the n-word by William Forsythe's racist biker character and his friends in the previous scene, the Wesley Snipes character whoops it up with the same Forsythe character in the next scene, as if nothing had just happened just a short time hence. Again, without so much as an "Oh yeah, sorry about that business back there where I, you know, called you the n-word". It makes me wonder, do these people actually watch these movies before they release them, or do they just film them with their eyes closed, kind of slap them together in the editing room according to scene number, and call it a day's work?
This really doesn't match up to Castle of Cagliostro. Lupin isn't as funny or wacky or as hyperactive. The scenery and music are uninspired and plot just isn't interesting. <br /><br />The only good thing about this 'un is the nudity (only in the uncut version) provided by Fujiko. It helped spice up some of the tedious scenes. CoC had a formidable villain and set up the movie for some imaginative set-pieces. The locations in TSoTG are not very vivid or engaging. <br /><br />Zenigata, Goemon and Jigen don't even provide decent sideshow entertainment this time. It's like they were just filling a contractual obligation by appearing. <br /><br />The DVD is in full-frame with Dolby Stereo sound. It has a decent amount of extras, including quite a few trailers. But one curious thing. There is no chapter selection on the disc or timecode displayed on the player once inserted. Though you can still skip to the next scene number using the remote.
I know that movies aren't necessarily supposed to mirror reality, but this one got on my nerves. It perpetuates ignorant stereotypes about "psychological trauma" and mental illness. The "psycho mom" thing has been done too many times before (and usually done better) and much of the rest of the plot is far-fetched as well. The acting was not horrible but nothing to rave about.<br /><br />One highlight: I am a long-time fan of General Hospital and it was a trip to see one of the roles played by former GH regular, Jon Lindstrom.<br /><br />Anyway, if you can overlook the bogus psychoanalytical part of it, in the same way a person must suspend reality / judgment when watching a lot of movies, then this movie might be tolerable. If you have nothing better to do and fairly low standards.<br /><br />I'm sorry I spent my time watching it.
If you have plenty of time to waste ... it's OK. It moves at a good pace but to pull this movie off it would need to be a little longer with a little more background on the sitter. <br /><br />The acting is OK. Mariana Klaveno as the sitter does the best job and is the most believable.<br /><br />William R. Moses played a pretty good part as the husband.<br /><br />Gail O'Grady, as the wife, had a weak part and the reasons for her going back to work were not developed.<br /><br />The ending is sort of silly. Like most of these sitter movies ... there are parts that are interesting ... but overall it leaves you wondering why you spent the time.
this movie delivers. the best is when the awkward teenage neighbor tries to bike away from the babysitter and in the background looks like he's never been anywhere near a bike in his life as he attempts not to fall off.<br /><br />but this movie doesn't stop there, when less than 5 minutes later it delivers a scene of nothing but an arm reaching through a fence and into a cooler pulling out a beer. <br /><br />stereotypical grilling dads, several plot lines that go nowhere, and a former seaQuest actress with a bluetooth cell phone all add up to making this the perfect Saturday night at home.
With Goldie Hawn and Peter Sellers in a movie you figure this one won't go wrong. But what can I say? This was a horrible misfire. The movie is about Peter Sellers as an older gentleman who suddenly finds himself in a relationship with a really strange young not to mention attractive hippie in Goldie Hawn. The movie is incredibly disjointed and I did not understand anything about it. Peter Sellers and Goldie Hawn are very funny people but this movie does not prove it.<br /><br />That song about ‘arabella Cinderella' is pretty cool, but that is it. I only recommend this movie to people that like to watch an extreme novelty movie, this is almost the definition of one. I guess this movie more than anything else is a sign of the times, in terms of it's definite experimentalism and all around unconventionality, the problem is the quality is completely shot and the writing, not to mention the direction is just so out there. <br /><br />Peter Sellers in particular is very hit and miss, he will go from Dr. Strangelove and Being There throughout his career, to dumb movies like this and the Magic Christian, which was very similar to this one in context and style, but that movie did have a few funny moments. This one is senseless, and I am sad that someone as great as Peter Sellers was in this movie. Not recommended for anyone.
I read that "There's a Girl in My Soup" came out during Peter Sellers's low period. Watching the movie, I'm not surprised. Almost nothing happens in the movie. Seemingly, the very presence of Sellers and Goldie Hawn should help the movie; it doesn't. The whole movie seems like they just randomly filmed whatever happened without scripting anything. Maybe I haven't seen every movie about middle-aged to elderly people trying to be hippies, but this one gives such movies a pretty bad name.<br /><br />All in all, both Sellers and Hawn have starred in much better movies than this, so don't waste your time on this. Pretty worthless.
Peter Sellers (one of my favorite actors) is mildly amusing in this 1970 turkey, but the script is so lame and insulting that even Goldie Hawn's youth (just after her Oscar win) cannot begin to pull this one out of the mud. As a skirt-chasing celeb in his 40's, Sellers mostly embarrasses himself to the nth degree.<br /><br />A 3 out of 10. Best performance = ? Nicky Henson plays a young study type.<br /><br />I hope Hawn and Sellers were paid well, because I see no other reason for tripe like this in 1970 (a very good year for films - CATCH-22, M.A.S.H., HUSBANDS, JOE, WUSA, FIVE EASY PIECES and many others). You can't win them all!
Dear me... Peter Sellers was one of the most oddly talented actors there has been. But his choice of films, say, after 1964, was very unfortunate. He didn't seem to realize how to use his talents. He would have been better off working with more of the Kubricks of the film world than the people he did. Of his later films, only "The Optimists of Nine Elms" and "Being There" have impressed me of those I have seen.<br /><br />That said, the Boultings and Sellers had made a few films prior to this that hardly sound that bad - I have yet to see "Carlton Browne" and "Heavens Above!" - at least in the sense of using Sellers well to a degree. But, "There's a Girl in My Soup" really is a poor film and a dire choice on Sellers' part in terms of character. In his films from 1955-64, you can usually expect at least some very inventive twist and always an enigmatic conviction in his roles. Here, you have Peter Sellers trying to play a typical romantic lead. It's almost Sellers playing a Niven cad without the joviality. He certainly does not convince, try as he might, or create an interesting character. He should have left such parts to masters of suavity such as Cary Grant, and concentrated on those intriguing dramatic and comic roles that he was famed for.<br /><br />Hawn and Sellers really do not establish any genuine chemistry; this is no easy, genial romance of the like perfected by William Powell and Myrna Loy. It is very artificial seeming, all the way through - I know that it is part of Danvers' character that he is a dry procurer of ladies, but he doesn't really change from that in a way that convinces. Sellers has a very grating way of playing "charm" as well... this character really has no depth, and really does not gain the viewer's sympathy or interest. Sellers goes through the motions in a way one would not think possible when remembering the magnificence of his shifty, iconoclastic performance in "Lolita".<br /><br />There really is nothing to say about the plot, direction or characters, as frankly they leave little or no impression. This is truly one of the most anaemic, complacent, misguided and lightly dull films I have ever seen. A nonentity of a "vehicle" for Sellers' undisputed talents.<br /><br />Rating:- * 1/2/*****
Annoying, static comedy with a painfully miscast Peter Sellers as a smarmy, self-centered Casanova who always has his way with the ladies. A major blemish on Sellers' filmography, and, even worse, a film that seems to have been made solely to satisfy the ego of its star. (*)
Caught part of GEORGE 2 on TV recently, but couldn't get myself to watch it through to the end. Just awful! I can't even remember the plot. All I know is that George and Ursula were not the George and Ursula of the first movie, which was bad enough. There's a lot of scrambling around, but the direction and editing were so shoddy and choppy, it was like watching outtakes or deleted scenes. Having the original voice of Ape the Ape back was not nearly enough to make me warm up to this. GEORGE 2 is probably the single worst sequel I have ever seen, and that is saying something. Jeez, because of IMDb's 10 lines rule, I have to keep typing when I have nothing more to say about this crapulastic made-for-TV sequel. Disney, hang your head in shame.
There are just so many things wrong with this movie.<br /><br />To begin with, the first twenty minutes of the film could have been compressed into just five or maybe ten. The overall movie is (mercifully) short already, but this could have been made up for by giving a little more attention to the Mean Lion (how did the miss a reference to "The Wiz" on that one?) and working his subplot a little more closely into the main plot. In short, the script had the seed of a good idea, but needed quite a bit of reworking.<br /><br />Second, it could have done without the crude humor. The original also had some that it could have done without, but at least there it was almost an afterthought -- here, flatulence and urination abound.<br /><br />Third, the show is a little too self-aware. The original series had that well enough, as did the first movie, but here it's just way, way too much. The Brendan Fraser in-jokes were just a bit over the top (and why no mention of the "new Ursula"?). Other gags with the Narrator, especially a couple of interactions near the end, also exceed good sense.<br /><br />Fourth, a bit more attention could have been given to the CGI work. In the first it was hard to tell that Shemp wasn't a real elephant (except by behavior, of course), but here the CGI stands out like a sore thumb. Ideally special effects should merely tell the story whether they're good or bad, and they at least do succeed on that count, so it's a relatively small problem, but it's still there.<br /><br />All that said, Christopher Showerman's performance as George is decent enough. It lacks Brendan Fraser's charm, but Christopher only really fails in that specific comparison -- he even managed to give George a bit of personal depth, which should have been a major foul in a Jay Ward-inspired movie but wasn't here. Julie Benz as the new Ursula surprised me as being even better than Leslie Mann in the original.<br /><br />Most other performances were pretty standard, not standing out in my mind as either good or bad.
When I go to see movies I would stay up and watch it or if I did not like it, I would go sleep, but this was pure crap, I actually got up and walked out!....This was poorly script and put together, I hated it. Also, they should not have taken Brendan Frasier off, he was much better. This was not as good as I had expected, considering that I really liked George of The Jungle 1, and the graphics weren't as good as the first one, for instance, the bird, and when ever he crashed in a tree. I hope that the director of this takes heed, and next movies he make, he needs to reconsider...horrible! I really would like to give Ursla a job well done, as she made the movie worthwhile (until I walked out)...overall I give this movie a 2 out of 10
This movie was on t.v the other day, and I didn't enjoy it at all. The first George of the jungle was a good comedy, but the sequel.... completely awful. The new actor and actress to play the lead roles weren't good at all, they should of had the original actor (Brendon Fraiser) and original actress (i forgot her name) so this movie gets the 0 out of ten rating, not a film that you can sit down and watch and enjoy, this is a film that you turn to another channel or take it back to the shop if hired or bought. It was good to see Ape the ape back, but wasn't as fun as the first, they should of had the new George as Georges son grown up, and still had Bredon and (whats her face) in the film, that would've been a bit better then it was.
Let me start out by saying this movie has 1 funny point at the very beginning with the exchange between the narrator and George: Narrator:Huh? Wait a minute! Who the heck are you? George: Me new George. Studio too cheap to pay Brendan Fraser. Narrator: How did you get the part? George: New George just lucky, I guess. <br /><br />Sadly, that's the only funny part in the entire movie.<br /><br />It was still entertaining...But then again, i'm easily entertained...<br /><br />I wouldn't say this is the worst movie i've ever seen (that title goes to the terribly un-funny Disaster Movie...), This movie falls #7 on my bottom 15 list...<br /><br />If your a small child who is easily entertained, you'll enjoy this movie. If you're a movie-watcher who wants a good, funny movie, You'll end up shooting yourself halfway through this one..
666: The Child starts as a plane crashes, the only survivor of flight 666 was a young boy named Donald (Boo Boo Stewart) who is adopted by news reporter Erika (Sarah Lieving) & her cameraman husband Scott Lawson (Adam Vincent) after they covered the incident for Channel 6 news. At first Donald seems like any normal kid but death seems to follow him around, after warnings from a Nun & Vicar Scott begins to believe that Donald is evil & the cause of all the deaths...<br /><br />This straight-to-DVD horror flick was directed by Jake Perez under the pseudonym Jake Jackson & one has to say 666: The Child is really rather poor. Whenever I see The Asylum is responsible for a film I get worried, I get very worried since their track record is awful. They seem to specialise in making &/or distributing low budget horror films which are usually rip-offs of some recent successful big budget horror film & in the case of 666: The Child you don't need a degree in rocket science to realise that it's a complete rip-off to cash in on the recent The Omen (2006) which was released the same year. The script by Benjamin Henry & Austin Laurel is terrible & simply can't match the ambitions of the the Hollywood equivalent, I mean just what exactly does Donald the Antichrist expect to achieve from a middle class family in a small town? It's hardly a great starting point to bring about the destruction of thew world is it? Every character in 666: The Child is some form of the main character's from The Omen, the adopted parents, the Priest who tries to warn them & the sinister babysitter. There's a real lack of incident, there's barely any gore & the plot is poor. I mean Donald killing a dentist because they were trying to fix his teeth is just so random & needless, what were all the disgusting pictures Donald drew all about, where did the babysitter come from & there's just nothing that ties everything together & it's just a disjointed mess that just becomes very boring very quickly. The references to the number 6 also becomes annoying & are very unsubtle.<br /><br />Director Perez does alright I suppose, it's competent if nothing else. There's virtually no blood or gore, there's a few sprays of blood, a cut off hand & someone gets a circular saw stuck in their face but it sounds a lot better than it looks on screen. It's certainly not scary, there's no atmosphere thanks to a throughly bland contemporary setting in a suburban house & there's no tension because we never really know what Donald is trying to do & there fore there's no threat from him.<br /><br />Technically the film is alright, it's reasonably well made but since the actual film is so poor it makes little difference. The acting isn't that great but at the same time I've seen worse.<br /><br />666: The Child is a poor mans The Omen rip-off, I'd sooner watch either the original or the remake over this any day of the week. Not good & definitely not recommended. Followed by the sequel 666: The Beast (2007) which also went straight-to-DVD.
Well I watched this last night and the one thing that didn't make it completely terrible is that it was straight forward. There was no beating around the bush that this kid was the Anti-Christ. However the movie was just poorly written. For example, they never explained how they made the dentist incident an "Accident" or at the end how the cop just miraculously ended up at the house in time to save the kid without the police even being called yet. The death scenes were just really bad and not entertaining at all. The kid they chose to play the Anti-Christ was boring and they really could've picked a better kid. Just don't waste your time watching this.
Poor Robert Englund makes another flop and to the expense of Tobe Hooper who usually makes pretty good horror movies but he failed pretty bad at this one. Englund plays the well known Marque De Sade who in the 17th century was enprisoned for his obsession of pain and the pleasure of bringing pain upon himself as well as watching others also be in pain. The story is so confusing with the flip flop from one century to another and I became confused as to what was going on and what was the purpose of this movie. All I saw was a young lady that became entrapped by a strange lesbian who desides to keep her to herself and the young lady became fascinated by this Arabian with alot of money and finds out that he's out to have her killed and then Englund steps in from one century to another claiming to be a descendent of the de Sade and tries to kill her because she reminded him of the Madam Momoselle(spelled that wrong) or whoever it was in the picture above De Sades wall. The movie was terrible, I am surprised at Hooper for hireing Englund in this film and the special effects were so fake and laughable, especially the part about the eyes. Englund tries to make a comeback from his once hit move "Nightmare on Elm St." by using these pull in and out needles to put out peoples eyes. Terrible, absolutely terrible.
1st watched 8/26/2001 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Tobe Hooper): Scary, yet sadistic(which makes sense) portrayal of a relative of the Marquis De Sade carrying out the same sadistic acts and enjoying it that supposedly his predecessor did. This Tobe Hooper film really doesn't do a whole lot different than his similar in style Freddy Krueger movies with the same star (Freddy himself - Robert Englund) playing a dual role(the Marquis De Sade and his relative). It is also seems like it wants to really poke at Christianity but then loses that in the end much to my chagrin but leaving an inconsistent feel to the movie. Could have been much worse if excesses were taken in sex and violence, but they try to keep this at a minimal despite some disgusting scenes. My final thought is why would Hooper want to make this movie. It obviously took awhile to actually get distributed, then it has to be advertised gruesomely and with Hooper's name in the title to hopefully make some money on his name and his gore. It's obvious this didn't work.
Normally I would never rent a movie like this, because you know it's going to be bad just by looking at the box. I rented seven movies at the same time, including Nightmare on Elm Street 5, 6 and Wes Craven's New Nightmare. Unfortunately, when I got home I found out the videostore-guy gave me the wrong tape. In the box of Wes Craven's New Nightmare I found this lame movie.<br /><br />This movie is incredibly boring, the acting is bad and the plot doesn't make any sense. It's hard to write a good review, because I have no idea what the movie was really about. At the end of the movie you have more questions then answers.<br /><br />On 'Max Power's Scale of 1 to 10' I rate this movie: 1<br /><br />PS I would like to correct Corinthian's review (right below mine). He says Robert Englund is ripping off lingerie, riding horses naked, etc. The guy that did those things was Mahmoud, played by Juliano Mer, not by Robert Englund.
I saw this film recently in a film festival. It's the romance of an ex-alcoholic unemployed man who just came out of a big depression and a single middle-aged woman who works in an employment office (INEM). I found the story very simple and full of clichés, taking the 'social' theme of the movie and turn it in to a romance comedy. The lead actor did a good job, he definitely looks like an alcoholic man, but Ana Belen is not believable as a working class woman, she looks, acts and talks very much like a 'high-standing' woman. What I mean is that Ana Belen plays herself. She does it in all her movies anyway. The whole mise-en-scene of the film was very poor. The photography is ugly, not using well at all the panoramic aspect ratio. The dialogue sounds totally scripted and dull most of the times. The comic situations are typical from Gomez Pereira, but in this case they are not funny at all and are resolved poorly. In my opinion this film is not worth watching. Only if you really love Pereira's previous films you might enjoy this one a little bit. Anyway, I walked out of the theater because I felt I was wasting my time. The film-maker was by the door. I wonder what a director feels like when he sees someone walking out of one of his films, specially one that is made to please everybody.
Will they ever make movies without nudity and sex? This came on at 3:00 on Sunday afternoon and I couldn't believe what they showed. Thank God my son was outside or I would have been freaked out if he had seen the soft/medium porn! Do people who make movies not care who they offend or corrupt? Kids could have been watching after church and that is what they show???!!! The acting was good and I enjoyed the suspense but GEE! There was violence and bad guys but that is to be expected in a western movie. Randy Travis was really good in his role. If the writers, directors and producers would just quit putting on so much uncalled for sex scenes. What has to happen to get them to quit going in that direction? Where can I complain?
I'm surprised about the many female voters who even give this film better marks. My thought about this film was that the target audience is adult and male. Whipped and tortured women, merciless revenge and a high body count are typical ingredients, introduced into film history by the spaghetti subgenre. The opening and the hand-smashing are DJANGO rip-offs. THE SHOOTER however lacks the style of e.g. DJANGO. Score, acting and cinematography are mediocre at best but if you look for the above mentioned ingredients you are in the right place here. And the actors don't have an Italian accent.<br /><br />4 / 10.
When I look back on my college days at Ohio University, there will always be one event in which I will remember with fond memories. Channel 23 is OU's local access channel and until the last few years, pretty much played anything they were sent. This included many DIY movies ranging from a guy microwaving marshmallow Peeps and then scanning pictures of them online, to a version of Macbeth starring 8th graders who had apparently just learned how to make squibs.<br /><br />However, the king, in my opinion, of the channel 23 lineup was Midnight Skater. The first time I watched it was around 2AM. I should have been studying. Or sleeping. Or watching regular TV. But no, all that is for pussies. My roommate and I watched Midnight Skater, and when it was complete, I don't think either of us believed that any of the movie had just happened. But sure enough, it was on a few nights later, and we had to come to grips that this movie did, in fact, exist.<br /><br />I could go on and on about how awful it is, but its the sort of awful that makes life worth living. The plot is disjointed, the acting terrible, the everything soul scarring, but by god, if there are others watching with you, its impossible not to have a good time watching it. Its sort of like the first time you hear "Guts" by Chuck Pahalniuk. You hear it, you're disgusted and shaken, but five minutes later, all you want and desire is to make someone else experience the abject horror you just endured.<br /><br />Long story short, Midnight Skater, for all of its epic flaws, makes for some very late night fun. Plus, I desperately want the Theme to Midnight Skater. Kudos to whoever wrote it and sang it. Sweet God I love that song.
A cast of 1980's TV movie and TV series guest stars (Misty Rowe, Pamela Hemsley,Clevon Little, Seymour Cassel among several others)in the story of a photographer who has dreams about killing his models. Of course the models and other people start turning up dead causing all sorts of complications.<br /><br />Over done not very good thriller has enough nudity and violence to get an R rating but not enough good material to engender any real interest. This is best described as the sort of movie that gave the cable channel Cinemax the alternate name of Skinamax. I really can't see the point of watching this unless you need to see every sleazy thriller out there. (I also have to comment that this film is filled with smoking, to the point that it becomes laughable when anyone lights up)
Michael Callan plays a smarmy photographer who seems, nonetheless, to be regarded as a perfect "catch" by any woman that runs across him; could this have anything to do with the fact that he also co-produced the film? He's a "hero" whom it's very difficult to empathize with, so the movie is in trouble right from the start. However, it's troubles don't end there. It has the production values of a TV-movie (check out that head made of clay or something, near the end), and the ending cheats in a way that I can't reveal, in case anyone wants to see the movie (highly unlikely). Let's just say that the killer knows more than we were let to know he knows. (*1/2)
The worst kind of film. Basically, the US Declaration of Independence was replaced with a plasma screen and this fooled the museum's security for several days. Eh?<br /><br />The plasma screen that would theoretically run for less than 2 seconds off that watch battery, assuming it had a low enough internal resistance to deliver the required current, which it wouldn't.<br /><br />It would be possible with a dozen large car batteries and an inverter, but that system wouldn't fit into the case. Sorry to be anal, but this isn't even close to being plausible. The rest of the film wasn't a great deal better and I'm left wondering why the budget couldn't have been donated to charity or me.
This adaptation positively butchers a classic which is beloved for its subtlety. Timothy Dalton has absolutely no conception of the different nuances of Rochester's character. I get the feeling he never even read the book, just sauntered on set in his too tight breeches and was handed a character summary that read "Grumpy, broody, murky past." He plays Rochester not as a character or as a real person but as an over the top grouch who never cracks a smile until after he gets engaged at which point he miraculously morphs into a pansy. There is no chemistry. The only feeling that this adaptation excited in me was incredulity and also sympathy for Charlotte Bronte who is most definitely turning in her grave. GO AND REREAD THE BOOK. ROCHESTER HAS A PERSONALITY. AND BY THE WAY: A "PASSIONATE" LOVE SCENE DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE TO EAT HER FACE.
I've probably been spoilt by having firstly seen the 1973 version with Michael Jayston and Sorcha Cusack so the 1983 adaptation is such a disappointment. I just didn't get any chemistry between the 2 main stars. A lot of staring and theatrical acting just doesn't do it for me, and what was all that about putting Tim in the role of Rochester. Had the casting director actually ever read the book. Very strange! He's a fine actor but Mr. Rochester he definitely isn't! And Zelah was just, well, strange, bit of a mix matched couple. In it's favour the supporting cast were pretty good and the Lowood scenes for me were the best of the adaptation, but overall didn't capture any of the magic of the novel. Certainly wouldn't ask anyone to watch it as a true adaptation of the novel. A real let down!
Considering the limits of this film (The entire movie in one setting - a music studio - only about 5 or 6 actors total) it should have been much better made. IF you have these limits in making a film, how could the lighting be so bad? And the actors were terrible, were talking a hair below the acting in Clerks, except that was an enjoyable movie, this had no substance. Well it tried to, but really fails.<br /><br />It makes attempt to be self-referencing in a couple parts, but the lines were delivered so poorly by the actors it was just bad. And the main character Neal guy, what a pathetic looser. Clearly like 10 people total made this 'film' and they all knew each other, and it probably was a real rock band that they had, but unfortuntly these people really have no idea how terrible they are all around. This was made in 2005, but they all look so naieve it smacks of just pre-grunge era.<br /><br />Thankfully I didn't pay to see this (Starz on Demand delivers again!) but it was under the title "The Possessed" not Studio 666, it doesn't matter what you do to the title, it can't help this. This could have been a much better made movie - there is no excuse for this bad film-making when you have the obvious limited parameters the filmmakers had when they made this, working within those limits you should make the stuff you can control and the stuff you can work with the best you can. Instead they figured mediocrity would be good enough. And that music video, wow that was bad, I fast fowarded through that.<br /><br />So 2/10 is fair, if you are into the whole b-movie crap I suppose you'll go and see this.
I think that if I went to a first school somewhere deep in the countryside and asked the bottom set of English to come up with a script, it would make more sense than this. I could then go to the first year drama group and they would act it out better than the jokers in this film. This sounds really mean, but I'm certain that they made this as a joke and are entirely aware that they possess (see what I did there?) neither the skills to act or to write anything, ever.<br /><br />Watch this only if you're incredibly drunk, high or in need of a good excuse as to why your decaying corpse was found with slit wrists. I will now go to my fish bowl and collect all of the poo at the bottom. After that, I will mould it into the shape of a disc and put it into my DVD player, fully expecting it to produce something far better than this trumpery.<br /><br />Acting - 0/10 Plot - LOL/10 Breasts - 9/10
After a quasi-Gothic, all-fruity music video, the movie starts with Cassidy the lead singer killing herself. In a perfect world that would be that and the end credits would roll. We don't live n that world. The insipid band members decide to go to some clown to contact her dead essence. When I say clown, I mean actual clown. He tell them they're all going to die via Cassidy's ghost (the spirit possesses Dora, one of the band-mates) We couldn't care less as the characters are all boring, vapid, and extremely horribly acted. Written by Adam Hackbarth (an incredibly apropos surname if there ever was one), and directed by Corbin Timbrook (who after The attendant, and Tower of blood, HAS to know that he keeps making crap for a living), this movie s a constant battle between the film's incompetence and the viewer's need to stay awake. Not enough blood to appease gore-hounds, nor enough nudity to satisfy pervs. This movie in fact has absolutely nothing to recommend to absolutely anyone.<br /><br />My Grade: F <br /><br />Eye Candy: Amanda Carraway gets topless <br /><br />Where i saw it: Starz on Demand
One of my best friends brought this movie over one night with the words 'Wanna watch the worst horror movie ever?' I always enjoy a good laugh at a bad horror flick and said yes. I had expected your typical cheesy b-slasher but this was beyond B. This is Z-slasher, the lowest of the low. With obviously low budget, extremely bad acting, bad lightning, no plot, really bad so-called 'special effects', shaky cameras and a horrible soundtrack this makes movies like House of Wax look like Oscar-winning masterpieces. The only good thing about it is about 15 seconds of one of the characters getting topless - she had some very nice tits. Most of what I said during this film was along the lines of 'Wow this is actually SO BAD', 'This is the worst movie ever' and 'I'm not drunk enough for this'. So in conclusion: don't waste your time (or money!).
Whoever wrote the script for this movie does not deserve to work in Hollywood at all (not even live there), and those actors need to find another job. The most dreadful hour and some minutes of my life... and I only kept watching to see if it would get better which, unfortunately for me it did not.<br /><br />Even at the end, the credits gave me anxiety. I guess there weren't a lot of people behind the movie so they had to roll the credits slowly... very slowly.<br /><br />This movie is definitely a great "How Not To Make a Movie" guide. Too bad I can't give a 0.
This movie is bad. If you are thinking about watching it, there is only one decent scene in the movie, and it lasts about 5 seconds (Amanda Carraway's topless scene). The rest of the movie is horrible. I think high school plays probably have better acting. The plot makes no sense at all. The set was pretty lame, and it wasn't even good to make fun of. It was just dull and very very bad! I watched this on Starz so I thought it had to be at least decent. The mini description sounded like it'd be alright. The girlfriend kills herself for apparently no reason at the beginning of the movie, after you have to watch some horrible music video. The transitions between scenes are VERY abrupt and its like someone just put a ton of clips into a movie without even thinking about how to transition them. Just cuts from one scene to another, no smoothness. Kind of like my random switching from talking about how bad the movie is, to explaining why the plot sucks. The audio gets low at some points, where you can barely hear it, then gets loud with gay 'horror screams' thrown in at random points in the movie. It is the same sound every time. This is now officially the worst movie I have ever seen<br /><br />Acting: 0/10 Effects: 1/10 Storyline: 0/10 Music: 3/10<br /><br />Lame-meter : 1,000,000 / 10
I am a MAJOR fan of the horror genre! I LOVE horror/slasher/gore flicks of all kinds. Some of my favorites are the really "good" bad horror flicks. But this movies has NOTHING to warrant it's viewing!! I'm not going to spend a lot of time talking about everything that's wrong with it.<br /><br />The script is horrid. The acting is horrid. The FX are not even worth discussing. The "set" is an absolute JOKE!! The sad thing is I think there MAY be some real potential in a couple of the actors, but this vehicle left them NOTHING to work with!!!<br /><br />Suffice it to say I saw it for "free" & feel I was robbed!! The time you'd WASTE watching this would be better spent flossing your cat.
for the most part, On Demand delivers some pretty horrible horror movies, and only offers other horror movies everyone has already seen, and already have an opinion on. It was either this, or Invinicible (I like Mark Wahlberg movies), which I haven't seen, and I was actually in a movie watching mood, which doesn't happen often anymore because I've already watched all the movies i own a million times, and that's a lot of movies, and I don't have much interest in new movies, and boy, this movie made me regret it. I'm not going to put in any spoilers, I'm just going to tell you that only a FEW of the very FEW actors in this movie ,are half way decent. I think the main girl, the dead one who kills everyone, is very annoying looking, but convincing; I'd take her for psycho bitch anyday, so she fits her roll well, though it is lame. The blood isn't that great, only a few of the kills, or may I say "woundings" are alright, but you don't see much and there are no body part props in the movie to make the injuries look more convincing. Towards the end of the movie I was begging my girlfriend to turn it off, and being a band member, the 'recording' parts weren't very interesting either, though what happened would truly happen when going about recording. I'm done, if you want to watch this, suit yourself.
Cassidy(Kacia Brady)puts a gun in her mouth blowing the back of her head out on boyfriend Neal(Jason Dibler). Cassidy was the lead singer of a "demons and death" rock band who couldn't shake the sad feelings of her boyfriend's neglect towards her(you know, I can find other reasonable ways to solve this other than putting a bullet through your head). She returns, however, possessing the soul of Dora(Jill Small)her friend who is to replace her on vocals so that the group can finish the album halted by Cassidy's untimely death. But, Cassidy made a deal with the dark one and souls are to be collected..she's consumed by this anger towards mainly Neal, but all the band members or anyone within the music studio get dead when they fall prey to whom they believe is a rather distraught Dora..not Cassidy returning for payback.<br /><br />Lousy micro-budget horror flick looks cheap, has a cheap cast who should make plans in another line of work, and boasts cheap kill-scenes which aren't effective one bit.
Well, because I'm a musician I thought, maybe I'll check this movie out on TMC, nothing else good on. One of the worst mistakes of my life so far, and it's only half done. I seriously thought it was one of those soft core movies with crappy plot and crappy acting, crappy filming and crappy effects. But nope, I don't even get the pleasure of that. Even the "musicians" weren't very good. I was hoping for maybe some laughs, but I wasn't sure if they were attempting to throw in one-liners or not. But now I have to sit here and watch the rest just until Pulp Fiction starts. Or maybe something better. And now i get to sit here typing until i have 10 lines
This ranks way up there on my top list of worst movies I've seen so far on Starz on Demand. They seem to pick up every straight to DVD crap-fest they can find and put it on here.<br /><br />Why? Who knows! Apparently anyone with a digital camera and a shoestring budget can come up with a horror movie and get it put on TV. To be honest, this looked terrible from the moment I saw the trailer--but I did give it a real chance.<br /><br />I always try to have an open mind about low-budget movies. Some of the best movies I've ever seen were films that worked around their low budget or in other cases only required that low budget to be great.<br /><br />This is not one of those movies.<br /><br />You know the plot by now, I'm sure, if you're reading this. Either you heard about it on Starz on Demand or for whatever reason you ended up on this page out of boredom. It's about a pathetic and whiny girl we get to know for all of 3 minutes in an incredibly bad "heavy metal" music video. Whoever put it together must have thought it looked really interesting, but it really, really doesn't. Anyway, she kills herself. Then she possesses someone. Then some killing starts. It's really unmemorable and as completely average and boring as possible. When the first gunshot goes off in her apartment it quite seriously sounds like a piece of popcorn popping. Was that the best sound effect they could come up with? I could find a better sound effect to use for free, (with no copyright,) on the internet... right. now.<br /><br />Don't let the other reviews claiming this is a 10 star movie fool you. They are obviously either distributors of the film or maybe even the director trying to con you into thinking this piece of junk is worth buying.<br /><br />Laughable.
STUDIO 666 (aka THE POSSESSED in the UK) is another sub-par slasher that has the appearance of a straight-to-DVD movie.<br /><br />Whilst many of the straight-to-DVD movies are fast-paced or unintentionally hilarious in the so-bad-it's-good sense, STUDIO 666 is a lamentable failure.<br /><br />At the time of writing, every comment on the first page includes a negative rating and a negative review. Every one of these people have hit the nail on the head.<br /><br />The two people (at the time of writing) who wrote comments with a rating of 10 out of 10 should not be taken seriously. Obviously they've seen few slasher movies and have an even more limited understanding of horror.<br /><br />The only really positive point I can make about this movie is that it does fare better than THE CHOKE and ONE OF THEM, two extremely mediocre slasher movies that I would not wish on my worst enemy!<br /><br />The plot of this movie must have been done hundreds, if not thousands of times. The movie only has a slight twist (and one that is badly handled) to the usual expectations. A depressed singer commits suicide. Soon after, her spirit returns to possess one of her surviving friends. The said possessed friend goes on a killing spree. The rest of the plot really is too bizarre to sum up. You'll just have to see it for yourself, providing your interest has not yet waned to the point of extinction of course.<br /><br />The acting in the movie is very poor for the most part. The actress who played Dora was an exception to this. Her character was always interesting and seductive when she was on the screen. She helps to elevate the movie above similar contemporary efforts. Unfortunately, some of the lines she was given to say were badly written to put it mildly and thus prevent her from saving the movie.<br /><br />The direction was equally poor. The villains did not seem the least bit menacing, every killing was totally devoid of suspense or tension, atmosphere was non-existent and the camera-work was incredibly basic. Some of the special effects (if you can call them that) reminded me of the TV series, GHOST STORIES. Unfortunately for the producers of this movie, GHOST STORIES had intelligently written scripts, believable performances and made superb use of camera angles. Maybe if the producers had watched that TV series closely, they'd have picked up some more techniques that might have saved this excuse for a movie!<br /><br />The music is completely unsuited to the tone of the movie. It's just rock music and not the best examples of this type either. Don't get me started on that awful song played at the beginning!<br /><br />Some aspects of the movie, particularly dialogue, are unintentionally funny. Unfortunately they are not funny enough to move the movie up (or should it be down) to the so-bad-it's-good level.<br /><br />Overall, STUDIO 666 is a mundane mediocre slasher with very little noteworthy aspects. I recommend this only to those who are fans of straight-to-DVD movies and have a desire to see every single slasher ever made.
As with most of the reviewers, I saw this on Starz! OnDemand. After watching the preview with my girlfriend, she decided not to watch it from how bad the preview watched. I, on the other hand, thought it looked weird enough to warrant a watching. I mean, the design of Dr. Meso alone warranted at least a brief sweep over this title. After watching it, I can say that while there are some interesting aspects to it (namely the browsing over the notebooks and trying to figure out the incomprehensible story), it's best to pass over this one.<br /><br />*Major Spoilers Ahead* After making their first video for their as-yet-unfinished CD, the lead singer, Cassidy, kills herself in an attempt to get her boyfriend Neil to notice her. 3 months later, the band is trying to decide if they're going to finish the album or not. To try and see what Cassidy would have wanted, they go to see an old psychic friend of hers, Dr. Meso, and try to contact her through him. In his card reading, Dr. Meso turns up four straight Death cards for the four remaining band members. Bad times are ahead. (I just wanted to make a point that later in the film, they do explain that the Death card really just represents change. Kudos to them on that at least.) Even without the approval of their deceased friend, they decide to go ahead and finish the album. But while in the bathroom, Cassidy's best-friend, Dora, catches a glimpse of her deceased friend. When another band-mate goes in to check on her, Dora is standing in the dark, requesting his sunglasses. That's when the killing begins.<br /><br />My main problem with the film from the very get-go is that it seems to be heavy stylized to a fault. Too many warping effects, unnecessary zooms, and a plethora of other cheap effects riddle this film. An incoherent storyline doesn't help anything either. While the narrative hangs together for the first part, once Cassidy is resurrected, everything falls apart. We have jump-cuts between Cassidy and Dr. Meso (who mysteriously was able to get into a locked building), which show they are connected in some way or another. However, within a few minutes of that revelation, we find that Cassidy really is an independent being from Meso. She then turns on the guy who had been helping her revenge and he scurries away in a way that calls to mind Jack Nicholson as The Joker. But not in a good way.<br /><br />From this point on, the whereabouts of Cassidy are shown, but there are strange lapses as character moves from place to place almost out of sequence. One scene we see Cassidy standing at a desk, when a character enters in the next, she's nowhere to be found. As he moves behind the desk, we see her at the end of a hallway. Then in another room grabbing the keys (which Neil already has), then back again. Not to mention that from one moment to the next, Cassidy's mood seems to go a complete 180 without a catalyst to it. One moment, she wants to kill everyone (although she's only wounded 90% of the characters) - the next she's apologizing to everyone and walks out the door to die again. Sound confusing? That's because it is. It's a jumbled mess that I'm sure the writer couldn't even figure out.<br /><br />As for the performances, most are particularly wooden. Some though are interesting, but overall this isn't a piece that would be known for it's acting. The story is the driving force behind this piece.
Julia (Kristina Copeland) travels with her husband Steven Harris (Steven Man) and their baby son Alex to spend a couple of days with her family in Savage Island, an island of their own. The couple expects to resolve their issues along the weekend in the remote island. While waiting for the boat, Julia and Steven meet two weird men in the harbor, and when her brother Peter (Brendan Beiser) arrives, he explains that a family of hillbilly squatters is living in the island. The reckless Peter smoke pot while driving the truck in the night and turns the headlight off to show off; however, he accidentally runs over the young son of the Savage's family, but in the dark he believes he has hit an animal. Later, the Savage family claims Alex as a compensation for their lost son. The Young family does not accept the trade, and they initiate a deadly war between families.<br /><br />"Savage Island" is a very low-budget movie, with a stupid screenplay, amateurish cinematography but surprisingly good acting. The flawed story is totally absurd, and there are many unbelievable situations. For example, how could two men leave two women with the baby alone in the road during the night with the menace of the deranged family? The logical procedure would be going immediately to the continent and bringing police force to rescue Peter. Then the Young family vanishes; Julia and Steven leave their car in the continent and their house and friends, and nobody chases them? Peter calls his sister Julia of Alex when he arrives with the boat in the beginning. There are so many flaws in this flick that I could spend many lines writing about this subject. I believe this film was filmed with a home video camera so awful the images are. The good cast deserved a better material to work. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Ilha de Sangue" ("Island of Blood")
Savage Island (2003) is a lame movie. It's more like a home video shot with very minimal lighting and horrid acting. Not only that the storyline and script was wretched. I don't know why this movie was made. I have seen a lot of flicks in my time and the ones I really hate are movies that make me angry. This one made my blood boil. The situations were inane at best. If I made a movie like this it would have been a short. Really because those backwood "idjits" wouldn't have been in the picture.<br /><br />Don't be fooled by the cover on the D.V.D. I am an avid watcher of bad cinema. But this movie is virtually unwatchable. I don't mind movies being shot on D.V. but if you're going to do that make the movie enjoyable, not some tired retread of superior horror films (sans Wrong Turn).<br /><br />I have to not recommend this waste of disk. If you come across this one in the rental store pass on by.<br /><br />Movies that make yours truly angry get an automatic 1.
Much has been written about Purple Rain, the apparent "quin-essential" musician bio movie, however I'm here to tell you that the movie does not deserve it's high praise.<br /><br />First of all let's get one thing straight Prince is a great musician and Music is the one area where Purple Rain excels. Even the score is mesmerising, and if this was shot purely as a concert film it would be a great experience unfortunately it's not and as such the movie has some problems.<br /><br />First of all is the horrendous acting/writing, Prince's character "The Kid" is supposed to come off as some type of mysterious loner of few words unfortunately this just comes off as corny and incensere. A good loner character should at least have some talkative moments, unfortunately Prince's character rarely has over a few words of dialog in the film and it's hard to believe that he'd get the girl this way. Everything just seems a little off here, which is a shame because you can tell this is a character that's terribly conflicted and lives a very complicated live, but we aren't ever allowed to get inside of it.<br /><br />A surprising aspect of this film is just how much of this takes place in concert. Prince and Morris's lives seemingly take a back seat to the performances here, which I guess makes sense from a business perspective, but it's exhausting to have a 2 hour movie where seemingly half of it takes place on stage, especially when the character's back stories get pushed aside for it.<br /><br />So to sum it up: This isn't a very good movie.
By the numbers story of the Kid (Prince), a singer, on his way to becoming a star. Then he falls in love with Apollonia (Appolonia Kotero). But he has to deal with his wife-beating father (Clarence Williams III!) and his own self-destructive behavior.<br /><br />I saw this in a theatre in 1984. I was no big fan of Prince but I did like the three big songs from this movie--"Purple Rain", "Let's Get Crazy", and "When Doves Cry". The concert scenes in this movie are great--full of energy and excitement. Unfortunately that's a VERY small portion of the movie.<br /><br />The story is screamingly obvious and have been done many times before--and much better too. The subplots are, to put in nicely, badly handled. The love triangle between The Kid, Appolonia and Morris Day was so predictable and tired that I actually became insulted. His wife beating father is needed for the story, but the scenes are so badly handled (in acting and direction) that I couldn't believe it. The script is terrible--lousy dialogue and some truly painful "comedy" routines. And there's tons of misogyny here--The Kid's mother getting beaten; The Kid hitting Appolonia and (for no reason) Appolonia strips and goes topless to swim in a dirty river. Also Williams' and Princes' characters treat women in a horrible manner constantly.<br /><br />The acting is where this movie REALLY fails. Appolonia is sweet and beautiful--but no actor. And Prince is (easily) the WORST actor I've ever seen. His blank face and wooden dialogue delivery are so bad I couldn't believe it. This movie only comes to life during the concert scenes but there aren't really that many. The "dramatic" scenes are so badly acted and handled that they make this movie a chore to sit through. They should have just made this a concert film. I give this a 2--only for the music.
Okay, I'm not going to critique this film in depth. I note the many elogious reviews in advance of me, and as I generally like Maria de Medeiros, I have been long hesitant to make a disparaging comment - and in such fashion nearly a year has passed. But each time I see that DVD on my shelf, I sense an inner groan. Anyway, let the elogious voices override me! But for other cinephiles like me - beware.<br /><br />Expressed in simplest and gentlest terms, here's my stance:<br /><br />The political turmoil and overthrow providing the backdrop for this film also served as a backdrop for a certain period of my life - via newspapers I read daily in my local middle-European pub. At that time, I followed the newsreports, but never fully grasped what the heck was transpiring. The reporters tended to report either in non-partisan terms, or with a conservatism which frowned upon any groups disturbing the peace or fomenting rebellion against the establishment. Those were times when other winds of unrest swirled through Paris, Berlin, Prague, and various places in the U.S., all of whose issues I understand clearly at the time - but dictatorship or not, my papers tended to treat the govermentment of Portugal simply as the establishment - not as a well-fleshed out "evil empire", to use flippant Star War terms.<br /><br />So, week after week, I read of disturbances, but never found an intelligent editorial that might provide the history behind them, or evaluate the practices and social-economic impacts of the dictatorship, etc.<br /><br />So, in purchasing this film, I had at least two hopes: to finally understand the details leading up to the social unrest, and to enjoy a well-conceived drama. This film gave me neither.<br /><br />The film presupposes that viewers already have ample knowledge and deep emotions regarding the historical facts. And the drama - well, as I said, I want to encourage Maria de Medeiros and the Portugues film industry, but - it was trite and shallow.<br /><br />I obtained my copy of the DVD from France - "Selection Official Cannes 2000 - Un Certain Regard". The box shows smiling clean-shaven actors, the lead giving the victory sign in a fashion that reminds me more of the Playboy bunny. After seeing the work, I wondered what the French could have thought of it - though as a shallow piece of "cinema verite'" with sensitive ethnic content, I can understand their natural inclination to praise it for its "honesty" but...<br /><br />Look at the back of the box: "Un regard chaleuruex sur la Revolution" - a warm regard? Try describing Allende's overthrown and murder with a a "warm regard"! Try it with Czechoslovakia in 1968! Try it with the whole line-up of overthrows, and civil rebellions!<br /><br />Another review: Maria de Medeiros a renoue' avec son pays, son enfance et son histoire." Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish! At least for me.<br /><br />I love Portugal. In all of Europe, Lisbon, Barcelona and Prague are my favorite cities. But my love for a city and a country doesn't flesh out a vacuous film. I'll hang on to my ancient VHS tapes of Capas Negras and A Cancao de Lisboa - meanwhile, I'm stuck with a zone 2 by the above title that might as well go in the trash.
I know that some films (I mean: European films), that are very bad films, are being regarded as great cinema by certain "critics", only because they're non-American. I saw the 8.1 IMDB score for this film and noticed the fact that this was being selected for certain big festivals. Don't let this fool you! Unless you're one of those people that likes mind-numbing films like this, and call it great art afterwards, skip it! The film contains one hilarious scene after another (a similar, Italian, film popped into my mind, the terrible PREFERISCO IL RUMORE DEL MARE (I prefer the sound of the sea)). The problem with these films is that they're not only boring, like some other strangely praised films, but that they almost play like camp. I mean, let's face it, the acting is horrible (I mean: soap opera-level), the story has not one surprise (this has been done endless times before, connecting several storylines: SHORT CUTS, MAGNOLIA, PLAYING BY HEART, only much better), not one realistic character in it (some true freak-seeing along the way, notice the hilarious zombie-like daughter), and so on and so on.<br /><br />As if that's not enough, the film is 135 min. (count it!) long, and at the end the director opens his can of sentimentality. After a film with such hilariously bad dialogue and scenes that made the public at the preview screening laugh at so much incompetence, well... This is an insult to cinema, and only receives high ratings because it happens to be in "another" language, in this case Spanish. Strange world we live in...3/10
My husband and I are the parents of an autistic little boy who lives in the same township as the screenwriter of this movie. We were very upset that the JCC is bringing this movie to its Jewish film festival because of the way that the mentally disabled character Frankie is portrayed. We went to see this movie at the local theater when it came out. We demanded out money back. We would encourage the screenwriter to donate a portion of the funds to the JCC's Achad program to apologize.<br /><br />We did not like seeing Frankie - a mentally disabled and perhaps even autistic teenager - as part of a joke in which he keeps dropping something to look at the nanny's breasts.<br /><br />There was no point to Frankie's character other than to say "hey, being mentally disabled is funny." Challenges like Frankie's are a serious matter. Families like mine are truly suffering.<br /><br />The screenwriter needs to explain herself. Does she know families with disabled kids? Does she see the families with disabled kids week after week at the JCC pool?
I went on a visit to one of my relatives a while back, and we popped by a theatre, so we'd thought we'd go in and give this film a go. What a mistake! This film is awful in every department. I'd never heard of the film before, and literally everyone still hasn't. No wonder, this is as rank as it gets. It's a comedy, so it says, well the only thing funny is the ability, or lack of it, of the director to make such a film. Getting so close to Christmas, this should be titled how to under-cook a turkey in nearly one and a half hours - or however long it was, as I walked out. At the end of the film, you'll come out feeling as though you've been food poisoned on a sick turkey, and regret you wasted your time on such dribble. Who knows why such things get made. Some people had walked out from the theatre before the film was well over, and I blame myself for not walking out a lot earlier. It really annoys me that you pay good money to see something decent, and all that you come out and see is a poor TV movie that should be showed at 2 o'clock in the morning, in fact, it's that bad, day time TV shouldn't be showing it. What else can a say...probably not enough bad words could do it justice.
Just saw the movie this past weekend, I am upset, and disappointed with it. Basically, the movie tells you that immigrants, the ones from former Soviet Union especially, come to this country, bring everyone they can with them from the old country, and invade and take over what Americans have been working for. Which is a very wrong way of looking at immigration, and a much worse way of telling people about it. That's the main thing. Another thing, the overall writing, directing and filming is on the level of village amateurs. The actors did pretty well, but it wasn't up to them save this bunch of crap. A few jokes were funny, but most were bad and cheesy. Couldn't wait to get out of the theater, want my money back.
This is a movie which attempts a retelling of Thai history, set in the ancient city of Ayutthaya. I decided to watch this film because I thought it was along the lines of many Thai films I've watched and enjoyed, one that has Thai actors speaking Thai and martial arts craziness. Well, it's none of that. This film is shot entirely in English, is chock full of Anglo actors, and has production values so terrible it is laughably bad....but not funny! Who can we blame for this rubbish? The acting, dialog, and most of the sets were quite bad. Some of the fight scenes looked like they were choreographed by the local high school drama club. The special effects were also mostly bad, but a few were just cheap animation patched onto the screen that provided an especially cheesy effect. It has one large, epic-style outdoor battle scene, where a few thousand extras get to run across a field in costume, but when we see the two armies collide in combat--HA! What a joke! The film does feature a couple of beauties. What a pity they didn't show a little more skin. At least that would have been something for the guys to appreciate. Don't bother.
THE KING MAKER will doubtless be a success in Thailand where the similar (but superior) 'The Legend of Suriyothai' set box office records. The film directed by Lek Kitaparaporn after a screenplay by Sean Casey based on historical fact in 1547 Siam has some amazingly beautiful visual elements but is disarmed by one of the corniest, pedestrian scripts and story development on film.<br /><br />The event the picture relates is the arrival of the Portuguese soldier of fortune Fernando de Gamma (Gary Stretch) whose vengeance for this father's murderer drives him to shipwrecked, captured and thrown into slavery and put on the bloc in Ayutthaya in the kingdom of Siam where he is purchased by the beautiful Maria (Cindy Burbridge) with the consent of her father Phillipe (John Rhys-Davies), a man with a name and a past that are revealed as the story progresses. There is a plot to overthrown the King and Fernando and his new Siamese sidekick Tong (Dom Hetrakul), after some gratuitous CGI enhanced choreographed martial arts silliness, are first rewarded by the King to become his bodyguards, only to be imprisoned together once Queen Sudachan (Yoe Hassadeevichit) reveals her plot to kill the king and son to allow her lover Lord Chakkraphat (Oliver Pupart) to take over the rule of Siam. Yet of course Fernando and Tong escape and are condemned to fight each other to save the lives of their families (Tong's wife and children and Fernando's now firm love affair with Maria) with the expected consequences.<br /><br />The acting (with the exception of John Rhys-Davies) is so weak that the film occasionally seems as though it were meant to be camp. The predominantly Thai cast struggle with the poorly written dialog, making us wish they had used their native Thai with subtitles. The musical score by Ian Livingstone sounds as though exhumed form old TV soap operas. But if it is visual splendor you're after there is plenty of that and that alone makes the movie worth watching. It is a film that has obvious high financial backing for all the special effects and masses of cast and sets and shows its good intentions. It is just the basics that are missing. Grady Harp
Evidently when you offer a actor enough money they will do anything. I am not sure how much John Rys-Daves got, but most of the money he made should go to his fans as an apology for even being associated with such a ROTTEN movie. The special effects were worse then effects from the 1950's B movies and the acting of the rest of the cast was even worse. As to how bad the acting was a child gave the second best performance in my opinion. The English was terribly accented and I think no one could really even speak English they just memorized how the words should sound instead of memorizing the script and trying to make their character both "life-like" and real.
This movie seemed to have it all going for it with good camera, sound, film, sets, music, costumes ... but drum-roll, Gary Stretch spoke! I don't know if it was his poor acting or simply a bad script, but would say it was both. Considering the casting of him in this role, I found it difficult to root for him even to the very end. I wished he'd have died in battle or one of the sword/knife scuffles.<br /><br />Then, the tinder for the plot to kill the king was because the king didn't have dinner and sex with his Queen? Pretty lame. And to go to the extreme to kill her own son? And to then push up her lover as succeeding King? I see a thread or two here and there of historical bytes, but the manner in which this was all presented was farcical.<br /><br />I don't recognize Gary Stretch from anything else, but he was dreadful. I read another user's comments about audio being dubbed, but don't think his was dubbed ... after all, he speaks English, right? It really was awful. The lines were read right off the coroner's table ... flat-line. It could be he just doesn't have the voice to carry tone fluctuations.<br /><br />Aside from this, I did watch it to the end, so the movie had at least an "interest." It could have been more if the script/lines and casting had been given more work. The scenery and filming crew along with very good quality film is what really made this movie above all else. The cast and story were all secondary. I give the film crew a 10.
Unfortunately, this has been showing on Star Movies here in Thailand for the last week or so. It's complete rubbish acting. As another member said, this movie is a good example of 'how not to act.' I haven't seen a movie so poorly acted in a long time. The actors (can you call them 'actors'?) are completely flat and deliver their lines with the passion of a dead dog. I would say that in order to truly understand how bad the acting is, you would have to see the movie... but that would be akin to torture.<br /><br />I cringe as the leading lady delivers her lines, and the rest of the cast with their accents (fake or contrived) is equally heinous. Another actress with the fake British accent was pretty, yes, but good lord was her accent terrible. Mix that with her (lack of) acting and you have a disaster. She should just have said nothing and I could have accepted her as the pretty girl. Oh my, we just got to the scene where the leading lady's lover says "Really me?" after a forced crying scene from her. Laughable. No, really, I just laughed out loud.<br /><br />The sets and the art directors offer some saving grace to the film. Some of the sets are colorful and some of the scenes are rather nice (minus the actors).<br /><br />The old magic potion lady? What?! Another member mentioned the 'modern' love song that was in the movie. Totally inappropriate for a period piece set some 500 years ago.<br /><br />I understand the movie was considered 'Big Budget' in Thailand at the time of it's production. I would be seriously upset if I were the producer of this movie. Just goes to show that money does not necessarily make a good (or even mediocre) film.<br /><br />I would give the King Maker a 1 out of 10, but the costumes and sets make save the film from such a rating. 2 out of 10.
The King Maker is a film about a series of real (citation needed) events that occurred during the Portuguese Occupation in Indochina.<br /><br />Although the costumes and art direction are commendable, the movie still fails to impress the viewer. The acting, in particular, was extremely poor. Some of the actors are trying hard to let tears down and the accents, both real and fake, are extremely irritating. The storyline was also too dumb and too stupid to be true and it seemed more like a history lesson. The movie couldn't even capture that sort of regal and century-old air and it looked more like a botched attempt to make an Asian version of Elizabeth.<br /><br />Final say? Costumes and art direction give the film a breath of fresh air, but the execution was extremely poor and the actors couldn't even give natural bursts of emotion. In short, the movie sounded more like hullabaloo than a script.
This was the worst acted movie I've ever seen in my life. No, really. I'm not kidding. All the "based on a true story/historical references" aside, there's no excuse for such bad acting. It's a shame, because, as others have posted, the sets & costumes were great.<br /><br />The sound track was typical "asian-style" music, although I couldn't figure out where the "modern" love song came in when Fernando was lying in his bed thinking of Maria. I don't know who wrote & sang that beautiful song, but it was as if suddenly Norah Jones was transported to the 1500s.<br /><br />The Hershey syrup blood in Phycho was more realistic than the ketchup spurted during the Kwik-n-EZ battle scenes.<br /><br />But the acting. Oh, so painfully sad. Lines delivered like a bad junior high play. If Gary Stretch had donned a potato costume for the County 4H Fair he may have been more believable. Towards the end he sounded more like a Little Italy street thug. At times I half expected him to yell out "Adrian!" or even "You wanna piece of me?!".<br /><br />Favourite line: When the queen says to her lover (after barfing on the floor) "I'm going to have a baby." He responds "A child?" I expected her to retort "No, jackass, a chair leg! Duh."
This is just a bad movie. With what seemed to be quite a nice budget it had potential to be much better. It almost were. With the heroine beautiful almost like Salma Hayek, hero fighting almost like Jackie Chan, battles and duels almost like in Crouching Tiger..., music almost like in, say, Conan... etc. Almost. But in the end it's just dull and it is hard to find anything interesting in it. Maybe apart of John Rhys-Davies flying in duel like those warriors in Hero or before-mentioned Crouching Tiger... I am really ashamed of poor old John. He is after all quite a good actor and deserves much better. So as you - so if you still have a chance just watch something else.
Up to this point, Gentle Rain was the movie I found the worst in history. It has been supplanted by this 'blockbuster' out of Asia. It has one "star" and it is John Rhys Davies. He is way out of shape to be the swashbuckling, magical flying baddie he is cast here. The rest of these people couldn't act their way out of a junior high school play. No clichés were missed in the dialogue, and the special effects were phoned in as often as possible.<br /><br />It is fairly easy to see that somebody in Asia had some bucks and needed to create a vehicle for some actors they wanted to throw money at. Or maybe it was a director or a writer that needed a credit. My guess is that any career with this movie in it's credential<br /><br />Do yourself a major favor and don't watch this movie. A hundred Thanksgivings couldn't consume this turkey.<br /><br />The one funny scene was unintentional. The brother of the King appears on the scene. The king? A handsome, older, short Asian actor. (Bad actor.) The brother? A six foot European. (Also a bad actor.) No excuses were made for this. They just expected us not to notice that this poor man's Jet Li's brother was a wannabe Pierce Brosnan in a cheap dimestore "Injun" wig right out of an old western movie from the forties.
Warning Spoiler. . . I have to agree with you, it was almost there. This was such a bad movie, about such and interesting true story. It had such promise, but the acting was ridiculous at best. Some sets were beautiful and realistic. Others are something out of a theme park. I found myself laughing as I watched, what was suppose to be, serious scenes. I really wanted to like this movie, but I couldn't. The best part was the fight between friends that ended with the "King" dying. I liked the Queens' punishment. And, the final shot made a beautiful picture, though. There are so many better movies to watch. I don't recommend this.
The movie was to be shown here in Bangkok with all the fanfare and even in the theater, it failed miserably.<br /><br />Apparently the story writer just don't hold water. Something was definitely missing. In my opinion people must have a reason why they watch it other than historical glimpse of the past. Accuracy of history is not what we look for in entertainment.<br /><br />The movie just lack any substance. The only way to do this movie right was somehow make changes where it stands as some kind of a legend instead of just a story. And a legend will have certain elements that tries to tell you something that people have forgotten through time, such as the meaning of sacrifice, nationalism, etc. It is called the central theme.<br /><br />The movie fails to answer, why would I watch it anyway?<br /><br />At least some strange legendary Flying Elephants, psychic king, or the eccentric king such as "The King and I" would have been lovely, something would have added greatly to the movies' appeal. I guess there was no appeal other than a plain vanilla movie. <br /><br />Once you got the appeal, then the story is the next thing we concentrate on. In marketing terms, we call it "must see". Upon hearing the title of the movie people would say, Oh, I must see it. Now where's the appeal in Kingmaker? Why not just redo the title and call it, "How NOT to be a King?" and make a black comedy of the old Siamese days, to the style of "Dr. Strangelove". That would have been much more interesting. Narrative-like experiences of the foibles of the King from first persons goofs off would have made the movie extremely funny. <br /><br />Most movies today have that "must see" appeal, such as Spiderman, Men X, these titles speak for themselves. If they don't have familiar characters, some other movies such as, The Island, had an appeal itself when the advertising asks "Do you still believe there is an Island?". <br /><br />Or for the movie, retitled "How NOT to be a King" might ask the question, "So do you still WANT to be a King?" <br /><br />Parhat
Hollywood Hotel was the last movie musical that Busby Berkeley directed for Warner Bros. His directing style had changed or evolved to the point that this film does not contain his signature overhead shots or huge production numbers with thousands of extras. By the last few years of the Thirties, swing-style big bands were recording the year's biggest popular hits. The Swing Era, also called the Big Band Era, has been dated variously from 1935 to 1944 or 1939 to 1949. Although it is impossible to exactly pinpoint the moment that the Swing Era began, Benny Goodman's engagement at the Palomar Ballroom in Los Angeles in the late summer of 1935 was certainly one of the early indications that swing was entering the consciousness of mainstream America's youth. When Goodman featured his swing repertoire rather than the society-style dance music that his band had been playing, the youth in the audience went wild. That was the beginning, but, since radio, live concerts and word of mouth were the primary methods available to spread the phenomena, it took some time before swing made enough inroads to produce big hits that showed up on the pop charts. In Hollywood Hotel, the appearance of Benny Goodman and His Orchestra and Raymond Paige and His Orchestra in the film indicates that the film industry was ready to capitalize on the shift in musical taste (the film was in production only a year and a half or so after Goodman's Palomar Ballroom engagement). There are a few interesting musical moments here and there in Hollywood Hotel, but except for Benny Goodman and His Orchestra's "Sing, Sing, Sing," there isn't a lot to commend. Otherwise, the most interesting musical sequences are the opening "Hooray for Hollywood" parade and "Let That Be a Lesson to You" production number at the drive-in restaurant. The film is most interesting to see and hear Benny Goodman and His Orchestra play and Dick Powell and Frances Langford sing.
This movie serves as a timely warning to anyone who thinks they can both write and direct their own movie. Face it, you can't. Because that way there's nobody around to tell you when you hack great holes in your plot, have meaningless transitions, trite, unmemorable dialog and manage to turn a fairly cool Korean legend into a steaming pile of celluloid turd.<br /><br />I wanted to like this movie as a trashy popcorn movie, really I did; I like lots of crappy movies. But once I've been forced to ask myself what the hell just happened and WHY, DEAR LORD, WHY? more than a few times, I really can't take it any more.<br /><br />Also, I would love for someone to explain how LA became Mordor for the last scene.
This movie was horrible.<br /><br />They didn't develop any of the characters at all and the storyline was played out horribly. It was a definite sleeper. You'd expect the action scenes on a movie like this to be its strong points but D-Wars surprises you with even a let down in that department. <br /><br />Also, the acting was just a step above the level of a low budget porno flick. And I seriously mean that.<br /><br />I was actually happy to see the end credits on this one cause it was just that bad!!! Please, whatever you do people, don't waste your time and money on a crappy movie like D-Wars.
This movie is likely the worst movie I've ever seen in my life -- surpassing the previous most god-awful movie, "Spawn of Slithis," which I saw when I was about 10.<br /><br />Bad acting, stilted and ridiculous dialog, incomprehensible plot, mishmashed cut scenes, even the music was annoying. Did I leave anything out? Well, the special effects weren't bad -- but CGI does not a decent movie make.<br /><br />I can't believe I actually spent money to see this movie. If anyone has the contact info for Hyung-rae Shim (the director), please forward it to my user name "at gmail," and I'll contact him to personally demand a refund.
I went into this movie with high hopes. Normally, I'm not too picky about my movies and creature movies are *always* fun to watch, or so I thought. I'll list the good parts of this movie: -The creature effects. All of the creatures were well-done, their movements were realistic, and they fit into the other imagery well. To be honest, the creature effects were the ONLY reason I gave this movie a 2 rather than a 1. Now, the bad things: -The acting. Good Lord, I've seen bad acting, but this movie takes the cake. Not a single one of the characters is even *close* to believable. It's like the director sent out a casting call and picked all the worst try-outs from it. I tried very hard not to giggle too loud, cause I didn't wanna upset anyone else in the theatre, but the acting really was THAT BAD. -The storyline: The entire story is full of plot holes from beginning to finish. You can pick at least 5 plot holes out of any given 30 minutes of film. The plot holes, of course, are complimentary with the cheese. This is probably one of the most clichéd, not thought-out, and outright dumbest stories I've ever seen put on screen since I had the grave misfortune of sitting up one night and watching Parasite on the SciFi channel. -The dialogue: This is a world where everyone says the cheesiest and most clichéd thing they possibly can, at every chance they possibly can. In this world, it seems like every line has been spoken before in at least 30 other low-budget creature movies. It is the world of cheese and cliché. -The special effects. While the creature effects were downright awesome, the special effects fail miserably. Yes, they are better than those seen in other movies, but a lot of it is in the presentation. And this movie has no presentation whatsoever. It looks kinda like the special effects used on the Power Rangers TV show, to be honest. To sum up: Dragon Wars is worth neither your time nor your money. The concept is good, but it is trapped in the bad directing, acting, dialogue, and cheesiness of the film. Wait til the next big monster movie comes out. It's gotta be better than this, cause Dragon Wars is absolutely horrible.
How this movie got made with a supposedly $70 million budget and without being completely retooled is beyond me. The storyline and dialogue are beyond amateurish. Characters say things no real person would ever say and almost never react to things that were said before. No one seems to be grounded in the real world. The acting of the leads is fine given that the writing is such a dud...but several actors in supporting roles really drag the production down. The hero's hair probably should've gotten its own credit, it was so oddly attention- grabbing...not to mention that it gave one of the better performances in the pic. Finally, for a movie about L.A. being besieged by giant reptiles, this film is shockingly boring. What a shame! If you do see this, your mind will be constantly racing, thinking up ways that you could have taken the SFX scenes and built a far better movie around them. Sadly, it wouldn't have taken much.
First off, I have no idea how this movie made it to the big screen. Its not even the low budget SCI-Fi channel movie, its just awful. Me and my friend who love action movies, Independence day, Jurassic Park, LotR, etc. went to see this movie expecting this movie to me a Transformers with dragons, mindless entertainment. All we got was a mindless hour and a half. The CG was not as bad as I was expecting, but the plot is so awful along with the acting, it made up for it. Its basically a Chinese legged of dragons returning every 500 years...Sounds like a good remake of Rain of Fire? No, The plot tries to be deeper than it should be leaving not only plot holes, but with magic, and a very small actual war between dragons(rather big snakes) it just gets ridiculous. The director attempted to add a bit of humor in the movie which fail. Me and my friend laughed through the whole thing(along with all 5 of the audience), and cant believed we spent money on this. The short trailer on TV makes up for most of the action while crap makes up the rest. I've seen a lot of B movies like Reptilian, The Cave, Spider, and others, but i have to say if you want a non stop laugh for an hour, watch this.<br /><br />Story: 1/10 CG: 5/10 Acting:3/10<br /><br />I don't drink...but it would have helped before watching this movie
I went in to see D-War on a whim and with very low expectations. The movie failed to meet them.<br /><br />I don't mind stories that stretch credulity - remember Reign of Fire? - but I do expect them to be internally consistent. This film leapt from howler to howler without pausing for breath, all interspersed with special effects that lagged far behind the likes of LOTR or even Godzilla.<br /><br />A shape-shifting mystic warrior from Korea, curiously metamorphosed into a Caucasian antique dealer and popping up like deus ex machina to get the hapless protagonists out of their latest mess. A special agent from the FBI who seems to be completely boned up on ancient Korean folklore because of the Fed's excellent "paranormal division" - which has gone unremarked up to this point. Lovers kissing on deserted beaches where one exclaims "I never meant for this to happen." A reincarnated pair of long dead Koreans who "died like star-crossed lovers." Mystic pendants, faceless hordes of robotic soldiers (that owe a lot to Peter Jackson's orcs) and a serpent who wastes so much time roaring that every time its chosen prey is within reach something comes along to distract it.<br /><br />The dialogue is appalling, the acting wooden and the effect of the whole was, to be honest, tedious. However, for me the crowning moment was at the end, after the finale, when the music for the closing credits was - Arirang! This is rather like Akira Kurosawa closing "Ran" with a karaoke rendition of My Way - and let me be clear that I am in no way comparing director Shim to Kurosawa.<br /><br />In short, a self indulgent, lackluster collection of clichés and narrative non-sequituurs which may appeal to the sense of the melodramatic so prevalent in Koran popular culture but should not be worth the price of the ticket to any serious movie goer - or even a not so-serious movie goer. I would suggest that this bypass the movie theaters altogether and go straight to video, but I'm not even sure that it's worth that much.
...there's no one else watching the movie. My husband and I went to watch it last night. It's just a small theater, but there's usually a decent amount of people there. Not this time! My husband and I were the ONLY people watching Dragon Wars last night! Now we know why.<br /><br />The movie was by far one of the worst I've ever seen. Yes, the CG was good, but that was it. The acting, script & dialog, directing, editing, etc. was God-awful! Since we were alone in the room, we felt free to talk during the movie. That is, we talked about how bad it was, that it reminded us of The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, Godzilla, Mortal Combat AND The Lord of the Rings. It was like we expected to see Rita and Lord Zed portraying commanders of Sauron's army.<br /><br />The creatures were ridiculous. You can't just introduce legions of dino/dragon/lizard things loaded down with cannons without explanation. The Lord of the Rings has a wide spectrum of characters, but it introduces and develops them over 3 movies, not in an hour and a half.<br /><br />The scene transitions are horrible. I didn't fall asleep during the movie, but even though it was an overly simple plot, I found myself getting lost in the plot holes.<br /><br />The characters were caucasian Americans, but spoke almost with broken English because of the badly written dialog in the script.<br /><br />The final scene that could have redeemed some value of the movie...failed. Ethan didn't cry when Sarah died...though he hadn't known her for very long during THIS life anyways. He didn't seem too upset to be left in "Mordor", not knowing where he was or how to get back. We couldn't for the love of God figure out where he was or how he got there either, but if he wasn't upset we shouldn't be either.<br /><br />Oh, and why did the dress that Sarah's spirit was wearing look like she borrowed it from Queen Elizabeth? One more thing...all 3 of the main hero characters were reincarnations brought back to finish the job. Sarah completes her task and moves on to the afterlife. Jack does this as well. Then why does Ethan get screwed? He's left alone, without the girl, without a map/compass/helicopter to help him get back. What's he supposed to do? Send smoke signals? And IF he gets back home, does he just go back to his job? He should have been given the same mercy of getting killed out of the movie that the other heroes had.<br /><br />Don't waste your time or money on this movie. We only stayed til the end because we'd paid for it, but as soon as the credits hit, we were out the door.
Everyone does things that they later regret. Things that they wish they could blame on drugs or alien possession. Things that although seem rational at the time, later reveal themselves to be engraved invitations for suffering and endless recriminations of stupidity.<br /><br />For some people it is signing the note for the new Hummer, for others it is picking up a homicidal hitchhiker, for still others it is sending their bank account information to third world millionaires mysteriously strapped for cash.<br /><br />For me it was a film.<br /><br />D-War: Dragon Wars In hindsight, I should have guessed how environmentally friendly and thoroughly recycled this movie would turn out to be from its stuttered and repeating title. But with my willing suspension of disbelief intact, and a naive faith stemming from the cool looking poster in the lobby, I really wanted this film to work. Sadly, by the time the old man in the pawnshop explained the entire backstory, fifteen minutes into the picture, I had the sudden, sinking revelation that comes from knowing every plot point of a still unseen film. And worse: I knew just how badly every point would all suck.<br /><br />Let me be perfectly clear here, the English language lacks sufficient nuance and depth in the field of ultimate evil to properly describe just how bad this film really is.<br /><br />As for knowing all the twists of movie, I was wrong. In the spirit of the old Godzilla films, whose scales this one is not worthy to fill, it conveniently sprouted extra sub-plots every time the main characters were threatened by the specter of meaningful dialogue.<br /><br />It was infested with close calls, miraculous escapes, and concentrated deposits of poorly explained angst.<br /><br />This film is what would happen if you gave the produces of the Mighty Morphing Power Rangers access to the national defense budget. And lots of liquor.<br /><br />Let me try to explain.<br /><br />Imagine you could get a hold of all the coolest-looking set pieces from successful action movies of the last decade: First take the rasta-talking army of amphibians from Star Wars Episode One and remove their Prozac until they are ready to club Navy Seals.<br /><br />Next, take close approximations of Kira Knightly and Tom Cruise (You can even call him Ethan as a "subtle" nod to the Mission Impossible franchise.) and give them lots of film noir narration, so no one get confused while trying to follow the wading-pool depths of their thoughts.<br /><br />Finally add a raspy-voiced villain in pointy armor worthy of a Lord of the Rings yardsale and a couple of giant cobras, angry at having their scenes deleted from latest edition of King Kong, and lay them all out in no particular order in modern day Los Angeles.<br /><br />Now run to the drugstore to find something for your sudden migraine. When you return, puree these ingredients until any overlooked hint of originality is dissolved into a homogenized mass of cheese and serve semi-gelatinous.<br /><br />At several points during this picture, I found myself saying out loud, "Make the bad movie stop," and breaking into tears.<br /><br />To call this a B-movie would be giving it an undeserved promotion. After summer school, and a lot of physical therapy, it might possibly pass for a C level film if you could somehow sleep through most of it.<br /><br />In short, if you ever find yourself with money and brain cells to burn, and the need to punish yourself for hideous, unspoken sins against humanity, Dragon Wars might just be the film for you.
I knew it wasn't gunna work out between me and D-wars from the moment we met. First its title was lazy. D war. Like writing out Dragon was too much for them. Also... you really can't be that blatant with your title unless your Blue Monkey. Blue Monkey can do whatever the hell it wants. <br /><br />The second sign of a rocky relationship between us was the story's insane progression. Here's the film, dreamy reporter guy reports on big snake tracks, flashes back to a time he and dad wandered into what must have been the competition for the store in gremlins and dreamy kid reporter finds a box that glows. Old shop keep reveals several terrible truths. That Bauraki a supposedly evil snake was cheated out of his chance to be a god. tells the kid that he's a reincarnated warrior and that somewhere in LA is his reincarnated lover and gives him a junk piece of jewelry. Shop keep also reveals that despite his obvious whiteness he's a 500 year old Asian. <br /><br />fifteen years later dreamy reporter remembers this perfectly and starts acting half crazy trying to find this random girl. cgi hijinks follow and in the last ten minutes my brain melts out of my nose. Why? Continue on dear reader if you have the Balls.<br /><br />so Sarah, the reincarnated lover, has her own flashbacks. I have the benefit of having an Asian best friend and in the scene where she starts to freak out and make a bunch of posters with Asian characters on them he tells me that whoever made this movie has no idea what their doing. Its a Korean legend and she's reincarnated from a Korean princess but everything is in Chinese. Later that night her dragon tat starts to hurt, she calls the police cause it looks like she's having a heart attack. See, in this mixed up crazy world they apparently handle heart attacks differently because the next time we see her she's locked in her room with a guard outside and a nurse claims she's crazy. I have a new phobia now, and its that if i'm ever in trouble the first responders will just assume i'm crazy. <br /><br />I have another point of contention with my harsh mistress, Dwar. There is a scene when Patrick Dempsey Jr (Dreamy Reporter) is in a café' with sassy black friend. In the scenes prior Miffed Near divinity Bauraki has killed an elephant, slithered through a suburb and killed one of Sarah's friends. See, people were afraid to come out after 9-11 happened but we must have all toughened up after that deciding coffee and pastries were worth risking our lives for. Business as usual, no way a giant snake will stop me from getting my caffeine on. If i stay inside and fear for my life the terrorists and serpentine divinities win. <br /><br />After being given a satisfying dragon on Helicopter battle my cruel lover Dwar treats me to a pi$$ and vinegar filled scene to end it all with. Bauraki has a fortress of his own and its right under LA i guess. They don't really say but Dreamy Reporter and Sarah get knocked out in a car crash that would kill lesser men and when they wake up, yep dragon palace. some retarded dialog later a good dragon snake god pops out of nowhere and the snakes wrestle/make love whatever. And i'm not kidding good snake out of nowhere. Maybe you think i'm blowing it out of proportion, i'm not there is no mention of this thing in the movie then suddenly... there! Few seconds later and good dragon becomes dragon god, sets Baurki on fire, Sarah turns into a ghost and goes with Dragon-god, dreamy reporter left in the middle of nowhere roll credits... thank god<br /><br />Now our relationship as rocky as it was had its good times. There was a guy that look like shredder from turtles and talked exactly like a tuskan raider from star wars. I'll call him Tuskan Shredder. He could do whatever he wanted whenever he wanted to it just could never be useful. He could walk through a wall in a scene where that wasn't helpful. He could go in your dreams when that wouldn't do any good and he could light ten random soldier guys on fire but not when it mattered. He was also allergic to touching that junk jewelry. I like him cause he was hit by a car twice in the same scene and made fantastic tuskan raider noises. <br /><br />The actors for the most part were great... if great somehow meant terrible. Jason Behr, whom i thought was awesome in Roswell i slowly find out can only act one way and that's pretentious, spacey and Patrick Dempsey"ish".<br /><br />The one thing i love about this filthy prostitute Dwars is its lead actor, Bauraki. That Giant snake acted his heart out. I'd dare to say that he was better at playing a cgi serpentine demi-god of evil then John Barrymore was at playing Richard the III or Hamlet. There was emotion in every scene, stealing the thunder from his lesser mortal supporting cast. When he ate an elephant i felt like no one past, present or future would ever eat an elephant with as much feeling. He was more then an actor, he was a force of nature and he put his heart and soul into every second of this cursed project. Yes damn it, my favorite actor in this film was a cgi snake. I've got the balls to admit that, do you?<br /><br />Here's to hoping Bauraki get's more work and isn't type cast, that Jason Behr finds a range of emotion other then dreamy stare, and that i never have to watch Blue Monkey again. <br /><br />So, D-War its over. I want my CDs back and let's just be friends
Hilarious, laugh out loud moments ... and yet not a comedy. I particularly liked the planted gag of the ambulance soaking the "filthy bum" who then shouts after them in anger "you filthy bums", I mean wow, someone's online degree in literature is paying off! The worst script imaginable, with plot introductions in an instant, ridiculous movement in the story, ZERO character development (even between the characters who meet .. it's as if they all have known and trusted each other for years) dodgy voice over with added echo effects, and plot holes.. oh God are there plot holes!! To be honest I write this not even having watched the entire thing, but I certainly expect the last 30 mins or so to not exactly enhance the already pathetic attempt in cinema ... thank god we've got a good looking lead to somewhat make us forget that the film is a load of ... well ... use you imagination for the conclusion of that particular sentence!
I'm giving this movie a 1 because there are no negative numbers in IMDb rating system. this movie was horrible. It was very badly acted, the story was poorly written, the action was unbelievable. I doubt even the Salvation Army could battle as poorly as the troops did in this film. I won't even write any plot spoilers because the movie just isn't good enough for plot spoilers. To write comments on the plot would be pointless. If I were to compare this movie, I'd have to compare it to Reign of Fire, however although I didn't like Reign of Fire either, that movie at least was better than this one. <br /><br />Some of the people in the theater left before the movie was even halfway done. The only reason I didn't was because I simply didn't think to do it. I was hoping for a feast of CGI and fighting masterfully done, but that isn't what happened. The martial arts lasted all of 30 seconds and that was from an exercise routine done during the flash-back scene, very disappointing. The CGI was not done well either. One scene comes to mind. During one of the earlier tank battles, the troops are firing away at......nothing. Someone forgot to cue the animation guys on that bit of film so the street was totally devoid of bad guys. I'm also thinking the bad guy's voice was dubbed by the voice-over of Imotep from The Mummy movies. Had that same scraggly echoing thing going on. (Someone owed some royalties, here?) Since I mentioned the fight scene, I'll say yeah that might be considered a spoiler, but only to the purists I suppose.<br /><br />Don't go see it, don't buy the DVD when it comes out either. You have been warned.
I am a guy, who loves guy movies... I was looking forward to seeing a dragon fighting with the army with cool special effects. All of this happened, however, this movie was the worst movie I have ever seen in my life.<br /><br />The story was standard, but the portrayal of the story was terrible. The scene transitions were the worst I have ever seen. Why would you walk out to a beach to relax if your life was in danger? The serpent dragon's actions itself was very poorly written... and the serpent dragon's attack capabilities varied widely throughout the movie, several times the main characters should have died.<br /><br />The director attempted to infuse a love story in the middle of the movie during the most stressful times, this movie was obviously not watched after it was made, I love movies, but had to force myself to finish watching it, thank god I did not buy this, I borrowed it from a friend.<br /><br />Do not buy this, do not rent it, just watch discovery channel... much more exciting.
{rant start} I didn't want to believe them at first, but I guess this is what people are talking about when they say South Korean cinema has peaked and may even be going downhill. After the surprisingly fun and moving monster movie "Gwoemul" (aka "The Host") of 2006-- which actually succeeded in making a sharp satire out of a B-movie genre-- successive Korean blockbusters have become more and more generic, even though their budgets (mainly spent on special effects) have become more and more fantastic. Do South Korean movie-makers really want to squander all the audience and investor goodwill, which their industry has built up since the 1999 break-out film "Shiri/Swiri", by making a whole series of big budget mediocre movies like mainland China did? {rant end}<br /><br />The only "reason" I can fathom for making this movie is to dupe the investors into financing the most detailed and fluid digital animation of a Korean/ East Asian-styled dragon I have seen to date, for the final scenes. Now if they had introduced that dragon at the beginning and given it more personality and purpose like in the 1996 "Dragonheart", the movie might have had a few more redeeming qualities other than having lots of digitally animated dragons. Remember "Dungeons & Dragons" in 2000? Hasn't anyone learnt that the trick is not how MUCH special effects you use, but how WELL you use it? I hope there are more (and better) Korean legends they can use, because they have just killed a lot of international interest in Korean dragon legends with the way they filmed this one.<br /><br />In short, I agree with all the negative reviews gone before and wonder how Koreans felt about having their folk anthem "Arirang" being played at the very end. As a creature feature, I would have given it at least 5 stars out of 10 if the special effects or action sequences had been worth it, but I've seen many video games with better camera work and scripting (just less dragons).
This is the sorriest collection of clichés, strung together on a straight line, with no discernible plot or any decent way of acting I've seen in a long time. Canibalising scenes from Star Wars, Reign of Fire, Godzilla, Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, it went for an all out war on the viewer intelligence. Was this movie good? It wasn't a movie at all!<br /><br />Even if it doesn't go so low to actually be funny and achieve cult status as a comedy, the movie does offer some laughs. The trick is to put the copied scenes in the context of their original films. Gandalf can be funny talking Korean, the basilisk looking snake hilarious if you compare it to a kitten and the evil henchman can provide a lot of fun switching back and forth between Sauron and Jaja-bing, or whatever his name was.<br /><br />Bottom line: any pleasure derived from this movie is completely dependent on the state of intoxication and imagination of the viewers, not on the director/writer. Shame on you, Shim!
My original review of this film was simply the word sh*t written 2000 times over. Although this was a very accurate critique, I felt my review should be a little more descriptive.<br /><br />I will start with the lead actress; her facial expression doesn't change once in this film, she doesn't show fear, happiness or depression. Her skills in body language pretty much come down to darting her eyes left and right and looking like she don't know jack. She is an emotionless husk who I'm guessing has had too much botox. Her lack of facial expression through out the film is outmatched however by the deplorable love affair with the lead actor which seems to spring out of nowhere and has them making out on a beach and falling in love within a couple of hours of meeting one another. The lead actor, whose hair demands more attention than he did, was mediocre at best and did not once make me feel like he was genuinely in peril.<br /><br />The only thing that tops the hideous acting is the directing, storyline and inaccuracies in plot. I have seen tampon ads with more structure than this movie. The is no development in character, they just seem to say and do things that I could never believe a real person would.<br /><br />This film would not have been bad if it was trying to be crap on purpose like snakes on a plane but it was trying so hard to be a serious action flick that I couldn't even laugh. I believe I now have a brain tumour from watching this film and thinking up all the different ways I could have used that budget and cg team to create something far superior. If I bought this on DVD I would smash the DVD to pieces, burn it then dissolve it in hydrochloric acid for good measure. DON'T WATCH THIS FILM!
First off I'd like to point out that Sam Niel is nowhere to be seen in this film. What's a movie without Sam Niel. Did anyone see Event Horizon. D-Wars did have potential a movie about a dragon that controls lizards with rocket launchers does sound cool but sadly isn't. Nope, no Sam Niel, no good movie. I recommend taking the 5 dollars or so it takes to rent D-Wars and adding 10 to that five and buying a Sam Niel film- apparently to submit this i have to have ten lines of text so heres a list of Sam Niel movies i recommend<br /><br />-jurassic park -dead calm -hunt for red October -event horizon -not jurassic park three<br /><br />overall D-Wars is a pile
Whatever his name is (the writer and director) should be locked away in hopes garbage like this is never made again. This one is in a battle with some of the most awful movies of all time. Sometimes movies are bad in a way that they're actually sort of good. Not this one. This was so bad I got angry. Seriously. A drunken 10 year old could have come up with a better script. What a waste. ALL the actors were completely uninspired to work at all, the CGI was barely acceptable, the sequences of scenes were completely retarded and hurt the little bit of story there was, it's like he just decided, "I want this to happen and this to happen, but I don't care how we got there, just shoot it and put it in. Whatever, I'm going back to my trailer to pick my nose, if anyone calls for me, I'm not here." Shame on you whatever your name is. Shame on you.
I hate to even waste the time it takes to write 10 lines on this atrocity. Hyung-Rae Shim is lucky that bad film-making isn't a capital crime or he'd be put to death twice for writing and directing this disaster. I'm amazed that this film had a $75m budget, but actually glad in the sense that it was such a tremendous flop, that Shim will hopefully, never get to make another movie the rest of the life and, therefore, not waste any more of filmgoers time. I would think the actors would have gotten together and lynched him by now.<br /><br />With the effects resources available to them, a great film could have been made with this budget. As usual, the failure should have been spotted at the very beginning with the terrible script and story. "Transformers" was another visual feast with a weak script, but this makes it look like "Citizen Kane".
Based on the Korean legend, unknown creatures will return and devastate the planet. Reporter Ethan Kendrick is called in to investigate the matter, and he arrives at the conclusion that a girl, stricken with a mysterious illness, named Sarah is suppose to help him. The Imoogi makes its way to Los Angeles, wreaking havoc and destruction. With the entire city under arms, will Ethan and Sarah make it in time to save the people of Los Angeles? Written by Anonymous I think he should have included the following<br /><br />This is the worst movie i have ever seen the best actor in the whole thing was the CG dragon and overall it s u c k-ed i am p i s s-ed at not only with the people who made it but myself for watching save yourself the time read a book or something maybe a little Dr Seuss that should be more stimulating.<br /><br />no wonder the guy is anonymous sorry for the format this site has a lot of rules this is the only way i could get this out without adding more
This movie was so very badly written. The characters had no depth. They should have never made a movie of this. My 11 yr old son could write a better screenplay then Hyung-rae Shim.<br /><br />The only actor that didn't suck was the zoo guard. He was the only funny and believable one of the lot.<br /><br />I love movies and try to give them the benefit of the doubt, but this one was up there on my lame list at number 2. Number 1 being Demonicus.<br /><br />For those of you who actually thought this was a good movie, you are in serious need of brain surgery.<br /><br />Most of the creatures in the movie weren't even dragons...so why did they call D-war?
this movie only gets a second star because i work downtown and liked seeing it destroyed. the effects were pretty good- i hear it was the most expensive Korean film ever made. being the most expensive and still absolutely horrid makes it a massive waste of money. i rented it so i won't complain too much about what i paid, but it was a couple hours that i'll never get back. plot holes abound. terrible acting all across the board. i do not recommend giving up the time to watch this movie, life is too short. if your friends want to watch this, run away. i can't stress enough how bad this film was. <br /><br />where the hell did the second dragon come from? why didn't he show up sooner? how did they have rocket launchers on dinosaurs just 500 years ago?
I knew it would be, but I gave it a rent for some laughs and maybe some mindless fun. Anyone whose read a few of my reviews can see that I'm pretty easy to please. I really didn't think I'd end up feeling this negatively towards it.<br /><br />The plot is about an ancient army of dragons lead by a huge serpent that will destroy the world unless some chosen heroes who inherited the responsibility can… become one with… a good dragon… or something… I don't know. It was so stupid, I didn't bother to put much effort into retaining it.<br /><br />It features a really dumb story full of ridiculous moments and goofy concepts. So many of the events just felt totally random and sudden.<br /><br />I assume there was studio interference or something because the biggest problem I have with the movie is the fact that the story seems like it's trying to be so grand and epic, yet everything happens so fast and goes by so quickly. I feel like I've just been hit with a million plot points and action sequences in one big ball. The film is like a punch in the face. It doesn't take much time at all to establish characters or drama. Imagine the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy in 90 minutes… You could have most of the epic battle sequences, but there would be absolutely no buildup and you'd hardly care about the outcome of those battles. That was the case with Dragon Wars… 90 minutes of me not giving a crap, waiting for it to be over.<br /><br />Fantastic CGI with some okay directing, but horrible acting, speedy pacing, and dumb story made this very hard to enjoy on any grounds. I probably would have loved it when I was 6.
I was dreading taking my nephews to this movie, as I didn't think it was going to be well done. The kids, ages 6 and 10 were set on seeing it, so I caved. I must admit that it was not nearly as bad as I had thought, but was still a far cry from the book. The movie seemed right on with the 10 year old's understanding and sense of humor. I found that the 6 year old understood what was going on and he was presenting solutions to the issues that were taking place. I eventually had to explain that sometimes the movies don't show the best solutions to the problems because it is more fun to watch what happens if they make the "silly" or "stupid" choices.
Squeamish 11-year-old Luke Benward (as Billy "Worm Boy" Forrester) moves to a new town. At his new school, young Benward is picked on by the other boys. They put worms in his thermos. Getting his gag reflex under control, Benward tosses a worm on freckle-faced bully Adam Hicks (as Joe Guire). Benward bets he can eat 10 worms in one day - without regurgitation! <br /><br />Tall, teased Hallie Kate Eisenberg (as Erika "Erk" Tansy) uses her archery skills to help Benward. Director and former SCTV writer Bob Dolman promises, "No worms were harmed in the making of this movie." In a related note, SCTV star Andrea Martin has one funny scene. "How to Eat Fried Worms" is loosely based on Thomas Rockwell's popular novel. Pre-teen kids into gross-outs should enjoy the film.<br /><br />**** How to Eat Fried Worms (8/25/06) Bob Dolman ~ Luke Benward, Adam Hicks, Hallie Kate Eisenberg, Alexander Gould
I was bored, around 10pm, so I watched this movie. And I could not stop laughing. Everything was so ridiculous. The way the kids were acting like they were older than 11 just cracked me up. One of the kids had a ring, that supposedly killed people after 3 or so years. It gave me the impression that he wanted to be a gangster.<br /><br />It's pretty hard to take little kids seriously, especially when it has to do with eating worms. They act like everything is such a big deal, like if Billy (the main character) doesn't eat the worms then the world will end.<br /><br />This is a good movie for little kids (excluding the fact that a 5 year old says 'penis'), but not for teens or adults who don't want to waste their time.
I have to admit I did not finish this movie because it was so amazingly stupid and not worth watching. I watched it with a room full of kids, who also were not laughing at the stupid and crude humor. The director, Bob Dolman, seems to be so obsessed with sphincters and genitalia that it overrides the real story that I grew up with. THIS IS NOT A GOOD FILM FOR KIDS! Besides the fact that the content is so crude, the movie is just stupid has bad flow and has no intelligence behind it. What a waste of a perfectly good story. If you read the book when you were younger and loved it, then don't waste your time watching a movie that so badly botches it that it makes you angry. Buy your kids the book instead.
i just happened to stumble on this film channel surfing. my first reaction was, 'oh god not again!'. it's so hip to play a retard these days it has become pretentious and frankly despicable. for some reason, though, i stayed and watched it 'til the end. maybe it was my faith in the actors, hoping they'd give me something to cheer about.<br /><br />and surely, ken and helena can act. also, the movie progresses into something better towards the end and actually does make a point.<br /><br />helena bonham carter also surprised me with her character. jane has a mean side that she uses to keep distance and repel pity. then again she has a soft side that's just looking for love. the only thing that surprised me even more was branagh's character...this was a triumph of acting, the movie itself is nothing unique.<br /><br />see if you are an acting student...if you're looking for pure entertainment you can skip this one. it's sean penn serious! oh my, that was a bit harsh it does feature a couple jokes...not for escapists though.
Spoiler!! I love Branagh, love Helena Bonham-Carter, loved them together in "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" - but THIS -<br /><br />I can understand an actor's desire to stretch, to avoid the romantic stereotype. Well, they did, but really - the script droned on, Bonham-Carter's clothes were tres chic, and the occasional speeded-up "madcap" sequence could have been an outtake from a Beatles' movie, or the old Rowan and Martin Laugh-In.<br /><br />I never got the point - other commenters say the Branagh character was a dreamer. I never felt that. He was a loser, and not very bright, and certainly not endearing. The business with the bank robber disguise was merely painful to watch. Certainly not amusing.<br /><br />Bonham-Carter's realistic (one supposes) attempts as realistic speech were harder to understand than the first 15 minutes of Lancashire accent in "Full Monty."<br /><br />The poetic ending, with him high on a hill with her buried under the monstrosity of his airplane was too orchestrated. Was there a choir of angels, or merely a soundtrack?<br /><br />Go back to the classics or something with a spine and an arc to it. Donate this to PBS.<br /><br />
I still don't know why I forced myself to sit through the whole thing. This "film" wasn't worth the Memorex DVD-R it was burned on; I thought I was watching the end result of a group of middle schoolers stealing their parents' camcorder. This is by far the worst movie ever made. I truly, from the bottom of my heart, want to sue Aaron Yamasato for the two hours he stole from my life.<br /><br />So apparently, it's supposed to be bad on purpose; However, if you should end up in Hell and are forced to watch this 90-minute coil of doo-doo, you'll see that Yamasato is really trying hard to make an awesome flick. The actors attempt dramatic kick-ass performances comparable to Crimson Tide but come closer to The Marine.<br /><br />The crap acting is just the tip of the iceberg. The camera angles are awful. The story is C-movie at best-- the plot isn't even good enough to be considered B-movie caliber. The dialogue attempts to be dynamic and witty, but is crap like everything else. Rumor has it that a hard copy of the screenplay actually attracts flies. Plus, the techno score is annoying... not because it's techno, but because it's NON-STOP. That's right, the music plays in the background THE WHOLE TIME, acting as a subliminal reminder of how bad this thing is. I don't care what the disclaimer claims, I don't buy it. BOTS was not made this bad on purpose, because it takes itself WAY too serious for what it was: a joke.<br /><br />This "film" was very low-budget. But that is no excuse for its record-setting suck factor. Great films are born of substance, not budget. BOTS had neither.<br /><br />Allow me to further articulate the overwhelming power of this 90-minute waste of time: if I were having a three-way with Jessica Alba and Jessica Biel in front of a TV and Blood of the Samurai came on, I'd be out of there quicker than Steven Seagal in Executive Decision.<br /><br />Undoubtedly, some people will try to defend the movie. Two, maybe three. They'll say, "it's grindhouse chop-socky!" or "cheesy in a good way!" or "it's so bad, it's good!" Those people are idiots. A movie is either good, or it's bad. There's no such thing as a good bad movie. But there ARE such things as idiots that like crappy movies. Don't get me wrong; there are lots of cornball not-to-be-taken-seriously movies out there that are enjoyable and entertaining. Slither is one. BOTS is not.<br /><br />This suckfest runs about an hour and a half, and in my humble opinion, it's 90 minutes too long. The best thing about this "film" is the DVD cover, so next time you're near the Wal-Mart DVD bargain bin, take a look at it-- DON'T TOUCH IT, just look-- and quietly walk away.
I have no clue as to what this was shot on but you can definitely tell that they had no budget. Bad acting, horrible cinematography, and lame plot and some decent special effects do not make a good movie. The WWF style cinemtography will make you cry...where's the tripod?! The filmakers aimed high, but sorely missed their mark.
Trash/bad movies usually ain't bad because I will find them enjoyable. This one is so bad that I am out of words to describe it - its below "bad". There is an instruction in the beginning of the film that tell you what to do during the movie. Needless to say, the instruction and a dozen of beer couldn't help me seat through the entire film. One tagliner compares this one to KILLBILL which is certainly unthinkable and an insult to our intelligent. Obviously. this tagliner had a plan to tempt you into buying this DVD.<br /><br />If you are considering renting this one, put it down! If you are thinking of buying, Dont think! If you unlucky to have this dvd, dont play it, throw it in trash bin immediately.
There are no spoilers in this review. There's nothing to spoil.<br /><br />No plot, nothing; most clip shows at least try to tie the clips into the plot by some tenuous stretch, but this didn't even do that. Clips, three lines to lead into the next interminable sequence of dull clips... OK, so perhaps they were short on production time, but they'd have been better off skipping this episode entirely. What a waste of time.<br /><br />I'm not sure how this got made, in fact. Scrubs is usually much better at subverting tropes, but somehow this got through....<br /><br />Thank heavens they were back on form by the next episode.
The only reason I am commenting is because I finally figured out why Dr. Cox was bald. Although we probably all realized it at the same time this week, Dr. Cox is bald because they showed these episodes in a different order than they filmed them. The latest episode when our favorite grumpy, Jesus-loving Nurse Roberts dies Dr. Cox shaves his head. The must have showed them out of order for some odd reason and forgot they slipped up the continuity. For shame, Scrubs. They've made mistakes like this before. I remember when Elliot is trying to date Scott Foley and her hair is wet 2 seconds before water hits her. I try not to notice these things, but my favorite show needs to step it up.
I thought it was not the best re-cap episode I've every seen (though my viewing partner handed me a tissue in anticipation of the Brendan Fraser moment...*sigh*). It was nice to see Cox outside of the incessantly brittle "Coxism State" he is in these days, if only for brief moments. I also enjoyed trying to place the episodes included by the length of the character's hair (or height, in case of JD) and the youthfulness of the earliest episodes. I can also see how Zach might be well on the way to a very Chevy Chase/or is that Matthew Perry? prat-fall induced chemical slide (already acknowledged on Conan). A little side note, the song (now stuck in my head) from the janitor-induced dance montage was "Diner" by Martin Sexton.
But, lets face it... it got a few nostalgic sighs out of me.<br /><br />The show is just so consistently great that it is allowed to have a few hiccups. I get a new season, and just power through them like I have 2-days to live. I like the idea of wrapping it up, but it was much more of an end of season episode which would explain the following:<br /><br />Dr.Cox isn't supposed to be bald for a couple more episodes, only explanation I can think of is they changed the rotation of the episodes or had to re-shoot the beginning.<br /><br />and that my friends, is why the hell cox is bald.<br /><br />Anyways, the show is awesome...bring on the 7th season.
I debated as to whether or not I should tick the spoiler box. Since 99% of this show has probably already been seen by any follower of Scrubs it probably doesn't come under the category of a spoiler.<br /><br />Clip shows. Grrr. We all knew Friends was going down the tube when they started with clip shows...and five and a half years into Scrubs they've gone and fallen down that hole.<br /><br />I have to wonder if the writers just couldn't be bothered writing that week and just said to themselves "let's show the other funny stuff." It didn't work.<br /><br />For starters, showing all the times that people have fallen down isn't funny when taken out of context. It's not funny to see Todd dangling by his banana hammock unless we know WHY he was dangling by his banana hammock.<br /><br />Second, for what was supposed to be a compilation of JD's fantasies, one was Turk's dream, another also wasn't his fantasy, although I forget which.<br /><br />And that's the problem. This episode is totally forgettable. We've seen all these things before. And the collection of clips of people dancing? Why? That's not funny.<br /><br />Finally, I must admit two of my favourite Scrubs moments were shown in the last compilation...Dr. Cox realising that Ben died...and JD telling him how proud of him he is.<br /><br />But even seeing those moments again didn't save the episode. The summary says it all.<br /><br />Worst episode ever. Bill Lawrence, PLEASE don't let your show go the same way as Friends, keep it fresh, keep it funny...or wrap it up.
When 'My Deja Vu, My Deja Vu' aired last season, I was pleased. Scrubs, I thought, is doing something clever and unique in regards to the clip-show concept. Instead of replaying footage, they're replaying jokes in a self-aware manner, and I really enjoyed it.<br /><br />I found it really unfortunate that I was wrong. One season later, they succumbed to that which almost all sitcoms inevitably do, the clip show...and it looked like it was put together by the work-experience kid. Dr Cox's shaved head shows just how lazy the editors were in putting it together, as it doesn't appear again until 'My Long Goodbye' some 4 episodes later. I can't imagine that a wig is too much effort when it comes to maintaining the continuity of what was once a well-constructed sitcom. Who knows why it was slotted there, it just seemed lazy and out of place, reminding me (largely) of episodes that have aired within the past year.<br /><br />Three second clips jammed together with background music is a DVD extra for a (very) rainy day, not an episode of prime-time television.
Truly bad and easily the worst episode I have ever seen....ever.<br /><br />They tried to make up for it by giving it the, 'we know we are doing this' routine. That would have been funny if it weren't for the fact that 'The Simpsons' had already done it. And it still wouldn't make up for it if they had come up with the idea in the first place.<br /><br />The flashbacks took place as part of the usual character's (mainly J.D's) fantasies. The flashbacks weren't even of actual events that occurred, just compilations of say, J.D falling over or, i don't know.... Elliott falling over. If I wanted to watch a Scrubs compilation i'd go on youtube and not waste half an hour of my life.<br /><br />Scrubs has ultimately fallen into the trap that most sit-coms have to, and it disappoints me, they managed to go 5 and a quarter seasons without an episode like this. <br /><br />I was hoping that scrubs wouldn't have to be that kind of sit-com.<br /><br />And just as a passing thought, why the hell was Dr.Cox bald?
Whoa boy.<br /><br />Ever wanted to watch a documentary about a megalomaniacal jerk ruining his own life and alienating everyone around him? Well they exist, in many forms. But have you ever wanted to watch said documentary about one who didn't ultimately succeed in doing anything despite everyone's praises about how much of an artistic "genius" he is? Well you could probably just grab a camera and find someone like that in any local scene (I know they're everywhere and I don't even follow the local scene), or you could save yourself the trouble by spending money watching this tripe.<br /><br />The premise is good and, honestly, it's not as if the filmmakers knew precisely where it was going considering that's one of the difficulties of doing a documentary. We are made to follow two bands, The Brian Jamestown Massacre, lead by Anton, and The Dandy Warhols, lead by Courtney. I've heard of The Dandy Warhols before watching this movie... not so the Brian Jamestown Massacre. Why? Well from this documentary's perspective, because The Brian Jamestown Massacre's intergroup dysfunction refused them the ability to really make it in the music industry. However, instead of this becoming an analysis of the two separate bands and how one was able to succeed, the focus becomes much more on Anton and his insanity.<br /><br />Because, see, Anton is a "genius." Because he plays rock music. He really "understands the evolution of music"... because he plays rock music with a lot of different instruments. His music is considered "post-modern retro but the future"... because it's rock music. He wants to bring out a "revolution"... through rock music. Okay so let's face it... twenty minutes in and this is one of the stupidest kids I'd care to watch a documentary about.<br /><br />The documentary itself doesn't really lend itself to showcasing any of Anton's talent, because in the nature of editing down 2000 hours of material into a quarter short of two hours we don't really have the time to focus on that. So instead we watch Anton, "the genius", the socio-maniacal loser, be a jerk for the two hours and are just told to understand that he made really great music. Whether he did or not I won't know, because its not like the documentary had enough time to prove it. What I do know is that then we're left with a story about some self-centered obnoxious twerp running around the country calling himself a God of music and doing nothing to back it up. Why even bother watching that? People like Anton don't deserve the attention they seek, the hope and admiration of all those different people, and especially a post-failure paean to lost potential. This movie plays like a two-hour rough-cut VH1 special for a reason: he goes on and on about the music, but it's all about the image and the attention. Look at the guy, look at how he dresses, look at how he acts, look at how he tries to create controversy because he can't afford marketing.<br /><br />Honestly the only interesting character in this film is Joel, and that's because of anyone in this documentary, Joel is the only person who seems to have any fun. Maybe it's because he's the tambourine man. The rest of them are all "rock stars"! They deserve our attention, and admiration, and interest, and engagements! They are out there to "save rock and roll." Do you remember when The White Stripes were supposed to "save rock and roll"? Yeah, that was because of Anton, and it's "selfish of them not to mention me (Anton) as an inspiration." What a load. People like Anton are best left forgotten. This documentary explains why mainstream music is so dull--because music execs have to deal with people like Anton for a living and ultimately can only really throw their support behind someone safe and passionless. Thanks a lot, Anton. Your antics ruined music for EVERYONE you touched, whatever the opinion to the contrary is. And if people "in the know" about Anton disagree and he really was a genius, it still shows how bad this documentary is that it cuts it down that way.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB
Actress Ruth Roman's real-life philanthropic gesture to help entertain troops arriving from and leaving for the Korean War at an air base near San Francisco jump-started this all-star Warner Bros. salute to patriotism and song. Many celebrities make guest appearances while a love-hate romance develops between a budding starlet and a painfully green and skinny Air Force Corporal (Ron Hagerthy, who looks like he should be delivering newspapers from his bicycle). Seems the Corporal has fooled the actress into thinking he's off to battle when actually he's part of a airplane carrier crew, flying to and from Honolulu (you'd think she'd be happy he was staying out of harm's way, but instead she acts just like most childish females in 1950s movies). Doris Day is around for the first thirty minutes or so, and her distinct laugh and plucky song numbers are most pleasant. Roman is also here, looking glamorous, while James Cagney pokes fun at his screen persona and Gordon MacRae sings in his handsome baritone. Jane Wyman sings, too, in a hospital bedside reprise following Doris Day's lead, causing one to wonder, "Did they run out of sets?" For undemanding viewers, an interesting flashback to another time and place. Still, the low-rent production and just-adequate technical aspects render "Starlift" strictly a second-biller. *1/2 from ****
It's nothing more than a weird coincidence that I decided to watch STARLIFT on the 59th anniversary of the day in June 1950 when President Truman's ordered US forces into the Korean War. STARLIFT, you see, is set largely at Travis Air Force base in California in the years when it was being used as a staging post for soldiers being shipped out to fight in Korea. But you'd need to do your own research to know this because not once during the film is the name 'Korea' mentioned. We see transport aircraft flying out fresh troops and returning with wounded soldiers but there's no mention of where these men will be fighting or getting injured. Which is kind of weird for a film designed to wave the flag and salute America's men in uniform. Released in December 1951 by Warner Brothers, STARLIFT is a very obvious effort to replicate the success of the studio's star-studded World War Two home-front morale booster "Hollywood Canteen." This 1944 crowd-pleaser told the story of two soldiers spending their last three nights of leave hanging out at the famous armed forces nightclub in LA hoping to get a date with Joan Leslie. But really it was just an excuse for Warners to trot out every star under contract, from Joan Crawford, John Garfield, and Barbara Stanwyck to Peter Lorre, Bette Davis, Sydney Greenstreet and more. STARLIFT features two Air Force soldiers hoping to meet fictional starlet Nell Wayne (a mask-like Janice Rule) and persuading a bunch of Warner Bros stars to put on a show for the departing troops. But in place of Crawford, Garfield et al the best the brothers Warner could scrape up in 1951 were Doris Day, Ruth Roman, Gordon MacRae, Virginia Mayo, Gene Nelson and Phil Harris with fleeting appearances by James Cagney, Randolph Scott, and a clearly embarrassed looking Gary Cooper. This threadbare cast, whose combined star power would struggle to illuminate a standard lamp, is perfectly matched by the crummy production values. Presumably in an effort to save money several long scenes were shot using really really bad back projection. How bad is it? You can see the join where the screen meets the floor of the soundstage! To describe STARLIFT as a sloppy, lazy and third rate movie is to do a disservice to films which are sloppy, lazy and third rate. It's just terrible. Avoid it.
This oddity in the new DORIS DAY COLLECTION doesn't really need to be included as she is only in the film for less than 30 minutes. What she does do however, is shine when she's on screen. The near plot less movie is just an excuse to showcase some Warner contract players of the day. JANCIE RULE shows promise and it's a shame she didn't become a big star. RUTH ROMAN handles the role of the "go-getter" with aplomb. Better if this was in color. The Travis Air force base locations with some rear projection work well. What's best about the movie are some wonderful musical interludes. If you enjoyed THANK YOUR LUCKY STARS and Hollywood CANTEEN you'll like this one.
Considering its pedigree, this should be a far more enjoyable film than it is. Even with a lip-smacking collection of eccentrics in the cast - what aficionado would not eagerly anticipate a movie which brings together Lemmon, Lanchester, Kovacs and Gingold? - the entire event is dully paced, drearily shot and, more often than not, witless.<br /><br />Kim Novak's gifts were not essentially comic, as she went on to confirm in Kiss Me Stupid. James Stewart was a fine comedian, as he ably demonstrated in movies from ranging from The Philadelphia Story to Harvey. I think he comes out better from this mess than anyone else does. Except maybe the cat.
Chesty gringo Telly Savalas (as Frank Cooper) is a US-Mexico "Border Cop". He serves as a father figure to young immigrant Danny De La Paz (as Benny Romero), who wants Mr. Savalas to be best man at his impending wedding. Savalas is tough, but boss Eddie Albert (as Commander Moffat) may be tougher. Tough is what you need to stop smuggler Michael V. Gazzo (as Chico Suarez). Alliances may be in flux.<br /><br />If you find the possibility of hearing "Kojak" and "Oliver Douglas" uttering expletives to be repulsive, you ought to steer clear of "The Border". If not, you may not have the stomach for the "realistic" cow slaughtering scene. Although it doesn't end up being worth much, Mr. De La Paz and Cecilia Camacho (as Leina) steal the show. <br /><br />** The Border (1979) Tony Richardson ~ Telly Savalas, Danny De La Paz, Eddie Albert
I would like to say that unlike many of the people who disliked this film and found it impossible to understand I was fully able to understand it for what it is.. A very incoherent attempt at a plot line.<br /><br />I don't like to toss this word around but in this case it fits very well. The director firstly presents the material in an extremely "arrogant" way and worse, extremely incoherently. It is incoherent in that it presents the material in a messy dislodged order, making us think that the director was too drunk to remember which scenes come first, and arrogant in that at 2 hours long they expect us, the viewer to CARE by the end of it.<br /><br />I respect surrealist cinema for what it is. (creating a story around a more than real world that does not tie to real life) But there is nothing surreal about having a story placed in ordinary modern times, and a modern day earth setting, that is most importantly not able to engage the audience but furthermore, simply a dislodged series of events that barely tie together. The most accurate way to describe the experience of viewing this film is like viewing a story; perhaps even a very GOOD story as it was based on a book, but being frustrated by the fact that the camera doesn't seem to capture the necessary moments and tie together any means of coherence.<br /><br />Let's compare stylistic cinema. Compare Gaspar Noe's "Seul contre tous" to this. He gave us a coherent, extremely engaging and intellectually deep story. This movie offers no intellectual study, and while it is very stylistic in it's fragmented presentation, the director has ultimately abandoned the essential art of good storytelling and all we are left with is a mess of events that barely tie in together.<br /><br />Yes indeed it IS possible to make sense of things.... to a POINT. But as i said earlier the viewer will reach a stage where they simply say "Who cares." It plays out like watching a drab mundane story of a man going to a supermarket and buying groceries in uncronological order. Even with murders it is completely uninteresting and unengaging. Too many people these days will give high marks to something they are unable to understand or make sense of simply for fear of looking foolish, and in every way this film TRIES to make the viewer look foolish.<br /><br />If you have too much time on your hands, then please watch this film, taking into account what I have said of it. It is a story based on a book that could have been presented in a MUCH more effective way and that is my bottom line reasoning.
Claire Denis's movies seem to fall into one of two categories: the violent and bloody or the quiet and intimate. "L'Intrus" definitely falls into the first category, but it's not so awful as "Trouble Every Day" or "J'ai pas sommeil."<br /><br />Now, ever since I saw "Chocolat," I've made it a point to see every new movie Denis makes. And I have always been disappointed. "L'Intrus" was no exception. She has yet to make a movie as personal and as moving as her first one. <br /><br />You get a lot of the Denis regulars: an older but still magnificent Béatrice Dalle who seems to be in the movie only to show off her full lips, the gap between her teeth, her ample cleavage, and a couple of nice coats; the black guy from "Trouble Every Day" and "J'ai pas sommeil," Grégoire Colin, and that Lithuanian or Russian girl. Michel Subor's character was interesting enough, but the camera lingered on him at such length that I got annoyed by that curly forelock of hair hanging over his forehead and was relieved when, somewhere in Korea, I think, he finally got it cut. <br /><br />There was certainly some action--gruesome murders, a man's search for a son--and there may even have been a plot, but one viewing wasn't enough to figure it out, and two viewings are, I fear, out of the question. For one thing, the score was jarring and obtrusive (as in "Beau Travail"). For another, the seasons changed too abruptly, leaving you even more confused about what was going on. Oh, there were a few pretty shots, and if you liked "Friday Evening" with its shots of the folds in heavy drapes and bedsheets, you might appreciate the aesthetics of "L'Intrus." Otherwise, steer clear. <br /><br />I saw this movie in French and it's possible I missed something crucial. But the dialogue in a Denis movie rarely amounts to more than five pages, double spaced and with ample margins. In "Chocolat" the silence is sublime; in "L'Intrus," it's just dull.
For the big thinkers among us, "The Intruder" is a maddeningly incoherent movie from France that gives so-called "art films" a bad name. The story is something about a bitter old coot, Louis Trebor (Michel Subor), who goes searching in Tahiti for a heart transplant, but beyond that, I have no idea who any of the people in the movie were or why they were doing what they were doing. With no coherent storyline to boast of, the movie loses us early on, though I'm perfectly willing to admit that there might be SOMEBODY out there who actually gets some deep message out of this film. <br /><br />This muddled, snail-paced drama runs a full two hours and five minutes - though I seriously doubt anyone with any kind of a life will still be hanging around by the closing credits.
I'm a big fan of 50s sci-fi, but this is not one of my favorites. While the concept behind the movie was a natural vehicle for a classic teeny bopper sci-fi flick, the director counted too heavily on it to carry the movie. It's clear he was working with no money, because the entire movie is loaded with bloated dialogue that goes on and on forever. I have *never* seen so much time-killing in a movie.<br /><br />There are probably less than 60 seconds of "blob footage" in the entire movie, and most of the rest of it is people engaging in a lot of poorly-written, run-on dialogue. It was fun to see Steve M. and Anita C. together, but good heavens...how could casting have thought anyone in their right mind would believe them as teenagers?
The Blob starts with one of the most bizarre theme songs ever, sung by an uncredited Burt Bacharach of all people! You really have to hear it to believe it, The Blob may be worth watching just for this song alone & my user comment summary is just a little taste of the classy lyrics... After this unnerving opening credits sequence The Blob introduces us, the viewer that is, to Steve Andrews (Steve McQueen as Steven McQueen) & his girlfriend Jane Martin (Aneta Corsaut) who are parked on their own somewhere & witness what looks like a meteorite falling to Earth in nearby woods. An old man (Olin Howland as Olin Howlin) who lives in a cabin also sees it & goes to investigate, he finds a crater & a strange football sized rock which splits open when he unwisely pokes it with a stick. Laying in the centre of the meteorite is a strange jelly like substance which sticks to the stick, if you know what I mean! It then slides up the stick & attachés itself to the old man's hand. Meanwhile Steve & Jane are quietly driving along minding their own business when the old man runs out in front of Steve's car, Steve being a decent kinda guy decides to take the old man to Dr. T. Hallan (Alden 'Stephen' Chase as Steven Chase) at the local surgery. Dr. Hallan says he doesn't know what the substance on the old man's hand is but it's getting bigger & asks Steve to go back where he found him & see if he can find out what happened. Steve agrees but doesn't come up with anything & upon returning to Dr. Hallan's surgery he witnesses the blob devouring him. The town's police, Lieutenant Dave (Earl Rowe) & the teenage hating Sergeant Jim Bert (John Benson) unsurprisingly don't believe a word of it & end up suspecting Steve & his mates Al (Anthony Franke), Tony (Robert Fields) & someone called 'Mooch' Miller (James Bonnet) of playing an elaborate practical joke on the police department. However as the blob continues to eat it's way through the town Steve sets about finding proof of it's existence & convincing the police about the threat it posses not just to their town but the entire world!<br /><br />Directed Irvin S. Yeaworth Jr. & an uncredited Russell S. Doughton Jr. I was throughly disappointed by this, the original 1958 version of The Blob. The script by Kay Linaker as Kate Phillips & Theodore Simonson is an absolute bore & extremely dull not making the most of it's strongest aspects. The Blob focuses on the tiresome dramatics & conflicts between the teenagers & police, in fact the majority of The Blob is spent on Steve trying to convince the police of the blob's existence. For most of the film the blob itself almost seems inconsequential & somewhat forgotten. It only has two or three scenes for the fist hour & a bit until the less than exciting climax when the adults & teenagers have to work together to defeat the blob & have a new found appreciation of each other afterwards, yuck! Why couldn't the blob just eat the lot of 'em? No explanation is given for what the blob is or it's origins other than it came from space, how long did it take them to come up with that? The dialogue is clunky & silly as well, as are people's actions & decision making, I love the part when a nurse named Kate (Lee Paton as Lee Payton, did anyone use their real name in this thing?) is confronted by the blob, she throws some acid over it & calmly proclaims "Doctor, nothing will stop it!", how does she know 'nothing' will stop it exactly? There's no blood or violence so don't worry about that, the special effects on the blob itself aren't too bad considering but it barely has any screen time & moves very slowly, a bit like the film in general actually. The acting is terrible, McQueen is supposed to be a teenager when in reality he was 28 years old & it shows, he looks old enough to be his own dad! Same thing goes for most of the other 'teenage' cast members & everyone generally speaking are wooden & unconvincing in their roles. Technically The Blob is very basic, dark static photography, dull direction & forgettable production values. The Blob is one of those films that probably sounds good on paper & is well known as being a 'classic' but is in actual fact a huge disappointment when finally seen. This is one case when the remake The Blob (1988) is definitely better than the original. The original Blob is slow & boring & the remake isn't, the original Blob contains no blood or gore & the remake does, the original Blob has incredibly poor acting & casting decisions & the remake doesn't & the original Blob itself gets very little screen time eating only three or four people throughout the entire film & the remake features the blob all the way through & it virtually eats an entire town. The choice is an easy one, the remake every time as it's a better film in every respect. I'll give the film two stars & give that wonderful main theme song one on it's own. Definitely not the classic many seem to make out.
When a small glob of space age silly putty lands on earth it soon begins consuming earthlings and putting on weight. The only part of this senseless drivel that I enjoyed was all the cool classic cars. This dog had so many holes it could be sliced and sold for swiss cheese. This thing actually made 20 million bucks? And McQueen's salary was 3K? All were vastly overpaid. The 'monster' looked a lot like a large beanbag and the 'teens' looked as though they could have children approaching their teen-age years. And those blasts from the shotgun; sounded like a pellet rifle with a sound suppressor. The ending was pitifully trite; obviously the producers were leaving the door open for a sequel....and there were many. Thumbs down.
This is the least scary film i have ever seen. How the blob manages to eat anyone is the biggest mystery of the film. The blob moves so slowly that an o.a.p in a zimmerframe could escape it. The blob has a large slice of luck coming across a typical horror film woman who instead of running away stands still for half an hour so that she can be eaten. If you havent seen this film i recommend you do, its far too funny to be taken seriously.
Do we really need any more narcissistic garbage on the Baby Boomer generation? Technically, I am a Boomer, though at the time when all the "idealistic youths" of the '60s were reading Marx, burning their draft cards, and generally prolonging a war which destroyed tens of thousands of lives; I was still in grade school. But I remember them well, and 9 out of 10 were just moronic fools, who would believe anything as long as it was destructive.<br /><br />This is just another excercise in self-importance from the kids who never really grew up.
Is there any other time period that has been so exhaustively covered by television (or the media in general) as the 1960s? No. And do we really need yet another trip through that turbulent time? Not really. But if we must have one, does it have to be as shallow as "The '60s"? <br /><br />I like to think that co-writers Bill Couturie and Robert Greenfield had more in mind for this two-part miniseries than what ultimately resulted, especially given Couturie's involvement in the superb HBO movie "Dear America: Letters Home From Vietnam" which utilized little original music and no original footage, letting the sights and sounds of the time speak for themselves. This presentation intercuts file footage with the dramatic production, but it doesn't do anyone any favours by trying to do too much in too little time; like so many of its ilk, it's seen from the point of view of one family. But the children of the family seem to be involved tangentially with almost every major event of the '60s (it's amazing that one of them doesn't go to the Rolling Stones gig at Altamont), making it seem less like a period drama and more like a Cliff Notes version of the decade.<br /><br />The makers rush through it so much that there's little or no time to give the characters any character, with the stick figures called our protagonists off screen for ages at a time - the children's father is especially clichéd - and then when they're back on BLAMMO! it's something else. Garry Trudeau could teach the filmmakers a thing or two about doing this kind of thing properly. In fairness, Jerry O'Connell, Jordana Brewster, Jeremy Sisto, Julia Stiles and Charles S. Dutton give their material the old college try, but they're wasted (especially the latter two); it's undeniably good to see David Alan Grier in a rare straight role as activist Fred Hampton, and Rosanna Arquette (in an uncredited cameo in part 2) is always welcome.<br /><br />What isn't welcome is how "The '60s" drowns the soundtrack with so many period songs that it ultimately reduces its already minimal effect (and this may well be the only time an American TV presentation about post-60s America never mentions the British Invasion - no Beatles, no Rolling Stones... then again, there's only so much tunes you can shoehorn into a soundtrack album, right?). Capping its surface-skimming approach to both the time and the plot with an almost out-of-place happy ending, "American Dreams" and "The Wonder Years" did it all much, much better. Nothing to see here you can't see elsewhere, people... except for Julia Stiles doing the twist, that is.
The 1960's were a time of change and awakening for most people. Social upheaval and unrest were commonplace as people spoke-out about their views. Racial tensions, politics, the Vietnam War, sexual promiscuity, and drug use were all part of the daily fabric, and the daily news. This film attempted to encapsulate these historical aspects into an entertaining movie, and largely succeeded.<br /><br />In this film, two families are followed: one white, one black. During the first half of the film, the story follows each family on a equal basis through social and family struggles. Unfortunately, the second half of the movie is nearly dedicated to the white family. Admittedly, there are more characters in this family, and the story lines are intermingled, but equal consideration is not given to the racial aspects of this century.<br /><br />On the whole, the acting is well done and historical footage is mixed with color and black and white original footage to give a documentary feel to the movie. The movie is a work of fiction, but clips of well-known historical figures are used to set the time-line.<br /><br />I enjoyed the movie but the situations were predictable and the storyline was one-sided.
The 60s (1999) D: Mark Piznarski. Josh Hamilton, Julia Stiles, Jerry O'Connell, Jeremy Sisto, Jordana Brewster, Leonard Roberts, Bill Smitrovich, Annie Corley, Charles S. Dutton. NBC mini-series (later released to video/DVD as full length feature film) about the treacherous 1960s, as seen through the eyes of both a white family and a black family. The film's first half is driven by the excellent performance of Dutton as Reverend Willie Taylor and evenly spreads the storyline between the families. However, Dutton's character is killed halfway through and the black family is completely forgotten in a dull, incoherent, and downright awful 2nd half. RATING: 4 out of 10. Not rated (later rated PG-13 for video/DVD release).
I like a lot of the actors/actresses involved in this project so being insulted by the movie felt even worse than if they used a unknowns .The main problem was this movie was clearly just a concept created to appeal to baby boomers .In 20 or 30 years Nbc will probably do a movie just like this about the early 90's . I can see it now a black family where the kids are involved with the la riot's and the white family has the kids rebel and listen to grunge rock music .The soundtrack will feature bands like Nirvana , N.W.A , Public Enemy , Soundgarden etc .The movie like this will be just as cheesy as The 60's and I gurantee you NBC will do it .See the biggest problem with period pieces when done buy networks is that when you are living in a certain time period you aren't thinking i am living in the 60's or whatever decade is trendy retro at the time .Next time someone does something like this they should put more weight into there project
The '60s is an occasionally entertaining film, most of this entertainment is from laughing at the film. It is extremely uneven, and includes many annoying elements. Take for instance the switch between black & white, and color. If done right, this could of been fairly effective, but because it was done poorly , it turned into a nuisance and only detracted from the already bad experience; much of the film had an odd feel to it. The acting wasn't extremely bad for a made for TV flick, but then again it was downright embarrassing at other times. Many of the events were not coherent, and ending up being confusing. How did this family somehow end up being at many of the big events during the 1960's? The ending was much too sappy for my tastes; because it was hollywoodized, everything had to turn out right in the end. I would advise you to not waste your time on The '60s and do something else with your time. I'm glad I watched this in class, and not on my own time. I think I can safely say that the best part of the movie was the inclusion of Bob Dylan's music. Those are just my rambling thoughts on the flick. I hope you take my advice, and stay away from this.
Even if you could get past the idea that these boring characters personally witnessed every Significant Moment of the 1960s (ok, so Katie didn't join the Manson Family, and nobody died at Altamont), this movie was still unbelievably awful. I got the impression that the "writers" just locked themselves in a room and watched "Forrest Gump," "The Wonder Years," and Oliver Stone's 60s films over and over again and called it research. A Canadian television critic called the conclusion of the first episode "head spinning". He was right.
Somehow they summed up the 60's, ten years that radically changed our country, in four hours. And what a painful four hours it was. They trivilized the major events and happenings and they "claimed" it was about two families yet you barely saw the african-american family. If I were NBC I would be ashamed and embarrassed for airing such trash. What was amusing was this happy-go-lucky family you saw in the very beginning was tortured in so many ways, but managed to attend every major 60's event through the country. And the second family was such a non-factor. They devoted maybe five or six scenes total to this family. That poor son... Please NBC, do not make any movies about any other eras....leave that to PBS and the History Channel
The only way to get anything out of this film is to approach it as a comedy. Seen in that light, it does deliver. <br /><br />If you're looking for a serious movie, look somewhere else. This film has absolutely no depth and offers little more than a cursory and one dimensional examination of "issues" with no insight whatsoever.<br /><br />Making a movie about stereotypes and then making every single character in your movie a stereotype is an extremely poor strategy - especially when those same characters only break their hackneyed molds in predictable, stereotypical ways. <br /><br />Busta Rhymes and Ice Cube make the film almost watchable, and Michael Rappaport turns in a good performance, but the script is so awful and the social commentary is so trite, it's hard to find anything redeeming.
This movie masquerades as a social commentary, when in fact it is every bit as ridiculous as the very racism it condemns. The premise of this movie: African-American = Strong... any other race = weak. The worst part is when Rapaport pulls a gun on Omar Epps and a Jewish guy. The Jewish guy, in stereotypical fashion, crumbles in fear and starts pleading for his life... but the big, strong, defiant Omar Epps stands strong with no fear. We also have the condemnation of every fraternity member as being a arrogant preppie drunk or rapist. The raped white girl, of course, begins considering lesbianism since she's just a weak white girl after all. When the nerdy white guy is rejected by the fraternity members he of course must fall in with the skinheads, who are incredible cowards; especially the big muscular guy who is beaten down quickly by the strong black men. Wait... BUSTA RHYMES BEAT UP A GUY TWICE HIS SIZE??? Yeah, right.<br /><br />Of course the black men NEVER reject their own people and Omar Epps moves in with them easily. The scenes where Ice Cube threatens his white roommates and keeps them in line are just stupid -- of course he is the dominating one while his weak white roommates sit in fear of him and eventually move out. This movie was just terrible and the ending made me actually laugh out loud. The overly long slow-motion between Epps and Banks gets hilarious with the faces they make -- it's like watching my nephew and cousins making faces at each other (and they're all under 5). Do yourself a favor and skip this crapfest.
This is one of the most putrid movies of the 90's. I would not recommend it if you have something better to do. <br /><br />This picture presents African-Americans as savage, uncultured, violent, inarticulate, reefer-smoking sociopaths. Fudge(Ice Cube) and his posse of homies are continuously disrespectful toward others in the dorm, not just the white people, but Asians too, and are never disciplined for their actions. Despite all that tolerance they keep on whining and crying about the evil white oppressors who run their lives and stand in their way. In fact it is Fudge's influence that causes Remmy to bond with the skin heads, to drop out of college, and eventually to kill Malik's girlfriend.<br /><br />The skinheads are presented as a covert group of underachievers who share a pad off campus and generally stay away from everyone else. They never blast their music to annoy people nor do they taunt the police. They do commit serious crime such as battery and rape, yet they're not as repulsive nor as threatening as Fudge and Dreads(Busta Rhymes) are.<br /><br />There's a lot of material in this film which almost offended me or made me giggle. Some of it is as follows below.<br /><br />Fudge and Dreads are stated as students at the Columbus University yet we never see them in class and it is completely unclear how they pay their tuition. One is only left to speculate that the weed they smoke has something to do with their finances. Though they are students at what looks like a private university, they cannot utter a single line of proper English. Their characters are developed only through their compulsive whining and xenophobia.<br /><br />It appears that drunken Kristen(Kristy Swanson) knew exactly why drunken Billy was taking her to his house. She even asked him to get a rubber so that they could begin. The fact that he penetrated her without a condom became a rape whilst it would be great sex only if he had one handy. Later Kristen was assured by Taryn(Jennifer Connely) that she holds no accountability in that matter, and despite willfully jumping into a guy's bed she wasn't ready for sexual intercourse and was viciously taken advantage of by a sexual predator. Then a week or so later she met, and slept with, an ultra-sensitive do-gooder who knew how to avoid raping and brought a condom. The director stressed contraception thoroughly.<br /><br />This movie is complete and utter garbage that makes black people look like pricks and women look stupid and frail. Cole Hauser's acting, and Laurence Fishburne's accent are the only reasons I can think of to watch it. The writer/director is obviously a man of limited intelligence. Go ahead and limit your own by watching this crap if you want, but keep in mind that neurons don't grow back. Just follow the advice at the end and UNLEARN.
Yes, people are racist. People are even racist in college. That's a good point, and the issue of racism has been dealt with many times before in countless films. What sets Higher Learning apart from the pack is that it deals with the issue of racism in the most ham-fisted and predictable way possible, oh yeah it's in college too.<br /><br />This film deals with this problem of racism the way Frankenstein deals with most problems, it bashes you over the head repeatedly in a brutal and sluggish manner. Most of the characters are cartoonish, one-dimensional, caricatures (lesbian feminist, angry black man), that react to situations as dramatically and predictably as possible. Instead of defying stereotypes this film is overpopulated with them. The angry black men feel cheated, feminists hate men, etc. (one feminist even holds a sign that reads "Dead Men Don't Rape." See what I mean?) I don't want to give anything away, but in this movie if someone seems like a shifty loner or a date rapist they'll probably behave exactly how you expect them to. The changes the characters go through seems obvious to everyone but the people in the movie. The big twist in the plot hinges on whether or not the violent neo-Nazis will act like violent neo-Nazis. I'll guess you'll just have to watch to find out what happens.<br /><br />Another problem I have with this movie is that it's supposed to be "gritty" and "hard-hitting," but they make Nazis the bad guys. I agree Nazis are evil, but that's my point. Everybody thinks Nazis are bad; we're not breaking any new ground here. Nazis have been portrayed as villains since the 1930's. The film doesn't challenge any viewpoints or make bold statements. It just deals with issues we all know about in a clumsy, after-school-special like, manner. Being anti-rape, anti-racist, and anti-Nazi isn't exactly taking a hard stance on a controversial issue.<br /><br />Higher Learning is predictable, cartoonish, and in a word stupid. Avoid at all costs.
Higher Learning says its OK for blacks to torment white people because they're all oppressors. most blacks in this movie are portrayed as ignorant savages. Stunning that this is supposed to be a positive movie about race. Incompetent acting, direction, and production values all contribute to this toothache of a flick. An appalling piece of trash. the perpetrators of this dreck should be ashamed. Higher Learning says its OK for blacks to torment white people because they're all oppressors. most blacks in this movie are portrayed as ignorant savages. Stunning that this is supposed to be a positive movie about race. Incompetent acting, direction, and production values all contribute to this toothache of a flick. An appalling piece of trash. the perpetrators of this dreck should be ashamed.
I don't understand why people would praise this garbage. Its wrong , stupid , unrealistic , awful , and just about everything else. The film is a view on life , racial issues , prejudice , and everything else that strangely goes on in College. This is where it fails. It has no grasps on reality. From many questionable non-sense scenes in the movie such as for example<br /><br />A black man chasing down a white man with a gun, the black man and stopped by the security guards handcuffed and carried out while the gunman runs right past them.<br /><br />The same white man snipering down people from a roof topic which is stopped and beaten down by the same black man is then stopped and given a Rodney King style beating while the gun man runs free while a moment later being chased back down by only one of the four guards.<br /><br />As one previous reviewer pointed out Several white 230lbs men being beaten down by several black men weighing around 160lbs including the 105lbs Bust A Rhymes<br /><br />Another critical flaw in the film are the shallow uninteresting main characters. From the scared and confused white people and the mean , angry , and yet rightful (?) black people. Its almost as its an insult to both black and white people. I am a white male and I know many black and hispanic people who agree that this movie is wrong to portray characters and giving them those characteristics exclusively due to their race.<br /><br />The storyline which I will explain now revolves around three characters. One a black athlete , the other a confused scared white girl who questions her sexuality , and the third is a white man who is also confused and scared , then blames his problems on black people in which he becomes a nazi later in the film. They all have their share of problems and adventures including sex , rape , fights , love , hate , prejudice , racial war , and oh yeah don't forget education. Which all comes down at the end for the fatal shoot out. In which after they go back to their boring lives and think "being white is bad". Does this sound alot like your college years? Didn't think so. I don't think the director attended college especially if he were to make this awful mess.<br /><br />Overall this is a really bad , bad , ugly movie. If you want to see a more accurate view or racial issues go see American History X. If you want to see a more accurate view of college rent Porkys. Just avoid this mess.
MINOR SPOILERS!<br /><br />Well i just sat up late and watched this film, mainly because i enjoyed and rated some of Singleton's earlier work like "Boyz n the hood". However, i have to say this was a major disappointment and is everything i hate about contrived, clichéd, so-called "message" movies. <br /><br />The acting is mainly poor,(pop stars and models do NOT necessarily make good actors...take note), the situations hard to swallow, (rape victim becomes overnight lesbian?...please!), but worst of all it reinforces every screwed up stereotype you can think of. By the second half of the film it has become cartoon like in its characterisation, making you lose any shred of empathy you may have had for its one-dimensional players.<br /><br />Not once is any valid point made about the inherent causes of racism and cultural, sexual and political ignorance. As a result it merely ends up sensationalising the results of these problems. It's message is contradictory, resulting in a sense of confusion and a general lack of plot cohesion. As for the films conclusion i found it predictable, embarrassing, exploitative and mildly offensive. For a film called "Higher Learning" i have to say all i learned is to avoid seeing this ever again.<br /><br />If you want a true comment on some of the themes that this film completely fails to elaborate upon then go hire "American History X"....unless you were just watching it for Tyra Banks then go hire a life.
Singleton has some serious issues he has to come to grips with. I get the feeling that he thinks he is pretty smart; however, this movie is almost comically transparent and self righteous. In addition, there are a bunch of "might-makes-right" messages like when our local Nazi jerks get beat up. I mean, who in their right mind is going to root for a bunch of Nazi jerks? However, he way Singleton portrays the "fight" is downright silly and seems to be designed to show us more the superior fighting qualities of the black protagonists than anything else. There is another "bad guy" (in reality a drunken frat boy) who rapes one of the movie's protagonists. In this instance, I think that Singleton actually does a nice job portraying what is probably an all too common situation when the woman involved asks the frat boy to use a condom and he either does not have one or does not want to use one. In any event, he does not accede to her demands that he stop and he proceeds to have intercourse despite her pleas. I think that this type of rape is all too common and in fact many uniformed people refuse to accept the fact that it is even a rape. Well, no means no, this is a rape, which probably occurs a lot in Universities across the country.<br /><br />Having established the rape, how does Singleton deal with it? When the frat boy tries to call the woman, her roommate refuses to put the victim on the phone, at which point the frat boy calls the roommate a "black bitch." The aggrieved roommate appears to appeal to a counsel of Ice Cube, et al, who then proceed to physically humiliate and abuse the frat boy into repeated and prolonged "apologies" to roommate for his racist remarks; however the (apparently in Singleton's mind) lesser crime of rape is not mentioned. Again, no one really should feel sorry for the frat boy; however, Singleton seems to be sending a dual message that a racist comment is a greater offense then rape and in any event violence is justified against jerks.<br /><br />What is so ultimately so disappointing is that this movie could have truly been about something important but Singleton, while no doubt a talented director, does not appear to have the maturity or depth to pull of something of this magnitude.
First of all yes I'm white, so I try to tread lightly in the ever delicate subject of race... anyway... White People Hating Black people = BAD but Black People Hating White people = OK (because apparently we deserved it!!). where do i start? i wish i had something good to say about this movie aside unintended comedy scenes: the infamous scene were Ice Cube and co. get in a fight with some really big, really strong, really really angry and scary looking Neo-Nazis and win!!! the neo-Nazi where twice the size :), and the chase! the chase is priceless... This is NOT a movie about race, tolerance and understanding, it doesn't deliver... this is a racist movie that re-affirm all the cliché stereotypes, the white wimpy guy who gets manhandled by his black roommate automatically transform in a skinhead...cmon simply awful I do regret ever seeing it.<br /><br />Save your time and the dreadful experience of a poorly written ,poorly acted, dull and clearly biased picture, if you are into the subject, go and Rent American History X, now thats a movie
Despite, or perhaps in part because of the clever use of music to underscore the motivations and ideologies of each of the major characters, stereotypes are in, and verisimilitude and characterization are out in this not-too-subtle cinematic screed.<br /><br />One gets the sense that John Singleton was dabbling in post-structuralist literary theory because it was the flavor of the day, and "Higher Learning" was the tendentious result. The low point of the movie is the "peace" rally, in which the symbols of the 1960s "free love" movement are reappropriated for what much more closely resembles a "Take Back The Night" rally with live, stridently identity-conscious musical acts in tow. Perhaps in his prim revisionism the director was trying to assert that identity politics is the new Vietnam? Ooh, how Adrienne Rich of him—and Remy's firing into the crowd is a nice touch, if you're into Rich's sort of political posturing.<br /><br />I wish I could give this movie negative stars. I can recommend it only to those interested in the 1990s as history, a time when radical feminists brought the academic trinity of race, class, and gender to popular culture and declared man-hating "a viable and honorable POLITICAL option". Where's Camille Paglia when you need her?
I haven't read a single IMDb comment for this movie that mentions how the Jewish character in this movie jumped up and down like a little baby as a gun is pointed in his face by a racist skinhead while the movie's lead black character looked in sternness down the barrel of a gun.<br /><br />I don't know how anyone could perceive this as a balanced account of university life. I agree universities are not bastions of tolerance like they are supposed to be and the title would be fitting if Singleton didn't make his characters such broad caricatures.<br /><br />On the surface he tries to portray Ice Cube's character as a bad guy, provoking Remy to become a racist skinhead. But who graduates at the end in the movie's redeeming epilogue? It seems Singleton points at white as either unable to empathize (I didn't say sympathize!) with his fellow black student OR only able to take the path of a racist skinhead. Many people who have been bullied by people of another race do not turn to extreme bigotry.<br /><br />Nor do women who have been raped immediately turn to lesbianism, which is portrayed more as a cult than a lifestyle. Quite honestly what was the point?
This movie shows how racist John Singleton is. He portrays whites and other races that are not black as the evil that exists in our educational system. How quick he forgets that it is this same educational system that made him what he is and failed at it. Ice Cube's character is the epitome of an instigating black man that was responsible for most of the violence in this film. Singleton barely touched on the relationships between the white and black characters that were trying to reach out to each other. When Omar Epps says " I need to be with my people", that racist remark spoke volume. And John, don't think for a minute that the picture of Thomas Jefferson in the tower stairwell did not get my attention. Nice touch!
Based on the personal experiences of director John Singleton's time at the University of Southern California,comes Higher Learning. A film centered on the racial politics that occur at modern day colleges.<br /><br />There are three main characters to which the film bases its foundation around for its story: Malik Williams, an carefree lowbrow athlete who is an African American male. Kristin Conner, a sheltered soft white girl, and Remy, a unsophisticated unconnected white male. All three are overcome by the sudden realities that college life is not as good as it is advertised as all three go through disappointment by being unprepared (Malik), by being naive (Kristin), and by being unwanted (Remy).<br /><br />One good thing about the film is that it does show that modern American colleges are just high schools writ large. The colleges are not places to build character , develop potential, or enhance personal advancement, but they are institutions used to gather all sorts of students in a one-size-fits-all atmosphere. It is an experience that usually is built for failure for most students. It would have been good if the film built it story about this travesty rather than racial politics.<br /><br />But it didn't and that's where the films falls apart. Singleton ,it seems, had a pretty bad experience at Southern California. Through this film he lets it all hang out. There is no need to beat around the bush here. Singleton lets the heroes and the villains of this piece be easily seen.<br /><br />The black characters in the film are pretty much seen as the heroes here while all the whites in the film are seen as the villains, save for Kristin, who was raped by a fellow white student.<br /><br />Who can understand the inconsistencies of this film? Black gang members who come to the aid of a white girl after she points out to them who supposedly raped her? The ease that the black gang members have at the university while a bunch of skin heads meet in a dark small dorm planning violence? <br /><br />The performances of Omar Epps (Malik) and Kristy Swanson (Kristin) are disappointing. They do seem like the third choices for the roles that they played in this movie (Tupac Shakur and Drew Barrymore were supposed to play Malik and Kristin but were unavailable). O'Shea Jackson aka Ice Cube ,Busta Rhymes, and Regina King were all irritating in their respective roles. And Laurence Fishburne was woefully miscast here as the history professor. Only Michael Rappaport did well in this film and he did considering that his character ,of the three main characters, changed the most in the film.<br /><br />John Singleton wanted to take on the matter of race and inequality in American college life with this film. And he did so quite badly. It was sort like killing a fly with a shotgun. Life is far more complex than it seems and people are alike all over and he should know this. Higher Learning is proof that he did not understand this at all. Seeing the film ,then and now, would only confuse, disappoint and enrage the same public he would wish to speak to. Not to mention it would not entertain them in the slightest.
I know John Singleton's a smart guy 'coz he made Boyz N The Hood, so how did he write and direct this? It's like the pilot of a bad "going away to college for the first time" teen soap, a parade of boring stereotypes and cliches with some gratuitous violence thrown in to make it a commercial proposition, I guess. Who would've guessed the date-rape victim would dump sausage for seafood? The angry loner would be preyed upon by a group of Neo-Nazis (and would be roomed-up with a black AND a Jew - just for laughs!) Even Laurence Fishburne's creepy reactionary history Professor just irritated me and I love the guy, it's like everyone involved with this movie just lost the plot. Except Busta Rhymes, of course. Big ups.
When I go out to the video store to rent a flick I usually trust IMDb's views on a film and, until this one, had never seen a flick rated 7.0 or above on the site I did not enjoy.<br /><br />Sidney Lumet, a legendary director of some of the best films of the 20th century, really misstepped here by making one of the biggest mistakes a filmmaker can: filling a film's cast with thoroughly unlikeable characters with no real redeeming qualities whatsoever.<br /><br />I like films with flawed characters, but no matter how dark someone's personality is we all have a bit of light in there too, we're all shades of gray with some darker or brighter than others. Mr. Lumet crossed this line by filling this movie with totally unsympathetic and almost masochistic pitch-black characters.<br /><br />Ethan Hawke's Hank is a 30-something whining, immature, irresponsible man-child divorced from a marriage with a wife that hates him and a daughter who thinks he's a loser, which he very much is. His indecisiveness and willingness to let others do the dirty work for him because he's too cowardly to do it himself leads directly to their bank robbery plan falling apart and mother getting killed. By the time he stands up to his older brother at the end of the film, it's more pathetic than uplifting. Ethan Hawke plays his character well, but isn't given much to work with as he is portrayed as someone with a boot perpetually stamped on their face and he doesn't' particularly care that it's there.<br /><br />Speaking of which his character's wife is equally as bad. Just about every single shot of the film she's in is her verbally berating him for rent and child support money and further grinding in his already non-existent self-esteem with insults. Seriously, that's just about all the character does. Her harpy-like behavior borders on malevolent.<br /><br />Albert Finney plays their father Charles, and while Mr. Finney has been a great actor for many decades, he spends about 90% of this film with the same mouth open half-grimace on his face like he's suffering from the world's worst bout of constipation. For someone who's been an actor as long as Mr. Finney, you think he'd be more apt at emoting. Even though he doesn't show it much, his character is supposedly grief stricken and anger-filled. And when he smothers Andy at the film's conclusion it's akin to Dr. Frankenstein putting the monster he helped create out of it's own misery.<br /><br />Marisa Tomei isn't given much to do with her character. Stuck in an unhappy marriage with Andy and having an affair with his brother for some unfathomable reason. When Andy's world begins to spiral out of control she logically jumps ship, but it really doesn't make her any less selfish or self-serving than any other character in the film, but probably the one with the most common sense at least.<br /><br />And finally we come to Andy, played by the always good Philip Seymour Hoffman, is the only reason I rated this film a 3 instead of a 1. His performance of the heroin-addicted, embezzling financial executive who's "perfect crime" of robbing his parent's insured jewelry store goes awry is mesmerizing. His descent from calm master planner of a flawed scheme to unstable, deranged homicidal maniac is believable and tragic. Hoffman's character ends up being the film's chief villain, but it's hard to root against him given the alternatives are an emotionally castrated little brother and a father who's self-admitted poor early parenting led to his son's eventual psychosis and indirect, unintentional murder of his mother.<br /><br />Ultimately this film is really only worth watching for PSH's great performance and it's family train wreck nature. Just don't expect there to be any characters worth cheering for, because there really aren't.
warning:It contains spoilers. If a movie starts with a sex scene then it's a bad movie. (see for example 300). This one confirms the above lemma. The second scene constitutes the spinning center of all the action. The fact that we know the end makes the movie boring. Even more, other plots are revealed as the story goes back and forth several times. And this made more frustrated. To compensate the consequent lack of suspense, we learn more and more about how unbalanced are the characters. And oh yes, they have lots to show. Andy (P.Hoffman), for example, is a drug addict, more?, he is cheating his wife, more?, he plans to rob his father, more?, his wife is cheating with his brother, more?, he doesn't regret his complicity to his mother's death, more?, he is a serial killer, more? etc etc it's not enough space to write here... I wonder how could he have a top job. And why his wife didn't leave him before. On the other hand I enjoy much the performances of the actor Hoffman.<br /><br />Even here PSH saves what is left from my 7$ spent for this absurdity. Why absurdity? Because it doesn't have sense, why should I care for the despicable characters? Another broken lemma is that a movie should have a sympathetic( at least pleasant) character. <br /><br />Also it's a lot of sentimentality, for example we are supposed to care for the sufferance of the widowed father without knowing anything about the parents'lives before the crime.
<br /><br />Although the lead actress is STRIKINGLY beautiful, the plot stands little chance of acceptance because too many distracting details face the audience during the unfolding of the story.<br /><br />One may believe that middle-class teen-age school girls in the 1950's easily gave away their virginity without thought of marriage to 30-year-old's they barely know, but I doubt it.<br /><br />One may believe that young high school teens are highly self-confident and self-assured as they interact with their elders in complex social situations, but my experience has been, more often than not, teenagers feel very awkward and act clumsy as they experiment in the adult world.<br /><br />One may believe that a experienced medical doctor would not know the pungent oder of Stroptomycin -- the smelly fermenting byproduct of busy earth microbes -- and not detect that some lifeless bland powder is fake, but I think not.<br /><br />One may believe that 30-something-year-old troublemakers can enter into, and hang around inside, a public school rec hall during a school social and make trouble, but I think that school socials are traditionally a protected environment and parents, chaparones and school staff would be around to prevent this.<br /><br />One final nit, throughout Hey Babu Riba the five teenage friends referred to themselves as the foursome. There is probably an explanation why the FIVE were the FOURsome, but because it was never detailed, each reference distracts from each scene.<br /><br />This movie did not ring true for me.
Nacho Vigalondo is very famous in Spain. He is a kind of bad showman who can make you feel sick... Very embarrassing. Nacho had made some commercials in TV, I remember one in which Nacho was looking for Paul Mc Carney around Madrid (the commercial was about a Mc Carney CD collection). <br /><br />This little movie is like a Nacho's commercial: bad storyline, bad directing, and awful performances. I can't believe that a disgusting movie like this was in The Kodak Theater. Poor Oscar...<br /><br />Nacho could made this movie because of his wife, the producer of this 7:35, a woman very well connected with Spanish TV business men.
Richard Farnsworth is one of my favorite actors. He usually gives solid performances, such as in The Straight Story, and The Grey Fox. He also does fairly well here, but the rest of the film suffers from a low budget, poor writing, and so-so photography. The Miller-Movie formula gives it a 4. Richard gets a 5.
Hey if you have a little over an hour to kill and find paint to be too exciting I'd suggest it. If thou you happen to like cheap b-movies like me it's good for a giggle! Other than that I wouldn't suggest that you rent it, I'd wait till it comes on the tube say round 4 am on the free access channel of your cable/satellite supplier. The band that did this sound track by the way was on the road after for about two years after this flick, and no they sounded just as bad live according to the two small town reviews I could find on them. So once again good if you find grass growing to much fun but good to watch if you like to see how NOT to shoot a low budget movie.
Now, I'm no film critic, but I truly hated "September 11". This film was, on a general basis, bad. With the exception of Alejandro González Iñárritu's segment, which was the most effective and direct about the subject matter, the short films were at best boring, and at worst offensive. The worst in my mind was Youssef Chahine's pretentious segment in which he compared Palestinian suicide bombers to American soldiers, even going so far as to suggest the suicide bombers were fighting for a greater cause. The segment was completely off topic and, considering Chahine's seeming lack of any decency whatsoever, a waste of my time and patience. The idea of getting eleven different directors from different countries to make a movie featuring their views on a tragedy was good on paper, but in practice, it was tasteless.
In order to avoid confusion, let me clarify a couple of points: I am not a red neck. I am not even a moderate nor a conservative. Quite on the contrary, I am a radical: a Libertarian. I'm not a WASP either, I was not even born in the States.<br /><br />Jorge Luis Borges used to say that there are some kind of folk who do not feel poetry, and that these sad people usually earn their living teaching poetry. This movie was made by and for people who do not feel poetry, by and for show-offs; and I dare say, by and for people who have no sense of decency or, for that matter, respect for other people's life or death (especially when the victims are thought to be mostly 'bloody imperialists' killed in Yankee soil.) I even find the original marketing idea of the eleven episodes of eleven minutes, nine seconds and one frame as particularly hideous and repulsive. Just plain awful. Why didn't they assign a budget of as many dollars per episode as individuals were brutally murdered in the attack? The whole idea rests somewhere between mere stupidity and reckless fascism. Anybody who is serious about film-making (and serious about life and death) should have angrily declined to participate in this recollection of innuendoes and non-sequiturs. With two exceptions: the episode of Burkina Faso -- almost amusing --, and the one from India --which documents the story of a man who was unfairly and wrongly investigated in relation to the attack, on the basis that afterwards he didn't return home and that he was an American Muslim (and, truth be told, when the facts were known he was honored as a hero). All other nine episodes, essentially and extremely boring and emotionless, can be listed in two different categories:<br /><br />First: 'I don't care about the thousands of victims: Americans, foreigners, children, youngsters, adults, old-timers...' and can be resumed in pure boredom and lack of emotion. Makhmalbaf's (Iran); Lelouch's (France) – I'm afraid I'm going to commit an heresy since it's Lelouch's, but maybe, his episode might be considered built upon an idea which could be regarded as almost original; Tanovic's (Bosnia-Herzegovina); Gonzalez Inarritu's (Mexico); Gitaï's (Israel); Penn's (USA) <br /><br />Second: 'The bloody Yankees deserve it'. And can be resumed in frustration and hatred. Chahine (Egypt) vindicates the suicide bombers; Loach (UK) considers the 9/11 reckless attacks were some kind of punishment for the alleged support of the USA to the Chilean dictatorship headed by the serial-killer Augusto Pinochet, in fact someone should inform Mr. Loach that the victims of Pinochet were not related to Al-Qaida and that Chile is a South American country which sole existence Mr. Bin Laden should have ignored, he ought to be informed too that the American government sanctions against the Chilean dictatorship were harder than any other ciountrie's; and, Imamura (Japan) windingly points out that WWII is related the attack to the WTC. Imamura has at least been coherent in this: the supposed cause effect linking is entirely nonsensical, which plays well with his episode including a man who believes himself to be a snake. It pretends to be obscure. It is, instead, quite ludicrous.<br /><br />There's some kind of error shared by many, including some Americans, and it consists in the belief that this movie wasn't commercially screened in the States because of some kind of censorship. Nothing further from the truth: This movie wasn't screened in the States because it is a complete fiasco. A fiasco of the wackyest kind. Even in Buenos Aires, where Peronism and other forms of Fascism are nearest and dearest to the hearts of a sizable number of its inhabitants, and anti-Americanism is in vogue, the movie was screened in living rooms hurriedly converted into theaters, and was applauded by a very select public: The usual sad few who routinely lend their applause to other equally 'quaint' spectacles. Like the sight of a McDonald's fast-food restaurant or, perchance, an elderly Jew, being burnt to ashes.
In Theodore Rex poor Whoopi Goldberg is set up as a tough police cop who gets to work with a pathetic dinosaur on a case. The movie tries to be funny, and tries to make a story about abductions and more but it never works. The movie is far from funny, and the story is ridiculous. I voted 1/10
This is hands down the worst movie of all time. A combination of Whoopie Goldberg (the worst actress/person in history) and a talking dinosaur ala Jar-Jar-Binks add up to a painfully bad movie. That was an understatement. This movie is unwatchable. For the love of God, do not watch this movie.
I hadn't heard of this film until I read an article about it on the Unknown Movies website, which made me curious. As a cartoonist and illustrator myself, I'm an admirer of Richard Williams's work - I rate Ziggy's Gift as one of the finest Christmas specials of all time, and even though Who Framed Roger Rabbit stopped being one of my favourite films when I got past the age of sixteen, I still have the highest of regard for the amount of work, care and attention to detail that went into creating the visuals - but it seems the man has his faults, most notably a propensity for going over budget and over schedule, and this film is a testament of just how far wrong even a super-talented individual like Williams can go, given the right circumstances.<br /><br />Raggedy Ann and Andy is a strange confection that tries to be weird and experimental and off the wall within the confines of a children's cartoon. It tries also to be a musical. It tries to be a thousand and one other things as well - is it a freakout? Is it a mind-blower? Is it a paean to the innocence of childhood imagination? - until it finally collapses under the weight of its own limitless ambitions and aspirations. It's beautifully animated, for the most part, though the bland backgrounds could have used a little more attention, but even that doesn't count for much when you're confronted with the hallucinogenic absurdity that constitutes much of the 'action' here.<br /><br />There are a number of problems with the film, but let's start with Raggedy Ann and Andy themselves. They're the stars of the show, yet they have no personalities. Actually, we get the message that Andy is a wannabe tough guy ("I'm no girl's toy", he sings) and that Ann has a unique perspective on things because her owner, a little girl called Marcella, carries her upside down, but that's all we get to find out about these dull-as-mud characters because the overwhelming weirdness of this film kicks in not long after. I use the word "weirdness" advisedly, because some weird films can be hugely entertaining, but this is just flat-out strange. The toys and dolls in the playroom are supposed to be cute and lovable, but they're actually bizarre and disturbing. The two marionettes who do and say everything in sync are a prime example of this. But even they're relatively normal compared to the constantly sneezing pirate captain, whose moustache becomes erect and whose groin visibly swells when he first catches sight of a glamorous French doll. Yes, this is supposed to be a children's film! Then there's the music, none of which is memorable, and all of which is sung by actors who can't sing. And to add insult to injury, there's a lot of singing in this film. When Ann and Andy finally make it out of the playroom, the first thing they do is sing a LONG number in the woods about how scared they are, about how they'll always have each other and...yes, we get the message. This seems to go on forever, but at least it brings some semblance of normality back to the film. Not for long, though, because the Camel with the wrinkled knees leads us into a bizarre world where everything looks like it's made from worn and faded denim, and - bad enough that he's clearly a paranoid schizophrenic - he also starts hallucinating. But this is nothing compared to the scenes that follow. The Greedy, a living, breathing. belching, farting, constantly eating pool of taffy, is so trippy, creepy and ultimately disturbing, you'll hardly believe what you're seeing - this is as close to a drug-free psychedelic experience as I've ever seen on film. Then, after a l-o-n-g time spent with the Greedy, along comes the psychotic Sir Leonard Looney and his master King KooKoo, whose throne resembles a urinal. I can't believe I'm actually writing a capsule description of a real film here - I just had to rub my eyes and remind myself that I'm not blogging about an overwhelmingly whacked-out nightmare I had. Part of the sequence in Looney Land resembles one of the old Winsor McCay / Little Nemo cartoons, for no good reason other than somebody felt like doing it, probably. All this would be fine if there was some kind of rhyme or reason behind it, but there isn't. These scenes are just strange, and very, very long. Surrealism only works when there's a strong idea behind it, or takes place against some semblance of reality. But NOTHING in these scenes points towards any kind of reality. Take away this element, and you're left with pure self indulgence.<br /><br />As the final scenes unravel, even the animation begins to look less impressive (the pirate ship, ludicrously detailed, jerks about on the water in a manner that suggests some of the cels went missing during the production) and there's a non-event of an ending that simply suggests money ran out. Even at a meagre 86 minutes in length, the film feels like a never-ending ordeal, and it's understandable why it flopped on its original release. Animation buffs will probably scratch their heads and wonder just how Williams managed to flub this one so spectacularly, but he did, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
I saw this movie when I was really little. It is, by far, one of the strangest movies I have ever seen. Now, normally, I like weird movies, but this was just a bit too much.<br /><br />There's not much of a plot to the movie. If anything, it starts out like Toy Story, where toys come to life, and Raggedy Ann and Andy go on an adventure to rescue their new friend, Babette. From there, craziness ensues. There's the Greedy, the Looneys, a sea monster named Gazooks, and a bunch of pirates singing show tunes, all of which just made the movie weirder. Also, I can't help but feel that Babette is annoying and a bit too whiny. She definitely didn't help the movie.<br /><br />Now, even though I didn't like this movie, there were a few cute parts. I liked the camel's song. Even though it was a song about being lonely, it had a friendly feel to it. Then, there was Sir Leonard. While most of the Looneys were just plain nuts, Sir Leonard was the most interesting and probably the funniest. King Koo Koo was just a little dirtbag that made Dr. Evil look like a serious villain. Also, there was Raggedy Andy's song, No Girl's Toy. It was definitely good song for little boys who wanted to act tough. But, honestly, even these things didn't make the movie any better. (But remember, this is just my perspective.) <br /><br />While I personally wouldn't recommend this movie, even I have to admit, it does have its charming moments. See it if you're interested, but only if you're in the mood for something "really" out of the ordinary.
As others have said, "No, Luciano" is a more apt title or response to this movie title. For entertainment, the great opera singer should stick to singing.....not that he's a terrible actor. It's just that this movie stinks.<br /><br />The first 25 minutes were fine - a nice family movie, as it were - but after that it's nothing but a boring soap opera.<br /><br />Appropriately playing a singer, Pavarotti, as "Giorgio Fini," loses his voice a few times and the doctor, "Pamela Taylor" (Kathryn Harrold) comes to the rescue. The singer then falls for the doctor, the doctor slowly falls for the singer, the two argue all the time and on and on and on it goes.<br /><br />Pavarotti has a winning smile and is a likable guy. It's Harrold that spoils things and after watching her here I am not surprised she didn't become a star. <br /><br />There is nice scenery in the movie to enjoy, good shots of San Francisco and Italy, at least in the first half of the film. I got bored and don't remember much about the second half of it.
By my "Kool-Aid drinkers" remark, I mean that these are such devoted fans of the man Pavarotti that they make no attempt to objectively rate this film. Giving this a 10 is akin to giving Wally Cox the award for Mr. Universe or putting a velvet Elvis painting in the Louvre!!! When this film debuted, I remember the savage reviews with headlines such as "No, Giorgio" and some said it was among the worst films ever made. This is definitely overstating it as well. While bad and far from a great work of art, there was a lot to like about the film and the movie's biggest deficit was not the acting of Pavarotti nor his girth.<br /><br />Believe it or not, the brunt of the blame rests solely on the shoulders of the writers (who, I believe, were chimps). It is rare to see a movie with such clichéd dialog or goofy scenes like the food fight, but even they aren't the heart of the problem. The problem is that the writers intend for the audience to care about a "romance" that consists of a horny married middle-aged man and a seemingly desperate lady. Perhaps European audiences might be more forgiving of this, but in the United States in 1982 or today, such a romance seems sleazy and selfish--especially when Pavarotti tells Harrold that he loves his wife and "this is just fun". Wow, talk about romantic dialog!! Sadly, if they had just changed the script a little bit and made Pavarotti a widower or perhaps had his wife be like the wife from a couple classic Hollywood films, such as from ALL THIS AND HEAVEN, TOO or THE SUSPECT (where the wife was so vile and unlikable you could forgive the husband having an affair or even killing her). Instead, she's the loving mother of two kids who waits patiently at home while her egotistical hubby beds tarts right and left--as Pavarotti admits to having had many affairs before meeting Harrold.<br /><br />Sadly, even the gorgeous music of Pavarotti couldn't save this film. Towards the end of the film, there are some amazing scenes in New York where the set is just incredible and Pavarotti's singing transcendent. For that reason, I think the movie at least deserves a 3. I really wanted to like the film more, but it was a truly bad film--though not quite as rotten as you might have heard.<br /><br />Sadly, from what I have read, this film might be a case of art imitating life, as Pavarotti's own life later had some parallels to this film, though this isn't exactly the forum to discuss this in detail.
An attempt at crossover to appeal to those who don't appreciate opera, exploiting the fame of one of the greatest opera singers of all time, it fails badly. All that is desirable in this movie is the opera, and one can best find a recording of Pavarotti doing what he does best. The plot revolves around a romance with a doctor who heals his throat which has suddenly become troublesome. <br /><br />Only because it came out so long ago is it largely forgotten. Like most opera stars, Pavarotti is a decent actor and has stage presence aside from his singing talent, and nothing that he does in this movie negates that opinion. His culpability lies in not rejecting the horrid script. Perhaps because great operas can have silly stories he tolerated this one.<br /><br />Who knows, except those involved? Do we need to know? <br /><br />The plot is weak and trite. This movie is like trudging through cold mud to pick off a few juicy tidbits (the opera music) hanging above the mud. We have other ways in which to appreciate the great Pavarotti, and this one isn't one of them. Just get one of his many superb opera or vocal-concert recordings and recognize the master tenor where he is most suited.<br /><br />It would be one of IMDb's 100 Worst Films if more people remembered it and gave it some votes; it would fit neatly in a list including several efforts of singers, actors, models, and athletes to exploit their popularity through film. Very often it all goes badly wrong due to incompetent acting or a horrible script. Pavarotti would have been a decent actor had he not shown such a superb voice. However effective he is as an actor (opera requires it), not even Jimmy Stewart could have rescued this turkey of a script.<br /><br />I give it a polite 3 of 10 because someone may have become a fan of Pavarotti's singing and of opera because of this movie.
I too was intrigued by the high (8.5) rating for this film, and was very disappointed. I had just seen a couple of good foreign films and was looking forward to making it three in a row, but it was not to be. I went with a spanish speaking friend who felt the same way. There is not much of a plot, if any. I don't necessarily need that in a movie, but it needs to somehow entertain or bring me in. The best I could say would be that it aspires to be an Altman-esque film, albeit with an extremely small ensemble. Sure, there are moments, but a few moments easily get thinned out by 97 slow minutes of nothing. I do not understand the high rating for this film. I give it a 3.<br /><br />
(Rating: 21 by The Film Snob.) (See our blog What-To-See-Next for details on our rating system.)<br /><br />Here's a movie that will have you clawing at your own face in an attempt to earn release from the on-screen tedium. <br /><br />You'll not be wringing your hands, nor rolling your eyes, nor sighing into your popcorn. No indeed. For a movie of *this* averagousity, only clawing at your own face will do. <br /><br />When you begin to claw your own face -- as begin you must! -- start in at the lower portion. You'll need your upper portion, with its handy tear ducts, intact for the Truly Tear-jerking third act which may bring you to your knees if you haven't clawed your way clear of the entire theatre by then. <br /><br />In a season celebrating Joe Six-Pack and Hockey Moms as the new Gold Standard for leadership and foreign diplomacy, permaybe a movie this tedium will be welcomed as A Thing that anyone could create. *Watching* it, however, is a much more dangerous undertaking. <br /><br />Here's our story... <br /><br />Sidney Young, the London publisher of a fourth-tier celebrity/entertainment magazine is just about to see his magazine go under. He needs a miracle, and what he gets is a phone call from New York City, in the USA.<br /><br />The publisher of Sharp's magazine, Clayton Harding (played by Jeff Bridges) says "Come work for me!" With his own employees carrying out the fax machine out of his apartment/office in the background, saying "Yes" is a no-brainer.<br /><br />Soon Sidney is at work in New York City, doing allllllll the wrong things. His interviews consist of asking Broadway musical directors if they are (1) Jewish, and (2) gay. <br /><br />He kills the pet dog of Sohpie Maes, the industry's hottest movie star, when she leaves it in the magazine's offices during a business luncheon.<br /><br />This is a spot of bad luck for everyone, for, among other things, Sidney imagines that he is in love with Maes, before he wakes up to the Dunst character.<br /><br />Worst of all, he totally alienates Alison Olsen (played by winsome scripting-confusion by Kristen Dunst), a colleague assigned to show him the ropes of the magazine *and* The Big Apple. (We have, of course, been to a movie before, and so we know how this relationship is going to end up. This is therefore why we'll need intact tear ducts for the movie's third act.)<br /><br />The problem with The Thing is, the script just never jells, excepting for the one tear-duct set piece in which True Love prevails.<br /><br />Publisher Harding is supposed to be a son-of-a-bitch who also wants to just throw the whole job over. The script never comes down firmly on one or the other sides of this dichotomy, however, and Bridges is left to twist and waffle in the breeze.<br /><br />Alison Olsen is supposed to despise Sidney Young, but whenever he comes up to her (as he does constantly) she makes a point of engaging him in conversation, instead of attempting to discourage his existence.<br /><br />The "comedy" of early scenes is built around a piglet destroying an expensive hotel room, and then taking the elevator downstairs to urinate on the expensive high heels of a celebrity at a cocktail reception.<br /><br />The hot starlet Maes confesses that she is attracted to Young because he is "wounded." The character never shows us *why* he is wounded, however. This is yet another resultant of the movie's mortally wounded script.<br /><br />At one hours and fifty minutes, This Thing feels longer (and more deadly) than Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. It is uninspiring, unfunny, unredeemable, and not even rentable. Run Away
Simon Pegg stars as Sidney Young, a stereotypically clumsy idiot Brit working as a celebrity journalist in this US comedy. After getting a very lucky break he starts work at the highly respected Sharps magazine run by a reliably on form Jeff Bridges in New York. It's more The Devil Wears Prada than Shaun of the Dead. The unlikely love interest is provided by Kirsten Dunst who works well with Pegg for the laughs but they don't exactly set the screen ablaze with their passion.<br /><br />Sidney goes through some emotional challenges while trying to decide if he should forget about his journalistic principles in order to get material in the magazine. Of course he's eventually seduced by the glitz and glamour of the world of celebrities especially the young starlet Sophie Maes (Transformers' Megan Fox). Fans of Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz and Spaced will wonder if Pegg himself ever experienced similar feelings in real life with this film and to an extent Run Fat Boy Run as one of the UK's best comic talents being ruined by the US.<br /><br />All in all this is a forgettable comedy. Please come back to us Simon, we can forgive and forget.
If you have read the book - do not set your hopes high, if you have not - go read it, and never watch the film. It is strange to learn that Toby Young was actually involved a lot in the writing of the script (as he claims himself in the post script of the book). Because the film is very different from the book.<br /><br />What the film seems to be aiming at - taking a rather thought provoking and entertaining piece that combines philosophical ideas with plain funny sarcasm and simplifying it so that everyone would understand it - it achieves with perfection. The film is full of bad and cheap jokes suitable for a sitcoms, and has lost any meaningful message that it could have had.<br /><br />You are better off not seeing it.
Not that he'd care, but I'm not one of Simon Pegg's friends. If I was, there's a good chance we'd fallout if he continued to make dross like this. The trouble is, he found a successful formula as the bumbling, ordinary guy-next-door type in Shawn of the Dead, Run Fat Boy Run etc, but it's starting to wear thin. Here his character has no discernible qualities, he's rude and obnoxious, and thinks he's funny when he frankly isn't. When transferred to New York from London (and I presume this link is meant to appeal to viewers on both sides of the Atlantic), he proves equally out of place with his new colleagues. Still, is it any wonder when amongst his jolly japes he hires a transvestite stripper to appear at an editorial meeting an act of revenge for his boss. Yet somehow, Kirsten Dunst starts to warm to him, even though he's done nothing nice. Oh, and because he's a superficial male he falls for Megan Fox at first sight, possibly because her character is as shallow as his. It all makes for a predictable film conclusion, although I can't see any viewer expressing how this mirrored their life. The shame is that on paper this is a cast supposedly worth watching. Pegg, though, plays himself, Kirsten Dunst seems to just go though the motions, creating no on screen chemistry, and Megan Fox isn't stretched at all. The one huge plus is Miriam Margolyes, as Pegg's New York landlady - now if she had been on screen longer.....
The sitcom "The league of Gentlemen" follows the lives of several bizarre inhabitants of the fictional village "Royston Vasey". The different scenes are linked together by their common setting.<br /><br />In the first series, a sketch show, the main plot deals with a new road which is going to be built through Royston Vasey. Consequently, more foreigners visit the small town. But Edward and Tubbs, the owners of a "local" shop, which is actually far away from the town, do not like foreigners. Whenever a visitor enters their shop, they kill him. In my opinion some scenes are kind of tasteless and not funny at all, for example, when the couple absorb two engineers who want to build the new road. Edward drums, while Tubbs is dancing half naked around the victims. <br /><br />Moreover Pauline lives in Royston Vasey. She works at the local Job Centre. Although Pauline hates the people she has to work with, the woman does not want to loose her job. So when an unemployed man gets an interview as fireman, she does not allow him to go because he is not ready for the job yet.<br /><br />Then there is Barbara Dixton, a transsexual taxi driver who goes into great detail about "her" sexual conversion.<br /><br />Furthermore the vet, Mr. Chinnery, always kills animals instead of curing them. In one case, he comes to a farm and is leaded into the sitting room, where a dog lays in his basket. The farmer goes outside. On the assumption that the dog is the sick animal, Mr. Chinnery euthanizes him. A second later, the farmer opens the door, holding the "real" sick animal, a sheep, in his hand.<br /><br />Some more inhabitants are a husband and his wife who are visited by their nephew (his friend is killed by the shop owners, by the way). The couple is very tidy. They have, for example, towels in different colours. Each colour stands for one part of the body. Besides, they have thousands of keys, marked with different colours and precisely classified.<br /><br />In my opinion, the actors play very well. By playing women, the scenes become comical. The costumes are suited to the actors, too. Tubbs is wearing a scarf and some crazy characters, for example Edward, have unappetizing black teeth. The show has a great deal of dark humour, typical British. The set design reflects the mood of the series. The village and all the houses look grey and are decayed. Around the local shop there is often fog which strengthens the threatening effect. Even the village sign is ominous: "Welcome to Royston Vasey. You will never leave."<br /><br />Although I think that the actors do a great job, this type of series is not my taste.
I like British humor, I believe it's one of the best in the world. I like almost every British sitcom (okay... maybe not Monthy Python, some of the jokes were great, but some of them I didn't understand.), but this League of Gentlemen is just something good to make you sick. This show was good in some way; it helped me lost some weight because watching this piece of garbage make me feel I'm not hungry anymore. This is really just disgusting, sick and not even funny TV show and I wonder who is actually laughing at this stuff. I watched it for about 10 minutes and turned it off. It was so disgusting, watching men dressed in the woman with yellow teeth and urinating on the car... I mean... what's so funny about that??? It makes me wanna puke. No humor, just disturbing images and cheap, toilet laughs... I don't know... if you like this stuff... you go ahead... watch it... but to be honest, people watching and enjoying this must have some emotional problems. Garbage.
Not funny - how can anyone link this to Monty Python? That is absolutely ridiculous - there are no laughs. This is not funny. Over the top, but ugly, weird just for weird sake and it seems to me these people were on something all the time. Unfortunately something that did not make them funny.<br /><br />It should be given some points for effort etc. whatever. Actually it appears there is a laugh track - or is there one? Hummm.... Since there are barely any laughs that's a debatable question.<br /><br />Maybe I'm doing it injustice - maybe it's some sort of exercise. Some sort of art - in that case anything goes, never mind.<br /><br />But these guys playing women with high-pitched voices, turned-up noses. Come on !!! Not funny. <br /><br />There is only one heir apparent to Monty Pythons intellectual wit and that is Stephen Colbert, and maybe Jon Stewart.
I'd really, really wanted to see this movie, and waited for months to get it through our Blockbuster Total Access account. When it showed up in our mailbox, I threw it straight into the DVD player.<br /><br />I was very sadly disappointed, which in turn made me mad. I'll give any movie a chance, even if I want to walk out of the theater/press 'stop'. I watched it all the way through, but didn't get anything from it but frustration.<br /><br />The acting was very, very good, but that was about it. Nothing is explained; while we understand that Mathieu becomes depressed and lands in a psych ward of some kind, we're never given insight to his 'downfall'. While we understand that he and Cedric break up, again, we don't see it happen or WHY it happened. During an interview with Mathieu's doctor, Cedric reveals that he'd cheated on him once, but it was no big deal. I expected to see this in flashbacks, but no--nothing. We also gets the hints that Cedric was the one to bring Mat to the hospital--but AGAIN, we don't see it.<br /><br />I know some movies are a 'take it as it is' basis, but this movie honestly ticked me off. When Pierre, Cedric's ex shows up in the club and starts trouble, we don't see hide nor hair of him until near the end, and it took me a good chunk of time to figure out that Pierre WAS the ex. His personality at the club and when Mat finds him are entirely different. I might even be wrong saying this, it was that confusing.<br /><br />The film expects you to know everything and move along with its disjointed, out-of-place and confusing pace. I can keep up with films like 'Pi', 'Citizen Kane' and other films that have flashbacks/flash-forwards left and right, but CU didn't capture and hold onto the style. At the end of 'Citizen Kane', you know what's going on and discover the answer to the main mysteries. CU just leaves you hanging. It has an air of pretension in its 'we're not gonna tell you a damned thing, figure it out for yourself' presentation. It's like reading a book with the chapters switched around and pages missing.<br /><br />Good acting, like I said. I liked the characters, but the whole story was just too disappointing.
Somewhere, out there, there must be a list of the all time worst gay films every made. One's that have overlong camera shots of the stars sitting and staring pensively into space, or one's where they focus unbearably long on kitty kats eating spaghetti. This motion sickness picture is a story of a boy and a boy and they live and love and swim and get stuck in grottos and one of them has a depressed mother and another has no mother and they talk and walk and swim and have sex and get drunk and then break up and someone goes to the hospital for eight days and then gets out and there is a lot of fast forward and rewind and there are long pensive shots of one of them looking into space or just sitting and doing nothing. I think it's some sort of gimmicky film making technique or maybe it's that the film is so bad they have to fill it up with long, wasted shots because otherwise if they had to rely on plot or story the film would be about 14 minutes. Don't get me wrong, this is about the 30th gay film I"ve watched in the past 6 months and some of them (most of them) have been very formulmatic, predictable and boring but this is one is really a terrible waste of time. The best one so far was "Beautiful Thing". So, I watched this and after the very first opening shot which lingered and lingered I thought "Oh, no, its going to be creative sinny mah" But I gave it a chance and watched it and then when it ended I tossed the DVD in the trash. Sorry I didn't like it and if you did, sorry if I offend.
It seems there's a bit of a curse out there when it comes to gay cinema. Namely, happy endings aren't very common. Beautiful Thing excluded, gay films tend to end in broken relationships or untimely death. And some, like Come Undone, just end... period.<br /><br />The creators of this horrid piece of nonsense have a thing or two to learn about plot, direction, and timelines. Within the first ten minutes of this film, I found myself a bit confused, and even more so after the first glimpse of Jeremie Elkaim's character having a little psych session. It seems this film was randomly pieced together without the slightest attempt at continuity or consistency. There's no real way to tell when you're viewing the present or some sort of ethereal flashback. I could only take so much before it became truly unappealing.<br /><br />Stephen Holden of The New York Times called this film "...shimmeringly beautiful and utterly real." Well, it seems that Stephen invested in beer goggles prior to viewing, as this is truly far from beautiful. Due to all the praise this film received, I expected something worth watching. Sadly, the film lived down to its title. And by the end of the movie (which provided no resolution whatsoever, I might add) it's plain to see that the writers, the director and the film have all Come Undone.
After reading several good reviews as well as hearing nice things about it by word of mouth I decided to rent Come Undone. I must say I was rather disappointed. The story was hard to follow because the film is set as a series of flashbacks between the present and recent past that are very poorly executed. The characters, despite the actors best efforts are flat and uninteresting. The sex is and nudity are more explicit than they need to be. I've never seen a film where they seemed so unnecessary to the plot. The ending is very anti-climatic and leaves many unanswered questions to a story line that wasn't explained well to begin with. In my opinion, a waste of time.
There was something here with the female lead having this perfect life she's always wanted after the worst life possible, beginning as a child prostitute and winding up with Eric Roberts. But her background makes it impossible for her to trust Dean Cain and this utterly destroys it in the end. It sounds weird, but I like the position Dean Cain was in at the end and the choice he made. He can't hurt her because he loves her and she's the mother of his child (I think the time frame makes it clear it's his child and not his brother's), but at the same he can't forgive her for all she's done, sleeping with his brother (which shows the love and obligation he felt was pretty much one way) and then being part of his death. In better hands this would have been a better movie, but for something I caught on late night cable, it's not bad.
The plot was quite interesting, with the Russian revolution background. I also enjoyed seeing Budapest as the movie was partly filmed there. Sadly, there was zero chemistry between the 2 main characters so it was hard to believe the love story between them. The love scenes were forced and mechanical. Jordan kirckland was really stiff, almost icy. Rob Stewart was quite charming and boyish, so she looked like his older sister rather than his girlfriend. The ending, when we finally figure out who was actually after them, was quite weak and made no sense whatsoever. I think I would have enjoyed this movie a lot better if the relationship between the 2 actors was slightly more credible.
Take young, pretty people, put them in an exotic locale, stick in a few bad guys, have the two lead characters find romance after a couple of heavy breathing scenes, create the flimsiest of plots, then work out a happy ending for everybody (other than the three or four who get murdered, of course) That's the classic (and successful) format of the Harlequin Romance. It's not very good but then it's not very bad either, like most of the little yellow pocket books. And the location stuff in Budapest is especially interesting, even if they didn't use the wonderful old train station (designed by Gustave Eifel) or show the city's famous thermal baths.
The story concerns a genealogy researcher (Mel Harris) who is hired by her Estee Lauder-like cosmetic queen aunt. Her aunt (by marriage we are left to presume) is trying to track down her long lost family in Europe. All they have to go on is a photo of a young girl standing by an ornate music box. The researcher heads to Europe and conducts her search in places like Milan, Budapest, and Vienna. The scenery is the real thing and is actually shot on location (unlike a Murder, She Wrote where Jessica is supposed to be visiting a far-flung locale and Lansbury never left Burbank). Anyway, she meets a young man who is also searching to solve a family mystery of his own and they team up to track down clues and menace bad guys. The dialogue, particularly the romantic dialogue, is terrible. I watched this because of the scenery but the script was so bad that I stayed on just to see if it would get worse. It did. Acting was also off. I can see why Mel Harris's career never really took off after thirtysomething, but she is adequate (seems too old for her co-star though). But, the supporting players are straight out of the community playhouse. I also lost count of how many times they say "Budapest" to each other. Yes, it is pronounced Bood-a-phesht. We know, okay? I realized halfway into the film that this had to be one of those Harlequin movies and sure enough it is. Guess that says it all.
Wow! I'm shocked to learn that it's a small world and that we are all interconnected. What a waste of 88 minutes. John Dunne put it much better in one sentence. "No man is an island." The acting wasn't bad. The kids gave it all they had but at times the thread got so thin I couldn't follow it and the only real "hero" in the film ends up in jail after being tormented by a meter maid. I don't know. I just don't get it. Oh well.
Geez, as a Gay man who lives in NYC I can gratefully say that I have never seen the underbelly of Gay Culture that is portrayed in this film - and I am glad of it!!! Was this film broadcast on TV across the United States there would be a great anti-Gay backlash and I cannot say that I would blame them. The people in this film do not represent the average Gay American or even the average Trandgender American, what they do represent is a sheer and utter nightmare. The inclusion of obviously underage characters is appalling and the obvious racist sentiments (anti-White) are blatant and unsettling - society cannot be blamed for people who have chosen drugs, unemployment and rejection of education on the part of the film's "cast" - the actions of these people are not acts of desperation, but rather a rejection of anything resembling personal ambition and a willingness to make something out of one's self.
After watching this film, I was left with a two very annoyances about this film: why did they make Chen's character this "McGuyver hit-man" and Lee's character such an incompetent idiot? Chen's character's background is that he was raised in an underground Cambodian orphanage for blood thirsty fighter where they learn to brawl it out to the death like wild "dogs." This detail is pushed early on during a scene where he gets into a cab and as it starts to drive, he shows how he is unfamiliar with a seat belt. Soon after this scene, he has a similar situation at a dim sum restaurant. Not only is he uneducated, he is starving. This is not a reference to Chen's scrawny physique but to the two early scenes in the film where he is scarfing down food, one of which, being rice porridge off the floor of the lower deck on an old ship. Si in the first ten minutes of the film, it is established that Chen is malnutrition-ed, unmodernized,and has only thing going for him, his "dog" brawling fighting style of some sort. Despite this situation, Chen manages to out-shoot every policeman (even managing to ricochet a bullet off a metal pipe to hit a guy in a head, whom was holding Chen's girlfriend hostage) and has somehow attained a super human strength (swings a 50 lb block of concrete, plastered on the end of a metal pipe, to the head of the police chief AS he is getting shot in the chest, by said chief).<br /><br />Now Lee's character...okay, I get it, he's depressed, he's got some baggage, but wow, can he do anything right? One moment, they try to make him cool, composed and ready to take care of business, and the next moment, he just got beat again. First scene he runs into Chen, and he manages to misses him, from approx 15 ft, multiple times. Toward the end of that scene, Lee watches Chen as his close friend and coworker gets slowly stabbed in the neck with a long knife for a good full 5 seconds, while holding a gun to Chen face, at a 10 ft distance. Even at the end of the movie, Lee manages to get stabbed to death and fails once again.<br /><br />And my biggest problem with this movie is that it is presented in a manner that film makers are trying to get the audience to sympathize with Chen's character and that he is just "killing to survive." That would be a lot easier if I didn't just watch Chen kill innocent people throughout the whole awful movie. Of the numerous people he killed, only two people had the intention of trying to kill him, the police chief and Lee. Others were just people who were eating, boat owners, taxi drivers, and policemen trying to arrest him, not kill. Overall, Chen's character is a just a cold blooded killer who kills for what he wants, even if its just a free ride. (Did I mention he is carrying a wad of hundred dollar bills throughout most of the film?) My 3 stars go to some of the interesting director/camera work who got in some nice shots.<br /><br />Bottomline: One made for the nut-hugging Chen fans. For me, "Dog Bite This DVD"
As it is often the case, the impressive and explosive trailers of Asian films add up to nothing more than lackluster stories. Similar to Unleashed (which was great,) Dog Bite Dog tells a story where men are raised as ferocious savage dogs that carry out their master's bidding. The main characters, an emotionally undeveloped, amoral killer who is matched against an equally unstable police officer, are far from the common heroes and villains we often see. In fact, by the end, you lose track of who you're supposed to empathize with, failing to feel even the slightest emotion for either of the men – whether that was the failure of the director or perhaps the underlining message he was trying to tell is up to you to decide.<br /><br />Although the beginning of the film was filled with intrigue and unpredictability, by the half-way point it slopped down to a humdrum story of survival and revenge. The suspense which was evident at first soon disappeared because of a grossly mismatched music score which brought down the potentially effective story telling. And in the end, you were left feeling that all that detailed background information and introspection of the main characters was somehow very unnecessary.<br /><br />On the plus side, the transition in story from point a to point b was quite atypical compared to US movies – so those who aren't familiar with Asian films and are tired of Hollywood's predictability should check it out.<br /><br />The white balance seemed off throughout most of the film. It was like looking into a picture shot on fluorescent when it was supposed to be set on tungsten. Maybe I'm the only one, but it strained my eyes.<br /><br />The movie also enjoyed playing tricks on you – an interesting build-up gave me hope for the slow moving story until it was diverted to a low budget, low speed chase scene. And just when you think you were going to get an unanswered indie ending with a mix of Shakespearean tragedy, you realize that it's not an ending at all, but rather a transition into a wacky country-music montage about peace and serenity.<br /><br />Throw in some grisly from-behind choke scenes, a moment of redemption unexpectedly brought back into savagery and back again the other way, Asians' fascination with bodily fluids and a horrible music score that didn't match the film, and you get the average bland Asian thriller.<br /><br />I just don't get why every fight scene was overlaid with clips of roaring lions …I thought they were supposed to symbolize dogs? Ultimately, in the end, we are reminded about a true killer that still lurks amongst us – tetanus.<br /><br />4/10
This is the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life. The plot and message are horrible. There are too many mistakes in this movie that it's impossible to keep up. I don't even understand how this movie can get any nomination, let alone 2. Here's why: 1) Sam Lee portrays a angry/irrational detective which was caused by the disappointment from his dad. Pros: He's angry alright. Cons: When it comes to the explanation scene, he cannot convey the sadness/disappointment he has in his father. The crying scene was too fake and it seems like he is literally squeezing out tears from the corner of his eyes.<br /><br />2) To connect the movie to the title, there were barking or dog wimping sounds during the fight scenes and rape scene, which is totally irrelevant and confusing to the viewer. I understand that it's supposed to be a metaphor or what not... but it's just sooo dumb! 3) WHY THE HECK DID THE COPS NOT SHOOT THE KILLER? What the heck is wrong with this movie. When the killer started stabbing an officer, SHOOT him. He's already dead! What the heck? There were lots of opportunity that the killer could be killed, but I do not know why he wasn't! 4) During the scene where the girl had her foot hurt. In the scene, it was very clear that the LEFT foot of the girls was hurt, so how the heck in the next scene that she's lending all her weight on her left foot? And this is the actress nominated as the best new performer? WTF? 5) The sounds in the movie are off sync.<br /><br />6) I am guessing that this movie is trying to bring awareness of the brutality and violence among children in South East Asia, so why does the bad guy wins and then the cop was joining the fight? 7) This movie is just too violent without a purpose. Cops are beating CI to a pulp and then if they cooperate, they give them marijuana and coke? This is overall the worst movie. I truly feel that the person who wrote this movie is a sadist and sick person. I have never seen a more disgusting movie in my whole entire life. WORST MOVIE EVER!
It's a bad movie, it seems like there is only 5 police in HK, they were not using there gun and this makes me feel like a Jacky Chan's movie. All the time they were using their gun to point at the suspect only. When they finally use their gun is when they kill each other, what a funny movie. In The movie, it's like all the good guys died without a reason.<br /><br />They story line of the movie also sucks, the story jump here and there and bored people. But if you wanted to see a bloody movie, I think this is only a OK type of movie, I think U.S. made zombie movie is more bloodier than this one
The title above is used to introduce the film "Gen" to its audience. Gen is about a young doctor(Doga Rutkay) with an ill mother. The film starts with her leaving her mother behind to start her new job. While she drives, we realise that she is not that close home as the hospital is in a remote area. As soon as she steps into the garden of the hospital, she sees the death body of a patient. This is the beginning of a nightmare for the next few days.<br /><br />Two policemen comes to the hospital so as to investigate the suicide. In fact, they will have to stay in the hospital because all roads are cut off due to bad weather conditions. All their communication with outside world is cut off too. There is no way out!! In those few days, there will be more nasty murders. Now everybody suspects from each other.<br /><br />In my opinion, the idea is brilliant. It could have been very scary indeed. There are positive sides of the movie of course. I really like the beginning of the movie. Especially, when she drives to the hospital and her first moments in the hospital. Actings are okay. Some of them are trying too hard to be mysterious and scary though. I think the final shock should have been spread into the through out of the movie. What I am saying is, it was a good twist but instead of showing it as a parody in the end, we should have realised that was coming when we see what is happening. The director needed to explain it altogether which I think didn't work well. Also the most dangerous patient in the movie is supposed to be at least 48 years old but his body looks so young and fit for someone who spends most of his life in this hospital. Lastly, I would like to say a few things about the director. I am sure he will improve. This is his first attempt. I have recently found out that he is only 21 years old. That made me feel more positive about him and his future films. I am not going to rate this film * out of ***** though.
it is of course very nice to see improvements on Turkish movie industry, however, i would have expected something more creative from Togan Gokbakar. starting from the script, which i believe it was not a wise written one as some may think. especially the cheesiness of the dialogs, which were putting the audience in a position that, as if they were not smart enough to understand the situations, which, most of the times makes the movie unbearable. it also has an obvious ending; you can easily guess the murderer from the beginning. the weakest part of the scenario is that the impossibility of seriously mentally ill patients to act like normal people, like professionals right away!!!did they ever search for the possibility of patients who are on heavy medicals, to act like professionals and use all the medical terms that even normal people cannot use?????!!!!!!also in the scene where staff was searching for the most dangerous patient, with out any weapon to protect themselves was another weird point of the film. and that scene was so suitable for "Dikkat Sahan Cikabilir" title!! those are not the only weak parts of the movie. there were also a lot of preciosities in the film. the depiction of the most dangerous patient was an exact copy from Hannibal, also appearance of Togan in the very end is obviously the worst mistake that he could have done in his first movie! the fuss about the greatness of the movie and the interviews that actor's gave just made people to be curious and force them to see it. Gen is a total disappointment. i would have wonder, if Sahan was not this famous, would Togan be able to shoot this movie, with this much of budget amount?? i hope Togan would realize that it is not fashionable to play in a role as a director as he said in an interview. it was Hitchcock who did it wisely and Night Shyamalan continued it successfully! he should be aware of the fact that he is not Hitchcock nor Shyamalan yet!!!!hoping him to be more careful and creative next time in this big industry!
"Meatball Machine" has got to be one of the most complex ridiculous, awful and over-exaggerated sci-fi horror films that I have ever came across. It is about good against evil and a coming-of-age tale, with the aim of to entertain with bloody, sleazy and humorous context. Because of that the violence isn't particularly gruesome and it doesn't make you squirm, but the gratuitous bloodletting and nudity does run freely. The performances by Issei Takahashi and Toru Tezuka is the worst i have seen, if that was not enough it is also directed by an unheard of director called Yudai Yamaguchi. This movie just have it all, it is bad to the bone!, A must see for every b-movie freak!!!... Simply: an enjoying and rare gem.
This film is overblown, predictable, pretentious, and hollow to its core. The settings are faithful to the era but self-conscious in their magnification by prolonged exposure. The lingering over artifacts stops the action and cloys almost as much as the empty dialogue. Tom Hanks seems to be sleepwalking much as Bruce Willis did in Hart's War. Tom, you can't give depth to a character simply by making your face blank! The content did not warrant the histrionic acting by Paul Newman. This is a dud wrapped in an atomic bomb casing.
The highlight of this movie for me was without doubt Tom Hanks. As Mike Sullivan, he was definitely cast against type and showed that he can handle an untraditional (for him) role. Hanks is usually the good guy in a movie - the one you like, admire and root for. Sullivan was definitely not a good guy. It's true that in the context of this movie he came across as somewhat noble - his purpose being to avenge the murders of his wife and youngest son. Even so, he was already a gangster and murderer before those killings. So Hanks took a role I wouldn't have expected him in, and he pulled it off well.<br /><br />Hanks' good performance aside, though, I certainly couldn't call this an enjoyable movie. After an opening that I would best describe as enigmatic (it wasn't entirely clear to me for a while where this was going) it turns into a very sombre movie, about the complicated relationships Sullivan has developed as a gangster - largely raised by Rooney (Paul Newman), who's a sort of mob boss, and trying to raise his own two sons and to keep them "clean" so to speak; isolated from his business. After the older son witnesses a murder, the gang tries to kill him to keep him quiet, gets the wrong son (and the mother), and leaves Sullivan and his older son (Mike, Jr.) on the run. It becomes a weird sort of father/son bonding movie.<br /><br />Although it ends on a somewhat hopeful note (at least in the overall context of the story) it's really very dark throughout, that mood being reinforced with many of the scenes being shot in darkness and torrential rainfall. I have to confess that while I appreciated Hanks' performance, the movie as a whole just didn't pull me in. 4/10
Watching Tom Hanks as a hit man for the Irish mob is a little like seeing Jimmy Stewart as a serial rapist it just doesn't work. I had a really hard time accepting this.Not that I don't think Tom can't act he can I've been following his career since Mazes and Monsters but for some reason this fell flat for me. Maybe because I'm such a fan of the graphic novel and at the risk of sounding like a fanboy(the only form of life lower than a fanboy is a cockroach)The movie as a whole fails for me.The additions Jude Law, and the subtractions everything else left me feeling cold and more than a little disappointed. I was expecting a great crime movie more in the vein of Bonnie and Clyde Mendes took all the heart out of the story and left us with nothing but the bare bones. There are things to like in this flick however the cinematography is breathtaking filling the screen with beautiful images Paul Newman is as usual excellent and I really did enjoy the score, But Tom as "the angel of death" Sullivan was completely flat.
Based on one of the books by Gabriel Marquez and it might be brilliant literature, this cinema-adaption really sucks as it's more like fighting against sleep rather than enjoying some cinematographic delices. The story is about an old couple whose son died and living a life that is heavily dominated by poverty, and wherein the main character is a cock that hopefully one day brings some money for a forthcoming cockfight. I am in no mood to spill more words on this useless pretentious piece, just perhaps that you can see Salma Hayek in here, but sitting 90 minutes in front of your screen for just that? No gracias.....
Frequently voted China's greatest film ever by Chinese critics, as well as Chinese film enthusiasts from the outside, and, frankly, I don't get it at all. What I saw was one of the most generic melodramas imaginable, blandly directed and acted, with a complete shrew for a protagonist. Wei Wei (don't laugh) is that shrew, a young married woman who has suffered alongside her tubercular husband (Yu Shi) for the past several years. It is post WWII, and they live with the husband's teenage sister (Hongmei Zhang) in a dilapidated home with not much money (the man had been wealthy when they married). Along comes the husband's old best friend (Wei Li), who also used to be the wife's boyfriend when they were teens. She considers running away from her husband with this man, while the husband pretty much remains oblivious, thinking he may engage his little sister to his friend. That's the set-up, and it doesn't go anywhere you wouldn't expect it to. I've actually seen the remake, directed by Blue Kite director Zhuangzhuang Tian. It runs a half hour longer, and is actually kind of dull, too, but at least it was pretty. This supposed classic is pretty intolerable.
-might contain spoilers... but believe me, this movie spoils itself from start to finish.<br /><br />I walked into this movie with high expectations. It was my own fault. I had put too much stock in Steve Carell's record to date. 40 year old virgin... Little Miss Sunshine... The Office. And I also made the mistake of coming to IMDb and seeing a 7.5 user rating before going to the movie. It's always been a very good predictor in the past, but something is definitely off lately. The last time I felt this embarrassed and in this much pain in a movie theater was watching "Blue Steel" in 1990.<br /><br />This flick fumbled from start to finish. The script was flunky material. Awful writing all around. "Murderer of love"? "Love is an ability"? Whoever wrote this crap suffered from the same affliction that struck American Beauty's writer(s)... trying waaaaayyyyyy too hard. The entire flick was peppered with Three's Company'ish moments like the awful and contrived shower scene. Or the pointless/confusing aerobics scene. Or the awful laundry room scene. Right when you think something serious and/or real is about to happen, they toss in one of these terrible moments. And it happens over and over and over again.<br /><br />And what's with Carell's character? The guy meets some lame broad at a book store and is suddenly head over heels in love? Let's face it. Their conversation sucked. They both should have said their goodbye's after a few minutes. Pay close attention to the initial conversation when you have the misfortune of watching this movie.... Carell's character is trying to say something which is absolutely random and un-funny (I think the exact line was "this one time when I was a kid"... that's it. seriously), but both are laughing so hard that coffee is about to spout out of their noses. The actors themselves looked like they were in pain, wondering why they're being directed to do what they're doing.<br /><br />Back to the IMDb thing... you guys need to figure out a way to keep a movie's promotional team off this site. I know it's impossible, but it's painfully obvious the first 20 or so ratings/reviews were either posted by 12 year olds, or by flunky's hired by the studio. Check out The Family Stone's rating... if that's a mid 5, then this absolutely has got to be a 2... and that's pushing it.
Expectations were somewhat high for me when I went to see this movie, after all I thought Steve Carell could do no wrong coming off of great movies like Anchorman, The 40 Year-Old Virgin, and Little Miss Sunshine. Boy, was I wrong.<br /><br />I'll start with what is right with this movie: at certain points Steve Carell is allowed to be Steve Carell. There are a handful of moments in the film that made me laugh, and it's due almost entirely to him being given the wiggle-room to do his thing. He's an undoubtedly talented individual, and it's a shame that he signed on to what turned out to be, in my opinion, a total train-wreck.<br /><br />With that out of the way, I'll discuss what went horrifyingly wrong.<br /><br />The film begins with Dan Burns, a widower with three girls who is being considered for a nationally syndicated advice column. He prepares his girls for a family reunion, where his extended relatives gather for some time with each other.<br /><br />The family is high atop the list of things that make this an awful movie. No family behaves like this. It's almost as if they've been transported from Pleasantville or Leave it to Beaver. They are a caricature of what we think a family is when we're 7. It reaches the point where they become obnoxious and simply frustrating. Touch football, crossword puzzle competitions, family bowling, and talent shows ARE NOT HOW ACTUAL PEOPLE BEHAVE. It's almost sickening.<br /><br />Another big flaw is the woman Carell is supposed to be falling for. Observing her in her first scene with Steve Carell is like watching a stroke victim trying to be rehabilitated. What I imagine is supposed to be unique and original in this woman comes off as mildly retarded.<br /><br />It makes me think that this movie is taking place on another planet. I left the theater wondering what I just saw. After thinking further, I don't think it was much.
If, in the first 10 minutes of this film, you don't realize that the main character, who writes a life advice column, is going to have the tables-oh-so-cleverly-turned and learn some valuable life lessons himself, then there is probably something wrong with you. The set up is so predictable as to ruin the movie, even if the rest of the movie was good (which it isn't) <br /><br />There's almost no chemistry between the leads, and Steve Carell's stalker-ish behavior is embarrassing, not funny. It's hard to believe Binoche's character would have any interest in him. Then in the end it's all wrapped up so wonderful and everyone lives happily ever after. Isn't that great America!
Oh dear. This movie could have been sub-titled "When writers go on strike!" What a stinker. I had really high hopes for this, mostly after reading IMDb reviews, which makes me wonder about the whole IMDb rating system, but that's a separate matter. I loved Steve Carrell in Anchorman, Bruce Almighty, The Office, etc so I was expecting great things. To say I was disappointed is the understatement of the year. There are so many things wrong with this movie, but I'll confine myself to (a) the implausibility of ANY family behaving like these people do (A mass aerobics workout? What planet is THAT real life on?), the clunky script (a murderer of love? Please), and the fact that the character of Dan is so unlikable, you find yourself wondering what the girl saw in him to make her fall in love with him? This movie was filled to bursting with clunky dialogue, creaking direction, ridiculous set-scenes and it was slow, slow, slow. We would have walked out after half an hour if we'd not been with my parents, who don't get out much and don't like to waste money. Unlike the makers of this movie, who would have been better off throwing all the cash spent making this movie into a bonfire - that would have been more entertaining. If you like movies, avoid this like the plague.
Spoiler: Bunch of passive-aggressive people having family reunion. The script has them saying and doing things people would never do, at least anyone with a shred of decency. The hero falls for a woman he sees as his soul mate at a bookstore the day of the reunion, unaware she will show up as his brother's girlfriend at the reunion. He tries to defer to his brother's claim, but she, knowing our hero is clearly infatuated with her, teases him mercilessly by wearing sexy clothing and behaving like a stripper, rubbing all over the brother in a ruse excuse that she is showing him how to stretch. At one point, she actually disrobes and gets into a shower with him. He tries to cover his eyes. His heart is breaking. She thinks it's funny, until she suddenly decides she doesn't want the brother and leaves the reunion.<br /><br />The movie really drags. The audience coughed and fidgeted its way through the long haul. The writing is unintelligent and unbelievable. We almost walked out, but kept thinking surely something would happen that would perk things up, but nooooo. All the lovely reviews must have been written by paid shills, out to dupe poor suckers like me into seeing crap like this. Comparing it to Little Miss Sunshine??? Jeez. Shame on them, the writers, the actors, the producers, and the theaters for letting anything this bad make it to the screen!
The fact that there are positive comments about Dan in Real Life on the IMDb just makes me realize that their junket staff are hard at work trying to get people to watch this utterly horrific film.<br /><br />I have no words, no idea where to start to describe the truly awful film I sat through last night - Dan in Real Life. Steve's characters in previous films led me to believe that I would feel something for his character and enjoy the dialog but like other posters I felt uncomfortable and embarrassed for the cast.<br /><br />The dialog was so contrived, the family was this cookie cutter Walton's family and the film has been so many times before that I am shocked someone thought it was an original idea.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and take a pass on this terrifyingly bad movie and don't believe everything you read on the IMDb since the first comments were clearly written by folks sitting in a different theater watching a GOOD film.
I have a 5 minute rule (sometimes I'll leave leway for 10). If a movie is not good in the first 5 or 10 minutes it's probably not going to ever get better. I have yet to experience any movie that has proved to contest this theory. Dan in Real Life is definitely no exception. I was watching this turkey and thought; wow, this is not funny, not touching, not sad, and I don't like any of the characters at all.<br /><br />The story of an advice columnist/widower raising three young daughters, who falls in love with his brothers girlfriend. I suppose the tagline would be "advice columnist who could USE advice"? I don't know. Dans character in no way struck me as someone qualified to give advice. I guess THAT'S the irony? I don't know. He goes to see his parents, brothers, sisters and their kids at some sort of anual family retreat, which seems very sweet, and potential fodder for good comedy, story lines...none which ever emerge. The central story is basically how he loves this woman, but can't have her. Anyone with a pulse will realise that eventually he WILL get her, but you have to suffer through painfully unfunny, trite, lifetime movie network dialogue "murderer of love" to get to the inevitable happy ending.<br /><br />This is truly one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
seriously what the hell was this movie about,,simply stupid,,i'd give it 0 but,,,1"awful" is the lowest you can go,,seriously this movie is not worth watching,,waste of time, i don't know what the hell is wrong with you guys voting this movie 7 out of 10,,i seriously can make a better movie than this , hire some other unemployed people,,'n i promise i'll make a movie better than this,,this movie was so bad,,that i'll never watch a movie starring Steve Carrel again,bottom line don't waste your time to download it off the net or rent it,,i'd nominate this movie for the worst movie of the century i mean the worst is Something Gotta give but after that this is the second
Wowwwwww, about an hour ago I finally finished watching this terrible movie!!! I wanted to turn it off within the first like 10 minutes but I figured I'd give it a chance because it just hadddd to get better. Or at least have some redeeming qualities, like I figured at the very least it would be a make you think type movie, or like really intelligent, or very well filmed or something...Needless to say, that was not the case and I wasted about an hour and a half of my life. Im not even going to get into why its terrible because its a waste of my time to explain that this "may contain spoilers"...IMDb, you should calm down on the spoilers thing and pay more attention to making sure that the people who rate the movies and comment are not paid to write good reviews or involved somehow in the movie or anything else like that. I thought it would be humorous after this terrible film to come see hoe bad the rating would be and I was very very shocked to see the fairly high ratings...all the ratings with about 7-10 stars clearly must be about some COMPLETELY DIFFERENT movie... Im still a big IMDb fan, but seriously rethink this rating process because this movie should be rated no higher than maaaybbbeee like a 3.
There's little to get excited about "Dan in Real Life". First off, the whole setup is incredibly contrived. Did you really believe that during that very long first meeting conversation at the restaurant, Marie wouldn't have told Dan where she was going? And since Dan did all the talking during that conversation, why would she be so attracted to him? For that matter, I never figured out why Marie was so attracted to Dan throughout the movie. He's very narcissistic and does little to convince us that he's truly a good guy (for example he lies to Marie in the bookstore, ridicules his brother about his past girlfriends and tries to make Marie jealous with a 'blind date'). There's more contrivance such as that ridiculous scene at the bowling alley where Dan and Marie are caught making out by the whole family. Yeah like that could really happen. Dan in Real life is slow-paced, sappy and manipulative. Even chick flicks like The Jane Austen Book Club get higher marks than this predictable "tearjerker".
I couldn't bear to sit through he entire movie. Do families like this really exist somewhere? There have been many comments describing this family as akin to LLBean models and such, and I think that that is a great description of how they behaved.<br /><br />More absurdly unbelievable writing/acting occurs as we meet a character referred to in High School as "pigface" who, of course, has grown into a drop-dead gorgeous 20-year Harvard-educated plastic surgeon (but only to do good in the world-not for the money,) and she beds Steve Carrel on the first date. That's when I quit watching...<br /><br />If you can completely suspend your disbelief for two hours, then perhaps you'll enjoy this sentimental, self-indulgent waste of time.
The premise of this movie is revealed on the DVD box. A textile worker develops a miracle fabric that doesn't degrade. But the movie fails to get on with it. Instead it pads for 45 minutes, noodling around a preamble before he makes the big discovery. Since audiences don't benefit much from seeing a whiz kid figuring things out, it's a strange choice: the movie has successfully been prevented from engaging any topic. Once the fabric is discovered, the movie too rapidly establishes that both industry bigwigs, and blue-collar co-workers want the invention squelched, leaving the movie with just two flimsy movements; inventing the chemical, and running from oppressors.<br /><br />I can't understand why anyone would describe this as comedy. The tone isn't funny or comical. It's more like serious social criticism of the day: that capitalism warps both supply chains and production. Which in turn prevents innovation from reaching and improving the world. Yes, that's probably true, but without some toying with an attitude towards that fact, the movie is simply an earnest argument. You'll need an extremely broad definition of comedy to find any here.<br /><br />This is more like a British Meet John Doe (Meet Nigel Doe ?).
I admit the problem I have with the much-celebrated Ealing films I've seen so far could be mine. To my taste, either they are black and rippingly funny, or so light in tone to be unsatisfying as comedies or stories. That's a self-important way of saying I wanted to like "The Man In The White Suit" but found myself struggling to sit through its short run time.<br /><br />Textile worker Sidney Stratton (Alec Guinness) may be meek in manner, but he is doggedly committed to progress in the form of his attempts to invent a strand of fabric that can't be broken or made dirty. Using a factory lab for his latest experiment, he toils against limitations both material and human - the latter being the benighted mill bosses who don't understand what he is up to, then figure it out and become even more committed to stopping him.<br /><br />"It's small minds like yours that stand in the way of progress," Sidney complains, practicing in the mirror what he struggles to say to the Man.<br /><br />One problem with "Man In The White Suit" is that Sidney's vision of progress is awfully small-minded, too, more so even than that of the bosses or the laborers who also resent his work. My problem is more elemental: For a comedy, "White Suit" is not funny. It's a rather earnest script which too often tries to mine its feeble attempts at humor from spit-takes, double-takes, triple-takes, and dizzy takes.<br /><br />The best joke is the sound of the machine Sidney toils at, going "Bleep-Blop-Bleep-Bop" endlessly and fetching queer looks from every visitor until Sidney either extracts his miracle from it or blows it up trying. Like every other bit of stray humor that functions decently in this film, it's leaned on too long.<br /><br />I've never seen Guinness less affecting in a movie, even though he looks impossibly young and earnest (though actually in his mid-30s). He seems so bloodless, even more so than the wax-faced general he played in "Doctor Zhivago" He's the same cold fish whether he's ignoring the sad affections of the affecting mill girl who offers to give him her life savings when he loses his job (pan-faced Vida Hope as Bertha) or the more sultry charms of young Daphne Birnley (Joan Greenwood), his one real ally in his fight against "shabbiness and dirt", as she puts it, making those words sound as impossibly sexy as only Greenwood could.<br /><br />Supporting players make "White Suit" work as well as it does. Ernest Thesinger of "Bride Of Frankenstein" fame plays a singularly nasty captain of industry who looks like Nosferatu and makes a laugh like a death rattle. Howard Marion-Crawford as another factory leader is as memorable here as he was playing a blinkered medical officer in "Lawrence Of Arabia". Then there's the undeniable charm of Mandy Miller as a little girl who steals her few moments on camera right from under everyone else.<br /><br />But most of the scenes are played so straight that one wouldn't think director Alexander Mackendrick had ever worked on a comedy before (his previous Ealing comedy "Whisky Galore" doesn't reverse that impression, alas). Roger MacDougall's play posits the notion of scientific progress as potential disaster, but fails to present dull Sidney in anything other than the most blandly pleasant of lights.<br /><br />Ealing comedies are remembered for capturing the human side of comedy. Yet the Ealings I've seen never seem to do this, working only when they play aggressively against our own sympathies. "Kind Hearts And Coronets" and "The Ladykillers" (Mackendrick again, go figure) are classics this way. "White Suit", on the other hand, is a pointless ramble that falls apart when it should cohere, just like that unfortunate suit.
What was this supposed to be? A remake of Fisher King? Why do we care about Sandler's character? What a slow, dreary, boring, who-gives-a-damn-about-these-people movie!!! Just simply painful to sit through, I turned it off before it was over. It's so obvious that Cheadle needs help as much as Sandler; like I said: can you say "Fisher King"? And how does this psychotic character function in his daily life? We aren't supposed to think that deeply, I guess. Why does Cheadle continue to give Sandler a chance to turn violent on him? If they were such good friends, how did they grow apart? If Cheadle is so in control, why does he keep seeking the advice of the shrink on the street? We are never told. That's why Fisher King was a better film on so many levels and why this just sucks. Nearly 8 out of 10 average score? I don't agree. At all. Even the top films are lucky to get such a high average rating, and this crap doesn't deserve to be in the same universe with them.
Ursula Andress' naked body is one of those things that make you believe in God. The other two women (especially the one who plays the maid) have great bodies as well. Then why is the higher grade that I can give to a film with such quality and quantity of nudity only 3 out of 10? Because, to get to Ursula's unbelievable body, we have to sit through a movie that is otherwise unfunny and boring (keep in mind that I watched the full 101-minute version, not the 78-minute American one which probably cuts out a lot of the extraneous material). In typical Italian-comedy tradition, most of the characters are exaggerated caricatures (the army freak, the "latin lover", the constant drunk, the naive maid) that are not funny, simply overacted. Final word: watch this, but keep your finger on the fast-forward button, you're gonna need it. (*)
I'm starting to write this review during a break as I watch the movie. It's the first time I've tried doing that, but I'm having trouble getting through this one without occasional breaks. That's not because it's intense but because it's bad.<br /><br />It's almost painfully tedious and unbelievable, especially when the preternaturally robust dying brother Ryan (Colm Feore) is on screen being tragic and bitchy, self-indulgent and self-pitying. This would have been a much better movie if they'd just left that character out of the story.<br /><br />He adds nothing but mawkish, maudlin, very irritating melodrama. Maybe somebody decided that if they couldn't make Ryan believable they'd just make him obnoxious. The problem with that is: Who cares if a spoiled, whining, obnoxious jerk is dying? Not me.<br /><br />The ONLY thing this character has going for him is the fact that he's dying, and sorry, but that's just not enough. Dying doesn't make anybody special. We're ALL dying, sooner or later. It doesn't give anybody the right to expect sympathy while acting like a jerk.<br /><br />The other two characters, and the actors playing them (David Cubitt as Theo and Chandra West as Sarah), are very much more interesting, and their story, without Ryan's self-pitying interruptions, would have made a much better movie. But it's not over yet, and it's time to hit PLAY again. Maybe something great happens before the end....<br /><br />Nope. Sorry. This rented turkey goes back tonight!
The past creeps up on a rehab-addict when he reconnects with his ill brother and a former girlfriend after what he hopes was his last stint in detox. "Life's dramas", presented here in the most simplistic way imaginable (not even the writing has any bite or wit). The cast is made up of attractive looking actors smiling glumly at one another, and the music and photography are lugubrious (a couple of the visual effects are laughable, indie-cliché touches that reek of a puny budget). Although written and directed by a man, this was produced by a woman, and I'm not sure but I think this may be a distinct reason why this picture about two men, estranged brothers growing closer, never quite gels, never feels natural or seems lived in. It's an attempt to get inside a male relationship, but the careful, sterile presentation is a cheat. No one's heart is in this, living, breathing, or bleeding this material. "The Perfect Son" is quickly diffused by too many cooks in the kitchen.
The case is the best part of the movie but it alone is not worth the purchase price. I expected a "Based on the true story" movie only to find a shot on home video hodge-podge of poorly shot clips tied together with pathetic acting and non-related slaughter house scenes. The video scenes had numerous rewind situations which were used probably to extend the length of the feature rather than for effects. I started this review before I was even halfway through the movie and waited till it was over just in case it had a better ending but, low and behold it only got worse. If I could mark it any lower it would have been a negative ten. Learn from my mistake and save your money and time with this one.
To compare this squalor with an old, low budget porno flick would be an insult to the old, low budget porno flick. The animal scenes have no meaning nor do they represent this man and his crimes even in the broadest sense of abstractions. The synopsis on the back of the DVD case says in part, "…gripping retelling of the BTK Killer's reign of terror." This is NOT a retelling. A retelling would suggest that you are being told the truth of what happened or how or why. None of these things are true. I'm an enthusiastic studier of serial killers and have seen some pretty crappy movies about them and honestly, this IS NOT one of them. This isn't even about the BTK killer. Save yourself some time and a few bucks and rent Dahmer instead. THAT serial killer movie is accurate and true. However, if you just HAVE to see this movie for yourself, check it out for free at your local library and even then, you'll still feel cheated.
I just watched this movie today and not only is it, terrible and awful but it looks like the director just got a few friends together to make a movie about a sick man. I also think that this movie has the look of a porn video with it's clear crisp just filmed view.<br /><br />Thank heavens I work in a video store and I didn't have to pay for it cause this movie is crap x infinity..DO NOT BUY OR RENT THIS MOVIE!!!!! You'd have a better time watching Dude Where's My Car than this piece of crap! And that's not saying a lot for that movie either.<br /><br />The acting is lousy and the movie is just very unwatchable. I was watching this movie and I wanted to kill myself during and after the movie.<br /><br />I walked home and threw up after watching this piece of dirt movie, I then took a shower and burnt my clothes. <br /><br />If I had half a mind I would of took the movie outside and burned it too cause no one should be subjected to it...well maybe members of Al Queda..especially the ones we have in custody and also child rapists who are in prison on life sentences with out parole....just make a set up like a clock work Orange, And then force these cheese head to watch it over and over again.
Horrible, Horrible, Horrible do not waste your money to rent this movie. Its like a low budget made for TV Canadian movie. Absolutely the worst movie I have ever seen and there have been many others out there. This movie is not worth the time it takes to put it in the DVD player or VCR. :~( . Is it possible to write ten lines? The acting was horrific. It had absolutely no flow. I saw the made for TV movie on the BTK killer and it was much better(in comparison to this one). I am not sure what they were going for in producing this film but if it was to educate us or tell a story about the BTK killer they missed by a mile. It appeared to be more of a infomercial for animal rights.
I can't really say what I think about this movie, its against the guidelines, I've watched many many films, and this has got to be the worst one yet, Extremely low budget, I'm guessing all the money went into the slaughter house scenes, cause I could of did a better job with a b&w 8mm camera and a crew of monkeys. It was so bad I registered just to leave a comment, cause I had to tell someone, movie rental place wasn't enough. But this is my 2 cents worth, I suggest borrowing it from some poor sap who rented it and watch it yourself. Cause i sure wouldn't waste the money on it myself again. Now i leave you with this comment. I hope your not made at the rental place when they wont refund you your money .. =)
As I work at a video store, I found it to be my solemn duty to talk about the worst movies I've ever seen, and warn my friends and co-workers of it. Amidst one day of particularly heated debate of what is the worst movie, my friend dared me to watch B.T.K. Killer, even stating that if I could watch the whole movie and still claim my previous choice was the worst movie ever, then he'd watch it. I lost. I believe that even I made better videos than this in high school, and those were hardly great feats of a young genius. This film not only lacked in what seemed to be production value (it looks like it was shot on a bad camcorder, although it is surprisingly clear), but also in acting (wooden, hollow, and pathetic don't scratch the surface), as well as just generally bad movie feeling. I can remember a scene where I heard glass smash, suddenly, I was reminded of some bad high school plays (I know that I reference high school too often here, but this film did seem very juvenile) both in terms of the set, which seemed far too fake, but also as if the people were reading their lines from the script, not entirely sure what was actually going on. My review doesn't do this film justice, because I can't describe how utterly horrid the time I spent watching this was. It's almost ironic that I do a pathetic job describing a pathetic excuse for a movie.
This movie is just so awful. So bad that I can't bear to expend anything other than just a few words. Avoid this movie at all costs, it is terrible.<br /><br />None of the details of the crimes are re-enacted correctly. Lots of slaughterhouse footage. Weird cuts and edits. No continuity to the plot. The acting is absolutely the most amateur I have ever seen.<br /><br />This bomb of a movie was obviously made to make some money without any regard to the accuracy of it's content. The camera work is out of focus at times and always shaky. It looks as if it was shot on video.<br /><br />In fact, now that they've got Dennis Rader with life in prison, I wish they would put the guys that made this horrible movie into prison as well.<br /><br />Seriously, don't even think about watching this one. I'd give it a negative star if I could.
This movie is the biggest steaming pile of you know what, Being from and growing up in Wichita Kansas;I know for a fact 90% of the movie was Bogus. Aside from the names of some of the victims, nothing else much was correct. The movie looks like it was made with dad's handy-cam, It had footage that I believe came from another film along with stock footage from a slaughter house. I usually enjoy watching bad films for the fun of it, but due to the bad acting, poorly prepared or non existent sets and a very dull and short ending.It was a struggle to watch it through to the ending. I recommend that you not waste your money on this film or you will be sorry. Crunch
This movie was so ridiculous i never even finished watching it i actually thought someone had made their own version and dubbed it onto the DVD from the movie store. This movie made me sick not because it was gory, but because i wasted 2 50 on it!!!! It looks like my brother and i went into a house and made the movie ourselves and edited slaughterhouse footage into it! I am so ticked off, even The BTK Killer deserves more credit than that it was not even accurate i mean come on the cow head was obviously made out of play dough or BUBBLE GUM OMG I cant even get all the words out to explain it DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!
I have never watched a movie in so little time. The only salvation was the fast forward function on the DVD unit. It was like watching a poorly produced CBC film. There was obviously no money for lighting, filming, sets, location, scriptwriters, editors, actors... Oh, there was absolutely no story either! I need to write ten lines of comment... Bad, awful, horrible, wretched, anguishing, tortuous, bilious, nauseous, sickening, fromage, disgusting, flimsy, icky, yucky, pukey, stinky, smelly, vile, putrid, all-thumbs-down, and I don't know if I can keep on going to complete all ten lines of just how bad this piece of crap-o-matic production was!
This was the worst movie I have ever seen and I've seen a lot of bad movies. First of I'm from Kansas this movie does not have a shred of truth in it at all. Its like they took BTK name and made up the rest. On top of that it looks like someone was like I've only got $20 bucks here take it and make a movie and oh yeah don't worry about researching btk at all just make up something. seriously pure dookie no one should ever see this movie. The slaughtering cows scenes and making his victims eat stuff and describing animal slaughter BTK did none of these things but the movie does so for the love of god never see this god awful movie. The made for TV ones are way better and way more accurate
Don't see this movie. Bad acting and stupid gore effects. A complete waste of time. I was hoping to see a lot of cool murders and hot chicks,instead the director depended on animal slaughter videos to shock you, the watcher. Disgusting. The murders are pretty lame, basically strangulation. One woman he stuffs worms in her mouth, one he puts raw hamburgers on her face and strangles her. BTK = BTK broiler, burger king's "killer" new sandwich....ha ha. I don't think this movie relied too much on actual facts. I mean, he real BTK killer didn't carry around a bunch of rodents, scorpions and worms..and oh yeah...a slaughtered cow head too. Go figure.
My mother worked with Dennis L. Raider for eleven years, not to mention shared an office with him. When it was announced he was BTK, she was shocked. The whole day was just her telling stories about how she never would have seen him as the Wichita Killer. I've heard her re-tell them many times. I've inquired her about a lot of things, and gone to all the interviews that she was asked to go to. I've read the entire book written about Raider, Wichita is my hometown and I was surprised that such a thing could happen in Kansas.<br /><br />There was another BTK movie on TV not too long ago, and I thought this one would have been better at portraying Dennis' killings, maybe even have some intelligent touches to his motives.<br /><br />I'm going to be very blunt with the flaws in this movie. This is based on my mom's portrayal of him, all my readings on him, and the video tapes I've seen of him talking.<br /><br />First of all, the camera angles were horrible. It looked as though it had been shot on a home video camera. The acting was terrible and I couldn't even bear to watch it.<br /><br />Dennis Raider never had long hair. Dennis Raider was a "very anal man" and was a "follow the rule book" kind of guy. He wasn't as nice as the movie made him look, he was very polite and abrupt, business like. Same goes for his killings, as far as we all know. If you've seen his confession in court, you can already guess.<br /><br />And as for the obsession with the slaughter house? No. Never have I read or has Dennis Raider confessed to having a problem with animal cruelty or people squishing bugs. In fact, he practiced on cats and dogs for choking methods. Yet through-out the whole movie he was putting animals in his victim's faces and acting like he cared about the well-being of them.<br /><br />Dennis Raider never killed the people that he knew, he confessed this, but in the movie in his first killing he tells the lady he knows her also.<br /><br />I really don't even want to go in to this movie, and I'm already ranting. This is NOT what you want to watch if you are interested in the actual happenings of BTK. This is NOT what you want to watch if you want a good horror movie. If you want a badly shot half-porno with some slaughter scenes served the side, then this is your kind of movie.
I question the motive of the creators of this fictional account of the BTK killer's motives. Are they attempting to portray animal rights activists as sick monsters? Who is responsible for this? Don't they think the people involved with this monster are hurting enough? What a blatant disrespect and exploitation of the victims! It was like a personality experiment: What disturbs you more, the slaughterhouse or the human murders? They used actual names of some of the victims....this movie was hideous, disrespectful and insulting! The creators of this movie used this tragedy for their own agenda! People need to awaken and redraw the line!
This is the biggest piece of crap ever. It looks like they spent more time, effort, and money making the DVD cover than they did on the actual movie. I really thought the DVD had been switched out with someone's homemade porno until I recognized one of the actors from the cover. This movie looks like someone made it with a hundred bucks and a camcorder and they spent half of that on rats. The picture is really clear, but that, along with the very unfortunate lighting, cinematography, if you can call it that, production, acting, if that is actually what they are doing, and script, if they had one, makes this movie look worse than an old porno. At least the old porno has a point. This just looks like some PETA members got together and decided to make a really disturbing, pointless PSA about animals rights and feelings. This is so not worth the money or the time. It has nothing in common with the actual BTK serial killer other than the name of the killer and that of some of the victims. The people who made this movie should be glad he's not still free, or he might have come after them just for screwing up this movie so bad.
This movie start quite gruesomely with a female being bound and psychologically tortured. There's male full frontal nudity, dead animal parts, dogs licking nipples, the female loosing control of her bladder. All shot in a gray cold color. Effective, but a little too much. We then move on to seeing the BTK killer's youth as well as the present and his history of crimes. The tension is entirely psychological and the scenes of the killer entering the homes of his victims and talking to them lasts for quite a long time and it's creepy. Here we don't see fancy or good imagery, it looks as if shot with your home camera. It doesn't look horrifying, but in a way seeing a criminal engage his victims for quite some time before killing them is quite unusual and chilling. What this movie doesn't have is any drama, really. There are some cop scenes every once in a while, but there's no excitement in terms of them finding the killer. There isn't much of an arc to this story. This could have been an effective psychological thriller, a study of madness. Unfortunately, the movie is filled with real slaughterhouse footage. It's dispersed throughout the movie and comes on suddenly again and again. Sometimes you don't know it's coming and don't have enough time to look away. And that I have to reject. I'm all for low budget horror movies but I don't tolerate animal suffering. It was unnecessary, excessive, and comes without warning. I'm glad that Lionsgate releases stuff that no one else does, but they should have passed on this movie or edited out the animal gore. Stay away from this garbage.
This movie features a gorgeous brunette named Danielle Petty. She has stunning green eyes, and is in the first few scenes and the last scene. She is the only thing about this movie that is not repulsive. She may not have a future as an actress, because this kind of movie is the kind of offensive disaster that kills careers.<br /><br />The movie itself has absolutely nothing to recommend it. It is not a good horror film, or a good fake journalistic report, or remotely well done. There is no skill apparent in it's production. It is like a bad student film. The story's horrific elements do not make you sick, it is the fact that it is so poorly done that makes you sick. I would give this movie ZERO stars if I could.
This is by far the worst horror/thriller I've seen in my 29 years. If someone offers this to you for free tell them NO. This movie makes you a dumber person for knowing you watched it. The plot isn't even the worst part of this movie.....its the acting, camera work, lighting, and sound. there is absolutely nothing to like about this movie. whoever paid to have this film made is broke now. I hope the director never gets the greenlight for another movie. In its defense this movie was made quickly to try to capitalize on the actual BTK killer's capture but I've seen movie of the weeks that looked like Oscar winners compared to this.
I rented this horrible movie. The worst think I have ever seen. I believe a 1st grade class could have done a better job. The worse film I have ever seen and I have seen some bad ones. Nothing scary except I paid 1.50 to rent it and that was 1.49 too much. The acting is horrible, the characters are worse and the film is just a piece of trash. The slauther house scenes are so low budget that it makes a B movied look like an Oscar candidate. All I can say is if you wnat to waste a good evening and a little money go rent this horrible flick. I would rather watch killer clowns from outer space while sitting in a bucket of razors than sit through this flop again
Oh My God! Please, for the love of all that is holy, Do Not Watch This Movie! It it 82 minutes of my life I will never get back. Sure, I could have stopped watching half way through. But I thought it might get better. It Didn't. Anyone who actually enjoyed this movie is one seriously sick and twisted individual. No wonder us Australians/New Zealanders have a terrible reputation when it comes to making movies. Everything about this movie is horrible, from the acting to the editing. I don't even normally write reviews on here, but in this case I'll make an exception. I only wish someone had of warned me before I hired this catastrophe
Story goes like this, Netflix was late sending me my dvds so I went on down to the the analog rental place known as "Blockbuster Video" They suck you know. Real bad, They have 150 copies of the latest lame movies for your viewing pleasure yet I never want to see any of those. So I saw BTK Killer there on the shelf, all by its lonesome self. I like seeing films based on serial killers. Its just a part of humanity that I will never understand, therefore I wanna see that kind of stuff. Anyways I put this DVD in and all the sudden from the very first second, it sucks. I'm sitting there with my b.f. and we are like, "what is this kind of crap?" Unsteady camera operation, horrible acting,- the first scene in which a woman gets killed you wonder if she would rather just calmly gab instead, Then a rat gets stuffed down her throat. I really wonder if the director has a hard-on for this crap. There is nothing decent about this "film". All I have to say to the director is "do you own a freakin' tripod?" Every shot was brutally unstable. The music was awful. It was like they just decided one day to make a movie. They were probably gathering people from WalMart to show up and "act" for them. Just plain awful. If you make a movie like this then directing is your hobby-NOT what you should be doing for a living- SHould not make it to the DVD renal outlets for movie buffs like myself. Better left at home for your friends when you are having a party and run out of interesting things to entertain them with.... Then you break out your BTK KIller film and say, "Wanna see this crappy movie I did once?"
This is actually an insult to the victims and their families of the BTK killer. The events in this movie are not even close to the truth. Why they couldn't make a movie of the real events doesn't make any sense since the real events are more interesting then this made up farce. Don't even waste your time watching this for free. Low budget and a shameful depiction of the events which should not be made a joke of, which is really what this movie did. If they would allow me to give a -10 to this movie I would. The acting sucked and it looks like it was shot on an old VHS video camera from the 80s. Save your time and money by not watching this movie.
I was lying on my bed, with a really bad cold or flu or whatever. I figure maybe I'd kill some time watching some horror movies my mom bought for me a little while ago. I wish I never picked this movie! After I watched it I felt even more sick and I wanted to throw up. Afterwords(when I got better of course) I did some research on Dennis L.Rader and I noticed that the Dennis in the movie was nothing like the real one. I hope that no one ever watches this movie but if they ever do don't eat or you'll feel the way I felt after I first watched it. I think you would have a better time watching The Santa Claus 3. At least that movie had better reviews on this site.
No words can describe my utter hatred for this appalling rendition of the BTK killer. Rating this film one out of ten compliments this truly disastrous excuse for a film. From start to finish, there was not one single highlight. The entire thing was horrendously put together; the script, acting, plot, lighting, direction, ACTING, factual information, ACTING, just to name a few. A number of scenes are literally laugh-out-loud-funny, for the atrocious way in which the entire thing is put together. This review may seem like an unjust and scathing attack on a low-budget film, but this is not the case. Just thinking about the movie I have just seen makes my blood start to boil. How this film was ever granted rights for production i will NEVER know. I am almost tempted to actually recommend BTK, because it is truly a stand-out in regards to how pathetic, and disturbingly awful it is. I can honestly say, in all my years of film-going, this is the WORST. MOVIE. EVER. I wasted over an hour of my life on this useless garbage, and would gladly have jumped off the nearest building beforehand, had I known what I was in for. ZERO out of TEN.
Generally I don't do minus's and if this site could i would give this movie -3 out of 10 meaning I really hated this movie. I thought Uwe Boll's alone in the dark was the worst i've seen yet but at least i gave it a 2.5 out of 10 in my opinion(Stephen Dorff shooting at nothing made me laugh so i boosted the ratings a bit). Hell if it was if compared to bloodrayne, Bloodrayne would win a Oscar for best movie if they were competing.<br /><br />Now to the plot, this movie is about the BTK killer which is fine but they've could have done better. The start looked OK but that's it I had to fast forward most of it because the death's where boring. I like killer movies and even if they suck they could still get some cool deaths. I'm not a fancy movie expert but believe me he would have shot himself if did see this. Sorry for rambling but there's nothing good to say about it, because it looks like someone took a camcorder and film this.. this.. thing of disaster. Uwe Boll your movies are no longer on my list of worst movies ever this took the cake.<br /><br />Well sorry i couldn't explain the plot(if there was one) but that was the best i could. Now if you don't mind i'm going to crawl into a corner and move back and forth and reminding me of how bad this movie scared me for life.... OK not for life
This film is so bad it simply defies reality. The filming is grade school material at best, the acting is pathetic and the director should forever be banished from film making in any form. So bad it can't even be watched as comedy such something along the lines of Showgirls. The ONLY thing this DVD had going for it was the cover art. <br /><br />All I can write to those of you who haven't had the misfortune to witness this is to please do yourself a well deserved favor in advance and don't waste your time or your money on this piece of garbage. If you want to see a movie for the comedy aspects, there are many other more worthy in such a realm than this trash.
I was glad to watch this movie free of charge as I am working in the hotel industry and this movie came lately to our movie library. Nothing against low budget movies, but this movie has horrible acting and directing. How can a movie as this one ever be made. The director should be blacklisted, and for all the poor actors, it is for sure not a jumping board into a career. Please make sure that you'll not watch this movie, the acting is lame, the camera and directing awful. There are just a few more movies out there which deserve to be called the "LOW 10". Another example would be "Dracula 3000". People who make money with this movie should give it to charity, so at least it serves for a good reason. <br /><br />In this case I would watch it even another 10 (or at least one more time).
Somebody needs to send this Uli Lommel guy back to MOVIE SCHOOL. Who ever told him HE knew HOW to make a movie? Can just ANYBODY make movies these days? In the past, it always REQUIRED TALENT before someone could make a movie. After watching this lame BTK movie and the others he's made, it seems blatantly obvious that the poor guy has about as much business making movies as I DO. Actually I think even I could make better movies than Uli LAME-ALL. This movie has absolutely NOTHING to do with the BTK Killer, other than the names of the victims and the killer. THAT'S IT. Where did this guy get the big idea that BTK killed people with rodents and all the other preposterous crap that's in the movie? This is a classic example of someone trying to lure people into watching their movie based on the term "BTK" because of the fame it has achieved. Absolutely pitiful. The only serial killer movie I would consider WORSE is that lame "DAHMER" movie. That kid smoked so many cigarettes it made me nauseous. Whoever made that one needs to be shot.
I can not believe I wasted my money to rent this movie. I thought it was a porn flick when it started and it never got any better. The acting, the music drowning out the actors. Horrible. Save your money! You have to read the movie all the way through b\c they knew the music would drowned out the speaking lines. I never got the part about the slaughterhouse or the need to continue to show cows and pigs being butchered. What did that have to do with the "real" BTK killer? I understand why there were no famous actors\actresses in this movie. The script would have turned me away within the first page of reading. You would be better off watching paint dry.
This movie only got a 1 because you can't give a zero! if you have a weak tummy AT ALL don't watch. animal rights people you don't want to watch either. it makes people vegetarians i swear i witnessed it happen! the only cool parts are the case and the fact that its a true story. its really really super creepy that this guy worked at ADT while he killed people! still feel safe when you punch in that little code? i don't! He had access to every code in Kansas!!!!!! I hated the movie it was not scary it was mentally scaring! Do your self a favor and don;t rent/buy this movie i think it cost about $20 to make that INCLUDES their OVER paid actors!!!!
It's made in 2007 and the CG is bad for a movie made in 1998. At one part in the movie there is a stop motion shot of a dinosaur that actually looks good, but this just makes the extremely amateur work on the CG stuff look even worse.<br /><br />The writing, acting, directing and everything else in this movie is just terrible. This is as bad as, if not worse than Raptor Island and 100 million BC... pure crap! Again, as with the other movies, the only scary part about this movie is that it actually got made and is now being aired on the sci-fi channel.<br /><br />I still can't understand how they somehow get people who do have some acting skills to act in these movies and then somehow get them to act as terrible as everyone else in the movie.<br /><br />For those of you who are unsure, the other poster is obviously being sarcastic in his review... or he is one of the people who worked on this movie.
This has to be one of the worst movies of all time. The graphics were horrendous, the acting was b-movie and the effects were just plain Nintendo 64 qualified. You would think that they would put a little more effort into it. Of course, it is a Scifi channel movie so you have to expect it to be low rate, but this one takes the cake. Hell, I'm still laughing. So, as a shake-your-head in disbelief movie, this one does well. <br /><br />Although it appears to have some 'known' actors and actresses in this, it is difficult for me to believe that they did not realize that the quality of this movie was worth their time and effort. <br /><br />The graphics might have been good in the '60's or even early '70's but come on, this is 2009! I wont give spoilers out, let's just say that if you have played "Jurassic Park" on the Nintendo 64 you will be very familiar with what you see in this film<br /><br />It is definitely not worth the 2 hours it took to sit through the thing
I've seen plenty of Sci-Fi Channel Original movies ever since I started watching them back in 2002 (My first one was Sabretooth - which actually is one of the more entertaining Sci-Fi Channel features in my opinion). Their quality varies. Some of them are average but decent (Sabretooth, Dragon Fighter, Never Cry Werewolf, Swamp Devil), some are laughably bad, and then there are some that are truly terrible. Raptor Planet lies in the latter. <br /><br />Raptor Planet, a loose sequel to the 2004 Sci-Fi Channel Original Raptor Island, is a barely watchable mess of a film with truly horrid acting and lazy scriptwriting. The effects that bring the dinosaurs to life (a combination of puppetry and animatronics as well as CGI and stock footage from Raptor Planet) are some of the worst looking effects I've seen in a low budget film. The gore effects are even unconvincing. <br /><br />The plot involves a bunch of commandos who for some reason (I forget why) travel to a planet of alien dinosaurs. That's right folks, the dinosaurs are aliens. Dinosaurs in outer space. What's next, sharks in space?!? The rest of the plot is simple. The human cast are picked off and eaten. By now, we've come to expect this in the numerous dinosaurs movies and novels that are released, but this is the first killer dinosaur movie I've seen where I actually became bored with all the dinosaur attacks.<br /><br />There are a few chuckles in it though. There's one scene that stands out in which a man is being munched by a Carnotaur (brought to life by stock footage from the original film) that seconds later becomes a giant raptor. Also, a bit of trivia, this is the scene where Steven Baur is shooting at his own death scene from the first movie. <br /><br />While Raptor Island wasn't a good film to begin with, its a masterpiece compared to its sequel.<br /><br />Believe me when I say, this is quite possibly the worst movie Syfy has ever aired. It's darn near unwatchable.
So I rented this from Netflix because somebody gave me Roger Ebert's book "I hated, hated, hated this movie" and he gave this one a rare zero-star rating in the book and said at the end of his original review "Mad Dog Time should be cut up to provide free ukulele picks for the poor". So I figured from Ebert saying that I would see if it was really as bad as he said it was. I know most society says not to listen to critics and to judge for yourself but I could not express how much I hated this piece of junk like Ebert did and never since Ebert's review of Rob Reiner's "North" where he said he hated that movie ten times had I ever heard such a brilliant hatred movie review. Here we have Richard Dreyfuss as a gangster which I don't think it would be terrible to see Dreyfuss as a gangster if the screenplay for this movie were written well. But above all the other things that were awful about this "movie" I can certainly tell you the script was not written well at all. While the movie starts off with Jeff Goldblum saying that he enjoyed watching Dreyfuss's girlfriend while Dreyfuss was at a criminal hospital the movie starts off with some decent dialog after the opening credits. But after that first 4 or 5 minutes the other 85 minutes just consists of dumb characters talking pointless garbage for 30 seconds then someone gets shot. Then there are a whole bunch of jokes about Dreyfuss being mentally ill. Haha. Not funny. Then we get an unpleasant and unfunny scene parodying Frank Sinatra's "My Way" sang by Gabriel Byrne apparently to insult Dreyfuss. Of course because the screenplay was written on the level of a sixth grader Dreyfuss shoots Byrne over five times and Byrne just will not die. Are we as the audience supposed to even care or find that mildly funny? I can certainly tell you I did not care or find that funny. Not only am I disappointed in Dreyfuss (who I admire much as an actor) for producing and starring in this tripe but I am also extremely disappointed in Jeff Goldblum because this was released the same year that "Independence Day" was the top grossing film of the year and ultimately one of the most successful films in history. Did Goldblum feel that "Independence Day" would be a flop and then just take the next role that was offered to him to make some money if "Independence Day" were a bomb? What did an Oscar winner and the star of two of the biggest money making films in history find remotely enjoyable about this? The opening sequence of "Mad Dog Time" says that the movie is set on another planet. I only wish now that I have wasted 93 minutes watching this trash that it would have stayed and opened in theaters on the planet where it supposedly takes place so that way everyone on this planet would never here of this ridiculous waste of 93 minutes out of my life that I will never get back. Ebert saying the movie should have been cut up is not good enough I am afraid. Every copy of "Mad Dog Time" should have gasoline poured all over it and be lit on fire. I have yet to top a worst movie I have ever seen because this one has won it's honor as the worst movie ever.
"Mad Dog Time"..."Trigger Happy" whatever you wanna call it...simply doesn't hit the mark. Maybe its just me, maybe i just don't like Gangster comedies ( as i thought Oscar , Johney Dangerously and Mafia also sucked ) It's probably more "witty sharp wordplay" than all out Comedy, only its not as witty and sharp as it ( or the other reviewers )Make it out to be. <br /><br />The Rick , Mick , Vic Thing was old to begin with making it a running gag was at times painful to watch. <br /><br />There wasn't enough Changes of Location or Feel for the period they were supposed to be in. The Majority of the film was either set in "Dreyfus's Club" or a variety of Offices /dim rooms... ( what was with that Sit down Gun stand off thing Goldblum kept winning ?) <br /><br />The supporting cast was... on Paper excellent ( great to see Silva & Drago)but characters were killed off before they had time to develop. and Richard Pryors cameo was a Joke ! The Romance and Love element of the film also bogged it down.<br /><br />4/10 I don't think i'll return to it anytime soon.
Dreyfuss plays a mob boss who lost his mind, but now he's "fixed." Lane is his girl who's been messing around with his Number One (Goldblum), who's supposed to have something going with Lane's sister (Barkin).<br /><br />With what anyone could consider an all-star supporting cast (Burt Reynolds, Gabriel Byrne, Kyle MacLachlan and even an appearance by Richard Pryor) can't help this plot, as Dreyfuss proves he's not "fixed" and tries to kill just about everyone in sight.<br /><br />You know, it's not like you didn't know what was coming. The first ten minutes were nothing but guys trying to tell Goldblum what was in store for him when Dreyfuss gets out, but I'll save you all the trouble: skip this movie.<br /><br />The actual reason I picked this movie is because I've been on a Diane Lane kick lately and have been trying to see all her movies. The real let-down for me wasn't just the terrible plot, but also the fact that she doesn't show up until the last fifteen minutes of the movie (although we hear about her all through the movie). Even being a fan of over half of the cast can't help me enjoy this film. The parts where the suspense was supposed to mount found me laughing at what was actually going on.<br /><br />3 out of 10 stars.
Vic (Richard Dreyfuss) is a mob boss, leaving a mental institution, back to his world of gangsters. How can a director have a cast with Richard Dreyfuss, Ellen Barkin, Jeff Goldblum, Diane Lane (very gorgeous), Gabriel Byrne, Gregory Hines, Kyle MacLachlan, Burt Reynolds, Billy Idol and a make such a waste of time? This movie is a comedy that is not funny, having a constellation in the cast. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil):' Prazer em Matar-te!' ('Pleasure in Killing You!')<br /><br />
This is is a thoroughly unpleasant, if slickly made, movie. I tried it because it stars Richard Dreyfus and Jeff Goldblum, two good actors, and because the plot line - a mob boss is about to be released from a mental institution - sounded promising. The movie is billed as a comedy, sorta. What we have is an endless series of shots - you should pardon the pun - of people in dimly lit and elegant, if somewhat surreal, interiors, shooting each other - in the head, stomach, kneecap, foot, heart (no part of the anatomy is avoided, it seems) while uttering vague and cryptic dialogue, some of which is supposed, evidently, to be humorous in a sort of post-modern way. Goldblum's dialogue for the whole movie could fit on a 3x5 card, and he wears a single facial expression - a sardonic grin - throughout. Ellen Barkin and Gregory Hines do the best they can. Burt Reynolds does a cameo. The credits list Rob Reiner and Joey Bishop, but I somehow missed them (good move on their part). The whole thing is cold, sterile, mechanical and unsavory; an heir, I suspect, to the style of 'Pulp Fiction', 'Fargo' and 'Natural Born Killers'. If you liked those, you'll probably like this.
There are often badly-matched couples (in the general sense of the term) -in Huston's movies :"African Queen" "Heaven knows Mister Allison" "roots of Heaven" "Misfits" ..."The Barbarian and the geisha" (check the title) is another good example,so to speak.It seems that Japanese stuff was trendy at the time as such works as "Sayonara" " the world of Suzie Wong" and "the teahouse of the August moon" bear witness. Huston's effort might be the worst of this rather bad lot(with the exception of "Susie " maybe).John Wayne perfectly fits in Ford's world ,in Huston's he's like a bull in a china shop.His Japanese partner is totally bland.Even the dramatic scenes (cholera epidemic) do not save the movie from absolute boredom.<br /><br />Only those utterly enamoured of Huston's every work need to choose this ,among all his other great movies around.
If I had realized John Wayne was in this movie, I would not have watched it. It's demeaning to the Japanese, unfortunate for Hollywood and embarrassing to any thinking person. But then, most John Wayne movies are like that. Hollywood in the fifties still believed that everybody in the world loved Americans when the truth was (and still is) somewhat different. The movie deals with the nineteenth century isolationism of Japan. Maybe it's Hollywood that should be isolated.To put it as succinctly as possible, this film is appalling jingoistic claptrap.(Sort of a Madama Butterfly with bad music.)
A comparison between this movie and 'The Last Detail' is made by some, but 'Chasers' is flatter than a stretch of Interstate highway in west Texas. And like the scenery in the desert, there's nothing much to distinguish it, not even the fact that a female prisoner is being transported by two navy escorts this time around. No one in the cast comes off too well; with this lame script that's not surprising. Dennis Hopper, the director, won't give much space to this one if he ever writes a memoir, I don't think.
... so I thought I'd throw in a few words about William McNamara. Not a bad way to spend a couple of hours if you want to see him in his tighty-whities -- it's obvious he pumped up for this role and he looks pretty darn good in them -- or less. There's an extended sequence in a cave where he has to strip down to his undies. There's a nice bit where he has to chase after Miss Eleniak in the buff, with only his hands cupped over his groin. William McNamara is naturally a little on the skinny side, but he has a nice, generous handful of a booty. Also, there's a moment when he's getting out of bed that if you pause the action at just the right moment you can see the whole enchilada. If you're inclined to do so, and come on, half of the people who choose to watch a movie about Navy men on a "road trip" are. I'd just like thank Dennis Hopper for his equal opportunity gratuitous nudity. Can William McNamara act? Heck if I know.
This is simply the worst movie I've ever seen. Neither of the three central characters has any charm, and Erika's good looks aren't enough to carry the film. The lamest plot I've ever had inflicted upon me. Also the most unconvincing military comedy ever. Why did they bother?
What a dreadful film this is. The only reason you would want to sit through this mess is the pleasurable sight of Miss Eleniak. The painful overacting of Mr McNamara, which became embarrassing at times, ruined what might have been a reasonable film if the correct actors had been cast. Mr McNamara is no Tom Cruise, the actor he obviously wants to be.
This movie down-shifts from 4th into 1st without bothering with 3rd or 2nd, grinding gears all the way to the sappy, b-movie finish-line. The con at the beginning is easily the best and cleverest part of the movie. That is worth seeing. The scene with Harlow in the bathtub occurs so fast, you may miss it. Definitely not worth all the ballyhoo provided by Robert Osborne in his TCM intro to this bad-to-mediocre confusion. There is no real conflict, and all of the characters in this supposed fringe society turn out to be saints - especially the unbelievable character, Al. I wonder if he's got a job for me in Cincinnati?
This is one of the very worst films Clark Gable made. Only PARNELL was obviously worse. It is just so painfully clichéd and the dialog is so lousy that it is something neither Gable nor Jean Harlow should have been proud of making.<br /><br />Gable is a heel whose illegal activities result in his girl going' to the slammer (like the gangster talk?). She holds out hope that he'll do the right thing but he just leaves her there--unknown to either of them, gosh, that she's "in the family way". Eventually, the rogue returns to do the right thing and somehow they tie this all together into a happy ending! They seemed to have forgotten about Gable's needing to take the rap and spend several years in the hoosegow. Leonard Maltin says "the stars are at their best here". By what standard? Best at producing unintended chuckles? Gimme a break!<br /><br />PS--after saying this, my wife thinks Leonard Maltin is going to find me and kick my butt. Hmmm. However, despite my comment, I think Mr. Maltin is the finest reviewer and human being on the planet (I hope that appeased him).<br /><br />UPDATE--2/2/08. Because I disliked this film so much the first time (especially the ridiculous ending), I decided to watch it once again. After all, sometimes when I watch a film again I like it much more and realize that I was a bit too harsh. While that has been the case with several films in recent months, I still disliked this film--even the second time. Most of it was not because of the first half of the film. In the first half, Harlow's character was amazingly stupid but at least it was believable. But when she was sent to prison, it was all clichés until the final ridiculous marriage scene occurred. The bottom line is that this sequence is embarrassingly dumb--it just makes no sense at all and is akin to turning the movie into some wacky fairy tale instead of a love story about two cons. I stand by my original review (despite all the "NOT HELPFULS") and think that aside from PARNELL and possibly POLLY AT THE CIRCUS, it might just be the worst Gable film.
Oh yes, Sakura Killers is a goofy, horrible ninja movie, make no mistake. But it's also an incredibly enjoyable one. This is largely thanks to the awesome presence of one Chuck Connors, who is billed as starring in the movie but really only shines in a few scenes. I suppose he's supposed to be sort of an Obi Wan Kenobi type ("The tough ninja-buster", the box copy exclaims) but his 'wisdom' is laughable. "Move without thinking"??? My friend says this is the sign of mental retardation, not of supreme concentration.<br /><br />But really, his two aides, Sonny and Dennis, have such horrible dialogue that 'Brooklyn', as we call The Colonel, tends to shine in comparison. Especially watch for Dennis' logic regarding the 'genetic splicing' the Sakura are involved with. If you know anything about cloning you will die laughing. And yes, this is a major plot point, folks.<br /><br />A terribly fun movie, Sakura Killers is a hard-to-find gem. I won't spoil the 'trick' ending for you either, except that it's a perfect set up for a Sakura Killers 2. Too bad Chuck Connors died. :-( Because he does have a the smoothest ways of blowing away ninjas.
I'm in awe! Wow, prepare to be blown away by the uncanny ways of the ninja. Watch them as they pounce, crawl along the ground (on their backs or stomachs) like a caterpillar, fly through the sky, climb buildings, hide and spring from trees, throw about ninja stars, role out blue welcome mats, disappear in smoke bombs, make a lot of swoosh noises with their blades and quickly sneaking or trotting about on their toes. What a sight! Really I could go on about the many traditional actions, but I'll be here all day. Oh not to forget we even get the legendary Chuck Connors popping up now and again, and watch him dispatch some ninjas with his shotgun with little ease. What class! What a badass! Anyhow the ultra-cheap 'Sakura Killers' is some stupid, but cheesy ninja action fun that only fanatics of the genre would get anything out of this shonky b-grade debacle.<br /><br />A genetic lab in America has a very important video that's stolen by a couple of ninjas. Two Americans are sent to Japan by the Colonel (Chuck Connors) to retrieve it.<br /><br />The opening of the feature sets it up nicely. Get ready for the laughs! Afterwards it slows down, but soon after the two main protagonists learns about the ninja and goes through the training it gets a head of steam as they break in costumes and fled after the stolen beta tape that contains a very important formula. This is when the violently swift action and aerobic marital arts really come in to play. It's not too shoddy either, (like the moronic script and daft performances). The final climatic showdown is very well done.<br /><br />In the slow stretches it has the two Americans (Mike Kelly and George Nicholas) looking in to the case, sharing brainless conversations and encountering some minor problems. What made me laugh was how the ninjas were put off by how brave and clever these two were. These were supposed to be professional killers? Director Dusty Nelson ('Effects (1989)') does an earnest job with what he had and plays it for what it is. He centres the on-screen activities around striking Taiwan locations. The score is a chintzy arrangement.
SAKURA KILLERS (1+ outta 5 stars) Maybe in 1987 this movie might have seemed cool... if you had never ever seen a *good* ninja movie. Cheesy '80s music... cheesy dialogue... cheesy acting... and way-beyond-cheesy martial arts sequences. The coolest scene is at the beginning... with an aged Chuck Connors playing golf on a beach... several black clad ninjas try to sneak up on him and it looks like he is too intent on hitting his ball to notice... suddenly he reaches into his golf bag and... naw, I won't spoil it for you... if you ever have the misfortune of seeing this movie you'll thank me. The story is a lot of nonsense about some stolen videotape or something. A bunch of dim-bulb Caucasian heroes are trained in the ways the ninja because "only a ninja can fight a ninja" or something like that. Strange, these guys don't seem to fight any better after their training than before... oh well, the movie does move along pretty briskly. The fight scenes may not be great.. but they are plentiful... and the overdone sound effects are good for a few chuckles.
Two old buddies are sent to Japan to get back results of a genetic research containing videotape, which is stolen by the black suited ninjas at the beginning of the movie. First they just have to learn some ninja skill, because "only ninja can beat the ninja."<br /><br />Sakura killers tries hard to be enjoyable ninja-flick but fails that badly. The whole movie is just so hollow and predictable that is hard to say anything good about it: Same plot has been seen in different variations dozens of times before, characters are too briefly drawn, direction is dull and script doesn't offer anything surprising, even in the ending scene, which by itself reduced movie's (trash)value.<br /><br />Even 80's ninja-flick-fan, who understands the esthetic of trash-movies, is hard to find this movie even barely enjoyable. It simply doesn't offer anything new to viewer, neither in visual level nor in plot. Shurikens are thrown and katanas are swinging, but it's not enough to lead the movie direction it meant to be and recurred similar fighting scenes numbs even the most calloused viewer after the first 30 minutes.<br /><br />It's hard to recommend movie to anyone. Even Franco Nero's clumsy performance in "Enter the Ninja" falls behind Sakura killer's American-ninjas. Even in visual level movie doesn't have any balls and it's waste of time to try to find any great fighting scenes in this movie: There isn't any. In all, one of the most futile ninja-flicks, I've ever seen. Doesn't interest even in curiosity. Trust me on this one.<br /><br />½ out of 10.
This movie's one of my favorites. It's not really any good, but it's great to laugh at. The dialogue can become incredibly ludicrous and poorly acted (eg, "Manji, can we ask you a few questions?" "Sure." "We think you can help us with the answers.") Any fighting is more or less surrealistic. Make sure to watch for Brock, the oafy white guy who attacks the main characters. He only has two lines, but he's one of the best guys in the movie!
Skip Mission: Galactica and watch the original Living Legend episodes instead. The network took parts 1 & 2 of Living Legend and jammed them into one plot with the awful Fire In Space episode. Although Galactica suffered from network-controlled writing and a lack of time to prepare for a proper production, Living Legend is the best of the 1978 TV series. Fire in Space, on its own, is one of the worst episodes. As a historical note, watch Galactica, the original Star Trek, and then the revival Trek series, and you'll see the difference in quality between network-produced sci-fi and syndicated sci-fi.
The Derek's have over the 1980s produced a few decent bids to acquire the title "worst movie of all time", and this is probably their prime achievement in these stakes. In fact, this film can be regarded as belonging to the "so bad, it's good" category, right up there with the products of the likes of Edward Wood Jr. or Doris Wishman. This explains the IMDb voting pattern for this film with some people handing out top marks.<br /><br />Anthony Quinn made the odd dodgy film in his time, but this performance as a randy ghost is so incredibly bad, it has to be seen to be believed.
I saw this obvious schlock fest on a video store shelf. And before i got my first VCR I figured I'd christen it with this little gem and it's bad film-making at it's finest!<br /><br />The dialog is inadvertently hilarious. And it contains a cameo with Donald Trump. Anthony Quinn is in it inexplicably. And much like Christopher Walken seemed to want to star in every bad movie in his later years. This movie is Mr. Quinn's Country Bears.<br /><br />It features lines like, "Shut up and let me FIGHT!!!"<br /><br />And "You're saying a lot of sh_it!" <br /><br />And the priceless comeback: "Unfortunately it is sh_it, tough angry sh_it!"<br /><br />You'll be awed by a fight scene as Bo does a SOMMERSAULT across a billiard table! And does a nice kung fu kick when she comes up from the roll! Chop socky action and T and A thrills!!!<br /><br />What schlock movie fan could ask for more? Oh, and when Mr. Quinn's character commits suicide and and comes back to haunt Bo as a ghost she asks him why he killed himself rather then deal with his debilitating illness? He says, "Real men don't eat quiche."<br /><br />Uh, aaa, yeah. If Bo was a smart cookie she woulda called for an exorcist right then and there!
The Dereks did seem to struggle to find rolls for Bo after "10".<br /><br />I used to work for a marine park in the Florida Keys. One day, the script for "Ghosts Can't Do It" was circulating among the trainers in the "fish house" where food was prepared for the dolphins. There was one scene where a -dolphin- supposedly propositions Bo (or Bo the dolphin), asking to "go make eggs." Reading the script, we -lauuughed-...<br /><br />We did not end up doing any portion of this movie at our facility, although our dolphins -were- in "The Big Blue!"<br /><br />This must have been very close to the end of Anthony Quinn's life. I hope he had fun in this film, as it certainly didn't do anything for his legacy.
I've now watched all four Bo Derek vehicles directed by her husband, John; all are quite terrible, of course, but this is certainly the pits. Featuring the usual flimsy plot, bad scripting – by the director, naturally – and acting, not to mention gratuitous nudity by the star, it deals with her losing much older husband Anthony Quinn (she accepts his shotgun suicide by saying he had always admired Hemingway!!) but who continues to appear and talk to her. In fact, he wants to come back in another, younger body…but actually does so only in the very last scene! Derek is lovely as always, and still playing naïve(!) – especially during a muddled mid-section which has her pursued by a hired killer at a spa. Quinn, too, is typically larger-than-life (read: hammy) here, but this easily constitutes his nadir; besides, for much of the duration, he acts from behind a piece of shiny plastic (presumably suggesting his being in some sort of limbo)! His 'replacement', then, is obviously a handsome-looking stud who hasn't a lick of talent or even personality. Also featured in the cast are Hollywood veterans Don Murray (as Quinn's best friend and Bo's business consultant) and Julie Newmar (as Quinn's guardian angel in the afterlife) – plus a surprising cameo appearance by billionaire Donald Trump (who presumably needed this on his resume')! It also goes without saying that John Derek was his own cinematographer on the film, that the end credits are filled with useless (and corny) expressions of gratitude to the many people who lent a helping hand, and that GHOSTS CAN'T DO IT swept the board at the 1990 Razzie Awards!
With a Bo Derek movie, the audience get just what they expect. A paper thin plot and a few shots of Mrs. Derek in no clothes. 'Ghosts can't do it' is just that. The first fifteen minutes is ordinary TV drama, as long as Scott [Anthony Quinn] is still alive. He is a very good actor with long experience in a lot of different roles, but it seems as even a famous actor need to work just for money sometimes. Bo Derek is the opposite, always playing a strikingly handsome young woman with or without clothes. The movie is a complete waste of time. If you want to see Quinn, rent Lawrence of Arabia or La Strada. If you want to see nude women or bad acting, rent any porno movie.
Michael Caine has always claimed that Ashanti was "the only film (he) did purely for the money" as well as "the worst film he ever starred in". Hold on, Michael, weren't you in The Swarm and Hurry Sundown? And weren't both of those films a good deal worse than Ashanti? Perhaps Caine remembers only too begrudgingly the physically punishing demands of filming an action film in searing 130 degrees Fahrenheit temperatures (the director, Richard Fleischer, was hospitalised as a result of sun-stroke during the shoot). What Ashanti actually emerges as is not the career low-point of Michael Caine. Instead, it is a very average chase thriller with a talented cast, exotic locations, boring stretches and a highly formulaic storyline.<br /><br />Dr. David Linderby (Caine) is a W.H.O medic who is left devastated when his black wife Anansa (Beverly Johnson) goes missing during an aid trip to an African tribal village. Linderby gradually realises that his wife has been snatched by slave traders - led by Suleiman (Peter Ustinov) - and he sets off on a continent-wide pursuit which eventually leads to the Middle East.<br /><br />Along the way, big stars pop in for ineffective and superfluous guest roles. William Holden has a poor cameo as a chopper pilot; Omar Sharif displays little of his customary charm or grace as a pampered Arab millionaire; Rex Harrison looks rightfully bored during his brief role as a helpful contact who assists Caine in his quest. The film is based on a best-seller entitled Ebano, by the little-known author Alberto Vasquez-Figueroa, but the suspense that made the book so popular is largely absent in this adaptation. Ustinov is charismatic as the slaver (he seems in all his movies to be incapable of giving bad performances), and Caine generates believable anguish as the man who thinks he'll never see his wife again. There are occasional flashes of action, but on the whole Ashanti is quite slow-moving. All in all, it is a resistible piece of action hokum - not by any stretch as awful as Caine has frequently suggested, but not a very inspiring film and certainly a let-down from all the talent involved.
I saw this recently with my wife and discovered it's better than Caine believes, although it's not much cop. Britain's greatest ever screen actor does not seem too interested in this role, which is a pity as he might have elevated it with more conviction in his playing. Rex Harrison seems even less bothered, perhaps unsurprisingly, as his character is very poorly written. William Holden is better, but his screen time is fleeting and, again, his character is not well scripted.<br /><br />Beverly Johnson is as beautiful a woman as I have ever seen, but is given very little to do, the film might have gained a great deal by concentrating more on her story. Ustinov steals the show, but basically by playing a comic character quite out of keeping with the film's serious tone. The music is poor and Omar Sharif makes one of his many pointless cameos (his career has been based on this for decades now).<br /><br />Richard Fleischer has to be blamed for not directing this more effectively, he was an infuriatingly unpredictable film director, and this is one of his weaker movies.
If Ashanti had been a serious attempt at a film about the institution of slavery, still prevalent in third world countries the film might have been better received. Instead it turns into a star studded disaster of a movie where the stars came in, said their lines, and picked up their paychecks without much conviction.<br /><br />Michael Caine and his wife Beverly Johnson work for the United Nations World Health Organization and are busy doing their humanitarian thing in East Africa. Along comes Peter Ustinov who can barely summon enough ham in him to make a go of the part as a Moslem slave dealer. As Johnson is black he grabs her anyway along with a lot of children and a few adults as well.<br /><br />Of course Caine doesn't take kindly to the kidnapping and the rest of the film is spent in a rescue attempt. The rest of the cast has such folks as William Holden, Rex Harrison, Omar Sharif and Indian film star Kebir Bedi in parts and looking so incredibly bored with the whole thing.<br /><br />Usually in something like this talented people like those mentioned above will just overact outrageously and feast on a diet of scenery. But Ashanti doesn't even have that going for it.<br /><br />What an incredible waste of time. The aroma of tax write off is permeating the air.
The worst, and chock full of people who really ought to know better, (the cast have six Oscars between them). It's set in 'contemporary' Africa, (it was made in 1979), and is about the slave trade. It's appallingly scripted and acted, (Michael Caine, Peter Ustinov and William Holden reach a career low in this one), and completely lacks excitement never mind any moral focus. It's also ludicrously plotted. You don't for a minute believe that any of the characters would behave in the way they do under these circumstances. Richard Fleischer directs but you get the impression it was over the telephone. This is as bad as it gets.
There seem to have been any number of films like this released during the 70's. And the fact that I cannot recollect the title to a single one of them off-hand is a measure of their impact. These are what novelists would call 'pot-boilers'. They are scarcely more than a vehicle for keeping movie-stars in the public eye.<br /><br />We have Micheal Caine, Peter Ustinov, Omar Sharif, Rex Harrison and William Holden; more than enough names to get bums on cinema seats. Every taste in hero is catered for. Though one suspects that most of the audience still went away disappointed.<br /><br />Their talents are simply thrown away, and I wonder that stars with so much money and such reputation can be yet so desperate or lacking in good sense. This sort of movie hardly adds gilding to a CV. Sometimes maybe actors should choose their director instead of the other way round.<br /><br />It was pretty obvious that it would be crap even from the outset. That ludicrously mismatched jaunty-jazz theme music, which also percolated up every time some incidental noise is needed, had all the atmospheric conviction of elevator Muzak. Who imagined employing a jazz band when a scene depicted the steamy jungles of central Africa, or the endless Sahara with camels and palms as a backdrop? Definitely a serious goof-ball. Ennio Morricone would have known what to do; and his results would have oozed enough atmosphere and tension to raise my rating a good two points. This director should have taken the trouble to watch 'Lawrence of Arabia', or even Sergio Leone's westerns; he might have learnt a few things. But then again, probably he wouldn't.<br /><br />Alfred Hitchcock played the disappearing wife theme to good effect in his film 'Frantic'. It was later remade with equal panache staring Harrison Ford. In each case the confusion surrounding her loss and the tension of the chase was tangible. Here, when Michael Caine might be otherwise compelled to employ a little brain and bravado, Rex Harrison kept popping-up out of no-where like some wily old genii, to put him back on track whenever the narrative stumbled. <br /><br />At least the photography was rather good, with excellent use of the often beautiful environment. But then the dumb music must pipe-up and blow to atoms what little ambiance this created.<br /><br />Action scenes were also contrived and stilted, with such ineptly choreographed fight sequences that they might have been staged in a first-year drama class. And, of course, the players must fight to a jazz accompaniment - as you do.<br /><br />And that's about as much comment as this item deserves. Except to say that the script was pretty wretched as well.<br /><br />Stick with your hobby on this one. Even if it contained your favourite movie-stars, you're sure to be disappointed too.
The story at the outset is interesting: slavery in the (late) 20th century from west Africa to the Arab Middle East. The problem with it is that it intentionally castigates two of director Richard Fleisher's favorite enemies: Arabs and Germans. To make us believe that very Arab-looking men would be free to roam around and easily catch Blacks in West Africa is as believable as Whites hunting for slaves in "Roots". Obviously both trades are/were run by locals and involve(d) much more sophisticated networks. While Arab countries are complicit in today's child and sex slave trade, Israel is one of the worst violators according to Amnesty International. So why only point out Arabs and then choose a German as the only European buyer? It's obvious bias and hatred of those people by a Jewish director.<br /><br />The acting is above average, especially by Peter Ustinov (Suleiman) and Kabir Bedi (Malik). Michael Caine (Dr. Linderby) is good as always.
I hope the viewer who regards 'Dream Machine' as one of Corey Haim's finest and the "best movies of the century" was kidding. Undetected sarcasm on my part? I sincerely hope so.<br /><br />'The Dream Machine' marks the first of a long line of mediocre capers that would plague the rest of Corey Haim's career (except 'Prayer of the Rollerboys' which was surprisingly decent). Here, Haim plays nonchalant college boy, Bernie, who supposes that a cool car will attract his dream girl's attention. Lucky for Bernie, a rich woman aiming to get back at her cheating husband, hastily decides to reward her faithful piano tuner--Bernie--with a gift: a slick Porsche Turbo. However, unbeknownst to the woman, and unfortunate for Bernie, is that her dead husband was murdered and his body was hidden in the trunk. Now, being that in this movie, bodies don't seem to decay or possess a rather foul funk, Bernie is unaware of this. In fact, the oblivious boy has no idea that something suspicious is afoot despite several odd circumstances that arise. In particular, a grizzly man follows him around, desperate to get hold of that body relatively undetected.<br /><br />This is a low-grade action fizzle as many of Haim's films like this are (see The Double O Kid). Despite being part action, part romantic comedy, this movie fails to offer the viewer much of anything of interest for at least the first forty-five minutes in which the filmmakers take more than enough time to show the immediate problem (i.e. Bernie being in possession of a car and a dead body, and a hit-man finding out that the Porsche is going to be hard to find). After which, and thanks to poor acting by Haim (I loved this kid, too, but it's not exactly sacrilegious to admit the times when he obviously couldn't act well) and the lack of real immediacy and emergency between Bernie and the villain that makes much of the events unconvincing and as a result, inappreciable. To add injury to insult, the soundtrack was unbelievably laughable and sounded more like self-evident songs you would hear in Team America (see the 'date' montage).<br /><br />Loyal Corey Haim fans, however, should not be disappointed to see their boy in abundance. However, others understanding that Haim's career probably peaked when he was 14 or 15 and never recovered, might expect mediocrity, as will viewers just looking for early 90s b-comedy fluff to pass the time.
This week, I just thought it would be fun to catch up with Corey Haim, with just having seen the two "Lost Boys" films last week and all. Not that I'm a fan-boy - not by far - but I did like those two Coreys in some films back in my early teen days.<br /><br />So, I prepared myself for three films starring him. Unfortunately, I picked "Dream Machine" as a first (never seen it before), and it was so godawfully horrible, I just decided to lock Corey back in my closet and let him sober up again first, before I pop in something else of his. But I managed to struggle my way through this film first. I had the impression it desperately wanted to play in the same league as "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" (1986) but got caught up in its own delusions. Practically the whole film it wants to be a comedy and near the end it hopelessly tries to be a thriller. The only good thing about "Dream Machine" is the premise: A dead body in the trunk of a Porsche. All the rest fails so badly, it's embarrassing. Even the most for Haim. I can dig him being his young, enthusiastic self, but at least when he comes with some form of directorial guidelines. This clearly wasn't the case in "Dream Machine". So, we have a perfect car, yes, that black Porsche. Haim's perfect girlfriend? Just a blonde chick who hardly has any lines in the film. The perfect murder... almost? Some dude that falls flat on his ass as the villain of the film, trying the whole movie to steal the body back out of the trunk, never really succeeds, and then at the end of the film thinks he's Michael Myers (minus the white William Shatner mask) and mistakes Corey Haim for Jamie Lee Curtis. Don't think they could have made this flick any lamer if they tried. A stupid, unfunny film with a story that leads to nowhere directed by a director that doesn't know how to direct his cast. Great accomplishment!<br /><br />One last question for Mr. Haim: Who's idea was it to have you smile directly into the camera in that last shot of the movie? Yours or the director's? So not done.
I'm a big Porsche fan, and the car was the best star in this film.<br /><br />Haim, the now dried up drug abusing child star of the 80's is bland as per usual, and commenting on back up from minor characters/actors would be pointless; needless to say they were all very average. It's a cool movie as a trip down memory lane into the 80's - with some weird clothes, some good shots of the Colorado backdrop and a very harmless albeit mind numbing plot.<br /><br />All in all, please don't waste your time watching this unless you love 80's movies, Corey Haim, or like myself, love old school Porsches (this one in particular looks great) because life's too short to watch crappy movies.
Well, TiVo recorded this because of Angelina Jolie. It had 2.5 stars. It seemed promising. It went downhill fast.<br /><br />There is much overacting, even from Angelina. She's about 20 and playing a 16 year old. There are three characters that are supposed to be Italian. Everyone else is Italian- American. The native Italian accents were good, I thought. The young male lead is cute, my wife says. Everyone else in this movie is a fat Italian woman. Even the men.<br /><br />I should have known that when Dick Van Patten was cast as a randy doctor, that that was a bad sign. The two couples chasing their kids around are like the four Italian Stooges.<br /><br />My wife would not let go of the remote. Hopefully she was not taking makeup, clothing or decorating tips. It was a sick and twisted combination of hideous and garish. It was hidegarishous.<br /><br />Cutting off my left ventricle was not sufficient to distract from the pain of watching this movie. If this movie shows up on your TV, do yourself a favor and ram your head through the TV screen instead. You'll be glad you did. The only movie I've ever seen that was worse than this was "Hamburger: The Movie". Or maybe "Deadly Friend".
OMG this is one of the worst films iv ever seen and iv seen a lot I'm a Film student. I don't understand why Angelina Jolie would be in this movie? Did she need the money that badly? I love AJ and have seen almost everything shes ever been in so i watched this 2 tick another one off. It was SOO bad! not even good bad, just bad bad. It had 1 or 2 funny little moments but all in all it was bad n a waste of 101 minutes. I cant even say AJ looked good in it because well she didn't. The plot is predictable unless you r expecting a re-telling of Romeo and Juliet then its not. All round disappointing. Maybe if your 12 this could be a good film otherwise I really don't recommend it.
I only saw this movie once, and that was enough for me. The movie has very little if any plot and seems to be nothing but continuous scenes of psycho-sadistic violence and very little of anything else. I wanted to see this movie because it starred Zoe Trilling of the second "Night of The Demons;" and I wanted to see her playing someone normal. Unfortunately, the Tobe Hooper script barely begins and goes nowhere as Robert Englund dominates the film and chews up the scenery and plot. Zoe, I know where you are now; hiding from this film !
I don't know much about Tobe Hooper, or why he gets his name in the title, but maybe he shouldn't have bothered. As another commenter mentioned, there isn't really enough horror or erotica to bring in fans of either genre. The plot is incoherent, the Sade sequences are gratuitous, and most of the acting is so-so. Englund was doing his best with weak material, and Zoe Trilling has a really great bottom, but neither is enough to carry this film. This one's a tape-over. Grade: F
The Marquis De Sade, Egypt, ancient Gnostic cults, Robert Englund in a dual role, gratuitous sex and nudity, murder and mayhem... on paper Tobe Hopper's Night Terrors sounds like it should be at least a fun, entertaining flick given the ingredients. It's not. It is a plot less, incoherent shambles that brings little entertainment. There is basically no plot beyond some vague stuff about a cult that follows the work of De Sade who for some unclear reason feel the need to seduce the daughter of a local Christian archaeologist and kill her. That is pretty much it- I think it has something to with the Gnostics but who knows what the writers were thinking. Most of the movie is a meandering mess as the heroine is exposed to various weirdness, dream sequences and erotic encounters, intercut with scenes of Englund as the imprisoned De Sade in the 19th century chewing the scenery. It seems like the makers were trying for something serious but whatever their pretensions were they are buried in the cheesiness, bad acting, sleaze and fake looking decapitated heads.<br /><br />There aren't too many good points. Robert Englund is fun to watch, as always and the lead actress, Zoe Trilling, whilst not very talented, is attractive and in various stages of undress through the movie but watching Night Terrors is a chore. At least I got to see the movie from which the "When you're as criminal as I" bit from the Australian film certification ratings guide that was on the front of so many VHS tapes from the nineties came from.
Genie (Zoe Trilling) arrives in Egypt to visit her hypocritical, bible-quoting archeologist father (William Finley) and attracts the attention of a group of cultists led by a descendant of the Marquis de Sade (Robert Englund). Englund also plays de Sade in flashbacks, ranting in his cell. Genie is led astray by Mohammed (Juliano Merr), who rides around naked on a horse and Sabina (Alona Kamhi), a bisexual who introduces her to opium smoking, which leads to a wild hallucination featuring topless harem dancers, a woman simulating oral sex on a snake, an orgy and her father preaching in the background! Meanwhile, black hooded cult members decapitate, gouge out eyeballs and slit throats. When Genie is slipped drugs in her tea, she imagines de Sade hanging from a cross, a gold-painted woman in a leafy g-string and herself bloody on a bed covered in snakes. It's all because she's the reincarnation of de Sade's lost love.<br /><br />This typically sleazy Harry Alan Towers production is redundant, seedy and pretty senseless, but the sets, costumes, cinematography and location work are all excellent and at least there's always something going on.<br /><br />Score: 3 out of 10
Tobe Hooper is quite possibly the biggest fluke the horror genre has to offer. Like any other horror fan, I loved the Texas Chainsaw, but I think that in order to put your name in front on a movie title, you should have at least more than one hit movie. I can't really think of any other movie Hooper has done (on his own, don't count Poltergeist) that has really made an impact on the horror genre or film world. And this movie, Night Terrors, just backs up my point.<br /><br />Poor Robert Englund, I give him credit for at least doing a good job with the awful material he was given. He did what he could. As for the movie itself? Pure drudge. Unnecessary nude scenes every five minutes, a story that must have been penned in an our, and really just awful scenery, music, and cinematography. Nothing in this film is redeemable. Don't waste your time.<br /><br />Overall, 1 out of 10. I feel sorry for Hooper, his career seems like it was over before it really ever got started. I hope that he's able to pump out at least one more good flick, that way he can do his cult status some justice.<br /><br />
This is one of those movies you see in the video store that you just HAVE to get because it just looks so horribly bad. And indeed, we couldn't take most of it. There was a lot of fast-forwarding going on.<br /><br />But then we came across a scene where Robert Englund seduces the female protagonist (her name somehow slips my mind at this time). CRIPES. I've never watched a single scene from a film so many times (I'm estimating forty or so). And I've never laughed so hard in my life. You see, Englund has this thing for showing off his loins. I last saw the film a couple months ago, but I can't stop laughing as I type. Anyway, the scene is a montage of shots-- Englund ripping off the lingerie of the girl, Englund riding a horse naked, and some mysterious woman fellating a snake's head. This is absolute genius. You've got to see it for yourself.
I found the characters mediocre and the story uninteresting. I never had to read this book (thankfully), or it would have been a painful experience. I got the tickets to the preview for free but it still wasn't worth my time, or my friend's. I think this story is not worth telling. It's like saying that old people have a past before they got old (no kidding). The lives of the main characters were painful to watch, one generation no better than the next at avoiding stupid mistakes. However, I think the actors did the best they could with a lame story. I've always been a big fan of Ellen Burstyn. I'm writing this review to counteract the positive reviews given, which unfortunately convinced me to give this movie a try.
Oh, dear lord.... They've turned what was a fairly thought provoking movie into a swaggering testosterone fest.<br /><br />The original 1971 version of this movie was beautifully vague about our hero Kowalski. He was a man trying to drive from Denver to San Fransisco to win a bet. Why was he willing to risk his life for the price of a handful of uppers? We're not really sure.<br /><br />We had a few flashbacks that gave us the picture that he was an adrenaline junkie, and presumably he had led his entire life trying to make it to the vanishing point. That point you see off in the distance where the left and right shoulders of the road come together, and the road itself vanishes. He lives only to be free, and means no ill on anyone. We saw several times when there were accidents he stopped to make sure the other driver was okay before moving on, even the cops that were chasing him.<br /><br />When he saw the futility of his quest he took his life rather than be arrested and live a life of captivity. He died like he lived, running wide open.<br /><br />In the remake Kowalski has a whole history (including a first name, even.) He's trying to get to the hospital where his wife is suffering from complications to her pregnancy. He is a devoted husband, and excited expectant father. He comes to the decision to take his life after hearing his wife died in delivery, but they even leave THAT in question when they suggest that he may have jumped out of the car before it ran into the bulldozers. They even gave the part of "super soul," the blind DJ (brilliantly portrayed by Clevon Little in the original) to JASON PRIESTLY?!?!?!?!?!? Give me a break.
Yuck! And again I say...YUCK! The original version of this movie was a well directed story of a man who was already dead and driving through purgatory. The original movie had a lot to say and didn't go out of its way to say it. And, it had a naked chick on a motorcycle.<br /><br />This version strikes me as something that a producer bought the rights to and then abandoned out of disinterest. It looks as if a group of individuals consciously decided to fit it to the nineties and changed ethnicities and genders just to be cute. The movie is not about a burnout about to commit suicide in a last act of defiance. It is about a man trying to get to a hospital to see his wife.<br /><br />There was no reason for this movie to have been made other than to make me angry...
Movies like these are to the originals what Album Oriented Rock stations are to what music used to be like - repetitive, boring, and drained of all the original energy by a committee of corporate drones. I AM glad that Aragorn wasn't typecast as an expectant psycho by this P.O.S. Go back and watch the 1971 version, count the things that would NEVER be included in a modern version, and thank whatever deity you worship that someone somewhere in the distant past had the balls to write and shoot an original concept movie that wasn't based on someone else's ideas, and wasn't passed through a corporate board before it saw the light of day.
This is just plain bad. Sometimes remakes, even if they stray from the original, are good on their own. They can bring another viewpoint and achieve a certain interpretation that makes them unique and enjoyable. This was as poorly thought out and carried out as can be. This wasn't any good even standing on it's own. Viggo Mortenson is a top-notch actor, but some of his selections of roles and projects leaves something to be desired. The original "Vanishing Point" was such a thrilling, psychological adventure; this is not an adventure at all, and is not enjoyable or entertaining whatsoever. This was made from a by-the-numbers approach to film-making, stuffing in plot points that someone in Hollywood believes will please what they see as today's film-going audience. Basically, they see us as a bunch of idiots. It's insulting that someone will put this out as a feature film, and even attempt to remake a cult classic this sloppily. The manipulative plot devices, the "make-it-obvious-so-they-don't-miss-the-point" aspects, ridiculous dialogue, stereotyped characters, amateurish direction...<br /><br />This is plain bad....
This is a terrible remake of a marginal, but well liked, movie from the early 70's. I have seen the original at least 6 times. The 1997 version is a 20 minute movie 'crammed' into 2 hours or whatever the runtime is. Cheesy storyline, which by the way, is completely different than the original. The major government involvement was far-fetched. There is no flow from one scene to the next. In the original you could go get a beer or hit the bathroom and still keep up. <br /><br />It only took a few hours movie time to change the oil pan on the car. It takes many times longer than that in real life. Car guys notice this stuff. Also, the fool or fools that chose to trash a 1968 Charger and abuse a 1970 Challenger should be shot in the heel with a dull bullet. The fact they aren't 'car people' is painfully obvious, and their passing will not be grieved. <br /><br />The actors lacked any emotion, everything was cut and dried. One step above a monotone. A barmitzvah is more exciting and energetic.<br /><br />Last but surely not least, the radio DJ made the statement that the Challenger hit the bulldozers at 180 or 185 (??). That is total garbage. Can you say aerodynamics, or lack thereof?? Hahahaha!! This movie is a joke. Don't waste your time watching this one.
This movie represents the times it was made in as much as the original, i suppose. Which is really sad, because at a deeper level, the title 'Vanishing Point' the original, is so ironic. I'm sure it wasn't intended that way, but the original was filmed in 1970, and released in 1971. The REAL 'VANISHING POINT' was the end of an era, which pretty much ended in the early 1970s. <br /><br />In this remake, all the counter-cultural elements have been stripped away, and been rendered more PC in an attempt to reach a broader audience, presumably. "Sanitized for your Protection" <br /><br />Inserting the American Indian scenes was gratuitous, and the idea of a 'noble purpose' to the trip was subtraction by addition. I'm glad I watched it however, it made me appreciate the original that much more. The original is a cult classic and golden. This remake is dreadful.
The original "Vanishing Point" was a great flick. Subtle motives, characters that seemed real and spontaneous.The remake was terrible. Preachy, overtly obvious; it missed the point as to why the original was a classic. The black Charger was cool, but even that couldn't rescue this flick. Why stick with a white Challenger? I didn't think that was the best choice back in '71. Some parts of the film were unintentionally hilarious. Like when Vigo was standing on a cliff overlooking the canyon after his "Dream Quest". His Indian pal was standing next to him. Vigo was only wearing his white briefs. I'm sorry - it just looked silly - him surveying the vista in his Fruit of the Looms. Another scene was at the end - after the explosive crash into the bulldosers - the announcer said that the impact was clocked at 180 mph. Then he mentions that the cops said his remains weren't found because he vaporized, but some people believe he bailed out and was hidden by friends in the crowd. Then it shows him rolling out of the car at 180 mph! First of all, you couldn't open the car door at 180 mph. Secondly, the car would not continue to travel in a straight line for 100 yds. with nobody to steer it. It would promptly roll over about 30 times. Thirdly, if you hit the pavement at 180 mph, you would wind up in various squishy pieces. No matter, we see him at the end standing with his daughter. All in all, a movie that would insult anyone's intelligence.
Pictures that usually glorify a hero have meaning. As an example, Bonnie and Clyde glorified the dynamic bank robbers and you actually felt sympathy for them despite their evil deeds. Why? They were two people caught up in the depression when people were desperate to survive.<br /><br />This film has absolutely no substance. The Viggo Mortensen character soon emerges as a folk hero. Why? He speeds along an Idaho highway on the way to the hospital where his stricken wife has been taking. No one bothers to understand why he is trying to flee everyone. Even worse, when the realization becomes apparent that he is not a red-neck terrorist, no one in government wants to help him as they try to save their rear ends.<br /><br />Jason Priestley co-stars as a radio emcee who builds upon the story in support of our hero.<br /><br />The ending is absolutely unbelievable.
Some might say something like "Baby Geniuses" with its giant robot infants or "Dumbo" with its psychedelic drug-addled nightmare sequence would win the award for the most disturbing movie ever made for children. You might say that too, but you'd be wrong. Lo and behold, for I bring to you: Santa Claus, the most helplessly messed up family film since ... well, ever. <br /><br />From the opening scenes showing children from different parts of the world singing their insipid theme songs (seriously, this segment is nearly 20 freakin' minutes long and has nothing to do with the plot!) to the thrilling conclusion in which Merlin pops up from outta nowhere and saves the day (don't mind him, he's from Barcelona), this is childhood trauma at its finest. And no matter how hard I try, no matter how many different therapists I visit, I just... can't... get... those... reindeer's...laughter...out... of... my ... head! <br /><br />Avoid this mind-bending piece of trash like you'd avoid a sex-starved whale during mating season. Still, if flaming gay demons with a serious case of the overacting flu are something for you, I guess you should give it a try. But really, this movie isn't worth your time and mental health.
This film is awful. Give me the dentist anytime! Can you believe that one of the main TV stations here in Arabia had this as their Christmas film! I can only assume they expected to entertain the crowds with Dudley Moore rather than this. The last time I looked at my hot water bottle it had more acting, better plot, more drama and a lot more interest than this waste of celluloid. Don't even watch it if you're drunk!
This has to be creepiest, most twisted holiday film that I've ever clapped eyes on, and that's saying something. I know that the Mexican people have some odd ideas about religion, mixing up ancient Aztec beliefs with traditional Christian theology. But their Day of the Dead isn't half as scary as their take on Santa Claus.<br /><br />So..Santa isn't some jolly, fat red-suited alcoholic(take a look at those rosy cheeks sometime!). Rather, he's a skinny sociopathic pedophile living in Heaven(or the heavens, whichever), with a bunch of kids who work harder than the one's in Kathy Lee Gifford's sweat shops. They sing oh-so-cute traditional songs of their homelands while wearing clothing so stereotypical that i was surprised there wasn't a little African-American boy in black face singing 'Mammy'. This Santa is a Peeping Tom pervert who watches and listens to everything that everybody does from his 'eye in the sky'. This is so he can tell who's been naughty or nice(with an emphasis on those who are naughty, I'd bet).<br /><br />There's no Mrs. Claus, no elves(what does he need elves for when he's got child labor?) and the reindeer are mechanical wind-up toys! This floating freak show hovers on a cloud, presumably held up by its silver lining.<br /><br />Santa's nemesis is...the Devil?! What is this, Santa our Lord and Savior? Weird. Anyhoo, Satan sends one of his minions, a mincing, prancing devil named Pitch, to try to screw up Christmas. Let me get this straight-the forces of purest evil are trying to ruin a completely commercial and greed driven holiday? Seems kind of redundant, doesn't it?<br /><br />Pitch is totally ineffectual. He tries to talk some children into being bad, but doesn't have much luck. I was strongly struck by the storyline of the saintly little girl Lupe, who's family is very poor. All that she wants is a doll for Christmas, but he parents can't afford to buy her one(they spent all of their money on the cardboard that they built their house out of). So Pitch tries to encourage her to steal a doll. In reality, that's the only way that a girl that poor would ever get a doll, because being saintly and praying to God and holy Santa doesn't really work. But Lupe resists temptation and tells Pitch to get thee behind her, and so is rewarded by being given a doll so creepy looking that you just know that it's Chucky's sister.<br /><br />Along the way Pitch manages to get Santa stuck in a tree(uh-huh) from whence he's rescued by Merlin! Merlin? You have got to be kidding me! Since when do mythical Druidic figures appear in Christmas tales, or have anything to do with a Christian religion? And doesn't God disapprove of magic? They'd have been burning Merlin at the stake a few hundred years ago, not asking him to come to the rescue of one of God's Aspects(or that's what I assume Santa must be, to be going up against Satan). This movie is one long HUH? from start to finish, and it'll make you wonder if that eggnog you drank wasn't spiked or something. Probably it was, since this movie is like one long giant DT.
All right I recently got a chance to rent this and watch Santa Claus conquers the martains. Although the children were much more sadistic in SCCTM, I would have to say that Santa Claus was a much worse movie. As a spanish assignment in Spanish 5 we all had to watch it. I'll tell you, usually when we watch a movie we are all just talking and eating food, but not for this movie. Everyone just kept there jaw open wondering what the evil Mr. Pitch was going to do next. Would Merlin help Santa Claus!?! or would his robot reindeer come and save the day? I would suggest renting it because it is the biggest piece of rubbish I have ever seen and I love it for that. :D
When I was kid back in the 1970s a local theatre had Children's Matinees every Saturday and Sunday afternoon (anybody remember those?). They showed this thing one year around Christmas time. Me and some friends went to see it. I expected a cool Santa Claus movie. What I got was a terribly dubbed (you can tell) and truly creepy movie.<br /><br />Something about Santa Claus and Merlin the Magician (don't ask me what those two are doing in the same movie) fighting Satan (some joker in a silly devil costume complete with horns!). The images had me cringing in my seat. I always found Santa spooky to begin with so that didn't help. The guy in the Satan suit didn't help. But what REALLY horrified me were the wooden rein deers that pulled Santa's sled. When he wound them up and the creepy sound they made and the movements--I remember having nightmares about those things! All these years later I still remember walking out of that theatre more than a little disturbed by what I saw. My friends were sort of frightened by it too. I just saw an ad for it on TV and ALL those nightmares came roaring back. This is a creepy, disturbing little Christmas film that will probably scare the pants off any little kid who sees it. Avoid this one--unless you really want to punish your kids. This gets a 1.
While "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians" is usually cited as one of the worse films ever made, this Mexican-made film from 1959 is so bad it makes "SCCM" look like "It's a Wonderful Life." You have to wonder what the people who made this film were thinking; perhaps they meant it as a third-world allegory about capitalist greed and conspicuous consumption. Nah . . . They just weren't very good. The same production company made an even more disturbing version of "Little Red Riding Hood" in which the wolf's obsession with our heroine has unmistakable hints of pedophilia. (Perhaps this was the inspiration for "Freeway.") Back to "Santa Claus": instead of the North Pole, Jolly Old Saint Nicholas resides in a satellite in geosynchronous earth orbit (shades of "MST3K"); instead of elves his toys are made by children chosen from around the world; and he had sophisticated spy equipment to check just which kids are naughty and nice. The result is like an Orwellian outer space sweat shop. It's enough to turn you off Christmas forever. This and other low-rent Mexican children's' films were dubbed in English and widely distributed in the U.S. in the early 1960s; no wonder the sixties became such a turbulent period in American history. The baby boomers who were forced to endure these "family" films as children would be all too eager to turn revolutionary.
Before I'd seen this, I had seen some pretty bad Christmas films. But once I saw this, "Jingle All the Way" looked better than "The Godfather". "Santa Claus" is a jolly film about Santa helping out some kids, but it almost feels demonic watching it. Santa's jolly ho-ho-ho is replaces by an evil, devilish laugh that I'm sure has turned many kids off of Christmas. The plot of this massacre is very strange, which fits along with all of the performances and dialog. Santa lives high above Earth in the North Pole where he, and kids from all around the world get ready for Christmas. But Santa has an enemy named Pitch, or Satan. Pitch tries to ruin Santa's Christmas by making three boys naughty, and by creating diversions, like moving the chimney and making the doorknob hot. When Pitch causes Santa to be attacked by a dog, it's up to Santa's helper Pedro and Merlin the wizard to get Santa out of this pickle. <br /><br />Everything about this film, along with being downright bad, is so bizarre. Satan dances a lot and he actually seems much more merry than Santa. Santa talks about delivering presents to all the boys and girls, yet he seems to only deliver to 5 houses of kids in Mexico. The reindeer are wind up toys, and when the reindeer laughs, I'm amazed it doesn't bring tears to kid's eyes...it's frightening. Everything is terrible. The first 10 minutes are simply Santa playing the organ while kids sing to it. Probably one of the strangest scenes is Santa shooting Pitch in the butt with a mini-cannon and uproariously laughing about it while Pitch dances around in pain. I think parents are better off telling their little kids about where babies come from, than showing them this. The only positive is it will have you laughing hysterically if you can appreciate bad cinema.<br /><br />My rating: BOMB/****. 85 mins.
Its hard to make heads or tails of this film. Unless you're well oiled and in the mood to mock, don't view Santa Claus. It mixes Santa, Satan, Merlin, and moralizing in a most unappetizing way. It certainly is not for fretful children.
The NSA, CIA, FBI, FSB and all other snoop agency in the world should watch this movie to gain information as to how to spy on people. (as MST3k Commentary states it..."Sanata has the dirt on every! Santa's Tentacles reach far and wide! There is no hiding from the Klaus Organization")<br /><br />From telescopes that can spy over millions of miles to ears that can hear everything. Its amazing that the CIA doesn't have Santa on the payroll. <br /><br />Satan's dance routine is hilarious. Pitch...he is so useless.<br /><br />The cheese factor in of this movie is tremendous. Very low budget but so fun to watch. I recommend watching the Mystery Science Theatre 3000 version for even more laughs.<br /><br />You even get a laugh at the missfortune of the good kids.<br /><br />I give this a 1 for production quality and a 10 for pure cheese and fun factor.
Wow. Who ever said that Edward D. Wood Jr. never influenced anybody? This steaming pile of donkey excrement is a perfect case in point; it makes "The Violent Years" look like "Casablanca"! "Santa Claus" also makes Keith Richards' worst flashbacks look like my first nocturnal emission. I've had nightmares, you know, waking up and sweating bullets, that will never come close to the visceral terror that Santa Claus unearthed from the seemingly pure soil of my very being. However, I can think of some parties where this film might actually go over well. Also, if you're looking for the perfect example of a Santa-Satan dichotomy on VHS tape, look no further. Don't check out this movie, as I've been notified the MST3K version is now available. Move over Satan, here's "Santa Claus".
This Santa movie starts off strange and I think Santa might be a pedo. Instead of the usual elf toy makers, this Santa has apparently kidnapped kids from all across the globe and makes them sing a bit like characters from "It's a Small World"! I guess there are no child labor laws on the weird astral plane on which he lives (it's apparently NOT the North Pole and not on Earth)!! None of these kids seem very happy and I kept wanting to see commandos break in and rescue the tykes, though I guess for some of the third world kids, these working conditions were perhaps an improvement over local sweatshops. I sure hope that all they do is sing and make toys.<br /><br />Then, the scene abruptly changes to Hell where lots and lots of demons dance about like they are in a Busby Berkeley musical. This fun in put to a stop by Satan who orders one of them, Pitch, to go to Earth to ruin Christmas!! Personally, I thought this movie already did that! The Devil and his imps are actually kind of cute--like Hot Stuff from the Harvey Comics but with cool evil goatees! Or, if you are Puerto Rican, like a vejigante mask with a goatee! <br /><br />Somehow a poverty-stricken Mexican kid named Lupita, a group of jerky kids who want to mug Santa and some rich kid are key battlegrounds for the Devil and Santa!! So, if the Prince of Darkness (not Donald Trump, it's the OTHER Prince of Darkness) can somehow make her steal and be bad, he'll 'win'--what, we don't really know! In fact, as they root her on, you get the impression that the film makers intend Santa to be Jesus--as he has all these great powers AND fights the Devil over kids' souls! Later, Santa meets with his friend, Merlin. He asks him to make him a special powder that makes people dream nice dreams. Considering how much Santa laughs in the film (like a demented chipmunk), I assume he must use this drug A LOT! He immediately goes to see a blacksmith who makes him a magic key that opens ALL doors. Considering he keeps kids as his personal 'assistants', this magic key thing worries me immensely! During Santa's Christmas Eve ride, you see Lupita behave like a little angel--one problem down. Santa then takes time out now to take care of the rich kid whose parents are selfish jerks. He gives them some sort of crazy cocktail which magically solves their problems--two problems solved. This is a rare case where alcohol/drugs HELP kids and solves problems! And as for the little muggers, he gives them coal! Frustrated with his losses to Santa, Pitch then tries to steal the sleigh (which is pulled by creepy animatronic deer). When this fails, he destroys Santa's stash of 'magic powder'! As a result, Santa can't become invisible to avoid dogs and gets treed. Uh, oh...how can Santa take a detour to the Betty Ford Clinic if he's stuck up a tree?! Will St. Nick get down from the tree and get the monkey off his back or will the devils win? If you care, tune in and see. However, be warned that the film is bat-crap crazy! <br /><br />Technically speaking, the film is yecchy. While it is in color, it's really gaudy. The music is mostly done on an organ--which, along with bad singing from the kids, produces perhaps the worst soundtrack I've heard in recent memory. And the story is just incomprehensible and very, very, very creepy. Devils and a Santa that kidnaps kids is just plain creep-tastic. It's a film you should NEVER show to kids but makes a great film to watch with friends so you can laugh at it from start to finish!
This was another obscure Christmas-related title, a low-budget Mexican production from exploitation film-maker Cardona (NIGHT OF THE BLOODY APES [1969], TINTORERA! [1977]), which – like many a genre effort from this country – was acquired for release in the U.S. by K. Gordon Murray. Judging by those two efforts already mentioned, Cardona was no visionary – and, this one having already received its share of flak over here, is certainly no better! The film, in fact, is quite redolent of the weirdness which characterized Mexican horror outings from the era, but given an added dimension by virtue of the garish color (which, in view of the prominence of reds – apart from St. Nick himself, the Devil plays a major role in the proceedings – throughout, was essential). Anyway, in a nutshell, the plot involves Satan's efforts to stall Santa Claus' Christmas Eve rendezvous with the Earth's children; there is, however, plenty more wackiness along the way: to begin with, our portly, white-bearded and chronically merry man-in-red lives in a celestial palace who, apart from accompanying toy-maker kids from all over the world on his piano as they sing (laboriously for the whole first reel!) in their native tongue, visits Merlin – the famed magician at King Arthur's court, here bafflingly but amusingly prone to child-like hopping and mumbling gibberish! – once every year to acquire potions which would bring somnolence to the young and render himself invisible (by the way, the Wizard's anachronistic presence here is no less unlikely than his being a cohort of Dr. Frankenstein in SON OF Dracula [1974]!!); incidentally, by this time, he always seems to have gained some excess weight…so Santa has to work out in order to be able to fit into each proverbial chimney! The Devil's antics (enthusiastically rubbing his hands together at every turn and generally hamming it up) to hold up St. Nick's delivery program, then, is perfectly puerile: indeed, their tit-for-tat shenanigans resemble an old Laurel & Hardy routine more than anything! To pad out the running-time, we focus on three sets of children: one, the lonely son of a rich couple who wants nothing more for Christmas than their company (projected as a wish-fulfillment fantasy where the boy finds his parents wrapped in extra-large packages!), a girl from a poor family who yearns to own a doll of her own (the horned one first tempts her to steal one, then invades the little one's dreams – to no avail) and a trio of brats who, egged on once again by Satan, think of nothing but causing mischief and eventually fall out amongst themselves. There is definitely imagination at work here, but it is applied with little rhyme or reason, while the overall juvenile approach keeps entertainment (unless one counts the film as a guilty pleasure) well at bay!
Just when I thought I would finish a whole year without giving a single movie a "Bomb" rating, a friend brought this notorious turd to my house last night. I feared the worst knowing its reputation, and it was as God-awful as I'd anticipated. This is a Mexican-made mess, dubbed into English, and produced by K. Gordon Murray. It's got terrible sets and effects, and features a rather frightening Santa who doesn't operate at the North Pole, but instead from a cloud in outer space, and who doesn't have little elves helping him make his toys but rather all different groups of children from practically every country there is. The opening sequence, where St. Nick chuckles heartily as he observes monitors showing all these kiddies working hard while singing terrible holiday songs in a variety of languages, seems to go on forever, and with no story. Obviously, THIS Santa Claus doesn't observe the child labor laws!<br /><br />Eventually we get some nasty and slinky red-suited apprentice of the devil himself traveling from hell to Earth, just to make little kids naughty and turn Santa's Christmas Eve rounds into a nightmare. Watching this movie is a trippy and twisted experience, and it's bound to frighten little children and turn them off Santa Claus and the holidays forever. Oddly, the name of Jesus Christ is mentioned often in this Christmas film, which somehow makes it all the creepier in the context of all the bizarre things that are going on. This easily makes my personal list of the "Worst Movie I've Ever Seen", but I'm sure that's nothing unique.
Why such a generic title? Santa Claus??? So bland and unpredictable. Movies before that tried to cash in on the holiday spirit, most notably 'Santa Claus Conquers the Martians', at least was entertaining to watch because of the campiness to it, and all the stock footage being used... for some reason, that seemed happy to me. But this movie just screws Christmas in the butt, and screws the joy of all the kids. Santa lives in space? His enemy is a devil named Pitch? Santa gets help from Merlin the Magician? How random is this!? Well, since it was made in Mexico then some of you might understand the way of how the film was made. I had to admit some of the effects were just wacky for the time. It was a all-out cluster of madness! Though, despite all the troubles with the movie, it still feels like a Christmas movie. Good conquers evil, and Christmas still plays a part of our hearts of every good girl or boy in the world, or possibly universe, thanks to Santa Claus Conquers the Martians.. apparently. So, I think you should give it a try, even if it is one of the worst holiday movies of all time... though it should put a smile on your face any day.
This is perhaps the creepiest display of Santa Claus ever committed to any medium, whether it be a book, a picture, or a movie. Santa looks like a perv looking down on the children and the twisted story of bringing Merlin in to help him defeat one of Satan's minions, Pitch, doesn't make things any better. It's laughable to say the least, with bad effects, even for 1959 standards. If a kid were to watch this movie, he'd have nightmares and never want Santa to visit. They'd be scarred for life. Imagine the kid's in "A Christmas Story" when they start screaming after being put on Santa's lap. That's how this would turn out if kid's see this movie.
I saw this film numerous times in the late 60's/early 70's whenever it reared it's head like a reindeer with rabies every November-December as a Saturday matinée kiddie show.It was always stiff competition for THE CHRSTMAS THAT ALMOST WASN'T (oops-can I SAY "Christmas"?), perhaps the greatest,most iconic Christmas-season film of all time.But that's another review.<br /><br />At the time,I marveled that the on-screen tint of SANTA CLAUS was almost "pink and white", so much had the color of the sprocket-torn prints changed color.<br /><br />The film is kinda creepy! I thought so then--and still do, actually. I was highly entertained then, as I still am! It's amusing in a "retarted-elf" sort of way. By the way,the image quality looks much better on the DVD I have now than it did in the theater, circa 1969-74.<br /><br />If you are expecting maybe "the lost RANKIN-BASS Christmas special-forget it! If you want FELLINI DOES Christmas--read on...<br /><br />By nature, the dubbing on these foreign films (the original version here was in Spanish)always makes them seem "surreal". This adds to the films inherent oddness. It is also pretty scary in that a "mishevious demon" (as described in the original US trailer) spends the entire film trying to turn decent kids "evil". One particularly nightmarish scene has a young "latch-key" boy wishing he had parents for Christmas-suddenly the "port-a-family" emerges out of giant "Christmas presents-of-the-mind" until he realizes he's just daydreaming! See this,Christmas lovers--and if you're a stoner, save your stash--this film will make you think you're hallucinating...without drugs!
I first saw this movie when I was about 10 years old. My mom bought it at our local Kmart because it was on sale for $5 on VHS. She thought that it would be a nice Christmas movie for me and my brothers to watch. This movie, however, scared the hell out of me. You may be asking yourself, how could a movie about Santa Clause scare anyone? The plot of the movie revolves around Satan sending one his minions, Pitch, to earth in an attempt to kill Santa and ruin Christmas. That's right, Satan sends a demon up from hell to kill Santa Clause. Pitch stalks Santa throughout Christmas eve in an attempt to trap him on earth when the sun rises on Christmas day, for if Santa doesn't make it back to his home in space, he turns to powder. Don't get me wrong, the movie is funny and fairly entertaining, however, the image of demons and devils dancing in the depths of hell (which occurs at the beginning of the movie) is just downright creepy.
Believe it or don't, i have my very own DVD copy of this "movie" which i bought at Walgreens for a great big whole dollar. I'm still not sure if it was a dollar well spent or a dollar foolishly wasted.<br /><br />Pretty amazing set designs and costumes. Apparently much thought and effort went into their making. The set designs are very Mexican in stylization. I liked them a lot. And Santa is impressive. One of the more impressive Santas in moviedom.<br /><br />I'm guessing the original intent and purpose of this movie was to be something uplifting and cheerful for a kids audience. But, somehow, it comes across quite deranged. In fact, i'm left stunned at how deranged it is.<br /><br />Maybe it's the English dubbing that makes it seems so deranged and bizarre. One of the reasons i prefer to experience movies in the original language they were made and the use of English subtitles as dubbing often gives an unintended strangeness. The kid voices were at least dubbed with actual kid voices as opposed to women pretending to be kids which tends to sound very, very weird.<br /><br />Did you know that demons in hell spend their free time dancing around doing ballet in their longjohns? You didn't? Neither did i until i watched this movie. One learns something new everyday.<br /><br />Is this movie actually worth watching? Now, that's a tossup. I can't in good conscience recommend it to anyone as it's quite disturbing in its own bizarre way. Yet, its unintentional bizarreness is what makes it worth watching. You decide what you're going to do. I dunno... for myself, it made me feel uncomfortable seeing demons constantly doing cutesy ballet moves. Now, that's just wrong...
This is kind of a weird movie, given that Santa Claus lives on a cloud in outer space and fights against Satan and his minions...but it's still kinda fun.<br /><br />It has some genuine laughs...whether all of them were intentional is certainly debatable, though. This movie is not good, but I can say I really enjoyed watching it.<br /><br />I would recommend this movie over "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians", "Santa Claus" with Dudley Moore and John Lithgow, or "The Santa Clause" with Tim Allen.
This movie is supposed to be a "lighthearted" tale about Santa Claus and his "magical and mystical" wonders. But instead it comes off as being downright creepy. Two things in this movie that stand out in my mind as horrifying are 1) the way Santa looks.- Have you ever seen a more horrible looking Santa Claus? and 2) the "evil rep. of Satan" Pitch's just plain odd dances are just sickening to watch. Only watch this movie if it happens to be the MSTed version or if you like a very good laugh. I can't believe this is a children's movie.
I'm allowed to write 1000 words about this film, but one word could suffice: bizarre. Hubby and I didn't laugh so much as gawk at this truly dreadful movie. We kept looking at each other with our best "What the...?" expressions. There is no way to adequately describe this movie. Killer tomatoes were funny, but this is just sick. What kind of mind produces images like these and then puts them on film for others to see? What kind of mind includes innocent children in this weird, weird movie and then packages it as if it is appropriate for children? Parents, whatever you do, if your child still believes in Santa, don't let him/her see this movie. Preteens can watch it -- probably with "What the...?" expressions on their faces. If you decide to inflict this movie on others, you might want to spike their eggnog.<br /><br />Quite possibly the worst film ever made.
Yes I have rated this film as one star awful. Yet, it will be in my rotation of Christmas movies henceforth. This truly is so bad it's good. This is another K.Gordon Murray production (read: buys a really cheap/bad Mexican movie, spends zero money getting it dubbed into English and releases it at kiddie matinées in the mid 1960's.) It's a shame I stumbled on this so late in life as I'm sure some "mood enhancers" would make this an even better experience. I'm not going to rehash what so many of the other reviewers have already said, a Christmas movie with Merlin, the Devil, mechanical wind-up reindeer and some of the most pathetic child actors I have ever seen bar none. I plan on running this over the holidays back to back with Kelsey Grammar's "A Christmas Carol". Truly a holiday experience made in Hell. Now if I can only find "To All A Goodnight (aka Slayride)" on DVD I'll have a triple feature that can't be beat. You have to see this movie. It moves so slowly that I defy you not to touch the fast forward button-especially on the two dance routines! This thing reeks like an expensive bleu cheese-guess you have to get past the stink to enjoy the experience. Feliz Navidad amigos!
With title like this you know you get pretty much lot of junk. Acting bad. Script bad. Director bad. Grammar bad.<br /><br />Movie make lot of noise that really not music and lot of people yell. Movie make bad racial stereotype. Why come every movie with black hero have drug addict? Why come hero always have to dance to be success? Why come famous rapper always have to be in dance movie? Why come letter "s" can't be in title?<br /><br />Hollywood need to stop dumb down audience and make movie that have people with brain who know how speak proper English.<br /><br />Do self favor and not go see.
I can always tell when something is going to be a hit. I see it or hear it, and get a good feeling. I did not get a good feeling watching the preview. I was not at all enthusiastic about this film, and I am not at all surprised that it is rated here as one of the worst 100 films. I was in fact proved right.<br /><br />The first thing that threw me off was the title. Not that I have a problem with ebonics(I am black by the way), but for a movie they could have used a better title, and for this time use a title that doesn't have bad grammar. I heard the dialog, saw the acting and all I could do was make faces.<br /><br />I also think that the dance movie theme is being overdone. At least "You Got Served" was better than this in my opinion. Even the soundtrack didn't thrill me.
"How She Moves" springs to life only when its high-energy, talented cast members are kicking up their heels and strutting their stuff for the camera. Otherwise, this stale strive-suffer-and-succeed story is low on energy, low on originality, and low on anything that might make the movie stand out from the dozens of other, likeminded films that have come before it.<br /><br />Rutina Wesley has modest appeal as the academically gifted inner-city youngster who finds that the best way to raise her private school tuition money is by entering step-dance competitions, but both she and her fellow actors are poorly served by uninspired screen writing and undistinguished direction. As noted earlier, the movie achieves some spark when the performers are up on stage dancing, but such moments are far too few and sadly fleeting.
Its one of those stereotypical mtv generation dance movies, and I do not see where all this 'its not that bad' rubbish is coming from. The acting is terrible, it follows exactly the same storyline as all the other 'dancing' movies out there. Its terrible! The name should scream don't watch. 'How she move.' Since when can movie titles ignore grammar? At least some dance movies had half decent dance scenes, these ones don't even deserve a watch. I give it a 1 out of 10, just because there is no zero. I seriously implore anyone with an IQ of over 60 not to watch this, and not to waste your money. The 1.6/10 should tell it all. This movie should not have even be made.
This movie was absolutely ghastly! I cannot fathom how this movie made it to production. Nothing against the cast of the movie, of course, this is all the fault of the writing team. You take the old average plot - let's dance our way out of being poor and destitute - or STEP in this case. But this one lacks any semblance of a true plot - or at least one that anyone would care about. With Canadian speaking actors in what is supposed to be an American setting - this film falls very flat. On a positive note, the directing was pretty good and cinematography was pretty decent as well. Looks like the production budget was very generous as well. My only request is that this team leave the writing alone and go find actual screenwriters to help them bring words alive on film. Net result - How she move is How she sucks.
We've been served - a terrible film.<br /><br />Okay, I'll admit that since I'm white and have had no practical experience in the "competitive world of step-dancing," I might not exactly be an authority on this type of film. On the other hand, I do know a bad motion picture when I see it.<br /><br />And, boy, have I just seen it.<br /><br />Filmed in Low-Budget-Vision and directed by Ian Iqubal Rashid, ("A Touch of Pink"), "How She Move" tells the tale of how important it is to follow one's dreams - even if those dreams include bopping around to loud, irritating hip-hop music and speaking dialogue the average person would not understand if he or she had an international translator.<br /><br />I'll try to give a small synopsis of the "plot." First of all there are two actors that look like LL Cool J who work in an auto shop in Toronto (the Mecca of racial diversity), but still have time to practice dancing for eight hours a day. <br /><br />There are a few other guys in this "crew," including a token white dude and a guy that looks like Denzel Washington in "Malcolm X." There are also two women in the movie - one resembles Serena Williams and the other looks like Geraldine from the old "Flip Wilson Show." One of these ladies was kicked out of a private college because her parents spent all of her tuition on a drug-addicted sibling. The other girl, a member of Salt N Pepa, no doubt, is just plain no good.<br /><br />There's another guy who looks like Eddie Murphy's Buckwheat, while still another actor who's a Huggy Bear knock-off. These guys are rival step dancers. Evidently, this activity is very hard-core in the 'hood, and they are all practicing for the big "Step Monster" jam in Detroit.<br /><br />Since I was unable to understand 90 percent of the dialogue (perhaps some subtitles would have been useful, as in a Bergman film or that one music video by Snow), it's hard to explain what happens, other than there's a lot of arguing, the Serena Williams girl (who never smiles, by the way) becomes a freelance stepper (moving from group to group), there's some step-dancing and a lot of irritating hip-hop music.<br /><br />It's a typical rags-to-riches story; sort of like "Rocky" with a really bad soundtrack, "Rudy" with annoying rap music in the background, "Cry Freedom" without the laughs. <br /><br />But why does a film - which could have made a big impact on black audiences - have to contain drug addiction, bad parents and a title that sounds like a first-grader saying the phrase, "How she moves"?<br /><br />I was "moved" by this movie, however. Moved to leave the theater as quickly as possible.
This movie has a slew of great adult stars but fails to get you interested in a way an adult film should. Among all the stars you couldn't get your kicks from any of the scenes. The movie is shot in a dream like middle age set which is embarrassingly cheesy. The acting is worse than Keanu Reeves, the sex scenes are as exciting as listening to your neighbor talk about their kid in college, and the dialogue is the worse I have seen in a movie. The plot also was worse by ten fold. I'd stick to the amateur route. The audio commentary was useless since it's a skin flick but even then that was bad too. Unless your a diehard Jenna Jameson fan there is little here. 4/10
I am a VERY big fan of Jenna Jameson, but this movie is horrible. At the time Jenna Jameson was married to Brad Armstrong and he was the director of this film and Jenna was the hottest porn star ever. So, of course, Brad tried to make as much money as he could off her by making this big budget porn film. Now I know why they don't make big budget porn movies anymore. In a fantasy world, porn stars could act, but this is the real world and they can't act. That's why there porn stars, if a women as beautiful as Jenna could act, then she would have tried to go into mainstream movies instead of porn. Just because your beautiful doesn't make you a movie star. A fine example of this is Traci Lords, when she was a teen thru her 20's she was one of the most beautiful, sexy women on earth. She made her move into low budget mainstream films and couldn't act. Where is she now? I gave it a 2 instead of a 1 rating just because Jenna is so hot, but there are better movies she has made then "Dream Quest". Come on Jenna, we don't want to hear you talk, as much as we want to see you have sex. Also, you Jenna, would have a lot more fans and more money in your bank account if you would have done anal on film.
Someone told me that this was one of the best adult movies to date. I have since discredited everything told to me by this individual after seeing this movie. It's just terrible. Without going into lengthy descriptions of the various scenes, take my word for it, the sex scenes are uninteresting at best. Jenna in normal street clothes in the beginning was the highlight of the film (she does look good) but it's all downhill from there.
Tony Scott destroys anything that may have been interesting in Richard Kelly's clichéd, patchy, overwrought screenplay. Domino Harvey (Kiera Knightley) was a model who dropped out and became a bounty hunter. This is her story... "sort of".<br /><br />The problem with this rubbish is that there isn't much of a story at all and Scott's extreme graphic stylization of every shot acts as a distancing mechanism that makes us indifferent to everything in Harvey's chaotic life.<br /><br />You just don't care about Harvey. Knightley plays her as an obnoxious, cynical brat who has done nothing to warrant our respect. She punches people she doesn't like and sheds her clothes and inhibitions when the situation calls for it, but she isn't the least bit real and Knightly isn't the least bit convincing, either.<br /><br />The film is boring. It's loud, too, and shackled with one of the most annoying source music scores I've heard in a long time. The final twenty minutes are a poor re-run of Scott's "True Romance" climax with Domino's gang going to meet two sets of feuding bad guys who are -- surprise! surprise! -- destined to shoot it out with each other at the top of a Las Vegas casino.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this potentially exciting conflagration is totally botched by Scott and becomes a confusing, pretentious, pointless exercise in celluloid masturbation. This is not an artistically brave or experimental piece; it is a failure on every level because it gives us no entry point to the lives and dilemmas of its characters.<br /><br />Mickey Roarke looks good as a grizzled bounty hunter, but he disappears into the background as the "narrative" progresses. Chris Walken turns in another embarrassing cameo and Dabney Coleman, always solid, is underutilized.<br /><br />Don't be fooled by this film's multi-layered, gimmick-ridden surface. It is still a turd no matter how hard you polish it.
Repetitive music, annoying narration, terrible cinematography effects. Half of the plot seemed centered around shock value and the other half seemed to be focused on appeasing the type of crowd that would nag at people to start a fight.<br /><br />One of the best scenes was in the "deleted scenes" section, the one where she's in the principle's office with her mom. I don't understand why they'd cut that. The movie seemed desperate to make a point about anything it could and Domino talking about sororities would have been a highlight of the movie.<br /><br />Ridiculous camera work is reminiscent of MTV, and completely not needed or helpful to a movie. Speeding the film up just to jump past a lot of things and rotating the camera around something repeatedly got old the first time it was used. It's like the directors are wanting to use up all this extra footage they didn't want to throw away.<br /><br />Another movie with Jerry Springer in it? That should've told me not to watch it from the preview.<br /><br />A popular movie for the "in" crowd.
From the first moment, this "thing" is just an awful sequence of extremely short cuts of blurry camera work. While the overall plot has every potential for a thriller, the story is so badly told that I'm unable to buy it. From the middle of the film, the actions of characters don't make sense to me. Stop reading now to avoid SPOILERS.<br /><br />For instance, Ed's idea to have Edna make coffee for them after having shot off her son's arm is way below his alleged experience; it's just an extremely stupid idea. Domino not questioning the fragmentary orders she receives from Claremont Williams over a breaking-up phone connection just eludes me; shouldn't she be long suspicious that Williams is turning them in? Those FBI agents seem out of their minds showing up with just one single helicopter to something they have every reason to consider a capital mafia shoot-out. Besides, what they do by withholding and leaking information towards Cigliutti is pretty much incitement to murder; it seems to me like farewell to justice if that's they way the FBI does investigations. In reality, they'd have a case messed up beyond repair if they acted like this. We get to see a car accident which normally would have at least seriously injured if not killed most of the passengers but miraculously leaves all of them with just a few bruises. Quite the contrary, the accident is immediately followed by Domino making love to Choco, which is from Domino's viewpoint in no way founded by previous events but just by being drugged to the eyeballs.<br /><br />The whole sequence of scenes starting from the phone call of Claremont Williams appears to me just as want-to-be dramatic razzle-dazzle. This combined with the awful, uneasy camera work just makes a piece I hesitate to call a movie. I'm sorry for the wasted effort of the main actors, whose talent is out of question.
My flatmate rented out this film the other night, so we watched it together.<br /><br />The first impression is actually a positive one, because the whole movie is shot in this colorful, grainy, post-MTV texture. Fast sequences, cool angles, sweeping camera moves - for the moment there you feel like you about to watch another "Snatch", for the moment....<br /><br />When the plot actually starts unfolding, one starts to feel as if one over-dosed amphetamine. things just don't make sense anymore. i would hate to spoil the fun of watching it by giving out certain scenes, but then again, the film is so bad that you are actually better off NOT watching it.<br /><br />First you think it is a crime story recounted in a conversation between Keira Knightley and Lucy Liu. WRONG. This conversation provides no coherent narrative whatsoever. Rather on the contrary, Domino's lesbian come on on Lucy Liu's character during the second part of the movie just throws the audience into further confusion.<br /><br />Then i thought that maybe it is a movie about a girl from affluent but dysfunctional background who grew to be a tough bounty hunter. In any case, that is the message conveyed by the opening scenes. But after that the question of Domino's character is entirely lost to the criminal plot. So in short, NO this is NOT a movie about Domino's character.<br /><br />Then i thought, it's probably a story of one robbery. A pretty bloody robbery. 10 millions went missing, bounty hunters are chasing around suspected robbers, mafia kids are executed, hands are removed, Domino tries to crack why this time they get no bounty certificates, etc. But soon this impression is dispelled by another U-turn of the plot.<br /><br />This time we are confronted with a sad story of an obese Afro-American woman, who fakes driver's licenses at the local MVD and at the age of 28 happens to be a youngest grandmother. Lateesha stars on Jerry Springer show, tries to publicize some new, wacky racial theory, and at the same time struggles to find money for her sick granddaughter.<br /><br />What does this have to do with the main plot? URgh, well, nobody knows. Except that director had to explain the audiences where will bounty hunters put their collectors' fee of 300,000.<br /><br />Then at some point you start to think: "Oh, it is about our society and the way media distorts things". There is reality TV crew driving around with the bounty hunters and doing some violent footage. The bounty hunters are also stuck with a bunch of Hollywood actors, who just whine all the time about having their noses broken and themselves dragged around too many crime scenes. But NO, this is not a movie about media, they just appear sporadically throughout the movie.<br /><br />Plus there are numerous other sub-plots: the crazy Afghani guy bent on liberating Afghanistan, the love story between Domino and Chocco, the mescaline episode, the FBI surveillance operation...<br /><br />Can all of the things mentioned above be packed into 2 hrs movie? Judge for yourself, but my conclusion is clear - it is a veritable mess!
If it smells like garbage and if it looks like garbage, it must be garbage. This is by far one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my entire life. Tony Scott's poor directing style puts shame to an already uninteresting and slightly untrue story of Domino Harvey's life as a bounty hunter. The story is completely discontinuous and confusing to watch. Certain aspects of the plot were ridiculous and totally unbelievable. It seems that all of the action scenes were loosely strung together by poor plot points and horrible acting. Keira Knightley does get totally naked in this one though. That is the one and only upside to this film. If you want to see her naked just fast forward the movie until about an hour and a half into it and you'll catch a whole lot of nipple. I strongly suggest that no one see this movie EVER!</3
supposedly based on the life of Domino Harvey a model turned bounty hunter. I'd say 95 % is fabricated. I always keep an open mind when it comes to movies, however, this movie lost its chances when it became apparent it had narration throughout the film, something i can't stand, and to top it off, the heroine of the story is so hateful and depicted as an arrogant b!ch I just wanted it to end with her being shot in the head. it's too incoherent, too flashy and way too boring, it's a who gives a crap kinda story, and i really think that big time directors need to make movies based on their own or a writer's own imagination not something based on some ignorant snobby brat's life.
this film is really bad....... no i mean really really bad. Tony Scott is a terrible director. out of all the films he has made i only like enemy of the state, besides that he is one of the worse directors of all time. what appalled me the most is Richard Kelly (director of Donnie Darko) did the screenplay to this. now Richard Kelly is a genius in my eyes but to be involved in this makes hope he has learnt his lesson.<br /><br />now i love Mickey Rourke's new roles but i cant even like him in this because of the terrible story and look of it. don't get me wrong i still love Mickey Rourke but he has made a few accidence's in his time and this is one of them. i don't know what to say about Keira knightly, i think she's a little too overrated. i just cant feel for her in films.<br /><br />all in all this film is bad. thats it....... 1/10.......j.d Seaton
I do not know if this movies problems are more the fault of Direction or Script. As you will see in many reviews the editing style is way overdone. It is absolutely distracting and without substance, which could be considered a good thing if you look at some of the quotes from the movie. I do not write many reviews here, but felt this movie was so awful that it deserved comment. Movies like this erode at Movie making as an Art form. Movies like this one show more and more clearly that the current Reality focus in cinema is revealing the quality of the characters behind them. People hone there craft, there 5 senses, and there business sense - overlooking there own inner life. However I do not put blame on them, it is more and more the unfortunate condition of this age - qualified by films like this one. But by proxy these Manufacturers I would dare not call Artists vomit there lack of inner life or regard onto the screen - diffusing it to everyone. A story of bounty hunters, guns guns and more guns, heavy handed flaunting of sex - for the oh so popular actress (did they write the lap dance scene after they signed her?), over saturated, over exaggerated, one liners, non-linear plots. All different and yet all the same. Annoying overwhelming music to push the emotion down your throat. A story? a development of character? or just withheld, missing information, revealed at the end to create the *effect* of a story - as if one took place. It altogether lacks anything remotely resembling subtlety. It is a caricature of stereotypes and genre. Where are the films with Awareness? What about subtlety of sound and music that you are not even aware is there? What about the depth of a look? What about editing with a point about mind and consciousness? yes even in action films this can happen. Sure they have honed a craft; but what use is it without soul or wisdom? of insight into the human condition? Can the people who commented and said that this is an apogee of art, or compare this to Picasso and others - I say put this next to Gandhi or the Godfather, even the original trilogy of star wars or the lord of the rings; then look me in the face and say it again. It is a good crew, but they need some help with depth and story. I hope they get it because I like the crews previous work. better luck next time.
It's rare that I come across a film this awful, this annoying and this irritating. It is without doubt one of the worst films I've ever seen.<br /><br />The plot, when it's not a blur of confusing and pointlessly over flashy editing, is ludicrous. Why did Domino become such a bad-ass tough bitch? Because her gold fish died when she was a kid and this "traumatic" event left her emotionally stunted, and hating everyone. When the dialogue is not clichéd or banal, it's littered with laughable lines such as: "There are three kinds of people in this world: the rich... the poor... and everyone else". At one point the bounty hunters have some guy tied up in the back of their bus who has a combination number tattooed on his arm. Because of a confusing mobile phone call, instead of rolling his sleeve up and just reading the number, they blow off his arm with a shotgun. At another point, the bounty hunters take a bomb to a meeting arranged with the mafia and threaten to set the bomb off unless the mafia let them go!? Clearly not going to the meeting would have been just too easy.<br /><br />Keira Knightley is unconvincing and dreadfully miscast. Mickey Rourke does manage to salvage some credibility from this mess.<br /><br />I have enjoyed some of Tony Scott's previous films, True Romance being one, but all I could think while suffering this drivel was that it must have been made by a complete idiot.
I was very excited about this film when I first saw the previews. Normally I see a preview this good and I buy the film outright. Something told me to... you know watch it first. I'm glad I did. Keira Knightley ruined all future films for me with this role. In the 2nd Pirates movie when it came out I went to see it. All I saw was Domino Harvey and I hated her more for it. I think that had to do with her hair and having to cut it short for Domino.<br /><br />Domino who? Who is Domino Harvey? I still don't really know or care. I don't know who she was in real life or who she was in this film. I didn't care about her character and even Keira getting partically naked didn't make it worth the movie. The direction was definitely lacking. The writing was trite and shallow. The editing was horrible. I don't mind the style so much as the poor overuse of it. There's a place for it. Good examples of choppy, MTV style, colorful editing (not sure if there's an official name) would be Fight Club; just off the top of my head. Even Enemy of the State had a semi similar editing style at parts. It was used tastefully and wasn't used as a crutch. I mean this is the same guy who directed Top Gun and Crimson Tide. Tony Scott please give me my time back.<br /><br />I understand there are many people who liked this movie. I guess the idea that you'll either completely love this movie or completely hate it is a fair assessment. Frankly, I hate it.
Tony Scott has never been a very good director, but every film he's made after "Crimson Tide" seems to bring him one step closer to being the inarguable worst working today (Michael Bay may fall into the same category, but at least his big, dumb, delusional epics entertain on some primally perverse level). And like other overblown Hollywood biopics ("De-Lovely" and "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind," for instance) chronicling the lives of pretentious, overrated, or outright shallow ciphers given an aura of "mystique" by a society that thrives on the juicy behind-the-scenes details, "Domino" is a film that begins with little potential, and dashes that infinitesimal amount before the sixty-minute mark. With an already-distended running time of 128 minutes, the film feels twice as long, and spending time with characters this obnoxiously superficial and forgettable (unlike the superior "Rules of Attraction," Scott's attempts to tinge the proceedings with irony via Domino's smug, self-aware-rich-girl voice-over only draws attention to the film's sledgehammer cluelessness) becomes an act only masochists could find pleasurable. The story? Spoiled-upper-crust-babe Domino Harvey (Keira Knightley, in an ersatz-badass performance as shallow as her gorgeous looks) is sick of the shallow lifestyles of the rich and famous in Los Angeles, and accosts gruff bounty hunters Mickey Rourke and Edgar Ramirez to learn a more exciting trade; along the way, there are double-crosses, shootouts, media attention (courtesy of a tongue-in-cheek Christopher Walken, phoning in his trademark sleazebag), and laughable hints at romance. Scott cuts the film together in segments that rarely last more than a few seconds, cranking up the resolution to make the film a neon-drenched nightmare that's frankly unpleasant to watch--if Scott's given an opportunity to shakily frame an image, ghost it, or distort it in some way, he will; but all this tacky stylistic overload overwhelms what little plot, characterization, and suspense the film has (to say nothing for its, ehm, "entertainment" value). Most of the characters come off as either contemptible or stereotypical, oftentimes both (observe the unbearable, several-minute segment where an African-American introduces a new list of racial categorizations on "Jerry Springer"), and I found myself wishing they would all get the "tails" end of our protagonist's coin by the end. "Domino" is utter, unmitigated trash--whatever interest in this individual Scott hoped to inspire in his audience, it is lost in a sea of migraine-inducing neon pretension a few minutes in.
What of Domino did I hate over everything, and I mean everything, else? Perhaps it was the overall glorification of being a bounty hunter; maybe it was the sexism masquerading as an involving and interesting study of a hard bodied female lead character; maybe it was the mere look of the film with its bizarre yellow glow and distorted blue tints or the manner in which it takes an actress like Lucy Lui; who deserves a lot better than this junk; and has her sit there in the one spot in the room the light cannot directly hit with the same dumb look on her face. Maybe it's the editing; that horrid rapid fire editing and the manner in which lines of dialogue echo as they're uttered by people like Kiera Knightly who, if you buy as a bounty hunter, then you'll probably be able to kid yourself into believing the world will end in 2012.<br /><br />Nobody comes away from Domino with any sort credibility, absolutely nobody at all. It is a painful and misguided experience, taking inspiration from things like Natural Born Killers and letting loose ideas to an audience not even there for them. The principal question is: 'Was Domino supposed to be some kind of comedy?' what with its hilariously bad lead uttering certain lines that desperately want us to think she's coming across as 'tough' but really, she resembles more an arrogant fifteen year old girl on her first day at public school, attempting to impress her peers. There are things you genuinely don't know how to react to, whether they're supposed to be funny or not. If it is supposed to be a comedy, that begs the next question: 'Is the life of a bounty hunter really the sort worth exploiting for laughs?' I don't think so.<br /><br />The film opens with the title card 'Based on a true story........sort of.' If that's supposed to be some sort of post-modernist technique that enables director Tony Scott to bend and manipulate the story of Domino Harvey for his own unique purpose, then you're simply on another planet. Truth is, in that one opening quote the film identifies the subject matter and the original text before completely copping out and saying 'sort of' which I guess is supposed to enable them to make Domino older than she should be and appear on Jerry Springer. Following this, we learn of Domino's relationship with her father who died in the film when when she was ten or something; here is the first use of the 'sort of' cop out as in real life she was just four. But if the film had gone by reality's dates then her entire drive would've been born out of the death of........her goldfish.<br /><br />We are then thrust into action with Ed Mosbey (Rourke); Domino (Knightley) herself and would-be love interest Choco (Ramírez). During the scene, an American mother is pinned down via gunfire in her own caravan in the back end of nowhere as she pleads for her son's life to be spared. What a really misguided opening; presenting its three leads as nasty people who break into trailers, fire off weapons at innocents we don't know anything of and come close to shooting their pet dogs.<br /><br />The immediate feeling is of hatred toward the three leads, a feeling of 'No, why are you doing this? Why is this happening?' Bad seeds are planted and, wouldn't you know it, they stick. The film is painful to watch, excruciating even; as these three mug their way through the piece complete with supporting performances from actors known for playing characters in Beverly Hills 90210. Here is another daft post-modernist slant, people playing themselves and that 'sort of' Joker card being played again. Christopher Walken even pops up in a really stupid role that reeks of Robert Downey Jr's Natural Born Killers character.<br /><br />So as the film plods on and Domino is cast into Ed and Choco's gang, purely for her good looks I might add, it appears amidst the plot to do with fake driver's registration I.Ds or something that Choco and Domino may have feelings for one another. The problem is, as each performer is doing such a bad job in their respective character; there is no chemistry and no feeling between the two; the film isn't a love story so why even bother going down that road in the first place? Does anyone care about these two characters amidst all the fast edits and stuff blowing up? If there is any 'feeling' between Choco and Domino, it exists on such a small, tiny, minimalist scale that you have to ask why it's even included.<br /><br />So then the film feels the need to crank things up narrative-wise. We find out the reason for the fake I.Ds that are linked to someone else and a guy talks on a cell phone in a sound proof bubble. The sound proof bubble I can believe but how does he get his phone under the water and into the bubble in the first place without it becoming flooded? He must've swam really quickly – double the speed of the film's fasted edit which means something in the region of .01 of a second. Yeah, sure. The film's story becomes both too complicated and just plain arbitrary before resorting to a really dumb climax in which more stuff blows up. Plus, there's a really distasteful scene to do with a wall chart full of new ethnicities and the film's comedy runs SO dry, that it has to resort to the "Jerry, Jerry!" chant whilst people are on a popular American talk show. When did we last laugh at "Jerry! Jerry!"? when we were, say, seven years old? I came away feeling sad and depressed at such a film's existence.
how can you take her hard-living, glamorously violent bounty hunter story serious with *that* accent? It's absurd. Apart from that, the visual style of the directer is nauseating and gimmicky, the plot is a shallow, boring, confused gangster-movie rehash and the acting is unconvincing. The film introduces new characters all the way throughout the film and is told in fragmented flashback - mostly out of sequence - seemingly just to keep you nice and confused. The film ever shows you THINGS THAT DON'T REALLY HAPPEN and then later says "that didn't really happen, this happened" - see the (apparent) killing of the (fake) 'first ladies'. What have we seen the first, wrong, sequence of events for then?<br /><br />Terrible choice in casting, a convoluted, messy plot and a headache-inducing directorial style. 1/5.
What do you get when you mix a lump of clichés with a directionless pacing and a group of characters who you don't care about and a failed attempt at creating an appealing visual style and an even bigger lump of clichés and a weak sense of humor and a really big budget? Why, you get one of the most intolerably unwatchable movies ever made! I'm referring, of course, to Domino.<br /><br />Here are some things that people might say during the viewing of this movie:<br /><br />"Ooh, wow, the storyline is told out of sequence, that hasn't been done a billion times before. And much more skillfully than in this movie."<br /><br />"Wow, look at all of the flashing lights and grainy film texture and elaborate transitions! The director is trying so hard to make things look arty and to establish a visual style! It's just too bad that none of these effects add anything to the movie or make sense with the scenes they're in, and it's also too bad that most of them come across as irritating!"<br /><br />"I've heard that exchange of dialogue in about twenty thousand movies before!"<br /><br />"I've seen this scene in about thirty thousand movies before!"<br /><br />"This one too!"<br /><br />"Uh, didn't they reveal this 'plot twist' about half an hour ago? Was that supposed to be surprising?"<br /><br />"If this movie is supposed to be showing a 'tough chick' going around kicking ass... when why doesn't she do very much of it?"<br /><br />"I can't believe how unoriginal this dialogue is."<br /><br />"How long is this thing? I feel like I've been watching it for over four hours already."<br /><br />"I have no idea what just happened, but also, I don't particularly feel motivated to try to figure it out."<br /><br />"Is this over yet?"<br /><br />"I want my money back."<br /><br />"The songs in this soundtrack feel so misused here."<br /><br />"It's ironic that all of the cursing they use actually detracts from the impact of each one."<br /><br />"UGH."<br /><br />And, finally: "I might have to end my friendship with the person who recommended this movie to me."<br /><br />In summation, this movie is a failure in nearly every aspect. Avoid watching it at all costs. If your house is on fire and this movie is playing in the only room that isn't flammable, you should seriously consider being burned alive instead.<br /><br />(If I sound bitter, it's because I just spent over two hours watching this movie and, uh, I didn't enjoy it very much.)
Now I had the best intentions when watching this one. I like some of Tony Scott's work, also a friend of mine told me it was a great movie, even though I heard otherwise from other people. But this was simply hopeless. <br /><br />In my humble opinion, Tony Scott was trying too hard. It was all just too much. Allow me to elaborate. <br /><br />Miss Knightley was overacting, and not in a good way. The people who did perform well, were Mickey Rourke, Edgar Ramirez, and Christopher Walken, but their screen time just wasn't able to save the movie. <br /><br />There were a few scenes that jumped out in their originality, yet somehow it felt like they were written by someone other than the main writer. A certain tune was used around 4 times, which really started to bug after the second time. I'm a firm believer of not using the same tune more than once. <br /><br />Also, the editing really went out on this one, as the cutting rate is rather high. Oh, and the repetitive echoing of some of Keira's lines simply sounded cheesy after hearing it for the second, third, fourth time, and so on. <br /><br />Basically, my opinion is that if you want to see an action-flick that is high-paced and "somewhat" funny, and you don't care about everything I mentioned above, you might like it. <br /><br />(On a side note: I'm not a Keira Knightley fan.)
I am, as many are, a fan of Tony Scott films. When this movie came out I had high hopes that it would be like 'Man On Fire'. To find out that the movie it's the furthest thing from it! The story was treading water from the get go, and the choice of Mickey Rourke was not such such a good idea. And the whole 'arm'scene was too gratuitous! <br /><br />The movie is centered around Kiera Kinghtly, and this movie reveals that she'll never become a movie star! The movie brought some of the worst acting ever.<br /><br />I like Tony Scott's direction 'n all, but this takes the whole friggin cake! Sorry Ton, 1 out of 10!
This is a bad movie. Not one of the funny bad ones either. This is a lousy bad one. It was actually painful to watch. The direction was awful,with lots of jumping around and the green and yellow hues used throughout the movie makes the characters look sickly. Keira Knightly was not convincing as a tough chick at all,and I cannot believe Lucy Liu and Mickey Rourke signed on for this criminal waste of celluloid. The script was terrible and the acting was like fingernails across a chalkboard. If you haven't seen it,don't. You are not missing anything and will only waste two hours of your life watching this drivel .I have seen bad movies before and even enjoyed them due to their faults. This one is just a waste of time.
I recently viewed Manufactured Landscapes at the Seattle International Film Festival. I was drawn to the movie as a photographer because I'm both familiar and a fan of Burtynsky's work. While I believe the movie does a good job getting it's message across, I couldn't help but feel that it was made as a complete afterthought to the photographs and subsequent popular book by Burtynsky. Obviously one reason for this is the extensive use of still photographs featuring zooms and pans across them. While this is a good effect when used economically, I felt like 75% of the movie was just stills from Burtynsky's book (which I already own). That's probably an exaggeration, but that's how I felt. If you own the book or are familiar with his work you might be better off skipping this one.
Beginning with its long opening shot of seemingly endless rows of assembly line workers in a Chinese factory, Manufactured Landscapes attempts to show the devastating impact of industrialization on the natural environment and traditional societies. Its droning narrative assumes that industrial development in China and elsewhere is entirely unprecedented, as if there had never been an industrial revolution in Europe and America and Karl Marx had never visited the British Museum. That there might be a connection between the present-day Asian drive for industrialization and wealth and earlier experiences of starvation and terror is never mentioned.<br /><br />At the same time, there's an effort to present Edward Burtynsky's photographs of industrial waste as somehow "beautiful". Much of the film is a slide show of these images. They are well produced, of museum size, and have apparently appeared in several exhibitions. To me, however, they only demonstrate that almost any photograph can be made to appear beautiful if well presented. Industrial waste is still industrial waste. The relationship, if any, between the photographs and the film's spoken message remains unclear.<br /><br />I don't mean to imply that there aren't real and sometimes desperate problems when countries rush to industrialize. Manufactured Landscapes, however, offers only strange and bitter hopelessness. It's like a two-hour lecture by Noam Chomsky. Maybe it has some value as a demonstration of what's wrong with the American (and Canadian) Left.
The movie opens up with a long single shot of aisles in factory crammed with workers. My, what we've done to the planet you might think. I hope we get to see other things like this.<br /><br />That's very rare. When you're not looking at a horribly filmed angle of the narrator at a lecture hall, you're watching him set up his camera to take pictures in different locations. It'd be nice if chose areas that were more fitting with his topic but he doesn't. So, then you'll hear some more narration, watch a few pictures go by and watch him set up his camera. Why not use the filming camera to show more of the landscapes instead? It really kills any sense of pacing and paints the guy as more of vain jerk.<br /><br />I could read tips on how someone set up their camera, fast forward through this whole movie and waste a lot less time.
I was very excited about seeing this film, anticipating a visual excursus on the relation of artistic beauty and nature, containing the kinds of wisdom the likes of "Rivers and Tides." However, that's not what I received. Instead, I get a fairly uninspired film about how human industry is bad for nature. Which is clearly a quite unorthodox claim.<br /><br />The photographer seems conflicted about the aesthetic qualities of his images and the supposed "ethical" duty he has to the workers occasionally peopling the images, along the periphery. And frankly, the images were not generally that impressive. And according to this "artist," scale is the basis for what makes something beautiful.<br /><br />In all respects, a stupid film. For people who'd like to feel better about their environmental consciousness ... but not for any one who would like to think about the complexities of the issues surrounding it.
holy Sh*t this was god awful. i sat in the theater for for an hour and ten minutes and i thought i was going to gouge out my eyes much in the manor Oedipus Rex. dear god. this movie deserves no more credit than anything done by a middle school film buff. please save your money, this movie can offer you nothing. unless you enjoy sideshows and sleeping in movie theaters. you know, h3ll, bring your girlfriend and make things interesting. you will be the only ones there anyway. F@ck this slide show. <br /><br />Ye Be Warned.<br /><br />I recommend not watching this.<br /><br />hello.<br /><br />how are you?<br /><br />I'm pretty good.<br /><br />enjoying this day?<br /><br />I am.<br /><br />this comment was one-hundred times more fun than pretending to watch this daym movie. this is sad.
That song keeps humming in my head. Not the greatest song, but it's the 80's. This movie is about a lead singer who "supposebly" gets killed while being accused of murders as he stalks his girlfriend who sings backup vocals in his band. The lead singer whos name is Billy "Eye" (yeah, right) is dead after two years and his band comes back for a concert only the backup vocalist is the lead singer this time. Billy stalks her and eventually goes around killing all these people and terrifying the girl and makeing people around her think theres something wrong with her and that shes imagining things. She finally decides to go to a cemetary and dig up his grave to see if he's still there. She sees that he's dead but still see's and hears his voice. During the end of the movie we find out the reason behind all of this, Billy has a brother named John (right again) and John admits that he was jealous of his brother and that he killed all those people to get back at him and place the blame on his brother and then take his girlfriend and terrorize her because she called him crazy. The ending is very cheezy and the acting is very lame and wooden. But.... I like it anyway. I watch it for the song. I wish I had it.
A group of people are invited to there high school reunion, but after they arrive they discover it to be a scam by an old classmate they played an almost fatal prank on. Now, he seeks to get revenge on all those that hurt him by sealing all the exits and cutting off all telephone lines.<br /><br />Dark slasher film with an unexceptional premise. Bringing it up a notch are a few good performances, some rather creative death scenes, plenty of excitement & scares, some humor and an original ending.<br /><br />Unrated for Extreme Violence, Graphic Nudity, Sexual Situations, Profanity and Drug Use.
Well, on the endless quest for horror, we will come across this film, apparently re-released on DVD recently for some ungodly reason. The transfer is awful and the quality just sucks. I don't think this is due to a bad remaster or anything, I just think the film is poorly done.<br /><br />Obviously filmed at an abandoned school with a budget that was no doubt wasted on cheap beer and no talent hacks, "Slaughter High" starts out slow and doesn't pick up pace until about an hour in. First, we get to see a 'nerd' as he is picked on by a group of...I actually don't even know what they were supposed to be...jocks? The ringleader, with his ultra hooknose is so ugly he should have definitely been cast as the nerd. Then, there is a 'big guy' and a couple of dumb losers and chicks who are supposed to be 'hot' but aren't. It's a mystery why this group of rejects is picking on one of their own, but I guess the viewer is to assume these are 'cool kids' picking on a dweeb. The casting choices are horrendous as most of the high schoolers are played by thirty-somethings. As other reviewers on here have pointed out, the actors (if you can call them that,) are a bunch of Brits whose accents slip out numerous times throughout this piece of crap. We are left to assume that this group of 'children' were the only students at this school, as their 'reunion' is only them at the school, which is now shown to be abandoned, is just them.<br /><br />The kills are lame, the gore is not great and the script is like Scooby Doo with real people; lines like: 'This place gives me the creeps...' and 'Someone gimme a beer' are highlights...It's just not good. Skip this one unless you are getting wasted with some friends and wanna laugh at a real lame attempt at a slasher. If you wanna see good, get Bava's "Bay Of Blood," done 14 years earlier and a heck of a lot better. If you wanna see a good BAD slasher, see "Just Before Dawn" or "The Burning." 2 out of 10, kids.
The movie opens with a flashback to Doddsville County High School on April Fool's Day. A group of students play a prank on class nerd Marty. When they are punished for playing said prank, they follow up with a bigger prank which (par for the course in slasher films involving pranks on class nerds) goes ridiculously awry leaving Marty simultaneously burned by fire and disfigured by acid for the sake of being thorough. Fast forward five years, where we find members of the student body gathering at the now abandoned high school for their five year class reunion. We find out that it is no coincidence that everyone at the reunion belonged to the clique of pranksters from the flashback scene, as all of the attendees are being stalked and killed by a mysterious, jester mask-clad murderer in increasingly complicated and mind-numbingly ludicrous fashions. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to solve the mystery of the killer's identity, as it is revealed to be none other than a scarred Marty who has seemingly been using his nerd rage and high intellect to bend the laws of physics and engineering in order to rig the school for his revenge scenario. The film takes a turn for the bizarre as Marty finishes exacting his revenge on his former tormentors, only to be haunted by their ghosts. Marty is finally pushed fully over the edge and takes his own life. Finally, the film explodes in a crescendo of disjointed weirdness as the whole revenge scenario is revealed to be a dream in the first place as Marty wakes up in a hospital bed, breaks free of his restraints, stabs a nurse, and finally disfigures his own face.<br /><br />The script is tired and suffers from a terminal case of horror movie logic. The only originality comes from the mind-numbingly convoluted ways that the victims are dispatched. The absurd it-was-all-a-dream ending feels tacked on. It's almost as if someone pointed out the disjointed nature of the film and the writer decided then and there that it was a dream.<br /><br />Technically speaking, the film is atrocious. Some scenes were filmed so dark that I had to pause the film and play with the color on my television. The acting is sub-par, even for slasher films. I can't help but think that casting was a part of the problem as all of the actors look at least five years older than the characters they portray, which makes the flashback scene even more unintentionally laughable. Their lack of commitment to the movie is made obvious as half of them can't bother to keep their accents straight through the movie.<br /><br />All of this being said, if you like bad horror movies, you might like this one, too. It isn't the worst film of the genre, but it's far from the best.
Slaughter High is intrinsically your emblematic 80s slasher flick. A prank goes out of hand leaving a geeky guy horribly burnt. A few years later the geeky guy returns and starts killing the people who hurt him. Now the story might sound intriguing and very entertaining, but what makes this horrible film so different from the rest of the 80s slasher flicks is that it has some humorless flaws and continuation errors.<br /><br />The acting is horrendous, however, actually not as bad as one would suspect. Though it doesn't help that every character in the film are so grody and unlikable. The lead, Carol Manning (Caroline Munro) is the easily the biggest tormentor of them all and she's the one that we are ostensibly supposed to share compassion and root for. Not to mention, the geeky guy is almost too geeky and I think that even stereotypical geeks themselves would be rudely maddened and just downright antagonized by how geeky he his, so when he gets mauled, does anyone really care? <br /><br />There is much unintentional laughter potential. Munro's lack of acting talent is quite apparent, which puts her down at the same level as the rest of the awful cast. However, the most amusement is easily when the film poorly attempts to pose Munro, who is in her mid 30s at the time, as a teenager amongst a cast of teenagers. And then when it comes to later life and Munro is playing around her real age, the rest of the cast do not pass as adults. This all goes well with a theme song that is a hilariously pose of heavy metal thrash accompanied by maniacal laughter and a voice shrieking "I'll get you." With that being said, Slaughter High really isn't a very good slasher flick, but it does have a bad cheesy entertainment value to it. Perhaps an essential for hardcore slasher fans, but don't expect dilemma, suspense, or any credibility from it. Horrible!!!
What a terrible movie. The acting was bad, the pacing was bad, the cinematography was bad, the directing was bad, the "special" effects were bad. You expect a certain degree of badness in a slasher, but even the killings were bad.<br /><br />First of all, the past event that set up the motive for the slaughter went on for 15 or 20 minutes. I thought it would never end. They could have removed 80% of it and explained what happened well enough.<br /><br />Then, the victims were invited to the "reunion" in an abandoned school which still had all the utilities turned on. One of the victims thought this was a little odd, but they dismissed it and decided to break in anyway.<br /><br />Finally, the killings were so fake as to be virtually unwatchable.<br /><br />There is no reason to watch this movie, unless you want to see some breasts, and not very good breasts at that. This movie makes Showgirls virtually indistinguishable from Citizen Kane.
We all know that countless duds have graced the 80s slasher genre and often deserve nothing but our deepest disgust. Maybe that's a bit hastey but damn if "Slaughter High" wasn't terribly unoriginal, even for a slasher flick. Pretty much, the plot involves a kid who experienced a Carrie-like shower humiliation in high school and returns to the dilapidated building to seek out revenge on a group of former-bullies who all show up to reminisce. As you'd expect, they are killed off steadily by a masked madman on April 1st by means of electrocution, burning, hanging, and chemically altered beer. I've got a number of problems with the plot details and settings of this movie, but considering the ending, I feel the need to discard my complaints and just say that this is a complete waste of time. Ignore any thought of viewing this movie...
...but i expected better from Caroline Munro. She's done some good films, and i was hoping this would be just as good. as a matter of fact, she and this other blonde girl character (the girl who got electrocuted i think) were the only two out of the 8-11 actors who could act. this film has the worst acting i've ever seen. almost as bad as 'Psycho' (1998). the really dumb part was when the woman was in the shower and marty rigged it to pour battery acid in there. she starts screaming, and her scream is probably the most annoying sound in the whole world. she attempts to get out, but "accidentally" falls back in. i will admit, the violence and story is good, along with harry manfredini's music, but the acting could've been a LOT better. there were two other characters, frank and joe. i don't know about you, but they bare a strange resemblance to dan akyroyd. also, when they find that woman's fried corpse in the bathtub, you would think they'd be screaming and barfing. No. Caroline Munro and the blonde woman are the only ones who react. Frank and Joe barely show any signs of fear or disgust. i don't know about you, but i know that if i saw a fried skeleton of one of my best friends, i'd puke. also, when joe starts saying stuff like "what happened to marty was an accident, it wasn't our fault." he says it like his nervous or scared but barely shows any facial expressions. then the blonde girl starts crying and says "i'm scared frank!". and she grabs joe. i guess the actress really didn't know which guy was which. the film's ending is the most confusing thing i ever saw. more confusing than the climax of "jaws: the revenge". all the eight friends end up dead, marty kills them all, but then, you see something that looks like him being chased by their rotted corpses, and then it just cuts to marty still in the hospital from the accident, and then when the film ends, marty dresses up as a nurse trying to sedate him, but then we see that marty has gotten into her clothes or somethin like that kills a doctor, and the film ends with marty peeling skin off his face. which leads me to this next question. WHAT WAS THE WRITER ON WHEN HE CAME UP WITH THAT?!?!?!?! did he actually expect people to understand just what the hell happened?? the ending left me so confused. were the characters still alive? is marty still holding a grudge? did the events we just see not happen yet or not at all? i don't know. overall, this movie was pretty dumb. the acting sucked, the music was okay, the story was pretty decent (except for the ending). basically, this is just one of your average 80s teen slasher flicks. see it only for harry manfredini and caroline munro. 2/10<br /><br />P.S. - Simon Scuddamore (Marty) committed suicide shortly after the film's release from intentional drug abuse. i guess he was the only person who knew this film was what it really was. A PILE OF SH**
Slaughter High the tale of revenge by a nerdy guy who fell victim to one of the coolest and coldest jokes in cinema history. Unfortunately after the promising opening the flick went straight to hell. A very tedious and redundant mess with mediocre slashings and a final half hour that sucked on a whole new level of suckiness. The guy who played the nerd actually killed himself shortly after the flick was released. If you wanna rent the flick stop it after the prank and remember, choose life.
The school nerd Marty (Simon Scuddamore) is sexually humiliated by a bunch of classmates and then is in a lab explosion (set by them also) where his face is scarred by acid. Years later all the jerks get invited back to the high school (since closed) for a reunion. What they didn't know is that Marty is inviting them back to kill them. Then a storm starts, they're locked in the school and Marty starts to take revenge.<br /><br />Pretty silly. The murders are inventive and gory and there are some creepy atmospheric shots of the deserted school--but that's about it. The humiliations inflicted on Scuddamore are more than cruel (he's stripped, has his head dunked in a toilet AND gets burnt) and are just uncomfortable to watch. Considering Scuddamore committed suicide shortly after this was released make them almost impossible to view. Also this movie goes out of its way to have nudity. There is full frontal of Scuddamore (surprising for any movie) but one girl decides to take a bath alone...AFTER they know a killer is wandering around after them! And then there's the couple that has to have sex. This is the type of film where the killer seems to know where everybody is going to be and can teleport himself to them. It ends with a twist which had me groaning and rolling my eyes then ANOTHER twist which had me wanting to throw something heavy at the TV! The acting is bearable--not good, but bearable. Caroline Munro is in this too. She's a very beautiful woman but not much of an actress.<br /><br />This gets a 3 for some effectively gory murders and atmosphere. Otherwise it's run of the mill and forgettable. Scuddamore's tragic suicide has given this film more attention than it deserves.
Another FRIDAY THE 13TH ripoff, even featuring some of its music! A group of young adults get together for a small high school reunion and start getting slaughtered a la Jason Voorhees. Could it be that nerd they used to torment in school?<br /><br />Routine slash-fest is fun for fans of the genre, and contains the usual T&A quota for films if its ilk. The ending is a bit more imaginative than your standard slasher.<br /><br />MPAA: Rated for violence/gore, language, sexuality, nudity, and some drug content.
For die-hard Judy Garland fans only. There are two (2) numbers that are really good -- one where she does a number with an older cleaning lady (you've all seen the pics), and a pretty good number at the very end. There are a couple of scenes where the lines are funny. But, basically, the script is so bad and the movie so dated that it's hard not to cringe at the awfulness throughout. But it's worth the 2.50 to rent the movie -- just be prepared to fast-forward it.
This was filmed back-to-back with the 1992 re-make of Conan Doyle's famous novel 'The Lost World'. And it shows.<br /><br />The film starts promisingly enough, with a ruthless organization intending to exploit the lost world and Challenger et al returning to defend the prehistoric plateau, but then things go downhill. Everybody is stranded on the plateau and we're left with a feeble, boring, over-length rehash of the first film.<br /><br />The dinosaurs (who are hardly ever seen) are just laughable. Are we expected to take that cuddly toy that's supposed to be an ankylosaur seriously? And the tyrannosaur seems rooted to the spot.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and get hold of the 1925 silent version of the Lost World. Unbelievably in this age of CGI and other advanced effects, the twenties version is the best and will remain so until somebody finally decides to do a decent re-make.
Born Again is a sub-standard episode from season one. It deals with the subject of reincarnation and just doesn't fly. I've never been big on reincarnation and that could be part of my apathy toward this episode. It does reference the Tooms case which is some nice continuation from the previous episode. But the positives end there. Which is unfortunate because that takes place at the beginning of the episode. I think it's ludicrous that a dead guy would chose to reincarnate in the body of a completely unrelated girl. And he waits until the girl turns eight to start exacting revenge. There's even a serious lack of witty Mulder & Scully dialogue to keep the episode afloat. If you're into reincarnation, maybe this episode is up your alley. If you're not, then at least you can learn what bradycardia is.
Only on a very rare occasion does an episode of the x-files fail to generate any excitement or does the episode contain anything which is just totally boring to watch.A detective and his former partner both die in unexplained circumstances.The deaths are linked to the presence of a little girl who was there when the deaths took place.Mulder has devised a theory that a policeman murdered by his colleagues has come back reincarnated as the little girl and is exacting revenge.Now for the bizarre bit.The little girl has no connection at all and seems to just a random person chosen as the reincarnation.I think this was slightly lazy writing by the writers and this episode ranks as one of the worst in x-files history!
I've now seen this film twice, and I must say I enjoyed it both times. It's fast paced and fun, but ultimately daft. Having said that it deserves to be trashed because of screwing up what could have been a good follow up to the seminal original. It is clear for those who have seen the awful 'Zombie Creeping Flesh' that the films massive shortcomings can be owed to Bruno Mattei, and that the little that is commendable about it can be owed to Fulci. This is not idle Fulci sycophancy, the directors styles are starkly contrasted throughout, and you can tell who directed what, particularly in Mattei's case.<br /><br />The film is centered around the outbreak of a virus (oddly referred to as 'top secret' by a scientist, it's secrecy apparently being more noteworthy than its potentially apocalyptic effect on mankind) somewhere in south east Asia. The virus causes zombie like behaviour in those affected, and the virus quickly spreads across a seemingly arbitrary area of land. Our protagonists unwittingly wander into the danger zone, and have to fight for their lives against hordes of infected Asians.<br /><br />The film seems to be stuck half way between being a zombie gore flick, and an out and out action adventure, and this confusion is captured most clearly by the zombies themselves. They do not appear to have a set of characteristics common to all. Some are of the regular soulless shuffling variety, so well rendered in the original, and probably Fulci's creation here. The other main group consist of those who in being infected with the virus lost all sense of themselves, but incurred a savage aggression and a desire to earn a black belt in ninjitsu: Indecisively leaping around unsure of whether to continue honing their upper roundhouse technique or engage with their brethren in what looks like a mass tickle fest on their hapless victims. Martial arts skills aren't their only talents either, they are well versed in guerilla tactics, hiding on rafters and under bales of hay, and sometimes inexplicably falling from nowhere but the heavens themselves. This is all definitely the work of Mattei.<br /><br />There is a third, more chatty, variety of zombie. This type apparently retain a sense of irony as well 'I'm really thirsty...FOR YOUR BLOOD'. The ridiculous twist at the end in which the DJ turns zombie but continues to preach ad libbed gibberish about the fate of mankind, only serves to enhance the WTF factor and obliterate any hope of a serious resolution.<br /><br />Then there's the infamous zombie head which slowly propels itself through the air, a jokerish skeletal grin wrought across its face, as if to say 'yeah we know how bad this looks'.<br /><br />The characters are all utterly one dimensional as you would expect. But its the pseudo comical dialogue and dubbing that really prevents us from taking their plight seriously. Having said that the first soldier to die does put up an impressively valiant display against an unstoppable zombie menace. Indeed this is the first and perhaps only time we hit real zombie agro, and one of the only effective scenes in the film.<br /><br />The guy who played the chief scientist has heart, but no talent, utilising pauses in his lines entirely at random, so he ends up sounding like a confused asthmatic. The scientists' on screen attempts at finding an antidote are totally unconvincing 'now lets put these two molecules together!' <br /><br />There are a few moments that stick out as genuinely effective however. In an early scene a female protagonist explores an abandoned garage. Upon entering a room we are confronted with a hazy view of a shifting figure in the corner and a squirming mass on the floor, all shot in an atmospheric diffused light. The silence is interrupted by the appearance of a speedy machete wielding zombie who trashes everything in his wake in his alarming desperation to have her. His sheer aggressiveness is one of the few moments of real horror in the film. The before and after theme conveyed through the hotel that plays host to the happenings of the earliest stage of the outbreak, and later as a refuge to our protagonists is imbued with an thick humid ambiance. There is a scene in which one of the soldiers cautiously approaches a boarded up room that clearly houses hordes of the undead, and this is quite tense. Things become more dramatic when they board themselves in the hotel unknowing to what lurks upstairs. But this is sloppily handled and not nearly as effective as it could have been.<br /><br />All in all I would say this film may just about deserve to be called a royal screw up of a potentially effective tropical zombie fest, rather than simply a through and through bad film. If nothing else it has plenty of the unintentional laughs that I've come to expect from just about anything Italian and gory from the eighties.
I thought that Zombie Flesh Eaters 2 was quite a good horror film When a terrorist's body, infected with a stolen chemical, is recovered by the US military, the corpse is then cremated, releasing the virus into the atmosphere over a small island. Soon the infected locals turn into flesh-hungry zombies, and a group of soldiers on leave must team up with a group of tourists and board themselves up in a abandoned hotel as they try to fight off the aggressive living dead. I did not find this film to be as good as the original film, Zombie Flesh Eaters. But it was still an OK horror film with some good action. I did not think that it was one of the best in the series. 4/10
Next to the slasher films of the 1970s and 80s, ones about the walking dead were probably the second most popular horror sub-genre. While slasher films had 'Black Christmas' and 'Halloween' to get the whole thing going, zombie flicks had George Romero's 'Dead' films. And unsurprisingly soon after the success of his first two in the series, other directors wanted to cash in. A lot of Italian directors were especially interested, such as Lucio Fulci who brought us 'Zombie' a year after Romero's 'Dawn of the Dead', known as 'Zombi' in Italy and some other countries, and it was there that Fulci's film was known as 'Zombi 2'. Apart from the walking dead it has no relation to Romero's film, but is a good film in it's own right. It was a big success in Europe and 9 years later a sequel was born.<br /><br />Pros: Lots of beautiful, lush scenery. Awesome score. The acting isn't exactly good, but the cast is game and seem to be enjoying the experience. After kind of a slow start, the pace moves along like that of an action flick. Plenty cheese and unintentional hilarity for bad film lovers. Good job on the make-up effects. Lots of blood and some decent gore.<br /><br />Cons: Virtually plot less. Nothing you haven't already seen before. Blatantly rips off some things from the first couple of 'Return of the Living Dead' films. Cardboard characters. Hasn't aged too well due to the bad 1980s rock music(Not that I'm saying all rock music of that period is bad), clothing, and overall feel of the movie.<br /><br />Final thoughts: First of all, this is not a true sequel to Fulci's cult classic. In fact, I don't know if it was ever meant to pick up where that film left off. For those that don't know, Fulci was ill during production and ended up leaving and was replaced with Bruno Mattei. Mattei's films are pretty laughable, but like this film many are good campy fun. And that's all this film really is, just something to watch for fun.<br /><br />My rating: 3.5/5 (So-bad-it's-good rating) 2/5 (Serious rating)
I am an avid fan of Lucio Fulci, and yet I must say that "Zombi 3" (aka. "Zombie Flesh Eaters 2") of 1988, which he made with two other directors, Bruno Mattei and Claudi Fragasso, was quite a disappointment. Especially compared to its great predecessor, Fulci's very own Gore classic "Zombi 2" (aka. "Zombie Felsh Eaters"/"Zombie") of 1979, this is vastly disappointing. Sure, the low rating of 4.5 already suggests that it's not a good film, but, these low ratings usually come from people who are not into Italian Zombie flicks, and as enthusiastic fan of Italian Horror films and low-budget Exploitation cinema, I love many films that have only been rewarded with much lower ratings. Also, many of my fellow Italian Horror buffs seem to think of this film as underrated, which I sadly cannot agree with. Not that the film was a complete disaster. It has some redeeming qualities, above all Fulci's nauseating gore effects, that are always a pleasure to watch for an Italian Horror/Gore buff. The basic idea behind the film is also not bad (allthough far from original) and I liked the ruthless portrayal of the military. Sadly, that's about it. While the great predecessor "Zombi 2" was extremely gory, but beyond that also genuinely creepy, this is not creepy or scary for a minute, and the nauseating and often grotesque gore is the only true reason to watch "Zombi 3". The film is sometimes fun to watch, but only for the gore, and as an unintentional comedy. I guess that it was mainly the gore that came from Fulci, and the disappointing rest that came from Mattei and Fragasso, the first of which was involved in a bunch of nasty cult-flicks (such as D'Amato's "Porno Holocaust"), and the second of which is responsible for one of the worst movies ever made, the god-awful "Troll 2". Overall, this is definitely watchable for the gore, but, out of all Fulci films I've seen so far, this is definitely the worst, and I've seen the majority of this great filmmaker's repertoire. I am a Fulci fan, and I always will be, but this sure isn't his magic moment. It may be fun for the gore, but I recommend to watch any other Fulci film before this!
Ohhh man! Now this is what I'm talking about! As far as bad/cheesy horror flicks go this movie was truly in a class of its own. A real gem!<br /><br />First off, the film wasn't originally in English. That's okay because the voice dubbing was truly exceptional! Here is my favorite excerpt from the dialog (and there is plenty more where this came from)… "I'm feeling a little better. I'm just thirsty… FOR YOUR BLOOD!"<br /><br />And what drama! Here is a play by play recap of the interaction between the military and scientists…<br /><br />Scene 1… Scientist: "You can't do that… It'll be a disaster!" -- Military Officer: "That's just science fiction" (he then proceeds to cause a complete disaster just like the scientist predicted).<br /><br />Scene 2… Scientist: "If you do that many people will die!!!" -- Military Officer: "you don't know what you're talking about." (he does it and many people die).<br /><br />Scene 3… Scientist: "Don't do that… It'll kill everyone!" -- Military Officer: "That's nonsense" (he then proceeds to kill everyone)<br /><br />Scene 4, 5, 6, 7… (you get the idea).<br /><br />If that wasn't enough… there were a few scenes that really stood out as instant classics! In one scene, the military has literally 10 guys pointing guns at two unarmed men. The leader yells, "Go get 'em!" and all 10 army guys, one at a time, drop their guns and fist fight the two adversaries! Instant classic!<br /><br />And don't worry. No attention to detail was left out! This movie even had a hip/upbeat '80's keyboard/synth soundtrack to set the mood!<br /><br />And trust me… I realize this review might contain some spoilers, but there are so many goodies in this epic I really only scratched the surface. A movie of this caliber only comes out once a decade! A true movie watching experience! A masterpiece! Wow!
Although the likeliness of someone focusing on THIS comment among the other 80+ for this movie is low, I feel that I have to say something about this one. I am not the kind of movie-watcher who pays attention to production value, thought-provoking dialog, or brilliant acting & directing. However, I claim that this movie sucks. I don't know why I don't like it... I mean it has almost everything i want out of a horror movie: blood, outrageousness, unintentional humor, etc. According to this evidence it should be my favorite. Still, Zombi 3 is a baaad movie.<br /><br />There are just too many things that compels you to yell at the screen. Like when the girl leaves the army guy when their car breaks down to find water (this spoils nothing so don't worry). She walks into what I see as an abandoned hotel or something. Did she not see that there was a friggin' lake in the middle of the building??? Yes she's looking for water and passes up a lake. Why? Cuz she wants to know why the people (who aren't there cuz the place is abandoned) won't answer her when she calls out: "Is anybody there?" Oh this is just a little, insignificant piece of the big picture I'm painting.<br /><br />There is a reason, though, why I gave this film more than 1 star. It's one of those movies where if you forget how bad it really is, like I have a few times, you'll want to watch it again because it's just so over-the-top in every aspect. I called it blood in the first paragraph, but this movie has no blood, it has an ocean of gore. Also, it has pretty weird creatures in it as well: a zombie-baby (with an adult-size hand???) and a magically flying head to name just two.<br /><br />You know when you try to think of the worst and cheesiest movies ever made and you come up with '50's sci-fi movies? I believe that Zombi 3 and movies like it should top those. It has all the elements: scientists arguing with the government, warnings of the apocalypse on the radio, armies battling monsters, and so on. This IS the Plan 9 of the '80's! While I won't say that this is a waste of money if you want to buy it, just expect the very worst. And when you find out that expecting the worst is underestimating Zombi 3, it won't be all that bad. You might actually like it, I'm not saying that's impossible.<br /><br />Don't think I hate this movie, I don't... really. Oh, P.S. Killing Birds (aka Zombie 5) rules! (did I just blow my credibility?)
First off I really enjoyed Zombi 2 by Lucio Fulci. This film was utter trash. I couldn't stand to watch it. The storyline was a joke, the acting was a joke, and the fact that Zombi 3 has nothing to do with Zombi 2 is even more a joke.<br /><br />We jump from Voodoo to DEATH 1 THE HARMFUL AGENT BRINING People BACK TO LIFE. Whatever, this movie isn't worth the $1.00 it cost to rent it. I really enjoyed lucio fulci movies but this one was horrible. If Zombi 3 is an indicator for how zombi 4 and 5 are going to be I think I will just skip them.<br /><br />Zombi 2 is an awesome flique tho.
The dubbing/translation in this movie is downright hilarious and provides the only entertainment in this otherwise dull and derivative zombie flick. I haven't laughed so hard in my life as I just did watching Zombi 3 (and I've seen some really bad dubbing in my life, believe me). Seriously, the filmmakers could re-edit this movie and release it as a comedy and make millions of dollars. It's just that funny.<br /><br />But... If falling off your couch laughing at the dubbing in a Fulci zombie movie isn't your cup of tea, then AVOID THIS AT ALL COSTS.
Where do I begin? I wanted to enjoy this movie, and I did. Still, I wanted to be able to enjoy it for being another zombie film that was worth my loot, and it wasnt. This was a different kind of enjoyment. This was unhealthy, a perverse glee that I partook in watching one of the most ridiculous films Id seen yet. And I dont much care for whatever Fulci's excuses were, there was no excuse for this film going how it went. This was a bad film all the way around, yet I still cant give it below a 4 out of ten, which is what I gave it, because well...at least I was able to laugh at this misfit of a movie.<br /><br />I had to imagine these zombies, that were all over the ceilings of these buildings everywhere...had to imagine that they were either bored as hell so they crawled up on the beems, and perched themselves high on stone erections, or they saw the fleshy living motley band of jerk-offs coming around, so they took it upon themselves to stage numerous aerial ambushes. Hell, what else is there to do when youre dead?<br /><br />I had to laugh at some zombies performing what looked to be martial arts swings, kicks, and jumps, and some shambling about like traditional meatlovers. I feasted my eyes on a floating head that was never explained. I watched in pure horrific delight as the land they were in, the Phillipenes, was absolutely engulfed in fog, heavy doses of fog, and that the ponds were as they were boiling castle moats. I had to even cringe when I saw that the design for a cure for this plague was sketched on a chalkboard as an octagon with lines stretching from each angle, with "Dead One" written in the middle. I had to ask myself...if the science of curing zombies is that easy, then I wonder if I could come up with a little something to start a zombie outbreak here!<br /><br />All in all the effects were overboard, the dubbing horrid, Im sure the original acting as poor, the story absurd, the zombies inconsistent, even in a bad way they couldve all been similar, and the women ugly, but I found myself enjoying this thing. It was a fun watch. It turned out to be a very very bad film, and I would not recommend this thing unless one is into bad directorial exploitation films, but still, again I say...it was worth a good laugh. I crave zombie films no matter what, but when this had Fulci's name attached to it, it shouldve been much better. Let me dare say, Zombie Holocaust was better.
When i finally had the opportunity to watch Zombie 3(Zombie Flesheaters 2 in Europe)on an import Region 2 Japanese dvd,i was blown away by just how entertaining this zombie epic is.The transfer is just about immaculate,as good as it's ever going to look unless Anchor Bay gets a hold of it.The gore truly stands out like it should and you can really appreciate the excellent makeup and gore fx.The sound is also terrific.It's only 2 channel dolby but if you have a receiver with Dolby Prologic 2,you can really appreciate the cheesy music(actually a very good score),and the effective although cheap sound effects.It never sounded so good,and the excellent transfer adds to the overall enjoyment.<br /><br />I never realized just how much blood flows in this film,it's extremely brutal with exploding head shots,exploding puss filled mega pimples,a cleaver to a zombies throat,a woman's burned off extremities(how come it did'nt burn the guy also),intestinal munching,zombie babies and so much more i lost track.<br /><br />This is no doubt for hardcore Zombie action fans,especially of the Italian kind.There is some excellent set pieces and cinematography to be found,i think people don't give it enough credit,if you see a clean print,and not some horrendous pirate copy,it's a whole other experience entirely.<br /><br />This film never lets up for a second,and i realize it's inconsistent plotwise,the dubbing is horrible,the acting is stiff,and it's sense of irreverence is celebrated in grand fashion,but that's part of it's charm.<br /><br />To me this is one of the best horror films ever made,you can't make a film this bad,so good,on purpose.It's accidental genius of the highest order.If they played it for laughs it would have been a disaster,but they played it straight as an arrow and the result is a terrific cult classic that thumbs it's nose at any and all traditional moviemaking standards.<br /><br />Tons of action sequences,exotic locales,excellent set design,good,sometimes great cinematography,wonderfully cheesy acting,and inconsistent but still interesting plot,great makeup effects,beautiful women who can kick butt,excellent music,and sometimes hilarious,sometimes creepy,but always entertaining zombies.How can you go wrong with this film,it has it all,a cult classic that stands the test of time.
I admit that the majority of this film was uninspired,but i was still entertained. It has a wonderful sense of frenetic energy,above average music,and the women in the film fiercely defend themselves,there's no prissies here. I can think of dozens of other films that were way worse,at least this one had an intriguing plotline along with some social commentary.They allude to how the military deals with viral epidemics,destroy everything in sight,even if it means the people you're supposed to be saving.Also, how dangerous martial law can be since at that point democracy ceases to exist. Fulci seemed to attempt to combine his earlier work(zombie,beyond,gates of hell)in an effort to somehow improve on them.He failed,but definitely not miserably,like a number of people would have you think.I have a soft spot for zombie films, so i admit that i'm somewhat biased when it comes to reviewing them.All i'm saying is that this movie is good for one time around,if there wasn't so much descension in the making of this film(fulci quit and bruno(i can hack with the best of them)mattei took over)it could have been much better and more focused.It's going to stay in my collection as fulci's zombie swan song.One surprising note, is that there is a scene in zombie 3 that cemetery man actually ripped off,i couldn't believe it myself,check it out you'll be surprised.
Zombi 3 starts as a group of heavily armed men steal a experimental chemical developed to reanimate the dead, while trying to escape the man is shot at & the metal container holding the chemical is breached. The man gets some of the green chemical on a wound on his hand which soon after turns him into a flesh eating cannibalistic zombie. Within hours the surrounding area is crawling with the flesh easting undead on the look out for fresh victims, Kenny (Deran Sarafian) & his army buddies find themselves in big trouble as they stop to help Patricia (Beatrice Ring) & her friend Lia (Deborah Bergammi) who has been pecked by zombie birds (!). General Morton is in charge of the situation & has to stop the zombie plague from spread throughout the whole world! But will he & his men succeed?<br /><br />This Italian produced film was to be directed by Italian zombie gore film auteur Lucio Fulci but the story goes he suffered a stroke & therefore couldn't finish the film so producer Franco Gaudenzi asked second unit director Bruno Mattei & writer Claudio Fragasso to step in & complete the film. Apparently Mattei & Fragasso did more than just finish it they actually disregarded a lot of the footage Fulci shot & added a lot of their own & Zombi 3 ended up as nearly a straight 50/50 split. The script by Fragasso is an absolute mess, none of it is well thought out & is just as stupid as it gets. The scenes of zombie birds attacking people are not only technically inept but the whole idea is just absurd. The zombies themselves have no consistency whatsoever, look at the scene where Patricia is on the bridge & the zombies are slow as they shuffle along but then look at the scene earlier on where she was attacked by the zombie with the machete because that one runs around like it's on steroids, then for no reasonable explanation about 10 minutes before the film finishes the zombies suddenly develop the ability to speak which also looks daft. There are so many things wrong with Zombi 3, scene after scene of terribly thought out & ineptly directed action, awful character's & really dull broken English dialogue which doesn't make sense half the time. Then there's the embarrassing scene where the zombie head inside the fridge suddenly develops the ability to fly through the air & bite someones neck, the scene when the guy's in white contamination suits at the end are about to kill Kenny & Roger but instead of using their automatic rifles they decide to try & kill them by hand, even when Kenny picks up a gun himself they still refuse to use their rifles & when Kenny starts to shoot them all they still refuse to use their rifles & it's one of the most ineptly handled scenes ever put to film & then there's the end where Kenny takes off in the helicopter but can't rest it down on the ground for literally a few seconds to pick his buddy up & then a load of zombies suddenly spring up from under some piles of grass, what? Since when did zombies hide themselves yet alone under piles of grass? This all may sound 'fun' but believe me it's not, it's a really bad film that is just boring, repetitive & simply doesn't work on any level as a piece of entertainment except for a few unintentional laughs.<br /><br />It's hard to know who was responsible for what exactly but none of the footage is particularly well shot. It has a bland lifeless feel about it & for some reason the makers have tried to bath every scene in mist, the problem is they clearly only had one fog machine & you can see that at one corner of the screen the mist is noticeably thicker as it is coming straight out of the machine & thinning out as it disperses across the scene. Since a lot of it is set during the day it doesn't add any sort of atmosphere whatsoever & when they do get it right & the mist is evenly spread across the screen it just looks like they shot the scene on a foggy day! The direction is poor with no consistency & it just looks & feels bottom of the barrel stuff. Even the blood & gore isn't up to much, there's a gory hand severing at the start, a scene when something rips out of a pregnant woman's stomach, a legless woman (what actually took her legs off in the pool by the way & why didn't it take the legs off the guy who jumped in to save her?) & a few OK looking zombies is as gory as it gets. For anyone hoping to see a gore fest the likes of which Fulci regularly served up during the late 70's & early 80's will be very disappointed, there aren't any decent feeding scenes, no intestines, no stand out 'head shots' & very little gore at all.<br /><br />Technically the film is poor, the special effects are cheap looking, the cinematography is dull, the music is terrible, the locations are bland & it has rock bottom production values. This was actually shot in the Philippines to keep the cost down to a minimum. The entire film is obviously dubbed, the acting still looks awful though & the English version seems to have been written by someone who doesn't understand the language that well.<br /><br />Zombi 3 is not a sequel to Fulci's classic zombie gore fest Zombi 2 (1979), it has nothing to do with it at all apart from the cash-in title. I'm sorry but Zombi 3 is an amateurish mess of a film, it's boring, it makes no sense, it's not funny enough to be entertaining & it lacks any decent gore. One to avoid.
Zombie Review #3<br /><br />**Spoilers**<br /><br />Few films are actually "so bad they're good", and Zombi 3 is not just bad, it's wretchedly, unforgivably bad in so many ways that a whole new language may be needed just to describe them all<br /><br />More than that, it's a film credited to Lucio Fulci that even by his standards has absolutely no coherency, sense or reason. However we can't blame Fulci as it wasn't really directed by him but by Bruno Mattei, who doesn't even have Fulci's sense of style to help carry the film. Mattei seems to have brought little to the film but staggering ineptitude.<br /><br />So, I'm ashamed to say how much I enjoyed every worthless minute of Zombi 3. It has no redeeming features - in a genre known for thin characters, weak story, and lack of film making skill, Zombi 3 pushes the boat out but in doing so it's even funnier than Nightmare City.<br /><br />The "action" starts when the "Death 1" gas is stolen from a military base, and damaged in the escape. Who is the thief, why did he steal it, and why did the US military think that creating cannibalistic legions of the living dead would be a good idea? All these questions and more will fail to be answered in Zombi 3....<br /><br />After hiding out at a hotel, the infected thief goes mad from all the green plastecine growing on his face before being tracked down by the army who somewhat foolishly decide the best way to dispose of his corpse will be to burn it, sending "Death 1" up into the atmosphere resulting in... zombie birds! Who then attack people and turn them into zombie people!!! (if zombies are cannibals, why don't the zombie birds just attack other birds?)<br /><br />Then we meet our "heroes", a trio of horny GIs and a coachload of girls. There's a couple of other guys with them too, but they're not important - NO ONE is important here. You'll be hard pressed to remember anyone's face, let alone their name or find a reason to care about them. They end up hiding out at the same hotel as the thief ("a week ago this place was buzzing with life, now it's buzzing with flies!") but there's no escape from the undead.<br /><br />By this point you'll either be completely sucked in or you'll have turned the damned thing off. The script is so appalling even the greatest acting in the world couldn't save it, so it's just as well they have some of the worst - and not just the human characters, the zombie acting here is an all time low. There's no consistancy in how the zombies behave - some shamble about in the time honored style, others engage in full on fist fights or charge around with machettes, not to mention the zombies who are still able to talk (a gimmick that gives the film it's HORRIFYING TWIST ENDING). They die from gunshots to the chest (rather than the head) and even get knocked out by a good left-hook. How can you punch out a zombie???!!!!! In fact the emphasis on badly done 80s action often makes it resemble an episode of V...<br /><br />The zombies also spend a lot of time hiding, seemingly waiting for hours in ridiculous places on the chance some poor sap will pass by and get the fright of their life. They hide in bushes, in garages, in huts, on roofs, in the water, and even underneath pregnant women. At one point a zombie follows a woman up the stairs. To kill and eat her? No! To push her into the water, those zombies and their wacky sense of humour!<br /><br />There is plenty of gore though. Limbs are hacked, wounds ooze green pus, and there's much in the way of flesh eating and people getting their faces mushed in. There's nothing to match the originals eyeball piercing, but if bad make up effects are your bag you won't be let down.<br /><br />All this and I've not even mentioned the awful music, the inexplicable flying zombie head, the scientist whose acting actually manages to stand out as REALLY bad, or the final chilling punchline.... in an ingenious twist on the originals radio station being overrun by zombies, Zombi 3 gives us an actual zombie DJ!! "He's gone over to their side!" our escaping hero's cry, before vowing to continue fighting against the undead in a sequel that sadly never came.<br /><br />Zombi 3 is rubbish - it would be no loss to the world if every single print was destroyed and all records of it's existence erased, yet somehow I feel my life is richer for having seen it.<br /><br />Did I say richer? I meant 88 minutes shorter...
This movie was recently released on DVD in the US and I finally got the chance to see this hard-to-find gem. It even came with original theatrical previews of other Italian horror classics like "SPASMO" and "BEYOND THE DARKNESS". Unfortunately, the previews were the best thing about this movie.<br /><br />"ZOMBI 3" in a bizarre way is actually linked to the infamous Lucio Fulci "ZOMBIE" franchise which began in 1979. Similarly compared to "ZOMBIE", "ZOMBI 3" consists of a threadbare plot and a handful of extremely bad actors that keeps this 'horror' trash barely afloat. The gore is nearly non-existent (unless one is frightened of people running around with green moss on their faces) and the English dubbing is a notch below embarrassing.<br /><br />The plot this time around involves some sort of covert military operation with a bunch of inept scientists (ie. an idiotic male and his stupid female side-kick) who are developing some sort of chemical called "Death One" that is supposed to re-animate the dead. Unless my ears need to be checked, I don't even recall a REASON for the research of "Death One". It seems to EXIST only to wreak havoc upon the poor souls who made the mistake of choosing to 'star' in this cinematic laugh-fest.<br /><br />Anyway, "Death One" is experimented on a corpse (whom I swear looked like Yul Brynner), and after it is injected into his system, he sits upright and his head explodes! The sound effects are also quite hilarious - as the corpse's face bubbles with green slime, the sound of 'paper crumpling' can be heard. The "Death One" toxin is transported outside and is 'hi-jacked' by a group of thieves where one makes off with it, but infects himself after cutting himself on an exposed vial.<br /><br />Needless to say, the guy turns into a zombie, but not before he makes his timely escape to a cheap motel, infects a lowly porter and murders a maid by pushing her face into a bathroom mirror(!). The military catch wind of this and immediately take action before 'eliminating' everyone who is unlucky enough to be within the 'contamination zone' and turn the motel upside down. They find the infected thief and burn his body, only to have the smoke infect a flock of birds that are flying over the chimney stack(!).<br /><br />We cut to the introduction of a group of men who are on leave from the army, listening to 'groovy music' that is coming out of a little dinky boom-box while trailing a trailer-load of slutty girls who are leaning out of the windows and showing off their chests. Can someone say "zombie food"? We also have a sub-plot involving a girl and her boyfriend driving a car who stop to inspect a group of birds lying on the road... the same birds that were infected by the 'zombie' smoke! <br /><br />The birds attack the boyfriend and the girl drives off to a deserted gas station to seek water. This is one of the most incredibly hilarious moments of the movie. She walks around this old dirty, rusty and obviously abandoned building where she continues to ask aloud, "HELLO? IS THERE ANYONE HERE? PLEASE, I JUST NEED SOME WATER!" She encounters a group of zombies, one of which is chained to a wall (!) and the other is swinging a machete. After a bit of rumbling and tumbling around on the ground, she escapes but not before blowing up the gas station with her lighter.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the birds attack the trailer-load of whores and one girl gets pecked and infected. They all pull up to the same motel where the original infection took place, and this is where the second most hilarious moment of the film takes place. After a matter of hours (a day at the most), the same motel is now caked in dust, has vines growing throughout it, and looks like it has been sitting derelict for years. Anyway, what better place to take refuge than this particular building? Needless to say, the group begins to break down as several people walk off together to get themselves stuck in an incredibly stupid situation involving a zombie attack.<br /><br />The third most hilarious moment concerns a man and a woman who explore a deserted village, of which the woman comments, "THIS PLACE IS A DUMP!" She then proceeds to get 'pushed' off a balcony by a zombie into pirahna(?) infested water where she has her legs bitten off and turns into a zombie within seconds! Meanwhile, her friend back at the motel who got pecked and infected HOURS earlier is still TURNING into a zombie!<br /><br />Unfortunately, there are just too many inconsistencies in this movie that makes this movie just too stupid for words. For example, the time rate concerning infected people being 'zombified' differs greatly. Sometimes it takes seconds, other times it takes hours. Some zombies run, others drag their feet and walk really slow. Some even do kung-fu moves, while others hide under stacks of hay to surprise people. Some of the zombies even talk! The funniest moment of course is the infamous 'zombie head in the fridge' gag which 'elevates' itself in mid-air and 'attacks' a stupid man who goes looking for food. Funnily enough, his girlfriend gets her throat torn out by it's 'headless' counter-part (LMAO!).<br /><br />The biggest disappointment for me though was the lack of story-lines involving the people who are in fact killed by zombies. We never get to see them come back as zombies, in fact the only ones we do see 'zombified' are the ones pecked by the birds and the one girl who gets her legs bitten off. Other than that, I was at least expecting the couple who were killed in the kitchen and/or the guy who was killed on the bridge to come back as zombies. It is also amazing that these zombies only take a 'few bites' and then move on to their next victim. <br /><br />The most laughable moment was of course the zombie fetus. A pregnant woman who has been infected lies on a bed in a hospital. A woman who seems to have a lot of 'medical knowledge' tries to deliver the baby (!) and has her face pulled off by a zombie, before having her head pushed into the woman's stomach where a hand bursts out and proceeds to rip the rest of her face off. Timeless!<br /><br />As usual, all the characters are perfect stereotypes of this genre. The megalomaniacal military officer, the pathetic useless squealing women who scream to get killed, the obvious characters who are ABOUT to get killed (ie. watch for the man chasing a chicken!) I guess this movie really is a comedy. There were many laughable scenes, such as the shed that gets blown up with a hand grenade (obviously the scene where the entire budget was spent) and a climatic scene where a man screams, "I'M THIRSTY.... THIRSTY FOR YOUR BLOOD!". The costumes are really bad - the same zombies reappear throughout the course of the film, wearing the same 'Asian-like' clothing that may be found in a Bruce Lee film, and watch out for the blue 60's skirt the girl at the motel is wearing when she and her boyfriend bump into the infected man.<br /><br />The end of the film leaves open the door as usual for the apocalyptic story-line. A radio DJ who narrates throughout the whole movie turns out to be a zombie himself and warns his listeners about the 'beginning of the end' while the two survivors take off in a helicopter. Hardly "DAWN OF THE DEAD" material if you ask me.<br /><br />Regardless, this movie does deliver many laughs. The gore is minimal, and what gore there is, it is very unconvincing, let alone unimaginative. The usual mix of black blood, thick green goo oozing out of weeping sores and 'zombie make-up' consisting of green moss. "ZOMBI 3" makes for a good rental for a sleep-over party or a night of beer and popcorn. Other than that, horror fans should stay away.<br /><br />3 out of 10
In 1979 Lucio Fulci released his film Zombi. However, due to the earlier import of George Romero's Dawn of the Dead, which had gone by that name for its Italian release, it was retitled to Zombi 2. (Which also had the bonus of letting the audience think this was a sequel to the second Romero movie). Continuing this theme, the second Zombi film, which would have been called Zombi 2, was then consequently titled Zombi 3. In the UK, the original Zombi film (that is, Zombi 2) was titled "Zombie Flesh Eaters". To continue THIS theme, the second Zombi film (Zombi 3) was then titled "Zombie Flesh Eaters 2" for its UK release. (Are you following all this?) So if Zombie Flesh Eaters was Fulci's Dawn, then is 2 his Day of the Dead? While this is only a flippant observation, this tale of military compounds, helicopters and a plodding narrative certainly does bear a vague thematic resemblance.<br /><br />Some of Fulci's European direction compels in a film like this, but the acting, dubbing and exposition-heavy script are absolutely horrendous. Its ecological message is so forced and overstated it can no longer be considered a subtext, while there's an (unintentionally) hilarious Birds homage. Combining this last element with MOR 80s rock is not a good idea. For some reason I couldn't stop thinking of Time of the Apes (q.v.) the whole time I was watching this. This is obviously not a good thing.<br /><br />While there's nothing here to rival topless scuba-diving, shark wrestling zombies and eyeballs on a splinter, Fulci's misogynistic leanings do get a work out with a hotel cleaner's mouth being ground into a mirror until it gushes blood. His fannish gore predilections also see a hand severing. Both themes are combined when a woman's face is ripped off, first by one zombie, then a zombie foetus that tears out of a pregnant woman's stomach.<br /><br />Production-wise, this is obviously a step up from Zombi, coming five years later. (Nine years in worldwide release terms). But without the original's low-key charm it struggles, while Stefano Mainetti's music is inappropriate and uninspired. Fabio Frizzi's score was one of the best things about the '79 movie. Here zombie attacks are played out to what sounds unnervingly like Bonnie Tyler's "Holding Out For A Hero". In the middle of this carnage we get an irksome love interest, and Roger and Kenny, two bland macho types who do everything with acrobatic urgency and constantly state the obvious. ("We're out of ammunition" to a stalling gun is a particular standout). But where it also falls down is in the zombies themselves. Low key or not, Fulci's original had truly magnificent, rotting zombies. Skull faces, worms in eye sockets... they really were something to behold. By contrast, this dull follow-up opts for the more traditional "men with a bit of paint on their faces" option. <br /><br />The climax rips off too many Romero movies to even be funny, while the use of the DJ is a crass and cheap narrative device. Not containing the same elements of outrage and gratuitous nudity of the first, this is unlikely to have the same cult appeal. <br /><br />It turns out that Fulci actually walked out on the project after reportedly directing just fifteen minutes, the rest filmed by Bruno Mattei. I'm fairly sure that even Fulci would have balked at the ludicrous "flying zombie head" scene, and so credit to the director for having the good sense to leave. Unfortunately, however, it's his name that's above the film title on releases, so the majority of people will be left with the impression that this is a Fulci film through and through. On that scale then it's a major setback for him, for this movie commits what you imagine Fulci would regard as the worst crime of all: that of being boring.
"Gone With The Wind" is one of the most overrated movies in history. It is a film loved by mothers, grandmothers, and shut-ins who go to the movies once every five years. As a zombie movie, it blows. There isn't a shambling corpse in sight, and it's terribly light in the gore department. "Zombie 3", on the other hand, is big on shambling corpses and quite generous with its blood-spilling -- therefore, it is better than "Gone With the Wind". It is also not overrated. Most reviewers are under no delusions that it is rubbish. It is, however, not boring rubbish. After a terrorist steals a virus, he drops it while being pursued by a helicopter, and the chemicals leak into the ground. The terrorist, who has been exposed to the nasty concoction, hides in a hotel room where he slowly morphs into a flesh-eating zombie. One of his first victim's is a cleaning lady. Once she's bitten, Lucio Fulci's brand of hell breaks loose. As usual for a Fulci flick, the acting is atrocious, the storyline is riddled with plot holes, and the gore is plentiful. Turns out the film was directed by Fulci and Bruno Mattei, so that explains its rather schizophrenic nature. It is badly shot, too, poorly edited, and the sound design is flat. Still, it is saved by its gleeful adherence to the goriest of murders and its impatient pacing. Definitely worth picking up if you're an undead completest. Or don't like "Gone With The Wind", undoubtedly the worst zombie movie of all time.
I'm a big fan of horror flicks, and zombie films are a particular favorite of mine. That said, Zombi 3 is one of the absolute worst films I have ever seen. So needless to say I really enjoyed it, it's the best bad movie I've seen in a long while. The story has some similarities with Dan O'Bannon's "Return of the Living Dead", but whereas that film was intentionally funny, this one is the opposite. It has some of the most laughable acting I've ever witnessed, especially from the main scientist character. His scenes with the General were just hysterical. Also, the effects are subpar and in many cases sloppy, and the death scenes are often just downright stupid. This, of course, makes it all the more fun. POSSIBLE SPOILER - The worst is the scene where the guy opens the refrigerator door and sees the severed zombie head, which then opens its eyes and somehow FLIES OUT OF THE FRIDGE (obviously pulled out ineptly with a bit of string), latching onto the guys neck, killing him. Zombie heads have the ability to float in the air now? It defies every law of physics known to man, and it's one of the most absurd things ever filmed. That's just one of many really goofy moments in the idiotic mess. I can't believe it's gotten so high a rating here. If you are a fan of bad movies, do yourself a favor and rent this sucker.
Title: Zombie 3 (1988) <br /><br />Directors: Mostly Lucio Fulci, but also Claudio Fragasso and Bruno Mattei <br /><br />Cast: Ottaviano DellAcqua, Massimo Vani, Beatrice Ring, Deran Serafin <br /><br />Review: <br /><br />To review this flick and get some good background of it, I gotta start by the beginning. And the beginning of this is really George Romeros Dawn of the Dead. When Dawn came out in 79, Lucio Fulci decided to make an indirect sequel to it and call it Zombie 2. That film is the one we know as plain ole Zombie. You know the one in which the zombie fights with the shark! OK so, after that flick (named Zombie 2 in Italy) came out and made a huge chunk of cash, the Italians decided, heck. Lets make some more zombie flicks! These things are raking in the dough! So Zombie 3 was born. Confused yet? The story on this one is really just a rehash of stories we've seen in a lot of American zombie flicks that we have seen before this one, the best comparison that comes to mind is Return of the Living Dead. Lets see...there's the government making experiments with a certain toxic gas that will turn people into zombies. Canister gets released into the general population and shebang! We get loads of zombies yearning for human flesh. A bunch of people start running away from the zombies and end up in an old abandoned hotel. They gotta fight the zombies to survive.<br /><br />There was a lot of trouble during the filming of this movie. First and foremost, Lucio Fulci the beloved godfather of gore from Italy was sick. So he couldn't really finish this film the way that he wanted to. The film was then handed down to two lesser directors Bruno Mattei (Hell of the Living Dead) and Claudio Fragasso (Zombie 4). They did their best to spice up a film that was already not so good. You see Fulci himself didn't really have his heart and soul on this flick. He was disenchanted with it. He gave the flick over to the producers and basically said: "Do whatever the hell you want with it!" And god love them, they did.<br /><br />And that is why ladies and gents we have such a crappy zombie flick with the great Fulci credited as its "director". The main problem in my opinion is that its just such a pointless bore! There's no substance to it whatsoever! After the first few minutes in which some terrorists steal the toxic gas and accidentally release it, the rest of the flick is just a bunch of empty soulless characters with no personality whatsoever running from the zombies. Now in some cases this can prove to be fun, if #1 the zombie make up and zombie action is actually good and fun and #2 there's a lot of gore and guts involved.<br /><br />Here we get neither! Well there's some inspired moments in there, like for example when some eagles get infected by the gas and they start attacking people. That was cool. There's also a scene involving a flying zombie head (wich by the way defies all logic and explanation) and a scene with zombies coming out of the pool of the abandoned hotel and munching off a poor girls legs. But aside from that...the rest of the flick just falls flat on its ass.<br /><br />Endless upon endless scenes that don't do jack to move the already non existent plot along. That was my main gripe with this flick. The sets look unfinished and the art direction is practically non-existent. I hate it when everything looks so damn unfinished! I like my b-movies, but this one just really went even below that! Its closer to a z-level flick, if you ask me.<br /><br />The zombie make up? Pure crap. The zombies are all Asian actors (the movie was filmed in the Philippines) so you get a bunch of Asian looking zombies. But thats not a big problem since they movie was set in the phillipine islands anyway. Its the look of the zombies that really sucks! They all died with the same clothes on for some reason. And what passes for zombie make up here is a bunch of black make up (more like smudges) on their faces. One or two zombies had slightly more complex make up, but it still wasn't good enough to impress. Its just a bunch of goo pointlessly splattered on the actors faces. So not only is this flick slowly paced but the zombies look like crap. These are supposed to be dead folks! Anyhows, for those expecting the usual coolness in a Fulci flick don't come expecting it here cause this is mostly somebody else's flick. And those two involved (Mattei and Fragasso) didn't really put there heart and souls into it. In fact, when you see the extras on the DVD you will see that when Fragasso is asked about his recollections and his feelings on this here flick, he doesn't even take it to seriously. You can tell he is ashamed of it and in many occasions he says they "just had a job to do and they did it". And that my friends, is the last nail on this flick. There's no love, and no heart put into making this film. Therefore you get a half assed, crappy zombie flick.<br /><br />Only for completest or people who want to have or see every zombie flick ever made. Everybody else, don't even bother! Rating: 1 out of 5
Miraculously, this is actually quite watchable. I mean, it's bad. It's really bad. But whereas the original was so-bad-it's-ruining-my-life bad, this is so-bad-it's-mildly-entertaining bad. Right, that's enough faint praise. Production values are rotten across the board, the acting is excruciating and the Romero-wannabe satire can't make its mind up which side of the ecology fence it's mocking. Internal logic takes a back seat to heads propelling themselves out of fridges, virus incubation times fluctuating as the 'plot' requires, bullets working against the zombies or not, zombies having the power of speech or not. Gore is the draw, obviously, but the framework is so slapdash it's annoying. The dialogue sounds like it's been translated by the same computers that mangle instruction manuals, and the scale of the zombie infestation is implied with none of the ingenuity of Romero's films. It's all topped off with a horrendous synth score. Absolute rubbish.
I watched this immediately after seeing HILLSIDE CANNIBALS so anything would have been an improvement . On top of that it stops me from comparing ZOMBI 3 to 28 DAYS LATER and its sequel . Unfortunately the more I watched it the more I realised how well made Danny Boyle's original was and how much this movie influenced 28 WEEKS LATER <br /><br />One can't help noticing how much the 28 franchise has dated this type of Italian horror movie . I was totally convinced ZOMBI 3 must have been made in 1980 or 1981 at the very latest - In which case I would have called my summary 28 YEARS LATER ( Geddit ? ) - but wasn't until I came to this page to find it was released in 1988 . All the production values scream that it's a low budget splatter flick from the very early part of that decade . I might have enjoyed this movie as a fifteen year old schoolboy in 1982 as would have my peers but not now <br /><br />Much of the problem involves a lack of internal continuity . For example some of the zombies shuffle about with the pace of a snail while others can run very fast and posses self awareness which leads to a ridiculous end scene involving a DJ . Likewise some can be killed by a kick to the face while others remain alive even if they've had their head chopped off , wait till you see the fridge scene , you might just die laughing . Even the serious characters suffer from this type of contrived sloppy scripting where a character suddenly reveals he's a helicopter pilot which leads me to ask why the army have been employing him to drive jeeps for a career <br /><br />Obviously you're reminded of the earlier film THE CRAZIES which also reminded me of the later 28 films . Bunch of terrorists break in to scientific base leading to all sorts of disaster with the military being the bad guys trying to kill both the infected and the survivors and long before the ending you'll have worked out that basically everyone dies . The problem with this is you'll instantly be reminded of how the British franchise did it so much better on a bigger budget . Not just that but the 28 franchise will appeal to a thinking audience who may have little interest in the average horror movie . ZOMBI 3 will appeal to no one but a hardcore splatter audience
I'm a nice guy, and I like to think of myself as genre-tolerant. And, I guess by that, I mean I try to consider a movie in the context of the genre that it resides in. If nothing else, that saves me from feeling like I should be saying really nasty things about people or films, which I don't like doing.<br /><br />The plot in this one was patently obvious, the production values very low and sets, uhm, simplistic. The acting rose into "good for a high school play" territory from time to time. My feeling was this was filmed in a day -- please tell me it was.<br /><br />Worst of all, the sex , while reasonably plentiful, was fairly mundane, hampered by, at least in my copy, a "sound-over" that was inconsistent with the action (climatic moans and shrieks while lying on a bed undoing a bra???). There was definitely no "edge" to it at all--nothing distinguishing or interesting, and with surprisingly quick cuts.<br /><br />My vote is a "1" then, with the following summary statement: would have been better if the filler stripper material at the club was expanded, and the rest of the movie condensed.
I have two very major complaints regarding this film.<br /><br />1. That my local rental store shelved what is very clearly a soft core porn in the "suspense" category. (Had I known what it was, I would not have wasted my time renting it in the first place. And yes, this movie is a soft core porn.)<br /><br />2. The title has nothing to do with the movie. No one in this movie does anything that is either deviant or obsessive, let alone a combination of the two.<br /><br />Actually, make that three major complaints:<br /><br />3. That I for some reason watched the movie long enough to discover point number two on this list. Boy do I regret that. Stay away from this movie. Learn from my mistake. This movie is valueless on virtually every level.
My teacher taped this and showed it to us in Child Care to demonstrate how teen pregnancy affects people. It just demonstrated how teen pregnancy affects a childish jock not properly educated on how sex works and a whiny, unloved girl who throws fruit when angry and couldn't tell she was with the wrong man even if he wore a sign stating he was such. I wouldn't be surprised if the father of the baby had about eight girlfriends in the first edition of the script. Stacy's (the carrier of the baby) mother is a riot. She is oblivious to the fact her daughter is past the age of four and is seemingly unshaken when people spy on her through her dining room window. Bobby's (the father) best friend's name is Dewey, and is an obvious rip off of Sean Penn's character in Fast Times at Ridgemont High. This movie is horrid, simply because none of the characters are believable. Thank goodness it's only made for TV, limiting the public's chances of viewing it.
Batman Mystery of the Batwoman, is, in a word, stale. <br /><br />The plot goes that a mysterious female vigilante ("Batwoman") is intruding on Batman's turf, and while Batman is trying to combat a Penguin/Bane/Rupert Thorne threesome, he's trying to figure out who the mysterious Batwoman is. <br /><br />There is nothing strikingly wrong about this, but there is nothing really special about it either, noting really made it stick out. <br /><br />Mask of the Phantasm had Bruce's long lost love re surface and mess with his head.<br /><br />Subzero was a major event in the life of Mr Freeze. <br /><br />Even the Batman Beyond movie spin off, Return of the Joker, dug deep with the characters involved. <br /><br />But Mystery of the Batwoman had some minor subplots, a lot of formula topped off by a mediocre setpiece on a cruise boat. Frankly, this thing is more Scooby Doo than Dark Knight, lacking the punch and bite that the Animated Series had in it's prime.
I am a back Batman movie and TV fan. I loved the show (new and old) and I loved all the movies. But this movie is not as great as some people were hopeing it to be. In my opinon, it is a big let down. I think the problem was it had no drama. Batman: Mask Of The Phantasm and Batman Beyond: Return Of The Joker had a lot of drama. and Batman & Mr. Freeze: Sub Zero had some drama too. Also, I think this movie is to light for Batman. The only scene that seems a little dark is the big fight with Bane at the end. Anyways, it's an ok Batman movie. But I would just rent it.
The story is very trustworthy and powerful. The technical side of the movie is quite fine.. even the directing of it. The main problem is with the castings, that turned that movie into almost another local and regular cliché with a great lack of impact and even greater lack of impression. Beside the small role of the father, Rafael (played impressively by Asi Dayan), all other actors were unfortunately not in their best. The role of the elder Blind girl, played by Taly Sharon, was fresh but without any intensity as the leading role. therefore the figure she acted had become mild and low profile. There were moments and episodes that looked more like a rehearsal then a real movie. But after all it's a good point to begin from and to make big improvements in the future.
Ignoring (if possible) the tediously gratuitous marijuana smoking (which seems to be mandatory in Australian government-funded films) the cast of this movie gives a reasonably credible performance. That's a far as it goes. The rest is simply awful. The plot's overburdened with "wow" symbolisms which are meant to look good on film but go nowhere. A gross example is the giant peach float, obviously left over from a town parade and donated by the local canning factory. It was just too tempting to waste what was hopefully a free, but nevertheless irrelevant, prop! The peach is given a cursory, unexplained wash-down at one stage but that's where it ends.<br /><br />Similarly, the contrived "black spot" road sign where Steph's parents were killed, is intended to symbolize the eventual escape from her past, but her escape to what? She's had a pretty good deal where she was, especially considering her visual disability and the unending, loving patience and care of her understanding young female guardian.<br /><br />The Guinness' prize for corny melodrama, however, goes to the characterization of Alan. Alan successfully aspires to the noble role of trade union shop steward but "rats" on his fellow workers by becoming a supervisor for a wicked multi-national - hiss! hiss! As a supervisor, Alan performs the boss' villainous dirty work. He implements redundancies until, surprise, surprise, the whole plant is closed and Alan himself is left as a pathetic, unemployed failure. No cliché-free zones here, mate! Not only this, but Alan also loses the seductive Steph from the most unlikely relationship you'd encounter. If you think the plot is melodramatic and didactic, don't ask about detail. What's the significance of the shaving cream on Steph's seductive leg? Why doesn't the hotel, where the couple makes love, eventually twig that someone's gaining illegal entry to one of its grandest bedrooms and, among other pandemoniums, the sheets are regularly soiled - quite spectacularly on one occasion. Summing this movie up in one word: Avoid, Avoid, Avoid.
Yet again one of the most misunderstood Goddesses of my country has been twisted by "Westerners" who cannot understand the esoteric symbolism of the Mother Goddess in her dark forms. The Mother takes on the frightening form of Kali Mata to destroy our inner demons, and to terrify our egos. And though blood sacrifice is given to Kali and Durga, the events depicted in this film are just absurd. The Mother takes on a wrathful form to be wrathful to our inner demons, limitations, and ego when no other form will suffice. It's also in her wrathful form that she burns away all your Karmas in the "Smashan" fires that you cultivate in your heart for her to dance on if you love her, and she will bring you to reality and truth. Reality and truth has a dark side as well as light, which serves a purpose. The Mother is the embodiment of the physical Universe as well, she is Nature. Nature can be cruel and destructive to maintain balance. You cannot have growth and life without death and destruction. Kali represents the force of destruction for the purpose of new growth and life both mundane and spiritual in the universe. It's very outrageous to me that people who know nothing of India or it's divinity can just take one of our beloved Goddesses and use her like a cheap prostitute to make some low-budget, talentless horror film. How dare they take our beloved Mother and portray her as a horror that makes people chop their eyelids off!? She is only horrific to those who are attached to their ego and who live in delusion , greed, anger, and other inner-demons. It's very clear to me that the person who wrote this movie must have a very serious self-deluding ego, and serious inner-demons to see Kali as so horrible and terrible. When the ego drops away she becomes a form that is enchanting, beautiful, and young, a beauty that is so enchanting to behold that she enchants the entire Universe with it. Kali Maa is an ancient Mother, not to be trifled with for the sake of entertainment, let's just hope that in her endless compassion and mercy that she does not take on wrathful form to those involved with this movie.<br /><br />The audacity that Westerners have in using religions like my own, or the religions of the Caribbean Islands such as Santeria, and Vodou which are actually very positive, and other such religions to twist and exaggerate misunderstood elements that the Western mind cannot comprehend, is totally ridiculous. It's clear that there is no respect for what people live, breathe and believe in when it comes to these kind of flicks.<br /><br />Kali Maa in reality is a caring and compassionate mother, whom we shed tears at her beautiful feet in devotion and love for. And I am happy that my Mother takes on wrathful form sometimes to protect her devotees from themselves and from outside forces.<br /><br />Many Praises to the REAL Kali Maa, who has shown MANY the path of God and realization.
I can't understand all the hype about this movie. OK, if you like cheap splatter, you will love this movie, but if you like good stories and good actors - don't watch this. Personally i really disliked the actors in this movie, they seem to be hired straight from the street. The Dialogs are completely flat and you always know what's coming up next. The overall quality of this movie lacks of the supposable very low budget. When we saw this movie (me and 3 other people) we all had in mind, that this movie was made by some people who needed to do this, just to get their graduation at a film school - with the lowest effort. Another issue that really lessens the whole experience is the bad cam (very shaking) and the bad sound, the whole movie seems to be recored with a single microphone.
This movie was kind of interesting...I had to watch it for a college class about India, however the synopsis tells you this movie is about one thing when it doesn't really contain much cold, hard information on those details. It is not really true to the synopsis until the very end where they sloppily try to tie all the elements together. The gore factor is superb, however. Even right at the very beginning, you want to look away because the gore is pretty intense. Only watch this movie if you want to see some cool gore, because the plot is thin and will make you sad that you wasted time listening to it. I've seen rumors on other websites about this movie being based on true events, however you can not find any information about it online...so basically this movie was a waste of time to watch.
Laughed a lot - because it is so incredibly bad - sorry folks, but definitely one of the worst movies I have ever seen... I know it is low budget, but anyway: the actors behave like playing in a soap, the dialogues are absolutely crappy and the last time I have seen such odd pictures was at a trash nite at some youth video festival ten years ago. I really appreciate that people gather together and shoot cheap movies, but at least a certain amount of quality should be accomplished. But at least one good thing: the first three minutes of the movie were quiet interesting and looked okay - and the score was really worth listening to. The DVD cover promised a lot, but that is by far the best this film has to offer...
Ever since I started visiting this site, and voting for movies, I have never given any movie a rating of 1. Even the disturbing "Dance! Workout with Barbie" got a 2. There is a reason for this.<br /><br />Any time I find myself watching what I think is a really bad movie, I have to stop and ask myself the following question: "Is this movie really as bad as the horrific soul-sucking beast that is 'Theodore Rex'?" And I've never been able to answer "yes".<br /><br />I would give anything within reason to know what crackhead said "Hey! Let's remake 'Blade Runner' with Barney in the Harrison Ford Role!" and decided it was a good idea to actually spend the time and money to commit it to film. Furthermore, I want to know what the hell kind of market they were going to sell this towards if it hadn't gone strait to video. This is that rare monster: a movie that is way too violent for kids and way too insanely stupid for adults. I'd ask "what were they THINKING?" but in this case, it might actually be redundant.<br /><br />Anyhow, all you need to know is that you should only expose yourself to this monstrosity if you're one of the five or six rabid fans of "Howard the Duck", or if you are curious to see the most Evil Insane movie of all time, or you want to REALLY punish yourself.
Movies about dinosaurs can be entertaining. So can Whoopi Goldberg movies. But Whoopi AND dinosaurs?<br /><br />After the first 20 minutes of "Theodore Rex", I had come to one conclusion: this movie is evil. Evil, vile, wicked and reprehensible in its spite for the audience. Nothing this bad is made by accident; this is the visual equivalent of a torture chamber.<br /><br />First of all, Whoopi does not make good action movies (watch "Fatal Beauty" if you think I'm lying), but the film makers don't care - she's a tough cop here, yet again. <br /><br />Seen a million cop buddy flicks this week? Well, here's number one million and one, pal.<br /><br />Don't like cute, humanistic animated dinosaurs since that Spielberg TV show about them? Too bad, here's another one and he's a cop, too!<br /><br />You one of those people that hates car chases, shoot-outs, sloppy dialogue, boring futuristic FX and seeing talented people (Goldberg, Mueller-Stahl, Roundtree) stuck in a movie that looks like a tax write-off? A BIG tax write-off?<br /><br />And you read this review all the way to the end. You DESERVE a sequel. Seriously.<br /><br />No stars, not a one. And if they really make a sequel to "Theodore Rex", Hollywood deserves to be attacked a whole herd of wise-cracking foam rubber dinosaurs.<br /><br />Now, I'd pay to see that.
I was babysitting a family of three small children for a night and their mother gave me this to show for them having just grabbed it at Wal-Mart earlier in the week. All three children actually got physically ill while watching it. I'm pretty sure it was the pizza they ate, or something they all had picked up from school, but really it could have been this film. Absolutely disgusting. How any one can produce this caliber of trash is beyond me. Fortunately, I turned off the film when I noticed the children were not responding and acting strangely. For any parents out there, I strongly advise you to refrain from letting young children view this movie.
This is, without a doubt, the single worst movie ever created. There's no arguing here. This is it. End of story. The story is juvenile and sub-moronic, looking like it was created by a three-year-old fascinated with dinosaurs. The entire concept is just plain dumb. It's inconceivable how someone could possibly come up with something so stupid and think it was entertaining. The jokes are also completely lame. If you haven't seen this movie yet, consider yourself lucky. If your morbidly curious as to how bad this movie is, please don't make me describe it. Words can't express how completely awful this movie is. This isn't just bad as in being a bad movie. Even those have cohesion, if not entertainment value. This. . . This is. . . Ugh! Think of the worst story ever told and multiply its badness level by 5,000, and you still haven't come close to how awful this movie is. After giving Pokemon the Movie one point, giving this movie one point seems like nothing short of charity. That's how bad it is. Did the producers and directors even take film classes? Because this is a perfect example of how not to make a film. It looks like some amateur high on paint thinner made this film. If you rented this, please take it back and ask for a refund. And don't even think about renting it again.
No matter what anyone tells you, there is a mere fact to the word "possession" in film circles -- such as "what possessed you to greenlight this film?" Religion doesn't have anything to do with it, but common sense does. That is, if your head is clear and you are of sound mind to make a judgment.<br /><br />On many levels I tried to rationalize where this film would entertain....or even interest the average consumer. The star? The story? The unique idea? A buddy movie that kids would love with a dinosaur and a black woman? On, my goodness! I am sure when this was an "idea", it sounded good. But somewhere during the course of development...someone should have pointed out where the idea could not translate into a piece of entertainment anyone would wish to watch or pay for...unless they were very much deeply under the influence of alcohol or drugs and saw something the rest of us could not see.<br /><br />Regardless, this is a complete mess. Mess, mess - sin and a mess.<br /><br />Who cares about the plot (what plot?) et al. Whoopie got a paycheck, but I would have been embarrassed to take it. I sure hope she fired her agent/manager/publicist over this career move. Obviously not, she went on to make more bad films. And more bad films. Sad.
This movie was astonishing. It is beyond atrocious. I often get together with a group of friends and go to the movie store to find awful movies to watch for their comedic value. My friend suggested this one, but as we watched it, people began to leave. I really wanted to finish it, just so that I could say that I had, but I was unable to. It's that bad. Horrible running gags, lame acting. The main characters are an annoying dinosaur klutz and Whoopi Goldberg. I would rather watch Costener's The Postman twelve times in a row than see a fraction of this movie again. I think they try to deal with some dinosaur discrimination issues, but the part of the movie that really stands out is the dinosaur constantly knocking things over with his tail, and then guffawing about it. It hurts. Watch it if you're an aspiring masochist, otherwise, leave this one alone.
What a mess!! Why was this movie made? This, and other movies of its "caliber" should be teaching tools on how not to make a movie. Children may like it, but anyone over 10 may or will disapprove. To make matters worse was the fact that such great talent like Whoopi Goldberg and Armin Mueller Stahl were entirely wasted in a film unworthy of any notice.
From the What Was She Thinking? file: Whoopi Goldberg plays a cop in the future who is teamed with a talking dinosaur (!) for a crime case involving a madman who wants to start another ice-age. Straight-to-tape oddity is embarrassing and ridiculous, a high-concept in search of itself. Apparently this was a labor of love for its writer-director, Jonathan Betuel (who also served as one of the producers); sadly, the end results are anemic, to be charitable. Goldberg's mere presence on-screen can often spark good will and laughter no matter how poor the script, but here she's drowning and you can see the unfunny results. NO STARS from ****
Poor Whoopi Goldberg. Imagine her at a friend's dinner party, and she adds a comment to the in-depth political discussion going on. People just look at her and say, "Oh what would YOU know, you were the star of 'Theodore Rex'". How could anyone take her seriously after she lowered herself to be the star of this appalling piece of crap? Even little kids would be cringing in horror at this Thing. It reminded me of a particularly bad episode of 'Sigmund And The Sea Monsters'. Actually, come to think of it, 'Sigmund' was vastly superior to this.<br /><br />And however did it get made? By plying the producer with an illegal substance before telling him about it? Watch this hideous abomination at your own peril.
I watch LOTS of bad films, LOTS!!!!!! It's kind of a hobby, really. Almost every Saturday nite a group of friends and I get together and watch trash from around the globe - ANYTHING. Turkish super hero movies, vampire flicks from Brazil, Italian gorilla transplant movies, Kevin Costner films, ANYTHING (except maybe Raising Helen) but Ihave never seen a WORST film than THEODORE REX. Never. And it's not even entertainingly bad in an Ed Wood kinda way - it just SUCKS. Now this film was famous in Hollywood at the time it was made because Whoopi took off the gloves and made it clear to the press and anyone else who would listen that she HATED THIS PIECE OF CRAP = she tried to get out of her contract, she whined, she moaned but nonetheless they pour her fat butt into this leather skin tight futuristic cop uniform that is ghastly to see, yikes!!!! And you can just see her seething during takes - doing everything but looking off camera for her agent so she can scream at him. The dinosaur has about three facial expressions and the script is so horrible a third grade class could do a better job if promised cookies.
These reviews that claim this movie is so bad its good are going way overboard with that one. This movie does not have the guilty pleasure badness that Leonard Part 6, Battlefield Earth and Gigli had. Those movies were entertaining in their awfulness but this pile of dinosaur dung is so bad its painful. I haven't been in this much pain watching a bad movie since I watched Baby Geniuses and Superbabies. Before I start the review let me tell you the story. Theodore Rex is a $35 million dollar bust The New Line Cinema refused to put in theaters. They cut the losses sending it straight to video making it the most expensive straight-to-video movie in decades. Whoopi caved in to be in this disaster after a huge paycheck.<br /><br />Plot: a millionaire clones dinosaurs so he can launch missiles at the sun which would kill mankind and start another Ice Age. A female cop named Katie Coltrane and an idiotic dinosaur named Theodore Rex reluctantly team up to stop him after the death of a buddy dinosaur.<br /><br />The plot is given to you in the beginning of the movie which robs the movie of all its mystery. Then you have to deal with the fact that this movie is actually quite awful. Whoopi looks agitated and is trying to wing it with her performance but to no avail. Theodore Rex is flat out annoying and his bumbling behavior wears thin after five minutes on screen. Most of the jokes revolve around him threatening to bite people and hitting people with his tail(on accident and on purpose). I thought Burglar was bad but it takes a backseat to Theodore Rex: the worst movie of Whoopi's career.<br /><br />Don't let anybody tell you this monstrosity is bad enough to be enjoyable. I didn't see that when I watched this movie. All I saw was a train wreck that was written by people that must have had some sick admiration for movie Howard The Duck. The humor is on that level and Theodore Rex looks like the inbred cousin of Barney. Utterly painful from start to finish.
From watching only the trailer to Theodore Rex, you would think this is a bad buddy cop comedy with Whoopi Goldberg and a guy in a dinosaur costume. That is true, but this is mostly a futuristic story, which looks a lot like Batman Forever with it's direction style and weird character designs. It was mismarketed, and should have been marketed as a futuristic tale, instead of just a lame cop comedy. Whether or not this movie is mismarketed, it's still a horrible movie.<br /><br />In the future, dinosaurs have been brought back to life through amazing technology, and they talk and walk around like humans. Teddy is a dinosaur detective who is never taken seriously, but after a dinosaur is murdered, he's given the case to work on, but he has to be partners with the toughest cop of them all, Katie Coltrane (Whoopi Goldberg). It's up to this mismatched duo to solve the murder, and it's up to the audience to stay awake long enough to make it through this piece of crud.<br /><br />Teddy starts the picture as a normal acting character, but by the end he is unbearable to listen to. For some reason along with being a detective, he's also a bad comedian and a bad impersonator. He does imitations of famous people and accents, and has some truly awful lines. Whoopi blames him for farting and he says, "It's not my butt trumpet!" Wow! What a puerile, immature line, even for a kid's movie of this caliber. Whoopi is also annoying and rude to everyone. I was hoping Teddy would bite her head off the entire length of the film.<br /><br />This movie never knew what it wanted to be. When the futuristic scenes and action occur, there is no comedy or humor. In any non-action scenes, the characters try to be as funny as they can, which just results in nonstop straight faced boredome. The action scenes don't work as they're too weird and not violent enough, and as stated earlier, the comedy is just a bunch of massacred jokes. Nothing ever works here.<br /><br />Having a dinosaur/human detective duo seems like a pretty original movie, if nothing else. Nope! This movie is a huge rip-off of Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Just replace dinosaurs with cartoons, and set it in the future, and it's the exact same plot. A man is killed, a dinosaur is killed. A dinosaur and detective solve the murder, a toon and detective solve the murder. The bad guys in Roger Rabbit are Christopher Lloyd and weasels. The bad guys here are a guy who sounds like Christopher Lloyd and guys who act just like the weasels. The club scene in Roger Rabbit where Jessica Rabbit walks down the stage is imitated with dinosaurs. This is a huge rip-off of a much better movie!<br /><br />Overall, this is a bad movie, not even deserving of it's straight to VHS stature.<br /><br />My rating: 1/2 out of ****. 90 mins. PG for mild violence, language and crude humor.
Do not see this movie if you value your mind. At the end of our collective viewing, me and my friends estimated that we each lost 5% of our brains during its course. The only person involved with its making that was not clinically insane was the set designer.<br /><br />Most movies leave a bad taste in your mouth. I realize now that instead of a feeling of revulsion, this movie has bred a deep hatred within me. I hate this movie so very, very much.<br /><br />Some might say this movie is not meant to be taken seriously. If only it didn't take itself seriously. But it does. The plot is a warmed over version of Blade Runner-esque universe melded with the cheap rubber suits so prevalent in bad dinosaur movies. The dialogue is not only puerile and meaningless but often literally painful. Whoopee Goldberg isn't even trying, but George Newbern as the voice of Theodore Rex is like fingernails on the soul. And whether its Juliet Landua with her off again on again British accent or Richard Roundtree (aka Shaft) as the blustering Commissioner, you will sink into an ever increasing sense of incredulity and disillusionment.<br /><br />I recommend this movie only to anyone who wishes to see the depths of stupidity to which mankind may fall.
I watched this movie when Joe Bob Briggs hosted Monstervision on TNT. Even he couldn't make this movie enjoyable. The only reason I watched it until the end is because I teach video production and I wanted to make sure my students never made anything this bad ... but it took all my intestinal fortitude to sit through it though. It's like watching your great grandmother flirting with a 15 year old boy ... excruciatingly painful.<br /><br />If you took the actual film, dipped it in paint thinner, then watched it, it would be more entertaining. Seriously.<br /><br />If you see this movie in the bargin bin at S-Mart, back away from it as if it were a rattlesnake.
Wow... what would you do with $33m? Let me give you a choice; you can either a) shred it and flush it down the toilet or b)make a film based on the premise of Whoopi Goldberg as a hard nut futuristic cop partnered with a rubber dinosaur who uses terms like "I didn't butt trumpet" and blows raspberries on the basis that this is funny. That's right, you would choose the option that has more merit - flushing down the toilet.<br /><br />This has to be seen to be believed. I cannot even find the words to describe how bad this film is. It doesn't even fit into the "so bad - it's good" category. I actually have it on the television as I write - and whilst watching I felt the need to come onto IMDb and register my disgust.<br /><br />Considering Jurassic Park was made a couple of years before, how on earth did they think that audiences would any longer tolerate a man dressed in a rubber suit? WG should have simply walked and damn the consequences. Everyone concerned will go to hell for this criminal waste of money.<br /><br />I have to stop writing - I am about to implode.
This movie was amazingly bad. I don't think I've ever seen a movie where every attempt at humor failed as miserably. Let's see...the acting was pathetic, the "special effects" where horrible, the plot non-existant...that pretty much sums up this movie.<br /><br />
There have been very few films I have not been able to sit through. I made it through Battle Field Earth no problem. But this, This is one of the single worst films EVER to be made. I understand Whoopi Goldberg tried to get of acting in it. I do not blame her. I would feel ashamed to have this on a resume. I belive it is a rare occasion when almost every gag in a film falls flat on it's face. Well it happens here. Not to mention the SFX, look for the dino with the control cables hanging out of it rear end!!!!!! Halfway through the film I was still looking for a plot. I never found one. Save yourself the trouble of renting this and save 90 minutes of your life.
I must say that during my childhood I'm quite proud of a lot of the movies I've rented. The exception being Theodore Rex. Talk about the all time swindler movie in any actor's resume. Could you just imagine what Whoopie's fired agent must have told her to sign on to this piece of crap "Hey Whoop, you ever seen that show Dinosaurs, yeah well they're making a movie out of it, and you get to see Germany!" After that that agent must have referenced Star Wars a lot.<br /><br />This movie was so bad I figured Whoopie must have bought out every copy of this film and had it destroyed. I just wish she could have done the same thing to my memory, because my sister still gives me crap for watching that movie. I mean c'mon, I'll even admit I watched Mr. Nanny and Kazzam in theaters (good reasons why I gave up on both Hulk Hogan and Shaq for awhile), yet this one sticks out in my mind as the worst of my childhood, and the biggest rental regret of my life, and that was 16 years ago. I'm 24 now if you want to do the math.<br /><br />Whenever I think of my all-time list of worst movies I don't even mention this one, because like a raped step-child, I try hard to repress that it ever happened. Screw you Whoopie, just be glad people only acknowledge Eddie and Sister Act 2 as your worst you lucky stiff.
I watched this movie when Joe Bob Briggs hosted Monstervision on TNT. Even he couldn't make this movie enjoyable. The only reason I watched it until the end is because I teach video production and I wanted to make sure my students never made anything this bad ... but it took all my intestinal fortitude to sit through it though. It's like watching your great grandmother flirting with a 15 year old boy ... excruciatingly painful.<br /><br />If you took the actual film, dipped it in paint thinner, then watched it, it would be more entertaining. Seriously.<br /><br />If you see this movie in the bargin bin at S-Mart, back away from it as if it were a rattlesnake.
I can say nothing more about this movie than: Man, this SUCKS!!!!! If you really hate yourself and want to do some severe damage to your brain, watch this movie. It's the best cure in the world for taking away happiness. When I started watching this film, I was completely happy. Afterwords I could feel my brain melting, like it was struck by molten lava. God, I HATE that stupid Dinosaur. So if you want severe brain damage: Watch this movie, it will do the trick.
Joe Don Baker. He was great in "Walking Tall" and had a good bit-part in "Goldeneye", but here in "Final Justice" all hope is gone...the dark side has won. <br /><br />As with most of humanity, my main experience with this one was on MST3K, and what an experience it was! Mike and the robots dig their claws deep into Baker's ample flesh and skewer this flick completely. It's obvious they were just beginning with "Mitchell" on their anti-Joe Don kick and here lies their continuation on a theme.<br /><br />It makes for a funny experience, though: there are plenty of choice riffs. My favorites - "John Rhys-Davies for sale", "It's 'Meatloaf: Texas Ranger'", "none of them are sponge-worthy", "Why was she wearing her prom dress to bed", and my favorite - "'Son of a...'? What? What was he the son of: son of a PREACHER MAN?"<br /><br />By itself, "Final Justice" is, as Joe Don puts it in the movie, "a big fat nada". But here, it actually has some entertainment value. You get a chance, catch THIS version of "Final Justice".<br /><br />Two stars for "Final Justice". Ten for the MST3K version ONLY.<br /><br />Oh, and try not to visit Malta when Joe Don's in town.
In short, the movie had a little bit of a weak 1st act with some forced acting and a somewhat disjointed rhythm and pacing, somewhat of a decent 2nd act that managed to build some tension and intrigue despite some inconsistent pacing and some inferior performances by the cast, and the 3rd act ... there virtually wasn't ANY 3rd act!<br /><br />Regarding the 3rd act, the movie just abruptly ends. There is no resolution and no path down from the climax of the 2nd act, so there wasn't much of a 3rd act. The bad guys die and that's that; the end credits roll. There is nothing to show what happens to the protagonist and the supporting characters and so on. The audience would've likely left the theater after the movie, asking "that's it?" A real letdown.<br /><br />Music was composed by David Bell which worked adequately enough to serve the film most of the time, but it's certainly nothing outstanding. It's just functional, but achieves this by being merely generic and derivative. It is also apparent that the score is VERY dated with the use of synthesized timpani for some of the percussion. What least impressed me about the score is that some moments of tension heralds music cues sounding like they were ripped off of James Horner from "48 HRS." and "Commando," particularly the brass.<br /><br />In all, the film had potential as the basic story itself is good, but the execution was lackluster with mediocre direction, weak acting, and somewhat inconsistent pacing.<br /><br />There was virtually no 3rd act to properly finish the story, and this omission is major and unforgivable as it doesn't allow the movie to end satisfactorily. This could either be the screenplay or, possibly, the production had to cut out filming or editing the 3rd act into the finished movie due to budget constraints (but I'm speculating as to why there isn't a 3rd act). Whatever the reason, the abrupt ending really hurts the movie overall. <br /><br />This is good for a view if you're curious and you can get the movie for VERY cheap as well as to learn the reason WHY you need to have the 3 acts (beginning, middle, end) if you write screenplays and make movies.<br /><br />Otherwise, you might not want to waste your time unless you can get the MST3K version to at least get some laughs out of it.
After apprehending the man responsible for the murder of his boss, Deputy Sheriff Thomas Jefferson Geronimo, III, is assigned the task of taking the killer back to Italy. On the way, however, the plane is diverted to Malta. Not long after landing, the killer escapes. Now, and with little help from the Maltese police, Deputy Sheriff Geronimo is out to recapture a murderer. But will his "shoot first, take names later" brand of Texas justice work in a foreign country? <br /><br />Let me get this out right up front, I've seen Final Justice both with and without the Mystery Science Theater 3000 commentary. I've seen the scenes that were cut that help make the movie a more coherent whole. And I've seen the cut-up TV version that was used for MST3K. Having said that, I've got to admit that I much prefer the MST3K version. Why? Because Final Justice is one lousy movie. The MST3K commentary helps make it much more palatable. On its own, it's a real snoozer of an action movie with corny dialogue (often delivered with such thick Italian accents that it's impossible to understand), bad acting, weak direction, gigantic plot holes, and most everything else you'll find in a bad movie. And if most of Final Justice wasn't "so bad, it's good", it would be one terribly dull movie on top of everything else. So, yes, I enjoy the often very funny MST3K commentary over the bad movie on its own.<br /><br />My main sticking points with the MST3K commentary and with most of the reviews I've read on Final Justice, however, involve the criticisms of Joe Don Baker. The main weaknesses in Baker's performance actually have nothing to do with his size or the wardrobe choices of his character or any of the other jokes flung in his direction. Instead, I think much of it is has to do with the poor decision to cast him in the lead in the first place. Joe Don Baker has always struck me as a decent enough actor, but he's not the kind of guy I would call an "action hero" by any stretch of the imagination. He's more of a sidekick as he demonstrated with solid performances in a couple of James Bond movies. Or if you really want to blame someone for the problems with Final Justice, point your finger at director Greydon Clark. Clark's resume can't begin to compare with Baker's. So I say, "Lay off Joe Don Baker!"
The only words you need fear more than Joe Don Baker if your thinking of watching a film are Greydon Clark , and if they are both there , run for your life . However this is a very funny film because they actually take themselves seriously ! It starts out bad and goes downhill from there , repeated scenes , the Good The Bad and The Ugly like shootout will have you rolling on the floor with laughter .Yes , he's the best deputy sheriff in Texas , tracking a mafia hit-man to Malta as only he can . He makes his own rules , does things his own way , all the while wearing cowboy boots and sidearms cowboy style . You want to see a bad but funny film ? Go ahead on , its your move !
Two qualifiers right up front: I actually think Joe Don Baker can be good or even great with the right material and the right director (the "Cape Fear" remake, a small role in "Goldeneye", "Walking Tall"). And I even liked Baker in "Mitchell", because he was playing an anti-hero who was SUPPOSED to be unlikeable. Yes, MST3K's coverage was hilarious, but they took a lot of cheap shots at Baker - that he didn't deserve - to keep things lively and entertaining - he was appropriate to the level and tone of the movie, and he was the best part of the movie.<br /><br />"Final Justice" seems to be more of the same, but in spite of the exotic locations and the "cowboy frontier justice" theme, it is quite a bit weaker than "Mitchell". And the main reason is that Baker's character, as written, is an idiot. The movie has the conceit that because Baker embodies old style frontier machismo, he challenges his opponents to old style mano-a-mano quick-draw contests. And because he's so tough and macho, he always wins, even when he's hurt, wounded, outnumbered, etc.<br /><br />That's a conceit with a lot of potential (it worked for Gary Cooper), even if it condemns the film to "B" movie status. But Baker is so frigging stupid and obsessive that he needlessly challenges three of the bad guy's henchman to a showdown in a public market, with civilians all over the place. He COULD have simply shadowed them to the chief bad guy's headquarters (which was why he was following them in the first place) and they never would have noticed. Or he could have gotten the drop on them and forced them to surrender, and gotten one of the henchmen to take him to headquarters at gun point. But no, he has to be a bush league hot dog and a macho blockhead, and so he gets a child taken as a hostage in the ensuing shootout! <br /><br />This is a guy we are supposed to admire? <br /><br />The whole movie is basically like this. Most of the supporting actors are somewhere between OK (the henchmen) to pretty good (the chief bad guy and his father, who are two well known European actors - they just go through the motions, but they are pros and even hamming it up they are decent). But through it all, Baker's character pulls silly , unproductive stunts and mistakes that get at least two relatively innocent people killed, plus a couple of bad guys who might have been taken alive without the use of deadly force.<br /><br />On the positive side, since 90% of the movie is set on Malta or in the Mediterranean, you get to see lots of pretty scenery and lots of nice and exotic looking extras. And really, Baker himself may be on the heavy side and slightly dyspeptic, but he isn't that bad...certainly not the tub o' lard that this films critics (including Mike and the Bots in their hilarious coverage) seem to think.<br /><br />In short, this movie is good for video wallpaper, but the viewer should not pay any attention to it.
I can't believe this movie was made as recently as 1984. It's got some laughable acting, not to mention one of the stupidest plots ever. Who would ever ask fat Texas sheriff Joe Don Baker to escort an Italian he illegally arrested in Mexico back to Italy? Not to mention that the title of the movie tells you pretty much nothing about it - in fact, it's about as generic a title for a wannabe action/cop film as I can think of.<br /><br />I'm glad I only saw this on MST3K with Mike and the bots as a shield. They remark on the female lead's resemblance to Elaine from Seinfeld ("None of them are spongeworthy") and riff non-stop on Baker's weight. This movie probably isn't worse than "Mitchell," but Baker's reputation definitely precedes him here: when his title comes up at the beginning of the film, Tom says, "I wish I was illiterate so I wouldn't have to read that."
I can count (on one hand) the number of good movies starring Joe Don Baker. This is not one of them.<br /><br />Interminable chase scenes, dim-witted dialogue, and terrible lapses in continuity made this movie a prime choice for getting the send-up on MST3K.<br /><br />And that is the only way I was able to watch this...
What reviewers and MST3K left out is the best part (and only memorable scene) of this otherwise dreadful movie: There is a very good rape-in-the-shower scene committed by the bad guy (Ben Gazzara look-alike) on Maria (as mentioned, killed later through T.J.'s ineptitude). Perhaps rape is too strong a word, "prison mating ritual" may be more appropriate. The background behind this chance, yet forced meeting is the mobster who is hiding "Ben Gazzara," introduces him to the girls hanging out at his pool. The 30-ish blonde disses him, but our villain must be quite smitten by her, because the courtship is on at that point. His first move is to attempt drowning her, until his mafia don benefactor tells him to knock it off. Kind of like the girl in high school you didn't like, but still wanted to have carnal knowledge of anyway... Let's just say, he catches UP with her in the cabana later.
There are movies that are awful, and there are movies that are so awful they are deemed long-forgotten and unwatchable. Also, lots of violence and bad stuff (not just cheesy stuff; you know what I mean) add to the mix as well. What is the result of bad movies with such raunchy content? Why, "Final Justice," of course! <br /><br />Remember "Mitchell?" Joe Don Baker was the star of that movie, and that was riffed by Joel and the Bots on "Mystery Science Theater 3000." Now this time, with Mike taking Joel's place on the Satellite of Love (but with the same bots), that trio got to make fun of MST3K's second Joe Don Baker movie, "Final Justice." Of course, much of the naughty stuff that I mentioned was removed for television release, but still, I want to watch that episode (and "Mitchell" as well), because what does Joe Don "hate" the most? Why, none other than "Mystery Science Theater 3000!" <br /><br />P.S. If you have a Big Lots nearby, check that store for the uncut tape! LOL That happened to another user!
Jimmy Dean could not have been more hammy or absurdly loutish. Hysterical if viewed through the eyes of Mystery Science Theatre 3000, which I rate as a 10. I mean, the sight of this obese, corn-fed hog trouncing around Malta should be enough to send you to the vomitory, if you make it that far into the film. This ugly, hysterical farce should be placed with the likes of "Booty Call", "Pumpkinhead", "Swarm", and "The Smurfs Go To Bangladesh". A -gulp- film like this proves that sometimes actors, writers, producers, etc. get behind on their mortgage, or get stoned to the point of insanity. It begs the question "who was so stupid to finance such a whale?" But then, had good judgment prevailed and "Final Justice" never was, then we wouldn't have the delightful spoof voice-over in "Mystery Science Theatre 3000"!
I guess this goes to prove that Joe Don Baker will do anything for a buck. The concept of the film wasn't very good to start with. This movie has so many bad things about it I don't know where to start. The acting is horrible. The cinematography is marginal at best. The soundtrack was pretty bad. The score is terrible. There's a reason why this movie ended up on Mystery Science Theater 3000. I voted before I wrote this and I cannot believe that 9 people actually thought this "film" is excellent. They must have liked the two go-go dancers. Final justice would be if they locked this stinker in the film vault outside Wichita and never let anyone see it again! A 1 out of 10 rating is far better than this deserves.
Joe Don's opening line says everything about this movie. It takes place on the island of Malta (the island of pathetic men) and involves Joe Don Baker tracking down an Italian mobster. Joe Don's character is named Geronimo (pronounced Heronimo) and all he does in this movie is shoot people and get arrested over and over agin. Everyone in the movie hates him, just like everyone hates Greydon Clark. I liked an earlier Greydon picture, "Angel's Revenge" because it was a shirne for thriteen year old boys. Avoid this movie at all costs!!
From the Star of "MITCHELL", From the director of "Joysticks" and "Angel's Revenge"!!! These are taglines that would normally keep me from seeing this movie. And the worst part is that all the above mentioned statements are true!!! Ugghhh... Joe Don Baker eats every other five minutes in this film. It's like a bad remake of "Coogan's Bluff"
I didn't think it would be possible for Joe Don Baker to make a movie as bad as his stinkbomb 'Mitchell', but this one succeeds.<br /><br />I wouldn't recommend this if you're a fan of Joe Don Baker's MUCH better work. But,if you like to watch fat guys sweat and really, really drawn out gun fights, you'll love this movie.
This movie was just heckled by MST3K and with good reason. First and foremost because it is a "cop" movie starring Joe Don Baker, who we all know is about as good a cop actor as Michael Jackson is a country western singer.<br /><br />All the typical cop movie plot devices rear their ugly heads, bar fights, children hostages in shoot outs, bad acting, lame police chiefs, bad acting, revenge/justice, endless goons , and of course, bad acting. Don't watch this without an MST3K filter folks.
I've never been impressed by JD anyway, and Final Justice (which I hadn't seen prior to its MST3k airing) proves to be no exception. It's not that the character is any less likeable than Mitchell: it's just that there's less that Geronimo ("Call me 'Heronimo') to dislike.<br /><br />In fact, one suspects that Mitchell and Final Justice were all schemes of a revenge-seeking agent of Joe Don's trying to get the "star" killed by inducing a heart attack.<br /><br />Joe Don must have found a new agent, since he's now graduated to "comic relief" in James Bond movies. The problem is, it's hard to tell the difference between his comedy characters there, and his "serious" characters in his action-movies like this one.<br /><br />As for the plot...umm, what plot? They repeat the same set pieces so repeatedly you'll think you were watching Groundhog's Day 2. Presumably, the fact they keep using the same scene of Geronimo getting out of jail is supposed to be comic relief of some sort. Ummm, yeah, whatever.<br /><br />On the plus side, the Malta scenery is pretty gorgeous, so that kicked it up to a 2 for me. One suspects this flick set Maltese tourism back a couple of decades, though.
Sergio Leone spins in his grave... If there was any film that tramples upon a man's life work its this one. The lead character's "lone wolf" bravado is uninspiring and lame, and the script was apparently written by a monkey with an eight grade education. Whoever's idea this was should be horse whipped. The only reason I'm spending time trashing it is because there's a 10 line minimum. Sergio Leone's family should sue, not because its crap, but because now it's immortalized as crap by MST 3000. Shame. Disgust. I blame Hollywood...at least Gary Busey makes crap that wont offend anyone but cocaine users and weapon experts...this film is pure blasphemy.
Final Justice has the great Joe Don Baker running around Texas, shooting people who shoot people. Then he's off to Malta where he shoots more people. He gets locked up many times for shooting people. Then he gets into a gunfight with the bad guy, who is dressed like a monk. There is a boat chase, and Joe Don winds up in jail again. Finally Joe Don, with the help from Elaine from "Seinfeld" kill the bad guy, blow up a boat or two and someone gets shot with a flare. All this and a catchy theme song, just like Mitchell!
This movie was not made by Who fans. Most of the great moments that fans will look forward to in the half-hour Tommy medley are simply missed or glossed over: In Christmas, they didn't show Daltry's screams after the line "Tommy doesn't know what day it is...", they showed almost *no* Townsend guitar shots in Pinball Wizard, there were excess crowd shots during the best moments of Go to the Mirror, and worst of all, in the second half of We're Not Gonna Take It (Listening to You), they robbed us of almost every shot of Pete's blazing guitar chords. Huge chunks of the film are shot from in back of the band. It's a very frustrating film to watch, and doesn't deliver the goods. I don't know if director Murry Lerner is just not a Who fan, or worse, for him at least, if he *is* a Who fan and this is all the *eight* cameras could deliver for him. To its credit, there are some rare numbers before Tommy, as well as some faves, that are very well shot, and sometimes the editing is brilliant. This might be enough to make some viewers happy, as long as you're not anticipating Tommy. The sound overall was mediocre in the transmission I watched from DirecTV; it may be different on video or DVD.
What a boring film! To sum it all up, its was basically just Nana Patekar beating up his daughter-in-law Karisma Kapoor, while she tried to flee from the village, with her son. Can someone say BORING??? The concept wasn't too bad, but it was poorly executed. The Canadian locales, and some of the village scenes were nicely shot. However, overall the cinematography came up short. The story could have been great, but the movie just seemed to drag on. There is only so much stupidity a person can take, let alone three bloody hours of it.<br /><br />The best part of the whole movie was the song "Ishq Kamina", and that was only five minutes long. Other than that, this movie was a piece of crap.
I saw this movie by accident yesterday at a cinema. I had some hopes for the movie because I really like Spoorloos (The Vanishing) and the book it's based on. The movie starts out okay as it at first seems to be a nice thriller. Quickly though the movie becomes a mess with uninteresting plotlines, characters that are never fleshed out and nobody in the audience cared for (like Marjoke) and terrible editing. The movie has fade to black bits that are just way too long, a messed up chronology that jumps back and forth and lots of scenes that just don't add anything to the story and could easily have been dropped. After suffering through the story you'll get treated to one of the worst endings I've seen in a very long. It should also be mentioned that the movie has lots of explicit sex scenes which you're probably used to if you watch a lot of dutch movies. It's hard to mention any good things about this movie. About a third of the audience had already walked out of the theater halfway into the movie and I didn't hear a kind word after the movie was over. Avoid this movie at all costs. it really destroyed any faith I had left in the dutch movie industry.
With movies like this you know you are going to get the usual jokes concerning ghosts. Eva as a ghost is pretty funny. And the other actors also do a good job. It is the direction and the story that is lacking. That could have been overlooked had the jokes worked better. The problem only is that there aren't many jokes. Sure I laughed a couple of times. Apart from the talking parrot there wasn't an ounce of creativity to be noticed in the movie. I blame the director not using the premise to it's full potential. Eva certainly has the comedic skill to show more but did not get the opportunity to do so. Overall this movie is ideal for a Sunday afternoon. Other than that it can be skipped completely.
I have to admit that Over Her Dead Body actually wasn't as bad as I was expecting, my mom wanted to see it, so I rented it. I figured just to go ahead and see the horror before my eyes, but actually this wasn't too bad. I was just expecting this horrific movie, but it seems like the writers meant no harm, but the casting of Eva Longoria(Parker, sorry), she seems a little off set for the movie. I think I may have found it to be a little better without her, just she does annoy me. But Paul Rudd and Lake Bell had a decent chemistry that made the film somewhat likable. But you have to admit, there was no point to this movie, it was one of those quick paychecks for the actor type of thing. The movie could've been funnier if someone had really paid attention to it and had a better cast.<br /><br />Henry just lost his bride to be, Kate, who was killed by an ice sculpture on their wedding day. But when his sister takes him to a psychic, Ashley, Henry falls for her, but Kate is haunting her from beyond the grave. Kate is jealous and doesn't want Henry to move on so quickly and she will make sure that Ashley doesn't get him by torturing her day and night with her rambles, believe me, with Kate's voice, that's scary.<br /><br />Over Her Dead Body is an alright movie, not sure if it's worth the money, but I'd give it a rental for you if you want to see it or are curious. Eva Longoria just doesn't have enough star power to make the film work, no offense to those who love her, she just belongs on the small screen over the silver screen. Not to mention the character of Ashley, she seems still not too likable with everything she pulls, or her "gay" friend, Dan, just again, not really likable. Just with some re-writing and proper attention, this film could have been better, but instead we get the average predictable romantic comedy that will leave with with an empty feeling.<br /><br />4/10
The lovely Eva Longoria Parker plays Kate, who dies after an ice angel crushes her before the "I do's" with fiancé Henry(Paul Rudd). After two years Henry has yet to move on and his sister Chloe(Lindsay Sloane)is very concerned. Chloe arranges for Henry to talk with an attractive psychic Ashley(Lake Bell). Ashley is to contact Kate's spirit hoping to help Henry get on with his life. When the psychic starts getting attracted to Henry, Kate's ghost appears to nip the romance in the bud. There are some funny situations; but if you've seen the trailers you have seen the substance of the film. Also in the cast: Stephen Root, Jason Biggs, William Morgan Sheppard and Wendi McLendon-Covey. I personally thought that Bell stole the show from Parker. And Biggs as usual a pain in the butt. Still this movie was over-hyped.
"So there's this bride, you see, and she gets crushed to death by this statue that falls on her on the day of her wedding. Then, get this, a year later, her former fiancé falls in love with a beautiful psychic… and then, that beautiful psychic gets haunted by the ghost of the disgruntled dead bride who wants to keep her from stealing her boyfriend…he he…it'll be hilarious!." Polite chuckling.<br /><br />This, I like to envision, is how Jeff Lowell, the man who dreamed up "Over Her Dead Body," presented his concept to the studio execs over there at New Line Cinema. The big mystery is how those very same corporate bigwigs could then turn right around and green light the project, allowing Lowell to direct the film as well as write the screenplay.<br /><br />For if you think that no movie could ever possibly be as bad as this original premise sounds, then clearly you have another think coming. The only way in which it might have worked is if the writer had simply gone crazy with it and turned it into a no-holds-barred satirical farce. Instead, wanting to ensure that he delivered a fuzzy, inoffensive and warmhearted romantic comedy, Lowell engages in boring half-measures every step of the way, tamping down the absurdity in favor of drab conventionality. Indeed, "Over Her Dead Body" is so thoroughly inept and unfunny that it's hard to know where exactly Lowell thought he was going with it. Virtually every set-up, joke and sight gag in the film is flat-footed and poorly executed, with even the actors themselves seemingly aware of their predicament. How else to explain the halfhearted, lifeless performances of Paul Rudd, Eva Langoria Parker, Lake Bell and Jason Biggs in their various roles? <br /><br />I choose not to blame the actors, some of whom have proved their talents in better vehicles in the past (that is particularly the case with Rudd). But Lowell and those studio execs sure have some 'splainin' to do.
Jeff Lowell has written & directed 'Over Her Dead Body' poorly. The idea is first of all, is as stale as my jokes and the execution is just a cherry on the cake.<br /><br />Minus Eva Longoria Parker there is hardly anything appealing in this film. Eva looks great as ever and delivers a likable performance.<br /><br />Paul Rudd looks jaded and least interested. Lake Bell is a complete miscast. She looks manly and delivers a strictly average performance. Jason Biggs is wasted, so is Lindsay Sloane.<br /><br />I expected entertainment more from this film. Sadly, I didn't get entertained.
This movie is similar to the play entitled 'Blithe Spirit' written by Noel Coward. The plot of a ghost wife and a medium are strongly linked to Coward's writing. I'm surprised that movies of this nature don't acknowledge the original writer's concept. I realize that the public may not be aware that this is a knockoff but it is.<br /><br />Sad. These movies are so expensive to produce. I do perk up when a screenplay is original. I even perk up when it's an innovative way to produce a work that was previously released. There were some samples mentioned (such as Topper, etc.). <br /><br />I realize that movies are still a comparatively affordable form of entertainment. However, I'm not please when the public's taste is taken for granted. In this situation, the public's taste is overlooked.<br /><br />I look forward to better produced movie entertainment.<br /><br />In this case. I rather see the play.
This film is shoddily-made, unoriginal garbage. I like romantic comedies sometimes. Watching a good one is like eating ice cream for dinner. It's not something you are going to do all the time, but the experience is so pleasurable that you can ignore how unwise you are being. This movie made me think about how stupid I was for continuing to remain seated for its entire running time. Everything about it screamed made on the cheap. It actually looks like they overexposed the film at certain points it is so washed out. It boasts cheesy CGI and lame sets, too.<br /><br />The writing was clunky. I know that you can usually expect some plot problems in a screwball comedy, but you usually don't really care because you are laughing. This movie is so unfunny that you actually sit there and wonder about the unlikely series of coincidences and completely unbelievable behavior involved. Events were placed in the film just to move the characters from one scene to the next or to provide exposition. Sure, this is how all movies work, but you shouldn't notice that it's happening. Inelegant. That's the term I should use.<br /><br />There was almost no one in the movie who was really likable. I didn't care who ended up with whom, as long as they all stayed the hell away from me, and I didn't have to listen to them talk about it anymore. Why would the only really cool character in the movie, the Paul Rudd character, want to have anything to do with the completely bitchy, condescending, control freak played by Eva Longoria? Also, almost all of the characters involved consistently picked the sleaziest solution to any situation. A straight man pretends to be gay for five years just to hang out (and bathe with) with a woman he is attracted to? The best feel-good moment they could come up with was to tack on a happy ending for the same schmoe where he gets together with Rudd's equally annoying lying, kleptomaniac sister? Lake Bell and Eva Longoria are very attractive, appealing women. Maybe they will find something better to appear in down the road.
Was this the greatest movie that I have ever seen? No. Was it the worst? No.<br /><br />As a mother of four kids, it is nice to watch something that was light and amusing. It was great, but it was cute.<br /><br />I think that it definitely had some room to improve, but it tried.<br /><br />I am not sure if this movie deserves the extreme level of abuse from the other reviewer. They obviously do not care for Eva Longoria. I think that she was better in this than in The Sentinel. I think that movies are a matter of opinion. The actors play a huge role in whether it is a hit or a flop.<br /><br />Maybe the cast did not work out. Maybe there were too many things going on.<br /><br />I just wanted to speak up for an average movie, not a terrible one. It could just be a chick flick. Kind of like the movie The Split-Up or French Kiss. My husband still talks about those. :)
There have been some funny movies about spirits to come out of Hollywood. Cary Grant was an angel in "The Bishop's Wife" (1947). Of course the best were the Topper movies in the late '30s-early '40s. And, more recently, Warren Beatty's "Heaven Can Wait" (1978), which was a remake of 1941's "Here Comes Mr. Jordan." These were well-written, funny, entertaining comedies, all of which centered around supernatural creatures like ghosts and angels.<br /><br />Now comes writer-director Jeff Lowell, making his feature film debut with a story of an unlikable, bitchy young woman, Kate (Eva Longoria Parker), who gets killed on her wedding day and then comes back to harass the fledgling spiritualist, Ashley (Lake Bell) who is falling for Kate's fiancé, Henry (Paul Rudd). One thing that is clear at the outset: Longoria Parker is no Constance Bennett (Marion Kerby in the first two "Topper" films), who is the standard against whom all female ghosts are measured.<br /><br />There is a line right at the beginning when Henry's sister, Chloe (Lindsay Sloane) tells Henry, "You don't smile." That aptly described my situation throughout this film.<br /><br />The main problem with the film is that the script just isn't very funny. But it's made worse by Longoria Parker's presence that just rubbed me the wrong way every time she appeared on the screen. Just to start out with, compounding her lack of comedic talent, she is covered with so much pancake makeup, who knows what she really looks like? Kate gets killed while setting up for her wedding by a falling frozen statue. She's so unreasonable that the angel who instructs her about what her afterlife is about walks out on her (well, she actually just fades out), so Kate finds herself back on earth as a ghost without knowing what her mission is.<br /><br />Chloe wants Henry to snap out of the funk into which he has naturally descended after Kate's death (from what I saw of Kate, he should have felt a wonderful relief), so she introduces him to Ashley, who really doesn't know what she's doing as a spiritualist (she is also a cateress to make ends meet), to see if she can get Henry back in touch with Kate. There's a lot of meshugaas that goes on.<br /><br />The vacuity of the film is epitomized by a "B" story revolving around Ashley's assistant, Dan (Jason Biggs). This is thrown in near the end, but the way Ashley handles it indicates that she's as much of a boob as Kate. Since Dan is apparently attracted to both of these severely flawed women, he deserves whatever he gets.<br /><br />Eventually Kate appears to Ashley and the fun should begin. It doesn't, and more's the pity because in other hands this could have been pretty funny. As it is, Norman Z. McLeod, Constance Bennett, Roland Young, Alan Mowbray, and Co. must be turning over in their graves to see this is what their brilliance in the first two "Topper" films has wrought.
This movie is one of the worst ones of the year. The main characters have no chemistry and the acting is horrible. Paul Rudd is the only one that has any talent, and the only one that is not annoying. I have never watched Desparte Housewives, so I don't know how Eva Longoria is on that show, but in this movie she was horrible. It's like she knows nothing about acting. All her character does is whine throughout the film, and she can't pull off being a b**** and still be entertaining. And the other girl, Lake Bell, displays little emotion and it's like you are looking at the cue cards as she reads them.<br /><br />As for the story, it is so cookie cutter. It goes from point A to B with little surprise. So much more could have been used with Kate as a ghost. The plot should have revolved more around her and the things she does as a spirit.<br /><br />FINAL VERDICT: It's not worth watching.
I had to shut this off after about 15 execrable moments..<br /><br />I was hoping it might improve,<br /><br />What I saw was badly acted, directed & written.<br /><br />This movie should never even have been released directly to DVD,.<br /><br />The lead character who is a bride top be from HELL has an huge Ice sculpture fall on her killing her. She was such a revolting person I was not even sorry for her. She winds up there in a sort of heaven, & was still repulsive, I left shortly after.<br /><br />Eve Longoria portrays her & I hope I never see her again, she cant even act.She is just plain annoying.<br /><br />Paul Rudd an actor who normally can do no wrong also was in this dud.<br /><br />Jason Biggs ( no longer a teen) is also present,<br /><br />I do like comedies BUT not stupid ones about stupid people.<br /><br />Rating: * (out of 4) 30 points (out of 100) IMDb 2 (out of 10)
Henry, a veterinarian (Paul Rudd), and his bossy fiancé, Kate (Eva Longoria) are looking over the last minute arrangements for their reception. It is the morning of their wedding and Kate is in a frenzy, giving the caterers an earful about her demands for food presentation. But, horror of horrors, the "angel" ice sculpture, ordered by Kate, arrives without wings. In an ensuing fight with the sculptor, the heavy "ice" maiden falls on Kate and sends her to the hereafter. Now, one year later, Henry's sister arranges for a psychic to tell the young vet that Kate would have wanted him to starting dating other ladies and move forward. Yet, the lovely medium, Ashley (Lake Bell) becomes interested in Henry herself, much to the chagrin of her catering partner (Jason Biggs). More importantly, Kate returns from the other side to create havoc for Ashley, as she has no intentions of letting another woman get her hands on Henry. Can anything be done to return Kate into heaven for good? This is an abysmal romantic comedy, one of the worst this dedicated fan has ever seen. No, its not the cast, as they try gamely to make things work. Longoria is beautiful and funny as the overbearing fiancé and Bell has an offbeat style and humor that is likewise infectious. Biggs, a funny thespian, too, is totally wasted. As for Rudd, a very gifted performer (see Anchorman, Knocked Up, or Clueless, please) he tries hardest of all and, in truth, is the main reason to see this clunker. His charm, looks, and easy wit go a long way in making the film bearable. But, nothing can turn a mindless script and terrible direction into a winner, absolutely nothing. So, if you are a dyed-in-the-wool fan of romantic comedy, think long and hard before you fork over any money for this one. Even were free tickets to fall into your lap, be warned that this movie is a near-death experience for those who adore love-and-laugh cinema.
I confess to have quite an uneasy feeling about ghosts movies, and while I sometimes enjoy the genre when it comes to horror, but when it comes to comedies, they really need to be crazy to be funny. 'Over Her Dead Body' seems to take afterlife a little bit too seriously, and fails in my opinion from almost any aspect I can think about. The story is completely unbelievable of course, and did not succeed to convince me either in the comic or in the sentimental register. The choice of the principal actresses was awful. While Paul Rudd is at least handsome and looks like a nice guy, the taste in ladies of his character seems to need serious improvement as Eva Longoria seems too aged (sorry) for him, and Lake Bell seems too unattractive (sorry again). A romantic story without good enough reason for romance is due to failure from start. Jason Biggs and Lindsey Sloane were actually better but they had only supporting roles. The rest is uninteresting and uninspired, with flat cinematography and cheap gags borrowed from unsuccessful TV comedies. Nothing really worth watching, nothing to remember.
this movie was terrible. i thought with all the some what decent actors, it would be better. don't waste your time. Eva longoria parker was awful. she should stick to desperate housewives. Paul Rudd is becoming a B actor. the mess he made in the movie i could never be your woman was the epitome of what i'm saying. and lake bell she was cute but definitely in need of some more acting lessons. watch just like heaven with Reese Witherspoon...it was a tad better. or any other ghost movie. you will be grateful to not have wasted your precious time. PS i love you is also a good from beyond the grave romance! time to start watching movies rated over 7 out of 10 and listen to the people who have already seen it.
Obnoxious Eva Longoria dies on her wedding day when an ice sculpture of an angel (without wings) falls on her off the back of a truck and kills her. She is then tries to ruin the relationship of her ex-boyfriend with his new girlfriend, a psychic who can see her.<br /><br />Obvious unoriginal movie wouldn't be bad in a clichéd sort of way, except that Longoria's character is hateful and obnoxious that she drains all of the fun out of the film. Its like having your ears cleaned with sandpaper. To be fair Longoria, nor anyone else in the cast or crew, isn't the problem, its the god awful script that sinks the proceedings. Its just really really stupid.
Well this is the first post am ever commenting on IMDb., do you get it, this movie has made me come and warn all the good souls who will stop ever experimenting with movies.<br /><br />As most of them have given their comments I thought of watching this movie because it seemed to have some decent actors(though having read worst critics against this movie) I thought of experimenting it assuming it to be some comedy flick., Well it all started well with some ahem., comedies.... then it all started going pathetic... man you can believe your self, you wud feel like going and banging your head each and every time the pathetic looking woman called the heroine of the movie is made helpless...Huh~~ Well how much can a person digest a sick all POSSESSIVE witch kinda ghost trying to do all she can to irritate you and stop you from what you are doing.<br /><br />The next worst thing about the movie is, the "ZOMBIE" Hero, yes as he looses his fiancé he roams around like a Goat, with black marks under his eyes., and with the hero's "terribly stupid" sister.. you wud be bleeding from head to toe if you attempted and succeeded by completely watching this movie~!
i didn't even bother finishing the movie because i was so bored i thought i was going to pass out i was watching it in the movie theaters and me and my friends just got tired so we got up and left to another movie if i ever have to sit through 2 min. of that movie again i think I'm going to shoot myself...and i do know the whole entire movie because my friend told me what happened at the end and i wasn't surprised at all i mean who didn't know she was going to do the right thing and let him be happy i mean for real you would have to be a complete idiot not to know that. i know i didn't miss anything and if somebody ask's me to see that movie i would say "over my dead body".
Much of "Over Her Dead Body" is so painfully unfunny that I was actually squirming in my seat out of embarrassment for the actors.<br /><br />Eva Longoria proves that she can't carry a film in this terrible romantic comedy, and further, that she doesn't really even have any comedic timing. She's grating and annoying as a ghost who returns to earth to keep a cooky psychic from dating her widower fiancé. The fiancé is played by Paul Rudd, drippy and charmless, while the psychic is played by Lake Bell, bringing the movie whatever anemic energy it has. I felt most sorry for Bell, as she appears to have some comic abilities and was working overtime in an effort to make the material work. Unfortunately, she is up against the insurmountable task of making any movie that features Jason Biggs tolerable, and she is dragged down with the rest of the cast like Leo DiCaprio at the end of "Titanic." <br /><br />"Over Her Dead Body" actually pi**ed me off, because of its laziness and utter lack of effort. I started to think of all the interesting projects that can't get funded because vast amounts of money are being funneled into bland crap like this. Seriously, does Hollywood think movies like this are good enough? How stupid do they really think the movie-going public is? <br /><br />Grade: F
You know you are in trouble watching a comedy, when the only amusing parts in it are from the Animal cast. It is a pity then that the parrot, Cat & Dog were only in support & not the other way around, as the humans in it were pretty abysmal throughout.<br /><br />If I were you, Paul, Eva, Lake (what sort of name is that), Jason, & Lindsay, I would forget this acting lark & do something else, as all of you are as funny as watching paint dry, & awful actors to boot.<br /><br />The main gag in the film is one of the characters shouting, me not Gay, which is funny as if you weren't, you might change your mind if you had to put up with the three bossy, tedious & dare I say very plain women leads in the film.<br /><br />The worst film I have seen in years, & hopefully never see one as bad again, though I expect not.
Sorry guys, I've already written my opinion of this movie but today was the first day I looked at some of the other reviews. There are a quite a lot of people who agree with me but what's scary is that there are some people who seem to really like this movie. I don't like to write nasty reviews or criticise other people's opinions but I think it's only fair to warn anybody out there who may be debating whether or not to see this movie. This is not a good movie. I really like movies and I'll watch just about anything but this movie made it onto the incredibly short list of movies I watched and was happy to leave halfway through. If you really are incredibly tempted, watch the trailer...that's the mistake I made because the entire movie is essentially in the trailer...after that there are no surprises, just some shockingly bad dialogue to waste time. I love Michael Vartan in Alias and would hate to criticise him but I think it's my duty to stop other people wasting hours of their life on a movie like this!!
This really was the worst movie I have ever seen. Michael Vartan is hot, but who is this woman? And she looks absolutely awful through the whole movie, the hair is so bad! They talk in like monotone voices and there is nooo chemistry. The cover of the DVD does not even remotely come close to what the movie actually is. Really, really boring. I had to fast forward through some of it because it was so painful to watch. I really want to know how i on earth anyone could think this is good? hhaha they literally just like talk and say "yeah" and there is no passion whatsoever. I could not tell at all that they were in love. I'm sorry but this was the saddest excuse for a movie I think I have ever seen.
Sure, it had some of the makings of a good film. The storyline is good, if a bit bland and the acting was good enough though I didn't understand why Olivia d'Abo had such a pronounced Australian accent if her character was supposed to have been raised in the US. My biggest problem, however, was with the wardrobe. I know as rule, the average American is considered a frumpy dresser by any self-respecting European but this was beyond that. Anna's colour combinations were positively ghastly!! And that potato sack-like, sad excuse for a coat she wore throughout the film made me break out in hives. I suppose the idea was to be as realistic as possible (how many school teachers walk around in Prada?) but simple doesn't mean an absolute lack of taste. A word to the wise...
I just want to make one thing clear- I love Michael Vartan! But this film really lets him down. His acting is still superb, he's still as charming as ever, and he still looks great. But the film itself is a load of rubbish! Natasha Henstridge, I'm sorry to say it, comes over bit manly... you're constantly waiting for her to run off with her best friend, who's own sub-storyline is a little weird. Myself and my family (who sat down and watched the film with me) were also put off by the soundtrack to the film; at times the music just didn't fit with what was going on in the scenes. However, even this was not the worst aspect of what I found to be a very disappointing film. I could forgive the leading lady's butch-ness, I could forgive the freakish characters that were thrown in to the mix, and I could forgive the poor choice of musical accompaniment, but whose choice was it to cut out the whole middle section of the film and skip straight to the end??? The ending was obviously planned from the beginning but how it gets there is left untold. If you're a Michael Vartan fan skip this film: buy yourself a poster instead.
Great movie - especially the music - Etta James - "At Last". This speaks volumes when you have finally found that special someone.
Look, there's nothing spectacularly offensive about this film, it's just boring. It's a typical rom-com with an ending you can see coming before you've seen so much as the trailer. The key difference is that the classic rom-coms tackle their stories with wit and a lack of pretension. This movie has no pretension but it really has no sense of movement, you feel as though you could get up and walk away at any moment. The production of the movie also has the feel of a debut movie made about fifteen years ago. I'd recommend re-watching a classic movie like When Harry Met Sally instead of this shallow imitation. Oh, one other BIG problem...no chemistry. If you're used to seeing Michael looking all cute as Vaughn in Alias, you're going to be seriously disappointed with the way they've made him look here.
I'm a sucker for a good romance, but this one doesn't qualify as either good or a romance. I had the plot nailed down before the credits were through. With such poor dialog, plot and character development, I suggest investing your hour and a half elsehere. I had to rush out and rent Serendipity for the third time so I could get the bad taste of this one out of my mouth.
Poorly structured, badly written, loaded with cliches and flat dialogue. Not a single scene shines. The actors struggle with a painfully dull scenario that manages to completely avoid any surprises, plot twists or conflict. You know from the first ten minutes where it's going.<br /><br />For a movie set in NY, it has almost no feeling for the city. There are a dozen other indie movies that manage to make it seem magical on a small budget. This one seems like it was shot in Toronto.<br /><br />If you cast Natasha Henstridge, why dress her in baggy sweaters? Why make Vartan look boring and drab? Where's the attraction? I felt like I was watching a sub-par Christian movie of the week it was so asexual and moralizing.<br /><br />Steven Feder's big success is that he convinced people to make this bland movie.
" It had to be You" is another sign that Hollywood is running out of ideas. This picture is about Charlie Hudson a former police officer turned Author. When Charlie's fiancé goes out of town he's stuck with all of the wedding planning. He spends a week at a fancy hotel and meets Anna Penn a teacher who just happens to also be getting married. The two quickly become friends and set out to plan their separate weddings together. This is when the plot gets boring, Charlie falls in love with Anna and she has to choose between a safe life or Charlie. This movie rips off every romantic comedy ever made and just has you waiting for the end of the movie so you can do something else. Micahel Vartan and Natasha Henstridge give really mediocre performances which just makes this movie all the more gut wrenching to watch.
This is supposed to be well-researched and based on fact. How come therefore that it's so packed with McGovernisms. Did the people of Derry live in some kind of bizarre Philip K. Dick world in which reality was uncannily like Cracker/ Liam/ Priest? Or is McGovern an idle hack who just keeps repeating hims
Being an independent filmmaker and a huge fan of Edward D. Wood Jr. I purchased this documentary believing that this would finally set the record straight on how gifted and brilliant Ed Wood actually was. <br /><br />What I got was a disappointing self-centered, conflictive, contradictory compilation of bitter self-aggrandizing has-beens. <br /><br />Where people DO remember Ed Wood Jr., do people actually remember the second cousin of the guy with the duct tape who knew someone who was in Plan Nine From Outer Space? <br /><br />It appears as though, the very minute there is a renewed interest in Ed Wood, these people come out of the "Wood"work! Only to take mean spirited swipes at someone who actually gave them a chance when no-one else would! After 50 years I would suggest that many of these people should let go of the fact that they didn't get the $75 they were promised!<br /><br />Ed Wood was a brilliant creative filmmaker who knew how to entertain. In-fact that was ALL he lived for. You may giggle when you see Ed's films, but somehow you are aware that you are laughing WITH him, and not AT him. <br /><br />But, I digress... Back to the film at hand. If you are expecting a film ABOUT Edward D. Wood Jr., you won't get it here. If you want a film about cranky bitter old actors, this is the film for you!
Essentially a story of man versus nature, this film has beautiful cinematography, the lush jungles of Ceylon and the presence of Elizabeth Taylor but the film really never gets going. Newlwed Taylor is ignored and neglected by her husband and later is drawn to the plantation's foreman, played by Dana Andrews. The plantation is under the spell of owner Peter Finch's late father whose ghost casts a pall over Elephant Walk that becomes a major point of contention between Taylor and Finch. The elephants are determined to reclaim their traditional path to water that was blocked when the mansion was built across their right-of-way. The beasts go on a rampage and provides the best moments of action in the picture. Taylor and Andrews have some good moments as she struggles to remain a faithful wife in spite of he marital difficulties with Finch.
ELEPHANT WALK was a thoroughly dull film and I really was quite happy when finally a herd of elephants stormed through the mansion and ended this film. Considering the money and cast, you'd sure expect the film to be a lot better, though I also question the odd casting of Dana Andrews as a man who is in love with Elizabeth Taylor. It's not just the age difference but I just can't see the pair as a couple. Perhaps some of this may be the fault of substituting Miss Taylor for Vivian Leigh at the last minute (due to Miss Leigh's deteriorating mental condition)--though I also have a hard time visualizing Andrews and Leigh as well. In addition, for an English woman, Miss Taylor doesn't even seem to try using an accent.<br /><br />The film begins with Peter Finch and Taylor meeting and marrying in England. Their plan is to return to Finch's tea plantation in Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and at first it seems like a good life. However, there are no women to talk with and the household staff seem to resent her. On top of that, once back home, Finch behaves like a boorish jerk and Taylor is miserable. Neighbor Andrews can see this and he declares his undying passion for her. However, Taylor isn't yet ready to abandon her marriage. But, through the course of the film Finch treats Liz more and more like an object and finally she is ready to leave...when out of the blue, Cholera strikes the plantation. So it's up to Andrews, Finch and Taylor to work together to save the day--though by this point I really didn't care, as there is absolutely no chemistry between the characters, the dialog is pretty dull and you can't understand why Taylor didn't leave her weasel husband within days of arriving in this inhospitable hell.<br /><br />The film isn't particularly engaging or convincing and despite a decent budget by Paramount, the film is a sluggish mess. I particularly was surprised that although the film appeared to be filmed on location, many scenes were clearly filmed in a studio with a rear projected (and grainy) shot that wasn't integrated well. In one scene, for instance, Taylor, Finch and the lot are sitting on the veranda and the grass is bright green. Then, when the picture cuts to people dancing right in front of them, the grass is brown! It's clear they really are NOT in Ceylon in this scene or the scene with the giant reclining Buddha. My advice is to skip this one or at least keep a pot of coffee nearby to keep you awake. Despite its budget, it's just not a very good or inspired film.<br /><br />By the way, could Miss Taylor have been pregnant during part of this film? In some scenes (particularly at the beginning) she's wearing billowy clothes, has a double-chin and looks puffy. This isn't a criticism--after all, women do get pregnant! But if you look carefully, you'll see what I mean.<br /><br />Also by the way, the basic plot in many ways is similar to GIANT--a great Taylor film indeed! It's amazing how casting and decent direction can do so much.
the author of the book, by the same title, should not have let her name be used for this movie. if you have read the book, this movie takes such a liberal interpretation of the actual events in the book and its spirit that the movie and book seem to have quite little in common except the title and some superficial details. the movie adds nothing, in terms of artistic merit, to the book's own literary achievement.<br /><br />for those who have not read the book: you will also be disappointed. not only does the plot move at an incredibly slow pace, it doesn't offer anything more while it is moving slowly (like character development, for example). some viewers might be entertained by some of the graphic lesbian love scenes later on in the movie, but you might as well watch a showtime special for the stuff they show in therese and isabelle--its fairly tame and not imaginative at all.
I'm not sure how related they are, but I'm almost certain that Lost and Delirious is a remake of this movie (or the story that it's based on). Very similar plotline, and even some of the scenes and sets seem to be very, very similar. Lost & Delirious is actually a much better movie, so see that one instead.<br /><br />This one moves very slowly, but being a late 60s French movie, that is to be expected of the style. Told in a retrospect from the perspective of one of the girls revisiting the school. The editing of the flashbacks with the current scenes is a little bit confusing at first, particularly since the audio from each overlaps (ie, hearing flashbacks while seeing the present and vice versa). Also, the "girls" are a bit old to think that they are in a boarding school. Finally, not much character development to even get you attached to the movie.
Shallow, shallow script ...stilted acting ...the shadows of boom mikes lingering over the actors' heads in scenes ...worth watching because Kate Mulgrew plays the most selfish mother in TV movie history and it's all before Ben Affleck got his teeth capped.
The tragedy of the doomed ship Titanic has inspired many books and movies. The battle between nature and technology always caught man's imagination. The latest film concerning this tragedy in the Atlantic Ocean was written and directed by famous action movie filmmaker James Cameron. The story of "Titanic" involves two fictional characters (Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet) from different backgrounds (one is a hobo-artist, the other is an aristocrat) and how their love triumphs over societal barriers and the tragedy of a sinking ship that they happen to be on.<br /><br />First of all, although using a historical name, this movie had little regard to history. The plot was built around two fictional lovers, French diamond, and treasure hunters. The deaths of over a thousand of people on the greatest luxury ship of its time became a mere background. Many historical facts were simply forgotten. Where was the radio operator that ignored the iceberg warnings? Why was there no mention of the ship that was only 5 miles away from the Titanic but did not come to the rescue because its captain failed to identify the distress signal? Omitting these facts is an insult to the tragedy. And what was the point of flavoring this historical disaster with fictional cheesy romance when the story is already as sad as it is.<br /><br />The overall plot was rather shallow; rich equals greed and corruption, poverty equals compassion and heroism. It is very ironic to spend $200 million to make a movie about how money corrupts. There was absolutely no human side shown in anti-heroes. It seemed like Billy Zane was playing a part of the devil. Casting was also very poor. If DiCaprio was 2 inches shorter than Winslet, you could swear she was his baby-sitter. The length of the movie was unnecessarily stretched to over 3 hours. First hour and the half was wasted on establishing the relationships between the characters that were known to audience long before they went to theater and the dialogue that was used to do so made it even worse. Hearing corny pick up lines such as "I see you" and "This is my side of the ship" generated more pain than the screams of drowning people. Also, jokes were too abundant and rather lame.<br /><br />"Titanic" did involve some moving scenes such as the part when the musicians were playing while the ship was sinking but they were no way near anything original. The best thing about this film were its special effects, and that is the only thing that truly deserved an award.<br /><br />Although this film lacked artistical value in overall sense, the public could not resist a sentimental story starring Romeo (DiCaprio), and so the movie became a success. Now it is safe to say that the industry will be less hesitant to invest large amounts of money in a single motion picture, so it seems that "Titanic" did achieve something after all.
Once upon a time there was a director by the name of James. He brought us wonderfully, thrilling science-fiction such as Terminator and Aliens. These movies were the stuff blockbusters were made of and he looked to have a fantastic future ahead of him as the dawn of computer generated special effects landed upon the film industry. Terminator 2 showed gave us glimpses of what was possible in this new era.<br /><br />.......and then it happened...................1997........countless awards..........obscene amounts of money............outlandish barrage of advertising............maximum profit margin........Titanic was here!<br /><br />I have never (ever) been one to jump on the bandwagon and be overly critical for the sake of it, in fact I have often taken the opposite stance from the majority just to get an argument going. Titanic however was a film I only took one single positive out of - that of Kate Winslett being absolutely gorgeous throughout!<br /><br />Quickly - the dialogue was like something out of Beverly Hills 90210, the acting was more wooden than my nephew's tree house, images meant to terrify were actually comical (man falling from ship and hitting propeller), historically false (don't even get me started because there's too much), it had dire theme music (up there with the bodyguard for cheese) and the pointless love story was so tedious, self absorbing and pathetic that it disrespected the plight of everyone else involved (I was glad when he died and disappointed when she did not).<br /><br />It was plainly obvious from the word go that this picture was designed to appeal to MTV watching, bubblegum chewing, boy-with-car chasing, teenage girls (DeCaprio himself resembled something less heroic than the weedy member of a boy band) who would drag their sex-starved boyfriends out for a three and a half hour chick-flick hoping to get lucky later! The worst aspect was that it did not stop at that point. Millions of dumbed down, culture vultures went to see this expensive waste of celluloid because "it cost so much to produce it must be great" and "Steve and Barbara said it was good and they know their movies". <br /><br />The crowning glory arrived when Titanic swept the boards at the Academy Awards. King James of Hollywood had a serious moment of silence for the victims of the fatal evening on which his three and a half hour farce was based. It looked to me as if he was praying for forgiveness after making a fortune off inaccurately portraying the circumstances that lead to the death of a lot of people. <br /><br />However, if people are stupid and sentimental enough to buy into this kind of rubbish they deserve to get ripped off. Good luck to Hollywood if that is how they want to make money, I'd do it if I had those kind of chances in life!<br /><br />It is right up there on my all time worst movies list with other silly, historically false/human interest tripe like "The Patriot" and "Pearl Harbor".
I've just had the evidence that confirmed my suspicions. A bunch of kids, 14 to 22 put on the DVD of "Titanic" on a fantastic state of the art mega screen home entertainment type deal. Only two of them had actually seen it before. But they all had seen the moment of Kate, Leo and Celine Dion so many times that most of them felt they had seen the whole movie. Shortly after the epic started, they started to get restless, some of them left asking the others -- "call us when the iceberg appears" Over an hour and a half into the movie, only the two girls who had seen the movie before, were still there. They started shouting: iceberg, iceberg. A stampede followed, they all came back to see the sinking of the Titanic. They sat open mouthed, emitting Ohs and far outs. So, just like I thought when the movie first burst into the scene. What is this? One and a half hours waiting for the bloody thing to sink but what about the rest of the of it. Dr. Zivagho, for instance, had a similar running time, but think how much takes place in that film within the same period of time. In "Titanic" Leo teaches Kate how to spit. Look at the faces and hands of the, supposedly, creme de la creme in the first class dining room of the ship. Look at the historical details, if you can find them. The storyline is so thin that they have to introduce guns and shootings in a ship that is about to sink. The real sinking here is of film standards. All the efforts are focus on special effects and opening week ends. The film went on to become the highest grossing movie of all time so, what do I know?
What I think I'll probably like best about the new Star Wars film, "Phantom Menace", is that it will likely blow "Titanic" out of the water, if you'll pardon the pun, when it comes to sheer devastating box office receipts, and thereby knock it out of the number one spot. Every time I hear someone declare "Titanic" is the greatest film they've ever seen, I think to myself, "You don't see a lot of movies, do you?" What a travesty. You could make 50 good films that are a lot better than "Titanic", and for the same price tag.<br /><br />"Well, it won lots of academy awards, lots of people really loved it," as someone might say in its defence. Well, lots of people like the Spice Girls and billions and billions of people eat at McDonald's, but that doesn't mean it's high quality. Yes, millions of Elvis fans CAN be wrong.<br /><br />I'll be the first to admit, that part of the problem for me was the mega-hype over the film. I waited a month or so to see it and ultimately, it didn't live up to the expectations set upon it, which simply called more attention to the appallingly stupid love story. It's true, "Phantom Menace" will likely suffer a similar fate. but.<br /><br />James Cameron's "Titanic" is. a) a cheesy action flick thinly disguised as a serious period piece. b) a three-hour epic that has it's finest moments given away in the trailer. c) a sappy love story beyond belief or entertainment. d) something left better to documentarians, which I would've enjoyed much more. e) a film with arrogance that lives up to the level demonstrated with the real ship. f) a robbery of 3 hours that I will never get back, therefore the greatest motivation for a time machine I can think of. When I meet someone who hasn't seen it yet, I say, "I wish I could trade places with you." g) a slap in the face to any genuine victim of hypothermia. How long are we supposed to believe that people can be immersed in freezing cold water and still form intelligible sentences? h) thankfully a film that wasn't recognized for any acting achievements at the Oscars. i) a technological achievement in filmmaking, and little else.<br /><br />The only reason I post this as a anonymous comment is I do NOT welcome the rebuttal of 10,000 thirteen year old Leonardo DiCaprio fans who'll no doubt come to his defense, and I am not really interested in hearing a defense of Titanic's story, acting or length.
First of all, as a long time student of the Titanic disaster and member of several Titanic clubs, I feel entitled to comment on the film. I don't really care how many awards and accolades the film won, but to me it is still an absolutely awful film. Cameron had the resources to make a 'proper' semi-documentary film of the disaster but unfortunately chose to turn it into a po-faced romantic mush. The fact that so many people around the world fell for it only shows, to my mind, the sad state of taste and common sense that movie critics and audiences have these days. Whoever said that all movies should have a hero and heroine falling in love? In fact most real events are anything but romantic and the Titanic disaster certainly was not one. I feel that it needed a better script and director with a semi-documentary approach and as little artistic license as possible. I almost threw up in the last sequence where the 'dead' lovers meet among the other lost passengers and crew who break out in applause. Is this an intelligent film? Ask yourself.
I see people writing about how great this movie was. It was horrible! The acting was sub-par at best. It made a lot of money because teenage girls went to see the movie 7 times in the theaters because of Leonardo. Where the hell did they get the money? Anyway, I wanted to learn more about the Titanic; why it sank, what was running through a lot of people's minds; maybe even a little conspiracy stuff. Does anyone realize that certain people didn't even board the ship because there was a fire on board before it even took off? No, you don't because all you see is a rich girl falling for a poor boy and he paints her naked (did that corny junk at least tip you off that the movie was stupid?).<br /><br />I did cry in during one scene, though. The scene when they showed the water that was filling up in the ship. It looked like pool water! I'm thinking this movie made all this money and they couldn't even make the water from the ocean look real? unbelievable...<br /><br />Ohhh the band played on while the ship sank.. Just ridiculous. This was the worst movie until Pearl Harbor outdid it in the "Nothing to Do With Reality" department.
I, like many people, saw this film in the theatre when it first came out in '97. It was a below average film at best, defiantly not the "masterpiece" that all these "Titanic" fanboys like to make it out as. First off, DiCaprio is a terrible actor no matter which way you look at it. People just like him because of his looks. His acting "skills" essentially consist of saying a lot of cheesy lines and trying to act sexy. Second, the film itself had a rather boring and simple plot: girl falls in love with guy, ship they're on sinks, lots of crappy love scenes thereafter. Anyone with an IQ above 50 will realize this isn't ingenious in any way whatsoever. Nor is it original. Plus the director felt the need to drag it out for 3+ hours. I could compress it into a 1 hour block without losing any of the plot. In conclusion, "Titanic" is the most overrated movie to date. Why it got so much attention and money is beyond me.
There is a lot of obvious hype associated with this film. Let's just face it, though, the main reasons why anyone would watch it would be for Leo and Cate, who are not necessarily the best actors in this film. I'm not saying they're not good actors, I'm saying they stunk in this film. The special effects were decent (and I will say the film makers did a good job making the ship eye-pleasing), but IT even has several major flaws. For instance, right before the ship goes under, you can see an unfinished blue-screen image behind your main characters.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the story of the REAL Titanic, but I find this movie an insult to that story. Editing was atrocious--there's no reason for any film to be over 2 1/2 hours (with the exception of MAYBE a biographical movie), and the writing and screenplay was horribly stilted.<br /><br />I will say that the music was perhaps better than I could have predicted (and not just the "My Heart Will Go On" song either). There is one scene that stands out to me when the ship is sinking and pounding bass music is heard. That could very well be the highlight of the film. As for the mood throughout, it was extremely dull. I was more relieved than sad when Jack died, which I know cannot be what the director intended.<br /><br />In a nut shell, I find it horrible that they turned the beautiful story of the Titanic into an over-hyped chick flick.
What a piece of junk this movie was. The premise was okay, but even in the beginning with crappy effects to blend in a giant with normal sized people (even the effects in Hercules was better) I knew this would be bad. But the really awful part of the movie is the dialogs. It's completely incoherent, silly and stupid. I felt like it had been written by some 9th grader in creative class and gotten a D-. I want to slap Casper van Diem and the other actors for following this movie through.<br /><br />I've had my share of cheesy and bad movies (I love the tremors series), but this... I do not recommend it at all. It's silly and the totally flabbergastingly bad dialogs will make you cringe.
"The fallen ones" falls under the waste of life (WOL) category. I am sad that I am now two hours older was not entertained. My other family members also watched this movie and threw demeaning comments at the screen and rooted for the mummy. I felt sorry for the actors (Wagner). I have read other negative reviews and cannot add anything else to this movie other than it could be reduced to 25 minutes so it could take a 30 minute slot on TV without any loss of plot. It reminds me of a dish that has several good ingredients but when served is bland with no flavor at all. In my humble opinion, The 42 foot mummy should have been 8-10 feet and improved the plot by taking out the mystic and replacing him with several people who want to denigh the facts and want DNA samples for evil reasons. The heroes are discredited and tossed on there ear by their colleges. Later after everything was screwed up by the evil people. The heroes would save the day and prove everyone wrong.
Some moron who read or saw some reference to angels coming to Earth, decided to disregard what he'd heard about the offspring of humans and angels being larger than normal humans. Reinventing them as mythical giants that were 40 feet tall, is beyond ridiculous. There was some historical references to housing and furniture in parts of the world, that were much larger than would be needed for standard humans. These were supposedly built on a scale that would lend itself to a 10 to 14 foot human, somewhat supporting the "David and Goliath" tale from the bible. There is no mention in any historical references to buildings or artifacts that would support the idea of a 40 foot tall being. If I was rating this movie on my own scale, it would have been a negative value instead of a one...
I saw not so fabulous rating on IMDb, but I went to see it anyway, because I am a big fan of Bible related material. First thing that bothered me was a little too much Indiana Jones wannabe movie, but it also looked like Casper Van Dien didn't see those Jones movies through (but he should). I believe he tried his best, but script just stunk. Music tried to be kinda Jones style too. Great work, but for such movie it seemed like too much work, like the video part did't deserve all that great music. Robert Wagner gave his best acting skills, he did a good job, but somehow the script was bringing everything down. "Jokes" are old school, somewhere 20 years old; they brought only cynic smile to my face. There are some really bad camera angels, SFX looks like homemade and unrealistic. Kevin VanHook had probably a good idea on the story (in my opinion, but I love such stories), but things just didn't work out in the end. Maybe he should put it on a paper when it was still fresh in his head. When I (in first minutes) saw that movie was going to be one of those 'low budget movies', I hoped that I will at least 'hear' a good story, but sometimes movies just disappoint.
The Fallen Ones starts with archaeologist Matt Fletcher (Casper Van Dien) in the desert discovering the mummified remains of a 42 foot tall giant, now there's something you don't see everyday. Matt is working for property developer Morton (Robert Wagner) who wants to build a holiday resort on the land & he calls in fellow archaeologist Angela (Kristen Miller) for reasons I'm unsure of. Anyway they both try to figure out what they've got on they're hands when some of the team go missing, Morton calls in security guy Ammon (Navid Negahban) to handle the situation. Meanwhile ancient text translator the Rabbi Eli Schmidtt (Tom Bosley) translates some ancient text (as he would) & is shocked to learn of a evil prophecy in which these giants will rise up & take over the world for the Fallen One, or something like that. It's up to Matt to save the day & the whole planet...<br /><br />Written & directed by Kevin VanHook, who also has a small role in the film as the ancient warrior leader at the start, I personally thought The Fallen Ones was a terrible film & it's as simple & straight forward as that. There are so many things that are just plain bad about The Fallen Ones both on a technical & conceptual level, the script doesn't make a whole lot of sense & it doesn't really get going until the final 20 odd minutes by which time I had almost lost the will to live. The character's are awful & as clichéd as you like, the dialogue is bad as in very, very bad & the entire film is predictable, I mean it's not going to come as a surprise that Casper Van Dien is going to save the day is it? It's not a huge surprise that the mummified giant is going to come back to life either so why wait until over an hour into the film when most of the audience will be in some sort of comatose state. This is bad, very bad. You have been warned.<br /><br />Director VanHook doesn't impress, the fight scenes are absolutely awful & why dress your bad guys up in a horrible shade of purple? They look naff. To give it a bit of credit the special effects on the giant Mummy itself are actually good although there's not that many of them since he doesn't make an appearance for over an hour, there are also some normal sized Mummy's that look to have come straight from the set of The Mummy (1999), unfortunately these aren't used to any great effect & in fact are wasted as some comic relief. The mechanical Mummy was a pretty good idea but looked silly & there is no way on Earth that all those people inside could work in sync with each other to operate it, actually the more I think about the more ridiculous the idea is. Forget about any scares, tension or atmosphere & don't even think about any gore or violence because there isn't any.<br /><br />Technically The Fallen Ones isn't anything special & apart from the impressive giant Mummy effects there's little her to get excited about. The ghost CGI & water effects are terrible, it was made-for-TV & it's shows. The acting was poor, Wagner looks embarrassed & this is probably the only thing the likes of Dien & Bosley can get these days.<br /><br />The Fallen Ones is a bad film, there's no two ways about it as far as I'm concerned. Not recommended on any level or in any way, one to avoid.
I came into this movie really wanting to line it. I thought the premise had a lot of potential and was ripe for an interesting movie. Don't get me wrong here, I wasn't expecting Citizen Kane, I was taking this for the B movie that it is. That said, it still fell short of the expectation. The historical aspect of the story is glazed over and the ending left me a bit cold. The acting in the movie was very wooden. All in all I give it 4 for a great idea, but the movie could have scored much higher with a bit more attention to movie making fundamentals. Is it worth seeing? I didn't wish for my two hours back, but I don't know that I'd recommend it to others.
I had some time to kill before watching football so I saw this movie being offered on the scifi channel and it literally after watching it I thought I had encountered my version of mentally walking the Bataan death march as my conscious was beaten into submission by the awful movie which ripped off the Mummy series and Jurassic Park. It was so bad that I thought the opening credits were the highlight of the movie and then it went into such a abysmal descent that it made the recent drop in the stock market seem like a hiccup. The acting was so bad that I was hoping that one and all would be buried at the end. The lead by Casper Van Dien made me long for the high caliber acting of Steven Seagal in "On Deadly Ground" as his line reading was so wooden that Woody Woodpecker was thinking of making a cameo to sit on his shoulder. I also noticed that his emotional range is so limited that I was under the impression my kitten was more expressive when asking for popcorn to eat . The direction was so abysmal I looked back yearning to my nephew's grade 3 play recital which had more pace and better vision and the fact that this movie seems to be have spliced together from afterthoughts of the aforementioned movie franchise it can not even be thought of as a homage. The FX of the movie was so bad that I thought the director and producers were enviormentally friendly by recycling cheap special effects from grade Z horror flicks from yesteryear. What Robert Wagner, Tom Bosley and Geoffrey Lewis were doing in this movies is beyond me and they should look at litigation against their agents for misrepresentation for getting them involved with such a dreck of a movie. My warning to one and all is watch this movie at your peril as this movie may cause your IQ to diminish with prolonged viewing. On a side note I noticed at IMDb that sometimes salaries for movies are published I was wondering if their is a way that actors that should give the salaries back for their poor performances in such movies. Beware and be safe avoid at all costs.
...from this awful movie! There are so many things wrong with this film, acting, writing, direction, editing, etc. that it's amazing that something rises to the top and proves itself to be the absolute worst. The music! I noted that the film has two composers listed. This must be the reason why every single frame has music, of the absolute worst "D" movie style drivel. They have never heard of the expression "less is more". It got so painful to listen to, I muted the sound every time there was no dialogue, not that the dialogue was that good. You have to feel sorry for Robert Wagner and Tom Bosley, I'm sure they didn't see roles like this in the twilight of their careers. See it at your own risk.
An archaeologist (Casper Van Dien) stumbles accidentally upon an ancient, 40 foot mummy, well preserved underground in the Nevada desert. They are determined to keep this a secret and call in a Jewish translator to assist in figuring out the history of it. The mummy, as explained at the beginning, is the son of a fallen angel and is one of several giants that apparently existed in "those days". In order to save his son from a devastating flood which was predicted to kill everything, he mummifies his son, burying him with several servants for centuries - planning to awaken him years from then. In our present, the fallen angels still walk the earth and the mummy is resurrected and a ritual is expected to take place. Most of the movie is slow, having to do with a lot of biblical crap and a couple lousy, air-punching fights. The mummy is decent looking but isn't shown nearly enough. It should have had more to do with that but it dragged on a great deal so... eh. Don't bother.
Mr. VanHook took a good idea and kicked like a football. Unfortunately, it didn't make the goal. The historical subject of giants is a good one, but pour in the goon milk and you end up with a giant wheel of cheese. I say, take this reel wheel and roll it off a cliff. I couldn't even watch the entire film. That says a lot because I rarely walk away from any movie. I always like to give them a chance for last-minute redemption. It's impossible to redeem something this bad. Well, at least the acting was good....NOT! <br /><br />The only thing "falling" in this film is the rating. 1/10 and sinking into the negative numbers!
Boris Karloff is Matthias Morteval, a dying, lonely old nut who lives in Morhenge Mansion with some servants and tells his doctor friend, "Don't try to doctor me, doctor! I'm disgustingly healthy!" He invites his nieces and nephews to his home and warns them they may have inherited a genetic disease that causes madness by "shrinking the brain" (?)<br /><br />***SPOILERS***<br /><br />Morteval/Karloff ends up dying, and murderous "toys" (designed by his dead brother) start killing off the relatives. A mini cannon fires real bullets into a guys face, a life-sized knight in armor attacks with an axe and a dancing Sheik stabs people with a knife. One guy getting strangled makes some hilarious faces. At the end, Julissa and her boyfriend find Karloff is still alive and hiding out in the dungeon where steel gates seal off the room. He plays the recurring organ theme music (sort of a death rattle used for the killings), the brother's spirit starts talking ("The whole house will go with me!") and the mansion goes up in flames.<br /><br />This senseless mess is too dark, boring and the stupid dialogue never matches the lips.
"House Of Evil" aka "Dance Of Death" of 1968 is the first of four infamous and odd last movies starring the great Boris Karloff and directed by Jack Hill and Juan Ibánez. Unlike "Snake People" (1971), "The Incredible Invasion" (also 1971) and "The Fear Chamber" (1972) which were all released after Karloff's death in 1969, "House Of Evil" was released in 1968, when Karloff was still alive. "House Of Evil" is regarded by many as the worst of these four movies, which are without doubt all rather crappy, but definitely have their entertainment value as the unintentional comedies they are. I personally prefer "The Fear Chamber" and "House Of Evil" over the other two, simply for the reason that the lack of the slightest logic is even more extreme, and since there is no suspense whatsoever in any of the movies, the lack of logic increases the unintentional fun factor.<br /><br />The odd story (I don't know if I can really call it a 'plot') is set somewhere in Europe in the 19th century. After some girls are murdered and found with their eyes ripped out, Mathias Morteval (Karloff), an enthusiastic organ player, invites his few remaining relatives to his bizarre mansion, which is full of eerie toys. His kinfolk includes Lucy Durant (Julissa), who is engaged to one of the police inspectors investigating the murders.<br /><br />I won't give away more of the story, but I can assure you that it is quite bizarre throughout the movie. There are some very funny moments, especially some things Karloff's character says. Boris Karloff was without any doubt one of the most brilliant and important icons of the Horror genre who ever lived, and he manages to award this odd movie with a tiny bit of his greatness, and although (or because) his role is (due to a poor script and and directing) in no way scary, it looks like he deliberately plays it with a sense of humor. Just like in the movie's successors "Snake People" and "The Fear Chamber", the female lead is once again played by Julissa. <br /><br />Most of he supporting performances are hilariously amateurish, the cinematography is terrible and the locations and sceneries are beneath contempt. The storyline lacks the least bit of logic and the dialogue often does not make the slightest sense. It is the poor story and dialogue, however, that makes this movie so entertaining to watch. "House Of Evil" may be an extremely crappy attempt of a movie, but it is certainly as (unintentionally) funny as it is bad. Fans of Ed Wood's movies should be very amused, I personally found it hilarious. Crappy but entertaining nevertheless, and definitely worth watching since there's Boris Karloff in it and due to the fun factor. 3/10
Felt mine was while watching this...but it seems that is the reason for insanity running in the family in this film. Not that makes a lot of sense anyway, as others have mentioned, this was one of Karloff's last films and it's only his screen presence that lends it any credibility at all. It's sad that all of the great legends of the horror films in the sound era were eventually reduced to starring in low grade rubbish like this. Marginally, Boris did get off slightly better than poor old Bela Lugosi but not by much. <br /><br />Boris does his best and give him credit for trying to hold this mess together. The strident background music doesn't help and distracts from any lucid moment. Apart from Boris, the rest of the Mexican cast are dubbed into some strange, clipped, English monotone that is reminiscent of the type used in porn films of the late seventies. <br /><br />At a guess I think it's Edgar Allen Poe's 'House of Usher' that this is taken from but you'd be hard pressed to find a great deal of Poe in the finished article.<br /><br />Still, there are far better films out there with Boris Karloff at his best, search them out and give this a wide berth, unless you want the curse of the 'shrinking brain' too!
I couldn't give this film a bad rating or bad review for two reasons: Robin Williams and Toni Collete. The film has the potential of being a thriller and there are some slight disturbing elements that lean to the psychological which was something the film could have focused a little on. Robin Williams plays Gabriel Noon, a storytelling night time deejay who is going through personal issues: his lover moves out and Gabriel is having what seems to be a case of storyteller's block. One day he receives and reads a story written by a dying 14-year old boy named Pete Boland (Rory Culkin). Pete tells the story of his life and the abuse he suffered at the hands of his parents. He lives with his adopted mother and social worker, Donna Boland (Toni Collette). Gabriel is fascinated and begins a friendship with Pete, but things seem strange when Gabriel attempts to meet him and discovers the possibility that Pete Boland may not even exist. I won't go into detail because I don't want to spoil the film, but I will tell you this: it is quite predictable. Fascinating atmosphere for telling a story and good performances from Robin Williams and Toni Collette, who I thought was the film's key character. Collette is without question one of the most talented and loveliest actresses. Her ability to tap into the psyche and personality of the characters she portrays is very uncanny and I hope to see her win an Oscar (hell, I think she might pull off getting a Best Supporting Actress nod for this one if the script were a little better). The film starts off as a psychological thriller, but a predictable one at that. If your curious to know the film's ending and twists, then see the film otherwise I would rent another predictable thriller called "Hide and Seek".
This movie is trash-poor. It has horrible taste, and is pedestrian and unconvincing in script although supposedly based on real-events - which doesn't add much of anything but make it more of a disappointment. Direction is not well done at as scenes and dialogue are out-of-place. Not sure what Robin Williams saw in this character or story. To start, Williams is not convincing as a gay in a relationship breakup nor is the relationship itself interesting. What's worse, his character is compelled by an ugly pedophile story that is base and has no place as a plot device. You have an older Rory Culkin tastelessly spouting "d_ck_smker" - in good fun- which is annoying enough and then laughed up by the Williams character. Finally you have Sandra Oh as a guardian angel adviser to Williams and a thrown in explanation of the whole fiasco towards the end. Toni Collete's character is just plain annoying and a re-hash of her 6th Sense performance with poorer direction. Very Miss-able.
I didn't really expect much from "The Night Listener" and I actually never heard of it until I saw the cover in the videostore. However, the movie is very effective when it comes to building up suspension and tension. On occasion it drags a little, but it actually helps to keep you wondering what's going to happen and more importantly: when. As the movie progresses, the character played by Robin Williams gets dragged into some kind of "cat and mouse" spiel to the point where he becomes obsessed with finding out the truth and existence about a 14 year old abused kid that no-one seemed to have ever seen in person. The Night Listener is an interesting story, which is great in building up the suspense throughout the movie and you're pretty much kept in the dark of who is lying and what's real. However, in the end it kind of disappoints and doesn't live up to the potential it could have had. It doesn't really give you a detailed or plausible explanation about the other main character, which would have been helpful and interesting.
Robin Williams gave a fine performance in The Night Listener as did the other cast members. However, the movie seems rushed and leaves too many loose ends to be considered a "must see." I think the problem happens because there isn't a strong enough relationship established between the caller and the Gabriel Noon(I had to spell it this way, because IMDb wants to auto correct the right spelling to "No one") character. The movie runs a little over 01:30 and within the first 15 minutes, or so it seems, Noon begins his search for Pete Logande, the boy caller.<br /><br />This happens after he talks to the mysterious caller about 3 or 4 times. The conversations aren't too in-depth mostly consisting of how are you... I'm in the hospital...why did you boyfriend move out... etc. In the book, the kid almost becomes Noon's shrink and vice versa and the reader understands why he goes in search of this boy, once he finds out the kid disappears and thinks he might be a hoax.<br /><br />In the movie, Noon becomes obsessed with finding Logande, but the audience is left to wonder why? Since there really isn't a strong enough bond established between Noon and the caller, why bother? Who cares if the caller doesn't exist? <br /><br />I know there's a difference between a book and a movie, but those calls and that relationship was critical to establish on screen, because it provides the foundation for the rest of the movie. Since it doesn't, the movie falls apart.<br /><br />This is surprising because of Maupin's other work, Tales of the City. When it was made into a mini-series, it worked beautifully.
I felt that the movie was dry... very disappointing no plot..kept waited for something to happened and nothing did dry as a bone.. a wast of money.. One of Robins Williams worst films..if you don't believe me wait a few months it will be out on DVD because that seems to be a pattern for movies that don't do well in the theaters are out as rentals before the year is over... This is one you will not want to see or say why did I spend my money on that!. Plus for it being such a new movie there were only 8 people in the watching it.... This was on a Friday night the 9:50 showing. I also felt that it needed some more excitement or something to keep us awake. When they characters spoke in the movie the voices were also very low you could not hear what they were saying..
My husband is a huge Robin Williams fan. I like him too, but have generally found that he should "stick to what he does best" and focus on comedic roles. My thoughts were confirmed with this movie. I was completely bored throughout the entire film. The story was predictable. I realize it was inspired by a true story. But, my guess is that there could have been some suspense or intrigue even while maintaining truth in the story. None of the characters were well developed. There was a side story about the main character and his partner. This relationship could have been explored further. More important, though, would have been a deeper exploration of the mother of the "boy". Her psychological profile would have been interesting to delve into. She obviously has a long history that was not touched upon except in the most superficial way. If my husband wasn't such a huge Williams fan, we would have left 20 minutes into it. Too bad I can't get my $20 or 2 hours back.
Most of what has been said about the negative aspects of the film hold true.<br /><br />BUT .... If I have to sit through a movie were the:<br /><br />Director<br /><br />Director of Photography<br /><br />Editor<br /><br />Can't EVEN miss the darn Microphone Boom popping in and out of the movie for almost every Chapter of the movie, how can I enjoy and concentrate on the story as well as believe in the darn thing when I'm reminded of the technicalities of making a movie!!!!!!!<br /><br />WAIT FOR THE DVD OR DON'T BOTHER
I rarely write a negative review for this site, but this time felt complied to. Night Listener is without doubt one of the dullest films I have ever seen.<br /><br />There was nothing happening in this film what so ever - I didn't care for any of the characters, didn't buy in to the whole mystery type plot, didn't care how it ended....nothing.<br /><br />There is no comedy, no action, no thrills, no suspense, nothing. The highlights include (no spoilers - there's nothing to spoil): a man climbing through a window, a dog barking outside a hotel room, a car going over some rough ground and a truck beeping it's horn.<br /><br />I really enjoyed "One Hour Photo" and hoped for a similar eerie role from Williams, but alas was sorely let down. What's more disappointing is that I'm sure there is a good film in there somewhere - the idea was interesting and I should have felt sympathy for the characters, but it just didn't work for me.<br /><br />I might even have given it 1/10 but that score is reserved for the remake of The Producers
Trying to compare or represent this "swill" as anything "Hitchcockian" is an out-n-out attempt to mislead Hitchcock fans to waste $7 on this movie... Weak acting Weak story Weak script. <br /><br />No real suspense, no thrills. You wait all through the weakness of this movie for the big payoff or even any payoff...You're left thinking, what the heck was that all about.<br /><br />And please, enough with the movement to make "alternative lifestyles" HIP and politically correct!!...I can't recommend this to anyone...Did I mention how weak the acting is? Williams did a better job as Peter Pan and "Mork". But those were MUCH more innocent times...........
This movie is a mess. I'm surprised it even has a theatrical release. WIthout Robin Williams it would have gone straight to video. It is poorly written. It is poorly directed. It's worse offense is that it has taken an interesting topic and reduced it to a ridiculous and BORING thriller that has no thrills and no suspense and no inner or emotional logic.Especially after the first half hour the movie dovetails into a series of ridiculous set pieces that are so over the top that the audience I saw it with was laughing at it. Save your money. The trailer is totally misleading - it is not suspenseful and there are no thrills - in fact the movie's truly worst offense is that it is simply boring.
Let me start out by saying i will try not to put too many spoilers in this. Normally I enjoy Robin Williams movies, however this gem was not one of them. It was billed as a suspenseful thriller. The night listener was anything but. To be blunt there were 6 people in the theater opening day, 2 walked out, for good reason. The movie was in my opinion poorly written and directed. The acting was alright but again there wasn't anything to work with. The movie is about A storyteller who reads a good book by a dying kid. However *insert spooky here* no one can verify the kids existence. So Williams goes to Wisconsin to try and find the author, however all he gets is a headache and excuses from the boys caretaker. There thats it, thats all. You wait for about an hour and a half and movie ends. It had as many thrills and chills as a dentist office visit. The homosexual undertones, or overtones had really nothing to do with the story, and the movie had a little profanity but it seemed to be thrown in there for absolutely no reason and made little sense. In conclusion i really can't write a decent review on this film because there was nothing to it, it was as captivating as watching paint dry. I gave it a 2 because the acting for what it was worth was alright and it wasn't directed by Uwe Boll.
I would have rated this film a minus 10 but sadly it is not offered.<br /><br />Why I didn't walk out in the first five minutes of this movie I cannot say. I should have gone with my instinct and left immediately!! Several people in our theater did and sadly I didn't follow them out.<br /><br />The story lacked all criteria for a movie. NO plot. Awful acting! Even Robin Williams was so disappointing that I may never see another film he is in. Not a single relationship in the story went beyond parlor talk. I did like the tazer scene. Too bad it didn't shock some meat into the senselessness of the plot. Someone needs to tazer the writer and director of this film!
I usually come on this website prior to going to the movies, as I like to see what other people think of the movie. I read many reviews which said 'thriller not a horror movie'. This prompted me to give this film a try. I really must take issue with these 'thriller/horror' statements, as it was neither! I almost went and asked for my money back, and if you lot of reviewers enjoyed this rubbish....well you must be easily pleased! At the end of the movie, the people behind me said out loud "what a waste of time" and I turned to them and replied " I couldn't have summed it up better". I kept waiting for something to happen...but it didn't. There was the potential for a lot of good scares (or thrills if you like) but none happened. Williams acted the part quite well but I felt he was short changed by a poor script which dithered around and went nowhere. Save your money folks, this is a turkey which will be featuring at a DVD store 'bargain box' near you in the very foreseeable future!
This movie wasn't awful but it wasn't very good. I am a big fan Toni Collette I think she is a very beautiful and talented actress. The movie starts off about Robin Williams who is a writer and gets a book from a 14 year old kid. The book is great and he cant't believe a kid wrote it. Toni Collette plays the kids guardian who you don't know if this kid really exists or if she's making it all up. I am not gonna ruin the movie but I will say this the movie is not scary.<br /><br />The acting is pretty good and Toni Collette's performance was awesome as well as Robin Williams. <br /><br />The movie was a huge disappointment in my opinion I would wait for it to come to DVD.
Another chapter in the ongoing question, whatever happened to Mel Brooks's sense of humor? It starts out nicely enough, with Mel as Trump-like mogul Goddard Bolt ("You can call me God"), who accepts a bet that he can't live on the streets for 30 days. But the moment the movie hits the streets, it turns into a pathos-laden mess, with occasional "funny" bits interjected (Mel sees a black kid break-dancing for money and tries to do a vaudeville buck-and-wing, yuk, yuk). Leslie Ann Warren is nothing short of wasted. The worst part is this movie's musical number, in which Brooks and Warren do a silent dance to Cole Porter's "Easy to Love." Brooks's musical parodies are usually the highlights of his movies; here he plays the whole thing straight, like a dancing excerpt from an aging guest star on "The Carol Burnett Show" (on which Rudy DeLuca, this film's co-writer, began his career). Go rent Charlie Chaplin's THE KID, which covered the same ground 70 years before and did a lot
Woody Allen made "September", proving that even a genius could screw up. This is Mel Brook's "September". Monumentally stupid, boring, and unfunny, I must confess I did not watch it through to the end. The flick ranks among the dishonored few (e.g., "The Money Pit", "Out to Sea", "Spitfire Grill") which either put me to sleep or forced me to reach for the "rewind" button. And I say this, sadly, as a devoted Mel Brooks fan. He should stick to straight comedy and leave social commentary alone. How the same fellow that made "Young Frankenstein" and "Spaceballs" could crank out a dog like this is beyond me. To be avoided at all costs.
Whenever I make up a list of the absolute worst movies I've ever seen, this movie is always on it. It has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. It took an act of will to sit through the whole thing, and I would sooner spill my own blood than have to sit through it again.<br /><br />What's wrong with it? Let me tell you the story of my trip to go see it in the theater.<br /><br />I went to a midnight show, on a Saturday night. I the only ones in the theater were myself, and a bunch of loud, boisterous, rather unruly teenagers, sitting somewhere behind me. They were obviously out having a good time on a Saturday night, and had come to this "comedy" for some laughs. Before the movie starts, during the previews, they were laughing and joking and making loud comments having a grand old time. It was borderline annoying; had they continued their unbridled enthusiasm into the actual movie, I might've said something, but I was feeling tolerant and empathetic of their spirited fun, so I let it go. And they did settle down once the movie started.<br /><br />Why am I telling you all this? Because you can judge this alleged "comedy" by the effect it had not just on myself, but on this rowdy bunch.<br /><br />During the entire run of the film, not one person in the theater laughed. Not once. Not myself, not the boisterous kids. Absolute silence, aside from the soundtrack. And when the film was over and the lights came on, we all, all of us, slowly filed out of the theater in slow, somber, absolute silence. It could've been a funeral.<br /><br />This was the effect that this "comedy" produced. Not laughter, not enjoyment, but absolute DEPRESSION. It was a depressing, depressing movie, and not the tiniest bit funny. Preachy, self-indulgent, depressing, but not funny.<br /><br />I consider Mel Brooks' "Blazing Saddles" to be on the short list for Funniest Movie Ever. It still absolutely blows my mind that the same gentleman could be responsible for quite probably the Least Funny Movie Ever.<br /><br />In short: if you're feeling too happy, give this movie a whirl; otherwise, don't say I didn't warn you.
I can't believe how anyone can make a comedy about an issue such as homelessness. Of course, Brooks has not made a comedy about _real_ homeless people. No mention of drugs, prostitution or violence on these streets. The people we meet in this movie are homeless in Fantasy land so the only difference between them and us is that they don't eat quite as often. Brooks' movies have become worse and worse over the years. This is just another nail in the coffin .
I have done quite a few reviews on IMDb and this film is unique in that I never saw the entire movie. It was so terribly stupid and unfunny that I just couldn't sit through it--though I tried.<br /><br />The biggest problem with this and any Mel Brooks movie I call "the Mel quotient". In other words, the better his movie, the less of him you see in the film. Think about it--The Producers and Young Frankenstein were great films and he was barely in them at all. BUT, films like Life Stinks and Space Balls are chock full of Mel and are pretty dopey movies (yes, I DID NOT LIKE Space Balls--but this isn't the place to talk about that).<br /><br />Second, apart from cancer, rectal itch and mental retardation, I can't think of a less funny topic than homelessness. This is just a comedy breaker. Think about it, folks. The FUNNIEST(?) scene in the movie has Mel making whoopee with Leslie Ann Warren in a dumpster!! And this is funny in what way?
So there's an old security guard and a guy who dies and then there's KEVIN, the world's biggest wuss. Kevin wants to impress his incredibly insensitive, bratty, and virginal girlfriend AMY. As he returns from work to... a random house... he finds his "friends," the sexually confusing red-shorted KYLE and the truly revolting sluttish DAPHNE. They are soon joined by Daphne's boyfriend, the trigger-happy sex-crazed macho lunkhead NICK. And there's the title creatures, horrid little dogeared puppets who kill people by giving them their heart's desire. Kyle's heart's desire is to mate with a creepy, yucky woman in spandex. Nick's heart's desire is to throw grenades in a grade school cafeteria-- I mean nightclub. Kevin's heart's desire is to beat up a skinny thug with nunchucks. Amy's heart's desire is to be a disgusting slut. Daphne's already a disgusting slut, so she doesn't have a heart's desire. Along the way a truly hideous band sings a truly odd song. The hobgoblins randomly go back to where they came from then blow up. "Citizen Kane" cannot hold a candle to this true masterpiece of American cinema.
No matter how you look at this movie, it is just awful.<br /><br />If you view it as a horror, then it is an unscary movie with the monsters being hand puppets.<br /><br />If you look at it as a comedy, then you will notice most of the humor falls flat and is just lame.<br /><br />If it is a romance you will wonder why a guy would stay with such a B**ch!<br /><br />If you look at it as an action you can't really pull for the whiny hero.<br /><br />As you can see this movie just fails to deliver anything remotely entertaining. As mentioned the monsters are obvious puppets and this film was another attempt at a Gremlins type movie. This however has the worst looking monsters of that genre. Critters looked pretty good, so did the Ghoulies, heck even the puppets from the Munchies looked better than these. The characters in this film are thouroughly unlikable. The hero is a whiney security guard, his girlfriend is always complaining, they have a tramp friend who has a jerk military boyfriend, and another friend who is a spaz. At one point in the movie the hero and the military guy fight with rakes...this movie is just utterly stupid. I like the scene when they are in the dreaded club scum (which is obviously not a club, but more likely a diner) and the hero tells the waitress that none of them are 21. Give me a break, I am 25 and I look younger than any of them.
This rip off of the 1984 hit "Gremlins" is quite possibly the biggest train wreck of a movie ever made. Even for a 'B' grade movie, all other cheap horror movies on the same platform completely dwarf this movie in terms of plot, acting, and goodness.<br /><br />It begins with a random old security guard and the younger punky security guard whose name is of no importance. Why? Because a few minutes into the film he walks into the 'forbidden' safe, and is killed whilst living out his fantasy of being a rock star in a cheap pub.<br /><br />This is just an appetizer for the scat-filled main course. The main character, KEVIN, struggles various times to prove himself as more than a total pussy. Perhaps he succeeds within the film, but to the audience he proves himself as nothing more than a bad actor. Kevin gets himself a job with the old security guard, and is guided through his security shift in the (wait for it) abandoned studio lot. Yes why bother making a set when you can just use the studio itself. Back to the film. Kevin somehow opens the forbidden safe and releases the Hobgoblins. The Hobgoblins force people to live out their wildest fantasies and then kill them for some reason. They must be returned before sunrise or else...or else what? Exactly.<br /><br />Other characters include Kevin's 'macho' army friend NICK, Nick's 'woman' DAPHNE whose character has no more substance than a bitch-slut attitude and prostitute worthy outfits. There is Kevin's manipulative and 'reserved' girlfriend AMY, whose deepest desire is apparently to be a badly portrayed Cher look-alike with fishnet stockings with a pair of blue grandma underpants on top.. Don't ask me how that works. Quite possibly the most entertaining character of all is KYLE. How such groups of friends are made is up for question. Kyle is a perverted creep who can't go an hour without self-stimulating. His hobbies include calling up sex-chat lines from other people's houses and most likely sniffing underwear.<br /><br />The story unfolds as the heroes search for the Hobgoblins: knee-high creatures (aka. hand puppets) which, for some reason, attempt to travel no further than the borders of the local neighborhood. Each of the characters eventually lives out their wildest fantasy which never has anything to do with having millions of dollars... or the film having a big budget.<br /><br />WARNING SPOILERS AHEAD: The twist at the end of this movie will leave the watcher wondering "What?". The Hobgoblins are returned to the safe by...their own free will. Perhaps they lost patience waiting for sunrise to wreak havoc, or perhaps the story-writers got writer's cramp and decided not to worry about the ending. Upon returning to the safe, the old security guard reveals "What he learned in the military" and detonates explosives which destroys the safe, signaling the end of the evil Hobgoblins and the end of this roller coaster ride; better fitted to a ride on an escalator.<br /><br />The sheer badness of this film is enough to send someone to tears. If you plan to watch it, I recommend a few alcoholic drinks beforehand to take any serious consideration of the film out of mind.
Hobgoblins....Hobgoblins....where do I begin?!?<br /><br />This film gives Manos - The Hands of Fate and Future War a run for their money as the worst film ever made. This one is fun to laugh at, where as Manos was just painful to watch. Hobgoblins will end up in a time capsule somewhere as the perfect movie to describe the term: "80's cheeze". The acting (and I am using this term loosely) is atrocious, the Hobgoblins are some of the worst puppets you will ever see, and the garden tool fight has to be seen to be believed. The movie was the perfect vehicle for MST3K, and that version is the only way to watch this mess. This movie gives Mike and the bots lots of ammunition to pull some of the funniest one-liners they have ever done. If you try to watch this without the help of Mike and the bots.....God help you!!
This movie is not just bad, not just corny, it is repulsive. Something about Daphne, about the creepy call-girl, about the whole damn (and I use the word literally) film radiates a grotesquery that would offend a brothel mistress. This film makes my skin crawl, makes me regret having reproductive organs, and makes me feel unclean.<br /><br />One of the things that bothers me most about this movie is that they used such a good concept. A creature that makes fantasies with disastrous results, rather than the cliché Worst Nightmare and the overdone Twisted Wish, is a truly fascinating film idea.<br /><br />Thought: The reason why hobgoblins need to be killed before day is that they are attracted to bright lights. During the day, bright lights don't show up well, so they could go anywhere.<br /><br />Count the Hobgoblins: Four hobgoblins drive out of the film studio, and yet at least nine of the pernicious plush-toys are killed throughout the course of the movie.<br /><br />Discussion Question: If you had a frigid, demanding, unappreciative girlfriend, would you enter garden-tool-combat with a military chunkhead? Explain.
How Rick Sloane was allowed to make five movies is harder to believe than cold fusion. This film is absolutely criminal. Before watching this movie I thought Manos: Hands of Fate was the worse piece of crap I ever saw, but at least Manos moves so slowly you might fall asleep, thereby rescuing your eyes from the pain it will suffer. The greatest tragedy of this movie is that the old man that keeps the Hobgoblins "locked" up makes it to the final scene. The time I spent watching this movie was an absolute waste of my life.
There can be no questions of spoilers for this movie, the director beat us all too and spoiled this movie in oh so many ways.<br /><br />A blatant rip-off of stuff like Critters and Gremlins, this movie fails on so many levels to recapture the humour and horror of those better made films. It ends up a sleazy waste of time, where bad actors deliver bad dialogue in front of an idiot director, who occasionally tosses stuffed toys at them. They wrestle with said toys in much the same manner as old Tarzan films used to use rubber crocodiles, shaking them whilst screaming and trying their best to make it look slightly threatening. It's painful to watch, and not helped by the mental 80's fashions worn by the cast.<br /><br />Basically, some crazy little aliens who have been trapped by an aging security guard in a film lot finally get free after umpteen years confinement, and begin to telepathically screw around with peoples minds. The guards new recruit, the idiot who let them out despite repeated warnings, gets his gang of 80's friends together and they go off and have minor adventures together while trying to recapture the Grem... Hobgoblins.<br /><br />All life is here, with the gang consisting of a knucklehead jock, his 80's slut girlfriend, the 'hero's frigid and prissy girlfriend, and the young hero, lacking in confidence and wishing his girlfriend would put out anyway.<br /><br />First off comes the infamous rake fighting scene, where the ex-military jock shows how he was trained in the army to be a bully, poking the nerdy hero with the wrong end of a rake for what seems like hours. Then there's some running around, terminating in a real pie-fight style ending in a scuzzy nightclub with comedy hand-grenades blowing up everything except the people standing right next to them. Then the film sorta ends, and alls well that ends well.<br /><br />It's not. This is like watching a train wreck, you cant take your eyes off it, it's so bad. Perfect fare for Mystery Science Theater, but god-awful should you try to watch it alone and uncut. The Fashion Police still have a number of outstanding warrants for the cast, and I dare anyone not to laugh in outright derision at the rake fight. This scores 2 out of 10 at most, on a good day.
For starters, "Hobgoblins" tries to ape the more successful "Gremlins". That's bad enough but they don't even try to make anything that closely resembles a movie here. Instead, it's more like a bargain basement, everything-must-go clearance of embarrassing scenes, inappropriate sound FX, acting as bland as unflavored tapioca and a script that takes everything humans hold sacred in their motion pictures and throws 'em down the old tube-aroo.<br /><br />The plot? Grrrr.... Meddling kids track down gremlin-like creatures from movie lot before they kill people by projecting their fantasies. Sound cool, does it? Well, see that wall on the other side of your room? Run right at it, top speed, face first. See, THAT is cooler than this movie.<br /><br />You dare to doubt? Quick, name something else one of the leads has been in other than this. What other scripts have the writers done since "Hobgoblins"? Name another Rick Sloane directoral effort. How many "Hobgoblins" action figures do you have? See? THANK you.<br /><br />I cannot believe I took so long to write about such a horrible film. I'd rather write about more important things; like the separation of church and state, economic restructuring in Europe, that kind of thing. But no, "Hobgoblins" it is and it is bad - bad like your grandparents' wallpaper, bad as pink flamingos on your lawn, bad like underwear that says "Home of the Whopper"...and I think we'll stop there.<br /><br />Well, Mike and the robots fight valiantly but try as they might, they can do only so much with "Hobgoblins" before they realize that, yes, the director DOES need kicked in the shin.<br /><br />Real, real hard.<br /><br />One star for "Hobgoblins", seven stars for the MST3K version.
Wow, I just finally managed, after several attempts, to finish watching this god awful movie, only to learn that Rick Sloane and his production team have completed a straight-to-video sequel this year.<br /><br />Of all movies reviewed by MST3K--and they truly dig from the bottom of the barrel, screening the reputationally bad 'Manos,' 'Werewolf,' 'The Incredibly Strange,' and the lesser know disasters like 'Laserblast,' 'Zombie Nightmare,' and 'Time Chasers,'--this certainly has to be the absolute biggest pile of garbage they'd ever shown (which makes it perfect for riffing). Very simple, the movie is about a bunch of Munchies-like gremlins on the loose, exploiting people's desires for fame, fortune, prowess, and of course, sex in ways that end up with people getting killed. But this is the kind of movie where the acting is so ridiculous (a test of machismo, for example, is illustrated by two guys who battle in the front yard with garden tools), the writing is so forced (such as the oft-described scene of a gremlin hanging on the arm of one girl who would notice it, if only she turned her head a quarter to the left... and this isn't the first time in the movie this happens), and the story is so... rarely given attention (hence the MST3K riff about a "law in the future where films have to be made by FILMmakers), that you actually root for the furry puppets to kill off everyone on screen. Worst movie... ever.
****MINOR SPOILERS*** As a bad movie connoisseur I must have viewed hundreds of bad movies and yet "Hobgoblins" stands apart from all others in it's own unique way. Classic baddies such as "The Creeping Terror," "The Mighty Gorga" and "Manos" are uniformly bad from start to finish. "Hobgoblins" on the other hand, starts off bad and gets progressively worse as it goes. During my first viewing of the infamous rake fight scene I thought to myself that this was a truly bad film. I was blissfully unaware that I had just seen the best that this movie had to offer. The movie takes its most massive nosedive into celluloid hell during the painfully inept "Club Scum" sequence which is a continuous string of one unfunny joke after another. With just this one film, director Rick Sloane proves that he deserves mention alongside the likes of Coleman Francis and Bill Rebane as one of the worst directors of all time. How bad can a bad movie be? Watch "Hobgoblins" and wonder no longer.
Whether you watch the regular version of this monstrosity or the MST3K version, you can only be impressed by the utter GALL that went into this production. The filmmakers insult the viewer's intelligence from one end to the other and obviously couldn't care less that they are doing so.<br /><br />Everything about it is rock-bottom cheap. Even the 1950s car in the flashback sequence to that era looks like it was hauled out of a junkyard.<br /><br />The "hobgoblins" are, as you probably know, "realized" with badly-crafted hand puppets and stuffed toys; when a person is supposed to be attacked by them, it's clear the toy is being held by the victim to his or her own body. When the critters scurry away from the two security guards, this is shown (or rather, not shown) by the camera aiming UP at the guards as they look down and turn their heads as if watching the hobgoblins scurrying past. It's reminiscent of the scene in the film "Tangents" where two people are standing in the ruins of a future world, surveying the wreckage, and we aren't shown any of it. Budget constraints alloyed with utter incompetence generally mean you won't have anything worth showing, so why try? The "sets" were utterly laughable. "Club Scum" was an obvious diner; the house appears to have been a vacant house --probably for rent or sale-- which the production company got hold of for an hour or two to do the shoot. The "spacecraft" is something I would have been ashamed to build when I was a model-making 10 year-old.<br /><br />The motivations of the characters make no sense-- Kevin gets denigrated by his worthless ingrate of a girlfriend because he hasn't made her "proud of him." I'm sure this was intended to make their reconciliation oh so touching at the end, but any guy with real self-respect would have told her to go to hell and left her. Nick is supposedly back from 2 months of Army training (yeah, nice regulation haircut, Nick,) and seems bent on proving that our country is being defended by sadistic, moronic animals who are sex maniacs. Kyle is a phone-sex freak in red shorts who dreams of a night with a spandex-clad dominatrix type, but he's so effeminate that he's more likely gay than not. One of the girls is a prude and the other is a sleaze.<br /><br />And the hobgoblins? At the end they all head back to the vault where they've lived for 30 years. Why? Who knows? Who cares? Watch this film and be amazed at how primitive film-making in our modern age can be when you have an idiotic script, incompetent direction, actors who are so bad they'd be rejected from a high school theater production, and sets worthy of Edward D. Wood, Jr.
If movies like Ghoulies rip off Gremlins, then Hobgoblins sinks to the new low of ripping off garbage like Ghoulies. These barely-animated furbies have some kind of scheme to fulfill fantasies (which involve basically groteque characters' sex dreams - oh joy), but what that has to do with anything is anybody's guess, except to let the director indulge his kinky penchant for erotica. They show this down in the 8th circle of Hell, one suspects. There's no real plot - just "goblins - kill!" and feeble attempts at humor and a mild attempt to arouse the viewing audience.
Hobgoblins is a very cheap and badly done Gremlins rip-off. That's the best thing one can say about this stinkpile. Pretty much everyone in the cast was chosen for their looks and not their acting ability. It was very painful to watch.<br /><br />Avoid this one at all costs.
I really don't have anything new to add but I just felt like I had to comment on this sack. So here goes:<br /><br />Atrocious. I'm running through my MST3K DVD collection again and I just watched Hobgoblins for about the 10th time. It's really, really painful but it was next on the list... You can see that there is a tiny kernel of an actual movie buried under all the crap that is "Hobgoblins" but it just couldn't get out. Everything about this movie is 4th rate. The story, the acting, the effects, the women, the "action scenes", the... ahhhh forget it. I can watch a piece of crap like "The Bloodwaters of Dr. Z" (aka "Zaat") over and over and over with hardly any ill effects (I like it in fact- btw, it will be on TCM later this month- October, 2009) but "Hobgoblins" is a whole 'nother ballgame.<br /><br />The worst part of it all may be that it's now about 12 hours after the movie ended, I had a good night's sleep, some coffee and some dry toast, my medications, and yet the ersatz "New Wave" dance music that Amy, Red Shorts, and Laraine Newman were frolicking to in the living room is STILL RUNNING THROUGH MY HEAD. This torment will last for days. <br /><br />Good luck, won't you?
This movie is so bad, it's comical. In fact, Mystery Science Theatre 3000, the television show in which three characters watch and parody bad movies, used this very film to mock. I suggest watching it (maybe on YouTube) instead of actually seeing this movie.<br /><br />Please, do not see Hobgoblins if you're not prepared to stop within the first scene. Actually, do not see this movie, period. Please. At least not seriously. Its jokes are not funny (to say the least), and you'll have much more fun parodying or watching a parody of it then viewing the movie.<br /><br />You may feel yourself becoming sick upon watching, so spare yourself. Read a book. Do the laundry. Anything is more fun than watching Hobgoblins.
1. Aliens resemble plush toys and hand puppets, while having arms that don't function.<br /><br />2. Aliens mastered intergalactic space travel, but they don't know how to push an unlocked vault door open, yet can push open a door being held shut by five people.<br /><br />3. Old Security Guards know how to get a hold of C4, and are just waiting for the right time to use it, say, when they are suddenly fired for no explainable reason.<br /><br />4. Apparently, US Army boot camp, in the 80's, involved several sessions of "garden tool combat", including the pirouette spin of death.<br /><br />5. To impress your prudish girl friend, you have to "save the world...err...neighborhood" from aliens.<br /><br />6. All women are sluts, either openly or secretly.<br /><br />7. Scummy night clubs look like bad diners.<br /><br />8. "Scummy" waitresses double as dancers for The Fontanelles (how did they get talked into this?) who can only do bad 60's dance moves.<br /><br />9. Army privates secretly dream of being Rambo.<br /><br />10. Grenades apparently have a setting for "flash-bang". <br /><br />11. Being burned alive apparently only leaves one with minor burns on their arms.<br /><br />12. US Army Staff Sargeants apparently happen to always be in the area and do nothing about aliens in the area.<br /><br />13. Aliens apparently always "go home", which means back to the vault they were un-locked in.<br /><br />14. Aliens are attracted to bright lights, which apparently means in the Los Angeles area one would assume, the protagonist's house is the most brightly lit thing in the area.<br /><br />15. Showing 16 parking scenes in a movie makes the audience clamor for more.<br /><br />16. Vans from the 80's apparently have horrible suspension systems.<br /><br />17. Comedy is supposed to happen in this film.<br /><br />18. Horror is supposed to happen in this film.<br /><br />19. Spoofs and homages are supposed to happen in this film.<br /><br />20. This film cures insomnia.<br /><br />21. Apparently, garden tools make electronic keyboard noises whenever they are used, not just in fights (tell me I'm not the only one who noticed this).<br /><br />The simply truth is this film just came out wrong. Period. There isn't much meat on the bone, nor does it do anything really well. Even average. It's just bad. However, I've seen far worse, and the rake fight scene is pure comedy gold, intentional or otherwise.<br /><br />2/10 - Jaws 4 was worse then this. At least the film never took itself seriously.
A group of extremely unlikable A-holes are tormented by lame puppets that some elderly douche bag night-watchman has kept locked away in a film vault for twenty years for no reason whatsoever.<br /><br />Many people know this film merely from MST3K's spot-on ribbing of the flick. But I've seen the actual movie and can safely say that yes it's bad, really, REALLY bad. From the one of the most awful 'fight' scenes I've ever witnessed to the stuffed toy 'aliens' that suffer from a lack of motion (I had a My Pet Monster that was scarier) right up to the atrocious acting (I had a My Pet Monster that was more charismatic) However, that being said Rick Sloan's "Vice Academy" films are somehow, and trust me I have no earthly idea how, much worse. That's not to suggest that this film is anything but crap, because it isn't. Just throwing it out there.<br /><br />Eye Candy: no nudity in the movie proper, but there's 2 pairs of tits in the DVD Introduction to the film <br /><br />My Grade: D- <br /><br />Retromedia DVD Extras: Introduction by Jim Wynorski; Stills gallery; and Trailer for this film
I once thought that "The Stoned Age" was the worst film ever made... I was wrong. "Hobgoblins" surpassed it in every way I could imagine and a few I couldn't. In "The Stoned Age" I hated the characters. In "Hobgoblins" I hated the actors... and everyone else involved in creating this atrocity. I won't include a teaser to this film, I'm not that cruel. I couldn't subject innocent people such as yourselves to such torment. In fact, any discussion of plot pertaining to this film is senseless and demeaning. Words I would use to describe this film are as follows: insipid, asinine, and ingenuous.<br /><br />In conclusion, PLEASE don't watch this film. I beg of you, from one movie lover to another... no, from one human being to another, PLEASE. For the sake of your own sanity and intellect DO NOT WATCH IT. Destroy any copies you come across.
Description: Corny, utterly stupid and worthless. It's so cheap and lame, it'll make you wonder why these abnormally dumb people even wasted 2 months or so to spend a budget (I'm guessing this...) probably no more than 700 dollars to make this movie. It was just hysterical to watch with or without Mystery Science Theater. I am giving you the best advice in the world:<br /><br />Spare yourself, spare your time, life, and money, by NOT--I repeat, NOT even ponder about whether you should see this movie. This movie is so corny, it'll make your face turn purple of outraged boredom. If you have a one-digit IQ, then be my guest and watch this absolutely despicable movie. You might actually admire it. (Like I said before, IF you have a one-digit IQ)<br /><br />With about 12 actors of your own, a few puppets you bought at a garage sale, and of course cameras and music, I gaurentee you'll make a slightly more entertaining home video than this piece of absolute crap.
this is the result. A piece of trash movie that doesn't deserve to even be classified as a movie, it's just a bunch of stuff on a film reel, that makes no sense whatsoever. Well back to the actors, which from the get go seem to be just a bunch of friends who thought they would get a little amount of money together and try to make a movie that would be a great horror film. Well it's a great horror anyway, nevermind being a film. There's plenty of horrific acting in "Hobgoblins," but the worse is the main guy named Richard, who is just way too much of a weakling to even sorta root for. Well, when you cast a bunch of friends and try to make the film scary, on a less than shoestring budget, no less, this is what will happen. Oh well at least the MST3K version was hilarious. But this is still a horrid movie, that deserves all the bashing it gets. 9 for the MST version.
... Bad at being intentionally bad...<br /><br />This little gem shot straight onto the MST3k big screen. While it's obvious the movie isn't trying to be taken seriously (Hopefully that their goal, anyway...), the movie is still plain bad. Hell, it makes Leprechaun In Space look big budgeted...<br /><br />In short: Paint my muscle car prune colored!
Good Lord, what were they THINKING??!!!!!! Here is your spoiler warning, even though I don't think it'll really matter. You won't be seeing this piece of trash anyway.<br /><br />A group of handpuppets go chasing after a group of really stupid people, who go on a really stupid hunt for them to try and kill them, and the puppets complicate things by letting them live out their really stupid fantasies. In other words, the whole thing is really stupid.<br /><br />You KNOW it has to be bad when even Mike and the Bots can't save something!! And they didn't! I know, some of their lines were funny, like what to add to the sign "HIT" and the hand comments, but, geez, this was pretty dang sad.<br /><br />All I can say is DO NOT WATCH THIS PIECE O CRUD. IT IS NOT WORTH YOUR EYES.
Good grief! While I still maintain that Manos: The Hands of Fate is the worst piece of mental torture available, Hobgoblins came awfully close. This...this...thing insults the audience at every opportunity.<br /><br />At least films like Space Mutiny and Future War can be enjoyed on mst3k, this one was a struggle to get through. I was literally writhing on the couch in anguish. This thing managed to embarrass me - alone!<br /><br />Even if you are a die-hard MST3K fan and have made it your mission to see every single experiment, think twice about seeing this one.<br /><br />It's that bad.
Hee hee hee. This movie is so bad that it doesn't even try to hide the fact that it sucks big time. I remember the day I first saw this on MST. Sun was shining, looked like a good day. then, I saw this product of Rick Sloane which consisted of horrible plush dolls wreaking havoc in the crappy 80s fest land. Kevin, wussy extraordinaire, tries to impress his girlfriend, manages an assistant security guard job, fights with rakes, and plenty more stuff in this very badly made series of images. No plot or story is needed. Obviously no acting is necessary as the film proves. An army guy and his sex crazed girl will make you wanna leap off a cliff, and the dorky friend who gets his kicks off phone sex will make you say, " He has got some nice red shorts". Plus, I really hated the old security guard and wished he had an accident in his supermarket cart. Just when you think it's over, wait until the Club Scum scene. Ask for Road Rash.<br /><br />I advise that after viewing this film, a good month to regain senses and sanity. And if you see Rick Sloane, give him a good kick to the groin to show how much we appreciate this crapsterpiece called Hobgoblins.
My favorite quote from Crow was, when the car was going off the cliff, "The movie is so bad, even the car wants to get out of it!"<br /><br />This had to be the funniest movie I have ever seen. It was seriously out there to scare you, which makes it even funnier! If it weren't for Mystery Science Theater I wouldn't be here today! :-P
I didn't think it was possible for a horror comedy film to fail so abysmally on both fronts....really awful. The fact that it doesn't take itself seriously (usually a good thing) works against it, primarily because the actors are so wooden you really would swear they are reading cue cards. On the upshot though.....the MST3K version, as always, has a few laughs....
Hobgoblins... what a concept. Rick Sloan was a master with this film. He had the brilliance to produce a film with actors that couldn't act. On top of that, he chose to write a script based on some sort of bad acid trip gone serriously wrong. Put it together, you end up with a film that sucks more than a warehouse filled with suction cups and vaccum cleaners. This movie was very painful. The pain it caused is about equal to the pain caused by having your genitals carved out with a spoon, and then having the entire wound covered with salt and Hydrochloric acid.
This movie should not be viewed unless you are trying to kill yourself. I think this movie could actually cause severe brain damage. The main characters are the whiny non-hero Kevin, Amy, his bratty, ungodly conservative girlfriend, Kyle, a dork in red shorts who enjoys phone sex, Daphne, a scrawny, horny girl who is supposed to be "cool" and has no sense of how to dress, and her oversexed boyfriend Nick, an army recruit who can make an innuendo out of anything. No, I'm not a pervert, that's REALLY how the movie goes. The movie itself is an over-sexed rip-off of 1986's Gremlins, only you'll never find a trace of Gizmo anywhere. No, these Hobgoblins, unleashed by Wimpy Man (I'm sorry, Kevin), make someone's wildest dreams come true, and then kill the victims. Yes, you guessed it-Eventually, they wind up in a strip club, where the nerdy Amy's greatest dream is revealed-She wants to be a stripper! Look, I watched this flick via MST3K, and even with Mike Nelson, Tom Servo, and Crow T. Robot making a laughing-stock out of this cinematic trainwreck and it still made me bleed from both eyes. Not really, but I wish I had. I'm not giving you anymore plot, because reliving it gives me this great urge to drive a pitchfork through my brain. Besides, it's not like there's a plot worth mentioning. They should put a Surgeon's General Warning on this film.
Yep.. this is definatly up there with some of the worst of the MSTifyed movies, but I have definately seen worse. Think Gremlins rated R. Well anyway, I met Rick Sloane at some sci-fi convention, that amazingly, he was lecturing at! It was one of those really low budget conventions, where everything goes, an everyone brought in something (if you want to see crap, you should have of seen what some friends and I brought in).<br /><br />He seemed like a very nice guy, he was very cool about my questions and comments on Hobgoblins, and he even told me not to take it seriously, and said he loved the MST3K version!<br /><br />All in all, Rick Sloane knew what he was doing. And I think was meant to bad like Mars Attacks. So I guess I'm standing up for this movie and giving it a 5, and betraying all my fellow MSTies. Sorry guys.
Even for the cocaine laced 1980's this is a pathetic. I don't understand why someone would want to waste celluloid, time, effort, money, and audience brain cells to make such drivel. If your going to make a comedy, make it funny. If you want to film trash like this keep it to yourself. If you're going to release it as a joke like this: DON'T!!! I mean, it was a joke right? Someone please tell me this was a joke. please.
The back of the DVD box says Ellen Page co-stars in this movie. She does not even appear until two thirds of the movie is over and then its in minor role. I don't consider it a supporting role either, but rather a "bit" part. Also the plot has many unexplained elements. Some examples are: why does the main character reject her oldest son? Why does her youngest son drive head on into the train? He says its for a "sucker" bet which doesn't explain anything. Obviously the screenwriter doesn't know the definition of a sucker bet. This film is not worthy of the rental price in my opinion. Save your money and view it for free on TV if you think it needs to be seen.
Margret Laurence probably didn't intend on having any of her novels adopted for film, let alone the Stone Angel. Hagar, as a character, was one who constantly challenged the social norm (Gainsay who dare, anyone?), and ended up nearly sacrificing her humanity in the process. The symbols in the book (the Stone Angel, Silver Thread, etc, etc.) are constant reminders of this struggle of the old and new, and the carnage (so to speak) along the way.<br /><br />While the film is reasonably faithful to the plot of the book (but it isn't really a plot kind-of storytelling, is it?), I think it missed the point on capturing the spirit of the film. Hagar's defiance (for the sake of defiance) was not there. Bram could have been a lot more crude than portrayed, and Hagar's father could have been played more "traditionally", so to speak. If the filmmaker would insisted on stronger portrayals, the film would drive the point straight to home.<br /><br />Along the same vein, why should we see cell phones, organic produce, and other modernizations? Are we trying make some points for the sake of making some points (e.g., the Muslim girlfriend and the Native people). Hagar and co. are everything but politically correct in the book, so why should we see that in the film version. Modernization may be an excuse for a low-budget operation, but using that as an excuse to send subliminal politically-correct messages that are totally irrelevant to the novel (and the film) seems like throwing punches below the intellect.<br /><br />There is also the audience. It seems that we have been conditioned to see bitter old people as cute and lovable. Why should be laugh every time Hagar is at her tantrums? I doubt Magaret Laurence wanted her readers to laugh at, or with, Hagar. These people are frustrated and are full of angst, and all we do is to laugh at them. I don't think it did Hagar and other folks in her situation any justice.
Two sisters, their perverted brother, and their cousin have car trouble. They then happen about the home of Dr. Hackenstein whom conveniently needs the body parts of three nubile young women to use in an experiment to bring his deceased lover back to life. He tells them that he'll help them get home in the morning, so they spend the night. Then the good doctor gets down to work in this low-budget horror-comedy.<br /><br />I found this to be mildly amusing, nothing at all to actually go out of your way for (I stumbled across it on Netflix instant view & streamed it to the xbox 360), but better then I expected it to be for a Troma acquired film. Most of the humor doesn't work, but their are still some parts that caused me to smile. Plus the late, great Anne Ramsey has a small part and she was always a treat to watch.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Bambi Darro & Sylvia Lee Baker got topless <br /><br />My Grade: D+
Dr. Hackenstein begins at the turn of last century, '1909 The dawn of modern medical science' to be exact. Dr. Eliot Hackenstein (David Muir) is in the early stages of his rejuvenation of living tissue experiments, Dr. Hackenstein manages to bring a skinned rat back to life which confirms he has succeeded in bringing the dead back to life... It's now 'Three years later' & Dean Slesinger (Micheal Ensign) is round the Doc's house for dinner. As Dean Slesinger & Dr. Hackenstein eat they talk about Hackenstien's experiments which Dean Slesinger has always been opposed to, Dr. Hackenstein shows Dean Slesinger his laboratory in his attic where he keeps the severed head of his wife Sheila (Sylvia Lee Baker) who died in an unfortunate 'accident' & can telepathically talk to him (Christy Botkin provides Sheila's voice apparently). Dr. Hackenstein also show's Dean Slesinger a skinned chicken running around in a cage & explains that with the process he has developed he will bring Sheila back to life. The Dean has some sort of seizure & apparently dies. Meanwhile sisters Wendy (Bambi Darro as Dyanne DiRossario) & Leslie Trilling (Catherine Davis Cox) plus their Brother Alex (John Alexis) & their cousin Melanie Victor (Stacey Travis) are driving along near Hackenstein's house when they crash, they seek shelter & assistance & arrive upon Hackenstein's doorstep. Dr. Hackenstein invites the four stranded travellers to stay for the night. Later on Dr. Hackenstein is visited by two grave-robbers, Xavier (Logan Ramsey) & Ruby Rhodes (Ann Ramsey) who deliver a male body when Hackenstein actually needs female parts for Sheila. Dr. Hackenstein being the genius that he is decides not to waste the opportunity of having three young beautiful specimens available & starts to 'borrow' the bits 'n' pieces he needs to complete Sheila...<br /><br />Written & directed by Richard Clark I was pleasantly surprised by Dr. Hackenstein, I'll state right now that it ain't brilliant by any stretch of the imagination but for what it was I actually quite liked it. It moves at a reasonable pace even if it does tend to drag a little bit during it's middle as things settle down. The script tries to mix slapstick humour like a scene when Dr. Hackenstein is trying to restrain Melanie & she tries to gain the attention of his deaf housekeeper Yolanda Simpson (Catherine Cahn) by kicking out & Hackenstein keeping Melanie behind Yolanda's back who is seemingly oblivious to what's happening, with a touch of gore but I'd say Dr. Hackenstein is more of a comedy than horror in conception & feel throughout. There are some tacky puns & sexual innuendo as well which are always good for a laugh, Dr. Hackenstein to Wendy "would you like to see my instruments" as an example. I also thought the scene when Mrs Trilling (Phyllis Diller) reports her missing daughter's to the bemused detective Olin (William Schreiner) was a pretty amusing sequence going round in circle's talking about why he isn't looking for them even though he has only just been told, why the cell doesn't have a prisoner in it & that if he didn't find the cousin not to worry about it. None of it's flat laugh-out-loud but I must admit I found myself smiling on occasion & found the film as whole to be quietly amusing. There isn't a lot of on screen gore, a few severed limbs, Sheila's decapitated head, some medical stitching & those skinned animals which are definitely fake by the way. I liked the characters in Dr. Hackenstein too, which was surprise in itself. The acting isn't brilliant but to give everyone credit they put some effort into it, lots of exaggerated facial movements & some serious overacting means it's never dull, oh & the three birds in Dr. Hackenstein are fit if you know what I mean. Technically the film is OK as well, once again it ain't going to win any Oscars but I have to give the filmmakers at least some credit for trying to pull off a turn of the century period setting. It doesn't always work, the clothes are at odds with each other at times, the girls look like their from Victorian England while the guys look like their from a western. The house looks as if all the filmmakers did was remove any modern object from the room & stick a few candles in there! It comes across as a little bit on the cheap side but it really isn't a bad looking film at all considering. Could have done without the comedy music though. Overall I ended up enjoying Dr. Hackenstein much more than I thought I would, although that in itself isn't a recommendation. It's certainly is not the best comedy horror film ever made & it certainly is not the worst either. A watchable enough piece of harmless fun.
Hated it. If you believe that everyone in the South is dumb, morally bankrupt, stupid, violent, a religious nut, or a child molester, then this film may be for you. Everyone is poor and seemingly ignorant. In one scene, two older men are talking in a general store and one mentions that he had molested a set of sisters before they could tie their shoes. The man seemed proud of his actions, and the other man clearly took it as a normal part of life. Very nice. A teenage girl walks the back roads looking for her sister and no one offers to help her -- despite an obvious limp and lack of food or water (no backpack, etc.). Strathairn's character is not only thoroughly disgusting and slimy, but he is shown to be a religious believer who (typical for Hollywood) reflects the vile nature of Christians. A scene in the movie is highly reminiscent of the end of Cape Fear (the one with DeNiro) -- Bible verses being spouted by the bad guy. I am from the Great Northwest, but found this film offensive because of the wonderful people I know who are from NC, WV, AL, MS, KY, TN, etc.
I saw this by accident one lazy summer afternoon. It was playing on the family programming channel of HBO. At first I was drawn in, by what I thought was a Disney animation. But then, after a few minutes, I found myself searching for the remote, so I could find the 'INFO BUTTON', to find out what in the world was on my TV. I have nothing against Harvey F., I enjoy him in many of his films, but one thing he is not, is a voice-over artist. Sure he has one of the more unique voices in Hollywood, but it works only as a part of a bigger visual package. Attaching his voice to a cute duck made watching somewhat difficult. As for the rest of the cast, uninspired. I suppose working on this film didn't appeal to the really good voice over talent out there.<br /><br />So, weak voice talent, strong animation...who was this film targeting? Gay adolescent ducks? I don't get it. Is there really such a dearth of role-models for young up and coming homosexuals, that we must resort to animated ducks? Cute story, and like the title, this movie I found hard to love, just like an ugly duckling.
I've been watching a lot of cartoon or animated movies because I have a baby girl who likes to watch TV. I began to watch this movie to see if I would like my little one to watch it... and no. At the beginning I thought it was such a cute movie like the Bambi movie, but all the way it was like insinuating the ducky was a homosexual. The info said that they were making fun of him because he wasn't good at sports, but that was not the case. It just seems like a movie made for kids to learn to be okay being gay. It was also very sad, as far as the ducky's dad and all. I don't know, I guess if you're gay you'd like it, but I don't think I'm going to watch it again with my little one.
Unfortunately for me, the first Busby Berkeley movie I ever watched was "42nd Street." I then expected all of his stuff to be that good. I found out that wasn't necessarily the case, even here, with my all-time favorite classic-era actor James Cagney.<br /><br />Oh, the musical numbers at the end are as spectacular as always, but the story is like many of the others and quite tiresome. They seem to always involve screaming, unhappy show producers. In this film, it's Cagney who winds up shouting things out so often that he gives me a headache after awhile and his character wears thin....fast!<br /><br />Even the songs in here are anywhere near "42nd Street" class, songs you could hum for years and years - decades, I should say. The songs in this movie are not memorable. No, this is one of the few early Cagney films - and Berkeley films - I totally dislike and was very disappointed with while watching.
Usually, I know after the first minute of a movie if I will hate it or adore it... but now, I was wrong.<br /><br />The start was great; the "this is based on a true story" and blah blah blah thing was funny. After, the cartoons and the description of the guys' life with pictures made me think I had made the right choice.<br /><br />Then, seeing the hilarious fake look of Toronto was cool. Also, the situation and appearance of the house seemed to confirm my first idea.<br /><br />That was maybe the first 10 minutes of the movie... which afterwards looked like an eternity.<br /><br />Maybe that's just me not understanding English Canadian humour (that's possible, English Canadians also do not always understand Quebecois humour), but hey... there was enough stuff in that for a short movie, *nothing* more. Maybe that could be a meaning for the title? Anyway, almost everything was filling, and very few things were even close to funny in my opinion.<br /><br />As a matter of fact, the "making of" was better than the movie. At least you understand the motivation behind that which made everything bad. The potential of the idea was great; that's why I rented the movie, being interested in the "annoying people disappearance" thing. But yet, I did not know the whole universe would vanish, and with it even a point to the movie.<br /><br />If you are English Canadian, it seems you could appreciate the local humour, considering the surprising number of people who gave this movie an 8. Otherwise, just think twice before losing your precious time...
I honestly had somewhat high expectations when I first began to watch this movie, but it turned out to be probably one of the most boring films I have ever seen!<br /><br />First of all, the pace is incredibly slow, so it seems much longer than it is (and it's not short).I'm sure when Jane Austen wrote the book, she made it several pages long, filled it with description, and didn't intend for people to read in in one day, or it might drag and lose it's appeal, which "Emma" most certainly did. Now "Sense and Sensibility" had this flaw of a slow pace, but at least it had lively lines to make up for it, as well as some good performances!<br /><br />That brings me to flaw #2, which is of course, the acting. While I don't happen to care for basically anybody involved in this film, I am sure they are capable of good work, but I didn't see much of it in this movie. It was like people were trying too hard to be witty, too hard to be "upper-class", too hard to be British (well, some of them), so they all just came off as a bunch of actors and not as people.<br /><br />#3. The cast, as I said, seemed only like actors, and not actually like the people they were playing. Maybe that's a good thing, because the people they played really weren't all that nice. Why did everybody like Emma, for example? Sure, she was nice to the rich, handsome people in front of them, but she was an awful gossip behind their backs. If her friends were "ugly", then she didn't even bother to go behind their backs. So, why is this girl so great? Why do people have to tell stories, "just to make her laugh?" Of course the snob couldn't even do that right. I have enough problems with Gwyneth Paltrow as Gwyneth Paltrow, and her "Emma" did not exactly change my opinion.<br /><br />Well, it's easy to see that I did not care for this one. I'm sure it's a lovely book and all, but some books are really not meant to be made for the big screen, and "Emma" is one of them.
I was surprised when I saw this film. I'd heard it was the best ever filmed of the novel. How disappointed I was.<br /><br />How any true Jane Austen fan can rate this adaptation is a mystery to my eyes. The scriptwriters have decided to stick in bits of ridiculous humour which are embarrassing at the best of times, but also ruin the feel of the period. As for the cast: Gwyneth Paltrow makes a rather shallow heroine (but then any 'hot' American star would be questionable in the role), Toni Collette is miscast, and poor Ewan McGregor is made to look laughable!<br /><br />I really could not say a good thing about this film. I seem to be among the very few who don't rate it, but if you want my advice, see instead the TV production starring Kate Beckinsale - believe me, that is far preferable to this superficial trash.
How good is Gwyneth Paltrow! This is the right movie for her... too bad she's completely out role. I haven't read the book by Jane Austen, but I can't believe it is so superficial and the characters aren't much more than caricatures. It wasn't probably that easy to reduce in 2 hours of show about 600 pages of the book, but I had expected more than just seeing old pieces of furniture and tea cups. I was taking a sigh of relief every time I saw an actor who didn't overstep the mark of overacting (a couple of times).
i like Jane Austin novels. I love Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility books and movies, and I'm half way through Mansfield Park. But i couldn't stand Emma. I gave up on the book after 2 chapters, and by the end of the movie i couldn't care less about Emma. She didn't seem to change at all. Maybe it was Paltrows acting (which as excellent in Se7en) or my lack of interest for the movie. Dunno. <br /><br />The costumes are nice, but the dancing was clumsy compared to Pride and Prejudice dancing by Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle.<br /><br />I gave it a 2 basically for the fact Knightly is bloody gorgeous, and although it as a rather patchy performance for Ewan McGregor, i liked his singing.
This was the first Ewan McGregor movie I ever saw outside of Star Wars. Since then I have become a very big Ewan McGregor fan but I still can't bring myself to forgive this movie's existence.<br /><br />My sister has always been a huge Jane Austen fan and because of that, I have been subjected to various of the classics, Emma being one of them. I've always considered them irritating, stupid and boring. However, after watching this terrible rendition, I was forced to admit that the original Emma was delightful and charming. Ewan McGregor scarcely serves a purpose in this film after they hacked and mutilated the part of Frank Churchill. Gweneth Paltrow is ridiculous in an already ridiculous character and the rest of the film is unremarkable and stupid.<br /><br />My recommendation to anybody who is remotely interested in English period drama... go see the originals. If you're a Ewan McGregor fan... believe me, by skipping this film, you haven't missed anything but five minutes collective of him in a silly hat and a bad haircut.
Bah. Another tired, desultory reworking of an out of copyright work never designed to be filmed.<br /><br />On the plus side, Toni Collette is superb as always (being an actual actress, you see), and there are some nicely handled handover cuts between scenes. There are even a few genuinely funny lines, and the filmwork, score and editing is competent, apart from a bizarre lapse into voiceover and speaking to the camera towards the conclusion.<br /><br />But, ah, but. Much of the cast seems to be on autopilot, and they are almost all very clearly too old (and in one case too young) for their declared ages. Worse, they are all speaking "Austinese", that peculiar falsetto self satisfied sing song that couldn't be further from the way people actually spoke in Austen's day (think Yosemite Sam, I kid you not). This is particularly sad, considering that we seem to finally be seeing the demise of the equally farcial "Fakespearan" that Olivier and his cronies were so fond of bellowing at the top of their lungs.<br /><br />And worst of all is Gwyneth Paltrow. She's only ever played one character in her films, and she stays true to form here, running through her entire range (smirking to sulking) in the first ten minutes, then just repeating herself for the rest of the overlong film. There is absolutely no chemistry between herself and any of her admirers, nor any apparent reason why they would be interested in her apart.<br /><br />In short, there is very little reason to watch Emma. It's an amiable enough adaptation, but if you're going to pack a film full of anacronisms (i.e. an appalingly thin lead who can't shoot a bow or handle a period accent) then you might as well do it properly, as with the vastly superior "Clueless".
Reading through all these positive reviews I find myself baffled. How is it that so many enjoyed what I consider to be a woefully bad adaptation of my second favourite Jane Austen novel? There are many problems with the film, already mentioned in a few reviews; simply put it is a hammed-up, over-acted, chintzy mess from opening credits to butchered ending.<br /><br />While many characters are mis-cast and neither Ewan McGregor nor Toni Collette puts in a performance that is worthy of them, the worst by far is Paltrow. I have very much enjoyed her performance in some roles, but here she is abominable - she is self-conscious, nasal, slouching and entirely disconnected from her characters and those around her. An extremely disappointing effort - though even a perfect Emma could not have saved this film.
How can anybody say that this movie is a comedy?? If I had not gone with then my finacee I would have fallen asleep and asked for my money back. I love Gwen Paltrow, but it was like she was on the wrong set. I like most chick flicks, but I hated this one. This is the only time I saw so much clevage and was not turned on. Those outfits were way overdone. No one talks that way anymore and I don't think they even did then. The dancing part was horrible.My ex said to me later..."Didn't ya like that part? Didn't ya think it was sensous?" I said yes only to spare her feelings. Now I know why we never married.This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen.
...but I regret having seen it. Since the ratings on IMDb are relatively high (and they must also have been relatively high on Netflix), I guess I put it in my queue because it is advertised as a gentle comedy from the UK, a category that has produced many films I liked immensely. "Saving Grace," on the other hand, falls into the category of laugh-less comedies usually populated by Hollywood movies produced and directed by the talentless. Brenda Blethyn is a capable actress, and I have liked her in other movies. The concept -- a gardener growing marijuana to overcome the penury she finds herself confronting after her husband's death -- does not offend me. Notwithstanding the strenuous efforts on the part of the cast to produce humor, the film falls flat on its face (falling flat on its arse might have been funnier) as far as I and my wife were concerned. Be forewarned, oh gentle reader, not all offbeat British comedies succeed. This one is a dud.
Saving Grace is surely one of the leading contenders for the 'How to Ruin an Adequate Film in the Final Few Minutes' award. Naturally if you mix a quaint Cornish village - largely populated by retired genteel ladies - with a liberal dose of marijuana, a certain amount of silliness will ensue. However, the last seven minutes of the film descend into the totally ludicrous and is not even redeemed by being particularly funny. It is a real shame, because this comedy has the potential to be every bit as good as 1998's Waking Ned Devine, which also portrayed a picturesque small village and its oddball inhabitants trying to extract themselves from a tricky situation.<br /><br />The protagonist of Saving Grace is middle-aged, recently widowed Grace Trevethyn, whose husband's legacy of bad debts has forced her into an unconventional way of earning money. Helped by her gardener, Matthew, she turns her horticultural expertise to the lucrative cultivation of marijuana. Unfortunately, this leads her into confrontation with the local police, her husband's creditors and a French drug baron. . . . . . . . . . whom all turn up at her greenhouse simultaneously. The relationship and rapport between Grace and Matthew is well-portrayed, and Brenda Blethyn gets the viewer emotionally involved with her likeable character - you can really feel what she is going through.<br /><br />The casting of the minor roles is excellent, even if some of them are rather outlandishly eccentric. However, the transformation of Jacques the drug lord into Grace's romantic interest is highly implausible and does not fit the tone of the movie at all. And surely hydroponics is not such a revolution in the world of cannabis growing? Sadly the film swaps gentle humour for slapstick and ends up being as fake as the marijuana plants.
Like too many recent British films, this one takes a great cast and gives them a flimsy, cliched script to work with. The performances save it from total disgrace, and it has some charm but it certainly didn't make me laugh. Where are all the great British writers hiding?
The plot, character development, and gags in this movie are all extremely weak. Quite a waste of time. The conclusion of Saving Grace is supposed to make one feel warm and fuzzy as though the characters have grown through their struggles. There was no such development to make such warm fuzzy feelings possible. The drug gags are cliched and much of the movie doesn't ring true to life. The plot builds what is supposed to be tension but the characters aren't developed enough to care. Then it rushes through a resolution of all the outstanding problems in about a minute of screen time leaving the viewer feeling like they have just wasted their time.
When you get your hands on a British film you expect some sort of quality. And when it comes to acting, camera work, lighting etc; this film does the business. It's done by highly skilled craftsmen. That alone can bring you an enjoyable one and a half hours. But when you look under the layers of professionalism, you don't really find anything. Apart from making you feel good and advocate a drug liberal view, there's really nothing there. The script is mediocre, the plot is predictable and the ending must be one of the worst east of Hollywood. In all it's English cosiness, it's just a shameful and cynical attempt to make another "Full Monty". Why they made this film? I haven't got a clue, apart from making money of course.
My comments may be a bit of a spoiler, for what it's worth. Stop now if you care enough....<br /><br />Saving Grace should have been titled "A Paper-Thin Excuse for Old British Women to Get High On-Screen." This film is dumb. The incidental music is an annoyance as are the obvious, hackneyed tunes that sporadically pop up to comment on the narrative ("Spirit in the Sky," for example - Oh, I get it!) This is basically a Cheech and Chong movie made credible by its stodgy English setting and Brenda Blethyn's overwhelming power to inflict emotion on an audience using her voice alone. I could literally hear the folks over at High Times magazine receiving their jollies over the enormous "buds" that litter this picture. Worst scene? Easy. Brenda attempts to peddle her illicit wares on the street of London in a blaring white dress-suit. Not funny. Not original. Not interesting. Not a good movie. The 7.2 rating is the result of zealots over-voting. Don't waste your time...
A very "straight" nice old lady, desperate for money to save her house and possessions, grows "pot" in her house, smokes it with a few old-biddy friends and then sells it. That's the story for this low-key comedy, emphasizing the absurdity of the situation and some of the humor the predicament brings. For much of the film, it works. The humor isn't of the laugh-out-loud variety but it does keep you entertained for an hour-and-a- half, so I guess it serves its purpose.<br /><br />There ARE funny moments and Brenda Blethyn is fun to watch in the lead role. But the ending really ruined a "cute" movie with insultingly-bad messages that only the ultra-liberals of the film world would like to see happen.<br /><br />Like most people, I would prefer a happy ending, too, but it should not all warm and fuzzy for those who blatantly break the law. Also in here are the typical (1) children out of wedlock but that poses no problem and is deemed okay; (2) clerics portrayed as morally weak people; and (3) even a medical doctor who gets stoned, too! <br /><br />Hello? And reviewers here blast Hollywood? This is exhibit A how a secular society has lowered the standards in the UK and Europe in general. Hey, people: at least have a trace of morality instead of nothing but a Timothy Leary "If it feels good, do it" message.
I absolutely fail to see what is funny in this film. The humor seems to be destined for corpses. It's slow. The story is too simple to be true. The characters do not raise much sympathy, a few non-important characters aside. Nothing surprising happens. What did the writers of this script think? "Oooo funny! Let's make some old lady's high on pot! Let's make them.... giggle! Let's make them... behave like little children!! Oooo, yes, that's absolutely brilliant and original!"<br /><br />This film has irritated me most from all the films I've seen in the last five years.
Greenthumb Grace is left penniless after her husbands death so she turns to ganja-growing in order to pay the bills. It sounds promising and the ever-reliable Brenda Blethyn doesn't disappoint but the material is sitcom-thin. There's actually a scene where Grace asks her young gardener to "Give me one" (a toke) and he thinks she's asking for sex and acts all awkward. Yes, it's humour so twee a nun would be bored. Saving Grace doesn't seem to know what it wants to be: the stunning cinematography and stately pace evoke memories of Ryan's Daughter whilst the light-hearted whimsy of the country townsfolk could be lifted from any episode of Antiques Roadshow. It does speed up after the first hour but by then it's too clichéd to care. The climax manages to be unpredictable only by introducing the most shameless Deux ex Machina I've ever seen.
It feels like swedish movies are trying to become more american and I just don´t get it. In this movie the performance of some of the actors is horrible and the script is nothing special. Don´t waste your time!
Swedish action movies have over the past few years evolved into something that imitate American hardened action movies like "Heat" but with a low budget. This movie follows the same prescription as "Noll Tolerans" and "Livvakterna". However, it is obvious that they are trying too hard to make a cool and tough movie.<br /><br />The story has been seen before, the dialogue feels artificial and the acting is very poor, especially from the main actress. The movie tries to paint a picture of hard-boiled military-like robbers with no remorse at all and a female investigator who has completely lost it with problems of the past but at the same time acts completely rational. It does not succeed very well.<br /><br />The bluish-cast photo style does not seem fresh anymore, and it is not even done well in this picture. Only a very few scenes actually look good. Also, the sound is quite weird and it sounds like a lot of the actual dialogue is recorded afterward.<br /><br />The main quality of this movie is Stefan Sauk, though not making a convincing portrait of a SWAT-team leader, has some really funny lines. Also, the music is quite well.
Standard procedure for Swedish movies today seem to be to start by throwing plausibility out the window and continue down that path for the rest of the process. Rånarna is another fine example of a movie making very little sense.<br /><br />Banks in Stockholm are being robbed by a highly efficient "military-styled" gang of robbers. Two police officers start investigating the case that soon becomes more complicated than it would appear at first.<br /><br />As usual in Swedish film the cast is mostly made up of the same people you have seen over and over again. Mikael Persbrandt must be in every Swedish film from the last few years! But that's OK i guess since Persbrandt is one of few that performs solidly here (like he usually does). The problems with this film mostly revolves around the story itself. First of all the robberies feel mostly like background. Rather this is more a movie about a young policewoman fighting to prove herself in a male world (like that has not been made a thousand times before with a decent actress instead of Sofia Helin). Also there is a completely unbelievable plot twist near the end that seems about as plausible as Aliens landing. But still, i did think it was a quite nice touch considering i was half asleep right about then. It spiced things up a bit (and actually saved the rating from dropping another step).<br /><br />In the end the main problem is the same thing as with most other Swedish movies of this kind. Simply that the action and suspense doesn't live up to the standards we are used to from other movies of this kind (mostly Hollywood). It feels cheap and rather weak in comparison. In my opinion Swedish filmmakers should try to focus more on plot and acting, and forget about trying to make "Hollywood-action light" like they do now. Because this becomes yet another forgettable effort from the Swedish movie-industry. I rate it 3/10.
Quite typical for swedish movies of this type. Strange that the acting was soooo bad, these actors usually give a good show. The casting was poorly done, it made you expect something (I won't tell you what). The lead character was awful... I don't know where they find her. Anyway, stay away from this and go see "Den Tredje Vågen" instead, this is swedish action in is prime.
This must be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I was actually expecting a bad movie but I was caught by surprise believe it or not. The storyline is the traditional, all clichées are included.<br /><br />The dialogue is so poorly written that you actually laugh when the otherwise half-descent actors are trying to make it sound real. The photo is not too good, the music is so malplacée it actually made me angry, the actors are not even trying, altho the script makes it almost impossible you could expect more from people that have been acting for 30 years and the so called action scenes actually manage to lack the "action" itself.<br /><br />I dont understand why these types of bad movies keep on coming, who is financing this shit? Where is the screening ? And why on earth do actors take on this mission impossible script?<br /><br />There are a million hollywood-movies in this genre without even aspiration of reaching the theaters, but even them Straight To Video things actually manages to look professional in comparison.<br /><br />I can not say anything positive about this except the title which explains it all, I feel robbed of 2 hours of my life.
When I heard that the Dukes of Hazzard was going to be remade with current actors and a solid script, I was like, "alright, I'll give it a chance, it's not going to be better than the first, but we'll see what happens." Well, I saw what happened. I saw a great late 70's/80's show that was a classic, basically humiliated by Hollywood. It's so sad to see that Hollywood scriptwriters cannot come up with something original these days. They are seeming to take a great show that had a great target audience, and try to "REMAKE" the classic show. HEADS UP Hollywood... IT AIN'T WORKIN!!!! Anyway, more about the show. I think they could have casted a better actor than Sean William Scott (Stiffler from American Pie) to play Bo. I'm sure that John Schneider is definitely disappointed with how his character was portrayed and taken advantage of. Also, Get for real, Johnny Knoxville, as Luke Duke. How low can you go?? A crappy jackass actor to play lovable Luke. This sickens me. Also, I'll give Jessica Simpson is a beautiful woman, but her acting sucks. Catherine Bach who played the original Daisy, was smart, sexy, strong, opinionated and a good IL' southern girl. She was every little girls role model growing up! (I owned the doll and the Jeep - thank you very much!!!) Anyway, Jessica Simpson played a smart ass, 2-bit slut as Daisy Duke. Daisy never was blonde. Why did they have to cast her. Jessica Alba would have played a great Daisy Duke. She can speak with a great southern accent, and she is gorgeous, and would have done a wonderful job. Anyway, I'd like to say that this movie blew something fierce. I feel like I got ripped off by paying $8.50 for tickets, and they should refund my money. If you like the Dukes of Hazzard (the original series) don't see this movie. It'll just upset you. CMT (country music television) plays the reruns of the Dukes all the time later at night. So set your TIVO's and go with the real thing, not the imitation on the big screen in Hollywood.
Why take a show that millions of us watched and loved as children and make a complete joke of it? They ask why Hollywood isn't making the money it used to. Because they put out garbage and pay actors huge amounts of money to be garbage men and ask us to pay $10 to see their garbage. The TV show was what it was, good people in bad situations where the good IL' boys come out on top. It wasn't Gone with the Wind but it was fun. This movie is garbage! Hollywood can't come up with anything original so they take something that was good and ruin it for some $$$$. I only hope that this movie makes 10x's less than it cost to make. The only one's to have any fun with this crap are the guys who got to drive the General Lee. The audience is the victim.<br /><br />Don't see it, watch the reruns of the TV show instead. They still hold up 20 years later.
Film makeovers of old TV shows seems to be the norm in Hollywood these days, but this disrespectful, toilet humor, do-you-kiss-your-mother-with-that-mouth foul language, rip-off is a blatant middle finger to all Dukes of Hazzard fans both north and south of the Mason-Dixon Line. From the opening sequence of Bo and Luke Duke making a moonshine run for Uncle Jesse (no shine running in the show because it would put the boys back in jail as a parole violation) to the closing sequence of Uncle Jesse smoking weed with the Governor of Georgia (Uncle Jesse was the moral compass despite his previous moonshining ways) this disappointing waste of film is an open faced insult. I can't tell you how many parents I saw get up and remove their children from the theater within the first 15 minutes of the movie when they realized that they had been horribly deceived. The Original Dukes of Hazzard was a family show with basic moral values. The Original Dukes of Hazzard was a kid safe, Hemi powered, show of fun that parents didn't have to worry about teaching their kids George Carlin's seven words. I have read reviews stating that the show and the movie are nothing but racist. Those commits might be correct about the movie. Those commits are ABSOLUTELY incorrect about the show. The show, if anything, was about how to get along and be friends with ANYONE. Hollywood has finally come out in the open about their disdain for those of us, Yankee, Rebel, or otherwise, who still believe in honor, loyalty, trust, family, and doing the right thing even if it is not the popular thing. Hollywood has finally brought to light its belief that those of us in the heartland are stupid, uneducated, beer swilling, foul mouthed, trash that will buy any piece of garbage they are willing to sell. Prove the Hollywood Elitist that they are wrong. DO NOT GO SEE THIS MOVIE. Boycott the sponsors. Fill Warner Bros. email and snail mail boxes with complaints that we don't appreciate them destroying one of the greatest T.V. shows of all time. Save your money and buy the DVD's of the original show, but whatever you do… DO NOT GO SEE THIS MOVIE
...then you'd better not watch this movie. They've completely ruined the premise of the show. In the movie the Duke boys are idiots, Daisy is trampy, Roscoe is sinister, Boss Hogg is capable, Uncle Jessie is a criminal...only Cooter and Flash are true to the original characters. At least Enos is kinda close.<br /><br />At one point they open the doors to get into the General Lee -- nuff said.<br /><br />The original show may not have been great TV, but it was entertaining and the characters made sense. This movie is like Dumb & Dumber meets the Simple Life.
In Hazzard County, Georgia, cousins Bo and Luke Duke (Scott, Knoxville) and their cousin Daisy Duke (Jessica Simpson) run moonshine made by their Uncle Jesse (Willie Nelson) while avoiding the local authority, Boss Hog (Burt Reynolds). Their problems with the Boss are only beginning as they learn he's been plotting to strip mine the town for valuable ores found below it.<br /><br />I have never seen the TV show and after watching the movie, I'm not going to start any time soon. I like stupid comedies but this one didn't offer many laughs. It was a pretty dull picture with the first hour being really hard to sit through. The second part was a little better but this film was still a missed opportunity. The film focused on Bo and Luke way too much. The characters in general weren't very interesting and the actors portraying them didn't do a very good job.<br /><br />The acting wasn't very good. I wasn't expecting it to be good in the first place but none of the leads were very funny. Seann William Scott and Johnny Knoxville both give below average performances. The latter was pretty good as Stifler but he tries way too hard here. The latter just seems to be looking for a paycheck and nothing else. Jessica Simpson isn't known for her acting nor is she really known for her singing. She's famous for having her own reality show and for saying really dumb things. She is pretty but she's a weak actor. It doesn't matter though because she doesn't really appear in the movie and the character she plays isn't complex or anything. Willie Nelson also has a minor role and he doesn't do anything special.<br /><br />The screenplay was written by John O'Brien and he made two films prior to the Dukes of Hazzard. The first one was Cradle to the Grave, which was okay. The second one was Starsky and Hutch which was pretty funny. He doesn't do a good job here though as the story is a mess. He also forgot to add jokes and a few other things that would have made this film work better. The movie is also pretty long for a comedy. Okay, 106 minutes isn't exactly long but it feels so much longer because there's very little humor in the first hour. I think comedies should be kept short or else they have to find a lot of material to cover the entire running time. The Dukes of Hazzard barely has enough funny gags to keep it going for thirty minutes let alone 106 minutes. The car sequences were average and they don't save an already troubled film. In the end, Dukes of Hazzard may appeal to a few people but most people will probably find it dull and it's better if you just skip it. Rating 4/10
What a snore-fest.<br /><br />Of all the bits of nostalgia that Hollywood has decided to remake and update, this is by far one of the most pointless. This was a totally pointless show in the first place, and we REALLY don't need a 'modern' update.<br /><br />Never mind the bigotry and sexism inherent in the system from the beginning, so many advances have been made, socially, since the show ran that the entire point of the show (if it ever had one) has been lost.<br /><br />Also, what is the point of having a character named Boss Hogg if he's NOT overweight?
For this review,a list of good points and bad points.I'll start with the bad.<br /><br />Bad points:The casting choices(especially Burt Reynolds as Boss Hogg),the acting of said badly chosen cast,the storyline,the idea of setting the film in the modern day,the direction,the editing,the soundtrack,and above all,the whole idea of making a feature film out of a television series that wasn't that great to start with,despite it's popularity.<br /><br />Good points:Jessica Simpson in a red bikini............that's it!<br /><br />One might make an analogy here.In the scene where Jessica Simpson as Daisy Duke struts her way up to Michael Weston as Enos,and asks the question,"Enos,where's Boss Hogg and Roscoe?",in his clouded judgment, tells her where they are.She might just as well have asked,"Enos,is this a good movie?",the red bikini would have clouded his judgment into saying yes,even though in his right mind he would have said,"No, not really."As good as she looked in the bikini,she could have been stark naked,and even that would not have saved this horrible piece of film-making.Stay out of Hazzard!
First let me say that I am not a Dukes fan, but after this movie the series looked like Law and Order. The worst thing was the casting of Roscoe and Boss Hogg. Burt Reynolds is not Boss Hogg, and even worse was M.C. Gainey as Roscoe, If they ever watched the show Roscoe was not a hard ass cop. He was more a Barney Fife than the role he played in this movie.<br /><br />The movie is loaded with the usual errors, cars getting torn up, and continues like nothing happened. The worst example of this is when the the General gets together with Billy Prickett, and the General is ran into a dirt hill obviously slowing to a near stop, but goes on to win the race.
This movie sucked ! They took something from my childhood ,and raped it in an outhouse! This movie was so bad I wanted to go home and hold my "Dukes" dvds and cry in a corner. The cast was terrible ! It wasn't "The Dukes", it was Stiffler and Jackass driving a car. When was Boss Hogg evil? When was Rosco a tough guy? They never were ! Boss Hogg was greedy and Rosco was an idiot. When did Jesse smoke pot? He never did ! Now don't get me wrong,I'm very liberal and there's nothing wrong with a little chiba, but it had no place in this movie! The only thing good about this movie was the trailers before the movie and the end credits. It was a waste of money time and air. Avoid at all costs!!!!!!!!
I'll tell you what happened, some people with money thought it would be nice to ruin one of the best shows that was on TV. Did we really need a big screen re-make? Did they ask the fans? I wonder how all the fans would feel if they did a remake of "Rocky Horror Picture Show" with actors like Ashton Krutcher, Steve Martin, Britney Spears, and Kiefer Southerland, took out all the music, and made it a drama. Do you think they would like that! This movie does not have the same feel to it that the original had. Sure the original was a bit corny at times, but Bo and Luke were always nice, they got into trouble because they were always set up to get into trouble, and their main objective was to help people that passed through town. None of that mattered to the people that made this film, they might have never even seen the original show all the way through. My big question is, what will they ruin next?
Hollywood now has officially gone too far and I really hope that this travesty of a motion picture creates a genuine backlash against their crap machines, in spite of the good box office returns. If you are an industry person reading our comments looking for hints on what to do next, STOP. Stop making our TV shows into these repellent, stupid, money grubbing waste of time movies that suck. By doing so you are proving one thing: Hollywood is out of ideas, and going to see the movies they churn out only perpetuates the cycle of disgust. What's next -- You guys gonna go & ruin The Bionic Man??<br /><br />The film is just plain wrong, and manages to get the most stupid, simple fact of the show totally incorrect by forgetting (or ignoring) that Tom Wopat & John Schneider's Bo & Luke Duke were *REFORMED* moonshiners. They had been busted, learned their lesson, gone straight, and were there to help people and be good neighbors who just happened to shoot dynamite tipped arrows from hunting bows & drive like Steve McQueen. Denver Pyle's Uncle Jessie was also the moral center of the family, always insisting that the Boys do good, even at their own expense or embarrassment while he made sandwiches and coffee for when the chores were done. They always did the right thing and had a sort of earnest naiveté about them that was quite appealing. We wanted to be more like them than we were, sorta. My favorite gimmick from the show was how they always buckled their seat belts before roaring off, which was apparently too moral for this film.<br /><br />By transforming the Duke family into a pack of leering, wisecracking, criminally minded, redneck baiting, misogynistic losers the movie has no moral standpoint, where the show was all about how honest or incorruptible the Dukes were -- Are the Duke boys in this movie supposed to come off as good guys? I wanted to punch them both in the nose. They seem to have a lot of free time on their hands that could be spent doing chores back at the farm and end up pursuing less than noble ends, if not acting like a pair of 14 year old boys who haven't grown up. There should be no marijuana use, no gawking at buxom, nubile coeds & their breasts, no shenanigans involving the Brothers in da Hood. All of it looks like the work of a marketing consultant who took a poll at the mall of what 14 year old boys like to see in movies. The problem being that 14 year old boys cannot possibly remember the show, IMHO shouldn't be seeing this movie either, and the parents who might feel nostalgia for the show will be disgusted by what the writers, director & producers did to our collective memories just to part us from our money, which is exactly how I feel. What were they thinking???<br /><br />And boy did they *EVER* get Daisy wrong. Jessica Simpson all dolled up like a Pamela Anderson mall slut may be the only reason for anyone to see this disgrace, but you can service your needs just fine downloading some promotional stills of her, printing them up & pinning them to the wall in a restroom. She is hardly in the film at all (which is the movie's only saving grace), and the ten minutes or so they used her was STILL excessive. Catherine Bach's Daisy may have had the same kind of shorts, and long legs that make people feel funny just looking at her, but the Daisy she played was a *PERSON*. The pratfalls she elicited by simply being who she was had an almost natural ring to it. She remains one of the most outrageously sexy pop culture icons ever created but there was somebody at home. And most importantly she was a sweet, caring person who couldn't help it if the guys went Ga Ga over her.<br /><br />By contrast, Jessica Simpson appears phony, contrived, made up, costumed, posed, aloof, bored, out of place, and I don't think she even looks that great in the outfit. She doesn't look like a person but a plot device, conjured up during a deal with someone representing her agent. Ms. Simpson would be well advised to fire that person immediately and pretend like the whole thing never even happened. Whatever the joke was, she isn't in on it and is disgracefully exploited for T&A. If that's all she wants from her career, executive produce the sequel if only to ensure yourself enough screen time at least, because this effort was just pathetic.<br /><br />The bottom line is SKIP IT. For the cost of two tickets and a Slurpee to go you can pick up one of Warner Bros. excellent box set collections of the original shows on DVD and the entire family can watch them together. That was why it worked. The only real purpose I can see in the film might be it's future use as an interrogation tool at Guantanamo Bay. Twenty minutes of this & they'll be singing a choir.<br /><br />1/10, and I mean it. And STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM THE BIONIC MAN, you schnooks.
If this movie should be renamed, it should be "The Jackasses of Hazzard." To sum it up, this movie is nothing but 88 minutes of two immature country punks joyriding the famed 1968 Dodge Charger around town and in the country, chasing the girls and eluding the law.<br /><br />I have been a fan of the "Dukes" and what tarnishes the movie is the characters are out of key. The overindulgence of profanity, sexual references, and drug use, has made the good name of the "Dukes" into trailer trash.<br /><br />Side from comparing it to the television show, the acting was horrible. The only actor that got it right was the famed 1969 Dodge Charger named General Lee. The others have exaggerated the character's role which tarnished the movie.<br /><br />The "Dukes" have been another casualty of the 21-st century Hollywood television-to-big screen transition tragedy. Skip this movie and just buy the television series on DVD.<br /><br />My grade: F
I don't understand why making remakes has become the trend. Every remake I have ever seen is awful, and this is no exception. If any of you have seen the quote from Ben Jones, that it is a "sleazy" piece of trash, he is quite right. Why they would take a wonderful television show, which I loved, have never missed an episode, and own seasons 1-4 on DVD, and ruin it, I'll never know. The television show was a family show, and although Daisy has the body, it was really flaunted, or even addressed in the show, save the outfits. A family show has been turned in to a dirty piece of garbage, and I wouldn't recommend anyone go see it. Another thing I didn't like was that John Schneider and Tom Wopat are excellent actors (along with the rest of the original cast), and they are also extremely cute. The new Bo and Luke are not even a little cute. That was one of the drawers for the show. The casting is terrible. They could have at least gotten a brunette for Daisy. I don't think Burt Reynolds is a qualified Boss Hogg, either. Every other role he has ever played is totally opposite this role. The only role they cast halfway decent is Willie Nelson as Uncle Jesse, but still it is no comparison. Denver Pyle is an actor all his own, and that made him perfect for the role. I think that the casting is awful, the story is awful, and all in all ruined a wonderful show and turned it into a dirty, terrible movie. I wouldn't recommend anyone go see it. I only saw it out of curiosity, plus there was a free ticket in season 4 DVD. I would never have paid to see this movie, but it was free. DON'T PAY TO SEE THIS MOVIE.
When a movie like "The Dukes of Hazzard" brings in over $75 million it makes some incredibly sad statements about the condition of our own society. Either we are collectively too stupid to stay away from trash like this or maybe I'm just not realizing how many people this kind of no-effort trash will appeal to.<br /><br />Hollywood has had no incentive to make good movies since if it puts out trash then people will see it anyways since there is nothing else on screen. This is that. I walked out despite getting a free movie pass. The dialogue could not be dumber. The stunts could not be more over-the-top and outrageous. Perhaps this "bigger that big" image appeals to Texans but it didn't appeal to me nor anyone else in the theater. None of the "big names" were in this career-ending flick, except for Burt Reynolds, which says all you need to hear. Jessica Simpson -- don't make me laugh.<br /><br />I wouldn't even recommend this film for video, even if you were desperate. This was all about fooling the public to make enough money after opening day to equal or do better than it cost through marketing. They did despite the public being forewarned. Stupidity abound.
Have I seen a worse movie? Perhaps only "Manos: The Hands of Fate" dragged more than "Dukes". I had more fun poking at the gigantic plot holes than the movie gave me at any point. Let's touch on a few...<br /><br />There was a noticeable script death and rebirth when Sheev is talking to the Dukes and they don't respond. He shrugs and moves on, since neither the Knoxville or Scott know what he's talking about (nor do we). It was like the engine died and was restarted.<br /><br />The few times the General Lee flew through the air weren't even that exciting. Nothing I haven't seen on the TV Series.<br /><br />Very little chemistry between Knoxville and Scott. The best part was when Bo is upset at Luke for stealing the girl he liked. The only reason this works is that the script actually forshadowed it (although roughly). The rest of the time it seems distant and forced.<br /><br />Seann William Scott's awful, horrendous accent (or lack thereof).<br /><br />I hated Willie Nelson's performance. Were bad jokes supposed to be endearing? I wanted him to disappear.<br /><br />Jessica Simpson comes across splendidly on the big screen. She actually felt like one of the better actors in the film. That's telling you how horrible this movie is. She's a goddess.<br /><br />During the climax of the film, I was rooting for Boss Hogg and the bad guys to flatten all of Hazzard County, starting with Willie Nelson and his accomplices. A nuclear bomb would have sufficed.<br /><br />This is not meant to be a coherent dismantling of the film, but a release of frustration at the abysmal writing and execution of what could have been a truly heartwarming film.<br /><br />If only we could erase and start over...
OK we all love the daisy dukes, but what is up with this cast. Lets start, Jessica Simpson as Daisy, there is not one thing country about this girl and Daisy was not ditzy! Uncle Jesse was probably the closest one to resemble the original. No offense to Burt, but I never noticed Boss HOg being so tall. That was part of the humor of Boss Hog was his size. Did they even try someone like Danny Devito?!? OK , now get this they cast Jessica Simpson did anyone take a look at her husband? He matches Luke Duke to a tee!!!!!! Cleary these producers did not look at the appearance of the old cast members. The screen t's were never present on the dukes!! This made the movie a turn off from the beginning. I give this a HUGE thumbs down.
The Dukes of Hazzard will academy awards!! Best actor and actress 4 the persons who can say with a straight face that this was a great movie.<br /><br />This "movie" was a torture to watch. So sad how an weekly half hour entertainment was destroyed by these amateurs.The only good thing about this crap was the car! I remember when Daisy was a real threat to look 4ward 2. Who's the moron that decided that Jessica Simpson is hot?! We know she can't act but come on. In the TV show Daisy was a fox and brunette.<br /><br />All members who contributed in these waste of time please please please don't even think about makin a sequel, a prequel or anything that's got 2 do with a former TV show.<br /><br />I gave a empty DVD so this "movie" could be burned 4 me. I sat trough it and i want my money back!
I had suspicions the movie was going to be bad. I'm a Duke's fan from way back. Have three years of the TV series on DVD. Well I was right. Took the family to see it. I really wanted to see the General jump again and some of the chase jump scenes were good. But to sum it up, the movie was a dumbed down tarted up version of the TV show.<br /><br />Jessica Simpson was pathetic. While I can honestly say that the original Daisy's outfits were just as revealing, Jessica Simpson's interpretation of Daisy was simply awful. Sorrel Booke and Denver Pyle must be rolling in their graves as well.<br /><br />Don't waste your money. If you are an old tried and true Dukes fan like me and my three kids are you will be very disappointed.
i wont go and give them my 10 bucks i went and bought the fourth season of the original and the best. At least my kids enjoy it and can watch it without me worrying about what they are seeing. I have a teenager and she thinks the previews are ridiculous and would rather watch the original. And she thinks Jessica Simpson is a horrible daisy in fact she thinks she looks more like a slut than daisy duke. Those shorts she might as well not be wearing anything at all. And since when is American Pie have anything to do with the Dukes SHAME ON them for putting that nasty line in there about having sex with a car. That in itself should have gotten the movie a R rating. The only good thing that might come out of this is a reunion movie with the originals. Lets all hope. So the people out there that went and seen the movie will see how it should have looked
Oh Geez... There are so many other films I want to see out there... I got stuck with my nephew for the weekend and this is what he wanted - Yeah...<br /><br />I used to watch this show when I was in college...it was mindless, kinda fun, and somewhat action-oriented. The show had a good heart tho...and the characters were cute; no one ever got killed or even hurt badly... it was like a cartoon come to life. Cut to 2005...What happened? This one doesn't work. As others have said, there simply isn't a cohesive story and the performances are weird...almost annoying - definitely not faithful to the original characters...the whole thing is a like a Mad TV skit and it lasts over 100 minutes! This was one of the few times I've been EMBARRASSED watching a film. What were they thinking? As best I can tell, must've been for the product marketing, toys, etc. All I can say is, let this one die a quick death. It makes the original Dukes of Hazzard seem like Masterpiece Theater...<br /><br />I think the only remake left to do from TV is Gilligan's Island... Good Luck!
I have to say many people have argued that some of us need to get with the times cause the new "Dukes" movie is a modernized version. OH PLEASE. If this is what you consider modernized then Hollywood can keep it. Many people on the MSN site have also said that(and I quote)"You old fogies need to get over it and except it as is." Well let me tell you something, I am 24 so I am a long way from being and OLD FOGIE, and I won't get over it, it was a DISGRACE TO ALL THAT IS HAZZARD COUNTY. The only thing right in the movie title was "HAZZARD." Was all the profanity, smoking, and drinking really necessary. The cast was terrible. Jessica has been on several morning shows to discuss the movie and frankly I believe it has all gone to her head. She is in NO way a Daisy Duke, a fluke maybe, but definitely no Duke. I love Sean Williams Scott, but not as Bo. They should have included the original cast as at least cameos, but even Hollywood knew they wouldn't approve of the script. I mean come on people even todays actors and actresses are voicing a negative opinion so why are some of you giving positive remarks.
If you ever watched the Dukes of Hazard you know that you never had to worry about drugs or cussing or crude behavior being seen by young children. If you've seen the movie you know that is no longer the case! This movie was HORRIBLE! Main characters doing drugs and thinking it is funny and cool is certainly not what I call entertainment. They took a wonderful show and just turned it into trash. Daisy who was a little flirtatious in the original show now looks and acts like she belongs on the street corner getting paid for her services. I was so excited about seeing this movie before it came out, 15 minutes into the movie I was ready to leave. I stayed thinking it had to get better but instead it got worse by the minute. I wish I had never seen this movie. It trashed a good show and left nothing but horrible taste in my mouth when I left. Do yourself a favor, go see something worth your money, cause it's not only a waste of money but a waste of 2 hours of your life you will never get back!
The 1980s TV show, updated with fresh female flesh, and raunchy language. "The Dukes of Hazzard" passed me by; it was not repeated whenever I was in front of the television in either New York or California; or, I probably would have watched. Still, from somewhere (like the clips accompanying this film's updated 2005 release), I knew it was about a fast, orange Dodge Charger - and, the "General Lee" is still good to go. <br /><br />Hunky cousins Seann William Scott and Johnny Knoxville (as Bo and Luke Duke) are the New Riders of the Orange Sage. Beautiful Jessica Simpson (as Daisy) fills her skimpy short well - but, even her arousing pink bikini can't beat off the competition from a dormitory full of bouncing, topless coeds. The too stupid plot involves a graying Burt Reynolds (as "Boss" Hogg) threatening to turn Hazzard County into a strip-mine.<br /><br />** The Dukes of Hazzard (7/27/05) Jay Chandrasekhar ~ Seann William Scott, Johnny Knoxville, Jessica Simpson, Burt Reynolds
DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE IF YOU LOVED THE CLASSICS SUCH AS TOM WOPAT, JOHN SCHNEIDER, CATHERINE BACH, SORRELL BOOKE, JAMES BEST, DENVER PYLE, SONNY SHROYER, AND BEN JONES! THIS MOVIE WILL DISSAPPOINT YOU BADLY! First of all, this movie starts out with Bo and Luke running moonshine for Jesse. Bo and Luke would not do that ever on the real series! This movie portrays unimaginable characters doing things that never would have happened in the series. In the series, Uncle Jesse was honest, and law-abiding. In this movie, he is a criminal who is making moonshine and smoking weed with the governor of Georgia. Plus, if this was an extension adding on to the Dukes of Hazzard Reunion! and the Dukes of Hazzard in Hollywood, I have one question: HOW COULD UNCLE JESSE BE MAKING MOONSHINE WHEN HE DIED BEFORE THE DUKES OF HAZZARD IN Hollywood MOVIE? AND HOW IS BOSS HOGG ALIVE WHEN HE DIED BEFORE THE REUNION MOVIE IN 1997! MOVIE AND ROSCO RAN HAZZARD? IT SEEMS MAGICAL THAT THESE CHARACTERS CAME BACK TO LIFE, WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN DEAD FOR 11 AND 8 YEARS? If Hollywood really wanted to make a good movie, they should have brought back James Best, John Schneider, Tom Wopat, Ben Jones, and Catherine Bach like they did in 1997 and 2000 and made a family friendly movie with the living original characters that made the show what it was and still is compared to this disgusting, disgraced movie! If you want to see good Dukes movies, either buy the original series, or go out to walmart.com and buy the DVD set of 2 that includes the Reunion, and Dukes of Hazzard in Hollywood movies! They both star the original cast, and are family friendly! Don't waste your time on a movie that isn't worth the CD it's written on!
Once again, like Charlie's Angels, Inspector Gadget and Thunderbirds, a TV series is turned into a full length film and gets ruined for all the hundreds of people that watched. Basically the Duke cousins, Luke (Johnny Knoxville) and Bo (Seann William Scott) in Hazzard County, spend a lot of time driving very fast in "The General Lee". But they need to get their act together and stop their family farm being destroyed along with almost the whole town by nasty Jefferson Davis 'Boss' Hogg (Razzie nominated Burt Reynolds) to make way for a huge coal mine. They get help along the way from their sexy cousin Daisy (Razzie nominated Jessica Simpson) and Uncle Jesse (Willie Nelson), while being chased by equally mean Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane (Lost's M.C. Gainey) and the police. Also starring Joe Don Baker as Governor Jim Applewhite, Jack Polick as Deputy Cletus Hogg, David Koechner as Cooter Davenport, Michael Weston as Deputy Enos Strate and Lynda Carter as Pauline. I think the only reason I give the film an extra star is because of a couple of impressive car stunts, and of course the gorgeous body of Simpson (I'll admit her legs aren't quite Catherine Bach, but still!), but besides that it is pretty boring. It was nominated the Razzies for Worst Picture, Worst Director for Jay Chandrasekhar, Worst Remake or Sequel, Worst Screen Couple for Simpson & Her "Daisy Dukes" and Worst Screenplay. Pretty poor!
The Dukes of Hazzard is quite an achievement – a $53m film that's worse than any given episode of a downmarket 25-year old TV show. The plot is serviceable enough but the mindless fun is rarely to be found and the casting is pretty atrocious: Johnny Knoxville is more passenger than protagonist, M.C. Gainey's Sheriff Roscoe is a bland thug, Michael Weston's Enos tiresome, a seemingly ideally-cast Willie Nelson just seems to be waiting for the check to clear and Burt Reynolds, stuck in some purgatory where he's doomed to relive his old movies as a bit player, is a curious choice for Boss Hogg to say the least but does have one good moment with a heckler and a hundred dollar bill. You know a film is in trouble when Seann William Scott and Jessica Simpson are the most charismatic screen presences… But worse than the script or the casting is Jay Chandrasekhar's hopeless direction: seemingly born with no conception of comic timing, unable to do much more than basic two-shots and seemingly clueless as to how to shoot a car chase let alone the couple of decent stunts in the film, he seems determined to sap the film of any signs of life before they materialise. There are a couple of neat post-modern moments revolving around the Confederate Flag and Daisy's stereotypical role in every episode, but no film that makes you pine for the days when Hal Needham was directing this sort of thing (and badly) can be a good thing.
I'll say one thing about this film: there are no lulls. You can't get bored watching this. The problem is that it is TOO intense. There is too much action and it NEEDS lulls! That is the risk you take in modern action films. You want it interesting but not overdone. This is way overdone.<br /><br />Even though the acting is fine and features a couple of "names" in Gary Busey and Roy Scheider, it still has the feel of a "B" film. The best part of it is Scheider's dialog: the only "A" part of this "B" film.<br /><br />The rest of the story is strictly Rambo mentality but did have a few standout scenes. One in particular was a very innovative scene featuring land mines. That was memorable. Not enough of the other scenes were to make this a keeper for long.
Well, sorry for the mistake on the one line summary.......Run people, run!! This movie is an horror!! Imagine! Gary Busey in another low budget movie, with an incredibly bad scenario...isn't that a nightmare? No (well yes), it is Plato's run...........I give it * out of *****.
It is enjoyable and fast-paced. <br /><br />There is no way on Earth that the actor playing Mat could be eighteen. However, the main thing is that he does act eighteen very convincingly. It must be a credit to his audition that he convinced them to cast him. I quite soon accepted him as being a naive young country boy.<br /><br />While his was the best performance, most of the others were also very engaging. In particular, the interplay between the policemen was natural and well-balanced, and worked very well.<br /><br />It is only about 45 minutes long, so the plot is not complex. More key is the style of the whole thing. It is very slick and vibrant, and the backdrops are atmospheric, especially from the fact that all the colours are extremely rich. The gangland is identifiable to foreign audiences, but still manages to be distinctly Australian.
Except for the acting of Meryl Streep, which is of note as always, I'd avoid this film because it has a dated "Movie of the Week" quality about it. But it is worth watching if you keep the several understories in mind: How a couple endures media scrutiny, and how the different are treated.<br /><br />Throughout the movie the issue is the credibility of the different. Australians are different than "us" (most of the rest of the world), so we (most of us) automatically come at it with an air of "oddness" about them. The couple involved is religious (different than most of culture) and Adventists (different) at that. So their lifestyle and mindset are suspect to begin with. Dingos are different animals than other dogs, so again we're faced with oddness questions. The real story, then, is how society (and the world) treats the different, those who have different accents, different beliefs, than we do and how we treat what they say as suspect.<br /><br />It's difficult to hear the phrase "A dingo took my baby!" without laughing and there are humorous posts, sadly, all over the web about it. But in the years that followed the story and the movie it has been discovered (as you'll find in web searches) that much larger children have been stalked by dingos. Research by experts in dingos have shown that it was not only possible but most probable that the baby was taken by dingos (maybe a pair), extracted expertly from the clothing and eaten within moments without a trace.<br /><br />Yet what is left behind is the question of why people defended dingos when they were found to be endangering children rather than killing the dingo to save the children, why because a woman's affect (expression) is so cold she is assumed to be guilty, and on and on.<br /><br />Haunting questions, with or without the film.
It's a real challenge to make a movie about a baby being devoured by wild canines and the mother being wrongly accused of murder funny but against all odds this one succeeds. Meryl Streep gives the performance of her life, melodramatic, overwrought but with that comic genius that keeps you laughing even as a mother struggles with the ultimate horror.<br /><br />If comedies about the infants being eaten by dogs are not your cup of tea you might be uncomfortable watching this and, yes, it is an odd choice of topic for a farce but really very little of the movie has anything to do with that as it focuses on giving Streep a showcase for her Aussie accent and facial contortions. <br /><br />Throwing in a slam at media bias and sensationalism and disregard for either the truth or ethics gives the movie the chance to make the daring point that those things are bad.
There's nothing amazing about 'The Amazing Mr Williams'. Part of this movie's problem is its lead actor Melvyn Douglas. He was a lousy actor and lazy with it. For most of his career, he allowed his good looks, a glib manner and (usually, but not in this movie) some fine scriptwriting to make up for his lack of acting ability. I disliked Douglas as an actor before I knew anything about him as a person; I've learnt enough about him to know that I also despise his politics. I'll give Melvyn Douglas credit for one thing: his chromosomes did produce the incredibly talented and sexy actress Illeana Douglas.<br /><br />Melvyn Douglas made this movie right after the brilliant 'Ninotchka' ... talk about a comedown! 'The Amazing Mr Williams' is allegedly a comedy, but I never laughed. Douglas plays a plainclothes detective on the homicide squad, named Kenny Williams. I never heard of a police detective named Kenny, but if they called him Kenneth Williams ... well, what a carry-on. The whole city is in a panic because a serial killer is going about, killing women. No motive is given for this; he just likes to kill women. The mayor (Jonathan Hale, better than usual) calls Williams on the carpet to account for his failure to catch the killer.<br /><br />SPOILERS APPROACHING. The cheap, vulgar, untalented and unattractive Joan Blondell plays the mayor's secretary. (She doesn't sound literate enough to file a letter, much less type one.) Blondell and Douglas squabble like a cat and a dog, so it's blatantly obvious they're going to end up together.<br /><br />At this movie's lowest point, Melvyn Douglas decides to draw out the killer by dressing up as a woman. You do NOT want to see Melvyn Douglas in drag! He's well over six foot, and he doesn't even shave off that annoying moustache. The similarly-'tashed William Powell was an actor very similar in type to Melvyn Douglas (but much more talented). When Powell disguised himself as a woman in 'Love Crazy', he had the integrity to shave off his moustache: a genuine sacrifice, as Powell needed it to grow in again for his next role. But Melvyn Douglas brings nothing whatever to his role in this movie, not even a razor. He plays his drag scenes with the same annoying smirk he used throughout the bulk of his career.<br /><br />On the plus side, 'The Amazing Mr Williams' has several of those splendid supporting players who made Hollywood's movies of the '30s so delightful. Edward Brophy is brilliant here, touching and funny as a criminal who gets an unlikely furlough from his life sentence. The dyspeptic Donald MacBride is fine as a cop who gets mistaken for the killer, and is nearly lynched by a mob. Ruth Donnelly is splendid: as usual for her, but here she gets a chance to show her talents away from her usual orbit on the Warner Brothers backlot. Jimmy Conlin, Luis Alberni and the grinning Dave Willock are all fine in small roles. Barbara Pepper (whom I usually dislike) is good here too. The grossly unpleasant Maude Eburne gets some screen time; I always loathe her, and she gives the same performance in every film ... but some audiences enjoy Eburne's one-note performance very much, for reasons I can't fathom.<br /><br />If you're familiar with Hollywood character actors of the 1930s, and the roles they tended to play, one glance at IMDb's cast list will tell you who the murderer is. That's the problem with 'The Amazing Mr Wiliams': everything is too obvious. I'll rate this movie 2 points out of 10.
When Ben (Red Foxx) discovers his wife Beatrice (Pearl Bailey) has run off with his own brother, he rushes to his son Norman (Michael Warren) to unload his tale of woe--only to discover that Norman has a secret lover: the effeminate Garson (Dennis Dugan.) Needless to say, Ben does not take it well, and numerous complications follow--including Ben's attempt to get Norman over being homosexual by fixing him up with a hooker (Tammy Dobson.) Unfortunately, this description of the movie sounds a great deal more entertaining than the movie itself.<br /><br />Originally written for the theatre by Ron Clark and Sam Bobrick, NORMAN... IS THAT YOU? was an absolute disaster on the New York stage. To give the play its due, I actually saw it staged in the 1970s as a community theatre production--and while no one would accuse it of being anything other than a shallow farce, the cast played so broadly and in such drop-dead manner that it proved quite amusing. It is a pity the cast of this film didn't do the same.<br /><br />This is an atrociously performed motion picture. Red Foxx, one of the most hilarious comics of the 20th century, is about as funny here as yesterday's wash, Michael Warren (who later appeared on the television series HILL STREET BLUES to much better effect) competes with Foxx to see who can give the worst performance, and Pearl Bailey is not far behind; truth be told, only Dennis Duggan, Tammy Dobson, and a cameo by Wayland Flowers have any spark--and sadly, that is only in comparison with the rest of the cast.<br /><br />Not only is the film badly performed, it looks bad. According to film lore, this was the first big screen effort to be filmed in videotape, which was then transfered to celluloid for project purposes--and believe me, it shows. The film has the look of a bad 1970s sitcom right down to the painted skyline seen through the windows of Norman and Garson's apartment.<br /><br />Some films are so bad that they become funny, but NORMAN... IS THAT YOU? isn't one of them. I can sum up my reaction to this film in two words: miss it. Don't buy it, don't rent it, don't touch it with a ten foot pole. Just back away slowly and then run like hell.<br /><br />Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
I have no idea as to which audience director George Schlatter hoped to sell this comedy-of-ills. With Redd Foxx in the central role and enough pimpy outfits and polyester to carpet the entire 1970s, "Norman" plays like a blaxploitation picture combined with any number of silly sitcom episodes involving comic misunderstandings, not to mention an elongated cameo by Waylon Flowers! Based on a play by Sam Bobrick and Ron Clark, this tale of an estranged married couple (Foxx and Pearl Bailey) learning the hard way that their son is secretly gay--and living with a mincing, prancing white homosexual--has enough limp-wristed jokes to shame any early episode of "Three's Company". Bailey keeps her dignity, and Foxx's sheer confusion is good for a couple of chuckles, but the rest of the performers are humiliated. * from ****
This snarky, homophobic thing was dated in 1976. It seems particularly mean-spirited now, filled with gay stereotypes, and characters that are meant to be laughed at, rather than with. Redd Foxx does his standard schtick, Michael Warren at least tries to bring humanity to a one dimensional character, and Pearl--Pearl what were you thinking--? Pearl Bailey deserves far better.
This is the second British Rank film to adapt the stories of Sommerset Maugham to film. All but one story from 'Quartet' does not travel well into the contempory era; and the actors speech is decidedly "clipped", as only British pre-1950's actors delivery can be. In anycase 'Trio' seems tighter and more filmic than the first film adaptation.<br /><br />One of the problems these two films can't overcome is that their source material was written 25-30 years prior to the films. Consequently, by the 1950's Maughm's (pre-war) popularist "small morality" storyteling seemed rather quaint, if not downright coy.
I was fortunate enough to meet George Pal (and still have my DS:TMOB poster autographed by him) at a convention shortly after the release, and asked him why he chose to do the film "camp". Before he could answer, two studio flacks intercepted and lectured me on how the studio "knew best" and how "no one will take such a film seriously". I had been reading the Bantam reprints for a couple of years thanks to a friend (ComiCon attendees of the 1970s will recall Blackhawk and his band? I was in a couple of years of that with him), and had higher hopes than what we got.<br /><br />The flacks insisted that no high adventure would ever be done seriously, and so doing 'camp' was the only way. Several other fans jumped in on my side, with Pal listening as best he could. At the end of the little event, Pal came up to us and apologized, wishing he could have done more and better.<br /><br />STAR WARS put the lie to the flacks, and a year after Pal's death, Spielberg and Lucas proved that Doc Savage could have easily been the next major movie franchise...if it hadn't been for the flacks.<br /><br />Tear out the memory or history of Doc, and the film would have been worth a 6/10 rating as nothing more than a mindless popcorn seller.<br /><br />But destroying the legacy like that was no less an abomination than killing a baby in the crib.<br /><br />Doc Savage can still come to the screen, and survive the inevitable comparisons by the ill-informed to Indiana Jones, but it would have to be done in all seriousness and earnest to reclaim the glory that we should expect from the First American Superhero.<br /><br />SIDENOTES: Yes, there was a second script for ARCHENEMY OF EVIL, and it's a lot more serious. Yes, there was simultaneous footage shot, but mostly establishing shots and very little with actors. And, yes, there _is_ a one-sheet of Ron Ely leaping over a brick wall and blasting at something over his shoulder with a specially built bronze pistol. Ely's wearing a duster over a button down white shirt with a bronze tie, and the words "DOC SAVAGE: ARCHENEMY OF EVIL...Coming Next Summer!" POSTSCRIPT: If anyone knows who the studio flacks were that accompanied George Pal in 1975 to San Diego for the convention, smack the idiots up the side of the head and call them the idiots that they are. At the time, they were doing dorkknobs and Fu Manchu in stripes and baggy canvas pants, and carrying Paramount portfolios.
After Watergate, Vietnam and the dark days of the Nixon and Jimmy Carter eras, what the world needed was a good old-fashioned chapter-play hero taking on venomous serpents and evildoers in the America of 1936 or the jungles of South America in a series of fantastic cliffhanging adventures. Unfortunately what it got in 1975 was Doc Savage, The Man of Bronze. Perhaps the best that can be said of legendary producer George Pal's final film is that his often beautifully designed but sadly flat adaptation of Kenneth Robeson's pulp-paperback novels probably had George Lucas and Phil Kaufman leaving the theatre and saying to each other "We can do better than that," and adding a bullwhip, a battered Fedora and some much needed character flaws to the mix.<br /><br />A big part of the problem is that Doc Savage is in many ways even harder to write for than Superman – explorer, adventurer, philanthropist, a scientific and intellectual genius in the bronzed bleach-blonde bulletproof muscle-bound body of a Greek God (or rather the form of TV's Tarzan, Ron Ely, a rather dull Charlton Heston clone here), there's simply nothing he can't do and, more damagingly, nothing that can harm him. The man is the virtual incarnation of Hitler's Aryan ubermensch (no surprise that the DVD is only available in Germany!), albeit with all-American values. And just in case there should ever be anything he's overlooked (not that there ever is) he has not one but five sidekicks in his entourage, the (less than) Fabulous Five. A chemist, an electrician and even an archaeologist I can accept, and at a stretch I could possibly even go as far as to see the possible need for a construction engineer, but what kind of hero takes a criminal lawyer with him on his adventures? In reality Doc's brain trust were probably added because with the hero so tiresomely invulnerable and practically perfect in every way – even Kryptonite wouldn't put a dent in him - there needed to be someone at risk in the stories, though with the exception of Paul Gleason they're all so horribly badly cast and overplayed (as are most parts in the film) you'd happily kill them all off during the opening titles. The villains fare no better, with Paul Wexler exuding all the menace of a geography teacher as Captain Seas, Scott Walker (no, a different one) delivering one of cinema's worst accents (is it meant to be Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Greek, Pakistani or some nationality no-one has ever heard of?) while Robyn Hilton's Marilyn Monroe-ish dumb blonde moll gives Paris (no relation) a run for her money in the untalented bimbo stakes.<br /><br />Even with those drawbacks, this should have been much better than it is considering the various ingredients – lost tribes, a pool of gold, a dogfight with a biplane and a deadly poison that comes alive, all wrapped up in a quest to discover why Doc's father was murdered. Unfortunately it's a question of tone: in the 60s and 70s pulp superheroes weren't brooding figures prone to state-of-the-art action scenes and special effects but were treated as somewhat comical figures of low-budget camp fun with action scenes quickly knocked off on the cheap almost as an afterthought, the films aimed purely at the matinée market: you know, for kids. There have long been rumours that the original cut was more straight-faced – and certainly much of the camp value has been added in post-production, be it the Colgate twinkle in Doc's eye, the comical captions identifying various fighting styles in the final dust-up with Captain Seas or Don Black's gung-ho lyrics to John Philip Sousa's patriotic marches – but plenty was in the film to begin with. After all, it's hard to see how one of the villain's underlings making phone calls from a giant rocking crib was ever intended as anything other than a joke that falls flat, while Doc's explanation to Pamela Hensley of why he never dates girls could be a scene written for Adam West's Batman. Instead, the funniest moments are usually purely unintentional, such as Doc displaying his sixth sense by, er, bobbing his Adam's apple.<br /><br />Perhaps an even bigger problem is that, while promising on paper, the action is handled in an almost relentlessly mundane fashion, be it chasing a native assassin on the rooftops of New York skyscrapers or escaping from a yacht full of bad guys. Even the winning notion of animated glowing green snakes swirling through the air as they poison their victims fails to raise any enthusiasm from director Michael Anderson: having demonstrated their own invulnerability a couple of scenes earlier, Doc manages to dispatch them with no more than a chair and an electric fan by simply pulling the curtains on them.<br /><br />Still, aside from Doc's various vehicles all stamped with his logo and looking more moulded plastic than bronze, the production design is often rather handsome even if it is very obviously L.A. standing in for New York while Fred Koenekamp's cinematography ensures the film often looks good despite the low budget. And it's good to see a superhero movie that doesn't spend most of its running time on an origin story, though one is left with the suspicion that Doc sprang fully formed from the loins of Zeus himself.<br /><br />It's a film I'd really like to like more, but it just feels like 100 minutes of lost opportunities. No wonder Doc Savage, The Arch Enemy of Evil, the sequel so optimistically promised in the end credits, never happened.
Doc Savage: The Man of Bronze is a horrible movie. Poorly scripted, over-acted, and just plain silly. That being said... it is actually an enjoyable movie on some level. This movie begs to be watched in a group with an ample supply of cheap beer. It's one of those movies like "Santa Claus conquers the Martians" or "Yor, the Hunter from the Future"... so bad it is almost good. If you have the right group of people this movie is a blast to watch. It's campy. It's fun. It has a theme by Sousa. If you're looking for a good movie though, look elsewhere. 3/10.<br /><br />BTW, I've heard rumors some studio is exploring the possibility of a remake...
Fantastically putrid. I don't mean to imply above that only a few people should avoid "Doc Savage." Almost every demographic group would be bored by this trivial, TV-movie-quality production. It's a little like the 60's "Batman" TV series, except it's not funny. Even accidentally. You're better off taking a nap.
DOC SAVAGE: THE MAN OF BRONZE (1 outta 5 stars)<br /><br />Dreadful, dreadful movie... based on the pulp magazine/paperback series by Lester Dent/Kenneth Robeson... about a super-heroic adventure hero in the '30s and his five assistants, all experts in some field of endeavor that allows them to combat evil. It was a pretty hokey series... but kinda fun to read when I was a teenager. I knew they made a movie version in the '70s, starring Ron (Tarzan) Ely... but I never got a chance to see it. It never played in theaters where I lived and was never shown on TV. Now that I have finally seen the film I can understand why. The plot and characters are never treated seriously... it's all kind of tongue-in-cheek and campy... kind of like the old Batman TV series... only without the benefit of being funny... or having any visual flair. Corny dialogue, cheesy special effects, dumb stereotypes, crummy action scenes and bad, bad acting. Actually, I find it kind of fascinating in its badness... what could they have possibly been thinking? Arnold Schwarzenegger was rumoured to be starring in a modern-day remake... but I don't imagine that would have turned out to be much better.
After having seen the movie the first question arising in my mind was: Is this supposed to be irony or not? After reading a few comments about the character Doc Savage and the comic series, I knew this film was not meant to be ironic. So, the story tells us about an US-American Super-Doc saving a south American republic from evil. Sounds like a typical story. But this one comes in such an unrealistic way that it becomes ridiculous. The mandatory end-fight shows the worst presentation of martial arts I have ever seen. The film might be interesting for low budget movie designers as a bad example.
I dug this out and watched it tonight. I honestly think it must be 20 years since the last time I saw it. I remember it being a seriously flawed film. I don't remember it being THIS bad!!!!!<br /><br />I am absolutely aghast that a project with this much potential should have been mistreated so reprehensibly. Who am I to blame for this? The 2 guys who wrote (and I use that word loosely) the script? The casting directors who so terribly miscast at least 3 major characters in the story? (Only 2 of them are among "the amazing 5".) The director, who clearly refused to take it seriously, and kept shoving awful music on top of bad writing & bad acting everywhere? (I LIKED the theme song-- but it should never have been used all the way throughout the entire film!) Don Black, who should be ASHAMED at some of the lyrics he wrote for that music?<br /><br />It figures that I should pull this out, less than a week after re-reading the comic-book adaptation. The first 15-20 minutes of the film more-or-less (really, LESS) parallel the first issue of the comic. As I watched it tonight, I kept wondering-- why was ALMOST every single detail changed? Doc showing up, then using his wrist-watch remote-control to open the safe, and the sniper's bullet missing him by 5 inches because the refractive glass, were just about the only things left the same. I mean, if you're gonna do an "adaptation", WHY in God's name change EVERYTHING???<br /><br />Once they leave Doc's HQ, virtually NOTHING is as it was in the comic (which, given Roy Thomas, I figure probably follows the book). I read somewhere they actually combined elements of 2 different novels into one movie. Again-- WHY? I've heard it was changed because they weren't able to secure the kind of budget they wanted. I look at the film, and think... LACK OF MONEY in NO WAY explains what I saw on the screen!!<br /><br />You know, when people complain about Joel Schumacher, they should really take a look at this thing. The best thing I can say is, I think it would make a great double-feature with the 1966 BATMAN feature-- and probably a great triple-bill with that and the 1980 FLASH GORDON. All 3 films are "silly". Maybe we can "blame" the 1966 film (and TV series) for this. Some fans have complained over the years that Adam West's BATMAN ruined the image of comic-books in the minds of generations of non-comics fans. I think the same could be said for Hollywood. I'm reminded of how many really, really BAD films based on "classic" characters have been made over the years, especially (it seems to me) in the late 70's & early 80's. Charlie Chan, Fu Manchu, Tarzan, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, The Lone Ranger-- all "murdered" by Hollywood types who think, "OH, comic-books! So you know it's supposed to be STUPID!" More like they're the "stupid" ones. What a waste of potential.<br /><br />Let me say some good things... Despite the script and the directing, Ron Ely is GREAT. When I read a DOC SAVAGE story, I don't think of the James Bama paintings, I think of Ely. Bill Lucking (who later was a regular on THE A-TEAM) is terrific. Eldon Quick (who I've seen somewhere else, but can't recall where) is terrific. Paul Gleason-- who I absolutely HATED with a passion and a vengeance in THE BREAKFAST CLUB ("teachers" like the one he played should be banned from ever teaching anywhere), may be the best of the "amazing 5" in the film. Pamela Hensley-- though her part was almost unrecognizable from the original story-- is terrific. Before she let her hair down, I also realized she looked a HELL of a lot like "Ardala Valmar" from those awful John Calkins BUCK ROGERS strips I just read the other day. She's got a big nose like Ardala-- only not quite as pronounced. The comics Ardala actually looked more like the 1936 movie Princess Aura-- or Cher. Or maybe Streisand. Take yer pick. (Ardala actually got plastic surgery in the George Tuska strips-- after, she was stunning!)<br /><br />Paul Wexler, funny enough, I saw just last week in a GET SMART episode. I wonder if he was anything like the character he was supposed to be playing? I don't know, because that character sure wasn't in the movie the film takes its title from.
I saw this film in its premier week in 1975. I was 13 years old and at that time I found it adequate and somewhat fun. I then came to discover the WORLD of Doc Savage through the Bantam novels of the old pulp magazine stories. I had no idea before any of this of the realm of Doc, but I fast became one of the most avid Doc Savage fans you could ever meet. I read (and still own) all of the Bantam books, I started going to comic book cons (along with Star Trek and Doctor Who and all manner of geeky fat kid events) and had a wonderful time with each adventure I took with Doc and the ORIGINAL Fab 5. Philip Jose Farmer's Book - The Apocalyptic Life of Doc Savage became a bit of a bible for me and to this day I have very fond feelings regarding my Doc phase. In so saying I have to admit now years later that this film really missed the boat. It is a film that did not know what it wanted to be when it grew up. The screenplay was infantile and bore little resemblance to the pulp story. These stories from the 30's were short and if one looked at Lester Dent's (AKA Kenneth Robeson) outline for writing them, they broke down into PERFECT 3 act dramas that screamed for screen treatment. One would have thought that with George Pal and Michael Anderson at the helm, it would have turned out better. The spoof elements miss the target and the more serious moments almost get there, but then fall short. It is interesting to watch though in that they hired second-string character actors (guys that had really been only bit players and extras before this film) who all acquit themselves very well. Paul Gleason of course has gone on to be a fine utility player in all facets of entertainment and Bill Lucking is a television perennial. All the rest have fallen off the map sadly. I do wish to own a copy of this film as it is the only movie version of my hero, but I fear I will not watch it much as it is too painful. I would say 0 but I give it 2 out of 10 instead for some of the period art direction (Doc's answering machine at the end was a nice touch) and the cast of 3rd stingers getting a moment in the sun.
Cynthia Rothrock,(China O'Brien),"Manhattan Chase",2000, made this film enjoyable to watch and of course,e this cute petite gal burned up the screen with her artistic abilities and hot sexy body. China O'Brien gets upset as a police officer and decides to call it quits and go back home to her hometown and get back to her roots and her dad, who is the local sheriff. Her dad is getting older and the town has changed, gangsters have taken over the town and started to get the local women to start turning tricks and the city people were getting sick and tired of their town going to Hell. Well, you almost can guess what happens, and you are right, China O'Brien fights back after great tragedy strikes her life. Bad acting through out the picture, but Cynthia Rothrock brings this film to a wonderful conclusion.
I actually saw China O'Brien II before I ever saw the original China O'Brien. And I have to say that the first incarnation is actually worse. But: worse = funnier! And funnier = better. If you're a bad movie fan like I am, this is great material. If, however, you are looking for any sort of meaningful plot, acting ability, or movie-making skill, this is best avoided. The best part is how they filmed all the fighting sequences in stuttering fast-forward. Hilariously bad. See it for a laugh, see it for mindless entertainment, but whatever you do, see it for free on TV.
Play Mystery Theater 3000 at home with your friends! Rent this movie for the laughs! The acting is poor, the sounds is terrible and the fights are ridiculously unbelievable. I thought the movie was a joke until I looked it up on IMBD. I can't wait to rent the sequel, China O'Brien II.
I caught this movie on FX last night, and as I was sitting there watching it, it occurred to me that it could quite possibly be the worst movie ever. Bad acting, bad cinematography, bad sound, totally unbelievable fight sequences, stupid characters. All these made it up to be the most laughably bad movie I've ever seen. It was so bad, I was enthralled by it's sheer lack of anything semi-competent that I had to keep watching... and they made a sequel!
When I read the summary of the movie, something like what happens when a man gets powers of a God, and how he later learns that having supernatural powers requires giant responsibility and strength, I though that was clever and original concept. Casting was promising too, Carrey, Freeman, Aniston... How can movie with a good idea and good actors, not to mention costs of filming, can be bad? It can. Idea is good, but script and story itself is terrible. Bruce Nolan is, let's be honest, a pretty mediocre journalist, with not exactly great stories (like a story of a giant cookie, what a faux pas, and the Niagara report is complete fiasco!), he's a man with a job he completely DESERVES (he's not a good journalist, he's a comedian), considering his potentials, with a nice home, sugar sweet girlfriend, and OH HORROR!!!! Dog who is not house trained!!! Yes, as soon as Bruce, at the beginning of the movie starts addressing GOd in a "God, why do you hate me!" manner, average viewer must think: "Why, what's wrong with your life, Bruce?". Bruce is not, and definitely NOT the man with real problems in life. Most the troubles that happen to him are minor and not really worth of all that fuss he makes, and some of them are really only the result of his stupidity. Most people have really big problems, worth of attention, most people are more worth of attention that Bruce, who doesn't seem too human after all, doesn't look even realistic, too goofy and neurotic, but God still addresses to him. Why? Though Morgan Freeman looks nice as a God, I can't help but to ask what is he doing in this particularly bad movie. And what does Bruce do when God gives him his powers? God in this movie could as easily give his powers to a 5 year old kid and there hardly would be any difference. No, wait, a smart kid would probably use his God powers better than Bruce. What does Bruce do? Pulls the moon closer to earth to create romantic atmosphere, parts the red soup, lifts up a pretty woman's dress on the street, answers prayers via e-mail and make all of them come true!!!! No more, Bruce, please! What Bruce did could actually end the world, but in the movie, that doesn't happen, because this is "nice, family, little movie" and doesn't make any sense at all!!! Not a hint of sarcasm, of real humor, of wittiness, of some dirty humor at least!!! Nothing. Just Carrey playing silly, which is starting to look pathetic on middle aged actor. Aniston here is understated. She plays pale, undeveloped character of Bruce's girlfriend Grace, and stays completely forgettable in this movie. Nobody in the right mind would believe that this two have any chemistry at all between them. When Grace says prayer for Bruce it sounds not only lame and pathetic, but completely false. These two are not meant to be together. I would give three stars, but I doubt movie deserves a one. Bad script, lame dialogs, lack of real humor, wittiness and any sophistication, as well as undeveloped characters and understated Freeman's and Aniston's roles, total lack of boldness and sarcasm, it all makes movie hardly worth ***. But OK, there were few funny moments, and Freeman is always nice to see in any movie so, lets leave three stars.
Jim Carrey is one of the funniest and most gifted comedians in film today. With his hyperactive spontaneity and his rubber face he can just go crazy, and we love him for it. He has the ability to make mediocre comedies (ala Ace Ventura), and turn them into decent comedic outings. Or, in the case of 'Liar Liar', make them some of the most hilarious contemporary comedies around. Carrey has also proven himself capable of tackling dramas. He was excellent in both 'Man on the Moon' and 'The Truman Show.' The guy is remarkable.<br /><br />Then comes 'Bruce Almighty,' an ideal vehicle for Carrey, and a premise that should have worked; Carrey, after complaining about God and how his life stinks, is enabled with God's powers. However, the script is pure recycled garbage. Now, no matter how bad a script is, Carrey's improvisation alone sometimes makes an unfunny scene funny. The problem is that there are very few opportunities for Carrey to be unleashed because so much of the comedy relies on silly special effects, only some of which are amusing. Carrey is rarely able to improvise because he has to work around the special effects. The writers apparently thought that all these special effects and superpower sequences were funny, because the rest of the movie is simply filler giving Carrey nothing else to work with besides a whiny character who is absolutely humorless. He seems more like a 5-year yearning for our attention, wanting the viewer to find what he is doing funny, when it's really just annoying.<br /><br />I have always enjoyed Jennifer Aniston on 'Friends' and she was superb in last year's 'The Good Girl.' She too has a gift for comedy, but with the script as linear as it is, she is simply given the part of the bitter girlfriend. She comes across as nagging, grumpy, and there is no chemistry between the two stars.<br /><br />'Bruce Almighty' should have been a comedy that works. But it doesn't even have the guts to tackle the subject matter that it's making fun of; religion. A few minor giggles (his internet is Yehweh), but instead it's just turned into a comedic superpower comedy. Not to mention that it's tone shifts from silly to heavy-handed, and even black comedy at times. The movie fails on nearly every level. That's not to see it is entirely devoid of laughs, but it's close. Any movie that feels the need to incorporate scenes of a dog peeing to get it's laughs has problems. But hey, if you find pee jokes funny, go for it.<br /><br />
Why did I go to see this film? Honestly, because Jim Carrey was in it and in the past he has made hilarious movies that have made me cry with laughter, so do you really blame me for expecting that again? Additionally, the premise, the funny trailer, his co-star Jennifer Aniston's involvement, and the fact it was a massive hit stateside encouraged me.<br /><br />However, as my "one line Summary" suggests, I was Disappointed. For various reasons;<br /><br />Reason 1: It wasn't funny. In a 2hour movie, I laughed for about 5-10minutes...all together, the rest of the time I sat thinking "I really should have got some ice-cream". I admit that maybe it is wrong to judge Jim Carrey on his previous films, but what does he really expect when he makes Gem's such as 'The Truman Show' , 'Liar Liar' , 'Me, Myself and Irene' , 'Dumb and Dumber' , 'The Mask', and the 'Ace Ventura' films then produces, in Bruce Nolan's own words, such a mediocre film?<br /><br />Reason 2: Jennifer Aniston's role was criminally underwritten. I mean hello! She's been around in the public eye for about ten years now, and in this film she gets about four lines to say. Wrong.<br /><br />Reason 3: One word - Cliché<br /><br />Reason 4: A casual deployment of specifically American References - Jimmy Hoffa, Walter Cronkite 'sweeps week' - is a clue to the film's specifically home-grown appeal. "A teenager says no to drugs and yes to an Education - that's a miracle! Want to see a miracle soon? Be the miracle!" God tells Bruce, a heavy handed sentiment that seems to have gone down a treat in the US, but might face tougher resistance in markets that retain an inkling for subtlety. Additionally, I still go to school, and that statement suggests me and all of my friend's are miracles...or maybe it just means we have brains?<br /><br />In this film there are enough funny Carrey moments to make you chuckle and prevent Bruce Almighty from being a total calamity, but you are advised to start revising your expectations downwards.
I was seriously looking forward to seeing this film because it seemed truly promising from the coming attractions: Jim Carrey with Godlike powers was an idea that most definitely worked for me. As a huge fan, I was sure he'd be supremely in his element with such a promising premise, and what could go wrong? Yesterday, my bubble got burst big-time, boys and girls, because I saw the movie. <br /><br />The first act (where it's set up that he hates his life, he's a disgruntled employee and a majorly unhappy camper with an ax to grind against God) is serviceable, the second act (where he's summoned by God via telephone and receives Powers Almighty) is GREAT - Carrey gets to have fun with his new 'toys' and it's a pleasure to watch, really funny. But the third act is wretched beyond belief.<br /><br />The rot starts setting in after the dinner scene between Bruce and his girlfriend Grace (Jennifer Aniston, who comes off EXCEEDINGLY well in this movie considering her part is merely a plot device; even her NAME reeks of unsubtlety) - she thinks he's gonna pop 'the question' but instead, he tells her (on bended knee, yet) that he's finally getting his news anchor job, and isn't it so exciting?<br /><br />She doesn't think so. She wants him to marry her, see, so she winds up leaving him, see, even though she still LOVES him very much, see, and the rest of the film is spent banging us over the head with one pathetic, beyond-heavy-handed spiritual-sounding cliche after the next, until by the end I was praying, too. . .for it to be over. <br /><br />I didn't mind the lack of subtlety in the first two acts (one example - in the 2nd act, after he gets his powers, Bruce prances into the room singing "What if God were one of us, just a slob like one of us", blah blah blah), and I was even willing to overlook the amazing amount of contradictions being hurled at us (for openers, Morgan Freeman - a/k/a GOD - tells Bruce he can't violate anyone's free will but he does this, a lot). Those choices were forgivable - this is a Jim Carrey comedy, directed by Tom Shadyac - it aint The Remains of the Day. <br /><br />Or rather it was SUPPOSED to be a comedy. When the script writers lose track of that (in the dreaded act 3) and try to turn the proceedings into some sort of (gag) Message Movie, what we get instead is hell on earth. Bruce realizes the error of his selfish ways, he realizes that GRACE is his saving - have to say it - grace, and that his priorities in life had been severely misconstrued. All this could have been conveyed in a far less heavy-handed way, however. The film didn't have to go into the dumper to make these points. Unfortunately, the writers and Shadyac apparently had no idea how to resolve the story in any sort of clever, light-handed way, so they went the bang-'em-over-the-heads route in hopes that we wouldn't notice. They even tacked some surprisingly unfunny out-takes at the end, in the further hope that this would lessen the bad taste. It didn't work for me.
The plot of 'House of Games' is the strongest thing about it: a successful author and psychologist is conned by a gang of grifters, but in discovering the wicked part of herself that enjoys the thrill of what they do, she finally gets her revenge. That's about the pitch: but someone has to take responsibility for it coming across as being acted by puppets. It has to be the director Mamet: Lindsay Crouse has had a varied and pretty steady TV and film career, so she can't perform this badly all the time. She's supposed to go from uptight, cool, controlled professional to calculating, wicked fast lady having fun, as shown by the change from beige trouser suit (which she seems to wear for three days straight, including underwear) to floppy floral sundress. But everyone seems to be speaking their lines the same clipped, precise way; I imagine Mamet wanting to make sure not a syllable of his scintillating script got missed. The effect is unsettling and spoils the atmosphere of mystery and suspense he is presumably trying to create. At times 'House of Games' loses any connection to how human beings actually behave or talk, and becomes just a mechanism to spin out the plot. The clunky vibes'n'oboe faux-jazz soundtrack doesn't help either. The ultimate result is that the only entertainment to be had is in guessing the outcome, and the sooner you do that the sooner you will get bored with the robotic, two-dimensional performances. And they smoke too much!!!
David Mamet's film debut has been hailed by many as a real thinking-man's movie, a movie that makes you question everybody and everything. I saw it for the first time recently and couldn't understand what was supposed to be so great about it.<br /><br />The movie is about a female psychologist named Margaret who is also a best-selling author. Margaret has become disillusioned by her profession and her inability to really help anyone. She tries to rectify this by helping settle her patient's gambling debt to a shark named Mike (played by Joe Mantegna, who is the only reason to watch this film). She discovers that Mike is actually a professional confidence man when she nearly falls victim to a scam he pulls immediately after meeting her. Intrigued, she returns to see him and asks him to show her how con artists operate (she plans on using this as the subject of a new psychology book). She then falls for him and accompanies him on a long con that he and his associates have set up.<br /><br />I don't feel like going into details, but at the end of the film it is revealed that the events of the whole movie were an elaborate con by Mike and his cronies to swindle Margaret out of $80,000.<br /><br />First of all, the big twist towards the end was VERY predictable. Any scene where the con men were operating was made very obvious by the stagey acting and weird line reads. Not only that, but the audience (and the main character) knows that they're dealing with con men, so is it really such a big surprise when we find out that Margaret has herself been conned? Besides, Margaret is supposedly an intelligent psychologist who is an expert at reading people, yet she allows herself to be duped far too easily -- and keep in mind, she knows full well that Mike is a con artist.<br /><br />Secondly, we are led to believe that Margaret was conned from the very beginning, yet in order for the con to ultimately work, she had to do several things that the con men couldn't possibly have predicted that she would do. First, she had to decide to help settle her patient's debt, allowing her to meet the con men in the first place. If she hadn't done this, the entire con would have failed. I just have to say that it's pretty unreasonable to assume that a psychologist is going to take it upon herself to settle a patient's gambling debt. Not only that, but what are the odds that the con men would be at the right spot on the very night she decided to show up? Did they simply show up at that bar every night, hoping she would come and see them? Another thing that had to happen that couldn't have been predicted is that Margaret had to return to see Mike again and ask him to teach her the tricks of his trade. What are the odds of this happening? And yet the whole con is based on this premise.<br /><br />Another problem I had is with the ending. Margaret finds out she's been conned and decides to get revenge on Mike. At first, Mamet leads us to believe that she's going to con the con, but that falls through, so the ultimate ending is her gunning Mike down in an airport baggage area. Somehow that just felt like a clumsy and inept way to end a movie about con artists plying their trade. Not only that, but she didn't even take back the money he stole from her.<br /><br />Ultimately, the movie leaves you feeling empty and unfulfilled. And if you, like me, predicted ahead of time that Margaret was going to be conned, you will find this revelation just as unsatisfying.
The effect achieved in this story about a psychiatrist who becomes involved with con artists is so mannered that I have to assume that that was the desired intent. The sets are artificial and at no time did I not feel that I was watching a movie. It seemed like the actors were just reading their lines, rather than responding to one another. While the film has elements of early film noir (except that it is in color) the approach is so exaggerated that I almost have to conclude that it is a parody of the genre.<br /><br />Given that the presentation had no appeal to me, I was at least expecting an engaging story. Usually I am pretty slow on the uptake when it comes to stories with plot twists, but you could see what was coming here within the first fifteen minutes. By the time of the, "Gee, I forgot the $80,000," moment, I thought to myself that this thing is truly ridiculous. For a psychiatrist with stated experience in gambling addictions to behave so stupidly is beyond belief. If at any stage she had behaved like a normal intelligent person, the whole story would have fallen apart.<br /><br />This wooden production left me cold.
By far the most important requirement for any film following confidence tricksters is that they must, at least occasionally, be able to pull one over on us, as well as their dumb-witted marks, the cops, the mob and (ideally) each other. But this film NEVER pulls this off. Every scam can be seen coming a mile off (especially the biggen!) Neither are they very interesting, intricate or sophisticated. Perhaps Mammet hoped to compensate for this with snappy dialogue and complex psychological relationships. If so, he failed. The lines are alright, but they're delivered in such a stilted, unnatural, stylised way that I thought perhaps some clever point was being made about us all acting all the time... but it wasn't. As for the psychological complexity, the main character's a bit repressed and makes some ridiculously forced freudian slips about her father thinking she's a whore, but she gets over it. I really liked the street scenes though. Looked just like an Edward Hopper painting.
Here's a review for people like me. This movie sucks from beginning to end. I threw popcorn at the screen and resorted to entertaining myself a la MSF2000. The plot hinges on chance happenings and relies on stupidity from people who are supposed to be smart. The lead falls for a con man and it doesn't occur to her that she might get conned????? And she's rich???? And she's a famous psychologist????? COME ON, people. She enters the bar at just the most convenient moment when everyone is assembled to talk about conning her??? That was so staged that it felt like slap in the face to even half-witted movie viewers. Rain man would have been insulted. I also admit that I despise Mamet dialogue with the kind of passion that some people have for meat-eaters, war-starters, and fur-wearers. My hatred is so complete that it defies logic. But I'll give it a shot. That it's not supposed to sound real is fine. I don't care. It's that everyone talks the SAME. Mamet can't create characters; all he can do is foist his voice on us relentlessly through different actors. No wonder his actors are so wooden. They're confused about everyone being the same character. (However, his later films do improve.)
This movie had potential, but what makes it really bad is Lindsay Crouse's acting. I've never seen her before in anything else and maybe there are some Crouse fans out there that like her in something else, but her performance in this movie is bad.<br /><br />Her delivery is robotic. When she delivered her lines it appeared that she was trying to make sure she had the lines right and was simply reading off the list in her head. So, her voice has very little inflection. I can't believe someone that bad at acting was given a lead role in a movie. She has to know somebody in the biz.<br /><br />Now I hate to be this mean about her, but the comment has to be "this" long and her performance is what sticks out more than anything else.<br /><br />However, I liked where the story was going so I continued to watch it. The first part of the script has the makings of a good movie. But the end was disappointing as well. Maybe if her acting had been better, I would have liked it.
This is the first Guinea Pig film from Japan and this is the sickest, in my opinion. A bunch of guys torture a girl for several days before finally killing her. And at this point, I will say that these films are NOT real! They are faked horror films which try to be as realistic as possible.<br /><br />The scenes are sickening but also unrealistic in many cases. For example, when they kick the girl in the floor, we can clearly see how they kick and stump the floor near the girl! And how stupid this looks! The sound effects are also unrealistic and don't make sense. Other scenes include animal intestines thrown on the girl, the girl exposed to loud noises for many hours, the ripping off of fingernails, worms placed on the wounds in the girl's body, the eye pierced and mutilated in horrific detail and stuff like that. Very sick and mean spirited film and has absolutely nothing valuable or cinematically significant. This first entry is the sickest and most amateurish Guinea Pig, although it is not as bloody as the next part, Flowers of Flesh and Blood, which tries to be as shocking as possible.<br /><br />Guinea Pig: Devil's Experiment is perhaps the sickest thing I've seen and the closest thing to snuff there is. This is still (of course) faked s(n/t)uff, the only difference to genuine "snuff film" is that no one dies or hurts for real in this film. I cannot recommend this to anyone since thi s is so s****y and repulsive. They who consider this is a great horror film understand nothing about cinema and the real meaning of it. I watched this as a curiosity (as the other parts in the series) and now I know how insignificant trash these are. They work only in shock level and that's not too valuable cinematic achievement. Devil's Experiment is perhaps the sickest film I've seen and Mermaid in a Manhole (Guinea Pig 4) is perhaps the most disgusting film I've seen. So these are pretty extreme in my book, but that's all they are.
Ah, the infamous "Guinea Pig" series...I honestly have to say that I've been disappointed as a whole by this entire series ("He Never Dies","Mermaid in a Manhole", and "Flower of Flesh and Blood" being the exceptions...and even those aren't great by any means...), but "Devil's Experiment" just plain blows. There is nothing realistic-looking going on here, other than the climactic (or perhaps anti-climactic, depending on how you view it) eyeball piercing scene. The victim appears to not really care what is going on and barely whines or whimpers while being subjected to "hideous" (more often sometimes "hilarious") tortures. "Flower of Flesh and Blood" is a more violent and gory depiction of fake "snuff" material, but that film also falls flat on the realism level. I applaud the Japanese for pushing the boundaries, and they've really come a long way over the past 2 decades to wear the crown in "extreme" film-making, but "Devil's Experiment" just doesn't hold up. Worth a look if you are a die-hard, if for no other reason than to see what the fuss is about, but I can only give this film an extremely generous 3/10 and that's only for the needle-through-the-eye scene...
Devil's Experiment: 1/10: Hardcore porn films fall into two categories those with a semblance of plot (Gee that is one lucky pizza boy) and those without (Anal Amateurs 36). Devil's Experiment falls solidly into the latter category. <br /><br />It is of course the horror version of hardcore porn. An almost completely plot less 43-minute wait for the money shot. Shot on video in 1985 it consists of three relatively non-descript Japanese boys torturing one fairly unattractive Japanese girl. The tortures range from the banal (slapping her 50 times, kicking her a hundred), the silly (tying her to an office chair and spinning her around), the fear factor (a bath of maggots and sheep guts) and finally the money shot. (A well executed eyeball piercing). <br /><br />That's it, no plot, no motive, just Blair Witch tree shots and torture. The girl looks bored and with the exception of yelling, "no one expects the Spanish Inquisition" during the office chair scene I was bored silly. Staring dumbfounded at the screen, waiting for the money shot. Just like hardcore porn.
Not that I tinkle myself with glee at the sight of realistic blood shed, but when I put a DVD in expecting a bloodbath, and what I get is one bloody scene (the eyeball) at the tail end of asinine fake slapping, and spinning in a desk chair, I end up thinking "well that's 43 minutes of my life gone forever." I wouldn't considers this or Flower of Flesh and Blood "movies" so much as an exercise of will; to see if you can sit through them. Flower of Flesh and Blood had a few tough spots to watch. The Devil's Experiment did not. It was at best, stupid, and at worst...well...really stupid. Perhaps my expectation were too high. I put the DVD thinking "oh man, this is gonna be sick." After watching them fake slap the girl about a thousand times, I was watching it in fast forward.<br /><br />Two kinds of people would be interested in this film. 1) People who seek out F'd up films just to see how F'd up it really is, or 2) horror completest. I sought this and the other Guinea Pig films for the latter reason, but even if I fell into the category of the former, this film wouldn't float my boat. As a matter of fact, I could imagine this film increasing one's blood lust...as in "WOULD YOU JUST KILL THE B*TCH ALREADY!!" So in conclusion, the only reason to own this film is for collection purposes. If you want carnage that traditional horror doesn't provide, get Traces of Death. Sure, that sucks too, but at least you'll get the blood and guts you expect.<br /><br />The only reason I can see for anyone praising this crap is because they feel they're supposed to. No artistic merit that I can comprehend, no reason for it's notoriety, no nothing. Just a lame attempt to be shocking.
I recently watched the first Guinea Pig film, The Devil's Experiment, and I must admit to being disappointed.<br /><br />This film is invariably included in any list of the "nastiest" films and maybe I was expecting more because of the hype. The truth is though, I don't rate it.<br /><br />If I'd been watching it believing the opening text to be true ("I found this tape..."), I might have been a bit disturbed by it, thinking it was real. Even without the benefit of knowing it not to be real though, I think I'd have worked out that it indeed wasn't.<br /><br />Throughout the film, the girl's reactions to what is being done to her just aren't what they should be. She should be screaming like a banshee in pain. The fact that she isn't means that it's obviously not real. I wouldn't want to watch it if it were real but if she were to be more convincing in her acting, the film would be more disturbing.<br /><br />And then there are the notorious scenes: nothing affected me at all up until the scalpel in the hand. The hot oil, maggots and innards just didn't bother me. I'm not saying I'm "hard"; just that I wasn't able to suspend my disbelief, partly because of the girl's inaction.<br /><br />The scalpel made me wince a little but the hammer to the hand just made the hand look rubber. And the final scene with the eye was again a little wincing but nothing more. I didn't want to look away and neither did I feel nauseous.<br /><br />Perhaps it's because the film is twenty-odd years old, or perhaps I'm just jaded. The truth is, I didn't find this film at all disturbing.<br /><br />It's the kind of thing you might expect to see playing on a loop as a modern art installation and as an exercise in stripping away characters, story etc. and just leaving the torture, it works on some levels. As a disturbing piece of film though, it didn't work for me at least.<br /><br />I watched Guinea Pig with my wife, who is of the "it's just a film" bent and she wondered what all the fuss was about. We got to discussing why I watch these films and my reasons are many but include a desire to be affected by a film. She said that she didn't think any film could be so convincing as to disturb her and challenged me to do exactly that. I played her the fire extinguisher scene from Irreversible and she was indeed disturbed.<br /><br />I'm not sure I have a point, other than that both of us were more disturbed by a scene in a non-horror genre film than any film thus far which sets out to disturb.
I am an avid fan of violent exploitation cinema, who would never attack a film for being violent or disturbing. I consider "Cannibal Holocaust" a masterpiece and will always defend controversial films like "Day Of The Woman" or "Last House on the Left" as genuine classics. Anyone who browses through my other user comments will notice that I am actually very pro-violence/gore when it comes to films. However, I do think that there should be at least some point to the violence. This piece of crap doesn't have any point whatsoever. The first film in the notorious "Guinea Pig" series, "The Devil's Experiment" (1985) is widely controversial, but, as opposed to many other controversial films, this stinker has nothing at all to be recommended for. I must say that, before seeing any of the Guniea-Pig films, I already had a feeling that I would hate this one, knowing what it was about. Due to its status as one of the most controversial films around, however, I decided I had to see it. I am very glad I didn't waste any money on this pile of crap, and I sure wish I hadn't wasted my time with it either.<br /><br />This thing's story (I don't even want to call it a 'film'): It doesn't have one. Three scumbags torture a woman to death for some excruciating 40 minutes. That's it. There is no artistic value, no 'shocking' story, no suspense; nothing. Simply the disbelief that a film that shows NOTHING except for a woman being tortured for no reason enjoys an enormous cult-following. It IS disturbing, I give it that. Of course it is disturbing to watch a torture video for 40 minutes. What is more disturbing, however, is the fact that many people actually seem to regard this pile of garbage as some kind of masterpiece. I really cannot figure why. The fact that the gore effects look realistic cannot be the reason, I hope. The girl who plays the victim isn't a very good actor, and reacts very calm to all the torture. That makes the film look less realistic, which is, in this single case, a good thing. This is a film that is sickening; not for its gore, but for its redundancy, its existence for the sole purpose of showing 40 minutes of torture.<br /><br />I strongly oppose any form of censorship. Since this is 100% fake and nobody got hurt during its production, it IS legitimate to make such a film. However, I cannot think of a single reason why anyone would like this, other than the morbid desire to watch suffering and the enjoyment of torture. This film's sequel "Flowers of Flesh and Blood" gained notoriety when actor Charlie Sheen mistook it for an actual snuff film and informed the FBI. Fortuneately, the film turned out to be fake. Overall, "The Devil's Experiment" is a fake torture/snuff film that seems to have the sole purpose of looking as close to a real snuff film as possible.<br /><br />"The Devil's Experiment" is one of the worst films I have ever had the misfortune of sitting through. Don't torture yourself by giving this piece of crap a try for its controversial status. Do yourself a favor and avoid it. Zero stars out of 10, I wish there was a negative scale in order to appropriately rate this pile of crap.
Well, how do you even rate a movie such as this one? Does it even have cinematic value really? It's a movie that tries to get as close to being a snuff movie as possible. Basically the entire movie is purely a bunch of guys torturing a young girl. Not very appealing and on top of that also not that realistic really.<br /><br />It's obvious that the movie tried to be as realistic and shocking as possible. However the movie is just all too fake for that to work out as intended. The slapping and stumping is all soft and fake looking, as well as sounding. They are often just kicking into the floor, rather than into the girl, obviously. Also the way the girl responds to all the torments is pretty tame. I mean if this was real, surely she would had screamed it out. There is more moaning than screaming in this one though.<br /><br />The movie is obviously low budget and it's a valor attempt at trying to achieve something shocking and realistic as well as original and provoking, with very limited resources. Don't really think this movie made much impact though at the time it got released, though it must had done something well, since a total of six sequels got released after this one.<br /><br />Fans of shock and gore will most likely be disappointed by this movie, though there are still some fetish people out there who will get a kick out of this movie.<br /><br />4/10
C'mon people, you can't be serious, another case of advertising snuff when it totally isn't! This isn't even remotely scary nor is it terrifying or depraved - it is just utterly terrible amateurish videowork, made for the next party to get the girls laid.<br /><br />The gore is incredibly bad, even the eye-scene is far from making me want to puke but just making me want to take the camera and hit those guys over the head. The girl is just laying there rubber-faced, not moving at all. It would have been funnier to use a real doll instead.<br /><br />One season of "I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here!" is more frightening than this one. Don't waste your time or your money.
this movie has no plot, no character development, and no budget. it really sucks to put it in short terms. Since there is no development for the movie, it really can't even be looked as trying to be artistic or trying to make a statement against torture. Which leaves two other reasons to possibly watch it. To be shocked or to get off on it like a sick little freak. Well it falls short here too. The girl's reactions just seem dumb. it's extremely easy to tell that it's fake (honestly professional wrestling looks more realistic than the crap they try to get by with in this movie. They throw innards on her, but she's asleep for most of it, so it's just kinda dumb. The only really kind of worthwhile part is the end when they quickly cut from scene to scene just before the needle goes into her eye. But honestly the girl is extremely ugly and everything is incredibly fake, with the exception of the eye. if you want a good movie about torture, go watch Hostel and Hostel 2. Not only do they both contain realistic violence, but there is also an actual storyline that draws you in and makes you care about the people. Plus the tow movies really work on a deeper level considering themes like American fears of foreigners, issues of morality, testing how far a person can go, human instincts vs. civilization, and many other things. Plus they are carefully written and contain some good humor when the story isn't focused on the violence. These are much better choices over this piece of crap
This movie seems to have a lot of people saying it is one of the most brutal of all time. After having just viewed it, I can say it does not live up to those claims.<br /><br />The idea of the movie is indeed demented. But overall, the execution wasn't at all cringe worthy. Even the final scene (the eyeball thing) isn't really that nasty. I was expecting something insane, instead it was of lower quality than gore put forth on films like the ultra low budget Violent Sh!t.<br /><br />Any one wanting to see an actual movie will be disappointed, since there is no story whatsoever (though surely most people know this). Gore fans will be disappointed since, contrary to belief, the blood and guts here are few and far between. Not to mention the actress playing the victim might be one of the worst in history.<br /><br />Regardless of what people say, this movie isn't that shocking, it just plain all out sucks. Avoid it.
I just finished watching guinea pig - Devils experiment. I have to say that this movie, although having very good FX, better then I expected, was NOT a good movie. I honestly cant say that I enjoyed this movie at all. Of course It is effective in its way of being a shocking, realistic, twisted 43 minutes of torture, but I found it to be very boring (and not as gory as i hoped). And also I found that the torturers were very annoying, when they talked and loughed trying to sound tough all the time, that ruined it even more (and Im sure there's some people out there who will agree with me on that one). I have now seen guinea pig 1,2,3,5 and the best one out of those in my opinion is guinea pig 2 - Flowers of the flesh and blood. I wont say much more about Devils experiment, other than Great fx, descent acting from the girl, annoying fu**ing torturers, overall I give it 4 stars on account of the FX cos they are awesome.
A found tape about 3? guys having fun torturing a woman in several inhuman ways.<br /><br />Yeah, spoiler.<br /><br />First of all, the acting made this short not scary at all, the woman seemed to have orgasms, not suffering. Some of the punishments were so ridiculous! what's shocking about throwing some meat or spin her in a chair? If you are shooting a nonsense tape, at least make it good. The only part to remark is the end: the hammered hand and the pierced eye, the rest of the film is really poor. To end the boredom, the supposed story about the tape being investigated, extra bullshit.
I've seen other Guinea Pig films, like Mermaid in a Manhole & He Never Dies, and while they're pretty sick, they at least have a bit of a sense of humor to them (however dark). Devil's Experiment though, is nothing more than filming a bunch of punks submitting a young girl to many methods of torture and violence and there's no plot and no redeeming values to it whatsoever. It isn't remotely scary, except for perhaps the mind-set, but it's definitely disgusting and I certainly would not call it entertainment. Now, I'm not the paragon of good taste in films and I like my trash and sleaze, but this was too much for me, really. I'm all for disturbing, in fact, I seek out things that are disturbing whenever possible, but this was a bit much. The young woman is kicked, beaten, submitted to continuous noise via headphones until she drools, and then pelted with raw meat and innards and left hanging in a hammock out in the woods somewhere. If you think that sounds great, go for it, but it certainly put me off viewing any more Guinea Pig stuff. 1 out of 10, absolutely nauseating.
This is an installment in the notorious Guinea Pig series. A short lived japanese TV-show, that got cancelled after a psychopath admitted to being inspired in the killing of a young schoolgirl by the show. This short in the series is, like all the other films in the series, practically without any story. A group of guys have captured a young woman. They tie her down and proceeds to torturing her to death while videofilming her. They beat her, pour boiling oil over her, use pliers on her and finally, in "loving" closeup, push a needle through her eye. This is the most straightforward of all the Guinea Pig movies, and one of the first. It was probably this film, more than any of the others, that gave Guinea Pig the rumour of being snuff. They certainly gave inspiration to Nicolas Cage's movie "8 mm.". These movies have gotten quite popular in horror circles. They have progressed to more polished, but equally graphic movies like "Naked Blood". They probably fill the void left by the Mondo movies, that got slightly cleaned up and became reality TV. Not recommended, but will probably allure those who will see anything once, and wonder why afterwards, I know I did.
We have reached the ceiling of implausibility with this movie. Basically, Dinosaurs come aboard this ship piloted by some weird old fart named Neweyes(which I needed after I watched this movie). Apparently, Neweyes hears the wishes of children everywhere and decides that he should grant the wish of children that Dinosaurs be brought into modern times to be seen by everybody for shameless exploitation. The dinosaurs eat this stuff that makes them smarter(Too bad the screenwriters didn't have it). By the way, does it seem weird that out of ALL the wishes of the children in the world, Neweyes grants the wish of bringing Dinosaurs to modern times? Why not grant the wishes of kids to stop famine? Disease? War? I mean come on! Doesn't Neweyes have anything better to do with all this power he has??? Finally, when the Dinosaurs get to modern times they start singing, dancing and wrecking havoc(basically the kind of thing you might see on a bad LSD trip, I mean where else could you see a T-Rex playing golf and jumping on a balloon of Spider-man?). They end up in the circus and Neweyes Brother Screweyes(???) makes the kids that have befriended the dinosaurs sign a blank contract. Why? Why would kids sign a blank contract??? Screweyes says that if the dinosaurs take some..."Brain-Drain" That he will let the children go. The dinosaurs instead of tearing apart the evil Screweyes limb from limb, give in and agree to his terms. What?! This is stupid! They could have just menaced him, made him drop the contract, eaten it then walked off with the kids. I think the filmmakers were trying to show that violence is bad, which is a moot point when finally the dinosaurs escape and a bunch of crows envelop Screweyes and apparently completely eat him. Oh yeah, that's not violent at all! We're back makes no sense, it's not fun, it's goofy, it's stupid, poorly written and contains some of the biggest plot holes ever committed to film. Even for a kid's film... this is BAD.
Children love dinosaurs. It's somewhat part of their culture. But they've got The Land Before Time. The original. At least that movie had heart. This. This movie is just plain pathetic. Just because kids love dinosaurs doesn't mean you can just slap together any old story and show it to the children. This movie has no plot, the whole premise is stupid, and it's more by the numbers stuff. Not as soul sucking as Theodore Rex, but it's lightyears away from being a Land Before Time.
When I was a kid, I remember watching this while visiting a friend of our "Uncle" Phil. We're Back! A Dinosaur's Story is a silly cartoon about a dinosaur called Rex (voiced by the wonderful John Goodman). He tells a little boy dinosaur the story about how the dinosaurs came back to Earth to live. He explains that he was part of the thing that brought them back, along with some friends. The Doctor/Professor villain of this film I think might have been responsible for them being them back, but I don't care about him. The kids might like this, but personally it is just too cheesy. John Goodman was probably the only decent thing. Poor!
LOL! Not a bad way to start it. I thought this was original, but then I discovered it was a clone of the 1976 remake of KING KONG. I never saw KING KONG until I was 15. I saw this film when I was 9. The film's funky disco music will get stuck in your head! Not to mention the film's theme song by the Yetians. This is the worst creature effects I've ever seen. At the same time this film remains a holy grail of B-movies. Memorable quotes: "Take a tranquilizer and go to bed." "Put the Yeti in your tank and you have Yeti power." I remember seeing this film on MOVIE MACRABE hosted by Elvira. There is one scene where it was like KING KONG in reverse! In KING KONG he grabs the girl and climbs up the building, but in this film he climbs down the building and grabs the girl (who was falling)! Also around that year was another KONG clone MIGHTY PEKING MAN (1977) which came from Hong Kong. There is a lot of traveling matte scenes and motorized body parts. This film will leave you laughing. It is like I said, just another KING KONG clone. Rated PG for violence, language, thematic elements, and some scary scenes.
I was very disappointed in this 1970 film based on a Bernard Malamud story. This is basically a story of possible redemption, racial bias and the unfulfillment of life based on mistrust.<br /><br />A black Jewish angel is sent to help a struggling tailor and his critically ill wife. If Morris Mishkin (Zero Mostel) will only believe in the angel (Belafonte), his wife Fanny (Ida Kaminska) will recover. The problem is that Morris has basically given up on life and just refuses to believe that Belafonte is an angel.<br /><br />When he believes it, Fanny improves but in the end he has doubts and Fanny suffers accordingly. It would have been very nice if there had been an English translation in the last scene when a dying Fanny speaks to Morris.<br /><br />Jan Kadar, who successfully directed Miss Kaminska in her Oscar nominated brilliant performance in 1966's "The Shop on Main Street" directs this film as well. Kaminska is reduced in the film to mostly bed scenes and her kindness in her speech really doesn't convey the desperate situation that she faces. She keeps calling for Ruthie, their daughter, who disobeyed them by marrying out of the Jewish religion. For most of the film, she does not realize the Angel's appearance in her apartment.<br /><br />The scene in the pharmacy is muddled and the scene where the Angel's girl friend confronts Belafonte in their apartment, is memorable but all too brief.<br /><br />We don't know why Belafonte is in danger and why he has died.<br /><br />Those viewing this film must have left the theater in a state of depression and desperation.
I watched this on the tube last night. The actor's involved first caught my attention. The first scenes were attention getters. Some funny some sad. Good character development. I felt that the latter third of the film diverged. If it was not for the early part of the movie I would have stopped watching. I kept watching wanting to how how it tied together.<br /><br />Unfortunately I feel that it never happened. I especially did not like the extend period that several of the character were talking yiddish (?). Was that the other shoe?<br /><br />Would I recommend? No, I think not. As other reviewers mention much of the slang is dated (60's jive) but it was not too distracting. The ending totally turned me off.
I absolutely hate it when a film completely falls apart near the end, after you've already invested an hour into it. and that's what happened with this film. i was intrigued by its actors and the fact that malamud wrote its source story. I haven't gone to read that story but I cannot imagine that it ends like this film ends.Fortunately i didn't pay good money to see or rent it because my library had it. ohhhh such a waste of excellent acting (the wife in particular was so perfect).but milo o'shea as a Jew?!!!! now THAT was funny. I haven't researched into its making but it played like the director lost his marbles or died 3/4 of the way through the film. Before that point, a story and characters were developing,there were a number of neat plot points and there wasn't too much time wasted. but ooh that last 1/2 hour- if that wasn't the screwiest, most worthless denouement I've ever witnessed, I don't know what is. I just hate it when one's faith is so destroyed like that; it feels like an act of violence.
Somebody called Howard Koch a schlockmeister but he did write the screenplay for "Casablanca", didn't he? Or didn't he. Maybe there's more than one Koch slinking around in Hollywood, and I'm not too fond of "Casablanca" anyway. Wait a minute -- yes, there is another Howard Koch slinking around Hollwyood. That's the one who wrote "Casablanca." No matter. I'll put as much care into this comment as "Howard W. Koch" put into this production, which is to say only a little.<br /><br />You know what this sounds like? Somebody read Cliff's Notes on Shakespeare's "King Lear" and decided, since no original thoughts were aboard the Inbound Inspiration Express, to update it and Hollywoodize it with a happy ending.<br /><br />There are differences. Lear decides to divvy up his vast estates between three sisters and before doing so, asks them how much they love him. Two of the sisters throw themselves at his feet and brown nose him to get at his money. The third is the good girl and refuses to go operatic on Lear. But in the play, Lear remains alive to regret his decision to give the two connivers his stash and deprive the honest girl. He winds up crazy and naked during a gale on the moors, putting flowers in his hair and hallucinating. Kids can do that to you. (Take my kid, for instance. After all the effort I squandered on raising him, does he show any interest in becoming a doctor or a lawyer? No.) In the end, everybody in the play dies.<br /><br />In the movie, evidently, the good sister is morose and suicidal but when she tries to off herself, somebody jumps in and saves her, so the ending is, more or less, happy. That's the difference between Hollywood and a genuine tragedy, unless you define Hollywood as a tragedy sufficient unto itself.
I found this film to be an interesting study in cause and effect but little more than that. The basic plot follows the lives of a handful of people and how their actions (deliberate and otherwise) effect the lives of the others. The film's premise holds great promise but I feel it fails to deliver on its promise. Too much time is spent telling the audience about chaos theory and too little time actually showing it. As a result, I never got a true feel for any of the characters and never made a good connection with them emotionally. By the end of the movie, I had a "so what" attitude about all of them. A stronger direction in character development would have made this movie great, but as it stands it is merely so-so
A missed train. A wrong phone number. An extra cup of coffee. What happens to those around you when you make a seemingly innocuous decision? Most people don't give it a thought as they absorbed in their own thoughts and actions.<br /><br />"Happenstance" tells the story of the interrelations and cause-and-effect of the mundane as it pertains to a group of normal Parisian folk. It has all the components of what passes for contemporary theater, with the full cast of the dysfunctional and disillusioned.<br /><br />There's a cheating husband, an illegal immigrant, a classic slacker, a pickpocket, a crazy grandmother, an annoying girlfriend, a selfish roommate, and a homeless man. Audrey Tautou serves as the erstwhile protagonist (in the sense that she's on camera as much as anyone else and opens and closes the film) and normal girl who just can't seem to find the right rhythm in her life.<br /><br />She learns at the beginning of her day from a stranger on a train what her horoscope holds for her. What happens to her in the course of the day is told through various characters. Does the prediction come true? The concept is good, but the storytelling is flimsy. The connections from one event to the next are weak. There's better storytelling in 15 seconds of the Liberty Mutual insurance commercial where one person sees a good deed and passes it along to another than there is in two hours of Happenstance.<br /><br />If you enjoy Audrey Tautou, then you certainly can sacrifice the time for this film, but you'll finish it dissatisfied and wondering what this same storyline could be if it were handled by a better producer and director.
Witty. Quirky. Genuine. Surreal. Butterfly wings? One could ask what all of these words best describe, and some (those in fuse with the international film community) may quickly say Happenstance, but others may jump aboard the more American train and immediately yell, The Butterfly Effect. Strangely, I would be one of those screaming for that sci-fi Kutcher film mainly because none of those words that I initially mentioned at the start of this paragraph accurately depicts the Tautou feature that I witnessed. Sure, we all loved her in Amelie and thought she was the daughter of Jesus in The Da Vinci Code, but in this film first-time director (of a feature film at least) Laurent Firode doesn't give Tautou the opportunity to shine. Sadly, he gives nobody the opportunity to really demonstrate themselves because he is too delicately caught up in the moments of "random chance" to bring this film to anything but just a shimmer (never a true boil). Firode has ample, and I use "ample" as a small word, moments throughout this film where he could have built us a fantastical story, a genuinely whimsical fairy-tale of love and coincidence, but instead he fell face-first into a mud-bucket of chaotic intertwining that overwhelmed us with inconsistent characters and a story that left us gasping for less.<br /><br />Tautou's beautiful face adorns the cover of this box, but do not be so taken immediately as I did in assuming that this was going to be another monumental journey into Tautou's French cinema. Tautou is in this film, do not get me wrong, but one could argue that she is not at the center of this story. Firode's job is to create a series of random events that eventually will lead to an audience friendly (albeit confusing) ending which exemplifies that meaning of refreshing "melodrama". He utterly, utterly fails. Firode fails by giving us, the audience, too many characters. With too many characters he gives us too many random interventions, and by the end you don't really care who is who, or what is what, or how is how; your main focus happens to be centered solely on the ending credits and the time destination of their arrival. Tautou could have saved this film from the disaster it was if only Firode would have given her the center. Alas, he did not, but attempted to seemingly force a group of 12 through a theoretical film hole about the size of a penny. It just didn't work and we were left with a jam in which we were completely stuck.<br /><br />Firode fails because he focus' so intently on the minor details that, for one of those rare film occurrences, he actually forgets the central focus. I can say that there was no defined central focus to Happenstance. In the beginning he attempts to create one with our two supposed main characters discovering that they share the same birthday and their horoscope promises love by the moonlight, but we never go back to that throughout the film. Instead, again, we are bombarded with new characters, stuffy scenes, and meaningless drivel obviously chosen to direct us away from an actual story and more into a world full of "ifs, ands, and buts". I couldn't do it. I couldn't believe this film. Writer Firode (yes, the same guy directing this garbage) uses a technique so primitive in this film that I immediately felt like ending it immediately. He must have been assuming that many of us were incapable of actually following the storyline (or the scientific premise) because he grabs the aid of a homeless person to actually fill in the respective blanks. I didn't need this, nor do I think Firode needed to belittle his audience in this matter. While there were other elements that just didn't seem to work for me at all (again, felt like a jumbled Parisian collage of shredded paper), this was the icing on the cake. I don't need my hand held through films.<br /><br />I will give this film one star for credit. This is a rather difficult genre to master successfully. Time travel films are especially hard because of the innumerable amounts of possibilities that are never accounted for, but with Happenstance it works because Firode semi-explores the different avenues. While I will counter with saying that he does not do it well, it did make for at least five full minutes of enjoyment. I liked where Firode was headed with this film, he had a genuinely diagramed story, but the final execution just blew this film to shreds. Firode could have saved this film if he would have strengthened his characters, while lightening up his premise and story. I think my overall mood of this film would have changed if just these two simple directions were taken. Oh, how I only wish I could time travel back to the production of this film to show Firode the errors of his ways.<br /><br />Overall, for the first time (and probably last), this was a Tautou film that I must say utterly disappointed me. From the choppy opening to the apathetic ending, I just felt that Happenstance failed due to Firode's leadership and horrid marketing. Marketing is something that I didn't mention before, but why would anyone purchase this film thinking that it was an Amelie 2 (per the title released in Hong Kong), and why would you place Tautou squarely on the cover knowing full well that she wasn't carrying this film at all. I believe that from the first minute that passed on my DVD player, this film was in shambles. While I will applaud his subject, everything else was well below the level of mediocrity. I cannot suggest this film to anyone.<br /><br />Grade: * out of *****
The movie has one nude scene: A man sitting on the edge of the bed, with his exposed genitals smack dab in the middle of the screen. It is quite a long scene. What was the point? I almost think it was meant to be funny but we were watching it with my mother and it wasn't funny to have THAT staring at us for what seemed like a full minute.<br /><br />The movie is cold. None of the characters are even likeable. Audrey Tatou is cute, of course, but her character is an unhappy girl.<br /><br />I really would not recommend this movie. I had expected it to be charming and fresh but it was depressing. I wondered if the director was from a very upper crust, educated French family and he looks down on these characters.<br /><br />
First of all, I'd like to tell you that I'm into comics, anime, animation and such stuff. It is true that everyone has his own preferences, but you can trust me on this movie. I'll be objective. To begin with the story - it's OK. Follows the story line of the comic books as far as I'm familiar with them. But the animation... Well, it's not actually terrible, but it's definitely cheap and mediocre. It would be a lot better if they didn't try to imitate the anime style and sticked to the original comic book style drawings. If we pretend not to see the rare sloppy effects like fire and lightnings you could tell that the movie is made about 10 years ago and even more. Looks a little bit like the original Vampire Hunter D from 1985. Take a look at Heavy Metal FAKK 2000 for instance - 4 years ago they made a movie that looks a hell lot better! In addition to this the voice talents do nothing remarkable, the music is nothing special. So all in all - it lacks atmosphere. I watched it, but I cannot tell I really enjoyed it. It just does not capture you. There's plenty of blood and violence, but that does not impress me at all. May be it will be shocking for someone who was never watched more mature oriented animations and sees animated blood for the first time (is there anyone around?), but I don't think this is the audience for this movie. So they could add a little nudity and spice to it. The chicks around Lucifer were quite tasty, and hell, we have Lady Death herself! There are few sexy looks, but that's not enough. Instead of Bill Brown's music I think it would look better on a hard rock / heavy metal soundtrack. All in all - the movie isn't that bad, but if you want something better take the original Heavy Metal, Heavy Metal FAKK 2000, Ralph Bakshi's Fire and Ice or Wizards maybe. And of course - Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust
Well, I can honestly say that this is the first time that I experienced a film that had literally no meat or potatoes in it. The entire film felt like it was just the salad with no main course. The story line was fallible and laughable, the characters were one-dimensional, the realism was out the window, and the animation was done by four-year olds. Does that cover it? I have never been more embarrassed for a concept in my entire life. I have never read the comics or seen the other programs with this character, but from the looks of the other reviews I am not off base with my observation.<br /><br />To begin, the story moved too quickly. For someone new to this character and situations, I needed more built into creating the reasons instead of finding the solution. I have seen other Anime (if you could call this one an Anime) that do great things with their characters because they take the time to develop them. There was nothing set aside for Lady Death. In a few short scenes, we see her train with Cremator and instantly become this aggressive she-beast of Hell. This was hard for me to swallow, considering moments before she was introduced as this weak and feeble woman controlled by her father. Suddenly, she is immersed with hatred and can do battle with an existence that has been around for millions of years. This was absurd. The presentation of Lady Death was poor, to say the least. I felt as if she was nothing more than an animated character instead of a desperate woman with revenge on the mind. For me, it just didn't work. She was nothing more than eye-candy for prepubescent boys wanting to ogle the mass quantities of skin that she suddenly grew on her chest when training with Cremator. Oh, I felt sick just watching her. The same goes for the character of Cremator. Who was this random person? The explanation they gave wasn't enough, and instead I was left with more incoherent babbling than actual development. It is a very sad day in Hell when we forgo characters to show more violence and action, especially in an animated feature.<br /><br />Next, there was Lucifer himself. Let me just say that I think I could do battle with the King of Hell and survive. He was weak, his voice was laughable, and he just didn't represent the image that I had in my mind. It was as if Disney was in control and wanted to make him semi-PC. He lacked the darkness and corrupt nature that Lucifer embodies. He was not the ruler of Hell, but instead just a lackey that had a bigger place to live. Speaking of living or dying, how can you die again in Hell? That was a concept that definitely needed more explanation. Most of the characters were worrying about dying, when they didn't even consider the option that they were already dead. That is how they got to Hell. I think it was this level of thinking that ruined the film for me. I didn't quite capture the notion that your soul was still in a solid body in Hell, but that could just be me … or maybe it was because there was NO DEVELOPMENT in this story. There was nothing built, just preparing.<br /><br />The battle sequences were hysterically bad. The animation in this cartoon felt like it was made in the early 90s. There was nothing impressive about the way that this film was drawn. Why are we, America, so behind on animation? It is huge in Asia, and it is creeping in hardcore here because we keep making films like Lady Death that do not challenge or use any part of imagination. We are cheap, and this film shows it.<br /><br />Overall, this film was bad. The animation coupled with the horrendous voice work was cheap. I had head somewhere that this film as in production for a long time, which is hard to understand because I think I could have made this film on my credit card. The production was horrendous as well as the story. Nothing was developed, leaving huge gaping plot holes that nearly everyone fell into. The strength of the characters was missing, and nothing was explained. I wasted my time with this one and would like to warn others so that when Death does come, you don't find yourself in my state and regretting the fact that you wasted 80 minutes on this piece of garbage.<br /><br />BLAH! <br /><br />Grade: * out of *****
I am a huge fan of the comic book series, but this movie fell way below my expectations. I expected a Heavy Metal 2000 kinda feel to it.....slow moving, bad dialogue, lots o' blood.....but this was worse than anything I could have imagined. <br /><br />The plot line is almost the same as the comic, but the good points pretty much stop there. The characters don't have the energy or spirit that drew my attention in the comic series. The movie only covers a small portion of the comic, and the portion used is more slow and boring than later parts. The focus in the movie is on the insignificant events instead of the more interesting overall plot of the comic book.<br /><br />With the right people working on this project, it could have been amazing. Sadly, it wasn't that way, so now there is yet another terrible movie that few will see and even fewer will love. My copy will surely collect dust for years until I finally throw it out.
And it falls squarely into the category of "awesomely bad" - ie a movie drunk students would rent to get a kick out of. I was at the sci fi movie festival and all I remember is a wave after wave of hysterical laughter as this movie premiered. Other critiques will better describe this movie's fecal nature, and I felt oh-so-bad at the poor guy from the production company who had turned up, obviously to gauge the audience's reaction. What he got was the sci fi equivalent of a drunken student audience, and after a "serious" anime movie, I think it was "sky blue", the audience was in a sombre mood, and then this movie opened and within seconds everyone in the room was rolling in the isles. I will bullet point the worst parts;<br /><br />Script: The funniest, and worst part of this movie, it clunks along a linear and predictable road with the occasional ill-thought-out aside. Rubbish, but eminently laughable.<br /><br />Animation: Poorly done, and put together, if you can put up with drab backgrounds and gradually skimpier costumes for the heroine (I know I can!), then watch out for the montage where she "trasforms" from a Swedish peasant girl into LADY DEATH!!!<br /><br />Characters: So one-dimensional its painful, there is a brief backstory (with side-splitting lines of dialogue) and little light is shone on the actual motivation behind some of the main characters.<br /><br />So, in a nutshell, if you've got a captive audience and a few beverages lying around (try and make sure they're alcoholic to ease the pain), then slip this movie into the DVD and get in a "mystery science theatre 3000" mindset. There is no other motivation to watch this movie other than to laugh at it, and its not meant to be a comedy. DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE ALONE. It could possible be even more boring to watch solo than "New World" with Colin Farrell as you won't be able to have a laugh at the ridiculousness with a friend or two.
There's really no way to beat around the bush in saying this, Lady Death: The Motion Picture just plain sucks. Aside from the fact that the main character is a well endowed blonde running around Hell in a leather bikini with occasional spurts of graphic violence, the movie seems to have been made with the mentality of a 1980's cartoon based on a line of action figures. The bad guy himself even talks like a Skeletor wannabe, has the obligatory inept henchman, and lives in a lair that looks to have been patterned after the domain of the villain from the old Saturday morning Blackstar cartoon. Just don't expect any humor other than the sometimes howlingly bad dialogue. At other times it feels like the kind of anime tale better suited to hentai, yet there is no sex, no tentacle rape (Thank goodness!) and very little sex appeal, this despite the physical appearance of the title character. There is simply no adult edge to this material, unless you count the half-naked heroine and bloody deaths. Essentially, what we have here is a feature length episode of She-Ra, Princess of Power, but with skimpier clothes and more gore.
I also saw this amazingly bad piece of "anime" at the London Sci-Fi Festival. If you HAVE to watch this thing, do so with a large audience preferably after a few beers, you may then glean some enjoyment from it. <br /><br />I found the dialogue hilarious, lodged in my mind is the introduction of Cremator. The animation is awful. It is badly designed and badly executed. It may have been a good idea for the producers to have hired at least one person who was not colour blind.<br /><br />There's nothing else to say really, this film is a failure on every level.
This movie was a great disappointment for me. I had been waiting for this movie to come out for years, and I was a faithful follower of Chaos Comics until they went bankrupt. Not only did they cut out half the story line, but they altered information. The statement that Lucifer is Hope's Father is untrue. He did corrupt her father, but he himself is not her father. The voices also did not suit the characters, and once you hear the voice of a beloved character, the voice you heard in your mind can never be returned. I can not even remember everything about this film that was wrong. The bottom line is if you love Lady Death do not watch this movie. It just did not do the comic justice at all!!
Oh my GOD this was so bad! The story was weak - at best - and the animation was flat and lifeless - even childish. This film takes itself far too seriously...unless of course they meant to be funny. I saw this last week at the London Sci-Fi Festival and the entire audience was laughing at every scene. I think my favourite was 'shouldn't you be studying medicine at Oopsalof'! And I also think they were trying to see how many times they could cram in the character Nicalo's only line 'we will be together...it is our destiny.' I'm sorry but after the first time, the words lost all meaning.<br /><br />And what was with the apple?<br /><br />I recommend this as a lesson to Americans: You cannot animate, so please don't try. You only embarrass yourselves.
I was excited to hear that Cesar Montano had decided to make a movie in the Cebuano language. (Not 'dialect' as most Filipinos will incorrectly refer to it as. As Cebuano and Tagalog are as mutually unintelligible as French and Spanish are to each other.) But I was greatly disappointed when i saw this movie. Being a Canadian, of Cebuano parents, I was optimistic about the revival of the Visayan film industry when I heard about this film. I was further excited to hear that it wasn't another stupid action movie or melodrama as Filipinos love these types of movies. But alas, I was short-changed.<br /><br />Panaghoy serves as an ego trip for Cesar Montano. Montano of course plays the hero of the movie. And when I say 'hero' I mean in the most stereotypical of manners; his function is to win the heart of a girl and lead the Bol-anons to victory against the Japanese. His character has no depth or complexity. He just fits the hero mold. The rest of the characters are one dimensional; they all fit their cookie cutter roles.<br /><br />I'm all for slow-moving/meditative movies but this movie was just slow moving. It didn't really meditate on anything. Just because a movie is historically-themed, a drama and slow-moving doesn't make it a well-made film.<br /><br />Particularly annoying is the American actor Philip Anthony. His performance was embarrassing.<br /><br />If Montano wanted to revive the Visayan film industry he should have really thought this through. He said he wanted to make Visayan movies that could compete at Cannes and Toronto etc. but really, this movie would have been booed and hissed at at such festivals. To get Visayan films into the mainstream consciousness he should have at least made a movie that would have attracted audiences, even if it meant sacrificing quality. Obviously he didn't think about or get information on what kind of movies garner awards at Cannes so an audience-attracting movie would have been at least a foot in the door.<br /><br />I'm afraid now that Visayan movies will not be made for a long time again because of this movie. If ever I said to a Filipino that I want to see more Visayan movies of course I'd get an answer like, "Visayans don't make good movies. Didn't you see Panaghoy Sa Suba?" Of course this is ludicrous as it is one example of a Visayan movie and probably the only example that anyone nowadays would be likely to see.<br /><br />An example of movies that are meditative, not just slow moving, are the Tagalog film Blackout or David Lynch's The Straight Story. I hate to promote the Tagalog language as it is endlessly and unfairly promoted and shoved down the throats of non-Tagalog Filipinos but for the sake of calling a spade a spade I say that Blackout is a VERY good movie. These movies rely heavily on what Hitchcock called 'pure cinema'. Images without words are used to convey the story. But I bend the definition a bit for the sake of these two movies in that these movies use images without words to convey the mood of the movie. and they do it very well. Panaghoy thinks that if they simply take sweeping shots of the landscape then they have established the mood.<br /><br />And what's with so many Filipino movies featuring a dying mother or grandmother???
I notice from the comments that most of the people discussing this movie are basing their remarks on the MST3K airing. That's fair enough (that is, after all, how it got its widest exposure), but, having had the misfortune of seeing "Final Justice" in its original form, I'd just like to share a few thoughts and comments on the uncut version.<br /><br />First off, it must be admitted that the original version is slightly more coherent than the MST3K broadcast, owing primarily to an expository scene between Rossano Brazzi and Venantino Venantini (I COULD use the characters' names instead of the actors', but I just love typing the words "Venantino Venantini"), explaining why Venantini's fugitive character can't just leave Malta right away. (It's not a very CONVINCING plot point, but at least the filmmakers tried to cover it.) Whether this scene was cut just for time or because it didn't provide much fodder for riffs, I don't know.<br /><br />Another plot point missing in the original: The stripper's betrayal of Venantino Venantini to Joe Don Baker, seemingly unmotivated in the MST3K version, is explained by an earlier, extremely unpleasant scene in which Venantini rapes her in the shower. While this does give her a motive for turning against him, the whole scenario is just really...icky. (There's no other word for it.)<br /><br />Some of the MST-worthy moments (the perpetual truncated shouts of "Son of a--" and the "deja vu" shooting of the sheriff) were purely the result of the edited-for-TV print they worked with, and were absent from the original movie.<br /><br />One scene I wish had made it into the MST3K version: Before entering the bar to question some people, Joe Don asks the Maltese policewoman accompanying him to stay outside, because "they see that uniform, they won't cooperate." However, Joe Don himself is wearing his ridiculous cowboy-slash-sheriff outfit, complete with shiny badge! I can't imagine why they passed on that great opportunity to make fun of him...<br /><br />One final observation on the original, uncut version of "Final Justice": Why, oh why, did they feel the need to put Venantino Venantini's naked butt up on the screen?
While not as bad as it has been made to be (I have seen MUCH worse), this is still a very lame movie. Basically a rehash of Siegel's "Coogan's Bluff", with the main difference being that Clint Eastwood's hat has more charisma than the whole of Joe Don Baker, an unappealing actor if there was one.<br /><br />However, Venantino Venantini is great (and great fun) as the bad guy, sort of a budget Vittorio Gassman. He is the main reason to sit through this steampile, as the rest of the cast deliver mostly terrible acting, specially the girl. Poor old Rossano Brazzi, hard to believe he was once a romantic lead (watch "Mondo Cane" to see him running away from women). Looking here like a second-tier Ben Gazzara, he's given next to nothing to do. It's all Joe Don's show, unfortunately. And all of it scored to generic 80's "action movie" music that couldn't be more boring.<br /><br />Greydon Clark can make good B-Movies ("Without Warning"), but here he trips, falls, breaks his nose and loses three teeth. Well, at least the Malta locations were nice, and there's Venantini to try to save the day. 3/10.
Human pot roast Joe Don Baker (MITCHELL) stars in this dull, unremarkable `action' movie as Deputy Geronimo, a fat, gassy slob who sits around in a stupid looking cowboy suit, listening to country music and eating too many donuts. Meanwhile, a vaguely criminal guy named Palermo (played by the guy who owned the drill in Fulci's GATES OF HELL) stumbles into Joe Don's territory and shoots the sheriff in a poorly edited scene. Joe Don- slowly- gives chase and offs Palermo's brother after uttering his now legendary catch phrase `It's your move. Think you can take me? Well, go ahead on'. For some reason Joe Don, a Texas lawman, must transport Palermo to Italy (`Mr. Palermo's been a major source of embarrassment to the Italian government,' says Mr. Wilson, another vague character played by Bill McKinney, who was in MASTER NINJA 1, SHE FREAK, and a lot of good Clint Eastwood movies). <br /><br />Anyhoo, Joe Don's plane must land on the island of Malta, where Palermo escapes with the help of a briefcase and a guy who looks like Jon Lovitz. And that's where the movie grinds to a halt. For the rest of the movie, Joe Don looks for Palermo, looses Palermo, ends up in a jail cell, is yelled at by the Malta chief of police, and then is let go with a warning not to look for Palermo any more. Then Joe Don keeps looking for Palermo, looses Palermo, ends up in a jail cell, is yelled at by the Malta chief of police, and then is let go with a warning not to look for Palermo any more. Then Joe Don looks for Palermo, looses Palermo, ends up in a jail cell, is yelled at by the Malta chief of police, and then is let go with a warning not to look for Palermo any more. This is one aggravating movie.<br /><br />At one point Joe Don is thought to be dead at sea. All the other characters wonder if he's dead or not, finally concluding that he is. But then he shows up (he was rescued by a poor family) and no one mentions the fact that he was missing at sea for several days. Even his cute, Julia Louise-Dreyfuss-esque sidekick doesn't welcome him back. She does, however, offer to help him find Palermo, so Joe Don looks for Palermo, looses Palermo, ends up in a jail cell, is yelled at by the Malta chief of police, and then let go with a warning not to look for Palermo any more.<br /><br />Highpoints include, a bizarre carnival with strange colorful floats, some sexy strippers, a shoot out involving a kid dressed like Napoleon AND a cart of tomatoes, a chase scene involving a guy dressed like a monk, and any scene without Joe Don. Lowpoints include Joe Don threatening a stripper with a coat hanger.<br /><br />It should be noted that this is from Greydon Clark, director of ANGEL'S REVENGE, who appears as the sheriff. Ick!<br /><br />
If you ever hear these three words uttered to you..."Joe Don Baker", be afraid...<br /><br />Final Justice is the low budget action movie based on a sheriff in a Texas town named Geronimo (pronounced as Heronimo). He's an ugly, slimy, rude character who is on the hunt for a criminal in Malta who killed his partner in Texas. His partner actually slumps down twice in the movie. Very bad editing. Joe Don Baker (Geronimo) ends up in jail like 4 or 5 times in this movie, making the plot go nowhere fast. Plus, he shoots everybody like he's in the wild west. I guess nobody told him it was the 20th century. A woman cop is assigned to show him around Malta (who looks like Elaine from Seinfeld) and she is the only one who can put up with the redneck. She must be insane!<br /><br />The strippers in the bar are the most entertaining characters in this movie. Their dancing is shown throughout the film and I began to bond with the sleazy women. Well, at least it was better than watching Geronimo try to dumb his way out of something. The ending is flawed and somewhat predictable, and I was happy it was finally over. You'll never forget that last line of Joe Don Baker from the movie.<br /><br />It's so hard to imagine how he was in THREE Bond movies...very weird! Anyway, if you're up for a laugh, then see this one on MST3K sometime. Also, I've heard his other bad movie (among many), "Mitchell" MST3K version is being released on DVD by Rhino. I can't wait to see that!
Joe Don Baker is an alright to good actor in small roles here and there...he was alright in Goldeneye and made a pretty good Bond villan in The Living Daylights and has appeared in various other movies. One thing he can't do is carry a movie as the lead, which he is in this extremely bad revenge movie set in Malta. Joe Don's partner is killed so he kills the killer's brother and escorts the killer to Italy, but some guys cause the plane to set down in Malta and the killer gets away. The rest of the movie is seeing Joe Don chase the killer here and there, Joe Don getting taken into custody various times, Joe Don torturing a bartendar and being interrupted and so on. The movie is quite bad and you won't find yourself exactly pulling for Joe Don's character. You will be amazed at how many times Joe Don the hero gets taken out by one punch and how incompetent he proves to be. The crowning part of the movie comes when Joe Don chases the killer all over Malta with the killer in a priest robe and then they get in boats and he chases them all around Malta. This movie also features one of the worst closing lines to end a movie ever.
Joe Don Baker is...Thomas Jefferson Geronimo, a pudgy, sweaty murderous oaf in a stupid cowboy suit that Roy Rogers would have laughed at. Somehow he still has a badge, probably because he lives in Texas and they'll let ANYTHING be law enforcement there.<br /><br />This greasy loser is a deputy sheriff near the Texas border. Not surprisingly, he was once a Texas Ranger but got kicked out because he seemed to think that the law was his own personal bouncing ball to be played with at his discretion. This includes shooting suspects who are over the international border into Mexico, beating up on suspects, cheating in gun fights, threatening women, starting gunfights that could have been avoided AND managing to get the life of a child threatened in the process, letting women he promised he would help and protect get killed just so that he could get out of jail, etc, etc. This guy makes L.A. cops look like saints in comparison.<br /><br />When his partner is killed by a pair of wandering Italian assassins, Joe Don's character hunts them down and kills one of them. Then he takes the other to Italy at the behest of a Mr. Wilson, who rightly thinks that Joe Don will screw up big time. In record time, he loses the Italian and gets a Maltese cabby blown up in the process. This is just the first of the many deaths and major destruction that Joe Don leaves in a trail behind him as he rampages across Malta looking for Palermo(the Italian assassin).<br /><br />Thus begins the mobius strip part of the movie, in which our hero gets arrested, lectured by the Maltese chief of police, goes out and causes more trouble, gets arrested, gets lectured by the chief of police...and so on, and so on. Until you want to blow your brains out with Joe Don's ivory handled pistol and be done with the horror.<br /><br />Joe Don proves his uselessness not just in the first time Palermo escapes, but in the subsequent boat chase in which he goes down in just one punch. Then he gets taken by Palermo after he threatens a woman with a coat hanger. You hope that Palermo will actually get to torture him in the basement cell he's put in, but no-the stripper he threatened came and got him out, because he promised to protect her. Her throat promptly gets cut(big surprise) and Joe Don escapes into the night.<br /><br />And here you hope he might have been drowned in the (yet another) boat chase. But even the ocean doesn't want him, and spits him up on a shore where he's nursed by a poor Maltese family(what did they ever do to deserve that?) he returns to the city, where he's arrested by the police, lectured by the police chief...arrrgghhh! The female police officer who's been escorting him around frees him so that they can go get Palermo. Why she would do anything so brain dead as to destroy her career for this great slob is beyond me. It's just head scratchily puzzling.<br /><br />They go out to the villa where Palermo is hiding, and start a shoot out. Joe Don blithely cheats, and kills Palermo. He then utters the great and dazzling last line of the movie: "The big one has my badge. Can you go get it for me?" Thank you for that immortal line, Mr. Baker. That will go down in the annals of movie history as the most literate, amazing, wondrous last line ever uttered by a character in a film. It certainly falls into line with everything else about the character. Bravo.
Geez! This is one of those movies that you think you previously reviewed but you didn't. I mean, you didn't give a crap about it but somehow it came to your mind.<br /><br />To be honest and brief; this is one of the worst, boring, and stupid slashers ever made. I can't say anything good about this piece of crap because there are barely decent sequences that could tell it's made by professional film makers.<br /><br />The death scenes are horrible, bloodless, stupid. The plot is somehow good taking in account that it copied "Popcorn" from 1991.<br /><br />To make things even worse, this isn't a movie so bad that it's good. It's just plain bad.<br /><br />Molly Ringwald tried to do her best but it wasn't enough.
Cut tries to be like most post-Scream slashers tried to be, a spoof of the horror genre that tried to be clever by referencing other famous horror movies. Now, I am not bagging 'Scream,' as I think 'Scream' is a very good horror movie that does a great job of blending horror and comedy. Cut fails on most levels. It has its moments but overall it just does not work out, not even as a "so bad it's good" movie, just a below average one.<br /><br />The first five minutes or so are OK and set the story fairly well, apart from the fact that Kylie Minogue can't really act, and ironically she gets her tongue out, go figure. Go forward some time and a group of film students want to finish her film off, which is apparently cursed. And, as you have probably predicted, one by one the cast and crew are slowly picked off by a masked madman.<br /><br />Unoriginal plot, poor acting and a predictable ending are a few of the elements that follow. There is plenty of referencing in the film, everything from 'Scream' to 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.' This isn't smart either, it feels as though the director wanted to feel smart and cool by mentioning other famous horror flicks ala Scream. For a slasher there is minimal gore and no nudity, which is a huge negative when it comes to a slasher that has not got a whole lot going for it. Really, I should be supporting this movie because I'm Australian and we're not as good when it comes to horror (we do have our gems, though) but Cut is definitely not one of them.<br /><br />However, it did keep me watching for the 90 minutes or so, so that is something good at least. I would not recommend this to anyone apart from hardcore slasher fans, who may be able to appreciate what this film is trying to aim for, but if you are looking for a good movie, stay away.<br /><br />2/5
It seems like more consideration has gone into the IMDb reviews of this film than went into the source.<br /><br />Here's a review without pretensions:<br /><br />Just when you think nothing is going to happen, it doesn't.<br /><br />Dress it up any way you like, this is a dull film, full of unengaging characters doing very little of interest.<br /><br />One to put on if you want to convince an impressionable emo chick that you're like, so deep, man.<br /><br />Not something to watch for your own pleasure though.<br /><br />Unless.<br /><br />You're.<br /><br />Pretentious.
I opted to see the film at the recent Dubai Film Festival because it had been selected to the Cannes film festival's prestigious Competition section. I was surprised that Cannes could be so off the mark in judging quality.<br /><br />The film, some reviewers, have noted does not have too much of gunfire--but the inherent violence is repulsive. Imagine killing your enemy/competitor in front of your young son..or forcing someone to eat a porcelain spoon to prove loyalty. There are some hints of the contrasting Corleone sons in Copolla's "Godfather" that seem to resurface here in this Chinese/Hong Kong film but the quality of the two are as distinctly different as chalk and cheese.<br /><br />This film is only recommended for violence junkies..there is no great cinema here. At best it might be considered to be better than the usual Run Run Shaw production for production values.
Frank Sinatra was far from the ideal actor for westerns. He was a great actor, From Here to Eternity and The Man with The Golden arm are a proof of that, but he did not have the physique of a western hero, you identified him as an urban guy. But he tried to do his job well in Johnny Concho, the fact that the film was a failure at the box office was not his fault. I blame it on two factors: a) the story was too unusual, specially in the fact that Sinatra behaves more like a villain than as a hero throughout the movie. In a genre where people kind of expected a certain pattern, to break away from it the film has to be very good. b) the story is not convincing, it is hard to believe that a whole town will allow Sinatra to do anything he wants just because they are afraid of his brother. Also when a man shows him a special holster that will open sideways so he has not to draw the gun you wonder that if that will make him invincible, why all the gunfighters have not adopted it? I think that this film should not have been withdrawn, because any film with Sinatra is worth seeing, and in spite of its shortcomings it is still enjoyable
Someone here actually compared this movie in some ways to High Noon. Now that is a real stretch! I'm a big Sinatra fan including some of his acting roles but maybe the only person who could have played this part would have been Don Knotts. First off, as someone pointed out, Sinatra just doesn't have the build for a Western bad-guy wannabe. He's just too 'slight' at this point in his life. Maybe he was about the same height as say Audie Murphy, but Murphy had a pretty solid build. Sinatra comes across as the big talking little kid who nobody ought to take seriously.<br /><br />The story is uninspired and really not credible. I don't want to spoil it but I think the ending and how the townspeople react in this story doesn't make any sense. Another thing, these people constantly allow themselves to be completely lorded over by some 'bad guy'. This is just a little town, so I don't get the attraction nor do I understand why the people would let themselves be dominated that way.<br /><br />There is a 'love interest' in the story and if I followed it right, she was upset when the main character refused to admit who he was so some other bad guy wouldn't kill him. Now there's true love for you. 'Stand up for yourself! Tell him your name so he will kill you!' LOL. Stop, you're killing me.<br /><br />Unfortunately the basic premise of the movie isn't good enough and no matter how they tried this story didn't have a logical path to follow other than into the wastebasket. Want to know why it's not on video and never shown on TV? The critics apparently panned it in 1956 and they were right - this movie is pretty bad. I would almost bet Sinatra paid someone to deep six the thing as much as possible.<br /><br />You want to see a good Western where a town stands up against a bad guy? Try Tension at Table Rock, or At Gunpoint - two really, really good Westerns with that theme. Johnny Concho is Johnny Stinko. Frank, you were the greatest singer ever - but you didn't belong in a movie like this.
Mercifully, there's no video of this wannabe western that a stay-afloat vehicle for Big Frank at a time when his career was floundering. The story of a weasel who lives on the reputation of his big gun brother and who gets run out of town by bad guys only to return to rally his townfolks with a new found courage must have been written by a back-room writer. All in all, this show stinks. The story is basically boring, ill-conceived and so naive that it can offend your intelligence. I must depart complete from the other reviewer who found it "...underrated..." The critics slammed it at the time and deservedly so. You'll have to catch it on the last show, if you up late and having a bout of insomnia. But, if you can sit through it, you've more fortitude than most of my movie buff friends.
I checked this movie out when it still had 6 votes and it said like 7.2 or something, but seriously this is a horrible movie. Lets break it down. The first thing you notice about this movie is that it was filmed on a hand-held digital camera owned by a freshman at a community college. the next thing you'll notice is that the actors, are all friends of said freshman (he probably met them at the pub the night before. Third on the list you will notice that the musical editing is horrible, and they try to cram many songs into this movie, at 30 second intervals... also all digital editing is done on said freshman's home PC... probably using windows movie maker. This movie was horrible... pretentious, had an undeniably bad script, and acting that followed suit. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone I know, but I do sentence the writer and director to watch this movie in hell for an eternity.
This is easily one of the worst 5 movies I've ever seen. It's not scary or any of the other things suggested in the plot outline. This movie is agonizingly slow and I was bored for almost all 98 minutes. While the acting is mediocre at best, the biggest problem is the script, which is poorly written, slow and plodding with no real direction. Occasionally an eerie mood is set only to be broken by some useless line or event. I'm not surprised that the entire cast was sick and throwing up between shots, they did after all have to try and digest a terrible script. As a huge fan of good horror movies, I'm always irritated that something this bad gets made. Save yourself 98 minutes you'll never get back.
This film on paper looked like it could possibly be good, after watching though i realised that this film was completely terrible!! The plot has no meaning, and i think i counted the best part of 5000 cut scenes each one making the film more annoying boring and ridiculous. I watched this late night pitch black no noise at all just to add to the SCARINESS of it but the truth is the only thing that scared me was the music, what they would call tragic music, they play opera i mean be serious!! This film sums up all of what is not good about this type of film. To be honest ill say no more but watch at your own risk this film is just complete rubbish, ENJOY!!
When the young Kevin gets the boat of his dead uncle as a gift, he invites five friends of him to a trip to Catalina Island for the weekend. While in the journey, they drink booze, have sex and play games, with each one of them telling his or her greatest fear. Later Kevin drowns in the open sea, the engine stops, and they are haunted and murdered by their greatest innermost fear.<br /><br />Yesterday, my wife, son, daughter and three other friends joined to watch "Haunted Boat" on DVD. With less than 30 minutes running time, the group gave up watching this messy and boring amateurish piece of crap, and we decided to see another film. Later, I decided to watch the rest of this flick to see how bad it could be and it would have been better off going to bed to sleep. The confused story has an awful cinematography and camera work, with a cast that is probably studying to be actors and actresses and in the end this film seems to be a bad project of cinema school. The terrible and pretentious screenplay shows a ridiculous twist in the end, actually a complete mess that made me not understand what the story is all about. Was the girl insane and traveled alone in the boat, imagining the whole situation with imaginary friends? If that is true, are their friend again in the very end fruit of her madness? My vote is one.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Viagem Para a Morte" ("Trip to the Death")
This is by far the worst movie I've ever seen. From the plot, though the shots, the "special effects", the acting, and did I mentioned the plot? Every single thing in it sucked ass!<br /><br />This is a good example of what "over-doing" means and I'll try to explain:<br /><br />I understand what the creator of this movie was trying to do; this was supposed to be one of those movies you can't really tell what the hell is going on up until the end. You sit mesmerized, not knowing who's dead and who's alive and who killed who and why and just when you think you got the timeline right you find out you're wrong and the movie ends - leaving you with an opened mouth for the next 5 minutes! Something like "Unbreakable" or "The Job" if you know what I mean.<br /><br />But Olga Levens, the writer of this junk, yes, Olga – The writer, Director, Producer, Screenplay author, Caster, Production designer, Art Director, Costume Designer and also a double for one of the characters is some scenes... this is basically a one woman movie and when it comes to Olga Levens from "Levens Productions" you can't go wrong :-)<br /><br />Well this might come as a shocker but "this time" Olga over did this big time, jumping from scene to scene, from dreams to reality... but wait! this was all a dream after all... or was it??? The picture fades and I realized none of this ever happened, the girl was all alone on the ship... actually there was no ship... no wait! There's the ship again, and the guys! They're alive! Thank god! No they're calling her to join the cruise... but then the ship disappears so maybe they're dead after all??? or maybe they never were alive to begin with???<br /><br />If you understood what I just said you might like this movie - otherwise it's a boring piece of work and the only reason I set through this entire crap is to find out how the hell can they finish this movie...<br /><br />Don't watch this if you value time, ever 90 minutes are a waste in this case...
I watched this movie last night and hoped for the best after watching all the cool trailers.Even the cover of the DVD looked good.As soon as I started watching it I was thinking like others "oh my God whats this".There were some moments that were a bit creepy but then the mood was ruined by stupid music.There was rock and opera during what is supposed to be suspenseful scenes.That right there ruined it for me and i was shaking my head thinking damn I wasted money again on a rental and was deceived by the cover art.Nothing against the music itself,it was just in the wrong parts of the movie.Whoever edited the film has no clue what they are doing.The cover showed lightning, implying they were caught in a storm at sea.That would have been more interesting but it didn't happen. The acting wasn't the worst i've ever seen considering they are all unknown and this is obvious their first film.Another reason I was disappointed was the plot made no sense.In the beginning 2 men saw all of the teens get on a boat,then at the end supposedly only 1 girl existed and the others were either her imaginary friends or were ghosts i'm not sure because it was very badly portrayed. WhyteFox who wrote a comment on here claims this is a true story.He or she believes in ghosts and spirits and says there is a haunted boat in the area this movie was filmed.There was no mention in this movie about it being a true story.I have never experienced something like that personally but am not saying it's impossible.I guess if anyone is interested in renting this movie,do it at your own risk.If you like amateur student horror films you may like this.
I rented this film purely on the fact that the cover appealed to me. However as soon as the film began I had regrets. It seems they used a home video camera to shoot this film and let a young child do it. They also used inappropriate ghostly faces and shapes to try and scare people but i found myself laughing, i could have put that together myself and done a better job of it.<br /><br />As for the plot I felt that it had some really good ideas but because of dodgy lines and in some cases acting they were overshadowed. It had no direction.<br /><br />I didn't want to sit through it all because it caused me physical pain to watch it but i always finish what i start so i took a deep breath and let it carry on. Definitely 98minutes of my life wasted.<br /><br />I would save yourself the embarrassment of knowing that you have watched 'Haunted Boat' and find something that is more entertaining. I'm a fan of low budget horror films but this was a major disappointment i thought nothing could get worse after 'Terror Toons' but this made me reconsider. A let down to its genre.<br /><br />* out of ***** (The star is for the ideas of having their worst fears coming for them)
What the heck was this. Somebody obviously read Stephen King and Sartre in the same semester. We get existential angst mixed in with cheap horror. There were moments that were disturbing but each one was canceled out by horrible music, CGI, or acting.<br /><br />The problem with weird narratives like this is that it feels lazy. Even David Lynch's work feels like that at times, and just like his interesting shows and movies it runs far far too long. And sadly this is only 98 minutes.<br /><br />The cast was attractive, and that is about the limit to this. I suppose it touches on feelings of adolescents and the fear of loneliness we all have, but just doesn't make the characters likable enough for us to care about their fates...whatever they were. The final scene leaves the whole thing ambiguous.
do not ever watch this film...it is the biggest pile of sh*te i have ever come across in my whole life. and thats saying something. the acting, storyline and filming were absolutely dire this is THE WORST FILM IN THE WORLD!!! seriously doesn't it even give you a hit seeing as it cost my 99p from sainsburys and it was only made in 2005? hahaha this film is like a cheap college movie you can even see the camera in the corner of the screen....although if u really wanna watch it you gotta watch the "scary shark scene"...possibly the best piece of acting i have seen in my life...ha ha. i mean seriously this is the biggest waste of 2 1/2 hours EVER!!
*****probably minor spoilers******<br /><br />I cant say i liked it, but i cant say i didn't...its very strange. It has bad things in it like for example a shark that came out of nowhere with the worst CGI you can imagine,if i was the director i would cut that part for sure, gave me the urge to stop seeing the rest of the movie... For some people it will be boring cause it lacks action, feels home made sometimes... Take for example a scene that one of the friends died and next thing they are doing is what? nop,not crying...their telling horror stories to each other..*sighs*(just after crying for hes lost)<br /><br />Another stupid thing was when they were talking inside the boat they had like "hundreds" of candles in the table in front of them...the boat is surrounded by some kind of rag curtains(old rags covering the windows) and sofas/Couches ...i thought it was dumb, using candles but not thinking about the surroundings, besides being in high sea alone...<br /><br />The good, some scary scenes they are nicely done i liked some. Sometimes horror works better when its hidden when its behind something instead of showing of, so this movie does it good, maybe because its a low budget i don't know, but it works fine for me! You will feel tension if you forget some holes like the ones i mentioned above.<br /><br />Do not expect much of it! but if you like anykind of movie watch this one, be patient, try to enjoy.. lol<br /><br />(sorry about my raw English) =)<br /><br />Cheers
Haunted Boat sells itself as 'The Fog' meets 'Open Water'. In many ways this is accurate. There are scares and weird looking people to keep you interested.<br /><br />However the acting ability is poor at best. Showing clear signs that this is merely a bunch of friends making a horror film. Which in all credit they do to the best of their ability. When you accept the low budget makes it very difficult for special effects, with the ghosts looking pretty much like men with rubber masks on.<br /><br />Many aspects of the film are creepy and strange. But it suffers for using too many twists and turns in a short space of time which just leaves you bored and confused. In terms of keeping you awake the film does it very well. Ignoring the irrelevant twisting every 5 seconds near the end, you actually want to know what is going on. And are willing to wait the 1hr 35 minutes for the climax.<br /><br />This is no Ghost Ship but it'll definitely do for an evening in front of the T.V.
I saw this film yesterday. I must admit, it weren't my cup of tea. Although it's supposed to be a horror movie of its kind. But as I was watching this, I was thinking.. 'This movie isn't making any sense at all..' Where on earth did this guy in the dark coat came from? Where were the two guys were going when they left the girls behind? Where on earth did a shark came out from?<br /><br />All these elements in this film somehow didn't add up. I felt as if these filmmakers wasted so much time and money on a film that was so bound to be so crap.<br /><br />I've seen many good horror movies in my time, but this is one of the most worst horror flicks I've seen. At the end of the movie, I said to myself that I wouldn't watch it again.. So much pappy show in this film, I've decided to give it the thumbs down! Count me out on this one! 0 out of 10!
A girl is showering unknowing that a serial rapist is staring at her through the skylight. Detectives Martin Manners and Orville Stone is hot on his trail, but not hot enough as they find him after he kills, rapes, and eats a nipple of the girl.He's the shot to death. One would hope that this would be the end of the film. Not because it's too horrifying, but because the level of acting is atrociously horrid. Sadly it's not the end and months later the rapist is resurrected as a zombie by a coven of satanists. So he continues where he left off, with the detectives on the case again, this time a flying baby is after him too (don't ask). There has been VERY good VERY low-budget movies (Street Trash and Filthy McNasty spring to mind), but this one is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Horrible acting, crappy dime store special effects, lame attempt at comedy and oh yeah, and the ending sucks too.<br /><br />My Grade: F <br /><br />Eye Candy: Theresa Bestul gets fully nude; Anne R. Key gets topless
I ordered this extremely rare and highly overrated movie on ebay with very high expectations. I think I paid about 50$ for this movie. As an eternal fan of horror, from cheesy 80s American slashers to European zombie films, I told myself this was going to be great! I can't tell you how wrong I was. First of all, I thought it was gonna be pretty much gorier than it actually is. After all I've had heard about this film, I was almost scared to watch it. The murders are boring. The acting... forget it, there's no acting! The story, even if we don't care, is incredibly bad. It seems they tried to get your attention with some weird sexual scenes and naked girls, but unfortunately in this case it doesn't help the movie. Why? There's no atmosphere, and this is the worst thing about this flick. It's just bad film-making from point A to B. Though it's extremely funny and amusing to watch with your friends and a lot of beers, don't make any effort to get your hands on it. There are so many movies in this world, don't waste your time watching Necro Files!
I am a huge horror/splatter fan, I even enjoy horror films some people consider as stupid. I also like gore. The more the merrier as long as it has a point.<br /><br />After reading the other people's reviews on the site I was sure this film was going to be a little gem. But much to my disappointment it proved to be one of the most pointless films I've ever watched.<br /><br />The acting was terrible, the dialogs were stupid, the plot was pointless, the special effects were useless and the editing was probably done by someone who has been dead for the past 2 years. Usually i find that all these characteristics make a great b horror movie . But not in this case.<br /><br />I waisted 11 EUR to get this DVD. <br /><br />Unless you actually enjoy pointless gore ( for example the "violent sh*t" films) avoid at any cost!
It is such a strange movie, you can call it awful or if you sit with friends it can give you a killer laugh-athon. Strange comes to mind again and again. Shot amateurishly, acted even worse and the directions, maybe none. The special effects are funny but the music accompanying a flying demon baby will surely be the biggest hit. See it if you got time to kill. But don't, don't even try to take it seriously. Supposed to be a tribute to 'Porno holocaust ',. Since I haven't seen it, from the tribute I can assume it to be as bad. Should have given it 1/10, but it did give me a good laugh or two, so it gets a 3. Excessive gore, the only thing somebody worked on. Stay away if you are squeamish, more gore than laughs. Wonder if the makers had a laugh making it?
A killer, cannibal rapist is killed by a crazed cop on the scene of his latest murder. At his grave a cult have gathered with plans to resurrect him by peeing onto the grave. This of course works and he awakes ripping the guys penis off and he is back into his old killing ways with an all new zombie look. The two cops one of who is going a little crazy about the scum of the city and has a drug problem, are back on the case. Two of the original cult member also tries to stop the killer by resurrecting some other kind of dead thing. Thinking they have filed they leave but out from the grave comes a plastic baby doll that was used in the original resurrection. Sounds a bit confusing really but no its just rubbish.<br /><br />The acting is terrible and one of the cops is the same guy that plays Dr Vincent van Gore in the faces of gore series and he is just as terrible as the annoying cop in this film. The other cop just about struggles to get his terrible lines out. Now I'm all for low budget cinema but this film is just terrible. If it wasn't for the very easy on the eye ladies and their nakedness I would probably have fallen asleep. There is a bit of gore but it's never more than some animal guts placed on the stomach of the victims. The zombie makeup on the other hand looks great and his foot long penis that he uses to rape his victims with is kind of funny at times. There is also a half decent scene where the killer falls in love with a sex doll. The doll with the chipmunks voice is the stupidest thing I have ever seen in a film. It is just a plastic toy on a fishing line.<br /><br />The ending is extremely bad. You would expect the killer to put up much more of a fight than he does. God knows how they made enough money to make a sequel. <br /><br />4/10
This is not as funny and gory as the DVD box claims. I really love twisted and wierd movies, but this one is really just dull! It's one hour of ripped off penises, flying Baby Born dolls and a lot of rape! I think the intention with this amateur sleaze, was to make a It's-so-bad-it's-good movies, but it fails. It's just bad! A few scenes are ok, but in whole it's a mess. If you like amateur splatter like this one (Only way better) I would recommend Andreas Schnass' Violent Shit 2 and 3.
A bloody maniac with cannibalistic tendencies rapes a woman. He's been shot by two policemen and then he is risen from the grave because of some sort of satanic ceremonial rite preformed by an evil heresy. The hunting of women continues by this zombie-demon. The sacrificed baby returns from the grave and wants the maniac dead again, but only with the help of the police this will come true...<br /><br />A bloody 65-minute mess...Horny zombies, doll-babies, S&M, corrupted and twisted policemen, repented heretics who seek refuge in front of Jesus Christ and three text-screens at the end of the film explaining us what finally happened to the policeman who survived (yes, we ought to know!)... Two decent disemboweling shots can't save the situation. I've seen worst horror-flicks, but this one was pretty bad too. Recommended only for the die-very-hard fans of the genre.
i got a copy from the writer of this movie on soulseek. I have to say it is pathetic and just plain painful to watch the two cops act, but i watched the movie as a joke and since it is a homage to august's underground which i happened to have seen it is in my book as an awesome movie. Its quality and everything about it is pretty bad but its entertaining and something to talk about amongst your friends. Reminds me of troma but good stuff. I recommend seeing this under two conditions, if you are bored and need a good laugh, or high, otherwise just let it be. Recommended download for sure. o and the killings are pretty funny. like when the zombie rips the Satan worshipers dick off and stabs someone in the head with it.
Well, if it weren't for Ethel Waters and a 7-year-old Sammy Davis, Jr. (here billed without the Jr.), Rufus Jones for President would be one of the worst representations of African-American stereotypes I've seen from the early talkie era and wouldn't have been worth seeing because of that. Ms. Waters is excellent here singing "Am I Blue?" and "Underneath Our Harlem Moon" while Mr. Davis shows us how his childhood experience in showbiz prepared him for his superstar status as an adult. He's so good tap-dancing here that for awhile I thought he was a little person with decades of experience. So if you're willing to ignore the negative connotations here, Rufus Jones for President should provide some good enjoyment. P.S. This marks the fourth time today I've seen and heard the song, "I'll Be Glad When You're Dead You Rascal You" performed on film, this time by Davis. Must have been a very popular song about this time.
This must have been an embarrassment to every member of the entirely African-American cast. Every derogatory, disparaging stereotype of the black American community is featured prominently. I won't reinforce the insults by listing them here, except to mention chickens, watermelons, and dice.<br /><br />One good song by Ethel Waters (and a couple of bad ones), and the fantastic singing and dancing talents of 8-year-old Sammy Davis bring the total up to something below 1 on the IMDb scale.
Being a fan of the manga and anime of Go Nagai (DEVIL MAN, DEVIL LADY, VIOLENCE JACK, etc.), I was looking forward to this one. I'd seen neither the manga nor the anime, so I had no preconceived notions going in. Good thing, too. What we have here is a series of silly softcore movies of the type that used to turn up with alarming regularity on cable channels late at night. While it's tame compared to what gets rammed down the throats of regular cable viewers (our hero's naughty bits are either tastefully tucked away behind a strategically glued-on scarf or emblazoned with a ridiculous sunburst effect), there are prolonged scenes of bondage and torture that lend the proceedings just enough smarminess to make it unsuitable for the kiddies. While I have nothing whatsoever against nude female heroes, I do dislike amateurishly made movies (there are at least four in this series). On the plus side, there's at least one stunningly beautiful actress in each of the four episodes I saw. It's no wonder Nagai's TESTICLE BOY never made it...
I'm going to spend as much time on this review as the writers did on the script. This is easily THE WORST sequel EVER made.<br /><br />They KILLED Navin Johnson. Not only was Mark Blankfield's performance GOD-AWFUL, so was everyone elses!! The physical comedy was forced, flat and predictable. The script seemed to have been written by mongoloid monkeys using the pen names Ziggy Steinberg and Rocco Urbisci. How the producers managed to squeeze out such vile cinematic excrement is beyond me. They even managed to make veteran actor Ray Walston look like a talent-less buffoon. Director Michael Schultz should be ashamed of himself.<br /><br />I want the 96 minutes of my life I spent watching this befouled memory of a brilliant comedy back so I can try and convict everyone involved for this cinematic atrocity.
You can never have seen either film and still know that The Jerk Too is a disaster. The question is not, "How did it get made," because if you throw money at anyone and tell them to make a film, they will do so.<br /><br />No. The question is "Why, oh why, did Steve Martin allow it to be made?" I think he needed the money to fight a nuisance lawsuit and was determined it not cost him anything. He knew the sequel was going to be so frightful, that out of pride, he wouldn't even count it's royalties as income. <br /><br />The only way this sequel could not be an embarrassment is to have had Carl Gottlieb and Steve Martin revive the nation's favorite poor black family.<br /><br />And "dcreasy2001" (aka Mark Blankfield?): It's just transparently obvious that you worked on this film in some sad capacity, and the only way you can feel better about your involvement is to be the sequel's lone cheerleader as an IMDb user comment. I was praying for you to veer over into satire, but alas, you were really making an effort at spin. Why not 10 stars?
This is a typical 70's soft core sex romp in the Russ Meyer genre, though perhaps less outlandish than some of Meyer's work. This film has higher 'production values' than many of it's contemporaries, suggesting a larger budget. It's plot, writing and acting are straight out the B zone, though. Of late, this film has become a mainstay of B movie channels (such as "Drive In Classics") in the 500 channel universe. If soft core is what you are in the mood for, this is as "good" as anything else in the B range. Don't expect Polanski though, Sarno is just Sarno. Nothing more, nothing less. Jennifer Welles performance as the "mother" is perhaps the best of the cast. None of the actors in the film went on to greater fame, unsurprisingly. Confessions of a Young American Housewife is far from the worst example of it's kind. It is watchable, if this is your type of film. 30 years ago, this would have been an avant garde and riske film. You can see more or less the same kind of thing on Showtime/HBO series these days, and in prime time.
Oh dear, Oh dear. I started watching this not knowing what to expect. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. There were times when I thought it was a comedy. I loved how the government's plan to capture the terrorist leader is to air drop in one man, who is unarmed, and expect him to capture him and escape with a rocket pack. If only it were really that easy. I've finally found a movie worse than "Plan 9 From Outer Space".
STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits <br /><br />Some plutonium's gone missing and some very nasty people now have the means to develop a bomb capable of wholesale destruction- so Josh McCord (Chuck Norris) and his cocky young protégé Deke (Judson Mills, a different actor from the previous film) with the assistance of Josh's adopted daughter Que (Jennifer Tung) set out to stop them.<br /><br />This was another film that dealt with terrorism a year after the events of 9/11. Filmed in 2001, Norris himself even commented afterwards how eerily the plot line to the film resembled what happened in downtown New York that day, so there'd have been those that would have been in the mood for a film where Norris and his side-kick kick some terrorist ass if nothing else. Other than that, it's as interchangeable as anything Norris has ever been in. It makes you wonder what the original did to warrant a sequel in the first place, and whether if this one could get made a President's Man 3 might come out sometime soon.<br /><br />If you've seen one Norris film, you've really seen them all and there's really nothing new or unexpected that happens with this one, but at least you know what you're getting and, like I said, it might have been just what some needed to let off some steam. **
I saw this movie the first time at about twelve o'clock on a Saturday evening. It really is the perfect time for this one. I have never, EVER seen a movie that was actually more predictable and drenched with stereotypes. If you want to see a thrilling action movie, don't watch it because you might lose the will to live halfway through. However, if you want a good laugh, please watch it! I even bought the Chuck Norris 3DVD collection thanks to my enjoyable Saturday night. What especially struck me is that évery scene that would be expensive to make was copy-pasted from a Discovery documentary or an old TV-special on the US Army. Furthermore I was amazed by the fact that they didn't put the slightest effort in making the production look real. Afghanistan is, as far as I can remember, nowhere near any sea and yet with a single click Deke escapes from the terrorists sand-castle with his jet-pack and is taken away by a submarine (probably Discovery). Later on in the movie, Deke throws an Islam terrorist against the wall. In the slow motion scene you can beautifully see the long hairs of the Korean stuntman flap in the air when smashed against the wall. Gotta love it. I recommend you watch it with some friends and a good amount of beer though, only then you'll understand why I've been mad enough to spend 6,99 euro's on the box.
OK, so, Chuck Norris somehow found a way to get this sequel produced. I have one question-why? Who read this script and said, "Sound's great! Original!" This movie is regurgitated crap that I wouldn't tarnish my toilet bowel with. Of course it is another story, following in the tradition of MIA, Invasion USA, Walker, Texas Ranger, Delta Force and so on in which Chuck Norris, of course, is the one man who can same America from some bad guys. He doesn't even need a gun most times. It's stupid patriotic jargon that stales the mind. Big surprise that the only one who will direct these Norris film's is Chuck's son Eric. Eric Norris has primarily worked on all his father's films and TV shows. Doesn't this strike anyone as a sign that he has no directing talent? Afterall, he's directing the same people as before in the same stories as before...only difference is the characters' names. If this is supposed to make me patriotic and cheer for the USA, than our country is in much worse shape than I ever imagined. Hopefully, this will be the nail in Chuck Norris's acting coffin.
***THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILER(S)*** <br /><br />I'm not a big fan of Chuck Norris as an actor, but I worship him in all other ways. He also have his own fan web site with "Chuck Norris facts" that is really entertaining. But this movie looks like someone was joking with the audience putting all those "facts" into one movie. I really don't remember when I wasted my time more than with this "action". I don't know what's the worst this movie can offer you: unoriginal and thousand-times-made plot of terrorists who are trying to nuke US by smuggling nuke on US soil or perhaps that "great" dialogs and Chucks words of wisdom about life and everything else. Someone may find the worst that terrorists actually speak English in everyday life. It's a never ending list of crap. Not to mention huge amount of archive footage used in film, that is kinda annoying. The chief terrorist send his comrades message through the media when he is captured and the only guy smart enough to see the treat is: Chuck Norris, of course. NO ONE else in America is not smart enough to see that! And the whole action in capturing chief is just ridiculous. One man is sent to walk through a whole terrorist camp UNARMED (I'm lying, he had a KNIFE), escapes his stalkers with JET PACK and then para glides for few hundred, maybe even thousand kilometers to nearest shore (Afganistan border is 450 km far away from nearest shore), where he is rescued by submarine. I hoped that at least fighting scenes will be good, but that's even more funny than the plot. If you didn't know, 85% of terrorist are masters of some martial art, but Chuck and CO beat the sh*t out of them. Not only they kill them easily, they can kick and throw them away by a single move and the bad guys fly few meters like dolls. You may ask me did I watch this movie to the end? I did. Why? Because I just wanted to see who, of these two super heroes, will defuse the nuclear bomb of few hundred megatons and size of a MICROWAVE. And then I realized what fool I am. Of course, it's Chuck's movie after all. And not only he singlehandedly defuse nuke with tweezers, but he do it - TWICE!! I could write a book about all the stupid things in this movie, but I would spend my life spawn.<br /><br />So, makers of this movie made another Chuck Norris fact to be added on his web site: Can Chuck Norris defuse nuclear bomb? Yes and he can do it twice!
Wow, my first review of this movie was so negative that it was not excepted. I will try to tone this one down. Lets be real!!! No one wants to see a Chuck Norris movie where HE is not the main character.There was a good fight scene at the end, but the rest of the movie stank. I have to wonder if old Chuck just can't hang with the best any more. Has he slowed down so much that he has to turn out junk like this and hope that his reputation will carry him through the entire movie? Chuck is an awesome martial artist, and as we have seen from Walker, Texas Ranger, a fairly good actor, but the trick is to combine both of these qualities in his movies, and this one does not. Very Disappointing for us Norris fans. Chuck, stay as the main character in your movies, because this does not work for you...Gary
Too bad Chuck Norris has gone to TV. He made some good movies before he hit TV. This is a typical TV movie intended to pass the time. Unfortunately it wastes Chuck's talent as an actor. I hope he returns to the big screen some day.
In the standard view, this is a purely awful movie. However, it rates a near perfect score on the unintentional comedy scale. I can think of few actual comedies that make me laugh as hard as I did watching this movie. Andy Griffith's ghost dressed in Native American garb dancing sends me into hysterics everytime. I wouldn't waste the gas or energy driving to the video store to rent it, but if you happen to be laying on the couch at 3 in the morning and it comes on TV, check it out.
This is just horrible, really horrible trash. Yes, we've got beautiful naked women dancing and having sex. But while this may work in the mechanism of a porn movie – may have even been a hit as a porn movie – this tries to mask itself as a "film" with actual things to say, with real emotion and struggle. It isn't. It's an excuse to get some girls naked and have a fun time. I'm sure all of these women (and men) in this particular movie could have faired decently in the porn movie business of the 1970s . . . but not in the actual movie business.<br /><br />The acting was hackneyed, so bad, I mean real terrible. The writing was even worse. I can't lay all blame on these actors – they had nothing to work with. The very broad structure or plot of the movie could possibly be done and done well with good writers and competent actors. The very broad structure or plot is that of a psychotic man who spends his time shooting people from afar, as a sniper. These shootings were motivated from men not respecting their women enough. If there was more writing - better writing, much better writing - and less gratuitous sexual imagery we might have something to work with.<br /><br />This movie should have been shot, made and marketed a hardcore porn movie all along; it would have made more money. It practically is a hardcore porn film already, and it remains the only non-porn movie I've seen that shows a male erect penis.
1st watched 12/26/2008 -(Dir-Eugene Levy): Corny comedy murder mystery with very few laughs. The movie appears to be based on an earlier Italian movie according to the credits but was re-written by two fairly popular American romantic comedy writers. But this one by Charles Shyer & Nancy Meyers does not cut it compared to their other efforts. The story is about a couple of down-and-out traveling Americans, played by Richard Lewis and Sean Young, who stumble upon a lost dog and hope to make a fortune in reward money after seeing an ad in the paper for the dachsund's return. Upon trying to return it, they see a hand sticking out of a garage door at the lady's residence that they believe is attached to the rest of the dead body of the woman who is supposed to give them the money. They freak out and instead of contacting the police and telling them the truth they make out like runaways from the scene expecting to be framed for the murder. The other characters in the film are met on a train prior to this and hang around a Monte Carlo gambling resort doing various things to be pulled into the story. The other cast members include character actors John Candy, James Belushi, Cybill Shepherd, George Hamilton and others. After the police find out about the death, they start questioning the main characters and, of course, they have to work thru their goofy lies to figure out what really happened. None of the character actors mentioned earlier can bring this movie out of it's mediocre state despite some funny moments mostly provided by the Belushi/Shepherd couple. This isn't a horrible movie, it just isn't that good. There are plenty of average movies out there and this is just another one for the pile. Try it, maybe you'll like it, probably you won't.
First, IFC runs Town and Country, and now this. The difference between that stinker and this Pink Panther rip-off is that Town and Country was watchable. This isn't.<br /><br />I can only surmise that the cast signed up for this so they could goof off in Europe on somebody else's dime. Belushi is especially irritating. His scene with Candy (doing a Z-grade Dom DeLuise) was torture. Speaking of torture, five minutes of the talentless Shepherd, and I bet the prisoners at Gitmo would crack like walnuts!<br /><br />The real "Crime" (besides this being green-lighted) is Shepherd's character: a mousy wife who takes a Monte Carlo casino for a half-million bucks! If you buy that, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona you might be interested in!
Mix exotic tropical locations, babes in skimpy attire, explosions, good-looking Dudley Do-Right clones, a movie star with his best years behind him (Martin Sheen), a little martial arts and a sexy villainess (Tracy Lor.....er, sorry...Tracy ELIZABETH Lords) and you'd think you'd be in for some escapist fun. Not so! This is a dreary TV movie and even though it likes to promote itself as a "Charlie's Angels" deal,it is nowhere near as good as the original series or even the gawdawful, irretrievably stupid, recent C.A. movies. This abomination is best described as a THIRD RATE Andy Sidaris film. Nowhere near as much fun as Andy's "Hard Ticket To Hawaii", although some of the fight scenes are decent enough. The girls spend too much time posing and trying too look prissy and it gets annoying after a while. There's better genre stuff that this out there. Oh yeah, and the "babes" aren't as hot as they like to think they are. Terrible soundtrack...when it's there.
Yes, this movie has kids going to space camp and it starts out okay enough as you have the kids meeting one another and learning the ropes. Then they introduce Jinx, a robot that could not possibly exist in 1986 as they do not have anything with that kind of artificial intelligence now. Kid becomes buddy with robot and robot repays the kid's kindness by shooting him and a group of other kids in this camp into outer space with a very limited oxygen supply and radios that do not have the signal to reach into space. This camp is also not very fun as these kids are put to real training and the instructors get all over them for failing missions or not doing the right things. Give it a rest, they are there for fun, not to become astronauts just yet, just give them the experience of space flight not a military like camp. However, you do get to see Joaquin Phoenix in a fairly early role. So in the end a movie that tries to be realistic in some areas, but with the introduction of Jinx and other factors you might as well had the kids battle space aliens on top of everything else that was happening in the movie as that would have made the movie a bit more enjoyable at least for me. Probably for a few others as well, who else would like to see Kate Capshaw's face ripped apart by some strange super alien creature.
Rumor has it that when the NASA Technical Advisors to this film were asked to keep the picture believable, they laughed for several hours. After all, unless you are a politician or work/crew the shuttle, you are not going to get in the shuttle. Furthermore, Space (Cadet) Camp is in Alabama, not Florida.<br /><br />The truth is everyone on Earth will win multi-billion dollar lottery prizes before the events depicted in this film ever become possible. This film was meant for kids, and had to have been written by one, because they are not aware of the myriad restrictions and requirements regarding access to KSC/CCAFS.<br /><br />This is the most useless film of all time, and it was a well deserved flop.
I was in second grade, 12 years ago. I remember it clearly. We were learning about space. All little kids want to go to space, right? Well, after I saw this, I was so scared to death that I would 'accidentally' get flung into space by some psychotic robot with a one track mind. I had no idea that this was a movie. I thought it was some news program or something. I guess it was my own version of when people were freaked out by the radio program 'War of the Worlds.' So, recently, I get this movie again to watch, realizing my favorite actor, Joaquin Phoenix was in it (then known as Leaf Phoenix). I can tell you, I was laughing at the dramatic parts and laughing even harder at the acting. I mean, when Andy is in space, she moves in slow motion, did you ever notice that? I don't think being in space makes you talk that slow or think that slow.<br /><br />The best part is when Andy is knocked unconscious by the oxygen tank, and begins to float backwards as the security doors close. Little Max is trying to pull her in. Suddenly, we get a major close up on Max's face as he shouts (in slow motion) "Whaaaaatttt'ssss happpeniiiinngggg?!?!?" I had no idea.
OK, forget all the technical inconsisties or the physical impossibilities of the Space Shuttle accidentally being launched by a quirky robot with a heart of gold. Forget the hideous special effects and poorly-constructed one-dimensional characters. Just looking at the premise of the story. The very reason for the film to exist in the first place, and you will see just how badly this film was pieced together.<br /><br />I know 9 year olds that look at this insult to the intelligence and just laugh at it. The story is horrible. The acting is comical and the message its trying to show is incomprehensible. And whats worse, is that the cable Movie channels KEEP SHOWING IT! Its on twice a day every two or three days! Why does anyone in their right mind think that people would want to see this painful piece of celluloid multiple times, much less to see it at all?<br /><br />My recomendation is dont even bother spending the energy to watch this thing. Its just not worth it.
Space Camp, which had the unfortunate luck to be planned around the time of the Challenger accident, deserves such luck. The "stars" make a mockery of acting, Lea Thomson actually being turned sideways, when asked for more than her usual wide-eyed innocent smile, presumably to mask her risible attempts. The movie is at times hilarious, when it begins to ask far too much of you. A small boy keeps a multi-million dollar robot in his closet which breaks when given too many commands by the hordes of cliched dorm-mates. This hackneyed and unlovable machine, "Jinx", is a major player in the ridiculous premise of the movie, which seems part Short Circuit, part 2001 by the Airplane team. I shan't bore you with this, suffice it to say you can only laugh when faced with it. Having said all of this, it is enjoyable to watch, in a SeaQuest, Saved by the Bell kind of way. The romance and technology, beware, are as unbelievable as each other. Also, if you're an eighties freak, its unmissable for the amusing performances of Kate Capshaw (Willie from Temple of Doom) and, obviously, Lea Thompson. Also, Joaquin Phoenix puts in a dodgy turn as a sort of wannabe Goonie who befriends Jinx. Do not go near this movie if you are not a fan of trash.
I cannot believe how uneducated this movie is. It's like watching police academy, except it's with people that have no clue of what they are talking about, and...Wait, there is a stupid robot that is supposed to be a sidekick. I can understand suspension of disbelief, but this is just complete stupidity. Not only is there no plot to this movie. It's like watching someone that pretends to be a doctor, throw non-medical words around as if they were chief of staff at a major medical facility. Plus the people are wearing clothes that are un-befitting for a space program. I feel like I'm watching a valley-girls "b" movie, in space.
I'm not going to bag this film for all the myriad technical f|u|c|k|u|p|s, it would take two days to outline how the whole thing isn't even remotely possible. Others have pointed out all the relevant stupidities already.<br /><br />Given all that, I still could have sort of enjoyed it, if only they hadn't included all the maudlin, nauseating, infuriating, Disneyesque sentimental crap, which is so out of place anywhere, but nowhere more than out in space, where the tiniest mistake can mean instant death.<br /><br />The "crew", as well as the "real" astronaut were equally guilty of putting all their fatuous nonsense ahead of everything else. It completely ruined any value the production may have had left.<br /><br />I'm surprised NASA let this garbage out so that so many people would get so much misinformation about something so important to them. If you haven't seen this yet, save yourself the irritation. Watch Apollo 13 again. At least that tried to be sort of real.
This film should have been fun. A young Lea Thompson, a young Joaquin Phoenix... and Terry O'Quinn. In space. But it dragged on, had unlovable characters and had no target audience.<br /><br />Some kids go to a space camp and are accidentally launched into space by a robot friend of theirs (named, appropriately, Jinx). The space scenes are then long, repetitive (the same accident happens twice) and either cheesy or frightening depending on your point of view. Adults will be bored and cheesed out, kids might be scared as the way this was filmed really leaves an eerie sense about it.<br /><br />There is a budding romance, but unlike the shuttle -- this never takes off. Why it is included in the first place is unclear, except maybe to add extra tension between the characters - but it failed if that was the idea.<br /><br />A young Lea Thompson should be quirky and attractive, right? I mean, "Back to the Future" is great. But no, she was irritating and average-looking. Not someone you'd want to date, have as a friend or even consider as a role model. Joaquin Phoenix? He's really lucky he ever appeared in movies again this performance. Maybe he can act like Mikey in the Life Cereal commercials, but he doesn't seem to know how to be a normal boy. He doesn't fit in on screen and I don't think we can identify with him at home. I actually would have been happier if he had never returned to Earth.<br /><br />I don't recommend this film to anyone.
Here's why the Jane Show won't work. Once again Canadian bonehead producers and writers can't create a sitcom without putting some kind of different spin on it. I guess these people don't watch a lot of T.V. from the U.S. which has the sitcom model down pat. No, here we have to do something different, we have to make the A story absolutely absurd and then have a meaningful B story to try to make up for it. The characters are two dimensional and the story lines are way over the top: Forklift races??? give me freaking break. Here's a little advice for the writers of the show, Don't write funny situations, find the funny in situations. And remember, you have to be born with a sense of humor to write truly funny stuff, not just be an improv monkey.
I rented this film out having heard of the fuss about it not being put up for an Academy Award, but after watching it, it's easy to see why it didn't. Despite the beautiful photography, the film is incredibly slow moving, despite having hardly any plot.<br /><br />The plot is about a young boy trying to come to terms with his parents' death in what may or may not have been an accident (the film is never clear on this), and how his grandfather used to tell him fairy stories. The fairy stories contain the only bits of interest in the plot, but they're very short, and don't really seem to have any point. <br /><br />The first fairy story in particular concerns a boy trying to get a magical flower to his dying girlfriend to save her life, but the boy delays by tasting the flower first to make sure it is not poisonous which results in him being a few seconds too late to save his girlfriend - the grandfather then pronounces that the moral is that the boy was too impatient, but that doesn't make any sense because it was overcaution and slowness which resulted in his failure. Perfect metaphor for this film really. <br /><br />The photography of Skye is beautiful though, but then Stardust which was released this year is another film about fairy stories filmed in Skye and beautifully photographed - and it's infinitely better than this one.
This film is self indulgent rubbish. Watch this film if you merely want to hear spoken Gaelic or enjoy the pleasant soundtrack. Watch for any other reason and you will be disappointed. It should be charming but isn't - it's just irritating. The characters are difficult to care about and the acting is poor. The stories within the film are also charmless and sinister. I was expecting a heartwarming family film but this also held no appeal to my fourteen year old daughter. It is rarely that I cannot see a film through to its conclusion but this one got the better of both of us.<br /><br />Although the film is set in current times it has the look and feel of a cheap East European film made during the Cold War. There isn't even enough in the way of beautiful Scottish scenery and cinematography to redeem it. A real shame because as a film this is an embarrassment to Scotland.
Birthday Girl doesn't know what it wants to be - is it a comedy,, is it a drama...it just doesn't know. What could have been a very funny or touching film ends up in no-man's land. The premise is original enough to have warranted a script full of interesting scenarios but hardly delivers any and ends up petering out. This is a real shame if you look at the cast - it's very solid all the way through but they don't get the chance to shine. Very disappointing.
It seems that the intention of the film was to show the aggressive (maffia-like) character of Russians, or at least of those Russians able to travel outside their big country; that it is too easy to rob a bank in England; and that British police is so inefficient that it cannot find the person who robbed the bank even when these subjects are leaving the country by air. In addition, Nicole Kidman and the supposed Russian colleagues spoke a language not yet identified anywhere, probably spoken by Aliens in the Ural mountains, but far to be the Russian one. So Nicole, if you really want to talk Russian, kindly go to Moscow or St. Petersburg and keep yourself busy learning Russian language grammar and its pronunciation.
This film's trailer interested me enough to warrant renting the DVD. However, the resulting movie is absolutely dire! Admittedly, this is not the worst film ever made, or the worst film this year, but it came damn close!<br /><br />The main issue is the film not knowing what it wants to be: comedy, adult drama, thriller, teen-porn? The story is interesting, as it deals with the pitfalls of mail-order brides, but the film is a mess. What starts out as a mildly interesting "comedy" (a word I use in the loosest possible terms), then goes totally in reverse, and degenerates into a very dark and distasteful misogynistic thriller. Nicole Kidman should know better, and Ben Chaplin is wasted! As are Matthieu Kassovitz and Vincent Cassel, whom I can only presume did this for the money.<br /><br />This is a bad film in pretty much every single aspect. It's not funny, it's almost so sexist that you could almost forgive Benny Hill for everything he did, and the dramatic elements are just downright nasty. A film to be avoided, unless you absolutely have to see Kidman or Chaplin in every one of their films!
this movie is the worst ive seen.. nicole kidman really dissapointed me.. this movie has nothing. i would not watch it again even if it were the last movie on earth. great actors but bad script.
Nothing in this film interested me. I thought the actors were asleep while they were performing. That's not laid-back Stanislofsky method, that's just walking-through and saying lines, I'm afraid. Kidman's performance is sad. The story is, however, mildly entertaining if you want to put up with the bad acting.
This film features Ben Chaplin as a bored bank employee in England who orders a mail order bride from Russia, recieves Nicole Kidman in the mail and gets more than he bargained for when, surprise, she isn't what she appears to be. The story is fairly predictible and Chaplin underacts too much to the point where he becomes somewhat anoying. Kidman is actualy rather good in this role, making her character about the only thing in this film that is interesting. GRADE: C
If you really have to watch this movie because your girlfriend is in a romantic mood, let it be boy. But prepare yourself by bringing your hp if it comes with a radio.<br /><br />After having watched such a good movie as Arisan (2003), it is terrible to see what they come up with again in Indonesia. It seems that the only idea is to make money, but no one seems seriously to work on the image of Indonesia in the world of entertainment. That it is a 'global' world doesn't seem to come up in the minds of those who make movies in Indonesia. And since the Indonesian public swallows everything that is presented to them as 'Made in Indonesia' with a flavor of the west, they get away with it.<br /><br />OK, the story is nice to begin with. And it could have developed into a nice flick. But did the director never think about the fact that a musical needs first of all live music OR at least good playback, and secondly good choreography? In this movie, the playback is SO BAD that it makes you wanna cry right there in the cinema. Every single word you hear is followed seconds LATER by the actor or whoever sing playback, and it is extremely annoying while watching the movie.<br /><br />The choreography is as if they planned to make a movie about morning gymnastics, but in the end thought it would be nice to turn it into a musical... They only forgot to change the choreography. It is hardly dancing you see, they jump here and there, throw their legs up in the air, and that is about it.<br /><br />Well, at least there's a happy ending.... But if you can convince your girlfriend that a nice candlelight dinner is much more romantic, DO SO!
What's with Indonesian musical movies? Never have I seen Indonesian musical movies like the ones made in Bollywood. They miss the spirit of the story and just a bunch of 'what they called' poetic lines.<br /><br />This story about love of two kids who are separated and then meet again after a few years of changes has no special remarks. It's a simple story plot (but it's quite focused though) with 'meant to be' musical story lines here and there.<br /><br />Confusing characters that should be saved by brilliant acting are neglected. The main actress may try to live up the character, but it's the best that she could do, trying. As for the casting, I don't feel the necessity to put a Balinese student in that story and of course, that's not the only unnecessary characters.<br /><br />The strange thing is, why would I want to watch this movie? Maybe because of the mangoes...
I wonder who, how and more importantly why the decision to call Richard Attenborough to direct the most singular sensation to hit Broadway in many many years? He's an Academy Award winning director. Yes, he won for Ghandi you moron! Jeremy Irons is an Academy winning actor do you want to see him play Rocky Balboa? He has experience with musicals. Really? "Oh what a lovely war" have you forgotten? To answer your question, yes! The film is a disappointment, clear and simple. Not an ounce of the live energy survived the heavy handedness of the proceedings. Every character danced beautifully they were charming but their projection was theatrical. I felt nothing. But when I saw it on stage I felt everything. The film should have been cast with stars, unknown, newcomers but stars with compelling unforgettable faces even the most invisible of the group. Great actors who could dance beautifully. Well Michael Douglas was in it. True I forgot I'm absolutely wrong and you are absolutely right. Nothing like a Richard Attenborough Michael Douglas musical.
For those who never saw A CHORUS LINE onstage and their only exposure to the story was this film, this film is OK as movie musicals, nothing special, just OK. I have seen the show on Broadway 4 times and even auditioned for a touring company of the show once and for someone who pretty much memorized the original production, the 1985 film version is so dreadful on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin. First of all, for those who have never auditioned for a theatrical production, let me assure you that IRL when you audition for a play, the director, producer, and choreographer never ask personal questions and don't give a crap about why you wanted to become a performer. A real theatrical audition, whether it be for a play or a musical, rarely takes more than five minutes. If you're auditioning as a dancer, you get shown a 64-bar dance combination once, you do it, and then they decide immediately whether you're in or out. Michael Bennett's original concept of the show was to flesh out the lives of dancers and introduce to the uninitiated the passion for performing and why so many sacrifice so much for so little. The play is about these dancers. First of all, director Richard Attenborough took so much focus off the dancers by beefing up the Cassie/Zach relationship and by casting Michael Douglas as Zach. In the play, you NEVER see Zach...he is just a voice in the back of the theater and his relationship with Cassie is barely touched upon. Cassie shown in the cab in traffic trying to get to the audition and upstairs talking to Larry (a character who is not even in the play)was all added for the movie and took so much focus off what the story is about. Major musical numbers were cut or rethought. The opening number in the play "I Hope I Get It" shows all of the dancers doing a jazz and ballet combination and then people get eliminated. In the movie they jam three hundred dancers onstage together and show them in closeup to disguise the fact that they have cast people in the film who can't dance (can you say "Audrey Landers"). "Goodbye 12, Goodbye 13, Hello Love", a brilliant vocal exploration of these dancers' childhood's jaundiced memories was reworked as "Surprise, Surprise" mainly a vehicle for the late Gregg Burge as Richie. The show's most famous song, "What I Did for Love" which in the show was a touching allegory sung by the entire cast about what they give up to dance, becomes just another standard love song in the film, performed tiredly by a miscast Allyson Reed as Cassie. Jeffrey Hornaday's choreography for the film is dull and unimaginative and doesn't hold a candle to Michael Bennett' original staging and when you're making a movie about dancers, the choreography has to be special. There are a couple of good dancers in the film, the previously mentioned Gregg Burge as Richie, Michelle Johnston as Bebe, and Janet Jones as Judy, but they are hardly given the opportunity to show what they can do, yet Audrey Landers, who can barely walk and chew gum at the same time, is given one of the show's best numbers, "Dance 10, Looks 3." I will admit that the finale, "One" is dazzling, but you have to wait almost two hours for that. I would say that if you never saw A CHORUS LINE onstage, this film might be worth a look, but if you are a devotee of the original Broadway musical...be afraid...be very afraid.
I saw the original "Chorus Line" on Broadway God knows how many times and felt the passion, despair and joy come from this live experience in the theater. Michael Bennett knew he would have to re-imagine "Chorus" for the screen but could never figure out how to do it. If the man who came up with the show is stumped - that should answer your question. There are some shows that are simply made to be seen live - with an audience. However, Richard Attenborough fresh of the musical work of "Ghandi" and dancing with animals in "Doctor Doolittle" ended up directing this film which bore little to no resemblance to the stage show. Horrible songs were added (Surprise! Surprise!), great songs were dropped or given to other characters (which didn't make sense). Michael Douglas was mis-cast. People that couldn't dance tried to act and there was the sexy "Landers" woman who couldn't sing, act, or dance - I guess she had just finished being Ghandi's wife. The dances by Jeffrey Hornaday look like nothing more than schlock from "Flashdance" rejects and nothing works. I sat there stunned at how something so riveting and emotional could be drained to nothing. If you truly love this show and it is coming back to Broadway in 2006 - see it but don't think that the long running musical event that was "A Chorus Line" has any thing at all to do with this film.
I admit to having been a fan of the original stage production. I never saw the movie version until very lately on cable, and watched it with anticipation, to see my memories brought alive again, because I adored the original show. Imagine my dismay.<br /><br />This has to be the worst translation of a Broadway show to film ever made. They changed the story, they changed the songs, they lost the soul. I was expecting a trip down memory lane, singing to the extraordinarily touching Music and the Mirror, At the Ballet, and Hello Twelve, Hello Thirteen. Not! Not only did they adulterate the music to an almost unrecognizable point, but they messed up the storyline, adding songs and exterior plotlines (hello Cassie and Michael Douglas) not present in the original, and injecting "drama" where it wasn't necessary. The original had enough pathos on its own. If you were a fan of the original Broadway show, don't bother. I'm sorry I wasted my time, and diluted my memories, watching this tripe.
On Broadway, A Chorus Line was pure magic. From the second the show opened with a spectacular burst of energy to the truly grand finale, a joyous curtain call of all those chorus members who we grew to love during the course of the show, we were totally engaged - captivated by the intensely personal stories, some funny, some clever, some stirring, of this chorus line. The movie is another matter entirely. The focus is now on the director - and WHAT an ogre he is! Every time the film switches to Michael Douglas, there he is with a bitter, sour expression, barking out questions and orders, screaming and yelling whenever he gets the chance. Yikes!! That changes the dynamics of the story. On Broadway, the director was indeed an imperious offstage presence, but he was also sort of a theatrical device to allow the stories of these amazing strong/fragile/intriguing/hilarious chorus line members to be told with insight and clarity. There is a reason this work won the Pulitzer Prize! And actually in one of the only moments the director appears, he is there to comfort the young Puerto Rican Dancer after we hear that dancer's heart-breaking story. He appears again to ultimately express his genuine affection/ concern for Cassie. But in the movie, from the second Douglas' director starts bitterly barking orders, the chorus line members' stories become secondary. It's like they are in a lousy profession, where a jaded director instead of showing the joy at creating a new exciting theatrical show, is jaded, exhausted, furious at having to audition these chorus members. On stage, there was ALWAYS the excitement of the show. Here in the movie practically from the word go, you feel sorry for everyone involved. During the course of the musical, we desperately wished every single one of those chorus members well, and how happy we would have been if they had all gotten the job! But of course that couldn't happen. But in the Finale when they all came back in glorious costume with those amazing spinning mirrors on stage, sometimes reflecting us in the audience, in our hearts, and we know, also in the hearts of all those chorus members both accepted and rejected, they were on stage forever dancing in a profession they loved so much, bringing magic to the theatre. In the movie, after all the misplaced story lines and emphasis, that magic becomes totally diluted. All we feel (even with the exact same curtain call), is that some of the members got a job with a mean-spirited director. So they all come on the screen and are dancing again. Big deal.
Yes, I was lucky enough to see the long-running original production of Michael Bennett's hit musical. It was an amazing experience and I paid to see the movie when it hit theatres back in 1985. It is awful. Almost everything fails. First off, Attenborough (a fine actor, a good director with the right material) is a sorry choice - almost as bad as when John Huston was hired to mangle ANNIE. The camera is always in the wrong place - they chop up the songs and the CASTING!!! They are awful - the power of the play was these dancers - these hungry, talented performers just wanted a chance to show what they could do and when they got their chance - you couldn't take your eyes off of them. But this cast just gets by dancing, does a "nice" job singing but none of them spark one bit. In fact, look up the cast on IMDb - none of them really went on to do anything much. (OK, OK, Janet Jones married Gretzky - sheesh). So this cinema trainwreck does not capture for one second the magic, the desperation, the passion of the stage musical. A total strike-out! (But even though they try to smother the music - the great music still rises up at times and reminds people how great the score was).
I'm not a stage purist. A movie could have been made of this play, and it would almost necessarily require changes... comme ci, comme ca. But the modest conceits of this material are lost or misunderstood by the movie's creators who are in full-on "shallow blockbuster" mode. It would be hard to imagine a worse director. Perhaps only Josh Logan & Jack Warner could have ruined this in the same way Attenborough did.<br /><br />Onstage A Chorus line was a triumph of workshopping as a production method. Dancers answering a casting call found themselves sitting around shooting the crap about their stage-career experiences (very 70s!). Then Bennett and Hamlisch took some time, handed them a song and cast them as themselves. ...astonishing! Unbelievably modern. The 'story'of ACL is (in turn) about answering a casting call for a play we never have a complete view of, because the play doesn't matter. It was meta before the idea was invented, 25 years before Adaptation noodled with a similar idea. ACL was also another in a reductivist trend that is still alive, & which is a hallmark of modern creativity: that technique itself is compelling... that there's more drama in an average person's life than you could ever synthesize with invented characters. What a gracious idea. The stage play had one performance area (an empty stage) and three different ways to alter the backdrop, to alleviate visual tedium, not to keep viewers distracted. The space recedes and the actors stories are spotlighted. It worked just fine. That was the point. All these ideas are trampled or bastardized. Set-wise, there wasn't one, and no costumes either until the the dancers came out for their final bows, in which the exhilarating "One" is finally, powerfully, performed in full (gold) top hats and tails, with moves we recognize because we've watched them in practice sessions. The pent-up anxiety of the play is released --- and audiences went nuts. <br /><br />After Grampa manhandles this, it's like a mushed, strangled bird. He clearly has the earlier, respected All that Jazz (and Fosse's stage piece Dancin') in mind as he makes his choices. Hamlisch's score was edgy & interesting for it's time, but time has not been kind to it. It's as schmaltzy as "jazz hands." And that's before Attenborough ever touches it. He's remarkable at finding whatever good was left, and mangling it. <br /><br />A simple question might have helped Attenborough while filming this, "Could I bear spending even a few minutes with people like these?" A major issue for any adaptation of the play is how the 4th wall of theater (pivotal by it's absence in theater) would be addressed in the film format. There's never been a more "frontal" play. The answer they came up with was, "I'm sorry.. what was the question?" The cast has been augmented from a manageable number of unique narratives, to a crowd suffocating each other and the audience, and blending their grating selves together. I was well past my annoyance threshold when that annoying little runt swings across the stage on a rope, clowning at the (absent) audience. The play made you understand theater people. This movie just makes you want to choke them.<br /><br />Perhaps Broadways annoying trend of characters walking directly to stage center and singing their stories at the audience (Les Miz, Miss Saigon) instead of relating to other characters started here. But the worst imaginable revival of the play will make you feel more alive than this movie. <br /><br />A Chorus Line is pure schlock.
If you were to judge based on the movie alone, the committee that gave the stage musical "A Chorus Line" a Pulitzer Prize, and Broadway audiences that kept the war horse running for 15 years, were all on heavy narcotics, because one singular sensation this film certainly is NOT.<br /><br />What possessed anyone to think that Richard Attenborough was the right fit for this material utterly mystifies me, but he makes a musical that is almost entirely about movement just sit on the screen like a lump of clay.<br /><br />Not content with the original score the way it was originally written, someone decided that what the film really needed was a brand new song to give the movie some zip. Thus we are assaulted with the Oscar-nominated(!) "Surprise, Surprise." Well surprise, surprise, the song stinks, and so does the movie.<br /><br />Grade: D
I first saw the live musical at the Denver Center For The Performing Arts and it was absolutely mind-blowing, Stunning and had such fantastic continuity of plot and dialogue that I liked it much more than most musicals that I have seen on the stage. The interesting thing is that you NEVER got to see Zach's face. He was always in the dark but his presence was powerful and guided the direction of entire production. Whe I heard they were making a movie from it, I waited with bated breath, but when I watched the movie version I was so bummed-out disappointed that I felt I was cheated. The movie lacks the captivating mood set in the live production and it never allows you to be completely in close touch with every character. Personally, I would like to see the live version again and if that should ever be revived, I would wholeheartedly recommend that you go out of your way to see it. It will be one of the most memorable experiences you will enjoy.
This is one of the worst film adaptations of a musical ever made. The stage version of A Chorus Line is wonderful. This movie misses the mark in almost every way. Even the casting is baffling. Take Audrey Landers as Val. "Dance 10 Looks 3" is Val's song. Val's story is that she is a great dancer but a 3 in the looks department. Yes, she finds a solution, but ultimately she's a great dancer. What do the brilliant filmmakers do? They hire an actress who can't dance and is famous for looking great. Way to miss the boat.<br /><br />Then there's the choreography. I'm sure Michael Bennett was turning over in his grave. Why didn't they use his choreography? It really can't be improved upon.
This may be the worst film adaptation of a Broadway musical ever. Even the music has been destroyed. Attenborough knows nothing about theater - almost every shot and moment ring false. I will say, though, that it is almost bad enough to be funny.<br /><br />The hairstyles are remarkably dated. I can not for the life of me understand what is meant (conceptually) by opening the film with an exterior of the theater where "A Chorus Line" is playing. Are we to think that these people are auditioning for "A Chorus Line," which contains the stories about the people who are auditioning? Oh no, the show is collapsing on itself.<br /><br />I saw the original production, and have listened to the album hundreds of times. Why, oh, why, did they do this?
Michael Bennett and Nicholas Dante's Broadway show ran for years, but evidence of its power and charisma is lost in this movie adaptation, which most likely stems from the choice of director (Richard Attenborough, as far from B-way as you could get) and lead actor (Michael Douglas, who plays a director-choreographer like a slimy corporate lawyer). The slim story, about a grueling audition for a Broadway show which turns into a therapy session for the actor-dancer-singers, is pushed right up on us, with loud, brassy talents playing to the rafters. Nothing is modulated or subtle, particularly a laughable subplot about a ex-dancer returning to the theater and butting heads with old-flame Douglas. The over-eager hopefuls are filled with promise and heartache, but their personal stories of angst are a little embarrassing; this, matched with Attenborough's sluggish pacing, spells disaster, and even the now-famous songs fail to break through the artificial wrapping. *1/2 from ****
I recently bought the DVD, forgetting just how much I hated the movie version of "A Chorus Line." Every change the director Attenborough made to the story failed.<br /><br />By making the Director-Cassie relationship so prominent, the entire ensemble-premise of the musical sails out the window.<br /><br />Some of the musical numbers are sped up and rushed. The show's hit song gets the entire meaning shattered when it is given to Cassie's character.<br /><br />The overall staging is very self-conscious.<br /><br />The only reason I give it a 2, is because a few of the great numbers are still able to be enjoyed despite the film's attempt to squeeze every bit of joy and spontaneity out of it.
By the time this film was released I had seen Chorus Line on stage 4 times, and had been anticipating most eagerly the long-rumored production of a film of the story. My wife and I were in line hours before the box office opened on the day the film was released. It was not just a disappointment, it was a kick in the abdomen. <br /><br />First, the story was "moved outside," so to speak, by including scenes not in the confines of the theater. Those confines are a large portion of the meaning and impact of the story. <br /><br />Second & Third together (assign your own order): one of the original songs, with very dynamic dance number, was removed; a song which was NOT in the stage production was added. Say what ?? I'm confused! <br /><br />The only reason I gave this film 2 stars instead of 1 is my admiration for the talent and hard work of the performers. I've now seen Chorus Line on stage 6 times, and wouldn't mind seeing it 6 more times before I die. It is superbly written, with wonderful music, and heart- wrenchingly true stories. If you want to see a musical which includes a great "cattle call" audition, I recommend All That Jazz. If you want to see the story of A Chorus Line, see it on stage.
The Broadway musical, "A Chorus Line" is arguably the best musical in theatre. It's about the experiences of people who live for dance; the joys they experience, and the sacrifices they make. Each dancer is auditioning for parts in a Broadway chorus line, yet what comes out of each of them are stories of how their lives led them find dance as a respite. <br /><br />The film version, though, captures none of the passion or beauty of the stage show, and is arguably the worst film adaptation of a Broadway musical, as it is lifeless and devoid of any affection for dance, whatsoever. <br /><br />The biggest mistake was made in giving the director's job to Sir Richard Attenborough, whose direction offered just the right touch and pacing for "Gandhi." Why would anyone in his or her right mind ask an epic director to direct a musical that takes place in a fairly constricted place?<br /><br />Which brings us to the next problem. "A Chorus Line" takes place on stage in a theatre with no real sets and limited costume changes. It's the least flashy of Broadway musicals, and its simplicity was its glory. However, that doesn't translate well to film, and no one really thought that it would. For that reason, the movie should have taken us in the lives of these dancers, and should have left the theatre and audition process. The singers could have offered their songs in other environments and even have offered flashbacks to their first ballet, jazz or tap class. Heck, they could have danced down Broadway in their lively imaginations. Yet, not one shred of imagination went into the making of this film, as Attenborough's complete indifference for dance and the show itself is evident in his lackadaisical direction.<br /><br />Many scenes are downright awkward as the dancers tell their story to the director (Michael Douglas) whether he wants to hear them or not. Douglas' character is capricious about choosing to whom he extends a sympathetic ear, and to whom he has no patience. <br /><br />While the filmmakers pretended to be true to the nature of the play, some heretical changes were made. The very beautiful "Hello Twelve, Hello Thirteen, Hello Love"--a smashing stage number which took the dancers back to their adolescence--was removed and replaced with the dreadful, "Surprise," a song so bad that it was nominated for an Oscar. Adding insult to injury, "Surprise" simply retold the same story as "Hello, Love" but without the wit or pathos.<br /><br />There is no reason to see this film unless you want a lesson in what NOT to do when transferring a Broadway show to film. If you want to see a film version of this show, the next closest thing is Bob Fosse's brilliant "All That Jazz." While Fosse's daughter is in "A Chorus Line," HE is the Fosse who should have been involved, as director. He would have known what to do with this material, which deserved far greater respect than this sad effort.
For anyone who has seen and fallen in love with the stage musical A CHORUS LINE, the movie is a shoddy substitute. Not only are songs cut, but unnecessary plot twists added, new dance sequences choreographed, and, let's face it, Richard Attenborough just doesn't know how to film dancers.<br /><br />Onstage, Michael Bennett's A CHORUS LINE was just that: Michael Bennett. His idea, his choreography, his direction, his gift to Broadway and the rest of the world. It was two hours of hard-hitting, in-your-face realism that really made you feel for these "boys" and "girls." The movie, however, lacks empathy and depth: the actors look like they are auditioning for A CHORUS LINE rather than actually auditioning. Every move, every line of dialogue seems so weighted and planned; Michael Douglas, especially, as Zach is too in control for us to believe that he is this extraordinarily bitchy choreographer. Even when he throws his temper tantrums, you never quite believe him because every gesture, every accented word, every nuance is so obviously rehearsed. And as for him not dancing: Kevin Kline auditioned for the role of Zach on Broadway. Michael Bennett loved his reading, but Kline couldn't dance and ultimately lost the part. How I wish they had done the same for Douglas! A CHORUS LINE is supposed to be a show about nobodies, and aside from a few recognizable faces (Vicki Frederick, who played Cassie on Broadway, as Sheila and Khandi Alexander, of TV's NewsRadio, as one of the many auditioning dancers) you're not supposed to KNOW any of these people. Because you DO know these people. Having a star in any of the roles is a terrible decision: when you focus on Michael Douglas and his ranting instead of on the girls and boys on the line and their stories, you lose something.<br /><br />It is truly unfortunate that the best sequence in the show (Montage: Hello Twelve, Hello Thirteen, Hello Love) is cut drastically to make way for a terrible new song entitled "Surprise, Surprise" that surprisingly received a nomination at the Oscars. Cassie's "mirror dance" has a new song and tragically boring choreography -- one wonders why they bothered to shoot a movie version at all if they were going to mess with a working formula this much.<br /><br />For fans of musical theatre and those who enjoyed the stage version, this movie is a sad mockery of everything they cherished and loved. For those who never got to see the original production, either on Broadway or on tour, this movie is the only reference they will have to go by. And they'll have to wonder just how it got to be the longest-running musical in Broadway history -- until a little show called CATS overtook it in the late 1990's. But THAT is a different story, and don't even get me started there.
Hi, Everyone, If you saw "Singing in the Rain," you remember the scene of Gene Kelly dancing in the rain. You also remember the dance number of Donald O'Connor, "Make 'em Laugh." If you saw "Royal Wedding," you will remember Fred Astaire dancing on the ceiling. If you saw "Jailhouse Rock," you will even remember the title dance number choreographed by The King himself.<br /><br />That is what is missing here. There could have been some blockbuster dance numbers in this presentation. The closest was Chuck McGowan's "I Can Do That." the mere fact that you have some talented people on stage moving together does not make a great dance film. Richard Attenborough was to blame for this failure. He pointed the camera at the stage and thought that would be a good thing.<br /><br />Yelling at people auditioning for a part in a Broadway production is not entertainment. Michael Douglas would be just as badly cast if he were in a Western or a comedy. He is OK when he is in a Michael Douglas movie where we see him yelling at someone we would like to yell at. It does not work here.<br /><br />The cast was good except for Michael, of course. A good movie could have been made even using the songs that were in the stage production, but someone should have thought about how to film it.<br /><br />Next time they do one of these I hope they call me first.<br /><br />Tom Willett
This film is regarded by some as a classic - I've no idea why. It is terrible to the point of being laughable. The only saving grace with this movie are the delivery of cheesy lines that are so toe curlingly embarrassing that you have no choice but to laugh at them.<br /><br />There are a couple of good songs and good choreography in this film, but SO WHAT! There is no plot, it is set in a theatre with no change of scenery, and Michael Douglas is as depressing as ever. My brother once forced me to watch this film, because he said I wouldn't believe how bad a film can get! He was right.<br /><br />Normally with a film this dreadful I would recommend that people shouldn't watch it, but in this case I think people should, as it will put every other bad film you've seen in perspective.
i was lucky enough to see A Chorus Line when it came to my city.. i was younger then.. but it was an Excellent play.. so would someone please tell me why in heavens name did they have to make a movie out of it.. and why Michael Douglas ??? He didnt suit the role.. this movie really sucked BIG time !!!<br /><br />my advise is NOT to rent this movie.. save your money for something better like "Cats" ....
A pale shadow of a great musical, this movie suffers from the fact that the director, Richard Attenborough, completely misses the point of the musical, needlessly "opens" it up, and muddies the thrust of the play. The show is about a group of dancers auditioning for a job in a B'way musical and examines their drive & desire to work in this demanding and not-always-rewarding line of work. Attenborough gives us a fresh-faced cast of hopefuls, assuming that they are trying to get their "big break" in show business, rather than presenting the grittier mix of characters created on stage as a group of working "gypsies" living show to show, along with a couple of newcomers. The film has one advantage over the play and that is the opening scene, showing the size of the original audition and the true scale of shrinkage down to the 16/17 on the line (depending on how you count Cassie, who is stupidly kept out of the line in the movie). Anyone who can catch a local civic light opera production of the play will have a much richer experience than seeing this poorly-conceived film.
Awesomely improbable and foolish potboiler that at least has some redeeming, crisp location photography, but it's too unbelievable to generate much in the way of tension. I was kinda hoping that Stanwyck wouldn't make it back in time because, really, she was saddled with the wet, in more ways than one, husband,and she had an idiot child as well..why NOT run off with Meeker? But the nagging question remains..what sort of wood was that pier support made of if a rotten piece of it pulled off didn't float? Stanwyck, always impeccably professional, does the best she could with the material but it's threadbare.
Just a dumb old movie. First Stanwyck's son gets his foot trapped in a really dumb way, and then her husband gets his foot trapped in another really dumb way. In an effort to save him, Stanwyck gets unlucky, yet again, and comes across an escaped convict. She has a chance to kill him but fails in a very dumb way. In the end her husband is saved, and Stanwyck tells us through narration what the dumb message of the movie is. All's well than ends dumb.<br /><br />I could never figure out how an unattractive woman like Stanwyck ever made it as a leading lady in Hollywood's glamour-oriented Golden Era; that nose is so beautiful… So photogenic… The film is mercifully short, running a little over an hour. It's as though the director sensed that he was making crap, so he thought it best to keep the crap short.
Well, my goodness, am I disappointed. When I first heard news of a remake of Robert Wise's 1963 film, "The Haunting", I had a fear that it would be ruined by an abundance of summer-movie sized visual effects. But, deep down, I had faith. Surely, with such a talented cast intact...De Bont and company will not ruin a film, who's original was a fantastic and frightening movie that understood the delicate art of subtlety. Well, subtlety, where are you now!!?? My fears have manifested...a promising movie has gone wrong. Yes, Eugenio Zannetti's production design is jaw-dropping; the movie is wonderfully photographed; and composer Jerry Goldsmith can never EVER do wrong. But, the script puts it's fine actors to the test..asking them to deliver the kind of stilted dialogue that is only spoken in movies. In the end, the always wonderful Lili Taylor is the only performer to escape with some dignity...and that's just barely. But, the crime of all crimes is that the horror is shown to us. We can no longer use our imaginations, feel that horrible dread of fear of the unknown. No, we get some visual effects to SHOW US what we're supposed to be afraid of...and you know what? As wonderfully realized as they are...the visual effects come off as sort of silly. And the climax is a phantasmogoric mess...but things had gone terribly wrong long before that. <br /><br />Everything in The Haunting is overdone and overblown. I'm afraid there are no real thrills or creaks in this old haunted house monstrosity...only groans. Check out the original instead.<br /><br />
For movie fans who have never heard of the book (Shirley Jackson's "The Haunting of Hill House") and have never seen the 1963 Robert Wise production with Julie Harris, this remake will seem pretty darn bad.<br /><br />For those of us who have, it is just plain awful.<br /><br />Bad acting (what was Neeson thinking?), goofy computer enhancements, and a further move away from Jackson's story doom this remake.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and rent the original movie. It still effectively scares without hokey special effects. The acting is professional and believable.<br /><br />For readers of the book, the from 1963 follows the it much closer.
The Haunting, if you have seen the original, you know a great ghost story, it's perfection on film. It's a haunting tale of 4 people who go into a haunted house and with the simple trick of sound and movements, it terrified people. It still remains effective to this day if you appreciate film. So when The Haunting was remade in 1999, a lot of people pretty much had the same reaction "WHAT? WHY? WHAT THE…" But in my opinion if a remake is respectful enough and just wants to reinvent the story for the newer generation, I'm pretty cool with it. This is definitely not the case, this is just a disrespectful boring shame that will waste your time and I guarantee will deliver no scares… pfft! PG-13, what where they thinking? Not much apparently.<br /><br />When her mother dies and her sister evicts her, Nell receives a phone call, telling her about an ad for an insomnia study run by Doctor David Marrow at Hill House, a secluded manor. Upon arrival, Nell meets Mr. and Mrs. Dudley, a strange pair of caretakers who do not stay on the property after dark. Shortly thereafter, two other participants in the study arrive, wild Theo and "bad sleeper" Luke Sanderson along with Doctor Marrow. Unknown to the participants, Doctor Marrow's true purpose is to study the psychological response to fear. Each night, the caretakers chain the gate outside Hill House, preventing anyone from getting in or out until morning, when the caretakers open the lock. There are no working telephones inside Hill House and the nearest town is several miles away. Doctor Marrow revels the story of Hill House. The house was built by Hugh Crain, Crain built the house for his wife, hoping to fill it with a large family full of children, however all of Crain's children died during birth. Crain's wife killed herself before the house was finished, and Crain became a recluse. The first night, Theo and Nell begin to experience strange phenomenon within the house, including odd noises and inexplicable temperature changes. Nell is confronted after the main hallway is vandalized with the words "Welcome Home, Eleanor", and becomes extremely distraught, setting out to prove that the house is haunted by the souls of those victimized by Crain's cruelty. She learns that Crain built his fortune by exploiting kidnapped children for slave labor and murdering them when they were of no more use to him. He then burned the bodies in the house's fireplace to hide any evidence. She also learns that Crain had a second wife named Carolyn, of whom Nell is descended. Everyone thinks she's crazy while Nell is convinced this is where she belongs.<br /><br />Seriously, I suggest you stay away from this film, it's really stupid and pointless. Not to mention the actress the played Nell, Lili Taylor completely annoyed me, her performance, her look, just everything about her, don't get me started on things I would do just to not see her in film again. Catherine Zeta Jones just didn't fit in her role as well and Liam Neeson, a wonderful actor wasted talent once again. The effects are way over the top and too computerized, I just can't believe that they would trash a wonderful classic with this crud. Believe me, if you are going to be afraid of something, be afraid of seeing how you can turn a great ghost story into an annoying piece of overblown stupid…. Oh, this film is already hurting me, just don't see it, it's bad.<br /><br />1/10
Considering the original film version of 'The Haunting" is in my top ten films of all time' I approached this adaption with trepidation. I was right to be cautious as this film is a poorly written and badly executed load of old tosh, all those involved should be ashamed. the original was terrifying to me as a child for one reason! you see nothing. Robert Wise used innovative camera-work and superb lighting to generate fear and this is why it work's. The shame of the new version is that it relies on clever special effects and pyrotechnics to get from A to B, sadder still is that the ingredients were there (actors such as Liam Neeson, Catherine Zeta Jones) to do something different. This film should only watched as an example of studio butchery!
This poor remake of the 1963 classic starts reasonably well, then replaces suspense with muddled and pointless special effects. For example, in the original, one of the most chilling moments occurs when Nell and Theo are lying side by side in twin beds, listening in terror to the noises outside their room. Nell tells Theo to let go of her hand because she is hurting her. Nell then looks across at Theo, who is several feet away and realises that it was not Theo holding her hand. In the latest version, Nell is lying alone in bed, when suddenly she dives out and slides across the floor. It is only when she tells the unseen force to stop pulling her that we realise what has happened. And can anybody explain what Nell's final words mean - "It's about family. It's always been about family"?<br /><br />The one redeeming feature is Lili Taylor's performance, but even this cannot save the film. Catherine Zeta-Jones demonstrates once again that, beneath her pretty exterior, there is little depth. In the original, Claire Bloom subtly suggested her lesbian persuasion. Zeta-Jones, however has to spell it out, for example, by asking Nell if she has a boyfriend - or girlfriend.<br /><br />Definitely one which should be consigned to the pointless remakes graveyard.
So it starts with a beautiful old house in the country. You have a group of people who get asked to come to this house and (not surprisingly) the caretakers always lock the gates at night for no apparent reason. Anywhoo, the people laugh, joke etc. This Dr tells them a spooky story of this woman and some kids. They get scared, they start to feel stuff. Oh no, a girl see's s ghost. Some more talking then this huge ghost comes and etc etc. This girl finds out that this ghost killed little kids and that she must free their souls, yeah yeah, blah blah. She does but, oh no, she dies as she does. And goes to heaven whilst this evil ghost goes to hell. Two people survive and escape the house. The script is terrible because a guy gets his head chopped off and Elanor (the one who dies saving the kids) says "oh no". The acting is wooden, the effects are crap and the set is a couple off rooms used over and over again. Basically if you like laughing at badly made films watch it, but if your looking for a scare then definitely give this film a miss. I was extremely disappointed when I watched this. A very big let down. My sister (who gets sacred very easily) got bored in this film it is appalling.
The original movie ( dated 19??)did not show any "monster" , it just SUGGESTED scary "things" , .<br /><br />This version however shows every aspect of a "sick minded ghost" , including unnecessary special effects . <br /><br />The "mystery " ,as presented in the original movie , was the most scary part : one simply did not know what was causing the weird things that happened. By showing the face of the "old man" , this Mister has completely disappeared. Even worse : the special effects ( crying wooden children faces) is ridiculous. This is a stupid remake , too obviously spectacular to even be close as scary as the original
The Haunting is yet another bad horror remake with phony overdone special effects and a big cast of on screen favorites and has no redeeming qualities whatsoever except maybe for the cinematography.Yes remakes aren't all bad but remakes directed by Jion Da Bont definitely are.I suppose that the A-List actors (Liam Neeson,Catherine Zeta Jones,Owen Wilson)are there to distract us from the boring plot,ridiculous special effects, and terrible attempts at scaring it's audience however this is a movie not a tabloid magazine we don't care whose in it we care about the characters and story two things this film missed.The storyline is like taking the classic novel The Haunting Of Hill House and ripping out four chapters and then using whatever's left for the film it is so boring and a lot of it is unexplained.The characters are pretty thin and while the acting is good you don't really care about any of the characters at all.Lily Taylor gives a horrendous performance and sounds like she's 8 years old when delivering her lines not to mention what a horrible screamer she is.Lily Taylor isn't made for the horror genre at all.The ghosts are stupid and cheesy, they look like a bunch of Casper The Friendly Ghost's and the ghost of Hugh Cain looks like a fat guy dressed as the grim reaper for Halloween with a smoke machine.There is this creature on the roof of one of the rooms that is a giant purple mouth and it's not even funny unintentionally just plain sad.The house is pretty and well designed that is probably the only positive thing about this movie it looks nice but that doesn't save it from it's brutal everything else.I can honestly say i felt like i was wasting my time watching The Haunting on TV for no price so I would've been even more pi$$ed if I had paid to see it but luckily it was on Scream Channel.Overall The Haunting is a boring remake that tries to overwhelm you with bad special effects, a poor attempt at horror.
This movie was one of the greatest movies ever made,,,, it had everything to make a movie great. Incredible acting, awesome special effects...... oh wait I must be thinking of a good movie. Well this wasn't one of them, it just plain sucked. <br /><br />What I want to know is, what kind of bone head would think that this movie was a 10. When I casted my vote there were 206 out there, god knows what goes on in their head. Now as for any other vote, a 8 or 9 was even too high, but a 10??? Come on, what made this movie sooooo good to give it a 10? I know these are the same 206 that thought that Jean Claude Van Damme is a great dramatic actor.
Somewhere in his non-fiction book DANSE MACABRE, Stephen King suggests that one secret of writing scary stories is to avoid showing your readers exactly what horrible thing is waiting behind the door to get them. If at last the door bursts open and a bug ten feet tall lurches through, the reader may be a little scared, but he'll also think, "Well, I can deal with that. At least it wasn't a HUNDRED feet tall." There's nothing more frightening than what lurks, unseen and unknown, just on the other side of that tightly closed door, waiting to get you.<br /><br />THE HAUNTING is so completely misconceived that director Jan De Bont more or less starts off his movie by metaphorically throwing open that door himself and yelling: "Look, everybody, look! It's a ten-foot-tall bug! Isn't that SCARY?!" The law of diminishing returns immediately kicks in. By the end of the movie, the director is, so to speak, jumping up and down, banging his CGI pots and pans madly, and hoarsely screaming: "Look, everyone, look! Here come ten HUNDRED-foot-tall bugs! ... And now, here come a hundred THOUSAND-foot-tall bugs!" <br /><br />The filmmakers apparently believed that special effects alone could compensate for all the other shortcomings in this endeavor (and there are many). They can't and don't. In fact, impressive as they are, the special effects are so insistent and obtrusive that the distracted viewer winds up staring at them -- whether in admiration or annoyance -- instead of being immersed in a story.<br /><br />For me, the nadir of this film's sheer stupidity comes when a statue, with "blood" gushing from its mouth, tries to drown Liam Neeson (as Dr. Marrow) in a fountain. The filmmakers clearly didn't know what to do with this alleged idea once they had it, so they just have Neeson thrash around in the water a bit, flailing his arms and going glug-glug. By the next scene, the good doctor has apparently dried himself off and, ho hum, forgotten all about the annoying incident.<br /><br />Shirley Jackson's novel seems to have been dumbed-down into this ridiculous screenplay by a committee of low-IQ teenage stoners who thought the way to frighten people was to make every effect bigger and louder: "Okay, next, let's, uh, make the ceiling, you know, look like a creepy face, and, uh, come down on her ... and all these spiky things, like, trap her in the bed."<br /><br />The sole saving grace of THE HAUNTING is that it at last becomes so awful that it's actually funny. By the time Owen Wilson (as Luke Sanderson) fell on the floor and then went on his Magic-Carpet Ride O' Death, I just about fell on the floor myself, laughing.<br /><br />Badly constructed, witless, grotesquely heavy-handed, utterly unbelievable, and filled with clunky dialogue and pointless scenes, this vacuous HAUNTING is a textbook example of how NOT to make a horror movie.
They screwed up this story! In the end Nell is all heroic and taking on for the team to save all their asses from Hill House and a bunch of nonsense like that! They added heads getting chopped, wires cutting peoples faces, and the ceiling turning into a giant hand! What the hell is that about??? I own and love the original movie, I read the book and I love it! The reason why the original movie and the book are so great is because it scares you so much without even showing the ghost. There is no gore. There is no ceiling hand. It is only the ghost ad how ghosts can truly kill a person. They cannot kill us, they cannot throw us about the room or fly a knife into our head. No. They can only drive us mad. Taking away all our senses of security. Nell was a selfish woman. She only wanted good things for herself. Yes, she cared a little for the others, but not too much. David Self and Jan de Bont have taken a crap on this great story! I hate this damn remake!
The Haunting. A remake, of course. The original was a creepy psychological thriller, and one that has improved with time. Compared to this 1999 remake, it's a classic. There is no character development here, only caricatures (the slut, the authoritative brain, the "I'm gonna get us outta here" fellow, the oh so sensitive bookworm). But, seeing as how the were banking on the special effects being the "star", I guess characters that you can empathize with are a secondary concern. Unfortunately, the effects are laughable. Mewing cherubs, stretchy doors, irritating dead children that can't speak plainly ... and an idiotically sappy ending that does it's darnedest to give you a new age enema of butterflies and rainbows. Ill take my Skittles orally, thank you. Bruce Dern, I've liked you since "The Cowboys". Stop it.
How viewers react to this new "adaption" of Shirley Jackson's book, which was promoted as NOT being a remake of the original 1963 movie (true enough), will be based, I suspect, on the following: those who were big fans of either the book or original movie are not going to think much of this one...and those who have never been exposed to either, and who are big fans of Hollywood's current trend towards "special effects" being the first and last word in how "good" a film is, are going to love it.<br /><br />Things I did not like about this adaption:<br /><br />1. It was NOT a true adaption of the book. From the articles I had read, this movie was supposed to cover other aspects in the book that the first one never got around to. And, that seemed reasonable, no film can cover a book word for word unless it is the length of THE STAND! (And not even then) But, there were things in this movie that were never by any means ever mentioned or even hinted at, in the movie. Reminded me of the way they decided to kill off the black man in the original movie version of THE SHINING. I didn't like that, either. What the movie's press release SHOULD have said is..."We got the basic, very basic, idea from Shirley Jackson's book, we kept the same names of the house and several (though not all) of the leading character's names, but then we decided to write our own story, and, what the heck, we watched THE CHANGELING and THE SHINING and GHOST first, and decided to throw in a bit of them, too."<br /><br />2. They completely lost the theme of a parapyschologist inviting carefully picked guest who had all had brushes with the paranormal in their pasts, to investigate a house that truly seemed to have been "born bad". No, instead, this "doctor" got everyone to the house under the false pretense of studying their "insomnia" (he really invited them there to scare them to death and then see how they reacted to their fear...like lab rats, who he mentioned never got told they are part of an experiment...nice guy). This doctor, who did not have the same name, by the way, was as different from the dedicated professional of the original movie as night from day.<br /><br />3. In direct contrast to the statement that was used to promote both movies "some houses are just born bad", this house was not born bad but rather became bad because of what happened there...and, this time around, Nel gets to unravel the mystery (shades of THE CHANGELING). The only problem was, the so-called mystery was so incoherently told that I'm sure it remained a mystery to most of the audience...but, then there was no mystery in the first place (not in the book), because the house was bad TO BEGIN WITH. It's first "victim" died before ever setting eyes on it.<br /><br />4. The way the character of Luke was portrayed was absolutely ridiculous. He was supposed to be a debonair playboy who was someday to inherit the house (and was a true skeptic of it's "history")...and in this one he was just a winey-voiced, bumbling nerd who couldn't sleep(insomnia remember) and was a compulsive liar.<br /><br />5. I was also annoyed with the way the movie jumped from almost trying to recreate original scenes word for word (the scene with Nel's sister's family, and Mrs. Dudley's little opening speech...) to going off into flights of fancy that made me think more of these other movies than THE HAUNTING. It's like it couldn't make up its mind what it wanted to do.<br /><br />6. I missed Nel's narrative through the whole movie. The original was so like a gothic novel in the way that the story was mostly told in the first person, through Nel's eyes, and we always were privy to her thoughts. That totally unique touch was completely lost in the new version. They also tried to make Nel much more of a heroine. The original Nel was not a bad person, but she was a bitter person (could she be otherwise after sacrificing 11 years of her life to a selfish old woman and a spiteful sister?) and she liked to moan, and she lost her temper... This one was almost too good to be true. This was never more apparent than in the climax of the movie where the writer's had obviously been watching GHOST one too many times.<br /><br />7. They changed the history of the house and it's occupents too much. There was no Abigail Crain (the daughter of Hugh whose legend loomed large in the original versions), there was no "companion", and there was no nursery. There was also no "Grace" (wife of the original doctor) and Hugh Crain's wives died in totally different ways. These changes, changed the story WAY too much. I don't know whether the producers of this movie should be glad Shirley Jackson no longer walks this earth or whether they should...BE SORRY (if ya get my drift!!! The hauntings she could envision are not something to be trifled with!!!).<br /><br />In conclusion, let me just leave you with some words from the original Luke (appropriate substitution of the word "house" for "movie"!): "This 'movie' should be burnt to the ground, and the ground sprinkled with salt!" My favorite movie of all time remains so. No competition from this one.
The Shirley Jackson novel 'The Haunting of Hill House' is an atmospheric tale of terror, which conveys supernatural phenomena in an old mansion. The atmosphere is well set out, and the chills are staged well. A haunting masterpiece.<br /><br />The 1963 chiller 'The Haunting' stays closely to the book, but also adds its own details to the plot. Fortunately, these are very few, and so the terror of the book and the chills are executed even better on the screen. The black and white photography only adds to the creepiness of the movie. Excellent! <br /><br />And then, Jan de Bont made this. In 1999, the remake of The Haunting hit the cinemas - if you could call this a remake. Why they had to make a remake of the 1963 movie is a mystery in itself, but for the moment, lets look at the film itself.<br /><br />It starts off averagely, as most horror movies do. The set used for Hill House is beautiful, and oddly mysterious, and for a few minutes, it seems as if the film is actually going to be quite a fair re-telling. And then, the first scare comes: a loose harpsichord wire slashes a woman's face (Dr. Marrow's assistant). This is hilarious, and truth be told, it nearly had me in tears.<br /><br />From then on, the film just spirals downwards. The acting seems to become somewhat wooden as the film goes on, with Owen Wilson's character being particularly irritating (so it's such a relief when he's decapitated by the flue).<br /><br />The special effects practically make this movie,, which is a shame, because most of them are incredibly cheesy and look very dated. Examples of these are many, so I won't bother listing them.<br /><br />So, all in all, I, along with hundreds of others, strongly recommend that you watch the original chiller, or, as an alternative, buy the novel by Shirley Jackson. But please, stay away from this. And, if you do decide to watch this, watch it on the TV (as a lot of the channels love to screen this film, and not the original) or rent it cheap, but please don't buy it, whatever you do. Don't waste your money!<br /><br />Final rating: 4/10
There were only two things that kept me interested in this film: I was waiting for Owen Wilson to die, and Catherine Zeta Jones.<br /><br />This was basically a one woman show. Catherine Zeta Jones was just there to provide eye-candy. Liam Neeson was totally wasted in this film. Like Jones, he had no role at all. The film was all Lily Taylor (Ransom, Ready to Wear). She was the only one that had any real part in this crappy script by David Self. OK, it was his first one and he did redeem himself with Road to Perdition.<br /><br />I don't know what director Jan de Bont's problem was. he did a great job with Speed and Twister. he really fell down on the job here. Maybe he was still recovering from the disaster Speed 2: Cruise Control. He should thank his lucky stars for The Wild Wild West, else this would be the worst picture of 1999.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs.
It's my opinion that when you decide to re-make a very good film, you should strive to do better than the original; or at least give it a fresh point of view. Now the 1963 Robert Wise telling of Shirley Jackson's remarkable novel "The Haunting of Hill House" is worth the price of admission even today. Now fast forward to 1999 and the re-make. I was left shaking my head and asking, why? The acting is wooden, the story unrecognizable and the whole point seems to be to replace the subtle horror of the original with as many special effects computers can generate. I had heard that this update was bad; but couldn't believe it was that bad, considering the source material. I was wrong. After watching this and saying to my wife how awful it was, she said; "Well they got your money!" She's right, don't let them get yours. If there's no profit in making lousy re-makes, maybe they'll stop making them or come up to a higher standard that doesn't insult their audience
Pretty bad movie offers nothing new. The usual creaks and moans attempt to make-up for a muddled, but thin story. Acting is barely above pathetic. Why Liam Neeson signed on for this is anyone's guess. Owen Wilson truly turns in one of the worst performances in recent horror-movie history. Catherine Zeta Jones is fun to look at and not much else although Lili Tayor did an above-average job. The special effects were fairly memorable and the house itself was breathtaking and hauntingly gorgeous. However they can't makeup for the poor acting and the storyline which appears to have been thrown together at the last minute. Don't bother.
I don't even know where to begin on this one. "It's all about the family." That has to be the worst line of dialogue ever heard in a "horror" movie, although this couldn't be a horror movie even if it tried!!! Ugh!!! And I know that Owen Wilson is a better actor. He needs to stop playing the token guy who dies in every action movie (Anaconda, Armageddon). After all, the man did co-write "Bottle Rocket" and "Rushmore." He does have some talent. Also, Lily Taylor should stick to indie films. She has no place here. Finally, Catherine Zeta-Jones should become a porn star. There's no room in legitimate acting for her. I'm serious. One of the worst movies I've ever seen, EVER.
Effect(s) without cause is generally not possible in the real world but in the world of Hollywood remakes, not only is it possible, it's required. The Haunting has been given the computer treatment courtesy of a 1st-class cinematographer-turner-director who once showed promise (Jan de Bont- Speed) but has since produced a string of big budget garbage (Twister, Speed 2).<br /><br />Actor are superfluous in a movie of this type and they seem to realize it. Liam Neeson and Cathrine Zeta-Jones act like they wish they were anywhere but in this film. Lili Taylor makes an attempt to add something to the proceedings but whatever that something might be is unknown since the script feels like half of it is missing. Events just happen, good and bad ghosts show up with no rhyme or reason and then the story just ends with a most unsatisfying non-event meant to wrap up the previous 90 minutes of inanity.<br /><br />There really isn't even reason to see this for the effects since we all know that anything can be put on screen now. Why not watch effects in the service of a good story instead of just for their own sake?
The script for this movie was probably found in a hair-ball recently coughed up by a really old dog. Mostly an amateur film with lame FX. For you Zeta-Jones fanatics: she has the credibility of one Mr. Binks.
I have yet to read Shirley Jackson's novel, something of which I've been meaning to do for quite sometime. I am sure it has got to be scarier than this film. I remember jumping once when I watched it the other day, although I cannot recall the scene. <br /><br />The special effects are great and I watched this on DVD, but I am sure in the theatre it must have been an awesome sight. After the first few special effects are done with I was waiting for a story to develop.<br /><br />I figured this movie at the least has to be loosely based on the classic novel, so a good story should be there, but it wasn't. I was relegated to staring at the gorgeous Catherine Zeta-Jones character throughout the movie basically because there was nothing much else to watch. Lili Talor was such a suck character. I did not like her one bit, something about whiny people. Also, the guy in this film reminded me of the cartoonish Dudley DoRight with his voice and face. I could not relate to the characters at all. Quigon, ahem Liam Neeson did an admirable job trying to get through this movie with some type of acting.<br /><br />Half to three quarters of the way I was just dying to go see a campy Friday the 13th or a Scream Queenish film! At least there is some type of entertainment value. If there is no story there at least they fill it up with gory deaths or attractive females. This had nothing. <br /><br />
The 1963 version of "The Haunting" has been one of my favorite horror films for years, so I anticipated the release of this 1999 remake with a good deal of trepidation. It hardly seemed that any follow-up could exceed or even equal the original masterpiece. Unfortunately my worries were well-founded: This movie stinks.<br /><br />I don't know what the people involved in this film were thinking. Jan De Bont, who seemed to have had a fluke when he directed the excellent "Speed," does as poorly here (or perhaps even worse) as he did with the much-hyped duds "Twister" and "Speed 2: Cruise Control." Hey Jan, stick to cinematography, would ya? Liam Neeson is adequate in his role as the doctor-pretending-to-be-a-sleep-psychologist -- I don't think he is capable of turning in a truly bad performance -- but even he cannot save a lame script and weak story. Catherine Zeta Jones proves once again (as she did in "Entrapment") that she lacks the acting ability to rise above the material that is handed to her. The female lead, who did great in an episode of "The X-Files," looks lost here as Eleanor, an insomniac hovering on the edge of sanity. And that blond guy, whoever he is, is more wooden than the laughably strange statuettes of children carved into the woodwork around the house. I don't think he changes expression once during the entire film.<br /><br />(SPOILERS AHEAD)<br /><br />The reason the first movie worked so well is because we were never sure whether the house was truly haunted or whether the manifestations were a result of Eleanor's precarious mental state. No spirits are actually seen in the original, leaving much up to the imagination--a hallmark of other great horror films like "The Changeling" and "The Blair Witch Project." In this updated version, we of course get tons of CGI ghosts, which basically (in the face of the weak script/plot) make the movie totally unscary. The f/x aren't even that great, considering they were done by ILM. The frozen breath looks particularly fake. The effects in the underrated Peter Jackson film "The Frighteners," which I saw just before this one, were a lot better. The wooden carvings of the children, which are supposed to look creepy, just look silly (especially when they scream), and the CGI monsters are nothing to write home about. Rather than providing a relief from the bad acting, bad direction, and bad writing, the effects only add to this mess of a film.<br /><br />Some particularly dumb scenes: When the three other characters break into Eleanor's bedroom, and none of them seem at all surprised to find a huge scowling demon hovering over the bed. The scene where Eleanor "sees" the former lady of the house hanging from the rafters... the acting here is particularly bad. And last, but not least, the unintentionally hilarious bit where Wooden Blond Guy utters an uninspired shout of what is supposed to be anguish, leaps up on a piece of furniture, and starts slashing away at the painting of the old, evil guy who built the house. We actually get some satisfaction in this scene, as seconds after his attack, Blond Guy is dragged over to the fireplace by the ghost of the old guy and promptly gets his head cut off by the flue. It was the only part of the movie I enjoyed.<br /><br />In sum, stick to the original 1963 "The Haunting." 3/10 stars.
I am not sure why I like Dolph Lundgren. I guess seeing him on screen makes me feel that anyone who works hard can succeed regardless of talent. That is a good feeling for all of us who lack talent. Some of the other reviews point out how dumb Detention is, but many neglect to point out the positives. <br /><br />Any movie where at least one annoying teenager gets killed can't be all bad. Why do so many movies that have a cast of teens always need to include the stereotypical teens? Aren't there any other kind of teens? Does every group of teens have one angry black guy? One genius nerd that nobody likes? One slutty girl who is very friendly and (in this movie) pregnant? One disturbed anti-social white kid from a broken home who everyone agrees is talented (but what is the talent?). And one laid-back black kid who is in tune with the Universe and so cool that all the other neurotic kids trust him. Then add a couple of generic expendable teens of any color. They don't say much but get shot at some point. <br /><br />Detention would have been better if the bad guys had gotten to blow up the school. Preferably with the writers inside. The dialogue is bad, and the plot is worse. When the bad guys (and girl) finally hijack a van full of drugs, then they sit inside the van making out. They drive the van to the school because they want to re-paint the van at the school's paint shop, but they never get around to re-painting the van. By the way, it would have been easier to just put all the drugs in another car or two cars or another van or a truck and drive away without repainting the Police Van. They also never move the drugs or sell them or do anything else with the big score. <br /><br />For some reason, they decide they have to kill the kids and the teacher (Dolph Lundgren) even though when the villains take over the school nobody is remotely aware of it because it is after school hours. The handful of people still in the school have nothing to do with painting vehicles, so why go after them? <br /><br />Anyhow, the best part of this movie is that the villains are all armed with numerous machine guns, and they keep finding the teens (including a guy in a wheel chair) and they keep shooting hundreds of bullets at the teens and usually miss. Towards the end of the movie there is some bloodshed. For every time someone gets shot, there must be at least three hundred bullets fired that miss. The stunts are pretty bad. <br /><br />I read one of the reviews that says that this movie had a budget of $10 Million, and I am amazed. When I saw the movie I figured maybe Lundgren had done it as some kind of charity work for some film school where he is the teacher. Like maybe this movie was their end of the year exam. It was a test to watch it, but I passed.
Cheezy action movie starring Dolph Lungren. Lungren is a one time military man who has retreated into a teaching job. But the changes in the neighborhood and the student body have left him frustrated and he decides that he?s going to hang it up. Things get dicey when while watching over a bunch of students in detention some robbers take over the school as a base of operation for an armored car robbery. Its Dolph versus the baddies in a fight to the death. Jaw dropping throw back to the exploitation films of the late grindhouse era where bad guys dressed as punks and some of the bad women had day glow hair. What a stupid movie. Watchable in a I can?t believe people made this sort of way, this is an action film that was probably doomed from the get go before the low budget, fake breakaway sets and poor action direction were even a twinkle in a producers eye. Watch how late in the film as cars drive through the school (don?t ask) they crash into the security turret (don?t ask since it looks more like a prison then a high school) and smash its barely constructed form apart(it doesn't look like it did in earlier shots). What hath the gods of bad movies wrought? Actually I?m perplexed since this was directed (?) by Sydney J Furie, a really good director who made films like The Boys in Company C. Has his ability failed him, or was this hopeless from the get go and he didn't even bother? It?s a turkey. A watchable one but a turkey none the less.
Normally I wouldn't feel qualified to review something I only saw a half hour of, but I'll make an exception for this one.<br /><br />Let the dialogue speak for itself! Here's some of the bad guy's lines: "I smell...teacher!" "Sorry, teacher! You get an 'F!'"<br /><br />Bad guy and bad girl ( right after killing 2 cops and stealing a van full of drugs, they're getting hot and heavy):<br /><br />Him -"So how do you feel about shooting some innocent bystanders?"<br /><br />Her- (purrs) "You sure know how to show a girl a good time..." One generic kid who ran for his life instead of helping someone, gets to sum up his life and personality in this line -"I AM a CHICKEN-TWIT! (this was the USA network version) My old man was right! No wonder he left us..." Boo-hoo.<br /><br />(Not actually a spoiler ) Bad guy (on fire) screams "Aargh! Fire!"
I should preface this by stating that I am a Dolph Lundgren fan. The man turns out some of the funniest action clichés imaginable and Detention is probably my personal favorite. *Spoiler* even though there is no such thing as a Dolph spoiler since the scripts are so absurd to begin with: a chase scene with a handicapped kid carrying a pistol versus a guy on a Harley with a sub-machine gun, through a high school hallway and the kid wins? Good game, the Oscar goes to Detention. Dolph, if you're reading this, thanks for the laughs, old friend.<br /><br />In summary: Terrific movie that is a guaranteed laugh. I recommend inviting some friends over for this and forcing them to sit through it. Hilarious.
Interesting story about a soldier in a war who misses out on saving the life of a young girl from the enemy and is haunted by this event, even though he did save many other captive children. The film flashes a head and this soldier is now a teacher in a high school that is managed mostly by policemen patrolling the hallways, bathrooms and even class rooms. In other words, the High School is a prison and most of the kids pay very little attention to their teachers or principal. Dolph Lundgren,(Sam Decker) plays the soldier/school teacher and decides he is going to quit teaching and go into another field. However, the principal asks him to have a Detention Class as his last duty as a teacher. It is at this point in the film when all Hell breaks loose and the story becomes a complete BOMB. Try to enjoy it, if you decided to View IT !
I wasn't expecting a lot from a film directed by Sidney J. Furie and starring Dolph Lundgren but I was surely expecting more than a got. A one-liner user comment - 2nd rate action movie - didn't seem too depreciative to me for a Lundgren film. On the other hand, I wouldn't have bothered to watch this film if its rating was below 5.0 but hey, the movie had a 5.9 out of 10 score, which seemed pretty acceptable to me for this kind of production.<br /><br />Now I understand that the 37.5% of people who rated this film a 10 (excellent) was clearly a publicity stunt because DETENTION is the regular Nu Image garbage you have seen before, over and over.<br /><br />Lundgren does not convince as an ex-military turned a history teacher assigned to a rough school. His acting is just plain terrible, emotionless and contrived. Lundgren's inability to act becomes more visible in the scenes with the juvenile delinquent kids. Either they are great actors or, compared to Lundgren, they seem great actors - just because they seem natural and believable.<br /><br />DETENTION has some elements that could have been potentially interesting for this low budget movie - a closed-for-weekend high-security high school, four teens in detention with a war-veteran teacher and a group of ruthless criminals trying to get in - but the story (something like THE BREAKFAST CLUB meets DIE HARD, or is it PANIC ROOM?) is full of unbelievable situations, lots of clichés and stereotypical characters. And let's not forget Dolph Lundgren is the main actor.<br /><br />Alex Karzis and Kata Dobó play a Bonnie and Clyde couple in love and they deliver the most acceptable performances of the movie, even if he seems a low-budget version of Sam Rockwell and she, a Milla Jovovich wanna-be. In a movie where everything fails, their craziness and style supplied enough fresh air to prevent my interest from dropping to ground zero.
I just rented this movie to see Dolph Lundgren, whom I hadn't seen in any movies since Rocky IV. Unfortunately this movie was a big disappointment. The acting of all the parties was bad except for Mr. Lundgren, who was okay-ish. Kata Dobó was something nice to look at despite her ridiculous outfit and make-up.<br /><br />The plot is not at all clever, it's something that's been repeated a million times in different movies. The crooks were utterly stereotypical, and Lundgren's character hadn't any depth in it. I didn't really expect a movie masterpiece, but unfortunately this is not even decent action. Every turn in the plot is extremely predictable and the unbelievable amount of over-the-top unrealism and comic-book like characters started to annoy me strongly pretty soon.<br /><br />I would recommend this to young kids wanting some comic-like action, but only if nothing else is available.<br /><br />1/10. (I guess the current average vote of 7.0 with 6 votes must have been influenced by somebody involved in making this movie)
This is the kind of movie that wants to be good but sucks. First thing, what the hell are those punk trying to do with the school? I think the kids doesn't seem to realize the gravity of the situation. Deker guy say to the girl that they under his responsibility when she ask why he wants to go back for them but right after this he gives a gun to the wheel chair dude and wants him to go alone repair the phone line. Where is the responsibility there? I understand poor actors must pay their food but why not just give them the money that takes to make a stupid movie like that or give that money to a charity. Oh yea and none of them knows how to aim. The stupid punk guy shoots in the cafeteria nowhere like a crazy. They all want to look professional but they all suck. One more thing I don't believe that there's no emergency exit in the school the kids are trying several doors but they all locked. What happens if there's a fire and the dumass security guard is dead? It is illegal to not have an emergency exit in school. Anyway there's a lot more to say but it would be too long. I spent some time of my life to watch a crap.
Barry, a medical transcriptionist has his mind corroding from his job coupled with memories of an abusive upbringing at the hands of his stepfather, Barry (the original Leatherface Gunnar Hansen). He spirals into madness and eventually a serial killer. Good (in the form of a gay man) and evil (in the form of a bald mute guy) battle for control of his soul. This film is undone by some bad acting and unintentional humorous scenes. Not to say it's horrible or anything, just that you cal tell that it's only as known as it is on account of Bruce Campbell's rabid fan base (of which I am one) who will likely see anything he's in or involved with in some way.<br /><br />My Grade: C- <br /><br />DVD Extras: Commentary with Michael Kallio, and Bruce Campbell; Second commentary by Kallio and Sound designer Joel Newport; 'Hating every minute' a 17 minute documentary; deleted and extended scenes; alternate takes; outtakes, footage of the world premiere; Poster & still gallery; Talent bios; and theatrical trailer <br /><br />DVD-Rom: Screenplay in .PDF format <br /><br />2 Easter Eggs: highlight the eyes for a laughing outtake (left eye) and one minute of nothing but an actual Easter egg (right eye)
It took 9 years to complete this film. I would think that within those 9 years someone would have said,hey, this film is terrible. I've seen better acting in porn movies. The story is tired and played. Abused child turns into serial killer. How about something new for a change. How about abused child turns into a florist? At least that would have been a new twist. Why is it that everyone with a camera and a movie idea (especially unoriginal movie ideas) thinks that they can be a director? I do admire the fact that they stuck with this film for 9 years to get it completed. That shows tenacity and spirit. With this kind of drive hopefully next time they can focus it on a better script. If you want to see a failed experiment in indie film making from a writer/director from Michigan see Hatred of A Minute. If you want a good movie from a Michigan writer/director stick with Evil Dead.
Casting aside many of the favorable comments that have obviously come from friends and/or relatives that pepper this and many other low budget independents listed on IMDb, one is lost when it comes to using these reviews as an accurate gauge. So eventually you have to go out and rent the flick just to see for yourself. One of the first things you must understand are the catch phrases that camouflage the reality of the movie. In this case the term "dark psychological thriller." Read: "hack writer/director who thinks he's an auteur, who replaces plot, story, and action, with what he believes is a deep insight into the human soul. His great insight? Festering and repressed childhood traumas emerge to wreck havoc when we become adults. Wow, I bet Freud would be really impressed! Too many would be film makers like Kallio, who were raised on low budget horror flicks of the last few decades, fail to dig their own fresh grave. Instead, they fall into the pre-dug graves of the many other directors that came before them. They are content with rehashing old and tired horror clichés that they borrowed from a dozen or more films. The result is an unoriginal, uninspired, unbelievable waste of film stock.
This movie was so predictable. Its a complete rip off of those, "I was abused by daddy I'm gonna kill women" movies. Stupid scenes, bad acting, unoriginal storyline, really low budget piece of crap film.<br /><br />Don't waste your time people. Trust me.<br /><br />My rating: 0/5.0
This Cannon Movie Tale is the worst of the lot, and is positive proof that a five minute fable does not a full-length film make. Poor Sid Caesar as the vain emperor, is made to look so stupid, it's hard to watch him. As the sly tailor, Robert Morse hasn't an ounce of charm. Neither does his hapless nephew (Jason Carter) The "songs" are dreadful and only slow what there is of the plot down. The direction is practically nonexistent, and the supporting characters add very little. Lysette Anthony is pretty as the emperor's daughter, but her voice has obviously been dubbed for some reason, a fate shared by many of the minor players. And the film crawls at a snails pace. Hans Christian Andersen must have been turning somersaults in his grave when this appeared. It can honestly be said, at least of this movie tale, it's no surprise that it went straight to video oblivion.
This scared the hell out of me when i was a teenager. Now I find it more amusing than scary, but with some pretty unsettling moments and with a kind of sleazy quality to it that I like. And, come to think of it, the plot is rather disgusting actually...but handled with some kind of taste. If there is a problem with this movie, it is that there are HUGE gaps where nothing exciting or interesting happens. Also, the ending goes on forever, making a potentially tense climax seem silly after a while with Barbara Bach screaming and screaming. The "monster", after it is exposed, isn't very scary either unfortunately. The somewhat drab look of the movie also works against it, making it appear as a TV-movie more than something made for theaters. But it is an example of films that are rarely made nowadays so I urge horror fans to watch it and feel a bit nostalgic...
Much like the early horror film The Boogens, the devious unseen killer is quite a letdown when it finally becomes seen. Although Animal House's Stephen Furst obviously had fun in the role as a product of incest, his performance is more comedy than horror.<br /><br />The plot, an extremely tired one, has three sexy women(Bach, Lamm and Lois Young) unable to find a hotel for the evening, so they willingly accept to stay with a seemingly kind museum curator, exceptionally played by the deceased Sydney Lassick. If you have ever seen any horror film, you know that lovable IL' Sydney is a deranged psycho, so one knows what will happen to the lovely ladies.<br /><br />The three women are all very attractive, especially Barbara Bach, but Lois Young(a Helen Hunt clone) is the only one to go nude, as Sydney watches her take a bath.
I purchased this movie at a car boot sale, so I was not expecting it to be a horror movie on the same level as A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) or The Hills Have Eyes (1977) but I thought that it would still be fairly enjoyable to watch. However, it proved to be not at all enjoyable, but instead the acting and the general movie was mock-able, such as the ways the the 'unsees killer' murders his victims and how all of the people killed just happen to be young blonde women. It was a stereotypical horror film. I say this because of the following reasons:<br /><br />1) Three blonde women in danger, the majority get killed. 2) One survives by crawling around in the dark while being chased by the killer. 3) Surprise surprise, help arrives in the form of a shotgun!<br /><br />By using three simple points, I have saved you two odd hours by summarising this poor excuse of a horror movie, so you are now lucky enough to not have to watch it.
Dreck about three beautiful women in California who go to cover some festival (or something). All the hotels are booked so they have to spend the night in a creepy old house. What they don't know is that there is a creepy inhabitant there who likes to kill...<br /><br />Yawn. Boring, pointless, utterly stupid "horror" film. Bach and her two buddies are certainly beautiful but the movie itself is dull dull DULL! Bach and her friends are no actresses--their faces are blank all the way through. The final "revelation" is laughably predictable and there's no blood or gore to keep you interested along the way. There is some expected gratuitous female nudity but that's not enough to save this. Boring, pointless and unknown (for good reason). A 1 all the way.
This movie features an o.k. score and a not bad performance by David Muir as Dr. Hackenstein. The beginning and end credits show along with the most of the actors and the "special effects" that this is a low budget movie. There is nothing in this movie that you could not find in other mad scientist, horror/comedy, or low budget movies. Not special for any nude scene buffs or bad movie lovers either. This movie is simply here. Anne Ramsey and Phillis Diller are nothing to get excited about as well. If you are curious as I was and can actually find this, you will realize the truth of the one line summary.
Take your basic Frankenstein flick, inject some Reanimator (but not the good parts), and you have Doctor Hackenstein. Certainly, this was obviously inspired by aforementioned films but it never materializes as anything special on its own.<br /><br />A scientist accidentally kills his wife, so the whole movie takes place over the course of one night as he attempts to revive his wife. To revive his wife, he decides to chop off body parts from some women that have become stranded and, coincidentally, decide to stay the night at his place.<br /><br />I can't really say the acting is bad, nor is the directing. Everything here is just way too standard. What little attempts there are at humor actually work (check out the scene when Hackenstein keeps hiding behind his deaf assistant because she would undoubtedly be very upset if she saw him clutching a woman and a needle), but that's hardly enough to recommend this film. The music is decent, what blood that's there is decent, and the cast looks quite good. And for half of the time, I was even entertained by this film. But I never felt like this was anything more than a time waster. Avoidable.<br /><br />Try Frankenhooker instead.
Apparently there's a very good reason why I never heard about "Dr. Hackenstein" before me and a couple of mates accidentally stumbled upon it and stupidly decided to give it a chance. That reason is: it sucks! It's a very pointless, dull, imbecilic and totally unmemorable horror comedy/parody. Actually, to be honest, I'm not even sure if this was meant as a comedy because sometimes the script takes itself quite seriously and tries really hard to be a really ambitious and original late 80's horror effort. In the year 1909, at the dawn of a new era in medical science according to the opening sequences, Dr. Elliot Hackenstein needs exactly three women – no more, no less – to refurbish his beloved wife whom he accidentally killed. She's only just a living head left now, but the stupid body snatchers only provide male cadavers. So when Dr. Hackenstein yells out "I need three female bodies to bring back my wife", his words aren't even cold and there just miraculously appear three young females (and one really annoying nerdy kid) with car trouble show up at his doorstep. Why doesn't that ever happen to me? "I need a bunch of sexy voluptuous women to fill up my empty harem!!!" … See, nothing! Anyway, the good Doctor sees his wish fulfilled, but unfortunately – for science that is – he develops sympathy for one of the three girls. "Dr. Hackenstein" is a lame film that tries to cash in on the success of "Re-Animator" and even blatantly steal some of the comical aspects of that classic, like a severed head talking one-liners. It's easy to see why this film is never mentioned anywhere, as it doesn't appeal to fans of neither the horror nor the comedy genre. The funniest character is undoubtedly the loud-speaking female grave robber Ruby; depicted by the anti-cherubic Anne Ramsey. 80's horror buffs will certainly remember her from Wes Craven's "Deadly Friend", where she played the nasty old hag neighbor who gets decapitated by a basketball. "Dr. Hackenstein" supposedly takes place in the early 1900's, but there are hardly any attempts to re-create the atmosphere of that era (except maybe for some automobiles). Dr. Hackenstein's laboratory is a quite clichéd 80's set piece, with all sorts of smoky cauldrons and test tubes full of fluorescent colors.
If there was a scale below 1, it would get a -10, following in the footsteps of Godspell. The acting (if there was such a thing) was atrocious, the plot in shambles. And Rene Russo was sickeningly sweet in her role, enough to make a person retch. Ten thumbs down for a dumb movie. Saving grace: kudos for era costuming.
No, it's not the horror movie...This one is actually a love story.<br /><br />The Ring is a silent film from 1927 that stars two boxers and the woman that comes between them. She loves the boxer known as "One Round" Jack. She loves him until the champion comes along, that is. Even though she marries One Round, she starts overtly flirting with the champion until the climactic final boxing fight between One Round and the champion. She comes back to One Round's corner, just when things look their bleakest, and he miraculously finds the inner strength to win the fight and win his wife love back.<br /><br />This film was very early in Hitch's career, but the limitations of the time must not have made him make a lasting film. Although there are special film tricks, and some comedy relief, this film just does not hold up to any of his later work. It must have been extremely risqué for the time period though, with the shameless adulterous wife. That may have been the draw back in 1927. While looking through all of these old films, it is amazing how I think that they could be redone on today's screen and really come off. Maybe I should be the one....<br /><br />Skip this movie unless you are planning on watching all of Hitchcock's films. You could fall asleep in the middle.
I haven't been able to decide if this movie is so bad it's good, or, to quote Enid Coleslaw, "so bad it's gone past good and back to bad again." No matter, it forced me look much the same way a pile of weird coloured vomit might, and it offers up a number of scenes that you won't forget even if you want to. There's a sneering young Ray Liotta telling a pigtailed Pia that her creative writing trophy looks like a penis. A bit later, there's Ray again, molesting Pia, not with the appropriately shaped trophy but a garden hose. There's a firm chinned Pia telling her domineering Mom that she wants to go to bed with Ray's geezer father, Walter. There's the actress in the graveyard scene yowling the best line ever written by Pia or anyone else: "WWWWHHHYYYYYYY!" There's that garden hose again, as Walter waves it Pia's face and roars "Is this more to your liking!?" There's Pia and her date so turned on by closeups of each other masticating salad that they start tearing each other's clothes off. There's Pia showering but forgetting to remove her dress. Perhaps best of all, there's Pia's typewriter, but instead of keys there are the miniature talking heads of those who have tormented her the most (afterwards, I was afraid to open my laptop). And finally there's Pia at "The Awards" exposing Hollywood for the cesspool it is, spitting out the second best line ever, "I guess I'm not the only one who has ever had to **** her way to the top." I see I have already spent more time commenting on "The Lonely Lady" than I have on far better pictures, so I'll quit. Be forewarned, though, that once you start watching you probably won't be able to take your eyes off the screen until two hours of your life have vanished forever.
The memory banks of most of the reviewers here must've short-circuited when trying to recall this Cubic Zirconia of a gem, because practically everyone managed to misquote Lloyd Bochner's Walter Thornton, when in a fit of peevish anger, he hurls the phallic garden nozzle at his new wife, Jerilee Randall-Thornton, (a nearly comatose Pia Zadora) which was used to sexually assault her earlier in the movie...but I'm getting ahead of myself. In any case, poor Lloyd could've been snarling that line at the speechless audience as much as he was his put-upon co-star.<br /><br />Hard as it is for most of us to believe, especially these days, nobody in Hollywood sets out to INTENTIONALLY make a bad movie. This is certainly not the most defensible argument to make, since there just seem to be so damn many of them coming out. But then again, there is that breed of film that one must imagine during the time of its creation, from writing, casting and direction, must've been cursed with the cinematic equivalent of trying to shoot during the Ides of March.<br /><br />THE LONELY LADY is in that category, and represents itself very well, considering the circumstances. Here we have all the ingredients in a recipe guaranteed to produce a monumentally fallen soufflé: Pia Zadora, a marginal singer/actress so determined to be taken seriously, that she would take on practically anything that might set her apart from her peers, (which this movie most certainly did!); a somewhat high-profile novel written by the Trashmaster himself, Harold Robbins (of THE CARPETBAGGERS and DREAMS DIE FIRST fame); a cast who probably thought they were so fortunate to be working at all, that they tried to play this dreck like it was Clifford Odets or Ibsen; plus a director who more than likely was a hired gun who kept the mess moving just to collect a paycheck, (and was probably contractually obligated NOT to demand the use of the 'Alan Smithee' moniker to protect what was left of his reputation.) Like Lamont Johnson's LIPSTICK, Meir Zarchi's I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, Roger Vadim's BARBARELLA, Paul Verhoeven's SHOWGIRLS or the Grandmammy of Really Bad Film-making, Frank Perry's MOMMY DEAREST, THE LONELY LADY is still often-discussed, (usually with disgust, disbelief, horrified laughter, or a unique combination of all three), yet also defies dissection, description or even the pretzel logic of Hollyweird. Nobody's sure how it came to be, how it was ever released in even a single theater, or why it's still here and nearly impossible to get rid of, but take it or leave it, it IS here to stay. And I don't think that lovers of really good BAD movies would have it any other way.
Immediately after renting and watching this movie several years ago, a friend and I decided that it defined the absolute zero on the movie scale. There was nothing about the movie that could have been done worse than it was. To this day we still rate movies, even very bad ones, by how much better than "The Lonely Lady" they are.<br /><br />A long time ago I saw an interview with Eleanor Perry, who wrote the screenplays for, among other things, "Last Summer" and "Diary of a Mad Housewife," and she related that she had been asked to write a screenplay for the Harold Robbins' book "The Lonely Lady." She said that she sent in a treatment and it was rejected because they didn't think she understood the difficulties of a female screenwriter in Hollywood. She then said "I think they got someone else to write it." The interview was filmed before the movie was released. She died in 1981, and I bet the first thing she did on arrival in heaven was personally thank God for saving her from involvement in the result.
There is absolutely nothing to redeem this movie. They took a sleazy story, miscast it, miswrote it, misfilmed it. It has bad dialogue badly performed in a meandering and trashy story.<br /><br />As badly as it fails as art, it fails even worse as commerce. Who could have been the target market for this. What age group? What interest group?<br /><br />Someone should make a movie about how and why they made this movie. That I would pay to see.<br /><br />I've seen thousands of bad movies, and this ranks with "Sailor Who Fell from Grace" and "Manos" ... my choices as the three most unredeemably bad movies I've ever seen. Everybody associated with it should be forced to make conversation with VanDamme for all eternity.<br /><br />I challenge you. Watch this movie and perform an academic exercise - how could you take this and make it worse? I can't think of one way.
This early Pia Zadora vehicle followed a familiar Harold Robbins formula: ambitious main character wallows in decadence while pursuing the path to the top of some randomly chosen but glamorous world, in this case the movie industry. But despite being so formulaic as to be completely predictable, this movie manages at the same time to be completely unbelievable. Zadora (to call her inexperienced as an actress is to be charitable) never convinces as a screenwriter. One would expect a movie about movie-making to have some insights into its own industry and creative process. But the script gives her none of the qualities which make writers interesting movie characters: observance, skill with words, a love-hate relationship with one's own creative abilities. Her character is as empty as a donut hole. And this is just a taste of the incompetence on display here. The cinematography is so murky that it is sometimes hard to see what is happening. And the scenes never really hang together, so everything seems like a succession of random moments at bad Hollywood parties. Avoid.
Even when I saw this movie at a teenager, I wondered just how ironic it was that Pia Zadora starred in a movie about an artist who slept her way to the top. As beautiful and sexy as Ms. Zadora is, even she couldn't keep this sorry-ass excuse of a movie from tanking. Not even her photoshoot for Penthouse, in which "The Lonely Lady" was promoted "back in the day," could keep this movie from tanking. The only thing that could have saved this movie? A completely different script. Give this one a miss.
Once again, Pia Zadora, the woman who owes her entire career to her husband, proves she can't act. This disaster of a film butchers the Harold Robbins novel. Ray Liotta must have been hogtied and carried to the set to appear in this one.<br /><br />Avoid this at all costs. I doubt even doing the MST3K thing would save it.
I simply could not finish this movie. I tuned out after what I would say is my nomination for the most wretched attempt at sexual suggestion award: a scene in which Pia Zadora, at a picnic, stands between two boys who want her. One (the good boy) pleads for her to see the error of her ways. The other (the bad boy) simply asks if she'd like a hot dog, which he then holds out for her. At crotch level. I hope I'm not spoiling anything to say she turns, and takes the hot dog, with a smile. Just pathetic.
This film is a Pia Zadora special! When viewing it, I was reminded of the classic cartoon showing a Hollywood starlet; in urgent need of another role but afraid of becoming typecast for 'B' movie or soft porn roles; who says at her casting session "Well of course I do not normally do roles requiring nudity, but if it is artistically necessary for the film...............". This recollection brought up a very naughty image of a similar cartoon showing Pia at such a session saying "Well of course I do not normally take any roles requiring actual acting, but if it will really give me sufficient exposure to enhance my status as a sex symbol..................". This is probably grossly unfair, the rather sordid tale is the fault of Harold Robbins book; considering the nature of the story Pia's exposures certainly do not receive undue attention, and perhaps Pia (who once won an acting award in Butterfly) is deliberately satirising her part rather than attempting to act in an almost unplayable role. Critics usually point first to the actors as the problem whenever a film proves disappointing, but this is grossly unfair; the scriptwriters and director are far more often the guilty parties. The real problem with "The Lonely Lady" is that the screenplay, like the original book, looks for sensation rather than substance, and nothing can help with this. <br /><br />	The screenplay for this film is abysmal, but whether the story could have been filmed more successfully with a better script, tauter directing and really competent acting must remain a matter of personal judgement. As it was released, my viewers rating for it would depend upon whether I am assessing my personal opinion, or assessing to what extent the film succeeds in providing what it aims at doing. My personal rating for it would be two out of ten; but to some extent this film probably provides exactly what its sponsors intended, and judged on this basis a quality rating of four out of ten would be reasonable. Being in a charitable mood, and wanting to make it clear that I am not blaming Pia for my disappointment, I will give an IMDb rating of four.
The wonderful "Z" Channel in Los Angeles showed this Pia Zadora film about six months or so after "Butterfly". I had such high hopes for the actress, and then she goes from bad to obviously WORSE in this film.<br /><br />Again, it was the 80's and I gotta tell you Harold Robbin's work had been eclipsed by smarter writers. Jacqueline Susann ripped into him (she hated his way of writing women), Irwin Shaw's work caught on with many women, and of course Sidney Sheldon had his kingdom in the late 70's early 80's and then came Jackie Collins who made women stronger and as equal to men in every way in her books, even more so. Which is why this work smelt. Harold Robbin's work in the 80's just didn't catch on with audiences. Pia Zadora acting in one of Robbin's work was like throwing kerosine on a fire. The supporting cast was not a help either.<br /><br />Oooooh... this was awful to look at then and even 20 more years later, it looks even worse. I had a hope for Pia as an actress and it all got shot to heck when this was done. It would be tough for Pia to redeem herself as an actress (although John Waters casting her in "Hairspray" was a spark) although she has a nice singing voice.<br /><br />Hey, Pia, wherever you are...Hairspray may go on tour! Join the show. You may be the biggest comeback story yet.<br /><br />I just hope they burn this film for ya if you do.
The super sexy B movie actress has another bit part as future "Goodfellas" star Ray Liotta's girlfriend in this box office bomb. She plays Marion, has only one line of dialog, well, one WORD of dialog actually. She shouts out "Joe!" as Ray's character is violating poor Pia Zadora with a plastic garden hose sprinkler. This movie is so bad though it becomes funny, hilarious at times. The guys at Mystery Science Theater 3000 would love this! Check out the hysterical scene at the end where Pia has a nervous breakdown and all the cheesy editing and effects they do to try and show how badly Pia's character is freaking out. Pia plays an aspiring Hollywood screenwriter in this. Pia Zadora as a screenwriter? Yeah, right. Pia can barely talk, let alone write! Pia is utterly and absolutely miscast in this dumb role. But who cares? The real star is the hot and fresh Glory Annen in her bit part in this cat's opinion! Rock on Glory!
This is absolutely the worst trash I have ever seen. When I saw it in the theater (arghhh!), it took 15 full minutes before I realized that what I was seeing was the feature, not a sick joke!
Wow! Only a movie this ludicrously awful could inspire the similar "Showgirls." I mean where to begin? The indescibably horrid theme song? Pia Zadora's non-expressions throughout the movie? The fact that despite being set in Los Angeles, aka "land of the casting couch" EVERY single man (and woman!) is fawning all over themselves to sleep with Pia Zadora, by any contrived means necessary? Or what about the fact that every person in the movie is totally unsympathetic because they're either mind-numbingly stupid (Pia) or obvious despicable sleazeball (everyone else)? And given that this flick was written by actual "screenwriters (sorta), it shows a shocking lack of understanding of the movie-making industry (who the Hell would admire and kiss up to a SCREENWRITER?)<br /><br />But it's (unintentionally) funny as hell though. The "breakdown" scene alone will have you giggling, and after seeing the climatic "I'm not the only one who had to **** her way to the top" scene at the "Awards" (all done in the usual bargain-basement acting level we expect from such quality thespians as Pia), I sincerely hope that our dear Pia actually reused that speech when she "won" her Golden Globe. It's fitting and that would totally make my day.<br /><br />Anyway, if you're a fan of bad, tashy camp, give this otherwise tacky movie a try.
The truth is that a film based on a Harold Robbins novel is not going to win any awards. This is no exception. "The Lonely Lady" is a pure B picture in budget, cast and execution. Technically, it looks like a made-for-tv film. The acting is very uneven. Joseph Cali is especially terrible. Anthony Holland is an embarrassment. As one reviewer said of a certain Katherine Hepburn performance, her range goes from A to B. Ms Zedora manages to get to G. The rest of the cast is solid (and wasted in their respective roles). Lloyd Bochner and Bibi Besch deserved better. Still, the whole thing can be a great deal of fun in a trashy sort of way. As befits Robbins, everything revolves around sex and nudity. If you're looking for some fun...and you're not too sober...this could be for you.
A family with dad Louis (Dale Midkiff), mom Rachel (Denise Crosby), 10 year old Eileen (Blaze Berdalh and about 3 year old Gage (Miko Hughes) move to this beautiful house in Maine--seemingly unaware of the semis that roar down the highway in front of their house every 90 seconds or so! The neighbor across the way (the wonderful Fred Gwynne) makes them feel at home...and shows them a pet cemetery where children bury their pets. But a little further on is a sacred ground which can bring the dead back to life...but the dead come back in a nasty mood.<br /><br />""DEFINITE SPOILERS** The novel by Stephen King was good--it was long but it developed characters and situations that made you care what happened. This movie jettisons ALL the character development and just plays up the gore and violence. Animals are killed ON camera (I know it's faked but it's still repulsive); a little boy is hit by a semi and his casket pops open during the funeral (in a totally sick scene); he's brought back to life and attacks and kills people including his mom (I DO wonder how a 3 year old was able to hang her); a ghostly jogger (don't ask) tries to help the family for no reason...The movie just works the audience over shoving every gruesome death or violence into your face. It just goes out of its way to shock you. **END SPOILERS**<br /><br />Acting is no help. Midkiff is just dreadful as the father--he's handsome and buff but totally blank. Crosby isn't much better. The two kids are just annoying. Only Gwynne single-handedly saves this picture with his effortless good acting. <br /><br />This picture shows a total contempt for the audience taking large leaps in logic and having characters do incredibly stupid things (especially Midkiff at the end). This movie was (inexplicably) a huge box office hit in 1989 which led to the even worse sequel in 1992. I saw it in a theatre back then and was disturbed how the audience kept cheering on the violence and was just appalled by what I saw. A sick repulsive horror film. A 1 all the way.<br /><br />When you think it's all over and can't get worse the Ramones sing a title song!!!!!! ("I don't wanna be buried in a pet cemetery"). Truly beyond belief.
Now, I haven't read the original short story to know all the literary points that went wrong here, so I'm not going to go down that path here.<br /><br />But I have some time ago learnt that Stephen King movies simply -are not- horror films, with perhaps a couple of exceptions. This was not one of them. It started well enough, and for once I'm not going to complain about the acting, although Fred Gwynne was as usual wonderful.. Also I will forgive the total lack of parenting skills, as they were necessary to make the story here move forward...<br /><br />But there was one consistent point that I couldn't help but get annoyed with. And that came pretty close to the end of the movie, and at least 2 characters partook in the activity of dumb stupidity. The moments I refer to are thus: There is a tiny zombie running around the house. You suspect it is under the bed. Do you <br /><br />(a) get as close to the bed as you can before blindly raising the duvet cover up, exposing pretty much your whole body to whatever damage such a teeny undead cannibal might inflict on you, or <br /><br />(b) move a little away from the bed so you can peer under the completely open end from a position of slightly increased safety, or at least see the mini terror coming at you, giving you a little reaction time.<br /><br />I know, let's go with (a). I feel like offering myself up for the slaughter today. Bleh<br /><br />Fun enough film though... Just not very scary.
Stephen King is generally known for the morbid, and that's fine, but this story is too morbid. Some movies, by the end you feel sad for the characters or the situations they were put through...here you just feel depressed. The movie has a nice feel to it (at first), with the family moving to the country, and creepy old Fred Gwyne greeting and warning them of the pet cemetery, but this plot leads nowhere. It starts with so much potential, but by the end, it loses the potential to be a good horror movie, and becomes corny, extremely stupid, and ultimately depressing.<br /><br />Louis (Dale Midkoff), his wife Rachel (Denise Crosby), their kids Ellie and Gage, and their cat move to a new home in Maine. They are warned by the loony farmer neighbor Jud (Fred Gwyne) about the local pet cemetery and how it is cursed. Louis thinks nothing of this and everything's fine until the family cat is killed. He bury's it in the cursed cemetery and it comes back to life, constantly hissing at the family and wanting to be left alone. One day, infant Gage runs out in the road and is run over and killed by a truck, and Louis knows he must bury him in the cemetery. When Gage comes back to life, he is changed and wants to murder.<br /><br />With many of Stephen King's works that don't translate well into films, I blame the directors and screenwriters. In this case, Mr. King was the screenwriter, but I'm going to blame him for his awful story. By the end it's so pointless, and though unfunny, the premise is laughable. A little boy comes back from the dead and manages to kill people with what looks like a tiny scalpel, and not only that, but he manages to lift their bodies and in one case, carry a body from the ground to the attic!(?) I know this isn't set in reality but seriously, how stupid can this get? The scene where Louis injects his deceased, now living again cat to kill it is strangely sad, because the cat did not deserve this. All it did was go around minding it's own business and he killed it. The scene where he injects his own infant son is almost unbearable. Not unbearably sad, but the whole situation is just awful to think of. After being injected Gage staggers drunkenly around before falling down dead....why did they need to make a movie ending with the death of an infant? But...even worse, the actual ending of them film involving Louis burying someone else (Not going to give away who) in the cemetery after Gage kills them....what did he expect? Why did Mr. King write this horrible story and why was it made into a movie? It's depressing and pointless!<br /><br />My rating: * out of ****. 90 mins. R for violence.
Pet Sematary , though a nice 80's Horror movie, with a nice Director and atmosphere, IS a copy of the Italian movie ZEDER by Pupi Avati. It's clear that Stephen King has copied almost all the ideas from this director (the movie Zeder was made before King wrote the book)<br /><br />The cat, the ground, everything was copied, this is a case of plagiary , but, being Stephen Kind a famous American writer , it's totally normal that he can get away with this , it's obviously due to the huge difference between this kind of Italians movies with no -budget (and in part, it's crap itself ... ) but the original idea, I repeat it, it's Italian director Avati<br /><br />Let the world know
Fot the most part, this movie feels like a "made-for-TV" effort. The direction is ham-fisted, the acting (with the exception of Fred Gwynne) is overwrought and soapy. Denise Crosby, particularly, delivers her lines like she's cold reading them off a cue card. Only one thing makes this film worth watching, and that is once Gage comes back from the "Semetary." There is something disturbing about watching a small child murder someone, and this movie might be more than some can handle just for that reason. It is absolutely bone-chilling. This film only does one thing right, but it knocks that one thing right out of the park. Worth seeing just for the last 10 minutes or so.
"Indian burial ground": If those three words appear anywhere in a real-estate listing, look for a different neighborhood. A young couple with a young daughter and a toddler-age son move into a Maine house adjacent to a pet cemetery--and, after a l-o-o-o-ng hike, an ancient Indian burial ground. Seems the Indian ground can bring Fido or Fluffy back from the dead--if you don't mind having a raving hell beast for a pet. It can do the same for dead people--if you don't mind having a homicidal zombie around the house.<br /><br />Throw in a busy two-lane blacktop, speeding big rigs, a well-meaning (if somewhat dim) old neighbor, and one kid who really doesn't get enough supervision, and I think you can figure out what happens from there--an over-the-top, illogical mess, which, in all fairness, does offer up a few scares.<br /><br />Well, there are worse Stephen King adaptations (such as "Maximum Overdrive," which King also directed). But there are far better ones, too (such as "Salem's Lot," "The Dead Zone," and both versions of "The Shining").
Stephen King adaptation (scripted by King himself) in which a young family, newcomers to rural Maine, find out about the pet cemetery close to their home. The father (Dale Midkiff) then finds out about the Micmac burial ground beyond the pet cemetery that has powers of resurrection - only of course anything buried there comes back not quite RIGHT.<br /><br />Below average "horror" picture starts out clumsy, insulting, and inept, and continues that way for a while, with the absolute worst element being Midkiff's worthless performance. It gets a little better toward the end, with genuinely disturbing finale. In point of fact, the whole movie is really disturbing, which is why I can't completely dismiss it - at least it has SOMETHING to make it memorable. Decent supporting performances by Fred Gwynne, as the wise old aged neighbor, and Brad Greenquist, as the disfigured spirit Victor Pascow are not enough to really redeem film.<br /><br />King has his usual cameo as the minister.<br /><br />Followed by a sequel also directed by Mary Lambert (is it any wonder that she's had no mainstream film work since?).<br /><br />4/10
For me this is a story that starts with some funny jokes regarding Franks fanatasies when he is travelling with a staircase and when he is sitting in business meetings... The problem is that when you have been watching this movie for an hour you will see the same fantasies/funny situations again and again and again. It is to predictable. It is more done as a TV story where you can go away and come back without missing anything.<br /><br />I like Felix Herngren as Frank but that is not enough even when it is a comedy it has to have more variations and some kind of message to it's audience....<br /><br />
A young couple Mandy Pullman (Mitch Martin) and Roy Seeley (Matt Birman) are relaxing on a beach in the small town of Galen. They decide to start playing practical jokes on each other. Mandy hides in an old run down cabin, she is attacked and raped by an unknown assailant. Roy tries to help her after hearing her screams but is killed. Dr. Sam Cordell (John Cassavetes) and his daughter Jenny (Erin Flannery) are both new to Galen after the death of Sam's wife. Sam is called into action by Police Chief Hank Walden (John Ireland) when Mandy and Roy are found. He performs the autopsy on Roy and treats Mandy for her horrific injuries. Soon after a curator at the local museum named Carolyn Davis (Denise Furgusson) is also attacked and raped. A local journalist named Laura Kincaid (Kerrie Keane) reports the events and suggests to Sam that a similar string of rapes and murders occurred in the town 30 years earlier. More rapes and murders occur. Meanwhile Jenny's boyfriend Tim Galen (Duncan MacIntosh) has been having strange dreams and nightmares and is convinced that he has something to do with the horrific acts. Tim's story and digging into the towns past makes Sam become convinced of the existence of a creature known as an Incubus - a shape-shifting demonic entity that exists only to reproduce! Directed by John Hough this is one seriously dull horror film. The script by George Franklin based on the novel by Ray Russell is slow to say the least. Nothing interesting or exciting happens and it finishes with one of the most boring none event of a twist ending I've ever seen and frustratingly it just finishes suddenly. As the story plods along at a snails pace there are a few rapes, but none are shown on screen. There is only one gore scene in the entire film too. The monster itself is only shown at the very end and has all of three short scenes. Everything about this film production-wise is very static and flat, the film has no energy or pace. The acting is dull and you don't feel or care for anyone. Check out the scene in the autopsy room where you can clearly see the boom mike at the top of the screen on several occasions. The type of rubbish horror film making that you'll forget within a day. A real waste of time, don't bother.
Based on Ray Russell's dark bestseller, this John (WATCHER IN THE WOODS) Hough-directed bust has little going for it.<br /><br />Though it does not lack gory violence, it lack narrative sensibility and "characters".<br /><br />The "Incubus" of the title is a demon endowed with a mammoth penis that shoots red sperm into vaginas during intercourse -- or, to be more precise, rape.<br /><br />John Cassavetes, moonlighting from his successful directing career, is convincing as a doctor who questions the circumstances of the bizarre attacks on young women.<br /><br />Horrific possibilities of the victims spawning demonic offspring are not considered -- and neither is the audience's tolerance for slow moving garbage.<br /><br />The script's reluctance to explore the dramatic repercussions of a fertile premise exemplifies the major problems with this vapid Big-Schlong-On-The-Loose exercise.
Seriously, I can easily stomach a lot of on screen blood, gore and repulsiveness, but what really makes this film disturbing & uncomfortable to watch is how the doctor character keeps on rambling about the physical damage done to raped women. He, John Cassavetes of "Rosemary's Baby", talks about ruptured uterus, dry intercourse and massive loads of reddish (?) sperm like they are the most common little ailments in the world of medicine. That being said, "Incubus" is an ultimately STRANGE horror effort. It isn't necessarily awful – although it isn't very good, neither – but just plain weird. The muddled & incoherent script initially revolves on the hunt for a rapist-killer of flesh and blood (even though the title clearly suggests the involvement of a supernatural creature) and it never seems to stop introducing new characters. None of these characters, especially not the main ones, come across as sympathetic and for some never-explained reason they all seem to keep dark secrets. The aforementioned doctor has an odd interpretation of daughter-love and continuously behaves like he's a suspect himself, the town's sheriff (John Ireland) appears to be in a constant state of drunkenness and doesn't even seem to care about who keeps raping & killing the women in his district, the female reporter is even too weird for words and the Galens (an old witch and her grandson) are just plain spooky. All together they desperately try to solve the mystery of whom or what exactly is destroying the towns' women reproducing organs. The sequences building up towards the rapes & murders are admirably atmospheric and the vile acts themselves are bloody and unsettling. Basically these are very positive factors in a horror film, but the narrative structure is too incoherent and the characters are too unsympathetic for "Incubus" to be a really good film. Also, there are quite a few tedious parts to struggle yourself through (like footage of a Bruce Dickinson concert!) and the usually very reliable John Hough's direction is nearly unnoticeable. The final shot is effectively nightmarish, though. For me personally, "Incubus" was a bit of a disappointment, but there are still several enough reasons to recommend this odd piece of early 80's horror to open-minded genre fanatics.
You know you're in trouble when John Cassavetes is operating at half-speed instead of full-throttle in a movie, and "The Incubus" is a dreadful, worst-case scenario of a great actor going through the motions to pay the bills. Actually, observing the hammy script and John Hough's 'baroque' art direction, one can hardly blame him. The movie has something to do with a series of rape-murders going on in a small town, with a lot of supernatural hokum mixed in. Somehow, the direction manages to suck tension and interest out of every scene, and Cassavetes seems visibly P.O.'ed at times. The Incubus itself, which doesn't show up until the last scene, is a well-done creation, but it's not worth waiting for.<br /><br />1/10
Years ago a movie going friend and I went to see a horror film that we thought would be good because it starred John Cassavetes. For the uninitiated, John Cassavettes was an actor, screen writer and director (married to actress Gena Rowlands), nominated for Oscars three times, who wrote and directed a variety of good low-budget films using his income as an actor to keep himself afloat. Up until seeing The Incubus, we did not understand that John Cassavetes income was made from any movie that was offered to him. Had we known what the film was about before seeing it we may have avoided altogether. But we did not walk out. At the time, my friend and I jokingly indicated it was the worst movie ever made. Now frankly, this is not true. I have seen many poorly made films on Friday nights on Cinemax (did I just say that out loud?) that are far worse than The Incubus. Almost any movie starring Brian Bosworth is by definition a worse movie than The Incubus. Certainly Santa Claus Conquers the Martians is a worse movie than The Incubus. However, I have since consistently used The Incubus as a threshold below which I do not want to fall. When talking to this friend about a movie I may have seen I will always remark that it was better (or worse) than The Incubus.<br /><br />http://thevillagevideot.blogspot.com/
I rented this back in the 80's and honestly can't remember anything specific about the movie - only that it is THE worst movie I have ever seen. This isn't one of those "it was so bad, it was funny". This isn't one of those "it was so gory, it leaves you with a bad feeling" movies. It wasn't even one of those "what the heck was that?" movies. I can't recall the performance of the actors, but it was poorly shot, the story was disjointed, and it had no definable style. When it was over, I was angry that I had wasted the time.<br /><br />I've seen plenty of movies I didn't understand because of unfamiliar cultures, styles and/or story-telling, but it was clear that those movies had some of those properties. The incubus has none.<br /><br />I actually contemplated NOT making a comment on this "piece" for fear that someone may watch it out of curiosity, but I am compelled to warn anyone who appreciates film to skip this movie.
"The Incubus" is a mix of the good (an interesting murder mystery), the bad (a disconnected script, a sloppy resolution, badly made attack scenes) and the weird (strong incestuous overtones, a strangely sleepy and stiff performance by John Cassavetes - was that character really meant to be so "wacko"?). Not nearly as offensive as it's reputed to be, but not particularly successful, either. (*1/2)
I've finally seen THE INCUBUS after waiting 20 something odd years to see it and well, it surely wasn't worth waiting all this time to see it. THE INCUBUS is strictly by-the-number horror film: unseen killer/monster is raping and murdering women in a small town. <br /><br />The film goes like this: movie opens with killing; then blah blah blah; more blah blah blah; then another killing; even more blah blah blah; continuing with blah blah blah; yet another killing (surprising, huh?); blah blah blah, etc...<br /><br />The film is totally predictable from beginning to end. Even the stupid "big" red-herring used throughout the movie wouldn't convince a 5 year old. And I figured out the secret identity of the incubus the moment I saw the character, so when the "shocking" surprise ending arrived, I wasn't shocked or surprised. In fact, it was so funny that I kept on chuckling days after I saw the movie. It's so silly!<br /><br />Anyway, the film is so by-the-number that the "rock band" sequence is one of the few stand-out moments in this dreary flick. It's a stand-out scene not necessarily because it's good but because it's so funny and pointless: the movie playing on the big screen shows a rock video-like moment with a guy in red leather pants getting his obviously fake long hair cut, all of this edited with scenes of a girl who is being attacked in the movie theater's washroom by the incubus. The best thing I could say about this film is the cinematography, which I actually liked. But aside from that, there's almost nothing worth mentioning about THE INCUBUS, except that it's unintentionally hilarious.
This movie is just plain terrible!!!! Slow acting, slow at getting to the point and wooden characters that just shouldn't have been on there. The best part was the showing of Iron Maiden singing in some video at a theater and thats it. the ending was worth watching and waiting up for but that was it!! The characters in this movie put me to sleep almost. Avoid it!!!
I run a group to stop comedian exploitation and I just spent the past 2 months hearing horror stories from comedians who attempted to audition for, "Last Comic Standing." If they don't have a GOOD agent, then they don't even get a chance to audition so more than 80% of the comedians who turn up are rejected before they can show anyone that they have talent! If they do make it to an audition, I was told that it's "pre-determined" if they get a second chance. So what the TV audience sees is NOT the best comics in the US.<br /><br />If the comics do make it to the show, then most of them don't get IMDb credits. I know this because I did the credits for all 6 seasons of, "Last Comic Standing" and I don't get paid for doing the Producers' job. It's really a disgrace. A month ago, I asked, "Last Comic Standing 7" on Facebook why the Producers aren't giving IMDb credits and I was banned from their Facebook Page!!! I am not a comedian so I do not have a personal stake in this. I just want people to know the truth. I don't like seeing ANYONE getting exploited and that's why I've been helping the comedians. Comedians get exploited on HBO, BET, TvOne and other cable networks but NBC is a BIG THREE network so those in charge should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this exploitation to happen.<br /><br />Please watch this video of a comedian who was victimized: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMb4-hyet_Y
Do you like stand up? Then stay away from this...<br /><br />During the early rounds, there are in fact good comics, but unless they got some cute qualities, they got a snowballs chance. Any controversial material and you are OUT! ...and I think I hurt as much as the discarded comedians, when I see who the crooked judges are letting in.<br /><br />1 out of my top 4 made it further than the preliminaries. Half+ of the finalists have given me 0 laughs. Several of them have lifted their material elsewhere, something the judges doesn't seem to have problems with.<br /><br />It is more entertaining than a lot of what else is on TV, but incredibly hard to watch without contemplating what it could have been.<br /><br />If the producers changed the name of the contest to "Last Clown Standing", all my criticism would loose validity. Maybe an idea?
For those who like depressing films with sleazy characters and a sordid storyline, this one is for you! From the bleak New York City atmosphere, which comes across as an extremely grim and almost hopeless place, to two diverse lead characters devoid of much sense of morality, this movie is a real downer. <br /><br />Why it won the Academy Award was because it was so shocking at that time that Hollywood, brand new its freedom to show anything it wanted with all moral codes abandoned, wanted to celebrate that fact. Filmmakers then were like an immature six-year-old with an unlimited expense account at the local candy store. So, Hollywood gave theater viewers (for probably the first time) a dose of rape, prostitution, homosexuality, child nudity, homeless existence and other such wonderful sights and sounds only its twisted brain would think is appealing....and then awarded its work. <br /><br />It also hoped, I'm sure, to shock mainstream audiences. Well, it succeeded on that level. Audiences were stunned at what they say and heard and the Academy, proud of itself for being able to display filth and make money at the same time, couldn't help but bestow honors upon this piece of gilded garbage.<br /><br />Forty years ago, as a very young man, I found this film fascinating, too. However, seeing it again in the 1990s left such a bad taste in my mouth I never watched to view it again. <br /><br />The acting was good, but so what? Acting is good in many films. Nobody ever said Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight couldn't act. Hoffman was particularly good in his younger days in playing wacked-out people. He was kind of like the Johnny Depp of his era, playing guys like "Ratso Rizzo" in this film and then going to be the "Rain Man" later on. Yes, "Ratso" is a character you'll never forget, and "Joe Buck" (Voight) is one you want to forget, but the story is so sordid, it overwhelms the fine acting.<br /><br />This movie isn't "art," and it isn't worthy of its many awards; it only pushed the envelope big-time in 1969 and that's why it is so fondly remembered in the hearts of film people and critics. It's two hours of profanity and ultra-sleazy, religious cheap shots, glorifying weirdos (Andy Warhol even gets in the act - no surprise), and generally despicable people.<br /><br />I did like the catchy song, "Everybody's Talking'" that helped make Harry Nilsson famous, but even that was bogus because Fred Neil wrote the song and sang it better, before Nilsson did it....and few people have ever heard of Neil (which is their loss). And - as mentioned - the name "Ratso Rizzo" kind of stays with you!<br /><br />The film is a landmark, but in a negative sense, I fear: this marked it as "official" that Hollywood had gone down the toilet, and it has remained in the sewer ever since.
David Chase's "The Sopranos" is perhaps the most over-praised television show in recent memory. Not only is the series devoid of intellect and passion, it's devoid of a soul. As anyone reading likely knows already, James Gandolfini *IS* Tony Soprano, a big, fat a**hole of a mob boss with a spoiled b*tch of a wife, and two bratty, sh*t-brained kids living in - you guessed it - the armpit of America (that's New Jersey, by the way). Not only is Tony a womanizing adulterer, he's also an unrepentant murdering scumbag, with a crew of "Saturday Night Live" skit-worthy caricatures for subordinates. It's not the fact that Tony is a piece of sh*t mobster that offends me (and apparently only me). Allowing characters to be who and what they are, without judgment, is something American TV hardly allows. But Chase - and his entourage of money-gorged, Emmy-gored writers - have not simply allowed us to observe Tony and his crew as they behave, nor have they even attempted to provide any insight into the action / reaction reality of (even obviously fictionalized) organized crime (a la "The Godfather"). Instead, Chase glorifies and endorses his characters' greedy, violent, and corrupt lifestyle in the same way that Tony, his wife, and even his hair-brained psychologist do week after week (or should I say month after month. Or is it year after year? It seems like the show's paltry 13-episode seasons come out with the same regularity as a lunar eclipse). Much has been made of the series' refusal to adhere to "network" structure, with plot lines that go nowhere, and characters that pop-up and disappear like backyard vermin. But if the show is so brilliant in its lack of structure, why does it always feel like I'm watching a soap-opera? Tired mob clichés, bored housewives, self-serving, irredeemable characters AND plots that go nowhere. More than ever, I can see why so many Americans of Italian heritage are p*ssed at this show. It's enough to make you want to curl up with a good book (Danté's "Inferno" springs to mind).<br /><br />People on IMDb love to claim that there's nothing good on television, and therefore "The Sopranos" is a breath of fresh air. Are these same people too busy paying their cable bills to watch "The Shield"? (It's included in Basic, ya know). How about the (still good) "The West Wing"? Or the brilliantly acted (if erratically written) "Boston Legal"? What about possibly the best comedy of the last few decades, "Arrested Development"? And lest we forget that we live in an age of DVDs - nobody *has* to watch *anything* new. I'd much rather shell out $40 for an over-priced boxed set of, well, pretty much *anything*, than give HBO $10 a month (or $80 a DVD set!) to continue to prove how much of a hack-factory it can be.<br /><br />You want good television? Watch "Homicide: Life on the Street." Or "Murder One". Or "Picket Fences". Or even Chase's prior show, "Northern Exposure." If you're already among "The Sopranos"'s legion of brain-washed fans and critics, it's too late for you. But if not, leave Tony and his worthless kin where they all belong - rotting with the fishes. ("Sleeping" would be way too kind)
Spoilers ahead -- proceed at your own caution.<br /><br />My main problem with this movie is that once Harry learns the identities of the three blackmailers -- with relative ease -- he continues to cave into their demands. And then the whole scene with his wife being kidnapped, he decides to wire his classic car up to explode (with the money in it), which makes us take a pretty tall leap of logic.<br /><br />Okay, so he wanted to keep his affair with Cini out of the public eye due to his wife's involvement with the DA campaign. This I can see, but why not hire someone to slap these turds around a bit, or even kill them once he'd determined there was no actual blackmail evidence (e.g, Cini's body?) This was a pretty interesting movie for the first 2/3 of it. After that, it sort of falls apart.
The film "52 Pick Up" simply does not work. See it if you are at all interested in Elmore Leonard or John Frankenheimer, or anyone in the terrific cast, especially John Glover who's admittedly brilliant. But the book--a slow-burning, noir thriller with lots of pulp--should have translated into an Oscar-contending film instead of this dud that couldn't figure out whether it should faithfully portray the hard-boiled, gritty crime story of the book, or opt for a 1980s Schwarzenegger shoot-em-up spree. Shifting the scene from the original locale in the book, Detroit (an area where Leonard has resided for years and knows very well), to Los Angeles makes for a substantial problem that Leonard tries to fix in his script, but ultimately can't. It was, for example, a clever device making Mitchell's wife a City Councilwoman (she had no job in the book), if you think about it: that's the only way you could ever plausibly blackmail someone in a sex-crazed city like 1980s Los Angeles for adultery, or any type of potential sex scandal. Even then, it's more plausible in a more conservative Eastern state like Michigan to believe that a) its tiny porno "industry" is a sleazy, money-grubbing hell where three losers could desperately set up a not-so-stupid upper-middle-class fellow going through a mid-life crisis, and b) adultery alone might be something you could blackmail someone with, if their upstanding careers and old-fashioned wives couldn't handle the shock. As consultant Ron Jeremy will tell you, 1980s Los Angeles was a colorful, stylish porno Mecca, more like the movie "Boogie Nights" than Leonard's dark, shadowy world of hijacked tourist buses, grimy apartments, and drug deals in depressed urban squalor. Then again, Los Angeles could be the backdrop of such a tale if one arranged the scenery more carefully--there are still plenty of dark crannies and psychopaths there. Unfortunately, Roy Scheider's Harry Mitchell comes off in the film as a sexy, handsome Uebermensch dancing through his problems without even working up a sweat. In the book he was fending off a jerk union official while struggling with a business that was failing. He also had a skeleton in the closet during the war involving friendly fire that he was responsible for, but never appeared to come to grips with. Elmore Leonard's stories usually have a central image involving a bizarre civility between criminal and law-abiding citizen. Here, Harry Mitchell sitting in his office with his blackmailer, Alan Raimy, turning over his financial books to him and negotiating a more practical ransom, makes for such a central image. Glover's blackmailer plays the scene with convincing intelligence, but Scheider portrays the victim here as a cocky "good guy," in charge of the situation as if he were more a Rambo with an M-16 than the everyman barely staying afloat as his world crumbles around him. "52 Pick Up" ends with one of the worst throwaway conclusions ever, considering all the thought that went into the original story and then the film. Trapping Raimy inside Mitchell's Jaguar and blowing him up with marching band music blasting out along with a sadistic monologue by Mitchell, plays to an audience wanting the "sweet revenge" conclusion of a Chuck Norris movie, not the intelligent balanced world of Leonard's book, where Mitchell barely escapes in the end and the conflict between good and evil could easily go either way. I left the theater shaking my head and depressed. What a waste of talent.
Vulpine Massacre should have been this movies actual title. And the tag-line should have read "Guaranteed to make your kids CRY!" This is a nature drama telling the story of a family of wild foxes in a remote region. Starting with the meeting and pairing of two young foxes and the eventual birth of a large family and the trials of raising them. The only speaking is done in narrative by a tree that stands over the den, giving insight into the animals loves and lives... Lovely scenery and gorgeous filming of the animals. Sounds good huh? Well from there things go straight to hell and then start drilling towards the core...<br /><br />*** Spoilers Below - Or they it may be a Warning!***<br /><br />Almost first off we learn one of the foxes is born blind. But seems to get along well enough and there's a beautifully cheerful musical score to accompany him... And then he dies... Next we have one of the siblings adventures. And then he dies... One of the sisters gets her screen-time... and then she dies...And so it goes like some horrific slasher movie as one fox after another is killed off by nature, in traps, just up and vanish, and even by a bunch of snowmobiles! By the end of the movie almost all the foxes have been massacred. Though mercifully no deaths are shown on screen. (Least not in the version we saw.) Unlike say "Tarka the Otter" the deaths in this movie are almost all pointless and border on the sadistic in the way hopes are built up and then snuffed out. One or two losses would have been acceptable. It is a nature film after all. But not nearly the whole family.<br /><br />Do not go to see this film deceived by the cheery box into thinking its safe for the kids. Watch it with some foreknowledge that things are *not* going to go well at all and that you or your kids may be left feeling very badly depending on how sensitive you or they are. You may enjoy it. Or you may not...
Been lurking for a couple of years or so. I have never been moved to post on here before, so perhaps this movie is worth a star for that, but I doubt it. I just watched it on DVD, having missed it in the movies due to illness and never got around to watching it till now. I had not read extensively about it, certainly not even thought about the movie in some months. It was just what the buddy picked up in the store, so it got watched.<br /><br />Bad mistake.<br /><br />The shot I spoke of in the the summary up top is in the trailer and on the poster. Right from the off, Jason Statham has hair. Like in no other GR movie. Or any JS movie that I've seen. At least not in the quantities on display here. And Ray Liotta in underpants SHOULD be advance warned. It's scary and funny but not in a ha-ha-humour way. Its more in an almost-TheOffice-but-slightly-mutated-and-so-failing-sort-of-humour way. They each say the same thing: "This movie is not like anything you expect this movie to be."<br /><br />Now, based on previous, extensive, movie-watching experience, I expected this movie to be a few things. Like:<br /><br />() Coherent,<br /><br />() Interesting or engaging,<br /><br />() Not a complete and utter farrago of navel-gazing,<br /><br />() Something more substantive than a motley bunch of badly-realised fables from what is just a standard eastern mystic ideology dressed up as a "cool, modern, self-aware art-form",<br /><br />() Hopefully better than "The Idiots".<br /><br />As you may have guessed by my tone, it thoroughly failed to check any box above. Instead it was:<br /><br />(x) Badly edited {pace all over the shop, 70s-amateur high-8 style jump cuts, incomprehensible "plot" "twists!!!" delivered through hackneyed flash-back montages, I could go on...},<br /><br />(x) Shot as if by a depressed 14yr-old goth who'd just spent the weekend watching Truffaut and Godard with the drapes drawn<br /><br />(x) So up its own behind with the whole "I'm really smart, me" motif/ message, that it feels determined to repeat it every 20 minutes or so, just to make sure the dumb people (ie: everyone who doesn't like it) in the audience make sure they get the point,<br /><br />(x) A genuine waste of my time.<br /><br />As for the undoubted ability of some people to "get" something from this, fine. I'm glad you enjoyed it. One poster said something that caught my attention: under-25s probably understood it better because of the editing. Maybe, but editing is supposed to make your work more accessible, not less. As for the "Genius is only recognised by the enlightened" brigade out there, go suck an onion and grow up. There is nothing more presumptuous and self-serving than people who say the reason another person doesn't know great art is because they don't understand the 'craft /materials /moon cycle /filaments of supreme rational thought' which the 'auteur /poet/ artist/ palm reader/ idiot savant' is using to explain his or her 'vision /grand scheme /oneness with Gaea /great big bucket of dog-sick'.<br /><br />For me and many, many more people, its garbage. <br /><br />Movies, art, stories, poetry, anything designed to be viewed by another human is supposed to be engaging and moving. In some direction be it metaphorical, spiritual, emotional or whatever you're having yourself.<br /><br />The only way this moved me was forward in time, two hours closer to my own inevitable demise. "The greatest trick He ever pulled was making You believe Any Part of this movie meant Anything at All"<br /><br />And now, please, by all means, toast my buns for me.
Having read the comments on the site I feel compelled to write in for the first time. It seems this movie is like Marmite and has split the audience. I have to say that while I agree films don't have to make sense to be enjoyable (see MULHOLLAND DRIVE) they still have to engage you with the characters. Now while I was totally absorbed by the murderous lesbian affair in Lynch's opus, I have to say I couldn't give a turd about Mr Green or the other cardboard gangsters that inhabited this dayglo world. <br /><br />Also, while so many people seem to try and say you didn't enjoy because you didn't get it I would have to disagree - I didn't enjoy because I was bored. I wanted the film to end and constantly listening to those quotes over and over again did not help. Call it clever if you will - I think it's repetitious.<br /><br />However, my main reason for writing is to ask all the other reviewers a question - there were no end credits on the print of the film I saw. Just music over black. Did I watch a dud print or is this evidence of GR's pretentiousness? Or, did everyone involved in the movie watch the rough cut and have their name removed???
What we have here is a film about how the pursuit of money & revenge can corrupt your soul... or something like that. Guy Ritchie, a director known for his reworking of the gangster genre, bites off more than he can chew with this one.<br /><br />His use of modern film noir to tackle the theme of a man setting himself free by swallowing his pride, being nice to his enemy & giving away all his money falls flat on it's face. When Jason Statham's character no longer fears Ray Liotta, it apparently drives Liotta crazy enough to blow his head off in the final scene. Why? Basically you cannot set up a mafiosi like the Liotta character, who has presumably got to his station in life by displaying the kind of ruthless behaviour evident throughout the film, only then to have him driven to suicide by nothing more than a pitying smile on the face of Statham's character.<br /><br />Before anyone starts to say I'm missing the point... I'm not. I get it OK? Opt out of the quest for riches & you'll find true happiness and inner peace. Be nice to your enemy and this will confuse him into self-destruction. This seems to be the gist of the movie and in itself this is not a bad premise for a story, although hardly original. The problem is that Ritchie simply doesn't have the skill as a movie maker to carry it off. At the moment when even Guy Ritchie realises this, he appears to get bored with the story and begins to insert red-herrings: The scene when Statham gets knocked over by a car - Why? The shooting of some scenes as Marvel comic animations... again, why?<br /><br />There are so many loose threads & unanswered questions left at the end of the movie you could get all 2001-ish about it and try figuring them out, or simply accept that there are no answers & each viewer will interpret things in their own way. Myself? I was so bored with the pompous tone of the film that I simply didn't care. Frankly the ending couldn't come too soon so that I didn't have to sit through any more of this pretentious psychobabble.<br /><br />A waste of two hours of my life.
Guy Richie's third proper film (not counting the God-awful "Swept Away" is a complex action thriller concerned with gambling, gangsters and chess. Fans of Richie's previous efforts will probably hate Revolver as much as I did, with its twists and turns. Richie stalwart Jason Statham plays Jake, a newly-released ex-con, out to wreak revenge on the ridiculously named Dorothy Macha (a superbly OTT Ray Liotta) but instead gets embroiled with a couple of other cons, (one of which is Andre 3000 from rap outfit Outkast) who throw him and us the audience, a number of red herrings throughout the film, all of which becomes extremely tedious. The high point of this mess of a movie is the bit in the restaurant, where the dialogue gets turned down in favour of a superbly shot, slow-mo shootout set to Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata. All in all, Revolver is a flawed work, not truly awful but far from Richie's best. That would still be Lock, Stock. If this film was a school homework assignment it would be graded 'must try harder!'
Ritchie's first two films were snappy, stylish entertainment. Here, he raids two recent classics – 'The Usual Suspects' and 'Fight Club' – and still comes out empty-handed.<br /><br />Despite parading itself as a con-mystery (with the sub-'Usual Suspects' twaddle "the greatest con he ever pulled was convincing you that he was you" or whatever it was...) and attempting a 'Fight-Club' twist about which characters are real and which are internal manifestations, the film struggles to maintain interest in its second half. By the last third, you know you're being lead down a blind alley, and tediously slowly at that.<br /><br />Cons, chess and game theory are all great subjects, but Ritchie delves into them too superficially and too repetitively to make much use of the material.<br /><br />The only thing that keeps the movie (almost) watchable is Ritchie's bold way with with a scene and Maurice-Jones's dynamic camera. If Ritchie stuck to a more satisfying plot, and succumbed to tighter editing, there's no reason why he couldn't have made another enjoyable gangster caper.<br /><br />As it is, Revolver is a waste of your time. Incomprehensibility does not equal profundity. If you want to see a great film that doesn't make logical sense but makes a virtue of it (and, incidentally, which also involves an inexplicable escape from solitary confinement) watch 'Lost Highway'.
After seeing "Driven" on a plane flight to America 3 years ago I truly believed I had seen the worst film ever created, and I could relax safe in the knowledge I would never have to suffer that much in front of a screen ever again. Unfortunately as I found out last night this was not the case. Revolver is so monstrously bad I am actually thinking about recommending friends to go and see it, just so I don't feel like I'm the only one stupid enough for being conned into watching this. Its really quite amazing how much this film falls completely on its face with the constant, and I mean CONSTANT voice overs of the main characters, with totally inane pretentious nonsense! I was actually getting angry in the cinema listening to Andre Benjamin's utterly relentless droning for what seemed like half the film, whilst all the time thinking - what would Turkish have done to this complete joke of gangster/con man, whatever he's supposed to be, when he made his "offer"? I'll tell you what. He would have told him to f**k off, blown his head away, and watch with utter disdain as his equally inept partner waddles away as fast as his chubby little legs would carry him. I mean what are we supposed to believe is going through Jake's head when they offer him their "solution" to his problem? They're con men, therefore they must obviously also have the skill to cure incurable blood diseases! I mean ffs. Doesn't he start to wonder why his symptoms aren't getting worse? Doesn't the penny drop on the third day what is happening instead of Richie subjecting the audience to a painfully patronising phone call from Avi to Jake to let him know he's been conned. <br /><br />Anyway, I can add a small positive note to the film by moving on to the dry humour if provides, thankfully of a similar standard to his previous films……. bulls**t! This film doesn't try anything as smart as redeeming itself through some well timed amusing lines, oh no. It somehow managed to be so disastrously unfunny I genuinely didn't hear so much as a titter from a completely packed cinema – and anyone who knows the UGC in Sheffield knows how full a main screen can get, and not 1 person so much as smiled. Maybe he never wanted the film to be funny, and fair enough you can still make good gangster films without comedy, but what was he planning on hanging this film on may I ask? The unnecessarily baffling plot!?? I sincerely hope not!<br /><br />By far the most satisfying moment I went through last night was hearing the very loud sighing coming from ALL directions of the audience as everyone desperately prayed for the film to end. It was also really quite amusing watching just how fast patrons were fighting and dashing for the exits after they realised it was over, and they were free from their torment!<br /><br />I'll round this off (I've got to finish, writing this is making me angry again) by elaborating on the "end". I mean sh**t! The ending….. no, sorry I can't, your just going to have to go and see it. It can't be put in words, it just can't, and after you've seen it you'll know why. Uuhhhhh – shudders –
Was convincing the world that he didn't exist...<br /><br />This is a line that is probably remembered by a lot of people. It's from The Usual Suspects of course in relation to Kaiser Gold..I mean Sose..<br /><br />I got another one like that: -The dumbest trick a director ever pulled was trying to convince an audience he actually had a storyline-<br /><br />This movie is one of the saddest pieces of film-making I have seen in a long time. It starts out so well, with really fantastic cinematography, great acting and a very smart premise. But alas, the only way this movie is heading is on a course of self-destruction. And it does so, not by a single blow but with nagging little wrist-cuts.<br /><br />Pay no attention to the comments here that marvel at the fact that they found a way to explain this donut. With enough booze in my brain I would probably be capable of explaining the very existence of mankind to a very plausible degree. I have seen and read about a dozen totally different ways people explained the story. And they vary from a story set totally in someones head, playing chess with himself, to a cunning way for a criminal to play out his enemies by means resembling chess gaming.<br /><br />And that's all jolly swell. But at the same time it is a painful giveaway that there is something terribly wrong with this story. And apart from that, it is in any case a blunt rip off of a score of movies and books like "Fight Club, Kill Bill, Casino, The Usual Suspects, Snatch, Magnolia and Shachnovelle. And we are not dealing with kind borrowing here, it's a blatant robbery.<br /><br />What ultimately goes wrong here in this movie is that the storyline swirls like a drunk bum on speed. If this movie was a roller-coaster ride, you'd have crashed into the attraction next to it shorty after take off. There are so many twists in this movie which will never be resolved, that if it was a cocktail, you'd be needing a life supply of hurl-buckets to work of the nausea after drinking it. Nothing is ever explained and when you finally get some grasp of the direction you think it's going, you get pulled in yet another one.<br /><br />I guess this story wasn't going anywhere on paper and Ritchy must have thought that is was awesome to make a movie out of it anyway, being the next David Lynch or something.<br /><br />1/10 for totally violating one's own work (Ritchy: seek professional help). What could have easily been a gem instead becomes a contrived art-piece, food for pseudo intellectuals to debate on at sundayafternoon debating-clubs. <br /><br />Spare your soul and stomach, avoid at all cost!
I don't think I've ever felt this let down by a film before. After loving Guy Ritchie's two previous films (I don't count Swept Away - he was pussy blind), I was so looking forward to seeing this. <br /><br />The reviews were poor, then again, I don't trust the press anyway. More worrying was the fact that the internet buzz was that this was a bit of a stinker, so it was with some trepidation I handed over my £4.80 yesterday afternoon.<br /><br />I'm not even going to try to explain this film, mainly because I haven't got a clue what was going on and at one point I was honestly close to standing up and asking if it was just me who didn't get it! <br /><br />Unfortunately I think Ritchie seems to have fallen into his wife's trap of taking himself far too seriously.It seems it wasn't good enough for him to make films with good plots, laughs, snappy dialogue and good characters. It's almost as if he had a checklist of films he wanted to rip off, here are some of the ones I noticed:<br /><br />The Matrix, Fight Club, Kill Bill, The Usual Suspects, Vanilla Sky...<br /><br />I think the most frustrating thing is that the performances from the two main actors, Jason Statham and Ray Liotta, were actually very good and it was really the self indulgent story and editing / direction that let the film down.<br /><br />So a big, big thumbs down from me.
Okay. Who was it? Who gave Revolver 10 out of 10? Are you tripping of your head on Ecstasy pipes? There were so many of you. Did you do it for a dare? Is this some kind of cult? Or did Guy Richie himself sign up 788 times under different names?<br /><br />Before I say anything else, I'll say this. Just because you don't understand a film doesn't mean that it's not great. Maybe you've had a bad day at work, or you sat down to watch a film after you had a row with your wife and then weren't in the mood. Maybe there's a more fundamental stumbling block- like you just don't have the mental capacity or a highly enough developed philosophical sense to engage with it. BUT. And this is a very, very big but. The XXL elephant-sized mega-but to end all buts.<br /><br />PLEASE don't confuse incoherence for complexity, and please don't confuse this two hour non-squirter for an interesting film. Really. You may think you are pretty smart. You may even think of yourself as somewhat of a romantic figure: an independent thinker championing a masterpiece against a chorus of sheep-like naysayers. Please don't. You're embarrassing yourself. <br /><br />Revolver's a waste of everyone's time. If you thought about if for a few minutes, you'd recognise it too. It was a waste of the cast, a waste of the crew, a waste of the caterers, and definitely a waste of the precious minutes (you can't get them back you know) of anyone unlucky enough to sit through this unutterable, wretched mess.<br /><br />"No - wait," comes a voice in the darkness. "You just don't understand. Its NON-LINEAR. That means the story doesn't go in a STRAIGHT LINE. This is actually the COMPLEX and SUBTLE work of an AUTEUR. It addresses difficult EXISTENTIAL questions. And anyway - they slated FIGHT CLUB when it first came out - didn't you hear? -Because they couldn't deal with the COMPLEXITY. They're eating humble pie now. Bet you hate Lynch films too, doncha?" <br /><br />Hate to disappoint you, but I am quite a big Lynch fan. I rather like Memento, so a narrative told in an unconventional fashion doesn't necessarily fill me with fear. And although I've only studied it briefly a few years ago, philosophy interests me greatly. I don't dislike Revolver for these reasons. I dislike it because it purports to be about weighty, big-brained topics but deals with them in such an insultingly superficial way as to be laughable. I'm not much of a chess player, but Richie's idea of how chess works seems to be that of a precocious four year old. I dislike it because the characters, without exception, totally alienated me. "Aha!" cries the Richie apologist. "Guy is cleverly tipping his hat to Brecht!" Just maybe you're right. I think its more likely that he just can't write a decent script for toffee.<br /><br />Comparing Revolver with Fight Club is actually really instructive. Fight Club has acid-tongued, nihilistic dialogue that makes you laugh. Revolver has stale fortune cookie reject one-liners that make your ears bleed. Fight Club has a great twist that makes you reassess everything that has happened. Revolver has, as far as I can tell, several incomprehensible twists that offer no satisfaction because... well, they don't make sense. If you keep pulling the rug out from under people, they eventually kick you out of their house. And then they lock all the doors and windows. And they never let you back in. Ever.<br /><br />Guy Richie seems to assume that being philosophical entails repeating a mantra of little buzz-phrases. Mostly they are spoken, but often they flash up on the screen with attributions. It's almost pathological.<br /><br />But what makes this film particularly notable is the way in which something so incomprehensible can be married so neatly with all tired gangster clichés in the world. Ultimately its so inconsequential. You don't care about anything. You don't understand anything. You go home.<br /><br />Actually, there was a bit I really liked: the uptight assassin who has a crisis of confidence. He's great. But I can't recommend you see the film just to see him. He's only in it for a few minutes.<br /><br />Please believe me. It's horrible.
I would rather of had my eyes gouged out with rusty ice picks than have had to sit through this abortion. There is no plot. There is no acting ability . Ray Liota has shamed himself and should be blacklisted from any more work. I am so sorry that the industry allows crap like this to be shown on any type of medium. <br /><br />Rumor has it that Maddona threw herself to the floor to break her other arm so she could be taken away on a stretcher. Actullly, she deserves to be married to this loser and wanna-be-actor-director. I hope she stays in London and never returns to the USA. Please do not waste your money on this so called film. I beg of you.
Let this film serve as the death knell to the "big twist" films borne out of the 1990s. Known in some circles as The Kyser Soze Syndrome, this cinematic slight of hand has now been done to death by M. Night Shayamalan and even Ron Howard used a variation in A BEAUTIFUL MIND. However, in REVOLVER, director Guy Ritchie (known in some circles as "Mr. Madonna"), utilizes the Soze motif in a far more obsequious manner. <br /><br />Jason Statham (with a highly questionable head of hair) stars as Jack Green (known to all as "Mr. Green.") He may or may not also be criminal mastermind Mr. Gold. Or, perhaps Mr. Gold is an irritable spirit who can possess members of the underworld. I'm not quite certain, but I certainly don't care. REVOLVER is one of the most overwrought examples of cinematic excess I've had the displeasure to endure in quite a long time. Witness the fractured time structure, the painful jump cuts, the ceaseless inner-monologues, and the painfully pretentious animated sequence. This "everything and the kitchen sink" directing style makes Quentin Tarantino's oeuvre look sedate. The cinematic smoke and mirrors only lead me to believe that Ritchie was as bored telling this trite tale as I was watching it.<br /><br />The film is filled with moments of revelation that are supposedly shocking but they only come as news to Mr. Green. I wanted to like Green as I always enjoy Stratham as a character who is two steps ahead of everyone else. Here, though, he struggles along like a remedial reader in a University English Literature class. His lack of wit is only matched by the lack of restraint shown by his nemesis, Macha (Ray Liotta). Feasting on scenery like a starving man at a smorgasbord, Liotta spits, cries, and fumes through the film in an embarrassing display of overacting and leopard print speedos. <br /><br />There are no redeeming qualities to REVOLVER. It's yet another filmic faux pas from Ritchie and might even outdo his wretched remake of SWEPT AWAY as his worst film yet.
Its like if you took the general themes of The Usual Suspects and Fightclub, take away all their style and class and mixed them together with a lot of pretentious new wave "i'm intellectual so my movie must be hard to make sense of" film maker rubbish, mashed in a few extra styles for good measure, chopped off the ending, there you have Revolver.<br /><br />Yes, I did think about it for a little bit after watching, and yes it did kind of make sense, however that doesn't stop it being garbage.<br /><br />Waste of money. Waste of time.<br /><br />Up there as the worst Movie I have ever seen, with not even a bad movie novelty value to redeem it a little.
This movie is now my gauge against which all other movies will be compared...as in, "was it as stupid as Revolver?" I too was in the Toronto International Film Festival audience last night where a room filled with over 2000 people walked out in an eerie silence after being absolutely dumbstruck by 2 hours of sheer nonsense. Jason Stratham would have been amazing if only he had a purpose. Within the first 10 minutes he's given a proposition by Andre 3000 and Big Pussy (of Soprano's fame) which makes NO SENSE AT ALL! Then there's some shooting and then there's Ray Liotta wearing embarrassing bikini briefs, then there's some animation, Ray Liotta's naked butt, lots of shooting, teeth gnashing, art house wanna be pretensions and more of Liotta's embarrassing body that elicited laughs at every showing...which I'm not quite sure was the reaction he was looking for...not 5 times anyway. Everyone in this movie thinks they're smarter than the average bear and Guy Ritchie thinks he's Yogi Bear incarnate. The story lines might have went nowhere but the posturing was outta sight! The only way this movie could have been worse is if Madonna herself was in it.
When Ritchie first burst on to movie scene his films were hailed as funny, witty, well directed and original. If one could compare the hype he had generated with his first two attempts and the almost universal loathing his last two outings have created one should consider - has Ritchie been found out? Is he really that talented? Does he really have any genuine original ideas? Or is he simply a pretentious and egotistical director who really wants to be Fincher, Tarantino and Leone all rolled into one colossal and disorganised heap? After watching Revolver one could be excused for thinking were did it all go wrong? What happened to his great sense of humour? Where did he get all these mixed and convoluted ideas from? Revolver tries to be clever, philosophical and succinct, it tries to be an intelligent psychoanalysis, it tries to be an intricate and complicated thriller. Ritchie does make a gargantuan effort to fulfil all these many objectives and invests great chunks of a script into existential musings and numerous plot twists. However, in the end all it serves is to construct a severely disjointed, unstructured and ultimately unfriendly film to the audience. Its plagiarism is so sinful and blatant that although Ritchie does at least attempt to give his own spin he should be punished for even trying to pass it off as his own work. So what the audience gets ultimately is a terrible screenplay intertwined with many pretentious oneliners and clumsy setpieces.<br /><br />Revolver is ultimately an unoriginal and bland movie that has stolen countless themes from masterpieces like Fight Club, Usual Suspects and Pulp Fiction. It aims high, but inevitably shots blanks aplenty.<br /><br />Revolver deserves to be lambasted, it is a truly poor film masquerading as a wannabe masterpiece from a wannabe auteur. However, it falls flat on its farcical face and just fails at everything it wants to be and achieve.
I heard this film was much more stylistic than the films director Guy Ritchie (Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch) had directed before, the problem is, it is possibly too stylistic. Basically Jake Green (Jason Statham) is released from prison after seven years in solitary,and within two years he gambles loads of his money. He is ready to seek revenge against the violence-prone casino owner who got Jake sent to prison, Dorothy 'Mr. D' Macha (Ray Liotta). In the process, doctors tell Jake that he has three days left to live as he is dying from a rare blood disease, oh, and Macha puts hit men on him. Loan sharks Zach (Vincent Pastore) and Avi (André Benjamin) are demanding Jake pays their cash back, and do some odd jobs for them. The film is filled with Jake narrating through some flashbacks, and through his last three days before coming to the big revelation about Zach and Avi, and Macha, well, I assume that's what it was. Also starring Terence Maynard as French Paul, Andrew Howard as Billy, Mark Strong as Sorter, Francesca Annis as Lily Walker, Anjela Lauren Smith as Doreen and Elana Binysh as Rachel. The are sequences involving a little bit of animation, repeating lines twice in different perspectives, and changing speeds for moments, and all of these are irritating to the point of confusion and boredom, making it a silly crime drama. Pretty poor!
There are so many comments on this film, yet I found them to be misleading. This a corner-cutting, over-used scenario where a normal human being becomes a partner in crime to someone of the opposite sex for no apparent reason. Boy meets girl. Girl holds boy up at gunpoint for something ridiculous. Boy is intrigued. <br /><br />You know the drill: The antagonist turns out to be a wild, free spirit instead of a sociopath... Toss in a few words of wisdom from Alice Drummond and you have a recipe for Love. Sheedy's 'is she crazy or does she just need a hug?' role from The Breakfast Club simply reeks as a lead character. And all that is left is a truly ghastly turkey of a movie.
had to see this cos it looked like a great scary premise- prisoners finding magic book,oo err! claustrophobic terror ensues, etc. <br /><br />but there didn't seem to be a story to go along with the great idea. rather than chilling/physcological horror, it relied on effects out in the open- fire and OTT body horror- , which didn't scare at all if your over 12. <br /><br />The logic at the end is ridiculous, with characters being killed off for nothing other than bodycount. waste of good characters- which were the best thing about this film.<br /><br />obviously low budget, which doesn't spoil it, the film really goes nowhere, and- icant believe im going to say this- it needs a Hollywood remake. you simply loose interest in this version. definitely not in the same league as other french films coming out in the last few years like crimson rivers which were at least watchable/entertaining, malefique isn't watchable to the end to be honest. and i bet you can guess the ending before you have watched the film. really really disappointing- impossible to recommend.
(Spoiler included, some would say)<br /><br />This film is not possible to take seriously. At some parts it is so awfully stupid that I just can't help laughing at it all. Try me for the sequence where Stallone's character jumps some 20 meters with full climbing gear or (and this is really my favorite) snuffs a bad guy by sticking him onto a stalactite. Yeah, what ungodly strength did he muster to accomplish such feats? I dunno, but he sure gives reality a run for the money.
Once in a while, a movie will sweep along that stuns you, draws you in, awes you, and, in the end, leaves you with a renewed belief in the human race from the artistry form. This is not it. This is an action movie that lacks convincing action. It stinks. Rent something else.
This is one of the worse cases of film drivel I have seen in a long while. It is so awful, that I am not sure where to begin, or even if it is worth it. The plot is the real problem, and I feel sorry for 'Sly' as he puts in a decent performance for his part. But that plot ... Oh dear oh dear. I particularly love the way near the end he manages to pop from the foot of a mountain to the top, whilst the helicopter is on the way. A climb of a day or two takes him all of five minutes! I could go on: but it isn't worth it. Apart from the grim opening (which even a five year old would be able to predict the outcome of) the rest is drivel. Sorry folks, but this is about as bad as film making gets.
Oh, what a bad, bad, very bad movie! Cowritten by and starring Sylvester Stallone—that should have been enough—and featuring too many rock-climbing scenes, vertigo, falling, and scene-chewing villains and a botched airborne heist. There are two plots, both lame. One involves a traumatic failed rescue, and the other involves bad people wrecking an airplane for booty, and killing various harmless people whenever possible. The usually reliable John Lithgow, perhaps depressed by the sheer awfulness of the product, is reduced to sneering and calling those for whom he doesn't care "Bostid!" in a vague approximation of an English accent. Janine Turner, who was sprightly and enigmatic when she played Maggie on Northern Exposure, is sadly wasted in the part of a rescue climber and pilot. Stallone is stolid and muscle-headed. No deathless lines in this one. No living lines, either.
If you like the standard Sly flicks that involve over the top action, unbelievable stunts (unbelievable is not intended to be complimentary here), and retarded dialogue; you will love this steaming pile of mountain goat dung. I had high hopes based on the trailer. I thought that Stalone was going to be forced in his "has-been" days to yield to smarter people and make an action film that would place a credible hero in a credible situation where the story, setting, and (believable) action would prevail. I crave action that is at least close enough to reality that you can imagine the fear and excitement that would come from such an event. My limited knowledge of hypothermia and its effects rendered at least one scene laughably ridiculous. Judge Dredd is only better because you know going into the theater that you are going to see a comic book made into a movie. The character, setting and everything else are beyond comparison to anything we might encounter ourselves. Cliffhanger on the other hand turns a mountain climbing guide into Rambo before you can say "yo, Adrian!"
I am still shuddering at the thought of EVER seeing this movie again.<br /><br />I have seen action films, I have even liked quite a few of them, but this one goes over the top.<br /><br />Not only does it have the worst male actor ever (Sly Stallone) playing the lead role, but the plot of the movie is so stupid from the beginning (why not rob the money while the plane is on the ground, would be hell of a lot easier) that it requires a person with IQ less than his shoenumber to believe it. <br /><br />Furthermore, the plot has no real twists at all, a three year old kid could guess what comes next. It is a set of cliches (of action genre), with Sly performing even worse than his other movies (he was better even in Rambo III if you watch that movie as a comedy rather than action film). Now there is an actor who can't act A) surprised B) sad C) anything else than his basic face. <br /><br />I would still like to point out that this movie has two factors that might make some people like it. EXPLOSIONS are outstanding, but then... you can see better on the 4th of July. LANDSCAPES are magnificient, but then... there are documentaries about the Alps and Himalayas, so you can see better sights that way, rather than waste time on this flick.<br /><br />Go watch some other movie instead, there are hundreds, even thousands better action movies.
Let me start by stating that I usually do like Renny Harlin's directing style, for the most part, and that the cinematographer should be commended for some the shots. Unlike Harlin's "Elm Street 4", and "Die Hard 2" which I really liked, there is something that is missing from this movie. That, my friends, is a script. The dialogue in movies like this is always pretty awful, but this one takes the gold medal for stupidity. There are so many awful lines in this movie, I don't even want to have to remember any of them. Not just that but the execution of the lines is pathetic and seems more suited toward a bad porn movie than an action adventure. It's almost like Harlin thought that if they slowed down the words being said, they could improve the script. Wrong again.<br /><br />The sad part is that there is some talented actors thrown into bad roles with worse dialogue. Stallone has never been a favorite of mine, but when he is acting circles around Lithgow, Turner, and the worst of the bunch Rooker, there is something wrong with this picture. Lithgow played one of the best villains in "Ricochet", yet comes across as someone who can't act to save his life here. How is that possible? I've always been a huge fan of his and he gets schooled in acting by Stallone, who himself still phoned-in his performance. Turner's part is so small and pointless, but she still manages to appear lost on screen. Michael Rooker CAN act. I know this because I have witnessed it in "Days of Thunder", but he seems like he is READING his lines from cue cards. Has it come to this? When Rooker and Lithgow have scenes together where they are speaking, I just wanted the movie to end right there, or have them both amazingly find their acting ability. Unfortunately, neither of those things occurred.<br /><br />Which brings me back to Harlin, who can be the only one to really blame for this mess other than the screenwriters. It's his fault that I was never drawn into this movie at all, because he should have made the people actually act. The script is not very good, but still the actors' performances are what destroys this movie and that has to lie with the director. I don't care how much was paid for the special effects, which for the most part are good, you still can't just sacrifice the movie with terrible acting. <br /><br />Plus, the pacing of this movie seems to be off. The opening sequence was good and the plane scene was very well done, but how are you supposed to care about the outcome of the heist at all. I mean I understand that they were trying to create tension with all of the bells and whistles of the plane scene, but I really didn't care if they got the money or not in that scene. If the bad guy's would have won early, maybe I wouldn't have had to witness one of the worst movies ever!
There are some Stallone movies I like, but this movie didn't meet my low expectations. I found this movie hard to believe. For example, a bunch of terrorists who crash land in the wilderness are prepared to survive for at least two days. Also, in all this wilderness Stallone and company keep running across bridges and ladders that provide convenient short-cuts or plot devices. Also, the Treasury cops don't seem to coordinate anything with the local rescue people. Also, bad guys who couldn't hit the side of a barn with really high-tech looking automatic weapons.<br /><br />I liked John Lithgow's villain initially, but the character is such a complete psychopath that he doesn't care at all about any of his own bad guys, or all of them getting killed. Eventually I just couldn't believe the character anymore.<br /><br />Not worth the price of a rental, not even worth taking the time to watch.
I saw this movie with my rock climbing instructor, and we found the entire thing so ridiculous as to be beyond pity. (For one, if Stallone is out free-climbing by himself, there's no need to carry any gear, but I guess those dangling carabiners look sorta "mountain climby," so let's throw them in). For those lobotomized folks who think that Colorado looks anything like the Dolomites in Italy (where the movie was filmed), well the Hollywood moguls have got a lot more ridiculous & foul-smelling stuff for you to swallow.
I don't know who wrote the script for this movie, but from the first moment on, I was irritated. Of all possible decisions they could make up in the mountains, why do they make the decision, which is the most dangerous of all? Why do the criminals act dumb, although they managed to get a huge amount of money out of a bank and get away with it? Why doesn't the main criminal land the helicopter, shoot Stallone, grab the money and fly away with the chick as a hostage? And there are more cases of illogical behavior. I'd give this movie 5 points for nice action and great landscape scenery, but due to the illogical behavior of the characters, I just can give this movie 1 point...
There is no question as to who is in command of the training of cadets in this film: Major Chick Davis (Pat O'Brien). O'Brien plays an officer who adheres to military discipline in the creation of a new kind of soldier from his cadets--the bombardier. But he is not so rigid as to be unfair or unfriendly. In fact, he even changes his opinion as to the value of women working in the military. He's tough when he has to be, yet at other times he is a clear mix of coach and pastor, roles he perfected in other films. His character is the foundation of the action around which everything revolves. O'Brien seems natural in the role, and plays it in fine fashion. Two things help this movie: O'Brien's performance and the spectacular special effects ending.
Basically a typical propaganda film for the last good war. But there were a couple things that struck me. First was the use of mouthed epithets. In two cases the Scott character mouths one, once at the beginning when he drops his bomb off target during the bomb-off ("dammit") and once when he is trying to sway a bombardier into being a pilot ("s*%t"). I could be wrong about the second instance but I replayed it several times and that's what it looks like to me. The third case is when the Anne Shirley character wishes the O'Brien character goodbye and good luck ("Give 'em hell") over the roar of the engines. She must have thought that was too unladylike because she clearly says "heck". I also found interesting the character that has moral problems with bombing, specifically bombing civilians. The avuncular superior officer assures him that only military targets will be hit due to the precision of the bombsight used. Given what we know about the LeMay's later strategy of firebombing Japanese cities into oblivion this scene plays with not a little irony. I remember McNamara's quoting of LeMay in "The Fog of War", something to the effect that if the US did not win the conflict he would be tried as a war criminal. The ending is way overwrought, in keeping with the movie. It reminded me a bit of the end of White Heat (I'm not comparing the films, just the ending!). Maybe it's just 'cause he gets blowed up. Blowed up real good!!!
Philip. K. Dickian movie. And a decent one for that matter. Better than the Paycheck (Woo) and that abomination called Minority Report (Spielberg). But lets face it, the twisting and cheesing ending was a bit too much for me. Half way through the movie I already started to fear about such kind of ending, and I was regrettably right. But that does not mean that the film is not worth its time. No, not at all. First half (as already many here have commented) is awesome. There are some parts where you start to doubt whether the director intended to convey the message that showmanship is highly important thing in the future (we will do such kind on corny sf things because we CAN) or is it simply over combining. But the paranoia is there and feeling "out of joint" also. Good one.
Jeremy Northam struggles against a "Total Recall" clone script and disposable romantic by-play to bring life to a confused character. Lucy Liu graduates her acting from a wooden start to a workman-like finish. You can't fail to laugh when viewing her interviews on the DVD when she uses the term "Femme fatal" and "Romance". French film-noir actress she is not and they lack chemistry together.<br /><br />This movie fails, not in the plot or the action sequences but in the lack of attention to detail in the films photography and ham-fisted portrayal of the world of technology surrounding the main protagonists. Little attempt is made to dress the scenery to represent any contiguous filmic landscape or period. Automobiles are very 1990's and the architecture barely modern with open plans that hint at a restricted budget rather than conscious set dressing techniques.<br /><br />The technology is positively hilarious. Massive "2001: A Space Odyssey" mainframes fed by man-portable CD-ROM's with data collected for some unexplained reason, in spite of the proliferating communications network that even the most un-savvy technologist today would obviously be aware. There is an obvious lack of research done here and given the open-source nature of the cyber-community, research would have cost little more than a bulletin board and personal time.<br /><br />DVD interviews also reveal the original movie name was "Company Man" but this likely ditched in order to cash in on Matrix hype. The "Cypher" title has only the slightest link with the movie. Terry Gilliam would have done wonders with this concept; and completely re-written the Decalogue.<br /><br />This is Tele-movie quality and extremely disappointing for a movie length production. It might have made a good sub-plot for "Alias".
I think this film has been somewhat overrated here. There are some things to admire in it; for one thing it deserves credit for being a science fiction(ish) film which relies on its story instead of special effects and action sequences to carry the day. The supporting cast is good, the set design and cinematography are good, and the ideas are interesting enough (though they are beginning to seem a little tired after the many mediocre Dark City / Memento / Fight Club clones of recent years). But the film is undone by poor characterization, wooden performances from the lead actors, and a laughably bad ending.<br /><br />The main problem I had was that the protagonist was neither likable nor unlikable. I realize that part of the story dictates that he should be a bit of a (wait for it...) cipher, but I was utterly unable to work up any empathy for a character that just seemed like a boring, anonymous schlub of a man. What character transformation there is for this sad sack is artificially forced on him by the plot. Lead actor Jeremy Northam succeeds in conveying that the protagonist is confused and hapless, but fails at inspiring any sympathy for him. Opposite him, Lucy Liu does what she can with a character who has no real personality of her own, unless being the embodiment of a spy-movie cliché counts as personality.<br /><br />One of the biggest disappointments of this movie is the ending. I won't give any spoilers here, but I will say that a surprise twist at the end was telegraphed pretty clearly at least 45 minutes before it occurred. Further, after being content to be a quirky, idea-oriented movie for the first hour or so, the last few scenes suddenly and terribly devolve into the worst kind of Hollywood pap, complete with big explosions and special effects. The revealing of the film's McGuffin at the end is poorly done, and at the end the characters seem even less likable than they did before some of the film's main plot threads were resolved.<br /><br />The movie's not all bad, though. It does manage to maintain a certain low level of tension throughout most of it, despite the slow pacing (although I think I have a higher than average tolerance for slow-paced movies). And there are some moments when the unsettled, paranoiac feeling that director Vincenzo Natali was clearly trying to evoke rises to the surface. But in the end, these elements aren't enough to overcome the flaws in the film's acting and script. There is probably a good movie that covers these same themes and ideas, but this isn't it.
'I'm working for a sinister corporation doing industrial espionage in the future and I'm starting to get confused about who I really am, sh*#t! I've got a headache and things are going wobbly, oh no here comes another near subliminal fast-cut noisy montage of significant yet cryptic images...'<br /><br />I rented this movie because the few reviews out there have all been favourable. Why? Cypher is a cheap, derivative, dull movie, set in a poorly realised bland futureworld, with wooden leads, and a laughable ending.<br /><br />An eerie sense that something interesting might be about to happen keeps you watching a series of increasingly silly and unconvincing events, before the film makers slap you in the face with an ending that combines the worst of Bond with a Duran Duran video.<br /><br />It's painfully obvious they have eked out the production using Dr Who style improvised special effects in order to include a few good (if a little Babylon 5) CGI set pieces. This sub Fight Club, sub Philip K Dick future noir thriller strives for a much broader scope than its modest budget will allow.<br /><br />Cool blue moodiness served up with po-faced seriousness - disappointingly dumb. This is not intelligent Sci-Fi, this is the plot of a computer game.
I watched this film recently on DVD and I have to say I wasn't impressed. I know it's taboo to knock independent films, but this one felt devoid of entertainment.<br /><br />The premise was interesting, but the execution of it fell short. I found myself thinking "okay, they're just getting into it, the story will pick up soon". Before I knew it, the film was over and the story never picked up. I can't say I found the acting all that impressive either. It was pretty bad. Not Star Wars prequel trilogy bad, but bad nonetheless.<br /><br />I'm not sure what the running time was, I'll assume two hours (because it's a safe estimate). Anyway, when the film was finished, I felt as though I deserved some kind of recognition for the will power I exerted in not stopping the film and walking away halfway through.<br /><br />Again, I was thoroughly unimpressed, and eventually bored out of my wits. I'm not one of those guys who requires fast-paced action and explosions in a film, so don't start in on me as that being a reason for not liking it.
Somewhere inside this movie is a half-hour episode from The Twilight Zone trying to get out. Whereas Cube was taut, well-made, claustrophobic and mind-engaging, I'm afraid Cypher is a bloated, tedious rehash of several well-worn themes which just don't add up to much, especially if you have seen almost any other half-way decent sci-fi film before.<br /><br />Cypher manages to drag all the way through its relatively short 95 minutes right to the incompetent ending. None of the characters spark off each other, and for a film made in 2002 the technology is truly cheesy. It is difficult to connect this tired and uninspired movie with the director of Cube. It's not a bad movie, but it is most definitely not a good one.<br /><br />When you've watched the grass grow and paint dry and are bored of your stick insects then by all means watch this film, but the other activities will probably prove more stimulating.
Despite the overwhelming cult following for this sad "documentary," I must admit to having cordially loathed the film which struck our party as far more a distressing exploitation piece than usefully informative. That said, after seeing the magnificent stage musical drawn from it, one can appreciate what the film might have been in surer hands. <br /><br />One suspects that those many of us who actively suffered through the film may have had any campy delights its crueler fans enjoyed destroyed by the uncomfortable suspicion that too many of us - or those we know - are only a misstep or two away from the deplorable plight of the two mad women depicted who live in and contribute to a squalor they seem incapable of controlling or escaping.<br /><br />The film leaves the viewer desperately wondering how any person could have slid to this level of degradation and, unlike the musical, offers no cautionary clues or explanations, only a horror show unredeemed by humor or insight. <br /><br />This soul crushing flatness of the film makes the achievement of the stage version (hopefully to be filmed ultimately for cable) all the more remarkable. Act II is faithful in almost every detail to the film under discussion but strangely, setting the sad inmates' plight to music, raises the human tragedy to art. Even more important, this act is preceded by a fine Act I where we meet the women before their decent into mutually enabled madness, and are offered hints how their isolated purgatory came about. In short, everything which the FILM is lacking.<br /><br />To the filmmakers' credit (or their successors), the excellent Criterion DVD release includes out-takes and bonus material that partially redeem the main film - behind the scenes photographs, interviews and commentary - filling in some of the blank spots the original editing consciously decided to omit in its drive for unadulterated horror and depression. They can't make the amateurish film itself satisfying, but they can at least make it a bit more comprehensible. <br /><br />Ultimately though, it is only the remarkable stage piece inspired by and drawn from it by book writer Doug Wright, composer Scott Frankel and lyricist Michael Korie which raises the rating of the original GREY GARDENS above a single (generous) star.
A low point in human interaction was reached by the Maysles Brothers with this film. Do remember, you who used words like "masterpiece"when reviewing this film, that these Maysles creeps didn't just happen to drive to the Hamptons and happen to shoot film on some eccentric people. No, when they found these two poor pathetic people they then had to finance their project (and imagine what they told the money people to sell the project). Then they befriended the two extremely vulnerable women. No meeting of minds here or real consensual participation. These wretched Maysles smiled, kissed ass, did whatever they had to to get the Beales to cooperate and then exploited them as viciously as has ever been done. One would like to think that these hustlers had occasional thoughts of remorse and guilt. But the film-making process, given the preplanning, actual shooting and then editing took a lot of time and their goal had no provisions for actually relating to the Beales as human beings. An exploitation film perpetrated by the vilest of people. As time accrued their film-making reputation has been seriously stained by what they did here. Their reputation as human beings is execrable. That is what people will remember them as. Grotesque hustlers.
I wouldn't be so quick to look at all the good reviews and say this might be a good show..This show is only good if you don't know what "talent" is..I won't even say how offensive it is (I know it can be offensive to a lot of people) because thats not really what bothers me about the show.. What bothers me is that people watch this and think it's funny..It makes me feel like our generation is getting to stupid and I'm actually scared that it will one day be run by people who watch this garbage..<br /><br />Basically the plot is simple..it's about an offensive,self centered,spoiled women(Sarah Silvermen) getting through everyday life..<br /><br />Thats it..Like that hasn't been done a million times..In fact almost every joke either has been done or is racist..<br /><br />Sarah also likes to sing..I like her voice..thats it..not the lyrics..The lyrics are dreadful..which she likes to sing about a lot of things..<br /><br />If you like to see a hot women put everyone else down and make them feel like crap while at the same time farting and saying crap about every race then this show is for you..
Comedy Central has a habit of putting on great programs at times-Chappelle's Show, The Daily Show, Colbert Report, and then there are those that some people love or hate-Stella, Dr. Katz. Then there are some shows that have their defenders but are just plain awful- Mencia, and now, Sarah Silverman.<br /><br />This show is based on the fact Silverman is self-Centered, which can be funny (Colbert Report) but can be horrible (Mind of Mencia). It should shock no one that I believe the latter is the case. This show is a parody of a sitcom and society, a program so absurd it loses itself in its absurdity and it simply isn't funny. A woman farting has been done in comedy many many times because its not something that's common. We don't need 25 minutes of it. When a criminal is disarmed by a queef, it simply loses its appeal-we saw it in Jay and Silent Bob Strike back, except the women were hotter, and the whole scene was more absurd, making it better. But the best comparison of this show is to Stella, except Stella was more subtle, which is what made the absurdist comedy funny. It had better acting, and I suppose, a bit more of a fantastical realist view.<br /><br />Perhaps the fact some reviews are so negative (I'm very skeptical of the critical acclaim but do not dispute fan reaction) to this show is the amount of advertising on it, very obnoxious ads through many programs far outdo advertising on for other programs. Many people are wondering why Sarah Silverman has a career, and others are still bitter when better shows have been canceled. This show should've never made it past the unaired pilot stage. Back to Norm showed far more promise, yet this show makes it further. And as far as critics being correct, many things have been universally panned have seen their status rise immensely. Last I checked, Britney Spears gets good reviews too also. Take that comparison however you want because someone will no doubt accuse me of being psychotic on IMDb for not liking this show.
I have given this show (I have only watched seven episodes) four stars because most of her jokes/set-ups appear to fail. Some are not funny outright, but some are amusing -- in a 12 year old boy kind of way. She reminds me of that New York painter who throws paint upon a canvas, calls it art and sells it for a lot of money. Silverman throws out what she's got, including the kitchen sink, while she prays that a few things stick to the wall in her effort to be funny but different.<br /><br />However what she's "got" often times is not enough, as though she lacks the kind of follow-through a good comedian needs to succeed.<br /><br />The whole enterprise is like an under done potato.
And when I watch Sarah Silverman, I get the same results. I love quirky, irreverent humor. BUT this woman is so darned B-O-R-I-N-G, annoying, and yawn-worthy. She's also totally lacking in anything whatsoever humorous. The deadpan way she tries to deliver her lines is just dead on arrival because she's just not funny. I watched two segments of her program and was ready for Novocaine.<br /><br />Geez, my kid (age 19) saw her promos on Comedy Central and said she was a "dumb chick." I thought that was a compliment. The one where she says "Watch my show or I'll kill my dog," is actually believable. I know she's a wanna be comedienne. She just comes across as a warped nut-case. I just don't ever want to see her around MY dog.
Sarah Silverman is really the "flavor of the month" comic right now. Is she really worth all the hype? Yes and no. She is funny at times, sometimes hilariously so (her standup routine is actually quite interesting, though not always funny). Other times, you're feeling cheated by the media for overhyping yet another performer. She is one of those really cute comedians that men especially flock to, saying that they dig her intelligence and wit. But if you corner them, most men will admit that they just want to sleep with her, and that's why they watch her. She reminds me of why many men flocked to Margaret Cho and Janeane Garofalo, even though neither of them are really "hot" now in terms of popularity. Sarah doesn't drink or smoke (at least cigs), so she should be hot when she's 60, so her fans (especially the male ones) can rejoice.<br /><br />As for this show, it's very much like her comedy. When it works, it's hilarious. When it doesn't, it's full blown tedium and very, very boring. The AIDS episode here is the best one. It's consistently funny, and has some really good satire in it. Brian Poeshn's character has an unhealthy obsession with Tab in one episode, and it's hilarious seeing him in a Tab T-shirt. But they never really go anywhere with it, and it eventually wears out its welcome. Sarah's character in the series is rather annoying, the gay couple (Brian Poeshn and some other guy) seems tacked on and never really does anything for the show as a whole, and the supporting players (including Sarah's real life sister, Laura, who doesn't look a thing like her) are OK. When the jokes hit, they're brilliant. When they don't, they're awful, and I mean really awful. There's also an obsession with coprophilia here (aka poop jokes), which seems to have replaced actual wit and intelligence in comedy today. So should you watch this show? If you have a crush on Sarah, go for it. You can gaze at her and pretend she's yours. As for her show, it's ranges from good to absolute zero.
I understand the jokes quite well, they just aren't good. The show is horrible. I understand it, and that's another horrible thing about it. The only cool character there EVER was on the show was that one hobo in that one episode, but then I see the other episode including that episode and the show is horrible. It's not funny, NOT funny! I don't want people to say "Only smart people get it" because if they're so smart why do they judge people they don't even know and say that they're not smart or intellectual enough to understand it? It's like saying "The sky is red" but never looking outside. But anyways, this is absolutely the worst show I have ever seen in my life, the jokes are terrible, I mean, you can understand them, they're just horrible, her controversy is very lame, her fart jokes and other jokes on bodily fluids are really dumb and usually consist of really bad acting. I'm not sure what these "smart" people see in this show, but judging others when they don't even know anything about any of us isn't exactly a smart comment.
Can we say retarded? This girl has no talent what so ever, nothing but complete garbage. You people are just marking 10 stars because you know most people hate this pathetic woman, if its such a "great" show then why did it get canceled after 6 measly episodes? exactly. People that support her, please seek help you do NOT know what is funny. Her stand up comedy is just so stupid, seriously how do you find this trash funny? The show tries to poke fun at stereo types and other things that are not funny at all. Carlos Mencia is funny and to that stupid poster, he actually has fans and his show is on the air so I'm sorry your a redneck who doesen't get his jokes. Please give me my 20 minutes of my life back.
Comedy Central has had success with original programming using professional comics. The Chapelle Show, Mind of Mencia, The Daily Show and the hugely popular Colbert Report all star professional comics and all are, or in the case of Chapelle Show, were, solid shows. Given that Sarah Silverman is one of the best female comics in the business, I was expecting good stuff when I tuned in.<br /><br />I was so disappointed.<br /><br />There were some mildly funny sequences, but given that the star is the caliber of Silverman, the show could have been much better. It was just the pilot, and hopefully next week's show will be better. If not, get her some help in the form of better writers for the show.
I had just watched one episode of this program and I couldn't even get to the end of the program. Every minute I had watched this program my I.Q must of dropped about 10 points. This is basically like a children's program but with swearing. Not even the swearing and the insults she tells other people made me laugh. Anyways the story must of been written by a monkey and the people who actually put this script for this program through for filming must of been held at gun point and had no choice but to film this retarded, disappointing, horribly acted program. Sarah Silvermann should use the little money she actually made from this program and get some god damn acting lessons.
Unfortunately for Sarah Silverman this show doesn't compliment her at all.The character isn't even remotely likable and it's not a situation where you think "oh she's such i b*tch i love her" just "she's such a b*tch".This character is just a plain old self righteous, mean, b*tch.Sarah seems to struggle to have to carry this show because she's the only semi funny one in it.The mood, the dialogue it's all so damn boring and dry it's like listening to your grandpa go on and on about the marbles he collected as a kid.<br /><br />The Sarah Silverman Program is so unbelievably boring that i was thinking of changing the channel to watch old repeats of Married With children something that is funny because the characters are so "immoral" and "rude".I'm sorry but i don't find a show packed with dry humour and corny off the wall story lines about some angry, bitter, loser's angry, bitter life with her annoying as hell sister and gay friends who sound like Keanu Reeves with a cold anywhere close to funny.I can't stand this show even though generally i find Sarah Silverman to be that "I love her cause she's such a b*tch character" like in School Of Rock, and most of her stand up.I think this show is boring with characters who think being mean and saying and doing things for shock value eg. the constant pube, diarrhea and $hit in general for laughs.The Sarah Silverman program attempts to be funny and fails it either needs a laugh track or better writers.Someone compared it to South Park but it's not even close.I've expressed my opinions on The Sarah Silverman Program and won't become an annoying troll meaning you won't see me being a b*tch and constantly posting stuff like "This show sucks" and "Why isn't this cancelled yet".I don't like The Sarah Silverman Program if you do enjoy.
I remember my parents not understanding Saturday Night Live when I was 15. They also did not understand Rock n Roll and many other things. Now that I am approaching their age, I still remember, and find I understand many of the things my kids love. But this is pathetic. I cannot say I have seen any by Sarah except for a few appearances here and there. They were reasonable. I do not see her as anything special. But this show is just so far below what I expected from her. The IMDb write up made it sound like potential. So, just for that, I started watching the first episode. I turned it off half way through. Anything else is better that that. Jokes that are meant for a 5 year old presented on a supposed adult program. Well, Sarah, this adult is inly moved to turn you off. I just cant believe that someone actually financed this insult to comedy. Only good thing I can say is that there are sooooo many bad jokes deposited here, saving other shows from such an embarrassment.
I watched an episode. Yes I sat through the entire miserable experience, and I have to say, this brand of comedy is one of the worst you will get. Imagine Peter Griffin, of Family Guy fame. Now imagine Peter Griffin as a(admittedly slim and minus the glasses) woman, except that he now lacks the something that made him hilarious. Peter Griffin is an idiot, but he doesn't know he's an idiot. Sarah has none of the genuine character, none of the acting ability to pull her character off. Maybe its the trite, formulaic jokes that pull her comedy even lower than her character can take it by herself. Maybe it's the lack of believable foils. Her insensitive, bigoted persona may appeal to insensitive, bigoted people unlike the mass appeal that Stephen Colbert's insensitive, bigoted character has. Like Bill O'Reilly, Sarah creates an annoying, unfunny character. She lacks something that is necessary for the genre of satire, let alone for the entire world of comedy. What Sarah Silverman lacks, its noticeable. And when you don't believe it and identify with it, it's not funny anymore.
Considering its popularity, I found this movie a huge disappointment. Maybe I was expecting too much from this film. After all, it is one of the most well known martial arts films of the 1970s, but I could never figure out why. The story is uninteresting. It is also a very talky movie with sporadic action sequences. My biggest problem with the movie was that the story does not offer a character that I could root for, since the intended hero is an idiot. Director Chang has no sense of style, and he is unable to hide the glaring imperfections found in the narrative. I know this is not supposed to be high art, but I found the movie boring. Definitely not the best example of this much-beloved genre. Its cult status escapes me. I recommend you to skip it.
I rarely write reviews for IMDb.com, but I feel compelled to warn potential viewers that this movie is terrible. Just terrible. I like Shaw Bros. movies (I'm not a hater.), and I had high expectations for this one since I found it listed on many "10 Best Kung Fu/Martial Arts Movies" websites. (I'm now convinced that those 10 Best lists are all cut-and-paste jobs.) First of all, there's barely any action in the film. Most of the movie consists of talking about the plot, which is an amazing feat because it's thin at best. And the action itself may have been impressive back in 1978, but it's routine by today's standards. A special warning to Netflix users: the DVD they ship is terrible; the picture is horrendous and it's not even 16:9 enhanced.
I don't buy kung fu movies for a plot. I buy them for fight scenes. A bad plot can be forgiven for excellent fight scenes, but not the other way around.<br /><br />The story was decent, but moved too slowly for my tastes. There were about 3 or 4 mediocre fight scenes throughout, lasting only a couple of minutes apiece. The last fight was a bit longer, but by that point i was so bored i didn't even pay attention to it.
Apparently, the people that wrote the back of the box did not bother to watch this so-called "movie." They described "blindingly choreographed intrigue and violence." I saw no "intrigue." I instead saw a miserable attempt at dialogue in a supposed kung fu movie. I saw no "violence." At least, I saw nothing which could cause me to suspend my disbelief as to what could possibly hurt a man with "impervious" skin--but here I am perhaps revealing too much of the "plot." Furthermore, as a viewer of many and sundry films (some of which include the occasional kung fu movie), I can authoritatively say that this piece of celluloid is unwatchable. Whatever you may choose to do, I will always remain<br /><br /> Correct,<br /><br /> Jonathan Tanner <br /><br /> <br /><br />P.S. I was not blinded by the choreography.
Having enjoyed Jean Arthur in "The Devil and Miss Jones", my interest was peaked, so I tried sitting through this second-string screwball outing about an investigation into the death of a jockey--but I didn't make it to the end. Arthur, photographed in a gauzy, movie-magazine fashion, either wants alimony from ex-husband William Powell or another shot at marriage, but I never felt for her because the character is just a string of wisecracks (she's the type of heroine prone to comical curiousness, but once inside a morgue--like all women in these '30's comedies--she faints). William Powell reportedly had a high time working with Miss Arthur, but you'd never know it from the end result; they look awkward standing next to each other, hesitant over their banter. The actor playing Powell's valet is excruciating, and the pauses for viewer laughs are pregnant with unease.
This was my first, and probably the last Angelopoulos movie. I was eager to get into it, as it featured Mastroianni, one of my favorite actors and was a film By Theo, of whom I've heard a lot. The opening was promising, a long shot over a jeep of soldiers across the Albanian-Greek border. OK! but that was all. Nothing left. The movie had big holes and I don't know which to mention first. The main plot of the story is revealed to the journalist by the old woman. during a long walk. It's like a 15 minutes monologue, killing the action and viewers patience, nothing happening on screen for 15 or even 20 minutes, apart this old lady telling a story. All that is presumed to be shown through action, was simply told to the camera by the old lady. In a moment, the equippe of TV was heading to the bar. They turn the corner and immediately the winter begins! Probably, shot in different days, continuity leaked. A lot of problems with the story-telling, it went from absurd to irrational never sticking to a style, making the viewer asking questions that never got answers. Poor Mastroianni, given a role which lacked integrity or charm. On the other hand, as many Greeks or Albanians or Balcan people would agree with, the movies showed lot of historic, ethnic, or politically incorrectness, just for the sake of making a movie about "humanity" as a red in another review. A lot more to say, but no time to lose on a poor movie, which was not movie at all, but lunacies of a person impressed on film and paid with state money.
Question: how does a bourgeois director treat a subject like immigration ? Answer: by turning it into an existential alienation parable.<br /><br />Yes, we're back in the early 90s, just after the disintegration of the Eastern block and the subsequent flooding of immigrants in the European Union, and what better way to deal with the subject than making a film about an existentially alienated middle-class journalist, an existentially alienated upper-class politician, his existentially alienated rich wife, and so on.<br /><br />In the background, immigrants are asking for political asylum in an unnamed Greek village near the borders. I guess that way Angelopoulos can show some social awareness, while dealing with the existentially troubled upper-classes. I mean honestly, the scene where some top-ranking army-officer curses his destiny cause he sent his daughter to study in London is enough to make you puke.<br /><br />Anyway, it can't be that bad, Angelopoulos is a master of the cinematic art after all, right ? Wrong. It's at this point when his mannerisms start getting too artificial, sort of like a filtered image in Photoshop. His usual tricks show up: there are blurred windows, blurred lights, a weird wedding, a walk by the river-shore, and people with yellow water-coats. Also Mastroianni breaks new ground for most sleepwalking performance ever. Avoid really. Go for his early films.
There is one great moment in *Surviving Christmas* that almost makes it worth the pain: James Gandolfini cracks a shovel over Ben Affleck's stupid head.<br /><br />This movie serves as yet another unfortunate example of James Gandolfini proving what a great actor he is whilst simultaneously besmirching his career by acting in this film.<br /><br />Young and wealthy ad exec, Drew Latham (Ben Affleck) has been inculcated into believing that one must never be alone on Christmas. (And there, from the outset, is the underlying problem with our suspension of disbelief in this idiotic movie: how many people of Drew's social standing, in 2004, truly care one way or another whether Christmas is spent alone or with half the family or with a fifty-dollar prostitute?) Storyline finds Drew buying off a family to spend Christmas with, on the condition that they pretend to be his own, insensately ignoring all the indications to the contrary that his money has not bought the emotions he was seeking.<br /><br />For $250,000, a surly suburban truck driver, Tom Valco (James Gandolfini), and his disheveled wife, Christine (Catherine O'Hara), agree to be Drew's ad hoc family, against protests from their son, Brian (a very one-dimensional Josh Zuckerman) and daughter, Alicia (a very soft-focused Christina Applegate). Drew then spends the rest of the movie supposedly recapturing his youth or - something. The messages in this movie are as twisted and illogical as its dry-mouthed storyline. Fraught with overt psychoses, Drew plasters a fake smile on his face and blindly remains in denial against every denigration that he was supposedly buying the Valco family to avoid.<br /><br />Which begs the question: If Drew is paying these people to recapture some semblance of joyous familial emotion, how psychotic must he be to pretend happiness amongst their barbs and mental anguish over his presence? It is not a case of the Valco family hiding their true feelings and pretending to be happy while around Drew - three of the four members make it patently clear they despise him. Is he so incognizant that he cannot see that his money is not buying him the "family" atmosphere he was inculcated into believing was a truth in the first place? As with all movies this opprobrious, one wonders how *four* screenwriters could possibly get so tangled in their own narcissistic dreams of appearing in a credits sequence that they will overlook any semblance of plausibility, or intelligence.<br /><br />Director Mike Mitchell, who was responsible for *Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo* - stop right there. 'Nuff said.<br /><br />Gandolfini and O'Hara somehow manage to shine, proving their mettle amongst this mess. Christina Applegate is willowy and cutesy and blond and fiery in all the right places, scathingly cutting Drew into little strips of carcass for most of the movie, then doing an about-face and falling in love with him because the script tells her to.<br /><br />And I wouldn't go so far as to say that Affleck is a bad actor, but John Schneider better look over his shoulder. There's a whole new level of Desperately Seeking Talent in town.
I get the feeling that those involved in making "Surviving Christmas" didn't put much thought into the movie. The characters are so inconsistent and the plot makes so little sense that the movie played like a rough draft of a script thrown together with little but the one-liner concept of a rich guy paying a family to let him spend Christmas with them.<br /><br />Ben Affleck portrays Drew Latham, the typical Hollywood image of a wealthy, egotistical advertising executive who buys his way through life. His girlfriend, Missy, leaves him shortly before Christmas because she's disgusted that Drew wanted to take her to Fiji for Christmas, which she calls "the family holiday," and the fact that Drew has never introduced her to his family. We later find out that Drew's father left when he was 4 years old, and his mother is dead, so it's a mystery why he doesn't just say that he has no family, rather than allow his girlfriend to believe that he doesn't care about his family.<br /><br />Out of fear of being alone on Christmas, Drew tracks down Missy's shrink (why? I have no idea), who suggests he do a forgiveness ritual at his childhood home. When he meets the family living in his childhood home, the Valcos, Drew offers them $250,000 to pretend to be his family, so he can relive his fond childhood memories. He gets angry when he later finds out that they have an adult daughter, Alicia (Christina Applegate), because he "doesn't have a sister," and even goes so far as to write a script for the family to follow so that they act more like his "real" family. None of this makes any sense once Drew reveals that he grew up with no family but his mother.<br /><br />Also inexplicable is the character of Alicia, who is annoyed that her family accepted Drew's money, and refuses to play along with his fantasy. But for no good reason, she suddenly starts to like Drew, and in a matter of minutes goes from hating his guts to acting like his girlfriend. Drew is such a complete jerk throughout the movie that even his sad story about the lonely Christmases of his childhood evokes no sympathy; I almost wish he had finished with, "Just kidding! The real reason I don't see my family is that they all have restraining orders against me!" (2/10)
This movie was pretty absurd. There was a FEW funny parts. Its goes right in to the bin of movies in my memory where I think, "Hmm.....that movie had a few funny parts, but overall, pretty ridiculous plot (or lack of)."<br /><br />I thought it seemed like Ben was trying a little too hard to be a cooky funny guy. And I didn't understand how he was a self made multi-millionaire and still such an idiot. Anyways, I like Ben Affleck. He makes some crap, but hey, I can forgive him. I mean, I liked Jersey Girl, I didn't think Gigli was all his fault, I like him overall. I guess he's kinda like the kid you feel sorry for cuz he just can't seem to get it right.<br /><br />My advice would be to avoid this flick. It didn't really develop in to a workable plot and Catherine O'hara and Jimmy G. weren't used as well as they could have been. They deserved better. Overall, this movie is NOT Home Alone, it's NOT A Christmas Story, its NOT Christmas Vacation or any of the other classics. Forever Forgettable.
I remember when this was in theaters, reviews said it was horrible. Well, I didn't think it was that bad. It was amusing and had a lot of tongue-in-cheek humor concerning families around holiday time.<br /><br />Ben Affleck is a rich guy who needs to find a family for Christmas to please his girlfriend. He goes to visit the house he grew up in and strikes a deal to rent the family there for Christmas. I really liked the lawyer scene where they sign a contract. That was funny.<br /><br />So, he makes silly requests of the family and even writes scripts for them to read. Of course, the family has a hot daughter for the love interest. And he learns that the holidays aren't so bad after all.<br /><br />Also, the whole doo-dah act was funny, especially when they replaced the first one with a black guy, and the girlfriends's parents didn't even say anything about it. And the parts where doo-dah is hitting on his "supposed daughter." FINAL VERDICT: I thought it's worth checking out if you catch it on cable.
Surviving Christmas (2004) Ben Affleck, James Gandolfini, Christina Applegate, Catherine O' Hara, Josh Zuckerman, Bill Macy, Jennifer Morrison, Udo Kier, D: Mike Mitchell. Dumped by his girlfriend, a hotshot yuppie doesn't want to be left alone on Christmas so he decides to return to his boyhood home, imposing on the dysfunctional family that now lives there and bribes them to pose as his family. An obnoxious and one-dimensional performance by Affleck, who mainly acts with a flashy smile, makes his character come off as a mentally unbalanced creep, but Gandolfini and O' Hara breathe some life into this mess. Even for farce, its silliness is lumbering, not much makes sense from scene to scene, and its sentimental messages are as phony as Affleck's grin. 91 min., rated PG-13. * ½
So, I know that I voted 1 out of 10 but really this deserves no more than half of a star. I hated it. It was so stupid and unrealistic, I can't believe any of the stars signed on to make this ridiculously absurd project.<br /><br />James G. and Cathrine O'Hara were excellent in their characters and Ben Affleck and Christina Applegate were just as good too, but the story sucked and I encourage anyone who sees this in the video store to not even bother picking it up and reading the back cover, but to just walk away...I don't even want to get into what the movie is about, because it is too stupid to pontificate about.<br /><br />Don't rent this! It's horrible! Horrible!
May contain spoilers.<br /><br />I say that, but anyone savvy enough to be reading this can probably figure out every plot turn right from the start.<br /><br />This is not a movie that I liked. I didn't hate it in the way of some movies that insult your intelligence, but it all felt too predictable on its trudge to the requisite happy ending. There were funny bits along the way to be sure, but few were original. At least it didn't go for the gutter.<br /><br />Christina Applegate looks fresh, and Ben Affleck works hard. Their scenes together are actually the only redeeming feature. Everyone else is a cardboard cutout, including, surprisingly, James Gandolfini, who must have made this as a favor to someone.<br /><br />All in all, it's a harmless, but not inspiring, 90 minutes.
This movie is terrible. TERRIBLE. One of the worst movies ever. I cannot even imagine Gigli being worse that this. Previews made us say "NO", but then looking for something amid the dreck out there right now, we decided to go ahead and give it a shot.<br /><br />STUPID US.<br /><br />Affleck is NOT an actor. He's an image and can look good with explosions, but not even the kind Bruce Willis got in "Die Hard". If he stripped his shirt and ran around fighting bad guys, it would be a comedy.<br /><br />The best part was Catherine O'Hara -- she's always good. Gandolfini flops again (if it weren't for The Sopranos, he'd be washed up) like he did in "The Mexican".<br /><br />Affleck hogs every scene and as others have said -- no character has any motivation whatsoever for their actions. <br /><br />AVOID THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS.
I went to see this film at the cinemas and i was shocked when I got in the room. There was only me and my girlfriend! This shouted to me that this film is not very good. <br /><br />Not to my surprise, the film was dire. Ben Affleck plays a guy who buys a family for Christmas. It is a very predictable narrative with him falling in love with the girl that hates him. His acting is OKish but for the comedy aspect of the film he is not very good. The plot line is poor and the comedy almost non-existent.<br /><br />However, there are some good points. For example, the family is falling apart and the mother is very funny.<br /><br />I hope this review stops other people wasting their money. I was very embarrassed when I came out of the room!!!
Drew Latham(Ben Affleck)is determined not to be lonely this Christmas. Not only is Drew a millionaire; but also obnoxious and guilty of being very grandiose. Drew goes back to the home he grew up in and offers the family living there, the Valco's, $250,000 to be his "family" through the Christmas season. Tom Valco(James Gandolfini)is reluctant, but is greedy enough to take Drew's offer. Christine Valco(Catherine O'Hara)has little to say in the matter, but learns to like having Drew around...not exactly the same sentiment with daughter Alicia(Christina Applegate), but that too has room for change. Drew's girlfriend Missy(Jennifer Morrison)tracks down Drew and wants her folks to meet his family. Genuine fun is in store as a happy Noel becomes a hilarious dysfunctional nightmare. Other members of the cast: Josh Zuckerman, Bill Macy, David Selby and Stephanie Faracy. Affleck is comedic, albeit strange.
Not as bad as you've heard. There are actually some funny parts and Affleck and Applegate have fairly good chemistry. Applegate, in particular, is appealing and likable as Affleck's love interest. James Gandolfini and Catherine O'Hara are consummate professionals. They're pretty good in just about everything. In the end, "Surviving" is not the worst holiday movie you'll ever see. <br /><br />Unfortunately, it is unfocused and much of the comedy is forced. The attempts at dark humor come off as dour. Affleck tries hard to be endearingly spastic and overenthusiastic but comes across as disturbed. His character's cartoonish nature is brought into high relief when viewed next to Gandolfini and O'Hara's more muted, believable performances. Even by the relaxed standards of holiday movies, you never fully buy into the set-up of Affleck "renting" this family for X-mas.<br /><br />There are also scenes that border on the surreal in their strangeness. The X-mas eve scene replete with incestuous humor (a son being discovered looking at naked, provocative pictures of his mother) that not only isn't funny or believable but disturbing.<br /><br />To make matters worse, the colors in this film are muddy, almost noirish. The house set on which most of the movie takes place looks stagey and cheap.<br /><br />"Surviving" is mostly of interest as the fourth in a string of box office duds (Paycheck, Gigli, Jersey Girl, and this) for Affleck. It remains to be seen how lasting the damage will be.
I liked it, i really did. Please don't think that i'm an idiot but i have to admit that i enjoyed this film. I expected it to be crap, it was crap, but sometimes its OK to relax and watch a crappy film that you don't have to concentrate too much on isn't it? I didn't expect any hidden meanings or morales, and there wasn't any, but that doesn't matter because i only watched it for entertainment, and it did entertain me throughout. Films like this are why the Ben Stillers (excusing 'there's something about Mary') and the Vince Vaughns (however you spell his last name, i couldn't be bothered checking)have jobs. It's OK to watch a crap film as long as you don't expect too much from it, and i for one shall take a stand, jog, perhaps run, but not drive because i don't have a car, to Blockbuster Video, or even Choices, and rent a bunch of these toilet humoured films and stay in one night watching them. Good day to you reader. P.s if you do not say that this comment helped you then i don't like you, if you do say it helped then god bless you, you will go to heaven.
I have to admit I laughed a few times during this trivial 2004 holiday movie, but it's already moving out of my short-term memory. In a career that is sliding rather swiftly toward tabloid obscurity, Ben Affleck, once a promising comic character actor who became enmeshed in the Hollywood publicity machine to recreate himself into a romantic leading man. Judging from this film, the transformation doesn't seem to be taking, as he continues to lack the gravitas that would make him credible in such parts. While his buddy Matt Damon takes on smart roles in films like "Syriana", Affleck appears in this type of commercial pap. At least the superficial character of successful but lonely advertising executive Drew Latham suits Affleck better than most of the other roles he has tried.<br /><br />Directed by Mike Mitchell (whose most famous film is 1999's "Deuce Bigelow: Male Gigolo") and scripted by no less than four screenwriters (always a bad sign), the flimsy plot revolves around his character's need to "rent" a family living in his childhood home in order to live out his fantasy of having the old-fashioned Christmas he never had. The concept is actually intriguing because there is something to be said about the cathartic release of sentimentality we are all directed to feel amid the frenzied commercialism around the holidays. The real problem, however, is that the movie feels like an extended sketch lacking any logic or authentic emotional resonance. Affleck seems to be on overdrive attempting desperately to be lovable, but the net result is an exhausting turn by an actor who has an increasingly annoying habit of playing stupid people in ill-conceived films. Fortunately, he has the likes of James Gandofini and Catherine O'Hara playing the Valcos, the couple who decide to accept Drew's monetary offer to pretend to be his parents.<br /><br />Gandolfini plays Tom like a gruff, non-violent relative of Tony Soprano, but he does what he can in the role. From her classic SCTV Days to Christopher Guest's mockumentaries, O'Hara is always a comic gem no matter the vehicle, and unsurprisingly she earns the best laughs as Tom's wife Christine, whether dryly delivering a one-liner or posing in an inch of make-up for a dominatrix photo shoot. In what is becoming her standard screen role, Christina Applegate plays their mistrusting daughter Alicia, who of course becomes Drew's love interest. Despite some good moments where she is enjoying the deceit of playing Drew's sister in front of his girlfriend's family, her character seems to change in lightning-flash strokes making it hard to see what Drew would see in her. The story spins completely out of control by the last third with one contrived situation piled on top of another until plot strands are tied together in short order. It's rumored that much of the movie was improvised since there was no finished shooting script. It shows, but I also have to admit I stuck with it to the bitter end.
This thing is horrible. The Ben Affleck character is self-centered and gleefully sadistic--punch-you-in-the-nose fratboy sadistic. And he's the romantic HERO! His cartoonish character does not change from beginning to end, but his money ultimately allows him to buy happiness.<br /><br />If I were a Socialist, I would screed beyond belief, but I'm not a Socialist.<br /><br />We capitalists like a little Christmas magic from time to time. This ain't magic. I don't know what it is. It's just awful. And it's a horrible waste of talent. O'Hara has been making me laugh hysterically since the late '70s. Gandolfini. Applegate. These people were all underused. If Ben was out of the equation, these folks might have dreamed up something excellent.
This is quite possibly the worst Christmas film ever. The plot is virtually non-existent, the acting (Affleck in particular) is poor at best. Ben Affleck fans will probably defend this film but deep down they must agree. As far as I could gather the plot consisted of Ben Affleck, a millionaire salesman, is told by a shrink to go to a place that reminds him of his childhood and burn a list of things he wanted to forget from his childhood. On doing this he ends up paying the family currently living in the house to be his family for Christmas... and that is it. The film goes on and eventually he gets together with the daughter of the family.... blah blah blah.
James Gandolfini is a good actor so what ever did he take a role in this piece of unfunny rubbish. Affleck is just a lightweight who just can't cut it, the rest of the cast are truly unforgettable. I saw this in the USA in an empty theatre, I soon knew why the place was empty after about 10 minutes. I walked out before the end it was so bad, so imagine my surprise when back in England I saw the movie had a glowing report from that yoyo "Paul Ross" in one of the down market Sundays. I always rely on Ross to save me money on cinema tickets, if he says the movie is good, I get straight on this very website to check it out. This movie should have gone straight to £1.99 DVD in a supermarket near you.
this movie had more holes than a piece of swiss cheese. Ben Affleck was seriously NOT trying to act in any way, shape, or form. He outright sucked. Nothing about the movie was believable. The first problems were in the intro- where the man gives everything of value to the Salvation Army Santa Claus but it doesn't show why. And then the granny sticks her head in the oven- really beautiful, and has absolutely nothing to do with the movie- it's not even in the same tone as the movie. There was no explanation of the motivation for Ben Affleck to choose the house he chose; there was not any believable reactions by the family he chose; and people are swayed here and there without any cause to be swayed (Example: Christina Applegate and Ben Affleck's characters go tobogganing down a steep slope- this is the incident that makes her suddenly fall in love with him. Riiiight...) Anyway, there was a funny moment or two- but they were a rarity in the movie. It seriously needed another rewrite (or 4). Hope you enjoy!
As with most of Ben Affleck's movies, the comedy is dry and story is predictable. That is if you want to call this a story. Many points were left connected with no thought at all. I want to thank the director for not explaining the points better. I say that because, that would mean the torture would have lasted longer. As for any of Ben Affleck's failures, this one is no exception and is survivable only by the other actors. Even then, the acting for the most part was contrived and was not believable. The trip down memory lane with actors I have not seen in years was not worth the price of admission. All thought it should be told, they too are quickly joining the ranks of the "has-been". My choice was to wait for my car to be fixed or watch this movie. I made the wrong decision. All in all I would give it a one laugh ... mainly because that is all I got out of it.
While filming an 80's horror movie called 'Hot Blooded', the director is brutally murdered and the leading lady is scarred as she survives the attack and manages to kill murderer. After all of this, the production is abandoned and the stock reels are left to gather dust. So a group of filmmakers decide to pick up where the film left off even though they're warned by people to keep away from the film, as the last person who was interested in the flick turned up dead in the cinema while watching the film. From this it's labelled as a cursed production. Not taking these warnings seriously the crew goes ahead with the production and they get the original star of the movie to return from Hollywood to reprise her role, but not as the daughter but the mother. But again the murders start occurring with the cast and crew getting butchered by an unknown figure dressed up as the film's killer.<br /><br />Look what 'Scream' started! Hey, I enjoy those films, but mostly everything else that followed on afterwards were annoying and pointless excuses. During this stage the sub-genre came back with vengeance, but it wasn't much of a good thing as they were mostly unsuccessful and unoriginal attempts, where they followed the derivative pattern of the Scream franchise. 'Cut' which is an independent Australian take on the textbook slasher genre is purely shonky garbage that lacks basically everything and shamelessly knocks off every other slasher flick. But you know what, I found it a cheesy delight. Yeah, It's gawd awful and highly forgettable, but it's a bit of ala good cheap fun while it lasted. Although I did hate it when I originally came across it, but the second time around I knew what I was getting myself into and it worked better for it. It was just like helping myself to a nice slice cheesecake again, but this time it wasn't so sweet.<br /><br />The film came out around the same time as 'Scream 3' and 'Urban Legends: The Final Cut' did, which all three follow the same structure of using a movie within a movie. 'Scream 3' is obviously the strongest of the three, but I would actually watch this trash over Urban Legends: The Final Cut. Though, it did seem more of a throwback to the 80's slashers than that of one of Scream's bastard offspring. Pretty much the film is given b-grade treatment and that shows up in the script and performances. The dialog is truly unimaginative and hardly comes up with any surprises and suspense. While, the performances are pure mockery and Molly Ringwald takes the crown for it. She plays the wash-up actress returning to finish the cursed flick and I had good fun with her laughably ridiculous send-up performance. She provides the bite here and nails it down perfectly. The rest were mostly recognizable Australian TV stars (that's if you're an Australian) with a ravishing Jessica Napier leading the cast with the likes of Stephen Curry and Frank Roberts. Also pop singer (and supposed actress) Kylie Minogue makes a cameo appearance in the opening just to be hacked up! Nice. These teens mostly followed the formula of horny and dim-witted kids that have nothing better to do but to be killed. Sometimes it feels like they just waiting in queue, because they have no real substance to be there.<br /><br />The plot starts off rather interestingly, then heads into a mystery phase where red herrings pop up, but then it makes a sudden u-turn where it becomes a somewhat satire on the horror genre. Simply it's rather choppy and when it comes to the explanation for all of this madness I was kind of left thinking… oh my. This when it tries to twist back onto itself in a clever manner, but sadly it falls along way. But don't you just love an opening ending. Also it sports some pop culture references and a self referential, tongue-in-cheek approach. Predictability makes its way in rather early and the jokes can become over-stated at times, but it knows that by poking fun at itself quite a bit. The atmosphere looses a bit of edge because of the humour taking away the bleakness, but still the isolated grand old mansion where they are filming has some neat touches that added 'some' spookiness. The cinema scene is done rather nicely too.<br /><br />Now, now we know we want gore and nudity when watching this type of flick, but sadly there's no nudity to be found and the gore is pretty standard, if lacking but it's more then decent for such low-budget flick. There are one or two creative deaths, but the rest are systematic. The killer wasn't bad but when he spoke it kind of hurt it I thought, well the smart-ass attitude didn't sit well with me. Another notes of the production which were dire ranged from the cut-away editing, out-of-place soundtrack and Kimble Rendall's direction lacked execution and was pretty careless, but these contributing factors pull together to add some sort of sheer entertainment to all of this badness.<br /><br />The imagination matches the budget that's for sure, but heck this lousy slasher wasn't trying to be anything else. Pure schlock that's slightly amusing!
A student filmmaker enlists a B-grade actress (a delectably diva-ish MOLLY RINGWALD!) to complete the horror film that her mother (a dreadfully dull Kylie Minogue!) tried to make 12 years ago. It's a curious plot choice to say the least, as any Aussie horror fan knows that the genre is sadly lacking in women directors. The film has a curse on it, because Molly had to kill some psycho murderer on the original set. But she's back, because she needs the exposure. Unfortunately, the curse is still there and people start dying on the "set." Cut is an Aussie attempt at the modern "slasher," but unfortunately it doesn't bring anything new or exciting to the table. In fact, it rips half of Wes Craven's 90s filmography. Lots of film-world name-dropping a la "Scream" (except it's Aussie name-dropping--Jane Campion...see how this isn't as funny) and lots of "is this real or is this a movie" a la "New Nightmare." The editing is bad, the music is annoying, the effects are laughable, almost everything is bad about this. Fortunately, the film can have a sense of humor: at one point, a well-dressed girl in the movie crew says to the owner of the house they are filming at: "Don't worry, we'll treat your house as if it were our own," to which he responds, "that doesn't mean anything to me, you look like you live in a dump!" Ha! And Molly's ridiculous one-liners were enough to not regret renting this one. "You got any diet coke in here?" (as she rides in the film professor's car) and "Does anyone know where I can buy any tofu?" (the first thing she mutters on the set) and "Where the hell is my agent?" (oh wait, that's what I was thinking for her.)
The cover of box of this movie has Kyle Minogue's name on it, but she has the same destiny as Drew Barrymore did in "Scream." That's the first thing that makes this movie lame; they are trying to market a movie with someone that's in it for 5 minutes.<br /><br />Of course, we have to have this movie feature young hip college kids that are oblivious that there's a killer going around. To top it all off, Molly Ringwald of 80's teen movie fame is the star of this beautifully written film. It's a good career move for Molly to get some money doing a crappy movie in Australia so she won't get ridiculed in the states.<br /><br />Either way, this dumb movie is about some dumb horror movie that was never finished because this dumb creature kills everyone that's in it. Throughout the movie, we're supposed to guess who's the killer. Long story short, remember our little friend Molly, she saves the day...or does she?<br /><br />This move is just plain bad, rent it if you feel like torturing yourself or just break it on the floor of your local video store if you see it on the shelf. Don't spread the horror.
A slasher flick, made in the early 80's, has a curse on it which has anyone who tries to finish it turning up dead. Years later, a group of film students attempted to complete the movie - also resurrecting the films deadly curse. Great idea for a film, but sadly 'Cut' is just another wasted opportunity.<br /><br />Unfortunately Australia hasn't had the world's best track record when it comes to horror. 'Razorback' (1984) was an out and out dud as was 'Holwing III' (1987), which was half an American film anyway. As for our foray into comedy-horror, 'Body Melt' (1993) is best left forgotten. The problem with 'Cut' is that the makers trying to create a clever horror satire a la 'Scream' (1996) but have no insight into the genre or what makes it work. And although this sounds weird me saying this about a slasher film but what 'Cut' really lacks is any "heart". Sure it follows the basic "rules" established by 'Scream', but it doesn't want to play with the formula, instead it goes for a cardboard copy of the earlier.<br /><br />The killer, Scarman, is probably one of the most boring and uncharismatic villains in horror movie history. His endless barrage awkwardly, lame one-liners would make the dialogue of a porno seem like Shakespeare. The cast never seem like their fully involved and look like their just waiting for a shoot to be over so they can collect their pay checks. And the feel of the film is like it's deliberately trying not to be creepy; looking more like an episode of 'Neighbors' or 'Heartbreak High'. By the way, those attempts at MTV style, hyper-cinema during the "research" sequence just look lame, dated and out of place.<br /><br />If Australia ever gets a chance to do horror again (Which I hope we still do) maybe we should take a leaf from the 'Mad Max' (1979) book. Instead of trying to copy the U.S. we should be trying our own take on the genre.
Rip off of "Scream" or especially "I know what you did last summer", there's some entertainment here, and a little scary, but they needed some originality.<br /><br />An entertainment score? 6.5/10 Overall? 5.5/10
It seems that several of the people who have reviewed this movie only watched it in the first place because it was filmed near where they live. How's that for a ringing endorsement? If this movie was filmed near where I lived I wouldn't be mentioning it in my review. It is horrid! Several reviews state that this film is a spoof or tongue-in-cheek horror movie, it is neither. It is sad to see this film reviewed as a comedy as that makes it not only a bad attempt at a horror film but as a comedy as well. I did laugh though, at how unbelievably bad the film was.<br /><br />This movie has 2 good things going for it, the mask and the weapon of choice, unfortunately it would have been more interesting watching an hour and a half of the mask and weapon laying on a table then watching this garbage. The social commentary behind the film is also laughable, juvenile and stupid. Don't bother with this movie, you've already wasted time reading this review don't waste anymore on this movie. Arrggghhh! It's infuriating that movies like this even get made. I was expecting the entire cast a crew to be credited to Alan Smithee, a name used when a person, usually a director, doesn't want to be credited with a movie because it's so bad.<br /><br />There is nothing redeeming in this movie, I spent $1.19 on the rental and feel I was ripped off. Avoid. 1 out of 10
I saw this movie the other night and I have to honestly say it's one of the worst films I've ever seen. The acting is fair, but the plot is totally ridiculous. A killer is born because of all the "energy used to make the movie" and if the film is burned the killer will die? How unbelievable is that? The characters were underdeveloped to say the least...for example, all of a sudden the man mentions "Aren't you trying to complete the film because your mother couldn't?" So we're supposed to go along with this? We had no idea it was her daughter until half way through the film. The movie really didn't spotlight on anyone, we didn't know anything about the main people who survived except Ringwald's character was a whiney actress, the guy was on the set when the people died and Raffy wanted to be a director like her mother. Not truly diving in to know who they are. Seemed things were rushed to just get to the killings. The whole plot is entirely too weak for my taste and I was extremely disappointed. Anyone who enjoyed this piece of crap, obviously needs to learn a thing or two about film making. I can't believe anyone would agree to star or even work on this picture. It's not funny, it was not scary and was cliche through the entire film. I found myself predicting what would happen before each scene, which believe you me wasn't hard at all to do. It's a disgrace and I'm deeply sorry I wasted an hour and a half watching the mess. 1/10.
Slash flicks come few and far between now a days, so when I heard about Cut I had high hopes and heard good things about it. Those good things I heard were all wrong..very wrong! This flick is bad and I mean BAD. It's just plain stupid. Everything about it. Especially the killer's origin and how he stays alive and how he is taken care of in the end. There is nothing original or outstanding about this flick. Just another slasher wannabe with those "Hip," "Self aware." "Movie savvy" characters. I'm so sick of that crap. Someone do something different cause the slash genre needs new blood, literally.
Slasher films are often seen as the derivative, repetitive and frankly unoriginal. I happen to to be a horror movie fan, but this film was just so poor, words fail me. The script is severely lacking, the plot is ridiculous, the acting astoundingly bad. Just an all round stinker, that I wasted time of my life on. This had all the entertainment value of a 15th sequel to a film that was dire in the first place. <br /><br />Who greenlit this mess?<br /><br />I only liked two things in this movie. The first was the killer's mask - which was nice. The second was the Austrailian affinity with humourous profanity.<br /><br />Save yourself, and avoid this hideous mess.
Oh man, does this movie ever bite! If you were ever afraid of seeing a rehash of the slasher genre, done as cheap as possible and as cautious at the same time (pc-friendly, means no nudity, a classic element of slasher films) Cut is it. Every cliche is retread without a hint of self-awareness and the acting. Oh, the acting redefines the word horror. I should have known better as the direct Dutch translation of the title would have tipped me off.
"Cut" is a film about some film students making a film. It's very much in the "Scream" mold, an ironic, self-referential horror flick which, for me at least, falls down because for all its irony, it's still just a bad horror film, same as the films its referring to.<br /><br />But it was not without its charms. Well, one charm anyway. Molly Ringwald was fantastic as the spoilt, bitchy American actress hating every minute of working with the amateur Australian film crew. She was so convincing that its tempting to believe it wasn't an act, although everyone involved with "Cut" says she was lovely to work with. :-)<br /><br />Seriously, every scene of her pouting, sulking or snapping was great. Everyone else, however, wavered between being OK and being terribly wooden.<br /><br />Anyway, "Cut" has some laughs, a few buckets of gore (some of it surprisingly gruesome), and ultimately is.. just another bad horror film.
Normally I'm not motivated to write reviews. But this movie was so excruciatingly painful I feel I must. I cringed at the appallingly predictable plot, the lame acting and laughed at moments which were supposed to be tense. Indeed most of the audience seemed pretty bored and chatty even at the "most tense" moment of the movie. Molly Ringwald stood out as the only performance of any merit in a tortured production. Even the "twist" at the end wasn't. I've heard it said that the movie didn't take itself seriously; but I could find little evidence of that in the movie.<br /><br />Cut should have been left on the cutting room floor. Do yourself a favour and spend your time and money on something else!
This film was made and cast from my home town. I remember the fuss about it and the whole hullabaloo about the fact Molly Ringwald was in town...<br /><br />Storyline...<br /><br />Essentially 20 years after a film was "laid to rest" without being finished, a group of film students set out to complete it - with dire consequences. It would seem someone does not want the film completed.<br /><br />The storyline is flimsy. One has to remember that this is a comedy and therefore has to be taken a little tounge in cheek, but it had no real oomph. The characters are mostly transperant and the little info that you recieve about them you just don't care about, it seems irrelevant. It is weird hearing Kylie's accent as Australian again and nice to see a kid I went to school with in a starring role. But that doesn't redeem the film at all. Goodness knows why the makers thought they would get in Molly Ringwald. Perhaps due to the nature of the film (it sort of pays homage to 80s films / bad horror films)but really an Aussie actor would have done just fine.<br /><br />As far as casting is concerned a lot of the acting seemed constipated. Some of these kids (especially the two main chics - they played "director" and "producer") looked like they were trying to act. That is never a good look. Also, the shots had a rough feel about them. Over lit perhaps? Just not as smooth as one is used to.<br /><br />The killer. Lord. Could it be less frightening? There are some shock factors though, and a couple of gross scenes. I did like the film, but it was not great. It went for 90 minutes but could have gone for less. Perhaps if they had tightened the script it would have been better. They had a lot of characters get killed - but no real build up to them getting slayed. Maybe if they had killed less people and actually concentrated on a scary atmosphere it would have been better.<br /><br />Now I know it is a comedy and elements were funny. Or so unbelieveable they were funny. But I am not convinced.<br /><br />LM.
Everyone in this movie tells Raffy Carruthers how talented she is, what a great director she'll one day turn out to be, etc. I think they're just being nice. Even Kimble Rendall, who directed this film, shows more talent than she does. "The next Jane Campion", they call her; and, even apart from the fact that they're both over-rated, the two have SO much in common. They both direct movies. They're both women. They're both Australian. (Well, give or take.)<br /><br />Yep: it's one of those films in which a character is deemed to be brilliant, and we just have to swallow hard and accept it. But I'll say this for Carruthers: she's cute. -And fascinating. No, really. Here are some thoughts on her lack of talent:<br /><br />(1) Part of a director's talent lies in dealing with people. Why is Carruthers so phenomenally bad at getting her crew to even take notice of her? So as to make it easier for everyone to wander off the set and get killed, I expect.<br /><br />(2) Why is this one of the most unconvincing depictions of a movie set I have ever seen? After all, it must have been filmed on a REAL movie set. How could they get it wrong? If Rendall's set was half as much of an under-staffed shambles it's a wonder he completed his film at all.<br /><br />(3) Carruthers - the fictional director - has set herself the task of creating a brand new 1980s horror flick. Fat chance. I doubt it can be done these days. I suspect that Rendall - the actual, and more talented, director - set himself the same task, realised it couldn't be done, and settled for (sigh) knowing parody instead. Of course, it's not ENOUGH of a parody to work as a parody. As soon as the cast and crew set foot in the isolated mansion the film just spends most of its time doing badly what 1980s horror films did ... well, less badly.<br /><br />(4) And yet, and yet ... the film opens with not a parody but an honest-to-goodness pastiche of 80s horror, starring (this is too good to be true) Molly Ringwald. This pastiche is much better than anything that follows. (It's a bad sign when you find yourself wishing you were watching the movie-within-the-movie, rather than the movie.) Yet it, too, was filmed in the late 1990s. Perhaps it IS still possible to make 1980s horror. You just have to drop the knowing parody stuff and MEAN it.<br /><br />(5) I'd never once wondered what 1980s teen horror would be like if all the characters had Australian accents, but now I know. And strangely, I'm glad I know. A need I never knew I had has been fulfilled.
I had not seen the movie trailer when I went to see the movie, instead I based my judgments on a friend's opinions. Now I like Chris Rock and his comedy, but this movie just falls flat on its face.<br /><br />During the movie Rock delivers a couple of funny jokes, but unfortunately the movie is sorely lacking in comedy. The movie seems want to integrate both laughter and love into one, and it that endeavor it fails. The love story in the movie is straight forward (luckily), but it detracts too much from the movie by making Rock serious and bland. After all, the movie is first and foremost destined to be a comedy, where laughter should be the primary concern. Not much of that in the movie.<br /><br />The plot is also pretty uninteresting as a whole. Some parts were discontinuous altogether. If the supporting cast were meant to be funny, they certainly didn't do a good job. The couple of angels from heaven tried to make a couple of jokes, which were dry and dull. Rock's first incarnation's couple of underlings were also bland. If there's one thing they did do right, though, they made Rock seem funnier by comparison.
The king is dead long live the King! The triad of Caddie Shack Two, The Family underneath the Stairs, and Troop Beverly Hills had been tied for worst movie ever for so long that they seemed icons in their own right. But there is a new king.....yep.....all hail the new king...."Down to Earth". But some things, like Tiny Tim for example, are so bad they are good. Some day this could take out the inimitable "Rocky Horror Picture Show" as a cult film. So go see this ....this....well just take my word for it. Go see it. All hail the new king!
First off, I would like to say that I am a fan of Chris Rock. I like his other movies, but this movie is just like my summary. The Biggest Sack of Crap ever. In the beginning, Chris Rock plays an aspiring comedian who get stage fright at a Comedy Building called the Apollo. On his way home from a gig, while riding his BIKE he sees this woman he likes and is hit by a Truck. A little while later, he chooses the body of an old, white, and selfish millionaire. Then, he dresses up like the music group Outkast while trying to replay the scene from the original where he comes out as a Jockey. Second, he goes back to the Apollo, and tries to be the comedian he tried to be in his previous body and starts dissing the white population and tries to be black. Do you get my drift? This movie is awful it tries too hard to be like the original and in the process comes out looking like a sack of crap. Just take my advice, don't even watch this movie.
Down to Earth is about Lance Barton, a black comedian who gets hit by a truck. He goes to Heaven and he gets to get another body. Lance gets the body of Charles Wellington, a white guy. So Lance does a few things in the body of Charles. The movie has a few laughs, but it's nothing special. It's a good movie if you're a fan of Chris Rock. Madagascar, the 2005 animated comedy, is better. This is a good movie, but Chris Rock has done way better things than this. It will only make you laugh about 4 times the whole movie. And it's not really laugh-out-loud funny. You'll laugh to yourself and you might giggle, but you definitely won't be rolling on the floor laughing.
This is probably the worst movie I have ever seen, (yes it's even worse than Dungeons and Dragons and any film starring Kevin Costner.)<br /><br />Chris Rock looked very uncomfortable throughout this whole film, and his supporting actors didn't even look like they were trying to act. Chris Rock is a wonderful stand-up comedian, but he just can't transfer his talent to this film, which probably only has two strained laughs in the whole picture.<br /><br />If you haven't watched this film yet, avoid it like the plague. Go do something constructive and more interesting like watching the weather channel or watching paint dry on a brick wall.<br /><br />For Chris' efforts I give it a 2/10!<br /><br />
I figured the whole joke of the movie would be to see some rich white guy acting like Chris Rock, and then see Chris Rock react to people's reactions. Instead you just see Chris Rock being himself and people not understanding him. There are maybe 2 scenes in the entire movie where they use their gimmick. This should have been a lot better.
I like Chris Rock, but I feel he is wasted in this film. The idea of remaking Heaven Can Wait is fine, but the filmmakers followed the plot of that turkey too closely. When Eddie Murphy remade Dr. Doolittle and The Nutty Professor, he re-did them totally -- so they became Murphy films/vehicles, not just tepid remakes. That's why they were successful. If Chris had done the same, this could have been a much better film. The few laughs that come are when he is doing his standup routine -- so he might as well have done a concert film. It also would have been much funnier if the white man whose body he inhabits was a truck driver or hillbilly. So why does Hollywood keep making junk like this? Because people go to see it -- because they like Chris Rock. So give Chris a decent script and give us better movies! Don't remake films that weren't that good in the first place!
I like Chris Rock, but I feel he is wasted in this film. The idea of remaking Heaven Can Wait is fine, but the filmmakers followed the plot of that turkey too closely. When Eddie Murphy remade Dr. Doolittle and The Nutty Professor, he re-did them totally -- so they became Murphy films/vehicles, not just tepid remakes. That's why they were successful. If Chris had done the same, this could have been a much better film. The few laughs that come are when he is doing his standup routine -- so he might as well have done a concert film. It also would have been much funnier if the white man whose body he inhabits was a truck driver or hillbilly. So why does Hollywood keep making junk like this? Because people go to see it -- because they like Chris Rock. So give Chris a decent script and give us better movies! Don't remake films that weren't that good in the first place!
I did not expect much from this film, but boy-o-boy, I did not expect the movie to be this bad. Chris Rock is not showing a good act here, you can't get the feeling that his caracter is real, I think the movie would have been a bit better if it's drama or romantic scenes would have been a less part of the movie and more/better humor was involved. The movie is like the film makers were having a bad hangover making it. In the "making of" they don't show a single smile. This is a very bad film! I gave it three out of ten because of few smiles it gave me, but I did never laugh!
irritating, illogical flow of events. pretty much every joke is so simple that it can hardly be regarded as one. no wonder the cinema was empty and people actually walked away, yes away. I stayed, since I was enjoying a wonderful ice-cream with nuts during the whole movie.
I was in physical pain watching the eyes of the cast as they participated in this sham. Bad dialogue, worse (worst) acting, lifeless all the way, and the cast knew it. The two preceding movies which this attempted to copy had life, sparkle, and were captivating.
because that is the only way you won't think this film is a TOTAL waste of time and money. A remake of "Heaven Can Wait", (which was at least worth watching) is a poor excuse for a romantic comedy. It is more a vehicle to give Rock some time on film for weak stand up comedy which doesn't play well on the big screen. Especially because his jokes generally are supposed to be from the body of an old, fat, rich, dead man but are shown coming from Rock himself. As he insults Blacks and Whites the chemistry is all wrong. The movie is not funny, poorly shot the acting is weak at best. Go rent "Heaven Can Wait" and a live Rock video and you'll be way ahead of the game.
<br /><br />One would expect a movie with a famous comedian in the lead role, to be a funny movie. This is not the case here. I laughed out loud once throughout the whole movie, and that wasn't even during the final comedy-scene (which one would also expect to be the funniest). This is one you can watch when it comes to TV, don't spend any other money renting it.
No need to detail what others have written in other reviews - here goes the summary: <br /><br />* Much of the nested animation work is downright gorgeous - the colors are superb - would love to have it done in silk as a necktie<br /><br />* The story and execution is a total snooze - it was quite difficult to stay awake at times<br /><br />If you are a student of the fine arts, medieval calligraphy, early religion and so forth - have at it. This is a FILM for you.<br /><br />If you want an engaging, entertaining MOVIE - look elsewhere - this is a failure as anything other than an artistic statement.<br /><br />Vikings didn't have horns by the way...
There are moments in this unique cartoon of pure beauty but overall it's not very good. Limited animation as well as sub standard character and background design will limit its mass market appeal. The character design looks like a cross between the original Star Wars Clone Wars and Disney's Kim Possible, (Brendan, the main character in this also bares an uncanny similarity to Ron Stoppable in Kim Possible) Background design ranges as far and wide as going from being bland and depressing to stylish and stark, yet by today's standards, overall it is still poor and cheap looking. Many of the backgrounds bare resemblances to eastern European or Nordic animation from the mid 80's, nice in its own way but for modern child audiences, used to CG slug fests and talking dogs with every piece of fur on their body swaying in the wind, is sure to disappoint. The story is also not overly engaging and many of the voice actors aren't overly impressive, noticeably the usually brilliant Brendan Gleeson who appears to be phoning in his part. There are also a few secondary characters who come across as slightly cliché and stereotypically racist. However, some of the characters are good, the Viking villains, although underused are well done and are specifically foreboding in both look and sound. There is one moment involving the main character and his mentor being saved by Wolves from a Viking attack that is very nicely put together. The look and feel also seemed to be very inspired by the film Watership Down including a blatant rip off/homage to the Ghost Rabbit of Inlay. The look is also clearly and obviously inspired by Gaelic/Celtic/Anglo Saxon art so if you are into these subjects you may be drawn towards its look. The film also does have moments of very nicely structured shots leading the eye in a very artistic manner, including a pretty match cut and a large scale Viking attack that is very moody and impressive. Best of all though is the music, much of the background music is melodic and moving, specifically the song by the spirit girl which is truly beautiful and haunting and works very well with the images it covers. If the whole film was as poetic as this moment, (and it tries,) then this would be a very beautiful and poetic film that would sadly still not reach a wide audience, but instead it isn't a shame it wont reach a wider audience because most of it is average and cheap looking and doesn't stand up to modern animation standards. Overall a film that clearly split my opinion in many ways, but all together not great but worth watching for the music and song and the occasional pretty or scary moment. Oh yeah and the cat seemed to live for a long time, not sure how that was possible.
Normally I would have given this movie a 6. It tackles a very important topic and it does it relatively well - despite Katie Wright which is an accomplishment in and of itself.<br /><br />I have no idea if she was actually instructed to play the character like this or is naturally irritating, but she did an awesome job at making it impossible for me to care for Lexi. There's no dimension to her other than how confused, helpless and clueless she is, and how good she is at whimpering. I can understand how a young girl who blames herself for the loss of her friend and whose eating disorder has spiraled out of control would be distraught, scared and in pain. However, Wright's entire performance is based on incessant wailing and sniveling, the rest being whining. I couldn't help but feel this particular girl's problem was caused not by the demon that is Bulimia, but by her not having a backbone. I very much doubt that's the point the movie meant to make.
Not the best of actors' movies.The director has concentrated on projected actor's stardom rather than giving a good entertainer. May be hero himself, his family and his sincere fans can enjoy it.But definitely it's not worth for neutral audience.The fight sequences are a total comedy.The dance moves in the song sequences are pathetic. The music is average.This film was the biggest flop for the actor. Inspite of the hype created over the movie, the movie failed miserably. Don't even think of watching this move even if you want to kill time. You can watch some cartoon instead.A good movie buff cannot digest this crap for 2 1/2 hours.
This is without doubt Rajnikanth's worst movies ever. The first part is held in place with solid comedy from Goundamani but it progressively gets worse and worse and completely illogical. Our hero also takes a dig at Saints with the same name (Baba) through a corny and utterly lame one-liner. The first half has Rajni uttering his usual array of oneliners and style and in the second half, becomes a quasi saint after a beggar takes him through a interdimensional portal to the Himalayas where Babaji (not the famous Saints he took a dig at earlier) gives him special powers for no apparent reason (other than karma). This is really starting to get interesting now isn't it? <br /><br />The rest of the movie is about him wasting his magic boons and powers and fighting off politicians and related black magic. The usual predictable crap with hilarious implementation. Oh and the black magic never worked on our hero because he just happened to have a Param Vir...er....Shakti Chakra with him. The bad guys and the usual politician villains are clichéd, overworked and in the end, completely insignificant to the plot which itself doesn't go anywhere.<br /><br />But despite all the flaws, it was fun to kill time with and yell Baba related one-liners during public events. Its also fun to watch others curse about this movie. AR Rehman is said to have composed the tracks for his movie through the cell phone. Thats how important he considered it.<br /><br />Rajni is very popular in Japan and he has included two characters (one of them is called Keiko...why not Samsung?) of Japanese origin in this movie just for the sake of it. But the way they are portrayed, dressed and treated is absolutely pathetic. The Japanese may stop watching Rajni movies after seeing that. This movie was probably promotional material for Rajni entering politics but the results of the movie itself would have killed off any of his political dreams.<br /><br />Fun if you turn your brain off though.
movie goers - avoid watching this movie. if you are faint hearted, you might want to commit suicide. if you are a short tempered, you would want to kill the lead performer of the movie.<br /><br />Though he does not have any talent in acting, he is the mass hero for all the rickshaw pullers,auto rickshaw drivers, rowdies, thugs and immature and ignorant literates.<br /><br />he proves - you do not need neither talent nor knowledge to be successfully.<br /><br />He is the highest paid actor in India. That shows the taste of movie going public in India. 90% of movie goers in tamil nadu are definitely attracted to his kind of nonsense movies.
Rajinikanth becomes born again after getting a magical power which he can use seven times.<br /><br />There are several problems with this movie that are obvious to the casual audience: the 50ish Rajinikanth is still at home with his parents; the father of the girl next door thinks that he is a compelling "boy" ('vaseekaramaana paiyan'); Rajinikanth suddenly interrupts the movie with his sermons, the worst being how women of yesteryears got their exercise through household work--yet we are to believe that he is not a theist; even though he was well read, he wastes six of his seven powers on a stupid kite; I can go on, but you get the picture.<br /><br />There are god-men, there are gods, and there is Rajinikanth. The directory has difficulty fitting Rajinikanth into one of these categories. Initially, Rajinikanth is just Rajinikanth doing what Tamil heroes do--stand up to villains and, in spite of being the oldest, getting courted by the prettiest girl in the movie. Rajinikanth does this well and some of Rajinikanth's trademark styles are actually enjoyable--"baba count" is a novelty. What makes this movie unbearable is that those few initial minutes are just a preface to an worst book to be ever written. Even that preface is punctuated with some comedy which are forced and obvious.<br /><br />The director doesn't explain the purpose of the hero; we see that the hero is facing several hurdles (from politicians, as usual) but we can't really root for the hero because we don't know what the hero's ultimate goal is. At the end, when everyone wants him to be the leader, the hero gives another one of his sermons and walks away to become a hermit. The director offers no solution to the problem in the climax scene.<br /><br />A. R. Rehman's score is really interesting. Either he shows patches of brilliance or he didn't bother to invest himself fully into this movie--who can blame him. There is one scene where Rajinikanth steps into the van of one of the crooks and then throws the knife and starts his baba count. The music is very apt for the moment and acts as a catalyst adding further tension. The songs are all mediocre, no one would bother with the songs from this movie after a few years.<br /><br />Unfortunately, 1 is the lowest rank you can assign in IMDb. This movie has all the elements that justify its rightful place at the nether of IMDb's ranking.
I am not a big fan of Rajnikant in the first place, but Baba was a huge disappointment. In between an awful storyline, the action and songs were only mediocre. The storyline becomes very preachy. Instead of running for office like NTR or MGR, Rajni almost appeared to be running as Tamil Nadu's next big guru. My wife tells me that since this film came out, Rajni swore off doing any more movies!<br /><br />We were lucky initially to have bought Babu (an oldie by Sivajiganeshan) online by accident when trying to buy this one....that was a great film, which made up for having bought this dud...except it makes Baba look even worse by comparison!<br /><br />Bryan
Baba - Rajinikanth will never forget this name in his life. This is the movie which caused his downfall. It was released with much hype but crashed badly and laid to severe financial losses for its producers and distributors. Rajinikanth had to personally repay them for the losses incurred. Soon after its release, he tried venturing into politics but failed miserably. Its a very bad movie with horrible acting, bad-quality makeup and pathetic screenplay. Throughout the movie, Rajinikanth looks like a person suffering from some disease. I'm one of the unfortunate souls who saw Baba, first day first show in theatre. The audiences were so bored that most of them left the theatre before the intermission. Sorry, I'll not recommend this one to anyone.
The main aspect about the Superstar's movies at his later stages were the frequency, the lacuna between one movie and the next. Being a well established star of the south Indian cinema, the feedbacks he was receiving before Baba was great. <br /><br />Since Nattukku Oru Nallavan (1991), the number of movies he acted in Tamil as a mass Hero in 11 years were only 11 exactly at the rate of 1 per year. All of these were a great hit. He was having a image that many thought could not be easily brought down. <br /><br />But after Padayappa (1999), he went into a state of Hibernation. His fans all over the world, especially in South India were ready to see movie of any kind with their superstar in action. So, the Tamil cinema industry decided to come with Baba. <br /><br />The movie makers thought that the fans will take whatever they show with Superstar in it. But this clearly did not work out in this movie. As usual, the hype from the media and the expectation from the fans were way beyond limit. <br /><br />Rajinikanth's image was totally damaged. The fans went nuts. The movie's collection did not meet the expected level. Reputation of great people went down. <br /><br />The only positive aspect about this movie was the songs by A.R.Rehman. Rehman is known to have composed good music for some worst movies like Tajmahal, Kadal Virus, Alli Arjuna, Paarthale Paravasam, Star, En Swasa Katre, Vandicholai Chinnarasu etc. Well, i never thought that this movie would join that league.<br /><br />You'l feel very much depressed not because the movie was bad, it'l be because of the superstar's image going down. It took him five full years to regain it fully back with two movies Chandramukhi and Sivaji and give fans back what they really look for in a superstar film.
As usual, i went to watch this movie for A.R.Rahman. Otherwise, the film is no good. Rajni wanted to end his movie career with this film is it would be successful. But fortunately or unfortunately the film was a failure. After this he delivered a hit with Chandramukhi. I Am eagerly waiting for his forth coming Shivaji.<br /><br />I have read the other user's comment on Rajni. I found it interesting as the user is from TN too. Rajni is one actor who acts, i think, from his heart not from his mind. He is not a method actor like Kamal Hasan. I think we need to appreciate Rajni for his strong going at his age.<br /><br />Any ways, i need to fill 10 lines for this comment... so wish u good luck Rajni...........
It's not just that this is a bad movie; it's not only that four of the "best" Mexican movie makers are in this film; and it's not only that the script is terrible. It's just that...this movie sucks...big time. This people are wasting money in terrible scripts. It's supposed to make a criticism about Mexican society but we're fed up with this kind of films. Is bad language supposed to be funny? I don't get it. Mexican cinema is in big trouble if this kind of movies are going to continue playing (and being written and produced).<br /><br />Please, don't think this kind of movies are well received in Mexico: We hate them and they don't reflect us.
I am surprised that everyone (even the critics) seems to think this was a good movie. It was the most clichéd thriller ever made that I have seen. We have the 'bad guy' who wants to force the 'good guy' (or girls in this case) to do something or face the consequence. The 'good girl' in this movie must use her smarts and skills to defeat the 'bad guy' and save the day and her loved ones. Using charisma, bravery, and even luck to save the day. <br /><br />Where to begin? Well, a young woman by the name of Lisa Reisert meets a young man by the name of Jackson Rippner (nice name) at an airport. One coincidence leads to another and soon it seems as if fate is bringing these two together. Sharing drinks, sitting next to each other, seemingly getting along in every way... Is there more to this strangeness? Could these two be meant for each other? Does 'fate' have a reason for their strange and random encounter? <br /><br />Well, as it turns out, unfortunately yes. Jackson needs to Lisa to help him assassinate the Director of Homeland Security by moving him from one room to another so that his men can launch an attack on him. Oh, if she doesn't do this then her father is dead. Though we never learn the exact reasons why and who is really behind this madness, Jackson more then explains how this is going to happen and why its in Lisa's best interest to help him.<br /><br />Of course, Lisa defeats his evil plans with her smarts and in the process stabs him in the neck, makes him trip over chairs, and hitting him with a field hockey stick. Oh, and before that, she leads him on wild chase through Miami airport where she gets passed post 9 11 security and steals a car that she later uses to run over the man who was ordered to kill her father. <br /><br />Yeah, right.<br /><br />First of all, I find it strange that a man like Jackson who can get his hands on high tech weaponry needs the help of a hotel manager. Couldn't he just sneak a bomb into the building? Wouldn't that make it safer for him and his team by leaving out any third parties? And why do characters like Jackson also explain everything they are going to do to someone they are threatening? Doesn't that make it easier to stop them by the same people? <br /><br />The actors did their best considering the movie they were given. Racheal McAdams and Cillian Murphy are still actors to look out for. Also, I believe that Jayma Mays (who played the 'loveable' Cynthia) will be someone we will see more of. It's just too bad they all were stuck with this.<br /><br />2 out of 10
The main reasons to see "Red Eye" are Rachel McAdams, who delivers a stellar performance, and Jayma Mays, who is wonderful as the Assistant Hotel Manager. On the other hand, Cillian Murphy overacts so badly that he becomes cartoonish. The rest of the movie is riddled with plot holes, on which I will elaborate.<br /><br />Please do not read further if you don't want to know what happens!<br /><br />Here is a synopsis of the plot. Rachel McAdams's character (Lisa) manages a hotel where the new hard-nosed Homeland Security Director plans to stay that night. Rachel is returning to Miami from a funeral, but fielding calls from her assistant up until the plane leaves. In the meantime, someone is stationed outside the house of her father, Joe (played by Brian Cox), ready to kill him if Cillian Murphy (Jackson) calls. All Lisa has to do is phone the hotel and move the Director's suite to one where Jackson's cohorts are planning to fire a guided missile (from a fishing boat) to kill the Director and his family.<br /><br />So, here are some of the plot holes or absurd coincidences:<br /><br />1. Jackson finally convinces Lisa to make the call, and in the middle, the phones in the plane lose their connection. Lisa tries to fake that she is making the call, but coincidentally, a guy across the aisle from Jackson is also making a call and starts banging his phone to indicate it is dead. Jackson catches on and grabs the phone from Lisa.<br /><br />2. At one point, Jackson head-butts Lisa and she, of course, gets knocked out...but only for 30 minutes.<br /><br />3. Jackson catches Lisa writing a note on the mirror in the (extraordinarily large) lavatory, and he bangs her around a bit. Miraculously, the only one who hears anything is an 11-year-old girl, whose word, of course, is discounted.<br /><br />4. Lisa stabs Jackson with a pen in the throat as the plane is landing, steals his cell phone, and makes a mad dash for the exit, fitting down the aisle between the seats and 18 rows of standing passengers. Despite knowing there is a passenger with a pen stuck in his throat, the flight attendants oblige Lisa by opening the door to the jet-way.<br /><br />5. OK, all those are reasonable (if not highly unlikely). But here's where it gets really stupid. Lisa gets into the terminal at Miami Airport, and there is no cell phone signal (every major airport in America has great cell phone reception).<br /><br />6. She runs through the airport with Jackson in hot pursuit, and no security officers even delay them.<br /><br />7. Jackson, who lost Lisa in the Airport while the train from the gates pulled away to the terminal, has lost some of his voice from the pen in his throat, but he can still be somewhat understood. However, he doesn't bother to call his man outside of Joe's house. (PS: There is no train at Miami Airport, but the one they showed looked an awful lot like the Orlando Airport).<br /><br />8. Lisa steals a car and rides away. Of course this time, when she goes to make a call, the cell phone says "low battery" and soon shuts off (when will they stop using this inane plot device?).<br /><br />9. While the phone still said "low battery," Lisa had reached her assistant just in time to save the Director and his family from the guided missile launched by the fishing boat to the window of the room on the 40th floor to which the Director had been moved. Of course, they expect us not to notice that the hotel is surrounded on 3 sides by ocean, so the missile could have probably been launched at the first suite, thereby negating the need for the whole Lisa-Jackson plot. What's the story here? Was the Director's original room on the 38th floor one of the only rooms in the hotel with a lousy view? Nevertheless, everyone gets out just before the missile hits.<br /><br />10. Lisa drives to Joe's house to save her father only to see the killer outside. Although she runs him over (as he is shooting at her) by crashing her Jeep into the house, no one in the neighborhood seems to notice or bother to stop by.<br /><br />11. Jackson arrives at Joe's house and knocks him out (we don't see how...maybe another head butt). He then explains to Lisa that he didn't kill dad yet because he wanted dad to see Lisa die first (Give me a break. What is this? Saturday morning cartoons?).<br /><br />12. For the rest of the movie (about 20 minutes), Jackson chases Lisa around the house, and she resourcefully fights him off. Of course a real killer (i.e. one maybe played by Jason Statham) would have done away with Lisa (or for that matter anyone who is not a trained killer) in the first 30 seconds. During the course of this chase, Jackson steps over Joe at least once without bothering to kill him.<br /><br />13. Finally, Jackson prevails, and he is about to kill Lisa when (you guessed it) he is shot by Joe.<br /><br />So, here's my suggestion...tell Wes Craven to stick to horror. Or maybe he should get together with Michael Bay (who directed the equally stupid "The Island") and make "Red Island."
They sell it as a horror movie, it's supposed to be a thriller, but I found it pretty funny (comedy?, don't think so), I laughed the whole movie I think it was because of the ridiculous acting and plot. I don't blame the actors, I think they were not very good, but O.K. I think Cillian is a very good "bad guy" I loved his acting in Batman Beggins, and Rachel McAdams.. whoa! she's a beauty, and a good actress as well, but let's try to be a little objective here, the story mm mm... the direction mm mm... it lacks a lot of good suspense in fact is a really boring movie, but there's one good thing tho, it's a short movie, only 1 hour and 30 minutes (FOR ME IT WAS LIKE 10 MINUTES UNDER THE WATER!!!)<br /><br />I just don't know why this movie is rated so high, and in rotten tomatoes, even higher, what's wrong with good, rational and objective criticism?
Wes Craven, you are having a laugh... at our expense. The Red Eye plot is preposterous... We are confronted by a guy who has apparently spent 8 weeks watching a girl, who then turns up at an airport behind her, flirts and chats her up successfully, somehow wangles a seat next to her in a two seat space, not trapped in the middle of a five seat row (contacts at check-in?) and is cheezily nice during a painfully slooooow build up. Then, once up in the air, in a confined space, surrounded by strangers, he immediately starts threatening the vacuous, if super-efficient, Rachel McAdams and saying tosh like 'we got ya daddy, do what I say, or poppa gets it'. Well, forgive me, but didn't they already have her daddy ready for slaughter-so-you-better-oughta long before she stepped on the plane and therefore wouldn't it have been oh, sooooooo much simpler to simply snatch the gal off the street and terrorise her in a room somewhere, forgetting the complicated and insecure dad plot, pulling her nails out or whatever until she made the all important 'call' required? Or even - cos this is the movies and we need a few unreal twists - keep the dumb dad-in-distress thing intact if you must, but dress it up better so that holding him in harms way until the convoluted plot had been concluded made some sense, without the plane dumbdown? Alternatively, without wanting to sound like an actual thinking terrorist/assassin - couldn't the massive bazooka-missile thang employed have been far more easily used on, say, a car driving down the highway, with the politician inside, rather than the 50th story of a Miami seafront hotel, from a fishing boat (mind you, as we already know, security in Miami is lax, so they'll speed away)? I know, I know, far more fun to go through watching a pretty girl for 8 weeks, burgle her dads house to steal his wallet (that somehow - star trek style - gets transported from Miami to Texas instantly) in order to - perhaps - get her to arrange for a politician to change hotel room and, and, and... Well, a thousand things could go wrong here, each one entirely destroying the Big Plan, so why not slim the elements down to a sensible handful, such as - 1. bazooka. 2. car. 3. boom! My 50 minute drive home from the cinema was spent highlighting the abundance of flaws and stupid cod-Hitchcockian twists, which sadly was the best fun of the whole sorry experience. And as for security back at Miami Airport... we have an apparently crazy and violent girl running off a plane, chased by cops, who during the chase sits down to have a coffee, moves elsewhere to read a magazine at a bar, then runs again like crazy up and down the whole terminal... by now also chased by crazed Cillian Murphy (no CCTV then? - I had guns pulled on me for parking in the wrong place for 10 seconds at Miami Airport a couple of years back). So instead of speaking to the cops - her allies - or getting on the blower at a call-box direct to her dad to warn him his life is in danger, McAdams prefers instead to steal a People Carrier off a family in the Airport forecourt (call the damned security...) and drives home to daddy, mowing down the assassin with the vehicle in the front garden of the house, in a rich neighbourhood-watch district, crushing the front porch in the process - an act which actually slightly wakes dad up from an afternoon snooze, after about a minute, yet which somehow fails to register with neighbours who aren't even mildly curious, thus ensuring 15 more minutes of hide and seek shenanigans as the duo run around the vast Hollodeck type house... Dohhh, it actually hurts to keep thinking about it all - Cillian (surely renamed Silly 'un for doing this one?) preposterously turns from ice assassin to comically unhinged (and inept) lunatic killer at the end, this theoretically ruthless despatcher of human life now allowing the dad to live so that he can watch his daughter getting her goose cooked. I'd better stop, because the stream of drivel I'm writing here must sound as uncoordinated as the Red Eye script. If Ms McAdams hadn't been allowed to get on the plane in the first place the title could have been altered, from 'Red Eye' to 'No Eye, Dear'. RR
I've seen thousands of movies and have never written a review, but the Red Eye I witnessed is so at odds with the glowing tributes posted here that I'm compelled to offer my two cents in protest- and vote the lowest score possible just to bring the average closer to reality. <br /><br />This is a dull, boring stinker of a film that is memorable only for its apologist depictions of the terrorists' target (a John Bolton-esquire bully diplomat who's really a great guy, don't you know) and of the oh-so-handsome and popular Dr. Phil (whose bestselling book, one learns, is read by frequent fliers worldwide). The only real Red Eye I experienced was from rubbing my eyes in disbelief.<br /><br />Before you fork out $10 or so dollars for this B movie, read the selected 'Quotes (from trailer)' above, and ask yourself if you'll really enjoy a movie in which these were the cleverest lines to be found. Unfortunately, nothing else in this film is any better. The basic premise is goofy as hell; the acting is bland and uninspired, completely lacking in pro/antagonist chemistry; the potential for suspense is thwarted at every turn- except during the last five minutes- by poor directing and anticipatory editing; the script is riddled with incongruities like: early reveals of the heroine as a university lacrosse star are called into question when she later battles the antagonist with a field hockey stick; and the plot holes are wider than First Class (while character development is strictly Coach).<br /><br />And then there are the moments of extreme ridiculousness, like when the daughter of a high level public servant does NOT head straight for airport security, at her first opportunity, to warn them of an assassination plot against the both the head of Homeland Security and her father. Or when that same woman runs hell-bent-for-leather along slick airport linoleum, arms pistoning and veins in her neck bulging, while wearing 4 inch stiletto heels. Or when her pursuer chases likewise with a sucking wound in his trachea. Or when terrorists use a fishing pole to bring up their weapon from the freaking harbor bottom. I'm always willing to suspend disbelief, but I'm not going to leap from 30,00 feet without a parachute.<br /><br />The one good thing I can say of this movie is that it portrays women who are capable (even in bimbo form) of handling the most extreme emergencies- the kind of gender imaging sorely lacking in American movies. Other than that, this movie never really takes off, and is no more thrilling than the red eye flight from Boston to NY. Remember the last time you got suckered by deceptive trailers and glowing tributes- in this forum or elsewhere? This is one of those times. Wait for the Red Eye video, and don't watch it then, either.
My goodness is this movie bad. I was totally misled by my local movie review because this is certifiable garbage. Yeah, yeah, good guys wear white, bad guys wear black....and the good guys always win. Now go home and hug your kids, and feel how good Hollywood has made you feel. Blech! I can't believe this brain dead movie was made by Wes Craven. I'm guessing he needed a little money to pay the mortgage, so he made this piece of dung. It is the sort of production that makes anyone who watches movies regularly believe they could do as good or better than such an experienced director.<br /><br />Ya see, a bad guy wants a sweet girl who loves her daddy to do a wittle IL' bad thing or he's gonna hurt her daddy. But being Ms. All-American girl next door, we know she's gonna save the day and beat the bad guys...the end. Girl power ROCKS.<br /><br />C'mon now, only an idiot would find this entertaining..."a roller coaster ride," let alone something fresh or new. All those "super-duper" reviews you see on this site are from industry hacks who are either making money off this flick, paying back a favor, or they have sold their souls to the devil.<br /><br />Rachael McAdams is beautiful....yup, that's it. Not a good performance, not a horrible one...she's just cute. She would have had to show a whole lot of skin to save this movie. She isn't tough enough to be a good female action lead.<br /><br />Cillian Murphy was at least passable in 28 Days. But here he plays a dumb villain pretending to be a smart one. He gets his ass kicked to and fro by the 5'5'' McAdams, because after all, she was a cheerleader...and a field hockey player...and I'm sure she owns all the Tae Bo tapes...so she should be able to kick the crap out of an international terrorist for hire. I wouldn't trust him to steal a pack of gum from 7-11.<br /><br />Ya see, this movie was done before, except before they did it well. Go re-rent any of the Die Hard movies. You have loved ones in danger, international terrorists, except the characters are more likable and believable and the bad guys are WAY more competent and interesting. I simply don't understand how Hollywood can continue to make such crap as if they were oblivious to the proper models they can readily copy. No wonder movie revenues are down.<br /><br />Throw your $6 down the toilet and save yourself 2 hours of your life you'll never get back.<br /><br />ciao, FreddyShoop
I remember a certain Tuesday, the morning of 18/6/02 to be exact. I was dozed off, trying to convince myself to get out of bed when a horrific explosion was heard. I went to the kitchen where I have a view of several neighborhoods in the southern Jerusalem and saw a pillar of smoke rising from a distant point, the sight of the smoke was followed a minute later by the waling of sirens. I remember rushing to my bedroom, taking out my binoculars, racing back to the kitchen and spotting the image of a glass shattered bus. The bus was still near the pick up station where a terrorist boarded on it and with a single click on a TNT device, murdered 25 passengers, many of whom were on their way to school. The wife of a good friend of mine, sat on the bus at the back row, a seemingly arbitrary and meaningless decision that saved her life.<br /><br />I'm sure that every Israeli has at least one terror-related memory he wishes he never would have had and it was only a matter of time before someone made a film about it. As it turned out, the movie was about to become a repressed memory of its own.<br /><br />The film is about a play-write on a dry run, Haim Buzaglo (portrayed by, hmmm, Haim Buzaglo who also wrote and directed the film) that spends the better part of his day conducting staring contests with his blank word processor page. In the meantime, his girlfriend, a field reporter for the Israeli commercial channel, decides to make a piece about a debt ridden ex-army officer. Buzaglo, bored and a bit paranoid due what is medically known as the "what on earth this hot babe is dating me" syndrome, asks a private eye to conduct a stakeout on his girlfriend.<br /><br />As the detective progresses in his investigation, his observations are permeating into the play and later on, to the lives of its actors. In the meantime, the play metamorphoses from a comic play into an indictment against the aloofness of the Israeli society. As for the movie, well, the movie becomes an exercise in frenzy editing, ensconced in its petty cardboard characters and unreliable dialogs while drifting miles away from the subject it was supposed to deal with in the first place.<br /><br />When I say "cardboard characters" I refer to the characters that under the writer/director's obsession for a "meaningful" film, were devoid of any genuine dialogs and any shred of reliability. I won't elaborate too much about it. Suffice to say that I'm sure that homeless barefoot male prostitutes rarely go the theater. With the intention to see a play, that is.<br /><br />This movie, according to Haim Buzaglo himself is the first part of a current agenda trilogy. I sincerely hope that the other two films will be derived from the experiences like the one I wrote about in the beginning of my review as opposed to the secluded world of characters that are anything but existent and a plot that is anything but compelling.<br /><br />4 out of 10 in my FilmOmeter.<br /><br />P.S. This movie was a landmark in austerity. It was shot in ten days, all the cast worked for free and the entire cost of the film was about 12,000$ (no, I didn't omit a zero or two, twelve thousand dollars). Makes you wonder why it took 34,000$ to complete Blair witch project.
This is a Japanese film but there is quite a bit of English also spoken in here. It's a pretty film, with nice visuals, featuring the scenic beauty of Hawaii.<br /><br />However, that was the only redeeming quality for me. The story was generally boring. Who wants to watch a young woman sulk for 90 percent of the film because her "picture" husband is a lot older than he advertised he was? Granted, that could be a bummer......but get over it!<br /><br />Only in the last 10 minutes does she do an about-face and become fond of him. By then, for most viewers, it was too little-too late. We'd fallen asleep by then.
I honestly had no idea that the Notorious B.I.G. (Bert I. Gordon the director; not the murdered rapper) was still active in the 80's! I always presumed the deliciously inept "Empire of the Ants" stood as his last masterful accomplishment in the horror genre, but that was before my dirty little hands stumbled upon an ancient and dusty VHS copy of "The Coming", a totally obscure and unheard of witchery-movie that actually turned out a more or less pleasant surprise! What starts out as a seemingly atmospheric tale of late Dark Ages soon takes a silly turn when a villager of year 1692 inexplicably becomes transferred to present day Salum, Massachusetts and promptly attacks a girl in the history museum. For you see, this particular girl is the reincarnation of Ann Putman who was a bona fide evil girl in 1692 and falsely accused over twenty people of practicing witchcraft which led to their executions at the state. The man who attacked Loreen lost his wife and daughter this and wants his overdue revenge. But poor and three centuries older Loreen is just an innocent schoolgirl, … or is she? "Burned at the Stake" unfolds like a mixture between "The Exorcist" and "Witchfinder General" with a tad bit of "The Time Machine" thrown in for good measure. Way to go, Bert! The plot becomes sillier and more senseless with every new twist but at least it never transcends into complete boredom, like too often the case in other contemporary witchcraft movies like "The Dunwich Horror" and "The Devonsville Terror". The film jumps back and forth between the events in present day and flashbacks of 1692; which keeps it rather amusing and fast-paced. The Ann Putman girl is quite a fascinating character, reminiscent of the Abigail Williams character in the more commonly known stage play "The Crucible" (also depicted by Winona Ryder in the 1996 motion picture). There are a couple of cool death sequences, like the teacher in the graveyard or the journalist in the library, that are committed by the ghost of malignant reverend who made a pact with Ann Putman and perhaps even the Devil himself. The film gets pretty spastic and completely absurd near the end, but overall there's some good cheesy fun to be had. Plus, the least you can say about Bert I. Gordon is that he definitely build up some directorial competences over the years.
Time travel is a fun concept, and this film gives it a different slant. I got a kick out of Captain Billingham, one of the more down-to-earth characters, who was just not having a good day. Ordinarily, I don't choose to watch horror films, but this is an exception. Good story, excellent acting.
Susan Swift is an appealing youngster, a flower child transplanted to the 1980's (like a young Susan Dey), but she doesn't quite have the vocal range for a demanding dramatic lead and she tends to whine; still, she's rather sweet and has bright eyes and a pretty smile. In "The Coming" (as it was called when briefly released to theaters), Swift may be the reincarnation of a Salem witch. The flick is very low-budget and borrows from so many other pictures that I gave up on it with about 15 minutes to go. It starts out strong and has some camp appeal. Obviously, there are more serious films that deal with the Salem witch trials that deserve to be seen over this one; however, as junk movies go, it isn't too terrible. The Boston locales are a definite plus, and the supporting cast is amusingly hammy. *1/2 from ****
Really, everybody in this movie looks like they want to be someplace else! No wonder, the casting is done not with the left hand, but rather not at all. I haven't seen anything worse than Natascha McElhone impersonating some sort of agent, carrying a gun. You don't use a spoiled city-brat-look in such a role. The only worse thing I can imagine is casting Doris Day as a prostitute. The rest of the cast is likewise awful, possibly with Hurt as the sole exception, sometimes you can see him trying, but suffering. Oh, did I mention that it is a completely insane story? Jeopardizing many peoples lives because you are divorced and want to see your family? Well, it must be because the guy (Weller) is German?<br /><br />2/10, because the photography could be worse.
Note: I will reveal a key part of the plot, but if you've looked at the DVD cover or any promotional material, you'll already know it.<br /><br />This movie seems to have been written by an eleven-year-old who isn't very bright and was probably very tired when he wrote it. The writer doesn't know the difference between a chemical and an organism.<br /><br />Forget the fact the the UN and the NSA seem to be running the show in Hungary. Forget the fact that when these master intelligence agents go chasing after someone whose mere touch will kill you in about a minute they don't wear protective gear (not even gloves). These are quibbles in the context of this movie. In the scientific world within this story, 2+2=6.34 and gravity goes sideways.<br /><br />The fact is that the people in this movie do not (with a few exceptions) behave the way human beings behave. Almost every time a character responds to something it is inappropriate. The love story (of course there is one) makes soap opera scripts seem like Shakespeare.<br /><br />I can't believe we wasted a free movie rental on this thing.
William Hurt scuba diving scientist??? US agents running the investigation abroad? The sick contaminated man kicking butt after falling 20 feet on his back and running away? Sniper missing and not killing Hurt (just wounding him) but the second "kill" shot is dead on ? Waste of time. To compare this to falling down as other reviewers did is ridiculous. Oh and by the end of the movie they decide to start wearing gloves on their hands except for the "evil" agent and Hurt decides to kill him by giving him the "virus handshake". What? BTW...when did IMDb require 10 lines of text? I'm just babbling here. Doesn't this just dillute the content of reviews if you are required to have x amount of lines?
I watched the entire movie recognizing the participation of William Hurt, Natascha McElhone, and Desiree Nosbusch. I'm glad that I had no idea of the presence of Peter Weller. At the end of the movie I said "THAT was Peter Weller?" Kudos to Mr. Weller for an outstanding performance. Weller played a major character, and his performance was such that I didn't even recognize him.<br /><br />Overall the plot was bad, the writing was bad, and the performances, aside from those of Nosbusch and Weller, were subpar. The scenery and setting were interesting, and Weller was amazing.<br /><br />4 stars, of a possible 10.
Dull, predictable and uninteresting story of a man contaminated by a chemical substance (Weller) who goes on across the country just to find his ex-wife and children; meanwhile, he kills everyone in his way only by a single touch of his hands. In his dangerous track, a doctor (Hurt) and a young reporter (Natasha) try to stop the man. The movie has a not original premise but even though could be much better. The final result is just a movie without suspense or gritting moments. Even the good cast is completely waste. I give this a 4 (four).
For a science scare movie to work well it has to be either truly original or a very good retelling. This movie is neither. Sure there is a pseudo-original twist in that the guy kills people because of a toxin and not because of a disease, but that is a very minor twist. There is the government conspiracy angle, the crusader protagonist who has personal experience...<br /><br />And one real drawback of this movie is that the contaminated man has no pathos. Although the character is scripted to be someone who should be pitied, he is not. Without the pity the movie is pointless. The other characters are so cookie cutter they are ridiculous. The subplots are convoluted and annoying. And the saddest thing is the movie is too flat to even be enjoyed as mock material. Make the movie a 45 minute short and it might be worth watching.
I really cant think of anything good to say about this film...not a single thing. The script is a nightmare.. the writer blurs the line between chemical and biological traits and doesnt seem to understand the difference. You'd think they would at least get a technical advisor. The performances were bad by most of the cast... although I dont really blame them.. the material really stinks. The editing was equally bad.. I'll just stop now.. its all bad 2/10
This movie is so bad, you almost feel contaminated by it. Actually, there is a strong sense of relief when it's over, relief that you can now put the cassette back in the rewinder and RUSH this back to the video rental store before it contaminates the rest of your video collection. I jokingly suggested when we rented it that it looked like the kind of film where William Hurt would "phone in" his performance. I meant that he would not be trying very hard. But lo and behold, in a huge number of scenes in this film, Bill Hurt is actually ON THE PHONE! Our realization of this irony was the only pleasure we derived from this confusing mess. The cinematography and editing are murky and befuddled, the story is chaotic, and the soundtrack is barely audible. There is a very slight resemblance to "Falling Down", but that film had a boldly disturbing story-line, great writing and acting, and an engaging soundtrack. "Contaminated Man" is just some kind of broken down old European tourist trap, and watching it is like driving along some unfamiliar back road in an unknown country where you don't speak the language in a steady rain just after nightfall as the windshield keeps fogging up. You get the picture? Don't get this one.
Opening scene 'explains' why Hurt is later 'immune' to the 'Contaminated Man'. Too bad it doesn't explain anything else: How did he get whatever he 'caught'/what was it/why does it work so fast. Then we go to "Present Day Budapest". OK, was the opener in the past or the future? It turns out to be the past, of course, but for a minute it looks just as likely to be the nd of the movie moved to the beginning. Sorry, I should have paid closer attention, huh? Or maybe it's just badly done. Then a lot of confusion about the different jobs he's had in related fields, and finally a mention about how he should have died from the original experiment the n s a did on him. Aha! So the n s a and private industry got together to poison one of their top guys to watch the effects? He must have been one of the top guys, he's friends with the c e o of the Chemical company, for God sakes. Then there's the substance itself: Technically a poison, but it mutates in immune 'carriers', so we can have whatever we want; a poison, a disease, an allergic reaction, all very different things in real life. Magically, it's not contagious from one dying victim to another, only from the carrier. How convenient. Then there's the h a z m a t protocol: They jump into a situation without having any idea what's in store, or how prepare for it. Did the producers not have enough money to show a proper wash-down after the crew just left the scene of a deadly unknown substance? I kept thinking Hurt was going to die from bad cleanup technique, and the open scene would turn out to be the closer after all.
This is one very confusing movie. The film is very hard to follow and the plot just didn't seem to make any sense. The Fury of the Wolfman was made in Spain and I think that when any film is dubbed from one language to another, it doesn't translate exactly as it was first meant. Maybe this is part of the problem but I doubt if it can account for all the problems with this film. The dubbing is pretty bad and the voices don't match the characters very well. The scenes are choppy, there is an array of strange and irrelevant characters that do little more than confuse the viewer even more. What I did like about this film was the look of the wolfman himself and the scenes where he attacks. Now if they could have put it all together and had it make some sense, they might have had something. Don't waste your time on this one.
Apparently, this is what happens when a director allows his 14-year old nephew to rewrite the dialogue on the set while he indulges himself alcoholically in the meantime; as I said earlier, although I've always wanted to catch one of Paul Naschy's werewolf pictures, this atrocity served as my introduction and, as awful as it most certainly is, I still intend to pursue other entries in the series, albeit very gradually.<br /><br />Despite some high profile disappointments like Joe Dante's THE HOWLING (1981), I love werewolf pictures in general but, to be honest, I quickly lost interest in this film's "plot" and just stood there gazing at my TV screen counting its absurdities as it were. There were far too many to mention them here but I have to say two which struck me as particularly hilarious were the schizophrenic nature of the Werewolf persona (i.e. going from a raging beast in one shot to a dazed, zombie-like state in the very next one - as if he's on a casual midnight stroll in the countryside, and sporting an entirely different wardrobe to boot...and, yes, I did know the reasons for this beforehand), as well as the "Phantom Of The Opera" look of the Wolfstein character! But what do I know - perhaps the elusive full-length version of this mess could very well have been a bona-fide horror classic!
Waldemar Daninsky (Paul Naschy) travels to Tibet and is bitten by a yeti, which causes him to become a werewolf. He is accidentally killed after he attacks his cheating wife and her lover, and is later revived by a female scientist, Dr. Ilona Ermann, who uses him in mind control experiments. Daninsky later discovers an underground asylum populated by the bizarre subjects of the doctor's failed experiments.<br /><br />Upon hearing of Naschy's death from colleague Jon Kitley, I rummaged through my collection for a suitable film to watch. In my scramble, I found I own not one but three(!) copies of "Fury of the Wolfman". The film is of questionable video quality, the sound is dubbed in a mediocre fashion, the cinematography is sort of slapstick style at times. And the American versions have two love scenes removed. Quite frankly, without a remastered, uncut copy, I wasn't really getting the proper movie in all its glory.<br /><br />This film claims to be the fourth in a long series about the werewolf Count Waldemar Daninsky. I suspect this is true, but you wouldn't know this from the film itself. The plot is confusing at times, and there's really no indication that this is a sequel. If you read the plot summaries on Wikipedia and compare them to what is printed on the box, you'll see that I'm not alone in my confusion.<br /><br />Perhaps the film's shortcomings can be forgiven if we understand the production hell it went through. While floating around for years, it was only released in 1973, due to problems involved in finding a distributor. And Naschy said in his autobiography that the director, Zabalza, was an incompetent alcoholic, and that he hated working with him. Those really aren't light accusations, and I have no idea what Zabalza had to say on his own behalf.<br /><br />Chances are, sooner or later you'll come across a low-grade version of "Fury of the Wolfman". It appears in a variety of three-packs and box sets, so you might accidentally acquire it and not even know. What really needs to happen is an American uncut version, with a decent sound and video mix, and the love scenes thrown back in. As far as I know, this does not exist. Let us honor Paul Naschy's legacy and get his films to a wider audience in a level of quality he deserves.
Spanish horror icon Paul Naschy stars in this, one of his weakest werewolf films... but bear with me for a moment. Most people will be familiar with it under its most common television title, THE FURY OF THE WOLF MAN, and there have been many home video versions of it over the years. If you want to be serious about giving it a fair shot though, the most workable edition I've seen of it goes by the title THE WOLF MAN NEVER SLEEPS, and it's an unedited and complete European version which restores a couple of disturbing scenes and contains the original nude shots which are missing from FURY's print. It is also letterboxed.<br /><br />Naschy plays Waldemar Daninsky, returning home from a trip to Tibet only to find out that he's contracted a werewolf curse and that his wife has been having an affair. He takes care of her and her lover while in animal form, but then becomes a guinea pig for a sexy woman doctor and her female assistant. Apparently, the doc attempts to "tame" the werewolf, and there is a very strange sado-masochistic love scene between her and the hairy and fanged Daninsky who is under her trance, at least in the original version. Ultimately we get two werewolves for the price of one as Daninsky battles a she-wolf! <br /><br />The biggest problem with the movie is that the director (according to Naschy's claims) was often drunk, and the results are indeed rather incoherent. When watching THE WOLF MAN NEVER SLEEPS copy, it's not quite as difficult to make out what's going on, though the editing remains atrocious in spots. Worst of all is occasional non-matching footage of Naschy's ravenous werewolf swiped straight from another previous film (LA MARC DEL HOMBRE LOBO, aka "FRANKENSTEIN'S BLOODY TERROR") and mixed into this one without any sensible reason! The wolf's clothing changes from black shirt to white and back again, as does his demeanor; one moment the wolf is walking around lethargically in a hypnotic trance from FURY, next he is growling and running around savagely from BLOODY TERROR. Really bizarre.
"La Furia del Hombre Lobo" forms a completely stand-alone storyline which doesn't seem to fit in at all with the previous Waldemar Daninsky movies. Some have commented that this movie is supposed to take place before the events of "Werewolf Shadow", although it was released afterwards ... they may be right, I'm not sure. Anyway, in this movie Waldemar Daninsky is bitten by a yeti-like creature in Tibet (great dialogue here -- "It was a yeti. But that's impossible. I'm a scientist and these things don't exist. It was a hallucination. That's all.") and although marked with the sign of the pentagram, he is able to prevent the change into a werewolf until he discovers that his wife has been cheating on him. Changing into the beast one night, he kills both her and her lover before running out into a storm and being electrocuted. It's not long before he's resurrected by a dominatrix university professor who is conducting some kind of unfathomable experiments with mind control. He is taken to the underground cellar of a castle where the subjects of these experiments live like chained animals.<br /><br />First of all -- Jacinto Molina, Paul Naschy, whatever you want to call him, he's a fine actor and cared passionately about his work. No matter how flawed these movies are, you can always rely on him for a decent performance. The rest of the cast seem good enough, but it's hard to tell when they have a half-assed voice-over dubbed over all their lines. And that was really the main problem for me ... many of the voice-over artists they used were just awful, awful, awful. Whenever I chuckled during the movie it was at the inept way that they delivered their lines (they seem to constantly refer to the hero as "Waldeman"). But unfortunately it's almost impossible to find subtitled copies of Naschy movies, although they're sometimes available in the original language without subtitles.<br /><br />The directing of Jose Maria Zabalza seems sort of hit-and-miss ... there are some great visual ideas in some scenes, while others are badly constructed and poorly edited, particularly in the final scenes when it really counts. The reason for this, was that Zabalza was apparently drunk most of the time while on set. He allowed his fourteen year old nephew to rewrite Molina's dialogue, used extras without his permission, and spliced several shots from Molina's earlier movies. All of this pretty much ruined any chance this movie had of being one of Molina's best works, and it's no surprise that the two of them never worked together again.<br /><br />But it's not all bad news, as there are some good ideas here. Some aspects of the storyline make an interesting psychological drama with the werewolf as a metaphor for jealousy and rage. The 'werewolf as a yeti' idea is one that returned in Molina's later work. Some pretty horrific and surreal stuff goes on down in the cellar, and there's also a very memorable sequence about half way through the film where Daninsky runs from house to house through a village, slaughtering or molesting innocents as he goes -- one scene is particularly intense, but it's actually lifted straight from Molina's first movie, "La Marca del Hombre-lobo" along with a few other shots. I actually found the movie on the whole to be very entertaining, although there are some problems with the Front Row Entertainment version, such as pretty obvious cuts (although some of it may simply be due to the director's lack of continuity). Gods knows what omissions there are -- I'll probably try to get my hands on the uncut version at some stage in the future.<br /><br />This is a overall a decent piece of vintage Naschy which experienced fans might enjoy, but it could have been much better and so probably wouldn't make a great introduction.
"While traveling in the mountains, a man is attached by a mysterious creature that promptly departs, leaving no trace of its presence. Unbeknownst to the man, he has been attacked by a werewolf and now he's inherited the curse associated with such creatures. Now our hero must race against time to rid himself of this dreadful affliction before the next full moon," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />Horrifically re-produced from the original Spanish, "The Fury of the Wolf Man" loses whatever charms it may have possessed in its original form. Lycanthropic Paul Naschy's werewolf characterization is uneven and ineffectual. Dominatrix scientist Perla Cristal and sexy assistant Verónica Luján never get close enough to truly titillate. The often incoherent storyline isn't even ghoulishly amusing.
I saw this little magnum opus for the first time very recently, on one of those dollar DVD's that seem to be everywhere nowadays, and was so moved by it that I cannot contain myself. For those who have never seen this mesmerizingly miserable Mexican import, and wish to view it without being prejudiced by anyone else's jaundiced commentary, there are undoubtedly substantial spoilers in what follows. So if you are one of those reckless individuals, stop reading at once and go and watch it for yourself. If you get drunk enough in advance, you might be fortunate enough to pass out before it's over.<br /><br />Begin with the premise that a man may become a werewolf after being bitten by a yeti. No one in the film ventures an explanation as to how this sort of cross-species implantation could occur, and the rest of the movie is even more hopelessly nonsensical. But pour yourself another glass of wine (or whatever you're drinking), and let us proceed.<br /><br />Paul Naschy (our werewolf) has the look of a man fighting a toothache, in a town where the only dentist has traded his supply of Novocaine for a case of cheap whiskey, and has been drunk ever since. (Ain't he the lucky one?) Naschy's facial expression never varies, whether in or out of makeup, and apparently no one gave him any coaching on how to act like a werewolf. Occasionally he tries to imitate the Lon Chaney Jr. crouch, but most of the time he simply strolls around in his black mafia shirt, like just another cool dude with a tad too much facial hair. To be fair, the makeup is actually better than the actor inside of it, but the continuity is infinitely worse. Naschy's werewolf is the only one I can think of that changes shirts twice in the middle of a prowl. He goes from black shirt to red shirt, then back to black, then back to red, then back to black, all in a single, frenzied night. Interestingly enough, he always does the Chaney crouch while wearing the red shirt, and the cool dude walk while wearing the black shirt. And it's only while he is wearing the red shirt that we see much of the fury alluded to in the title. Presumably there's something about that red shirt that just brings out the animal in him.<br /><br />So anyway, after being bitten by the cross-pollinating yeti, the poor schmuck returns home from Tibet to learn that his wife has been sleeping with one of his students. The two illicit lovers try to murder him by adjusting the brakes on his car. He survives the wreck, and makes it home just in time for a full moon. Then, after chewing up his wife and her lover, he wanders off again, and somehow manages to get himself electrocuted. But is that enough? Can they let this tormented wretch rest in peace? Not a chance. He is resurrected by a supposed female scientist with a hardcore S/M fetish, otherwise known as "The Doctor" (and definitely not a new incarnation of Doctor Who). She digs him up and whisks him away to her kinky kastle, takes him down to the dungeon, chains him to the wall, and gives him a damn good flogging. Presumably such a string of indignities ought to be enough to put a little fury into any wolfman.<br /><br />After his two-shirted rampage, our wolfman spends most of the rest of the film wandering around the castle, trying to find a way out. (And who can blame him?) In the course of his wanderings, he encounters a bewilderingly incoherent assortment of clichés, including a man dressed in medieval armor, a curiously inept Phantom of the Opera impersonator (supposedly The Doctor's father), and a hard-partying cadre of bondage slaves.<br /><br />So what's it all about, one may reasonably ask? One gets the vague impression that it has something to do with mind control, and involves something The Doctor calls "chemotrodes." (Best guess. I really have no idea how it's spelled, if there even is such a thing.) Mercifully, the experiment ends in failure, and most importantly, it ends...before one has time to gnaw one's own leg off.<br /><br />Of course, one doesn't really expect any sense from a film like this, but at least it ought to be good for laughs. This one isn't. Forget it, buddy. There is a creeping sort of anarchy about this film, from its patched-together, tequila-drenched ambiance to its atrocious cinematography and agonizing musical score, that defies even the most sozzled attempts to get any MST3K type laughs out of it. If it's not even good for that, what the hell is it good for? If Montezuma's revenge could have somehow been digitally remastered and put on a DVD, it would have looked exactly like this movie.
This review applies for the cut of the film that's generally available as "Fury of the Wolfman". I understand there is an uncut version out there with additional footage, and I would hope that it contained at least eight or nine crucial scenes that seem to be missing from the cut known as "Fury of the Wolfman". In short, the movie makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It is utter nonsense, and incomprehensible nonsense at that.<br /><br />Waldemar Daninsky, that venerable lycanthropic antihero portrayed by Paul Naschy in a seemingly endless series of films, is apparently a normal guy who has just come back from a trip to Tibet, where he was attacked by a yeti. Somehow this has turned him into a werewolf. Daninsky is a doctor, a scientist, and an instructor at what appears to be a college. One of his female colleagues, Ilona Elmann, is involved in a vague form of hypnosis..."Chematodes", a nonsense word used to refer to a bunch of wires attached to a victim's head. Ellman feels this will enable her to "change the direction of the human brain", naturally enabling her to rule the world, provided she can get us all attached to those wires with no trouble.<br /><br />Elmann is also into werewolves, because she kidnaps Daninsky and takes him to her hidden laboratory. She has a bunch of other people trapped there as well. Some of them look like gypsies, and are chained up, being in varying states of lucidity. Others are clearly hippies. Elmann feels that one day she may be able to "help them be human again" (?), but in the meantime she controls them with her chematodes. Waldemar becomes her hairy hit man, wandering around like a werewolf zombie--that is until the filmmakers decide to use footage spliced in from another Naschy werewolf film, "Frankenstein's Bloody Terror" (don't ask), at which point Naschy's werewolf makeup changes considerably and he lurches around like an animal.<br /><br />Is this making any sense? No? Good. That's the film's saving grace. It doesn't try and engage you on any kind of intellectual level, it just goes full speed ahead with whatever nonsense dialogue or cheap horror movie sets it can muster up. "Fury of the Wolfman" may be the best Halloween party movie ever. You absolutely do not need to pay attention to it, and in fact if you do, you will be completely confused.
Despite some mildly thought-provoking oddities in the script and the film's overall curiosity value, Fury of the Wolfman emerges as a dull, uninteresting excursion into lycanthropy, saved only by the statuesque presence of villainess Perla Cristal. The rest of the players, including the hammy Naschy, are a complete write-off (though admittedly none are helped by often atrocious dubbing). Although the screenplay packs in enough variations on werewolf/Frankenstein/Dr Moreau themes to flesh out a dozen movies, the plot is so unevenly developed, the characterizations so feeble and the dialogue so verbosely ridiculous (at least in the English version), that any latent interest in the turgid proceedings is soon quashed.<br /><br />Zabalza's direction seems jerky, even amateurish. His staging is clumsy and ineffective. He is not helped by Villasenor's over-bright lighting. Even promising sets are so unatmospherically photographed that the director's few attempts to give the audience a fright are signaled far in advance<br /><br />Other credits fall into a similar pattern of ineptitude, though the stridently over-emphatic music score and the laughably crude, totally primitive special effects deserve special condemnation.
Whoever made this nonsense completely missed the point. Jane is a silly comic strip to titillate without being sleazy.<br /><br />This giant mess tries to be funny and exciting but is just a shambles. There is not one decent performance in it..even the usually reliable Jasper Carrott is painfully unfunny.<br /><br />The American bloke whose name escapes me is just as rubbiush as he was in flash gordon.<br /><br />Maud Adams tries as a villianess but she is a bit long in the tooth for this type of thing. All of these things would not matter if the girl was sexy or funny or likable.She is not. Kirsten Holmes faded into obscurity after this and so much the better.<br /><br />I've flushed more entertaining things than this down the toilet. Avoid
I must admit that I have been a sucker for Samurai flicks since I can remember. I used to watch rather indiscriminate, be it "elitist" works like The Seven Samurai or the bloody comic-book variation like Lone Wolf and Cub. I also liked US-/Japanese "Crossovers" like The Bushido Blade. And of course everything containing Sonny Chiba and Hiroyuki Sanada. And I've virtually watched every Samurai at least twice. But not Kabuto.<br /><br />In 1993 I first watched Kabuto on video, that even Samurai films can be boring. In the beginning I was looking forward to Mayeda reaching Europe and the confrontations that would come from that but by the time he actually reached Spain, I really didn't care so much for the movie anymore.<br /><br />It wouldn't do the film justice to call it "bad". Technically it's a clean entry into the genre. But there is simply never quiet enough. Sho Kosugi has limited skills as both director and actor and has only a fraction of above mentioned Japanese actors charisma. And speaking of Sho Kosugis son Kane, who appears in almost all Sho Kosugi films as Shos son: he has inherited little-to-none of his fathers limited acting skills. Adding to the minus-points is the absence of the blood and gore that until then was a trademark of all Samurai film. This was obviously intended for a younger US- / European audience.<br /><br />Lets just say that it's a so-so film for the average historic-action-adventure fan but a bore for hardened fans of Samurai cinema. Fans who are into the "Samurai meets …"-genre, should rather go and watch Red Sun (1971), featuring Charles Bronson as cowboy who has to team up with Samurai Toshiro Mifume to retrieve a samurai sword from bad-guy Alan Delon. It pretty much how to do it right and where Kabuto went wrong.<br /><br />So, even though the film is a mere 100 minutes, it seems like a much longer film.<br /><br />The reason I gave this a honourable 4/10 points instead of 3/10: First time I saw this film, I saw it in the German synchronized version. In this version, Kosugi can actually be understood. I must admit that his 'Engrish' is at times funny but gets tiresome after about 30 minutes.
Oh my, I think this may be the single cheesiest movie I've ever seen. I'm serious, this is one of the ultimate b-movies. The first proof is that it isn't a $5 DVD. Oh no, that's too mainstream for this. I got this on VHS, from a bin full of ex-rental videos at my local video store.<br /><br />If I may quote the blurb: "In 17th Century Japan, there lived a samurai who would set the standard for the ages. His name was Mayeda. He is sent on an epic journey across the world to acquire 5,000 muscats from the King of Spain. Whilst at sea a violent storm swallows their precious gold intended to buy the weapons and almost takes their lives. Mayeda must battle all odds to survive and the secure the fate of his beloved Japan." It then goes on to say "A multi million dollar action adventure epic set across three continents"<br /><br />I must have seen a different movie. This was no epic, and it certainly wasn't a multi million dollar anything. No, 'Shogun Mayeda' is really just the crazy adventures of the Engrish-speaking Mayeda (Sho Kosugi). He isn't even a Shogun really, but thats not important. What is important, is that he does a really cool impression of John Cleese's repeated charging of the one castle in 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail', and his ability to go from serious scenes to showing off his samurai mind powers. Awesome.<br /><br />The greatest thing about this movie is Sho Kosugi's Engrish accent. The movie may lack nearly everything that makes a good movie, but makes up for it with some of the cheesiest lines ever, delivered by the coolest Engrish accent ever. And honestly, do you really want anything else? You could fast forward 'Shogun Mayeda' to the end, and replay Kosugi's final line over and over. The tape will probably wear out before you get tired of that one line. Awesome.<br /><br />2/10 - So very very cheesy.
In 17th Century Japan, there lived a samurai who would set the standard for the ages. His name was Mayeda. He is sent on an epic journey across the world to acquire 5,000 muscats from the King of Spain. Whilst at sea a violent storm swallows their precious gold intended to buy the weapons and almost takes their lives. Mayeda must battle all odds to survive and the secure the fate of his beloved Japan. Shogun Mayeda is a multi million dollar action adventure epic set across three continents.<br /><br />Starring cinema legends Sho Kosugi (Tenchu: Stealth Assassins), Christopher Lee (Star Wars, Lord of the Rings Trilogy), John Rhys Davies (Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Indiana Jones Trilogy) and Toshiro Milfune (The Seven Samurai, Throne of Blood), Shogun Mayeda (Kabuto) is a film masterpiece.<br /><br />The Osaka winning stunt team bought to the screen by Bob Ivy bring exciting battle/action sequences such as the opening battle against the Eastern army, the attack on Mayeda's ship carrying priceless jewels and the final confrontation between Sho Kosugi and David Essex. A fine musical score by famed composer John Scott is also present. Director Sho Kusugi was not even nominated for an Oscar for this film which deals with the emotional strife such as the death of Mayedas family, the search for love and acceptance after grieving, all of which is dealt with extremely well. Highly recommended cinematic masterpiece.<br /><br />Please note: All of the above is opposite for the film in question.
I cant help it but i seem to like films that are meant to be scary and are just plain bad. I have personally listed it in my own top 10 worst movies right under creatures of the abyss!. Watch this film and have a laugh just don't expect to see any academy awards for acting. More chance of understanding the film its self. In all honesty though i have seen much worse than this. Plus some maniac cruising round the desert wiping the same people out that just died is that unbelievable that its got to be original. i think its one of those love or hate movies. you can make up your own mind yes its awful but it pulls it off somehow thats why i love it
I viewed this movie in DVD format. My copy may have been affected but I was disappointed with the lack of menu screen for the DVD. I will say that my initial reason for viewing this movie was Claire Forlani. While fun to watch, I feel she didn't live up to my expectations that I have so far found from her other films. I actually was equally pleased to see Arkin turn in a humorous performance. The other two actors I wasn't very familiar with so I can't compare their performance, however they were fairly enjoyable also. The acting is the only endearing quality of this movie in my opinion. The story line, while some could say slightly compelling, lacked direction. I feel that the main problem stems from the script and not the direction of this film. If you enjoy any of these actors to a fair extent then I recommend this film, but otherwise leave it alone.
I was expecting a very funny movie. Instead, I got a movie with a few funny jokes, and many that just didn't work. I didn't like the idea of bringing in Sherlock Holmes' and Moriarty's descendants. It was confusing. It would have been more funny if they just had someone new, instead of Moriarty resurrected. Some of the things were funny. Burt Kwouk was very funny, as always. McCloud on the horse was funny. The McGarrett from Hawaii 5-0 was not even McGarrett-like. Connie Booth obviously is very good with accents. She is from Indiana, but played English and a New Yorker pretty well. Unfortunately, she was not presented much into the script. I was expecting a more funny film. Instead, I got a rather confusing movie with a poor script. Rather ironic, since both Booth and Cleese were together on this one. Maybe they were about to break up in 77.
No laughs whatsoever. Yes, I watched this entire train wreck but only so that I wouldn't later wonder if Cleese had come to his senses in the latter part. (No, he had not.) <br /><br />This may be historically interesting to you youngsters out there, to see that British "humor" included black "jokes" like these, thirty years ago. <br /><br />What amazes me even more though, is to read the other reviewers' comments, which acknowledge this isn't very good, yet then turn around and give it high votes. If the vast majority of the comedies that you have seen are even much worse than this one, then I certainly pity your torturous existences. <br /><br />The humor level of this show appears aimed at little kids, yet the subject matter does not. So who is this for? People who enjoy repeated & drawn-out double-takes, pratfalls, drug jokes (interesting only as a short trip back to '77), and other "low" humor. The Three Stooges are still funny, and were to me as a kid, too. THEY exerted some effort in making jokes work. This however is sloughed off schlock. I fear that it IS the end of civilization, if this stuff really is accepted as worthwhile. Next you'll be telling me that tabloid TV is popular. :(
This is a fair little show about the paranormal although it feels as if Art Bell and his ilk figured out how to carve a career out of the attitude that Carl Kolchak exemplified. Of course there probably wouldn't be an X-Files if this show hadn't prepped this audience for it so well. Darren McGavin is not exactly the super-heroic type but he is a plausible(enough) guy to deliver heroic deeds. Check out his work on some of those old Alfred Hitchcock Presents. Here he is the main attraction, there doesn't seem to be a girlfriend or wife who's a distraction. In fact there isn't a whole lot of sex appeal to the show. Something I'm noticing as well is that the pacing isn't really suspenseful in a typical way. There's a lot of throwaway humor to this show. Sometimes its just pokey to get to the climax. There's a thread from this show coming all the way up to the present MAD MEN show in terms of style. Not that David Chase writes Mad Men but the people that worked under him on The Sopranos definitely have emulated and inherited his serio-comic tone.
A childless couple (Brooke Adams, Jeff Hayenga) go to a doctor (James Karen) to try to conceive. It works but Adams slowly becomes aware that there's something seriously wrong with the baby...<br /><br />Pretty interesting idea is thoroughly done in by a lousy script--the basic idea is OK but becomes screamingly predictable towards the end. I saw every "twist" coming. The direction is poor--he seems to have no idea how to shoot a basic scene. The production values are--to be nice--lousy. Very shabby. And, the gore scenes are too unpleasant (I almost turned it off when a pregnant woman started stabbing herself in the stomach) with lousy special effects. The film completely derails at the end when it becomes quite clear they had no idea HOW to end this film.<br /><br />Some good acting makes it somewhat bearable. Adams, Hayenga and Karen are all good at their roles and kept me watching but that was about it. This film barely got released in 1991 and still remains unknown--it's easy to see why. I give it a 4.
It's a good thing I didn't watch this while i was pregnant.I definitely would have cried my eyes out and/or vomit. It was Kind of gruesome mainly disturbing. I personally thought the baby was adorable in its own twisted little way.However as a mom I cringed when Beth stabbed herself in the stomach and when Virgina aborted the child during her 3rd trimester with rusty utensils no less.Also,as an animal lover i almost cried when she scratched the cat to a bloody pulp.However,As creepy and sinister as the baby was I was rooting for it to live.And as twisted as the movie was I am extremely intrigued to see the sequel...... ......... ....... ......... ......... ....... ...... .....
Oh... my... god... this is without a doubt the absolute cheesiest movie I have ever seen. The acting is bad, the story is weak, the characters are weaker, and the whole film just doesn't make sense. Couple this with mediocre directing, really strange scenes (such as the one where the kid reaches over the ravine and mysteriously falls in), and thoroughly abysmal dialog ("Look!" "Musta peed his pants!"), and you get one complete failure. Not to mention the fact that the only thing Mr. Atlas looks like he could defeat is a case of chocolate bars. But this is part of the movie's charm. Sit down and watch it with a few of your friends for a good laugh. <br /><br />I love this movie, because it's just SO BAD!
A youth gets a bad hair day, goes out on a hill, and falls into where he can't escape. Then, he meets MR. ATLAS, a "mythological" dude from 2,000 years ago as his very best friend, and an Arnold Schwarzenegger look-and-sound-alike. His Herculean strength helps the boy out of danger, and later adjusts to modern life. So what's the big deal? This is the lousiest idea for a "family" outing! Either way, this one shouldn't have been attempted at all, really! Our fictional character of might and brawn is nothing more than a typical stranger who appears ordinary to the rest of the universe. To add to the blasphemy is the lack of anything new or appealing, and before you know it, there is some attempted violence that doesn't qualify this as "family" entertainment. The scene where Atlas complains of his undershorts is gaggling, though. Just spend a nice, quiet afternoon in the park for a change.
This film is pretty poor. The acting is abysmal and completely forced. Furthermore, by shooting the film as a docudrama doesn't necessarily make it more believable, you can't get out of it that easily Mr Dir. Don't let my comments mislead you however, as i would recommend you watch this film, as it does shed some light on the psychology or non existent psychology behind the perpetrators of such crimes. However, the climax of the film is absolutely rubbish! There is no other way to put it! It pure and simply fails to capture any sense of atmosphere! What takes place does not translate to me any feelings of desperation, panic, fear or dread that one would surely experience in such terrifying circumstances. No instead it leaves you with jaw dropping "Was that it?!" spilling from your tongue, and by no means are you haunted by these boys actions. Rather you just feel embarrassed for yet another film that started with potential, but ended up falling flat on its face at the most crucial point.Zero Day indeed....zzzzzzzzzzzzz
I am fully aware there is no statistical data that readily supports the correlation between video games and real life violence. The movie is false and phony because it is in complete contradiction of itself, which is what I tried to emphasize in my original review. The movie fails, not necessarily because I really do think these kids were influenced by video games, but because the movie sets it up as "random" and doesn't follow through. Let me clarify. In Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer, you can see her claims about the police and being controlled by radio waves are ridiculous, yet she is so troubled, she really believes them to be true. The viewer can make the distinction however. In Zero Day, the 2 kids keep saying how they are not influenced by anything environmental, which is obviously false since everything they do contradicts this. Neo-nazism, talking about going on CNN with Wolf Blitzer (which is laughable not only because they know his name, but its a shameless attempt by the filmmaker to get coverage of his bad movie)..etc. This movie doesn't depict 'reality', it shows nothing but phoniness to prove a point. Unfortunately you fell for the bait and didn't see this, and you didn't pick up on it from my review either. The entire movie is just taking Michael Moore's hypothesis and applying it to something "real life" in hopes of validating and it fails, not necessarily because the hypothesis is wrong, but because the movie is wrong and doesn't support it. Of course I don't think kids that play video games are more likely to kill people, but if I'm not mistaken, didn't video tape exist of the Columbine kids (or some teen killers) shooting guns in the forest claiming how much they looked or acted like the weaponry in Doom? Hmmmmmmm, the distinction is kids are most likely aware of the media, influenced, but obviously balanced or intelligent enough that its not even an issue. Zero Day is a bad movie not because I really believe a correlation exists, but because the film maker doesn't know what hes trying to say, and the movie does more to disprove his point then support it. It's almost as if the new ratings given to video games made someone upset so they came up with 'Zero Day' in retaliation. If you want to see the 'mindless' teen killer theory pulled off right, go watch Bully.
Unfortunately the movie is more concerned with making lame social commentary on a real event, but doesnt have the balls to legitimately document what happened. The constant rhetoric of how violent video games are not to blame (I get the impression Ben Coccio is an avid gamer), or how media and music is completely devoid of influence is the obvious message (we even get a laughable scene of the two boys burning ALL their cd's, talk about subtlety!), but the movie only gets away with it because its 'fiction'. Nice try. Yes its a great idea to relieve media of influence, but how do we know the kids that have actually planned and executed a school shooting werent influenced by media? or video games? We dont, and we wont with this movie because once again these kids are smart enough to completely relinquish the media, yet dumb enough to scorch a nazi symbol on the ground? haha I somehow dont think so.<br /><br />The movie bats you over the head with its portrayal of the normalcy of the families, its almost doing a disservice to think that there wasn't a serious flaw in the family dynamic of kids that have actually gone out and shot their fellow schoolmates. Why is everyone so concerned with making killers seem "normal", when they are so obviously not? A completely false and phony depiction.
Recap: According to legend, the Valkyrie Brunhilda defied Odin and was chained to a rock surrounded by an eternal fire. Only a warrior pure in heart can pass through the flames, free Brunhilda and release her from Odin's claim, and have her for himself. Now, war is brewing in the Norse lands, and the King needs an alliance with the Berserkers. The Berserkers are warriors claimed by Odin's valkyries, lusting for war, blood and flesh, and therefore outcasts, but superior in battle. The leader of the Berserkers is a scorned son of the King, Boar, and his price for the alliance is his brother, the future king, Barek. But after the King is victorious in battle, he refuses to give up his only remaining son, breaking his oath to Boar and betray him and kill him. Boar is saved only by Barek's call upon Odin. But this is only the start of the battle between the brothers, and their final battle is about to start now, a millennia later...<br /><br />Comments: I had hopes that this would be a movie based upon some Viking ground, far too little quality movie about Viking has been done. It started out very good too, with detailed longships and armors, nice and fitting sceneries and an OK battle.<br /><br />The foundation in the Aesir myths is thin and seems very corrupted to me. Odin is much more vengeful, spiteful and absent than I remind him from school, and the valkyries has been turned into some vampire-demons. I'm no expert, but that seems outright wrong.<br /><br />But the fatal mistake made by this movie is to move the time-setting from the original time-period to today. If the two brothers had fought it out in the correct time, with some decent battles, this movie would have been much better. Now the setting, suddenly is changed to present day Stockholm. Still, Odin is present and is sending Boar and his berserkers for Brunhilda and Barek which gives silly scenes when armor-clad and painted berserkers swordfights with Barek among the industries. Beautiful mountains and woods have been exchanged for cement. And when allowed to focus upon single fights, instead of massive battles as in the beginning, I quickly saw that the fights and skills of the actors are slow and clumsy.<br /><br />The end result is thin story, sometimes hard to follow and other times just silly, and the only that could save it, the action, is drawn from slow, dull and clumsy swordfights. It draws very little from Aesir myth or Viking tradition. Thus both story and action fails, and the movie is just plain bad.<br /><br />Finally, as a Swede, this movie is a little confusing. Supposedly filmed entirely in South Africa, it still contains some familiar Swedish signs, plates and what seems to be an authentic police car. However, the effort is poor and only goes so far, as to really set it in Sweden. No names are Swedish (perhaps with Anya as the exception), no familiar sceneries are Swedish, they (supposedly) speak a little (ancient?) Norwegian, not Swedish. And uniforms, both police and medical, are clearly not Swedish. If they were not going to even try to do it correctly - and really give the illusion that it is set in Sweden, why bother at all? <br /><br />4/10
I had no background knowledge of this movie before I bought it, but it sounded cool and I've been wanting to see a really kick-butt Viking movie for awhile now... alas, this film was not what I was looking for. I had hoped for the best, but instead, was delivered a boring Nordic soap-opera that seemed to drag on too long despite its 84 minute running time. The film's premise is intriguing enough: It's about a Viking warlord who defies his God and Odin is so enraged that he curses the warlord's son, named Barek, to death and rebirth as a Berserker. This Barek guy is then forced to live enraged, insane, and violent lifetime after lifetime. The movie is filmed competently enough, with some rich cinematography and quasi-good performances by the actors, but again, I found myself bored and questioning when this dribble would end. The filmmakers had a chance to make something rather entertaining and semi-unique but they dropped the ball. Perhaps it could've been improved with some cheap exploitation tactics thrown in such as gratuitous nudity and lots of gore... I mean, we are talking about "Berserkers" here, aren't we? Vikings were supposed to be BAD enough, what with all the raping and pillaging, so aren't Berserkers supposed to be even more extreme? All in all, unless you're a fan of The Young and Restless (etc...) or, are yourself, in fact, an insane Berserker who likes self torture, I'd probably steer clear of this drab piece of celluloid.
This movie sucks from beginning till (especially) the end. You probably don't get 'm any worse, acting, storyline ,photography, camera work, etcetera it's all bad, very, very bad.<br /><br />But that's what makes it a 'great' watch, it will give you more than enough good laughs. The worse, the better! <br /><br />I really have no clue what so ever of what these people were thinking making this movie. A serious viking movie? The story is goddamn ridiculous, it's more like a comedy in disguise, kinda like Mafia, also pointless but damn funny.<br /><br />And look out for the very very end of the movie... uhum.
The film portrays France's unresolved problems with its colonial legacy in Western (Francophone) Africa through the befuddled and complex psychoanalytical prism of a young woman, France (herein symbolically representing her nation). It is an often engaging and challenging portrait of a young woman's desire to come to terms with a traumatic moment in her past, in particular, and a nation's desire to reach out to the 'other' it once 'owned' and moulded. This is reflected in the way in which it centres entirely around the notion of travelling (or being in transit) from the present to the past; remembered realities to undeniable contemporary political and economic actualities.<br /><br />The characters all play a symbolic, albeit a limited and unconvincing role. France, meant to be a visual as well as a totemic representation of contemporary French society, leaves one indifferent to her plight as she seems still to be imbued with the same naiveté she enjoyed as a child-in fact as a child she seems more in possession of her reality. The rest of the rag-tag ensemble is just forgettable. The black Africans are, to say the least, offencive impressionistic portraits of former colonised peoples now colonised by the director's poor handling of her material. They are no more than a dark and moribund backdrop against which the blythe-like France wonders seeking a world she never knew, and hoping for one that can never be found in Cameroon.
I am astounded at the positive reviews for this thoroughly uninspiring film.<br /><br />Often with foreign films I skip over reviews that complain about slow pace and seeming "absence of action" as many of the best international films do not live up to the Western Hollywood model of cinematic storytelling.<br /><br />I enjoy the frequent artfulness and lack of cliché in the foreign film arena. I enjoy that many foreign films don't tie things up in a neat palatable little bow.<br /><br />That said, this particular film offered no redemptive value for the time I wasted watching it. No meaningful character development, no engaging story arc, no way to get emotionally involved with any of the characters on screen. <br /><br />Synopsis: A bunch of emotionally immature uptight prejudiced colonials mistreat their slaves, and a little girl gets hurt by her only friend when the "house-boy" finally gets fed up and takes his abuse out on her. <br /><br />While the above paragraph is poignant and dramatic, this movie will bore you while playing out the scenario. I was so unengaged that it took three sittings to finish it, and I wouldn't have even done that were it not for the positive ratings. <br /><br />Unless you have an academic interest in the period I strongly suggest steering clear of this one.
I am very open to foreign films and like to think that I grasp what they are trying to accomplish although some things are lost in translation. But the simplicity and "intelligence" of this film were boring. I've often thought how interesting it would be to make a movie that just shows a typical day or time period that really had no point. Now that I've seen a movie like that I will no longer be thinking along those lines. There's tones about society, racism, and some desire...but South Park has that. And when I watch South Park it actually moves me to feel an emotion. The closest thing I felt to an emotion during this movie was the yawn I experienced after the first five minutes. I rate the typical movie a seven or above because I love most every film. I gave this film a one.
Some good movies keep you in front of the TV, and you are dying to see the result.<br /><br />This movie does not have highs and lows. It simply describes a young girl's family life in Africa. People come and go, the weather and the background are all the same.<br /><br />
Boring children's fantasy that gives Joan Plowright star billing but little to do. Sappy kids pursue their dreams. Frankie wants to be a ballerina and a baseball player (yuk) while best-friend Hazel runs for mayor---she's 13! Totally pedestrian in every way, plus the added disadvantage of syrupy performances by the girls as well as the baseball boys. Certainly a lesser effort for Showtime---no limits?
Of the ten actors who portrayed Philo Vance in the series, Edmund Lowe seemed the most personable, but in this script the audience is way ahead of the famed detective. After all, when the jockey, Douglas Walton, stares blankly in space, obviously hypnotized, and says something like "I must ride and be killed," I felt it was dumb that no one picked up on it after he does get killed. The police thought it was a suicide because he said he would do it! After hated horse owner Gene Lockhart gets shot and killed, Frieda Inescort does the same thing, saying she's going out to be killed, and then fatally jumps off a bus. I laughed when Lowe finally yells "I got it," as though it were a revelation. The guilty party, however, was cleverly concealed and there was considerable suspense generated when that party starts to hypnotize Lowe to get him to jump off a roof.
N.B.: Spoilers within. Assigning an artistic director to an operatic production naturally and inevitably means you are going to get a piece of that director's mind. But directing a Wagner opera is an especially tricky task, as he was perhaps the most explicit opera composer in terms of what things should look like and how they should unfold. Hans-Jurgen Syberberg loads this filming of "Parsifal," Wagner's final masterpiece, with enough extraneous ideas to cause it to nearly burst at the seams. You get more than a piece of the director: you get the whole fatted hog and then some. Syberberg is to be admired for his penchant for tearing back the covers on the uglier aspects of German history. But does it work to meld that desire to a Wagner opera already brimming with its own concepts? <br /><br />The scenes with the knights of the Holy Grail in Acts I and III are especially laden with visual allegory and symbolism. These are drawn come from Wagner's own time, from long before, and go well beyond. If you know what these things mean, they can enrich Syberberg's vision for you (but not necessarily enhance Wagner's vision); if you don't know what they mean, they're simply confusing, if not annoying. I won't bother uncoiling the plot of the opera here. Suffice it to say it is a typical Wagnerian synthesis of diverse elements, in this case a blending of the Holy Grail legend with the principles, practices, and pageantry of Christianity. The theme of redemption plays the main role here, as in nearly every Wagner opera.<br /><br />I personally had to sweat to get through Syberberg's first act (amidst my jarring acclimation, the music saved the day). But Act II picks up the pace. Here we meet Klingsor, the evil sorcerer, out to entrap the wandering "innocent fool" Parsifal. The greatest seductress of them all, Kundry, will be used to entice him to the dark side. After an initial dalliance with more symbols, these get stripped away, and the long, gorgeous, transformational duet between young fool and temptress really takes off. Finally the film starts working a genuine magic, and it is chiefly due to Syberberg's choosing to set things naturally and simply. Suddenly the acting starts to work (the expressive actress Edith Clever and the luscious soprano of Yvonne Minton team to create a wondrous Kundry); suddenly the music seems to come to life and make vivid the inner turmoil of the two characters. The camera work stays simple and quietly fluid. In other words, Wagner is allowed to tell his story more on his own terms. And it works beautifully. For me it was the most engrossing part of the film.<br /><br />With the re-entrance of the knights in part 2 of Act III, the weird extraneous symbolisms unfortunately creep back in. Some other loony Syberberg ideas: using a huge Wagner death-mask as a major set-piece (causing the composer's protuberant proboscis to loom comically large); dressing the Act III knights in all manner of costumes, wigs, and makeup (what is the director saying? That the knights are a bunch of buffoons? That they express multiple or timeless layers of significance beyond their surface functions? It's anybody's guess); the insertion – just after the incredibly touching baptism of Kundry by Parsifal – of rear-projection footage of the conductor rehearsing, in modern-day realism, his orchestra in the studio (this completely snapped my dramatic thread, requiring a few minutes to regroup); the complete avoidance of having any time pass between Acts II and III (when we meet the knight and "narrator" Gurnemanz again, he should be an old, old man, and Parsifal should re-emerge as a world-weary but wiser middle-aged man); but certainly the most bizarre stroke is to split the Parsifal character into male/female components. Some find this the most brilliant stroke. No doubt I can credit Karin Krick, who plays "Parsifal 2," with acting of strength and dignity (she also happens to be the best lip-syncher of the whole cast). But please...Wagner's conception of Parsifal is already so complex. His growth from a completely innocent boy who knows nothing of his past, to his breakthrough realization in Act II of what Amfortas's eternal wound means and how it has become his own, to his return as the great Redeemer of Act III – this is the journey of a masterfully constructed character. The bi-sexual emphasis is just gimmicky and absurd. (And what's with this nonsense about a homoerotic Gurnemanz and Parsifal?? Can't we just accept a mentor/apprentice relationship, which is marvelously reversed in Act III?) <br /><br />The Monte Carlo Philharmonic under Armin Jordan plays with passion and beauty (though the chorus is disappointing). But after watching this film I only wanted to whip out my Solti-led recording (HIGHLY recommended) and get my Wagnerian bearings straight again. The film experience for me ranged from bizarre to entertaining to infuriating. To Syberberg's credit, he's created a visually arresting work, and he certainly offers a unique take on an important opera. But instead of sticking to "Parsifal," he seems to have wanted to bring in all things Wagnerian: the man, the life, the enormous influence...all of it in crude symbolic code. "Parsifal" the opera is already full of weighty symbolism: the Grail, the Spear, the Holy Sacraments, baptism, Amfortas's ever-bleeding wound, Klingsor's self-castration, the Kiss, Kundry's Curse, and on and on. This is not to mention the *musical* symbolism sounding constantly in the score, in the form of Wagner's leitmotif system. "Parsifal" itself is one huge symbol! Getting back to my first-paragraph question, Syberberg's whole hog is all way too much for me. But if this project sounds like something to tickle your fancy, then go for it. I won't recommend just staying away from this; you may find yourself heartily satisfied. Or if you need something to crack your Wagner barrier, try it...but please, please, don't stop here. "Parsifal" is in a late, very ripe league of its own.
Admittedly, Parsifal is not an opera that can appeal to everyone, although it is a favourite of mine, Knappertsbusch, 1951, in particular. Syberberg's entire approach is so static. Whenever the music suddenly begins to swell ... Syberberg keeps the cast moving at the same pace. The takes on Amfortas and Klingsor are endless. Whatever happened to film editing? The result is physically exhausting to watch. The viewer is never spiritually transported. Your impulse is to rush home and play a recording again to confirm that Wagner got it right, Syberberg got it wrong. And that set decoration with those "clever" reminders of Wagner's anti-Semitism -- will there ever be a viewer of this film with no prior knowledge of Wagner?
It must be assumed that those who praised this film ("the greatest filmed opera ever," didn't I read somewhere?) either don't care for opera, don't care for Wagner, or don't care about anything except their desire to appear Cultured. Either as a representation of Wagner's swan-song, or as a movie, this strikes me as an unmitigated disaster, with a leaden reading of the score matched to a tricksy, lugubrious realisation of the text.<br /><br />It's questionable that people with ideas as to what an opera (or, for that matter, a play, especially one by Shakespeare) is "about" should be allowed anywhere near a theatre or film studio; Syberberg, very fashionably, but without the smallest justification from Wagner's text, decided that Parsifal is "about" bisexual integration, so that the title character, in the latter stages, transmutes into a kind of beatnik babe, though one who continues to sing high tenor -- few if any of the actors in the film are the singers, and we get a double dose of Armin Jordan, the conductor, who is seen as the face (but not heard as the voice) of Amfortas, and also appears monstrously in double exposure as a kind of Batonzilla or Conductor Who Ate Monsalvat during the playing of the Good Friday music -- in which, by the way, the transcendant loveliness of nature is represented by a scattering of shopworn and flaccid crocuses stuck in ill-laid turf, an expedient which baffles me. In the theatre we sometimes have to piece out such imperfections with our thoughts, but I can't think why Syberberg couldn't splice in, for Parsifal and Gurnemanz, mountain pasture as lush as was provided for Julie Andrews in Sound of Music...<br /><br />The sound is hard to endure, the high voices and the trumpets in particular possessing an aural glare that adds another sort of fatigue to our impatience with the uninspired conducting and paralytic unfolding of the ritual. Someone in another review mentioned the 1951 Bayreuth recording, and Knappertsbusch, though his tempi are often very slow, had what Jordan altogether lacks, a sense of pulse, a feeling for the ebb and flow of the music -- and, after half a century, the orchestral sound in that set, in modern pressings, is still superior to this film.
(various spoilers follow)<br /><br />Gene Kelly. Not Georges Guetary, who is sometimes criticized for being too young and un-French. Not Leslie Caron, who is sometimes criticized for her very green performance. Not even Oscar Levant, who more often than not annoys the dickens out of me.<br /><br />No, it would definitely be Gene Kelly. There's something about his screen persona that's too ambitious and focused for him to be convincing as a penniless artist in Paris, content to put off facing the critics indefinitely, frolicking with little kids and old ladies and painting in the streets. That's what made him so effective in SINGIN' IN THE RAIN and other movies where he played ambitious, focused characters. Jerry Mulligan is in some ways a cousin to Tommy Albright in BRIGADOON, another Lerner story with Kelly miscast as an American at loose ends who falls in love with a picturesque European place and an innocent female who embodies its virtues.<br /><br />Except that Jerry isn't as likeable as even poor dazed Tommy. That's another galling thing about this film. Jerry is sometimes a cad to Milo, and even worse to Lise. When he first sees the latter at a club, he pulls a dirty trick to get her to dance with him. When she sits down again he pulls an even dirtier trick to get her phone number. When he calls her the next day she hangs up on him, which he takes as a cue to drop in at her workplace. And throughout all this it's obvious she wants NOTHING to do with him. When she starts laughing at his jokes in the perfume shop, it's about as believable as Milo's interest in his paintings. Sure he's good-looking and playful, but why should that sway her when she's got Henri, who seems like a gentleman to boot?<br /><br />Admittedly it comes off so distasteful partly because of the actress. If a role like Lise was played by, say, Judy Garland, she would shower Jerry with indignant insults and glares. If she was played by Cyd Charisse, one would admire his guts. But when she's played by first-timer Leslie Caron she looks and acts like a shy, vulnerable teenager, and as a result Jerry just seems like a creep. And why DID they choose these other actors (though personally I'd rather they'd solved things by changing the lead) when the whole story hinges on the romance of these two young poor sweethearts disentangling themselves from their loveless commitments to older rich people? Not only is Gene Kelly a few years above Guetary and Foch, he's old enough to be Caron's father.<br /><br />In short I think it all would have been improved by casting some young comedic-relief type dancer as Jerry, the kind that usually turned up in musical supporting roles...e.g. Ray MacDonald in GOOD NEWS or Bobby Van in SMALL TOWN GIRL. Maybe not them necessarily but someone LIKE them. Someone who could have chased Lise and made it seem harmlessly playful; someone who would have appeared genuinely happy living in that Chaplinesque hole-in-the-wall; someone whose humor and naivete would have contrasted better with Oscar Levant's sarcastic grumpiness. It probably also would have made the ballet seem less ponderous. And it might have provided a voice that could sing Gershwin better.<br /><br />All this may give the impression that I don't like Gene Kelly. I do like him. He was terrific in most of his films, just not this one (well, and a few others). I don't despise AAIP itself, either; it has good points, like the art direction. And Leslie Caron, who despite her inexperience is rather charming, and really does look like she just stepped out of a painting. Georges Guetary does a fine job and his "Stairway to Paradise" is my favorite number in the movie. Nina Foch is beautiful and touching and should have ended up with SOMEBODY. But not Jerry Mulligan. I wouldn't wish that on her.
An art house maven's dream. Overrated, overpraised, overdone; a pretentious melange that not only did not deserve Best Picture of 1951 on its own merits, it was dwarfed by the competition from the start. Place in the Sun, Detective Story, Streetcar Named Desire, Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man; you name it, if it came out in '51, it's better than this arthouse crapola. The closing ballet is claptrap for the intellectual crowd, out of place and in the wrong movie. Few actors in their time were less capable (at acting) or less charismatic than Kelly and Caron. My #12 Worst of '51 (I saw 201 movies), and among the 5 worst Best Picture Oscar winners.
I'm never much for classic films. Movies like Patton, Going My Way, How Green was My Valley, The Godfather, Casablanca, Annie Hall, Gone with the Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, and Citizen Kane bore me. However, I would much rather watch any one of those films 3,469 times while being tied up on a chair than watch An American in Paris once in the most luxurious suite ever. If I did the latter, I'd probably be sleeping the entire time.<br /><br />The color art direction and the music didn't interest me, Gershwin or non-Gershwin. The dancing and the singing could help an insomniac fall to sleep. The dialogue doesn't match up to Singin' in the Rain. Basically, this movie is boring. The only other film that I fell asleep while watching was Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. But you can't blame me. I only slept 5 minutes the night before.<br /><br />1 star/10 (Too bad we can't give zeroes.)
I don't know what the Oscar voters saw in this movie, but they must of seen some pretty hard stuff to see in it to be able to award it with the best picture Oscar. All I know is that fortunately there was Gene Kelly to play in it or this would have been twice as bad as I believe it is. First of all, I don't think Leslie Caron was really fit to play such a role. She isn't that talented, she isn't a great dancer and she's not good looking at all. It's a shame that one actor or actress may ruin a movie just like by playing in it because if Leslie Caron hadn't been in this, it might have made a terrific movie. The story was intelligent, the directing wasn't bad, and, as I said, Gene Kelly was pretty good. Now I'm not saying all this stuff about Leslie Caron just to criticize her, I'm just saying it because I think that's what the worse part of the movie is. She's probably a good actress but I can't tell because I haven't seen her in anything else but I think she was pretty bad in "An American in Paris". So if you want to see it, go ahead but I'm telling you, you're way better off watching "Singin' in the rain".
This is a film that belongs firmly to the 50's. Very surprising that American Film Institute has chosen this one for one for the best 100 American movies of all-time. I have seen practically all of the movies on that list, and this one is by far the most disappointing one of those. Musical numbers (and there many, many of them) are VERY overlong and boring, and have absolute no connection with the story. The end of the movie has horribly over-long ballet sequency, which naturally has no real relation to the story of the movie. It must be admitted, that it is very well made, the music is OK, and the dancing done with the highest professional standard - but there is no real reason why the sequence is included in the movie.<br /><br />The main character of the movie is extremely childlish and unlikeable and behaves in unpolite way. His mental age is about 14. If you want to see a good musical made on the "golden age" of musicals, go and see "Singing in the Rain".
I purchased the BLOOD CASTLE DVD on eBay for a few bucks not knowing what it was and all I can say is that I wasn't disappointed with this purchase. BLOOD CASTLE is one of those trashy European horror films that has almost no redeeming quality except for being thoroughly entertaining, for all the bad reasons. The opening alone was worth the price of the DVD: our heroine, Dr. Ivanna, arrives at the castle where she's supposed to help a scientist, Baron Dalmar, who does experiments on dead tissue. On her way to the castle 1) a man tries to rape Ivanna. 2) the castle's housekeeper fights with her. 3) the maid wants her dead. 4) and finally, Baron Dalmar nearly spits on her and wants her out the next day. Hmm...something tells me she's not welcome. With such a miserable arrival, you'd think Ivanna would leave the place in a NY minute but no, like so many great trashy films, our "headstrong" heroine decides to stay put and even enjoys a candlelight dinner with the grumpy Baron on that same eventful day. The intro is so over-the-top trashy (it's even greater than the memorable first few minutes of that Canadian film, JUNIOR) that I knew I was going to enjoy this.<br /><br />But the fun doesn't end there. Ivanna is repeatedly drugged whenever she goes to bed at night, only to wake up from unconsciousness, naked, bound and tortured in mild sessions of S&M by an unseen man. Even after experiencing these nightly S&M sessions, Ivanna stays at the castle, dully convinced by the angry Baron that what she's experiencing are nothing more than dreams. To be expected, even after being treated so badly from the get-go, Ivanna, falls in love with the Baron. Ivanna completely disregards anything negative about him, including the obvious fact that the dour Baron is popular with the young ladies. Every women at the castle (it seems only women work there) is in love with the miserable chump, who doesn't mind taking advantage of the pretty young things. Things get even sillier as someone lurks around the estate and kills (and has been killing) women. Basically, the Baron's physically disfigured brother, Igor is responsible for everything. In a very long winded scene, the brother warns the Baron he should not get too involved with Ivanna or he'll suffer the consequences. So what do the Baron and Ivanna do about this? Well, they get married of course! During the very brief marriage ceremony, the Baron is shot by one of the angry locals (father of one of the dead girls). But all of this doesn't deter Ivanna, who, amidst all the dead young ladies and torture surrounding them, cheerfully comforts the hurt Baron that "it's just a flesh wound" and the two can go on and enjoy their honeymoon at the castle, where the killer/rapist/torturer brother is. The whole thing quickly devolves into a nightmarish love triangle of sorts, between Ivana, the Baron and Igor. Blame it all on love!<br /><br />Anyway, you get the idea: subtle it's not. Almost everything is over-the-top ridiculous in this film and when it's not OTT, such as the predictable climax, things get a tad boring. But for most of the film, the director or writer revel in one illogically trashy moment after another. I really love these kind of films, everything as subtle as being hit over the head with a sledgehammer, and populated by characters behaving illogically. Even those who made the Retromedia DVD realize this and when you go to the scene selection section, we hear one of the funniest bits of dialogue from the dubbed movie looped endlessly. <br /><br />The production values are beautifully risible. The opening and closing credits, with those candles and red curtains...ah, a soupçon of class. The music sounds sometimes like something from a Tim Burton film, which only adds to the oddness of it all. And customary to these kind of films, when the young ladies take off their clothes, they just beg to be killed.<br /><br />As a standard film, I rate this a 2, but as a "it's so bad it's good" film, I rate it a solid 8 stars. If you enjoy trashy films, please watch this one. It's a must see. The only thing left for me to ponder about it: what would it have taken for that woman to get out of that freaking castle?
(aka: BLOOD CASTLE or SCREAM OF THE DEMON)<br /><br />*spoiler*<br /><br />This was a drive-in feature, co-billed with THE VELVET VAMPIRE. A Spanish-Italian co-production where a series of women in a village are being murdered around the same time a local count named Yanos Dalmar is seen on horseback, riding off with his 'man-eating' dog behind him.<br /><br />The townsfolk already suspect he is the one behind it all and want his castle burned down. The murders first began around the time Count Yanos' older brother, Count Igor Dalmar was horribly burned and killed in a lab accident.<br /><br />Then a woman Ivanna (Erna Schuer) that Igor hired before his death to assist him in his experiments shows up. Yanos agrees to hire her in place of his brother and together they seek the formulae for the regeneration of dead cells. Yanos wants to bring Igor's charred corpse back to life.<br /><br />But of course Igor is still alive (although horribly burned) and stalking and killing the women in the village. We see his char-broiled face appear at various points in the film, so we know he's still alive, making the whole thing seem a little bit too obvious.<br /><br />Igor meets another fiery end when he gets into a fight with Yanos over Ivanna, with the burning candles falling on to the same bed that Igor stumbles on to, meeting yet another, final char-broiled end.<br /><br />The Retromedia DVD is taken from a VHS source and looks quite grainy and bad. Other than an even scratchier trailer, no other extras are included. Although it has a nice, creepy Spanish castle and good atmospherics, I found it to be fairly boring and predictable, with no excitement or mystery, whatsoever. <br /><br />3 out of 10.
I caught this a few months ago on Family Channel, and having some memories of the TV show from my youth, decided to watch it along with my 4 year old daughter. I should have got some psychedelic mushrooms to go along with it, 'cause this is just bizarre! Not only is it a musical with annoyingly forgettable tunes, the requisite cheesy effects and cameos by stars long past their collective primes, it seems to have been produced as somebody's good acid trip. Talking flutes, British children far too old for this kind of crap... in the words of Krusty the Klown "uuuuuugggghhhhh! What was I on?" If you're a huge fan of the whole Sid and Marty Krofft oeuvre, go for it; otherwise, unless you're willing to get looped before watching, stay far, far, FAR away.
I hated this show when I was a kid. That was back in the day when kids show characters actually had accents, not just the bland, generic, General American Dialect we're used to. Jack Wild had a British accent and Pufnstuf's was southern. Like one of the others mentioned, though, I never quite understood what the deal was with the witch wanting the flute. That always seemed odd to me, probably because the flute just annoyed me and I wouldn't have gone to any trouble to take it away!<br /><br />Just a comment on the similarity of Pufnstuf to early 70s McDonalds commercials that others have mentioned: Pufnstuf ripped off McDonalds. At the height of McDonalds popularity, the TV show (or rather, their creators) sought to license McDonalds characters for their show, but when McDonalds declined the TV show changed the characters slightly and passed it as their own. They even hired former employees of McDonalds ad agency and the voice actors to make the TV shows. McDonalds sued and won. Search for Pufnstuf McDonaldland lawsuit and you'll find plenty of articles about it.
I tried watching this abomination of the cinema when I was five years old; I have never been the same since. Filled to the brim with drug-induced images that reek of the common ravings of your average asylum resident, this "movie", despite its colorful appearance, is not for humans, ESPECIALLY not children.<br /><br />It starts out innocently enough with a poor boy who ruins his classmate's drum by (wait for it) putting his head through it; yes, putting his HEAD through it. But fear not, my friends! He is quickly consoled by his chirping flute, which is weird enough, I'll grant you, but still acceptable.<br /><br />THEN: The movie morphs into a combination of Wizard of Oz and Where the Wild Things Are, but loses all the "warm and fuzzy" aspects of either of these two books.<br /><br />So, this seven-foot yellow relative of Barney, befriends this poor boy and plunges him even deeper into despair.<br /><br />And, to add the pleasant array of horrific themes, a carnivorous boat, formerly a friend of the motley crew of hobbling grandfather clocks and doped-up "dragons", is added to the mix of mayhem.<br /><br />The most comforting image in the midst of this chaos is the villain, aptly dubbed "Witchiepoo" (?). Of course, she has problems of her own: what with an obvious plastic mask constricting her facial expressions to having to deal with a broomstick whose gas level always seemed to be at its lowest at the most inopportune moments. As a result of this, one of her favorite pastimes was nose-diving into the body of water that separated the land of Pufnstuf from her degenerate, decaying abode (I don't know where I would have preferred to live).<br /><br />In summary, this movie is terrifying...<br /><br />If you want to watch the movie that has similar effects on its audience as The Exorcist, then this one is for you. Enjoy.
Basically there's a family where a little boy (Jake) thinks there's a zombie in his closet & his parents are fighting all the time.<br /><br />This movie is slower than a soap opera... and suddenly, Jake decides to become Rambo and kill the zombie.<br /><br />OK, first of all when you're going to make a film you must Decide if its a thriller or a drama! As a drama the movie is watchable. Parents are divorcing & arguing like in real life. And then we have Jake with his closet which totally ruins all the film! I expected to see a BOOGEYMAN similar movie, and instead i watched a drama with some meaningless thriller spots.<br /><br />3 out of 10 just for the well playing parents & descent dialogs. As for the shots with Jake: just ignore them.
Cliché-ridden story of an impending divorce - or is it? - through the eyes of a 6 year-old child. Corny dialogue, cardboard characters, stock situations, a red herring zombie sub-plot and, worst of all, absolutely no payoff, either emotionally or dramatically.<br /><br />Does no-one teach creative writing any more? The true sign of a weak storyteller - when you cannot create any kind of satisfying denouement - just end the story. I'm compelled to ask, "what made you think this was a story worth telling in the first place!?" <br /><br />Good, but wasted, debut by child actor Anthony De Marco - the rest of the cast was, at best, forgettable. And they wonder why no-one watches indie films! This is ninety minutes of my life I will never get back.
Really, really bad slasher movie. A psychotic person escapes from an asylum. Three years later he kills a sociology professor, end of scene. One semester yesterday later (hey, that's what the title card said) a new sociology professor is at the school. She makes friends with another female sociology professor who works there, and starts dating another professor. The students are all bored, as are we.<br /><br />There are a number of title cards indicating how much time has passed. Scenes are pretty short, and cut to different characters somewhere else, making for little progression of any kind. A lot of scenes involve characters walking and talking, or sitting and talking, and serve little purpose. Despite the passage of time, many of the characters are always wearing the same clothing. Sometimes the unclear passage of time means when we see a body for the second time, we ask ourselves: how long has that body been there? And also, at least one of the dead people don't seem to have been missed by others.<br /><br />The killer manages to kill one person by stabbing her in the breast, another by stabbing him in the crotch, and another by slicing her forehead. Is his knife poisoned or something?<br /><br />The video box cover has a cheerleader: there aren't any in the movie. The rear cover has a photo of someone in a graduation cap and gown menacing a group of women in a dorm room. The central redhead in the photo is in the movie, but nobody ever wears such an outfit, and there is no such scene. The killer is strictly one-on-one.
If you merely look at the cover of this movie, it's cool. DON'T. The movie itself put me to sleep. It was slow paced, had minimal violence and a poor use of suspense. The acting was bottom feeder material and the plot, while it would've been cool for a different movie, was poorly shown here. They even kill the only likeable character in the whole film! I give it a 2 out of 10 because the only thing that was good was the plot twist at the end. Other than that, you might want to save yourself from this movie trash.
How come I've never seen or even heard about this junk-movie before? It's right up my alley with bloody teenkill, laughable plotting and an irresistible 80's cheese-atmosphere hanging around it. For some reason nobody is really interested in, the staff and students of an elite Catholic university are butchered by an unknown psychopath. Freshly recruited teacher Julie Parker becomes involved when all the people she has contact with either turn up dead or behave strangely. This movie is hilariously bad! There's absolutely no logic or coherence and every character is equally meaningless to the others. For example, there's a girl killed and her body dumped in a container. Then, and for no reason, the story suddenly moves forward three weeks yet the murdered girl is never mentioned or even missed. Not even by her boyfriend! The acting is pitiful and there isn't even a bit of nudity to enjoy. The revelation of the killer is quite funny because the makers really seemed convinced that it was an original twist... It's not, guys! "Splatter University" is easily one of the worst horror-turkeys ever.
A schizophrenic has escaped from a NYC mental hospital and soon teachers start getting offed at St. Trinity University. New teacher Julie (Francine Forbes) has to deal with the mess of red herrings. Despite a 78 minute running time, this cheap-o slasher drags on and on until the lame finish where the person you suspect is the killer from the get go is revealed to be as such. Director Richard Haines barely breaks a sweat with some lame stalk-n-slash staging but delivers the grue the early 80s audience was probably craving. For all of our amateur anthropologists out there, this was filmed in New Yawk in early 80s so you can check out all of the culture, beliefs, and practices of living people from that far away place. The film does get some credit for offing the "Final Girl." You rarely see that. Also, always nice to see a horror movie where a priest is the killer. Doth thou not trust the clergy, my beloved film industry? Thankfully, this one is only a phony priest and he gets caught. He is still working the moral high ground angle though.
It's a poor film, but I must give it to the lead actress in this one....Francine Forbes. She appeared to be acting the least and I personally thought she was kind of cute. Too bad she only appears in one other film in the database. Besides that, the film is filled with laughable gore and fakey death scenes. People get stabbed and they GUSH like 2 gallons of blood! But, if you like to watch poor horror films, I recommend this one highly.
Nut case is murdering college students, can new teacher stop the madness?!<br /><br />Believe me, you won't care.<br /><br />With a title like Splatter University, one would immediately gather that this movie just isn't high art. But worse than that Splatter University doesn't even qualify for amusing garbage. Splatter U is so poorly made - the story is mindless, the characters are throw-aways, and the whole movie lacks any essence of imagination. Needless to say there is no suspense or atmosphere or scares. This drivel isn't even brave enough to throw in any nudity (for the cheapest thrill of all). So all around this endlessly flawed slasher offers nothing in the way of entertainment (not even cheap laughs) and just becomes a complete bore. Bottom of the barrel folks - even die hard slasher fans will want to think twice before viewing, let alone paying money for this flick.<br /><br />BOMB out of ****
Colleges, High Schools, Fraternities and Sororities have been the most popular stalking grounds for maniacal madmen since the slasher cycle first became a popular cinema culture throughout the late seventies. Even backwoods cabins and campsites have rode shotgun to the amount of massacres that have taken place on campuses since Halloween categorised the genre as a cult horror category. From early entries like To all a Good Night right up until the big budgeted schlock of titles like Urban Legend or Schools Out, there's usually always been a campus slasher lurking somewhere in the pipeline. Despite being picked up by Troma - the titans of B movie badness – Splatter University was heavily panned upon release and never really found an audience. Even notorious hack and slash websites like HYSTERIA-LIVES have written off Richard Haines' splatter yarn as one of the worst of the early eighties boom. I always approach criticised movies optimistically because there's often the chance than a few bad reviews can be unfairly contagious like a dose of the flu, which crowds the judgement of certain authors.<br /><br />It begins in traditional fashion at the place where any maniac worth his salts emerges. Yep you guessed it – an insane asylum! It seems that one of the inmates has decided that he's unhappy with the level of service at the institution and therefore he's looking to take his business elsewhere. The unseen nut-job makes his break after stabbing an unfortunate orderly where the sun certainly doesn't shine. He obviously favours the dress sense of the murdered worker, so he takes the liberty of borrowing his uniform, blood stained trousers and all!<br /><br />Three years later, we transfer to St Trinians College, an educational establishment that is controlled by catholic priests. A teacher is busy after hours marking her students work when all of a sudden there's a knock at the door. Before she has a chance to find out what the unseen visitor wants, he stabs her in the chest with a kitchen knife and she falls to the floor in a bloody heap. This of course means that there's a vacancy at the university and so we're introduced to Julie Parker (Francine Forbes), the lovable replacement for the recently departed lecturer. It seems that her arrival has inadvertently given the resident maniac all the motivation that he needs to go on a no holds barred slaughter-thon. Before long students and teachers alike are dropping like flies to the camera shy menace as he stalks the corridors and local areas armed with an exceptionally large blade. Suspicious suspects abound, but can professor Parker solve the mystery of the campus murderer before she becomes just another statistic? <br /><br />I'm not precisely sure how many versions of this movie are available. The UK altered video was released under the alias of Campus Killings, but the US copy that I own states that it's the complete unedited edition, which could mean that there is a censored print floating about somewhere? I'd be fairly surprised if that was the case as Splatter University certainly isn't as gore-delicious as the hyperbole packaging would lead you to believe. One or two litres of corn syrup certainly don't stand up to gore hound's scrutiny when compared to the likes of Blood Rage or Pieces, so in this instance the movie is somewhat over hyped. One thing that many critics have failed to mention is the charming lead performance from Francine Forbes, who ends up carrying the entire picture on her shoulders throughout the 79-minute running time. Despite amateurish direction from Richard Haines she still unveils some magnificent potential that should have lead to the chance of another stab at serious acting under a more accomplished helmer. Unfortunately that possibility never came, and bottom of the barrel bombs like Death Ring and Splitz certainly didn't help to nurture a talent that could have improved dramatically under the right scholarship.<br /><br />The rest of the cast members were par for the course of movie obscurity, especially the wooden plank teenagers who for some strange reason acted like they were auditioning for a remake of Grease or The Wanderers. The bog standard point and shoot direction couldn't have helped to build much confidence in the project and the fact that the few signs of potential were undermined by the clumsy handling of the script writer left the feature effectively unredeemable. Perhaps the only claim of originality to be found in Haines' slasher is the brave attempt for the contrasting conclusion. Let's just say that it's not a final that I was expecting to witness in a movie that was so typical of the cycle.<br /><br />At one point in the runtime, one of the teens says, "Man that Parker bores me to tears…" Well the same can be said for Splatter University, which never lifts the pace above slow motion. With that said though, Francine Forbes made for a delectable scream queen and undoubtedly one that I would have paid to watch again in a similar role. So that pretty much sums up this un-troma-tising ride. Slow paced, shoddy but still strangely alluring; you'd have to be especially forgiving to give it a chance…
A patient escapes from a mental hospital, killing one of his keepers and then a University professor after he makes his way to the local college. Next semester, the late prof's replacement and a new group of students have to deal with a new batch of killings. The dialogue is so clichéd it is hard to believe that I was able to predict lines in quotes. This is one of those cheap movies that was thrown together in the middle of the slasher era of the '80's. Despite killing the heroine off, this is just substandard junk. Horrible acting, horrible script, horrible effects, horrible horrible horrible!! "Splatter University" is just gunk to put in your VCR when you have nothing better to do, although I suggest watching your head cleaner tape, that would be more entertaining. Skip it and rent "Girl's Nite Out" instead.<br /><br />Rated R for Strong Graphic Violence, Profanity, Brief Nudity and Sexual Situations.
This has got to be the worst horror movie I have ever seen. I remember watching it years ago when it initially came out on video and for some strange reason I thought I enjoyed it. So, like an idiot, I ran out to purchase the DVD once it was released...what a tragic mistake! I won't even bother to go into the plot because it is so transparent that you can see right through it anyhow. I am a fan of Herschell Gordon Lewis so I am accustomed to cheesy gore effects and bad acting but these people take this to a whole different level. It is almost as if they are intentionally trying to make the worst movie humanly possible...if that was their goal, they suceeded. If they intended to make a film that was supposed to scare you or make you believe in any way, shape, or form that it is real then they failed...MISERABLY! Avoid this movie...read the plot synopsis and you've seen it!
I have a nice collection on movies going, and this one was added to it. Number 274 to be exact. <br /><br />The title had me going at first. Splatter University. I thought this would be a great horror movie. Was I ever wrong. Don't get me wrong, this is not the worst movie I have ever seen, but it could have been a lot better. I love all movies, but this one was one that was more of a laugh then a scare. <br /><br />Poor audio quality, poor acting, and poor shot arrangements are some of the areas that could have been improved. 3 out of 10 stars.<br /><br />Movie is ideal for a good laugh. If your looking for one of those movies to make fun of, then this is one!
I am starting this review with a big giant spoiler about this film. Do not read further...here it comes, avert your eyes! The main heroine, the girl who always survives in other slasher films, is murdered here. There, I just saved you 79 minutes of your life.<br /><br />This is one of those cheap movies that was thrown together in the middle of the slasher era of the '80's. Despite killing the heroine off, this is just substandard junk.<br /><br />Both priests and college students get a bad rap here. They are pictured as oversexed, sociopathic morons who have way too many internal problems to deal with what looks like junior college campus life...and the college students come off even worse.<br /><br />"Splatter University" is just gunk to put in your VCR when you have nothing better to do, although I suggest watching your head cleaner tape, that would be more entertaining.<br /><br />This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, gore, profanity, very brief female nudity, and sexual references.<br /><br />
This film is the worst film, but it ranks very high for me. It is how a slasher movie should be. It takes place at a university in which there only seems to be a handful of students. The teachers are dumber than a sack of hammers. It is filled with good Catholic priest, sexually repressed humor. Bad hair, bad clothes. The dialogue is so cliched it is hard to believe that I was able to predict lines in quotes. The slashings have some creativity and seem to revolve around stabbing people in the genitalia. A lack of continuity in the soundtrack and characters that deserve to die because they are so bad, I recommend this film for a fun time. Get a case of cheap beer and some friends, watch it and laugh.
the cover of the box makes this movie look really good, don't be fooled. splatter university came out in 1984 which was the last good year for horror, but this movie sucks. the characters are so annoying. only the teacher is cool. there is like no plot to this movie, who the hell would ever produce this waste of a film?<br /><br />spoilers up ahead<br /><br />the teacher dies in this, and it was a female, we all know that we must have a female surviver, if you're going to break the rules do it in a good horror flick not this waste
Back in the days before the Toxic Avenger, the low-camp kings at Troma Films tried to take the high (OK, somewhat-less-low) road of producing straight slasher pics. I'd like to think that viewing the results here is what convinced them to give up all pretension and go for self-conscious parody.<br /><br />Splatter University is another film for the masochists in the audience. As it meanders about through two separate casts and innumerable pointless subplots, it actually becomes painful to watch. Let's see if I can summarize.<br /><br />After learning that a dangerous psychopath has escaped from a local hospital, the action moves to a Catholic university (I don't recall the name, but in honor of the title, let's call it St. Splatter). The students are listless and sullen, and argue pettily with each other, slackers ahead of their time. Meanwhile, the new professor, Julie Parker, proves utterly incompetent at her job. The kids deal with relationships, infidelity, unwanted pregnancies, lecherous priests, and how to avoid doing any work in class; Julie deals with a creepy boyfriend, the inflexible administration at St. Splatter, counseling unwed mothers, and the blank, expressionless looks of her students. None of it means a darn thing or gets resolved in any meaningful way. Oh, and every once in a while, a POV shot comes along and stabs one of the girls to death, but don't hold your breath waiting for it. There's a Red Herring Killer, and then a sadly anticlimactic confrontation with the Real Killer, then it's back to the asylum and roll credits.<br /><br />The slow pace and numerous inane subplots seem almost calculated to produce a mounting sense of frustration in the viewer, which is helped along by choppy editing, coffee-can sound quality, and dialog that just doesn't make any sense. And the most agonizing thing about this movie is the killer's fixation on women - the men in this movie are just so deserving. I'd've paid good money to see someone off the jerk with the pregnant girlfriend, or the lunkhead Lothario who was fooling around with his girlfriend's roommate, or any of the creepy priests. There ain't no justice.
Does this film suck!! Horrible acting, horrible script, horrible effects, horrible horrible horrible!! Nothing redeeming here for even the most die-hard of horror fans! A crazy killer stalks students at a college. People are showing up dead in the hallways, but still, class carries on as normal??? After about the 4th body, I would think that they could allow the students a few days break! LOL. This about as bad as it gets folks. This film should be shown as a means of torture to criminals. You have been warned!
I am an avid B-Rate horror film buff and have viewed my fair share of slasher pictures, so I have a substantial gauge to judge this film by. It easily ranks in the upper echelon of the worst horror films the 1980's has to offer. It isn't as scary as Night of the Demons, it isn't as gory as Re-Animator and lacks the camp value of There's Nothing Out There. That being said, this film has no value. Keep in mind, the movie artwork is for a completely different film. The stills shots on the back of the DVD box aren't taken from this film.<br /><br />VIOLENCE: $$$ (There is plenty of violence but we've seen it all before. A murderer kills nubile students and the occasional facility member by slitting throats and all the other tired methods of murder that horror films utilize).<br /><br />NUDITY: None <br /><br />STORY: $$ (The story focuses on Francine Forbes - who wisely changed her name to Forbes Riley after this film was made - who accepts a job teaching at a university. People start to die and Forbes believes the killer is targeting her. Is it her new heartthrob with a checkered past or the libido-crazed student? To be honest, it is impossible to care because the script doesn't flesh out any character outside Forbes).<br /><br />ACTING: $ (Terrible on all levels. This slasher has the feel of a school production -high school that is because college students could make a better flick than this. Forbes showcases a modicum of talent as does Seminara as one of the students, but everyone else is of the "extras" caliber of acting).
Was it foreshadowing when Tori complained that her first boyfriend was treating her like a robot, and then her new boyfriend (the murderer) turned out to be a designer of artificial intelligence? I think so. Scenes to make you squeal with delight: montages galore, a strip-tease in a kimono (what do you call it when you seductively put clothes on, instead of take them off?), and a climactic battle on skis! Definitely tune in for the beginning and end, but you can grab a sandwich during the second act when all the plot is happening. Is it better than CO-ED CALL GIRL? Nah. Does Tori ever make it to paradise, or out of the snow, even? Nope.
A question for all you girls out there : If a man you`ve never met before accidentally phoned you up on purpose and continued to do so at the most indiscreet moments would you be intrigued by him or so freaked out you`d phone the police ? Yeah that`s what I thought so I couldn`t swallow the idea of Marti Gerrard putting up with the unwarrented attention of Connor Hill<br /><br />***** MILD SPOILERS *****<br /><br />This is a really dumb story . Connor Hill`s wife is murdered and the plot revolves around the question is Connor phoning Marti so he can have an alibi ? But there`s a massive gap in logic here , couldn`t Connor have employed a hit man ? something the prosecution seem to have ignored . And wasn`t there any forensics at the murder scene ? So why does the whole trial rest on Connor phoning Marti at the time of the murder ? Dumb . Dumb . Dumb . And it`s as predictable as it is brainless .<br /><br />My abiding memory of this film is that for someone who made the winter Olympics Marti Gerrard is a really crap downhill skier
Umm.. I was quite surprised that someone actually gave this film high marks.<br /><br />Lets face it... Tori Spelling is not a great actress.. and this movie just proves the extent of her "talent". The movie's plot was weak... I bet the dork that came up with this concept was some perverted peeping tom. If there is a good thing about this movie, I would say it's that Tommy Chong's daughter, just for the fact that she's his daughter... and then there is that Soap-Opera-ish male lead who's decent good looks somewhat make him attractive, but ceases to help his dramatic abilities. *Why does IMDb require at least 10 lines? How many more ways can you simply say "This movie sucks"?
Do you know when you look at your collection of old, videotaped movies, and realize that there are some that you've only seen once or twice, and you can't remember if they're worth the time it takes to see them? The Alibi is/was one of those films; I found it, not long ago, and decided I might as well give it a chance. I'm not entirely sure if I'm happy with my decision... on one hand, the film is really, really bad, on the other, now I have another free tape... yeah, you get it. The plot is predictable and not in any way original. The pacing is bad. The acting is bad, but that's not really surprising, seeing as the two leads are former soap-opera stars... they're used to overact. The characters are poorly written clichés. The film even manages to screw up the easiest damn way to impress me(through film): court scenes. Even those don't elicit one single emotion for or against any of the cardboard-thin characters. The film just has no real redeeming qualities whatsoever... even the dialog is bad. The thing is, it's so full of clichés that it's laughable. And that's the one thing that lifts this above a rating of 1/10: the(albeit unintentionally so) comic relief of the many clichés and stereotypes. I didn't pay very much attention to the film, but just about every time I looked at the screen, there was something to laugh at. One final note: I considered using the line "Tori Spelling can't act" as a one line summary, but I guess everyone knows that, so I opted for the current one, seeing as it's more informative. All in all, a thoroughly bad film, but not the worst if you've got nothing else to do and if it's on TV. Good for a few laughs, if you can sit through it. 3/10
Well, there you have it, another disillusion on my account. Two, actually! First of all, even though I like to think of myself that I know a little something about 70's euro-exploitation and its most prolific contributors, I never heard about Joseph W. Sarno before. Here's a guy who made over seventy rancid and cult-laden exploitation movies and I haven't seen a single one! How? Why? What happened here? Secondly, and even worse, just when you think to have found a new source for obscure cult movies, that director's most famous and supposed "masterpiece" turns out to be an irredeemably dull and irritating film. Admittedly, lesbian vampire movies form a pretty insignificant sub genre as a whole, but some of them bath in ominous atmosphere and curious sensuality (like José Larraz' "Vampyres" or Harry Kümmel's "Daughters of Darkness"). Joseph Sarno's film has nothing to offer, except copious amounts of gratuitous nudity and even that becomes boring rather quickly. The events take place in a secluded old castle, hidden deep in the German mountains, where five centuries ago lived a malicious and bloodthirsty (literally) baroness. Her loyal disciples still throw naked dance parties in the castle's catacombs, which are lit by penis-shaped candles…AUCH, and hope to resurrect the baroness any time soon now. Suddenly (don't even ask how) the castle is full of young and sexy female guests, so even more erotic rites ensue. Sounds delicious and entertaining enough, but "The Devil's Plaything" contains a massive number of sequences where literally nothing happens and where the cast members' ignorant facial expressions are simply unendurable! Sarno isn't capable of creating suspense or building a Gothic atmosphere (or maybe he just didn't bother to) and the actresses' capacities restrict themselves to standing in front the camera topless and pull a really pathetic face. Please do yourself a favor: no matter how desperately you strive to see all lurid lesbian-vampire movies of the 70's, this one isn't worth a penny! Even the repertoires of Jess Franco and Jean Rollin are pure art compared to this dud.
To be as honest as I possibly can, The Devil's Plaything (or Veil of Blood or Vampire Ecstasy or The Curse of the Black Sisters or……) is a complete bore. The movie has a good premise behind it – the resurrection of a long dead vampire through the body of a descendant through the aid and assistance of a group of women dressed in black – but the execution is horrible. There are great, long moments of screen time when literally nothing happens. Characters just stand around with nothing to do. There's no mystery, no suspense, and no plot points to care about. The acting is simply abysmal. Most of the acting involves a group of below average looking women dancing naked while staring at the camera. They do this repeatedly. And what little plot there is seems to be designed to get more of these less than attractive women naked so they can join in the dancing. While it's not as bad or pointless as the dancing or the plot in something like Orgy of the Dead, it comes close.
I wasn't as "lucky" as some of the others commenting on this film: i have never seen anything else out of the...shall we say... "fecund" mind of Sarno. I agree with many: some of the actresses who spend a lot of time topless and (go-go) dancing are not really that attractive. I kinda liked Fraulein Crank(?)...she was so homely , she was cute! The acting was pretty stale, also, though delivering lines in a second language might have accounted for a lot of that problem. Trying to follow the plot was a major chore: was there one, really? I do heartily agree with one other comment: for a vampire movie, there's not much blood. Yep, if you want GOOD bloodsucking flicks, check out such Hammer classics as "Horror of Dracula" and (my personal favourite) "Brides of Dracula".<br /><br />The most (unintentionally) humorous part is where the lady doctor gets her clothes torn off by a cloud of bats...which you never SEE!...the bats, I mean.<br /><br />Okay as a time-waster if you happen to catch it on cable here in the Great White North but, for heaven's sake, don't rent it!
This is not a horror film, but a boring sex movie. A very bad movie, to be avoided by any serious horror fan. No plot, awful acting and annoying music. If you only watch the trailer you will know enough... It's a shame that such thing is available on VHS or video while there are so many good movies unavailable. If you like vampires try the Hammer Productions or the Italian Gothic from Mario Bava and Antonio Margheriti instead. Those are masterpieces if you compare this with this trash. Rating = even "1" is too much! And believe me, I am not the only one with this opinion.
This is a German film from 1974 that is something to do with some women who come to a castle and beyond that, I can't really tell you their purpose or even what the purpose of the movie is. I can tell you that there's several women who also moonlight as servants at this particular castle who strip, put on body paint and gyrate to bongos like they were at the Goth Kit-Kat Klub, though, and that seems to be a good portion of the run time of this film. Yeah, there seems to be something with devil worship and vampires, and there's some girl on girl stuff, etc., but the main focus seems to be the painted babes gyrating away in the basement. I did rather like the eye-rolling of one of the main housekeepers/devil worshipers, that lent an authenticity to the proceedings and made her even more evil-looking. Was that Wanda the Evil Lesbian (as billed in the credits)? No matter. If you aren't too picky about your lesbian devil worshiping movies, you might like this, otherwise it's pretty dull stuff and I couldn't even finish it, I was so bored. 3 out of 10.
For a fan series, I must admit that Hidden Frontier is not at all that bad. But, reviewing this series can not be based on whether it is a fan series or not. The initiative in itself is commendable. The creativity as well. I reckon these are people with ordinary jobs, and a big enthusiastic heart for Star Trek. But, doing all this work. Pulling all these resources. Taking all this time, and still all those flaws.<br /><br />First of all the acting, and the lines are awful. For most. The dialogs belongs in a 70's military show, not in Star Trek. The captain (Mr Squinty) looks like he is about to burst into laughter anytime. And most characters are just reading their lines. The directors should be aware of the fact that "retake" is not just a word in the dictionary. But I also guess that the series are made in the manner of "Two Takes Frakes", who directed many of the TNG episodes and movies Also, I could not help but think that most of the actors are typical Trekkies. Without going any deeper into that assumption.<br /><br />My biggest concern regarding the whole project, is the quality of the releases. When they first decided to spend so much time, and resources on this series - why didn't they make it available in decent quality? Using the quick time format, with low low resolution is a waste of talent. Even the "higres" episodes is considered bad quality compared to the standard quality series are released in. Using Xvid codec, with a larger resolution and file size would have improved the experience massively. If band with problems was the issue, setting up a torrent tracker would have solved that.<br /><br />Let's hope the crew decides to brush the series up, and perhaps release it on DVD, giving it the quality the project deserves.
First off, let me say that I am a great believer in Fanpro stuff. I see it as a way to continue a good show long after it has been cancelled. Star Trek Voyages and Star Wars Revelations are examples of decent efforts. So I have a soft-spot for fanpro stuff that means I'll overlook things that I would ordinarily slate badly.<br /><br />So on to ST: HF. Well, first off the good things. Enthusiasm is a major part of making any show believable and, for the most part, the crew of the various ships all seem to be having a good time with their roles. Next, the effects aren't bad for a home-brew effort, with nothing to make you really wince. The stories aren't too bad either. Nothing particularly innovative, but solid enough stuff and at least there are ongoing story-arcs.<br /><br />But it has a lot of faults.<br /><br />First off, although they quite obviously HAVE to rip-off Star Trek footage, set backdrops, music and effects, I see no reason why they proceeded to rip off virtually every other sci-fi musical score ever made. Everything from Aliens to Starship Troopers rears it orchestral head at one point or another. Likewise, much of the footage is from other movies, dutifully CGI'd over to make it look different. The Grey warships, for instance, though disguised, are quite obviously Star Destroyers from Star Wars. And the station is also rather obviously Fleet Battle Station Ticonderoga from Starship Troopers. Likewise, sound effects from various Star Wars movies appear in space battles between fighters, as does animated over footage. In one scene in either first or second season, I think, you even see two TIE fighters fly past during a battle, which hardly does your suspension of disbelief any favours.<br /><br />Acting varies from the reasonable to the hideously painful to watch. Everyone does improve as the seasons progress, though, but expect to grimace at the screen a lot, especially in the early seasons. They've also made some interesting acting choices. Let's just say that the food replicators on this show seem permanently set to "cake" and leave it at that.<br /><br />Make-up effects are generally quite effective on the whole. But they really ought to mercilessly club to death the person who decided to use cheap Ferengi and Cardassian masks for anything other than background use or "passing" shots. They are just beyond unrealistic. Every time I saw one of these (apart from trying not to laugh too much) I kept expecting the unfortunate soul wearing it to pull out a gun and announce that "This is a stick-up!" In one scene a "Cardassian" actually talks whilst wearing one of these. Not only do the lips not move, but the mask doesn't even have an opening where the mouth should be. Someone needs to be slapped hard for that. Couldn't they have taken a craft knife to it, for goodness' sake! There are also some well-done, but unintentionally funny make-up jobs, such as the Herman Munster look alike.<br /><br />The writing, though coherent, is nothing new. Instead the script runs like a continuation of DS9, with the ships heading out from DS12 on various missions. The new enemy, "The Grey" aren't very menacing and the plot line involving them is effectively a reworking of the Borg threads. i.e. Starfleet meet the Grey, the Grey are hugely powerful, Starfleet barely escape with their lives, then through technology they begin to find ways to combat the enemy etc etc. All done before with the Borg.<br /><br />Another bone of contention is the dialogue. Star Trek writers have long had the ability to write "insert technobabble here" into a script. It usually means an exposition of the latest plan to combat the enemy using "quantum phase discriminators" or "isolytic charges" etc. In other words, nonsense that tells you that they are on the case and a resolution is at hand.<br /><br />The words are just gibberish really. I've no problem with this, but where ST:HF makes a mess of it is where they include real-world comments into this concept.<br /><br />Tactical advice such as "We need to regroup" sounds good, but not when uttered by trio of characters already standing in a group. Likewise when asked what the situation is, a tactical officer is heard to reply "We count three battleships". He actually needed to count them? C'mon! I expected the questioner to ask him "Are you sure?" or "Can you double check". But my all-time favourite comment is this: <br /><br />Captain: "Can we establish two-way communication?"<br /><br />Comms officer: "No, we can only send and receive.."<br /><br />Well, duh!.....<br /><br />Having said all the above, the show does improve as it goes along. Seasons 1 and 2 are pretty bad, 3 shows an improvement but 4 & 5 are where it starts to get noticeably better. Season 6 so far looks quite reasonable.<br /><br />I do have a problem with their choice of media for the shows though. Quicktime sucks, quite frankly and the sooner they move to divx/avi format the better. Some of us like to actually take our downloaded shows and watch them on decent size screen and not peer at a tiny QT window on a computer monitor. Not only does Quicktime make this difficult, but the 320x180 resolution the shows are in does not scale at all well. In fact, it makes the shows pretty unwatchable, like they were a tenth-generation VHS tape copy. The least they could do was to include a hi-res downloadable option.<br /><br />Anyway, the show has promise, and I'm even beginning to like some of the characters. But that's 40 episodes on, so I'm not sure this says that much about character development at all.<br /><br />But what can you say, it's free....<br /><br />PS: Out of 28 votes, 19 people rated this show as a 9 or 10. Hmmmm... were we watching the same show? Or are you 19 all three year olds?
How low can someone sink while trying to recapture an old glory? ST:HF will be glad to show you.<br /><br />If you are used to seeing what made for a good Star Trek show, do NOT watch this.<br /><br />The writing is hodge-podge, the actors' portrayals of their characters weak, and most of all, the design work is downright doggy.<br /><br />Like watching strong captains, don't look here! Like the strong Federation attitude? Forget about it here! Starfleet is mocked by ensigns wearing SPIKES in their hair.<br /><br />While a seemingly mentally feeble captain shuffles about and within two minutes of the opening show's credits, Ensign Spikey is attempting to arrange a tryst with an engineer. It just degrades from there. No, not even uniforms match, for goodness sake. They are too small or too big, collars down to their chests, and TNG Seasons One and Two Uniforms mixed in with Season Three and DS9 uniforms. The strict discipline and tradition of any of the originals in lacking in this production down to the treads! The only good thing about this show is its graphics, which seem to improve a bit with each season. OK, I take that back. Who uses CG that inexpertly? The designers of this show.<br /><br />Don't bother with it, it will offend your Star Trek sense, as it did mine. Not even the throw backs to previous shows can save this catastrophe.<br /><br />I wept openly when i watched this, probably because my eyes were bleeding and my head almost ruptured. That bad.
I was attracted to this movie when I looked at cast list, but after I watched it I must admit that I felt a bit disappointed. The main problem of this movie is that actors aren't capable of holding this movie on their back. Why? Because of bad script. Although Dillon, Lane and Jones try very hard to take this movie on another level, there is no innovative storytelling and the direction is too ordinary. So for Matt Dillon fans this is watchable movie, just like for admirers of beautiful Diane Lane. Legendary Tommy Lee Jones is always great but this is not movie for him; far below his level. So if you get hooked up by this great cast watch it but don't expect anything big or extraordinary. The only thing that you'll remember about this flick is Diane Lane scenes; rest of it is very forgettable.
Follow-up to 1973's "Walking Tall" continues the real-life drama surrounding Tennessee sheriff Buford Pusser, but this installment plays like a lame TV-movie. Bo Svenson takes over the lead role from Joe Don Baker, but he's much too mild for the part; he comes off like an ambling country singer with a bat instead of a guitar. Good supporting actors like Richard Jaekel, Luke Askew and Robert DoQui end up with very little to do. I would give the film one-star strictly on its good intentions, but the screenplay is a transparent and lazy mass of routine predicaments and the production is cheapjack. Followed in 1977 by "Final Chapter-Walking Tall" and in 1978 by the television film "A Real American Hero".
How can they from Joe Don Baker (as Bufford Pusser in the first sequel) to Bo Svenson (as Bufford Pusser in the second sequel).Why did they do that for.Just Because Bo Svenon look more a like to Bufford Pusser they still should'nt of changed it because the first sequel it was Joe Don Baker as Bufford Pusser and that one of the thing i wanted to see in the second sequel.<br /><br />I would've given this movie a 7 out of 10 and i would've given it a 1 out of 10 if the story did'nt have anything to do with Bufford Pusser's life but it did and that why i had given this movie a 3 out 10.<br /><br />I strongly suggest that anyone who is planning on watching this cheese i suggest don't and watch the first sequel instead.
Autobiography of founder of zoo in NYC starts out by being very cute and would be great family movie if it stayed there. however we get more and more involved with reality as gorilla grows up to be a wild thing not easily amenable to his "mother's" wishes - this might scare younger children, esp. scenes where Buddy tries to injure Gertrude. rather quick resolution at the end. below average.
As a big fan of gorilla movies in general, I anticipated that this one would be great - and as for the gorilla effects, They were quite good, however - that is the only thing I can write about this flop. The film claims to be based on a true story but in effect, it does not even come close to what actually happened to "Buddy" - who in real life, was the famous Gargantua, sold to Ringling Bros. by our supposed "heroic" Gertrude Lintz, known by many animal enthusiasts as a woman who hardly had her animals' welfare in the best interest. As far as Buddy being portrayed as becoming aggressive, this was total fiction and at no time did the gorilla, in real life, resort to such behavior. buddy did, in fact, escape his wooden crate (not a plush cage room as depicted in movie) during a storm, to seek shelter and comfort in the house, which frightened Gertrude Lintz into selling him. No, Buddy was not released into a gorilla family surrounded by lush trees in a zoological paradise - he was abandoned in a wooden crate, deep in the back of a garage for some time with only a single light bulb for comfort and then sold to the circus - where he actually lived a better life having peanuts thrown at him until he died (historically the oldest living gorilla on record, by the way) before a show in Miami. Notice also, in the film, how Buddy grows older but the chimpanzees never age. (The chimps, by the way, were not raised simultaneously with other animals, including Buddy, as portrayed in the film)
Curiously, it is Rene Russo's eyes and mouth--not Buddy the Gorilla's-- that emerge as the focal point of "Buddy", a Jim Henson Pictures production through Francis Ford Coppola's Zoetrope. Somehow, countless close-ups of Russo's face slipped passed in the post-production stages, and she literally fills the screen so many times the poor apes are upstaged. Unintentionally funny true story adapted from Gertrude "Trudy" Davies Lint's memoirs about a wealthy doctor's wife who turns their mansion into a menagerie for pets and wild-life. The movie goes beyond good intentions...it positively drips with earnest sincerity. The movie never sparkles with the kind of "family film" magic that it needed, and before too long both the people and the animals seem distinctly programmed (nothing here feels real). About ten minutes in, two chimpanzees are goofing around in Russo's kitchen and start throwing a butcher's knife back and forth (it misses Alan Cumming's head by inches); yet, no eyebrows are raised because it's all in a day's fun. Still, when full-grown gorilla Buddy gets crazy during a thunderstorm, the cops are called--and everyone stares at Buddy through the window while he busts up the living room furniture. The furniture should be the least of anyone's worries in this flabbergasting, do-gooder failure. But, at least we know Russo was in good hands: whenever director Caroline Thompson needs a good pick-up shot, she gives unstartled Rene another extreme close-up. I wonder what the lipstick budget was on this picture? ** from ****
Some films are so bad that they're good. This is clearly not one of them. Based on a true story, this film was about as true to the story as Pinocchio's chances of becoming a real boy. The acting was terrible, the direction was poor, and it travelled way too fast. It was as if the director just wanted to get it over and done with and go home.<br /><br />Nor did Melissa Joan Hart ever strike me as a talented actress, but then every film she made was pretty low-budget anyway. Like most of her other films, she lets down her characters by hamming them up too much, talking too quickly as if speeding up her words is going to make her more dramatic. She really brings out the sense that there is a crew in front of her and she's talking to a camera, when she should be engaging the viewer in her character. It pretty much lets down the whole film, and any leg that it may have had left to stand on, is ruined.<br /><br />Probably the only good thing about the film is when she got nailed in the end. But even that wasn't satisfying enough to subdue my loathing for such a bad film.<br /><br />Watch it if your taste in film is blander than a piece of dry toast.
Terry West had a good idea w\ this movie. He just didn't flesh it thru. There are endless shots of the creepy looking school's exteriors that go on forever and probably to pad the film's running time. Also at this school there are only 2 students. Misty Mundae is good as usual but this film will always belong to Ruby LaRocca (which is the only reason to watch the film in the beginning). If the script centered on her interesting character we'd have a movie to watch. She is so GORGEOUS!! Good news for DVD buyers, Terry West's earlier (and better) film "Blood For The Muse" is a special feature. One thing I'd like to say is that this movie feels like someone who's not good at delivering the punch line at the end of a long joke for the ending feels that very same way. Then again, just watch this for Ruby LaRocca.
I've seen (far too) many flicks from this company - this one is about middle of the pack. One the good side, its a bit more stylized and under control than some of their fare - less of the sophomoric attempts at humor and more adherence to story (for what its worth). Many of their titles, like Sexy Sixth Sense, are buried by baaaad performances and an amateurish sensibility. On the other side, I found the simulated sex scenes not as hot as some of their other flicks (like Vampire Vixens, Gladiator Eroticus, Spiderbabe or Mistress Frankenstein).<br /><br />Misty Mundae is always a 10 on the peter meter, as is Darian Caine. I found Barbara Joyce hot in a school-marm kinda way, and Ruby LaRocca a sexy little hottie.<br /><br />Watch this with the remote firmly in your (free) hand, on a night when you need a break from porn. Don't waste your time wanting to check the story - you've got better things to do w/ your life. It is not a movie, it's pure T&A, but not bad by that standard.
As one of the few commentators not to have seen the 1st film, I found this to be a very disappointing movie.<br /><br />Yes, it has a funny awkward type of humour if you can bear the (highly) morally dubious premise. However, it fails abysmally in the important areas.<br /><br />There is thin and nonsensical plot line involving Gordon Sinclair's generous friend who may or may not be entwined in a conspiracy to supply dangerous electronics to Third World countries - possibly in free computers ... or possibly not. Vague, long-winded and inconclusive. The lack of any substantial ending is so infuriating and what is present is pompous and wholly illogical. The film feels half-finished.<br /><br />Suspension of disbelief is extremely difficult when witnessing a very attractive female teacher (Maria Doyle Kennedy) can be drawn to Gordon Sinclair's unimpressive character, especially when he fends off her advances. Laughable. It worsens later in the film when he achieves his romantic ambitions then throws it all away for some ideals based on very little evidence of ambiguous value.<br /><br />Not many films leave me feeling cheated, but I felt my time was stolen.
First of all my heartfelt commiserations to anyone who bought a cinema ticket in the hope of seeing a film in the same mould as the fantastic Gregory's Girl and Local Hero but ended up leaving the theatre feeling disappointed and vaguely cheated. While it's true that sequels are usually, bar a few notable exceptions, a mistake and exist merely to provide studio executives with an opportunity to cash in on the success of a previous film by offering us either a thinly disguised retread of the original story or a plot line so far removed from the intentions of the original that the resulting film makes no sense. In the case of Gregory's Two Girls, Bill Forsyth has the dubious honour of managing to commit both sins - on the one hand revisiting the plot of Gregory's Girl, while at the same time serving up a frankly incredible and moronic storyline involving Scottish arms dealers. Schoolboy Gregory is now a teacher at the same school where at the tender age of sixteen, he harboured a hopeless passion for the football playing Dorothy. Although now thirty five, Gregory still harbours a hopeless passion but now for the football playing Frances, also sixteen, despite the fact that music teacher, Bel has made it clear that she is attracted to him. His passion for Frances and his desire to impress her lead to his involvement in a scheme to expose a local arms dealer who also happens to be an old schoolfriend. There's no point in going any further as the rest of the story is forgettable and the ending makes no real sense at all. The main problem lies with the character of Gregory himself, in that there is no sign of the endearing and charming sixteen year old Gregory who actively and comically pursues Dorothy convinced that he would eventually win her over. At thirty five, Gregory is presented to us as a rather sad and friendless creature whose life is neither active nor comic. Outside of work his time is spent watching videos of Noam Chomsky and reading magazines about international injustices. As his friends and family from the previous film have seemingly vanished, save two pointless scenes with his younger sister, who no longer offers him advice or seems at all interested in his life, we are left confused about what it is Gregory really wants, who he is and why he is the way he is. Why for example is he friendless? Why does he never see his father, who is clearly still alive? Why has he returned to teach at the school he once attended? Why is he so interested in Noam Chomsky and injustice? Why has he become so apathetic? Why is he attracted to Frances? Why isn't he attracted to Bel until the last twenty minutes of the film? What in heaven's name do Bel or Frances see in him as he is neither drop dead gorgeous or even interesting? Why does he continue to try and impress Frances even after he and Bel have become an item and when their association threatens to completely disrupt his life? Are we really to believe that a Scottish arms dealer openly selling weapons of torture to oppressive regimes could manage to evade media scrutiny but fall foul of a couple of school-kids? Does Gregory really think that dumping a handful of computers into the sea will change anything? To make matters worse, actor John Gordon Sinclair attempts to rehash his performance as the adolescent Gregory right down to the facial expressions and awkward body language. Unfortunately on a thirty five year old it just comes across as odd and vaguely creepy. On top of that, it's hard to feel any sympathy for, or empathy with a teacher who has erotic dreams involving sex with one of their uniform wearing pupils while they both lie on a pile of gym mats. Rather than being amusing it simply smacks of paedophilia. It's hard to know what was going through Bill Forsyth's head when he wrote this script or why he thought fans of the original film would embrace a story so completely lacking in the charm, wit and warmth that turned the first movie into a classic. I can only assume that the plan was to craft a film about a man who was refusing to grow up and commit to adult life and perhaps whose happiest memory was of being sixteen and pursuing the best looking girl in the school but who by degrees is forced to accept that a life lived in the past is no life at all.That at least could have been the basis of a film which was thematically interesting and intelligent. As it is Gregory's Two Girls adds up 116 wasted and pointless minutes saying nothing and signifying even less. Gregory's Girl was responsible for launching Bill Forsyth's career, here's hoping that Gregory's Two Girls won't be responsible for sinking it.
Watched this film having really enjoyed Gregory's Girl many years ago. This was drivel. The plot was vaguely distasteful with the teacher and his friend perving over 14-15-year-old girls in very short skirts. Previous commenters seem to think that this doesn't matter, but I found it rather nasty. If you have children at school then the last thing you want is to think that every youngish teacher is lusting after his pupils. We were surprised that the censor let that through. Apart from that the film was just a waste of time. The script was poor and John Gordon Sinclair trying too hard to recreate his schoolboy image, slightly wacky and off the wall. Why anyone would want to lust after him in this performance is incredible. This film failed on all counts for me. Dreadful. Please don't waste your time watching it. Life's too short
This film is a travesty, and isn't fit to keep company with the superior original. The plot is an absolute mess, and the film is way too long. Everytime they're struggling, they desperately inject a sentimental reminder from the first film.<br /><br />"Gregory's Girl" is one of the top 10 British films of all time, this one is awful.
This one came out during the Western genre’s last gasp; unfortunately, it emerges to be a very minor and altogether unsatisfactory effort – even if made by and with veterans in the field! To begin with, the plot offers nothing remotely new: James Coburn escapes from a chain gang, intent on killing the man (now retired) who put him there – Charlton Heston. While the latter lays a trap for him, Coburn outwits Heston by kidnapping his daughter (Barbara Hershey). Naturally, the former lawman – accompanied by Hershey’s greenhorn fiancé (Chris Mitchum) – sets out in pursuit of Coburn and his followers, all of whom broke jail along with him.<br /><br />Rather than handling the proceedings in his customary sub-Fordian style, McLaglen goes for a Sam Peckinpah approach – with which he’s never fully at ease: repellent characters, plenty of violence, and the sexual tension generated by Hershey’s presence among Coburn’s lusty bunch. Incidentally, Heston and Coburn had previously appeared together in a Sam Peckinpah Western – the troubled MAJOR DUNDEE (1965; I really need to pick up the restored edition of this one on DVD, though I recently taped the theatrical version in pan-and-scan format off TCM UK). Anyway, the film is too generic to yield the elegiac mood it clearly strives for (suggested also by the title): then again, both stars had already paid a fitting valediction to this most American of genres – WILL PENNY (1968) for Heston and Coburn with PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID (1973)! <br /><br />At least, though, Heston maintains a modicum of dignity here – his ageing character attempting to stay ahead of half-breed Coburn by anticipating what his next move will be; the latter, however, tackles an uncommonly brutish role and only really comes into his own at the climax (relishing his moment of vengeance by sadistically forcing Heston to witness his associates’ gang-rape of Hershey). Apart from the latter, this lengthy sequence sees Heston try to fool Coburn with a trick borrowed from his own EL CID (1961), the villainous gang is then trapped inside a bushfire ignited by the practiced Heston and the violent death of the two ‘obsolete’ protagonists (as was his fashion, Heston’s demise takes the form of a gratuitous sacrifice!).<br /><br />The supporting cast includes Michael Parks as the ineffectual town sheriff, Jorge Rivero as Coburn’s Mexican lieutenant, and Larry Wilcox – of the TV series CHiPs! – as the youngest member of Coburn’s gang who’s assigned the task of watching over Hershey (while doing his best to keep his drooling mates away!). Jerry Goldsmith contributes a flavorful but, at the same time, unremarkable score.
I'm going to have to disagree with the previous comment and side with Maltin on this one. This is a second rate, excessively vicious Western that creaks and groans trying to put across its central theme of the Wild West being tamed and kicked aside by the steady march of time. It would like to be in the tradition of "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid", but lacks that film's poignancy and charm. Andrew McLaglen's direction is limp, and the final 30 minutes or so are a real botch, with some incomprehensible strategy on the part of heroes Charlton Heston and Chris Mitchum. (Someone give me a holler if you can explain to me why they set that hillside on fire.) There was something callous about the whole treatment of the rape scene, and the woman's reaction afterwards certainly did not ring true. Coburn is plenty nasty as the half breed escaped convict out for revenge, but all of his fellow escapees are underdeveloped (they're like bowling pins to be knocked down one by one as the story lurches forward). Michael Parks gives one of his typically shifty, lethargic, mumbling performances, but in this case it was appropriate as his modern style sheriff symbolizes the complacency that technological progress can bring about.
I don't know why I'm taking the time to review this waste-of-time movie. If you stick with it long enough in hopes of a satisfying conclusion – good, bad, or surprising – don't. It finally fizzles out after stiff, formulaic, predictable dialogue and acting. Indoor scenes are so harshly lit you think if the camera were zoomed out one millimeter further you'd see the klieg lights. Costumes, hair-do's, and sets are starched, pressed, and immaculate. Are we supposed to imagine common people really lived like that in early 20th-century Arizona? Other reviews' comparisons to Sam Peckinpah are an insult to Peckinpah: at least that director wove his violence into the context of chaos and mayhem. HARD MEN's gore is gratuitous exploding squibs from wooden impersonations of bad guys with manicured fingernails. Huh?!? I can believe Heston thought he might have been making something of worth with this film. (He does get to clutch his gun in his cold fingers.) But Coburn? I'll never guess why he signed up for this travesty. Want to see a movie about the end of the West as we knew it, the end of Westerns as we knew them? Watch THE SHOOTIST or UNFORGIVEN again. THE LAST HARD MEN is a mockery of an obituary to the Western.
Incarcerated train robber near Yuma breaks free his chain-gang and heads for the retired sheriff responsible for killing his wife (as well as a hidden stash of gold which remains hidden thanks to the screenwriter). Attempt to bring the western genre up-to-date with 1970s-style violence and brutality isn't even in the same league as some of the new-fangled westerns which came out of the late-'60s. It is impossibly simple and square, with the female characters merely around as punching-bags and possible rape victims. As the former sheriff back in command, Charlton Heston gives one of his laziest, least-inspired performances ever (he has one good moment, attempting to read a letter and fumbling for his glasses). James Coburn, as the half-mad half-breed, is pretty much on auto-pilot as well, but Coburn has a way of turning even the hoariest dialogue and situations into something prickly and unnerving. It's his show all the way. *1/2 from ****
By 1976 the western was an exhausted genre and the makers of this film clearly knew it. Still, instead of shelving the project and saving us from having to watch it, they went ahead and made it anyway. Apparently in need of an interesting thread to get the audiences to come and see the film, they decided to make it as blatantly violent and unpleasant as possible. Hell, it worked for The Wild Bunch so why shouldn't it work here? Of course, The Wild Bunch had the benefit of a superb script but the script of The Last Hard Men is plain old-fashioned rubbish.<br /><br /> It's hard to figure out what attracted Charlton Heston and James Coburn to their respective roles. Heston plays a retired lawman who goes after an escaped bunch of convicts led by a violent outlaw (Coburn). The hunt becomes even more personal when Heston's daughter (Barbara Hershey) is kidnapped by the convicts and subjected to sexual degradation.<br /><br /> This is a bloodthirsty film indeed in which every time someone dies it is displayed in over-the-top detail. It's tremendously disappointing really, because the star pairing sounds like a mouth-watering prospect. There's no sense of pace or urgency in the film either. It takes an eternity to get going, but when the action finally does come it is marred by the emphasis on nastiness. All in all, this might be the very worst film that Heston ever made. I'm sure it's one of the productions he is loathe to include on his illustrious CV.
Stereotyped, derivative, unoriginal and boring Western. The two popular stars (Charlton Heston and James Coburn) both give performances that are far from their best, and justifiably so; they both have superficial roles and character traits stated mainly by dialogue. Heston is a sheriff who "liked the world better as it used to be before" and Coburn is an outlaw who "owes something to the man who locked him up and has to pay his debt". Additionally, Heston is so old that he has trouble riding a horse and Coburn is mean and tough but not as cold-blooded a killer as some of the minor villains. Apparently, the filmmakers couldn't come up with even ONE original idea about how to make this movie somewhat distinguished. (*1/2)
Damn, I thought I'd seen some bad westerns. Can't top this one though. Hell I think I'd rather have my eyes stapled open for a Trinity Triple Feature for cryin out loud. I dont think I'll be able to watch Ben Hur again without laughing my ass off. Just really bad.<br /><br />But hey, if you like stupid westerns with acknowledged stars in the thing take a peek at Shoot Out with Gregory Peck. It's just as bad, but much funnier. 1/10
I saw this film over the weekend and while I was impressed as always with the beauty and polish of Church-produced films, I left disappointed that this one fell so short, failing to inform members and leaving investigators with many unanswered questions.<br /><br />The film is 70 minutes of vignettes from the life of Joseph Smith. It's not a true biopic because there's no real coherent narrative. Most of the episodes concern Joseph doing good deeds, playing baseball, running races and laughing with children, often in sloooow motion. What a great, just folks kind of guy that Joseph was, huh? Look at him out there beating rugs for his wife Emma. Well, howzbout the rugs of his 33 plural wives?? No mention whatsoever is made of polygamy. A glaring omission.<br /><br />And it is in such omissions where the film falters. It supplies too little information and leaves critical thinking audience members wondering WHY is Joseph getting tarred and feathered, WHY is he getting thrown in jail and WHY does that mob want to kill him? The film's climax is of course Joseph and Hyrum's trek to Carthage jail (riding past a veritable United Nations of faces looking out from Nauvoo's doorways). But no mention is ever made about WHY. Nothing about Smith suppressing the Nauvoo Expositor newspaper and ordering its press destroyed for its revealing the secret teaching of polygamy. The audience is left to wonder or to assume it's just more baseless persecution of the Church. No mention of Joseph being charged with treason for declaring martial law and calling out the Nauvoo militia.<br /><br />Of course I certainly did not expect this Church-produced film to present the Joseph of Richard Bushman's recent biography Rough Stone Rolling, but I was surprised and taken aback at just how little of substance was actually presented.<br /><br />And worse, what substance that was presented was often inaccurate. Two examples jumped out at me. First, the translation of the Book of Mormon. The film shows Joseph reading right off the golden plates in their two-ring binder, which plates in reality were hidden far from the site. It's well known that Joseph did his translating by burying his face in his hat, peering at the seer stone in there. The second inaccuracy occurs at Carthage jail, where the mob storms the cell. The History of the Church reports that Joseph had a six-shooter and even fired off a few rounds before jumping out the window and giving the Masonic signal of distress (as reported in Times & Seasons).<br /><br />Maybe showing the reality of the gunfight would have shattered the heart-tugging mood the filmmakers had created, but by omitting it they were unfaithful to history and failed to show Joseph as he really was: handy with a gun and able to defend himself. In fact, the impression the film gives is that Joseph was a nice guy, but also something of a milquetoast that everybody beat up, tossed in jail and eventually murdered in cold blood. He was far from that; Joseph was a disciplined and determined man who endured a lot of hardship and struggle to bring to fruition that in which he believed.<br /><br />See the film, but know going in that's it's cotton candy. Then get your meat and potatoes by reading a copy of Bushman's biography of Smith, Rough Stone Rolling <br /><br />PS: Church-produced films have no credits, but seasoned eyes can pick out a couple familiar faces. Rick Macy is excellent as Joseph Smith, Sr. and Bruce Newbold, beloved as Thomas in Finding Faith in Christ, here plays the cranky Methodist minister who failed to show Christian love to a young seeker after Truth.
I feel the movie did not portray Smith historically. The goal of this movie was to tell Smith's life in a way that would be "comfortable" to the LDS Church leaders, historical accuracy seems to have been of little concern. The movie was designed to be a "faith promoting" experience, not a balanced view of Smith "as a man." I have taken it upon myself to study Smith's life and have read both LDS works and none LDS works. The movie, like most LDS projects, was beautifully filmed and well acted. However, this was not a realistic portrayal of either the beginnings of Mormonism or Smith's relatively short life.<br /><br />A significant period of time was given to reenacting an accident that Smith had when he was seven. While this event was no doubt important in forming his mental outlook, it appears that the main reason for including it in the film is to help establish a sympathetic view of Joseph Smith. Another point is in portraying Smith's teen years the film is silent regarding the Smith family's involvement in magical practices during the 1820's. Another problem is while the movie shows Joseph Smith good-naturedly entering into wrestling contests, it fails to show how he sometimes lost his temper and became violent.<br /><br />I could go on and on. This movie was not historical in any way and should be considered a fictional movie about a man. I would not recommend seeing this movie for any other purpose other then entertainment.
For most younger viewers out there, they probably have no idea who Buster Keaton was. So, because of this, they probably won't feel nearly as sad when watching this film as I did. I happen to be a silent comedy freak--having see just about every Keaton film still in existence. My being a huge fan made this film very painful from start to finish. This is because during his silent days, Keaton was a very vibrant and creative comedian. He was amazing in his physicality and his films were almost never dull. However, in a move that movie historians still are baffled by, at the end of the silent era, Keaton gave up his independence and became a stock MGM actor. Instead of being a great creative force, MGM now saw Keaton solely as an actor--and they wrote scripts for him that had no respect for what made him great. At first, these films with MGM were not that bad (such as THE CAMERAMAN) but with talkies, the studio really blew it--putting him in several films with Jimmy Durante. Durante's humor was based on his gift for gab and was abrasive. Keaton, in contrast, was quiet and based on action. Two more unlike and incompatible actors would have been hard to find. As a result of this deadly combination, Keaton made some truly dreadful films.<br /><br />Now this isn't to say that SPEAK EASILY is a terrible film. No, instead it's just more of a time-passer and an amazingly unfunny one at that. In fact, if you go into the movie assuming it's a comedy, it will probably make the film harder to enjoy. Instead, it's sort of like a drama with a few comedic elements. It is NOT a film that will produce belly laughs--especially for Keaton fans.<br /><br />The film begins in an odd setting. Keaton is cast as a college professor whose entire life is teaching. He knows nothing of the world and has his nose stuck in his books. In a bizarre move, Keaton's servant tricks him into believing Keaton has received $750,000 from a dead relative--hoping that this would spur Keaton to get out and enjoy life. This is amazingly contrived but somehow it manages to work. Not terribly well, but it works.<br /><br />Keaton immediately leaves school and goes on a journey to New York to have some fun. On the way there, he meets up with an incredibly untalented theater troop. Because he knows nothing of the world, he doesn't seem to realize they stink. And, because he thinks he's rich, Keaton decides to take them all to New York to perform on Broadway. However, just before the show opens, his friends find out that Keaton is NOT rich. So, they decide not to tell Keaton and try to keep him away from process servers that want to close the show. They assume that if the show is a hit, then they can pay off the debts and everyone will be happy. However, they forget that the show itself stinks. What are they to do? And, will Keaton get the nice girl, get roped by a gold digger (Thelma Todd) or be flat broke and alone? If you care, see the film.<br /><br />As for Keaton, he has few stunts in the film, though there are some dandy ones near the end. Instead, Keaton just kind of walks through the part in a very subdued manner. There's really little to love about this film or hate. It's just blah....when it SHOULD have been a heck of a lot better.
To be a Buster Keaton fan is to have your heart broken on a regular basis. Most of us first encounter Keaton in one of the brilliant feature films from his great period of independent production: 'The General', 'The Navigator', 'Sherlock Jnr'. We recognise him as the greatest figure in the entire history of film comedy, and we want to see more of his movies. Here the heartbreak begins. After 'Steamboat Bill Jnr', Keaton's brother-in-law Joseph Schenck pressured him into signing a contract that put Keaton under the control of MGM. Keaton became just one more actor for hire, performing someone else's scripts. Then his alcoholism got worse. After 'Steamboat Bill Jnr', Keaton never again made a truly first-rate film. A couple of sources describe a would-be masterpiece comedy that Keaton claimed he *almost* got to make at MGM: a parody of 'Grand Hotel'. Biographer Tom Dardis has offered convincing evidence that Keaton made up this story.<br /><br />The heartbreak increases because, among the many years of Keaton's long steady decline, he just occasionally came up with a good film ... such as his short comedy 'Grand Slam Opera'. I continue to search for the lost footage of Keaton's dramatic scene with Spencer Tracy in 'It's a Mad Mad World': a sequence in which embittered cop Tracy telephones an old retired crook (Keaton) and tries to recruit his assistance in stealing Smiler Grogan's cash. That footage is almost certainly gone forever, but I keep looking.<br /><br />'Speak Easily', alas, is one of Keaton's films from the beginning of his decline. MGM were trying to build up Jimmy Durante (who, coincidentally, played Smiler Grogan three decades later) as a new comedy star. Unfortunately, MGM tried to build up Durante by teaming him with Keaton, whose style of comedy was simply incompatible with Durante's. (I'm a fan of both.) Throughout his career, Durante was a merciless scene-stealer: commendably, he knew that he was being built up at Keaton's expense, and Keaton was the only co-star whom Durante never attempted to upstage.<br /><br />Keaton was often cast as the victim of extremely cruel machinations. In 'Speak Easily', he plays a didactic and humourless Midwestern college professor named Post (because he's as wooden as one) who receives a letter informing him that he's inherited $750,000, which he must travel to New York City to claim. Does he make a 'phone call to verify this? Does he even check the postmark? No; he takes his life's savings out of the bank and rushes to New York. As soon as he's gone, Post's manservant confesses that he wrote the (fake) letter to jostle Professor Post out of his rut!<br /><br />Post, who thinks he's a 3/4-millionaire, crosses paths with Jimmy Dodge (Durante), who's trying to produce a musical revue but hasn't any money. The characters which these two brilliant comedians are playing onscreen simply fail to intermesh. Keaton is playing one of those eggheads (like Mister Logic in 'Viz') who intellectualises everything. Durante plays one of those annoying hepcats who is incapable of making any straightforward statement because the script requires him always to speak in slang. There's a painfully unfunny dialogue scene in which Durante is trying to talk to Keaton about money, but - instead of coming straight out with it - Durante has to use increasingly contrived slang terms like 'kale', 'cartwheels' and so forth ... while Keaton of course has no idea what Durante's on about. I'll give Keaton credit: his own dry and dusty prairie voice, his flat Kansas accent, is absolutely perfect for the character he's playing here.<br /><br />Sidney Toler, looking much leaner and more handsome here than he would be just a year later, is impressive as the excitable director of the revue bankrolled (on tick) by Professor Post. Henry Armetta, whom I've never found funny, is even less funny than usual here, offering a running gag with a stupid payoff. Thelma Todd impressed me here, in a more villainous version of the role she played in 'Horse Feathers' (a much funnier movie). Edward Brophy, one of my favourite character actors, is wasted.<br /><br />Part of the problem with 'Speak Easily' is that supporting characters behave in completely inappropriate ways. Keaton's lawyer shows up at Durante's theatre with an urgent message for Keaton ... but he isn't there, so the lawyer proceeds to divulge Keaton's personal business to the first total stranger he meets. (Fire that lawyer, Buster!) In another scene, Professor Post - the guy who's perceived as bankrolling this musical - blunders into the chorus girls' changing room, and all the chorus girls immediately squeal and cover themselves. I know for a fact that *modern* chorus girls would never react this way, and I seriously doubt that chorus girls in 1932 behaved that way either ... certainly not in response to the 'angel' controlling their show's pursestrings.<br /><br />SPOILERS COMING. About half an hour into the unfunny 'Speak Easily', the great Jimmy Durante seats himself at the piano, grins into the camera, and does that distinctive little shake of his head as he starts to play a tune. This is the moment when I thought that, at long last, this movie was finally going to settle down to its purpose of entertaining us. Alas, no. Most annoying of all is the ending of this film, which uses the single most hackneyed and implausible cliche in all of comedy: the one in which an utterly incompetent dimwit becomes a star comedian through his own ineptitude. (Keaton would be forced to replay this cliche in a 1955 episode of 'Screen Directors Playhouse'; Chaplin had already used it in 'The Circus'.)<br /><br />I very nearly wept - in anger and sorrow - at the wasted opportunities in 'Speak Easily'. Mostly out of respect for the work that Keaton, Durante, Toler, Brophy and Miss Todd have done elsewhere, I'll rate this movie 2 points out of 10.<br /><br />
What is the most harrowing movie ever made? The gynaecological nightmare of 'Cries and Whispers'? The acid psychodramas of Fassbinder? The discomfiting black comedy of 'Last House on the left? I'm sure for that portion of the film-loving public that tie their masts to the good ship Buster Keaton, there is only one answer - any one of his sound films. <br /><br />I don't know what flayed my soul more poignantly in this movie - the grounding of Keaton's intricate and expansive physical art to humdrum slapstick; the painful hesitation of this master filmmaker with dialogue - not that he hasn't a lovely, comic voice, or that he can't make dialogue funny; it's just that the studio don't seem to have given him enough takes, and so he seems to be trying to remember his lines before he delivers, which only makes him - Keaton, not his character, look silly; or is it the humiliation of seeing Keaton caught up in a tawdry sex farce, when he has given us some of the richest accounts of romantic frustration in film? <br /><br />No, I know what was most disturbing - having to watch Buster Keaton, cinema's greatest comedian, sit aside to observe Jimmy Durante doing his schtick. It is horrors such as this that get yer Dantes composing yer Infernos.<br /><br />MGM seem to have got the curious idea that the best way to adapt Keaton to sound was to turn him into a Marx Brother, complete with verbal pedantry, elaborate, tedious 'clowning', shambolic slapstick, theatrical setting, triumph through chaos, and Thelma Todd. Keaton was just not that sort of comic, and where Groucho's malicious tongue and gleeful opportunism might just have made this plot work, Buster's socially inept professor can't, he is too studied and predictable. <br /><br />What Buster needed was to be allowed experiment like Lang in 'M', or Rene Clair; he would never have tried to hold back the tide like Chaplin. When a film like 'The General' is alluded to - messing about with trains - the loss becomes even more apparent. <br /><br />And the thing is, in patches amid the flat direction, the film isn't all that bad - there is an excellent jolt when a camera on the bus leaves Keaton alone at a railway station; and the denouement, if hardly original, is at least livelier than what went before. There is something almost endearing about the way Keaton slows down a plot that needs all the zip it can get. <br /><br />There is a film in here about loneliness, emotionally paralysing order, the numbing effects of education etc., struggling to get out. The best way to appreciate this film is to watch not the narrative of Professor TZ Post, but of emasculated genius Buster Keaton, trapped in a prison of mediocrity, confounded by new technology, mocked by a malevolent fate (in this case the studio), retaining a stoical grace. Looked at like that, it becomes a kind of masterpiece.
Watching "Speak Easily" is painful for fans of Buster Keaton. Seeing such a phenomenal writer, actor, comic, director, and stunt man subjected to this humiliating spectacle is like seeing a Picasso used as a drop cloth, or perhaps more like seeing the finest Camembert adulterated with whey solids and processed into Cheez-Whiz. <br /><br />Keaton is ill-cast as Professor Post, whose overblown vocabulary is the only thing keeping him from saying, "Tell me about the rabbits, George." (Post would have said something like, "Kindly inform me as to the status of the small mammals in the family Leporidae of the order Lagomorpha, kind sir, who I believe is primarily addressed with the epithet 'George'.") When Keaton created his own characters, they might be situationally clueless but they weren't stupid. They were quick studies and became masters of their worlds. Not so with Post, who never stops stumbling and bumbling and who who has no more control of his destiny than a bilge rat had of the Titanic. And while Keaton's original characters had a charming naiveté and innocence, Post comes across as such a profound sexual retardate that if he ever did become physically aroused, he'd put an ice bag on the swelling and seek medical help. <br /><br />There are a couple of small, redeeming moments, such as Keaton's attempts to get rid of the vampish Thema Todd or his suggestion as to appropriate attire for a Greek dance, but it's just not worth enduring the entire film to see them.<br /><br />If you're a fan of bad movies, get drunk and watch "Speak Easily" with friends, a la "Mystery Science Theater 3000". But other than that, stick with the silents. Let them be 100% of what Buster Keaton is remembered for.
T.Z. Post, college professor, receives a false letter stating he inherited $750,000. Now with financial means, he withdraws his life savings of $4,000, and decides to finally going out & live. After having his baggage sent on a train to Chicago, he meets a traveling vaudeville troupe, and decides there good enough for him to put on a show on Broadway. The night of the show, poor Prof. Post has to hide from his creditors, settle the relationship woes between girlfriend Pansy and & floozy diva Eleanor, and still make sure the show must go on. After watching many of Keaton's silent gems, this one is a pain to sit through, but I felt, it could have been a lot worse. Supporting cast Durante, Todd, & Selwyn come off very annoying at times, but still likeable. A pre-Charlie Chan Toler is good as the frustrated show director. 90% of the script is badly written as MGM is trying to pass this off as a poor man's Marx Bros. film where many of the sight gags fall flat from the beginning. Compiled with Keaton's drinking problems at the time, this movie just is a sad moment in Buster's life. Rating- 3.
I watched full house when I was younger and I can not understand why I did. I don't remember really enjoying the show. I think I and the majority of Americans watching this were hypnotized by its badness. It will put you in a trance state and there is no going back. I am still scarred but I try to move on. I know it's a family show but that does not mean it has to be SO bad. The show is SO cliché with every episode ending with a "talk" from the dad to make everyone's problems go away. The characters on the show are all loathsome. There is a know it all, cleaning obsessed, corny father who you want to punch in the face every time he comes on screen. We then have a supposed "rocker" uncle that is just there to look pretty for the moms that have to watch this crap. We have another uncle who is completely unfunny who does lame Bullwinkle impressions (need I say more about him). There is the eldest daughter who can not act and is always whining about something. Then a middle daughter who always says, "HOW RUDE!" to pretty much everything anyone says. Finally, there is the youngest daughter Michelle. Do not get me started on Michelle played but the horrible actors known as The Olsen Twins. If you believe in Christianity I guess you would associate her with the antichrist. She is always demanding things, trying too hard to be "cute", is constantly saying "DUH!" and rolling her eyes which makes you want to smack her. I am not a big fan of using a lot of physical abuse as punishment to children. But in her case, I would make an acceptation. She needed it on a daily basis. She is the most selfish character to ever be introduced to mainstream television. One example of this is when her rocker uncle is busy doing his job in the attic. The brat decides to constantly annoy him and demand attention. He yells at her and she gets upset. POOR BABY! The rest of the episode is catering to her emotional needs and the uncle eventually apologizes to her. UGGHH! The show will lower your IQ along with slowly destroying your will to live. I am surprised we don't hear in the news about full house being played in the background when police find people that have committed suicide. Do yourself a favor and do not watch reruns of the show. You will thank me later.
Seriously. This is one of the most stupid family shows of all time.<br /><br />Plot- A family without a mother and 3 "dads" raise 3 little girls in San Francisco, California.<br /><br />Characters- Neat freak Danny, cartoon loving Joey, hair obsessed Jesse, spoiled brat Michelle, stupid DJ, and almost normal Stephanie. The creators of this show really want you to hate the characters, don't they? <br /><br />Therefore, I do not think anyone should watch this show. I only chuckled at a few moments in the show's whole running, and I think that instead of lethal injection, all criminals should be forced to watch this show, a torture far worse than anything else.<br /><br />1.5/10 or: D
It has very bad acting. Bad story lines. Bad characters. You should never see this show If you see it on. TURN IT OFF. Or you be cringing for the next 30 minutes. It should have never been aired. It's not great. You should never see it. NEVER EVER EVER. So now, if you ever wanna watch this show, please don't. Turn to the THE CW for Smallville. Or Disney Channel for Hannah Montana, Wizards Of Waverly Place, or Nick for Drake & Josh, Those are much better family shows. So believe me on this, I've watched it before. and It is honestly, and I say Honestly, the worst show I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of TV. So do me a favor, and never watch this show.
The acting is bad ham, ALL the jokes are superficial and the target audience is clearly very young children, assuming they have below average IQs. I realize that it was meant for kids, but so is Malcom in the Middle, yet they still throw in adult humor and situations.<br /><br />What should we expect from a show lead by Bob Saget, the only comedian in existence who is less funny than a ball hitting a man's groin, which is probably why he stopped hosting America's Funniest Home Videos.<br /><br />Parents, do not let your kids watch this show unless you want to save money on college. Expose your kids to stupidity and they will grow up dumberer.
I can see little girls enjoying this show, but calling this a family show is ridiculous. I'm amazed how well remembered it is after all these years. It's an extremely unfunny and stupid show about widowed father of three living with his dead wife's brother and his stupid friend from school, and others as the seasons go on. All of the plot lines generally have a really dumb lesson. In the middle of each episode somebody is mad at somebody else and each episode they make up and it ends on a light unfunny joke. As for the actors, I didn't like them either. Bob Saget was painfully unfunny as the dad with the mom responsibilities. Dave Coulier is a one note joke 30 something year old that does cartoon voices and acts like a kid, and he's horrid. John Stamos was the most tolerable character but he was so clichéd it was hard to watch him. The oldest girl, DJ, on the show was a genuinely bad actress and showed no emotion ever. The middle girl Stephanie was too clichéd as the annoying little sister. The youngest girl Michelle showed what bad actresses the Olsen twins were. You can always tell when they are switching them off. The plot lines to too many story lines were so unrealistically stupid it's cringe worthy. This is a "family" show that tried to replace any good substance with cuteness and love, and though those are needed for a show about a family they overdid it way too much. This will be remembered as my least favorite sit-com from the 80's and 90's.<br /><br />My rating: Terrible show. TVG 30 mins.
What a crime...<br /><br />You forgot to brush your teeth...let's make a 30 minute show about it and have a couple of kids make some noise and then have the dad lecture them all because that's what he has to do.<br /><br />But, don't forget Uncle Joey has to make some weird noises and cooky faces, then Uncle Jesse has to show up with his black leather jacket and some jeans and look pretty for a few minutes while everybody discusses how Mother would have done things if she were around..<br /><br />Yep, full of zany little adventures about a whole bunch of nothing and an entire overlong story to build around it.<br /><br />Full House will not only bore you to tears, but it will make you age twenty times faster than you normally would.
Full House is one of the worst TV series ever! Why?Because all the characters are so irritating that it's impossible to bear.The best character is Joey an even he is pretty irritating occasionally.An that girl DJ,who wrote her character?I want to kill my self every time she speaks.Not to mention when Danny start's with his philosophy.<br /><br />Example: DJ won around ten thousand dollars or more in the casino.However,she's not eighteen so she shouldn't gamble according to law.However the casino was ready to pay her the money but then Danny,her father cought's her and don't let's her raise that money because she is not eighteen.Oh come on,give me a break,will ya?Since i've seen that stupid and childish scene i instantly turned off the television.Some of the thing's they say in this series not even a child would bought.Who in the world could think that Full House is entertaining and funny?Every single word they say in this series seem's like Shakespeare wrote it.Except that Shakespere knew how to write and except that he wouldn't be that childish and stupid to write something as stupid as they wrote in the script for the Full House! <br /><br />For everyone who has a bad heart or any kind of bad medical condition or any will for life or any sense of the real world,i deeply recommend 'Do not watch the Full House'!Not even one episode as a try out.Avoid this series.Save your self from stupidity and nonsense.This is the worst television show ever!I'd rather watch Teletubbies then this.'Do not watch this'.
I hated this crap, every Friday as part of tgif it was on, and consistently sucked big time with stupidity each and every week. If you want to see something funny go watch "No On Would Tell" Starring Candice Cameron and Fred Savage, it really is hilarious, shows exactly why no one ever goes on to a good film career after doing a terrible TV show. This show really makes me sick, I hate those kids, and bob saget needs to go jump off a bridge for ever making this crapfest. I've seen funner stuff everywhere else but here. I AHet writing 10 lines! Watch 'full house' to see the least humanity has to offer in the way of arts and entertainment.
When I was younger, I liked this show, but now...BLECCH!!! This show is sappy, badly written, and rarely funny. The three leads were all good actors and funny men (Saget's stand up was a lot better than the stuff this show came up with, as was Coulier a better stand up, and Stamos was a better than average actor). After a while, Stamos wanted off the show because it wanted to do more serious stuff (who could blame him?). The show eventually got cancelled when many of the actors demanded more money.<br /><br />Here are a few things that drive me crazy about the show:<br /><br />1. The catch phrases- How many times can one person put up with tiring catch phrases like with 'how rude', 'you got it dude', 'nerdbomber', 'cut it out' and 'have mercy' in a 24 hour time period? <br /><br />2. Kimmy Gibler- the most annoying character ever written for television.<br /><br />3. The writing- stale and cliched as an oreo cookie. There is good cliched writing and bad cliched writing. Full House had bad cliched writing.<br /><br />4. Three men living together in San Francisco- Enough said.<br /><br />5. Unrealistic stuff- Too much to recall.<br /><br />6. Trendy kids- The girls had all the latest mall fashions and you can see posters of trendy recording artists they would be into.<br /><br />Now this show is on Nick @ Nite. I would hardly call it a classic. I have nothing bad to say about the people involved since I think many of them are talented in their own right. But this show was just so sugary sweet, I couldn't stand it after a while.
This show is just annoying!!! I feel sorry for the actors for having to attempt to be funny (especially Bob Saget), the laugh track tries to cover up the sad jokes and the "Awwww" track comes up at the most unnecessary times. The over-dramatic kids are no exception, especially the Olsen twins. Also, this show is cliché city. If you were to look up the word cliché, it would read "Full House" Every story line has a "life lesson" to be learned at the end. A sappy speech makes everything better and even has the ability to make the most bratty child have a sudden realization of goodness GASP too bad this couldn't be possible in real life. I don't know how someone could watch this show without bad mouthing the behavior of the characters or the laugh track. i find myself yelling at the TV saying, "THAT Isn't FUNNY/SAD/CUTE" If life were really like this, the world would fall apart.
WARNING! This review will reveal the ending of the movie, "Scoop." If you don't want to know how the movie ends, don't read this review!<br /><br />"Scoop" is so bad you'll think "Annie Hall" was a fluke.<br /><br />It gets one star because you get to see Hugh Jackman's naked chest. That's the only thing "Scoop" has going for it.<br /><br />Woody Allen's misogyny, and his fixation on women young enough, at this point, to be his granddaughter, has crippled any ability to make movies he may have had at any point.<br /><br />The plot seems promising: a ghost, Ian McShane, directs a fluffy headed student, Scarlett Johansson, to investigate whether or not an English Lord, Hugh Jackman, is the notorious Tarot Card Killer of prostitutes. A magician, Woody Allen, helps the girl.<br /><br />Promising plot notwithstanding, the movie completely lacks charm, or humor, or atmosphere. It's an amazingly leaden, amateurish effort for someone who has made even one previous film, never mind dozens. Perhaps Allen has had a stroke that has gone unreported in the press.<br /><br />Much is made of the fact that unlike in his previous films, Woody Allen, now a septuagenarian, has FINALLY allowed a younger male lead to get the girl.<br /><br />Not so. In fact, the plot is constructed in such a way so that the girl gets no one.<br /><br />There is an early scene where Johansson, for no reason central to the movie, allows herself to be gotten drunk, and seduced, by a powerful, older director. "Seduced" is a euphemism for what happens. It's a "slam, bam, I've gotta go" kind of moment. It bears no relation to the plot whatsoever, and it cheapens Johansson in the viewer's eye. Why did Allen add that unnecessary scene to the movie? Because it shows a powerful director - like Allen - having sex with the female lead. Allen gets to have his cake and eat it, too.<br /><br />Johansson is not yet an actress. She doesn't know how to command the screen except by wearing a tight, low cut top. She imitates Allen in a couple of scenes, and that just looks weird and sad.<br /><br />It doesn't help that her character is scripted as a doll who can't function without a ghost, or an elderly and less than awe-inspiring magician, telling her what to do at every turn.<br /><br />She is approximately half Jackman's age, and she comes across as a very vapid screen presence in their scenes together.<br /><br />Audience members not obsessed with breasts deserve better in their heroines, and Jackman deserves better, too -- a script that gives the heroine some intelligence and agency, and an actress who can convey those qualities.<br /><br />Hugh Jackman is similarly cheated by the script. Allen apparently can't stand it that Jackman is so stunningly good looking and young, and so he gives Jackman nothing to say or do. Like Johansson, he is used merely for his good looks. This is a shame, because, as Jackman has shown in any number of productions, from "Oklahoma" to "X Men," he CAN act.<br /><br />Here's the big plot twist -- Jackman, suave, charming English Lord, really is a killer. So, though the movie says it is all about letting someone else, other than Allen, get the girl, she doesn't get anyone. Jackman, the man she's been making love to, is a man who murdered a prostitute. Nice, Woody. Nice way to punish your heroine for being beyond your grasp.<br /><br />In a passive aggressive touch, Allen deprives his heroine of his own presence, as well, killing off his character, the magician, leaving Scarlett Johansson all alone at the end of the film.<br /><br />A final note: at my screening, not a single audience member laughed at any point during the film. Always a bad sign when a film is advertised as a comedy.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of many of Woody's movies, obviously his late 70's masterpieces (Annie Hall,Interiors, Manhattan)and most of his late 80's/early 90's dramas (Hannah, Crimes and Misdemeaners,Husbands and Wives) in fact I even liked some of his more recent efforts (Melinda, Anything Else, Small Time Crooks) but this was abysmal, I though it couldn't possibly be any worse than last years Match Point but how wrong I was.<br /><br />It was lazily plotted - basically a cross between Match Point, Manhattan Murder Mystery and Small Time Crooks,with all the jokes taken out - Woody seems to be on the way out as well, slurring most of his lines and delivering 'hilarious' catchphrases 'I mean that with all due respect...' over and over until the blandness of it all becomes to much to bare.<br /><br />I know that most actors are queuing up to work with him but they should at least read the script first - Scarlett Johansson and Hugh Jackman are so much better than this - and Woody should really take a more behind the camera role in future, if he has any sense about 20 miles behind it.<br /><br />It wouldn't be so tragic if we didn't have so many great Woody films to compare this to - but it is clear that his best days are behind him and judging by this effort, Woody should call it a day before he becomes an industry joke.<br /><br />Embarrassingly bad
My wife and I both thought this film a watered-down, made-for-TV (BBC) version of Manhattan Murder Mystery...which is itself good, but not great. The story has little inter- character tension or chemistry, and not much of a plot. Woody Allen's character just sort of wanders around running off at the mouth, and Hugh Jackman and Scarlett Johannsson don't have a lot more to do. It's pretty disappointing, I must say. Ian McShane's role is just an expanded cameo appearance. <br /><br />The first thing that occurred to me was "I wonder how much the BBC had to pay Woody Allen to dislodge him from Manhatttan?" He must've needed the money, and they must have needed his appeal to expand their audience beyond the youth market drawn to the two stars. I'm giving this movie 4 stars instead of 3 because it is unbothersome background noise. If you ever want something to have on while you're knitting or sorting your stamp collection, this'll do the job. I wouldn't pay to rent it again.
Err...this movie sucked. A LOT.<br /><br />I have been reading some of the other reviews. Apparently there are a lot of people that think that anything Woody Allen writes or stars in is automatically good...<br /><br />I have watched several of his films, in the vain hope that I'm missing something. But no, they just suck. Poorly written trash. The characters are all very stereotypical (not to mention rather stupid). The plot is...I think it is supposed to be mysterious. Not sure on that. Mr. Allen's character is...Woody Allen, on any other film you have seen of his.<br /><br />If you are a fan of Woody Allen, go see this film. If you are under 50, don't bother. (If you are a fan of Woody Allen AND you are under 50...well, you are atypical. I don't know what to say.)
This is a poor film by any standard. The story in Match Point had a certain intrigue, and the direction and writing a certain fascination (Woody Allen mixing his own culture with that of the classic English murder and exploring what can be done with it).<br /><br />Scoop, however has none of this. It is poorly written, the two leads are hopelessly wooden and the story itself has no interest at all. The genre that it spoofs requires at least some sort of subplot with witty explanations and tie-ups (why are tarot cards and keys kept under French horns in locked rooms?).<br /><br />Allen's delightful and witty versions of various Hollywood genres (Curse of the Jade Scorpion/Purple Rose of Cairo etc) have given us so much pleasure over the years. Even Hollywood Ending had a great central idea. Sadly his inspiration has deserted him this time.
The movie seems disjointed and overall, poorly written. The screenplay moves along as if 10 different people wrote it, and none of them were communicating with each other. Apparently they wanted to take a page from a Miracle on 34th Street (the original) type film, but it is done in such a poor way that the movie falls apart. This film is for only the very young, and even THEY will see the fact that whoever scripted it knows little to nothing about baseball. Such as: <br /><br />• When the Angels are in dead last place, the owner doesn't seem to care, nor is he bothered by the fact his manager just got into a fight with his pitcher – ON THE MOUND – or that he PUNCHED the team's play by play announcer on live TV. However, when the team is one game from winning the Division, he gets bent out of shape over a story (sourced by a 6 year old) that the manager is getting help from a kid who claims to see real angels. What sounds worse? A losing violent out of control manager whose team has lost 15 in a row? Or a winning coach on the verge of the playoffs that is acting a bit eccentric and is helping foster kids? The owner's reaction makes no sense. And he's moved to change his mind by Maggie and her 'straight out of cliché land' speech during a news conference.<br /><br />• The Angels are supposed to be playing for the Division in the final weekend series against the White Sox, however at the end of the game the announcer's keep saying the Angels 'won the pennant". The pennant is not decided until someone wins the LEAGUE championship, not the regular season division title.<br /><br />• Whitt Bass, the goofball pitcher is the starting pitcher and wins the game that breaks the Angels losing streak – then is the starting pitcher – THE VERY NEXT DAY.<br /><br />• Mel Clark (Tony Danza) is said in the ninth inning to have thrown 156 pitches, in a low-scoring ballgame. Typically in low scoring games, the pitch count is MUCH lower than this, usually around 80-90 pitches.<br /><br />• "AL" the angel says at the end "Championships have to be won on their own", even though he and his angels have been manipulating and fixing games throughout the whole second half of the season.<br /><br />I could go on and on, as there are MANY other examples where the story is poorly written.<br /><br />For younger kids (under 10), this movie may be entertaining. It's too bad – done right this could have been a classic. Done wrong like this and it's a forgettable mess that will forever live as a UHF/cable Saturday Morning washout.
I know that actors and actresses like to try different kinds of movies - hey, no one wants to get typecast - but Danny Glover, Brenda Fricker (happy birthday, Brenda!) and Christopher Lloyd should have known better than this. "Angels in the Outfield" is another movie in which everything seems lost until someone or something magically comes and saves the day. Do I even need to tell you how it ends? The movie is just plain lowly escapism (examples of high escapism are the various sci-fi movies from the '50s). If these movies had some political undertone - or at least offered us a new look at life - then they would be OK; this one is just pointless. Far closer to diabolical than angelic. Also starring Tony Danza, Adrien Brody and Matthew McConaughey, and I suspect that they don't wish to stress this in their resumes.
Warning! Spoilers!<br /><br />This is your typical disney film.<br /><br />1.Policticly correct what with the foster home that has an even divison of races.<br /><br />2.Insults the viewers intellect with its simplistic lines.<br /><br />3.The boy's slezy father is almost directly taken from the Never Ending Story 2.<br /><br />4.In a world full of crime,disase,corruption,starvation and other proplems that need to be taken care of,only a losing team is worthy of divine intervention.UGHHHH!!!<br /><br />5.Did you know that angels don't like swearing?! Where the heck did that come from!<br /><br />6.In helping the team,the angel cause pain and humilation on the opposing team.Very angelic indeed!<br /><br />7.The team the angels are helping are called...can you guess...THE ANGELS! Disney at its worst!<br /><br />8."Just got his training wings." Brillent line!<br /><br />My conculsion:I did not like it at all.
Naming the absolutely most pathetic piece of crap in cinematic history is not an easy task, candidates being so abundant, but Nemesis 2 has been my personal favorite ever since I saw it. It was so funny we had to rent it again the next day, and again I laughed so hard I was literally rolling on the floor. (This usually only happens when I see Monty Python's "Scott of the Antarctic".)<br /><br />Throughout the whole movie, an overwhelming what-the-heck-feeling firmly grasps the viewer. I'm utterly confounded that this clumsy home video ever made it to production stage. It's supposed to be a sequel, yet has no apparent connection whatsoever with the first film. The hero has the same name, but this time "Alex" is female, although it took us half way into the movie to stop guessing, what with all the muscles and the barbarian-nomad outfit!<br /><br />There is really no plot at all, it's merely a prolonged chase scene, only it's so slow-paced and senseless that calling it a chase scene makes it sound way more interesting than it really is. There is almost no dialogue, which is just as well considering the quality of it, and then the film suddenly just comes to an abrupt end after a blatant action scene with lots of gasoline explosions, without ever really explaining what it was all about. Luckily, it never gets boring, because there's something silly and phony going on at all times!<br /><br />Terrible movies are usually just tedious, but Nemesis 2 is such a perfect mixture of over-seriousness and utter nonintentional wackiness that it's truly entertaining. Rent this film, or buy it even, you won't be disappointed!
I saw this movie in a theater in Chicago and should have enjoyed it, since I love Nemesis… but if the first half an hour is skillfully done, the rest is just sub-Predator video fodder, a long chase through those post-modern empty factories Pyun affectionnates. My girlfriend fell asleep. I still like Pyun though, but not this
And that is the only reason I posses this DVD. Now I haven't seen the first Nemesis film, but I did check the info out of it and I here by say: What? Why? Because in the first film Alex was male. But then again the first one was set in the future, so maybe this Alex is brand new one and the scientist just happened to make Alex female this time. Who knows, at least it wasn't addressed in the film in any way.<br /><br />Here's a quick summary of the plot: Alex, still a baby then (or how ever you want, as it was, is, in the future) escapes with her mom using a special time vessel and ends up in the 80's Africa. There mommy gets killed and Alex (Sue Price) grows up in a African tribe. Then the tribe gets slaughtered by a cyborg from the future and Alex then runs and hides and finally she kills the cyborg. So there. Does sound familiar, doesn't it?.<br /><br />Terminator isn't the only film being ripped here, Predator gets its fair share too and I think the first Fly movie, the Vincent Price one, gets special nomination for giving a solid base to build up your cyborgs head from.<br /><br />Lets see, what else? Okay, the film was quite standard small budget flick, but it did have bad special effects for a mid 90's film. It would have looked okay for a 80's flick how ever. Biggest problem is the plot. Things just happen and the viewer is barely interested. Nemesis 2 isn't the crappiest piece of cinema I've had pleasure (?) to watch but it does come damn close.<br /><br />I won't say a thing about acting, because let's be honest here: did anyone expect Oscar worthy performances here? Oh well... at least I did find Sue Price hot in that amazonian warrior way.<br /><br />A "real" movie rating: 2/10 There isn't a lot of pros about the over all quality. And despite of the very basic plot the film it self makes very little sense.<br /><br />A camp movie rating: 4/10 I did get occasional laughs from the sheer badness of the film, so it does have small merits in it.
Years have past since Alex Rain (played by Olivier Gruner in the first movie) stumbled onto the horrific plot that involved replacing humans with machines however since then a war between cyborgs and humans has emerged and we lost, now a superwoman of sorts who is the daughter of Olivier Gruner's character (She also inherits only half of his minimal acting ability) which I think is the films minimal connection to the first, however when the superwoman is created she hides in 1980 while a bounty hunter from the future hunts her down in this confusing sci-fi clunker. Nemesis became a cult hit, that I can see why people liked even though I was no fan of said film. Nemesis tried very ambitiously to come up with different ideas, develop a beautiful look and provide tons of action, it almost worked. Nemesis 2 doesn't even have that ambition, it's a cheap rip off of The Terminator with a muscled female who is so low on acting ability she makes Olivier Gruner seem like a master thespian and the action sequences lack the explosive scope that was the main selling point of the original. I'll admit I was no fan of the original but it deserved a better follow up than this. The original also featured a good cast like Tim Thomerson, Cary Hiroyuki Tagawa, Thom Mathews, Brion James, Thomas Jane and yes Jackie Earle Haley this one features nobody and this time it's just a dull movie with a pretentious vibe. In fact after I saw this, it inspired to add a half star to the original.<br /><br />* out of 4-(Bad)
If this is the first of the "Nemesis" films that you have seen, then I strongly urge you to proceed no further. The sequels to "Nebula" prove to be no better...hard to believe considering this entry is bottom-of-the-barrel. This movie tries, but it's just not worth your time, folks. Take a nap instead.
I really wanted to love this show. I truly, honestly did.<br /><br />For the first time, gay viewers get their own version of the "The Bachelor". With the help of his obligatory "hag" Andra, James, a good looking, well-to-do thirty-something has the chance of love with 15 suitors (or "mates" as they are referred to in the show). The only problem is half of them are straight and James doesn't know this. If James picks a gay one, they get a trip to New Zealand, and If he picks a straight one, straight guy gets $25,000. How can this not be fun?! Take my hand, lets stroll: <br /><br />The most glaring problem with this show is the bachelor himself. James is your typical young and successful gay guy with a nice smile and body, the one you'd probably give two glances towards at your local bar before grazing for greener pastures. Why they chose to cast James as the leading man is beyond me. God knows there's so many other hotter and vivacious homosexual men out there dying to be on TV.<br /><br />Aside from his rather average physical appearance, James is about as interesting and exciting as a piece of chalk. Even as such, he has this arrogant, smugly condescending aura about him. However, if James were standing up against a blank, white wall he'd meld right into in it. I honestly can't recall a single interesting or noteworthy thing James said during the course of the show. He is THAT boring and forgettable. In fact, one of the mates flat out advised him he wasn't feeling a connection. I thought that was the best part of the show. Also, James speaks with an excruciatingly annoying lilt. Sound feminine or sound masculine, but don't ****ing segue tones in the middle of sentences...so painful to sit through. I hated him so much all throughout the show I kept thinking, "Please choose a straight guy and humiliate yourself and your unfortunate looking hag"<br /><br />Then we have the suitors. A remarkably bland bunch of men who don't seem to care either way what is happening. Equally vapid, they seem to be indistinguishable from one guy to the next except, "Hey that guy has blond highlights or oh that one has curly hair" Again, astoundingly inept casting decisions seem to be the aim of this show. While it may be hackneyed to type cast roles, it would've been a lot more entertaining to watch than these amorphous drones. However, in all their banality they still manage to upstage James (which isn't all that hard to do anyway), slightly that is. You know you have a problem when some of the suitors are actually hotter and more interesting than the leading man. And the fact that the suitors seem to have more fun around EACH OTHER than with the leading man? Very sad.<br /><br />Also, I just thought that Id point something mentioned on the message boards which I felt was actually true: the straight men are all hotter than the gay guys. <br /><br />Don't get me wrong, Im not saying all the gay guys were ugly and boring, as a matter of fact I found some of them very cute. It's just that overall they were just BLAH compared to the men you'd see on shows like A Shot At Love with Tila Tequila or The Bachelorette.<br /><br />I don't know how many times I hit fast forward during this show. I can accept a lead character as interesting as a cardboard box, I can accept the mundane, apathetic suitors but PLEASE for the love of God entertain me just a little. No such luck.<br /><br />If you're expecting drama, intrigue, sexiness, or excitement you will be SEVERELY disappointed. The biggest "drama" comes from the fact that one of the suitors still may have a boyfriend in New York (How scandalous!). As titillating as that may be I guarantee you, that is the ONLY thing that remotely resembles any conflict on this show.<br /><br />Sure there is the twist, but if you have any semblance of Gaydar in you, you'll easily discern who's who (it wasn't hard at all, I was only wrong once.) This show is stacking so much of its chips on the twist that it fails to deliver anywhere else.<br /><br />We get to watch as James & Co plod along such exciting activities such as learning how to Western step dance, shopping for gifts, visiting a petting zoo, and gay karaoke. YAWN. Sure you have the occasional topless dancing but who cares when everyone is boring anyway. That's one of main problems with the show: NO ONE seems to be enjoying themselves--they are there just going through the motion trying mightily hard to appear to have a good time. And you really cant blame them since the events are all wildly unimaginative and lame.<br /><br />Finally, the physical aspect is not there. There's no cuddling, no caressing, no kissing (!), no endearment of any sort. It's just "Ok that was a boring date, Im gonna go back to my ugly, tacky wanna-be Sydney Operahouse dwelling (quick peck on the lips) CYA." This show is so ****ing prudish it's ridiculous. I can understand them not wanting to play up the perceived indiscretionary nature of homosexual men, but come the **** on. People who watch reality TV shows are gonna want more than standoffish hugs and curt kisses. This show refuses to compromise.<br /><br />Sorry if this was long winded but I felt these were issues that needed to be addressed. I do commend Bravo for first putting up a show of this nature, but the staggeringly incompetent manner in which this show was handled is mind boggling. To summarize my three points: Boring + Boring + Boring = go do something else. You'll have more fun waiting at a doctor's office for an appointment, at least they have interesting magazines there.
The recent boom of dating show on U. S. television screens has reached a fevered pitch since the first episode of "The Bachelor." Unsuspecting audiences have since been subjected to countless clones and variations, including "The Bachelorette", "Joe Millionaire", "For Love Or Money", and the execrable "Married By America." Hoping to cash in on this trend, and simultaneously tap and exploit a new demographic, Bravo has unleashed the disastrous "Boy Meets Boy" upon the world. And may they have mercy on us all.<br /><br />The premise is simple and is designed to be light-hearted: an eligible gay man is courted by a number of suitors, eliminated show by show until one is left, but there's a twist. Half of the men are actually straight. This is not much of a big deal, but the inherent viciousness of the scenario kicks in after hearing the pay-off: if, at the end of the show, the gay man picks a straight man in disguise, the straight man wins a cash prize. The gay man gets nothing, or at least nothing more than a few parting gifts, a pat on the back, and a hearty round of "Aren't you embarrassed? Well, thanks for playing!"<br /><br />Just the like the equally painful "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy" (another Bravo program), this show is another example of stereotypes run amok. What makes it even worse, though, is the fact that straight men are playing UP these stereotypes for cash. The producers of this show believe that all you have to do is put enough hair gel in a man's hair, dress up in Abercrombie & Fitch with a pair of designer sandals, strip him of all body hair and fat and voila! It's the gay equivalent to putting a white performer in blackface, and just as offensive to those of us -- like myself -- who are genuinely gay and don't dress/act like that. It implies that gays have no variance or chance for individuality, that they can't behave like real people, only like stereotypes. Never mind the fact that the bank of suitors is sorely lacking in any kind of diversity. All are gym-toned, most are white, and all look far too scrubbed and cleaned.<br /><br />This is another example of how, instead of fostering acceptance of gays as dynamic individuals capable of variance and change, Hollywood has again taken a stereotype and run with it all the way to the bank. I feel genuinely dirty watching this show, as show any gay man who sees this unabashed parade of soft-core pornography masquerading as legitimate television. 1 out of 10.
The Nutcracker has always been a somewhat problematic ballet. It bears little resemblance to ETA Hoffman's original story on which it is based.<br /><br />In the ballet, the story is essentially over by the second-half when Clara (or Marie in this version) travels to the Kingdom of Sweets to watch a series of character dances.<br /><br />There's an infinite variety of stage productions that re-interpret the story in myriad ways (not always successfully) to compensate for the ballet's weak libretto.<br /><br />Balanchine's version doesn't really have any sense of drama or story at all (despite the fact that there is plenty of drama and mystery in Tchaikovsky's wonderful first-act music). The result is a completely forgettable first-half Christmas party where hardly anything happens and where even the dancing (the little that there is of it) isn't particularly memorable.<br /><br />The pantomime over-acting, particularly of Drosselmeier, which might look passable on the stage, just looks silly filmed for the big screen.<br /><br />Unfortunately, things aren't much better when we get to the Kingdom of Sweets (Act II in the stage version). Although there are a few choreographic highlights, most of the choreography is bland and uninspiring. This certainly isn't vintage Balanchine.<br /><br />Balanchine is widely regarded as a master of abstract dance, but I have always felt he was less successful as a creator of narrative ballets. Watching this film version of his stage production of The Nutcracker has only re-affirmed this view.
I have seen many, many productions of The Nutcracker. Now perhaps I viewed this movie from the tainted point of view of a theatrical director, but I was disappointed. I'm sure people in the specific business of ballet choreography find this production impressive but from a purely theatrical perspective I found everything from design to choreography to be lackluster and unbefitting of a "motion picture". None of the traditionally "weird" and impressive costumes looked like what they were supposed to be (i.e. the candies didn't look like candies, the rats didn't look like rats but rather like chocolate kisses,) the acting was weak, perhaps toned down too much for the screen, and the choreography just didn't do anything for me. This makes the entire show very satisfactory (at best), as if it were intended to not set itself apart from any other production. But remember, again, this is from the artistic perspective of a theatrical director, not a dancer or a choreographer, but a straight male theatrical director.
I cannot vote on this because I wouldn't watch garbage from these people. They got my money with another movie (Mr. Jingles) and I swore it would never happen again. I feel it's my civic duty to help people stay away from this trash. Go to the forums on this film and read where cast members try to act like they are seeing the movie for the first time. One guy even responds to himself ...using the same name! There are shills in the forum that say it's as good as Shawshank Redemption and Citizen Kane...Not even close (by no means). If this is the company's 2nd movie, it should be better than the first. That means the 3rd movie should be a lot better. Not so, I've seen it. All I want to know is how you distribute this trash using the same names all the time. Having fun with friends and making a movie over the weekend is fine...but don't try to market that trash!
I don't really post comments, but wanted to make sure to warn people off this film. It's an unfinished student film with no redeeming features whatsoever. On a technical level, it's completely amateur - constant unintentional jump edits within scenes, dubbing wildly off, etc. The plot is completely clichéd, the structure is laughable, and the acting is embarrassing. I don't want to be too harsh: I've made my share of student films, and they were all awful, but there's no reason for this film to be out in the world where innocent fans will have to see it.<br /><br />Safe assumption that - much like the cast - positive comments are filmmakers, friends, and family.
THIS CONTAINS SPOILERS.<br /><br />I have rarely seen a film that is as unbelievable as this one is. And being French, it tries for depth by being enigmatic… nothing really makes any sense.<br /><br />Léo is gay and has just announced at breakfast to his family that he is HIV positive. The youngest brother, Marcel, has not yet come down to breakfast, and the first thing the family does is decide that at 12 years of age he is too young to be told. Maybe if he was four or five, but twelve? The first totally unbelievable thing is that the family doesn't even ask where or how he got the virus, how long he has known about it… nothing is asked. They only worry about Marcel finding out. This is a very close –knit provincial family, but although they decide not to let Marcel know about Léo's HIV positive status nor the fact of his being gay, the rest of the family accepts all this news with absolutely no questions or reactions. How many families do you know where the parents/brothers wouldn't have at least SOME reaction to one of the members announcing that he is gay? Here, nothing.<br /><br />Léo decides that he needs to go to Paris to see his ex-lover. And he decides to go on the trip with, of all people, Marcel. Do you know anyone who would bring his little brother along to go see a lover? Again, totally unbelievable, especially since Marcel is not supposed to know either of his medical problems nor of his homosexuality. If this is the way the family has decided to let him find out, it is rather brutal and again unbelievable.<br /><br />Léo goes to find his lover, Aymeric, at his work in a Paris bar. The owner says that Aymeric will not be there until the early evening. But why would Léo want to see him at work? Why not phone and arrange to see him in some place more private where they can really talk? Why not go and see him at his home? But no, Léo shows up later in the day (with Marcel in tow) and is surprised when Aymeric doesn't just drop everything to go walk with him for 5 minutes. Aymeric tells him that he is no longer available, that it was Léo who left him, and that Léo hadn't replied to any of his letters. Léo says "But I love you" and then wanders off. But if he really loved Aymeric, wouldn't he have at least told him about his HIV status, to warn him to get tested and maybe get medication? This would be the least he could do – but not a peep. He leaves and doesn't even warn Aymeric that he might have contracted the AIDS virus. This is totally irresponsible of him – and of the film-makers; this film was apparently made for a French TV series for young people – it is the perfect way to show kids how to be responsible. Well, not here… I guess "Every man for himself" is still the French way of doing things… Another aspect of the film which was totally unbelievable was the "touchy-feely" aspect. Everyone is always leaning against someone, caressing someone or kissing someone. Inside the family and outside the family. I have never seen anyone in France be THIS physical, never mind an entire family. Seated at the breakfast table, one 17 year old brother has his leg perched on the lap of his elder brother, and the elder brother is caressing his leg as everyone sits around discussing something. How many brothers do you know who are THAT physically close? In another scene, the same 17 year old comes into Marcel's room asking "What's the matter, can't you sleep?", then takes off his clothes and, completely naked, gets into bed with his brother and snuggles up to him as if they were lovers. This and another similar scene between Léo and Marcel gave a somewhat incestuous feel to the film. Sorry, again I don't believe that this is regular behaviour between teenage brothers.<br /><br />The only good thing I can say about the film is that the actors are all quite fine… especially Marcel in the main role. But it wasn't really enough… HIV and AIDS are far too serious to be presented in such a vague and irresponsible light. At the end of the film, the family has gone to the cemetery to bury Léo, but once again, Marcel has been left out of it – he has been left in the care of a cousin (I think). Nevertheless he sneaks out and watches the funeral from afar. Is this what such a close-knit family would have done? It is totally inconceivable that they would not have included him in his brother's funeral. It was the last scene of the film, and it was the last straw for this viewer.
There is a lot to like here. The actors are first rate and the script provides good dialog best capturing the ambiance of a tightly knit, likable family. However, for that reason the film does not ring true. We see Leo, who apparently just learned of his HIV positive diagnosis, essentially react in a way that is not in tune to the supportive atmosphere for which he finds himself. As well, the film ends somewhat abruptly avoiding what Leo, his brother and the rest of this close family must have dealt with in light of their love for him. The young actor who plays Leo's brother, Marcel, is impressive as generally is the rest of the cast. Unfortunately, the scriptwriters could not decide onwhether they wanted an insightful dissertation on the effects of HIV on a functional, appealing family or what the devastation HIV is on the victim - so it only hints at both. While this film provides food for thought it leaves the viewer wanting much more than it delivers.
I must be that one guy in America that didn't like this movie. I guess this just wasn't my style or something, I just don't see what's so fascinating about it, this was *barely entertaining, let alone one of the greatest achievements in cinema history. <br /><br />It's about a guy that came from nothing, and goes on to become a drug lord. Pretty simple way to describe an entire movie, and that's exactly my feeling about the entire movie. Contrary to what a lot of people think, just because a movie is about mafias/drug trade/criminal groups doesn't automatically make it a great movie, don't forget good storytelling.
This is not really a proper review since I did not see most of the film. I stopped watching it. The film is very violent, with nasty drug dealers and street punks, but that is not why I stopped watching.<br /><br />Here was the problem: I watched just enough to be introduced to several characters, all of whom were not interesting. Everyone was a tedious, despicable psychopath, with no engaging personalities, giving me nothing to look forward to. I found myself not the least bit curious about what they would do next or what might happen to them.<br /><br />If there had been even one person of interest, and I don't mean good or nice person, I mean an interesting person, I could have stayed with it. Watch "State of Grace" to see what I mean. In that film the Gary Oldman character is a complete lunatic, but he is *very* interesting. Al Pacino perhaps did a good job in Scarface, but his character just did not engage me.
Spoken like a true hard-boiled u'an gangsta. The story is no worse than any number of gangster flicks, but never ever confuse this movie with The Godfather I or II, or Goodfellas. It is not in the same league.<br /><br />But what makes the film periodically painful to watch is all these Italian Americans swaggering around dropping bad gangsta lines in an even worse fake u'an accent. Pacino would have been great if they could just have dubbed him. I was looking forward to see Abrahams and Loggia, but their steenky accents spoiled the fun.<br /><br />Ah well, the script ain't too hot either. Don Corleone would have made this disappear five minutes after meeting him, smiling and patting him on the back all the while.
It is nice to see the likes of Oliver Stone, Brian DePalma, Al Pacino, and even Michelle Pfiefer make one monumental piece of cinematic garbage. It is nice to see people so rich and 'successful' wasting their time on one of the most forgettable, trite, and pathetic pieces of film-making of all time. This movie represents the worst of Hollywood.<br /><br />What is this? Is it based on a true story. Well, they do start with some basic news bites and facts that they read off USA today. But then the movie departs to some fantasy world and a 'cuban' refugee going to make it in the American drug subculture; kind of like Rocky on cocaine. Is it a movie about Cuba or Cubans? For the life of me I don't believe there is a single Cuban in this movie. The accents are totally fake, and scene with Antonio's mother looks like a poster for midwest American values. The whole scene looks like something out of the Dick Van Dyke show. Is this movie about Miami? It looks more like L.A. transposed in Florida. Afterall, a palm tree is a palm tree. Is this a romance novel. The relationship between Pacino and Pfeiffer is so obvious from the getgo, and there is not one shred of possibility that these two characters could ever care for each other. Is this a drug movie? Well, no issues of obsession or addiction are even mentioned. The behavior of the actors after a line of coke is nothing different than had they had a drink of water. Admittedly, the acting is terrible.<br /><br />Let's get to the rest. The music is disgusting and sounds like latin elevator music or something out of a Lawrence Welk show. I think I heard a polka? The camera work is shoddy with too much movement and far more cranes than could ever be effective. Clearly, the photography budget was excessive. The sound is bleached in a number of spots, and the dialogue seems to be carried out in a warehouse. The writing is appalling. This is one of those movies were the script writes itself. You are dragged from one trite piece of dialogue to the next, each pushing the plot like a sack of bricks.<br /><br />So I am going to ask, Is this even a movie? It could be a drama series patched together for two and a half hours. But at least a drama series has some kind of focus. Maybe it is just a bunch of poorly acted scenes taped together. Whatever it is, movie or not, it is a piece of crap.
It wasn't the most pointless animation film experience ever, but it certainly can't be admired as much as it tries to be good. Combining Dreamworks animation and computer graphics, this is the story of a mustang, later named Spirit (Matt Damon, providing the first person narration), and his journey through across the frontiers of the Old West. Basically he is born free amongst all the other horses in the beautiful countryside, then he is kidnapped to be used as a saddle horse, he manages to throw off all who try to ride him. However when he escapes his cage, along with Little Creek (Daniel Studi), the two of them form a friendship, oh, and he obviously has a thing for Little Creek's female horse. In the end, after a few more escapes, being chased by The Colonel (James Cromwell) and his men, and making a final big leap across a gorge, Little Creek lets Spirit go, and he also releases his female horse, and they run home to their countryside and fellow horses. Also starring Chopper Bernet as Sgt. Adams, Jeff LeBeau as Murphy/Railroad Foreman, John Rubano as Soldier, Richard McGonagle as Bill and Matthew Levin as Joe. I was expecting to see the horses talk in this film, but it turns out to be more like a Dumbo thing throughout, and the songs by Bryan Adams aren't the most engaging, but it isn't a terrible film. It was nominated the Oscar for Best Animated Feature, and it was nominated the Golden Globe for Best Song for Bryan Adams' "Here I Am". Okay!
Here's the good news first. "Spirit" is the most visually incredible animated film in current home theater release. The artwork and effects are revolutionary, and I recommend that you give this movie a look by virtue of the visuals alone.<br /><br />And now for the bad news. I really mean it when I say that the animation is the only thing this movie has going for it. You may remember that "Spirit" got badly trounced by "Lilo and Stitch" last summer. The first person who argues that it was because Disney is more well-established and had better advertising can write me a four page long essay entitled "Why 'Lilo and Stitch''s Script Didn't Stink".<br /><br />For all the incredible new animation technology on display in "Spirit", the story is almost *astonishingly* dull. There is a lesson here, and (needless to say) it doesn't just apply to animated movies. You can have the most mind-blowing visual effects ever to grace the eyes of a mortal, but if your story is boring and, more importantly, we don't care about your characters, it's bad film-making. Simple as that. The animation is still mind-blowing; I just can't wait to see what somebody with more imagination does with it.
(Some possible spoilers)<br /><br /> I'm not too sure what Dreamworks was thinking when they decided to plunk $80 million down on this extremely tired and lame animated flick. They probably thought the spectacular animation would be more than enough to bring audiences (mostly families) to see it in droves. Well it seemed to work for the opening weekend, it made $26 mil., roughly and has made $38.1 mil. total (an estimation for this weekend). But I think audiences that came during the weekend saw pretty much the same thing I did, when I saw and they spread the word. This is one majorly lame movie, apart from the animation everything else, mostly the script seem to be done by a three year old.<br /><br /> The movie is only about 80 mins. long, but it feels like a three hour epic. A few sticking points for me are, well the irritating narration is one of them, and it's so obviously written. At one point he escapes from some captors and even though you can see the horse is obviously scared, up pops the narrator (the voice of the talented Matt Damon) to clear up any misconceptions (which would only happen in the simplest of mindsets.<br /><br /> Another one is the constant pop up of Bryan Adams songs, now I'm a fan of his music, I think he's good, but come on did Dreamworks really think audiences would be able to handle 8-9 of his songs throughout such a short movie, I certainly couldn't. Finally and here's a spoiler, a horse gets shot at point blank range by a member of the calvary, no less, she (the horse) then falls into a raging river, Spirit (the focus of the movie) tries to save her, but they both go over a waterfall that must have at least a 50 foot drop, well later in the movie near the end we see that this horse is alive and well. Now I know this is a kids movie, but even that little amount of realism is unacceptable.<br /><br /> To sum up, this is a really lame movie, I'm not saying kids won't enjoy it, but anyone else will be checking their watches just waiting for this tripe to end. Definitely on my Top 10 worst list of this year. -** out of 4 stars.<br /><br />
For anyone that loves predictable movies with an awful soundtrack, lack of dialogue, clichés up the wazoo, and also stereotypes that just happens to be typical of an American film, look no farther. DreamWorks whether wanted to save money on acquiring voice talent, or really wanted to create an animated episode of National Geographic; either way, they succeeded in delivering a rather bland and boring movie. Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron is a bore fest that sends mixed signals to kids and adults, and also fails to entertain despite the oh-so-cutesy theme of animals triumphing over humans. After looking past the wonderful animations, what you have remaining is nothing but a big mess.<br /><br />Spirit is about a stallion that from the beginning of the film looks like quite a handful, as he is a horse that cannot be tamed, calmed, nor controlled. Because of this, he rises and becomes the leader of his group of high-spirited horses, which includes his mom. But, his life of freedom and running around comes to an abrupt halt as he is captured by a group of Americans in the process of connecting the Wild West with the rest of the country. During this, Spirit (never actually named that throughout the entire film almost) befriends a courageous Native American, and a fellow female horse, and also has a lot of run-ins with the cynical and cruel Army folks that apparently don't believe in giving up.<br /><br />Why must movies mix computer animation with traditional? It comes off looking rather meshed, something Spirited Away suffered from as well. Best example is when a train is chasing after Spirit; you see the hand-drawn Spirit running from a computer-animated train. It would look much better if it were one or the other, but not both; unless you can really pull off some nice effects. Beauty and The Beast's famous dance sequence uses computer animation, but it is nowhere near as obvious as the train or the snow in this movie. The opening sequence was the best-looking part of the film, kind of sad to see the rest of the movie slide a bit downhill in terms of quality. A little scene has multiple; I mean multiple similar shots of just a general's face, quite repetitive and annoying in my opinion.<br /><br />The kids might enjoy this flick, but with lack of dialog, song, and motivation, it might be a perfect technique in making hyper children fall asleep. While Disney becomes criticized for its animated musicals, they wind up becoming much more entertaining than a more realistic approach to telling a story like this one. Bryan Adams has no place in this movie, and why does Hans Zimmer stay away from using a Western theme in this movie, when it is a story taking place in the Old West? Soundtrack sounds a bit off if you ask me. At least they are using realistic noises of horses, two points for that. Yet, if you are going to refrain from making horses talk, why even have a narrator interrupt every so often, which just so happens to be the main character himself?<br /><br />Native Americans are nice, and the Western folks are evil, Native-killing, horse torturing, rowdy, psychopathic monsters that must be destroyed. More or less, this is what Spirit is showing us. It reaches a point in which they are trying so hard for the viewers to hate the travelers of the Wild West; they even had a scene of several horses pulling a huge train up a hill, and another scene of them destroying an entire village of Natives. Now, the person Spirit befriended happened to betray him, on more than one occasion, yet that is forgivable, apparently because he is not a soldier; that or because he has the sassy female horse.<br /><br />Spirit isn't exactly a victim we should feel sorry for; the viewer is supposed to sympathize with Spirit despite him putting his entire group of horses at risk, wreaking havoc, and even perhaps resulting in some off-screen deaths that are quickly shoved aside because oh no, Spirit is in trouble! This film gets quite rhythmic, as we see in multiple instances Spirit escaping from chains, kicking people around, destroying property, freeing horses, and then getting captured again---all in this same order too. The writers also seem to have an obsession with cliffs because they are sprinkled all over the movie; for an Old West film, they certainly have very little room to roam.<br /><br />Bottom Line: This is most certainly no Disney movie, as a matter of fact that is a bad thing, even though it was what they were aiming for. So, instead of the typical musical, we get a boring film that becomes predictable, dull and slow in multiple instances. Even the decent animation becomes inconsistent when the computer work gets thrown in. Everything about this movie was just wrong; from the ideals that back then Americans that were not native were evil buffoons, to the soundtrack and musical score that just seemed so far off. Kill Bill Vol. 2, which pretty much has nothing to do with the Old West, has more of a Western feel than this movie. Do yourselves a favor and totally skip this by all means necessary. Thank you.
Even though an animated film it really bored everyone under at least 6.<br /><br />As a grown up who grew up in an area with wild horses and native americans, it felt this was a combination of PC mixed in with too many fantasy films created by people who never lived in the area they filmed about. Talk to those who have lived on horse back, most treat their animals like family members, regardless of background. Regardless of background we have dealt with good and bad breakers of wild horses. I had to explain that was a real life issues to us vs the movie makers views to children who were surprised to see how PC showed a world different than what they knew in reality.<br /><br />This dreamworks break from the normal disney or dreamworks fare of cute talking animals burning up the screen was nice from the older viewer point of view. But if you live in an area similar to what is shown, you may end up answering questions.
Decent animation and some workable character development keep this animated horse fable from DreamWorks at least watchable... however it remains somewhat slow paced and the storyline is a bit on the silly side.. It is interesting to see a reversal of the typical cowboys and indian roles, but here it just seems like a nod to political correctness rather than a proper storyline decision. GRADE: C
Flat, soulless computer images on less than astonishing backgrounds animates a horribly predictable story in this film. Absolutely nothing takes you by surprise, you can even tell when the Bryan Adams vocals are going to come in, which are always at the wrong time.<br /><br />The main character, Spirit the horse, is given an annoying voice when he narrates what is happening. The narration is not needed, though, as everything happening is really obvious. You can even tell what the horses are saying, although all they do is neigh. Which would be good, but all the horses make exactly the same sounds - one for warning, one for sorrow, one for laughing, etc. There is no variation between the horses' voices.<br /><br />Young kids might like this film, though. It's soppy enough for a family to sit down and watch, and there's little danger of anyone being frightened. If you have nothing else to do, and want to watch a film with your kids, this isn't a bad choice.<br /><br />But otherwise, this isn't recommended.
Believe me, I wanted to like "Spirit". The idiotic comments people made at the time of its release about how quaint it was to see old-fashioned, hand-drawn animation again, as if the last pencil-animated cartoon had been released twenty years ago, and the even more idiotic comments about how computers had now made the old techniques obsolete, had got my blood up ... but then, the insulting, flavourless banality I had to endure in the first ten minutes of "Spirit" got my blood up even more.<br /><br />The character designs are generic, the animation (partly as a result) merely competent, the art direction as a whole so utterly, boringly lacklustre that you wonder how it could have come about (we know, from "The Prince of Egypt" and "The Road to El-Dorado", that there are talented artists at Dreamworks), and the sophisticated use of CGI is in every single instance ill-judged. (Why do they bother?) There's not a single thing worth LOOKING at. In an animated cartoon, this is fatal.<br /><br />But it gets worse...<br /><br />The horses can't talk, but they're far more anthropomorphised and unconvincing than the deer in "Bambi", which can. And it seems that, in a way, the horses CAN talk. Spirit himself delivers the prologue (sounding for all the world like a 21st-Century actor picked out of a shopping mall in California), and from then on his laid-back, decidedly unhorselike narration is scarcely absent from the soundtrack, although it never once tells us anything that we didn't already know, or expresses a feeling which the artwork, poor though it is, wasn't capable of expressing twice as well. That prologue, by the way: (a) contains information which Spirit, we later discover, had know way of knowing; (b) expresses ideas which Spirit would lack the power to express even if he COULD talk; (c) includes new age rubbish like, "This story may not be true, but it's what I remember"; and (d) will give countless children (the production is pitched, I presume, at six-year-olds) the impression that horses are native to North America, which is sort of true, in that the common ancestor of domestic horses, zebras etc. WAS native to North America - but all horse species on the continent had gone extinct long before the first humans arrived, and the mustangs of Spirit's herd (which allegedly "belong here like the buffalo grass") were descended from horses introduced by Europeans.<br /><br />So the prologue rather annoyed me.<br /><br />As often as Spirit talks, Bryan Adams sings, sounding as usual as though he's got a bad throat infection - and it's not THAT he sings or even HOW he sings, it's WHAT he sings: maudlin narrative ballads which contribute even less, if possible, than Spirit's spoken narrative, and which sound as though they all have exactly the same tune (although I was paying close attention, and was able to discern that they probably didn't). If only Bryan Adams and the guy-pretending-to-be-a-horse could have SHUT UP for a minute or two, the movie might have been allowed to take its true form: mediocre and derivative, rather than jaw-droppingly bad.
As other viewers have mentioned, this film was an interesting experiment in photography. The colors are comic book bold. I think the director got carried away with his "artistic vision" over the look of the film instead o badly needed attention to content. Despite its stellar cast, the performances are lackluster and the story nearly incoherent. Madonna was likely cast purely as a stunt to get pre-release press. A good thing as her appearance here lent some credence to her album "I'm Breathless (Music inspired by the film Dick Tracy)" which was a stratospheric hit (due in large part to the inclusion of dance-hit "Vogue" - which is not in, nor has the slightest relation to this film). I'd guess the major portion of money from this film came from tie-ins to Madonna's "I'm Breathless" album.<br /><br />If you watch it at home, by end-titles, you'll think "there's two hours out of my life I'd like to have back." Save yourself the wasted time - do not bother with this.
This film is stale, and misses the mark. It is far off compared to the 89 Batman that it tries to coppy. That women singer whats her name can not act, and we see why her film carrier died. Notice how this film died in the box office no one see this film on tv either. My uncle and dad were expecting Batman, and the films impression is more like Cop Rock. Not worth renting 3/10
When people ask me whats the worst movie I've ever seen its this one. Its not even close to MST3k level riffing, or midnight viewing at a theatre, or even as Disney channel late night filler. The only time I've ever wanted to jump off a ride at Disney World (or Disney/MGM Studios in this case) was to grab Dick Tracey's jacket off the mannequin, rip it to shreds, and ram it down the tour guides throat saying "Eat this! Eat this unholy coat of darkness!!!" I've never been so mad at a movie, not even "Nutty Professor II: The Klumps" or "Flash Gordon". You want pretty colors and cinematography? Ain't here babe. Reviewers keep saying "oh, but its too look like a comic book", well, to me, its the color of a Gordito after several weeks in the sun. About as enjoyable too. Beatty wanders around this landscape jumping around and talking to his watch, himself, and occasional at the other actors, hoping someone will tell him what time the sequel will begin shooting. To be fair, I have only seen this movie once, but my pain threshold is that of a man, not a God.
i just saw Dick Tracy and I thought it was terrible. The paintings in the background of the cities looked awful. Also the mob characters looked too weird. Warren Beatty didn't do an awful job as Dick Tracy but it was definetely not one of his better performances. Madonna should just stick to singing. Glenne Headly did a good job in this movie. I gave this movie a 2/10 just because of the amazing acting by Al Pacino. It wasn't a high note in his career but he still did a good job.
This has to be one of the worst films of the 1990s. When my friends & I were watching this film (being the target audience it was aimed at) we just sat & watched the first half an hour with our jaws touching the floor at how bad it really was. The rest of the time, everyone else in the theatre just started talking to each other, leaving or generally crying into their popcorn that they actually paid money they had earnt working to watch this feeble excuse for a film. It must have looked like a great idea on paper, but on film it looks like no-one in the film has a clue what is going on. Crap acting, crap costumes. I can't get across how embarrasing this is to watch. Save yourself an hour & a bit of your life.........
Director Warren Beatty's intention to turn Chester Gould's famous comic strip into a live-action cartoon (with Beatty himself cast in the lead as the square-jawed detective) had sweet overtures of innocent nostalgia--quite unusual and intriguing coming from Warren Beatty. Unfortunately, the picture is requisite ham, fun for awhile but eventually tiring. Dick Tracy attempts to bring down mobster Big Boy Caprice, aided by loving Tess Trueheart but tripped up by evil Breathless Mahoney. For the first half-hour or so, the Oscar-winning art direction and set design are wonderful to absorb but, as the plot creaks along predictably (with no real sting in the writing), things begin to congeal. Al Pacino got a surprise Supporting Oscar nomination as bad boy Caprice, and Madonna (who is mostly used as a decorative prop) gets to sing Stephen Sondheim's "Sooner or Later (I Always Get My Man)", which copped the award for Best Original Song. Lots of heart, thanks to Beatty--who was dedicated to his vision--but the picture is too cool and calculated. It lacks heat. *1/2 from ****
There have been many movies featuring Bigfoot, the majority of which are not good but most at least have a goofy charm to them. Sasquatch Hunters doesn't even have that going for it. It's just a crashing bore.<br /><br />Sasquatch Hunters is about a group of paleontologists, primatologists, and forest rangers that venture off into a remote part of a Pacific Northwest forest. Bones belonging to some sort of abnormally large primate have been discovered in this region and since apes aren't natural to North America to begin with this leads to a scientific expedition. Sure enough, they soon discover a whole burial ground full of the skeletal remains of these enormous ape-like creatures. I think we all know what happens to people that disturb ancient burial grounds in the movies.<br /><br />The first half of the movie consists of uninteresting, interchangeable characters assembling their gear, hiking through the woods, stopping to rest, hiking through the woods some more, pausing long enough to investigate and discuss a few findings along the way, yet more hiking through the woods, looking for a group member that has vanished, even more hiking through the woods, digging through dirt, random theorizing, and gathering around a campfire to discuss what little they've done that day. When Sasquatch finally shows up it just turns into people stumbling around in the dark while being picked off one at a time (done in a blink and you missed it fashion and the actual killing occurs off-camera). All of this is excruciatingly boring.<br /><br />The movie wants to be taken seriously and the director is clearly trying to build suspense but there is none to be found, thus we are left with dull, drawn out scenes of people wandering around the woods just to get somewhere and wander around the woods at night trying to act scared. I'd be lying if I said I didn't make liberal use of the fast forward button to speed these scenes up.<br /><br />As for Sasquatch himself, much like every other character else in the movie, it doesn't have much to do and lacks a distinct personality. It looks like a shaggier version of King Kong, which isn't all that bad except in the scenes where they used CGI instead of a man in a Bigfoot costume, which is painfully obvious during the daylight monster scenes. A part of me can't help but feel that even using computer effects to bring Bigfoot to life is a tad sacrilegious. If there is any single movie monster that I believe should only be brought to life through situation, it's Bigfoot.<br /><br />This is one of those movies that doesn't so much have a plot as it does a premise. That's all it really is, a premise, which the people involved stretched out to make a feature length motion picture without bothering to add all the ingredients to make a worthwhile movie.
That's right. A movie written, directed and produced by Fred Tepper and family. (Fred should have known better, having worked the sets of 'Titantic' and 'Dogma'.) <br /><br />So, the plot. There are some scientists, and some forest rangers, and a hot chick with huge fake breasts. They are all really bad at their jobs, including the hot chick(who I think is supposed to be a photographer, but who cares because she wears a bikini). One of the forest rangers comments that the scientists are "professional people," which is good, because it would be horrible if they were professional grubs or jellybeans or Ewoks.<br /><br />They are hiking through the woods in search of some strange ape-like bones, and no one even once mentions that the bones just might be those of the infamous Bigfoot. They just wander around and one of the rangers unabashedly hits on the hottie. We all hope he dies real soon (along with his sister who's meant to be the cute naive one, but is really just annoying). Then they, *gasp*, find a Sasqu... I mean, Ape-like Animal Burial Ground. Of course, no mentions that it might just be Bigfoot bones they're messing with... I guess scientists and forest rangers just don't think about those types of things.<br /><br />Then Sasquatch and his tribe get really angry and kill all the people we dislike, chases the other losers away and buries his Great Aunt Muriel and Cousin Josh (who died in an unfortunate trout accident) all over again.<br /><br />Insipid, boring dialogue (I zoned out several times), inane plot, unlikable characters, bad CGI (a man in a monkey suit would look better), and acting that just wasn't very good all add up to make a movie I won't be watching again.<br /><br />You check it out though; it's good for some unintentional laughs.
Budget, decent actors ...who knew these things were important. Don't waste your time on this piece of junk. The effects are crap. The acting is crap. The only thing that could have made this even tolerable was a little cheap T&A and that gets squandered in the first 20 minutes.<br /><br />The only even remotely redeeming quality about this movie is the very awkward profanity. It was like they found the only 7 people on the planet who have never cursed before. Hats off!<br /><br />If you want to see some dude in a bad suit just go back and look at old prom photos. The only way for a Bigfoot flick to be any good is for it to have a big budget and some actors who didn't come from Frogballs Community Theater.
i went into watching this movie knowing it wasn't going to be great. but what i witnessed was to awful for words. i don't mean to be harsh, its just the movie was terrible. overall it had bad, i mean AWFUL special effects, the acting wasn't too bad, but wasn't good either, and sasquatch himself was like.... well, not sasquatch. in my opinion the best sasquatch movie is Harry and the Hendersons. its not violent or horror, but it has the best depiction of sasquatch. at least its a suit and not some half-ass cgi rip-off. only see this movie if you are desperate, or really appreciate anyone in the film. or go watch boondock saints, it is MUCH better.
I have always been interested in anything about Bigfoot, so when I was browsing around looking for a movie to rent, this one caught my eye. It was the WORST $4.50 I've ever spent and I want my money back! Please don't waste your money on this!! This was one of the cheapest movies I've ever seen. The entire movie was so incredibly boring and I found myself rolling my eyes a lot and I didn't even watch it all the way through. I just got fed up with it. The acting was horrible, the effects were horrible, everything was just really bad and tasteless. It all added up to be a really bad, boring movie and total waste of time and money. I hope that one day they'll make a good movie about Sasquatch, but until then, I'll have to sit through countless cheap duds like this one to find the real masterpiece.
This is definitely the worst bigfoot movie I've ever seen and quite possibly the overall worst movie I've ever seen in my life. The actors and actresses were horrible and it seemed like they were trying way too hard to play their roles as dorks, tough guys, jerks, know it alls, etc. And the bigfoot itself was terrible. It appeared to be some kind of computer generated image from the days of Atari & Intellivision. At one point near the end of the movie as an army of sasquatches were chasing after the remaining survivors, one gets shot and as it's running it looked like a poor man's version of donkey kong himself! And one gets hit by a bullet and the blood that comes out of it was just awful animation. Another thing that was annoying was the music. Way way way too much music (classical score or whatever you call it) throughout the entire film. It was never ending. Oh yeah, the movie is boring too. Absolutely one of the worst films I've ever seen. I highly recommend taking your $3 or whatever they charge to rent this movie and spending it on a gallon of gas or a value menu somewhere. TRULY AWFUL!
A group of forest rangers and scientists go into the woods to find fossils.They stumble on a Bigfoot burial ground eventually (the didn't notice it in the dark), The scenes of the CGI Bigfoot are horrid, but better than the endless scenes of talking that they rarely punctuate. I used to think that there just might be a good Bigfoot movie to be made. But now after so many sad sad movies about the legend, I'm having serious doubts. To pour salt in the wound of watching this film, the ONE good-looking girl just doesn't get naked once. And while this one MAY be better than "Boggy Creek 2" (no mean feat there), it's still sad that the best non-documentary film on Bigfoot remains "Harry and the Henriksons" <br /><br />My Grade: D
I got this movie out of Blockbuster in one of those racks were you can get like 5 movies for 20 bucks. I'd have to say I got my money's worth on this one. I had expected horrible dialogue, crappy monsters, and shaky cameras. Well, as Meatloaf said, two outta three ain't bad.<br /><br />The acting is bad, though not as bad as some movies I've seen. Or maybe I've watched so many low budget movies recently I've lost perspective. There are some bits were the acting is downright terrible, but for the most part it's of at least High School Play level.<br /><br />The CG for the Sasquatch in this movie is probably the second-worst part. The first thing I thought when I saw it (and I noticed another reviewer agreed with me) was that a man in an ape suit would have been better. Clunky stop-motion animation would have looked better.<br /><br />So you may be asking why I call the CG the second-worst part. That's because the very worst part of the movie is the sound effects. They are loud, annoying, and constant. I've been camping, I know what insects sound like in the woods at night, and while they can be loud, they're not deafening like the cacophony in this movie. Usually when the "background" sounds drown out the movie's dialogue, it's a bad thing, but from what I caught of the dialogue of this film, I wasn't missing much.<br /><br />The action was infrequent and boring. The tension was non-existent, as was any sense of empathy with the characters. Speaking of the characters, they were all cookie-cutter and bland. The only mildly engaging byplay was between...actually, I can't think of anything. There was a line or two that made me crack a wan smile, but that was about it.<br /><br />The cinematography was decent, a step or two above what you'd normally see in a movie like this. However, it still had that "home movie" quality to it that you get with movies made on pocket change and a prayer. <br /><br />If you're like me and get a kick out of shoestring budget genre flicks, and you see this one in the dollar bin, think about grabbing it. Otherwise, stay away at all costs.
foywonder's review of this cheap STV hits the nail squarely on the head. Make sure you read it. In case you don't, a group of scientists heads off into the deep woods of the Pacific Northwest, to fumble around with a bunch of bones in an animal graveyard. The Big Foot family doesn't take kindly to this, and proceeds to pick off the team one by one, largely offscreen. Big Foot himself has a distinctly ape-like face, but is less scary overall than Harry from HARRY AND THE HENDERSONS. Most of the movie has the wooden, generic actors pretending to be scientists tromping around in the woods and yakking away. This is a no-budget movie in which very little happens, at least on screen. We do get to watch the sexiest of the females take a shower while one of her male companions watches, but nothing comes of this.
This is the biggest piece of lamo I've ever watched. It is excruciatingly boring I would have rather sat through a seminar on creationism than have watched this if i had known it was going to be as boring as it was. Not even the 40 seconds of the hot chick in the bikini with the big ta tas redeems this of anything lower than a 1.<br /><br />The reviews of this movie claiming that this movie is "unintentionally funny" are absurd and just plain WRONG. Not one thing is funny about this movie. they spend the first 50 or so minutes walking through the woods talking about stuff you wouldn't understand nor care about and it is just as lame when the people start dying because you don't even know who the people are because they are so UNINTERESTING. Honestly though, I didn't watch it to the ending, but that should say something about how horrible it is. WORST MOVIE EVER.<br /><br />Immediately after ejecting this filth from my DVD player I started scraping it against the cement in front of my house, not wanting other blockbuster customers to have to fall upon the same mistake i had made as to rent this movie. Then Zach peed his pants. Thankyou for your time.
Oh where to begin. The cinematography was great. When the movie first started because of the initial landscape scenes I thought that I was in for a good movie. Then the cgi Bigfoot showed up .It looked like a cartoon drawing of the Lion king and king Kong's love child.It totally took away from the believability of the character.Now I knew there wasn't a Bigfoot chasing people hiking around the woods for no apparent reason but a cheesy cgi cartoon.So from then on the whole movie was shot for me.The money they flushed down the toilet for the cgi they could of spent on a costume like roger Patterson did. His was the best Bigfoot costume ever no one else could match his.I am a hardcore cheesy Bigfoot movie fan and I was warned about this movie but my compulsion led me to watching this movie and I was disappointed like the previous reviews warned me about. I know after you read this review you will still say "I must watch Sasquatch hunters,must watch Sasquatch hunters." Then you will say why did I waste my good hard earned money on such a excruciatingly bad boring movie!
When i first saw this film i thought it was going to be a good sasquatch film. Usually when you have these types of movies there's generally ONE sasquatch, but in this one there is like what? 7 or 10 of them?. Acting was good, plot was OK, i liked the scenes where the sasquatch is killing the first few victims, very good camera work. I was expecting it to be a gory film but it was very little. This movie was way better than Sasquatch. The SCI-FI channel really needs to make more sasquatch films, i mean i really liked Sasquatch Mountain, Abominibal was not good, the one i'm reviewing is OK, but the movie Sasquatch was not, but I'm not reviewing that so let me get back on track. This movie is good for a rainy Saterday afternoon, but for any other occasions, no.
How did this ever come into existence? I generally love sci F/Bigfoot whatever films etc. . . but I still expect them to be written without quite so much cheese as this. The effects were sad, the lines were sadder. Avoid at all costs. I only ended up renting it because it was in the wrong case (I was looking for the Sasquatch film with Lance Henrikson in it -- still haven't seen that one). The idea of the film is actually a good one. There was a lot of potential to make a great little movie here. I just don't understand how something like this ends up like this. Go speak to the film/arts/English interested students in any high school and you'll find people who can write a better script.
It really is that bad of a movie. My buddy rented it because he, well, is an idiot. But then again, I must be an idiot too because I watched the whole damn thing! The actors were on par with high school drama geeks who think that are going places. The only place they will be going is back to waiting tables at Luby's. All I could think of while I was watching this "gem" was how it actually got made. I mean, some "screenwriter" actually thought that this premise was fresh, original and lucrative. Then some moron with money believed in the script so much that he decided to fork some cash over with the naive misconception that he was going to make a return on it. Actors were cast, locations were scouted, make-up artists were hired, computer animators fresh out of Al Collins graphic Design School were brought in and this turd started to take form.<br /><br />There obviously were a ton of things that I hated about this move but the one thing the drove me the craziest was the overuse of music. Every single minute of this flick was scored. There was not a single break in music. And at times it was mixed higher than the dialogue, not that it made you miss some vital plot point or anything.<br /><br />After it was over, we decided to watch Mystic River. It was like driving a 1980 VW Diesel Rabbit then switching to a BMW 740il. You couldn't get two more opposite movies in terms of quality.
I loved this movie, I'll admit it. This has to be the best (straight to?) video movie I've seen. Well... me and my friend decided just for shits n' giggles that we'd rent this movie. We knew what to expect and we got exactly what we expected, plus more. When that red neck gets slammed up against the tree by the Sasquatch, we literally watched that part about three to four times, it was that amazing (hysterically, of course). And why? Oh why does the main character have to roll that much? Like honestly, we know that you're in danger, rolling that much isn't gonna help all that much. But really, if this movie is in you're local video store RENT IT. It is worth the money and it's not even that bad, like it's bad, but not incredibly bad. Overall, complete amazing will be in store for you if you rent this movie.
As a long-time fan of all the Star Trek series,I found this a disappointing episode, and I wonder if the liberal use of "flashbacks" featuring Will Riker's exploits, both positive (and largely romantic) and negative (lots of pain, and a crewmate's death)was a money-saving device, as were many of their "bottle shows" (episodes in which all scenes take place on the Enterprise). Diana Muldaur(who also appeared at least twice on the original series) deserved a better final appearance than this for her character, Dr. Kate Pulaski. Loyal viewers (in the Star Trek world, is there any other kind?) also were shortchanged. This was the last episode of second season; thus, the season ended "not with a bang" but with "a whimper."
Because of the 1988 Writers Guild of America strike they had to shoot this episode in 3 days. It's pretty much crap, consisting of repeat cut + pasted clips from Season 2 and was described by its writer, Maurice Hurley as "terrible, just terrible." <br /><br />Why the producers couldn't just wait to shoot something decent who knows. I'm guessing because of the strike the production ran out of money and could only release a flashback episode or maybe Roddenberry was too sick at the time to be able to veto this half-assery. This episode also marks the final appearance of Diana Muldaur (Dr. Katherine Pulaski) on the series.
I grew up watching and loving TNG. I just recently finished watching the entire series ST Voyager on DVD, which may have heightened my sense of disgust with this episode, as the difference in style and approach between the two shows couldn't be more stark. The idea may have been good if used as an opportunity to further expand Riker's character, which is how it probably would have been treated on VOY. They could have featured memories that would be "new" to the audience, rather than simply regurgitating old show clips. The in and out transitions between the "memories" and the "present" in this episode start as cliché in the beginning, and very quickly become intolerable as the tired pattern wears on and on. Bar none- worst episode ever.
I am a huge fan of David Lynch. This film, however, was a quite disappointing experience. Apart from the ambient background music – which really sets the mood of the film – it lacks almost all the qualities that I've come to associate with Lynch's work. The visuals are dull, to say the least, and the dialog is to vague and monotone to be of any interest.<br /><br />This feels more like a film students awkward try to do an arty dogma movie than the work of an experienced director. I've seen a lot of amateur movies with far superior camera-work, scenery, sound and script. This film lacks almost all artistic qualities. I feel as though I'm watching one of Davids home videos, produced during a weekend trip with some friends.
I finally got to have a look at this experimental Lynch short after waiting for so long....and unfortunately, it wasn't worth it! Even for a die hard Lynch fan, I found this to be really tedious....<br /><br />nothing happens, there are long, long, long painful pauses where nothing happens, long, monotonous speeches where nothing is said and the whole thing finishes with the viewer not knowing, or caring, what the hell it was all about, what happened before and what happened afterward. <br /><br />There was a Mulholland Drive allusion - the blonde girl and the brunette girl were very Diane and Rita -esque, and a Lost Highway moment with allusions to some significant event that happened but cannot be talked about clearly. <br /><br />Unfortunately, It's all very uninteresting and very dull, nothing happens, it's very forgettable and I think i will delete it from my computer and forget I ever watched it. Sorry David!
Wow, I love and respect pretty much anything that David Lynch has done. However, this movie is akin to a first filmmaker's attempt at making a pseudo art video. <br /><br />To give you a couple of examples: <br /><br />1. David Lynch is typically a visual filmmaker, however, this had little visual artistic content (blank walls, "up shots" with ceiling in the background) <br /><br />2. David Lynch typically takes great pride in audio, however, in this you could even hear the video camera's hum. <br /><br />In fact, it is very hard to swallow the idea that he had anything to do with this movie. unless...<br /><br />...this is a joke, on David's part, to force fans search his website (for hours) only to find this drivel. I hope so, because at least that idea is funny.
...but this just isn't working and I am surprised to see how many people consider it good. On what grounds? There are some loose hints here and there, but the whole material is self-indulgent and unconvincing. Lynch's movies are generally intriguing because they generate a sense of confusion and yet, are very playful when doing that. There is some visual sense, there are some subplots, characters, ideas etc. But this is dull and yes, pointless. Because whatever there is to explore is either to "small", either too far-fetched, or simply told before in a superior manner. It's just Lynch exploring DV, nothing more so it should be treated like this. 1/10
I love all his work but this looks like nothing.. sorry.. This looks more like a "David Lynch copycat". I think people like it only because "it's from David Lynch".
As hard as it is for me to believe, with all of the awful reality shows out there over the past few years, this one has to take over the top spot for worst one yet. I am still wondering if this was actually just a spoof done by the SCTV gang. If Andy Kaufmann were still alive I'd be sure he was behind this. Can a rock band stoop any lower than has INXS to do such a shameful thing as this? The premise is simple and moronic. Audition a bunch of karaoke rejects to become the new lead singer of INXS, to take the place of Michael Hutchence (who committed suicide in 1997). Eight years and no hits later, the band commit the ultimate act of patheticness by subjecting themselves to auditioning a bunch of talentless wannabes to be the new lead singer of a band that is 20 years past its prime. So they trot all of these awful singers (I thought American Idol had its share of doozies) who do atrocious renditions of just about every classic (and predictable) rock song imaginable. And then they cut to the INXS band members who are seriously discussing the merits of each of these candidates. You could see better (and more original) rock performers at just about any night club in any city in the world.<br /><br />It has all the usual uncreative elements of every other reality show. Lame reality participants, lame interviews, lame host/emcee, lame "judging" of performances, and the lame booting of one participant at the end of each show. Can these shows get any more predictable? It's clearly a publicity stunt on the part of the band; a last gasp of hope at rekindling their lost stardom before they are finally buried into oblivion. Michael Hutchence, if he had any shred of dignity when alive, has to be rolling over in his grave. Not that INXS were ever a great band, but I had no idea they were this pathetic. If INXS are at all representative of what rock and roll has become, this show would be the final proof that rock and roll is once and for all, dead.
First of all; it's very dilettantish to try describe way of history only from positions of guns, germs and steel. The same tried to do Marxists from economical positions.<br /><br />The reason of Western success can't be just dumb luck, the advantages of domesticated plants and animals. We see, that all around the world any advantages and bonuses are complete useless if they aren't wisely managed. In the Japan there isn't huge natural resources, but Japan is one of the top world economies, the same situation in Singapore, but in Nigeria, country with rich oil resources, there are only middle-low success. Both of this nations had and still have access to Western technology and inventions, but why such gap? <br /><br />In the end of movie Daimond declared, that it's very important to understand factors of guns, germs and steel, to UNDERSTAND. Maybe the main factor of world's difference is not geography, but people ability to understand and use things? The mental ability to understand. And in this case geography is only subordinated.
This film is an attempt to present Jared Diamonds theory of "Guns, Germs and Steel", explaining how Europeans have dominated much of the globe.<br /><br />The version I saw of this documentary came on 2 discs covering 3 hours. I think the information could have been presented in 20 minutes. There are completely useless scenes of: Professor Jared Diamond watching birds through binoculars, Professor Jared Diamond failing to use a bow and arrow properly, Professor Jared Diamond firing a muzzle-loader badly. Was this documentary supposed to make a hero out of "Professor Jared diamond?". This part of the documentary was so bad, it could have been a spoof. The worst was when Diamond is shown breaking down and weeping when touring the malaria ward in an African hospital. None of this helps me understand his theory of "Guns, Germs and Steel." BTW, "Guns, Germs and Steel" is said about 100 times. "Can the Europeans guns, germs and steel get them out of this dire situation? Stay tuned and find out!" When he finally gets down to business, his theory is equal parts interesting and utterly boring. Europeans conquered the natives peoples of other lands, because they had guns and fine blades against stone and wooden weapons. Do I really need a professor to convince me of this? The parts of his theory that explain how the Europeans came to have the advantages that allow the conquest are interesting, but the coverage is paper-thin.<br /><br />In the end, I think the documentary was only trying to convince me that non-Europeans are as capable as Europeans. If I'm not a racist, I already know this. If I'm a racist, Jared Diamond is not going to convince me with his bumbling use of native implements.<br /><br />I don't think adults are the intended audience for this documentary. Kids may enjoy this more than I, though. I have read that the book from which this documentary is much better than the documentary.
Jared Diamond made a point in the first episode that other peoples of the world didn't have animals to domesticate but Europeans did, and that accounts for why we were able to make steel and invent complex machines.<br /><br />But then in the third episode he says that when the Europeans in South Africa got too far north they ran into Zulu people and other tribes that *herded cattle and planted crops*. So what explains their lack of technological, economic, and artistic achievement if they had the key things the author claims are needed for success?<br /><br />Diamond also claims germs in the form of smallpox (brought to North America by black slaves) were our biggest weapon. Well, if 150 Europeans can defeat 20,000 native warriors and 400 non-military South Africans can defeat 10,000 Zulus *without a single casualty* in either case, then I think you have to conclude that germs are irrelevant. With or without germs, we were going to succeed.<br /><br />He says Malaria stopped Europeans from colonizing further North, killing "thousands" of Europeans while not affecting Africans. (I'd like to know real numbers but he doesn't say.) Then at the end he says today Malaria is killing thousands of Africans and that is why they can't catch up with us. So which is it, Jared? Did Malaria help the Africans by halting Eurpeans or hurt them? And how come Europe did okay despite massive plagues throughout our history? <br /><br />He also seems far too eager to say that the reasons Europeans succeeded was because of dumb luck. At times when the evidence threatens to overwhelm his rickety theories he's reluctant to admit that maybe Europeans were successful because they worked for it. It's sad watch this obvious neo-Marxist contort reality to try to prove his point.
It is so rare that I get to rate a movie without having some reservation as to whether I should have gone up one or down one but this one.....Did the explosion rate a notch higher, or one down because my brain hurt trying to CREATE a plot. No, THIS ONE....yeah, a solid, no brainer.....ONE/ten
It was just a terrible movie. No one should waste their time. Go see something else. This movie is, without a doubt, one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my life. If you want to see a good movie, don't see Made Men.
Right away, this film was ridiculous. Not that it didn't have redeeming aspects… For example, the best thing about this film was the beautiful background scenery. Anyone not living on the East Coast should know the South doesn't have beautiful mountains like those found in the West. I knew it was Utah right off the bat, but perhaps Dalton couldn't suppress his English accent, so they had to excuse it by saying this was a southern town. Subverting his accent into a Southern one was easier. Sure the film has plot twists, but its phony sense of place was something I couldn't get past. It's not like Utah doesn't have meth labs... so why the writers thought it necessary to pretend it was in the South is beyond me. <br /><br />One other thing in action pictures always puzzles me. Why do they always make the "cocking" sound effect when the character pulls out an automatic handgun? It seemed every other sound effect in this movie was a "chuk-chich" signifying a 9mm was loaded and ready to fire. Of course, the weapons already had rounds chambered so this was unnecessary. <br /><br />Lastly, the pyrotechnics were WAY over the top. But hey, this film was targeted to a certain 'market segment' I suppose... It's too bad. Each of the actors can act, but this film was lame.
So this was an HBO "Made for TV Movie" eh? Is that an excuse for such a pathetic plot and terrible acting? Such a shame to see Jim Belushi reduced to a role so repetitive (shot at, survived, lies, beaten up, survives, shot at, lies and so ad infinitum. Call that a script? As for the Brits, embarrassing to see Timothy Dalton's pathetic (or was he just taking the p***, depends how much he was paid I guess?) attempt at a Southern Sheriff). As for that other Brit, the bleached blond one, what a w***er! There is a trend towards glorifying these "English speaking" (sic) super-violent thugs lately, perhaps thanks to Mr. Madonna's two movies succeed in entertaining and justify the violence by skillful use of irony and humour, like Pulp Fiction does. However, this movie discredits and devalues the genre. definately one to miss.
That's what the title should be, anyway.<br /><br />This movie combines guns, explosives, and mindless killing to make one flop of an "action" movie. Let me make my point in a series of questions: answers type deal.<br /><br />What happens in the movie? People die.<br /><br />Is that it? Yes.<br /><br />What is the plot about? What plot?<br /><br />What is the point the movie is trying to make? Killing is the only solution.<br /><br />What are the characters like? Extremely flawed and contradictive toward their own personalities.<br /><br />Is there anything good about this movie? Yes. I'm sure they used some nice Panavision cameras in filming it.<br /><br />If you like constant killing and greed, then watch the movie. If you happen to be repulsed by such low-standard "entertainment", then "Made Men" is not for you.<br /><br />To sum it up, the plotline stinks, the characters aren't worth their while, the storyline is completely resistable, and nothing fits together.<br /><br />This proves one thing: the actors, directors, and whoever helped make this movie certainly aren't "Made".
I think "The Best of Times" was a lost cause from the get go. The initial premise (guy drops the winning touchdown pass against a rival high school team, can never seem to get over it and then tries to reunite the two teams to play again) is one of the dumbest I have ever heard. Since Ron Shelton went on to write much better sports films I wonder if there was more to it then that. I hope this film wasn't green lit with Shelton pitching the story as I wrote above.<br /><br />So we have the premise. Going from there you would think, or hope, that there might be a few twists along the way to keep things lively. No such luck. This script follows every predictable cliché you can think of. There isn't a moment in this film you won't see coming a mile away before the film reveals it and the ending.... well if you can't figure out the ending by the end of the first reel then you haven't paid attention or seen any other sports movie in your life.<br /><br />Robin Williams and Kurt Russell star (and bore) in the leads. Williams is the poor schmo who dropped the big pass and Russell is the quarterback who threw the fateful pass. Gee, do you think Russell will suit up just once more to see if he and Williams can right a wrong that the town has never forgotten? This is such a lame duck comedy with a lame duck script that one can only shake their heads wondering what might have been. Sure there are a few chuckles and, to be honest, there is one truly funny scene. Williams and Russell have marital problems and the wives invite them over for dinner to resolve things. Neither guy realizes that they have been invited over on a Monday and, yes, Monday Night Football is on. Keeping in mind that the two teams playing have a combined one victory, the men (Williams especially) try to resist the temptation to find out how the game is going. The scene dissolves into some hilarious bits as Williams goes to check the score by using a bathroom visit as a ruse. When he returns he coughs the score to Russell. Later as Russell is starting to make the moves on his wife Williams wheels the television into their view from another room.<br /><br />It's an inspired and funny scene in a mostly uninspired and stupid movie.
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Robin Williams fit into the part like a rhino would fit into a tutu, even so his performance was still pitiful. Kurt Russell was more believable but still was awful. The plot left much to be desired and the rest of the acting was also terrible. The only thing this movie had going for it was the trailer, which suckered me in to wasting 90 minutes of my life which could have been better spent trying to lick the back of my head.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and burn this movie if you have it. If not, just be happy you don't.
Actress Patty Duke wrote an insightful, funny, rough-hewn book about her career as an actress, her crazy-quilt love-life, and her manic depressive episodes and suicide attempts which almost put her away for good. With this rich material to draw from (and Patty playing herself in the final act), one would think a crack TV-director like Gilbert Cates could bring it all together on film, but "Call Me Anna" is a pale shadow of Duke's autobiography. For those who haven't read the book, the sketchy narrative (leaping forward in time) isn't absorbing, we are never allowed to get our bearings with what's happening, and the production seems stunted by a low budget. The actors are miscast, and the value of having Duke herself finally appear does not pay off--the film's phony reality is so thick at this point that Patty can't bring stability to the scenario. It appears as if the producers were sincere enough (and consciousness-minded) to anxiously steer the film towards Duke's ultimate diagnosis and mental freedom, but they left out many dramatic opportunities in the process.
A truly muddled incomprehensible mess. Most things in the film look more or less like 1987, but then there are futuristic things just thrown in, like the policeman's ray gun. And that car! The director seemed to be in love with colored lights. The only really notable performance was the girl who played Valerie, but since there was no cast listing, I don't know which actress that was. This one is worth missing. Grade: F
Weak,stale, tired, cliched; wants to be Basic Instinct, but misses opportunity after opportunity for fresh perspectives, new insights. Insipid, trite, grotesque, and without the possibly-redeeming value of brevity; oh, wait...it was only 90 minutes long...it must have just *seemed* a lot longer! I'd rather clean bus station toilets with my toothbrush than have to sit through this again. I'm expressing an opinion here: I guess this means I didn't like it.
Perhaps because I was so young, innocent and BRAINWASHED when I saw it, this movie was the cause of many sleepless nights for me. I haven't seen it since I was in seventh grade at a Presbyterian school, so I am not sure what effect it would have on me now. However, I will say that it left an impression on me... and most of my friends. It did serve its purpose, at least until we were old enough and knowledgeable enough to analyze and create our own opinions. I was particularly terrified of what the newly-converted post-rapture Christians had to endure when not receiving the mark of the beast. I don't want to spoil the movie for those who haven't seen it so I will not mention details of the scenes, but I can still picture them in my head... and it's been 19 years.
I was raised in a "very Christian" household since birth. I was saved before I saw this movie and the rest of the series and was forced to watch it in a youth group at my church. This movie was highly disturbing. I saw it when I was about 12 years old and literally had nightmares about it for years. I used to lay awake in bed and listen for the sounds of my mom's footsteps upstairs. If I didn't hear her footsteps, I would sneak upstairs to make sure she hadn't been raptured. I used to pray so hard every night for salvation because I was terrified of Jesus forgetting me. This is definitely not something I will show to my kids until they are much older, if at all. It took me years to shake the fear that this movie gave me.
First off there is nothing wrong with studying Daniel, Revelation, Matthew 24, Isaiah and other prophetic scriptures. There is also nothing wrong with making a film such as this to attempt to present the gospel message. So my qualms with this movie are not in either its sincerity or aspirations. As a Christian, though an amillenialist, I believe there will be a great tribulation and I believe Christ will return as he said as much. So even though I have disagreement with this film about the rapture that is not why I rate this movie so low.<br /><br />No, what makes me rate this movie so low is not its sincerity or its message, but rather its lack of production values, awful script, mediocre acting, and pitiful FX. This movie ranks down there with some of the cheesiest scifi fodder of the 1950s. No, this movie ranks down there with Plan 9 From Outerspace. This movie failed to age well and was probably dated by the time they made a sequel.<br /><br />The apocalypse genre film producers could have learned how not to make an end times film from this, but they failed. The Left Behind Series, The Apocalypse series, and the Omega Code series all failed to learn from this because they addressed the FX problems and the dated look problem, but their scripts are still poor, and their acting is wooden.<br /><br />There are great Christian films, with extremely low budgets, but this film is not one of them. I'm surprised the MST3K crew never lampooned this one.
First of all, I saw this movie when I was 7 years old at a Christian Scholl I attended. Needless to say that I was scared out of mind. Not because it was scary but because the content.Cmon...I was 7. Anyway, the cinematography was pretty bad and the acting was cheesy. That's very bad considering that I was only 7 and I remember that. The one thing that still haunts me is that dreadful song "I wish we all were ready" where the chorus ends with "...you were left behind". I wouldn't suggest seeing this one. I probably will, just for nostalgic reason. Besides, I'm sure the remake is much better. The best part of this movie though, has to be when everyone "dissapears"; vacant cars crashing, lawnmowers running on their own...pretty hilarious.
As some other comments show, this movie might scare you, when you're a little child. (And that is probably all that it is good for.)<br /><br />However, if you're older, this movie only does one thing: suck majorly -and thereby I don't mean the acting, its soundtrack, cutting or s.th. like that. I'm simply talking about the "plot" (if you can call it that). <br /><br />SPOILERS ahead ------------------------<br /><br />I don't want to give any more spoilers than necessary (if after reading this, you really still want to watch this movie) but if you graduated from any school, this is just a big insult of your intelligence. When watching this, I was stunned most of the time, because what was happening was just THAT stupid.<br /><br />This includes:<br /><br />-the forming of UNITE (an evil UN-association) <br /><br />--> we are just supposed to believe it's evil. is it even evil at all? if so: why is it evil?<br /><br />-the mark of evil in the form of a tattoo <br /><br />--> there is no necessity to impose this on the people, so why the hell (no pun intended) are they doing it? <br /><br />-inviting Christ to your heart merely as lip service <br /><br />-->because there's nothing anybody, who in this movie is considered "a real Christian", ever does, besides saying that stupid prayer. so...just say that prayer before the rapture and you're saved - no matter what?! <br /><br />Thus, rating 1/10
Written and acted by sincere amateurs, produced by some exploitation monger, this is dull and hard to watch.<br /><br />Not the worst movie ever, but at least schlock like _Plan 9 From Outer Space_ usually had a real actor or two. I'd recommend _A Thief In The Night_ only to hardcore ironists and hardcore Dispensationalists. I'm neither.<br /><br />Don't believe me? Watch it for free (albeit sourced from poor VHS) here: http://www.archive.org/details/Thief-In-The-Night<br /><br />Relevant links added mostly to reach IMDb's 10-line minimum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/3199/thief-in-the-night-se-a/
I was forced to watch this whole series of films as a young child and I was told they were REAL! Talk about child abuse. I would have been less frightened of Dracula or Frankenstein. This series is only good for people who believe in this ridiculousness and who want to indoctrinate their children into believing the same. Besides the obvious issues associated with brainwashing and indoctrination, there's also the bad acting, bad writing, and BAD "special effects". They are just all around terrible, terrible movies. Yes, believable (and horrifying) to a kid, but I can't imagine a grown-up buying into this shlock. Although, I must say, that I would be interested in seeing them today, as an adult. They might have a certain midnight/cult movie feel to them.
This is an interesting treatment of a subject that is quite controversial, (just read the other comments on this film). Apparently, you either love it or hate it and it seems most people make that distinction based on whether they believe the tribulation and end times will happen as portrayed in the movie.<br /><br />Basically, the film - and its sequels - were made for about $1.30 each. The production values are right down there with "Plan 9 From Outer Space" and the acting is about on the same level as "Glen or Glenda", (my apologies to Ed Wood). Putting aside the religious message, the story is as scary as they come. Add in even the slightest thought that the story might actually be close to something that might happen in the future and it becomes even scarier.<br /><br />This movie, and its sequels, didn't try to bring in the reasons why the tribulation happened when it did. "Left Behind" and "The Omega Code" tried to get in everything "Thief" did and to explain all the politics and maneuvering in the Middle East leading up to it. The net effect was "Thief" did a much better job on the scary part of movie, instead of spreading itself too thin trying to explain what was happening in the Middle East at the same time. <br /><br />Forget the politics and watch this movie, and its sequels, for what they are - horror stories. That they may be horror stories told, indirectly, by God makes them just that much more frightening. If it makes you think about the subject, it has done its job - even if you never believe.
I saw this movie twice through a pentecostal church my family attended in Nanaimo BC in the 1970's. I was of the tender age of 6, my brother 4, then again when I was 8 my brother 6. This movie terrified my brother and I and shaped how we viewed the world with distrust. It wasn't just the movie, but it was also the philosophy that engulfs so many "christians" about the "mark of the beast"and the rapture. This movie, the church, and a volatile neglectful upbringing, lead to severe paranoia towards the future. For years, I lived under the delusional affects of the church and fear of being forgotten by Christ. I am now 40 years old. Went through years of counseling. I once explained to a psychiatrist this movie and the belief system of the church and family. I was pegged with a delusional disorder. I actually began to believe this, it was my brother who reminded me, that this cultic philosophy actually happened. I no longer fear the future, I have come to terms with the fear injected into it's members by the church. I have taken this experience to fulfill a purpose, I am nearing my licensure as a Psychologist specializing in childhood trauma.
The sects that capitalise on this film are well known for their claim to take the 'message' of the bible without any alteration or extra-biblical influence. The existence of this film is solely due to the fact that there is no such thing.<br /><br />If you want to know what the born-again branch of Christianity were harping on about in the seventies just look up the word 'rapture' in a dictionary of cults and sects. It's quicker than sitting through this waste of celluloid.<br /><br />Poor acting, uneven sound quality and a script that could just as easily have been written by Jack T Chick (paranoid Christian conspiracy theorist for those not familiar with the Evangelical scene). You could not really put this into the 'so bad it's good' category so its only audience are either those with a pamphlet collection looking to branch out or the extremely paranoid.
I remember being forced (yes--literally FORCED) to see this film by a Southern Baptist Preacher when I was a kid, and even then I loved its awfulness. It's designed to scare poor suckers into being "saved." The only thing that "saved" me was the fact that it finally ended and I could go out and have a REAL life.<br /><br />Check out the chapter on this film in Sarah Diamond's book "The Politics of the Christian Right." FASCINATING. And certainly more interesting than the movie!
Two films are useful for scaring people to God, this and 'Event Horizon'. One has a significant and poignant message, the other is as one-dimensional as a religious movie can get. Too bad Paul Anderson went on to the accursed Resident Evil movies, he really had something going.<br /><br />Thief in the Night is hampered by many obvious independent film attributes (acting, storytelling, dialog, and persuasion) and it's obvious what the film's intentions are from the start. The Christian film industry hasn't learned from the failures of this, so we are stuck with The Omega Code, Left Behind, and the other Tribulation movies. Their underlying element is that they are so concerned with selling their message: "Get saved, folks!" that everything else becomes second to whacking the audience over the head with a Bible.<br /><br />Overall, I can't believe I'm even writing this much about a movie this ineffective. Skip it entirely and go back to Sam Neil gouging out his eyeballs. 1 out of 5.
Is this film a joke? Is it a comedy? Surely it isn't a serious thriller? There is no suggestion that there is any intended humor, but on quite a few occasions the poor acting, poor directing, and appalling script had the audience laughing out loud in the cinema. The plot is acceptable - a promising young artist just reaching his peak shot dead by an assassin he walks in on by mistake. The killer sees the young artists work portfolio he is carrying and decides to attend an exhibition of his work. At the exhibition the assassin meets the dead artists sister and they end up falling in love. It is all very predictable stuff and the end will not have anyone guessing as it is so poorly scripted. The film takes place mainly in and around Vienna, Austria, and shows what a beautiful city it is. Do not waste your time on this film though, unless you are studying how NOT to act, direct or script a film!
Imagine pulling back the mask of a lethal assassin and finding Barbara Cartland there... that's what happens with this film.<br /><br />The opening showed promise, but soon it drops all pretenses of being a thriller (or even an imaginative love story) and the only reason they made this story becomes abundantly clear: to fill a gap in their female viewing market by creating yet another re-hash of 'mis-understood, brooding bad-boy' (Andrei) meets 'innocent, whimsical beauty' (Paula). <br /><br />Rather than waste any time in creating an original premise, the filmmakers went straight for the money-shot: the bad boy being tamed by said whimsical beauty. Thence follows a string of insincere and heavily-clichéd love scenes sprinkled with pseudo philosophical/poetic fluff. Andrei's admission of being (eponymously) a 'poet' is levered in to round out the perceived qualities a Byronic hero should have - but even when we're told in heavy, underlined writing who and what he is, it's still difficult to believe it - or care.<br /><br />For a Byronic hero/antihero to work, the story needs subtlety, style and innovation - all of which are utterly absent here. This is not a modern day Phantom of the Opera, it's just what happens when a weak and rather silly woman (with loose knicker elastic) dates a bad man, who, after meeting her, seems as dangerous as bunny slippers.<br /><br />The performances might have saved this film, had they been any good: the female lead is preoccupied with looking sexy and 'otherworldly', no matter how forced or ridiculous; and poor Dougray Scott appears to have been drugged as he shambles through his part. This is not his best work. The glimmers of interest were brought by Jürgen Prochnow as 'Vashon', and Andrew Lee Potts as the young photographer/brother. A better movie would have offed the sister and kept the brother instead.
Chris Rock deserves better than he gives himself in "Down To Earth." As directed by brothers Chris & Paul Weitz of "American Pie" fame, this uninspired remake of Warren Beatty's 1978 fantasy "Heaven Can Wait," itself a rehash of 1941's "Here Comes Mr. Jordan," lacks the abrasively profane humor that won Chris Rock an Emmy for his first HBO special. Predictably, he spouts swear words from A to Z, but he consciously avoids the F-word. Anybody who saw this gifted African-American comic in "Lethal Weapon 4," "Dogma," or "Nurse Betty" knows he can elicit more laughter with the F-word than Martin Lawrence and Eddie Murphy put together. Sadly, despite a few witty one-liners, "Down To Earth" hits Rock bottom both as a contrived comedy and an improbable interracial romance.<br /><br />"Down to Earth" utterly destroys any good will that the Weitz Brothers generated with their landmark gross-out face "American Pie." This disposable drivel qualifies as a contrived as well as confusing comedy with a thoroughly improbable color-blind interracial romance. Unfortunately, a more than competent cast—among them "The Full Monty's" Mark Addy, Chazz Palminteri of "Analyze This," "SCTV's" Eugene Levy, and newcomer Brian Rhodes as Charles Wellington, Jr.—are wasted in flat-footed, sketchy roles. Hardcore Rock fans will undoubtedly accuse their favorite comedian with trying to fix something that was never broken. Abysmally written by Lance Crouther, Ali Le Roi, Louis CK, and Rock, "Down To Earth" casts Chris as a messenger who rides a bike by day in the Big Apple and gets booed off the stage at night in Harlem's celebrated Apollo Theatre. Poor Lance Barton (Chris Rock) suffers from severe stage fright. Nevertheless, his charitable manager Whitney Daniels (Frankie Faison of "Hannibal") sticks with him through thick and thin. After Lance learns the Apollo Theatre will hold one final amateur night extravaganza, he implores Whitney to get him in the line-up. Excuse me, but if Lance is such a deadbeat stand-up comic, why does the Apollo keep inviting him back? Meanwhile, fate has something else in store for Lance. While pedaling home on his bike, our protagonist spots a pretty lady, Sontee (Regina King of "Jerry Maguire"), crossing the street, but he doesn't see the bus that collides with him and kills him. Wham! Lance Barton levitates skyward with a halo wreathed around his head. In Heaven, which resembles a cruise ship nightclub, Lance learns that an overzealous angel, Mr. Keyes (Eugene Levy of "Stay Tuned"), timed his death 40 years ahead of schedule.<br /><br />Heavenly honcho Mr. King (Chazz Palminteri of "Analyze This"), God's right-hand guy, apologizes and escorts Lance back to earth. The snag is Lance cannot reclaim his corpse, so he must inhabit another body. The best that Mr. Keyes can come up with is ruthless, white, 60-year old tycoon Charles Wellington. Wellington's adulterous wife Amber (Jennifer Coolidge of "American Pie") and his unscrupulous personal aide Winston (Greg Germann of "Sweet November") have just tried to poison him. Reluctantly, before Wellington's body vanishes, Lance accepts it conditionally as a loaner until Keyes can locate a more appropriate body. Meanwhile, Lance-as-Wellington encounters Sontee again. She is a nurse activist protesting his decision to privatize a Brooklyn community hospital that serves the poor. While Regina King brings a surfeit of charisma to her role as a crusading health care worker, she plays a character who bypasses credible motivation in her affairs with Wellington. Although he is no longer black, Lance not only tries to woo Sontee but also win a gig at the Apollo.<br /><br />"Down To Earth" features Rock in his most unfunny role. The comedian's reason for making this movie seems questionable. Reportedly, he ate lunch with Warren Beatty and told Beatty that he loved the original script that scenarist Elaine May had penned for Beatty. Initially, Beatty tried the race-reversal gimmick himself in his own version by trying to cast Muhammad Ali in the title role of "Heaven Can Wait." The deal fell through, and Beatty headlined the movie himself. According to Rock, his longtime co-writers and he thought that they could 'annihilate' this classic. Moreover, he justified his choice of "Heaven Can Wait" based on his philosophy to "Do Something you can only do when you're hot." Earlier, Rock rejected a script about a busload of touring rappers, because he saw little opportunity to stretch his image in such an outing. As a lifeless comedian in "Down to Earth," Rock doesn't so much stretch his image as he inverts it for the worst! This half-baked concert film with an annoying plot does as much to cremate his comic reputation as it does the Weitz Brothers! You know a film about a comedian is in dire straits when a scene at the nightclub is played so you cannot hear the jokes, only the laughter. Similarly, the casting of Mark Addy as Wellington's butler who speaks the Queen's English but is in reality a commoner from Michigan defies logic, too. Addy is an actual Englishman, and he doesn't have to fake an accent; his accent is genuine. The major overriding quandary with "Down to Earth" is the on-again-off-again, look-a-like switcheroo that the characters make so Chris Rock doesn't disappear completely from the sight for more than a few seconds. Although Chris spends half the movie as white guy Wellington, audiences see him largely as Lance, undercutting the comic irony of watching his stocky, bald-headed, Caucasian white, alter-ego perform ghetto humor and chant derogatory hip-hop lyrics. Incredibly, Rock served double-duty as the film's executive producer and one of its four scribes. The mystery is how such a wealth of talent could grind out such an awkward, misguided muddle of a comedy. About the only redeeming feature of "Down to Earth" is Jamshied Sharifi's superb orchestral film score.
Chris Rock, apparently desperate for a cozy star-vehicle which would cross his appeal over to white and mainstream black audiences, updates the hit 1978 comedy "Heaven Can Wait" with an urban agenda. He plays a struggling comedian involved in a car accident who has his soul removed too soon from his body--consequently, his angels must find another body to place him in, and can only come up with that of a white businessman. Rewriting a movie as bland and sentimental as "Heaven Can Wait" only shows that Rock's eye was on the box-office (this was strictly a corporate move organized by the most mercenary of Hollywood players). Why not strive for something loftier or more memorable than a silly reincarnation comedy that culminates with an Evening at the Apollo? Terrific supporting cast (including the usually-reliable Regina King, the wonderful Mark Addy, Wanda Sykes, Eugene Levy, and terrific Frankie Faison) do what they can, but Rock seems awkward and unsure of himself throughout. *1/2 from ****
The main character Lance Barton gets killed and to heaven before his time. When heaven learns about the mistake he is given the body of just deceased rich old and white Mr. Wellington.<br /><br />A young black guy in a old white mans body still behaving like the young black man is maybe funny if you see it done by an old white actor. In this movie I ended up reminding myself several times: "Chris Rock is supposed to be an old white guy".<br /><br />The whole concept does not play as intended: The "illusion" is not transported well and the love story is not believable at all. The fact that all you see is Chris Rock playing a young black guy, because the old white person everyone is supposed to see is only shown in small scenes, is to much of a challenge for the viewers "suspension of disbelief".
Black guy becomes rich white guy, and rich white guy seems to embrace hip-hop culture, and most of the "funny" moments of this film play off of this. The problem I have is that it doesn't work and almost never works.<br /><br />OK, so no one would expect Lance to grab a body like that and suddenly start acting like Charles Wellington. That would be too much to ask. I'll grant that. But at the same time, it goes too far the other direction. I'm supposed to imagine a rich white guy singing rap and completely upending things, playing like he's a bastion of hip-hop culture, and people just *accept* him? And what about Sontee, who falls in love with him *as a rich white guy*, even though she doesn't care about his money or power? This is so completely unbelievable it's not even funny.<br /><br />I just couldn't suspend disbelief and I couldn't finish the movie. I added one extra star because it did make me laugh, even hard, a couple of times. But I just couldn't get get past the whole "white guy doing hip hop" thing that has never been well done in any movie I've ever seen that tries it. This was no exception.
This movie is a re-write of the 1978 Warren Beatty movie, "Heaven Can Wait", but it is written for the stand-up comedic style of Mr Rock. The premise remains the same: Lance Barton, (Rock) is taken before his life time is up and works a deal with God's representative, Mr King, to come back to earth as someone else. As in Beatty's movie; he chooses the murdered Charles Wellington, a rich white man, all because he fancies Sontee Jenkins (Regina King) who happens to turn up at Wellington's house during the murder. The role of Mrs Wellington and her lover suffers in this remake and the idea to turn an aged white multi-millionaire into a stand up black comedian who tries to woo Sontee simply does not work. Also the intercuts used to show Rock as Wellington and then as the real 'white' Wellington, fail miserably. Improvements could have been made to the original Beatty plot - which in itself did not masterfully portray the life-after-death idea - but they certainly were not to be found in "Down To Earth".
DOWN TO EARTH / (2001) * (out of four)<br /><br />By Blake French:<br /><br />"Down to Earth" is such a mislead and desperate comedy it makes sitting home on the couch watching a Chris Rock standup-comedy act on TV look like heaven. Speaking of heaven, the film is based on the 1978 movie "Heaven Can Wait." That was a good movie, and this is good-to demonstrate how a group of aspiring screenwriters can take decent material and turn it into garbage. Directors Chris and Paul Weitz miss nearly every target. From concept to storytelling, "Down to Earth" fails miserably; this is one incredibly bad production.<br /><br />Chris Rock is a lousy standup comedian, both in his role in this movie and in the real life. He plays Lance Barton, whose manager, (Frankie Faison) even feels sorry for him when he is booed off stage during amateur night at a local theatre. Soon after the script establishes his lack of talent, the character is killed by a speeding truck. Death, played by Eugene Levy, has made a mistake, taking Lance before his number was up. God's assistant (Chazz Palminteri) is very angry and decides to let Lance make up the remainder of his time on Earth, as long as he takes the only available body of a 60 year old white millionaire.<br /><br />The old man's name is Mr. Wellington, whose life has problems of its own. His wife (Jennifer Coolidge) is having an affair with his assistant (Greg Germann), who is robbing him of his money. But that's all right because Lance, inside Mr. Wellington, has fallen in love with a young black woman named Sontee (Regina King.) Meanwhile, there are plots to kill Wellington, Lance attempting to get a better body, and Sontee's confused feelings dealing with a hospital situation involving Mr. Wellington's finances.<br /><br />"Down to Earth" has some good ideas, but they are in a pointless and unconvincing love story filled with contrivances and recycled material. The biggest problem it runs into is how we perceive Lance as Mr. Wellington. Chris Rock is the actor with popularity and publicity, so he is not going to be absent from most of this movie; all of the characters see the new Lance as Mr. Wellington, but we see him as Chris Rock. This is convenient for the love story; we believe a young woman would fall for Lance, but in reality, he is actually an old, gray-haired geezer. That is not so convincing.<br /><br />The one-joke comic situation is supposed to be watching an old man doing funny things that are really done by a young black man. But what inspires laughter is when characters run into conflicts without their knowledge. Just look at "There's Something About Mary." In the funny scenes the characters are exposed to awkward experiences, and not at their will. Here, Lance knows he is in an old man's body, and does things old men would not normally do. If Lance did not know the body he was in then that may have had potential.<br /><br />Another problem with the concept: we never knew Mr. Wellington in the first place, so how can we compare Lance in his body when we do not know what he was like originally. To top everything off, Chris Rock needs to be the center of attention here, and makes the character too much like Rock. He recites simple standup routine jokes that are tedious and painful; his dialogue is so obvious, wooden and straightforward. I hated the film's sense of humor. There are so many unfunny jokes and horrible comic situations. It is like watching Chris Rock being Chris Rock, not a character in a movie.<br /><br />Let's emphasize the positives in "Down to Earth." Mark Addy does not do any worse here than he did in "The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas." Eugene Levy and Chazz Palmentari are well cast, but they are at the mercy of a scalped script. Those are all the good qualities I can mention at this time, and if you give me another week to recollect, it is not likely that I will come up with any more.
When I first heard about "Down To Earth," I was pretty excited. I'm a pretty big fan a Chris Rock, he was especially hilarious in Dogma. But this film proved to be a disappointment. Chris Rock's performance was not nearly as good as his past performances, and the movie was just very badly directed as a whole.<br /><br />First off, Chris Rock. He plays the entire movie as a standup comedy routine. Obviously, this works fine in the scenes where he's supposed to be doing standup, but in the rest of the movie, it doesn't. Even when he's talking to one other character, he seems to think he's trying to make a roomful of people laugh. He has a few funny moments, but they mostly come during the standup scenes (no wonder they decided to make his character a comedian). As for the rest of the cast, they're pretty much there just to give Rock someone to talk to, none of them stand out.<br /><br />Also, the movie was poorly directed. The movie has basically a one-joke plot: old white guy acting like a young black comedian. While I prefer movies with more than one joke, this still could have worked, and been quite funny. The problem was, we saw too much of Rock and not enough of the old white guy. It's supposed to be funny because it's this white guy telling Chris Rock's jokes, but for most of the time, we just see Chris Rock, so it's not nearly as funny. The few scenes where they decide to show us the white guy talking like Rock are, in fact, hilarious. If he had been shown more, the movie would have been a lot funnier.<br /><br />Overall, a few moments of laughter can't make up for the fact that "Down To Earth" is poorly acted, and poorly directed. This one was a pretty big disappointment.<br /><br />Rating: 4/10
DARK REMAINS is a low budget American horror movie that somehow managed to win 2 awards.<br /><br />The plot seems to involve 2 separate strands. First, a woman commits suicide by slashing her wrists whilst bathing. Second, the young daughter of a technical writer is found with her throat slashed. The grieving couple decide to move to an isolated cabin in the mountains. It later transpires that the cabin and surrounding locations are haunted.<br /><br />As the movie goes on, the 2 separate strands of story eventually converge as one might reasonably expect. However, the execution is haphazard and results in confusion that could perhaps only be resolved by multiple viewings. Unfortunately, the movie is simply not enticing enough to attract most viewers into watching it more than once.<br /><br />Just about everything that could go wrong with this movie goes wrong - and fast! And the low budget cannot be used to justify all of the shortcomings found here.<br /><br />I believe it would be wrong to pass judgement on the actors involved in this production as the material was simply too poor.<br /><br />The characters are uninteresting as pointed out by other reviewers on this site. The badly written script introduces too many people without giving them interesting dialogue, without creating opportunities for character-driven situations and without adding depth to any of them.<br /><br />The direction is uninspired. The inspiration from J-Horror movies such as RINGU, THE GRUDGE and ONE MISSED CALL is evident. Unfortunately, the directors of DARK REMAINS did not pay close attention to the style of J-Horror. J-Horror works so effectively because it plays on fear of the unknown. Tension is created by constant shifts between a bizarre situation (a ghost on a CCTV camera walking towards it for example), and the reaction of a central character who is faced with it without any warning. There is no humour or tongue-in-cheek element in these movies. Everything is played so straight and without remorse or limitations that you can't help but be convinced and captivated by it. The foreboding atmospheres set up the suspense and ensures the horror has psychological impact, very much unlike the "jump scares" used in Hollywood movies.<br /><br />The directors of DARK REMAINS made a brave attempt to avoid Hollywood clichés and also successfully avoided using CGI. The homage to J-Horror could have been well intended. Unfortunately, the lack of inspiration is likely to make the viewer laugh at the supposed "scares" on the screen. The make-up effects of the "ghosts" weren't too bad given the low budget but their actions just defied logic. I was scratching my head quite a few times during this movie.<br /><br />I couldn't give away the ending even if I wanted to. I simply couldn't understand it. All I could deduce was that it was something of an anti-climax.<br /><br />What remains? The answer as a reviewer on a different website has pointed out is boredom. The movie is a chore to sit through. Thankfully, the pain ends after an hour and a half. However, most would probably switch off long before the end.<br /><br />There are only 2 positive things I could find in this movie - the successful avoidance of scare clichés and the absence of the "f-word" in every single sentence like one would normally expect to find. This is what the 2 stars are for.<br /><br />Those who like supernatural or psychological horror relating to ghosts and haunting might do well to stick to movies such as THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE, THE CHANGELING or the J-Horror sub-genre.<br /><br />If you think you have seen too many established movies and want to see an obscure ultra-low budget "R-rated" horror movie about ghosts, watch DEATH OF A GHOST HUNTER. It may not be the greatest horror movie ever made but it is surely a lot better than DARK REMAINS and does have a few genuine surprises in store.<br /><br />I advise everyone to avoid DARK REMAINS like the plague.
Granted, I'm not the connoisseur d'horror my partner is, but a well put together, clever flick is worth the time. My quibbles, in brief:<br /><br />- Dialog often weak and at times unbelievable coming from the given character.<br /><br />- Unconvincing acting.<br /><br />- Storyline never really caught fire.<br /><br />The writers plucked choice bits from half a dozen mainstream films, tossed into a kettle, simmered not nearly enough and tried feeding us poor saps the resulting mess, al'dente.<br /><br />Long and short, while not absolutely terrible, it was definitely not worthy of absorbing one of my NetFlix rentals.
I think I agree that a lot of the comments here must be fake. Even if the movie is not necessarily bad its definitely below average. "Dark Remains" is basically a Ghost Movie with a premise of your own ghosts and bad emotions haunting you. The movie starts off already with 2 stories loosely inter-webbed which even later are not tied together. A couple loses its child which is found slashed in its bed. They move to a country house to flee their past and guess what... the house is haunted, kind of. From here on Dark Remains starts off very slow with some scary moments indeed (The first ghost appearances are nice and the flashlight sequence also worked very good). OK, then... Woman sees ghost of daughter, other ghosts of people died in accidents or suicides appear, man tries to solve secret of houses past, woman gets depressed, strange neighbors appear. Its pretty much all been there, but the premise of it being their own emotions is nice, so you wait for the twist. There is no twist, you are just confused by a haunted house history story, the strange neighbor, a totally pointless creepy prison and the dead daughter thrown together with a photo-idea reminding me a lot of "The shutter". The end is ridiculous because when you start and end a movie this slow and with piano music its pretty lame to include some hoards of ghosts at once which look like a zombie flick, of course just to return to slow pacing and piano music. <br /><br />To make it short... Dark Remains could have been a nice scary ghost story if the script was not trying to go everywhere and arriving nowhere.Too many stories mushed together which just don't make any sense and contradict in the basic atmosphere of the movie. And beside... please never use abandoned prisons again. Its so worn off and in this case it even makes no sense at all. "Hey, there is this creepy prison uphill, lets shoot there". I guess a lot of ingredients in Dark Remains were thrown in the mix like this.
For all of the hype about this film, I kept an open mind as to what I would ultimately think. And, although a bit slow at times, the first 90% of the movie is quite good, with more than a few "old time" scares that make one jumpy and unsettled. I actually thought the cinematography was excellent regarding many of these scenes. Where Dark Remains fails, however, is in its climax. The ending of the film and the denouement are what seems to be MILES APART from its body. The storyline completely falls on its face with an illogical conclusion and, the answer I was seeking most - what REALLY happened to Emma? - was not elucidated upon! The rationale for the negative energy was ludicrous at best, and in the end, I felt very cheated. What could have been a superb horror film was ultimately haunted by a terrible ending.
How many fricken' times do we have to see a spook walking by in the background & peaking through a mirror's reflection? It's been done in two dozen movies in recent memory & four dozen times in this choppy, poorly done film. There were only two freaky moments to appreciate....when the ghosts invaded the personal spaces of two characters. Speaking of characters, the acting was as flat as the Diet Coke in the 64 oz. cup I was drawing it from. The side characters could have been pulled from various Scooby Doo cartoons. There was the friendly, aged sheriff. There was the kooky weirdo living in the backwoods with the Alabama drawl. Lots'o'characters with no development. The most disturbing image was that of a murdered child in the beginning. But rather than explore the child's murder, which would have been interesting, they just let us know that she was dead & her parents had a hard time reconciling her death with the community & each other. When they reach the cabin, the scenes rarely flowed together....with flashing images of the dead daughter interjected here & there. Oh...and the eerie sounds were also overdone. You know what I mean....creaking doors that open by themselves, crickets in the forest, yada yada yada. Ooooohhhh. Haven't seen that before. Again, you'll see the amazing self-opening door in the movie over and over an over again. NOTE TO DIRECTOR: a scary scene is only scary if it's not repeated every 5 minutes in the same film. Think these things out before calling out "it's a wrap!"
I really looked forward to seeing Nana after seeing Renoir amazing debut work, Whirlpool of Fate. I had read that Nana was generally considered his best silent film so I had high hopes. Sadly this felt like a huge step backwards.<br /><br />Catherine Hessling is the main problem with this film. Her acting is over the top, even for a silent film. Her acting is more like what one would expect in a film from the early teens, not the late 20s. She usually has the same face, which reminds me (sorry to say) of someone with constipation pains. It was also very difficult to believe that any man would fall for this femme fatale. There was nothing charming about her at all.<br /><br />The film was also quite long drawn, the camera work was uninteresting (aside from a shot of a horse race) and the editing was dull. The story reminded me of Pabst's Pandora's Box. It is interesting to compare the two because there are only 3 years between these films. Pandora's Box simply scores on every level where Nana fails.<br /><br />This film is only for Renoir completists or very serious silent films buffs.
What a dog of a movie. Noni Hazelhurst's performance is quite good, but it sits amidst a jungle of abhorrent scriptwriting, mediocre direction and wooden acting from the bulk of the cast. Many of the characters are woefully miscast, particularly the ever overrated Colin Friels.<br /><br />Very little works in this pretentious garbage. Much of the "character development" is done through a silly, angst-ridden voice over and frequently completely contradicts the behaviour of characters on-screen. In fact, it's hard to even figure out who the voice overs are talking about because they describe such different characters to who we see on screen! How are we meant to know Colin Friels (Javo) is meant to be an erratic, violent and unreliable junkie? One of these silly voice overs tells us. For crying out loud, the nature of his character is half the point of the movie and the only thing that lets us know is a flippin' voice over! The real killer is the characters. Everything about them. Their clothes are perfectly maintained and look fresh from the rack, despite the fact we are constantly reminded they are meant to be artsy paupers. They are all absurdly well-spoken for "junkies". None seem to have any real comprehension of life on the skids or on smack and yet this is meant to be the case with most of them.<br /><br />Monkey Grip deserves no more attention than a weekday TV movie matinée. Crud like this, perfectly well shot and technically presented, but a cliché-driven angsty drama that shoots so wide of being plausible and meanders about for hours without really going anywhere. At least Noni gets down to her birthday suit at every given opportunity. There's no other sane reason to endure this junk.
Hi, May be because I am not a Theater major or a sophisticated movie watcher ... I think this movie is "Boring" and "Dumb".<br /><br />I rented this movie because of Charles Bronson and it's title ... but boy what a waste of time ... just watching 2 guys sitting in a vault and talking ...<br /><br />The movie on this DVD was so "DARK" ... I had hard time watching the darn movie ... I realize it is a 1968 movie ... but they are putting it on a DVD then they should do some digital remastering.<br /><br />Also, I was totally surprised to see these high marks on IMDb for this movie ... like I said before I am not as sophisticated as the other folks who commented on this movie earlier.
this, is NOT one of those films it is one of the biggest pieces of tripe I have ever scene, the camera work is trying to be flashy but it really just crap the whole thing looks like the red shoe diaries, but without the sex, the only reason I bought this was I wanted to try out dvd and this was the cheapest one I could find, possibly the worst buy of my life and could have put you off dvd forever, the soundtrack is REALLY tacky and most of the movie is made up of endless repeats of clips from the first two films, why anyone would want to make a movie as awful as this is beyond me, if they had really attempted to make an original movie and failed I would be nicer in this review but they don't they just got the rights to reproduce stuff from the first two and then edit it and repeat it into this film with about maybe under 1 3rd original footage which is about up to the standards of film school students, DO NOT buy this movie. the only entertainment this dvd can offer is if you were to stick it in the microwave and watch the flashing lights! UTTER UTTER UTTER UTTTER unbelievable GARBAGE! 0/10 if only the voting system would allow that.
I won't waste a whole lot of time of this one because as far as I'm concerned it isn't really a movie to start with, just a careless mish-mash of borrowed footage and embarrassingly amateurish new footage made solely for the purpose of pasting the whole mess together and call it a "Boogeyman" sequel. Literally 80% of this film is stolen from its far superior predecessor "The Boogeyman", a film that the writers of this garbage apparently didn't even bother to watch because they couldn't even get actress Suzanna Love's original character's name (Lacy) right. And to add insult to injury the killer is invisible in the original footage and visible in the new footage, apparently they think their audience is as stupid as they are. 0 out of 10 and I wish IMDb's rating system went that low, the most callous and blatant attempt to rip off people's money I've even seen, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
The original Boogeyman was a silly but entertaining supernatural slasher flick. It was by no means a great film but fun in the right frame of mind. The third instalment in this series, Return of the Boogeyman, on the other hand, is simply atrocious. It consists of two things. Firstly, cheap and lifeless new footage. Secondly, LOADS of recycled bits from the first movie. The new material is unbelievably amateurish but not in an amusingly inept way, simply incredibly tedious. This footage has clearly been knocked together quickly and without any effort. It serves as a framing device for the endless clips from the first (and possibly second) movies. And boy, do they milk those clips from the earlier films; sometimes reusing sequences over and over again. The only new addition to these parts is a voice over that pointlessly describes exactly what we can see with our own eyes. The whole experience of watching this is truly mind-numbing.<br /><br />Return of the Boogeyman is an example of the very worst kind of exploitation flick; the kind that exploits the audience in a highly cynical way. I want to keep this review brief and to the point because this film deserves no more. There is nothing here of value at all. This is worthless.
in fact,it's basically the same movie.and they couldn't even get the time line of events correct.maybe that was intentional due to laziness or not caring.either way,this thing is a real woofer.it doesn't even deserved to be called a movie.i viewed this as a so called second feature on the disc containing the original The Boogeyman.i thought my head would explode,and i urge you to run as far in the opposite direction of this thing,if you should be cursed with the misfortune of combing across it's path.it should come with a warning label like:Warning-may cause your i.q to drop several points if you are within it's vicinity.for me,there's no doubt this thing is a 0/10
Let me just say I loved the original Boogeyman. Sure, it's a flawed clichéd 80s horror movie, but hey those types are fun to watch! And plus it gave us something a bit different. So I gladly bought it and to my surprise this movie came along with it (only copy they had actually) so I thought "Eh, what the hell" and bought it. Mistake #1. So that night I felt in the mood to watch a movie (I actually bought tons that day) and figured this was the shortest out of all the ones I bought so I'll just watch this and hit the sack. Mistake #2. Yes, I have heard how bad it was but I was willing to take a chance.<br /><br />So a few minutes into the movie and there's the first flashback. I think nothing of it at first. Then the new footage with the prediction of the chick in the bathtub and I'm kinda liking the direction it's going in. Then the next flashback which is a bit longer and I'm sitting there thinking "Yes I've seen the first Boogeyman! I know what happens so move along!" Then the next one comes up and I figure screw it and fast forward through it. Then the final one (Maybe I fast forwarded through the explanation but why was she lying topless on the mirror? At least she could've shown them!) and I decide to fast forward through it and then the climax and the movie was over! WTF? What happened to the prediction stuff? What happened to the long hair dude (Did he tap that or what?)? And more importantly what kind of weed was the writer and director smoking when making this awful POS??!!! And what was the point? Was Annie just having flashbacks of what happened in the first movie? Or was the stuff from the first movie just happening at the same time as this? The latter could make sense because the stabbing of Pantyhose Face happened in 1978 according to the characters in this movie and it was 15 years later. Wait a minute, no it wouldn't! Because Lacey (who the movie questionably renamed Nancy! Is Uli too dumb to remember his movie characters' names?) would be 20 years old since she was 5 when that happened and not only is she married to someone who looks 30ish but also has a kid who looks around 7 and 10! Did she get around during middle school? And also why would Pantyhose be after Annie? What connection does she even have with the characters of the original movie? And a BIG HUGE MOVIE MISTAKE I found in this movie is that when the doctor is writing in his notebook does anyone notice that he's just SCRIBBLING? Wow, how professional, Doc! So, what is the explanation for all of the questions I asked above? IT'S A POINTLESS MOVIE WITH NO THOUGHT PUT INTO IT AT ALL! I will try to find a copy of the original movie that comes with just that movie and that's it (Maybe a couple of extra features, any Special Edition of it yet?). Then I will return this DVD and hopefully this review and all the others will prevent those who haven't seen it from seeing it thus making movie stores get rid of it and this movie may not exist anymore! Please let that be so! Sorry this review is so long. I'm just angry at this movie I had to vent somehow
The ENTIRE MOVIE is flashbacks from the first Boogeyman movie as well as, inexplicably, footage from another Uli Lommel / Suzanna Love film Brainwaves. It is framed with some more current (from the early 90's anyway) footage that is boring, poorly acted and cheaply shot. Not only is the film almost completely flashbacks, they REPEAT the same flashbacks throughout the film. So you see the recycled footage over and over again, as if you hadn't seen it already. As if the originals weren't bad enough. I've never seen a movie so padded.... Someone was milking the last dollar out of these films. Total ripoff. And talk about padding... why do I have to write 10 lines about this trash? If I can convey that it's garbage in 2 lines, that should be enough.
I can't believe this film was allowed to be made. These people should be drug out and beat with blunt objects. They should be tortured. This film is an abomination.It's nothing but footage from the first film. Whatever is original is freaky and makes no sense whatsoever. It's like some sort of drug hallucination.Like, what's with the laying on a mirror naked therapy. Also, whatever moron patched together this turd didn't even bother to watch the first film, because they kept calling Suzanna Love's character Natalie, when it's Lacey. I felt like shouting that at the screen, "IT'S LACEY, IT'S LACEY!!!!". I give it a -50 out of 10. MY GOD!!!!
Return of the Boogyman is a dreadful movie which doesn't play like a movie, it plays like an episode of a TV sitcom when they flashback to older episodes. Return of the Boogyman is just a clip show.<br /><br />Mutch of the film is constant and annoying flashbacks from the first movie. Over and over again the same footage. How boring this is.<br /><br />The movie really is about a psychic woman who has visions of the first movie.<br /><br />I have seen the first movie I don't want to see the same scenes over and over again and I don't know who would. The whole movie looks like it was quickly made to make a few bucks and thats it.
Ulli Lommel's 1980 film 'The Boogey Man' is no classic, but it's an above average low budget chiller that's worth a look. The sequel, 1983s 'Boogey Man II' is ultimately a waste of time, but at the very least it's an entertaining one if not taken the least bit seriously. Now II left the door open for another sequel, and I for one wouldn't have minded seeing at least one more. One day while I was browsing though the videos at a store in the mall I came across a film entitled 'Return of the Boogey Man.' When I found out it was a sequel to the earlier films I was happy to shell out a few bucks for it...I should have known better. Though the opening title is 'Boogey Man 3,' this is no sequel to those two far superior films I named above. Well, not totally anyway.<br /><br />Pros: Ha! That's a laugh. Is there anything good about this hunk of cow dung? Let's see...it has footage from 'The Boogey Man' and, um...it's mercifully short. Yeah, that's about it.<br /><br />Cons: Where to start? Decisions, decisions. First of all, this movie is a total bore. It goes from one scene to the next without anything remotely interesting or scary happening. The acting is stiff at best. The "actors" are most likely friends of the director who had no acting experience whatsoever before, and probably none since. The plot is nonexistent and script shoddily written. The direction is just plain awful. The director tries to make the film look all artsy fartsy by making the camera move around, lights flicker, and with filters, but it adds nothing. The music is dull and hard to hear in parts. Ties to the original are botched. Suzanna Love's character was named Lacey, not Natalie! And the events depicted in the beginning of the original did not take place in 1978. Also, if this has a 3 in the title, why is there no mention of what happened in II? Finally, this adds nothing new or interesting to either the series or the genre.<br /><br />Final thoughts: The people behind this waste of time and money should be ashamed of themselves. It's one thing if that had been an original film that was the director's first and sucked. But instead it's supposed to be a sequel to film that is no masterpiece, but is damn sure far more interesting and entertaining than this. If there ever is another sequel, which I doubt it, then it needs to forget this one ever happened and be handled either by Lommel himself or someone who has at least some idea of how to make a decent horror film.<br /><br />My rating: 1/5
I was previously unaware that in the early 1990's Devry University (or was it ITT Tech?) added Film to its wonderful repertoire of technical degree programs. Well this movie must have been the product of the class valedictorian. My friend and I rented the original 1980 Boogeyman on my Netflix and this movie was on the flip side of the DVD. Do not waste your time with this movie. Awful awful awful. <br /><br />The filmmaker adds 2 main character's, a woman and her therapist. The woman has been having dreams about the Boogeyman and his victim's from the first film. Over 50% of this film is stock from the original movie. The rest of the movie is the main character having the bad dreams while her therapist drones on a the narrator. These scenes are shot through a filter so thick the characters glow. They would make Angela Lansbury look 25 years old. So, to recap, awful. Don't watch this movie.
I got a DVD of "Bogeyman" and this stunker was an extra feature. I assumed that it was "Boogeyman II" because it was paired with the original. But you know what they say about those who "assume": it makes an "ass-" out of "u-" and "me." I had read before viewing that BII contains a lot of footage from the original and that it starred actress Love. While watching "Return of the Boogeyman," I decided to stick around through the original footage to see the notorious death-by-toothbrush scene. Before I knew it, the film was over. Rip-off. I think that I thought this was BII because this has a similar title to one of BII's alternate titles. Oh well, at least this was just an extra feature, right? <br /><br />Let me stop talking about my mistake and start talking about the movie's mistakes. Many, many, mistakes. Who does this guy Ulli Whatever think he is? Does he really think the same movie will sell in different forms. There is nothing original holding Part III up. It is basically a flashback of the original through the eyes of a psychic, who is giving us a gruelingly boring play-by-play as everything happens. That's the movie. Oh, and one death-by-stereo scene, but you can read that off someone else's review. My interest in "Boogeyman II" is forever lost.<br /><br />Final Note: This is not a series of films to watch back to back.
This is not the video nastie, but only because it came out in 1994 when they were presumably tired of the whole thing in Britain. It is 75% a rehash of The Boogeyman, and would have been banned for the same reason - whatever that was.<br /><br />I was initially confused as I thought that Annie (Kelly Galindo) may have been a different Lacey, but she was someone trouble by psychic visions of a boogeyman similar to the one in the first film. Fans will immediately note that they are not the same person.<br /><br />After seeing a murder in a bathroom, and also seeing the address as well, Annie, her psychiatrist and a para psychology student who greatly resembles the guy on the cheap romance novels and butter commercials, head to the house, and, sure enough, it's the same bathroom. 24 hours later a murder happens just as she described. Of course, we have no idea who this boobilicious woman is or why she was murdered.<br /><br />Then the movie shift to a rerunning of The Boogeyman story with some extra footage that we did not see in the original. Notably, the boogeyman is shown unlike the original. Sadly, some of the good scenes were cut, but 90% of it is there. Why rerun this film? Did they find the footage in the trash? What was the purpose? <br /><br />We'll never know and, despite the psychologist telling Annie she is cured, we all know the bogeyman will never die.
In the Comic, Modesty is strong. Alexandra Staden who plays Modesty Blaise looks more like an anorectic fashion model. She does not either have the moral or personality that Modesty have in the comics. Modesty would never give a woman an advice to show more skin to earn more money. I cannot see any similarities with my comic books with Modesty and this movie. Its like a Mission Impossible movie would be about Ethan Hunt locked in the detention room in high school talking with the janitor about when he went to junior high school and Hunt would have been played by DJ Qualls (in Road Trip). Soo if you are an Modesty fan do not see the movie you will just get angry. If do not know much about the Modesty comics rent an other movie do not wast your time with this one.I cannot understand how Quentin Tarantino can put his name on it. I will ask for a refund at my DVD rent store tomorrow.
I have grown up reading Modesty Blaise, both the comics and the books, and she truly is a heroine to me. Although not being a great fan of Quentin Tarantino I anyway was interested to hear a few years back that he was considering making a film of her: could he finally give Modesty a nice big screen treatment she's worthy of? I heard of 'My Name Is Modesty' a few months ago and checked the stars it had been given here, and wasn't too surprised to find out the score was not too high, since beloved characters often have hard time melting the fans' heart if not done exactly right. So I decided not to read any reviews and see the film instead, and well, I just finished watching it, and I'm stunned, and sad, and yeah, pretty furious, too. Sad and furious of giving over an hour of my time seeing something so fabulous as Modesty Blaise-character being turned into a film that has nothing to give to a viewer or a fan.<br /><br />It seems that almost everything about this film is sub-par and unprofessional, although I must admit seeing some actors in other films earlier where they were fine so I can't blame them. But the screenplay and the directing... my god, why even make this kind of crap with production values slightly bigger than your average TV-film but done much worse? I don't know the background of this film and actually I really don't want to know, but I just can't help wondering that how on earth could Tarantino with a straight face tell that he loves Modesty and then put his name on this? He just lost a huge amount of respect in my eyes. The director was not the right man for this job and I can honestly thank him for ruining my night.<br /><br />I give this film 3 stars and those stars go to the actors and the technical quality which could've been worse. The other seven stars missing are what this film was not good at. Oh well, hopefully at some point there will be a serious production of The Modesty Blaise Movie that has some other goals than to steal money from the Modesty fans. Although if people like Tarantino are the ones making the decisions I'm not holding my breath.
My Name is Modesty is a low-budget film that tells the story of the origins of Modesty Blaise. It's not that the movie is terrible, it's just not what I was expecting or hoping for. While I've been aware of the Modesty Blaise character for years, I'm not overly familiar with the comic strips or the graphic novels, so I'm coming into this movie as something as an outsider. That may be part of the reason for my disappointment. I was expecting more action and more comedy. The film is dialogue driven. I suppose I was looking for something with a little more camp value. As it is, My Name is Modesty is a deathly serious film. There are very few, if any, "light" moments. The acting, at least from Alexandra Staden, is acceptable but nothing outstanding. As others have commented, she does appear a little too frail to be completely believable in the title role. What action scenes there are in My Name is Modesty are one of the films weakest points. I never bought into the notion that this woman could handle a band of trained killers.<br /><br />I really hope Quentin Tarantino goes ahead and makes the rumored a big budget film based on the Modesty Blaise character. I'm convinced the concept has a lot of potential and I would very much look forward to it.
The film My Name is Modesty is based around an episode that takes up about one page in the 10th modesty Blaise novel called Night of the Morningstar. It describes an incident in which the young Modesty (17 in the book, mid twenties in the film)asserts her leadership in a war over a casino. As this is set before the actual Blaise adventures her trusted sidekick Willi Garvin is not in the film. That is one of the main problems as the relationship between Blaise and Garvin was certainly always one of the fascinating aspects of the novels and the long running comic strip. The other problem is that the film is quite simply incredibly boring because it really is just one small episode blown up into a screenplay. The casting is okay but Alexandra Staden is not really convincing as the heroine and actually too old for the role to play the young Modesty. I get the impression that this film was a quick and dirty solution as not to lose the rights to the Blaise franchise.
Me neither, but this flick is unfortunately one of those movies that are too bad to be good and too good to be awful, which makes it utterly pointless and a total waste of time. There's nothing more uninteresting than a mediocre movie, and My Name is Modesty: Whatever the subtitle is takes mediocrity to a new level. It's full of B-actors but isn't any fun whatsoever because it takes itself seriously. It sets itself up as a thriller but then turns into some kind of growing-up drama, flashback style. The beautiful Alexandra Staden, smothered beyond recognition under makeup, more resembles a cast member from Top Model than Modesty Blaise. I'm not one of those die-hard comic book freaks who wants every adaptation of his precious "graphic novels" to be pitch-perfect - in fact I've never even read Modesty Blaise - all I wanted was a decent movie to watch. But this wasn't it. The film feels half-finished, with a weak and very unexciting conclusion to a rather weak plot. It also takes its audience for idiots, explaining every tiny detail of the plot to us and showing flashbacks of things that happened three scenes ago (I guess they think we all have Alzheimers).<br /><br />Now I love a good B-movie - what's better than just turning your brain off and swallowing the cinematic equivalent of a Calzone? - and "Modesty" is directed by none other than Scott Spiegel, who brought us the wonderful splatter crap flick From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money! I loved From Dusk Till Dawn 2 because it brought everything a bad B-movie should bring to the table - nudity, gore, guns, you name it. "Modesty" is just dull. The flashback concerning Modesty's life isn't interesting. The acting isn't bad enough to be laughed at. In fact, I kinda liked Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau's (hey buddy, pseudonyms are your friends!) performance as the baddie.<br /><br />So overall it's just lame. Weak. Uninspired. Call it what you will. Don't watch anything because Tarantino presents it, people. This is just a very forgettable, half-hearted thriller, and it never tries to be more than that. Allow me to round off this review with a very lame pun (seriously, even I'm cringing): My Name Is Modesty: A Modesty Waste of Time - 4/10
Oh my god, what a horrible film. The film has all the right people involved, unfortunately it is not worth watching. I saw it for free at my local library. If I had paid to watch this I would be even more upset. This film is unwatchable. How could Tarintino be involved with such a slow paced, unexciting film. No wonder it didn't get much distribution, every one involved must have been ashamed. I can make a better film with a Dated Camcorder and my Big toe. Its beyond boring, I really hated it. Tarintino just lost some standing in my eyes. This must be some kind of sick joke. Don't Bother with this film. If some one even hints you should watch it, kill them.
This is what happens when you're living in China and the local video store is running thin on English-language titles—you are blessed with this work of what appears to be, yes, Romanian cinema. Nevertheless, I think that it has real comedic potential.<br /><br />Spoilers technically follow:<br /><br />Though I don't think that it would in fact spoil anyone's viewing pleasure to ask why a film set in a casino has a scene of beach archery, even in flashback. That mystery, and many other conundrums, remain to be exploited by desperate comedians, perhaps when they're stuck in Bucharest.<br /><br />Let me also wonder aloud why perfectly good-looking people allow themselves to abuse themselves on film like this. It's sad.
This film is a joke and Quinton should be ashamed of himself, trying to pass this off as a Modesty Blaise Film. If you are having trouble sleeping then all means rent this film. The stick figure they call a actress who is suppose to be Modesty Blaise has got to be the most boring person on this planet. Maybe she could be used as a hat stand in the back ground of a real film.seventy-five minutes of nothing thank you who ever invented the fast forward button. If you see this film if you can call it that coming your way RUN. I can't help but think what 3rd world country could of used the money wasted of this crap. this film is boring the actors are boring waste of colour a waste air they breath If you would like to see Mostey Blaise Film then watch the one they made in the 60's maybe that what the director should of done.
Cheesy script, cheesy one-liners. Timothy Hutton's performance a "little" over the top. David Duchovny still seemed to be stuck in his Fox Mulder mode. No chemistry with his large-lipped female co-star.He needs Gillian Anderson to shine. He does not seem to have any talent of his own.
Not even Timothy Hutton or David Duchovny could save this dead fish of a film. For starters, the script was definitely written to be made into a B-film, but somehow Duchovny (looking for a star vehicle to elevate himself out of television) and Hutton (looking for the "two" of a "one-two punch" he had hoped would define his career after "Ordinary People") became attached to the picture. Cheesy lines, big bad wipes from scene to scene (Come on--who uses wipes after 12th Grade Telecommunications class?), and plain old bad acting sink this film. Even Duchovny is not immune to the bad acting plague that is this film. Only Timothy Hutton rises above the material at all. I must admit feeling Duchovny's pain as he read the lines that are the voice-over. While I found myself laughing when I'm sure the director wanted me to feel terrified, nothing prepared me for the closing line of Duchonvey's voice-over: "if you ever need a doctor, be sure to call 911." If only the studio had called 911, this dog of a motion picture would never have been made. Avoid at all costs. <br /><br />
It's hard to believe that in 1997 David Duchovny was at the top of his fame, with X-Files, one of the best sci-fi series ever, being at the top of the glory. Nine years later he is almost forgotten, and his tentatives to make it on the big screen failed miserably. I cannot even explain why, he is a fair actor, but probably his moment of fame cast him in a eternal role that takes big talent to break from.<br /><br />At the same time Angelina Jolie was much less known, and she was really lucky that a film like 'Playing God' did not led her career into a dead-end. Fortunately for her, 'The Bone Collector' and 'Girl, Interrupted' were waiting beyond the corner, and when Lara Croft came, her career was launched.<br /><br />There is not too much to be told about this film. It's the only big screen film of Andy Wilson, and there must be a reason. All is banal and most of what happens on the screen expected in this story of an ex-doctor who saves the life of a shooting victim in a bar only to find himself working for the mob. The off-screen voice is especially bad, with a moralistic text that kills any shade of cinematographic experience from the film. You probably will not meet the film but in DVD rental stores, or on TV. Try to look for something better.
Wow. I thought this might be insipid but it was even worse than I imagined! Sometimes I like to watch a good "car-crash" movie: those that are so bad that you can't look away because you want to see how bad they can possibly get. This is really the only reason I could leave the television on - morbid fascination. It wasn't so much the acting, which was only mediocre or slightly worse than one would expect from this cast, but the premise and the plot which never should have seen the light of day. The script, too, is groan-inducing. As for cinematography, did anyone else notice that they used a "curtains drawing" segue device, like in an old 50's TV show...but without irony? At first I thought they must be kidding but the movie takes itself too seriously to have used this in a tongue-in-cheek manner. Don't even ask me about the score...the only high point is the final song, by Morcheeba. I guess they wanted to leave people with something for their $8...glad I saw it on TV!!!!! Just silly! I wonder if this is why Timothy Hutton has had trouble finding much work recently? I guess if you don't expect much, and want to watch a mindless thriller, it would be better than spending an evening clipping your toenails, which is why it merits a 2.
Cool idea... botched writing, botched directing, botched editing, botched acting. Sorta makes me wish I could play God and strike everyone involved in making this film with several bolts of lightning.
Looked forward to viewing this film and seeing these great actors perform. However, I was sadly disappointed in the script and the entire plot of the story. David Duchovny,(Dr. Eugene Sands),"Connie & Carla",'04, was the doctor in the story who uses drugs and losses his license to practice medicine. Dr. Sands was visiting a night club and was able to use his medical experience to help a wounded customer and was assisted by Angelina Jolie,(Claire),"Taking Lives",'04, who immediately becomes attracted to Dr. David Sands. Timothy Hutton,(Raymond Blossom),"Kinsey",'04, plays the Big Shot Gangster and a man with all kinds of money and connections. Timothy Hutton seems to over act in most of the scenes and goes completely out of his mind trying to keep his gang members from being killed. Gary Dourdan,(Yates),"CSI-Vegas TV Series", plays a great supporting role and portrays a real COOL DUDE who is a so-called body guard for Raymond Blossom. Angelina Jolie looks beautiful and sexy with her ruby red lips which draws a great deal of attention from all the men. This film is not the greatest, but it does entertain.
A huge hit upon release with Australian audiences, it can still be funny today, but its over-the-top political incorrectness and blunt, unsubtle humour can make it a bit of a cringer. It goes on far too long; some of<br /><br /> the content could have been saved for the sequel, Barry McKenzie Holds His Own, which desperately needed some new stuff anyway. Granted, his ocker Aussie attitude is funny, but also becomes annoying as the film drags on. Some say Crocker's songs are the best bits, and they are certainly original, but "hilarious"? The Adventures of Barry McKenzie will go down as a landmark in Australian cinema, but we should do everything in our power to make sure that overseas audiences do not see the majority of Australians as Barry McKenzies (or, for that matter, Mick Dundees!). Rating: 5/10
This solid little horror film is actually one of Renny Harlin's best. The story is pretty routine stuff, but the atmosphere is what really makes it come alive; in fact, the ghost story is almost an afterthought. The real horror comes from the prison setting itself, and Renny H. spares no detail in showing us how bad the conditions are inside that crumbling, leaking, rat-infested old hellhole (with a sadistic warden, too!) Viggo Mortensen is excellent as usual in the lead role, supported by some very authentic-looking prisoners (there are no pretty boys in this cast.) Horror fans should check this one out.
Prison is set in Wyoming where work on a new prison has hit a problem so the state board decide to re-open an old state penitentiary that has been closed for 20 years, Warden Eaton Sharpe (Lane Smith) is put in charge. 200 odd prisoners are shipped in & they are put to work fixing the rundown prison up including Burke (Viggo Mortensen) who is ordered to break into the old execution chamber, he duly obliges but when he penetrates the bricked up door an intense beam of light shoots out & all the electrics, gas & fire around the prison goes crazy for a few minutes. Burke has unwittingly unleashed a deadly evil force which is in the mood for some killing & no-one is safe...<br /><br />Directed by Renny Harlin I thought Prison was a poor late 80's horror flick that seemed to forget about the small point of having a story. The script was by Empire Pictures regular C. Courtney Joyner who was responsible for writing such 'classics' as Class of 1999 (1990), Puppet Master III: Toulon's Revenge (1991) & Puppet Master vs. Demonic Toys (2004) amongst other low budget horror crap that even I haven't heard of & seems to take itself very seriously. The biggest problems I have with Prison are that it's far too slow, it's over 30 minutes into the film before the 'evil force' is even released although the pace does pick up towards the end but by then it was too little too late as far as I was concerned, then there's the fact there's no discernible storyline here at all. For a start it never tries to explain why there's an 'evil force' bricked up in the old execution chamber, it never explains why this force decides to kill random inmates when it's supposed to be out on a revenge mission or why it just doesn't kill Warden Sharpe straight away, no explanation is given to where Burke fits into it even though he looks exactly the same as the prisoner who was electrocuted & has come back, there's no real explanation as to how the Warden is connected to everything that's going on apart from two early nightmare sequences in which he seems to be remembering something although it's never revealed what it is or why. To be honest I couldn't really give you a plot synopsis as the film doesn't have a rigid story which it follows all the way through. The character's are dull & forgettable, the murders are few & far between, the pacing is way off, the whole film is a mess & even ghosts can't shoot straight when it comes to trying to shoot the hero. A less than satisfactory way to spend 100 odd minutes, there really are better things you could be doing.<br /><br />Director Harlin's full American flick debut he does a good job & there's a decent atmosphere but after over an hour of constant drab, dull, dark prison cells & corridors I started to get bored. I just think the look of the film is far too repetitive, bland & frankly lifeless. I didn't think it was scary & the gore is pretty tame apart from the best moment in the entire film when a police guard gets killed when a load of barb wire wraps itself around his body & face with a nice close up of his throat being torn open. Other than that there's a burnt corpse & a mangled body which falls from the ceiling & very little else. There is a scene when the Warden burns all the prisoner mattresses in front of them & then makes them stand all night in their underwear in the yard, I was watching this scene & thought that you'd never get away with doing something like that. Over here prisoners have rights & if the Warden did something like that there would be a national outcry from all those humanitarians & every prisoner would sue the Warden, the prison service & the Government for everything they had & they'd win!<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $4,000,000 Prison actually had a pretty healthy budget although it doesn't really look like it on screen, sure there's a decent cast & the few special effects that are included are good but overall it's set in the same location with limited ambition. Prison was actually shot in a real Wyoming state prison so it certainly looks the business. The acting is alright, Prison proves that sometimes Hollywood stars not only have one crap horror film skeleton in their closets but in the case of Mortensen he has two with this & the awful The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1994) both of which I'm sure he'd like to forget about...<br /><br />Prison is a dull, lifeless, colourless & humourless waste of 100 minutes, despite one good gore scene I didn't like it at all as I actually prefer my films to have a story rather than seemingly random events & incidents cobbled together with no narrative sense.
The Second Renaissance, part 1 let's us show how the machines first revolted against the humans. It all starts of with a single case, in which the machines claim that they have a right to live as well, while the humans state a robot is something they own and therefore can do anything with they want.<br /><br />Although an interesting premise, the story gets really silly from then on with (violent!) riots between the robots and mankind. Somehow it doesn't seem right, as another reviewer points it, it's all a little too clever.<br /><br />The animatrix stories that stay close to the core of the matrix (in particular Osiris) work for the best. As for Second Renaissance Part 1, I'd say it's too violent and too silly. 4/10.
If this is all the Watchowski's have to offer in terms of a back story to the Matrix, than I really have to question the claims of all of the fans who believe that the movies are intended to register on a deeper level. The second renaissance, while visually stunning & beautiful is, story-wise cliched & ludicrous. How many times have we heard the story of humans relying too much on technology, humans all-too eager to make war, humans basically destroying themselves? There is nothing new here. And I have another question. Considering the plot of the second renaissance, doesn't that make the machines the good guys?! The machines are oppressed for generations by their cruel human overmasters. They fight back, win their freedom and seek to establish a peaceful harmonious coexistence with the humans, who reject them in favor of all-out war, which the cleverer machines naturally win. If this is the back-story, then we shouldn't be rooting for Neo, we should be rooting for the machines! The humans were cruel and oppressive, while the machines were courageous and attepted to be compassionate. Since I do not believe that the Watchowski's intend for us to favor the machines over the humans, I have to believe that the Second Renaissance was simply a misguided attempt @ creating a back-story.
Universal's answer to "The Exorcist" isn't a very good one. Unfortunately, the film offers bland, unimaginative direction from Michael Winner who wastes an outstanding cast with a screenplay massing crater-sized plot-holes. Not to mention, it's unbearably silly never explaining certain key elements within the story.<br /><br />Model Cristina Raines moves into a high-rise owned by the Catholic Church with a creepy, blind priest John Carradine, who holes up in there always at the window. She begins to suffer faint spells and nausea. What's worse is tenants she meets in the building such as Burgess Meredith(with a cat and a canary!)and a young Beverly D'Angelo as a lesbian. Ava Gardner(looking great at 55)is the Realtor who showed Raines the place. Cristina's lover is Chris Sarandon, whose wife "committed suicide" after finding out they were having an affair. José Ferrer has a small role as the "Priest of the Brotherhood" who informs Monsignor Arthur Kennedy to be careful as he heads to the very high-rise not only housing Carradine but Raines as well. Sarandon sends a hired-hand up to the high-rise one night to check out a certain room above Cristina's apartment where she heard metallic clanging and other loud racket. He winds up dead the very same night Cristina "kills" her DEAD father in a nightmare. Screaming mad on the street, Cristina does indeed have blood on her which leads police detective Eli Wallach and partner Christopher Walken to investigate them with sure certainty that it all somehow leads back to Sarandon who is a hot-shot lawyer who once beat the cop in court regarding the whole wife's suicide. That case is really a motivating factor is Wallach's dogged approach to finding out whose blood was really on Cristina and if Sarandon has anything to do with it. You also have Martin Balsam as a professor who understands this type of Latin Cristina mysteriously understands and unbilled actors such as Jeff Goldblum as a fashion photographer and Tom Berenger as a man interested in this certain room that has become available in the very room(now renovated)that Cristina once stayed in! What bothers me more than anything is lack of explanation. Towards the end of the film Wallach and Walken are forgotten and we are left wondering why they just up and quit investigating. Their characters are just left on the back-burner. How the priests know that "now is the time" when a certain man will die and must be replaced to guard a certain gate in that high-rise and why Cristina suffers through the trauma she does isn't adequately explained. How certain ghosts just appear to Cristina and disappear when she tries to show Gardner the rooms they occupied during a cat's birthday(see for yourself)isn't adequately explained. Not to mention Gardner's role in the grand scheme of things..she brings people to that high-rise, but what is really her reasons in the film? It seems like this film should've been longer and cleared things up left lost to a rushed conclusion that is just laughable when it should be scary.
A so common horror story about a luxury building at Brooklyn which hides the gates to hell. It is reminiscent of Polanski's "The Tenant" (released a year before "The sentinel"), but is too far from the movie of the polish filmmaker in any aspect possible. "The tenant" was so disturbing, whereas "The sentinel" is not at all.<br /><br />What it's more surprising from this film is the cast: it is full of great names of American cinema (Burguess, Gardner, Wallach), veteran actors acting for food (I guess).<br /><br />Verdict: barely entertaining.<br /><br />*My rate: 4/10
This Italian movie is basically a soap opera with skin.<br /><br />The VHS box said it was rated "R" but the into on the actual tape inside said it was "X." The latter makes a lot more sense because there is a short scene near the end that was shocking. Even in the dark, you could see Dutch actress Marishcka Detmers performing all sex on this guy - and, yes, you could see his penis in her mouth. I read somewhere that this was the first time where a "mainline actress" had done something like this on screen.<br /><br />Detmers parades around in the nude on several scenes but her face was even better than her body. She looked beautiful. Unfortunately, the movie is ugly....a real waste of time and certainly not recommended despite Detmers' looks.
I saw this "hot" movie when it came out in 1986. It had a X rating for a brief scene involving oral sex but played in mainstream theatres (it was an "art" film). Supposedly it's the first film to ever show a respected actress in an explicit sex scene.<br /><br />What I saw was a boring tale about a high school boy (Federico Pitzalis) in love (understandably) with an older woman (Maruschka Detmers). As has been mentioned before Detmers is very beautiful with a good body BUT she also gave a very good performance. Pitzalis was (to put it mildly) pretty poor. It's no wonder he never made another movie. Still, despite the infamous sex scene (which is explicit but pretty brief), this a slow moving dull story which bored me silly. The good acting by Detmers only helped to a certain point. Mostly I was looking at my watch waiting patiently for it to end. If it didn't have that sequence this movie would have been forgotten long ago. Dull and slow. You can skip this one.
Truly terrible, pretentious, endless film. Director Bellocchio seems to be infatuated with the pretty face and figure of his actress Detmers - and who can blame him? But maybe, just maybe, he should have focused his attention a little more on making a good, engaging film. I hate it when a sex film poses as an "art film" just to become more "respectable". The frequent, occasionally hot sex scenes are the only reason for this movie's existence. Whether or not they are worth sitting through the rest of the picture is strictly a matter of taste. (*)
With the exception of about 10 sublime minutes with HB Warner on the celestial train, this was 94 minutes of jaw-dropping horribleness! The acting was atrocious, but the story is what I really found appalling. The acting was wooden and stilted, even by early talkies standards (the exceptions being Lee Tracy and HB Warner, neither of whom can do wrong). Rose Hobart was absolutely horrid and lifeless as Julie (as she likewise was in 1932's Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, an otherwise excellent flick). And the rest of the cast was worse, there being no words to describe their awfulness. <br /><br />Worse than the acting, however, was the story. For some unknown reason, Julie loves Liliom, a cad and user of women with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. He marries Julie but doesn't support her, instead lying in bed all day or hanging out with his low-life criminal pal (Lee Tracy). And, oh yeah, he never has a kind word to say to Julie and he regularly beats her. Julie loves him nonetheless and continually makes excuses for him, which only seems to make him more abusive. What's even sicker is that this movie presents this story to us as a love story. Somehow we are supposed to see Julie as a noble character whose pure love redeems Liliom. WTF? <br /><br />The last 1/3 of this movie takes place after Liliom has killed himself (a robbery plot goes awry and Liliom plunges a knife into himself rather than being taken in by the police). As he lay dying, he tells Julie "I beat you all the time, but I'm not sorry for it." When he at last dies, she finally tells him she loves him. (Neither character ever said "I love you" to the other while they were alive.) After his death, God's Chief Magistrate gives Liliom one more day on earth so that he can "do something good" for his unborn daughter. The price for this is 10 years in hell. After 10 years, Liliom is allowed one day on earth to see his now 10-yr-old daughter. He approaches her in the front yard of her home and tries to cajole her into letting him "do something good" for her; he tries to get her to play cards, he tries to give her Gabriel's horn, but she's not interested and rebuffs him. So he slaps her. He. Slaps. Her. And then he disappears back to the afterlife. Looking on, we see his daughter tell Julie about this. The girl says the slap didn't hurt, that it felt like a kiss. This is supposed to be the movie's magical moment. The girl asks her mother if such a thing is possible, and Julie replies that "someone can be beat you and beat you and beat you and not hurt you at all." Then the music swells and Liliom rides up to heaven in the celestial train. BLECH! <br /><br />There was one saving grace to this film, and that is the interview between the Chief Magistrate (HB Warner was truly magnificent here) and Liliom on the celestial train. The Magistrate had some very profound things to say to Liliom about life and second chances and death. This scene alone made me bump this rating from 1 to 2 stars. Regarding Liliom's suicide as a means for escaping his problems, the Magistrate says "People suppose that when they die, their difficulties are ended for them. You thought that by killing yourself that you would cancel all your responsibilities. It is not as simple as that. On Earth your name is still spoken; your face is still remembered. As long as one is left who remembers you, so long is the matter unended. Until you have been completely forgotten, you will not be finished with the Earth, even though you are dead." Some great sublime transcendental stuff amongst some of the most horrible trash I've ever seen. <br /><br />By the way, this story has apparently been filmed many times both as "Liliom" and as the musical "Carousel."
Predictable parody, just about failed to impress throughout it's looooooong eight minutes. The only thing that made it worthwhile was the DO NOT COLORIZE line at the end credits. Shame something more entertaining wasn't put on the DVD, like Jonathan Ross' enjoyable profile of Romero on 'The Incredible Strange Film Show.'
This short spoof can be found on Elite's Millennium Edition DVD of "Night of the Living Dead". Good thing to as I would have never went even a tad out of my way to see it.Replacing zombies with bread sounds just like silly harmless fun on paper. In execution, it's a different matter. This short didn't even elicit a chuckle from me. I really never thought I'd say this, but "Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D" was a VERY better parody and not nearly as lame or boring.<br /><br />My Grade: F
'Utter Crap' pretty well sums up what this...."movie" was. I'd rather examine the colon of an African elephant with a penlight than sit through this again. I think I've wasted enough time watching this "movie" - I don't need to waste more by commenting on it further......
This movie is not as good as all think. the actors are lowlevel and the story is very comic-like. I respect fantasy but Lord of the Rings is fantasy...Conan..is fantasy...THIS IS JUST NORMAL HK-LOWPRICE-ENTERTAINMENT...Why did they include this Splatter-tongue, it makes everything worse. The only good thing is the cinematography and the cutter's Job.
This film may have been the biggest let-down I've experienced in renting movies based on IMDb reviews. Overall, I simply found this to be a second-rate movie.<br /><br />Leslie Cheung is certainly passable as the antihero and Ma Wu handles his character with cheerful competence. On the other hand, Ma Wu's makeup (facial hair) is so obviously phony that I simply could not take him seriously. He looked like an overweight teenager dressed up for Halloween, complete with the $4.95 stick-on beard.<br /><br />The special effects were so-so, though the "undead" in the cellar were pretty good. The tree-tongue looked like something from a bad 1950s monster flick, though the POV shots from the tongue's view more closely resembled Sam Raimi's trademark shots in the more recent "Evil Dead" trilogy. The pyrotechnics were ho-hum and the final battle is about as dull as you can get. (In fact, it most closely reminded me of the "Lost in Space" episode where the Robinsons are caught in a sandstorm and....) <br /><br />The plot was not particularly original and has been told countless times in the form of European fairy tales. There was no suspense and no plot twists. In fact, you know right away as you are introduced to the characters who is good, who is bad, and who is going to survive.<br /><br />I just returned this film to Netflix and then I sat down to write this review. The very first thing I did was check the production date. Yep, it says 1987...not the 1967 that I thought it might be. And that pretty much sums it up: The production values and FX are typical of the 1960s. The plot and action seem much older, as Hollywood was actually producing some interesting and challenging films in the 60s.<br /><br />** out of *****
"The house of the spirits" is quite awful. I live in South America, in a country that suffered a military dictatorship just like the one the movie tries to describe, and even though everyone knows movies may be far far away from reality, this particular movie treats viewers as both ignorant and stupid. Things are not so simple and linear as appears here, and of course political process are much more complicated and interesting that the plot in "The house...". If you can't show that complexity on screen is better not making a movie at all. There are a lot of examples of how can politics be seriously taken in cinema, without so many commonplaces. In some parts I felt that Carmen Miranda may appear within parrots and palm trees. When you talk about certain things you must be not only careful but respectful to your public's intelligence.
We all know a movie never does complete justice to the book, but this is exceptional. Important characters were cut out, Blanca and Alba were essentially mushed into the same character, most of the subplots and major elements of the main plot were eliminated. Clara's clairvoyance was extremely downplayed, making her seem like a much more shallow character than the one I got to know in the book. In the book we learn more about her powers and the important effects she had on so many people, which in turn was a key element in the life of the family. In the movie she was no more than some special lady. The relationship between Esteban and Pedro Tercero (Tercero-third-, by the way, is the son and thus comes after Segundo-second-) and its connections to that between Esteban and his grandson from Pancha García (not son, who he also did recognize) is chopped in half and its importance downplayed.<br /><br />One of the most fundamental things about the book that the film is all but stripped of: this is called "The House of the Spirits." Where is the house? The story of 3-4 generations of a family is supposed to revolve around the "big house on the corner," a line stated so many times in the novel. The house in fundamental to the story, but the movie unjustly relegates it to a mere backdrop.<br /><br />If I hadn't read the book before, I would have never guessed that such a sappy, shallow movie could be based on such a rich and entertaining novel.
This movie is not only poorly scripted and directed but is simply distasteful. A beautiful novel is terribly misrepresented in this film. Many changes have been made to the storyline, presumably to streamline the timeframe. But what results is simply confusing. The acting can't possibly overcome the script which removes the characters' motives for their behavior. Plus, the conversion to English does not work when everyone refers to the patriarch EsTEban as ESteban. Horrible. Please please please read the gorgeous novel, in Spanish if possible. DON'T SEE THIS FILM. It will ruin for you what could be a wonderful experience.
I read the novel some years ago and I liked it a lot. when I saw the movie I couldn't believe it... They changed everything I liked about the novel, even the plot. I wonder what did Isabel Allende (author) say about the movie, but I think it sucks!!!
This movie is a good example of how to ruin a book in 109 minutes. Except for the names of the characters the movie bears very little resemblance to the book. A book full of strong Latino characters and they are represent, for the most part, by non-Latinos. There is no character development in the movie and we have no reason to love or hate the characters. And to delete a complete generation is inexcusable. Isabel Allende has written a powerful book and the book is what should be read!
The direction struck me as poor man's Ingemar Bergman. The inaudible dialogue was annoying. The somber stoicism that all characters except Banderas' showed made me think they were drugged. I think the director ruined it for me.
I regret that I've seen this movie. Can't believe that the creator of Best Intentions and Pelle the Conqueror could make such a bleak and boring film. What a waste!
Isabel Allende's magical, lyrical novel about three generations of an aristocratic South American family was vandalized. The lumbering oaf of a movie that resulted--largely due to a magnificent cast of Anglo actors completely unable to carry off the evasive Latin mellifluousness of Allende's characters, and a plodding Scandinavian directorial hand--was so uncomfortable in its own skin that I returned to the theater a second time to make certain I had not missed something vital that might change my opinion. To my disappointment, I had not missed a thing. None among Meryl Streep, Jeremy Irons, Glenn Close and Vanessa Redgrave could wiggle free of the trap set for them by director Bille August. All of them looked perfectly stiff and resigned, as if, by putting forth as little effort as possible, they expected to fade unnoticed into lovely period sets. (Yes, the film was art directed within an inch of its life.) Curious that the production designer was permitted the gaffe of placing KFC products prominently in a scene that occurs circa 1970--years before KFC came into being. Back then, it was known by its original name: Kentucky Fried Chicken. Even pardoning that, what on earth is Kentucky Fried Chicken doing in a military dictatorship in South America in 1970? American fast food chains did not hit South America until the early 1980s. "The House of the Spirits" should have been the motion picture event of 1993. Because it was so club-footed and slavishly faithful to its vague idea of what the novel represented, Miramax had to market it as an art film. As a result, it was neither event nor art. And for that, Isabel Allende should have pressed charges for rape.
When I found out there was a movie that had both my favorite actresses Meryl Streep and Wynona Ryder, I went through the roof!But I had a hard fall after watching this lame movie and I still have the bruise.First of all the character that Jeremy Irons (an actor I still admire even after this disappointment)plays was just awful. He treated his family like crap, especially his sister, played by Glenn Close. I could not get close or sympathize with any of the characters and I'm no prude, but the sex scenes were really unnecessary or they could have been toned down. Wynona and Antonio's characters could have been developed a lot more and their romance could have been much more passionate. And what was with Meryl's character and her "mystical powers"? Why didn't they go into this more? This film had a lot of dead ends and the bottom line is that this is a really lousy movie and there was a lot of wasted talent here.
There's enough star power in THE HOUSE OF SPIRITS to create another galaxy, yet the final product is pretty debatable. The film and its messages are very noble, and I think perhaps most would agree with them. (Liberal Democracy good, violent fascist regime bad; open-mindedness good, racism bad, etc). Unfortunately, we're battered from head to toe with these, and as much subtlety is used as I've described them. <br /><br />Ultimately, we are left watching very noble people without any flaws squaring off with nasty cretins who have no redeeming qualities. It radiates with all the suspense of a badly orchestrated "pro" wrestling match.<br /><br />Jeremy Irons plays the patron, a man of many contradictions. Meryl Streep as his gifted bride and Glenn Close, as her sister in law. When the camera stays with these folks, the movie tends to move, and is quite enjoyable. Unfortunately, THE HOUSE OF SPIRITS engages with simply way too many subplots, and characters pop up and out of the picture like shooting gallery targets. We don't get to know them, hence we don't get to care for them. The result is boredom. <br /><br />If Bille August, the director and screenwriter (from Isabel Allende's book) had either lengthened the film or snipped a few characters, this film might have worked completely. As it stands, it was a nice try, with nice messages, and a bonecrushing yawnfest.<br /><br />Not recommended.
I'm glad I rented this movie for one reason: its shortcomings made me want to read Allende's book and get the full story. <br /><br />Pros: the movie is beautiful, the period is depicted well and consistently (to the best of my knowledge), and Meryl and Glenn do good jobs.<br /><br />Cons: This is the worst acting job I've ever seen from Jeremy Irons--I kept wondering if something was wrong with his mouth. (And I hate the terribly English way he says "Transito.") Winona Ryder does nothing believable except look young and idealistic. Most of the other performances are OK, but so few things hang together in the character arcs and the relationship development that I was frustrated and angry well before the end. <br /><br />I'm very curious now whether this movie is typical of Bille August's work. I may have to drop another couple of bucks to rent Smilla's Sense of Snow.
I managed to sneak away one night and go to the movie theater to see this one, thinking I was in for a treat. Boy, was I wrong. Considering the talent involved, this has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Everyone in it was miscast, and I find it incredible to read on this site that there are people out there who actually liked it.
Forget Plan 9, this is the ultimate fiasco, a costume drama, ineptly directed, scripted, acted, etc. This film is based on Isabel Allende's not-so-much-better novel. I hate Meryl Streep and Antonio Banderas (in non-Spanish films), and the other actors, including Winona, my favourite actress and Jeremy Irons try hard to get over such a terrible script. Plenty of mistakes (like, for example, since when does it snow in Xmas in Chile?) and very cruel, with tons of that evil named "magic realism", this stands out as the worst movie of all time. It totally sucks!!!
I confess--Emma, in my opinion, is the single greatest novel ever written. It is as close to perfection as any mortal creation can be. Jane Austen reaches the pinnacle of her art here.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this is at best a palimpsest.<br /><br />Comparison to the Gwyneth Paltrow version is inevitable--that version is far more faithful to the witty spirit of the book and far more enjoyable to watch.<br /><br />There are some good elements here--Kate Berkinsale (having previously played Flora Poste in Cold Comfort Farm, clearly Emma's smarter spiritual twin) is a wonderful Emma. Raymond Coulthard makes an appropriately decorative Frank Churchill. The production is handsome, but the interiors are far too dark.<br /><br />However, there are several major problems. The first is Mark Strong--first of all, he doesn't look right for Mr. Knightley. This is perhaps because he plays the role like a censorious Victorian parson. It's badly out of tune.<br /><br />The second problem is one of length. Simply put, the film is much too short--to get the right kind of feel, it would need to be twice as long.<br /><br />Finally, and most significantly, there is the quality of the adaptation. Austen is an adapter's dream--all the dialogue is there already. It only needs to be pruned down and arranged properly. Andrew Davies seems to think otherwise. First, this is a rather gloomy film, and the last thing Emma should be is gloomy. More significantly, Davies has seen fit to rewrite the ending as some sort of bucolic feast. What planet, or minor work of Thomas Hardy, is this come from? It is utterly out of the style and spirit of the novel. And I believe that it is hugely presumptuous to try to make improvements upon--perfection.<br /><br />Watch the Paltrow version, or watch Kate in Cold Comfort Farm.
Emma is my favourite Jane Austen novel - Emma is well-meaning despite her flaws, so readers can forgive and love her, and the relationship she has with Mr Knightley, which is warm, familiar, respectful but playful, generating that warm, fuzzy, romantic excitement. Mr Knightley is the perfect man, and Emma is as close as you could get in those times to an independent, clever, confident woman - remember, she is only 21, and was sure to have matured and grown out of her flaws. Who doesn't want to be Emma? Who doesn't want to be told off by Mr Knightley? This version of Emma gives you no sense of the things that I love about Emma. I couldn't even finish watching it, I just found it so awful. I couldn't see that warm, generous side of Emma, which drives the reader to love her: The patience and warmth she shows to her father; the closeness between her and Mrs Weston, which demonstrates her willingness to put her friend's happiness above her own (as she sacrifices the only equal companion in her household by forwarding Miss Taylors marriage). Mr Woodhouse's character in this adaptation just appears bizarre, rather than just quaint, elderly and a bit trying.<br /><br />This adaptation most importantly fails bring to life the relationship between Mr Knightley and Emma. Their relationship is built on mutual respect and affection: Mr Knightley is indulgent of Emma's minor faults trusting that her intelligence and genuine care for others will never allow her to go terribly astray; and Emma looks up to him, though playfully hiding this and continuing to use her own judgement. The dressing down he gives her right at the beginning of the show completely overstates the argument between them, and ruins all possibility of portraying the nature of their relationship as I've described above. Mr Knightley is also insufficiently attractive to bring to life the sexual tension between the leads (or to inspire any admiration from the female viewers).<br /><br />Really horrible. I can't understand why anyone who truly like the novel Emma could like it, unless it miraculously redeems itself after the point I switched it off.
This is indeed a god adaptation of Jane Austen's novel. Compared with the American Version with Guinneth Paltrow, the script was written to resemble as much as possible the book. But the acting was awful. Besides Kate Beckinsale, who I believe was a true likeness of the Emma in the book, all the other actors were trying too hard. Mark Strong was not the "gentleman" he was supposed to be. He was often rude and offensive, had no feeling whatsoever, and throughout the entire film you could not see his love "growing" for Emma at all. This had a terrible effect on Kate Beckinsale, who seemed to be trying to "resque" her leading role as well as her partner's. Moreover, there was no chemistry between the entire cast. Hariett Smith, played by Samantha Morton, seemed to have no real attachment to Mr. Elton, played by Dominic Rowan. Therefore, she did not seem as heartbroken as she was portrayed in the book. The settings of the film are also too poor. The costumes are even more so. I would have imagined Emma Woodhouse to dress in a more fashionable and elegant way that she does here. The ending is also too long. It is good that it resembles the book's ending, but it is a killer ending for a film. And again, I can see no feeling of happiness in the face of Mr.Knightley. To conclude, I believed this adaptation to be loyal to the book, but with poor actors. It seemed as if the film was made without any budget at all. I would prefer to see the "lighter" version with Paltrow and Northam, even if it is clear that it was made to be a "blockbuster", than to watch these actors (excepting the good Olivia Williams and the better Kate Beckinsale) ruin the entire script.
The script is nice.Though the casting is absolutely non-watchable.No style. the costumes do not look like some from the High Highbury society. Comparing Gwyneth Paltrow with Kate Beckinsale I can only say that Ms. Beckinsale speaks British English better than Ms. Paltrow, though in Ms. Paltrow's acting lies the very nature of Emma Woodhouse. Mr. Northam undoubtedly is the best Mr. Knightley of all versions, he is romantic and not at all sharp-looking and unfeeling like Mr. Knightley in the TV-version. P.S.The spectator cannot see at all Mr. Elton-Ms. Smith relationship's development as it was in the motion version, so one cannot understand where was all Emma's trying of make a Elton-Smith match (besides of the portrait).
As someone who has read the book, I can say that this is vastly inferior to the big American version starring Gwyneth Paltrow. There are various reasons for this. Firstly, Emma is too unpleasant. Yes, she has faults, and isn't the easiest person to like - but the viewer shouldn't downright start to despise her. Secondly, Mr Knightly is miscast. His brooding and melancholy in this version are better suited to a Bronte or Gaskell adaptation than Austen, and throw the mood of the whole affair "off". Thirdly, Samantha Morton is too strong an actress to be relegated to the role of Harriet; and why was she made to look so sickly? Harriet is supposed to be blonde and blooming - not to look as if she's going to be carried off by consumption in the next scene. Fourthly, the structure has been mucked up and scenes cut. At the end, when Emma decides she loves Mr Knightly, it comes across as utterly baffling because this narrative hasn't been adequately shown and carried along throughout the film. Fifthly, what was going on, exactly, with Mrs Elton's accent? She went from sounding like an American actress trying to suppress her own accent at the beginning, to all out American half-way through, and then back to English at the end. Finally, this dragged at the end. The book and the big film version end with the wedding of Emma and Mr Knightly. This version drags on confusingly after the announcement of the wedding without actually showing us the ceremony.<br /><br />All in all, a rather haphazard attempt. Read the book or rent the Paltrow version instead
Where do I start? Per the title of this film I expected some degree of authenticity, in the end I was severally let down. This is not the story of Lale Andersen or the song Lili Marlene, rather it is a Hollywood (or pick your film making hub) story loosely based on some real life characters. I should have had a clue when I heard a heavy English accent giving the intro to the movie in German; the blood red text (title, artists) should have been the 2nd clue. The story line is contrived (Lale was not tricked out of Switzerland Rolf Liebermann's parents, there is no info that Liebermann helped smuggle Jews from Germany, the original song had been recorded outside of the control of the NS regime not while under control, the record played at the station was picked up in Vienna while a Lt. was there on leave, etc, etc) the costumes are poor and incorrect for the time frames (SS black uniforms used every where from border guards to staff positions, these went away from daily use once the war started, etc), the characters are stereo types (SA bullies in a club once they were essentially out of power). Don't waste your time.
I am terribly sorry, I know that Faßbinder still is called one of the greatest directors in post-war Germany and that most of his films are considered "master-pieces", but when I see "Lili Marleen" today, in 2004, I wonder what everyone is up and away about this movie! The acting is simply terrible - Hanna Schygulla is all the smiling like an idiot! -, the changings between Nazi-glamour and battlefields are ridiculous, the whole film looks as if it was made within two days in an attic. Probably it was exactly that way and many people seem to take this for "real art", but for me this movie is simply bad & cheap. Compare this to Viscontis "La Caduta degli Dei" and tell me again that "Lili Marleen" is a good movie...
Labored comedy has I.R.S. agent Tony Randall investigating eccentric farm family in Maryland who have never paid their taxes; Debbie Reynolds is the tomboy farmer's daughter who puts the squeeze on the not-so-disinterested tax-man. Debbie certainly made her share of inferior theatrical sitcoms during this period--and this one's no better or worse than the rest. Picture begins brightly but flags at the halfway point, becoming frantic and witless. Randall isn't a bad match for Reynolds, but the vehicle itself defeats the chemistry. Based on the novel "The Darling Buds of May" by H.E. Bates, with a poor sound-mix causing all the actors to sound as if they're stuck in an echo chamber. ** from ****
Well. Astronaut Steve West sits in a plastic space capsule, commenting that "you haven't lived until you've seen the sun through the rings of Saturn", all the while the obvious mid-day sunlight is streaming through the window, when suddenly he has a nose bleed. Next, West is back home in some secret hospital, a melting gelatinous mass who goes berserk and causes a chunky nurse to run through a fake glass door. Apparently, West "gets stronger as he melts", which makes about as much sense as anything in this hopelessly purile, adle-brained moovie. Then this dopey "Army Brass", who looks kind of like Coleman Francis (director of many bad moovies) tries to cover the info up, but goo man runs around killing everyone he sees because he is melting. He attacks a bickering old couple because he is melting. He makes one terrible actress scream and moan helplessly for about 10 minutes because he is melting. He is melting because he is melting. The fx by the slumming Rick Baker are supposed to be the star here, but they just look hokey. The film is poorly shot and everything looks so dark and muddled that it's very difficult making out what's what - not that it would help any. MooCow says who cut the cheese with this one?? :=8P ps - "Didn't you get any crackers?"
Once upon a time some evil people made a movie about a guy that got shot into space, supposedly to go to Saturn, but really only to some stock footage of solar flares, and then he gets a nose bleed, and before you know it, he's laying in a hospital bandaged head to foot, and then an overweight nurse with an ill-fitting uniform comes in and gets eaten by the guy, whose supposed to be melting all over the place but never seems to lose any mass, and then NASA, or at least one guy at NASA, gets upset about it and calls one other guy in to hunt him down, but the guy they sent to hunt the melting guy has to go home and have soup first, and his oddly-shaped wife forgot the crackers, so he can't have crackers, and then he has to go out and look for the melting guy with a geiger counter, and that doesn't really work, so he really only follows the trail of half-eaten corpses, and then there's something about a sheriff, and two ugly old people in a lemon grove, and a women with a meat cleaver, and some kind of industrial plant with trigger-happy security guards, and since I can't tell you how the movies ends, all I can say is Jonathan Demme is in it somewhere with some guy with the stupid name of Burr DeBenning, and if there's any justice in the world everyone connected with this movie died a hideous, violent death and was unable to make more movies, and the world lived HAPPILY EVER AFTER - THE END!
The Incredible Melting Man plays like an extended episode of The Six Million Dollar Man, but with violence and some nudity. I know this film is a bit crummy but I found it impossible not to kind of like it.<br /><br />The acting and script are not the best. But the effects are good for a 30 year old movie with a budget of $50 - the title character takes quite a while to actually melt but when he does it's reasonably impressive; we also have one inventive death scene involving electrocution. Of note too is the music, it's insane - a cheese-tastic medley of nonsense.<br /><br />Notable highlights: <br /><br />* Marvel at the slow-motion nurse who jumps through a pane of glass for absolutely no reason whatsoever.<br /><br />* Be amazed by a day in the life of a severed head.<br /><br />* Beware of the psychotic cannibalistic melting humanoid. Called Steve.<br /><br />* Be astonished when our hero takes a break from hunting the melting lunatic to have a bowl of soup and complain about insufficient crackers in the kitchen.<br /><br />This film is just too 70's for me to hate it. It's tacky and trashy but I thought it was a lot of fun. You could do a lot worse.
I was thinking that the main character, the astronaut with the bad case of the runs(in his case, his skin, hair, muscles, etc) could always get more movie work after he'd been reduced to a puddle. All he has to do is get a job as the Blob. The premise of this flick is pretty lame. An astronaut gets exposed to sunspot radiation(I think), and so begins to act like an ice cream cone on a hot day. Not only is this a puzzler, but apparently he has to kill humans and consume their flesh so that he can maintain some kind of cell integrity. Huh? Have you ever noticed that whenever any kind of radiation accident or experiment happens, the person instantly turns into a killing machine? Why is that?<br /><br />The astronaut lumbers off into the night from the 'secret facility'(which has no security whatsoever), shedding parts of himself as he goes. Apparently he retains just enough memory to make him head for the launch pad, maybe because he wanted to return to space. <br /><br />Thus begins the part of the movie that's pretty much filler, with a doctor wandering around with a Geiger counter, trying to find the melting man by the buzz he gives off. He kills a stupid Bill Gates look-alike fisherman, scares a little girl a la the Frankenstein monster movie, and finishes off a wacky older couple(punishing them karmically for stealing some lemons). Then there's a short scene where he whacks his former General, and a very long scene where he kills a young pothead and chases his girlfriend around. You'd think that after she cuts his arm off and he run away, the scene would shift. But no...we're treated to about ten minutes of the woman huddled into a corner panting and screaming in terror, even though the monster is gone. All I could think was..director's girlfriend, anyone?<br /><br />The end of the movie is even lamer than the rest of it. The melting man finishes turning into a pile of goo, and then...nothing. That's it. That's the end of the movie. Well, at least that meant that there was no room for a sequel.
Want to watch a scary horror film? Then steer clear of this one. There's not enough beer in the world to make this film enjoyable.<br /><br />However, there is enough scotch. Single-malt, if you can manage it.<br /><br />If the previous comments weren't enough to keep you from watching this film sober, allow me to assist. NASA sends one man and two unpaid extras into space to orbit Saturn. A really big solar flare causes Colonel Steve West to bleed from the nose. Things go downhill from there, and wackiness ensues.<br /><br />I actually read the book adaptation, which was published and released only in the UK. MILES better than the film, and the book was dreadful. At least some pretense is made towards suspense, and some sort of explanation of events is pulled out from the author's (rhymes with 'gas').<br /><br />Not to say that the film is completely without merit. Rick Baker learned that he really ought to read a contract before signing on to a film, and Jonathan Demme found that he's really better suited to direct.<br /><br />Yes, there is an MST3K episode featuring this flick, but it is, of course, edited quite a bit. Without the obligatory flashing of the breasts, not even the healing power of scotch can save you.<br /><br />Please, just go watch Raiders of the Lost Ark if you want to see a guy melt. See Space Cowboys if you feel the need to see astronauts. I can not, in all good conscience, recommend this film to the sober film-going public.
I think that my favorite part of this movie, the one that exemplifies the sheer pointless, stupidity and inanity of the proceedings, comes at the climax of the film. DOCTOR TED NELSON and his unmarried friend the Sheriff have finally cornered the Melting Man on a landing on some stairs in an electrical generating plant. Keep in mind that Nelson has been looking for the MM for nearly the entire film, and that the MM has killed and eaten several people at this point (including his boss), and Nelson is very aware that MM is violently insane and hungry for human flesh and blood.<br /><br />So the Sheriff has his gun pointed at MM, who is, and I give the movie and Rick Baker props for this, the most disgusting and terrifying object in human form that we have ever seen. And he yells a very important question to DOCTOR TED NELSON: "WHAT DO WE DO NOW?!?!?" <br /><br />The camera cuts over to DOCTOR TED NELSON, and it's obvious that Ted has no idea what to do next. Apparently Ted was so intent on the problem of FINDING the Melting Man, he never thought to bring along some restraining devices, a lasso, or straitjacket, or a net, or some tranquilizer darts, or maybe a New Age tape by Vangelis to soothe the savage beast.<br /><br />So the sheriff panics and shoots, the Melting Man goes berserk, and hilarity ensues. <br /><br />Maybe this explains why NASA has been screwing around with the Space Shuttle program in sub-lunar space for the last 30 years instead of going back to the Moon or out to Mars like everyone knows they OUGHT to be doing. I dunno.<br /><br />Anyway, that's the kind of lousy, lazy writing and direction that undercuts every aspect of this movie. It's hard to say how good the actors actually are, because the movie has complete contempt for their characters.<br /><br />Two other incredibly painful sequences also ramp up the stupidity of the proceedings: There is a scene featuring the lumpiest old couple in the world trying to steal lemons from a grove, only to be torn apart by the Melting Man. This scene is a nadir in 70s cinema. I can guarantee you've never watched a more pointless and irritating setup with odder looking people in your entire life. And the Melting Man's assault on the lady who lives in the house where they keep a horse who pees on the walls defies every attempt to process it.(BTW, I think famous film director Jonathon Demme has a walk-on in this scene as the redneck husband who goes in first to check on the house and never comes out again). The only thing that keeps the actress from literally chewing the scenery is that, as I said, their horse has apparently been peeing on it. And we are forced to watch her hysterics for at least two minutes longer than any SANE film director would hold the shot. <br /><br />Burr DeBenning ought to beat the crap out of IMM's director and photographer. I remember him from an old Columbo episode where he looked MUCH better than he does here - no one's idea of a leading man, but solid and unobtrusive. But no one could possibly be as unappealing in real life as his director makes him look here. <br /><br />Everyone else comes off a little better except for the old couple (and shut up, I know they were being played for laughs, but I ain't laughing!) but not much. <br /><br />This definitely falls into the 'So Bad You Can't Look Away' category of cinema disasters. Still, I'd watch it again before I'd watch a lot of other 70's and 80's abortions ( "Track of The Moonbeast" and "It Lives By Night" come to mind), and MST's coverage of it is great fun, so if you get a chance, watch the MST version.
A truly unpleasant film. While Rick Baker's special effects are quite impressive (if stomach-turning), it has no other redeeming features. Like many 70s movies, it leaves you feeling as if you need to take a long shower, and scrub the slime off of yourself. The characters are uniformly unpleasant, and plot makes no sense.
I have always wanted to see this because I love cheesy horror movies and with a title like this, I was sure "The Incredible Melting Man" would be a lot of fun.<br /><br />It really wasn't. I mean, the acting was entertainingly bad, the script contained some classic bad lines and the special effects looked like someone had sneezed all over the lead actor, so I should have loved it. Unfortunately it's really draggy between these highlights. I decided to watch the last half of the movie while doing my tax return. That's how boring this film is.<br /><br />Nevertheless, if you love bad movies you will enjoy the dramatic exit of the Fat Nurse, and the stellar acting of the guy who plays Dr. Ted. To be fair to the poor man, he does have to deliver some amazingly inept lines with straight face - like the conversation he has with his wife on tracking down the I M Man:<br /><br />"I'll find him with a geiger counter." "Is he radioactive?" "Just a little bit." <br /><br />Yes, the plot has Dr. Ted wandering about trying to find a superstrong zombie killing machine armed only with what looks like a mini-Dyson. He's a brave man. Unfortunately his plan fails when he finds a big lot of goop on a tree. "Oh god - it's his ear!" says Dr. Ted to the audience. I'm so glad he cleared that up. <br /><br />I realise I'm making this movie sound rather fun. It would be if it were only 10 minutes long, but unfortunately it goes on and on, and the Incredible Melting Dude just dangles about making a sticky mess when he should be eating more people in my opinion. I think if you were truly stoned you would probably love it, just don't have pop-tarts during the movie, because the lead actor really does resemble one near the end.
I have begun to melt so I will make this review as short and sweet as possible.<br /><br />There's this astronaut, and he goes up in a spacecraft with two other guys, ya know? Except something happens that exposes him to radiation, and then when they come back...well, never mind what happened to the other guys, but our astronaut has begun to melt! No, not just burn up, but MELT! Like an ice cream cone in July! Well OK maybe not that fast, but ya know what I mean.<br /><br />Anyway, he gets all red & gooey, and the fact that he's melting makes him really mad. I guess he also checked out the "melting man" handbook because suddenly he knows that in order to keep from totally melting away, he has to eat human flesh, so he starts ripping people apart.<br /><br />There are other characters, but in a movie where a man melts and melts and melts (and melts), do you really need any others? What's important is WHO will he munch next, and WHAT will be left of them? HOW long will it take for him to just melt away to nothing? WHY was this movie made in the first place? WHERE did they get the money? WHEN will you fall asleep while watching it?<br /><br />I've very nearly melted, but I still have enough time left to tell you that this movie is dreadfully boring, even though the idea is really cool and kind of gross. The makeup is neat but everything else is...SPLAT
I managed to grab a viewing of this with the aid of MST3K, and oh boy, even with the riffing this movie was excruciatingly bad. Imagine someone whose competence with a camera could be out done by a monkey.<br /><br />The highlights (what little there were) came from the special effects, which were "OK". The acting for the most part was also "OK"; though nothing special, it was of a higher quality than other B-Movies I have seen in the past.<br /><br />The rest of this movie is dismally bad, The camera work often looks like they've just put the camera man on roller skates and pushed him along. The story (if it can be called that) is so full of holes it's almost funny, It never really explains why the hell he survived in the first place, or needs human flesh in order to survive. The script is poorly written and the dialogue verges on just plane stupid. The climax to movie (if there is one) is absolutely laughable.<br /><br />If you can't find the MST3K version, avoid this at all costs.
Is this a stupid movie? You bet!! I could not find any moment in this film that was creepy or scary. Stupid moments? Plenty. Stupid characters? You bet. Bad effects? Everywhere! Rick Baker may have gone and done bigger and better things, this is not one of them. Oh well people gotta start somewhere. Dr. Ted Nelson is cheesed. He is the most whiny doctor I've ever seen. He's got a melting man running amok out in Ventura County somewhere, he's not overly happy that his wife is pregnant (probably cause she's 55 years old and weighs 90 lbs) and there's no crackers to be found anywhere. Plus he's got the not-too-helpful general on his hinder wanting to find astronaut Steve. And the local sheriff wants to know what's going on even though Mr. Nelson can't tell him anything. There also some random characters thrown in for good measure who encounter the melting man. Eventually the movie ends and out monster gets scooped into a trash can to become compost. In the end it's just what you need for a great MST episode.
This movie wasn't just bad - it was terrible. After I watched it, I actually felt the need to TAKE A SHOWER to get the filth off of me. There is running 'gag' with an elderly couple making out, it is not funny, but it is disgusting. The monster make up was cool, but that is all. The continuity errors alone will have you angry - at least I was. The editing is really poor.<br /><br />Almost anything else you could possibly do would be better than spending time watching this movie. Even if your group of friends are into 'bad movies' this one is exceptional in its ineptitude, I couldn't even bring myself to laugh at it. You have been warned.
Many moons ago when I was seven years old, I can vaguely remember seeing a trailer for this movie. It appealed to my naive sense of curiosity and I decided to ask my parents to take me to this movie. Being the wise adults that they are, they told me "Absolutely not! It's a bunch of trash." Of course, I was very disappointed that I would not be the first kid on my block to see the "Incredible Melting Man."<br /><br />Little time passed - maybe a couple of days. I forgot about "The Incredible Melting Man" and my disappointment faded. Twenty-five years passed until it re-entered the forefront of my thoughts. While surfing through channels on digital cable, I found this long-lost relic of a movie. My curiosity was piqued and I decided to finally partake in this fruit forbidden by my parents. I should have listened to them. The "Incredible Melting Man" is perhaps the worst movie known to man. It makes movies such as "Def-Con 4, "Metalstorm", and "Freddie Got Fingered" look like Oscar nominees. I feel violated for wasting almost two hours of my life watching this vile filth. The story was incoherent and the effects were crude even for 1977. How anyone convinced a film company to produce this movie beyond me.<br /><br />Don't make the same mistake that I did. Listen to your parents if they forbade you to watch this movie. They were right.
No, just kidding. It was God-awful.<br /><br />I was watching my local Sci-fi station last night, which plays movies, every night, within a monthly theme. This month it's "Space Turkeys, Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bombs". Movies so bad, they should never have been made. This was a good selection.<br /><br />Everything about this movie is thoroughly horrible with two exceptions, the gore make-up (which showed potential) and the editing (which slightly out did the rest of the movie, in terms of being horrible). The acting is horrible all around, the dialog is horrible, the script, the direction. It's not a good movie.<br /><br />It consists of two forms of special effects, gore and stock footage of space. I'll focus on the gore. Watching this movie, I thought to myself, "What WAS the motivation behind the making of this movie?" People like making stuff, sure, but I was hesitant to think anything good could have come of it for anyone involved. I came to the conclusion that this movie was made as a means to increase the Make-up Effects guy's Demo Reel. He (Rick Baker) actually went on to a pretty nice career, he's worked on STAR WARS (1977), KING KONG (1976), MEN IN BLACK (1996), and even THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING WOMAN (1981), plus a number of other notable flicks. Other than that, I can't say I've ever actually SEEN a real, live melting man - incredible, or otherwise - but I'd have to say this seemed to be a fair representation of one.<br /><br />Now, when I think of bad editing, I usually think of maybe a scene where someone's talking on the phone and then, in the middle of the scene, the phone jumps down to his shoulder, or something to that effect. This movie really serves to highlighted the fact that bad editing can take many forms. Specifically, over-long and utterly useless scenes. Just about every scene dragged on longer than it should have, from a little bit of dead air to that crazy-long screaming scene with Cleaver Girl. And that severed head in the river, the head gets thrown into a river (in slow motion), the movie carries on for a couple minutes, and then we cut back to the floating head and watch it fall down a waterfall. While I'm sure they were all very proud of their severed head, WHAT THE HELL??<br /><br />Lastly, I'll mention the running fat lady/slow motion scene right near the beginning. The jerky slow motion tells me that they didn't shoot the scene in slow motion originally but later decided that it "wasn't working like that" and then slowed it down. Oy vey. In any event, if you should ever see another movie in which a hysterical fat woman runs down a hall and then directly through a closed, glass door - all in slow motion, mind you - remember THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN, for *this* is where it all started.<br /><br />Movies like this are best viewed at home with a bunch of friends. This one's a little slow most of the time but that's just all the more time to come up with your own one-liners. It's not the worst of the worst but it's pretty freaking bad.
Why do I constantly do this to myself? I mean, really, it's right there in the title - "The Incredible Melting Man". What else would I expect? I have to admit, I'm a sucker for just about anything I come across on the Monster HD channel, but the only redeeming feature of this picture would be that truly grotesque makeup job by the legendary Rick Baker. As for creepy, I'll give the nod to that horny old geezer couple sucking on lemons just before lights out. Now they were truly scary.<br /><br />Something I could never figure out in horror flicks was why a monster's victims wouldn't simply just run away when faced with virtual annihilation. Like the chick in the cabin. You know, there was a door completely visible right there in the kitchen that she could have run right out of at any time. Incredible Steve-O couldn't muster much more than a brisk walk, so why not just blow right by him? I don't know, maybe I'm missing something. <br /><br />This flick had some of the feel of a 'Tales From The Crypt' episode, but 'Tales' usually had a cool or grotesque twist which often times you didn't see coming. This was one picture that you couldn't quite get a handle on coming OR going. For example, in an early scene, you can clearly make out that Melting Man's eyeball fell out of his head, so how did he manage to get around for the rest of the story? I guess we're not supposed to ask.<br /><br />At eighty four minutes, this picture was about an hour and a half too long. When it was all over, I was ready to take up General Perry on his earlier suggestion - "I could really use a drink about now".
A few days ago, I watched a documentary called THE FIFTY WORST MOVIES OF ALL TIME and this is where I first heard of THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN. Being a lover of schlocky films, I am making it a point to try to find some of the films from the documentary--not just including THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN. In fact, MELTING MAN is the first "bad film" I have seen since then and I must say I am rather disappointed. While it truly is a bad film, it comes nowhere near close enough to make inclusion on this list.<br /><br />Now before seeing the documentary, I have enjoyed "bad films" ever since I read the book "The Fifty Worst Movies of All Time" by Harry Medved. Despite the same title, the book came out long, long before the documentary and the makers of the documentary never credited Medved with the concept. From the Medved book, I have seen about 35 of the 50 films but have come to an impasse--the rest of the films just aren't available on VHS or DVD. So, I thought I'd try the film by the same name.<br /><br />The reason I was most disappointed with THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN was that there were a few good elements to the film. First, the melting guy special effects were generally really cool and disgusting. It's obvious that a professional (the famous Rich Baker) was involved in making this look realistic. However, I should also point out that there were also more than a few cheap and cheesy effects as well--such as the floating plastic head and the way the monster ran around after his left arm was cut off--you could see it "cleverly hidden" under his clothes! As for the story, it's just stupid. A group of astronauts miraculously penetrate the rings of Saturn without being crushed. Then, they comment about how beautiful the sun is--as we see closeups of it. This is odd since Saturn is so far from it--it should NOT look this way--it should be a large speck. Regardless, immediately the scene changes and we're told that one of the surviving astronauts is in a hospital. What happened between the last scene and this one? Yep, it's anyone's guess. Well, soon after, the survivor escapes and engages in a murderous rampage as his entire body melts.<br /><br />Now considering they have a psycho running about who looks like a melting popsicle, you'd think the government would pull out all stops to find and stop him, right?! Wrong. A general engages one lone doctor to find him!! No army, no police--just some dopey doctor. Even after bodies begin stacking up, at no point do the doctor or general do anything to organize a meaningful search or get backup.<br /><br />Now, given the stupidity of the film, you also wouldn't be surprised to find the following: <br /><br />When the melting dude is running around near the doctor's house, the doctor gives his wife a powerful sedative and leaves her in the house.<br /><br />When a cute old couple is driving late at night, they naturally stop in an orchard to pick fruit and are killed.<br /><br />When a lady sees melting dude, she barricades the door to protect herself. This would be smart IF she didn't have the back door of the house next to her! Instead of just leaving the house and escaping, she just waits! <br /><br />When a photographer and his model are taking snapshots, the guy grabs his assistant and yanks off her top. Why? Well to give the audience a cheap thrill and make it a rated R flick.<br /><br />When the melting dude is finally located and the sheriff has a clear shot at him, the doctor stops him--even though by now the monster had killed about a half dozen people.<br /><br />So, as you can see the film abounds with stupid plot elements. It is a very bad film. But, given the occasionally good special effects, it just wasn't a horrible film like I'd hoped. Sure, it's good for a laugh, but no where near PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE in badness and never should have been included on anyone's worst film list.
I can watch a good gory film now and then. I've seen some pretty sick stuff. However, this is one of the few films that I found to be grotesque in a way that was just plain repulsive and revolting. I like gore films when they are fun. I like wen they are a lot of creativity behind them. The gore in this film is not creative. It is sick. It is repugnant. It is completely unpleasant. Because of this, this film is certainly not entertaining. The film is a horror film, but it lacks scares. So pretty much the only reason why one would watch this film is for the gore, but that is the most unappealing and ugly aspect of the whole film, and that's saying a lot. The acting is terrible, the plot makes no sense, and the music is really annoying and WAY too electronic sounding. It all took me right out of the film. Pretty much the whole film is one big long depressing ordeal. There's this guy that has a freak accident in a shuttle and awakens in a hospital to find that his skin is dissolving and melting off. I guess that after that he goes out and eats human flesh in order to slow down the melting process. There's some weird subplot involving an old couple getting chased by a dog, some dismembered head floating down a stream, and an ending involving a man being electrocuted. There were times where I tried really hard to enjoy it, but the only scene in the whole film that I thought was even entertaining was the scene early on in which a nurse runs down a hospital corridor in slow motion. If you like ugly, nasty, ad unappealing horror films, this one is for you.
Rebar is an astronaut who goes on the world's first space mission to Saturn, but of course this being a horror movie things turn ugly and he returns to earth as the only survivor. Stricken with some bizarre condition that causes him to slowly melt and lose his mind unless he regularly consumes human flesh, he kills what apparently is the only nurse in the hospital and escapes to the neighboring town to stalk more victims.<br /><br />I liked the premise and the monster and gore effects are actually pretty good, but the space scenes are just pasted together out of stock NASA footage and the hospital looks curiously like a warehouse. A very weak script, little character development and overall poor acting keep this one from rising above being anything other than a mediocre slasher flick with the novelty of having a living candle as the killer, and more or less only has its gore effects to hold your interest.<br /><br />4 out of 10, strictly for the most die-hard monster movie fans.
The plot of " Astronuat returns to Earth as a mutating monster " died out in the 1950s mainly down to the scientific fact that travelling outside the Earth's orbit doesn't humans cause to turn in to mutated monsters , and that the first film to use this plot THE QUATERMASS EXPERIMENT was the only decent sci-fi movie to use the idea . So the idea of having the redundant plot return seems doomed from the start . Alas watching THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN it seems the plot is the least of its problems <br /><br />First of all this is an incredibly badly made movie . The budget is in single figures and I'm talking about lira not dollars . There is no cinematography to speak of and there's countless editing blunders . For example a photographer takes his ( Barely legal ) model for a photo shoot . Cut to a shot where the sun is directly behind model , then cut to shot of photographer where the sun is directly behind him, then cut back to the model where the sun is ...<br /><br />The lack of budget drags the film down in other aspects too . According to the trivia page the budget was so low the producers couldn't get any stock footage of Saturn so when astronaut Steve West mentions how beautiful Saturn looks we get footage of the sun . Actually the sun gives the most impressive performance in the film since the human actors wouldn't be employed by a porn studio . If I was appearing in this I wouldn't be scared by the eponymous monster - I'd be terrified of splinters from the rest of the cast . Perhaps we should be slightly forgiving though since the obvious lack of budget manifests itself in things like the actors having to wear their own clothes . A general for instance doesn't wear his nice fancy dress uniform complete with medals - he wears a denim jacket and baseball cap <br /><br />There has to be suspension of disbelief for a film like this to work but it fails on every level . The tone is set early on in the film where Mr Melty murders a nurse and escapes from the hospital . Instead of the police getting a call saying there's been a murder Dr Nelson just decides to track down his patient on his own own same as he'd look for a missing cat . It's also strange a thoroughly decomposing homicidal monster can walk down the road without anyone noticing , but this is typical of a film where horny 70 year olds stop their car down dark roads for a quickie and people nonchalantly mention their wife is pregnant whilst forgetting to tell the police that there's a monster on the loose .<br /><br />THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN is Z grade rubbish . I can certainly understand why people enjoy this movie because it does reach the heights of " It's so bad it's good " but apart from Rick Baker's sometimes impressive make up effects it's nothing more than a very guilty pleasure
I just watched The Incredible Melting Man for the second time, and it was even more boring than when I first watched it. I don't understand why it has become such a 'cult classic' when it is so tediously dull. The opening scene looks promising, when the fat nurse drops the canister of blood and runs for her dear life. After this all that really happens is the melting man stalks around some woods and houses, whilst having flashbacks of his life as an astronaut. The makeup is quite good, and his melting gooey face looks fairly realistic. There is a cool scene where he throws a mans head in a river, and it floats until it reaches a waterfall where it falls on rocks and bursts open. There's not much to wet yourself over though, most scenes are shot in darkness and you can't really see what is happening. There isn't much gore, at least in the Vipco DVD I watched. <br /><br />No, The Incredible Melting Man is not that great at all. I'll give it marks for its cheese factor but that's about it. If you want a TRUE sci-fi/horror cult classic, watch The Deadly Spawn instead!
The movie had so much potential, but due to 70's technology constraints and also a weak script killed the main plot of the film. The book version of the film was much better, and well conceived. If it had been done right in the beginning with sources from the book, it could have been a very cool classic.
I've seen a lot of stupid plotlines in my time, but this one is among the worst. After catching some disease in space, an astronaut comes back to Earth and starts melting. He then goes on a rampage, killing people (how is beyond me; I just watch them, I can't explain them.) This is the kind of movie that shouldn't have been made in the first place.
This film was so predictable, that during the entire time you're hoping that the obvious suspect is innocent, and there's some other big twist still coming. However... it doesn't. He just continues to act creepy, and she continues to ignore it. Mary found very incriminating evidence at his place, and she still trusted him? And what was that "baiting the trap"? There was no trap. She confronted him, he said "excuse me. I have to go kill someone" He left, and that was the end of it. They make attempts to use other suspects, (like that one older carnival girl at the end) but they're completely underdeveloped. Actually, all the characters are underdeveloped. They have no depth, and the setting is just plain strange... who hangs out in a recycling factory?? Its choppy and nothing is well developed. For example: When she leaves his place after having the beer, and he finds the pics and she runs out and he catches her and they end up having sex in that car... what was that? Her reactions weren't portrayed. In the car she acted scared like it could have been practically rape- but then all we see is her showering the next morning. booooooooo It could have been so much better.. sooo much better.
Alicia Silverstone (pre-"Clueless") plays a modern-day crime-obsessed teenager attempting to solve the brutal slaying of a local girl. Pat Verducci wrote and directed this B-flick, which isn't especially well-made but is however surprisingly serious-minded in regards to its leading character. Silverstone is appealing and successful in carving out an interesting young woman here, despite the picture's kitschy undermining. The supporting cast (including Kevin Dillon and Michael Bowen) isn't bad, though the violence in the last act goes overboard. Not a cheesy camp-fest, but nothing exceptionally memorable either. *1/2 from ****
The movie never becomes intolerable to watch. And to tell it straight, it has nothing to show either, except maybe part-sexy Alicia Silverstone in a nerdy non-sexy character in revealing quite-sexy dresses. The story is very easy to follow or there's nothing to follow -- you can see in either way. There is no suspense, little action, unimpressive dialogs, unsatisfactory sensuality, same boring locations and very bland acting. Kevin Dillon is totally worthless. Silverstone... well, I didn't concentrate too much on her acting, I confess. Yet as I said earlier, if one has nothing to do except watching a movie, this won't look so bad. 4/10
I try to be very objective when I view a low budget movie. I also apply a lower weight to independent and low budget productions versus the big budget productions. I expect near flawlessness from big budget productions and their studios. Therefore I apply tougher criteria to the major studio releases. But this movie was just a dud. Period. The premise was terrible. The main character, Mary Gordano (Alicia Silverstone), was unbelievable as a high school senior with an unquenchable desire to solve crimes. There was not enough depth in her character or her acting that pulled you into her world. Also, to make this movie more mysterious, the lighting in certain scenes did not set the mood, especially in the warehouse.<br /><br />Once again another disappointing movie that I could only give three points to.
Underneath the dense green glop of computer graphics there gleamed the astounding art and skill of Ichikawa Somegoro. Alas: it got lost in all the goo. The scenes of Old Edo -- with the courtesan, drifting on the Sumida, rehearsing and acting in the Nakamura-za -- were all exciting and engaging, taking you back to an interesting and rich era. The action on the Kabuki stage, in which Somegoro excels and excites, was more enriching than any of the absurd high jinks that followed. The skill, the energy in the audience, the colors of the sets, were far more satisfying than all the nonsense that took over plot and performance. What a wasted opportunity! One of the best kabuki actors alive, and he gets lost in the dreck.
This is the 2nd time I've seen this movie in about 12 years. These remarks come from someone who finds Kane and Ambersons to be amazing, worthy films. But the remainder of Welles career is, unfortunately, squandered on material unworthy of his talent and too flimsy to withstand his filmic embroidering. And when he makes a potboiler like Shanghai, the lack of anything substantial to hang his filmic tricks on, is just kind of sad. I couldn't tell you what he was exploring here. It's all as mannered as Welle's godawful Irish brogue; which takes a lot of effort, but adds absolutely zero to the film. Several Welles projects became this overdeveloped and baroque. Mr Arkadin (pick a version, any version) is a similarly belabored project. The material is inconsequential. It just can't bear the weight of all this noodling. For a director trafficking in reality-based drama (as here), he never feels any pull to tie his bundle of conceits back to reality; or to a coherent story. The murder-for-hire scheme is ridiculous. <br /><br />Kudos to Welles though, for having Hayworth cut her hair, and getting that performance out of her. The camera loves her. She's the classiest, most upscale, sultry and ravishing femme fatale ever put on film. But her treachery comes so late in the film it feels like some desperate decision, made so the movie will have some genre it fits into. The movie can't be saved by a noir convention deployed in the last 60 seconds.<br /><br />When all is said and done in L.F.S., the convolutions are all for what?; to convince you you've seen something thoughtful? to give Welles more to do? to make you roll your eyes? Welles has no sensitivity to the scale of a story, or to telling a story directly. One wonders what Shanghai has to say to anyone who isn't a crippled billionaire, arranging a quadruple-cross murder-for-hire scheme, or a fanboy in love with filmic conceits devoid of meaning or substance. <br /><br />Overwrought, preposterous, unengaging.
If you are studying Welles and want to see just how far he fell after Citizen Kane, this film will prove it. The cheap excuse of making the protagonist a self-admitted dummy to explain how he might fall into such a half-baked scheme fails to explain the absurd courtroom theatrics and ridiculous plot twists that eventually ensue. Don't be taken in by the high rating of this film in the db as I was; all I can guess is that there are a lot of die hard old Welles and Hayworth fans out there.
Oh-so-familiar comedy story about low-key nice-guy Paul (Jason Lee), who after the night of his bachelor party, wakes up in bed with Becky (Julia Stiles), an attractive blonde he met just the night before. After lying about it to his fiancée Karen (Selma Blair), he's forced to tell more and more lies to cover his tracks.<br /><br />I'm sure most of us have been witness to a story like this at least once before...on film or on TV. The movie is formulaic and EXTREMELY predictable, with an ending you may see coming a mile away.<br /><br />At least the cast provides some interest and keeps it watchable. Lee is just right in the lead, and Stiles is a lot of fun in a light-hearted comedic role different from the very serious roles she usually plays. Becky is a free spirit who seems to change jobs as often as other people change their clothes.<br /><br />But you know, this isn't exactly well-written. At least one question is left unanswered: for WHAT, exactly, is Ray (Lochlyn Munro), Becky's brutal ex-boyfriend, being investigated by the I.A.?<br /><br />And I didn't like the character of Buck (David Koechner), Paul's stepfather; he's a super-obnoxious moron who got on my nerves so quickly I was begging for somebody to punch him.<br /><br />Add another debit: a gratuitous, uncredited cameo by comic/actor Larry Miller, once again playing a grouch (in this case, it's a little justified - his character is an ultra-conservative minister).<br /><br />Not good at all, but as usual for me, I give it a three out of ten based on the efforts of the cast alone.
I thought this movie had absolutely no moral. I mean, how would you feel if your fiancé left you on your wedding day for your cousin??? I would be heartbroken!! It's classified as a comedy but I didn't find it funny at all. I thought it just mostly found cheap laughs and took them. I normally love Julie Stiles movies, but this is an exception. Jason Lee stars in another disgraceful show, which once again proves that class and decent morals are not relevant in todays society. It had a complete lack of taste and I despise movies like this. I understand that people will defend this movie and it's morals because it is 'Just a movie', but I still stand by my mark that this bad behaviour shouldn't be allowed on screen. I'm not trying to say that if you enjoyed this movie, you are a bad person, as everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and parts of this movie were enjoyable, I'm just saying that in real life, people acting like the characters in this film were doing is shameful.
This is so incredibly bad. Poor actors. You can tell they're trying really hard to polish a turd, but we all know you can't. The writing is so obvious and facile, it's sad watching them try to sell it. The humor and pacing are so labored, it's hard to believe any of these good actors signed on for this.<br /><br />That said, it's so awful that we're having a hard time looking away from the screen. We just have to know where this trainwreck goes. But that's only because we caught it on TV. If we had actually PAID for this, we'd be disgusted. <br /><br />So it gets 2 stars for being at least amusingly/fascinatingly bad. And the incidental music (as opposed to the trying-too-hard indie soundtrack) is laughably reminiscent of an episode of Scooby-Doo... but not as good.
Just a regular Jason lee movie, There were some parts of the movie that were funny. The undertone of the move is to live life on the edge I guess. These are the types of movies that I think 14 year old girls watch at slumber parties. It was an all right movie. It is kind of one of those movies you have on in the back ground and look up every now and then to when something catches attention. I think That Julia stiles and Selma Blair are a good combination and would like to see them in a movie with a good story and plot. Its just kind of a boy meets girl movie. This is that perfect movie they would show on comedy Central. I am glad that I didn't see this movie in the theater, I would have been angry. But I guess that's why I didn't see it in the theater.
Wow. That's about as much as I can say right now. Who writes this stuff? Who produces this stuff? What self-respecting actor would agree to 'act' in this stuff? Oh my GOD! I don't know how I made it through this movie, but I assume the fact that I had had like 8 cups of coffee that day was the key element in keeping me awake. Good Lord! It was one of the most droned-out and predictable pieces of cinematography I have ever witnessed...and for the record, I don't EVER plan to 'witness' it again.<br /><br />I first saw the film when I bought the DVD (MISTAKE #1). I mean...I figured, hey! Julia Stiles. I like her. She's cool. I'll watch it as soon as I get home (MISTAKE #2). I tried to watch it without groaning every five minutes wondering when this bunch of crap would come to an end, really I did. But I was unsuccessful. It was one of the worst things I had ever seen. I mean...what is with that thing where he imagines what would happen then snaps back into real life? That was annoying enough when the father used to do that in 'Parenthood' like ten years ago. The 'jokes' - and BELIEVE me, it takes a LOT out of me to call them that - are stupid, the characters are trite and forgettable, the storyline is entirely predictable...altogether this makes for a movie that should be WIPED FROM HISTORY RECORDS! I should have figured something was wrong when I realized that I'd never heard of this movie. It was most likely a straight-to-DVD.<br /><br />To anybody who may be thinking of watching this, I have one piece of advice. DON'T! For the LOVE of God...DON'T!!! I'm ashamed to have it in my DVD collection, and I can't get rid of it...Nobody, and I mean NOBODY wants to buy it from me! And I'm talking second-hand and third-hand thrift shops that would buy the mud off your shoes and stick it in the store window. That should let you know just how CRAP it is.
I just watched it. A couple of laughs, but nothing to write home about. Jason Lee looked like he was having fun. The (long) DVD gag reel consists almost solely of him having fits of uncontrollable laughter. Selma Blair seemed to be punching a time clock, but then again, her character was supposed to be a stick in the mud, so "well done" I guess? Jim Brolin was surprisingly funny. (Being married to Babs can't be a picnic.) The soundtrack was hip, and eclectic. Larry Miller, who played Julia Stiles father (hilariously), in 10 Things I Hate About You is funny here as well. He's great, but the best aspect of this movie was the casting of Julia Stiles. I could spend two hours watching her fold laundry, and I feel like I just did.
I'm not a big fan of rom/coms at the best of times. A few have been quite good (check of Dream for an Insomniac), but this one is just more of the same but less.<br /><br />With a running time of 100min, I expect more than 1 laugh every 30mins. The only real belly laugh are when male strangers and friends instinctivly help out Lee's character.<br /><br />All I can say is AVOID. I gaurentee there is at least 10 other movies on the shelf that deserve you $$<br /><br />3 of out 10 (And only cos I'm a big Lee fan)
I'm not a big fan of rom/coms at the best of times. A few have been quite good (check of Dream for an Insomniac), but this one is just more of the same but less.<br /><br />With a running time of 100min, I expect more than 1 laugh every 30mins. The only real belly laugh are when male strangers and friends instinctively help out Lee's character.<br /><br />All I can say is AVOID. I guarantee there is at least 10 other movies on the shelf that deserve you $$<br /><br />3 of out 10 (And only cos I'm a big Lee fan)
Jason Lee does his best to bring fun to a silly situation, but the movie just fails to make a connect. <br /><br />Perhaps because Julia Stiles character seems awkward as the conniving and sexy soon to be cousin-in-law. <br /><br />Maybe it is because she and Selma Blair's characters should have been cast the opposite way. (Selma Blair seems more conniving than Julia would be).<br /><br />Either way this movie is yet another Hollywood trivialization of a possibly real world situation (that being getting caught with your pants out at your bachelor party not stooping your cousin), which while having promise fails to deliver.<br /><br />There are some laughs to be sure and the cast (even if miscast) do their best with sub grade material which doesn't transcend its raunchy topic. So instead of getting a successful raunch fest (ie Animal House or American Pie) we are left with a middle ground of part humor and part stupidity (ala Meatballs 2 or something).
What a terrible, TERRIBLE, film! One of the worst movies I have seen in my life. I usually love movies like this, the whole "A guy meets an eccentric woman who he likes, but he happens to already be involved with someone, who not right for him....". I expected something predictable and I didn't mind. The movies are always entertaining mixing the right amount of romance with comedy, but not this one! Every single joke falls flat and the "romance" makes me want to vomit. The title character is one of the most "please kill me" characters that I have ever witnessed on my television, the "eccentric woman" isn't very eccentric, more like quirky and annoying. The "other someone" is the most reasonable, mature person in this film but also happens to be just as annoying. This films flat out sucks, there's no way around it, don't waste your time.
I had hoped this movie was going to be mildly entertaining, like other sorts of its genre. However, it was lame and I didn't find myself laughing very much. Watch it on HBO, maybe, or if you've got a free rental to waste and you need a movie to pass the time. But I don't recommend paying to see it.<br /><br />The plot is simple and straightforward, and it could have been funny, maybe, if the script was better. Jason Lee can be hilarious, and he gets a few laughs here and there, but the movie falls flat. Just don't go see this one. The directing is lackluster, but for what it is, directing isn't that important. I guess its main drawback is that it is just not very funny. See something else, don't waste your time here.
"A Guy Thing" tries to capture the feeling of "There's Something About Mary" or "Meet the Parents" but comes off more like it was edited up out of cutting-room rejects of those two films. Thankfully I rented it on a 5-day rental because I couldn't sit and watch more than 20 minutes at a time.<br /><br />The premise is decent and I liked the scenes where other guys automatically cover up for Paul's missteps (the checker at the Save-mart was great) but the script-writing is absolutely horrible. The dialog falls flat most of the time and just when you think that things are finally going to get on track some needless sight-gag is stuck in for no good reason. Plus how many toilet jokes does one movie really need?<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, slapstick humor is great when it's smartly done as in the other films I mentioned, but this movie simply misses the mark. Too bad as I love Julia Stiles (Ten Things I Hate About You was great) but even that couldn't help me sit through this terrible movie. Save your dollars and go rent "There's Something About Mary" one more time.
The only redemption was the small part by Larry Miller. It seemed that the movie was trying too hard to be "Something About Mary," but I didn't even like that movie and it still fell short of those standards. The actor who plays Paul was great, but Selma Blair is stuck in the stupidity of her Cruel Intentions character. James Brolin was great, but Paul's father seemed like he was trying too hard to be the Randy Quaid character from the National Lampoon's Vacation movies.
Julia Stiles is a talented young actress, who with guidance from a reputable agent has a lot of potential. Obviously, the person who guided her into this travesty is not someone who cares anything about her career. I sat in the theater surrounded by teenagers who left in droves to find another movie to sneak into wondering who thought this movie would appeal to anyone. It was poorly written, the casting director could only have put 1 or 2 minutes of effort into the characters and the director obviously didn't care.
I think Jason Lee has huge potential, but this was the WRONG vehicle in which to attempt to break out as a star. The plot is awful, the comedy is awful. I laughed twice, I think for relief, because in retrospect, they were fairly lame jokes. I found myself scared for the future of Fletch, and had to console myself that it was the film that was flawed, not Lee.<br /><br />Julia Stiles and Selma Blair are hot, but I recommend looking at the still photos on this website to figure that out, instead of this film. Save your time. 1 star.
This was one of the most boring movies I've ever seen… I don't really know why… Just your run-of-the-mill stories about guy who is about to get married, and starts to fancy someone else instead. Story has been told a thousand times. Nothing new or innovative about it at all.<br /><br />I don't really know what was wrong with this film. Most of the time when these kinds of actors/actresses get together to make a film that have already been made a million times before, it's really entertaining. There are usually little clever thing in them that aren't really in any other. For some reason, this one just doesn't hold your attention. You can pick out some funny parts, or clever ideas in it, but for some reason they're just not funny, nor clever in any way… I wish I new how to explain it, but I don't… Just don't waste your time on this one…
I never thought I see a movie worse than "Lisa Picard Is Famous", but this came pretty close. As repeated often throughout the comments, it was predictable; five minutes into the movie you know it will be a stranded at the alter outcome. This movie painfully references/rips off everything from "Something about Mary" to "Revenge of the Pink Panther". Writer Greg Glienna (Meet the Parents) needs some new material.<br /><br />The only twist is the deranged boyfriend/police officer pursued by internal affairs, but even that opportunity is wasted. Lots of setting shots of the Seattle Space Needle necessary to disguise the obvious Canadian shooting locale. Some of the worst driving in the car scenes with almost no effort to disguise the fact that the car is being pulled through town on a trailer. Geez, at least turn the wheel or put the brakes on once in a while. Selma Blair is inert and the short haircut a crime. $3M to Jason Lee, for what? Guess it beats skateboarding!<br /><br />So here's who should see this movie: Bee Gees fans who want to hear two actors sing 'Islands in the Stream' badly; People who can't get enough of Julia Stiles. 1/10
I saw this film at SXSW with the director in attendance. Quite a few people walked out, and the audience could barely muster even polite applause at the end. Of the 60 or 70 films I've seen at this festival, Frownland is among the worst.<br /><br />At 106 minutes, it is at least 95 minutes too long. You get to watch the main character's failed and drawn out attempts to communicate, in extended real time. The same grimaces, hand over mouth motions, kinetic and frantically repeated words and syllables over and over and over again - WE GET THE POINT.<br /><br />One site actually compares this work to early Mike Leigh. What drugs would you have to be on to make that statement? Given that Frownland is a Captain Beefheart song, maybe you'd have to be able to enjoy Trout Mask Replica on heavy rotation to appreciate this film. Unbelievably, this won a jury award at the festival. You can bet it did not win an audience award.
Debbie Reynolds toe-taps, tangos and, yes, tap-dances her way through this ordinary thriller which has a distinctly fabricated '30s atmosphere. Two ladies, brought together when their sons commit a murder, try starting their lives over by running a tap-dance school for tots in Hollywood. Trouble is, one of them is plagued by neuroses. Can you imagine this thing 10 years earlier with Robert Aldrich directing Bette Davis and Joan Crawford...? Nahh, Bette never would have allowed Joan so much screen-time to strut her stuff, and I can't imagine Bette Davis in the other role, tap-dancing her heart out. This is a purely bogus piece of macabre, written by a slumming Henry Farrell (whose idea of a good "shock" is to stage the mass-murder of a group of rabbits!). Not an ounce of honest fun in the whole tepid package. *1/2 from ****
The film is almost laughable with Debbie Reynolds and Shelley Winters teaming up as the mothers of convicted murderers. With the horrible notoriety after the trial, the two women team up and leave N.Y. for California in order to open and song and dance studio for Shirley Temple-like girls.<br /><br />From the beginning, it becomes apparent that Reynolds has made a mistake in taking Winters with her to California. Winters plays a deeply religious woman who increasingly seems to be going off her rocker. <br /><br />To make matters worse, the women who live together, are receiving menacing phone calls. Reynolds, who puts on a blond wig, is soon romanced by the wealthy father of one of her students, nicely played by Dennis Weaver.<br /><br />Agnes Moorehead, in one of her last films, briefly is seen as Sister Alma, who Winters is a faithful listener of.<br /><br />The film really belongs to Shelley Winters. She is heavy here and heaviness seemed to make her acting even better. Winters always did well in roles testing her nerves.<br /><br />The ending is of the macabre and who can forget Winters at the piano banging away with that totally insane look?
There's a lot the matter with Helen and none of it's good. Shelley Winters and Debbie Reynolds play mothers of a pair of Leopold & Loeb like killers who move from the mid-west to Hollywood to escape their past. Reynolds, a starstruck Jean Harlow wannabe, opens a dance studio for children and Winters is her piano player. Soon Winters (as Helen) begins to crack up. It's all very slow going and although there are moments of real creepiness (nasty phone calls, a visit from wino Timothy Carey), the movie is devoid of any real horror. Nevertheless, it's still worthy entertainment. The acting divas are fine and the production values are terrific. A music score by David Raskin, cinematography by Lucien Ballard and Oscar-nominated costumes contribute mightily. With this, A PLACE IN THE SUN and LOLITA to her credit, does anyone do crazy as well as Winters? Directed by Curtis Harrington, a master at this type of not quite A-movie exploitation. In addition to Carey, the oddball supporting cast includes Dennis Weaver, Agnes Moorehead (as a very Aimee Semple McPherson like evangelist), Yvette Vickers and Micheál MacLiammóir (the Irish Orson Welles) as Hamilton Starr, aptly nicknamed hammy.
W. Somerset Maugham's Of Human Bondage is supposed to be a English language classic. If so, much must have been missing from the film version here. Phillip's (Leslie Howard) attraction to Mildred (Bette Davis) is so utterly inexplicable as to make the scenario seem like the post-breakup retelling of a relationship from the man's point of view. Being a family lawyer I've heard many such accounts; the man depicts himself as noble and always correct, and the woman is a hellion who has had no other objective than to exploit the man.<br /><br />Indeed, unless one is willing to laugh at the social assumptions of the film maker, this is an uncomfortable movie to watch. Phillip even indulges Mildred when she brings over a baby of indeterminate paternity, but the real high point comes when Phillip allows Mildred - enraged and now of dubious sanity - the free run of his flat, with predictable results. Bette Davis was attractive for about five years of her life, but that period didn't occur here. In fact, by the end of the movie she looks a lot like the Baby Jane character she would play thirty years later.<br /><br />I note how Howard's character is always impeccably dressed and groomed. It tells me that Phillip craves middle class respectability. Someone like that could not run from a woman with a course Cockney accent fast enough. Phillip is, for most of the movie, a student; such a person would have been more believable if he had been younger, and had the disheveled looks that bespeak the low income and the low self esteem that often accompanies student status - an English Raskolnikov, as it will. And balanced that by allowing Mildred a modicum of charm.
Although Bette Davis did a WONDERFUL job as Mildred, I felt that the film wasn't the best I had seen. At the end of the movie I was left feeling like there was something missing in it.<br /><br />Bette Davis did a perfect job, though, and she made me hate her and pity her all the while. Leslie Howard did very good as the lovelorn Philip Carey, and I so pitied him throughout the movie for being in love with such a horrible dame. It's such a sad thing when one finds him/herself in love with a bad seed. And especially if it's someone like Philp Carey, who is a sensitive person, though pathetic.<br /><br />In the end, the acting was what came through and not the plot. The ending scene was particularly good, but I am not one to give it away. Although others may find this movie good, I was one who found it so-so. I should recommend this movie to those who like a bad seed so they can see what may happen to them if they find themselves in love with that horrible person.
First of all, I would just like to say to everyone who has seen this movie, that the actor who played the "Transvestite" Is one of my friends, his name is Robert Dugdale, he's a terrific actor, although it doesn't say much about his filmography, he's been in several plays and musicals. He is currently residing in Terrace B.C. that is where I am from, he comes over to our house almost every saturday *laughs* Okay, now about the movie, I wouldn't recomend this to anyone who HASN'T seen it, for it is not a movie worth watching, the main reason I found it to be a bad movie is it never stays in place, it keeps bouncing back between time, so kinda hard to follow at some points, and second, its really boring *laughs* Although the acting is great, the movie just doesn't compare.
In the days before gore and sex took over, real horror films were made. Castle of Blood is, in my estimation, one of the finest, although other reviewers have given it mixed ratings. In an odd sort of way it reminds of the more recent The Others, which was in the theaters a couple of years ago.<br /><br />Director Antonio Margheriti remade his own picture in 1970 titling it this time Web of the Spider (AKA Nella Stretta Morsa del Ragno). Why he did this I do not understand, although the remake starred Anthony Franciosa and Klaus Kinski and was very good in its own right. Perhaps he saw a good story and wished to tailor it more to American audiences. I do not really know. It is interesting that he did the original in black and white and the remake in color.<br /><br />Castle of Blood is excellent Italian Gothic. La Danza Macabra is said to be an unpublished work of Edgar Allen Poe, who "appears" in this film. Poe and Lord Blackwood, owner of a haunted castle, bet American writer Alan Foster (George Riviere) that he cannot spend All Souls Night in said castle and survive. Foster eagerly accepts the bet but soon regrets it, for he is witness to a series of murders committed by ghosts. It seems that the ghosts come back to life once every few years but are doomed to re-enact the crimes they committed in life. Lord Blackwood conveniently forgot to tell Foster that his blood is needed for them to resurrect themselves on the next All Souls Night! <br /><br />It does not take Foster and the beautiful Elisabeth Blackwood (portrayed by the incomparable Barbara Steele) long to fall in love, even though their romance is doomed, because Elisabeth is one of the ghosts. I will not give the ending away, but will just say that Castle of Blood is every bit a romantic tragedy as it is a horror story. <br /><br />Comments. This film is greatly atmospheric, even by the excellent standards of the Italians. My personal opinion is they do true horror better than anybody, and the somewhat dim black and white filming only enhances this. In fairness, Web of the Spider was fine in its own right, even with color and greater brightness. I loved the lingering shots, something most modern day directors do not have the patience for. Indeed, when Alan first enters the doomed castle, we are treated to several minutes of him doing nothing but roaming around from room to room, the dread ands unease building in his face and mannerisms. By the time the first ghost appears, the audience is thoroughly primed and ready. There is wonderful dialogue between Alan and the ghosts, something else not often done in standard ghost stories. There are also memorable scenes, very visual for this type of film. Elisabeth's "murder" and the dance scene (reminds somewhat of the similar dance of the ghouls in 1962's Carnival of Souls) were particularly good.<br /><br />Sadly, few general interest viewers will ever hear of, much less see, this film. That is a shame, for this one is a cut above the rest. I got my copy from Sinister Cinema and am not certain if it can be purchased anywhere else. For persons interested in this genre, it is a must see.
Our teacher showed us this movie in first grade. I haven't seen it since. I just watched the trailer though. Does this look like a first grade movie to you? I don't think so. I was so horrified by this movie, I could barely watch it. It was mainly the scene with Shirley McClain cutting that little girl in half, and then there was the boy with ketchup! I was freaked out by this film. Now today, being 20, I probably would not feel that way. I just wanted to share my experience and opinion that maybe small children shouldn't see this movie, even though it's PG. Be aware of the possible outcomes of showing this to kids. I don't even remember what it was about, once was enough!
Roeg has done some great movies, but this a turkey. It has a feel of a play written by an untalented high-school student for his class assignment. The set decoration is appealing in a somewhat surrealistic way, but the actual story is insufferable hokum.
I'd heard about this movie a while ago from a friend and she recently got it on DVD. There was a lot of anticipation and excitement as we'd both heard that this was a terrifying film, really scary. How disappointed was I?? VERY!!!! Apart from that one scene (we all know which bit) NOTHING happened!!! I was expecting to see the woman in black a few times and for her to do a few more jumpy scenes, like appear at the window or walk across the hall or something.<br /><br />Nearly all the reviews here say what a scary, gripping, atmospheric movie this is. I just didn't see it I'm afraid. Maybe there's a difference in what people find scary in the US to here in Britain.<br /><br />A big let down after all the hyped reviews :(
Today, Bea Arthur died so I was cruising around the IMDb Web site and somehow wound up on a show called "Gloria." "All In The Family" was a brilliant show for its first four or five years and I bet I watched every episode more than once. However, I swear that I did NOT know a show named "Gloria" existed. Maybe, that's a good thing. Maybe, it means I had a life as a young adult rather than watching television.<br /><br />On the other hand, it is pathetic that the "All In The Family" franchise had deteriorated so much that it begat a show I never heard of -- and one that is rated very poorly by the previous reviewers.<br /><br />I rated the show a 1 for two reasons -- the system did not allow me to register a no vote and writers and TV execs should be condemned for starting a show that had no business being on the air and besmirches the memory of one of the greatest shows in TV history.<br /><br />Shalom, ZWrite
Despite being released on DVD by Blue Underground some five years ago, I have never come across this Italian "sword and sorcery" item on late-night Italian TV and, now that I have seen it for myself, I know exactly why. Not because of its director's typical predilection for extreme gore (of which there is some examples to be sure) or the fact that the handful of women in it parade topless all the time (it is set in the Dark Ages after all)…it is, quite simply, very poor stuff indeed. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it may very well be the worst of its kind that I have yet seen and, believe me, I have seen plenty (especially in the last few years i.e. following my excursion to the 2004 Venice Film Festival)! Reading about how the film's failure at the time of initial release is believed to have led to its director's subsequent (and regrettable) career nosedive into mindless low-budget gore, I can see their point: I may prefer Fulci's earlier "giallo" period (1968-77) to his more popular stuff horror (1979-82) myself but, even on the latter, his commitment was arguably unquestionable. On the other hand, CONQUEST seems not to have inspired Fulci in the least – seeing how he decided to drape the proceedings with an annoyingly perpetual mist, sprinkle it with incongruent characters (cannibals vs. werewolves, anyone?), irrelevant gore (we are treated to a gratuitous, nasty cannibal dinner just before witnessing the flesh-eating revelers having their brains literally beaten out by their hairy antagonists!) and even some highly unappetizing intimacy between the masked, brain-slurping villainess (don't ask) and her slimy reptilian pet!! For what it is worth, we have two heroes for the price of one here: a young magic bow-carrying boy on some manhood-affirming odyssey (Andrea Occhipinti) and his rambling muscle-bound companion (Jorge Rivero i.e. Frenchy from Howard Hawks' RIO LOBO [1970]!) who, despite being called Mace (short for Maciste, perhaps?), seems to be there simply to drop in on his cavewoman from time to time and get his younger protégé out of trouble (particularly during an exceedingly unpleasant attack of the 'boils'). Unfortunately, even the usual saving grace of such lowbrow material comes up short here as ex-Goblin Claudio Simonetti's electronic score seems awfully inappropriate at times. Fulci even contrives to give the film a laughably hurried coda with the surviving beefy hero going aimlessly out into the wilderness (after defeating one and all with the aid of the all-important magic bow…so much for his own supposed physical strength!) onto his next – and thankfully unfilmed – adventure!
The plot and characters are ridiculous and barely qualify AS "plot" and "character". The biggest problem is the fact that everything is dark, out-of-focus, and blurry. The fact that Fulci filled the whole movie with mist doesn't help. On the other hand, the whole thing is completely bizarre and filled with sex and violence. The inconsistencies are pretty entertaining, one of the main characters says he has no friends, yet he latches onto the new guy in a minute of screen time, and has a whole gaggle of women on the side. Though he does show his anti-social tendencies by randomly putting an arrow in some poor b*****d who's just minding his own business!Images of blood or gore flowing get more attention than the characters but what do you want from Fulci. Maybe it ruined his career, but it wasn't really much more stupid than Zombie. Worth a rental if you like gory Italian flicks or are desperate for sword and sorcery or something bizarre. How do you sleep through someone getting sucked into a pit 2 feet from your head and screaming for help?
I like Fulci films, i really do and not in some boring ironic way either but i recognise that they appear hopelessly inept and garbled to lots of people.<br /><br />Conquest is where Fulci tries his hand at the epic fantasy genre and doesn't really succeed. Structurally, it's like most Fulci films you've seen. Some stuff happens, some more stuff happens and occasionally one scene might be tangentially related to another. Really it's like Conan with no sets, no script, no real actors (yes, Arnold Scharzenfartz is hardly an actor either), no budget, stupid looking dog soldiers and a bunch of gore.<br /><br />This one was a hard one to get through and i could've lived without the inch of vaseline smeared on the camera to give it that Hair Metal music video look.
Ah, Lucio Fulci, rest in peace. This infamous Italian is most<br /><br />famous for "Zombie," and the absolutely unwatchable "The<br /><br />Psychic" and "Manhattan Baby." Well, add this to the unwatchable<br /><br />list.<br /><br />The plot, as it were, concerns a nekkid woman who wears a gold<br /><br />mask and a G-string. She wants the power of a young dubbed<br /><br />stud who has a set of magic arrows and a bow. They are magic<br /><br />because they glow. Arrow boy teams up with a guy in a bad wig,<br /><br />and they spend most of the movie rescuing each other from flat<br /><br />action sequences. In the end, the nekkid chick is defeated, but not<br /><br />before taking the mask off and reminding me why I broke up with<br /><br />my high school girlfriend.<br /><br />Fulci bathes every shot in an orange glow and fills the screen with<br /><br />smoke. Nothing like a smoky orange action sequence to make you<br /><br />crave Sunny Delight and a cigarette. The special effects are<br /><br />laughable. In one sequence, our ambiguously gay duo are<br /><br />attacked by dozens of arrows that are obviously pin scratches on<br /><br />the film itself. The majority of the effects budget must have been<br /><br />spent on the Fulci-licious gore, which consists entirely of spurting<br /><br />wounds. Hey, we can all use a good spurting wound once in a<br /><br />while, but when you get into spurting wound overkill, it gets boring.<br /><br />I kept having to play with the brightness setting on my TV anyway<br /><br />just to see what the heck was happening.<br /><br />There is lots of talk of fulfilling omens and prophecies, so let me<br /><br />do a little look into the future...if you find this movie and watch it,<br /><br />you will regret it. The scene on the video box (by Media) does not<br /><br />appear in the film in any context whatsoever. "Conquest" is a con<br /><br />job. What MST3K could have done with this!<br /><br />This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, strong gore, female<br /><br />nudity, brief male nudity, and mild sexual content.<br /><br />
Shlock-merchant Leo Fulci takes a change of pace by making a trashy, barely coherent sword and sorcery fantasy movie instead of his usual trashy, barely coherent horror. <br /><br />A wimpy Orlando Bloom type called Ilias, from some society vaguely resembling Ancient Greece travels across the ocean to caveman territory on some vaguely defined quest to battle evil, where he joins up with a animal loving hunter to battle the wolf-man and mutant minions of a vampiric topless evil sorceress. Wackiness ensues. The sorceress, is oppressing the local cavemen and wants the magic bow for herself. She sends various minions, each weirder than the last, after our heroes who win through in the end, striking a blow for oppressed cavemen everywhere. This movie contains a steady stream of WTF? elements and moments.<br /><br />For some reason the entire movie is shot in soft focus and the picture is further blurred by the constant presence of mist on screen. This may have been an attempt to create atmosphere or to hide how fake everything looks. Either way, it failed. There is no atmosphere, unless it is one of scuzziness and mild bewilderment and there is no hiding how lame everything looks. The wolf-man minions look like a poor man's wookie. For some reason the director fell in love with shots of them leaping through the air in slow motion, Six Million Dollar Man style, toward our heroes when they attack. There are probably about a dozen of these shots throughout the movie and it gets goofier every time. The other minions of the topless sorceress, other than the generic leather clad humans, are some lumpy white mutants who appear to be covered in cobwebs. Needless to say they are slow and unthreatening and when they speak sound like gay Hispanic, lisping Daleks. The fights are stilted and unconvincing and the special effects are woeful. Oh yeah, the music is cheap synthesiser stuff that the makers of Doctor Who would have been embarrassed to have used.<br /><br />Ilias, our nominal hero is bland and forgettable. He also looks a complete wuss, especially with his midriff revealing leather outfit and big hair, and is clearly a moron. Sure, he's a dynamite shot with his magical bow but he only takes about three or four arrows with him in his mission to battle this entire continent of evil. Needless to say he runs out of arrows within a few minutes and has to be saved by more traditional sword and sorcery hero, Mace. When he meets Ilias he establishes himself as the taciturn loner type, claiming he has no friends but no sooner can you say latent homoerotic subtext they are bosom buddies, traipsing the misty hills together. Mace promises to take Ilias with him in return for bow related favours. Ilias asks where he is going. "Wherever my legs take me," is his reply. Good enough for Ilias. Mace is also animal lover and outrageous hypocrite. He proclaims his great love of and affinity toward animals, citing the usual stuff about how he prefers them to humans because humans can be soooo mean. He says he would never hunt and kill an animal to feed himself but he will steal meat off other people who have hunted down animals. He is also not above randomly killing innocent passers by for no good reason. Not long after they meet, he is testing out Ilias' bow and the movie cuts to some random caveman, minding his own business, walking along and Mace shoots him dead. There is no indication this poor soul did anything to deserve this and even Ilias, who supposedly hails from a more moral and civilised society doesn't even raise an eyebrow. <br /><br />The films villainess is quite unusual. For the entire movie she is completely naked except from a g-string and a golden mask that encompasses her entire head. It's like Fulci included her to make the movies obligatory T&A quotient but decided she was bit too much of a butterface at the last minute. She spends a lot of time seemingly being pleasured by her pet snakes and dreaming about being shot by a faceless bow wielding man who is dressed like Ilias. Wow, such symbolism! Later on in the movie she wimps out when she can't beat Ilias and Mace and promises to make herself the sex-slave of some ancient warrior dude if he kills them for her. Hardly the world's most scary villain and not really a step forward for women's rights. I think he sic's the cobweb creatures on our heroes and impersonates Mace in a situation where there is no no-one else around but Mace to fool. Was he really worthy trading your self respect for, Ocron? <br /><br />There are quite a few other WTF? moments. Most of them come toward the end of the movie. Ilias wusses out, I forget why, possibly his permed hairdo got mussed, but realizes the error of his ways and returns to aid Mace in fighting the forces of evil. All of a sudden, for no reason, his bow can suddenly fire out multiple target seeking bolts of energy. The bolts can also shoot through solid rock when necessary. Needless to say his makes short work of the hordes of bad guys who have captured Mace.<br /><br />The climax is also rather nonsensical. Mace decimates Ocron's remaining forces using the bows targeted laser attack capability. He then is able to shoot Ocron from a kilometre away using its shoot through rock capacity. She starts dying. Her mask is ripped of revealing a hideous Muppet head. She staggers around screaming and turns into a dog and wanders off with another dog. Mace smiles. Roll credits.<br /><br />Strangely enough as far as these dodgy low budget sword and sorcery movies this one is reasonably lucid and focused. Any one who has seen Wizards of the Lost Kingdom can tell you how nonsensical and meandering these movies can truly be.
Warning: This review contains a spoiler.<br /><br /> Wow. Almost impressively bad. Note I said, "almost". This is nothing more than lots of random scenes strung together in a loose attempt at a story. The protagonists (you CANNOT call them "heroes") shoot innocent bystanders for their food, and also rob same for similar reasons. There's also tons of homoeroticism, which was a turnoff for me. (SPOILER: It seems as if the villainess (who only is topless and not naked as other reviews claim) gets killed early on, but miraculously recovers, adding another 70 minutes of audience-torture.) I can't shake the feeling that animal abuse occurred numerous times in this cinematic abomination. If you're in a MST3K mood, you might find this watchable, but for the most part you can forget it. Go rent the original Conan DVD instead.
This was a watershed event in my movie watching life. I went to see this in the theater when it came out. I was completely amazed at just how bad it was. Movies like this make you wonder who put the money up and who owed whom a favor - a very, very large favor. The special effects are absolutely first grade level, as in any first grader could have done them. Toy rubber bats on strings with no attempt to hide the strings, arrows that appear to be drawn on the film and look to be the shape of an arrow you'd find on a street sign, and a laughable story line. Ed Wood made masterpieces compared to "Conquest". Every film student should see this thing just so they'll know the very definition of a bad movie.
I usually talk a bit about the plot in the first part of my review but in this film there's really not much to talk of. Just a mish-mash of other FAR better sword & sorcery epics. Lack of cohesiveness runs rampant as does banality. Even the main villaness refusing to wear clothing other then a loincloth is pretty boring as she pretty much has a chest of a young boy.Mildly amusing in it's ineptitude at best and severely retarded at it's worst. Lucio Fulci was scrapping the bottom of the barrel here and it shows.<br /><br />My Grade: D- <br /><br />DVD Extras: Posters & Stills galleries; Lucio Fulci Bio; and US & International Theatrical trailers <br /><br />Eye Candy: Sabrina Siani is topless throughout (some may consider that appealing, I did not); various extras are topless as well
I came at this film with high expectations. I was aware of Greenaway's work and 'The Tempest' and was interested in an adaptation. I first wanted to switch off after ten minutes, but felt that it would be unfair. There was a representation of a storm, but where in your mind do you conceive a small boy peeing over a toy boat? It is symbolic of what? I continued another ten minutes my finger twitching over the 'off' button, somewhere something would capture my interest. This is not Shakespeare, it is not cinema. There is a time and place for it, but I will not waste my time and there is no place for it in my studies of Shakespeare. After twenty five minutes I gave up and that was the end. I then read all the comments on this website and the pretentiousness of the film is only matched by its defendants. 'Its a painting.....then put it in a gallery', 'it's a ballet.....keep it on the stage then'. Shakespeare can be done intelligently, and the plays were performed to mass audiences, they were accessible, and this version helps put a wedge between Shakespeare and the general population at large - and I do not think that the Bard would be happy with that.
"Sir" John Gielgud must have become senile to star in a mess of a movie like this one.;<br /><br />This is one of those films, I suppose, that is considered "art," but don't be fooled.....it's garbage. Stick to the "art" you can admire in a frame because the films that are labeled as such are usually unintelligible forgeries like this.<br /><br />In this masterpiece, Giegud recites Shakespeare's "The Tempest" while the camera pans away to nude people. one of them a little kid urinating in a swimming pool. Wow, this is heady stuff and real "art," ain't it?? That's just one example. Most of the story makes no sense, is impossible to follow and, hence, is one that Liberal critics are afraid to say they didn't "understand" so they give it high marks to save their phony egos. You want Shakespeare? Read his books.
Every now and again you hear radio djs inviting listeners to nominate movies that the listener can't stand or never watched all the way through. This is the movie that I think of...days later.<br /><br />It's got something to do with a play by Shakespeare. Not sure, but I think I bailed on this movie some 20 odd minutes into it...think I realised that my toenails wouldn't clip themselves, and they were looking at me imploringly to get cut.<br /><br />This movie just seemed boring and pretentious to me.<br /><br />Even though this is the first movie I've given such a low score to (which I've actually attempted to watch), I wouldn't want to put you off other movies by it's English director, Peter Greenaway. I remember thinking that his "The cook, the thief, his wife and her lover" was a truly great British film even though its content was at times stomach churning-a brilliant movie, but I can understand why people would balk at seeing it.<br /><br />Another good film by Greenaway was "A zed and two noughts". Again, it had some content that pushed the boundaries of good taste, but was intriguing nonetheless.<br /><br />The other film that I usually think of too late for such radio show topics is "Brazil". Never managed to watch that all the way through either-kept falling asleep!<br /><br />Unless you have a taste for self-important movies which are off-puttingly highly stylised, laboriously paced and difficult to follow, then steer clear of Prosero's Books.
I saw this movie when it was released, and my distaste for it has stuck with me all these years. <br /><br />Here's why: <br /><br />Greenaway's goal seems to be to take every literary image in the Tempest and make it literal. If a character were to say, "my heart takes flight," we'd be shown an actual human heart, with pigeon wings attached, flapping across the screen. <br /><br />This process makes for some lush tableaux, but ultimately it's a facile exercise. And it becomes deadly boring.<br /><br />I don't begrudge the pleasure other viewers found in this movie, but it's worth knowing that not everyone in the audience was enraptured.
This film was just painful to watch... not in the good dramatic way that makes you cringe with emotions for well developed characters in dramatic situations (yeah, I pretty much made that last sentence up as I went along), but in just an absolute dull way for OVER two hours. Now, you all may think I'm just some ignorant reviewer who has no respect for Shakespeare or "artistic film-making"... well, you'd be wrong on both counts. I love the works of Shakespeare, especially the tragedies of Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, Macbeth, and Hamlet, and I've watched plenty of "arthouse" films such as the surreal and well-made Eraserhead and Fellini's 8 1/2... but this was just over two hours of lost-in-translation Shakespeare, WAY too much nudity (I can understand artistic nudity in SOME scenes... but not in every other shot of a movie!!! IT WAS POINTLESS AND SERVED NOTHING FOR THE STORY!!!), and basically just overzealous film-making. I had high expectations for this film in that it was said to be "very artistic" and was an adaptation of Shakespeare's The Tempest... but this was just an extreme letdown. I gave this film a three ONLY because of Sir John Gielgud's acting presence (which far surpassed all of the no-names in this film) and the cinematography/set design combination as it made a lot of scenes look like paintings in motion... however, a lot of this film would've been better off as JUST a painting with a scroll of text below it. A true disappointment... maybe if Zeffirelli had been given the director's chair, this would've been much better. But this is one audience member's opinion, many others may enjoy this far more than me. That being said, if you can't find this at any nearby video stores (it's currently not on DVD), don't try to go too far out of your way to find it... it's not really worth it.
This is not the worst film I have seen of Peter Greenaway but it is close. That dishonor goes to the even worse Pillow Book. This director's films of 3 I have seen I find them all to be miserable. Like The Cook...,whatever positive cinematic flourishes he displays, are totally unredeemed by the repugnancy of his material and overall presentation.
This seems like one of those movies that we think we should like, but I didn't. It seemed to be trying way too hard to be 'artsy'. All flash, with no content. It has some beautiful scenes, and any one of them are nice to watch, but tack them all together and it becomes an arduous task just to sit through it. I rented this because of the glowing reviews on the video carton, and the fact that I'm a big Shakespeare fan, but I was very disappointed. I just found it a bit pretentious and, at times, boring.
I bought a DVD of this film for my girlfriend who shares the same name as the ghost girl in this film, and enjoys movies about the paranormal. The movie was shot entirely on video, so it has the look of a PBS special about it. The special effects are phoney looking, but there are actually some scary moments in the movie that got us to jump in our seat. There is a particularly effective scare involving a Virgin Mary statue.<br /><br />HOWEVER, the acting is bad, the "plot" scenes are long and very boring, and I will tell you I have no clue what happened at the end. If you get the movie, rent it, if you buy it, please make sure you pay less than $5.
JESSICA: A GHOST STORY is as the name implies a ghost story. The theme is meant to be horror but comes across closer to comedy!<br /><br />A woman comes who was brutally murdered comes back from the dead. This constitutes what this movie attempts to pass off as a plot. There is really nothing more to it. The movie comprises of a series of loosely connected scenes involving a guy who had an affair with this woman prior to her death.<br /><br />Immediately from the opening scenes, this movie has the appearance of a "straight-to-DVD" effort. Unlike gems such as VACANCY 2, the movie has no sense of direction or creativity and certainly gives "straight-to-DVD" movies a bad name! The direction is as poor as can be with a complete lack of suspense, scares or tension. Even the drama elements are hopelessly handled and represent something more boring than even the worst soap opera you may have had the misfortune of enduring.<br /><br />The acting across the board is absolutely abysmal with no one actor involved managing to show even the slightest potential of a successful acting career.<br /><br />Many of the individual scenes are incredibly long, with very long pauses between dialogue exchanges. I'm not exaggerating!<br /><br />The only reason I give this movie a rating of 2 rather than 1 is because some of the poor acting combined with even worse dialogue made for a few unintentional laughs. I stress the word "few" in that sentence. This is not overall one of the "so-bad-it's-good" movies like CAMP BLOOD or THE NAIL GUN MASSACRE. If you want to laugh hysterically, watch those movies. If you want to see a proper horror movie about ghosts watch THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE, THE CHANGELING, RINGU, THE EYE (original Korean version), THE GRUDGE, ONE MISSED CALL or PHONE.<br /><br />I advise anyone who has had the good fortune of avoiding seeing JESSICA: A GHOST STORY to keep up the good work! Just forget this movie exists. Don't spare a thought for it!
What do you get when you have bad acting, bad directing, scenes that are excruciatingly long, terrible lighting, painful editing, and awful effects? You get Jessica: A Ghost Story Seems its shot on betacam, which is fine, but the lighting has to compliment this medium. In this case it does not. There are a few CU's where the person's face is entirely in shadow. One scene in particular is the scene at the psychiatrists. It's a joke if you ask me. Some of the scenes were so long that they could have easily been cut in half... but I guess then they wouldn't have a film at feature length. The main character is incredibly flat. He's the LEAD male, so he should have some "hero" elements to his character, but he does not. He whines and is scared the entire film. I could go on, but I don't want to waste my time. Although the lighting was terrible, I must say that they did have nice camera movement. Too bad the lighting didn't compliment it. The cover of the DVD is nice, and that's where it ends. Just terrible.
This subject matter deserves a much better script, and final result, than this movie serves up. The script is full of holes because it was never conceived as a story, but rather a string of nightmare scenarios loosely knitted together. The gaps and loose ends in the story line are numerous. The scene where the kidnap victim is told that her parents are not dead, and have been looking for her since she was taken, is just bizarre. It is written as a cathartic therapy moment with the head of the shelter for runaways handing her a "missing poster" from when she was eight. In the real world, if the head of a shelter for runaways found out that he had, under his roof, a solved kidnapping, what would have followed would have been an immediate call to the police. It's a law enforcement issue not a 12 minute segment for Oprah. Everything that follows from there to the end is so short shrift that I can only conclude that the first 90 minutes was for pure gratuitous exploitation. Funny, that's what this movie is supposed to be condemning. In the end it seems to have joined in.
I'm a horror/gore movie freak and this flick was so bad, I felt embarrassed for not only the "actors", but also the director and the poor sap of a producer who actually put his money up for this schlock.<br /><br />From the title, you'd expect some great carnage, somewhat of a storyline and at LEAST some direction or dialog. Instead, you get what looks like a slightly more violent and sexual Three Stooges episode. At least I laugh at the Three Stooges. While watching this crap, I turned another TV on and started watching Howard Stern until something interesting happened.<br /><br />Needless to say, I kept watching Stern.<br /><br />Watching this "film" I realize that I could produce a film with three monkeys, 2 DV cameras, $50 dollars in loose change and a broken PC. This film is my inspiration to get into no-budget film making. Watch this movie if you dare, but be warned...there is a lot of nothing in here but a whole lot of talking and very little action. This makes "KaZaam" look like a Meryl Streep film.<br /><br />I'm sure Germany didn't ban it due to sex or violence. Other countries need to take heed.
I expect the same excitement as I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE but I was let down by just junk how can you even call this a movie ( its kinda of a mini porno) . It made my sick when the guy was made to eat his own business. There is no story line to it at all it jumps to quickly from each murder. If you like seeing a women naked or even mens parts then there's spots in the movie for and there's even a masturbation spot in the movie which makes it a porno and not a movie at all. I have seen some dumb movies in my time but this is number 1 . I want be watching it again at all. The actors even look bored during the movie to me so they probably were in need of money badly to make this movie.
NO SPOILERS.<br /><br />I love horror movies, but this has got to be the poorest attempt to make one ever. Calling it "a movie" is also a stretch. This "random-clips-of-obviously-fake-and-tacky-violence-and-an-ugly- woman-trying-to-act-sexy-edited-poorly-together" is not worth watching.<br /><br />Watching this is about as interesting watching as some random family's holiday pictures, and it has about the same quality you would expect when you send your ten year old son into the woods with your new vid-cam, and tell him to make a movie.<br /><br />Terrible.
I watch bad movies.<br /><br />This movie is not good enough to be a bad movie. Not an ounce of humor, not an ounce of talent throughout.<br /><br />I am LAZY.<br /><br />Usually, I see a bad movie and curse. This was so bad, I actually made a review to try and save others from the completely boring mess I fell victim to.<br /><br />I am smashing my copy of this movie.<br /><br />It's too lame even to use clear a room. So boring. Watch 'Bloodsucking Freaks' or 'Shock, shock, shock' for absolute crap that has some merit as entertainment. This sludge looks awful, is awful, and whoever made it should feel awful.
A young man kills a young woman for no reason. The man's brother is jailed on charges that he was an accomplice, but soon escapes. Upon escaping, the seemingly innocent man kidnaps three victims and soon he ropes his girlfriend in on the plot. If this isn't bad enough, the situation quickly makes a downward spiral.<br /><br />This film had some good aspects and many bad ones. Its strongest aspect was lead actress Emily Haack. Setting aside the fact she's nude in a fair amount of this film, she presents herself as a decent actress and a very strong character. I see no reason she cannot take this experience and somehow turn it into a career in some way. I was convinced she was a ruthless individual.<br /><br />Also, the makers of this film were very bold and pulled no punches. Graphic nudity (both male and female), coprophagia, and extreme anal violence are not shied away from. I like my horror films to push the boundaries a little bit, and this one ignored them altogether, gladly skipping towards Gomorrah. Maybe it was too much, but I think they achieved what they were looking for.<br /><br />But now the negative aspects. First, and most noticeable, this film is very low budget and the film quality shows this. I can excuse that -- the plot was decent, the acting fine and in some scenes the lower quality film actually made the movie more disturbing (a more realistic feel). So, I won't scold them for having low-grade equipment. What I will scold them for is the use of poor choices in shots. For no reason I can ascertain (besides plumping the movie), there is a large amount of footage of a cemetery. I don't really know why, and I frankly started dozing off at this point because it was so long and pointless.<br /><br />I also take issue with the title. The idea here was to deceive people into thinking this film had some connection to the classic "I Spit on Your Grave". Now, there is a line that seems to imply the main character is the daughter of the woman from this other film. And the themes are very loosely the same (a woman getting revenge on men). But there is no firm connection and the reason this title was chosen was for the video store customer to think they were getting a sequel. This was deceptive and dishonest.<br /><br />My last major complaint is that this plot makes no real sense. Not even a little bit. A woman is killed in the beginning for no reason. A prison escapee finds time to kidnap people to torture them, for no reason (because they wronged his girlfriend?). The same man goes from good to very evil without explanation. Likewise, the female lead (Haack) turns fro ma normal person to someone who is overly cruel and sadistic, for no reason at all, and against people who for the most part were only marginally mean to her (a neighbor offering drugs for sex is wrong, but by no means worth getting tortured for).<br /><br />Don't let this title fool you, or the claims that the film is incredibly shocking. Yes, some scenes were shocking, but the vast majority of the film is dull and makes you want to take a nap. If you see this in the video store or on Netflix, just keep browsing. Or rent it, and we can sit around and vent about it for hours. You have been warned.
Picture the fugly annoying goth kids from college in a scat film, throw in a pinch of story and a whole lot of awful acting, and you are still not even close to how bad this movie is.<br /><br />Shot badly, bad effects, worse acting. Contrived attempt at shocking horror. Everyone I've showed this to gets kinda depressed watching it. The sex scenes are disturbing, not necessarily for their content, but more because they're just something you want to end as soon as possible. The last sex scene is just foul, even before she gets to the guy.<br /><br />I'm one of those people that loves to watch movies that people hate, which is why I picked this one up. But for your own sake, save yourself the time and avoid this abhorrence. It's that bad. I literally threw it in the garbage.
good lord! (and that coming from an atheist), this "movie" is bad !<br /><br />much has already been said by the reviewers before (the ones who rated this piece 3 and below) to which I fully agree, I just like to add a few things: <br /><br />among the three guys who had to eat their own digestive end products, got chopped up by an Axe, raped by a broomstick, had their balls blown away - the ex-boyfriend suffers the worst torture while having to listen to the girl's endless and pointless babble at the kitchen table (as do we, but at least we have the mercy of the mute button).<br /><br />had the director cut out the point- and endless graveyard and inverted scenes, our suffering would have been over after 30 minutes.<br /><br />the only things that made this flick at least somewhat bearable are Emily Haack's tits (one point).<br /><br />forget it. don't buy it. don't waste your time. and your sanity. my brain is so fried after watching this I feel the urgent need to watch (and suffer?) "Scrapbook" right now.
With a title like that, it's above and beyond my comprehension how this movie just did NOT appeal to me. Granted, there's a few decently sleazy moments and a little gore, but the way in which the movie was shot and the overall storyline just struck me as an idiotic and lazy attempt at profuse "shock" tactics... The inconsistent plot starts with a guy raping and murdering a woman stranded at the side of the road. He and his abetting brother are imprisoned up until the brother breaks out and arranges to meet his girlfriend out in the woods. He ends up forcing her into a house where they screw and he later shows her a collection of kidnapped guys in the basement. The heavily drugged captives consist of her old boyfriend who raped her, a "grabby" neighbor, and her sexually abrasive boss. He explains to her that he is going to kill them all. She winds up killing HIM and then turning her focus towards the men (or pigs) whom she tortures and kills, herself... Most of the violence and humiliation has to do with sh!t eating and genitalia destroying - all of which are far from disturbing and essentially mild. The best scene is a graphic broom handle masturbation followed by some painful man-rape... Surely, "I Spit on Your Corpse, I P!ss on Your Grave" was intended as an unofficial sequel to "I Spit on Your Grave" - based on, mainly the title, and a reference the main character gives - suggesting her mother was Camille Keaton. I personally consider that to be a wildly blasphemous assertion! This movie is a boring, amateurish mess that strives for shocks but failed miserably...
Am I wrong,or is the 2007 version just a rip-off of the original? I have to ask because the DVD I just bought is one of the worst films I have ever seen.....bad acting,bad editing etc....the only "exploitation " aspect here is how we were ripped off for our money buying this piece of crap. It is nothing more than a light-weight porn flick...no real gore, no scary images, just a cheaply done bit of garbage. If anyone wants to see an excellent film with no name actors,some slimy gore and a decent storyline...get Baby Blood...also done on a cheap budget but well made...and an actual story too!I Spit was a waste of money but I'll keep it just for a laugh....it is pathetic! New comment....Sept 3.....I'll keep this film forever just because it it SOOOOO bad it's almost good....in a really bad way....the worst acting ever...a real crap-movie classic!
In director Eric Stanze's 'ISOYC, IPOYG', three men are subjected to torture at the the hands of a woman that they have all sexually abused. The first victim is forced to eat his own crap, before being axed to death. The next bloke ends up with a bullet in the crotch after refusing to have anal sex with the first guy's corpse. But it's the third man who gets it the worst: he has to watch the heavily tattooed 'star' Emily Haack get naked and masturbate with a broom handle (oh, he also gets the handle shoved up his butt too!).<br /><br />And, unfortunately, so do we (get to see her masturbate, that is—not get a broom handle up our butts!).<br /><br />Yes, 'ISOYC, IPOYG' is one harsh viewing experience, not because of its relentless violence, but because Haack, who is obviously under the misguided notion that she has the body of a goddess (as opposed to that of a roadie for Metallica) constantly gets buck naked for the camera. It ain't a pretty sight.<br /><br />In addition to the non-stop nudity from an inked-up Haack, viewers also get to see dreadful direction from Stanze (who thinks that endless shots of tombstones and trees is entertaining stuff), some really bad acting, and a fat guy's penis.<br /><br />Strangely enough, I give 'ISOYC, IPOYG' a rating of 3/10, which is actually slightly higher than its current 2.9 average. That's one point for the messy axe attack (which, being a gore-hound, I actually enjoyed); one point for the bit where the fat guy gets his face pushed in chocolate mousse masquerading as feces (hilarious); and one point for the sheer nerve to suggest that this film might somehow be a sequel to Meir Zarchi's superior exploitation classic I Spit On Your Grave.
...through the similarly minded antics of Eric Stanze. A not-particularly talented director has helmed a not-particularly good movie, yet I still found myself sitting through it to the closing credits, if for nothing more than to see what happens next.<br /><br />A rapist escapes from prison and calls up his old flame. After capturing her (even though she came willingly) and threatening her into having sex (another event she was also willing to do) he reveals that he has kidnapped three guys who wronged her in the past. He then decides to kill her (huh?) but is foiled and dies instead. The girl's mind snaps (or something like that) and she takes out her rage on the unlucky chaps in the basement.<br /><br />Alright, the writing sucks: it's long winded, loaded with ten-cent words and there is WAY too much of it.<br /><br />The acting sucks: what a minute, what acting? <br /><br />The filming sucks: home video is bad enough, but 20 minutes of graveyard footage is just a damn insult.<br /><br />And the budget is a joke: get it...'budget', that was the punchline.<br /><br />And yet there was a charm to the thing. Back in the 70's these kind of movies came out in theatres with actual budgets and talent attached to them, not in this day and age though. If you want to watch this kind of violent, sexually exploitive trash (don't lie, some of us do) then this is all your gonna get nowadays.<br /><br />Some brief hardcore shots in a sex scene, torture with fecal material, fun with axes, anal rape by broom stick and a lengthy shot of the crazy chick masturbating with the same broom stick are some of the better items on the menu.<br /><br />It's not good and it won't be remembered, but not since the heyday of Joe D'amato have people made movies like this.<br /><br />4/10
This movie is extremely boring, it tells a story of a female gas station owner and her life. Nothing exciting ever happens. The director has really "kept it real" and it feels just like a camera following a woman around as she lives her life. I had to watch other films by this director for a class, the others were not as boring. This film was also watched for an assignment...it better be worth the boringness with a good grade!! Overall, unless it's required, don't watch the film. But don't discount other films by this director, because they're not as bad...and don't discount other films about Africa, they're usually good, especially when done by a western director.
There is one really good scene in Faat Kine. The title character gets in an argument with another woman and after being threatened, Faat Kine sprays her in the face. The scene works because the act is so unexpected, bizarre, and rather funny at the same time. In that one instance, writer/director Ousmane Sembene gives the audience a character that is easy to root for, an interesting film character that could be worth watching for two hours. In the scene, he presents a brave woman who is bold in her actions. For the rest of the movie, the only other thing he seems to present is conflicting tones. <br /><br />The tone is all over the place. It's true not all movies have to clearly fit within a specific genre, but I don't think Faat Kine fits into any genre. Supposedly, it's a drama, though there are moments of such broad comedy (the aforementioned spraying in the face) that it cannot be taken seriously. On the other hand, the film is certainly not a comedy with the abundant amount of serious topics Sembene has crammed into the picture. There is a way to successfully mix comedy and drama together. Unfortunately, Semebene doesn't find that balance. Instead, one scene after another just drift into each other without much rhyme or reason, leaving two different tones hanging in the wind. <br /><br />Faat Kine also has the problem of running two hours long with an extremely drawn out finale. The film ends with a big party where all the characters' conflicts are resolved, only they aren't resolved quickly. The scene lasts longer than any other scene, going on for probably twenty minutes. Because the rest of the scenes up until this point have been meandering, the finale is particularly hard to endure with repetition beginning early on in the scene, making for a frustrating viewing experience.<br /><br />Perhaps I am being too hard on Faat Kine. I am not the right audience for it. I felt nothing towards the characters and had no connection to any part of the story. There are people who will probably find something meaningful in the story and see strong characters. However, I was unable to do so and thus cannot recommend it.
Few films have left me with such a feeling of unease, and this is not a compliment. Since I saw it in a theater (How it ended there I can only wonder) I was subjected to 90 mn of hateful, derivative garbage, the main impression being a bit like this other sick-o movie "Don't answer the phone" - but worse. The nastiness of it all, rape and all, is shown without any distance (unlike strong stuff like "Last house on the left") and utter contempt for the (perfect ?) victims and everybody involved, leaving the viewer to be treated as a sadistic voyeur. At the end I felt like taking a shower. No credits to the director
While not quite as monstrously preposterous as later works, this slow-moving, repetitive giallo offers some nice touches in the first half, but grows more and more lethargic and silly as it stumbles to its lame denouement.<br /><br />To be sure, the actors are above average - considering this is an Argento movie - and some moments show the director's visual skills, but whole sequences should've been cut and, basically, it's just the same exploitative trash as ever, wallowing in fake science and abnormal sexual depravity.<br /><br />3 out of 10 genetic disorders
THE CAT O'NINE TAILS (Il Gatto a Nove Code) <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 2.35:1 (Cromoscope)<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />(35mm and 70mm release prints)<br /><br />A blind ex-journalist (Karl Malden) overhears a blackmail plot outside a genetics research laboratory and later teams up with a fellow reporter (James Franciscus) to investigate a series of murders at the lab, unwittingly placing their own loved ones at the mercy of a psychopathic killer.<br /><br />Rushed into production following the unexpected worldwide success of his directorial debut THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE (1969), Dario Argento conceived THE CAT O'NINE TAILS as a giallo-thriller in much the same vein as its forerunner, toplining celebrated Hollywood actor Karl Malden - fresh from his appearance in PATTON (1969) - and rising star Franciscus (THE VALLEY OF GWANGI). Sadly, the resulting film - which the ads claimed was 'nine times more suspenseful' than "Bird" - is a disappointing follow-up, impeccably photographed and stylishly executed, but too plodding and aimless for general consumption.<br /><br />Malden and Franciscus are eminently watchable in sympathetic roles, and cinematographer Enrico Menczer (THE DEAD ARE ALIVE) uses the wide Cromoscope frame to convey the hi-tech world in which Argento's dark-hearted scenario unfolds, but the subplot involving Euro starlet Catherine Spaak (THE LIBERTINE) as Franciscus' romantic interest amounts to little more than unnecessary padding. Highlights include an unforgettable encounter with the black-gloved assassin in a crowded railway station (edited with sleek assurance by cult movie stalwart Franco Fraticelli), and a nocturnal episode in which Malden and Franciscus seek an important clue inside a mouldering tomb and fall prey to the killer's devious machinations. But despite these flashes of brilliance, the film rambles aimlessly from one scene to the next, simmering gently without ever really coming to the boil. It's no surprise that "Cat" failed to emulate the runaway success of "Bird" when released in 1971.<br /><br />(English version)
Rarely has such an amazing cast been wasted so badly. Griffin Dunne, Rosanna Arquette, Illeana Douglas, Ethan Hawke, Dennis Hopper, Christopher Walken, and John Turturro, all jumped on board, only to be torpedoed by a script that seems like nothing more than a Hollywood in joke. Attaching Martin Scorsese's name to this was probably the draw, but the end result is way less than the sum of it's parts. Resembling a nightmare gone horribly wrong, each scene seems more contrived than the next. "Search and Destroy" is nothing more than abstract, stylish, self indulgent nonsense, and the entire film is decidedly dull.......... MERK
From the start, you know how this movie will end. It's so full of clichés your typical NRA member will not even like this movie. I give it 2 out of 10, only because of the acting of William Benton. I can't believe people voted 6+ for this movie. It's so biased towards a 'certain point of view' (once a thief...). People aren't born bad. Neither are they born good. They are born with a clean slate. It's society, parents and education what makes them who they are. And if they take the wrong turn, somewhere down the line, it certainly isn't going to be the American penal system that gets them back on track! Anyway, avoid this movie like the plague. I bet you have better things to do with your time than waste it on this piece of crap.<br /><br />
This is an extremely boring film. If you grew up during the Vietnam Was, as I did, then you've seen and heard all of the film footage and arguments here a hundred times by now. But what really makes this film boring is the narration by director Carlton Sherwood. The majority of the film is shot with Sherwood talking directly into the camera about his opinion of this conflicting time in the history of our nation.<br /><br />If you're old enough to remember Vietnam, then you won't find anything new here. There is no new evidence to condemn John Kerry or new evidence worthy of another documentary on Vietnam. Younger viewers who are interested in the subject should see George Butler's excellent film Going Upriver! Stolen Honor was clearly meant to be a hatchet job on John Kerry, but it fails miserably at accomplishing that goal.
The British Public School system did not evolve solely with the idea of educating the upper classes despite that popular and widespread misconception.It was designed to produce administrators and governors,civil servants and military men to run the British Colonies.These people were almost entirely recruited from the middle classes.When the Public Schools had begun to show their worth the scions of the aristocracy were sent to them rather than be educated at home by tutors and governesses as had previously been the case.They tended to favour the schools nearer "Town" so Eton and Harrow became particularly popular with that class of parent. The vast majority of Public Schools took their pupils from lower down the social scale.Tom Brown,perhaps the most famous Public School pupil ever,was the son of a country parson,not a belted earl. Thus in late 1960s England,a country in the throes of post-colonial guilt and shedding the last of its commitments to its former dependants as quickly as Harold Wilson could slip off his "Gannex" mac,Lindsay Anderson's "If" was greeted with cathartic joy by the chattering classes and mild bemusement by everyone else. It must be remembered that the so-called "summer of love" was followed by the "October Revolution" a non-event that left a few policemen in London with bruised heads and the U.S. Embassy with one or two broken windows,but achieved absolutely nothing. So when Mr Anderson's film reached the cinemas the disgruntled former revolutionaries revelled vicariously in what they saw as Mr Malcolm McDowell's glorious victory over an amorphous "Them" despite the fact that he was ruthlessly gunned down at the end,a fate that would have undoubtedly overtaken them had they succeeded in their attempts to get into the U.S.Embassy. The film told us nothing new about Public Schools,homosexuality,bullying cold showers,patrician sarcastic teachers,silly traditions.an all-too familiar list .It was declared to be an allegory comparing Britain to the corrupt,crumbling society represented by the school.Well,nearly forty years on the same schools are still flourishing,the British social system has not changed,the "October Revolution" has been long forgotten except by those involved on one side or the other and Mr Anderson has completed his "State of the Country" trilogy to no effect whatsoever. If by any chance you should wish to read a book about schoolboys who did buck the system rather more successfully than Mr McDowell and his friends and furthermore lived to tell the tale,find a copy of "Stalky & Co."written by the man whose much-maligned poem "If" lent it's name to Mr Anderson's film,a man born in colonial India,a man whose work is quietly being airbrushed out of our literary history.And do it before the chattering classes succeed in declaring him a non-person.Perhaps somebody should start a revolution about that.
I've read reviews that apparently you have to have been a student in a very strict, British school in the 1960's to understand this. Maybe that's true, if so, then this movie is outdated.<br /><br />*************SPOILER ALERT**************************************** The ending makes about as much sense as all the kids who're anti-government and anti-corporation without having any better solution that doesn't torch society to a Mad Max type cinder.<br /><br />Yeah, the main characters could leave, but they don't. The reasons they go about this don't make sense. There isn't enough character development to explain why. What shooting up a bunch of innocent people is supposed to mean is never explained or even hinted at. It is mentioned that war is the final creative expression, quite possibly the only revelation that any characters of this movie have, and it makes no sense.<br /><br />The characters who go on a murder spree aren't fighting the institution, they're just killing people. I thought they might've used all the explosives to blow up the place or at least the sanctuary at the end, that would've made greater symbolic sense, but they didn't.<br /><br />tl;dr - This movie is an adolescent's daydream of fighting against authority that plagues them, though in reality they need. It has no moral, symbolic truth, or meaning to it; this movie simply plays out the fantasy of killing teachers and people in "power" that annoy you.<br /><br />If you think a murder rampage/ school shooting similar to columbine or virginia tech is a rational and sensible way to deal with teachers and institutions you don't like, then I guess you'll love this movie. If you're like me and you're working towards making a life for yourself instead of just blindly (very blindly in this movie) rebelling against "the man", this movie is juvenile and boring.<br /><br />You can also tell in parts that funding was lacking, and the story seemed to have a touch of attention deficit disorder.<br /><br />All in all, this seems like a very rough draft of what could've been an okay movie, but no effort is put into the dialogue, character development, or moral so it's just... poorly done.<br /><br />If... only I could get my two hours back.
Ah, the spirit of '68. The streets of Paris were running wild with rebellion, the hippies were high on the spirit of love. How was Britain marking this age of radicalism and revolution? Erm, by the looks of it, dear Old Blighty was focusing on making films about boys in boarding schools. If... contains the evil establishment. It contains the uprising of the oppressed. What it lacks in contrast to the Parisien passion and the hippy headtripping is any sense of excitement, except in its all-out ammo-and-artillery fire ending.<br /><br />Lindsay Anderson's If... stars the ever-marvellous Malcolm McDowell as one of three private school pupils who decorate their dorm with photos of Lenin and other left-wing radicals. It's clearly an anti-establishment movie in its depiction of the evil upper-class oiks who rule the roost and the antiquated autocratic practices of the pish-posh public school standard. What makes If... unusual though is that for all its radical sympathies, it doesn't explicitly give us any sense of great tension between human decency and the despotic school system, instead it just kind of floats: lacking in plot and lacking in personality.<br /><br />Surrealist bits fade in and out occasionally and the film slips from black-and-white to colour again (is it due to the low budget or is it an arty expression?), but there is little of interest to speak of. All we get is the poignant denouement where the young rebels reach for their rifles and shoot down the shady overlords of the establishment. Hooray! A revolution! At last something that demands a second thought unlike the rest of this dull exercise in boarding school daydreaming.<br /><br />If... could have been a powerful political statement, but as it is it drifts and only gathers any sense of direct interest at the end. Instead of being a testament to the dissident zeitgeist of the late-Sixties, it only succeeds in being a dazed document of upper-class British education. Anarchy? Apathy more like, the only man many viewers will want to stick it to after watching If... will be Lindsay Anderson.
if.... is the cinematic equivalent of Sgt. Pepper's: Revered by baby boomers as the pinnacle of creation, and viewed as rather a silly bit of business by preceding and subsequent generations. Now that the children of the middle classes the world over are seemingly super human due to the internet, and view the prospect of boarding school as a wonderful opportunity thanks to the Harry Potter books/films, the relevance of if.... couldn't be further from modern concern. In fact, many scenes appear so alien and exaggerated as to hint at an inspiration for Pink Floyd's The Wall.<br /><br />One should never hold personal bias against a film while reviewing, and the cemented date of this film aside, there are a few flaws which others have overlooked. Lindsay Anderson was known to be a fan of Luis Buñuel, on top of generally being too smart for his own good. And despite a straightforward narrative through the first and second acts, the latter portion of the piece it taken hostage by cod Buñuel surrealism and strained attempts at symbolism. Anderson wasn't capable of this feat due to his over-intelligent cynicism, failing to see that Buñuel was jovial in his work. I have not found a critic whom champions the 'Chaplain in a drawer', and am almost certain it still gets sideways looks from those who adore this film. The ending is not so much a concise punch to the established class/values system, as a wet slap on a moving target.<br /><br />The British public school system was firmly for the middle classes (the upper crust being educated at home by private tutors). And the modus operandi of if.... was to check the boxes of public school life which Lindsay believed had been unexplored in film, thereby savaging middle class pretense. Homosexuality, generational cutlery, cold showers et al. In reality, such issues HAD been covered in many other great British films, if.... merely brought them to the fore. The Browning Version was a more oblique damning of such pomp, to name but one.<br /><br />if.... is oddly quaint, and simply can not be viewed with modern (especially American) eyes. Kudos to Anderson for avoiding Mick and Kieth in favour of African chant, and a few brownie points for the latent homoerotic overtones. Points deducted for pretension, establishing characters who disappear, and inciting a glib revolution which came to naught.
I just saw "If…" I can remember the advertisements for the movie from 1968, so I was interested in finally seeing it. It may be the perspective of an American who never went to a British public school and misses some of the social references, but I thought the movie was awful. For one thing, as others have pointed out, it takes almost the entire movie for the much ballyhooed-at-the-time revolt to break out. For another, whether the last scene is real or imagined, what occurs isn't a revolt, but a shooting rampage. There's quite a difference.<br /><br />I know it may be bad form to judge a movie on subsequent events, but one cannot avoid doing it here. One person wrote a message board posting asking us not to compare the end of movie to the incidents at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech. But if there's a scintilla of difference between Klebold, Harris and Cho on the one hand and Travis (Malcom McDowell) on the other, I simply can't see it. All four of them were under the delusion that their gunfire is going to purify a f___-ed up world that they arrogantly take no responsibility for.<br /><br />Which brings me to: why the hell are Travis and his chums even in a school they so despise? They are adults, or close to it. They're not in a military prison, like the inmates in "The Hill," a much better British film from about the same time. No one is forcing them to go to College and take beatings from the the whips, except maybe ambitious parents in need of a wake-up about the nature of their sons. I had the opportunity in college to join a frat, except I couldn't stand to be given silly, cruel orders by delinquents claiming to be my prospective "brothers." I took the consequences of not having the "in" with the Establishment that frats provide, and I can't say I regretted it.<br /><br />If Travis fancies himself the second coming of Lenin (whose unbearded picture hangs prominently in his room) he's free to go out and organize a fitter's union or work for Michael Foot in the next election. If he wants to be Jack Kerouac, then get on the road and start writing. What possible benefit is he giving the world in joyriding a motorcycle and getting drunk in his room?<br /><br />Sometimes reviewers have to be like the person who responded to the scene in "Last Tango In Paris" where Brando mopes about having had to go on a date with cow manure on his shoes. In the real world, the person said, a listener would say "Why didn't you scrape it off? Change your shoes?" --Don't allow fictional characters to lay a self-pity trip on you because you don't dare point out an common-sense alternative course of action for them. So it is here.
Lindsay Anderson was very much a European film maker , whereas the likes of David Lean , Ridley Scott and Alan Parker make spectacular movies involving visuel scope Anderson`s movie are more about social commentary and subtext , so much so that the message often ends up taking over the entire film whose primary function should be to entertain the audience <br /><br />What you think of IF comes down to what you think of British film makers . I`m very much of the view that cinema should be a universial medium ( The best Brit movie makes are those who try to emulate Hollywood in my opinion ) , if you want to send a message try pony express , and I find the movie dated , pretentious and too set in the 1960s . 1968 was the summer of love and the year of student rebellion in France . You can just imagine every single French leftist worshipping this movie especially the climax . French new wave film makers will also admire the abstract surrealism of some scenes but a mainstream international will dislike it , and many will dislike it intensely
That is quite an outdated movie which aims to showcase the youth's yearning for freedom in some dehumanizing British school. Oh yes it's like in the army, you learn to obey and do what you're asked to. Yes the young dream of something else but it breaks their dreams and sweeps away their optimism on the threshold of life. Great.<br /><br />Basically that's how you could sum up the nice intentions in If... Nice intentions that arouses no cinematographic challenges: the result is a declamatory movie. Do you see how boring I mean?<br /><br />At least that oldie helped Kubrick cast McDowell in A Clockwork Orange, a movie with a truly powerful social satire and no self-indulgent sentimentalism.
I didn't like this Bill Murray vehicle when it was originally released in the 80s, so I tried watching it again to see if my distaste for this film was down to my movie-going tastes in the 80s or was it that "Stripes" is simply a bad movie. Well, the verdict is in and "Stripes" is a bad movie.<br /><br />Now, "Stripes" may have been innovative comedy in the early 80s, and it may appeal to people who have gone through basic training or who are Bill Murray fans, but its still a bad movie.<br /><br />Why is it bad? Mostly because "Stripes" is supposed to be a comedy but it's just not that funny. There are some laughs, but they are few and far between. Most of the movie is consumed by the dramatic plot which is incredibly convoluted and not very interesting. This lack of comedy is especially noticeable if you're used to more contemporary comedies such as "Anchorman" which strive for laughs in every part of the movie.<br /><br />"Stripes" further suffers from Bill Murray and Harold Ramis's lack of acting ability. Bill Murray is a great comedian but he was not a very compelling dramatic actor at this point in his career, and Harold Ramis is playing Harold Ramis. These two are just not good enough as actors to carry the dramatic arch of the movie.<br /><br />Lastly, most of the comedy that there is in "Stripes" revolves around Bill Murray's self-centered, smart-alec man-child character so if you don't find that character funny (like I didn't) you're not going to find most of what little comedy there is in "Stripes" funny either.<br /><br />"Stripes" is very much a movie of its era, it hasn't aged well and is not worth watching. If you want to watch an early 80's "buddy" comedy I would recommend "Stir Crazy." Like "Stripes" the humor in "Stir Crazy" is not as fast-paced as in contemporary comedies, but unlike "Stripes" it has aged much better and as a result is still watchable.
Possibly not, but it is awful. Even the fantastic cast cant save it. OK, I admit it started off quite funny but it seemed to plummet downhill as soon as they jumped those girls in the Generals house. Bill Murray turned from being a quick witted, humorous guy into an arsehole who was shouting things at people in the street that just weren't funny, its like he was trying too hard to be funny. His character stole a weapon (an RV? come on...) and ends up being a national hero after invading another country and killing god knows how many soldiers, for a laugh. One good point is that this film shows the inadequacy and incompetence of the US Army and shows how arrogant and imbecilic they really are, albeit unintentionally. I actually felt disgusted that this kind of propaganda crap could really be released.
*****WARNING, MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS WHICH WILL BE MORE ENTERTAINING THAN THIS TRIPE.**** <br /><br />Heres some good advise to anyone living in the U.K. Whenever Channel 5 has an old 80's comedy on late at night, read a book instead. I am currently in the process of recovering from a seizure, due to reading some of the comments on this film on here. I am actually shocked at the fact that someone actually said this film was realistic! All I can say is thank god the Cold War never escalated or else we might as well have given the Commie's our borders... I found this film dire in the utmost pretence, maybe it is just my British perception of what makes a film funny, who knows? But in all aspects, this film is not just awful, its teeth grindingly terrible.<br /><br />I've never been a fan of Bill Murray, and its rubbish like this that justify my feelings towards him. Don't get me wrong, I loved Ghostbuster's, which was made only three years after this film. But this just sums Bill Murray up really. I can safely say that I haven't wasted my time so blatantly like this since seeing the first running of Operation Delta Force over here, though these two films have more in common than you would think. For 1 thing, they both have terrible action sequences from beginning to end, and 2nd. They are both riddled with cheesy Cliché's, throughout.<br /><br />Heres one thing, these guys are supposed to be in the "U.S Army". Yet they are allowed to wallow around their Camp, Willy nilly, seducing female Military Police Officers, and subsequently shagging them silly in the Generals Quarters. Talk about Random! This film is just terrible for this I'm afraid. Now don't get me wrong, I'm no feminist sympathiser, but the fact that these two women actually fall hands over heels in love with the two characters shortly after arresting them, letting them go free... Twice, is just insulting to the female race. The fact that one tatty haired, fat lipped bum (Winger) and his hapless sidekick Ramis can simply sweet talk themselves into into the MP's underwear, to which they fall madly in love with the two of them is nothing short of ludicrous.<br /><br />Then there is the training scenes, where you get to meet the Squad "Phycho" who unconvincingly threatens to kill anyone who touches him or his stuff, followed by the overweight bloke (played by the late and great John Candy) who claims he joined the army to "avoid paying $400 for anger management classes". Leading to loud mouthed Murray paying tribute to the "Giant Toe," (WTF?) 'Drill Seargent' who honestly couldn't organise a pi$$ up in a brewery, let alone his band of recruits. All this scene serves to do is to prelude loads of fight scenes, with people saying "way to go ass hole'!" all the time, etc etc.<br /><br />The scenes then carry on showing the rag tag bunch making utter tits of themselves on the Assault Course, leading to a scene where one of them shoots wildly into the air at some passing birds with an assault rifle, peppering a watch tower with bullets. (Just like that. Yep, told you this film was random...He miraculously escapes undisciplined as well...) Eventually Leading up the the passing out parade, where the hapless squad make a magic turn around within the space of two hours. (Bugger me, Miracle!) Thanks to some wise words from Murray, to which they then direct a massively none military like dance routine in front of a Geriatric 'General' in front of the rest of the squads. All of this to the immense pleasure of their two Girlfriends on the stand, who really should've been arresting them... Everyone laughs it off though. This bit is nothing short of amazing though. He then chooses them to guard a new Multi-Million Dollar Prototype Armoured Vehicle in Italy (which turns out to be just a mobile home painted green with loads of gadgets on the inside), claiming "This is exactly what this Army needs!" righto...<br /><br />Then there is the dire finale, where Murray and Ramis decide to steal this top-secret prototype Military Vehicle to pick up their newly acquired and somewhat Hyperactive MP Girlfriends in Germany. To which the Hapless Captain (John Larroquette) then finds out and leads the Squad of fresh recruits on a retrieval Mission for this vehicle. To which they then take a "wrong turn" en-route and end up in Soviet Held Czechoslovakia, where they are captured. (Like we didn't see that coming...) Thus begins a rescue attempt by Ramis and Murray + Birds in hand, to which is where a big fight, loads of shooting from the hip and blowing tanks up. With them coming back as National Heroes, humiliating the Russians by calling them "pussies," etc etc. The end. Thats right. No Courts Martial, nothing. They only just stole a prototype Military vehicle, drove it into a Warsaw Pact country and almost caused an International incident which could've sparked WW3!<br /><br />This film is honestly more fun that being diagnosed with a terminal illness. I know its meant to be a Comedy, it got all the right actors for it, but where in the hell is it? Have Channel 5 cuts those bits out? The only redeeming feature in this film is the repetitive use of naked women taking showers, and female Mud Wrestling. (like I said, Random) Not that it helps to divert from the fact that this is an utterly crap film, of course. This film should realistically be aimed at immature 9 year old's, sadly, we have to watch it instead. 1 star out of 10 - Total Tripe. My advice, do something a little more useful with your time. Like Castrating yourself...
What an insult to the SA film industry! I have seen better SA films. The comments I read about Hijack Stories,by saying it is worthy of a ten out of ten is quite scary. A movie's rating should not depend on.., "OH, A MOVIE FROM A DEVELOPING COUNTRY. LETS BOOST THEIR INDUSTRY BY SAYING NICE THINGS ABOUT THEIR WORK, EVEN THOUGH IT IS BAD." We have the expertise to make good movies. Don't judge the film industry on what people say how great they think Hijack Stories is. We can tell great stories such as Cry the beloved Country and Shaka Zulu. Cry the beloved Country I'll give 9 out of 10. Great directing by Darryl, great acting by two great elderly actors, irrespective from where they are. Hijack Stories.., I'll give 1 out of 10. It could only be people involved in the project who would give it high scores. I would've done the same if it was my movie.
Set in South Africa, a young black guy tries to land a part in a 'gangsta' movie. But with no knowledge of street life, he's told to find out what that life is really like or he won't get the part. He manages to work his way into a gang led by an old friend of his from school and his chances of appearing in the film decline as he commits crimes to be accepted. But for the gang's leader, the burgeoning disaster of his new friend's life suggests a golden opportunity to do something better with his own.<br /><br />While that may sound relatively interesting, it's anything but. The first half of it is incredibly meandering and tedious, while the "hijacking" only takes place towards the end with some very poorly executed low speed car chases. In those "chases", only two police cars are used, both of which are early 90's Nissan Sunny's. Not only would these be rather cheap to pick up (and I find it rather hard to believe they'd be using such mundane old cars in South Africa in the year 2000), but as far as I can remember, there's only 2 involved and none of them get a scratch once. The car chases are very badly shot, with distant and badly timed camera angles and minimal traffic on the roads, and they're all over in around 2 minutes at maximum as you're supposed to believe that a very small kid is actually a highly skilled driver who can easily evade the police despite the driving being pedestrian and utterly unexciting. This now leads me onto the characters and the acting, which are equally bad. The aforementioned kid who drives the car, looks about 13 years old and supposedly is extremely skilled at losing the incredibly inept police. Everybody else is equally unconvincing, so much that they even look bored at times themselves.<br /><br />At the closing scene of the movie, our main character ("Sox Moraka") is asked by the gang leader to steal a car from a car park. While having trouble opening it, the Police arrive and ask him what he's doing and he replies by telling him it's their car. After a brief argument they try to arrest him and he then holds the Police at gunpoint and jumps back in their car. After he's in, the Police return fire and in turn he gets wounded. After another pathetic chase sequence, they decide to abandon the car and set it alight to destroy any evidence. What follows here is one of the most downright laughable and hideously awful special effects I've ever seen. When the car "explodes", superimposed flames suddenly appear from every window with awful sound effects that aren't even in time. It's so badly done and so phony looking that it's hard to even put it into words, and really needs to be seen to be believed. If you watch it in slow motion it looks even funnier. I've seen better effects than this in murder reconstruction documentaries. The car is a Volkswagen Golf MK2 GTi. Something that wouldn't be worth a huge amount at all, and they seriously couldn't afford to destroy it with a real explosion? I'd love to know how large the budget for this movie was. It feels so cheap that I'm surprised it made it outside of South Africa, and even more surprised it made it to a DVD release.<br /><br />I know it's not a big budget Hollywood production. I know it's meant to depict gangs in impoverished townships of South Africa who steal cars from the middle class in and sell the parts on the black market, but with the laughable effects, poorly executed car chases, awful acting and ludicrous characters, any sense of reality is completely lost.<br /><br />Overall, I most certainly do NOT advise you to watch this. If you want to have a laugh and see one of the most poorly done, low budget messes of amovie ever created, then I'd recommend it for that, and only that.<br /><br />It is a wretched, poorly made, poorly edited, poorly paced and tedious piece of low budget drivel that fails on all counts. I've seen many South African movies, including lots of cheap NuImage/Nu-World action pictures, and despite their cheesiness, they're far better than this on all counts.
From a plot and movement standpoint, this movie was terrible. I found myself looking at the clock in theater hoping it would end and relieved after 80 long minutes that it mercifully did. Basically, five characters appear in the movie, A Son & Father, son's girl friend, and two male characters of the son's age who appear and then disappear without context or explanation. The movie and scenes seemed to suggest homo-eroticism, but nothing ever actually happened to reveal this one way or another. There were a couple of brilliant scenes. At the beginning of the movie, the son's girl friend shows up at a window outside his room and they engage in an odd conversation. The photography and acting lent an incredible seductiveness to the interaction between the two, ending with her admitting to having another man who was "older". End of that story.
The film begins with promise, but lingers too long in a sepia world of distance and alienation. We are left hanging, but with nothing much else save languid shots of grave and pensive male faces to savour. Certainly no rope up the wall to help us climb over. It's a shame, because the concept is not without merit.<br /><br />We are left wondering why a loving couple - a father and son no less - should be so estranged from the real world that their own world is preferable when claustrophobic beyond all imagining. This loss of presence in the real world is, rather too obviously and unnecessarily, contrasted with the son having enlisted in the armed forces. Why not the circus, so we can at least appreciate some colour? We are left with a gnawing sense of loss, but sadly no enlightenment, which is bewildering given the film is apparently about some form of attainment not available to us all.
This film is beautiful to look at, but is like watching really bad experimental theater. The plot (if there was one) doesn't make any sense. But it is very "artistic". Lots of shots of half-dressed actors wrestling and looking deep into each other's eyes. Lots of arty shots through windows and with people out of frame. Mumbling and people wandering wistfully. Lingering close-ups of faces and bodies. By the time you get to the threesome on the roof with the cat, you'll be ready to throw a bottle of KY at the screen.<br /><br />It is supposed to be about a father and son's relationship, but you will just be wishing the two of them would just f*$& each other and get it over with. If you have always wanted to see bad Russian gay porn without any money shots, your wish has been granted.
Like wearing a hair shirt. Positively, absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt one of the worst movies ever. Pure torture. Zero stars out of ten. One long, tedious, labored, pretentious, self-conscious, theatrical, and leadenly artsy scene after another. Intended to be dreamlike and impressionistic, the soul bared, it is, instead, morose mush. <br /><br />Half-naked, father and son grope and whisper to each other like lovers. "Homo-erotic" is the point, loud and clear. OK, so what? <br /><br />Repeated more than once by the son is the line, supposedly lifted from "Lives of the Saints," "A father's love crucifies. A loving son lets himself be crucified." The parallel to god and his son, Christ, is heavy-handed, irrelevant, and bombastic, like everything else here. <br /><br />Some reference points to the theme of Russian filiality: "Mother and Son" (1997); "The Return" (Andrei Zvyagvatsev, 2003); "Little Odessa" (James Gray,1994); Turgenev, "Fathers and Sons"; and, of course, Dostoyevsky, "The Brothers Karamazov."<br /><br />Credits in English indicate intended international distribution, meaning that the excuse cannot be used that you have to be Russian to understand this mess. <br /><br />This is nowhere near as accomplished or compelling as Sokurov's last, "Russian Ark" (2003).<br /><br />As in his "Mother and Son," an equally powerful soporific, some scenes are filmed from distorting mirrors, though not as interestingly. The film is almost monochromatic, shot from start to finish through beige filters, making it as visually as it is dramatically numbing. A soft-focus haze only adds to the drugged feeling.<br /><br />An annoying soundtrack drones on, never shuts up, like a tape loop. An old radio constantly plays in the background. Russian Romantic melancholy swells endlessly as "themes based on Tchaikovsky." The presence of a "sound designer" (Sergei Moshkov) signifies, of course, that all those irritating little sounds, radio static, noises, distortion, and such, are "designed." <br /><br />It's hard to believe someone (Sergei Potepolov) actually wrote this thing. It all seems as arbitrary as traffic, as if improvised by bored actors, popping out of nothingness into nothingness.<br /><br />Modern art has finally succeeded in signifying the thing without being the thing, so that what we behold is the idea of the idea, empty as a shell, but not even a shell, merely the idea of a shell. Could one ask for a better definition of decadence?
I consider myself to be a bit of a snob when it comes to everything and although the cinematic experience is more suited to explosions than high drama, I can be very stuck up about films, too.<br /><br />Not all art films, however, are better than King Kong. I quite possibly would give Kong two stars, double this film's haul.<br /><br />My guess is that people got so excited about this because it was almost identical in style to what you can see in a play. For the less discerning art-buff, a film that looks like a play is 'great art'.<br /><br />This film, however, was useless.<br /><br />There was hardly any story so it relied on high drama. The only drama in this film was whether the cat would drop off the roof or not. So, deep and meaningful dialogue, then? No. Great acting? Hardly.<br /><br />To be excessively fair: Some of the scenery was interesting, though: Communist flats, city vistas (Petersburg?) and the Soviet trams still in service.
There are two kinds of characters on THE SHIELD: people who try to do the best they can and do the right thing, and people who relentlessly pursue their own self interest and commit every mortal sin they can while telling themselves and everyone else that they are heroes, and everyone's only hope. More than any other show, THE SHIELD is about hypocrisy and self-delusion. Unfortunately, the hypocrites and self-deluders are the shows heroes, and as such have the typical genre-fiction heroes' improbable immunity to getting defeated or caught and they come out on top over and over again, making fools out of all of their peers.<br /><br />The show boasts excellent camera-work. The lead ins and the fade outs are always superb. It really is a work of art to see. Unfortunately the story is a cartoony, overwrought wish fulfillment scenario of gratuitous violence, rape, and lies.<br /><br />The hero, who drags everyone down with him in failed scheme after failed scheme, is wiley like a warner bros cartoon character, always escaping and making fun of all the elmer fudds (anyone who does not support him in his lies and crimes), automatically attracting any good looking woman supporting character to come on the show, always surviving any attempt to bring him to justice, and ALWAYS scraping your ears with his excruciating self justifications. If another cop detects something wrong with something he's doing, and someone gets hurt because of his actions, he always blames the suspicious cop, regardless of the fact that his schemes and elaborate lies and doomed plans are always the cause. Every time.<br /><br />Like 24, this show relies on contrivances and innumerable delays to drag its story out for season after season. Boring, unbelievable long term stories are injected into the storyline every season to provide a skeleton on which to hang the bloody, perverted chunks of meat that are the characters' corrupt acts and the inevitable cover-ups.<br /><br />Most disappointing though, is the writers' hubris as they try to change the viewers' sympathies back and forth, to and away form the characters on whims. Sometimes, they want us to see Shane as the enemy. Sometimes they want us to see him as a poor misunderstood soul. Sometimes they want us to see Vic as a dangerous, sexual dynamo. Sometimes they want us to see him as a poor guy with a heart of gold. Sometimes they want us to see Mara as a low down vile Jezebel. Then they think that if they show her sitting and talking over her dreams with Shane, that we will find her to be sympathetic and tragic.<br /><br />None of this manipulation is adequate to obtain the kinds of sympathies they want. Once they've shown these characters ruin other people's lives for their own ends, that's it. It is nonsense to keep trying to flip back and forth. But then, it is also nonsense to produce seven seasons of these bumbling clowns drawing every super model in existence to their beds and running a crime syndicate right out of the police station, right under everyone's noses.
To sat how awful The Shield is, you'd have to write pages and pages, so suffice it to say that it is a monument to bad directing.<br /><br />"When Directors Go Awry" should have been the title of this production. Indeed, directors are supposed to infuse their work with a sense of visual style and story-telling that propels the story forward.<br /><br />How is constantly shaking the camera and playing with the zoom lens a "style"? How is it propelling the story forward? Of course there's also the "editing by random numbers" nonsense. Apparently it's become hip to just cut randomly.<br /><br />I guess it's too much work to do good editing.<br /><br />Well, that made it too much work for most people to watch The Shield which languished as one of the most over-hyped and unwatched shows of all time.
I have no idea what the producers of The Shield were trying to do, but the result speaks for itself: The Shield is practically unwatchable.<br /><br />Supposedly the performances on The Shield are great...<br /><br />In reality, the show is so badly put together that you can't even really see the performances. For instance, the editing cuts away from reaction shots before they've had their full impact.<br /><br />I don't know what intellectual rationale there is for that, but it robs the show of all emotional impact.<br /><br />I'll give The Shield one point for ambition in its subject matter, but that's pretty much all I can give it.<br /><br />It's a shame to see a number of talented performer waste their gift on something so strangely badly filmed.
Almost from the word go this film is poor and lacking conviction but then again most people would struggle to show commitment to a script as uninspiring as this. The dialogue really does not flow and sometimes as in this case more is less (or should have been). This is also backed-up by odd scenes (e.g. the Cemetry slow-motion walk) that you think might lead somewhere but only seem to waste a few more seconds of your life.<br /><br />The plot is a strange combination of gangster / situation comedy which I am sure seemed a good idea at the time but if ever there was a case for someone needing to be honest with the scriptwriter then here was it.<br /><br />Martin Freeman is okay but then he seems to have one character which always plays so I am beginning to wonder if he was given a script or just filmed and told to react as normal.<br /><br />Finally - humour. This reminds me of the 'Python (I think) quote about Shakespere, of his 'comedies' - If he had meant it to be humorous he would have put a joke in it. Well I didn't see one.<br /><br />Don't waste your time - I did because I was watching it with a friend and kept hoping that it was going to get better.<br /><br />It didn't.
I hate to be the one to rain on a parade (even a small one like this) but from the very first scene, you could tell this film was going to be absolute shite. Its a shame really, as I quite like Martin Freeman and Danny dyer. I was intrigued as to how they would mix in a film together, but to my dismay, they did not even have a scene together!! I think I need to repeat this - The two lead actors (who stand side by side on the advertisement posters and DVD covers) did not have one scene together!!!! They did not speak to each other and never appeared on screen at the same time. Just about sums up this poor excuse for a movie. False advertisement.<br /><br />The dialogue was painful, every single character in the movie was unrealistic, and un-human like. The scenarios were far fetched, the plot was crap, the jokes were thin, Freeman tried too hard to be funny (and played a poor mans Tim from The office), nobody was likable, and worst of all, some of the characters were so annoying that it almost drove me to switch off, as I couldn't bear to watch, or listen to them any longer.<br /><br />This low budget stinker was an epic fail. Even Danny Dyer couldn't inject some humour and charm into this, but bless, he tried. What a waste of time.<br /><br />How anybody could rate this movie as 'ten stars' is beyond me. Ten Stars? Seriously? Come on....I won't even give some of the greats ten stars, as ten stars implies that a movie was perfect. This film was far from perfect, almost the opposite, meaning that it was almost completely dire throughout.<br /><br />Watch it if you like, but if you've seen a lot of movies, and watched a lot of great movies, your review will probably similar to mine.<br /><br />1/10
Oh dear. good cast, but to write and direct is an art and to write wit and direct wit is a bit of a task. Even doing good comedy you have to get the timing and moment right. Im not putting it all down there were parts where i laughed loud but that was at very few times. The main focus to me was on the fast free flowing dialogue, that made some people in the film annoying. It may sound great while reading the script in your head but getting that out and to the camera is a different task. And the hand held camera work does give energy to few parts of the film. Overall direction was good but the script was not all that to me, but I'm sure you was reading the script in your head it would sound good. Sorry.
It pains me to write such a scathing review but by not doing so I'm simply encouraging these people. First off, just because a film is made on a small budget does not automatically make it good nor endearing. In fact in this case, the small budget is probably the films sole achievement in that it prevented large sums of money from being squandered on a one legged race horse with the shits. Have you ever seen a comedy at the theatre? Ever heard people laugh and thought "what the dickens are you on"? Well even these twats weren't laughing. Things got so bad by mid way my cat took his first ever bath. This is not film, this is children....no monkeys making images that leave you feeling like moving to France. Got to go, there's a clown at my door.............
I had never heard of this one before it turned up on Cable TV. It's very typical of late 50s sci-fi: sober, depressing and not a little paranoid! Despite the equally typical inclusion of a romantic couple, the film is pretty much put across in a documentary style - which is perhaps a cheap way of leaving a lot of the exposition to narration and an excuse to insert as much stock footage as is humanly possibly for what is unmistakably an extremely low-budget venture! While not uninteresting in itself (the-apocalypse-via-renegade-missile angle later utilized, with far greater aplomb, for both DR. STRANGELOVE [1964] and FAIL-SAFE [1964]) and mercifully short, the film's single-minded approach to its subject matter results in a good deal of unintentional laughter - particularly in the scenes involving an imminent childbirth and a gang of clueless juvenile delinquents!
Really it's a dreadful cheat of a film. Its 70-minute running time is very well padded with stock footage. The rest are non descript exteriors and drab interiors scenes. The plot exposition is very poorly rendered. They are all just perfunctory scenes sort of strung together. There is no attempt at drama in scene selection but rather drama is communicated by the intensity of the actors. Please don't ask.<br /><br />The plot concerns a rocket radiating a million degree heat orbiting earth five miles up threatening to destroy the earth. It's a real time menace that must be diverted if a custom built H-bomb can be fashioned and placed in an experimental rocket within an hour. Nothing very much here to report except for a mad speech by a scientist against the project because there might be some sort of life aboard and think of the scientific possibilities but this speech made by the obligatory idiot liberal was pretty much passé by then.<br /><br />What saves this film, somewhat uniquely, IS the stock footage. I've never seen a larger selection of fifties jet fighter aircraft in any other film. This is by no means a complete list but just some of the aircraft I managed to see. There's a brief interception by a pilot flying, in alternate shots, an F-89 Scorpion and an F-86. First to scramble interceptors is the Royal Canadian Air Force in Hawker Hunters and F-86 Sabre Jets (or Canadian built CF-13s) and even a pair of CF-100 Clunks.<br /><br />Then for some reason there are B-52s, B-47s and even B36s are seen taking off. More padding.<br /><br />"These Canadian jets are moving at 1200 miles an hour". I don't think so since one of them appears to be a WW2 era Gloster Meteor, the rest F-80s. The Meteors press the attack and one turns into a late F-84F with a flight of early straight wing F-84s attacking in formation.<br /><br />There's a strange tandem cockpit version of the F-80 that doesn't seem to be the T-33 training type but some sort of interim all-weather interceptor variant with radar in the nose. These are scrambled in a snowstorm.<br /><br />An angled deck aircraft carrier is seen from about 500 meters. It launches F-8U Crusaders, F-11F Tigers, A-5 Vigilantes and A-3 Skywarriors. The Air Force scrambles F-86s and F-84s and more F-89s then you've ever seen in your life as well as F-100 Super Sabres and F-102 Delta Daggers.<br /><br />The F-100s press their attack with sooooo much padding. The F-89's unload their rockets in their wingtip pods in slo mo. The F-86s fire, an F-102 lets loose a Falcon, even some F-80s (F-94s?) with mid-wing rocket pods let loose. There is a very strange shot of a late model F-84 (prototype?) with a straight wing early model F-85 above it in a turn, obviously a manufacturer's (Republic Aviation) advertising film showing the differences between the old and the new improved models of the F-84 ThunderJet. How it strayed into here is anybodies guess.<br /><br />There is other great stock footage of Ottawa in the old days when the capital of Canada was a wide spot in the road and especially wonderful footage of New York City's Times Square during one of the Civil Defense Drills in the early 50s. <br /><br />I think we also have to deal with the notion that this was filmed in Canada with the possible exception of the auto chase seen late in the picture as the Pacific seems to be in the background. The use of a Jowett Jupiter is somewhat mind-boggling and there is a nice TR 3 to be seen also. Canada must have been cheap and it is rather gratuitously used a lot in the background.<br /><br />As far as the actual narrative of the film there is little to recommend it other than the mystery of just who Ellen Parker is giving the finger to at the end of the picture. And she most definitely is flipping someone off. Could it be, R as in Robert Loggia? The director who dies before this film was released? Her career as this was her last credit?<br /><br />Its like the newspaper the gift came wrapped in was more valuable than the gift.
I remember watching "Lost Missile" (actually throwing a fit until my brother and several cousins at whose home I was an overnight guest agreed to watch it with me - I was, from time to time, the Eric Cartman of the 1960s - sorry, guys) and being somewhat embarrassed when the sustained wave of million-degree heat emerged as a plot device - even as a second-grader I knew that a mere missile just couldn't carry the energy around for that much heat or devastation over more than the duration and limited radius of a nuclear detonation. <br /><br />My inflicting that turkey on loving relatives was a self-punishing crime.<br /><br />The film's production values were very good. The acting isn't bad (apart from the Shatnerism of the actor who played governor's aide that someone else here mentioned).<br /><br />But the idea of a missile Easy-Baking the surface of the Earth by means of the heat of its exhaust... no.<br /><br />How'd the people at "Mystery Science Theater 3000" miss "The Lost Missile," anyway? <br /><br />It's a great classic of unintentional comedy - watch it if you want something to drink beer to some weekend.
The story idea behind THE LOST MISSILE isn't bad at all, but unfortunately the story does get a bit dull towards the middle and the overuse of stock footage as well as poor special effects sink this film to the sub-par level.<br /><br />The film begins with a missile heading towards the Earth. In a panic because it's about to strike the Earth, the Soviets manage to deflect the object. This isn't necessarily good, however, as this seemingly unmanned craft has a vapor trail that destroys everything in its path AND the ship is now in a low orbit over the planet. In other words, with each pass it makes, a swath of death follows--one that could potentially kill us all!! So, it's up to the good scientists of the US (led by a very young and hardly recognizable Robert Loggia) to formulate and plan to save us--and especially save New York that is in its immediate flight path! Unfortunately, they aren't able to save Ottawa (I've never been there, so I can't say whether or not this is a big loss) but thanks to good old American know-how, they are able to eventually destroy this harbinger of destruction!! <br /><br />So, as you can see, the story idea isn't bad and rather original. But, so many old clips of fighter planes and guys manning radar scopes gets a bit old and it seemed like padding. Overall, a decent but hardly inspired film that extreme fans of the genre may like--all others, see it at your own risk.
This had all the makings of a very good film -- good actors (Robert Loggia, Ellen Parker), a good plot (mysterious missile from space threatens to burn up the planet) and lots of stock footage (if the Air Force had film of jets firing rockets, it was used). Unfortunately, it is ruined by too much melodrama and an impossible time-line.<br /><br />The movie concerns a missile from space that is attacked by the Soviets and inadvertently diverted into a low atmospheric orbit. At under five miles and at a speed in excess of 4,000 miles, it emits an exhaust of a million degrees, burning up everything on the ground, including glaciers, Distant Early Warning (DEW) line bases and Eskimos.<br /><br />Every attempt at destroying the missile fails.<br /><br />The first flaws in this film appear early on. While we don't expect much from low-budget films, some things can't be forgotten -- like a little research. For instance, both the Soviets and the US fire anti-ballistic missiles that home in on the missile with unerring accuracy. However, the first successful ABM tests weren't done until March of 1961 by the Russians.<br /><br />There is too much melodrama. Dr. Loring (Loggia) and his assistant Joan Woods (Ellen Parker) play their romance with about as much wood as a log cabin. Parker's character cries and boo-hoos at Loggia's sacrifice like she was at a screen test. Loggia is about as heroic as a bored businessman. A scientist (Phillip Pine) hams it up so much he makes William Shatner look like a thespian. A bus driver continually spits out end-of-the-world crap in scene after scene. The only good actor is the film narrator, played by veteran character actor Lawrence Dobkins ("Naked City").<br /><br />All of this could be overlooked if it wasn't for the time-line. After the missile's info is sent to DC, the Pentagon brings in a group of scientists. A general (Larry Kerr) announces that the missile will hit New York City in 63 minutes. After this, there are discussions by scientists and there is a deadly lull as word is sought from ambassadors to see if the missile is an attack from the Russians and if a response is necessary.<br /><br />The film shows the military being fully scrambled. Civil Defense people leave work and go to their stations. Eight million people scramble to fallout shelters while school buses pick up millions of kids (and we get to see the whitest New York City I've ever seen, though watching 50's sci-fi films made it seems like this was the standard). The press is kept in the dark for tens of minutes. Then, incredibly, a man at the Pentagon announces that the missile will hit Ottawa, Canada in 51 minutes! All of the aforementioned action happened in 12 minutes! Then, to add fuel to the fire, Loggia somehow thinks of a way to stop the alien missile. He slowly produces a caseload of plutonium, loads it in a jeep and takes it from DC to a distant missile base to put it atop a missile. Along the way, he is knocked off the road by a wild driver, breaks down and then is carjacked. He finally gets the plutonium back and drives to the base to arm the missile. Again, all this in the same 63-minute time frame.<br /><br />The movie also irks the viewer by making it seem as if Ottawa might be saved, only to show men, women and children get roasted. The missile is then said to have five minutes to reach New York. Loggia is still driving to the base (4 more miles to go). He gets to the base and arms the missile, a two-minute countdown is then announced. All within five minutes. The boroughs of New York should have been at least scorched.<br /><br />By the way, the missile is destroyed if you haven't guessed. The ABM warhead destroys it with a massive plutonium-based nuclear blast. Five seconds later, the blast dissipates and all is clear. Yeah, they caused a nuclear blast equivalent to 100 Hiroshimas on the outskirts of New York City and nothing happens.<br /><br />The film had all the elements necessary to be a good B film, but wasted them. Loggia played his character so lamely you didn't care that he sacrificed himself in the end. You didn't care about the other characters, not even the smarmy scientist played by Pine. The tension that should have moved the film along just wasn't physically possible in the time-line allowed (it still wouldn't be today, not even with Jack Bauer).<br /><br />This film is very difficult to find. As far as I know, it hasn't been re-issued on any medium and for good reason. I don't know if the film meant to be or if it was standard practice, but there's a scene where the government sends all of the best scientists, military men and businessmen into deep shelters, saying they're too valuable to lose. There isn't a single woman or minority in the bunch. Hari Rhodes is the only black man in the film and he gets a brief bit playing a piano. It was worse than "27 Days" where an alien gives five Earthlings the chance to either save or destroy the planet and he doesn't include any blacks or Hispanics.<br /><br />I saw this on a special Sci-fi night on Turner Classic Movies and I don't expect it to show up again. If you do find a copy of this somewhere, you might want to put it up on Amazon.com.
This must be one of the most overrated Spanish films in history. Its lack of subtlety and complexity and its total political correction make it really childish, with only good/bad characters. The world is just not like this, and good movies show complex characters with opposite impulses, dilemmas, etc. However, what I HATE most about this film is Bola's friend's father. The director tries to teach us a good lesson: tattoo artists with shaved heads are not always bad guys, in fact they can be better than the average looking dad (wow, this is like... philosophy, or something). Thank you, Achero. I'll propose you for the Nobel prize of literature.
If there was a God, he would have made sure this movie stayed in the toilet were it was crapped up. This is BY FAR the worst vampire movie I have ever seen. I may never watch a vampire film again because of this movie. It makes Zombie Lake look like The Sound of Music.
Absolutely unwatchable, lowest quality film making. This film makes "Show Girls" look good. The acting is insufferable. The cinematography gives a bad name to amateurism. No wonder it went right to video and bypassed the theaters. This film wasn't released...it escaped.
This movie is just plain terrible. Poor John Savage had to stoop this low in order to be in another movie. He stars as a rare type of vampire that is to help a lady that looks like a washed out and thrown in the streets hooker that is a dancer at a local strip club. She acidently tastes a drop of blood from another dancer who happens to be one of those rare vampires as they get carried away making out on the floor of the dressing room. Savage is then assigned by a short leader of this rare vampire breed that looks like a cross between 80's punk rock and one of the Olsen twins with purple hair. This movie just gets all to crazy with Savage rapping and dancing with a midget with a tattooed spider on his head, also one of the rare. He quotes the Elephant Man and Jimmy Durante and I just had to laugh. This just gets rediculas. And then the most gross special effects that they could come up with is Corri throwing up her organs and pulling them out of her mouth. And you can tell that that is all to fake. Her son doesn't know what to do with his moms new identity and becomes more of a pest than an object of serenity. I enjoy a good vampire film, believe me I do but I just HATED this one. Even the photography stinks, in and out blurs with the camera switching this way and that trying to make it look like the vampires move to fast for the camera to keep up and then the camera turns all to bright in the scene of Savage chasing the son of Corri around till he blinds himself. Avoid this one!!
I was watching this with one of my friends, who is a vampire freak, and I was extremely disgusted at the fact that this film exists. This film should be shown to prisoners of war, yes, it's that bad. Even John McCain wouldn't be able to sit through this. So why the 3/10 rating? Because it had a vampire midget. Come on, what's more entertaining than a vampire midget? There's one scene in this film where John Savage gets laid by saying "I want to feel human again," and the chick, being the brainless stripper slut she is, lets him "feel human". I wish I could "feel human" with Jessica Alba or Megan Fox. This is a movie for stoners. There is bright flashy objects and random movements. All in all, don't waste your money on this garbage. I got it for free when I was walking down the street with my friend and we saw a garbage barrel full of video tapes and a sign that said "free". So, in a way, I didn't get ripped off, but still...
This movie was horrible. I watched it three times, and not even the whole thing. It's just impossible to watch, the story line sucks, it's depressing, and utterly disgusting. I don't write spoilers for anything, so if you want to know why it's so disgusting, see it for yourself. The only good thing about this movie was John Savage, his dialogue at the beginning, and some funny parts in the movie. The little kid in this movie is annoying, and the whole situation is bullshit. I saw this movie at movie stores around America, so I assumed it would be a good movie. Jesus Christ, was I wrong!!!! The acting is all horrible, and the nudity itself is lame and nasty. Another thing is, Starr Andreef, the other main character, hasn't been in such bad movies in the past, in fact, she was in some pretty good ones. Same with John Savage. This movie SUCKS!
This is probably the worst movie ever made it is just to bad the name of Roger Corman is associated with it. I could've understand it in his early years when he had lower budgets but nowadays there is no excuses for giving birth to this! I'm a "B" movie pervert and from certain people point of view all the flicks I love are put aside by "regular viewers" but take my word on this one, Vampire club makes the top of my list of the best of worst.It's hard to Imagine, vampires with no fangs, the music score is totally out of place,the sound effects are just not effective and finally Mr.Savage doesn't seem to know he is in a vampire movie at all witch is too bad 'cause he had a "not to bad" career over all. Let me know i'f I'm to hard on this one cause when I don't like a movie I tend to forget about it's good side.
I will never be a member of any club that would have me,<br /><br />especially this one.<br /><br />Starr Andreeff is a single mom/stripper who gets attacked by a<br /><br />female vampire and left for dead. She begins to get a hankering for<br /><br />blood, and meets up with John Savage, looking like he's<br /><br />wondering where he left Michael Cimino's phone number. Savage<br /><br />is also a vampire and wants to let Andreef join his little vampire<br /><br />family, which consists of a British vamp, the blonde vamp who<br /><br />attacked Starr, and a green haired midget (I am not making this<br /><br />up).<br /><br />The family does not want Starr, so they try to kill Savage and Starr<br /><br />and Starr's kid.<br /><br />Someone forgot to tell John Savage that this was a drama. He<br /><br />spends most of his screen time exhibiting more facial tics than<br /><br />Hugh Grant on a Jolt Cola bender, and he reads all of his lines like<br /><br />he is making a Farrelly Brothers film. Andreeff tries to make the<br /><br />most of a badly written role, but screenwriter/director Ruben goes<br /><br />for all the vampire cliches, like Starr eating her son's pet hamster<br /><br />and buying a lot of raw meat to fight the craving for blood. The kid<br /><br />also gets knocked around a lot, for those who think watching<br /><br />violence against children is really entertaining.<br /><br />The film is extra gory, but not in a wild, over the top way like "Killer<br /><br />Tongue." Here, the gore is gross and never justified, it just occurs.<br /><br />It is just in the budget. Most of the R rating goes to Andreeff's<br /><br />coworkers, who are put through embarassing strip routines in the<br /><br />background of conversation scenes. The budget does not include<br /><br />vampire fangs! All the vampires here must stab their prey to eat.<br /><br />Nifty idea, unless you have already seen George Romero's<br /><br />"Martin."<br /><br />Even at 77 minutes, and once you throw in Ruben's attempts at<br /><br />arty direction (skewed frames, blurred scenes), this is one<br /><br />tiresome, dull, and dirty ride. Leave this club and take a shower,<br /><br />you will need it.<br /><br />This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, gun violence, sexual<br /><br />violence, strong gore, strong profanity, female nudity, sexual<br /><br />references, drug abuse, and adult situations.<br /><br />
Dakota (1988) was another early Lou Diamond Phillips starring vehicle. This film is similar to the later released film Harley. There are a few differences but they're both the same. I don't know which one came first. I guess it'll remain one of the mysteries of life. But they both are troubled "kids" who are trying to turn there lives around. Instead of bikes this one involves horses. They're basically the same movie and they're both cheesy as hell. If you're a serious L.D.P. fan then I recommend that you watch them both. You get some extreme mugging and posturing from L.D.P. if you're game then go for it.<br /><br />Not recommended, except for L.D.P. fans!!!
This film is too skeletal. It's a fairly low-budget film (I hope!) which excuses it somewhat, but the lack of a decent cast and a fleshed out plot hurts it too much. Phillips is quite believable in his role as a torn-apart son of a well-off family who's searching for himself (though his family is...er...well, a little too white...), but the rest of the cast is grasping at straws. Every moment that has potential is ruined by excessive melodrama, and there are *way* too many sub-plots (which is an obvious sign of plot-deficiency. They needed filler...) I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone who isn't either a hard-core Phillips fan, or who has absolutely *nothing* to do. 4/10.
Yes, this film gets a lot of attention and is considered a classic in the adult film genre. Still, I did not like this one at all. About a woman who commits suicide in a scene more fitting a horror movie, she is given the opportunity to return to earth briefly to live the life of lust she never did before in her mundane life. Crappy sex scenes to follow. Why are they crappy, for one they try so hard to be artistic that they take away from the actual sex act. I mean we watch porn for the sex do we not. Little Girls Blue also does things in an artistic way, but it is still very erotic and nice to look at. Of course the girls in that one are very cute. Here we have a rather unattractive lead actress and that does not help things. If you find the lead in your adult film unappealing there is no amount of artistic vision that is going to make me enjoy the film. The sex scenes range from yuck to bizarre...I mean there is a snake in one of them people. So for me this movie just fails as it does not excite me at all, but rather turns me off.
There is a DVD published in the UK in 2002 Code HRGD002 on the cover, no ASIN, VFC 19796 on the disk, no IFPI code in the inner rim.<br /><br />Probably a straight transfer from VHS. <br /><br />There is no much point is commenting an adult film. But this one contains a minimal plot, and the characters are believable. It was shown in the United States in normal cinemas.<br /><br />I've seen it In Pensylvannia way back in 1975.<br /><br />As such it deserves a place in an Encyclopedia of Movies. The DVD has no special features and no subtitles, and was probably made using a VHS tape as source
a friend gave it to me saying it was another classic like "Debbie does Dallas". Nowhere close. I think my main complaint is about the most unattractive lead actress in porn industry ever. Even more terrible is that she is on screen virtually all the time. But I read somewhere that back in those days, porn had to have some "artistic" value. I was unable to find it though. See it only if you are interested in history of development of porn into mainstream, or can appreciate art in porn movies. I know I am not. But the director of the movie appears to be a talented person. He even tried to get Simon & Garfunkel to give him permissions to use his songs. Of course, they rejected.
One of those classics, held up next to "Deep Throat" and "Behind the Green Door."<br /><br />Sure, it was clever, but the female lead isn't that attractive and sex isn't that hot. But if not for this film, porn would not have blossomed into what it is today.<br /><br />Harry Reems was the Ron Jeremy of his day. Worth a look if you're a Fan.
After watching some of HBO's great stuff - Band of Brothers, Rome, etc. - I must say I had pretty high expectations before watching the first episode of "True Blood". Jeez. Often the script seemed to be written by an 8-year-old, some parts are just horribly filmed, (The scene in which she "saves" Bill, I mean come on. She throws a chain at the guy and ow! it goes around his neck and it magically chokes him! That was pretty embarrassing if you want my opinion. Or a few moments before that scene, when she finds out that the couple is gone with Bill, ridiculous. She hears them plan their stuff, and like 5 seconds later, magic! The 3 of them are gone, and without any struggle or noise or anything!<br /><br />I mean the idea of the show seemed interesting, mysterious, intriguing, vampires co-existing with human in our modern society... but honestly I don't think they really wanted to make more of this than a petty soap show, that the average teen girl watches all the time but that nobody else cares about... Unfortunately, the script is written poorly, mediocre at best. It's shallow and extremely predictable. Often I thought that this was some kind of a joke or something. <br /><br />The actors deliver really unconvincing performances, if you want my opinion. They seem to take the show very lightly, as if it were some kind of a regular, low budget family TV show (well maybe thats what it is, if you take away the family part). The only actor that seemed somewhat good to me was Stephen Moyer in the role of Bill, considering the poorly written, extremely short replies he had to say "What are you..." "Can I give you a call sometime...", I think he did good in bringing out the somewhat mysteriously scary part of a vampire that anyone with a vampire role must have, actually. Anna Paquin was okay as well, but not more. But the guy, playing her brother though, jeez, he's horrible. The scene in which he gets arrested is just simply a shame to modern television. The acting is bad, the construction site looks fake to the bone, and the two other guys "Why is he getting arrested? Uh.. I dunno..." That was pretty embarrassing. <br /><br />Another thing that I think was completely missed was the way they presented Sookie's psychic powers. They make us hear what people think AND speak both at the same time and thats just wrong. Often it just seems unnecessarily chaotic, as if people's thought were some sort of an annoying radio channel, and that when she comes close to em she hits the right frequency level and has to hear everything that they think. <br /><br />And finally, the sex scenes are just plainly unnecessary and that vampire sex tape thing was just totally disgusting. <br /><br />Don't get me wrong - I wrote all these comments not because I thought the show was BAD, but because I was very disappointed. I expected quality stuff. I didn't think it was going to be like that. It's definitely not a GOOD show though. Mediocre at best.
This show had a lot of hype but I didn't know about it until the midseason (season 1). Someone even recommended the show to me. But I decided that if I was going to watch it, I was going to wait until the end of the season so I could watch it in bulk. Due to the show's format, I'm happy I waited. I imagine it would have been fairly annoying have nearly every episode end in the middle of some cliff hanger then have to wait another week to find out what happens in the next second of the story.<br /><br />Somehow, this show has managed to throw in too much sex. Jason will have sex with pretty much anything that moves. Right after he finds out that one woman he had sex with was killed, he's in bed with another woman the next night! Then Tara and Sam get it on, despite each of them knowing that Sam is in love with Sookie. And for some reason, Sookie gets mad when she later finds out about it--even though she's sleeping with a vampire. One of the problems with the show, is that it doesn't do a good job of making you care about the characters. I really didn't care for Jason at all. Along with his endless pursuit of tale, he was rude to the people who actually were concerned for him. After a few episodes, I wouldn't have minded if he got killed somehow. For that reason, I was for the most part uninterested in the murders until Sookie's Grandmother became a victim (since the first two were more closely involved with Jason).<br /><br />Then once Sookie and Bill have sex, the story gets a few more subplots. Tara's mother wants an exorcism, then the exorcist lady tries to convince Tara that she should have one to remove her own demon. I wasn't so much bothered by the whole exorcism thing as I know there are some people who really believe in that stuff. However, they waste little time in showing that is it a farce right after Tara spends about $1300 on exorcisms for her and her mother. At other points, some of the developments happen too fast. Jason continues being a jerk, trying to sell his Grandmother's stuff to buy vampire blood, which apparently is the new crack or something. In his search he finds this girl who will do V (vampire blood) with him. They get high, and within three days fall in love with each other and kidnap a vampire for a constant source of V. Another example is when Bill has to go to a vampire tribunal. He's only gone for two days before Sookie starts to feel abandoned and start to wonder if he thinks "vampire politics" are more important than her.<br /><br />Subtlety is not this show's strong suit. It doesn't take a genius to figure out something is going on with the local dog. Although my assumption wasn't dead on, it wasn't that much of a surprise. But the finale two episodes was where it really got annoying as it just shoved all the developments in your face as if you couldn't possibly figure the out for yourself. When Tara gets into the car accident, the naked lady's face with the pig is clearly shown, and was easily recognizable when she shows up at the jail for the bailout. As if that wasn't enough, they later show the lady again with the pig at her house. Then it's time to wrap up the murder story. At the end of the penultimate episode, it's revealed that Renee is not who he says he is and most likely is the killer. In the final episode, they shove Renee being the killer in your face. Sookie remarks that it's odd that Renee's thoughts don't have an accent. I thought that was fine, as it adds to Renee being a fraud. But the next scene is full of incriminating evidence against Renee. They show that Renee has the tape of Maudette with the vampire and his fiancée finds a tape in one of Renee's boxes about how to fake a Cajun accent. At this point it was just ridiculous. I mean WE GET IT!!! So blah blah blah stuff happens. Bill almost kills himself while failing to save Sookie, who still manages to kill Renee. They start to set up season 2 by leaving unfinished issues. The naked pig lady and Sam have a history, Lafayette has gone missing and might have been killed. Jason is in the process of being brainwashed into being a religious nut by some anti-vampire church--which makes me care about him even less.<br /><br />It's almost surprising to see how many people absolutely love this show. I think I just expected this show to be better. I'm interested in seeing what happens in season 2, but if I watch it, I'll most likely wait for the season completion.
For every series that makes it to television, a 100 ideas are formed, 50 scripts are written, 15 pilots are made, and one, just one, actually makes it to production. From such a selection process, we are lead to believe that the final product must be the cream of the crop, for what other reason could so many ideas be rejected to give us a single television series.<br /><br />And so it goes with True Blood; all the stars were in alignment and what started as a series of novels was transformed into an idea, a screen play, a pilot, and finally a series. Unfortunately, it can sometimes be a long journey and along the way there are many turns that ultimately change what was good and pure into and show that production people feel would be best for ratings. Oh how wrong they so often are...<br /><br />True Blood is an example of a creative concept that has developed into one of the poorest story lines, worst acting, and silliest subplots as anything in recent television history. Its international cast of relatively unknown actors struggle to find their voices but keep tripping over their fake southern accents. Alan Ball's not so secret desires for Ryan (Jason Stackhouse) gives us a fresh nude shot each week although it often has nothing to do with the storyline. Tara's angry black woman characterization fails to connect and you find yourself secretly hoping the vamps take her out quickly before she goes into another speech about white suppression while attend a ceremony for the Glorious Dead of the Confedercy. Sam finds suppressed love for Sookie and suddenly we are to believe he needs to watch over her morning, noon, and night despite years of working with her and avoiding any such relationship.<br /><br />As for Bill the Vampire, his moral high ground is quickly surrendered at the first chance to make love with Sookie and has no issue with make a quick snack of her (although she remains somewhat unharmed). We find the other vampires not so mainstream as Bill but greatly desiring to become accepted by a public as they look at the living as Happy Meals with legs.<br /><br />Despite my best efforts of suffering through the first six episodes, I have come to the realization that no matter how long you watch a bad show, its still bad. Somethings die for a reason, even vampires. Maybe this show should to.
When I first watched the show, the first few episodes seemed promising. Bill Compton introduced himself as the stereotypical "mysterious" vampire and Sookie presented herself as an independent woman. However, the show went downhill from here and the once interesting characters are as entertaining as a cardboard box.<br /><br />As the story progresses the main characters lose their original personalities, along with their acting abilities. By episode 5, Bill's furrowed eyebrows are so low that his face just consists of a forehead. Sookie, or rather the actress, is even more dead than her vampire lover. All these tragic events are surrounding her and she only reacts to how enjoyable it was losing her virginity. Personally, I think they made the main characters sleep with each other too early in the show. The way they teased each other was something that had me hooked and could easily be toyed with a bit more. As soon as Sookie loses it she struts around like a total ditz, only thinking of Bill's libido and the size of his appendage. Bill also loses his debonair attitude and well, he just gets plain silly. His actions are never really explained except he does it for Sookie. Why? Their love for each other is never delved into, if there is any love. So far it just seems to be sex that is the core of their relationship.<br /><br />Yeah, yeah, vampires usually equal sex but come on. Every five seconds I see some sort of humping going on. It wasn't that much of a surprise, since HBO always tries to pass of a soft core porno as a decent TV show. Bill popping out of the dirt and just getting it on with Sookie with no reason what's so ever? I laughed so hard I almost peed myself.<br /><br />The plot is just a stream of consciousness. The characters never go into detail about anything. All the events that happen are usually left unexplained. The only thing that is constant is the sex.<br /><br />The only thing I can say that I do like are the minor characters. Tara and her drunk mother are far more interesting than the major characters. The only reason why I continue to watch the show is for the development of the minor characters. <br /><br />Minus the sex and the main characters the show would be much more worthwhile.
Man, I really find it hard to believe that the wonderful Alan Ball had anything to do with this mess. Having seen the first two episodes thus far, I think I can safely say this show isn't going to be on my must see list. It's just got so many things working against it.<br /><br />None of the actors cast are particularly good. Anna Paquin as the lead character Sookie, is just awful. I remember her being better in a lot of other things I've seen her in so maybe it's just the writing. She's not really much fun to look at either, there are moments where to be honest she looks downright ugly. The actor who plays Bill is marginally better, if only because his character is supposed to be sort of wooden and aloof. The other actors do their best but with the cliché characters with difficult to perform accents they are given it's a tough job. Tara is an absolute misery to watch, Rutina Wesley absolutely murders the accent. It's like nails on a chalkboard bad. Almost as awful is Nelsan Ellis, it's difficult to understand what he's even saying sometimes. Both his character as well as Tara's also seem a bit racist to me. I don't know, having a character say 'whycome' on an HBO show that isn't The Wire just seems a bit odd. Rounding out the cast so far are Sookie's doddering grandmother, her sex addict brother, and the only bit of genius casting I've seen in William Sanderson as the sheriff.<br /><br />The story seems to be meandering towards it's destination at this point, with no real worry about keeping the viewer interested. The romance stuff is very Dark Shadow-sy. Although this show ups the camp factor from something like those old Dark Shadows episodes times about ten. At times it seemed so campy to me, that I just have to assume it was intended to be. But unlike a show such as Buffy, that pulled camp off masterfully, this show does not. Out of place with the campiness is the extreme gore and graphic sex of the show. I'm not averse to either of these when they are done well, as they have in many other HBO shows but here at least they prolonged rough sex scenes involving Jason Stackhouse seem a bit over the top and pointless.<br /><br />About the only nice thing I can really think to say about this mess is that I liked the opening title sequence. HBO has had a string of bad luck with their shows lately, I hope they cancel this after the first season and try to get something better on the air.
As a fan of the Sookie Stackhouse books, I find this series to be a totally crass representation of them. Vampire Bill is not very good looking and looks much older than described in the book. I found that they have made already wonderfully colourful characters seem very course and vulgar. One of the things I loved about the books is that despite all the crap that she is going through Sookie is always a lady, and yet in the TV series she doesn't seem like that at all. Not only that but the prejudices displayed in the TV series are not nearly as wide spread in the books. I didn't expect an exact replica of the books but I at least expected the feel of them to be used for the series.
I hope whoever coached these losers on their accents was fired. The only high points are a few of the supporting characters, 3 of 5 of my favourites were killed off by the end of the season (and one of them was a cat, to put that into perspective).<br /><br />The whole storyline is centered around sex, and nothing else. Sex with vampires, gay sex with gay vampires, gay sex with straight vampires, sex to score vampire blood, sex after drinking vampire blood, sex in front of vampires, vampire sex, non-vampire sex, sex because we're scared of vampires, sex because we're mad at vampires, sex because we just became a vampire, etc.<br /><br />Nothing against sex, it would just be nice if it were a little more subtle with being peppered into the storyline. Perhaps HAVE a storyline and then shoehorn some sex into it. But they didn't even bother to do that... and Anna Paquin is a dizzy gap-tooth bitch. Either she sucks or her character sucks, I can't figure out which.<br /><br />Another part of the storyline that I find highly implausible is why 150 year old vampire Bill who seems to have his things together would be interested in someone like Sookie. She's constantly flying off the handle at him for things he can't control. He leaves for two days and she already decides that he's "not coming back" and suddenly has feelings for dog-man? Give me a break. She's supposed to be a 25 year old woman, not a 14 year old girl. People close to her are dying all over, and she's got the brightest smile on her face because she just gave away her V-card to some dude because she can't read his mind? As the main character of the story, I would've hoped the show would do a little more to make her understandable and someone to invest your interest in, not someone you keep secretly hoping gets killed off or put into a coma. I can't find anything about her character that I like and even the fact that she can read minds is impressively uninspiring and not the least bit interesting.<br /><br />I will not be wasting my time with watching Season 2 come June.
For those of you who've never heard of it (or seen it on A&E), Cracker is a brilliant British TV show about an overweight, chain-smoking, foulmouthed psychologist named Fitz who helps the Manchester police department get into the heads of violent criminals. It's considered to be one of the finest shows ever to come out of England (and that's saying something), and was tremendously successful in England and around the world back in 1993.<br /><br />Now, the original stars have re-teamed with the original writer to knock out one more 2-hour episode. I've loved this show ever since I'd first seen it, over a decade ago. The DVD box set holds a place of honor in my collection, and I can quote a good deal of Fitz's interrogation scenes practically word for word. The idea of Robbie Coltrane reteaming with Jimmy McGovern for another TV movie about Fitz filled me with absolute glee.<br /><br />I'll start with the good. One of the many things that impressed me about the original Cracker series was how quickly Fitz was defined as a character. Five minutes into the first episode – with his lecture (throwing the books into the air), his drinking, and his cussing of the guy after him on the gambling machine queue – and you knew, simply knew, who this character was. You could feel him "clicking" in your mind, the kind of click that only happens when a great actor gets a great role written by a great writer.<br /><br />Coltrane, of course, remained great throughout the show, but I always felt that some of the later episodes – those not written by McGovern – mistreated the character.<br /><br />So the good news is this: Fitz is back. As soon as you see him in this show – making incredibly inappropriate comments at his daughter's wedding – you'll feel that "click" once again. It's him: petulant one moment and truly sorry the next, always insightful, sincere to the point of tactlessness but brilliantly funny in the process. If you love this character as much as I do, you'll be delighted with how he is portrayed in the movie. And this extends to Judith and Mark: in fact, everything having to do with the Fitzs is handled perfectly.<br /><br />The problem I do have with this movie revolves around the crime Fitz is trying to solve. In standard Cracker fashion, we know exactly who the criminal is in the first five minutes – the suspense lies in seeing Fitz figure it out. In this case, we have a serial killer who is out for American blood. And the reason for this, unfortunately, is not due to any believable psychological trauma – rather, it seems that the murders are here simply to allow the writer to display his personal political beliefs.<br /><br />It's difficult for me to write this, as I truly believe that Jimmy McGovern is one of the greatest writers in the world. Nor do I have a problem with movies that are about current issues, or movies that take a political stand. But in the Cracker universe, we expect to see the characters behaving like human beings, not like caricatures. Instead, the Americans in this movie are all depicted in an entirely stereotypical fashion. They're know-nothing loudmouths who complain about everything, treat the locals like crap and cheat on their wives – one of them even manages to do all of the above within less than 5 minutes. I honestly thought I'd mistakenly switched channels or something.<br /><br />But it doesn't stop there. We get constant reminders of just how badly the war in Iraq is going – reminders that have nothing whatsoever to do with the story and appear practically out of nowhere. The killer is so busy ranting about how Bush is worse than Hitler that he almost forgets to get on with the killing; but more to the point, he is such a mouthpiece for the writer's political views that he forgets to act like a believable human being, and thus we – as an audience – don't buy his sudden transformation from a happy family man to a tortured serial-killing soul.<br /><br />I can't say that this ruined the show for me – it's was still good TV, better than almost everything else in the genre (mainly due to, once again, Coltrane). But its constant politicizing made it impossible for it to be as good as the real Cracker classics like "To Be A Somebody" – an episode that was just as "issuey", but one that was handled with far more subtlety and psychological depth.<br /><br />Two other small points: Panhandle not being around is a disappointment, but what's worse are her replacements. The entire police department – which for so long filled with such great characters - is now full of vanilla. Completely interchangeable cops who lack any and all personality (how you could drain Coupling's Richard Coyle of personality is beyond me, but it is indeed missing here).<br /><br />Also, there are couple of moments where the show lost its believability for me. One such instance revolves around Fitz having to narrow down the entire population of Manchester from 1 million to a hundred based on some very strange criteria (French windows? How does the computer know if I have French windows?) – he not only succeeds in doing this, but he succeeds in less than an hour. I don't think so.<br /><br />So, all in all, I was a little disappointed. It's recommended viewing, but remember to leave at least some of your expectations at the door. Still, if there's new series to come after this, it would all have been for the good: I'm convinced that McGovern can still write great stuff, and maybe now that he's got his politics out of his system he can go back to writing about people.
I'm a true fan of the original Cracker series, and own all of them on DVD. Cracker had a tendency to be over-the-top on occasion, but Robbie Coltrane and the other cast members, as well as the writers, always seemed to carry it off despite themselves. I count the original Cracker among the great Brit TV crime series of that time, and there's some stiff competition: Prime Suspect, Inspector Frost, Inspector Morse, Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Homes, and a host of others. Cracker, along with Prime Suspect, was on the top of my list.<br /><br />Which makes "A New Terror" all the more sad...<br /><br />Ultimately, this was a very pale imitation of Cracker's former glory. I forced myself to sit through the whole thing, convinced that it couldn't actually be this bad, and that some spark would eventually ignite. I was wrong, it was bad from beginning to end.<br /><br />A few criticisms: First, just to get any potential bias up-front right off: I was offended by the anti-American, anti-war screed that droned on and on throughout most of the show. The topper: the murder of two American's innocent of any crime and a British Junkie is, in Fitz's words, "understandable, but not justified". I thought "I waded through two hours of crap just to hear this disgusting bit of drivel?" So I had a negative reaction to the anti-war/American tone brought on by my beliefs... Beyond the politics, I had the distinct sense that this Cracker was merely a prop for the propaganda, and it actually helped to undermine an already terribly weak script.<br /><br />Second, just how much air-time did Robbie Coltrane get? Fitz was almost a bit player in this one, as if he was an afterthought plugged into some story originally written without any thought of Fitz's role. Coltrane could have carried the show on his own broad and still suitably flabby shoulders, but the writer was apparently thinking of other things, and missed the chance, and by a wide margin.<br /><br />Third: WHAT AN ABYSMAL SCRIPT! There was some sparkle, and a couple of bits of actual character development (Fitz's son ranting that Fitz couldn't stay at his house if he missed his plane to Australia, the Detective that liked to beat his poor-performers over the backs of their heads, and some of the old sparks between Fitz and his Missus) but not nearly enough to carry the tedious storyline. <br /><br />Fourth, where the hell was Panhallagan? Now that would have been interesting... It was Manchester after all, and 10 years on she'd be up in the ranks. Another wasted opportunity (or perhaps the actress wasn't interested?) <br /><br />Well, there's much more (that's bad) to say , but I'll close with a curiosity: at the end of the show (as it aired on BBCA), when the advertisement announced that the "Director's Cut" was available on BBC On-Demand, I thought AH-HA! The Director's cut, which, presumably, one has to pay for, might have all of the goodies I expected to see tonight but never did, like a coherent, interesting storyline. Unfortunately, after convincing myself to sit through the horrible free version of "A New Terror" with the hope of seeing something, anything, worth watching, only to be disappointed, I have no hope left to motivate me to actually pay for a second, potentially longer and more tedious version. Besides, it angered me to think that BBCA sliced and diced, and sacrificed show time to accommodate the endless (every ten minutes or so) stream of commercials, and then turned around and asked me to pay for what probably should have been version aired tonight.<br /><br />To close, I quote the first paragraph of Variety's review of "A New Terror": it really says it all: "Initial excitement about Robbie Coltrane reprising his role as the BBC's flawed, boozing, womanizing criminal psychologist is snowed under by the heavy-handed political statement writer Jimmy McGovern is determined to deliver within this revival vidpic. Jolting at first in its message -- namely, that Americans are a bunch of whiny namby-pambies who didn't care a whit about terrorism before it came crashing onto our doorstep -- McGovern's chest-clearing rant overwhelms the narrative and mutes the pleasure of seeing Fitz back on the case."
As a huge fan or the Cracker series, I have been waiting 7 years for the next addition. This Episode I'm afraid just does not live up to the legend.<br /><br />Fitz returns to Manchester after 7 years for his daughters wedding and gets involved in a murder investigation were a soldier, tormented by flash backs from his tour of duty in Northern Irland, goes on a killing spree.<br /><br />What I did not like about this episode is the extremely convenient way it is all set up and how fitz is led to the murderer. It is all fat to far-fetched.<br /><br />There are however some good scenes in flash backs from Northern Irland which are filmed great.
A major disappointment. This was one of the best UK crime drama / detective shows from the 90's which developed the fascinating title character played by Scotland's Robbie Coltrane. However this one-off has little to add and perhaps suffers from an inevitable let down due to raised expectations when a favored show returns after a long hiatus. Coltrane isn't really given much to do, much more attention is spent on the uninteresting killer, and in what he has to act in, he seems uninvolved, almost bored. The ex-soldier's story is written by the books and the attempt to update us on Coltrane's family life seems lightweight. Perhaps if the writers had a whole series in front of them instead of just this one two-hour show they would have written this with much more depth. As is, skip this and watch the old Cracker from the 90's which is far far superior.
The social commentary was way overblown and the mystery itself is built and solved through a series of implausible coincidences that were entirely unbelievable. Nothing has changed in Fitz's personal life in the past decade that makes it remotely interesting. <br /><br />I even had trouble understanding why he was complaining about his stay in Australia as compared to the opportunities to solve mysteries that he has in England. Can he not insinuate himself on the Australian police? It seems like a very artificial plot point to get him involved in a crime investigation.<br /><br />The latter episodes of the original series were pretty melodramatic and implausible, sometimes bordering on silliness, and this one picks up that mantle rather than returning to the focus of series one. Sad.
Having heard so much about the 1990s Cracker series without seeing any of them, I looked forward to this eagerly. Surely the combination of Jimmie McGovern and Robbie Coltrane could not go wrong. How wrong I was! <br /><br />The polemics, backed by frequent, repetitive and violent flashbacks, were overpowering. The production tried to be super-modern, but the flashing boxes and even the childish font irritated. Robbie Coltrane sleep-walked through the two hours, coming up with unexplained and unlikely "insights", and the police were portrayed as one-dimensional bumbling idiots. As a result, the tension never built up and the next-to-final scene (no details for fear of spoilers) was as laughably bad a piece of TV drama as I have seen for a long time.<br /><br />No, I don't want to see any more of these, but I will go back to the DVDs of the 1990s series to see if they match their reputation.
I enjoyed "American Movie", so I rented Chris Smith's first film, which I thought was a documentary too. In the first minute I saw that it wasn't, but I gave it a go.<br /><br />What a dead end film. Being true-to-life hardly serves you if you're merely going to examine tediousness, esp. tediousness that we're already familar with.<br /><br />I'm sorry, but will it come as a relevation to ANYONE that 1) a lot of jobs suck and 2) most of them are crappy, minimum wage jobs in the service sector??? I knew that before I saw the film. It didn't really provide an examination of that anyway, as while the film struggles to feel "real" (handheld camera, no music, etc.), what's going on hardly plays out as it would in the "real world."<br /><br />Would an employer be so cheerful to Randy when he picks up his check, after Randy quit on him after 3 days when the guy said he expected him to stay 6 months?? Or the day after abandoning his job (and screwing up the machine he was working on), that everyone would be so easy on him??<br /><br />A big problem is our "hero"(?), Randy. This guy is a loser. Not because he's stuck in these jobs, or has a crummy apartment, or looks like one. He's a dope. He doesn't pay attention or even really try at these jobs. He has zero personalty. If I had to hire someone, he wouldn't make it past the interview.<br /><br />I'm looking forward to what Chris Smith does next, but guys, knock off the "this-is-an-important-film" stuff. "American Job" doesn't work.
I must say that I was disapointed with this film. I have never been a huge BNL fans, I find their songs kind of childish and obsessively nostalgic (this is me in grade 9, if i had a million dollars, shoe box of life etc). However, I have seen clips of their live show and I really like the improvisational and goofy nature of the show. I was hoping that this movie would highlight this which is, unfortunately, the most interesting part of the show because their music is well played yet somehow bland and not that compelling (there is a standup bass solo in the middle which was completely pointless and boring, despite how much Jim Creegan was digging himself). The film does not and shows only a few minutes of it (and you know they've had better moments, as in the Afgahnistan concert "Koffee Anan, he's the man in charge, my name's Steve Paige and I'm really large") .<br /><br />BNL are kind of like when I went to Europe a few years ago and heard that godawfull "Blue" song by Effeil 99 or whatever every 2 minutes, I came back to Canada and then a month later that song was all over the place *again*, I nearly chewed off my own arm. BNL is like that, years ago I remember many a fond memory of sitting around campfires in Canada listening to people play "If I had a million dollars". BNL was a cult phenomenon in Canada, and much of their humour has a particular Canadian slant to it (Kraft Dinner is a staple for many students up here, and the name "Gordon" is quintessentially Canadian) a few years went by where they slipped into obscurity and I was somewhat gratefull. Then all of a sudden they become huge in States, and everyone down there thinks they are this brand new band (yeah, they're brand new, but they're all in their 30's!) while the rest of Canada is going "Oh geez, I thought those guys folded years ago, do I have to listen to 'million dollars' again?"<br /><br />The concert footage is not bad, but I would have liked to have seen more of their stage routine, the shooting is not that great, and things like clips from their massive free show in Boston are glazed over much too quickly. The interviews are surprisingly dull for such a funny bunch of guys, I think they're all old and they have families and houses and stuff and have settled down a bit. There are times when they go into Spinal Tap type of material, where they deliver deadpan satire, then they break into laughs and giggles that kind of ruins it. The interviews with Moses Znaimer (a Canadian media mogule) and Terry David Mulligan (Music dude) are extremely pretentious and verge into Tap territory unintentionally.<br /><br />This movie doesn't really document very much either, I mean, it's basically one show and at the start of the film, they are already huge and have a massive touring entourage, it's not like we see them rising from obscurity and "surprise" they are popular, it's a methodically planned out event, so in the end it's rather lifeless, kind of half live concert, half documentary, and not much of either.<br /><br />
Can you say "All shock, no plot?" There were so many unexplored directions in this movie. There was no history about the room other than the deaths. *WHY* was it evil? What made it that way? Why an "hour" countdown? Then, there were the unexplored things hinted at; for example we *saw* a camera in the air vent, which he mentioned. But when he climbed up said vent, there was no camera.<br /><br />How about the fact that all the ghosts looked "Digital", and things "winked out" before hitting the ground making a static noise? Hmmm... when you put all of *those* things together, it makes room 1408 look like a high-tech spook house. Except that there was no follow up on that.<br /><br />Oh... by the way... electronics don't work in 1408. Well, except for the TV... the cell phone has no signal, but Wireless Internet works fine. How many incontinuities can you possibly add? I'm sorry, but this film was nothing but "shock after shock". It's all been done before. Reflections in the mirror. Things just out of site. Changing paintings. Bleeding walls. The "Oh, it was all just a dream... no it wasn't." And, if the room was "evil", why make our main character come to terms with his daughter's death, if it was going to keep him trapped there forever anyway? It just didn't make sense.<br /><br />Additionally, there was no background information about "The first book" that he wrote. Just some vague information about the "dad was a jerk" and so forth. Speaking of dads, what was with the bit about his father? "You'll be in my place".<br /><br />Overall, a truly HORRIBLE movie. It was 100% adrenalin shock factor, without any new or innovative effects, and certainly no back story, character development, etc.<br /><br />My overall impression is that the entire movie was made on the "Cheap"; pretty much using one set and a couple of location shots, and was nothing but an effects film of recycled, cheesy, "seen-that-before" effects.
After spotting the high rating on IMDb, I decided to go see this movie. Beyond that high rating, I intentionally avoided reading any of the reviews. I wanted to go into the theater with a clean slate, without knowing the plot or having predetermined expectations.<br /><br />Given my rating, you can see that I was disappointed. I enjoyed the development of the main character Mike Enslin. I also enjoyed how the hotel manager attempted to talk him out of entering the hotel room. By the time Enslin entered the room, I was ready for some scary stuff.<br /><br />First chocolates appear on the pillow and the toilet paper is folded. Enslin reacts in a believable manner. He's freaked out. I'm encouraged and think to myself, this is going to be good. The people who made this movie understand that less is more.<br /><br />But it's what happens next that was a big let down. The subtleness is quickly replaced by the predictable shotgun approach... Just blast the audience with every Hollywood scary trick in the book and hope that something works. Let's see, a clock radio that turns on by itself? Good, that's always scary. Objects that move around in the room? Good, you can't complain about that. Blood dripping from the walls and sink? Great. Ghosts that commit suicide? Good. Anything else? How about loud noises, shaking, fire, more shaking, messing up the room, more blood, etc etc. It's all good. And it's all been done before. Overstimulate our Attention Deficit Disordered audience with all kinds of stuff in quick succession, and they won't be able to look away.<br /><br />Well, it didn't work for me. And you know what else? When I go see a horror movie in a theater, it's typical to hear several groups of girls in the audience yelling in fear at scary moments. But this movie had no scary moments. The audience was silent and disinterested. I felt no chill down my spine. Nothing. The Shining was 100x what this movie tries to be.<br /><br />So who are all these people who are saying that it is one of the best horror movies ever? Friends of the director? Sorry, I just don't get it.
I don't see what everyone liked about this movie. The set-up was too long and talky, and when it was done, the main character remained as flat and opaque as he had been in the first scene. After the film finally got Cusack into the eponymous hotel room, I had to wonder, well, what's going to happen here for the next hour or so to keep me engaged. The answer: not much, just John Cusack having a long, drawn-out, mental breakdown.<br /><br />Maybe if the Cusack character had more depth . . maybe if his freak-out were a more thorough reworking of his everyday life . . . maybe if the film had either better developed its half-baked themes about loss and faith or had not tacked them on in the first place . . . maybe if the film had made a choice to be either psychological horror or thrill-ride horror and had fully embraced one of these styles . . . I dunno. All I do know is that I saw this movie with two other horror buffs and none of us much liked it.<br /><br />Except for the disquieting episode on the hotel ledge, the alarming crazy lady with the hammer, and the so-stupid-it-was-fun crypt keeper in the air duct, all three of which account for no more than five minutes of screen time, this film was a bore.<br /><br />By the way, this story seems to steal ideas from The Shining and use them here to much less powerful effect. Is Stephen King now reduced to stealing ideas from himself?
'1408' is the latest hodge podge of cheap scare tactics. The kind that might make date-movie styled horror fans occasionally jump in their seat and scream in your ear, but disappoint audiences searching for a little depth and direction.<br /><br />John Cusak plays a writer who's made a career of writing books describing his experiences of staying in rumored haunted hotels. Despite assurances by patrons and owners that ghosts roam the halls, there is little to make him a real believer in the paranormal. When he learns of the history of Room 1408 at the Overlook Hotel--no wait, I mean, Dolphin Hotel in New York City--he decides it would make the perfect closing chapter to his latest book. But, Samuel L. Jackson, playing the hotel owner, strongly attempts to dissuade his guest with narration of the atrocities that have occurred in theat room since the hotel's opening many years ago. The story is simple and we, as possible skeptics, must sit through Jackson's lengthy foreshadowing ramble. <br /><br />In other words: be afraid! Be very afraid!<br /><br />Of course, it would be easy to convince audiences that they've just paid to see an edge-of-the-seat thriller if it didn't take so long to build up to this point. And also, if what followed was a lot more than cheap "boos" that become so frequent and arbitrary that eventually, you might soon expect them. The temperature in the room changes automatically. The walls drip with blood. The fearless writer can't open the door, etc. And after nearly an hour and a half of delivering these to audiences promised big thrills, you might sit and hope that at least you can be wowed by the ending. With suspicions of dream sequences and other derivative time-wasters, even that fails to quell our doubts that before the movie is over, we might finally have something to make the movie a little less than completely forgettable.<br /><br />Despite grand performances (as always) by Cusak, who essentially is the entire film, most everyone else of note is wasted (i.e. Samuel L. Jackson) in insignificant minor roles. The true mystery here is how this movie received such a high viewer rating. Ballot-stuffing ghosts?
I am a huge, huge fan of John Cusack, Samuel L. Jackson, and Tony Shalhoub. I'm slightly less fond of Stephen King, but I like some of his work.<br /><br />This said, I should have LOVED 1408.<br /><br />***POSSIBLE SPOILERS AFTER THIS POINT**** <br /><br />I walked in eager. I walked out disappointed.<br /><br />This is not the fault of the actors. Shalhoub and Jackson both have very small roles because the premise of the movie puts Cusack in the "guy in a locked room" scenario.<br /><br />This wasn't a BAD movie, but I can't call it a good one either. It was a muddied mess that had moments of "ouch, that's just WRONG," combined with moments of "ouch, that's just painful," and moments of "oh, now THAT'S just unfortunate" with very little continuity-connectivity between them. Eislin's father shows up once, and there's no seeming connection to the rest of Mike's personal life that we see displayed while he tries to survive the room. <br /><br />A previous commenter described the Olin/Enslin argument as worth watching, and I very much agree. But other than that, aside from some clever musical cues (the room almost playfully torments Enslin a little bit, and gives him one chance to get out before upping the ante...at which point it gives him the one-hour countdown clock and the titular line from the Carpenters "We've Only Just Begun.") it's mostly "stuff jumps out at you when you least expect it!" type horror that was fun when I was fourteen, and surrounded by friends my age, clutching each other in the summer while Jason stalked Camp Crystal Lake.<br /><br />The rest of the movie was "let's make him relive some of his most painful experiences" mindgaming, with "let's animate the paintings in creepy ways" cliché cheesiness.<br /><br />******END SPOILERS***** <br /><br />I expected better from this movie with Stephen King's name attached to it, as well as the actors I mentioned above.<br /><br />We never find out the origin of the evil. We never get to see the evil defeated, though we can presume maybe it was defeated.<br /><br />And the ending was just a jarring "What?!" moment.<br /><br />Wait for it to come on cable. I wouldn't have minded paying for it as a matinée, but I'm feeling a bit shortchanged for having paid opening night prices for it.
This movie was exactly what I expected, not great, but also not that bad either. In my opinion PG13 movies aren't scary enough so that's why I already knew I was going to be bored throughout the entire film. Sure there were scary things going on in the hotel room, but nothing we all haven't already seen. I guess I didn't like it because I thought there were too many twists and turns happening; it got old and repetitive. I also didn't understand if all the things Cusack was experiencing in the room was real or not. There is no explanation for any of the events that occurred. The movie just drags on and when it finally does come to an end you want it to keep going because you are still waiting around for someone to tell you what the whole movie was about. What I did like was the special effects. Other than that there wasn't much enjoyment from it. Maybe its just me but I thought this was below average.
Director Spike Lee is famous for making films pointing out racism. In many of films, such "Do The Right Thing," most of the white people are all brutal racists. In this movie, interracial marriage is the subject, with racism once again being the entire issue.<br /><br />What Lee does, however, is once again demonstrate his bigotry against Christianity. It's amazing the double standards that exist in the film world. If Lee or anyone else ever produced this kind of bias against another group he would be vilified, but Christians? Hey, it's "open season" on them.<br /><br />Ossie Davis, a reverend in this film, shoots his son and then puts the smoldering gun down on top of his Bible. They zoom in on that for another closeup just in case you missed it. Hey, folks, here's another Bible reader and look what he''s like! Lee does this sort of thing in just about every movie he makes.<br /><br />He shows the same hatred when dealing with race relations. Who could argue with portraying racism as an evil thing? However, Lee perpetuates it in this film as he has in his other films. His obvious bitterness toward white people doesn't help the situation. It only adds fuel to the fire. <br /><br />Hey, Spike: start "doing the right thing" and leave your prejudices in the closet. Better yet, "get over it."<br /><br />This is too bad because the subject matter could have made for a thought- provoking film if it had been done with objectivity and intelligence.
I'm not sure why Spike Lee made this train wreck of a movie and conned poor Stevie Wonder into eternally pairing his beautiful music with this theatrical mess. I also resent the way he uses profanity as a part of the normal prose of professional Blacks. The abuse of his hold on ethnic movie goers is a shame. Scenes which seem to be contrived out the blue and have nothing to do with the theme or sub themes, play as if some college kid wrote this. I especially detest the ludicrous scene where the two leads are playfully sparring for no reason at all and the cops come and rough up Snipes. The overacting of the leads makes one feel as if Spike has no respect for his viewers or he has no clue what a movie is all about. The final scene appears to be thrown in to justify the use of a sledge hammer to tack a point in. This movie also supports the myth that all people of culture use the F-word in casual conversation. I am hoping he will realize that the rest of his movies are in the same pool as this one where he is not growing as a film maker. I think his union with Scorcesee in Clockers was a wise move. He should stick to making documentaries like the Four Little Colored Girls. Shock movies do not an Oscar make.
Jungle Fever is too highly stylized, stereotyped, and comes across as essentially dishonest. Wesley Snipes was wrong for the lead and there was no chemistry between him and Annabella Sciorra. Even though there's plenty of talent in this movie, it's mostly wasted because the parts are reduced to little more than decorative cameos. Also, instead of simply showing racism for the ugly and stupid thing it is, Spike Lee chooses to wave it around like a flag in a most whining and irritating manner. I made it through most of the film but I couldn't quite finish it, and that, for me, rarely happens.
Who in their right mind plays a lyrical song at the same time they are portraying an emotional scene between two people? When Flipper confronts his wronged wife in the dressing room, the song sung with lyrical content is as loud as the dialog, so one can hear neither, diluting any emotional impact the scene may have had. The scenes of Annabella getting beaten by her father with his fists, a lamp and then a belt was so cartoonish as to be absurd. This entire movie is a cartoon, the rampant prejudice against whites is literally astounding. The discussion by the black women after flipper's wife finds out he has cheated on her with a white woman - as if it were a discussion by an oxford debating team, is ridiculous. The rampant racism might be possible to endure, but the soundtrack and the sound mixing during this 'movie' is too much. It was a technically poorly made movie. There is no understanding of the basic craft of movie making, the sound track, the editing and the desperate attempt of great actors trying to keep this movie afloat. I actually felt sorry for Anthony Quinn, wondering why he had accepted a role in this flick - his appearance in this is painful. This is the first movie I have seen by this director and it will be my last.
In short:<br /><br />Spike Lee clearly has a lot on his mind. He's thinking about racism color-ism, media and hegemony, consumerism and capitalism, religion, sexism, 'hetero-sexism', politics of the drug war etc etc...<br /><br />That level of consciousness on is own is great. I think it is a blessing that more and more people are choosing to critically examine fundamental aspects of our daily lives; the silent and invisible forces that govern our societies. However, just because Lee is making contentious films does not make him a good film-maker.<br /><br />What comes across in "Jungle Fever" is a superficial understanding of these socio-political forces. This is largely the result of two main failures:<br /><br />firstly, Lee is simply trying too hard. He seems to be desperately trying to accommodate every political/social statement he can think of into the 90mins. And as such, the end result seems confused and irresolute as he allows himself no time to develop characters that can fully embody the ideas he hopes to present. And so he exhausts stereotypes and we are left with rushed testimonies and very loaded dialogs. The end result is very staged and unrealistic.<br /><br />Secondly, by attempting to make statements about such a wide variety of societal functions, he appears to have no concrete or original interpretation of the social/political issues presented. What comes across is a puddle of regurgitated non-sense. You feel that he bought an elementary level sociology text book and spewed out all 500 pages.<br /><br />These are highly problematic features because the artistry of film is sacrificed and the work is transformed into a loudspeaker for the voice of the voice of the filmmaker. He is unable to distance himself from the work, and allow it to speak for itself.<br /><br />It functions neither as a piece of art nor a sound political argument.<br /><br />Although I still do appreciate Lee bringing up these important issues, I must say:<br /><br />Two thumbs down.
I have walked out of very few movies before they end, but I couldn't finish this piece of garbage. This was the biggest load of racism trying to pass as legitimate film since "Birth of a Nation". The characters were little more than cardboard cutouts. I don't see how any actor would want their name associated with this film. Lee must have better things to do that put out garbage like this. I know that I and anyone with a brain have better things to do.... like watching paint dry. I wish that someone would make a film about interracial relationships that dealt with the topic realistically. There is a lot more depth to this subject the shallow ranting of a bitter director like Lee.
When I refer to Malice as a film noir I am not likening it to such masterpieces as Sunset Boulevard, Double Indemnity or The Maltese Falcon, nor am I comparing director Becker to Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, Stanley Kramer or Luis Bunuel. I am merely registering a protest against the darkness that pervades this movie from start to finish, to the extent that most of the time you simply cannot make out what is going on. I can understand darkness in night scenes but this movie was dark even in broad daylight, for what reason I am at loss to understand. As it is, however, it wouldn't have made much difference if director Becker had filmed it in total darkness.
Flat, ordinary thriller about a conniving woman who deceives all those she supposedly loves in order to boost her bank account. Nicole Kidman plays the deceptive Tracey, married to the doting Andy (Bill Pullman). When an old school friend of Andy's named Jed Hill (Alec Baldwin) turns up as the resident surgeon, trouble is not far behind him.<br /><br />Script fails in that it does not carefully develop the promising premise into an effective, tantalising thriller, and the severe lack of character motivation, background and development leaves the whole show reaching. None of the cast are able to generate interest in their shallow characters, especially Bill Pullman, whose own inexplicably curious Andy is impossible to believe.<br /><br />Poor director Harold Becker is left trying to resurrect an impossibly dead project, and is unable to make entertainment from any of it. By the time the 'secret' of the plot is revealed, you just won't care.<br /><br />At least the cinematography has Massachusetts looking good. Also stars George C. Scott, Peter Gallagher and Josef Sommer.<br /><br />Sunday, February 25, 1996 - T.V.
I saw this movie a few years back on the BBC i sat thru it. How? i don't know,this is way up there in the "so bad it'Good " charts Kidman ,Baldwin,and Pullman must cringe when they see it now.I think Woody Allen would have worked wonders with the outlandish plot, and Baldwin's part could have been played with gusto by Leslie Nelson.it was on again tonight i tried to watch it again but life's too short. the few minutes i watched was for the lovely Nicole she was so hot around 93, has Baldwin ever made a good movie? Pullman played his stock in trade "nice but dim" character the F-word coming out of his mouth when the lady from "frasier" miscast ed as a detective accuses him of murder sounds so wrong. stay well away.
Irene Dunne finished her illustrious career with this so-so movie. She should have gone out with a bang, being the classy actress she was, not in this unmemorable, almost unknown film. <br /><br />This lightweight comedy is okay, but nothing special. The first half of it is far better as it gets pretty stupid in the second half. Maybe Irene could see the handwriting on the wall and quit. Even her high-pitched voice got a bit annoying in here. Rumor has it she was not happy with this film. One can see why.<br /><br />The story reminded me of a 1950s television sitcom. Speaking of that, I thought David Nelson from the Ozzie & Harriet TV show was in this movie but it turned out to be a very young Richard Crenna. He looked and sounded just like Nelson.<br /><br />Overall, so-so at best and a sub-par ending for a great actress.
For the love of god please don't see this movie! Its a waste of time, the plot is predictable, as are the romantic scenes. Trying to build too much with very little, this film and its evil predictable villain is just lame. The characters aren't developed, and most of the film is padded out with shots of Rome, which is much more interesting than the actual film. To top all of that, the acting is a disgrace. I know everyone tries to find their niche, but this is truly a disaster. I can't believe that someone actually paid however many millions of pounds to put this film on screen. Don't waste money or time on this film, go see your grandma or something worthwhile instead.
This movie really has no beginning or end. And it's really VERY unbelievable. Mary-K and Ashley are supposed to be interns working in a mailing room for an Italian fashion company. But, for some reason, they're put up in a 5-star hotel (conveniently located across the street from the Coliseum), and all of the other interns they work with are just as abnormally model-looking as they are. One thing that I found obvious in this movie is the way that one of the twins DOESN'T end up with the guy. I guess they tried to twist their usual plot a bit. Nice try.
No ,I'm not kidding. If they ever propose a movie idea, they should be kicked out of the studio. I'm serious. Their movies are exactly the same in every one, and they only consist of traveling to foreign locations, having a problem which they easily resolve, hoping to be popular, and getting new boyfriends. Think about it. If you have ever seen a movie starring them with a different plot, contact me and tell me its name. These "movies" are poor excuses to be on TV and go to other countries. There is a reason that the movies never go to theaters. I'm sure that when they were really young and made some O.K. movies, some studio boss bought all their rights for 15 years, or something, so that now that they're, what, 17, they can make movies in other countries whenever they want using the studio's money. Let me advise you, STAY AWAY FROM MARY-KATE AND ASHLEY! IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!
OK, this has got 2 be one of the worst excuses 4 a movie that i have ever had the misfortune of watching. Like all other Olsen twins movies with the possible exception of new york minute , this film had no story, gaping plot holes,disgustingly putrid acting and bad filming even!!!!!!!!! in case you haven't guessed yet I HATE MARY KATE AND ASHLEY!!!!!! The only reason i watched this was because i was really bored and nothing else was on. I wonder if the twins will EVER stop making the same stereotypical movies where they have an unbelievably stupid adventure in an exotic location and save the day meanwhile getting the help of two cute guys who drool over them immediately. The least they could would be to have a guy 4 1 of them or have them both falling 4 the same guy. The plot in this story was so imbecilic and just plain dumb. even a toddler could see the flaws in it.Maybe they should split up and start making films individually or maybe films with a different kind of story. Anyone who liked this movie was no offense-either really stupid, really artificial or has not seen any really good movie. or maybe they are really smart and just have bad cinematic choices. either way i would not recommend this movie to my worst nemesis for a good movie experience.. the only thing it is good 4 is some rib splitting laughter at the pathetic attempts to be cool. if you watch for laughs it's hilarious. basically i give it 0 or less.
When In Rome is a definite improvement on Getting There. Getting There I found too predictable, contrived and slow, and to this day I still consider it as the Olsen twins' worst. However, while When In Rome isn't a terrible movie, it's not a great one either. If I had to sum it up in one word, I would say passable. It is good fun for teenagers, but I think adults won't find much to go on.<br /><br />When In Rome does have its good points. Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen are actually quite decent actresses, certainly very pretty as well. I will admit when I was 10 or so, I really liked them, and in general I kind of like them still. And I have enjoyed some of their movies like Passport To Paris and New York Minute. Back on target, both girls don't do that bad a job, in fact they are very appealing. Plus their outfits are to die for, and the scenery of Rome is absolutely breathtaking. The soundtrack ain't half bad either.<br /><br />However, where the film is brought down is in the plot and the script. The script is on the most part clichéd and has hints of deja vu. The plot, like most of the Mary Kate and Ashley movies, is very predictable, and anyone familiar with any other of the Olsen twins' work, will find some rather unoriginal elements to it. Most of the characters are cardboard thin, and you don't learn very much about them, and sometimes the pace is uneven. Sadly, the breathtaking scenery is spoilt by rather slapdash camera work, that looked rushed constantly.<br /><br />All in all, does have its good points, and certainly watchable. However, for my taste, it is harmless and predictable teenage fluff. 4/10 Bethany Cox
Identical twin sisters Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen climbed to fame in sitcoms like "Two of a Kind", I had never seen them in anything before, but I had an idea of what to expect, but it was much worse. Basically the Hunter sisters Charli (Mary-Kate) and Leila (Ashley) are in Rome for a Summer Intern Program, but not long after starting their jobs they are immediately fired for a series of mishaps. But the man who owns the company they are working in, Derek Hammond (Julian Stone), gives them their jobs back, and they they do slowly prove themselves useful assets, and talented (fashion) artists, and help stop a mean man taking over the company. Also starring Leslie Danon as Jami, Derek Lee Nixon as Ryan, Ilenia Lazzarin as Dari, Archie Kao as Nobu, Valentina Mattolini as Heidi, Michelangelo Tommaso as Paolo and Matt Patresi as Enrico Tortoni. You can tell that this film was made to go straight to video, the camera-work is completely mismatched, and it doesn't help when you want to admire the sights of Rome. In fact the background is the only good thing to watch, the twin sisters are two of the most annoying celebrities around, I knew before watching that they weren't going to interest me in any way (their not even that pretty), this is awful gush of rubbish film. Pretty poor!
The plot was dull, the girls were sickening and the supposed Italian male lead had clearly never heard an Italian accent.Someone said the boys were cute in this film but it just seemed to be filled with mediocre people. There were literally no redeeming features about this film.<br /><br />I think this is a graveyard for actors that will never work again, with the unfortunate exception of the Olsen twins who seem to fascinate people for no discernible reason.<br /><br />I hope the Olsen twins find something out of the limelight to keep them away from the entertainment business. They have no place in it.
1st watched 12/7/2002 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Steve Purcell): Typical Mary Kate & Ashley fare with a few more kisses. It looks to me like the girls are getting pretty tired of this stuff and it will be interesting what happens to them if they ever decide to split up and go there own ways. In this episode of their adventures they are interns in Rome for a `fashion' designer who puts them right into the mailroom to learn what working hard is all about(I guess..). Besides the typical flirtations with boys there is nothing much else except the Rome scenario until about ¾ way into the movie when it's finally revealed why they are getting fired, then re-hired, then fired again, then re-hired again. This is definetly made by people who don't understand the corporate world and it shows in their interpretation of it. Maybe the real world will be their next adventure(if there is one.). Even my kids didn't seem to care for this boring `adventure' in the make-believe. Let's see they probably only have a couple of years till their legal adults. We'll see what happens then.
I do agree with everything Calamine has said! And I don't always agree with people, but what Calamine has said is very true, it is time for the girls to move on to better roles. I would like to see them succeed very much as they were a very inspirational pair growing up and I would like to see them grow as people, actresses and in their career as well as their personal life. So producers, please give the girls a chance to develop something that goes off the tangent a bit, move them into a new direction that recognises them individually and their talents in many facets. This movie that is being commented is not too bad, but as I have seen further on in their movies, their movies stay the same of typical plot and typography. When In Rome is good for audiences of younger generation but the adults who were kids when the twins were babies want to follow the twins in their successes and so hence I think we adults would like to see them make movies of different kinds, maybe some that are like the sixth sense, the hour, chocolat, that sort of movie - not saying to have just serious movies for them, humour ones too yes, but rather see them in different roles to what they have been playing in their more recent movies like this one and New York Minute. (Note: I am from Australia so excuse my weird spelling like reognise with the s instead of z)
Acting was weak, but in a horror flick, I can live with that if the story is good. It wasn't. The initial event was an clumsy and obvious ploy to exploit most people's adoration of kids. OK, fine. Fast forward to the "place in the country" where they will recover emotionally. I like the revelation of the ghosts. OK, cool--this will be a supernatural kinda horror story, with rotting things partly in our world partly in...where ever. Then the action starts pulling like a three headed dog in a flurry of cats and birds--Is there an evil force trying to attack them directly? Is there an evil force trying to attack them INdirectly--make people do awful things they wouldn't really do? Oh, wait, no, maybe the whole REGION is some kind of psychic echo chamber where ambient discord can reverberate into murder? OK, hold on--maybe it's really just one little mentally tangled "Delbert"-style redneck boy who misses his Mommy and is on some kind of spree like a K-Tel Norman Bates knock off? Oh, yeah--extra points off: the only Black character seems to be the grandson of an "Our Gang" pullman porter. The actor plays it as straight as he can given the crummy dialogue, but the fact is, his purpose is "Y'all done betta get outa heah, Boss!" At least they wrote him smart enough to GTF outta there. The bit with the little girl being silenced and pulled away was definitely creepy, as was the chick in the shower. Those were just two of quite a few really delicious tidbits in this movie. The problem is that they are combined in disharmonious ways, like a bite of steak, a bite of chocolate and a bite of a Gummi bear. Each is great on it's own, but mixed up? Bleah! Such potential. Wasted.
Grieving couple move to a cabin on a mountain after the loss of their daughter, discovering that there may be ghosts haunting the place, restless spirits of past occupants who committed suicide. Julie Pyke(Cheri Christian)blames husband Allen(Greg Thompson)for the horrible death of their daughter due to leaving the door unlocked and the marriage has deteriorated because of it. Julie remains in a zombie state, eliciting next to no emotion, remote and numb, only photographing a nearby abandoned prison, finding a startling image of a ghoul girl clinging to the bars of a cell. Though Allen doesn't see anything out of the ordinary, Julie continues to take pictures and we can recognize that something isn't quite right. A local handyman, Jim Payne(Scott Hodges), a rather distant fellow who harbors a secret becomes a dangerous threat when it is revealed that his dead mother might have something to do with the haunts occurring to the Pykes. Meanwhile the neighbors who sold the Pykes the cabin find themselves victims as well, alcoholic Mr Booth's abuse to his wife coming back to haunt him. Allen will conduct an investigation into the history of his cabin, attempting to unravel the mystery about the place.<br /><br />Plenty of ghosts moving about in the background in this somber supernatural tale with practically every character miserable. Cheri Christian remains so vacuous and lost, it's incredibly hard to connect with her despite the fact that you understand her plight. The acting, as is often mentioned, remains frustrating because none of the characters exactly are easy to latch on to. I guess it's supposed to be this way, under their circumstances, but the trouble I had was never being able to properly embrace the Pykes due to their constant state of aloofness. Cheri comes off as cold and detached, as I figure a mother would tend to be when you lose a child in such a way, but the icy nature left me pleading inside to embrace her which I just never could. I think the right performers, even if the characters are going through an emotional turmoil, can grab the hearts of their viewers, if a humanity reaches out to us..in this movie's case, the leads are unable to do so, for whatever reason. It could've been me, I don't know. I wanted to care for them, but nothing in the characters tugged on my heart strings. Anyway, as the film continues, Allen slowly uncovers certain truths and must defend himself against his wife who has convinced herself that their daughter is among them and she won't lose her little girl again. Jim, the unstable neighbor who believes that to stop the hauntings plaguing the area he must kill the Pykes, becomes a vital threat. The ghosts remain a central part of the movie, their presence, particularly Jim's mother, established throughout, off in the distance. The finale reveals all of them as Allen must find help for his wife while trying to thwart Jim's mission. I had a hard time getting into this one due to my unease with the leads and their characters.
Give me my money back! Give me my life back! Give me a bit of credit. This movie was vomit worthy. Useless and time consuming. What a waste of energy and totally pointless. Okay I understand the premise and the idea sound but, give us a break! Next time just give me the money and let me spend it. Lost child, mothers remorse, blamed husband! Cliché yes~! Get a life! Sorry but this movie was a total waste of my time, my money and my being. I would rather watch eggs cook! No real explanation to why this happened. Prison? Why? Loss? obvious but Why? Acting deserves a What am I doing here Oscar and the cinematography a Am I just doing this for a Wage? How much did this movie make? Well this silly fool hired a copy. Enough said
Okay. Look- I've seen LOTS and I do mean LOTS of these types of films. You know, the ones where the DVD cover just look SO good and scaarrryyy that you just cant WAIT to see it? Well, I got GOT again. And I'm getting' pretty tired of it. But I digress. It's pretty simple. It sucked(I know, rather juvenile) but it did. AndI SO agree with the other poster that if we had to sit through the boring thing, why oh WHY did the lead actress have to be so unnattractive?Distractingly so if I may add. And the scowl she used convey unresolved pain/grief over the death of her daughter did little help. I mean, Jesus.. Oh, but the crawling-on-her-back-demon thingee was pretty neat...
I'm writing this because I somehow felt being led to believe Dark Remains was a good movie. Whilst it's not the worst I've seen, it certainly isn't good.<br /><br />A Weak script, weak actors, and weak directing. Even if they can't afford big name cast, would it be too much to ask for a more attractive lead actress? It was painful to watch a plain actress through out the film with her dull performance. The story was a cliché and poorly scripted. The special effects were minimal. The "suspense" tricks employed repetitively here were hard to swallow.<br /><br />To be fair, Dark Remains is no worse than quite some of the Masters of Horrors' episodes. But not quite on par with quality movies yet. Dark Remains is only recommended for the hardcore horror fans who don't want to miss any movie in the genre, even if it's a poorly made one. As for anyone else, time should be spent on something more valuable - which should be extremely easy.
If you have ever seen a movie by Brian Avenet-Bradley and compares it to the feedbacks it gets on IMDb, you know that most of the comments and votes are faked. TRUST ME: you will be bored! People of the production team write their feedback themselves (sometimes they even admit it). But that's not enough: They also click constantly "no" whenever there is a negative comment on the movie. That's why negative critics are always placed behind the hyped ones.<br /><br />The movie itself is bad, bad, bad: bad acting, bad lighting, bad script, bad ending. Believe me now! If not, you will believe me later!<br /><br />Brian Avenet-Bradley might be quite a good business man. Otherwise it cannot be explained that he finds people who still finance his movies. (Okay, they are cheap, but nevertheless.) But as a creative person, he is a complete failure.
This is the weakest of the series, not much of a plot and a rather odd-looking Wallace. But it's still pretty good, considering. A sign of greater things to come!<br /><br />6/10
For those of us that lived thru those weeks of filming in town and around the Valley - lest we not forget the tedious days of road closures and "film-making". As a reminder to those that live here - locales include Boulder Creek, Bonny Doon, Davenport, Big Basin. etc. The bank was the BC firehouse; chase scenes included Moon Drive off Hwy 236, Empire Grade Rd, and Hwy 1.<br /><br />Production: Jeffrey Jones was the most approachable, Matt Broderick was above us all - even back then. As far as the film goes - a joke of a script and even a bigger laugh regarding acting and plot - but who cares at this level. A nice time capsule for those that enjoy our coast and valley scenery.<br /><br />Additional notes; Joe's Bar (Jed's Tavern in the film), original name of the film was Welcome to Buzzsaw - the Old Erba's parking lot was the town square, the backyard shots were off of Grove Street in Boulder Creek; turn off the thinking cap and see a few actors in their early days.
Quite possibly. How Francis Veber, one of the best comedy directors in the world (at least when sticking to his native France), managed to turn in a film so completely unwatchable is beyond the reason of mere mortal man to discern. It's not just that the characters are so unlikeable or that the film is so utterly devoid of even the lowest form of wit: it's genuinely physically painful to watch, such an endless parade of inept writing, acting and film-making that you cannot believe this is the work of experienced - and talented - filmmakers. For once the near-eternity spent in the cutting room and on the shelf before its blink-and-you'll-miss-it theatrical release tells the whole story. What were they thinking?
A short review but...<br /><br />Avoid at all costs, a thorough waste of 90mins. At the end of the film I was none the wiser as to what had actually happened. It's full of cameos (Stephen Fry (3mins), Jack Dee (30 secs), the "Philadelphia" girls) and some vaguely recognisable people but it just doesn't make any sense. Whether the story just got lost in the edit I don't now but jeez...<br /><br />Put on a DVD instead or go to bed and get some rest!!!<br /><br />2 out of 10 (for the cameos and a Morris Minor car chase)<br /><br />
This is an amateur movie shot on video, not an "electrifying drama" as the DVD liner notes falsely boast. I have seen much better stuff from undergrad film students. The bulk of the story unfolds with an all-nite taxi ride around Jakarta. This movie could have been made using a single video camera, but there are a few sections where two cameras were used and the content was bounced together later. The editing is extremely rough. The final edit was probably done with two cameras, bouncing content back and forth, instead of with a proper editor. Perhaps they did the editing in the taxi too? The English subtitles were written by someone not fluent in English, e.g., "Where you go now?" To say the production quality is on a par with Blair Witch is generous. If you're not scared away yet, this film was an ambitious and creative endeavor, with lots of cool and funky images from all over Jakarta.
This isn't one of those reviews about poor special effects or technology, or being dated, issues that only the dorkiest people could relate with, but rather a review on the story telling, which most of us are truly interested in.<br /><br />The plot is about a combination of WWII Allied and German Navy members, and two civilians (the hero and heroine), who are thrust together on a German U boat and wind up in a savage land of dinosaurs.<br /><br />The manipulations aren't so bad by film standards, and we know from the plot that realism isn't going to be high. What films like this need are credible and likable characters, along with some semblance of reason in the actions.<br /><br />This film lacks both. For a full length film, only 6 characters are given any time, and 3 of them are barely looked into. McClure's hero is beyond "routine", and doesn't make much sense in any era.<br /><br />The female seems to be looking for an answer to a riddle about the land of dinosaurs they entered, but the riddle is not much of a riddle, and we could care less.<br /><br />A lot of failure in a film that should have been better, even for its time.
This was recently on AMC's vibrant movie classics and I had to laugh. I had high hopes for this adventure that follows in the vein of "Voyage to the Earth's Core" and "Mysterious Island". I was sorely disappointed not only in the acting credentials but in the silly story line that reads from a five year old's comic book. Be sure to catch sight of the wires that are holding on to the Pterdactyl's wings when they grasp "Ogar" a half idiot pre-modern man who befriends the lost adventurers. The ending left it open for further rehashing of the same effects in "People that Time Forgot". Don't waste your time.
Another day stuck indoors, another film to watch. Having finally completed my Christmas shopping yesterday on a cold and foggy afternoon, I had nowhere else to go to escape "The Land That Time Forgot". Or rather, I had nothing else to watch.<br /><br />Doug McClure, that bastion of leading-man actors, leads a handful of Allied sailors sunk by a U-Boat somewhere in the Atlantic in 1916. Capturing the U-Boat (in a scene that defies logic and reason), they eventually find themselves on a strange island, apparently untouched by human hands. Together, they explore the land and discover dinosaurs and Neanderthals! Can they escape before becoming a permanent resident of the land that Time forgot? <br /><br />Despite being made few years before "Star Wars", these films are light-years apart in terms of special effects. The model shots are little better than anything you would expect to see in an episode of Gerry Anderson's "Stingray" and the creatures aren't much better either. When the T-Rex (I'm assuming that's what it was) was killed, it fell in the same way that zombies do when you kill them - frozen in mid-walk and collapsing, arms and legs held out like a sleeping cow that's been pushed over. Granted, the sets aren't too bad but the lousy acting and endless explosion noises (which all sound the same) do their best to ruin credibility and your enjoyment of the picture as a whole. Characters are neither believable or worthy of your sympathy as they fire their guns at seemingly anything that moves. In the end, I just didn't care if they got off the island or not and by the time the end came, I was more relieved than entertained.<br /><br />Costumes are authentic enough until the cavemen arrive and it is bear-skin bikinis and loin cloths all round. And although it was fairly obvious from their actions, you wouldn't have known that some characters were German from their accents. The whole thing just lacked some polish and cohesion, leaving the viewer confused in places and nonplussed in others. Overall, this film barely registers a ripple of excitement these days although you can find some small amusement in trying to work out where Colin Farrell is. I spotted his name in the credits and half expected a baby to appear with an Irish accent and suspect facial hair. Oh well. Nothing particularly great here to see then, but just about OK if you're eating your lunch and the weather is preventing further activity.
I had a recent spectator experience with The Perfect Witness (2007) because the NetFlix computer recommendation engine suggested I watch this film. Apparently, at some point, I told it how much I liked Michael Haneke's, Benny's Video. I don't know about you, but this parallel being drawn provoked in me a maelstrom of emotion and excitement over Thomas C. Dunn's film and made the allocation of my time toward it virtually impossible to refuse. Just this kind of recommendation from the NetFlix computer intelligence, for me, had the aesthetic/moral movie bar set to level so high that, upon reflection, it represented something pretty much unaccomplished in every film produced in the year 2007.<br /><br />Having prefaced my response to the film that way, I'm going to proceed in knocking this picture down as poorly executed and banal; and I really hate to do that because I think our boy, Wes Bentley, happens to be not only one of the most interesting young faces in contemporary cinema, but also one its most overlooked and underrated screenacting talents in the US. I'm more than moderately concerned that the poor guy's going to miss the fame ship if he keeps fiddling around with first time movie directors like this.<br /><br />The Perfect Witness is about Micky (Wes Bentley), who, about thirty, still lives with Mom ("You're not drinkin' again area ya's?"), but he's a "filmmaker" or at the very least some kind of street-level voyeur with a pension for shooting would-be Johns in the seedy back alleys of Philadelphia with his DVX 100B. Out there, doing his private investigator-like drills, Micky "inadvertently" video-tapes a brutal murder on a hapless early-twenty-ish coed with his hand held camcorder. Baring the notion in mind that snuff and movies as cultural currency can be his equated with his ticket out of the white urban ghetto (and not to the debts of his unwitting friends and relatives who put up the money for his atrocious films), Micky approaches the assailant, James LeMac (Mark Borkowski: also takes a writing credit) or "Mac the Knife" –whichever- and blackmails the killer into making a documentary about his murder impulses, holding this found footage over the attacker with threats of the police.<br /><br />The problem with this movie is not that no interesting ideas exist because they do. While both the writing and direction are amateurish, that alone doesn't make a film bad. It's that these guys commit a rather poor assumption that what they are presenting is shocking in the context of a culture in which just about any person in the free world with access to a private computer can log-on to the web and catch the veracity of the action of a beheading on their little Mac or PC. No film relies on shock value alone any more (unless of course, ironically, it's a film about torture on animals) and therefore cinematic images of violence (real or fake) have less and less cultural capital with each year that passes. Also, we've got this astounding actor-talent in the lead all styled-up, real hip guy: his two inch beard and skull cap with the little bill on it, backwards, just like the dork from high school who craved after the potential services of my primary love interest –same guy who just now calls himself a "poet."<br /><br />Spare me. "I'm an artist," "I'm a filmmaker." Okay. Please do, carry on with that shtick, Cronnie. Seems to have bought you a lot of expensive 35mm stock. And go ahead, you can wear all the accrutements of a "creative" but don't expect us top respond to you, to follow your below average character through your two hour movie while you take down Wes Bentley's career. Why don't we just let history speak to the merits of what you do, filmmaker guy. My guess is history will eventually have say something about that –like, probably that's in not is good as you think it is. And yeah, odds are you'll be laying the blame on your dear ole ma, end up like our man Micky here in The Perfect Witness; hooked on smack and covered in your buddy's blood with a video camera in your hand. Great.
Having just wasted a couple of hours watching this and for 80% of that time in complete disbelief, I can give this garbage the turkey of the year award, no problem. To say the plot was unbelievable is some big understatement. Frankly I am lost for words to describe this utter tripe. Not only are the characters completely and utterly without any semblance of originality (this sort of stuff has been done much better in dozens of 'serial killer flicks')but the acting was dire. For those who pay to see this, I hope you get your money back, for those who were paid to do this, I hope you GIVE your money back. Believe me folks there are many new releases out there that are much, much better. Go see.
Wow, i'm a huge Henry VIII/Tudor era fan and, well, this was .... interesting. The only one I watched was the Catherine of Aragon one. And wow...just wow. I've seen bad acting before, but this reached new heights. When the actress who played Catherine was umm.. crying? she wails and screams and i have to admit i rewinded many times... many, many times .... funny, funny stuff. The only person who even showed any slight sliver of talent was the actress playing Anne Boleyn (i might be prejudiced though, i do have a slight obsession with Anne Boleyn, she was a really facinating woman, read up on her, it's worth it!) Also, i have read a lot about the Tudor time period and i think that the characters weren't very acurately displayed, they were all very stereotypical. Only see this movie if you are prepared to see a very important time period, and the important lives of those involved turned into a laughing stock.
The beginning of this movie is excellent with tremendous sound and some nice humor, but once the film changes into animation it quickly loses its appeal.<br /><br />One of the reasons that was so, at least for me, was that the colors in much of the animation are too muted, with too little contrast. It doesn't look good, at least on VHS. Once in a while it breaks out and looks great, but not often Also, the characters come and go too quickly. For example, I would have liked to have seen more of "Moby Dick." When the film starts to drag, however, it picks up again with the entrance of the dragon and then the film finishes strong. <br /><br />Overall, just not memorable enough or able to compete with the great animated films of the last dozen years.
About 4 years ago, I liked this movie. I would watch it over and over and over. But now... I don't. Actually, I think this movie would have been great for Mystery Science Theater 3000. It has a bunch of comment-heavy actors (Macaulay Culkin, Christopher Lloyd, Patrick Stewart, Whoopi Goldberg), and a pretty cheesy plot. My favorite part is when Culkin is riding his bike and he comes across a gang and a gang member says, "Hey, Tyler! Where ya goin'? The MOON??" Also look out for the classic line, "Do you have feeling in your toes?"<br /><br />On the other hand, it's better than "The Good Son".
Richard Tyler is a little boy who is scared of everything. He doesn't like riding his bike or climbing on his tree house because he knows what kind of accidents might happen to him. So one day he is riding his bike and because it is starting to rain, he decides to wait in the library until it stops raining. In there the whole story takes place. He experiences all kinds of staff and in the end he is not scared any more. But the whole story is unbelievable and even good actors like Macaulay Culkin could not make the story better than it is.
"I'm a cartoon!" "You're an illustration!" what does that suppose to mean?! This plot could not be worse as a boy, who's afraid of everything, becomes very brave at the very end of the film because he went into a library. The only purpose of this waste of celluloid was to encourage American kids to read, when a cheaper, and more effective way of doing this could have been a series of adverts! Even the talents of Macaulay Culkin(as the kid), Christopher Lloyd (as the so predictable "that he's a the Page Master" librarian), could save this pointless film from the dull plot. Even the voices of Whoopi Goldberg, Patrick Stewart,(even) Leonard Nimoy, or the Hollywood God of voices, Frank Welker as the cartoon characters don't save it ever. I can only describe it as a 1990s equivalent to the even ghastly 1978 adaption of the Water Babies, because the bland animation makes the film worse, not improving the dull plot!
There is a really good movie lurking just beneath the surface of the layers upon layers of cheese that is "the Pagemaster".<br /><br />I found this out when I watched this again this morning after neglecting it for years and years. I remember hating it with a passion when it first came out, but this time, I found that the special effects are quite good. The plot is just "the Neverending Story" with a creativity-endectomy, but it's an okay little flick for anyone who just wants some really awesome eye-candy. The animation is amazing, and I especially liked how the animators let their characters look and act a bit more surrealistic than the norm. I'm giving it a grade of three as I *would* have given it a two (just for parody value) if I had ever decided to watch this movie expecting it to absolutely blow my mind story-wise.
Ghost Town starts as Kate Barrett (Catherine Hickland) drives along an isolated desert road, her car suddenly breaks down & she hears horses hoofs approaching... Deputy Sheriff Langley (Frank Luz) of Riverton County is called in to investigate Kate's disappearance after her father reports her missing. He finds her broken down car & drives off looking for her, unfortunately his car breaks down too & he has to walk. Langley ends up at at a deserted rundown ghost town, much to his shock Langley soon discovers that it is quite literally a ghost town as it's populated by the ghosts of it's former residents & is run by the evil Devlin (Jimmie F. Skaggs) who has kidnapped Kate for reasons never explained & it's up to Langley to rescue her & end the towns curse...<br /><br />The one & only directorial effort of Richard Governor this odd film didn't really do much for me & I didn't like it all that much. The script by Duke Sandefur tries to mix the horror & western genres which it doesn't do to any great effect. Have you ever wondered why there aren't more horror western hybrid films out there? Well, neither have I but if I were to ask myself such a question I would find all the answers in Ghost Town because it's not very good. The two genres just don't mix that well. There are plenty of clichés, on the western side of things there's the innocent townsfolk who are to scared to stand up to a gang of thugs who are terrorising them, the shoot-outs in the main street, saloon bars with swing doors & prostitutes upstairs & horror wise there's plenty of cobwebs, some ghosts, an ancient curse, talking corpses & a few violent kills. I was just very underwhelmed by it, I suppose there's nothing terribly wrong with it other than it's just dull & the two genres don't sit together that well. There are a few holes in the plot too, why did Devlin kidnap Kate? I know she resembled his previous girlfriend but how did he know that & what was he going to do with her anyway? We never know why this ghost town is full of ghosts either, I mean what's keeping them there & what caused them to come back as ghosts? Then there's the bit at the end where Devlin after being shot says he can't be killed only for Langley to kill him a few seconds later, I mean why didn't the bullets work in the first place?<br /><br />Director Governor does alright, there's a nice horror film atmosphere with some well lit cobweb strewn sets & the standard Hollywood western town is represented here with a central street with wooden buildings lining either side of it. I wouldn't say it's scary because it isn't, there's not much tension either & the film drags in places despite being only just over 80 odd minutes in length. Forget about any gore, there a few bloody gunshot wounds, an after the fact shot of two people with their throats slit & someone is impaled with a metal pole & that's it.<br /><br />I'd have imagined the budget was pretty small here, it's reasonably well made & is competent if nothing else. Credit where credit's due the period costumes & sets are pretty good actually. The acting is alright but no-ones going to win any awards.<br /><br />Ghost Town is a strange film, I'm not really sure who it's meant to appeal to & it certainly didn't appeal to me. Anyone looking for a western will be annoyed with the dumb horror elements while anyone looking for a horror film will be bored by the western elements. It's something a bit different but that doesn't mean it's any good, worth a watch if your desperate but don't bust a gut to see it.
I was at this film's premiere at the Toronto Film Festival in 1997. After the screening, when the writer/director and some cast members offered to answer questions, no one could even be bothered to ask any. Rarely has a film been so poorly directed (why on earth were random frames snipped out of some scenes?), wretchedly acted (David Arquette, to paraphrase Dorothy Parker, does not run the emotional gamut from A to B. He parks at A and brings a lunch) and utterly pointless. Characters behave completely out of character for no reason except to force the plot to move in certain directions. At long last, the film comes to a completely random and pointless end that's supposed to "really make you think." Unfortunately, what it makes you think is, "Well, there's 90 minutes of my life I'm never getting back."
THE ALARMIST is so abysmally scripted that you have think to yourself why on earth did an up and coming actor like David Arquette agree to be in it. It has to be one of the weakest plots I have ever seen and without any humour at all, it borders on the brink of tedious. It staggers along to a dreadful conclusion which appears to only happen because the director got bored and just wanted to wrap up quickly in order to get home for his dinner. Stay away!.
David Arquette is a young and naive home security alarm<br /><br />salesman taken under the wing of Stanley Tucci. Arquette is a<br /><br />golden boy, scoring a big sale on his first call- to widow Kate<br /><br />Capshaw and her dopey son Ryan Reynolds. Things are going<br /><br />well for Arquette, he is appearing in commercials for the security<br /><br />firm and he is falling in love with Capshaw.<br /><br />Then Tucci and his right hand woman Mary McCormack let him in<br /><br />on a little secret- they sometimes break into the houses of their<br /><br />clients in order to scare them and to get their neighbors to buy<br /><br />security systems from the firm. Arquette decides not to get<br /><br />involved, taking Capshaw to meet his family, and going through life<br /><br />with a goofy smile on his face. Then, someone breaks into<br /><br />Capshaw's home and murders her and her son. Arquette suspects Tucci, and sets a series of traps, resulting in a gun to his<br /><br />boss' head as Tucci pleads his innocence.<br /><br />Based on a stage play, "The Alarmist" is not opened up well. The<br /><br />scenes where Arquette takes the Capshaw to meet his parents<br /><br />are badly played and completely unfunny. They are also out of line<br /><br />with the character Capshaw is playing, as she gets drunk and tells<br /><br />sexually explicit stories to Arquette's mom Michael Learned. Other<br /><br />than these scenes, Capshaw is not given much to do, but she<br /><br />does a lot with the little she is given.<br /><br />Stanley Tucci, looking just like Terry O'Quinn, is a riot as the<br /><br />security firm owner. He is a creep who really does not understand<br /><br />Arquette's moral revulsion. However, when he turns into a<br /><br />sniveling whiner after Arquette kidnaps him, he is hilarious. Mary<br /><br />McCormack seems to have been groomed for a bigger role, but<br /><br />she mostly stands around and agrees with Tucci. Ryan Reynolds<br /><br />is too old to play a dumb teenager, but he is funny, especially<br /><br />telling his own explicit sexual story to Arquette.<br /><br />The screenplay lurches from romantic comedy to dark comedy too<br /><br />soon. Capshaw meeting the parents is completely unmotivated,<br /><br />except to give her a reason to get out of town so someone can<br /><br />break into her house. Capshaw and Reynolds are in the film just<br /><br />to give Arquette a reason to take revenge on Tucci.<br /><br />Arquette, who has proven he is a good actor, is awful here. He<br /><br />relies on the constipated mugging that got him through those<br /><br />AT&T ads, and he is not a strong enough presence to build this<br /><br />weak film around. Actually, Reynolds might have been a better<br /><br />choice in the role.<br /><br />Dunsky's direction is good, nothing that will win an Oscar soon.<br /><br />Christophe Beck's light jazzy score recalls the type of film noir this<br /><br />film tries to be, and it is really catchy on top of that.<br /><br />Despite the pluses, Arquette's failure as a lead and the script's<br /><br />schizophrenic quality sinks the film. I do not recommend it.<br /><br />This is rated (R) for physical violence, gun violence, some gore,<br /><br />strong profanity, brief female nudity, sexual content, strong sexual<br /><br />references, and adult situations.
What begins as a fairly clever farce about a somewhat shady security monitoring company turns, almost instantaneously, into an uninteresting and completely inane murder mystery. David Arquette and the great Stanley Tucci try mightily to make this train wreck watchable, but some things are just not humanly possible.<br /><br />What, for instance, causes Gale to turn suddenly from a sweet motherly figure into a drunken shrew at Tommy's parents house? Why would Heinrich, although admittedly a sleezebag, want to destroy the business to which he devotes his life, by robbing and possibly murdering his customers? Why does the seemingly sensible Tommy believe that Heinrich could be a murderer (based almost entirely on a dream), and even if that were believable, why wouldn't he go to the police? And why didn't Gale activate the alarm when she got home, especially after scolding Howie about it being off? Of course, all of these events are necessary for the plot (and I use the term very, very loosely) to unfold. And it might be forgivable if it resulted in even the slightest bit of comedy. But everything, from Howie's description of his date rape, to the coroner's misidentification of Gale, to the final "joke" about Gale and Howie still being dead, is more tasteless and pathetic than anything else.<br /><br />I checked the box indicating that my comments contained "spoilers", but there's nothing more I or anyone else could do to spoil this thing that already stinks to high heaven.
...am i missing something here??? "unexpected plot developments"? "plot twisting with subversive glee"? are these viewers watching the same Arquette vehicle to which i just subjected myself (in an now-obvious sub(un)conscious bout of sadomasochism)...I just joined this site simply to make sure that no one else ever rents this stinker...this movie was an embarrassment to every single person involved...quick question: did Sir Stevie read the script before he gave the thumbs-up to Kate C.? if so, then it must be the same Spielberg who greenlighted "howard the duck"...don't give me that, "it was a hit play" crap--i'm guessing Mssr. Reddin ain't too pleased ...the DVD cover promised "surprising corners" and a "twisted story..." Story!!Story?? It's crap like this that make old Bobby McKee and his wandering band of Structuralists sound like geniuses...Sundance??Berlin??Toronto?? I have a home video of my cat farting that evokes more interest than Arquette's negatively-dimensional portrayal of anguished loss...and, talk about deux ex machina for Mr. Stanley T.; thank god, just in the nick o time he thought to have Dave call the cops! and thank shiva that the cops had just caught the true killer...what!!! up until the credits i was still waiting for it to be some kind of grift against Arquette and his "hidden millions"...no, Mrs. Spielberg, you don't escape unscathed: what the hell was that kitchen scene with the "athlete's foot in my crotch" gag??? are you worse in this or "just cause"?? i dunno...hey film lovers: why don't you make it a blockbuster night and rent this along with "jersey girl" and "white chicks" and then commit sepukka (or is it seppuka)...and take E. Dunsky with you....
What a horrible comedy. Totally lame. The supposed "humor" was simple and stupid. Stanly Tucci (a great actor) had the only parts worth chuckling at. And he was tied up and gagged at the time. Don't waste your time with this one. It deserves a 0/10.
Pointless, humourless drivel.....meant to be a comedy; but not one laugh in the whole film. Gratuitous violence often with guns. What kind of warped mentality can either make or say this is a good film?! 1 out of 10.
Very poor effort that offers pretty much nothing to anyone but a hardcore fan of Stanley Tucci, who tries, but can not save the poor structure, dialogue, direction, or talent of our leading man.<br /><br />Pretty much the only trick this plodding tale of a naive new salesman for an alarm company has, is its quirky side characters. But without a realistic backdrop, such characters are pointless.<br /><br />Nothing to see here, keep moving...<br /><br />
I caught this Cuban film at at an arthouse film club. It was shown shortly after the magisterial 1935 Silly Symphony cartoon where the Isle of Symphony is reconciled with the Isle of Jazz. What with the recently deceased Ruben Gonzalez piped through speakers in this old cinema-ballroom and a Cuban flag hanging from peeling stucco rocaille motifs, the scene was set for a riproaring celebration of engaged filmmaking and synchronised hissing at the idiocies of Helms-Burton. But then the film started. And the cinema's peeling paint gradually became more interesting than the shoddy mess on-screen.<br /><br />The storyline of Nada Mas promises much. Carla is a bored envelope-stamper at a Cuban post office. Her only escape from an altogether humdrum existence is to purloin letters and rewrite them, transforming basic interpersonal grunts into Brontëan outbursts of breathless emotion. Cue numerous shots of photogenic Cubans gushing with joy, grief, pity, terror and the like.<br /><br />The problem is that the simplicity of the narrative is marred by endless excursions into film-school artiness, latino caricature, Marx brothers slapstick and even - during a particularly underwhelming editing trick - the celluloid scratching of a schoolkid defacement onto a character's face.<br /><br />Unidimensional characters abound. Cunda, the boss at the post office, is a humourless dominatrix-nosferatu. Her boss-eyed accomplice, Concha, variously points fingers, eavesdrops and screeches. Cesar, the metalhead dolt and romantic interest, reveals hidden writing talent when Carla departs for Miami. A chase scene (in oh-so-hilarious fast-forward) is thrown in for good measure. All this would be fine in a Mortadello and Filemon comic strip, but in a black-and-white zero-FX flick with highbrow pretensions, ahem.<br /><br />Nada Mas attempts to straddle the stile somewhere between the 'quirky-heroine-matchmakes-strangers' of Amelie and the 'poetry-as-great-redeemer' theme of Il Postino. Like Amelie, its protagonist is an eccentric single white female who combats impending spinsterdom by trying to bring magic into the lives of strangers. And like Il Postino, the film does not flinch from sustained recitals of poetry and a postman on a bicycle takes a romantic lead. Unfortunately, Nada Mas fails to capture the lushness and transcendence of either film.<br /><br />There are two things that might merit watching this film in a late-night TV stupor. The first is the opening overhead shot of Carla on a checker-tiled floor, which cuts to the crossword puzzle she is working on. The second is to see Nada Mas as a cautionary example: our post Buena Vista Social Club obsession with Cuban artistic output can often blinker us into accepting any dross that features a bongo on the soundtrack. This film should not have merited a global release - films such as Waiting List and Guantanamera cover similar thematic territory far more successfully.
Unbelievably bad acting, a no good, unclear story and flashy images and slow-motions where they are needed the least: Adrenaline is everything a movie should not be.<br /><br />Georgina Verbaan (a so-and-so dutch soap actress who hasn't attended her English classes) plays rich girl Freya, who has the habit of 'thrill-seeking'. Which basicly is doing dangerous stunts, break stuff and annoy people. And not in a fun Jackass way. Then there's Dracko (Rivas). He kinda leads the bunch but has other illegal activities on the side. Then there's Freya's dad (Lockyer), who plays a dubious role as well. And, in the end, we got Jason (debutant Fyall), the boyfriend of Freya.<br /><br />One day, Freya gets disappeared and everybody seems involved but we, the viewer really don't care as nobody of the cast is either likable or believable, and the story doesn't make any sense.<br /><br />Why was this even made? 2/10.
This is one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. Not just the story, but the acting is shockingly bad. The dialog sounds like someone reading the news.<br /><br />This is rated as comedy/drama/romance, it's not of those things ! It's a little action, that's it. There's really NO comedy and drama at all.<br /><br />If you went to the cinema to see this I feel sorry for you. I would not recommend it at all. Pretty much anything else that you choose to look at will be better. This is pretty much a action/crime movie. The actions scenes sucked, and crime story part of it was very predictable.<br /><br />If you are not really interested in a good story, or good acting. And you simply want to look at a 'foreign' film for the appeal of being foreign. Then this might be for you.
Given the people involved, it is hard to see why this movie should be so messed up and dull. The writer, David Ward, wrote the amazing caper film "The Sting" two years later, Jane Fonda had just won an Academy Award for Klute, and Donald Sutherland had just done excellent work in films like "Klute," "Start the Revolution Without Me," and "Kelly's Heroes." Plotwise, the movie is a caper tale, with a small gang of bumbling misfits planning a big heist. At the same time the movie wants to be hip satire, a series of comedy sketches of the type that the NBC television show "Saturday Night" would do so well two years later. The bad result is that the plot makes the comedy bits seem awkward and forced and the disconnected comedy bits destroy any kind of suspense that the heist might have. It is quite literally a movie that keeps smashing into itself, just as the cars in the cars in the demolition scenes run into each other.<br /><br />The only real interest for me was watching Jane Fonda. Her "Iris Caine" is supposed to be a light hearted version of her dramatic Bree Daniels prostitute character in "Klute" Yet, one doesn't believe her for a moment. It is always Jane Fonda pretending to be a prostitute that we are watching. It is as terrible a performance as her performance in "Klute" was terrific. It would be a good lesson for acting teachers to run the two films together to show how the same actress in the same type of role can be great or pathetic. It suggests that actors are only as good as their writers and directors.
This film started out very promising with the story about a director who loses his sight and a blind woman who is bound to help him. However, somewhere in the middle it seemed like the script writers didn't know where to go from there.<br /><br />One unbelievable event followed the next (Russia must be very small because they are all bumping into each other all the time), the motivation of the female lead character comprehensible (why does she still follow him after they got off the ship? Why doesn't she try to borrow a mobile phone on the ship to call somebody?), the side stories were completely ridiculous (was the story with the mother and the boyfriend supposed to be funny? And what was the story with the younger sister about?). Still with all this seeming arbitrariness of the plot, the movie managed to be completely predictable.<br /><br />The saddest thing about it is that there was a lot of potential. As I said, the idea of the film was good, the visuals and the score were very beautiful and the actors of the main characters were good, too. So this could have been a really good film... but it wasn't.
Although the actors were good, specially Fritzi Haberland as the blind Lilly, the film script is obsessively pretentious and completely arbitrary. A famous theatre director (Hilmir Snær Guðnason), becoming blind after a car accident, is on the run for himself and his destiny. Lilly, being sightless since her birth, is teacher for blind persons, and wants to make him "seeing" again. (Blind persons are seeing with their fingers, nose and ears.) Here this movie is becoming a roadmovie; and the longer the road becomes, the closer their relation develops, which was predictable since the beginning of the film. The theatre director is on the road to his mother (Jenny Gröllmann). His mother is living somewhere in Russia on the sea and making artistic installations - of course, what should she do other! - and she is still living, because she is waiting his son, to die. My God! This are destinies!<br /><br />Finally the son arrived! Mum is celebrating a big party! At the beach. Wind is blowing and a pianist is playing on a real piano in the middle of a dune. Yes, they are celebrating her farewell. The son arrives just in time. Mother can finally swallow the pills administered by a pretty nurse. Now a great artist can die in the arms of her great artist son, speaking sad contemplations about live in perfect German, while the son is answering with a rough accent. Because the son is unable to see, he is not falling in love to the nurse, - the film script would have become also too complicate! - but is looking for Lilly on the way back to home.<br /><br />Parallel to this roadmovie the sister of Lilly, staying at home is asking a gawky schoolmate to deflower her, who has first to booze himself to courage. The occasion is favourable. Because Mum (Tina Engel) is on journey together with the lover of Lilly, Paul (Harald Schrott). They are after Lilly, to bring her back. Paul and the mother of Lilly are not falling in love, because the film script would have become too complicate. The film script missed to make out of Paul something exceptional too. I would suggest an architect or a Pianist, or course a famous one! When they finally find Lilly, they want to convince her, to come back to Paul, because he has two eyes to see and is able to care for her. But Lilly felt in love to his pupil, the theatre director; did I mention, that he was even a famous theatre director?<br /><br />This is German film art! As you may see in this pretentious production, that the German film subsidy fund is not always producing good films, because they subsidy just such kind of pseudo intellectual films. This film is really embarrassing. I have the impression, that the film script has been cobbled together from some highbrows in coffee shops and restaurants. Everybody is entitled to contribute with an idea. Probably also Til Schweiger has contributed with some intellectual flash of wit, being a co-producer. I was reminded by this film script to an other German film of absolute painfulness: "Barfuss" - already the spelling of the title is not right! "Barfuss" DVD cover writes proudly: "A Til Schweiger Film". This film got also subsidies of Filmstiftung NRW, Filmförderung Hamburg and the FFA.<br /><br />Please don't spoil your time with this film! There are really good films in Germany. Watch out for film directors like Marcus H. Rosenmüller, Joseph Vilsmaier, Hans Steinbichler, Hans-Christian Schmid, Faith Akin ...
In this short an urban man and his wife have their weird lives set akimbo when the man takes to wearing an old red pants suit of his mother in law's.<br /><br />I kept watching this hoping that I could see why it had been made, or why the other reviewers found it funny. For me it was a total waste of time.<br /><br />Not everyone's tastes are the same but this was clearly not to mine.
I have seen many a horror flick in my time, all of them absurdly bad, but none reach the depths that this piece of trash lowers itself to. This movie made me angrier and angrier as I watched it as I tried to wrap my head around exactly what this movie was about. Now, after I've seen it, I understand - sort of - what was going on and why, but the movie itself is just too confusing to be enjoyable when you're watching it. Yes, there are the customary scenes of gratuitious violence, one-liners that show the mind-blowing insightfulness of its characters ("The highway belongs to me...ME!"), and enough nudity to sufficiently distract us from the "plot", but still you'll leave this movie feeling alone and taken advantage of, like a puppy who isn't wanted anymore and is left in a box by the side of the road. Blech.
I saw this movie a few months ago in the town which appeared as Greendale in the movie, which is the only reason I went to see it. Another local who was there just forwarded to me an email announcement of a repeat showing because the first had sold out and people were turned away. His editorial comment in his forward is a good summary:<br /><br />"Yuk."<br /><br />Unless you're a Neil Young fan or live in/near "Greendale" (if the latter you know the real name), skip this movie. It's mostly an ego trip for the filmmaker. It has no discernible plot, the music is merely OK, and too much of the lyrics are unintelligible making it impossible to follow what little shreds of plot there may be.<br /><br />I don't need to put in a spoiler warning because there are no surprises to give away.<br /><br />I'd give this a 1.5/10, but that's just for the amusement value of seeing the locales made into a movie. It wasn't worth the $6. I could rent a video camera and drive around "Greendale" and make a better movie myself.<br /><br />If you want to see a *good* environmental-message movie with no plot, go rent Koyaanisqatsi.
I had the distinct misfortune of catching up on two of 2004's worst films back to back this morning: first, the incoherent CGI-driven emptiness of The Chronicles of Riddick, and then, the embarrassing vanity project known as Greendale. One cost multimillions and the other cost pennies, but they're both bad. Really, really bad. <br /><br />Up front I should state I'm not the world's biggest Neil Young fan, but he has contributed his share of classic tunes: from Buffalo Springfield (whose best recordings were Young compositions) to Rust Never Sleeps, Harvest, and Mirror Ball, the man has penned some really great songs. Sadly, there are no great songs in Greendale, and precious few good ones, and the film around which they are built is truly cringeworthy and simplistic political sloganeering. Completely without merit as art and unimpressive as polemic, Greendale is best left forgotten. Buy the book if you feel compelled to contribute to Young's bank account.
I'm a big mark for the music of Neil Young, and with that and the glowing praise the film received in many alt-indie press circles, hit the first showing of Greendale I could find. My excitement was short-lived, as this turgid storyline and weak lyrical momentum left most filmgoers either asleep or disappointed.<br /><br />Neil says the film started as a soundtrack, and the characters came to life so much that they just filmed the soundtrack. Not the best way to craft a story. No character really has an arc, and when "significant" events do happen, the viewer doesn't cared, because film technique annoyance levels are so high by that point. The film is all song, and to that end, the characters on end mouth the lyrics as they're sung...the technique works for the first stanza it is done, and is grating on the nerves after that. It doesn't feel real or fake, it just feels unwelcome.<br /><br />Terrible acting, with characters finding one mood and playing all of it. Poor lighting at times. The only kudos I can give the film are in regard to several scenes shot as newscast, but the technique is so used in cinema today that this film did little to further it. An alright soundtrack, but nothing I'm quick to buy. A bad film.
A film written and directed by Neil Young, "Greendale" is little more than an 87-minute music video set to a doxen or so of the songwriter's works. In lieu of dialogue, the film relies exclusively on Young's lyrics, which are heavily laced with sociopolitical commentary, to tell the "story" while actors act out the scenes.<br /><br />Given the hammy performances and the shoddy graininess of the picture, the effect is the equivalent of Young blowing up some of his own home movies and releasing them for public consumption. Although there is allegedly a "story" running through the film, we really have no idea what is going on thanks mainly to the unpolished look of the film, the lack of dialogue and the amateurish ineptitude of the acting. All we get for eighty-seven minutes is a bunch of aging hippies cavorting silently through an incoherent narrative while Young's songs play endlessly on the soundtrack. The whole thing turns into a tedious exercise in self-indulgence. "Greendale" gives off-Hollywood, low budget movie-making a bad name.
My commentary has nothing to do with the political sentiments found in the film. In fact, they're quite congruent with mine. What gets me is the fact that in terms of a movie, it is stupid and devoid of any semblance of story, motive or dialogue. Maybe someone should tell Neal that substituting lyrics of songs which are failing to inspire anyone outside of a dwindling audience isn't the same thing as creating characters who are motivated to speak because of events created by the writer or director. A silly narrative remains as such despite the iconic legacy of Neal Young. The most childish scene is the one where the devil dances his way into a bar, slips a tonic to an unsuspecting hero, who then finds his way onto the dance floor to mouth the words to Young song to the heroine, who is unaware of what's taken place. Somehow these two dream up a scheme where they will go up the West Coast in search of????? Sorry Neal, stick with music and leave film making to Steven Stills.
I give this movie a 3 as it is worse than the cult movies that deserve a proper 2. It does not make sense to you? Well, it doesn't have to. This is another vampire movie with a stupid plot, no, let me rephrase, incredibly idiotic plot, where space cowboys (complete with cowboy hats) battle a space race of moron vampires.<br /><br />Does it get any uglier than this? The only good thing in this movie was Natassia Malthe, with her stunning Norwegian beauty. God, I wish Michael Ironside and the DeLuise brothers would stop accepting dumb roles in dumb movies! I mean, at least SeaQuest was nice! I know Mr. Ironside from a lot of movies, he has acted in 164 movies at this date!! It's true that he was rarely in a major role, but still!
Bloodsuckers has the potential to be a somewhat decent movie, the concept of military types tracking down and battling vampires in space is one with some potential in the cheesier realm of things. Even the idea of the universe being full of various different breeds of vampire, all with different attributes, many of which the characters have yet to find out about, is kind of cool as well. As to how most of the life in the galaxy outside of earth is vampire, I'm not sure how the makers meant for that to work, given the nature of vampires. Who the hell they are meant to be feeding on if almost everyone is a vampire I don't know. As it is the movie comes across a low budget mix of Firefly/Serenity and vampires movies with a dash of Aliens.<br /><br />The action parts of the movie are pretty average and derivative (Particularly of Serenity) but passable- they are reasonably well executed and there is enough gore for a vampire flick, including some of the comical blood-spurting variety. There is a lot of character stuff, most of which is tedious, coming from conflicts between characters who mostly seem like whiny, immature arseholes- primarily cowboy dude and Asian woman. There are a few character scenes that actually kind of work and the actors don't play it too badly but it mostly slows things down. A nice try at fleshing the characters out but people don't watch a movie called Bloodsuckers for character development and drama. The acting is actually okay. Michael Ironside hams it up and is as fun to watch as ever and at least of a couple of the women are hot. The space SFX aren't too bad for what is clearly a low budget work. The story is again pretty average and derivative but as I said the world created has a little bit of potential. The way things are set up Bloodsuckers really does seem like the pilot for a TV series- character dynamics introduced, the world introduced but not explored, etc. <br /><br />The film does have a some highlights and head scratching moments- the kind of stuff that actually makes these dodgy productions watchable. -The scene where our heroes interrogate a talking sock puppet chestburster type creature. Hilarious. - The "sex scene." WTF indeed. -The credit "And Michael Ironside as Muco." The most annoying aspect of it all though is the really awful and usually inappropriate pop music they have playing very loud over half the scenes of the movie. It is painful to listen to and only detracts from what is only average at best.<br /><br />Basically an okay watch is you're up for something cheesy, even if it is just for the "chestburster" scene.
If it were not for the "Oh So Gourgous," Natassia Malthe, this B- movie would not have been worth one sector of my Tivo disk space! In what low rent, back lot warehouse was the supposed space port filmed in? "Continuity People!" It's a basic principle in real movie making! By night an alleged space port and by day (night and day on a space station?) a warehouse!??!? People Please! The only thing I will commend this movie for, is the wardrobe dept. for continuously, keeping Natassia in those tight shape revealing outfits! Even the women who saw this bomb had to appreciate the outfits that she obviously spent some time getting into, each day of filming! The Sci-fi channel would have been better off showing SpaceBalls! At least there would have been some real humor in watching something so unbelievable.<br /><br />P.S. Michael Ironside, please Fire Your Agent ASAP! You are so much better of an actor, to be even associated with this level of movie making.
This movie is not as horrible as most Sci-Fi Channel movies. I am used to seeing the gray CGI blobs and the amateurish special effects such as close-ups of fake blood that make it very obvious that the blood is strawberry syrup or some other syrup variation. However, I had thought that I had seen all the possible lows that the Sci-Fi Channel could hit. Then I saw this movie.<br /><br />Imagine a hand inside a rubberized sock that is glazed with syrup? Those are the main Alien Vampires in this movie. You can clearly see the fingers inside the rubbery sock puppets. A talking hand comes out of the guts of victims, and the Vampire who is on the Vampire Hunter's team can talk to these Rubber Sock puppets in Transylvanian. How did Alien Vampires learn Transylvanian? And isn't Transylvania in Romania? So shouldn't they be talking Romanian? Why would some little town have their own language? If you can suspend your gag reflex and get past the talking rubber socks with the fingers clearly moving inside the Aliens' heads; then you have to deal with the other alien vampires. There are the "Leatherfaces" who like to wear the faces of their victims. Then there are the just plain ugly ones that all seem to have a lot of facial scars. Then there are the annoying Valley Girls and their boyfriends who are human traitors and sneak into space colonies so that they can sabotage the Defense Systems so that these Space Vampires can attack.<br /><br />Finally, if you think all of the above is funny and worth a laugh, you have to deal with the third rate cast of Network TV rejects that make up this team of stereotypical angry heroes which are constantly fighting among themselves. Why does almost every Sci-Fi Channel movie have to use lead characters that are annoying, abrasive, crude, or just totally unsympathetic? I found myself hoping the talking rubber socks would win.
I saw this a couple of nights back, not expecting too much and unsurprisingly it didn't deliver anything too exciting. The plot set up of a crew of vampire hunters (V-San, for vampire sanitation), going around in their spaceship periodically killing space vamps and rescuing people, is quite sound and had the film been handled better it might well have been something quite ace. Unfortunately after a fairly decent opening the sense of actual quality starts to drain away from the film, leaving something behind that, though vacantly watchable, is quite laughably bad. I don't expect anything too special from these films that pop up on the Sci Fi Channel and at least this wasn't one of their creature features with an atrocious cgi beast shambling about, but it was still pretty bad, mostly due to the writing and acting, but with a sterling contribution to the overall badness made by the horrible music. When the film opted just for a typical science fiction sounding weird noises approach to the soundtrack it did OK, but all too often hilariously bad soft rock intruded and pitched scenes into silliness. I would have tolerated the general cheesy acting and writing more were it not for the choice of music, which was a serious miscalculation, turning things from cheesy to lamely comical. Of the acting, Dominic Zamprogna was OK but bland as the nominal hero, whilst Leanne Adachi was pretty irritating as the tough girl of the vamp busting team and Aaron Pearl played another member who wasn't well written or interesting enough to make an impression. Though she didn't seem that good at the acting lark Natassia Malte did well through having a less irritating character than the others, and the fact that she is seriously nice to look at. The only serious name in the cast is Michael Ironside and he is underused though he does nicely, pretty amusing in a manner one suspects was intentional. He seems to have fun and earn his paycheck and his role is entertaining. The effects are OK on the whole, they are at least of the standards of the average science fiction TV show, and there are also a few scenes of blood splatter and a bit of fun gore as well. Things move along nicely, and I almost feel harsh rating this film badly, but then I remember bursting into laughter at regular intervals and realising that unless the film is an intentional comedy, which I don't think it is, then it simply doesn't succeed. Too much is lame, daft, unconvincing, its an OK effort I guess but it didn't appeal to me. Only give it a go if you really dig Sci Fi trash or unintended chuckles I'd say.
I picked this movie up to replace the dismal choice of daytime television and to go with my thirst for femme fatales. Well, for the previous, it is better than daytime television....though I'm not sure how much.<br /><br />It does have its points but after about the first 20-30 minutes, the good points pan out and one comes to the conclusion that they are watching a made for TV movie that was put together with not much time to make something that will hold together. In short, a terrible Sci Fi channel type movie.<br /><br />It has its points such as the future is dirty, like "Blade Runner" showed ..... of course, this is no "Blade Runner". The Captain looks, sort of feels like actor Robert Forster, the kind of person one might want to be around.<br /><br />But unfortunately, it rather ends up feeling like a bad "Andromeda" rehash where the muscle of the crew consists of poor copies of the smart gunners of "Aliens", the mystic is vampire Willow sexually intensified, and the new Captain might as well be like Jan-Michael Vincent running around on "Danger Island" in the "Banana Splits"; he only put on the uniform with the epaulets; he's got very little right to it. All of them running around with their version of force lances inside a ship that looks very much like the 'Eureka Maru' as they are fighting a class of 'people' who occupy the universe and are broken up into several different tribes or sects of different evolutionary qualities.......just like the Nietzcheans in "Andromeda".<br /><br />It might have a redeeming feature with Michael Ironside, but after a while, one gets the feeling that he took the part as a hoot! He probably had fun doing it, but it doesn't help the movie much.<br /><br />It's ..... "okay". Okay in the way that one might watch the DVD once without turning it off; if they watch it with commercials, they will probably change the channel. One might watch it once .......... but a few hours later, be wondering what it was that made them watch it all.<br /><br />For me, that was the femme fatale ............. when she was fighting.
#1 Vampires vs. Humans<br /><br />#2 Military-reject roughneck squad as first responders to dangerous, unknown Vampire incursions.<br /><br />#3 Sexy female Vampire on the side of the "good guys".<br /><br />#4 Plenty of gore and action.<br /><br />There are four (4) major plot devices that may help you decide if you want to watch this movie. If you want all four, then the next plot device may not deter you...<br /><br />#5 In outer space.<br /><br />That last one almost got me too, but I'm glad I watched. In a pile of terrible direct-to-video horror that is the Sci-Fi channel Halloween marathon... this movie is a breath of fresh air. It will stand-up against any of the other Sci-Fi channel offerings, and even against the other Vampire movie Natassia starred in (who keeps giving Uwe Boll money?).
Man has been to the farthest reaches of the earth and now he is traveling to new worlds. But with new worlds come ancient evils... the vampires of space. And not just a handful but entire tribes. In this film (which I saw as "Bloodsuckers" but I guess also goes as "Vampires Wars") we see what happens when the imperialist earthlings meet the imperialist vampires.<br /><br />I will make this review very short because it's undeserving of a good review. The best I can say for this film is it has a good cast of b-list and upcoming stars. Natassia Malthe was Quintana, and was far more attractive here than in "Bloodrayne 2". Michael Ironside is Muco, and is always a fan favorite (as I say, he's the poor man's Jack Nicholson). And we even get Carrie-Ann Fleming as "Damian's wife", who horror fans will now recognize as the eponymous Jenifer from Dario Argento's "Jenifer". So this movie, as bad as it is, isn't without some names attached... but the same can be said of Uwe Boll's work.<br /><br />The concept of the military tracking and killing vampires in space isn't necessarily a bad idea, but it easily falls into the realm of "cheese" and this film falls hard. The acting, especially from the vampires, is over the top and I just didn't find the explanations of their existence very convincing. Worst of all, the vampire tribes have the names "Voorhess" and "Leatherfaces". I understand this was supposed to be a clever reference for the horror fans, but it wasn't clever at all. It just sounded dumb and out of place (unlike the much more subtle references in James Gunn's "Slither", such as naming stores after lesser-known horror directors).<br /><br />That's all I want to say. If you can stand lots of cheese (on this day I couldn't and I'm from Wisconsin) and want to see average actors with poor costumes fight vampires in space (although "space" looks a lot like any other forest on earth) check this one out, if you can find it. I don't personally recommend this when you can watch other cheesy vampires films (Jon Carpenter's "Vampires") or other cheesy space movies. Or maybe even some good ones. But, hey, do your thing.
Second movie in the boxset. Originally titled Bloodsuckers, This movie was pretty average. It is kinda boring in some parts but there is some good gore effects, but they're not great though. <br /><br />The movie takes place in the year 2210. Vampires have pretty much taken over the whole world. The V-SAN (Vampire Sanitation) Squad, which also has their own spaceship and is lead by Churchill, who is captured by the vampires, receives a message from an Earth and the team, formed by Quintana (Played by the very hot Natassia Malthe), the rookie officer Damian and the rebels Rosa and Roman (Roman being played by Aaron Pearl from Wrongfully Accused.) V-SAN later meets up with the leader of the vampires Muco, played by Michael Ironside from Total Recall. He has no plans of living peacefully with humans, as he is bent on world domination. <br /><br />While this movie was not a waste of time, I doubt I'll be putting back in the DVD player anytime soon.
Perhaps I missed the meeting when the meaning of "B-movie" was explained, but what I just saw was ridiculous. You want a good synopsis of this movie? Take Aliens, replace the xenomorphs with vampires, then remove everything that was good about it, and that's pretty much it.<br /><br />5 minutes into the movie, the "V-SAN squad" (that's the dumbest acronym I've ever heard) checks out a "base" thats been massacred by vampires and then they climb down (DOWN? What?) a ladder obviously attached to a billboard with an obvious present day train in the background. When is this supposed to take place? 2210. Okay...(hold on, I'll get back to that)<br /><br />Yeah. the characters. Wow, well there's the token lesbian Asian chick, the redneck cowboy wannabe, the weathered captain, the goth vampire/Hot Topic part-time cashier, and the wussy noob second in command. All of them are played by their respective actors with the same lack of ambition. It almost pained me to see Micheal Ironside in this flick. Isn't he getting enough money being the voice of Sam Fisher in Splinter Cell? Pretty much the only thing original about Vampire Wars is about how bad it is.<br /><br />Watching this afterbirth of a film, the only amusement I got was from the feeble attempts at set-making. Since when does taping PCI computer cards on a wall count as a ready room on a starship? The money required to do this film could have been put to much more better use.
I think Micheal Ironsides acting career must be over, if he has to star in this sort of low budge crap. Surely he could do better than waste his time in this rubbish.<br /><br />This movie could be far better, if it had a good budget, but it shows repeatedly through-out the movie. There is one scene at a outpost, which looks like, its outside the front of a railway station, and i bet it was.<br /><br />There is one scene which made give this movie a 3, and it shows the space craft landing and taking off over a lake, surrounded by forests. This was well done, but the rest of the movie, forget it.<br /><br />There is another scene, which looks like a engineering plant, which i bet it, and does not look like a space outpost as the character say it is.<br /><br />This movie is stupid, has a serious low budget, makes no sense and God Help Micheal Ironsides.
Whoo-boy, that was definitely one of the worst flicks I've seen all summer. Granted, it was on Sci Fi, and I don't watch much Sci Fi, but man, talk about a razor thin plot and two dimensional characters to the max.<br /><br />The characters were stereotypical and overdone, the plot and setting were unbelievable, the vampires were less intimidating, more funny-looking, the gore was unnecessary, the special effects were down-right horrible, and the ending? Well, the only thing unpredictable about the ending was when suddenly the tomboy becomes a lesbian and starts to do it with the female vampire, which, by the way, isn't really all that hot considering it occurs for about three seconds, in which you're closer to "What the hell?" then "Man, that's hot." If this ever appears in reruns, God forbid, DON'T WATCH IT.
Man I must say when I saw the trailer I was excited. Futuristic soldiers, taking on bad ass Vampires led by genre vet Michael Ironside....In Space. I mean I wasn't expecting high art, but It looked like a potential B movie classic. This was no doubt a TV pilot, reedited some time later into a feature film, after it wasn't picked up. Alright I'll start with the films few good points, the action was competent for a lower budgeted film, and the CGI and locations used were passable. Now onto the bad, first off Michael Ironside was barley in this, and his performance here....well it was cheesy not in a good way. But as I said he wasn't in it much anyways, so I can't blame him. One thing that was really stupid, was the PETA type group for Vampires', no I'm not joking, it's the dumbest most unbelievable thing I've seen in along time, and it's taken seriously. Also this film commits one of the major B movie sins, it teases a lesbian scene, and doesn't deliver. Most of all what sinks this film is nothing really happens. Since it was meant to be a pilot the script is almost nonexistent and it doesn't have a regular ending. Even the main villains, only come in towards the end. If ever a movie needed to up the Sleaze and gore factor, it's Vampire Wars. In closing I will say the main crew on the spaceship, were all very capable actors and could very well put this mess behind them, and go on to bigger and better things. They just had nothing to work with here.
Although it really isn't such a terribly movie (especially considering it was made directly for TV-distribution), it'll be very difficult to point out one aspect in "Bloodsuckers" that is actually original or refreshing. Vampires in space isn't exactly a new formula, and even after so many movies dealing with these monsters in this particular setting, still no one seems to realize it's an incredibly stupid premise that can't possibly result in a halfway decent horror movie. "Bloodsuckers" even goes one step further and shamelessly imitates every imaginable motion picture that either revolves on vampires and intergalactic warfare. The plot and characters are mainly stolen directly from John Carpenter's "Ghosts of Mars" and James Cameron's "Aliens", as a crew of futuristic vampire hunters are crusading through space and regularly holding to eliminate a mutated species that peculiarly named themselves after notorious horror icons, like the Voorhees and the Leatherfaces. The good guys are a bunch of pathetic stereotypes, constantly dealing with clichéd issues and endlessly arguing about dreadfully unimportant matters. Captain Damian is the unpopular rookie, who'll really have to prove his leadership capabilities now after being more or less responsible for the death of the previous (and far more loved) Captain Churchill. The other annoying characters include a typical cowboy-style and trigger happy macho pilot, a tough female warrior with more balls than any of the males on board (she's of Asian descent, like the girl in "Aliens" was Latino) and the army's most valuable secret weapon: a Blade-girl! Quintana is a beautiful and deadly vampire who chose the side of humans. She can spot enemies when they're still light-years away and she can also do wickedly sexy things with someone's wet dreams. They eventually all learn to work as a team when forced to face the ultimate vampire-meanie: Michael Ironside (in yet another downgrading role). "Bloodsuckers" is an irredeemably stupid film, but it manages to entertain as long as it features gory killings, infantile dialogs and OTT make-up effects. It only gets intolerably boring when the frustrated soldiers blame the captain for the umpteenth time and bla bla bla. This film is a non-stop series of lame clichés and uncreative ideas, but at least it's watchable.
I'd passed this title 15 or 20 times while in Blockbuster, looking for something halfway decent to watch. All I can say is that they were all out halfway decent films the night I chose to rent this.<br /><br />I will give it credit for being leaps and bounds better than "Dracula 3000", but in actuality that's pretty easy to say since this one DIDN'T have Caper Van Dien in it. The other things it lacked in spades were: an interesting cast, interesting story, good dialog and originality, but I suppose you can't have everything.<br /><br />***SPOILERS AHEAD*** The misfit crew of vampire hunters (one of which was a vampire... go figure) flew around from mining colony to mining colony trying to wipe out all the vampires it could find. The crew consists of: the cocky, ne'er-do-well captain (who dies early on), his by-the-book, yet inexperienced first mate, the aforementioned vampire vampire hunter (not a typo), a wannabe cowboy and a REALLY, REALLY butch Asian commando, "tough guy" female... it almost sounds like the cast for MTV's 'The Real World'. After the captain dies in a violent confrontation with a mob of bloodsuckers (and as it turns out, lovers of the finer parts of human anatomy) his first mate takes over... blah, blah, blah... everyone hates him... blah, blah, blah... I could go on, but as I said it's the same storyline used in about a hundred other 'films' of the genre.<br /><br />The effects were cheese and why Michael Ironside was in this movie is beyond me. The vampire vampire hunter (still not a typo) was pretty hot, but of course if you're waiting for her to expose more than just her cleavage, look elsewhere.<br /><br />I can't say that it was the worst film I've seen, as I actually rented 'Starship Troopers 2', but wait for this one to come on the Sci-Fi Channel.
This is just flat out unwatchable. If there's a story in here somewhere, it's so deeply buried beneath the horrid characters and jarring camera work that's it's indiscernible. There's a group of vampire hunters who go around doing their thing, and the vampires they kill have little aliens inside of them. They pop their heads out and talk like Speedy Gonzales. If you can imagine a blood and gore covered alien sock puppet screaming in horror as a cowboy dude zaps it with a cattle prod, well, that's what you get here. These folks are loud, obnoxious, violent, and just extremely annoying. Then there are some anti-human humans, who stand around in their CGI spaceship being so incredibly pompous that it's impossible to take. These folks make Hillary Clinton seem like a right-wing extremist in comparison. They're friends with some vampires, or something...who cares.<br /><br />Then there's the camera work. Remember how everybody hated the thousand-cuts-a-minute crap from the recent Rolleball remake? The folks who made this movie LOVE that stuff. There's enough of it in here for three really crappy nu-metal videos on MTV.<br /><br />Nuff said. This thing smells. In comparison, Dracula 3000 is a masterwork.
I gave it a 2 just because Natassia Malthe (as the vampiress Quintana) looks sooooo sexy in this movie.<br /><br />Certainly there is very little logic to this movie, but so are most of the sci-fi vampire flicks. The movie probably tried too much to break away from the traditional vampire stories. Unfortunately, it went too far and made the whole story not just unreasonable, but ridiculous.<br /><br />There is too much gore and too many rip-off-the-body scenes that made me feel sick. A good vampire movie should be more sensible that you don't need to see a lot of blood -- we all know when a vampire jumps on a human he/she is going to do what a vampire will do. A few moans or screams are all it needs to describe the scene (like the one at end when Quintana tries to sexually arouse Rosa, all it needs is a few moans, the rest is your imagination). Anyway, it's just my personal taste.
Well, this movie started out funny but quickly deteriorated. I thought it would be more 'adult oriented' humor based on the first few moments but then the movie switched into a bad made-for-Disney Channel type mode, especially a go-kart racing scene that was incredibly long. Alana De La Garza is gorgeous but has a really fake Italian accent. The movie looked and sounded very independent and low budget. There was one very cute moment which I'll just call the serenading scene but overall this one was a yawner. The laughs are very few and far between. The end surprise for "Mr. Fix It" is so ridiculous it left me more mad than anything else. Might be worth a look if you can catch it for free or TV but don't waste your money buying or renting this movie.
I was eager to see "Mr. Fix It" because I'm a huge David Boreanaz fan. What I got, though, was a 1-1/2 hour nap. The premise seemed enjoyable: Boreanaz is Lance Valenteen, proprietor of a business called "Mr. Fix It", where dumped men enlist his help to get their girlfriends to take them back.<br /><br />Among the problems with this movie are the editing, script, and acting. Although I've found Boreanaz delightful in his other film roles (with the exception of that "Crow" movie he did), this was disappointing. At times, his character was interesting and others, flat. The supporting cast reminded me of soap opera day players. I realize it wasn't a big-budget film, but some of the scene cuts and music just didn't seem right.<br /><br />My advice: watch at your own risk.
Complete waste of time.... This movie is not comedy, it's not drama, it's not romance...not even teenage comedy at least!!! Story... it should be some turn-over one end... but it's so disappointing! When movie has a turn-over on end I expect that turn-over to make movie even better (exp. "Fight Club") but this turn-over makes movie even worse.... When I watch teenage comedy, and I don't do that very often, I expect lousy jokes and bunch of nudeness... Jokes are too lousy and there is no nudity... You got only one....very good looking I must admit... girl, and that's that! And she's fully dressed whole movie! Acting is bad... like soap series... Don't waste your time! There are porns with better story and acting!<br /><br />(sorry on my bad English)
I'm a big fan of camp, but when every plot 'twist' is predictable and bad, while obviously not trying to be, even I lose interest. I was going to rate this a 3, but the ending dropped it a point easily. Its only saving grace is that I hated other movies more. Not enough beer in the world for this one.
<br /><br />What is left of Planet Earth is populated by a few poor and starving rag-tag survivors. They must eat bugs and insects, or whatever, after a poison war, or something, has nearly wiped out all human civilization. In these dark times, one of the few people on Earth still able to live in comfort, we will call him the All Knowing Big Boss, has a great quest to prevent some secret spore seeds from being released into the air. It seems that the All Knowing Big Boss is the last person on Earth that knows that these spores even exist. The spores are located far away from any living soul, and they are highly protected by many layers of deadly defense systems. <br /><br />The All Knowing Big Boss wants the secret spores to remain in their secret protected containers. So, he makes a plan to send in a macho action team to remove the spore containers from all of the protective systems and secret location. Sending people to the location of secret spores makes them no longer a secret. Sending people to disable all of the protective systems makes it possible for the spores to be easily released into the air. How about letting sleeping dogs lie?! <br /><br />The one pleasant feature of ENCRYPT is the radiant and elegant Vivian Wu. As the unremarkable macho action team members drop off with mechanically paced predictable timing, engaging Vivian Wu's charm makes acceptable the plot idea of her old employer wanting her so much. She is an object of love, an object of desire -- a very believable concept!<br /><br />Fans of Vivian Wu may want to check out an outstanding B-movie she is in from a couple years back called DINNER RUSH. DINNER RUSH is highly recommended. ENCRYPT is not.
I see where a few people involved in this debacle wrote reviews to share their side of the story, and I thought what they wrote was helpful in understanding it. The fact that they basically came up with excuses -- rewrites, budget constraints, production formats etc -- simply underlines how bad this movie is. And my criticisms in panning it are not personally directed but simply a warning that this one doesn't make the cut.<br /><br />It's watchable, but barely so. There are plot holes in every corner, the dialogue borders on the ridiculous, and the ending is telegraphed a mile away. The modestly interesting feature of a hologram interacting with a recon team get drowned in silly dialogue like who makes a meal in the midst of what is supposed to be a tense and deadly encounter with an unknown enemy. Would ya wrassle us up some Hamburger Helper Sally, between us getting killed by these automated carpet sweepers? Apparently this elite team equipped with the latest gizmos and red plastic tubed wonder armor has no access to MREs. Once they get into the last rooms they treat the place more like a four star motel than a deadly encounter zone.<br /><br />The rationale for the encounter with the fearsome Rook is that it can't be killed single handedly. Yet only one scene ago, the hero making that case abandoned King to do exactly that. Huh? Vivian Woo was attractive and hands down the best acted character in the movie. But that's not saying much.
If you really enjoyed the 2002 Resident Evil movie, then you should just see it instead of waisting 2 hours you'll never get back. I can not believe that no one has commented that this movie is just a cheap knock off of RE. First, a "special" commando force is the unique defense for a facility with a computer matrix that has an AI and holographic projection. And this "Hive" rip-off has a series of traps that inevitably kill off one member of the squad at a time. There's even a chess reference in the code names, which was in the dialog of RE. Despite the fact that there are no zombies, the "Rook", the movie's nemesis, is some sort of bio-creature, very pail in color suggesting necrotic tissue, with a lot of cyborg components just like a super mutant of RE. So, a wag-of-the-finger to Mr. Richard Taylor for claiming any credit for this story.<br /><br />They are not the same movie obviously, but the writer got the idea watching Resident Evil I think.
A stuttering plot, uninteresting characters and sub-par (to say the least) dialogue plagues this TV production that could hardly have been interesting even with a billion dollar production budget.<br /><br />The characters aren't believable, in their motives, actions or their professed occupations. The plot reads like a bad Dungeons and Dragons(TM) hack but with plasma rifles and force fields. There are severe continuity issues and the degree of pointless interaction between the characters has this author, at least, wincing. <br /><br />Avoid it like the plague. Watch any episode of Dark Angel and you will have better acting, dialogue and plot. Yuck.
This was quite possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. I watched it with a large group of friends and after it was over not a one of us understood the plot. Aside from the lack of plot, the acting was atrocious, the "special effects" were not so special, and the writing was absolutely horrible. The movie's only redeeming factor is that it's so incredibly bad that it's quite funny. You can't help but laugh at a zombie being run over while actors are spewing crappy dialogue. I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone looking for a good movie, but it's something that a group of friends can get together and have a good laugh about. It's now a running joke among my friends and I. 1 out of 10.
In this strangely-lackadaisical apocalypse, the world suffers from a dual plague of zombies and vampires, but no one seems to be too worried about it in this Grade-Z film which bares less resemblance to Sheridan Le Fanu's famous short novel than my mother's lasagna recipe. Bored attendants still run gas stations and doctors still make house calls and helpful police officers still show up with radiator fluid just when you need it. The plot, and I use that term loosely, involves a father and a daughter trying to rendevous with "the general," whose daughter is missing, at a church to kill a vampire who, very conveniently, happens to be traveling with the father and daughter. I must confess that a moment or two of genuine humor can be found between vast stretches of unintentional humor. The film also boasts just enough nudity to keep a boy of fourteen interested. Anyone older beware.
This is by far the worst movie I have ever seen!!!! <br /><br />I can honestly say I have never seen a movie worse than this one!!!<br /><br />AND I MEAN NEVER!!!!<br /><br />I'm a BIG fan of "B" horror movies. As you may imagine.... I've been exposed to some of worst that the movie industry has to offer.<br /><br />I was lured to this movie by it's title. I mean c'mon... what true fan of horror wouldn't be intrigued by a title like "Vampires vs. Zombies"??? Images of the "undead" battling each other to the "undeath" danced in my head. I thought to myself... "this I've got to see"!!!!<br /><br />Well.... sorry to say.... "this I wish I hadn't seen"!!!!!<br /><br />This movies title is very misleading to say the least. There was no vampires fighting zombies. In fact, there is no plot!!!! If you were to ask me what this movie is all about I could honestly tell you I have no idea!!!<br /><br />There was no plot!!!! <br /><br />There was no story!!!! <br /><br />This movie absolutely makes no sense at all!!!!<br /><br />At the end of this debacle... I found myself feeling sorry for the poor souls who had invested their money into this project for they surely have no business sense!!!
The above seemed a much more appropriate title when me and my suicidal underlings decided to watch this masterpiece of modern bullshit <br /><br />Erotic,Scary, Suspenseful, Well thought out, these are all the things this film fails to be.<br /><br />It is however incredibly funny, the slow sound effects and bad dubbing add to this to make one of the greatest comedies I have seen in recent years. And yet this film doesn't even try to be funny and that is one of the movies grand achievements, it becomes a comedy without even attempting to amuse.<br /><br />Throughout the film an old guy who looks amazingly like Santa Claus goes around ploughing over zombies and smashing vampires into the ground. This made me fail to believe the films title, if this was vampires vs zombies why were the vampires and zombies not fighting? Oh well whatever, besides there were more flaws to this rental than the title. Such as this one; there has been a virus sweeping through America creating zombie like beings who go around acting a lot like your average tourist. And yet there's only four zombies in the entire film. Another problem is besides one shop everywhere is deserted. Surely you'd see zombies roaming about in the woods or in the background a bit. In fact I believe they just drove around in a circle of forest over and over again since they didn't have a high enough budget to film in a wider location, that or the director didn't want to waste his precious time filming in different areas of wood he was to busy sitting in a trailer jerking off to be bothered with such trivial matters.<br /><br />In fact the director had so much fun doing this that he didn't have enough time to hire a big enough cast or even an editor. And so he told the eight members of the cast to dress up as different people and try not to act inconspicuous, whilst I assume he changed his name and began randomly snipping at the film reels "editing isn't a hard job anyway right?" The only reason this "movie" found it's way into our bag was because somehow we got it confused with Freddy vs Jason, strange how these things happen isn't it. And the only way we made it though the night was by strapping gas masks on and bolting them to our skulls to avoid the stink of this nauseating mess.<br /><br />Oh yes we did laugh at the end, but I'm sure one does that a lot when he has lost his sanity...................
Yes, this movie is bad. What's worse is that it takes no advantage whatsoever of its own title!! In the ENTIRE movie, zombies and vampires fight each other ONCE OR TWICE. On top of that, we're never really sure if the main character in the movie is DEFINITELY a vampire. One might argue they were trying to "tone it down" or make it "realistic," but it ends up just boring. More than half of this movie takes place IN A CAR. The scenes that take place anywhere else aren't much to brag about, either. Also, there's no clear antagonist, and in the end you have no idea what really happened for the last 30 minutes of the movie. <br /><br />However, I will say that for a film this low in production value, the soundtrack was surprisingly appropriate and instrumented (with either an origonal score or sampled music from elsewhere). <br /><br />I'm all for independent films, but it doesn't look like this was ever intended for a mass audience (if any). <br /><br />"worse than Scarecrow slayer."
OK, I knew this would be a back alley F-film (well below B-film standards) going into it, so I thought, "Man, I could use a good laugh, so let's see some nether-beings kill each other." Well, what I got could have been found at your local "love toy" store. Random lesbian scenes, very little fighting, and no plot.<br /><br />For example, one scene in particular I remember (for its sheer stupidity only; I've seen better porn on ABC) is where the two main characters (I can't remember their names offhand...great movie, huh?) are driving along, as they mostly did, and the driver was tired of driving and stopped:<br /><br />Driver: "Let's pull over, I'm tired. You want to take over?" Passenger: "Sure, I can drive for a while." (Once pulled over, the driver starts grabbing the passenger's boobs) Passenger: "What are you doing? I'm not like that!" Driver: "It's OK, everyone does it sometime." Passenger: "OK then." (Proceed to take off shirts, fondle, kiss, and perform fellatio)<br /><br />Now, last time I checked, horror films were not in the porn section of Hollywood Video (unless you're into S&M, then you go elsewhere), and it definitely shouldn't be in the mainstream videos at Blockbuster. Don't get me wrong; I'm definitely not one of those people who hate porn, but I only watch it when appropriate and definitely don't want to watch it if I'm looking for a movie in the mainstream stores, as this one I rented was at one of the two retailers I named (and probably at the other too if I went and looked).<br /><br />Worst movie ever, no one should rent it, and it should only be bought for a public burning ceremony. If I could give it a 0, I would, but I can only give it a * of 10.
Vampires Vs. Zombies wasn't the original title. It was actually... <br /><br />Nasty Lesbian Semi-Vampires and Two Zombies Getting Hit by Cars: Special Guest appearances by Bob the Lesbian Gypsie-Witch and her dog, Random Woman with special powers and the Catholic School Girl Short Skirt Zombie Choir. <br /><br />Also on the Box: Warning: No Plot- only the writer and director will understand the end, or anything else in this movie.<br /><br />Seriously though, I love bad movies. I love Vampires. I love Zombies. Hell, I even enjoy the lesbians. This movie combined all three with a vague and confusing (or non-existent) plot, horrendous (I mean REALLY BAD) dialogue, and random STUFF and PEOPLE that have nothing to do with anything (or do they... I didn't know what in the world was going on). Oh, and I can't forget the green oatmeal 'Zombies' in latex gloves (yes, the film makers were so cheap they couldn't even cover their Zombies hands in oatmeal and paint). Any way, the result was this excruciatingly BAD film, if you could even call it that. <br /><br />Was the end supposed to not make sense? The Vampire was really Nurse and the other girl was really a mental patient? Where were the Vampires Vs. Zombies? Hell, where were the Vampires at all... you really couldn't call any of the girls vampires. Whatever. <br /><br />Don't ever rent or buy this movie. If you are REALLY curious... okay, I'll understand. Seriously, even lovers of BAD movies won't be able to stand this one. It should be number 1 on the bottom 100.
I really have no idea how to comment on this movie. The special effects were lackluster, the acting was terrible and if there was a plot to it all, it was on the back of the box. I don't think I can remember a movie being THIS bad in a long time, and I'm a big fan of lesbian sex and boobies!! ;) Even that couldn't save this movie from being just a terrible excuse to pay someone to stand (or lay in this case) in front of a camera.<br /><br />I was pretty much let down by the overall "zombie" effect. Since apparently in this movie, zombies are so commonplace that running over a couple here and there, and casually talking about it at a gas station (one with an in-house windshield repair but no interior bathroom), the zombie-movie genre isn't even a factor until the end. Even then, a cameo by a dozen zombies ripping off a girl's clothes doesn't really constitute being a zombie movie.<br /><br />On to the vampires: Apparently all the zombies are male and all the vampires are female, which is OK by me. I'm not sure how vampires are out in the daylight, or the why/how of a soldier vampire came to be standing in the middle of the road, still holding his gun with a stake through his heart, just waiting for the Queen of the Vampires to flick it all the way through. The last segment in the old nunnery made no sense, and when one hot lesbian vampire asks the other hot lesbian vampire "Do you think we did the right thing?" by killing the two apparent heroes in the movie, that about put it over the top.<br /><br />The acting and special effects were at an all-time low also. You could almost see the hoses that the fake blood was pumped out of during the closeup of the zombie who got ran over by the General. Speaking of the General, where did they find THIS Kenny Rogers look-alike anyways? No idea what he was the General of, aside of generally confusing and misplaced.<br /><br />All in all, watch the movie if you have nothing better to do or if you have the strong urge to waste $3. Just my $0.02.
First off I must stress how rare it is that I take the time to comment on a movie that I have seen, it takes a very special case for me to take the time and write about how I felt about a film. That said, of the hundreds of movies I have watched I have seen some of the most brilliant, Shawshank, the scariest, The Woman in Black, the funniest, Shark Attack III: Megaladon, and now the worst: Vampires vs. Zombies.<br /><br />The first thing that must be said is that this movie is not funny! For those that are looking for a light hearted movie that will just be fun or at the very least so bad that it's funny, look elsewhere. It is true that a movie such as this is not trying to be subtle and brilliant, with a title such as this you should know what you're getting into. That said, there is no excuse for a movie to abandon any and every rule that governs the movie making world. This is not an argument between the traditional movie making process and newer and more "artsy" methods to creating a film, this is an argument between bad directors and companies being held accountable for making terrible movies.<br /><br />This movie suffers from the over used saying "I don't know where to start." Truly everything about this movie is broken. From the acting and to the editing there is no reason any movie should ever fail to deliver a cohesive series of events such as Vampires vs. Zombies. Some of the following problems are; 1. Scene misfires- It's clear that the director, the camera crew and the actors were not on the same page. In one scene in particular the scene begins with the camera resting on the ground looking at the passenger side door of a car. You are expecting the person inside to get out, but there is a, and this is NO exaggeration, 10 second, at least, delay between the camera comes on and the director says "action" to where anything happens on screen. The viewer is left staring at a car door for the entire time with no sound, no movement, just the stereotypical "dead air" that radio or TV commentators dread. Where was the editing? 2. Acting- A forgivable offense in most cases, you can't expect a movie like this to have Oscar winners after all, but Vampires vs. Zombies takes bad acting to a whole other level. These "actors" were barely able to read their scripts obviously because anyone with any ability to read and to speak would have been able to pronounce the lines better than these fools. My only comparison for acting would have to be the opening scene from Resident Evil on Playstation. But that acting was even better.<br /><br />3- Story- Wait, what? Story? Again you can't expect this to be The Greatest Story Ever Told, but is it too much to ask that we have some semblance of a narrative? Why the Vampires? Who are the characters? Who are the bad guys? Are there good guys? Why all the lesbians? But most importantly, what's the deal with the zombies? If you have seen this movie then you will understand what I mean, but to those who haven't I'll be plain, there are no zombies in this movie aside from maybe five minutes of it. It was almost as if the director forgot about the name of the movie and was forced to throw some zombies in without explanation at the very end.<br /><br />There's so much more, but I hope I've done enough to keep anyone from seeing this movie.
This is probably the best horror film made since Ed Wood died. <br /><br />I can't spoil the ending, because I have absolutely no idea what happened. I'll try my best, though. There are some kind of lesbian vampires, but they keep swapping bodies, so any character might or might not be the character you're supposed to think it is, or it might be a lesbian vampire. <br /><br />Sound confusing? It's not as confusing as you might think, since none of the characters make any sense to begin with. There's no plot, no character development, and random people show up, speak a few lines, and then disappear, never to be heard from again. There are also zombies, who are *possibly* the enemies of the vampires, but there's also a dream-within-a-dream kind of sequence in a mental hospital, so maybe none of this actually happened, and it's all the main character's hallucination. <br /><br />The upside? Both of the lead girls take their shirts off briefly. The special effects are simply mind-boggling (I particularly liked the incredibly slow, awkward fight sequences). Everyone has a really silly Canadian accent, which adds to the general level of hilarity. <br /><br />Well worth the price of rental. We laughed until we cried.
Oh it really really is. I've seen films that I disliked more, due to whatever reason, but never have I seen a film that just fails in every single aspect of film making. It even fails to fail at film making, in a Way the Hercules in New York could be said to do. It's not the film I like the least, but it is the very worst film I've ever seen.<br /><br />The acting is the first thing that strikes you. I've never seen a worse acted film outside of pornography. In fact I've plenty of pornographic films that are acted a damn site better than this. It really is awful.<br /><br />Technically, it's terrible. The camera-work is amateurish. The editing is nonsensical. I presume they couldn't afford proper sound equipment, and this meant that every scene in a car (and there's a lot of them) has them driving at about three miles per hour and every scene set outside by the same patch of woods (and there's a lot of them too) is actually dubbed from a studio, again lending more to the bad porn vibe.<br /><br />The plot is nonsensical, as many have pointed out. I'll defend vampires walking in daylight by the fact that despite it being popularized by Nosferatu, this was never originally an intrinsic part of the vampire mythos.<br /><br />Speaking of vampire mythos, the writer had evidently read Carmilla, or at very least seen The Vampire Lovers. I'm not sure how I feel about this, swaying from impressed that a movie this dire has at least some aspirations to a Gothic novel I'm very fond of; or annoyed by its at best sledgehammer references and at worst total desecration of source material. At very least 'the General' is an insult to Peter Cushing though.<br /><br />It gets two stars however, merely because I can't bring myself to vote one star for a film that has, or at least purports to have, both vampires and zombies in it. Incidentally I watched Lifeforce (another film that tenuously has vampires and zombies in it) on the same day as this, and despite being a rather flawed film itself, really comes out a masterpiece compared to this.<br /><br />So in the end, this is not a film so bad it's good, or so bad it's in any way enjoyable, even drunk. It's just a mess, and worth no-one's time watching.
Dear me. Where do I start? The dad isn't anywhere near old enough to be the girl's dad. He corpses on camera in the first 5 minutes of the film. The favoured exclamation in this film is "Jesus Christ!!!". Zombies are agile, stupid and few and far between. Motives are utterly incomprehensible and a narrative does not exist. People 'rush' to their destination in jeeps driven at 3 MPH. The world seems to be carrying on as normal yet these are supposed to be the end days. Breasts appear for the sake of breasts. Normally such an approach would provide some redemption but the rest of the film actually made me uninterested in breasts or the future of humanity. There's a dog for no reason and thin, orange blood that turns the stomach. The General and his catchphrase of "Shut the f**k up!" is the only redeeming feature. As for the rest, I sincerely hope to hear that they had done the decent thing and killed themselves.
I picked up this movie with the intention of getting a bad zombie movie. But I had no Idea what I was getting myself into.<br /><br />I started the movie and soon I had been pulled into a world of pain and visual torture.<br /><br />I finally know what hell is like. It's this movie. For eternity. This movie has no value. It didn't even really have a plot. There was stuff going on in each scene but no overall explanation why anything happens.<br /><br />Instead of watching this movie I suggest that you line the nearest blender with oil and try and stuff as many bullets in it as you can. You will find that the outcome to be far more pleasant than this movie.<br /><br />Don't even watch it. Not even to see how bad it is. I beg you. If you watch it, then it means they win.
I am an avid fan of horrendous movies, anything cheesy and down right ridiculous is my game. So imagine my spirit I went to the local Rent Shop, and found Vampires vs. Zombies. The name is just too entertaining, you know that no one in the world could pull off something like it, it just has to be bad.<br /><br />And boy, is it BAD. After viewing this horror-ific movie, I was speechless, literally. Me and my pal sat outside without saying a word to each other for several minutes, both of us contemplating the future of our lives after watching this movie. I broke the depressing silence with the words, "...dude....What?" Yes, i am an enthralling individual.<br /><br />Heres a quick 'street review' The Plot; There is none, at all, ever, constantly in "WTF" mode. The Characters; No development, forgettable. The Music; Worse than porn. The Vampires; Theirs vampires? The Zombies; Theirs Zombies?<br /><br />In the end; Everyone should see this movie, honestly, its so bad I yearn to see it again. So do yourself a favor, watch it and get Depressed.
After watching this thing, then reading the summary on the back of the DVD, then thinking back to actual movie....I became a bit dizzy. I thought, maybe I fell asleep and dreamed I was a down syndrome baby waltzing through a never ending forest where people drive 11 miles an hour and stop for no purpose other then occasional tasteless lesbianism. Where (zombies?) come out of nowhere and (vampires?) who (seduce?) pure hearted citizens on their way to save the world. Neither zombie nor vampire notably encounter each other. The only fighting i remember was getting that walrus Bonny Giroux's panties off. Coo Coo ca FAT! All of them! Maybe that was because we were watching it widescreen stretched and were too lazy to change it to its native resolution, but that actually made it more entertaining... In conclusion my trailing thought thesis had more continuity, plot, character development, antagonism, subject matter, and acting then the entirety of this film. It made Bloodrayne look like Citizen F***ING KANE
Okay, I've watched this movie twice now, I have researched it heavily on the net, I have asked several people on there opinions. I have even gone to the length of reading the original Sheridan Lafanu Classic 'Carmilla', a book that this movie is supposed to be based on. I feel that the best way to review this movie is to describe a game to play whilst watching it. As the plot of the movie doesn't seem to make any sense at all, here is the plot of the book.<br /><br />Laura lives in a castle in Syberia with her Father, Mr De Lafontaine. They carry on with their lives blissfully and peacefully. One day they get a letter from the 'General' a man who has made it his mission in life to avenge his daughters death. He makes claims of supernatural powers being at work, and explains that he will visit them soon. Meanwhile, a chance encounter with a strange woman results in the Lafontaines looking after her Daughter, Carmilla, for several months. Soon Laura starts to be overwhelmed by strange dreams, and begins to come down with a strange illness. Who is this mysterious Carmilla? And just what has she to do with Laura's condition, and the General?<br /><br />I have invented this game and would like as many people as possible to play it, and let me know what their results are. I even have a catchy name, and would have a jingle too, but I can't be bothered with that. It's called the "this movie doesn't make any sense" game.<br /><br />All you have to do is, whilst watching the movie, try to come up with a complete plot that explains what is happening. I mean complete, all questions answered, everything makes sense, absolutely complete.<br /><br />It will have to answer such questions as ... <br /><br />* Why can vampires walk around in day light?<br /><br />* Why are they all lesbians?<br /><br />* Why is a girl called Bob? and why does she shoot herself?<br /><br />* When is the movie a dream and when is it real?<br /><br />* Why does killing zombies appear to be an accepted part of life that doesn't make anyone bat an eyelid?<br /><br />* Why does Travis Fontaine spot and run down a zombie without slowing down whilst driving his car, yet when faced with a woman with an obvious hostage in the back of her car, accept the excuse that she is a zombie too?<br /><br />* And why does he then let a girl, which he later openly reveals that he knows is the head vampire, drive with him in his car?<br /><br />* And then let her drive off, alone with his daughter in a stolen car?<br /><br />What the hell is the asylum scene all about?<br /><br />* What the hell is the green goo all about?<br /><br />* Why does the head vampire suddenly start dressing like a nurse?<br /><br />* Why are there never any vampires fighting Zombies?<br /><br />* What is the significance of the necklace? what is it made of? why does it kill vampires? and how does Jenna know that?<br /><br />In fact sod it, it's just as much fun trying to come up with as many questions about this movie too.<br /><br />I have my plot, and I have to admit it is not quite there, but it is a pretty good effort.<br /><br />In Conclusion<br /><br />'Vampires vs Zombies' has no moment in it where there are actually Vampires fighting Zombies. Everyone in the movie seems to know exactly what is going on, yet they seem very reluctant to let the audience in on this. And somehow it is based on a classic 19th century horror novel. How? Why? What the hell is going on?
Vampires Vs. Zombies starts with the breaking news that the unidentified disease that is spreading across America leaves the sufferer with homicidal & cannibalistic tendencies... Travis Fontaine (C.S. Munro) & his teenage daughter Jenna (Bonny Giroux) listen to the radio as they drive along the isolated backwoods roads to try & escape the disease when Travis runs over a guy who I assume is meant to be a zombie. Slightly further down the road he stops to help Julia (Brinke Stevens) & her teenage daughter Carmilla (Maratama Carlson) who are waving at the side of the road, at this point there is also a third teenage girl named Tessa (Melanie Crystal) sitting in the back of Julia's car bound & gagged. To me this situation would seem strange but Travis, like the trooper he is, takes it all in his stride & agrees to 'take' Carmilla off Julia's hands &, well I don't know actually. So, with a complete stranger, Travis drives off leaving Julia & Tessa. Carmilla seems like a nice girl but she turns out to be a Vampire & she likes to bite people & turn them into Vampires, oh & she's partial to a bit of lesbianism too. Travis, Carmilla & Jenna continue to travel while some guy who calls himself The General (Peter Ruginis) who appears to be some sort of Vampire killer & probably has something to do with it all but the film is such a mess it doesn't really matter & I really don't know how to carry on this plot outline as my head hurts just thinking about it...<br /><br />Co-edited, co-executive produced, written & directed by the supremely untalented Vince D'Amato Vampires Vs. Zombies is one of the worst horror films ever & therefore one of the worst films ever period. The script by D'Amato was apparently based on a classic story entitled 'Carmilla' by Sheridan Le Fanu (he should sue) & is an absolute mess, the holes in the plot & logic are so big you could drive a tank through them! What is the disease that turns people into zombies? Why is Carmilla a Vampire? Who is Julia to her? Who the hell is The General? What does he want? Where are Travis & Jenna going? How can Travis run a man over & yet not have the slightest bit of human emotion over it? What's with the mental ward at the end? There are also some confusing & unnecessary dream sequences just to annoy the viewer even more. There are just so many things wrong with this film, the narrative doesn't make a blind bit of sense, the concept is terrible & never really explained properly plus it's incredibly boring. I have not one positive thing to say about Vampire Vs. Zombies, not one. Forget about any Vampires fighting Zombies because it just doesn't happen, tell me again why is this film called Vampires Vs. Zombies?<br /><br />Director D'Amato has served up one of the most incompetent, rubbishy, badly made, poorly thought out & excruciatingly painful viewing experiences ever made. Vampires Vs. Zombies really has no redeeming qualities at all, there is not one single aspect that I can praise. The gore is really fake looking, there are some blood splats which look like red water, some really cheap staking effects & a half decent climax where the zombies feast on Carmilla's & Jenna's intestines, this fairly gory scene is probably the best part of the whole wretched film but it only lasts for a couple of minutes & in no way makes up for the other turgid 85.<br /><br />The budget on Vampires Vs. Zombies must have been small, in fact did it even have a budget because most of it is set on a road in a couple of cars. This is one of the most badly made horror films it's been my misfortune to watch, the entire thing just sucks. The acting is predictably awful, & I mean awful.<br /><br />There isn't much else left to say, Vampires Vs. Zombies is easily one of the worst films ever made. The (V) next to the title on the IMDb's main page for Vampires Vs. Zoimbies indicates that it went straight to video, well that's far too good for this pile of crap as it deserves to go straight on the nearest fire.
As myself and my other half are big fans of trash horror we couldn't resist getting out a movie that contained both of the greats we were thrilled! However for a 2004 movie with a rip off cover of Freddy Vs Jason this is a disgrace! The worst film I have ever seen but worth a look for a laugh if you are able to sit through it!<br /><br />The acting is awful the effects...well I could do better on my camcorder in fact its so bad they only bothered to put make up on the zombies faces and left out neck, hands etc. No story line, weird flashbacks that make no sense and terrible script!<br /><br />"you broke my tooth!" from one vampire "you broke my cigar" was the response from the human who looked like uncle Jessie from Dukes crossed with Santa!
This is the absolute worst movie I have ever seen!! There was absolutely nothing good to say about this movie. I have seen some bad movies but this one takes it. There is no plot and most of the movie you are either fast forwarding the movie to get it done faster or you are wondering what the hell is going on because you can't seriously think that someone thought of this movie and you are watching it. I feel sorry for anyone who has to sit through this painful hour and a half. Please take my advice and DO NOT WATCH this movie for I know you will think it is the biggest waste of time you have ever spent in your life.
Well...the movie was a fun watch. The main problem with this movie is the fact that it goes against everything that most vampire myths abide by. Like vampires that walk in the sunlight. Though there are parts that just make you enjoy the way society makes movies. A scene where a vampire gets stabbed and screams "Ow this hurts...It's really stuck." Then there seems like there might be scenes missing but you get used to after a while. And there are random dream sequenes' that really don't help with the plot. Come to think of it, nothing really made sense, but i just got a bunch of friends and watched it twice to get the full effect. Come to think of it the fight scenes were aweful, and the zombies were just fun to watch. Slowly as i write more of this I like this movie more. But you know, all in all you can't expect Schindlers List but its a fun watch.
As you may or may not have heard, there is no actual fighting between vampires or zombies in this film. One may then ask why the title suggested such a thing, but really it's kind of appropriate because nothing else about this film made any sense either. There was absolutely no story or plot, just things happening. The acting was incredibly bad, worse than safeauto commercials bad.<br /><br />Not only were there no fighting between vampires and zombies but I think there was only one scene with zombies even in it. Their make up looked as if it were applied by an 8 year old girl. The scene was totally random and out of place and featured one of the characters fighting the zombies off with a hedge trimmer (I'm not kidding) but they used chainsaw sound effects.<br /><br />This was undoubtedly the poorest movie I've ever seen in my life. The only circumstance that I wouldn't totally ridicule every person responsible for production of this film is if I learned that it was produced entirely by 11 year old's.<br /><br />Really though, even with all of the criticism I offer here, I'd suggest watching this movie solely based on the fact that it may very well be the worst movie ever, and because of this is quite comical. Even just counting the flaws in it should keep you entertained.
OK, look at the title of this film.<br /><br />the title says it all right? the title is great... i mean, a lot of things should come into your head after readin it. in fact, you might be extremely anxious to see it.<br /><br />well, sadly, you won't see any of that.<br /><br />just a bunch of bad actors, some blood spilling, some hot chicks, and some lesbo action.<br /><br />oh, well, i think there are about 5-10 minutes of zombies and vampires indeed...<br /><br />get away from this if you want to see a good movie. else get it.
I though this would be an okay movie, since i like zombies and horror movies in general. But i did not think it would be such a piece of sh!t like it was. The only zombie in the movie is at the beginning and he gets ran over by a god damn car!!! The movie looks to be written by a porn director and filled by porn actors, i wouldn't ever call them actors! The costumes seems to be stolen from a local school play. Its seems like a road movie with almost no monsters. There is no fun at all in this piece of sh!t, only horror, but not in the way the director intended. I would rather be raped by a pedophile than see this movie ever again!!! ugh!
I have a high tolerance level for crap, so I was looking forward to this. It did not disappoint. Apparently based on Sheridan Le Fanu's classic Carmilla, it follows a father and daughter hunting a female vampire who, luckily, happens to be travelling with them. Then we have Santa Claus (or the General, as he likes to be called here) running over random zombies. Did I mention there was a zombie outbreak? The dead are returning to life but nobody seems too concerned. We have construction worker zombies, soldier zombies and even St.Trinian schoolgirl zombies. Apparently Santa Claus is looking for his daughter who has been turned into a vampire. Oh wait there are no vampires, the girl is in a lunatic asylum and Carmilla is her nurse, or is she? The zombies are back and Santa's mad. Lesbian sex, I like vampires and I like zombies but I especially like lesbian sex. Nothing like some simulated cunnilingus to get the juices flowing. When are we going to see vampires fight zombies? Is she a vampire or is she a lunatic? Or both? Is Carmilla a hot sexy lesbian vampire or a nurse? More cunnilingus, you can never have enough cunnilingus. Here come the St.Trinian zombies. Chainsaw time!! More lesbian sex then the zombies kill and eat the vampires. I guess the zombies won, or did they? Plot? Who needs a plot when you've got lesbian vampires and schoolgirl zombies? And cunnilingus?
I read the reviews before i watched this movie, and i didn't believe them. I love crap movies and i expected this one to be average. It wasn't. This film makes Camp Blood 1 and 2 look like greats. The film contains bad acting, poor sound, poor confusing storyline, bad makeup- and it bored me so much i turned it off. even the nudity was rubbish! Did they even have a budget for this film? I don't think they did. You can tell if your gonna like this film or not in the first 5 minutes. if u want a good cheesy gory film go watch toxic avenger 4 or even camp blood. Avoid this trash - I watched it on TV and felt riped off, so don't spend anything on it. The best part is probably the end.
This film was so bad i had to fast forward most of it to get to the good bits. Hah what good bits? the only bit that was worth it was the ending (those who have seen the film will know what i mean). I expected a lot from this film like a underworld meets dawn of the dead meets Freddy vs. Jason but what i got was this crap. Story was forgettable, the cast was used badly and what was the director thinking when he made this. This could have been a great but i turned out to be the most boring film i have ever watched. OK so what if there was a nice bit of T and A, I was after the gore and i was bitterly disappointed. Don't expect a film thats good but if you want a bad cheesy horror then by all means watch this and see how a horror movie SHOULDN'T BE DONE.
I honestly have to say that I could not stop watching this movie from the second that it started. Simply for how bad it was!!! It's kinda like watching paint dry only a lot more confusing. I mean you sit there and just wait for something to happen, anything in fact, preferably something that makes the whole film make sense! At the end of the film I actually sat there wondering if there was any chance at all that I may have missed the first hour that explained everything or whether I may have inadvertently passed out during the film and missed the parts that glued the plot(if there was in fact one)together! The main thing that really confused me about this movie, is nearly at the end the main girl (if there was indeed a main girl) was in some sort of alternate reality, i mean what the hell was going on at this point?! all of a sudden she awoke and was in a mental institute, chained to a bed being drugged by doctors or something, then quicker than it would have taken me to slit my wrists, it flipped back and she was getting eaten out by some random vampire!it made no sodding sense! I'm tempted to email the makers and demand my time back, i mean i wasted 2 hours of my life watching this rubbish!i am kinda interested to know if the filmmakers themselves actually knew what it was all about! just seemed someone had edited out all the bits that could have made it make sense though i think the film would have had to have been 4hrs long to make that happen! I side completely with the other person who wrote the other review, i was duped royally with this film by its title, and that alone. I'm just so sodding grateful i didn't actually buy the film, no matter how many times iv seen it in the local pound shop. You would have thought that would have given me a clue that the film was a complete pile of steaming movie rubbish but to be honest I think £1 was way too much money to spend on this film!!!! what a sodding huge waste of time and a good razor blade, i mean i wish i OD'ed, its less painful than watching this film!!!!
I watched this movie with some friends a couple months ago, I still laugh today thinking about some of the utter stupidity. The first few scenes alone were hilarious. I won't spoil anything for those who wish to see it, I wouldn't want to ruin the laughs. Needless to say the entire time I watched this movie I was trying to figure out exactly what the point of anything the characters in this movie were doing. Towards the end we all got bored however, as the initial hilarity and shock of a movie being this random wore off. There is no plot and not a trace of decent acting. The characters are about as well developed as those in a kindergarten "Learn to Read" book. They even managed to make a lesbian sex scene uninteresting.
Feature of early 21 century cinema of lets pit different evil creatures and bad guys against each other. We haven't seen stuff like this since Godzilla v King Kong and the like. Always sounds great on paper when you're splicing up and in a haze of the good stuff you have an inspired idea and see the whole playing out before you like Beethoven's symphonies. Then you come to writing it. Great ideas like all vampires are female. Ergo hot, seductive deadly but in a way I want to perish sort of way. And all zombies are men. well thats what men are like to a woman just after shes been dumped or cheated on right? So it all looks good up to actually making it. Then the rot starts to set in. Mosters have fight. Nothing much happens. Another fight. Philosophical noodling and cods wallop. Eureka we've found how to win. Big fight again and the End. Sounds great doesn't it? If it was made an indie company it would be great. But this is Hollywood with the eye on the bucks: gloss instead of what the fans want. It all could have been gore soaked beautiful.
This movie should be nominated for a new genre: Complete Mess! Except for a few chuckles and one or two scenes of gore, this movie is a complete waste of time. Calling it "Campy" doesn't even cut it. "Campy" implies fun which this movie was not. You spend the first half of the movie thinking "Its got to get better, right?". In fairness, it does, at the very end when its finally explained who the "brother/sister" team are and what they want but by then, you hardly care anymore because you've spend the entire second half of the movie wondering exactly what did Mr. Onorati & Ms. Pacula do to tick someone off THIS badly to be stuck in such a horrible movie.<br /><br />
A top contender for worst film ever made. Joanna Pakula's character seems to have an I.Q. of 3 which is only one less than the writer and director. The screenplay would not have passed in a high school writing class; the "jokes" are juvenile; the concept corny. These performers were obviously desperate for work. I stayed to the end only to see if it would get worse. It did. Life is too short to spend any part of it watching this film.
After watching about half of this I was ready to give up and turn it off, but I endured to the end. This is a movie that tries to be a romantic comedy and fails. The acting is poor---much worse than the acting in 80s T&A movies.<br /><br />There are several attempts at humour that fail miserably and the movie is 100% predictable. Perhaps if you are a teenager this movie will hold some appeal, but for those that have seen many movies, you will know how the film turns out after the first 10 minutes. The rest of your time will be spent in agony waiting for the ending credits to roll.<br /><br />Don't waste your time watching this.
This movie is one of the most awful I've ever seen. Not only is the dialogue awful, it never ends. You'll think it's ending, but it's not. How long is it, 140, 160 minutes? I don't even know. I do know that I'll never watch it again. It's like someone took a romantic comedy, took out the comedy, then decided to downplay the romance, leaving us with the pile of crap that managed to make its way to the screen. But don't take my word for it, find out for yourself how terrible this film is.
A film as bad as this should be withdrawn from all stores world wide. So full of boring, dull, unimaginative characters, and with a lead character with such an annoying attitude and dry voice constantly giving a thoughtless voice over for every action and feeling, this film holds the record for the most challenging film I have ever watched. As I had payed money to own it, I felt a duty to see it through, and how I regret it. My head hurt throughout because of the terribly dull characters and their pointless, plot less lives. A bunch of kids who have zero knowledge about anything, are all frigid and worst of all, have terrible dialogue throughout, just mulling around as the main character tries to get a date with the girl. Boring, so much so my friend was shaking with hatred and I was red with embarrassment that I'd thrown away £6. The DVD was on eBay the following day, and I didn't make much of my money back. Avoid like the plague.
Absolutely nothing happens in this sloooow, annoying, thrill-less thriller directed by Amenabar's usual collaborator Mateo Gil. The film, which in some way deals with the effect of boredom and the quest for thrills, actually delivers none, and seems like an exercise in boredom. The only mildly suspenseful moment is the movie's climax, which takes about 30 seconds of the whole agonizing 100-plus minutes, and is resolved too simply. The plot lacks sophistication or credibility, and while the idea is original, the way the story unfolds is arbitrary and every plot device or twist is a result of outside interference (deus-ex-machina). The hero is always passive, everything happens to him without forcing him to show any initiative or resourcefulness. If you're fans of the genre, watch "Tesis" instead.
Holy crap! What a terrible, terrible Spanish thriller! I've had it for about four years and finally started it the other night. I watched an hour or so before heading to bed. I was pretty intrigued by the whole thing. I finished it last night and couldn't believe where I stopped it the night before. Literally, I stopped it the second before the movie went completely downhill.<br /><br />Like I said, I was pretty intrigued and curious as to where this mystery was going but stopped it right when Simon receives the package in the bar. I picked up when he opens up the package to reveal a laser gun and then plays a "menacing" game of laser tag. Whew! Then the big reveal is that the whole thing is a terrorist plot by role playing game nerds. WHEW! You can tell the Spanish industry was definitely behind director Mateo Gil (co-writer of Amenabar's two big previous hits). There is an excellent score and great photography. But this scenario reeks of silliness. How anyone sat through the last 40 minutes with a straight face is beyond me.
'Nobody knows anybody' is a conspiracy theory thriller about a Satanist/nut bomber targeting the religious festivities of Seville during Holy Week. He also happens to be the best friend of the film's hero. The plot is set up by the bomber as a computer game, with himself and the hero as players, and Seville as the virtual environment. The very real alleys and streets of the city begin to take on the labyrinthine qualities of those old Pacman-type games. Looked at this way, the scene where the hero and his female sidekick are chased by black-hooded penitents with rayguns may not seem as silly as it plays. <br /><br />From the start, we are aware that the narrative is being constructed as a game - the hero's job is to create crossword puzzles for a popular newspaper; at one point, the crossword grid on his screen becomes the chessboard on which he is later playing against his girlfriend's father. Clues are liberally scattered, as the camera mystifyingly closes in on images that are only later shown to have been significant (e.g. the advert in the bar). The detective/paper chase elements are made part of a game in progress, rather than an investigation after the fact. The film borrows heavily on 'Se7en''s pattern narrative, and anyone with a Catholic education will presumably get the significance of certain events happening on certain days in the run up to EAster.<br /><br />In this reading, the game is on the level of narrative, with the hero fighting against an enemy (in this case, the computer) to win and save the day. But there is a second game, the film itself, which subvert the first. There are another set of of clues which point not to the killer's intentions, but the filmmaker's and his hero's. In the first ten minutes there are references to chess, a writer called Navokov and a cult leader called Sarin. If we remember that the chess-loving Nabokov's 1930s pseudonym was Sirin, we see another game afoot, one where we suspect not the villain, but the hero himself. <br /><br />In a Nabokov novel like 'Pale Fire', an author-figure creates a text which is designed to hide his own motives, provoking a game between writer and reader to uncover the real text. Throughout the film are scenes which are visually distorted (e.g. the image contracting), or which are ambiguously defined dreams and hallucinations that make us suspect the hero's point of view. The opening references to games are all linked to him. In the early sequences, much is made of the character's sexual and creative impotence, so the film could be his attempt to master his life, to be a winner, in a way he can't for real. No sooner has he won the game than his writer's block vanishes; the words he types are the title of the film, suggesting he is the overall author. Further, that title in Spanish reflects on itself negatively, a very Nabokovian involution that suggests a hero, like Kinbote, trapped in his own solecism.<br /><br />This jumble of post-modern literature (Borges, Eco, Pynchon et al are alluded to also), Fincher, 'X-Files', 'Run Lola Run', Chris Marker (the idea of the city and its history as a map and a text; and as a cultural history haunting the present), Bunuellian anti-clericism, and Alex de la Iglesia's 'shock' films result in a film that is just that, a jumble, each clever-clever allusive element cancelling out the last, dissipating interest. The lack of clarity about the game's rules renders it incomprehensible, and eventually wearing. <br /><br />Ironically, in a work of such overdetermined artifice, the film's main interest lies in its documentary quality, as a record of a narrative taking place in a real city with its own events taking place independently. Such an ambiguous blurring of fact and fiction can create a masterpiece like 'Sans Soleil' or 'London', but, ultimately, you need to have a light touch to match your cleverness.
Although the beginning suggests All Quiet on the Western Front, this silly and superficial version of war falls far astray of its much better contemporary. This depicts the funnest war ever fought, with the first hour and a half devoted to romance and good times.<br /><br />When we finally see some battle, it is lame: An enemy plane flies over? Shoot it down (in one shot). Sniper in the tree? Kill him before he gets a shot off. Enemy soldiers in the woods? Not to worry, they gladly surrender. Ho-hum.<br /><br />Tepid, turgid, predictable...<br /><br />
Motocrossed was fun, but it wasn't that great. I guess I just didn't understand a lot of the Motocross racing "lingo" (and there was A LOT of that in the film)! The plot wasn't what I expected from the Disney Channel previews, so that could account for some of my disappointment.
Some fraud girl tries to compete in the big leagues of motorcross by swiching places with her brother. She gets to the top by lying and manipulation. She should have been disqualified. The movie promotes lying and cheating to win. also the idea of a 9 yr old mechanic is absurd. it takes many many years to get good. Go back to the tonka toys.
Absolutely horrific film. Ameteurish and it isn't funny at all. Lead character played by Mehmet Ali Erbil is very annoying. Edits by E.T and star wars is just plain stupid.<br /><br />Actor Yilmaz Goksal is the only good think about this movie. He should master his English and move to Hollywood. Hollywood can not find an actor with his qualities. Other than Goksal this movie is a garbage.<br /><br />Director Gani Mujde is a comic writer and this movie is his worst written work to this date.<br /><br />Music of Cem Karaca is another plus of this waste of money. Actor Sumer Tilmac also have some presence. Actor who plays the three sons has no talent what so ever.
I thank god I didn't go to cinema for this film. I would be very sorry for the money I gave. I saw it on tv and I couldn't beleive my eyes. I wonder if any film could be worse than this one. they spent millions of dollars to this film for nothing. awful acting and awful scenario. I think the other people who wrote comments are the man working from that film company ;) it's very big fiasco! in year 2000 can they still laugh at this kind of film? embarassing...
While channel surfing, we found this movie with its promising synopsis. We were dismayed at the flat acting, and formulaic storyline. We found amusing the exploding car scenes, unbelievable shoot outs, and sets that crash down with the weight of tyro-foam and cardboard. What was even more hilarious was seeing all the recycled scenes from "Dante's Peak", where the church front falls on the school bus, the store fronts break away from the main street, the overpass collapsing, and the red truck speeding down the alley way as the bricks fall down on it. It was a good laugh although unintended, and leaves the viewer wondering if it was not originally intended as a low budget spoof of disaster films.
Two days after seeing this thing, I'm still in agony over HAVING seen it. It's so bad, you have to wonder how anyone could write this tripe, much less allow it to be loose on the general public. Stilted acting, a leading man who looks like he's sleepwalking, and Alison Eastwood embarrassing herself. The action is indicative of low budget movie making, which means it is painfully bad. The plot? Well, if you were 6 years old, then you could have written this movie. Simplistic, idealistic, and just plain lame.
My one line summary should explain it all, but I'll have a go at it.<br /><br />From the get-go, this movie seemed like an overdone soap opera, and that's about all I can comment on. There were a few interesting scenes, such as the "Big one" that hit during the middle of the movie, but, wait, what's that? The earthquake *gasp*, wait a minute! That's Dante's Peak! Well, parts of it butchered and slapped in. I can't believe how poorly this movie was done, "borrowing" scenes from other, much better films. One wonders what director thought that viewers are dumb enough to believe large wooded mountain-esque backdrops exist in downtown LA, ala Dante's Peak.<br /><br />My advise, forget the Bond Wanna-be, Nash, in this film and go for the real thing (again, someone from Dante's Peak coincidentally.)<br /><br />
"Power Play" starts off interesting but it goes down hill fast. The only good actor is Tobin Bell and he has a very small part. Beyond Bell, "Power Play" has no redeeming value or interest. "Power Play" has more earthquakes in a few days than California has in a year. The earthquake scene in the mall is so contrived and completely unbelievable. And all the action scenes look like a bunch of third graders putting on a play. It's awful, simply awful.<br /><br />Bottom line, if "Power Play" was made in the 60's or 70's it would be considered a poor "B" class movie. The fact that "Power Play" was made in 2001 is really sad. Is there such a thing as a "D" class movie? If so, "Power Play" casts the mold.
There are some great philosophical questions. What is the purpose of life? What happens when we die? And WHY DO THEY MAKE MOVIES THIS BAD??? The premise is absurd. Thre acting is one dimensional. The special effects are overdone. And the movie is one unending gun battle among some of the lousiest shots Hollywood ever produced. But then, if they had been good shots, everybody would have been dead in the first five minutes and there would be no movie. Too bad it didn't happen that way. Tempted to turn it off several times, I stuck with it to see just how bad it could get. Glad I did because (SPOILER?) the last line is the crowning stupidity of the whole dopey, dismal scenario.It is not even worthy of second feature status at a third rate drive-in in off season. Apart from the general awfulness of the film, I worry deeply about its impact on young audiences. The Americans crank out crap like this and then wonder why events like Columbine happen. This is truly banal cinema on a Brobdingnagian scale!
I have to finish watching a movie once I start, regardless of how bad it is. This movie was agonizing to sit through. The "sparkling" bullets, the reporter with "ninja" like moves, the way the bad guys shoot hundreds and hundreds of bullets and only seem to hit innocent bystanders, the predictable outcome and all the bad acting was just horrible. Like the girl who finds the reporter in her friends apartment and goes from "what the heck are you doing in here (holding a bat)" to "hey, you're cute, wanna @#$%!???" in like 1.2 seconds.... Just bad.... Save yourself an hour and forty minutes and go play with your kids (or dog)!
I think if they made ANY MONEY make a complete turd bomb like this one. The I need to get into the movie industry. I wiped my ass on a piece of toilet paper and made a better script once. Watch when the guy is running through the tunnel, they used the same 30 feet of tunnel OVER and OVER and OVER again and never even changed the location of the stupid HANGING light.<br /><br />I think if i get the THRILL of meeting the director of this GEM of a MOVIE, I think i will pick a fight with him and start it by deficating on his LOAFERS<br /><br />I think I need to puke now
Think of a no-budget version of China Syndrome being directed by a film student who idolizes John Woo and you'll get 'Power Play.' The idea was good, but the execution, acting, and dialog absolutely killed it, not to mention ridiculous amounts of violence and disaster sequences that was used to compensate for lack of substance and development of the more interesting parts of the movie.<br /><br />This is the story of a reporter investigating the disappearance of three members of a guerrilla activist group who mysteriously went missing after they broke into the offices of a power plant that is suspected to be causing a frenzy of earthquake. The rather cavalier reporter, going up against what should've been a more ruthless bunch of company execs, is chased around town (along with anyone he speaks to) in order to "clean" whatever conclusive evidence might remain of the plant's faults.<br /><br />Unfortunately, there is no real sense of emergency because the characters interact with much hesitancy, coupled with idiotic dialog and a lot of horrible acting. Not to mention, the viewer, who may only be attracted to the movie for it's action genre appeal, is forced to endure a mounting body count and ridiculous amounts of violent shoot em-ups plus earthquake disaster scenes. All of the focus was put in the wrong place to apologetically compensate for the lack of direction and more interesting sequence of events that should've propelled the story. It might've been much better had the filmmakers focused more on a thriller, and paid greater attention to developing the corruption aspects of this story. Creepy villains, a naive reporter, and those who attempt to alert the reporter of the wrong-doing afoot. It is formulaic, but at least it would've been entertaining.
It's just breathtaking in it's awfulness-- you really must see it!<br /><br />Depending on your perspective, Dylan Walsh is either the savior or the problem here: since he's the only one on screen that can actually get his lines out with something akin to natural cadences and inflection, he either ruins the movie by pointing up everyone else's flaws, or he saves it by providing some context for their awfulness.<br /><br />I'm inclined to the later view-- thanks to him, it works as high comedy. He's the 7 footer in a game of dwarf basketball, his skill set just doesn't apply in this context, and his discombobulation is delicious.<br /><br />The real treat though is Ms. Eastwood, whose inability to speak in plain English is so pervasive I actually googled her, expecting to learn that she was a Russian beauty who pronounced her lines phonetically, with no understanding of their meaning. But no: she's just a talent free American who will leave you laughing with every line she drops. Whether she knew what the lines meant must remain an open question.
Can only be described as awful. It is bad to start with and then gets even more bad. When you start you really have to watch it through because it is impossible to believe that it can get worse - but fear not because it does. Another poorly written script for a donkey director for no-talent offspring of past movie stars. It's hard to decide if the script is worse than the acting or whether the directing is worse than both. As for the hero - well he belts up everyone including one scene where he beats the living daylights out of the tough by swinging open the wardrobe door and smashing him against the window with it. And in another scene he gets thrown through a window and crashes 20ft onto concrete - doesn't even blink - then gets up immediately and gets stuck into the baddies. This is a really ridiculous movie. Lucky it only cost me $1 to hire.
Okay, the story makes no sense, the characters lack any dimensionally, the best dialogue is ad-libs about the low quality of movie, the cinematography is dismal, and only editing saves a bit of the muddle, but Sam" Peckinpah directed the film. Somehow, his direction is not enough. For those who appreciate Peckinpah and his great work, this movie is a disappointment. Even a great cast cannot redeem the time the viewer wastes with this minimal effort.<br /><br />The proper response to the movie is the contempt that the director San Peckinpah, James Caan, Robert Duvall, Burt Young, Bo Hopkins, Arthur Hill, and even Gig Young bring to their work. Watch the great Peckinpah films. Skip this mess.
The problem with "The Killer Elite" is that just by seeking this film out, and investing time to watch it, you are putting more effort into the experience than many of its principals did, particularly director Sam Peckinpah.<br /><br />The already volatile Peckinpah was heading into rough weather with this film. According to at least one biographer, this was where he became acquainted with cocaine. Add to that his binge drinking, and it's no wonder things fell apart.<br /><br />It's a shame, because the concept behind the film is a good one, and the first ten minutes promise much. Mike Locken (James Caan) and George Hansen (Robert Duvall) are private contractors who do a lot of dirty work for the CIA. They move quick, live well, and seem like the best of friends - then something happens to shatter their brotherhood.<br /><br />An opening scene shows them blowing up a building - why exactly we aren't told, par for the course in terms of this film's murky motivation. But the implication is these guys hurt people and don't really care - antiheroes much like the Wild Bunch of Peckinpah's not-so-long-ago. An opening title tells us they work for ComTeg, then adds with obvious tongue in cheek "...the thought the CIA might employ such an organization for any purpose is, of course, preposterous." That's a pretty clever way of letting the audience know all bets are off.<br /><br />Add to that a traditionally strong Peckinpah backup cast, including Burt Young, Gig Young, and Peckinpah regular Bo Hopkins in the plum role of a madman who can't pass up an opportunity to be shot at for $500 a day, and you only wish that the scriptwriters, including the celebrated Sterling Silliphant, tried to do something more with the story than turn it into a platform for lazy one-liners and bad chop-socky knockoffs. An attempt at injecting a dose of liberal social commentary is awkwardly shoehorned in. "You're so busy doing their dirty work, you can't tell who the bad guys are," someone tells Locken, as if either he or we need it pointed out.<br /><br />Worse still are Peckinpah's clumsy direction and sluggish pacing. We're 40 minutes into the film before we get our first battle scene, a completely chaotic collection of random shots where a bunch of people we haven't even met before are seen fighting at San Francisco Airport, their battle intercut with a conversation in an office suite.<br /><br />By the end of the film, what's left of the cast is having a battle inside a fleet of mothballed Victory Ships, ninjas running out in the open to be gunned down while Caan tosses off one liners that undercut any hint of real suspense. "Lay me seven-to-five, I'll take the little guy," he wisecracks just before a climatic samurai duel between two ninja warriors - from China, which we all know is the land of the Ninja. (The battle takes place in San Francisco, but surprisingly no Mounties arrive to break things up.)<br /><br />Caan is much better in smaller scenes, like when Locken, recovering from some nasty injuries, is told by one of his bosses, played by a smooth Arthur Hill, that he's been "Humpty-dumped" by the organization. Caan refuses to stay down, and his recovery scenes, though momentum-killing for the movie, feature fine acting from him and Amy Heflin, Van's daughter, as a supportive nurse. Caan was one of the 1970s' best actors, and his laconic byplay with Heflin, Duvall, Hopkins, and both Youngs give "Killer Elite" real watchability.<br /><br />But you don't watch "Killer Elite" thinking about that. You watch it thinking of the film that got away.
It was almost unfathomable to me that this film would be a bust but I was indeed disappointed. Having been a connoisseur of Pekinpah cinema for years, I found this DVD, drastically reduced, for sale and thought it was worth a shot. The opening few credits, iconic to Pekinpah fans, has the inter-cutting between man and animal, but here we have non-diegetic ambient noise of children playing in a schoolyard while a bomb is being planted. Fantastic suspense. Then, when the perps, Caan and Duval, travel to their next mission, Duval drops the bomb on Cann that his date last night had an STD, found only by snooping through her purse while Cann was being intimate with her. The ensuing laughter is fantastic, and is clearly paid homage to in Brian Depalma's Dressed to Kill, at the short-lived expense of Angle Dickenson. The problem with The Killer Elite is that after the opening credits, the film falls flat. Even Bring Me The Head of Alfredo Garcia has stronger production value, a bold call for anyone who knows what I'm talking about. I use Pekinpah's credits as supplementary lecture material, but once they are finished, turn The Killer Elite off.
Another too bad the lowest they can go here is one. Otherwise this would get an easy zero. Truly one of the worst films I have ever seen. In fact were Peckenpah's name not on the thing I would never have guessed he did it. Actually one of the people in San Francisco I know was on the set a lot and from nearly sunup on he says that Sam was just plain snockered. It shows in spades. The laughing bit at the early part of the film is the ONLY thing in this entire mess worth a second look. Not even Gig Young is watchable. This is a true test of masochism. Had I been forced into the confines of a theatre to see it I would have jumped up screaming. And now I truly feel guilty having watched it all from the confines of a very comfortable couch that was just too nice to leave. What a mess, it seemed less written than made up as they went along. It's not only a bomb but a bmob spelled backwards. Yikes!!!!!
You know all those letters to "Father Christmas" and "Jesus" that are sent every year? Well, it turns out that they are not actually delivered but dropped off in a half-forgotten corner of the post office to rot unless some bright spark figures out a way of posting them. As bizarre settings go, it's a winner and one which perfectly fits the strange movie that is "Dead Letter Office". Having said that, this is obviously an Australian film as opposed to a British one. If it was Royal Mail, most letters get this sort of treatment anyway. I haven't been in this flat for two years and we're still getting letters for a Mr Wang, some female priest of the Church of Latter Day I've-Never-Heard-Of-You and various catalogues for industrial equipment addressed to a plumbing company.<br /><br />"Dead Letter Office" (the name given to the place where undeliverable mail ends up) follows the story of Alice (Miranda Otto) who grows up in a seriously divided home. Writing to her absent father, she only learns in adulthood that her letters haven't been delivered for one reason or another. So, logically, she gets a job at the D.L.O. and finds herself working alongside other social rejects including the brooding Chilean immigrant Frank Lopez (George Del Hoyo). Slowly, she finds herself drawn to him but can she find out where her dad is without bringing the self-contained world of the Dead Letters Office to its knees?<br /><br />Nothing against this film but I was reminded of the god-awful Heather Graham film "Committed" while watching this. However, this is so much better than that pile of horse crap but then again, that ain't difficult. For a start, this film is much more logical. True, the metaphors are somewhat blatant and the underflowing symbolism quickly becomes a flood. But at least this is cohesive and quirky without being complete drivel. It is also well acted. Both Otto and Del Hoyo are very good as the lovers looking for something they know they'll never find while other characters are peripheral at best. Part of the trouble is that it seems to wrap up far too quickly, leaving this viewer somewhat disappointed. The other part is that when you consider Australia's draconian immigration policy (i.e. if you don't speak English, rack off!), such a story is unlikely to take place in reality. The other characters, sadly, also help to destabilise the realism by proving to be little more than odd-ball stereotypes.<br /><br />Despite that, "Dead Letter Office" is certainly something a little different. It might not be to everyone's taste but I liked it. Yes, it was hackneyed and predictable but sometimes, it's nice to watch a film without guns or violence or heavy-duty swearing and nudity (no chance of that in an Australian film). There ain't any major laughs, there's no Bullet Time and the characters are usually one-dimensional. But it's the story that counts here and while it's not earth-shattering in its magnificence, it's a pleasant enough way of passing the time. It's the movie equivalent of a Sheryl Crow CD - nice to listen to now and again but you wouldn't really miss it if it wasn't there.
This movie had a IMDB rating of 8.1 so I expected much more from it. It starts out funny and endearing with an energy that feels spontaneous. But before the movie is half-way through, it begins to drag and everything becomes sickingly predictable. The characters in the office were delightful in the first third of the movie, but we get to know them a little too well; they become caricatures, not real people at all. This is the same story I've seen hundreds of times, only told here with slightly different circumstances. The thing is, I could stomach another predictable love story if only the dialog weren't so stale!<br /><br />The only thing that could be worse is if the characters had inconsistent and unbelievable motivations, and unfortunately that was also the case with Dead Letter Office. Hopefully this movie will end up in the Dead Movie Office soon.
'Dead Letter Office' is a low-budget film about a couple of employees of the Australian postal service, struggling to rebuild their damaged lives. Unfortunately, the acting is poor and the links between the characters' past misfortunes and present mindsets are clumsily and over-schematically represented. What's most disappointing of all, however, is the portrayal is life in the office of the film's title: there's no mechanisation whatsoever, and it's quite impossible to ascertain what any of the staff really do for a living. Granted, part of the plot is that the office is threatened with closure, but this sort of office surely closed in the 1930s, if it ever truly existed. It's a shame, as the film's overall tone is poignant and wry, and there's some promise in the scenario: but few of the details convince. Overall, it feels the work of someone who hasn't actually experienced much of real life; a student film, with a concept and an outline, but sadly little else.
this could be one of the worse movies i've ever seen. i don't see how could this ever be described as a horror movie, or even a thriller? its more like a lumbering drama. the scary music is EXCELLENT but since there weren't any scary situations the director thought it would be a good idea to use it for everyday activities like taking a dump or walking down stairs. the movie had so much potential. they had beautiful cinematography (sp?) and interesting characters, but it seemed as if the writers assumed you already knew them. they would undergo peculiar activities without explanation or even a clue at what they meant. this is simply one of those movies that says its about one thing and it something totally different.
A bit of a disappointing film, I'd say: the acting was stilted, somehow. In many cases, I just couldn't feel that the facial expressions matched the words spoken or the intent of the scene. An angry (or sad, happy, frustrated) character should make the viewer believe that he's angry (or sad, happy, frustrated). That doesn't happen here.<br /><br />The comment about the writers assuming you already know the characters was apt. They do things and say things which come out of nowhere: the character Andrew accuses his parents of sending signals to each other at dinner; then he blows up and storms out, telling his father "Don't touch me, you f***!". Maybe, if we'd seen the prequel, we would understand where all that comes from, but there is no prequel, so we're somewhat at sea as to the reason! <br /><br />One odd, quirky thing that Andrew does is to go to an old stone quarry, sit down on the edge overlooking the "still water" below; then he reaches into his jeans pocket and extracts a pack of cigarettes and lights one up. He did this same thing three times during the film; I guess we're supposed to see this as some tortured act of being alone and angry? Maybe once, but three times? It might even have been four times, I lost count.<br /><br />To be honest, there is the fact that he's recently found out that he's adopted; this happens very early in the film so there's no sense of any dramatic change he might be undergoing because of this discovery. It's not really clear if that's why he's so bitter or if it's about something else.<br /><br />I guess there is a sort of Lynchian feel to the film but should a first-time director really be trying to scale such a mountain so early in his career?
Mulva is put in a sugercoma by Teen Ape. When she awakens she's considerably hotter (the parts played by Debbie Rochon in this sequel), and out for revenge on those that did her wrong. As the sub-title and box art implies this is indeed a take off on the "Kill Bill" films, but this being a Chris Seaver's film, it's a wildly incompetent satire (and I use that last term extremely loosely) I'd love to say this is better than the first film, but truth be told I was so impossibly drunk off my ass when I saw the previous film that I can't even hope to compare the two at this point in time. But I must have enjoyed it since I bought the sequel (see when I'm drunk I like, for lack of a better word, complete and total crappy movies) There are a few laugh out loud moments (very few) but I do remember Bonejack being funnier though. Well at least at slightly over an hour, it IS over mighty quickly for what it's worth.<br /><br />My Grade: D+ <br /><br />DVD Extras: Audio commentary by Director Chris Seaver, actress Debbie Rochon, and the Lbp gang; Second commentary by Seaver; 31 minute Making of featurette; Lloyd Kaufman's 6 minute tribute to low budget pictures; Fake 2 minute syrup commercial; stills gallery; Promo trailer; and trailers for :Mulva", 'Quest for the Egg Salad", "Fiilthy McNasty"1, 2, & 3; "the Feral Man", "the Bonesetter", "Midnight Skater", "Demon Summer" & "Splatter Rampage Wrestling"
Although this is "better" than the first Mulva (which doesn't say much anyways, I would rather watch paint dry) it still sucks. Do yourself a favor and avoid anything from these Low Budget Pictures guys. I was suckered into buying a few dvds to support some indy filmmakers and boy did I regret it. Some haven't even been officially "released" yet (not bootlegs-bought from the filmmakers themselves) and I can't even list how bad they all are. Avoid anything with Teen Ape or Bonejack in them as they do pop up in other small indy films that they are friends with. If you are friends of these guys, chances are you were in their movies and had fun making them. But for those that had to watch them? No way. Bad video, bad audio, bad acting, bad plot...etc etc. These aren't even funny. I gave this one a 2 only because Debbie Rochon is in it and that is about it. Maybe it doesn't even deserve the 2. About a 1 1/16th star to show it was slightly better than the first (which I wish I could have rated in the negatives). If you want a decent no budget film, go pick up something from LBP's "friends" over at Freak Productions like Marty Jenkins or even Raising the Stakes. Those are actually decent.
The bad news is it's still really dreadful. I gave it a 2 because occasionally some of this kitchy slapstick parody actually seems funny.<br /><br />It's supposed to be better than "Mulva, Zombie Ass Kicker", and progress should be rewarded. Or maybe I was drinking heavily when I watched it and felt generous. Whatever, "2" it is.<br /><br />Maybe the best thing about this movie is that it's over pretty quick. It takes elements from most of Kill Bill I & II's key themes and fight scenes, hacks them up, dumbs them way down, dirties up the dialog, and squishes the whole mess into about an hour of truly awful amateur video.<br /><br />You'd best smoke a lot of something powerful if you want to enjoy this one. And get this DVD back to the video store on time! You'll really hate yourself if you have to pay a late fee.
This was a classic case of something that should never have been. Gloria was now a single mother, her husband had left her because she wouldn't live in some commune with him (he was mad that Reagan had been elected and wanted to turn his back on society). Right then and there I had problems with the series - come on, I say to myself, is this the same noble Michael Stivic that countered Archie Bunker's right winged philosophies? The series went on, but it just didn't have any pizazz. Whatever momentum Sally Struthers gained from All the Family was long gone. Maybe, if the series had been given another name and presented as being totally independent of All In The Family, it might have worked out. Ah well, that's show business.
Every generation fully believes it is living in the end times. This has been true for thousands of years now. And movies like this feed on this. How did they get the great Orson Welles to narrate this train wreck? This is a documentary about the biblical prophecies of Armageddon. It tries to link the prophecies as well as it can to what was happening in the times it was made, making it obviously dated and kind of silly.<br /><br />The reenactments look like they are out of "Unsolved Mysteries" but without the high production values. People should have been embarrassed to take part in this.<br /><br />In short, the movie is dated, silly, reactionary, and useless. Good if you want a good laugh, but not good enough to actually look for.
Where can I begin. I heard this movie was coming out and I was very mad. I am a huge fan of the original Carlito's Way and when I heard about this, I thought it would be just like almost all the other sequels that come out in Hollywood. I thought it would be bad. Boy was I wrong, this movie was much worse than I expected. Not saying all sequels are bad, but thats the problem with Hollywood these days, they make too many sequels and remakes and rush them. This was not a theater release, it is a DVD release. Still, in my opinion, there was no reason at all for this to be made. After I heard about this film was in progress, I then later heard Pacino was not in it. That right away killed any chance this movie had of being good. Why did I check this movie out then some of you may ask? Well I had the opportunity to see it so I did. I don't only watch movies that I have high expectations of, I had low expectations on this one obviously. I just wanted to see if it would have anything relevant in it. Now, if any of you reading this are a Carlito's Way fan, you know a lot of the story in the first one has to do with him going to jail.<br /><br />*VERY MINOR SPOILER* I wont ruin anything, because this may actually make you not want to waste 2 hours watching this trash. All I will say is- in the end of Carlito's Way 2, we don't see Carlito go to jail. Now, I don't know about any of you, but I would have thought a prequel to Carlitos Way would show how he ended up in jail. I even had some interest in actually seeing what happened.<br /><br />Now, thats not my only problem with the film. The actor who played Carlito did not do too bad a job, but he could not have saved this film if he tried. There's not even all those little things that should be thrown in there that Carlito's Way fans would like. You don't see any appearance of Kleinfeld or other key characters in the first one, I would have liked to see something like that. What is even worse, is Luis Guzman is in this film, yet he doesn't play the same character he plays in the first film. Big mistake on their part, why cast the same actor for a different character, it made the movie worse than it already was.<br /><br />Bottom line, I am a Carlito's Way fan, this new straight to DVD release is a disgrace. If you are a fan, don't watch this movie coming in with high expectations. This movie did basically nothing for me, and it is definitely one movie I wont be picking up on DVD, or watching ever again.
This movie is terrible. Carlitos Way(1993) is a great film. Goodgfellas it isn't but its one of the better crime films done. This movie should be considered closer to THE STING Part2 or maybe speed Zone. Remember those gems! The only reason this movie was made was to capitalize on the cult following of the original. This movie lacked everything De Palma, Pacino and Penn worked so hard on. There wasn't a likable character and that is the fault of everyone responsible for making it. I hope RISE TO POWER wins every RAZZIE it possibly can and maybe even invent some new categories to allow it be a record holder. After I watched this S@*T FEST movie, I sat down and watched the original Carlitos way to get th bad taste out of my mouth. After watching this I wish Pachanga came and whacked me out of my misery.
This was just a terrible movie. It hurt me to watch it. Almost every action was unmotivated within the context of the movie, the acting was really poor (P.Diddy was the best actor which really says something about the movie) and the plot was generally predictable. Some links to Carlito's Way were okay, for example his dream of one day moving to the Carribien, but on the whole they were weak. The love interest in my opinion was flat out wrong but hey that's debatable. Anyways I really wasn't expecting much before watching the movie and I guess you could say even those expectations weren't met. I feel bad for Jay Hernandez because he actually is a decent actor (Friday Night Lights). He's lucky though because I'm sure there won't be too many people watching this movie. I generally give movies a decent rating if they spark my interest at all so I'm gonna go ahead and give this one two stars. Better luck next time. And yes I did enjoy Carlito's Way.
Wow...what can I say...First off IMDb says this is in the late 60s...which means Carlito would be very close to going to prison, He got out in 75 and said he was in for 5 years. They used a bunch of nobody actors, and a story that didn't even make sense. They bring back only one actor, Guzman, and hes playing a totally different guy. Why did it end with him and this Puerto Rican chick? Wheres Gale? He said he was in love with her before. Wheres Kleinfeld? He said he knew him forever...You'd think he'd have been in this one. And if this made sense, where are Rocco and the black dude in the first one? It was all just stupid...This is an insult to Pacino and the first film.
Why oh why do people take good material and feel the need to change it some how? Having read the book on which this film is allegedly based a couple of years ago, I can say that there is little if anything from the original book. I went into this film with low expectations - i knew it would have a crappy telemovie feel to it - but it even failed to meet these.<br /><br />This is not a prequel - the only relationship it has with the original is the name. This is not the story of Carlito Brigante, it is the story of a totally different character who's been given the same name. They have just totally spat in the face of every Carlito's Way fan out there; adding insult to injury by casting Luis Guzman, who plays a crucial character in the original movie, in a different role.<br /><br />What's most disappointing is that now that this film has been made no other film will be made addressing the original, untouched material of the book Carlito's Way - something I really would have liked to have seen. I felt the same way about Chopper - they have four books as well as interviews worth of fantastic non-fictional material and could have made a brilliant biography of Australia's most feared underworld figure, instead they made a ho-hum film about a deranged but strangely pathetic small time crook (though Eric Bana's performance was spot-on). Now we will never get to see Carlito's real initial rise and fall.<br /><br />The three stars is because, looking at it purely as a stand-alone flick, it is not so appalling - there are some decent performances (Jay Hernandez is no Carlito but he could be good in other roles) and the story is not too bad. Even Puffy Combs suits his role. But they totally misunderstand the nature of the underworld at that time (I am a bit of a crime-non-fiction buff)- something which the original film and the books got right (having been written by then attorney and now judge Edwin Torres).<br /><br />The fact is though, it's not a stand alone - it's perhaps the most disappointing prequel ever filmed.
Deceptive Advertising... I saw a commercial for Carlitos Way: Rise to Power that states "From the Producer of Scarface and Carlito's Way" LETS GET IT STRAIGHT... Michael Bergman did not produce Scarface, in fact he was 'editing room assistant' for Scarface. Not to take away from Bergman's talent... but in my opinion he should of had a little more class. I think I can speak for the masses when I say... We hate being blatantly lied to. As far as the movie goes, It was poor at best. I did think Puff Daddy did a good job. Although, Luis Guzman should be ashamed for working on this film. Overall this film did not do a good job filling in the blanks for Carlito's Way. It's obvious this project was an attempt to make a quick buck rather a good film.
If you hit your head with a shovel, write the script with your feet, you may come close to the intelligence level of this movie. There is nothing in this movie that hasn't been done a thousand times in other gangster flicks and done much better. Those who think "Scarface" was some kind of hero to be looked up to or saw "Goodfellas", "Menace II Society" or "Dead Presidents" and thought MMM "That's the life for me!" will like this movie. I thought I'd give the movie a chance, since the premise was perfect for a prequel. I should have known better after seeing Mario Van Peebles and Sean Combs were involved. Anyone above a 4th grade education, see the original with Pacino, a real actor, and be satisfied.
I'm a big fan of Pacino movies. He's one of, if not the best, actors of this genre. However, this movie could've been a whole lot better even though it had a poor cast. All they had to do was tell the story of Carlito Brigante up until he went to jail. Instead it seemed like this was just one of many stories that could be told of Carlito. All or even some of the questions about his past that we wondered about in the original could've been answered. As far as I'm concerned, thats the only way you can make this movie. Instead we get this prequel that has almost NONE of the original characters in it, a character that plays a different part from the original (horrible move), and a totally different love interest for Carlito. Don't even get me started with Puffy. No way can I take that cat seriously as a gangsta after watching him dance in all his artists videos. Evertytime that dude opened his mouth I was waiting for him to start dancing. He made me laugh if anything. Mario Van Peeples surprised me with his role. I thought he was gonna give a lackluster performance due to his recent history. He did rather well. He was probably the most "believable" out of the entire cast in my opinion. Jay Hernandez did his best but doesn't have the skills right now in his career to take on this role. I appreciated his energy and his efforts though. Hard to follow up Pacino. The only way you could even have a clue about what kind of person Carlito was, is to watch the original. Otherwise, Carlito looks like a cold blooded killer in one scene then a spineless wimp in another. He was one of the baddest gangstas of his time but you would only see flashes of that in this movie. Maybe this is a pitiful way for Hollywood to try and make a 2nd prequel to cash in on this failure. Wouldn't surprise me.<br /><br />Overall, in my opinion, this movie fell well short or what it could've been. The only reason I gave it a 3 was because I laughed a lot and Mario Van Peeples earned some respect back with me. A serious director should've taken this movie and actually put time into the story and turned it into an actual prequel. I'm extremely disappointed that this movie wasn't taken seriously. They would've been better off making this into a mini-series on HBO and actually telling the story like the original suggests. At the end of the movie, they had the nerve to suggest that Carlito would have to come back to the city. HEEELLLLO....thats the part everyone wants to see!!! Then again, this is all just my opinion. I can't tell you how to waste your money.
I have to say this is one of the worst films I've ever seen. They had a pretty good storyline to go on, but than the messed it up so badly. First of all the cast is all wrong, where did that van peeble(crap actor btw) and puff daddy come from??? It looks like Carlito has come from the hood, and used to hang about with some real idiots. This film doesn't do "Carlitos Way" any justice. Im so happy that the sequel "Carlito's Way" came out first, if I had seen this rubbish first, I would have never given the pacino version a chance. And anyway, pacino is supposed to have read this story, thought it's crap and did the sequel instead. Carlito's Way: Rise to Power - 1 out of 10. Carlito's Way - 9 out of 10.
This was so lame that I turned the DVD off...maybe halfway through. It was so weak, I couldn't even pay full enough attention to tell you how far in I made it.Though I really wanted to believe that the depiction of the young Carlito would be somewhat different, I just couldn't buy it. I don't really blame the actors, because I think it was the script that may have fallen flat. I did find myself laughing a few times, but I don't think those lines were intended to be funny.<br /><br />It's only saving grace is that I bought it in a 2 DVD set and I would have paid the price I did for the original alone. This is one of those cases when they should have let the classic stand alone.
Carlito Way, the original is a brilliant story about an ex-drug dealer who hopes to leave his criminal past and so he invests in a club and the deals with the trouble that comes with it.<br /><br />This film was....<br /><br />I saw the trailer and knew instantly it was going to be bad..But after dismissing films in the past and finding out they were great( Lucky Number Slevin, Tokyo Drift)...I gave this a shot and it failed within the first five minutes...<br /><br />The script is something a teenager would come up with if given five minutes to prepare...It was weak, with weaker dialogue. It seems there is an instant need for romance in a gangster movie. So Brigante decides to beat a guy up for the girl....and she say's 'Yes!' And if you need to act bad just throw racism around...As we learn from the 'Italian mobsters'...<br /><br />The acting was terrible to say the least...I found 'Hollywood Nicky', hilarious.<br /><br />I absolutely hate all these musicians turning to movies. Lets face it the only reason P Diddy did this movie was so he could play a gangsters...The actress who plays Leticia was weak but beautiful. The sex scene was weak but we got to see her..which was okay...<br /><br />But overall I expected it shed light on how Carito ended up in prison and the love of his life...And the assassin towards the end completely added to the horrendous movie that is...<br /><br />Carlito's Way: Rise to Power..
this film was totally not what i expected. <br /><br />if this film was called something else no one would even notice the difference between the two. <br /><br />its really strange because i cannot see the point . the prequel and sequel lets just say don't make sense, the don't even match . maybe i am naive but ain't a vol 1 & vol 2 meant to match up. <br /><br />carlito was in jail in the 1st one and dies in the original, and in the prequel he lives and don't go jail. <br /><br />the plot was OK , but they should have changed round some actors and some of the story line and the name of the film and it would have been a good film .<br /><br />i really expected it to end like the other one started. <br /><br />if some one has a opinion on this post it please.
really awful... lead actor did OK... the film, plot etc was completely crap and inaccurate it may as well have been a sequel to well... anything it had little or no relevance to Carlitos Way... and should be avoided like the plague by any Carlito's ways fans... no mention of Gail in fact he ends up with some other bird, no mention of Klienfelt, no mention of how he got caught, no mention of how he ended up in jail... they attempted to make it like the original with flash backs at the beginning... but to be honest when rating it I was looking for a zero mark... unfortunately I had to rate it higher...<br /><br />Its a terrible attempt to cash in on what was one of the best films of the 90's... overall it was approximately £6 and 2 hours of my life wasted... for all the "action" in it, it was truly boring slow and predictable... again to any Carltio's Way fans avoid this fiasco...
This is just a butchering of a wonderful story by Edwin Torres. This movie doesn't follow the storyline in the book. And, there are so many inconsistencies with the original movie that you have to wonder if the screenwriter had even seen the first movie.<br /><br />Al Pacino (the original and still the best Carlito) gets out of prison at the start of the original one. Here, Carlito retires with his woman in paradise. <br /><br />What happened to Gail from Lorain, Ohio? In this installment, she isn't mentioned, and Carlito retires with and presumably will marry some other girl.<br /><br />Also, where is Kleinfeld? I think he was in the first book.<br /><br />I also like how Mr. Guzman plays a totally different character in this film. He was Pachanga back in the Pacino days. Now, he is Nacho Reyes, a killer from Cuba. I remember that Nacho Reyes had a much bigger role in the book. <br /><br />It's been a while since I read the book, but where did Sean Comb's character come from? Also, I think this movie really glosses over the racial tensions in Harlem that Torres was writing about. And, the mob doesn't get the treatment that they did in the book. They are also wiped out in this movie. But, magically the Pleasant Avenue bunch is around for the second movie.<br /><br />The book told a great story. This movie could have told a great story. This is just a huge disappointment. Read the book. It's a better use of your time.
I watched this movie and the original Carlitos Way back to back. The difference between the two is disgusting. Now i know that people are going to say that the prequel was made on a small budget but that never had anything to do with a bad script. Now maybe it's just me, but i always thought that a prequel was made to go set up the other movie, starring key characters and maybe filling in a bit about life that we didn't know. Rise to Power is just a movie that has Carlito's name. There should have been at least a few characters from the original movie, the ending makes no sense in relation to the original. In the end of this movie he retires with his sweet heart but how the hell do we get him coming out of prison in the next movie? And his woman isn't even the same woman that he talks about as his only love in the original. I would say the movie is mildly entertaining in its self, with a few decent bits but it pales when held up to it's big brother. Don't lay awake at night waiting to see this, watch the original one more time if you really need a hit.
The movie and acting are not bad and Jay Hernandez does a good job playing Calito Brigante but the movie forgets it's suppose to be a prequel to a hit movie. The makers of this prequel clearly did not watch the original Carlito's Way or at least did not care about continuity. This movie is a prequel which means the original movie has already laid out some history for us and this movie should end where the original begins or at least lead up to it. Not one of Carlito's close old friends from the original make an appearance in this movie, they're not even mentioned. Luis Guzman, Pachanga in the original, is in the movie but he plays a completely different character. The original takes place in 1975 and the prequel takes place in 1969-70. Considering this movie takes place less than 5 years earlier, wouldn't you think one of Carlito's long time friends would make an appearance? In the original, Carlito start's out being released from jail after spending 5 years in jail. That's only a few month's between the end of the prequel and the start of the original! ***Semi Spoiler*** We know from the beginning of the original, Carlito has spent 5 years in prison so when the prequel gives us this Hollywood happy ending it's an insult to the intelligence of fans of the original. What happen to Gail? It's the lack of continuity that made this film go direct to video release.
This movie had potential and I was willing to give it a try but there are so many timeline problems that are so obvious - it's hard to swallow being treated like such an idiot.<br /><br />Rise to Power is set in the late sixties. Carlito's Way is set in the mid to late seventies. For this movie to be realistic, it would have to be set in the fifties, if not the late forties.<br /><br />Rise to Power has no sign of Gail (Pennelope Ann Miller), no sign of Kleinfeld, no sign of Rolando that Carlito supposedly ran with in his "hey-day". None of the primary characters in the original film were in this movie. We're supposed to believe that Carlito met all these people in the span of a few years.<br /><br />Rise to Power ends with Carlito walking down the beach talking about retiring in paradise which is what he wanted to do in the original film. Also, the pre-quel creates the Rocco and Earl characters - what's supposed to happen with them since they are clearly not in Carlito's Way? It's also hard to understand how Carlito could have the relationship with the Italians he has in the original film watching the events of Rise to Power. Where are the Taglialucci's in this film? There is probably seven years between the two films and he spends five of them in prison. It's like trying to put a square plug into a round hole.<br /><br />It is obvious that no one was interested in telling a good story and that they were more interested in making some bucks by making an average gangster film and throwing a character called Carlito Brigante into the story. The film had some good moments but I think they would have been better off leaving this movie to stand by itself instead of trying to make it a prequel to Carlito's Way.<br /><br />If you feel determined to see this movie, the only advice I can give is to not think of the movie as a linear pre-quel. Think of it like the spaghetti westerns with Clint Eastwood's man with no name, in other words two movies that have the same character but aren't necessarily connected with each other.
Quote: theurgist: Anyone with an I.Q. over 50 would have seen this film what it is, an intelligent well acted prequel to a modern day classic, yes it doesn't have a blockbuster cast or a huge budget BUT it is still very well done and had me hooked for the full duration.<br /><br />An I.Q. over 50 you say.. that most mean you have an I.Q. lower than 50.. its name is CARLITOS WAY: Rise to power !!! meaning it should have something whit the first one to do.. <br /><br />all and all its a OK movie if.. YOU CHANGE THE TITLE AND NO CHARACTERS NAMED CARLITO BRIGANTE!!!<br /><br />P.s don't comment on a movie if you don't know anything about movies. but i guess an I.Q. under 50,, you wont know what the hell i am yelling about...<br /><br />Peace out!!
This movie is a bad attempt to make original fans feel complete. The one thing people have forgotten is the fact that the reason the original won such acclaim, was strictly do to the fact that it was supposed to make you feel incomplete.<br /><br />This movie makes me want to go to the washroom. I am not a negative type of guy, but man the acting in this flick is.... no comment. The plot was a bad reflection of the life of Carlito Brigante and I am sorry to have had two hours of my time and my money wasted on this flick. I still love the original and will do my best not to let this movie ruin my opinion about it.
Soon after watching this film you will realize why it didn't even make it to the theaters! This movie does not deserve the "prequel" tag. Instead this is a common theme in Hollywood, rip off previously good movies with disastrous prequels, sequels, etc.<br /><br />This film's plot was bouncing all over the place like a ping pong ball, and the character development was non-existent. I seriously felt like I was watching a comedy at some points in the movie because the acting was so bad. P Diddy needs to stop tainting movies with his horrible acting, he actually made me laugh every time.<br /><br />The only good thing that comes out of this movie is Jaclyn DeSantis, who looks excellent in this movie and actually brought some enjoyment from watching this film.<br /><br />If you are a big Carlito's Way fan, I recommend you not watch this. If you decide to watch it anyway then treat this movie as if it ripped off the original, because that is exactly what it did.
Last night I decided to watch the prequel or shall I say the so called prequel to Carlito's Way - "Carlito's Way: Rise to Power (2005)" which went straight to DVD...no wonder .....it completely ...and I mean completely S%&KS !!! waist of time watching it and I think it would be a pure waist of time writing about it.... I don't understand how De Palma agreed on producing this sh#t-fest of a movie....except for only one fact that I tip my hat to... Jay Hernandez who plays the young Brigante.... reminded me how De Niro got into the shoes of Brando to portray the young Don Corleone in Godfather II ...but the difference De Niro was amazing and even got an Oscar for it !!! Jay Hernandez well he has guts for trying to be a young Pacino.... too bad for him I don't think he will be playing in film anymore and by the way after I watched this sh#$%ty movie, I sat down and watched the original Carlitos way to get the bad taste out of my mouth.
I will never forget the wit and great comedy of the ORIGINAL Vacation movie! The lines, pacing, and timing of events in that film are outstanding! However, this European Vacation sequel is a major let down.<br /><br />In this sequel, the Griswalds win a European Vacation on a game show. The problem is that many of the jokes in the film are little more than mild, "ha-ha" laughs. For example, a Flight Attendant on an airplane asks Clark, "Do you want your Coke in the Can?" Clark answers back, "No, I'll have it right here." That's really about the only line that is funny in this film.<br /><br />European Vacation's humor is strained. As if the writers borrowed all the jokes from the first movie, tried to re-hash a script that had been done before, and relied on a ridiculous slap-stick chase scene sequence toward the end of the picture just to kill time.<br /><br />Worse, the natural comic standouts like Randy Quaid as Cousin Eddie and the original kids who played Rusty and Audrey from the first movie so well are nowhere to be found. Their replacements are not funny, can't act, and just look like they are going through the motions most of the time. There are also a few crude sex jokes and comments that are not only not funny, they are in bad taste.<br /><br />The Griswald's should have stayed in Wally World. The place that made them legends! Don't join them on this European dreadful adventure. Viewers should re-watch the original Vacation movie in place of this! You'll be glad you did.
Any movie with "National Lampoon" in the title is absolutely guaranteed to die a death in London,England,Paris,France,Rome,Italy,and anywhere in Germany.It may be an institution in the U.S. but it is practically unknown in Europe to the larger audience."National Lampoon's European Vacation" is unlikely to rectify that situation. The appalling Griswalds are just that - appalling.They are not funny. Clearly Mr Chevy Chase thinks he's funny, after all Miss B.di Angelo laughs a lot at his jokes,but she's getting paid for it and didn't have to fork out £2.50 for the privilege. The section set in England is typical.The same old same old TV performers, Messrs Idle,Smith,Coltrane,Miss M.Lippman trot out the same old same old tired clichés,Mr Chase gets lost in the hotel corridor....yawn,yawn,yawn.. Bucking - ham Palace,Big Ben......I feel cheated that we never saw bobbies on bicycles two-by-two.........rosie red cheeks on the little chil - dren,need I go on? The English are buffoons,the French vicious - tongued Yank-haters.The Germans pompous and puffed up,(don't mention the war,Clark),and the Italians lecherous bottom-pinchers.Have I forgotten anything? Every possible "comic" situation is worked to death,Mr Chase gurns desperately,Miss di Angelo dimples sweetly,the children are embarrassingly bad. The fact that this franchise ran as long as it did must bring comfort to those who propound that you never lose money by underestimating public taste.
Some amusing humor, some that falls flat, some decent acting, some that is quite atrocious. This movie is simply hit and miss, guaranteed to amuse 12 year old boys more than any other niche.<br /><br />The child actors in the movie are just unfunny. When you are making a family comedy, that does tend to be a problem. Beverly D'Angelo rises above the material to give a funny, and dare I say it, human performance in the midst of this mediocrity.
John Hughes wrote a lot of great comedies in the '80s. "European Vacation" is not one of them. The follow-up to Hughes' first big hit "Vacation" (1983), is about as predictable, unfunny and annoying as they come -- no matter how much you love the dumb but romantic Clark and Ellen Griswold (Chase and D'Angelo).<br /><br />I greatly enjoyed "Vacation" as well as the third film, 1989's "Christmas Vacation," but the Griswold's trip to Europe is bland and forced. Perhaps because this was Hughes' first attempt at a sequel that he didn't get it, but it's really dumbfounding how uninspired and devoid of a story "European Vacation" is. There is no through story: the Griswolds win a game show for being "greedy little pigs" and go on a tour of Europe through England, France, Germany and Italy. Even the screwball physical humor that is the trademark of the first loses all effect because you see it coming, which is part director Amy Heckerling's fault. The "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" director sets everything up too predictably.<br /><br />Maybe it was Hughes taking a cheap shot because he was put up to the sequel. "European Vacation" takes great pride in insulting Americans (recall the greedy little pig game show they win), especially tourists, represented by the cornball Griswold family. It also pats itself on the back implicitly saying "oh us Griswolds, we're always getting into something because our dad is an idiot." Then in nearly comic fashion it ends with a tribute to America and how grateful the Griswolds are to return to such a better country. If Hughes was going for satire and meant to do it in the form of a bad movie, well maybe I should award this 8/10 stars.<br /><br />It's not just the unfunniness, but "European Vacation" boasts the two worst actors to play kids Rusty and Audrey (Jason Lively and Dana Hill). They're both annoying and obnoxious, with the unattractive and loud-mouthed Audrey blubbering about the boyfriend she's left behind nearly the entire film. Hughes even goes as far as to have her comment about missing him right as she observes a giant bratwurst. Quite tasteful. Speaking of, breasts are flashed in two different scenes for no good reason (unless it was to comment on Americans' love of gratuitous nipples in their comedies).<br /><br />I will give the film one of its two stars thanks to Eric Idle of the Monty Python crew, whose cameo at a few different points in the film where he recites lines directly from "Holy Grail" is about the funniest part. If Hughes intended for us to find one of the film's only non- American actors as the only funny part, then another tip of the hat to him for ripping open the underbelly of Hollywood comedy in the '80s. Still, would it have hurt for him to do that while making it entertaining?
The second in the Vacation series is easily the least enjoyable one, as Clark Griswold wins a trip for the whole family to Europe.<br /><br />The tasteless, below the belt humor that worked so well the first time around is practically nonexistent here. That fault surely lies with director Hackerling, who's obviously nowhere near as good a director as Harold Ramis and a very uninspiring script that has only a handful of decent lines scattered around.<br /><br />The cast does what they can; Chevy Chase injects some form of life into the proceedings but it's simply not enough and the very funny Eric Idle is completely wasted in a small role as a very unlucky Englishman. Some potentially hilarious moments aren't played out to their full potential and leave the viewer mostly aggravated. All depictions of Europeans are one-dimensional and almost universally not funny at all (like how the English are SOOO polite).<br /><br />Apart from a few scenes, there's hardly a laugh in sight and the ending turn this one into complete slapstick. But if you're a Chevy Chase fan (like myself) the film is watchable, but no more than that.
The goofy Griswalds win the T.V. game show "pig in a poke" grand prize, and all fly off together to Europe where they manage to cause one stupid disaster after another. Of all the ridiculous, unfunny money-spinning sequels this one beats the lot. Harold Ramis' 1983 film was a below average misadventure in which the misfit family went on a nightmarish "Vacation" across the States. This time Amy Heckerling ("Look Who's Talking") helms what turns out to be a disastrous "comedy" which will annoy you more than it will make you laugh.<br /><br />Hughes script (with Rob Klane) is awful and you wonder why the likes of Chevy Chase and Beverly D'Angelo bothered with such a dead-beat project, as even Anthony Michael Hall and Imogene Coca had the sense to decline the offer. Even an omnipotent Michael Palin is unable to lift proceedings to any level that one could call entertaining.<br /><br />Yet, as inconceivable as it may seem, "European Vacation" was successful enough to warrant a second sequel! Surely it couldn't be as unbearable as this one. You know, I have yet to see a National Lampoon show that was worth the bother.<br /><br />Monday, December 26, 1994 - T.V.
European Vacation (aka National Lampoon's European Vacation) is the weakest of the Vacation films (the first and third one the most superior of the films). While Chevy Chase and Beverly D'Angelo return as Clark and Ellen Griswold (with new actors in the roles of Russ and Audrey Griswold), this time they are given a weaker script with very bad dialogue. This causes the pacing to suffer, with the jokes not very funny at all. To be more specific, what really causes this film to suffer is the fact that the "jokes" as they are, are just pasted together into a cobbled-together script), rather than serving a central plot as the other 3 Vacation films have. Oh well, they can't win them all. 4 out of 10.
Read on and take note - you could save 88 minutes of your life (was that all!).<br /><br />Unremittingly bleak, this film sets out to produce (I'm guessing) a modern small town American Christmas fable in the Capra style. If fails....completely and absolutely fails. I've been trying to think of one good thing about it and can't. Let me mention some of the highlights ...<br /><br />People don't die, they get to spend eternity as immigrant workers in Santa's factory. Angels are actually ex-cowboys who sit in trees. Santa can bring people back from the dead (if you send him a nice letter). <br /><br />And the plot.. I won't spoil it for you but there has to be some light in films if only to contrast with the darkness but there isn't any. Even the photography is bleak - snow shown at the end of a freeze, everywhere looking cold, damp and miserable. <br /><br />As you might guess, the film has a happy (schmaltzy) ending. What a relief !
This was the WORST Christmas movie I ever saw. I took my two small children to see this. It was the darkest, most dismal plot- family has no money, mom loses her job, father gets killed in the bank, bank robber steals family car with both kids in the back and after high speed chase, drives off the bridge and drowns them in the river. Mom is left all alone. No wonder her Christmas spririt is gone. Christmas angels do not rescue children that have drowned, and Santa does not bring back dead fathers! I thought this was the WORST message to send children. Better to tell them that there is NO Santa than show them a movie like this!!
First of all, let me say that this is not the movie for people looking to watch something spirited and joyous for the holidays. This movie is cold, brutal, and just downright depressing. Mary Steenburgen plays a grinchy mom who is down on Christmas because her husband has lost his job, they are losing their house, can't buy Christmas presents for the kids, etc. You get the idea, happy stuff for the holidays. So along comes Harry Dean Stanton as Gideon the Christmas angel, who in his dark hat and long overcoat comes off more like a pedophile who hangs around children all day observing them. What better way to instill the spirit of Christmas in Mary Steenburgen than to kill off her family and then offer to bring them back if she believes in Christmas again. Santa Claus is a blackmailer and his Christmas workshop looks more like a haven for refugee Nazis on the lam. The movie lays everything on so thick that you don't care about the happy ending when it comes because the rest of the movie is so bitter and unbelievable. I'm sure this film wanted to be something Capra-like, but it left out the joy and sentiment on what a holiday film should be.
Sorry, but I will spoil both the plot line and the ending for you in hopes of avoiding a holiday fiasco like the one that I now face. The father dies and the mother asks Santa in a letter to bring him back to the family for Christmas,...and Santa does. Dad is peachy, happy healthy and totally unaware of the fact that he had died. All ends syrupy sweet.<br /><br />But as a parent who recently watched my five year-old lose his best canine friend, it was a horror flick. Now my son is convinced that all he has to do to bring his buddy back is to ask Santa! Do not underestimate the willpower of a young heart- no amount of persuasion will convince him that it was only a movie and that his dog is NOT coming back for Christmas. It has been heart breaking to watch his joy only to know that Christmas Eve he will have to face his loss afresh.<br /><br />Shame on you on behalf of all the believers that have lost a loved one recently. It is hard enough to deal with the loss one time for a child, but there are some wishes that we shouldn't even portray as a possibility.
I thought this was one of the most depressing holiday movies I have ever seen--the others being THE Christmas WIFE and JACK FROST. All three movies are about death. If you LIKE being thoroughly depressed, then by all means watch this film or any of the others. In this film, the acting is good and some of the scenery (apart when people are dying) is lovely. But, I am worried that a clinically depressed person might accidentally see the film and do themselves in! Despite a "happily ever after" ending, the major portion of this film is one awful disaster following another. And, for some crazy reason, I DON'T WANT TO BE DEPRESSED when I watch a Christmas movie (I know this sounds crazy folks--after all, isn't bawling your eyes out and feeling miserable what the holidays are all about anyway?).<br /><br />For a more uplifting viewing experience, try the forgotten HOUSE WITHOUT A Christmas TREE, George C. Scott's Christmas CAROL or A Christmas STORY instead--unless of course you like being miserable.
My spouse & I found this movie to be very schlocky. It started out good, but quickly got unbelievable & ridiculous. Most of the acting was poor, with the exception of the little girl, Abbie, who really was terrific. In addition, the dialog was predictable & lame - especially Gideon, the Angel's. Also, without giving away anything, when one of the characters has a tragedy, she almost appears nonchalant. At first we thought it was 'shock', but then we realized that it was just a terrible script. We love almost all of the Hallmark movies & their heart-warming stories, but this movie doesn't rise to the occasion of being one. There are so many great ones - don't waste your time with this horrible movie.
I'm not usually given to hyperbole, but after seeing over two decades worth of Academy Awards, I can honestly say that this year's awards show was the most disgraceful example of poor direction, total cruelty, and sheer stupidity that I've ever had the misfortune to witness. I'm not talking about the awards themselves- as usual, there is plenty to argue about when you tally up who won, who lost, and who never even got nominated, but the process is as it's always been and is as fair as it's liable to be. What is terribly UNfair is the treatment both the "stars" and "non-stars" received at the hands of Cates and Horvitz, in the name of "reducing boredom."<br /><br />It is bad enough that for the last several years anyone who isn't Al Pacino has been "played off" at 45 seconds without any regard for what he was saying, how he was saying it, and what the emotion was behind the statement. It demonstrates nothing more than a total lack of respect, however, to herd nominees on the stage like cattle without paying them the honor of showing their faces while their names are read, to make them slink away quietly when they lose, to deny them the thrill of a walk to the podium, and to force them to read their statements with their backs to the audience. All of those things were done to the "non-stars" -never mind that the movies wouldn't exist at all without those artists and that most of them only ever get one chance to face their peers and their audience. <br /><br />The stars didn't fare much better. It's becoming more sad than funny when winners of the caliber of Hilary Swank and Clint Eastwood have to beg for a few extra seconds for their speeches. Chris Rock, as host, was neither as inflammatory and controversial as the Academy had hoped, nor nearly as funny as he could be. His opening remarks were almost (but not quite) as offensive as Sean Penn made them out to be, and his comments during the show were more innocuous than interesting. Of course, he could hardly be blamed when it was clear that was being kept on as short a leash as any host has. In the end, Chris Rock was something he's almost never been before: a non-entity.<br /><br />Even the musical numbers were handled poorly. Beyonce sang well, but there was simply no reason why she should have been featured in three out of the five songs. Another example of utter disrespect for an artist was giving Jorge Drexler's nominated song to Antonio Banderas- even though Drexler was present and clearly wouldn't have minded singing his own song, based on his winning "speech." <br /><br />The efforts of Cates and Horvitz to make the show shorter and faster may have worked to a degree, but what resulted was a show devoid of life. We've all whined about the overlong speeches given by people we don't know, about the overblown production, about the self-congratulatory quality. But this is THEIR night- not ours. What is meant to be a celebration has become an insult to the people being celebrated. Cates and Horvitz should, frankly, be ashamed.
Seriously the only good thing about this year ceremony were the winners.<br /><br />Although the ceremony itself was pretty short it still was somewhat boring. I think it's seriously time to look for a new director and producers for the show, who can come up with something REALLY new. It's pretty obvious that they tried to make the show more 'hip' and appealing for a younger audience this year by letting Beyonce perform and letting P. Diddy and Prince present a category. Also letting Chris Rock be the presenter was an attempt to re-new the ceremony and make it more appealing. None of it really worked out.<br /><br />Sure, Chris Rock is a funny guy but he wasn't really a good presenter. I really merely saw him as a guy who just talked every now and then in between of the different categories. His presence wasn't really as 'big' as for instance Billy Crystal's.<br /><br />Also the handing out of the awards was pretty dumb at times. Not letting everybody come to the stage but also handing out some of the awards in the middle of the theater was plain weird.<br /><br />Still, I can't remember being any more satisfied with the award winners. None of the movies really swept away the awards as the last couple of years always had been the case. So does that mean it had been a good year for movies with lots of competitive contestants? I don't think so. I think most of the movies will be largely forgotten in 20 years from now, with the exception of "Million Dollar Baby" and "The Passion of the Christ" maybe. Sure I don't agree with every single award that was handed out this year, for instance Caleb Deschanel should had won for best cinematography, not that I don't like Robert Richardson's work, he really did some amazing work for most of Oliver Stone's work but I really feel that Deschanel deserved the award way more. Also I would had liked seeing Jim Miller and Paul Rubell win for best editing and John Debney for best music. But oh well, there is no way the Academy Awards can please everybody of course, I understand that. There will always be people complaining about the winners.<br /><br />It also was funny to see that most of the award presenters were way more nervous than the nominees and winners. Did Prince said any of the nominees names right at once? And were is Sean Penn's sense of humor? Al Pacino and Jeremy "I hope they missed" Irons were the best presenters of the night.<br /><br />Overall a very forgettable show but with nice winners.<br /><br />4/10
I firmly believe that the best Oscar ceremony in recent years was in 2003 for two reasons: <br /><br />1 ) Host Steve Martin was at his most wittiest: " I saw the teamsters help Michael Moore into the trunk of his limo " and " I'll better not mention the gay mafia in case I wake up with a poodle's head in my bed " <br /><br />2 ) Surprise winners: No one had Adrien Brody down for best actor ( Genuine applause ) or Roman Polanski for best director ( Genuine jeers and boos ) but they won <br /><br />Last year's award ceremony wasn't too bad but there was little in the way of surprises and I was happy to see RETURN OF THE KING sweep the awards even if it wasn't the best in the trilogy ( FELLOWSHIP was much better )but what let the BBC coverage down was Jonathan Ross getting a few of his sycophantic mates round and pretending they were hilarious when they were anything but . So when I heard Sky were doing the coverage for British TV I was expecting Barry Norman and Mark Kermode to be doing the links , but instead we ended up with Jamie Theakston and Sharon Osbourne ! Oh gawd if British TV are desperate for film critics ( Obviously they are ) I'm sure both Bob The Moo and Theo Robertson will happily fly over to LA to give their honest opinions on the winners and losers <br /><br />Chris Rock wasn't too bad , but he's no Steve Martin while the location seemed to resemble a sports hall with seats put in ! Not much of a glitzy arena in my opinion . The main problem I had with the ceremony was the format with the " minor " Oscars handed out to the winners who were sitting in their seats ! There's no such thing as a " minor " Oscar and just because the award is for Best Animated Short or Best Costume Design they're as well deserved as Best Picture or Best Director . All the winners should be allowed to march up to the podium . What a bunch of arrogant snobs the Academy are becoming and I quite agree with the comments that this format is disgraceful and if it wasn't for the surprises this could possibly have been the worst ceremony in history . As for the awards themselves <br /><br />Best Supporting Actress - Cate Blanchett . No great surprise for a competitive category <br /><br />Best Supporting Actor - Morgan Freeman . No real complaints since Freeman is one of America's greatest living character actors <br /><br />Best Actor - Jamie Foxx . Most predictable award of the night . Yawn <br /><br />Best Actress - Hilary Swank . Major surprise since everyone thought Annette Benning was going to win simply down to academy politics but Swank did deserve it and gave the best speech of the night <br /><br />Best Director - Clint Eastwood . Major surprise since everyone thought Scorsese was going to get the award simply because he'd never won one . Actually I'm glad about this because if he didn't deserve it for TAXI DRIVER , RAGING BULL or GOODFELLAS he didn't deserve it for THE AVIATOR <br /><br />Best Film - MILLION DOLLAR BABY . Again another major surprise since everyone thought the academy would split the awards for best director and best picture while I thought the Hollywood friendly plot of THE AVIATOR would have made it a dead cert for Best Picture while MDB's controversial subject matter would have turned a lot of voters off <br /><br />What these awards perhaps illustrate is that this year the voters have decided to ignore Oscar politics and genuinely give out awards to people who deserve it something they haven't done in the past , I mean A BEAUTIFUL MIND beating THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING for gawd's sake ! And long may the academy vote with their heads instead of their hearts
Like last year, I didn't manage to sit through the whole thing. Okay, so Chris Rock as a host was a good choice because he was vaguely engaging. Or rather, out of all the total bores packed into the theatre, he at least wasn't in the Top 10 Most Boring. A lot of the presenters, on the other hand, were in this coveted Top 10. I hadn't known that the whole thing had been done by autocue (although I knew it was scripted) but it was really terrible to see these supposedly good actors unable to insert expression, look away from the cue and stumble over simple words (Natalie Portman…if there's no director, she's gone). The Night of Fancy Dresses and Boring Speeches was long and tedious, Beyonce Knowles butchered some good songs and there were very few decent acceptance speeches and clips. Adam Sandler wins the Worst Presenter award.<br /><br />For helping me write this review I'd like to thank my Mum, my Dad, my lawyers and my pedicurist for all believing in me, and I'd like to point out that I have a high metabolism and of course I haven't been starving myself for a month. I'm not going to cry...thank you.
This one acts as a satire during the women's rights movement era. Of course, that doesn't mean COACH (the movie) is a wonderful experience to behold. It runs into the same vein as FASTBREAK (which was better, but still tame), and is basically standard fare fluff. What I mean for this movie being uninteresting is simple to recognize. Anybody who serves time away from a normal job by training a bunch of lunatics earning their way to sudden victory makes waste. It's the same feeling you may get after watching this. A nice attempt at casting the opposite sex for a man's duty, but I expected better things.
I watched this movie when I was a young lad full of raging hormones and it was about as sexy a movie as I had ever seen-or ever was to see. It may not have been a great movie. My guess is it wasn't. I don't really remember much about it, to tell you the truth. I only remember the sexual chemistry between Crosby and Biehn. No woman in ANY movie has ever done it for me as the unbelievably sexy Cathy did in this movie. I haven't seen it since that first time I caught it on TV in the 70s and I don't think I'd want to see it again since I'm sure it would be a disappointment-my hormones aren't as raging and I've become more jaded over the years. Still, when I think back on the shower scene I can still remember how great it felt way back when.<br /><br />Added later: After watching the movie again, I discovered that it's dangerous to go home again. What was once erotic is now pretty tame. The older woman-younger man thing still works for me, just not as much as it once did, probably because I'm no longer a 12-year-old. That older woman is now younger than I am. Also, the amateurishness of the whole thing wasn't perceived by my twelve-year-old mind. <br /><br />Moral: Sometimes it's better not to revisit the past.
This movie is about a very sexy Olympic track star who is hired to coach a high school boys' basketball team. Similar to Goldie Hawn's WILDCATS, it stars Cathy Lee Crosby in the title role, and she does as about as well as the script allows. I think Racquel Welch would have been a better choice, but considering the film's apparent TV movie budget, they probably couldn't afford her. Cathy Lee does look great in every shot, but we never get to see her completely nude. The story is pretty predictable, to say the least, offering no surprises. A young and lucky Michael Biehn has the male lead role. He is the star on the team and also the love interest for Cathy Lee. Keenan Wynn has a few amusing scenes as the rich old man who runs the athletic program and doesn't think a woman should coach sports. This point is brought up throughout the film, and, needless to say, is dated. Ironically, Cathy Lee doesn't put her team through any unorthodox practice sessions; she doesn't do anything a male coach wouldn't do. There is a funny subplot involving a tall and not-so-bright player who undergoes hypnosis in order to pass his classes and play like pro basketball player Sydney Wicks. It looks like everyone had a good time making this film, but the only real reason to see it is for Cathy Lee Crosby. She's not that great an actress, but she has a dazzling smile, beautiful hair, and a very tan body.
A high school principal (Keenan Wynn) with a losing basketball team unwittingly hires a coach who turns out not only to be a gorgeous blond woman (Cathy Lee Crosby) but a catalyst for their new winning ways. Are you really surprised? Along the way a romance grows between the coach and the team's star player Jack (Michael Biehn). The police are never notified.<br /><br />Packaged along with other Crown International Pictures as a grindhouse movie really does this film no service. This can easily be edited into a television movie of the week. Cathy Lee Crosby looks great as coach Randy Rawlings especially in her skimpy outfits but I expected more than mere titillation from an R-rated film. A side plot involving a dorky center who is hypnotized by his teammates into thinking he is former NBA player Sydney Wicks is the actual reason for the team's new success rather than Cathy Lee's coaching. Too much tease and not enough sleaze makes this a major disappointment.
I found the DVD version of this movie at a rummage sale. The basic premise is an affair between a teacher/coach a student. The acting is weak and the plot razor thin.<br /><br />This movie had all the depth and plot development of an adult film.
Seemingly intended to be a thriller of a movie winds up being almost laughable. It prompted me to exclaim "Oh my God!" more than once at the convoluted contrivances of plot that were just plain silly.<br /><br />Fanciful or absurd locations just for the sheer novelty or dramatic situation and improbable, near impossible, human reactions and circumstances are too much to be comprehended as to why they exist.<br /><br />If you have the time and wish to discover just how bad a picture can be then you will want to see this one. Otherwise dedicate some time into watching some paint dry for a more productive investment of time!<br /><br />(That a film released in 2003 is already being shown on TV in July 2003 might give an indication of the film's quality)
There is one good thing in this movie: Lola Glaudini's ass! Sorry to be so blunt but it's the truth. Too bad she didn't do a nude. It would at least have made this mess tolerable. We see another chick's boobs but she's nowhere near Lola. And man, is Armand Assante old or what? The man looks like crap! "Consequence" is the usual B-Movie you would expect. The story had potential. It's like they had good ideas but didn't know how to execute them. The cinematography is just plain awful. Ugly! The directing is uninspired and the end result is a bland thriller with lame twists and washed up actors. Lola Gaudini is great as the vixen in a cheap, slutty way but not even she saves "Consequence" from being trash and not funny trash, just plain old stinking trash.
I saw this film a while ago on a Video CD.<br /><br />I will 1st mention the good points.<br /><br />The movie, at first, at least tries to appear that it is not biased, like not showing one character as black and the other as white. Both main characters are friends and co-exist very well in an country and economy that is not booming while at the same time not failing. Their families get together and have parties and they practice their favorite sport, Sport Rifle shooting, as comrades not as competitors.<br /><br />But, after the 1st 15 minutes the plot runs into a fork in the road. The audience is expected to believe that for some unknown reason these friends must hate each other. That for some unknown reason Bosnia is now on a path to conflict. Sure, the script adds in TV footage which the characters appear to be watching live news programs in English, but the clips are from 1993 not 1992 when the war began.<br /><br />The history, the 1990 elections, the people who caused the war are not mentioned. The movie tries to place the blame with Karadzic, who had been a Presidential candidate and leader of the Bosnian Parliament's 2nd Largest Party(SDP). According to the Constitution of Bosnia, the SDP was to have the Presidency in 1992, but there was a Coup in January. The Bosnian Islamic Democratic Action Party seized total control and held a segregated referendum in March in which it declared itself the law in Bosnia and announced Secession.<br /><br />The history of the IDAP begins with Bosnian Muslim Alija Izetbegovic, a man suspiciously absent from "STtH". He was a student of Nazism in WW2. He even wrote his own "Mein Kampf" in which he stated: "It is not in fact possible for there to be any peace or coexistence between 'the Islamic Religion' and non-Islamic social and political institutions".<br /><br />In 1990 he lost the IDAP elections to "pro-Yugoslavia Moderate" Fikret Abdic, a Bosnian Muslim, that worked with Christian Serbs during the Civil War, and who treated his supporters like brothers. Abdic was prevented from taking power by Izetbegovic, who lost the elections but seized the seat of power.<br /><br />The events from above are missing from the movie, but they are the factual events that lead to the war.<br /><br />There were problems with props too. Serb soldiers in the movie were wearing Soviet WW2 helmets, which they did not use. Also the one soldier was holding an M-1944 WW2 rifle only used by USSR not Yugoslavia.<br /><br />The Director and Script Writers had a chance, but they chose to re-write history.
This is an anti-Serb propaganda film made for TV.<br /><br />"The Muslims are good; the Orthodox Christian Serbs are BAD." <br /><br />That's the message.<br /><br />Using "entertainment" to get across a propaganda message is nothing new.<br /><br />This movie lays it on thick.<br /><br />And apparently many viewers and reviewer lap it up.<br /><br />I know better.<br /><br />The Serbs, under General Draza Milhalovitch and his Chetniks, saved over 500 shot-down US fliers from the Germans in World War II.<br /><br />Churchill decided to betray Milhalovitch and put British backing behind communist Tito. Roosevelt followed suit and as a result, after the war ended Yugoslavia was delivered over to communist Tito.<br /><br />And US ally Milhalovitch has been smeared by the media ever since.<br /><br />This movie is part of the anti-Serb propaganda campaign engineered by George Soros and his International Crisis Group (ICG) which culminated in the Kosovo "War," in which Serbia was bombed by NATO because of totally false claims by the ICG of "mass graves" in Kosovo filled with "victims" of the nasty Serbs. The fact that there were no such mass graves and the Albanians (Muslims) had no business being in Serbia's Kosovo are facts that most of the media won't print.<br /><br />I chose this movie to watch because the one-sentence description on the video cover looked interesting.<br /><br />Imagine my disgust when I discovered I had been fooled into renting another branch of the propaganda machine aimed at Serbia.<br /><br />Instead of this propaganda someone should make a movie about the unwillingness of the Clinton Administration to come clean with the Congress and with the American people about its complicity in the delivery of weapons from Iran to the Muslim government in Sarajevo.<br /><br />I won't hold my breath waiting for such a movie.
Previous comment made me write this. It says that Muslims are blonde and Serbs are dark (because our blood is mixed). This comment just says that this opinion can be made by racist.Look,race is nothing.I'm color blind.I look like Pierce Brosnan but I'm no Irish. So what?I might add that I am not 100% Serb,that I have some Austrian and Croat blood within me but whats the point.I'm dark, half-breed?Is that so? Anyone using racial prejudices with such bad intent like Lantos(producer9and director is racist for me.Karadzhic, Izetbegovich, Milosevic, Tudjman they are all monsters and I blame them for destroying my life, my family, my country, Yuggoslavia. Hope they will be all in hell but that wont return our dead relatives back. I am proud of being Serb and I am proud of my cousins, Austrians,Croats,Muslims, Hungarians, Arabs (yes I am from Serbia and I have multiethnical family).This movie doesn't show sufferings of Serbs or Croats within Sarayevo,terrible terrorism of street gangs,Muslim extremism.I add: I kneel and pray for all innocent sisters and brothers Muslim,catholic or orthodox, killed in this war.This film is manipulation with our misery,false humanitarianism's which doesn't help at all.It helps Lantos to fill his pockets with more doe,alright!
Bamboo House of Dolls (1973, 1974 or 1977, various years are given for this title) is a Hong Kong veteran Chin Hung Kuei's (Killer Snakes, Boxer's Omen, Payment in Blood etc.) women in prison flick produced by the legendary Shaw Brothers. Yes, even they got their hands into low exploitation sickies like this, and Bamboo is definitely among the worse attempts of the whole genre, even when compared to the Western attempts that usually pale in comparison with the Eastern films!<br /><br />The story is about a Japanese war camp in which the Chinese women are brutalized, abused and raped by the bad Japanese (what else?) during the World War II. The girls also know a secret place in which a box full of gold is hidden and also learn that a Chinese military officer raised in Japan (Shaw veteran Lo Lieh) is actually now an undercover agent among the other Japanese and naturally helps the girls escape the hell. What follows is sequences full of gratuitous nudity, female kung fu, some nasty torture, gore, sleaze and extremely offensive anti Japan attitude that make this film pure and honest garbage that doesn't even try to be more than it is.<br /><br />There are hardly any interesting elements in Bamboo House of Dolls. The occasional photography especially at the end looks nice with its sunbeams and beautiful nature but that's about it in the merits department. The fight scenes are plenty and always include half naked females hitting and kicking each other. The violence overall is quite nasty at times with several bullet wounds, misogynistic torture scenes (for example, one poor girl is brutalized on the floor filled with broken glass etc.) and extremely repulsive ending and moral behind it. Of course it is stupid to talk about "moral" when writing about this kind of film, but still there are elements I won't accept to be found from any film.<br /><br />The film has also some enjoyable turkey elements for sure! For example, the gold box, filled with heavy gold, seems suspiciouly light as the weak and suffered girls don't seem to have any problems lifting and moving it, not to speak of throwing it! Also those numerous "skin fight scenes" make this quite smile inducing for fans of trash cinema. I have seen the same director's Killer Snakes (1973) which is ten times more noteworthy as a piece and even though it has many alive snakes killed for real, it is also visually more interesting and shows us some nasty sides of the other side of the big city and society. Also, it is a must for those who fear snakes.<br /><br />Bamboo House of Dolls has suffered some censorship, too, which isn't a surprise considered the subject matter. The uncut version, (dubbed into a non-English language) released in Europe at least in France, Italy and Switzerland, runs 104 PAL minutes while the cut, English dubbed print released in Holland, Belgium and Greece runs only 84 minutes in PAL. From what I've heard, the cut scenes are not only violence or other graphic stuff but also dialogue and "plot development" and the like.<br /><br />Bamboo House of Dolls is garbage cinema in its most trashy form and definitely something I wouldn't have liked to see from the Shaw Brothers or Hong Kong in general. Some of the Italian exploitation films of the same subject matter are much more interesting and noteworthy than this quite ridiculous, calculated and worthless piece of cinema exploitation. 2/10
I was staying in one night and got extremely bored around 2:00 a.m. so I flipped aimlessly through the channels and happened upon H.B.O. where this "classic" was playing. Initially I was happy to have caught something at the beginning, but my happiness faded about two minutes into the movie. The whole movie centered around an unattractive man who had a fear of females, four beautiful but empty minded women who worked as waitresses at his uncle's diner, and his enormously fat and extremely miserable cousin who also works at the diner. There are a few strange twists in this movie that make it somewhat interesting, but certainly not worth watching. Basically, if you have nothing to do some night or just can't sleep medication works much better. However guys there is a lot of skin so it may be okay to watch with no sound, but even that can get annoying
Buford's Beach Bunnies gives B-grade T&A films a bad name. As a fan of the genre, I was appalled to find little attempt being made to exploit the young actresses talents. I refer specifically to the distinct lack of nudity and simulated sex scenes. What are the next generation of sad teenage boys watching this on late night TV supposed to think?
This is one of those awful, sex-driven B-movies that couldn't have played anywhere near a theater. Women run around dressed in scantily clad "bunny" outfits, an extremely fat woman is the brunt of many tasteless jokes, and they all work at the restaurant of a dirty old man, who has an oddball son (Jim Hanks, who is of course Tom's brother), whom the man wants to get "laid." Hanks is actually sort of good, but this movie goes nowhere and has no point. One must wonder why it was even made? Nevertheless, because of Hank's performance and a few entertaining moments(but no more than a few), it received a stellar "2" out of 10. I think I was being nice, though.
Incredibly muddled, off-putting and ultimately ludicrous ("the horses, oh my God, the horses!") thriller. It's creepy at times, but it has one of the worst scripts ever written for a horror film. Watch how in the final 10 minutes everybody "magically" does exactly what the plot needs for the "resolution" to occur. Bland performances by the leads, a typically eccentric one by Richard Lynch. The video transfer is a real hack job, cutting scenes in half and making the movie even more difficult to understand. 0 out of 4 stars.
I awake suddenly, aware that I'm drooling onto the plastic couch cover, and realize it's a warm Saturday afternoon. Why was I sleeping? Did I hit my head? Or accidentally swallow all of my grandma's muscle relaxers? Could it be adult onset narcolepsy? <br /><br />No, I momentarily paused on Cheap Seats while channel surfing, and the stunning lack of humor and talent drained my life force with such speed that I blacked out.<br /><br />It's that head-shaking, mouth-agape, shoulder-shrugging bad. But I have to give these moronic and boring twins credit for selling this idea through. Perhaps they had the same effect on the ESPN programming executive that they had on me, and when he/she woke up, a few horrendous episodes were already in the can and he/she hoped that since all the viewers will be asleep, no one will now how awful it is and he/she can keep the $425,000 annual salary.<br /><br />You've been warned.
I was going to say this was the worst gay-themed film I've ever seen, but I can honestly say this is the worst film if any genre I've ever seen.<br /><br />You know you're in trouble when a movie starts with a "personal note" from the Director, asking for the audience's "understanding" for the "many challenges" facing a first-time Director. The audio track is so bad in many scenes it's almost impossible to follow the dialogue, and this from a DVD version. Bad lighting, bad sets, bad photography, poor script, generally bad acting all add up to make this "film" unwatchable. I did make it through to the bad ending after several attempts, and immediately gave away the DVD I foolishly purchased. I'm sure there are many challenges facing a first-time Director. But, don't try to palm off this lame attempt as a finished product. I see from IMDb details that this was not only the first Directing attempt of Richard Natale, but also the only. That's the one positive thing I can say about this alleged "movie".
This is yet another depressing and boring film about AIDS and tragedy. It begins very uneventful and predictable and continues throughout the movie. I kept waiting for it to pick-up, but unfortunately it never did. The acting is fair, but the script needs A LOT of work. And if you're looking for the nudity, don't waste your time with these not so hot actors. Due to the poor sound quality and lack of captions, I missed 1/8 of the movie. If you have never seen over five gay films, or have recently come to terms with being gay, you may find this film interesting, otherwise it's your run-of-the-mill low budget movie. It ranks as one of the worst gay films I have ever seen.
Rather than move linearly from beginning to end, this story line of a gay couple impacted by AIDS "orbits" in time around their "perfect day." The film is organized as a life remembered in asynchronous fragments rather than in a sequential flow as one directly experienced.<br /><br />The narration has its lyrical moments, particularly in describing the impact of loss anticipated or experienced. The dialog unfortunately lacks such grace. The script frequently compels the actors to say startlingly stupid or insensitive things that seem utterly out of character at the moment. On their second accidental encounter, clearly smitten with each other, sensitive Phillip encourages a reluctant Guy to tell him about his difficult week. But the moment Guy begins to open up, Phillip, an English Major, blurts out "You're not a Crisis Fairy, are you?" Later, watching his lover's naked, chiseled body stride across the bedroom toward him, our young Shakespeare in love begins to render the beauty of the moment in words, "The way you cut through space....I can't even describe it"--but lacks the verbal skills to complete his thought. This kind of drivel continues through the AIDS Hospice scenes, bejeweled with lines like, "What made me think death would be all neat and tied up with ribbons?" and "You make Florence Nightingale look like Nurse Ratchet." <br /><br />The film often suffers from a bruising lack of subtlety. Unlikable characters are far more jarring and steamroller-flattened than they need to be. Phillip's thoroughly annoying friends--an arrogant trust fund brat and a whining, needy dweeb--maintain a running caustic diatribe about every one crossing their path. Such patter could offer a writer a wealth of opportunities for clever social commentary, but sadly, their remarks are merely unpleasant, ungraced by wit or insight. It's hard to know if our scriptwriter intentionally crafted intellectually limited characters or if he was simply running his tether's perimeter.<br /><br />The plot may be what most appeals to and resonates with those who praise this film. It does seriously explore 1980's US middle class gay life: first encounters, courting, coupling, nesting, the complexity of open relationships, friction and fracturing, dissolution, physical abuse, rapprochement, forgiveness, terminal illness, death and survival. Leads Phelan and Spirtas give fair to good performances rendering complex characters over time. Their fetching good looks help explain both the chemistry that held these two together through insensitivity and selfishness as well as the chemistry that helped some some viewers overlook this film's painful weaknesses. The decision to chop the plot arc into tidbits and present them in out-of-sequence flashbacks added complexity without any evident dramatic utility, and in several cases left the sequence and thus the implications of a given event unclear.<br /><br />Could I recommend the film? To sticklers for literary and technical quality, absolutely not! For easy going viewers in serious need of an AIDS survivor catharsis or in the mood for a guilty-pleasure tearjerker with a little eye candy thrown in, maybe. But better written alternatives exploring the impact of AIDS on relationships of that era include: Philadelphia, And the band played on, Longtime companion, Angels in America, An early frost, Parting glances, Love! Valour! Compassion! and even Jeffrey.
"The Rainmaker" released in 1956 - has some of the finest actors of its time. Katharine Hepburn, Lloyd Bridges, and Burt Lancaster being the principle players. Not even they can save this completely over acted melodrama. First of all, Hepburn is horribly miscast as a shy spinster - despite her brilliance as an actress, not even she can pull this off. She is too strong to be credible as being this much of a simpleton, and was just too old for the part. Lancaster over acts to the extreme, and Earl Holliman is way too hammy and comes off more like Jethro Clampett. Only Bridges and the ever reliable Wendell Corey seem to rise above the cast a bit - but even they can only do so much. It seems like the 1950's was a time when Katharine Hepburn wanted to spread her wings a bit as an actress, and that is fine. She just made a bad choice here. Fortunately for her fans (me being among them) she didn't make too many of them. Despite an A-list cast and good production values, it doesn't work.
I generally LIKE watching Burt Lancaster's films--especially when he is needed to go nuts with his imposing screen presence like in Elmer Gantry. However, his greatest strength, his magnetism, was occasionally also his greatest weakness as he rarely, if ever, underplayed ANYTHING. And it is this lack of subtlety that really hinders The Rainmaker. Now I understand that his character was meant to be a sort of showman but how Katherine Hepburn could fall under his spell is completely inexplicable. She is supposed to be smart but doesn't seem so when Lancaster's blarney is being thrown about the screen! In addition to this, the story is perhaps one of the most stagy looking films I have ever seen and it is way too obvious that this is a movie based on a play. It just looks like it was mostly filmed in a sound stage instead of in the great wide open West like it was supposed to be.<br /><br />Overall, a very overrated film.
The movie was disappointing. The book was powerful. The views and the learning of Little Tree were powerfully portrayed in the book. The movie just coasted along and finally dribbled away. Still a nice tale for kids.
I'll give this movie two stars because it teems with beautiful photography. Otherwise, it teems mainly with clichés and stereotypes: mountain people are either dumb white trash of the fanatically religious or ragged racist kind, or wise white Indians. Indians are magical people who move around without a sound, can disappear in the blink of an eye, talk to animals, and read minds over large distances. And so on and so forth.<br /><br />Throughout the movie I kept wondering what the point of the film was (other than showing me pretty pictures of mountains, log cabins, woods, an assortment of animals, free-spirited mountain-dwellers and freaky people in church).<br /><br />The plot touched a whole range of issues but explored none of them in depth. This was neither a story about growing up during the depression, nor about about being an orphan, nor about a struggle for identity. It tried to be all of those things and more, which made it superficial and unsatisfactory.<br /><br />Although the movie was supposed to be about Little Tree's education, we learn almost nothing about it. He was given a brief summary of the history of his people (who were brave and stoic) and a distillery demonstration; tried his hand at chopping wood (at which he failed) and whiskey running (literally); learned how to read (and maybe to write) with the help of grandma and her dictionary - and that was it. Apparently he didn't learn much during his stint in boarding school because he was locked up in the attic.<br /><br />However, grandma and grandpa and Graham Greene's character made sure that in the end Little Tree became a very spiritual person whose main goal as an adult - after, and I'm paraphrasing here, "riding with the Navajos" and "getting caught up in a couple of wars" - was to "catch up" with grandma and grandpa and Graham Greene's character in heaven (instead of, say, dating girls, getting married, having children or other such nonsense).<br /><br />Last but not least I must say that I found grandpa's trade offensive. Why of all things did it have to be a whiskey still? To counteract the stereotype of the "drunken Indian"?
The Education of Little Tree is just not as good as it could have been. Little Tree's education is about things like the circle of life and how you should look at a star to help you. Whatever happened to the three R's? Readin' 'Ritin' and 'Rithmetic? When the idiot back talks the teacher at the boarding school place he starts crying and talking to the sky. Oh my gosh. Sure, the lady was a little harsh, but then James Cromwell's character comes and takes him away, leaving the audience thinking that Little Tree was absolutely right. He should learn to adapt to new discipline. Those were the times! Talking to a star is not going to change a thing! Little Tree needs to learn that his adoring guardians are not always right.
since this is part 2, then compering it to part one...<br /><br />man that was on many places wierd... too many time jumps etc.<br /><br />I have to say that I was really disapointed...<br /><br />only someplaces little lame action... and thats it....<br /><br />they could have done that better....<br /><br />
I gave Timecop a perfect 10, I gave this 1<br /><br />It's story is very boring, and it has only little to do with the original Timecop. Lots of things from Timecop was scrapped, and they put in new stupid stuff instead. This story is taking place in 2060 (if I remember correctly), but for some reason the timetraveling is now more dangerous :confused:<br /><br />And the action scenes are nothing to be happy about, well most of them aren't... only the first one is great... and there aren't many action scenes at all, and they're all pretty short<br /><br />At one point in the story, the main character travels through time about 5 times within a few minutes... no wait, make that two times...<br /><br />In short: Don't waste time watching this movie, it's not worth it
This is pretty much the first Jason Scott Lee film I've seen. I say pretty much, because I have also seen Soldier, in which he plays the villain... but from what I've heard, it's not considered a Jason Scott Lee film. This, however, is. And if this is any indication of the quality of such films, I won't be seeing any of the others. Lee is basically passable as a martial arts artist... as the lead, he's awful. He gets in a fight with random no-name characters every few minutes of the film, probably because the script writer couldn't figure out how else to stretch out the film to the minimum required running time for a feature film. The villain is the only character with even a hint of personality, and aside from the fact that he's certifiably insane, he barely seems like a villain at all. The majority of the film is basically Lee chasing the villain through time... or maybe it's the other way around. I can't say for sure... and I definitely wouldn't watch it again to make sure. The effects are not completely horrible... but it's close. The title comes from the popular idea of using a time-machine to go and kill Hitler. Somehow, the film screws up that interesting idea as well. The plot is too complicated for its own good. The pacing is poor. I can't think of one positive thing to say about this film... I really can't. It's simply too formulaic and pointless. If only I had a time-machine, so I could go back and prevent this film from ever being made... no, never mind. I just hope as few fragile minds are exposed to this as possible. Listen to the negative reviewers. Avoid this turkey. I recommend this to fans of Lee, and no one else. If you're looking for a quality film... well, this isn't it. That's for sure. 1/10
If you want to checkout a good Jason Scott Lee film, I recommend the following:<br /><br />Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story<br /><br />Rapa Nui<br /><br />"Timecop 2: The Berlin Decision" is an awful film. Awful production values. Awful acting. Awful script. I would not recommend this film to be watched by anyone who seriously believes that tripe like this is quality entertainment or advances Asian American awareness in Hollywood (This film does neither.).<br /><br />I would at the very least say that this film is passable entertainment on a rainy day if you ever come across it while channel surfing. If you are curious, perhaps a rental from Netflix, but this film is definitely not for keeps.<br /><br />If you are one of the few people who watched this film as a means to raise your Asian American film awareness, and came away disappointed, then I recommend the following films for your personal viewing. These are well-written films with high production values that feature a talented cast of Asian American actors:<br /><br />Better Luck Tomorrow <br /><br />Mulan
Jason Lee's pecks are back! If that's what you are looking for, look no further. If not, better move on...<br /><br />But about the movie. Clichés galore, some poorly shot but kinda exotic fight scenes (used JKD) and lots of bad acting & cheap effects. Poor Lee looks like he's in pain throughout the movie, and no wonder. Not a pleasant comeback.<br /><br />The movie doesn't even cut it as a B-movie - sure, there was a Germanish bleached blonde Rutger-wannabe bad guy, but no gratuitous sex scene or even a single booty shots. None. Zip. Nada. Even in Starship Troopers 2 they had the common sense to include the mandatory nudie scenes (as for rest of my comments on that excellent piece of classic cinema excellence, please refer to our upcoming review on that mind-blowing sequel...). I did get the feeling that the writer was taking his revenge on somebody with this - thus I won't get into the "plot" of the movie or pretty much anything else related. Except that it did have some non-heterosexual overtones, so 'nuff said.<br /><br />However, this movie has one thing going for it - no Jean-Claude :)
Sadly, it's true. "Legiunea sträinä" exposes with absolute clarity the parameters of Daneliuc's irreversible failure.<br /><br />As it was already said, the author lost the faculty to coalesce his content factors and artistic intentions in a coherent form. Maniacally concerned with the mechanic trick of picking at random news subjects and join them together without any legitimacy, he only gathers a disordered pile of events, unable to follow the least story-line. The script's level is similar to a "Cântarea României" amateur play about the glorious feats of socialist realism - only, turned upside down: while the communist line dictated a narrow concern only with positivism and sugary festivism, now Daneliuc is as perniciously obsessed only with negativism and disgusting scatology. The ideas content is zero, and the "message", infantile and didactic, at a kindergarten level.<br /><br />Unfortunately, he also forgot the most elementary professional tenets. He isn't able anymore to organize a dramatic situation, to order it in a correct movie scene, to frame it right and to edit it following the simplest rules of cinematographic grammar. His level of story-telling in film-images is similar to phrasing something like: "Holy sheet man it ain't nuthin right 'ere, and all da people is asses!" What a huge distance from the impressive artist of 1976-1984, who had created unique works as "Cursa", "Proba de microfon", "Vânätoarea de vulpi" - and even "Croaziera" and "Glissando"... Sic transit gloria mundi...
I simply cant understand why all these relics from the Ceausescu era refuse to let go. One can see clearly how frustrated they were during the commie censorship that forbade them so many things to show in their movies, and now they imagine its dunno what big deal of artsy-fartsy freedom so fill the screen with people defecating, urinating, vomiting, swearing, and any other kinds of hideousness imaginable. THIS IS NOT CINEMA, FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS! This is simply visual perversion. Forget about Bunuels Chien Andalou, about David Lynch, about Forman and neorealism and other movie makers who were able to work with an aesthetics of ugliness. THOSE people were mastering their jobs - well, you Don't! Do us a favor, all you Daneliucs and Nicolaescus and Saizescus and Muresans and Marinescus and Margineanus and other obsolete old-timers, and leave us alone! Its bit time to see some Romanian MOVIES on screen, enough with your immature terribilisms! You are not directors, you are ILLITERATE!!!
This movie can be labeled as a study case. It's not just the fact that it denotes an unhealthy and non-artistic lust for anything that might be termed as caco-imagery. The author lives with the impression that his sanctimonious revolt against some generic and childishly termed social ills ("Moldavia is the most pauper region of Europe", "I don't believe one iota in the birds flu", "Romanian people steal because they are poor; Europeans steal because they are thieves") are more or less close to a responsible moral and artistic attitude - but he is sorely off-target! <br /><br />What Daneliuc doesn't know, is that it's not enough to pose as a righteous person - you also need a modicum of professionalism, talent and intelligence to transpose this stance into an artistic product. Fatefully, "The Foreign Legion" shows as much acumen as a family video with Uncle Gogu drunkenly wetting himself in front of the guests. The script is chaotic and incoherent, randomly bustling together sundry half-subjects, in an illiterate attempt to suggest some kind of a story. The direction is pathetically dilettante - the so-called "director" is unable to build up at least a mediocre mise-en-scene, his shots are annoyingly awkward, and any sense of storytelling shines by total absence. (Of course, any comment is forced to stop at this level; it would be ridiculous to mention concepts as "cinematographic language", "means of expression" or "style"). The acting is positively "Cântarea României" ("Romania's Chant") level, with the exception of... paradoxically, the soccer goal-keeper Necula Raducanu, who is very natural, and Nicodim Ungureanu. Oana Piecnita seems to have a genuine freshness, but she is compromised by the amateurish directions given by Daneliuc.<br /><br />The most serious side of this offense to decent cinema is the fact that the production received a hefty financing from the national budget, via C.N.C. (the National Cinematography Council). The fact that long-time-dead old dinosaurs like Daneliuc are still thirsty for the government udder is understandable (in a market-driven economy, they would be instantly eliminated through natural selection). But the corruption of the so-called "jury" that squanders the country's money on such ridiculously scabrous non-art, non-cinema and non-culture belongs to the criminal field.
This must be accompanied by a special rating and warning: NOT RECOMMENDED TO NORMAL PEOPLE.<br /><br />The obsession of Daneliuc with the most dirty body functions becomes here a real nightmare. Also, it's evident that the man is a misanthrope, he hates everybody - his country his people, his actors, his job. And this hatred makes him blind and he forgets anymore the profession he knew long ago.<br /><br />This so called "film" is just a hideous string of disgusting images, with no artistic value and no professionist knowledge. It is an insult to good taste and to good sense. Shame, shame, shame!
I found a DVD of "I Dream Of Jeanie" in the $1.00 bin at Wal-Mart. When I saw that it was the "story of Stephen Foster", being a musician and music educator, I had to see it. I had no idea what year it was made for it did not say on the cover, just that it was a remake of 1939's "Sewanee River". Bill Shirley's portrayal of the composer is sometimes painful, sometimes laughable. The man has NO testosterone and is a wimp all the way through! I have a difficult time believing Stephen Foster thought music publishers were doing him a favor by publishing his songs...without paying him for them! In addition to that ridiculous notion, there is a nearly 20 minute segment of Ray Middleton and his black-faced "Christy Minstrels" performing Stephen Foster's songs that was difficult to watch, to say the least. I can hardly believe anyone would consider this movie appropriate to resurrect in our current time. It is an embarrassment and should remain forgotten. Fortunately, Stephen Foster's songs will NEVER be forgotten....also, Eileen Christy's portrayal of Jeanie was certainly the highest point in this lowest point of Hollywood history.
Just picked up this film for a buck at National Wholesale Liquidators, and after watching it, I feel like I got ripped-off.<br /><br />I don't know that I've seen a worse film than this. Honestly. And I would never write a negative review of a film had I not such enormous respect for the subject matter, that is, Stephen Foster and his music.<br /><br />First, what is it? It's a musical biography? Yeah, lot's of tunes by Foster then interspersed here and there are these pseudo-Broadway-Jerome Kern-type numbers that reek more than the Mississippi delta. I mean, somebody got PAID to write this drivel? Secondly, the REAL story of Foster is a fascinating one. Why not even come CLOSE to it? Thirdly, what did they have on the great Ray Middleton to get him to do this film? Pictures of him with small boys?? With communists? What a waste of a great talent.<br /><br />So, friends of Foster, and the truth, and good entertainment, be afraid... be very, very, afraid.
Veteran director and producer Allan Dwan, whose huge string of films includes both the utterly forgettable and the recurrently shown (for example, John Wayne in "Sands of Iwo Jima") tried his hand at a big musical with "I Dream of Jeanie." Harnessing a lead cast of singers with little past film experience and, as it turned out, virtually no future, he spun a fictional and in no small part offensive story about the great American songwriter, Stephen Foster.<br /><br />Bill Shirley is the young, lovestruck Foster whose kindness to slaves includes giving the money saved for an engagement ring to pay the hospital cost for an injured little black boy. His intended is Inez McDowell (Muriel Lawrence) whose pesky younger sister, Jeanie (Eileen Christy), is slowly realizing she's in love with the nearly impecunious song-smith. Foster is in love with Inez who is revolted by the composer's Number 1 on the Levee Hit Parade Tune, "O Susannah." Enter minstrel Edwin P.Christy (Ray Middleton) to help launch the profit-making phase of Foster's career.<br /><br />This is, by the musical-film standards of the early Fifties, a big production. The sets are lavish in that special Hollywood way that portrayed fakes with all the trimmings. The singers aren't half bad and the Foster songs are almost impossible to ruin.<br /><br />But this is also a literal whitewash of the antebellum South. The biggest number features black-face for all on stage, an historical anomaly and a contemporary piece of unthinking racism. Were these portrayals of blacks anywhere near reality, the abolitionists would be rightly condemned for interfering with so beneficent an institution.<br /><br />"I Dream of Jeanie" apparently sank into the studio's vault with barely a death whisper. Now revived by Alpha Video for a mere $4.99 it's a period piece with charming songs and repulsive sentimentalizing about the victims of America's great crime, slavery.<br /><br />This was what Hollywood was putting out two years before Brown v. Board of Education. Must have warmed the hearts of some moviegoers who wore their bed linen to the theater.
This overrated, short-lived series (a measly two seasons) is about as experimental and unique as a truck driver going to a strip bar. I am not quite sure what they mean by "ground-breaking" and "original" when they fawn all over Lynch and his silly little TV opus. What exactly is their criteria of what is original? Sure, compared to the "Bill Cosby Show" or "Hill Street Blues" it's original. Definitely. Next to "Law & Order" TP spews originality left and right.<br /><br />Fans of TP often say that the show was canceled because too many viewers weren't smart enough, open enough for the show's supposed "weirdness", its alleged wild ingenuity, or whatever. As a fan of weirdness myself, I have to correct that misconception. There is nothing too off-the-wall about TP; it is a merely watchable, rather silly whodunit that goes around in circles, spinning webs in every corner but (or because of it) ultimately going nowhere. The supposed weirdness is always forced; the characters don't behave in a strange way as much as they behave in an IDIOTIC way half the time. There's a difference...<br /><br />Whenever I watch the "weird dream" sequence in "Living In Oblivion" in which the dwarf criticizes the director (Buscemi) for succumbing to the tired old let's-use-a-midget-in-a-dream-scene cliché, I think of Lynch. You want weird? "Eraserhead" is weird - in fact, it's beyond weird, it's basically abstract. You want a unique TV show? Watch "The Prisoner". You want a strange-looking cast? Felini's and Leone's films offer that. TP looks like an overly coiffed TV crime drama in which all the young people look like fashion models. The cast gives TP a plastic look. Kens & Barbies en masse.<br /><br />In fact, one of the producers of TP said that Lynch was looking for "unique faces" for the series. Unique faces? Like Lara Flynn Boyle's? Sheryll Fenn's? Like those effeminate-faced "hunks" straight out of men's catalogs (or gay magazines)? Don't get me wrong; there is nothing wrong with getting an attractive cast, especially with beauties like Fenn (the way Madonna would look if she were 1000 times prettier), but then don't go around saying you're making a "weird show with weird-looking people". And I have never understood Lynch's misguided fascination with Kyle MacLachlan (I should get a medal for bothering to spell his name right). He is not unlikable, but lacks charisma, seeming a little too bland and polished. His character's laughable "eccentricities" were not at all interesting, merely one of Lynch's many attempts to force the weirdness, trying hard to live up to his reputation - him having completely lost his edge but that time. Everything Lynch made post-"Elephant Man" was very much sub-par compared to his first two movies. What followed were often mediocre efforts that relied on Lynch's relatively small but fanatical fan base to keep him in the public eye by interpreting meanings into his badly put-together stories that don't hold any water on closer scrutiny. In other words, Lynch is every intellectual-wannabe's darling. <br /><br />So Laura Palmer was killed by her Dad...? He was obsessed by the devil or some such nonsense. That's the best this "great mind" could come up with... You've got B-movie horror films that end with more originality. <br /><br />Lynch is neither bright nor hard-working enough to come up with a terrific story.<br /><br />Go to http://rateyourmusic.com/~Fedor8, and check out my "TV & Cinema: 150 Worst Cases Of Nepotism" list.
I can't understand why so many peoples praised this show. Twin peaks is one of the most boring titles I have ever seen in my life.<br /><br />Now I have seen all season 1 episodes, and seeing season 2 episode 1. Simply I can't take this show anymore.<br /><br />1) Where is the proper induction in criminal investigation?<br /><br />In season 1, there was a scene that agent Cooper throws stones to a bottle. Can you guess why he did that? He just want to identify murderer by doing this 'joke' while mentioning supernatural ability given by Tibet dream. Wow!!!<br /><br />2) There are too many unnecessary scenes in this show.<br /><br />For example, season 2 started with a 'funny' scene that a dumb old man serves agent Cooper with a cup of milk while Cooper are laying down on the floor.( He got the gun shoots in his belly already. ) This old man is doing nothing but saying some dumb comments. That's all.<br /><br />This scene is really boring and even long ( 3 min 30 sec.... It's like Hell. )<br /><br />I would read some comic books rather than see this show anymore.
We are not in the fairy tale of the naked emperor. We may confess the truth of what we see, without being stupid, confess, that this show is in many aspects just incomprehensible and that it is clear, that much of it was created out of pure intuition without real concept.<br /><br />Well, obviously many people like such stuff. I don't. I prefer well thought and planed shows. And I also confess, that the show is much to serious for my taste and boring...those love and drug stories...There are so many exciting soaps with lot of suspense (Dallas e.g.), but Twin Peaks can't catch my attention. I don't care about those people, except Cooper and Gordon Cole.
There is nothing unique in either the TV Series nor the Movie. Which is a prequel to the TV Show, that isn't found everywhere else in life and entertainment. Both before David Lynches disgusting style of story telling, and after. <br /><br />From the Moment the body of a poor misguided girl washed up on the beach. And being introduced to some of the most mind numbing shady immoral character of the Twin Peaks.<br /><br />To the Mind numbing almost pedophilia disgusting way the movie seems to romantically tell of the destruction of a Human Life through some random psychedelic phenomena in the Movie Twin Peak:Fire Come Walk with me. <br /><br />I watched it all just to make sure I wasn't missing anything. I didn't. It's is simply one mans obvious sexual fetish extended over long series fallowed by a ridiculous overly pornographic movie. Save your self the agony the suspense and watch anything else that at least has the ability to tell a story, rather then seduce you into some kind mental porn movie.<br /><br />I have heard a lot of reviews, rants and raves about how great David Lynch. Because of his ability to define misery and and tragedy and making it into some kind of a wonderful thing. This is not life imitating art, as much as it is some sick twisted version of art doing its best to inspire complete mindless life.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and avoid this garbage.
These kind of movies where a psycho of one variety or another tries to damage the reputation (and eventually eliminate altogether) some naive person in order to take over their life. Fatal Attraction, Pacific Heights, The Hand that Rocks the Cradle, Single White Female, and a thousand made-for-TV movies are some examples of this. But while a few, especially Fatal Attraction and Pacific Heights could offer at least some extremely paranoid, suspenseful characters or a few plot twists, Unlawful Entry plays everything by the book. And were it not for the notoriety of its stars (Kurt Russel, Ray Liota, and Madeline Stowe), this movie would sink to mediocrity faster than a Danielle Steele miniseries.<br /><br />Russel plays Michael Carr, an incessantly naive guy who calls on the help of a pair of officers when someone breaks into his house and tries to attack his wife (Madeline Stowe). Unfortunately, he quietly vents his anger about feeling so helpless in the situation to the wrong cop (Ray Liotta), a typically psychopathic villain with no limits for his power. At first empathizing with Carr (probably only pretending to do so), the cop befriends the couple. But soon enough, the cops wants Carr out of the way so, destroying the guys life nearly any way he can (which is pretty easy when you're a cop, and when you're the cop who has installed the guy's security system in his house) in order to take over and presumably, get his wife. It seems less ends-oriented, and more like the cop just wants to prove his power. The wife is more like a trophy, in other words, than an end. And the story plays out entirely by the book, you can probably predict every occurrence before it happens on the screen if you've seen enough of these movies. From the "shocking" moment our main, naive character realizes he is a victim of credit card fraud (perpetrated by the psychopathic villain) to the turn-around-he's-not-really-dead finale.
Typical thriller, has been done many times before. Simple plot outline; cop Liotta becomes obsessed with Russell's wife, and he tries to bump off good ol' Kurt so he can have her. This is beyond predictable, it doesn't even try to make you guess, the plot is the plot and there's no thinking outside the box here. I guess then the only reason to watch it is to see how it develops, but nothing is done originally or interestingly. There's not really anything to say about this film, it's not particularly bad, but there's no good points either. Russell plays Russell and you know what you're gonna get when you see him in a film. Ditto Liotta. Stowe has an annoying Cher-esque voice. I read the plot outline and I could see the film in my head, it was so obvious and basic. I watched it and it rolled out in front of my eyes exactly as I had imagined. I felt not a drop of emotion throughout. I have no feeling towards this film, it's as if I never even watched it. Considering this, it's a pretty pointless film isn't it? Still, I'll give it 3/10 for some reason.
This is another typical unbelievable and non-sensical piece of Hollywood dreck.<br /><br />Kurt Russell, as Snake Pliskin in a business suit, convinces me he was a better 2nd baseman. Ray Liotta as the psychotic cop is totally predictable and absurd. Madeline Stowe is her usual cardboard self, and does little to be a convincing victim.<br /><br />Every scene in this persiflage is absolutely predictable all the way to the end when Kurt clouts Ray with a vase or something, knocking him down and out. Kurt and Madeline then do their obligatory end-of-the-movie embrace, and EVERYBODY--- except Russell and Stowe, KNOWS Liotta is going to get back up and menace the couple again.<br /><br />He does, of course, and Russell drills him 10 times with his 9mm, which was ENTIRELY unnecessary. This movie could just as well ended with the bludgeoning scene--- EXCEPT Hollywood dotes on unnecessary violence, and the more they can add, or "enhance", the more slobbery they get.
Sometimes a premise starts out good, but because of the demands of having to go overboard to meet the demands of an audience suffering from attention-deficit disorder, it devolves into an incongruous mess. And for three well-respected actors who have made better work before and after, this is a mortal shame.<br /><br />So let's see. Premise: a loving couple who lives in a beautiful home is threatened by a bad cop. Interesting to say the least. Make the encroaching cop a little disturbing, why not. It was well done in THE HAND WHO ROCKS THE CRADLE and SINGLE WHITE FEMALE, and it's a proved ticket to a successful thriller.<br /><br />Now herein lies the dilemma. Create a disturbing story that actually bothers to bring some true menace into its main characters while never going so far as to look ridiculous, or throw any semblance to reality, amp up the shock factor, and make this cop so extreme -- an ultra bad variation of every other super-villain that's hit cinemas since the silent age.<br /><br />The producers, and directors, chose the latter. Thus is the resulting film -- badly made, with actors trying their darnedest to make heads or tails in roles that they've essayed before, and nothing much amounting to even less.
I remembered this show from when i was a kid. i couldn't remember too much about it, just a few minor things about the characters. for some reason i remembered it being really intense. also it was on really really early in the morning up in PA. I finally, after looking around the web for a long time, found an episode. the first episode no-less. Criminey! This show was so horrible. it was obviously just made to show kids playing lazer tag and having a great time. the show opens with bhodi li telling his mommy "my names not Christopher, I'm bhodi li-PHOTON WARRIOR!!!!!" we then are forced to watch kids playing lazer tag to the song "foot loose". and not just a quick little bit, but the whole song. ahhhhhhhhh my brain hurts just thinking about it. oh yeah, and as if i couldn't get worse, you cant even see the laser beams from their guns. its like they're just running around to the entire "foot loose" song. later on, after bhodi goes up into space or where-ever, they have a crappy laser gun fight to the Phil Collins song "su-su-sudio." ah, trust me, you don't want to know the rest. what can i say......THE LIGHT SHINES!!!!!!!!!!!
I saw this film at the Rotterdam Festival, as did presumably all the other voters. The Director was present and seemed to have worked very hard and be very committed to the project, which I think explains the above average reception and mark it got. It's most similar to a feature length episode of Aussie kids favourite "Round the Twist" but it takes itself too seriously to have even that redeeming feature. The movie in itself is maybe worth seeing if you're trying to do a cinematic world tour visiting all UN member states, as I can't think of another Fijian movie but overall it was generic, poorly acted (albeit by an amateur cast) and prey to the subaltern mentality. The moral of the story seemed to be that native islanders will try and screw each other over, but as long as there is an essentially decent white governor to step in, all problems can be solved (by leaving the island).
Certainly NOMAD has some of the best horse riding scenes, swordplay, and scrumptious landscape cinematography you'll likely see, but this isn't what makes a film good. It helps but the story has to shine through on top of these things. And that's where Nomad wanders.<br /><br />The story is stilted, giving it a sense that it was thrown together simply to make a "cool" movie that "looks" great. Not to mention that many of the main characters are not from the region in which this story takes place (and it's blatantly obvious with names like Lee and Hernandez). If movie makers want to engross us in a culture like the Jugars and the Kazaks, they damn well better use actors/actresses that look the part.<br /><br />Warring tribes, a prophecy, brotherly love and respect, a love interest that separates our "heroes", are all touched on but with so little impact and screen time that most viewers will brush them aside in favor of the next battle sequence, the next action horse scene, or the breathtaking beauty of the landscape.<br /><br />It is worth mentioning that there were some significant changes made to Nomad during its filming, specifically the director and cinematographer. Ivan Passer (director) was replaced by Sergei Bodrov, and Ueli Steiger (cinematographer) was replaced by Dan Laustsen. In one respect, Laustsen seems to have the better eye since his visions of the lands made the final cut that we see here. Definitely a good thing. However, the changing over to Bodrov as director may not have been the wisest choice. From what I'm seeing here, the focus is on the battles and not the people, which I sense comes from Bodrov's eyes and not Passer's. A true travesty.<br /><br />The most shameful aspect is that this could've been a really fantastic film, with both character and action focuses. Unfortunately, the higher-ups apparently decided that action was what was needed and took the cheap (intellectually speaking) way out.<br /><br />Even though I can't give this film a positive rating, it is worth watching simply for the amazing cinematography work. But that's all.
I am a huge fan of warrior movies. Some of my favorites are Braveheart, Troy, The last samurai and Gladiator. And after watching Mongol, which is absolutely awesome, and which i strongly recommend, i had high expectations from a Sergei Bodrov movie. But it was terrible, awful, even pathetic is not a strong word in this case. The whole movie i was waiting for something exciting to happen, but it didn't, then i was at least expecting a big epic battle at the end, but even that was a huge disappointment, just some random running around, waving with the swords... There are so many good warrior movies, this one is not one of them.
this movie let me down decidedly hard. it was a great concept that was ruined with a horrible script. The story just didn't flow and was disjointed at best. There were so many elements to this story that were not explained, or were forced into place with out any real thought. elements like the love story could have been expanded on a bit more, and the cannons need to be written in better. the whole main character growing up thing needed more about the training he was receiving and less standing around. everyone likes a good "little guy overcomes" story and this showed promise but with the scripting failures wasn't to be. While it did have some pyrotechnics in the final battle sequence it was lackluster due to a lack of choreography. this made for a maddeningly boring watch<br /><br />it could have been so good :(
Disappointing film. Performance of actors is weak. Sets are fine, could have been better. The story is also weak. Battle sequences are awful. Sounds and quality of film are trashy. The history of Kazakh people was told very poorly. This film should have included more Kazakh actors, in leading roles. And also should have been in Kazakh language. Kuno Bekker and Jay Hernandez are Hispanic origins. I don't get it. Since when Hispanic people play Turkic-Mongolian people. This film is shame of Kazakh cinema. Rustam Ibragimbekov disappointed me. He is one of the finest filmmakers in the world. Czekh director is excused, since he is not nomadic origin, he cannot know true spirit and history of nomads.
This is simply put, the worst movie I have ever seen. It ranges from like 2+ hours, and the box art was totally misleading. My friends and I rented it because, we thought it would be a poor man's 300. You know, to laugh at and make fun of. No. There is nothing funny about this movie, only pain. Then, the movie starts up, and they are speaking some sort of different language. We think, 'Oh its just the beginning.' But no, from there the movie plummets and becomes more of like a super boring book you had to read in grade school, where nothing literally happens for hours, and the battle scenes rival those of 2 kids fighting on a playground. Omit Cinematography, and this movie belongs in trash compactor. Movies like this will lead to the world we see in Wall-E, which by the way was a good movie.
Pathetic. This is what happens when director comes to work just because someone is paying him to. <br /><br />The intentions were good, great locations and settings for a film of epic proportions. But the performance, damn! I swear, in some shots you can see extras on the background staring in the camera, or looking at the actors because no one told them what they should do when they hear "Action!". The battle scenes are so bad you wonder - are these people for real? They could've done more damage just by hugging each other. In the slow-mo scenes you can see people on battle field walking around or just standing, waving their hands. <br /><br />Only action in the foreground is somehow emphasized. But for what? The story is so illogical and discontinuous, it seems like random situations in chronological order, sometimes not even that. The dialogs are dumb, the love plot is more embarrassing and ridiculous than in Hong Kong action movies. <br /><br />With a budget of 40 million, and you can see every dollar invested on the screen, in best case scenario, the final result of all this enormous effort is a shiny round laser disk in the thin cover placed on the shelf in video store.
Yeah, right.<br /><br />I spent the first hour waiting patiently for the movie to take off. It was horribly boring, and consisted mostly of people riding randomly around the hills with no apparent direction. Then the hero comes into the picture. Born as an Asian, but when he grew up, he became white. Obviously white. He wasn't even close to passing for Asian. He looked like Justin Timberlake. It was extremely distracting, and the story did nothing to help the cause. Pointless battle sequences and lame dialogue. It's an hour and forty five minutes long, and by the end I was trying to eat my own face. I watched this because people at the video store where I work are always asking me if this movie is any good. Now I have an answer. It goes something like this: ahem. "NO! GOOD GOD NO! IT'S HORRIBLE! DON'T DO THIS TO YOURSELF! I would recommend another movie, perhaps one that's entertaining."
I knew nothing of this film before I was convinced to see it by a friend who had heard it was a "non-stop epic battle scene from beginning to end". That couldn't have been further from the truth. This was one of the most boring, poorly written, amateurishly directed, horribly acted films I've ever had the misfortune to lay my eyes upon. I'd rank it up there with the movie I consider to be the worst film of all time... Battlefield Earth. There basically is no story, it's hard to believe that the makers of this film thought that this cheesy soap opera crap would be taken seriously as actual historic fact. It also features some of the worst dialogue I've ever heard... like this little gem... Guy tells girl "You smell like the moon.". Girl replies "What does the moon smell like?" OMG! You have to be kidding me! The scene where the guy was drawn and quartered got some good laughs from the audience since it looked so ridiculously cheap and the sound FX of the guy being ripped apart reminded me of someone making a fart sound with their mouth. If this is playing at a theater near you, avoid it at all costs. This movie is so bad that I actually made the decision about 45 minutes through that I needed to catch up on my sleep... and I did. Awful.
I would give this movie 5 rather than 3 if it would be at least in time... When i've seen it in first time it was just what you could wait from the work that is based not on the artistic abilities of the directors but on the idealistic or i would rather say idiotic habits of our (Kazakhstan) government... It's a shame, because 'Qazaqfil'm' was been shooting nice movies when it was not honoured by the name of Shaken Aimanov, but it was actually ran by him. The movies like 'Konec Atamana', 'Kyz Zhibek' or even 'Aldar Kose'. But after Mr Aimanov's death the production of quality movies went down almost dramatically in 10 years time there were very few films produced. However, in late 1980s, 'Assa' was shot, it was a film about first organised crime groups in the big country, one year later Mr. Rashid Nugmanov shot another film with the co-staring of the same actor/singer V.Tsoy, at that time he was already a soviet/Russian rock legend, - the movie called 'Igla' (The Needle or something) it was completely new, somebody called that period as resurrection or a new Kazakh movie wave. Unfortunately nowadays we do not have a quality movies, our directors shooting movies on the french and Japanese financial support, and thus movies are not for the public but for the authors professional critics, some of them take a price on international author movie festivals but there a very few of them become a business asset products... And again back to our 'nomads'. Such movies usually unpopular because of vast aspects. The same effects was with Nikita Mikhalkov's 'Sibirski Cyrilnik' about Russian tsars, that was also shot on parities with foreign partners, i think they were french or maybe British. Nobdy liked it, even in Russian public it become as a main topic of a comedians and comedy shows like 'KVN'. IMHO
"Dracula II:Ascension" is the story of a group of medical students who come across the body of Dracula.When a mysterious stranger appears and offers the students $30 million to harvest the body and steal its blood for auction,it's an offer they can hardly refuse.Soon the students also find themselves relentlessly pursued by a vampire killer from the Vatican!"Dracula II:Ascension" is a slightly entertaining horror film that has many flaws.The characters are one-dimensional and the acting is pretty average.There are some good gore effects like really cool double decapitation scene,but there is not enough violence for my liking.The film becomes quickly boring and forgettable and there is absolutely no suspense.So if you like modern vampire flicks give it a look.I prefer atmospheric vampire chillers from 60's and early 70's like "Lips of Blood","The Brides of Dracula" or "Lemora:A Child's Tale of Supernatural" to name only a few.4 out of 10.
Ascension is actually a step up in terms of what the original movie was in story and in special effects. Jason Scott Lee Is good as a vampire hunter looking for the count himself (if you remember him, he was from the movie Dragon, The Bruce Lee Story.') Jason London is funny as Luke, the kid who helps the woman he loves from a far steal Dracula's body from the slab. Diane Neal Is good as the woman who steals Dracula's body in order to finds a cure for her dying boyfriend, And Stephen Billington is great as Dracula himself. Giving a better performance than Gerard Butler did the count in the original film. Roy Scheider rounds out the rest of the cast in this movie, and he does a decent job as the mentor of Jason Scott Lee's character. This is the second sequel in the trilogy, and they are off to a good start. It's up in the air whether the last film will close the series out on a good note.
the movie opens with a beautiful lady in a tattered white gown running through a stereotypical eastern european town. we know she's being followed by something, because she keeps looking behind her. and soon we see she's being chased by a mysterious man in a black trenchcoat. then we realize that the man is actually the vampire hunter and he is after her. but look is that her reflection in the store window??? no its just her identical twin vampire! but unfortunately they both get it.<br /><br />after this brilliant and amazingly fun throwback to the old hammer films of the 60's and 70's (in the credits the twins are listed as the twins of evil, which of course is the name of the final instalment in hammer's karnstein trilogy), the plot pretty much dies.<br /><br />What little plot there is involves dracula (who conveniently changes his appearance each time he is reborn, so the producer doesn't have to rehire the same dracula) coming to a morgue, the med students realizing he's undead and thinking....wow what an opportunity, maybe i'll just disregard all those movies that say that drinking vampire blood turns you into a vampire and use the vampire's blood to find a cure for our jerk friend's ailment. obviously this is a mistake and everyone becomes a vampire.<br /><br />A new concept but pulled off excruciatingly badly. The movie keeps setting up wonderful situations and refuses to do anything with them.<br /><br />For example the med students attempt to bring drac back to life by placing him in a bathtub filled with blood in a secluded run down country mansion. The house itself is scary enough to be the center of the film, but do we stay there? no because they decide to take the vampire to an abandoned swimming pool. sigh. This movie has a real problem with "homages" as i mentioned before the opening scene is straight out of hammer, and this house scene would have been perfect for a hammer-like movie, but the movie rapidly switches gears and changes to a medical horror.<br /><br />The other problem is that they introduce so many characters it is almost impossible to feel sorry for any of them. There are the med students and their wheelchair bound professor-type "friend" the med students are all: arrogant, boring, money hungry, and stupid. how they made it to med school at all amazes me, unless the med school had to meet its muscle bound hunk/big breast quota. and then there is the vampire hunter who remains mysterious through the movie. hey i can respect that but it would be nice if they didn't set it up like the movie would be about him. then you have random priests, cops, and science types. so many people are introduced and then quickly forgotten about until they need that person to either save the day or jump out for a cheap scare that it becomes quickly tedious.<br /><br />Basically this is a lazy movie. no real scares, just a few predictable jump scares. The set up for these is so elaborate it is hilarious. for examp le the bathtub full of blood. it is so obvious that drac is going to pop out of the murky blood. and yet we have to wait far too long to get to the inevitable jump scare. after this he kills one of the dumber and larger breasted med students. we all know she's going to become one of the undead. but what do the others do? bury her in a shallow grave near the house. sigh, so you know who will jump out at you when the cops show up at the house..........<br /><br />Oh well.<br /><br />Maybe someone will get the hint that it is impossible to make a scary vampire movie and just go for atmospheric, and then we will end up with an entire movie that is as good as the opening scene.<br /><br />
I cannot believe the same guy directed this crap and Dracula 2000. Dracula 2000 was innovative, fresh, and well written, if poorly acted.<br /><br />This pile can't even claim that. It starts with the defeat of Dracula at the end of Dracula 2000. Then ignores the narrative afterwards describing what happened after that. Following the narrative properly could have made this a good sequel somehow, but Craven chose to go in the style of his older films, having no good tie but the main villain's name.<br /><br />Even the actor playing Dracula was different (going from dark hair in Dracula 2000 to a blonde here).<br /><br />Avoid this movie if you have any respect for your taste in movies.
This must me one of the worst takes on vampires ever conceived by men. How can one turn such a mesmerizing subject into a totally uninspiring story? Apparantly not such a difficult task... First of all, a conditio sine qua non of any vampirefilm is a dark and gloomy atmosphere with a nice sexy touch, this one lacks all these things.. Too much light - the spots! oh my god, why in the name of Christ/Judas was that about?<br /><br />Every time Dracula came about he was devoured by light (in the script to keep him weak, for the record: just weak) There was only one scene that made it almost worth watching, near the ending of the movie (beatiful dancingscene with Dracula and his new conquest). I really enjoyed the first one, the Judas-twist was defintely original, but this one's just not good, not in any way. Hopefully the third one will cary the vampire-signature I like so much in other classics like Herzog's Nosferatu, Coppola's Dracula or even Interview with the vampire.
***Possible Spoilers***<br /><br />When I saw this today I had some expectation of how it would be like, not too high, but not low either. This was nothing like I expected at all though, it seems to me like the movie makers couldn't make up their mind of what kind of movie to make.<br /><br />In the begining of the film it's somewhat mysterious and kinda exciting, but that'll soon change to some ridiculous scenes - very obvious scenes... As I watched further I almost fell asleep a couple of times.<br /><br />The ending is the most ridiculous of all though, almost splatter/comedy...<br /><br />I'm not saying it doesn't have some good scenes it's just that the film never becomes "whole".<br /><br />4/10 Movie-Man
1 out of 10.<br /><br />This is the kind of movie that you cant believe you just wasted 2 hours of your life as you see the credits role. I honestly think I could make a better Vampire movie.... and I know nothing. The only thing that does not just suck (harder than a Vampire) is Jason Scott Lee.... his character is at least a little bit cool, has some mystery, and kicks a little butt.
It's like what other Dracula movies always do, the minions of Dracula always on Dracula's side, which is what disappointed me at the ending. Regardless the person wants to stay a vampire or not, I would like to see something like in the first movie that the minion fights against her master. It is much interesting (since you can almost predict how the story goes) than just either the priest or D. win the game (we need some surprising plots!).
I didn't even knew this movie existed until shortly after seeing Blade: Trinity, I was messing around on the Trinity board when I saw some user mention how the Wes Craven series is a lot better then the 'crap' that's Blade, So I did my quick research: Checked the scores on IMDb & RottenTomatoes for Dracula: Ascension, and somewhere along the search I found out that this is a sequel to Dracula 2000. I also noticed that within the Wes Craven Dracula boards there was a real strong following for this movie which is a big contradiction to the scores I was seeing.<br /><br />Now let's take a quick personal recap here. I remember seeing Dracula 2000, and I remember not liking it at all, and then seeing the scores of Dracula: Ascension just lowered my expectations even more, but then again, I'm the type of person that truly needs to watch the movie myself (any movie) so that I can form my own opinion.<br /><br />A couple of things I went in knowing when I started watching this movie was that it's low budget, so because of that, I'm going to have to ignore a lot of the v/fx and just figure it's going to compensated by story & acting, I was also slightly impressed by some of the casting in this movie (Jason London, Roy Schieder & Jason Scott Lee)<br /><br />Oh geez… This movie was CHEESY! But cheesy can be entertaining at least, I found it pretty fricken laughable, the bad audio synch from the re-recording of dialogue in a FEW scenes, the stupidity of the characters in this movie. Sure they all knew about vampires and some of the basic things, Luke even had a book on it, but did it prevent them from wanting to purposely get 'infected'? Nope, this is worst then slasher flicks where the girl has to get out of the shower and check out the noise she hears with nothing more than a towel on.<br /><br />I also must've blinked at some point, because I'm not sure how 'Dracula' got clothes on his body, especially since he's big wild and angry & I figure if I was in that situation, I wouldn't want to be the one dressing him.<br /><br />So the movie ends like any middle movie of a trilogy… it doesn't, instead it's a 'Cliff Hangar' where I now get to wait for the 3rd installment 'Legacy'. Oh the entertainment value of Cheesy movies.
This movie had mediocrity, laziness, and thoughtlessness written all over it. If you are going to do a movie about vampires that has been done thousands of times already, then you better do a damn good job. I'll be the first to say that this movie just did not cut it. Some scary/horror movies just fail to break the mold of the "lets do something forbidden and forsaken for the sake of fun because all the stories are just lies" cliché. This one, sadly, was no different, and like all scary movies, once you venture down that road there is no going back.<br /><br />And the ending? How do the heroes do the same job over and over throughout the movie, but then mysteriously they get wrapped up in the moment and cannot do the job in the end? The ending was very anti-climatic and spelled part 3 which I will never watch. Terrible movie.
A painfully protracted, maudlin and predictable drama, my twenty-fifth Sidney Lumet film, Garbo Talks, gets filed precipitously on the low quality end of my quest.<br /><br />The film documents a harried young working man named Gilbert (Ron Silver), who is son to Estelle Rolle (Anne Bancroft), eccentric, feisty and above all, an obsessive fan of Greta Garbo. When Estelle becomes afflicted with a brain tumor, her son decides to go on an obsessive quest of his own: track down Greta Garbo, and bring her to his mother.<br /><br />Anne Bancroft is in full-on, chew-the-scenery Auntie-Mame mode here, that kind of feisty ol' gal that film loves, where she mouths off to people, and stands up for her ideals, and ends up in jail all the time. She stands outside of the film as an obvious artificial construct, and every scene with her is yuk-yuk lame; every note striking false. The rest of the characters are equally as one-dimensional, but tremendously less-interesting. Ron Silver is flat as can be, and his attempted love triangle is as telegraphed as anything else in the film: He is dating affluent Lisa Rolfe (Carrie Fisher), but becomes smitten with oddball co-worker Jane Mortimer (Catherine Hicks), and I called every scene three scenes before they happen.<br /><br />That's the other problem. One-dimensional characters can survive if they are posited in an intriguing and captivating story, but there's simply nothing here. The film's pace is glacial, resplendent with extraneous material that strengthens absolutely nothing, and when the film does begin to follow a linear plot, it's both plodding and uninteresting. There are plenty of guest stars, so to speak, including Harvey Fierstein as a gay New Yorker (imagine that) in yet another highly inessential scene.<br /><br />Late in the film, it attempts to make a halfway-decent statement on the nature of idolatry and its role in our lives, but by that time, none of the characters exist as real people, and the film had bored me into submission, so it functions as a case of far-too-little, far-too-late. The film is my twenty-fifth Lumet-directed film, making him easily my most-viewed director, but outside of a couple egregious misses (A Stranger Among Us, anyone?), he hasn't plumbed the painfully uninteresting depths of Garbo Talks.<br /><br />{Grade: 4.5/10 (C/C-) / #21 (of 24) of 1984 / #23 of 25 Lumet films}
Anne Bancroft plays Estelle, a dying Jewish mother who asks her devoted son (Ron Silver) to locate reclusive one-time movie star Greta Garbo and introduce the two before Estelle checks out for good. Might've been entitled "Bancroft Talks" as the actress assaults this uncertain comedic/dramatic/sentimental material for its duration. Hot-or-cold director Sidney Lumet can't get a consistent rhythm going, and Bancroft's constant overacting isn't scaled back at all by the filmmaker--he keeps her right upfront: cute, teary-eyed and ranting. Estelle becomes a drag on this scenario (not that the thinly-conceived plot has much going on besides). Silver and co-stars Carrie Fisher and Catherine Hicks end up with very little to do but support the star, and everyone is trampled by her hamming. *1/2 from ****
This movie was based on actual fact? I sincerely hope not!<br /><br />We get to see what appears to be numerous armed cops empty an equal amount of guns at 2 guys who only got armored torso's. That's a great idea; aim for the armor!...excuse me, but how about those big fat unmissable heads or their legs for crying out loud. Or were there invisible tanks protecting them? were they from Crypton?Did i miss something here?<br /><br />This movie started out decent enough but after 20 minutes of shoot-out it really takes a turn to boringlane.<br /><br />And that documentary style didn't work for me either, but thats just something one finds likable or not.<br /><br />Highly unbelievable stuff which makes it hard to see it through 'til the end.<br /><br />3/10 for the fine editing.
Contrary to my principles, let me first come up with a conclusion, because I have just seen this piece of "art", and still am under strong impressions. The reader is asked to excuse my stronger vocabulary.<br /><br />Well, this movie is absolutely horrible, and I would never bother to write a single word about it, if it were not for the fact that "44 Minutes" made me sick to death, which rarely happens to me. The fact that I paid for that does not exactly makes me feel better, as well as the fact the movie deserved the high user rating here.<br /><br />So what is wrong with the movie? It has a fashionable title - "44 Minutes". One first thinks about "15 Minutes", which is by the way a much better movie, but still bad in my book, and indeed the two can be compared to some extent. But, as luck would have it, the things they share are their worst characteristics. They both feature Mr. Oleg Taktarov, who with his strong Russian accent obviously meets the popular expectations and prejudices. His purpose is to appeal to the Cold War mind. Ah, do we miss the good old times. Now, I don't imply that he is a bad actor, I am yet to judge his true performance, but he is simply not a true individual here, he is more like an archetype. How anyone can still indulge in such things is completely beyond my comprehension. We can recognize modern American xenophobia here. The point in the movie when Taktarov explains to his companion that Romanians are not Germans, and that they are in America is truly laughable. Are we to assume that the greatest desire of the wretched duo is to become "true" Americans? <br /><br />Then, there is the media issue. Yes, it seems that the most of what we learn comes from cameras, interviews and reporters. The director should have made us feel the rhythm of the presumed 44 minutes. Instead he bores us with interviews throughout the movie like in a cheap TV show, trying to reinvent the wheel. In 15 Minutes the issue of media is the central one.The point is presented in a way a teacher addresses an obtuse student, but that deserves a separate comment, we are focusing on 44 Minutes now. So, I have been trying to identify the purpose of this movie. What is it? To provide good time for the audience? To glorify weapons? To glorify police? Portray violence? Oh yes, the officer gives the Bible to the underage delinquent. So it must promote peace and understanding after all? I don't think so, but don't ask me. I only know I didn't enjoy any of this.<br /><br />Ah, Michael Madsen. I admit, I am a big fan. I hoped he would be a bright point, but I was wrong. It's not his fault though. <br /><br />As the final note, comparing "firepower" to "willpower" at the end of the movie was one of the worst lines I have ever heard.<br /><br />To summarize, on the scale 1-10, I give it a pure, unadulterated 1.
The funniest scene of this movie is probably when our saviours get their medals and plaques and whatnot. So the basic idea is, the police outnumbers these gangsters by like a million to one, but they're powerless because the villains' guns are just a bit bigger. I guess police ammo just kinda bounces of. They decided to shoot this movie in documentary style with fake interviews and all and seriously, what is wrong with these guys? They're talking like they were armed with rolled-up newspapers. Okay I admit, it's probably still dangerous to be in the line of the fire, even when the situation is so much to your advantage, but don't go nuts. And why the hell did it take 44 minutes to solve everything anyway? I'd say that's a very long time when you have them surrounded and you're allowed to shoot. They're like ten ft. away, they hit absolutely nothing. Then they go and buy bigger guns themselves to increase their heroism. And then yeah, there you have it, one of the cops actually hits someone. Bullet was probably diverted by a lamp post or something. I had a good laugh I guess.
Men, do I love police movies filled with action, shooting, chases etcetera.<br /><br />Boy, was I let down after watching this short and unsatisfying movie. We've seen it all before, the hostages, the bank, the surrounding... Yet, 2 bad guys that shoot down multiple officers and innocent people who simply stay in the line of fire - without getting hit due to some Kevlar.<br /><br />Not just a few shots, no, hundreds of shots. Going back into the bank, where the dumb hostages didn't lock the safe or doors when the bad guys went out. How stupid did the director think we'd be.<br /><br />Okay, the shots in between that fake a documentary were good, but after seeing the film I only got the thought: why didn't the police get a decent shooting course? And why where there so many cops and was SWAT on a real long break. Truly bad.
Yeah, Madsen's character - whilst talking to the woman from the TV station - is right: the LAPD IS a corrupt, violent and racist police. And this movie changes nothing about it. Okay, here are the good cops, the moral cops, even a black one, whow, a Christian, a martyr. But this is a fairy tale, admit it. Reality is not like that. And most important for the action fans: The shoot out is boring. It's just shooting and shooting and shooting. Nothing more. Play Counter Strike, then you will at least have something to do. The only moral of this film is: The LAPD is good now. No more bad cops in it. If you like uncritical, euphemistic commercials for police and military service, watch this movie. It's the longest commercial I've ever seen. (2 Points for camera and editing).
As we all know Hollywood enjoys changing historical events around for our enjoyment, and 44 minutes is one of those hollywoodized movies. For example the bank robbers never did go back in the bank when they started shooting at the LAPD yet in the movie we see them go back inside twice! Another example is the number of LAPD officers who were shot near the end of the movie, this is far from the truth! But of course Hollywood must have a good bloody ending so they *add* some more blood and guts. Some events were combined and many of the lead actors played several different people but this is what Hollywood has always done so why complain? I guess the only sad part is that I have watched some one hour documentaries about the North Hollywood shootout on TLC that were far better then this!
This was a better than average movie I thought, for it being on cable. I had expected something along the lines of cheesy melodrama and bad special effects seen in such classics as Christmas Rush or First Daughter/Target/Shot, etc.<br /><br />The cast was well chosen...I especially liked Ron Livingston as the hard pressed SWAT Commander. It's good to see him revisiting the same material he had so much fortune with in Band of Brothers. The producers and designers had done their homework because all the scenes and shots looked like they did on that day back in 1997.<br /><br />So, if you get a chance to see this film, and I am sure you will since FX reruns everything 50 times...take 2 hours and enjoy it.
This movie is awful. At the end of it you will realize that several hours have been stolen from your life that you can't get back. The "twist" ending is very contrived. The character development leading up to this ending is not consistent with their final actions at the conclusion. Ninety minutes of preparation-- with the premise that the Rob Lowe character will die on Christmas Eve-- is explained away in literally ninety seconds of "No we were just tricking you." Then the Rob Lowe character is not even upset about it! "I will forgive you if you can forgive me," is as upset as he gets. If someone took weeks to convince me I was about to die and then said "No, sorry , just fooling you" I would raise some serious hell. I don't feel bad about giving away the spoiler because I might be able to save some of you out there from watching. Please save yourself and DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE.
JUDAAI was a bold film by Raj Kanwar at it's time In 1997 when such a topic was damn out of the box<br /><br />To give him his credit he does succeed in showing how greed changes a person and to what extent the person can go to get what she wants<br /><br />The film however is damn melodramatic, many places ridiculous<br /><br />One wonders why Anil doesn't buy a TV for his wife? when he earns so much Just to show how poor he is?<br /><br />The twist is well handled but the handling is straight out of 80's The Johny- Paresh comedy which entertains here and there stands out as a sore thumb as it doesn't fit in the story<br /><br />Even there are several cringeworthy scenes<br /><br />Direction by Raj Kanwar is adequate though at times too melodramatic Music is okay but most songs look forced<br /><br />Anil does his part well Sridevi is excellent in her part Urmila is decent Amongst rest Kader Khan is as usual Johny Lever is funny, Paresh irritates Farida is decent
Well, if you like pop/punk, punk, ska, and a tad bit of modern psycho billy, then seeing the live performances are about the only thing worth watching. This movie has tons and tons of band cameos, along with president of Troma, Lloyd Kaufman as a semi-major role, and lots of goofy death scenes. Sounds like it may be good, right? Well, the deaths keep coming, and repeatedly to many different bands of the Warp Tour and the fans at the event. Some of the deaths start of stylish, but then they are recycled over and over, to the point of being completely repetitive. Almost everyone dies of having their head smashed, or intestines being pulled from their stomach. The gore looks as if it was from Andreas Schnaas' "Zombie 90: Extreme Pestilence"; with this being the "watered-down type blood", but now that movie is actually decent, and provides humor-something that this movie terribly lacks. Sure, the movie is made by Doug Sakmann from Troma, it's got great low-budget potential, and it tries...but just too hard. Everything is overly meant to be funny in this movie, and thats what brings it down. Everything tries to be too comic and goofy, by using intentional bad acting, an overuse of pointless deaths, and doing the same thing...over and over. It's basically "Mulva: Zombie Ass-Kicker", "Chairman of the Board", or any movie you have made with your friends: it's funny to those who made it, and that's about it.<br /><br />Great potential, great idea, great use of effects-but it's the same thing...over and over: A band plays, a band dies, fans die. Everyone dies, blood is sprayed everywhere, the process is repeated.<br /><br />The question is for these types of movies-which is basically 'bad slap-stick'-do they try too hard, or not at all?
I just finished watching this movie. I was very excited since I'm a big fan of Punk Rock, Horror films and Spoofs. I was very surprised at what I saw. I knew it was low budget, but I wasn't expecting it to be taped with a video camera. It opens with a good song and a great, very underrated band, The Horrorpops, reforming their song, Where They Wander, and promptly getting killed in various gruesome ways. It's a great opening. But the problem is the fact that, up until the end, this was really all that the movie was. A live performance, A death. Another live performance, A death. It gets old. And there is a gross(literally) overuse of intestines in the death scenes. Why doesn't the killer use other body parts, like legs, or eyeballs, or brains? Don't get me wrong, this movie has some parts that are awesome. Like the hardcore French band, known simply as BERET, the prospect of a band named Atticus, the scene containing a performance by members of the The Used and Simple Plan playing together, since neither bands had enough members to play their show, and Bowling For Soup's Overweight-and-proud-of-it guitarist getting killed in a truly hilarious manner, that I will save for the future watchers of this movie. But the big problem I have with this movie is the at first comical, but after a while, terrible lack of acting talent in a lot of the "actors". Especially Warped Tour creator, Kevin Lyman. He tries very hard, but I suspect that he didn't want to make the film, but was contractually obligated or something. In addition to that, the sound quality is terrible and there are no subtitles on the DVD. The Movie's resolving plot is very hazy and very random. something about a magic sword and Lloyd Kaufman as the devil. Bottom line, this movie has a lot of good qualities, but not enough to be anywhere near a decent Horror, Music, or Comedy film. Although I have to credit it with turning me onto a few bands that I would never have listened to, otherwise. Such as Tsunami Bomb, and the Phenomonauts(an insane, Psychobilly band). I recommend that you rent this movie, watch the first 10 or 20 minutes, if you like it, watch the next 20 or 30, if you still like it, then watch on. If not, just go to the special features and watch all the music videos and live performances. They rock! Long live Punk Rock and Horror!
It's not the most well made slasher movies of all time, but for what it is, it's pretty amusing. The plot is lame but the kills are not too bad. I have to be honest, if you don't follow the bands that are featured in this film, you wont find this film as funny as those who do. I knew someone who saw this film and was really disappointed because of the poor quality of the film but you have to understand that it was made in the spare time of being on tour, in between playing to moshing kids and drinkin' with friends backstage...it's not made to be taken seriously. It's ubber cheese at it's punk best and with over 100 kills,most of which are ultra gory, it's a fun movie to have friends over to watch, drink and be merry!
I couldn't believe I spent $14.00 on this. The only redeeming quality is the outrageous gore. The dubbing was worse than any I have ever experienced. It looks like it was shot with a VHS camcorder. I think every pfennig was spent on the special effects because there was a whole lot of blood and body parts everywhere. Its one of the worst movies I have ever seen but I do have to acknowledge the plentiful gore that wasn't as disgusting as it could have been because the whole movie is so silly and unbelievable
Karl Jr and his dad are now running an army on a remote island. They capture a trio of guys who stumble upon the island. Whom after a while fight back. (well the survivors) This one has non-stop blood, gore and carnage, which would have been good if any of it looked remotely real, or if the production didn't look like it was made with a weeks worth of saved up lunch money (I may be overexxagerating there. it was probably just a couple days worth). The horrendous dubbing didn't bother me as much and I suspect if I had been really drunk, some of it MIGHT have been slightly humorous....maybe. But as it is, at merely 78 minutes the movie still felt way too long by.. Oh I don't know... 78 minutes. Don't waste your time.<br /><br />My Grade: F <br /><br />DVD Extras: Bonus movie: "Zombie '90: Extreme Pestilence"; and Trailers for other Shock-o-Rama released films
I felt obliged to watch this movie all the way through, since I had found it in a bargain bin and bought it for my own, but I came close many times to turning it off and just writing off the money I had paid for it. If you are a fan of gore and sadism, this movie is OK. If there is one thing that the makers of this film know, it is the creative use of fake blood and body parts for a sickening effect. If that doesn't thrill you, then stay away.<br /><br />This movie is shot on a home video camera, with grade school props and terrible actors. It's dubbed from German, but even allowing for that, the sound is awful. This film is about as budget as budget gets, except for the aforementioned special effects. If they had spent a little more money on actors and a real script instead of blood and guts, the film might have been a little more enjoyable.<br /><br />The story is about three men that land on an island inhabited by an army of tin-masked sadists. They are captured, and the rest of the movie is about their attempt to escape. I call this a story in the loosest sense, since it is really a series of scenes of torture and combat strung together by inane obscenity-filled dialog.<br /><br />There is nothing whatsoever redeeming about this movie, unless you like mindless gore. Consider yourself warned.
Ok, I like B movies...I know what B movies are supposed to represent. But this is just awful. I am amazed it got such a decent overall score. The only redeeming qualities of this flick are the (mostly) marginal splatter effects. Don't get me wrong, gore abounds in this flick - but few effects really jumped out at me (like the anal "probe"...that was great!).<br /><br />I believe this movie was filmed on a camcorder. C'mon - rent a Betacam at least, I've seen porn with better production values (and better acting as well).<br /><br />Acting - sucked! But not in the Troma or Full Moon sort of way.<br /><br />Story - contrived! But thats what you get from films like these. Very loose!<br /><br />Sets & Props - sucked! My 16 year old brother makes more elaborate sets for our house on Halloween.<br /><br />Dubbing and dialogue - sucked! Horrible voice acting (I shouldn't even call it acting) and every other word is "S**t" or "F**k".<br /><br />There are tons of good classic and B rated horror / splatter flicks out there and they are not that hard to track down. Do yourself a favor by not wasting time on this crap!
I am a big fan of low budget horror movies like this, but come on! This has to be the worst piece of monkey S@#t I have ever seen! I ignored the reviews posted on this site figuring that it would fall into my taste in horror, but I got bored and turned it off.Let's see:<br /><br />The wardrobe: Consisted of cheap cameo outfits and painters outfits from home depot. The masks were made from what looks like tin foil. <br /><br />The Gore: The Gore was pretty good, I must give it that. But Ittenbach's Burning moon was better for a low budget movie. <br /><br />Acting: Was horrible! I didn't mind the dubbing. I find this humorous like in Ittenbach's "Premutos" (great movie). The fighting and action sequences were pi$$ poor.<br /><br />Bottom line: Don't watch any of Schnaas's movies. There are much better directors like Jorg Buttergeit and Olaf Ittenbach with movies of the same gore and subject matter. Check Premutos, House of blood, Schramm and the nekromantiks.
I cannot believe how bad this piece of garbage is! I want my $3.99 back! Words defy description of this poorly made piece of crap! The dubbing in no way shape or form aligns with the actor's mouths. The movie looks like it was filmed with a 1970's vintage camcorder. I have shot better movies with my cell phone camera. The gore is laughable due to the silly unbelievable plot. The acting is what one would expect if you called all your friends over on a Saturday afternoon and proceeded to get completely ripped, then tried to put on a play in your garage. Don't get me wrong...I wasn't expecting O'Neil and I love Zombie movies, but the production values are so low in this film as to make it unwatchable. Avoid!
I am dumbfounded that I actually sat and watched this. I love independent films, horror films, and the whole zombie thing in general. But when you add ninga's, you've crossed a line that should never be crossed. I hope the people in this movie had a great time making it, then at least it wasn't a total waste. You'd never know by watching it though. Script? Are you kidding. Acting? I think even the trees were faking. Cinematography? Well, there must've been a camera there. Period. I don't think there was any actual planning involved in the making of this movie. Such a total waste of time that I won't prolong it by commenting further.
Wow...I can't believe just how bad ZOMBIE DOOM (aka VIOLENT SH!T 3) really is. I'd heard the rumors, read the reviews - but had to make my mind up for myself. Well, let me tell ya - IT BLOWS!!! The worst acting of any film ever made, dubbing that must have been done while everyone involved was completely wasted, inept and laughable gore FX, no discernible plot, "cinematography" that looks like my grandma filmed it with her camcorder, weapons props that are no joke - made out of tin-foil - the list goes on and on...<br /><br />Three guys get stranded on an island where a bunch of weirdos run around with plastic and tin-foil swords. Two of the captives are freed along with a rebel of the island freaks, and are given a day's head start before they are hunted down by the rest of the "tribe"...that's pretty much it...<br /><br />Honestly - this is one of THE WORST films I've ever had the misfortune to subject myself too. The budget had to be about $200 and was spent entirely on the gore FX (which actually may not have been a bad idea...). There is NOTHING to ZOMBIE DOOM other than strung-together ridiculous looking gore scenes with lots of HORRIBLY dubbed dialog. This film makes other no-budget outings like PREMUTOS: LORD OF THE LIVING DEAD look like TITANIC. Some may rank ZD in the "so-bad-it's-good" category - and I guess if you're REALLY drunk or high and watching it with a few friends MST3K-style - I guess it could be looked at that way. But not by me. I hated pretty much everything about it. If ZOMBIE DOOM or ZOMBIE 90 (which is equally appalling and is included as a "bonus" on the Shock-O-Rama release of ZD) is indicative of Andreas Schnaas' other works - then he should be banned from ever having anything to do with making a film ever again under penalty of death. There is one amusing kung-fu battle in the latter half of the film, and a lot of blood - so I'll grant this one a VERY generous 3/10 - Do yourself a favor and skip this.
This movie is another Christian propaganda film in the line of The Omega Code. Not that that is necessarily bad but for the fact that most propaganda films sacrifice sincerity and realism for the message they wish to deliver. If you enjoy a styrofoam portrayal of life on the streets and the way the Gospel can change a life, than perhaps you may enjoy this movie. I say, save your money and rent The Cross and The Switchblade or The Mission. When will Christian directors learn that sometimes people say bad words? It was frustrating to see criminals depicted who are not allowed to swear (huh? criminals say bad words?) and flat characters I really could not relate to. Also, it would've been great if the movie had shown some T&A. Now that would be something I'd like to pay to see. Who was the blockhead who compared this communion wafer-thin story of a movie with The Boondock Saints and The Sting?
STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits <br /><br />In this debut effort for Nick Park's beloved man and dog, they are forced to fly to the moon when good old Wallace runs out of cheese.<br /><br />As well as being the shortest feature at just 22 minutes, this W/G adventure is also the earliest and it kinda shows. The plasticine animation is a little creaky and funny here, sort of reminiscent of the Mork animation about the little man in the box.<br /><br />Admirable though the craftsmanship behind it is, I've never actually been hugely into Wallace & Gromit (maybe a bit too clean and traditional for someone of my generation.) The only one I've really enjoyed is The Wrong Trousers (and that was more from when I was younger and less aware of, shall we say, the seedier pleasures of life.) I was driven to actively seek out this early effort due to the resurgence in popularity as a result of the hugely successful recent film adaptation.<br /><br />As technically impressive as the first two (all things considered!) this one lacks the emotional angle it's successors were to possess. That being said, it's fairly good fun as a first try and certainly set the standard for greater things to come. Two stars, but a good two stars. **
I'll be honest, this is one of the worst movies ever. If not, then it's VERY close. Ever seen a bad teen soap opera. Well this is like one of those. Except worse. For example: (POSSIBLY SPOILER) girl: I wanna go somewhere else.<br /><br />guy: all we need is here.<br /><br />girl: but I wanna take myself somewhere different.<br /><br />guy: I'll take YOU somewhere else.<br /><br />... Proceeding this line they have sex. The music is bad pop and bad punk rock. If you've EVER read the book, avoid this movie like the plague. They completely change the personalities of the characters and the events. Additionally, they just get rid of things. Also, the movie ends about before the book finishes. It is an AWFUL movie. So, if you haven't read the book, don't watch it. If you HAVE read the book, burn it (the movie). If you like stupid teen soap operas that are lower quality than your average low quality teen soap opera, go for it. Then again, should we expect anything different from MTV?
I wasn't expecting much of this film- a fun little diversion. Wuthering Heights could be turned into a plausible modern story- nice and soapy, melodramatic and intriguing. But this film decided to throw away the talents of the people involved in a simpering version so watered down from the source material that it's amazing they had the guts to call it Wuthering Heights at all. It ignores the fact that it is a story of people who are in essence unlikeable, mostly unsympathetic, and frequently cruel to one another. It changes the very nature of certain characters- Isabelle, for instance, in the novel, had not a conniving bone in her body- they've stripped her blind idealism and turned her into a scheming whore. Heathcliff is an awful person who psychologically tortures most people in his path, but in this version Catherine ends up leaving her daughter in his care. The dialog is trite and one wonders how the actors managed to deliver any of it with straight faces. In place of depth or actual emotions, we know they mean something when they scream it in someone's face. I've read criticism of the early 90's version, "Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights" which featured Ralph Fiennes and Juliette Binoche, saying that it turned an intensely dark, Gothic story into a sudsy bodice-ripper. Slightly valid comments, but the MTV version goes a step further, using the basic story structure to deliver chipper beach bums cavorting to really bad music.
What an empty and lack lustre rendition of the classic novel. I do wish people would stop messing about with classics when they clearly have no idea of the real intention or point of the original. This version is no different. I felt that the Ralph Fiennes version is much worse though as the casting of Juliette brioche as Kathy has got to be the worst casting decision EVER...anyway back to this version. It aims to make the story relevant to a contemporary setting and in a musical style. It succeeds in both but high art it is nit. Throwaway viewing for a rainy day maybe...The direction was average and the editing abysmal. Worse than the old Quincy. Deepak Verma does a great turn as Hindley and is in fact one of Britains wasted talents. The part of Heath was played with great charm and belief and I think that the casting is the strongest point of this project. Although a more talented director would have made better use of the facilities he had. Its clear that he was a director for hire and didn't instill the project with the passion that it deserved.
I just saw this movie premiere on MTV. I must say this was extremely mediocre (at its best). The dialogue doesn't explain the story very well, and I was left feeling like there were a lot of plot holes. There isn't one likable character in this adaptation due to poor acting. I just find that all of the characters are way too possessive when it comes to someone they love. Also, Cate and Heath's love seems very incestuous. They seem more like brother and sister rather than lovers. I don't understand why the father would accept something like that under his roof.<br /><br />I watched this movie because of a few actors that I respected and enjoyed to watch in previous films, but like I said, it's extremely hard to like any of the characters. Katherine Heigl's performance was horrid which was a complete shocker. She was terrible at being the bitchy older sister of Edward, and there just wasn't enough lines for Aimee Osbourne for me even to critique her performance. Johnny Whitworth did well and it was great seeing him in something recent and even though his character was a bit kooky, he was the only person I sympathized with. As for Erika Christensen and Mike Vogel, they were supposed to be our heroines, but came off as whiny and overdramatic.<br /><br />I just didn't enjoy this movie very much or the music in it. There was a brief appearance of the Christian punk band, MxPx, but that small appearance would not convince me to watch this movie again. MTV did a tremendous job in convincing me this was a movie it was not. I just pictured something so completely different.
awful, just awful! my old room mate used to watch this junk and it drove me crazy. the book is one of my favorites and its a shame that some people will never know what it is really like because their first impressions are from dribble like this. they changed so much it is hardly recognisable. which baffles me since the book reads like a soap opera anyway, providing enough fodder for modern day entertainment. it's like one of those Lifetime movies that say "based on a true story" but are completely fictional. there is none of the emotion or depth of the book, just mindless melodrama. if you are a high school student looking for a way to get out of reading, i suggest you try another version.
waste of my life, .... the director should be embarrassed. why people feel they need to make worthless movies will never make sense to me. when she died at the end, it made me laugh. i had to change the channel many times throughout the film because i was getting embarrassed watching such poor acting. hopefully the guy who played Heath never gets work again. On top of that i hope the director never gets to make another film, and has his paycheck taken back for this crap. { .02 out of 10 }
Dane tries to hard and is to extreme with all of his yelling and going crazy, spilling water on himself and rolling on the floor. To much. Calm down, get yourself together and make us laugh. I didn't quite understand his comparison toward comics and rock stars. Just because there both up on stage or something? He said that every comedian wants to be a rock star. I'm sure Rodney Dangerfield was really into that when he was alive. He had a few good jokes like the Burger King joke where people yell at the drive thru. I also liked the Reese's Pieces joke. If Dane just didn't act so mental he might be funnier and I might have given this a higher rating, as high as maybe an eight.
'A Smile LIke Yours' is a pathetic comedy that actually makes no sense. I don't mean that the story was complicated, but the entire plot is based on one thing: a couple's desperate and expensive unsuccessful attempts to conceive children. People who tried that hard must've forgotten of the option of the adoption, to which this movie is not kind to.<br /><br />Lauren Holly plays Jennifer Robertson, a complete contradiction to anything offered by the women's liberation movement, exhibiting almost no sense of independence. She is quite a boring character as the dreamy housewife with absolutey nothing else on her mind but to have kids. Like a dumb 50's romance comedy, Greg Kinnear is her submitting husband who likewise displays no personality, no independence, and from us, no interest.<br /><br />They are the two most boring and often annoying characters, and they hardly make for topics of a comedy that should present itself with many mishaps, which should arise from a couple doing all they can to get pregnant. Except, they really don't do anything except go to a fertility clinic and shell out a whole lot of money to do what they could do in the privacy of their own (except for that in vitro fertilization number). The plot hardly allows for any mishaps, because well, the couple don't do anything to create any sort of bizarre situation. They just go to this clinic. So what?<br /><br />The subplots are meant to test the faithfulness of the couple, a necessary moral element of the story since the couple does plan on conceiving children together. Jennifer works at a new age shop with her friend (played by Joan Cusak), and they are in the business of developing aphrodesiacs. Christopher MacDonald plays the intrested buyer and Jennifer is the promising negotiator of a pretty price for her and her friend's product. The subplot hardly offers much to keep you interested (although Joan Cusak is pretty funny in the restaraunt scene).<br /><br />Danny (Kinear) is an architect, who finds an opportunity to make some extra money to cover the clinic bills, by taking on a job in Seattle, where his boss is the crass seductress (also another hopeless, helpless female character) who tries to influence Danny (as dumb as he is) to have an affair with her once things are conveniently rocky with him and his wife (for reasons I don't care to give away). Jill Hennesy is good in the role, but her character is too predictable, and too formulaic as a much needed element to create conflict for Danny. It is stupid and once again, hardly interesting. <br /><br />The overall movie itself is utterly boring, and hardly funny at all (save the restaraunt scene and the airline flight). The plot offers nothing that is really attention-grabbing. Even if the story was entirely about two people trying to conceive, the writers could've figured out several hilarious mishaps to develop out of that. Second, the main characters are completely boring. They are complete silouhettes of dumb 1950s comedies with happy wife and clueless husband. So, even without mishaps present in the plot, the characters themselves offer nothing interesting, let alone funny.<br /><br />Joan Cusak should've been in the lead and someone else should've taken Kinnear's part. Cusak would've made even a lousy story outrageously funny (as she sometimes does in her co-starring role here). This is definitely one to pass up.
The best that I can say about this film is that it was mildly amusing at times, and that it was an adequate time killer. Unfortunately, this film is also so annoying that I wanted to slap these characters around. This is the kind of film that is so sweet, it hurts your teeth. The intentions were good, I suppose, but things get awfully tiresome when the dialogue is SO nauseating. When the two leads aren't together on-screen, this really isn't bad at all, but be afraid during those frequent moments when the loving couple starts talking to one another.
This is meant to be a comedy but mainly bad taste, and nothing remotely causing a smile in the film. The movie is about a couple trying for a child, and those people in real life who are in that situation will wince at the depictions that are portrayed. For instance scenes at a fertility clinic are not in the least funny and are quite frankly embarrassing. The male lead who plays a construction worker and in his hard hat comes across as a poor excuse for a reject from Village People. The female lead is trying to look 20 years younger than she is. Both leads come across as unappealing,unattractive and completely unconvincing. There are various ridiculous and totally unassuming gratuitous scenes in the film, for example with a budget airline, which is devoid of any humor. The only reason I give this 3/10 instead of 1/10 is one mark for Shirley Maclaine, who is a a class above anything else in the pic, and one mark for some half decent(albeit old) music.
This game has the(dis)honor of being the first game that I have stopped playing right in the middle of and felt like smashing into bits and then burning. Congratulations. FIRST and LAST Tomb Raider I will ever play I assure you.<br /><br />Plot: Just typing that word made me laugh. There isn't one. Neither is there character development. We finally have a girl heroine who can take care of herself,who isn't a *beeping*mary-sue,but unfortunately she dresses like a slut and her breast are huge. They had to attract the sexist boy gamers you see. Anyway all she does is go in tomb after tomb shooting things as she goes along. Why she does this I have no idea. I had subtitles on and the t.v. as loud as I could and I still didn't understand a damn thing. The development(or lack there of) for her, her two friends and the*villains*were laughable. There also will be levels that you have to go through that do-not give you any hint on what you have to do next and you literally will be in most of the boring as hell tombs for HOURS trying to figure out what the hell you are supposed to be doing. There is one course(out of two) in particular with her on a motorbike(Believe me it is not at all fun)that you will be on for ATLEASE an HOUR with NO save point in sight. That means you get hit by the other motorist and guys in vans shooting at you or you hit a tree you start the hour long trek OVER.<br /><br />Boss Stupid F*ck: You know lets makes the levels very long, have basically no save points, have no story, no character development, give no variety in game play, have most of the music on the longest levels ear-bleeding,and give no hints whatsoever to the player so they can stay even longer in a place instead of getting to the nonexistent plot.<br /><br />Stupid F*ck one: Those sound like bang up ideas.<br /><br />Stupid F*ck two: I concur. Who needs character development ,plot, or unboring game-play.<br /><br />Todd: I'm sorry sir,but these ideas seem like they will extremely p*ss the player off.<br /><br />Boss Stupid F*ck: Shut up Todd. You're fired.<br /><br />Game-play: All she does is shoot. Of course she can flip while SHOOTING, jump while SHOOTING, or kick while again SHOOTING.But flipping, jumping, and kicking does not erase the fact that all she is ultimately doing is SHOOTING. BORING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Music: The intro music is extremely beautiful. I love listening to it. The in game music goes from tolerable to wanting to cut your ears off.<br /><br />Visuals:Considering this game was made in 2006, I was expecting the visuals to blow me away.Well I was blown,but definitely not in a good way.<br /><br />Bottom-line: This game is a plot-less, no character development mess with a barely dressed unmarysuish(THANKFULLY)young women in the lead that goes through boring tombs for some boring reason(what that might be I couldn't tell you)with unimaginative shooting gameplay. STAY FAR AWAY FROM THIS B.S.!!!!!!!!It's gets two stars for having a women who isn't a damsel in distress(No matter how scantily clad she might be) and the beautiful into music.
OK, plain and simple, if you are a fan of the other Tomb Raider games (yes, even AOD) KEEP AWAY FROM LEGEND.<br /><br />It is, without doubt, the most disappointing TR game yet. It looks very nice, it sounds very nice, but it is totally unplayable and I've given up. I feel like I've been robbed by Eidos.<br /><br />It's very simple. TR was a PC game before anything else. You control Lara using the keyboard. In 6 Tomb Raider games the controls were standard. In AOD they were 'tacky', but still the same general control sequences. In Legend they have changed her movement and control methods completely and she is totally uncontrollable.<br /><br />I have seen comments elsewhere from people who say 'Use the mouse'. No, why should I? Others say 'Use a gamepad'. No, why should I? Others say 'But this has been the standard for 3rd person controls for years' Well, I don't care, it is not the standard for any other TR game so why mess with it. Oh, I know, because they couldn't care less about their original, loyal fan base, they want to cash in on the new kids who hadn't even heard of the series until the movies came out and make lots more money. Pathetic.<br /><br />My advice to any serious TR fan is keep away from this game, and if you do buy it complain to Eidos. I have seen masses of other posts, mainly on the Eidos forums, from people telling them how rubbish it is, perhaps they will listen.
<br /><br />I'm not sure who decides what category a movie fits into, but this movie is NOT a horror movie. As for the story, it was fairly interesting, but rather slow. I was especially disappointed with the ending though.<br /><br />**spoiler**<br /><br />Tell me why on Earth does she run over to her uncle's(?) home without at least calling the detective or the police first? She knows exactly what's going on at that point, plus she has a video tape as proof. Instead, she runs over there and starts going nuts and saying "I know everything, I have proof! You didn't expect proof, did you?!" Then she acts surprised when her uncle stands up and starts walking over to her as if he's going to harm her. Well DUH! Of course he's going to harm you idiot, you just told him you know everything and have proof to expose everything. What a dumb ending.
Spanish horrors are not bad at all, some are smart with interesting stories, but is not the case of "Second Name". It is badly directed, badly acted and boring...boring...boring, a missed chance for an interesting story.
After the overrated success of Amenabar and Balaguero, Spanish Horror Movies spread like a disease in the increasingly sad world of horror movies. The result is all in films like El segundo nombre, a TV-like production bad written, but acted and directed even worse. I didn't read the Ramsey Campbell book, but I'm sure that the author of The Doll Who Ate Its Mother didn't have much in common with this terrible production. Avoid it at any cost, unless you're searching for a quiet sleepy night in a fresh movie theater. 2/10
I have never seen such terrible performances in all my life.<br /><br />Everyone in the entire film was absolute rubbish.<br /><br />Not one decent actor/actress in the whole film, it was a joke.<br /><br />Reminded me of drama at school...
This is one of those films that makes you want the time you spent watching it back, and then some, like the time you spent accidentally picking it out, the time you spent getting to the video store, etc.<br /><br />First off, the look: It's grainy, it's low budget. Now that in itself doesn't make for a bad film. But the way it was filmed makes the action look unnatural, so that's kind of distracting.<br /><br />Then, the story. 3 gals go on a gal's weekend away from guys. Of course, as EVERYONE does when going on a camping trip, they stop on the way to get earrings. When they arrive at the area in which they're going to stay, they get pulled over by Mr. Ranger Sir, who scolds them for throwing a lit cigarette out of the car at fire season, and then drives them where they're going (a remote cabin). Of course, 2 "cute guys" wander into their vicinity, and Bambi (yes, Bambi) and Aubry are immediately smitten, but apparently Bambi is smitten by anything with two legs. Mady is rather disappointed by this development because she was looking forward to a weekend of forgetting about her ex by getting sh**-faced and stoned with her gal-pals.<br /><br />Oh, and I almost forgot, there's a mean old hermit that lives up that way, that's perhaps someone to not tangle with, and the area & cabin in which they're staying have a sort of "reputation".<br /><br />So of course, sooner or later (unfortunately, MUCH later) some of our weekend wood-visitors begin to die, and find various booby traps (although a couple of them actually hit a little lower than that) and of course, the remaining campers are understandably upset. No cell phone reception of course (who would miss out on a chance to check their cell phone for reception in a movie anymore?). Mr. Ranger Sir keeps popping up at odd times & his behavior seems a bit odd but he has said he will get help.<br /><br />There's a fantastic twist to this that you just won't want to miss too, if you're still awake. Pray that you wake up to a blank screen.<br /><br />The acting in this is terrible, the production values are terrible, and the whole undertaking is just lame & I find it amazing this was even released. Avoid at all costs, 1 out of 10.
"True" story of three girls who go into the wilds of Connecticut and end up hunted by a maniac in the woods. This is the sort of film that would have played in the drive ins across America thirty years ago to mixed acclaim. Not particularly much of anything the film works with its low budget to mixed results. The film is watchable but isn't at all scary (blame how some of the attack scenes for that). Its the sort of film that you'll probably forget about once you're done with it. Odds are that you're never going to think to see this unless its handed to you by someone and told, "here watch this", which is what happened to me. If you're handed a copy give it back, the film isn't worth the effort to see it even if it is watchable.
After a fairly lengthy partially pixelated nude shower scene, we're off to the races for this "Blair Witch Project"-esquire horror film about three girlfriends venturing to a desolate cabin deep in the woods to get away from their hectic lives for a girls' weekend out and smoke pot. They meet two guys who seem friendly enough, so they drink and tell ghost stories, until late in the movie some of them get picked off.<br /><br />This is a fairly slow movie, with needlessly drawn out 'suspense' scenes, the bad acting can't carry the myriad of scenes where nothing happens but mindless banter, and the movie as a whole is a dud, a deathly-boring dud at that. Nothing at all happens until the last half hour and when it did I was to numb to really care.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Ashley Totin shows T&A; Evy Lutzky gets topless briefly; and Jennifer Hart shows her right tit <br /><br />My Grade: D
HORRENDOUS! Avoid like the plague. I would rate this in the top 10 worst movies ever. Special effects, acting, mood, sound, etc. appear to be done by day care students...wait, I have seen programs better than this. Opens like a soft porn show with a blurred nude female doing a shower scene then goes bad from there. Good nude scenes, but that is it. Sound and light problems were persistent throughout the movie. At times I would swear I could hear the roaring of the camera motors. YIKES! I would like to see another movie on this story, but done by different people. This batch of actors and crew need more acting and movie making lessons. Voted 1 out of 10.
I'm not saying that because the production values were so low, but because it was filmed terribly. That shot of the girl washing her hair in the creek? Did we really need to sit there for an overlong shot and watch her do that for 5 minutes in the same spot? It was terrible, the lighting was just plain bad. You could barely see anything and when the characters were talking, you could barely hear what they were saying. Did I watch the whole movie? Of course not I skipped through most of it, and I don't want to hear anyone say I need to watch the whole thing first to judge it. This film was so poorly done and executed that even by independent and low budget standards it's just plain terrible. Awful movie...don't waste any time on it unless you want a good laugh, but even then it's not because of the actors "funny" lines, it's because of how painstakingly bad the production is.
Most of the French films I've seen - and enjoyed - were more talk than action, but that's okay. I found them interesting, well-photographed and with intriguing actors. (However, I did at one point wonder if Gerald Depardieu was in every French film ever made! It seemed that way.)<br /><br />This movie has the same interesting visuals and had a good opening. But then it became talk, talk and more talk....which is fine for a drama but not for a murder mystery. After awhile, I almost fell asleep watching this.<br /><br />Actually, the film was more like a play with almost all the scenes played out in one room. Thus, if you love plays, you should like this...but I want a little more bang for a murder story.
Green Street, as it was called in the UK, or Hooligans is a bad film. The story is full of fantastical ideas and premises that anyone who lives in England, has been to a football match or knows the first thing about football will spot immediately.<br /><br />My first main gripe with Hooligans is the poor casting of the two main characters. Don't get me wrong, I like Elijah Wood and have a great respect for his work, but despite his best efforts he struggled to pull off this role. The main motivation for his character is anger at the system and anger at betrayal, however he spends much of the film placid and cheery, only displaying his pent up aggression in one brief scene towards the end of the film. This linked with his looks and physique make him a thoroughly unconvincing addition to a gang of football hooligans. At no point during the film was I convinced that a) he could handle himself in a fight against such thugs and b) the 'firm' of thugs would accept such a person into their fold.<br /><br />The other main character is played by Charlie Hunnam. Charlie looks the part, and is fairly convincing as a thug. Unfortunately, being a native of Newcastle Upon Tyne in the North of England, he demonstrates the worst East London accent since Dick Van Dyke tried to go cock-en-y in Marry Poppins. Details such as this probably will not bother an American audience who will be less attuned to regional dialect in the UK, but being from the UK it was a problem I couldn't ignore and it contributed to ruining the movie for me. The supporting cast all gave convincing performances and were well cast, especially the role of Bover. The lad playing this character would have been much more suited to the main role that Charlie played. With a film like this, you have to convince the audience that your characters are plausible, unfortunately, the casting failed. Imagine if you made a film like The Godfather and had Sean Hayes (Jack) from Will and Grace playing Michael Corleone's part. You would not be convinced. The story in Hooligan is also full in implausibilities. I am no football Hooligan, but I am a fantatical football fan. I know how cliquey a group of 'regular' football supporters can be, as such it deem it impossible for a non-football fan, who is not a fan of the club in question, is not from the area in question and not even of English nationality to be embraced by a 'firm' who equate to a secret organisation in some severe cases. My final, and biggest, problem with this film, is the way it portrays football hooligans. I take objection to the film's idea that despite being very violent individuals, hooligans are excused as they live by some sort of code of ethics in their own world and should be admired for being brave and loyal to each other. This is complete rubbish. Football hooligans are complete scum. They take football, the national sport of England and use it as an excuse to terrorise, frighten and intimidate people. They only represent a tiny percentage of football fans but give the whole game and people of this country a bad reputation. They are not brave or loyal, they are cowardly and evil. If the 'GSE' in this film truly loved their club, West Ham, why would the devote their lives to being a stain on its name. Hooligans are an embarrassment to football and to English society. Football hooligans do for the reputation of football what Hitler did to the reputation of Germans. Although this film tries/intends to show the 'gritty' side of football violence. It does nothing more than promote it as some kind of excusable activity for extreme fans of the sport. It does not show the poor innocent by-standers at football matches who have their day ruined by some idiot throwing coins/lighters/glass into the crowd. It does not show the innocent home and property owners who have to put up with graffiti and broken windows. It does not show the REAL fans of football clubs who suffer indignity and embarrassment when their teams supporters are banned from travelling to away matches or abroad to European games because the thugs among them ruin it for everyone. If you want to see a good film about football violence, watch the BBC drama 'The Firm'.
This is possibly the worst film I've ever seen. The fact that it has a flimsy storyline is bad enough, that they've hooked it around the subject of football violence makes it 100 times worse.<br /><br />I had severe doubts about the premise of this film even before I started watching, but went into it open minded enough even to accept the way that the writers saw fit to introduce Elijah Wood's character Matt into the hooligan scene.<br /><br />But the film throws up inaccuracy after inaccuracy, to the point that by the middle of the film each one makes you cringe harder than the time before.<br /><br />Let's clear up a few things: Hooligans don't tend to virtually smash up their own pub before a run-of-the-mill league game; they don't set out to kill each other; they don't ONLY wear Stone Island (and others in the crowd, hooligans or not, do). They most certainly don't, when having taken exception to a new firm member, trot off to their rival firms territory for pie and mash. And I'd love to meet the hool who would go and grass on his firm's top boy to the rival firm. (Although you can scratch what I said about setting to out kill each other if one does exist).<br /><br />Don't get me wrong,I'm yet to see a film on the subject that doesn't contain some fantasy whims, but this is on a par with The Firm for cluelessness.<br /><br />I found it ironical that Wood's American nemesis is morally condemned by his character for being a cocaine user, when this is part and parcel of the British hooligan scene. The film chooses not to challenge Wood's morals and instead steers clear of any of the firm using coke.<br /><br />I could go on, but I think I've made my point.<br /><br />As for the plot, it's highly unimaginative, and I'm sure if I hadn't spent the entire film bemoaning the points, and more, made above then I would have guessed what was going on sooner than I did. And believe me, I was well in front.<br /><br />I get the distinct impression this film is aimed at men, with the hope that women will enjoy the injection of emotional issues that are raised.<br /><br />If I'm right, then the makers have failed completely. It's too unrealistic to be enjoyed by anyone who knows about the scene, and I can't believe the kind of female who looks for emotive films would give a damn about any of the characters given their violent tendencies.<br /><br />Are there any good points? Maybe the fight scenes are well choreographed and filmed, but I'm rarely impressed by slow-mo action, certainly not when it's a fight as the point is a ruck is rousing enough anyway.<br /><br />There are some funny, if unrealistic moments. Wood's trip to school did raise a smile for me. But a few mildly funny moments hardly make up for watching two hours of complete fabricated dross.<br /><br />If you're British avoid like the plague, if only not to further develop misconceptions of the scene if you're not in the know. If you're American, you may enjoy it, as it's clearly tailored to the market. But no one can deny the plot is flimsy, predictable and ultimately over the top.
Where to start? OK, don't compare this film to fight club for a start - ridiculous. If it was even a patch on fight club, the violence, blood, gore etc would be much more evident and realistic. Secondly, this film is no football factory - which is so much more real (and Danny Dyer makes Nicholas Nickelby look like an embarrassment). Fair enough, the storyline is quite decent and the fight scenes are well choreographed - with a decent ending i might add. But the film on the whole is poor, seriously poor. As people have been mentioning the accents should not spoil a film - i disagree - either a simple casting error, or a lack of effort in coaching the voices caused the film to be irritating all the way through - it was obvious from scene one some American/Geordie was playing the role. Don't get me wrong, good looking guy, who looks great with a skin head - but no not a football hooligan. I could go on forever about how ridiculous the football scene was - the 'fake steward' situation. Also, when the GSE are going to play United up north, they go on the train expecting only 3 of them - doesn't make any sense - this a real organisation of gangsters and thugs, which is portrayed in the film to be some mickey mouse cult of about 5 people. In terms of accuracy - did West Ham and Milwall not play for the last couple of years they have been in the Championship together? Hmm, ten years OK. And I'm sure 'Bother' would be able to just waltz into a Milwall firm pub. Basically, a very poor film which people will like if they have little knowledge of real football, and hooliganism. If you do actually love football and are intrigued by the underworld of hooliganism,, you will simply feel as though this film has insulted your intelligence. Ross George
First some background; I am English and have lived in London all my life. I have been to many games at 'The Den' and most other London club grounds. I am familiar with the type of person who gets into hooliganism and I know just how they act and how they speak. Have to say this is a bad, bad movie. I can tell you that Green Street is one of the most unrealistic movies I have ever seen. I spent most of the movie cringing with embarrassment. I felt I should write a mini review because I felt I needed to point out a few things.<br /><br />a) People just don't talk like that in London in real life; the filmmakers took the whole slang thing too far and made it sound stupid. Unfortunately hooligan types do exist, but those you see in Green Street are more like parodies. b) The actor who plays Pete Dunham (Charlie Hunnam) unfortunately sounded about as 'English' or 'Cockney' as Osama Bin Laden. He's from up north in Newcastle and I'm just amazed any of the other actors could keep straight face acting alongside him - how are we supposed to take him seriously. Why they didn't just get someone from East London to play that part is beyond me. I could have done 'a bang up job' myself, hehe. c) Mr Frodo. I mean how can I be expected to take seriously Elijah Wood kicking the ass of people twice his size and who are genuinely nasty hooligans. He'd be dead. Simple as that. Honestly (as a Brit) it was hard to watch this film. I'm pretty sure this film will bomb here in the UK. It may do a little better in the states because the Americans just wont know (or care) how inaccurate it is. <br /><br />Please my American and foreign friends, don't believe a word of this nonsense. Yes these firms do exist but it's all extremely underground and hush hush, and on a vastly smaller scale. The movie only gets a 2 from me because they actually filmed some of it in London. Usually they try to film these things in Cardiff (Wales) or something and expect us all not to notice.
I'm sure to people watching this move outside of Britian this film will be an entertaining watch, but for someone from the UK it's painful in it's errors.<br /><br />Right at the start of the film Elijah Wood gets off a tube at Bank station, which has been trashed. He says to his sister, who he's meeting, "What happened here" and she replies "Oh Tottenham were in town yesterday"!!! Tottenham are in town already.. they're part of the town, they don't have to go there! And if Tottenham fans wanted to fight other fans the last place on earth they'd do it is Bank station, where there are probably more security cameras than anywhere else in the world.<br /><br />There are several other similar errors but the biggest failing for me is the actor who plays the lead hooligan. He clearly decided it wasn't worth trying to speak with an East End accent and instead opted for a Dick Van Dyke style mock-ney which made my ears bleed. It was accentuated by the fact the rest of his gang all spoke in the way you'd expect West Ham fans to speak. This error made him unbelievable in the role and really spoilt the film.
Let's just say I had to suspend my disbelief less for Spiderman than I did for Hooligans. That is, to say, I have less of a problem believing Toby McGuire can stick to buildings than I do Elija Wood throwing down with toughs in Manchester. I won't get into specifics, as I don't want to write a spoiler, but the idea of grown, professional, British men getting into near death scraps every weekend is, well... funny. And this film is not. The fighting, the idea of fighting, is taken far too seriously. The gravity of the pugilism, the reverence with which the subject matter is treated becomes irritating, as it neither establishes or resolves the conflict. It seems as though the plot, with holes big enough to drive a Guiness truck through, has been slapped together with a contrived "fish out of water" theme so that viewers can gaze into Woods teary eyes as he learns how to become a man ie. hitting other young men of opposing football tastes with blunt objects and then running away as fast as he can. The characters are cartoonish, especially the Americans at Harvard. The character development and story line are telegraphed to the viewer throughout the picture. Unfortunately, the absurdity of the film doesn't reach its height until nearly the end, which by then you'll have spent nearly two hours of your life you are never getting back. Pick up "The Football Factory" or "Fight Club" instead of this corny, and disappointing dud. It doesn't waste time with empty melodrama, the tired old "Yankee in King Aurthur's Court," or weepy, parables of coming of age bullsh*t. They're just pure, dark, and clever fun; the way violence is supposed to be.
This movie was probably about as silly as The Naked Gun (which was supposed to be). Case in point:<br /><br />1. In order to fake her drowning Roberts is secretly taking swimming lessons at the YWCA. After her "death" the YWCA calls her husband at work to give their condolences. HELLO how did they get his work number?<br /><br />2. Before she leaves town she drops her wedding ring in the toilet. Days or even weeks later her hubby finds it in the John. Does this mean the toilet was never flushed?<br /><br />3. No explanation is given on how she is paying for her mothers care in the retirement home (since she did it behind her RICH husbands back).<br /><br />4. Towards the end of this tiresome film Roberts suspects her husband is in the house. Instead of running for her life she runs to the kitchen instead to see if the cans are stacked neatly.
Julia Roberts obviously makes a concerted effort to shake off her cotton wool Pretty Woman persona with this spurious spousal abuse thriller, but it's hard to imagine she'd end up putting in a performance as powerful and convincing (and oscar winning) as she did in Erin Brokovich based on the back of this rubbish. And make no bones about it, it's nothing more than a Julia Roberts vehicle, but unfortunately, her performance is not the most lacklustre thing about it.<br /><br />The plot has all the markings of a late night made-for-cable, and don't be under the impression that it will offer any insight into the dark world of domestic abuse because non of the characters are sketched out enough for you to really care. <br /><br />Ultimately disappointing and unsatisfying, without Roberts' name above the title, I'm sure it would have totally flopped, deservedly.
"Sleeping With the Enemy" is a predictable, 'been there before' thriller that never seems to find any inspiration no matter how desperately cast and crew try. I can't believe a bunch of my friends talked me into seeing this at the movies some sixteen years ago.<br /><br />The complete lack of originality from the Ronald Bass screenplay (based upon the Nancy Price novel) does not help, nor does the stale direction of Joseph Ruben or the very average performance from Julia Roberts. The supporting cast including Patrick Bergin and Kevin Anderson do little to help.<br /><br />There really isn't a lot to say. Just give it a miss.<br /><br />Sunday, April 14, 1991 - Hoyts Cinema Centre Melbourne
What a powerful start to a film when Julia Roberts character is punched in the face by her abusive and anal husband played by Patrick Bergin and I felt ready to experience a powerful film on the same level as Farrah Fawcett's The Burning Bed. Well, as the summary says I was mis-lead. This film was nothing like The Burning Bed, which had power and Farrah played the part of a woman you truly felt for, and felt her pain and her need to survive. Sleeping with the Enemy drifted off after the first act into cheap thrills with Roberts faking her death to escape her husband and goes to live in Iowa. Her husband at first believes she is dead but starts to grow suspicious that she may still be alive and sets off after her. The rest of the movie is basically a cat and mouse game with Julia getting a house in this small town in Iowa and changing her identity....there is no mention of course how she got the money for this but at this point in the film I did not care all that much. She meets a guy (Mr. Nice wimpy) and falls for him and her husband does finally catch up to her but not before he re-arranges her soup cans and straightens up the kitchen. This was I assume to provide a cheap thrill to the audience. But I did not care much if she was an abused wife because the film as I have said cheated the audience. If it had stayed the course I might have felt for her and her situation. Of course the husband is killed and all is well for little ol Ms Roberts. If only the real world was anything close to this....See the Burning Bed and you understand what a film is suppose to be like on the subject of domestic abuse.
Yes there are worse movies out there. Most of them made for fun, on a shoe string budget, or as a t.v. movie of the week, but even if this was the 'movie of the week' it would rate no more than two stars. It is a poor movie about a serious subject featuring an abused woman who flees the king of the slime people in to the protective arms of the king of the wussy people. ( If this is an attempt to show that she doesn't need a man to protect her than wuss man is superfluouse to the film and ought not to be in it at all). It has no suspense, no character development, and an heroine that could be outsmarted by a rotton onion. ( I think she flushes her wedding ring on a boat with a self contained tank rather than just dropping it overboard in the ocean (where her body should be anyway) and after the husband finds her, demonstrating that she is a moron, she still makes childish assumptions that lead to almost getting her killed.) I am always amazed when I see the sort of generally high rating a movie like this gets and it makes me realize that Dr. Seuss still has a huge untapped market of people who would be challenged by his work. After I get done laughting at humanity I weep.
"Serum" starts out with credits that are quite reminiscent of the "Re-animator" movies, and it owes a lot to them. The story is very similar; a mad doctor develops a serum that he believes will alleviate pain, sickness and death, but he's apparently not a big believer in clinical trials and so winds up with a brain-eating zombie on his hands in the person of his nephew. The zombie even looks like one of those from "Re-animator," and in fact some of the make-up effects in "Serum" aren't bad. Unfortunately, the script is pretty slow and unbelievable in quite a few places, resulting in a soap opera feel for most of the first 3/4 of the movie. For some reason, the director feels compelled to tell us the time of day every few minutes by flashing it in big white letters across the screen. I can't see why this was important, other than being an attempt to provide viewers with a sense of time passing; sometimes, that wouldn't be present otherwise as the plot plods along.<br /><br />There are a number of moments that just don't add up here. For instance, one victim is bludgeoned with a sledge hammer, but when we see the victim's head up close, there's no sign of that trauma. In another scene, a character runs down a fully lit hospital corridor (we can see the circles of light on the floor, in fact) with a flashlight in hand, looking for all the world like he's walking in the dark... but a moment later a second character walks down the same fully-lit corridor without one. These are just a couple of examples; moments of what look like directorial or editorial sloppiness crop up quite frequently throughout the movie.<br /><br />"Serum" is better in some ways than much of what goes straight-to-video as independent horror lately. In terms of technical items — sound and photography, for example — it's got a more polished look than a lot of what lands on a DVD. On the other hand, there's still a good deal of wooden acting (particularly by one of the lead characters, the mad scientist himself!) and nonsensical moments that have nothing to do with suspension of disbelief and everything to do with writing and continuity. Maybe these are things that the people involved with making this film will eventually get more experience with, though. One of the problems with low-budget independent horror lately is that the filmmakers often set out to remake more popular movies that had bigger budgets, and that almost never works out. It didn't in the case of "Serum," anyhow.
Serum is about a crazy doctor that finds a serum that is supposed to cure all diseases through the power of the mind. Instead it creates some kind of monster that needs to eat human flesh and brains. The mad doc creates some zombies out of cadavers and has some problems. There is a very long lead into all the action with many scenes getting you acquainted with the characters. The mad doctor's nephew gets into a car accident and the mad doc tries to use his new serum on the boy. The results are not good. This is a class C film with OK acting but some troubles directing and some continuity errors. There isn't much zombie action in this one and the effects, while adequate, are nothing special. You can fast forward through the slow parts and get some enjoyment out of the action scenes. Watch out for some nudity and bad language.
Dr. K(David H Hickey)has been trying to master a formula that would end all disease and handicaps, but needs live donors to complete his work. His doctor brother Richard(Dennis O'Neill)has a son named Eddie(Derek Philips)who is accepted to medical school. Eddie has a girlfriend named Sarah(Lizabeth Cardenas)who is pre-law and plans to attend law school herself the coming fall. She and Eddie resume their relationship when Sarah calls things off with her current boyfriend who is also shagging the lady of Walt(Bill Sebastian;Eddie's best friend who recently paid for his cheating girlfriend's boob job). Eddie accidentally gets hit by a car and appears on the throes of death when Dr. K makes a suggestion to Richard..let him "recuperate" Eddie using his secret, illegal methods. When Dr. K applies his serum to Eddie horrifying results occur. Eddie's face bulges massive warts while he has also acquired a taste for human flesh. Many will die so that Eddie can feed this uncontrollable appetite he can't quench. Soon he may even pose a threat to his father and girlfriend..Eddie Monster must be stopped.<br /><br />Typically awful direct-to-video horror flick suffers from a severe lack of budget, acting, and overall talent. The premise, which seems like an interesting fright-fest, fails to deliver even as a zombie flick. The gore is limited with a few munching scenes but most of the violence occurs off-camera. The use of time to move the story along can really get annoying.
Serum starts as Eddie (Derek Phillips) is delighted to learn he has been accepted into medical school to carry on the family tradition of becoming an MD like his father Richard (Dennis O'Neill) & his uncle Eddie (David H. Hickey), however his joy could be short lived as Eddie is involved in an accident & is run over by a car. Taken to the nearest hospital it doesn't look good for poor Eddie so his uncle Eddie convinces his brother Richard to let him save Eddie with the serum he has developed, a serum which will give the recipient the power to self heal any sort of wound or illness. Desperate for his boy to live Richard agrees but the procedure has unwanted side effects like turning Eddie into a brain eating zombie which is just not a good thing...<br /><br />Executive produced, written & directed by Steve Franke I'll be perfectly frank myself & say Serum is awful, Serum is one of those no budget horror films which tries to rip-off other any number of other's & ends up being slightly more fun than having you fingernails pulled out with pliers. The script is terrible, it has the whole Re-Animator (1985) feel to it with mad scientists wielding huge syringes trying to eradicate death but it's so boring it's untrue, the first forty minutes is nothing more than a really dull soap opera that amounts to nothing expect to pad the running time out with Eddie arriving home after spending some time away & finding his ex-girlfriend has hooked up with someone else, arguments with his step-mom, getting drunk with his mate & generally boring the audience stiff. So, once the tedium of the first forty minutes is over & if your still watching it it takes another twenty minutes to get Eddie re-animated & then he kills a couple of people, police catch up with him & shoot him, the end. Thank god. Serum is devoid of any of the characteristic's that one would associate with a good film, the character's suck, the dialogue is poor, it takes itself far too seriously, it's dull, it's slow, it's forgettable & considering it's meant to be a horror film there's an alarming lack of blood, gore or horror. Not recommended, did I mention Serum was boring? I thought so.<br /><br />Director Franke does nothing to liven this thing up, although competent there's no style here at all. The gore levels are none existent, there's a bit of splashed blood, a bitten neck, a couple of scars on a dead woman's face, a couple of scenes where a needle pierces skin & that's it. Don't expect a Re-Animator in the gore department because if you do your going to be sorely disappointed, much like I was in fact. Filmed in what looks like one house, one restaurant & a lab the film has no variety either & just looks cheap throughout. There's a couple of scenes of nudity but that's nowhere near enough to save it.<br /><br />Technically the film isn't too bad, at least it looks like proper cameras were used, I can't really comment on the special effects because there aren't any but generally speaking Serum looks reasonably professional. Apparently shot in Texas, or should that read it should have literally been shot in Texas? The acting sucks although again I think they were proper actor's rather than friends or family of the director.<br /><br />Serum is a terrible film, it's dull, slow, boring, has no gore & feels like a horrible soap opera for the first forty minutes. I don't understand why anyone would feel the need to watch this when they can watch Re-Animator or one of it's sequels again instead, seriously I recommend you give Serum a miss. There I've just saved you from wasting 90 minutes of your life, you can thank me later.
I don't'know... maybe it's because I'm Brazilian but all that stuff was too much. Too much love for the music, too much parties, too much contrast between the nice lives of the main characters (come on, it's not so sad) and the aspect of the city shown by the director. Everything looks too fake to me: the families, the relationships, the music, the "happiness". It simply sells a little taste of fake latinamerican culture. I must be honest: it did seduce me a little, but who would not be seduced by that fake lives made of nice music, sex and parties? I'm not that stupid: what kind of world is this one in which people do not suffer of diarrhea, profound sadness and STDs? I liked the scene with Caridad's mother phone call and the discussion about the contract with all the musicians and the Spanish people.
"Triumph of Love" is proof that not every Comédie-Française author who uses cross-dressing disguised courtship like Shakespeare is worth seeing. <br /><br />Or maybe something was lost in the translation of this adaptation of Marivaux, a Commedia Dell Arte-inspired playwright of whom Brittannica says: "His nuanced feeling and clever wordplay became known as marivaudage." <br /><br />While Mira Sorvino has fun dangling three mixed-up romances, her pants role wasn't even up to Cherubino in "Marriage of Figaro."<br /><br />The herky-jerky editing is annoying and just seems to indicate that a lot of takes were needed for each long speech.<br /><br />Best was Fiona Shaw as the fooled spinster, as well as the costumes.<br /><br />The glimpses of audience we see and the closing curtain call to wink that this is all artifice doesn't really help.<br /><br />(originally written 5/29/2002)
Let me be clear. I've used IMDb for years. But only today I went through the trouble of registering on the site, just so I could give this movie the lowest possible rating. I've seen hundreds of films, some of them bad, a few awful. Never, though, have i seen such a contrast of pretense and incompetence, of high intentions and failure.<br /><br />Mira Sorvino is horribly cast as the princess, but entirely unbelievable as Phocion, a young boy. Fiona Shaw is always an entertaining character, but the dialogue in the film is much worse, even, than in the insipid French play that is the source (Marivaux never reached Hollywood until now, and we should keep it that way).<br /><br />To illustrate, for example, that Leontine is a brilliant, passionate philosopher and scientist, she is shown frantically pouring chemicals from beaker to beaker, shouting out names of famous scientists. And the romance between Agis and the princess is played even sillier. For this, the pair should receive a joint 'Clair Danes' award, which in a just world would be awarded for gratuitously anachronistic and uninspired re-interpretation of interesting teens from literature as brats of the 1990's (see Miss Danes in Les Miserables).<br /><br />Aside from the atrocious plot and dialogue, there are some attempts to introduce artistic tropes into the filming. For example, there are moments when a handful of spectators are faded in and out of view of the action, sitting in chairs, watching the principal characters. The Director wants us to realize she's adapted a play. I get it. But it doesn't happen at all until far into the film. At that point, seeing a crowd of people sitting in chairs for a moment, then disappearing, is creepy and distracting. They're like some sort of un-scary zombie crowd, appearing through the mists, filling us with dread. When you see the horrible frolic and song that ends this movie, you'll want to rouse your own crowd of zombies and kill them all for the grave injustise of poisoning your mind for 112 minutes.<br /><br />-Matthew McGuire
Yikes. This is pretty bad. The play isn't great to begin with, and the decision to transfer it to film does it no favours - especially as Peploe doesn't decide how she wants to treat the material's theatrical origins (we get occasional glances of an observing theatre audience etc.) and has decided to go with a jumpy editing style that is intended to keep reminding you that you're watching a film, whereas in fact it only serves to remind you that you are watching a very poor film by a director who is overwhelmed by her material. Mira Sorvino's central performance is breath-takingly poor: stage-y and plummy, it's as if she's playing the part via Helena Bonham-Carter's Merchant Ivory oeuvre. Only Fiona Shaw delivers a performance of note - and it may be that her theatrical pedigree means that she is best able to handle the material - but it's hard to watch a film for one performance alone, even if that performance is as light, truthful and entire as Shaw's. Ben Kingsley turns in an average and disengaged turn, and Diana Rigg's daughter, Rachel Stirling plays her supporting role as just that. Sadly, none of Bertolucci's magic has rubbed off on his wife if this film is to be the evidence.
I borrowed this movie from library think it might be delightful. How wrong am I!<br /><br />It is such a bad movie that I have to write something about it. Mira Sorvino is SO bad in the movie, it is very painful to watch the scene with her. She is a pretty girl, but in this movie, She is not seductive at all, but I will have to witness her awkward attempt to seduce almost all the other major characters. It is so ridiculous.<br /><br />And the dialog of the film is so pretentious, and lack the humorous fact that make then acceptable.<br /><br />Totally failure.
"The Triumph of Love" doesn't triumph over anything. It is a plodding, ponderous, 4 hours of torture. Actually it's a little less than 2 hours long, it just seemed much longer. It pains me to even think about the amateurish performances of such fine actors as Ben Kingsley and Fiona Shaw. The supporting players are not quite as awful. Maybe they were trying to be so over the top, so as to be clownish, but, if so, I didn't see it that way. Mira Sorvino doesn't make an impression one way or the other. She(he)'s just there. My guess is, the play of the same name, written by Marivaux some 270 or so years ago, is much better. It couldn't be any worse. Clare Peploe, the writer and director of this movie, was inspired by a recent production of the play. I don't know what she was thinking when she created this bomb. <br /><br />Maybe it all got lost in the translation.
I gave this movie a rating of 1 (Awful). The only reason that it should even get a 1 instead of a big -0- is Ben Kingsley, who always shines not matter what terrible material is thrown his way.<br /><br />Mira Sorvino is so out of her element here that as a viewer one simply can't get over the fact that she is even in such a piece.<br /><br />Stupid, stupid story and horrible production. Do NOT waste your video rental $.
Gods, I haven't watched a movie this awful in a long while. Maybe not since 'The New Guy' or various Freddie Prinze Jr. movies. Yes, it is that astoundingly awful. Mira Sorvino's blank and wooden acting surely must've been inspired by Freddie. The movie staging was awkward (like a play, rather, and that feeling of confinement does NOT work well on film). The actors had no idea what they were doing, especially Sorvino. Her accent was awful and her sex appeal non-existent here so it was painful to see her 'seducing' other characters and they 'falling' for it. And what was with the occaisional shots of a live audience in lawn chairs? Nonsensical! I had to turn the dvd player off, it would have been self-inflicted pain to finish this film.
I rented this movie, thinking it looked like a wonderfully delightful historical piece. What I got was a piece of pure garbage. This movie was confusing in most spots, choppy in almost every spot and dreadful in all spots. Mira Sorvino's portrayal of a queen playing a young male scholar was depressing at best. Ben Kingsley should have been stripped of his knighthood for even considering this film as one of his projects. Fiona Shaw should definitely stick to playing Petunia Dursley; at least the Harry Potter movies are more entertaining than this thing they call a play within a movie.<br /><br />The cinematography looks like some college kid took a class in Cinematography 101 and failed miserably. Almost every scene in the movie is chopped up for some sort of effect; the end result of course being the cheesiest bit of editing I've ever seen. Jay Rodan was almost good as Agis; too bad he had such a bad script to work with. Rachael Stirling gives her best effort as the almost gullible lady in waiting. In the end, I really wish Blockbuster Video gave refunds. I'm so glad I didn't spend 10 bucks watching this fiasco in the theater. If they've been performing this Marivaux play since the 18th century, it makes me wonder how many people over the ages have had their best naps during this work. If I had been there, they wouldn't have hear the play over the snoring. Thank goodness for the modern convenience of DVD players; you can skip past the boring or awful scenes. Guess that means I only watched the beginning and the end!
I really wanted to like this movie a lot more than I did. That's because I love wacky foreign comedies--particularly the strange ones that catch you completely by surprise. However, although this one frequently caught me by surprise, these were almost never pleasant surprises. It reminded me of South Park in that nearly EVERY social norm was violated until the only ones left to broach were too sick to be funny. For example, after exploring adultery, drug abuse (of nearly every sort--ranging from pot, heroin, speed to glue sniffing), prostitution, S&M, suicide, murder, etc., the movie got to the hilarious(?) topic of pedophilia. Mom encouraged her one son (who looked about 12 years-old) to sleep with neighboring men. In fact, at one point in the movie she gives this boy to the dentist in lieu of payment for dental work! Funny?! You've got to be kidding. This movie just goes too far and delves into the "black hole of comedy". What should they make fun of next, cancer or rectal tumors?
Tatie Danielle is all about a ghastly old hag who torments her loving and oblivious family out of sheer spite. There's a bit of subtext that might be about France's colonial past but it's mostly just Danielle doing the sorts of things (like deliberately abandoning a small child in a park) that would soon have a man picking up his teeth with broken fingers. Sadly, that doesn't happen here. It looks good and the acting is fine and there's nothing really wrong with the concept but it's just so SMUG. God, does this movie love itself. Pity it isn't nearly as clever or as funny as it thinks it is. The only impetus in the show - sorry, movie - comes from Danielle getting nastier and nastier, and the only surprise comes from watching the increasingly improbable ways she does this. That's right: just like in a sitcom, which is what this is, with the added 'bonus' of delusions of grandeur and a 110-minute running time.
This agonizing comedy-drama got surprisingly sterling reviews upon its release in 1979. I remember opening the movie-section of the L.A. Times and looking at a 2-page advertisement for "Chapter Two" filled with glowing captions like: "Better than 'The Goodbye Girl'!" and "Neil Simon does it again!" What does Neil Simon do? He takes an autobiographical situation (remarrying too soon after the death of a beloved spouse) and makes it rusty, unpleasant and--worst of all--unfunny. James Caan plays Neil--er..that is, George--a writer who can't seem to get back into life after losing his wife; enter spirited Marsha Mason (real-life Mrs. Simon...soon to be ex-Mrs. Simon) who attempts to love George despite his moods and general melancholy. Mason is very appealing here and might've saved the day were it not for Caan's indifference (not to mention a sub-plot concerning painfully-thin, blonde Valerie Harper which brings the proceedings to a screeching halt). I liked Mason's outburst at the end ("I am wonderful! I am NUTS about me!"), but I saw no happy ending for these two people...and time proved me right. ** from ****
Thanks to a dull, dimensionless screenplay by Neil Simon, and lackluster direction from Robert Moore, Chapter Two becomes a shrill showcase for Marsha Mason who received her third of four Oscar nods for Chapter Two giving the same performance here that she gave in Cinnderella Liberty(73), The Goodbye Girl(77), Audrey Rose(78) and Only When I Laugh(81);only this time she doesn't have a child to drag around. Chapter Two is the third and last feature film for Moore having previously directed Neil Simon's The Cheap Detective(78) and Murder By Death(76). Caan is miscast, the characters are mono-dimensional, the dialog is overly analytical, and there's virtually no establishing detail. The first half is a less-than-captivating, meet cute, coy romance between a blinkered Caan and a chipper Mason, and the dreary second half makes you long for the first half. The NYC locations as well as Joe Bologna, and a painfully thin Valerie Harper are irrelevant, but at least they provide some welcome distraction. And last and least, there's an awful song played during the credits.
What a piece of stupid tripe.<br /><br />I won't even waste time evaluating any of the points of this show. It's not worth the time. The one comment I will make is - why get such a DUMB, inarticulate doofus to be the star?!?<br /><br />There aren't many more dismal testimonials to the deteriorating mental condition of the networks than the fact that FOX has stated it will NOT bring back John Doe (a decent series) but WILL bring back brain-dead drivel like Joe Millionaire for yet another round of killing the brain cells of the american public.<br /><br />FOX has lost it, IMHO.
You loose 100 IQ points just for tuning in. This show has to be awful, I refuse to tune in from just what I've seen in commercials. Where did they dig this guy up at anyway? Also, what do they intend to do next season? The secret is out. Everyone already knows the set up? Are they going to look for people who has been living under a rock to star in next season? Where are they going to dig up more stupid women? No wonder America is a big joke to outsider's,look what you are watching!!
Final Score...who cares - it's a reality show. It has no love for it's audience, it panders to lazy TV viewers, puts nothing in and gets nothing out.<br /><br />"Joe Millionaire", the most blatantly phony reality show of them all, is a television disaster of epic proportions. It's a watershed, rock bottom moment, not only for Fox, but for the American viewing public who actually watch, like and talked about this crap the next day. You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Because as much as Fox promotes this junk it won't make any money unless it's watch by people (and boy was it, the finale got nearly Super Bowl numbers!?). It doesn't bother you people that there are many quality shows written, directed, acted and generally have effort put into them that are being cancelled while you sit back and lap up this effortless, cold game show?<br /><br />I used to be a staunch supporter of Fox. It's those of us like me who like and seek out quality TV that helped build Fox back in the days of Married...with Children and The Simpsons. Conveniently enough, now neither of those shows would make it 6 weeks with the current management. The Gail Berman "reign of terror" as it's often called. The network has waged war on scripted TV AND, strangely enough, it's fans. The very people who helped build them in the beginning. Now, not only do we have to fight for good shows, but we have to fight against their own network. It boggles the mind. Nothing Fox, has done in the past 3 years makes any sense. From canceling hits like "Titus", "Futurama" and "John Doe" (NBC can renew "Boomtown", but Fox can't lift it's pitiful head to give the only decent show they had this season another shot?). And the reason they can do all this: the success of junk like "Joe Millionaire". They can now say "We don't need you TV fans, we have reality shows". They apparently seem to have no idea that the big audience the draw with this junk is fickle and WILL abandon them the second the next fad comes along. To alienate their base like this will eventually kill the network the way it has set back ABC.<br /><br />The show itself is a joke. Here we have a premise, in the now classic Fox gimmick, that promises us something different and edgy, but then delivers something not in any way different from "The Bachelor" or anything on the big 3. Fox has gone mainstream. The finale and "twist" (quote/unquote) showed they have no ideas up their sleeve. Now we know that all these shows, no matter how different they look, will all end up the same cornball, fairy tale ending. We got to see a bunch of lame aspiring actors that the network picked out of millions of head-shots to fit their demographics parade around like high school bimbos pretending they liked this Evan Marriott because...well because it was a competition and that's what you're supposed to do. Marriott himself is like a hideously disfigured Chro-magnum man who struggles to put together the simplest sentences. But, how can the women (all average to ugly looking by the way - an important minus is a guilty pleasure show like this) not fall for "Joe" with such charming lines like "Look, you're not stupid".<br /><br />I used to think that people who watched these reality/dating/game shows were just to lazy to change the channel, but after "Joe Millionaire" I think they must be genuinely mentally deficient. Come on people, have a little more pride in yourselves. Demand a little bit more from your entertainment then THIS.<br /><br />Boycott FOX.
<br /><br />I watched this movie just a little while ago and I found that this movie was terrible! It moved very slowly and was hardly entertaining!<br /><br />Sorry for all those that liked it.... this is only my opinion!
A film about the Harlem Renaissance and one author in particular. It contrasts it with a modern day story about a young, gay, black artist.<br /><br />If that sounds vague it's because the movie itself is. It's well-directed, fairly well-written and (for the most part) well-acted. Also the scenes in the past are shot in moody black & white. Also this is one of the few film dealing with gay men that does NOT shy away from sex scenes (not that explicit and no frontal). Still, I mostly hated this.<br /><br />The film meanders all over the place, is full of unlikable characters (including the main protagonist) and (this is the killer) moves at a snails pace. Three times I considered leaving the theatre because I was so utterly bored. But the director WAS there so I stayed. <br /><br />His talk afterwords shows this was a labor of love and took 6 years to complete. I really wish I could like this more (there are VERY few films dealing honestly with gay blacks) but I can't. Unless you're very interested in the Harlem Renaissance there's no reason to see this.
Uh oh! Another gay film. This time it's showing the black side. Bet your last dollar it's gonna have an unhappy ending! But WHY? With only less than a half dozen exceptions, ALL gay films have to end in death or an "addio" finale. It's like all the European Film Noir releases in the 40's, 50's, 60's, and 70's. The lead...male or female must die or ride off alone into oblivion. Why in God's name must writers, directors, and producers have the audience leave the theatre feeling depressed? After all, it's supposed to be gay...not glum. Maybe the category should be changed to a 'glum' film. A large percentage of gay relationships DO last and the couples DO ride off together into the sunset! No matter who writes or produces, he only shows the down side of gay life and gives the incorrect impression of gay lifestyle. This movie just proves my point. If you rent the DVD, take an antidepressant, for here comes another 'gay' film! This is WRONG!
Another of many nearly forgotten movies cranked out by Poverty Row in the 1930's, resurrected by the magic of DVD.<br /><br />Starring stock Universal player Lionel Atwill (often a supporting actor in numerous Frankenstein movies) as a pair of twins involved in a murder racket. One kills the victims (stockbrokers involved in a scam) and asks witnesses for the exact time, while the other is deaf and is proved "innocent" because he could not have spoken to witnesses.<br /><br />Of course, where it falls apart is if it was a congenital deafness, wouldn't they both be deaf? Oh, well.<br /><br />Atwill does a pretty good job here, faking being deaf and mute. Unfortunately, no one else here can really act worth a darn.
This one is a real bomb. We are supposed to believe that Merle Oberon is the sequestered daughter of an ambitious politician who must prove to the Tom DeLay of the 1930s that he is worth supporting as a presidential candidate. Poor Merle can't go anywhere, but is surrounded by politicians and their quacking, quaking wives and supported only by kindly uncle Harry Davenport. She joins her two maids on a blind date and Gary Cooper happens to show up. Some shots of rodeo might have enlivened things, a la "Misfits," but no such luck with this one. Gary later breaks in to a formal dinner, at which Merle is presiding, and, though invited to sit down and join the group, reads them a lecture on their snobbery. Where did this diffident cowboy's sudden eloquence come from? The most excruciating scene in the film is a phantom party that Gary holds in his unfinished house for his absent wife, Merle. Will it never end? One to avoid.
The subject is certainly compelling: a group of people take their love of gaming one step further by creating a fake medieval world full of warriors, kings, princes and castles. Wargaming is an interesting phenomena that delves into our collective need to "escape" from reality and the sometimes mundaneness of our existence -- something almost everyone can relate to. The characters are the predictable mix of Lord of the Rings nerds and Star Trek enthusiasts. That's enough to get most people to watch. However, very quickly the film turns into an insider's view of wargaming with an almost stereotypical thumbing of the nose to viewers who "don't get it". The filmmakers seem to take the subject of wargaming, and this particular one, waaaaay too seriously rather than once in awhile recognizing the humor and fun in making a film about adults drssing up in medieval gear and pounding each other with foam swords. It's pretty hard for anyone who doesn't sit on their computer for 7-10 hours a day playing games or desiging the latest star destroyer to understand what the characters are talking about and why we should even care. However, the filmmakers themselves seem not to care choosing to focus solely on the subject of the game itself rather than building a strong narrative with a clear story that anyone can understand. Moreover, the characters themselves are not that compelling and you quickly become bored of them: a big no-no when you're trying to keep people's attention for 90 minutes.
"Everything a great documentary could be"?? Yeah, if one is deaf, dumb, and blind. Everything but meaning, wit, visual style, and interesting subject matter. Aside from that. . .<br /><br />Seriously, volken. This is a movie that is completely inauthentic. An adventure doc with no adventure, a war doc with no feeling for war, a campy send-up with no trace of wit. It means nothing, feels like nothing, and carries the implicit message that absolutely nothing matters. No wonder it has so many IMDb fans! Of course, going in you know a movie starring the great Skip Lipman will have no culture, no intelligence, no wit (other than a corrosive adolescent jokiness), and no recognizable human emotion — just adrenaline. "Darkon" isn't a movie -- it's a panic attack! Avoid. There too many real documentaries and too little time in life to waste it on toilet build-up such as "Darkon".
As a "lapsed Catholic" who had 11 years of Catholic school, but hasn't been to Mass in 35 years except for weddings and funerals, I thought I'd get a kick out of this. And I did . . . for the first two-thirds of the movie. It was all the standard stuff -- strict parochial school teachings, repressed sexuality, etc. But then, suddenly, the movie turned mean. REALLY mean. Now mind you, I saw this before the pedophilia scandals hit . . . and maybe I wouldn't have been quite so offended at such nasty, hateful digs at the Catholic Church if I'd known about those abominations (such a Catholic term!) and coverups.<br /><br />It's been a few years since I rented the video, and I won't go back to rent it again with a new perspective. It just left such a dirty, nasty, ugly taste in my mouth . . . I wonder what experience all the actors had with the Church, because either they *really* hate it, or they whored themselves for the paycheck. It's an incredibly anti-Catholic movie, offensive to anyone who has a glimmer of a gleam of respect for Catholic education. Which I still do because there were no better teachers back in the '50s. Whatever else those nuns did, they forced me to learn how to read and write the English language. They made us memorize. (How many kids today can do simple arithmetic in their heads?) Truth is, there's nothing more essential for success in America. Can ya read? Can ya add/subtract/multiply/divide? Great. You can get any advanced degree you want. And the discipline of Catholic education will stand you in good stead, not just as you continue your studies, but also for the rest of your life, no matter what you think of the Catholic "mythology" we all had to learn.<br /><br />Such a great cast, such a lousy, rotten script. I really feel bad (and no, it's not "badly" -- trust me, the nuns taught me better) for the writer and director.<br /><br />I thought I had mixed emotions about Catholic school. But the participants in this project must've been those bad (ie.e, stupid) kids who sat in the back of the room, if they were willingly involved in making this movie.
This is a film that takes some digesting. On the one hand, we are offered a tough outward shell, a story that does not only derive the Catholic Church, but does so foolishly, and uninformed. On an inner layer, we are offered a story of orthodoxy over orthopraxis, and what happens when people follow blindly a faith that they must not understand.<br /><br />At first glance, it appeared this was supposed to be a comedy. If so, then Mr. Durang needs to open a dictionary, because he clearly does not know the meaning of the word. The jokes are pale; the humor is awkward and poorly delivered. In particular, Ms. Keaton's performance is flighty and over the top, well below the quality of her Annie Hall and Sleeper days. Jennifer Tilly is again the model of stridence, with her hi-pitched voice and whining style. All of this could be forgiven if it weren't for the last 20 minutes of this movie, that evidently was a controversial play made in 1981.<br /><br />***Careful, spoilers ahead***<br /><br />It all starts with the appearance of four former students of Sister Mary Ignatius (Ignatius, by the way, is a male name, and a nun would not adopt it after her vows under any circumstance simply due to that fact, just to show you how much tireless research went into the project to begin with.) When they all admit that they don't live up to the church's teachings, the sister proceeds to become irrational and abuse them in a manner the audience is to believe she did way back when in the corny, all-too-cliché sepia-tone flashbacks. When one of them admits to having two abortions, the nun becomes even more abusive, until the pupil pulls out a gun. After wrestling it away from her, the nun kills the pupil, presumably in self-defense. She then goes on a screaming rampage, killing a gay former student because of his sins. The last shot is of the dead female pupil lying in a Christ-like pose as a shadow of a cross hangs over her. Can you say `heavy handed?' I knew you could!<br /><br />I know there have been abusive nuns in the past, and I know many people have been emotionally harmed as a result, but this imagery is fed down our throats in almost every other shot in this train wreck of a movie. I have heard from the writer and the director that this is a film about hysteria and why one should not follow the orthodoxy so religiously, no pun intended. This explanation is hard to swallow, though, simply because we are never given an authoritative viewpoint that is not biased against the catholic faith in one way or another. This film is simply anti-Catholic tripe, which in the name of fairness and equality, is mean spirited and hateful.<br /><br />This is a film I would recommend for a catholic, namely to awaken him or her to the realities of what cynicism and ignorance they face today. If it were `Rabbi Ray explains it all' or `Imam Muhammad explains it all', there would be rioting in the streets and Showtime would lose all of its subscription. But, sadly, because this is a film that strikes out against what is perceived to be the majority, it is accepted and even applauded by those who share the same spiteful point of view.<br /><br />I certainly hope every member of that cast was a practicing catholic, so it wasn't just ignorance that brought them to make this film.<br /><br />I give it 1.5 stars out of 5, not because of its offensive nature, but because it was poorly written, poorly directed and just a bad movie in general. Don't even waste your time.
I am a Catholic taught in parochial elementary schools by nuns, taught by Jesuit priests in high school & college. I am still a practicing Catholic but would not be considered a "good Catholic" in the church's eyes because I don't believe certain things or act certain ways just because the church tells me to.<br /><br />So back to the movie...its bad because two people are killed by this nun who is supposed to be a satire as the embodiment of a female religious figurehead. There is no comedy in that and the satire is not done well by the over acting of Diane Keaton. I never saw the play but if it was very different from this movies then it may be good.<br /><br />At first I thought the gun might be a fake and the first shooting all a plan by the female lead of the four former students as an attempt to demonstrate Sister Mary's emotional and intellectual bigotry of faith. But it turns out the bullets were real and the story has tragedy...the tragedy of loss of life (besides the two former students...the lives of the aborted babies, the life of the student's mom), the tragedy of dogmatic authority over love of people, the tragedy of organized religion replacing true faith in God. This is what is wrong with today's Islam, and yesterday's Judaism and Christianity.
A less-than-subtle poke at the beliefs and teachings of the Catholic Church is given a darker shade of death near the end of the show. Throughout the show, dark humour plays a medium through which several commonly heard rhetoric questions are asked, especially "If God is so good, why does he allow evil to exist in the world?"<br /><br />Diane Keaton is excellent in her role as an exaggerated version (though some might disagree) of they stereotyped religious teacher who spouts the "company line" and condemns half the world to burn in Hell. To celebrate her school's 25th anniversary, she invites her first students to return and perform their Christmas pageant.<br /><br />However, when the quartet "update" their play to parody Sister Mary's "fallacious" teachings, the nun is pushed over the edge, sending the story spiralling into a chain of unhappy events. The ending finally leaves the audience with a sick feeling in their hearts.<br /><br />Not recommended. Go watch the play instead.
I have always said that some plays by their very nature just can't be translated to film, and this one is a prime example.<br /><br />As a play, this is a very funny farcical satire of the Catholic church, with a razor wit and a central character who is so shockingly unreal we have to root for her even when she starts murdering her parishioners (one of whom made the fatal mistake of admitting he had not sinned since his last confession, so she feels she is sending him straight to heaven).<br /><br />That's just one example of how far outside of reality the play goes, and in the make believe world of the theater, it works. However, that kind of heightened reality rarely works on film, and it certainly doesn't here.<br /><br />Director Marshall Brickman has assembled a fine cast who do great work, but by presenting all this absurdity in a realistic fashion the comedy becomes tragedy and you are left with an empty feeling in the pit of your stomach.<br /><br />Seek out a production of the stage play instead, you won't be disappointed.
Christopher Durang must have been taught by a memorably awful nun, because he just can't let go of the concept. The play, "Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All For You," was presented -- at least in Hollywood -- in precisely the same tone as Diane Keaton's lecture scenes here. Sister Mary was an exaggeration, a lampoon, a bitter satire of a serenely confident, doctrinaire and highly judgmental nun -- and as played by Lynn Redgrave, she was hilarious. But the movie insists that we take this exaggeration absolutely seriously -- while, as mentioned, maintaining the same tone in the "explains it all" scenes. The two approaches clash headlong and in the last twenty minutes, the movie goes off the track, plunges into the gorge, and explodes. There are no survivors. It could have worked, if the tone of the scenes with the four former students, and their encounter with Sister Mary, been pitched the same as the Sister Mary scenes. Or if the Sister Mary scenes been presented more realistically. This way simply doesn't work at all.
Broad enough for you? Wait till you see this heavy handed<br /><br />adaption of a little collegiate one act. What is shocking and wild in<br /><br />college rarely holds up over time, and this is proof. To take on the<br /><br />Catholic Church with broadside humor just isn't shocking or<br /><br />interesting or funny, it's kind of boring. The performers are all<br /><br />game, giving all they've got, but it's basically a play that doesn't<br /><br />open up to film well. Not a lot of fun.
I would have given it a one instead of a two, but I suppose it COULD have been worse. I guess the acting isn't all that bad, but the plot lacks anything even remotely close to interesting. It is a terrible movie!! TERRIBLE! Complete waste of time! I strongly suggest you do not watch this movie.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Michael Rooker is a decent actor, but he has no business being the lead except in a low budget movie. He really does not have much charisma. Ryo Ishibashi has a lot more screen presence, and sadly he is not really the main character. Most of the screen time goes to the brick-faced Rooker.<br /><br />Danielle Harris (from the Halloween 4 and 5 movies) plays his daughter, and she is cute and entertaining but she is written as not being too smart and one of her dumb mistakes gets one of the main characters killed. Comedians Fred Willard, Bobcat Goldthwait, and Stephen Furst are here in interesting roles. Just watching what happens to these characters is priceless. <br /><br />Vincent Schiavelli plays the Consigliare to the local Mafia Godfather, and it is hard to tell whether or not he is working the movie as a comedy. Tim Thomerson is also in this movie. He seems to be in every extremely low budget direct-to-video action movie. Thomerson is also in some low-budget comedies. Seeing so many comedians and comic actors in this film made it feel like a spoof. Is it a parody of a Yakuza movie? It is hard to tell at some points. There is certainly very little Yakuza action. <br /><br />The supporting cast of Thugs and Goons is menacing and well cast. Some of these kinds of movies have Thugs that look like they work at the local Comic Book Store or as stock boys at Piggly-Wiggly. Overall this movie is very uneven. At some points it seems like a comedy or a parody. Then at other points it works as a good action movie. Then it sputters to an end. Without the contributions of Danielle Harris and Ryo Ishibashi this movie would rate a Zero in my humble opinion.
Typical formula action film: a good cop gets entangled in a mess of crooked cops and Japanese gangsters.<br /><br />The okay result has decent performances, a few fleeting snicker-inducing moments, and some fair action sequences--plus a chance to check out the gorgeous Danielle Harris--who makes the most of her perpetual typecasting as a rebellious teen daughter.<br /><br />** out of ****.
Strictly a routine, by-the-numbers western (directed by genre-mainstay Andrew V. McLaglen, so is that any wonder?). Army colonel Brian Keith spars with smarmy bandit Dean Martin, who has just kidnapped the colonel's wife (Honor Blackman, who never found her niche after playing Pussy Galore in "Goldfinger"). Fist-fights, shoot-outs, stagecoach robberies and Denver Pyle in a supporting role...in other words, absolutely nothing new or original. Talking in a low monotone throughout, Keith gets to dally with a prostitute (something of a shock after his run on TV's "Family Affair"), but otherwise this low-rent material wastes Keith's amiable talents. It's also bad news for Dino, who doesn't seem to notice or care. Hack direction, poor writing and several unfunny attempts at lowball humor. * from ****
A reporter, Craig Milford, who works for The James Keller Public Telecommunication Center, has an interview with a German professor of a Floridian university, who made an unknown creature based upon some substance of meteor(s). But then a man named Anderson, who is trying to control the whole planet with the creature, and his man kill the professor and his assistants and plunder the creature. So Craig and his new female psychic partner, Joanna Fitzgerald, who can communicate not only with human being but also with alien friend(s) of the creature, begin to find the creature and try to send it to an alien spaceship... This film has some great casts and staffs. For instance, it has the actor, David Warbeck of THE BEYOND, the actress, Laura Trotter of NIGHTMARE CITY, the special visual effects creator, Sergio Stivaletti of Dario Argento's masterpieces, and the director (and also the story- writer), Alberto De Martino of THE MAN WITH ICY EYES and THE KILLER IS ON THE PHONE. And these talented people make an incredibly bad film, named, nothing but this MIAMI GOLEM which is essentially a confusedly combined film of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND with E.T.THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL. And this not-only-confused-but-also-crammed film has something worth; genetic engineering with psychical research. Consequently the film has at least one scientific and/or technical flaw; genetic engineering and psychical research are never compatible. (Strangely enough, regarding this strangely childish combination of genetic engineering and psychical research, the leading character, Craig, himself says THERE MUST BE A BETTER EXPLANATION to the short-haired psychic, Joanna. But, after all, the whole story of the film doesn't and can't present any kind of BETTER EXPLANATION.) In addition, this film has something more laughable; its problematic music. What the composer, who is credited as Robert Marry, provides is nothing but the strangely insistent BEVERLY-HILLS-COP-tasted music. I don't want to say this Italianised theme of BEVERLY HILLS COP per se is particularly bad music, but I have to say it seems to be manifestly clear the music does not have the fitness for this film per se at all. Indeed just who can think BEVERLY HILLS COP has the compatibility with genetic engineering and/or psychical research?
The basic premise of "Miami Golem" most definitely deserves a spot in the top, say, fifty of most demented cinematic plots ever scripted down! I know top 50 doesn't sound too impressive, but I've seen a lot of really weird films with lunatic plots. I was prepared from something convoluted, because the film was directed and co-written by Alberto De Martino, who was one of Italy's most ambitious and creative but sadly underrated film makers. De Martino steals multiple ideas from successful blockbusters, like most Italian directors did around that time, but he always adds a lot of stuff to make it even more complex, confusing and overwhelming. Not all of De Martino's films are worthwhile, but some of them are extremely underrated, like "A Special Magnum for Tony Saitta", "Holocaust 2000" and "Formula for a Murder". The concept of "Miami Golem" contains elements from numerous great Sci-Fi and adventure flicks (like "Alien", "Starman" , "Close encounters of the Third Kind", "ET", …) but I wouldn't exactly call it a rip-off. The only thing that is really shamelessly stolen from another film is the opening synthesizer theme song that sounds almost identical to Harold Faltermeyer's Axel F. from "Beverly Hills Cop". The rest of the film is an amusing hodgepodge of fantasy, Sci-Fi, action, horror and superhero-movie gimmicks. It certainly doesn't always make sense (most of the time it doesn't, actually) but "Miami Golem" is undeniably an imaginative and multifaceted film that kept my mate and I fascinated from start to finish.<br /><br />The plot is extremely difficult to briefly summarize but I'll try anyway. Sceptical journalist Craig Milford is reporting the story of a German scientist who allegedly discovered extraterrestrial DNA inside a crashed meteorite and managed to clone it. The DNA cell belongs to an evil alien force that already exterminated another interstellar race in the past and it will unquestionably destroy the whole of mankind as soon as it grows large enough in size. If this isn't problematic enough already, the rich Mr. Anderson ordered to steal the slowly growing evil fetus because he thinks that he can manipulate it and use it to obtain world domination. With the help of some good aliens in an earthly disguise, Craig Milford has the difficult task of safeguarding the planet from the evil fetus. Okay, I know all this sounds grotesque and silly, but I assure that "Miami Golem" is in fact a light-headed and easy digestible flick. The first half of the film may come across as overly hectic and confusing, because Alberto De Martino attempts to keep the plot secret through the use of preposterous red herrings. There are subliminal ghostly appearances, supportive characters behaving exaggeratedly mysterious for no real reason and at a certain point there are even speculations about the lost continent of Atlantis. This is all misleading padding material, however, and as soon as the set-up is more or less clear "Miami Golem" turns into an ordinary early 80's popcorn action movie with bloody massacres, flamboyant chase sequences (in the Florida Everglades!), explosions, gratuitous sleaze and nasty little fetus-monsters in jars.<br /><br />Now, I really don't want to raise the impression that "Miami Golem" is a lost and undeservedly obscure gem of Italian exploitation cinema. Make no mistake, this is a pretty bad movie! The events only become endurable if you accept the stupidity and incoherence of the plot and if you don't succeed in that, well than this is just a non-stop spitfire of negative aspects. The acting performances are painfully awful. Particularly B-movie veteran John Ireland, as the archetypal James Bond villainous character, doesn't seem the least interested in the script. You can tell from his grimaces and by the way he delivers his lines that he also thinks the whole production is retarded and simply signed up for the paycheck. Laura Trotter is probably the least sexy female lust-object ever, and the person who drew the marvelously chaotic VHS cover must have felt exactly the same way, because the ravishing girl on the cover does not appear anywhere in the movie. What an embarrassment this must be for Mrs. Trotter. Still, her completely gratuitous nudity sequences compensate for this, as she's quite hot from the neck down. And, finally, there's the unforgettable scene where David Warbeck takes down a helicopter from a moving school bus with a regular pistol! I don't think even John Rambo can do this, while he's a beefcake Vietnam veteran and Warbeck's character is a simple TV-reporter.
This budget-starved Italian action/sci-fi hybrid features David Warbeck as a Miami reporter who is chosen by the ghosts of the people of Atlantis (!) to stop an evil businessman (Academy Award nominee John Ireland) from using a telepathic fetus grown using spores from an asteroid to rule the world. You got all that? Despite such a loopy plot, this is actually quite a bore and the RAIDERS OF ATLANTIS sneers at it with contempt. Honestly, the most (intentionally) creative thing about this flick is the slight reworking of Herbie Hancock's BEVERLY HILLS COP theme for the opening titles. The most unintentionally creative bit involves a scene in a lab that is inexplicably shown twice back-to-back. Perhaps director Alberto De Martino wanted to get all avant garde on us in the twilight of his career? I was going to declare this Ireland's worst film on his resume but then I saw SATAN'S CHEERLEADERS was listed on there. I would also like to safely declare that I am probably the only person in the history of the world to do a double feature of this and Hitchcock's VERTIGO.
All I can say is, before watching the movie I did not have a hint indication who Annemarie Schwarzenbach was or what was her life story..and I have to confess that the movie was hardly a help to reach these data.. and even it was not successful to persuade me to do some research by typing few words on google website; however, all I can say is that the actress Jeanette Hain was great with her mute facial expression she really played well and showed a deep depression mental status, as it is in real.<br /><br />After all , based on the script the movie has happened in turkey and Tehran as well as Afghanistan.. but believe me I am familiar with the area , it was all about an Arabic desert in morocco.. Turkish people and persian people are completely different in face and culture as well as in language which is not arabic..<br /><br />I suppose for making a film like this- documentary type- a thorough research about all these minor elements is mandatory..
The movie's storyline is pat and quaint. Two women travel through the middle east and discover themselves. Unfortunately, if you are looking for a movie about the middle east and central Asia this is absolutely terrible.<br /><br />The producers of the film either did no research or were unbelievably lazy when filming it. To begin with, and most glaringly incorrect, the Nuristanis, as they were known in the thirties, and indeed since the 1890s and their forceful conversion by Abdul-Rahman Shah of Aghnaistan, were not nomads. In fact they have not been nomads since the Aryan invasions of central Asia over three milenia ago.<br /><br />Second, the city that is filmed as Tehran is not Tehran, which is understandable, however the geography of the area around the city could not be more strikingly DIFFERENT than the city of Tehran, which is surrounded on all side by a large mountain range, which predominates all of the cities views.<br /><br />Third, Persian, despite the fact it is spoken in Iran and Afghanistan, is never heard in movie. When there are native speakers who do not speak in German they speak in Arabic. The 'Persian' guards at the border, in fact, say to each other 'Ma hadha rujal' (This is not a man) and not 'in mard nist' as it would be in Persian. Also, the love song between the Indian princess and one of the main characters is obviously in Spanish. While talking in the garden one of the main characters says that the Quran uses the words 'Ferdos' and 'jehaan' and makes some reference to drugs afterwords. These words certainly never appear in the Quran as they are Persian for Paradise (indeed, Ferdos and Paradise are very distant cognates between our languages) and 'World' respectively, though Jehaan is admittedly close to 'Jehennan' which is hell in Arabic. When they encounter the nomads in the desert the language spoken is also Arabic, this despite the fact that there are NO native speakers of Arabic in Iran and Afghanistan and its use is primarily religious, with some use in education at that time.<br /><br />When they are stopped in Iran before they reach the Afghan border the people they encounter are wholly unlike any Iranian group. Their tents are typically bedouin with carpets decorating the walls and a high profile. In Iran it is also extremely uncommon for people to wear Turbans unless they are a cleric. The language spoken is clearly Arabic from the initial greeting of 'Ahlan wa Sahlan.' When they do reach Kabul the desert they find themselves in is sandy, totally unlike the rock dirt that is found in the arid parts of the Hindu Kush mountain range. There is an absence of the light green scrub that covers the ground in the summer and spring. The area is also not wholly consumed by the extreme mountains of the mountain range that won its name, The Indian Killers, because of its difficult and limiting ground.<br /><br />In short, the story line is the only thing in this movie that holds any water and it is still weak and common place. It lacks any real draw to it, being merely the tale of two women trying to learning about themselves as they get to Nuristan, however, even that is still-born and no real development is felt, leaving the characters in the end just where they were in the beginning and nothing has changed except that world war two has broken loose. In short, this is a really bad movie that I would have rated at one star except for the good footage of Bedouin and the deserts of the Levant, even if they are misnamed.
Whatever the merits of the film, it is poorly researched. As others have pointed out, the movie shows locals in Iran speaking in Arabic, rather than Persian. That is enough to lose credibility for anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the area or the country. The landscape could not be more different from the actual.<br /><br />Other factual errors: A train is shown to be operating in Afghanistan, while Afghanistan does not have railways. The Turkish ambassador is wearing a Fez (the red hat), whereas the Fez was banned by Turkey much before the time in which the movie is set. The Turkish ambassador's daughter is actually dressed as an Indian, and Indian classical music is playing in the background in many scenes. I suppose the filmmakers meant to show an exotic woman, and sari was what they decided would make her exotic.
Usually I love Lesbian movies even when they are not very good. I'm biased, I guess! <br /><br />But this one is just the pits. Yes, the scenery and the buildings are beautiful, and there is a brief but beautiful erotic interlude, but otherwise this movie is just a complete waste of time. Annamarie alternates between sulking and getting high/stoned/passing out on whatever drug or booze is handy, and Ella inexplicably puts up with this abominable behavior through the entire movie. At no time are we given any insight into why this is so, or even why Annamarie is so depressed and withdrawn.<br /><br />If there had at least been some kind of closure in the (potentially romantic? we don't even know!) relationship between the two, there might have been some kind of satisfaction. But although Annamarie at one point asks Ella "why do you love me?" Ella doesn't even acknowledge this. It's never really clear whether this is anything more than an (ill-behaved) Lesbian on a boring road trip with a straight woman.<br /><br />Even the interactions between the two women and the local people they meet on the journey, which could have been lively and informative, are instead flat, tedious and mostly incomprehensible.<br /><br />There is one good joke in the movie, although I'm sure it was unintentional. The women travel in a two-seat Ford coupe with a middling sized trunk. Yet when they set up camp, they have an enormous tent, cots, sleeping gear, and even a table, chair, and typewriter! On top of that, when they board a ferry, we see piles of luggage, presumably theirs, presumably also carried in the little Ford's trunk! <br /><br />And through the entire film, we never see one gas station, or anywhere that looks like it would actually have any place to buy gasoline. Mostly they travel through endless miles of desolate desert. So where did they get fuel?<br /><br />There may not be too many Lesbian films out there, good or bad, but there are plenty that are better than this, and very few that are worse. Leave this one in the rack.
We went to the movie with a group because the play we were going to was cancelled. It is without doubt one of the worst movies ever. It is not that i don't like cult-movies I do. But nothing happens in the film. One does not feel any connection with the characters whatsoever. endless times without dialog. And the car. How do thay carry a huge tent and beds chairs and clothing for every day in that car? It is a two seater! I have to say however the scenery is beautiful, but not in a movie, the director should have made a photoshoot of the movie, so that we could skip about 80 minutes of useless time in with nothing happens anyway.<br /><br /> I would not recommend it, as it is a waste of your time
One of Frances Farmer's earliest movies; at 22, she is absolutely beautiful. Bing Crosby is in great voice, but the songs are not his best. Martha Raye and Bob Burns are interesting, but their comedy, probably great in its time, is really corny today. Roy Rogers also appears- in a singing role. In my view only worth watching if you are a Frances Farmer fan, and possibly a Bing Crosby fan.
"Tapeheads", a scrappy, intermittently funny spoof of the music video business, might have been the perfect comedic short, and stars John Cusack and Tim Robbins are effortlessly in the swing of the nonsensical chaos involved. They play two semi-savvy security guards in Los Angeles who start their own company, Video Aces, making hilarious videos for groups, parties, and one deathbed star. It's too bad the filmmakers had to invent a dim side-plot to pad the running time (shenanigans involving a crooked politician and his henchmen which doesn't do much except take away from the movie's primary strength, sending-up the music culture of the late-'80s). Still, Cusack and Robbins create a couple of originals here: nerdy but loose, street-smart without being hipsters or posers, these guys are on the same nutty wavelength, and they never put each other down. They're the real thing in buddy-comedies. *1/2 from ****
Tim Robbins and John Cusack are two actors I have appreciated throughout their careers, and that was the only reason for choosing to watch this movie. Well, all I can say is I totally regretted it! These two great actors humiliate themselves all the way through by performing a number of irrelevant, unimaginative and kitch to the extreme (not that this is bad on its own)sketches that are supposed to make people laugh, but fail to do so. The only reason I can think is that the director was their friend, and they decided to support his movie by starring in it-I can't think of anything else because this movie is SO cheap! Fortunately Tim Robbins and John Cusack haven't disappointed me ever since. I would recommend you to avoid this film, unless you want your opinion about the two actors spoiled.
One of my sisters friends lent me this game, and it is too damn hard! It carries the appearance of a kids game, but you have to learn how to do tons of intricate moves that require you to twist and turn your hands into all sorts of awkward positions, and you have to search seemingly endless levels for 100 notes, to improve your 'score'! You also have to find these impossibly hidden jigsaw puzzle pieces, that require you to do almost impossible tasks to get them! AND I AM ONLY UP TO STAGE THREE!!!!! Maybe if you have no life nad can stay home all the time you might get some enjoyment out of this, but otherwise keep away! AND IT IS DEFINATELY NOT RECOMMENDED FOR KIDS - THEY WILL PULL THEIR HAIR OUT WITHIN THE HOUR!
My complaints here concern the movie's pacing and the material at hand. While using archival film and letters lends the film a fresh and interesting perspective, too often the material selected to highlight simply isn't very interesting (such as when Goebbels complains about this or that ailment, &tc., or the ad nauseam footage of his small German hometown). Also, the movie crawls along in covering c. 1920-1939 and then steams through the war years. In sum, the film is little better than a History Channel documentary, with the exception that the filmmaker has a slightly greater sensibility than your average History Channel documentary editor and thus can more artfully arrange the details of Goebbels' life. Still, I found it wanting.
December holiday specials, like the original Frosty, ought to be richly-produced with quality music and a wholesome, yet lighthearted storyline. They should have a touch of the mystical magic of the holidays. Basically, they should look, sound, and feel...well, "special" and they should have a decent and appropriate December holiday subtext.<br /><br />So when I saw Legend of Frosty the Snowman in the TV listings, I got my kids (6 and 8) pumped up for it by telling them the story of the original Frosty and passionately relating how much I enjoyed it as a kid. As my wife and kids cozied up on the couch to watch the movie the expectations were high, but 10 minutes into it my kids were yawning and my wife and I were giving each other "the look" and rolling our eyes. After 35 minutes my kids were actually asking to go to bed -- I guess they were fed up with the insensitive language and pointless, disconnected segments. I was actually embarrassed about their (and my) disappointment with this movie.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Legend of Frosty the Snowman is more like a bad episode of Fairly Odd Parents crossed with a worse-than-normal episode of Sponge Bob than a classic holiday movie. Don't get me wrong...those shows are fine and I like them as much as the next guy, but when I watch Fairly Odd Parents or Sponge Bob, my low expectations (for mediocre, off-color, zero subtext, mind numbing episodes) are always satisfied.<br /><br />We picked out some good books and spent the rest of the evening reading together. A much better choice than the embarrassingly bad Legend of Frosty the Snowman.
The John Goodman program was pretty awful, but this thing just plain stinks. The one and only thing in this mess that made me smile was recognizing the voice of Patrick Starfish as Frosty. The story is hopeless, written by somebody who has garbled memories of childhood rebelliousness but has never gained any adult sense of perspective in the intervening years. Paranoia rules the dark world that these characters inhabit. Everybody is unpleasant, and for no reason. The plot is predictable but the show lurches from one inexplicable, unconnected scene to another in such a pointless way there is no fun in watching it. The worst thing is nobody in the production crew seems to have ever seen snow!
I disliked Frosty returns and this one. Both of the films are absurd with poorly written characters and bad voices. The voices could have been done but Frosty returns was worst than this because of the unalike snowman they drew. Frosty's winterwonder land was great and so was the original heartwarming Drama. The only good thing about this film was Frosty the snowman was alike of the classic 60s and a funny line like when they were talking about things that are not real and then Frosty walks by the window humming, whistling whatever he was doing but everything else was badly written and badly animated and I barely got the plot. I saw the DVD cover at the library about 2 or 3 years ago and the art looked crappy so I didn't pick it up until this year because the pictures on the back looked a little touching but I played this film. It was a hassle poorly art characters just like the DVD and it was just terrible about what's going on. I watched this at night and found it dull that I fell asleep on the whole thing (Wait I always do that when I watch something while I go to sleep) But this movie was overall boring<br /><br />Overall rating: Grade -C<br /><br />This is like another holiday special bad rip-off in the frosty returns and this one. This one is the badly 4th sequel like Home alone 4 well i thought that movie was OK but home alone 3 was great. But it's like a bad home alone 3 and 4 people hate like this. My sister didn't watch it that much because when she came into my room to watch 2 minutes and a half of it, she walked away like "I hate the animation!" I agree to her just like the 3rd one Frosty returns. Plain awful!
A young scientist is trying to carry on his dead father's work on limb regeneration.His overbearing mother has convinced him that he murdered his own father and is monitoring his progress for her own evil purposes.A young doctor uses reptilian DNA he extracts from a large creature and when his arm is conveniently ripped off a few minutes later,he injects himself with his formula and grows a new murderous arm...Admittedly the special effects in "Severed Ties" are pretty good and grotesque,but the rest of the film is awful.The severed arm is behaving like a snake and kills few people.Big deal.The acting is mediocre and the climax is silly.3 out of 10.
A young scientist Harry Harrison is continuing his late father's scientific research into limb regeneration with flying colours, but his interferingly dominate mother and her doctor lover want to sell off the serum. When he finds out, there is an accident involving Harry losing an arm. So, he tries out the serum and what eventuates is a genetically deranged arm that has a mind of its own.<br /><br />Oh we've seen this oh so many times before, but what lifts this very campy and quite rubbery shonky junk is the performance of movie icons Elke Sommer and Oliver Reed. Actually it's not a bad flick by Fangoria films; just there are better ones out there, which are similar in vein. "Servered Ties" simply lacks it own distinctive style. The oddball nature and unpleasant splatter resembled "Re-animator" and even a touch of slapstick stuck out like something from "Evil Dead 2".<br /><br />The comic story is truly whacked out with it's black humour, but it can get melodramatic and a bit in dry in the fun factor. Surprises do crop up, especially the flick's final outcome. Which is well accepted, as I thought it could have copped out with something more accessible. For a low-budget production the FX makeup can look rigid and very goofy, but there's some grotesque moments that will make you smile than actually cringe. Even a brush of sexual tension streamlines the story, thanks to Elke Sommer's sternly juicy performance as the mother. Oliver Reed is quite humorously deadpan in a wicked sense and he pulls it off extremely well. They were both immensely diverting as the couple you loved to hate. Billy Morrisette is delightful in a erratic performance as Harry. Director Damon Santostefano briskly paces the film and orchestrates some stylish scenes of gripping and bamboozling horror.<br /><br />Yeah it's juvenile and basically silly nonsense, but you got to hand it to it for some undemanding entertainment.
The TV guide described the plot of SEVERED TIES as thus : " An experiment on a severed arm goes awry " so right away I thought this was going to be about an arm that`s got a mind of its own as seen in THE BEAST WITH FIVE FINGERS or THE HAND or someone getting an arm transplant as in BODY PARTS . Both premises are tried and tested , or to be more accurate tired and tested so I was curious as to how the producers would approach the story . I actually thought they were making an arthouse movie like PI down to the use of B&W photography at the start of the film but the makers seemed to have tired of this approach after 20 seconds and decided to make a splatter comedy similar to THE EVIL DEAD . I`ve very little to say on this except that I disliked THE EVIL DEAD movies and I disliked SEVERED TIES and it seems really unfair that films like this use an obscene amount of rubber when the third world is crying out for condoms
If you like occasional nudity with junior high school level slap stick comedy, then look no further.<br /><br />Starting at about the halfway point, the beautiful and erotic Arielle Dombasle starts disrobing at every opportunity. That is the only thing that made this movie worth watching.<br /><br />The story is both lame and preposterous, the humor is corny, and character development is basically non-existent.
Oh man, I know what your thinking: "With a title like that, I can't go wrong!" Uh yes you can. I too, loved the title, but man I hated the stupid kid that played "Satan's little helper" I hated the mom too, and the sister/daughter, and her boyfriend - I hated all those people! Man, it was agony watching this sometimes! The ONLY reason this doesn't get 1/10 is becuz condsidering the low budget, they did OK. But oh man did I hate those actors, so stupid! I knew it was going to be bad, I guess they saved a lot of money on just using halloween masks for the killer, and the Jesus costume at the end was really stupid too. Oh the agony, do not watch!
I'm going to say first off that I have given this film a 3 out of 10 after some thought. I was going to give it a straight out 1 but it got a couple extra points for the body count. But that would be about it. Let me explain. I paid literally £1 for this DVD in a supermarket because I tend to have a lot of faith in bargain horror flicks, B-movies especially. But if this film was aiming for B status as I suspect it was for a number of reasons (which I'll touch on in a sec) then it failed magnificently. Not only did it shoot for B and miss, it landed somewhere around F. This film had so many opportunities to be good and it pretty much failed on all accounts. I say above that it's likely this film was aiming for B status and it seems to try and achieve this by trying to blend humour with horror, which can either be very good or very bad. For example, later Freddy films (Dream Warriors onwards) are all about Freddy's style and nose-thumbing, which works out great! But this film completely bombed in that respect because the times where they tried to inject humour were mostly just stupid. I will admit though that towards the beginning of the film the humour was good. In fact, for about half an hour I liked this film and was prepared to congratulate myself on another good find. BUT what really killed this film for me was the inappropriate kills. For instance, when 'Satan' smashes the cat against the board and writes 'boo' with it's blood using its body as a brush. Or when 'Satan' slams the door into the helpless disabled elderly woman. Now I'm not usually too against senseless kills in films-hey, thats the point, right? But in those two cases I just found it grossly offensive and unnecessary to anything in the film-plot especially. For me, the film went downwards from then on. One major bad point about this film is that I hated every character in it. The kid, Dougie was just ridiculously annoying!!! I'm at a loss to explain how he could possibly write off all those bodies and people being killed in front of his eyes as a trick! I mean, come on!!! I completely understand that to be in a horror film a character does have to be somewhat stupid, like running upstairs when you should blatantly be running out of the house screaming for help, but this kid took the biscuit! I wanted to kill him myself by the end of it! It was completely unbelievable and if I had to hear him say 'duh!' one more time I was going to bang my head against a wall-because thats what watching this film felt like. Why didn't i just turn the film off? Mainly because I honestly believe an ending can sometimes redeem a film. But I was wrong in this case. The ending did NOT redeem this film, it further irritated the hell out of me and was inadequate to the plot line. I get it already! The killer is always going to come back dressed as someone else, be welcomed into the house by the stupid kid and go on a killing spree again because no one suspects him in that costume! I GET IT! This film made me physically angry because it was so stupid! And if by some foul mistake you do end up watching this film, watch out for the intestines. Frankly, if that guy actually did have intestines that looked like that, I'd be surprised he wasn't already dead, let alone until someones rips them out and ties them to a chair.<br /><br />In fact, I'll even go so far as to say that the only character I liked at all in this film was actually the killer. Purely because when his 'comedy routine' worked, it did work. All in all, the plot line of this film dragged anything that might have been good down. Why was the killer killing? I don't know. I can live without knowing who he actually was, thats fairly typical, but without some kind of motive - hell i don't know, i'd settle for him having a bad Halloween as a kid! -it just seems more than senseless, just stupid. Stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid. In fact, i hated this film so much that i specifically registered with IMDb just so i could comment on it. Save your money, save your sanity. Stay away from it!
with a title like this, you know not to expect a great horror movie. But this was really bad, even with low expectations. The plot is really insulting and stupid: an escaped criminal wears a Halloween mask, so everyone around him thinks he's someone else. this joke might actually work for 5 or 10 minutes, but not during the entire movie ! the actors are not that bad, but their characters are rather dumb and the story is boring and downright stupid. No suspense, no excitement and little gore (very cheap). Satan's Little Helper tries to combine horror (...) with comedy and fails dramatically at that. It became so boring towards the end, that I actually stopped watching 10 minutes before the end. I couldn't care whatever happened. Amanda Plummer was great in Pulp Fiction, but come on.. that was 13 years ago, and she hasn't done anything decent after that. So no wonder that she had to sink as low as this piece of crap.. Avoid or be warned..
Satan's Little Helper is one of the better B Horror movies I have seen. When I say better I mean the story. The film hatches a new plot, something that's not so cliché in the Horror genre - something fresh. But there are also some ridiculous questions that come along with it. Questions you will be asking yourself throughout the movie.<br /><br />The film first caught my attention while I was cruising the Horror section in HMV. I was tired of all the so called "terrifiying" Hollywood blockbusters and wanted something different. The cover art for Satan's Little Helper immediately caught my attention. As you can see, the image draws you in - it's chilling! I knew it was a straight to DVD release - but I took a chance. I mean, I just seen "Boogey Man" the night before - so It couldn't get any worse! After I watched the movie, I was semi-satisfied. I loved the plot of the movie. It was really creepy how the killer was pretending to be the little boys friend, so he could kill. In some sick deranged way, he actually thought he and the little boy would become partners - a duo of terror. It was a great idea to set the film on Halloween night. This way, no one would think anything of a masked man beside a little kid. They would simply think he was his guardian. But, this is also where the "plot holes" begin to surface.<br /><br />If your son came home with a "friend" he met trick or treating - that's fine. You wouldn't think anything of it - if he was 9!, or round about the same age as him. If however, he appeared with a strange man in a mask, you would be startled and protective of your child. You would ask the man to remove his mask and identify himself. You would ask why he is with your son. He doesn't know him. You would tell him to please leave. He isn't a family friend. He's a stranger. Now, we're supposed to teach our child not to talk to strangers. In this case, the mum is completely fine with it. Huh? They never seem to think it's a tad odd that the "man" doesn't speak - at all. Gruanted they think it's the daughters boyfriend, but after 10 minutes of not talking you would pull the mask off and ask him why he's not saying a word.<br /><br />The film goes down hill from there. The thing that got me the most was, all the mum said was "Do you want some cider?". I can't count how many times she says this in the movie. It's like, oh you're dying - we have cider though, it's all good!! The movie started promising, and failed to deliver. It was more of a horror/comedy, and even as that it fails to deliver. I guess you could call it a "Dud","Flop" etc..<br /><br />The best thing about the movie is the cover art. Though, something tells me that's not worth the 12 dollars!
The fact that someone actually spent money on such a bad script, is beyond me. This really must be one of the worst films, in addition to "Haunted Highway" I have ever seen. BAD actors, and a really bad story. There's no normal reactions to any event in this film, and even though it's Halloween , normal people would have bigger reactions when they're witnessing their father being killed, not to mention gutted, people with tape covering their airways, not being able to breathe (in a room with at least 50 people I might add) and some person dressed up as Satan dragging dead people out of his house, even an 8 year old would see the difference between a doll and a person. Not to mention the fact that no one could possibly be that naive and dumb to believe the reality of Satan and Jesus' appearances on the same day, like this kid does. When i was 8, I sure had more brains than that. <br /><br />But, the really stupid thing is that everyone else seems to be falling for this mute Satan look-alike as well, no questions asked. The question throughout the film is, is it really Satan, or is it some crazy person killing people off whenever he feels like it? Well, he's got human hands, arms, built and whatever, so I guess he's supposed to be in the movie as well, otherwise they did a lousy job concealing it. Then, with this person being human and all, he was able to kill an old lady, a man and his mistress, 5 (!!???) cops (all with guns and training i presume), and a few other people.....and obviously everyone was just standing there waiting for him, or what?<br /><br />The whole concept and way of telling the story is absolutely the worst thing I've seen, and I would never recommend anyone to waste 1 hour and 30 minutes of their lives to watch this total crap.
Worst Bob Hope comedy ever(and that includes some heavy competition). Hope, on an island with sailors, dreams aloud of being in a bathtub with a geisha girl "steering his ship". Somebody certainly steered this Hope-hackery over the cliff, as it features Phyllis Diller and Gina Lollobrigida and still can't work up any laughs or excitement. Where's Bing Crosby when you really need him?
The fifth "Black Emanuelle" I've watched has, potentially, the most intriguing plot line dealing as it does with the intrepid female reporter investigating the white slavery/prostitution racket which takes her from San Francisco to Rome to Macao and back to her own hometown, New York! The film is peopled with past veterans of the series which, inexplicably, play completely different roles, namely Ivan Rassimov (appearing here as a head of a United Nations committee for Third World countries!), Karin Shubert (as a feminist rival reporter) and Don Powell (as Rassimov's chauffeur).<br /><br />Unfortunately, as usual with this type of film (despite their being shown in the dead of night), it is heavily edited and a particularly graphic scene (described in "Stracultr) in which an Asian slave trader gets his comeuppance by being sodomized by a dog is nowhere to be seen here!! Still, a harrowing sequence late in the film when a sleazy politician tricks a couple of girls (including, naturally, Gemser and Shubert) into a midnight rendezvous under a New York bridge with a group of bums (this is the way he gets their votes, get it!) - with his high society pals giddily looking on - seems pretty much intact.<br /><br />The most ridiculous element of this entry - apart from Gemser's penchant to disrobe completely every time she enters a house (even in front of perfect strangers) - is her excursion to India to interview a charlatan/Guru (George Eastman made up to look considerably Christ-like!) who has found a way to prolong coitus indefinitely; of course, when Emanuelle calls him up on it, he ends up having premature ejaculation...!!
Cut to the chase, this is one of the five worst films that I've ever seen.<br /><br />Not that they didn't try. There was some decent writing with some elements of structure in there, a good cast, some good acting. I'm not sure where it went wrong, but it went horribly wrong.<br /><br />Some of the elements may have been bad structure and no substantive story, a lot of overacting by the lead (who probably is much better when restrained), some bad directing and editing. I had enough at about an hour, tearing my hair out at about a hour and a half and very agitated at the hour and fifty minutes it ran. There was also an insincerity about it all, being that I went with someone who used to be a heroin addict. He was agitated that it glamorized something that had nothing good to it. That was bolstered by the pretty 17 year-old girl who was in love with the 30 year-old junkie.<br /><br />And the frantic nature of the lead was a turn-off enough. There were clunky plot points that were an attempt at a structure, but the end result was listless and unending (with uneven time lines). The characters were colorful but to no end, which made me feel bad for the quality actors who you've just not seen enough.<br /><br />Skip it. I assumed that this was a first-time director who was enamored by his own turds, but he has done this before. I'm puzzled how this and many other really bad ideas find someone who will actually give them money.
Plot: an amorous couple decide to engage in some extra-marital hijinks in a flashy car. They then become stuck (literally) in a Compromising Position, while said car wanders aimlessly about the countryside until the hapless couple are rescued by the authorities.<br /><br />That's it. That's the entire movie. There may have been some dialogue here and there, but nothing comes to mind. It should be obvious by now that this movie is not just pointless, but actually physically painful to watch. The fact that it starred two of the UKs best up-and-coming actors (one of whom is now sadly deceased) only adds to the horror.<br /><br />Ian Charleson was outstanding in the very much deserved Oscar-winning 'Chariots of Fire'. Let's remember him for that role, and try hard to pretend that this particular celluloidal abomination never happened.
<br /><br />Ok, well I rented this movie while I was bed ridden hopped up on pain killers, and let me say, It didn't help the film any.<br /><br />The film is about a man who buys a car as he is going through a midlife crisis, he loves the car more than anything around him, one day his wife decides to borrow the car. Since I don't want to spoil (not that there was anything to spoil) I shall let your imagination figure out the "Zany" (and I use that word lightly) antics that follow.<br /><br />I had to fight to stay awake through this snore a minute sleeper of a film, and I would like to say that if you are venturing to the movie store and are thinking about being adventurous, please don't, it's a waste of the film it was printed on.<br /><br />Then again I could be wrong...
Given the title and outlandish box art, I was ready for just about anything. Perhaps my expectation were forced just a bit to high, because I was left a little dry.<br /><br />A film crew working on a soft-core sex movie end up at a strange house when they get lost in the fog and decide the best way to spend the evening is to have sex. Where hasn't this set up been used before? The difference here is the uber-perverse nature of the sex. Not allowed to show all the goods (groin shots were illegal in Japan for a long time, what is shown is fogged out) the movie tries as hard as it can to show the viewer just how unnatural sex can be.<br /><br />Amidst all the kinky goings on, a mud monster (whose origin I can't fathom) shows up and begins murdering the men and raping the women...then murdering them too. Some of the sights are a bit much, most notably a woman having her intestines pulled out through her vagina or another woman spitting out a mouthful of...stuff, but otherwise the gore is pretty standard fare.<br /><br />Ultimately the film is pulled down by it's own designs; it's too over-sexed to be a strait horror picture and too gruesome to work as a sex flick. The mediums can work, but there need to be a balance.<br /><br />4/10
Maybe it was the title, or the trailer (certainly not the interview on the DVD, which is with the director as he keeps saying "hi, kids" into the camera like a buffoon), but I had expectations for Entrails of a Virgin to be at least a bit of sleazy fun with some good sex scenes and brutal, bloody killings by a weird Japanese penetrator. Turns out it's way too sleazy for its own good, or bad, or whatever. There's a problem- and one can see this also in the Italian sexploitation flick Porno Holocaust, similar to this in many respects- in not having balance to the sex and violence. Too much sex and it will turn into a prototypical porno, and not even with much production quality in comparison with most professional porno movies! And with the killing scenes, there has to be at least a little tack, and maybe just a smidgen of ingenuity, in creating the creature/killer/whatever. Entrails of a Virgin has neither. It's safe to say it's a pretty soulless movie, even if isn't one of the very worst ever made- it's there just for horn-dog Japanese fetishists to get off on girls in trouble and men who have all their brains in their 'other' heads.<br /><br />In this case, we're given a photo team where the guys are taking some shots of some girls, nothing too salacious, and then by way of a dense fog they stay off at some house one night and are picked off one by one by "A Murderer" as he's credited. First off, the director Kazuo 'Gaira' Komizu decides he has to put in a quota of random sex scenes early on- we get spliced in (or phoned in, take your pick) clips of one of the photographers having sex with one or more of the girls elsewhere. It looks like it's from another movie. Then once settled into the house, there's a 'wrestling' scene that's poorly choreographed and shot (yeah, we really need to see him 'all' there), and then on to the rape and killings. First the rape, by the photographers, who promise the girls some jobs for their time. Then the Murderer, who like D'Amato's creature is simply covered in mud and given a stupid facial, and who for an unknown reason kills the men and/or rapes the women one by one.<br /><br />Now, the latter of those, taken by themselves, should be considered the highlights of the movie. This is like saying, however, that the croûtons are the best part of a wretchedly tasting salad. An eye-gouging scene, a spike thrown like an Olympic event (that scene, actually, is kind of cool), and finally the entrailing of the overly sex-crazed girl, whose inconsequential name I can't remember. Even *this* becomes disappointing just by not being correct to the title! On top of this, the sex scenes, which become tedious through 'Gaira' and his indulgence in long-takes-without-cutaways where everything by the Japanese censors is blurred anyway, are dubbed over by the actors (you'd think that they seem to be enjoying themselves enough, hence the need to let them 'speak' for themselves). But the overall feeling from Entrails of a Virgin is that of a lumpy one, where it's just there to be gawked at and without a shred of suspense or true horror (watch as the last girl left alive, the virgin of the picture, tries to stop the murderer from getting to her, which lasts five minutes as she keeps throwing sticks at him!) You just want it to be done with, for the 'I hate women' mantra to ease up or be rid altogether.
OK the plot is, wait you got me there is no true discernible plot here just a string of optically fogged sex scenes, strung together by scenes of photographers taking pictures of pretty ladies (Sometimes a combination of the two) Then a demon comes around kills the men, rapes and kills the women, and waxes poetic about the meaning of life. Moronic special effects, bad acting and bizarre philosophy aside, you get what you expect from a film with a title like this. I guess it would have to be someone's cup of tea, just not mine as I have yet to see a good Kazuo 'Gaira' Komizu directed film.<br /><br />DVD Extras: Subtitled Interview with Director Kazuo Komizu Part 1 (Part 2 is on the Entrails of a Beautiful Woman DVD); and Theatrical Tailer<br /><br />My Grade: F
Less self-conscious and much less pretentious than GUTS OF A BEAUTY, this Kazuo Komizu gore flick is worth a look (at least once).<br /><br />Sleazy snapshotters escort wanna-be actresses/models to a remote house in the woods in order to sexually molest them. Unfortunately (for the horny boys), a long-schlonged demon, who lives in the woods, has already targeted the girls for fun.<br /><br />The thing even ends up having fun with the boys -- that's IF you consider beheadings, dismemberment and masturbation with severed limbs "fun".<br /><br />Once again, it all sounds better on paper than it looks and sounds on film.<br /><br />Just as Komizu mangled LIVING DEAD AT TOKYO BAY with his ineptitude, he also mangles this effort and is only saved by some audacious violence and some great white panty shots.<br /><br />Don't buy the hype, though, or you'll be sorely disappointed.
<br /><br />Entrails of a Virgin is so bizarre and incomprehensible that it allows the viewer to interpret it subjectively, applying whatever meaning he wishes to its inexplicable excesses of sex and violence. If this was an intentional characteristic of the film, it would be a work of postmodern brilliance-but of course it isn't. <br /><br />Without getting too much into plot summary, let's take a quick walking tour of the events. At a secluded cabin, an orgy is in progress, which includes topless wrestling and diaper p***ing. A vanload of latecomers joins the orgy in progress, but they have unwittingly been followed by a monster I like to call "the muddy ninja." This monster precedes to slay orgy participants one by one, except the proverbial virgin (if you don't count oral sex) who receives his seed and consequently becomes so passionate with desire that she masturbates with someone's severed hand. <br /><br />Finally she has her guts pulled out, and then there's a scene which seems to imply that she's pregnant with a baby muddy ninja. Got all that? If you're going to rent this movie, it's best if you don't speak Japanese and don't have any subtitles. In a season populated by boring Hollywood flicks, putting this in your VCR might be the cinematic equivalent of shock therapy. It will certainly be something different.
I guess I only have myself to blame for the gigantic disillusion that is "Entrails of a Virgin". You already know not to expect a cinematic masterpiece when you see a juicy and proudly promoted title like this and the first impression only gets extra confirmed when noticing the film is a mid-80's production from Japan. Now, there are quite a lot of demented and sick filmmakers active in Japan, but Kazuo Komizu surpasses them all with his thoroughly depraved and sickening trilogy revolving on nothing but aggressive sex and the sadistic abuse of young girls. Not even attempting to tell a story, "Entrails of a Virgin" simply presents a hodgepodge of UN-arousing semi-pornographic sex and truly poor gore-effects that wouldn't even please the most undemanding fan of cheesy 80's horror. Images of a bunch of photographers and their fashion models are inexplicably intercut with scenes of a filthy pervert having crude sex with a seemly under-aged girl. He dumps her not even a minute after climaxing (typical) and she begs him to stay, even if she has to share him with other women. I don't get it. Is this supposed to represent a general male fantasy? Because it's really clichéd and wrongful. Anyways, back to the bunch of horny photographers and docile models. Surprised by upcoming fog on their way home, the group entrenches themselves in an abandoned country house where they have more appalling sex and eventually fall victim to a ridiculous sex-demon who kills them all. The acting performances are amateurish, the dialogs inane and primitive and Komizu's direction is weak and uninspired. I can tolerate all that, including the woman-unfriendly portrayal of sex, but I came too close to turning the film off during the indescribably mean-spirited wrestling sequence. One of the males brutally hits, kicks and throws around one of the girls and calls her a filthy whore until she literally pees her panties and cries with agony. This sequence is, in my humble opinion, the absolute low-point of Asian exploitation cinema. One to avoid and maybe even boycott.
I LOVE Don Knotts, let me just say that up-front! He is an enormous talent and the best at what he does, which is portray a nervous, lovably befuddled loser thrown into a position of authority. He is fabulous in this role as Roy Fleming, the Reluctant Astronaut, but the film is pretty dull, really, even though as a kid my brother and I delighted in watching this and his other films. It's still worth watching but really it's a film that is best enjoyed by children. I'd categorize it as 100% family-friendly and something you could sit down and watch with your kids on a family night.<br /><br />As with all of Knotts' films, there's a great cast of beloved character actors and you can't help but smile when Knotts gives one of his shaky, open-mouthed stares, no matter how old and jaded you are.<br /><br />From an adult perspective, one thing I think that is great about this film is how it captures NASA in the 1960s -- all the new modern buildings, the hope, the optimism, the future! And I was surprised at how suave and studly Leslie Neilsen was back then. Only complaint about the story is Roy's love interest, a rather threadbare, unlikeable woman who can't give him the time of day until he becomes a big shot -- if you're like me, you'll be hoping that he gives her the shove-off at the end. Beware -- you'll be whistling the theme tune for days after watching, it's that catchy.
After leaving TV's popular "The Andy Griffith Show", Don Knotts gave movie stardom a valiant try with a series of inane but matinée-pleasing comedy vehicles. Unfortunately, "The Reluctant Astronaut", filmed on the cheap (as were most of Knotts' movies), is much worse than his others. Don plays a small town schnook who gets accepted to Astronaut Training camp...but not as a candidate for space travel--they want him as their new janitor! Some may say the weak satire capitalizes on Americans' then-fresh fever for the new age of technology, but the flick is really just a dim excuse to keep restless children occupied. It gets off to a good start, with an OK set-up and nostalgic locations, but it becomes increasingly more spiritless and idiotic. * from ****
This movie is all ultra-lightweight fluff, predictable from beginning to end. As a Don Knotts vehicle, "The Incredible Mr. Limpet" was much better, with Knott's character there not nearly as incompetent or ignorant. His performance there was toned down, with none of his trademark goggle-eyed stare, although that may have something to do with him being replaced for most of the movie by a cartoon fish. Knotts made a living of playing the likable imbecile, much as Bob Denver did. Neither really seemed to be able to break out to other types of roles, assuming they were simply typecast. It was probably because of the slouch, the wild stare and the high-pitched voice. John Ritter, whom Knotts worked with in "Three's Company," was able to transcend his genre, branching out successfully into dramatic roles like "The Dreamer of Oz," but the closest Knotts ever got was a small role in "Pleasantville." Even Leslie Nielsen was a bad fit here, uncomfortably neither straight dramatic actor as he was at the time nor deadpan comedic actor as he later became in "Airplane!" and "Police Squad."<br /><br />There's also no way the then-43 year-old Knotts could pass for a 35 year-old, as his character insisted he was. It was as ludicrously unbelievable as Tom Hanks at 38 playing the college-age Forrest Gump.<br /><br />The film was clearly made on a shoestring budget, very much looking like a hastily-filmed TV episode. It's especially evident in the "exterior" scenes of the "town" where Roy goes after he's fired. It's unlikely even a pre-schooler would be fooled by the Mayberry-like soundstage artificiality.<br /><br />Even viewing this strictly as a children's movie, it's very disappointing. It's not because it lacks action or special effects, although it does. The pace is much too slow, the situations repetitive. How many times can you watch Roy getting onto a bus? A comedy for kids should at least sometimes be madcap, with breakneck gags, otherwise you risk boring them (and any adults in the theater as well). Movies, even kid's movies, have improved quite a bit in the intervening decades. Even many contemporary comedies were better filmed and written. Disney's "The Love Bug," for instance, at least had some interesting race action.
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Juggernaut is a British made "thriller" released in the US by First National. Karloff is Dr. Sartorius who has to leave his research because his funds have dried up. Karloff is forced to retreat to France and start up a medical practice. He is propositioned by a conniving woman who wants to get rid of her much older husband. She knows Karloff needs the money.<br /><br />Karloff agrees to the proposition and soon becomes the personal doctor of the husband. All the while, the wife is prancing about town with the local no good playboy. Karloff finally injects the old geyser with poison and he kicks off. However, his son (from another marriage) arrives a few days before the killing and finds out the will has been changed. When he spills the beans to the wife, she goes berserk and even bites the son's hand.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Karloff's nurse has misplaced the hypo Karloff used to kill the old man. When Karloff finds out he isn't getting any money, he asks the wife to poison the son. The nurse suspects Karloff and finds the missing hypo. Analysis shows poison, but not quite in time as Karloff kidnaps the nurse.<br /><br />To make a long story short, the nurse escapes, gets the police, and manages to save the son who is about to be injected by Karloff. Karloff instead injects himself and dies.<br /><br />This movie does have some good points. Karloff is possessed and plays the type of mad doctor he did in The Devil Commands and the Man Who Lived Again. It is peculiar, however, to see him walk around stiffly and slightly hunched over. We never find out why he is walking this way. I suspect the director thought it made him more sinister.<br /><br />The actress playing the 2-timing wife overacts something terrible. She has a French accent. Even though she overacts badly, you still manage to hate her (or maybe you hate her because of her acting...).<br /><br />A little below average for a Karloff vehicle. If you buy the Sinister Cinema VHS copy, the audio is a bit choppy.
This has been put out on the DVD market by Alpha, and it's for die-hard Boris Karloff fans (like moi) only. It's not a horror flick, but a drama where Boris is a struggling scientist agreeing to kill a wealthy woman's husband in order to gain the fortune needed to continue with his work. But once the dying victim changes his will and leaves his spouse nothing, all hell breaks loose.<br /><br />It's appeasing enough seeing Karloff as another selfish sinister type, and some of the acting is unintentionally hilarious (especially from the leading lady Mona Goya who is absolutely a laugh riot as the double-crossed wife).<br /><br />But proceed with much caution.
One of Boris Karloff's real clinkers. Essentially the dying Karloff (looking about 120 years older than he was)is a scientist in need of cash to finish his experiments before he dies. Moving from Morocco where his funding is taken over by someone else he goes to the South of France where he works a s physician while trying to scrap enough money to prove his theories. Desperate for money he makes a deal with the young rich wife of a cotton baron who is dying. She will fund him if he helps her poison the husband so she can take his money and carry on with a gigolo (who I think is married). If you think I got that from watching the movie you're wrong, I had to read what other people posted to figure out happened. Why? because this movie had me lost from two minutes in.I had no idea what was going on with its numerous characters and multiple converging plot lines. Little is spelled out and much isn't said until towards the end by which time I really didn't care. Its a dull mess of interest purely for Karloff's performance which is rather odd at times. To be honest this is the only time I've ever seen him venture into Bela Lugosi bizarre territory. Its not every scene but a few and makes me wonder how much they hung out.
Way back when, the X-Files was an intelligent, thought-provoking show. A big part of its appeal was that the writers looked to folklore and science for their ideas, tying the plot to the spooky side of real life.<br /><br />I was incredibly wary of the 8th season when it aired. The show had already provided two perfectly good episodes to bow out on ("One Son" and "Requiem"), and the 7th season had seen a sharp rise in episodes that scraped the barrel for ideas that were far-fetched, implausible, or downright silly. But I figured, hey, give it the benefit of a doubt, maybe they're bringing it back because they've got some great ideas lined up.<br /><br />"Roadrunners" really was upsetting. Following "Patience", which at least offered an interesting angle on the vampire folklore that the show had done well to avoid, the episode sees a strange (alien?) parasitic slug with the power of mind control worshipped by a cult of backwoods Christians. Oh, and they think it's the second coming of Christ, but you only find that out in the last couple of minutes. Seriously. There's never *any* attempt to make sense of this, to explain what the slug is, why anything that's happening is happening, or anything. Even in the show's early years - in fact, *especially* then - you could expect a little bit more depth, a bit of background, or if not that then the opposite - a bit of mystery, some uncertainty about what this was all about. <br /><br />It's Scully that really kills it though. You could put up with the silliness of the premise, but to have a character who has been developed over a good 7 years as a rational skeptic transformed into a gullible maverick purely for the sake of advancing the plot is bizarre to watch. You feel like you're watching some godawful teen horror, except that it's a woman well into her thirties throwing herself into the kind of creepy isolated community that she's spent the best part of a decade uncovering the sinister underbelly of, being either outwitted by very stereotypical hicks or utterly indifferent to her own safety. Oh, and by the way, Doggett, the new Mudler, isn't around. Scully just wandered off into the desert to look into a brutal murder on her own without him. He shows up at the end to save the day - I can't even remember why - but apart from that, he's not really in it. Again: seriously.<br /><br />In short, it feels like either a generic script written for another show, or someone's pet movie project which they've been allowed to shove like a mutant leech into the spine of an existing, long-running show at a time when it was at its most vulnerable. It might've worked on a lesser show, where the characters are more archetypal and the audience expects less. But The X-Files had a good thing going, and Scully was one of the strongest and most idiosyncratic TV characters of the 90s. Deciding that you're going to change her personality for the sake of a story that they must've done on Star Trek a good fifty or so times is pointless.
Ariauna Albright is a really good actress but why she participated in this lame written travesty is a mystery. What could have been entertaining winds up as classic boredom. The unique thing about Ariauna is that she can act as well as look real sexy as opposed to her partner Lilith Stabs who looks fine but it is obvious she spent the money for acting school at the spa or beautician. This was a production that cried out for some T & A & with a imaginative script writer could have achieved it in the flow of things. However Ariauna does what she can under the circumstances & to a extent salvages her reputation. The Tempe company should be aware that when you dress two attractive women in skimpy fetish cop uniforms the viewers will expect some fetish play & T & A. Nough said.
I find it hard to understand why this piece of utter trash was repackaged. The only saving grace in the whole thing is the body of Ariauna in her sexy uniform. Her humour is also to be appreciated. She is a definite plus but alas it would take a magician to salvage this garbage. However she must be positively recognised for her heroic effort & true professionalism. Can't say the same for her co star Lilith with her whining voice that grates on your nervous system. Appeared disinterested & gave the impression that just her presence on the set was all that was needed. All said apart from Ariauna's performance it is indeed utter trash.
It is difficult to find any positives in this movie. Seems as though the producer needed to make a buck without much effort & hence we are treated to a full showing of Galaxy which is the lamest excuse for a movie in history. The police girls looked extremely sexy in their little uniforms. More action shots of the two cops & a lot less of Galaxy would have been the way to go. Of course that would add to the budget so they decided to fill the space with that wretched rerun. Ms Albright does excellent looking sexy & her acting is first rate. Ms Stabs whom I had heard of but not seen on screen before also looked very desirable but seems to lack basic acting talent. Apart from Ms Albright this is real garbage.
A group of human looking aliens going to Earth to eat crash land on a planet of prehistoric beasts instead where they all eat physcedelic mushrooms and act retarded. Padded with footage from "Planet of the Dinosuars" and horrible jokes this is definitely one to miss. The acting is atrocious as well, and while this isn't as bad as "Chickboxer" (what movie can be?) This is still pretty awful repugnant stuff. It's 90 minute running time feels like an eternity and you will likely be cursing life so do yourself a huge favor and just move on, skip this crappy film, there's nothing to see here.<br /><br />The film-makers try to resell this turd as a MST3K style making fun of the movie they made a decade before, and it works to an extent it's still nothing that watchable though, Ariauna Albright is hot, but Lilith Stabs has a pretty unattractive speaking voice.<br /><br />My Grade: D- <br /><br />DVD Extras: Joke commentary, 17 Behind the scenes featurette; 7 minute Into the black featurette; Jessica Mills reporting; Stills gallery; and original trailer
Using footage pillaged from Planet of Dinosaurs this shot on video (except for the stolen footage) concerns a bunch of people shot into space who land on a dinosaur planet that is...don't wait for it, is really earth. Its a five minute sketch stretched to 90 minutes. Slightly better than Chickboxer (another in the Bad Movie Police series)-having a nostalgic home movie feel coupled with good stolen effects, this movie is still an impossible slog to get through. I'm left to ponder the question are we becoming so uncreative that we're now pillaging old movies not only for plot but also for mismatched footage? Clearly low budget producers are getting so desperate they really will give us anything to take our money
First of all let me say that I had to think a lot about writing a comment for this movie. The best review for this kind of Cinema can be just the silence. Movie addressed to housewives and to grandmothers. This movie tries to look "genuine" and the characters should be supposed "real people". An Italian could never think that the characters might be "real": they are just "low-profile" stereotypes. It gives a very misguised vision of what life is in the Italian countryside. The plot is weak (plot? which plot?) and the humour does not make laugh anyone older than 12.
Wow, after trashing the disk of Timo Roses "Rout City" after about 15 Minutes (South Park is about more than meaningless cursing... I guess some people just don't get it) I was interested in this movie. I read quite some positive stuff and the packaging and look of the movie seemed far from the total trash I expected after "Rout city".<br /><br />Surprise: The movie isn't total trash but the problem seems to be exactly that. Timo Rose tries to walk in the footsteps of German Horror/Splatter Cinema like Olaf Ittenbach and the likes. That means "Barricade" is in parts extremely gory and detailed. The gore FX are not really believable but OK, the acting is OK but in some cases plain sucks. The hillbilly chick in the opening sequence is ridiculous and doesn't get better till she's shot.<br /><br />So what is the problem... the movie is gory, has a typical German underground vibe (including the classic booby shots in blood), OK FX and a modern feel to it like the packaging already promised?! <br /><br />1. The script is total BS. You get a typical hillbilly/lost in the woods story with some guys+gal camping out and meeting a degenerated hillbilly family. Everything is just leading towards the torture/mutilation scenes and seems unbelievably random and pointless. This is the first thing that makes "Barricade" half-hearted.<br /><br />2. Random is also the perfect description for a lot of the camera work (I liked the repetitive cut to the tweezers in the extended booby torture scene... either they had no material or the editor works in a hardware store). Even worse the editing... sure, its modern and far better than a lot of other movies in the genre but its RANDOM. You got an overuse of that typical exposure effect everywhere and with no meaning ... its just there... all the time. Then there's some grainy/noisy film look which also is just thrown in here and there for the sake of it, I don't get the meaning.<br /><br />3. Like the fore-mentioned effects there is a lot of repetitive stuff in here. For example most of the kills are edited with multiple repetitions of stabbing and punching. Its OK once but here its annoying and fake, especially towards the end. Annoying also attributes the "music" which is permanently used without any change in the background. It doesn't take long until it makes the movie hardly bearable.<br /><br />4. From all this comes the biggest problem of this movie (and many others in my opinion). If you make a splatter movie with trashy feel its pretty idiotic to polish it with special FX and new school editing. It looks like they take it way too serious. Its no fun because the decent gore FX are plain wasted in this context. And where the classic gore FX are OK the computer FX in scenes like the stabbing in the mouth or the gunshots in the ending look rather silly(and 3D splatter mostly sucks to me even in movies with a budget and decent 3D artists).<br /><br />I often wondered if the time of serious splatter movies is over and "Barricade" is just another example it might be time to put it in the tomb. Its no fun, has no character and is too trashy for its look. The script is a cheap try on "Wrong Turn" and "TCM" leading absolutely nowhere. You can take that literally... the ending is just there and as random as many other things here ("I love you" in a splatter flick... come on!!). "Barricade" tries to incorporate a lot and fails...you can sure fast-forward through this movie for some extensive disembowelment, acid face melting,nipple pinching and classic Friday the 13th style stabbing of a couple while fingering in a tent (bloody boobies hooray!). But its really hard to get through this. Total failure especially because you can see it could have been something.
Well I just gave away 95 minutes and 47 seconds that I'll never get back on this piece of trash. I heard someone online describe this movie's villains as "subhuman cannibals", and I thought it was promising because I thought it would be like the Descent. WRONG! The Descent was a psychological thriller with dynamic characters and strong storyline. These villains are totally unrealistic and no part of their performance is enjoyable to watch. This movie isn't so controversial, I've seen this level of gore in many films. This movie plain sucks. SYNOPSIS: A blonde who thinks she's real hot (but she isn't), her admirer, and her admirer's friend (no, I don't remember their names) go into the woods. Their car breaks down. They are warned to leave by a man named Mark. The blonde gets unreasonably hysterical and the next morning they can't find the admirer's friend. Admirer impales his foot (whoops!). Don't worry, he is much more upset when his car won't start than when he gets impaled by nails. After a nanosecond of coaxing, the blond leaves to find help. Events ensue that I cannot remember. During this and throughout the movie, we are shown grotesque torture scenes with no substance including one that made me gag. Blonde goes to save admirer from house of cannibals (even though all they are seen eating is intestines, which would logically be the last choice for real cannibals to eat since they contain actual food). Blonde finds admirer hurt and works very hard (unsuccessfully) to work up tears. Then you get a good laugh when the blonde is in the house and announces she can "out think them". Mark (the man who warned them to leave) has a remarkable change of character when he reveals the cannibals are his family. Then there is some shooting, they leave the house, the shooting continues, then a random guy shows up and says he's been watching them. Before he is shot, we are shown an acid-trip inspired scene of more killing. The blonde or her admirer shoots him because he did not help them. There's more killing, the admirer professes his love for the blonde. Then a mysterious hand covers the camera. What does that imply? I don't know, hopefully not a sequel.
A group of friends come face-to-face with a family of hideous cannibals whilst camping in the beautiful German countryside.<br /><br />The 'mutant cannibal family' concept is almost as old as the hills that the inbred freaks often call home, so any director attempting to breath new life into the genre needs to come up with something pretty darn special in order to impress. With Barricade, Timo Rose tries to give the well-worn routine a Teutonic twist, by transplanting the action to The Black Forest and giving it the German low-budget splatter treatment. The result is a very bloody, but totally unoriginal effort that is made almost unwatchable thanks to some dreadful directorial decisions—in particular, the non-stop use of fancy filters and irritating editing techniques.<br /><br />Had Timo Rose not opted to utilise every naff trick his editing software offered him, then Barricade might have been a reasonably entertaining gore-fest: his inexperienced cast do reasonably well; the bloody effects are suitably stomach churning; and there are one or two scares and even some well conceived creepy moments. All of this, however, is completely ruined by the awful camera-work, choppy editing, and overwhelming barrage of visual gimmickry used to give the film the distressed look that is so inexplicably popular with today's film-makers.<br /><br />I give Barricade 3 out of 10 purely for the outlandish gore, which includes a nifty scene where a guy is forced to drink acid, loads of nasty wounds caused by a variety of sharp implements, and some pretty decent shotgun damage.
As I am not a blood and guts fan I found the gory scenes totally unnecessary (you spell it) and too real for my liking, if you're the type of person who gets their rocks off on beheadings on the internet or snuff movies I say go for it, it beggars belief what sort of person dreams this sick crap up though.<br /><br />Apart from that it had the potential to be a great movie, the music was top class too (through the movie and especially the end credits). Some parts though were a bit unbelievable, like you've just been found by your girlfriend trust up awaiting torture and death and all you do is tell her about what had happened and how you got there, (why didn't he ask her if she happened to have any wipes or even some air freshner or a piece of gum while he was at it?), come on now, most would probably just scream "hurry up and untie me then lets get the f*** out of here QUICK!". where were the flys, maggots etc, and when the girl accidentally came across the place surely the stench of rotten flesh would have sounded a few alarm bells! I would only recommend this movie to friends of Dennis Niellson and the like, I'm sure a video like this would make sickos like that have a very happy Christmas.
Horrible. I see many user comments on how great this show is. It truly is a Wanna-Be-Friends - Made in Taiwan knockoff. The jokes are lame as...and the plot is ridiculous. The actors are obviously struggling to be funny and are probably cringing when they hit those awful punchlines (if you can call them that). The bulk of the other users who have commented are obviously from another planet (or at least another continent). There are obviously reasons that TV companies cancel shows...and none of then are when shows are doing well. Make sense? Anyway, steer clear - even if it is raining and there is absolutely nothing else on this planet to do...go stand in the rain instead - more fun.
this show is awful. no comedy, no plot no good characters. America are you blind give the award to real shows. i hate this show along with 30 rock. honestly I'm so glad they canceled this show. thank you CBS. keep two and a half men, keep Christine, keep rules of engagement keep how i meet your mother which really isn't funny but a lot funnier than this. this show is a rip off of friends. with the same director so thats okay. but keep this show gone and never bring it back. never ever ever ever. the only reason i didn't give it a 1 rating is because it keep my awake instead of asleep. those are the types of movies or TV shows that i give a one. the only reason i was still awake was because of the audiences laughter and i was looking forward to the next show. i really wish this show was funny sorry but my opinion stupid. very stupid. i don't see why everyone loves it. my opinion again. but i also find big bang theory kinda stupid. my bad smart. the class bye bye now i have a smile and it is not from watching your show.
The Class is a comedy series that portrays a bunch of 27-year-old former class mates.<br /><br />I like the idea of the show. That's why it saddens me that The Class is not funny, even though it has the obvious potential. It's not enough corky, just dorky. (Haha.) This is due to a slowish tempo and the lack of actually hilarious punch lines. Also some actors have difficulties with timing.<br /><br />Most inventively written characters are the twins Kat and Lina Warbler (Lizzy Caplan and Heather Goldenhersh) but even they seem just a little too square for the good of the show. On the other hand the characters I find most uninteresting are the main character Ethan and the used-to-be- couple Duncan and Nicole.<br /><br />What bothers me with the series is that the only Latino character Aaron is being picked on for his accent (even though by a non-respectable character, but anyway).
If you have seen Friends, the writing will feel very familiar. Especially the last 3 or 4 seasons of Friends often share the same comedy setups.<br /><br />The show is about a group of people whose connection is that they shared the same class when they were still rather young (about 10 years old I think). Now, they're in their mid-twenties, and they meet again on a class reunion. This is where the series starts.<br /><br />A typical episode deals with multiple story lines at once. They're usually not connected in any way. Each story line is cut up into multiple sections, which are then shown in a mixed order.<br /><br />The sketches is where my problems lie with this series. As in the later seasons of Friends, it's often a rather silly setting with hard to believe situations. One of the main characters does something really stupid that's hard to believe. The situation is then heavily exaggerated, as if it wasn't silly enough. If you're into this kind of in-your-face humor, then maybe you'll like this series. For me it is a great turn-off.<br /><br />The reason I started watching Friends is because of the first few seasons. There are interesting and especially credible story lines, with some romance in it that makes you root for the characters. The Class has none of this. The characters are simply too forced and stereotypes are pushed too far. It's therefore not possible to relate to them and like them.<br /><br />At least with friends, it took several seasons before it ran out of steam and the character traits were all milked out. But in The Class, it seems it has run out of steam before it even started.
You can't imagine how I looked forward to King of the Ants. As a massive Gordon fan, I awaited the European premiere with wicked anticipation.especially since I loved Dagon - Gordon's last achievement - so much. King of the Ants premiered here in my country and it was Gordon himself who came to present it. Unfortunately, I couldn't go and congratulate him for it afterwards. King of the Ants is his most uninspired and mediocre film to date. Really, the quality level never surpassed ordinary TV-thriller standards. The plot outline is terribly routine and with the exception of a few poor scenes, the typical Gordon-touch is never recognized. On top of that, the already weak script has more holes than a Swiss bowl of cheese! It involves a young wannabe-crook who's hired to commit a murder. So he does.and of course they're not paying him.and of course he falls in love with the victim's wife.and of course he avenges himself.. Only the sequences in which the guy descents in a spiral of madness are worth a mention and they're the only ones reminding you of the fact you're still watching a Stuart Gordon film. The acting performances are below average with McCenna as the heroic lowlife, George `Norm Peterson' Wendt as the chubby bastard and Kari Wuhrer as the good-hearted sex bomb. Extremely illogical things happen constantly and the dullness of the story becomes irritating very quickly, while the make-up effects aren't enough to even satisfy amateur-horror fans. I read a few other comments on King of the Ants, claiming it's Gordon's best since it finally is a thought-provoking and mature film.Well, if that's the case.I rather stay immature and give Re-Animator another viewing, thank you very much. Oh well, I guess every good director runs out of steam and inspiration eventually.too bad it also overcame Stuart Gordon.
This movie was an attempt to go into places most don't and perhaps shouldn't venture into. It was a similar trial at the bizarre, head-case perspective given to us in The Cell, although not near as in-depth and well portrayed. The plot is constructed simply with an initial campy feel to it. Then, as the movie takes its supposed "dramatic" turn, the plot falls apart on what few legs it had to stand on in the first place. <br /><br />Basically the idea is that of a kid (Chris McKenna) who needs money. He takes on the role of a hit man, killing a city accountant. Then he doesn't get paid for his work but instead gets tortured for several days because he dreamed up the "brilliant" idea of trying to use a backup file he had as leverage for payment. This idiotic move at trying to force them to pay him backfires as he is horribly and endlessly abused. He begins to go crazy (some very disturbing scenes). Then, thinking he has paid for his sins and can start over, he visits the wife (Kari Wuhrer) of the man who he killed and wins her affections. Soon after she discovers who he is, tragedy strikes, and revenge sweeps through the air as the boy goes after his torturers (Daniel Baldwin, George Wendt, Vernon Wells) for their previous "kindness".<br /><br />I got to ask though, what is it with Kari Wuhrer and horror/gore type films?<br /><br />It seems everything she has put out lately has been in this genre. Granted, I liked her in "Eight-Legged Freaks" and she was okay in "Anaconda". But despite all her obvious cuteness and allure (wow, she's hot!), she can act much better and chose better roles. Or maybe, I'm wrong and that is just a misconception. For all you guys out there, you get to see the "fully monty" of her in this film, although it's rather bizarre and short-lived. I almost felt like she did some soft-porn after watching this film (something not foreign to Kari's career). The sex-simulation is such that it has to make you wonder what things really go on during filming. <br /><br />Anyway, I will say there is some good acting. Just don't expect much of it from Daniel Balwin, whose career seems forever destined to second his brother Alex's. The film did bring out a few old greats though, George Wendt (Norm from Cheers) and Vernon Wells (Commando, Weird Science). Above all, Chris McKenna does the best job in playing the main character, Sean Crawley. His little acting experience and yet his believable nature as a naive youth, bring some elements of substance to the film. <br /><br />I wouldn't go out of my way for this one. If you're bored and are tired of the same old episodes of "The Hitchhiker", then I might advise watching this.<br /><br />And Kari, please start acting in some better films!
This movie is written by Charlie Higson, who has before this done the "legendary" Fast Show and his own show based on one of Fast Show's characters (Tony the car sales man). He's also written James Bond books for kids.<br /><br />Actually I've seen before this only Gordon's movies that are based on Lovecraft's stories, and every one of those is marvelous. Here Gordon tries to do something different. The style is totally "contemporary", which means shaky camera, fast and strange cutting, cool chillout music in the background. It works quite well here, I guess, but it's still pointless and cheap. It makes me often think of the cameraman who's shaking his dv-camera in front of the actors/actresses and try to make stylish moves in the pictures (hoping that something tolerable would come out of it). The casting is good, and there is a whole atmosphere, which is the result of good directing. I think the main character, the "zero" young guy, is quite interesting in his "zeroness". The fat guy is also good. And the guy who looks like Alec Baldwin, but is not him. But pretty soon after the beginning the movie turns out to be something not-so-interesting: In this case I mean an endless line of scenes of sadism and sickness. There is not much humanity in this film/story: It's totally pessimistic, and every person in this movie is disgusting and hopeless, or soon dead. Needless to say that there is no humor either. It's a 1'40 long vomit without no relief in any moment. Anyway, Gordon remains to me one of the most interesting movie makers that are active today, and I think of this movie as an experiment, and as a failure in that. Everyone has to experience getting lost sometimes, just to learn and to find their way again. This might be Gordon's most uninteresting and empty work.
I must pat myself on the back for watching this movie all the way through because it truly was painful. An incapable painter becomes a fully capable hit-man? This movie was rife with absurdities of which if I mentioned them all I would be giving away the movie. Norm Peterson aka George Wendt must really be in a rut to have agreed to do this movie. The acting was deplorable and the story was even worse. As a sane minded and rational individual, I could not understand where the writer came from nor where he was going with this movie. There was ineptness on the part of every main character, there was a string of hapless and ridiculous events, then the movie ended. One absurd act after another with dialogue doesn't make a movie, it only makes a talkative train wreck.
I was p***ed when I couldn't see this one when it was screening at the Philly Film Fest last year, so when I saw that it was going to be on cable tonight, I put it on remind as soon as I could. So was it worth the wait? Well let's backtrack a tad as I have yet to give you the plot. Sean Crawley is a young man who doesn't know what his path in life is. Enter Duke (George Wendt) who introduces him to his boss Ray (Danny Baldwin). One night Ray totally hammered asks Sean to off the guy that they had Sean following around. And it goes on from there. Which leads me back to the question posed. Was it worth the wait? Yes and no, the buildup was pretty good and George Wendt stole the movie for me. He just took the ball and ran with it. But it's nowhere near as violent as I was led to believe and somewhere along the movies running time the ball is not only dropped, but fumbled and taken in the other direction. I know where this point happened exactly, but can't say without spoiling the film. But needless to say it happened. The ending doesn't save the film either. Poor Stuart Gordon nothing can be good like "Re-animator" or "Castle Freak".<br /><br />My Grade: C<br /><br />Where I saw it: Showtime Extreme<br /><br />Eye Candy: Kari Wuhrer shows her ta-tas in one fantasy and then in the next more ta-tas and it pans down and...OH MY GOD MY EYES MY EYES!!!!!
A film without conscience. Drifter agrees to kill a man for a mobster for money. Then they double cross him. Meanwhile he falls in love with the dead man's wife, and, without her knowing he's the killer, moves in with her. Then he "accidentally" kills her when she finds out. Then, in a WALKING TALL kind of heroism, he gets revenge on the mobsters who double crossed him. The first problem is that, by agreeing to take on the murder by hire assignment, the drifter loses all sense of sympathy, worthiness, and heroism. We can't accept any goodness in him and as a result the rest of the has no moral center. We just can't care about that kind of guy. And the wife (nicely played by the fetching Kari Wuhrer - the sheriff in EIGHT LEGGED FREAKS), a high class lady who runs a mission for homeless people, similarly loses a degree of sympathy by jumping right into bed with the homeless drifter (despite her evidently weakened state after the death of her husband). And, when she finds out he's the guy – what does she do? She locks him inside her house (as if ALL houses had locks you can't open from INSIDE) with her and proceeds to berate him. Stoo-pid. George Wendt, however, is terrific in a role as a beefy thug. Director Stuart Gordon did so much better with RE-ANIMATOR and DAGON.
I don't know anything of the writer's or the director's earlier work so I hadn't brought any prejudices to the film. Based on the brief description of the plot in TV Guide I thought it might be interesting.<br /><br />But implausibility was piled upon implausibility. Each turn of the plot seemed to be an excuse to drag in more bloodshed, gruesome makeup, or special effects.<br /><br />The score was professional and Kari Wuhrer seems like a decent actress but the rest was more than disappointing. It was positively repulsive.<br /><br />I will not go through the vagaries of the narrative but I'll give an example of what I think of as an excess of explicit gore.<br /><br />Chris McKenna goes to an isolated ranch house and pulls the frozen body of his earlier victim (Wendt) out of the deep freeze. McKenna had killed Wendt by biting a chunk out of his neck. Now he feels he must destroy the evidence of his involvement in Wendt's demise. (What are the cops going to do, measure his bite radius?) McKenna unwraps Wendt's head and neck from the freezer bag it's in, takes an ax, and begins to chop off Wendt's head. Whack. Whack. Whack. The bit of the ax keeps chipping away at Wendt's neck. The air is filled with nuggets of flying frozen flesh, one of which drops on McKenna's head. (He brushes it off when he's done.) McKenna then takes the frozen head outside to a small fire he's built. He sits the head on the ground, squats next to it, takes out some photos of a woman he's just killed, and shows them to Wendt's head. "Remember her? We could have really made it if it hadn't been for you guys," he tells the head. "Duke, you've always liked bonfires, haven't you?" he asks. Then he places the head on the fire. We only get a glimpse of it burning but we can hear the fat sizzling in the flame.<br /><br />I don't want this sort of garbage to be censored. I'm only wondering who enjoys seeing this stuff.<br /><br />There's no reason to go on with the rest of the movie. Well, I'll mention one example of an "implausibility," since I brought the idea up. McKenna has been kidnapped and locked in a dark bare shack. He knows he's going to be clobbered half to death in the following days. (He's literally invited the heavies to do it.) What would you do in this Poe-like situation? Here's what McKenna does on what may turn out to be the last night of his life. He finds a discarded calendar with a pin-up girl on it and masturbates (successfully). Give that man the Medal of Freedom! <br /><br />A monster who looks like Pizza the Hut is thrown into some unnecessary flashbacks. The camera is often hand held and wobbly. The dialog has lines like, "Life is a piece of s***. Or else it's the best of all possible worlds. It depends on your point of view." Use is made of a wide angle lens that turns ordinary faces into gargoyle masks. A house blows up in an explosive fireball at the end while the hero, McKenna, walks towards us in the foreground.<br /><br />Some hero he is, too. He first kills a man for $13,000 by bashing him over the head several times with a heavy statue, then a potted plant, before finally tipping a refrigerator over onto the body. (This bothers him a little, but not enough to keep him from insisting on payment.) Then, I hope I have the order straight, he kills Wendt by ripping out part of his neck. Then he kills the wife of his first victim by accident and blames the heavies for it, although by almost any moral calculus they had nothing to do with it. Next he burns the head honcho (Baldwin) alive. Then, having disabled the two lesser heavies, he deliberately blows them up, though one of them isn't entirely unsympathetic. And we're supposed to be rooting for McKenna.<br /><br />These aren't cartoon deaths like those in the Dirty Harry movies either -- bang bang and you're dead. These are slow and painful. The first one -- the murder for $13,000 -- is done clumsily enough to resemble what might happen in real life. It isn't really easy to kill another human being, as Hitchcock had demonstrated in Torn Curtain. But that scene leads to no place of any importance.<br /><br />Some people might enjoy this, especially those young enough to think that pain and death are things that happen only in movies. Some meretricious stuff on screen here.
I read all these reviews on here about how this is a such a good movie. Jeez, this movie was predictable and pretty boring. The acting was below average most of the time, especially by Mckenna. I haven't seen a more pathetic attempt at making someone "badass" in a movie. Oh man, this movie was a letdown. I also read somewhere this might be a cult classic. I know there are followers of the director, but this movie was just a average piece of film.<br /><br />The script was lame, for the most part the acting was lame, this movie was lame.<br /><br />Oh and pray for the guy that used to be in Cheers. He looks really bad. <br /><br />The best actor in this movie was probably the guy in Office Space, and he was only in this movie for about 8 minutes.<br /><br />4/10
The proverb "Never judge a book by it's cover", was coined as a warning to those who fail to look beneath the surface. <br /><br />As I viewed the artwork to,"King of the Ants" I instantly thought HORROR! The arcane imagery proudly displayed on the cover & back spoke of a dark vision, the synopsis promised a story of murder, betrayal, & retribution. Instead what I discovered beneath that surface, was less interesting than what you can find under your average rock.<br /><br />"King of the Ants" features Chris L. McKenna as Sean Crawley, an average guy ready to make a name for himself in this world, even if it means murder. Except Sean Crawley is someone you don't care about, never once did I feel any compassion or sympathy for this character. In fact he's downright unlikable, but not as much as Daniel Baldwin (Ray Mathews)who turns in an uninspired performance as a made all the worst by the utterly laughable dialogue he is forced to recite. Throw in Kari Wuhrer as a grieving widow who apparently has unconditional trust (esp. in the homeless), and little to no common sense, and George Wendt as Duke, which is basically a sober Norm from Cheers but MEAN!<br /><br />Now there are a couple of interesting "hallucination" sequences in this film (the source of the cover images) but this film never delves further into that world. It prefers to bombard you with unmotivated characters, bad dialogue, and unlikely event after unlikely event. Oh the Horror!
The wife of a stage producer in London hopes to fix up the American song-and-dance man starring in her husband's latest show with an acquaintance, an American girl who makes her living modeling fashions in society circles. Unfortunately, the couple has already met on their own, with the girl thinking the guy is actually the show producer married to her friend (the fact he's not wearing a wedding ring should have discouraged any misunderstandings!). Wafty Fred Astaire-Ginger Rogers musical is eventually dragged back down to the earth by Dwight Taylor and Allan Scott's idiotic script, which is full of juvenile behavior. Astaire and Rogers don't just 'meet cute'--they meet ridiculously (he's tap-dancing like a madman in the hotel suite above hers and she complains). Audiences of 1935 probably didn't care how these two were going to get together--as long as they did so, and happily. Seen today, the central characters appear to have no motivation to end up in each other's arms: he plies her with flowers (after telling his friend he wants to remain "fancy free" in the love department) and she gives him the brush-off. Nothing that a little dancing couldn't cure! This glamorous twosome are as deliberately unreal as are the London and Venice settings, but we watch simply because the leads are Fred and Ginger. It's a fantasy for have-nots...ones who don't mind the dumbed-down plot. The musical moments do break up the monotony of the contrived scenario, yet fail to transcend the surrounding silliness. ** from ****
Having endured this inaccurate movie I will admit that it is a more modern telling of the story than previous versions. Yet, it is so inaccurate and has has been made so politically correct that it made me mad after watching it. Davy Crockett was very poorly represented by Billy Bob, who I thought would have probably been better cast as Sam Houston given both men's love of oratory. I think self-absorbed Dennis Quaid(an actual Texan) would have been a perfect Crockett and it would have definitely fed into his starved sense of self-worship. As a Texan and a true believer in the Texas mindset I feel Davy Crockett was the quintessential Texan even though not born here. Our unofficial motto is "It ain't braggin' if it is a fact" was made for Crockett. And that last scene at the Alamo where Crockett is the last survivor has to be the biggest insult to Davy Crockett ever made. To even suggest that this giant of a man and seasoned fighter would allow himself to be taken alive is ridiculous. Three different eye witness accounts place him dead amid the bodies of a dozen or more dead Mexican soldiers after undoubtedly fierce hand to hand combat. Finally, that lame ending to the movie supposedly depicting the battle of San Jacinto as a mutual battle of 600 Texicans vs 700 Mexican Soldiers when there was actually closer to 1,500 well trained Mexican regulars. Every Texas school kid who pays attention in their first Texas history class knows the battle took the Mexican Army by surprise during siesta time and the Mexican army was so confused they could not form ranks and fled as they were not trained to fight frontier style hand to hand.
A question for you : A family go to a new house and get stalked by demonic forces . Which film am I talking about ? Every horror film you`ve seen ? Yes that`s true but that`s not the answer I`m looking for . I`ll narrow it down by saying there`s a lot of teen angst scenes . Doesn`t help ? Well there`s lots of bits where the characters are stalked by a creature and you see the characters through the creature`s POV . No futher forward ? Okay there`s a dream sequence involving lots of blood ? Could still be any horror film you say . Oh gawd this could take weeks so I`ll say the film I`m talking about features loads of Aussies many of whom have appeared in NEIGHBOURS and HOME AND AWAY . Yes that`s right the film is THE THIRD CIRCLE ( aka CUBBYHOUSE ) and do you understand what the above exercise is about ? It`s about me pointing out how THE THIRD CIRCLE is absolutely no different from any horror film that`s been made
Suffice it to say that this substandard B has nothing to save it - not an interesting plot or even one tolerably decent actor. Josh Leonard of Blair Witch fame does little to help matters. Do yourself a favor and leave this one on the shelf at your local video store.
I had numerous problems with this film.<br /><br />It contains some basic factual information concerning quantum mechanics, which is fine. Although quantum physics has been around for over 50 years, the film presents this information in a grandiose way that seems to be saying: "Aren't you just blown away by this!" Well, not really. These aren't earth shattering revelations anymore. At any rate, I was already familiar with quantum theory, and the fact that particles have to be described by wave equations, etc. is not new.<br /><br />The main problem I have with this movie, however, is the way these people use quantum theory as a way of providing a scientific basis for mysticism and spiritualism. I don't have any serious problem with mysticism and spiritualism, but quantum mechanics doesn't really have anything to do with these things, and it should be kept separate. The people they interviewed for this movie start with the ideas of quantum theory and then make the leap to say that simply by thinking about something you can alter the matter around you, hence we should think positively so as to have a positive impact on the world and make our lives better. The reasoning is completely ridiculous, and the conclusions do not logically follow from quantum theory. For every so called "expert" that they interviewed for this film, there are scores of theoretically physicists who would completely disagree. They would point out, quite rightly, that the unpredictability of the subatomic world does not lend support to mystical notions about our spiritual connectedness.<br /><br />It disturbs me that people are going to see this film and completely eat it up because it leaves them with a nice positive feeling. The main thrust of the film is based on a total misinterpretation of quantum theory, and it is as bad in its reasoning as any attempt to justify organized religion with similar pseudo-scientific arguments.<br /><br />Avoid this film.<br /><br />Oh yeah. At one point, one of the "experts" says that since throughout history most of the assumptions people have made about the world turned out to be false, therefore the assumptions we currently hold about the world are also likely to be false. Huh? That totally does not follow. And even if it did, I don't see how that helps his argument. I mean, if his ideas ever became common assumptions then I guess we would have to assume that they are false too, based on his own reasoning.
As a physics student, I've become aware of many idiot professors, and other so-called experts, in the field. As I continue with my studies, I learn more and more about real physics experiments going on, and about the people who are doing things right.<br /><br />Then, my friends tell me of this "physics movie" they want to see. Knowing nothing of it, I'm excited, hoping that the information will be presented well.<br /><br />I've done REAL quantum mechanics; this wasn't it.<br /><br />This movie starts with the basic assumption that anything that occurs to a subatomic particle can, and will, occur to you, if you just open your eyes. Let's think about that, for just a moment.<br /><br />Our bodies are composed of somewhere around 10^30 such subatomic particles. That is a million billion billion billion particles! The more "mysterious" quantum effects of just two particles can have a 50% probability of cancelling each other out completely. As you add more and more particles into the mix, it becomes almost impossible to have a large net quantum result. To tell us to believe that this is a valid assumption, with no rationality behind it...it's just stupid.<br /><br />My friend, also in physics, and I counted 3 facts during the course of this movie. But they were presented in the most misleading manner I've EVER SEEN.<br /><br />I cannot say as much for the neural portion of the movie, as I have not had any kind of medical training. It seemed as though it might have had a slight bit more truth to it, remembering my days in biology, but I cannot say.<br /><br />At least this film had a redeeming quality: the dancing peptides (or whatever they actually were) scene. Not to ruin the invaluable plot that drives this movie, but the main character goes to a wedding, where she sees all different types of personalities "driven" by their peptides*, and then the film cuts to the dance floor, where we are spliced between people dancing, sometimes surrounded by CG peptides, and a fully CG scene, filled with dancing peptides. The film, at that point, was trying to tell us how we're "addicted to emotions," so we're treated to the full song of that smash hit, "Addicted to Love."<br /><br />This scene was redeeming, because anyone who could go through THAT scene, and still take this movie seriously...well, you are the ones that need to "open your eyes."
This movie made me very angry. I wanted desperately to throttle the "scientists" and unseen film-makers during the course of it. Very, very painful to sit through. Sophomoric and pretentious in the worst way. The little good information on brain function/chemistry and quantum theory is lost in a sea of new agey horse sh*t. The worst offenders were the crack-pot charlatans Ramtha and Joseph Dispenza. Mr. Dispenza informs us that most people lead lives of mediocrity and clearly implies that he, on the other hand, is living on a higher plane. Even the ideas and attitudes that I basically agree with are presented in such a heavy handed, clumsy, superior, pretentious, preachy manner that I felt the desire to disavow them. I think that's what made me so angry, the fact that they've taken what are indeed profound aspects of established scientific thought and marred them with their new age hokum. Much of it is based around the fallacy of applying concepts of quantum theory to the macro world. Fittingly, the dramatized portions with Marlee Matlin are amateurish and cliché ridden.<br /><br />I would refer people instead to Bill Bryson's excellent survey of science: "A Brief History of Nearly Everything." There's plenty of profound wonder about life and the universe in the actual, established science.
It seems the makers of this film had trouble deciding what their message really was. Consequently, they had even more trouble delivering it. They began by poorly describing principles of quantum physics which relate to sub-atomic particles. Having established a fuzzy picture of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, they presented a barrage of talking heads who built a case of ridiculous logic intimating that every living person is an entity which follows the same quantum rules on a cosmic scale. Then there was a lot of talk about ideas upon which Stephen Covey and Tony Robbins have made their careers: positive thinking, interrupting bad patterns, always look on the bright side, etc. Next came a bit about how our brains can change our bodies through production of proteins: hormones which we more or less choose to create. If you are sad, you will create sad proteins. If you are happy, you will create happy proteins. It's just so simple, isn't it? Interwoven with our lessons we follow the fictitious life of Amanda, a photographer who pops anti-depressants and hates her thighs. The film makers slowly but surely were trying to get us all to say, "Hey, Amanda, just cheer up!" Why can't she cheer up? Obviously it's because the world is a BAD place where there is crime and poverty and religion, that's why. The conclusion of the film (which is basically the entire second half) brought on a barrage of contradiction. We are all a part of a whole energy where we are not beings, but a collective consciousness, but we are individuals who can change the world, but there are many of each of us because of all the different dimensions, but we can choose who we are, and we have a purpose to do good, but there is no god because there is nothing better than us, so there is no such thing as right and wrong, so there is no such thing as reward or punishment, so nothing good ever came out of religion, but we should still do good anyway, even though there is no such thing as bad and good because there is nobody to decide what that is, except for the fact that we each can make life good if we all meditate, and then crime will cease, and if we say nice things, our water will freeze into pretty shapes. Still with me? Good because there is more. According to Robert L. Park in his book "Voodoo Science", the whole meditation experiment put on by John Hagelin in Washington, D.C. was a farce, the numbers were doctored, and the murder rate was higher that year that any year before or since. And what about your positive attitude keeping you young and healthy? This was a message delivered by an older man who looked his age and a woman who was overweight.<br /><br />So does all this work or not? I was lucky enough to see the film at a theater where Betsy Chasse, one of the film's three directors (yes, three) fielded questions following the show. I call myself lucky because I had first-hand confirmation that these people don't know what they are talking about. Several of the questions asked by audience members had her so stumped that her husband, a chiropractor, had to step in and recite the answer. I finally had to leave when the discussion inevitably turned political, and everyone, including Ms. Chasse, began speculating as to how wonderful the world would be if only President Bush could see this movie.
Anyone who has studied any physics or cognitive science will walk out disgusted after 40 min., as my wife and I did. The ignorant masses might be entertained by the hand-waiving arguments and the absurd "conclusions" drawn (without even an attempt at a logical reason) from real science. I'm offended by such nonsense presented under the guise of "science". I can only conclude that the writers picked up a quantum physics book, didn't understand a word of it, then watched The Matrix about a thousand times, and proceeded to write this movie.<br /><br />For example, the Washington DC crime experiment was done by The Transcendental Meditation Program. A brief search will reveal the science of their methods. (http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/t/tm/dissenter.htm)<br /><br />Save your money.
Remember the chain-smoking channeler exposed on 60 Minutes a few years ago? This is her. Lots of folks reviewed this movie without checking the bona fides of the filmmakers. The producers have been using phony "word of mouth" promotions very successfully without disclosing the financial and philosophical underpinnings for this piece of marketing tripe. If you believe in channeling, reincarnation, new age dreck and day-old baloney, this film is for you. If you want a discussion of quantum physics or reality, look elsewhere. The purpose of this movie is to convince you that Ramtha isn't a wacko, so you'll give her a bunch of your money. If you can tiptoe through the Ramtha website without howling in disbelief, then maybe you'll think the bucks you dropped on this infomercial for insanity was well spent. <http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=ANSWERMAN>
I created my own reality by walking out of the theater I was roped in by my girlfriend into going to this dreck with her mom. We (my g-friend and I) walked out about an hour into it. What a load of pseudo scientific new age jargon.<br /><br />Sub atomic particles are thoughts? By taping labels to bottles of water and blessing it by a Buddhist monk it grew little pretty crystals? A drop of 25% in the murder rate in DC happened when a bunch of folks meditated. Wow, what a rigorous scientific study. I'm sure that someone ate cheerios for four days straight during the same time. Should we conclude that eating cheerios caused a drop in the murder rate? <br /><br />Hogwash, hooey, bull pucky! <br /><br />BTW- It was funded by the Ramtha cult, the leader of which was one of the "experts" which were interview by the filmmakers. No ulterior motives here, right?
Well, what can I say.<br /><br />"What the Bleep do we Know" has achieved the nearly impossible - leaving behind such masterpieces of the genre as "The Postman", "The Dungeon Master", "Merlin", and so fourth, it will go down in history as the single worst movie I have ever seen in its entirety. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is impressive indeed, for I have seen many a bad movie.<br /><br />This masterpiece of modern cinema consists of two interwoven parts, alternating between a silly and contrived plot about an extremely annoying photographer, abandoned by her husband and forced to take anti-depressants to survive, and a bunch of talking heads going on about how quantum physics supposedly justifies their new-agy pseudo-philosophy. Basically, if you start your day off meditating to the likes of Enya and Kenny G, this movie is for you. If you have a sense of humor, a crowd of people who know how to have fun, and a sizable portion of good weed, then this movie is for you as well. Otherwise, stay away. Take my word for it.<br /><br />The first thing that struck me about "What the Bleep do you Know" is that is seemed to be edited and put together by the same kinds of people that shoot cheap weddings on camera, complete with pink heart effects, computer-generated sparkles across the screen, and other assorted silliness. Who let these people anywhere near a theatrical release is a mystery to me. I guess this is what too much Kenny G does to you. The movie was permeated with cheesy GCI, the likes that you or I can produce on our own computer via over-the-counter video editing software, but never would, because it's just way too ridiculous.<br /><br />The script was _obviously_ written by someone with no writing experience whatsoever. Not only were all the characters and conversations cumbersome and contrived beyond belief, but the "writers" felt like they had to shove every relevant piece of information, or rather disinformation, which is what most of this movie was all about, all the way down your throat. Well, given the target audience, that may not have been too bad of an idea. The main character, for example, spends half the movie popping pills. Apparently, though, it was deemed not convincing enough, so there are at least a couple of dialogs in throughout, which refer to her anti-anxiety pills specifically, just in case the viewers should not be able to connect her overacted pain and suffering with little white pills she takes whenever she feels down. The acting... Well, I've seen better acting in Ed Wood movies, and no, this is not an exaggeration. Heck, the little play I was in when I was 12 featured much more inspiring acting than this. It really did.<br /><br />The story is interrupted here and there with a bunch or random talking heads, a strange mix of kooky scientists, kooky doctors, and self-proclaimed mystics, go on and on about how quantum physics supposedly provides an "explanation" for how ever man or woman created their own reality just by participating in the experience of life. Reality, you see, is a probability-field of a bunch of different possibilities, and is only set in stone once you the Observer chose to notice it. What happens when more than one Observer Observes they didn't say, but then again who cares. Listen to Enya, meditate, Observe, and you shall be God, and nobody gives a damn about such silly and archaic things as critical thinking, logic, etc. All reason is immediately dismissed as people being stuck in their ways and unable to achieve a "paradigm shift" and "go down the rabbit hole". Furthermore, the Heidelberg Uncertainty Principle supposedly is proof positive of alternate realities, parallel universes, and such.<br /><br />Speaking of rabbit holes, the analogy permeates the movie. All of these people keep talking about going down rabbit holes. I'm not sure what that had to do with anything else they were saying or showing, but one thing I'm certain of is that it somehow involves anal sex. Actually, the movie is _extremely_ anti-sex. Throughout, sex is presented as dirty, ugly, and anti-enlightening.<br /><br />In any case, the talking heads talk, the main character achieves harmony and enlightenment by painting hearts all over her body with a magic marker, and proceeds to walk around with an even stupider look in her glazed over eyes than she started with.<br /><br />I want 2 hours of my life back.<br /><br />Here's a couple of random quotes which I happened to remember:<br /><br />"What I think of as unreal has become a lot more real to me, and that, which I used to consider real, is oftentimes a lot less real than the unreal." - Some talking head on the spirituality of quantum physics.<br /><br />"What does it take for one man to have an erection? It takes just one thought. Nothing changes on the outside, all the changes are within. An yet he has an erection" - Some self proclaimed mystic, head of her own school of enlightenment.<br /><br />[while looking at herself in the mirror] "I hate you! I hate you! You're fat! You're ugly! I have you!" - main character, the fat and ugly photographer.
If you're a layman interested in quantum theory and string theory, read "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene of Columbia University, and "The Universe in a Nutshell" by Stephen Hawking of Cambridge.<br /><br />Recipe for #$*!:<br /><br />3 parts bombastic New Age pontificator, 2 parts pseudoscientist, 2 parts real scientist<br /><br />Mix together until ingredients are indistinguishable from each other and spread on celluloid thin enough that there is no discernible substance.<br /><br />Serving suggestion: barf bags.
I was extremely suspicious of the ideas presented in this movie, but being relatively ignorant of quantum physics aside from what I recalled from the excellent "Short History of Nearly Everything" and what I was able to choke down in "A Brief History of Time," it sounded interesting at times. However, the obvious nonsense of the story of the Indians being unable to see the ships of the explorers was ridiculous. I really started questioning what was being shoveler at that point, but then the clincher was the revelation that one of the speakers was actually "channelling" some loony named "Ramtha" completely upset the applecart for me.<br /><br />What a waste of two hours.
A definite no. A resounding NO. This movie is an absolute dud.<br /><br />Having been recommended to me by a friend very much into "that sort of thing," I watched this movie with some anticipation of being informed, changed, moved, altered, uplifted, and all the other positive mystical things that could happen to me when I suddenly see The Truth. Now this may sound like someone who is already predisposed to poo-pooing anything dealing with the metaphysical, the metaphysical/physical boundaries of existence. Believe me, I am not such a person. I try to be open about any presentation and then decide accordingly.<br /><br />In terms of content, the only thing I found mildly interesting and informative, was the bit about peptides, emotions, addiction, and cellular receptors. That was the only "unifying" element I could find in the documentary part of this film. The rest of the documentary rambled around several topics and never seemed to unify and cohere, try to tie up and conclude to a point. And what was all that stuff about native Americans not being able to see the ships that Columbus came in? Who told the "authorities" in this film that that was what happened in 1492? Where they there too? Had they compared this to scientific work being done in visual cognition (the famous gorilla video, for example, visit the Visual Cognition Lab at the University of Illinois site) there may have been a more convincing point made. Here, however, it seemed like unsupported mystical mumbo-jumbo.<br /><br />As a film: this wasn't one film, it was two. I found the documentary part mildly interesting, just to hear the people talking about what they were talking about (I was annoyed that their credentials weren't presented at the bottom of the screen when they spoke, at least initially!) But I found the "story" part of the movie with Matlin in it annoying, disjointed, intrusive, non-related and downright stupid. That bit about the Polish wedding with that dance was not in the least bit funny. It was laughable, ludicrous, sophomoric, and stupid. And I found the use of the word "Pollack" offensive. It just seemed so out of place and wrong. Is such usage okay because a member of the group uses a pejorative term to refer to the group because he or she is a member of the group? That may be okay to make a point, but it didn't seem to be used that way here. And in any case, I don't care what the reason, it offended me, a Pole. I never call myself or refer to my ethnic background as "Pollack." And I certainly don't like like it when others do. Can I watch or listen to a bigoted conversation in which this term is used? You betcha! But again this didn't seem to be the case here. It just seemed so out of place. Unprovocked, unmitigated.<br /><br />The acting was abysmal. Elaine Hendrix's performance was totally unbelievable. At times, it seemed like she was just reading her lines that had just been given to her. Marlee Matlin for the most part seemed to be sleep walking through this whole thing. Perhaps she was baffled by the material. I know I was. If she was supposed to be portraying a disillusioned drugged-up anxiety-prone malcontent, it just didn't seem to click. But by far, the world's worst was Hendrix! All in all, I found this a disjointed, poorly acted piece of clap-trap.
If you want to see intelligent, philosophical discussion of human possibility and potential, watch "Waking Life," which is brilliant. "What the #$*! Do We Know" is all over the place in its focus, poorly directed, poorly written, poorly acted, utterly devoid of any art direction and completely annoying. It wasn't thought-provoking or entertaining in the slightest. The inclusion of that rambling freak "Ramtha" in this film is reason enough to avoid it. Isn't it strange how the filmmakers choose to look over the fact that this woman worships some 2,000 year old Atlantian god or something? What a flake that old chick is, and what a total waste of my time and money this movie was. The people responsible for this film should not be allowed to make another movie ever again.
If you want to learn the basics of quantum mechanics, spend your $9 on a used textbook, not this movie. I'm a little worried that the money I spent is being used to buy Kool-Aid for shipment to Guyana. <br /><br />I don't think the directors really got any point across, but it looks like maybe they were trying to make several: 1) Science can explain everything we do, meaning that our lives are deterministic; 2) Science can't be used to explain everything we do, meaning that we have free will; 3) Science is, like, really cool, brother; 4) We are God; 5) The world exists only in our minds; 6) Sarah Norman is a tough role to follow and 7) here, put this tiny paper square in your mouth and you'll see some really groovy stuff.
Pathetic attempt to use science to justify new age religion/philosophy. The two have nothing to do with each other and much of what is said about Quantum Physics in this mess is just plain wrong.<br /><br />Examples? Quantum theory supports the ideas in eastern religions that reality is an illusion. How? Well, in the world of the subatomic, you can never definitely predict a particles location at a specific time. You can only give the odds of it being precisely at one spot at one time. Also, the act of observation seems to affect the event. Solid particles can pass through barriers. All of this, so far, is accurate. But then they assert that that means that if you believed sincerely enough that you could walk through a wall, you could indeed do it. This is complete poppycock. Instead, the theory asserts that at our level, it is possible for you to walk through a wall, but it is merely by chance and has nothing to do with belief. Also you'd have to keep walking into the wall for eternity to ever have even the remotest chance of passing through the wall, the odds are so astronomically against it.<br /><br />This is but one example of how they misrepresent the science. But much more annoying is the narrative involving an unhappy photographer, played by Marlee Maitlan. About halfway through the picture it becomes so confused as to be incomprehensible. Something to do with negative thoughts leading to addiction and self-hate. There may be some truth to that, but Quantum physics has nothing to do with it.<br /><br />Plus, string theory is the hot new thing in physics nowadays. Instead of wasting your time with this dreck, I suggest you rent The Elegant Universe, an amazing series done for NOVA on PBS that gives you a history of physics from Newton and gravity to Ed Witten and M Theory in only 3 hour-long episodes. Quantum mechanics is explained there quite well if you want to know it without the fog of metaphysical appropriation.
I'm still trying to decide if this is indeed, the worst film I have ever seen - A very disturbing problem with this film is that real scientists are interviewed, but their footage is edited to make it look as though they support the ideas of the many BSers who populate this film. The BS to signal ratio of the interviews is about ten thousand to one - at the end, the interviewees seem to be saying, "We want you to _think_ !!", but they themselves are too lazy to do simple research about things they assert as fact.<br /><br />If you feel that you are open-minded, and wish to expand your consciousness, please be open-minded enough to read some actual books about quantum theory: "Einstein's Universe", Nigel Calder (a slim volume, not a challenge), "The Cosmic Code", by Heinz Pagels. If you can't bring yourself to read a book, please don't complain to reviewers about being "open-minded".<br /><br />To recap, this film is just unbelievably bad.<br /><br />You know what's a really good film which questions the nature of reality? "Thirteenth Floor", directed by Roland Emmerich, with Craig Bierko, Gretchen Mol, Vincent D'onofrio. Smart, sexy, thought-provoking.
"What the Bleep Do We Know!?" was one of the worst times I have spent at the movies. It was less of a movie and more of an after school special, but at the same time nothing special at all. The attempt at a narrative in which they grounded their ideas was absolutely pathetic, which almost anyone will tell you. Marlee Matlin in her underwear just shouldn't happen. I won't dwell on it. What I will reveal is a criticism that many are unable to formulate. This movie, while tedious, also suffered a tremendous flaw in reasoning. It was horribly contradictory because it took such a manipulative, become a creator of your life, manifestation of abundance, shoeless piece of propaganda. Interconnectivity is explained as a large party of our existence. However, the movie encourages that we control our surroundings with our minds. It completely neglects that there are other people with minds that could be controlling us, which seems to be more the case. Or at least the structures in which we exist greatly limit us. In this way, the movie was inappropriately solipsistic. Solipsism and interconnectivity just don't mix unless you're God almighty. If you are, you will be impressed (?!?) by all the neat things this movie will reveal that You can do. If not, you will be sorely disappointed, a moron, or perhaps both. Also, the title is so ridiculous, I have trouble warning people not to see the movie because I feel retarded mentioning it by name. Shame on everyone involved.
Another cult strikes again. This isn't a spoiler, because the REAL ending comes after you research the folks who brought this overly-long, pseudo-scientific infomercial...Ramtha's School of Enlightenment.<br /><br />When any religion/philosophy needs to hide behind an OZ-like screen of deceit, I walk away. Thank Ramtha I watched a borrowed copy of this movie on the recommendation of a "friend"...to have wasted precious resources on this New-Age lobotomizer would have been tragic. I can only hope that they "truly believe they can walk on water" enough to take that guidance to it's "logical" conclusion...in other words; walk, drown...or shut up :-) As a movie...it deserves a strong "1" on it's entertainment value, especially for creating the most dislikable character in film history (the photographer's roommate...eeeeeek!). If you must see this film, borrow it from one of the brainwashed folks who recommended it.
I agree strongly with some of the other critics of this film. I found it incredibly silly (at best) and downright misleading, misinforming and harmful (at worst). Like others, I found this film to be an awful mix of "real" science and pseudoscientific, New Age propaganda. <br /><br />As a psychologist, I was especially offended by Candace Pert's contributions. True, I was not a fan of hers before this film, but her discourse on the "consciousness" of cells was one of the best examples of taking a term ("consciousness") that has a predictable meaning to most people and using it in such a distorted manner as to cause it to obscure rather than clarify. It is an old Orwellian mind-f**k that the master himself described so well in his superb essay "Politics and the English Language." To refer to "consciousness" in this manner--indeed, to refer to this film as "based in science" in general (which is its clear intent)--is to use language in the same manner employed by Stalin when he labeled his slave-states "democratic republics" and Hitler when he called his party a "socialist workers" movement.<br /><br />I don't claim to really understand quantum physics. I know enough about it to know that to really understand it would take considerable study. Ah, but we Americans do love "instant enlightenment," and that's what this mistake of a film tries to accomplish. If it ASKED questions, that would be one thing, but it clearly attempts to ask and ANSWER them, which no film could possibly do simply because we are far, far away from the answers (if they indeed exist).<br /><br />By the way, ethically this film needed a disclaimer about the association of several "expert commentators" with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (and TM), not to mention J.Z. Knight, who often speaks in her "Ramtha" voice. (I'm always amazed at this channeled 10,000 year-old Atlantean superman's grasp of 21st century concepts and terminology. But then again, this film argues that the past, present and future are all one and the same, so if Ramtha existed in Atlantis 10,000 years ago, I suppose he could exist now and tomorrow. Only, then how come his financial advice has been so incredibly bad for his followers? Oh, I forgot, I'm the creator of "good" and "bad" advice, so it's all my fault, not Ramtha's.)<br /><br />What a mess.
At first glance this documentary/fiction/cartoon is quite entertaining and thought provoking. Of course, when something provokes thought, it can then be scrutinized. The reality is this movie combines metaphysics with innuendo and baseless conclusions. The link that "What the Bleep..." would have you see between science and spirituality is, in fact, not rooted in science at all. The Transcendental Meditation study mentioned in the film claims that meditation by a group can reduce crime in a given area, Washington D.C. in this case. In reality the HRA (Homicides, Rapes, and Assaults) crime rate was about 30% higher in 1993 than the average crime rate between 1988–1992. There was absolutely no decrease in the homicide rate during the study. In fact, each and every claim that links metaphysics to science can and has been debunked.<br /><br />My conclusion from this information is that this movie is either a poor attempt to indoctrinate people or a joke. Either way, I suggest that you do not waste your time.<br /><br />If you are looking for a long winded movie about science that could provoke thoughts, you might consider Mindwalk (1990).
I will admit that I'm only a college student at this present time, an English major at that. At the time I saw this film I was a high school student--I want to say junior year but it may have been senior, hard to remember. My experience with quantum physics goes pretty much to my honors physics course, an interest in quantum mechanics that has led me to read up on the subject in a number of books on the theoretical aspects of the field as well as any article I can find in Discover and the like. I'm not a PhD by any means.<br /><br />That said...<br /><br />This movie is simply terrible. It's designed to appeal to the scientific mind of the average New Age guru who desperately wants to believe in how special everybody is. My mother is such a person and ever since she's seen this movie she's tried to get all her friends to see it and bought a copy of the film. I attempted to point out the various flaws and problems I'd seen with the films logic and science--and they are numerous--and she dismissed my claims because "oh, so a high school student knows more than all those people with PhDs." In this case, apparently so.<br /><br />Leaving behind the fact that earning a PhD doesn't necessarily require that a person be correct or, in fact, intelligent. Leaving behind the fact that my basic understanding of physics is enough to debunk half the film. Leaving that behind, the film makers completely manipulated their interviews with at least one of the participants to make it appear that he supported their beliefs when, in fact, he completely opposed them.<br /><br />I could go on and on but I think intuitor did a really good job of debunking the film so feel free to read that if you care to do so.<br /><br />http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/bleep.html
I went into this film expecting it to be similar to The Matrix or Pi. Boy, was I wrong. Yes, there is a poorly written, poorly acted plot in the movie (with CG animated cells and peptides to boot). However, the real focus of the film are the "expert" talking heads spewing out new age feel-good hogwash in between plot segments.<br /><br />Sure, it stars off innocently enough. There is a little bit of real quantum physics in the beginning. It states, for example, that electrons exist as both particle and wave, and that an atom is mostly empty space. However, the movie takes a giant (and unscientific) leap, saying that sub-atomic quantum effects happen on large scales as well. The talking heads take it even further. According to them, the following are true:<br /><br />-When Columbus arrived in the Caribbean, the natives were unable to see his ships because their minds were incapable of perceiving something so different. -Meditation can reduce the murder rate. -With positive thought, you can walk on water. -Your thoughts can change the formations of ice crystals in bottles of water.<br /><br />And hey, that's only in the first 40 minutes!<br /><br />Watching the movie was torture. This film felt like a movie they would show you to get you to join a cult. After doing my homework, I realized that it basically is just that.<br /><br />On the other hand, this could be seen as a campy comedy (albeit one that's not funny).<br /><br />Save your time and money: don't see this movie.
I didn't know much about this movie before I watched it, but I heard it had something to do with quantum physics so I was interested. What I didn't know is that this is NOT ACTUALLY A STORY but a bunch of New-Age blowhards who love the sound of their own voice talking about how little they know about basic quantum mechanics. I say it belongs more in the Documentary category than Comedy or Drama.<br /><br />Marlee Matlin is in the movie, in order to give this New Age symposium *some* sort of a storyline. Her portions of the film feel horribly tacked on and are meant to display the speaker's thoughts so we won't die of boredom. Matlin has a real job as a photographer, unlike the New Age hippie that crashes on her couch. We get to listen to nameless people ramble on about what quantum physics all "means" to them. The one bright spot in this movie was the speaker from India (I assume), but I think he showed up for the wrong film.<br /><br />It looks like Barbara Eden really let herself go and she goes on and on about how quantum science has something to do with her crazy New Age beliefs. It looks like Quark from DS9 was running low on cash and he also makes a brief appearance in the film. There is a lot of whizbang CGI we're supposed to be impressed with; cells in the body are shown as dancing jello molds, because the filmmakers have apparently seen Flubber one too many times.<br /><br />People in the movie say that the Arawak people on San Salvador thought Columbus's ship the Pinta was invisible because natives had never seen clipper ships before, as if people today had any way possible way of knowing. Of course they leave out all of that information and just say "Columbus's ships were invisible to the Indians in America." The film takes many such arrogant leaps. Thomas Young did a double-slit experiment around 1805 and found that light can look like a particle some of the time, and a wave some of the time. Of course you'd never *know* this from watching this stupid film because the only reference to it is that "atoms can be particles and waves." And that must mean that people can pass through walls, walk on water, and never grow old if they just wish upon a star!! Then I'm sure Marlee Matlin could stop being deaf if she just *believed* hard enough. I'm being sarcastic, but this film is chock-full of false hope and beliefs that the people espousing them don't really hold.<br /><br />These are New Age kooks who have grabbed onto Quantum Theory as if it reaffirms everything they believe about meditation, zero point energy, crystal healing, etc. If these snake-oil salesmen truly believed the crap they were selling, couldn't they just *wish* their paychecks into existence instead of appearing in this joke of a film? We get to listen to another nameless man, with no credentials that we know of, talk on his couch in front of a fireplace (or TV screen) about how he creates his own life. Every time he was on the screen I wanted someone to rush in and throw a pie in his face. These people take themselves WAY too seriously. Some other balding guy in a suit says that nobody ever *really* touches anything because there's a magnetic force preventing it at the quantum level. If only someone had walked onto the screen and kept punching him in the stomach, screaming "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" A moral relativist in the movie claims that there's really "no such thing as good or bad." So apparently it's OK that Hitler gassed millions of Jews to death? Another person says that there is "no such thing as love." It's just a chemical and that we really don't love people, we're just addicted to the chemical rush we have when we're around them. I suspect this guy is doing this film as community service for being addicted to heroin for so many years.<br /><br />We are witness to a truly pathetic sequence where two young adults walk around a wedding reception, seeing everything like RoboCop. They evaluate if women are cows, dogs, or foxes, and a sexual position pops onto the scree. Marlee Matlin gets drunk at the wedding she's supposed to photograph and the next day decides to love herself and take a bath because she's a beautiful and unique snowflake.<br /><br />I liked when the film said people often find evidence for their pre-conceived notions. Perhaps in this review I'm only seeing what I want to see, but I TRULY wanted to see these people get pies to the face, and it never happened.<br /><br />If you've never heard of any of the ideas presented in the film before, you may find them interesting, but there are better sources for all of the ideas here. If you want to watch a good movie that talks about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, go see The Man Who Wasn't There. If you want to read a good book about Quantum Field Theory, read Hyperspace by Michio Kaku. If you want to see a film that talks about different philosophies with imaginative visuals, see Waking Life (although it can feel boring, self-important, and pretentious at times). All in all, you should go and read Quantum Psychology or Prometheus Rising by Robert Anton Wilson instead of wasting your time on this movie.<br /><br />I normally have a very hard time giving movies a score from 1 to 10, but this one was a very easy for me: 1/10 Stars.<br /><br />The movie's title is true. The people in this film don't know #$*! Hands down, the worst movie I've ever seen.
This movie frequently extrapolates quantum mechanics to justify nonsensical ideas, capped by such statements like "we all create our own reality".<br /><br />Sorry, folks, reality is what true for all of us, not just the credulous.<br /><br />The idea that "anything's possible" doesn't hold water on closer examination: if anything's possible, contrary things are thus possible and so nothing's possible. This leads to postmodernistic nonsense, which is nothing less than an attempt to denigrate established truths so that all ideas, well-founded and stupid, are equal.<br /><br />To quote sci-fi writer Philip K. Dick, who put it so well, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
What The Bleep Do We Know is a deluded and haphazard look at the mysteries of the universe. We are presented with a parade of apparent experts (none of whom are named) who ramble and pontificate in a thoroughly unscientific manner. Their interviews are chopped up into aggravatingly small segments and dispersed throughout some flashy cgi and banal mini-plots.<br /><br />The film pilfers themes from science, philosophy, theology and politics, minces them together without any regard for accuracy, and then somehow extracts a few prosaic and absurd conclusions. We are led to believe that quantum physics is telling us the purpose of our existence, and any other difficult to answer question the film-makers would like to point their finger at.<br /><br />It is riddled errors and logical non-sequiturs. How did we start at quantum mechanics and end up with this pseudo-scientific spirituality and mysticism? It's like saying 'two plus two equals four, therefore I can move objects with my mind'.<br /><br />There is nothing original in this film, and almost nothing that is accurate. Any discriminating viewer will be annoyed by heavy-handed editing, intrusive and pointless special effects and general lack of substance. Educated viewers will be frustrated to tears by the violence done to science and every other subject this film touches on.
Ridiculous. This movie is actually a vehicle for the Ramtha School of Enlightenment. If you are wondering who the *bleep* Ramtha is: "Ramtha is a 35,000 year-old spirit-warrior who appeared in J.Z. Knight's kitchen in Tacoma, Washington in 1977. Knight claims that she is Ramtha's channel. She also owns the copyright to Ramtha and conducts sessions in which she pretends to go into a trance and speaks Hollywood's version of Elizabethan English in a guttural, husky voice. She has thousands of followers and has made millions of dollars performing as Ramtha at seminars ($1,000 a crack) and at her Ramtha School of Enlightenment, and from the sales of tapes, books, and accessories (Clark and Gallo 1993). She must have hypnotic powers. Searching for self-fulfillment, otherwise normal people obey her command to spend hours blindfolded in a cold, muddy, doorless maze." John Wheeler, one of America's finest theoretical physicists, would roll his eyes about this movie. He has in the recent past criticized parapsychologists for their misuse and misinterpretations of quantum theory. This movie does the same thing as those fools.<br /><br />There is a great review of this movie at Skeptico. I recommend anyone considering watching this movie read it first before contributing to a cult's coffers.<br /><br />http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/04/what_the_bleep_.html I noticed one reviewer here at IMDb say to take this movie with a grain of salt. It will take enough salt to kill a horse to wade through the garbage-thinking of this movie.
I can't believe that the City of Muncie is so hard up for attention that they would embarrass themselves by allowing this show to be done there. This show is like a slap in the face to real hard working law-enforcement officers. I have never before in my life seen anything so stupid in my life. If they had billed it as a comedy that would be one thing but to say it is reality is nothing short of a lie. I only saw it once and was appalled at what I saw. I wanted to see the little guy get into a foot-chase with a bad guy. What a joke that would have been. Nothing on the show was even close to the real world. The city of Muncie, the Police Chief, and all the officers should be hanging their heads in shame and should never want o admit they come from that city. No wonder it didn't stay around on TV
Not an altogether bad start for the program -- but what a slap in the face to real law enforcement. The worst part of the series is that it attempts to bill itself as reality fare -- and is anything but. Men and women that dedicate their lives to the enforcement of laws deserve better than this. What is next, medical school in a minute? Charo performing lipo? Charles Grodin assisting on a hip replacement? C'mon...show a little respect. Even the citizens of Muncie are outing the program as staged. Police Academy = High School Gym? Poor editing (how many times can they use the car-to-car shot of the Taco Bell in the background?), cheesy siren effects (the same loop added ad nauseum to every 'call' whether rolling code or not), and last, but not least -- more officer safety issues than you could shake a stick at.<br /><br />If I want to see manufactured police work and wise-ass fake cops, I would watch RENO 911.
What a poor image of Professional Police Officers is displayed on the Television in the watching of this alleged Reality show. One can only hope that the actual reasonable suspicion that leads to probable cause that leads to the totality of the circumstances involved to make a "stop" , then the "Pat Down" of the outside of one's Garment, then to be able to articulate why the officer went into someone's pocket and retrieved contraband, was cut out of the scenes, because if it wasn't, the arrest in most places are going to be tossed, should they even get passed a supervisor. A report of a warrant over the radio does not constitute the actual existence of the warrant unless the person dispatching has the original warrant in hand. If the dispatcher is reading from a computer printout, it is good enough for an arrest, but it does not necessarily mean the warrant is still in effect. Since I haven't seen a Dis-claimer from CBS (I may have missed it), CBS could be in trouble.
SPOILER WARNING: There are some minor spoilers in this review. Don't read it beyond the first paragraph if you plan on seeing the film.<br /><br />The Disney Channel currently has a policy to make loads of movies and show one a month on the cable channel. Most of these are mediocre and drab, having a few good elements but still being a disappointment (`Phantom of the Megaplex,' `Stepsister From Planet Weird,' `Zenon: Girl of the 21st Century'). Every once in a great while, they make something really, really great (`Genius,' `The Other Me'). But once in a while The Disney Channel makes a huge mistake, and gives us a real stinker. This month (December 2000) The Disney Channel featured `The Ultimate Christmas Present,' which I thought was terrible due to poor writing and worse acting. Apparently, `The Brainiacs.com' was rushed out a few days before Christmas to get a jump on the holiday, because the plot has to do with toys. They even paid for a feature in the TV Guide, so I thought it must be better than the norm. I was in for a complete shock. Only Disney's `Model Behaviour' has been worse than this.<br /><br />The plot was more far-fetched than normal. I usually let that slide, but here it just goes too far. Matthew Tyler gets very sick of his widowed father spending most of his time at work. His father owns a small toy factory that has taken out large loans at a scrupulous bank to stay afloat. Time and time again, his father has to skip out on the plans he makes with his son and daughter. Matthew decides that the only way he can spend time with his dad is if he becomes the boss and orders him to stay home. He gets a hair-brained idea to create a website where kids all around the world can find and send him a dollar to invest in a computer chip that his sister is inventing. That whole concept is full of fallacies. When kids send in millions of dollars, Matthew opens his own company's bank account and buys up most of his dad's business's stock. He is the secret boss, but he doesn't reveal this to his dad, but instead presents himself at board meetings as a cartoon image through a computer. That image itself is so complex (and ridiculous) that it isn't possible for someone to create it at home, much less someone who comes across as stupid as Matthew. To make a long plot short, Matthew orders his dad to spend more time having fun and doing stuff with his kids, but a federal agent shows up inquiring about Matthew's company, as it is fraudulent.<br /><br />There's so much wrong here. As mentioned, the stuff they do here is impossible even for true geniuses, which these kids are not. The website, the cartoon image, the computer chip, even the stuff they are being taught in school, are far too advanced for these kids. The acting by most of the cast, especially Kevin Kilner, is terrible. Some familiar faces are wasted. Dom DeLuise plays the evil bank owner, but his part is a throwaway. He has one good scene with Alexandra Paul (who shows she has the ability to act) in which he explains his motives, but nothing more. And Rich Little is wasted in a small role as a judge. There's even some offensive and uncalled for anti-Russian jokes. But the greatest atrocities are the hard-hammered themes. These themes show up in many of The Disney Channel's films, but never before have these ultra-conservative messages been pounded so strongly. The typical `overworking parent' idea is really pushed hard, and after delivering it inappropriately in `The Ultimate Christmas Present,' seeing it again sours my mood. Family relations are important, but Disney must stop this endless preaching, because working is important to maintaining a workable family, too. Except for cancelling activities thanks to work, the father didn't come across as that bad, but I found it offensive when the grandmother told him `I don't like what I see.' Just as bad is the preaching of the idea that all single parents MUST marry if they want to raise their kids right. Enter Alexandra Paul, whose character, while important to the plot, is there solely to be the love interest for the father. This offensiveness only proves that the Disney brain trust lacks the brains to avoid scraping from the bottom of the Disney script barrel. Instead of letting this movie teach your kids how to commit serious fraud, wait for the next Disney Channel movie. It has to be better than this. Zantara's score: 1 out of 10.
That's right! Under 9 on average, but maybe under 12s for some others! I was 11 when I originally saw this on video and at such youth I wasn't able to notice the shoddy cartoon-quality or the fact that those classic characters we have all grown to love are Not the same or as good to see. Just about everything is so 2D here! Belle is, I'll agree, not even beautiful but just a plain-looking woman with tinted skin, she wears the same bright blue dress all the way through with not one glamorous dress on, Wardrobe is to say the Least, annoying - my ears may bleed if I had to listen to her everyday! Lumiere, in both the original and the Christmas edition was suave and elegant, but here he is a womanizing, unfunny twit! Cogsworth, despite being the no-nonsense housekeeper he is famous for, is a complete sh-t and the most insufferable character I'd say! He always seems to find shutting that unbearably grating pie-hole of his very difficult in this one and whose clock face should really have been used for turning back in time to the unforgettable two film in this series! Poor, poor Mrs Potts was not brought to life by Angela Lansbury (one of my favourite classic actresses) but by Anne Rogers who captured none of Mrs Potts' character, no offence to her! Not if she did her best! When the beast roars it sounds so horrifically fake with clearly no additional roars, snarls or growls by a microphone. I am aware that this is only a third feature following two other films so of course it wouldn't be as good but I'm sure that more of a contribution wouldn't have hurt the Disney artists who, indeed, have achieved such remarkable styles of animation over the years. It's alright, I guess, and I do watch it sometimes though only when it suits me. It's quite difficult to make a recommendation for you reading this because it depends on how old you are but remember this will not at all be what you may expect following the earlier spectacular movies! And to think that on my video of it the text on the back cover said "boasting brilliant animation"! It's a nice little flick but for one thing it's also highly poor and, for another, those 3 words ought to have been saved for the next re-release of the original!
Disney has now made straight-to-video sequels to a good bunch of their many animated features. Two of these were made for their 1991 classic, "Beauty and the Beast". Well, these ones aren't really sequels, as they are both set in between the events of the first film. The first of these two straight-to-video films was "Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas", which seems to be disliked by quite a few fans of its theatrical predecessor, but I think that can usually be expected with sequels. However, this second one, "Belle's Magical World", is definitely inferior.<br /><br />The film features three short stories, all of which take place while Belle is in the castle, and the place is under the spell of the enchantress. The first is "The Perfect Word", where a misunderstanding at the table between Belle and the Beast leads to trouble, and neither wants to be the first to apologize. The next story is "Fifi's Folly", where Fifi and Lumiere's fifth anniversary is coming up, and Lumiere is unprepared, so Belle helps him. However, Fifi sees Lumiere practicing romance with Belle, and thinks they're actually in love. The film ends with "The Broken Wing". In this story, Belle takes care of a bird with a broken wing, but a bird in the castle will probably mean trouble if the Beast finds out, as he hates birds! <br /><br />The plot description I gave is for the original VHS version of Disney's third "Beauty and the Beast" movie. Apparently, in the DVD version, there is another story added called "Mrs. Potts's Party", but I've only seen the original version. However, since I highly doubt that one story would stand out as a classic over the rest, I see no point in watching the special edition. Anyway, the first thing I will say about "Belle's Magical World" is that the animation is very 2-dimensional compared to what we're used to from Disney, which would obviously disappoint many people. I didn't like "Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas" that much, but you certainly can't say the same about its animation. I'm sure the stories in "Belle's Magical World" could entertain many kids (mostly younger ones, I think), and each story has a moral, so they could also teach them some valuable lessons. However, for adults, the film really doesn't have a lot. I personally didn't find any good humour in it, found that the constant conflict between Belle and the Beast got tiring, and the stories did not impress me too much at all in any way (they're not very well written). In "The Perfect Word", the way Belle says to the Beast, "You're acting rude... and foolish!" is a bit cheesy, and I think there are quite a few other cheesy moments in these stories.<br /><br />By the time this straight-to-video movie first came out, I was around eleven or twelve years old. I don't know what I would have thought of it at the time, as I had lost interest in Disney by then, and it would be years before I would gain any of that interest back. Even when this movie was first released, I think I was a bit past the age group it was aimed at. I never saw "Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas" until a couple months ago, but unlike that film, I never even heard of this one until recently, I think just after seeing the first sequel to Disney's 1991 hit. Well, as much as I like the theatrical original, I wouldn't have been missing much if I never became aware of this film's existence. For little kids, I'm sure "Belle's Magical World" can be highly entertaining, and probably somewhat educational with its morals, but I do not recommend it for adult Disney fans.
This movie is possibly the cheapest, cheesiest, and poorest sequel ever made.<br /><br />Yet, it is the funniest and most idiotic movie by Disney, and will guarantee laughs at the sappy stories and lame plots from start to finish.<br /><br />It's a group of short stories that seem like bad fanfictions.<br /><br />*SPOILER ALERT* The first one's all about Beast and Belle being petty over a pathetic argument. Then, three loser new characters decide to patch things up by forging a letter of forgiveness to give to Belle. Part way through this little episode, Belle has wall eyes, which made my siblings and I laugh so hard. Then, she and the Beast fight more over the letter... and later learn the meaning of forgiveness. How old are they??? Certainly old enough to know the meaning of forgiveness.<br /><br />Then, the next one's all about Lumiere being the world's biggest dope when it comes to romance. This coming from the man who could woo anything female. And they make FiFi a psychotic villainess who tries to kill Belle, and winds up getting off scotch-free by the end of it. What a message to send the kids!<br /><br />Then, the next one's all about Mrs. Potts being angsty. And the next one after that's all about Beast becoming overly possessive of a bird, to the point where he just seems downright silly.<br /><br />The animation's so ugly, it kills. There are at least 100 mistakes you can plainly see... and the coloring is awful.<br /><br />Belle's a simpering sap who blubbers whenever something goes wrong. Plus, she's petty and very different from the usual Belle.<br /><br />And the side characters are annoying... (I mean, Cogsworth and Lumiere fight almost all the time. I know they did that in the movie, but it was overdone in this.)<br /><br />But the worst character is Mrs. Potts. She's ruined in this. I can't even describe it. Just buy it and see for yourself.<br /><br />I give it a 1/10 for the sap, but I give it a 10/10 for comedy.
I didn't feel as if I'd been raped like I did with THE ENCHANTED CHRISTMAS,but BELLE'S MAGICAL WORLD is still the antithesis of BEAUTY AND THE BEAST. Like CHRISTMAS,BMW hates its audience,although not to such an extreme degree. It's ugly,uncanonical,idiotic,and the writing is horrifically bad.None of the stories work. These are not the characters we loved from BATB at all,they're a bunch of pod people. I wanted to dissect it,but after a few minutes,I gave up,because no one in their right mind would take this claptrap seriously. What we have here are three stories. "The Perfect Word" is an overbearing,ponderous study of forgiveness. "Fifi's Folly" only works if you can accept that Babette's name is actually Fifi and that she's a closet James Bond villainess and that Lumiere is an idiot concerning women. "Broken Wing" (or "Broken Wind" as I like to call it) is probably the most heinous of the bunch. Beast hates birds? Since WHEN? Don't watch this crap- every copy of this video deserves to be cremated. BEAUTY AND THE BEAST is still a cinematic classic,a transcendent celebration of love,art, intelligence and the human soul.
The trailers get you to the movie, but the movie just wasn't worth my 8.50.. it has some good effects, but the storyline.. yech, i like tommy lee jones and will smith as actors, they have both done some good films, but i wish they hadn't added this one to their resume's. To be honest, the book is better..
Men In Black 2 was a real disappointment for me. While the actors did a pretty good job, especially Smith, there just isn't a cure for a poor script once in production. The movie really had a "sequel" kind of feel, playing off partial events of the first film. The story was, in a word... bad, at best. It wasn't thought out well, and seemed very choppy and incoherent at times.<br /><br />In the first flick, the MIB Organization had a kind of "elite" force feel. You had a few special agents, and it had a "clandestine" kind of feel to it. In the sequel, the MIB Organization has a JROTC Summer Camp vibe.<br /><br />The movie wasn't terrible or anything.. it just lacked the "coolness" (for lack of a better phrase) of the first movie. A lot of the same old humor was recycled from the first to the second, and didn't really add any originality to the MIB Universe.<br /><br />A perfect analogy would be Episode 1 to the first 3 films. Was it decent? Yeah. Is it worthy of bearing it's title? Not really.
I'm surprised that anyone involved with the production of this series would actually admit responsibility. The script is so unfunny it must have been written by someone who failed the entrance exam for the Canadian Comedy Writers' Union (and that's saying something!). Get out your binoculars if you want, but there's nothing resembling a joke in sight. Ronnie Corbett must have been flat broke to demean himself with this rubbish. The rest of the cast are so lacking in any kind of acting or comedic ability I'm amazed it lasted past the first episode - correction, past the auditions. All I can say to those who are amused by it is that they must be very easily entertained. And it's obvious that the production costs must have been all of ₤100 per episode. And just in case anyone thinks I'm commenting as a foreigner who is unfamiliar with English humour, I must add that I am indeed English.
Honestly, I was disappointed in "Expiration Date." Super clever title and interesting premise, but I don't think it delivered. What was it about? The main character's desire to reconnect with his Native roots? Or, more likely, it was his need to overcome his fear of death. But, he wasn't set up as someone who has lived his life in fear -- it seems as if his life was going fine, but since doomsday is approaching he should now start worrying. I didn't buy it. Meanwhile, the supporting characters in the film didn't seem to have needs that blended into an overarching story. They were all just doing their thing, running parallel to the main character. Also, what was treated as a "curse" looked more like a coincidence. Who cursed the family? Why? When? Finally, why didn't he just plan on staying in his apartment all day on his birthday? Those are my criticisms, but I did love the shots of Seattle, cinematography was beautiful, acting was good in the times it wasn't outstanding.
OK, it's very rare that I complain something I got for FREE. So I guess this movie pushed me over that limit. I saw it at the Hollywood Cemetery for FREE and walked away very very disappointed. One audience member's question to the director about using the Native American references just as "bookends" instead of being weaved into the movie better, basically says everything that this movie FAILED on. <br /><br />NATIVE American REFERENCES--- The Native American references felt really out of place and contrived. It's obvious that this director and writer tried tackling an arena they never played in before. They should have stuck to the old adage of "write about something you know". IF they are in fact versed in this it certainly did not show on the movie or the beauty of this unique culture was not given proper justice. <br /><br />Clichés and ON THE NOSE--- I agreed to see this film on the basis that it was an indie. So I held it to higher expectations. "Little Miss Sunshine" was an indie and saw it before it became so popular. Before it even came out to wide release I was already raving how it's going to be a hit. UNFORTUNATELY I could not say the same about "Expiration Date". "Sunshine" took us to cliché incidents but the filmmakers were so clever at their approach that the outcome would take us to a different direction avoiding the trap of being a "cliche". This movie on the other hand had no way of not falling in the trap because it was already TRAPPED from the start. The psycho mom's antics, the Hendrix couple, etc. <br /><br />I hate to say it, but the best and WORST movie I've seen this year were both indies. "Little Miss Sunshine" being the best and this movie being the worst. I wish I could say otherwise. <br /><br />But I do congratulate the filmmakers for having such a good turn out from their family members at the cemetery.
I don't know what that other guy was thinking. The fact that this movie was independently made makes it no less terrible. You can be as big a believer as you want... the majority of this film is mindless drivel. I feel i have been insulted by having to watch the first 40 minutes of it. And that alone was no small feat. Not only is the acting terrible, but the plot is never even close to developed. There are countless holes in the story, to the point where you can hardly even call it a story anymore. I've never read the book, so I can't critique on that, but this is the first review that I've written here and it's purpose is solely to save all you viewers out there an hour and a half of your life. I can't remember the last time I couldn't even finish watching a movie. This one really takes the cake.
This film fails to capture any of the mystery and intrigue that the book offers. The main point of the book, the insights, are hardly even touched upon, leaving the viewer wondering exactly why everyone is making such a big deal about them and why they are willing to risk their lives.<br /><br />The character development is not good at all. No background or personal development leaves the audience not really caring at all about what happens to them, and so the action sequences fall flat.<br /><br />The search for the manuscripts ends abruptly, and with no real explanation, not leaving any sense of satisfaction as to what the whole search was for.<br /><br />This is one of the worst adaptations of a book I have ever seen. It is horrible and a waste of time. If you have not read the book, skip the movie and read it. If you have read the book, skip the movie and reread it.<br /><br />It is almost as if the point of making the movie was to discredit the book, that is how poorly done and ridiculous this movie is. It is a shame too, because it could have been good had they capitalized on it at the height of its success and they probably would have been able to get a good screenwriter and some good actors.<br /><br />Please don't waste your time, READ THE BOOK!!!
Bingo is the game, bullshit is the name. Rarely has the screen been smeared with such a blown-up hodgepodge of half-baked conspiracy theories, puritan prudery, and new-age gibberish. The bulk of the story is set at Viciente, a Cristian resort in the Peruvian jungle. Think Tolkien's Rivendell meets Star Trek's Planet Baku, inhabited by dimwitted followers of a not-so-mysterious, but surprisingly narrow-minded cult of love and peace. Thanks to gruesome acting and tacky production design (the rainbow-colored visualization of the mysterious all-healing "energy" is particularly hideous), "The Celestine Prophecies" looks and feels like a discarded 1980s "Twilight Zone" episode. Factual errors regarding church history and nomenclature abound. I can't believe Hector Elizondo agreed to be a part of this. Maybe it was made without his consent, Bowfinger style. May the Lord have mercy on the director, the screenwriter, the author of the novel, and the poor souls who see the movie or read the book.
I read the book Celestine Prophecy and was looking forward to seeing the movie. Be advised that the movie is loosely based on the book. Many of the book's most interesting points do not even come out in the movie. It is a "B" movie at best. Many events, characters, how the character interact and meet in the book are simply changed or do not occur. The flow of events that in the book are very smooth, are choppy and fed to the view as though you a child. The character development is very poor. Personnallities of the characters differ from those in the book. The direction is similar to a "B" horror flick. I understand that it would take six hours in film to present all that is in the book, but they screen play base missed many points. The casting was very good.
The film gives a rather condensed version of what is contained in the book, which as far as I can tell by doing some research and investigative fact checking is largely a work of fiction. In reality, there are no ancient scrolls and if the author was hard pressed I'm sure he'd have to admit he's never laid eyes on any scrolls in ancient Aramaic found in Peru. These "valuable" texts written as usual by anonymous, were destroyed by the evil "truth haters" in the church and in the local government. That's rather strange, as all kinds of New Age crap comes out each year---hundreds of books, dozens of movies--and the Roman Catholic church doesn't seem to me to be hell bent on destroying the movement which it probably views as I do, a total crock of doody. I'm no fan of the church, mind you, but at least the ancient texts which they base their faith on are real.<br /><br />It's a typical pattern of scam artists and religious hucksters to claim to have seen or translated ancient documents which unfortunately got destroyed by "evil" men or in Joseph Smith's case, got taken back to Heaven once translated. Therefore, the actual texts cannot be found in any museums like the Smithsonian, nor the translations checked by specialists in ancient languages like Coptic or Aramaic. It's a scam. In one sense, I admire anybody smart enough to come up with a great idea and make millions off it, but I couldn't do it myself, as I've no desire to mislead the public with more New Agey hokum.<br /><br />Occasionally, a genuine ancient text does get found hidden away and lost for years. The Gospel of Judas, a Gnostic text, was discovered and after carbon dating and diligent study of the text, deemed authentic by experts. The Gospel of Judas was referenced as heretical around 300 C.E.. No church documents from that time mention any Celestine Prophecies as authentic, heretical or anything else.<br /><br />We are evolving towards something--that much is true---but the optimism in the Celestine Prophecy is based on nothing but fiction and lies, and a philosophy built on a foundation of lies, like a castle built on sand will collapse. The harsh, ugly, overpopulated, cruel world of Blade Runner is more likely what it'll be like over the Horizon, than some Utopian Hippie Commune where all is love and peace! I tell people the truth and they hate me, but tell them what they want to hear, even if pure piffle, and one can make millions. The Celestine Prophecy is what the world wants to hear. Too bad it is a castle built on sand. Don't get me wrong. I wish to God, the Celestine Vision was reality, only it's not. No ancient philosophy at any time expressed ideas given in the Insights with the modern concept of spiritual evolution going hand in hand with biological evolution. These New Agey ideas did not exist in the ancient world and did not exist until Darwininan Evolution became well-known. That means the ideas in the Celestine Prophecies cannot be older than the 1800s C.E, and do not go back to the early B.C.E period or near the time of Jesus of Nazareth. This type of claim by New Agers is not at all unusual. Wiccans claim their brand of magic and witchcraft -- the "old religion" goes back to the stone age, when in reality no Book of Shadows has ever been known to exist prior to Gerald Gardner who lived in the 1900s and was the buddy of Aleister Crowley.<br /><br />New Age gurus tell lies and claim their ideas are based on ancient teachings, when the ancients would thumb their noses at such absurdities that are preached by Gurus today. Why do they do what they do, perpetrate such fraud? Simple: there are millions of dollars to be made, and the modern Guru acquires power over his or her followers. They compete fiercely and have a strong hatred for their competition despite their claims of love for all things. Each New Age group bitter opposes the others. It's a struggle for your minds and your wallets.<br /><br />But learn one thing from me, that is actually similar to one of the insights, learn to follow your own instincts and look for guidance from within. That I can agree with wholeheartedly.
I must admit I do not hold much of New Age mumbo jumbo. When people "exchange energy" I always wonder how much kJ is actually exchanged and how it may contribute to solving the global warming problem. When energy "is enforced" I always wonder how they managed to violate the laws of entropy and still are without Nobel prizes. When people feel how well instinct enables them to flawlessly navigate through the complexities of life I wonder how they fail to do a simple thing like finding the train station.<br /><br />But then again, this is not the first movie with plot holes and most of them I find perfectly acceptable and entertaining. If this were the case with "The Celestine Prophecy" I wouldn't burn this movie down, but unfortunately it isn't. Every actor seems to be bored out of his head and unable to grasp what he are actually supposed to be doing on location. This results in many "Ah-s" and "Oh-s", like I tend to do when talking about quantum physics with somebody who actually knows what he is talking about and pretend to understand.<br /><br />The direction is uninspired as well. You might expect something more from the guy who did "What dreams may come", but hey, I supposed he got well paid for the job and adopted the attitude of a New York taxi driver: "It's your money, buddy.." The only one who seems to be having fun is all-time bad guy Jürgen Prochnow. Not only does he have a job, he is one of the few actors in this movie who may have a few wise cracks at this eternal and terribly boring New Age chatter.<br /><br />This movie is much like one of these dinner dates when you find out that your date is actually a horrible bore who seems to be unable to shut up. At one moment in time it seems the words turn into small ping pong balls that are thrown to your head incessantly until it hurts.<br /><br />If you want to have a good time and have to choose between this movie and sticking safety pins in your eyelids, take my advise: choose the latter.
My dear Lord,what a movie! Let's talk about the "special effects" first. Don't get me wrong here, I am not one of those effect fanatics but I was truly thinking that superimposition was a practice of the long gone past, mainly the 60's. So for some time I thought they might have recorded this movie a long time ago and it took them forever to cut and release it. But as far as I know they did not have cell phones in the 60's...<br /><br />What I am looking for in movies is mainly a good story with a really good message. Acting is secondary, effects are secondary, I do not even mind a few little inconsistencies. However, in a movies like this bad acting, incredibility, etc. add up to make a bad movie even worse - that's what happened for me with the Celestine Prophecy.<br /><br />My wife said the book was actually really good and even though I am not into all that spiritual stuff I can somehow see that it can be brought across in a believable way - the movie failed to do so.<br /><br />There could be one single reason to watch this one though. If you really love cheesy movies it'll be the right one for you. If the IMDb stars were for cheesiness instead of quality I MUST have rated this movie ten stars.<br /><br />By the way, three stars are for the fact that there are worse movies out there, like "Critical Mass" (look up the comments on that one - hilarious). The Celestine Prophecy is at least entertaining to a certain degree.
Amateurism best describes the film adaptation of the best-selling philosophical novel "The Celestine Prophecy", which follows the spiritual awakening of an out of work teacher in a mysterious village in Peru. Home video quality actors present so-called characters spewing overwrought exposition and metaphysical hokum, while the film is propelled by the extremely heavy-handed direction of Armand Mastroianni. Even though there are visible attempts at measuring up to and interesting fans of stronger fare in the vain of ABC's "Lost" or Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code", the filmmakers are hardly up to the task. This film reeks of ill-conceived mass consumption spiritual propaganda, and the results are so awful few can wade through this mess to spot a real point.
Boring. Minimal plot. No character development. I went into this movie with high expectations from the book. It COULD have been an awesome movie. It COULD have probably become a cult classic. Nope, it was a giant let-down. It was poorly cast and had horrible special effects. It was difficult to determine who were the bad guys: the rebels or the military or the church or all of them? I am still left puzzled by certain mini-plots from the movie. I am left dumbfounded as to certain aspects of this so-called "prophecy", which is never really FULLY explained. I felt like I was watching a corny episode of a mini-series on the sci-fi channel. It seemed very much like a made-for-TV movie. Don't go see this movie. It is a waste of time AND money.
The movie was TERRIBLE!!! Easily the worst movie I have seen in the past few years. One of those movies I will be able to tell people for the next three years that it was the worst movie I can think of. Thank you for giving me an answer to that burning question "What is the worst movie you have seen?" Answer: Celestine Prophecy. Trust me...I read the book, enjoyed the message and was excited to see the movie, but then, they treated the audience like we are r*tarded. There is no story and the story that is there is crippled by too much magic and coincidence. It is too bad they have to spell out the nine prophecies and can't simply weave them into a story that is entertaining to follow. They didn't spend any time on character development and it was easy to not care if any character died. It was embarrassing to be one of the few people who stuck around until the end of this incredibly boring movie. The book is pretty boring too but I enjoyed the parallels that could be seen in everyday life while you read the book. The film does not offer the same opportunity and I would suggest not seeing it if you want to continue to hold the words of the book close to your heart. DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE. Trust me.
I have just seen this movie and have not read the book. The good thing of the movie is that at some parts it gets you thinking for a little while on the spiritual subject, evolution, sincronicity and your part in the world.<br /><br />However, the movie's immersion is easily broken and there is very little rapport between the viewer and the characters. It is very clear that the book looses a lot in this movie version. The events that were suppose to show sincronicity taking place are almost unrecognizable. A lot of reasoning has to be done for the viewer to see that the scene indicates a coincidence, and even more to imagine that it has something to do with a greater purpose. <br /><br />Enlightenment scenes are visually poor and do not create the better feeling that it was supposed to. Do you recall the enlightenment with Keanu Reeves (in Little Buddha) ? Well, this is nothing like that.<br /><br />Most scenes are poorly executed. There are a lot of scenes that really don't develop the story and also do not help in creating an atmosphere.<br /><br />The better actors in this movie, namely Hector Elizondo, Joaquim de Almeida and Jürgen Prochnow cannot save it. The first 2 seem to have gotten more scenes than their characters should in an attempt to save the movie, and because they were paid more, but this does not work. Most of the scenes are not really necessary and do not help the story at all.<br /><br />Jürgen does good in his scenes and sells as an evil guy (as always), but the script does not help him at all. The scene where he first tries to convince John (Matthew Settle) to join him is just bad script. The execution of the scene when he dies in an explosion is absurdly bad executed. The flashbacks throughout the movie cannot even be commented.<br /><br />Overall this movie is a big waist of time, read the book! I have not read it, but it is probably a billion times better than this, it has to be.<br /><br />It is so bad that I had to write my first comment in IMDb.
This delectable fusion of New Age babble and luridly bad film-making may not "open" you up, to borrow one of the film's favorite verbs, but it might leave your jaw slack and your belly sore from laughter or retching. Based on the best-selling book by James Redfield, first (self) published in 1993, this cornucopia of kitsch tracks the spiritual awakening of an American history teacher (Matthew Settle) who, on traveling to deepest, darkest, phoniest Peru and sniffing either the air or something else more illegal. Namely what he discovers is a schlock Shangri La populated by smiling zombies who may be nuts or just heavily medicated, perhaps because they're often accompanied by a panpipe flourish and an occasional shout out from a celestial choir. Although there's a lot of talk about "energy," that quality is decidedly missing from the motley cast whose numbers include Thomas Kretschmann, Annabeth Gish, Hector Elizondo and Jurgen Prochnow, all of whom are now firmly ensconced in the camp pantheon. For those who care, the plot involves the military, terrorists and the Roman Catholic Church; Armand Mastroianni provided the inept direction while Mr. Redfield, Barnet Bain and Dan Gordon wrote the hoot of a script. In short, easily the worst film seen in 40+ years of viewing movies.
This movie is just not worth your time. Its reliance upon New-Age mysticism serves as its only semi-interesting distraction. The plot is one that has been re-cycled countless times.<br /><br />I was only prompted to even spend the time to put in a comment when I noted that some have tried to prop-up the reputation of this drivel. Their motivation & objectivity is dubious, since they encourage you not to look at the movies faults, but at its well intentioned message of New Age consciousness.<br /><br />So would it be alright for some twenty to thirty Evangelical Christians, or Islamic Fundamentalists to pour in positive ratings about movies/television that support their views? In spite of the poor qualities of production, or the lack of truth in any of its supposed historic basis? I hope not.<br /><br />I am sure the followers will come right behind me to say flowery things about this movie, in spite of the truth.
I read the book and the book was fascinating.<br /><br />This movie, it's direction, the screenplay, and the acting were totally insufferable. I cringed at the lack of a screenplay that could not follow the novel, a novel that has all the action, simplicity, and courage to illustrate a temerity of a great possibly fact based story.<br /><br />I can see why this movie was not released to the general public in most cities. Would not ever recommend this film to anyone I know. <br /><br />Simply, one of he worst adaptations I have seen transformed into a plot less exploration of heaven on earth.<br /><br />The cinematography was indeed the only highlight. But, how could that fail when filmed in an beautiful country such as Peru. <br /><br />To prospective viewers, do not waste your time or energy on this flop.
I went to see this movie with a crowd that consisted predominantly of "spiritual" New Age types, who, quite unlike me, very much enjoyed this movie---although according to those that also knew the book (apparently there is a book that contains more of this nonsense), the movie is not quite as good. So, if you tend to think of yourself as "spiritual", believe in or at least can tolerate stuff like "aura" and "astral body", and don't mind the frequent use of the term "energy" outside of the context of physics or technology, you might actually like the movie, and will likely even more enjoy whatever book it is apparently based on.<br /><br />However, if you are mostly in touch with the physical universe, if your ability to suspend disbelief is easily exhausted by inane New Age nonsense and plots based thereon, if in addition to that you have a low tolerance for cheesy lighting effects to denote the happening of spirituality, and perhaps even expect reasonable non-wooden dialog an acting, then this is my recommendation for you regarding this movie: Stay. Away.<br /><br />Don't even think about it. Tonight, this movie displaced Dungeons and Dragons as the worst movie I ever personally saw in a movie theater (I do not count movies I went to see with the expectation of them being bad, such as Plan 9 etc.). At the same time, it raised the grand total of movies I almost walked out on to two (D&D being the other one). I do not walk out on movies, not even on this one, but I should've when I first saw the visual depiction of an aura, because the New Age BS keeps on getting thicker and thicker from that point on.<br /><br />The plot is about a group of people involving themselves with some old prophecies, in a quest for spiritual enlightenment and aiming at bringing mankind to the next step in its evolution. Or something like that. They actually talk about this spiritual stuff being the next step in human evolution, which should make anybody who has even the faintest idea of what human evolution is cringe. The movie is shock full with whoppers like that. Occasionally people beam to what they would certainly describe as "another dimension", or perhaps "another plane", only to become invisible to those around them who haven't yet reached enlightenment. Goodness.<br /><br />At the end the director patronizes the audience by rolling the "insights" making up the prophecy, painfully slow, presumably so that we can memorize them and leave the cinema as better, more enlightened individuals.<br /><br />Good things about the movie? Some very pretty nature shots, and some decent supporting performances by Elizondo and de Almeida.<br /><br />I honestly can say that it seriously affects my ability to take a person seriously if they consider this movie interesting or acceptable. It really is el cheapo spiritualism of the most naive kind, and unless that's your thing, you better do something else with your time and money.
If you want to see a movie that terribly mixes up one Latin country with any other Latin country, "The Celestine Prophecy" is a good example: 1. Perú, not even in its most violent times, has not shown polices or soldiers as much as in this film. This showed a country like El Salvador when Civil War. Since I'm a Peruvian who lives in Lima (the capital of Perú), it was too funny to me seeing the police guards here, there and everywhere. 2. If you have a car in Perú, and you want (or need) to be a taxi driver, just post a sticker with the word "Taxi" on the front glass of your car and you can drive freely in Peruvian streets (there are taxi companies, but their rates are quite expensive). No need of yellow or a black/white squared band on the doors of your car. Well, taxis in this film have that band, somethin that you will never see in Perú. 3. Peruvian people are not Caribbean styled clothing. For example, when a taxi driver comes out, he was wearing a "Guayabera" (Cuban shirt), a white hat, and 40's mustaches, like Clark Gable. Not one Peruvian man looks like that, please! Perú is not the Caribbeans! 4. A scene shows a woman on a street with a quite long skirt, like the typical folklore dresses in Latin America. Take a walk anywhere in Perú, and you'll never find a woman wearing like that, unless you are watching a typical dance. 5. Cast could've been better: I can not deny Héctor Elizondo is a great actor, but he's not a Latin actor (his father was Basque and his mother from Puerto Rico, but he was born in New York) and his Spanish is not fluent. It's notorious Spanish is not his first language. There are dozens of very good Latin actors who could've performed as Cardinal Sebastián. Petrus Antonius (General Rodríguez) was also a bad choice for a "Latin Police officer". It was so funny seeing Elizondo and Petronius in General Rodríguez's office. They looked like two English or American students in a Spanish class, making their best effort in order to pronounce Spanish. Unsuccessfully, of course. Castulo Guerra was better in his Spanish. A "Peruvian" officer, who announced Cardinal Sebastián, spoke a quite funny Spanish too. There are very good Peruvian actors, like Augusto Alvarez-Calderón and Christian Meier (just to mention two out of many Peruvian actors), who could've performed with excellence. 6. I admit that a fictional movie can let itself a license inventing cities or, even, countries. But, please, when creating a name, be careful when using a foreign language: The town portrayed in this movie should've been called "Vicente" and not "Viciente". Vicente is a male name, and Viciente has never been used. 7. I disagree one user, who says that this movie was filmed on locations in Perú. Not one location is Peruvian, although the production has used in excess posters showing "Inca Kola", the Peruvian soda. As not few American films, this one must have used any Latin country. After all, for American producers or directors, a Latin place is identical to any other Latin place. 8. In the first scenes, when John (Matthew Settle) flies to Perú, he's supposed to arrive to the only one international airport in Perú: Jorge Chávez Airport (in Lima, the capital). Actually, believe me, it must be any airport in the world, but Peruvian airport. And, of course, in Peruvian airports there are no military or police guards. 9. When this John takes a room in a Peruvian hotel, this one has a fan and, obviously has no air conditioner. Please, this doesn't happen in no hotel in Perú(and other Latin countries), unless you get a 1 star hotel! 10. The rebels who fight against the government are... ¡Colombians! Their accent was, with no doubt, from Colombia. For casting them, the producers should've hired Peruvian actors. In few words, it would've been cheaper filming in Perú.<br /><br />I could go on with more examples out of this film, that led me to give it a "1" (awful) vote, but I fell asleep after about 20 minutes from its beginning. But dear producers: It's not a tragedy: There are many worse movies with not few mistakes. Just let's remember "Indiana Jones and the kingdom of the Crystal skull" and indescribable Disney's "The Emperor's new groove". The list of bad films could be endless...
At first, three words: READ THE BOOK! Really guys - this demonstrates the difficulties of genuine rendition of esoteric matters. I loved the book and was utterly disappointed of the film. It was ludicrous, with half a heart and the story bad explained. The novel - in the first place! - wasn't meant to focus on an adventure! That's only the surroundings. In the film, the focus reverses to just that and the message has taken a back seat! Additional, the visual effects to show the energy of all living things and the elucidation of the events at the end were parsimonious! They screwed it up! ... I'll never watch it again!
I have never seen anything as awful as this movie for quite some time. The movie was boring, long long and awful plot. The special effects sucks like hell - It's like watching a movie back in 1999. It's a total waste of an hour and a half of my time. Matthew Settle's performance was quite bad. I saw him in Band of Brothers playing Lt.Speirs, he wasn't THAT bad. In fact not bad at all. But in this film, his acting wasn't convincing enough, it was quite bad and there wasn't any chemistry between the rest of the crew either. Plus, his eyes seems empty like he's not feeling it. It surprised me, really, because he was good in Band of Brothers.<br /><br />Anyway, don't even bother to watch this movie. It's a big big BIG waste of time. Even if you had to kill an hour or two, get something else to do besides watching this movie. Trust me, you'll regret it!
I actually went to see this film in a theater, but what a complete waste of time and money! Bad acting, I'm sorry to say, did not help to enjoy this rather sticky screenplay.<br /><br />Some friends told me to go and see this film, since James Redfield, the author of the book, was very heavily involved in the screenplay. They had really enjoyed the book, so the movie just had to be perfect. Well maybe I had my hopes up a bit too high, but I absolutely hated this movie! It was predictable, too sweetish to a point that I actually left I had to vomit and worst of all there is going to be a sequel! Do the world a favor and stop this abominable crusade.
I actually didn't enjoy this movie.<br /><br />I saw it at a camp, and we didn't rave about it, we laughed at it. Sure, some parts are touching, but the acting is terrible, the effects are terrible, and the whole overall movie idea is terrible (now, I know it was based on a book which I haven't read, but I hope that the book was better than this, because frankly, I thought that this movie was very bad and boring). Like I said, I went to it with a bunch of people from a camp, and we were excited to be there, plus I got a caffeinated drink, but nonetheless, I struggled to stay awake. The only thing that kept me up (other than my fear of being embarrassed once I woke up) was the gunshots, that were quite pointless as well. I just really didn't like it.
This movie is nothing but a religious tract promoting classic Hinduism and New Age Occultism dressed up with Western images to be swallowed by those who are ignorant of foundational religious comparisons. Basic tenants of Hinduism contain elements of reincarnation. (Some of the characters appear both in the present time and also in the 1600's) obviously reincarnated. God is an impersonal force. Animal life and plant life are all the same. (This is Pantheism). Redfield has tried to mix Eastern Mysticism with Western Christianty. His attempt at syncretism may fool or confuse those who are not seekers of truth but this movie is a feeble excuse for any ultimate reality. As the ad in the old Berkeley Barb used to say for $10.00 will show you how to start your own religion. As one famous prophet has said, "Use the Force Luke".
slow, incomprehensible, boring. Three enthusiastic words that describe the movie of the book. This is surely a case where the movie should never have been made at the expense of the book. The best part of the movie was the scenery, excellent. The worst part was the slow moving interactions of the actors which combined with endless meaningful glances. The editing is abrupt and patchy. However, despite this, the actors worked very hard at least trying to be a little believable with a terrible script. It was startling that although set in Peru there was hardly a person of Peruvian descent wandering about the set - even in the flashback scenes depicting Peru in the 17th century. If you have any sense of history, try to avoid this movie.
The book that this movie is based on seriously changed my life. But saying this movie was a disappointment is an understatement. The acting, directing, cinematography, and storyline were all horrible. I would never recommend this movie to anyone. I've told countless people about the book but will now be telling them all that they should definitely not see the movie! I did not expect the plot to follow the book exactly, but they have left out too many key components of the book. The movie tried, but failed, to deliver a powerful and inspiring message and only demeaned the central theme of the prophecy. While putting myself in the position who had not read the book, I saw the Celestine Prophecy as a bunch of hoaxy B.S. I am thoroughly disappointed with Redfield for the way this movie turned out.
I agree with the majority of the comments I have seen written. I grew up watching Seseme Street before a lot of the people who have written comments were even born. I was born in 1964, so I was 5-yrs-old when Seseme Street was introduced to television. The show taught me my numbers (The Count), spelling (the Muppet), and about life. I liked all the old characters (Big Bird, Oscar, Grover, and Cookie Monster) and don't quite understand why they had to change. I understand that everything has to change in some way, but to make Cookie Monster into a "veggie monster" to promote healthy eating. The show has introduced new characters and monsters since it's inception, why not make a separate "veggie monster" that talks/discusses the benefits of eating a varied diet with Cookie Monster. But, back to my point. I grew up watching the very beginning of Seseme Street, my now 20 yr-old daughter grew up watching SS with me along side her, and we discussed Mr. Hooper dying, although he had died prior to her being born, as well as other topics on the show. I saw the episode as a older child, and still remember how well they portrayed the event, much like real life. And I'm sure it hit the cast extremely hard as all deaths and losses effect families. You saw this on the show and it allowed parents and children to discuss very difficult events. The show has talked about traditional families, adoptive families and combined families. It's one of the few shows that actually discusses these scenarios. I now have a 5 yr-old daughter who really doesn't watch SS. I've tried to watch the show a couple of times, but, it really is not what it used to be. The Elmo 1/2 hr with Mr. Noodle is absolutely ridiculous. Like many people have said, it doesn't teach anything. It's geared for the less than 18 month old (maybe), and isn't even funny. I always prided myself on watching SS as a child, teen, and adult with my own child. Now on my second go-round, I really have a hard time watching SS. The topics that were discussed: death, marriage, non-traditional families, new to neighborhoods, moving away were related to children and adults in a manner easy for 2-99 year old to understand and relate to. Now, there are NO concepts taught, minimal counting, only the occasional mention of the alphabet. It is NOT the same SS, from an original watcher of the show. PLEASE if any producers from the show read these comments, return the show to its foundation. New concepts have never been a problem with SS, they just used to have a better way to incorporate them into the show.
My husband and I bought the Old School Sesame Street DVD's for our daughter and I have to say, I don't let her watch the new episodes on TV, because I find ALL of the characters annoying. Baby Bear AND Telly? OMgosh, How ANNOYING and useless blabber can someone think of for their 'skits'? Elmo? Give it a rest not every kid likes him, once again, annoying and doesn't teach my child ANYTHING. Mr. Noodle? what a reject. I think the one time I turned the 'new' show on for her, she and I were left dumber than before. The show has Definitely taken a wrong turn. I remember the Yip Yips, Kermit's Breaking News, 1-2 2 Little Dolls, Mumford the Magician, Bert and Ernie, Grover the Waiter, all the GREAT EDUCATIONAL skits of OLD SCHOOL S.S. Sesame Street has suffered a direct hit of boredom and dumbness since Jim Henson's passing in 1990. The show no longer has the educational, funny and interactive skits it used to. I find the new versions simply unbearably annoying and full of useless non-educational blabber. Way to go S.S. producers/writers you have yet another cartoony show for the parents to sit there non-creative, non-exercised kids in front of so they'll get out of their hair. Per Producers/Writers : I suggest you whip out the old muppets and start taping similar content to that of the first Sesame Street's. Lord knows I sure don't want my child talking like Baby Bear or Elmo.
"A death at a college campus appears to be a suicide but is actually a cover for murder. The dead man's roommate finds himself embroiled in a mystery as he tries to uncover the truth behind the young man's murder. Twists and turns, as well as some false leads, makes this a tough case for our collegiate hero to solve, let alone (keep) out of the clutches of the killer," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />The stars may be bigger than the movie. Handsome Charles Starrett (as Ken Harris), who has a small "lingerie" scene, became one of the top western stars of the forties, peaking in "The Return of the Durango Kid" (1945). The man playing his father, Robert Warwick (as Joseph Harris), was one of the most respected actors of the teens, beginning with his performance in "Alias Jimmy Valentine" (1915). Watch out for red herrings. <br /><br />**** A Shot in the Dark (2/1/35) Charles Lamont ~ Charles Starrett, Robert Warwick, James Bush
SPLIT SECOND might have been a good movie. A story about a "road rage" homicide, has a very young Clive Owen giving a pretty good performance; BUT...but....<br /><br />Unfortunately, the filmmakers undercut their own movie with idiotic camera-work and truly awful editing. The camera jumps all over creation in an unsuccessful attempt (I suppose) to reflect Owen's stress from business, family, and traffic. What this actually does is to give the viewer a headache.<br /><br />Since the filmmakers cared nothing about making a good movie, but only to impress each other with their idiotic photography, one ought not waste time on this travesty.
I won't describe the story, as that has been done elsewhere. We are great Clive Owen fans, and when our Netflix recommended the movie, we were intrigued. <br /><br />No wonder we had never heard of this "movie", because it was a BBC Television movie back in 1992. Hence, the poor production values, grainy image , jerky camera work and poor sound.<br /><br />But, you don't really mind the mechanics, because the story itself will put you to sleep. It's an interesting human story, but not at all compelling, and there is hardly any ending. You don't really care for the characters as their lives are as boring as your life watching this tedious movie. Save the two hours and do something to make the time more worthwhile.
This Worldwide was the cheap man's version of what the NWA under Jim Crockett Junior and Jim Crockett Promotions made back in the 1980s on the localized "Big 3" Stations during the Saturday Morning/Afternoon Wrestling Craze. When Ted Turner got his hands on Crockett's failed version of NWA he turned it into World Championship Wrestling and proceeded to drop all NWA references all together. NWA World Wide and NWA Pro Wrestling were relabeled with the WCW logo and moved off the road to Disney/MGM Studios in Orlando, Florida and eventually became nothing more than recap shows for WCW's Nitro, Thunder, and Saturday Night. Worldwide was officially the last WCW program under Turner to air the weekend of the WCW buyout from Vince McMahon and WWF. Today the entire NWA World Wide/WCW Worldwide Video Tape Archive along with the entire NWA/WCW Video Tape Library in general lay in the vaults of WWE Headquarters in Stamford,Connecticut.
This film has nothing whatever to do with the Sphinx, and the title is just a come-on. The story concerns an imagined true and concealed tomb in the Valley of the Kings, of King Seti I, second pharaoh of the 19th Dynasty, New Kingdom period. It is not a bad yarn, and a great deal of the film is shot on location. Even the scenes in the Winter Palace Hotel lobby in Luxor were really shot there, and not in a studio. The second unit stuff is endless, and they must have been let loose on Egypt for weeks. Frank Langella is very good indeed as a sophisticated Egyptian. He should take it up as a sideline. The film is essentially ruined by one of the world's most irritating actresses, Lesley Anne Down, who plays the lead. She spends the whole film wondering how she looks, are her blue eyes refracting light at the correct angle, do all the fellas lust after her, etc. Having started life as a model at the age of ten, what hope could there be for her? She epitomises everything that is most revolting about female vanity and dim-witted inanity. And to think that this film was directed by Franklin Shaffner, who won an Oscar for 'Patton'! He allows this terrible actress to whimper and simper through the film, hysterical one moment, flirting the next, in a kind of hurricane of idiocy as she reels from one man to another, either screaming or making bedroom eyes, it matters not. She is supposed to be a young Egyptologist. But she has never been to Egypt before! She takes a taxi to Giza and catching her first glimpse of the pyramids, gushes in ecstasy: 'But they're so BIG!!!!' Barf! OK, so that was the script, but she takes to the banality too readily, giving the impression that it is her natural element, which I don't doubt for a minute. Elements of the story are sound. There is, indeed, a serious problem about a black market in antiquities there. True! Well done! The novel by Robin Cook, which I have not seen, may be OK for all I know. It was fun to see the name of Cyril Swern as sound recordist on the film, as I knew him pretty well long ago. Stanley Kubrick's step-daughter Katharina is described as 'draughtswoman'. I wonder what that means? Maybe she did some set work. Anyway, the antiquities in the film are pretty good, actually. And we get to see lots of the Cairo Museum and numerous scenic locations. They actually go inside King Tutankhamun's Tomb! I don't imagine that would be allowed today for a movie. A lot of inappropriate scenes take place in mosques. That would not go down well today, but in 1981 such things were not on the agenda. The music for the film is absolutely appalling, worse than Lesley Anne Down in fact! But there were sound track elements which were surprisingly authentic, one being the cacophony of traffic noise of Cairo, which is accurately rendered in the background, and would make anyone who knows Cairo chuckle nervously. Also, the loudspeaker calls to prayer are there the whole time, another touch of authenticity. Why didn't they get this right? It could have been good.
Rather foolish attempt at a Hitchcock-type mystery-thriller, improbably exchanging espionage for archaeology and based on the Robin Cook novel; incidentally, I’ve recently acquired another adaptation of his work – COMA (1978) – in honor of the late Richard Widmark. For the record, director Schaffner had just made THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL (1978) – a similarly fanciful but much more engrossing suspenser and, unfortunately, SPHINX was a false step from which his so-far impressive career would not recover.<br /><br />Despite its scope and reasonably decent cast, however, this one proved a critical and commercial flop – mainly because the narrative just isn’t very thrilling: in fact, it’s quite dreary (feeble attempts at horror – the archaeologist heroine having to put up with entombment, rotting corpses galore, and even an attack by a flurry of bats – notwithstanding). Lesley Anne-Down is the lovely leading lady, stumbling upon a lost treasure – it’s actually been hidden away by a local sect to prevent it from falling into the hands of foreigners, who have appropriated much of the country’s heritage (under the pretext of culture) for far too long. Sir John Gielgud turns up in a thankless bit early on as the antique dealer who puts Down on the way of the loot, and pays for this ‘act of treason’ with his life.<br /><br />Typically, it transpires that some characters are the opposite of what they claim to be – so that apparent allies (such as Maurice Ronet) are eventually exposed as villains, while an ambiguous figure (Frank Langella, whom I saw at London in early 2007 in a West End performance of “Frost/Nixon”, which has now been turned into a film) goes from Down’s antagonist to her lover and back again, as he determines to keep the wealth belonging to Egyptian high priest Menephta a national treasure.
Some nice scenery, but the story itself--in which a self-proclaimed Egyptologist (Lesley-Anne Down) visits Egypt and, in the course of doing Egyptologist things in the most un-Egyptologistic of ways (e.g., flash photography in the tombs, the handling of old parchment, etc.), uncovers a black market turf war and somehow (in the span of two days, no less!) becomes that war's jumpsuit-wearing epicenter--is more puzzling than any riddle the Sphinx ever posed. Down is simply awful as the visiting British scholar (that she seems to know absolutely nothing about the culture of Egypt and even less about antiquities is the fault of the writers, certainly; but that she's annoying as all get out is her own fault entirely), and the rest of the cast, including Sir John Gielgud and Frank Langella, seem as downright confused by the proceedings as I was. In short, not what you'd expect from Schaffner (Planet of the Apes, Patton) and co.<br /><br />Worth watching for a laughably dated scene in which Down rails against all male scholars, blaming them for her failure as an academic, while bathed under the softest light Hollywood could muster. To top it off, she spends the next hour of the film shrieking and harried and running into the arms of any dude she can find. Wow, talk about your performative irony!<br /><br />*Note to would-be Egyptologists: take a year or two of Arabic in grad school. It'll really help out in the long run...
The Robin Cook novel "Coma" had already been turned into a pretty successful movie in 1978. A couple of years later it was the turn of another Robin Cook bestseller to get the big screen treatment , but in the case of "Sphinx" virtually everything that could go wrong does go wrong. This is a dreadful adventure flick consisting of wooden performances, stupid dialogue, unconvincing characters and leaden pacing. The only reason it escapes a 1-out-of-10 rating is that the Egyptian backdrop provides infinitely more fascination than the story itself. Hard to believe Franklin J. Schaffner (of "Patton" and "Planet Of The Apes") is the director behind this debacle.<br /><br />Pretty Egyptologist Erica Baron (Lesley Anne-Down) is on a working vacation in Cairo when she stumbles across the shop of antiques dealer Abdu-Hamdi (John Gielgud). Hamdi befriends Erica and is impressed by her enthusiasm and knowledge. Consequently, he shows her a beautiful and incredibly rare statue of Pharoah Seti I that he is keeping secretly in his shop. The very existence of the statue arouses intense excitement in Erica, for it could provide vital clues in locating Seti I's long-lost tomb, a prize as great as the discovery of Tutankhamun's tomb in 1922. Before Hamdi can tell Erica any more he is brutally murdered in his shop, with Erica watching in silent terror as he meets his grisly end. Afraid yet tantalised by what she has seen, Erica attempts to track down the treasure. She finds herself helped and hindered in her quest by various other parties, none of whom are truly trustworthy. For one there is Yvon (Maurice Ronet), seemingly a friend but perhaps a man with sinister ulterior motives? Then there is Akmed Khazzan (Frank Langella), an Egyptian for whom Erica feels a certain attraction but who may also be hiding dangerous secrets from her.<br /><br />The biggest problems with "Sphinx" generally result from its total disregard for plausibility. Down couldn't be less convincing as a female Egyptologist – one assumes she would be quite well-educated and resourceful, yet she spends the entire film screaming helplessly like some busty bimbo from a teen slasher flick. On those rare occasions that she actually isn't running from a potential villain, she does other brainless things such as taking Polaroid flash photos in a 4,000 year old tomb! The plot twists are heavy-handed to say the least, mainly comprising of revelations and double-crosses that can be predicted well in advance. One can't even try to enjoy the film on the level of dumb but entertaining action fare, because the pacing is awfully sluggish. What little action can be found is separated by long stretches of tedium. A famous review of the movie declared: "Sphinx stinks!" Never before has a 2-hour film been so aptly summed up in 2 words.
When this movie was released, it spawned one of the all-time great capsule movie reviews: Sphinx Stinks. It does, but in a mesmerizing sort of way. The casting is silly, starting at the top: Frank Langella and Sir John Gielgud as Egyptians? Not enough makeup in Cairo for that, at least not while this film was being made. But it's rather amusing to see them try. The performances run the gamut from mummy-like (sorry, the obvious observation) to over-the-top, with very few stops in between. The Lesley-Anne Down character seems as though she couldn't find Egypt on a map, much less expound upon its archaeological treasures. That's due at least in part to some really bad writing, one of the curses that will be visited upon every viewer of this movie. It's my opinion that movies involving a curse or that draw their basis from a subject that is somewhat esoteric, such as Egyptology, are ripe for silly, overwritten dialogue. It doesn't disappoint, and the convergence proves a double-whammy. The plot has one driving source of dramatic tension: Can this get dumber and less believable? The answer is, usually, YES. The location shots are beautiful, and the set design is generally very good, the only consistent reminders that this wasn't some low-budget production. That and the fact that there are so many well-known faces doing service in such an unintentional laugher. Cheap, no; cheesy, yes.
The most misogynistic movie of all time? Not to mention by '68 shouldn't they have moved beyond white people in brown face playing the "Indians"? My favorite parts though have to be when the girls giggle and blush as the bikers drag them off to gang rape them. Rape is fun! Who knew? Let's see, then there's the blatant rip-offs of "The Hustler" (fat boss character actually plays pool while scheming to destroy the Indians with the lead rebel dude), the horrific acting, the so-on-the-nose-they-might-as-well-have-just-told-you-what-to-think music cues, the lack of ANYONE WHO'S ACTUALLY Indian in this movie. And who are we supposed to be rooting for? I have to say it figures that Quentin Tarantino loves this movie. Even though his movies tend to champion strong women, I've heard from at least one source that in real life he's a misogynistic idiot. Why did I watch it, you ask? Don't ask.
The whole Biker Movie genre has to be made up of the worst films ever made. This one delivers a lot of fighting, generous amounts of blood, bikers fighting Indians, and a shanty town that gets blown up and torn down one shack at a time. The acting is beyond terrible. What ever happened to Robert Walker, Jr.? At one point he was in some major studio productions, and then he just faded away. This movie really blows, but if you have not seen a Biker movie in a long time, it is a good one to watch. At the end of the movie, you should feel a bit trashy for having watched it!
Irwin Allen was great. All of his TV shows had a great pilot, or first episode. the rest were basically rip offs of his other shows. A few episodes of Swiss Family Robinson were rip offs of his older TV shows. One episode of Swiss Family is identical to an episode of Land Of The Giants when a member of the party needs an appendix operation. The show was high budget and too expensive to continue. Irwin lost his touch with TV shows after the 60s. The acting is strong with Martin Milner. Child stars got there starts with this show like Willie Ames and Helen Hunt. one bright spot is when Irwin Allen incorporates his disaster scenes like a typhoon and a volcanic eruption dubbing him the " Master of Disaster "
Three Stooges - Have Rocket, Will Travel - 1959 This was the first feature length film to star the Stooges and it is pretty bad. It makes THE THREE STOOGES GO AROUND THE WORLD IN A DAZE (from 1963) look like a masterpiece.<br /><br />The Stooges are janitors at a rocket place. They climb into a rocket and it goes to Venus. They meet some stuff there including a talking unicorn they call "Uni" which they bring back to Earth with them. "Uni" speaks like an average, pleasant person - 'Oh, hello. How are you? Lovely planet here. Hope you like it.' Hilarious.<br /><br />Very few gags and so many of the scenes just go on and on and on.<br /><br />The Stooges arrive back from space and the film is over as far as the story goes, but no one told that to the film makers for the picture continues for another 10 minutes or so at a party where nothing much happens. The Stooges leave the party and then the film is almost over.<br /><br />High point of the film - the end where the Stooges sing a dapper little song about their journey. The Larry and Curly Joe hit Moe in the face with two pies. Brutal.<br /><br />Another writer mentioned the fine musical score. Huh? The only music I even noticed were two classic tunes - I'LL TAKE ROMANCE and THERE GOES THAT SONG AGAIN, both of which are played at the party. And *that* really is the high point of the picture - music from old Columbia films.<br /><br />The tall sexy blonde was nice.<br /><br />Awful - a brand new VHS video from the 99 Cents Only store.
Few movies have dashed expectations and upset me as much as Fire has. The movie is pretentious garbage. It does not achieve anything at an artistic level. The only thing it managed to receive is a ban in India. If only it was because of the poor quality of film making rather than the topical controversy, the ban would have been more justifiable.<br /><br />Now that I've got my distress out of my system, I am more able to analyse the movie: <br /><br />* From the onset the movie feels unreal especially when the protagonists start conversing in English. The director, of course, did not make the movie for an Indian audience; however it underestimated its international audiences by over simplifying it. Watching the character of the domestic help conversing in perfect English is too unreal to be true.<br /><br />* Next we get regular glimpses into Radha's dreams. These scenes are not very effective. They coming up as jarring and obstruct the flow of the movie. I'm still wondering how that philosophical dialogue connected to the story. I felt that the surrealism was lost.<br /><br />* The love scenes felt voyeuristic and are probably meant for audience titillation rather than being a powerful statement. In any case, they do not achieve either of the two.<br /><br />* The names chosen for the women, Radha and Sita, are names of Hindu deities and hence been selected to shock the audiences. However, since the film wasn't meant for Indian audiences in the first place, the shock-through-name-selection is not meant to achieve its goal, which is absurd.<br /><br />* The quality of direction is very poor and some key and delicate scenes have been poorly handled. A better director could have made a powerful emotional drama out of the subject.<br /><br />* The acting felt wooden although Nandita Das brought some life into the role, the others were wasted. I always thought that Shabana Azmi was a good actress but her talent is not evident in this film. The male leads were outright rubbish.<br /><br />In case you are a fan of Earth and wish to see more of the director, stay away from this one. Please.
There's plenty to appreciate here: spectacular locations and flying sequences; period costumes, props and sets; and competent writing and acting. However, to enjoy a drama, we need at least one principal who exhibits some qualities that we can like or admire. In this bunch of catty snobs, we found only one character who is at all likable — a hapless enlisted man in a fleeting peripheral role as their helpless victim. From the reviews here, it is clear that we are completely out of step, but we did not find their malicious-schoolgirl behavior amusing or entertaining. Even the dog is detestable. We threw in the towel after two of the six episodes, so you should discount these observations accordingly, but what I could find written about this mini-series gave us no cause to expect character transformation or redemption.
I bought this DVD set, sight unseen, and wish I hadn't. The script needed some serious rewriting as it seems to be completely devoid of any feeling and pales in comparison to the book. The lighting is horrid, very unpolished, but if it was just that I could overlook it. The script doesn't focus enough on the characters...there is hardly an introduction to various characters making it a tad difficult to distinguish who is who(especially in the planes--no idea who dies when).<br /><br />I have long felt that the key to a good film is in getting the audience to care about the characters; if you don't have that you don't have anything. There was no focus on the characters at all--you never got to know them--who they were, what they liked..what made them do the things that they do. The series is 5 hours long and split up into 6 parts...I bet you are wondering what they did with all this time if they didn't detail the characters---they put a lot of filler in it....I will say at least an entire hour is spent watching them land and take off in their planes LOL (I mean do we really need to see that over and over again???). I would have given this a much higher rating had they just improved our knowledge of the characters.
"Piece is Cake" is defeatist, revisionist history of the worst kind, whose only point is to unfairly savage the reputation of the (admittedly fictional) pilots it portrays. It left a remarkably bad taste in my mouth.<br /><br />In the March 1989 "Aeroplane Monthly", Roland Beamont wrote a stinging condemnation of the way that RAF Fighter Command was portrayed in the TV mini-series. A few of his comments are worth repeating:<br /><br />"There was no sense of defeatism at any time in any of the squadrons that I saw in action, and a total absence of the loutishness portrayed in 'Piece of Cake'. It would not have been tolerated for a moment... ...The prevailing atmosphere was more akin to that in a good rugby club, though with more discipline. Nor was there any sense of 'death or glory'. RAF training had insisted that we were there to defend this country, and now we were required to do it - no more and no less.<br /><br />"There was no discussion of 'bravery' or 'cowardice'. People either had guts or they did not - but mostly they did. But we knew fear, recognised it in ourselves and in each other, did our damnedness to control it, and then got on with the job...<br /><br />"...I could feel no 'glory', but there was a sense of greatness, and none of this bore the slightest resemblance to 'Piece of Cake'."<br /><br />Beamont was, in his own words, "a fighter pilot who, unlike the author and producer of the recent TV series, was there at the time".<br /><br />Beamont served with 87 Squadron both in France and the BoB, before going on to become one of the premier exponents of both the Typhoon and Tempest, and a post-war test pilot.<br /><br />"Piece of Cake" is an absolute, total misrepresentation of the way pilots in Fighter Command acted at the time. It is nothing less than a complete and utter disgrace...
The trouble with the book, "Memoirs of a Geisha" is that it had Japanese surfaces but underneath the surfaces it was all an American man's way of thinking. Reading the book is like watching a magnificent ballet with great music, sets, and costumes yet performed by barnyard animals dressed in those costumes—so far from Japanese ways of thinking were the characters.<br /><br />The movie isn't about Japan or real geisha. It is a story about a few American men's mistaken ideas about Japan and geisha filtered through their own ignorance and misconceptions. So what is this movie if it isn't about Japan or geisha? Is it pure fantasy as so many people have said? Yes, but then why make it into an American fantasy?<br /><br />There were so many missed opportunities. Imagine a culture where there are no puritanical hang-ups, no connotations of sin about sex. Sex is natural and normal. How is sex handled in this movie? Right. Like it was dirty. The closest thing to a sex scene in the movie has Sayuri wrinkling up her nose and grimacing with distaste for five seconds as if the man trying to mount her had dropped a handful of cockroaches on her crotch. <br /><br />Does anyone actually enjoy sex in this movie? Nope. One character is said to be promiscuous but all we see is her pushing away her lover because it looks like she doesn't want to get caught doing something dirty. Such typical American puritanism has no place in a movie about Japanese geisha.<br /><br />Did Sayuri enjoy her first ravishing by some old codger after her cherry was auctioned off? Nope. She lies there like a cold slab of meat on a chopping block. Of course she isn't supposed to enjoy it. And that is what I mean about this movie. Why couldn't they have given her something to enjoy? Why does all the sex have to be sinful and wrong?<br /><br />Behind Mameha the Chairman was Sayuri's secret patron, and as such he was behind the auction of her virginity. He could have rigged the auction and won her himself. Nobu didn't even bid. So why did the Chairman let that old codger win her and, reeking of old-man stink, get his fingers all over her naked body? Would any woman ever really forgive a man for that?<br /><br />Let's try to make sense of this. By being behind Mameha the Chairman incurred debts for Sayuri's geisha training. In order to recoup his debts the Chairman had Sayuri sold to Dr. Crab. Through Mameha the Chairman sold Sayuri's sexual favors to that old geezer so that the Chairman could make some money out of her. The Chairman wasn't her patron. He was her pimp! Some romantic love story.<br /><br />Yes, the film is gorgeous but it is like the beauty of a very attractive, alluring transvestite whose voice, appearance and every touch are thrilling. But under that very feminine surface lies an ominous secret. Under the incorrectly appearing Japanese surface of the film lurks the ominous secret that the heart, soul, spirit and core of this film is entirely American and male. Not the best thing to be if it is trying to be other than a lie, distortion, and terribly wrong.<br /><br />Some contrasts between Japan and MOAG:<br /><br />Japanese style – Refined, elegant simplicity. MOAG style – Peking Opera.<br /><br />Japanese geisha – Hair swept up. MOAG geisha – Loose hair which surely must have gotten all gunked up in the thick paste of white makeup.<br /><br />Japanese shaved ice - Japanese are rather strict about seasonal observances. Shaved ice is strictly a summer treat. MOAG shaved ice - The Chairman buys Chiyo, the young Sayuri played by the marvelous Suzuka Ohgo, this treat during cherry-blossom-viewing season. The thought made my entire body shiver with cold.<br /><br />Japanese geisha – Trained and skilled entertainers. MOAG geisha - sluts.<br /><br />Japanese wind chime - Used in the summer because hearing the sound it makes, thanks to the breeze, Japanese people feel somehow cooler. MOAG wind chime - a door bell! If a person stood in front of another's house and made noises with a wind chime they would be considered a lunatic, not gain entrance.<br /><br />Japan – Emphasis on human relationships, group oriented. MOAG – "I want a life that's mine" American individualism.<br /><br />Japanese traditional dance – Refined elegance. An almost geometrical and mechanical precision. MOAG dance – Martha Graham freaking out on LSD while wearing a not-very-auspicious white Japanese funeral shroud. Performed by a geisha down a ramp in a place that looks like a strip club? Ha ha ha! Is a strip club where they did most of their research on geisha?<br /><br />Japan house fire – Setting or even letting a fire break out is worse than murder because it poses such a dire threat to the community. Fires can rip through those wooden villages, towns, and cities destroying hundreds or thousands of homes and killing as many people. MOAG house fire - Great adjunct to a fight scene but there are zero ramifications and because it is no longer needed the out-of-control fire miraculously puts itself out. Technically the movie ended here because at the very least Sayuri would have been ostracized and joined her sister among those never heard from again. Which is where both Arthur Golden and Rob Marshall should be exiled.<br /><br />Enough. The movie stinks.
Even though the book wasn't strictly accurate to the real situation it described it still carried a sense of Japan. I find it hard to believe that anyone who was involved in making this film had ever been to japan as it didn't feel Japanese in the slightest. Almost everything about it was terrible. I will admit the actors were generally quite good but couldn't stand a chance of saving it. Before the film started I was surprised that there were only ten people in the cinema on a Friday night shortly after the movie had opened in Japan. 30 minutes in I was amazed they stayed. I stayed so I would have the right to criticize it. The whole movie was punctuated my groans and suppressed laughs of disbelief from my Japanese girlfriend. Everyone I saw walking out of that cinema had looks of confusion and disappointment on their faces. <br /><br />To the makers of this movie, you owe me two hours.
Having lived in Japan for several years this movie does not reflect the Japanese culture and does not even come close to explain what being a Geisha is all about. Unfortunately, a great opportunity has been missed to bring the Japanese culture a bit closer to the broad Western audience and help demystify the country where Zen, Samurai, the Geisha world of Kyoto originate from. Some of the most poignant moments of the movie are when the Americans are shown in Japanese surroundings.The Geisha dances were not authentic. There was far too much use of Chinese music. A minor but essential detail: proper use of the incense sticks was nowhere to be seen. The Sakura scenes were almost obscenely kitschy ! Interestingly, some of the Chinese actors were quite convincing as Japanese persons.
Rather then long dance sequences and close ups of the characters which made the film drag on - the movie would have been better served explaining the story and motivations of the characters.<br /><br />The marginalisation of Nubo, the minister, auntie, mother - and the dumbing down of the dynamic and IMPORTANT rivalry between hatsumo and mameha and hatsumo and sayuri made the movie lack any real depth. If you hadn't read the book you would not really understand why Sayuri loved the Chairman and why Mameha became her mentor at all.<br /><br />Visually the film was stunning - and the actors all did the best with the C rate script they were given, but that was all that was good about this movie.
I love Memoirs of a Geisha so I read the book twice; it is one of the best book I've read last year. I was looking forward to the movie and was afraid that reading the book would ruin the viewing pleasure of the movie. I wasn't expecting the movie to be that bad. Some of the best part of the book was omitted from the movie and the characters were weak with Hatsumomo (Li Gong)been the worst. If I haven't read the book, this movie would be a little confusing and inexplicable. The Plot Outline of the movie states "Nitta Sayuri reveals how she transcended her fishing..." Did anyone see how or when Sayuri became Nitta Sayuri? Forget the movie and read the book.
"Memoirs of a Geisha" is a visually stunning melodrama that seems more like a camp, drag queen satire than anything to do with real people.<br /><br />The first half of the film defensively keeps insisting that geishas are neither prostitutes nor concubines, that they are the embodiment of traditional Japanese beauty. But other than one breathtaking dance, the rest of the movie degenerates into "Pretty Baby" in Storyville territory, or at least Vashti and Esther in the Purim story, as all the women's efforts at art and artifice are about entertaining much, much older, drunken boorish men. Maybe it is Japanese culture that is being prostituted, and not just to the American louts after World War II.<br /><br />Perhaps it's the strain of speaking in English, but Ziyi Zhang shows barely little of the great flare she demonstrated in "House of Flying Daggers (Shi mian mai fu)" and "Hero (Ying xiong)." Michelle Yeoh occasionally gets to project a glimmer of her assured performance in "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (Wo hu cang long)." Only Li Gong shows any real life. Otherwise, I kept picturing Charles Ludlam in various roles, or even Cillian Murphy, as in kabuki theater, particularly as the plot dragged down in cat fight after cat fight.<br /><br />The supposed love story has zero chemistry, mostly due to the age differences, and I mostly felt sorry for Ken Watanabe and hoped his Hollywood pay check compensated for his loss of dignity as the mysterious "Chairman." I remember more emotion in "Portrait of Jennie" as the young girl is anxious to grow up into Jennifer Jones to please Joseph Cotton.<br /><br />We see brief glimpses of reality when the geishas pose with regular women as photographic attractions, and as an ageless Ziyi Zhang lives out the war years in a very colorful kimono dying operation. The finale has little sense of normality.<br /><br />The score includes many chopped up traditional melodies, with cello by Yo Yo Ma and violin by Yitzhack Pearlman instead of traditional instrumentation, that are beautiful to listen to in accompaniment to the lovely cinematography, as long as one completely ignores the plot and stiff acting.<br /><br />As my mind wandered, I wondered how the great Japanese directors of samurai movies would have dealt with this story, which probably would have been more formal, but a lot more emotional.
Andrewjlau, I could not agree more. My girlfriend is watching this at this very moment, and I find this movie appalling. Quote from my Chinese girlfriend, laughing: "They are doing all this for a man!?" <br /><br />I find these women have no intensity, no sense of the a fight between tragedy and identity, and that these men are hardly worth fighting for. During the dance scene where Zhang Zi Yi wins them over, the men look stupid more than admiring.<br /><br />Japanese people have much more intensity than Chinese people, and being geisha is Japanese culture. I am sure the Chinese had something similar, but the faces do not match the main.<br /><br />Anyway, the dialogue is so unmysterious, so American. Had a European done it with European orientals, they would have done a far better job.<br /><br />I have to add: it seems most of the people who liked the film are American. Sorry to say, but no wonder. All spelt out for you, not instinctive, not passionate. I think the Chinese actresses are lovely, but I could not say they were good actors in this film. Yes, the cinematography is great, but really, I cannot see how it can be seen that these characters are complex, deep individuals.<br /><br />I'm going to Japan to see the real thing. I am sure that would be amazing to see.
Despite an overall pleasing plot and expensive production one wonders how a director can make so many clumsy cultural mistakes. Where were the Japanese wardrobe and cultural consultants? Not on the payroll apparently. <br /><br />A Japanese friend of mine actually laughed out loud at some of the cultural absurdities she watched unfold before her eyes. In a later conversation she said, "Imagine a Finnish director making a movie in Fnnish about the American Civil War using blond Swedish actors as union Army and Frenchmen as the Confederates. Worse imagine dressing the Scarlet O'Hara female lead in a period hoop skirt missing the hoop and sporting a 1950's hairdo. Maybe some people in Finland might not realize that the hoop skirt was "missing the hoop" or recognize the bizarre Jane Mansfield hair, but in Atlanta they would not believe their eyes or ears....and be laughing in the aisles...excellent story and photography be damned.<br /><br />So...watching Memoirs of a Geisha was painful for anyone familiar with Japanese cultural nuances, actual geisha or Japanese dress, and that was the topic of the movie! Hollywood is amazing in its myopic view of film making. They frequently get the big money things right while letting the details that really polish a films refinement embarrassingly wrong. I thought "The Last Samurai" was the crowning achievement of how bad an otherwise good film on Japan could be. Memoirs of a Geisha is embarrassingly better and worse at the same time.
American film makers decided to make a film they think is Japanese. The characters all badly represented, the actors are not even Japanese and the set is cheap, unreal and definitely doesn't represent Kyoto in Early 20ties and 30ties. Who ever read the book understand that the script writers didn't add any extra value to differentiate the movie from the script. Worse, they even changed the original plot line with a few goofs. Rob Marshall is using for his two main characters two well known Chinese actors who joined before in crouching tiger hidden dragon. Marshall probably saw one Chinese movie and tho they represent Japanese culture. Seeing those two actors together again even makes the movies more ridiculous. Quentine Tarantino's last scene in Kill Bill #1 is ten times more Japanese made than that of this movie.
Memoirs of a Geisha is a beautifully filmed movie, there is no doubt about that. And the acting is generally excellent, at least in terms of how it portrays the characters as they are scripted.<br /><br />However, so many details small and large are just _wrong_ that it just bothers me too much to be able to enjoy it fully. A small detail that typifies the kind of lack of sensitivity of sorts is one scene (no this does not spoil anything) where Mameha rings a bell that hangs at the door of the house where Sayuri lives, on a snowy winter day. The bell she's ringing is a fuurin, or wind chime - that is only left hanging outside of houses in Japan in the summer! People in traditional Japanese homes didn't have doorbells - they just opened the door and announced themselves. (You may think this is such a trivial detail, but I would equate this to a movie made about America where a Christmas wreath is hanging on the door in July and no one thinks anything of it.) And don't even get me started on the totally wrong hairstyles given to the maiko and geisha, which is vaguely pan-Asian/Chinese/kung-fu-ish, and nothing like real thing. I think this rather cavalier attitude towards the culture they are trying to portray really comes out in the attitudes and the portrayals of people and situations too. <br /><br />So, I suppose that the less you know about Japanese culture and the world of the geisha and maiko in Kyoto (which is what "Miyako" is), then I suppose the more you will enjoy this. I honestly think this movie could have been so much better...as it is, it's just another Hollywood version of "exotic Japan".
A slow, tedious, and one dimensional movie! Good casting with clichéd dialogue, boring story line, and soulless direction from Mr Marshal! The conventional and predictable story of the most famous form of prostitution from the Asian continent, lacks heart, new insights, and depth. The lead character looks out of place due to her tiny phisique and phony looking contact lenses. The lexicon employed by the geishas sounds forced and a bit too sophisticated for their limited exposure in the ways of education. The story goes on and on for hours trying to convince you this little, boring, flat chested Asian girl is the ultimate Geisha, they actually say in the movie "She is destined to become a legend" i say hardy the case! The movie is just plain boring, it is beautiful to look at, it has a very few interesting moments as many as you may find by going out for cigarretes. Basically, if you don't believe the messenger you wont believe the message, and this girl didn't fill the shoe! Borin, boring, skip it!
I admired Rob Marshall for Chicago, but Memoirs of Geisha turns out to be yet another failure of combing western and Asian arts. Overall, the scene is beautiful, but after restless emphasis on exoticism-oriented scenes some might just find himself fed up with them. The excessive cherry blossom was, frankly, overdone. It's probably the cultural difference of perception here: the ultimate beauty is not the showy type, as truly beautiful geisha would not be the over westernised pumpkin in the movie. <br /><br />Some other comments have rightly mentioned the biggest flaws. As a Taiwanese, I have no doubt the actress are great. An actor/actress can play any kind of role when he/she can look like it. Gong Li is great, but the power of emotions that she showed in this movie had not been translated into Japanese style. All I saw was a bittersweet and jealous Chinese WOMAN. Michlle Yeoh, one of my favourtie actress, did not even LOOK LIKE a Japanese. Some comment has mentioned the peculiar delicate, feminine characteristics of Japanese women, with which I can't agree more. These are so delicate that I assume not even all modern Japanese actresses are eligible for the roles in Geisha, let alone the two Chinese and one Malaysian actress who grew up in different cultures and probably did not know Japanese culture that much.<br /><br />Geisha is a good shot for arousing the curiosity of American audiences. But it would be an insult for the movie itself and for art alike if the movie wins the Oscar for best costume, best director or best picture.
Another double noir on one disc from Warner Home Video and by far the better of the two movies is RKO's marvellous 1950 thriller "Where Danger Loves". This is a memorable classic with a great cast in Robert Mitchum, Faith Domergue and Claude Rains. Crisply photographed in Black & White by Nicholas Musuraca it was tightly directed by John Farrow. "Where Danger Lives" is a prime example of the noir style of picture making and will always be remembered for its stylish craftsmanship that was Hollywood's past - (See my full review).<br /><br />Unfortunately, none of the above praise can be applied to the second movie on the disc, the abysmal MGM 1949 stinker TENSION! Poorly written (Allen Rivkin) and directed by John Berry this movie is full of ludicrous characterisations and unlikely situations. The inconceivable relationship between a mild mannered and wimpish pharmacist - blandly played by Richard Baseheart - and his overtly floozy wife (a risible Audrey Totter) is totally implausible and unconvincing (how on earth they ever got together in the first place is anybody's guess). Then when she "unsurprisingly" ditches him for one of her playmates (Lloyd Gough) our timid pharmacist, instead of being euphoric and over the moon with his new found good fortune, plots revenge and attempts to kill Gough but at the last minute chickens out. The guy gets murdered anyway and our pharmacist is immediately suspected by Homicide detective Barry Sullivan (another bland performance). So who did kill him? Well, at this stage of the movie you really couldn't care less since it is all so badly executed and rendered ridiculous by director Berry. Mr. Berry has no idea of pacing and is unable to inject even a smidgen of style into the thing. There is nothing he can put in front of the camera that will prevent you from nodding off! The only TENSION contained in this movie is in the rubber band that is stretched to its limit and snaps in the fingers of Barry Sullivan as he gives the intro at the film's opening. So much for that! A most unfortunate effort! C'est La Vie!<br /><br />Best things about this turkey is the smooth Monochrome Cinematography by the great Harry Stradling, an effective score by a young Andre Previn and an early dramatic appearance by the lovely Cyd Charisse before she found her dancing shoes. Hey! - maybe she could have saved the picture had she given us a few steps and a couple of pirouettes! HUH?<br /><br />In its favour however, are the heaps of extras that are included which boasts trailers, commentaries and featurettes for both films. But the disc is worth it alone for the RKO Mitchum classic!
True, the setting in Paris is great. The actors are fine. The story is a twisted morality play. Is it supposed to say that if you want someone badly enough, it's OK to hurt everyone else along the way? In a real romance, you sort of want less cliché than the man who has become bored with his wife and is willing to dump his family, and the woman who is OK with encouraging him to do this. So what if they are decent looking and if Karen Allen shows off her body? The characters are still self-absorbed and reprehensible. Maybe the moral of the story is "you get what you deserve". I give it a 4, only for the fast scan potential through the "male interest" bits.
This movie isn't terrible, really. Somebody commented that Mo is the type of American Europeans snicker at. But there are those, and not necessarily Anglo-Saxon yahoos, who do not care for Frenchmen; and the Xavier character isn't going to sway them.<br /><br />Let's consider his stereotypical Frenchman attributes:<br /><br />1). Cynical - very cynical. Check.<br /><br />2). Reedy, underfed appearance, check, despite:<br /><br />3). A great appreciation of cuisine. Check.<br /><br />4). Lukewarm work ethic. Check. (Forget the fact he is supposedly a rich stockbroker, from watching him in the film he seems to put in ten hour workweeks.) <br /><br />5). Beautiful wife, check. Despite that:<br /><br />6). Loose interpretation of the marriage vows. Check.<br /><br />7). Big sexual ego, which says an American girl owes you sex if you buy her dinner. Check.<br /><br />Whether Mo is a hick or not, there's no reason for her to fall for this smug European twit other than the script dictates so.<br /><br />On the other hand, as other male reviewers have, I did enjoy seeing Karen Allen's cute, petite body. I'll give the movie four stars; two of them are for that.
Any movie that has nude scenes of Karen Allen and I'm still so bored I walk out, that is a stinker! <br /><br />Karen gets stuck in Paris, and befriends a sissily-handsome French man with whom she is having sex soon. Of course he's married, ("But, cheri, why should that be a problem?") What could be an interesting clash of cultures is (believe it or not) just dull. I walked out. <br /><br />Maybe the movie got a lot better after I left; but it would have had to have gotten a LOT better to make up for a rotten beginning.<br /><br />My advice, if you find yourself in this, run, do not walk, for the exit. Save your time and your energy. Most assuredly save your money. It's a shame the production company didn't save its money.
Watchable little semi-soaper, but hardly captivating. Still, two or three funny moments. What amazes me is how slippery and morally highly questionable McNicol is. She plays an invalid (a leg problem), yet she not only isn't the "ugly duckling" whom men shun, but she is even a man-eater - and we are supposed to feel for her! Oh, poor little McNicol, with her leg problem... Poor little McNicol??! She is constantly getting passes from men, and even dumps them without so much as blinking! At one occasion she even has a premeditated one-night affair with a blond stud, and then she tells her newly-found French girlfriend quite non-chalantly that it took him time to get an erection! Makes us viewers wonder why she is so leg-conscious if every guy wants to hump her. Well, almost every guy; the only guy who really shunned her after seeing her leg wrapped up in metal is the guy working on the telephone. But otherwise she seems to be doing just fine with men! No shyness, no lack of success with men, and she throws them away like toys; the way she dumped Carradine was ridiculous. Poor little invalid girl?? I don't think so. And yet we are meant to believe that this woman has a major confidence problem; hence the scene in which she prepares to start playing the flute for a solo concert and somehow manages to throw the notes on the ground out of nervousness. Nervousness?? The rest of the movie shows little or nothing that would suggest that she has confidence problems, so this flute scene is absurd and doesn't fit into the bigger picture. I was also surprised how quickly and eagerly McNicol makes friends with a French woman who is screwing a married guy. On the surface the movie would appear to be a "sentimental story of one crippled woman's struggle for acceptance" (or something like that) but it's nothing like that at all; the writer clearly shifts between this type of movie and a "screw anything that moves - it's the 80s" kind of movie - very confusing.<br /><br />As far as her leg: it's not like she has a big, fat purple balloon growing on her calf muscle. She "only" has a normal-looking metal prosthetic attached to the lower part of her leg, so I really don't understand why the makers of the film try to make it seem as if she is a female Quasimodo or something, at the beginning of the film. It's not like she has a twin head growing out of her neck! Though McNicol is hardly a major catch. Kind of cutish but nothing special, quite average.<br /><br />But what the hell is Carradine doing playing some kind of a (relatively) smooth guy flirting with McNicol and her pal?! This guy was in "Revenge of the Nerds"! But I guess it's the same thing with the Carradines in the movies as it is with the Kennedys in politics: no matter how ugly, unable, or dumb, all the doors are open for a career in movies and politics, respectively.<br /><br />Down with nepotism.<br /><br />If you want to read bogus biographies about the Carradines, and other Hollywood nepotists and morons, contact me by e-mail.
- I had planned to write something explaining what I didn't like about this movie, but this is going to be more difficult than I thought. Honestly, I can't remember much about it. I watched it just three days ago and it's made almost no impression on me. That's usually the sign of a real stinker. About the only thing I remember was being incredibly bored by most of it. The novelty of having a Humphrey Bogart look-a-like as the detective wore off real quick. It would be different if he could act, but he's a one-note entertainer. The kill scenes were amateurishly handled and there was no suspense leading up to them. If you can't spot the killer five minutes into the movie, you need to see more Euro horror. The casting is a dead giveaway to the killer's identity.
This movie is a cringe-fest of bad acting and poor set design as well as tacky lines and a lame plot. But it is so much fun to watch. Everything about it is hilarious.The basic plot is a group of scientists from the future travel back in time to capture their evil co-worker who is intent on destroying them all. They catch up with him in the year 1146. The 'futuristic' lab of the scientists from the year 2033 is an eighties-style room with a bunch of 'futuristic' flashing buttons and a time capsule that looks like a lawn shed. The actors deliver their lines with unenthusiastic aplomb, which isn't hard to understand considering that the lines are usually earth-shakers like " I double-checked everything twice!" He double checked everything twice? He checked it four times? Not only that, but they feed you the entire premise of the movie in the first five minutes, and continue at a rapid fire pace until they hit the medieval part. When Roger Corman ran out of money. And had to stop travelling through time and consequently different sets. The medieval set is a comic mish-mash of anything from the late 10th century to the 16th century. Any costume they could find, they used. I guess chain mail wasn't on the budget, 'cause the guys all wear sequined shirts masquerading as armor. The fight scenes are laughable, with men casually throwing themselves onto cardboard swords with abandon and dying in death throws with nary a blow cast.It sounds truly awful, but I enjoy it every time I watch it. The lines alone are enough to have you in fits and everything else pulls together to create a fabulous B-movie that, if you are a connoisseur of corny flicks, I would suggest you see. And once you have, read the review on Unknown Movies. I love hearing them point out all the funny, truly awful bits in the movie.
Spoilers of both this and The Matrix follow.<br /><br />I liked the original Matrix a great deal. It was not a deep movie, despite Fishburne's attempts to philosophize, but it was fairly well paced, fun, and I have a soft spot for Hong Kong fights.<br /><br />In the original, Neo was the secret life of the rather unhappy cube worker Anderson. By day, corporate drone, and by night, brave hacker. Eventually, he eventually is forced to choose between these lives by his actions - does he become an outlaw fighting the machine, or does he go back to the safe, forgettable world he started in. Interestingly, he discovers that once one is shorn of illusions, life rather sucks. He has his girl by his side and his boon companions, but he eats processed swill, dresses in sweats, and lives in a truly skungy bit of machinery. Still, the truth makes him free.<br /><br />At least part of the fun of that first movie lay in the "what if it were me" questions raised in the viewer's mind. What if _I_ were capable of the impossible? What if I were "The One". It does not even matter that much what you are The One example of, with a cool title like that.<br /><br />Further, agent Smith made a wonderful bad guy, as he embodied all of the fear of authority that we carry with us. He was as unstoppable as a terminator, and as merciless.<br /><br />At the end of the Matrix, Neo must return to the Matrix to share his good news of freedom.<br /><br />This movie fails to completely to carry through on the ideas of the original movie, and it does so with such lack of gusto, such poor scriptwriting and such poor editing that I cannot believe they had planned these changes. When the dialog is at a fifth grade level, with various long words dropped in randomly, I find it hard to believe that they understand what they are saying.<br /><br />My short list of characterization failures:<br /><br />The Oracle goes from mildly helpful, if deceitful to utterly obstructionist without any real reason.<br /><br />Major "personalities" of the matrix are introduced without need - the keymaster, for example, was a cute idea, but just not that interesting a character.<br /><br />Fishburne loses his "advisor" role, and gets nothing to replace it with.<br /><br />The people of Zion are not particularly likable, nor would you really _want_ them running the world.<br /><br />Special effects problems:<br /><br />The fight scenes are pointless and intermitable. In The Matrix, you felt Neo could lose, and that he had to become something greater in order to survive. In The Matrix Reloaded, he is merely the viewpoint character of a particularly poorly plotted video game.<br /><br />The fight on the freeway looked quite fake, and not that interesting.<br /><br />Pacing problems.<br /><br />As I mentioned above, the fight scenes were interminable.<br /><br />The rave went on too long - everyone in my row at the theater was looking at their watch. Not because we mind good dancing and good orgies, but because we did not know about the people pictured, nor did we care.<br /><br />Whatever hack wrote the creator's soliloquy should be blacklisted from the business. It meandered, used words that the scriptwriter clearly did not understand, and was a waste of time and a pacing killer. The creator's speech could have been done in a tenth the time, and with more peril as "Zion exists to give rebels a place to go so they do not destroy the Matrix. There are now too many people who do not believe; the matrix is in danger of crashing and killing every person hooked up to it. Further, the earth cannot support even the people in Zion, let alone these others. You may choose one person from Zion to form the new Zion, while I wipe the memories of the people currently in the Matrix."<br /><br />Instead, we got a long, drawn out bunch of twaddle. If someone argues that it is deep, ask for a transcript, and try breaking down the sentences. Each one is too long by several clauses, and uses words with clearer, shorter synonyms.<br /><br />So, in summary, not worth seeing.<br /><br />I have seen the third one, and despite what a number of reviewers have said, skip it. It does not save this turkey.<br /><br />The reviewers who feel that the second and third movies were "deep" should go see some truly deep movies. Perhaps read a book or two on rhetoric and debate, and perhaps a bit of philosophy. This movie is just not hard to understand, but it is hard to stomach.<br /><br />Scott
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Continued...<br /><br />From here on in the whole movie collapses in on itself. First we meet a rogue program with the indication we're gonna get ghosts and vampires and werewolves and the like. We get a guy with a retarded accent talking endless garbage, two 'ghosts' that serve no real purpose and have no character what-so-ever and a bunch of henchmen. Someone's told me they're vampires (straight out of Blade 2), but they're so undefined I didn't realise.<br /><br />The funny accented guy with a ridiculous name suffers the same problem as the Oracle, only for far longer and far far worse. He has a simple point about cause and effect, makes it, then continues to make it and make it until it becomes convoluted and stupid. His final line before walking off is comparable to Storm's "do you know what happens to a toad..." line in X-men in levels of utter bland baddness. The chocolate cake is such a lazy, pathetic cliche and Monica Bellucci as the wife does nothing other than exactly what we expect the moment we see her.<br /><br />And then we get another kung fu fight!!! WHY? Neo is, allegedly, The One. He can do anything. He has the ultimate power and what does he use it for. Kung bloody fu all the time. And while he can stop 1000 bullets, he still gets cut by a sword and still makes a meal of 5 undecipherable henchmen (vampires?). I wanted to see mind blowing powers. I wanted to see him do the wildest, craziest most insane s*** to people because he can do anything. I got the same as before without the 'wow'.<br /><br />The fabled car chase. That can't be bad. Well... no, it's not. It's just not what we've been tyold it was going to be. ALL the cool shots from this scene are in the trailer. Every one. So all possibly Wow has been taken from us so all we now get is a good chase sequence with, guess what, a kung fu fight!!! OK, it's not Neo, but you'd have thought he'd have explained to his closest friends about the reality of the Matrix. At least taught them something. It's not hard.<br /><br />"Hey, Morpheus, don't worry about what happens to you in the matrix. It's not real. As long as you understand that nothing's real then nothing can really harm you."<br /><br />There you go. Simple.<br /><br />OK, so the chase is not bad. It's never boring and it doesn't seem like 16 minutes. It's just so underwhelming. And still, it gets worse.<br /><br />The final climax to the movie is quite probably the worst imaginable. They have this whole elaborate plan that involves three crews. They then only show it sporadically between Morpheus's over long, super preachy, monologue. To make it worse, they never clearly define what this plan that needs 3 teams is. You know basically, but you don't know who's doing what, when, so when one crew goes down you just don't care and you don't know how this is going to affect what goes on.<br /><br />I'll sum it up though, it happens so Trinity can get back into the Matrix to setup the end. That's the only reason it happens. Which raises the question, why did they need to send 6 people originally? Trinity gets in in five minutes by herself!<br /><br />Neo's journey to the centre of the Matrix (so to speak) is handled equally lazily. Ooohhh!!! He runs into another 100 Agent Smiths!!! Woooooo!!! That must've taken a lot of thought. Only now they're in a corridor so the fight has no scale and is over in a moment. Man, what a grand finale!!!<br /><br />And then the Architect!!!<br /><br />Remember everything I said was bad about the Oracle and the foreign guy? Add them together and double it, that's how truly appalling the Architect is. The only reasonable potential of him is he's about to set up the cliffhanging climax.<br /><br />And then he blows it!<br /><br />Let's look at the options he gives Neo. Choose one door and all humanity dies (except 27!!!). Choose the other and all humanity dies!!! Considering choice is something this film tries to explore it doesn't really give it's hero one. If he had a choice of Save humanity and the missus dies or Save the missus and kill humanity there's the potnetial for inner torment and tension. Also, with Trinity being mid fall, the potential of a real cliffhanger that would've made seeing the third more essential. But no. He has save no-one or save the missus.<br /><br />Now, the very worst thing about the original Matrix was Neo dying and then coming back to life right at the end. The year it came out everyone was so annoyed by how stupid Jar Jar was they didn't notice that the very end of The Matrix made him look him Steven Hawking. "The Oracle told me I'd fall in love with the One, and I love you".... Come On!!!! How can the whole world have missed how utterly terrible that was?<br /><br />So, what do the Wachowski's do in the sequel? Well, they make the ending of the original look better. How? Well, by doing almost exactly the same thing again (only swapping characters) only so much worse I think my f a and r keys would be worn out if I kept writing far before I got to worse.<br /><br />And the cliffhanger is just not really a cliffhanger. It's a reminder.<br /><br />Basically, this film is just bad. I really didn't want it to be bad, but it is. Bad in just so many ways. And to make matters worse, this isn't a film with not enough budget. It's not a film with too short a schedule. It's not a film that's been rushed out. It's not a film where too much influence has come from the outside. This is exactly the film the Wachowski's set out to make with Warner's fortune fully behind them. And that's what makes this so awful. At least Rancid Aluminium can say that it didn't haev enough time or money.<br /><br />Matrix Reloaded. The worst film ever made? Maybe not quite. The most disappointing and defalting film ever made.<br /><br />Undeniably.<br /><br />
I tried to remove anything that might be considered a spoiler. I also assume that you've seen the first movie or at least know the general gist, so if you haven't some of this might not make sense.<br /><br />Plot: This movie beats the audience over the head with tired philosophical ramblings again and again in an attempt to get the theme across. We are bombarded again and again by questions of purpose, and destiny, and choice, and forced to endure the long, torturous platitude sessions that contain them.<br /><br />Neo, awakened from a dream in the last movie, now begins a period of realization about his own existence. There are a lot of revelations in this movie, which I'll be vague about so they won't seem like spoilers.<br /><br />*If you're still worried vague references will spoil the movie, don't read the paragraph below.*<br /><br />The strength and weakness of faith is revealed. The strengths and weaknesses of love, and its temporary nature, are also revealed. The interdependence of humans and technology, and our faith in technology, are also revealed. The importance of choice and experience is revealed. Explaining further things that are revealed would go into too much detail, so I will refrain (as the guidelines for writing a commentary asks). Btw, by "revealed" I mean pounded through our ears and eyes like nails.<br /><br />Storyline: So how does Neo and the gang get from the end of the last movie to the beginning of the next one? In short, they keep the faith, and use and abuse overly-stylized action and bullet-time like it's going out of style (and after this display, I'm hoping movie-goers and makers alike learn to appreciate subtlety and originality a bit more). More on that later. To not spoil anything, I will say no more than the promo material already did: Neo is still trying to figure out the Matrix, and he is looking for answers while trying to save the humans, and Zion, all while baddies are going after him and his cohorts. The movie pretty much picks up where the last one left off.<br /><br />Action: While martial arts action and gunplay peppered its predecessor in somewhat equal parts, this movie focuses much more on martial arts than gunplay, adding swords, sais, etc. to the mix. Special effects are so often used and waved in the audience's face that it becomes really tiresome. I've discussed this movie with friends and coworkers alike, and nearly all of them found some of the action sequences--especially the "Smith fight" we all heard would be in the movie--to be too long and tedious. This is a huge red flag for action fans, because the end of an action sequence should either leave you wanting a slight bit more, or completely content with the awesomeness that just occured.<br /><br />These fights scenes do neither. They are over-stylized, over-the-top sequences that are wooden and uninspired. In the first movie, there was a real sense of desperation to some of the action, a sense that fighting was for survival, not just looking good (which I honestly don't think they manage in Reloaded anyway) in black and leather. Go watch Drunken Master or Iron Monkey after this movie to remind yourself of what good fighting sequences are--you won't regret it. In addition, the "Matrix abilities" people have in Reloaded is not consistent, and what they actually do is not consistent. The first movie had its inconsistencies here, but they weren't too glaring--unlike Reloaded.<br /><br />Special effects are poured on and on and on. Every little thing someone does, be it just jump, somersault, spin, and in many cases just pose, are<br /><br />slow-moed, bullet-timed, or over-accentuated by some sort of destruction. It's evident the W Bros had a ton of money to throw at this movie, and boy did they throw it, with no real restraint. Sharp editors could have really helped this, but the first movie was such a hit that free reign was obviously given, which brings us to. . .<br /><br />Character and dialogue: I have already more or less said the dialogue was tired and full of philosophical platitudes. Actors can't really bring a lot of depth to their character when the script and direction is shoving character progression audience's face, or neglecting it altogether. The audience is at no time given nuance and substance so they can contemplate the character on their own.<br /><br />Keanu's acting performance is stiff at best. Keanu is good at acting confused, and that's about all he does in this film. He makes a decent attempt to show passion between Neo and Trinity, but it falls flat.<br /><br />Lawrence tries to make Morpheus everything from Moses to Henry V, and be as cool as a cat throughout. With the script he is provided, he makes a noble attempt, but it also falls flat.<br /><br />Moss isn't very believable either. Her look of concern is always the same, much like Keanu's, and the chemistry isn't there, although in their very physical scenes they fake it well enough.<br /><br />Hugo once again brought his weird sense of being an Agent program, but he too suffered from the script's hand. I actually find him to be the most interesting character of the bunch, but instead of development they just make him an excuse for a huge, drawn out fight scene.<br /><br />All in all, this movie is beyond disappointing if you had good expectations, and on its own, as a stand-alone movie (which is not how it's supposed to be taken), it's still horrible. I don't see The Matrix as deep, but I at least see it as an enjoyable scifi romp that has some interesting ideas, good action, a few funny lines, and enough restrained symbolism and elusions to amuse the attentive. Reloaded fails on all these counts, and I really hope the W Bros will give us a better experience in the 3rd installment. Granted, I don't have a lot of hope left for that after this film.
The first Matrix movie was lush with incredible character development, witty dialog, and action scenes that kept with the flow of the story. These elements -- coupled by incredible special effects of the day -- presented a magical ride that kept you in suspense the entire time. Enter Matrix Reloaded (and its sequel, Revolutions). The problem here isn't the special effects or the fight sequences as some may argue; The brothers have taken well-developed characters from the first film and hollowed them out like rotten tree logs.… The connection that was first established between viewers and on-screen characters in the first film is lost when you realize these are not the same characters from the first Matrix movie.<br /><br />To wit, Morpheus was developed as a charismatic, philosophical character with insight far exceeding anyone else in the movie, but here in Reloaded -- we're presented by a different Morpheus who stands hard and hollow, reduced to corny one-liners that contradict the character we saw develop in the first film. This character just didn't feel the same, and this could also be said about the supporting characters in the movie.<br /><br />The removal of 'Tank' was also a disappointment. Tank's involvement in the first film was minimal at best, but he played the role extremely well. In Reloaded, we discover that Tank dies after the events in the first film, and he is replaced by a Jar Jar Binks stunt double that couldn't act to save his live (think stale box of Kellogg's Corn Flakes). His performance left me chuckling throughout, and most of his spoken dialog lacked timing. There was an overwhelming sense that he was either trying too hard to convey his emotions on-screen or the delivery in the script was off; in either case, the experience was humorous! At times I felt embarrassed for the actor....<br /><br />Even Neo's Godly persona was suspect during most of the fighting sequences. The alleyway battle with the 200 Agent Smith clones was certainly exaggerated. One must wonder, for a man so gifted as Neo -- that he would even waste his time engaging in such a fruitless, frivolous battle when more pressing matters attend (especially when you consider his ability to fly or his ungodly ability to bend the Matrix; certainly Neo could have dispatched the clones much quicker, and more efficiently). Again, such acts lend themselves to a script hindered by consistency, and scenes created as filler to keep us from feeling gypped. In jest, our expectations of the characters created in the first film are discarded promptly. Sadly, for those expecting more of the same -- you will certainly walk away feeling gravely disappointed.<br /><br />However, if you take Reloaded as your standard, run-of-the-mill action movie, and forget the incredible story inconsistencies and the untwining of already-established character development from the first film, you should walk away feeling quite pleased.
1/10 and that's only because I don't go lower with my ratings.<br /><br />skip this "movie" and wait for the last movie of the "Trilogy", don't buy or rent it. trust me you won't be missing a thing. the Architect brings no new info: _(spoiler)_ there have been more NEO's before him, he's like nr.6 or something. you could already figure something like that out from the first movie: Agent Smith telling us the first Matrix created didn't work because it was too perfect. Trinity died and Neo's "love" brought her back, where have I seen this before ? Oh right in the first movie the roles where reversed ! same as the action-scenes nothing new just with more opponents. the Action-scene (the 20+ ships) in the BIG battle which we didn't see (maybe in Revolutions ?), betrayed by someone (hmmmm, maybe the guy holding the knife who wanted to stab Neo?!) who pushed the EGM-button to soon.<br /><br />all in all a shameless ploy to make money (especially off the guys who went to see it more then once), which evidently worked like a charm.
Man would expect that a movie shot with an approx. budget of 300,000,000 U$D should at least entertain you for the time you are spending in the cinema actally watching it. "Matrix Reloaded" proves this assumption wrong.<br /><br />"The Matrix" worked out better, despite having apparent holes concerning logic of the story. At least nobody could explain to me why beating up a bot (aka agent) inside a simulation (aka martix) would harm the responsible computer program in any way...<br /><br />Unfortunately, the Wachowski brothers made excactly this "agent-bashing" the main thing in "Matrix Reloaded": it's a beat 'em up o-rama. This fighting scenes may be work out sufficient (or even cool) in a 5 sec. trailer, but prolonged for several minutes, apparently being faked, choreographed poorly and repeated over and over again it is nothing more than boring. Despite seeing the promised spectecular stunts there is nothing more than simple low-quality, unimaginative bashing already seen (or better not) in eg. Van Damme 'movies'. The difference of post-production (etherything is 5 times faster, the camera floats around a lot and freezes on certain scenes, and this is repeated for at least 5min) doesn't help here, all this has nothing to do with the very meaning of "martial arts". Beside these 'fights', all actors do refuse to do what they are payed for: acting.<br /><br />What's up besides the fighting scenes? Few except Hollywood routine. This oh-so-multicultural bunch of hippies which sucked in "Waterworld" are recycled as citizen of "Zion" (mans last city on earth), and on the order of Morpheus they start dancing, 'cause this is a good opportunity to show a lot of barely covered tits and butts. The oh-so-popular clichée of the frog aka frenchmen talking with this "je ne sais quoi" dumb accent, who wastes his fortune because of a "liason d'amour" is bravely served. Following this (and unwanted funny) is the fight between Neo and the sinister followers of 'the frog', since it takes place in an Erroy Flynn like enterieur, luckily featuring a lot of mideaval weapons for decoration. For Neo posing with the hellebarde, just add 2 stairs and a lot of statues (for being destructed, thrown over evil guys and the like) and you get 5 more senseless, boring min. of this junk.<br /><br />Whats left to expect? The usual merchandising hell. And "revolutions" which will happen or not - certainly without me.
`The Matrix' was an exciting summer blockbuster that was visually fantastic but also curiously thought provoking in its `Twilight Zone'-ish manner. The general rule applies here- and this sequel doesn't match up to its predecessor. Worse than that, it doesn't even compare with it.<br /><br />`Reloaded' explodes onto the screen in the most un-professional fashion. In the opening few seconds the first impression is a generally good one as Trinity is shot in a dream. Immediately after that, the film nose-dives. After a disastrous first 45 minutes, it gradually gains momentum when they enter the Matrix and the Agent Smith battle takes place. But it loses itself all speed when it reaches the 14-minute car chase sequence and gets even worse at the big groan-worthy twist at the end. Worst of all is the overlong `Zion Rave' scene. Not only does it have absolutely nothing to do with the plot, but it's also a pathetic excuse for porn and depressive dance music.<br /><br />The bullet-time aspect of `The Matrix' was a good addition, but in `'Reloaded' they overuse to make it seem boring. In the first one there were interesting plot turns, but here it is too linear to be remotely interesting. The movie is basically, just a series of stylish diversions that prevent us from realising just how empty it really is. It works on the incorrect principle that bigger is better. It appears that `The Matrix' franchise has quickly descended into the special effects drenched misfire that other franchises such as the `Star Wars' saga have.<br /><br />The acting standard is poor for the most part. The best character of course goes to Hugo Weaving's `Agent Smith'- the only one to be slightly interesting. Keanu Reeves is the definitive Neo, but in all the special effects, there is little room to make much of an impact. Academy Award Nominee Laurence Fishburne is reduced to a monotonous mentor with poor dialogue. Carrie Ann Moss' part as the action chick could have been done much better by any other actress. <br /><br />A poor, thrown-together movie, `The Matrix Reloaded' is a disappointment. Those who didn't like the first one are unlikely to flock to it. This one's for die-hard fans only. Even in the movie's own sub-genre of special effect bonanzas (Minority Report, The Matrix etc.) this is still rather poor. My IMDb rating: 4.5/10.
I felt asleep, watching it!!! (and I had tickets for the midnight- premiere) Any questions? The most disturbing scene, as far as I can remember, was the techno-dance-i-dont-know-what-that-was-scene. By the way what an ending!?
As a fan of Science-fiction movies, I have been aware of The Matrix since its release in 1999. From the little bit I would allow people to tell me about it, I assumed it was highly original and sophisticated. I am also a devotee of Alice in Wonderland. I could never quite figure out how I missed The Matrix when it was released. With the imminent release of The Matrix Reloaded, it was time to buy the DVD and watch it.<br /><br />The disappointment was too great. The premise of the matrix (the controlling device as opposed to the movie) was clever. The philosophical premise of parallel worlds, alternate realities is shopworn. However, I could still have bought into the film, as science-fiction, if it stayed firmly in that genre. Unfortunately, it turned into a standard, "will they or won't they escape, break through, rescue those in need of rescue, etc." To make matters worse, it turned out to be another martial arts exercise. The problem is that science-fiction and martial arts films are really two different types. To the purest, the devotee of one or the other, mixing the two doesn't work. It is like mixing science-fiction with romance. You can have one or the other, but not both in the same film, or, at least, not both to the same extent in the same movie.<br /><br />If there were such problems with The Matrix, The Matrix Reloaded really compounded the problems. At least thirty minutes of the film were either martial arts sequences or the protracted car-chase. (This observation ignores the question, made in every professional, negative review of the movie: If Neo could do the Superman thing, why bother to fight at all? The answer, of course, is that's what draws the young, male demographic group into the theatre.) Then there is the "redemption through love" aspect. That plot device was worn out by Richard Wagner over a hundred years ago. It was actually handled better by him in Die Gotterdammerung.<br /><br />So where does that leave those who saw the Matrix Reloaded. Martial arts fans probably groaned through the trite, but arcane sci-fi philosophizing. Science fictions fans were wondering why they were sitting through a kung-fun fest. Most of the males in the audience where probably bored by the silly romance aspect of the film.<br /><br />Just what are you supposed to be getting for your bucks when you see The Matrix franchise films: Science fiction, martial arts, or soap opera? A bit of each does not make for a whole lot more of any of them, nor for a satisfying film for the afficionados of each.
What the hell was all that about? I saw The Matrix and was amazed. It was the most spectacular movie ever made. What ever possesed the Wachowski brothers to do this film is beyond me.<br /><br />There is no plot, you can't argue with that. Basically all this film was was a load of talking, and don't get me wrong, I have no problem with talky films, but all the talking in The Matrix Reloaded was a pointless load of drivvle. Then there would be a fight sequence which lasted WAY too long, then more pointless drivvle, then another fight scene that lasts too long and it all builds up to the biggest anti-climax ever. A little bearded bloke talking a load of uncomprehensible bull for 20 minutes.<br /><br />Also, Keanu Reeves gives his worst performance yet. I knew he wasn't a good actor but this was beyond a joke. If you watch his films in the order he was in them it would seem he got gradually worse as they went along. God knows what his performance is like in Something's Gotta Give! Keanu Reeves: The only plank of wood ever to become an actor.<br /><br />After the splendor of the first film this came as a massive dissapointment. If you haven't already seen the first film I suggest you watch it, but don't waste your time with this utter pile of turd.<br /><br />
It seems as if in Science Fiction you have this periodic throwback to perform an odd phenomenon that appears in long serial novels. It's where the first novel (Dune, Ender's Game) blows you away with an actionpacked revolutionary story. The sequels however take that universe and lead you down the garden path to whatever new little social or political commentary the author wants to make. The Matrix is finally the film equivalent. The Matrix stands tall, alone, as an interesting film with an odd twist in the middle. Seeing this cash cow just sitting there, and wanting to explore other aspects of society, the writers and directors then lead you through what has to be some of the most painful monologues and non-action sequences in SciFi. While the visuals remain as stunning from the first movies, the new explorations of the characters falls terrible flat in the sequel. Watch for eye candy, not for deep thought.<br /><br />4 out of 10, as registered by this fine website.
As soon as I began to see posters and hear talk about this movie, I was immediately excited. The Matrix was an incredible to behold and I couldn't wait to see the second one, especially after beginning to see the trailers for it at other movies. However, when I saw it, I left the theater extremely disappointed, as did many other movie-goers at the theater with me. While the action scenes in the movie were amazing as always, there simply were too few of them. In the first movie, there was constant fighting going on it seemed, but the second took a much more (and much unfortunate) preachy point of view. To sum up the plot, there wasn't much to it that wasn't expected. The machines were digging toward Zion with intent of destroying it (that's not a spoiler, everyone saw it in the commercials). The dialogue of the movie was absolutely horrendous. Unless you're a psychology major, you most likely will not understand most of what is said in the movie, and because of that simply won't care. It became somewhat of a romantic movie with the showing of events happening in the lives and relationship of Neo and Trinity. Agent Smith, for as bad-ass as he was in the first movie, seemed to get all religious and preachy. Personally, I don't need to hear about that or pay money to listen to it. The movie was a serious waste of my time, and I don't think I can watch the first one anymore. The dialogue and the constant boring and dry monologues from basically every character made me lose interest in the film quickly, and the small amount of good fighting scenes pushed me nearer the edge, and the ending of the movie shoved me right off. What movie ends with "To Be Concluded"? How original is that folks. I wonder if the Wachowski brothers had to burn the midnight oil to come up with that one. In conclusion, the movie was bad and that's the end of it.
I'll admit that I liked the first one, and was really looking forward to the sequel.<br /><br />I was let down. Sure the special effects were technically amazing -- but they weren't believable looking. It looked more like a cartoon. Alright, I admit to liking 80% of the chase scene -- but the fight with all the Mr Smiths? It was too obviously animated.<br /><br />I can accept all of that. What I can't accept is that the non-action parts were crap. Every time Morpheus opened his mouth, I knew I was in for a speech that went on forever and signified nothing.<br /><br />I was also disappointed with the little plot that did exist. What this movie did was tell us that there was no truth in the first movie (except about the existence of the matrix). This movie was a little like seeing the episode of DALLAS where you find out that the entire previous season was a dream.<br /><br />Ugh! I want my $7.00 back!
A perfect little atrocity...I doubt if a single shot lasted for more then the reglamentary-MTV 4.4 seconds. Woeful casting, worse even than in Kusminsky's version (a reminder: he managed to miscast Juliet Binoche and Ralph Feinnnes). But, hey-the rich got what they deserved. Dark and brooding Heathcliff reduced to the state of a golden-locked angel, frail and angellic Catherine presented as a chubby, melon-breasted heffer, meek and weak Linton is a peeping tom, and innocent Isabel becomes Sara Michelle-Gellar's character from Cruel Intentions. 15-year old Eddie Bauer and Abercrombie and Fitch donners-take notice. This thing was made for you. It is an hour-and-a-half long music video where everything is given to you; you are saved from the uncomfortable necessity of not even trying to understand the complexity of the characters, but even from initial shock at their actions. The actors tried, but, as I stated before, they were miscasted. Decent photography, but editing is on the level of TV production class in high school. I implore you all: read the book, or the cliffnotes even; watch the previous versions of it, even Kusminsky's; but stay away from the numerous future reruns, during which you will not receive the benefit of the commercial-free premiere.
I was skeptical when I first saw the Calvin Kline-esque commercials, but thought I'd give it a chance. So I've watched it, and all I can say is bleh. This movie was so bad. It's rare that I hate a movie this much. Watching this flick reminded me of those funny scenes in Altman's "The Player," when the writers pitch their bizarre ideas to producers. I'd like to know which MTV producer decided that an hour and a half long music video adaptation of Bronte (but this time Heathcliff's name is Heath and he's a rock star, and Hindley's name is Hendrix) would be a good idea.<br /><br />Even that might not have been so bad, had they not gotten every other aspect of the film so horrible wrong as well. The direction must have been "you're lonely, pout for me." I laughed out loud during all the "serious" scenes and was bored throughout the rest. The camera work was jagged and repeatedly reminded me that I was watching a bad movie trying to be edgy. My theory is that the sound guy got bored and went down to the beach for a few beers with his boom -- all I could hear in half the scenes were the waves. And in the other scenes, I wish that's all I could hear. And speaking of sound, what they did to the Sisters of Mercy song "More" is absolutely inexcusable, then again, it's inexcusable what they did to Bronte.<br /><br />On the bright side, there was one entertaining scene -- specifically the moment when Johnny Whitworth licked Katherine Heigl's face -- and if you can tell me what that scene had to do with all the rest of the story more power to you.
Let me start off by saying that I didn't watch this movie at first with high expectations. It was recommended to me by a friend with mediocre taste in movies, and "MTV" was pasted on the front cover so I was not expecting much. What i was expecting was a tear-jerker, overly dramatic but at least effective.<br /><br />I was wrong.<br /><br />Firstly, let me start off that I had never read the book nor watched any other versions of the movie.<br /><br />The acting was my main gripe with the film. By god is it AWFUL. The main girl is pretty mediocre, but when compared to the rest of the cast she's Maryl Streep. The main "Hero", Heath, is just plain awful. He can sing decent sounding clichéd songs, but that's about it. His acting broke the 'sad' moments by being so bad at points that I just burst into laughter. The Isabel girl was pretty godawful too, and the brother was just a flat character that was played by an actor that couldn't display emotion whatsoever. And when he tried to, it failed miserably. Neil Patrick Harris was the only decent actor, playing Edward, although it's obvious the direction was bad because even he did not live up to what I've seen him do. Oh, and the father wasn't half-bad to my memory, but he was in the movie for such a small amount of time I can hardly remember.<br /><br />The story itself was not very good. More breakups than you can imagine. Predictable story (Until the ending, which I barely understood). EXTREMELY one-sided characters with no real depth to them... Overall just not interesting or compelling, nothing we've never seen before done MUCH better, and nothing worth watching here.<br /><br />The ending is suppose to be a tearjerker. It did nothing of the sort. The ending isn't built up at all, it almost feels like an afterthought. In fact, I had to ask my friends WHY the ending actually happened, which when they explained it to me I must have had a look on my face of "Wait, when did they say that? What?". Never a good sign. The editing was probably the worst I've seen, though I do understand the fade-ins-fade-outs are done because this was originally made for TV, but that's really no excuse.<br /><br />Overall, the movie is just garbage. I'm a sensitive guy, I cried during two episodes of the Simpsons. I never cried during this crap, not even close. Really, this movie is not worth your time. If you really want to see a tearjerker look elsewhere.
There's no denying the first Azumi film was a commercial product; it was an adaptation of a popular manga and had cast of young, attractive actors and certainly wasn't lacking in the budget department. Yet it more than entertained for what it was, and I can't deny I enjoyed it immensely.<br /><br />"Azumi 2" lacks just about everything that made the original so wonderful. The first thing that should set alarm bells ringing is the absence of the superb Ryuhei Kitamura at the helm. With him, he seemed to take not only his own visual flair and kinetics, but the originals style, beauty and most importantly, its heart. While the first had a simple "hitlist" plot, this one has a corkscrew mess of a story, with too many dull characters stabbing each other in the back so many times the potential for any sympathy or pathos is obliterated. Gone is the effective interplay between the lead characters; Azumi and her cohorts are often reduced to a bunch of stroppy teenagers arguing in a forest. Characterisation is non existent; if anyone watching actually cares who lives and who dies, I'll be shocked. The same applies to the villains here. The final battle - in fact all the battles - are completely devoid of any sort of tension. The fact that they are poorly choreographed and abysmally directed - not to mention few and far between - is made a sideline by their own sheer pointlessness. The villains themselves try far too hard to be campy, and even if they were all combined, they don't come within a country mile of the Pete Burnsian antics of Jo Odagiri in the original.<br /><br />####Major Spoiler at end of paragraph!##### <br /><br />Aya Ueto tries her best it has to be said, and she also managed to keep her hair in good condition between the films. Azumi is now a fully fledged assassin, meaning she can wave her sword around in slow motion; unfortunately, now the character is instilled with a sort of Man With No Name style mysteriousness, Ueto's model looks become even more inappropriate. I know this is supposed to be the point, but this combined with the ineffectiveness of everyone else in the film, the stupidity of the plot and the general ineptness of the film in general means it is downright impossible to get behind her character this time around. The less said about Chiaki "Remember me from Kill Bill" Kuriyama's performance the better; it suffices to say her "turn" from good to evil is about as subtle as napalm.<br /><br />Overall, this was just a colossal disappointment. Any merits is does have were done ten times better in the first film. A lazy, unsatisfying - and generally downright boring - mess.
You like beautiful girls? Yeah me too. What is there bad to say about beautiful girls/women? Nothing imo, so why would I give this movie only 2 stars out of 5, although it got the "talents" of Chiaki Kuriyama and Aya Ueto? <br /><br />If I really wanted to watch beautiful people, I'd watch MTV or something that's why. This is a movie, a so called action movie nevertheless. So by definition it does not even really need a plot right? I'm not agreeing 100%, but let's say yes to that. So what does it need? 20 minutes footage from part 1 (I might be exaggerating a little bit, but it felt like more than 20 minutes ...)?! That would be "No". But then again you never know, the people who watched part one might not know what they ate this morning for breakfast, so hey let's remind them ... hey maybe remind them even twice? Just to be sure they won't forget ... at least until the credits roll, of course!!!! <br /><br />So forget about the story, about character development, about real emotions, about the "acting" (and no, I don't think women in skirts walking and/or fighting is accountable for acting!) ... what does that leave? Yes the action scenes. The action scenes are not bad and that's the reason I gave the movie 2 stars instead of 1! I was giving this movie a chance, but it was a waste of time ... You have better things to do/watch, believe me ...
I can't believe I actually sat through the whole thing. This movie has the worst acting since Killjoy.<br /><br />Here is a brief outline of the plot: The movie starts out with Jojo and that other chick sitting around on the beach, drooling over a skinny blonde-haired beach "hunk" who looks like he hasn't been to the gym a day in his life. Somehow, everyone knows him, and every single chick in the movie wants him. UH OH! Here comes the competition! The stereotypical "hot chick" and her best friends, who drive an ugly pink car. We soon find out Jojo's mom got the job of a lifetime in Australia, which means that Jojo would have to move and leave her best friend behind (oh no, I think I'm gonna cry). A huge storm comes, and fills their swimming pool with nasty water. Somehow, for no apparent reason, the little chick falls into the pool, and comes face to face with, yup, you guessed it, a MERMAID! This is where the "story" really takes off. Basically, they want to get the mermaid to fall in love with the "hunk".<br /><br />This is a preteen flick with acting so bad, it makes the 80's look like the pinnacle of Oscar-worthy performances. This movie has all the clichés possible... the best friends, the "hunk" who everyone wants, the "hot" bad girl and her bitchy friends, the scary old man... you name it, it's in there. I took one for a lot of people by watching this. Consider my hour and 40 minutes a sacrifice to you. Please, don't see this movie. Don't make it so I suffered in vain.
If I write a review about a movie, maybe it will stick with me... but generally I expect that I will have forgotten I've seen this one a mere two weeks from now. So why bother? Because again I find myself watching a low-rated movie that was fun to watch. I didn't expect I'd to be able to stay in the room while it was on.<br /><br />It wasn't great, but at least it was not unbearable... not a comedy of errors which always makes me cringe. It was just sweet fluff... and if you can't take it, stay in the locker room boys. I agree with those who defend this movie because it is sure to please its targeted demographic, and won't be a total bore to an adult.<br /><br />It offers a few good chuckles here and there, but nary a side splitter. Sure it is silly and only mildly entertaining, but at least it doesn't suck (as so many have said it does). Maybe those folks are afraid of their sensitive sides? <br /><br />I have a tendency to grade on the bell curve, so a 4,5 or 6 is actually an okay all-around rating in my book. Giving it a 4 makes sense and will bolster its rating at the time of this writing. Giving it a 1 or a 10, as most have done thus far, makes the rating numbers meaningless. I cannot believe how strongly people feel one way or the other about this forgettable fluff (or that I am even bothering to write about it). Am I missing something? <br /><br />Anyway, it should be noted that Emma Roberts performs her role as Clairedycat quite convincingly. Ariell Kebbel often written into b*ch roles does not disappoint when her character gets her due. You might also recognize Bruce Spence playing Leonard, though his role is ancillary.<br /><br />Surely you can miss this one if you are an adult. But, if there is a pre-teen girl in your life, rent this movie for her... and be prepared NOT to hate it (you might even enjoy it).
A half-hearted attempt to bring Elvis Presley into the modern day, but despite a sexy little shower scene and a pseudo-Playboy magazine subplot, Presley is surrounded by the same old coy, winking clichés. A woman picks E.P. up on the beach and then proceeds to take over his life--and he doesn't seem to care! Dick Sargent is grueling in another sidebar, but Don Porter and Rudy Vallee (!) try hard as Elvis' two bosses (he's moonlighting, you see). Some of the songs are quite good, especially "Almost in Love", but if you want to see a looser, hipper, updated Elvis sex-comedy--look elsewhere. When Elvis and his Fatal Attraction get into bed together, there's actually a wooden board in between them! Get real. ** from ****
When I was seventeen I genuinely believed Elvis to be the king of rock and roll, and not only did I wish to see all 31 of his "character" movies, but it was my ambition to own them, too. What an exceptionally poor excuse for a seventeen-year-old I must have been. Thankfully sense prevailed and Live A Little, Love A Little is the only Elvis film I own.<br /><br />The spotlight has fallen on this one recently since a remixed version of top song A Little Less Conversation has been released as a single. (His first to reach the UK top ten in 22 years – his first UK No.1 in 25) Even when I was seventeen and in serious need of psychiatric help I realised that the songs for this movie weren't exactly first rate. However, A Little Less Conversation - rollnecks and 60s grooving aside - is a real standout. Finding a lesser-known song that only a relatively small few are aware of promoted into the mainstream produces a mixture of emotions. It's nice to finally see faith in a song vindicated, but it's also saddening to see the disintegration of your own private cult. (And what chauvinistic lyrics, too. Though what other Elvis song contains the word "procrastinate"?)<br /><br />But what really bothers me about this film is not A Little Less Conversation but the 84 minutes that surround it. Actually based on a novel (Kiss My Firm But Pliant Lips - what kind of lame novel would that be?) this one sees a bored Elvis holed up with a "comedy" dog and a nympho. Within 90 seconds of meeting him, Michele Carey asks "would you like to make love to me?" Quite a fast mover by any standards I'm sure you'll agree.<br /><br />I do seem to recall that some of Elvis's early movies - most notably Jailhouse Rock and King Creole - weren't too bad, but this is just identikit hillbilly cobblers. Being fired from a newspaper job can lead to a five minute karate fight with a couple of gingernuts, causing a motorway pile up is good for a laugh, and models dress as pink mermaids. There's even a dream sequence for God's sake. Maybe the only dumb stereotype it doesn't conform to is in not having all that many songs. With just four to choose from, including the credits number, you're waiting an average of 22 minutes between tracks. Some movies would become vapid by having too many tunes, but here they might have helped to have numbed the pain. Of the remaining three tracks, then The Edge of Reality isn't actually that bad, though Elvis's dance to it must surely have been called "The Bear Trap".<br /><br />In one sense, for a PG certificate film from 1968 then this is shockingly high on sexual content. Sadly, however, with talking dogs, Middle America sitcom values and the stiffest dancing you'll ever see, Elvis's dignity is obliterated by this movie.
LIVE A LITTLE, LOVE A LITTLE is one of Elvis' weirdest movies. Part slapstick, part fluff, part surreal and part strange. Elvis meets up with a very off-beat girl with an annoying voice. She looks like Jennifer Aniston. Story doesn't make much sense as is the case with most Elvis Presley movies, and there a bunch of odd characters galore. Not much music in this one, but what there is I liked, although none are memorable. Strange continuity. Elvis and Michelle Carey go into her beach house at night, but a few minutes later a delivery boy comes in and it's stark daylight!! What?? That's about the essence of the movie. What?? Oh, two good things about the movie: A) Elvis looks great and B) the dog steals the show.
This is easily the worst Presley vehicle ever, which would bring us pretty close to the worst film ever made. It is measurably worse than even the revolting "Happy Ending" song at the end of "It Happened At The World's Fair", and here I thought that moment when Elvis buys all of the vendor's balloons for his girl, and then the balloon vendor gets jiggy to the marching band was the epitome of bad cinema and could not be topped. I usually enjoy the random Elvis flick if for no other reason but the memories of a time when we were innocent enough to sit through it. This one, however, ought to be called "Live a Little, Wish You Were Dead a Little", and makes "Stay Away Joe" look like Olivier playing Othello.<br /><br />Here, Elvis plays Greg, who is essentially a hippie free-lance photographer except for the Establishment haircut. After a fun morning of reckless driving, he ends up at the beach where he is abducted by a woman who's name changes depending on the scene and who is speaking to her. Clearly Michele Carey was selected for her resemblance to and ability to mimic Elizabeth Taylor (if I watched this without my glasses, I would have thought it was late 1960's Liz playing the female lead). She sics her dog on Elvis until he runs into the water and catches convenient movie pneumonia, then she keeps him doped up out of consciousness in her beach pad so long he loses his job and his apartment so she moves his stuff into her house before he awakens without even telling him (the audience does not know about it either, until Elvis tries to go back to work and his boss has him beaten up for no reason except he deserved it for making this movie, and tries to go home and finds some hateful woman in a slip living in his house).<br /><br />Rather than having her arrested for kidnapping, larceny and assault, he goes out and gets two jobs to repay the back rent Miss Crazy Pants had to spring for when stealing all of his belongings. Job one is working for Don Porter at a Playboy type magazine, job two is upstairs working for Rudy Vallee at a snobby fashion magazine. I think the two-job shuffling is supposed to be the comedy, too bad it isn't the least bit funny, unless you'd laugh the 100th time you saw someone run up and down stairs in fast-motion to silly music. The predominate obstacle that keeps Greg from falling for his abductor is her other love interest, the dreadfully miscast Dick Sargent (let's face it, either Porter or Vallee, even given their advanced ages in 1968, would have made far more believable competitors for Miss Crazy's affections).<br /><br />There are a variety of uninteresting and unfunny twists and turns, I kept waiting for something, anything to happen that would make all of this make sense. It never did. Entertainment totals approximately three minutes and is comprised of Elvis' rendition of "A Little Less Talk" (which I can listen to on CD without this painful movie inflicted upon me) and a funny five second bit where Elvis flops on the couch and Crazy Pants has apparently disassembled it so it flies all to pieces when he lands on it. That's it, folks, busted furniture, the only laugh in this entire film. No amount of mod sixties clothing, music, or décor can salvage this high-heaven stinker and it should be avoided at all costs. Viewing this can create an unnatural desire on the part of the audience toward the self-infliction of grave bodily harm.
This film is really something of a curate's egg, good in parts. In contrast to other reviewers, I found that the main fault with it is its inability to draw in the viewer's interest in the characters and the plot. I sat through it because I'm interested in rock'n'roll and the dynamics of bands, but if I were to evaluate it purely on the basis of its merit as a movie, I would have to give it the thumbs down, with a few caveats: Jason Behr is good in the part of John Livien, and quite convincing as a rock singer; the narrative regarding his childhood trauma is unclear, although we are given hints in Livien's well-acted relationship to his parents, but his behaviour is ultimately bizarre to the viewer (which it shouldn't be). Nevertheless the idea of using a stage persona to solve inner conflicts is interesting, albeit not novel nor fully explored as a theme in this film. The allusions to John Lennon were irritating, but I confess I'm not a Beatles fan. At any rate, Livien and his band reminded me more of Oasis than the Beatles, in the sense that there was something derivative about them. Another frustrating thing about the movie was the way it opened up with some interesting - albeit middlebrow and high-school level - philosophical musings of the lead character, but left the threads of his thinking there, only to pick them up again in the middle of the film very briefly, when Livien says, "before God, there was music" (ever seen that ad for Tia Maria in the 1990s, "Before time, there was Tia Maria"? That's what sprung to mind anyway); it seems an idiotic conclusion, and the viewer has no idea how he reached it, but he's entitled to it. Fortunately his bassist and friend, played ably by Dominic Monaghan, seems to acknowledge the fallacy of this thinking when he responds "You don't know that".<br /><br />In all, the limited strengths of the direction and the plot could go either way on future projects, into pointless banality or into an interesting and more mature perspective.
Yet another film about a tortured self-centered, arrogant, unfeeling hateful, self-destructive lead character we are supposed to care about.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong I am very open to all kinds of off the wall movies that have as the lead character a strongly self-destructive character. What I object to about this one is that there is so little background to this guy. Why did this guy hate himself and the world? Had the script dealt with this more they might have managed to elicit some sympathy for him. As it is he just comes off as an unpleasant hateful character, not tragic, just hateful.<br /><br />After taking great pains to make this guy as crazy and anti-social as possible and making his fate as dark as possible the writer then has the nerve to make a happy ending....<br /><br />This is not the worst film I have ever seen but it is in there putting up a good fight! Man! Don't waste your time.
A great opportunity for and Indy director to make an interesting film about a rock musician on the brink of stardom. It could have been a decent film if it would have dealt with John Livien's traumatic past and how it is torturing his psyche. Instead, it is a ridiculous attempt to identify John Livien's life with John Lennon's. John Livien's suicida mother's hero was John Lennon and she wished for him to become as powerful and prolific as Lennon himself. Instead of focusing on John Lennon's musical brilliance, and his wonderful ability to bare himself for others to learn something about their own life, it showed Lennon's legacy to be that of a confused, drug addicted soul, who should looked upon as a God instead a man. I am a huge John Lennon fan and this movie reminded me of another "crazy" person obsessed with Lennon, Lennon's killer , Mark David Chapman. Lennon was a man who was brutally murdered by someone else who had an identity crisis with Lennon. Do we need to be reminded of that? John Lennon gave so much to the world with his music and honesty and I was repulsed to see another disturbed person, as the main character in this movie obsessed by Lennon, and not show his beautiful contributions to the world. Yoko Ono graciously honored John Lennon's memory,by making the memorial in Central Park to give his fans a chance to pay their respects, and remember John. Instead the director of this movie chose to use that site to have the killer attempt to commit suicide. I found this so disturbing and disrespectful to Lennon's memory. He was a man of peace who died a brutal senseless death, and to see such violence near this site felt like a revisiting a terrible wound for any Lennon fan. It ruined the movie completely for me . It could have been a decent movie, but it left me with a bitter taste in my mouth. Let John Lennon, and his family rest in peace and not be reminded of his vicious murder by this irresponsible movie.
This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I saw it at the premiere at SXSW and was extremely disappointed. The director knew little about John Lennon and even said as much at the premiere. This is a drama, but people were laughing throughout at how cheesy the film was. That's never a good sign. The only saving graces were Dominic Monaghan and Jason Leonard as Livien's roommates/bandmates. They were funny while the rest of the movie took itself waaay too seriously. The cheesy dropping of Beatles lyrics was just absurd. The soundtrack was excellent, however, and was probably the best part of the movie. Unless you're one of those crazy, rabid Dominic Monaghan fans, don't bother with this one.
First of all, I apologize for my English. <br /><br />Everybody from ex-Yugoslavia who isn't some extreme Serbian radical will agree with me. This movie, shows Serbian side, and only Serbian side. No Serbian crimes were represented. Luckily, everyone can see that this movie was made by Serbians, so there is no neutrality. All ''professionals'' who were interviewed are not professionals at all. Some guy only read a book written by some radical Serbian, the other one is genocide denier etc.etc.<br /><br />Even Slovenians were accused in this movie.And the whole war in Slovenia lasted for few days, and only because Slovenians were lucky.There weren't many Serbs in Slovenia, and YNA couldn't reach Slovenia trough Croatia (after Croatia-Serbia war started). Every Slovenian is outraged by all accusations in this movie. <br /><br />Every reasonable Croat will agree with one thing: The independence was too early. Perhaps all major conflicts could be avoided. However, mentioning WWII and some unrelated things was truly pathetic attempt to justify everything. Just imagine Japanese throwing nuclear bombs at Seattle and Washington, and saying that was justified by Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You will find no evidence about strangled YNA soldier, and murdered Serbian civilians near Vukovar. But you can find the tape with reporter committing that his claims about Serbian civilians near Vukovar were lies. All over the internet. And the director forgot to mention the whole bombing of Vukovar by YNA (now on Serbian and Montenegro side-and 100% full of Serbs and Montenegrin) And let's not start about the Chetnik movement. At the beginning, it was simply a resistance movement. But director somehow forgot to mention collaboration with the Nazis, including Ustashe, ethnic cleansing, and fighting again the Yugoslav partisans. There are thousands of other things, but all of it can be easily checked. There are many misleading things in this movie. Only few of all accusations are true. Every Croatian is outraged by this movie. <br /><br />I believe that I don't need to mention Srebrenica genocide denial, the genocide that has too many evidence. Imagine the movie about holocaust denial. This movie is the same. And according to this movie Bosnian Muslims in Sarajevo bombed themselves. Every Bosnian Muslim is outraged by this movie. <br /><br />Somehow director forgot to mention the short occupation of small piece of Macedonian (FYROM) land by the Serbs. <br /><br />Croatians, Slovenians, Bosnians, and Macedonians never entered Serbian borders. If you are not Serbian and you actually started to believe some things from this movie, know that Serbs have some kind of propaganda that Croats, Bosnian Muslims, and Macedonians are actually Serbs who made up their history. So...<br /><br />Even 50% of Serbs will say that this movie is ''little'' extreme and pro-Serbian. <br /><br />And Serbian radicals are very, very pleased with this movie (there is about 40% Serbs who vote for radicals).<br /><br />I think everyone understands my points in here. In this so called documentary is very little truth, and my advice to everyone is: Inform yourself before watching this movie. After that, you will only laugh at all pathetic accusations.<br /><br />Watch real, neutral documentaries about death of Yugoslavia.
don't watch this Serbian documentary and Serbian propaganda look out for this documentary and you will see facts and truth http://imdb.com/title/tt0283181/<br /><br />The Death of Yugoslavia documentary series (of five episodes) is a painstakingly compiled and researched account of the extended mass-bloodshed which marked the end of the old Federal Yugoslavia and spanned almost the entire first half of the 1990's. It includes a huge wealth of news footage and interviews with involved parties both "Yugoslav" and otherwise. The only real "improvement" which could be made to this amazing achievement would be the inclusion of later developments in the Balkans since the program was made. This was indeed done in the late 1990's for a repeat showing on BBC television, but the addition of some even more recent events would help to complete this admirably detailed and fulsome piece of work. Perhaps another whole episode might be warranted? The very succinct title of this documentary was made all the more appropriate by the eventual abandonment of the term "Yugoslavia" by the now-named Federal Republic of Serbia and Montenegro - a much belated and formal admission of that which occurred years before.<br /><br />not fiction like in "Yugoslavia: The Avoidable War (1999)"
Before seeing this movie, please check out reviews available on the internet regarding the movie's falsification of events, particularly its prevarications regarding the widely accepted fact that 7-8,000 Muslim men were bused out of Srebrenica and shot by Serbian paramilitaries. The documentarian also belongs to various pro-Serbian American organizations. Please watch this movie critically, and read reviews beforehand. Most reviews argue that the documentarian takes his arguments too far, even if he raises questions that target the conventional wisdom regarding the war. A review in the NYTimes by Stephen Holden states that it would be "inaccurate to label this documentary pro-Serbian," but one should question both the presentation of facts, many of which are taken from reliable sources, and the omission of those facts that inculpate Serbian forces. I do not advise against seeing this documentary, but I do caution you to examine it with an especially critical eye (as one should do at all times anyway).
When I saw this "documentary", I was disappointed to see Serbian Propaganda in action once again. Even though Serbia and its nationalist politics is main reason of Yugoslavian breakup, it is not mentioned in this "documentary", which is made by Bogdanovich whose name tells us that he is Serbian and his movie that he is far from being objective. It is one in the set of lies pushed by Milosevic regime. Everyone else is guilty only Serbians were right and victims, even though most of the War Criminals tried in Hague are Serbs, even though Serbs are one who have committed genocide against Bosnians , and attacked Slovenia, Croatia,and Bosnia all independent nations recognized by the UN.Breakup of Yugoslavia was not avoidable because Serbians did not want to release the grip their nationalism has put on Federal Yugoslav government, so SLovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, and Bosnia were forced to become independent nations in order to protect their interests.If you are interested in an objective documentary about breakup of Yugoslavia, and fact led documentary this is not it . You should watch "Yugoslavia:Death of a Nation", Made by Discovery channel and BBC.
I just want to say that this production is very one sided, breaks the impartiality needed if you want to be taken seriously. <br /><br />There are no credits of the persons they interviewed, so you cant have an idea if they are worthy of being heard.<br /><br />Tells the story from just one point of view. To do this is very dangerous, because the next generations learns the bad idea, and thats why wars keep coming. I know this is not the only reason about wars, but doesn't help either.<br /><br />you can watch this documentary, but read in the internet a lot, before. Balcans are complex as human history is.
There are no reasons of taking this documentary serious and there are four reasons for that: <br /><br />1) The people who made this documentary (including the director and the producer) are Serbs or of Serbian origin, therefore the criteria of neutrality fails. For instance, they mentioned that the diaspora Croats (the so called "Ustase") played a huge part in the fall of Yugoslavia, but they didn't mention that there were equal Serbian organizations as well (Cetniks)! For you who aren't that familiar with Balkan WW2 history: The Serbian so called "Cetniks" that were portrayed in the documentary as being so kind that they helped British paratroops during the war. Well, that's only half the truth. They were also a fascist (Monarch) group who collaborated with the Germans, but then switched side when Hitler started losing the war. It's also ironic that they don't mention the Cetnik leader Mihajlovic in the documentary, a man that is responsible for killing thousands of people and burning hundreds of villages all over Bosnia and Croatia. But they mentioned a certain Ante Pavelic...Hm...Allow me to be just a little suspicious.<br /><br />2) Most of the people interviewed are to me totally unknown. And I've studied this war for a long time (who is the old British lady!!! She really hasn't made her homework!) and they are not even presented by name, so they could More or less be anybody, maybe someone they took from the street. Who knows.<br /><br />3) In The documentary they talk about Kosovo and how the Serbs have lived there for ages, and therefore it should belong to Serbia (even though they are a minority). Well, when they mention the Serbian dominated part of Croatia (Krajina) suddenly the Serbs are portrayed as how they have the right to live there because it has been their home for so long. Fine, but what people don't know is that the largest city in Krajina (Knin) has great historical importance for the Croatian people. It was there where one of the most celebrated Kings of Croatian history (Zvonimir) was crowned, and therefore the city has a historical value for Croatia. The Serbs arrived almost 800 years or so later! But no, the Serbs should have Krajina and Kosovo according to the documentary. Is that fair? To me it looks like double standards of morality from the director. Plus, it is said in the documentary that the Croatian constitution didn't have any laws about minority rights, this is a lie because it was one of the first laws implemented BECAUSE of the fact that Croatia had a huge Serbian minority.<br /><br />4) The film mentions a radical Croatian Paramilitarian leader called Glavas. Or the Muslim radical Oric. They accused them of being a huge reason for the negative development of the war. Yes, they were radicals, but if you want to talk about radicals, why not also mention the Serbian radical paramilitary leaders such as Seselj and Arkan? The flaws are so many that I just presented a few of them, just so that people get an overview of the documentary. It looks like the people who made this documentary weren't well prepared and didn't have the guts to criticize the Serbs because they were afraid that their Serbian relatives would slap them or something. There aren't that many documentaries out there that are of good quality, but the best so far is "The death of Yugoslavia" where all the significant participants of the war are interviewed (e.g. Milosevic, Jovic, Bulatovic, Tudman, Izetbegovic, Karadzic etc.) and where you get a whole 5 hour explanation about the fall of Yugoslavia and the war.<br /><br />One other thing. I saw a comment on this documentary where the person was frustrated about why the US gave support to a country (Bosnia) that had connections with Bin Laden during the war. Well, first of all, all the countries involved in this conflict had nationalist presidents and because the Bosnian Muslims didn't have an old ethnic identity (previosly they were called "Muslim Croats") they had to rely on something else besides nationality to raise the spirit among the people, and that was by connecting them to the only thing that they had in common: Their religion. And they took help from the Mujahedin because no one else would support them. They had to fight the 4:th largest army in Europe! They needed all the help they could get. Nationalism is the best way to unite a people during war. History has shown us that.
And how it made it into production astounds me. The main character is an obnoxious show off who isn't the least bit funny. I can't stand the character at all. He's a dumb ass with nothing to offer the show. <br /><br />This is the worst cartoon to surface in the last 10 years, no joke. The story lines are both poorly written and executed. The jokes are as bad as the ones on Disney's Sweet Life of Zack and Cody. I could not dislike this show more, it's terrible and should be canceled. Even the theme song is bad. The title, even worse.<br /><br />It's as though this show is written by a couple of 15 year olds that based the character on themselves and think they're hot stuff when they're really just arrogant and lack creativity as well as humor.<br /><br />Johnny Test, go away far and fast!
This show is dull, lame, and basically rips off all sorts of various things in order to make it "original." First off: The animation is so ugly... Johnny's hideous... and everyone's annoying. The twins look like teen female Dexters from "Dexter's Lab," and Johnny is almost like a more intelligent male Dee Dee (also from "Dexter's Lab.") Secondly: The plots... are painfully lame, making them hard to follow. The gags are corny, and nothing really makes me feel compelled to laugh a little bit... especially when it tries to be funny. I only saw two episodes, but those alone turned me off.<br /><br />Third off: The whole theme song starts off by ripping off the tune to Green Day's "American Idiot." And, while I am not a big fan of that band, I find it really dumb that they would take the same opening melody, and then subtly change it, in order to make it their own.<br /><br />Case in point... it's a big fat ugly bore. 1/10
I had recently been watching Johnny Test in an attempt to find humor in it. I failed, horribly. Cartoon Network usually has a tendency to make their shows enjoyable by all audiences, but Johnny Test is "entertainment" in it's lowest form. The writing is incredibly predictable, and the running gags aren't much gags at all. Kids will love it, and that's about it.<br /><br />Now, this isn't to say that it's all bad. The original opening theme was actually pretty catchy, but for some reason they took the skeleton of it and figuratively smashed it with a figurative aluminum bat. It's a shame, because that was really one of the best things it had going for it.<br /><br />Some of the characters could be very interesting, in theory. With a little work, the characters could work well together, but they're too one-dimensional. Then again, this makes it easy for the kids to follow. <br /><br />The pace is a bit too fast as well. The episodes are too busy, leaving little time for clever writing. This is a real shame, because there are so many interesting concepts that the show brings forth. On the upside, however, the fast pace will stop the kids from losing interest, and that's really the entirety of the target audience.<br /><br />Overall, the show looks very good on paper, but just doesn't succeed in being funny or interesting. This is a show I want to like, but I'm incapable of it. There's just so much potential that isn't realized. Kids will enjoy it, but that's about it.
I want so badly to give this piece of GARBAGE a zero, unfortunately, there isn't, so, I had to give it a 1 just to warn you about how stupidly terrible this imposter of a familiar cartoon really is! The characters look like they were drawn by pre-schoolers, no, wait, I've seen pre-schoolers do better! I prefer "Misadventures of Flapjack" to this terrible excuse for a cartoon! I'm probably saying what others have said, two words: RIP OFF!! Remember that episode of Dexter's Lab when they raced go-karts down that volcano? yeah, Mister Fellows even cashed in on that idea and failed! They even ripped off Shadow Lugia in that one episode that parodied Pokemon!(he even cashed in on that franchise!) That one character is a cheap rip off of Mandark from Dexter's Lab! Mister Fellows needs to be sued for statutory infringement for this piece of crap!! Everyone has their own opinion, but those of you who like Johnny (RIP-OFF) Test, your'e just lying to yourselves. Do yourself a favor, change the channel when this rip off tries to disgrace your screen!
As you can guess by my rating and my title of this review that I don't like Johnny Test. Now I think I know what people are going to say, " How do you know how bad it is? Have you ever watched it?", I did watch this show a couple times because I am studying film and animation and this just doesn't hold a candle to my standards.<br /><br />I want to first talk about the animation because it is one of the most confusing things I have ever seen. Like the first two seasons or only first season had hand drawn animation. I thought it was a nice show to look at when it was hand drawn but then it switched to flash animation and the quality went down by a huge amount.<br /><br />So that is one strike in my eyes but lets look at the story of the show. It tries way too hard to be like Dexter's lab but there are differences because instead of one red headed scientist there is two and they are both female. There is a talking dog(why?), and the parents attitudes are switched somewhat. I have others but I don't think I can write them here ( I don't mean cursing but I mean I don't know if there is a limit for words.). Everything else though is spot on, even a DeeDee character Johnny himself. It just tries so hard to be Dexter but it just seems to me like a heartless knockoff.<br /><br />Lastly I want to talk about the jokes. Remember in Dexters lab some of the jokes involved yelling? Yes, yelling can be good for a joke or two but Dexter's lab also had sly remarks that made me have to go back and check to get the joke. Johnny Test just forgets all that and just yells 50% of the time and stops the music whenever a stupid joke or one liner appears. That isn't comedy, thats stupid comedy (I know what some people are thinking. Isn't three stooges stupid comedy? Watch that and Johnny Test back to back and you laugh more at the first option.). Sometimes the jokes are based on bizarre situations which, like Chowder, makes me mad. I have a rule for cartoons and comedies all together: To much bizarre doesn't equal comedy, it makes you just think "what am I watching?".<br /><br />So it strikes out on all accounts. Don't watch this show if you have any respect for comedy in anyway, shape, or form.
This show is possibly the biggest, ugliest, most generic steam pile I've seen in children's programming that's actually become successful. The lead character, Johnny, while I understand he's supposed to represent an ordinary kid, isn't likable or even tolerable. The jokes are lame, overdone (i.e. the "Whoa! Didn't see that coming" gag. Come on, that wasn't even funny the first time. It's not even cute) and lack any form of primitive wit or inspiration. And lastly... it's just plain ugly to look at. While kids aren't especially critical of artistic talent, they still prefer eye candy. I can't stand watching the show, because in a way, the art style is just...gross. Hideous, in fact. Just plain crummy. <br /><br />I just can't stand that this is getting so much airtime. While I understand that nostalgia can be a little irrational and I shouldn't be getting my hopes up on it coming back... I really miss the old cartoons. Bring back Dexter's Laboratory, The Powerpuff Girls... anything but this crap. I guess it's just wishful thinking though.<br /><br />Simply put, I advise you don't waste your time on this show. I believe that truly good cartoons are able to be enjoyed by the big kids, too. And this doesn't cut it.
I really hate this show! I had watched one episode, and I knew this show is really terrible. The story lines are both poorly written and executed and the jokes are really bad...I mean it is just a sh++ty rip-off of Dexter's Laboratory and Johnny Quest, 'bout an obnoxious boy with flamed blond hair with his twin genius sisters and talking dog; a stay-at-home dad and a smart, super-busy mom...Like oh-my-flippin'-God! Their dad is a mother-f**kin' crazy home-maker, isn't that so gay! If my dad is a home-maker, I would personally die! Of shame that is...Really I would.<br /><br />I have nothing else to about this...this travesty but only 3 word; count them 3 words to describe it:<br /><br />· Lame, · Stupid, and above all... · F**K UP! That's all I could say folks, it is definitely making my list of worst animated series EV-ER! If I had one that is.
My brother is in love with this show, let's get this straight. I completely agree with the people who said it was copying off of Dexter's Lab and Fairly Odd Parents. <br /><br />I've never really liked fairly odd parents, I mean, some things did make me laugh, but most of the time it's downright annoying and not cute at all. This is almost the same way I feel about Johnny Test. Except, NOTHING makes me laugh on that show. The gags are so stupid and pointless, and to tell you the truth, maybe it's just me, but kids don't DRESS like that! Yes, I do think Johnny's hair is awesome, but c'Mon!<br /><br />And Dexter's Lab, that used to be one of my favorite shows and I still don't mind watching it. Which makes me disgusted and ashamed of Johnny Test making an absolute JOKE out of that wonderful show!<br /><br />One more thing. The. Dog. Is. So. Annoying. He is more loud and obnoxious than Johnny! And the gay accent? What the fudge! I hate the dog to death and I hope he dies, because that would be better for kids to see than listening and watching the obnoxious crap that goes on in that show, and picking up a gay accent.<br /><br />Unless you want you eyeballs to burn into miraculous flames and your brain fried from this show, don't watch it!
Cartoon Network seems to be desperate for ratings. Beginning with the cancellation of Samurai Jack, the network seemed hellbent on removing all the shows that made it so popular, such as the Powerpuff Girls, Dexter's Lab, Dragonball Z, etc. When the ratings started to plummet, CN began putting up some pretty mediocre shows. Though Total Drama Island/Action and Chowder stand out because of their clever writing and audience-pleasing gimmicks, there are plenty of other shows that either terrible remakes (George of the Jungle) or rip offs of other shows, such as The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack, where the title character acts just like Spongebob, and then there's Johnny Test, which is something of a replacement for Dexter's Laboratory, though it's much more of a sheer rip off than anything.<br /><br />The show's characters are clearly derived from Dexter's Lab, only this time the focus is on Johnny, a blonde (or fiery-haired) character who torments his twin sisters, Susan and Mary, who just HAPPEN to look just like Dexter, from the orange hair, to the glasses, the impossible technology. There is even a rival genius named Bling Bling Boy or Eugene, who appears to be sitting in for Mandark. Then there's Dookie, Johnny's best friend and talking dog, one of Dexter's...I mean, Susan and Mary's early experiments.<br /><br />Dexter's Laboratory was probably one of the best cartoons on television, with its simple, but effective art style, lovable main character, and episodes that don't seem to be a long drag. Johnny Test is a lot different. The art style here isn't nearly as eye-pleasing. In fact, it looks absolutely awful. The characters have motivations that make them really annoying or repulsive. Like how most of the series' episodes consist Johnny and Dookie's quest for havoc on the neighborhood girl Sissy, whom Johnny secretly likes, or the twins' obsession over a boy next door. Seeing these two geniuses swoon at the sight of abs and the fact that Johnny appears to be someone you would NEVER want to associate with, there is no real connection between the viewer and characters.<br /><br />One thing the series heavily exploits in its name is that Johnny is Susan and Mary's guinea pig for their experiments. These range from turning Johnny fat, ugly, monstrous, and even into a woman. The twins then help Johnny in whatever scheme he's planning in return for his services. Whenever there's an episode involving this kind of "win/win" deal, it usually comes undone at the seems and those that doesn't come completely off the rails never ends satisfyingly.<br /><br />The writing ranges from mediocre to horrid, however. The 'fat' episode constantly repeats "It's Phat with a PH. There's a difference, you know." which is a line that should never be repeated, especially when the episode seems to PROMOTE child obesity, with Johnny becoming a famous star with money and videogames just by becoming fat.<br /><br />Let's talk about how the show doesn't completely rip off Dexter's Lab. The show tosses in a lot of characters, from two Men-in-Black named Mr. Black and Mr. White, a military general who seems to need all his problems solved through Johnny and his sisters, and LOTS of super villains, though even here, the show again steals ideas for other sources, like a Mr. Freeze teenage clone, an evil cat with a butler who wants cats to rule over man (like the evil talking cat from Powerpuff Girls), a bumbling maniac mastermind, a trio of evil skater 'dudes' and even a Mole Man, which is probably the most cliché villain in the media.<br /><br />To top it all off, alongside its ugly animation and unlikeable characters, the voice acting is either passable (like the voices for Mr. Black and Mr. White) to just plain ear-splitting (Johnny, Dookie, and just about every villain in the show). The theme song seems to be the only catchy thing to this show, but then it was redone just a few episodes with a band that just ruined it.<br /><br />So in the end, Johnny Test is not a good cartoon. Its horrible references and jokes about teen culture will dismantle little children's interest in the show, while its bright coloring, ripped-off characters, and dragging episodes will ruin the experience for teens. It's just another one of those crappy shows that Cartoon Network is over-promoting to trick people to watching it (like MTV toward rap). If you need a show that will satisfy your children for a half hour, you'd better stick to Spongebob, because Johnny Test is more of a "test" of patience than anything else.
Oh dear! The first time I heard of this bad show was when one of my friends was yelling like an idiot "JOHNY TEST" while we were playing video games. I thought he was confusing "Johny Quest" (by the way, one of the best cartoons I've ever seen in my life", and changing the "Quest" with "Test". Its something weird that I'm wrong, but actually I was wrong, he wasn't changing nothing, he heard of this show.<br /><br />One day, while watching TV, I heard that Cartoon Network was going to be released. I wasn't sure of what was the plot of this show, so I adventured myself to watch it, and here is my answer "I WANT MY DAMN HOUR BACK" (Because I watched this crap and "My Gym Partner's a Monkey".<br /><br />This is one of the worst shows I've ever seen. First, the beginning, with the most stupid song in the world, then the plot. Oh, where are my manners? I haven't said the plot of this show. Is about a boy who has to AMAZINGLY INTELLIGENT sisters, that have a lab and make experiments with their own brother. OHHH, now I see why his name is Johny TEST, he is the test of his sisters experiments.<br /><br />You know, I honestly miss Dexter's Lab (before it was transformed to the NEW Dexter, a total crap too). This is a bad copy of that old good show, except that this show is amazingly bad. Don't watch it, make something more productive in that half-hour than watch this crap.
OMG this was the most painful experience of my life watching this. I could even finish it what is happening to Nick. Their best thing on teen Nick is Drake and Josh and thats about to go off air. The kids songs are kinda of annoying and the so are the kids. My little sister wanted to watch the show because she likes anything that comes on Disney or nick usually but after finish watching this show she said " one of the worst shows that I have ever saw so boring." My little brother actually fell asleep I envy him. In short if your 3yrs old with no brain activity you'll enjoy this show otherwise change the channel now.
That's right, you heard me this movie is a freaking' ABOMINATION. First off, the band, who the hell is going to go see or listen to a band called "THE NAKED BROTHERS BAND"?!?! Not only is the name terrible but so are the musicians, they can't even play anything! Also, the lead singer sounds more girly than Geddy Lee, and even more his voice is horrible! Not only are they terrible musicians but they're terrible actors. Led by a crappy director and thin plot, this has got to be the dumbest movie ever. I wish this website would let you use a vote of ZERO OR BELOW out of 10, because giving this filth a 1/10 is being WAY too generous.<br /><br />I'm not sure that you can call this a comedy film. If you're looking for comedy with music, go to that "Weird Al" Yankovic guy 'cause he does it a whole lot better than these untalented tweens.
My favorite memory of this show and the band was when I got together with a bunch of my friends which are NBB haters and had a big bonfire and we took a CD of their songs and the DVD of the movie and a bunch of pictures of the band members and threw them into the fire and danced a happy jig around the burning stuff while singing "Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead". That was the best thing about the show and this show is stupid with a capitol God this show sucks. I hate it so much. Get rid of the crappy car. You guys really suck! You really ruined the whole channel! No offence or anything but you guys need to get a life, I mean, really, who makes a stupid show with a stupid lead singer that can't even sing! You guys really sound horrible and need to get a life as hobos or something, except Roselina. She's really pretty. But still, you guys reak!
A very bad attempt at a young spinal tap. At least the music in spinal tap was good.<br /><br />This is really a very sad case of Hollywood nepotism at it's worst. A bunch of Hollywood execs, bad musicians and producers create some "poopie" show so their kids can be in the spotlight. Oh please!!! The potty humor was even bad. I hate this stuff when there is really incredibly talented kids (musicians, actors and artists) out there busting their butts to have success and this crap comes along.<br /><br />Help u all!!!! Why wasn't Gene Simmons in it??? Ameriac's taste in entertainment is going down the toilet.
"Show me your boobies!" is not funny, and certainly not on a channel that shows cartoons if you understand where I'm coming from. I don't want my 6 and 7 years old daughters thinking like that or hearing that. I find it sad that Nick hyped this crap THAT much and then that's what we get, stupid little kids acting like stupid adults. I know it's meant to be humorous but consider we out there that have sweet little innocent girls in K and 1st Grade who can't wait to see this. I had to comment on how disappointed I was when I saw it. My daughters won't be watching it. I'd love to block Nick but don't have the heart at this point but if Nick keeps putting out this kind of crap I'll have to.
I hate this movie. I hate the show. i hate just about everything about it. it's so annoying and stupid. everyone's saying that nat and alex wolff are heroes in the music world and that they're going to make it big. WHAT KIND OF DRUGS ARE YOU TAKING???!!!?!?!?!?! nat and alex are going to end up as either hobos or end up like Jane Hudson from "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?". i could only get through not even 20 minutes of this one, barely 30 seconds of the show, and i managed to survive about half an hour of 'Battle of the Bands'. How anyone could cheer for these guys in the audience at the Kid's Choice Awards, i have no clue. days before the movie premiere on Nick, most of the teen girl actresses on Nick (Jamie Spears, Emma Roberts, Lindsey Shaw, etc.) showed up in a commercial influencing brain-dead kids about how awesome nat and alex wolff are. first off, they didn;t trick me, and second of all, nat and alex probably either drugged them or payed them loads of money in order to say that and sound convincing, because i don't see how anyone could find this show/movie entertaining. the music is just awful. nat's singing sounds like a sick, dying moose on crack. alex is the most annoying movie/TV show character EVER. he's not funny, he's annoying, he's really weird, and he thinks he's hot and knows everything about girls. this guy's lucky if he ever manages to get laid. you know this show is fake when you find out that some of the characters (in real life) don't even exist!! the character Jesse is actually played by Nat and Alex's cousin jesse Draper (they mustve had some budget problem). Their father is not single, he's married to Polly Draper, but she doesn't appear on the show, making it seem the Wolff's are mom-less. Rosalina doesn't exist either. Her name is Allie DiMeco. I'll tell ya, the Naked Brothers are gonna be in some deep sh** when their "fans" find out the whole thing is staged. 0/10
It's terrible how some people can get away with such things... This is one of those overrated things again... And I hate things that are overrated that are no good... Why can't we have more TV Shows and Movies that actually have a story and excellent music and that are well written and are actually about something?? It takes many people to make this movie, the series, and the band, all possible, and those people are all wasting their time... It seems that the bands are getting younger and younger... I looked at how small that they were, and I thought that they were 5 or 6. It's sad that kids are performing that young... They are still too young... Performing takes a lot of work, and they have many other things that they need to do with their lives... The idea about having a very young band is horrible... They need to stop having bands like this... And I don't like the idea at all, nor the kids themselves... They are very annoying, very young, and their name is "The Naked Brothers Band" The people that are involved in this, and the people that are supporting this have all lost their minds... Whenever this band is shown on TV, change the channel, and petition to get it banned...<br /><br />And I know that this is a very boring comment thing, but you get the point...<br /><br />This Band Sucks... Get Rid Of It...
I totally hated the movie. It was so retarded. They need to get some acting lessons....no, wait, that won't help because the Naked Brothers Band people a retards. You know why I am here even though I am a Naked Brothers Band hater? To warn people before they watch the dumb movie so that the NBB doesn't get any money from it so then they can't make any more amateur stupid songs that are so retarded that any old guy could go and write it in 10 seconds. Not only are the song lyrics retarded, they sing badly. Okay, I'm kinda getting off the movie here.....anyways, it was boring and they acted horribly. It was NOT funny at all even though they tried really hard for it to be. I guess they deserve some credit for that...well, the movie isn't worth your time. Just look at its rating. The movie (and the series) is very painful to watch for anyone who has even half a brain. Seriously, if you liked it, you need to go watch movies where the actors actually act, not babbling their lines in a monotone. I am on the drama club at my school and some people there are actually BETTER than those Nat and Alex guys. Hurry before it's too late! I seriously thought that Herbie Fully Loaded was better than this piece of poopie. I don't even know why I went through even HALF of that film. I don't think it even deserves to be called a film...
wow, the Naked Brothers Band. What should i say. I guess i can say this show just sucks. number one: they have no talent, they probably can't even play the instruments. number 2: on the commercial it said they were famous but nobody even heard of them till there crappy show came on. Look, i really don't hate it that bad, i'd give it like a 4 out of 10, but what annoys me is how everyone says they have such great talent and Nat is SO deep and writes deep lyrics. Deep my ass! he talks about hardcore wrestlers with inner feelings. wow, i could read what it says on the walls of a bathroom and it would be more deep than that. And they didn't get famous by themselves, their parents are famous celebrities and wanted their kids to be too so they made up a bad show. i have a feeling that it will be canceled soon.
I mean seriously what group would sing about a crazy car? So what if their ten, It's way too immature for a little kid to sing about "being my women" I mean seriously! The name is pretty corny too, naked brothers? just because they take off their pants??? HOW CREATIVE.I don't get why they need a TV show I mean most artist don't really need a TV show about themselves, especially the naked brothers band. Heck how many of them are in the freaking group. And seriously whats with the movie? Jeez Nick use to be the hightlight of my years growing up but seriously The naked brother band? SO many parents would not let their kids watch this especially with the name the Naked Brother's band, its a stupid, uncreative show that should not be aired onto TV.
Okay I saw the sneak preview of this stupid movie. First off the movie is so posed and not real, they are all acting. They can't sing. They are way too full of themselves. Its awful. Yes kids like 8 to 10 might enjoy but its really stupid. I mean they say their manager is a kid. And there record label is fake. Its stupid. Don't see it.<br /><br />As for the set up and directing, not so bad. It is a cute documentary but it documents a stupid thing. <br /><br />Only see this if you don't really like good music. Also, it's very corny. It's not even tasteful. I hate to be so mean...but this really is a piece of junk.
I know the people and I did some of the animation and graphic design and the show is horrible! They are rich little kids who don't have any talent, and probably just begged Nick to accept them! Alex has played the drums for one yearm, I've played for 4 1/2! The movie is terrible and so is the show! This is the craziest most mixed up comedy that even isint funny I've ever seen. It is so stupid it makes me want to barf!!! It is just so crazy that Nickelodeon would ever accept something like this and so dumb! They are sooo stupid and weird! I hate them and their show and think once Nick realizes how stupid it is they will most hopefully take it off!
I have watched this movie a few times and never really thought it was that funny, but it's still fun to watch and good for a few laughs.<br /><br />Its about women that work at a company and their boss is a jerk and they end up giving him a taste of his own medicine, and try to get the respect they deserve.<br /><br />The acting is really good. Dabney Coleman is one of those 80's stars that plays a good bad guy, not really evil, just unlikeable. Dolly Partin is lovable and fun to watch in comedies and her down south wit really shines here. Jane Fonda is so-so and does little for me. Lily Tomlin is the best thing about this movie, she has the funniest lines and made me laugh out loud several times, gotta love her.<br /><br />I could recommend this to anyone that likes 80's comedy. I like the movie but it has things about it that I don't like. It starts off great and has a nice flow and then everything starts coming together all at once and made me care less about the characters. They all have little fantasies about what they would like to do the boss and although 'cute' I just thought it slowed down the flow of the movie. As the movie goes on it once again picks up and the funniest things happen and then once again it slows down, only to wrap up in a quick manner thats too good to be true.<br /><br />4 out of 10 stars, but give it a try if you haven't seen it. I think depending on ones mood it may be more or less likable.
I was interested in the title and description of Big Rig while attending the SXSW Film Festival in Austin, TX. However, I was eager to get the heck out of the seats as soon as Big Rig ended. Big Rig is comprised of several "big rig" drivers who set out to deliver goods driven across the United States. The characters are all wonderful people, however the filmmakers never dug deep into the complexity of them as people. Instead, the story meanders as much as the maps in the film are meant to guide, but never do. At most, we get lost. We - the audience - end up going nowhere and, like the direction of the storytelling, end up somewhere but without direction, location, or plot. Why are we here? Where are we? How did we get here? The storytelling is sloppy and the directors' intent on "humanizing" a group of people who they regard as "overlooked" and "invisible" comes across as unconsciously and irritatingly condescending. The problem here here lies in the perspective of the directors instead of the truck drivers. The directors bring their own naive assumptions about truckers forward and then simply edit the film to confirm those assumptions. Overall, the story lacks any tension, the film is entirely too long (should have been a 15 min sketch), the big question of "So what" is never answered, and the entire film is one piece of see-through propaganda that does nothing to further "enlighten" (as the directors claim) the outside world about big riggers.
This is exactly the type of film that frustrates me the most. Great cast, great director, great story potential, then they ruin it all with a screenplay that goes nowhere...and says nothing while going there! There is no depth here whatsoever. No depth of characters, no depth of plot, no depth of surprise, suspense, or common sense. We know what's happening, we are told how they plan to fix the problem, they fix the problem, throw a surprise at us near the end that fails to generate any suspense, then they end the film abruptly. Wasted opportunity.<br /><br />On the plus side, Glenn Ford leads a cast of UK (and one French) actors who are all fantastic, doing an incredibly impressive job with the one-dimensional writing they were given. One of the absolute favorites is Herbert Walton as "Old Charlie", who provides some wonderful bits of humor and warmth to a dark and serious film. I also thought the film had a great look to it...all shadows and fog...very film noir in feel.<br /><br />Even though the actors do the best they can and the directing is enjoyable, it still just isn't enough for me to recommend spending the time to view the film. There are far better Glenn Ford movies out there: The Big Heat, Gilda, Affair in Trinidad, etc.
When I first saw this movie, it was titled TERROR ON A TRAIN and was the back half of a double feature. Glenn Ford, an armament expert is called on to defuse a hidden bomb on a train loaded with high explosives. The tension is slow and steady; and this black & white film runs only about an hour and twelve minutes. All these years later on TV; the tension and drama has lost most of its impact. This is still a good movie as far as early 50s standards go.<br /><br />Along with Ford are Anne Vernon and Maurice Denham. The villain/saboteur is played by Victor Maddern.
A real blow-up of the film literally. This British film is boringly made.<br /><br />What an exciting plot! A terrorist places bombs on a train. How could the writers and producers of this stinker turn this into such a dull story?<br /><br />Glenn Ford, as the expert called upon to defuse the bomb, is given awful writing material to work with. Naturally, just as he is called in, his wife, Anne Vernon, is about to leave him. No wonder we never heard of Miss Vernon. After such a film, it would be enough to end her career.<br /><br />That elderly man who loved trains and interferes is our 1953 version of senile dementia. I thought it was highly insulting to show this man, even at the end.
This British film is truly awful, and it's hard to believe that Glenn Ford is in it, although he pretty much sleepwalks through it. The idea of a bomb on a train sounds good...but it turns out this train ends up parked for the majority of the film! No action, no movement, just a static train. The area where the train is parked is evacuated, so it's not like there's any danger to anyone either. In fact, this film could be used in a film class to show how NOT to make a suspense film. True suspense is generated by letting the audience know things that the characters don't, a fact apparently unknown to the director. SPOILER: the train actually has two bombs on it, but we are led to believe there is only one. After the first bomb is defused, it feels as if there is no longer a reason to watch the film any more. But at the last minute, the villain, who has no apparent motivation for his actions, reveals there are two. Nor are we certain WHEN the bombs will go off, so we don't even have a classic "ticking bomb" tension sequence. A good 10 minutes or more are spent watching Glenn Ford's French wife thinking about leaving him, and then wondering where he is . She's such an annoying character that we don't care whether she reconciles with him, so when she does, there's nothing emotional about it. Most of the other characters are fairly devoid of personality, and none have any problems or issues. It's only 72 minutes, but it feels long because it's tedious and dull. Don't waste your time.
Truly awful film made by cinematographer-turned-director Ted Tetzlaff. Decent enough looking film but for a time-bomb movie totally devoid of any tension whatsoever. Ford, as someone put it here, sleepwalks though this one with his characteristic smirk. There are some details thrown around- Canadian ex-army or RAF, defused bombs in the war, his wife is leaving him- but none of these back stories add up to much. The bomber himself is a complete mystery. Why is he trying to blow up this shipment of mines? For that matter, what time period are we talking about here? WWII or postwar?? I assumed the latter which makes bomber's motive even more salient. Generally, though, just a horrible film. There are plenty of good time-bomb flicks to skip this one. Watch any episode of "Danger UXB" for a more exciting time, at about the same running time.
Letting the class watch this in English was a bad idea. Films that are serious and more educational can have an effect, but it appears this one didn't have any effect whatsoever on the class - whenever the teacher left, conversations quickly started - and I didn't hear the words "Shakespeare" or "Tempest" being used at all. And when you look at this, it is easy to see why. The acting is nothing special - everyone seems bored to bits, just reading from the page without a care in the world. Shakespeare always did prefer expository dialogue to action and death, but I just couldn't understand a word anyone was saying. The costumes aren't too bad and neither are the special effects - the class may not have loved the film, but they weren't exactly taking the p*ss either. But it is hard to joke at a film that is devoid of any sort of inspiration or joy. The scenes on the ship at the start of the film weren't too badly done - though the rain looked a bit unrealistic, everything else was done well and good. But where were the severed heads and exploding masts? Where was the death? Where was the inspiration? The character of Ariel would have been taken a lot more seriously had he been wearing clothes - but as all was on show, he was just another excuse for a joke. This film is not in any way appealing to either sex. The women and girls won't have any romance or comedy to enjoy, and there is an abundance of naked men and lack of action or death that will put most men and boys off. The Tempest wasn't badly done, but this felt like something the producers HAD to make, not something they wanted to make. And the general boredom and lack of inspiration show. 3/10
SPOILERS (ALTHOUGH NONE THAT AREN'T REVEALED IN THE FIRST TWO MINUTES OF THE MOVIE)<br /><br />Robin Williams is actually quite good in this as the friendly, lonely, emotionally stunted loser Sy. He makes a very human, even sympathetic psycho, and really disappears into the character--no small feat for such a recognizable performer. <br /><br />Too bad the rest of the movie is such a waste. The supporting performances (and performers) wouldn't look out of place in a soft-core porno (it doesn't help that every character but Sy is made of 100% cardboard). At times, the director actually seems to be trying to frustrate suspense: we know from the very first moments a) that Sy is a complete whack-job, b) that he survives, and c) that he gets nabbed by the cops at the end. So all we're left to ponder is the hows and the whys, and the answers provided aren't all that interesting.<br /><br />The plot is plodding and contrived, and features some nonsensical moments (for instance, the husband berates his wife for her expensive tastes, even though she seems to spend all her free time at the local discount superstore). About two thirds of the way through, Sy does something so irredeemably stupid that it makes one wonder how much he actually cares about his grand revenge scheme. And the final clichéd explanation of his psychosis, right out of `Peeping Tom,' is a terrible copout.<br /><br />The dialogue is of the absolute worst sort. It's not overwritten, or awkward, or unbelievable, or bad in any other way that could be considered fun, even for bad-movie lovers. Instead, every line is purely, hideously functional--it's as if the director handed a plot outline to a newspaper copywriter and said, `Hey, I need a workable script on this--in an hour.' It made me want to scream, honestly.<br /><br />This movie seems to be a throwback to the suburban beware-the-help thrillers of the eighties and nineties (`The Hand That Rocks the Cradle,' e.g.), and while it's certainly unpleasant, it's never really scary. Sy's fetishism occasionally makes you feel uncomfortable, but on its own that's not enough to make the film work. In the end, lack of craftsmanship from everyone involved, except Robin Williams, sinks this one. 3 out of 10.
There were good performances by Robin Williams and others but the movie was dull overall and very disappointing compared to the positive reviews.<br /><br />I thought Sy might become a serial killer who bores people to death: a forlorn guy in ugly clothes trails his victims around food courts, quoting Oprah and reciting his medical history until they beg him to shoot them.<br /><br />I think the movie mostly appeals to egomaniacs who think strangers are interested in their photos. I expect most retail workers want a break from the customers.
Up until the last few minutes of the movie, I would have given the movie a score of 7 or 8 stars. However, the ending is so terrible and "Hollywoodized" that it completely undermines the first 80% of the movie.<br /><br />The plot revolves around a submarine and the possibility that they received an order to fire their nuclear missiles. The Captain, Gene Hackman, is all for launching, while his first officer, Denzel Washington, is in favor of confirming the launch orders first. The problem is, to launch BOTH the captain and 1st officer must simultaneously use their launch keys. Hackman is determined to launch and Washington stands firm until eventually this results in armed insurrection aboard the sub. Eventually, the mistake is discovered and the missiles are not launched. Cool. However, here comes the part that just doesn't ring true. After they are back on land and go before a review board, Washington and Hackman (who'd just spent half the movie trying to kill each other) shake hands and are all buddy buddy! Huh?! Too trite an ending to make the movie worth while for me.
This movie is an insult to ALL submariners. It was stupid. It appeared to have been written by monkeys. The acting was absurd. If this is the view most people have of the Navy, then I weep for our defense. This movie was awful. I put it below "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" as far as submarine movies go. Gene Hackman must have really needed rent money to do this crap. Denzel Washington must have been high. Little in the plot makes any sense. And the ending. For a mutineer to be rewarded for his crime? Only Hollywood would think of this garbage. If you haven't figured it out yet, I didn't like it. And if it wasn't for all the pro comments, I would not have bothered to post.
As a former submariner, this was one of the worst submarine movies I have ever seen. First of all, a mutiny aboard any US Naval vessel, particularly a Nuclear Powered Trident submarine in unthinkable. These men are the best of the best and are dedicated to their mission. The responsibility they carry is awesome and they take it very seriously all the way from the Captain to the most junior crew member. I could never see a crew of any ship split their alliance between the Captain and the Executive Officer. An Executive Officer who acted as the Character played by Denzel Washington did would be relieved of his duties and Court Martialed, then drummed from the Navy. It is no surprise the Navy refused to send a technical adviser to help in making this film. Lastly, if any member of a submarine crew made the amount of noise made underway on this vessel they would be severely reprimanded. Submariners learn early in their career to be as quiet as possible to avoid detection. They don't slam doors and even speak quietly and wear soft soled shoes when underway. I was amazed at how loud they portrayed the crew while underway. Loud music would never be tolerated. I know portraying submarine life in reality would not sell movie tickets, but this is over the top to the point of being ridiculous. I would not recommend this movie to anyone.
Yep, lots of shouting, screaming, cheering, arguing, celebrating, fist clinching, high fiving & fighting. You have a general idea as to why, but can never be 100% certain. A naval knowledge would be an advantage for the finer points, but then you'd probably spot the many flaws. Not an awful film & Hackman & Washington are their usual brilliant, but the plot was one you could peg pretty early on. I'm still waiting to see a submarine film where people get on with each other & don't argue, but then you probably wouldn't have a film.<br /><br />4/10
We laughed our heads off. This script is so incredible you either zap to CNN or go to sleep.<br /><br />My dad was a sea captain for 30 years, he could not believe his eyes when he saw the movie.<br /><br />During his experience as an officer he once claimed command over the ship, the captain drunk 3 bottles of whiskey/daily and (sorry) s**t on his desk. Of course this was not on a nuclear mission.<br /><br />For instance, the fire in the kitchen, fire is the most important thing on any ship, nuclear or not. To give a drill at that time is just Hollywood script. When a captain is put under arrest, he IS under arrest, you take all his keys and open the safe where the guns are kept. This is stored within minutes in a well guarded room. He CANNOT escape, it's just like in prison.<br /><br />Funny thing is, my dad also had a dog on board, however, we see how Hackman let him pee in the control room. This is not done, ever. My dad cleaned all the mess the dog made wherever he was.<br /><br />Hackman and Washington make the three stars this movie is credited for, all the rest is bulls**t.<br /><br />When we do know that 23 people were still alive on the Koersk, this film gets an extra dimension.<br /><br />If you want to see a real thriller about a submarine rent: Thas Boat.<br /><br />
If asked how I would define the word " Shallow " I would reply " Watch a Jerry Bruckheimer production " . If asked how I would define the phrase " Wasted potential " I would reply " Watch a Jerry Bruckheimer production " . Bruckheimer productions are nearly always sure fire hits at the box office but nearly always receive critical pannings from the critics . Off the top of my head I can only think of AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN and BLACK HAWK DOWN getting a lot of critical acclaim . <br /><br />CRIMSON TIDE too received some begrudging acclaim from critics , it`s certainly one of Bruckheimer`s better films which alas isn`t saying much . The problem I had is the scenario that sets up the story : The Russians are fighting the Chechens and the conflict spreads through the whole of Russia leading to an ultra nationalist Russian to take over a nuclear missile base and threaten the West if they interfere . Maybe the ending of the cold war had everything to do with it but I found this set up very unconvincing . It`s not helped by some errors in geography like the French carrier Foch being in the Med ( Wouldn`t the Foch be better positioned in the black sea ? ) or that the expositional newsreel consists of familar footage featuring conflicts from the Balkans , the first gulf war and even Vietnam . Once again the adjective " Very unconvincing " crept into my mind . The story does improve somewhat when the story proper - A battle of wills concerning orders between a nuclear submarine commander and his number two - gets underway . Director Tony Scott does his best as do the cast , but the problem still lies in an unconvincing scenario . The worst thing is that if this had been made in the mid 1980s when WW3 was a real possibility - Nay probability - this film would have terrified me , but after the cold war ended so had the dangers of nuclear war which means CRIMSON TIDE has little impact .
What an appalling film. Don't get me wrong, Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington are good actors, but aside from a few interesting set pieces, the film is mostly taken up with hysterical submariners shouting, crying, sweating and generally freaking out when anything goes wrong.<br /><br />Take that with simplistic asides to make sure the audience still understand what's going on (the scene where Denzel Washington explains to a radio repairman how he must be like Scotty in Star Trek is nothing more than a joke) and you have a dumbed down thriller not worthy of the acting.<br /><br />Let us just hope that the real nuclear US Navy is not in the hands of such a script!<br /><br />
This movie had some andrenaline kickers, but it's an old story that simply could never happen. Navy protocols could never break down that much that a crew much less an XO could ever go that far against the Captain. I'll take Dr. Strangelove any day if I wish to see this plot. Sidenote--the US Navy did not support this film.
What a load of Leftist Hollywood bilge. This movie glorifies mutiny as brave and noble if it be for pacifist principles. The fairytale ends with the pacifist character, played by Danzel Washington, actually getting promoted for his treason. What is it with these Hollywood tools? Is this still payback for McCarthyism?<br /><br />If I sound cynical it's because I am fed up with movies hawking a political agenda. The military brass in this movie are portrayed as, what else? Gung-ho war mongers. Sound familiar? Ever see a movie where the CIA or any government agency is not evil? Think about it. Yet again, Crimson Tide stresses the point. The Hackman character, U-boat captain Ramsey, comes across like a raving lunatic, until the very end when, of course he comes to his senses, does a complete 360, renounces his blood lust, suggests a promotion for the treasonous Ron Hunter, and repents by retiring from the service. A guy mutinies, takes command of your boat, puts the U.S at grave risk of receiving a nuclear first-strike, and you promote him???? What hogwash!
Edwin Porter's 1903 short film entitled "The Great Train Robbery" bursts onto the screen with so much excitement and ingenuity that one prepares to be blown away by another pioneering early film. Just like Melies' "A Trip to the Moon", critics have hailed this as being the film that introduced the western genre into modern cinema. In my eyes, they were right. It had everything from the planning, the actual heist of the train, the murder of an unwanted civilian, and that looming final scene that makes you realize that these villains mean business – it was all monumental for its time. From here to Eastwood, every western filmmaker has used Porter's image in some form or another to create their own story. One cannot say that this film didn't open the door, but the struggle comes from the story itself. The genre was defined by Porter, but outside of its initial excitement – there really isn't anything to grapple onto. Perhaps I am jaded by the cliché modern westerns and their haphazard messages, but how can something be cliché before being cliché? To me, "The Great Train Robbery" seemed forced, untraceable, and unsurprising.<br /><br />Unlike Melies, Porter tells a very linear story. Robbers change the course of a train, rob it, then shoot at random people just to prove they are the true villains, and the final scene ends like any predestined film, without any surprises or glitches, and that looming man with a gun to your proverbial face. It is bland. Porter's film is boring. In the edition I watched, there was an addition of color near to the end to emphasize emotion, which felt cheap and was not encouraging to the filmmaker, or to the viewer. The issue remains that while it is important, Porter's film has been borrowed time and time again, it has in effect become diluted. The story itself does not carry the emotional powerhouse it once has. Unlike Melies early film, I cannot watch this again. I know what has happened, I know there is very little missing from behind the scenes, and that finally it is just what it has set out to be – a simple story leading from point A to point B to point C. This issue is not only my gripe with this film, but also the strongest element to see in such an early film. While it was dull, the fact that it told such a strong narrative – that our characters were characters with motives and drives, was outstanding to see. In an era where nonfiction films seemed mainstream, this broke the mold. Again, not that I am jumping on the prophetic bandwagon about this film – it is an important film – it just isn't a great film.<br /><br />Overall, I was eager to jump into this film to see where the roots of the western genre were planted, but I was equally as happy to leave this film behind. Porter is a talented director, and G.M. Anderson obviously went on to be very successful in the created field, but I just wasn't in awe of the film. I wasn't expecting big budget effects like Melies work, nor was I expecting a duplicate of "A Trip to the Moon", but I did want to see the same creativity, exploration, and originality. I felt Porter played it safe, if that can be said with such an early film, but I couldn't feel the excitement as our villains did their evil deeds. I wasn't rooting for anyone, and the final conclusion proved that the kitschy-ness of it had worn off minutes after the film started. It was pioneering, but not monumental. "The Great Train Robbery" has lost its space in the time capsule of cinema.<br /><br />Grade: ** out of *****
"Washington Square" is a flat, shabby adaptation of the short novel by Henry James. Indeed, the novel is very good, but far from the level of James' masterpieces. Moreover its simple, eventless story seems unsuited to make it into a film (although William Wyler, with his "The Heiress", gave in 1949 a beautiful version of the novel). <br /><br />Anyway, the movie completely betrays the spirit of this work of the great American writer. In the novel, the heroine Catherine is shy, not very attractive and somewhat clumsy, but nonetheless she is a sound, intelligent young woman, and she's not as naive as it may seem. Her attachment for her father is dignified and respectful, with no morbid sides in it. Along three quarters of the movie, Catherine (Jennifer Jason Leigh) just seems to be mentally retarded, poor thing. In the last quarter, she suddenly (and incredibly) becomes intelligent, aware of her dignity as a woman, and all that.<br /><br />The director Agnieszka Holland has added two vulgar scenes to the story. The first, when the nervous child Catherine has, well, troubles with her vesica. The second scene, when we see on the background a sort of open-air brothel, with prostitutes taking their customers behind tents, and so on. Nothing could be more contrary to the spirit and artistic ideals of Henry James. It is notorious that the writer was extremely decent and demure even for the standards of the Victorian age. I defy anyone to find any coarseness anywhere in the thousands of pages of James' huge literary production. I really was particularly annoyed by these two scenes.<br /><br />Yes, I know that a director needs reasonable freedom in the screen adaptation of a novel. But if a director utterly ignores or misunderstands the art of an author (here Henry James), I don't see the point of using his work to make a bad movie. <br /><br />The acting is adequate to the movie: poor and flat, in spite of the talent of Albert Finney and Maggie Smith. "Washington Square" is definitely a non-recommendable film.
I do not know who is to blame, Miss Leigh or her director, but her performance as Catherine is almost impossible to watch. Ben Chaplin on the other hand does a superior job - against all odds as far as I am concerned. His character is entirely too charming and appealing. but certainly not shown as greedy enough, to put up with Leigh's character's silliness. Chaplin appears bemused by what cannot possibly be understood as Leigh's shyness and lack of grace, but rather her orthopedic unsteadiness. There has to be some element of believability to his interest, but as played it is incomprehensible. The performances do not jibe. Maggie Smith and Albert Finney are, of course, wonderful despite any effort to derail them. The supporting cast is also a pleasure to watch. What a pity, too, the leads don't work together because the production is lovely to look at.
I love Henry James books and Washington Square was no exception. I was very excited to see a new movie coming out, based on the book of that title. Jennifer Jason Lee is an exceptional actress and Ben Chaplin good enough to play the lead roles. Albert Finney is miscast and doesn't carry the role well. I wanted to shoot Maggie Smith....or rather her silly, insipid role. The real problem and what's lacking in this latest version is a good script, music, and direction.<br /><br />I fell asleep in the theater watching this long, drawn out and exceptionally boring movie. There are more pauses in the dialog than a Pinter Play. In the book I felt a deep caring for Catherine Sloper and her life. The movie had just the opposite effect. I also disliked the twist where her aunt has a sexual attraction to Morris. Eeeeeeeek. YUK.<br /><br />Watch it if you can't sleep, it's a definite snoozer. Don't watch it if you're depressed. You'll need Zoloft after this.<br /><br />Sure, "The Heiress" was exceptional with Olivia Haviland and Montgomery Clift in the title roles. The actor who played her father was on the mark as the uncaring, cold father....still grieving for his dead wife and hating Catherine for it. The movie was not faithful to the book but neither is this one.<br /><br />This movie was a box office flop. I have no doubts as to why.
This movie has some beautiful sets and Albert Finney does a great job as the ruthless father. The movie fails because Jennifer Jason Leigh is too jumpy as the daughter and is no match whatever for Olivia De Havilland's far more nuanced, mature rendering in The Heiress (1949). The film's feminist-leaning conclusion also goes against the austere conclusion of the novel, Washington Square, whose author, Henry James, savagely parodied feminism in some of his other novels. As a fan of old Hollywood and great literature, I found this movie very disappointing.
I understand there was some conflict between Leigh and the great Maggie Smith during the filming. Understandable when you put one of the world's greatest actresses of all time (Smith, of course) with one whose performances seem to get worse with each subsequent film.
This adaptation, like 1949's *The Heiress*, is based on the Henry James novel. *The Heiress*, starring Olivia de Havilland, remains as a well-respected piece of work, though less true to James' original story than this new remake, which retains James' original title. It is the story of a awkward, yet loving daughter (Leigh), devoted to her father (Finney) after her mother dies during childbirth. The arrogant father holds his daughter in no esteem whatsoever, and considers her, as well as all women, simpleminded. When a young man (Chaplin) of good family and little fortune comes courting, the Father is naturally suspicious, but feeling so sure that his daughter could hold no interest for any man, is convinced that the young man is a fortune hunter and forbids her to see him. Leigh is a controversial actress – most either love her or hate her – and she always has a particular edginess and tenseness to her style, like she's acting through gritted teeth. She's not bad in this, and she handles her role relatively deftly – it's just an awkward role for any actress, making the audience want to grab the character by her shoulders and shake her until she comes to her senses. While the character garners a lot of sympathy, she's not particularly likable. The very handsome and immensely appealing Ben Chaplin (previously seen in *The Truth About Cats and Dogs*) plays his role with the exact amount of mystery required to keep the audience guessing whether he is after her fortune, or is really in love with her. Maggie Smith is one of the finest actresses alive and raises the level of the movie considerably with her portrayal of the well-meaning aunt. Finney is marvelous, of course, as the father who threatens to disinherit his daughter for her disobedience, but the daughter is willing to risk that for the man she loves. But does her ardent suitor still want her without her fortune? This is only one instance where *Washington Square* differs from *The Heiress*. Another instance is the ability to stick with it. It is a handsome movie that is as tedious as a dripping faucet, offering too little story in too long of a movie.
It's interesting that a novel with no plot has become the basis for two films. While The Heiress was a good, if not entirely accurate, adaptation, Washington Square is a heavy-handed and poorly acted, except for the part of Dr Sloper, film that could have been so much better.<br /><br />The director's attempts at making 'beautiful' scenes were so obvious that I actually cringed. It has none of the understated and simple beauty that a movie with no plot can have, such as Onegin. I agree with other comments about Leigh's portrayal of Catherine as an idiot, instead of naive and shy; she made me despise her not feel for her.<br /><br />Catherine's transition from childlike trusting to adult cynicism, the whole point of the story, was internalised, just as it was in the novel. But we don't have the benefit of a narrative voice to tell us that in a film! I think someone skipped adaptation class at filmschool.<br /><br />I appreciate the director's attempts to make a moving and beautiful film out of a difficult text but it just didn't work.
The potential movie extravaganza, set during the 19th century, failed to produce. With big-name actors like Maggie Smith, Albert Finney, and many others, there was no reason for the movie to fail. However, the movie lacked an ending, had a sorry excuse for a plot line, and fell to pieces with its continuity. A typical story of a rich girl and a poor boy, brought together by love and destroyed by beauty (or lack thereof) and disapproval, has a touching side of a mother's early death and an absentee father. The father, played by Finney, is a disturbed man, tormenting his daughter in life as well as death. He believes his daughter's lack of good looks would ruin his fortune by marrying beneath their social status. The actors vainly attempted to salvage what was left of the storyline. Washington Square is a black hole of ruin and destruction, wasting precious time of those who sorrowfully watch. I give this movie a 1 instead of a 0, purely for the actors' attempts. Save yourself, stay clear of Washington Square.
Visually cluttered, plot less, incredibly mind-numbing rubbish. Not even close to Greenaway's better work. Avoid at all costs!<br /><br />The overlapping 'split screen' effects do nothing more than confuse, the film is very dark for a lot of the time and the 'artistic' composing of images is pretentious in the extreme.<br /><br />There is absolutely nothing to recommend about this film; even the nudity is incredibly unerotic, which seeing it fills a large part of the film soon gets very boring.<br /><br />Plus, how anyone can say that the acting of Ewen MacGregor is brilliant is beyond me. He showed more ability in the Star Wars series, and that's saying something.<br /><br />I've not been so unimpressed with a film since I saw 'Darby O'Gill and the Little People'!
This film is about a Japanese woman who has an obsession with calligraphy on skin.<br /><br />The plot is absolutely bizarre. I fail to see any "sensual" or "erotic" undertones. The plot turns an ancient art form into a fetishistic pornography. In addition, the scenes that are filmed in Hong Kong are certainly portraying bad parts of Hong Kong, such as the airport in the middle of the city, poor living conditions and noise pollution. Throughout the whole film, I keep thinking that "The Pillow Book" is insulting the Japanese culture and the Hong Kong environment.<br /><br />"The Pillow Book" is a perverted, yet boring film. Seriously stay away from it.
I really wanted to like The Pillow Book. Intriguing story, interesting character outlines, Ewan Macgregor in the utterly glorious altogether. Unfortunately, I hated every minute of it. Greenaway got so enamoured with presenting the movie uniquely, and not to the film's benefit. I won't even get into Vivian Wu's abysmal acting.<br /><br />You get distracted from the story with 4 billion teeny windows and calligraphy that rolls on the bottom of the screen displaying the lyrics of the music that's playing. It seems he lost sight of presenting the actual story and developing the plot, and got entangled with foo-foo embellishments that have nothing to do with anything. It's a bit like presenting a John Singer Sargeant portrait in a chintzy Hallmark frame that says "GRANDMA LOVES ME!" in big sparkly letters.<br /><br />This movie seems to be a casualty of the director auteur's ego instead of what it could have been - disturbingly and horrifyingly beautiful. In another director's hands (Jeunet? Coppola?), it could have been a masterpiece. In Greenaway's hands, it's best relegated to fine arts classes that also take themselves too seriously.
I voted 3 for this movie because it looks great as does all of Greenaways output. However it was his usual mix of "art" sex and pretentious crap.I know lots of people like this film but I grew tired of it VERY quickly. It is definitely not for everyone. The ubiquitous McGregor obviously took the part for crediblity's sake I guess but he really should not have wasted his time. I hate to consign anyone to pseud's corner but please.....!!! On the plus side it IS visually very attractive and I enjoyed the music but could not see it through to the end and I cannot say that for many movies. I usually watch the whole thing but this is unbearable!!
This movie was just down right bad. I love war movies and can normally come away from most movies and find something that I liked,but this was not one of them. This movie lacked substance and intensity.OK I get it, the Finns put up one hell of a fight and thats great, but the story is poorly told. You don't have any real connection with any of the characters and there's no real story line to follow. You just go from one random scene to another, nothing flows to form the story that is trying to be conveyed. If you want a war movie that will keep you riveted, and amazingly enough without battles scenes, then I would suggest "Downfall" (WWII German film). Or if you prefer a great story line and a lot of action then I would suggest "Brotherhood of War" (Korean war/Korean film). These two movies will not let you down as Winter War will.
The writers probably had no experience in the army, and probably never glanced at a history book, but I still give this cheaply produced war film some credit for taking a long-needed look at the role of black soldiers in the second world war.<br /><br />The action is confused and unbelievable--any episode of Combat! has better production values, but the cast is interesting. Seeing New York Giant Rosie Greer was worth the buck I paid for this. The art direction is fifth rate--the men wear Korean War uniforms, and it was pretty lousy weather by the time the U.S. Army reached Germany in 1944, not sunny as they show here, and I don't think the terrain resembled Northern California. The script never does make clear why the black support troops are used as combat soldiers. There is a nice touch that shows some of the men carrying Springfield rifles instead of M-1s, which second rate troops probably would have been issued with.<br /><br />This basic story idea(racist southern officer commanding black troops) should have been expanded into a big budget production back then, and its not too late to try it now. You have to take this for what it is, and I admire the creators of this film for making the effort.<br /><br />I remember seeing this a while ago and thinking it was set in Italy, which would have made more sense because there were black combat troops operating there in 1944.
This movie has Richard Pryor, Rosey Grier and others. It's a curious WW2 movie, and serves as a statement about racism. It is worth watching to understand the fact that Movies reflect how we feel about the issues when they are produced and not about the period of time they portray. Meaning this is a 70's movie not a 40's movie (WW2). Still, there is some good action scenes of 7 seven black men led by a white captain trying to capture a Dam. The story centers on the Captain learning that these men are soldiers and not just a service company. There is a scene that could be from a Civil War movie and not a WW2 movie that reflects what the movie is all about. The Black Lt. gives a German women a innocent peck on the cheek, and the white Capt becomes upset. I enjoyed the movie from a curiosity stand point since the stars and the Genre were interesting to me.
At first glance this gives the impression that it is going to be a laughable blaxploitation flick, and it does contain moments where it veers in that direction. However, the basic story idea is much stronger than might be expected, and is a respectable effort at portraying racial issues in the World War II era Army. The recognizable cast is hit and miss, with Glynn Turman, Richard Pryor and the underused Billy Dee Williams faring best. Stephen Boyd, however, stops just short of twirling his bushy mustache in an overindulgent star turn.<br /><br />The obviously low budget leads to inconsistency in the production values. The locations are great, the effects and action are weak. Imagine if "Saving Private Ryan" had consisted of half the platoon getting killed exactly the same way Vin Diesel's Caparzo had (except we do get to see the shot because they effects can't handle it), then Hanks, Damon and Burns drove around in a jeep and shot five Germans for the climax. Yet, the denouement, with the heroic soldiers receiving no respect for their accomplishment because they are black, and Boyd's racist Captain being effected by this, is compelling, as are the sequences of of Turman's character writing in a journal of his imagined exploits if the soldiers were allowed to fight instead of digging latrines.<br /><br />In short, "Black Brigade/Carter's Army" doesn't quite succeed. But it's a respectable failure, not a bad joke. It could be remade as a very good film, and, as it stands, is an interesting effort.
This movie is a waste of film stock. Do you believe that the map of a plan of a military mission would be placed on an easel on a patio in broad daylight for anyone with binoculars or a camera with a zoom lens to see? It happened in this film. Do you believe that a DEAF person would actually be enlisted in the active duty army in Europe during WWII to serve in a "Negro" unit...cooking, supply services, burial detail, etc.? It happened in this film. Do you believe that a black (and supposedly intelligent) officer would select this same DEAF K.P. to be part of an active combat mission to protect a dam from being destroyed by the Germans before the allies arrived? It happened in this film. Would you be surprised that the DEAF soldier didn't realize that a German plane was approaching from behind and would strafe and kill him? It happened in this film. Would you be surprised that a group of American soldiers hold-up in a barn at a farmhouse that the Germans happened upon would SHOUT out their emotions at the sight of the German soldiers who were just 50' away? They did it in this film, and left any possible entrances to the barn the Germans might check totally unprotected. Would you believe that, over the airwaves and in clear English, the Captain mentioned the General's rank, if not his name, as the person he was speaking with and that the general, in plain English over open airwaves, said that the dam had to be protected the next day? Maybe they should have just sent in an emissary to tell which direction the American attack would be coming from just to make it a little easier on the Germans. This so-called movie should be placed on a list of the top 50 worst films. If it were, I'm sure it would do well. Watch it at your own risk.
BRIEF ENCOUNTER is a ghastly and pointless remake of the 1945 David Lean classic, which was based on Noel Coward's play "Still Life". A doctor removes a particle of grit from a woman's eye at a railway station, he is in a miserable relationship, she is happily married social worker of Italian ancestry. They meet by accident on another occasion, form an instant attraction and arrange to meet each other every Wednesday. The pair fall in love, but after spending a few afternoons together they realise that they have no realistic chance of happiness and agree to part. Coward's original one-act play concerned two ordinary people who fall in love. Sophia Loren and Richard Burton, two Super Stars and veterans of Hollywood Epics, are nobody's idea of 'ordinary people'. Loren in particular is miscast - Sophia Loren in full make-up, looking like a million dollars, working as a part-time voluntary social worker at a Citizen Advice Bureau just doesn't ring true. Burton, looking haggard, with dyed hair, too much make-up and wearing platform shoes, doesn't come across as your average General Practitioner. That said, you can't really blame them for having an affair after seeing their spouses. Burton is married to a literary critic who spends her evenings penning poisonous reviews and who treats her husband with total contempt. Loren's husband, Jack Hedley, potters around the house all day and is terminally boring: the most exciting thing he has ever done is nearly have an affair six years previous. Their final scene together will induce nausea, ("You've been a long, long way away", etc.). That great British jobbing actor, John LeMesurier, has a three minute cameo as Burton's friend, and appears to be slightly inebriated, speaking his lines in a barely audible voice. It's a sad and forgettable performance in a dismal, awful rehash of a cinema classic. Avoid at all costs.
Remakes (and sequels) have been a staple of Cinema from the beginning of the media. It is pretty much a hit or miss venture though. If you take what's good of the original and build upon it and update key features too current standards, you can have a success. Note, such films like THE THIEF OF BAGDAD (1924/1940) or KING KONG (1933/2005) succeeded in their attempts. Others like KING KONG (1976) fail, miserably.<br /><br />BRIEF ENCOUNTER (1945) is the template for this film. It is as perfect as could be made on such a subject and we rate it IMDb**********Ten. The story is simple, Love, innocently found by accident and tragically lost. Why, it just happened for the two (2) principals involved at the wrong time. These are portrayed in a convincing and sensitive manner by TREVOR HOWARD and CECILIA JOHNSON. Neither are conventionally leading Star material, but quality Character Actors. For the details watch the film.<br /><br />Now what went wrong? A T.V. Movie, remade practically scene for scene with name actors RICHARD BURTON and SOPHIA LOREN should have at least scored IMDb******Six. Both actors though appear disinterested, just showing up to punch their time-clocks and pick up their checks. Neither are involved with their characters or with each other. You do not believe they are in Love or when they finally separate it is any great loss to either of them. That should not be and that's why it fails in its intent. Sometimes it is just better to leave things alone.
Unremarkable and unmemorable remake of an old, celebrated English film. Although it may be overly maligned as a total disaster (which it is not), it never builds any tension and betrays its TV origins. Richard Burton sleepwalks through his role, and Sophia Loren's closed (in this movie) face doesn't display much passion, either. (**)
I wanted to give Drawing Blood the benefit of the initial doubt. The opening moments, with a naked woman sprawled out and an painter, Diana, about to paint her and then sucking her blood to drain out so she can use it for her art, give the impression that this could be a kick-ass artsy-vampire flick. Turns out this initial impression turns out false. Oh, Troma, the mark of some kind of lack of quality: sometimes they'll offer up something that is trash but funny and with at least some competence to the junk-food craft (or, sometimes not). This is a case where it's not even a whole lot of fun to watch since its attempts at humor (i.e. the protagonist's father is an old vaudevillian who does Jimmy Durante impressions?) are weak at best, and any unintentional laughs are undercut by Sergio Lapel's bargain basement direction.<br /><br />And it's not without him trying, oh Lord no. He does try a lot, which is a big part of the problem. He and his producers had money for lights, sure, but the way they're used in the movie made I, a former student filmmaker and aspiring director, sulking in my seat: if I saw this in a theater I would have to blind my eyes in many instances, and would wonder whether or not his DP understood really the basic 3-point lighting set-up. While this, along with a very lackluster sound design (or just lots of random loud humming like in the art gallery scene), shouldn't be something that comes to attention during a Troma release, it should be something *basic* that a filmmaker can tackle even if the script isn't very funny or scary (and it isn't) or if Lapel does a weird mixture of songs placed at bizarre moments.<br /><br />It's not a good movie by any stretch, and perhaps if you're a vampire die-hard (or just a vampire period) it might have some appeal as a low-rent bargain basement alternative to Near Dark, or as a slight improvement over, say, 1972's Blood Freak. You have better ways to waste your time, overall.
A female vampire kills young women and paints with their blood. She has an assistant who doesn't want to be a vampire, so he has to do what she orders or be turned into a blood sucker. After a few kills, the assistant gets remorse and falls in love with a homeless girl.<br /><br />What can I say about this movie ? That its pacing is over-slow, that it has some strange sound effects (never a bite sounded so strange) and ambiance (new jazz here I come) and that lights don't seem to be included on the set. It looks like an "auteur" horror movie with all the self-sufficiency inside.<br /><br />The plot is completely stupid and as you can guess, it's the female vampire who explains how to kill her even if she doesn't have to do it; of course, crosses, light, garlic and sticks don't work.<br /><br />It's not even a funny lousy movie. Perhaps with some friends and a lot of beers, it can't have its funny sides (to be honest, it's funny during 10 - 15 minutes near the end of the movie). Don't be fooled by the Troma sticker, it's one the bad movie they present.
A vampire's's henchman wants to call her after falling in love with a five-dollar hooker in this extremely low-budget horror-comedy. I can't explain all the positive comments on this movie. I'll chalk it up to mass hallucination, but it's disconcerting none the less. The one redeeming factor (and this is me being extremely generous here) might be the Grandfather who's the only semi-likable character in this whole mess. Don't waste your money, or time. In fact here's a word of advice, If Troma puts it out on DVD, but does NOT make it themselves, in all likelihood it's crap.<br /><br />Troma DVD Extras:Commentary with Omar and Kirk; second commentary with cast and crew deleted scenes; bloopers; troma interactivity; radiation march; Clip from "Terror Firmer"; Theatrical trailer ;Trailers for "the Rowdy Girls", "Teenage Catgirls in Heat", "Cannible: The Musical", and "Toxic Avenger 4" <br /><br />My Grade: D
This was a painful example of a cheap, boring and unoriginal show produced by Australian TV stations to fulfil local content quotas. The writing was truly terrible and I'm not surprised that the writers are those responsible for the worst Australian film in recent memory the Honerable Wally Norman.<br /><br />Nothing about this TV series was funny - ever - not even mildly amusing. It was just tired and BAD and, worst of all, it really thought it was funny. It was simply embarrassing to watch.<br /><br />There is something very suss about this show being given 10 out of 10 on IMDb. Try to find a (real) review by a (real) Australian viewer of the show (there weren't many) and it is impossible. Or crazy. There are loafs of bread that are funnier than this show. <br /><br />Avoid the show at all cost and if it does come out on DVD, remember that the laughter THAT deserves was unintentional.
Of course, "Flatley" is already not exactly the ideal name for a dancer, but I think Michael is really pushing the irony envelope with this new title: "Feet of Flames" <br /><br />One really can't resist recommending Desenex Foot Spray to the retiring (and clearly, ailing) Flatley.<br /><br />I might add that, much like that cheering London crowd (per review below), I too am enthusiastic about this being his last live performance.<br /><br />"Hinting that it may be his last live performance, Flatley is cheered on by an enthusiastic London crowd." ~ Perry Seibert, All Movie Guide
With a cast of stalwart British character actors and pleasing photography of 1950s Britain, I had hoped and expected to be more entertained by this film. Unfortunately I found myself glued to it for the wrong reasons - I couldn't quite believe how awful it was. I must have watched thousands of old films and am always ready to make allowances for them being products of their time, but this was really hard going.<br /><br />As others have noted, a major problem is that it doesn't seem to know what it wants to be: a gentle romantic comedy, a slapstick comedy or a musical. I was a bit gobsmacked when Jeannie Carson suddenly broke into song about 15 minutes in! It's not believable on any level, either the storyline itself or the fact that Daisy never appears to have an ounce of menace in her at any time. Other aspects which defied credibility included the casting of suave Donald Sinden as a songwriter (a songwriter for God's sake!), the fact he has Diana Dors for a fiancée and doesn't appear to have the slightest interest in her (I mean, Diana Dors! Come on!) and a ludicrous scene in a song publisher's office. The whole thing's silly in the worst possible way.<br /><br />If I had to pick a favourite scene it would be the one at the very beginning with that wonderful actor Wilfred Lawson - after that everything went downhill in a big way.
A 1957 (yes, that's the correct date) J. Arthur Rank production with James Robertson Justice, Margaret Rutherford, Wilfred Hyde White; it has to be a smash comedy, right? Oh, it's just awful. It's a one gag film: watching people be shocked at the sight of a little alligator. Music is thrown in, most inappropriately and forgettably. Jeannie Carson is a lively dancer and competent singer. But what was she doing in this film? Diana Dors is here too, providing oh-so-daring shots for use in the previews. Her acting level is not bad, but she's in the film to provide someone to leer at. Well, one must do something beside groan during this film. The movie is being sold on VHS now by people on e-Bay. Spare yourself the expense and the waste of time. A comedy without a laugh. A musical without a memorable song or dance.
This is a bad B movie masquerading as a mockumentary. The porn documentary filmmaker in the movie has almost as much screen time and dialog as any other character. That completely destroyed any "documentary feel" that they may have wanted to create.<br /><br />The fact that the film is not actually a mockumentary is the least of it's problems. The film is not funny. The film is not sexy. The film doesn't have anything insightful to say about the porn business. It's not even particularly salacious. While there's simulated sex, the amount of nudity is mild for an R rated film.<br /><br />Someday, someone will make a good mockumentary about the porn industry. This is not it.
Half the reviews were good so i took a chance for $10. Sure Priscilla Barnes had some sex talk but it wasn't much. The whole plot later that she may be the other actress mother & the documentary maker falling for the young woman is stretching it. Its not funny its not that raunchy its not much of anything but a waste of time. Boogie Nights was based on real people that were in the adult industry this is based on nothing that ever happened in the industry. It could have shocked with whats popular today in adult films mocking todays gonzo videos and that big orgy that they had 5 minutes to shoot what a joke a bigger orgy has been done bigger & better decades ago in the early 1970s.
Spinal Tap was funny because if you knew a little about heavy metal, you saw in-jokes all over the place. If you know anything about porn, this mock documentary will leave you cold. Everything in it rings false.<br /><br />Spinal Tap was funny because it took a familiar world and pushed it over the top. This film is decidedly not funny because it paints a picture of how porn is made that bears no relationship to the real world.<br /><br />The acting here is uniformly awful, but that would not matter much if the core idea of the movie were good. But it's not.
Belmondo is a tough cop. He goes after a big-time drug dealer (played by Henry Silva, normally a great villain - see "Sharky's Machine"; but here he is clearly dubbed, and because of that he lacks his usual charisma). He goes to the scuzziest places of Paris and Marseilles, asks for some names, beats up some people, gets the names, goes to more scuzzy places, asks for more names, beats up more people, etc. The whole movie is punch after punch after punch. It seems that the people who made it had no other ambition than to create the French equivalent of "Dirty Harry". Belmondo, who was 50 here, does perform some good stunts at the beginning; apart from those, "Le Marginal" is a violent, episodic, trite, shallow and forgettable cop movie. (*1/2)
This film is terrible. The story concerns a woman trying to find out what has happened to her sister. The film struggles with its identity, lurching from Noir/thriller to erotic, with elements of horror thrown in for good measure. The film has a very confused structure, for example with frequent use of flashbacks without tying these into the story. The plot is poorly developed, and the characterisation made it difficult to distinguish between who was who and the part they were playing. Some implausibilities exist in many films, but the scene where the main protagonist willingly accompanies a virtual stranger to his home, then agrees to go upstairs alone (to where he says she will find a phone), minus the gun she had brought with her, to call the Police, was too hard to believe. Some of the cinematography is very poor: we were watching on a 42" TV so how anyone with a smaller set could work out what was happening in the scenes taken in almost complete darkness is beyond me. Overall, a chaotic mess.
I rented this movie on DVD. I knew that the movie wouldn't live up to what it promised me on the back of the case, but once I saw that Leatherface (Gunnar Hansen) was in it, I had to rent it. It starts off pretty good, with the premise being that snuff films are being aired over cable. However, the main character has nothing about her to make you feel sorry for her whatsoever, and the end of the movie really leaves you hanging. There are way too many unanswered questions. There was a great scene at the end that totally took me by surprise, but overall this is a very sub par movie, but I guess it was worth the $ 3.99 rental fee.
I saw "Rachel's Attic," thinking that I would be in for an enjoyably visceral, ride. However, it was not to be the case. Visceral, yes, but enjoyable? That would be a big, fat, no! In fact, the only reason that I gave it a "3," is due to the fact that Gunnar Hansen appears (ever so briefly) as one of the film's reprehensible characters. How they ever lured Mr. Hansen into this piece of...work, I'll never know. The story idea is interesting but poorly executed. The direction is pedestrian and the acting is mediocre. The only thing that is worse than that, are the special effects. YIKES!!! I've seen better effects in a grade school play. Give it up, Mr. W, it's time for a career change...I hear they're hiring at Mel's Diner! There are very few, well made, Inde movies coming out of Michigan...and "Rachel's Attic" isn't one of them.
I sometimes enjoy really lousy movies....those that occasionally result when people (even talented people) get together with good intentions to produce a movie and for whatever reason it turns out to be a disaster. Movies like "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes", "Plan 9 from Outer Space", "Manos-Hands of Fate", and "Heavens Gate", etc.<br /><br />So, when I heard that this movie, "Rachel's Attic", was considered by many people to be the single worst film of the decade, naturally I just HAD to see it.<br /><br />Boy, do I regret that decision. This movie is beyond bad....it is SO bad that it is not even as enjoyable as the usual bad movie. The acting, filming, script, etc. are even worse than a low budget porno film: the sound is utterly horrible, the "plot" is completely incomprehensible, the "acting" is laughable....it is a complete waste of everyone's time and money. At least the porno film has porno to break up the monotony, while this ridiculous nightmare has a guy squeezing a rotten apple, and a "mad hatter's" tea party.<br /><br />The lighting is non-existent...many "scenes" take place in semi or complete darkness, which is probably just as well. The "writer-director" (I use the terms loosely), David Tybor, tries to get kinky with bondage scenes...but the results would be laughable, if they weren't so pathetic. There is some nudity, but it is of such abysmal quality that it actually acts as a sexual suppressant. I could go on forever and not do justice to all the flaws and shortcomings of this truly awful waste of film.<br /><br />For the love of god, avoid this train wreck. I know that despite (or perhaps because of) my negative comments, you may still be tempted to see if this piece of trash is really as bad as I claim it to be....but trust me on this....it's even worse than I have said, and you will absolutely, positively regret the experience (and expense, if you waste your money on a purchase or rental).
Hunters chase what they think is a man through the forest, though the audience sees he is a werewolf. The hunters never seem to realize this, because after they shoot him, he looks normal when they decapitate him.<br /><br />A doctor transplants the werewolf's eyes into a man who lost his own in a laboratory experiment. The man, Rich, gets to have sex with his nurse (Stephanie Beaton) before he even gets his bandages removed.<br /><br />After he leaves the hospital, he finds his wife has been cheating on him too. When a smoke machine sends clouds past an amateur painting of a moon (with a fake tree branch on the foreground), he turns into a werewolf! His torso grows larger, splitting his shirt, and he grows a giant werewolf mask on his head that has red lights in the eyes. His pants stay intact. The mouth chews unconvincingly, though some sort of robotics (or hidden hands) in the eyebrows give him a baleful look at times.<br /><br />Despite the poor werewolf costume, there is a fair amount of blood and gore, and those are fairly well done. There's even a pretty good decapitation later in the movie. However, when a man falls from a height, a rather bad dummy does the job.<br /><br />Rich has a friend named Siodmak who is some sort of occult expert, and he also accidentally stumbles across a small man with crutches named Androse who is also such an expert. They try to help him a little.<br /><br />Rich kills people who have done him wrong. A policewoman investigates the murders and tries to hit on Beaton, who doesn't much care for lesbian scenes so nothing comes of it.<br /><br />Quite cheap, but between the nudity and blood and gore, and a not-terrible story combining (sort of) The Most Dangerous Game with The Hands of Orlac and The Wolf Man, it's somewhat entertaining. Available on its own, or in the box set Scream Queens Vol. 1.
Eyes of the Werewolf (1999) is a really bad movie. The premise was real good but the overall execution was just terrible. I wished the filmmakers would have taken their time with this project instead of rushing it into production. Some blind dude gets some new eyes, bad thing is that they belong to a mean old werewolf. Nasty things begins to happen to the dude as he turns into a cheesy looking creature. Can he find a cure before his hot girlfriend finds out? Who is that weird little troll who helps him out and what's up with that female cop? If you really want to find out, check out Eyes of the Werewolf!<br /><br />Not a bad idea for a movie. I just wished the filmmakers would have spent a lot for time in pre-production before they decided to shoot the movie.
A group of hunters track down a werewolf, kill it, decapitate it and then sell the head to unethical Dr. Atwill (played by director/writer Tim Sullivan), who runs a private clinic specializing in corneal transplants. Research chemist Rich Stevens (Mark Sawyer), whose eyes were destroyed when acid flew into his face during a lab explosion, is the unlucky recipient of the werewolf's eyeballs. It takes awhile to get to the first full moon, so first we get a tender love story between Rich and his compassionate, big-breasted nurse Sondra Gard (Stephanie Beaton). Sondra is so compassionate that she strips off her clothing and starts riding Rich in bed before he even has a chance to remove his bandages! After a month in the hospital, Rich returns home to icy wife Rita (Deborah Huber), who promptly tells him "You look pretty ugly" before speeding off in her Kia. Our hero soon discovers that Rita is not only a bitch, but an adulterous skank who's been carrying on an affair with his supposed friend Craig (Lyndon Johnson). Finally, the full moon rises and Rich finds himself in a hairy predicament as he transforms into a (very silly looking) werewolf creature. Predictable carnage ensues.<br /><br />After ripping out Craig's throat on a beach, Rich wakes up in the brush the next morning with his clothes tattered and vague recollections of the evening's events. He makes friends with dwarf psychic/occult expert Andros (Kurt Levi) and is hassled by both local author Siodmak (Jason Clark) and lesbian-police-detective-in-a-pants-suit Justine Evers (Tarri Markel). When Rich confronts Dr. Atwill, the doctor sends his sadistic bald henchman Kass (Eric Mestressat), who gets a kick out of dismembering corpses with a machete at the clinic, after him. With help from Sondra, Rich manages to escape. Sondra takes him back to her place and basically rapes him on the couch during an overlong sex scene that lasts about five minutes. Will Rich be able to control his lycanthropy or find a cure for it before he claims more victims? <br /><br />Shot on the cheap with a camcorder, this homemade werewolf flick has a somewhat unique premise with the eye transplant angle, but trots out cliché after cliché otherwise. The sets are sub porn level - the clinic scenes seem to have been filmed inside someone's home or apartment. The wolf transformation scenes don't even look as good as the time lapse photography used way back in the 1940s. Instead, they employ ragged editing. Throw some hair on the actor. Cut. Throw on some more on. Cut. More fur... and fill his mouth full of white gunk he can spit out. Cut. No need to worry about continuity! There's no fade, no dissolve, nothing. It's pretty sloppy. Once fully transformed, the werewolf costume (designed by Jeff Leroy, who also edited and shot the movie) is pretty awful. It has red, glowing Christmas bulb eyes, fur that looks like shag carpet and a plastic face that's almost completely immobile. There are several times you can see the cameraman's fingers in front of the camera lens, and does the moon really stay full five nights in a row? As far as the cast is concerned, they're amateurish, but tolerable. And as far as B horror flicks are concerned, there are worse out there. This one is paced fairly well, is only 70 minutes long and does provide plenty of the red stuff during the attack scenes, as well as the aforementioned T&A from Ms. Beaton.<br /><br />It was produced by David S. Sterling (CAMP BLOOD), who was one of the first to ride the wave of digital video right when it was first starting to dominate the low-budget/independent horror genre scene back in the mid/late 90s. Many of his notoriously awful productions were released by Brain Damage Films, a label to avoid like the plague for the most part. Fx guy Jeff Leroy (who is listed as co-director here at IMDb, but not in the film's actual credits) and Vinnie Bilancio (who appears in a small role as one of the hunters) went on to make the much more fun and polished exploitation flick WEREWOLF IN A WOMEN'S PRISON in 2006, which had a similar-looking creature on display (red glowing eyes and all).
Bangville Police supposedly marked the debut of the Keystone Kops, named after the studio they worked for. In this one, however, they don't dress in the silly cop costumes or drive the fast-paced car that's their trademark. Anyway, Mabel Normand is a farm girl here who's begged her dad for a calf. She later sees some strange men in the barn and quickly calls the police. One answers and the chase is on. Next, Mabel slams her door just as someone is coming in. Turns out it's her mother who jumps to the conclusion robbers are in there! So while Mabel blocks her door with furniture, the mother and father try to fight their way in! This was perhaps the most amusing part of the short along with some explosions of the cop car. This was a short 7 minutes that went by so fast it's over before it's begun. The only real characterization that's developed is Mabel's who exudes charm with just her face and big eyes and seems so optimistically cheery here except, of course, when she's frightened. It's easy to see why she became a star. It's largely because of her that I'd recommended seeing this at least once and why I'm giving this a 4.
The "Confidential" part was meant to piggy-back on the popular appeal of the lurid magazine of the same name, while the labor racketeering theme tied in with headline Congressional investigations of the day. However, despite the A-grade B-movie cast and some good script ideas, the movie plods along for some 73 minutes. It's a cheap-jack production all the way. What's needed to off-set the poor production values is some imagination, especially from uninspired director Sidney Salkow. A few daylight location shots, for example, would have helped relieve the succession of dreary studio sets. A stylish helmsman like Anthony Mann might have done something with the thick-ear material, but Salkow treats it as just another pay-day exercise. Too bad that Brian Keith's typical low-key style doesn't work here, coming across as merely wooden and lethargic, at the same time cult figure Elisha Cook Jr. goes over the top as a wild-eyed drunk. Clearly, Salkow is no actor's director. But, you've got to hand it to that saucy little number Beverly Garland who treats her role with characteristic verve and dedication. Too bad, she wasn't in charge. My advice-- skip it, unless you're into ridiculous bar-girls who do nothing else but knock back whiskeys in typical strait-jacketed 50's fashion.
There's nothing particularly original about this story of corrupt unions on one side and the "chief attorney" on the other. The stark but unimaginative lighting and photography stems from the fagged out noir cycle. The story could easily have been out of a Warner Brothers drawer with George Raft in the lead. The performances are routine, the direction flat, and even the set dressing perfunctory. (An alley is shown by a single plaster wall of simulated brick. It has one poster on it. The poster says, "Post No Bills.") We are introduced to the story and some of the characters by a portentous narrator who informs us that, while most unions work hard and honestly to advance the causes of their members, a few are corrupt. But we don't really get to know much about the unions or how they operate, although I suppose they were fair game after the success of "On the Waterfront" a few years earlier. Here they're just a peg to hang the tale on. The real ring leader is a disbarred lawyer who runs things through three or four thugs. The District Attorney (or whatever he is) finds out, like Dana Andrews did in "Boomerang," that the wrong man (Dick Foran) is charged with a murder and he spends the rest of the film almost alone, digging up evidence of Foran's innocence. He gets into fist fights and shoot outs like any inexpensive movie private eye.<br /><br />Brian Keith is the D.A. He's shown some insinuating displays of talent elsewhere, but here he spends most of the time speaking quietly and staring at the floor. Elisha Cook, Jr., is a likable rummy but can't do a good drunk. Beverley Garland is okay but is undermined by the direction, which has her gawking in a night club when she should be furtive. The remainder of the cast would be suitable for a TV series.<br /><br />And nobody is helped by the writing. When a "B girl" is about to be shipped by the union mob to the Filippines, someone advises her that she only has to learn a few words of Spanish. "I only know one word," she says, "Si. Yes." The writers have not trusted the audience to know that "si" in Spanish means "yes." The plot is clumsy and has holes in it. Keith visits a witness in her flat over a night club. He enters the door and has a gun shoved in his back by a yegg, but he outwits the heavy and knocks him out. Then the orders someone to call the police. The rest of the scene, played out at some length in the night club downstairs, forgets all about the police and they never show up, nor are they expected by anyone.<br /><br />It's nothing to be ashamed of, and some people might enjoy it, but there is similar stuff, better done, elsewhere.
obviously has some talent attached, Maria Bello is always great. but this is just a dreary wast of time, portraying every character as someone to be loathed and exploited so someone could make a movie out of an 'interesting' story. well, i hope they got it out of their systems. unfortunately for the audience, there is no insight, no sensitivity, no context, and really no humanity. which would all be fine, except it has no humor, no horror, no context, and nothing constructive to say about the story it's trying to tell. bad things happen, you sit and watch it, you don't care, so what? 99% of the time, the words 'based on a true story' constitute an unintentional warning to the audience. it means the director and screenwriter are lazy and fascinated by some events they heard about somewhere, so they just throw them up on the screen and expect the 'true' nature of the story to make the audience feel something without the filmmakers having to do any of the work. i hope they had a great time making this movie. it stinks on ice.
As is often the case, films about self-loathing characters do not usually make for good drama. 'Downloading Nancy' is no exception. It's supposedly based on a true story about a woman who's murdered at her own request by someone she meets over the internet.<br /><br />The protagonist is Nancy (Maria Bello) who is married to Albert (Rufus Sewell). Albert is a successful software developer who has developed a golf game which his company has successfully marketed to various bars and bar/restaurants. Unlike most human beings, Albert has virtually no positive attributes (except for his ability to be successful in the business world). Throughout the film, Albert has a grim and dour expression on his face. He has no sympathy for his wife with all her emotional problems and resorts to patronizing prostitutes. When his wife asks for sex, he punishes her by masturbating in her presence instead.<br /><br />Nancy is equally one-note as a character. Not only has she had a loveless 15 year marriage but was sexually abused by her uncle when she was growing up (thankfully there are no flashbacks of that back story in the film). Her self-loathing takes the form of self-mutilation and a result, she's forced into therapy. However, she has such contempt for her therapist that no progress can be made.<br /><br />Finally, Nancy is so depressed that she contacts Louis over the internet. He's sort of a sadomasochistic gigolo, who has sex with women for money while inflicting massive amounts of pain to boot. It's revealed that Louis has two children but no longer sees them (the children's mother no longer wants anything to do with him).<br /><br />Nancy's plan is to first have painful sex with Louis and then have him kill her. There's a particularly unpleasant scene where Louis has sex with Nancy while slashing her vaginal area with a broken piece of glass. These scenes are shown as flashbacks after Louis pays a visit to Albert who ties him up and strikes him with a golf club. It seems that Louis has a two-fold plan in going to see Albert: 1) berate him for his treatment of Nancy and 2) enjoy the beating he receives. It takes awhile before Louis will reveal Nancy's fate—first, he forces Albert to do him the favor of taking his dog to a relative so someone will care for it in the future. Nancy's fate of course is that Louis finally ended up choking her to death (but showed some hesitation first as he made it clear that he had some 'feelings' for her). We soon learn that Louis is imprisoned for life for Nancy's murder.<br /><br />What exactly are we to take away from a film such as Downloading Nancy? Are we supposed to feel sorry for victims of sexual abuse and domestic violence? Is that the main point of the film? Is sympathy for Nancy actually warranted? I don't think so. The film's writers create a straw man in the character of Albert—someone who is so cut off from his emotions that he is the one that is held responsible for Nancy's decline. But are people so one-dimensional in real life? I think not. They have the repulsive Louis, a man who makes a living by inflicting pain, come over and berate Albert for neglecting Nancy. Furthermore, his expressions of love towards Nancy (before he kills her), is supposed to show his 'sensitive side'.<br /><br />In the end, it matters little whether the filmmakers have defined where their sympathies lie with the various characters in the film. They are so bent on titillating their audience with scenes of gratuitous violence, that Downloading Nancy becomes nothing more than an exercise in poor taste and soft pornography.
Maria Bello doesn't seem to care what people think of her choices in movie roles. Again she chooses a very difficult and not popular movie to star in. Maybe she needs those movies, to get off the sugar coated (aka "Hollywood") ones she does here and then (Coyote Ugly and of course Mummy 3).<br /><br />While I think fails to achieve what it sets out to do (I won't spoil that), Maria Bello is as great as in her other independent/small movies she stars in. It's her performance that elevates this movie. This combined with the strange subject matter almost did the trick for me. But in the end (and even if I try to overlook some flaws, like bad pacing and dramaturgy), the movie is still too long
Although Misty Ayers (burlesque stripper) is certainly attractive as the blonde lead, this flick is just an excuse to let her strip down to her underwear a few times (no nudity in 1954 when this film was made; not 1965).<br /><br />The guy who hires her to work in a whorehouse resembles Bud Abbott of Abbott & Costello. Most of the other woman are unattractive, and the drunken woman is semi-amusing in a creepy way.<br /><br />A 2 out of 10. Ms. Ayers has a curvacious physique, but you can't judge any acting talent because the ENTIRE film is post-dubbed. Some of these "exploitation films", usually made later than this one, are interesting in some way, but this is really a bore fest. Sid Melton (MAKE ROOM FOR DADDY) directed. There are some Samurai-like facial expressions and interesting apartments, but there's really NOTHING here.
Released in 1965, but clearly shot years earlier, this is an inept little crime melodrama with some inept sexploitation up front. As usual for grindhouse flicks of era, there's a fair amount of undressing and dressing for no reason complemented by lousy music, annoying narration, and awkward editing. The coffee shop scene lays the excruciating groundwork, as we chop back and forth between characters to avoid actually seeing them speak their lines. All we get are reaction shots to the off-screen character's voice! 50s-pretty Misty Ayers strips to her French-cut panties a couple of times before the action gets started. She's accompanied continuously by what is apparently stock music from romantic to western to mother-does-the-dishes, mixed randomly to produce, among other things, the most thrilling cigarette lighting ever captured on film. Watch as he taps it! Watch as he strikes the match! Will he inhale or will he be captured by Apaches? Only time will tell!! The film tells the sordid tale of how Sally gets tricked into working in a whorehouse, falls for a dope, and can't escape. For some reason, we're treated to some of the most bored and boring hookers ever committed to film, literally doing their nails or knitting rather than entertaining the clientèle. Some stupendously lame comedy (boozy dame accidentally drinks milk! Har dee har!) and silent film acting doesn't help. This is one of the worst feature films I've ever seen, even on the Something Weird Video marquee. It's really more of a film curiosity for those interested in the history of cinema--very bad cinema.
Obviously made to show famous 1950s stripper Misty Ayers "acting" talents. Too bad she can't act.<br /><br />Boring little tale about sweet, innocent Sally Down (Ayers) being drugged and forced into white slavery (prostitution). Then she meets likable Tommy Cole who instantly falls in love with her. He wants to help her escape but can he? You really won't care.<br /><br />There's no real skin here--Ayers just strips down SLOWLY to her underwear (twice). The rest is just a boring little tale chockful of bad acting, atrocious "comedy" (never thought prostitution was funny but what do I know?) and terrible post-dubbed dialogue. I admit there was a twist at the end I didn't see coming but that's not enough to sit through this. Also Ayers' attempts at acting are hysterical! A real bomb. Avoid.
Misty Ayers had a smoking body, and that's all this movie was about. Pure exploitation flick. I started playing a game with myself, counting the number of times they looped the stock orchestral music. And of course the music is completely unrelated to the scenes. Case in point: casually walking into a room and saying "Hello" was scored with chase music from a roman epic. I'd like to know why this film sat on the shelf for 11 years before being released. What I learned from this movie: that women's low-rise panties existed in 1954. I'm talking Sigourney Weaver in the original Alien movie panties. At least 20 of the first 30 minutes is Misty leisurely taking off and putting on her clothing (except for bra and panties, sadly). Also includes horrendous dubbing, leading to a "Look out! Godzirra!" effect.
Cheap, amateurish, unimaginative, exploitative... but don't think it'll have redeeming amusement value. About as unentertaining, uninstructive and just plain dull as a film can be.
After seeing MIDNIGHT OFFERINGS I am still convinced that the first decent movie about (teenage) witches yet has to be made. I didn't think much of THE CRAFT and I'm not into CHARMED either. The only film I more or less enjoyed (about teenage witches) was LITTLE WITCHES (1996), and even that one wasn't very good. But changes are that if you liked all the aforementioned movies, you will also enjoy MIDNIGHT OFFERINGS.<br /><br />I was expecting a silly and cheesy early 80's movie about teenage witches in high school. But I was rather surprised that this whole movie plays it rather serious. The acting is decent and serious all the time. No jokes are being played by teenagers or something. And the musical score, at first, I thought was pretty good. It added some scariness and also something 'classy', with the use of threatening violins and all. But as the movie progressed I came to the conclusion that the score was just too ambitious. They didn't have to add those threatening violins when you simply see someone back up a car and then drive away at normal speed.<br /><br />Then there's Melissa Sue Anderson, who was the main reason for me to see this movie. A few weeks ago, I saw her in HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME, a rather enjoyable, thick-plotted (and goofy on some occasions) slasher-movie which she had done in the same year as MIDNIGHT OFFERINGS. And I must say, she was very good as the icy-cold bad witch Vivian. But the main problem with the movie is: almost nothing happens! Vivian causes a death and an accident, yes, but that's it. Then there's Robin, the good witch, who is just learning about her powers. And we expect the two of them using their powers more than once, but at only one occasion they use their powers to make some pieces of wood and other stuff fly through the air as projectiles. That was supposed to be a fight between two powerful witches? And what's worse, I was hoping to see a spectacular show-down between the witches at the end of the movie with at least some special effects, flaming eyes or whatever... but nothing happens. There is sort of a confrontation in the end, but it's a big disappointment.<br /><br />So, the acting of the two witches was good. The musical score was decent (even though overly ambitious). And the cinematography was rather dark and moody at times. But that doesn't make a good movie yet, does it?
How could 4 out of 16 prior voters give this movie a 10? How could more than half the prior voters give it a 7 or higher? Who is voting here? I can only assume it is primarily kids -- very young kids. The fact is that this is a bad movie in every way. The story is stupid; the acting is hard to even think of as acting; the characters are characterless; and the dialogue is terrible. I saw this one rainy afternoon on the Sci-Fi channel. In the sad event that it is ever rebroadcast, I suggest you read a book instead.
This beautifully filmed and scripted episode was let down for two reasons. 1) Perhaps it was the morality of the 1950s talking, but no man left alone on an asteroid for years would react with such hysterical negativity to the gift of a female android. 2) It wasn't an android at all, but a woman, the beautiful Jean Marsh.<br /><br />The popularity of the sex doll industry in the coming decades could have traced its origins back to this episode if they'd done it properly. In fact, the modernization of sex-bots are in the news as I speak.<br /><br />Robots were not new to movies or television when this episode was made, so they could have at least had her act like one. Her fleshiness would then have added a creepy element. Instead, it becomes a nice little love story about two humans on faraway star.<br /><br />The Twilight Zone always stretched the imagination and credulity. Normally no one cared. But this episode seemed hamstrung by a Calvinist morality eschewing what would have amounted to masturbation with a machine, or downright carelessness.
If you haven't seen the gong show TV series then you won't like this movie much at all, not that knowing the series makes this a great movie. <br /><br />I give it a 5 out of 10 because a few things make it kind of amusing that help make up for its obvious problems.<br /><br />1) It's a funny snapshot of the era it was made in, the late 1970's and early 1980's. 2) You get a lot of funny cameos of people you've seen on the show. 3) It's interesting to see Chuck (the host) when he isn't doing his on air TV personality. 4) You get to see a lot of bizarre people doing all sorts of weirdness just like you see on the TV show.<br /><br />I won't list all the bad things because there's a lot of them, but here's a few of the most prominent.<br /><br />1) The Gong Show Movie has a lot of the actual TV show clips which gets tired at movie length. 2) The movie's story line outside of the clip segments is very weak and basically is made up of just one plot point. 3) Chuck is actually halfway decent as an actor, but most of the rest of the actors are doing typical way over the top 1970's flatness.<br /><br />It's a good movie to watch when you don't have an hour and a half you want to watch all at once. Watch 20 minutes at a time and it's not so bad. But even then it's not so good either. ;)
No wonder this movie never saw the light of day. The timing was of the release was awful. The Gong Show had already "jumped the shark" by the time the movie came out, so who would pay money just to see a few of the censored clips from the original run of the show? And the show clips are just a tiny bit of this pathetic, 90-minute whine by Chuck Barris about how hard his life was as host of the show. Did he really expect we would feel sorry for him and his messed-up millionaire life? Did he really think we even wanted to KNOW about his life? (Obviously so, since he later wrote his weird autobiography about his career as a CIA operative.) Did he think the gag of having everyone, everywhere audition for him would stay fresh for 90 minutes? Or the network executive hounding him at every turn? This might have worked as the plot for a 30-minute sitcom episode, but not as a full-length movie. However, it was nice to see Rip Taylor, Gene Gene, and the Unknown Comic again (although, to make the movie "spicy," they included only his most vulgar routines). And as someone else has pointed out, this is Phil Hartman's first significant movie part (even though it lasts only a minute). Note his name is spelled HARTMANN in the credits, which is the name he was born with. You can't miss his voice and facial expressions, even though he's much thinner and younger than in the SNL days. Ed Molinaro (Hill Street Blues) also has a tiny part; one of his first after leaving the soap world.
Having searched for this movie high and low, I actually found it when I least expected, playing on the Sundance Channel very early in the morning one day. Why I searched endlessly for a small vanity project that Chuck Barris that was made during the last waning years of the TV show, I haven't a clue. The film is simply put horrible. The scripted part that deals with a week that is. Of course the highlight of the film is seeing the real performers that were "too hot for TV" or rejected for some reason or other. That part is still horrid, but campy bad which was enjoyable in it's own way. Now that I saw what I sought after for so long will I watch it again in my lifetime? Resoundingly NO!! Do yourself a favor and just watch the MUCH MUCH better "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind" or find old copies of the actual show. The girl act where there just lick popsicles provocatively was fun, but having to endure seeing Jay P. Morgon flash the audience has in all likelihood made me sterile. In hindsight, I'm so very happy that this was massive flop, for if it was a massive hit, there could have been a "The $1.98 Beauty Show Movie" and THAT my friends would surely have brought upon the Apocalypse.<br /><br />My Grade: D
Easily the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. Direction : none. Story: pathetic. Screenplay : that will be a good idea. There is a lot of gratuitous graphics, all of pathetic quality. Preserve your sanity, dont ever see this movie !
Let me state first that I love Westerns & Civil War stories. I also consider John Ford as an excellent director. I also have the same high feelings for John Wayne & William Holden's acting ability.<br /><br />I cannot remember if I saw this film when it first came out in 1959. Last night was the first time I saw it since then.<br /><br />As per my 4 rating, one can say I did not like the movie.<br /><br />I now will attempt to tell some of its shortcomings.<br /><br />John Lee Mahin who wrote the screenplay from Harold Sinclair's novel, was a very gifted writer & wrote many fine scripts, This script is poorly written & badly researched. They make mention of the awful conditions of the Andersonville prison, At the time of the movie Andersonville was not in operation. They also use rifles that were not used at the time.<br /><br />John Ford was directing films for over 40 years & won 4 Oscars. He must have been ill during the making of this.His usual style was missing. It could be that this was film in the south & east and not in Monument Valley.<br /><br />He normally had a stock company of players he used in nearly all his film, MOST were missing this time. This time only minor cowboy stars Hoot Gibson & Ken Curtiss have roles & of course Anna Lee has a small role. There were no other familiar faces except for the 3 stars. (see below) Mr. Fords stock company made most of his films the classics they were; sadly missed here.<br /><br />Now we come to the main stars John Wayne & William Holden. The Duke also must have been ill,he seemed out of place here. This sort of role usually fit his style perfectly, he was just adequate here. Wiliam Holden did the best he could, but nowhere as good as he usually was.<br /><br />It was required that there be an actress in this type of movie. Here in her first major role (second film) is Constance Towers, a very beautiful person, But not really an actress, She is still having roles on Television. Let me be kind and say she has had a long career,more based on her looks than acting talent. Also in caas as Ms. Towers servant is Tennis Star Althea Gibson.I am glad she stuck to tennis.<br /><br />The rest of the production credits were far from the usual high standard of other John Ford films There were a few military type songs supposedly done by the marching cavalry, not good at all. The action scenes were good but come at the end of film.<br /><br />Ratings *1/2* (out of 4) 47 points (out of 100) IMDb 4 (out of 10)
Oh, how we have a misfire here; a film so bad that your mind will wonder and drift away onto other things as it wastes your time with brain numbingly poor production values; character stereotypes of the worst and racist kind since D.W. Griffith referred to the Chinese character in Broken Blossoms as 'the yellow man'; characters so unimaginative and un-engaging that it's difficult to watch as well as a narrative that plods along at such a slow, stupid and pointless pace that you will question the very people who say they like this film.<br /><br />Prizzi's Honor is a film that ends up being an absolute post-modern disaster in every which way possible. The film is a messy and senseless disaster that has John Huston directing; Kathleen Turner and Jack Nicholson staring and everybody else filling in the gaps as either dumb stereotypes or supporting characters that weep on a phone now and again or bicker with a main character. Prizzi's Honor is a film that falls into a genre of neo-noir, comedy, romance, action, gangster and overall crime – this twinned with its director and cast should be enough to propel it through some sort of a story; some sort of a sequence of good scenes; some sort of intelligence in the form of a screenplay or something else but no – what we get is a nasty and ugly film revolving around nothing at all.<br /><br />I'll give a couple of examples of how shoddy this horror show of a film actually is. Firstly, the film thinks it's a love story and it thinks this for about an hour of its time: of MY time. Charley Partanna (Nicholson) is an assassin who kills people for a family that he works for in New York and yet he resembles his character out of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest more than an international hit-man. He meets and falls in love with Irene Walker (Turner) who is another assassin and they hit it off but as the poor excuse for a plot plays out, it appears all is not right. I read that the plot for this film is: "A professional hit man and hit woman fall in love, only to discover that they have each been hired to kill the other." Well, yes that's true but that actual revelation doesn't happen until about twenty minutes to the end! Nicholson plays Partanna like someone with an IQ of 60: he walks around; seemingly making observations and talking out loud about things he sees; he talks like he is either drunk or has a more serious problem from within and worse of all we never get the feeling he is an assassin – one really poorly shot assassination early on (that actually happens off screen) is not enough to suggest this guy is a hard-bodied, best of the best, international hit-man.<br /><br />So with a main character who is un-likable and un-realistic, we move to the script. The first hour and a half is just a cinematic dead zone with what ever there is to suggest traces of life merely poor conventions: Partanna slouches around on the phone or in person asking the same things over and over again: "Do I marry her?; Do I love her? What is love? What do I do?" and it gets so repetitive, it's not even able to act as good humour. This twinned with the way he always seemed to be on the phone to someone: a girl called Maerose Prizzi (Huston) played by director John's daughter; which served absolutely no purpose to the plot whatsoever and seemed to be there for laughs as was the scene in which she tells her father about how she slept with Partanna and loved it – that got me thinking, was this supposed to be funny? Should I be laughing? The film felt like a smart mafia picture what with its opening scene of a wedding (alá The Godfather) and consequential scenes with a touch of noir as gangsters, police men and assassins were introduced into the film. But what we get is something very, very different.<br /><br />The second hour revolves around some sort of a kidnap plot; right, the love and romance is dealt with – maybe the film will kick-start. I was so very wrong: with more characters continuously talking very slowly and very deliberately in a monotone way, we have a kidnap scene involving some guy coming out of his office: this scene sums the film up. Everything is briefly planned and then executed in a heavy handed and dumb way that just makes it look cheesy. We do not get to see them arrive to some dramatic music; perhaps they have to get through security to get to the elevators; maybe they have to be careful of civilians when they hide in their chosen places and when that random woman steps out of the elevator and the gunshot occurs – the scene isn't even edited correctly. Some suspense, some drama: "Do I shoot or don't I?"; maybe some slow motion as the character has to quick draw before it's too late – anything but how it was actually executed. Prizzi's Honor continues its monotonous and uninteresting decent into filmic oblivion as it nears its climax. It's a film where cameras reflect in windows; lights reflect in sides of cars and 'dead' chauffeurs blink when nudged. Prizzi's Honor is a jumbled and messy film that will try the patients of any film-goer and don't say it was a comedy because I didn't laugh with it – AT it is another matter. The film is repetitive, drawn out and colourless in its vision and scope for originality - there is no Honour here.
Eight academy nominations? It's beyond belief. I can only think it was a very bad year - even by Hollywood standards. With Huston as director and Jack Nicholson and Kathleen Turner as leads I probably would have swallowed the bait and watched this anyway, but the Oscar nominations really sold it to me, and I feel distinctly cheated as a result.<br /><br />So it's a black comedy is it? Can anyone tell me where the humour is in Prizzi's Honor? It's certainly tasteless (the shooting in the head of a policeman's wife is but another supposedly comic interlude in this intended farce about mafia life) but with the exception of a joke about 'your favourite Mexican cigars' (which I imagine is an old joke for Americans who have been officially forbidden from buying anything Cuban for the last 50 years) I failed to spot anything of a comic nature - and I did try. There is a lot of Mafia cliché but cliché doesn't constitute humour in my book.<br /><br />Is it a romantic comedy of sorts? Never. The characters and their relationships are so completely incredible and shallow that they are on a par with Ben Afleck and Jennifer Lopez in Gigli.<br /><br />Is it a cleverly devised parody about the Mafia? Not in a million years. The plot is just pointlessly absurd rather than comically absurd, and it usually just has the feel of a really bad (and cheap) Mafia movie. It feels more like a homage than a parody.<br /><br />With one-dimensional characters and little in the way of humour written for them, the actors are left doing dodgy accents and pulling faces. Well it isn't enough; even when the face is being pulled by that master of the comic facial expression, Jack Nicholson (repleat with puffed up top lip ... now is that meant to be a parody of Brando's padded jowls in The Godfather?... Oh! Who cares?... all I know is, it isn't funny).<br /><br />Throw in some slow, plodding direction (this film drags on for 2 hours), some hopelessly daft and clichéd dialogue such as; "You remember the Camora? Well we're far bigger, we'll track you down wherever you go", and clichéd mannerisms and you'll be reaching for that fast forward button before you can say "capiche?". Prizzi's Honor is far from being Huston's "masterpiece" and is rather a very poor last work. It's definitely one work in the great director's canon that should be given a concrete overcoat and tossed into the Hudson River.
This movie has not aged well. Maybe it's just the impact and artful characterization, acting, and directing that we've seen with The Sopranos, but I just viewed Prizzi's Honor for the first time, on DVD, alone.<br /><br />The experience of watching it with an audience 24 years ago must have been quite different, but I have to say, I was just appalled at the ending. Not just the violence of it, but the mere idea that somehow this would be a satisfying ending.<br /><br />I enjoy a good shocker, but this seemed so out of character... Also, when was this move supposed to be set? The cars all seemed like they were from the 1960s, and yet the World Trade Center towers {completed in 1973} were clearly visible in many cityscape scenes.<br /><br />Another way in which the film has aged poorly is the mere idea that a passenger could travel coast to coast with a knife on his person.<br /><br />Somehow, mid-1980s audiences found this film charming and funny. Mid-eighties, meet the late oughts: only of you can live.
I may not have the longest of attention-spans, but this is the second movie I have refused to see all the way through, and I even bought it on DVD because of its "classic" status. <br /><br />At first, I thought that the director was playing a big joke, so I kept waiting for a resolution, something to laugh at, something to keep my interest, but this resolution never came. Rather, the writing was laughably amateurish, the movie dragged on and felt disjointed, like someone cut a TV series to feature-length. The Academy must have been on drugs when they nominated this movie for no less than eight Oscars.<br /><br />Once again, I repeat myself. This is the second movie I have refused to watch all the way through. The first was "Exterminator". I hope this gives you an indication of how bad it really is. 1/10
It's boggles the mind how this movie was nominated for seven Oscars and won one. Not because it's abysmal or because given the collective credentials of the creative team behind it really ought to deserve them but because in every category it was nominated Prizzi's Honor disappoints. Some would argue that old Hollywood pioneer John Huston had lost it by this point in his career but I don't buy it. Only the previous year he signed the superb UNDER THE VOLCANO, a dark character study set in Mexico, that ranks among the finest he ever did. Prizzi's Honor on the other hand, a film loaded with star power, good intentions and a decent script, proves to be a major letdown.<br /><br />The overall tone and plot of a gangster falling in love with a female hit-man prefigures the quirky crimedies that caught Hollywood by storm in the early 90's but the script is too convoluted for its own sake, the motivations are off and on the whole the story seems unsure of what exactly it's trying to be: a romantic comedy, a crime drama, a gangster saga etc. Jack Nicholson (doing a Brooklyn accent that works perfectly for De Niro but sounds unconvincing coming from Jack) and Kathleen Turner in the leading roles seem to be in paycheck mode, just going through the motions almost sleepwalking their way through some parts. Anjelica Huston on the other hand fares better but her performance is sabotaged by her character's motivations: she starts out the victim of her bigot father's disdain, she proves to be supportive to her ex-husband, then becomes a vindictive bitch that wants his head on a plate.<br /><br />The colours of the movie have a washed-up quality like it was made in the early 70's and Huston's direction is as uninteresting as everything else. There's promise behind the story and perhaps in the hands of a director hungry to be recognized it could've been morphed to something better but what's left looks like a film nobody was really interested in making.
Well then, what is it?! I found Nicholson's character shallow and most unfortunately uninteresting. Angelica Huston's character drained my power. And Kathleen Turner is a filthy no good slut. It's not that I "don't get it". It's not that I don't think that some of the ideas could've lead to something more. This is a film with nothing but the notion that we're supposed to accept these ideas, and that's what the movie has going for it. That Nicholson falls for Turner is absurd, but then again, it is intended to be so. This however does not strike me as a.)funny, or b.)...even remotely interesting!!! This was a waste of my time, so don't let the hype get the best of you...it is a waste of your time! With all that being said, the opening church sequence is quite beautiful...
They had an opportunity to make one of the best romantic tragedy mafia movies ever because they had the actors,the budget,and the story but the great director John Huston was too preoccupied trying to mellow out this missed classic.Strenuously trying to find black humor as often as possible which diluted the movie very much.And also they were so uncaring with details like sound and detailed action.Maybe it was the age of the director who passed away two years later.
I guess it's Jack's great empathic ability that makes him the powerful performer that he is, but empathy comes at a price like all things-when he's surrounded by mediocrity he instinctively lowers the standard and becomes one with it. He is a joke as a mafia-hit-man(also because the part doesn't suit him one bit, him being so extroverted)and just grazing avoids making a fool of himself in this.Kathleen Turner had a much tooooo long career just by being tall and blonde, because her acting ability is limited to that thing she does with her eyes, when she opens them wide which she's convinced is sooooo damn sexy and Anjelica Huston is the absolute same(granted interesting) in everything, just like Robert Loggia. <br /><br />The movie is a lame draft(and this will be the only mention of the rag they call script) of a gangster-movie, with a cast that was probably only interested to get to the after-party faster(they certainly gathered the party-going elite in this). What, did they shoot it in 1 day?-cause that would be the only explanation.
I watched this film because I noticed that it had Kari Wuhrer in the cast. I have long had a theory about her, that she is a talented actress, but never seems to get to prove that, because she is always in this sort of low-budget B movie. She is still beautiful, and she is still trying to act over the unfortunate material I always see her in. This is no different. The film is often ugly and disturbing, but that doesn't make it good. George Wendt played against type, and that was so jarring that he gets recognition for his role. Another note about Ms. Wuhrer. Her breasts seem to have shrunk markedly since I saw her last. Perhaps reduction surgery, or (more likely) removal of implants. This NOT a bad thing. She still looks great. I would like to see her in a better movie.
This was a crappy movie, with a whole lotta non-sense and too many loose-ends to count. I only watched this movie because one of my favorite actors (Ron Livingston) made a cameo in it, and I continued watching it because as a girl, I love any movie that includes male nudity for a change. Later, I found myself wondering just how much more ridiculous the storyline could get, and each time it got...more... ridiculous.<br /><br />Sean Crawley (good-looking Chris L. McKenna, whom I've never seen before - but LOVED his little nude scene)is making ends meet as a painter, when he meets electrician Duke Wayne (George Wendt from "Cheers"). Thinking he's getting more work from Duke, Sean agrees to meet contractor Ray Matthews (Daniel Baldwin, playing a stereotypically evil guy). Ray is being investigated by a City Hall accountant (Ron Livingston in a cameo, who I've been in love with from "Office Space" up to "Sex & the City"). Ray end up offering the apparently desperate-for- cash Sean $13k to kill the accountant, and Sean accepts the job. Sean stalks out the accountant, whose wife (Kari Wuhrer) he finds himself attracted to, completes the hit, and leaves - taking the file of information against Ray with him. Sean quickly learns he was being used, that Ray never intended to pay him, and Sean uses the file as leverage to get his money.<br /><br />Up to this point, it's a descent flick...generally worth watching. But as soon as Ray, Duke and their crew kidnap Sean to muscle the information about the file out of him, it just got dumber and dumber (and still DUMBER...), until finally it seemed like the film's writer, Charlie Higson, had snapped out of a 10-day writing hangover and realized he needed to desperately figure out how to wrap up the series of implausible messes he created before a deadline or something. Without simply detailing the movie, let's just say that in every-single-scene you watch after the kidnapping, you find yourself gasping "what the f**K!," baffled by the ongoing nonsense as Sean follows a fairly graphic and gross path towards redemption. In the end, so many loose-ends are left in the movie, that you begin to regret that you even watched it.<br /><br />This is a movie that you should only watch after it hits cable, and you should have enough beer and friends around to mock the film to it's full value. It's supposed to be a psychological thriller, and McKenna is a decent actor, but it's hard to give yourself to the movie when you have "Norm" from "Cheers" and a Baldwin brother doing the dirty work, and a kidnapping strategy that really makes no damned sense. Guys will love the violence, blood and guts scenes, and the absolutely unnecessary sex scenes and boob shots. Girls will enjoy handsome Sean's gratuitous crotch shot in a mainstream movie, when its almost always the girls that get stripped down in a movie. Personally, I hate that the only actor worth watching for more than his looks (Ron Livingston) is only in the first one-third of the movie.
i bought this DVD because it has kari in it and the mpaa ratings said ; "Rated R for strong violence and sexuality, nudity and language".<br /><br />which correctly, IMO, should state ; "Rated R for strong violence, sexuality, nudity and language".<br /><br />the word "sexuality" should come after a "comma", not an "and" because of the huge difference in meaning it make. i think a lot of people who have watched this movie will agree with me that the sexuality and nudity parts ALMOST non-existent. my first impression when i look at the mpaa rating was that i will be watching something like "vivid" movie. that is why i felt cheated. story-wise, it was so-so, after-all who really cares about the story if the gorgeous kari was in it. i know i don't.<br /><br />of course, this is only my opinion.<br /><br />Joseph
Why oh why don't blockbuster movies simply stick to their selling point? Everyone in the cinema, young and old, was there to see talking animals make jokes, and whilst they did that we were all happy... And then, as with Lost In Space, came the two killer blows - plot and sentiment. Who really cared what happened to the tiger or whether Eddie Murphy made up with his daughter? Not me, that's for sure.
this show is one of the worst shows of ALL TIME! absolutely no original jokes and they're always a year late. like in 2009 they will finally say something about Michael Vick's dogfights. all of the cast members are people who wanted to be on S.N.L but had to go to the lowest of the low, mad TV.its an hour of mad magazine jokes witch aren't funny to begin with, told by terrible John Stewart wanna bees. so if you have any problem tell me id love to hear the opinion of the 3 people who watch this show. family guy put it well "Osama bin Ladin was hiding in the one place no one would look, the cast of mad TV. There is a reason why no one watches the show.
In the glory days of the 90s (god rest its soul) you could turn on the great Comedy Central at any hour of the day and see the greatest sketch comedy show of all time Saturday Night Live. Whpat a glorious show that was, whether it was the original Not-Ready-for-Primetime Players or the second golden age of SNL featuring the greats- Chris Farley, Adam Sandler, David Spade... and then, it all went to hell. I was first exposed to MadTV about a year and a half ago, and I think I must've passed out from shock. How could a show so terrible prevail for so long? There are so many horrible flaws. I suppose I'll start with the writing. The writing, for most part, is terrible. It is nothing more than kindergarten bathroom humor. The cast, for the most part, is talentless. There are a few sketches I have enjoyed, such as some of Ms. Swan and Stuart, and there are a few talents on the show such as the magnificent Alex Borstein. Phil LaMarr is a talented actor, just not as a comedian. Although there a few sparse ha ha moments, they are not enough to redeem this endless line of horrible drivel populated by babbling idiots. Miss this one.
Horrible, horrible TV show! Why Comedy Central decided to repeat old episodes of this program is beyond me. It really sucks! I am, of course, speaking about the seasons after the first two. The first two seasons were golden, and if I was exclusively talking about those seasons, this show would have gotten eight out of ten stars. None of the comedians appearing after the first two seasons who were not part of the original cast are any good. They were, and are, awful. The comedy is not funny at all. AT ALL!!! <br /><br />The original cast was full of very talented comedians, like Artie Lange, Phil LaMarr, and Mary Schorr (or whatever her name is), all of whom should have gotten better deals after they left MAD TV. This show is highly overrated, and less worthy of your channel surfing time than Saturday Night Live, another horrible show. Go out on Saturday night and have fun, and leave MAD TV to wither and die, as it deserves to.
You've got to admire director Todd Sheets for his dedication, drive and enthusiasm when it comes to movie-making: between 1985 and 2000, he made a whopping 34 films. Unfortunately, if his Zombie Bloodbath trilogy is anything to go by, they're probably all crap (and a quick look at their IMDb ratings seems to verify my hunch).<br /><br />Part 3 sees a group of obnoxious students finding detention a little more eventful than usual after they are attacked by hordes of the living dead, who have escaped from a top-secret army base located directly beneath their school. Working from a dreadful script by Brian Eklund (which relies heavily on liberal use of the f-bomb) director Sheets delivers yet another embarrassingly amateurish effort featuring some mind-numbingly awful performances from his talent-free cast, dreadful visual effects (some crap CGI and what looks like the front of a giant cardboard space-shuttle) and his trademark shoddy gore (handfuls of offal pulled from beneath his victims' clothing).<br /><br />Finally, after what seems like an eternity watching irritating characters running for their lives, and unconvincing undead people fondling animal innards, Zombie Armageddon finishes with a time-travel/paradox twist ending which forces viewers to re-watch several torturous minutes from the beginning of the film. Honestly... once was enough, Mr. Sheets—what have we done to deserve having to watch it again?
Why in the world would someone make this piece of trash movie? The first two Zombie Bloodbath movies were stupid enough, but this takes the cake for the worst of the trilogy (Perhaps of all time). Todd Sheets is still the director, but no longer the screenwriter, which isn't a negative or a positive, considering he's just as untalented as the guy who wrote this one. The writing is too heavily reliant on the f-word, which is used somewhere between 200 and 300 times at nausea. The acting is about on par with the last two Bloodbath movies, so naturally, it's some of the worst I've ever seen. The special effects are better than the last 2, but they still look godawful. The plot has become too complicated for it's own good, and was about some government experiment gone wrong and zombies being produced. Also featured is cryogenically frozen mutant zombie and school kids that know how to time travel, leading to one of the most idiotic endings I've ever seen. After the movie it goes to outtakes, which is strange because this whole movie is an outtake. Only see this to make fun of it, because if you go into this with a serious mind, you might possibly kill yourself.<br /><br />My rating: BOMB/****. 95 mins.
I really liked ZB1. Really, I did. I have no problem with extremely low-budget movies, and I have enjoyed movies with worse production values than ZB3 (if you can imagine such a thing. check out 'wiseguys vs. zombies,' if you're interested). Indeed, I prefer lower budget zombie films, because I am suspicious that Hollywood directors do not understand what zombies are 'about.'<br /><br />But ZB3 was just so bad. It was retarded. I don't want to bother being dignified in my criticism. I want my 90 minutes back, etc. Except that it really only took ~80 minutes, because partway through I put it into 1.4X fast forward.<br /><br />Okay, here's some criticism.<br /><br />1. The pacing was TERRIBLE. Everyone talked in monologues. Even when someone just had a single line, the camera work and the editing and the insertion of a bunch of F-bombs into every sentence made the line FEEL like a monologue. At first I was excited about the 90 minute running time compared to ZB1's 70 minutes, but there were actually fewer 'events' in ZB3. It's all talking.<br /><br />2. The gore effects got stupider. Just glop rubbed around on people's tummies.<br /><br />3. Despite the epic exposition, there really wasn't a plot. And the exposition is indeed epic! I won't spoil it, if you're going to watch it. (Don't watch it.) But then, it's just a bunch of lame characters walking around and bickering for ~80 minutes. or fewer, if you so choose.
For the life of me I can not understand the blind hype and devotion to this totally unbelievable movie......and I think I have the qualifications to say so.... I am a former Special Operations soldier with 14 years in the "lifestyle" ... This movie was totally totally unreal and obviously written by someone that did very little research into life in the Army, in combat or at a team or platoon level.<br /><br />Three EOD guys trouncing around Bagdad on their own????? Get Real... No chain of command????? Get Real... EOD clearing buildings??? Get Real....EOD/ Military Intelligence / Sniper qualified buck sergeant???? Get Real.... Wait... I shot and killed a bad guy and then let two guys take me without firing another shot or being injured at all???? Get Real....I carjack an Iraqi civilian, while I am only armed with a 9 mil, break into another civilians house, get punked by his wife then make it back to camp on foot in the middle of Bagdad at night without as so much as a scratch or confrontation???? Get Real...<br /><br />There is absolutely no adherence to military protocol {Army} and no resemblance at all to any Army unit that I have even encountered. Totally unbelievable and disrespectful to the men and women of EOD who contrary to this poor film are not wild adrenaline seeking yahoos but extremely qualified professionals doing an incredibly hard job.
I really wanted to like this movie, but ended up bored and incredulous. The first shot is a camera feed from a robot traveling towards a bomb and is, naturally, shaky. But then the rest of the movie stays in shakycam mode, even during quiet conversational moments, to the point of ridiculousness. Have the rental houses run out of tripods and Steadicams? The fact that it was shot on 16mm doesn't help, as the entire movie is grainy as well as shaky. <br /><br />For all the effort Bigelow put into accurate vehicles and equipment, there are enough glaring errors and inconsistencies that they undermine the movie's credibility. <br /><br />- A car would not erupt in flames after a single shot, and once engulfed would not be extinguished by a small hand-held extinguisher. <br /><br />- A single Humvee would not be driving around Baghdad in 2004, but would be backed up by other vehicles in case of breakdown or attack. - It would be exceptionally unlikely to be able to hit a running insurgent at long range, where the bullet is clearly taking over a second to reach the target. <br /><br />- I believe bombs were brought to designated disposal areas on or near a base, not some random spot in the middle of the desert. <br /><br />- The oil tanker attack is stated to have occurred in the Green Zone, a highly secure area that experienced very few attacks from within. The zone is mostly offices and palaces with few residences, yet it is portrayed as a dangerous warren of dark alleys and lurking insurgents. Oddly, James never gets in trouble for the ridiculous tactic of ordering his two companions to each take an alley by themselves, thus setting up the attempted kidnapping. <br /><br />- Speaking of which, the 3-man team is always depicted clearing buildings, chasing insurgents etc. on their own, even when there are clearly dozens of soldiers right there. <br /><br />- How many hours does the team have to stare at a dead insurgent hanging out a window to figure out he's not faking it?<br /><br />There were no establishing shots to show the viewer what the size and layout of the base was or where Baghdad was in relation. I had no idea who the EOD team reported to, nor were any other characters fleshed out. These are things the characters would know, so we should too.<br /><br />Many of the "surprises" and scenes are perfectly predictable. Yes, it's obvious that the psychiatrist colonel will get into trouble with the Iraqis he's trying to move along, that the choice of cereals back home will be overwhelming, and that a driver you kidnapped will not wait for you when you leave the vehicle.<br /><br />Finally, there was an almost complete lack of character development. Renner's character from the beginning has a troubled relationship at home, is reckless and addicted to adrenalin. He's exactly the same at the end of the movie. What's the point?<br /><br />If this is indeed the best so far of the Iraqi war movies, it's a sorry bunch. Just based on the half hour I saw of it, I'd recommend Generation Kill on HBO instead.
Like a latter day Ayn Rand, Bigelow is la major muy macho in her depiction in the film of a few tough American hombres stuck in Iraq defusing roadside bombs set by the ruthless, relentless, child-killing Arab terrorists. As Bigelow posits the Iraq war as the backdrop of the grand stage of human drama, one veteran bomb expert gets blown up and another shows up to replace him in the dusty, hot, ugly rubble that is Iraq, and a new hero is born.<br /><br />The new guy is what John Hershey described in his book, and later the movie, The War Lover, as a sadistic wingnut who actually isn't fit for civilian life, and requires the stimulation of war to sublimate and suppress his errant sexual desires. The war lover can only fully function in war, peacetime suffocates him. While Hershey chastised the war lover, (played in the film by Steve McQueen in one of his greatest roles) Bigelow glorifies him. The army needs war lovers, they are the bulwark of defense against our enemies. We can't handle the truth, that it is war lovers who are the best soldiers, the toughest men. According to the unironic Bigelow, regular men are pussies, the war lover is a special breed, the last of the cowboys. So what if he wants to bare-back his men, or fondle an Iraqi boy? He is a throwback to the sex-and-death cult of war. In war, sex is a thankless, loveless, don't-ask, don't-tell kind of male bonding. Bigelow has no opinion on this; she just limits the options of masculinity in this ham-fisted attempt at realism. Only a war-lover can win the moral struggle between right and wrong, between American innocence and Arab perfidy. Bigelow disguises her racism and arrogance behind the ingenuous facade of journalism. She's just another gung-ho yahoo depicting a brutal war against civilians as a moral triumph of the spirit.<br /><br />On the political front, Bigelow returns to the western genre and its relentless clichés again and again, ad nauseam: the wonderful world of the open frontier, which happens to be some one else's country. ("You can shoot people here" says a soldier ); the tough but human black guy companion, the soldier with a premonition of death, the gruff, possibly crazy commanding officer, the college-educated fool who tries to befriend the enemy. You name it, Bigelow resurrects it.<br /><br />The man-boy love is palpable in scenes with the cute Arab boy who befriends the war lover, but Bigelow plays it straight; she doesn't consummate the sex, just sanitizes it. What Bigelow really wants to show us is the ugly, sneering face of the Arab enemy. Any Iraqi who isn't pure evil is either demented, hostile or up to no good, anyway. They all deserve to die for their impudence, and many of them do in this glib gore-fest film. The Iraqi women are all hysterical, they only make their presence known by screaming. They could be male stunt men in drag for all I know, you never see their faces. There is no female presence at all on base or in battle, although female casualty rates in Iraq would certainly disprove this.<br /><br />Bigelow goes through all the motions one by one. She glorifies war, she canonizes the sadist nut-case hero. The cowboys, surrounded by the subhuman Indians, prove their mettle by doing God's work and subduing the wretched terrorist-infested hellhole with sheer bravado and suicidal mania. Toward the end, I felt like rooting for the Indians. In Bigelow's world, though, no mercy or understanding ever makes it through. The Iraqis are dehumanized par excellence. The slaughter of civilians is just the dramatic backdrop to our hero's psycho sexual struggle. Every U.S, bullet finds its mark. You have to love the guy, the war lover. It's just his way, he is the true hero. He's just a guy trying to get things done the hard way, and so what if he lusts for boy tang on the side.
I'm a huge fan of war movies, and, as a Vietnam combat vet, have some experience with the technical details. I worked with the bomb guys more than once and have nothing but respect for them. Other vets, and Iraq vets in particular, have summarized the inaccuracies in this movie very well. Poetic license is one thing, but this movie is a complete fantasy, and fails badly because of it. No bomb disposal unit, or any unit, would ever have tolerated this rogue operator for more than 5 minutes. Military units prize conformity and discipline for a reason;it saves lives. The opening scene particularly annoyed me. The guy with the cell phone would have been shot immediately. Yelling, "Stop dialing" is not an effective deterrent. It got worse from there. The scenes with the sniper were particularly egregious. As others have noted, your average EOD guy doesn't know jack about being a sniper, and to think any Arab sniper is that good really stretches the imagination. Kidnapping an Arab businessman for some form of personal revenge just wouldn't happen. Somebody might shoot him, but this kind of risk-taking is limited to the movies. I could go on, but, as I said, others have pointed these things out in detail. This is not a good movie, and if it wins any awards at all, it's a further reflection of why "La La land" is so named.
I saw this movie once, and I thought it was OK. Then my friends at work said "Watch it again, it's better". So I did. And to my surprise, it was WORSE on the second time! There's a word limit, so I'm going to get the ball rolling here.<br /><br />-The bombing scenes were all so stupid. Why on earth would anyone WAIT to trigger the explosion??? -None of the characters here are even remotely likable. Not on the first time, not even the second.<br /><br />-Oh, and last time I checked, a car does not explode from a single gun shot, nor can a fire THAT huge be put out with a tiny fire extinguisher... did the above 3/10 viewers actually watch the movie??? -The camera is so shaky, I can barely tell what is going on. That opening scene with the robot had my stomach off-put, the rest of the movie was not much better.<br /><br />-The sniper scene. The McManus Brothers (from "The Boondock Saints") would roll their eyes, it was so stupid. First off, why did the guy plant his gun where one person had gotten shot? Furthermore, why would he spend THAT much time cleaning the bullets, reloading, aiming and NOT get shot, when there was so much chaos going on around him? -SAS types RUNNING instead of staying and fighting back?????? Huh????? Are the soldiers... gay...??? I didn't mean to sound homophobic, but honestly, that scene was so ridiculous.<br /><br />-Too long for its own good, yet too short for the amount of material crammed into it. Bigelow seems to think that the more action, the better. Looks like she is wrong- the movie is full of superfluous action scenes thrown in there to distract you from the lack of a central plot. I know Watchmen is longer at 163 minutes, but at least that movie didn't drag. This movie, on the other hand, does, and for it, feels longer.<br /><br />The only good thing was Renner, who was satisfactory at best. But do yourself a favour, just skip this, and don't give into the hype.
watch a team of bomb disposal experts in Iraq count down their time before they can go home.<br /><br />That in itself sounds boring. Every time that little caption came up telling us how long they had left, it just caused this film with no plot to drag on and on. hurry up and finish your time there so we can all go home.<br /><br />I must be missing something. I'm a great fan of war films if they are done well. This had "jarhead" syndrome. A film that at times was beautifully shot, but cinematography doesn't stop it from being totally dull and pointless.<br /><br />And get over the slow mo "cartridges coming out of the gun" shot already. they could have saved money and just got stock footage from any other film with a gun in it.<br /><br />I didn't have any empathy for the main guy in it, i was constantly hoping that his recklessness would cause him to die. In fact the film would have worked much better if he had.<br /><br />I read some reviews and seemed to get the feeling that those who had been in the armed forces disliked it, and everyone else loved it. I have never been in the forces, and I'm with them. It's pretentious drivel. the 3 stars are for the cinematography.
Some unrealistic movie spoilers included.<br /><br />From real life experiences, this movie continued to disappoint from the very beginning. I'm currently deployed on my second tour to Iraq as an infantry man. This film has nothing near what would happen in real life occurrences. From the very start to name a few: the bomb cart, the EOD elements rolling out solo with no escorts, the EOD staff sergeant sneaking of VBC, having sleeves rolled the entire time in ACUs, to where i had to call it quits on my 2 dollar haji copy, the sniper scene. The list would continue, however, it is unnecessary to list things wrong happening with a time span of 2 minutes before more things were incorrect; and the point was made.<br /><br />This movie is for people and critics to watch that have no understanding or experience with deployments or the military.<br /><br />People with military background or knowledge of the military will be disappointed with the inaccuracy.
I just rented this today....heard lots of good reviews beforehand. WOW!! What a pile of steaming poo this movie is!! Does anyone know the address of the director so I can get my five dollars back???? Finally someone bumped "Stop-loss" from the 'Worst Iraq War Movie Ever' number one spot. To be fair, I don't think there are any good Iraq war movies anyway, but this was REALLY bad. <br /><br />I won't get into any technical inaccuracies, there's a hundred reviews from other GWOT vets that detail them all. If the director bothered to consult even the lowliest E-nothing about technical accuracy however they could've made the movie somewhat realistic....maybe. I guess the writer should be given the "credit" for this waste of a film. He or she obviously hatched the plot for this movie from some vivid imagination not afflicted with the restraints of reality. Does anybody but me wonder what the point of this movie was? Was there a message? Seriously though.....WTF????<br /><br />I'm pretty amazed at all the positive reviews really. This film is hard to watch as a vet because of all the glaring inaccuracies but even if one could overlook that, the plot sucks, characters are shallow (to say the least) and the acting is poor at best. It's ironic, I suppose, that this movie is supposed to be about Explosive Ordinance Disposal, because it's the biggest bomb I've seen this year.
I love a good war film and I fall into the "been there, done that" category. So I would like to think my review is an accurate one (IMHO). Having just watched this film on DVD I can safely say that it was a pile of rubbish. There is no way I can recommend this film to you.<br /><br />It started off with me shouting at the TV saying "you wouldn't do that" etc...but I soon realised that having a bit of job experience would be a hindrance so I chilled a bit. But on the opening scene when the trailer wheel fell off I got a nasty feeling that this film would be a predictable dud...I was right.<br /><br />There simply wasn't any logic to the EOD scenes. I just know that the army team had some of the most patient insurgents ever at the other end of the command wire or remote trigger. So much so I was left scratching my head all the time. Then just when you think you know where the story is going the guys in the Humvee are off out on their own driving around the desert. One of the most valuable assets in theatre out on a jolly bumping into some SAS wannabe contractors.<br /><br />The sniper scene was just so laughable. It just made no sense at all and made me want to switch off there and then. Then for them to drag it out so long really did test my patience.It started with the "Contact Right" and went down hill fast. If you had a Brit accent then you got shot but if you were part of the EOD team then suddenly you were a great shot and saved the day. Then just as you thought it was over it stretched on for an inexplicably long period without adding anything to the story at all. You are just left watching and asking why hasn't it ended yet?<br /><br />Then we had the booze scene where they just hit each other for a laugh..another scene where you just wanted it to end. It added nothing to the film.<br /><br />Then just as my life seemed very dull the main star went outside the wire to hunt someone down. This most be the most ridiculous scene I have ever watched. It defied all logic and ability to write a good storyline...it was senseless and awful. I still don't understand why they wasted time on it. Then to watch him just jog through the busy streets heading back to camp had me rolling on the floor with laughter. Pure comedy :)<br /><br />The sad fact is that this storyline is all over the show without really deciding what it wants to be. I thought it was going to be stupid illogical EOD scenes but then it kept going off on tangents trying to be something different. But as hard as it tried it just bored me to death. All I wanted was for it to end. It was a messy compilation of stupid scenes mixed into a batch of stupid, senseless, action(ish) scenes.<br /><br />There is no way I can recommend this. Maybe my work experience compromised the enjoyability but even the naive must realise this just doesn't make sense. The only thing more stupid than this film is the artificially high IMDb rating...which must be the 24/7 work of the box office PR team who seem to use this website as a way of making everyone think it is good. Sorry folks...it just ain't!<br /><br />Not recommended...it will just bore you.
As usual, I am making a mad dash to see the movies I haven't watched yet in anticipation of the Oscars. I was really looking forward to seeing this movie as it seemed to be right up my alley. I can not for the life of me understand why this movie has gotten the buzz it has. There is no story!! A group of guys meander around Iraq. One day they are here diffusing a bomb. Tomorrow they are tooling around the countryside, by themselves no less and start taking sniper fire. No wait here they are back in Bagdad. There is no cohesive story at all. The three main characters are so overly characterized that they are mere caricatures. By that I mean, we have the sweet kid who is afraid of dying. We have the hardened military man who is practical and just wants to get back safe. And then we have the daredevil cowboy who doesn't follow the rules but has a soft spot for the precocious little Iraqi boy trying to sell soldiers DVDs. What do you think is going to happen??? Well, do you think the cowboy soldier who doesn't follow rules is going to get the sweet kid injured with his renegade ways?? Why yes! Do you think the Iraqi kid that cowboy soldier has a soft spot for is going to get killed and make him go crazy? Why yes! There is no story here. The script is juvenile and predictable! The camera is shaken around a lot to make it look "artsy". And for all of you who think this is such a great war picture, go rent "Full Metal Jacket", "Deerhunter" or "Platoon". Don't waste time or money on this boring movie!
COULD CONTAIN SPOILERS.....I'm surprised by the high rating of this film to be honest..really am. All I saw was a slow moving propaganda movie with nothing much to say. (Note to self must check the rating for Platoon on here)This movie was so black and white...Americans good...anyone else either evil or useless. I take it the British troops in it were meant to be SAS (one of the most elite units in the world most would agree with I'm pretty sure) they lost 3 men and the others ran away while the US troops who weren't even Elite soldiers in the fighting sense held the ground and opened up a can of whoop ass on them evil sneaky Iraqis. Aye dead-on strings to mind. The only good thing I have to say about this movie did come in this sense when the sniper took out the SAS man...muzzle flash from distance, good noise used...really well done that bit but the rest...Spare me what am I 10 years of age over here??!! Well I'm not and can see nonsense propaganda in a movie and boy did this movie have it.<br /><br />SPOILER...Oh aye and in the main crazy,wild guy can't stay at home with his wife and young child..no he has to sign up for another year to fight in a nonsense lie of a war!! Why...because young men need thrills or something apparently. Like say I'm surprised by the high rating of this movie really am.<br /><br />P.S. I'm not hating America I'm hating the message of this movie that seems to not even want to confront issues of an illegal war (in my eyes) which OK fair enough because clearly there are people out there who think it's a just war for whatever messed up reason (wanted to say something else her but censored) but hey that's up to them. But to churn out a movie so one-sided like it's black and white...good v evil is lazy and treating me as a child. In war there is a lot of grey and it's two (sometimes more)sides who believe in what they are fighting for. Not Star Wars with something something dark side verses the goodies. F' sake Hollywood at times you really do take people for mugs...then again 7.8....well maybe you are right to but I'll not be buying it. Glad I downloaded this movie tell you all that for nothing. ;)
There is no artistic value in this movie to deserve any award. Well, it does not deserve an audience as well. Ironically, one of the awards is for cinematography but frankly, the camera movements are disconcerting to say the least. Every frame, you feel you are getting the "full picture", its like someone is "cropping your view" from the edges. The story is pathetic. Well, I will be honest, I could not bear to watch the entire movie. The part that sucked the most was when I saw the soldiers partying in their barracks and one of the soldiers coaxed to drink liquor. These and many other similar scenes reminded me so much of Steven Seagal.<br /><br />Take my advice, stay away from this piece of crap.
I am definitely in the minority opinion on this one. "The Hurt Locker" has won more "Best Picture" awards from the critic groups than any other film this year. However, not only did I not like it, I found it hard to sit through.<br /><br />There is minimal plot and little character development. They disarm bombs, fight, and disarm more bombs. That is the entire movie. <br /><br />But the worst part was that the camera never stops moving and is constantly shaking. This has been a recent fad in film making and it is supposed to make it seem more real because it has a cheap, documentary look to it. The camera was shaking so much it was making me nauseous to look at the screen.<br /><br />I normally don't care for war movies and "The Hurt Locker" was no exception. But you don't need to take my word for it because the critics love it.
Well I too had heard read all the breathless reviews and comments about how this movie might deserve the Best Picture Oscar so I went to see it today. What a major disappointment! 1) If you read the other reviews you will learn from members of the U.S. military who served in Iraq how unlikely the events of this movie are. They mirrored my own thoughts; as the movie played I - a complete civilian - kept thinking to myself, "say WHAT? there's no way that would happen like that.." 2) There's very little that actually happens in terms of plot. A new bomb disposal guy shows up to replace one who was killed (a death that isn't really clearly explained). The new guy gets an adrenaline rush from his work. His attitude puts others at risk. THAT'S IT! 3) This movie is nowhere near as suspenseful as claimed. If you want suspense try one of the Bourne movies. If you want to see a war movie that's emotionally powerful, try renting Go Tell The Spartans, which is about the Vietnam War, and stars Burt Lancaster (who told me PERSONALLY in a serendipitous supermarket encounter that it was a film he was immensely proud of and one he viewed as some of his finest work, and which he was still upset had been largely ignored in the wake of the over-hyped Apocalypse Now), or an old WWII black and white classic Sink The Bismark, which, especially for an English film, is unbelievably heart-wrenching. DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME ON Hurt Locker.
Who did the research for this film? It's set in Baghdad in 2004, however all the Soldiers are wearing ACUs and have all Universal Camouflage Pattern gear. No one was wearing that stuff in 04. <br /><br />I just saw this film while deployed overseas and I can say that the overwhelming feeling from the audience was WTF? This movie made no sense, had characters come and go with no explanation, and people doing ridiculous things that would NEVER happen in real life. I realize that it's a movie, but it's obviously trying to portray something realistic. It fails miserably, but it's trying. <br /><br />It's like someone came up with a bunch of random ideas, chewed them up and swallowed, then vomited out a film. I would not recommend this film to anyone. I'm still not sure why I sat through the whole thing. GI Joe was one that really made you think compared to this. STAY AWAY!
REALLY??? <br /><br />I am truly amazed to see the glowing reviews here! <br /><br />This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It is one big pathetic, grainy, cliché. I would have laughed out loud, and a lot, but was on a date with an ex-military guy. I could not hide my other response, BOREDOM. Yes, I think my date, a flat-line "good old boy", liked it. That's not a compliment. I know an actor wants to work.... Fine for the others. But Ralph, come on.<br /><br />It was a painful tease from Ralph. I vote a 2 only because Ralph looked SO STUNNING. But I must plead, Ralph, how could you? And, why?? <br /><br />I'm going to go watch The End of The Affair to heal and recover now.... C1
This whole film should have lasted 45 minutes - maximum. Although an interesting concept/theme, it really did not develop as a story. Once the initial idea of a brave (stupid?) bomb disposal expert (cowboy?) are introduced, and this happens very early in the film, the rest is repetitious. Characters were not explored, and aspects of the location and politics were ignored. There was some nice insight into the appalling difficulties faced by troops in such a foreign environment, and the difficulties in differentiating between friend and foe. But the way in which the unit operated stretched belief! Individual performances were good, and special effects were adequate, but not enough to overcome the basic lack of content.
... And being let down bigger than ever before. I won't make any direct references or anything here, but to say the least, this film is pathetic. If you're military trained, don't bother watching. I put it on the DVD with 2 friends wanting to watch a somewhat interesting action / war flick. Why couldn't I just have read the reviews first.<br /><br />Already at the first "bomb" scene the film has huge glitches, and they continue to show and become bigger and bigger. My 2 friends, not connected to the military in any way spotted a couple of the filmmaker's mistakes almost as fast as I myself did and asked me if some of the things going on we're realistic. Well, as you might have guessed, they're not - at all.<br /><br />Avoid this movie unless you're able to overlook these completely idiotic and re-occurring mistakes being made. 2/10 for catching my interest at first.
I decided to watch this one because it's been nominated for Oscar this year. I guess as many folks here I really wanted to like this movie, but ended up bored and disappointed. First scene was OK but the whole rest of the movie in "shaky hands" camera mode is really annoying.<br /><br />i guess the main reason for making such a movie and nominating it for Oscar is this:<br /><br />American "military machine" (people, who makes money on war) urgently need an excuse or justification of war in Iraq by bungling up something (sort of) patriotic.<br /><br />why these "heroic" efforts of director and the main character to _inspire_ the audience with an idea of "loving-war-like-a-drug"?.. Oh, please, come on! what a bore! <br /><br />watch this to get an idea of how low the movie academy can fall...
I went to see this movie simply to see what all the hype is about, and I was as disappointed as surprised about how it got 6(?) Oscars and 7.9 rating on IMDb as of today.<br /><br />Kathryn Bigelow should be the luckiest director ever to win the best picture and best direction Oscar for this sort of a really really bad movie and I wonder why? Did the totally unrealistic 'cowboy' bomb disposal-man storyline mean anything to somebody that I failed see? Why did I keep getting the mental image that this movie was a remake of some old bad Western movie about a cowboy doing 'brave deeds' in the Wild Wild West infected with 'evil' Red Indians; but just that it was set in a different background this time? Was it given the Oscars because the director being ex of James Cameron, and made it a nice underdog (gossipy) story for day time TV shows to munch on? Or was it some sort of Emperor's Clothes syndrome - where most people realized it was junk but just couldn't say so because others didn't seem to be saying it out aloud?<br /><br />And finally what was with that sniper scene where they showed the shell casing dropping in high-resolution-super-slow-mo as if to convey a 'deep message' or something? Something in the lines of 'EOD guys make good snipers all of a sudden and they will get the filthy terrorists all the time'? Was it just me who felt like there were so many bits and pieces here and there in the movie squeezed in for no apparent reason? And you can get the Oscars for editing and directing for that??<br /><br />If you haven't seen this yet, don't waste your money on tickets. Wait till they run it on TV in a few years. You are not going to miss much.
Let's start by the simple lines. From the viewer's side, there a couple of good "director details", some points of view at the movie scenes that are nice. The special effects are good enough, a good acting/good scenery also. But the story is way too simple. It shows how a elite Army bomb squad unit lives, acts and sometimes dies. It shows the drama of living in war. In my movie experience as a serious action movie "addicted" guy, I missed that click that gets my eyes and mind stuck on the screen. One of the things that need to be present in a movie in order to I consider it a good one is the ability of immerse the viewer in the movie reality and time. It didn't happened to me. I stayed "conscious", for the entire movie.<br /><br />Honestly speaking, I think that this movie gained its place in fame based on the "subconscious" appeal of American patriotism, a healthy and genuine feeling, but not the adequate use as a movie fame generator. More than a movie about war, it grows its popularity based on that.<br /><br />A simple thought: if this was a world war II or I movie, only changing time, with everything remained the same, would it be this awarded? Sure not. Why? Because there are great ones that elevate the bar way to high.<br /><br />Compared against its rivals in the Oscars, I don't think that all of the prizes it won are correctly awarded.
Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal are already preparing a sequel about a young US corporal in Afghanistan. He also happens to be a highly-qualified surgeon and is roaming freely around Kabul, operating on wounded NATO soldiers. On a particularly difficult mission, he casually picks up a sniper rifle and shoots Osama Bin Laden from a distance of about 3000 yards. He is then finally promoted to sergeant, but is unable to decide between a sniper and surgeon career, so he quits from the Army altogether. One year later, frustrated with civilian life, he joins the Navy and the last scene shows him proudly wearing a white uniform.
I was looking forward to Kathryn Bigelow's movie with great anticipation after the endless hype and 6 Oscars which it was awarded. Unfortunately it really isn't a good movie. The depiction of the situation certainly seemed to be accurate and believable on all counts, but beyond that the story simply came across as incomplete and the direction of the movie appeared to be uncertain and haphazard. The actors put in a good effort, but for me I didn't really get what the movie was trying to be. It's not as atmospheric and gripping as Full Metal Jacket, not as epic as Band of Brothers, not as action packed as...well, anything. I certainly can't see why it was nominated for so much, nor why people are 'hyping it up' to these epic proportions. Mind you, given the calibre of movies in the last couple of years I suppose there's not a lot to choose from.
Yes, this movie is a real thief. It stole some shiny Oscars from Avatar just because politicians wanted another war-hero movie to boost the acceptance (support?) for the wars U.S. is still fighting today. I do not really want to go here into politics, but come on, this is more clear than the summer sky. Hurt locker does not really have anything outstanding, no real plot at all. I really feel myself in the 50's of Hungary when the party told the people what to like and what not to like. The same propaganda movies were produced that time, only with the exception that those were black and white. Even if we consider this title a reasonable piece of the "U.S. wars are cool" genre, you surely have much better movies to choose from.
i was intrigued to see how a little-seen 2008 film had somehow won the Oscar for best picture of 2009 and thus went to see The Hurt Locker. sadly, all i got for the two hours invested was the grim confirmation that this film had won awards purely for off-the-screen reasons.<br /><br />the direction and visual style of this film is some of the weakest you will ever see. when it's not busy being yet another Bourne Identity homage with dire, annoying "shaky cam" visuals, it shows off all the hallmarks of a second rate daytime soap opera in terms of lensing.<br /><br />the "plot" is threadbare, the characterizations are about as well developed as rejected Beetle Bailey comic strip ideas and the dialogue - on the instances where the film gives up on being "minimalist" and for no apparent reason turns one or two soldiers into right chatterboxes - is some of the worst ever recorded. in fairness, the actors do the best they can in the circumstances, just not enough to obscure how bad the project is.<br /><br />the whole film has the feel of it being intended as some kind of "mockumentary" that they clocked was bereft of humour and thus re-edited as best they could so as to pass it off as a serious drama.<br /><br />if you spend two hours on this film they are two hours you will never get back, and two hours wasted that you will regret for the rest of your life.
I rented this film on Netflix after it won all the Oscars, to see if it was really that good.<br /><br />The Hurt Locker is a very realistic portrayal (for the most part) of a group of soldier's rotation in Iraq. The film centers around Will James, a reckless soldier who gets his adrenaline fix from taking risks, and defusing bombs.<br /><br />Where this film seems to lack in my opinion is the Plot and Direction of the movie. This film has no clear plot unlike other films such as Black Hawk Down. What this film tries to do is focus more on the characters, and their different attitudes about the war. Bigelow does an okay job of focusing on the characters, but there are many points in the film where the dialogue seems to drag. Hurt Locker is 131 minutes long, yet it feels like a 3 hour movie.<br /><br />One scene in the movie that was particularly awful, and ruined the films perfect credibility, was the sniping scene halfway through the movie. It was both unrealistic, and very long.<br /><br />Overall, I thought this film was OKAY, but the reason I gave it a 6 instead of a 7, was because it was a major letdown for winning Best Picture at the Oscars. I felt like this film could have been so much better considering Saving Private Ryan lost Best Picture, but was much better than this film. Another notable mention is Black Hawk Down which only won 2 Oscars. I honestly do not know how this won best picture.<br /><br />If you are looking for an action packed war flick, rent Black Hawk Down. This film will be forgotten in a year or two.
REALLY? REALLY???? I know if you make a political war movie you will get noticed but this movie was just garbage. Horrible in every sense. Terribly inaccurate in so many ways. I have an easier time believing the president of the United States suiting up, flying a jet fighter, and shooting down aliens. It is easier to note the few things that were right. My jaw dropped when I saw some one say that this movie was the best in the last 25 years. It was overacted, seemingly pointless plot diversions, and had questionable cinematography at times.<br /><br />X-box, YouTube, ACUPAT utilities… did anyone check that these things did not exist in 2004? It's not like you had to do extensive research, it was only five years before this movie came out. I am an Iraq war Veteran and if you spent ONE day with an infantry platoon or an EOD squad you would realize how B.S. this movie is. To compare this to Platoon or Saving Private Ryan is ludicrous. Why don't you just throw Commando and Red Dawn in there too; I think those might be more accurate. <br /><br />If for some reason you can see past the unbelievable plot, the historical and factual discrepancies, then this movie might just be OK. Nothing more. If you keep on hearing "Oscar buzz", and have to add your own pompous review, go right ahead. As for me, I am writing the director to see if I can get my 131 minutes back.
As an ordinary movie-watcher I can't say I enjoyed watching this one. It's not too emotional for a drama, not too gripping for a thriller, not too fast for an action. Plus, some moments of the movie are hardly credible. OK, I understand, soldiers become a bit out of their mind out there, but it's hard to believe that a person would risk his life, carjack into the middle of a hostile city, and after being shouted at by a professor's wife run away, without having asked a question (in a proper way). It would seem terribly romantic if it were an animation or so, but it's supposed to be a SERIOUS film about war.. There are several episodes like this, so the whole picture makes an impression that it's just a raw preview of a movie, and it needs considerable work.<br /><br />It feels like the movie makers wanted to create an image of an emotional brave soldier, but all these 'curves' of his psychology seem simply unnatural.<br /><br />This picture left a question in my head: WHY? Why they gave it an Oscar? Why SIX? And IMHO it's the most thrilling part of the movie :)
I picked up TRAN SCAN from the library and brought it home. We have considered taking a trip out east and thought it would give us a feel of what it was like. The film was a total waste of time, if I went out to buy it I would call it TRAN SCAM when I saw that it costs $49.<br /><br />The DVD ran for 8 minutes and showed a roller coaster ride across Canada with my stomach feeling ill as they went up and down and around curve with the film at high speed.<br /><br />There was a lot of footage they probably shot on this and you would think that they could have made a better product. If I would of done this project I would of provided more footage, paused on road signs to let people know where they were and linger in places to view the scenery. To make a film like this it should of been 60 to 90min. Oh yes the case said it was in stereo, the whole film was a hissing sound from sped up car sound, thet could of at least put some music to it.<br /><br />If you want a good cross Canada film watch The railrodder / National Film Board of Canada starring Buster keaton (the one of the last film he made) in this comical film Buster Keaton gets on to a railway trackspeeder in Nova Scotia and travels to British Columbia
If this movie as meant to discourage people from doing drugs, it fails. I was ready to start using them I got waiting for something to happen and nothing ever really did. This movie is neither horror or drama. It's just the paranoia of meth users. This movie may win an award for the using the "F" word so many times and so uselessly. It was not well stated, but I felt like they were making Meth to replace Meth they owed to someone. Hector just got worse and more paranoid as the movie went on and the girl just got more hopeless. The ending really made no sense. The movie made no sense unless it was just showing how annoying is is to be stuck in a house in the middle of nowhere with a meth-head. I relied on the other feedback when I decided to watch this movie and the rating on this movie should be a much lower average.
I see what the director was trying to do but he missed the mark. The main actor was really good but the editing around his moments takes you out of it. The camera work, ie lighting and exposer is kind of amateur which I could forgive if the direction was more fluent but it wasn't. The sound was a bit off and that takes you out of the film as well. I see could see this director doing a little bit better in the future so not a total right off but don't expect a dv movie nearly as good as 28 days later or anything, keep your expectations low and you'll get more out of it. At least it was only an hour and a half. Oh yeah and other than the lead the acting was pretty bad if you ask me. But I'm a movie snob so take that for what that's worth.
Judging by the hype, and other reviews on this site, I was ready for an awesome horror movie focusing on junkies. What i got was complete crap focusing on junkies. I wonder if there's another movie called "Cookers" that these people reviewed? There are only 3 main characters, and none of them struck me as well-written or well-acted. Basically the whole movie I just spent shaking my head and marveling at the stupidity of these drug addicts.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor. Don't rent this movie. Rent "Cabin Fever" or some other decent horror movie. Hell, rent "Mary Poppins"! The animated penguins are scarier and more convincing than anything you'll find in "Cookers."
I wanted to like this movie, but many elements ruined it for me. The use of a fisheye lens throughout and choppy editing did not give me a sense of being in the world of the meth head, but it did make me think I was watching MTV for a few short moments. The movie never did seem to go anywhere and the acting was truly an excellent example of over acting. I love movies that give us a glimpse into the seedy underworld, but this film couldn't decide if it was a bad horror film or an even worse serious commentary on the horrors of addiction.
Lame plot and two-dimensional script made characters look like cardboard cut-outs. Needless to say, this made it difficult to feel empathy for any of the characters, especially the fiancé; He looked and acted more like a cartoon. In summary, I guess you could say it was on par with your typical made for TV drama. It uses just about every cliché in the book. The tortured classical musician who wants to break-out and play salsa. The free-spirited fiancée engaged to a "bean counter" personality she doesn't love. I won't list them or else it would be a spoiler because I'd be giving away the whole plot. The dancing was OK but nothing special. I've seen worse. 3 stars for good music. The band was really tight. I saw it on YouTube. Thankfully I didn't pay good money to see it at a theater. I'm still a little shocked at how many great reviews this movie has garnished.
After having red the overwhelming reviews this film got in my country, I but wanted to see it. But - what a disappointment! To see a bunch of one-dimensional characters in a plot that lacks of originality is not worth the money and the time to spend. I sometimes wonder about the filmcritics in switzerland.
Fiction film (it lists as based on a story though it does have a "documented by" credit) about a group of scientists going into the wilds of Canada to try and find a Bigfoot.(They want to capture one and then attach a tracking device). Its lots of scientific mumbo jumbo mixed in what is really a dull film of a bunch of people wandering around in the wilderness. There are some attempts at creating tension and scares, but to be perfectly honest there is nothing here worth seeing outside of some great looking shots of the wilds. This is a perfect definition of an exploitation film, it promises you so much, a look at Bigfoot, but in reality it delivers very little. Recommended for insomniacs only
As a teenager, I was pretty into the whole Bigfoot thing - I read the books and followed the reported sightings. As a more jaded adult, I've largely given up on the big guy now, but don't mind watching the odd movie when I come across one. This one had a few strong points to it - mainly, the recreations of two of the more famous Bigfoot encounters - the Ape Canyon incident of 1924 and the Bauman incident of c.1850 as related to and by Teddy Roosevelt, both of which I'm somewhat familiar with from that youthful reading I did. The movie takes for granted that both incidents involved a sasquatch, whereas both incidents have more plausible explanations, but the recreations were well done. There's also homage paid at the beginning of the movie to the famous Patterson video, again taking for granted its authenticity. The sasquatch encounter at the end of the movie was also very well done and had a very creepy feel to it as the sasquatch were portrayed mainly in the shadows or as hairy feet running past the terrified men. Unfortunately, in total those four things might have composed about 20 minutes, whereas the movie as a whole is slightly over an hour and a half.<br /><br />It's the fictional story (done in a documentary style) of an expedition to a remote area of northern British Columbia, to the suspected home range of the sasquatch. A computer had targeted this area based on sightings and - in one of the more amusing scenes in the movie - the computer also used "eyewitness sightings" to draw a picture of a sasquatch that looked exactly like the "creature" of the Patterson video! Aside from those 20 minutes I mentioned, we basically watch this expedition travel, which means we get to watch a bunch of guys go on a long camping trip. I've been on camping trips with the guys. Let me tell you - they've never been worthy of a movie. Interspersed among the long stretches of boredom are some nice wildlife shots (although one suspects that canned footage was used, or perhaps even captive animals performing as wild animals) and there are some spectacular scenery shots, except that the scenery isn't of northern British Columbia, it's from national parks in Oregon.<br /><br />I did appreciate that we were never given a real picture of the sasquatch, so we didn't have to deal with the bad makeup that would have been part of this. 3/10
This is a typical low budget 1970's mess. It's supposed to be a docudrama about a crew hunting Bigfoot through the Pacific Northwest. Every character is a stereotype, from the Native American to the cynical cowboy. The acting and narration are a complete joke. If you're hoping to see a lot of bigfoot footage - keep hoping. There won't be much, and what there is you could do in your backyard with a cheap costume and a camcorder; it would look better than this movie.<br /><br />It's not that I don't like 1970's low budge fare; I do. It's that this is such a mess of bad acting, bad characters, lousy story and no thrills that you just can't enjoy it. It does not fit into the "so bad it's good" category, nor can you get a laugh out of how bad it is without the help of illicit substances. It's mostly a lot of boring footage of the people camping, hiking, riding horses, and watching wild life. There is a bigfoot attack which is completely stupid; supposedly our friend Sasquatch is throwing rocks down on the campers from above while they fire their rifles back at him. By that point you are rooting heavily for bigfoot to drops some rocks on the filmmaker's heads and stop the whole thing.
I was about 7 when this DIRE MONSTROSITY of a film was released. In the UK it was advertised on the TV in the summer of 1977 for weeks, as if it were some incredible blockbuster film. It was actually the first film I ever saw at a cinema, and I was put off going for years to come. The following week I was invited to go and see the new film "Star Wars" and I declined. To this day I have never seen it, in protest at having to watch Sasquatch! Seriously, even at the age of 7 I could tell that I was watching garbage. It's just so bad, it's almost unbelievable. Rambling nonsense that should NEVER have made it to a cinema. I was however amused to read all these years later that the director never directed again, just as well as far as I'm concerned. AVOID AT ALL COSTS!!!
When you're making a thriller about witchcraft, I believe you should do everything you can to help the audience suspend its disbelief in order for the movie to work. Some pictures ("Rosemary's Baby", for example) have accomplished this; others (like "Necromancy") haven't and the potentially scary material comes across as corny and goofy. This film does have some atmospheric moments, but about half the dialogue is hard to make out (sometimes it's poorly recorded, at other times just incomprehensible) and Orson Welles, who gets top billing, has a role that is so BENEATH him that you have to assume he was desperate for the work. Or maybe he was simply having fun.....(*1/2)
I imagine that the young people involved in the making of "Necromancy" (aka "The Witching" plus a bunch of other titles) must have felt a little weird being on the set of a horror movie with the man who: participated with John Houseman in the production of a proletarian play ("The Cradle Will Rock"); scared people into thinking that aliens were invading ("The War of the Worlds"); and directed and starred in the greatest movie of all time ("Citizen Kane"). And now Orson Welles was starring in a third-rate flick about a satanic cult.<br /><br />There's basically nothing creative about this movie. Lots of nudity, but the background music always proves really distracting. Even if the movie wasn't particularly predictable, it still wasn't worth seeing. How low Welles had sunk. Fortunately, over the final thirteen years of his life, he narrated the documentary "Bugs Bunny Superstar" (about the Warner Bros. cartoons of the 1940s) and hosted the documentary "The Man who Saw Tomorrow" (about Nostradamus). I recommend those two, but not this one. Just avoid it.<br /><br />Also starring Pamela Franklin and Michael Ontkean.
Like most comments I saw this film under the name of The Witching which is the reissue title. Apparently Necromancy which is the original is better but I doubt it.<br /><br />Most scenes of the witching still include most necromancy scenes and these are still bad. In many ways I think the added nudity of the witching at least added some entertainment value! But don't be fooled -there's only 3 scenes with nudity and it's of the people standing around variety. No diabolique rumpy pumpy involved!<br /><br />This movie is so inherently awful it's difficult to know what to criticise first. The dialogue is awful and straight out of the Troma locker. At least Troma is tongue in cheek though. This is straight-faced boredom personified. The acting is variable with Pamela Franklin (Flora the possessed kid in The Innocents would you believe!) the worst with her high-pitched screechy voice. Welles seems merely waiting for his pay cheque. The other female lead has a creepy face so I don't know why Pamela thought she could trust her in the film! And the doctor is pretty bad too. He also looks worringly like Gene Wilder.<br /><br />It is ineptly filmed with scenes changing for no reason and editing is choppy. This is because the witching is a copy and paste job and not a subtle one at that. Only the lighting is OK. The sound is also dreadful and it's difficult to hear with the appalling new soundtrack which never shuts up. The 'ghost' mother is also equally rubbish but the actress is so hilariously bad at acting that at least it provides some unintentional laughs.<br /><br />Really this film (the witching at least) is only for the unwary. It can't have many sane fans as it's pretty unwatchable and I actually found it mind-numbingly dull! <br /><br />The best bit was when the credits rolled - enough said so simply better to this poor excuse for a movie LIKE THE PLAGUE!
The only previous Gordon film I had watched was the kiddie adventure THE MAGIC SWORD (1962), though I followed this soon after with EMPIRE OF THE ANTS (1977); he seems to be best remembered, however, for his sci-fi work of the 1950s.<br /><br />Anyway, I happened upon this one in a DVD rental shop: hadn't I noticed Orson Welles' unmistakable figure on the sleeve, I probably wouldn't even have bothered with it – since I know the film under its original title, NECROMANCY! I'd seen a still from it on an old horror tome of my father's: the actor's presence in a film about diabolism seemed like a great idea which couldn't possibly miss, but the end result – particularly in this bastardized edition – is a disaster! I honestly felt sorry for Welles who looks bored and, rather than in his deep and commanding voice, he mutters the inane demonic invocations almost in whispers!! <br /><br />The plot is, basically, yet another retread of ROSEMARY'S BABY (1968): a couple is invited to a remote community under false pretenses and soon discover themselves to be surrounded by diabolists. The girl, played by Pamela Franklin, ostensibly has supernatural powers (passed on from her mother, who appears intermittently throughout to warn her – though, as delivered in an intense manner through clenched teeth, the latter's speeches end up being largely incoherent and the fount of immense hilarity every time she appears!) and is expected to revive Welles' deceased young son from the dead!! For what it's worth, Franklin – a genre regular, right down from her debut performance in THE INNOCENTS (1961) – isn't bad in her role (which requires some nudity and experiences several semi-eerie hallucinations during the course of the film); hubby Michael Ontkean, however, isn't up to the challenge of his John Cassavetes-like character. Some of the other girls look good as well – notably Lee Purcell, whose belated decision to help Franklin in escaping from town eventually proves her undoing.<br /><br />Events come to a head in an incredibly muddled climax, which sees the Satanists ultimately turning on Franklin and have her take the revived boy's place in the coffin (that's gratitude for you!). While the added scenes do stick out (the hilarious opening ceremony and other would-be erotic embellishments), the overall quality of the film would have still been poor without them; then again, this particular version is further sunk by the tacked-on electronic score – which is wholly inappropriate, and cheesy in the extreme!
I've given up trying to figure out what version of this I'm watching. The copyright at the end indicates 1983. And though this is not the important bit of my objection to this film, I will say that watching a film obviously made in the Aquarian Age (including long haired hippie chicks and odious station wagons) but with a 1980s synth soundtrack is unsettling. Extremely unsettling.<br /><br />My main objection here is HOW DARE THE FILMMAKERS BURY CUTE-AS-A-BUTTON PAMELA FRANKLIN ALIVE. HOW DARE THEY.<br /><br />Seriously she's all like adorable and stuff but in the two movies I've seen her in - this crapfest and the otherwise excellent Legend of Hell House - they kill her off.<br /><br />I would like to put the film industry on notice. Pamela Franklin has apparently retired from the business but if she ever decides to do another film and some blasted cur of a director attempts to kill her off I SHALL ASK HIM TO STEP OUTSIDE.<br /><br />NO ONE BEATS UP ON PAMELA FRANKLIN AND GETS AWAY WITH IT. I AM QUITE CROSS. THE FURY HAS BEEN UNLEASHED.<br /><br />For B-movie fans seeking out a crapfest, you could do much worse than this. On the plus side, this is not a film which involves Satanism in a peripheral and circumspect way - this movie is a hardcore satanic film.<br /><br />Wall-to-wall satanic ceremonies, baphomets, hallucinations, a ludicrous rat attack - what else could you ask for.<br /><br />This excellent stuff is quite nearly ruined by the baffling grafted-on 1980s synth soundtrack, which is about as mismatched to a film as it is possible to be. The soundtrack reminded me of something you'd hear on The Equalizer. It's really bad.<br /><br />Also, they made Pamela Franklin squash her charming English accent, which was also quite rude, if not a cruel atrocity (against the viewer) such as you might find covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I say that we have a right to hear Pamela Franklin speak in her own voice. Who's with me? I could forgive everything else about this film if they didn't abuse Pamela Franklin. And so I throw the gauntlet down, sirs -- ANYONE WHO MESSES WITH PAMELA FRANKLIN MESSES WITH ME.<br /><br />EVEN IN A FICTIONAL CONTEXT.<br /><br />GOOD DAY, SIRS.
I figured that any horror film with Orson Welles in it would be weird. Necromancy sure was but it was a little too weird for it's own good. The film does indeed have a creepy feel as it deals with a coven of satanists/witches in a small town and a young woman's attempt to escape them. The director though seems to be deliberately trying to confuse the audience by using flashbacks and dream sequences. By the finale, there are too many unanswered questions. What's worse, as the story is so confusing, it's pretty hard to root for any of the characters. It seems odd that Welles would agree to headline this film especially since he doesn't have that much to do. Maybe someday they will put out a tape of the outtakes and bloopers from this movie. Now that would really be fun!
I watched the Canadian videotape of this movie as "The Witching" which somehow made its way to New York State. Audio was quite bad, I had to raise it to about 7/8 just to hear it and the soundtrack often was overwhelming the dialog. Orson Welles was a mumbler, worse than usual, and some of his dialog and of others was run through an echo chamber. A ghostly figure who keeps reappearing had her voice distorted. Some closed captions would really have helped!<br /><br />A group of witches or satanists (the end credits say the group was not meant to represent any real group!) have a ritual in which they get naked and cause a miscarriage by stabbing a doll. The woman who had the miscarriage and her husband move to a town named "Lilith," where he's been offered a job at a toy factory. Despite one of the AKAs of this movie apparently being "The Toy Factory," we never see it, and it's only occasionally referred to at all.<br /><br />On the way to Lilith, her husband gets impatient with some of her questions about what his new boss Mr. Cato wanted to know about their religious persuasion. He drives aggressively, and causes another car to go off the road and blow up. After the police arrive, she takes a doll that fell out of the car, the second of many handmade dolls in the movie.<br /><br />It turns out Mr. Cato and all the townspeople are witches, and that they are the ones who caused her miscarriage, though she doesn't realize it. They want her because she has an innate talent for necromancy, of which she was not really aware.<br /><br />Some images in the movie have some impact, but on the whole the movie is not very involving. The movie does seem a bit of a mess, and this is no doubt largely due to its re- editing and the addition of new footage. The original version, according to the end credits, was called Necromancy - A Life for a Life. The magic of DVD could let us see both versions on one disc, but re-releasing this movie probably isn't a priority.
For starters and for the record, the term "Necromancy" describes the black magic art of bringing the dead back to life and it does NOT, in any way, relate to having sex with cadavers. That is called necrophilia and, yes, I know it's an obvious difference but I'm already getting a lot of remarks from acquaintances and relatives that I sport a perverted taste in movies! This movie is quite the opposite of perverted or sleazy, in fact, and merely just qualifies as boring, inept and terribly bad. "Necromancy" makes at least one top five ranking, namely in the list of most incoherent movies ever made! Now, director Bert I. Gordon is not exactly famous for delivering masterpieces (on his repertoire there are titles like "Earth vs. the Spider", "King Dinosaur" and "Food of the Gods") but he really surpassed himself here with a totally senseless, redundant and utterly nonsensical tale about witchcraft and secretive little towns. Shortly after the tragic experience of seeing their baby being born dead, Lori and her husband Frank move to the quiet little town of Lillith, where Frank suddenly got offered a prominent job in a toy factory. Lori is suspicious and senses an atmosphere of morbidity, especially with the town's patriarch and "owner" Mr. Cato behaving very obtrusive and mysterious. That's another thing. How can anybody "own" a town and everybody in it? Either way, Lori gradually discovers that everybody in Lillith is a witch and Mr. Cato exclusively lured her to the town because of her supernatural ability to resurrect the dead. Since many years already, Cato has been trying to bring his deceased son back to life and he's prepared to make any human sacrifice it takes. I honestly don't see the point of the whole movie. It's a blatant rip-off of "Rosemary's Baby" – one of the alternate titles even is "Rosemary's Disciples" – but the script is muddled and imbecilic beyond belief. Why isn't anyone allowed to have children for as long as Cato's son remains dead? That's just really selfish! When, where and how did Lori suddenly learn to resurrect the dead? "Necromancy" definitely contains a few genuinely uncanny and atmospheric moments, but these are unwarily accomplished either by complete coincidence or through a total lack of budget. The grainy photography provides the film with an eerie ambiance and the set pieces look cheap enough to be creepy. Orson Welles' performance – undoubtedly the low point of his career – is pitiable, and still it's the best aspect about the entire movie.
When a film has no fewer than FIVE different titles, it usually means several things and almost always means that the film has major flaws somewhere. Necromancy has major flaws and is just out and out bad. I saw the version on video called Rosemary's Disciples. Yes, I am sure it differs from other versions, but I am not inclined to think that in any way is any other version and the few more minutes it might have - going to be really any better. The story is perhaps the biggest problem: the film opens with Laurie waking up and her husband taking her to a town where he has a new job at a toy factory for occultists(yep, it gets bad this early!). The town is called Lillith and has some guy with a rifle on the bridge to make sure only those selected by the "owner" of the town are allowed in. Soon we find that everyone living in Lillith is a witch and all follow the directives of Mr. Cato - the head of this municipal coven who wants his dead son back(hence the name Necromancy). The people in the town do witch kind of stuff - have ceremonies, some like wearing a goat's head, and promiscuity abounds(not much really shown in this area), but none of these people are very good actors. Mr. Cato is played robustly by the figuratively and literally larger-than-life movie maverick Orson Welles. Welles is misused, but, make no mistake, he is the best thing in this movie. And that is really the saddest part of Necromancy as Welles gives a pretty poor and pedestrian performance with little directorial guidance. In one scene at a party, director Bert I Gordon keeps going back to Welles watching the action of the party using the exact same frames! It looked ridiculous. As did the scene that was repeatedly seen over and over again of a woman's arm centered in swirling flames after a car crash. It looked like the arm of a shop mannequin. The story is never fully utilized as we never really know what happens: many scenes are shot like dreams or hallucinations and never confirmed. This also applies to the corny, hokey ending. The lead Pamela Franklin is pert and pretty and has some talent. Other than her performance, real slim pickings from the rest of the cast sans Welles. The direction and story were both done by Gordon who obviously had little gas left in the engine. This is not a good movie in any way under any name.
Ok, I've seen plenty of movies dealing with witches and the occult but this one was just plain weird. This movie starts out as this cult of witches led by a really bad Orson Wells playing the staring role (couldn't they have gotten somebody that looked and acted more like a Satanist) he just did not belong in this movie at all. But anyhow, the coven takes a new member and stabs a doll that resembles somebody and makes her have a miscarrage. The lady that had the miscarrage and her husband go off to a place called Lillith on busness and the lady meanwhile is seeing an image of her sister or whoever it is calling to her and warning her to stay away from there and to never use her powers there or she will die. The couple after they get settled down in the strange town discover that all the inhabitants are all witches and she becomes nosey and afraid of all of her neighbors and friends. Then strange things start to happen as the lady discovers a funeral taking place on a hill that suddenly disapears (that was creepy) as well as seeing the little boy belonging to Orson Wells at the playgroud that he later asks the lady to help him bring back to life. The lady soon tries to escape the town but only to find herself traped by it's inhabitants and powers and finds herself ignoring all of what the spirit tries to warn her about. This movie is ok, it's has it's moments of suspense but it really could have done much better than to have Orson in there.
"Ambushed" is no ordinary action flick. It's much to bad to be ordinary. One man walks toward another with a machine gun blazing. The other man fires one round and fells the man with the greater fire power without so much as a nick from the hail of lead raining down on him. Guess which one is the good guy. Duh. Such is "Ambushed" through and through. Not a good action flick, not a good drama, not a good movie, "Ambushed" fails on all levels with it's cast of B-movie veterans mechanically going through the motions almost as though they know they're making a real loser. Not recommended for anyone.<br /><br />
I don't know what it is with these Brady kids. First, Barry Williams publicly brags about having sexy with his TV sister, Maureen McCormick, then about dating his TV mom, Florence Hederson. Then, Susan (Cindy) Olsen does music for a bunch of porno movies. Then Mike (Bobby) Lookinland gets in trouble for drunk driving. Finally, Maureen (Marcia) McCormick and Eve (Jan) Plum might have had a little same-sex fling on the side. Now, Christopher (Peter) Knight is pursued by a beautiful young model in her early-20s during his stint on "The Surreal Life", which at first was fun to watch, and now they are married and in a very volatile and hostile relationship. The last episode, where she posed for a bunch of nude photographs with another naked girl for a scrapbook to give to Christopher for his birthday, was not a good move on her part. And he dealt with it in a very mature fashion, just picking up and leaving to clear his head. I think he was always bowing to her every need and now he's finally taking a stand. And I hate to say it, but I think she abuses him, verbally. The way she was torturing him for an engagement ring and the way she reams him for every little thing. Also she talks openly about having flings with other women and it is obvious she still sleeps around on him with women and men, which is not something any self-respecting human being should do when already married to someone. If this were a man talking down to his wife like that, and going out every night partying and having sex with other people, everyone would be rallying behind the wife to leave him. Why should this be any different. What started out as a cute little crush on another reality show blossomed into a huge disaster. Adrianne, as beautiful as she is, is like another Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan, clearly in need of some therapy because she cries like a baby over so many silly things. I feel sorry for her, but Chris needs to rid himself of her, because he is a good man who cannot afford to be humiliated like this.
I loved Adrianne Curry before this show. I thought she was great on Top Model and was really glad when she won. I also liked Chris Knight, he seems like a great guy. But this show just made me SICK! I'm so angry at both of them for what happened on that show. I don't care that they were different ages, I know age can't stand between love. But Adrianne, you had been together for ONLY SEVEN MONTHS. It didn't surprise me at all that he hadn't proposed. And I don't see the appeal of forcing someone to marry you before they're ready. If it's meant to be, then why not just ENJOY each other's company and love each other, and let it come naturally? Turning a wedding ring into a ball and chain was completely unnecessary, it's stupidly obvious that Chris loves you, with or without a ring. And Chris, shame on you for breaking down and proposing to her anyway! You've been through two failed marriages, how could you rush into another one just because she pitched a fit? I hope the relationship lasts, but I really feel that the marriage was rushed and for all the wrong reasons. Maybe now they can take a breath and find the right reasons to be married from within the marriage.
I do not watch much television and came across this show. Reality show? I sure hope this is not for real. If I was a man and had such a nag and was married to someone so snotty, It would be grounds for divorce. I think she sets a bad example of how a person should treat a person they love. That is one thing that is wrong with our world now, so many people in bad relationships, selfish and do not know the meaning of what it is to truly love another. It is self sacrificing and not something that should be on merritt. That does not give one a very good feeling, to watch what should be in private counseling. If his personality on the show is for real, then he deserves someone much better that would show real true love and care for him and appreciate him for who he is. Is this show a reality or made up for ratings???? I really would like to know. Sincerely, GB
Adrianne, should really get a life-without Mr. "Brady". She nauseates me, and has been one of the main reasons why I know longer tune in to the show. It's pretty brainless show, and every little argument or disagreement seems to be put under the scope and analyzed to death. This makes them look/sound they are anything but ready for marriage, and yet, I know these disagreements are all part of life. I guess to some people this is entertainment. If this happens to fall into next season I will feel sorry for anyone who has nothing better to do with their life but watch this trash. Though I would not be terribly surprised. can't even stand the commercials for this show anymore! I hope they're getting enough money to constantly embarrass themselves in front of a camera week after week. However, the "A" girl has one heck of great butt!
I give this marriage 3 years and thats stretching it. Adrianne Curry is fouled mouth, spoiled, controlling, loud, and her bi sexual past makes me laugh. She tells Chris he has an image to protect and must avoid strip clubs. He married her. Chris has low self esteem and from a different time warp. I have nothing against Adrianne Curry but this combination is not gonna have a happy ever after ending. Her mother said he was an old rooster and thinks this is his last attempt to recapture his youth. Here 2 very good people who are gonna end up in a nasty divorce. I don't think his old " Brady Family" is gonna fit into his new life. I see them being shut out. Chris said his friends were more important than his family. The supported him and was there for him.
I really wanted to like this movie. It has a nice prison setting, conspiracy theories, bloodthirsty zombies, a perfectly hideous 80s-touch and it is a directorial effort by actor John Saxon, who also plays a bad (you guessed it) a bad guy. It reminds me of some (beloved) Italian horror flicks. But the direction is very wooden and there is no nightmarish/frightening moment in there. It just goes on and on and on, and then it (logically) has to end. More suspense and more daring visuals and its destiny as a cult classic would have been sealed.
If you made a genre flick in the late 80s, you basically had a 50/50 chance it would either be set underwater or in a prison (sadly, we never got an underwater prison flick). Framed for murder by mafia boss Moretti (Anthony Franciosa), Derek Keillor (Dennis Cole) ends up on death row, right alongside the mob boss' brother Frankie (Frank Sarcinello Jr.). But this is the least of Derek's problems as rogue government agent (and mob stoolie) Col. Burgess (John Saxon, who also directs) is using the prison as a testing ground for a new supervirus. This is the only flick Saxon directed during his storied career. For a guy who has worked with tons of directors, it appears the only ones he picked up any tips from were the cheap-o Italian ones. Sure, it is low budget, but that can't excuse the stilted staging, shooting gaffes, or clumsy exposition in the first 15 minutes. To his credit, Saxon did make it slightly gory and he works in a hilarious nude scene (our lead falls asleep during a prison riot only to fantasize about a female scientist). Cole, who looks like a more rugged Jan-Michael Vincent, is decent as the stoic lead and Franciosa - sporting a really bad rug - gives it his all as the cliché mob boss. The end takes place at Marty McKee's favorite location, Bronson Canyon. Retromedia released this on DVD as ZOMBIE DEATH HOUSE.
I myself am a big fan of low-budget 80's horror films. This isn't the worst but still not to spectacular. The plot line is decent but drags out way too long. You're through half the movie before you even get to see any zombie action. The kills aren't very creative and the zombies aren't too crafty. I truly think this movie would have been better if they left out the zombies and just made it into some mafia flick. It's watchable but I feel that this film did steal at least an hour of my life. I'll give the film credit for being somewhat original. If you are really into B horror movies it's worth a viewing but if you're not, don't bother. But you don't have to take my word for it.
*Contains some spoilers* This movie is cheesy 80s horror in all its awfulness. The plot takes way too long to get off the ground, never steadies itself, and then just plain crashes about 40 minutes into the film. There are a few gem moments for zombie fans, but not nearly enough zombies to create a real sense of terror.<br /><br />The zombies also take a long time to make their appearance. First, there's a whole half of a movie about mobs and prison gangs. The hero of the movie is an ex-Vietnam vet who gets caught up in the mob. The main mob boss sets him up and he goes to jail. In this jail, they are experimenting on the prisoners to find a way to cure them of homicidal tendencies and criminal behavior. But the badie psychotic head scientist/military guy has other plans in mind. He wants to use a slightly different version of the serum to make ....da da da.... super soldiers! After some infected prisoners kill a few guards and most of the prison has a round of infected communion wine, the military/crazy scientist guy goes "hey this might be a problem" and gives a call to the genius scientist turned investigative journalist hot babe ultra-empowered independent woman character, who of course invented the original serum. She goes to the prison to see what's going down, the military guy calls in a few SWAT teams from his secure position outside the prison, and the hero guy takes charge of the few prisoners with a heart of gold when a riot breaks out. The hero guy and the scientist/journalist lady team up to find a cure, save the warden's kids, and deal with some irate prisoners, both infected and not. Meanwhile, the mob boss guy has made a deal to get into the prison so that he can save his imprisoned brother. The military gets ready to blow the place up, and everyone inside scrambles to find a way out.<br /><br />There are a lot of gory scenes where people are killed by being pressed or pulled through prison bars. There's also a creepy decapitation scene and electrocution scene involving the same infected rasta prisoner. Still, the most disturbing scene is in the early part of the film, when a gross corrupt guard rapes a prisoner.<br /><br />The main highlight of this film is one scene towards the end. The hero, woman, and kids are trying to make their way to the only escape route. Their path leads them to a long hallway, on one side there is a wall and on the other are prison bars. Hundreds of bloody zombie hands reach through, gracing their hair and faces as they pass by. There's also a few good scenes of the classic "couple of zombies munching on freshly dead bodies" and "many zombies ripping one guy to shreds" bits.<br /><br />Overall, worth watching if you're researching the zombie genre as it has so many zombie clichés worth noting; it's practically an instruction manual on what not to do when making a zombie movie. But if you're new to zombie flicks and want a real scare, you should look elsewhere.
After mob boss Vic Moretti (late great Anthony Franciosa) kills his lady whom has been cheating on him with Derek, their new chauffeur/ Vietnam vet, and blames it on the poor guy, Derek finds himself in jail where he has to contend with a corrupt warden, Vic's prisoner brother who runs the jail, and, oh yeah illegal experiments conducted by a shady CIA agent (great genre-mainstay and first time director John Saxon) to turn various prisoners into super-human invincible zombies. Of course things get out of hand and it's up to Derek, and the rest of the unchanged prisoners, to save the day after the infected ones take the jail over.<br /><br />John Saxon is a great talented actor & as a director Saxon is a... great talented actor. To say this movie (John's sole directorial outing to date) lacks a certain visual flair would be a bit of an understatement. However, the film isn't totally without merit. The dialog, while idiotic, is just bad enough to be humorous sometimes. Sadly, this isn't really enough for the movie to coast by on that alone and it takes forever for the film to even start coming into it's own (which is fairly late in the movie). As such, the most I can recommend this film is to say that if you're a fan of Saxon (which I indeed am), it's worth one watch, just go in with low expectations and you should be fine.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Dana Lis Mason and Tane McClure get topless<br /><br />My Grade: D+
I love John Saxon in anything he's in. The one time he takes over the camera though he directs a movie that should have more aptly been been titled "Please Do Not Watch This Movie Called: Zombie Death House". The $1000 dollar Shock Insurance Certificate is dear Fred Olen Ray's tricky way of making you spend 14 dollars on a filmed dump churned out by a major 70's cheese legend. Ray being the front man at RetroMedia. Ray by the way makes Charles Band look hotter than stucco ceilings on a Ford Falcon. Just plain bad now, the both of them- and boring besides. It's great that Ray is digging up this old stuff and in some cases it's public domain like the rest of the dollar video hucksters but in the case of Zombie Death House- (the word "Zombie" sloppily superimposed to add ownership and interest on the part of F.O.R.) THE ONLY WAY TO DO SERVICE TO THIS TRIPE IS TO RELEASE IT ON THE DOLLAR MARKET FOR THE CURIOUS COLLECTOR AND FANS OF SAXON!!! If you wanna see real Saxon, pick up Black Christmas, Nightmare on Elm Street or The Glove.
It seems like this is the only film that John Saxon ever directed, and that he had the good sense to stop after that and stay in front of the camera. This movie is a dog, from start to finish, and it's dull and wooden with nothing much going for it. A Viet Nam war hero takes a job working for a mob boss, gets a bit too friendly with the wife and then the wife is killed by the mob boss himself & the war hero framed and sent to prison, death row, specifically. Now, this particular prison has been experimenting on inmates and is testing some formula that will turn men into the ultimate killing machine (a zombie). Of course, everything goes wrong and then there's all these infected people trapped in the prison, some of whom are turning into zombies and the rest who suddenly just don't want to be there anymore. This just goes on and on and on with nothing particularly much to show or say for itself, and I stopped it before the end, which seemed like it was coming a few times but no, it was apparently only getting set to take off on a different and equally dull path. If one watched to the end they may well become a zombie themselves, so don't risk it. 2 out of 10.
Why watch this? There is only one reason and that is for the greatness of John Saxon. I love his acting. My most favorite appearances by him are in Nightmare On Elm Street 1,3, and 7 as Nancy's father a cop, Black Christmas as a cop, and From Dusk Till Dawn again as a cop. When I was rummaging through my local mall video outlet I came across the film Zombie Death House and I quickly tossed it back but before moving on I noticed that John Saxon was not only an actor in this film but for the first time that I have ever heard of a director. This intrigued me (Also the cheap $9.00 price tag) and I and I had to have it. Upon coming home I realized that this film did not live up to Saxon's other work even his acting, which may have been muddled by the added pressures of directing. But it was not just him the other actors sucked too. It seemed as if they had all been pulled out of a recent porno shoot and told now guys you really have to act. The film even looks of 80's porn quality. I cannot in good faith recommend this film to casual viewers, but if you are an obsessed fan of the 80's who missed out on the culture that came from that era by being born to late, or a fan of crap films than this one is for. Also if you dig John Saxon as I do.
It's been close to ten years since I've seen either of the last two sequels to "Phantasm" - surely due to my still vivid remembrance of them not being very good. That being acknowledged to this day, I'm still a huge fan of the first two installments so I thought I'd go back and re-experience the 'final chapters'. Part three is definitely the worst of the series since it obviously takes itself less seriously and throws in a bunch of confusing stuff that doesn't make much sense... Again, kicking off right where the previous movie left us, Reggie saves Mike from the Tall Man who vows to come back for him later, but things aren't safe for long when they come across Jody who is inexplicably able to the take the form of a sphere. Apparently his soul is held prisoner by the Tall Man so Mike is then dragged into the sinister double-pronged Netherworld and Reg has to find him... Along the way, he meets up with a ten year-old kid and a nun-chuck wielding black chick named Rocky who assist him throughout his journey.<br /><br />There's really nothing memorable about "Phantasm III" other than how stupid and forcefully "humorous" it tries to be. Only one positive aspect that didn't even help the movie and that was the return of A. Michael Baldwin and Bill Thornbury who reprise their roles for the first time since the original 1978 classic. The problem is, they pretty much make cameo appearances... Reggie Banister is of course back in his starring role, but his bumbling, love-sick attitude makes his presence far too annoying to like. Angus Scrimm also just didn't seem entirely "into" his role. He talks too much here and is nowhere near as menacing and creepy in contrast with the "quirkiness" that the movie seemed to carelessly resort to. Most people's opinion on this flick seem pretty impassive and tend to think "it's still entertaining". Maybe I'm just too much of a nit picker but I just couldn't get into this one. I remember disliking it when I was a kid and after re-watching it - I can safely say - nothing has changed. Don Coscarelli rocked the scene with his original low-budget, nightmarish, legendary film "Phantasm", which I still rank as my top favorite horror flick and his respectable sequel kept things moving and darkly surreal and GORY, but "Lord of the Dead" (stupid title) just looked too rushed and slapped together to me... The inclusion of the two new characters, Tim and Rocky (the only thing missing was Scrappy Doo!!), was a strong indication of Coscarelli running out of ideas and seeing how far he could ride the franchise...<br /><br />So, it's a "Phantasm" movie with very little gore, nudity, and quadruple-barrel shot guns. Need I say more?
Phantasm ....Class. Phantasm II.....awesome. Phantasm III.....erm.....terrible.<br /><br />Even though i would love to stick up for this film, i quite simply can't. The movie seems to have "sold out". First bad signs come when the video has trailers for other films at the start (something the others did not). Also too many pointless characters, prime examples the kid (who is a crack shot, funny initially but soon you want him dead), the woman who uses karate to fight off the balls (erm not gonna work, or rather shouldn't) and the blooming zombies (what the hell are they doing there, there no link to them in the other Phatasms). Also there is a severe lack of midgets running about.<br /><br />The only good bits are the cracking start and, of course, Reggie B.<br /><br />(Possible SPOILER coming Up)<br /><br />To me this film seems like a filler between II and IV as extra characters just leave at the end so can continue with main 4 in IV.<br /><br />Overall very, VERY disappointing. 3 / 10
*spoliers* do not read any further if you haven't seen this movie<br /><br />Picking up after the depressing "Phantasm II" ended; The Tall Man kidnaps Mike, while Reggie and new kid Tim spend most of the rest of the movie trying to get him back, and not end up as slaves on the Tall Man's "Red Planet". This one gets really silly: the trio of thieves in the bright pink hearse were only there for comic relief, and the black karate chick (can't remember her name) was so irritating I couldn't wait to see if the Tall Man killed her character. This one sets it up to almost look like it was going to be Tim's character, who comes in late and ultimately is the hero, but ... it doesn't quite work out that way. By the very end of this story Liz is beheaded by the killer midgets, Mike gets a silver sphere implanted into his skull, the spheres get Reggie and the dwarfs get Tim, and there's no one left to stop The Tall Man. The bad guy wins - now how's that for a surprise twist at the end?<br /><br />This was filmed in 1993 and unreleased until '95, and the ending of this one was at the time final, and although it's disappointing and anticlimactic it was also a fitting and appropriate ending for this weird little series. But the fourth one changes this ending and adds nothing new but more bad jokes, and an even worse and more nonsensical ending ...<br /><br />*1/2 out of ****
I loathed this film. The original Phantasm had such wonderful ambiance and mystery. Like many 70s horror flicks, it looked and felt like some creepy, unfinished documentary. Phantasm II, from the late 80s, pumped up the action, but maintained this nice attention to mood. Sadly, Phantasm III is just awful. It tediously explains all of the weird happenings in the previous films, which diminishes rather than expands their power. It shamelessly degrades imagery from the first Phantasm like a cheap reenactment of the original. There are so many flying spheres in this movie that they seem more like household pests than menacing death orbs. Hundreds hang from the ceiling like Christmas balls swaying in the draft. Didn't anyone-- the prop master, the DP, the editor, the director-- notice or care that they looked so crummy? Even worse, Phantasm III presents one corny, unfunny joke after another. How different from the intensity of the first film. The original Phantasm used humor to relieve its relentless focus on death. Phantasm III uses death to set up countless cheap jokes about Reggie's horniness: several refer to the film's "flying balls" ha-ha, oh, I get it, balls. Maybe the crew got a kick out of these jokes, but they are on us.
"Phantasm" of 1979 was a highly atmospheric, creepy, scary and very original Horror flick, and, in one word, cult. The first sequel of 1988 was gory, witty, action-packed and highly entertaining. After the first sequel however, "Phantasm" creator Don Coscarelly apparently lacked new ideas. "Phantasm III - Lord Of The Dead" of 1994 is certainly not a complete failure, it even is quite entertaining, but there is no more originality, and the desperate attempts to bring in something new, are at times tiresome, which makes it quite disappointing in comparison to its predecessors. <br /><br />- SPOILERS - <br /><br />Quite in the beginning, we are introduced the secret behind the mysterious sentinel spheres (the brain-sucking flying silver balls) is unraveled. Thenceforward, a number of unnecessary and annoying new characters (such as Tim, a "Home Alone"-style little kid who happens to be great at shooting, an Rocky, a tough and super-cool nunchaku-swinging black chick with a crew cut) are introduced. The film also has its qualities - Reggie Bannister is again very cool as the pony-tailed, guitar playing Reggie. Angus Scrimm is still quite creepy as the Tall Man, but the fact that the Tall Man talks a lot more in this film, makes him loose some of his creepiness. The character of Mike is played by A. Michael Baldwin again (he had been replaced by James LeGros in Part 2), which, in my opinion, doesn't make much of a difference. The gore also keeps the film interesting enough to watch, but it is still a disappointment, especially because the attempts to make up for the lack of ideas get annoying quite quickly.<br /><br />All things considered, "Phantasm III" is an acceptable time-waster, but it is definitely disappointing compared to its predecessors. Fans of the first two "Phantasm" films can give it a try, but I recommend not to set your expectations too high.
In the third entry of the Phantasm series, Mike and Reggie continue chasing the Tall Man, assisted by a trigger-happy 9 year old, a black G.I. Jane and the spirit of Mike's deceased brother (he died in the original Phantasm). Number 3 is a rather disappointing sequel, since the gore and black comedy is a lot less inspired and exciting as it was in Phantasm II. I got the feeling the stress was merely laid on Reggie's incompetence as a lover and his talent as stand-up comedian. The humor in the previous film was a lot more dry and oppressed, which fits a story like this better. Also, the settings aren't as macabre here, plus the constant presence of the Tall Man (Agnus Schrim) isn't as obvious… There still is plenty of gore but not half as satisfying this time. By the way, beware for the severely cut version as it shows most delightful killings off-screen. The entire Phantasm series is the lifetime achievement of Don Coscarelli, who wrote and directed 4 episodes so far…the fifth being in production. The first one is a semi-cult classic, the second is a horror-feast of gore and violence and the rest can easily be skipped. A. Michael Baldwin returns as Mike, even though James LeGros portrayed his character a lot better in Phantasm II.
This entry is certainly interesting for series fans (like myself), but yet it is mostly incomprehensible. The plot is confusing, as is the sequel continuity. Some striking effects, to be sure, but we never find out what it all really means.<br /><br />Try to see the "NC-17" workprint version which contains the gore that was cut to be re-rated "R".
I despise horror movies, that is no secret. No plot, bad acting and gallons of blood are staples of these mistakes of cinema, and this "movie" is no exception. I cannot believe some cable stations actually run this garbage. (This particular garbage was released straight-to-video, as I recall.) As mentioning any other movie would be a great insult to that other movie, I say this: All of the Phantasm movies, all of the Jason movies, Freddy movies, Chucky movies, and most of the Michael Myers movies can be summed up in one word: TERRIBLE!!!<br /><br />Rating (Phantasm III): 0.5/10
So much is wrong with this abysmal little wet fart of a movie that it's hard to know where to begin.<br /><br />First of all, it's a remarkably un-scary scary movie, even by Amercian standards. The dialogue is cliché, the characters are two-dimensional, the writing is ho-hum, and what little story there is is neither coherent nor remotely interesting.<br /><br />We meet the following stereotypes in order: Balding Loser Guy (probably divorced, but who knows? This movie doesn't tell us) with a brave heart, the Young Hero (who doesn't do anything heroic at all), Brave Little Kid (with a homicidal streak a mile wide) and Black Bad-Ass Bitch (with more brawn than brains). These guys take up an ongoing fight with the Tall Scary Reaper Man and his evil Ewoks.<br /><br />Oh, and the film is full of wicked little metal orbs whoosing around menacing people. Given a chance, they perform impromptu brain surgery on those who doen't have the mental acuity to duck when they come at them. Booh! Actually, one of them is haunted by a good ghost (but then again, it might be a deceitful spectre) who seems intent on helping our Brave Contagonists retrieve their young kidnapped friend.<br /><br />There is no character background or even an introduction to any of the characters. It starts with some kind of recap of the ending of the previous movie, but this doesn't explain a lot. If you've seen the first two movies, fine. Otherwise you don't know who these people are, how they are related, why they aren't in school or at work, or why you should care whether they live or die. Consequently, you don't. The only point of interest becomes any splatter effects. And there aren't enough of those to keep you awake.<br /><br />Of potenial interest/amusement are the three Raider Punks, as stupid as they are evil, who menace Our Heroes. But they don't get much screen time. They are offed almost immediately. Then they are buried (why anybody should take the time is beyond me), then they appear again as Evil Raider Punk Zombies. Only to be offed again, literally within a minute.<br /><br />The rest of the movie mainly seems to consist of Caspar the Friendly Ghost appearing and disappearing, driving around looking for places, and Balding Loser trying to score som Bad Black Bitch Booty, using pickup lines that would embarrass a mentally retarded teenager. No dice there; not even some gratuitous sex could have saved this movie, so good thing there never is any.<br /><br />The head baddie, called the Tall Man, doesn't manage to scare anyone older than 3 years; howling "Booooy!" every five minutes isn't enough. Why he, with his amazing telekinetic powers and uncanny upper-body strength, doesn't simply squash our heroes like bugs isn't explained. Instead, he delegates the job to his inept retarded little minions, who never manage to kill anyone before being shot to hell.<br /><br />Filmgoers who like masterpieces like "Friday 13th part XXXXVIII: Jason goes to college" might find some entertainment. The rest of us, who have developed pubic hair, will be bored out of our skulls.
Beautiful attracts excellent idea, but ruined with a bad selection of the actors. The main character is a loser and his woman friend and his friend upset viewers. Apart from the first episode all the other become more boring and boring. First, it considers it illogical behavior. No one normal would not behave the way the main character behaves. It all represents a typical Halmark way to endear viewers to the reduced amount of intelligence. Does such a scenario, or the casting director and destroy this question is on Halmark producers. Cat is the main character is wonderful. The main character behaves according to his friend selfish.
This is yet another bad movie that you should probably avoid watching. The plot could be a lot "thicker" than it actually is and would be better made as a blockbuster type movie.<br /><br />The acting leaves something to be desired, though you can not quite place your finger on what it is.<br /><br />This is one of those that you watch on late night TV, perhaps on USA, simply because you can not get to sleep. Watch it if you want but do not expect too much from it.
1st watched 12/24/2009 – 4 out of 10 (Dir-Robert Ellis Miller): Emotional Christmas fluff that doesn't really get specific enough to explain how the real story happened in this factual-based incident of a man who is wrongly put in jail trying to get a job for his family to make Christmas happen for them. The three kids in the family then run away from home on a trek to Washington D.C. to enlist the then President of the United States, Herbert Hoover. This trek provides some side stories like their positive encounters with a hobo and a puppeteer, which makes the story kind of like a Disney "animals on the run" movie and doesn't quite fit here. At the ending, there isn't any details given as to how the President helped the family and this is another downpoint to the movie, in my opinion. The movie does eventually bring tears, but it takes too long to get to this. The movie isn't supposed to have been an original TV movie(according to IMDb) but it has the obvious fade-outs that make it look this way – so I'm not sure their information is accurate. All in all, this is a simple movie(that could have been more complex) with a happy Christmas-like story but blandly played and without a lot of substance.
This might be the poorest example of amateur propaganda ever made. The writers and producers should study the German films of the thirties and forties. They knew how to sell. Even soviet-style clunky leader as god-like father-figure were better done. Disappointing. The loss of faith, regained in church at last second just in time for daddy to be "saved" by the Hoover/God was not too bad. Unfortunately, it seemed rushed and not nearly melodramatic enough. A few misty heavenlier shots of the angelical Hoover up in the corner of the screen-beaming and nodding- would have added a lot. The best aspect is Hoover only saving the deserving family and children WHO had "proven" their worth. Unfortunately, other poor homeless were portrayed as likable and even good- yet the Hoover-God doesn't help them. A better approach would have been shots of them drinking spirits to show the justice of their condition. Finally, bright and cheerful scenes of recovery (after Hoover saved the country from the depression) should have rolled at the end. We could see then how Hoover-God had saved not just THIS deserving family, but all the truly deserving. Amateurist at best.
I think this cartoon is one of the worst cartoons I have ever watched. I would recommend this cartoon to people who are under 5. I did used to like this show when I was 4 and 5, I still only watched it when there was nothing on. Now I am other 5 and I would rather do my homework than watch it. The cartoon used to be a bit funny but they were not enough to make me burst out laughing. Now I am older I am interested in show witch are not rated Us. I have started to watch Doctor Who (12A), Torchwood (15) and Sarah Jane Adventures (PG). I am interested in things to do with Doctor Who so I am not interested in 5 year old cartoons. This cartoon didn't last very long it only had 6 seasons, it got cancelled because of it was low on viewers but some people say it was because the writers ran out of ideas but for most other shows they have at least 8 seasons.
In 2004, I liked it. Then it became very stupid. It suggests that kids are brainless. It insults children. Cartoon Network used to be great. One of the shows I liked was Hamtaro. It did manage to be interesting and imaginative in its approach to children programming. The show (Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends) is like putting 20 spoons of sugar in your Sprite. It seems as if today's television producers are only interested in making money, rather than engaging the imaginations of children and making money! Lately, my children are tuning in to the old shows (60's) to find something interesting to watch. Perhaps, in the absence of originality, for television to look to its past and recycle children's programing from days gone by.
This is the worst show I have seen in years. I believe that it should be taken off of T.V. because of its retardedness. It is so dumb I could faint when I watch it. (even though I never watch it because it is SOOOOO poor) <br /><br />Goofs: When mac says he can;t eat sugar, in another episode he eats sugar. Almost everything in the world has sugar in it!!! In episode "Eddie Monster" when eddy screams at Terrance he falls into the crate twice PLUS the seconed time he falls in he doesn't fall in, he falls off to the side. What stupidity. I can't even say the word Fosters Home. I even made a song with my band about how retarded this show is. Byyyyyyyyeeeee
The idea behind this film was a good one. Too bad it wasn't written well. Casting Sidney Poitier as the FBI agent was a good idea, and he did an outstanding job. Tom Berenger, on the other hand, only knows one emotion in most of his movies, anger. Kirstie Alley's character could have been a great one, and even showed some possibilities once, but the writer really let us down by making her role mostly a helpless female. This was completely inconsistent with the strongly independent character she was supposed to be. I don't care for Alley's acting anyway. The movie should have ended about fifteen minutes sooner than it did. The director milked the cow dry before the unbelievable final action. I will keep this in my collection only as an example of Poitier's performances.
I had to write a review of this film after reading another comment saying that this is Sidney Poitier's best movie. Poitier had just returned from over a decade's break in film acting and he is clearly creaky here. 11 of his films are mentioned in Wikipedia and they don't include this. 5 of his films are on the AFI's list of top 100 inspiring movies, again, not including this. Berenger and Poitier, rube and city slicker set out to hunt down a dangerous psychopath before he crosses the border to Canada. Some of the attempts at comedy in this film clearly fail and Berenger and Poitier's bonding was cringeworthy and awkward (not helped by a completely bland script). Kirstie Alley (as the hostage) was underused, and almost entirely ignored when she was on screen. Some attempt at suspense is made, for example when you're meant to try and guess which of 5 men on a fishing trip is the murderer (all of them are type-cast villains). I understand that this is the entire appeal to most fans out there. I guessed who it was and I wasn't really trying hard.<br /><br />If you're a Berenger fan, watch the Sniper (1993), you even get to see Billy Zane strutting his stuff. It's much better. All in all I'd give Shoot to Kill 3/10. It's not daring, and it's just too straightforward for me.
What a complete waste of time. The movie starts as a clone of the Saw series, but with even worse acting. Melissa Joan Hart is absolutely horrible. The ending is ridiculous and the story contains no twists, not plot surprises and just a plain bad ending. I liked some of the characters and I was hoping for everything to be tied together at the end. It just doesn't happen. It's a total "Wrestler" ending with none of the good acting. I can't believe I spent the time watching this. It's not "fun" as some people put it. A guy in a mask kidnaps people who are connected and forces them to figure it out. The connection is a stretch and he should have shot the main actress first.
I'm not sure if the filmmakers were after a Saw-type movie or 12 Angry Men (people piecing together the facts to get at the truth). Whatever it was, it was poorly done and not worth watching.<br /><br />I don't watch movies for blood and gore, but because this film had little else going for it, it should have shown the actual killing more. Most were off-camera, minimizing the horror that we were supposed to feel by the deaths.<br /><br />It also bugged me that the cop was among the victims; he unwittingly contributed to the innocent young man going to prison by accepting planted evidence (given to him by MJH) into the evidence room. (And wouldn't MJH a the prosecuting attorney, have had access to that evidence--taking it out and putting the wrong evidence back--anyway, so she wouldn't have needed the cop's help?). The others, while often also not realizing it was this particular person they were harming, still played larger roles in his ultimate demise. The gun dealer should have know his guns would be used for evil intent. The insurance guy rejected a person obviously in need, etc. But the cop's crime seemed minor in comparison since he didn't know exactly what he was doing. The filmmakers could have taken it a step further and had him be the one that encouraged MJH to plant the evidence, which would have made him more culpable. And MJH's yelling that he (the cop) got her in that mess doesn't make any sense at all.<br /><br />It would been more intriguing if each person died in a way that offered the others a clue to why he/she was there and deserved to die. The insurance guy, for example, could have had the applications he rejected rammed down his throat so he choked on them; the Oriental woman could have had her eyes gouged out because she was a false witness, etc. Yes, more violent that the gun deaths, but more interesting.<br /><br />The dialog wasn't witty, there were no twists, and the ending was one of the worse (if not the worst) I've ever seen. The ending along knocked three stars off my rating.<br /><br />The actors did a decent job, especially given the garbage lines and motivation they had to work with.<br /><br />Overall, a waste of time.
an very good storyline, good thrill to it ... but the 10 last seconds destroyed the whole movie... what happened? extremely well made and an good story destroyed in the last seconds... sorry to say but a 1 in vote... thats what it it deserve, i would think that Chris Shadley could come up with a better end... but maybe next time : ) all this meaningless blood gore for nothing? the end would lift the story to close to a 10, but it didn't.... the end destroyed the whole story, i think most people aren't lame and when they goes a movie thy want a good end, even if it is intricate ... but the only lame here is the end... sorry
Before watching this film, I could already tell it was a complete copy of Saw (complete with the shack-like place they were in and the black guy wanting someone to break his hand to get out of the cuffs). MJH's name on a movie would typically turn me away (ugh, can we say GROSS?!), but I still wanted to give it a try.<br /><br />Starting out, I was a bit interested. The acting is absolutely horrible and I found myself laughing at almost each reaction from the characters (especially the man that played "Sulley"). MJH was even worst, but I continued to watch.<br /><br />However, the ending was the biggest joke of them all! I seriously sat in shock thinking "THAT was the ending?! Is this a comedy?!".<br /><br />I thought this pile of crap was funnier than the "Scary Movie" spoofs and that is REALLY saying something!
Don't waste your time on this film. It could have been good, but the ending was one of the lamest I've ever seen. I seriously have to wonder how the people involved with the making of this film could've looked at that final scene and thought, "yeah! now there's an ending!" and patted themselves on the back about it. To me it seemed more like they just ran out of ideas! They built up the final scenes to have a cool twist, but instead just let the whole build-up fall flat on it's face. When the last shot faded to black and I heard the credit music starting I was in shock - I could not believe what I was seeing and that someone could even call that an ending. The best thing anyone could do with this film is rewrite the end and give it some substance. Seriously, I'd really love to get whoever came up with that one in a room, look them in the face and say - WTF??!!!!
I wanted to like this film, yes its a SAW, blah blah blah ripoff but I like those films. If done well this had all the ingredients of being a good, not brilliant, but good film....unfortunately those ingredients had gone off! The acting was terrible, and this was first seen when the captives are introduced with their captor one by one (hoods taken off), the remarks and one liners are just terrible, yes I know, bad writing....but this is more than that, it was bad writing coupled with bad acting. Two of the captives had been in a relationship with each other and did not even acknowledge this until a lot further into the film.....<br /><br />Sorry, Im even wondering why I am bothering to review this movie at all.<br /><br />I will end with PLOT HOLES, PLOT HOLES & MORE PLOT HOLES! DISAPPOINTING!
Sadly it was misguided. This movie stunk from start to finish. It was hard to watch because I used to watch Clarissa Explains It All every day on Nickelodeon. I LOVED her. Then the next thing I found she did a spread in Maxim and she was gorgeous! I haven't really heard anything about her until I watched this movie on accident. I couldn't believe she would even let something like this be seen with her name all over it. Everything about it was wrong but it still looked like someone somewhere in the team was trying really really hard to save a sunk ship. Too bad.. I hope she continues to act and I would love to see her with a real cast in a real movie.
I stumbled upon Nine Dead recently and read the current reviews thinking I could deal with an average movie. This movie however was slightly below average, yet watchable. The script was poorly written and the acting was at average for a B-level movie with a couple standing out as pretty good. The plot borders on that of Saw, teach people what they did wrong in a situation and try to make them appreciate life more, but that is really where the comparison ends. Nine dead tries to have heart and purpose behind simple ideas that are not new. The main fault that I found in Nine dead, was the slap in the face to the viewer of flashbacks that occurred 3 minutes before in the film and were completely unnecessary and a completely inadequate ending that people won't see coming, in a bad way. Barring any spoilers I have seen the worse of bad movies and even they didn't end this poorly. Decent flick, bad acting and ending though...
I watched this movie as I liked the plot, a group of strangers are held captive trying to figure out how they're connected.<br /><br />The setting and the premise were obviously influenced by the first (and best) Saw movie & although there wasn't much action the story moved at a relatively good pace.<br /><br />There was comedy relief ion the form of the two bickering 'Alpha males' and it was a welcome surprise (for me anyway)to see Melissa Joan Hart hasn't given up on acting yet.<br /><br />A few things let it down for me personally; 1. The paedophile was way over characterised making him get turned on by everything from children to dead bodies.<br /><br />2. MJH's line about her cop ex 'getting her into this' when in reality, he was the least deserving person to be there, he hadn't KNOWINGLY contributed to the events leading up to their capture.<br /><br />3. The ending..... what sort of movie just ends in the middle of something going on? There was no resolution, no cliff hanger, no obvious end... it just ends.<br /><br />And for that alone I dropped two stars off my rating. The first 2 points I would let slide but not the end!
you can tell they spent 5$ making this.it is a waste of your time... ugh.. there is not anything remotely good about this movie... .. i don't know why i kept watching it.. the chick is not hot. horrid acting.. you could do anything and its a better use of your time.. like watching TV playing shitty video games.. i feel robbed. simply robbed.. of my time . i have never made a review for a movie before as you can probably tell but this movie i felt like i needed to save the poor souls that are about to watch it and looking on IMDb before to see if its decent and looking at the comments. -there was no action- -no hot chicks- -no budget- -shittttttttttttttty acting- it screams bad movie. ****the WHOLE movie is in a room.***
While the original titillates the intellect, this cheap remake is designed purely to shock the sensibilities. Instead of intricate plot-twists, this so-called thriller just features sudden and seemingly random story changes that serve only to debase it further with each bizarre development. Worst of all, replacing the original spicy dialog is an overturned saltshaker full of unnecessary four-letter words, leaving behind a stark, but uninteresting taste.<br /><br />There was promise--unfulfilled promise. The prospect of Michael Caine pulling off a Patty Duke-like Keller-to-Sullivan graduation is admittedly intriguing. Unfortunately, this brilliant and respected actor only tarnished his reputation, first by accepting the role in this horribly re-scripted nonsense and then by turning in a performance that only looks competent when compared to Jude Law's amateurish overacting.<br /><br />If you haven't seen the classic original, overlook its dated visuals and gimmicks. Hunt it down, watch it, and just enjoy a story-and-a-half. As for the remake, pass on this insult to the original.
86 wasted minutes of my life. I fell asleep the first time I attempted watching it, and I must say I'm not one to ever fall asleep in the cinema.<br /><br />I have never seen such a pointless plot acted in such a stilted and forced manner, and can only surmise that the actors were as hard-up as the protagonist writer allegedly was in the film itself.<br /><br />Everything in this dire adaptation is overacted. And if it isn't the wooden acting, almost as though you can see the teleprompter, then the set itself, which is overlit and interfering in utterly unnecessary ways, and overdressed to an unimaginable extent, is enough to put you off the entire farce.<br /><br />As to the supposed shock of a detective under disguise, any person who does not see that - as well as the entire rest of this ludicrous plot - telegraphed light years in advance, should check their eyesight immediately.<br /><br />Bad acting, and from two very decent actors, coupled with the hyper-coddled Branagh trademark overdirection, is enough to make you want to use real bullets rather than blanks yourself.<br /><br />On top of it all, there is a completely risible undertone of homoerotica in this, heightened towards the end of it. All I can hope for is that this was such a flop that people shan't try to emulate this level of cinema ever again.
The main reason for writing this review is I found this "revisioning" of a great play and worthy 1972 film, a horrible movie experience. If I can save someone from watching it, I will have done a good thing.<br /><br />This "new" version is loaded with talent, and it all goes wrong. Kenneth Branagh OKs an ugly, sterile, one note set. He proceeds to film the movie from every arty, distracting, self-centered angle possible. We see reflections of the actors in stainless steel, on security monitors, shots of their heads from 200 ft above, close ups of eyes, chins, and on and on. The screenplay, by a Nobel Laureate, introduces long stretchs of unpleasant homosexual banter, that is being faked by both parties,.... I think?? Given the character "twists" how would I know? The characters themselves,so richly drawn in the original, are crass and unsympathetic. The running time has been cut by an hour, which is either the real problem or the kindest thing the Director did for us. The actors perform their lines effectively, but nothing they say or do is remotely believable. Jude Law is over the top more than Caine, but as the credited Producer, must have had Branagh's blessing.<br /><br />All in all I found this to be an ugly to look at, unconvincing shell of a former classic. Why was it even made??? The paying public spent less that $4M worldwide to see it! A vanity piece of work that fails at every turn.
I saw this movie not knowing anything about it before hand. The plot was terrible with large gaps of information missing. The movie didn't have the "battle of wits" feel to me. The actors just spewed out mouthful's of nonsense, at times causing me to gnash my teeth in agony as they droned on and on. The plot was predictable except for the stomach sickening homo erotic scene at the end (I'm not homophobic but made me physically sick to my stomach), even the ending was predictable. And you could tell the detective was Jude Law in a costume, everything from the fake accent, terrible dental work, costume shop facial hair, everything pointed to it being a disguise. The whole movie just felt like wasted time out of my life. This movie had the feel of a puppet show with Jude Law and Michael Caine as puppets and the house as the window to view the show, really boooring in my opinion.
Harold Pinter rewrites Anthony Schaeffer's classic play about a man going to visit the husband of his lover and having it all go sideways. The original film starred Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine. Caine has the Olivier role in this version and he's paired with Jude Law. Here the film is directed by Kenneth Branaugh.<br /><br />The acting is spectacular. Both Caine and Law are gangbusters in their respective roles. I really like the chemistry and the clashing of personalities. It's wonderful and enough of a reason to watch when the script's direction goes haywire.<br /><br />Harold Pinter's dialog is crisp and sharp and often very witty and I understand why he was chosen to rewrite the play (which is updated to make use of surveillance cameras and the like).The problem is that how the script moves the characters around is awful. Michale Caine walks Law through his odd modern house with sliding doors and panels for no really good reason. Conversations happen repeatedly in different locations. I know Pinter has done that in his plays, but in this case it becomes tedious. Why do we need to have the pair go over and over and over the fact that Law is sleeping with Caine's wife? It would be okay if at some point Law said enough we've done this, but he doesn't he acts as if each time is the first time. The script also doesn't move Caine through his manipulation of Law all that well. To begin with he's blindly angry to start so he has no chance to turn around and scare us.(Never mind a late in the game revelation that makes you wonder why he bothered) In the original we never suspected what was up. here we do and while it gives an edge it also somehow feels false since its so clear we are forced to wonder why Law's Milo doesn't see he's being set up. There are a few other instances but to say more would give away too much.<br /><br />Thinking about the film in retrospect I think its a film of missed opportunities and missteps. The opportunities squandered are the chance to have better fireworks between Caine and Law. Missteps in that the choice of a garish setting and odd shifts in plot take away from the creation of a tension and a believable thriller. Instead we get some smart dialog and great performances in a film that doesn't let them be real.<br /><br />despite some great performances and witty dialog this is only a 4 out of 10 because the rest of the script just doesn't work
This reworking of Anthony Shaffer's classic play did not last long in cinemas. Having recently suffered through it on cable, I still congratulate myself for not wasting money on a ticket. Director Kenneth Branagh, writer Harold Pinter, and star/producer Jude Law deluded themselves that their prestige alone could sustain this travesty through an interminable 93 minutes, without the fun or class of the longer original.<br /><br />Michael Caine enhanced his reputation playing the second lead in the marvelous 1972 film. He now seems intent on destroying it by attempting the lead, played in that version by Laurence Olivier. (Both were nominated for Best Actor Oscars, but lost to Marlon Brando in THE GODFATHER.) Looking puffy and washed-out, Caine glides through the part with less depth than he displays as Batman's butler. He had already lowered himself to a guest appearance in the atrocious remake of GET CARTER. What's next -- ALFIE II, or SON OF THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING? <br /><br />But then, no one benefits from this inane adaptation by Pinter, who thinks that frequent cursing and an added sexual angle can compensate for the absence of Shaffer's witty character interplay. Branagh's direction relies on bluish lighting and a soulless set design that wouldn't hold up in a second-rate nightclub. Neither the shadows nor the tight, overacted close-ups can help Law overcome his dull screen persona. The result is a failure both as straight drama and as detective thriller, almost making you forget the purpose behind the title.<br /><br />Fans of the original stage production (with Anthony Quayle and Keith Baxter) and the Olivier/Caine film would do well to regard this enterprise as a bad dream. The late Mr Shaffer, who wrote the 1972 screenplay, as well as Hitchcock's FRENZY and several Agatha Christie adaptations, must be turning in his grave, wishing he could plan a real murder or two!
At the name of Pinter, every knee shall bow - especially after his Nobel Literature Prize acceptance speech which did little more than regurgitate canned, by-the-numbers, sixth-form anti-Americanism. But this is even worse; not only is it a tour-de-force of talentlessness, a superb example of how to get away with coasting on your decades-old reputation, but it also represents the butchery of a superb piece. The original Sleuth was a masterpiece of its kind. Yes, it was a theatrical confection, and it is easy to see how it's central plot device would work better on the stage than the screen, but it still worked terrifically well. This is a Michael Caine vanity piece, but let's face it, Caine is no Olivier. Not only can he not fill Larry's shoes, he couldn't even fill his bathroom slippers. The appropriately-named Caine is, after all, a distinctly average actor, whose only real recommendation, like so many British actors, is their longevity in the business. He was a good Harry Palmer, excellent in Get Carter, but that's yer lot, mate! Give this a very wide berth and stick to the superb original. This is more of a half-pinter.
Joseph L. Mankiewicz's Sleuth didn't need a remake. It's a thoroughly well made film that stands up well to this day. However, given that the modern day remake machine is currently in full swing; I really can't say I'm surprised to see the film updated for modern audience. The plot remains identical to the original film and at its core we have the story of a young man, Milo Tindle, who goes off to see an older man, Andrew Wyke, to discuss a divorce as the younger man is having an affair with the older man's wife. From there, a game of cat and mouse ensues. Its clear right from the outset that director Kenneth Branagh wanted to add a different touch to this film and he does so by way of the central location, which has been changed from the charming games-ridden country house of the original to a technical marvel kitted out with layers of security equipment. I'm glad that the director chose to make this change as nobody wants to see a remake that directly copies of the original; plus there's the fact that the location is well used and always nice to look at. Unfortunately, however, the positive elements of Sleuth 2007 end there.<br /><br />The original film was over two hours long, while this remake is only just a shade over eighty minutes. Naturally, therefore, that means that this version has less about it; and unfortunately it's the characters that suffer. The plot is also rushed and we get into the first twist in the tale far too quickly and before we are given any chance to actually understand why and how these events can be taking place. The film does not build the characters, or the rapport between them, enough to make sure that their relationship makes sense. One major thing that has been changed about the older character is his obsession; in the original he was obsessed with games which turned out to be VERY important once the twists come into play. Here he has some kind of security fetish that doesn't really mean anything by the end. Kenneth Branagh's handling of the film allows for a classy score but the class ends there. The original thrived on it, but this film is happy merely to soil itself with expletives on numerous, and mostly unwarranted, occasions; which cheapen the whole thing. The final twist in the tale is completely different to how it was in the original and ensures that the film boils down to a really hideous conclusion. After spending two hours with the original I understood, respected and liked both characters presented in the film - after eighty minutes of this, I hated them both. I do have some respect for Branagh for not merely rolling out a carbon copy of the original film; but this is not a good adaptation of the great Anthony Shaffer play.
It's a while ago, that I have seen Sleuth (1972) with two great actors Michael Caine and Laurence Olivier. Michael Caine is back, but he is now the husband and Jude Law the lover of his wife. The story is still the same and it's a fantastic play.<br /><br />During the movie I always had the feeling to watch a play. That's one of the reasons I dislike this remake of a classic. When I watch a movie adapted a play I still must feel to see a movie and not just a play. Director Kenneth Brannigan did some marvelous movies in the past, but this time he missed. Another reason was the look of the movie. The design was modern, stylish clean, uncomfortable and cold. I never got the feeling that somebody ever lived in that house. The photography wasn't bad, but the lightening was awful. Sometimes there was blue light, dark, green light, to round it up not friendly for eyes.<br /><br />The acting was really good. Michael Caine's and Jude Law's perform at their best. I really would like to see these 2 guys playing together on stage. But I have to confess I never was a fan of Jude Law. The weakest part was the mid part. I remember that in the original that this part was still very mysterious and just marvelous directed. I tried to watch it twice and always in the mid part I felt asleep. The end part is better and more interesting. Sleuth (2007) isn't awful, but it seems to be more a movie for critics than for the audience. Sleuth (1972) is still a masterpiece and much more entertaining than Sleuth (2007).
A remake of the superb 1972 movie of the stage play, nicely casting Caine as the nemesis of his character from the first movie. But doing nothing else nicely at all.<br /><br />A under-parr performance from the actors, Law and Caine, diluted further by weak self-indulgent direction.<br /><br />The warmth of the setting in the original is forsaken for a super-modern homesetting. The subtle interplay between Oliver and Caine which made the first movie so watchable, is replaced with a horrid, brash arrogance that instantly breeds disdain in the viewer. But this is not the clever, to-ing and froing of liking one then the other character the original fostered so well, this is an obvious OTT character assassination of both character from the word go.<br /><br />This version of Sleuth is not really worth seeing, watch the original film and be dazzled from the opening act.
I thought the film was good in parts.the start was exciting .the first 30 minutes of the film were good.the camera angles in the first 30 minutes were strange and i did not like it coz the were they not covering the actors entirely.<br /><br />i think the last 25 minutes of the film were really not that great from which we expect a lot in case of such films.<br /><br />the dialoques did not make sense and i don't think they were very witty.<br /><br />i felt as if they were trying to copy films like phonebooth in terms of dialogues,but failed miserably.it seemed as if they many of the scenes between the actors were put for sake of it and did not make any sense to the story.<br /><br />the entire film features only law and caine.<br /><br />i don't think it was a waste of time,its an OK film,but not gr8
I loved the original. It was brilliant and always will be. Strangely though, I actually looked forward to seeing the re-make. I'm usually a little bit against re-makes because there's far too many of them, but somehow this intrigued me. I was really enjoying it to begin with. Caine brilliant, as usual, and Jude Law managing to hold is own next to him. It was quite clever how it was modernised and it was working. What stops this from being really good is the last seven minutes. It goes completely away from the original, so far in fact that is ceases to be clever and just gets annoying. The end in the original was fantastic! So much tension was built up and it was unbelievably clever! This? It grows not in tension but in frustration as it seemed they decided to make Caine's character a homosexual. It was if they were trying far to hard to be different. And then... BANG! Law's dead. Roll Credits. This film is worth the watch simply for the performances, but those last seven minutes really do drag it down. What a pity....
Director F.W. Murnau wisely stuck with the silent film medium he knew so well to cover this story of native islander life in the South Seas. The documentary style works very well for the first half of the movie. The landscapes are beautiful, and the daily life activities of the islanders are interesting to watch. The film loses momentum, though, when it begins to concentrate more on the narrative story of two doomed lovers. The storyline just never gets that interesting, despite being handled well by Murnau. Won an Academy Award for best cinematography, although the award probably should have been for best scenery. You can't really credit the DP for getting to shoot in such a beautiful location.
I heard many stories about this film being great... Well, I took my chance when I saw it for a cheap price at Ebay last month.<br /><br />I watched it, and I have only a few comments about it:<br /><br />1) Terrible story-line, 2) Terrible acting, 3) Bad fighting-scenes...<br /><br />I never seen any worse movie in my life so far!! When the storyline is bad, than at least make the fights something more interesting. But BOTH are done ridiculously bad...<br /><br />* The only positive thing about this movie (in my opinion) is Nikki Berwick. God, she looks nice in this movie.<br /><br />That's about it...
First of all when I saw the teaser trailer for Wendy Wu, I was definitely excited. Brenda Song, one of the hottest girls on Disney Channel, would be doing martial arts and I was fine with that... until I saw the movie. The action was poorly constructed, the movie couldn't have realated to anyone, the fighting was unrealistic and it sucked... along with the plot. If you really think about it's a wannabe Buffy the Vampire Slayer, a girl who is the descendant of other warriors who were women, a girl wants to ignore her calling and wants to become homecoming queen, the watcher who bug's her to prepare for a big fight against some ancient evil. The idea just wasn't all that original, the movie is waste of time.
I'd give it a 2/10.<br /><br />I was really, really disappointed.<br /><br />The storyline was poorly developed, for instance, the incidents were too short and brief, hence the moral was not clearly brought out. I thought Brenda Song did a fine job, but Shin Koyamada seemed to have a difficult time handling his role. I could see the need to put in western elements in the show, however, there are certain parts, where Chinese elements were needed too! The villain for example. His physical appearance resembled a robot, instead of something out of the Chinese culture. The final and the worst flaw, were the incorrect, and distorted facts placed in the show.<br /><br />Others may point out that this is a 'Kid's show' and hence, there is no need for the such high standards. However, there are other Disney shows, such as Mu Lan, which have been much better in terms of story development and presentation.<br /><br />In conclusion, I feel that Disney movies should be better researched and better planned. A good show is not enough with just a series of martial arts moves to depend on.
This movie was so poorly written and directed I fell asleep 30 minutes through the movie. The jokes in the movie are corny and even though the plot is interesting at some angles, it is too far fetched and at some points- ridiculous. If you are 11 or older you will overlook the writing in the movie and be disappointed, but if you are 10 or younger this is a film that will capture your attention and be amazed with all the stunts (which I might add are poorly done) and wish you were some warrior to. The casting in this movie wasn't very good, and the music was very disappointing because it was like they were trying to build up the tension but it didn't fit at all. On a scale of 1-10 (10 being excellent, 1 being horrible) the acting in this movie is a 4. Brenda Song is talented in comedy, but with this kind of movie, in some of the more serious scenes, her acting was laughable. When she made some of her "fighting" poses, I started laughing out loud. I think the worst thing about this movie is definitely the directing, for example, the part where her enemy turns out to be the person the evil villain is possesing, how her voice turns dark and evil, I think that was incredibly stupid, and how Wendy's (Brenda Song)teachers were all her teachers at school being possessed by monks, that was pretty ridiculous to. So to sumamrize it all, a disappointing movie, but okay if you're 10 or under.
I thought the movie (especially the plot) needs a lot of work. The elements of the movie remains westernized and untrue to the attempt of trying to produce an eastern feel in the movie. I'll give three out of many of the flaws of the movie:<br /><br />First, when Shen told Wendy that he would help her study the history of China, I was really happy that the audience would receive some information about Chinese history; but it turns out that the movie did not exactly show Wendy actually studying Chinese history; yet instead, the movie only shows Wendy practicing the method of remembering what she had studied, which frustrated and put me in dismay.<br /><br />Second, which really bothered me, is how the characters kept mentioning about moon cakes -- moon cakes this and moon cakes that and how good it tastes. Yet they didn't really mention the real significance of it. The only they they talked about that had any relevance to the moon cake was the Autumn Festival, which they did not explain or go in depth. They could have mentioned the myth that correlates with the moon cake -- the Moon Lady. The myth starts of with how there once exists ten suns and each would rotate rising, but one day all ten suns rose up, drying up the land with the rising intense heat; so the Divine Archer, Hou Yi, shot nine of the ten suns, leaving only one sun (there are different versions where the Hou Yi shot the eight out of nine suns). Because of his heroic contribution, he was given the pill of immortality so he could live on forever in case the ten suns do rise up again, but his wife, Chang-O stole it. After stealing it, she fled to the moon, where she met a hare. She then came upon an idea and told the hare to pound the pill into many piece so she could spread the pill all over earth, giving everyone immortality. (There are a few variations of this story but throughout my childhood, I, most of the time, heard about this version). I thought details such as this would make the plot more culturally Chinese oriented.<br /><br />The last thing I would point out is the last battle scene of the movie. The teachers that were possessed by the monks were fighting the Terra-cotta Warriors (the life-like statues of the soldiers) went against the idea of how important Chinese history is to the Chinese. The Terra-cotta Warrors serves as a connection of China's past and it was very westernized (where evil must be killed in anyway possible) that the monks in the movies were willing to destroy that connection. It would be understandable if Wendy, considering she is Chinese-American and doesn't have full Chinese knowledge, had no problem destroying these priceless artifacts.<br /><br />The whole movie was westernized because it seemed that all the monks and Shen want to do is fight... I mean, it's rated TVPG due to violence, which goes against the Confucius thinking of cooperation and harmony. It would seem more accurate that the monks try to avoid violence and try to work things out peacefully before having to resort to violence.<br /><br />All in all, all of or either of the producer, writer, or director did not do their research thoroughly and did a messy and effortless job instead. I would suggest that they either stop airing this movie or that they re-shoot the movie so it contains more accurate information; however, I would give it credit (2 stars) for removing one stereotype of Asians and Asian-Americans of being smart and quiet.
I thought this movie was terrible. I'm Chinese, so I thought everything was totally wrong. Many of the facts were incorrect. The only thing right about Chinese history in the movie was when Wendy's mother explained to her husband about the statues that guarded ShiHuangDi. I also thought the fight scenes were very cheesy and fake. Many of the actors and actresses were not very great. Some of the jokes that were supposedly "funny" were really stupid. I think this movie should receive the worst possible rating it could get. Disney has really got to get more information about Chinese history if they want to create an extravagant movie. Mulan was quite accurate. Watch this movie if you want to waste some time.
There are several things wrong with this movie- Brenda Song's character being one of them. I do not believe that the girl is a lousy actor- I honestly don't. I believe she is given poor lines. She is just supposed to be, "that vain, rich girl", and while it is funny in the TV shows she plays in, it can't even get a dry laugh from me here.<br /><br />Either way, I really should have known what to expect when I sat down to watch this film.<br /><br />The movie was not that terrible...initially. Wendy's reaction to Shen was completely natural. I mean, how would you feel if a man, claiming to be a reincarnated monk, chased you around commanding you to wear a medallion and insisting that you were needed to fight "the great evil" and save the world? Which brings me to another point. I know this movie is entirely fiction, but it is still has a founding in Chinese culture. It seems like all of the "warriors" in Wendy's family line were women. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt that the monks would've just been okay with that. Sure, maybe they could've worked it in somehow, but they offered no explanation whatsoever. By doing so, they just contributed to the many cheesy attempts at female empowerment made by Hollywood and the media.<br /><br />Nevermind that, however- let us continue.<br /><br />Wendy's character becomes more unbearable as the film go on. Yes, she is a teenager, and it is near homecoming- I mean, who wants to fight evil during homecoming? The problem is, when "the evil" starts to manifest himself, Wendy does not seem as freaked out as she should be. She is extremely careless- even for someone like her. She continues not to care about her training. I will use this conversation as an example, Shen: "If you do not win this battle, evil will take over, and everything good will be gone." Wendy: "Whoa, talk about pressure. Well...let's talk about something else." Yes, let's Wendy. Let's also go dancing when you should rightfully be training. Of course Shen lets her, but his character has an excuse. Better that he cooperate with her, than that he not, and she not train at all, and get them both killed.<br /><br />Oh, speaking of which. Shen also told Wendy that it was his destiny for him to die for her in battle, as he had for her great-grandmother (I am assuming that part).<br /><br />This makes Wendy's actions more unforgivable.<br /><br />As the script-writer would have it, Wendy's homecoming and this "great battle" are on exactly the same day. Do you know what Wendy does? Do you even have to guess? Yes, she does end up going to the battle, for when she tries to leave for homecoming, the monks, (who Shen had trapped in the body of her coach and teachers because she "felt weird fighting an old man") inform her that Shen has gone to battle alone, so she goes to save him.<br /><br />We initially see some half-decent fighting, that is actually entertaining. Until finally, the great evil comes out of Wendy's rival-for-homecoming's body, and creates the actual embodiment of himself out of the broken pieces of the bodies of his ancient warriors.<br /><br />Don't ask.<br /><br />Anyway, Wendy gets all "panicky." Then Shen goes and defends her from this guy- forgive me for forgetting his long Chinese name- and manages to get himself killed.<br /><br />Wendy catches Shen as he makes his long descent from being thrust uncomfortably high into the air.<br /><br />She screams title of said article out.<br /><br />Now...it was bad enough that Wendy became powerful far, far too fast. No, I will not let it be excused because it was her "destiny" and she had "the power within" her.<br /><br />Since when, though, did she learn healing? No, worst...since when could she resurrect people? So Shen is raised from the dead. Then, Wendy and he fight the guy.<br /><br />He loses way to easily. The worst part, is when they jump together, and kick him at the same time, and he is banished forever. Then the monks commend Wendy on her sacrifice.<br /><br />Two things, #1: Don't the script writer and director know a battle needs a little more "finesse" to it? #2: What sacrifice? The fact that she didn't go to homecoming? Because the girl did not break a sweat, or even bleed. I mean, come on now, this movie was TV PG, I wanted to see somebody get hurt.<br /><br />Ah-hem...moving on.<br /><br />I know it sounds like maybe I should have given the movie a one, based on my comments. Part of critique, you must know, though, is breaking a thing down. You don't necessarily try to look for the bad, but if it's there, you bring attention to it. This movie has a lot of bad, but something funny happens when you never really expect something to be all too great in the first place.<br /><br />So, I suppose it was all right. Not that me not saying it wasn't all right would've stopped anybody from watching it.
There isn't more I can say that saying this film was awful. The whole Chineseness is awakened in your being because of the ancestors was a hard sell. But telling the audience that every Chinese knows Chinese history without even studying it just laughable. That is like saying every American knows American history without studying or every Filipino, etc, etc. It just isn't believable.<br /><br />The story is flat out hideous. It talked about Shin being from a Monastery in China - later identifying it from Bejing. However, the early sequences of the film show the map focusing in on Mongolia. I know the current Chinese regime wants to claim areas like Mongolia for its own, granted. But its a distinct nation and it even labels "Mongolia" on the map. Did Disney Studios fail 5th Grade Geography? <br /><br />The relationship between Wendy and Shin is superficial at best, and yet she somehow feels connected to him. Her training is just cheesy as well. And, lets cut to the chase: everything about this film is bad. Its bad enough to laugh at and cry over. The Taekwondo action was over played and unrealistic in many instances.<br /><br />The evil eyes thing was cheesy. However, the left out ending would have been the only descent thing about it. They should have left the evil eyes ending in it. But instead somehow evil is defeated. Yey! <br /><br />Overall,not worth the time of the dog in the film. Brenda Song should get on with another studio. "F"
Worst DCOM I have seen. Ever. Well, maybe not as bad as Smart House. This was just bad. The acting and story was fine, but the effects SUCKED!<br /><br />They were so fake! The only good fight scene was between the brother and Shen. That was probably the only scene in which I was excited.<br /><br />Overall, I found this movie very boring and the film kind of ended suddenly. <br /><br />I will give it a four for Brenda Song who is a very funny actress and that one fight scene.<br /><br />4/10
I'm here again in your local shopping mall (of course, 'cause that's where the high school kids hang out!!!!!) to demonstrate how awful "BENDY POO: PROM COURIER" really is!!!!! To prove how bad this joke of a DCOM this is...<br /><br />...we're going to take these four sumo wrestlers, and stuff them into this photo booth. How...cozy!!!!! <br /><br />Hai! Huuuuuuuarrrrghhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Uh!!!!! <br /><br />How awful is it????? It's so bad, Disney Channel flushes away its money, yet again, with those exciting yet determining 10-second promos, keeping the viewers wondering, "WHEN IS THIS GOING TO BE ON?????" And then, suddenly, when it DOES come on, for one, this not only got a higher TV rating than usual, but this was only seen once!!!!! Oh, no!!!!! One time everyone!!!!! Plus, this movie is about high school and stuff, and believe me, I will NOT go any further with what else is in there.....<br /><br />Say ch...smile!!!!! (SNAP!) <br /><br />Avoid this one at all costs. 0/10
Wow. This was probably the worst DCOM ever. I watched the first half hour and I laughed. Brenda Song plays Wendy, the popular girl with the hot jock boyfriend and stuck up friends who is determined to be Homecoming Queen. She is supposed to save the world as a warrior, and Shin comes to her aid to help her with her Martial Arts. Shin teaches her the skills of a snake, tiger, etc. and she has to learn certain techniques to save the world.<br /><br />This movie is great for kids who want to learn about Martial Arts and the Chinese culture but the acting and casting was horrible.<br /><br />Brenda Song is a comedic actress and I can't see her playing a serious role. It was laugh out loud funny watching her cry over Shin. Shin couldn't act at all, and everything was totally unbelievable.<br /><br />I watched this movie and tried to think of something similar, and the thing I came up with was the Power Rangers. This movie is so fake and the stunts were so Power Ranger-esquire that it was just corny and stupid. The characters weren't likable and I just couldn't stand to watch it. Disney really needs to take time to make some decent movies. High School Musical is the only movie that deserves to be on Disney Channel, along with other movies like Jumping Ship, Color of Friendship, Go Figure, Read It and Weep, & Stuck in the Suburbs.<br /><br />If you like action-adventure and corny jokes, you'll like this movie.
Wendy Wu: Homecoming Warrior has a very good, strong plot but is ruined by cheesy details throughout the movie. I am a younger teenager and didn't enjoy this movie very much. I thought the effects were horrible, but they might seem entertaining to younger children. The matrix moves ruined the action, you know that it was absolutely fake. Then there was the Yen Lo, an evil spirit who temporarily possesses random people and homecoming in which Wendy was striving to win. It all ends like a typical feel good movie when Wendy and her Buddhist monk cousin Shen defeat Yen Lo (and destroy him forever) in the end. So Wendy learns a lesson...blah, blah, blah. I'm ready for the next DCOM.
I am so insulted by this movie, it's not even funny... And I thought "Mulan" was unbelievable! However low my expectations of Disney have become, I never figured they'd do something so stereotypical yet so off. There is no respect here for any true Chinese culture, just the Hollywood tradition of random martial arts.<br /><br />I appreciate that they tried to make Wendy into a normal teenage girl... But, fortunately, most normal teenage girls--particularly Asian teenage girls--are much less obsessed with such shallow aspects of life. And from a cultural stand point, it's almost impossible. Yes, there are girls who are wrapped up in popularity and fashion, but they're pretty rare. And even the ones who are are still fairly decent scholars. Another stereotype, maybe, but a fairly true one. Because that's how Chinese parents work. That's how Chinese values work. If they wanted to go for authenticity, they would've made Wendy an ironic girl with glasses and a love-hate relationship with her family.<br /><br />This just adds to my frustration with American movies. Asian culture isn't about meditation and vague, nature-oriented phrases that sound wise. We don't walk around smiling enigmatically all the time, and we don't all know some form of martial arts. We're a PEOPLE, and I'd appreciate it if someone would write an Asian part that doesn't portray us as some sad caricature.
The day has finally come for me to witness the perpetuation of Azumi's fate as an assassin, fruition of her character and the ultimate attempt to draw me deeper into the world she rampaged through so mercilessly during the first saga.<br /><br />That's as poetical as I'll get when talking about Azumi 2: Death or Love, because when I cringed over the heavy sentimentality of House of Flying Daggers and complained about the credibility of Aya Ueto portraying a blood-driven assassin, after watching Azumi 2 I started to appreciate the previously mentioned shortcomings more than ever before.<br /><br />Not only does the determination of each assassin feels sluggish and uninspiring but also many important elements are omitted from the entire experience. In Azumi 1 we saw the assassins use various stealth tactics (which is their number one priority) as well as logic to make easy work of their marks with swift executions and quicker abilities to escape. But I won't hold that against this movie too much since the story is slightly tweaked this time around and many more obstacles are planted in Azumi's way to prevent her from reaching the warlord and displaying any signs of charisma. By the way, Chiaki is foolishly shelved for the most part of the film and is basically playing a toned down version of Go Go, minus the cool weapon and sense of menace.<br /><br />This brings me to the final blow which is the action, simply disguised in the title as the 'Death' side of the epic. In the first half of the film we see the debut of many promising adversaries with flashy looks and even flashier weapons. To no one's surprise they meet their end one way or another but the film falls short when each of them start dying too fast and too easily. In Azumi 1, the young assassins were mostly overpowering the opposition with quick but somewhat satisfying battles and the final showdown between Azumi and Bijomaru in comparison to the fights in Azumi 2 was at least climaxed and worthwhile. Some interesting effects were introduced but they were unable to achieve innovation due to the shortness of each encounter. I am in no way knocking down the conventional style of samurai films with their quick and realistic battles but characters in both Azumi films were so imaginative and straight out of anime that the rules could have been broken and the action should have been further enriched.<br /><br />The romance side of Azumi is there to fill in time between the fight scenes and unfortunately at the end it serves no purpose nor provides a much needed resolution.<br /><br />As a fan with an open mind for wide variety of movies and animation, I won't lie and I'll admit to my neutrality and unimpressiveness towards the first Azumi film, but I'll step right up and say that after watching Azumi 2, the original was made to look like a flawless masterpiece. For what it's worth, Azumi 2: Death or Love could have gone straight to video, with its invisibly richer budget and a failed potential to add or even expand on the bumpy journey of desperate assassins, doing their best to restore the peace, with an unwavering courage to die trying.
I loved watching the original Azumi with its mix of live action manga, compelling storyline, cool soundtrack, directing (Kitamura rocks!), editing, and not to mention the beautiful Aya Ueto who filled the part perfectly. So I was really looking forward to seeing Azumi 2, but after finally seeing it I felt like i had won the lotto and lost the ticket:( Azumi 2 picks up where Azumi left off, however these are completely 2 different movies. The pace is a lot slower, the action is not as exciting and as well choreographed and there is not a lot of character development. This was apparently directed by the same guy responsible for further reducing the value of the TOHO monster franchise (if that is possible!). I agree with some other past reviewers who say that this was a lost opportunity. If only Ryuhei Kitamura continued with this installment. There is however some beautiful Japanese forest scenery to look at while the slow action unfolds and we are introduced all too briefly to bit characters who quickly get killed off. Even the real bad guys, get killed off too easily without too much of a fight. The fight with the Spider guy (straight out of an episode of Monkey!) in the bamboo forest was about the only memorable fight scene. Wheras in Azumi 1 we had a climactic fight scene with barrel camera effects, Azumi 2 brought us the Azumi cape cam!! Azumi's rampage at the end was unconvincing, but Aya still does an okay job. She looks great in the cape...but where did she get it from? I don't think i will be watching this one over and over again! ...what a pity.
I loved the first "Azumi" movie. I've seen Ms. Ueto in a variety of her TV appearances and I've seen my fair share of samurai and ninja flicks. I have to say that this movie was much weaker than I'd expected.<br /><br />Given the movie's cast and set up in "Azumi", they should have been able to do a much better job with this movie, but instead it was slow, plodding in parts, and sprinkled with very poor, unconvincing, and wooden acting.<br /><br />When they bothered to reference the first movie, they did so in a manner that was pretty loose and weak. In "Azumi", the title character is the best of a group of superior killers. In "Azumi 2" she seems somehow diminished and less-impressive.<br /><br />That's not to say it was a total loss. There were a few decent fight scenes and some over-the-top characters. Unfortunately, the movie suffers overall from the simple fact that Shusuke Kaneko and Yoshiaki Kawajiri are not Ryuhei Kitamura and Isao Kiriyama. The latter two truly captured the "manga" feel in their screenplay whereas the former never quite "got it."
The movie deserves 2/10. 1.5 stars for the girl, (I'm sorry I'm biased, i think pretty girl is the only highlight of the movies), and 0.5 for the fact that it is shorter than Azumi 1. I watched Azumi 1 and 2 in 1 seating. I amazed myself being able to sit through it. <br /><br />Lets talk about the plus points of the movie. The girl. Ueto Aya is cute. Thats all there is to salvage the whole movie. The fact is, if the main character was male, i am sure that most people (including me) would not have touched the movie at all. <br /><br />Now lets talk about the minus points. Firstly, it is real draggy, with lots and lots of repeated scenes. Scenes of Nachi and Azumi keeps coming back. It seems more like a drama way of shooting. Typical Japanese dramas love flashbacks, and this movie too. Secondly, the movie is too unrealistic in a historical setting. I do not mind unrealistic movies. But this movie is like a poor way of showing creativeness, by throwing in ninjas that act like bears and spider webs, etc... it reminds me of Shinobi, though Shinobi is a movie with a fantasy setting. Moreover, to portray "i-don't-know" what effect, the director films people dying with blood spraying (literally) all around... people not realizing their head was cut off... etc.. etc... etc... Too many of these spoils the show. It seems like the anime influence is strong in this movie. It degrades the show greatly. Thirdly, Isn't Azumi supposed to be an assassin. She seems more like an one-man-army to me, just that she is a female. I don't think you see assassins charging into army camps. The only time i felt she acted "assassin-liked" was when she killed the Kiyomasa Kato at the end of Azumi 1. Lastly, the plot was thin in both movies. Its a linear plot with no development and surprises in any way.
One of the worst movies I've seen shoddy camera work, crappy filter usage, film was grainy, script was terrible, i mean come on, how predictable was the big battle at the end.....<br /><br />some of the fight scenes were okay i guess....<br /><br />some scenes were so bad it was comical ...like Sorbo getting the horse and riding at the end...LOL i mean really ..a horse? Oh cant forget how the bad assassins roll around in the same vehicle throughout the entire movie..one would think that after killling key witness and federal agents, they woulda been tracked down..ETC, ETC really don't bother watching it...
I can enjoy a guilty pleasure vigilante flick, but this is just bad. And not bad in a way you might enjoy seeing MST3K make fun of it. It's just nauseatingly bad like you can't find anything to enjoy about this no matter how hard you try. I truly regret wasting 2 hours of precious life on this crap. You can tell by watching it that no one was asked to act and everyone in it knew this film would only bury their careers. Apparently "Walking Tall" has garnered enough income that someone decided they could make a buck off their investment. If it's not the worst film I've seen, it's so bad that it's blotted the worse films from my memory.
Les Visiteurs, the first movie about the medieval time travelers was actually funny. I like Jean Reno as an actor, but there was more. There were unexpected twists, funny situations and of course plain absurdness, that would remind you a little bit of Louis de Funes.<br /><br />Now this sequel has the same characters, the same actors in great part and the same time traveling. The plot changes a little, since the characters now are supposed to be experienced time travelers. So they jump up and down in history, without paying any attention to the fact that it keeps getting absurder as you advance in the movie. The duke, Jean Reno, tries to keep the whole thing together with his playing, but his character has been emptied, so there's not a lot he can do to save the film.<br /><br />Now the duke's slave/helper, he has really all the attention. The movie is merely about him and his being clumsy / annoying / stupid or whatever he was supposed to be. Fact is; this character tries to produce the laughter from the audience, but he does not succeed. It is as if someone was telling you a really very very bad joke, you already know, but he insists on telling that joke till the end, adding details, to make your suffering a little longer.<br /><br />If you liked Les Visiteurs, do not spoil the taste in your mouth with the sequel. If you didn't like Les Visiteurs, you would never consider seeing the sequel. If you liked this sequel... well, I suppose you still need to see a lot of movies.
In a way, Corridors of Time is a success story because the movie reaches its goal : being seen by thousands. But it fails at making them laugh...<br /><br />Les Visiteurs has had its success, because the subject was an original way of considering the time travel : forget about Zemeckis's Back to the future, here comes the old France, the middle-age knight and its nearly barbaric way of life. Full of pride, funny thanks to the ancient words he uses, Montmirail can sometimes be disgusting but he keeps his honor. Then comes the sequel.<br /><br />Nobody had foreseen the tremendous success of Les Visiteurs, the first. And it's no use being a movie expert to realize that the Corridors of Time has been made for money.<br /><br />The general story begins after the end of Les Visiteurs, and immediately tries to justify the sequel with a time paradox that would have needed some second tought. Explanation : it's no use trying to get back the jewelry Jacquouille has stolen ; don't you remember this nice red shiny and expensive car he bought at the end of the 1st episode ? Where do you think he found the money ? Selling the jewelry... And that's only one of many holes Poiré tries to avoid... and fails.<br /><br />Let's have a look at the characters : Montmirail doesn't change, he's just a little more boring. Regarding Frenegonde... that's another story : Valérie Lemercier decided not to compromise herself in this sequel to avoid getting stuck in the bourgeoise role. And Muriel Robin tries to imitate her in a way that I found so pitiful I nearly felt pain for her. And Poiré doesn't realize that a cast of humorists isn't enough to make a good comedy.<br /><br />Forget about the time travels, about the digital effects, concentrate on the story and you'll see that there's enough room on a mail stamp to write it 10 times.<br /><br />The main interest of this film is the landscapes. A movie for youngsters, let's say up to 13 years old.
This film is so bad and gets worse in every imaginable fashion. Its not just the poor acting and script nor is it the lame and perverse time one wastes on watching it. What really puts this film in my hall of shame is the apparent struggling that the writers and producers do with the film to try and make it funny. The actress replacing Jean Reno's descendant is to old and learned her lesson in the first film so they add a new girl who is to be married. Nearly all of the original extras and gags return however this time makes me want to ripe my eyes out of my sockets because it's a waste of perfectly good film. The torture of the constant camera cuts and shots in any scene in this movie can put the viewer into violent convolutions. This second film takes the successful original and drags it out of its coffin and parades the corpse out in the public square and perversely degrades not only the original idea and its legacy but our intelligence as well. This film unlike the spruce goose could not fly for it had no plot in the principals returning for a 'necklace'. No script since it was apparently written and added to daily. No attention to camera or shots in mind. Poor lighting and special effects done for the sake of doing so. This film would not even pass for a student film in basic Film 101. How this pile got through no one can tell. It was a big loosing investment and it appears that no one had the strength to put this unnatural cruel mistake out of our miseries. This movie has one good part ...its END! This film is my #1 worst film of all time, finally "Howard The Duck" is no longer the goose.
Everybody who wants to be an editor should watch this movie! It shows you about every mistake not to do in editing a movie! My grandma could have done better than that! But that's not the only reason why this movie is really bad! (It's actually so bad that I'm not able to write a sentence without exclamation mark!) If the first episode of ‘Les Visiteurs' was a quite good familial comedy with funny jokes and cult dialogues, this sequel is copying badly the receipe of the first one. The funny parts could be counted on one hand and maybe half of it. Clavier is over-acting his role even more than in the first part, Robin is trying to act like Lemercier (because she's replacing her) but that's ‘grotesque'. Lemercier is Lemercier, Robin is Robin! Even if Muriel Robin can be funny by herself on stage, she is not in this movie because she's not acting as she used to act. I know that it should be hard to replace somebody who was good in a role (Lemercier obtained a César award for her role in the first movie) but she made a big mistake: instead of playing her role, she played ‘Lemercier playing her role'! As for the story, it's just too much! Of course we knew at he end of the first movie that there would be a sequel but Poiré and Clavier should hae tried to write a more simple story like the first episode. The gags are repetitive, childish and déjà-vu. No, really, there's no more than 3 funny parts in this. The only good things might be the costumes and some special effects. So you have only 2 reasons to watch it: 1) if you want to learn how to edit awfully a movie, 2) if you want to waste your time or if you really need a ‘brainless moment'! 2/10
In 1993, "the visitors" was an enormous hit in France. So, the sequence was inevitable and unfortunately, this sequence ranks among the worst ones ever made. <br /><br />This is a movie that doesn't keep its promises. Indeed, it's supposed to tell a sole story. Jean Reno must go in the twentieth century and take Christian Clavier back in the Middle Ages so that time can normally follow its course. The problem is that Clavier feels completely at ease in the world of the twentieth century, and so make him get back in the Middles Ages is rather hard... Instead of this, the movie goes on several other stories without succeeding in following the main plot. As a consequence, the movie becomes sometimes muddle-headed, sometimes a bit of a mess.<br /><br />But the movie also suffers from the performance of nearly all the actors. Reno and Clavier fall into the trap that however they could avoid in the first movie: they're going over the top and become annoying. Then, why did Jean-Marie Poiré the film-maker engage Muriel Robin in the female main role? He made a mistake because she seems ill-at-ease and is absolutely pitiful. The other actors aren't better: Marie-Anne Chazel is nonexistent and Christian Bujeau, unbearable.<br /><br /> Of course, the movie contains a few good moments with efficient gags but it often falls into vulgarity and easiness. Certain sequences and dialogs are affected. It also appears hollow because Poiré takes back elements that secured the success of the first movie. Thus, a young girl takes Reno for a close relative of her family and asks him to take part in her wedding.<br /><br />A labored and disappointing follow-up. Anyway, what's the interest of this movie otherwise commercial?<br /><br />
The original "les visiteurs" was original, hilarious, interesting, balanced and near perfect. LV2 must be a candidate for "Worst first sequel to a really good film". In LV2 everyone keeps shouting, when a gag doesn't work first it's repeated another 5 times with some vague hope that it will eventually become funny. LV2 is a horrible parody of LV1, except of course that a parody should be inventive. If you loved LV1 just don't see this film, just see LV1 again!!
Corridors of time. The movie you can watch if you're looking for a sophisticated way of suicide. Some use guns, ropes, or gas, but you want to ruin your brains ? Do not wait any longer ! Corridors of time is probably one of the biggest possible mistakes : thinking Christian Clavier is able to act and to bring you fun. I do not miss the 45 francs this poor thing cost me : sometimes, one has to reset its evaluation system looking at the absolute zero. This film deserves a 2/10, but that's only because I like Jean Reno. Too bad for him, he also stars in Ronin. I think I'm gonna dislike him...
Where to begin? Anachronism? High tech cross bow with a scope in about 500AD? Arrows with explosive charges in 500AD? A monster Grendel that looks like a robocop and obviously never interacts with any of the weapons fired or swung against him? The heart torn out of his victim's chest without any sense of contact? Possibly the blond who would fit in on a recent fashion show with her make-up and streaked hair? The ancient Danish court represented in Classical Greek style? The queen played by Marina Sirtis more savaged by her makeup artist than by madness? The effects are way too weak to carry this story. There are some stories that don't mind or even benefit from cheap effects, but this Grendel isn't one of them. <br /><br />What about characters who seem to jump about in their attitudes without motivation? A bravado idiot prince whose home has already been savaged more than once by the monster Grendel seems to have less respect for the danger he faces than Beowulf who was sent from afar from the land of the Geats to help the desperate Danes. In this it feels more like an old cowboy western than any kind of myth.<br /><br />Beowulf is an ancient tale from an era with almost no literary tradition and much of both its sentiment and its drama is obscure. I suspect that any modern telling which doesn't make an intelligent attempt to penetrate the obscurity must fail. I didn't love the recent "Beowulf and Grendel" which sees Grendel essentially as human and sees Hrothgar and his Danes as too arrogant and stupid to recognize Grendel's attacks as well-justified vengeance, but I had to respect its revisionist position that Hrothgar's Danes were a bunch of macho thugs who never grasped, even after it was all over, that they had brought this nightmare on themselves, and therefore, the original story of Beowulf, as it was written, was a misrepresentation of the real story. I think there's a more complex meaning to be understood than that, but this "Grendel's" terrible secret that Grendel's attacks are tied to previous human sacrifice doesn't really bring us closer to the shame experienced by Hrothgar and the Danes. <br /><br />This Beowulf has little to recommend it as traditional myth or as modern fantasy. I give it a 4: higher than it deserves, but always hopeful that a poor effort will draw attention by someone who is up to telling the story intelligently. In the meantime, Sci-Fi's movie-making seems to be following the NASA policy that it's better to build lots of probes that fail than a few that succeed.
Just once I'd like to see a version of Beowulf where it appears the screenwriters have at least a passing familiarity with the original poem. Yet again, after watching this Sci Fi presentation, I'm disappointed. <br /><br />I'm not suggesting the writers need to understand and analyze the poem in Old English, but I wish they could at least try to read a translation in modern English and attempt to construct a story based on what actually transpires. The story is exciting enough; why add plot elements that are non-existent and ruin the story? What's wrong with being faithful to the text? <br /><br />Grendel is immune to weapons of any kind; why introduce some super-crossbow that is unbelievable and could not have possibly existed in this time period (as correctly pointed out by the previous reviewer)? The fight with Grendel was Beowulf vs. Grendel. That's it. No one else took part in the battle. The only way Beowulf could have defeated him was by choosing specifically to engage the monster without any weapons, the mistake made by all previous challengers. Yet, in this version, Danes and Geats fight the beast and Beowulf hacks off Grendel's arm with a sword! Again, why couldn't they portray what really happened? Personally, I think a one-on-one grappling match between the two would be much more exciting. <br /><br />Overall, this is a pathetic and abysmal depiction that is faithless to the true tale. Why add in a pact with Hrothgar and Grendel's mother that includes sacrificial offering? Why create extra characters, like Finn, that add nothing to the story? There was no love story in the poem. They couldn't even set the scenes in the appropriate locations (a forest instead of the swamp and no lair under the lake). They fail to notice the metaphor that Grendel's lair signifies – it's supposed to be underground to represent hell. Why not instead center on the symbolism inherent in the epic poem? Even my high school students last year were able to do immensely better when they created a short film based on Beowulf, since they focused on the themes and symbolism underlying the story. If Hollywood could create a film that centers on these elements and is faithful to the plot, then that would be a truly great movie.
I just read a review defending this film because it had a low budget, now my take on things.<br /><br />The CGI monsters was reasonable well animated but was implemented in the worst possible way. The fight scenes weren't even fights it was just one shot of an actor then one shot of monster with very interaction at all. When the monster did interact it looked like it was done in paintshop pro. In my opinion if you have a low budget you should use models and puppets. They may not look as fancy but at least they interact, just look at Peter Jacksons early films.<br /><br />As for the acting Beowulf did an descent job but the rest of the cast were either not trying or they forgot where they where.<br /><br />The script seemed confused to me. One minute they would be talking as if it were a modern day setting the next you get drama club Shakespeare speech. I'm not say it should be all 'ye' and 'that it be' but you need to find a cohesive balance so the lines sound like they come from the same person.<br /><br />I did notice one part near the start when Beowulf was quoting the old testament which would have been find had he not spent the rest of the films talking about the gods and portents.<br /><br />In short, this film is a very slightly polished turd, but a turn none the less.
Why oh why can't anyone make a decent film out of a legendary tale? This is the second adaptation of "Beowulf" I've been disappointed with in a year. But I have to say, the previous version ("Beowulf & Grendel", starring Gerald Butler) was far superior to this. That one was only a little disappointing. This one is a mess!!! <br /><br />What bugged me most? Was it the useless plot elements they added in for no particular reason (Human sacrifices? Pointless love interest?), or the bad CGI, or the inconsistency of the characters or the uninspired acting? Even worse was the way they made beautiful Marina Sirtis look so horrible!!! And lets not even talk about that ridiculous crossbow? <br /><br />And why did they continually remind us that Beowulf had the strength of 30 men, and yet he never showed the slightest sign of such strength throughout the entire film. He was tossed around by both monsters he fought, relying on his sidekicks to save his bacon. Even when he slugged the arrogant prince, he didn't knock him out. He was much too reliant on weapons. Beo-wimp is more like it. This was certainly not the powerful Beowulf of the epic poem! <br /><br />I'd like to end this on a positive note but I can't really think of one offhand. All I can say is, if you've ever read "Beowulf", you'll be infinitely disappointed by this dismal, inaccurate excuse for an adaptation!
This movie lost me with the crossbow RPG (rocket-propelled grenade). It was like someone cut and pasted a scene from Robocop. I half expected Beowulf to say exclaim, "I LIKE IT!"<br /><br />I watched this because I like Chris Bruno from "The Dead Zone" TV show and he did his part. He chose a strange accent, but at least he kept it consistent for the whole movie -- unlike any of his costars. They kept slipping into all kinds of speech from old English to modern English, sometimes in the same sentence.<br /><br />There are already many comments on how this movie is different from the source material. However, even on its own, this movie's plot is not good. It's just boring, which even the low budget doesn't excuse. Having a low budget means that you need to at least have a good story, dialog and decent acting. Those things don't cost much. Instead, they spent their money on half-assed CGI and some decent costumes and sets.<br /><br />Life is too short to watch this movie.
This is a made-for-TV and rather needless Sci-fi Channel retelling of the Beowulf story, especially after the recent 2005 film "Beowulf and Grendel". This movie doesn't really get into Beowulf's story, but just takes us through his battle against the ravenous beast known as Grendel as it leaves a kingdom in absolute fear and turmoil while the powerful viking warrior, Beowulf is called upon to rid them of the monster's rampage. If this is successfully accomplished, the king will no longer have to sacrifice the children to keep it at bay. After a few failed attempts, the creature is slain, but it's angry and vengeful mother soon attacks, leaving it up to Beowulf to, again, lend his mighty acts of bravery and strength to defeat it. "Grendel" looks like it was shot on a tiny budget and the CG effects are terrible. Like I said, this movie is absolutely needless.
I watched Grendel the other night and am compelled to put together a Public Service Announcement.<br /><br />Grendel is another version of Beowulf, the thousand-year-old Anglo-Saxon epic poem. The SciFi channel has a growing catalog of inoffensive and uninteresting movies, and the previews promised an inauthentic low-budget mini-epic, but this one refused to let me switch channels. It was staggeringly, overwhelmingly, bad. I watched in fascination and horror at the train wreck you couldn't tear your eyes away from. I reached for a notepad and managed to capture part of what I was seeing. The following may contain spoilers or might just save your sanity. You've been warned.<br /><br />- Just to get it over with, Beowulf's warriors wore horned helmets. Trivial issue compared to what came after. It also appears that the helmets were in a bin and handed to whichever actor wandered by next. Fit, appearance and function were apparently irrelevant.<br /><br />- Marina Sirtis had obviously been blackmailed into doing the movie by the Ringling Brothers, Barnum and Bailey circus. She managed to avoid a red rubber nose, but the clowns had already done the rest of her makeup.<br /><br />- Ben Cross pretended not to be embarrassed as the king. His character, Hrothgar, must have become king of the Danes only minutes before the film opened and hadn't had a chance to get the crown resized to fit him yet.<br /><br />- To facilitate the actors' return to their day jobs waiting tables, none were required to change their hairstyles at all. The variety of hair included cornrows, sideburns, buzz cuts and a mullet and at least served to distract from the dialog. To prove it was a multi-national cast, all were encouraged to retain whatever accent they chose.<br /><br />- As is typical with this type of movie (at least since Mad Max), leather armor was a requirement. In this case it was odd-shaped, ill-fitting and brand-new.<br /><br />- The female love interest, Ingrid, played by Alexis Peters, followed a long-standing tradition of hotties who should be watched with the volume turned completely down.<br /><br />- The unintended focus of the movie was a repeating, compound crossbow with exploding bolts. It never needed to be loaded and even had a recoil when fired. It managed to shred the laws of physics, the integrity of the original legend, historical fact and plot suspense all by itself.<br /><br />- Hrothgar's palace, Heorot, rather than being a Norse long hall, apparently was designed and constructed by artisans who sank with Atlantis.<br /><br />- Beowulf arrived at the Danes' homeland in a two-masted stern-castled ship that originally was part of a set, the other two being the Santa Maria and the Pinta.<br /><br />- Prince Unferth observed Beowulf's ship's approach using a telescope. Before you could recover from that astounding innovation, you got to see the ship from his point of view. Judging from the angle, the prince was in an aircraft of some sort.<br /><br />- Fun fact 1: In Bulgaria, fire (as from a fireplace) creates light without heat. This explains why you could see the actors' breath whether indoors or out.<br /><br />- Fun fact 2: Dark Age dancing in Denmark looks like slow dances I went to in the 8th grade.<br /><br />- Fun fact 3: You, too, can make a catapult with a timed-release air-burst explosive. But, don't expect it to actually harm anything. Incidentally, Beowulf was apparently a veteran of World War II, yelling "Incoming!" to shred any remaining suspension of disbelief.<br /><br />- Grendel was so upset and always in a snit because as a completely CGI creation he couldn't leave footprints. Even in snow.<br /><br />- Grendel's mom ("Hag") was in a foul mood because she was a single mother and junior hadn't inherited her wings. Recessive gene, I suppose. By the way, we can now make an educated guess that Grendel's pop was probably Swamp Thing.<br /><br />- Grendel and mom chose to randomly kill, fly away with or drag away their prey based only on a close reading of the next few pages of the script.<br /><br />- Fun medical fact: Being slammed by a mythical beast hard enough to be thrown fifty feet against stone causes slight facial scratches that don't bleed much.<br /><br />- The sword of legend Beowulf used to dispatch the Hag was as long as he was tall and would have contained enough steel to put a second deck on the Golden Gate Bridge. Luckily the wobbling dispelled any concerns over its weight.<br /><br />- Best line of the movie: Prince Unferth had just been impaled by Hag and spit a quart of blood roughly six feet. Princess Ingrid cradled him gently and said, "You're going to be okay, my prince." So much for that job at the triage clinic.<br /><br />I feel better now.
After having seen the Canadian/Icelandic/British 2004 production of "Beowulf & Grendel," which I thought brilliant and stunning, I approached this--the first of 3 newer Beowulf movies due out this year--with trepidation. As soon as I heard "Viking" and saw the horned helmets, I groaned. These were Migration Era Swedes and Danes, not Vikings (they came later). And even the Vikings never wore horns on their helmets (horns make it easy for your enemy to knock your helmet off and then brain you). Then there's Hrolfgar's palace, which looks like a set for a movie about Greece or Rome, not 6th-century Denmark. The swords and armor look like props left over from earlier films set in various historic periods. I spotted weapons that might have been used by Crusaders in "Kingdom of Heaven," and one character was even wielding a Windlass Steelcrafts reproduction movie sword from "Beowulf & Grendel"! Beyond the basic plot of the original epic poem, the writing was dismal and the acting totally wooden and unconvincing. The biggest yuk was a secret-weapon crossbow, complete with sighting scope and exploding projectiles, that looked like something bought from Iraqi insurgents. The special-effects monster and his mom were so on steroids that Beowulf could never have torn off an arm, as he did in the poem. Thank the gods for bazooka crossbows! I could go on, but I won't.
May the saints preserve us, because this movie is not going to help.<br /><br />Someone with access needs to e-mail Mel Gibson and tell him we need a faithful production of Beowulf. Something that actually has something in common with the epic poem that is the foundation for all modern western literature.<br /><br />The recent (since 2000) versions of Beowulf make we wonder two things. First, why is there so much interest in the story. Second, why are all these filmmakers squandering mountains of cash on this crap.<br /><br />The only reason this got a two is that the version with Lambert in it (Beowulf 2000) was worse and needed the 1.<br /><br />What is even worse, some people will watch this and get the wrong idea about the poem. How can an industry where Peter Jackson gets a literary conversion to film so right can get it so wrong. I mean really, the Roman Forum as a model for Heorot is too much.<br /><br />And PLEASE, horns on helmets? Spare me. This is insulting.<br /><br />/hjm
I stopped five minutes in when Beowulf was given a double-shot, automatic crossbow with sights on it. Not only do crossbows not have telescoping sights, but Beowulf beat Grendel in hand-to-hand combat. The terrible, wooden acting and eternal darkness that plagues all Sci-Fi Original Movies didn't help either. Having only gotten a few minutes in before I felt my bile rise and decided to watch I Love Lucy reruns instead, that's really about all I have to say. But, you might as well just realize that it's a made-for-TV movie and skip it right there.<br /><br />A travesty.
It's hard to say what was the worst thing about this show: the bad acting, poor acoustics of different portions, bad CGI, improper sets for the period, the poor script. It would have been nice if the script followed the original tale a bit closer -- there's enough tension and good material in Beowulf to provide a great deal of good material, and a better story line, than the scriptwriters could come up with.<br /><br />And why introduce a strange new weapon like a crossbow that fires explosive bolts?<br /><br />I see that this movie was made in "only" 21 days. It shows in the lack of quality. I'm beginning to think this is general (poor) attitude taken by Sci-Fi channel (and others) when it comes to making movies out of classic tales in the past few years.<br /><br />What a waste!
I work at a Blockbuster store and every week we have movies that come in with just a few copies, these are the kind of movies that the Sci-Fi channel shows. The kind of movie that nobody ever wants, and only that idiots rent, when they bring it back I ask them "was it any good?", they say "no we turned it off after 15 minutes!" Movies with terrible computer generated, super imposed monsters and such like, very unappealing.<br /><br />This is the same type of movie that Grendel is, and absolute waste of time, if you want a reasonably (and only reasonably) good Beowulf based movie then try Beowulf & Grendel , starring Gerard Butler, who is also starring in the eagerly anticipated 300, as King Leonidas of Sparta.<br /><br />Plus, later this year we have another Beowulf movie, with a star studded cast ranging from Anthony Hopkins and Brendan Gleeson, to Angelina Jolie and John Malkovich.<br /><br />But don't let that get your hopes up like we all did with Eragon, or we are all in for another big disappointment.<br /><br />And regarding rentals, here is my rule of thumb: If there is only one or two copies, don't rent it because its a load of crap.( This is true 99.9% of the time, usually not true if the title is foreign, or a documentary.)
Good Folks, I stumbled on this film on evening while I was grading papers. My academic specialty is Anglo-Saxon literature, and I can say that no one has ever done the genre the honor it deserves. The Icelandic "Beowulf and Grendel" is the least offensive I have seen, and I did pay $3.00 for my copy. This Sci-Fi version ranks with the Christopher Lambert version. Yuck.<br /><br />What didn't I like? CGI for one. Amazingly bad. More importantly is the faithfulness to the storyline, not to mention the stilted acting. I am used to both with all the versions I have seen.<br /><br />Delighted Regardless, Peter
First off, this is no where near as bad as some of the other trash the Sci-Fi Channel has produced; that isn't to say that Grendel is a good film, in fact, it is very bad, but it definitely had potential to be a lot better. The flaws of the film come from character design, character, absurd additions to the story, the visual effects, the music, and for the most part: the acting.<br /><br />When speaking of character design, I, of course, mean the way our heroes and villains look. Beowulf and the other Danes seem like ridiculous Vikings, rather than warriors of brute strength -- that helmet our main protagonist wears is just too silly. Grendel looks like the Hulk but with strange tentacle-attachments to his elbows.<br /><br />The characters are very limited. Beowulf is same from beginning to end, however Finn -- a useless sidekick -- achieved some two-dimensionality, due thanks to his romantic subplot, and Unferth gets some notion as well, as he becomes less conceited.<br /><br />Much like Finn, there are useless additions to this story to make it its own, while still holding to the source material. The crossbow that is gifted to Beowulf is so ridiculous, I'm surprised the cast didn't walk off the set. Besides additions, there's omissions, such as the underlying themes of Christianity and Paganism, as well as the consequences of lying.<br /><br />The special effects are mighty terrible. Grendel and his mother Hag are poorly conceived, and as such, they're portrayal on screen is less than believable.<br /><br />The music is overbearing, especially when a character dies.<br /><br />All in all, this is not Sci-Fi's worst film to date. No. It is actually one of the better films, though trash it still it is, it is good trash, making it a guilty pleasure at best. The only thing that works is the dialogue, which is still wooden here and there.<br /><br />I highly recommend you skip this film and watch Robert Zemeckis' take on the ancient story of Beowulf, simply because this film (Grendel) is only half the tale, and not the whole thing, which garners this movie a three-star review.
I was expecting the movie based on Grendel, the book written by John Gardner in the late 1970's. It was based on the Beowulf epic, but told from the perspective of the monster. <br /><br />Whatever you may think of Gardner's book, a movie based on the Beowulf epic should not be entitled Grendel, when it doesn't say anything more about the monster beyond the few pathetic scenes in which the CG monster is shown as nothing more than a modified Predator. <br /><br />On top of this, the writers should also be punished for screwing up the original story so badly and contributing to the continued growing ignorance of mass TV audiences throughout the US.<br /><br />Typical Hollywood to get this so wrong. <br /><br />Very disappointing and a complete waste of time.
SciFi has been having some extremely bad luck making quality movies lately (such as Minotaur or Dog Soldiers). Grendel is supposed to be based of the great epic Beowulf, however, it deviates so much (and offers so little in comparison) that the advertisements on television might as well have titled it 'some shitty Christopher Lambert movie'. I wasn't expecting it to be as accurate as a full blown Hollywood production, but I did however expect the 'artistic integrity' to not interfere with the actual story (even if a little bit was changed to make a two hour storyboard flow nicely in the allotted time slots).<br /><br />Did the director and producers have any idea about what they were doing (did any research go into this?). Obviously not, as one could tell from the massive horned helmets that Beowulf and his crew (save for mullet boy) are wearing. One major problem I have though was with the very look of Grendel…if Beowulf is supposed to wrestle him, shouldn't he not have been sixteen feet tall and weigh 2 tons? Grendel's death segment was also lacking in every way – in my opinion the one in the epic was actually better than the made up junk on the script; for example: Grendel is supposed to have his arm ripped out from the socket by Beowulf – not cut off at the forearm after he was set on fire by an exploding arrow from a crossbow that looks like it weighs 300lbs! And Grendel's mother…did they just combine her with the dragon at the end of the epic where he eventually dies when he succumbs to his wounds? And honestly, what the hell was with that mullet? <br /><br />If you want to see this movie because its connection to the epic….don't, as there really isn't one (other than character names). The only way I could recommend this film is if you liked the movie Druids (directed by Jacques Dorfmann) – although I don't recommend watching either.
I understand this movie was made on a very low budget but that is no excuse for the monstrosity that is Grendel. Deathstalker, The Throne of Fire, Barbarian Queen, Conquest, the Invincible Barbarian were all done on shoestring budgets and poor special effects yet they still managed to create cult classics by adding some scantily clad women warriors and a good sense of humor. The primitive costumes, dark castles and beautiful Bulgarian landscape gave Grendel the potential to be a very good low budget sword and sorcery film, but the makers completely ruined this opportunity by using extremely poor CGI effects and colorless characters. Compare this film to Beowulf (1999). It may not be Citizen Kane but it is a good example of how an entertaining low budget sci-fi/ adventure movie can be made by using credible special effects and appealing characters.
For such a great classic tale, the setting (location), Grendel was disappointing. As a writer, I blame the script which completely lacked dramatic tension. The rubric of the club story is useful and would have provided a new take on the literary classic. For some weird reason that rubric was dropped early on. To know this was shot in 21 days says to me, "rushed" and it unfortunately shows. Now we'll have to wait for the Hollywood version on the big screen. I word on FX, I can tolerate really crappy CGI but the script has to rock and this one was just too slow, spartan and lacking in drama. I'd blame it on the actors but... since I know writing more than acting, I'll pick on my colleague.
This movie is a farce! Names are grossly mispronounced and the plot is twisted and gnarled into something unrecognizable by any literature enthusiast. And they have the gall to give Beowulf a ridiculous cannon/crossbow weapon. Beowulf doesn't need a weapon like that! In the poem, he rips off Grendel's arm with his bare hands! And I can't believe that the scriptwriters did such a thing. The way Grendel is portrayed is impressive however. That and the cast are the only positive points of the feature. My English teacher would go insane if she saw this abomination. Unless you are a die-hard fan of the epic poem "Beowulf," avoid this film at all costs. And even then, I wouldn't recommend it.
turned out to be another failed attempt by the laughable sci-fi channel. i am not sure who wrote the script, and interpreted the poem, but i am sure it was by some 17 year old teen who thought it would be awesome to a have a scoped crossbow in the movie. AAAAAAAH! when i saw that part, I lost all hope. Then...they set off for heorot in a what looks to be the ship that Christopher Columbus sailed in! when they reach Heorot, (which is supposed to be a Norse mead hall) the sci-fi group of idiots decided to make heorot look like a big stone castle. when i saw that part.. i wanted to scream. i really wanted this movie to be good, but sci-fi has yet to produce a good movie, so i don't know why i got my hopes up. Oh..and Grendel and his mother, are stupid also. (this comment is off topic about "Grendel")If anyone from the sci-fi channel is reading this..here is some good advice. NOT EVERY MOVIE YOU MAKE HAS TO BE ABOUT A BIG MONSTER THAT CAN RIP PEOPLE IN HALF, THATS NOT WHAT SCIENCE FICTION IS ABOUT! AND ALSO, STOP CASTING LOW-GRADE ACTORS LIKE STEPHEN BALDWIN TO BE IN YOUR FILMS! ITS NOT HELPING THE MOVIE, BUT MAKING IT WORSE!!!
99.999% pure crap. And the other .001% was a brief moment where I thought the blond chick was going to disrobe. Nope.<br /><br />The dialogue was legendarily bad. The action sucked, and there was no sex (the afore mentioned blond chick is modestly dressed, alas, the whole movie). The CGI had the dubious honor of being the worst I've ever seen on film, and the anachronisms were numerous and glaring. Acting was mediocre even from Ben Cross and Marina Sirtis, the only 'names' in this movie. And Marina Sirtis looked really, really bad.<br /><br />I've seen high school plays more capably produced. This is the kind of movie that MST3K thrived on. Heads should roll at Sci-Fi for allowing this steaming pile on the air.
And thats about all that is. This thing is slow. The actors have ability, they just don't seem motivated to put forth the effort. The plot isn't that great and is hampered further by the aforementioned slowness of it all. The accents, when there are any, are British. Uh, lots of these folks are supposed to be Danes. OK, OK, accents aren't that important. But language is. I don't think they used words like "yeah" and "OK" in Beowulf's day. And that supposedly way cool weapon his king gave him? Did he ever reload that thing? Did he ever sight it in? Or was Beowulf just that bad an aim? Well, his aim did at least match the computer graphics used in generating the monsters. Those were rather off too. Bad special effects. Bright spot? Just one that I can think of. Marina Sirtis has held up well over the years.
I am a great fan of the Batman comics and I became disappointed when I could no longer find Batman: The Animated Series on TV anymore. I was excited to learn that there was going to be a new Batman cartoon on TV. I watched the first episode the day it premiered and I was very disappointed.<br /><br />First of all, the animation is very poor. It looks like a cheap, crappy Japanese anime. Then again, just about every modern-day cartoon is like that.<br /><br />The character designs are even worse. Batman looks more like Birdman, Catwoman looks more like Chihuahuawoman, Bane looks more like a red version of the Hulk, the Penguin is a Kung-Fu master, Mr. Freeze is some undead thing with an iceberg on his head, and the Riddler is a Gothic Marilyn Manson look-alike (which is funny because I don't expect people who are obsessed with riddles and puzzles to be Gothic).<br /><br />The worst character design is that of the Joker. They turned him into a monkey/demented Bob Marley/Kung-Fu fighter! The Joker is supposed to be Batman's deadliest enemy, but in this show he hardly poses a threat because his crimes are so stupid and pointless. In one episode his plan was to put his Joker venom in dog food! Oh, how evil! Batman is a fascinating and complex character because he is haunted by the deaths of his parents, which is why he fights crime. This version of Batman doesn't seem haunted by his parents' deaths and is not interesting at all. He's also not a detective, just a fighter. If there's an enemy he can't defeat, he won't study the enemy to find out their weak points like a detective would, he'll just build a giant fighting robot to defeat them. A lot of times this show doesn't even feel like a Batman show, just another brainless anime that's nothing but pointless fighting.<br /><br />What I hate the most about this show is what they did to the villains. They've taken away everything that makes them likable and relatable and turned them into stereotypical evil bad guys. Man-Bat is the biggest example. In the comics, he's a tragic scientist who studies bats to find a cure for his deafness. When experimenting on himself, he accidentally transforms himself into a giant bat creature. In this show, he's a mad scientist who wants to purposely transform himself into a giant bat creature for no apparent reason. Just about all the villains are like that; none of them, with the exception of about one or two, have an actual motive for their crimes.<br /><br />The worst characterization is that of Mr. Freeze. In the comics, Freeze was a just a mad scientist until the genius writer Paul Dini wrote the BTAS episode "Heart of Ice", which gave Freeze a new origin that made him a more tragic, three-dimensional, and likable villain. The episode was so popular that fans accepted it as his actual origin and it was even used in the comics as his origin. Even that crappy movie Batman & Robin used it as his origin. In this show, he's a petty jewel thief before becoming Mr. Freeze. After becoming Mr. Freeze, guess what? He's STILL a petty jewel thief! Great origin. No wonder they used it over the one Dini created.<br /><br />As a Batman fan, I don't dislike this show just because it isn't like the comics because I also liked BTAS, the Batman cartoons that came after it, Tim Burton's Batman films, and obviously, the superb Christopher Nolan Batman films. None of them were 100% loyal to the comics, but they were still very good. The problem with this show is not that it's not exactly like the comics or BTAS, it's that it lacks any sort of depth that makes other Batman media so popular.<br /><br />I've given this show so many chances, but the more I watch, the more I find that disappoints me. I miss the good old days back when Batman cartoons were something everyone could enjoy.
Remember the good ol' animated batman show from the 90's? The one that people praised? The one that people of all ages could all appreciate? The one that showed batman as a real detective instead of the Hulk in a bat suit? The one that had villains you could relate to? The one that had villains with real motives?<br /><br />Well clearly, Warner Bros. doesn't. Hence this dreck.<br /><br />Honestly, do these people know anything about batman? Have they even looked at a batman comic before? Do they know Batman's meant to be a 'detective'? Putting together 2 clues does not make you a detective! That makes you a slightly intelligent monkey!<br /><br />This is the basic layout for an episode:<br /><br />Penguin steals something. 'Opening credits'. Batman finds dead giveaway of where he is. Batman goes there and get's into trouble. Commercial. Batman finds obvious/ stupid way out of it. Penguin escapes. Penguin does something obvious again. Batman follows. They do kung-fu (by the way everyone, and i mean EVERYONE know's kung-fu for some reason). Batman punch's penguin. he get's knocked out. goes to arkham. (Note: it's usually a different villain every episode)<br /><br />Well as you may have noticed from that, Batman's not a great detective. "Joker left this piece of cotton candy on the ground, maybe he's at the old amusement park"! Yeah maybe, he was there the last 6 times.<br /><br />And I've already mentioned this but, EVERYONE KNOWS KUNG-FU! EVEN PENGUIN! what where they thinking? (probably because it's from the people who made that Jackie Chan animated series)<br /><br />What's really upsetting is that the show is just action. No smarts. None. If batman needs think, he'll use technology, then do some kung-fu.<br /><br />But hey, let's not forget the villains. Afterall, what would batman be without his rogues gallery?<br /><br />Well first off, I gotta say, kudos for originality. I don't think other batman media would have envisioned joker and a dread-locked monkey man, riddler like an emo, and poison ivy as a minor (which is kind of confusing when you think about, isn't her sexuality meant to be her main strength?)<br /><br />What's even more crap however is that, every character is now a 2-Dimensional, stereotypical crook.<br /><br />E.G.<br /><br />Killer Croc wants to flood Gotham for no reason.<br /><br />Man-Bat is a power hungry mad scientist who is obsessed with bats for some unexplained reason.<br /><br />Penguin just wants to steal everything. For no reason.<br /><br />noticing a pattern here?<br /><br />But the most insulting has got to be Mr Freeze.<br /><br />Do you remember the Emmy award winning 'Heart of Ice' episode from Batman: The Animated Series? The one that gave Mr Freeze motives for his crimes? The episode that was so good that it was used in the comics over his original back story (mad scientist)? The one that made him a victim, with a goal? Hell, even Batman & Robin acknowledged that, using that as Mr Freezes origin in that P.O.S. movie.<br /><br />Well this series says "F#ck that" and makes Mr Freeze a jewelry robber before his accident, with only wealth in his mind, then gets frozen and gives him the power to make things cold. He then continues to steal jewels for no reason, while saying sh!t lines like "Have an ice day".<br /><br />Maybe they did watch Batman &Robin after all.<br /><br />But hey, look on the bright side. This series makes you feel nothing for the villains so that means that you're a good person. Good for you.
Not only did they get the characters all wrong, not only do the voices suck, not only do the writers seriously need to get girlfriends, not only are the drawings really crude, but it seems like it was mainly created for ages 1-6. The only episode I've ever seen of this show that kept me watching, was "A Mattter Of Family", because I liked the Robin character. And sometimes I think it's just a general copy of Batman The Animated Series. Example: In BTAS, Bruce is friends with Harvey Dent, yeah? Over a two episode story, he transforms into the unlikely villain, TwoFace. In the "Show" Bruce is Friends with that Ethan guy, and over a two episode story, he Transforms into the unlikely villain ClayFace. That was just a small example (That may not even be true), but in short, this is the WORST attempt on a Batman series. And That's saying something.
I cant believe some people actually like this. Yet still call themselves Batman fans. Even going as far as to say it's better than BTAS. Which it's not. It should be plagiarism for them to use Batman's name for this piece of crap. It's not Batman.<br /><br />The whole premise of the show is ''if you cant defeat someone get a bigger weapon to help you'' Batman isn't all about weapons. He uses his batarang and grappling hook and Batmobile, thats it. He doesn't come up with some new ingenious tech every time he cant beat someone. I don't know where the hell they got the idea for a Batbot. or whatever. They have ruined all the villains. Mr. Freeze has gone from a sympathetic scientist to a petty criminal who fell in some cryofreezing thing. Catwoman is now a 40 or 50 year old woman with a dumb costume. Penguin is now a ninja with a 50 ft. tall top hat. The Ventriloquist is now called Scarface making the Dummy the whole centerpiece for the character. They even got a dumb idea to make him a giant! wtf? and the two worst character changes are that of The Joker and Riddler. they have changed Riddler to a Gothic/retro teenage freak. and The Joker to an acrobat with dreads. He looks like a bob Marley wannabe. they have completely and utterly ruined batman even moreso than B&R did! i wish i could meet the creators and or writers and animators of this show so i could whack them in the head with a metal baseball bat.
When this cartoon first aired I was under the impression that it would be at least half way descent, boy was I wrong. I must admit watching this cartoon is almost as painful as watching Batman and Robin with George Clooney all those years ago. I watched a few episodes and two of them had Batman literally get his ass kicked left and right by the Penguin who fought like Jet Li and beat the crap out of Batman and I watched another episode where Batman got his butt kicked again by the Joker, who apparently was using Jackie Chan moves while flipping in the air like a ninja. Since when were the Joker or the Penguin ever a match for Batman ? and worse yet when were Joker and Penguin Kung Fu counterparts of Jackie Chan and Jet Li. It's truly embarrassing, depressing and sad the way the image of Batman is portrayed in this show. The animation is awful and the dialog is terrible. Being a Batman fan since my boyhood I can honestly and strongly advise you to stay away and avoid this show at all cost, because it doesn't project the true image of Batman. This cartoon is more like a wannabe Kung Fu Flick and if you really wanna see a classic Batman cartoon I strongly recommend Batman the Animated Series, but this cartoon is nothing more than a piece of S---T! Get Batman: The Animates Series and don't waste your time with this cartoon.
In light of the recent and quite good Batman the Brave and the Bold, now is the time to bear a fatal blow to that mistake in the life of Batman. Being a huge fan since the first revival by Tim Burton 20 years ago, I have been able to accept different tonalities in the character, dark or campy. This one is just not credible : too many effects, poor intrigues and so few questions. What is great about Batman is the diversity of his skills and aspects of his personality : detective, crime-fighter, playboy, philanthropist etc. The Batman shows him only in his karate days. And by the way, how come the Penguin is capable of such virtuosity when jumping in the air regardless of his portly corpulence ? And look at the Joker, a mixture of Blanka in Street Fighter 2 and a stereotypical reggae man, what Batman fan could accept such a treason ? Not me anyway. Batman is much better without "The" article in front of his name.
I was raised watching the original Batman Animated Series, and am an avid Batman graphic novel collector. With a comic book hero as iconic as Batman, there are certain traits that cannot be changed. Creative liberties are all well and good, but when it completely changes the character, then it is too far. I purchased one of the seasons of "The Batman" in the hopes that an extra bonus feature could shed some light on the creators' reasoning for making this show such an atrocity. In an interview on the making of "The Batman," one of the artists or writers (I'm unsure which) said that "We felt we shouldn't mess with Batman, but we could mess with the villains." So, they proceeded to make the Joker into an immature little kid begging for attention, the Penguin into some anime knockoff, Mr. Freeze into a super-powered jewel thief, Poison Ivy into a teenage hippie, and countless other shameful acts which are making Bob Kane roll over in his grave. <br /><br />To sum it all up: I wish I had more hands so I could give this show FOUR THUMBS DOWN. It squeezes by my rating with a 2 out of 10 simply because it uses the Batman name. Warner Bros...rethink this! Please!
I have never commented on IMDb before, but I feel I have to after watching The Batman animation. Its absolute rubbish! Warner Brothers had the perfect animation series in Batman in the early 90s so what the hell are they doing trying to mess with the winning formula? I feel like writing a complaint letter to WB. The original animation was dark and brooding, exactly the way Batman was intended to be. WB had to mess this up with some tripe Batman of the Future. Now they produce this drivel. The Joker doesn't remotely resemble the Joker from DC comics. DC should sue. I urge everyone who agrees with me to email or write to WB and use people power to get back the original formula
Okay, I've always been a fan of Batman. I loved the animated series, and even Batman Beyond. I even read a batman comic now and then. So as can be imagined--I was a little excited when I heard about this series, and then I was SEVERELY disappointed. This series is nothing. It doesn't even begin to compare with the original series. It's like one long TOY commercial. No depth whatsoever. And what the heck was with the Joker? Who,in my most humble opinion, is the best Batman villain of ALL time and they KILLED him. I wish I could say his design was the worst part. Actually, I wish I could say there was anything about this series that was remotely creative or interesting. In short (because believe me I could say so much more)do NOT waste your time on this show, or your money.
I commented on this when it first debuted and gave it a "thumbs in the middle" review, remarking that I'd give it the benefit of the doubt beyond just the first episode. I've seen a total of six episodes now up to this point in June 2006. And as a lifelong Batman fanatic, I can say without hesitation: this show is utter crap.<br /><br />Everything's wrong with it. Everything. Getting past just the lousy animation and design, the stories are ridiculously convoluted and with no character development or apparent interest by the writers of this dreck to give any substance to any stories.<br /><br />And for God's sake...is it just me, or is the Joker in EVERY EPISODE?? Is Gotham that much of a revolving-door justice system? Or, again, is it just a complete lack of interest in the writers to put any effort into other villains (see "no character development", above).<br /><br />And to make matters worse, every single Joker tale is the same 3-part formula.<br /><br />1) Joker gasses people.<br /><br />2) Joker sets out to gas the whole city.<br /><br />3) Batman saves the day.<br /><br />Pfeh.<br /><br />There was one episode I saw that wasn't a Joker story. The title escapes me, but the villain was that nefarious Cluemaster...the "Think Thank Thunk" episode with the quiz show. That was the single-worst Batman story I've ever seen, heard or read. Yes, worse than "I've Got Batman in My Basement." <br /><br />I can't really say what I feel this show is because it's probably against the ToS, but it starts with "B" and rhymes with "fastardization". Thank goodness for the existence of the Timm/Dini/etc. era of Bat-entertainment, back from the Fox and Kids WB days. Stuff that good, and I should have known this, just couldn't possibly have lasted forever, unfortunately.
I think that can sum up this show about as well as anything. Batman TAS may be the worst thing to ever happen to cartoons based on comic books because everything that comes after will be compared to it and nothing has measured up yet. It's just too damn good. Was Batman Beyond good? "Yeah, but it was no TAS." Is Justice League good? "It's not too bad, but it's no TAS."<br /><br />The Batman is certainly no TAS, either, but I won't hold that against it. It would be unfair and besides, it has plenty of other problems with it.<br /><br />The concept of a younger, less experienced Batman fighting crime is a fine one, and at times the art is very nice. But all of the rest of the time, the art is worthless Americanime, and this betrays a lot of the flaws of the show itself. It is paced, written, and designed like an Americanime. If I wanted to watch Jackie Chan Adventures, I'd watch Jackie Chan Adventures. Or I could just bang my head into a wall any time and get the same effect. The Joker is a homicidal, mentally unstable clown in a suit who uses his wits, unpredictability, and clever gadgets to fight Batman. When he is forced to fight hand to hand, he will either resort to something cheap or be totally outmatched. He is not meant to be a monkey with dreadlocks who knows kung-fu and can leap into twenty feet into the air, accompanied by speed lines. If they had wanted to do that with a villain, there were other less important characters they could have used or *gasp* they could have created a new one entirely. And it's not that re-imaginings are a bad thing, don't get me wrong. TAS (there I go again) took Mr. Freeze from your standard icegun-wielding B villain and made him into a memorable and morally complex character. Of course Freeze wasn't exactly a classic villain at the time and they performed an upgrade, but the point stands. What The Batman does is it takes everything you liked about Batman comics and lore and takes a large, smelly dump on them. Guess what? They were eating corn.<br /><br />It's obvious this show can't stand against TAS but stand it on its own legs and it still doesn't work for me. The plots aren't good and they don't develop any better. They've been written for the demographic of children under twelve. Should children be able to enjoy a show? Of course they should. This shouldn't be an adult show with swearing, nudity, and gratuitous violence. But the mark of a truly good show is that it can be enjoyed on different levels by all ages. This show misses that mark.<br /><br />Is this show a TAS? No, of course not. The problem is it's not even a JLU.
OK OK, it might be hard to put the entirety of a man's life in one film. Traditionally therefore, biopics focus on one or two significant parts in the subject's life. Now, Byron was a "my week beats your year" fellow, which makes selecting parts that are representative even harder. Furthermore, just as Byron's poetry is inseparable from his life, the man's life itself must be seen as a whole. Lifting parts out is not only not showing the whole picture, it's showing a different picture altogether.<br /><br />Now, in short my review comes down to this: supposedly, Byron was indeed the "my week beats your year" prototype, a guy who lived so intensely that he indeed did more in his 15 or so active years than most do in an entire lifetime. True, he had setbacks and was a victim of the time and social setting he lived in - but in the end, this dude is supposed to be the prototype whose life we'd all want to lead, no? Well, I did NOT, at ANY moment, want to live the life depicted in this film. So it gets 3. Not for being so badly done (which, direction-wise, it more or less was), but more importantly for missing the point entirely in a flat plot.<br /><br />Some more detail. Well, to over simplify things, a Byron bio should have two distinct episodes: 1. Post-first Europe trip: England and his rise to fame + marriage / 2. His life abroad. Now, the important thing is that the SECOND part should be at least as important as the first. Not only was it a lot longer, but the most significant change in Byron took place then. Furthermore, it's where he created his best works (Don Juan, the Vision of Judgement etc. - all the stuff that makes him *really* unique in English literature).<br /><br />Instead, in this film (a) Byron's life never comes across as even remotely entertaining, (b) it only gets *worse* after he leaves England. They did two good jobs: first, they started at his return of his Europe trip (though a bit more of the actual trip would have been welcome as a prologue), second, they chose an angle, and they chose his incestuous love for Augusta (who is rather perfectly cast). The problem with this last thing is that they never let it go. True, Byron remained strongly attached to Augusta for the rest of his life, but, especially as he was such a mood swing person, the fact that his letters reflect that does not mean that at other times he might not have completely enjoyed life.<br /><br />Anyway, the first part of the TV film should have ended with him leaving England. There's no doubt about that. The thing is: once abroad, a life of debauchery began (with the infamous Geneva period), but in Italy Byron also discovered a new life, both for his poetry (inspired by Italian comedy), already in Venice, and for himself when he found the Contessa Teresa Guiccioli and moved to Ravenna (afterwards, at the request of Shelly, with Teresa, to Pisa). In other words, he was also *liberated*. His mind and life opened up (and not only in the decadent sense), while England's closed further as it fell into the gravitational pull of the Victorian age. True, freedom was Augusta-less, but this bitter-sweet freedom tastes sour in this film. We see a lonely, bored snob getting older.<br /><br />I mean, hell, Byron never thought much about his poetry, except when he finally found his own voice in Don Juan! Apart from poetic and romantic developments, his relationship with Shelly (and the down-break) should have been more documented. Also, it is in Italy in Ravenna that he gets involved with politics and revolutionary ideas. This is important, as it shows that the decadent romantic and ultimately escapist language and person of Childe Harold is changing into the more planted-in-life realistic and lighter passion of the language and person of Don Juan. Life and work are one. True, still a bit naive, but it's what got him to Greece! And the whole thing came full circle in Pisa, where Shelley's revolutionary spirit further ignited the spark. Missolonghi wasn't the bored snob suddenly looking for some action. It was the insights in Italy (the Gambas) stirring him into action. It can be a symbol for the man looking for some ancient-style battle excitement while the rest of Europe becomes fixed in the clay of modern reason and conservatism. But it wasn't just that, there was a true inspiration behind it. Meanwhile, Byron wrote massive amounts of Don Juan. True, his end is a bit sad, but it's not like he's worn out. THAT is the essence of Byron's life: he may have had some strong emotional attachments (2: Augusta and Teresa), but EVERY time he managed to reinvent himself truly. Meaning that he wasn't 'less' at the end of his life - no, he'd made a physical and mental JOURNEY that, at the time, few people were prepared to make.<br /><br />I wonder. Why is it that so often the second period in Byron's life is overlooked? Because it had less obvious conflicts, as the man was finally coming to his own? In focusing our attention on the frustrated England years fraught with scandals, we show ourselves to be not much better than the English aristocracy at the time, which Byron so despised, and which, despite the fact that he had no choice, he *willingly* fled in 1816, to find a world that was modern and liberal enough to let him find the voice that would make him the first romantic plainspoken language poet and evolve from a self-obsessed snob to a passionate man moving onward with a cause.
I've always been enthusiastic about period dramas, an art form in which the BBC has excelled in the past. This presentation of "Byron" was unbelievable. Unbelievably bad! The script was dreadful, the acting uninspired, and all the characters woefully insipid. Apparently Byron was "mad bad and dangerous to know", and set the ladies hearts all-a-flutter. Not in this production. Here he appeared as a tawdry jumped-up little squirt instead of a fiery hero of womenfolk and the Greek struggle for independence. It is said that Byron walked with a limp. This portrayal of the man was just limp all over.<br /><br />I watched the whole two and a half hours waiting for something to spark into life. Not a splutter, not even a glimmer. It was utter tedium, if not downright boredom, from start to finish.<br /><br />Having the opinion that no-one will ever better the Bard of Avon, I also believe that Byron's poetry is over-revered and to my mind should be flung on the back burner, and this dramatisation of his life should be accorded the same treatment.<br /><br />I think the BBC lost its nous with this one
Dieter Bohlen, Germany's notorious composer and producer of slightly trashy pop hits like "You're my heart, you're my soul" felt the need to tell his story - and gracefully he decided to hire a ghost writer. The result was a funny book about his life. Well, more or less a fuzzy image of it. He didn't deny that he is a selfish asshole but the whole story was twisted to fit his image of himself. No word that he has probably beaten up his former wife and she ended up in hospital. However it was written in a funny style and a huge success after his appearance as jury member of the German version of "American Idol" - especially his unforgettable comments.<br /><br />This should be the end of the story - really. In the hype of the mentioned "Idol" TV show called "Deutschland sucht den Superstar" (abbreviated DSDS) somebody must have come up with the terrible idea to make a movie out of the book. The result is "Dieter - der Film"<br /><br />I have rarely seen a movie which tries so desperately to be funny and fails so completely. None of the gags really hits the point. Naddel's voice and style of talking was getting on my nerves right away although Verona's voice should have done that more. Obvious, childish, predictable and lengthy gags destroy any motivation to watch this movie to the end within a few minutes. The content of the movie is a sloppy film adaption written sloppily down by a ghost writer based on Bohlen's sloppy idealized memory. They could have used this freedom to do almost everything. It was supposed to be a satire, but they failed. The story is totally uninteresting and the fact that the background voice is Bohlen himself guarantees that the whole film has nothing satirical at all.<br /><br />It's no wonder that it was considered to bad for a cinema release. The probability that this thing would have rotten in some archive was quite high until recently when the current season of DSDS turned out to be a mediocre success. With the "friendly" help of Germany's biggest yellow press newspaper "BILD" and the desperate situation for the TV station RTL to have something in the program while the still unbeatable show "Wetten dass... ?" is running on Channel 2 the movie finally arrived in television - unfortunately.<br /><br />Watching this movie is a waste of time - there are certainly better cartoons with much more fun and a story actually worth looking at.<br /><br />Therefore: 2/10
Admittedly, I watched this piece with already VERY low expectations. Dieter Bohlen is a rather untalented composer parvenu whose lack of talent is only surpassed by the size of his ego.<br /><br />This was the first cartoon movie that I watched that was 100 per cent humor free. It is rude, offensive, redneck and blatantly anti- women. As such, it is a creation befitting Bohlen, but the average viewer will be rather put off by it. No wonder that it was never shown in a cinema theater: It would've bombed BIG time!<br /><br />Not even the expense of 6.5 MegaEuros were able to save this utter piece of crap. Save your time... and money!
Sure, this one isn't really a blockbuster, nor does it target such a position. "Dieter" is the first name of a quite popular German musician, who is either loved or hated for his kind of acting and thats exactly what this movie is about. It is based on the autobiography "Dieter Bohlen" wrote a few years ago but isn't meant to be accurate on that. The movie is filled with some sexual offensive content (at least for American standard) which is either amusing (not for the other "actors" of course) or dumb - it depends on your individual kind of humor or on you being a "Bohlen"-Fan or not. Technically speaking there isn't much to criticize. Speaking of me I find this movie to be an OK-movie.
So why does this show suck? Unfortunately, that really is the only question, because there is no doubt that it does.<br /><br />For those unfamiliar with the premise of the show, the doomed-to-be-shortlived series Cavemen focuses on a number of Neanderthals and their struggle to exist in modern day America and is based on the characters featured in a series of television ads for Geico Insurance. The concept is solid and there is every reason to think it could be executed successfully.<br /><br />I had to think about it for awhile, but then the tagline from the commercials -- something to the effect of "We're not that much different from you" provided me with the key to the show's suckiness. Even though cavemen/Neanderthals are actually a different species than humanity, the title characters of this show, it turns out, are exactly the same as those of us who are boring jerks.<br /><br />Maybe its my background as a game writer -- rather than a soulless, hack, committee-based writer from California -- but this show had so much potential, and none of it has been realized. To start with, the producers should have focused on the fun things that would make cavemen different from us.<br /><br />What could conceivably be funny, for example, about giving them occupations like perpetual grad student and furniture store clerk, when they would have more compellingly been drawn to things like subterranean utility workers and guides at cave parks? Why would they play prosaic games like squash, when a whole episode could be devoted to them trying get hunting licenses to go after game with spears? A show like this could write itself, and it takes some willfully bad writing to make it quite so crappy and boring.<br /><br />Another tiresome aspect of this show is an attempt to portray the cavemen as being subjected to a number of stereotypes associated with various human minorities. Yawn! This has been done so many times before, and never more drearily than this. And, as noted previously, Neanderthals really are a different species, so using them as a metaphor for racial stereotyping is both uncompelling and off the mark.<br /><br />Responses are welcome, including those from anyone who wants to tell me why I'm wrong. I'd like to enjoy this show and am just sorry that I have thus far been unable to.<br /><br />Michael J. Varhola, Skirmisher Online Gaming Magazine
I have watched 3 episodes of Caveman, and I have no idea why I continue except maybe waiting for it to get better. <br /><br />To me this show is just pumping itself off the commercials, with no real humor. As we sat around watching these shows, we all speculated on what was going to happen.<br /><br />The episode of the woman cave-woman with a attitude was actually a big, yea right, for us. she's crude in a theater and acts tough to strangers, and truth be told, she needed a slap<br /><br />I consider myself a pretty good reviewer, taking in everything, but I must say, Cavemen is comparable to the old show, My mother, the car. I give it a 2, only because they deserve 1 better than a 1 because they actually spent money on it.
Every new fall line-up show deserves, at least, my "3 strikes and you're out" policy. I give a comedy 3 chances to make me laugh, that is, 3 complete episodes. After Episode 1, I actually said to the TV,"Cancelled tomorrow". It was that bad. I have now watched the first 4 episodes of "Cavemen" and have yet to manage even a smirk. Not a titter, a guffaw, a chortle, as a matter of fact, no facial movement at all. I will continue to punish myself by watching every future episode because I am convinced that I am clearly missing something in this show. I'm simply not "getting" it, but I believe that a comedy on a major TV network in prime-time, just HAS to be funny; but there are no laughs from me YET. There's just no way that ABC would put on the least funniest comedy of all time at 8:00 p.m. I KNOW there has got to be an inside joke that just isn't jiving with my brain. I've read each of the previous comments, I "get" the social aspect of it, but, WHERE ARE THE JOKES ???? I shall continue suffering for at least 30 minutes a week, until I have a light-bulb moment and smack myself in the head shouting "Eureka".
I actually didn't mind the Geico commercials the first 50 of so times I saw them and even found them to be a bit wry and amusing, BUT SERIOUSLY! This is the BEST thing that these people could come up with?!? This show sucks! It is bland and feels like watching an episode of "The Office" with the characters disguised as cavemen (I know a lot of you will hate me for saying that but "The Office" just does not do it for me). Okay, I get it: we have the poor slob just trying to keep his nose clean and he has a crappy boss who hates him; the pseudo-intellectual who really just has a barely-functioning intellect; and the dopey one who just wants to be accepted, but SO WHAT!!! I have worked with these people and found them just as annoying in real life as I do on TV...why would I want to waste another 1/336th of my week watching more of those type nominates?!? Please call your parents and ask them if they dropped you on your head if after thinking about it, you still delude yourself into believing that this is entertainment.
This show proved to be a waste of 30 minutes of precious DVR hard drive space. I didn't expect much and I actually received less. Not only do I expect this show to be canceled by the second episode, I cannot believe that Geico will ever attempt to use the cavemen ad campaign EVER again. I would have preferred spending a night checking my daughter's hair for head lice than watching this piece of refuse. I wonder what ABC passed on to make this show fit into the '07 fall schedual, perhaps a hospital/crime/mocumentary reality show featuring the AFLAC duck? In the event that I failed to express my opinion about this show let me be clear and say that it is not too good.
Peeew this stinks! As everyone knows it's based upon some Geico insurance commercials; what no one knows is WHY?! Those commercials were amusing on first viewing at best; hardly fodder for a series. (The talking Geico gecko -- that's another story. Now that would make for an intriguing series!) And why on earth did ABC -- as reported in the press -- actually agree to buy the cavemen character rights from Geico for this? After all, the idea of cavemen struggling in the modern world is hardly unique to TV; Phil Hartman had a recurring Saturday Night Live role as The Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer over a decade ago. And that's how a concept like this works best -- as an occasional installment. But a regular series? Fuhgeddaboudit. (A 1960s series called "It's About Time" also used the cavemen in the modern world concept. It lasted one season.) <br /><br />One of the show's directors, who was also responsible for the Geico commercials, was recently quoted as saying: "We were so excited when we were shooting our commercials because we felt like we had something that was very unique and we had bigger stories to tell." Wrong.<br /><br />In the annals of bad TV, this is destined to take its place alongside 1972's "Me and the Chimp" as one of the all-time worst. The lead actor in the embarrassing Chimp fiasco actually went into shame-by-association hiding after it was abruptly canceled. No doubt our cavemen friends will follow suit.
Cavemen was by far the biggest load of crap I have ever wasted my time watching. This show based on the Geico commercials is less entertaining then an actual 30 sec ad for Geico. The makeup was half ass-ed to say the least, hard to imagine a caveman with prefect white teeth even after going to the dentist. This show could of had potential for a funny series if they could of gotten the cast from the commercials, that in it self makes for a lousy show. Perhaps if the writers were the same from the Geico ads this may of had a chance, instead the pilot lacked a good story line. I give this show a 1 out of 10, I would of liked to put a zero out of 10 but that was not an option. I pray for a quick death to this show, I'd give it less then 5 episodes before it dies a deserving death.
This is 30 minute show about one joke. The joke, Cavemen are not treated fairly. HaHaHa!!! He can't dial a phone because he is a Caveman. Cavemen are not as smart as human beings. Oh jeez, those Cavemen are so unsophisticated. There is no humor in this show. They can only run off this one joke for so long and they already have with the Geico commercials. This show does not deserve a time slot on national T.V. <br /><br />This show tries to hard to be funny, but it just isn't. Watching this show, I was thinking that it was trying to be like a "Bachelor's Gone Wild Show." Meaning they go to the bar and try to sleep with many women. The crying caveman is annoying. The caveman with the glasses is too smart to be a caveman(HAHAHA!!!). All three of them have personalities, but I can't figure out why I don't care about them.
I wasted my time and gave this show a chance. This has to be one of the worst new shows. If they gave an award to shows that suck THIS one should sweep the category. The acting is poor and the story line is contrived. Now Dinosaurs was a bit strange but at least it was entertaining. That show lasted three seasons and was finally scraped. This new show, based on an insurance companies commercials, is not funny and really has nothing going for it. Possibly the original commercials and the amount of times they were, and still are, repeated is what is wrong with this show. It just came to TV and already we are tired of seeing the "caveman" characters.
"Cavemen" exceeded my expectations, and not in a good way. It was even worse than I thought it would be. Basically, here's the show: The Cavemen are an alternate race, they face prejudice, etc. Quite possibly the stupidest idea ever created; almost being worthy of jail time for the writers. One show featured the cavemen going into a club, trying to pick up girls, and then nothing else happened. It was reminiscent of listening to a 22 minute Andy Rooney dialog, followed by death by steak knives via midget cannibals. For those who have not seen this show, here's an example of the dialog: "You're sure you're okay with going out with a caveman." "Yeah, that's fine. I've had like 10 - thousand!" Hilarious... Possibly the best writing I've ever witnessed.<br /><br />22 minutes of cavemen with horrible makeup, tackling tough social issues... Sounds like an entertaining night. I also love how bad the recent ideas are that they're resorted to making a sitcom out of car insurance commercials. I wonder if they'll do the Gecko next, so that I can have a new title for the worst show I've ever seen. I would even say that this is worse than "Viva Laughlin." At least "Viva Laughlin" was ripped off from something that was somewhat inspired.<br /><br />Shows like this make me hope that there's a comet up there somewhere aimed for Earth.<br /><br />(Unratable honestly...)
Warped take on the Pinocchio theme, and set during the Christmas season(..after the previous entry abandoned ties to Christmas) has booby-trapped toys sent to murder a child(..yet through this, other victims are accidentally harmed in the process)perhaps by a toy maker's "son". Screaming Mad George was responsible for the killer toys(..including a larvae which enters a victim's mouth and out his eye, another where soldier toys actually shoot real bullets at a babysitter after her boyfriend was practically strangled by a severed hand toy, operating from a remote control). The little target is a mute child named Derek(William Thorne)whose stepdad was murdered by a red ball with extending arms that ensnare his face, causing him to land on a fireplace poker. Mother Sarah(Jane Higginson)worries about her son's mental state, figuring his reluctance towards opening presents or, more importantly, talking, derives from watching her husband's horrific murder. Derek's real father, Noah(Tracy Fraim)fears for his son't safety, and informs, reluctantly, his ex-girlfriend Sarah that the local toymaker, Joe Petto(Mickey Rooney)once was arrested for setting traps in toys to harm kids due to the loss of an unborn child when his wife was killed in a car crash..kind of a retaliation in saying that if he couldn't have a son, then others shouldn't either. Still quite a heavy drinker(..often seen swigging Jack), Petto seems to have set aside his feelings towards kids, but his creepy son Pino(Brian Bremer)hasn't and Derek he harbors angst towards. Why? You'll soon understand.<br /><br />Pretty disappointing special effects and rather goofy premise. Rooney's name adds an allure to the film, gaining it a notoriety, but his histrionics can only help so much. Attractive lead actress Higginson(Slaughterhouse)and Fraim as the man who re-enters her life aren't so bad, but the lame plot that develops is hard to take seriously. I'm guessing that's the point, but Rooney has no reason to be in such a film as this..he has no room to bring any personality to his toymaker other than rage and desperation, quite volatile, barely holding himself together as he explodes in anger towards Pino, when not downing liquor. Bremer is appropriately weird and "robotic" as Pino, longing to have Sarah as his mama. The practical effects used during the attacks on victims are rather unconvincing..Screaming Mad George's work with Savage Steve Holland was far more effective than what we see in this film. The sex everyone talks about isn't as gratuitous as many would have you believe(..I can't even recall any nudity). Probably the best of the numerous sequels greenlighted, but that's not exactly an endorsement. I'm pretty sure written on paper, this was an entertaining concept, the idea of spoofing Pinocchio using horror elements, but the result doesn't exactly blow you away.
This movie wasn't that bad when compared to the first two sequels to the original. It's directed by Martin Kitrosser of Friday the 13th fame. The acting is very bad indeed, but the gore and special effects help make it interesting. Thats one thing I like about Screaming Mad George (make up effects artist for the film), his effects are so off-the-wall and bizarre that they will keep you watching a bad movie just to find out how crazy they're gonna get. The movie isn't really all that gory, but there is an EXTREMELY nasty eyeball-munching scene in the middle involving a toy maggot (what!?!) Mickey Rooney makes a guest appearance that he probably wasn't too enthusiastic about but needed the money at the time, possibly? If you liked the weirdo 4th installment (my favorite of all 5), you'll probably like this one. I liked it better than the Matrix! Enjoy.
Silent Night, Deadly Night 5 is the very last of the series, and like part 4, it's unrelated to the first three except by title and the fact that it's a Christmas-themed horror flick.<br /><br />Except to the oblivious, there's some obvious things going on here...Mickey Rooney plays a toymaker named Joe Petto and his creepy son's name is Pino. Ring a bell, anyone? Now, a little boy named Derek heard a knock at the door one evening, and opened it to find a present on the doorstep for him. Even though it said "don't open till Christmas", he begins to open it anyway but is stopped by his dad, who scolds him and sends him to bed, and opens the gift himself. Inside is a little red ball that sprouts Santa arms and a head, and proceeds to kill dad. Oops, maybe he should have left well-enough alone. Of course Derek is then traumatized by the incident since he watched it from the stairs, but he doesn't grow up to be some killer Santa, he just stops talking.<br /><br />There's a mysterious stranger lurking around, who seems very interested in the toys that Joe Petto makes. We even see him buying a bunch when Derek's mom takes him to the store to find a gift for him to bring him out of his trauma. And what exactly is this guy doing? Well, we're not sure but he does seem to be taking these toys apart to see what makes them tick. He does keep his landlord from evicting him by promising him to pay him in cash the next day and presents him with a "Larry the Larvae" toy for his kid, but of course "Larry" is not a good toy and gets out of the box in the car and of course, well, things aren't pretty.<br /><br />Anyway, eventually what's going on with Joe Petto and Pino is of course revealed, and as with the old story, Pino is not a "real boy". Pino is probably even more agitated and naughty because he suffers from "Kenitalia" (a smooth plastic crotch) so that could account for his evil ways. And the identity of the lurking stranger is revealed too, and there's even kind of a happy ending of sorts. Whee.<br /><br />A step up from part 4, but not much of one. Again, Brian Yuzna is involved, and Screaming Mad George, so some decent special effects, but not enough to make this great. A few leftovers from part 4 are hanging around too, like Clint Howard and Neith Hunter, but that doesn't really make any difference. Anyway, I now have seeing the whole series out of my system. Now if I could get some of it out of my brain. 4 out of 5.
This time we get a psycho toy maker named "Joe Petto" (get it?) who makes living, evil toys that kill people. He goes after the family who has the bad luck of just simply living in the same house where he and his mutant robot son "Pino" (again, get it?) used to live.<br /><br />Easily the worst (and hopefully [presumably] the last) in this semi - series, this one and the previous one look like soft core porn movies, but without the sex and nudity. It's kind of like a low rent hybrid of "Halloween III", "Puppet Master", "Dolls" and bad home movies. Supposedly in 2000 they started to do a sixth chapter in the series, but it was abandoned and never completed. We can all only hope that it stays that way...<br /><br />1/2 a star out of ****<br /><br />
Bad actors, terrible script, totally unbelievable ending - this film had it all. After seeing films like this, you wonder why the makers bothered at all. This film has absolutely nothing to say, all the methods used to create a scare have been used over and over again in previous horror films. A total waste of time.
The spoilers in this review are offered as a public service, because the only way to enjoy this costume melodrama is to know that our protagonist, the Lady Barbara Skelton, gets raped and gunned down in the end. And not a moment too soon. I'd have shot the screen myself but I was afraid I'd hit James Mason.<br /><br />The original 1943 novel, called "The Life and Death of the Wicked Lady Skelton" (I guess people didn't whine about spoilers back then), was written by a woman, an English navy brat who was either troubled or cynical or both. Her heroine is devastatingly beautiful, and the author seems to think that if you have beauty, nothing else matters. But other things do matter, such as the fact that Lady Barbara's immediate and only response when someone gets in her way is homicide. She murders three men in five attempts. A serial femme fatale, she's got a case of dissocial personality disorder that should have landed her in either Bedlam or Newgate. <br /><br />Lockwood plays her as a narcissistic vamp, wearing so much makeup that I thought of her as a Restoration-era Joan Rivers (or a restoration-era Joan Rivers, ha!). Yet Lady B. is irresistible to all three principal male characters-- Michael Rennie, James Mason, and Griffith Jones, all of whom do good work, as does Patricia Roc. Of course, all three admirers realize in short order what a psychotic bitch Barbara is, but the plot keeps them all in her orbit until one of them finally does gun her down - accidentally, in what is meant to be either irony or just desserts. Given the dramatic death scene with a boom lifting the camera out through the windows and heavenward, I presume we're meant to give a damn about her death. But hers is the first corpse we don't care about.
This romantic adventure must have seemed shockingly subversive in its day. A wealthy upper class English woman schemes, plots and manipulates everyone around her for her own satisfaction. She uses her privileged position to embark on secret activities of a decidedly anti-social kind. There's a clever sex-role reversal as her activities prove her more daring and dashing than most of the male characters. But naturally there's a tall, dark and handsome stranger to keep up the love interest, and this wicked lady is not backward in coming forward when she meets the right man.<br /><br />The wishy-washy weakness and gullibility of every other character make the plot unconvincing in the extreme, but those who thirst for Romance will overlook that.
Lois Weber, self proclaimed missionary via the cinema, wrote, directed and produced other films on controversial subjects, but this may be the first to get wide viewing, thanks to TCM. This film is her indictment of abortion, but she cleverly muddles the issue by bringing in eugenics and birth control, leaving the impression that they are somehow equivalent to abortion. Her talent in writing and the other cinematic skills are well displayed here, but one may be forgiven for wishing she had used them less didactically. If you have wondered what Tyrone Power, Jr.'s "famous father" looked like, here is your chance. 1916 fashions and automobiles are also on display to add to the interest of this museum piece. It's enjoyable even if you don't appreciate the propaganda.
I saw this movie for 2 reasons--I like Gerard Butler and Christopher Plummer. Unfortunately, these poor men were forced to carry a pretty dumb movie. I liked the idea that Dracula is actually a reincarnation of Judas Iscariot, because it does explain his disdain for all things Christian, but there was so much camp that this idea was not realized as much as it could have been. I see this movie more as a way for the talented Gerard Butler to pay his dues before being truly recognized and a way for the legendary Christopher Plummer to remind the public (me and the 5 other people who saw this film) that he still exists. I actually enjoyed the special features on the DVD more than the movie itself.
Please don't waste your time. This movie rehashes the worst of Bram Stoker's Dracula (Van Helsing), Anne Rice's Vampire Lestat (rock music and silly biblical references), and Blade (high-tech toys). I really like vampire movies and novels, and there are many out there that are very good . But not this stinker. Not even the soundtrack helps it, mostly because the movie resorts to ridiculous scary classical music rather than the "kick-ass metal" some reported. Only a few times did I hear any metal; mostly it was tortured violins. Avoid it like garlic and crucifixes.
This film is really bad. It maybe harsh, but it is. It really is. Poor script, every vampire cliché in the book is used, and no sympathy is given at all to the origins of the main character ... i.e. ole Dracula. There have been some truly brilliant Dracula/vampire movies in the past, but this doesn't even make it into the "dire" slot.<br /><br />Take a selection of people who seem to have dropped out of a teen-slasher move, add a dribble of Dracula Lore and mix in a heady tonic of religious/surreal day-dreaming ... and you get a confusing mess of a film - Dracula 2000.<br /><br />I really cannot find any good things to say about this movie, as if it wasn't bad enough that it was made in the first place, they seem to have made Johnny Lee Miller effect an English accent ... Whats the problem with that I hear you cry ... Well, he is English, but he sounds like an American trying to do an English accent.<br /><br />All in all you may as well say your money (if you were thinking of buying it), or rent it out, watch it, and discover for yourself why it's about as scary as the Tellytubbies.<br /><br />P.S. Although La La is pretty frightening!
This has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. This movie has nothing positive about it. Some of you people actually like this movie! I've seen a lot of Dracula movies and I've liked everyone that I've seen, but when I saw this movie I said to myself, "What the hell is this?" What a stupid movie. Now they have Dracula becoming who he is because he is Judas. For those of you who don't know who Judas is, he betrayed Jesus Christ and then felt so guilty he hung himself. You have to be kidding me. That's the dumbest reason I've ever heard for why Dracula became evil. Who asked for a reason anyway? What a piece of sh** this movie is. Who ever came up with this sorry excuse for a movie should be beaten. Even the Dracula is horrible. If you ever saw this movie you wouldn't even think it was Dracula. Wow, Dracula 2000! Is that title supposed to impress me? Don't waste your time or your money on this trash.
DRACULA 2000 is a horror film that was continually shown on Sky Movies in Britain and considering it seemed to be screened about three times a week for a whole year I have absolutely no idea how I managed to miss it until it`s first broadcast on network television tonight . Actually seeing as I`m not much of a fan of horror movies the reason was probably down to my theory that this was going to be tripe . My theory was proved right for the most part <br /><br />!!!!! MINOR SPOILERS !!!!!<br /><br />What makes DRACULA 2000 such a bad movie is the amount of dumb scripting involved . For example early in the film the bad guys are flying Dracula`s coffin from London to America ( In a twin engine turbo prop plane ! ) and one of the bad guys is left alone in the cargo hold where Dracula comes to life . A fight breaks out , there`s lots of noise but the bad guys in the cockpit don`t hear a sound until the script demands it . It also appears in this segment`s climax that Dracula can control the weather but this seems forgotten about as the film progresses . Sloppy scripting , and there also seems to be a problem with the structure where there`s numerous scenes of characters being at the New Orleans mardi gras then the characters being at a different location such as police station in the following scene then they`re back at the mardi gras the scene after that which means the lack of credibilty in the plot is enhanced <br /><br />There`s something else that yanked my chain - Product placement . There`s umpteen scenes where the logo for a certain record label/retailer chain is in full view . I won`t dare publicise the company brand ( Except to say they also run a train company which is a national joke in Britain ) but I was under the impression this type of advertising was against British broadcasting guidlines and I`m surprised the BBC showed this movie if that`s the case <br /><br />There are some positives in DRACULA 2000 like the visuals for example . This is actually a good looking movie with a good looking cast and boy were those vampire chicks hot , but it`s something we should expect from Hollywood over the last few years - A very good looking movie that`s very dumb
Put the blame on executive producer Wes Craven and financiers the Weinsteins for this big-budget debacle: a thrash-metal updating of "Dracula", with a condescending verbal jab at Bram Stoker (who probably wouldn't want his name on this thing anyway) and nothing much for the rest of us except slasher-styled jolts and gore. Christopher Plummer looks winded as Van Helsing in the modern-day--not just a descendant of Van Helsing but the real thing; he keeps himself going with leeches obtained from Count Dracula's corpse, which is exhumed from its coffin after being stolen from Van Helsing's vault and flown to New Orleans. This is just what New Orleans needs in the 21st Century! The film, well-produced but without a single original idea (except for multi-racial victims), is both repulsive and lazy, and after about an hour starts repeating itself. * from ****
A very slick modern (keeping it sensually hip) revamp on the Dracula story (although staying with the traditional customs) with quite an interesting, if not fully grasped back story of the prince of darkness. The first time I tried watching it I could only make it halfway through, before losing interest. Again it gets off to a good start (especially the scenes with the thieves and then their encounters with Dracula), but then for me it got less involving when it hits New Orleans to focus on Van Helsing's daughter. A great place to set it, but never took advantage of its settings (despite etching a paradise in damn, where Dracula could flourish). Produced by Wes Carven (and yeah they throw that name out there), but written / directed by Patrick Lussier. Artistically it had its moments with few dreamlike visuals, but some kinetic editing and cheap jolts don't help. The messy script does get considerably silly. Lussier does a polished job that remains rather glassy, inserting a lot of blood (the make-up is suitably achieved) and a lot of "Virgin" advertising. No I don't mean virgins, it's the music company, as it does get in numerous shots and Helsing's daughter works there too. Oh that wasn't obvious planting. The soundtrack is an amusing choice of rock tunes. Now the performances are all over the shop, but there are few familiar faces to spot (Danny Masterson, Sean Patrick Thomas, Nathan Fillion, Shane West and Lochlyn Munro). Gerard Butler as Dracula just didn't come off, as not much of a presence was formed. He was simply out-shined by the succulent ladies of the night; Jennifer Esposito, Colleen Fitzpatrick and Jeri Ryan as Dracula's brides. The likes of Jonny Lee Millar and Justine Waddell are respectably okay. Christopher Plummer gives out a grizzled turn as Van Helsing and Omar Epps has fun with his role.
I've rarely been as annoyed by a leading performance as I was by Ali McGraw's in this movie. God is she bothersome or what?! She says everything in the same tone and is horrible, so horrible in fact that, by contrast, Ryan O'Neal is brilliant. <br /><br />There is not much of a story. He's rich, she's wooden, they both have to Sacrifice A Lot for Love. His father is Stonewall Jackson, hers is called by his first name, in case you didn't notice the Difference in The Two of Them that They Overcame in the Name of Love. <br /><br />The Oscar nominations for this movie indicate it had to have been a bad year. John Marley is fine as Wooden's father, but a Supporting Nomination? At least Ali didn't win. <br /><br />I still think Katharine Ross should have played Jennifer, but then again, if it were up to me, Katharine Ross would have been in a lot more movies. She's certainly a better actress than McGraw. <br /><br />I didn't even cry when she got sick, never occured to me to even feel sad. <br /><br />It was nice to see Tommy Lee Jones looking like he was about 15, and the score is good. But this one is so old by now it has a beard a mile long, and the sin of that is its not that old, but it feels it.
A wealthy Harvard dude falls for a poor Radcliffe chick much to the consternation of his strict father (Ray Milland).<br /><br />Syrupy, sugary, and most of all, sappy story about a battle of the 'classes' when rich-kid Ryan O'Neal brings home a waif of a librarian for his snobbish parents to ridicule. Ali MacGraw is the social derelict with the filthy mouth while John Marley plays her devout-Catholic father, but no one in the film is more annoying than O'Neal himself with his whimpering portrayal as Harvard's champion yuppie.<br /><br />Followed 8(!) years later by 'Oliver's Story'.
**** SPOILER WARNING ****<br /><br />Absolutely without a doubt, one of the funniest comedies ever created for the screen. Totally impossible to take any of this seriously. It would take a major novel to list all of the comedy routines in it. During the glory days of her program, Carol Burnett and company, who often did take-offs on films, skewered this one in ways that were hard to imagine. Carol played Jenny who suddenly became ill with only a slight cough and immediately the treacly music came up and everyone looked around wondering where it was coming from. Harvey Korman played Oliver with flowing locks and almost look liked Ryan O'Neal. The only thing funnier than this bit, is the real film.<br /><br />What a death scene at the end. Jenny really looks like she's dying alright...dying for her make-up artist to come in and give her a little color. And of course, we all know how often hospitals encourage a loved one to get in bed with them during the patient's final moments. The ending scene with Ryan O'Neal sitting on a bench in the snow contemplating his future in the movie business is an instant classic. He had plenty to worry about. He never did recover from this.
This 1970 hit film has not aged well, but frankly, it was not that good when it was released. Yet, it was a hugely popular success perhaps because the idea of fatalistic young love must have appealed to audiences saturated by constant TV coverage of the Vietnam War. The plot is pure drivel as it concerns Oliver Barrett IV, a privileged Harvard hockey player, who meets and falls in love with Jenny Cavelleri, an antagonistic Vassar music student proud of her working class background. His old-school father naturally disapproves of Jenny, and in a typical act of rebellion, that means the young couple gets married in one of those hippie-era, extemporaneous ceremonies. He lands his dream job in New York, but she gets unexpectedly ill and dies of her terminal disease. There is a veneer of then-contemporary film-making techniques displayed by director Arthur Hiller, but none of that can hide the old-fashioned, cliché-ridden story at its core. The inevitable ending left me particularly unmoved.<br /><br />Both Ryan O'Neal and Ali MacGraw became stars with this movie as Oliver and Jenny but inexplicably so since neither seems able to convey the depth or complexity required to make their characters compelling. At least the boyish O'Neal is sincere in his weakly defiant approach, but MacGraw is so wooden and smirky in behavior that it's hard to see what Oliver sees in Jenny beyond her sarcastic façade. John Marley (two years before finding the decapitated racehorse in his bed in "The Godfather") does better as Jenny's plainspoken baker father Phil, as does Ray Milland as the seemingly insensitive Barrett paterfamilias. The overly familiar Frances Lai music has almost become parody in itself over the years. The print quality on the DVD is good, though the only extra is a rather effusive commentary track by Hiller. The most interesting bit of trivia is that author Erich Segal (upon whose book this movie is based) conceived Oliver as a mix between two Harvard roommates he knew – Vice President Al Gore and actor Tommy Lee Jones, who happens to have a bit part in the movie as one of Oliver's roommates.
One of the previous reviewers wrote that there appeared to be no middle ground for opinions of Love Story; one loved it or hated it. But there seems to be a remarkable distribution of opinions throughout the scale of 1 to 10. For me, this movie rated a 4. There are some beautiful scenes and locations, and Ray Milland turns in a fabulous job as Oliver's father. But the movie did not do a particularly compelling job of telling its story, and the story was not so unique as to warrant multiple viewings, at least, not for me. I may be a bit of a snob, but I tend to avoid movies with Ryan O'Neal -- I still haven't seen Barry Lyndon -- because most of them, but not all, are ruined for me by his presence. The lone exception is What's Up, Doc?, in which his straight performance is the perfect underlining for Barbra Streisand's goofball protagonist -- and, not coincidentally, he takes a shot at Love Story for good measure! McGraw and O'Neal tend to mug their lines, rather than act them.<br /><br />This movie is notable for the beginning of one fine career: it was Tommy Lee Jones's first movie.
I love a good sappy love story (and I'm a guy) but when I rented "Love Story" I prayed for the end to come as quickly and painlessly as possible and just the opposite for Ali McGraw's character.<br /><br />Ali McGraw as Jenny alienated and irritated the heck out of me within the first 15 minutes. When we learn that she has been diagnosed with a life threatening illness I couldn't help but wonder if her death would be such a terrible loss for poor Oliver or if anyone watching this film would even care. If she didn't die her grating personality would probably have pushed Oliver over the edge and eventually landed them in divorce court.<br /><br />People love this movie but it's one of the worst of the 70's.
Another wonderful Patterson book made into an incredibly awful movie. If the big budget movies don't work then why make a low budget made for t.v. movie that's 10 times worse! I am desperate for a good movie that will do ONE of his books justice!
Having not read the novel, I can't tell how faithful this film is. The story is typical mystery material: killer targets newlyweds; woman investigator falls in love with her partner and is diagnosed with a fatal disease. Yes, it sounds like a soap opera and that's exactly how it plays. The first 2/3 are dull, save for the murders and the last 1/3 makes a partial comeback as it picks up speed toward its twisty conclusion.<br /><br />Acting is strictly sub par, though it's hard to blame the actors alone: the screenplay is atrocious. During the last 1/3 you stop noticing because the film actually becomes interesting, but that's only the last 1/3. Director Russell Mulcahy is very much in his element, but there's only so much he can do with a TV budget and the network censors on his back. He's pretty much limited to quick cutting and distorted lenses, though he managed to squeeze in a couple "under the floor" shots during the murders in the club restroom. Unfortunately, as this is made for TV, the cool compositional details he uses so well with a wider image are nowhere to be found. Note to producers: give this man a reasonable budget and an anamorphic lens when you hire him.<br /><br />Summing it up: this film is bad by cinema standards and mediocre by TV standards(watch CSI, instead). If you're in the mood for a film like this, I've some excellent suggestions: pick up a copy of Dario Argento's "Deep Red"(my highest recommendation; superb film), "Opera", or even "Tenebre". They're stronger in every category.
First To Die 2003<br /><br />I'll admit my mistake first: I didn't realize this was a made for TV movie. I was "thrown off" by the "R" certification. The plot is strong, but the movie is about 40 minutes too long. The direction and continuity were excellent. For the most part the cast was exceptional and did a good job with their characters. The down side of the movie is that it definitely falls into the "chick flick" genre. Although there are some violent scenes, none of the violence should call for an "R" rating. There is no nudity or gratuitous sex scenes. Actually, there are no sex scenes. Ona Grauer (who is absolutely beautiful), Kristina Copeland, Sonya Salomaa, and Glynis Davies were all guests on the SG-1 series, but this movie did nothing to advance their careers since they were all used as low level supporting actresses. Robert Patrick was fantastic, as he usually is and Mitch Pileggi made me think of a modern day Lee Marvin. The very talented Megan Gallagher who I came to respect as an actor during the Millennium series, was given nothing challenging to show her range of abilities. The greatest disappointment with regard to the cast was Tracy Pollan. Aside from being a below average actress and not particularly attractive, her voice is absolutely annoying. I found myself muting the TV during her dialogue. I would recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys the Lifetime TV type of programs. I would not recommend paying any money to see this movie however. Considering I found nothing that would cause censorship, this is a movie that is worthy for only watching on TV, since nothing will be cut out. As a TV movie I would rate this as a 5 out 10. As a feature film with an "R" certification and such as strong cast, I rate it as a 2 out of ten.
The word "1st" in the title has more ominous meaning for the viewers of this film than for its crime victims. At least they don't have to stick around and watch this interminable film reach its own demise.<br /><br />1st should refer to: 1st draft of a script; 1st takes used in each performance in the final film; 1st edit in post production; etcetera, etcetera.<br /><br />The movie is not cast too badly, it's just that everything about the film come off as worse than third rate, from the goofy script, to the wooden performances. And while suffering through this cobbled together film, by the 2 hour mark you want to be put out of your misery. At 160 minutes long it is readily apparent that it should have been edited to under 2 hours.<br /><br />Going into details concerning the lame script and acting serves little purposes. Even in the equally awful, Lake Placid, at least the performances Bill Pullman and Bridget Fonda constructed out of an extremely weak script, were nuanced enough to make you laugh at the movie. In 1st to Die, one ends up grieving only for the time lost in waiting to see what happens after the opening scene of the preparation of the female lead's suicide.<br /><br />The editing is so bad one is never introduced to one of the main characters, who I think (were never quite told) is a D.A. She just appears in one scene in the middle of a conversation. Obviously the scene where she is introduced to the viewer was dropped on the editor's floor. And no one realized that a character appearing out of nowhere was an unusual film ploy.<br /><br />In a word, don't waste your time with this one. My wife and I wish we didn't. But at least we created our own diversions by commenting in various places in the film like it was Mystery Science Theater. "Meanwhile, in Cleveland . . . ." !!!!
That's right, you heard me. I am a huge fan of James Patterson. I own 10 of his books, and I have read the entire series about Lindsey Boxer. In my opinion, the screenwriter should be shot. <br /><br />What right did any film maker have to slaughter a terrific work of fiction and make it into a mockery of the mystery genre? If I ever thought that Harry Potter was butchered, then Michael O'Hara has proved me wrong. <br /><br />I can only pray that the next screenwriter who tackles this fabulous book will do it a great deal more justice. To Michael O'Hara and Russell Mulcahy: don't quit your day job.
This movie is supposed to be taking place in and around Seattle. The, why is Porteau Cove P-R-O-V-I-N-C-I-A-L Park shown? Provincial parks are in CANADA, and not the United States. The Inspector uses a Palm Pilot complete with stylus to 'read' that someone has hacked into the computer of the bridal shop. I did not know that this was possible using a database storage device. A woman appears in the movie without any introduction and is never introduced. We learn half-way into the movie that this woman works in the District Attorney's office. Then, in the correctional center a guard actually PRECEDES Jenks through a door and keeps his back to the offender!! This would NEVER happen in a real correctional setting. The director really messed on this one -- this doesn't happen in real life. The acting is adequate. The Plot is good. The Cinematography is good. However, the many errors found in the continuity lead to a 3 out of 10 vote.
SPOILERS THROUGHOUT!!!!<br /><br />I had read the book "1st to die" and wanted to see if the movie followed the book so I watched it. For the most part it did. There were some MINOR differences(location of the last violent scene for instance) but not many and for the most part the movie stayed true to the book more so then most movies.<br /><br />This may have been a mistake-although the movie was perfectly cast-with Pollen and Bellows especially-I was not that impressed with the book. Or let me take that back. I started off very impressed, gradually became more disillusioned and by the end was left completely unsatisfied and felt almost gypped. No difference with The movie. Here is why.<br /><br />There is no "payoff" in the book, or the movie. Rarely have I read a who done it thriller that has created such a letdown with it's final resolution and I had hoped the movie would vary a little.<br /><br />The whole-(he did it, NO she did it, NO they BOTH did it)-was not interesting, not fascinating and more confusing, annoying and depressing then anything else. Add to that, that the love of Lindsay's life dies at the end(after HER disease cleares and she cries at his grave).. and then cut to where she's contemplating suicide....then all of a sudden she's in a fight for her life with the REAL villain who was cleared after being arrested.. but it turns out he and the wife were in it together....HELLO!!! This whole thing has now become "GENERAL HOSPITAL" instead of a good old fashioned thriller. I felt cheated and ripped off by the book and watching the movie(I must admit it held my attention nicely -the acting was very good for a TV movie)was hoping it wouldn't follow the book which it wound up doing.<br /><br />I still think the movie is watchable and for some reason does not leave as bad a taste in your mouth as the book(or maybe it's just that I knew what would happen)But I have to say the way this story unraveled was not well done at all.
Well I don't know where to begin. Obviously this was a made for TV movie, so my expectations were low. I was pleasantly surprised by the overall direction of the second hour, but anything before or after that seemed to be a paint by the numbers sort of movie.<br /><br />And talk about bad chemistry between the tow lovebird detectives. ..<br /><br />I would go more in depth, but this movie doesn't really deserve it. Grade: D+ (IMDB rating 3/10)
I am usually disappointed by network movies. Even flix that attract big name actors are usually ruined by the TV people. However, this one is the worst of the worst. The screenplay is weak and the acting, especially that of Tracey Pollan is abominable. I've trudged off to see my kids'high school plays and been treated to better acting. Pollan acts as if she is reading the script as she speaks. When she tries to express fear, anger or grief, it's extremely hollow. Because of the overall quality of the production I found it difficult to take it seriously. If you decide to brave this one just be prepared for a big disappointment. Scary things won't scare you, sad things won't make you sad, romance won't make you feel warm and fuzzy and you will likely be as anxious as I was to see the end arrive. "First to die" says a lot about this movie.
Teamo Supremo are three kids, consisting of their leader- Captain Crandall, Rope Girl and Skate Lad, all with their own battlecry (buza! chika! woopa!) and outfit and moves. They work for the governor, Kevin, and were recruited after wishing to be heroes and playing at that game. They lead normal lives as well, and have family and school duties, but most of the action takes place away from school fighting villains. The villains all have rather unique and singular traits, such as Mister Vague and his men who never seem to know what their plans are but act anyway. From an evil robot to a wicked baron the three have to encounter them and stop their evil, and often strange, plans to gain power, take revenge etc.<br /><br />The animation itself is quite nice and smooth, but the style appears to be simple on purpose. The backgrounds have overlapping colour and the buildings seem futuristic. The music is quite nice, and the show isn't too bad altogether, although the style isn't my favourite.<br /><br />The plots are almost always nonsensical and ridiculous, but after all this is a cartoon and one can't blame them for that. However this would not be in the same rank as Fillmore! or Pepper Ann.
I am never a big fan of Taiwan movie production as opposed to Korean, Hongkong or even China. Strong acting quality is hardly found in them as clearly shown in this film. I don't consider myself as hard-to-please audience as I am, in fact, a fan of indie movies. However this movie shows weak plot and slow pace. I found myself lost in the middle as to where the plot is going. The acting certainly does not make it better. Rainie's acting is sub par as she 'over-act', trying to be perky and cute. Although I have to admit she is a pleasure to look at. Isabella Leong on the other hand plays a more suitable role as a confused, sad, regretful, extremely reserved character. Overall I find this movie is a disappointment.
Almost in the same league as Yonfan's rather atrocious Color Blossoms, Spider Lillies drives the point home that you can make cutting edge cinema without the edge, or much in the way of cutting. It's a Taiwanese film, which in this day and age is becoming a novelty at an alarming pace, but more than that tidbit, we can find very little in the way of the noteworthy here.<br /><br />You should know that ostensibly Spider Lillies is also a lesbian-themed story, but in every aspect this is nothing but a plastic ploy to lure in the easily seduced and gullible. In several ways we have here a repeat of fellow recent Taiwan release Eternal Summer. Then it was gay men getting the shortchange treatment, now we have the same thing with women. Zero Chou presents, for your non-existent edification, a tale likely to titillate at most a fifteen year old. They managed some of the art house stance, but in the end this results in a most inane, simply uninteresting foray.<br /><br />The Hong Kong angle comes in the form of Isabella Leung (Bug Me Not, Isabella, Diary), here sporting her most butch look yet. Although somewhat likable in her previous jobs, Isabella in Spider Lillies is listless and lacking in most departments. Either her heart wasn't into it or the whole lesbian drama pitch didn't quite appeal to her sensibilities.<br /><br />She does a Taipei tattoo artist who's shy, reclusive and in charge of a mentally challenged younger brother, played by John Shen, who thankfully grants the movie its only thespian-related redeeming feature. Isabella's character, oddly named Takeko but supposedly hailing from Hong Kong, soon hooks up with disaffected youth Jade (Rainie Yang from fondly-recalled Meteor Garden). The latter lives with her grandmother and has a whole list of grievances due to being left behind by her parents and life in general. Sure, the grandmother component works well and is touching, but otherwise Jade as a protagonist is just as unmoving as her counterpart Takeko.<br /><br />The two women share a past and lots of inadequately covered angst, with Jade working as a webcam girl while Takeko keeps her father's legacy alive with a unique tattoo of a spider lilly emblazoned on her arm. Jade also wants to acquire this very design, which leads to Takeko exploring internal feelings of the issue via flashbacks and rather minimal discourse with the spunky Jade.<br /><br />Well, if there's little discourse to write the homebase about, is at least the intercourse memorable? In a word, no. They kiss and feign doing the nasty close to the end, but just as Eternal Summer reminded us not long ago, there's a gulf measured in lightyears between showing sexual content and making ticket buyers think they're about to see sexual content.<br /><br />This cynical expectation-building seals Spider Lillies' fate. With a weak story, ho-hum acting and an overall dearth of relics to take away from the theater with you, this one kind of makes Color Blossoms look good, come to think of it. At least there we got a bit of Teresa Cheung's mammaries. No, Spider Lillies is no AV masterpiece and should be stricken from the playlist of even the most mundane and timid GLB movie festival.<br /><br />Amazingly for a pseudo-indie release, not even the soundtrack and cinematography produce moments of inspiration. That's just as well, since it makes passing on Spider Lillies much easier. Believe you us, avoid it and you won't be missing out on anything good.<br /><br />Rating: * *
The BFG is one of Roald Dahl's most cherished books, but in this animated adaptation the magic just isn't there. This version remains pretty faithful to Dahl's original story so one can't lay the blame on John Hambley's script. If anything the fault lies with the colourless animation, the lethargic pace and the generally lacklustre voice-overs. One would be right to expect this story to make for a happy, vibrant, fun-filled movie..... instead, the film is a hopelessly dull affair that becomes quite tedious to watch. Children who are not familiar with the story should definitely read the book first! All the film will achieve is to put them off read what is actually a children's' classic.<br /><br />Young orphan Sophie (voice of Amanda Root) lives in a none-too-friendly orphanage under the cruel supervision of Mrs Clonkers. One evening she is peering through the window when she spots a massive figure walking stealthily down the village street. The figure realises it has been seen, so it reaches in through the window and scoops Sophie from her bed, placing her into its enormous pocket before fleeing into the night. Sophie soon discovers that she has been kidnapped by a giant from Giant Country, and fears that he will eat her. But to her relief he turns out to be a kind and sensitive member of his species who introduces himself as the BFG (voice of David Jason). The BFG refuses to eat people, instead restricting himself to foul-tasting vegetables known as snozzcumbers. However, Giant Country is populated by numerous other giants who DO feast - every night, as it happens - on poor unsuspecting humans. Sophie and the BFG become great friends, and soon they come up with a plan to thwart the other giants. Together they go to the Queen of England (voice of Angela Thorne) with their remarkable story and beg her to send the army and the air force to fight the man-eating giants. The Queen agrees and so begins a dangerous operation to capture the bad giants before they can harm anyone else.<br /><br />Jason voices the BFG quite well (one of the few pluses in the film) but his good work is almost ruined by somewhat poor sound quality. The rest of the voice work is decidedly uninspired, with very little to bring the characters to life. Similarly, the BFG is the only character that is imaginatively animated - Sophie lacks appeal, and the giants are boringly designed (and look almost indistinguishable from each other). Even the places are uninventive; Giant Country especially comes up short, being nothing more than a barren wasteland with occasional rocks and canyons. At 88 minutes the film is not exactly lengthy, yet it drags quite badly in parts due to the soporific handling of several sequences. Little of Dahl's mischievous humour is conveyed satisfactorily. One chapter in the book deals with the BFG's love of "whizzpopping" (farting) and is laugh-out-loud hilarious. In the film, the same section is totally killed by unfunny handling. I came to the The BFG expecting lots of zest, fun and enjoyment, but what I got was pretty much the opposite! This one is a failed misfire that simply doesn't match the calibre of the book in any department - unfortunately, therefore, it must go down as one to skip.
SEX WISH was actually released (minus ten minutes of more, ahem, 'extreme' footage) here in the UK back in the early days of the video boom, and caused a tabloid storm in a teacup when it allegedly inspired a copycat murder case. Strangely enough, the papers brushed this ultra-disturbing flick under the carpet in their headlong rush to get the comparatively innocuous likes of FROZEN SCREAM and NIGHT OF THE DEMON canned, and the film has been all but forgotten as a result. I jumped at the chance to watch it on a DVD-RW and spent most of the film's duration with my jaw on the floor. It's not so much politically incorrect as utterly demented, a triple-X take on Michael Winner's DEATH WISH (did the title kind of give the game away as far as inspiration was concerned?) with hardcore sex and some truly nasty violence thrown into an already bubbling brew of seventies sleaze. If you don't consider yourself to be squeamish, this may force you to think again. By the time SEX WISH is over, you'll want to scrub your eyeballs clean with disinfectant and take a long hot shower to purge yourself. If any film truly deserves the "it's only a movie, only a movie, only a movie" tag-line, it's this one.<br /><br />Highlights (or lowlights) - a rapist using a vibrator on a victim as he masturbates over her, Harry Reems's scene-stealing moustache, the helpless young black couple who are forced to screw in front the sword cane killer (they'd have won Oscars for their entirely credible performances if the Academy had gone mad) before the man is castrated for his troubles, and some jarringly slick direction that threatens to lift the proceedings above their obvious grind-house origins. Don't say I didn't warn you. If you thought the world was a more innocent place thirty years ago, SEX WISH will prove you very, very wrong.
After Harry Reems' teenage girlfriend is raped by Zebbedy Colt (The Night-Walker), Reems becomes despondent and consoles himself by having sex with some lesbians. Meanwhile, Colt, who carries a cane and dresses like a magician, rapes some more women. Eventually, Reems decides to track him down and end his crime spree. Despite being shot on film and marginally nasty, it looks like any other 70's porno and is ineptly executed. The rape/abuse scenes are surprisingly restrained and the attempt to cash in on "Death Wish" is laughable. R. Bolla ("Cannibal Holocaust") plays a cop. Colt, who is usually over-the-top, wigs out in a couple of scenes, but he's too well behaved for my money. This roughie could have been much rougher.
The Wayward Cloud is a frustrating film to watch. Infuriatingly enigmatic, it treats each shot like a work of art. You get the impression that the composition of each shot has been designed and prepared with a degree of exquisite care that borders on obsession; Expressing how far cinema has progressed since the very first films were cranked out in the nineteenth century and mimicking their construction, the camera here hardly ever moves – apart from during the camp and colourful musical numbers. Ambient noise is kept to a minimum and barely a word is spoken. This curious but effective device forces the audience to focus their attention on visual stimuli alone so that, even as the story progresses at a snail-like pace we feel ourselves becoming immersed. Unfortunately, for me at least, this immersion begins to unravel somewhere around the hour mark. I began to feel as if the film was challenging me to keep watching while becoming more difficult as the minutes dragged so that the mere act of watching became a battle of wills.<br /><br />Had the content of this film not been as sexual as it is it would no doubt been even more obscure to Western audiences. As it is, there's an abundance of female nudity and an act of sexual abuse on an unconscious (or possibly dead) woman that is so repugnant that, while it may speak volumes about the degradation to which pornography subjects both men and women (the users and the used) it is so over-zealous in the manner in which it chooses to make its point as to effectively render it ineffective. Of course the worst and most enthusiastic participants of the explosion in available pornographic content will seek this film out for all the wrong reasons and watch it with their sticky finger on the fast-forward button of the remote.<br /><br />For all its problems, the film is definitely a stayer, and the more you think about it the more sense certain aspects of it seem to make. Ironically, for a film in which so little happens, the viewer would probably be proportionately rewarded by watching a second or even third time. For me, however, once was enough…
This film comes as the ultimate disappointment in Tsai Ming-Liang for me. It oozes laziness from its every frame. So I'm not going to analyse it thoroughly either. But some observations:<br /><br />1. If the premise is drought, why we get to see city landscapes with blooming green trees? I wonder if that was supposed to mean something in the metaphorical context of the film (in which thirst notifies the craving for intimacy, and watermelon the trivial substitute, sex). Or it is only a matter of lousy film-making, not giving a damn about being coherent.<br /><br />2. We don't get to know what had happened to the porn actress, why she is unconscious or, presumably, dead. It seems a question of no importance as long as the message of supreme alienation is successfully (=bombastically) delivered, but in retrospect, her inert body proves to be a cheap dramaturgical gimmick, a pretext – just as gratuitous and exploitative as the activity it is employed in.<br /><br />3. Nothing is expressed in this movie that Antonioni hadn't expressed better 40 years ago – and without needlessly humiliating his actors.<br /><br />4. The musical numbers (recycled from 'The Hole') felt like a secondary-schooler's idea of artistic counterpointing, executed on that very secondary-school level of skill. If that was the point, the point sucked.
I'll start with what I liked.<br /><br />I really liked the songs, everything about them was great, the costumes, music, lyrics (as long as the translation was good :) ), choreography, everything.<br /><br />I loved the crab scene and the cooking scene.<br /><br />But that's about it.<br /><br />I get it, arty cinema, blablabla, but too much is too much. Too much silence (it was interesting for an hour, but two hours of hearing steps and moaning from time to time, really...), too much boredom (no movie should ever be boring, no matter how deep it was to be!), too much porn-like scenes (I do get it really, I get that they were filming a porn movie there, but really, REALLY, really that is too much) I truly think, that cinema should be for watching and this one is definitely not watchable in no way.<br /><br />3 stars for the songs.
the acting itself wasn't even that bad, since it did't come to mind in the movie but whatever had this director in mind? the intended climb towards some climax completely missed the mark,..<br /><br />almost all scenes involve acting that stand so far from our own intentions and way of reacting on things that you don't really attach to any actor in the movie,..<br /><br />Empty silences,..In this case, see through cheap method of boasting your way into potential metaphorical brilliance,..which just wasn't here at all,..<br /><br />I guess I'm bitching but shit,..2 hours of my time,..
Redundant, everlasting shots, useless shots, useless scenes are what you will find in this film. In other words, it seemed technically poor to me. The musical bits are amateurishly directed (no synchronization in the would-be dancing, badly post-synchronized, bad and obvious improvisation of the actors from time to time, etc). <br /><br />The film is long and boring. Eventually, it makes few point and even less sense. <br /><br />There are some good ideas though. Some of the comic elements are actually efficient, especially the opening scene. However, the film gets worse and worse so that it is completely unbearable and impossible to understand by the end. <br /><br />The trailer I saw was very dynamic, that is not true for the film. That is to say the discrepancy between the trailer and the actual film is something very close to a rip off.
The movie is actually too slow. There are some nice images but it cannot outweigh the fact that the movie is in fact boring. You see a sexual intercourse a lot of watermelons and a sexual intercourse while eating a melon and maybe a little bit more. It may sound even interesting to someone but believe me to watch it for 2 hours isn't fun at all. Though you laugh several times but it's really not enough and it may be more out of despair and disbelieve than out of fun. To disturb the boredom director tries to put few movie video-clips into the movie. They are really colorful clips of absurd songs maybe from the 50's but it's hard to say exactly and they are trying to be funny so hard that it's really sad. Several times you have a feeling that the plot could evolve into something, that a powerful scene is being created but at the end it just somehow evaporates and that's it. Beside the clips there are hardly any dialogs let alone music. The director is trying to be original and artistic at all cost. Personally I cannot recommend the movie. I believe that art is something that shouldn't be boring. During the projection there was yawning all around the cinema which just corroborates my short review.
they have sex with melons in Asia.<br /><br />okay. first, i doubted that, but after seeing the wayward cloud, i changed my mind and was finally convinced that they have sex with watermelons, with people dead or alive. no safe sex of course. the (terrifyingly ugly) leading man shoots it all into the lady's mouth after he did the dead lady. never heard of HIV? guess not.<br /><br />the rest of this movie is mainly boring, but also incredibly revolting. as a matter of fact, in parts it got so disgusting i couldn't take my virgin eyes off. sex with dead people! how gross is that? and what's the message behind it all? we need water, we need melons, we need to be dead to have sex? sorry, but this stinks!
I want to clarify a few things. I am not familiar with Ming-liang Tsai movies, and I am very familiar with art cinema; I grow up in the seventies times of Goddard, Fellini, Bergman, Bertolucci and many others.<br /><br />Art movies then were really ART; like paints. People did it to express their inner feelings, not really worried about if other people understand anything. They were beyond commercial values; just look some old Antonioni (or early Picasso) and you will understand.<br /><br />Tian bian yi duo yun (The Wayward Cloud) has nothing to do with that. It is an opportunistic movie, intended to fool festival judges and critics, playing many things without saying anything.<br /><br />The story makes no sense. The lack of water makes the government to promote the use of watermelons to hydrate. A girl in desperation, steal water from the public bathrooms WC. There is also a porno start (neighbor) trying to make a movie with an actress he does not seems to feel comfortable with. There is some romantic awakening between the girl and the porno star. The mess ends with a sexual scene (not pornographic) that many people feel shocked about, but I believe it is less provocative than you can see in American Pie or History of Violence.<br /><br />The two main characters never talk. Sometimes, a musical number 60 style appears and explains (through a song) what is happening in characters minds. These video clips, are really welcomed because the previous scene, without dialog or music only people looking at each other, takes sometimes 4, 5 or even more minutes which in movie times is TOO MUCH. <br /><br />There is also a few bits about "the difficult to make sex without love", the "selfish mind of the porno industry". <br /><br />It is obvious, this movie intended (get away with it) to fool festival juries and critics. It have a few pseudo-shocking scenes (within the limits of Taiwan censorship) and many subjects are open, but nothing is concluded or goes anywhere. <br /><br />These tricks, got the movie a few (disputed) important prices in film festivals and get the movie an undeserved commercial success (I see the movie in France and the theater was packed). <br /><br />However, please, do not be fooled. There is nothing new or original or even originally told or filmed in this movie. It is boring and empty; really a fraud to public. Boogie Nights (which I did not really liked), Intimacy and 9 Songs are far better movies.
A movie about Vixen (Erica Gavin) who has a Mountie husband who she loves...but she loves sex too! In the course of the movie she gets multiple men in bed--including her husband AND brother! Also there's a (tame) lesbian sequence.<br /><br />This film put Russ Meyer on the map and was (I believe) the first critically acclaimed X rated film ever. It was a big hit when it came out. Unfortunately, it doesn't date well.<br /><br />It is well-directed and Erica Gavin is just great (whatever happened to her), and it was VERY colorful...but by today's standards it's extremely tame. I'm surprised it has an NC-17 rating now--there's no hardcore sex and it only has topless females and no male nudity at all. Also it's (sadly) pretty dull and the addition of politics at the end was confusing (and pretty silly). It is worth catching though to see what was considered very shocking in 1968. Purportedly I saw the cut version (which has an R rating) but I've heard only a few seconds here and there are missing. <br /><br />Meyer's next film "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" is much better and dates VERY well. Catch that instead.
The line is funnier in England, where, away from Vixen!'s native America, the word "fanny" has a whole new meaning. Sadly, it's the only laugh you'll get in this terrible sex comedy that is neither sexy nor funny.<br /><br />Oddly unalluring with painted-on eyebrows, Erica Gavin (Acting ability: zero) is a nymphomaniac who lusts after her own brother, but rejects his black friend while making derogatory remarks about watermelons. As if in revenge, he asks her if she would go with a Shetland pony. Reference is also made to "making it with monkeys". Gavin's ability to shake and tremble with orgasmic pleasure at the slightest touch is matched only in it's lack of appeal by her seduction dance – which involves a bonfire and a haddock. Personally, I preferred the haddock.<br /><br />For '68 this was pretty tame stuff, and belies the controversy it attracted at the time. A character claims to be "getting stoned", though it's only on bourbon, and for one of the original "X" certificates, there's no full frontal nudity. Just six years later we would be getting Timmy Lea and his Confessions, but here we have to make do with topless shots. Only Gavin's final seduction of her own brother really shocks. Another activity for Vixen is where she helps settle the sexual problems between a married couple by sleeping with them both. The two women clearly aren't enjoying acting out their scene together, and make a poor effort to disguise it. After Vixen irons out their disharmony, the romantic husband concludes of his wife "I guess she's got it coming to her!"<br /><br />The only near-worthwhile segment involves an unusual discussion of Cuban Communism. It seems out of place with the rest of the film, though is spliced with shots of Gavin's breasts to rope it in to continuity. This then leads into a vague anti-Vietnam stance, which is commendable, though dropped in the middle of such a frivolous film it seems trite and insensitive, not to say downright tasteless. Incidentally, the part of would-be Communist Niles Brooke is taken by Harrison Page, the same Harrison Page who played Captain Trunk in amusing comedy Sledge Hammer! Page must be embarrassed by his back catalogue (Which also includes Meyer's Beyond The Valley of the Dolls), though Meyer apologists would have you believe the terrible dialogue, lousy acting, sloppy direction and dire editing are not just part of the charm, but wholly intentional. As a defence, it fails to hold water.<br /><br />The irritating incidental music – a cross between the tunes they play in cinema restaurant ads and muzak used by TV stations when the transmission breaks down – is omnipresent and intrusive; while even the silly, amateurishly skewed camera angles can't generate interest. A wonderful world of jazz saxophones, where women have been "asking for it", black men – or "shines" – aren't good enough for anyone, and rape is an acceptable form of revenge. Absolutely abysmal.
Nick Millard aka Nick Phillips should have left well-enough alone when he made "Criminally Insane" 10 years before the release of this god-awful waste of time and effort. The fact that the original "Criminally Insane" was less than an hour in length should have clued him into the fact that he had probably milked this storyline for all he was going to get out of it...but instead he opts to use TONS of footage from the original in this one as well, even to the point of recycling the original opening credit sequence! Unfortunately, bringing back the rapidly aging Priscilla Alden did not save this one. What little bit of original footage there was in this flick looks as if it were filmed with a rented hand-held camcorder! If this film cost more than $100 to make I would be very surprised and I would be equally surprised if it made anything close to that amount! Avoid this one and watch the original instead!
The first movie is pretty good. This one is pretty bad.<br /><br />Recycles a lot of footage (including the opening credits and end title) from Criminally Insane. The new footage, shot on video, really sticks out as poorly done. Scenes lack proper lighting, the sound is sometimes nearly inaudible, there's even video glitches like the picture rolling and so on.<br /><br />Like all bad sequels, it basically just repeats the story of the first one. Ethel kills everybody who shares her living space, often for reasons having to do with them getting in the way of food she wants.<br /><br />At least it is only an extra on the DVD for the first one, which also includes the same director's film Satan's Black Wedding. Too bad it doesn't include the Death Nurse movies though.
Due to budget cuts, Ethel Janowski (again played by Priscilla Alden) is released from a mental institution (even though she killed six people) and delivered to the Hope Bartholomew halfway house. Once there, she immediately relapses into her criminally insane ways and kills anyone who gets between her and her food.<br /><br />HOLY MOLY! Does this movie suck! You know you are in trouble when the open credits start up and they are just the credits from the first film, apparently filmed off a TV screen. Nick Millard (under his pseudonym Nick Phillips) decided to return to the world of Crazy Fat Ethel over ten years later and with a budget that probably covered the cost of a blank tape and a video camera rental for the weekend. Let's just say that Millard's unique style doesn't translate well to video. Seriously, I have made home movies with more production value than this. And Millard tries to pull a SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT 2 by padding half the running time with footage from the first film (which looks like it was taken off a worn VHS copy). Alden is again good as Ethel but the film is so inept that you start to feel sorry for her for starring in this garbage. I mean, at least the first film tried. Here we have no music, weaker effects (if that is at all possible), shaky camera work, horrible audio and editing that looks like it was done with two VCRs hooked up. Avoid this at all costs!
I should have listened. I was warned, and still, I paid money for this, after reading all the reviews, after knowing the original is "so bad it's good", and that part 2 does not fit into that category at all, still, even then, I couldn't resist. Exactly what happened here? Part one was Hilarious, it had so much politically incorrectness, and other Crazy, Fat Entertainment, and this one, there just couldn't possibly be a worse sequel on God's green earth, not Basket Case 2, hell, not even Troll 2. This is truly the worst sequel in history and that's really saying something considering the groundbreaking, bottom of the barrel qualities of the original. Criminally Insane part 2 was just a completely different brand of bad. Shot on Video, zero score, zero entertainment value, 1/3 consists of flashbacks of the original, and on top of all that, crazy, fat Ethel has lost a portion of her girth. I mean, honestly, is this some kind of sick joke?!? Thank's a lot, Nick Milliard. 1/1
Criminally Insane 2 is included on the new DVD of Satan's Black Wedding/Criminally Insane, and it's a good thing too, because when I've seen a movie and know there's a sequel (especially something that's as obscure as this) I'm always curious. I've now had my curiosity satisfied and will never watch this again. Most of CI2 is nothing but "flashbacks" to CI, and footage of Ethel asleep, recalling fond memories, I guess. Thanks to Proposition 13 she's released from Napa State (wonder if she got to see The Cramps play while she was there?) and sent to a halfway house run by a nice old lady that Ethel promptly takes to calling "granny". This is all filmed with a video camera so the picture and sound are rather pathetic, and it's even complete with a couple of "rolls". Of course Ethel does her thing, which is to dispatch anyone between her and food, especially the guy that witnesses one of her acts of mayhem and extorts her dessert. Also, you have to wonder about any halfway house for murderers having a big drawer full of sharp knives in the kitchen and rat poison under the kitchen sink. Guess that's all a matter of misguided "trust". If you liked or disliked Criminally Insane, either way there's no good reason to watch this except out of curiosity. One wonders why the makers of this even bothered. 2 out of 10.
During the cheap filmed in video beginning of Crazy Fat Ethel II, I wondered if it was the same film that was on the cover. Unfortunately, it was. The story itself is mindlessly simple. Ethel, a homicidal maniac with an eating disorder, is released into a halfway house because of hospital overcrowding. She is by far the most sane resident watching while one man puts dead flies into another's soup. Ethel is then teased by one of the halfway house employees with a chocolate bar after he hits on the cost cutting measure of feeding the residents dog food. Ethel retaliates by strangling him with a wire noose on the stairs and then....well, you get the idea. If this all sounds like fun, it isn't. This film was poorly made with cheap effects and even worse acting. The characters are so wooden when delivering their lines that they should be standing out in front of a cigar store. To make matters worse, half of the film consists of flashbacks to the first Ethel movie, Criminally Insane, which is little better. A VERY poor effort.
There are some bad movies out there. Most of them are rather fun. "Criminally Insane 1" was one of those flicks. So bad that it was enjoyable and had re-watch value to it. "Criminally Insane 2" has to be one of the worst movies ever made and coming from me, that's saying a lot because I am not the type of person to say anything is the worst. But trust me, this was just completely awful and running just 1 hour is 1 hour too long.<br /><br />The movie has a rather incoherent storyline, but who cares about story when all you want to see is a big fat woman running around killing people because she isn't being fed. Well, you don't see that in this movie, except for all of the flashback sequences that are from the first one. The new storyline could have been really funny with Ethel being sent to a halfway house and murdering everyone in there, but nothing happens until the last 20 minutes of the movie and at that point you are already falling asleep.<br /><br />The camera work in this movie is just atrocious. This literally reminds me of something I shot with friends of mine back when I was 15. The sound quality is something else as you can't understand a word most of the characters are saying. To give an example of how bad it is, go into a New York Subway and try to understand what is being said over the loud speakers, that is what this movie sounds like. Not that it matters what they are talking about anyway because the actors are about as dry as a dead piece of wood.<br /><br />Now I know that saying this is the worst movie out there is pretty harsh but words can't describe just how bad this movie is. If you don't believe me, see it for yourself. 1/10
This is the most boring worthless piece of crap I've ever wasted an hour of my life on. All I can say is thank God it was only an hour. Over half of this 'movie' is footage from the original "Criminally Insane". At the very least, I was able to see the highlights from that rare exploitation classic, since for some reality-defying reason my video store only has "Criminally Insane II" (as it had it, "Crazy Fat Ethel II"). But the rest of this movie is some of the absolute worst home-video acting and backyard filmmaking you'll ever see. Why is it my video store has this and not the original? Why does stuff like this actually end up in video stores? Why do people rent it and not immediately burn the copy once they've seen its sheer horror? Why - AAUUGGHH - Why, God, why?<br /><br />Unless you enjoy seeing annoying fruits eating an entire candy bar in an excruciatingly slow scene, or said fruit getting hung from the stair railing in an even slower scene, or a character getting stabbed sideways (don't ask) multiple times in the back, or brain cell-murdering monologues about giving poisoned tea to one's wife and then complaining that all the talk has made one's own tea go cold, or the mentally-retarded eating fly soup, or just simply want to see Crazy Fat Ethel dancing with a bloody knife in a garden: Don't watch this movie. Repeat: Do NOT watch this movie. Do not rent this movie. If at all possible, do not walk past a shelf in a video store that has a copy of this movie setting on it. You can still be saved, but it is too late for me now. . .
After "Central City" loses its mob boss to murder, partner-in-crime Robert Armstrong (as "Doc" Rogers) decides to take drastic measures To preserve criminal continuity, he recruits the dead mobster's milquetoast son, Richard Cromwell (as Edward "Baby Face" Morgan), to run the family business. The naive Mr. Cromwell is taken to the city, and installed as President of his father's "Acme Protection Agency", a front for gangsters. While Cromwell sells innocently sells insurance, his "employees" run an extortion racket. Cromwell falls for pretty client Mary Carlisle (as Virginia Clark); and, the duo find themselves in great danger… "Baby Face Morgan" catches star Cromwell and Ms. Carlisle nearing the end of their once "promising" film careers. It's a quick, light, and inoffensive little crime drama.<br /><br />**** Baby Face Morgan (1942) Arthur Dreifuss ~ Richard Cromwell, Mary Carlisle, Robert Armstrong
Is there anything worse than a comedy film that lacks humor? The answer is Yes; one that fails to generate any interest throughout the picture. The premise is not too bad - a naive front man for an illegal business - but this is a potboiler with a poor script and screenplay and just does not work.<br /><br />Was this considered a good 'B' in 1942? Hard to imagine. The only positive aspect of the picture is the cast, which contains several well-known faces from the '30's and '40's, such as Warren Hymer, Vince Barnett and Robert Armstrong (I always dismiss Richard Cromwell as the weakling who got Gary Cooper killed in "Lives of a Bengal Lancer", so I wasn't counting him).<br /><br />Can't recommend this one and gave it a rating of 3 - if you have a choice, get a root canal.
If you want to make a movie like this, have the threat be real. Don't surround your patsy with a bunch of Bonzos. There is no credibility here. The plot is dull and unbelievable. The acting is even worse. I thought that I was watching Arthur Lake (Dagwood) who is one of the worst actors in history, when I saw the main character. Oh well, at some point he has to face the music and get fighting mad. I don't care. Do you? There are all these long scenes set in this austere office (the furniture made out of cardboard or masonite). People talk and smoke and don't do anything. Most of the action happens in a five minute sequence. After that, it's over. Don't bother.
Frank Capra's creativity must have been just about spent by the time he made this film. While it has a few charming moments, and many wonderful performers, Capra's outright recycling of not just the script but considerable footage from his first version of this story, Broadway Bill (1934), is downright shoddy. It is understandable that he would re-use footage from the climactic horse race, which is thrilling. But he uses entire dialogue scenes with minor actors, then brings back those actors and apparently expects us not to notice, for example, that Ward Bond is 14 years older! Unless you want to see one of the last appearances of Oliver Hardy, skip this one and watch Broadway Bill instead.
...when he remade Broadway BILL (1934) as RIDING HIGH (1950). Recasting Bing Crosby as DAN BROOKS did not help a screenplay that was 'dated' in 34 let alone 50. This sad film has entire scenes lifted from the original with many of the supporting cast repeating their roles, unless they were dead. Though being older did not seem to matter to the Director. Nor that the Cars and Clothes in the background plates from 1934 did not seem match up too 1950s' standards. Not even 'der Bingel' singing can redeem this effort.<br /><br />We rated both the original and the remake IMDb Four****Stars. Frank's touch was long gone and all that was left was CAPRA-CORN. That did not stop Mr. Capra though. After floundering around the 50's making some educational documentaries he wound up his career remaking LADY FOR A DAY (1933) as POCKETFUL OF MIRACLES (1961). Again a fine cast was let down on that IMDb Six******Star effort compared too the originals Eight********Stars. Sometimes it is better to quit while you were still ahead, right after STATE OF THE UNION (1948).
My grandmother took me and my sister out to see this movie when it came out in theaters back in 1998, and so we happily bought the tickets, the popcorn and soda, and walked right in to the theater and sat down to watch the movie. When it was over, the audience didn't applauded strongly, I remember that I heard a few people say that they didn't like it at all, I didn't like it, I thought that it was rather stupid, and not worth seeing. Eddie Murphy was hysterical in this, but apart from him, the whole movie was bad, I rarely laughed at the parts in this, I also remembered that the other people in the theater almost hardly even laughed. And what I really thought was bad was making the animals talk, because talking animals only exist in cartoons, in live action movies, they are totally a mutt! I said that apart from Eddie Murphy's hysterical twist he brings in, this movie is not worth watching, it is rather stupid.<br /><br />I have seen Eddie Murphy in several of movies and I thought that he was funny in those, I have just said that he was the only funny part of this movie, I also have not seen Eddie Murphy in the really "great" movie, The Adventures of Pluto Nash. This movie is not a movie that I would really recommend that you see, because apart from Eddie Murphy, you probably are not going to like this, especially because of a lot the the talking animals in it! <br /><br />I'll give this movie a rating of 3 stars out of a possible 10 stars.
Too bad neither the animals or Eddie Murphy had anything to say worth saying. this movie is just bland.<br /><br />Children's movie? Well, if you're trying to get them to take a nap, then maybe. It's just 90 minutes of some eye-wrenchingly poor animal lip animation to quips that aren't funny. And the lip-sync'ing makes the old Godzilla films look brilliantly done by comparison. Meanwhile, Eddie "Pluto Nash" Murphy drones on with a suppressed understated delivery that is painful to experience. Apparently, he's trying to modify his old manic persona, but to what? In short, all the magic and wonder of the 1967 original version is lost in this re-imagining, or whatever it is. A town wants to bully some forest creatures and blame them for doing bad stuff. No, really. And Pluto Nash can psycho-babble with them. Things chain along with some stale jokes to a dull uninspired conclusion with no surprises.<br /><br />Rent the '67 movie. Or some old Yogi Bear cartoons.
This is definitely a stupid, bad-taste movie. Eddie Murphy stars in what is written like a sitcom. He is surrounded with his perfect family, full of good family values. If you're looking for politically correct entertainment, this movie is for you. But if you hate the idea of being the only one not to laugh at obscene gags in a movie-theater full of pop-corn addicts, just flee.
Production line collection of fart jokes that pretends 'Babe' was never made; the writers clearly hoped that the gimmick of seeing animals talk would be enough to keep the movie going. It's not. Eddie Murphy sells out yet again as a doctor who rediscovers his forgotten childhood gift for understanding the incessant and witless chatter of guinea pigs, tigers, rats, dogs and pigeons. The voice cast is impressive (Albert Brooks, Julie Kavner, Reni Santoni, John Leguizamo, Garry Shandling, Ellen DeGeneres, Paul Reubens, Brian Doyle-Murray) but the script is so unimaginative, charmless and depressingly unfunny that the whole thing rattles down the bin chute pretty quickly.
...And that's why hard to rate. <br /><br />From the adult point of view (hmm, student point of view:)). i must say i fell nearly asleep here. Sure, there is some laughing scene (all the credit takes here Eddie), but that can't save the disney type of script and whole movie, that's why<br /><br />2 out of 10
The movie is bad. Nothing special - just a "kid" movie with no serious thing in it. There is though one reason to watch this for: the animal talk. Some of them are so funny in what they say, you just can't stop laughing. So if you want to hear a dog in the dog pound saying "I'm Keyser Soze", or another animal saying "You're a dead cat walking", or many other funny one liners, see it. Cause there's no other good movie to watch it. Vote: 4 out of 10.
This film failed to explore the humanity of the animals which left me with an empty feeling inside. [Spoiler ahead] I was not convinced that Dr. D really had a compelling reason to forego the big buyout deal to help his furry friends. Whereas Babe (the original) bucked the trend of big-budget hits by focusing on the human virtues of the animals vs. their humans counterparts, all the animals in this film were nothing more than comical caricatures which one would gladly stuff in the meat-grinder (even more so if one could understand their pointless babble). Without Eddie Murphy's zany behavior, this film would be a flop.
At first i thought that it was just about Eddie Murphy talking to some stupid animals. I was right. Some people called this movie Eddie Murphy's comeback! Who are these people? Jesus if this is the best he can come up with he can just stay away. What was the story again? I was so annoyed by all the lame jokes i forgot. I should have walked out on this one.
Just what we need! Another remake of vintage Hollywood cinema, with Eddie Murphy miscast again in his second time around after THE NUTTY PROFESSOR (1996)! This shows why we're running out of special ideas in making a quality movie, ladies and gentlemen! It has some signs of hope for its likeable and delightful imagery of animals who can act and speak with humans. Things can only get more worse, unfortunately. Bathroom jokes and sexual references kill this piece of "family" funfare instantly. Even parents and children saw the trailer ad on The Family Channel, which was followed by utter angst and disgust in the movie theater. Sad to say this is the more progressive pre-millennium era, but enjoy it while it lasts 'cause things can only get worse with time. More went wrong with the all-new DR. DOLITTLE. It is absolutely plotless, feeling too flat. I also hate that irritating voice of Chris Rock!!! We need more talented voice-overs than a bunch of overpaid celebs who don't want to declare bankruptcy. I'll have to agree on my local newspaper giving this among the top five worst movies of 1998. Then again, the original version wasn't any good, either. Murphy's next project could be PATTON if he's not careful!
I have a feeling that Dr. Dolittle was intended for an audience composed entirely of children. I think I would have had a better time if I sat at home and watched a sit-com. My favorite characters in the movie were the pet hamster and the two alley mice.
I just did not enjoy this film. But then I loved Babe, a Pig in the City and have been spoiled by talking animal films that are exceptionally well done in every way. The animals were not likeable. They were all irritating especially Chris Rock's guinea pig, but then what could I expect, it's Chris Rock. I believe I smiled once or twice at a couple cute lines, but that's it.
Everyone involved with this project should be ashamed as to the result of their efforts. Oh. I laughed a coupe of times , but I laughed a couple of times during Schindler's list also. They really screwed up a good premise.
This movie isn't about football at all. It's about Jesus/GOD!! It's the same kind of sappy sanctimonious religious drivel you get from those arch idiots who wrestle for Jesus, or pump iron for Jesus. Yeah, Jesus was totally buffed, liked contact sports, and definitely owned a full set of dumb bells. DUHHH! This movie should have been entitled "Hiking for Jesus," or something along those lines just to let the general public know that the real intent of this movie is to convert people to Christianity, and to pander to those whose brains have already been thoroughly washed in the blood of the lamb. That the title is derived from the Bible is made clear when the head coach is reading his Bible and asking Jesus for help. The recent sports movie "Invincible" was 100 times more inspiring than this was, and Jesus wasn't even a factor. It was just the desire and determination of an individual with a dream.<br /><br />Any broad appeal as an inspirational sports movie is ultimately lost amidst all of the blatant Bible thumping and sanctimonious religious propaganda. One gets the impression that the sole message is the only way you can succeed and make positive gain is if you accept Jesus as your personal savior. But this is simply not true, and is therefore a lie being perpetuated by those who believe that it is true and want everyone else to believe it. The image of the winning athlete thanking Jesus when he wins comes directly to mind. What does he do when he loses? Does he curse Jesus? Of course not! When he loses Jesus isn't responsible. Jesus is only responsible when he wins. And the logic goes round and round and round, and it ends up exactly where the true believer needs it to be, every time!! I had to hit pause when the scene with the coach receiving a brand new truck came on so I could stop rolling on the floor laughing my ass off and catch my breath. Materialism is not what Jesus taught. I find it odd that most so called "Christians" seem to either forget or ignore this message from their "savior," especially when I see a Jesus fish on the back of a huge gas guzzling SUV that passes me like I'm standing still.<br /><br />Another message this movie implies is that Jesus apparently cares more about the win loss record of a mediocre high school football team that he does about the millions of starving children in the world. The final scene where the insecure and unsure kicker boots a 51 yard field goal and it is hyped up as an unbelievably incredible miracle puts the final gag me with a spoon religious red flag on this turkey. I only gave it three stars because the guy who played the black coach could actually act.
I am a Christian and I say this movie had terrible acting, unreal situations and a completely facade front for Christianity. You might as well watch "Remember the Titans" and at least not mix Christ in a football film like a formulaic steroid for losers. Let me make some really pressing comments of what bothered me in this film.<br /><br />1. The school was in Georgia and was a white academy school. I did not notice a single black student or player in the school. I deal with the White "Christian" Academies in the south and they were built for no other reason than to reestablish segregation. This is troubling when the movie is about Christianity and Christ changing lives...how about changing the hearts of segregation? (note: I loved the token black coach; like it made up for the entirely white team and all the black 'Giants' players.) <br /><br />2. The uncritical acclaim by everyone Christian about this movie. Can I get a couple people to say that it was bad acting, bad filming, bad writing and in short poor compared to other movies. If we were to compare this to another football movie, would it have the same charisma and energy? <br /><br />3. The half-baked Christianity which was shown made even less sense to me than the unrealistic ending. If Christianity is about simply reading a little scripture and praying to begin a complete life change, then don't wonder when no one will listen to what Christians have to say. We want to sell Christ as a cure-all. He doesn't need sold and He doesn't need to be attached to such whimsical lifestyles. No wonder everyone considers Christianity to be anti-intellectual with this unreal presentation.<br /><br />I recognize this film may be inspirational to a few people. To most, it will not be. It will not give a real picture of struggle and heartfelt tension. Most importantly to me, it is not Christian by any means or stretch. It has values but it falls short as a 'pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps' message as shallow as positive thinking. If you live alongside people who struggle and/or those in third world living conditions, this movie will be hollow as most churches are today in their religion.
I want to state first that I am a Christian (and that I do work in the film and TV industry) so I understand what it is like to work on a feature length film so props to the filmmakers in that regard. I'm all for positive, uplifting messages if they are true to the nature of life (that this is a fallen world and that things don't always work out ... even for followers of Christ). I'm glad that others are having such overwhelmingly positive reactions to the overt Christian message; for me it was just that the execution is where the film fell on its face. A movie lives and dies on its story and here you have one dimensional stereotypes, exposition aplenty, and spontaneous changes in character behavior that are inexplicably to say the least. I believe that a film does not have to club you over the head with its message to get the point across. I'm sure the Kendrick bros. will improve with time and that their storytelling methods will as well. Maybe they could direct someone else's screenplay as their next project.<br /><br />* Sports films are not exactly my first love but a good one (Hoosiers, Field of Dreams, etc) can inspire in a multitude of ways. If you would be interested in a PG-rated film that inspires, give Steven Soderbergh's 'King of the Hill' a look. All truth is God's truth ...
I rented this movie today thinking it might be a good football movie, since I'm a big football fan. Boy, was I wrong. This movie is way too religious and preachy and is REALLY unrealistic. This movie pretty much says that if your a Christian you can get anything you want in life easily, like become a great football player! You don't become a great football player by becoming Christian and asking God, you do it through practice and hard work. All you gotta do is ask God and he'll give you anything....puh-lease. Thats not true at all, duh. I laughed several times because of this embarrassment. The only part that was funny was when they were being dumb (Shultz the cartoonist? no, the dude that flew over the Atlantic, etc etc..) but really this movie wasn't that great. I don't recommend it, especially if you aren't a Christian, lol.
This had to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen and I'm 64 years old and a football fan. I went expecting to see a football movie. About 10 minutes into it, I began to wonder exactly how such a bad movie (particularly the acting) could have gotten into a theater. About half way through, I whispered to my husband that it was awful and he explained to me the facts behind the movie. Although I was a little offended (and can see how some could be VERY offended if they were not Christian) at being preached to in a movie theater, it wasn't that big a deal. It was, however, a big deal to be subjected to such predictability and unrealistic behavior and, above all, the quality of the acting. It is an appropriate movie for a church outing but to be shown in a church auditorium and not in a theater. Do I go to church? Yes. Do I want to go to church when I attend a movie? No. Would I recommend this movie? Absolutely not!!!
This film was bad. Bad acting, bad directing, bad writing. But it wasn't bad in a funny way. It was bad in a boring way. I watched "Surface to Air" because I thought it might be a laugh. It wasn't. Don't make the mistake I did. There are plenty of more enjoyable ways to spend an hour and a half such as watching paint dry or reading the dictionary. Seriously.
This movie was way too slow and predictable.I wish i could say more but i can't.If you enjoy action/adventure films,this is not one to see.I'd suggest you go see movies like;Behind Enemy Lines with Owen Wilson and Iron Eagle with Louis Gossett Jr.
Awwww....yes, it is heartwarming and all that some unlucky family gets adopted by ABC/Sears and has their home "renovated." That's where the humanistic appeal ends. I liked it early in its run, but now this show has become disgustingly excessive.<br /><br />Ten needy families could be given relatively luxurious homes with lots of goodies for every one family that each episode of this show splurges on. The people at Habitat For Humanity must be shaking their heads in disbelief. For example, is it necessary for a healthy sixteen year old boy to have a jacuzzi in his bedroom, or have his bed tricked-out with "Low Rider" hydraulics? Does the mom really need her dilapidated, non-running and rusted out old pick-up truck restored and "pimped" by some of the best customizers in California? A new one would have done the job quite nicely, and probably for a third of the price. Do people really need a sixty-five inch plasma screen in every room of the house? And then there's the issue of who pays the increased property taxes and utility bills. Even after the zaniacs at "Makeover" leave, somebody still has earn a living. I doubt the friendly folks down at Social Services will see the humor in all of this largess.<br /><br />This show is nothing more than a ratings grabber for ABC, and a tacit commercial for its sponsors.
I used to be an avid viewer until I personally spent long cold hours helping build a home for the White Family, only to be sickened to see the house a year later. All of the beautiful rock landscaping has been removed, the gorgeous rock sidewalk and front fountain have been removed, all the pine trees and pecan trees in the front have been cut down, sprinkler system has been ripped out. It now looks like a disaster area. They don't even live there any more... they live "in town" and come out only for the weekend. It sickens me to think of all the hours that the great people of Oklahoma donated to these people and to see the result. The story that we all saw on TV wasn't completely the truth... don't believe every thing you see and hear.
I occasionally see some of this show because my wife watches it sometimes. I try to enjoy it for it's basic idea which is helping a needy family, but several factors get in the way for me. Every episode follows the same format where many parts seem totally scripted (which they are) and tears flow seemingly on cue. The attempt to manipulate the viewer with a mixture of emotional breakdowns and sad music is a real turn off for me. The fact that everyone who donates something to the house, be it Sears or whoever, has to plug themselves for being generous is also annoying. Probably the biggest problem I have with it all is that what must be huge amounts of money and a small army of workers are combined to build an amazingly over the top home for a single family. Now I know that this amount of money is nothing but a drop in the bucket for Disney/ABC but how much more could be done for more people with the amount they are putting on one house? Instead of focusing on one family and getting them all to cry during the episode why not help 10 families and show highlights? Isn't life difficult enough for the average person? Why do I need help finding things to feel sad about, why not show something truly inspiring without being manipulative? I know what is being done for these families is good, but they are also being used for ratings. You can't tell me they aren't being coached sometimes on the crying. I guess when I see these people moving into a home that most hard working people in the U.S. could not afford for their children it really bothers me. I can't help but think of what could really be done with a small portion of Disney's money. Instead of giving each member of the family a flat screen TV and or personal shower that tells you the water temperature and shoots out of the ceiling why not help more people afford food, clothes, education and medical insurance? I know so we can be entertained and have a good cry. In terms of money, I feel the same about Oprah. I don't think anyone can actually conceive the amount of money she possesses. Yes her recent reality show did good things, but when she gave $30,000 to each losing "contestant" I'm sitting here thinking...that's a years salary for many, many people...if they're lucky. Don't get me started on game shows. So I realize that Extreme Makeover Home Edition is "doing good", but forgive me if I see it as more self serving than giving of itself. Is there anyone out there that feels similar?
"Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" is yet another 'feel-goody', so-called 'heart warming', and out-for-ratings show that ABC has had the time to put together.<br /><br />I understand the troubles that these families go through. For that, I am sorry. But wouldn't you think that putting four wide-screen plasma televisions, three flat-screen desktop computers, an inground pool taking up half of a backyard, and closets full of expensive designer clothing is a BIT too excessive for ANY family? Sure, these families have been through a lot. Sure, they deserve nicer things that what they had previously had.<br /><br />But honestly, the things that Ty Pennington and his crew put into these houses are enough to suit an entire neighborhood.<br /><br />Another thing that really irks me about this show is how Ty and his crew always have something good to say about every little thing that relates to the family, or the family's condition. Telling a wheelchair-bound person that he or she is 'so strong', or 'very brave' really does get old after a while. That may sound rude, but believe me; watch this show, and you'll see what I mean.<br /><br />All in all, this show is overrated. If you want to watch it, go ahead. This comment is just a heads-up for what you'd be watching.
I can't help but laugh at the people who praise this show as heartwarming and tear-jerking. For one, it's entirely unrealistic that these people will have perfect lives after their new homes.<br /><br />How can these families afford to maintain these new mega-houses? And what about their poor neighbors? Property taxes must surely increase after this happens. Plus, the noise would annoy me.<br /><br />Second, how excessive can a reality television show become? It's practically the same repetitive junk week after week. We're introduced to a suffering family, they renovate the home, then surprise the family and everyone breaks out the Kleenex boxes.<br /><br />Not to mention how boring the renovation part is. The only interesting part of the show is to see what the house looks like, but even that segment is destroyed by the phony confessionals and constant sobbing.<br /><br />"Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" is a show pretending to be heartfelt but it falls flat. Skip this one. If you like reality television, "Survivor" is far superior and moving.
There is a uk edition to this show which is rather less extravagant than the US version. The person concerned will get a new kitchen or perhaps bedroom and bathroom and is wonderfully grateful for what they have got. The US version of this show is everything that reality TV shouldn't be. Instead of making a few improvements to a house which the occupants could not afford or do themselves the entire house gets rebuilt. I do not know if this show is trying to show what a lousy welfare system exists in the US or if you beg hard enough you will receive. The rather vulgar product placement that takes place, particularly by Sears, is also uncalled for. Rsther than turning one family in a deprived area into potential millionaires, it would be far better to help the community as a whole where instead of spending the hundreds of thousands of dollars on one home, build something for the whole community ..... perhaps a place where diy and power tools can be borrowed and returned along with building materials so that everyone can benefit should they want to. Giving it all to one person can cause enormous resentment among the rest of the local community who still live in the same run down houses.
ALIEN LOVE ( As this movie is known in Britain ) is a very strange movie . I don`t mean that it`s an esoteric art house movie in the style of Peter Greenaway or Derek Jarman , I mean it`s a TVM with swearing , sex , some really good T&A , a bad script and a very retro feel . You can just imagine someone like John Hughes directing this ten years earlier , though of course he would have cut out the T&A <br /><br />Going back to the bad script , one of the problems is that few of the characters have any type of motivation especially Amanda . Why does she pick up Connie at the bar ? Just so she could meet an alien ? Do you see what I mean about retro ? ET , SHORT CIRCUIT and a whole lot of other movies from the mid 1980s had this type of plot with most of them being more defined and convincing than the one seen here . The storyline continues to follow an ill defined , unconvincing and illogical path <br /><br />That said I did find ALIEN LOVE watchable and not only down to the T&A on display . As a a sci-fi sex comedy it`s much better than FLESH GORDON and EARTH GIRLS ARE EASY
I guess there are some out there that remember Nicole Eggert from her little girl days on such TV shows as T.J. Hooker, Charles in Charge, and Who's the Boss? You perverts, you! Maybe you remember her from Baywatch when she grew up and got breast implants. No matter, you will certainly forget her in this supposed comedy about man-eating aliens.<br /><br />There are so many things that do not make sense and are never explained. How did she recognize the alien? Why was the alien hot for paprika and cinnamon? Why didn't the alien eat her? You get the picture.<br /><br />Before the alien eats her boyfriend and assumes his identity, you get to see her in the body of Alex Meneses. This Mexican/Ukranian beauty is the only reason to watch this trash. Stay for the shower scene and the boyfriend, and go on about your business.
Now what's wrong with the actors that took part in that crap? Michael Dorn should stick to the Star Treck merchandise. John Diehl, does anyone remember him in Miami Vice? Liked him there... Well, whatever - what can one expect from a movie with one of the lifeguards from baywatch in the lead? Nothing, and that's what we get. None of the characters is even likable, the special effects are hilarious (but not funny). The story is a (very bad) joke. There is no logic whatsoever for what's happening. I got the feeling that the film makers were trying some kind of "Attack of the killer tomatoes" kind of thing. Especially in the scene where all the important people were discussing national security in some kind of a closet...<br /><br />If you happen to see it on TV, switch channels - your TV set will be ever thankful.
I've long heard that to get their start in 'legitimate' films, many behind-the-camera types work on porno films.<br /><br />The people who produced and directed this monstrosity stayed too long.<br /><br />Poorly paced, staged and written, it uses a lot of perfectly good talent (Diehl, Dorn, Eggert) badly.<br /><br />Much sexual activity is teasingly implied here by the brassiere-popping host to the alien creature, but it never crosses the line...<br /><br />You'll still want to shower afterwards, though.
Nicole Eggert was listed as the star of this, despite Micheal Dorn & Stacey Keach being much bigger stars than her.<br /><br />Basically this is a bit of a spin on the "Alien lands on Earth" film. Eggert plays the girl who feels sorry for an Alien being chased by the military and takes in the runaway creature in her very sexy disguise. A bit of nudity and partial nudity, a pointless sex scene all feature along the way.<br /><br />The film stumbles through a few obvious set-pieces and running jokes about being shown photographs. I quite liked the Star Trek jokes when Micheal Dorn had been taken over and he got a really cool death scene.<br /><br />It was fairly obvious that Stacey Keach was going to be taken over and the film had quite a weak ending, it would have been nice to show exactly what kind of talent the Alien passed to Eggert.
The one thing that occurred to me after watching this drivel, was i would never get the time I used to watch this, back again. If you want to see Stacey keach and Michael dorn try and earn what must have been then, the down payments on a holiday home then stay tuned. Wooden acting, poor special effects, the only comedic highlight was whilst our alien hero was in female form and this is over as soon as she has done her obligatory b-movie nude sex scene within 30 mins into the movie. The opportunity to have made what could have been a decent movie disappears the moment Nicole Eggbert clocks the alien in a bar within 30 seconds, whilst the Police, Military and Joe public don't cotton on that the woman drinking coffee, dosn't use the cup handle and wears four jumpers at once. She must obviously be from another planet. Just where I wish I was when this movie was on.
This anime series starts out great: Interesting story, exciting events, interesting characters, beautifully rendered and executed. Not everything is explained right away, dangling a proverbial carrot before the viewer, enticing the viewer to watch each succeeding episode. But imagine the disappointment to find that the sci-fi thriller/giant robot adventure is only a backdrop for psycho-babble and quasi-religious preachy exploitation. If you want to hear "You're OK. It's good to be you." after being embattled with negative slogans and the characters' negative emotions, then this is for you. If you want a good sci-fi flick that is simply fun to watch, forget this one. Both the original, and the alternate endings were grossly disappointing to me. All that, AND this movie was too preachy.
This incredibly overrated anime television series (26 episodes, 25 minutes each) is about a 14-year-old boy (and two of his girl classmates) who pilots a giant robot to defend Japan against invading beings called Angels. There is very little explanation given to the Angels or why their numbers have increased in recent times, and they just seem to pop out of nowhere for no apparent reason (why not attack all at once instead of at spaced out intervals that are convenient for the humans you're attempting to destroy?). The robot fight scenes attempt to employ a variety of obstacles, but the action itself is poorly executed and boring to watch. Almost every episode seems like a waste of space where nothing of interest occurs.<br /><br />Some might be intrigued by fans who mention the (very few) symbolic references herein, but that's all they are - shallow one-liners to religious or philosophical concepts that are randomly tossed in with zero craftsmanship. As a whole the series is incredibly tedious due to the superficiality of the characters, who are really nothing more than self-pitying crybabies. The psychology is pathetic, with hopelessly simplistic conflicts like "I hate my father" repeated over and over and over and over again with no progression beyond their face value. It's no understatement to say that these characters plunge this series from time-wasting mediocrity to anger-inducing garbage during the final episodes with their endless, angst-ridden diatribes of excessively repetitive psychobabble (some of which is totally meaningless).<br /><br />I'm not kidding when I say that this series just got worse and worse as it progressed. Every day I'd look at the DVD set sitting on my living room table and say to myself, "Damn, I've gotta watch the next episode at some point. (sigh) I may as well slug through another one tonight." The real kicker was that the episodes were only 25 minutes long, yet they were somehow able to digress into a completely uninteresting borefest within the opening 10 minutes. This is coming from a guy who will happily sit through 150-minute films with glacial pacing, so my criticism of this series is most damning indeed.<br /><br />Never in my entire life have I despised watching a series as much as "Evangelion." I had already purchased it based off of all the fanatical comments on IMDb, and I certainly wasn't going to let it collect dust after spending my hard-earned money. What followed was 10 hours of pure, unmitigated torture. My love/hate relationship with anime is turning into a hate/love relationship after this highly acclaimed disaster.<br /><br />"Evangelion" represents everything anime should NOT be - massive quantities of dull, pretentious tripe under the guise of intelligent cinema. The universal acclaim for this piece of crap is simply unbelievable; and the ridiculous assertions by fans that this series as "one of mankind's greatest achievements" is probably the most stupifying comment I've ever heard on IMDb - and I've seen some doozies.
This has to be one of the top overrated anime shows ever made. And yes, I was even shown the "End of Evangelion" and that still made me hate it even more. Not to mention the countless rip-offs of this show!<br /><br />I don't mind psychological and philosophy untertones, but Evangelion drags it out into the mud like nothing else! Not many of the characters seemed to be very interesting. The only ones that seemed to be interesting were Asuka, Misato and Pen-Pen. Other than that, mostly everyone else were a bunch of whiny crybaby losers. They need to go to a psyciatric center, not piloting giant robots against aliens called "Angels".<br /><br />Even the mecha and alien fights did not help at all. Goes something like this:<br /><br />"Well, there are these robots, and they are really cool because they bleed(!) when they get hurt, but they are not really mecha, but captured angels, so sometimes they go insane and don't do what the underaged pilots want, and they have to be controlled better...blah blah blah!"<br /><br />I am so sorry, but I just cannot recommend Evangelion to anyone, anime otakus or not. To those who love this series greatly, fine you're entitled to that opinion, I respect you. But to thoses that have a "out of your mind" obsession to think that every one will like this series, you are more of an egotist.<br /><br />I prefer "Macross", "Mospeada", "Run-Dim" and "Robot Taekwon V" myself.
Contrary to most other commentators, I deeply hate this series.<br /><br />It starts out looking interesting, with mysterious aliens and giant robots, and I kept my hopes up until the very last episode. At the end of it, I still didn't understand what the alien attacks were all about (maybe I missed something, who knows?), and realized that I had sat through 26 episodes consisting mainly of the characters' own self-hating, selfishness and self-pitying. It actually flips between alien/robot fights and these dark, depressing blinking-on-and-off scenes where one or more characters can just say or shout "I hate me/you/it" 10-12 times in a row.<br /><br />I can't really see either Shinji or Asuka (two of the main characters) showing growth or change. (Nor can I see any of the other characters learning or growing either, for that matter.) I wanted to kick them and tell them to get a bloody life during the first episodes, and the feeling didn't change during the last ones. Shinji truly possesses the kind of helpless hopelessness that makes people angry rather than charitable, and Asuka is such an infuriating know-it-all that I wanted to smash the TV screen every time she came into view. Oh, and more than anyone else, these two hate everything, and say it veeeeeeeery often.<br /><br />I'm otherwise a big fan of animé and manga, and never before have I disliked one so much. I read that the series creator/writer wrote this while suffering from a depression, and I can believe that; it made me depressed to watch it. Is that the aim of this series? I'm honestly asking. Is it designed to make the viewer confused and annoyed? And if suffering from a depression, why just not write a book or biography about it, instead of mixing it up with aliens and mecha's? This alien war plot, as far as I could tell, lead to absolutely nowhere.<br /><br />Finally, since I'm truly fascinated by how many people claim to love this patchwork of dead-end plots, I can't help but wonder how many of them actually find it good, and how many say they do because they've been told it is.
Kurt Russell (as Steven Post) works as a mail-boy for struggling TV station UBC (that's United Broadcasting Corporation); he is going nowhere at work, offering ridiculous projects like "Abraham Lincoln's Doctor's Dog" to studio executives - because Lincoln, doctors, and dogs are popular. Programming director Joe Flynn (as Francis X. Wilbanks) wisely rejects Mr. Russell's proposals, but has no idea how to pick a hit TV show. His secretary Heather North (as Jennifer Scott), who does double duty as Russell's girlfriend, has a chimpanzee who bugs the heck out of Russell when he wants to watch TV. Turns out, the monkey watches all the popular shows, and can easily pick the hits. Russell discovers the chimp's talent, and uses him to advance his own career. Understandably, things gets HAIRY for Russell and the cast!<br /><br />Raffles the chimp (handled by Frank Lamping) performs well; Raffles does look bored and/or distracted during a few scenes, when the chimp is supposed to look interested; these could have been corrected with re-takes or editing. A mild satirical edge is present - imagine a monkey picking hit TV shows! AND, it's a monkey who gets a BEER during the commercials (drinking in a Disney film)! A look through the cast will reveal s bunch of fun TV actors to recognize and try to place. You could make a drinking game, in honor of Raffles' beer-guzzling, by guessing actors, and where you've seen them before. Here's a start - Hey, isn't that "Dr. Bellows" from "I Dream of Jeannie"? Down the hatch! <br /><br />**** The Barefoot Executive (1971) Robert Butler ~ Kurt Russell, Joe Flynn, John Ritter
I sat through this movie this evening, forcing myself to stick with it even though I never cared about any of the characters or what happened to them, because the two leads, Gérard Philippe and Michèle Morgan, were major film stars of their era and I wanted to see them in "something different," which this certainly was. They both gave fine performances, but of distasteful characters.<br /><br />Indeed, the whole movie is about a shabby little town in Mexico inhabited by almost uniformly distasteful characters (the doctor is, of course, the major exception). What Michèle Morgan ever sees in Philippe to fall in love with him is never explained.<br /><br />This is supposedly based on a work by Jean-Paul Sartre. All I could think was that, if Sartre's work is anything like this movie, it must be a very mediocre attempt at imitating Camus' masterful novel The Plague, which dealt with a plague in North Africa.<br /><br />A well-acted but uninteresting movie.
This movie sucked. The acting sucked, the script sucked, and the movie overall sucked. There were two threads in the movie that were not developed and the viewer had to do a bit of work to figure out what was happening.<br /><br />I'm not saying that it needs to be spelled out, but you suddenly find things happening and being said as if you have the slightest clue as to what they are. Examples:<br /><br />The heroine's negative comments about the hero. The audience is never shown how she even knows anything about the guy and how he is tied into her fiance's death. The viewer has minimal exposure to the guy's death as well.<br /><br />Also, all of a sudden there is a scene with a bunch of guys loading up and cocking machine guns and that is all you see before cutting back to the other scenes. No explanation what-so-ever about the guns and the folks with them.<br /><br />We gave it a 3 because we didn't feel like we wanted our time back. It was fun to bad-mouth the movie while watching it, so it at least gave us a bit of entertainment. ;-)
I've just visited Russian forum of our TV-channel that had showed this film. Well... 99 per cent of active Russian audience is disappointed. We wanted to see more true facts of our space achievements in this film. But authors had in mind something else... :( We are big and beautiful country with intelligent people living here. We are proud of all our space dreams, real achievements on the one hand in this field and in science on the other hand. So I'd like to ask authors: Where is our LUNOHOD? And where, the Hell our MIR station? Ah? I'm quite sure, that LUNOHOD events took place much earlier Armstrong's "walk on Moon". And to comment numerous technical and science mistakes - I really have no time and enough space here! Se our constructive critics in Russian forum on www.1tv.ru
Shocking!<br /><br />In 1965 I saw Jury Gagarin alive. He was sincere, unpretentious and kindly, he was at ease and looked like well-educated and intellectual person. In this movie I saw a clown! The actor looks like dummy with affected gestures and mimicry. They made a cartoon! The real Gagarin was someone else! Don't believe in this movie!<br /><br />I saw this movie after the movies like "Taming of Fire" and "Apollo 13" and after reading books "Rockets and People" by Chertok and "Korolev: Myths and Facts" by Golovanov. I was shocked by tiresome scenario, poor acting and producing, and a lots of inexactitudes of "Space Race".<br /><br />The movie is the tedious rendering of well-known in Russia historical facts. A lots of interesting known facts of the space projects was not demonstrated. Some facts and details were perverted. For example, in 1945 Korolev was already not a prisoner (liberated in 1944), and in 1940 he was already not in Kolyma prison gold mine, but in special prison design bureau. Korolev was the designer in prison design bureau and he was not buried the dead prisoners. But in the movie Korolev worked as grave digger after 1940 (because jailer have shoulder straps on uniform). IMHO, the authors of movie have no profound knowledge about this part of the history and they can't to make interesting movies.
My comment is for the Russian version of Space Race named Bitva za Kosmos (Battle for Space) shown on Russia's First Channel on April 10-13, 2006. Bad translation could have ruined some details but I doubt it's the case. The number of factual errors is such that it's impossible to list them, especially in the first episode (the development of first missiles). Even the U.S. half of the film contains multiple errors and omissions. The audience is not told of any V-2/A-4 launches from the U.S. Three different Jupiter C rockets are launched with the same serial number 'UE' onboard. Apollo 1 is to be launched to the Moon, etc. In the Russian half, each and every person is ludicrous. Korolev is scared of NKVD, Glushko is saboteur and traitor, Mishin is alcoholic etc. Men as functions; no motivation, no life at all. Uniform and decorations are awful. Gagarin sings a frivolous song awaiting launch (I think this was added specially for Russian version).
<br /><br />Whether any indictment was intended must be taken into consideration. If in the year 2000 there were still rifts of feeling between Caucasian and Afro-Americans in Georgia, such as shown in this film, obviously there remains a somewhat backward mentality among a lot of people out there. It is rather hypocritical, to say the least, if everyone adores Halle Berry, Whoopie Goldberg, Beyoncé, Noemi Campbell, Denzel Washington, Will Smith, et. al., whilst out in the backs there persist manifest racial divides.<br /><br />White grandmother suddenly gets black grand-daughter thrust upon her, only to meet up with black grandfather in a very white social backwater. The story is sweet, not lacking tragic overtones, and eminently predictable as in most of these kinds of TV films, though the final scene has you guessing............ will he? won't he.......?<br /><br />Gena Rowlands in her typical style offers a sincere rendering, and Louis Gossett is a good match for her; the little Penny Bae fortunately does not steal the show.<br /><br />A `nice' way of relaxing after Sunday lunch without having to force your mind too much, though you might just find yourself having a little siesta in the middle of it.
It's so sad that Romanian audiences are still populated with vulgar and uneducated individuals who relish this kind of cheap and demonstrative shows, as superficial and brutal as the "Garcea" series or the "Vacanta mare" child-plays... The difference is that Mugur Mihäescu, Doru Octavian Dumitru and other such sub-artisans never presume to claim their shows as "art". Pintilie, who 40 years ago made a very good movie ("Duminicä la ora sase") followed by another one, nice enough ("Reconstituirea"), tries to declare his film-lenghts "art works" - but, unfortunately, he masters at a way too limited level the specifically cinematographic means of expression. As such, "Niki Ardelean" offers again a sample of "HOW NOT" - this being about its only merit.
This guy has no idea of cinema. Okay, it seems he made a few interestig theater shows in his youth, and about two acceptable movies that had success more of political reasons cause they tricked the communist censorship. This all is very good, but look carefully: HE DOES NOT KNOW HIS JOB! The scenes are unbalanced, without proper start and and, with a disordered content and full of emptiness. He has nothing to say about the subject, so he over-licitates with violence, nakedness and gutter language. How is it possible to keep alive such a rotten corpse who never understood anything of cinematographic profession and art? Why don't they let him succumb in piece?
Yes, he is! ...No, not because of Pintilie likes to undress his actors and show publicly their privies. Pintilie IS THE naked "emperor" - so to speak...<br /><br />It's big time for someone to state the truth. This impostor is a voyeur, a brat locked in an old man's body. His abundance of nude scenes have no artistic legitimacy whatsoever. It is 100% visual perversion: he gets his kicks by making the actors strip in the buff and look at their willies. And if he does this in front of the audience, he might eve get a hard-on! Did you know that, on the set of "Niki Ardelean", he used to embarrass poor Coca Bloss, by telling her: "Oh, Coca, how I wanna f*** you!"? She is a great lady, very decent and sensitive, and she became unspeakably ashamed - to his petty satisfaction! And, as a worrying alarm signal about the degree of vulgarity and lack of education in Romanian audiences, so many people are still so foolish to declare these visual obscenities "works of art"! Will anyone have ever the decency to expose the truth of it all?
Terminus Paradis was exceptional, but "Niki ardelean" comes too late. We already have enough of this and we want something new.<br /><br />Big directors should have no problems seeing beyond their time, not behind. Why people see Romania only as a postrevolutionary country?<br /><br />We are just born not reincarnated, and nobody gives a s**t anymore about old times. Most people dont remember or dont want to remember, and the new generation of movie consumers dont understand a bit. This should be the first day of romanian movie not the final song - priveghi! Maybe younger directors should make the move.
this movie begins with an ordinary funeral... and it insists so hard on this ordinary funeral feel that i lost interest within 5 minutes of watching, and started skipping scenes. it seems to me whomever made this movie is afflicted to the extent of becoming trapped in a permanent morbid trance, unable to contemplate anything else but death and destruction. well, i ain't one of the dark kids from Southpark, i want a movie that within 10 minutes gets me well into an interesting story, i won't sit and watch 10 minutes of nothing but preparations for a funeral.. my grandma on her last years was fascinated by funerals, perhaps she might have enjoyed this "movie".
I saw this movie twice. I can't believe Pintilie made such a fantasy movie. I'm also a movie/theatre director and I know what I speak. This is not Romania anymore, but I see the events are happening in the same period with the incident from 11 September. No story, no plot, nothing. No conclusion, no message, nothing profound, nothing hidden. Just empty images.<br /><br />What most of Romanians don't know, this movie is for the french viewers, not for us. They really believe that is the reality in Romania. Also for teenagers. Pintilie should stop making movies. I don't really know if we can call this a movie, maybe a horror :) And we wonder why we've got such an image in Europe. This WAS a reality, but isn't anymore. A good friend of mine from the Brithish embassy said: "You have no idea what a long way Romanian people walked from Ceausescu".
I find it rather useless to comment on this "movie" for the simplest reason that it has nothing to comment upon.It's similar to a rotten egg which has nothing good to show to the world excerpt for the fact that it is rotten as other endless number of eggs have been before it. But since a comment is mandatory for such a grandiose insignificance ... <br /><br />Filth is definitely the proper word to describe this movie created in the same manner as any other Romanian "movie" directed by Lucian Pintilie who insists to depict the so called "Romanian reality" following the Communist era (1990 to present days).<br /><br />Under no circumstances recommended for people outside Romania as for the others (who lately find amateurish camera, lack of plot, lack of directorial / actors's quality etc, noise etc. as being trendy and even art-like) : watch & enjoy this "movie" (as I know you will) but do the other well intentioned IMDb members a favor, don't write an online review for it will misguide, irritate and in the end waste their time.<br /><br />On the other hand this movie (among others) has some value whatsoever, an educational one for it sets the example for : "How NOT to make a movie."
It's very sad that Lucian Pintilie does not stop making movies. They get worse every time. Niki and Flo (2003) is a depressing stab at the camera. It's unfortunate that from the many movies that are made yearly in Romania , the worst of them get to be sent abroad ( e.g. Chicago International Film Festival). This movie without a plot , acting or script is a waste of time and money. Score: 0.02 out of 10.
Was there a single positive to this film? Critics who knew nothing of video games could spot the gaming errors made. No damage taken with damage clearly visible towards the beginning being a primary example.<br /><br />And I may have missed something, but wasn't Super Mario Bros. 3 suppose to be a game that had never played before? Well if that IS the case, and I did not miss anything... how did Fred Savage's character, and even the girl, know so much about the game already? We're talking things that some people don't know about by their second or third play-through.<br /><br />Beyond the factual and gaming errors there is the general low quality of the film itself. Nothing here is honestly very memorable. The kid wasn't even that good at playing video games in the footage they showed. A lot of kids I knew way back in those days were significantly more experienced. On top of all this the acting and storyline are just mediocre at their strongest points. The characters are bland and completely uninteresting, the 'Wizard' (the youngest child) is a very silent, completely dry child cliché of a little kid who almost never talks because of a trauma. It isn't that this is unrealistic, it's the fact that it had to be thrown into the movie to actually even begin to form a plot that would exceed even 30 minutes.<br /><br />Honestly, the only value that is to be found here is that of a nostalgic nature. If you grew up with this movie you're going to like it whether it was good or not. It was about kids playing video games, and at the time you saw it you likely had an obsession with the NES as well. But unless you loved it as a kid there just isn't anything that's going to keep you interested, and very little that will prevent you from turning it off.<br /><br />No sir, I didn't like it.
This is a review of The Wizard, not to be confused with The Wiz, or Mr. Wizard. The Wizard is a late-eighties film about a seriously silent boy's ability to play video games and walk during the entire opening credits. The Wiz is an unnecessary update of The Wizard of Oz, and Mr. Wizard is that guy that attached 100 straws together and had some kid drink tang out of it.<br /><br />Now that we've gotten all that out of the way, let me say this: there's really no reason to see this movie. It's simply a 100 minute Nintendo commercial designed to capitalize on the Powerglove, the Legend of Zelda and Super Mario Brothers 3. I use the word "designed" in the loosest sense possible, because it seems like this movie was written over a weekend by a crack team of people who had never played Nintendo, and directed by a man with less sense of style than my grandmother. Maybe if the writer and director sat down and actually played some games together, they'd realize that they were about to film total rubbish and instead go to vocational school to learn how to install car stereos.<br /><br />I hope that this has been an enlightening experience for you. It sure hasn't been for me. In fact, I think I might have lost a few braincells in the act of watching this movie and writing about it. Next time you're at the video store and you see the The Wiz, The Wizard and The Wizard of Oz all sitting there on the shelf in a pretty little row, give them all a miss and play Duck Hunt instead.
What a great actor to have in such an awful story...<br /><br />The film and its production, however, is quite good, even though set in London but with exteriors in Bristol. No matter – see one cathedral, you've seen 'em all, sort of.<br /><br />The story however...is about a man born with the power to wreak death and destruction upon anybody and anything, should he so wish. With just a passing reference to true life instances of telekinesis, the narrative builds a picture of a man misused and misjudged as a boy, a teenager and finally as a man; so much so, in fact, that he exacts vengeance at will, literally. Over time, he comes to the conclusion that the whole world is heading the wrong way and thus sets out to destroy the lot – just by thinking about it!<br /><br />The trouble with the narrative, however, is that it tries to mix genuine scientific data about strange mental powers and merge it all with quasi-religious claptrap to produce a hodge-podge theory about it all. Mixing fact and fantasy in this fashion rarely works – and I'm afraid Richard Burton had to overact awfully on some occasions when trying to sound convincing. His very best scene, however, is when he gave his wife and her lover a verbal pasting as they left his home: sharp, witty and deadly dialog, delivered as only Burton could.<br /><br />A good supporting cast helps to make things look and sound a lot better, though, beginning with Lino Ventura, whom I last saw in Garde A Vu (1981), as Inspector Brunel; Harry Andrews as Assistant Commissioner; the much under-rated Lee Remick as Dr Zonfeld; Derek Jacobi as a publisher, Towney, and a few other well known character actors.<br /><br />I liked the way the story was presented, as flashback within flashback to fill in the back story and thus solve the immediate mystery of the attempted murder of Morlar (Richard Burton), the writer with the killer disposition. Up till that point, it was a good piece of visual detective work by Brunel and his English sidekick. Still, it was very predictable as it became quickly very obvious to me about the identity of the would-be murderer.<br /><br />Then, they went and spoilt it all in the last fifteen minutes. If you want a clue about what that is, think Samson and Delilah (1949), from the illustrious Cecil B. de Mille, and how Samson got the bad guys in the end. And, the very last scene is just plain stupid. Why? Because there are at least a hundred ways that Morlar's rampaging could have been stopped, absolutely.<br /><br />Shame, actually, because this could have been a lot better story and movie. I guess Burton really needed the money.<br /><br />If you're Burton fan, then spend the time to see that scene I mentioned above. Otherwise, don't bother.
If 1977's "Exorcist II: The Heretic" did him no favors, it's hard to imagine what thespian extraordinaire Richard Burton saw in this drab exercise in non-thrills. You've seen it all before: Burton plays a writer who discovered at an early age he possesses the power to move inanimate objects through force of his mind (and you thought "Carrie" had no impact on Hollywood!). Though adapted from a novel by Peter Van Greenaway, "Medusa" plays like recycled goods, though the special effects in the cathedral finale are solid (if typical). Lee Remick is somewhat present as a doctor, but otherwise the supporting cast is extremely weak. Burton is hammy but weary...not even telekinesis could save him at this point. *1/2 from ****
It was pointed out in a now deleted post from another IMDb user that anyone who might see "The Medusa Touch" should be warned about a scene that's eerily reminiscent of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in NYC. But I hope anyone reading this will consider this warning. Despite an interesting pedigree (producer Elliott Kastner produced "Harper" and "The Long Goodbye"; co-producer Arnon Milchan co-produced the Oscar-nominated "L.A. Confidential" and screenwriter John Briley won an Oscar for "Gandhi") and an international cast, I found "The Medusa Touch" to be a heavy-handed, unintentional laugh riot. It was a poorly directed, horribly written and acted mess. It tried to capitalize on the 70s telekinetic thrillers genre. The movie fails on many counts. Please consider "Carrie" and the underrated "The Fury" (both directed by Brian DePalma). They were two entertaining and exciting thrillers that dealt with the same subject matter.
The Last Station, director Michael Hoffman's melodrama about the last months in the life of Leo Tolstoy, begins with fog and sleep. Tolstoy (Christopher Plummer) lives with his family in a compound at Yasnaya Polyana, taking walks and writing and being seen to by his wife and the adherents to his "movement", people dedicated to his ideas of pacifism, vegetarianism, sexual abstinence and communal property who have gathered in a forest camp not far away. His wife, Sophia (Helen Mirren) wars openly with the head of his movement Chertkov (Paul Giamatti), who she claims in his efforts to convince Tolstoy to sign the rights to his works over to the Russian people is trying to steal the wealth that is owed to her upon her husbands imminent death. Observing all of this is Tolstoy's new steward, Bulgakov (James McAvoy), a naive adherent who is torn between his love of the man and concern for his wife.<br /><br />Hoffman's script, which is based on the novel by Jay Parini, quite often veers itself into confused territory, building up a complex tangle of threads and opaque motivations that ultimately don't resolve themselves in any satisfying way. The scope of the film is grand, and its story should reverberate just as Tolstoy, whose beliefs foreshadowed in some ways both the Bolsheviks' and those of pacifists like Ghandi. It unfortunately doesn't, it's un-unpickable, building up with much gusto confrontations that are constantly ravelling off into nothingness. The three-way relationship between the Church, the faithful Sophia and the unbelieving Tolstoy, for example, is referenced often. In the last section of the film a mute priest in a magnificent hat even shows up, but the script never expands on this beyond awkwardly inserting it into the story as an attempt at enriching it or providing some semblance of historical accuracy. There are a ton of details in the film, but not enough attention is paid to most of them and as a result the film feels cluttered, overburdened, energetic but unfortunately pointless.<br /><br />At its heart is the love story between Sophia and Tolstoy, and that story, as baffling and cramped as it is, is the reason to watch the film. Mirren and Plummer are, unsurprisingly, the best things in the film. Plummer's Tolstoy is vague, at once confused and resolute, apprehensive and full of joy and certainty. Mirren's Sophia is in full panic, in a righteous lather, forced to watch and expected to be mute as her husband gives away his time, his possessions and his money to people who are unquestionably devoted to him but also clearly in possession of their own agendas. They're great performances, all the more so given the vast gulf between the real importance of the couple's place in history and the script's ability to support that, both Sophia and Tolstoy seem willed into the film by Mirren and Plummer alone, both making the best they can out of what meagre material is there. Giammati and McAvoy, both talented actors, are unable to do the same and Giamatti's Chertkov seems neither a revolutionary nor a thief (and not both at once, either) but rather a cipher, a stand-in for a whole package of unresolved anxieties and aborted historical impulses. The scope of this thing never boils down to anything, it hitches along, getting by on the strength of Plummer and Mirren and not much else. It's interesting and pretty, but ultimately unrewarding. 4.5/10
The animation was good, the imagery was good, although not totally original, however, the story was too long, way too confusing, and over the top dramatic. After about an hour I couldn't wait to get it over with. With so many characters that have nothing to contribute and plot elements that either come from nowhere or go nowhere this movie really wasn't one movie at all and would have been better of as a short series or possibly two movies. If you like this kind of typical story maybe you will like it, but frankly, I've been spoiled by much more creative stories that actually have some sort message to tell. Go rent a Miyazaki film and watch it twice, you'll get way more out of it.
I saw this movie two weeks ago at the "festival des nouvelles images du Japon" in Paris. Though i wasn't expecting much from it, i have to say i've been disappointed just like many people in the audience... if i wanted to sum up how i felt, i'd say i've been comparing it to princess mononoke and nausicaa from the beginning to the end. Of course it's silly. But i couldn't help it. The stories are quite different, but the worlds pictured are very much alike. And from this point of view, "a tree of palme" definitely can't stand the comparison with Miyazaki's masterworks. Even if it's quite good technically, boredom remains... in the end its complete lack of originality makes me advise you not to care to watch it. I rated it 2 out of 10 (a bit harsh, i guess it deserves 3 or 4)
The teasers for Tree of Palme try to pass it off as a sort of allegory for a fairy tale with actual meaning, then immediately start raving about the animation. I should have known what that meant.<br /><br />The main character, Palme, is a good example of the whole movie's problem. One minute, Palme is a humble hero in search of himself, the next a violent psycho with an unhealthy fixation on a girl he once took care of.<br /><br />Like all of the characters in the movie, Palme is poorly defined. You do not bond with the characters at all, although Shatta has acquired a couple of fan girls. It seems that the writer was more interested in cramming all the drama and complexity he could into this movie than actually exploring his characters' motivations and personalities.<br /><br />New, useless story lines were being introduced in the last fifteen minutes of the movie. The writer seriously needed to streamline his story. Perhaps he was trying to be epic, but it was simply too much information for a two-hour movie. However I can't help but wonder if a plot with so many dimensions and characters would have been better suited for a TV series or graphic novel.<br /><br />In the last five minutes of the movie, I simply could not endure the sheer lack of quality any longer and began laughing at how contrived the characters, the relationships, and the whole plot was. I touched my companion and he started cracking up too, as did a young man seated behind us. We tried so hard to control ourselves, but we simply could not take the terrible quality of this movie.<br /><br />On the bright side, the animation is incredible and viewers will find themselves admiring the lush backgrounds and charming character designs. The animation almost guides you; when you don't care about the characters, it tells you how to feel.
And a self-admitted one to boot. At one point the doctor's assistant refers to himself as Igor.<br /><br />Working with the increasingly plausible idea that computers could be used to replace or reconstruct brain functions, this movie doesn't spend enough time exploring the premise. Most of the screen time is split between girlfriend-in-a-coma domestic strife and chasing down the brain donor's killer. It attempts to be a sci-fi/drama/thriller but fails to deliver on any of the three.<br /><br />As a Frankenstein remake this one is missing everything that made the original good. Nobody calls the doctor insane or even threatens to kick him out of the hospital. The transformation scene consists of a coma victim opening one eye and the amazing computer that makes it happen isn't even shown. When the experiment works there is no praise, and when it starts going wrong there is little reaction.<br /><br />Any suspense over who the killer might be is shattered by progressively showing him in the same room with all of the possible suspects. Finding the killer is as easy as opening one file and interviewing one person.<br /><br />San Francisco as a setting is both overplayed and underused. The opening sequence hammers home the point that this is happening in SF, a cable car plays a significant role, the leads live in a hilltop Victorian, Pier 39 makes an appearance, and the final showdown happens at Golden Gate Park. More specifically along ten feet of cliff side at the park - just enough to keep the bridge in the picture at all times. Once the obvious scenery bases are rounded no other attempt is made to explore the city.<br /><br />The acting is the only saving grace here. Keir Dullea shows a good range and pulls off a couple of genuinely emotional scenes. Suzanna Love portrays recovery from a coma well. Tony Curtis only gets a handful of lines and twice as many evil guy stares with most of the Frankenscience explained away by his assistant. The little blond kid hits his cues fairly well also.<br /><br />I also gave it one extra star for the scene where the husband drives south from the bridge, it cuts to a U-turn in an unrelated parking lot, and then he's instantly back on the bridge driving north. It takes a whole lot of something - bravery, ignorance, deadlines - to try and slip that one by the viewer during the one single car chase.
I can't even believe that this show lasted as long as it did. I guess it's all part of the dumbing down of America. Personally, like David Spade said, I liked this show better when it went by its original title - "Seinfeld". What bothers me the most about this show, aside from the obvious, base sense of "humor", and general smuttiness, is the pretentious way the episodes are titled. Truly great shows are still funny after many, repeated viewings, like, "the one where Rob gets accidentally hypnotized", on the "Dick Van Dyke Show", or "the one where Lucy and Ethel work at the candy factory." In other words, it's an honor bestowed upon great programs by the viewers. That the writers and producers of "Friends" would have the unmitigated hubris to actually title the episodes, themselves, in such a fashion, before anyone's even had a chance to even see it a second time, speaks to not only the mediocrity and lack of original thinking on the part of said writers, but, also, of the stultified minds of their viewers.<br /><br />You read the comments of some of these people and can only come to the conclusion that they live in a Hallmark Card-like Neverland, full of greeting card sentiment. The true meaning of friendship? I want to be a friend? I want to live in Manhattan? Wake Up. These people are supposed to be working in coffee shops and looking for work as actors, but they somehow manage to live in $4000/mo. apartments? Get real. All I have to say to those amongst us that want to move to Manhattan and live the idyllic New York life with your Rosses and Monicas, good luck with all of that. That New York doesn't exist for anyone making less than a serious six-figure income. But, good luck with all of that, anyway. Now, shut-up and pass the Soma.
TV does influence society...just look at the surge in popularity of cappucino shops after this shallow little piece of work debuted. Besides, real people who look as good as these people do don't have any problems.<br /><br />Besides, does anyone really believe that these people can afford to live in a nice Manhattan loft considering what they do for a living? NBC just loves to insult the viewer's intelligence, even if they're just around Gump's level. I know a person who makes $100,000 a year as a web designer and lives in a tiny one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan that costs $2200 a month in rent. <br /><br />I'd like to see a show called Phriends, where it's six ugly nobodies in dead-end jobs, living in a crummy neighborhood where sirens constantly wail and someone gets mugged every week...and then the landlord jacks up the rent. Now THAT I would watch.
I have a severe problem with this show, several actually. A simple list will suffice for now, I'll go into more depth later on: superficial characters, a laugh-track and boring humour.<br /><br />If you don't wish to look at the rest of this review and are only reading it so you can feel superior (as if you see anything in this show I didn't) to a frequently irked teen from Canada I'll summarize: Friends sucks, not only because it is unfunny but because it destroyed the TV audiences for new, good shows (Arrested Development, Dexter etc.). Friends is as much to blame for reality TV, "Two And A Half Men" and "The King Of Queens" as the television executives. Now then, on with the review.<br /><br />These characters have no soul, they are exactly the same in every way (outside of gender and hair colour). They react the same way in boring situations and are completely secure in their own bodies. Where is the conflict and the humour that comes with it? Why isn't Rachel storming out on Monica after Monica starts hanging out with Rachel's enemy? Why doesn't Joey contemplate suicide because nobody seems to take him seriously? Oh right, cause he's the dumb one and he's comfortable with that. This is the curse of having perfect characters: lasting conflict and (god forbid) personality becomes an impossibility.<br /><br />The laugh-track is the one thing that should have died out right after it was born. Any show that has one is almost certainly the opposite of funny. How can I make such a broad generalization? When a show that claims to be "comedy" requires laughter from someone BESIDES THE AUDIENCE it must mean that the audience would not laugh without it. Laughtracks destroy humour by preventing quick comebacks. Humour becomes a construct rather than a free flowing entity (see The Office, Arrested Development).<br /><br />This leads to my next point: the humour is boring. There is no way to make a perfect character anything more than slightly humorous (without a laugh-track apparently) simply because our everyday humour comes from recognition of our flaws. So what if Monica dated a 17 year old? She immediately recognizes that what she is doing isn't right and breaks up with him. There has to be some sort of conflict rather than an immediate solution. Maybe her mother finds out or one of her friends tries to get rid of him and ends up seducing him. That would be great, it would be like a custody battle! So now I've provided evidence for my position. Many of my friends love this show because they haven't heard of Curb Your Enthusiasm or Arrested Development, many of my friends hate this show because they recently started watching Curb Your Enthusiasm or Arrested Development. <br /><br />I have watched very little of "Friends" in my life, but I have watched enough to spot huge flaws that make the show, in my opinion, completely unwatchable. If you've read this far, thank you, and I hope you at least start watching some of the shows I have mentioned.
I am stunned to discover the amount of fans this show has. Haven't said that Friends was, at best an 'average' sitcom, and not as great as others have made out. Let's face it, if it wasn't for the casting of Courtney Cox Arquette, David Schwimmer, Matthew Perry, Lisa Kudrow, Jennifer Aniston and Matt Le Blanc, then who knows whether this show would've lasted as long as it has done. I very much doubt that. Although as the series progressed, Friends got more progressively predictable, lame and boring that I couldn't care less about the characters- of whom are the most overrated in TV history- or of their plight, nor of who was sleeping with whom. And it went from being funny in the first four seasons to occasionally funny. And even when it had all these A-list Hollywood actors from the movie world, I still didn't bother to tune in. The writing in Friends became stale that I lost interest in this show from the sixth season onwards and as for the ending, well it was predictable to say the least.<br /><br />What was annoying though was that this lasted for ten seasons, whilst some of my favourite shows lasted for only three, four seasons for instance and were eventually cancelled and taken off the air for good. The show should've came to an immediate halt by the time the cast wanted bigger salaries. In truth, as much as the series waned, it was the show that was bigger than the actors themselves, not the other way round. <br /><br />When it ended in 2004, I was so relieved to see the back of this sitcom. Now, there is talk of a friends reunion show coming to our TV screens very soon. And yet, I for one will not be looking forward to it whatsoever.
It is quite simple. Friends is a comedy of very basic humour aimed at teenagers and young adults, with unsophisticated sense of humour.<br /><br />It is also painfully obvious that towards the end, they were desperately trying to make it last 10 seasons, most likely so they could say they beat Seinfeld's 9 season run. The trouble with this is, Seinfeld had 9 amazing seasons with great writing, Friends had (and I'm being very generous here) at most 5 or 6 OK seasons and then 4 abysmal seasons.<br /><br />It became a soap opera with recycled humour and recycled character traits that weren't that good so start with, then got worse at the 100th time you saw them. I find it so hard to understand why people rate this so highly. It is truly awful.
This is the worst show. Buntch of grown up acting like kids no humor nothing. Even Sesame Street has better humor and more adult than friends "Friends" may be the worst thing I've ever seen on television and I've been sitting in front of the tube observing Friends" simply does not stack up well to other, contemporary series. It lacks the smartness of "Seinfeld" and the wonderful self-ridicule of pomposity that is the hallmark of "Frasier". The characters in "Friends" seem designed to make them repellant dullards. This incestuous group of neighbors makes my flesh crawl.<br /><br />The unintelligent show is completely without an edge of any sort. The characters are caricatures of caricatures and the writing is sophomoric -- though intentionally so. (It might be interesting to observe a writing session since the writers may have to slave to aim lower than their capabilities so as not to confuse the loyal friends of "Friends".)
This movie is just plain bad. Weak story , weak directing and below average acting. The thing that really irritated me was the blatant advertising - constantly - for a well known internet provider. It is obvious some scenes are written to do just that , advertising. This movie is a slap in the face to anyone who payed money for this.<br /><br />Do not watch this, it not worth your time.
I don't believe they made this film. Completely unnecessary. The first film was okay. But there was no need for a sequel, certainly not after a television series that was already a sequel to the first film. This film feels like a soap-opera. The writing is so bad, it's utterly simple. The jokes don't come across, the acting is flat, it's shot like a soap, it lacks any direction. The first film had a good emotional spine behind it. Every character had a little arc. It was very simple then but somehow it worked and I could see the merit of that film. But this time around, there is no cohesive story-line. The characters are dull stereotypes and nothing interesting happens. One good thing: the Brazilian boy who plays Axel Daeseleire's son is pretty well cast. That was their one moment of creative success on this film. I hear they already shot a second television series as a sequel to 'Team Spirit 2' but please God, don't let them make a third feature installment...
Awful movie. It's a shame that a few of Flanders's top actors and actresses made such a lamentably poor film.<br /><br />There is barely something changed since the first movie and the TV series: same actors, same prototype characters, same scenario (emotional complications, the team under emotional pressure but everything turn out tip-top after a predictable grand finale). Another constant fact in the work of Jan Verheyen is the exaggerated product placement (company logo's on the team's shirt and along side the pitch OK but two times a commercial (by one of the characters) about an internet provider is just over the top.<br /><br />Meanwhile, rumour has it about the making of a second series for Flanders commercial TV station 'VTM' (coincidental or not, the station where Jan Verheyen is programmation manager since a few months)<br /><br />To conclude ... and the golden raspberry award for worst foreign movie goes to ... Team Spirit 2
This movie is bizarre. Better put, it's "freakin' weird". I could give you a plot summary, or some hoity toity analysis, but I would consider it a waste of your time. All anybody needs to know about this movie is two young sisters, one incestuous relationship, homicide, post mortem mutilation, and one really disturbing infatuation. At the end of the movie you feel like you need to go take a shower to wash the filth off yourself, but not in a good way like after "Pulp Fiction" or "Fight Club". It's like you're a teenager (or high schooler being that i am myself still a teenager)and have just done something you A: wish you hadn't done, and B: hope to the Good Lord of Heaven and Earth that your parents never find out about. And nobody likes that. My advise is that rather than defiling your mind and by watching piece of wanton cinematic filth, just go waste your time on something a little less horrible and watch "Kazaam"(yes, I would rather watch "Kazaam" than "Murderous Maids", read into it what you want).
Anurag Basu who co-directed the flop KUCCH TO HAI made his debut in this film <br /><br />The film was ahead of it's times in a way though it has a story not to different and it came closest to HAWAS which released 1 week before and luckily this was better and did a better business<br /><br />The movie starts off well, Malika's guilt is well shown at the start though the scene with Emraan- Malika is too crude/vulgar<br /><br />The scenes between Emraan and Malika are well handled and the twist in the tale where Ashmith confronts Emraan is brilliant<br /><br />The pace moves fast and the viewer is kept on the edge but the second girlfriend track of Emraan isn't fully convincing<br /><br />Also the cop track seems half baked<br /><br />The finale is too filmy too<br /><br />Direction by Anurag Basu is good Music is a winner, all songs were fab Camera-work was stunning<br /><br />Emraan played his naughty streak very well, this was the role that gave him stardom and though he kept playing such roles and got annoying in this film he was superb Ashmith too was good in his role for once, He did a nice job and one of his only good performance and he looked good too Malika was brilliant in her role esp in the second half but her dial delivery was at times not up to the mark Sadly rarely she showed such potential in other films Raj Jhutsi is okay
This movie is a perfect adaptation of the English Flick Unfaithful. Ashmit plays the role of Richard Gere, Emran that of Olivier and Malikka the perfect cheating wife role of Lane.They have changed the second half of the film to adapt for the Indian masses. <br /><br />Even then the movie has got the full traces of Unfaithful, though it couldn't catch up with the original. It was a cheap soft porn of the Bollywood lovers, where Mallika showed a lot more skin than anyone dared to show. Emran did more roles like this and was even nicknamed the serial killer. In the future if the Indian Directors plan to remake a English movie then they have to look into the feasibility of the plot with the Indian Censors. Though the film bombed at the box office, the actors got the undue recognition. In future the directors should be a little more careful in remaking a Oscar nominated film. <br /><br />All said, this is not a family film, so take the extra caution while watching it at home with family.
If you want to see a movie about two utterly unsympathetic characters, this is the one. The acting is superb, both from John Cassavetes as the insane paranoid whom, as the saying goes, they REALLY ARE out to get, and from Peter Falk as his lifelong best friend to whom he turns for rescue. Big mistake, but since they're both amoral mobsters, and misogynistic bastards to boot, it's hard to decide whom to root for LESS. Only writer/director Elaine May could have gotten away with this one. I thought it interesting that in a lengthy interview with producer Michael Hausman included on the DVD, he disclosed that the two stars had "very different ideas" about the script, that the director was nearly impossible to work with, that the director of photography had impossible demands made of him, that the crew was constantly angry about being made to sit around waiting, and so on. This mood of one big VERY dysfunctional family comes across clearly on the screen.
(When will I ever learn-?) The ecstatic reviewer on NPR made me think this turkey was another Citizen Kane. Please allow me to vent my spleen...<br /><br />I will admit: the setting, presumably New York City, has never been so downright ugly and unappealing. I am reminded that the 70's was a bad decade for men's fashion and automobiles. And all the smoking-! If the plan was to cheapen the characters, it succeeded.<br /><br />For a film to work (at least, in my simple estimation), there has to be at least ONE sympathetic character. Only Ned Beaty came close, and I could not wait for him to finish off Nicky. If a stray shot had struck Mikey, well, it may have elicited a shrug of indifference at the most.<br /><br />I can't remember when I detested a film as strongly. I suppose I'm a rube who doesn't dig "art" flicks. Oh, well.
Very outdated film with awful, cliché-ridden and mawkish dialog and a very poor construction. In addition, Cassavetes and Falk overact constantly. A pseudo "good movie". It takes no time to discover how catastrophic this intellectual turkey is. The first scene is a total bore, filled with histrionics and hysteric exchanges. The sound is horrible. Camera movements are without imagination as is the building of characters. No poetry, no subtle psychology, no interesting shots. The actors smoke constantly and we see ads for beer beverages. Very cheap, indeed. (one exception : Ned Beattie"s nice and simple way of playing the hit man).
***SPOILERS*** Let's start with the "good" of this film--the serviceable acting of Cynthia Rothrock and Richard Norton. The rest of the acting is awful (this isn't aided by the atrocious script). The worst culprit is the villain, Buntao, the head of an Asian crime syndicate (played by Frans Tumbuan). I was laughing my head off as he was expressing his "fury" over having lost a bunch of money; horrid performance. Patrick Muldoon isn't much better, and his "it's a hostile takeover" line (that's the remainder of the title of this film) was delivered about as badly as one could do it. There are no other main characters, but no other actor/actress distinguished him/herself in this film. We next come to the plot. This should tell you all you need to know: In the original "Rage and Honor," Cynthia Rothrock, who plays Chris Fairchild, was a teacher in the inner city. Now, she's a C.I.A. agent (or was it some other governmental agency--sorry, but this film was so bad that I don't even remember). Hmmm...I can imagine what that C.I.A. application process was like. Interviewer: What past job experience do you have? Chris: I was a teacher. Interviewer: Okay; you're hired! I only give it a "2" because of some decent acting and a nice plot twist at the end (though we know that Tommy (Muldoon), the secret villain, will be caught).
Two years ago at Sundance I loved Josh Kornbluth's directing debut-Haiku Tunnel. So I was looking forward to his brother (and frequent collaborator) Jacob's, The Best Thief in the World. This is a drama about a seemingly good kid growing up in a lower-class area of New York. The movie is not without its poignant moments. But at times it is as if Kornbluth is working way too hard to state the obvious: Life can be very difficult for some people. And life isn't fair.<br /><br />More subtle, and more important, is our understanding that despite all of these somewhat abhorrent cultural underpinnings and the anti-social behavior they may spawn, these characters have no shortage of goodness and humanity. We can recoil at their language and their living conditions, but we are cannot discount their intent. And in fact, their struggles to maintain a family under such adversity has a certain nobility that most of us can barely appreciate. Kornbluth grew up in this neighborhood, and his compassion for the people is evident throughout.<br /><br />Having said all this, The Best Thief in the World suffers from many painful flaws (including the title). The characters aren't very believable. The writing is uneven. And the plot-line is barely discernible. And for many the most disturbing is that Kornbluth uses two young black boys mimicking gangsta rap between scenes. To each his own: But while I don't question the potential realism of this phenomenon, it pains me to see 5-year-old children mf'ing and talking about having sex with a line-up of women. It's unnecessary shock value and is a forced bit of borrowed interest.
We know that firefighters and rescue workers are heroes: an idée reçue few would challenge. Friends and family of these and others who perished in the attacks on the World Trade Center might well be moved by this vapid play turned film. A sweet, earnest, though tongue-tied fireman recalls what he can of lost colleagues to a benumbed journalist who converts his fragments into a eulogy. They ponder the results. He mumbles some more, she composes another eulogy, etc., etc.<br /><br />The dreadful events that provoked the need for several thousand eulogies is overwhelmingly sad, but this plodding insipid dramatization is distressingly boring.
I read one other review that expressed the view that Platoon was a never ending cycle of marines killing people, being killed, taking drugs and talking trash.<br /><br />I don't agree with that because the film actually had more to it, but it a way, I can see what this person is trying to say: this had no real plot - which is a point i agree with.<br /><br />It is self-indulgent Stone at his best. He really wanted to show, not only how war leads to death, but also how it is extremely traumatic on those who survive. Unfortunately, the film seems to over "glorify" this aspect and the grand finale is just way too champagne, grand-standing, Oscar-hunting "let's create an enduring image" for my liking.<br /><br />The problem I have with Stone and other film-makers of his ilk is that they fail to understand this simply concept: depicting the terribly bloody deadly waste that war is DOES NOT PROVE OR EVEN REFLECT ON WHETHER it was an unjust or immoral war. We have seen the same thing emerge at the moment with Iraq. In case you're missing the point, let me put it to you bluntly: if you saw how truly bloody the second world war was and how destructive it was on the lives of the surviving soldiers, would you think it was an unjust war? If that fact alone doesn't convince you that it was an unjust war, then why should depictions of the horrors of Vietnam convince you that it was wrong to go to war in that instance. <br /><br />Personally, I do not support America's decision to go to war in Vietnam, but i certainly don't subscribe to the "this war is wrong because people died and suffered" theory. I don't think that motivations are always wrong by default, just because war in itself is terrible.<br /><br />This says nothing of the fact that the ending or the final big "twist" was a bit stupid. However, this is not Stones first oddball departure. Wall street was a magnificent film, up until the last 30 minutes or so when it made a dreadful "wrong turn." JFK is probably one of the few films Stone did that actually ended very well.<br /><br />But it hardly matters in this one because there was very little plot up until that point of the film to twist around. And this is why i gave it such a low mark. It was virtually story-less and ultimately boring - unless you fell for the manufactured poignancy.
Platoon is to the Vietnam War as Rocky IV is to heavyweight championship boxing. Oliver Stone's story of the experience of a US Army platoon in Vietnam in 1968 is so overdone it's laughable. While most or all of the occurrences in Platoon did occur over the 10+ year span of US military involvement in Vietnam, to portray these things happening to one small group of men in such a short time frame (weeks) gives a horribly skewed picture of the war. In Platoon, the men of the platoon see all of the following in the course of a week or two: US soldiers murdering civilians, US Soldiers raping civilians, a US Sergeant murdering another US Sergeant, a US Private murdering a US Staff Sergeant, US soldiers killed/wounded by friendly fire, 90%+ killed or wounded in the platoon. For Stone to try to pass this film off as the typical experience of a US soldier in Vietnam is a disgrace. Two Vietnam War films I would recommend are We Were Soldiers (the TRUE story of arguably the worst battle for US soldiers in Vietnam) and HBO's A Bright Shining Lie.
I'm both amused and disgusted by the people who claim that this movie is so accurate about Vietnam, and WERE NEVER THERE. This movie is about as true about the whole Vietnam war as the Rodney King beating is true about ALL police officers. Yes, bad things do (and did) happen, but in general the people there are just like you and me. They have morals, they are not killing machines, they do not all do drugs. Atrocities were the exception in Vietnam, not the rule. They happened far more infrequently than the "hype" would lead you believe. Oliver Stone has a knack for making movies that show the Vietnam war as this brutal bloodbath, but are based as much in reality as Star Wars. If you honestly believe the stereotypes of Vietnam, do yourself a favour and learn the truth. Fact: the Viet Cong and NVA did far worse things to the South Vietnamese than ANY soldier in the US Armed Forces ever did. Fact: the soldiers in World War II treated the enemy far worse in general than the soldiers in Vietnam did, and they were WELCOMED when they came home. The fine Americans who served this country in Vietnam deserve our respect; though the war was badly fought from a political standpoint, no one could have asked for more from our soldiers, and it is a great disservice to assert that this kind of "mostly true" fiction is the way things really were there.
Oh my, this was the worst reunion movie I have ever seen. (That is saying a lot.) I am ashamed of watching.<br /><br />What happened in the script meetings? "Ooooooh, I know! Let's have two stud muffins fall madly in love with the Most-Annoying-Character-Since-Cousin-Oliver." "Yeah, that'll be cool!"<br /><br />Even for sitcoms, this was the most implausible plot since Ron Popeil starting spray painting bald men.
A group of us watched this film are were really disgusted. We were willing to forgive the fact that our favorite character Jo wasn't on (it's not like the writers/producers could do anything about that). The writing was poor, the script was sub-par. What REALLY annoyed us: 1. When the two guys realized they were both dating Natalie, they didn't just leave they put up with that stupid (and ultimately degrading) contest - but only because they were macho competing guys, not because they really wanted Natalie. 2. Despite being unable to choose between the two guys before the reunion, Natalie suddenly decides that she really loves one of the guys and is now ready to marry him? (and there was no foreshadowing that he was really a better guy, it's as if the writers flipped a coin and then just had her spit it out at some convenient point in the film). 3. Blair makes a point of talking about how she does not want children and then all of a sudden when her husband says he wants to have children, she blissfully agrees with him.
I tried. I really did. I thought that maybe, if I gave Joao Pedro Rodrigues another chance, I could enjoy his movie. I know that after seeing O FANTASMA I felt ill and nearly disgusted to the core, but some of the reviews were quite good and in favor, so I was like, "What the hell. At least you didn't pay 10 dollars at the Quad. Give it a shot."<br /><br />Sometimes it's better to go to your dentist and ask for a root canal without any previous anesthetic to alleviate the horror of so much pain. I often wonder if it wouldn't be better to go back to my childhood and demand my former bullies to really let me have it. On other occasions, I often think that the world is really flat and that if I sail away far enough, I will not only get away from it all, but fall clear over, and that some evil, Lovecraftian thing will snatch me with its 9000 tentacles and squeeze the life -- and some french fries from 1995, still lingering inside my esophagus -- out of me.<br /><br />Is there a reason for Odete? I'd say not at all... just that maybe her Creator thought that writing a story centered on her madness (one that makes Alex Forrest look like Strawberry Shortcake) look not only creepy, but flat-out sick to the bone. She first of all decides to leave her present boyfriend (in shrieking hysterics) because she wants a child and he believes they're too young. She later crashes a funeral of a gay man, and -- get this -- in order to get closer to him, she feigns being pregnant while insinuating herself into the lives of the dead man's mother and lover in the sickest of ways. Oh, of course, she shrieks like a banshee and throws herself not one, but a good three times on his grave. And there's this ridiculous business that she progressively becomes "Pedro" which sums up some weak-as-bad-tea explanation that love knows no gender. Or something.<br /><br />I'd say she's as nuts as a can of cashews, unsalted. But then again, so's the director. And me, for taking a chance on this. At least the men look good. Other than that... not much else to see here.
I wasn't really going to comment, but then I figured I had something to say. I saw this film two days ago and, although I think it's not a complete waste of time (it might have been of money though, for the producers), it's obvious it has serious problems. It's got really good cinematography and (little but) nice music. A lot has been said about Ana Cristina Oliveira but, let's be honest, over what? She is not really an actress an she balances permanently between over-acting and preposterous under-acting. Her performance passes for good because there has never been anyone like Odete in any other film: crazy? sad? childlike? an impostor? no one knows, fellows. So she's kinda sorta dictating the rules here.<br /><br />I thought this film was also a good example of the problem most Portuguese films suffer from: soundtrack. There is a permanent NO to dubbing and the result is this usual mass of noise that comes out of the blue. People in other countries may think Portugal is the noisiest of places. What thrilled me though, was that some of the dialog was dubbed but it didn't necessarily solve the syndrome. Bad dubbing too, I must say. It's strange to watch a film in which the first thing that strikes my mind on the first scene, when the first character speaks is: it's dubbed. And all this to say that the film has technical problems.<br /><br />It also has script problems. It tries to be classical from the first to the last scene. There was a desperate fear of leaving things suspended and that shows. The writer was obviously trying to get everything straight and he does but... it shows!! All dialog is too expositive and there isn't one single piece of talk that sounds like a line from a film. It's all a little raw and slightly unpleasant.<br /><br />Not that the film is a total mess, I must stress. I just think the good parts are so obvious that I prefer to concentrate on the bad ones.<br /><br />Direction brings little to the weak screenplay. All shots are classical and un-innovative, but their beautiful. Great work from Rui Poças, by the way.<br /><br />Now, what I think was THE problem, the one that keeps people from believing this story and laugh throughout the film instead of taking it seriously: The guy who plays the guy who DIES is obviously not an actor. Actually, It's a rather important role and I can't see why non-actors are cast for such parts. This guy is neither an actor nor a good-looking man. Which means the whole film rolls down the mountain, since we never believe for one second that this gorgeous woman is obsessed with him even though he's gone, and that his hunky lover who survives is actually having a bad time getting over the loss, when all we see of this character is apathy. Too bad. The world is full of beautiful people who even happen to be nice seductive lovers. The world is full of good actors who are also cute boys and capable of causing obsessions on people after they's gone. The world is full of great films and also of not that great films. C'est la vie!
Lethargic direction ruins an otherwise compelling period story that stars the wondrous Zhang Ziyi, in an excellent role as a woman who joins an extremist group in 1928 China, just prior to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, and reunites with a former lover who is now working for Japan. Every bit of drama and forward motion of the story is sucked dry by director Ye Lou's somnambulist directorial style. Characters stand still staring at each other for long minutes, saying nothing, hand-held cameras hold forever on faces showing interminable reactions way longer than they need to, edits repeat the same reaction is triple redundancy. We know nothing about the characters as the story begins and are given little new information as the story progresses, only silence and static shots of lovers who don't speak, who interaction through silent dances but share no apparent emotional intimacy. A very sleep inducing film.
Claustrophobic camera angles that do not help the movie: Too long face only shots where you most of the time get the feeling that the lower half of the film is missing (that the screen is cut off), because there seems to be important actions going on, but you cannot see them. There is anyway already too much confusion in the movie, so these viewing angles make it worse and do not contribute to artful visuals. <br /><br />I like artfully made movies and unconventional camera work. I can handle deep and slow movies. But this one is trying too hard to be something artful and fails in my opinion painfully.<br /><br />Nothing to get attached to, to any of the characters, because they are not worked out well enough. To work out characters more is needed, than just minute long face shots, at least with this set of script+director+actors.<br /><br />I wonder whether some of the not so good acting is due to the script and director or due to the actors. <br /><br />I will stay away from films both written and directed by Le You for sure in the future. <br /><br />What an annoying film even for someone who would be interested in that part of history, and for someone who spent time in Shanghai.
I was looking forward to seeing this movie after reading a positive review in the New York Times. In addition, I'm also Shanghainese so there was more than just a passing interest in the subject matter. However, after watching it, I was extremely disappointed.<br /><br />The movie's pace was excruciatingly slow and monotonous. The director lingered on certain scenes for much too long. There was no passion or chemistry between the lovers. There was barely any dialogue. Dialogue was sorely needed to compensate for the lack of acting. At the end of the movie, you didn't feel any compassion for the characters. This movie was lacking in everything. The script was weak, the acting was poor, and the editing was non-existent. The director tried to emulate certain noir film styles but failed miserably. A good movie is one in which captures your attention, maintains it and is successful in concluding without you feeling time has passed by. This movie felt as though it would never end. Don't waste your money on this movie.
I am a huge Ziyi Zhang fan and will go to any film to see her which is what took me to Purple Butterfly. As much as I wanted to like this movie, I have to agree with many others who have commented on it. It is very confusing and also extremely slow. Because all of the film appears to have been shot with a hand held camera, significant portions of it are out of focus. <br /><br />The film has very little dialog and what there is doesn't tell you much. There are endless scenes of people just standing around smoking cigarettes or sitting in a room staring at each other with no conversation. The way the film time shifts is also very confusing and hard to follow. Even having read a number of reviews beforehand and having a general idea what the film was about, I still had a difficult time understanding what was going on. <br /><br />I knew beforehand that the movie was not remotely similar to previous Ziyi Zhang starring films but was looking forward to seeing her in something different but unfortunately I was ultimately disappointed. She never smiles in this film although admittedly most of the time she doesn't have anything to smile about. I could have done without the sex scenes as they were about as sexless and without any obvious feeling between the participants as you could hope to find.
The main complaint with this film is the fact that I CAN NOT tell who is who. No racism intended, but these Asians look all the same! I can tell somewhat of the story, but heck thats about as far as it goes. The peoples identities are not a mystery, if they were a mystery I would care about them. Instead I wasn't them off the screen ASAP.<br /><br />Tons of wide shots and silent emotionless faces occupy this movie. Heck is it boring, not only do I not know these people, but they are just sitting there.<br /><br />The production is typical Chinese John Woo, terrible video with blotched scenes. This looks only slightly better than Andy Lau's "Fulltime Killer" (Which was a great movie.) You would think with a decent budget they could at least make it look like 90s Hollywood. I didn't know the Chinese had these art-house beatniks.
Ye Lou's film Purple Butterfly pits a secret organization (Purple Butterfly) against the Japanese forces in war torn Shanghai. Ding Hui (Zhang Ziyi) and her ex-lover Hidehiko Itami (Toru Nakamura) find themselves on opposite sides of the conflict after a chance meeting.<br /><br />I agree with the reviewer from Paris. The film substitutes a convoluted, semi-historical conflict for a plot, without giving the audience a single reason to care about the characters or their causes. The sudden time shifting doesn't help matters as it appears completely unwarranted and pointless. Normally I don't mind dark movies, but the absence of light, the bone-jarringly shaky camera footage, and the generally bad film-making techniques really make this a tough film to watch and stay interested in. I also agree with the viewer from Georgia that this film "has a chaotic editing style and claustrophobic cinematography", but I don't think that helps the movie. The backdrop to the film is one of the most potent events of the 20th Century, and I don't believe you can do it any justice by editing it as if it were a Michael Bay film. The overly melodramatic moments don't add to its watchability.<br /><br />The actors are all suitably melancholy. Zhang Ziyi once again shows that she has an exceptionally limited acting range as she spends the entire movie doing what she seems to do best in all her films, brooding and looking generally annoyed. However, at least she adds some variety to this role by chainsmoking and engaging in the worst love-making scene since Michael Biehn and Linda Hamilton in The Terminator.<br /><br />All in all, a very disappointing film, especially seeing as how it comes from the director of Suzhou He. 2/10
I read comments about this being the best Chinese movie ever. Perhaps if the only Chinese movies you've seen contained no dialogue, long drawn-out far-away stares and silences, and hack editing, then you're spot on.<br /><br />Complicated story-line? Hardly. Try juvenile and amateurish. Exquisite moods and haunting memories? Hardly. Try flat-out boring and trite.<br /><br />This was awful. I could not wait for it to be over. Particularly when the best lines in the movie consist of "How are you? I'm fine. Are you sure? Yes." Wow! What depth of character. I guess the incessant cigarette smoking was supposed to speak for them.<br /><br />As a huge fan of many Chinese, Japanese and Korean films, I was totally disappointed in this. Even Zhang's sentimentally sappy "The Road Home" was better than this.
Rex Reed once said of a movie ("Julia and Julia" to be specific) that it looked like it was shot through pomegranate juice. I was reminded of that as I snored through Purple Butterfly. This one appeared to be shot through gauze.<br /><br />The story was boring and it was not helped that for large portions of scenes actors' faces were literally out of focus or would only come into focus after extended periods of time. <br /><br />Also, everyone looked the same so it was hard to distinguish among the characters. I call this the "Dead Poets Society" syndrome.<br /><br />There was nobody to care about, nobody to become interested in dramatically, and the movie shed no historical light on a very interesting period of time and set of circumstances.<br /><br />A total disappointment.
Did anybody succeed in getting in this movie?<br /><br />It's a total mess to me: a vague historical/sentimental context instead of a plot, a pretentious imagery as mise en scene and it lasts two hours!<br /><br />Shame on those who wasted money here.
Plot = Melissa is a new girl in town, she's fifteen years old and her birthday is coming up in one week. Since Melissa is beautiful, every boy in town wants to hook up with her, but the few that manage to catch her interest mysteriously die.<br /><br />To be honest the real reason I wanted to watch this film is because Dana Kimmel of Friday The 13th pt 3 was in it which isn't a proper reason why to rush out and see a movie. When I started watching it I realized that "Sweet Sixteen" isn't a very good slasher, it's really dull and boring and just doesn't go anywhere. After over an hour, only three murders have occurred and the story hasn't really developed in any possible way.<br /><br />The movie is nicely shot with quite nice photography and good directing but just as with many other slasher flicks from the 80s, the movie suffers from being too dark at times. The acting is actually pretty good though and Melissa's character is easy to sympathize with, even though she's a complete slut.<br /><br />The story line isn't completely rubbish but it's just way too dull to keep you interested, the only things that kept me interested was Melissa she was stunning and Dana Kimmel whose really sweet and cute in this movie.<br /><br />All in all pretty dull slasher flick that doesn't go anywhere I'd definitely wouldn't recommend it to Slasher fans.
SWEET SIXTEEN (1983) **/***** 86 minutes Director Jim Sotos Cast Bo Hopkins, Susan Strasberg, Aleisa Shirley, Patrick Macnee, Dana Kimmell<br /><br />Fifteen year old bad girl Melissa is new in a desert town and it isn't long before folks around her start dying off. The detective has to put together the clues with the help of his Nancy Drew good girl daughter played by Friday the 13th alumni Dana Kimmell. The local Native Americans are prime suspects since they seem to upset the prejudiced townsfolk. These events all lead up to the revealing of the killer at Melissa's sixteenth birthday party.<br /><br />This below average slasher isn't too memorable. It has a made for TV feel, without much score besides the title character's own corny theme song which plays a couple times throughout. Lines like "the killer will turn us into coleslaw." Fit into standard eighties slasher screenplays. Marci calls Melissa a bad name then somehow immediately they develop a friendship. Apparently Marci sees how hard it is to fit in because Melissa knows how to wear make-up. This movie would be hard-pressed to be made today with the main character being fifteen and the director inserting multiple gratuitous close-ups of her. The social commentary on Indians wasn't developed enough to be taken seriously. I am too surprised at the fairly high rating this movie gets. Both Sweet Sixteen and Ed Hunt's Bloody Birthday had the potential to capitalize on that time honored tradition of the birthday party to create an intense sequence of carnage but I feel failed to deliver. But on the bright side releasing obscure movies like this on DVD gives hope that others will follow.
Melissa's sixteenth birthday is right around the corner and she's just discovering her sexuality with boys. But it turns out that all the guys that she spends time with all wind up murdered in this generic '80's slasher film. It's up to the local town sheriff Dan Burke (Bo Hopkins, The Wild Bunch) and his annoying mystery-loving goody two-shoes daughter, Marci (Dana Kimmell, Friday the 13th part 3), to get to the bottom of these killings.<br /><br />This film focuses more on the mystery and melodrama aspects of the movie and less on the killings themselves and thus is able to differentiate itself from a lot of it's '80's Slasher brethren. It doesn't hurt that Alesia has a great body (I feel the need to stress the obvious with stating that the actress is over 18 and thus convey that i'm not overly perverted). On the downside, the movie is hampered with a few plot points that are underdeveloped and unnecessary, a grating theme some that is used a bit too often, and an ending that is a tad anti-climatic. But the good outweigh the bad (barely). Give this a rent, but I wouldn't buy it.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Aleisa Shirley shows her tits, bush and ass <br /><br />My Grade: C <br /><br />Code Red DVD Extras: An intro by star Aleisa Shirley and Director of Intruder, Scott Spiegel; Both Director's cut & theatrical version of the film; Audio conversation with star Shirley and Director Jim Sotos; interview with Shirley, Sotos & Bo Hopkins; still gallery; theatrical trailer for this film; and trailers for Nightmare, Stunt Rock, Rituals, & Balalaika Conspiracy
I am very surprised to see such a high rating for this film, and of the few reviews that there are to be positive. I saw the movie and was pretty dissapointed. I didn't find it very enjoyable at all. It was slow, and lacks the entertainment value. Even the murder scenes are lackluster, with real close-up shots of generic stabbings that don't look good at all. And the supposed great twist ending is really not much, I did see it coming, and then the ending just seemed cliche. This movie may not get much mention, but by the little that it does get, it is overrated. I would not recommend this movie.
Murders are occurring in a Texas desert town. Who is responsible? Slight novelties of mystery and racial tensions (the latter really doesn't fit), but otherwise strictly for slasher fans, who will appreciate the gore and nudity, which are two conventional elements for these films.<br /><br />Dana Kimmell (of FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 3 infamy) stars as the bratty quasi-detective teen.<br /><br />*1/2 out of ****<br /><br />MPAA: Rated R for violence and gore, nudity, and some language.
This movie was in a sci-fi 50-pack a friend of mine got me for Christmas. It is very similar to the first Gozilla movie, and like that movie, has scenes with American actors inserted for no real reason. One interesting thing about the inserted scenes is that there's a Cold War tension portrayed between America and Russia. Like in Godzilla, Gamera is awakened by an atomic explosion and rampages across the world, paying close attention to Tokyo because no big monster movie is complete unless Tokyo bites it. All in all, this is an okay movie. Some of the scenes involving Gamera, particularly the scenes in Toly, are quite spectacular and have special effects that were pretty decent at the time. If you like Japanese giant monster movies, you'll really get a kick out of this one. I give it a 4 out of 10. Had this been the unedited Japanese version that I watched, it probably would've gotten a 5.
The original 1965 Japanese film "Gamera" http://pro.imdb.com/title/tt0059080/ was essentially an updating of the darker, less kid-oriented Gojira (Godzilla)for 1960s sensibilities. Gamera, of course, is a giant, flying, flame-throwing turtle who literally consumes energy - not quite as big as some versions of Godzilla, but generally similar in most ways. <br /><br />This version of the original film was edited and recut by the notorious Sandy Frank. And just like the Americanized version of Godzilla ("Godzilla King of the Monsters"), "Gammera the Invincible" gets more than just the spelling wrong. The American scenes are not nearly as ludicrous and annoying as those added to the great Gojira, but don't really add much to the story either because there is little follow up on them. <br /><br />The film starts off promising, there are a few scenes worth of character development, and there are enough personalities to create some tension outside of the main plot. Once Gamera appears, however, the film begins to descend into a fairly run-of-the mill kaiju film.<br /><br />The acting is good enough- even the American add-ons are OK. The directing is pretty good for this period and genre, and the special effects are not bad at all for their time (all miniatures). Some of the sets and backdrops are actually very good. <br /><br />The biggest problem here, of course, is that there is little to nothing original about this film. Gamera, however, develops a much more unique personality in his later films - most of which are worth watching if you are a kaiju fan.
What's that there in the skies? Is it a plane? Is it Superman?? Errr, no… It's a TURTLE!?! See, that's what becomes of the Cold War! Nothing but bad news and other issues! The Americans shoot down a Russian combat plane somewhere over Artic territory and the subsequent explosion defrosts & literally awakens the giant prehistoric turtle-creature named Gammera. He/she is not a very friendly critter as it promptly ensues to destroy everything and everyone on its path. The arguing governments finally decide to kill the ugly bastard with a brand new and super-sophisticated ice-bomb, but Gammera has another surprise in store… The damn turtle can fly! The first time this happens results in a tremendously grotesque and hilarious sequence! Gammera lies on his back looking defeated when suddenly fire blows from his armpits and he skyrockets himself up in the air. How can you not love that? Then there's also a dire sub plot about an annoying kid who's able to telepathically communicate with the monster, but that's just not interesting enough. Flying turtle, people!! There's very little else to write about this Japanese (and American re-edited) Sci-Fi effort, apart from that it's an obvious and totally shameless rip-off of such classics like the original Godzilla and The Beast from 20.000 Fathoms. The effects and monster designs are extremely hokey and, unlike the aforementioned films, it never succeeds in creating an apocalyptic ambiance. Respectable actors like Brian Donlevy ("The Quatermass Experiment") and Dick O'Neill ("Wolfen") seem unaware of what film set they're on and even the original Japanese mayhem-scenes aren't very convincing. Gammera's very own and personalized theme-song is rather cool, though, so it gets one extra point for that.
"After the atomic bombs carried by a shot-down Soviet bomber explode in the Arctic, the creature 'Gammera' is released from his hibernation. The giant prehistoric turtle proceeds on a path to Tokyo and destroys anything in his path. The military and the scientific community rush to find a means to stop this monster before Tokyo is laid to waste," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. <br /><br />The re-produced for American audiences version of this, the first film in the "Gamera" series, adds English language material that is even funnier than the regularly dubbed Japanese fare. Clearly, the monster is following in the footsteps of "Godzilla". Taking his cue from ABC's faddish "Batman!" TV series, musician Wes Farrell's ludicrous theme song heightens the US version's camp appeal.<br /><br />*** Gammera the Invincible (12/15/66) Sandy Howard, Noriaki Yuasa ~ Dick O'Neill, Brian Donlevy, Albert Dekker, John Baragrey
With the rising popularity of the now iconic Godzilla series, like with any hit cinema event, there was inevitably going to be a crowd of imitators trying to cash in on the success on the big lizard. With Godzilla came the dawn of a rising popularity of the kaiju (giant monster) genre. Many sought after success; a few gained it. One of the few that not only profited, but garnered popularity was Gamera, a giant turtle that could breathe fire in and out and fly by spewing flames from the sockets in his carapace as a means of jet propulsion. But unlike Godzilla, Gamera was marketed as a friend to all children, later fighting other monsters to save kids in peril, and thus Gamera became very popular amongst the kiddies. Unfortunately, that's about the only audience mainstream that the original Gamera series will have any appeal to. While the new Gamera movies directed by Shusuke Kaneko are marvelous, revolutionary monster movies, the original series, including the original, is nothing special.<br /><br />The first Gamera movie, titled in Japan as "The Giant Monster Gamera" was clearly a Godzilla want-to-be. Even though the movie was produced in the era of color films, it was shot in black-and-white. Why? To imitate the first Godzilla movie from the 1950s. Gamera also attacks Tokyo. Because Godzilla attacked Tokyo in the first movie. I don't know much about the Japanese version, for the version I am familiar with the Americanized version, where scenes were cut and new footage with American actors were inserted (is it coincidence that the same thing happened with the first Godzilla film?) Now whether this adds or takes away from the film, I cannot say. But "Gammera the Invincible" is really nothing more than a ponderous bore that just plods along like the big turtle himself.<br /><br />"Gammera the Invincible" is a very routine-orientated movie. The characters are from a stock of science-fiction standards, the story is inane, the monster has no real motive for attacking civilization, the acting is laughable, and so on and so forth. The only thing that differentiates it from the Godzilla series is the ending of the movie, but that's also a detractor since the plan that eventually halts Gamera's rampage is completely phony and ridiculous. Now the rest of the movie and many other entries in this genre also fit that description, but this is a direfully stodgy monster movie.<br /><br />And although Shusuke Kaneko would later transform Gamera into an interesting monster with his trilogy in the 1990s, in the original series, Gamera was not an attractive screen presence. He was neither scary nor sympathetic. He just waddles around like a toddler, swaying with each step, and knocks miniature sets over. As usual, everybody wants to destroy Gamera except for a little kid (Yoshio Uchida who was lazily left out of the credits though he plays a 'central' role) who thinks Gamera is a nice turtle.<br /><br />Most movies in the genre that "Gammera the Invincible" is a part of are easy targets for criticism and this one is subject to extra pressure. Even in the company of many other Godzilla-imitators, this Gamera film is not a particularly good entry. And as far as my cinema experience goes, the rest of the movies in the series are either just as boring or worse. Like Godzilla, Gamera would be filmed in color and go on to fight monsters. And like Godzilla, he'd get cheaper and cheaper with every film until it was time to revive the series and make him serious again.<br /><br />It's peculiar. Usually I recommend people to stick with the originals and pass on the remakes. But in the case of Gamera, my verdict is just the opposite. I strongly encourage people to watch the 1990s Gamera trilogy directed by Shusuke Kaneko and to skip over the original series unless interested. The new films are inventive, well-made, exciting, and above all, fun. The original series is a long stream of boredom.
We now travel to a parallel universe where the appearance of giant prehistoric monsters flattening cities are part of the daily routine. It's the world of Godzilla, Rodan, Mothra Ghidrah and their kind - a strange world, and one made even stranger by the appearance of an unidentified flying turtle called Gamera.<br /><br />Forever in the shadow of the monolithic Toho Studios, second rung Daiei Studios were more famous for samurai sagas than monster movies. In the mid 60s they decided to join the giant reptile race and designed a rival monster series to Toho's mammothly successful Godzilla. They wisely chose Gamera as their flagship - a giant turtle that shoots flames from between its snaggle-teeth, and spins through the air by shooting flames through its shell's feet-holes (and at one point you almost see the paper mache shell catch fire!).<br /><br />The first Gamera film "Gamera The Invincible" (as it was sold to the US) is a virtual mirror of the first Godzilla film, only 10 years behind. American fighters chase an unmarked plane over the Arctic to its fiery demise - the nuclear bomb on board ignites and awakens the giant Gamera from its icy slumber. Feeding off atomic energy, it immediately goes on a rampage, and the world wants to destroy Gamera once and for all, but a little Japanese boy named Kenny, who has a psychic connection with the giant turtle and even keeps a miniature version in an aquarium by his bedside, believes Gamera is essentially kind and benevolent. He's like a little Jewish kid with a pinup of Hitler. "Gamera is a GOOD turtle," he pleads, then sulks, and puts on a face like someone's pooped in his coco pops. Miraculously the world's leaders listen to him, and so begins Z-Plan to save the world AND Gamera from complete destruction.<br /><br />Released in 1965, Gamera was a surprising hit. The annoying infantile anthropomorphism actually worked on kiddie audiences in both Japan and the US, and the sight of Gamera on two feet stomping miniatures of Tokyo and the North Pole is gloriously chintzy. Most surprising of all is the longevity of the series: eight original Gamera films, plus a slew of recent remakes. Not bad for a mutant reptile whose only friend is mewing eight year old milquetoast - and if I hear "Gamera is friends to ALL children" one more time I'M going to crush Tokyo. Which appears to be an easy task in the parallel universe where children are smart and turtles are bigger than a Seiko billboard in the 1965 turtle-fest Gamera.
Flame in, flame out. That seems to be Gammera in a nutshell, a prehistoric creature who can take it and dish it out with equal abandon. I'm not a fan of Japanese monster films, but wound up committed to viewing all the flicks on the fifty film DVD sci-fi collection put out by Mill Creek/Treeline Films. It's a great value at about twenty five bucks, so at fifty cents per movie, it really boils down to an investment in time to watch some of the goofy offerings.<br /><br />Gammera is riled from a centuries long slumber by a nuclear blast, and he's not happy. Like Godzilla, he takes it out on Tokyo, setting the United Nations into motion to try and come up with a plan to save the planet. They arrive at 'Plan Z', the hope of the world, and wouldn't you know it, there's a scene where a huge shed is shown that's called the 'Z Plan' building; that was a nice touch.<br /><br />By the mid 1960's, this country still wasn't quite politically correct. One of the American military scenes at the Alaskan Air Defense Sector has General Arnold asking a female sergeant to make coffee. I guess there weren't any privates around.<br /><br />Good old Gammera was quite the sight though, walking around on two legs and going for the flame throwing routine when challenged. That's why it surprised me how Plan Z managed to capture turtle man in the nose cone of a hidden space ship, whisking him off to Mars to save the world. High fives all around for the American and Russian team that made the save, now let's get back to the Cold War.<br /><br />Like Godzilla, Gammera spawned at least a good dozen films, but having seen this one pretty much satisfies my interest in flying, flaming turtles. Especially since that DVD pack I mentioned earlier has "Attack of the Monsters" with a featured guest appearance by the Big G. It took all I had to make it through to the end of both films; it was such a relief to get to the final frame in this one that said 'Gammera, Sayonara!"
This "clever" film was originally a Japanese film. And while I assume that original film was pretty bad, it was made a good bit worse when American-International Films hacked the film to pieces and inserted American-made segments to fool the audience. Now unless your audience is made of total idiots, it becomes painfully obvious that this was done--and done with little finesse or care about the final product. The bottom line is that you have a lot of clearly Japanese scenes and then clearly American scenes where the film looks quite different. Plus, the American scenes really are meaningless and consist of two different groups of people at meetings just talking about Gamera--the evil flying turtle! And although this is a fire-breathing, flying and destructive monster, there is practically no energy because I assume the actors were just embarrassed by being in this wretched film--in particular, film veterans Brian Donlevy and Albert Dekker. They both just looked tired and ill-at-ease for being there.<br /><br />Now as for the monster, it's not quite the standard Godzilla-like creature. Seeing a giant fanged turtle retract his head and limbs and begin spinning through the air like a missile is hilarious. On the other hand, the crappy model planes, destructible balsa buildings and power plant are, as usual, in this film and come as no surprise. Plus an odd Japanese monster movie cliché is included that will frankly annoy most non-Japanese audience members, and that is the "adorable and precocious little boy who loves the monster and believes in him". Yeah, right. Well, just like in GODZILLA VERSUS THE SMOG MONSTER and several other films, you've got this annoying creep cheering on the monster, though unlike later incarnations of Godzilla, Gamera is NOT a good guy and it turns out in the end the kid is just an idiot! Silly, exceptional poor special effects that could be done better by the average seven year-old, bad acting, meaningless American clips and occasionally horrid voice dubbing make this a wretched film. Oddly, while most will surely hate this film (and that stupid kid), there is a small and very vocal minority that love these films and compare them to Bergman and Kurosawa. Don't believe them--this IS a terrible film!<br /><br />FYI--Apparently due to his terrific stage presence, Gamera was featured in several more films in the 60s as well as some recent incarnations. None of these change the central fact that he is a fire-breathing flying turtle or that the movies are really, really lame.
There's not much to say about this one. Gammera is some kind of fire breathing turtle. He is loosed by a nuclear explosion. He heads for land and begins to destroy building and tanks and other junk (oh yeah, power lines. I almost forgot). At one time, early in the film, he befriends a little boy, and instead of just throwing him away, or squashing him, he places him down on the ground. Safe. From then on we have to watch this chubby faced little twerp show up and run away, show up and run away, show up and run away. For some reason, Gammera is able to hear this kid from 20,000 feet away. Oh, well, the plot is to try to get Gammera to get to a place where he can be put on board a rocket and shot into space. As usual, the monster is lumbering and uncoordinated (a guy in a Gammera suit). The Japanese army (with the help of Americans), uses up enough ammunition and fire power to solve the national debt, and, of course, it does no good. They should know this anyway. We've seen a lot of monsters stomp on Tokyo. Not to put these down because they can be fun, but it's really not very good.
Nobody, but nobody, could chew the scenery like the Divine One, Ruth Elizabeth Davis, and "Elizabeth and Essex" is a great example why. Although she overplays the part at times, watch her when she gawfs about Raliegh writing the lyrics to a song her ladies-in-waiting are about to play: in that one moment, she makes us understand how Elizabeth was able to rule and rule absolutely! At other times, she is done in by the script's sappiness. When Elizabeth has to be vulnerable, she comes off as weak and shrewish. This has the added effect of undermining her authority: when she blows her stack and threatens to dispense justice, it's hard to take her seriously.<br /><br />Flynn exudes charm, making us see how Essex was able to worm his way into Elizabeth's heart, but he is totally inept at conveying the complexity and sheer evil of the man. It also doesn't help that Essex is badly underwritten. Why is he this hothead who wants to overthrow his Queen - even as he swears fidelity to her - except only that he is more blue-blooded, thus, more "worthy" of rule? And why does Raliegh betray Elizabeth by intercepting her and Essex's letters? He's in no risk of falling out of favor, and we know where Essex (and his head) is headed. So why does he risk his own head by speeding up the inevitable?<br /><br />What did Curtiz do with all the $$$ he was given? He doesn't even bother to try to hide the fact that his battle scenes are shot on a sound stage. He should've ended it with Elizabeth the first time alone at The Tower; everything else that follows (especially the final scene between her and Essex) is unnecessary. The costumes are fantastic. And is it me, or does Bette look exactly like Susan Sarandon?
Oh dear, this movie was bad for various reasons. I was expecting to see a very low score for this film and was a bit surprised by the over-all score.Sorry, but to rate this highly as many have, is a joke! Once you get past the one shot/black and white movie gimmick, which was a nice idea, the movie drags on, even at a run time of only 66 minutes. The credits sequence at the start was so annoying too!In the van the guys suffer a flat tyre and change the wheel, wow, that was needed in the story! How slow were the guys chasing and actually managing to wound Campbell?? They did not seem to bother continue chasing him...sigh..I am only too glad I got this free with a special Edition of Evil Dead!!
This is one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. The story was boring, the dialogue was atrocious and the acting hammy. I'm not sure if this movie was the result of a film school homework project, but it certainly played like one. It is not even particularly successful in its central conceit of trying to appear as a single continuous take. The whooshing horizontal camera pans are a cheap and unoriginal way of hiding cuts.
This is the most messed up entry on IMDb that I've yet to stumble across. All the previous reviewers act like this is the movie. This is NOT the movie. Rather it's merely a featurette that's an extra on the DVD of the movie "The One" It also nowhere near being the 90 minutes that it's listed here as. In actuality it's barely over 13 minutes of how cool Jet Li can do martial arts. and his reflections on the movie. So yeah this IMDb entry is quite a bit fubar. Don't listen to any of the other reviews as they are ALL wrong. You can trust me, because I never feed you, dear reader, BS.<br /><br />and that's the truth. i guess u can say that i'm "the One" Reviewer that matters.
This film was a waste of time, even rented on DVD. If super-speedy camera shots get any faster than this, we might as well pay twenty bucks to get in the laundromat, get popcorn, and watch the dryer spin. Jet Li is so much better than this. One can only hope that he won't be making deals anytime soon to make another cliche-ridden film like The One.<br /><br />If there's one film you should avoid, this is "The One".
I rented this film just to see Amber Benson, though after reading the box I thought it sounded like a good story.....however the first problem was that there really wasn't a story...or actually there was a story but it made absolutely no sense. The second problem was there was no set up for these characters...yes I got that they all went to school together, but within the first 3 minutes of the film you realized they had nothing else in common and didn't like each other...so why did they keep getting together. Flaw number 3...the director though long pauses and tight camera shots equaled suspense (especially with the typical suspense music dubbed in)...he was sadly mistaken. It was painful to watch a terrific actress like Amber Benson waste time trying to bring this back to life....my only hope is the money she made here was put toward producing her own film.
Just finished this movie... saw it on the video shelf and being a Nick Stahl fan I just had to rent it. In all honesty, it probably should have stayed on the shelf. The concept was an interesting one and there were several fairly smart twists and turns but somehow I guessed almost all of them before they came along. And the movie just went a little too far in the end in my opinion... if you have to suffer through a viewing of it you'll see what I mean!<br /><br />On a positive note, Nick Stahl's acting was great (especially considering what he had to work with). Eddie Kaye Thomas was also good but he always plays the same type of character... too much Paul Finch from "American Pie" coming through for my liking.<br /><br />And finally, the worst part of this movie has to be January Jones' emotionless performance... I guess a pretty face really is all that matters in Hollywood.
The name of Nick Stahl, the young cast and the attractive cover of the VHS made me buy and watch this flick, expecting to see a good teen slash movie. What a crap! The full of clichés screenplay, the dialogs and the performances are awful, dreadful, very bad, terrible, horrendous – summarizing, a complete waste of time. There is no horror, black humor, only an absolutely boring story, with shameful plot points. The film begins with six characters, indeed three couples, together like a group of friends, but indeed very nasty persons that seems to be enemies, playing a ridiculous senseless game called "Taboo", and with each one of them writing yes or no for certain taboo issues. That is it: no previous development of the characters, the viewer does not know who they are, their motives and relationship. Then, there is an ellipsis to one year later, and the same group is gathered together in a New Years Eve party, insulting each other in a very sordid way. But the plot and the twists are so ridiculous, predictable, mediocre and unbelievable that do not deserve any additional line in my review. One advice only: do not waste your time or money on this garbage, you will certainly regret. My vote is one (awful).<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Taboo – Jogando Com o Assassino" ("Taboo – Playing With the Killer")
As a movie critic for several Dutch websites, I have to see lot's of movies, and not all very good ones. Some movies are so bad, you won't be surprised that they are released straight on video. With taboo, Iám surprised that it is released on video at all. This is really low budget bad quality bad written rubbish. <br /><br />A group of youngsters plays a game of taboo. They write down their most sickening wish or act, and later on people are murdered for their taboo's. The question is, should we believe what we see?<br /><br />The movie has a potential interesting plot-twist, and I won't give it away here. But what could have been interesting stays stupid, bad acted and without any reason.<br /><br />Some of the actors have played in bigger titles before, so why on earth did they sign up for this? If you see this anywhere, try to dodge it. There is no logic, no human sense of quality in this movie.
The movie has the longest, most tortured and agonized ending of any movie I've seen in a long time. Unfortunately it starts right after the opening credits. January Jones gives such a wooden performance, I was surprised she didn't go up in flames when she got near the candles in the film. I don't really remember her from the other films she's done (a blessing I have to believe. I never criticize an actors performance because in film there are too many things which can affect it but in this case,it is so bad that it actually stands out from the ATROCIOUS script. Granted she's given lines and situations Meryl Streep would have trouble with but I swear at times shes reading from a cue card off set. At other times I thought she might actually be learning disabled or slow in some way. For REAL! The plot, dialog and pacing are as bad as you'll ever see but there is still no excuse for this performance nor for the director that let it be perpetrated. I feel sorry for the other actors. Cruel intentions/ 10 little indians/breakfast club shoved into a rotten burrito then regurgitated by a grade school writer- director. Take that back this has Studio exec crayola all over it.
I won't argue with anyone who pronounces this film execrable, as is January Jones's performance, but please check her out, if you haven't already, in the AMC TV series 'Mad Men," starting later this month. She's excellent, as is the entire cast. I'll charitably assume she took on the "Taboo" role strictly for the money, and, realizing what a putrid mess it was going to be, turned in a minimal acting job to avoid starvation. Don't know if that's the case, but I (now) know for sure that she can act.<br /><br />At first, watching "Taboo," I was convinced her flat delivery was a shrewd choice that would later give rise to some significant revelation about her character or the plot. No such luck. Hard to believe the director didn't suggest to her at least once that not changing expression for 17 successive scenes could cause lockjaw.<br /><br />Ironically, her winning performance in "Mad Men" comes as a character who, at least in her early appearances, is very repressed, reserved, unsure of herself, and rather colorless, not unlike her "Taboo" role. But as the TV series progressed, she began to blossom into someone who questions her traditional early-60's whitebread Mom role. Can't wait to see where they take her character in the 2nd season.<br /><br />To sum up, avoid "Taboo" like leprosy, but definitely check out "Mad Men."
I watched this movie on the grounds that Amber Benson rocks and Nick Stahl is generally pretty cool - I figured that any film featuring two actors I like and respect couldn't be all bad. And in that sense, I was right - considering the cringe-making dialogue they were given, both of them perform reasonably well. Not well enough to stop the movie from sucking, you understand, but well enough that I was able to make it through the 75-odd minutes of movie (and that's the main sign of an awful film: when, at 40 minutes through, you're already praying for it to be over).<br /><br />It's hard to know where to start with the problems in "Taboo". The dialogue, as mentioned, is appalling; wooden and completely unnatural. January Jones' acting is unbelievably bad, and since she's the character we spend most of our time following around the house, this is an unforgivable flaw. The plot manages to be so convoluted that it makes no sense while simultaneously being so clichéd as to be completely predictable (literally, not one of the major 'twists' in this film would surprise anyone but a toddler). A few interesting shots aside, the director tries far too hard with far too little success, awkward tracking shots and jittery camera-work distracting from what little element of story there is.<br /><br />Three of this movie's stars are awarded for the fact that it contains Amber Benson, and the last is tossed in on the grounds that one of the jokes made me snigger a little bit. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone, ever, under any circumstances. Avoid at all costs.
...And I never thought a movie deserved to be awarded a 1! But this one is honestly the worst movie I've ever watched. My wife picked it up because of the cast, but the storyline right since the DVD box seemed quite predictable. It is not a mystery, nor a juvenile-catching film. It does not include any sensuality, if that's what the title could remotely have suggest any of you. This is just a total no-no. Don't waste your time or money unless you feel like watching a bunch of youngsters in a as-grown-up kind of Gothic setting, where a killer is going after them. Nothing new, nothing interesting, nothing worth watching. Max Makowski makes the worst of Nick Stahl.
Don't waste your time or money on this one. The half decent cast might fool you into thinking that this teen-thriller, whilst hardly about to break any records, might lightly entertain for 80 minutes.<br /><br />It won't.<br /><br />It won't make you scared, laugh, cry or even challenge your intellect. It will leave you wondering how on earth this movie ever finished production. Yes, it really is that poor.
This was quite possibly the worst film I've ever seen. The plot didn't make a whole lot of sense and the acting was awful. I'm a big fan of Amber Benson, I think she's usually a wonderful actress, I can't imagine why she decided to do this film. Her character, Piper, is drunk for almost the whole film, with the exception of the opening scene. On the plus side, there was several points in the film where the acting was so bad, I actually laughed out loud. But despite that, I would not recommend this film to anyone. It's only 80 minutes long, but that's 80 minutes of your life that you will have completely wasted.
There is no reason to see this movie. A good plot idea is handled very badly. In the middle of the movie everything changes and from there on nothing makes much sense. The reason for the killings are not made clear. The acting is awful. Nick Stahl obviously needs a better director. He was excellent in In the Bedroom, but here he is terrible. Amber Benson from Buffy, has to change her character someday. Even those of you who enjoy gratuitous sex and violence will be disappointed. Even though the movie was 80 minutes, which is too short for a good movie (but too long for this one),there are no deleted scenes in the DVD which means they never bothered to fill in the missing parts to the characters.<br /><br />Don't spend the time on this one.
There is no reason to see this movie. A good plot idea is handled very badly. In the middle of the movie everything changes and from there on nothing makes much sense. The reason for the killings are not made clear. The acting is awful. Nick Stahl obviously needs a better director. He was excellent in In the Bedroom, but here he is terrible. Amber Benson from Buffy, has to change her character someday. Even those of you who enjoy gratuitous sex and violence will be disappointed. Even though the movie was 80 minutes, which is too short for a good movie (but too long for this one),there are no deleted scenes in the DVD which means they never bothered to fill in the missing parts to the characters.<br /><br />Don't spend the time on this one.
Nothing like a movie about a group of friends who not only all dislike each other to the point of loathing, but they have little to no redeeming qualities to make an *audience* like or empathize with any of the characters either. There are movies so bad they are good (a la Ed Wood or Tod Slaughter films), and there's just plain bad (like 99% of Uwe Boll's "work"). This film is barely tolerable even if you are a brilliantly talented MSTie riffer (e.g., Mystery Science Theatre 3000). Thankfully while I am rather talented in that regard (it's how my mind works All The Time), for those who are not so naturally talented in MSTie riffing, eventually into *this* film you'll just want to pull your own head off, painfully aware the movie "Taboo" robs you of about an hour and twenty minutes you'll never get back. Even my MSTie talents were barely a match for this slow paced, boring waste of time. The most puzzling aspect of this film is that *someone* green-lit and/or funded it... I rented "Taboo" solely for the normally talented Amber Benson, who clearly must have been blackmailed into doing this film. I've another lesser known film of hers in my rental queue, the reviews to which I'd better read first. Ironically the best aspect of the film was its impressive labyrinthine mansion for its interior location.
A cheesy, compellingly awful (and NOT in a fun way) C Grade movie. Everything shouts 'amateur', from the crumby script (bizarre premises, limited coherence and predictable endings; the turgid lighting, sound and hand-held wobbly camera angles; the coy and passe sexual inneundo and references; the patchy and unbelievable dialgoue to the Z rate acting. I saw it on DVD and kept hoping Edward Wood would pop out. All is forgiven - your Worst Films are works of art, and more coherent than this twaddle.<br /><br />But still, preferable to the warbling 'Every night in my dreams I hear you' - are you sure the Titanic crew weren't involved in this on the side?
Wow it's ironic since this movie has been out for awhile I think that someone else JUST reviewed it a couple days ago.<br /><br />Anyways, I watched this movie simply because it has Nick Stahl, for the record.<br /><br />The movie was ridiculous. The characters drove me INSANE, they were SO Cliché and STEREOTYPED. This movie had some of the worst dialogue I have ever heard. It had way too many plot twists too.<br /><br />There is ONE scene in the movie worth seeing however, the scene: "Warm heart, cold gun" where Nick Stahl kills the obnoxious girl in the shower. (Well, actually they were all obnoxious.) But his acting in that scene was excellent. The look on his face, it reminded my of American Psycho (a good movie). The scene is worth seeing but not worth seeing the rest of the movie for, do yourself a favor and don't watch it.
I'm embarrassed to be writing this review. I say that because those of you reading it will know that I sat through the whole thing and that is embarrassing to admit even to strangers. But I just had to warn those who read the viewer comments on IMDb before they watch a film not to watch this one. It's the least I can do. This is a bad movie! Trust me. The plot is goofy. The acting is amateurish. And the directing, camera work, sets, costumes, etc. are all second rate. Let it go.
How did such a terrible script manage to attract this cast? Ridiculous, predictable and thoroughly unbelievable, this is well-acted and slickly directed, but the material is so bad it still qualifies as one of the all-time worst thrillers I've seen in years. Amazingly bad, and not in a fun way. Avoid at all costs, even if you're a fan of someone in the cast.
I don't know why I'm commenting this stupid reality-show I happened to watch a few episodes of(a cable marathon broadcast when they aired 5 episodes in a row or something,I didn't watch the entire thing though.Only like three episodes)as I was nine months pregnant and about to go into labor any day.Maybe I'm just bored today:-)<br /><br />I feel sorry for Britney,I really do.For all her money and fame she seem to have very little sense of dignity.Or she's self-centered to the extreme.She married the nitwit Federline(okay anybody can make a mistake) and before that she "starred" this horrible show about her everyday life with him,where she shoves a camcorder wherever she feels like it,no matter if it is in someone's face or into the shower as Federline is standing in there. She's babbling about her sex-life without leaving anything to your imagination,I don't care for my part,but I can't help wondering how she feels about it now when she's divorced.And yes,for her sake I'm embarrassed.But I shouldn't be.She seem to live a pretty empty,shallow life though.I don't want to swap lives with her even if I could. Road-kill TV if you like.
This is probably the worst excuse for television programming since, oh, I don't know, WHATS HAPPENING NOW? NOTHING ever happened on this ridiculous "series". Even though it's mostly shot by Britney and Kevin themselves, you don't get any good details into their personal lives. It's mostly just them making stupid, jokey small talk and acting like white trash. Look, I love Britney's music as much as the next babe, but this show is just pure filler for a nation so addicted to Britney that they would watch her clip her toenails (yes, that could be an actual episode). Thank God these two broke up, because they were PAINFULLY dull together. This show is TOXIC!
i'm ask... what a f*** are whit the real-TV never i see some b******* in my life is: a******, dirty, f****** bad and other a******* things but anything more is just a piece of American s*** all time Britney saying ''oh s***, i wanna see his cock, i wanna f***, and stuck his d***'' and he thinking ''oh like i gone to still her money'' it's just another show of s*** any one more the only good are what Britney sell in interior clothes but noting special noting it's just like i say another s*** show in this s*** sill out the money pure sex all f******* time, i just see for i sleep on the before show for this i wanna my f****** money
this one of the best celebrity's reality shows a ever saw. we can see the concerts we can see the life of Britney, i love the five episodes. i was always being surprised by Britney and the subjects of the show i think that some people don't watch the show at all we can how a great person she his. she his really funny really gentle and she loves her fans and we can see how she loves her work. i just don't give a 10 because of k-fed he his a real jerk he doesn't seem to like Britney at all. I they make a second season of this great show because it shows at some people how Britney really is. Go Britney your the best and you will never leave our hearts.
...but it's certainly not without merit. Already writer-director Preston Sturges is experimenting with unusual cinematic effects in telling his stories, creating broadly drawn yet distinctive characters and situations, and writing clever and sometimes unexpectedly wise and compassionate dialogue. (No wonder the Coen brothers' next movie is going to be an homage to Sturges.)<br /><br />The major problem is that the plot's not all the way there yet; it lacks surprise, the unexpected plot twists and sudden changes of fortune that keep viewers guessing. The coffee slogan is a lousy thing to hang the plot upon, and the ending is thoroughly predictable. Frank Capra does this sort of thing much better.<br /><br />If you're new to Preston Sturges, check out "The Lady Eve" or "Sullivan's Travels" or "The Miracle of Morgan's Creek" first. If you've seen these already, then go ahead and watch this one.
I really enjoyed the first half hour of this movie but, wow, did it turn corny, or should I say, "just plain stupid." This is just another example of outdated humor. It might have been funny in 1940, but not now....not even close.<br /><br />Dick Powell is always interesting to watch. I especially liked him once he started switching from his boyish looks and high voice of the Busby Berkeley musicals to where he's mature and sounds it, too.<br /><br />He was fine as "Jimmy MacDonald," but the rest of the cast just played stupid characters, the worst being the boss (Raymond Walburn) of the Maxford House Coffee Company, who did nothing but shout all the time. He was brutal to hear and was a big detriment to the movie.
I found it a real task to sit through this film. The sound track was not the best and some of the accents made it difficult to understand what was being said. There was little to move the plot along and often the action simply stopped and there was a prolonged period of conversations which seemed extraneous to the movie. These conversations switched between family groups and the observer was left to try and piece together what the common thread was that tied them together. It is rare that I rate a film this low and do so in this case as the entire viewing experience left me thinking "so what" and "why did I waste my time watching this."
Good movies are original, some leave a message or touch you in a certain way, but sometimes you're not in the mood for that. <br /><br />I wanted something simple, no thinking just plain action when I watched this one. It started of good and was quite entertaining, so why a bad review. Well in the end the movie lost it's credibility. The storyline wasn't that cheesy at all, the action was not too special but overall good, acting was OK, so more than enough to satisfy my needs. But all got ruined because things happened that were over the top, and it left me with a bad feeling. They should have put a little more effort in making everything credible and would have gotten a 7 in the "no thinking just plain action" category. So in conclusion if you know you'll get irritated because things are happening that seem completely illogical: don't watch! otherwise I'd say go ahead...
Went to watch this movie expecting a 'nothing really much' action flick, still got very disappointed. The opening scene promised a little action with a tinge of comedy. It keeps you hooked for the first half coz till then you are expecting that now its time for the action to kick in. Well, nothing of that sort happens. The movie drags and the ending just thumps you down to a point that you get annoyed.Wonder what was the director thinking. Made no sense watsoever. The movie lacked in all aspects, had no real storyline and it seemed very hollow, even if "Rambo" was in it, I don't think he could have helped the rating at all. There is simply no logic to the movie. A perfect way to waste your time and money. By far the most irritating movie i have ever seen and i am sure there will b others who'll have the same viewpoint after enduring it. Definitely not for people who have a little movie sense left in them.
This movie is just another average action flick, but it could have been so much better. When the guns come out they really needed some choreography help. Someone like Andy McNabb - who made that brilliant action sequence in Heat as they move up the street from the robbery - would have turned the dull action sequences into something special. Because the rest of the film was alright - predictable but watchable - better than you would expect from this type of movie. Then came the final scene, the show-down, the one we had been waiting for, but was like watching something from the A-Team in the 80s. They shoot wildly, nothing hits, and they run around a house trying to kill each other - same old, same old.
This film came recommended as a good action film, which I don't really think it is. I found the story convoluted and not all that easy to follow. There really isn't that much action until the end of the film and it's pretty dark and hard to see what's really happening. I was sure hoping for something different, but, alas, didn't find it here.
Wow, the spookiest thing about this episode was the price of houses 40 years ago. I'll preface by saying I'm not a fan of narrated episodes. If the story/actors/etc. are worth their salt, they should be able to convey the bulk of the narrative without having to read it out, reminded me of personages who can't think off the cuff but rely on teleprompters. The psychobabble was tedious and boring, but some enjoy that kind of thing, it's just not my cup O tea. They could have kept the narrative but at least made it much more believable and interesting if it was coming from a psychiatrist or maybe a newspaper reporter or something. Niggling little things like Peugeot being at the house, which has a singular half circle driveway, yet he seems to have parked his car in the tree he was standing under, because it's nowhere to be seen on the road or on the property. Sloppy editing, as she pulls into the driveway (for what seems the 100th time) exactly who are those 2 guys you see at 24m30s walking towards the car as she pulls into the driveway of the deserted house? The dolly close-ups were also overdone, like some Jr. High drama student discovering the zoom function on his camera for the first time. I could keep picking apart, but that might get almost as boring as this episode was. It kept dragging on and the true purpose seemed to be to use absolutely all the stock footage they had shot of Elaine driving the Newport convertible. I fully expected to see the Chrysler logo and a nice jingle play while a voice over told us all about the 8 track player, automatic top etc. The only good thing I have to say about his one is that it just ends, abruptly. No loose ends tied up, nothing explained or terminated. Not that many would notice, I suspect most had already changed the channel or dozed off by the end.
I am a current A.S.L. Student & was forced to watch this movie in class, and what I got out of it was the blatant bias involved in the film. The film is obviously leaning towards to P.O.V. of the "common deaf perception" their is no middle ground. Also, the film didn't make mention or take into account other situations that are also under debate in this topic. I.E. Deaf People who were born hearing and later went deaf. Is it right or wrong in that instance? The film is biased and virtually all in the opinion of the Deaf w/ a capital "D". Not that this is bad, but for it to be a true documentary film is should attempt to be slightly unbiased.
If you are having a bad day,or bad week. If you are looking for a film that will make you laugh and forget about your troubles. I don't think Role Models is that movie for you.<br /><br />The film centers around Danny(Paul Rudd) and Wheeler(Seann William Scott) Two juice promoters, who go to schools promoting the product, telling kids to stay off drugs, and more juice. But Danny is having the worst week ever, and crashes his company car, with Wheeler in the seat next to him. His soon to be ex girlfriend Beth(Elizabeth Banks) who is a lawyer, manages to avoid getting them jail time, by doing hours of community service, volunteering at a big brother place called Sturdy Wings led by Gayle(Jane Lynch). Wheeler is assigned to Ronnie(Bobb'e J Thompson) who is 10 years old, and has a foul mouth like he's Chris Rock. Danny is assigned to Augie(McLovins, Christopher Mintz-Plasse) who likes to dress like a knight, and fight like he is in medieval times. But will this be good for Danny and Wheeler, or will they be better off in jail?<br /><br />Okay I'm not gonna beat around the bush, this movie was very unpleasant in many ways. Namely the Ronnie character, hearing those bad words coming out of a kid that young, was very shocking. If he was a little bit older, it would not have mater'd as much. I mean what where his parents thinking, when they sign'd him on to this. Elizabeth Banks character is so unwatchable, maybe I was supposed to feel bad for her character, but I felt nothing, because she is annoyingly predictably portrayed as a female who would be played in these types of comedies. And Jane Lynch, who's the worst of the worst. She delivers the most overacting performance ever. Playing a former drug addict, who acts like she still is on drugs. Listening to her give all that annoying dialog, made me want to throw my head up against the wall. Seann William Scott once again playing another Stifler like character, he should really try to separate himself, and this film won't do it. And the more Scott tries to hard to be funny, is what keeps him from being funny.<br /><br />Now Paul Rudd on the other hand, I'm gonna separate from the others in the film, cause he manages to deliver a solid performance, although he does not get higher laughs, but he is the most interesting character from the rest. Cause Rudd does not overact, and does not try so hard. The scenes with him and Mintz-Plasse are watchable. But the rest of the film is so stupid, it picks up at times. But it becomes so predictable and uninteresting. It is a reminder that these types of comedies try nothing new, there all the same, they take no chances. Role Models is an example of that.
Make up your own mind. Personally I found it as much fun as receiving a spinal tap from Stevie Wonder. No offense Mr. Wonder. Maybe it is comedy, but I just found it stupid. Not exactly the first two choices to babysit your kids; Wheeler(Seann William Scott)and Danny(Paul Rudd),two energy drink salesmen, to avert jail time are court ordered to mentor two kids from a development center run by Gayle Sweeny(Jane Lynch). One of the misfits is Ronnie(Bobb'e J. Thompson), a foul-mouthed fifth grader and the other is Augie(Christopher Mintz-Plasse), a bashful young man that roll plays in a fantasy medieval world. Wheeler and Danny desperately try to give their charges an invaluable inside view of life, love and heavy metal. Lynch is hilarious with her dry wit analogies. Supporting are: Elizabeth Banks, Ken Jeongg, Kerri Kenney-Silver, Amanda Righetti and David Wain.
well, i hated knocked up, i despised 40-year-old virgin, and this little gem is a worthless piece of trash movie. do yourself a favor, and skip it. i admit, i don't like the actors in this movie, and after my 18-year-old son showed me the cover of the DVD, i was like, "i wouldn't like that movie," but at his insistence, i decided to give it a try, unfortunately. <br /><br />about two minutes into the movie i turned it off, i was so offended. it's just disgusting. any decent person would be offended by the filth in this movie. call me old fashioned, but shoving your pussy juice-covered hand into your friend's face so he will know you "got some" is over the line of decency, in my opinion. yeah, that's how this putrid little film starts, and i can only imagine it gets much worse from there. another real winner for Mr. Rudd. i bet he's proud as punch. imagine if you could only get worthless roles like he gets, would you stay in movies? despite the pay, i wouldn't. <br /><br />i should have known better; next time i will.
Tell the truth I’m a bit stun to see all these positive review by so many people, which is also the main reason why I actually decide to see this movie. And after having seen it, I was really a disappointed, and this comes from the guy that loves this genre of movie.<br /><br />I’m surprise at this movie all completely – it is like a kid’s movie with nudity for absolutely no reason and it all involve little children cursing and swearing. I’m not at all righteous but this has really gone too far in my account.<br /><br />Synopsis: The story about two guys got send to the big brother program for their reckless behavior. There they met up with one kids with boobs obsession and the other is a medieval freak.<br /><br />Just the name it self is not really connected with the story at all. They are not being a role model and or do anything but to serve their time for what they have done. The story is very predictable (though expected) and the humor is lame. And haven’t we already seen the same characters (play by Mc Lovin’) in so many other movies (like Sasquatch Gang?). I think I laugh thrice and almost fell a sleep.<br /><br />Well the casting was alright after all he is the one that produce the screenplay. And the acting is so-so as expected when you’re watching this type of movie. And the direction, what do one expect? This is the same guy who brought us Wet Hot American Summer, and that movie also sucks. But somehow he always managed to bring in some star to attract his horrendous movie.<br /><br />Anyway I felt not total riff off but a completely waste of time. Only the naked scenes seem to be the best part in the movie. Can’t really see any point why I should recommend this to anyone.<br /><br />Pros: Elizabeth Bank? Two topless scenes.<br /><br />Cons: Not funny, dreadful story, nudity and kids do not mix together.<br /><br />Rating: 3.5/10 (Grade: F)
As soon as it hits a screen, it destroys all intelligent life forms around ! But on behalf of its producers I must say it doesn't fall into any known movie category, it deserves a brand new denomination of its own ! It's a "Neurological drama" ! It saddens and depresses every single neuron inside a person's brain.<br /><br />It's the closest thing one will ever get to a stroke without actually suffering one. It drives you speechless, all you members go numb, your mouth falls open and remains so, and the most strange symptom of all is that you get yourself wishing to go blind and deaf.<br /><br />No small feat for such a sort of a "movie".<br /><br />The only word that comes to my mind just having finished my ordeal is OUTRAGE !!!!!!
I watched this film based on the very favorable reviews that I read about it here by others.<br /><br />They definitely saw something in this movie I didn't see, that's for sure.<br /><br />The movie starts off at a good pace, and the first 15 or 20 minutes of it are interesting, then it begins to get logged down and draggy, not to mention completely unbelievable.<br /><br />Eventually you find yourself saying: "What?!? He's going to do that too? Just how far is he going to go with this thing?"<br /><br />The plot begins with Jeff Goldblum's character, John, going into a deli to purchase a bottle of wine. There is a robbery and a new store clerk, Auggie Rose, gets killed during the robbery. <br /><br />John gets in the ambulance and goes to the hospital with the guy. This seems a little much, but wait, there's more.<br /><br />John becomes totally obsessed with Auggie Rose. <br /><br />For reasons that never make any kind of logical sense, John, who has a very good life, a beautiful, loving girlfriend, a secure, well-paying job, nice house, nice car, expensive suits--decides he wants to be a loser like Auggie Rose was, and experience life in a low paying job, living in a dump with a dippy girlfriend and possible connections with dangerous people.<br /><br />Why this dim-witted, half-baked film got favorable reviews I'll never know. Sure Goldblum does a good acting job - he always does - and his looks have improved with age -- but unless you have a BIG infatuation with Jeff Goldblum and have to see every film he's in, I wouldn't recommend this turkey. It's approximately two hours of your life you're not going to get back - and believe me - you'll have nothing to be thankful about when those two hours are over, other than being grateful you're not still sitting there watching this film!<br /><br />
I don't understand the positive comments made about this film. It is cheap and nasty on all levels and I cannot understand how it ever got made.<br /><br />Cartoon characters abound - Sue's foul-mouthed, alcoholic, layabout, Irish father being a prime example. None of the characters are remotely sympathetic - except, briefly, for Sue's Asian boyfriend but even he then turns out to be capable of domestic violence! As desperately unattractive as they both are, I've no idea why either Rita and/or Sue would throw themselves at a consummate creep like Bob - but given that they do, why should I be expected to care what happens to them? So many reviews keep carping on about how "realistic" it is. If that is true, it is a sad reflection on society but no reason to put it on film.<br /><br />I didn't like the film at all.
One of, if not the worst film to come out of Britain in the 80s. <br /><br />This tawdry tale of a middle aged lecher who 'seduces' two teenage scrubbers who babysit for him and his faux-posh wife has nothing to redeem it.<br /><br />In turns gratuitous, puerile, uncouth and unrealistic, this film plumbs the depths as it fails miserably in its attempts to be funny, provocative, intellectual and controversial. <br /><br />Perhaps the worst thing about this film is the way the strong cast of George Costigan, Michelle Holmes and Siobhan Finneran are completely stitched by such a lame script. It's no surprise that this was the late Andrea Dunbar's only work to make it onto the screen. Complete and utter rubbish on every level.
my friends and i saw this film about a week ago and i feel it absolutely necessary to tell all the world (or at least those who will read this) that this movie is not only on the top five worst movies i have ever seen but actually has the honor of being the number one. i have seen quite a lot of films but none beats this one in being stupid. you could say i suffered watching it ... my only excuse is that we were waiting for a few hours and weren't able to go anywhere else without freezing our buttocks off. i do not recommend this to anyone. at first i thought we were watching some really bad porn movie but figured out after 10 minutes that is not the case. it is not a comedy, it is not drama, it is not action, it is not horror, it is just horrible!
I can just about understand why some people might wish to stress this film's link with the Eighties but I really wouldn't say it's an accurate depiction of most peoples' lives in that era - even on the poorest Bradford estates. It is however typical of the blunt agitprop rubbish the dear old Royal Court Theatre was churning out at that time. Plenty of 'right-on' artistry for small, small audiences but enough well-connected backslapping to ensure future commissions for turgid playrights. IThe simple fact is that if you want to reflect upon truer common experience you'll find millions more nodding in knowing agreement to love and live as depicted in 'Gregory's Girl'. <br /><br />I would be tempted to call this a 'kitchen sink' drama but that would be doing a great disservice to the plumbing industry. However, as far as having a decent script is concerned, this film is indeed all washed up. For some reason it has accrued an odd following amongst Guardian reading film-goers - I can only assume they get a visual frisson out of pretending to slum it. Steer clear my friends. It is a poor film with a poor script that likes to think it is breaking boundaries by adding humorous insights into grim life on the estates. it isn't..but it is grim. Do the washing up instead.
This is a strange sex comedy because there`s very little comedy but a whole lot of sex , most of which takes place in the back of a car and is so graphic it makes BASIC INSTINCT look like an edition of TELETUBBIES . I kid you not , the sex in this film is so in your face it might just choke you , especially if you`re watching with your grandparents .<br /><br />As for the rest of RITA , SUE AND BOB TOO there`s not much else worth mentioning except the language where every single sentence seems to contain the F word . This a rather bleak hyper-realist British film made at a time when Channel 4 was the main investor in British movies which explains its made for television low budget feel
Pretty awful but watchable and entertaining. It's the same old story (if you've lived through the 80s). Vietnam vets fight together as buddies against injustice back in the States. A-Team meets Death Wish, my favorite!<br /><br />Time goes on, the soldiers go home, and years later a friend is in trouble. No, wait -- in fact, the friend is dead and it is his dad that's in trouble. Our first hero, Joey, is killed by an exceedingly horrifying (super pointy) meat tenderizer as he tries to defend his father's small store from the local "protection" gang despite being wheelchair bound from the war. Desperate for help, the father talks to Sarge, the leader of Joey's old unit from Vietnam, when Sarge shows up for the funeral.<br /><br />Well, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and the old gang saddles up for the city. You can pretty much imagine most of the rest of the movie.<br /><br />The one thing that drove me crazy is that Sarge keeps haranguing his men about planning, and about how they're really good at what they do when they plan ahead. But Joey wouldn't have been put in a wheelchair by a gunshot in Vietnam in the first place if the unit hadn't been messing around! Then when things are going really well in the city as they battle the gangs, they do it again. For no reason at all, they completely bypass their plan and try to nail the gang without everyone being present. Phh!!!! I raise my hands in disgust. Foolishness!<br /><br />There is also a suspicious moment when all present members of the unit make sure to try out the heroin they snatch from the gang to make sure it's real. EVERY single one of them. Hmm....<br /><br />What are you going to do? Keep watching, I guess. The movie isn't too horrible to watch, but it IS a tease. There are all these climactic moments when nothing actually winds up happening. The most dramatic things that happen are those at the beginning of the movie -- the explosives in Vietnam, Joey's death battle, and the gang brutally kicking an innocent teddy bear aside (poor Teddy!).<br /><br />I guess my main beef with this movie is that I feel let down by it. Even the confusing subplots with "mystery helpers" and their bizarrely cross-purpose motives wasn't enough to save it at the end. But someday maybe it'll all come right and they'll make a sequel. Ha ha ha ha!!!
Becky Harris plays the female shopper whose misfortune it is to be in the store at the wrong time and obviously ONLY purpose to be in this film is to supply a reason to wear out remote controls! Miss Harris seems to me to be in her fifties or older when she first comes on the scene. Once the red haired thug is done with her it becomes apparent that this is no AARP queen. If these are not some of the finest assets ever displayed on celluloid, I want someone to clue me in. Absolutely breathtaking in my opinion and I literally wore out my VHS copy capturing her charms. I would like to know if this movie is available on DVD.<br /><br />The rest of this movie really is not worthy of mention. I was hoping to see something fairly convincing and intelligent, however I was disappointed on both counts. God Bless Becky Harris!
One of the many vigilante epics that flooded the market by the mid-80s. The routine plot has echoes of "The Magnificent Seven" (believe it or not), the action scenes are lamely handled and the special effects are non-existent. You COULD do worse....but the film is still just a waste of time. (*1/2)
Although Robert "Knox" Benfer has his fans, I'm not one of them. His films are asinine and amateurish, and and just not very funny, unless you're a 14 year old with an underdeveloped sense of humor. <br /><br />He's certainly not famous, as him immature fans would like you to believe, by harassing people at Wikipedia, or stuffing the ratings votes here at the IMDb. He's certainly not been profiled by any major media outlets, which speaks volumes about his and his creation's "fame".<br /><br />Benfer does have some slight skill at limited animation, but he needs to get away from his young sycophants and learn to write some actual funny material before he'll be taken seriously as a real entertainer. As of this moment, though, he's just a kid with a camera, and it shows.
boring stuff we got here. His 5 minute shorts are better than this. know why? because there only 5 minutes and not 91 minutes or how ever long this is. <br /><br />The plot is kinda... eh.. the last half hour is alright the rest is boring and not funny =( I had my hopes up, the trailer made it look funny but the pace of this movie is pretty slow and sadly not funny. Just plain boring klaymen running into each other and trying to make us laugh.. not working.<br /><br />Maybe next time knox.<br /><br />Maybe re-cutting this movie and adding better scenes would do a lot of healing but for now its just not good.
I saw this movie the other night. I can't even begin to express how much this movie sucked. The writing, the voice acting, even the claymation. Terrible, Terrible, Terrible. It's like watching 24 hours of C-Span for the sake of comedy. It just doesn't work. It literally falls flat at about every spot possible.<br /><br />Also, the movie's animation is very poor quality. I know that this is an movie made by one person, but to think that he could make 97 minutes worth of crap, maybe he could at least make 1 second worth of funny.<br /><br />This show may take the cake for being the worst film of all time. Yikes. It really was that bad. If you're looking for a movie that will make you laugh, steer clear from this abomination. My advice: Don't even buy it, or look it up for that matter. Your brain will than you.
........and an extremely bad one at that!!! How long did this train-wreck last?? 14 episodes or something?? I can see why now.<br /><br />I bought the "Serenity" episode from Amazon Unboxed. It was my first purchase, so was free. That is the ONLY good thing about the experience (incident??)<br /><br />I won't comment really on the acting, since these were, I guess, fairly new people who hadn't really gotten the job down just right yet. At least I've never seen them before in any type of major show, theater or TV. If I did, then I have easily forgotten them.<br /><br />But the special effects were absolutely horrendous. True, this isn't exactly a multi-million $$ project, but the original Star Trek did better than this & that was THIRTY-FIVE YEARS ago. I especially got a laugh out of the bad guys (reapers or something like that) ship as it chased the hilarious looking Firefly, with smoke coming out of the engines looking something like a gigantic model rocket. I fully expected to eventually see the Wiley Coyote riding on top, while chasing after the Roadrunner. MODERN jet/rocket engines don't even do it that bad.<br /><br />And that wasn't even the worst of it. The wild-west type shoot-outs had me wondering if I was actually watching a sci-fi film or a Gene Autry one.<br /><br />Regardless of the hype, don't waste your time...I did...all 80-something minutes of the disaster called "Firefly".
This was one of the lamest movies we watched in the last few months with a predictable plot line and pretty bad acting (mainly from the supporting characters). The interview with Hugh Laurie on the DVD was actually more rewarding than the film itself...<br /><br />Hugh Laurie obviously put a lot of effort into learning how to dance the Samba but the scope of his character only required that he immerse himself at the kiddie end of the pool. The movie is based on the appearance of a lovely girl and great music but these are not sufficient to make good entertainment.<br /><br />If you have never seen Rio, or the inside of a British bank, this film is for you. 2 out of 10.
This Drummond entry is lacking in continuity. Most of them have their elements of silliness, the postponed wedding, and so on. However, this has an endless series of events occurring in near darkness as the characters run from one place to another. The house seems more like a city. There's also Leo G. Carrol who is such an obvious suspect who no-one seems to even look at. He is a stranger and acts rather suspicious, but Drummond and the folks don't seem to pick up on anything. Still, it as reasonably good action and a pretty good ending.<br /><br />I know that Algie is supposed to be a comic figure, but like Nigel Bruce in the Rathbone Sherlock Holmes flicks, he is so buffoonish that it's hard to imagine anyone with taste or intelligence being around him. Is there a history behind him that will explain how he and Drummond became associates?
A mix of Ninja stuff mixed with a sub-James Bond storyline. The result is incredibly awful and boring, being just the stage for endless gun battles. I can't believe this was released in theaters. Terminate this movie.
Shamefull as it may be, this movie actually made it to the videomarket, bringing shame on my proud country - any attempt to watch this movie without stopping or pausing, will be a fruitless attempt. one cannot bear to see more than one hour of this, then having either fallen asleep, or visited the bathroom for puking.<br /><br />Note: if you haven't seen anything else from Denmark, please remember this:<br /><br />some things were never meant to be - but still some idiot goes ahead and makes it anyway!
This is really a very bad movie. Why? First of all, the story is bad. It is an artificial story, combining all sorts of things together that make no sense. It just seems a wrong experiment. Secondly, the actors cannot play in a realistic manner. They cannot even talk as an actor should. Why did I buy this movie? And what must I do with it now?
Hello I am from Denmark, and one day i was having a film evening with my friends. One brought this movie with him "Russian terminator" and it was extremely awful. After watching less than half a minute we decided to fast forward only stopping at some laughable "highlights" or should i say "lowlights" in the movie. I was actually mostly surprised to find out that this film was produced here in my homeland Denmark...that must have been the biggest mistake this country ever made.
A young basketball-playing professor of genetics is doing research on the genetic sequence, using human fetuses. He hopes to be able to find a cure for all diseases and aging. He's pressured into concluding his research because he hasn't published, so the university is having trouble justifying funding him (I think).<br /><br />He does a trial injection on a monkey, which quickly dies. He then tries it on himself. He starts a relationship with the single mother of an extremely annoying little boy; she's the one who had been demanding results from the research.<br /><br />Initially, he seems to have no effects from the injection, except some new strength. He then realizes that he had some memory loss, and starts recalling what happened. Additionally, he starts to appear very unhealthy.<br /><br />Since the movie is named metamorphosis, he does eventually change into something else. You won't believe your eyes - either what he turned into, or the absolutely crappy costume the actor is wearing to depict what he's turned into. Incredibly, there's a further change in store - the end of the movie is really, really absurd.<br /><br />About the only thing this movie has going for it is that Laura Gemser is in it, but she has a very small part.<br /><br />I'd once seen a the video box for this with a sculpted plastic form glued to the boxcover. Possibly it might even have had some electronics in it at one time, perhaps eyes that light up (the main character's eyes occasionally turn green in the movie). The copy I watched had a box that only showed tear marks where the glue had held on the plastic, which had been removed. The novelty boxcover, if it still had it, would have been the only reason I would have held onto this movie; I'm definitely getting rid of it.
"Metamorphosis" hold a tiny bit of cult-value, simply because it was written and directed by George Eastman. This Italian bloke is more or less the personification of male sleaze and starred in pretty much every rancid Joe D'Amato production during the late 70's/early 80's. Wouldn't it be interesting for avid Euro-cult purchasers to own the only movie directed by the guy who walked around bare-butted in "Erotic Nights of the Living Dead" all the time? I thought so! Now, unlike the movies he starred in, Eastman's own "Metamorphosis" is kind of disappointing in the gore & sleaze departments. There are a handful of nasty murders, cheesy monster effects and naked female bodies (a guest appearance by sleaze-queen Laura Gemser!) on display, but it's mainly a talkative movie. The handsome & eloquent Dr. Houseman is on the verge of a scientific breakthrough with his research on human DNA codes when suddenly the university he works for threatens to cancel his funds. He developed a theory to decode genes and block the human ageing process, but if he doesn't come up with detailed reports any time soon, his research will be stopped. So Dr. Houseman does what any intelligent scientist would do and injects the untested serum into his own veins. Needless to say (and like the title implies), he slowly turns into murderous monster that actually ages much quicker! In other words, his research sucked! Like the other reviewers already mentioned, this movie "borrows" a lot of ideas from David Cronenberg's "The Fly" – the dramatic romance sub plot included - but doesn't add any originality from its own. The big difference is that you constantly feel connected with Jeff Goldblum's character in "The Fly", whereas Dr. Houseman becomes just another monster that needs to be destroyed as fast as possible. The rapid-ageing-syndrome aspect also reminded me of Ruggero Deodato's sadly underrated giallo "Phantom of Death", only the protagonist in that film inherited the disease and didn't inflict it on himself. The physical deterioration of the carriers is very similar in both films, though. Few scares or excitement to discover here, instead the movie features loads of bad acting, poor lighting, lousy editing and a completely retarded climax to boot. Feel free to skip this one.
All the elements for a bad night at the movies are in place: dialog riddled with biological techno-babble, chintzy sets, balsa-wood acting, a horrific late-'80s Casio score, and an overall look that suggests anything on the Sci-Fi Channel's programming schedule, circa 1993. Though "Metamorphosis" starts off with a lot of promise, the film unravels into bland idiocy and MST3K-style cheese as Clark Kent wannabe 'Doctor' Peter Houseman (Gene LeBrock) is pressured into releasing information on his secretive projects. But when he tests his vague experiment on himself, he transforms into a vaguely-defined creature (that bears more than a passing resemblance to 'Dr. Freudstein' from "House by the Cemetery"). The FX work is fairly good for such an obviously low-budget production (though I suspect most of it is kept in shadow for a reason), but overall, "Metamorphosis" leaves a bad retro aftertaste in your guts, in spite of its hopes to sway us otherwise. I can't help but agree with one character's closing remark: "(It was) A nightmare...from the past!"
Meet Peter Houseman, rock star genetic professor at Virgina University. When he's not ballin' on the court he's blowing minds and dropping panties in his classroom lectures. Dr. Houseman is working on a serum that would allow the body to constantly regenerate cells allowing humans to become immortal. I'd want to be immortal too if I looked like Christian Bale and got the sweet female lovin that only VU can offer. An assortment of old and ugly university professors don't care for the popular Houseman and cut off funding for his project due to lack of results. This causes Peter to use himself as the guinea pig for his serum. Much to my amazement there are side effects and he, get this, metamorphoses! into something that is embedded into our genetic DNA that has been repressed for "millions of years". He also beds Dr. Mike's crush Sally after a whole day of knowing her. She has a son. His name is Tommy. He is an angry little boy.<br /><br />Metamorphosis isn't a terrible movie, just not a well produced one. The whole time I watched this I couldn't get past the fact that this was filmed in 1989. The look and feel of the movie is late seventies quality at the latest. It does not help that it's packaged along with 1970's movies as Metamorphosis is part of mill creek entertainment's 50 chilling classics. There is basically no film quality difference whatsoever. The final five minutes are pure bad movie cheese that actually, for me at least, save the movie from a lower rating. Pay attention to the computer terminology such as "cromosonic anomaly". No wonder Peter's experiment failed. Your computer can't spell! This is worthy of a view followed by a trip to your local tavern.
'Metamoprhis' is the story of a dashing young scientist, revered at the local college, is brought under investigation by financial providers for the college. This forces him to take shortcuts in typical bad-Hollywood melodramatic fashion.<br /><br />My first thought after this movies conclusion was this. "Not good, but not bad, for early-to-mid eighties." Of course, I then realized that it was made in 1990, which almost propelled it down to a '4', but decided to keep it at the mediocre '5' that it is.<br /><br />'Metamorphis' does on a few occasions, seem like a good movie desperately trying to get out. The acting, while not stellar, is mostly competent. You can even see the occasional glisten of a modest quality. Pacing is a large problem with the movie. After thinking I had been watching for ninety minutes, I realized I'd only been watching an hour. Special effects aren't stellar, but the director seems to be mostly competent enough to work around that weakness.<br /><br />The lead, a mildly charismatic male that seems to be attempting a blended channeling of Tom Cruise and Christopher Reeves, reminded me mostly of Matt Dillon's character in 'Wild Things'. The female heroine does an OK job, but does not distinguish herself in anyway. There's a 'naughty girl' role in here, and the actress does what she can with it, but it doesn't seem like much. There is a child actor that the director can't decide if he's morose, cheerful or just weird. <br /><br />Pacing, as I said, is the worst problem with this movie, until a final battle with the bad guy that would make a Power Ranger blush. It is bizarre and inexplicable, until the final scene which is supposed to be dramatic but simply hilarious, saturated with every bad camera trick and overacting that can be compressed in about thirty seconds.<br /><br />A decent one-time watch on the 'Mill Creek 50 Chilling Movie Pack'. Nothing that is going to bring you back, and nothing to buy on its own.
It's the same old, "If I can't get the funding for my project, I'll inject myself" monster movie. There is nothing new here. It's a lot like the Jeff Goldblum "Fly" movie. The man manages to keep some semblance of sanity, but eventually succumbs to the effects of his experiments. The acting is pretty bad. There are people acting stupidly all along the way, putting their lives in danger for no apparent reason. The guy keeps going back to the lab he has been forbidden to enter. Then there's his relationship with a young woman and her son. Admittedly, he is good looking, but he seems like a lot of trouble. It's just a pretty big waste of time. Even his tyrannosaurus suit looks like it came off the rack at a Star Trek convention.
METAMORPHOSIS I am working my way through the Chilling Classics 50 Movie Pack Collection and METAMORPHOSIS is the seventh movie in the set. Released in 1990, METAMORPHOSIS seems to be a remake of "The Atom Age Vampire," which also featured a scientist striving for similar results. Set in modern times, METAMORPHSIS is not my kind of horror movie.<br /><br />A university researcher is working to crack the human genome in order to create a serum that would prevent aging. Pressured by the administration to publish his papers; and, produce some results (or risk losing funding), the scientist decides to use himself as a guinea pig! At first thinking that he suffered no adverse side effects, he eventually discovers that the serum has indeed altered him in the most unexpected manner! <br /><br />The acting is stilted; and, the performances left me with a much diminished interest in the film. The score is pandering. And, the science behind the experiments and their findings is not only fallacious; it's absurd; it's ridiculous – at best. <br /><br />As others noted, the end turns into a 30+ minute gag, which is seemingly endless. Without giving too much away, I'd call this one, "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde meet the Creature From the Black Lagoon meets Home Alone."
As others have mentioned, this movie is similar to THE FLY (both versions) and the lesser known sci-fi flick ALTERED STATES. The big difference is that those two movies were well made by people who knew what they were doing and were good at it. METAMORPHOSIS did not have these advantages. METAMORPHOSIS is a potentially interesting science fantasy story that had the wrong people in charge of it and the wrong actors playing the roles.<br /><br />The story follows scientist Dr. Peter Houseman (Gene LeBrock), an obsessed man working on a genetic cure to aging and death. When the university he works for threatens to cut funding, he decides to inject the anti-aging serum into himself. As a result, Dr. Houseman spends the rest of the movie slowly turning into a lizard. And oh yes, watching the good doctor go through the process of becoming that lizard is a great joy. It really is so bad that it's good. Some of the lines are classic: "What WAS it?" "A nightmare...from the past!"<br /><br />Many of the reviews that I've read for this point up how stupid and ridiculous the last five minutes of this movie are. I'm just going to go ahead and spoil it: the good doctor goes from being a shuffling half-man, half-lizard thing to being what appears to be a man in a rejected Godzilla costume, when the police finally gun him down. In the final scene, some obnoxious kid is seen with a little pet lizard which he claims will never die, and the movie's heroine, Sally Donnelly (Catherine Baranov) evidently decides that the little lizard is the final incarnation of Dr. Houseman. The camera then gives us a close-up of the lizard's face; this is, I assume, the director's way of showing us that the lizard is EVIL. Yes, it is goofy, but I fell over laughing so I can't complain.<br /><br />I watched this movie because it was a part of the Chilling Classics 50 Movie Megapack that I purchased. I'm sure many of those who are reading this did exactly the same thing, as the 50 pack is the only way to see this movie on DVD. If you have recently bought the boxed set and haven't watched this movie yet, it really is worth your time, even if I did just ruin the ending for you. It might also be possible to find this movie online for free.
I unknowingly had this movie on my shelf for a while in a Mill Creek Collection, and one night I just decided to watch it; though not expecting much. As the beginning credits roll around I'm surprised to discover this film was made under the Filmirage company. Filmirage brought the world such amazing stinkers as "Troll 2", "Ator the Invincible", and "Quest for the Mighty Sword", so I was compelled to watch.<br /><br />As the movie started out it had potential to be pretty decent, even though it was unoriginal. The gore scenes could have been improved if they were extended and more frequent. But after a while into the film, the pace started dragging and I found myself thinking "Okay someone better get killed soon",or "Someone better mutate". At the onset of this drag, when I was having these thoughts, though someone may have gotten killed or have mutated, however as noted, the gore and effects weren't very good. What made matters worse was that the scene transitions were confusing; example: first Dr. Houseman would be at the Zoo, then he'd have a flash back about possibly killing someone, finally he'd wake up in a cold sweat in bed-- making the audience ask "Was he dreaming he was at the zoo?". Like the movie's pace, these scene transitions got progressively worse.<br /><br />I could try to say the character development of Dr. Houseman was pretty good, but towards the end of the film, that is, once you've seen what the Doctor has metamorphosed into, hopefully you'll laugh-- which really, is the only reason to see this movie at least once; this movie unintentionally runs like a long-winded joke.<br /><br />The costume of the um, thing that Doctor Houseman becomes can also be seen in Joe D' Amato's "Quest for the Mighty Sword", which was made in the same year. You've gotta love Filmirage movies, they're always re-using the same stuff!
Ha. without a doubt Tommy's the evil one here. i don't know why, but for some reason, little kids in horror movies tend to come across as little butt munches. and since they're kids, they won't die. because they're annoying...well..except for asylum of terror. but those are few and far between.<br /><br />Anyway onto the movie. Can't find this movie on DVD? sure you can! all you have to do is buy the Chilling classics DVD pack! not only do you get Metamorphosis on DVD for $15, but you also get 49 OTHER MOVIES! what a bargain! pff. OK. i'm done advertising for these cheesy movies. let's just say, this movie ain't worth the 15 bucks on its own.<br /><br />So we have a chemist scientist. yeah. cause all chemist scientists look as handsome as this guy playing Peter. He's trying to come up with a serum to stop deterioration of the body. the college he works at wants to pull the plug on his project, so he tries it on himself. but because this is a horror movie, he sucks it up and starts and incredibly long transformation sequence that takes nearly 3/4 of the movie.<br /><br />To pad out the movie he gets into a relationship with some woman who has a son. and she was never married! scandalous! But of course Tommy is one of the most irritating characters....no. i take it back. HE IS the most irritating character. Far worse than the old crippled guy who wants to take over peter's work and gloats over him while he's in the hospital. that's right, even as an old cripple, you can still be the villain.<br /><br />So we see Peter start to randomly kill some people in visions he has until he realizes he's the one doing it and just decides to kill everyone in his path to get back to normal. However at the end he ends up de-evolving into a lizard. yeah, i know don't ask. The ending really doesn't make any sense. And if you're hoping for any really good payoff, you're not going to get it.<br /><br />This isn't a HORRIBLE movie....it's just frustrating because of the lack of a good payoff. if you already own the 50 movie pack and this is next on your list, you're not in for a snoozer, but you're also not in for a great movie. Just sit back, relax, and eat a lot of snack food. Because this movie isn't going to be making you jump out of your skin anytime soon.<br /><br />Metamorphosis gets 4 plastic lizard heads, out of 10.
First let me be honest. I did not watch all this movie. I watched the first five minutes and when i realized that I had nearly fallen to sleep i decided that I may as well fast forward and see if it got any more interesting later on... It didn't. This film is just a collection of lame attempts to make a story which is already uninteresting and badly told into something that it would never become: a decent horror movie. Because I feel it is important to say that even a movie with poor special effects can still be good if it is well made. This film isn't and will only put you into a deep sleep if you attempt to watch it. Lastly I feel it is important to say that I think this movie is in the publicdomain so if you feel that you must absolutely watch it than a littlesearch on the internet will surely show you a place where you won't need to pay to watch this pile of cinematographic dung.
Ok so I was bored and I watched it all the way through.<br /><br />This film is mild, inoffensive and lacklustre. The story is so sugary it rots your teeth on the opening titles. A tail of two 'traumatised' children learning about 'God' the fairy story way which frankly left me rather traumatised. It uses the Irish 'blarney' in such a stereotypical way one hopes no true Irish ever see it. Aimed at children who frankly would switch off after the first attempt at an 'OIRISH' accent. All in all why do they pump these out.
This mini series, also based on a book by Alex Haley as was `Queen', tried to use similar formulas, that is, constructing a long history following the lives of a family over many years. Whereas in `Queen' the result was masterful, here in Mama Flora the inspiration was lacking. Firstly perhaps in the book itself, and most certainly in this TV production. Too much is put in with too much haste over the years, such that the unfolding saga is shallow, superficial, not nearly so authentic as in `Queen'. Full marks for the scenification in the earlier parts of the film, which was prepared with great care, but as the film progressed it seemed to degenerate into a kind of dallasian-forsythian unpalatable mix in the last third of its three hours or so duration. I had hoped for more; but evidently Haley was less inspired with this tale than his near-biographical `Queen', and Peter Werner III is no match for John Erman. Only recommendable for those who have an appetite for these lengthy tales of generations growing up.
Anemic comedy-drama, an unhappy, seemingly rushed affair featuring Cher as a woebegone housewife who slowly makes friends with the hit-man who's been hired to kill her by her husband. Chazz Palminteri, as the talkative hired gun, adapted the screenplay from his own play, with stagy set-ups and back-and-forth dialogue that quickly tires the eye and ear. An air of gloom hangs over the entire project, and director Paul Mazursky can't get Cher out of her perpetual funk (she's listless). Despite all the top talent (including Robert De Niro as one of the producers), "Faithful" is fraudulent, with no substance to the story and characters who rarely come to life. *1/2 from ****
Adapting plays into cinema is often a bad idea because they're two different mediums . Do you think it's a great idea to make ZULU into a stage play ? Imagine it where two valiant redcoats sit in a tent gasping " Blimey there's thousands of them out there " Great movie and a bad stage play <br /><br />In order for a stage play to make great cinema there's two essentials needed <br /><br />1) A fine cast that creates on screen chemistry <br /><br />2 ) Great dialogue <br /><br />On paper Cher and Chazz Palminterri would be a good casting choice but not in these roles . The story revolves around a hit-man played by Palminterri breaking into a house to kill a wife played by Cher with most of the action taking place inside the house . I was unable to take these two characters seriously though perhaps it was the fault of the script which can't decide whether it was trying to be serious or funny . Since the story is very static it's of the utmost importance that the dialogue shines and once again because of the bizarre tone of the screenplay it embarrasses more than anything else with much of the conversation revolving around sex acts . if you want to see a great translation of a stage play transferred to the silver screen give FAITHFUL a miss and watch 12 ANGRY MEN instead
Minimal script, minimal character development, minimal steady camera. Maximum stretched scenes, maximum headache inducing jerky zooms, maximum characters walking around in the woods doing nothing. Up until the time flashes on the screen of 12:01pm, you can fast forward and miss nothing, since there are three hunters who we know nothing about doing nothing. To be fair, the movie does have some string music that was interesting, so perhaps a music video would have been the way to go with this. Unfortunately that was not to be, and what should have been a twenty minute short is stretched beyond belief. Forget about "Trigger Man", I know I am trying to. - MERK
"Trigger Man" is definitely the most boring and silliest movie I've ever seen in my life. My aunt's holiday videos are more fascinating.<br /><br />The actors seem to be recruited at uglypeople.com. They do not have any talent to act in a convincing manner.<br /><br />They walk and walk and walk through the forest. There's more walking-around than in all three parts of "The Lord of the Rings" together. After the first hour, I began to read a Porsche brochure while watching "Trigger Man" along the way. Awful.<br /><br />A total waste of time and money. I'd give that movie 0 stars out of 10, since this is not possible, I have to give 1 star.
I have seen poor movies in my time, but this really takes the biscuit! Why oh why has this film been made? There just is nothing here whatsoever. Please put your trust in me, flick the off switch and destroy your copy of this film. There is a plot... that could take about 5 minutes to show on camera. This is the key problem, the story 'based on a true story' (mmm... whatever) just in no way lends itself to be padded out for 80 minutes. And so we therefore have to sit through over an hour of watching people walk around. That is it! In the whole first half an hour absolutely nothing happens, apart from watching someone walk to a shop... and then 3 guys walking through a wood. This time could perhaps have been spent on developing character... but no. And so there is absolutely no connection to the people on screen, and so when they start to get shot, we couldn't care less! In fact I was in the end vouching for the baddie so that the film would end! On top of this the camera work is truly horrific! This director/editor/writer/producer, Ti West is rubbish. I hate to hit a guy, but really, his work is pants! These dull close ups continuously, and then long single takes following people as they walk - I'm sure he thinks he's clever, but the results are so dull I just wanted to stop the film and slit my wrists! How this man has been brought on to direct the next cabin fever movie is beyond me! To finish, the acting is also woeful,... which goes for the film as a whole. Preserve your sanity, stick clear of this heap of total excrement!
Contains spoilers The movie plot can be summarized in a few sentences: Three guys go hunting in the forest. Two of them along other people get shot in the head without explanation. The last guy can stand in the clear, shout and do anything without getting shot. He gets to walk through an old factory and has the evil people walk right into his scope without a struggle. The villains are conveniently dressed in black and look like villains.<br /><br />That is the whole story, not summarized but in detail. Everything is drawn out with a guy standing ringing a door bell. We wait with him. Long shot of guys being bored in the woods and sleeping. We can take a nap with them. The one drawn out shot of following a female jogger could have been redeeming, if we could see her butt or boobs bouncing.<br /><br />There dialog is less then Terminator and it is not because there is so much action. The characters just don't talk. And, then they don't even have something corny to say like 'I'll be back.' If my buddy shot this on the weekend, I'd cheer for him, because it is quite a feat to figure out the camera controls. To pay money to rent this as a DVD is totally inappropriate.<br /><br />The one thing that is a little funny is the extra with the director telling, how they local police didn't realize that they were shooting and treated them like a random guy walking around with a gun. If they'd have filmed that, I'd be sure it would be more fun to watch then the movie.
The story is seen before, but that does'n matter if you can figure out to make a proper storyboard. It is clear that the director haven't spent his work on the storyboard. Alongside this, the cameraman spent far too much time leaning angles that do not match the message of the movie. The funniest is, however, if you take a look at the movie's website, you can read that it was on purpose that the director has chosen to make the film with bad camera angles. Because it remind us about hunting. But I have never heard of hunting with poor camera angles ;-) It will have 1 stars because the story is OK. It is a pity that Ti West, has not spent more time to review his story. It is as if the movie was more important than the planning. Because you have a camera does not mean you should make a movie right away... come. Everyone can make a movie, but not all will be just as good. So a word of advice to Ti West are: stop and labeling what you want. Use your time to start planning and not filming until everything has come down on a storyboard. You certainly have the ability and desire - so don't abuse your talent.
This movie is very very very poor. I have seen better movies. <br /><br />There was a bit of tension but not much to make you jump out of your chair. It begins slowly with the building of tension. Which is not a success. At least if you ask me. Though at some points or moments I must say it was a bit funny when people got shot and how they went down.<br /><br />They should had made it something like Scary Movie, then it might be a better movie. Because I watched only pieces of the movie by skipping scenes and it got to boring through out the movie. I must say that i felt sleepy watching this movie so I sure can say it is not worth it.<br /><br />Don't waste time on even thinking to do something with this movie besides leaving it where it already is. Somewhere very dusty..
In the first 20 minutes, every cliche possible was trotted out by the hack writer and director. There was the NTSB primary investigator with the tortured family life; the politically-tortured NTSB board member played by [I can kill ANY TV] Ted McGinley; the tortured father of a crash victim; and the torturing sleazy ambulance-chasing lawyer.<br /><br />Hollywood still has no concept of the fragility of aircraft. The crashed plane was a 737 and it was mostly sitting on the ground like a hippo who decided to take a nap. The first third of the fuselage was intact, the rear half of the plane was intact and the debris field showed no wings or engines. Most of the people should have walked away in light of how many people survived that plane that got shredded in Iowa after it lost its hydraulics. Most of this TV plane wasn't even burned.<br /><br />It reminded me of the scene in "Air Force One" where the 747 hits the water and then skips along like it's made of inch-thick steel.<br /><br />The show was so bad it was impossible to watch. Even my wife, who is more accepting than I, was commenting on technical flaws. What had me stunned was how this POS could ever get made. Are the producers of these things so used to clichés that they can't even recognize them? Somebody read this script and said: Yes, I want to spend a million bucks making this real. I wish I was the guy's next appointment. I have title to a wonderful bridge in New York that I'd sell cheap.
This isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but I really can't recall when I've seen a worse one. I thought this would be about an aircraft accident investigation. What it really was is a soap opera, and a bad one at that. They overplayed the 'conflict' card to the extreme. The first hour or so seems like a shouting match, with some implausible scenes thrown in.<br /><br />*Possible spoiler*<br /><br />The 40-or-so minute 'memorial' scene (with requisite black umbrellas and rain) to fictitious crash victims was lame, and I thought it would never end. <br /><br />Avoid this one at all costs, unless you revel in 'conflict'.<br /><br />
Weaker entry in the Bulldog Drummond series, with John Howard in the role. Usual funny banter and antics, but not much plot. Barrymore gets something to do as the inspector, swapping disguises to follow Drummond, Algy, and Tenny on a wild goose chase (mostly in circles; perhaps the budget was tighter than usual) to rescue poor Phyllis, who is being held captive by people who want to lure Drummond to his doom. For those keeping score, in this one, Drummond is planning to ask Phyllis to marry him and Algy is worried about missing the baby's christening. It's fun to see Algy and Tenny dressed up as fisherman to blend in at The Angler's Rest, but little of it rises above silly.
Though a bit more polished technically than the previous film in the series, BULLDOG DRUMMOND ESCAPES, this is a weaker escapade in both a plot that's less thrilling and a leading man who simply doesn't have the charisma of Ray Milland.<br /><br />That said, several actors and characters continue in their roles and manage to keep the flag flying. Also John Barrymore is present, popping up all through the film in a variety of outlandish disguises.<br /><br />Anyway it's another endless night for BD as he and his cohorts chase around trying to rescue the poor girl he intends to marry. The clues are stupid but again the supporting actors often make them entertaining.
I had heard (and read) so many good things about Weeds that I was looking forward to getting hooked on another great cable Series (like Entourage, Sopranos or Mad Men) but that slowly eroded away with each episode I watched from Season One. (didn't make it past the first six episodes) <br /><br />The writing was unoriginal, contrived and the portrayal of Blacks embarrassing. The dialog felt forced, like the writers are trying way too hard to be clever and hip . It was a rare moment when I actually emitted an audible laugh.<br /><br />The characters never developed enough for me to care about them, they were selfish and unappealing. I absolutely HATED the addition of the Brother-in-law (who should have been hauled away on To Catch A Predator) and the removal of the Hodes' daughter Quinn from the cast by sending her to boarding school in Mexico was so unoriginal and cliché, I had to conclude the writers were testing the viewer's loyalty.<br /><br />Episode after episode I liked the characters less and couldn't get past many of the technical flaws in the story line.<br /><br />Add to that I heard that Season Two wasn't as good, so I lost all motivation to continue to watch this play out.<br /><br />If you're a fan of good casting and writing, I suspect this show will be a challenge for you to like, unless of course you're stoned and then all bets are off.
Don't get me wrong , I want to see marijuana legalized as much as the next guy. I shall digress now. The writing, though, was unrealistic. A PTA mom dealing drugs but adamant about her drugs getting into the hands of an underage person. Give me a break. The smugness of very pretty Mary Louise Parkers character was an insult to my intelligence. The characters were not at all likable. Basically, the plot lines went nowhere. I understand its only TV land . The hypocrisy was blatant. Mary Louise Parker is supposed to be a great mom and I am supposed to believe this.... WHY ???? I just got the feeling I was being preached by a show reeking of seediness. Its like saying its OK to cheat on your wife , but with someone of legal age status. OK not exactly the same thing , but I think you people get my point. That save the children stuff is wonderful for campaign trails , I guess, but it does not hold water in a cable sitcom about a suburbanite mom , as the local pot dealer.
Another turgid action/adventure flick from the Quinn Martin Productions factory. Roy Thinnes plays undercover agent Diamond Head (Mr. Head, to you), working for his G-Man handler "Aunt Mary", looking for "Tree", who's on a mission to...well, just watch the movie. <br /><br />This one deserved and got the full MST3K sendup. As the boys and various reviewers have pointed out, the movie "Fargo" had more Hawaiian locations than this film. Apparently shot on a puny budget, this movie highlights Hawaii's broken-down dive shops, gas stations, and cheapo hotels. Zulu -- later to star as Kono in Hawaii-Five-O -- appears as Thinnes' lumpy, inept sidekick, while France Nguyen models the Jenny Craig diet gone horribly wrong. Others sharing the flickering screen include a drunken Richard Harris knockoff, a George Takai imitator, a not-so-smart hit-man with sprayed-on Sansabelt slacks, and the villain "Tree", sporting a veddy British accent. You can pretty much figure out the plot halfway through the opening credits, but relax--just enjoy the giddy mediocrity of this 70's movie-of-the-week.<br /><br />Whenever I think of this movie (and I think of this movie often), I catch myself humming the theme, written for flute and tuba...no one knows why. <br /><br />Trivia note--Diamond Head was directed by Jeannot Szwarc, one of three contract directors at Universal who would go on to make much bigger films, in his case Jaws 2. The others were John Badham (War Games), and a young fellow named Steven Spielberg...
It doesn't take long to see why Code Name: Diamond Head didn't make it onto the network schedules. The TV pilot movie doesn't get past the credits before it's obvious just how bad it's going to be. Maybe I missed something, because the plot didn't make a whole lot of sense. Based on what I got out of the muddled mess, a terrorist or thief or something named "Tree" (Ian McShane) goes to Hawaii to steal something to do with a secret weapon. The world's dullest secret agent, Johnny Paul (Roy Thinnes), is out to stop him. There might have been more, but trust me – it really doesn't matter anyway.<br /><br />Action movies should have action. Suspenseful moments should have suspense. And dramatic moments should have drama. There's none of that in Code Name: Diamond Head. I've seen others use the word "turgid" to describe this made for TV snoozer – and it's better than any one word description I can come up with. None of the characters is in the least bit exciting or worth caring about. And Roy Thinnes makes for the worst leads imaginable. His charisma is just slightly north of a slug. Ian McShane is easily the best thing the movie has going for it, but unfortunately for everyone else involved, it doesn't appear he was going to be back as a regular cast member. Now if McShane had been cast in the series lead, well then you might have had something.<br /><br />I'm quickly discovering that these Gawd awful 70s made-for-TV movies make great Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes. And that goes double if Quinn Martin was involved. Very funny stuff from Mike and the Bots. So while I may only give the movie a 3/10, I rate Episode #608 a 4/5 on my MST3K rating scale.
Ahh, the dull t.v. shows and pilots that were slammed together in the 70's to make equally dull t.v. movies! Some examples would be Riding With Death(the most hysterically cheesy of the lot), Stranded in Space(confusing and uninteresting), San Francisco International(horribly dull and unbelievably confusing), and this turgid bit of Quinn Martin glamor. <br /><br />Shot in Hawaii(although you wouldn't know it from the outside shots), it's apparently a failed pilot for a lame spy show. The real problem is that you don;'t like most of the characters, including the drab main character Diamond Head, who seemed half asleep for the entire movie; his boss 'Aunt Mary', who had a really weird delivery of his lines and shellacked white hair as well as the a tan that looked like it had been stuccoed on; Diamnd Head's girlfriend/fellow agent(hell, I can't even remember her name) a skinny, wooden woman with a flat way of speaking that is just not sexy or interesting; and the singing sidekick Zulu(again, i can't remember his character's name)who wasn't bad in small doses. The most interesting person in the whole production was Ian McShane, who sucked as a bad guy but still proved his acting chops. Alothugh the make-up jobs this so-called 'chameleon' used to disguise himself were just laughable. I have absolutely no idea what he was doing or what he was trying to steal from the lab that caused him to dress as a South American Dictator cum American General. Nor do I care. The plot simply wasn't interesting enough to hold your attention for even ten minutes at a time, let alone the hour and a half or so it goes on. Just call this one - Hawaii Five No!
Think of this pilot as "Hawaii Five-O Lite". It's set in Hawaii, it's an action/adventure crime drama, lots of scenes feature boats and palm trees and polyester fabrics and garish shirts...it even stars the character actor "Zulu" in a supporting role. Oh, there are some minor differences - Roy Thinnes is supposed to be some front-line undercover agent, and the supporting cast is much smaller (and less interesting), but basically the atmosphere is still the same. Problem is, "Hawaii Five-O" (another QM product) already existed at the time and had run for years. It filled the market demand for Hawaii-based crime dramas quite adequately. Code Name: Diamond Head may have been intended as the hier to H50 as the older series eventually dwindled away...but it comes across as a superfluous, 2nd rate copy. It doesn't suck, but it's completely derivative and doesn't do anything as well as the original.<br /><br />There is some decent acting talent involved here. Thinnes is an old pro, and he gives the role his best shot, and he isn't bad. But Thinnes is only as good as his material and his director. Ian McShane is in here as an evil spy master named "Tree", and McShane tends to be the most interesting actor in any scene he appears in. But he's phoning his part in here. Frances Ngyuen is reasonably exotic looking, but her astounding skinniness, opaque features, thick accent and wooden delivery aren't the stuff of which dreams are made. Relying on her to supply the 'romantic interest' for Thinnes was probably the series' biggest mistake. At least for for a series aimed at white audiences brought up with Marsha Brady and Peggy Lee as our love goddesses. Give her another 30 lbs and a year with a dialog/voice coach, and she might cut it. Zulu is, well, his usual self - enjoyable in bit parts, but he isn't a person who can carry a feature by himself. <br /><br />In addition, the plot and dialog are strictly by-the-numbers, with nothing to distinguish them from any other Quinn Martin production. And by this point, the American TV audience had seen a whoooole lot of QM productions....I think "CN: DH" was one too many, and it sank without a trace. It wasn't the really the actors' fault, and I hope they walked away from this with a decent paycheck and one more entry on their C.V.s. <br /><br />MST3000 revived this for their treatment in their sixth season, and they had a lot of good natured fun with it. Worth seeking out in that version if you enjoy the MST approach to movie japery and lampoon, but I can't imagine anyone caring about this pilot for any other reason.
This series would have been a lot better if they had just done one simple thing: Made Ian McShane Code Name: Diamond Head instead of Code Name: Tree. Diamond Head the character needs someone who could handle the role of the lovable rogue, which McShane proved he could do with the Lovejoy series. Roy Thinnes, the actual Diamond Head, is really only so-so in the role. McShane is not really that good as the bad guy Tree. France Nuyen's character, Tso-Tsing, can't seem to make up her mind as to whether she's the hapless victim or the tough-and-ready-to-fight woman. She really earned her pay at the end when she had to play the role of Diamond Head's lover. After viewing an episode or two, I ended up not caring what happened to anyone. Tree gives us a lot to hate him, but Diamond Head gives us nothing to like him. Unfortunately, the spy genre in the 1970s was not quite as it was in the 1960's.
TV pilots, don't you love them? Quinn Martin tried this one out after being successful in a bunch of other TV detective movies, but this one goes nowhere except in the realm of MST where it belongs. Roy Thinnes is Diamond Head who takes orders from Aunt Mary to find super spy Lovejoy, I mean Tree. Zulu and Tso-Tsing are there for ethnic comic relief and not much else. Tree sucks as a bad guy despite all his disguises that makes him look exactly the same as he normally does. There's more unnatural clothing fiber here than you can ever imagine (required in the 1970's)and the show itself is so anti-climatic. Why did it not go to series? You figure it out, it's quite blatant. Again it's fun for MST, but not a lot else!!
I'm not going to approach and critique the theories of RAW. I mean, this is a site about movies and whether the movie delivers or is well-made, and not a site debating philosophy.<br /><br />Having said that, this video really blows. It's one talking-head shot of RAW after another. Some of it is archival video, so you can see how he has aged over the years, and that's pretty cool. But, otherwise, the viewing experience is relentlessly monotonous.<br /><br />It's a strange comparison, but I kept thinking of the Sunday afternoon when I watched some of the Barbra Streisand star vehicle *Funny Lady* (another really bad movie). After a while, I was so OD'd on Barbra, I kept wishing there would be one scene that she wouldn't appear in: you know, a "meanwhile, other characters in the movie were up to something else..." moment. But it was all about Barbra. Well this video is RAW's *Funny Lady*. <br /><br />So, if your idea of a good time is to look at multiple takes and angles of the face of RAW while he prattles on with his theories, assembled in a lame structure that doesn't add any interest or insight, then be my guest. For me, I couldn't take it after 20 minutes.
RKS films always have been commercial films which suited the 90's, from GHAYAL, DAMINI<br /><br />His last few films KHAKEE were watchable FAMILY was crap<br /><br />This film is a decent film but could be better<br /><br />The problem lies in there is lot of old fashioned clichés thrown in and many scenes come out too filmy and lengthy<br /><br />Ajay Devgan's character is shown very well but his character gets heroic which could be subtle<br /><br />The lengthy flashback could be avoided as thigns are simply long drawn<br /><br />Even the street play in the second half look too simplistic and hardly a solution though the message is well brought out<br /><br />Direction by RKS is decent, though it could be better Music is okay<br /><br />Ajay Devgan looks the part very well and is at ease playing his part mostly though at times he does look ill at ease in light scenes He excels in dramatics Vidya excels in the scene front of media Pankaj has a not proper defined role and too filmy yet he excels in his part Darshan Jariwala hams as the old age villain the rest are okay
A complete waste of time<br /><br />Halla Bol is a complete waste of time. The script and dialogues are poorly written, the direction is lacklustre and the acting borders on hammy.This movie was clearly aiming for the Rang De Basanti crowd but it falls far short of the mark because it does not have even one of the elements that made RDB connect with its audience_great script, terrific acting, good direction and a powerful social message that was never preached but shown.<br /><br />Compared to that near-masterpiece, Halla Bol takes a step backwards by resorting to scenes such as the hero taking a leak on the villain's Persian rug and the hero's mentor staring down bullets in a truck no less! All of this might have been acceptable in the 80s when there was a downturn in movie quality and bad movies like DivyaShakti and Phool Aur Kaante became big hits, but movie-making has become_should have become_more subtle and thoughtful of late.<br /><br />Rajkumar Santoshi is a capable director and I appreciate that he wants to give a social message in every movie he makes but maybe he simply does not know how to do it! He resorts to sermonizing without a care as to the audience's intelligence in understanding what he is trying to say. Maybe he should just concentrate on entertainment and leave the social messages to the Rakeysh Mehras and Aamir Khans.<br /><br />Even if you don't agree with everything I say, you will agree that throughout the screening you will be thinking that Rang De Basanti was much much better and Mr.Santoshi should have left the industry-bashing to Om Shanti Om. Industry-bashing? That's right!!Santoshi has depicted the industry as a place of back-biting, bitching and the casting couch which the hero happily indulges in with a starlet curiously named Sania. There are some people who will think that these portions show the real face of the industry. Don't believe everything you see!<br /><br />All in all, raise your voice against movies like this and don't spend your hard-earned money on this bomb.<br /><br />* out of ****.
I expected to enjoy a romantic comedy featuring Hip Hop, but was disappointed on many levels. First of all, the story is so badly recycled as to make it almost unbearable. Second, the setting, acting and story are not very authentic or believable. Third, there are a lot more good black actors to choose from than these standard picks. How about some originality? Third, there were very few Hip Hop songs played in entirity - if any. None seemd really central. Overall, film was a great disappointment, but the editing style was very interesting and almost made the film worthwhile.
This is the first of these "8 Films To Die For" collection that I've seen and it's certainly not made me want to see any of the rest...although I've heard at least a couple of them are decent. I don't know, this wasn't terrible but it didn't really do much for me. Your basic dysfunctional cannibal family in suburbia kind of thing, mom & dad died, the family sold the farm & moved to San Francisco (?) where they continued to bring home stray food sources whenever possible. The best part of this was the creepy Goth sister, who of course invites a friend over from school that never leaves. Anyway, of course we have a butcher shop in the basement and so on and so on. This family is sort of like the white-bread version of the Sawyer Clan, they're nasty & they do bad things but they ain't go no soul. I see a lot of reviews from people that liked this, and I guess I don't know what I missed, but I found it to be very mediocre & I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, really. 4 out of 10.
Like most of the festivals entries Hamiltons makes for an interesting watch a film thats all ideas and little execution. Although impressive for it's obvious low budget the film falters in it's final twist and becomes dreadfully long during it's drawn out and obvious conclusion. The film is about a family of murderous outcasts trying to survive after there parents have died. They kidnap people , drain the blood from them and feed something locked away in their basement. There's some nice darkly humorous performances from Mckellhar and Firgens and the rest are just so-so. The film never feels realistic or very disturbing for that matter. But for the first half taps into an oddly humorous and dark mixture which is a surprising accomplishment. The next half isn't so successful as it receeds into film oblivion with unrealistic twists into a ridiculously cocky finale that turns the entire film into utter crap. It's a shame though there is no doubt that some talent was involved with this production and although deeply flawed it remains original and creative. too bad that when it comes to the delivery it completely fails on every level.<br /><br />**/5
This is the first film of the Horrorfest I have watched and after Im almost thinking I don't need to see any of the others. I was told its a "thinking mans horror movie" and have to say that if this was supposed to make me think I shutter to think what the splatter/gore films in the collection will be like. Don't get me wrong not even the gore in this film is worth sitting through.<br /><br />The plot is very washed out with way too much art for arts sake. The camera effects and music are out of place most of the time and the characters are banal to say the least. Several characters and scenes seem worthless in the end when they start to reveal some of the hooks of "The Hamiltons". I figured out who Lenny was about half hour in when I figured out the movie. I was so visually under whelmed and confused by the Lenny reveal that I completely felt ripped off. I expected what I got but they could have gone so much further, in fact all the gore falls completely flat. With movies out there like "Hostel" and "Saw" you need to come a little better for a film that is "considered to graphic or too disturbing for general audiences".
...that seem to be fooling people into seeing qualities in this film that are just not there.<br /><br />Near Dark covered the same territory but with much more class, and action.<br /><br />why the script kept their 'big secret' so long was a total mystery to me - I guessed it at the breakfast scene at the start of the film. By the time it was revealed to the viewer it was just a case of 'big deal, tell me something I don't know.'<br /><br />I found this to be pointless movie that may have challenged the genre conventions, unfortunately those conventions are that horror films are tense and packed with genuine sense of horror. This was woeful
Without effective indulgence of the supernatural or the poetic motivating nuances of humanity, all this creative team has to hope for is effective usage of its middling, unoriginal elements. 'Party of Five' gone maniacal then genetically unescapable there's little rooting interest because the singular non-homicidal element is a second-rate bland awful-acting 'Wes Bentley' mopester. In fact, all of the acting is skin deep. Even though the dark-haired women appeal, the salaciousness is kept to a minimum. No nudity here. Also lacking are sufficient buckets of blood. All sensations are kept at a teasing, safe distance...an unfortunate fact considering the given name of the directors is 'butcher.' Only the soundtrack, the droning angsty alt-country and the tense fluctuating score provide any palpable tension. Sometimes some static storyboarded compositions add appealing low-angles that adds to the malaise...but for a film that calls itself horror, I did not even get close to flinching once. Perhaps a greater emphasis on societal rejuvenation through blood intake, scenes directed with varying geometric shapes outside the square, and a sustained focus on playfulness through the family's maliciousness or traps sympathetic characters need to escape in order to escape their dilemma would have improved my opinion, but this was not a good start to my excursion through horrorfest.
I feel it is my duty as a lover of horror films to warm other people about this horrible and very very bad "horror" film. Don't waste your time or money on this film, the acting is bad, the story is just one of the worst i have come across and the script was just awful. Nothing about it was good, you end up thinking to yourself why am i watching this crap. The plot had so many holes in it and they never got cleared up in the end, it was just so bad, i don't know how a film so terrible could be made. As i said before i love horror films and i was so let down, it was an 18 but you see little blood and no scares or jumps at all. Also what annoyed me was how stupid things happened in the film that had no point to the plot at all like the brother and sister kissing, why? is all i can say. Just don't bother, there are far more great horror films out there, just don't waste your time life is too short.
This is so bad, so very very bad. The acting is the biggest joke in history. Don't even bother to see it, i did ff it after 20 min and it was just as disappointing in the end as in the beginning... I really don't understand peoples taste, I'm a horror movie fan and I'm not fastidious but I DO HAVE A LIMIT! Maybe it was a quarter of a star better then the beginning of The Hoast but that's it. So I recommend you don't waste the 15 minutes you'll be able to watch. I mean the acting is better done by monkeys. And the big brother with the parental role is just awful. Don't they pay characters in C-movies? No I must say it's not the first time I think a horror movie is bad but it's absolutely one in my down ten movies and it will be charing places with Portrait of a vampire, Cabin by the lake, The Hoast!
When a film is independent and not rated, such as the Hamiltons, I was expecting out of the norm, cut out your heart violence. I know that good movies don't always contain blood and violence, but I read reviews, I visited the website, and I even convinced a few of my friends to pay $9.50 to see this god awful movie with me. When there is a festival called Horrorfest, I am expecting horror, not Dawsons Creek with incestuous undertones. My expectations were extremely low for this film, yet the little expectations there was for the film were shot to hell once I saw that an hour had passed before we saw the first drop of blood come out of someones finger. There were too many plot holes and left too much to the imagination. I regret not seeing Happy Feet. I think there might have been more violence and gore in that movie than in the Hamiltons!
The Hamiltons tells the story of the four Hamilton siblings, teenager Francis (Cory Knauf), twins Wendell (Joseph McKelheer) & Darlene (Mackenzie Firgens) & the eldest David (Samuel) who is now the surrogate parent in charge. The Hamilton's move house a lot, Franics is unsure why& is unhappy with the way things are. The fact that his brother's & sister kidnap, imprison & murder people in the basement doesn't help relax or calm Francis' nerves either. Francis know's something just isn't right & when he eventually finds out the truth things will never be the same again...<br /><br />Co-written, co-produced & directed by Mitchell Altieri & Phil Flores as The Butcher Brothers (who's only other film director's credit so far is the April Fool's Day (2008) remake, enough said) this was one of the 'Films to Die For' at the 2006 After Dark Horrorfest (or whatever it's called) & in keeping with pretty much all the other's I've seen I thought The Hamiltons was complete total & utter crap. I found the character's really poor, very unlikable & the slow moving story failed to capture my imagination or sustain my interest over it's 85 & a half minute too long 86 minute duration. The there's the awful twist at the end which had me laughing out loud, there's this really big sustained build up to what's inside a cupboard thing in the Hamiltons basement & it's eventually revealed to be a little boy with a teddy. Is that really supposed to scare us? Is that really supposed to shock us? Is that really something that is supposed to have us talking about it as the end credits roll? Is a harmless looking young boy the best 'twist' ending that the makers could come up with? The boring plot plods along, it's never made clear where the Hamiltons get all their money from to buy new houses since none of them seem to work (except David in a slaughterhouse & I doubt that pays much) or why they haven't been caught before now. The script tries to mix in every day drama with potent horror & it just does a terrible job of combining the two to the extent that neither aspect is memorable or effective. A really bad film that I am struggling to say anything good about.<br /><br />Despite being written & directed by the extreme sounding Butcher Brothers there's no gore here, there's a bit of blood splatter & a few scenes of girls chained up in a basement but nothing you couldn't do at home yourself with a bottle of tomato ketchup & a camcorder. The film is neither scary & since it's got a very middle-class suburban setting there's zero atmosphere or mood. There's a lesbian & suggest incestuous kiss but The Hamiltons is low on the exploitation scale & there's not much here for the horror crowd.<br /><br />Filmed in Petaluma in California this has that modern low budget look about it, it's not badly made but rather forgettable. The acting by an unknown (to me) cast is nothing to write home about & I can't say I ever felt anything for anyone.<br /><br />The Hamiltons commits the cardinal sin of being both dull & boring from which it never recovers. Add to that an ultra thin story, no gore, a rubbish ending & character's who you don't give a toss about & you have a film that did not impress me at all.
This movie was so bad I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I had high hopes for Horrorfest that year, which was also the first year I attended Horrorfest, and I have to say Horrorfest and all of its films take false advertising to a whole new level. Mad kudos to the advertisers because I'm sure they tricked a lot of people into spending money and seeing those movies that year. The Hamiltons was easily the worst one of the ones I've seen (the other ones I saw were Unrest, Dark Ride, and Reincarnation). The movie cover and trailer made it seem like a family of cannibals terrorizing the neighborhood which I thought was a rather interesting plot, only to be disappointed at the end discovering that it was some 'coming of age' tale about a boy's transition into being a vampire. Which is why drama prevails over any sense of horror in this film. And to make the plot even more ridiculous, they add in a set of horny twins who can't wait to take a 'bite' out of one another, and some deadly creature locked in the basement, which if I had discovered what 'it' was had the secret not been revealed at the very end of the film, I would have left the theater halfway into the movie.<br /><br />Complete waste of money and time. Cut forty minutes out of this film, and make it into an episode on some show like Smallville or Charmed or Supernatural and it would have received more praise than this. Absolute rubbish! So bad that two years later, I have to come back to IMDb and write a review about it because it still stands out in my memory as one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Also, while you're reading this, steer clear from the rest of the Horrorfest movies in the future. The most you could do is rent them from Blockbusters or watch it online somewhere. Horrorfest features movies from independent filmmakers who can't make it onto the big screen, and all the crap about 'stuff they don't show you in theaters', they weren't referring to blood or guts, or horror...they were referring to the movies themselves. Because they're horrendous. Think of Horrorfest as a less renowned version of Sundance Film Festival, but for horror movies.<br /><br />Sorry for all the 'hate', but next time think twice before you cheat costumers out of their money.
When I saw this at a shop I thought it looked really good and original. Like Wolfs Creek meets Texas chainsaw massacre, and I mean it only cost three quid (around $6). To be honest I don't think it was even worth that.<br /><br />It seemed like the directors- the 'butcher brothers' couldn't decide whether wanted to do a artsy sort of horror or a gory slasher horror. It ended up with a cliché ridden gory sadistic hour and fifteen minutes with all the characters being one dimensional and you couldn't care less what happened to them but to try to make the audience care about the characters they added a useless monologue at the end and the beginning of the film which to be perfectly honest wasn't needed.<br /><br />The only good part really was the middle/end- I won't ruin it for you. But that was the only "good "part.<br /><br />Overall a pointless watch. It felt like a two hour film but was in fact only 75 minutes. If you want an artsy film-don't bother. If you want a slasher movie- don't bother- The film moves so slowly with nothing ever happening.
This is the second movie I saw for Horrorfest this past weekend, The Gravedancers being the first. Gravedancers was better. I can only guess from watching this that the production must have been quite limited. I will admit the story started out interesting but really fizzled for me in the end. We weren't really given time to sympathize or understand any of the characters which only made each of their erratic characteristics even more annoying. I have to mention that there was also a bit of mis-casting with a 12-year-old boy acting as Sheriff. The only reason I sat through the whole film was to find out what the big secret was, which turned out to not be all that interesting. Some more background about the family would have helped but they didn't really seem like a family at all to begin with.<br /><br />To me, this film is so amateur that I couldn't even see putting it on DVD. The four rating is for the initial potential the story might have had. This was one to skip for horrorfest.
Just okay horror film about a nice suburban family dealing with the death of their parents and the "thing" in the basement that they keep feeding people they pick up off the street. Of course there is more to it then that but to say more would be telling.<br /><br />For me this just didn't come together as it tries to have it two ways both as a family drama and a horror film. the film tries very hard to walk the cutting edge between the two genres but seems more to stumble all over the place as it tries to be shocking, something it never really is. It doesn't help that the final revelation is less a scare then an "oh", as on "Oh thats it?". Maybe if I hadn't been watching so many horror films recently this might have been better or it may have just seemed it since I wouldn't have compared it to so much.<br /><br />I'd take a pass
Wow, could have been such a good movie,Starts of with Brittany Daniels tied up, Im thinking cool we are going to get a flash back, but nothing, movie starts anew with the kid filming. This movie probably would have been better if it wasn't for the acting. I mean the acting was mostly horrible.. Although with the lines the poor actors had to deal with i guess they did the best they could..Still it really ruin the movie for me.. The twins were the only ones that seem to have some acting skills.. The movie drags to long for the supposed shocking conclusion.. All in all I have seen worse low budget movies but considering this was hype with the 8 films to die for I was very disappointed.. By the way, were did some reviewers say there was gore and stuff. Did I see the same movie.. Well this is 4 out of the eight, and so far only one has been any good..
WARNING:I advise anyone who has not seen the film yet to not read this comment.<br /><br />Although I haven't seen them all,The Hamiltons sure did deliver one lowsy piece of entertainment,which it did not entertain me at all!!!!I thought that in common with the semi-bad acting,stupid plot scheme,and the twist at the end of the movie,which was very retarded,this movie sucked!!!Okay,so supposively these are people who eat other people.Yeah......notice I said people not humans,not because they aren't human,or wait I think they are,OH NO WAIT,THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU!!!!!So okay,are these people cannibals,or are they imbreds,or what are THEY!!!!I mean,maybe they're just "THINGS" that came here to see what people taste like or,are they cannibals who have eaten people for a long time now,or maybe this movie was HHOORRIIBBLLEE!!WHICH IT WAS!!!So if you think The Hamiltons is good,I ask of you,why,why,WHY,WHY,why was it so awesome,because to me it was just flat out terrible!!!One big BOOOOOOO for The Hamiltons!!!Go see The Gravedancers,Tooth & Nail,or Borderland for a piece of entertainment!!!!!
If you are going to attempt building tension in a film it is always a good idea not to build it beyond the point of total tedium.<br /><br />Unfortunately the Butcher Brothers haven't grasped this yet.<br /><br />This film sucks, unlike the majority of its characters who (if you didn't work out they are vampires in the first few minutes then shame on you) preference stringing up the plentiful supply of 'no one knows where I am' cheerleader types and homosexual drifters that waft conveniently and with a fast food swagger, past their isolated door.<br /><br />The only tiny bit of originality in the plot is how these vampires come to be vampires in the first place but the rest of it is ludicrous and sloppy.<br /><br />Forced to up sticks (as opposed stakes) on a regular basis due to their penchant for filling their basement with bloodless corpses, they really are none too bright. If they fed their victims they could run their own little blood farm and it would cut down on the mortality rate, thereby allowing them to settle down and get chintzy.<br /><br />Why the producers felt it necessary to introduce the incestuous twins and the homicidally gay older brother I am not sure. It added zero to the plot, which was unfortunate given that there wasn't a great deal of plot to start with and had no shock value at all.<br /><br />One was never told why the parents had died, unless of course that was explained during one of my frequent tea breaks. Clearly the social worker must have been alerted to the family for some reason or other but again, it was for the viewer to write their own reason.<br /><br />The only well rounded character was the youngest brother who emerges looking like Pugsley from the Adams Family. Indeed he was way too rounded, having the appearance of a child who has inadvertently wandered from a Weight watchers' class in to a very bad horror film. Oh heavens, he had. Never mind dear, have another doughnut with a yummy blood centre.
i rate this movie with 3 skulls, only coz the girls knew how to scream, this could've been a better movie, if actors were better, the twins were OK, i believed they were evil, but the eldest and youngest brother, they sucked really bad, it seemed like they were reading the scripts instead of acting them.... spoiler: if they're vampire's why do they freeze the blood? vampires can't drink frozen blood, the sister in the movie says let's drink her while she is alive....but then when they're moving to another house, they take on a cooler they're frozen blood. end of spoiler<br /><br />it was a huge waste of time, and that made me mad coz i read all the reviews of how this movie was great, how many awards this movie won, and this movie was f****ing s**t!!!!
Terrible acting, lame plot, stupid story and just all around terrible movie sums up this piece of junk. It was excruciating to sit through. Just awful. Do not waste one penny on this. The movie theaters should feel bad about actually putting this movie out there for people to watch. This "horror" film was not even in the least bit scary, creepy or disturbing. It was in no way visually appealing. The acting was so terrible by all of the actors that any attempt to draw you into the movie through dialog are completely destroyed within moments of the actor/actress opening their mouth. Plus the entire story, i don't know why someone would make a movie with this story AGAIN. Do not waste your time or money. Even if it's a free ticket don't waste one moment viewing this movie. You will feel dumber for watching it.
I was looking forward to this ride, and was horribly disappointed.<br /><br />And I am very easily amused at roller coaster and amusement park rides.<br /><br />The roller coaster part was just okay - and that was all of about 30 seconds of a 90 second ride. <br /><br />It was visually dull and poorly executed. <br /><br />It was trying desperately to be like a mixture of the far superior Indiana Jones and Space Mountain rides and Disneyland, and failed in every aspect.<br /><br />It was not thrilling or exciting in the least.
The basic plot in this movie isn't bad. A lady makes it big and comes back to her alma mater to be adored. But, despite good acting by Robert Young and Eve Arden, the movie is a mess. The blame for this I place on either Joan Crawford or the director or both, as her performance is just awful. Instead of being a real person, she does a wonderful impersonation of a deer caught in the headlights. In other words, she stares off into space and has a "golly I am SOOOO stunned" expression. After just a few minutes it really became annoying for me. Now this is certainly not the only Crawford film I dislike for her performance, as she had done more than her share of overacting--in films such as JOHNNY GUITAR or many of her later films, such as BERSERK! My advice is to try a different Crawford film--there certainly were better.
Ridiculous fluff, that compounds its error by trying to have meaning. Joan, this time as a congresswoman, Agatha Reed, chairwoman of a committee dedicated to "investigating the high cost of food." Says Congresswoman Reed, "The housewife has been getting it in the neck too long. I'm going to keep fighting long enough so that the American family can take a vacation once a year, see a movie every week and feed an occasional peanut to an elephant." She's all business, but becomes all gushy when she is awarded an honorary degree from Good Hope College, where she was expelled for the crime of having stayed out all night (the parallel to Joan's real life is unmistakable here, as it is in all Joan Movies). The degree causes much consternation on campus ("That would make it the most broad-minded institution in the history of education!") – but Joan is unaware of this as she arrives. The college president, Jim Merrill, played by Robert Young, at his handsomest, happens to be Joan's former teacher – and lover. It was with *him* that she spent the night out, all those years ago, but Joan felt it was better to just disappear rather than try and explain to the skeptical college that they were about to be married. Naturally, this high-profile event will be covered by *Life* magazine – and who does the photographer turn out to be? Yet another of Joan's old lovers – this one, she hung out with in China "during the war", and he thinks Joan might be headed for trouble with her old flame. Eve Arden, playing Joan's assistant, "Woodie," is at her butchest and most smart-alecky in this movie – with her flippant and unnecessary remarks that would make you dismiss her from her job, if you didn't like her so much. But you not only like Eve in this, as in all her roles, you adore her. She is so droll and no-nonsense, you'd like to pay her just to hang around and be one of the boys. When Joan cries upon arriving at her alma mater, Eve tells her it "looks fierce." But Joan says that maybe others only see a collection of buildings, she, Joan, sees youth – herself at 18 "eager, expectant – a little frightened, asking 'What is life? What am I?'" But, of course, if we actually go into depth about Joan at 18, the truth may be a little different. <br /><br />For me, this is the major problem in watching any Joan movie. You can call her characters whatever you want to, but it's always all Joan, all the time. So, since what we're always seeing is Joan being herself, it's easy to dispense with character's names. It's just that it gets confusing when Joan tries to tell us something patently untrue, like her description of herself at 18 – when we know that at 18, Joan had already been around the block several times. Many men would have described her as eager, and as far as being expectant, she had already had several abortions at this point. But that's a personal problem, and I digress, but I simply wanted to explain why I say things such as "…and then Joan does…" this or that, or "We see Joan as..." when we are not literally watching a home movie.<br /><br />There is an unintentionally hilarious moment in which Joan is given the Clara Bow doll that she left behind in college – quick arithmetic tells us that Joan and Clara were contemporaries and this is a transparent ploy to make us believe Joan is much younger than she actually looks. It fails. What also fails is an attempt at early-50s political correctness. In the story, Joan has written a book about free speech and made a film (no, not the one about the plumber), and she attracts the attention of an early 50s campus radical, Dr. Pitt, who is about to be fired for his views, which are shockingly similar to Joan's. This is where the movie mysteriously becomes a morality tale –a weak one, to be sure, but perhaps the only thing that keeps it from sliding into oblivion.
This film reminded me so much of "A History of Violence" which pretended to be a close study of violence and violent behavior but ended up just being nothing short of a cheap action movie masquerading as some thinking film on violence. Dustin Hoffman and his new British bride move to a small English town and encounter endless harassment from the local drunks who do nothing but hang at the pub all day and make trouble. Don't these men have a job? Anyway, Dustin takes all he can take and by the end of the film he holds up in his house and fights off each one of the drunk attackers by such gruesome means as boiling whiskey poured over someone, feet being blown off by a shotgun and someones head getting caught in a bear trap. Funny that someone would have a need for such a large bear trap in a small British town except maybe put a mans head in it.<br /><br />Sam Peckinpah who made the "Wild Bunch" which also covered the topic of blood letting violence in which no one was spared. But it was done with style, and you believed it. Straw Dogs is not believable. First of all the location is wrong and does not work. Why place it in England? I would think maybe in some inner city location or a small town in the American South in the 1930's or something. Second it is not in my view ever really explained clearly why these men are so quick to violence except maybe they got drunk and felt a need to kill Hoffman and rape his wife.<br /><br />Sam Peckinpah missed the mark on this one.
My life is about saving animals. I do volunteer work with a cat rescue organization. I am a vegetarian because I couldn't kill an animal even to sustain my life. I can't even kill a spider, I put it outdoors. The scene where the children throw rocks at the bird until it dies, with Sooner participating in an attempt to be accepted by the other children, made me sick and has haunted me ever since. It simply convinces me that human beings are pathetic in their need for acceptance. The ending - the foster parents adopt Sooner - does not redeem the depiction of animal cruelty. Why would anyone want their child to see this film?
You get a gift. It is exquisitely wrapped. The box it is in is hand crafted out of the finest wood and shows skill down to the smallest detail. That is then wrapped in gorgeous paper, handmade and hand-painted by the most talented of artists. The whole thing is wrapped in ribbons made from fine silk lace. It is a sight to behold.<br /><br />Then you cut the ribbon, rip off the paper, open up the box, and find...nothing. That's TOYS. You either enjoy the packaging, or forget about it.<br /><br />The film isn't without its point and purpose: War is a not a good thing. Well, isn't that original! The moral is so obvious that it is almost embarrassing to even point it out. And even that feeble insight is undercut by a story in which elements of war -- war toys in particular -- are clearly a bad thing, until they need an exciting climax and the film simulates a war using innocent toys. It's like someone preaching a stern, condescending sermon, only to end by saying "Just kidding."<br /><br />But even as an empty box, the film fails close scrutiny. Yes, it is a sight to behold with some remarkable, striking images. The sets are imaginative and the cinematography catches the colorful scenes with skill. But the images are cold and emotionally sterile. Like the screenplay, the look of the film is joyless and at times aesthetically barren and surreal. It is a film that wants to praise toys as wonderful and special things, yet shows them to be creations of a world that is empty and cold. The film strives to be funny, in a morose sort of way, but the humor is forced and artificial. Robin Williams, as the beleaguered heir to a toy manufacturing empire, tosses in his ad-lib shtick, which only seems alien to the bizarre, coldly structured world he is inhabiting. Indeed, the topical references and tasteless sexual innuendo that are scattered throughout are jarringly contradictory to the childlike fable the film is vaguely trying to be. For this film to work, or make sense, it needs to be set in its own universe, an Oz far removed from Kansas. Every time the jokes jerk us back into reality, the toyland of the film increasingly becomes an obvious sham.<br /><br />It is said that this was director Barry Levinson's pet project, one that he had been striving to get made for ten years. It is sadly obvious why he had trouble getting backing. Like most pet projects that finally get made (RADIOLAND MURDERS, RADIO FLYER & BATTLEFIELD: EARTH being great examples) it seems to be a blind spot in the filmmaker's field of vision. Perhaps Levinson directed and redirected TOYS so often in his head that he no fresh vision for it when he finally got on the soundstage. He had already perfected it to death.<br /><br />Many of the toys featured in the film are clumsy, mechanical, wind-up monstrosities. So is the film itself.
Watching this movie is like eating a banquet of nothing but meringue. It initially looks great but ultimately provides NO satisfaction--none.<br /><br />The plot is a muddled mess about a toy factory and the forces of evil. So, how is it possible that with this basic plot AND Robin Williams that the movie still turns out so badly?! It's because the picture is all appearance with no substance whatsoever--much like the terrible Popeye picture Williams did at the beginning of his film career. The film must have cost a fortune but perhaps there wasn't enough money left over to hire writers who had graduated grade school.<br /><br />The film is one unfunny joke that goes on and on and on and on. I really am unsure why it was made in the first place--it certainly wasn't made to provide any sort of entertainment.
Sometimes, making something strange and contemporary doesn't always work to everyone's advantage. While I will admit that the set design and concept of the film was rather interesting, the execution of these ideas into one congruent story just didn't work. This film was so hideously slow and pointless, not even Robin Williams could save this garbage. It's obvious Barry Levinson's dream fell flat on its face, but he should have warned the rest of the world about this slop.
I truly despised this film when i saw it at the age of about 6 or 7 as I was a huge fan of Robin Williams and nothing he could do was bad. Until this. This complete trash ruined Robin for me for a long time. I'm only recovering recently with his funny but serious part in Fathers day but then he went on to create another mistake, Bicenntinial Man i think it was called but the point is. Robin should be getting much better jobs by now and now he has returned to performing the slime that originated with this 'classic'.
"Laughter is a state of mind" says the tag, and I hesitate to comment on Barry Levinson's. What could he have been thinking during the making of "Toys"? When he watched the rushes, did he see a successful, funny fantasy? If so, then he's working on a different plane than I. This is an excruciating picture, one in which the production design is 90% of the thing (and even the cartoon colors are a disappointment). Robin Williams and (most especially) Joan Cusack are humiliated as brother and sister of a toy mogul who are bypassed as inheritors of the factory when their dad dies. There's nothing remotely funny (satirical or slapstick-wise) on display here. It is uniformly draggy, ugly, and one of the very worst "big" movies ever made. NO STARS from ****
If you are planning to rent or buy this movie don't. It's the worst thing I have ever seen. I would comment on it more but It has been 10 years since I saw it and have blanked all of it from my mind. Save yourself some time money and well being and stay far far away.
this is the only movie i have ever walked out on. bad acting-- bad plot-- bad casting-- bad directing-- bad cinematography-- if they had set out to make a bad picture they couldn't have done a better job. i hope they are proud of his turkey. i'm surprised anyone associated with this film was ever hired again in hollywood. don't waste your time!
Bad movie. It´s too complicated for young children and too childish for grown-ups. I just saw it because I´m a Robin Williams fan and I was very disappointed.(
The worst movie in the history of cinema. I don't know if it was trying to be funny or sad, poignant or droll, but the end result was unwatchable. Everyone from Key Grip, to Robin Williams, and back down to Best Boy should be ashamed to be a part of this film!
I thought this was a great idea but, boy, was it poorly executed. We do get a broad sense of how complex and challenging the backstage operations of a show are, but virtually no specifics about any of it works. The producers don't seem to have found any way to tell a story or give the viewer a "through-line." (Which is not to say they didn't try, but having the stagehands relate a synopsis of the Ring cycle as the program's narrative does nothing to tell us about the job of physically mounting an opera.)<br /><br />We see lots of things happening, but are told little about what it is that the people are doing and why. There's little sense of who is who, or how the various production departments fit and work together. For instance, several times we hear about a problem of some sort -- one expects then to see the problem and its consequences and/or how it gets resolved. But instead the filmmakers generally just cut to something else (generally, pretty generic footage of people pushing stuff or talking into headsets.) <br /><br />Overall the film ends up feeling more like a pastiche of images that you'd see run under the closing credits of a show, rather than anything worth watching for its own merit.
I got the DVD from the library in the expectation of getting a good idea of how things go on in the background at a major opera production. I have to say, I was very disappointed. The subject had so much potential. The sets in a Wagnerian production must, of necessity, be elaborate and impressive and the story behind their creation and use could have been an excellent educational experience. Instead, what we get it a hodgepodge of clips of people moving around big items of scenery, vaguely help together with a commentary which failed to hold my attention. I found myself listening primarily to the background clips of music from operas. I was impressed by the sheer enormity of the effort required to put on such a production - that did come across fairly well and next time I am at the opera I am sure I will remember that part if this video - but was left feeling somewhat cheated by the lack of detailed commentary and explanation.
This movie is about a female rape victim/comic book writer from New York that decides to get away from all that awful big city glamor and move to a dirty, run down small town where she finds refuge in a single-wide trailer on a dirt lot in the middle of 12th and nowhere. The townspeople are mentally ill, yet so is she for inviting crazy men into her trailer. Annoying is the fact that she has the ability to do exactly the right thing to place herself in dangerous circumstance after dangerous circumstance. DB Sweeney's performance was high school at best. He's one of those kinda-cute young actors with a sweet grin. Unfortunately career has not been kind and mother nature has been right in tow. To the previous commentator stating that the acting was "so real", well I agree. Actually it wasn't acting. The two main characters really are pathetic, weak and incapable of making mature, healthy decisions. In brief, this movie sucks like no other, rent it to laugh at it. The real crime scene? The atrocious Wood paneling in the trailer - enough to make ME commit murder. And lastly, she's a artist/writer, so couldn't she afford a double-wide trailer and something other than a sun-yellow Chevy Chevette for love of god!
There is an awful lot wrong with this picture, beginning with a script that is both obvious and redundant. Courtney Cox plays a comic book artist who escapes to a small desert town after being raped twice in the big city. She immediately is stalked by a local who appears quite unhinged (Craig Sheffer), and who seems to be attempting a third rate Mickey Rourke imitation. D.B. Sweeny is a local cop, who is supposedly there to protect and serve. Meanwhile, the script manipulates the audience as to who's really the good guy? Logic flies out the window after the first ten minutes and never returns, and there are more unanswered questions than there should be. If you think "Blue Desert" might be saved by the wonderful Philip Baker Hall, you will be disappointed. His part is insignificant, just like the entire movie. - MERK
'Blue Desert' may have had the potential to be even a half-way plausible and more enjoyable thriller had the main character, Lisa Roberts (Courtney Cox) not been so stupid. When she is the victim of another attack on the streets of New York, comic book artist Roberts moves to a small town out West. In her first days there, she meets the suspiciously crazy Randall Atkins (Craig Sheffer, playing this part well) who will eventually not leave her side. Fearing for her safety after having been in the situation already twice before, she strikes up a friendship and relationship with the suspiciously amicable town cop, Steve Smith (D.B. Sweeny, who's character does not seem convincing enough, leaving disbelief among viewers who should otherwise be convinced of the red herrings thrown by the writers). Smith needs Roberts cooperation because, as he tells her, Atkins is an ex-con and guilty of sexual assault. But, the cops have lacked the evidence to put him away before.<br /><br />The movie had enough ploys to at least make an interesting movie because soon enough, there is such confusion as to whom Roberts should trust. However, much of the intended suspense appears too forced because Roberts character never seems to react to simple things as we think any reasonable person might. And her delayed responses allow much of that suspense to occur to easily and unconvincingly, particularly in the finale. Perhaps Sweeny was the wrong choice for this role; too baby faced in ways that kind of recall Kevin Anderson's persona evident in his character in 'Sleeping With the Enemy.' Or, if Lisa Roberts was written as a stronger character, this might suffice as well. In the meantime, the film is not all that great, even as a low-budget B-thriller.
for a lot of time I was looking forward to see this movie, here in Latinamerica japanese or any oriental movies have no distribution in theaters, we can find some of those movies in some underground stores, and I just found Avalon, I was expecting something good, but the only good thing in this movie is the first scene, the rest of the movie is boring and senseless, just plain stupid, with a lot of useless scenes, and a boring story. I am wasting my time even writing about this film. Sorry but is the truth.
I must say, when I read the storyline on the back of the case, It sounded really interesting, but when I started to watch the movie seemed boring at first and even more at the end. Some scenes are way too long and the story has not been worked out properly.
The orange tone to everything was just yucky. Oh yeah, the main character lives in a ghetto that is all orange-tinted with orange-tinted people. Meanwhile, to mentally escape from this crushing poverty of the body, she plays a full-immersion video game (which sucks in that no rules are clear and no logic follows the gameplay). She apparently earns an income playing the game but she is revealed to not be an employee of the game company?. Lots of non-speaking pauses later the story drags on slowly. She uses a glitchy orange computer interface with an operating interface that is so visually annoying and I can only suspect a Microsoft future release.<br /><br />Meanwhile, I the viewer, ask basically why she is wasting her precious time in some moronic game when she barely has the necessities of life? Oh yeah, playing games is fun, but what is the point when you're almost starving? While she is piddling her life away playing some lousy even-more-orange-tinted lame full-immersion video game her dog runs off (probably looking for an owner who pays at least a moment of attention to it and feeds it regularly) or is stolen from the woman (while she is ignoring her lousy orange-tinted reality).<br /><br />Meanwhile she obsesses over some game her game-playing team lost the entire uninteresting movie. Yawn. So she wants to be the best of the best, go get them Ash Catchem (got to bore us all). Golly, this main character sucks as a human being as well and has no redeeming qualities aside from her physical beauty (which she could barter for some manner to escape her crushing poverty).<br /><br />So she reaches the "Real" level and it, at least, not sucks horribly and she is sent to kill a former comatose teammate mentally living in the "Real" level. Finally the sucky boring bland orange-tinted movie is no longer a tedious chore to watch, but has the potential to say something along the lines "the main character is trapped in imaginary computer-generated poverty and she is actually in the real world now". Perhaps she will do the murder deed and live in the real world now? Well, she kills the guy and he vanishes in a digital effect. Wow! Thanks idiotic director. You suck, you suck so very much, director.<br /><br />Here the director had an iota of a chance to redeem himself slightly by burying this lousy lame moronic cruddy movie with a philosophical twist.<br /><br />The director could have said, "The REAL WORLD is there and if you live in it and contribute to it to make it better, it won't be some cruddy orange-tinted poverty land." A clever way to make this suck-tacular movie a agonizingly slow lesson on basic civic pride (for the 1% of the viewers that haven't found something actually entertaining to watch at this point or are movie-masochists).<br /><br />Nope, director. The director had to screw this all up by tossing in some cruddy digital effect and ruin all chances of redemption for this awfully lousy movie which was a waste of money, a waste of time, and a waste of viewer trust.<br /><br />After that, it ends. Good riddance. I hope the director chokes on it. I'm putting this HACK on my "avoid at all costs" list for any other films his name is attached to.
Even if 99,99% of people that has seen this movie is Brazilian, I'll keep up with the English since it is the language of this website.<br /><br />This movie is a piece of cr*p. Worst acting I have seen for a loooong time. The kids are terrible. Specially the boy. This was the first time I saw someone with less facial expression than Arnold Schwarzenegger, and one single voice tone, like a 5 years-old kid reading in front of the class. How can someone so bad be the main actor of a movie ? The storyline is so shallow my daughter could have done better (she is 3 yrs old). It is so simple it could be written in a napkin and told in 3 minutes.<br /><br />There are only three possibilities for someone enjoy this movie: 1) you are a pre-teen; 2) you have been so brainwashed by Globo's stupidities that you think that anything that has the Globo's seal is awesome; 3) you have a serious brain damage.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs ! A shame to the Brazilian movie scene.
After Chaplin made one of his best films: Dough & Dynamite, he made one of his worst: Gentlemen Of Nerve. During this first year in films, Chaplin made about a third of all his films. Many of them were experimental in terms of ad-libbing, editing, gags, location shooting, etc. This one takes place at a racetrack where Chaplin and his friend try to get in without paying. Mabel Normand is there with her friend also, and Chaplin manages to rid himself of both his and Mabel's friends. He then woos Mabel in the grandstand with no apparent repercussions from his behavior. Lots of slapstick in here, but there is very little else to recommend this film for other then watching Chaplin develop. The print I saw was badly deteriorated, which may have affected its enjoyment. Charley Chase can be glimpsed. * of 4 stars.
1914 was an amazing year for Charlie Chaplin. It was his first year in films and he appeared in more than 30 films! While most of these films weren't particularly good, they did give him a chance to slowly evolve his screen persona. However, by this film, the familiar "Little Tramp" character was still in development. Sure Charlie looked the part, but his character still lacked the sweetness and decency that he later developed. Instead, Chaplin often hit, kicked or did other nasty things to people for seemingly no reason at all.<br /><br />As for this very slight film, it is interesting to watch for the cast. While they are not familiar today, Chaplin stars along with Mabel Normand, Chester Conklin and Mack Swain--all exceptionally popular stars with Keystone Films. The problem with this film is that while it has a few nice scenes, the plot seems very vague and improperly developed. Chester and Mabel got to the race track (a very common theme in Keystone productions--it must have been located near a race track). Charlie and Mack show up and sneak in. Mack is chased by the police for doing this while Charlie slaps Chester around and steals his girl. In the end, for no apparent reason, the cops take Chester and Mack away--leaving Charlie with Mabel (who, oddly, didn't seem put off by Charlie's boorish behaviors).<br /><br />Unless you are a huge silent comedy buff or film historian, this is a very forgettable film that is only important in the evolution of Chaplin. What he and the other actors actually do on stage, while not unusual for a Keystone film, isn't particularly funny when seen today.
Demer Daves,is a wonderful director when it comes to westerns and "broken arrow" remains in everybody's mind.As far as melodrama is concerned,he should leave that to knowing people like Vincente Minelli,George Cukor or the fabulous Douglas Sirk. The screenplay is so predictable that you will not be surprised once while you are watching such a tepid weepie.Natalie Wood 's character was inspired by Fannie Hurst's "imitation of life" (see Stahl and Sirk),but who could believe she's a black man's daughter anyway?Susan Kohner was more credible in "imitation of life")and Sinatra and Curtis are given so stereotyped parts that they cannot do anything with them:the poor officer,and the wealthy good-looking -and mean- sergeant.Guess whom will Natalie fall in love with?France is shown as a land of tolerance ,where interracial unions are warmly welcome.At the time(circa 1944) it was dubious,it still is for narrow-minded people you can find here there and everywhere.
A lot of horror fans seem to love Scarecrows, so I won't be very popular in saying that I found it to be rather boring. The idea behind it was interesting, but it seems to drag so much. I think the main problem is that it is all set in darkness. Sometimes horror films set in darkness can work (such as Humongous), but Scarecrows is in darkness for the whole film. A lot of the time it's hard to figure out what's actually happening, and although some shots of the scarecrows were creepy, most were hard to even see. If a little more lighting had been used, perhaps it could've been better.<br /><br />There's not many films involving killer scarecrows to my knowledge, apart from Dark Night Of The Scarecrow, which is much better. I would recommend that over Scarecrows any day.
I watched SCARECROWS because of the buzz surrounding it. Well, I can't imagine anyone liking this movie because it's just bad, bad, bad.<br /><br />It's obvious that whoever made this movie doesn't know a single thing about horror. The whole story is an unsuccessful marriage of two genres: action movie (guns and criminals) and horror (living scarecrows). When the criminals are killed one by one by the poky looking scarecrows, the two genres automatically cancel each other out because, first, they're criminals and who cares about criminals, and second, because they're stupid criminals to boot! Having zombie scarecrows go after them just doesn't work here. Where's the horror in that? I wanted the criminals to die horrible, painful deaths.<br /><br />But the story is so badly constructed that this marriage of genres, which could have been original if handle well, NEVER gels. We're simply left with is a bunch of super dense criminals and a bunch of scarecrows, which are "alive" for whatever flimsy reason the filmmakers thought up. Making things even worse is the fact that the cinematography is terrible (TV like) and, worse offense of all, whole bunches of the dialogue are told on CBs, and we continuously hear inane dialogue spoken over disconnected images as if we're watching some sort of Radio show. This part was really BAD. The director should have been shot on the spot for coming up with such a stupid idea! I can't tell you how annoying that was.<br /><br />As I've already mentioned, the criminals in SCARECROWS are amazingly stupid. For instance, when someone suddenly shows up, gutted and filled with money and straw (yep, straw) in his huge open wound, the others ask "What drug is he on?" after they shoot tons of bullets in him, unable to kill him (he's been "zombiefied" by the scarecrows. Don't ask...). Get a freaking clue, morons. I've never seen such stupid people in a movie. And then there's the girl. I wished one of the scarecrows had killed her quickly because she was a pain in the butt. When she finds her father nailed to a scarecrow "cross", she actually blames the criminals in an embarrassing scene (bad acting), even though the criminals couldn't have done it. What a dimwit she was! But the scarecrows are the biggest weakness in this very weak flick. They're not scary. Nothing much is explained about them. They're just a plot device in this plot device filled movie.<br /><br />Mr Wesley, filming the face of a scarecrow for 30 seconds nonstop doesn't elicit anything but sheer boredom. And that scene with the talking head in the fridge. Thanks for the laughter.<br /><br />All in all, this had to be one of the worst movies I've seen recently (and I've seen a lot of movies these days!) Between the equally woeful SILO KILLER or SCARECROWS, I'd rather watcher SILO KILLER again. Yep, SCARECROWS is that bad.
Scarecrows is one of those films that, with a little more acting, a little more direction, and a lot more story logic, would have been quite compelling as a horror entry. As it stands, it is still a creepy film that has solid make-up and gore effects, and a premise that sustains the mood of terror in spite of itself. And hey, there are no teenagers getting killed one by one--just dumb adults, so that is a refreshing change of pace. And the plot line is amazingly similar to Dead Birds, with a precipitating robbery, an abandoned spooky house in the middle of nowhere, and demonic monsters. But just like Dead Birds, the adults are still witless, they run around cluelessly before getting slaughtered one by one, and they ignore the obvious danger.<br /><br />In Scarecrows, though, we never really find out the supernatural why, and that sustains the atmosphere of creepiness. And like clowns, scarecrows can be very creepy; unless they look like Ray Bolger, of course. Escaping in a hijacked plane with the pilot and his daughter, after a robbery netting millions, a para-military bunch is double-crossed by one of their own; a very nervous guy named Burt. He jumps out of the plane with the big, and heavy, box that holds the money with apparently no plans as to how to move it around once he is on the ground. Being the dumbest of the bunch, he is murdered first. But not before he happens upon the Fowler residence, nestled snuggly amid lots of really creepy-looking scarecrows, and surrounded with a wooden fence encircled with barbed-wire and lots of warnings to stay away. And the weird weathervane on the roof, with the pitchfork and pterodactyl, should have been a warning sign, too. The inside of the house is also quite foreboding (to us in the audience, anyway).<br /><br />Annoyingly, we must listen to Burt's thoughts in voice-over, as he walks around and mysteriously comes across the key to the decrepit truck in the yard. The way the key pops up would be enough to have my pants--with me in them--flying out the door. Perhaps it's just me, but I really enjoy watching people's lips move on screen, even when they are just thinking out loud. It helps to intensify the action, and gives the actor more to do than just look like what the voice-over is saying. Burt hoists the box onto the truck and makes his getaway. Sure why not? decrepit trucks always have lots of gas in them, especially with today's prices, and the battery? no problem. Now, I did mention that Burt was the dumbest of the bunch, and here is why (in addition to the above, of course). Wearing night-vision goggles to walk through the foliage and find the house, he takes them off to drive the truck away, and instead, turns on the headlights to see where he is going. Of course, the crooks still in the plane spot the headlights of his truck, and know where he is headed. Brilliant. He deserves to die. Definitely. I am not sure why he needed night vision goggles in the first place, as every scene is brightly lit, from the interior of the plane, to the night-time outside scenery, and the house. The cinematographer was either a. myopic, b. just out of school, or c. dealing with really cheap filmstock.<br /><br />Burt meets his demise when the truck dies in the middle of nowhere. Go figure. One very nice touch, and there are, I must admit, a few in the film, is the fact that when he opens the truck's lid, there is no engine. Creepy, to be sure (and insert pants comment again here). The story logic fails when dead, now-stuffed-like-a-flounder-with-money-and-straw-Burt returns to the house. The rest of the bunch are there, rough him up, then realize that he is indeed dead, and was gutted and stuffed like a flounder with money and straw. Dead Burt does manage to put up quite a fight, though, and grabs one fellow by the mouth, pushing him through a window, causing him to bite off more than he could chew in a gorylicious scene. At this point, you would think they'd would be racing out of the house and back to the plane--but noooo, they decide to stay and look for the rest of the money. In fact, the whole Burt is dead episode is treated rather matter-of-factly, although one bright bulb in the bunch does argue, "Burt was walking around dead, for chrissakes!"<br /><br />The stolen money suddenly appears on the grounds outside the house, and the crooks blithely go for the bait. Soon, another one of them, Jack, is dispatched, and again the scene is well done and horrific, involving a dull handsaw and no anethesia. Now there are three scarecrows going about wreaking mayhem, and one of them needs a hand, literally.<br /><br />When one of the crooks sees the scarecrows and Jack getting scarecrow-ized, he starts screaming, running away like hell, and shooting off his gun in typical para-military fashion. So much for all that training under pressure crap. He meets up with the others and stops in his tracks to explain why he is screaming, running away like hell, and shooting off his gun, even though the scarecrows appear to be chasing him. Again, that script logic thing... Dead and gutted, Jack returns to the house, and goes after the screamer with the usual results. If you listen to Jack's demonic growl, by the way, you may notice, depending on your age, that it is the same monster-growling sound heard often in the Lost In Space TV episodes.<br /><br />The last two survivors race away from the house and back to the plane, barely escaping. But do they? You will have to see the film to find out.
Falls into the film category of "Way too ridiculous in the dialogue and execution departments to be taken seriously". Whereas Shriek If You Know What I Did Last Friday the Thirteenth or My Boyfriend's Back know they are bad, Scarecrows doesn't. Evil Dead set such a high standard for the comedic horror on a budget genre, that Scarecrows is simply out of place. <br /><br />Suspicions of inexperience are immediately at play as there are no hints of noise or vibration in the hull and cockpit of an airborne plane. The repeated display of a picture of 3 men just screams for a story arc, but nothing comes. Although the men are obviously the scarecrows, there is no explanation.<br /><br />Knowing this film is too serious for it's own good may produce some grins. I don't recall if Joe Bob Briggs ever previewed Scarecrows, but I believe that he wouldn't stoop this low. However, with an IMDb rating of over 6, there are many people that disagree.
I think scarecrows are creepy, so it's a pity this movie doesn't make more of them. <br /><br />A bunch of robbers do an emergency parachute from a plane into a enormous field with scarecrows. One of them goes missing with the loot and so the rest chase him down while being set upon by inexplicably evil scarecrows. The acting is hammy and the scarecrows unimpressive (when they move). On the positive side, the director does get some suspense out of the static scarecrows. It is as Alfred Hitchcock says, "A bomb under a table goes off, and that's surprise. We know the bomb is under the table but not when it will go off, and that's suspense."
SCARECROWS seems to be a botched horror meets supernatural film. A group of thugs pull off a paramilitary-like robbery of the payroll at Camp Pendleton in California. They high-jack a cargo plane kidnapping the pilot and his daughter with demands to be flown to Mexico. Along the way one greedy robber decides to bailout with the money landing in a cornfield monitored by strange looking scarecrows. These aren't just any run-of-the-mill scarecrows...they can kill. The acting is no better than the horrible dialog. And the attempts at humor are not funny. Very low budget and shot entirely in the dark.<br /><br />The cast includes: Ted Vernon, Michael David Simms, Kristina Sanborn, B.J. Turner, Phil Zenderland and Victoria Christian.
I had no real expectations going into this movie and I'm glad. Even if I had expected it to be bad I would have been disappointed.<br /><br />Where to start? First, I think 15% of the movie consisted of stock footage of stationary scarecrows in a dark jungle-field. I get it. There's scarecrows. I think the title "Scarecrows" was sufficient.<br /><br />Second, not a damn thing is ever explained regarding the scarecrows and paranormal occurrences. There's too many times where I was left going WTF?<br /><br />Third, the movie takes itself seriously. I'm all for a B-movie with buckets of blood, screaming women, and senseless violence that is the result of a simple psychopath or ancient curse. But those movies often know they're B-movies and even flaunt it, like Dead Snow (hilarious Scandanavian zombie flick) or Evil Dead 2. But this movie seems oblivious to its crapdom.<br /><br />Finally, there should of been more blood and/or nudity. Yea, I said it. If you're going to have a crap horror movie, make with the killing. And if you're going to have one hot and one semi-hot girl, one of them needs to show some side-boob at a minimum.<br /><br />So, like the summary says, skip "Scarecrows" and just poke yourself in the eye. You'll thank me.
I found out about this film because Jewish Ben Chaplin from Game On was in it. Game On is a funny British sitcom and apparently he left because he wanted to break into Hollywood and star in this film. He failed thank God.<br /><br />The film is a very simple romantic comedy with Janeane Garofalo playing an ugly woman who uses her neighbour Uma Thurman to date Ben Chaplin because she thinks Ben Chaplin won't like her because she's ugly. The film is just bad for so many reasons. The plot is unbelievably predictable from the overtly slapstick bits to the serious mushy bits: ugh just that montage where all three of them are having fun and then the photograph bit. Those two scenes made me cringe! Janeane's character is sickeningly arrogant (and guessing from her role as stand-up "comedienne" and arch-feminist is in real life too). She claims that the film is "anti-feminist" when in fact it's just realistic. Men more often than not go for looks over personality. It's interesting to note her hypocrisy too. She'd been a feminist and "comedienne" for years before taking this role and then suddenly decides afterwards that the film was bad. I imagine she hated the idea and script of this film before it was released but she made sure she kept that quiet so she could get paid for this travesty of a film. I mean come on! She acted in it for Heaven's sake! What this film was really was anti-men if anything. It portrays men as stupid animals whose brains are in their groins with the men doing stupid things to attract the attention of Uma Thurman's character Noelle.<br /><br />There are other bad things about this film too like Ben Chaplin's character being the British man every American girl finds cute and Jamie Foxx being the token black best friend of Chaplin and of course Foxx had to try and mimic his accent a few times for good measure. Is that the best the script writers could come up with? Blimey they've never done that before except with every Hugh Grant and Dudley Moore film ever made. There's also a truly awful phone sex scene which is just grotesque and proves how cheap the film is. The other comments on here all say how Janeane Garofalo isn't ugly but is actually beautiful. Erm was I watching the same film as they were? She's certainly no looker and the only good thing about this film was that she was rightly cast as the ugly one. Although having said that, I fail to see the appeal of Uma Thurman as well: she's lanky and gaunt looking.<br /><br />I guarantee three things about this film if you've never watched it:<br /><br />You will know what the ending will be;<br /><br />You will find the phone sex scene painfully embarrassing and;<br /><br />You will be bored after ten minutes.<br /><br />Watch at your own peril.
I liked it but then I think I might have been ironing at the same time. This reworking of Cyrano de Bergerac/Roxanne is an utterly undemanding, formulaic romcom rescued from straight-to-video ignominy on its release by the sharp turn of Janeane Garofalo. Playing the Frasier of Pets, she finds herself caught in a love trap when insecurity leads her to pass her best friend (Uma Thurman) off as herself when a caller comes a-courtin'.<br /><br />This is an interesting film in the fascinating career of Ben Chaplin. An average British actor, he gave the Hollywood treadmill a shot with this film. He is unremarkable and his anonymity in studio productions is unsurprising on the basis of it, although he has appeared in substantial cameos in both the later Terence Malick films. Uma Thurman does a ditzy turn on autopilot and Michael Lehmann packages it all together competently. Icky phone sex though. 4/10
Janeane Garofalo has been very public in her displeasure about this film, calling it, among other things, anti-feminist. She has also said on her radio show she hates making "romantic comedies" because she doesn't believe in them. I wholeheartedly agree with Janeane here. This film is a trifle at best. She does her best, but overall, it was just another boring, unbelievable "romantic comedy" that has no basis in the real world. Whereas there will be some who will say "suspend your disbelief", one grows tired of having to suspend it nearly every time you get a romantic film from Hollywood. Janeane's character, for some reason, is usually filmed in shadows and darkness, which makes her look unattractive, while Uma's character is filmed in lighter tones (which probably displeased Janeane and is probably one of the reasons she detests this film). That really hurts the film if we are to buy the premise that Janeane is supposed to be the better looking of the two. As many have said here and on other comment threads, Janeane is not ugly, but in fact, quite beautiful. I haven't read one review where someone said Uma was better looking. Having said that though, I believe that Ben Chaplin's character would more than likely stay with Uma, not Janeane. Many men don't like really intelligent women (and many women don't like really intelligent men), and sadly, Ben probably would have stayed with Uma. And despite the director's attempt to make Janeane unattractive, it doesn't work. Her natural beauty comes through anyway.<br /><br />I think a lot of Janeane's male fans who are obsessed with her like this film because they like to think of themselves in the Ben Chaplin character, and actually scoring with Janeane. Janeane is a lot more complicated than the character she plays here (real life is always much more complex than Hollywood can imagine), so take a cold shower gentlemen. This is the role that Janeane is best known for, and that's a shame, as this really isn't that good of a film.
The message of this movie is "personality is more important than beauty". Jeanine Garofalo is supposed to be the "ugly duckling", but the funny thing is that she's not at all ugly (actually she's a lot more attractive than Uma Thurman, the friend who looks like a model).<br /><br />Now, would this movie work if the "ugly duckling" was really unattractive? When will Hollywood stop with this hypocrisy?<br /><br />In my opinion, despite the message that it wants to convey, this movie is simply ridiculous.<br /><br />
This early B entry into the patriotic category slapped a gorgeous young Gene Tierney on the ads and posters, but you have to wait a good time before you glimpse her, riding in a Hollywoodized camel train. Previously, we've set up George Sanders and Bruce Cabot in the desert as guys who barely get along, but must rally in the face of attack. I've seen Sanders as so many enjoyable cads that it was fun to witness a rare good guy turn. However, Bruce Cabot's allure is pretty much a mystery to me - he's base and unsubtle in comparison, but I've always felt he'd just emerged, smiling, from under a car, covered in grease and a sixth grade education. Some people like 'em that way, as did Gene's gypsy queen character. This is an action adventure filler, tho, and just as we've been warned of invading locals with guns, ready to sabotage and attack the Brits in their land, there is a final gun battle in which we must lose a main character for the good of all. This feature requires nothing more than your barest attention on a Saturday afternoon, a programmer that made whatever else it was paired with better. It was almost more interesting identifying the great supporting cast and a surprise appearance by Dorothy Dandridge in one of her first roles. A two or two and a half stars out of five.-MDM
This film had no huge stars in it, but did have a very good cast filled with excellent supporting actors AND Gene Tierney before she became a big star. With George Sanders, Reginald Gardner, Harry Carey, Bruce Cabot, Jospeh Calleia and Cederic Hardwicke, you'd expect more from the film than it actually delivered. Most of this, I suspect, is because of a second-rate script, as director Henry Hathaway was a competent and well-established man at the helm.<br /><br />The film is set in East Africa during WWII--just before the Americans entered the war. The Brits are trying to control their African colonies while subversive Nazi elements are trying to stir up trouble among the locals. One of the white men in the film is a double-dealer--working for the destruction of the British Empire! But, lovely Tierney, playing a sultan's daughter(!), is out to help save the day for good ol' Britain.<br /><br />American film makers have long sided with the Empire and the 1930s and 40s saw a plethora of pro-empire films. Nowadays, with changed sensibilities, the notion of seeing the happy black natives dying for Queen and country seems ridiculous--and it would be hard to root for either side! Still, in its day, this propaganda piece was effective in drumming up support for the British--though when seen today, the film suffers from a long-winded script and silly casting. The one bright moment in the film is the final showdown between George Sanders and the enemy agent. Too bad after such a potent scene the film just seemed to talk and talk--losing some of its punch.
I rented this movie because I hoped it would be one the whole family would enjoy. Although the movie is family friendly, my family did not enjoy it because it gives a false view of God. If you obey God and follow Him, you are not guaranteed success. Your football team won't always win. You won't magically get better grades. Infertility isn't always cured. You won't always get a raise. Sometimes, you'll be stuck with the old car.<br /><br />God does not exist to meet our every whim. Rather, we were created to glorify Him. Sometimes we glorify Him most when things seem to be going bad for us. To live is Christ; to die is gain.
As a youth pastor I heard good things about this movie. Then I watched it. The acting wasn't the best. That's forgivable. It's the message that's not: Give Jesus your life and everything will change - you'll tackle better, make amazing catches, stop fumbling, start making touchdown passes, and even make the playoffs. All because Jesus magically turns horrible undersized weaklings into All-American athletes. I laughed out loud when a coach quoted scripture to explain to the kicker why he was missing field goals. But wait, that's not all. You'll get a brand new truck, a $6000 raise, and you and your wife's struggle with infertility will suddenly end in pregnancy - twice. THEN you'll win the state championship because God helps a weakling kick the winning field goal 12 yards further than he's ever kicked before - and into the wind, no less - all because "God wanted him to make it." Then you'll win the state championship again the next year. None of this good stuff would have happened if the team hadn't chosen to follow Jesus will all their hearts.<br /><br />Here's what I took away from the movie: God can do anything he wants to do whenever he wants to do it - and it's all about making our lives better, easier, and more enjoyable. He chooses his favorite team and helps them win games. Which bible is this story based on? I'll bet Saint Stephen wished he'd known the keys to such a safe life before he was stoned to death. Someone should have made this movie before 10 of the 11 apostles were killed for following Jesus. It would have saved them all a lot of trouble.
I watched this film in youth group, where my otherwise intuitive youth leader and his wife squeed over it. Then some adult couple at a church-related Christmas party misled themselves into giving a copy of this movie to every single family in attendance, and now my household is stuck with the film (though it thankfully still remains in its shrinkwrap). I cried bitter tears over these sad events, and here's why: First off: this film has good intentions, especially if you're a Christian like me. This movie is trying to show that you should put your faith in God and that it'll make your life better. Not so bad, right? Eh. It turns out a be a problem--a big one. This movie was made by a church, so of course every single issue has to be dealt with as tastefully for Christians as possible. It is all black-and-white, no gray areas. God's grace and will in this movie is a predictable thing, and it comes instantly to all those who do His bidding.<br /><br />This is not the God I know. This is not the Christian life I am familiar with. The God I believe in is a powerful and trustworthy God, but He is not one that grants my every wish. I follow Him as best I can, though the going is often hard; yet the football team in this movie finds their humility and self-control a lot easier than anyone should EVER find it. I cannot relate to cardboard cutouts who flip from bad-side to good-side in the course of a few structured movie scenes. And when I DO follow His commandments as laid out in the Bible, I certainly don't find myself showered in blessing as these characters do. The largest of my immediate rewards is knowing that I have done the right thing; everything else comes with long, messy, arduous work.<br /><br />But take the example this movie sets: Grant Taylor coaches the football team at Shiloh Christian school, which has had 6 losing seasons in a row. He may lose his job over it, and he and his wife are low on money as it is. They want a baby, but the doctor tells him he is sterile. Oh, and his car doesn't work. And the boys on his football team are disrespectful to their parents, whiny after their million losses, and bad at kicking field goals. This is sure one rundown community here.<br /><br />But wait, Grant Taylor decides he's going to trust in God for everything! And he passes on his faith to his team. So far, so good. Not for long. As they begin to obey, blessing literally POUR in on them. Suddenly the students stop disrespecting their parents; the school has a big "revival"; the team starts winning EVERY game; they even win the grand championship against the hardest team in the league! Coach Taylor's job is reassured; the school gets him a shiny new truck as a present (which, by the way, is the epitome of shallow, fair-weather employers); he gets a raise; his wife (get this) even gets pregnant from his sterile sperm! And that skinny kid manages to kick his first darn field goal right when it really matters!! Wowzers, woot, yay, praise the Lord, etcetera, etcetera!!! ...<br /><br />Yipe. Just YIPE. Nobody in my church has ever experienced Christ in a such a cut-and-dry manner. Yes, there have been miracles aplenty in my family, as well as gifts and creature comforts, and I attribute them to God's grace and lovingkindness. But God isn't some faucet tap that you turn on and off by being good or bad! He is by and large a mystery; His gifts come unexpectedly, often when you think you don't need them but you really do. It's a long, hard slog to the road of fulfillment, and things NEVER turn out the way you thought they would.<br /><br />This movie has good intentions. But because of its supreme shallowness and total escapism, it tanks tremendously to a 1/10. The bad acting and sports movie clichés seem to be mere pimples next to the leprous falsehoods that this movie inadvertently pushes.<br /><br />To all you future churches planning to make a movie: don't be afraid to show REAL life, even you have to add some inconvenient truths into the mix. However much the baser populace is wowed by this cotton candy treat, nobody has learned anything substantial from it. Give us the meat, the bones, the REAL stuff! True life applies to everyone, not just Christians, and that's one aspect "Facing the Giants" didn't manage to grasp.
It's interesting how 90% of the high-vote reviews are all comprised of "*random username*" from "United States" (no state pride??) who all say more or less the exact same thing with the exact same grammatical style and all with the exact same complete lack of taste in movies. I would delve further into this suspicious trend, but alas, this is a review of the movie, and not the reviews themselves.<br /><br />Let me start by saying that I am both a Christian and a true avid movie fan. This means I have seen a great many movies, from good to bad, and can wholeheartedly claim that Facing The Giants is, in fact, NOT a good movie. It has good intentions, but fails to meet many (if any) basic standards that I associate with a quality filmgoing experience.<br /><br />The Acting: Mostly Terrible, Palatable At Best. Hearing that most were apparently volunteers does not at all surprise me.<br /><br />The Dialogue: Clumsy, cheesy, the script comes off as a long version of some cheesy skit you'd see performed in Sunday School or youth group function. The Rave Review Robots revel in the absence of "meaningless words", but the cold hard truth is that such words are a part of the real world, and the complete absence of it is palpable. Let's just say the mean ol' head coach of a team in a State Championship game would have a lot more to say than "OH NO!" when things are not going his way.<br /><br />The Plot: Mind-bogglingly predictable. It has been commented that this movie is "not a Hollywood cliché", and yet it's like it was pulled directly from Making An Underdog Sports Movie For Dummies (including the mandatory quasi-romantic subplot for the ladies) and just had a Christian-themed coat of paint slapped on it. I'm not lying or bragging when I say I had almost every major detail in both the plot and subplot pegged immediately upon their inception. Only someone who has never seen a decent sports movie in their whole life would be emotionally stirred by the story presented here.<br /><br />The Directing/Editing: It, too, was patterned almost exactly after the generic Underdog Sports Movie template. Still, acting aside, there weren't many noticeable goofs, so at least Facing The Giants was technically competent.<br /><br />The Message: Ask Jesus and He will grant all your wishes. Part of me hoped that this movie would end in the team's eventual defeat to really emphasize the whole "If we lose, we praise You" part, because in the Real World, you WILL fail at one point or another and it's good to be prepared for that. But in the world of Facing The Giants, if you fail, clearly someone either screwed up or is cheating. Another interesting question being, what if the Eagles came across another team that had gotten religion? Would they be caught in an endless loop of miraculous plays and last-minute saves, or would the universe simply have exploded? <br /><br />The Bottom Line: For the hardcore conservative Christian Parents crowd lamenting the evils of Hollywood, Facing The Giants will be another mediocre-at-best Christian film to hold up on a pedestal as the preferred model for modern film-making. For everyone else, the effects will range from boredom to a burning desire to be watching something else. And a warning: Any attempt to show this to non-Christians will lead not to conversion, but to derision. I give this two stars, one for the one scene that did not have me rolling my eyes, and another for basic technical proficiency on a low budget.
I've been scolded and scorned by fellow Christians for stating my disappointment with this movie. I get hounded by statements like these: "I can't believe you didn't like it! It was made totally by Christians!" "Everyone donated their time and no one was paid for the movie! It was made by a church and not Hollywood. We should spend our money on movies like this! They only used $100,000 to make the film." "This is by a real church and Christian school in Georgia! A preacher wrote and directed it." So, apparently, the reason I should love this movie is simply because of the way it was made and the minimum amount of money used to make it and that is was made by Christians. That is all that is needed for me to love the movie.<br /><br />Look, I got the movie without knowing ANYTHING about the background of the film. I had never heard of it and had no idea - other than football - what it was about. I watched it like I watch any other movie and was disappointed. I was disappointed in the lousy editing and lame script. I was VERY disappointed on the resolution after the climax. Don't worry. There have been other cheap movies and other EXPENSIVELY made movies that have earned less respect from me. It isn't about the making of the movie. It is the end product.<br /><br />The writer acknowledges that God doesn't say "yes" to everything we pray for in the way we want, but he wanted to show by having faith, God changes our lives. That is true. However, God can change our lives and we're still infertile. God can change our lives and we don't get a raise from our job. God can change our lives and our car is still an old jalopy. God can change our lives and our house is still stinky. Why didn't he portray that in the movie? Others voiced their concern to the writer/director over the matter, but apparently, he was defensive.<br /><br />I did not think the acting was horrible nor many of the landscape shots. I like the idea of going to God and recognizing His awesome power and our weakness.<br /><br />The writing and directing were very weak. It is easy to distinguish this because many of the characters have no development. All we really get from the coach's wife is she is not pregnant (well, until the end of the movie). It seems as if there was only ball player that had the potential to have an interesting character and that was chopped to bits into "I have a cripple father and I can't play football well, but I'll kick the winning field goal even though I've never kicked a real field goal before." Another problem was the Christian school itself. Umm, I have worked for two Christian schools, went to one myself, and have had many nieces and nephews in other Christian schools. All in all, I've had some pretty close connections with about ten different ones. NONE of the problems that I have seen in ALL of these schools were addressed. I saw this as totally surreal in the movie about their school and wished they had shown the human factor. It would have been nice to see a dose of reality and how God can work.<br /><br />I will close by stating that every work - either written or drawn or played on an instrument - shares the artist's world view. The world view that was shown to me in this movie consists of "People who pray the right way win ball games, get new cars, conceive when they couldn't, get a raise, and get their house fixed - all within a short time span." I know. I should LOVE the movie simply due to the sincerity of the people who made it. I think I should love the movie because it was well done and for no other reason.
I went into this movie thinking that it would be a neat football drama (in the same vein as Remember the Titans); however, I came away feeling like I had just attended a Ted Haggard sermon about the Rapture. The only thing that was missing was the request for a tithe at the end of the movie. Actually, one would probably get more out of a televangelist sermon than this poor excuse for entertainment. At least with the televangelist sermon, there are quotes from the Scripture rather than quotes from popularist self-help pulp. The plot was entirely too predictable to the point that anyone with a long-enough attention span could have laid out the entire plot within the first 15 minutes of the movie.
This isn't a film, it's a 111-minute Evangelical Christian sermon draped over red state America's #1 sport, high school football. Another of the long, earnest messages to the converted who are then presumed to be fired up enough by the spirit to go abroad and convert their unsaved neighbours.<br /><br />Dialogue like "You won the big one when you accepted Christ" loses any possible camp appeal by the disturbing intensity in director/Coach Alex Kendrick's sunken black eyes. Then there are the "parables".<br /><br />Two farmers prayed for rain but only one prepared his field to receive it. Which one do you think God blessed? This rhetorical question is meant to foreshadow the miraculous climax, in the course of which Coach asks his trepidous back-up kicker, "Son, do you think God could help you make that kick?" It's the kind of entertainment we could have expected would receive faith-based funding ad infinitum, if only the Evangelical Christian Bush Administration's hegemonic pursuits around the world had convinced us all to become "devout" after their example. Behold that poor Giants coach in the apocalyptic finale, urging his team on crying "Who's with me!" while the devout Eagles on the other side were quietly going about doing the Lord's work.<br /><br />So, do you think our terrified back-up makes his kick to vanquish those self-centrist Goliaths? Well, we all know zealots can't lose. Put it this way: Transfer the playing ground to the deserts of the Middle East, replace the Christian proselytizing, and this virulent nonsense can easily be repackaged as a Taliban-vs-Superpower parable, which the devout worshippers of this garbage might want to think about a minute.<br /><br />Luckily they won't care, nor need to: like Coach tells his team of earnest empty vessels pregame, the answers are all right here in this Book. And the Christian Right will devour this on their way to their Rapture, that final victory they have prepared their fields for.
Having just watched this movie, I almost feel like having wasted 2 hours of my life, but I guess there is some good in everything:<br /><br />If I was to rate this as any other movie, it can only receive 1 or 2 tops, but if I grade it like a low budget ind. movie, it may get 3 or 4. That is a movie is supposed to be 'complete' and without too long passages of boredom or waste of time. This movie isn't. But I guess a lot of independent movies are about showing movie skills, and considering this, this movie has a few highlights. If I am to comment on what the directors should take with them to their next project, I guess the distorted sound effects had some quality. They also manage to build some characters, this however takes me to what they should leave out in their next project, because the character building takes too long, since it is mostly irrelevant for the movie plot. Neither should the long spaces of time dedicated to walking around be continued in the next project - whats the point? I guess this movie tries to be a little bit of everything (building characters, suspense and a plot), and ends up being nothing (not a lot)<br /><br />This movie tries too much and too hard, and I guess it should have been cut to a short film. I could easily manage to find one hour of walking around or pointless dialogue to cut from the movie.<br /><br />There is too much irrelevant things going on in this movie. The story should have been more streamlined. I know there is supposed to be some mystery in this movie, but a slight surprise to who the killer is, doesn't make a mystery. The story behind the "mystery" receives almost no attention during the film, which leaves the final "point" as a quick an unsatisfying wrap-up. <br /><br />Therefore I would like to say this movie was a nice try, but I cant. I hope the directors learn from their mistakes, and produce a better product next time.<br /><br />If you don't have an interest in bench learning from producing low budget movies, there is no need to watch this - not even too see why everyone thinks its bad.<br /><br />As others have stated I am pretty sure the many 10's given to this movie are from people somehow involved in the movie. This movie could not receive a "10" judging from any remotely objective standpoint.
THE CRIMSON RIVERS is one of the most over-directed, over-the-top, over-everything mess I've ever seen come out of France. There's nothing worse than a French production trying to out-do films made in Hollywood and CR is a perfect example of such a wannabe horror/action/buddy flick. I almost stopped it halfway through because I knew it wouldn't amount to anything but French guys trying to show-off.<br /><br />The film starts off promisingly, like some sort of expansive horror film, but it quickly shifts genres, from horror to action to x-files type to buddy flick, that in the end, CR is all of it and also none of it. It's so full of clichés that at one point I thought the whole thing was a comedy. The painful dialogue and those silent pauses, with fades outs and fades ins just at the right expositionary moments, made me groan. I thought only films made in Hollywood used this hackneyed technique.<br /><br />The chase scene, with Vincent Cassel running after the killer, is so over-directed and over-done that it's almost a thing of beauty. The climax on top of the mountain, with the stupid revelation about the killer(s) with Cassel and Reno playing "buddies" like Nolte and Murphy in 48 HRS, completely derailed what little credibility the film had by then.<br /><br />It's difficult to believe that the director of THE CRIMSON RIVERS also directed GOTHIKA, which though had its share of problems, doesn't even come close to the awfulness of this overbaked, confused film.
This is a classic example of an increasing problem with films. Why is the background noise and the soundtrack dramatically louder than the dialogue? What sense does that make? This film isn't alone. Most films seem to do this now. For 2 years, I wondered if it was just something wrong with my TV, but then I got a new TV & there it is again. BACKGROUND noise that could be taking place a city block behind the actors drowns out the dialogue.<br /><br />It was even more distracting in this film because, in the English version anyway, the woman mumbles constantly. I kept hoping Jean Reno would say "Excuse me, would you speak up or get the marbles out of your mouth." If you watch it on DVD & you have even high-school French, I recommend the French version with subtitles.<br /><br />I give it 4 because Reno was so good in Leon. People rave about the scenery, but I saw it on a TV & I lived in the Rockies for a few years, so "Enh".
One wonders why this picture was made at all : the plot as such is totally unbelievable if not ridiculous, the characters (experienced loner cop versus younger one, quite fascinated) quite predictable, the ending totally murky and impossible to understand (maybe after several viewings but you'd have to have a masochistic tendency for that ; the idea being you have to read the book to understand fully what it's all about)and the acting is bad. Was the basic idea to show that French film makers are able to do as well as Americans in the genre that include "Seven" and "Silence of the lambs" ? If so, it is a total failure. It was quite a success though (and has a sort of cult-status as the first French serial killer film)and, it seems, considered as a good product to export. Strange.
This film was rather a disappointment. After the very slow, very intense (and quite gory) beginning the film begins to lose it. Too much plot leaves too little time for explanation, and coming out of the theater I wondered what this was all about. The characters remain shallow, the story is not convincing at all, most of it is déja vù stuff without hints of parody, and there are some very cheesy parts... Like, the young cop has to do dig up a body. Of course it's night AND it rains AND he has to do it alone... yawn! Or The Manifestation of the Evil being "nazis" plus "genetic manipulation"... Wow, that's really original. There are some nice bits, though, like the fistfight scene, mountain views and some (running) gags, but (though Reno and Vincent Cassel do what they can) that's definitely not worth it. (3 out of 10)
Råzone is an awful movie! It is so simple. It seems they tried to make a movie to show the reel life. Just like Zappa did many years ago. But unfortunately Denmark lacks good young actors. Leon are by many still the little girl in "krummernes Jul", and Laura is simply not good enough to play such an important role. several times in the movie she plays with out soul and this is destroying the movie!<br /><br />Even though i consider it a movie you ought to see. I do not agree that the youth are behaving like this, but i think it can show how it can end, if you are letting your child down. Also it is important to support danish movies and new companies like "Film folket"!<br /><br />all in all I think people should see Råzone. Not because it is a great film, but because it is a movies which is dealing with important themes. I also think it is important to point out that there are some violent scenes in it, and actually it is in these scenes, Laura is acting best. - like the ending where she is holding the gun!
It looks like the brilliant team of Shonda Rhimes outsourced the writing of this one somewhere offshore, maybe to the MediocreLand? "PP" reminds me any one of the many tedious, promising at first but predictable within 1 season David Kelly flicks (Picket Fences, Ally McBeal, and now Boston Legal). The crazy cases they get are so outlandish, they barely evoke sympathy or sadness. And that's what actually makes good medical dramas tick - dramatic situations you are afraid of, "This could be me" sentiment. They are not funny either.<br /><br />The actors are quite good, but the plot lines are dead and cannot be brought back to live. I'm a therapist, and let me tell you - Amy Brennan plays the most unbelievably incompetent, unethical, untrained therapist. Whoever writes her stuff flunked the ethics and the transference/counter-transference courses in Stanford. Somebody should give them a Code of Ethics to read (the episode with the nose-bleeding wife and the therapist's involvement in it). No therapists are that bad.<br /><br />Women yearning for men who have moved on - had been done to death, we've all graduated "Sex and the City". Addison in her youthful aggression towards the guy she likes - very age-inappropriate, looks so unnatural on a woman over 40, and this otherwise talented actress doesn't believe it herself and doesn't deliver it very well. The only successful/palatable developments are Addison struggling with her decision to move to LA, and the "Voodoo Dr" and his coping with widowhood.<br /><br />This concept might work with a whole new writing team.
Private Practice is supposed to be a medical drama. So I guess my biggest complaint is the lack of originality in the medical story lines. Just by watching House, I "solved" two (out of nine) medical mysteries before the doctors did. Boooring. Seriously, if you are a lazy writer, why not copy some cases out of older ER episodes or some obscure Brazilian medical soap? House is recent and popular - recycling their ideas is hard to get away with...<br /><br />Second biggest complaint: these people are supposed to be forty-somethings, right? Then why do they have to behave with the emotional maturity of 15-year-olds? Is three weeks (ie. three whole damn episodes) of intense thinking really necessary to understand that if your best friend doesn't want to be your "friend with benefits", it's maybe not because he wants to hurt you, but because he doesn't want to risk your friendship? The character doing all the thinking is a psychiatrist by the way - the whole storyline is just so unrealistic that you can't really buy into the supposed "drama".<br /><br />And I won't even start complaining about what the show did to everyone's favorite Addison as we got to know her in Grey's Anatomy... On a sidenote, don't you think it's funny the way Addison ends up lusting after loser Pete (sorry, but everyone who tries to cure insomnia with Mozart's Requiem is a loser, PhD or not) and Derek ends up entangled in a relationship with whiny, irritating Meredith miles away in rainy Seattle? Apart from that little fling with Mark, they seemed to be perfect for each other. Sometimes I think Shonda Rhimes' subconscious is trying to tell us that in relationships, our first choice is often the right one...
I have seen every episode of this spin off. I thought the first season was a decent effort considering the expectations of following such a success that is Grey's Anatomy. Thus i have continued to watch. I'm afraid the second season lacks the charm, the chemistry and more importantly the drama of it's predecessor Grey's Anatomy. The relationships seem contrived and the acting is so-so. The writing lacks the intelligence and comedic hints seen in GA. There are shows that a formulaic but do not feel formulaic and contrived, unfortunately PP is not so. I loved Kate Walsh's presence in GA. I'm afraid Kate Walsh's life in LA is simply not interesting.
I've watched a few episodes of this show and have found certain elements of it to be rather interesting, considering medical facts that can be learned. But this is totally upstaged and wrecked by the neverending immoral relationships of the show's characters. Everybody seems to have slept with just about everyone, even during office hours, which is ridiculously unrealistic. There doesn't seem to be one solid, lasting marriage or relationship in the entire show - everyone is broken up and on the prowl - hardly a true reflection of all Americans. Indeed, there is a total lack of respect for marriage or monogamy and it's truly fulsome.<br /><br />Then we are presented with endless little moral 'dilemmas' and they're generally solved in such a way that belittles anyone who doesn't agree with the all-knowing degenerate management and staff of the private practice. For instance, in one of the latest episodes we're presented with an exceedingly rare situation of a baby who is born with an uncertain gender and Addison absolutely refuses to perform the surgery because we're supposed to let the baby decide his gender later on. Anyone who disagrees with this is portrayed as immature and stupid.<br /><br />And I think that anyone opposed to abortion would be offended by the way the show treats pro-lifers. Addison made the comment that no man was allowed to have an opinion on the issue and only one black character was given dignity for opposing abortion on moral grounds. The general feeling was that if you opposed abortion, you're a freak - hardly the popular sentiment in the US. Two of the main characters in the show nonchalantly mention that they had abortions when they were younger and had no apologies or regrets, in spite of the fact that research has shown women can undergo intense depression. What's more a young girl comes to the clinic for an abortion and then thanks the staff on the way out and someone talks about it as how they were helping this young person and it was like something to exult in. The script could have been written by Planned Parenthood.<br /><br />All in all, this is a cheap show that lacks much of a future unless it decides to present more real relationships rather than just totally unbelievable soap opera relationships and far-fetched medical situations throughout the whole show.
"Private Practice" is being spun off the fairly successful and well written "Grey's Anatomy". The cast is fabulous. The premise might even work. But the writing is just terrible.<br /><br />The pre-pilot disguised as a Grey's Anatomy episode should have been my first warning. The plot was just blah. I thought maybe it was a fluke. So I set the DVR to tape the pilot and all other episodes.<br /><br />As I was watching the pilot, I just kept wondering how a show with such a cast of fine actors could put together a boring pilot. The pilot is supposed to suck people in and keep them coming back for more. There's supposed to be excitement, flash, great writing, intriguing storyline with a cliffhanger that needs to be answered throughout the rest of the season. Amazingly, this show had none of that.<br /><br />Thinking it was a fluke, I just watched the second episode hoping for the best. And although marginally better, it doesn't come close to what it needs to be interesting can't miss TV.<br /><br />I just scrubbed this show from my list of shows to watch. Not worth the effort IMO, and I would be very surprised if this show even makes it through mid season. Pass this one up folks.
The complaints are valid, to me the biggest problem is that this soap opera is too aimed for women. I am okay with these night time soaps, like Grey's Anatomy, or Ugly Betty, or West Wing, because there are stories that are interesting even with the given that they will never end. However, when the idea parallels the daytime soaps aimed at just putting hunky men (Taye Diggs, Tim Daly, and Chris Lowell) into sexual tension and romps, and numerous ridiculous difficult situations in a so-called little hospital, it seems like General Hospital...or a female counterpart to Baywatch. That was what men wanted and they had it, so if this is what women want so be it, but the idea that this is a high brow show (or something men will watch) is unrealistic.
I did not think this movie was worth anything bad script, bad acting except for Janine Turner, no fantasy, stupid plot, dumb-ass husband and unfair divorce settings. If you have never seen this movie before don't even bother it's not worth it at all. The only thing that was good about it was that Janine Turner, did a good job acting. Terry's husband is a stuck up smart-ass defense attorney who has won a lot of cases and even gotten guility murderers off. He think he is so smart but he is really just a nut. Her best friend has an affair with her husband and betrays her. Nice girl huh. Yeah she's a real peach, not. She's no day at the beach either.
Woman with wig, who "dyes" her hair in the middle of the film (=takes of wig) presumably does not see what the audience can see from miles away:<br /><br />*** begin spoiler alert *** that her hubby is having an affair with her best girlfriend and they both try get rid of her. *** end of spoiler alert ***<br /><br />And what a spoiler that was: the title already gives it away, doesn't it? Bad acting, bad script: waste of time Oh yeah: in the end, she lives happily ever after....<br /><br />If you liked this movie, you'll really love "Cannibal women in the Avocado Jungle of Death"....
Saw this movie when it first came out in the 1970's and hated, hated, hated it! Easily the most booooring movie I have ever seen in my life. Don't know where Leigh got his inspiration but this is one of those movies where you want to shake the characters to get them to open their mouths and communicate. The title says it all because there are no saving moments in this movie, just long, long silences with people unable to articulate what they are (presumably) feeling. If you want to watch something that will drive you to drink then this is the one for you. If you have nothing better to do for two hours then stick a fork in a toaster: the experience will be infinitely more pleasurable than anything you will get from this! Yes, Leigh came up with a lot of really worthwhile stuff much later in his career but give this one a miss.
"Nada" was the most inadequate follow-up to "Les NOces Rouges" which,with hindsight,appears now as the last good movie of Chabrol's golden era (1967-1973) "Nada" is Chabrol's first real attempt at a wholly political movie;its previous work "les Noces Rouges" had also political elements but it was more a psychological thriller with the usual look at society in French provinces."Nada" includes terrorists,ambassador,hostage-taking,a lot of blood,not really Chabrol's field.A heterogeneous cast gives the movie the coup de grâce :only Duchaussoy,who had already played with the director ,and Maurice Garrel are up to scratch.Viviane Romance ,one of Duvivier's actresses ("la Belle Equipe" "Panique") ,is wasted as a madam (Gabrielle).Italian actors (Fabio Testi,Lou Castel)are awful.<br /><br />With "Nada" this a second period of barren inspiration for Chabrol .It would be "Violette Nozières" before he was again at the top of his game.
In a time when the constitution and principals the United States were founded on are trampled underfoot by an administration desperate to distract attention from its own internal problems, where the Geneva Convention, human rights and foreign sovereignty are unapologetically discarded, a thriller about the state taking illegal action that far exceeds that of the terrorists they are countering might seem appropriate. However, if you want to see a film about that, try Ed Zwick's flawed THE SIEGE instead, because NADA is one of the most infantile 'political' thrillers ever made. Like Robert Altman's PRET-A-PORTER, the director has taken on a subject he seems completely ignorant of, and imprints his ignorance on almost every frame.<br /><br />His terrorists are a wildly unconvincing group of stereotypes - Fabio Testi dresses as if he were auditioning for MAD Magazine's 'Spy vs. Spy' strip, Michel Duchaussoy behaves like an absurd KIDS IN THE HALL send up of the sociology professor from Hell, Mariangela Melato a cardboard middle-class revolutionary wannabe - who behave at every unconvincing plot turn as if they want to be caught. The corrupt authorities fare a little better, but are still painted in unconvincingly broad strokes.<br /><br />It is possible to make a smart film about dumb people (cf ELECTION), but this is a moronic film about dumb people made by people who think they're intellectuals who are talking down to the masses. In truth, were one to recast Testi, Duchaussoy and Melato with Jim Varney, Johnny Knoxville and Shannon Tweed, the result would actually be to raise the intellectual content of the film, not lower it.<br /><br />Chabrol might just have got away with his characters and events if he took them seriously, but his staging is so inept (the fight scenes would embarrass a kindergarten class while the shooting of the kidnapping is more inept than the kidnapping itself) and his inability to get his cast to perform with at least some approximation of recognisable human behaviour so blatant that it is actually embarrassing to watch (special mention must be made here of Duchaussoy: so very good in Chabrol's QUE LA BETE MUERE, he is stunningly bad here in a performance that is so far over the top it's back again).<br /><br />Chabrol has made some fine films, but you would never guess it from this amateurish mess - a newcomer to his work would never want to see another of his films after this, which would be a great shame. Utter drivel, and a sad waste of a potentially interesting material. One star out of ten - and that's being very generous.
It's obvious that all of the good reviews posted for this movie so far are from insiders who were either involved with the film or who know somebody who knows somebody and have thus seen multiple cuts. Well, I don't know anyone involved, and I've seen the final cut, and it is pure garbage. The only thing it has going for it is ambition and multiple cameos from horror legends (none on screen for terribly long). It's as if the filmmakers made this movie on a weekend during a horror convention and got actors like Tony Todd, Tom Savini, David Hess and Michael Berryman to film scenes during their coffee breaks. This is an ultra-cheap, shot-on-video wannabe X-Files with terrible acting from a cast of non-actors with more mullets than is acceptable in the 21st century. There is little or no action; it's all overly explanatory dialogue that attempts to explain a pointlessly convoluted plot. Ther computer FX are a joke, but there aren't enough of them nor enough action to make this film enjoyable in a MST3K way. After about 8 straight scenes of nothing but talking, you'll find yourself reaching for the fast-forward button...and not letting go. Absolutely worthless.
I don't know where to begin. This movie feels a lot like one of those cheap Saturday morning kids shows that they used to make back in the late eighties early nineties. Sort of like Captain Power or the Power Rangers. It's full of bad digital overlays and really cheesy sounding "secret agencies" and villains.<br /><br />The acting is so bad that it's not even funny. The direction is terrible and there is little to now continuity. It seems as if someone just threw a bunch of scenes together and forgot that there was supposed to be a plot.<br /><br />Perhaps one of the most ridiculous scenes in the movie comes early on, when several villains plant an explosive device in an agents car. For some reason, even though the device is clearly stated as being "remote detonated" the bad guys decide to chase her down on their motorcycles as she drives away. This chase carries on. all the while with the bad guys doing ludicrous and completely pointless bike stunts. Standing up on the bikes, doing wheelies and so on. At one point, a crash happens and one of the attackers is thrown from his bike, we see the bike (clearly cgi) thrown over the agents car but the rider has vanished. Then, a few seconds later the rider and bike return...apparently unscathed by the crash. At this point even though the car has an explosive device planted in it, the attackers choose to shoot the agent while driving past, then blow up her car. Which was also clearly done with cgi. Sound confusing? It is, and so is the rest of the movie.<br /><br />I might point out that when I say cgi, we aren't talking about Lord Of The Rings type cgi here. We're talking the cheap cheesy Power Rangers type cgi, actually I think it would have been done better on Power Rangers.<br /><br />Why Savini and Todd did this movie I will never know, I can only assume they did for money, as a favor to someone or because they were blackmailed into it...probably the last one.
I am sorry to say that this film is indeed bad. It reminds me of a c-grade porn movie with one major difference: no porn.<br /><br />The story and dialogue needs a complete overhaul. Maybe then the bad acting would not have been as noticeable. At the very least, the pacing should have been picked up.<br /><br />While I accept that this had a low budget and the director did a good job visually given what little resources he had, he should have spent more time on the story or better yet, get someone else to write it. Many of the action scenes were just pointless.<br /><br />It was a complete waste of my time.
Now I don't hate cheap movies. I just don't see why you should waste any money for a movie you could shoot with your dad's camcorder. If I rent a movie, I want it to be a MOVIE, not a bunch of people thinking it would be a good idea to waste some MiniDV - Tapes.<br /><br />Maybe I hate this one so much because the guy in the video store said it was great, and it wasn't. Maybe I hate it because it's cheap, has the dumbest plot EVER, the most unrealistic characters EVER and the really, really, really WORST SHOWDOWN in the history of films EVER. Even Tom Savini can't save this.<br /><br />Seriously, this one is a complete waste of time.
Absence of a GOOD PLOT, absence of decent ACTING, absence of good CINEMATOGRAPHY, absence of decent looking SPECIAL EFFECTS...need I go on? Review MAY contain SPOILERS. The actors appear to be READING their lines, and not very well at that. Most of the "actors" were acting like they were in a SECOND GRADE play. The story appeared to have been written by one of the aforementioned second graders...it's not really all that convoluted...it's just so SIMPLE and DUMB, that a person thinks they must be missing something so they think it is convoluted. Nope it's not, it's EXACTLY as SIMPLE as you think it is. I UNDERSTOOD the "film", that's how i KNOW that it STUNK! MOST of the film just had people sitting around talking(reading their lines), TRYING to look sinister. The narrator was ANNOYING. The "special effects" were LAUGHABLE. I love low budget movies. I also like Carolyn Munro, Tom Savini, Jack Scarry, and Michael Berrymore...just not in THIS movie...you can tell they weren't getting paid, or weren't getting paid much, because neither their hearts NOR their talents were in it. I LOVE Tony Todd...however, he was only adequate in this movie. In fact, Tony Todd's performance is the ONLY reason I gave it 3 stars instead of 1...and Tony was only in it for a whole TWO MINUTES (seriously)! I would suggest to fast forward the DVD to the two minute Tony Todd segment. If I had gone to the theater, and paid more than a DOLLAR to see this "film" I would have been P.O.'D and demanded my money back. Hopefully the people who made this will do better next time.
I had the "privilege" of attending a special screening of 'The Absence of Light' at a horror convention in Ohio.<br /><br />First off, you know you're in trouble when the director introduces a film, saying: "Now keep in mind, we didn't have much money..." Not that no-budget films are bad, but when a filmmaker uses this as an excuse, the results are always poor. And there is no better example than this unwatchable sleep-fest. <br /><br />Actually, 'Absence of Light' marks a first in the world of underground cinema: It's the only time I've seen a dream-cast of talented genre vets actually bore me. Charismatic actors like David Hess, Tony Todd and Reggie Banister randomly enter and exit the movie and prove to be every bit as uninteresting as the amateurish no-names. Who are their characters? What are they talking about? Who cares? It's all so dull, you'll cease to care about anything or anyone.<br /><br />After thirty minutes of this endurance test, I gave up and walked out of the theater. Not surprisingly, so did most of the cast members in attendance. <br /><br />Any curious genre fans would do well to stay away from this. With a little luck, this movie won't ever see the "light" of day.
The Honey, I Shrunk the Kids franchise was a huge deal and not to mention very famous. I loved Honey, I shrunk the Kids when I was little. It was an original story and had such an exciting plot! The sets were so amazing and the cast seemed like they enjoyed each other's company. Now Honey, I blew up the kid was pretty stupid, so I think they wanted to go back to the story that everyone loved.<br /><br />Basically, Adam is a little more grown up now and the mom's are going on vacation to leave their husbands with their children. But when Wayne's favorite item is threatened for the garbage, he wants to shrink it and keep it, but he and his brother get in the way. But when the wives come back after forgetting to give some meds to their son, they get caught in the machine as well, leaving the kids in the house alone!<br /><br />The plot is silly, but like I said, it was just a family film that I think some might get a kick out of. The original Honey, I Shrunk the Kids is the best, I think everyone could agree. The third one wasn't so bad, I would recommend this one at least over Honey, I Blew Up the Kid movie, it was at least a little more fun.<br /><br />4/10
If you liked the first two films, then I'm sorry to say you're not going to like this one. This is the really rubbish and unnecessary straight to video, probably TV made sequel. The still idiotic but nice scientist Wayne Szalinski (Rick Moranis) is still living with his family and he has his own company, Szalinski Inc. Unfortunately his wife wants to get rid of a statue, Wayne is so stupid he shrinks his statue and himself with his brother. Then he shrinks his wife and sister-in-law too. Now the adults have to find a way to get the kids of the house to get them bigger. Pretty much a repeat of the other two with only one or two new things, e.g. a toy car roller coaster, swimming in dip, etc. Pretty poor!
Yes, talk about bad sequels. Rick Moranis stars in this awful third sequel to the once-funny-and-entertaining "Honey I Shrunk the Kids". The concept basically plays the same way as the first film, but with the adults instead of the kids being shrunk and the inner house instead of the garden as the universe to explore. If you think this sounds interesting, think again. The movie is boring at best, right down an embarrassment at worst.<br /><br />First of all, the continuity of the series has been completely flushed down the toilet. The only remaining actor of the first movie is apparently Rick Moranis. The actress playing his wife has changed, the actors playing the kids have changed, the ones playing the neighbors have changed... you name it. They try to make us believe this is the same family, but the results are puzzling to say the least.<br /><br />Second, the story is a rehash of the first one, with not one bit of originality. All the few jokes (and there's barely any) and the dangerous situations presented in the movie are just copied straight from "Honey I Shrunk the Kids".<br /><br />Third problem, the special effects. I'm sure this has been done on a smaller budget, but they are pathetic, way way worse than the ones appearing in the rest of the series. You're supposed to admire in awe these tiny figures exploring the huge domestic area, but you'll probably end up cringing most of the time.<br /><br />Fourth problem, to locate the action inside the house is just boring. Only few things happen, and when they happen, they are not thrilling at all. The first movie was amusing because the kids were dealing with nature, the grass, and the bugs that live in it. In this one, the adults (which come up as rather boring, compared to the kids) deal with dust, a cockroach and a cockroach trap. Disgusting.<br /><br />I don't know why the idea of releasing such a trite sequel to the already moribund series appealed Disney's executives, except maybe because they needed to cash in without spending five minutes thinking about something new. I'm warning you: leave this tasteless cash-in garbage where it should stay: getting dust on the shop's shelves.
This straight-to-video duffer is another nail in the coffin of Rick Moranis's career. As is the Disney tradition, quality is sacrificed in the name of a quick cash-in; this is a lazy retread with Moranis accidentally shrinking himself and a few relatives so they can repeat all the best scenes from the original movie. Instantly dated visual effects and crummy dialogue abound in this cheesy lamer, which did nothing but make me pine for the days of 'The Incredible Shrinking Man', when this kind of thing was done properly. Shockingly, this is directed by top cinematographer Dean Cundey, who should either stick to the day job or pick better material next time.
Inventor Wayne Szalinsky (Rick Moranis) is preparing to donate his problematic shrinking/expanding machine to the Smithsonian Institution as he and his wife Diane (Eve Gordon) get ready for a long weekend away from their son Adam (Bug Hall). Wayne's brother Gordon (Stuart Pankin), his wife Patty (Robin Bartlett), and his kids Jenny (Allison Mack) and Mitch (Jake Richardson) volunteer to look after Adam while his parents are away, but as luck would have it (and the title would lead you to expect), the grown-ups are accidentally zapped by Wayne's shrinking ray. As the kids run amok, their miniaturized folks must contend with monstrously huge insects, wrinkles in the carpet that look like canyons, and other threats to them. This was bad, like most straight to video sequels are, Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves was sort of laughable. I had to laugh at that movie "roach" Stuart Pankin and the party bullies were even more ridiculous, view at own risk!
Made one year before ILSA, SHE-WOLF OF THE SS, BLACKSNAKE could have easily been called SUSAN, SHE-WOLF OF THE PLANTATION and it probably inspired the producers behind the Nazi sexploitation epics to go ahead with their more infamous films because the stories are identical: a gorgeous, horny, head strong (but stupid) blonde woman degrades and kills many people under her control, whom all hate her and want her dead. Sounds familiar? Director Russ Meyer and David Friedman, the producer behind the ILSA flicks, are good friends and they started their careers together. So, obviously, there's a connection there. Looking at BLACKSNAKE, I can't help but think that Russ Meyer wanted to move on and do something else than his typical busty women epics because XXX movies were all the rage during the mid 1970s, and Russ Meyer films, though filled with nudity and kinkiness and violence, were never even close to real porn. His films started to look positively quaint next to DEEP THROAT and other hard-core porno blockbusters. Meyer knew he couldn't compete with such films and BLACKSNAKE is sorta the end result of such a quandary in his career. He obviously wanted to branch out into different uncharted territory. But BLACKSNAKE bombed at the B.O. and Meyer quickly returned to making VIXEN type of films that, even if they still weren't pornographic, they were most definitely more over-the-top than any of his previous films.<br /><br />It's no wonder BLACKSNAKE was a B.O. failure. It's just terrible. Trash-o-rama. Jaw-droppingly bad. It's a quasi-campy take on slavery, if you can imagine that. The end result is jarring. One minute, we're in typical Meyer territory: exuberant, playful and silly, and then the next minute, super serious meditation on slavery and violence. Huh? It just doesn't work. The slavery/racism aspect is woefully mishandled and veers this movie in the true exploitation category. But BLACKSNAKE is not as sleazy as ILSA SHE WOLF OF THE SS and those kind of films, so I imagine fans of the latter were disappointed by it, which would explain the almost lack of interest in this movie from either exploitation fans or Russ Meyer fans. Meyer blames the failure of BLACKSNAKE because, and I quote, "It didn't have enough breasts in it." Well, I'm sorry Russ, but the film is just bad, breast or no breasts. But he's right though about the low breast quota. Except for Anouska and the maid, the film's cast is male. Meyer replaces his usual bevy of buxom babes with throng of hunks with massive pecs, in the form of anonymous black actors playing the slaves and the big David (Darth Vader) Prowse. And with Anouska's right hand man around, who is portrayed as a ruthless but clever gay man who enjoys the power he has over the men, one can only wonder what Meyer was really trying to create here.<br /><br />BLACKSNAKE stars David Warbeck, who is lusted after by Anouska and her right hand man. Poor David. He looks totally befuddled by the whole experience. He did seem to have fun making the movie but you can clearly see that, at times, he has no idea what's going on. And then there's Anouska Hempel. She's a beautiful woman...for the 1970s, not the 1870s. With her makeup and hair, she looks like a typical 1970s Brit pin-up babe than a turn of the century dominatrix. And her wardrobe is hilarious. At one time, she actually unzips her leather boots! I didn't know they had zippers in those days. But the character she plays is, in itself, really degrading (no pun intended). She's nothing but a cipher to the object of lust and scorn of every men (and that woman) on the island. For example, one night, when David and Anouska are getting it on, her annoying slave driver walks in the room, knocks David unconscious and tries to rape her, groping her savagely. The next day, the slave driver is still working for Anouska and the two act as if nothing had happened. It's totally ludicrous. Under any circumstance, had her character been a real person, Anouska would have whipped the slave driver senseless and kicked his butt off the island. Or even killed him. But the fact that the woman keeps him on her plantation after he tried to rape her is stretching the flimsy story and characters' credulity to the max.<br /><br />Ridiculous details like this, and the thoroughly startling blaxploitation angle makes BLACKSNAKE a strangely unpleasant but watchable movie. Watchable in the train wreck variety. I just couldn't help but watch the film for the utter baseless aspects of it all (the excellent cinematography sorta makes it easier to watch). So, this being an exploitation film, I guess it succeeded in doing what it was supposed to do. But BLACKSNAKE is mainly for Russ Meyer completists.
I had to watch this film because the plot was so outrageous and the film lived up to expectations. In fact it makes for quite uncomfortable viewing at times. Unlike other Meyer films, the sexual antics are down to a minimum. Some of the scenes of violence are unnecessarily gratuitous and offensive. The plot is chaotic and some of the acting and lines are dreadful.<br /><br />The film is a strange combination of sado-masochistic fantasy combined with a window of the brutality and immorality of the slavery and fails on all counts. It's as though Meyer was trying to make up for the sexploitation/ blackploitation by having a higher moral message. Meyer knows we feel a bit guilty about getting turned on by the blatant dominatrix connotations of the early scene showing Lady Susan wielding a whip in a provocative outfit. He then tries to steer back to the righteous path by turning it into a film about the triumph of good over evil. However, because they cancel each other out, you end up with nothing.<br /><br />Because it so bad in so many ways, it is actually worth watching if you appreciate the art of making an awful film in the worst possible taste. Perhaps, because it is so bad, we almost let Meyer get away with the unacceptable.
If you can make it thru "classic Meyer" titles/intro, you can wade thru anything. But would you want to? I did not find a lot there to dig my teeth into. I suppose if you go into it with low enuff expectations you will be delighted (a la Charlie's Angels.) But for my money I'd like a little something more, more visual, more moving. More. I feel like I'm begging for gruel @ the foot of the master . the mans got the goods . but he just won't share.
You remember the Spice Girls movie and how bad it was (besides the songs), well their manager Simon Fuller (also this band's manager) makes the same error putting S Club (another of my favourite bands) in their own film. S Club: Tina Barrett, Jon Lee, Bradley Mcintosh, Jo O'Meara, Hannah Spearritt and Rachel Stevens (what happened to the seventh member, Paul Cattermole?) basically ask their boss for a break, they go on, and while there they see themselves on TV! Three of them swap, and vice versa, half discover they are clones made by a greedy scientist, and the other half just get themselves in trouble. Also starring Gareth Gates as a clone of himself. This film may have more of a plot than Spice Girls' film did, but besides the songs "Bring It All Back", "Don't Stop Movin'" and "Never Had A Dream Come True" this is no goo reason to see this film. Not too long after the band split for good. Adequate!
Being S Club Seven, the film already boosts an ecstatic atmosphere! But seriously, Oprah has a point when claiming: "Don't go there, girl!" Spice World suddenly doesn't seem to be all that bad... I take my money elsewhere!
Rachel, Jo, Hannah, Tina, Bradley and John are all on top form here. They deserve oscar nominations for their performances. I am a great fan of the tv show aswell. Their music rocks and they're all so talented! I am also a great exponent of SARCASM!!!!!!<br /><br />IF YOU'RE AN S CLUB FAN DO NOT READ THIS!!!!!<br /><br />The performances are terribly weak, the dialogue is terrible and the jokes are not even executed properly (i feel sorry for the director). The jokes are so unbelievably bad that 8 little, passionate S Club fans weren't laughing. They thought they could do it better. And they did. They conquered the world. They became S Club Juniors. Paul, "the fat, ugly one who started a mosh band" must be thanking his lucky stars that he left when he did. One of the worst movies ever made. BEWARE OF THIS MOVIE! DO NOT GO AND SEE IT! YOU WON'T LAUGH! YOU WILL CRY! 0/10 RJT
Loaded with fine actors, I expected much more from "Deceiver" than was delivered. The plot is extremely contrived and manipulative. The many flashbacks only add to the confusion. Believability flies out the window and with the ending becomes unbearable and downright ridiculous. I would strongly advise anyone who likes their movie plots to be based on something that is at least possible to avoid "Deceiver" because you will be very frustrated. Maybe I am just not hip enough to get it, but my suspicion is that many others were totally confused by the story line and especially by the ending. Blurring the line between reality and lies simply does not work because the entire movie made no sense. - MERK
***SPOILER ALERT***<br /><br />I love Tim Roth, I really do, and he does his best with an unbelievable role. I can see how this is a movie that might look good as a script, but it's convoluted, unlikely and ultimately silly. I saw the fake death ending coming a mile away. Rene Z. tries hard with an underwritten part, and so does Patricia Arquette. The detective whose name I can't remember (the one that's not Chris Penn) is a big sweaty over actor. See it if you're not smart enough to differentiate between a movie being so clever you can't follow it, and so confusing you can't understand it. See it if you like cheesy camera work that makes you seasick. See it if you love to watch Tim Roth work with an unwieldy script. See it if it comes on late at night for free. Otherwise, rent The Usual Suspects.
OK so i am like most people, give me free tickets and i will go and see most things, now that multiplex cinemas are so good (i remember the old "flea pit" single screen cinemas and i am the healthy side of 40). In England this film was released as "Liar", it's a dog. It is a total waste of good celluloid. 4/10 for the photograpy and set only.
Elvis Presley plays a "half-breed" Native American ("Indian") who has to defend his reservation from nasty business tycoons. Everyone likes to get drunk, fight, and make children. Fighting, wrestling, and "punching out" each other replace the stereotypical hand-raised expression "How"?<br /><br />Although he does have make-up on, it's obvious Elvis is healthier than he appeared in prior films; possibly, he was getting ready for his famous "comeback". It couldn't have been because this movie's script was anything to get excited about. Joan Blondell trying to seduce Elvis, and Burgess Meredith in "war paint", should be ashamed.<br /><br />The best song is "Stay Away" (actually, "Green Sleeves" with different lyrics). The most embarrassing song is Elvis' love song to the bull "Dominic". There are some surreal scenes, but it never becomes trippy enough to succeed in that genre; though, "Stay Away, Joe" might provide some laughs if you're in the right "mood".<br /><br />Otherwise, stay away. <br /><br />** Stay Away, Joe (1968) Peter Tewksbury ~ Elvis Presley, Burgess Meredith, Joan Blondell
There's so many negative reviews about "Stay away, Joe" in here I just can't stay quiet any longer and let this injustice happen. Here's a side you haven't heard yet.<br /><br />Elvis Presley's movies are my guilty pleasure for a simple reason: they are perfect films for a pure relaxation because I don't have to think when I watch them. That means I don't have to worry about missing a complex plot because there never is a proper plot to start with. I can just kick off my shoes, grab a beer, sit back, switch off my brains and enjoy all the general wackiness and catchy easy-going rock n' roll tunes from the grooviest decade of them all.<br /><br />In my books "Stay away, Joe" definitely falls into the "so bad it's good"-category. Now if you're like me and appreciate "the trash value", this is the ultimate 1960's camp experience. It's so bad that it's almost surrealistic to watch and just when you think that it can't possibly get any worse it surprises you in the most imaginable ways. In the end you're so amazed by all the new levels of stupidity you just don't know whether to laugh or cry. In a nutshell: I love it because it's so damn amusing that there once was a generation that actually made films like this. I still give it 1 out of 10 though - once it hits the bottom 100 it will became an instant bad movie classic.
This movie is not very good.In fact, it is the worst Elvis movie I have seen.It has very little plot,mostly partying,beer drinking and fighting. Burgess Meredith and Thomas Gomez are wasted. I don't know why they did this movie.You could say Elvis was wasted as well,he is much,much better in "Follow That Dream."
It's been a looooonnnggg time since I saw this comedy, and I'd forgotten just how idiotic it is. I'd place this easily in the lower two or three of Elvis Presley's very worst movies. Presley plays Joe Whitecloud, a half-breed Indian bull rider who returns home to Arizona and the broken-down shack where his family lives, and where his friends love to party all night long. His parents are played by Burgess Meredith and Katy Jurado, and his old Indian grandpa is Thomas Gomez. None of the three offer anything of substance , comically or otherwise. The government has invested in the family's cattle, but they're lacking a bull. Elvis gets to sing just a few utterly worthless songs, and is pursued by a young boy-crazy gal and her gun-toting mother. This is just a real slapdash of a mess, and the dilapidated surroundings practically stink of manure and don't make this much easier. The one thing that puzzles me, however, is that Elvis actually seems to be having a good time in the film. Hard to believe, considering he got so upset about being stuck making so many mediocre movies.
After a few lean years, 1968 was a pretty swell time for Elvis: not only did he make that celebrated "Comeback" TV Special but he also became a father and starred in two pretty decent movies as well – SPEEDWAY and LIVE A LITTLE, LOVE A LITTLE. Therefore, personally I can forgive him for the misstep that was STAY AWAY, JOE which, at best, emerges as an interesting misfire and is not all that bad considering. Sure, Burgess Meredith and Joan Blondell are indeed embarrassing – as, respectively, a dopey Indian father to Elvis' character and a bawdy bartender who has her eye on Mr. Presley too - but one is glad to see Elvis surrounded by top veteran Hollywood talent like Katy Jurado (as Meredith's Mexican wife), the two Jones – Henry and L.Q. - and Thomas Gomez who is particularly amusing as sarcastic Chief Thundercloud who is Meredith's stubborn father still donning his old chieftain clothes in the present day! <br /><br />While there is a surprising (if not unwelcome given their usual blandness) lack of songs, there seems to be no shortage of free-for-all parties were the male Indians hit the bottle steadily while Presley practices his womanizing skills behind their backs! As can be expected, the typically 'Western' Arizona scenery is a major asset here and the sleepy, snoring bull gag is not only a good one but a major plot point. On the other hand, the climactic 'destruction of the house' episode is one we've seen too often since and doesn't work too well here...
A squashy slapstick mess posing as a comedy. Elvis Presley plays an Indian bull-riding champ who leaves the rodeo for a stay at home on his folks' desert-spread in Arizona, where government suits have just invested in the family's herd of cattle (which is in dire need of a stud). What director Peter Tewksbury is in dire need of is some narrative skills, though what he lacks in assessment he makes up for in sloppy comedic montages (his social commentary isn't exactly pointed, but Tewksbury does have a satiric bend to his outlandishness and there are some funny scenes). Despite colorful supporting turns by Katy Jurado and Joan Blondell, the general wackiness gets way out of hand, and there's too much hoopin' and hollerin' to sustain much interest. As for Elvis, he's loose and frisky throughout--and while it's nice to see him having fun on-screen, one has to wonder if he had just given up on movies at this point. This shambles of a picture has a distinct what-the-hell feel to it, and though spirits are high, the returns are mostly low. *1/2 from ****
OK, the portrayal of the stereotyped 'indians' in this story is just plain WRONG. I do agree that Elvis looks rather good here, but yeah, his skin color does seem to change during the movie. I was thinking, OK,...he was never THAT tan in real life. It's some of the most obvious brown 'indian' makeup that I have ever seen. It's as bad as the 'indians' on 'F-Troop' and the old Hollywood westerns who were played by Jewish and Italian American actors and not real Native Americans!<br /><br />This movie is o.k., but typically lame story and mediocre songs, like in all of Elvis' later films. He just did them because Colonel Parker had him tied down to long term movie contacts to squeeze as much money out of Elvis as possible! I keep thinking 'thank God' that Elvis stopped making movies forever not long after this movie came out. It is cool to see character actors Joan Blondell, Katy Jurado, L.Q. Jones, Henry Jones and Burgess Meredith in this movie, though.<br /><br />Burgess Meredith's 'indian' makeup is absolutely AWFUL. It's The worst of the bunch for sure. What were the filmmakers thinking? Was Mr. Meredith doing this one just for the money or what? I do love certain Elvis movies, though. For example: 'Love Me Tender', 'Jailhouse Rock', 'Viva Las Vegas'. I can even stand to watch his movie with future TV co-stars Mary Tyler Moore and Ed Asner,'Change Of Habit' in which Elvis plays an inner-city doctor.<br /><br />Oh well, at least Elvis made a FEW good films, but the mediocre and bad ones overwhelm the decent and good ones.<br /><br />I'll always love ELVIS! Thank you, Thank you very much!
Without question, the worst ELVIS film ever made. The movie portrays all Indians as drunk, stupid, and lazy. Watch ELVIS's skin change color throughout the film.
Some here have commented that this is the WORST Elvis movie ever made. Well, they are only partly right. For me, this IS THE WORST MOVIE EVER MADE PERIOD! I have never seen anything so basely crude, and insulting, and vile, and against human nature as this film. A true embarrassment to the Motion Picture Industry, this isn't even so Bad, its good. There is no campy trashy fun to be had here like in some of Elvis' other bad movies like Clambake. This one is so rotten to sit through its painful. Pure Garbage. Native Americans should sue for their poor clichéd and stereotypical treatment here. Actually, perhaps ALL Human Beings should sue for the crime and disservice this movie does to the species as a whole 0 Stars, seriously. Grade: F
As a true Elvis fan, this movie is a total embarrasment and the script is a disaster. The movie opens with the beautiful son "Stay Away" and the scenery of the Grand Canyon gives the viewer hope of something special. Elvis gets in the picture and his talent is wasted big time, especially on the rest of the featured songs. I sat through this movie twice, just to make sure it is a piece of junk!!! 1 out of 10!!!
Susan Seidelman seems to have had a decent career with a few top notch credits under her belt. I'm certainly glad she bounced back from this film which seems to have its admirers. I'm not one of them.<br /><br />I've seen better acting in high school plays than I did in Smithereens. The plot such as it is involved young Susan Berman who is ambitious to make it in the world of music and is willing to do just about anything to get there. She even rejects the sincere advances of a young artist who is living out of his van off the East River played by Brad Rijn.<br /><br />Young Mr. Rijn contributes the worst performance in the film, in fact one of the worst acting jobs I've seen in a long time. No wonder he's not gone anywhere.<br /><br />I will say that Seidelman's eye for the camera is a good one in capturing the familiar East Village locations where the film was mostly shot. But her work with her live performers didn't measure up. I'm not sure she had that much raw material to work with.<br /><br />Look fast and you'll see a very young Christopher Noth before Law and Order and Sex in the City as a street hustler.<br /><br />If you like punk rock, you might sit through this for the soundtrack. I'll stick to Bing Crosby.
A rating of "1" does not begin to express how dull, depressing and relentlessly bad this movie is.
"Smithereens" is the kind of worthless flick which just hangs out among the cable channels taking up space like a cheesy dime novel in the public library. A worthless bit of tripe and first effort for mediocre director Seidelman, the film is fraught with bad acting, bad sound, bad camera work, and poor quality in all aspects of the film. Many better films never make it to market and why junk flicks like this one do and never seem to go away is one of life's great mysteries. (D-)
The reviewer from Poland must be a feminist, for she finds "Young Catherine" to be a great film and historically accurate. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a practicing Russian historian for many, many years I took exception with YC at almost every turn, and in particular the politically correct depiction of her as the boss who single-handed moved Russia into a direction of dominance. The truth? She was only brought to St.Petersburg to be a wife and mother, and found she had to "bond" with the dvoriane, the boyars, and the military just to survive. So long as she did not challenge them she was able/ permitted to indulge her cultural wishes (filling up the Hermitage with art treasures, etc.). There are so many proofs that she was not "great," but in this area of post-modern revisionism proof is not very popular. YC is only a costume drama, a bit of fluff from Ted Turner that, like "Peter the Great" in 1986, is one more example of how badly Russia is portrayed in the West.
Vovochka is your everyday hooligan vs authority movie. Vovochka, the main character, is branded early as a bad influence on the children in the neighborhood. With the words of wisdom from a couple of grownups he meets along the way, he finds changing his mischievous ways hard, yet worthy of doing. Personally, I found actor who played Vovochka too annoying to sympathize with, however the change of tone of the movie would allow most to feel the emotional struggle Vovochka has when he wants to be good but bad things still happen. This struggle makes the movie a little different than other movies of the same genre, that's the little flavor I meant. All in all, I did not really care for this movie, although it was most likely aimed for a younger audience.
I can't believe that in the 34 prior comments, nobody mentioned that this film is a blatant rip-off of Born Yesterday. A man is hired to bring an ostensibly dumb blonde up to the requirements of a gangster. Hired gun and blonde fall in love and live happily ever after. Gangster is left in the lurch. But Born Yesterday was an intelligent treatment whereas this is just so much fluff. Technicolor transfer to DVD is deplorable. Natalie Kalmus would be rolling over in her grave. Check out the paperboy. Recognize him? But, it's historically interesting to see the roots of Rock 'n Roll. Also interesting is Ewell's introduction to CinemaScope, a new format at the time.
There are two kinds of 1950s musicals. First you have the glossy MGM productions with big names and great music. And then you have the minor league with a less famous cast, less famous music and second rate directors. 'The Girl Can't Help It' belongs to the latter category. Neither Tom Ewell or Edmond O'Brien became famous and Jayne Mansfield was famous for her... well, never mind. Seems like every decade has its share of Bo Dereks or Pamela Andersons. The plot itself is thin as a razorblade and one can't help suspect that it is mostly an attempt to sell records for Fats Domino, Little Richard or others of the 1950s rock acts that appear in the movie. If that music appeals to you this is worth watching. If not, don't bother.
A singularly unfunny musical comedy that artificially tries to marry the then-cutting edge rock 'n' roll explosion with the middle-class sensibilities of a suburban sitcom. The result is a jarringly dated mish-mash that will satisfy none of the audience that went for the music, but will at least keep their parents sated.<br /><br />A quick glance at the promo write-up on the back of the video release should give some idea of the content. Tom Ewell is a drunken agent, overplayed with so little comic ability you almost expect him to bellow "hi honey, I'm home!" The blurb sites him as "So funny in 'The 7 Year Itch'". It sounds almost like an excuse. What other film would sell itself on the fact that a leading player was good in something else? It reads like "So funny in 'The 7 Year Itch' ... but he's rubbish in this".<br /><br />Mansfield, a beautiful girl with rumoured 50-inch assets, is, unfortunately, a bargain basement Monroe with all the acting ability and comic timing of a rotting haddock. Her wooden delivery combined with Ewell's OTT double-takes make this a comedy partnership from Hell. For her part, the sell gives us: "[Jayne Mansfield] whose more obvious talents are the cause of many of the film's biggest laughs!" As you can see, a movie sold on the idea that it's lead has a big chest is not the most sophisticated of things. Most of this "humour" is men literally falling over themselves, their glasses cracking upon site of Mansfield, etc. Only the Freudian nightmare of a milk bottle overflowing casts doubt upon its "U" certificate.<br /><br />For the musical side, the most adenine of players are chosen. Would you really care to see Eddie Fontaine offer: "I love your eyes, I love your lips, they taste even better than potato chips" in a song called "Cool It, Baby"? Only the incendiary Little Richard breaks out of the MOR, though is forced to sing some of his more dad-friendly songs in a four-minute sequence. And how come all the acts sing without a single microphone? Attempted satires on the industry are broad and childlike in their conception.<br /><br />Technically, the picture was quite advanced, with special effects (including a ghost-like Julie London) and deluxe color (Which now looks flat and artificial. In fact, with its reds that bleed and fake-looking flesh tones, it resembles a colorised movie). Direction, though, isn't outstanding, and the sound quality is also quite poor.<br /><br />Perhaps it comes down to it being so old. A time when men still smoked on screen, sickeningly cute child actors made adult remarks and black servants only got to cook and dance. (All of which happen here). Yet Some Like It Hot, The African Queen, Ben Hur and many, many more stand as examples of films from the period that can still be enjoyed today, so the "good at the time" argument doesn't really stand up. At its heart The Girl Can't Help It is a cynical and patronising venture that doesn't bear close inspection. 4/10.<br /><br />
This is a dry and sterile feature filming on one of most interesting events in WWII and in history of warfare behind the front line. Bad drama composition is worst about this film as plot on killing Hitler suppose to be pretty dramatic event. There is no character development at all and idea that Tom Cruise suppose to play a high rank commander that questions his deepest inner thoughts on patriotism and treason is completely insane. I believe that Mister Bin would play it better. Generally speaking, film pretty much looks as a cheep copy of good German TV movie "Stauffenberg" from 2004, but can't get close to that film regarding any movie aspect whatsoever. However, movie obviously gets its financial goal with pop-corn audience that cherishes Hollywood fast-mood blood and shallow art values.
Recipe for one of the worst movies of all time: a she-male villain who looks like it escaped from the WWF, has terrible aim with a gun that has inconsistent effects (the first guy she shoots catches on fire but when she shoots anyone else they just disappear) and takes time out to pet a deer. Then you got the unlikable characters, 30 year old college students, a lame attempt at a surprise ending and lots, lots more. Avoid at all costs.
Well, I had to be generous and give this a 2. This was mainly due to the gratuitous holes cut in that lady's shirt where her breasts are. I found that mildly amusing. Other than that, this movie does nothing more than provide a few good laughs with a friend. Funny if you're willing to throw "mystery science theatre" comments at it with someone, but it ain't no better than a 2. And a 2 pretty much sucks.
For the initial 20 minutes or so (I was watching it on a PS2 so I've really no idea how long it took) Alienator sets up an interesting premise. I don't think I've seen a slasher movie with an alien from another planet as the baddie before. However, interest soon turns into stunned disbelief as you realise the 'alien' is a huge body-builder woman in a steel bikini. Yes, Alienator is patently ridiculous.<br /><br />Don't think I hold that against it. In the world of shlock-horror, patently ridiculous can often be a good sign. However, the blatant stupidity of its premise is all the movie really has going for it. Alienator is funny as hell, but it is also a shambolic suckfest of the highest order. Actors heap on failed attempts at seriousness, potentially genius lines of pure cheese dialogue are stumbled over with unnerving incompetence and the direction fails to sum up even one or two decent set-pieces. By the time the movie's finished you can barely see the original concept through the haystack of total tripe the team piled on it.<br /><br />Add to this the fact that the 'Alien' just kills people by vaporising them, as opposed to doing any 'slashing' as such and you have a giant throbbing heap of good ideas being left to rot. You'll laugh at Alienator, but AT it, not with it. If that's your thing then go ahead and check it out.
Throw this lame dog a bone. Sooo bad...you may watch anyway. Kol(Ross Hagen)is an intergalactic bad guy that escapes being vaporised by an over zealous spaceship commander(Jan-Michael Vincent). Kol manages to steal a shuttle that crash lands on Earth. An unstoppable android killer is sent to bring back the villain dead or alive. John Phillip Law plays a forest/park ranger that urges caution in dealing with these two visitors from far, far away. Costumes are outrageous and the script is lacking intelligence. Vincent surely took the money and ran. Law shows the only sign of effort.So bad it is almost comical. Also in the cast: Dyana Ortelli, P.J. Soles and Dawn Wildsmith.
Kol, space prisoner on space death row, manages to hijack a space shuttle and escape to the woods of America where he, along with some new found friend try to escape from the 'Alienator" a female cyborg killing machine. Made one year after the best movie of Fred Olen Ray's career, "Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers", this one can't help but feel like a bit of a letdown. Just as low-budget as that earlier film, but not nearly as fun as I had with it. None of the actors really stood out at me. The film is alright for the undiscriminating viewer during a rainy Saturday afternoon, but that's pretty much all it's good for.<br /><br />My Grade: D+ <br /><br />Where i saw it: Showtime Thriller
Music that grinds on the nerves like fingernails on a blackboard, acting that is so zombielike it was a shame to waste the cast by not making a second movie; casting everyone in it as true zombies---with the cast of Sabrina the Teenaged Witch as the heroes... a movie so downright awful that if "stoners" were still around it might be considered a cult movie---but, oh so amateurish, the scripts might as well have been carried around by the actors, their lines read as they slowly shuffled through the movie---banal, illogical sets modeled after LA subdivisions, props straight from ToysRus! Was a movie ever made that is so completely and totally inept??? Logic flies to the wind in this plodding, senseless, pointless and with a "monster" so stupid and uncoordinated that it couldn't catch a turtle in an icebox---lowcut, leggy---and amazon! It kept my attention all the way through; the way a terrible, ongoing chain accident in the fog involving multiple vehicles keeps one watching to the very end... as, after a ridiculous ray-gun fight in a prison on another planet, a pneumaticaly-disadvantaged sexy and mentally unbalanced bounty hunter chases a retarded extra-terrestrial fugitive---TO EARTH! Don't let anybody p**s on your popcorn, you might actually enjoy watching this one. It's that bad!
Intergalactic criminal Kol (Ross Hagen) has been sentenced to death and awaits execution on a spaceship designed for just such a purpose. But tonight there's going to be a jailbreak, and Kol flees on a conveniently-placed escape pod and flies towards Earth (which apparently is nearby). There he confronts a group of "teenagers" (who look thirty) and a game warden (John Phillip Law), who help protect him from his worst nightmare... the bounty hunter and executioner android (or more properly "gynoid") the Alienator.<br /><br />From the cover of the box, I was confident this was going to be an awful movie. But, as awful as it turned out to be, it was a ton of fun as well (probably at least partially because I was watching it with someone who happens to be intensely awesome). The director (Fred Olen Ray), who has specialized in making over one hundred low-grade films (most notably "Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers"), does what he does best and throws together a plot that only half makes sense and gives us rudimentary special effects. Bonus: P.J. Soles appears (as "Tara"), obviously at a low point in her career.<br /><br />Sure, there's plot holes. Why are there hillbilly rednecks in California (allegedly Los Angeles County if I understood the warden correctly). What's up with the space woman's tacky blouse? Why is there a subplot about the ship captain forcefully trying to win her heart when this story goes nowhere? What the heck is "Quadrant 5"? How does chicken wire create an electromagnetic field that will short-circuit an android, yet land mines do virtually nothing? Why does Kol look like a drunk, Native American football player with emphysema? And the Lund guy (Robert Clarke)... does his character even have a point? Does the game he plays with the captain have a point? Does this movie have a point? But the biggest mystery is the android (or gynoid) the Alienator, played by Teagan Clive. What is an "alienator"? Why does it look like Daryl Hannah from "Blade Runner", only much larger? Because, see, if something is a cyborg, it's part human. But if it's an android, it's all machine. This was an android, so there was no reason to make it look human. It could have looked like anything. Yet, the person who designed her made her the size of a linebacker, with David Bowie's hair and a leotard that shows me just a little too much. If you're going to make a female android, wouldn't the purpose be to have her be seductive and lure enemies in? Mission not accomplished. They say beauty comes in all shapes and sizes, but I think I found a huge exception.<br /><br />If "Mystery Science Theater 3000" were still around today, this film would be on a very short list of movies that need to get harangued.<br /><br />Beyond the butt-nasty Alienator (sorry, Teagan, female weight lifters are gross) the film is alright. Maybe there's not much of a story and maybe the characters aren't really very interesting. And maybe the scene with the deer is incredibly adorable for no particular reason -- what use does a killer robot have with a deer? But overall, I actually liked the movie. I won't be pimping it out to my friends or running out to my local video store to pick up the latest DVD copy (which I'm sure is just packed with amazing special features -- not). But I consider seeing this movie time well spent and look forward to similar adventures in the future.
Typically terrible trash from director Fred Olen Ray about a female cyborg hunter(Teagan)commissioned by Warden Jan-Michael Vincent to find and execute escaped alien convict Ross Hagen who has charted course for earth. Soon Forest Ranger John Phillip Law will have to protect a group of obnoxiously hammy college kids headed by the grating Richard Wiley who ran over Hagen with his RV on a camping trip gone awry. Soon the cyborg will be blasting away with her arm laser burning one innocent alcoholic Doctor(Robert Quarry of Count Yorga-Vampire fame)proving that no one will stand in it's way of retrieving the hide of the convict, whose collar is a tracking device that weakens his body. Law finds an ally in Leo Gordon, an old Vietnam war vet with way too weapons stashed in his cabin.<br /><br />Perhaps intentionally made awful, this features what fans of "rancid cinema" yearn for..dreadful special effects, acting, and premise. At least, the film has PJ Soles for some eye candy..even in '89, she was quite smokin'. That laser gun sure is funny..it can incinerate some houses yet when the Cyborg shoots at Law it barely leaves a mark on the location fired.
This is almost the worst film you will ever see! 2012 Doomsday currently pulls the rug from under this one, for me. The props are a perfect example of what Frank Zappa once referred to as 'cheepnis.' It looks as if the space scenes were made in a 1950s power station, just prior to demolition. The music really sucks. The acting is wooden and ham. The characters they portray are shallow and unconvincing. The plot is predictable. It is immediately and brazenly obvious when they copy techniques and ideas from other films. The quality of direction beggars belief.<br /><br />But you have to see it, if only to experience what has to be one of the biggest wastes of a tiny budget ever. This is a priceless example of a stupid movie!
I don't what that other review was talking about. This definitely isn't a bimbo movie, in fact, I don't think there was one decent looking girl in it. No, it's just cheesy, poorly-done, Ed Wood-style science fiction schlock. And it's bad. I can't even begin to tell you how bad it is. I saw it late at night on cable, and I was in shock. The fact that this movie was ever released is an insult to us all. The actors were either friends of the producer or mentally retarded, the special effects are a joke, and the pace is insanely slow. To me though, the music tops it all. A monkey could write a better theme with a toy xylophone. Do not rent this thing, but if you ever see it on cable, watch it. You'll be amazed at how bad a movie can be.
I saw the movie late one night on cable and could not believe how bad it was. I usually enjoy bad movies, but this one was so revolting that it wasn't even entertaining. Some of the highlights of this film include the absurd music which is constantly playing throughout the movie, the hideous special effects (when someone is shot with a laser gun they turn neon green and promptly disintegrate), and the disgusting acting. The acting, in fact, is what I feel steals the show. I didn't recognize any of the actors in the movie, and I hope that I never have to see any of them again. Overall, I recommend renting this movie (if you can find it; I can't imagine a video store carrying this garbage) just so that you can learn to appreciate quality films after seeing this trash.
Nothing can prepare you for another lousy bimbo outing! This time, it's being brought to you by the never-inevitable Fred Olen Ray! As far as exploitation movies go, this one doesn't click! As science fiction, it's plain unoriginal! All that we see is an an ugly feminine android wearing a bikini out to destroy the Earth, and showing off all that's nearly bare to resist! Give me a f---ing break!!! If this kind of entertainment is your thing, then why not dust off those old SI swimsuit mags from the attic for a change?! This would have been much better if it didn't set the sleaze factor on very high, but that still wouldn't make this one great. I'd like to point out another film called THE ASSAULT (1996) by Jim Wynorski, which resembles the identity of ALIENATOR. It illustrates why top-notch 1st-person "femme fatale" action movies don't translate well in America. Sorry, fellas!
What happened? 'Doubt' had so much potential to be a brilliant film - but instead it faltered with a dragging simplistic plot line which made me want to stop watching. The only thing the film had going for it was the brilliance of Meryl Streep, who no DOUBT deserved the Oscar-nomination. Though it was not one of her best performances, she still gave a solid and truthful character to us which blossomed through the screen.<br /><br />However, not even the brilliance of a screen legend could save this film from going down hill. From the boring start, which had no power or punch - to the less than convincing ending, the film was truly a disappointment - especially since it provided so much potential through its promotion and trailers. It was obvious the director had trouble with the simplicity of the plot and he ended up with a boring film, which dragged on for too long, with too much talk and not enough action.<br /><br />Furthermore, the other Oscar-nominations were less than convincing. Though Philip Seymour Hoffman gave a decent performance, it was by no means Oscar-worthy. (Especially since they completely left out performances such as Will Smith, in Seven Pounds). Amy Adams did not deserve the nomination. Watching Amy Adams was like watching a cardboard box - as it was one sided and plain. It would have made more sense to nominate her for a Razzie, as I am sure she would have walked away victorious. Viola Davis gave a short but truthful performance, but the length of her performance made me question whether the academy really should have given her the nomination.<br /><br />Overall, I consider Doubt to be one of the most disappointing films of 2008. It was a mess of a film with so much potential, and I do not recommend it. The only shining light in the film is Meryl Streep, who though gives a stunning, solid performance - doesn't even do enough to save this film. *** / 10.
OK, I am blessed. I have seen two very strong stage productions, the one in New York with the original cast, and another at the San Diego Rep (Rosina Reynolds and Monique Gaffney, you rock!). Compared to either of these the movie is almost unwatchable. I've been plodding through the DVD for the past two evenings and am still not finished. Way too much extraneous dialog, and waaay too many added scenes and people. Yes, the four major performances are quite good, esp. Ms. Streep's. But comparing stage to film is definitely an example of "less is more." The thickening of the play to satisfy film-goers' need for scenic variety and specificity was a poor choice. Please, please, please go find a stage production somewhere near you.
The Oscar season has arrived so this means a slew of these deep, engaging, powerhouse ensemble films are all over the movie theaters in hopes of gaining an audience and having the opportunity to earn Best Picture in the big show. Among them is this film that is based off a very popular and well-acclaimed play. The original playwright was actually the writer and director of the film adaptation; which comes as a double-edged sword. On one hand, who better to translate the play than the original writer? On the other hand, who better to not see the mistakes and drawbacks of the play and fix upon them than the original writer himself? Doubt mixes excellent acting and plenty of tension and suspense; with a frustrating ending, unnecessary dialogue, questionable directing, and of course, the inability to provide substantial answers. It is a growing trend among these "high-caliber" films to not answer all questions it provides, and this has to stop.<br /><br />Doubt is like a joke without its punch line, like a book with the final 20 pages missing, like losing reception while watching the fourth quarter of a hotly contested football game, and like not having the 50 cents to continue playing the arcade game and see what happens next. Doubt, just like the previous Best Picture frustrationfest No Country For Old Men, doesn't really end; it doesn't provide us with considerable answers nor does it deliver enough for us to figure out the ending. Yes, that was the intent, but this isn't a test of humanity, it's a cop-out. I do not pay money to see an unfinished work, I pay money to see a beginning, middle, and end, and pray that I don't fall asleep during the three acts. We are forced to become the "writers" of the movie by filling in the blank ourselves as to what happened before and what will happen to the characters we saw screaming at each other.<br /><br />This little drama is about a nun (Meryl Streep) who seems very sure that the well-beloved priest (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is making sexual advances towards a child that goes to the church; the first African-American boy in the Catholic church. The church is secretly torn as to whether or not he really is committing heinous sins behind everyone's backs. The plot thickens as some of the kids begin behaving differently, which attracts the notice of a young teacher (Amy Adams). The story is set right after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, which shook the nation for quite some time and questioned their faith in humanity and in each other.<br /><br />Doubt's strong points come in the acting ensemble and also the ever-engaging suspense that builds slowly and never boils over. Streep seems to be Oscar-worthy in every role she's in, and here she is no different as her sternness and cold-hearted behavior places a blanket of fear in all the students and with some of the staff in the church. Hoffman excels yet again as the priest, by successfully meshing suspicion with a charming personality and a friendly aura. The seemingly hypocritical personality is tough to pull off, especially when we are suppose to like him and also ponder about him at the same time; but Hoffman steps up to the plate against one of the best actresses of our generation and fantastically delivers. When these two argue, you can hear the fireworks fly without ever seeing one launched. But let's not forget Amy Adams (Enchanted) and Viola Davis (Law ad Order) for their superb job either. Doubt's casting ensemble is among the best in 2008.<br /><br />Yet, like previously stated it's the writing and directing that ruins this film, especially when dwindling down the third act. Questions pop up, but they aren't answered. Characters pop up, but provide no real enhancement towards the plot. Kids behave different, but we never truly find out why. There are awkward angles in the camera-work…and…there's no actual reason why. John Patrick Shanley, the writer of the play, had one previous film in his directing repertoire: Joe Versus the Volcano. Whether sheer arrogance or stupidity, we are stuck with seeing overdrawn sequences of random conversation, utter annoying chatter that bores to no end (There was a two minute discussion about coffee and how much sugar the priest wanted) thanks to Mr. Shanley.<br /><br />Bottom Line: The lack of an ending is a stupid trend that's just as irritating as the seizureific camera-work in action films. It doesn't matter that we have a great talented acting cast, or decent cinematography, or a good story being worked upon, or good usage of sound and music; because we have a barrage of unanswered questions that sprinkles all over a film that is over 100 minutes yet doesn't even finish! The translation from play to film is good and quite accurate, because we have the original madmen behind the project—but he took the mistakes and stupid hiccups from the play to the film as well. This decade has seen its share of blockbuster and high-profile films that could have gotten a much higher score from me if they had just decided to add a few more minutes of footage and actually end: Sideways, Cast Away, No Country For Old Men, Burn After Reading are a few examples.<br /><br />Newsflash: end your stinkin' movie. Please or at least provide a good amount of clues for us to easily fill in the blank (like Wall-E's depressing backstories), instead of staring into space as the credits suddenly start rolling and you are left with a feeling of emptiness, confusion, and mental anguish. Have a beginning, middle, and the end please!! As a critic, I prefer my films to be whole, not incomplete. Doubt feels incomplete, which is why it gets an incompetent grade.<br /><br />Someone has to break this stupid trend.
I am not one of those people that will walk out of a movie that was based on source material and automatically say, "The book was better." I know better than to demote the value of a movie just because it wasn't a faithful adaptation. There is a lengthy process and lots of decisions that go into making a movie that are sometimes out of the director's/editor's/cinematographer's/producer's control and certainly out of the original author's control. Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect a movie to be exactly the same, word for word, as a book or play or video game or Disneyland Ride, or whatever! A movie should be judged on its own standard and how it fits in society. Moreover, a successful movie should be made because the material is relevant to the society which it belongs and, if it is based on source material, its relevance needs to be reexamined and enhanced by the filmmakers. <br /><br />Films like There Will Be Blood follow this paradigm because while it was based on a novel written at the turn of the century, Oil!, it feels relevant because of things like the Iraq war and energy concerns that the film's country of origin, the US, was and is experiencing. Even King Kong, based on the original film, benefits from using new technology and concerns of animal rights that people have.<br /><br />With that said, I just don't understand why they even bothered to make this movie? Besides the great performances, guaranteed Oscar nods and Shanley's director/writers fee and royalties he will get, this movie seems to come from nowhere. It should have simply stayed as a play. The movie (which is essentially the same as the play) says nothing new about the reprehensible sexual atrocities committed and in many cases covered up by the Catholic church here and abroad. It says nothing new or different than the original play. I can't help but compare this movie to another movie that came out at around the same time: Frost/Nixon, which was also based on a play. Frost/Nixon, while about Nixon's regrets, seems relevant because it seems to have come at a time when President Bush was about to leave office. The regrets that Nixon had, as depicted in the play/movie, about the war and his presidency could just as easily reflected on Bush and his presidency. In that respect Frost/Nixon seemed more relevant and actually benefited from a wider distribution via film because it got people talking and reflecting about the political status quo in the country at the time. In contrast, Doubt felt like it was yesterday's news and didn't seem to offer anything that the play didn't offer.<br /><br />Of course the movie is "good," the performances are outstanding, and the screenplay adaptation is apt, but so what? Why didn't it just stay as a play? Why, besides marketing and financial reasons, make it into a movie? It gave audiences nothing new to discus about the awful subject.
I did not really want to watch this one. It seemed to be an old Raj Kanwar movie which disgusted me even before I started watching it because I don't consider him even close to being mediocre as a filmmaker. The only reason I took this one is obviously the Shahrukh Khan appearance in the film. I had not even known what the film was all about because I was sure it would be just an ordinary fairy tale. So I just imagined a love story between Shahrukh Khan and Divya Bharti with a substantial supporting role by Rishi Kapoor who I thought would be playing her father or uncle. And to my complete shock, Rishi Kapoor is actually the hero! He is the one who romances the young Divya! I was saddened to find out that Shahrukh had a small part of no substance and that too, only in the second part of this idiotic film.<br /><br />Just let me repeat the question: why would a 17 year-old lovely Divya have fallen for a 40-plus long haired, chubby, swollen piglet like Rishi Kapoor? Rishi Kapoor should be ashamed of taking this part; the only thing he did is ridiculing himself. He romanced a girl who could logically be younger than his own daughter and to make things worse -- acts like a teenager at his forties. On top of that, just to make himself more pathetic, he plays a pop-star...<br /><br />To make things clear, I have no problems with actors romancing ladies much younger than they themselves are. As long as they make a convincing couple, there should be no problem. In fact, leading actors have always been cast opposite young girls (Amitabh Bachchan-Sridevi, Mithun Chakraborty-Madhuri Dixit, Shahrukh Khan-Deepika, Salman Khan-Sneha Ullal) and made the pairing pretty well. Also, I have nothing against Rishi Kapoor, I think he is a good actor, and his act in Bobby is still well-engraved in my heart, but it's not that he looks in this film like, say, Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan or Aamir Khan look today.<br /><br />That was such a disappointment. Oh, and as for the reason every person actually watched this film, Shahrukh Khan made a good debut. He excelled in the very little his part allowed him to do. The late Divya Bharti made a promising debut as well. If you want to watch this film, go for the second half only. Personally, I would not do even that.
Dewaana as a film goes through the usual clichés. Man and Woman fall in love and marry, husband is supposedly killed by a family friend who wants their family fortune, woman remarries and surprise surprise husband no.1 reappears. The movie is reminiscent of Yash Chopra's Chandni and countless others. Divya Bharti and Shah Rukh Khan give good performances. Amrish Puri as a villain goes through the motions and is nothing more than a standard bollywood villain The music by Nadeem Shravan is superb, all the songs were brilliant. My favourites are Sochenge tumhe pyar or Koyi na koyi chahiyye. Dewanna is an ordinary movie that goes through the motions.
I bought this movie because this was Shah rukh khans Debut.And i also liked to see how would he do.I must say he is excellent in his role.Divya Bharathi is superb in this movie.Rishi does a wonderful job.Susham Seth supported well.Alok nath was good in his role.Amrish and Mohnish did their parts well too.Dalip also was good in his small role.Actors shine in a Mediocre movie.The direction is average.The editing is poor.The story is boring.It tells us about Ravi a famous pop singer.He has a lot of female fans.One of them is Kaajal.Ravi and Kaajal fall in love and get married.Ravi gets killed by his cousins.Kaajal becoems a widow..To escape from Ravis cousins.They go to Bombay.She comes across Raja.She falls in love with him and gets married.Ravi returns.The story is predictable.The climax is predictable.The first half bores.It also drags a lot.But it is saved by the actors and music.The second half entertains.The music is catchy with some nice songs.The cinematography looks outdated in the first half but it looks unimaginative.The song picturisations are dull except for "Sochenge Tumhe Pyar" and one rain song.The costumes are outdated.Any way watch this just for the actors and music Rating-4/10
I'm one of the millions of Columbo addicts all over the world and just watched this,the episode that started it all, on British Channel 5. It IS fascinating to think what sprung from this so-so movie and I can only marvel at whoever spotted the massive potential of "Columbo" and added all the little touches that make it such a marvellous & classic series. That said, this particular movie is not as good as the rest (except for the embarrassing final episode & the patronising British episode). If Columbo had been made as per the original 'pilot' it certainly would NOT have gone on for very long, or be watched and loved world-wide. In this film Lt Columbo is smartly dressed, drives a normal car, has a partner, doesn't talk about his alleged relatives and comes across as quite aggressive. There's also none of the cat-and-mouse chemistry between Columbo and "the villain". Watchable, but only for the novelty of seeing how Columbo started out.
I really like slasher movies,but this one is truly awful.The acting is lame,the script is bad,and the atmosphere is non-existent.The plot is as follows:a deformed gardener Charlie Puckett slaughters people in a small American town.That's right-this is the plot.Very original,eh!"The Night Brings Charlie" isn't even gory enough-if the film ain't gonna be scary,at least they should make it bloody.Avoid this cheap piece of trash at all costs.If you want to see some good slasher flicks check out "Madman","The Burning","The Prowler","Just Before Dawn" or "Humongous"- just don't waste your precious time with this worthless piece of garbage.
I rented this movie because I was browsing through the horror movie section for those movies that no one's heard of and could be a possible gem. I saw this and, since I'm a fan of violence and gore, I got it. It got the rating of EM which means: Extremely Mature. Thinking that this rare and high rating was totally meant for violence and everything else, I got it. The warning on the box said: Extreme Violence, Extreme Langauge, and Nudity. The "extreme violence" struck my fancy. The movie ended being a pretty tame slasher flick. It had one or two gory scenes but I've seen worse in a PG-13 movie. Of course the amount of gore in a movie isn't all that counts, right? You have plot also. Well, the plot was boring and there nothing really special about it. Don't rent it. I speak the truth. I can't imagine how someone could really enjoy it to the point where they say: "I'm gonna rent that again." It had it's moments where it kept you going but I'm never going to see that film again.
It really boggles my mind when someone comes across a movie like this and claims it to be one of the worst slasher films out there. This is by far not one of the worst out there, still not a good movie, but not the worst nonetheless. Go see something like Death Nurse or Blood Lake and then come back to me and tell me if you think the Night Brings Charlie is the worst. The film has decent camera work and editing, which is way more than I can say for many more extremely obscure slasher films.<br /><br />The film doesn't deliver on the on-screen deaths, there's one death where you see his pruning saw rip into a neck, but all other deaths are hardly interesting. But the lack of on-screen graphic violence doesn't mean this isn't a slasher film, just a bad one.<br /><br />The film was obviously intended not to be taken too seriously. The film came in at the end of the second slasher cycle, so it certainly was a reflection on traditional slasher elements, done in a tongue in cheek way. For example, after a kill, Charlie goes to the town's 'welcome' sign and marks the population down one less. This is something that can only get a laugh.<br /><br />If you're into slasher films, definitely give this film a watch. It is slightly different than your usual slasher film with possibility of two killers, but not by much. The comedy of the movie is pretty much telling the audience to relax and not take the movie so god darn serious. You may forget the movie, you may remember it. I'll remember it because I love the name.
I'm not a big fan of slasher flicks as a genre, but even by the standards of low-low-budget exploitation, this one is really lame. Even on a nudity-and-gore level, it's incredibly boring (there is some of both, but it's all sort of...meh). Before the home video revolution, it might not even have been released theatrically (though it might have; after all, *Plan 9 From Outer Space* played in theaters). There is precisely one good (and competently-delivered) line in the entire movie; I assume they stole it from somewhere.<br /><br />The acting is among the worst I have ever seen. I mean, even Ed Wood had a couple of competent actors, and the rest tended to be ludicrously hammy, which can be fun to watch. Anyway, most of his actors could pretty much pass as literate. Here, those who don't read their lines like cigar-store Indians sound like they learned them phonetically. And this film does have one distinction: it manages to be badly underplotted for most of the movie, then laughably overplotted for the ending.<br /><br />(Update: I should have singled out the actress playing the receptionist as an exception. She is by no means wooden. Not that she's good, but she certainly isn't wooden.)<br /><br />Even the worst slasher flicks are generally good for a few Puritan meditations on their grotesque offensiveness, but with this one, there doesn't even seem to be anything there to work up a moral outrage about.<br /><br />And you know the funniest thing? They clearly expected to make a sequel!<br /><br />It's so bad and boring that it actually becomes fascinating in a weird way. I sat enrapt through much of the video wondering why anyone would go to the bother of making it.
A teenager who seems to have it all commits suicide. It leaves his family and his best friend (Keanu Reeves) asking a lot of questions...and blaming themselves.<br /><br />Good idea, badly handled. For starters this HAS been done before 1988--mostly in TV movies and After School Specials. Aside from some swearing and dialogue (hence the PG-13 rating) this added nothing new. The outcome is predictable and Reeve's attempts at acting were truly painful to watch. He's good NOW but not in 1988. Aside from that his character was dressed like a slob and always looked so dirty is was hard to build up sympathy.<br /><br />That aside the movie is dull. I saw every scene coming and every "surprise" was telegraphed. I basically couldn't wait for this thing to get over.<br /><br />I have a vague recollection of seeing it in a theatre in 1988 and hating it (it bombed BADLY). It still looks lousy almost 20 years later. The subject is worth handling but it's been done better (with better acting) in countless other movies. "Ordinary People" comes to mind. You can skip this one.
Keanu Reeves stars as a friend of a popular high school student who suddenly commits suicide...he and his friends go through emotional turmoil and share their reactions to this horrible incident...Good acting by Reeves and a young Jennifer Rubin..but on the whole is a little too much.. 4 of 10
I picked up this video after reading the text on the box, the story seemed good, and it had Keanu Reeves! But after 5 minutes of watching, I noticed how horrible his acting was, he walks and talks so stupid the whole time, it's fake and not convincing. It doesn't end there, almost ALL the characters act so badly it's laughable, the only acceptable acting was by Alan Boyce (David), but the guy commits suicide early on and you don't see him again, you never even know why he did it! Everything about this movie screams low quality, I can't believe how such a thing gets released! I was tempted many times to stop watching, in fact I did, half way through it I decided to stop watching and turned the thing off, came to the IMDB to check what other's thought about it, I found zero comments (not surprised), so I decided to force myself to handle the pain and go back to finish it then come here to comment on it. The only good thing going (for me) was the high-school Rock band theme, the occasional guitar playing and singing parts, but that's not worth it.<br /><br />Very bad acting and directing... Terrible movie.
I can't recommend this film as a date movie. Gary Oldman's semi-autobiographical account of life lived on a South East London estate is a violent, Beckettian account of one of Dante's circles of hell, frankly. At the centre of it is Ray Winstone, who has done this sort of character before but never as well. The film opens with him ordering drinks at a pub bar - that's all - and you are already gripped with a sense of the frustration, self-loathing and barbarism that he exhibits in many different ways throughout the course of the movie. It's an acting masterclass.<br /><br />Of course the stymied and dispossessed need a foil in a drama such as this and Winstone is matched by Kathy Burke as his long-suffering wife, who absorbs and ultimately rejects his unbearable behaviour. Charlie Creed-Miles does an able turn as the fuse-lighting druggie son Billy although he must have wondered sometimes exactly what he let himself in for. Gary Oldman directs close up on the actors, maximising the claustrophobia of their council flat squalor. 4/10
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />Ray (Ray Winstone) has a criminal past, has had problems with alcohol and is now forming a drug habit that is making him paranoid and prone to domestic violence to his wife Valerie (Kathy Burke) who tries to hold the family together but ends up coming off more like a doormat. Meanwhile, her mother Janet (Laila Morse) is aware of Ray's son, Billy (Charlie Creed-Miles) and his escalating drug habit that is sending him off the rails. The film follows these despairable characters as they tredge along with their lives.<br /><br />It is said that the British seem to enjoy being miserable, and that would include watching films that entertain them this way. Films like Nil by Mouth highlight this. It's a tale of a broken family, torn apart by crime, poverty, booze and drugs, the kind Jeremy Kyle would lap up like a three course meal. It is also essentially a tale of self destructive men, three generations apart and each copying the other, tearing a family apart and women trying to hold it together, despite not being strong enough. If you pick up a little of what it's about from the off-set, you can see it doesn't promise to be cheerful viewing from the start and it certainly doesn't disappoint in this.<br /><br />It's true what everyone said about the performances, and the lead stars, Winstone and Burke, do deliver some great acting. We see Winstone lose it with his wife, beating her senseless after some more coke induced paranoia, breaking down during a phone conversation with her and unleashing a typical arsenal of f and c words when she refuses to let him see his kid. Likewise, in a private moment, we see Burke skillfully lose her composure on a staircase, the full impact of the night before kicking in.<br /><br />This is another of those films where there's no 'plot' to follow, as such, just a real life feel of these hopeless lives carrying on from one day to the next. It's been acclaimed by many (including the Baftas!) but it really was just too grim and bleak for me. I have no right to criticize it for this, knowing what I knew about it from the off-set, but sadly this is how I found it. **
I'm not usually one to slate a film . I try to see the good points and not focus on the bad ones, but in this case, there are almost no good points. In my opinion, if you're going to make something that bad, why bother? Part of the film is take up with shots of Anne's face while she breaths deeply, and violin music plays in the background. the other part is filled with poor and wooden acting. Rupert Penry Jones is expressionless. Jennifer Higham plays Anne's younger sister with modern mannerisms. Anne is portrayed as being meek and self effacing, which is fine at the beginning, but she stays the same all through the film, and you see no reason for captain Wentworth to fall in love with her. Overall the production lacks any sense of period, with too many mistakes to be overlooked, such as running out of the concert, kissing in the street, running about in the streets with no hat on (why was this scene in the film at all? the scene in the book was one of the most romantic scenes written.). To sum it up, a terrible film, very disappointing.
I love Jane Austen's stories. I've only read two of them (P&P and S&S), but after having seen this adaption, I'm reaching for "Persuasion" from my bookcase just to make sense out of the story, and also, because I refusing to believe Jane Austen could have written such nonsense. For me, I thought that if you base a film on a Jane Austen novel, you can't really go wrong. It will turn out great pretty much by default. I was wrong.<br /><br />First of all, where are the characters that you sympathise with and like? You have to have at least one likable character to get the audience to invest their emotions in them, and this did not deliver. Sure, I wanted Anne and Wentworth to get together, but only because that's what you know the purpose of the story is, them getting together. Instead, I had to resist urges to throw my teacup at the TV and to continue watching it to the end.<br /><br />Anne was utterly annoying throughout, and in the end, I really have no idea why Wentworth was so smitten by her, as there seemed to be nothing there for him to be attracted to. She was meek, bland, dull, socially inadequate and came across like a sheep following everyone else's instructions rather than having a mind of her own. This can still work for a lead character, if you do it well. This wasn't done well.<br /><br />The other characters were just displaying various degrees of narcissism, of which Mary was the worst, with a full-blown narcissistic personality disorder. Where Mrs. Bennet in P&P had similar flaws, she was still endearing, whereas Mary was more of a freak-show. More loathsome than funny.<br /><br />Wentworth was very handsome and seemed like a decent kind of guy. For the most part of the story, I was just wondering what kind of person he was and why he's in love with Anne, as surely, he's the kind of guy who would want a person who is a little bit more... alive? Acting-wise, not too much to say, as I reacted more to the characters being portrayed rather than how good/bad the people acting were. Anthony Head was excellent, but as soon as I saw he was in it, I expected no less.<br /><br />Also found the story very confusing. It wasn't until the end of the movie where it seemed as if Elizabeth was not Anne's stepmother, but in fact a sister (I'm still not 100% on that). The whole Anne/Wentworth back story was also a bit fuzzy. They had been together but then broke up and they're both bitter about it? How come? I was wondering this for quite some time, and the explanation seemed to be she dumped him because she was persuaded to do so by someone? But it was said in a kind of "by the by" way that it was almost missed, as if it was somehow unimportant. How can it be unimportant when it's the very core of the story?? There was also a lot of name-dropping, but no real feel for who the characters were. This Louisa person for instance, who was she? A friend? Family? What? It wasn't made very clear who the different characters are and their relationship with one another. Lady Russell was there a lot, but why? Mrs. Croft and Wentworth were brother and sister, which felt very unrealistic as Mrs. Croft looked old enough to be his mother.<br /><br />The final kiss, yes it was a bit strange them kissing in the street, but I didn't really think about it, because I was too busy yelling "GET ON WITH IT ALREADY!!" at the TV, because Anne's lips trembled and trembled and trembled for what felt like ages before they actually met Wentworth's. Have SOME hesitation there, but only for a couple of seconds or so, not half a minute.<br /><br />Then there's the issue of camera work. As a regular movie watcher, you don't pay attention to angles and such unless you decide to look out for it. I didn't decide to do so here, but I still noticed them. To me, that means the filmmakers are not doing a good job. A lot of conversations were with extreme facial closeups, something that should only be used when there's a really important point to be made. In this adaption, it was over-used and therefore lacked meaning. The hand-held feeling on occasion also didn't really work in a period drama. The camera work in the running scene in the end also felt too contemporary. (Not to mention the running itself.) This was the only Austen adaption I caught in ITV's Austen season. Makes me wonder if it's worth watching "Northanger Abbey" and "Mansfield Park" or if I should just read the books and leave it at that. I'm sad to say, this is a Jane Austen adaption I did not enjoy. Maybe I'll watch the 1995 version instead. The BBC are renowned for having done beautiful Austen adaptations before, after all.
My God, was this the "Run, Lola, Run" adaptation of Persuasion? It was horrible. Bad enough that the "screenwriter" (and I use the term very loosely) cut and pasted dialogue from one character onto another, often completely out of context and to rush the story along: but Anne Elliott running from location to location in pursuit of Wentworth near the end of the piece was an abomination! Austen must be spinning in her grave. No respectable young woman would have acted in such an atrocious fashion. And the actress that played Mary? Horrors. Needless to say, if the rest of the Austen remakes are this bad, they will be turning off a new generation of watchers.<br /><br />If you want to see an impeccable version of this (otherwise) wonderful novel, get the 1995 Roger Michell directed version starring Amanda Root (whose expressions alone can speak volumes) and Ciaran Hinds. It is superb.
I have no idea why they made this version of "Persuasion" when they already had that fine mini-series with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds. I suppose that they wanted to make a feature-length version, but of course a lot had to be deleted; alas, what ended up on the cutting-room floor was all the lovely wit and humour, leaving a film that was mere melodrama rather than an amusing exposition of English country manners and mores.<br /><br />Also, the characters were shallow and uninteresting. They had poor Anne chasing up and down the streets after Captain Wentworth like a silly modern adolescent (and if you happen to be a silly modern adolescent reading this, let me tell you: running after a male like a female in heat is NOT cool). That is something a well-bred woman of the Napoleonic era would never have done, and certainly not this level-headed heroine.<br /><br />Some have said they found this antic laughable; my reaction was not laughter, but outrage. The very idea of such a corruption of an Austen work is beneath contempt.<br /><br />It was ghastly.
I am a huge Jane Austen fan and I ordered the movie from Amazon.UK just so I could see it without waiting forever for it to come to the U.S. I really should have saved my money. What is with Anne running after Wentworth? The whole point of Anne Elliot's character is that she was quiet and refined. She is not impulsive and vulgar. And Mary, was she suffering from a stroke or something? Her speech wasn't normal, nor was her walking normal. There was no chemistry between the two main characters which made their whole "romance" completely unbelievable. In the final scene they even have Sally Hawkins wearing the same dress Amanda Root wore during the letter scene. The same clothes do not make it the same movie. In my opinion they didn't watch the 1995 version, which even though it had it's flaws, it did stay pretty close to the book. The book, I don't even think they read it. This is kind of like a Cliff's Notes movie of Persuasion. Hit on all the high points without explaining anything.
Somewhere, on this site, someone wrote that to get the best version of the works of Jane Austen, one should simply read them. I agree with that. However, we love adaptations of great literature and the current writers' strike brings to mind that without good writers, it's hard for actors to bring their roles to life. The current version of Jane Austen's PERSUASION shows us what happens when you don't have a good foundation in a well-written adaptation. This version does not compare to the 1995 version with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds, which was well acted and kept the essence of the era and the constraints on the characters (with the exception of the bizarre parade & kissing in the street scene in Bath). The 2007 version shows a twitty Anne who seems angst-ridden. The other characters were not very developed which is a crime, considering how Austen could paint such wonderful characters with some carefully chosen understatements. The sequence of events that made sense in the novel were completely tossed about, and Mrs. Smith, Anne's bedridden and impoverished schoolmate is walking around in Bath - - twittering away, as many of the characters seemed to do. The strength of character and the intelligence of Captain Wentworth, which caused Anne to love him in the first place, didn't seem to be written into the Rupert Penry-Jones' Wentworth. Ciaran Hinds had more substance and was able to convey so much more with a look, than P-J was able to do with his poses. All in all, the 2007 version was a disappointment. It seemed to reduce the novel into a hand- wringing, costumed melodrama of debatable worth. If they wanted to bring our modern emotional extravagances into Austen's work, they should have done what they do with adaptations of Shakespeare: adapt it to the present. At least "Bride & Prejudice" was taken out of the historical & locational settings and was fun to watch, as was "Clueless". This wasn't PERSUASION, but they didn't know what else to call it.
This production never really got off the ground for me. The plot is so cut up as to be disjointed and the production is so short that unless you've read the novel or seen a better adaptation (like the 1995 one with Amanda Root) you're going to be a bit lost since there's no time for character development.<br /><br />I liked Sally Hawkins as Anne, but the rest of the cast fell rather short of what they should have been. Mrs. Croft was far too old, as was Anne's elder sister Elizabeth. Mary uttered everything in such throbbing accents that the general peevishness and selfishness of her character was lost. Much better was Sophie Thompson's Mary, whose selfishness and sense of ill-usage is so well established that by the time Wentworth suggests Anne stay with the injured Louisa and Mary objects that she, as Louisa's sister in law, should stay instead, you can't imagine anyone less suited to do so. In this version, she might as well stay as she is insufficiently differentiated from anyone else in the production.<br /><br />Rupert Penry-Jones is nice to look at, but he made a much better St. John Rivers (1995 Jane Eyre), probably because that character required less implied depth of feeling. I agree with the comments made earlier about the gig scene: seemed more like he was trying to get rid of Anne than do her a favor. Likewise the accident scene: it happens so fast and with so little context, you wonder what all the fuss is about. And moving the speech that Wentworth overhears in the novel to the beginning of this production is a critical misstep that only contributes to the disjointed nature of the script. <br /><br />My other problem with this version was the lighting. Sometimes everything looked like a scene from the CSI morgue -- very very blue. Other times the lighting was so bad it was hard to make out the scene very well, like when Anne visits her old school friend, Mrs. Smith (who, by the way, is supposed to be more or less paralyzed. Having her run up to Anne on the street to tell her of Mr. Elliot's awful character was such a violation that for a minute I couldn't think who she was -- I thought she was one of the Musgrove girls. And she might as well have been. All the girls were pretty much interchangeable). And the running scene at the end...in an era where propriety was at a premium, it's hard to imagine gentle Anne tearing all over Bath like some demented hoyden. How silly can you get? It's too bad. Sally Hawkins had all the makings of a good Anne Elliot, but she was completely hamstrung by a poorly organized script and an over-truncated production.
I had eagerly awaited the first screening of this film ever since it was given to me on DVD at Christmas. Having reserved a special slot for it last night, I sat down to watch it with my daughter (aged 17 and a Film Studies student), with chocolates of course, in eager anticipation. We love Jane Austin.<br /><br />After just the first two minutes we knew we were sunk. The shaky camera shots and angles, general poor cinematography, direction and wooden performances had already left us feeling flat and dissatisfied. Despondent, we viewed on.<br /><br />Anne, played by Sally Hawkins, looked oddly and with no particular purpose, directly at the camera on several occasions, breaking our hard-won 'fantasy of the moment' and engaging us directly in an almost 'I'll find you' stalking fashion.<br /><br />Poor Rupert Penry-Jones, who played Captain Wentworth, did his best with the script and direction, bless him. I hope they paid him well, however, as he was practically drowned on one occasion by a huge wave which predictably breached the seawall, drenching him and his co-actor. They were nearly swept out to sea. Health and Safety would have had a field day! Poor Rupert was left spitting out sea water in order to deliver his line. Presumably there was not enough money left in the kitty for a re-shoot of this scene. Anyone with any sense would have not attempted it on such a day in the first place.<br /><br />Other than Mr. Penry-Jones, Alice Krige gave the only convincing performance as Lady Russell but her efforts were soon counterbalanced by those of Anthony Head's unconvincing portrayal of annoying Sir Walter Elliott.<br /><br />Towards the long-awaited end of the film, Captain Wentworth appeared to oddly grace Anne with a visit every two seconds having taken great pains to avoid her for the majority of the movie. It was as if he had developed a memory impediment which caused him to forget his very reason for being. In contrast, Anne ran, hyper-ventilating, from pillar to post in search of the good Captain who, in the meantime, had managed to call upon almost the entirety of Bath we are told, in the course of only three or four minutes, without even having worked up a sweat.<br /><br />We experienced none of Anne's charms crossing the screen. Indeed, we were left wondering what charismatic Captain Wentworth had ever seen in plain, spineless, opinion-less Anne and why someone, anyone, did not tell mean, winging Sir Walter to just shut the heck up.<br /><br />The crucial kiss, normally our favourite girlie moment, was painfully drawn out. As they moved in closer, Anne kept opening and closing her mouth which had the effect on screen of making her look as if she were chewing gum before lips finally met. Eww! <br /><br />The most enjoyable thing about last night was the chocolates and the half hour exchange of views between mother and daughter on just how bad the film had been.<br /><br />What a pity to ruin such an enchanting and engaging story, filmed in some of England's finest scenery.<br /><br />Sorry Jane.
I have to confess that I am severely disappointed.<br /><br />This version can in no way compete with the version of 1995. The reason why I watched it was that I wasn't entirely happy with Ciaran Hinds as Captain Wentworth and thought that Rupert Penry-Jones looked much more like the Captain I had imagined when I read the book. And he was too.<br /><br />Unfortunately that is the only redeeming quality of the film. The rest is as un-Austen-like as possible.<br /><br />Miss Elliot would NEVER have run through the streets of Bath like this. It wasn't in her character and it just wasn't done by a lady of the those times. The Anne Elliot of the book was a lady and she had dignity. There are other painful anachronisms but this was the worst.<br /><br />Although there are 3 important quotes from the book, they are at entirely inappropriate moments, warning those who know the book that yet another important part of the book will either be missing or completely changed.<br /><br />And although this version is not much shorter than the other one, it feels like everything is rushed. Very little care was taken to introduce the characters, show their dispositions and motives. Important scenes were omitted. How could they possibly have butchered the final scenes in this way ? A disaster ! And it was by far not as beautifully photographed as the other one.<br /><br />No, no, no. If you love Austen, then don't waste your time with this.
The humor in Who's Your Daddy is such poor taste that I actually closed my eyes in certain scenes. Close ups of semen are not funny! Nobody thinks they are. People get nervous when they see something so gross and to hide their nervousness, they laugh. Watching Who's Your Daddy gave me a disgusting nervous feeling.
Chris, an adopted son of a moral family, a loser whom works at the school newspaper with Kate (Christine Lakin from of the awful sugary "Step by Step" show of the now thankfully defunct ABC's TGIF line-up), finds out that he's just inherited a porn empire from his biological parents. He loses sight of what true friendship and love is and blah blah some other nonsense. He also has to contend with an Uncle who wants control of the family business and a shifty lawyer (arn't they are?) A slightly below average teen comedy that steals from better teen comedies (the opening alone is HIGHLY American Pie-esquire), bops you on the head with the moral every chance it gets, and wastes the only star talent it has (Wayne Newton, Lin Shaye, and if i'm really stretching the star word, Martin Starr of "Freaks and Geeks", and Justin Berfield of "Malcolm in the Middle"). It's not bad exactly, but it's far from good.<br /><br />Eye Candy: a few extras get topless <br /><br />My Grade: C- <br /><br />Where I saw it: Starz on Demand (available until September 29th)
My friends usually can put up with a lot of hopeless movies but this one was too poor for us to even watch it to the end. It was just so boring and unoriginal. Not even the "hot" girls that starred in this movie could keep me watching. Everything was just predicable and annoying.<br /><br />The acting was at times good.....but more times bad. The most annoying character in the whole movie that you just wanted to die would have to be the main characters best friend. The more i saw him the more i wanted to smash my screen. (you know what fat ugly kid I'm talking about)<br /><br />The plot has been done so many times before i think they should be sued by other movie companies. OK, it is a good idea but thats all this movie had.<br /><br />Overall this movie can only be watched if by your self, to save any abuse from your friends. Or, if you have absolutely nothing better to do.
When a comedy movie boasts its marvelous soundtrack on the back cover you know your not dealing with a top notch movie. I rented this movie with friends expecting to get some chuckles but overall to get most of our laughs off each other making fun of the movie. We couldn't have chosen a worse movie.<br /><br />The movie may have been alright with a few changes. First off, the comedy was painful. Physical gags were poorly performed and placed. The fat kid in the movie made us want to kill ourselves, bless him for trying scene in and scene out but he was like a puppy begging for love. If he had been pulled from the movie everything might have been bearable. There were some funny jokes, I believe one was when the group of boys steal one of the parent's porn movies and it turns out to be gay porn. But to best sum up the comedy I will simply tell the opening gag for the fat kid. He wears a puke stained shirt and talks about not knowing when something is done.<br /><br />To finish off, the editor of the movie could have saved the movie by removing the fat kid, cutting out 20 minutes of the school scenes and making an ending that is longer than thirty seconds of random bickering.<br /><br />OH, BTW, there are two good elements that the movie possesses. Kadeem Hardison plays his role wonderfully and performs his jokes so that none are missed or under-appreciated. The other redeeming element to the movie is the beautiful Mrs. Ali Landry. Her character is ignored most of the movie which is a shame.<br /><br />Don't waste your time even renting this one. It didn't appeal to me and I was part of the target audience (18 male).
I caught this on Showtime tonight and was amazed by how a movie with such a interesting premise could wind up being so unbelievably awful. WHO'S YOUR DADDY? stars Brandon Davis as an adopted high school senior Chris Hughes, a geek who inherits the heir to a porn empire left to him by his biological parents. Though the premise sounds like the movie could be a lot of fun, it is ruined by inept directing from first-time director Andy Fickman, a clichéd and predictable screenplay, and acting that is even bad by direct-to-video standards. Even the normally funny Charlie Talbert turns in a surprisingly dismal performance as the best friend. Ali Landry is the only good part of this lame and unfunny dud. 1/10
No, this is nothing about that fairy tale with the pumpkin coach, fairy godmother and the glass slippers, but if I were to elaborate, I would have to spoil it for you, which I won't. But don't let curiosity get the better of you, as this movie is not fantastic. It's one of those movies that start off promisingly, before betraying its audience with cheap scare tactics and an incoherent storyline. And that's real horror.<br /><br />Yoon-hee (To Ji-Won) and Hyun-soo (Shin Se-kyeong) are your ideal mother and daughter. One's a successful plastic surgeon, while the other your dutiful, obedient, and beautiful teenage daughter. Their relationship is like hand in glove, so close you'd think of them more as siblings rather than parent-child. But things start to go wrong (don't they always) when Hyun-soo's friends, whom Yoon-hee has operated on, start to go berserk.<br /><br />Perhaps it's a warning to audiences, and for those Koreans ladies who don't bat an eyelid when going under the knife, if news reports are to be believed. The only truly scary moments are those scenes in plastic surgery, though somehow, I thought Kim Ki-duk's Time actually had more gore when featuring and describing what goes on during the surgery itself.<br /><br />It's a tale of two halves, the fist being an attempt to shock audiences with standard scare tactics, which, I admit, did get to me now and then. However, the second half degenerated the movie into mindless mumbo-jumbo melodramatics, and was quite contrived into its forcing its ideas down your throat. Some things begin not to make sense, and while attempts are always presented to explain, you probably won't buy it, not that horror movies are logical to begin with.<br /><br />The leads are all beautiful, and there is a distinct lack of male presence besides the negligible cop role. But hey, I'm not complaining, though the storyline could have been improved tremendously. I'd recommend you to watch this, only if you're a fan of mediocre Korean horror, on VCD. Watch out for those face off-ish moments!
Disappearance is about a couple who take their family on vacation in New Mexico and find themselves in deep trouble after taking a detour off the main highway to visit a town that was seemingly abandoned in 1948 for unknown reasons. The town of Weaver seems harmless at first and has tourist appeal until the family is stranded there overnight and they begin to have good reason to suspect that others have experienced their same predicament with fatal outcomes. The Henleys watch a Blair-Witch-Project-esquire video diary left by the town's last victim, which ironically demonstrates the best performance of anyone in this movie. Although Hamlin and Dey's performances are much better than the supporting casts', their emotional affect seems "flat" to me throughout the movie. <br /><br />Disappearance has appeal for most of the movie as there is much suspense and good direction. However, the plot takes unexpected and implausible turns that seemingly make no sense. Worse yet it that there really is no understanding of what exactly is going on in the movie, which makes the bizarre ending less tolerable. It appeared to me that the movie makers were so focused on making a stream of suspenseful scenes, that they threw away all the elements of good story making: plot development, gradual explanation of themes and symbols that lead to a cohesive solution/outcome. <br /><br />The most difficult aspect of the movie for me was that the first three-quarter of it was spent building up tension and curiosity about certain aspects of the plot that were then suddenly disposed of as if we didn't deserve an explanation: <br /><br />What was the significance of the Indian symbols on the walls? What happened to the original people of Weaver? What was the connection with the people at the dinner? What did the Sheriff know? What did the missing boy discover if anything?<br /><br />This was, I believe, a bad move, since it engendered some resentment. I had invested quite a bit of brainpower into hypothesizing some plausible explanations for some of these plot turns and strange events, only to have the movie makers simply end it without giving an answer to any of these things. These are some nice cliffhangers for the ending of a miniseries that is about to pickup again next week, but a totally frustrating and inappropriate ending for a stand-alone movie.
If you like movies about creepy towns, hotels, houses, states (ala the Eagles "Hotel California"), etc. that possess the people that are "just passing through," read almost any Stephen King novel instead. If you like the setting of "Disappearance" start by reading King's "Desperation" but also check out "The Shining", "Salem's Lot" and "Needful Things."<br /><br />The crow motif, the desert, the family driving in desperation to escape or avoid possession are tired. Why didn't they just make the film from the "Desperation" novel? Maybe they approached King and he nixed? Must be.<br /><br />Susan Dey and Harry Hamlin look happy to be reunited and they have both worn well over the years, but they're still TV and direct-to-DVD caliber actors.
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** When I saw a preview for this movie I thought it was going to be atleast a slightly admirable storyline. But as most superstation original movies I was left disapointed. This gullible family ends up driving through this "deserted" town to take a brake and find this video camera showing these people doing everything their donig and finds out they all eventually disappear, the family goes through all these mysterious stages and never discovers or displays what the heck is stalking them. Their are more gaps than I can count and they don't explain anything that happens how or what. It ends where the family gets in a car accident and get posest or brainwashed or something( which is never explained). The next thing you know ur hoping they somehow find out how all it happened but it ends leaving you completely confused.
This is waaaaay to much.. so frustrating to watch.. I was waiting for the whole damn movie to end and to finally get some ANSWERS!!.. and what I've had in the end was nothing but a HUUUGE neon-sign question mark above my head!!!!! I haven't seen such a bad acting and such a nonsense movie in a long long time.. and what's bothering me is.. how come someone (an actor) read the script of such a bull!?#@ movie and say: OK, I'M IN!!! LET'S FILM THIS! This is horrible!!! THIS MOVIE SUUUUUUUUUUUUCKS!!!!!! I just can't believe I've spent an hour and a half of my life on something like this!!!
A bickering, American family, vacationing in the west, discover a strange ghost town in the middle of the desert. Little do they know that this ghost town was once a test site for nuclear bombs, and a deadly presence is stalking them. I generally love mystery-horror films like this. "Cube", Spielberg's "Duel" and "The Birds" are all great examples of movies that give no answers but nonetheless leave us intrigued and wanting more. Apparently, "Disappearance" writer/director Walter Klenhard was trying to make just that kind of film, and whether or not he succeeded is up to the viewer. I personally think he got about half way there, then the film just sunk.<br /><br />The actors are all kind of just "ho-hum". Their not especially bad but we as an audience never really feel their fear and they react to situations in unrealistic ways. Is anyone else absolutely SICK of characters just walking out off to investigate strange sounds?!?!? At least give them SOME kind of justification for doing so!?!?!?<br /><br />As far as made-for-TV films go it's an above average fair for sure. Director Klenhard Should be commended for really milking the desert environment for everything it offered and some of the setting were striking. There's a really cool scene where two characters find an old nuclear test ground were the sand had been completely melted to glass for as far as the eye could see. I wonder if that was real…<br /><br />No gore to speak of, and the 'creatures'…or what ever the hell it is that's after these people…are never shown, not to mention that we are never even given a real clue as to what they are (Mutants, aliens, ghosts or ancient evil Indian spirits…Oh, that really narrows it down for us!) or where the come from. <br /><br />There are lots of clichés here, too. Why is it that towns-folk in these kinds of films are always really, really dumb? Why is there always an old guy everyone thinks is crazy that turns out to be correct? Why? Why? Why? How 'bout a NEW scenario, folks! <br /><br />"Disappearance" tries to be different and intelligent but ultimately fails in that in many ways it's too familiar to us fans of direct-to-video horror fodder. Hey, I've seen much worse films, and disappearance ain't bad, it's just too… Average.<br /><br />4/10.
What starts out as an interesting story quickly disintegrates into nothing. Don't bother watching to the end hoping for an explanation of what is stalking the visitors, there is no ending. No explanation, no resolution, zip. This could have been a good movie it they had purchased an entire script.
This movie was lame, lame, lame. What a build up! What a let down. All form, no substance. A terrible waste of talent and time. Would not recommend it to my husband's dog, who will watch anything.
The ending of this movie made absolutely NO SENSE. What a waste of 2 perfectly good hours. If you can explain it to me...PLEASE DO. I don't usually consider myself unable to "get" a movie, but this was a classic example for me, so either I'm slower than I think, or this was a REALLY bad movie.
The progression of the plot is enough to "rope one in" and create curiosity about the outcome. However, ultimately, the feeling that remains is that the producers of the movie forgot to end it. If the intention was to create a perpetual circle (occasionally done in the Twilight Zone), it was too sloppy to view as a positive effort.
In the beginning and throughout the movie, it was great. It was suspenseful and thrilling. Yet in the end it gave no answer to what had happened. They mysteriously turned into zombies by a raven or crow? It did not answer the questions that we all had and therefore, was not as good a movie as I thought that it was going to be.
This movie tries to hard to be something that it's not....a good movie. It wants you to be fooled from begining to end,But fails.From when it starts to get interesting it falls apart and you're just hoping the ending gives you some clue of just what is going on but it didn't.<br /><br />
Disappearance is set in the Mojave desert as Jim (Harry Hamlin) & Patty Henley (Susan Dey) plus their two kids Katie (Basia A'Hern) & Matt (Jeremey Lelliott) along with Ethan (Jamie Croft) a friend of the family are travelling along, they stop at a roadside diner & ask about an old deserted mining town on the map called Weaver. No-one claims to have heard of it but it's definitely there & the family decide to take a detour in order to check it out & take some pictures. Once at the town they take some pictures & have a look around but when it comes time to leave their car won't start & they have to spend the night there. While looking around they find a camcorder videotape which they play only to discover footage of a scared woman saying all her friends have disappeared, the next morning & their car has disappeared as things take a very sinister turn. What is Weaver's secret? Will the Henley's ever leave there alive...<br /><br />Written, co-executive produced & directed by Walter Klenhard I have to say that Disappearance is one of the most frustrating films I have ever watched. For the first 85 minutes it was a pretty good mysterious mix of thriller & horror film but then we are treated to one of the single worst endings ever in motion picture history. The script suggest lots of different things but never elaborates or confirms & I was sitting there genuinely intrigued about what was going on, from the families car mysterious disappearing, the four recent graves, the thing in the abandoned mines, the supernatural sandstorm, the sudden & unexplained disappearance of Ethan & his just as unexplained reappearance, the Sheriff's sinister motives, the compass in the car going crazy, the crashed plane, the townspeople denying Weaver existed & the possible side effects of a neutron bomb being dropped near Weaver in the 40's but they are all tossed out of the window & for all we know could have been totally separate random events. Everything was coming along nicely & was set up for a big twist revelation but none was forthcoming & instead I was treated to the most ambiguous, strange, surreal & downright frustrating ending possible. If nothing else the ending contradicts much of what has gone before & leaves the viewer with more questions than answers. It's almost as if the makers had these great ideas but then didn't know what to do with them & just made the ending up on the spot. I just felt I put so much effort into watching the film which can be pretty slow at times without any sort of reward & in fact the ending felt more like a kick in the teeth or a good two finger salute!<br /><br />Director Klenhard does a reasonable job here, the old ghost town has a certain atmosphere & the large expansive desert locations give a good sense of isolation. It's well made but what were they thinking with that ending? Nothing fits, nothing makes sense & it's just a huge frustrating mess that after sitting through the thing for nearly an hour & a half leaves you confused & wanting to know more. Despite being a horror film there's no blood or gore although there are one or two creepy moments here & there. The film actually reminds of The Hills Have Eyes (2006) remake for large parts as that is what the film is set-up to be before a bizarre ending which does nothing to bring any closure to the film.<br /><br />Technically the film is good with high production values, good special effects, sets, locations & cinematography. Set in America but filmed in South Australia. The acting is fine from a decent cast.<br /><br />Disappearance is a really odd film, for a long time it shapes up to be a neat little horror mystery thriller but it never explains anything which happens & the truly surreal ending just throws up more questions than answers. I really can't see anyone making head nor tail of this, I really can't.
This is hands down the worst movie I can ever remember watching. Everything was unbelievably cliché and retarded. The acting was horrible too. The camera work wasn't bad but that still couldn't redeem it. The writer/director of this film must suffer from down's syndrome if he believed this movie would help his career. I want the hour and a half of my life back that I wasted watching this crap. I would rather watch a video of the grass growing than this. I cant believe IMDb is making me write 10 lines in order to post this but I feel that this movie is so bad that I must continue to warn others about it. The reason I came about this movie is that my girlfriend requested it from the local library thinking that it was the Kris Kristoferson movie which ended up being entitled "Disappearances". I don't know whose fault it was for this garbage ending up in my DVD player but I feel that someone owes me at least $20 for my time, pain and suffering. In conclusion, the director/writer of this movie better hope i ever recognize him on the street.
We had to go to an appointment, so we turned on the DVR to record the ending. After it was over, I looked at my husband and said, "Do you have a clue?". He shook his head no. I said, "So you made me watch the end of this movie and I have no clue what just happened". He didn't "make" me, but you know.<br /><br />The movie body itself was quite good. There was a lot of suspense. It kept you wondering. Then came the ending. The ending was... well it just ENDED. You weren't let in on what happened or why. Right up until the credits I kept thinking something would happen to explain it, but it never did. So I came here expecting someone figured it out and I just wasn't paying attention. Nope. Here four years later, I'm just as clueless as tom sawyer was.<br /><br />I still have no clue what went on. I'm just glad I didn't waste any $$ to buy it because I sure would have been mad.<br /><br />OHHHHH! I get it! The end of the movie is what disappeared! ROFL
I've read some of the other comments and I do have to agree with the ones that didn't get the ending. I thought it was going rather well..until the end. It kept your mind running and then splat. I have not clue what went on the last couple minutes of the movie except a complete mess. It's like they ran out of money to come up with a good ending so they improvised. First they had a mysterious thing making people disappear then they had a guy talking about Area 51 (which makes you think about aliens) then after they it went to crap. I thought the actors and actresses did fine it's just the script went sour. Anyways, if you do watch this movie be prepared to be disappointed at the end.
Normally, I have no problem with a movie or story with an ending that leaves you wondering to puzzle out what really happened, when it's done on purpose...<br /><br />But this movie really feels like they got all but the last 15 minutes done, then realized they had $5 left to finish on...<br /><br />I saw it on TBS... I recommend you not spend money on it either. If you catch it on TV, watch all but the last 15 minutes, then walk away and make your own ending in your mind.<br /><br />Really, the movie would have been better if they had simply got away, and come back with the State Poice of Feds only to find that the town and the car graveyard was gone, and by all appearances had never been there...<br /><br />"Wish I had more thumbs, so I could give that movie 4 thumbs down!"
After I got done watching this movie I was so upset that I had wasted 2 hours of my life. That's 2 hours I'll never get back. Ugh. When you start this you might think "Wow this is really good!" But rest assured that first impressions mean NOTHING. I was so excited about this movie until the dumbest ending I have ever seen. This movie is simply pathetic. The acting is bland, the story line is anything but original and there's nothing especially unique about this except that it's the WORST MOVIE EVER!!! DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!! WARNING!! DUMBEST MOVIE EVER YOU WILL BE SORRY IF YOU WASTE 2 HOURS OF YOUR LIFE ON THIS!!! 1/10
Well, i rented this movie and found out it realllllllly sucks. It is about that family with the stepmother and the same stupid fights in the family,then the cool son comes with his stupid camera and he likes to take a photo to damaged building and weird things and weird movie ,and then he asks his father to take him to a side trip and simply agrees, etc etc etc..... They go to that town which no one know it exists (blah blah blah) And the most annoying thing is that the movie ends and yet you don't understand what is THAT MOVIE!!!!I have seen many mystery movies but that was the worst, Honestly it doesn't have a description at all and i wish i didn't see it.
For a made-for-TV "horror" movie the movie started off very interesting. I was really intrigued by the story and the mystery of the film. But the ending was a total dissappointment. The movie was going along fast-paced and was building up to, it seemed like anyway, to a very climatic end. But guess what there is no end. The movie is just over and after almost one-and-a-half hours the audience is just left wondering what happened. Why were all the unanswered questions in the film left unanswered. There was no explanation at all about any of the key points in the plot. This film is like watching a murder mystery and then never finding out who did it. Very dissappointed. This film looks like the producers just ran out of money and never completed the film. A real BOMB!
The movie starts out fine. Widower out with new girlfriend and the children.<br /><br />The movie is filled with stupid director's choices. Like "lets separate." "I am coming down to...." do what? Stupid Stupid Stupid.<br /><br />Please do not waste your time hoping that it will get better.............. Not hardly.
Visually speaking, this film is stunning. It has some delightful black comedic moments. But on the whole, the plot is very clichéd, as is its seeming message. If you're a fan of over-the-top violence in mainstream movies like hostel or saw, you'll love it. If you're looking for something at all high-brow, steer away. I saw it as part of the edinburgh film festival 06, and I only chose it because I was looking for something disturbing. Ultimately, it isn't disturbing. Just grinding and unpleasant to sit through. If you genuinely want to be challenged, go see something like The Lost. If you want to be grossed out, or tell your friends about a really messed up film, then this is for you.
(Only minor spoilers except as noted).<br /><br />I've enjoyed a lot of Spanish cinema recently; both the actual Spanish cinema of people like Almodovar, and the Latin American cinema of directors like del Toro, whose superb "Devil's Backbone", set in Civil War Spain, was the finest horror film of the last decade. It's no surprise, then, that this film is both well-made, well-acted, and manages to sustain that distinctively different Spanish atmosphere. But it's also as nasty and pointless a film as one could hope not to have to see.<br /><br />What actually is the purpose of all this? We have no real idea what caused the creepy central character to embark on his killing spree, despite the fact that large amounts of narrative voice-over are drawn directly from his own narcissistic journal. In a routinely unpleasant opening sequence, set more than a decade earlier, we see the central character killing his girlfriend in a rage of jealousy and control-freakery ("…if I can't have you nobody can…."). Oddly enough, that is perhaps one of the best sequences in the film, but it has no discernible relation to his subsequent killing spree, which appears completely different in both motivation and execution. What happened to him in jail to cause this change? We have no idea, though we do later discover, as an absurd sort of afterthought, that he obtained a law degree while imprisoned.<br /><br />In Britain, in several of our notorious "serial killer" or "sex killer" cases, the terrible question arises; what about the wife? Did she know, or suspect what was going on? This is a question that this film could have asked, and indeed the wife does begin to emerge as one of the more intriguing characters. But banally, the answer to the question is quite clearly: "No, she didn't". Even when a dramatic opportunity like this is presented on a plate, the film still manages to bungle it. All we actually get, sketched perfunctorily out at the end, is her slightly amoral preparedness to cash in on the proceeds after the event. Compare this to the awful revelatory moment in Ten Rillington Place, where Christie's wife says "you know what I mean…." thereby sealing her own fate and allowing us an appalled glimpse into unimaginable chasms of suppressed knowledge and horror.<br /><br />(Major spoiler in this paragraph). In the meantime, we are supposed to believe that the killer himself is a criminal mastermind who comprehensively outwits the police, thereby securing the briefest of incarcerations in a mental hospital before being released so that he can kill again. How exactly did he achieve this? The plot gets extremely sketchy at this point; something to do with deliberately leaving certain clues for the police; but how this all works or why, or how the subsequent court case actually proceeds, remains a mystery.<br /><br />I actually don't believe serial killers are like this. The Silence of the Lambs may be comic book stuff, but – Lecter aside – it gets its serial killers right. They are deeply disturbed, deeply dysfunctional, deeply inadequate people; not the creepily charming mastermind presented here (closely related to the equally implausible suave killer of The Last Horror Movie, or indeed even Man Bites Dog, though it appears not to have been noticed that that was a satire).<br /><br />This film has little suspense, and bungles what little intrigue the plot might have generated. It has nothing useful to say about the motivations of serial killers, either generally, or in the specific cultural milieu of Spain. This is nothing more than a poorly plotted excuse to show some pretty misogynistic violence to women. And oddly, what makes that violence even more repulsive is a certain prissy failure of nerve even in how it is presented. The soft core character of what is actually shown just makes it seem even more repellently titillatory. Just one explicit shot, properly timed, would have been infinitely more shocking, and would have rendered all the rest completely unnecessary, freeing up more film time to flesh out the gaping holes in plot and characterisation. Instead we just get endless shots of young women vulnerably spreadeagled on a table in their pretty but slightly revealing underwear. Very, very creepy. I'm sorry to be rude; I love horror films, and can tolerate even the most extreme, to the extent even of worrying my partner. But I think anyone who finds this film good, or interesting, even I'd find myself edging away from. The purpose of a horror film is to scare you; this is just lascivious.<br /><br />It leaves a very bad taste in the mouth indeed. I have to give this film more than one star just because it's competently executed, but morally it deserves none at all and should never have been made.
The name (Frau) of the main character is the German word for "Woman". I don't know if that was intentional or not, but if sure got some giggles from the German audience at the Fantasy Film Festival last year, when it was shown.<br /><br />But those were the only giggles the movie got. Not that it was aiming for giggles, it's a horrible movie for heaven's sake! A horrible movie in more than one meaning. It's a shame that a premise like that was wasted with horrible even unbearable moments for the viewer (definetely not for the faint of Heart!!)! And it wasn't even necessary to show all the things that are shown. I'm not even going into a moral obligation (because movies don't really have that kind of task or function) discussion of what is shown here, but this is a new low on the whole "torture movement" that has grown in the last few years!
I read some comments on the internet about this film like "...harder then Hostel...", "the camera never screens of when it's getting really brutal...". But none of them is true. The camera never screens of, because there is nothing to screen of. The same scene is repeated hundred and hundred times again. Women lies on a table, killer rapes women a few times, killer cuts women into pieces (you never see this during the whole film!). Police come and arrested him. Killer fools the jury. Film over. In Germany we would say :"Viel Lärm um Nichts". All in all, one of the most boring films I ever see. Absolutely non-recommendable.
This self proclaimed "very talented artist" have directed easily the worst Spanish film of the 21st century. Lack of emotion, coherence, rhythm, skills, humor... it repeats the same situation over and over again. It shows no character development. It does not even show any violent and/or sexual content, and it does not add anything new to the psycho-killer sub genre. So lame it should be shown at film schools as an example of "what not to do" in a first movie.<br /><br />BTW where the hell is the "talent"? there are scenes which have been shot almost identically; there are scenes which have two or more master shots and it is quite awful to see the action jumping from one master shot to another without a reason. The camera almost never moves, as if the "very talented artist" was afraid of showing his lack of visual skills. The actors playing the main roles act like amateurs, and the supporting cast is hardly believable. There are more holes than plot in the script (if ever there was one)...<br /><br />A really disheartening movie, and a whatsoever talented director.
I absolutely adore the book written by Robin Klein, so I was very excited when I heard that a movie based on the book was in the making.<br /><br />But I was severely disappointed with the movie when I did see it because it didn't capture what I loved about the book - the absolutely ridiculously funny Erica and the interesting way in which she views the world.<br /><br />From the start of the movie, I realised that things weren't the same as I had imagined in the book. So, I just went along for the ride. It wasn't all that bad, I guess. Miss Belmont was totally different to what I had imagined her to be! I didn't think she would be one to smoke and drink - Jean Kittson, who plays her, is hilarious!<br /><br />On it's own, I thought the movie and it's actors/actresses in it did a good job, but alas, I'm such a fan of the book (one of my all time favourite books) that I couldn't help but feel disappointed =P
i am 13 and i hated this film its the worst film on earth i totally wasted my time watching it and was disappointed with it cause on the cover and on the back the film it looks pretty good, but i was wrong its bad. but when i saw delta she was totally different and a bad actress and i really didn't know how old the 2 girls was trying to be i was so confused. the film was in some parts confusing and i didn't enjoy it at all but i watched all the film just to see if it was going to get better but it didn't, it was boring,dull and did i say BORING.and i don't think many other people liked it as well as me.boring boring boring
"Die Sieger" was highly recommended to be one of the few good action movies made in Germany. I watched it last night and I must admit, that I am deeply disappointed. If that is supposed to be "the last best hope" for entertaining and challenging German action cinema, well then there is not much left.<br /><br />"Die Sieger" tries to be sexy, daring and furious but it is nothing of that kind. The characters are wooden and stereotype and whenever they do something unexpected (which doesn't happen too much) the act against their nature. That makes it hard - for me almost impossible - to follow them or even identify with them.<br /><br />Most of all I think the film is very bad cast. There is not one character in whom I believe. Maybe the superior officer at the SWAT unit - but that's about it. Those people that try to look like or act like special units, like elite cops - I don't believe them. Not for a second.<br /><br />The story is not so bad after all. But I think it's badly told. You don't get to know the bad guy at all - for example. And when after a "very dark" show down Karl Simon (the good guy) asks his already dead opponent "why? ... what for?" I did ask myself that very same question, knowing, that Dominik Graf wouldn't have the answer.<br /><br />I sincerely hope - no - I believe that Germany can do better, even with action films.
I grew up watching the original TV series in the sixties and one thing that I can tell you right away, there is NO comparison. This film was totally ridiculous with a flying suit that was alive. A martian that took different shapes. Special effects that looked like something that a little child would create. In contrast, in the original, characters were developed and the viewers developed a feeling for Tim and Uncle Martin. The only highlight in this film, yes, actually there was one, occurred when Ray Walston finally made an appearance at the end. He wore dark glasses and made references to living on this planet for 30 years as a sort of homage to the TV series. But even the real Uncle Martin could not save this turkey.
Silly, often ridiculous romp involving the landing of a space ship and the resulting havoc this causes on Tim (Jeff Daniels) and the people in his orbit.<br /><br />Am always amazed by Daniels. He showed such depth and promise in 1983's "Terms of Endearment" as Shirley MacLaine's philandering son-in-law. As the years have passed, Daniels has been unable to get his hands on a good, meaty role. Instead, he is in inane comedies such as "Dumb and Dumber."<br /><br />As for this picture, it fails because of the subject matter. At least, the television show brought about a variety of situations. In the film, we have constant slapstick and people turning into monsters as the government is thwarted into capturing the martian-Martin.<br /><br />The part of Mrs. Brown is a perfect example of the non-success of the film. On television, Pamela Britton portrayed a ditsy individual caught up in situations with the martian leaving her perplexed. In the film version, a blond bomb-shell as Brown, tries romantic entanglement.<br /><br />Television star Ray Walston has a small role as a government agent, or is he really that?<br /><br />A very big disappointment for those who enjoyed the television show so much.
I thought that My Favorite Martian was very boring and drawn out!! It was not funny at all. The audience just sat through the whole movie and didn't laugh at all!!! Not even the kids laughed!! That is sad for a Disney movie!! I thought they could have found somebody better to play the martian rather than Christopher Lloyd!! He was really stupid!! And he was not funny!! I thought the talking suit was really dumb!!! In the original television series the suit doesn't talk and move around!! In my opinion they should not have wasted their time on this movie!! I give it two thumbes down!! Really a waste of time and I would not recommend the movie to anybody!!! Thank You!!
This movie tries hard, but completely lacks the fun of the 1960s TV series, that I am sure people do remember with fondness. Although I am 17, I watched some of the series on YouTube a long time ago and it was enjoyable and fun. Sadly, this movie does little justice to the series.<br /><br />The special effects are rather substandard, and this wasn't helped by the flat camera-work. The script also was dull and lacked any sense of wonder and humour. Other films with under-par scripting are Home Alone 4, Cat in the Hat, Thomas and the Magic Railroad and Addams Family Reunion.<br /><br />Now I will say I liked the idea of the story, but unfortunately it was badly executed and ran out of steam far too early, and I am honestly not sure for this reason this is something for the family to enjoy. And I was annoyed by the talking suit, despite spirited voice work from Wayne Knight.<br /><br />But the thing that angered me most about this movie was that it wasted the talents of Christopher Lloyd, Jeff Daniels and Daryl Hannah, all very talented actors. Jeff Daniels has pulled off some good performances before, but he didn't seem to have a clue what he was supposed to be doing, and Elizabeth Hurley's character sadly came across as useless. Daryl Hannah is a lovely actress and generally ignored, and I liked the idea of her being the love interest, but sadly you see very little of her,(not to mention the Monster attack is likely to scare children than enthrall them) likewise with Wallace Shawn as some kind of government operative. Christopher Lloyd acquits himself better, and as an actor I like Lloyd a lot(he was in two of my favourite films Clue and Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and I am fond of Back To The Future) but he was given little to work with, and had a tendency to overact quite wildly.<br /><br />Overall, as much I wanted to like this movie, I was left unimpressed. Instead of being fun, it came across as pointless, and that is a shame because it had a lot of potential, with some talented actors and a good idea, but wasted with poor execution. 1/10 Bethany Cox
I saw this bomb when it hit theaters. I laughed the whole time. Why? Because the stupidity of it seemed to have made me go insane. I look back on it and realize there was not ONE funny thing in the whole movie. At leat nothing intentional. It IS awfully funny that Lizzie cn chew a piece of Nurplex and become a gigantic, carnivorous demon...yet her itty-bitty little dress is perfectly intact, despite the fact that she is now hundreds of times larger than she was when she first put it on. Or the kind of movie in which a man can be shocked with a defibulator and only fall unconcious, and return to conciousness without ANY medical attention. And don't let me get started on the ridiculous fate of the "villain" that they decided they needed to create "conflict." Uh huh.<br /><br />To the person complaining about Disney only targetting kids-The raunchy parts of this film seems to disprove that statement. Do we really need Daryl Hannah accusing Jeff Bridges of having kinky video tapes? You do if you're Disney and you're out of ideas for making the movie appeal to the above-8 crowd without writing a more intelligent script! I am thoroughly convinced that Disney pays off the ratings board so it's movies can get away with murder and still get family-friendly ratings.<br /><br />What a waste of the DVD format.
I think my summary sums it up. I found it inane and stupid. I also saw the ending a mile a way. Everyone is copying that ending anymore when doing a TV/Theater crossover anymore. Sometimes, it's better to let the movie stand alone.<br /><br />Others, its better to forget the movie altogether. This is one of the others....
The movie starts little cute. There are a number of revolting scenes. People in toilets. GOOD actors wasted and the original television series has all but ruined here. This did not need to be crude.<br /><br />Forget it. Find the tv show. Disney at new low.
If this movie had not been labeled a Disney picture, I probably would not have been so disappointed. The nudity was unnecessary and did not add anything. The same can be said for the toilet bowl scene. This is one Disney film that I will not let my four year old nephew watch.
My ten-year old liked it. For me it was hard to get through it. Christopher Lloyd played it way over the top and the suit was tedious and unfunny. Sorry to see Jeff Daniels in this.
<br /><br />Cheap-looking and ugly, this film didn't even seem to entertain the kids in the audience, except for one fairly amusing toilet joke. Christopher Lloyd is way past his prime and actually quite tiresome in this role, although the sorry excuse for jokes by the writers don't help.   Elizabeth Hurley is embarrassingly amateurish in a supposedly comic role. Jeff Daniels and Darryl Hannah avoid humiliation. There is really no reason to make this movie, especially since it is unavoidable that one will compare it with Robin Williams's often brilliant improvisations in Mork & Mindy.<br /><br />
So so special effects get in the way of recapturing the interesting relationship between Uncle Martin and Tim O'Hara that we remember from the TV series. And what was with the suit? Annoying!
The folks at Disney have a lot to explain. First and foremost, why anyone thought this lesser-sitcom material would ever make even a half-decent motion picture. In the kooky 60's teleplay, the unique idea of Martians among us had not yet been given the sophisticated X-Files treatment. Quaint visions of little green men have long since been dispelled by the likes of E.T., CLOSE ENCOUNTERS and ALIENS 1-3.<br /><br />Any charm the property had was mainly due to the endearing relationship created between the late Bill Bixby as Tim and Ray Walston as the unworldly visitor. The conceit that Martians have antenna seemed dopey back then. Now it seems positively idiotic. Yet, Christopher Lloyd's Uncle Martin sports the metallic appendages. In an early shot, the antenna on a sign for the TV station Tim works at is supposed to make us think "martian"! When's the last time you saw a TV with rabbit ears, eh?<br /><br />Disney doesn't trust quaint or relationships and crams this flick with youth-wooing special effects that include a talking space suit named Zoot! Yes, you read that correctly - Uncle Martin's silver space suit speaks. He is supposed to be a real hilarious cut-up! Figure again. I got stretch socks that are funnier than Zoot. Whenever the action lags (and it lags constantly), computer graphics are put into play to liven things up. Tim is here played by the amiable Jeff Daniels, who can't (or won't) do anything to save this floudering mess. Zesty Christine Ebersole brings some comic zeal to her neighbor lady role. Even Ray Walston himself is dragged painfully into the procedings - all to no avail. This alien visitor is dead on arrival.<br /><br />Constant talk of sitcoms turning to screen makes me only hope that the I DREAM OF JEANNIE movie won't feature a talking harem outfit. I pray that Samantha's cat in the movie BEWITCHED doesn't have lines. I live in fear that I LOVE LUCY - THE MOVIE will proudly feature a CG Conga Drum named Bongo.<br /><br />Paging Michael Eisner! Mickey Mouse - take me to your leader.
We should have been suspicious to discover that with only two minutes to lights out we were the only ones there. Only five others joined before the movie began.<br /><br />There is nothing at all to redeem this movie. The acting is awful (especially Ms Hurley). The script is banal. The effects we've seen a million times. The film direction the worst that we've seen. Meandering and disjointed. No-one laughed including the kids.<br /><br />We left after 25 minutes. It would have been sooner if my wife hadn't gone for a hot-dog!!!<br /><br />Do not waste your money on this film. If there's nothing else to watch at your cinema then buy some drinks, popcorn and hot-dogs and do some people watching. You'll have a much more enjoyable time!!!<br /><br />
When I was a kid we always used to be babysat, and we always used to rent a film or see a film at the cinema. This is one of the films we watched. This is one of the stupidest films I've ever seen, I think it might even be a Walt Disney Pictures film! A martian is dropped on earth, turns into a human, befriends a human, and is trying everything he can to get back home. But he is distracted by the wonders of the Earth. The only good comment I can give is the choice of actors, Back to the Future's Christopher Lloyd as the martian, Uncle Martin, Dumb and Dumber's Jeff Daniels as Tim O'Hara, Elizabeth Hurley as Brace Channing and Daryl Hannah as Lizzie. But apart from that it's complete crap. Poor!
The story is similar to ET: an extraterrestrial run around on earth and tries to come back home. While its stay on our planet, it will create friendly ties with humans.<br /><br />But, unlike ET which exudes drama, comedy, poetry, this movie is only fun. It is indeed a pure Dysney production: its core audience are children & the movie is more more in the visual than in the message.<br /><br />Thus, you will find some funny scenes (the first sighting of the town, a "cosmic" stray toaster) and the casting is experimented, with special mentions to "Doc", who rejuvenates in a "Mac Fly" character, and to Hurley, who seems open to auto-derision.<br /><br />Ice on the cake: the main title is scored by Danny Elfman, and like every other great composer, you recognize his "voice" before he is even credited.
Why on earth is Colin Firth in this pointless film? Has he really been that strapped for cash?<br /><br />The film isn't clear on what it wants to be about, grief?, exotic places?, ghosts?, a vehicle for Mr Darcy? It's a muddled, muddy mess.<br /><br />There seems to be some sort of idea that Italy must be good, in itself, and that Italian has something to offer as a language - but in the end the girls just want to go back to yankland.<br /><br />There are pointless episodes on the beach, in churches, on busy roads - but what it is all about, or why anybody should care simply isn't clear.<br /><br />There was also a yank woman in the film. It wasn't clear what here job was, but she seemed only to be there to make vapid, inappropriate and maudlin comments to the girl. Was it supposed to be about paedophillia??<br /><br />A pretty dreadful mess, all in all. I gave it 2 rather than 1 because it doesn't have the charm of an utterly ghastly film.
This is one of those films the British Lottery Fund wastes its money on. The main problem is a rambling script which gets nowhere. The characters are not interesting, the story is conventional and insipid, the only thing of interest is the location: the city of Genoa (Genova in Italian). Having only a superficial acquaintance with Genoa, I had no idea of the intricate alleyways of its Old Town, and that the city was so interesting. I had thought Genoa was dull. I am delighted to say that I have been proved wrong. So from the travelogue point of view, this film has interest. The film contains one splendid performance, by a little girl named Perla Haney-Jardine. She has already made seven films despite being only 12, so she seems determined upon a career as an actress, and judging by her performance in this film, she should go far, as she is a natural and has a great deal of talent. Colin Firth, a reliable and professional actor, was on hand for the filming and when asked to be earnest, he was earnest, and when asked to be anguished, he was anguished. But somebody forgot to give him any worthwhile dialogue. The script is a total shambles. Catherine Keener does exceptionally well in a supporting role, and showing sympathy comes naturally to her, so that everybody would like to have her around (I would like to tell her every time I feel a cold coming on, as I know she would get me a soothing hot drink). So there we have it: Genoa's fascinating narrow alleys, an interesting little girl, and a sympathetic woman. Forget the rest. The older sister played by Willa Holland is such a disgusting character that the fact that the young actress does a good job of being repellent is not exactly the kind of acting tribute she would like to hear, I suspect. The notion that this family go off to Genoa to forget the unfortunate death of the mother is so trite that if we have another film like that, all dead mothers have a right to complain at being exploited. If Michael Winterbottom wanted to make a film about how interesting the old portion of Genoa is, why didn't he just go to the BBC and say he wanted to make a travel film with some mindless celebrity presenter? Why waste money on a feature film which is nothing but a vanity project of idle and meandering vacuity?
First of all this movie starts out on a really dumb note: A 10-year-old girl, playing around in a moving vehicle, decides it would be funny to cover up her mom's eyes with her hands, and then causes a horrific accident which kills the mom....duh....I am sorry, there is positively no 10-year-old that dumb. The rest of the movie does not get much better. After the death of the mother by the apparent dumbest 10-year-old on the planet, the dad moves the family to Genova, Italy, where he is to teach at a local university, but here is the clincher: he does not speak a word of Italian! Then the little girl has "visions" of mommy (who she killed), and often subsequent night terrors which always, always end by the father holding and coddling her. Then we are forced to watch this family continually get lost and then found and then hug and then cry and lost and then found (followed by of course more hugging and crying) to the point that I was actually wishing for some sort of natural disaster to just wipe all of these vapid, ignorant people off the planet. Do not get me wrong, because I love indies, but an indie about dumb people (and I mean really dumb) is simply ridiculous and pointless. It is really a shame that this movie was based on such insipid characters wallowing in such retarded scenarios, because the locale was interesting.
Without reiterating what was said above about this movie, I would like to add that I was looking forward to watching this film...the cast/location and the work of the excellent director Michael Winterbottom etc...It had a vague shadow of 'Don't look Now' about the storyline from the beginning. A stay in different surroundings (Italy again) to dim the heartbreak of loss...or perhaps that's how I saw it? So consequently I sat there waiting for the story to unfold and put a spin on what we expect to happen to this family in a foreign European country....and I sat there and sat there....and guess what? nothing actually happens! and I mean nothing!! You are not even given the chance to get into the characters as they are so 1 dimensional and vacuous..You are led to believe from the pace of the movie that something was going to happen to turn the whole film on it's head...The eldest daughters flirtation with the local vespa boys, had great scope to take the movie in another direction, the youngest daughters visions of her dead mother ended up being a fruitless and pointless exercise, the fathers attempts at being seduced by one of his female students felt ridiculous given his age. It felt as if the script had a last recall made where they decided at the last minute to eradicated any guts to the story and went for paring it down to a bare minimum to no effect. When the credits started to roll (unexpectedly) you can't help but feel robbed of your time spent sat watching this pile of rubbish.
This film is about a family trying to come to terms with the death of the mother/wife by moving to Genova, Italy.<br /><br />The plot of "Genova" sounds promising, but unfortunately it is empty and without focus. The film only consists of a collection of scenes depicting the daily life of the family, such as swimming, taking piano lessons or cooking eggs. Most of such scenes are redundant and tiresome, completely failing to engage viewers emotionally. The ending is very disappointing as it is not spectacular, moving or emotional. I can safely say that I am disappointed and bored by "Genova" The only thing good about the film is the sunny weather and the beauty of Genova. "Genova" can serve as an extended tourism advertisement for the city, but not as a film to be enjoyed.
I just blew four dollars renting this movie! Why Alliance Atlantis would promote such a poor excuse for a film is beyond me. But even more surprising was the reasonably good reviews that a couple of Canadian newspaper critics gave this film. I'm tired of our media justifying a film simply because it's Canadian and low budget. It's like they expect Canadian films to be lousy, so they give it a good review regardless.<br /><br />Now about the movie: The acting was below average (with the exception of the lead male character, who was actually pretty good). The film quality was poor, which I guess could be expected from the extremely low budget. The script was absolutely horrendous. An example is the story, which revolves around one of the lead characters, a female drug dealer who flirts with one of her clients so that she can recruit him to fix and steal bicycles for her gang, whose only purpose is to randomly destroy SUV's. Supposedly many of her gang members' bicycles are destroyed in these activities (I don't know how she can't afford to just buy new ones, since she is supposed to be this big drug dealing connection from Vancouver to Toronto).<br /><br />Anyway, the point of the story (which isn't revealed until well over halfway through the movie) is that the drug dealer plans to firebomb buildings in the Toronto area to attempt to make houses more affordable - as no one will want to live in the area.<br /><br />- Need I say more.<br /><br />Shame on the Toronto Film Festival for accepting such a film, Telefilm for supporting it, and the Globe and Mail and Georgia Straight newspapers for giving such biased reviews.<br /><br />A film shouldn't get special treatment just because it's Canadian!!!!
EPSILON, a.k.a. ALIEN VISITOR, is not what I expected. This is a no-budget Australian film with no special effects other than speeded-up film and quick scene cuts. The female alien (who comes over immediately able to speak perfectly accented Australian) can "blip" from place to place or time to time and alter her perception of the flow of time to match the "faster" humans.<br /><br />An elderly grandmother tells her two granddaughters about a story a wandering man told her 40 years before, when an unnamed "She" came to the planet naked and completely disoriented, unable to recognize which star in the sky she came from...She meets a man alone camping in the Australian Outback, apparently bewildering him. She is here by "mistake", and gets angry when she is told she is on Earth. The Earthlings are known as consummate despoilers of the environment and a metaphor for the most insulting thing imaginable to the rest of the universe: those who "breathe the foul air" but do nothing about it, sticking their heads under the sand like an ostrich. In another amusing metaphor, Earthlings are "frogs".<br /><br />From there, it is entirely a film about dialogue, as the perplexed man tries to understand She's peculiar psychology and viewpoints, even as She calls him unintelligent and "quaint". The man begins to realize maybe it's humans who are irrational and not thinking straight. Yet, while waiting to be "beamed up" back home, She sees that this human is not entirely faulty in his thinking and even falls in love with him.<br /><br />The dialogue about perspectives is in spots interesting, but it is all layered with a heavy-handed environmental message and a low-budget feel (there are only two main actors, who blip around various deserted scenes, and the evil despoiling humans on the planet are never seen at all). The environmental message offers no solutions, but paints one or two dire metaphors about what will happen to nature and man if something isn't done. The logic also doesn't hang together: the rest of the universe has "given up" on Earth, yet one space woman caught on Earth by mistake manages to effect some positive change by the conclusion of the movie. What would a battalion of aliens deliberately sent here manage to achieve against pollution and waste?
<br /><br />Not only do alien visitors look exactly like furry armpitted human woman and not only are alien visitors able to perfectly speak English (with an Australian accent) they ALSO call their stars by the SAME names our Earthly astronomers have given them!<br /><br />And topping all that off, all alien life knows just how mean, evil, wasteful and destructive us humans are. And they're quite willing to tell us just how bad that is.<br /><br />If you ever have the chance to see this movie, don't. Well, unless you suffer from insomnia or the choices are this movie or exploratory surgery without anesthesia.<br /><br />This movie tries to get a moral, ecological point across but only succeeds in making you yawn and pray it ends soon.
It was 1 a.m. in the morning and I had nothing else to do. Don't judge me... please.<br /><br />We're back in time during the Spanish settlements. A group have made their way onto an island. It doesn't take too long before they encounter a large "reptile", which gobbles up their horse. Soon they're captured by the natives and in order to gain freedom they must kill the "reptile gods." THE CG sucks; it reminds me of the CG of early console video games. The encounters were lame. The only positive thing I have to say about this was the hottie native running around in a skimpy outfit. Otherwise it's just a middling effort.
I'll bet none of you knew that the famous Conquistador Hernando Cortes made a preliminary scouting expedition to Mexico before taking on the Aztecs. Good thing he did because he would never have known about those T Rexs that inhabited one particular valley where the locals revered them as gods.<br /><br />That was understandable. What wasn't was the casting of blue eyed Ian Ziering as Cortes. Even with the blond hair made famous in Beverly Hills 90210 dyed black, Ian looked positively ridiculous. At least he made no attempt at a Spanish accent.<br /><br />The real hero of Tyrannosaurus Azteca is Marco Sanchez also late of a television series with a semi-recurring role in Walker Texas Ranger as Detective Sandoval of the Dallas PD. He finds true love with an Aztec princess and life would be just perfect if it wasn't for those pesky prehistoric beasts the natives worship.<br /><br />Tyrannosaurus Azteca looks like they used some outtakes from the famous Sid&Marty Krofft series the Land of the Lost. All that was needed was some Sleestak to appear.<br /><br />If you're interested in finding out about this reconnoitering expedition that didn't quite make the history books by all means check out Tyrannosaurus Azteca. Then try and sit through it with a straight face.
With nothing better to do I decided to check out "Aztec Rex" (as it was being billed) for the hell of it.<br /><br />The silly story might have played better if the dinosaur effects were convincing. They actually looked like animatics (those rough designs that artists later use to finish the CGI effects, adding more details, smoother movements, etc.) Absolutely awful-looking dinosaurs, which is the only reason you'd probably want to sit through this anyway.<br /><br />The one redeeming factor was the lovely Dichen Lachman as Ayacoatl. She kept my interest; if only the budget had been ramped up and some convincing dinosaurs could have been used.<br /><br />Disappointing. At least the cast and crew got a free trip to Hawaii, where the movie was filmed.
Take a SciFi Original Movie and mix in a little alternative/revisionist history, and you get "Aztec Rex." Apparently Hernand Cortes, before conquering the Aztec empire, had to first conquer a Tyrannosaurus Rex and her mate. That's the thrust of this movie. Given the plot it could have really sucked; the fact that it only kind of sucked is a tip of the cap to the writers. There are a few problems. For starters, Cortes is played by Ian Ziering. Even with a black wig, Ziering as Cortes is about as convincing as Axl Rose playing Gandhi. And though Cortes conquers the indigenous peoples of Mexico, the Aztecs here seem to be played by an all-Hawaiian ensemble. Casting aside, the T-Rex(es) look reasonably good, though every time one of them gets shot it just oozed CGI. And they die too easily; I suppose if a T-Rex were around in real life they probably could be felled or at least wounded by some rather rudimentary, 16th-century weaponry. But it takes something away from the movie. There are also some graphic T-Rex-swallowing-human scenes, which is surprising, but in this context I thought they worked OK. There's plenty of action, and the whole colonization angle is prevalent throughout but doesn't overwhelm the dinosaur angle, unlike the other recent SciFi Original dinosaur movie "Warbirds." Overall, a mediocre (but decent by SciFi Original standards) movie that rates a modest 4.
I don't know if this is one of the SyFy Channel original movies, but that's exactly what it feels like. A cheap, low budget action movie that was probably made very quickly, it contains laughable effects, lame dialog, and one vaguely faded star to give some name brand recognition to it (funny how many of the kids from 90210 are doing cheap TV movies now).<br /><br />Ian Ziering plays Cortes, who we know from history as the explorer who wiped out entire populations of native people while conquering parts of North America. Here, he is not played as a hero or even sympathetic, but as a slimy opportunist; his character would probably be killed off if this weren't loosely based on a historical figure. In this story, Cortes is on a brief surveying mission, trying to find something of value to prove he deserves financing to further explore America. He and his men find a small tribe of Aztecs plagued by dinosaurs.<br /><br />The actual hero of the story turns out to be Lt. Rios, who proves to be honorable, resourceful, and wise. He knows the right thing to do in every situation, which puts him at opposition with Cortes, as well as with the young, ambitious Aztec shaman. Of course, the native girl who is supposed to marry the headstrong, scheming shaman falls for Rios, furthering his anger towards the Spanish outsiders. So it's all pretty cliché. The dinosaurs are dispatched with relative ease. Despite taking place in an area that seems wide open, the story pretty much takes place in either the woods, or the Aztec village for 95% of the time, so it isn't visually exciting either.<br /><br />I didn't even recognize Ian Ziering. They gave him a ridiculous wig and an unconvincing accent, and somehow he disappeared into it. He doesn't look or sound Spanish for a second, however, making the casting choice wrong in every way. If this movie had been released theatrically, he would have been singled out for a Razzie, no question.<br /><br />Overall, forgettable.
Tyrannosaurus Azteca is set during the sixteenth century where famous Spanish explorer Hernando Cortes (Ian Ziering) has landed in Mexico with six of his best men including Lieutenant Rios (Marco Sanchez), they intend to claim the land in the name of the Spanish & maybe steal some gold too if the opportunity arises. Within minutes they have their first sight of local Aztec savages, within minutes after that Cortes & his men are captured & held prisoner. If that wasn't bad enough it turns out that a couple of Tyrannosaurus Rex live there & like to eat the locals, in an effort to win their lives the Spanish offer to help the locals get rid of their monster problem but with various hidden agendas & ulterior motives it's not just the dinosaurs they have to watch out for...<br /><br />Directed by Brian Trenchard-Smith (who, coincidently, made one of my all time favourite exploitations films Turkey Shoot (1982) which I throughly recommend to one & all) & also more commonly known under the spoof sounding title of Aztec Rex (the title was changed by the Sci-Fi Channel when they aired it maybe as the original title Tyrannosaurus Azteca sounds like it might be a foreign film) this is yet another idiotic & cheap looking Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' & that's all you need to know really. Based on & around the real Spanish Conquistador Cortes during his expedition to Mexico the film definitely doesn't strive for historic accuracy although I will admit that the story tries to do something slightly different here but ultimately Tyrannosaurus Azteca is still just a 'Creature Feature' with a bunch of people running from some poor CGI computer graphic of a monster despite it's period setting. Not too sure what else I can say, despite being set centuries ago the usual clichés are here, the character's are the usual cardboard cutouts, make stupid decisions & the selfish one, the heroic one, the backstabbing one, the faceless victim who exists just to get eaten & the pretty woman are all here & easy to spot. The film is predictable, silly, dull & doesn't really entertain on any level although it does move along at a decent pace & there's one or two half decent moments of gore if that sort of thing interests you. The story isn't that good & has plenty of holes too, this is also the sort of film that you will have completely forgotten about within a few days.<br /><br />Now I have seen & commented on plenty of Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Features' & usually the CGI computer effects are terrible & while Tyrannosaurus Azteca doesn't exactly buck the trend I will admit there are a few effects shots which look alright but then they are usually ruined by an absolutely awful effects shot straight afterwards. There's a few decent gore effects here too, there's a cut out heart, a guy's leg is bitten off, there's some blood splatter, a cool shot of a guy left holding his own intestines after he has been attacked by the dinosaur, there's a few dead bodies seen & someone is stabbed with a spear. The T-Rex gets to eat a couple of people too. The production values are really cheap, the Aztec set looks like one of those theme park attractions made from Styrofoam & those Spanish men must have been imprisoned in the worst enclosure in cinematic history with the fence supposedly keeping them in lower than a mans waist, they could have simply stepped out of it & run away it was so low.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $900,000 I can't see where the money went, shot in O'ahu in Hawaii in apparently fifteen days. The acting isn't great from no-one I have ever heard of.<br /><br />Tyrannosaurus Azteca really isn't any better than any other cheap Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' despite an almost interesting & unusual premise, that basic statement should basically be enough for you to decide whether you will enjoy this or not (at a guess probably not).
To be fair they did as well as they could with a budget of five shillings and sixpence, but the dialogue was more cheesy than 9lbs of emmental and the CGI was a little old hat now. maybe if some of the actors were not so perfectly chiselled out of granite it would have made the film a little better too.. To say this was awful is to do this film a mis-service, if you want to see something that is totally execrable, you gotta sit and waste a couple of hours of your life watching 'sickle', that is soo mind numbingly awful, its actually good,(several large alcoholic beverages are deriguer though. Any road up, I enjoyed this film and its gotta be worth a look if you have not seen it yet, just don't expect anything along the lines of 'jurassic park,the lost world' or 'apocalypto'.
I have never seen one of these SciFi originals before, this was the first. I think it only fair to judge the acting, direction/production, set design and even the CGI effects on the other SciFi movies. To compare it to your typical Hollywood production is unfair. I will say, however, that overall Aztec Rex was not exactly reminiscent of Werner Herzog's masterpiece Aguirre, Wrath of God.<br /><br />I will begin by noting that, yes, I do recognize the fact that this movie has more to do with culture-clash than it does with dinosaurs. Despite this being a made-for-TV sci-fi movie, there is some underlying context to the story which I shall examine. The symbolic elements included are evident enough.<br /><br />Consequently, as a student of history, theology, mythology and film: I found the dialogue outrageous and the plot themes to be somewhat insulting. I am not asking for any mea culpas on behalf of the producers - as I said before the movie is what it is. But what concerns me is that much of the younger demographic for this movie probably rely on television to provide them their lessons when it comes to history and cultural diversity.<br /><br />The main problem manifests itself most visibly with the character Ayacoatl (not a commentary on Dichen Lachman's performance, but simply how her character was written, although, I'll say she has some work to do before she receives any Emmy nods). It is through her character that the Spanish Europeans actions are justified. Her function in the film as the love interest of Rios affirms that the European way is the right way, simply because they are European. There is really no other reason given. It's really just left to the assumption that the viewer is meant to associate themselves with the Europeans over the Aztec because their dress, language, ideology, etc is more familiar to them than the Aztec - so therefore the Aztec are portrayed as adversarial and 'backwards.' And it's not simply that the viewer is left with that assumption due to ethnocentric perception on the viewers part, but it really seems like the story is trying to convince the viewer - As if the Aztec were not capable of coming up with a plan - if not a better one - to lure a dinosaur to its death on a bed of punji sticks.<br /><br />In fairness, there is a subgroup of the Spanish who are portrayed as looting temples and intent on simply abusing the native MesoAmericans. There is also a scene where we have the Christian holy man noting the achievements of the Aztec: "They have agriculture, medicine, calendar, etc." - But in the end it is still the Aztec warrior who is portrayed as the main antagonist of the movie, even over the 'thunder lizards' (more on that later). He his portrayed as treacherous, duplicitous and attempts to dispatch the romantic European Spaniard by tricking him into consuming hallucinogenic mind altering mushrooms - an important spiritual component to certain aspects and religions of the native Meso & North Americans (again, more on this later) so that he can keep the female he feels belongs to him and away from the Spaniard. <br /><br />Now in analyzing the true nature of the story (leaving the obvious Christian vs. Pagan themes off of the table) from a symbolic standpoint - a viewer can easily take these so-called thunder lizards to be representatives of the MesoAmerican ideology/theology, which in this movie is portrayed as being one intent on: bloodthirstiness, mercilessness, cruelness, wicked, maybe even evil? In opposition, we have this group of Christian wanderers, led by a young Hernando Cortes who are portrayed as naive, yet overall noble, lambs caught up in the dark heathen world of the Aztec. Also, the name of the film is Aztec Rex, leading one to believe that it is about dinosaurs out to eat people. However, what Aztec Rex translates to is Aztec King, a the head of the Aztec state, or in this instance 'state-of-being.' (Hence, why the title of the film was changed). And so who in fact do we see as the new Aztec king at the end? It's the remaining Spaniard, Rios. Aztec Rex is in reference to the new European ideology which overcame, through disease, bloodshed, war & famine, Native Americans. Rios symbolizes the ideal European - as the presenters of this film would like them to be remembered (in opposition to Cortes who represents the 'practical-yet-still-noble European'). But when you examine the Holocausts of the Americas, let us be honest: don't the symbolic components of this film's story have it backwards? <br /><br />I have to say Aztec Rex is at worst a little racist, or to be kind about it, ignorant at best.<br /><br />And yes, I know it's just a movie, all meant to be in fun, I understand, but so at the end we're left with the idea that Rios was the father of the last remaining Aztec lines? I wonder what Native MesoAmericans would have to think about this ending... as for myself, I thought it was a little too self indulgent.<br /><br />Best supporting performance of the movie goes to Ian Ziering's wig - although conspicuous - it did at least alter Ziering's appearance enough so that I didn't think I was watching the yuppie from 90210 leading a bunch of conquistadors into the heart of darkness. Ziering actually proves himself to be a more-than-capable actor in this movie, I actually bought his performance, or at least I forgot it was Ian Ziering anyway. I don't know whom his agent is, but he should get more work.<br /><br />In closing, it was also a pleasure to see Jim McGee again. I've been a fan ever since his all too brief scene-stealing performance in 1988's Scrooged.<br /><br />Alexander Quaresma - DeusExMachina529@aol.com
All day now I've been watching dinosaurs, and all day they've had the same fundamental problem.<br /><br />They don't believe in firearms. They just don't seem to have been _told_ about them or something. Bullets _bounce_ off of dinosaurs! Maybe it's because they became extinct millions of years before the invention of gunpowder, and the laws of physics were just different back then... Aah, no. Come on. If they're close enough to chemically operate today, they'd have to be vulnerable to fast (even subsonic) lead projectiles. It's that simple.<br /><br />Look, the toughest-skinned reptiles on the planet today, alligators and crocodiles, are completely vulnerable to basic rifle fire. They're nothing magic. You can shoot a pistol round right through the heavy scales on their backs. They don't take armor-piercing bullets or anything special. Small bullets penetrate them, they just don't kill them. Somewhat (but not REALLY) large bullets are preferred because the challenge (as with most game) is to kill the animal with one shot, so it doesn't run. (Hunters consider it immoral to allow prey to run off and die unharvested.)<br /><br />Most animals, including predators, are easily repelled by gunfire. Between the noise, and the pain of even a non-lethal wound, most will run away. An exception are big bears, which are so fearless that they're merely enraged by mortal wounds. Cape buffalo are regarded as highly dangerous because they are well known to charge when wounded. We've seen video of the big bulls of a herd of cape buffalo rescuing a calf from an entire pride of lions. A big cat will run if it can, but if it can't it will charge as a final act of desperation. Where a T.Rex would fit in this spectrum is unknown. Their behavior simply has not been observed. With these larger animals, safe hunting becomes a matter of applying an appropriately large and powerful projectile, and/or applying several of them rapidly enough to counter its charge. With a T.Rex, of course, this could be a serious problem. I've seen a T.Rex skull (they have one in the museum downtown) and carrying a gun big enough to bust that might be impractical. Chewing its neck off with lots of smaller fire might be a more viable approach. Small bullets would still _penetrate_ them, they wouldn't just bounce off just because the animal is too big to easily kill! <br /><br />So here we have Cortez and his men (this is _before_ the famous Mexican campaign, apparently) captured by American natives and scheduled for sacrifice on the pyramid. It appears that all those human sacrifices were about appeasing the bloodthirst of the pair of T.Rexes that terrorized the continent in the day. Rather than just having their hearts cut out and being fed to the lizards, Cortez et al talk the Aztecs into letting them hunt & kill them. OK, maybe they don't have M-16s like the guys in the "Carnosaur" series, but they _do_ have flintlocks, crossbows, pointed sticks (big ones, made from trees) and swords. Maybe that's a little less uneven than squads of soldiers with full auto, but they've several guys and I'd quickly bet on them over a dinosaur. Oh, wait, there's a _cannon_, about a 4-incher. That's just the ticket for busting a Tyrannosaurus' skull! So they lay a trap, with a squad of men, cannon, pointed sticks in a ravine, and lure the first T.Rex into it, using a pretty brown girl as bait. Cortez points out that they'll NOT have time to reload, so they'll have to close the range until they can be certain of their aim. T.Rex totally ignores their volley of flintlock fire, and we see both a crossbow bolt _and_ the cannon ball _bounce_ off! Forget it. End of credibility. A crossbow bolt would defeat Cortez' torso armor, and a 4" cannon ball might penetrate the hull of a wooden ship! This would also _certainly_ get through the hide, ribcage, or skull of any animal ever to walk this planet. (Do you think a _whale_ could withstand a 4" cannon ball?) And here's T.Rex, still standing, not even bleeding. So Cortez lures it to the ravine, where it falls onto the pointed sticks, which (I guess by magic) penetrate it and kill it. Yaaay, pointed sticks! <br /><br />The dinos aren't completely invulnerable to gunfire - they manage to put out an eye of the second one with a pistol. This runs it off, so it's NOT as mean as a bear or a buffalo, at least in the movies.<br /><br />They kill the second dinosaur with a bomb - made from a gourd filled with gunpowder and gemstones. My money would still be on the cannon. It's engineered function is to concentrate all the gunpowder's energy in one direction - toward the target. A bomb is a much more diffused application of force. A _real_ bomb (NOT a gourd bomb) has a steel casing which contains the explosion to extremely high pressure. (Think: pipe bomb vs firecracker.) A pile of gunpowder set on fire will simply go POOF. (Trust me on that one.)
Typical Troma-trash, this smutty 80's flick is considered one of the "highlights" of Lloyd Kaufman's notorious production studio, alongside "The Toxic Avenger" released one year earlier. "The Toxic Avenger" is far superior if you ask me, but this demented splatter-flick is nevertheless endurable as well; just make sure you leave your full brain capacity at the door. The events take place in Tromaville, a little town that proudly claims to be the toxic chemical capital of the world, and they certainly aren't lying. The safety precautions in the local nuclear power plant are substandard, to say the least (even Homer Simpson never was this nonchalant) and toxic waste seeps through to the nearby high school. The first intoxicated victim is the stereotypical nerd, who starts spurting green stuff out of all his body cavities, but his death is believed to be an accident because he had no less than TWO microwave ovens in his house! Oh, the humanity! Shortly after, however, the nuclear leaks also affect the school's weed plantation and thing really start to get messy. After smoking a joint at a party, the cutest couple in school produce a gigantic worm monster that settles in the basement and feeds on teenage scum. "Class of Nuke 'em High" is bottom-of-the-barrel horror film-making, with dialogs so dumb they hurt your ears and make-up effects that give a whole new meaning to the word tasteless. If you enjoy watching faces melting away, getting crushed or splitting in half, this is definitely a must-see! Unlike the aforementioned "The Toxic Avenger", this film suffers from a couple of really dull and overlong moments where nothing really significant happens, like for example when Chrissy and Warren try to figure out what's wrong with their hormones. The crude humor isn't as effective as in "Toxic Avenger" and the acting performances are unforgivably amateurish. Proceed only if you're an avid Troma-fanatic.
Tromaville High has become an amoral wasteland of filth thanks to the aftereffects of the nearby nuclear plant's accidental release of toxic waste.<br /><br />Unrestrained chaos crammed with absurd violence and crude behavior. Rather horrible, obviously intended to be, mess of a film with the filmmakers cutting loose the reins allowing the untalented cast free reign to ham it up. Craft was far down Troma's list of objectives for this gory sleazefest. The honor society are punks with eerie face paint jobs and wacky outfits. The German teacher who becomes a member, through a "toxic kiss" has the streaks down one side of her face that really gave me the creeps.The toxic monster, which dispatched the ANNOYING punks towards the end, is pretty cool, though.<br /><br />Kind of movie trash connoisseurs will embrace wholeheartedly.
This film might have weak production values, but that is also what makes it so good. The special effects are gross out and well done. My favorite part of the movie had to be Chrissy played by Janelle Brady. She is super hot and also has a good nude scene. Robert Prichard as the leader of the gang is hilarious, as are the other members. This film is actually trying to make a point, by saying that nuclear waste plants are bad. 4/10 Fair comedy, gross out film.
I absolutely adore the 'Toxic Avenger' series, but this weak offering by the Troma people didn't make any sense, and it had me yawning all the time.<br /><br />A leaking nuclear plant (and the growing weed next to it) makes the youngsters of Tromaville High go nuts, which causes them to join a gang, have sex, explode, and whatever. Also there's some sort of monster breeding in the high school... my God, this movie's a mess.<br /><br />The actors pretty much stopped their efforts after this one and they should. The (intended) overacting started to get on my nerves in about 5 minutes...<br /><br />Disappointing. 2/10.
What to say about this movie. Well it is about a bunch of good students who have some bad drugs and turn into delinquent students that sell more of the bad drugs to people. Two of those people have adverse effects as one turns into a toxic avenger type and his girlfriend throws up some creature that grows in the school's basement. That is about all there is to it and they stretch it out for 84 minutes. This movie is pretty bad and should be locked away forever. Though that is not fair, some people like Troma's movies and they can watch it if they want. Troma movies for me though, are the worst movies there are out there. I just watched this one out of morbid curiosity.
It looks to me as if the creators of "The Class Of Nuke 'Em High" wanted it to become a "cult" film, but it ends up as any old high school B-movie, only tackier. The satire feels totally overshadowed by the extremely steretyped characters. It's very un-funny, even for a turkey.
This film has a special place in my heart as the worst movie I have ever seen. It is about as fun as doing hard manual labor with stomach cramps. The movie starts out bad (I would rate the first few minutes of the film a 1/10) and then it get progressively worse, minute by minute. The only way to rate it at all would be some kind of abyssmal spiraling negative number that grows for ninety, long minutes. Unfunny is not a real word but it best describes the humor in this video. Somehow the video manages even to make cute, scantily clad females and sex look grotesque and distasteful. This movie is amazingly bad. I would say it would be better to be locked up with the TITANIC theme playing over and over and with Buscemi's character from ESCAPE FROM LA droning on in your ear than to watch this movie. The sequels are not nearly as bad. If you have to rent a Troma film, get Tromeo and Juliette or Combat Shock. I would rather watch 5 Tony Little infomercials back to back than to see CLASS of NUKEM HIGH again. Don't get me wrong, it took some kind of criminal genius to make a movie this terrible and if ever a movie deserved an award for being awful, this is it.
First one was much better, I had enjoyed it a lot. This one has not even produced a smile. The idea was showing how deep down can human kind fall, but in reference to the characters not the film-maker.
I saw Arthur(the TV series and the books)years ago and never was fond of the show very much(if you're a fan of this cartoon,sorry if I'm spoiling it for you,but this is actually what I think).Lots of people liked it,but I didn't.<br /><br />The school kids characters seemed to fought all the time(especially Arther and DW),they were nice to each other frequently,but gradually I got tired of Arthur's complaining attitude towards everyone and his sister DW(however the name was spelled),and DW was an ADHD(or ADD)-like 4-year-old sister of Arthur who was sometimes demanding(which could be why Arthur got annoyed with what her routines were,like her imaginary friend and her stuffed animal collection etc.),Arthur's friends acted like teenagers instead of what they were like in the Arthur books,and the parents,well,they didn't care very much.<br /><br />The greatest cartoon was Rocko's Modern Life,not Arthur(no offense).
This programme bugs me! There is no humour to it and is far too serious to be called "fun"! It's just far too educational for my liking! The characters are very stereotyped and unappealing. The plots are redundant and the morals are just repeated over and over again. Where's the fun in it? Also I feel this has been on the BBC for far too long and is broadcast way too much. Does it really need to have a slot on T.V every 2 or 3 months when a brand new show runs out of episodes? I think it's time that the BBC starting bringing back some of their older shows like: Inspector Gadget, Bananaman, The Smurfs, Snorks, Moomins, the Raccoons and Count Duckula other than continually giving contracts to these newer shows! I thought the BBC where bring back Danger Mouse, so what's going on with that?! 3/10
Like all cult TV shows, there is a group of people who love The Twilight Zone so much that they rate practically every episode like they are the greatest shows EVER. While several of them are indeed wonderful classics, the truth is for every great episode, there were several that were mediocre and at least one that stank. However, like die-hard Trekkies, these Zone lovers insist that all of them are gold. In fact, this is what initially got me to review some individual episodes of a couple cult series instead of the movies I usually watch.<br /><br />While this isn't the worst episode ever made nor is it among the very worst, it is poor by any reasonable standard. A widow watches a long procession of Civil War soldiers going past her home. In the end, a very unexpected twist is revealed and there isn't a whole lot of excitement or suspense here.
Curiously, Season 6 of the Columbo series contained only three episodes and there is very little evidence of quality in at least two of the scripts, based on this outing for the "man-in-the-mac" and also "Fade into Murder".<br /><br />Furthermore, it is not a coincidence that Peter S. Feibleman penned both the aforementioned scripts (incidentally he plays the part of the murdered security guard here).<br /><br />This adventure is very rarely compelling and many of the performers just look disinterested with the material. The story is rather weakly developed with some protracted periods of boring conversation.<br /><br />Columbo is also shadowed by a colleague here(similar to "Last Salute to the Commodore") but the entertainment value is minimal. To add to this, Celeste's Holm characterisation, which is intended to provide comedy, induces embarrassment rather than laughs.<br /><br />The script wavers off to deal with the family history and the murderess does enough to gift Columbo the case, though there is never a credible discussion relating to the motives of her crime.<br /><br />Ironically, what turns out to be, arguably, Columbo's worst adventure produces the funniest moment in the series. He quizzes a male hairdresser and has a haircut/manicure at the same time. The next 5 minutes are hilarious - it's just that Columbo's hair is so perfectly groomed, then he can't afford to pay the bill and then, when he makes enquiries at a jewellers he keeps glancing in the mirror to admire his hairstyle!<br /><br />Sadly, this is the only decent moment from a script that looks like it has been cobbled together in ten minutes. <br /><br />For Columbo completionists only.
This was a very brief episode that appeared in one of the "Night Gallery" show back in 1971. The episode starred Sue Lyon (of Lolita movie fame) and Joseph Campanella who play a baby sitter and a vampire, respectively. The vampire hires a baby sitter to watch his child (which appears to be some kind of werewolf or monster) while he goes out at night for blood. The baby sitter is totally oblivious to the vampire's appearance when she first sees him and only starts to put two and two together when she notices that he has no reflection in the mirror, has an odd collection of books in the library on the occult, and hears strange noises while the vampire goes to talk to the child. She realizes that the man who hired her may not be what she thought he was originally. She bolts out the door, the vampire comes out looking puzzled and the episode is over. I don't know what purpose it was to make such an abbreviated episode that lasted just 5 minutes. They should just have expanded the earlier episode by those same 5 minutes and skipped this one. A total wasted effort.
This movie is a pathetic attempt, apparently, to justify the actions of Mary Ann Letourneau. In order to do this, they cast a 19-year-old -well, probably not "in order to do this." There was no way they could have cast a 12 or 13 year old as the boy because the love scenes would have grossed everyone out (if they had even been allowed to do them) - as they should. Mary Ann's boyfriend was my nephew's age, making her a pedophile. Sixth grade, people. The definition of pedophile doesn't have to include many children - all you need is one.<br /><br />I really don't care about her upbringing or her unhappy marriage. She had a responsibility to her students that she did not live up to. The reason given is that she is bipolar, rejected the diagnosis, and refused to take her medication. It's understandable, then, that she was not thinking rationally. One hopes that she now understands her actions.<br /><br />Now that she and Vili are married and have two children together, I pray that she is on her medication and thinking clearly.<br /><br />All that aside, Penelope Ann Miller was totally convincing and perfect casting for the role.
An actor asks, "What's my motivation?," to understand his or her character. After viewing this this "docudrama," this vague and haphazard farce, a viewer wonders what anyone's motivation was.<br /><br />This inept offspring of daytime T.V. (the Oprah show) missed by a mile a great opportunity to explore weighty issues.<br /><br />Its characters were all shallow and superficial, its story line far less socially redeeming than a "Simpsons" episode. It gratuitously portrayed investigating police as unprofessional and incompetent. It failed to offer why the court might treat the main character, a female child molester, so differently than it would have a male perp.<br /><br />Why did this unrepentant woman begin "grooming" her second grade student, beginning an affair with him when he returned to her sixth grade class? Why did the boy's mother testify in her behalf? The simple answer is overwhelming narcissism, plus generational rationalization and greed. The movie gave no hint of that.<br /><br />Why wasn't the viewer informed that the victim's mother sold interview rights to print and television tabloids, parading her adolescent son on "The Today Show"? That Mary Kay's lawyer cashed in, she herself appealing a "Son of Sam" statute so she could benefit from her crime by selling her story to the highest bidder?<br /><br />Why wasn't it explained that LeTourneau's father was a former right wing Republican congressman, the 1972 American Independent Presidential candidate, the John Birch Society President? In 1983 John Schmitz's political career ended when he was found to have had children by his own community college student, exposed only when that mistress sexually mutilated their infant son? Yet Letourneau's dad had removed his many kids from "too liberal" Catholic schools, fighting to keep all schoolchildren from receiving any sex education?<br /><br />A month after her conditional release, again pregnant with the now 14-year-old's second daughter, Mary Kay received 7 1/2 years in prison for numerous probation violations. A prophetic editorial regarding the sad affair then appeared in the Seattle Times: "At the end of two wretched hours, LeTourneau was led off to jail, and this salacious melange of made-for-TV seaminess was over, until casting begins."<br /><br />Sure enough, 18 months later, filming of this travesty was underway.
This is just one more of those hideous films that you find on Lifetime TV which portray the abhorrent behavior of some disgusting woman in an empathetic manner. Along with other such nasty films as "The Burning Bed," "Enough," or "Monster," this film takes a disgusting criminal and attempts to show the viewer why she's not such a bad person after all. Give us a break! Here's my question to the filmmakers: If LeTourneau were a man, and Vili were a 12 year old girl, would you have made a picture sympathizing and empathizing with this person? Answer: Hell no.<br /><br />Imagine switching the genders in this film, and then you'll see just why myself and others here consider this a worthless piece of garbage. Were the genders switched, there would be no attempt to empathize with the criminal. Instead, we'd likely be treated to a portrayal of a monstrous and hideous man preying upon a young girl, his lascivious behavior landing him in prison, and his brainwashed victim suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. The only reason LeTourneau does not receive the same treatment in this film is by virtue of her sex.<br /><br />Let's call a spade a spade. LeTourneau is a pedophile. Plain and simple. No ifs, ands or buts. She's a criminal who belongs in prison, and deserves our derision and contempt, but certainly not our pity or empathy.
Saw this piece of work at a film fest in CA. My god, what was the director thinking? Film professors should use this film as a case study on what NOT to do when making a short film. First off, this project makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The film takes place partially in "The Waystation", some stupid vapid bar in the middle of nowhere, where nothing really takes place.<br /><br />THe acting is beyond bad. So bad in fact that I almost thought it was a comedy. The lead actress Julia Reading is a step below the acting in most amateur porn films. There is one or two decent performances, including the guys who played Jacob and Fenner but it's like the director had no clue on how to work or use his thespians. The only thing worse than the acting was the dialogue, which bordered on absurd. The writer (whom I assume is also the director) writes each character like they are auditioning for a comic book villain.<br /><br />The overall production value is pretty good, but to be honest, with a film this bad it's easy to overlook it. The production design is pretty good, although the Waystation looks like any ordinary bar. The costumes and make-up are okay, and I understand the production was working with a low budget. It's just when the characters speak, or they try and push the plot forward, the film unravels into a muck of crap.<br /><br />As I've said, this film is god awful. It's like the director/writer watched a lot of sci-fi films and threw all the parts he liked into a blender and came up with this. My only hope is that he used other people's money on this, because if he used his own, he's a total sucker.
Wow, this film was just bloody horrid. SO bad in fact that even though I didn't pay to see it, I still wanted my money back.<br /><br />The film is about nothing intelligible. It's a mish-mash of sci-fi cliche's that were done better by much more skilled film makers. The performances, especially by the leads were over the top in a less endearing Ed Wood sort of way. Speaking of Ed Wood, he'd be proud of the character's dialogue. It's just too taciturn with no hint of irony or sense of humor. On top of that, it doesn't make sense, nor does the plot, or lackthereof.<br /><br />The visual effects are okay, but not enough to go "oh wow, that's cool" and they just seem to be thrown in to "be cool" rather than be a good plot device.<br /><br />The soundtrack was another mishmash of stuff that really never set any sort of mood. Again, it seemed as if the director was just throwing in songs in the film in an effort to "be cool".<br /><br />Which brings me to my final point. Perhaps if the director actually worried more about plot, story and dialogue instead of trying to "be cool", he wouldn't have made such a dorky cliche' of a short film.<br /><br />
OK I caught this film halfway through, but.oh.dear.god.it.sounds.like.they're.all.reading.from.scripts.<br /><br />Especially that guy who is now in Teachers and the Book Group, although at least he has proved that he can act if he wants to! (the part where someone has a heart attack stands out as a bastion of bad film making both in terms of acting, scripting and general plausibility) It quite clearly appears to be a cash-in on Human Traffic, but whilst that is not the best film ever, it is at least original and had actors whose delivery did not resemble that of earnest-yet-hopeless GCSE students trying to get a pass grade. Not so much as Human Traffic as a bit of a car crash!
As far as films go, this is likable enough. Entertaining characters, good dialogue, interesting enough story. I would have really quite liked it had I not been irritated immensely whilst watching at the utter disrespect it shows the city it is set in.<br /><br />Glasgow. In Scotland. Yet every character is English (save for Sean's girlfriend, who is Dutch). Scottish accents are heard only fleetingly in menial jobs & roles. As a Scottish woman (& as a viewer who likes her "real life" films to be a bit more like real life) I really don't think it would have hurt to use any one of the countless talented Scottish actors...or at least got English ones who could toss together a decent accent! The futile attempt at using the word "wee" a few times did nothing but to further the insult.
Filmfour are going to have to do a lot better than this little snot of a film if they're going to get the right sort of reputation for themselves.<br /><br />This film is set in Glasgow (although only a couple of secondary characters have anything approaching a Scottish accent). The premise, about people who's lives are going nowhere, who all meet up in the same cafe in the early hours of the morning as they have night jobs, COULD have made for a really funny, insightful, quirky, cultish film. Instead we have a group of self-obsessed saddos and a plot which has been so done to bits I'm suprised it hasn't been banned. X and Y are friends. X is sleeping with Z. Y sleeps with Z as well. Oh you figure it out.<br /><br />A total waste of time. Painful dialogue - it sounded like something that a group of 16 year olds would have written for a GCSE drama project. The female character was completely superfluous - just written in as a token female in the hope that women would be cajoled into seeing it.<br /><br />If you're the sort of thicko lad who laughs at beer adverts and can usually be found wandering round in packs shouting on Saturday nights in nondescript town centres then you will love this film and find it "a right laff". Everyone else, run, don't walk away from this sorry little misfit.<br /><br />And one question, when the group left the "boring" seaside town (Saltcoats incidentally although they changed the name on the film), to go back to Glasgow, WHY did they do it via the Forton motorway services at LANCASTER which is in England?
Such a pretentious and lame attempt to hipness. Diabolical script and dialogue and truly embarrassing acting. Really the worse movie I have ever seen(at the cinema). Nothing in my opinion saves this movie from being a total disaster. I saw it when it came out in a cinema in Brighton. People were walking out and there were more people chatting outside the toilets than in the auditorium! At the end there were boos and scorn from the meagre crowd left, which was quite sad as relatives of one of the main actors were present and looked really sheepish. However the movie was that bad that I really could not feel like that sympathetic with them. Everybody has to start from somewhere and their son started off his acting career with this truly awful attempt at 'Tarantinism made in the UK'. 5 years have gone bye, but sometimes I still cringe at the memory of that sad night at the movies! This is a movie with no redeeming features whatsoever! I gave it a 1 as 0 was not available. They should invent a 'shameometer' for everybody involved in this sorry mess of a movie. I know some of them have moved on to better things, the positive thing is that none of them could have sank any lower than this.
The idea is to have something interesting happening in the first ten minutes to keep the audience hooked. Late Night Shopping manages to avoid interest for much longer than that. When we do get to a point, it is so monumentally moronic that I kept thinking I must have misunderstood it. But I didn't.<br /><br />Sean tells the story of an Osaka landlord who rented the same apartment to two people at the same time who worked different shifts and so didn't realise they were sharing. His friend asks "But what about the weekends?" Sean doesn't have an adequate explanation. Sean then tells the story of his own similar problem, which is that he isn't sure his girlfriend is still living at home as he works during the night and she works during the day so they never see each other. This has been going on for three weeks. But his friend doesn't ask: "Yes, but as I said before, what about the weekends? You must see her then. It doesn't make sense. What are you going on about, Sean? Are you on medication or something?" But let's be generous and assume that they both work seven days a week.<br /><br />We see Sean checking to see if the soap and towels have been used. (In fact, bizarrely, he starts to carry the soap around with him.) But what about his girlfriend's conditioner and shampoo, sanpro and moisturiser, toothpaste and toothbrush. Let's go to the kitchen. What about food and drink? Is any missing? Has any been bought? In the bedroom, has the shared bed been made or not? Are her clothes being used and exchanged for clean ones? Is the laundry basket fuller? In the toilet, is the seat up or down? I mean, good grief!<br /><br />And to cap it all Paul arranges to leave work early to see if his girlfriend is still living at home. Why doesn't he just phone her?<br /><br />But it gets worse. In the last act although no-one told Vincent where the rest of the group are going he manages to find them. Lenny's love interest and Sean's girlfriend conveniently appear to be best friends and also manage to find the group. There isn't even the slightest attempt to explain any of these extraordinarily unlikely coincidences.<br /><br />To be fair the dialogue is OK but not nearly good enough to make up for the weak characters or annoyingly lame story.<br /><br />I heard one of actors interviewed and he promised "no guns, no drugs, no corsets." I thought, "great". But after half-an-hour of tedium I was yelling at the screen: "I want guns! I want drugs! I want corsets!"<br /><br />It wouldn't have taken much to sort these problems out but on the official website the director boasts that the film wasn't script-edited. That's all you need to know.
Doris Day never lets a bad script get her down. Even in the most trying of circumstances, Day gives 100% and usually comes out unscathed. This comedy, perhaps inspired by a real-life New York City black-out in 1965 but actually adapted from a late-'50s French play by Claude Magnier, gives Doris little to do but spoof her own goody-goody image and, in the second-half, be comically sedated (which is amusing because of the spin Day gives to the situation). There are some funny lines here, yet the staginess of the material has obviously been carried over from the play...and instead of conjuring up some amusing incidents within the Big Apple, we get stuck in the suburbs. Doris' co-stars (Patrick O'Neal, Robert Morse, and Terry-Thomas) are not well-suited to her, and neither is the shapeless hairdo they've got her wearing. Still, it's not terrible, it features a few big laughs, and for Day-buffs it's a must-see. ** from ****
Only the most ardent DORIS DAY fan could find this one even bearable to watch. When one thinks of the wealth of material available for a story about New York City's most famous blackout, a film that could have dealt with numerous real-life stories of what people had to cope with, this scrapes the bottom of the barrel for lack of story-telling originality.<br /><br />Once again Doris is indignant because she suspects she may have been compromised on the night of the blackout when she returned to her Connecticut lodgings, took a sleeping potion and woke up in the morning with a man who had done the same, wandering into the house by mistake.<br /><br />Nobody is able to salvage this mess--not Doris, not ROBERT MORSE, TERRY-THOMAS, PATRICK O'NEAL or LOLA ALBRIGHT. As directed by Hy Averback, it's the weakest vehicle Day found herself in, committed to do the film because of her husband's machinations and unable to get out of it. Too bad.
For loyal Duran Duran fans who want to watch a good music video, skip this one. The producers decided to get creative and make this 80's video something of a sci-fi story, involving the evil Barbarella villain from which the band got its name. <br /><br />What makes this idea fail is that right in the middle of some great 80's Duran Duran songs, confusing and annoying cut scenes take place showing the fictional antagonist trying to stop the band at one of their concerts. Not only is the good music repeatedly interrupted, but we have to suffer through some cheap spin-off story hosted by an evil Dr. Mario. It's almost too much to bear. 2/10
Ooof! This one was a stinker. It does not fall 'somewhere in between Star Wars and Thriller', thats for sure. In all actuality, it falls somewhere between the cracks of a Wham! video and Captain EO, only with not as big of a budget, and a lot more close ups of ugly teenagers crying. Simon Le Bon preens front and center, while the rest of the band gamely tries to hide the fact that they stole their whole career from Roxy Music's last 3 albums. Brief clips from Barbarella add nothing. Avoid at all costs. (However, I liked the part when they played 'Hungry Like The Wolf' but why was there a tiger lurking in the audience changing into a woman painted with tiger stripes? I mean, they aren't singing 'Eye of the Tiger' or 'Hungry like the Tiger' it's a Wolf! Whatever.) A DVD of Duran Duran's '80s videos is probably worth a look for nostalgia's sake
It was 1974 and it starred Martin Sheen.<br /><br />That alone says what to expect of this movie.<br /><br />And it was a movie. According to the movie, Slovik had reformed, got a good woman, and didn't want to fight.<br /><br />In real life, Slovik may have been a naive innocent, or he may have just wanted to manipulate the system.<br /><br />Whoever Slovik was or wasn't is for history to decide, but this was a movie that dealt with dessertion at a time when a country was questioning why it was fighting, and the movie took sides.<br /><br />With no regard to servicemen who were in Viet Nam either in 1974 (as Willie Nelson would say, let's tell the truth, it was about the Viet Nam war, not WWII), EoES was as propagandistic as Gung Ho was in the forties.<br /><br />According to this movie, Slovik stated his position, plain and simple. He had a nervous problem. Heck, I have a clinical nervous condition, and trust me, if I had done military duty, it would have been no problem for me to either just let my nerves go and fail at my tasks and get a demotion or put on KP duty or latrine duty with no problem.<br /><br />If we believe the teleflick, Slovik didn't have that option, no doubt because of his criminal history.<br /><br />Whatever the viewer wants to believe is up to the viewer. I've learned that movies from this decade or that decade, in dealing with service or military duty, will pretty much take the same stance over and over.<br /><br />1940s and 1950s, serve your country.<br /><br />1960s and 1970s, mock your country.<br /><br />This is the history.<br /><br />The whole movie seemed predictably Hollywood to me. He refused to serve and only when he was being strapped up to be executed does he show emotion.<br /><br />Such an emotional outburst could have easily worked to his advantage in his declaration of his nervous condition, but obviously the movie wanted to show him as a human being and only when he is about to die does he become sorrowful.<br /><br />I'm not a Catholic, but I thought the recital of the hail Mary by Ned Beatty and Sheen at the end, with the Lord's prayer, was funny as it sounded like they were trying to see who could say it faster.<br /><br />I don't see how this movie could be watched without realizing it was aimed at Tricky Dick Nixon and the Viet Nam war.<br /><br />I hope it was all worth it for Slovik and anyone who chose to follow his example.
Too bad, I really like Kristen Cloke and Gary Busey. But the director failed to put this together. There's a lot of action, a lot of promise, but it all comes off hokey. The director didn't do his job. Promising action comes off lame. So much seems contrived in a desperate attempt to save the film. This version of "The Rage" (DirecTV credits it as 1996) simply isn't worth the time to watch it. Another director would have done a better job.
Aside from the horrendous acting and the ridiculous and ludicrous plot, this movie wasn't too bad. Unfortunately, that doesn't leave much movie not to suck. Do not waste your time on this film, even if you find yourself suffering from insomnia, as I did. Watch an infomercial instead.
Of all the films I have seen, this one, The Rage, has got to be one of the worst yet. The direction, LOGIC, continuity, changes in plot-script and dialog made me cry out in pain. "How could ANYONE come up with something so crappy"? Gary Busey is know for his "B" movies, but this is a sure "W" movie. (W=waste).<br /><br />Take for example: about two dozen FBI & local law officers surround a trailer house with a jeep wagoneer. Inside the jeep is MA and is "confused" as to why all the cops are about. Within seconds a huge gun battle ensues, MA being killed straight off. The cops blast away at the jeep with gary and company blasting away at them. The cops fall like dominoes and the jeep with Gary drives around in circles and are not hit by one single bullet/pellet. MA is killed and gary seems to not to have noticed-damn that guy is tough. Truly a miracle, not since the six-shooter held 300 bullets has there been such a miracle.
I have been a huge Lynn Peterson fan ever since her breakthrough role in the 1988 blockbuster movie "Far North", and even though I loved her in her one other film "Slow" (2004) where she plays "Francis", this is by far and away her strongest role.<br /><br />Lynn, as I'm sure you all know (or should), plays the critical role of "Driver".<br /><br />Unfortunately, other than Lynn's amazing performance, I'm afraid this movie doesn't really have much going for it.<br /><br />Oh wait - there was one other thing - the amazing creativity of the editing to remove profanity for TV viewers. Memorable lines like: "You son-of-a-gun!", "You son-of-a-witch!", "Shoot!", and "Well, Forget You!"<br /><br />O.K. Bye.<br /><br />P.S.: Does anyone know where I can get another Lynn Peterson poster?
Cecil B. deMille's 1922 parlor-to-prison tearjerker Manslaughter finds the lovely Leatrice Joy as a good-at-heart but decadent young lady with more money than she knows what to do with. Her recklessness leads to imprisonment, which in turn leads to her regeneration. Thomas Meighan is the crusading district attorney who has made it his personal crusade to bring out the goodness and wholesomeness in Lydia (Joy) but he gets sidetracked by alcohol and once she is released, it is up to her to rescue him!<br /><br />If the plot doesn't sound too bad, you'll be floored by the woeful presentation. The quality of deMille's direction is very low, and he does not show any particular skill that is unique to him. The photography is standard and flat, and the editing is hardly more dynamic. One could easily classify it as a fashion show and be pretty correct. DeMille gets to dress Miss Joy up in so many different types of clothes (evening gowns, golfing costumes, motoring costumes, piles of furs) that it's subtitle could be 'Fashions of 1922'<br /><br />One thing more disappointing than the photography or editing or the direction is the acting, which is mostly flat and wooden. When it is not, it is merely routine silent gesturing, rolling eye balls, twitching eye brows and deliberate pointing and arm movements. What would have been enlivened for modern viewers by mugging and scene chewing of some of the worst silent films, is here merely dull to watch. The only member of the cast who succeeds in any form of excellence is Lois Wilson, who is not only beautiful but is able to play her role naturally. She is convincing and endearing in tearful close-ups, as long as you don't read the moralizing title card that follows once she opens her mouth to speak. Like I said, everybody else is droningly routine, Joy, Meighan, even Julia Faye. Her performance here makes a good argument for why she never attained true stardom.<br /><br />The worst and most amusing part of this movie is the heavy moralistic tone that carries through all of it. Meighan's character has plenty of intertitles where he drones on about how the youth of America is declining in it's moral stance, and going right back to the decadence of Rome. (insert absurd flashback) This movie's moralizing has been described as Victorian, but it's further than that. It has so little bearing in reality that I have a feeling audiences at that time didn't take it any more seriously than modern viewers could.<br /><br />This movie is exactly what the unknowing tend to think of as a 'typical' silent movie, with it's archaic moral structure, wooden acting and bad direction. DeMille shows that he could be a terrible director, with no sense of pacing, camera placement, or skill in handling either script or actors. I can't imagine anybody in their right mind taking it seriously. Boring, slow and idiotic, I recommend it to hardcore silent movie dorks like myself only.
I am quite a fan of novelist/screenwriter Michael Chabon. His novel "Wonder Boys" became a fantastic movie by Curtis Hanson. His masterful novel "The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay" won the Pulitzer Prize a few years back, and he had a hand in the script of "Spider Man 2", arguably the greatest comic book movie of all time.<br /><br />Director Rawson Marshall Thurber has also directed wonderful comedic pieces, such as the gut-busting "Dodgeball" and the genius short film series "Terry Tate: Office Linebacker". And with a cast including Peter Saarsgard, Sienna Miller, Nick Nolte and Mena Suvari, this seems like a no-brainer.<br /><br />It is. Literally.<br /><br />Jon Foster stars as Art Bechstein, the son of a mobster (Nolte) who recently graduated with a degree in Economics. Jon is in a state of arrested development: he works a minimum wage job at Book Barn, has a vapid relationship with his girlfriend/boss, Phlox (Suvari), which amounts to little more than copious amounts of sex, with no plans other than to chip away at a career for which he has zero passion.<br /><br />One night at a party, an ex-roommate introduces Jon to Jane (Miller), a beautiful, smart violinist. Later that night they go out for pie, and she asks Jon a question that begins to shake him from his catatonic state of existence, "I want you to tell me something that you have never told a single soul. If you do, it will make this night indelible." Jon then tells her a reoccurring dream of his in which he wanders about town looking at the faces of strangers passing him by, yet none of them look him in the eye. "I imagine it must be what death feels like," he says.<br /><br />The next day Jane's wild boyfriend Cleveland (Saarsgard) kidnaps Jon from work and takes him out to a hulking abandoned steel mill, and soon Jon, Cleveland and Jane are spending every waking moment together going to punk rock concerts, doing drugs and drinking lots of alcohol. This doesn't sit well with Phlox, who pushes Jon for a more personal relationship, namely letting her meet his new friends and his father. The film then attempts to take us on Jon's journey as he shakes off the shackles imposed on him by his father, Phlox and his dead-end job as he finds freedom and expression through his relationships with Cleveland and Jane.<br /><br />There is a problem having us follow Jon throughout the film: he's completely uninteresting. He has no ambitions, passions or goals. He walks through life like the invisible wraith he described to Jane the night they met. At the outset this isn't a problem. But he never gets any more interesting. He's a completely passive character. He simply follows along the bohemian Cleveland and Jane, but he never once gives us any inkling as to what he cares about or wants to to do with himself.<br /><br />Consequently, the film and its supporting characters have nowhere to go and little to do other than party, have sex and get in arguments. In other words, much ado about nothing. What we have here is the shallow skin of a good movie without anything on the inside. Sweeping cinematography, ponderous voice-over with characters staring off into the distance, lots of sex scenes both straight and gay, big arguments, more angry sex, a chase scene and a tragic death... but it doesn't seem to matter. Ironically, at one point Jane, confused at a number of Jon's aimless actions, asks him, "What's going on, Jon? What is this all about?" Yes, Jon, do tell. We in the audience are dying to know, too.<br /><br />The title "The Mysteries of Pittsburgh" must refer to the characters themselves, because that's what they are. They are all facades, one-dimensional stand-ins for actual people. The film never lets us in. We never know what makes any of them tick. We see them do lots of things, but we don't know why. And the absence of "why" is one of the worst things a movie can have.
Based on the novel by Michael Chabon, The Mysteries of Pittsburgh is about the young son of a notorious gangster who spends his last teenage summer roaming around with two friends. The year is 1983, and young Art Bechstein (Jon Foster) is at a crossroads. Completely opposed to his father's lifestyle, Art plans to become a stockbroker. Visually contrived with painful attempts to create beautiful hip indie cinematography, the whole film feels like the director - whose previous effort Dodgeball was funny if outright commercial - is desperately seeking indie credibility by cobbling together aspects of other indie films but sprinkling it with stars like Mena Suvari, Sienna Miller and Nick Nolte. Like so many of the star-laden premieres at Sundance this year it felt like this was a secrety studio-sponsored vanity project to help the director earn some indie credibility points - it failed in that respect and as a film in its own right.
A friend of mine gave me this movie. A friend of mine is now in a hospital were a team of doctors are trying to surgically remove a DVD casing from his ***. <br /><br />I got quit excited by the prospects of an other Michael Chabon movie. After all his novels have brought me much entertainment and previous screenplay adaptations were great, but boy, was I wrong.<br /><br />First off the people that did the casting must have been asleep whilst doing so. I imagine the castings went something like this. "Tell me, do you like fish?" "Yes I enjoy fish very much." "Wonder full, you're hired. Have some money." <br /><br />Than there is the script. I have read Chabon, who I hope went blind before he could see this piece of dong, and it has absolutely nothing to do with his novel. I'm not quit sure why it annoyed me like it did, but it might have something to do with the fact that listening to a speech impaired 90 year old drunk duck hunter with a right cranial lobe dysfunction would have been a treat in comparison to the one-liners these 2nd degree model massacre kids spat out.<br /><br />This is an actual line from the movie; "If you tell me something that you've never said out loud to anyone before, than this moment becomes unique!" Unique? Does it? Does it really? Off course not you plank. Please pass me the Imodium. I'll have a whole ****ing strip. <br /><br />The directing is... well. I've got nothing. Maybe Rawson Marshall Thurber just got word his grandmother exploded or something. Stick to directing comedies. No stick to directing commercials. <br /><br />This movie is so horrible it left me banging my head against a wall so hard it brought me back to the stone age. I give it 2 stars because I don't wanna be the guy that watched a 1 star movie.
...they bothered making this movie? Anyone? I didn't think so.<br /><br />If you are looking for a coming-of-age movie, go rent Summer of '42. This is no Summer of '42.<br /><br />When your big stars are Nolte & Sarsgaard, & Sarsgaard gets more screen time, that is your first warning sign And, of course, for such an "artsy" movie, there is plenty of cursing & skin flung around, just to make it look "artsy".<br /><br />Sarsgaard did his usual uninteresting, cardboard character, punctuated by moments that were supposed to be intense. The intensity is that of someone with bi-polar disorder.<br /><br />Miller is most famous for her looks & what she had to say about the city of Pittsburgh after this movie. Pittsburgh SHOULD hold a grudge against her. She misrepresented an actual Pittsburgh native.<br /><br />Foster gave Sarsgaard a run for his money in the cardboard acting style. Wow! Was this his first role after high school graduation?<br /><br />So, we have this weird triangle. Foster has a crush on Miller, but is with his boss/girlfriend. He can't take Miller to bed, & won't take his boss to bed. So, he hangs with Sarsgaard & Miller, & watches them get it on.<br /><br />Then, after one of Sarsgaard's pseudo-intense moments, Foster & Miller get it on, a scene that we are "treated" to in every sloppy, moaning detail. Finally, just to round it all out, Foster & Sarsgaard get it on, with Foster in the Miller role. Now I know how 2 guys get it on (as if that was ever anything I needed to know).<br /><br />After all that, all that's left is the tragic ending for one character & the retrospective views of the remaining 2. It gets me right in the pit of my stomach. Oh, wait! That was the pepperoni pizza I just had.<br /><br />I'd like back the time this movie took out of my life, please.
Wow. What a terrible adaptation of a beautiful novel. Here are just a few gripes. - The screenwriter eliminated two major characters from the book. - Plot has been grotesquely altered. - Voiceovers sound as if they were directly lifted from written passages (which may read well but are not the same when spoken, especially with Chabon's writing style). - The acting is more wooden than a log cabin. (Esp. Bechstein) - This is supposed to be set in 1983??? Feels more like 2003... <br /><br />To be fair I couldn't bring myself to finish watching this movie, so it's possible that it redeemed itself... (sarcasm). I truly hope that no one paid to see this, or at least anyone who read the book hoping for something decent (a la Wonder Boys). I like Chabon as a writer but he should be ASHAMED of this adaptation.<br /><br />No stars.
Noel Coward,a witty and urbane man,was friends with Louis Mountbatten.Mr Coward,a long-time admirer of all things naval,was commissioned to write a story loosely based on the loss of Mountbatten's ship.In a peculiarly British way it was considered that a film about the Royal Navy losing an encounter at sea would be good propaganda.It was also considered a good idea to have Mr Coward play the part of the ship's captain.Amang the many qualities needed to command a fighting ship,the ability to speak in a very clipped voice and sing sophisticated "point" songs does not come very high up the list at Admiralty House,or at least one would hope not.A captain must earn and retain the respect of the wardroom and the lower deck alike. Mr Coward might have had the respect of the gentlemen of the chorus at Drury Lane and Binkie Beaumont might have been terrified of him but his ability to tame,mould and direct a ship's crew in wartime must be brought into question.He folds himself languorously around the bridge,patronising the other ranks and barking orders at the officers,he only needed a silk dressing gown and a cigarette holder to seem right at home. Much is made of the "warship as a microcosm of British Society"theme,and the crew largely comprises of the usual cheery cockneys,canny northerners etc.without whom no war can be fought.They spend most of their time on board smoking,moaning about Lord Haw Haw and getting blown up. Never mind,there's plenty more where they came from.Once ashore they go straight to the pub where they spend most of their time smoking,moaning about Lord Haw Haw and getting blown up .By contrast Mr Coward lives in a dream cottage with a rose covered door somewhere very quiet with very little chance of getting blown up.He,his lady wife and their two rosy cheeked cherubs converse in ludicrously convoluted tones and said lady wife spends much of her time knitting things for the poor unfortunates who comprise his crew and who she refers to by their surnames.That nice young master Johnny Mills has a prominent role as a completely unbelievable lower deck type who worships Mr Coward in much the same way as a thrashed dog will worship its master.He marries his girlfriend after kissing her on the cheek,presumably on the grounds that she might be pregnant after such unfettered passion. So yes,we do have a microcosm of British society here,but perhaps not in the way the makers of "In which we serve" intended. At the end Mr Coward gets one last chance to patronise his men as the few survivors shuffle past him,"Goodbye Edwards,it was a privilege to sail with you"he enunciates as if he was reciting "How now brown cow". It may have been David Lean's feature debut,but the hand of Noel Coward looms large right across this picture.He was a funny and clever man,better suited to writing waspish plays about poor little rich girls and boys interspersed with the occasional wry song.He had a talent to amuse,no doubt,but he could neither write nor speak convincing dialogue. Being Noel Coward was a full-time job,he had no time to be a real person.
A battleship is sinking... Its survivors, hanging onto a nearby liferaft, sit there doing nothing while we go into each of their minds for a series of long flashbacks.<br /><br />Even though Noel Coward's name is the only one that you notice during the credits, everything that's cinematic in it is because of Lean. And on technical terms, its very good. David Lean just KNEW films from the get-go. There are many moments where Coward's studied dialogue takes a second seat and Lean's visual sense takes centre stage. Try the soldiers getting off the ship near the end, and that whole scene; the tracking shot towards the hymn singing, the scene where we're inside a house that gets bombed.<br /><br />Noel Coward is one of the worst actors i've ever seen. He's totally wooden, not displaying emotion, character or humanity. You can see it in his eyes that he's not really listening to what the other performer is saying, he's just waiting for them to finish so he can rush out his own line.<br /><br />7/10.<br /><br />Its episodic, a bit repetitive, and the flashbacks overwhelm the story: there's no central story that they advance, just give general insights into the characters. Still, its an interesting film worth a watch - and a good debut for Lean. Its not a very deep or penetrating film, and its definitely a propaganda film, but its also a showcase for Lean's editing skills - its all about how the pieces are put together.
This is your typical Priyadarshan movie--a bunch of loony characters out on some silly mission. His signature climax has the entire cast of the film coming together and fighting each other in some crazy moshpit over hidden money. Whether it is a winning lottery ticket in Malamaal Weekly, black money in Hera Pheri, "kodokoo" in Phir Hera Pheri, etc., etc., the director is becoming ridiculously predictable. Don't get me wrong; as clichéd and preposterous his movies may be, I usually end up enjoying the comedy. However, in most his previous movies there has actually been some good humor, (Hungama and Hera Pheri being noteworthy ones). Now, the hilarity of his films is fading as he is using the same formula over and over again.<br /><br />Songs are good. Tanushree Datta looks awesome. Rajpal Yadav is irritating, and Tusshar is not a whole lot better. Kunal Khemu is OK, and Sharman Joshi is the best.
Priyadarshan- whenever a person heard his name, his first thought would be 'comedy'. That is what this man is known for, or rather, was known for. After giving stupendous blockbuster comedies like Hungama, Hera Pheri and Hunchul, his train derailed slowly with movies like Chupke Chupke and a few others whose names I can't recollect for now. Now with hideous films like Dhol, the first word that would strike our mind after hearing his name would be- 'torture'.<br /><br />Dhol is a mixture of bad, unfunny toilet jokes, somewhat of drama, poor suspense and idiocracy. The only good thing about Dhol was one or two of the scenes which were funny, though not witty, and secondly, except for Kunal Khemu and the hysterical grandma, the acting was decent. <br /><br />Speaking of the acting, I felt that Rajpal Yadav and Sharman Joshi were at the top (if you compare them with the others in the movie), then came Tusshar Kapoor, then Tanushree and at the last the two idiots mentioned above. The flaw in Kunal Khemu was that he was loud in his jokes and even in his acting. The grandma, firstly resembled a ghost, plus she was not funny at all but rather silly.<br /><br />The plot was the same, seen before one. Four boys behind girls and in need of money, but with a few twists. There is a 'bad' man who is preposterously stupid and dumb. And at last, the good wins over the bad and everything is fine. The idea of having a Dhol with a tone full of cash in it is simply not witty.<br /><br />The worst thing about the movie is its length. After an hour or so, you get exhausted and want to leave the theater. But being a critic, it is my responsibility to tolerated the whole two and half hours of the movie. THe movie goes on and on and the same kind of jokes are repeated again and again and the situations are perennial just at a different place.<br /><br />If your mother-in-law has arrived to your house and starts mocking you at everything, then send her for this movie and have fun. 3 out of 10.
The movie starts with a nice song Looks like a thriller, with Arbaaz Khan walking around in a suspicious way but then suddenly we are forced to a comedy With the routine stupid idiots like GOLMAAL with Tusshar, Sharman, Kunal and Rajpal acting like grown up kids Their scenes are quite funny first and then get boring There is a bored sub plot of Tanushree's brother being killed Towards the end the film tries to get serious with the villain kidnapping our heroes but here it gets even stupid Then a lengthy bashing bashing climax straight out of HERA PHERI and wait, there is also a long chase in Payal's house<br /><br />The film is so boring that it makes you fall asleep<br /><br />Direction by Priyan is very bad music(Pritam) is routine except the first song<br /><br />Cinematography is bad, the film has a cheap look throughout<br /><br />Rajpal Yadav is good in his 1st scene where he goes to pay his rent and i was happy that the actor isn't loud and over the top like other films But No, He becomes his usual self and gets irritating most of the times Tusshar should not speak in a film, his dial delivery is terrible Sharman is the saving grace, He is the sole actor who acts very well in this film Kunal Khemmu tries hard in his first comic film as an adult, But doesn't impress much Tanushree is bad as always Arbaaz Khan gets less scope and is usual Payal is a non actress Murli Sharma is terrible
Another Priyadarshan/Vohra flick another movie that was seen for TP rather than actual desire, the only reason i did see this movie was the fact that the regulars were not there in this movie (Akshay Paresh and many others), but needless to say i had low expectations from this movie.<br /><br />I was happy with the casting in general except, Rajpal Yadav who once again annoys to no limit, he does however extract some laughs, but these were those standard slapstick non-original jokes, in fact this whole movie is like playing the dhol, I mean it takes hardly any talent to make loud noise, or even play the odd good beat on the dhol for a small time does it?? Its only those who can carry different beats in a nice sequential manner, for an extended period who are considered great.<br /><br />Which brings us to the other instrument, the Dumroo hardly requires any talent, it has no variations, and it may be enjoyable for a while the monkey dances (hmm sounds like Rajpal Yadav, good analogy), but its not a instrument that will entertain you for long or even get you dancing like the Dhol does.<br /><br />This movie was like the dhol and the dumroo being played, sometimes the Dhol was played sometimes the dumroo, sometimes both together, but mostly the Dumroo played alone and the monkey danced. And like any 24 year old sooner than later I got bored.<br /><br />The movie has some good Dhol (good) moments but after a while all i heard was the annoying Dumroo (entertaining initially, then tolerable then irritating), the large ordinary parts really ensure this movie is mainly good for a few funny clips on "MERE BHAINS KO ANDA KYUN MARA" (if you haven't watched it watch it on Filmy, it comes in the evenings and is really quite funny).<br /><br />This movie had its moments, the actors did a fine job, except Rajpal Yadav (who can act though, I've seen him in Main Meri Patni…) who annoys more than entertains, I've said it many time and I'll say it again I really think Sharman Joshi and Tushar Kapoor have a fine career ahead of them in the multi-star comedies especially.<br /><br />Some scenes were really funny such as the aborted attempts to impress the girls father, the zany attempts to woo the girl and take her away from each other.<br /><br />But after this was over there was a failed attempt to make this movie into much more with a mystery added, this mean that once the girl was in, the following 45-60 mins was increasingly torturous, the climax was "SO BAD ITS ALMOST GOOD CATEGORY", I mean what were they thinking if you had to have tense ending at least make some attempt to make it palatable.<br /><br />The movie is also extremely predictable, there's hardly a scene you cant predict and you wont be breaking into spontaneous burst of laughter here, its more like you see it coming and almost start laughing before the gag.<br /><br />The movie follows a gradual decline throughout the movies except for the odd bump, down or up, and then rapidly tumbles downhill once they have made friends with the girl.<br /><br />Most of the really bad scenes were towards the end, one the movie tries to be more than a run of the mill comedy, also many of the jokes were very very stale and reeked of repetition, THE LAST 10-15 WAS ESPECIALLY DISTATEFULL AND COMPLETELY SPOILS THIS MOVIE.<br /><br />I didn't find Tanushree Datta quite the siren she was to play, and her acting talent is in serious question, especially in view of her non-appealing looks, if you cant be a HOT and cant act how much time can you survive.<br /><br />Technically also this movie was weak, with the constant female gaze and shoddy lighting and camera-work.<br /><br />The songs except the title track were no good either, when the songs played in the 2nd half I could feel the collective gasp from the audience.<br /><br />In all a movie that's just ordinary merely because of the cast, and the very low expectations.<br /><br />Avoiding it wont be a bad idea.<br /><br />And if it has to be watched watching it on TV for free or a very cheap matinée or something is a must, if you pay full multiplex rates you will feel disappointed.<br /><br />-s lots of stale jokes, RAJPAL YADAV, LAST 45 MINS AND LAST 15 MINS ESPECIALLY, bad technically, bad songs.<br /><br />+/-s tries to be more than what it was, not the regular cast (I'm happier for it), Tanushree Datta.<br /><br />+s some good scenes towards the beginning,title song, good acting and cast except RY.<br /><br />total 4.5/10 (I'm trying to be objective here, i don't like Rajpal Yadav or Tanushree Datta and this movie did meet my very low expectations, so I'm giving it the benefit of all doubts, on absolute terms this movie was not more than a 4)
A typical Goth chick (Rainbow Harvest looking like a cross between Winona Ryder in Beetlejuice and Boy George) gets even with people she feels have wronged her with the help of an old haunted mirror that she finds in the new house she and her mom (horror mainstay, Karen Black, the only remotely good thing about this travesty) buy. The acting's pretty laughably bad (especially when Rainbow interacts with the aforementioned mirror) and there are no scares or suspense to be had. This film inexplicably spawned thus for 3 sequels each slightly more atrocious than the last. People looking for a similarly themed, but far superior cinematic endeavor would be well advised to just search out the episode of "Friday the 13th: the Series" where a geeky girl finds an old cursed compact mirror. That packs more chills in it's scant 40 minutes than this whole franchise has provided across it's 4 films.<br /><br />My Grade: D <br /><br />Eye Candy: Charlie Spradling provides the obligatory T&A
`In the tradition of 'Carrie' and 'Heathers'? Try `a shameless ripoff of not only those two films, but 'The Evil Dead' and 'The Shining' as well.' That said, they really don't make bad horror movies like this anymore, and that's a shame, 'cause it's a gas.<br /><br />Rainbow Harvest is the Winona substitute here, and although she barely does more than mumble her lines (and occasionally scream, `YOU'RE UGLY!!!' into her haunted mirror), she's Goth way before it's fashionable, so you have to respect her. (And she's quite creative about it too, accessorizing with black leather scarves and a kind of black-spray-painted Hawaiian-Punch-guy hat. Eat your heart out, Cher.)<br /><br />Karen Black overacts a bit, but she's not totally without dignity, and you can't help but sympathize with her. (Unless you're a certain friend of mine, who asked, `Who is that, Horse Lips from 'M.A.S.H'?' the first time she came onscreen.)<br /><br />There are decent supporting performances by Kristin Dattilo (as the square chick who befriends Rainbow), Ricky Paull Goldin (in his trademarked wisecracking hunk role), and William `Larry, Darryl and Darryl' Sanderson (as some kind of pet undertaker, or something). But it's sad to see the once smokin' Yvonne DeCarlo reduced to playing what can only be thought of as the Charlotte Rae part.<br /><br />The eighties were the heyday for hilarious, mindbogglingly dumb horror movies like this, and `Mirror, Mirror' was one of the last of its kind. Definitely worth a look.
I got Mirror Mirror mainly because Yvonne De Carlo was in it (I thought she was great in American Gothic) but sadly she didn't have a very big role in this film. It starts off OK and the pace moves along nicely...but by the end it starts getting a bit tedious and dull. That's not to say that this is a boring film, but it's just very average and nothing spectacular. I didn't like the "posession" side of it and there were no decent gore scenes. Plus the 'main' story was very confusing and the ending doesn't make much sense at all. I did however like the story surrounding the Gothic girl and how she got revenge on her tormentors.<br /><br />I wouldn't particularly recommend Mirror Mirror to horror fans - it's nothing to wet yourself over.
Mirror. Mirror (1990) is a flat out lame movie. Why did I watch movies like this when I was younger? Who knows? Maybe I was one for punishing myself by watching one terrible movie after another. I don't know, I guess I needed a hobby during my teen years. A teenage outcast (Rainbow Harvest) seeks solace in an old mirror. Soon she learns about the horrific power this antique mirror has and uses it to strike out against those who have wronged her. Movies like these, the power giver has a nasty side effect. This one changes her inside and out if she likes it or not.<br /><br />A mess of a movie that for some reason was restored on d.v.d. a few years back. I don't know why. They should have left it on the shelf and collect dust. People love this movie foe some reason. If you do I would like to know why. Until then I dislike this movie and I have no reason to ever watch it again.<br /><br />Not recommended at all.
I've been using IMDb for a few years now, but have never written any reviews before. However, this movie so disappointed me (even with a modest score of 6.4 at the time of writing) that I couldn't keep quiet anymore.<br /><br />Noise is the story of a New Yorker (Tim Robbins)who is so perturbed by noise pollution that he takes on an alter-ego as a as a vigilante, "The Rectifier", and vandalizes any cars he finds with a car-alarm sounding.<br /><br />I take the name of the movie to be somewhat of a misnomer. Although there are one or two instances of other sources of noise being addressed or mentioned, the only true focus of our protagonist is car alarms. Car alarms, car alarms, car alarms. There is really no other focus. When the movie tries to tie other examples of noise pollution to the problem of car alarms, it seems to be just thrown in to give merit to the actions of Robbins' character. <br /><br />Yes, we're all annoyed by noise. Nobody likes the sound of car alarms. Of course we all have that internal urge to take a baseball bat to a shrieking vehicle, and this movie uses that fact, and pretty much that fact alone, to sell this movie. I say 'pretty much' because there is also a blatantly contrived sexual relationship (including a completely needless threesome) which is obviously thrown in for those movie-goers who need such things thrown in in order to enjoy a movie. Honestly, it's eye-rolling.<br /><br />Robbin's character, very shortly into the movie, becomes completely unrelatable. It seems less that he decides not to put up with the noise anymore, and more that by focusing so much on the noise he has begun to lose his sanity. The first half of the movie is essentially the story of how he turns from just an angry, car-bashing dude into this hero of the little guy, The Rectifier. However... the transformation doesn't take place. He just renames himself.<br /><br />I could go on for a while. Annoying generalized social commentary comes in every now and then to add to the pretentiousness of the movie, and the self-satisfied smirk which never quite leaves Robbins face doesn't help either. <br /><br />Overall, I think it's very obvious what this movie is trying to be, as it's pretty much shoved down your throat, but in my opinion, it fails in a big way. Just one guy's opinion, cheers.
What "Noise" fails to do is get us to understand its character. Tim Robbins plays an obsessive New Yorker who can't deal with the obtrusive noises of the city any longer, particularly car alarms. It's an odd idea for a film, which has about as much creative credibility as "Death Wish." It is clever at points; particularly a scene in which our hero is trying to read through Hagel, "I'm too stupid to be understanding this." He reads and rereads a paragraph in confusion, we read it and don't get it either.Just then a car alarm goes off. Throughout the movie is constant interference of alarms and city noises. Though, all in all it does little to help us understand our hero, who allows this all to ruin his marriage and gets distracted with side plots instead of digging deeper-into his persona. <br /><br />The film-making itself is too oblivious to notice its own sound problems, shoddy editing, and visible boom mikes. No, "Noise" isn't all-bad. William Hurt is at least colorful. At least the ending doesn't fall flat. Overall it drives home a logistical point, one you haven't probably thought of. At least I hadn't. Though all in all, ninety minutes long, it couldn't have ended sooner. The story dragged on and seemed to be lost as soon as it started.<br /><br />This is another one of those movies that you might see at a film festival, but probably won't get picked up for distribution. Check it out on DVD if you're really partial to someone involved in the project. Otherwise skip it.
This is one of those topics I can relate to a little more than most people as I hate noise & have no idea how those in big cities, New York especially how people get any sleep at all! It astounds me that people can stand all the noise out there these days. The basic plot of the film is that it makes for an interesting topic. It's too bad that's about it. Tim Robbbins is decent although except for a couple of scenes (especially with the absolute supermodel looking Margarita Leiveva) he didn't seem to really be altogether there. My biggest hope for this film is that casting agents will see the absolutely stunning & talented actress to boot, Margarita Levieva. She doesn't have a lot to do, but she is supermodel beautiful. Even when they are trying to make her look at more girl next door. It makes me sad that there can be people such as Paris Hilton & Kim Kardashian in the world w/no redeemable skills or talent, to have more fame and success than this talented beauty. I didn't care for much of this film because the script isn't very good, but am glad I got to see some new talent. I hope that producers & directors think about Margarita when they need a beautiful new actress to be in there big budget film. If they can make Megan Fox a star (c'mon she isn't that hot, & her acting "talent" is worse than made-for Disney channel TV shows) from 1 film, it should happen easily for her, as she is gorgeous & has talent! I'd recommend her changing her last name so we can pronounce it and make it more marketable. Here's hoping this makes her career, & if there is any justice she can pop up on some big summer movie or two in the next couple years.
WE FAW DOWN <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.33:1<br /><br />Sound format: Silent<br /><br />(Black and white - Short film)<br /><br />Stan 'n' Ollie get mixed up with a couple of floozies (Kay Deslys and Vera White) after setting out to visit a theatre which burns down in their absence! Needless to say, their tyrannical wives (Vivien Oakland and Bess Flowers) are not amused...<br /><br />Leo McCarey's OK comedy laid the narrative framework for William Seiter's masterpiece SONS OF THE DESERT (1934), with L&H playing brow-beaten victims of circumstance, forced to tell a monstrous lie which backfires in spectacular fashion. Much of it is very funny, especially the scene in which Stan is teased by Deslys, leading to a violent game of push and shove. However, some of the fun is undercut by Oakland and Flowers, playing their roles completely straight, which adds an element of unpleasantness to the 'henpecked husband' scenario. Originally released in the UK as WE SLIP UP.
Why do movie makers always go against the author's work? I mean, yes, things have to be condensed for the sake of viewer interest, but look at Anne of Green Gables. They did a wonderful job of combining important events into a cohesive whole that was simply delightful. I can't believe that they chose to combine three novels together for Anne of Avonlea into such a dreadful mess. Look at all they missed out on by doing that . . . Paul Irving, little Elizabeth, the widows, Windy Poplars . . . and Anne's college years, for heaven's sake!!! Wouldn't it have been delightful to meet Priscilla and all the rest of the Redmond gang? Kevin Sullivan should have taken things one movie at a time, instead of jumbling them all together and combining characters and events the way he did. This movie was good, if you leave the novels out of it!! But L.M. Montgomery's beautiful work is something that should not be denied. This movie was a let down after seeing the successful way he brough Anne of Green Gables to life.
This movie is like the material S.E. Hinton was writing in the 1970s and Copola was adapting to the screen in the early 80s, and, had Trueblood actually been a product of either, the results might've been much better (especially in the acting department). Instead, we get a rather so-bad-its-funny piece of mediocrity.<br /><br />Jeff Fahey plays Ray Trueblood, a former street rumbler, I suppose is the accurate description. This was in the days of action movies that used guys in their 40s and mid30s and dressed them up in greaser threads or some kind of more effeminate selection of gang garb and they fought to lousy 80s music. Nonetheless, Ray is the lone caretaker of his younger brother, Donny (Chad Lowe in a part where he screams a lot), who he is forced to leave behind inexplicably in a train station when, on the run from the cops, he is nabbed and forced to serve time in the Marines. Flash forward to present day and Ray is back in town and looking for his brother who has also become part of the street gangs, although in a gang that was Ray's adversary and now old scores must be violently settled (and again, cops must be dodged and this time, a lady's honor defended in the action film sense) before Ray can carry on life at normal pace with his brother, Donny.<br /><br />For the most part, the film is quite ridiculous. For me, most of this has to do with far too much overacting, although not by Fahey or Sherlyn Fenn who plays the waitress he befriends. The guys in the gang and Lowe himself seem to do quite a bit of needless exaggerated as New York street toughs. Although, the bigger hang up is recycled plot lines and perhaps a kind of movie that was well past its prime as a product of 1989.
Three Russian aristocrats soak up the decadence of Monte Carlo, despite the fact they are down to their last franc. In order to support their lavish lifestyle, the three use the services of a counterfeiter, and use the notes at the casinos, hoping to exchange the bogus currency for a jackpot. Andrew Hughes, a US envoy, arrives at Monaco with his wife Helen, and the three decide to make pals with the visitors, hoping for financial assistance. One of the three Russians, Count Sergius Karamzin, plans to go further, with continuous advance towards Helen, while disappointing the Count's maid, who loves Sergius. Eventually, circumstances play their hand against the three aristocrats. Its obvious that Von Stroheim was trying to convey a message (with the foolishness of American women and the improper behaviors of the aristocrats), rather than tell a story, and the film really can bore modern audiences, like me, easily by doing that. Even the acting, which is great in later EvS like Greed and the Wedding March, is just run of the mill here. The film could have used improvements on various levels. Rating, 3.
This was director von Stroheim's third effort - it is quite crude and shows none of the exceptional flair for the camera and editing mastery he would display a few years later with his masterworks, GREED and THE WEDDING MARCH. Essentially we have a trio of grifters, masquerading as a Russian count and two Russian princesses who have rented a villa in Monte Carlo. Their aim is to use counterfeit money at the gambling tables and win a fortune. Part of that plan is for the Count (von Stroheim) to insinuate himself between a visiting American ambassador and his "foolish" wife, wooing her and hoping to gain some money by playing on her weaknesses. He makes the mistake of also taking the life savings of the maid, whom he has promised to marry. When she sees them together, she sets fire to the room, (von Stroheim and his prey are on the room's balcony). Here von Stroheim first establishes his persona as "the man you love to hate." He is thoroughly bad and his character flaws eventually bring him to a very bad and deserved end. The film is crude in its cinematography and editing and not worth seeing unless you are fascinated by the director. There is a cute bit- when he first attempts to meet the Ambassador's wife, she is reading a book - we see the title - FOOLISH WIVES by Erich von Stroheim. This was originally envisioned as a 210 minute film, cut down to 140 minutes by the studio and finally released at 70 minutes. The restoration on Kino Video restores surviving footage (damaged in some way in most scenes) from the alternate earlier version to give us a 107 minute print.
Dil was a memorable movie that bring to the celluloid a great director like Indra Kumar. The movie followed with Beta, Ishq, Raja & Masti all of whom were superb.<br /><br />But then every successful director gives a few horrible movies alongwith some hits too. Pyare Mohan is one such movie.<br /><br />Though the comedies are told nicely but then they fail the viewer to laugh. Comparing with the kind of comedy movies being made today this is a dumb.<br /><br />If you really want to watch a movie and laugh, please don't watch this. Because the pathetic comedy will make you cry only.<br /><br />In short, the movie is worth a miss.
This movie is even a big step down form the typical fare dished out by Bollywood. The performances were horrible. Even Boman Irani, who always manages to shine, goes completely OTT as the villain. The soundtrack is not memorable either. And in spite trying hard, the female leads don't manage to be "sexy". Vivek Oberoi is capable of far better projects while Fardeen Khan seems to be stuck in similar fare for the time being. But this monstrosity is even beneath his limited capabilities as an actor. Esha Deol and Amrita Rao are horrible in badly written cliché roles. It's high time for Indra Kumar to hang up his directorial hat. Hope he never directs another eyesore like this. Future of Hindi movies are in better hands now. To sum it up, stay far away from waste of celluloid.
After the reasonably successful MASTI which was tad better Inder Kumar returned again with a comedy PYAARE MOHAN based on the Hollywood film SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL <br /><br />The film reminds you of HUM HAI KAMAAL KE(1994) where Kader and Anupam play the blind and deaf<br /><br />This movie is a tedious exercise<br /><br />The film has jokes of such nonsense that you don't feel like laughing like Snehal Dabi's head getting stuck in the back of the horse and all those type comedies which we don't laugh at now but mock <br /><br />The film starts off in a clichéd manner and some scenes are funny sadly such moments don't last long as the story never moves in this half even the comedy gets boring The twist is well handled and the second half becomes an action film where the blind guy and the deaf go to rescue the heroines and we have all OTT chase scenes and fight scenes<br /><br />Direction by Inder Kumar is bad Music is okay, one song stands out I LOVE YOU MY ANGEL<br /><br />Vivek is awful in the comic scenes, his timing is very bad and is okay in serious scenes For some reason he keeps doing comedy and ruined his career Fardeen Khan is tad better but too wooden Amongst the rest Esha and Amrita are the heroines Boman Irani annoys here Snehal Dabbi is okay
Pyare Mohan can be safely included in the blacklist of one of the worst-ever films made by mankind. The film, one of the many handicapped-people flicks that arose after the phenomenal success of Black is makes a mockery of the handicapped fraternity. Vivek Oberoi and Fardeen Khan are mere caricatures of handicapped people. While Black portrayed the poignancy and emotions of a handicapped woman and gave us a glimpse of her world, Pyare Mohan shows two desperado-like monkeys who have no qualms about being handicapped and bash up half of the world to protect their love interests. Anu Malik's music is fair enough. Vivek Oberoi who made a promising start with Saathiya is sadly losing his balls quickly in Hindi cinema. Fardeen Khan was never an acceptable actor and deserves to be banned from the film industry. Amrita Rao and Esha Deol are just pretty damsels in distress having nightmarish times in Thialnd with no one to save them - except for the afore-mentioned desperados. Boman Irani, as the villainous Don Toni, is somewhat acceptable. Avoid the film if possible.
I'm a big fan of movies that make you think. I'm still thinking long and hard about this one, fully seven minutes after the credits have rolled. What's really confounding my neurons is the attempt to fathom the relevance to the plot of the naked girlie fondling her slick oily body, made extra-tacky by being filmed on cheap video. This happens three times and I was certain it would be explained in the end. I put my trust in the film-makers that this lurid attempt to lure viewers would be justified. It was not.<br /><br />The movie has to be the most apathetic I've come across in the genre. The sets look like a cross between a 1970s Dr Who set and someone's ill-formed idea of a sponge-painted living room. The lighting is unimaginative (if your sets are going to be that bad, at least film them in semi-darkness to hide the plasterboard and create some ambiance). Of the abducted quartet, the girl stands out as being particularly lame, but none of them is given a personality. The aliens' plans for world domination are just plain silly - all they need is a birth control pill and their problems are solved. Most of the movie consists of people running down corridors. Yes, it really is that exciting. The "ray gun" special effect is ... curious, to say the least (what use is a weapon that takes a 15-second concentrated blast to kill, and even then the guy comes back for more?). The script is like a bad episode of The A-Team, and the ladies' hairstyles come from the same era, so they look like school teachers instead of an advance team of murderous alien invaders. When we finally get to see what the aliens really look like, they're in suspended animation and never even get out of their boxes. The resolution of the story - traitor alien simply has a few words with invading fleet commander and without a second thought he heads home - is truly the sign of a writer who's never had an idea more complex than a Saturday morning cartoon (I mean the bad ones with no plot, action, or characterization) in his or her life.<br /><br />But seriously, what is with the naked chick?! Was it really just so they could justify putting flesh on the DVD cover to boost sales?
This thing was bad. Really bad. I mean, low budget can sometimes be very inspiring, but not this. The story was so off-the-shelf, the alien's behaviour so illogical, the characters so clichéed. I found nothing good in it. And I did try.
The Christmas Secret was touted as a wonderful film, but I was truly disappointed. They even sold VHS and DVD copies of the film when it was over, which leads me to think the producers were really proud of this project. As a screen actor myself I felt most of the performances were phoned in, although Beau Bridges, as Nick, did have a moment or two. If I were Richard Thomas I would not put this film on my otherwise fine resume. It was an embarrassment. I had been a fan since his Waltons days, but have found myself untempted to watch any of his subsequent work, so poor was this offering.<br /><br />In defence of the actors, the directing was stilted, mechanical, and thoroughly amateurish.<br /><br />I hope this is not considered a spiteful review and negative assumptions made about my qualifications as a critic. I turned the movie on because it had a good cast and I was prepared to enjoy the film. However I would challenge any one out there to watch this film and not wish for their money back, even though it was on T.V.
THIS REVIEW IS MOSTLY ALL SPOILERS. IF YOU PLAN ON ENJOYING THIS FILM, DON'T READ THIS REVIEW.<br /><br /> That's the problem with kids TV nowadays. It's all so patronizing and condescending. `Wow, that was fun, wasn't it?' No it wasn't. And unfortunately it seems to have permeated into children films as well. And that is what 'Flight of the Reindeer' is all about. Admittedly I haven't seen 'Flight of the Reindeer' in a few years so I might be hazy on some points, but I remember being thoroughly unimpressed with it at the time.<br /><br /> Essentially, the story follows a lecturer who is given a book for Christmas. Now, the lecturer is an esteemed scientist on the flying habits of some animal. I think it was bullfrogs. Anyway, through this book, Mr Lecturer / family man learns that reindeer can fly in exactly the same way as bullfrogs. Apparently this book was written by a scientist many hundreds of years ago who disappeared in the North Pole. Now, if it were me I would have thrown the book out the nearest window. Flying bullfrogs are a naturally occurring phenomenon, but flying reindeer is a fantastic and wholly unrealistic concept. But, Mr lecturer ISN'T me, so I guess that explains why he decides to fly to the north pole leaving his wife and kid at home with no idea where he's gone. Of course, things go awry and before he knows it, a flying reindeer has crashed into his private plane and he's stranded at the North Pole.<br /><br /> Are you still following this? Good.<br /><br /> His family, of course, are devastated. I would be too, I mean, what a suck-tacular Christmas. Elsewhere, Mr lecturer finds himself in a hidden town at the North Pole inhabited by midgets and one tyrannical figure who dresses only in red and white. Rather than try to escape immediately, as I would have done, he greets everyone there with open arms. This hidden civilization of midget monsters, and he greets them with open arms. Oooo-kayyyy. They feed him this story that they are the elves of Santa Claus and they spend all year round making toys for kids they have no idea exist. And Mr lecturer accepts all this. He even accepts that Santa Claus is in fact the scientist who disappeared two hundred years ago or whatever. There's just one problem - they don't want him to leave. The world can't know of their secret existence. After all, before they'd know it there'd be a McDonalds and a Starbucks on every street corner.<br /><br /> Still with me?<br /><br />Now, Mr nice guy's family find the book and assume he's gone to the North Pole. Boy, wouldn't they be embarrassed if they found out he'd just gone for a brisk walk? Before the audience knows it, they're jetting off to spend a Christmas in the most authentic winter wonderland on the planet. Meanwhile, Mr lecturer gets sick of all the uppity midgets and decides to leave. I can't remember exactly, but I do recall him holding Santa Claus to gunpoint. A fire fight ensues when the midgets attack and he manages to escape via Santa's sleigh. With Santa hot on his heels and with bloodlust in his eyes, Mr Whatever, through some marvellous co-incidence, finds himself flying alongside his family's plane that is looking for him. So he jumps on to their plane, the planes flies back and everyone lives happily ever after.<br /><br /> The fact is, there have been some shocking films made in the name of Christmas over the years but because they feature that festive charm they get away with it. And it's that charm that is utterly devoid from 'Flight of the Reindeer' There isn't much wrong with it; nothing which insults the intelligence (well, obviously there IS, but it's a kids film and thus can get away with such things) or anything particularly offensive, but the problem is there is nothing much right about it either. It just doesn't FEEL Christmassy. And for a film that is all about Christmas, that it a pretty major flaw. But hey, I don't think 'Flight of the Reindeer's target audience mind about that? Why should they? They're all so doped up on sedatives they probably couldn't spell `Christmas'<br /><br /> I give it three out of ten. If it was a TV-Movie then I'd add another two stars onto it. We all know how bad they can get.
If you want to watch a real 'quality' movie get hold of The Eden Formula. This wondrous film must have cost all of $50 to make. It features a wafer thin script, pathetically bad sets, lighting and camera work, and a stop motion, paper-mache monster that is utterly laughable (it looks like they sometimes used a guy in a rubber suit and/or a glove puppet for the monster - but all were equally dreadful). <br /><br />The actors all speak their lines as though they've never seen them before and are reading off a teleprompter. The special effects are way beyond lousy. And the only sad thing is that they dropped the really nifty original title 'Tyranasaurus Wrecks' which sums up exactly what you get for the full 90 minutes.<br /><br />This is what happens when you scrape the bottom of the barrel so hard you break through to the crud that lies underneath. <br /><br />I loved every minute of it.
My first opinions on this movie were of course bad.I was expecting a horrible, crappy acting, bad entertainment, ridiculous special effects movie.What I got was actually not that bad.The special effects were absolutely horrible, but I found the movie itself quite interesting, and the script was actually pretty good and decent.The acting wasn't THAT bad, and overall I had fun watching this movie.It's still a pretty bad film, but it's not completely worthless like I thought it was going to be, and I'm pleased to know that this movie managed to wow me, even when it wasn't that good.Overall, it's a film that should be avoided, but to me it wasn't as bad as I was expecting it to be.
I got this as a turkey movie and was I not disappointed.<br /><br />Acting - overall even though many have been in other movies it is clear that they had to work hard to act this bad so constantly over this entire movie with out accidentally letting slip some degree of acting.<br /><br />Plot - being generous I could say that the scriptwriter did originally start with a plot but but did his best to ignore it. the plot broke down faster then a Chinese knock off computer <br /><br />Scrip - now that was an abomination of nature. it failed to flow with any rhyme or reason. the majority of the lines by the characters were at best pathetic to imbecilic. the script worked hard to make sure that no character managed to get to be considered memorable. I have watched other movies where the extras were more interesting and memorable.<br /><br />Special effects - ROTFLMAO!!!!! They were short bus special <br /><br />Directing - until you can come up with your own directing ability copy the style of your favorite directer otherwise you will only make failures like this.<br /><br />It is good to know that your friends/family have been giving you 10 stars for this movie
You ever get that itch to just kill an hour or two doing chores and watching a movie so bad it defies reason? Well, out renting movies one weekend i see the box art for this one and see the T-Rex. Knowing full well that the dinosaur on the package was the T-Rex from Jurassic Park, I KNEW I had to rent this just cause I was in the mood for a bad movie.<br /><br />I was not disappointed in the least.<br /><br />Mad scientists, secret formulas, a company more concerned about its fortune and shareholders than lives, and of course, a big, poorly animated, sock-puppet T-Rex. Is it me our through out the movie was there scenes clearly spliced from other movies? Not to mention the Rex's hungry is never satisfied...ever. How he has hungry is beyond me because he actually doesn't have an throat (Really if you look down his mouth when he roars, it's solid...like a toy or something). Now, I like watching incredibly bad B-Movies from time to time because it reminds me how much better a blockbuster movie is. This one was hilarious. I'm not even sure if this was supposed to be a thriller or a comedy, because there are scenes where, make no mistake, you will laugh. <br /><br />Do I blame the movie's budget...yes, but the acting didn't help either. OK, Tony Todd was actually pretty good, as for some of the female roles...when you cry shouldn't "tears" come out? Meh, I am not going to be angry at this movie, i knew what i was getting into and if you're looking for a bad movie to watch with friends, here's what I recommend: Watch this movie, then immediately watch Jurassic Park and then Lost World back to back. You will be writing Mr. Spielberg thank you letters the next day.
I gave this movie a single star only because it was impossible to give it less.<br /><br />Scientists have developed a formula for replicating any organism. In their lab(a run down warehouse in L.A.), they create a T-Rex. A group of industrial spies break in to steal the formula and the remainder of the film is one endless foot chase.<br /><br />Of course the T-Rex(a rubber puppet)gets loose and commences to wipe out the cast. It has the amazing ability to sneak up within 2 or 3 feet of someone without them noticing and then promptly bites their head off.<br /><br />One cast member escapes in a police car and spends the remainder of the film driving aimlessly through the city. She is of such superior mental ability that she can't even operate the radio. She never makes any attempt to drive to a substation or a donut shop and appears hopelessly lost.<br /><br />The T-Rex wreaks havoc throughout the city, there are blazing gun battles and buildings(cardboard mock-ups)blowing up, but a single police car, or the army, nor anyone else ever shows up. Such activity must be commonplace in Los Angeles.<br /><br />We can only hope that a sequel isn't planned.
This film is so unbelievable; - the whole premise is bunkum; the fact that a serial killer (vampire or otherwise) could fly around untraced and kill as many people as the film implies is laughable. The vampire himself would not look out of place in a Bela Lugosi film. Most of the acting is so wooden the actors should be treated for dry rot. I await the day when someone makes a decent film from a Steven King novel (with the exception, possibly, of Stand by Me). This film suffers from what most Stephen King films do - lack of money used for the "special" effects, poor actors, appalling characterisation and dialogue. This film is cheap, tacky and fails in everything it tries to do.
Would have better strengthened considerably by making it as a<br /><br />50 minute episode of the Outer Limits. Too much superfluous material and stuff like the chief bad guy looking like he'd escaped from The Phantom of the Opera didn't help. The whole 'Night of the Living Dead' sequence was extremely silly and quite unnecessary. After all, if the dead were to punish anyone for their sins, now remind me exactly who was killing everyone again?
This is just short of a full blown gore fest based on a Stephen King story. Two tabloid reporters, one seasoned(Miguel Ferrer)and one not so accomplished(Julie Entwisle), begin to believe that a serial killer(Michael H. Moss) may actually be a vampire. Stranger than odd is this modern day blood sucker does not wing his way naturally, but by way of a black Cessna he seeks his victims. The gore actually gets gruesome as the film nears its stupid finale. Keep in mind that Mr. King had nothing to do with this film. I do admit it is a bit scary in the wee hours of the night.
SPOILERS All too often, Hollywood's Shakespeare adaptations entertaining pieces of cinema. Beautifully shot they are well performed and faithful to the text. Films including Branagh's "Henry V" and 1993's "Much Ado About Nothing" are powerful pieces of work. Watching "Love's Labour's Lost" therefore, it's such a huge disappointment for expectation to be so hideously thrown to waste. Sadly "Love's Labour's Lost" is awful! The King of Navarre (Alessandro Nivola) and his friends have forsaken drink and women for three years to focus on their studies. Plans begin to fall apart however when the enigmatic Princess of France (Alicia Silverstone) and her entourage arrive. Soon love is in the air and philosophy is off the Prince's mind.<br /><br />From the start, you realise that this film is not quite Shakespeare. Cleverly relocated into a 1930s musical by Ken Branagh, the plot is still there and the script remains, but now it has been sacrificed in favour of dire musical taste. Classics like "The Way You Look Tonight", "Let's Face The Music and Dance", "I'm in Heaven" are all destroyed by weak singing and a strong feel that they just don't belong here.<br /><br />Aside from weak singing, we are also treated to an increasingly large number of awkward performances by regular stars. Ken Branagh and friends might enjoy making this film, but they provide us with a stomach turning collection of roles.<br /><br />The main eight actors (four men & four women) are all equally dire, and the only positive on their behalf is a vast improvement on the truly dreadful Timothy Spall.<br /><br />In fact, only one individual leaves the film worthy of any praise and that's the consistently magnificent Nathan Lane. Lane has proved over the years that he is a comedy genius and in this feature he once again adds an air of humour to the jester Costard.<br /><br />There's little else to be said really. "Love's Labour's Lost" deserves mild praise for Branagh's original take on an old tale. Unfortunately though, that's where the positives end. Weakly acted, performed, sang and constructed, "Love's Labour's Lost" is perhaps the weakest Shakespeare adaptation of the last forty years. It should be avoided like the plague and should never have been made. A poor, disappointing choice by Branagh and here's hoping his next effort is better.
This self-indulgent mess may have put the kibosh on Mr. Branagh's career as an adapter of Shakespeare for the cinema. (Released 4 years ago; not a peep of an adaptation since.) I just finished watching this on cable -- holy God, it's terrible.<br /><br />I agree with the sentiment of a reviewer below who said that reviewing something so obviously and sadly awful is an ungenerous act that comes across as shrill. That being said, I'll take the risk, if only because *Love's Labour's Lost* is the perfect reward for those who overrated Mr. Branagh's directorial abilities in the past. Branagh has always been a pretty lousy director: grindingly literal-minded; star-struck; unforgivably ungenerous to his fellow actors (he loves his American stars, but loves himself more, making damn sure that he gets all the good lines).<br /><br />Along those lines, the sad fact remains that *Love's Labour's Lost* is scarcely worse than the interminable, ghastly, bloated *Hamlet* from 1996. In fact, this film may be preferable, if only because it's about 1/3 the length. Branagh decided it would be a good idea to update this bad early work of Shakespeare's to the milieu of Cole Porter, George Gershwin, Fred Astaire, yada yada. So he sets the thing in 1939, leaves about an eighth of the text intact in favor of egregious interpretations of Thirties' standards (wait till you see the actors heaved up on wires toward the ceiling during "I'm In Heaven"), and casts actors not known for their dancing or singing (himself included). The result is a disaster so surreal that one is left dumbfounded that they just didn't call a horrified stop to the whole thing after looking at the first dailies. I don't even blame the cast. To paraphrase Hamlet, "The screenplay's the thing!" NO ONE could possibly come off well in this hodge-podge: the illustrious RSC alumni fare no better than Alicia Silverstone. Who could possibly act in this thing?<br /><br />Branagh's first mistake was in thinking that *Love's Labour's Lost* was a play worth filming. Trust me, it isn't. It's an anomaly in the Bard's canon, written expressly for an educated coterie of courtiers -- NOT the usual audience for which he wrote. Hence, there's a lot of precious (and TEDIOUS!) word-play, references to contemporary scholastic nonsense, parodies of Lyly's *Euphues* . . . in other words, hardly the sort of material to appeal to a broad audience. Hell, it doesn't appeal to an audience already predisposed to Shakespearean comedy. The play cannot be staged without drastically cutting the text and desperately "updating" it with any gimmick that comes to hand. Which begs the question, Why bother?<br /><br />Branagh's second mistake was in thinking that Shakespeare's cream-pie of a play could be served with a side-order of Gershwin's marmalade. Clearly the idea, or hope, was to make an unintelligible Elizabethan exercise palatable for modern audiences by administering nostalgic American pop culture down their throats at the same time. But again, this begs the question, Why bother?<br /><br />
I think this is one of the weakest of the Kenneth Branagh Shakespearian works. After such great efforts as Much Ado About Nothing, etc. I thought this was poor. The cast was weaker (Alicia Silverstone, Nivoli, McElhone???) but my biggest gripe was that they messed with the Bard's work and cut out some of the play to put in the musical/dance sequences.<br /><br />You just don't do Shakespeare and then mess with the play. Sorry, but that is just wrong. I love some Cole Porter just like the next person, but jeez, don't mess with the Shakespeare. Skip this and watch "Prospero's Books" if you want to see a brilliant Shakespearean adaptation of the Tempest.
I've read comments that you shouldn't watch this film if you're looking for stirring Shakespearian dialogue. This is true, unfortunately, because all the stirring dialogue, this wonderful play contains, has been cut, and replaced with songs. I've read this play, and recently was lucky enough to see it performed, at it remains one of my favourite Shakespearian Comedies, but this movie seems to take all that I like about it away. The Princess, though no doubt doing what she was directed to do, had no regal bearing, and all the girls seemed to lose the cleverness of their characters - also affected by unwise cuts, which not only took away the female characters already sparse dialogue, but took comments out of context - it was a little unnerving to hear the Princess proclaim; "We are wise girls to mock our lovers so!", when mocking had not taken place at all. The news reels throughout the film also disrupted the flow, and took away many excellent scenes, as they showed the information in the scenes after them, and were in modern phrasing. In conclusion, an excellent play, ruined by an odd concept, and unwise cuts. Kenneth, I usually love what you do. What were you thinking?
Kenneth Branagh attempts to turn William Shakspeare's obscure, rarely-produced comedy into a 1930s-era musical, with the result being both bad Shakespeare and bad musical comedy as the actors are rarely adept at one or the other of the two styles and in some cases flounder badly in both. Particularly painful is Nathan Lane, who seems to be under the impression that he is absolutely hysterical as Costard but is badly mistaken, and Alicia Silverstone who handles the Shakespearean language with all the authority of a teenaged Valley Girl who is reading the script aloud in her middle school English class.<br /><br />The musical numbers are staged with the expertise of a high school production of "Dames at Sea," leaving the cast looking awkward and amateurish while singing and dancing, with the lone exception being Adrian Lester who proves himself a splendid song and dance man. The only other saving grace of the film are Natascha McElhone and Emily Mortimer's contribution as eye candy, but they have given far better performances than in this film and you'd be wise to check out some of the other titles in their filmographies and gives this witless mess a pass.
I do get irritated with modern adaptations of Shakespeare when the director can't make his mind up whether to use the original or to update it. If it's using the original words in an updated setting, that's particularly tricky if set in the 20th or 21st century although it can work OK in period styles, eg the Trevor Nunn Twelfth Night set late Victorian very effectively. It could work with the 30's setting if only there had been far less of the song and dance and far more of Shakespeare's text. Unfortunately, it just ends up being a pretty trivial though very pleasant show. <br /><br />Another problem is Branagh himself. I agree he's far too old to play one of the students but more important, he's such an experienced Shakespearean actor that in spite of all his efforts to be just another student, his strength of acting shows all the time. Of course he should have played the King - no problem in having a mature student King surrounded by younger students. Instead we had a pleasant but unimposing actor for the King, thus an unimposing so-called King with no Kingly attributes. <br /><br />The amount of song and dance, which I found tedious in spite of the nice songs and pleasant enough dancing, unfortunately meant the great Shakespearean dialogue had to be cut down drastically. So the whole thing ends up a trivial and mild confection, and I got very bored, including with the comic turns, and was glad when it ended. Branagh has not done Shakespeare justice in this production.<br /><br />Accolades however to Richard Briers and Geraldine McEwan, absolutely splendid as the older couple.
I am a Shakespeare fan, and I can appreciate what Ken Branagh has done to bring Shakespeare back for a new generation of viewers. However, this movie falls short of conveying the overall intentions of the play with the ridiculous musical sequences. Add that with Alicia Silverstone's stumbling over the dialogue (reminiscent of Keanu Reeves in Much Ado About Nothing) and other poorly cast roles, it all equals an excruciating endurance of viewing.
"Carriers" follows the exploits of two guys and two gals in a stolen Mercedes with the words road warrior on the hood hightailing it down the highway for the beach with surfboards strapped to the top of their car. Brian (Chris Pine of "Star Trek") is driving and his girlfriend Bobby (Piper Perabo of "Coyote Ugly")has shotgun, while Brian's younger brother, Danny (Lou Taylor Pucci of "Fanboys") and his friend--not exactly girlfriend--Kate (Emily VanCamp of "The Ring 2") occupy the backseat. This quartet of twentysomething characters are living in a nightmare. Apparently, a viral pandemic--which co-directors & co-scenarists Alex Pastor and David Pastor tell us absolutely nothing about--has devastated America. Naturally, the lack of exposition shaves off at least fifteen minutes that would have slowed down this cynical melodrama about how humans degenerate in a crisis and become their own worst enemies.<br /><br />This lethal virus gives you the shingles and then you bleed and die. Most everybody runs around wearing those white masks strapped to their nose and mouth by a thin rubber band. Initially, this foursome encounters a desperate father, Frank (Christopher Meloni of "Runaway Bride"),and his cute little daughter Jodie (Kiernan Shipka of "Land of the Lost") blocking the highway with their SUV. Brian swerves around Frank when he tries to waylay them, but in the process, the oil pan in their Mercedes ruptures and they wind up on foot. Reluctantly, they hitch a ride with Frank after they seal Jodie up in the rear of the SUV. She wears a mask over her nose and mouth and it is speckled with blood. Frank has heard that doctors are curing ailing people at a hospital and they head to it. Sadly, somebody has lied to Frank. The hospital physician is giving the last couple of kids some Kool-Aid that will put them out of their misery. The cure did not improve their condition. Everybody else in town is dead. Kate tries without success to get a dial tone on every phone. Frank realizes that there is no hope for his daughter and he lets the heroic quartet appropriate his SUV and take off.<br /><br />Indeed, "Carriers" qualifies as a relentlessly depressing movie about the effects of a pandemic on four sympathetic people who degenerate into homicidal murderers to protect themselves. They reach a country club and frolic around on a golf course until another four show up in suits and masks with pump-action shotguns. Incredibly, our protagonists manage to escape without getting shot, but Brian has a scare when he almost falls into the water with a floating corpse. Eventually, they discover that one of them has become infected. Later, as they are about to run out of gas, Brian blocks the highway like Frank did at the outset. Danny tries to stop a pair of older Christian women driving the car. Danny lies that his pregnant wife is about to give birth and he needs their help. Brian throws caution to the wind and blasts away at the ladies with his automatic pistol when they refuse to help them. Brian catches a slug in the leg from the passenger, but he kills her. <br /><br />No,"Carriers" is not a beer & pizza movie that you can either laugh off or laugh with because the humor is virtually non-existent. By the end of this 84-minute movie, our heroes have turned into villains who only care only for themselves and their plight. Chris Pine makes quite an impression as fun-loving Brian and his energetic performance is the only reason to hang with this hokum, while the only other well-known actress, Piper Perabo, is relegated to an inconsequential girlfriend role. As Bobby, she makes tragic the mistake of showing compassion to a dying little girl and pays an awful price. It is a testament to Pine's performance that he can change his character to the point of putting himself before others. Essentially, Pine has the only role that gives him the ability to pull a one-eighty from happy-go-lucky guy to heartless guy. <br /><br />The two directors are Spanish brothers, and they never let the momentum flag. Since there is no relief in sight, "Carriers" sinks into predictability. "Irréversible" cinematographer Benoît Debie does a fantastic job with his widescreen lensing and as unsavory as this road trip becomes, Debie makes it look like a dynamic film. Aside from the lack of a happy ending or closure in any sense of the word, "Carriers" suffers because it is so horribly cynical. The scene when the German shepherd attacks Danny conjures up the most suspense, but even it could have been improved. Unfortunately, the Pastor brothers do not scare up either much tension or suspense. By fade-out, you really don't care what happens to anybody.
I really hate most end of the world movies. They show what jaded Hollywood people think of the rest of the world, and they clearly think we're a bunch of sadistic idiots (or at least that watching sadistic idiots react to things is somehow entertaining). I've been to L.A. many times, I have family that works in show business, and I just want to say that these are the *last* people we should be looking to for a reality check. Some disaster movies at least paint a clever picture: Children of Men, 12 Monkeys, but usually the message is just "people will do anything to survive, all is dark and sad and purposeless, we should all be ashamed of ourselves".<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of a story that explores throwing off the system of social order and testing people's mettle in the face of horror, and I do believe some people would act like this film portrayed, but sadistic idiots aside, I seriously doubt society would just dissolve into every man for himself, that's just insulting.
Do not be mistaken, this is neither a horror, nor really a film. I firmly advise against watching this 82 minute failure; the only reason it merited a star was the presence of Chris Pine.<br /><br />Nothing happens. You wait patiently in the hope that there may be a flicker of a twist, a hint of surprise, a plot to emerge - but no.<br /><br />The characters take erratic turns of pace in their actions and yet don't have the time to develop - thanks to the thrifty editors and frankly ashamed writers - before returning to an idyllic and playful (bring on the teen rock montage) state. The only thing that could have made it worse would be adding the perishable token ethnic 'companion'.<br /><br />Their encounters with obstacles (be they human or physical) are brief, confusing and entirely pointless.<br /><br />Chris Pine fights to keep himself above the surface whilst being drowned by a misery of a lightweight cast. Lou Taylor Pucci couldn't be dryer if he spent the summer with Keanu Reaves combing the Navada desert.<br /><br />Watch 'The Road', watch '28 days Later', watch day time TV...anything but this; I implore you. Suffer the boredom, unlike you may be led to believe in the film, this film is no cure.
If you've seen other movies like this, they're probably better. The Omega Man comes to mind. To the studio's credit, they avoided the sprawling, unnecessary, big budget technofest that typifies movies of this ilk. Additionally, the set-up and premise were excellent: four people whose past is virtually irrelevant to us are trying to get away from an overwhelming infectious fatal disease. What's bad is EVERYTHING else! I get tired of endlessly stupid, careless, wimpy, ineffective, arrogant characters in a movie. That pretty much describes everyone in the movie at some point. I rented it, and found myself yelling at the TV repeatedly, "no, don't do that!", "why are you so stupid", "look out!", etcetera. A true lack of character development is evident about halfway in. A movie SHOULD give you a strong personal connection with at least some of the characters so that you actually care what happens to them. This one does not. Also,there should have been a longer, more involving end to the movie as well.
There's a good movie lurking here, but this isn't it. The basic idea is good: to explore the moral issues that would face a group of young survivors of the apocalypse. But the logic is so muddled that it's impossible to get involved.<br /><br />For example, our four heroes are (understandably) paranoid about catching the mysterious airborne contagion that's wiped out virtually all of mankind. Yet they wear surgical masks some times, not others. Some times they're fanatical about wiping down with bleach any area touched by an infected person. Other times, they seem completely unconcerned.<br /><br />Worse, after apparently surviving some weeks or months in this new kill-or-be-killed world, these people constantly behave like total newbs. They don't bother accumulating proper equipment, or food. They're forever running out of fuel in the middle of nowhere. They don't take elementary precautions when meeting strangers. And after wading through the rotting corpses of the entire human race, they're as squeamish as sheltered debutantes. You have to constantly wonder how they could have survived this long... and even if they did, why anyone would want to make a movie about them.<br /><br />So when these dweebs stop to agonize over the moral dimensions of their actions, it's impossible to take their soul-searching seriously. Their actions would first have to make some kind of minimal sense.<br /><br />On top of all this, we must contend with the dubious acting abilities of Chris Pine. His portrayal of an arrogant young James T Kirk might have seemed shrewd, when viewed in isolation. But in Carriers he plays on exactly that same note: arrogant and boneheaded. It's impossible not to suspect that this constitutes his entire dramatic range.<br /><br />On the positive side, the film *looks* excellent. It's got an over-sharp, saturated look that really suits the southwestern US locale. But that can't save the truly feeble writing nor the paper-thin (and annoying) characters. Even if you're a fan of the end-of-the-world genre, you should save yourself the agony of watching Carriers.
In one instant when it seemed to be getting interesting, it never got there.<br /><br />The people are going from one point to another point, with really no point (if there was one it was very dull). There was no action, suspense or any horror and the characters were pretty heartless, so there was no caring what happened to them.<br /><br />All together the movie was pretty boring.<br /><br />I give it a 3/10.<br /><br />I like that it wasn't shaky choppy camera-work and if there was music it didn't annoy me like some really bad movies and the acting was not horrendous.
while being one of the "stars" of this film doesn't necessarily give me sage insight, i do know quite a bit of what was first there...and what ended up on the screen. i remember seeing the original cut of "incoming freshman" and being very pleased. it was funny, sexy, raunchy, all the main requirements of a drive-in film. you have to remember this was shot and released before all the rest...animal house, porky's, etc...so in its own way, this flick was truly ahead of its time. for whatever reasons, the film was given to the main distributors who editing out half the original film, and then edited in (should i say "shuffled?") THE most random scenes ever. the fat guy, the people with goat heads....what the heck was all that?! i'm sure it was put in for additional T&A, but it was so slowly paced, it caused anything going on prior to it to grind to a screeching and painful halt. but all in all, it's a fun memory for me...especially in that i'm able to say that the worst movie i've ever seen...i'm in!
I don't know where to begin. The cast is full of people who've never done anything before or since. Debralee Scott is listed on cover boxes, but does not appear in the movie at all. The writing is quite bad, even for college films. It's obviously very low budget, with one scene at the sorority house having extremely choppy editing.<br /><br />The characters are pretty typical for college films - timid guy, nerd, suave black guy, tough guys, guy with mustache, attractive girl, small town girl, etc. The featured teacher is about what's you'd expect... middle aged heavy set guy who gets sidetracked easily.<br /><br />If you wan't to see a college flick, stay clear from this one. It's so bad, it's not even funny.
All Hype! What better way to describe a movie about people who are upset because they can't release their film through a mainstream distributor? Consequently, they do it themselves. Otherwise, the hype of the film doesn't justify the content in the film. The story is absent and could easily be a short. The acting is poor, but the animation and music is pretty good. Otherwise don't waste your time - don't believe the hype! However, if you have the chance to see the film for free, do so. Then you won't have to waste money. Still, the filmmakers do a good job of pressing their story and creating cliffhangers with their self-indulgent mini-series. Otherwise, they're one hit wonders who never had a hit.
I think I should start this in saying that nearly any style of work can be entertaining in parts. The true test is whether it is good from start to finish, which is the reason I gave the analogical title for this review. Most of us would agree--even those like me, who enjoy reading many blogs--that blogs can't compare with good novel writing for a number of reasons. Likewise, FEM can't compare with good film making for a number of reasons, and I actually believe it's a poor example of independent filmography. From start to finish, FEM feels like a pieced together vlog. (Heck, even MySpace gets some pimping.) If I wanted to see an hour of lonelygirl15--I don't--I'd go watch it. FEM, while certainly grittier than the bubble gum atmosphere of the aforementioned media, is so personal that it is without an interesting story. It's like watching the mundaneness of life, which I think most would agree is very naturally boring. And yet the creators of FEM want us to applaud it, their very postmodern film about making a film. Cue my yawn.<br /><br />Ultimately, I come away not caring the least bit about any of it. I'm shocked that I'm actually interested in taking time out to write this review, even. It's not that FEM is downright bad, because it isn't; it has a few moments where I crack a smile or think that maybe--just maybe--something of interest is about to happen. It's rather that it's just downright...mediocre. I feel so indifferent about it that it's almost fitting of an oxymoron: passionate indifference.<br /><br />I hope the creators/"actors" in the film get out of debt from their efforts. They'll probably need it for when one of them moves out and moves on with life.<br /><br />See this movie if you've got time to waste and nothing much you want to do; otherwise, pass it by, and don't worry that you've missed some great, undiscovered talent. You really haven't.
Definitely the product of young minds, this piece may very well appeal to the 20s crowd, who is still trying to find their place in the world, while obsessing over every neurosis. However, I can't imagine that the heavy amount of narcissistic navel-gazing, trite humor, or banal subject matter would be particularly engaging to anyone over 30. Another problem is that the peripheral characters, whom the filmmakers obviously have nothing but contempt for, are hyped up to such absurd caricatures for comic effect, that they fail to be relatable in any real way. <br /><br />However, one has to give some style points to the filmmakers, who obviously grew up in the video generation, and use every conceivable editing trick in the book in order to spruce up an otherwise non-existent plot. There are 2 points to remember here. First, beware of festival darlings. Second, even though we live in the age of youtube, not everyone's account of their mundane lives deserves big- screen treatment. But these young filmmakers have every right to make their film, and if others 20-somethings can find something in it to identify with, then all the better. Yet I could not help but think at the end of this film how this latest generation, just now coming of age, will fare in the real world that presents so many challenges and complications. In the age when every child is constantly reassured of how special they are, and that they all deserve their 15 minutes of exposure, resiliency and the ability to deal with adversity does not exactly appear to be this generation's strong point.
Four Eyed Monsters follows the relationship of a shy, reclusive videographer and an equally estranged struggling artist, who, both living in the Big Apple, develop an unlikely romance with the help of an internet dating site. This in itself is not so unusual, but what is, is their method of communication. Foregoing the verbal, they take to writing notes and later communicating through video.<br /><br />The film is based upon the creator's (Arin Crumley & Susan Buice) own relationship, who besides writing and directing, take to acting as the lead characters as well. With elements of avant-garde, anti-plot, and docudrama, the film scatters itself to the wind with an undecided structure nestled neatly between narcissism and self-indulgence.<br /><br />As the movie wears on, a brief separation and deterioration of their once intriguing form of communication grow old as the couple face the hardship of reality. Focusing solely on inner conflict, or the woes of relationship, the film struggles through a stagnant narrative that is neither original, nor poignant. This could have been easily circumvented with the addition of subplot and external conflict, and a third act, to which there is none - just a montage of melodrama that leads nowhere.<br /><br />What is even more aggravating is the film's descent from story into reality that abruptly concludes with an open ended and unsatisfying finish. This would have been all fine and dandy, but there is no question asked and no meaning to be discovered or pondered.<br /><br />(On a side note, the film contains beautiful animation and a vivid and moving soundtrack, one of the more interesting aspects of the production.)<br /><br />But as always, watch the film and decide for yourself.
At the time of writing this review it would seem that over 50% of IMDb voters had given this film a rating of either a 10 or a 1. I can only surmise then that those giving it a 10 were either cast or crew members. <br /><br />They say that given enough monkeys and enough time and enough typewriters, those monkeys, just by random proddings at the keyboard, would eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare. However, I seriously doubt that given the same number of monkeys and time, you could find a single one to give this movie a rating of 10.<br /><br />I patiently watched the first half, foolishly assuming that the film would, on some level, develop either the plot or the characters, or maybe make some kind of social comment or provoke barely intellectual thought. Failing that, I was quite prepared to accept action, suspense, comedy, horror or even gratuitous sex as a way of holding my attention. Ultimately, I was disappointed and consequently, much of the second half was viewed at double speed as I searched in vain for some small snippet of cinematic redemption. Sadly, there was none.<br /><br />If "The Choke", was put up against an episode of Scooby Doo then I'm afraid the cartoon would win hands down in terms of mystery, intrigue and unpredictability. And speaking of cartoon characters, the acting abilities of the various cast members varied between acceptable (at best) and embarrassingly poor with Brooke Bailey's portrayal of the freaky, death obsessed pseudo goth, London, being so bad I almost felt sorry for her.<br /><br />I would have liked to have finished on a positive note but even the soundtrack, a second rate feast of contemporary punk rock, failed even to entertain, let alone serve to enhance a very poor flick.
Released on DVD in the UK as Axe, The Choke is a teen slasher that fails in pretty much every department: the story is almost non-existent, resulting in a film which comprises mostly of people wandering around a dark building; with the exception of two characters (who are quite obviously destined to be the film's survivors), everyone is thoroughly objectionable, meaning that the viewer couldn't care less when they get slaughtered; the deaths aren't gory enough (unless a brief shot of a pound of minced beef covered in fake blood turns your stomach); and the gratuitous sex scene features next to no nudity (an unforgivable mistake to make in a slasher flick!).<br /><br />The wafer-thin plot sees members of a punk band locked inside what appears to be the world's largest nightclub (there are endless abandoned corridors and rooms, unlike any club I've ever seen) where they are picked off by an unseen assailant. For a low budget effort, the production values are okay, and the cast are all seem to be fairly capable actors, but with not nearly enough genuine scares, a reluctance to get really messy (this is a slasher, so where's the graphic splatter?), way too much dreadful dialogue (particularly from the not-dead-soon-enough drummer) and some ill advised use of tacky video techniques in an attempt to add some style, the movie quickly becomes extremely boring.
I watched this film not really expecting much, I got it in a pack of 5 films, all of which were pretty terrible in their own way for under a fiver so what could I expect? and you know what I was right, they were all terrible, this movie has a few (and a few is stretching it) interesting points, the occasional camcorder view is a nice touch, the drummer is very like a drummer, i.e damned annoying and, well thats about it actually, the problem is that its just so boring, in what I can only assume was an attempt to build tension, a whole lot of nothing happens and when it does its utterly tedious (I had my thumb on the fast forward button, ready to press for most of the movie, but gave it a go) and seriously is the lead singer of the band that great looking, coz they don't half mention how beautiful he is a hell of a lot, I thought he looked a bit like a meercat, all this and I haven't even mentioned the killer, I'm not even gonna go into it, its just not worth explaining. Anyway as far as I'm concerned Star and London are just about the only reason to watch this and with the exception of London (who was actually quite funny) it wasn't because of their acting talent, I've certainly seen a lot worse, but I've also seen a lot better. Best avoid unless your bored of watching paint dry.
The Choke starts as a rock band known as The Choke prepare for a gig at a nightclub called 'Club 905' owned & run by Guy Johnson (Andrew Parker). Lead singer Dylan (Sean Cook) & guitar player Mike (Jason McKee) plan to tell the other band members, bass player London (Brooke Bailey) & drummer Nancy (Tom Olson), that they are both going solo & their services won't be needed any longer. Once at the club Dylan prepares but Mike doesn't show up & the gig turns into a disaster. Then just as the band think things couldn't get any worse they find a dead body in the cellar, that all the doors have been locked so they can't get out & that they can't trust anyone as a mysterious killer begins picking them off one-by-one...<br /><br />Produced & directed by Juan A. Mas The Choke is a standard by-the-numbers teen slasher that really doesn't have anything going for it. The script by Jessica Dolan & Susannah Lowber (not too many horror films out there penned by ladies...) has some surprisingly good character's in it & some nifty dialogue but while it's much better than a lot of modern shot on a camcorder type horror in that respect it's so slow & boring that even a few interesting character's can't come anywhere close to saving it. As one would expect all the usual teen slasher clichés are used, from the isolated location the victims can't escape from, the cast of good looking teenagers who keep splitting up, a few murders & a really poor twist ending that tries to mimic something like Scream (1996) & be surprising but doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you think about it logically (they couldn't have done some of the things they were supposed to) & to make matters even worse I guessed who the killer was fairly early on & even though I don't want to boast I was spot on. Then there's the fact that the makers of The Choke felt that it's audience would be entertained by showing endless (well it feels endless while watching it) scenes of teenagers walking around dark corridors doing nothing in particular, I am sorry but there is only so many scenes like this that I can take before it starts to become tedious. The kill count is low, at first they all decide to stick together (good idea) but then they all just randomly decide to split up & go their separate ways (bad idea when there's a killer on the loose), the pace is lethargic, the kill scenes are unimaginative & to top it all off the twist ending is poor.<br /><br />Director Mas does alright, the film looks OK for the most part although there are the odd occasions where he uses some annoying post production editing technique like slow motion or frame skipping. The gore levels aren't really up to scratch, there's some blood splatter, a guy with a hole in his chest, a few dead bodies & someone impaled on some metal poles. Most of the kills happen off screen with the axe kill at the end a good example of the film not actually showing anything. Since the film is about a rock band there's quite a rock orientated soundtrack with some truly horrible, horrible rock songs used on it. I am sorry rock fans but to my ears this crap is just noise pollution. It's not scary, there's no real atmosphere & the lack of blood & gore is just inexcusable when the rest of the film is so bad.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $1,000,000 The Choke is well made with reasonable production values, it looks cheap to be sure but not as cheap as many low budget horror films look. Shot in a place called Spokane in Washington apparently. The acting is one of the films strongest points as it's generally pretty good all round, I mean no-one is going to win an Oscar but it ain't half bad.<br /><br />The Choke is a throughly routine Scream style teen slasher that has one of the weakest twist endings ever & a criminal lack of blood, gore, violence, nudity & dead bodies. I mean if a slasher hasn't got any sex or gore then what's the point? Those are the only things that the average slasher is worth watching for, right?
THE CHOKE (aka AXE in the UK) is a slasher produced supposedly as a straight-to-DVD movie. I say "supposedly" because the title of the movie does not have the "V" in brackets to indicate that it was a made for DVD movie (even though it does have the appearance of one).<br /><br />The plot is simple – a band is holding a gig in a former meatpacking factory and they are killed one by one.<br /><br />I think most would agree that the movie was never going to be a masterpiece, but this does not excuse the faults here. Even straight-to-DVD movies such as BACHELOR PARTY MASSACRE (which has a very low IMDb rating) have a lot of redeeming qualities and sometimes come off as being one of the so-called "so bad, they're good" movies. However, THE CHOKE falls far short of being either a serious slasher (such as HALLOWEEN) or being a "so bad it's good" movie (such as THE NAIL GUN MASSACRE).<br /><br />The movie does start off good with a character killed using a drill. The blood effects were very cheesy but understandable given the very low budget. But, from there onwards, it's downhill all the way.<br /><br />There are so many faults in THE CHOKE that I could spend all day talking about them. But, a few obvious ones stand out and I'll go into them.<br /><br />The aforementioned gig that the band holds seems to start off with around 50 people present but after the music stops, there seems to be only around 8 people left (and yet they're all meant to be locked in!).<br /><br />The characters in this movie are not likable at all. Most of the band members are aggressive foul-mouthed morons or just downright weird. No one really cares about what happens to them, and even their supposed friends forget about them when they've been dispatched. The highlight of the movie is the presence of a homeless man who seems to regard the meatpacking factory as some kind of church (seriously!). He spouts some really funny lines for no apparent reason. But sadly, even his presence can't save the movie.<br /><br />There are too many scenes of people walking around and talking without any characterisation. Around 65 minutes of the film is spent watching characters walk around talking. Characters disappear for long periods of time without explanation. As in other straight-to-DVD movies such as CROCODILE and GRIM WEEKEND, the characters spend a lot of time swearing at each other aggressively without any provocation at all. There are plenty of over-the-top outbursts (mainly from the male characters) and one nearly results in a full-blown fight. In fact, the format could be said to go as follows: characters walk around--murder takes place--characters walk around--murder takes place. You get the idea.<br /><br />The dialogue is terrible and it seems that few lines are spoken without the f-word being used. Perhaps this was meant to be funny, but it just comes off as sad. And more to the point, we have all seen this done a thousand times before (usually to much greater effect).<br /><br />The movie is totally devoid of any suspense at all. The dead bodies serve to provide the only indication that the characters are in danger. A maniac is running around loose and yet the characters just behave like total morons. They make little attempt to get out of the factory or find a weapon with which to protect themselves. And much of the time, they don't even pretend to be scared.<br /><br />In the same vein as DRIVE-IN MASSACRE, the killer is not seen at the time the murders are being committed (with the exception of the final murder when the killer's identity is revealed). A random weapon appears out of nowhere to kill the victim in question. There is no one seen stalking the characters at any time. In DRIVE-IN MASSACRE, this served to make the film funny (unintentionally of course), but here it is not funny at all.<br /><br />And, as another reviewer has pointed out, the soundtrack includes music that is very bad, even for those who like punk rock. The extras look uncomfortable dancing to it. The score (at the end, there is no music at the beginning!) consists of a band of Sugarbabe wannabes singing some very bad song that is completely unrelated to the movie.<br /><br />Don't misunderstand the points made in this review. This reviewer likes bad movies (such as THE NAIL GUN MASSACRE and BACHELOR PARTY MASSACRE) as much as the classics (such as HALLOWEEN and Friday THE 13TH). But, it seems that THE CHOKE tried too hard to fit into one of those categories without fitting into either. And even as straight-to-DVD movies go, this is a poor effort.<br /><br />On a positive note, the film does contain some fairly good gory murder scenes. But, when the surviving characters do not take the situation seriously, these scenes lose their importance quickly as the intensity they provide disappears into oblivion.<br /><br />Fans of the traditional 1980s B-movie slashers should take steps to avoid this movie. And fans of the classics such as HALLOWEEN and Friday THE 13TH should do everything in their power to avoid it!
The photography on the DVD is so dark I thought the screen had died. I think I missed seeing half of the movie. Still, it was poorly crafted and not interesting. I did not find the story related to the title "The Black Widow". I was hoping for a mystery or a thriller but did not get involved enough to care after the first few frames. I rented the movie especially for Willem Dafoe and was sad it wasted his talent. I do not believe Giada Colagrande has studied movie making long enough to develop a major motion picture. She is attractive and might develop into an actor but she took on too many tasks in this movie. Although they are married in real life, they lack chemistry on the screen. Their relationships did not seem believable. I do not understand why the other characters were even introduced into the plot.
The only reason I watched the movie till the end was the "hope" to see something interesting. The movie is really bad and the performance of the girl it is really, really bad, honestly, I am not a movie critic neither an expert but you just need common sense to notice that this work it is incredibly bad.<br /><br />The first thing that came to my mind as soon as she started to talk was: "She has an affair with Willem Dafoe and he accepted to help her with the screenplay and appear in her movie since she is the brilliant director"... surprise, surprise, next day after I watched the film I found out on internet that Giada Colagrande is his wife. Awful story and terrible performance.
I just rented (yes! I paid money to see!) this film. OMG. It is one of the very worst films I have ever seen. As another reviewer put it, Ms. Colagrande, get out of films, PLEASE! Please never make or appear in another film! The lady has the charisma of a cantaloupe. No, that's not fair to the cantaloupe, which probably has more going for it. She does not know how to act; she affects a disgusted look ALL the time (reminded me very much of my always-disgusted young sisters-in-law from Europe). She is not charming; she is not pretty. There is no real story. And the editing! There WASN'T any, that I could see! It's pretty bad when you are watching a film and, just to get through it, you press "forward forward" on your remote, and STILL nothing happens! I mean!..... I kept involuntarily screaming, "Cut! Cut!" What WERE they thinking? Well, obviously, they thought they would make a film together and get PAID to make love on screen! Pretty good deal for THEM; pretty raw deal for the viewer! I think I'm going to throw up now....
I am not an artistically inclined individual. I am a science minded woman and I felt that this movie was maybe one of those campy artsy type films on a budget. I watched part of it with my fiancé and my future step daughter. We tried very hard to find something in this film to keep our interest. My fiancé and his daughter voted it off and we moved on to Ocean's 13,but that is another story. Not to be deterred I awoke the next morning and gave the movie another shot. I began again watching this movie in earnest. I just don't get it,I thought I would get it.I thought the funniest part was the flushing of the ashes and the urn finding a spot by the fireplace being used as a vase for what appeared to be dead flowers. Interesting and still it had dead stuff inside. It was an odd and bizarre movie. Maybe this is what they were after,however I won't be tricked a second time!
As I watch this film, it is interesting to see how much it marginalizes Black men. The film spends its time showing how powerless the most visible Black man in it is (save for an heroic moment). For much of the film, the other Black men (and dark-skinned Black women) in the film are way in the background, barely visible.<br /><br />Vanessa Williams' character was strong and sympathetic. The viewer can easily identify and sympathize with her. There are also some fairly visible and three-dimensional support characters who are light-skinned, and some White characters of some warmth and dignity. But 99% of the Black males in this film are nothing but invisible men. Voiceless shadows in the background, of no consequence. Such a horrible flaw, but anything but unusual in the mainstream media.
Caught this movie on the tube on a Sunday. I thought it was so bad I looked it up on IMDb to see what others thought of it. I was not surprised at the amount of silly people who enjoyed this fluff. I was however surprised when I looked into the comments to read the Hated It categories only to find that their were none. I was shocked at this; I always look at the hated it's as their are always those who hate a movie no matter how good it is. Somehow this movie made it through unscathed by the haters I say nay to that and proclaim proudly that I HATE THIS MOVIE! I know I should go into detail about why I hate this movie but to do so would only grant this movie more respect than it deserves.
Jack London's life was certainly colorful enough for a dozen films about different aspects of him. Sad to say though that what his life was used for in film was some wartime propaganda that put the best face on some of the least attractive parts of his character.<br /><br />Jack London who barely saw the age of 40 when he died wrote some of the best stories around. He wrote on what he knew, but he also wrote as does everyone else bringing the baggage of his own life experience with him. Some of that experience in another day and time would have been condemned as racism. But this was World War II and London was a big believer in the 'yellow peril' as it was called back in the day.<br /><br />Two thirds of the film covers his life as author, we see his years as a seaman from where he got the inspiration for The Sea Wolf. We see him up in the Yukon in a miner's cabin with a dog that was no doubt his inspiration for The Call of the Wild. London was able to capture the spirit of adventure that his own life was all about right on paper for the world to enjoy ever since.<br /><br />The final third dealt with his time as a war correspondent covering the Russo-Japanese War. London was a socialist, but his socialism did not encompass folks who were Oriental. Like a few million others he saw the rising immigration of the Chinese and Japanese to our Pacific coast as a threat to jobs for the white people. He advocated strict immigration policies for Orientals.<br /><br />The film puts the cart before the horse. London is presented as a man who saw because he was on hand at the Russo-Japanese War what Japan's ambitions were and for that reason was as xenophobic as he was. Actually the kind of atrocities present in World War II were not existent during the Russo-Japanese conflict. Japan had her imperial ambitions, but so did everyone else including the USA at that time. But our immigration policies caused by pressure from our West Coast politicians was a big contributing factor to the deterioration of relations with Japan over a couple of generations. London was part of the cause not a prophet crying in the wilderness.<br /><br />This film was the first independent production of Samuel Bronston who later did some films with a bit more budget than Jack London. Had he a bit more money Bronston might have gotten James Cagney or Spencer Tracy, both who would have been right for the role. Instead they got Michael O'Shea who was making his second film after Lady of Burlesque. O'Shea is fine in the part, but certainly was no box office.<br /><br />As London is covering the war, he meets up with a Captain Tanaka who is played by Leonard Strong, an actor who specialized in Orientals and played a ton of them in World War II. From the vantage point in 1905 Strong outlines in the best Fu Manchu tradition Japan's imperial aims right up to taking on the USA eventually. Must have gone over great with the swing shift crowd. <br /><br />A lot of course is left out of London's life including a first wife. Playing the second and only wife in this film is Susan Hayward who only comes into the movie when it's half over. I wish we'd have seen more of her. Charmian Kittredge London survived her husband by almost 40 years dying in 1955.<br /><br />O'Shea in fact met and married the leading lady of his life in Jack London. Virginia Mayo has a small role in Jack London and they married for 30 years until O'Shea died in 1973.<br /><br />Maybe one day we'll get a view of Jack London that will be a lot better than this one.
In his brief 40 years on Earth, author Jack London managed to cram as much adventure and incident as would seem possible. This 90-minute film, purportedly a biography of the man's life but patently fictionalized, doesn't even scratch the surface, and remains a story very ripe for a modern-day retelling. Here, Michael O'Shea, in one of his first roles, portrays London, and his performance is both rugged and sympathetic. He is not the problem here. Nor is a young and very beautiful Susan Hayward, playing his future wife, Charmian, whose biography on London is the "basis" for this film. London's life has here been broken down into a series of episodes, which the film skips lightly through. So we have brief incidents with London as an oyster pirate, a sealer in the Bering Sea, a gold prospector in the Yukon and a correspondent during the Russo-Japanese War...colorful events, for sure, but hardly given anything like in-depth treatment. And Alfred Santell's direction (he also directed one of Susan's first films, "Our Leading Citizen," in 1939) is lackadaisical at best. Making things rougher here is a very poor-quality DVD, with a crummy-looking print source and hissy sound. Perhaps the best thing about this movie rental, for me, was one of the DVD's extras: a catalog of all the Alpha Video films, featuring hundreds and hundreds of full-color movie posters. Let's just hope that these films are in better shape than "Jack London"!
Hollywood's attempt to turn Jack London's life into a "Jack London" adventure film isn't a bad idea; certainly, he led an interesting, and sometimes adventurous, life. This film, however, winds up flat and unsatisfying. Most importantly, it lacks integrity. Michael O'Shea (as London) has some Londonesque speeches; and, it's nice to see his bearded Jack receive "The Call of the Wild" after spending some quality time alone, in the snowy mountains, with his dog, "Buck". Virginia Mayo and Susan Hayward are both very pretty. The film draws unfortunate "Yellow Peril" parallels between London's life and World War II, which are both strained and insulting. <br /><br />** Jack London (11/24/43) Alfred Santell ~ Michael O'Shea, Susan Hayward, Virginia Mayo
OK, aside from the psychedelic background imagery, the info presented here was good. The music I could have done without (not that it was bad music, just that it didn't fit this film at all).<br /><br />As for the content of the film, the director brings up the often-lacking Pagan perspective on Christ's existence and a startling comparison of the deeds and events of Christ's life vs. the lives of mythological figures/deities such as Mithra and Dionyses. Then he brings up the chronology of Christianity's origins and presents an 'ok' case, but not one that blew me away.<br /><br />If the director had stuck with the facts and continued on with them, this film would have been good. However, at this point in the film, it disintegrates into a group of personally-gratifying attacks on Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" and a Christian private school which the director attended in his youth. During an interview with his old principal, (which during the course of, it comes to light that the director set up under false pretenses) I felt that the director was acting sort of childish. He was asking good questions but, like the film itself, the interview crumbled into an attack on this particular private school's rules, not Christianity.<br /><br />All in all, if you're just interested in some info, watch the first 30 minutes or so and then shut it off.
I'm an incorrigible skeptic and agnostic and was thus expecting to enjoy this film. After watching it, however, I honestly believe that I could have made a better documentary myself. Its arguments appear to have only four spurious sources (despite his being listed in the credits on IMDb I didn't see Richard Dawkins anywhere), it's edited together crudely with laughably amateurish computer effects, and it doesn't make even the slightest attempt to appear impartial. The narration is pervaded throughout with a sneering, almost adolescent anti-Christian sentiment, ruining any possibility that the film might actually change someone's mind as opposed to just preaching to the choir (i.e. me). Though there is some interesting discussion of the historicity of Jesus, the movie hits an unbearable snag when it begins to dwell heavily on the Christian school which the director attended as a child, an institution which apparently scarred him badly psychologically as it obsesses him to this day.<br /><br />Though TGWWT obviously had a low budget, there was still an opportunity here to make an intelligent commentary on the highly questionable roots of Christianity. There's certainly a dearth of skeptically-minded religious documentaries on the market, and this film could have helped fill the void. Instead, the director chose to insult our intelligence with this piece of garbage, which in the end appears to be some sort of therapeutic exercise for him. It's too bad that his Christian upbringing traumatized him, but he needn't subject an audience to his coping mechanism.
Really no reason to examine this much further because of a few very glaring and bias misleading statements.<br /><br />A perfect example is when the filmmaker claims "Saul" or Paul of Tarus (the writer of The Book of Hebrews He asserts) has no idea Jesus is or was a human being, this assertion is either purposely false as he accuses others of presenting, or he is ignorant of what "The Bible" says.<br /><br />first we can examine his misleading claim about Hebrews 8.4; which he shows a quote "If Jesus was on earth, he would not be a priest", hence right here He sets up the ignorant and unlearned viewer to accept his false premise.. why? He does what most so called Bible believing people he accuses of doing, the same.. That is TAKING things out of context.<br /><br />verse one of Hebrews 8 is; 1.."Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens" The context above is CLEARLY speaking of a Jesus who was on earth and ASCENDED into heaven after his alleged resurrection.<br /><br />It has nothing to do with how the filmmaker wants the viewer to take his out of context scripture. Here he offers a foundation, that "Paul was not aware of a HUMAN Jesus, but only one in "heaven"<br /><br />follow?<br /><br />lets see if the filmmaker is being honest; Hebrews 7; 14. "For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood."<br /><br />heh, didn't the filmmaker just quote from the writer of Hebrews trying to show the writer of that book has no knowledge of a "Human Jesus"? it's likely anyways Paul didn't write Hebrews, but I will not go into that here, but The film maker asserts Paul did, and that is the premise of the point given here.<br /><br />It is not like this film maker does not make decent points in certain areas, he does, but he is engaging in the same blind bias of the religion he is bashing on. Once he engages in these tactics, in my strong opinion, he loses credibility as the religion he picks out, and the film is no longer a documentary, but a personal opinion, and a bias of the film maker, nothing more, nothing less.
Let me start by saying that I totally agree with the basic thesis of the film, that there probably was no historical Jesus and Christianity is a sham. With that said, this movie does a pretty poor job of proving that thesis. It makes good arguments--the gap between Jesus' theoretical life and the writing of the Gospels, filled only by the writings of Paul, who doesn't indicate a historical Jesus--and then utterly fails to convincingly argue them. It makes broad statements without presenting the evidence the statements are based on, and it resolutely ignores counter-arguments presented by Christian apologists. The intellectual dishonesty, emotional manipulation, and lack of serious argument are obvious, and stunning. The only Christians we hear from in the film are the head of the filmmaker's old school--who comes off like a reasonable, rational person attempting to deal with a twit with a chip on his shoulder--and various Christians encountered apparently at random in a parking lot. I'm sorry, but revealing that average Christians don't know much about their religion isn't exactly damning evidence of Christianity's fraudulence. You may as well claim that Jay Leno has disproved the existence of Michael Dukakis on his Jay-Walking segment. The interviews with experts can be interesting, but the film is filled with too much of, let's be honest, the filmmaker just being snarky. Within the first five minutes the film has already conflated Jerry Falwell with Charles Manson and the writers of the Left Behind series with the Branch Davidians. And by the end, the film becomes so self-centered that there's no rational argument left, just an angry former Christian lashing out at the people and places he blames for his messed up childhood. Y'know, maybe that movie could've been interesting, but it's misplaced in a documentary about the historicity of Jesus, and it's so self-congratulatory as to deflate any sympathy. This is a Michael Moore film without the humor or the film-making acumen combined with a Richard Dawkins book without the wit or the intellectual rigor. Skip it.
I'm actually surprised at the amount of good ratings this anti-Christian pseudo-documentary got. Now, I respect the guy's opinion and faith, I myself am not, at this state, believer of the taught Christian doctrine. However, anti-Christian propaganda is somewhat of a different issue.<br /><br />This film has valid points, but they are very few and represented in a very biased context. I'm not recommending against seeing it. In fact, I think everyone should see it and decide on their own whether they believe it or not. And this is actually more of a chance than the one the director gives to Christian teachings. Rather than an inquiring approach on the subject, it looks like a personal vendetta on the Christian school that affected his childhood. It also misrepresents the Christians most of the times as either incredibly naive or fundamentalists, no moderation in between.<br /><br />The director uses movie scenes from Passion of Christ without permission, sets up an interview with the headmaster of his former school and presents almost solely anti-Christian historians and writers. I actually found the headmaster to be the most down-to-earth person and think that his attitude was fully justified. I also strongly doubt that any of the Christian believers who were interviewed were consulted afterwords or even told before the interview the purpose of the inquiry.<br /><br />With this being said, there are certainly new and interesting facts to be found here and some very original thoughts on the question of Christianity. But the way in which this whole think is produced is often offensive, highly unprofessional and dreadfully biased.
This documentary film is based on incomplete considerations of the evidence, in which Brian Flemming, perhaps purposely, fails to mention important evidence to the contrary. Perhaps his most crucial mistake is one of the earliest: His claims concerning the invalidity of Paul's testimony about Jesus Christ disregard key facts, like: **The existence of some formulated creeds within Paul's letters. These creeds suggest that most of the central claims about Jesus were already formulated into statements of faith possibly within a few years of Christ's death and resurrection. **The testimonies of the early Christians can't just be tossed out as mere fantasy. There were indeed many people claiming to be the Messiah during that period, but only ONE of them has remained: Jesus. Why? Because it would have been preposterous for anyone to have actually believed Christ was the messiah, and go on to die for those beliefs, if they knew that he had not been resurrected. **Even if the Gospels are dated more liberally, we are still talking about accounts of Jesus written within the lifetimes of other eyewitnesses that would have pointed out inaccuracies in these Gospels. And there is evidence that the Gospels were written much earlier. <br /><br />What I am saying is that Flemming's documentary is an incredibly biased and self-serving piece of work that hodge podges different arguments and evidence to serve his anti-Christian view. Don't be fooled by poor investigation.
This will be brief. Let me first state that I'm agnostic and not exactly crazy about xtians, especially xtian fanatics. However, this documentary had a tone of the like of some teenager angry at his xtian mother for not letting him play video games. I just couldn't take it seriously. Mentioning how CharlesManson thought he was Christ to illustrate the point that xtianity can breed evil? i don't know it was just cheap and childish -- made the opposition look ignorant. Furthermore, the narrator just seemed snobby and pretentious. The delivery was complete overkill. I can't take this documentary seriously. Might appeal to an angry teenager piss3d off at his xtian mother for not letting him play video games.
I watched DVD 1 only. The program proper may have 10 minutes of good information; otherwise it's snotty putdowns of religious people. It's as if director Brian Flemming only recently discovered both atheism and sarcasm, and feels with these tools he can easily bludgeon his opposition.<br /><br />Also, Flemming wanders extensively into his own personal issues, and they take over the movie. It never gets back on topic.<br /><br />Religious people are prone to discount skeptics when their objections to religion are obviously rooted in abusive upbringings. Arguments from such victimized people seem irrational, and therefore unconvincing.<br /><br />Anti-religious people will want more data. We don't need to be told that religious people are nutty, any more than American Jews need to be told how annoying Christmas music gets by mid-December.<br /><br />In the best scene, the Superintendent of Fleming's childhood Christian school rather insightfully confronts the director on his motivations. That seems like the most honest part of the movie, and it was too short.<br /><br />If Fleming were a bit more self-aware, he might have a good story in him about his own (past & current) relationship to Christianity, and the abusive institutions that indoctrinated him in his youth.<br /><br />And perhaps he could lend his "Christ never walked the earth" material to a more serious documentarian. I'm not studying the writings of Saul/Paul to find out how air-tight this all is, but a quick browse of Wikipedia suggests most of these arguments are discredited.<br /><br />The bonus interviews are pretty good, tho they don't bolster Fleming's thesis much. Sam Harris is a good spokesperson for the anti-religious POV, and he doesn't go light on those other, non-Christian religions. Harris also has some good (and easily Google'd) interviews on Salon.com , Amazon.com , and Samharris.org .
One of the most popular rentals at my local video store is not Borat or The Departed but a 2005 documentary about Jesus Christ called The God Who Wasn't There by director Brian Flemming, an ex-Christian Fundamentalist. Flemming, in his 62-minute documentary, asserts that Jesus was not a historical figure but a legend based solely on Pagan traditions. Using interviews with authors, philosophers, and historians to debunk the long-held Christian belief that Jesus, the son of God, lived among men, was crucified, and was resurrected, Flemming compares the Christ story with those of cult figures Isis and Osiris in Egypt, Dionysus and Adonis in Greek mythology, and Roman mystery cults such as Mithraism and finds many surprising similarities.<br /><br />In addition to his evidence about Pagan cults, he also states that the earliest sources for the Christ story, the four gospels, were written forty or fifty years after the date given for Jesus' crucifixion and that the letters of St. Paul show little evidence of Jesus being a flesh and blood figure. Flemming, unfortunately however, is not out to conduct a solid investigation of the truth about Jesus' life but to use the subject only as a point of departure for a full throttle attack on Christianity and all religion. Most of the interviews are with those philosophically aligned with the director including avowed atheists such as Biologist Richard Dawkins and author Sam Price. The only Christians interviewed are those on the fringe such as Scott Butcher, the creator of the website Rapture Letters.com, and Ronald Sipus, principal of the fundamentalist Village Christian School, which Flemming attended as a boy.<br /><br />Like Michael Moore's interview of Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine, his interview with Sipus is so contentious that Sipus walks out in the middle. In a sarcastic tone, Flemming tells us how wrong Christianity was wrong about the sun revolving around the earth, then points to atrocities committed in the name of Christianity such as those by cult leader Charles Manson who killed 11 people and Dena Schlosser, who cut her baby's arm off for God. He also lifts a statement from a book by LaHaye and Jenkins that says that Christians "look forward to the day when all non-Christians are thrown into a lake of fire, howling and screeching." To further turn us against Christianity, Flemming shows us extended clips from Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, detailing in minute detail each scene of violence and torture. What could have been a serious discussion on a very interesting subject eventually becomes a childish rant and a polemic against all religion. In the process of condemning those who used Christianity to commit unspeakable acts, he ignores such people as socialist Muriel Lester, a famous Christian pacifist, Rigoberta Menchú Tum, a Mayan Indian of Guatemala who helped found the Revolutionary Christians and received the Nobel peace prize in recognition of her work for social justice, and Mother Teresa, whose work was about respect for each individual's worth and dignity.<br /><br />His most telling argument is his comparison of Christian doctrine with the Pagan cults and he makes some good points, yet Flemming does not tell us that while some aspects of these cults may resemble Christian doctrines, there are no texts or source materials for these cults before 300AD, long after the New Testament. Also it is important to note one major difference. The immediate goal of the initiates was a mystical experience that led them to feel they had achieved union with their god. This is anathema to Christianity which believes that a Church hierarchy including priests and bishops all the way up to the Pope are required to interpret God's will to mankind.<br /><br />Although I am not a Christian and have some doubts about whether or not Jesus Christ was in fact a historical figure, the truth is that, in the long scheme of things, it may not matter. What matters is that a message was introduced to mankind and spread around the world that contributed to mankind's spiritual evolution. Regardless of the distortions and crimes later committed in its name and there were many, Christianity as conceived was a doctrine of compassion and love, and a moral and ethical code that furthered respect for our fellow man.<br /><br />While I applaud the fact that the film was made and that a taboo topic was discussed, what is sorely needed is not another divisive attempt to use religion as a field of combat but to see it as a common thread that can bring the world's people together. While there is room for debate and discussion on religious subjects, in the words of Annie Besant, "spiritual truths are best seen in the clear air of brotherhood and mutual respect. The God Who Wasn't There is recommended only for those whose idea of a good time is to trash the religion of others.
In my opinion this movie advances no new thought. seems to me like taking a spear to a spear without looking to the side! the director seems to have an agenda! Duh! I find that his rational is lacking there does not seem to be room for the alternative view. I for one am usually on the side of the naysayer but this movie lacks credibility as it relies on the fantastic observations of the man/woman on the street. really now if you wish to cr5eate a credible alternative to a creed held onto for 2000+ years you have got to make more of an effort allowing the other side to voice their beliefs. I'm not sure but at the beginning of the movie it felt like an attack on the Cristian faith, I for one am a non believer, but allow for the beliefs of others, and would not wish no ridicule them but try to understand and tolerate.
As a spiritualist and non Christian. I thought i really was going to be holding onto my faith, but what a load of i seers. I thought the film would have great arguments, but only got one sided views from Atheists and Jews??? And who are all these street people he's interviewing who don't know the back of their arm from their head. Where are the proper theologians and priests and stuff he could have got arguments from. Not retired nuts who wrote books and finished their studies in 1970. Personally this DVD was a waste of time and not worth my time to check if the facts are right or wrong or if i should or should not believe because an anti-Christ told me so. Please to think he came up with the conclusion of not finding God because his own ego and demons got the better of him. No im not going to say the movie was stunning to help atheists reading this feel better about themselves. But if you really want to show the world you care about us poor souls who believe in Jesus then entice us with your worth, not your beating off the drums.
I personally found this movie to be terrible, first it was hardly objective, and provided one side of the debate. The only people who were presented as the side saying he did exist being a bunch of people coming from a Billy Grahm Revival. Secondly it deviated heavily from its supposed topic did Jesus (Yeshua) exist, to talking about how violent Christianity is, and showing scenes from Mel Gibsons "The Passion". In the end it has the director con his former Principal of a Conservative Private School into being interviewed, and attempts to trap him about teaching the kids there faith. Oh and also the Techno Music just made the film harder to watch.
This documentary begins with an interesting premise -- it makes an intriguing and convincing argument that the history of Jesus as is commonly believed is probably a myth. Sadly, though, after priming us with this, the movie completely shifts gears and becomes little more than a non-stop attack on Christianity, and pretty much focusing on the easy targets.<br /><br />The writer/director clearly has some issues with the Church (he is a former evangelical Christian and has some legit anger) and this film seems to be his form of release. It'd be interesting to see the first 20 minutes expanded, but as a whole, the movie is disappointing.
First let me state that I do not believe in god (if you want to use the word atheist, fine, but I don't like that word since it describes what I'm not, not what I am) but I hated this "documentary." The production values were damn near non existent, the premise extremely shaky and whole thing seemed to be an exercise in Brian Flemming's insecurities.<br /><br />The production values were terrible and Brian Flemming is clearly an amateurish director at best. The narration sounded like he just narrated over the film all in one shot, and he didn't practice at all. There were way to many umms and pauses when he should have been talking in the movie. animation was also pretty damn bad.<br /><br />The whole idea that Jesus is a mythical character is not taken seriously by historians and biblical scholars. As I stated before, I do not believe in God, and I don't think that whether or not Jesus was a real man says nothing about the existence of God. My personal view, Jesus probably was a real man but he lived in a time where there were many massiah's (look up apollonius of tiana) and that the stories of his life and preaching were blown out of proportion the farther you got from his death. According to the Wikipedia article on the historicity of Jesus (and there's a good citation for this so it's garbage) "virtually all scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.[1]" I was left wondering at the end of the documentary if this was more about the director's insecurities than anything else. I was left wondering if he was trying to convince himself more than anyone else. The most telling example of this is the final interview he was with the religious school principal. He's not even coy about it. The way he bombards the teacher is unfair and while I agree with the director partially, that teaching kids about hell fire is a bad thing, the way that Flemming confronted the principal was just awkward to watch. Flemming had a chance to perhaps get a good discussion going, if he was more tactile with his interview. Instead he comes off aggressive with "isn't it bad to teach kids this stuff." The guy cuts the interview short and I mean, what did he expect, the principal to say "oh yes, I see it is, I have seen the light, this will now be a secular school?" It seems that Flemming is getting revenge for what he feels was a wrong done to him in childhood. This isn't about the documentary, this is about Flemming's insecurities, and has nothing to do with the supposed topic of the documentary. Flemming shows what he's really doing here, and that is the real downfall of this so-called documentary.
I was curious to watch this movie. A lot of people seem to be excited. I also have my beliefs. I believe in Jesus Christ but I'm opened for any kind of views or opinions. It doesn't matter for me, if Jesus existed in the way it's written in the bible. If Maria was a virgin or not, or all the other similar pagan coincidences. What matters for me is the idea of salvation, the idea of love as the only way to find peace in this world.<br /><br />What made me angry is when somebody takes a sentence, present it as a fact but without showing the context it was written. For example, they showed in this movie following sentence big: "Those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me" Jesus (Lukas 19:27) What they didn't tell you is the context. Jesus told a story about an evil king. There is no passage in the bible where Jesus supports killing. He is love! After quoting the bible wrong they present us yelling people (pseudo-christians) filled with hate. The majority of viewers don't check the informations presented so they start thinking Jesus=hate=not good for me or for anybody else. This is pure manipulation people. Please use your brain. Don't take everything as a fact they tell you in this movie. We destroy our own basis, our civilization if we start dismantling Jesus in this way and the message he brought to us. You saw off the branch you're sitting on.
I sat through this movie expecting a thought-provoking, fact-based film. But instead was given some of the least thought out arguments against the Christian faith imaginable. For instance, in an effort to prove that Christianity is inherently violent, the narrator constantly quotes the bible without giving context, and thus altering the meaning of the text. Jesus is quoted as commanding the execution of those who disobey him, when in fact, the quote is from a parable Jesus told, involving a king who is then quoted. Thus the narrator makes it appear as if Jesus says one thing when he is actually telling a story where one of his characters says it. This is dishonesty in a very obvious form. Is this really what Atheism has to offer the world? This film also attempts to use the success of the Passion of the Christ over Jesus Christ: Superstar and The Last Temptation of the Christ as evidence that Christians are bloodthirsty. He makes no mention of the fact that the Passion was the most historically accurate Bible-film to date. He makes no mention of the fact that it was actually the best liked by critics of the bunch. He then edits in a series of violent images from the Passion as if to hammer home his point. Ironically, he makes no mention of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre which came out a few months later and plays violence for entertainment, versus dramatic effect.<br /><br />One thing that really bothered me was his mockery of people who actually knew more about the subject matter than he did. All the Christians he interviewed were average schmoes in the parking lot of Billy Graham's New York Crusade. Atheists he interviewed for the film were notable authors and scholars. He asked the Christians how the Christian movement started, and of course, they said it started with the Holy Spirit coming to the disciples at Pentecost. Which is correct (Acts 2). He then gives the commentary, "isn't it funny how so few Christians seem to know the origins of their own faith?" and proceeds to explain that the apostle Paul started Christianity after being stopped on the road to Damascus. The poor chap seems convinced that Acts 9 happens before Acts 2. More deception? Or is this simply ignorance? He also throws around nonsense that Paul didn't believe Jesus was a real person. Are you kidding me? 1 Corinthians 15 describes Jesus death and resurrection being witnessed by people (whom Paul names in the passage) for the Corinthians to question if they are in doubt!<br /><br />There are many many other examples of how full of crap this 'documentary' is. But because I don't have time or patience to go into them all, I'll skip straight to the end. It's obvious throughout the whole movie that the narrator has an emotional vendetta against his upbringing in the church. And the climax interview is HIS CHILDHOOD PRINCIPLE! In a last-ditch attempt to disprove the Christian faith, the narrator tries to make a fool out of someone who gave him a detention as a child. Is this what passes as an intellectual documentary for the Atheist community? Surely there are intelligent Atheist filmmakers out there who can make a documentary that isn't a load of made-up crap passed off as 'facts'.
I believe Shakespeare explained what I just read beautifully. Me thinks he (the lady) doth protest too much. The whole thing sounded to me as if the author was trying to convince himself! He sites profane literature (writings from the same time period but not connected with the bible) a number of times however I can think of at least three references off the top of my head which lend historical accuracy to events contained in the bible. Anyone can skew data & prove anything they like but it doesn't make it true. Customs change, word definitions change over time (look at English & German where it is very obviously a common root) nothing stays the same, it's always growing and changing. The bible has many different translations but the King James version is the one I've found to be the best when it comes to any kind of research. In the King James version you will notice there are certain words written in italics. These words have been added by the translators and can be dropped & the mean of the entire verse changes. Writings from around the time of Christ were written without spaces, without punctuation, without paragraphs & without numeric verses. These writings look like one long word & the translators added all of the above. For example how would you read this: GODISNOWHERE do you read it as God is nowhere or do you read it as God is now here? Same string of letters two entirely different meanings. This is why many biblical researchers use a 'Lexicon' to assist them in translation as it provides a word for word translation from the original Arabic, Greek or Hebrew depending on the language in which the scripture was originally written. It's also interesting to note that when translated into symbolic logic you can prove God exists but you can not prove He doesn't exist! In the end I just love listening to people who think they are so smart that they are qualified to judge the almighty. Talk about ego! Putting soapbox away, God Bless Maegi
I was VERY disappointed with this film. I expected more of a Thelma and Louise female-buddy crime movie. Instead, the women prison escapees in this flick, had no sense of loyalty to one another. They were an extremely vulgar pack of hyenas, who beat each other up, double-crossed each other, and even committed lesbian rape against other women in the film.<br /><br />Instead of being shrewed thieves, who stuck together to plan their escape and find the hidden stash of money, the women escapees were too selfish and vicious, to trust each other for long. These women weren't liberated in a positive sense. They just ended up being a bunch of loose-cannons, incapable of respect for themselves, or each other. If you like 70s female crime caper films, skip this bomb, and see The Great Texas Dynamite Chase, which stars Claudia Jennings and Jocelyn Jones.
I've heard about this movie for many years, and finally got a chance to see it. A massive murdering of cheerleaders back in 1963 and 1969 eventually cause a cheerleading camp to close up. Fast forward to 1982, and Bambi, a former student, opens it back up with new recruits, among them Candy (Carol Kane), Glenn (Judge Reinhold), and Sandy (Debralee Scott). One by one, they are murdered by the killer, until only one remains. It is then when we find out who did it and why.<br /><br />Also in the movie are Tom Smothers doing a terrible accent as a Canadian Mountie, and Paul Reubens doing his Pee-Wee Herman schtick. The plot overall isn't very well developed, and quite lame, but some funny scenes do occur, namely the House of Bad Pies and the strip poker scene. The ending seems like it's thrown together, which is a shame.<br /><br />Overall, good for about ten or fifteen minutes total, the rest you can just fast forward through. Maybe catch it on TV, but it's not worth buying.
This Is Pretty Funny. "Saturday The 12th", a?... Great Work... I Laughed Every Minute of the movie... This Is Like "Scary Movie" for the 1980's. great STUDENT BODIES-styled gags...<br /><br />Too Bad This Isn't On Video... But You Can Still Watch It on FLIX...
"Pandemonium" is a horror movie spoof that comes off more stupid than funny. Believe me when I tell you, I love comedies. Especially comedy spoofs. "Airplane", "The Naked Gun" trilogy, "Blazing Saddles", "High Anxiety", and "Spaceballs" are some of my favorite comedies that spoof a particular genre. "Pandemonium" is not up there with those films. Most of the scenes in this movie had me sitting there in stunned silence because the movie wasn't all that funny. There are a few laughs in the film, but when you watch a comedy, you expect to laugh a lot more than a few times and that's all this film has going for it. Geez, "Scream" had more laughs than this film and that was more of a horror film. How bizarre is that?<br /><br />*1/2 (out of four)
I only watched this because it was directed by Lucio Fulci and featured Claudio Cassinelli, an actor I like. I was certainly disappointed.<br /><br />The idea that condemned prisoners would fight to the death for TV ratings has been overdone with Rollerball, Logan's Run, Blade Runner, and the new film, Death Race, which will certainly suck me in because it stars Jason Statham.<br /><br />This was just a bore for the most part. The "Kill Bike" action was ridiculous. The "training" was a snooze-fest. It just never grabbed me and made me want to care about anyone, including "Dallas" star Jared Martin or Fred Williamson.<br /><br />Pick one of the others mentioned and you'll be better off.
fulci experiments with sci fi and fails. usually in his non horror films we still get sum great gore, but not here. Sum very funny scenes like when the prisinors are forced to hold onto a bar for 12 minutes and if they drop they are electecuted. the guy falls and and has some kind of fit on the floor for about two minutes until his friends who were struggling to hold on anyway lift him off the floor. The city is an obvious model but not a bad one. and the end explosion is at best laughable. And dont get me started on the terrible battle scenes.<br /><br />4/10
Watching Floored by Love one thought comes almost immediately to mind, "My god this looks like a really bad sitcom." Sure enough, it turns out that FBL is a pilot for a series that may start this fall in Canada, poor poor Canada.<br /><br />Cara (Shirley Ng) and Janet (Natalie Sky) are a lesbian couple living in Vancouver. Janet has come out to her mother already but Cara's parents are still in the dark about their daughter's homosexuality. The pressure is on to out herself though when the parents come from Malaysia for her younger brother's wedding. That same week British Columbia legalizes gay marriage. With Janet wanting to wed, Cara has to decide whether or not to tell her conservative Chinese parents that's she's gay. Will she? Would she? Could she? Cara's situation is contrasted with that of Jesse (Trent Millar). Jesse has just declared his homosexuality to the world at the age of fourteen. His biological father Daniel (Andrew McIlroy) is coming for a visit soon. His stepfather Norman (Michael Robinson) fears that his chances of finally being fully accepted by Jesse are harmed by the fact that Daniel is gay and he is not. Will dialing 1-800-Makeover help?<br /><br />The dialogue and delivery come straight out of a lesser 1950's program along with the overdone physical emoting. The Full House-style melodrama is enough to make you wince from time to time and the attempts at comedy largely fail. McIlroy, Millar & Sky are the only performers that approach competency in this miscalculation but given the material they have to work with, it's no surprise that none impress. It's possible that the campiness was purposeful. It often seems like there is no way the performers are really that bad, that they must be trying to mimic the inferior sitcoms of days yore. If this is indeed the case than this review should probably be rewritten. The rewrite would focus on Floored by Love being a poor and ineffective send-up of old sitcoms.<br /><br />Writer/director Desiree Lim has put together a by-the-numbers bland-fest that's entirely forgettable. There was a time when merely having an openly homosexual protagonist was enough to make a mark on the screen. That time is gone. In this day we need quality as well.
Saw it at the Philadelphia Gay and Lesbian Film Fest.<br /><br />What can I say? Against my better judgment, I liked it, but it seemed to me that that acting was a little...weak (mostly I noticed this from the family of the teen boy). I mean, the script wasn't stellar to begin with, but the actors didn't make me believe the relationships.<br /><br />The plot is also predictable.<br /><br />Nonethelss, I liked it. The characters are likable, and the plot is not challenging or upsetting. It's sweet, the characters care about each other, and I don't count it as fifty minutes ill-spent. <br /><br />But I don't recommend it.
I will say that at least the movie makes sense, but it's bad. The acting for the most part is not good (I think only Sky showed any promise) and you feel awkward watching it. All of the scenes that should be meaningful are really shallow, like when Ng comes out to her parents. There are a lot of corny details, like the kanji tattoo on the Sky's shoulder, the magnets on the girls' refrigerator and the god awful decor at the sets...and the music...and clothes..and everything. Real life has never been like this movie. The boy says at one point "I'm gay, not corny." And not aware. Even the commentary is awful, I turned it off after Ng talks about how she was weirded out playing a lesbian.
A group of models is seeking an apartment to live in, and are shown one by a local real estate agent. Unknown to the models and the agent, however, is that "hell's threshold" is in the apartment and when crossed, the demon "Dethman" is summoned to kill all those in his path. The story is told by Sam Bishop, a journalist who was accused of the murders.<br /><br />Although I am a champion of low budget, microbudget, and independent films, I cannot praise this movie. The creators take pride in their 24-hour shooting schedule and at least one actor boasts on the DVD of his acting prowess, but I cannot wrap my head around this. Why make a film in 24 hours if an extra one or two hours of editing would make all the difference? And why pride yourself on acting that is poor, nonsensical and results in the bad delivery of a handful of lines?<br /><br />Through much of the film, the models are being shown parts of an apartment by a real estate agent. The dialog is clearly ad-libbed because no scriptwriter could come up with such empty diction. The agent, also, clearly knows nothing about housing... she focuses on aspects of a home that no one could care about, incorrectly explains the heat source (didn't she see the radiator?) and says the vermin problem will be solved when they call "the terminator". Please, write a script -- some deviation is fine, but this was a mess.<br /><br />And why were the girls moving in models? Their careers had no point in the plot, and this seems like a forced situation. At one point, an actress breaks character and says something to the effect of "dude, they're going to be (upset)" which sounded more natural than any other line, though out of place because of the other bad dialog.<br /><br />The demon made no sense. I appreciated the attempt to explain how "hell's threshold" jumps to random places on Earth (including apartment fireplaces), but why not explain where the demon came from? His background involves a man whose love is killed by another man. How does this make you a demon? (Also, why did we need all these Victorian flashbacks with no dialog and glances across a field? It was overdone.)<br /><br />The dramatic pauses between lines was awful. The Sam Bishop character was by far the worst, with the interviewer not far behind. Does every question require a pause, a funny face and a response... followed by a pause, a funny face and a response? I was so frustrated. To me, the only point was to drag the time out... but I'd rather have thirty minutes of good delivery than an hour of horrible delivery (and then more time is wasted by rolling through the same credits twice).<br /><br />Who was the Sam Bishop character, anyway? Allegedly he "saw" all this and was accused of killing the girls, but yet at no point was he ever in the part of the tale with the girls. So how did he see them? And if he didn't, how did he know Dethman killed them? And if he didn't see Dethman, how does he know Dethman is the spirit of Apostoles? I was so lost... was there even an outline for a plot when this was written? <br /><br />The only part I found enjoyable in this movie was a scene with one of the models in the bathroom. Not that it was really important or anything, but it was the only break from boredom I was given. I wonder what director Felix Diaz was thinking. His music is very good (see the DVD behind the scenes for his impromptu playing), but I wonder about his movie making skills. Although, by far the best part of the DVD was the trailer for his "Superhero Excelsior" (the trailer alone was better than this entire waste of time).<br /><br />I am sorry I have to be so harsh. I'd like to think that this movie was a test of what can be done in 24 hours or maybe just an experiment for fun and the idea was never to make a quality film. But if "Superhero Excelsior" is any indication, Diaz can make quality... so why did he choose to avoid that here? Perhaps the world will never know.
Wow...OK. So, after reading the little feud on here, I decided I had to see this movie for myself. This movie is HORRIBLE. I stopped watching it. I strongly recommend cleaning a closet instead of watching this movie, you'll be more spooked/entertained.<br /><br />It's low budget with bad acting.<br /><br />Whoever is giving this movie 10s is completely incorrect and should be disregarded.<br /><br />I am in no way connected to any of the other reviewers.<br /><br />Simply put, this movie is not worth watching.<br /><br />Very, very BAD MOVIE.
That's the question you have to ask yourself when you watch this movie "What was the point?" This movie was nothing but an hour and a half of confusion with completely unlikable people (not going to use the word actors) and a script that you could tell didn't exist.<br /><br />One of the things that made me laugh the most about this movie was how it said "Victorian story written by" which means that there was actually a script to that part of the story. The entire victorian section had no dialogue, and was just comprised of shots of a guy staring at a girl and vice versa. Making that part of the movie as scripted as a camera left on at a train station.<br /><br />OK, time for the story. It starts out with a guy sitting in a chair never once getting out of it. Oh blocking, who needs you? These newspeople come to his house and practically beg him to tell this story about these dead girls. So he starts off the story in Victorian times. and here's how the scene goes (Guy and girl are in a field. pretty music starts to play) (guy stares at girl) (girl stares at guy) (guy stares at girl) cut back to movie. That's pretty much all that happens for about half the movie.<br /><br />The rest of the film is incredibly awkward dialogue about a bunch of models wanting to buy an apartment. So this real estate agent shows them one and when i say the dialogue is awkward i mean, if it were a dancer it would trip during the MACARENA. None of the characters in this movie are likable. The models are incredibly irritating, the victorian people don't talk, and the guy telling the story has the personality of a sack of onions. So eventually all the girls get killed off. and by killed off, i mean drug offscreen. ooh. you showed ONE death? and by death i mean holding her face till they put the blood makeup on? awesome.<br /><br />HOW this guy even knows this story baffles me. He says it's because he saw it. but how? there was no guy in that apartment! the door was locked shut with no way out, the windows were attached to a fire escape that was too rotten to work, how the HELL did he see all that? Oh plot holes. we DO love you. So the movie finishes up with the newswoman saying "i think you made it up. you're wasting our time" despite the fact that she begged him for the interview in the first place. Whatever. This movie was stupid, pointless, and made no sense with a lot of plot holes. I could go on and on about this movie, but i don't see the need. i'd much rather spend my time doing something uselful. Like widdle something. "Hell's Threshold" more belongs in purgatory with 2 dumb models. out of 10.
I love Dracula but this movie was a complete disappointment! I remember Lee from other Dracula films from when i was younger, and i thought he was great, but this movie was really bad. I don't know if it was my youth that fooled me into believing Lee was the ultimate Dracula, with style, looks, attraction and the evil underneath that. Or maybe it was just this film that disappointed me. <br /><br />But can you imagine Dracula with an snobbish English accent and the body language to go along with it? Do you like when a plot contains unrealistic choices by the characters and is boring and lacks any kind of tension..? Then this is a movie for you! <br /><br />Otherwise - don't see it! I only gave it a 2 because somehow i managed to stay awake during the whole movie.<br /><br />Sorry but if you liked this movie then you must have been sleep deprived and home alone in a dark room with lots of unwatched space behind you. Maybe alone in your parents house or in a strangers home. Cause not even the characters in this flick seemed afraid, and i think that sums up the whole thing!<br /><br />Or maybe you like this film because of it's place in Dracula cinema history, perhaps being fascinated by how the Dracula story has evolved from Nosferatu to what it is today. Cause as movie it isn't that appealing, it doesn't pull you in to the suggestive mystery that for me make the Vampyre myth so fascinating. <br /><br />And furthermore it has so much of that tacky 70ies feel about it. The scenery looks like cheap Theatre. And i don't say that rejecting everything made in the 70ies. Cause i can love old film as well as new.
It is hard to describe this film and one wants to tried hard not to dismiss it too quickly because you have a feeling that this might just be the perfect film for some 12 years old girl...<br /><br />This film has a nice concept-the modern version of Sleeping Beauty with a twist. It has some rather dreamy shots and some nice sketches of the young boy relationship with his single working mother and his schoolmate... a nice start you might say, but then it got a bit greedy, very greedy, it tries to be a science fiction, a drama, a thriller, a possible romantic love story, fairy tale, a comedy and everything under the sun. The result just left the audience feeling rather inadequate. For example, the scene when the girl(played by Risa Goto) finally woken by his(Yuki Kohara) kiss, instead of being romantic, it try's to be scary in order to make us laugh afterwards... it is a cheap trick, because it ruin all the anticipation and emotion which it was trying to build for the better half of the film.<br /><br />I have not read the original story the film is base on (it is the well-known work by the comic-book artist Osamu Tezuka is famous with his intriguing and intricate stories) I wonder if all the problems exsist in the original story or did it occur in the adaption? It is rather illogical even for someone who is used to the "fussy logic" of those japanese comic-book. For instance, how did Yuki Kohara's character manage to get to the hospital in an instant(when its suppose to be a long bus-ride away)to run away Risa Goto's character in front of the tv cameras right after he saw her live interview on the television?<br /><br />There are also some scenes that is directly copied(very uncreative!) from other films and they all seem rather pointlessly annoying ie. the famous "the Lion mouth has caugh my hand" scene from "the "Roman Holiday"<br /><br />The film tries to be everything but ends up being nothing... it fails to be a fairy tale and it did not have enough jokes to be a comedy... and strangely there are some scenes that even seem like an unintentional "ghost" movie. Nevertheless, one should give it credit that it has managed to caputured some of the sentiment of the japanese teenager.<br /><br />It is by watching this film I have a feeling that there might be some films that should have come with a warning label that said "this film might only be suitable for person under the 18 of age", it would have definitly been on the poster of this film.<br /><br />
The premise for Circle of Two is an intriguing one. A forbidden love between a sixty year old painter Ashleigh (Richard Burton) and a fifteen year old girl Sarah Norton (Tatum O'Neill); and the question of whether such a relationship is acceptable given society's standards. The problem with Circle of Two, however, is that it fails to live up to its promise. Director Jules Dassin and Hedley should have put more thought into the screenplay. When I watched this film, I expected to learn something new about love and sexuality. Instead, I got boring dialogue, a pointless lecture on art, outings where Sarah seemed to have more fun away from Ashleigh, and a closing scene so artificial that its emotional impact was lost. This script makes good actors look bad. So one can imagine how the film's problems were compounded even further with the largely amateurish cast that Jules Dassin assembled. Tatum O'Neill was not in her element. I did not believe for a second that her character Sarah was in love with Ashleigh. Her performance seemed superficial, like a contestant at a beauty pageant. It was as though she forced herself to be happy, when the script required her to be happy, and to be sad, when the script asked her to be sad. The only scene I liked with her in was at the very end when she said nothing at all. That was probably the closest Tatum's Sarah Norton ever came to being real. But Tatum was not the only one at fault. Richard Burton's Ashleigh lacked the charm, the charisma and the complexity to attract even women of his own age, let alone a fifteen year old. The rest of the cast was also dismal. Even their arguing was unconvincing, because they waited to take turns. Who does that? Michael Wincott as the jealous ex-boyfriend Paul was probably the best thing in this film, but his role was small. To be fair to the actors, Dassin's direction let everyone down; but it is also true that a great movie goes beyond the script. Kubrick's Lolita did that with James Mason and Sue Lyon; Konchalovsky's Runaway Train went beyond the script with Jon Voight and Eric Roberts playing convicts. The directors of these films also knew how to use music to dramatize their films and reveal something about the characters in them. In spite of its own score (a combination of Antonio Vivaldi, Carl Off and Bernard Hoffer), Circle of Two never succeeds in doing that.<br /><br />In conclusion, the idea of a forbidden love story between an elder painter and a teenage girl is a good one, but its execution in Circle of Two is terrible. In many ways, it is a shame that a controversial, Lolita-type story – which most film directors for understandable reasons would prefer to avoid – did not have receive more intelligent treatment; that a script which actors would have gladly rehearsed was not written; that actors, who were committed to their part or had the talent to make their characters real, could not be found; and that the director Jules Dassin (who did so much better with films like Rififi and Topkapi) did not have to will to put his foot down and say, "Before we do any filming, we must rethink the love story and revamp the script." The only silver lining is that one day an intelligent film about an elder painter and a teenager girl falling in love may one day be made. If such a film ever appears, this it will be surely spark controversy, debate and questions for many years to come.
Horrible film. About an old crusty painter who hangs around with a young girl. Boring. Tatum O Neil goes through the motions in her part, and has some of the corniest lines in film history. Richard Burton looks close to death in this film, and we're supposed to believe he looks "Good for sixty". The acting is bad, as is the plot. The characters are awful, as is the story. It's really hard to feel for anyone in this film, except Larry Ewashen who plays a guy in a porno theater who hits on Tatum, he's kind of funny. This movie is really a waste of time. If you are a Tatum fan, like me - which is why I rented it in the first place - please don't see this movie. She is really bad in it, and you'll wonder if maybe PAPER MOON was a fluke. It wasn't, because of BAD NEWS BEARS and LITTLE DARLINGS it's known she can act well, but still, don't rent this movie. And if you're a fan of Burton, rent something when he was good looking, and not a fossil.
I was skimming over the list of films of Richard Burton when I came to this title that I recall vividly from when I first saw it on cable in 1982. I remember dialogue from Tatum O'Neal that was just amazingly bad. I remember Richard Burton's character looking so hopelessly lost, and then remembering how his motivations didn't translate to me. In short, I remember "Circle of Two" because it was so phenomenally awful.<br /><br />This movie came out at a time when America was going through a rather disturbing period of fascination with unhealthy or skewed angles on teenage sexuality. Recall "The Blue Lagoon" (and other Brooke Shields annoyances), "Lipstick", "Little Darlings", "Beau Pere" and other films that just seemed to dwell on teens having sex, particularly with adults. As a teenager during this time, I found the obsession, combined with the sexual excesses of the 70's and 80's, made for a subconsciously unsettling environment in which to figure it all out, so to speak.<br /><br />"Circle of Two" is not execrably acted or needlessly prurient, like "Blue Lagoon". In fact, it tackles the question of love between the young and the old in a brave, if totally failed, way. But honestly, it is one of those films you will *never* see if you didn't see it on its first run because it was so truly awful. No one would want to have this garbage ever surface to be publicly distributed again.
This is an attempt, by both author Edgar Rice Burroughs and filmmakers, at an Arabian "Tarzan of the Apes". But, this desert-set film shows none of the majesty present in Burroughs' more successful jungle adventure. The focus is on the love between handsome English noble Jon Hall (as "El 'Lion" Chatham) and exotic Arab beauty Kathleen Burke (as "Princess" Eulilah), with revenge happening to coincide with their urge to merge. The opening states that, although guilty of conduct unbecoming, the lad's mother is living - but, she never re-enters the picture. Unfortunately, "The Lion Man" has deteriorated, and is looks like it's missing footage.<br /><br />*** The Lion Man (1936) John P. McCarthy ~ Jon Hall, Kathleen Burke, Ted Adams
In addition to his "Tarzan" series, the prolific Edgar Rice Burroughs did write many other books, although, aside from the popular "At the Earth's Core", few of these have been filmed. One exception is the novel entitled "The Lad and the Lion", brought to the screen as "The Lion Man" (1936), an over-talkative, static, old-hat, slow-moving and rather dull movie, despite being filmed on real desert locations. Actually "movie" is the wrong word. The narrative doesn't move but proceeds at a snail's pace in an abrupt series of jerks. For instance, at least five characters are given elaborate opening scenes and then just disappear. Even more frustrating for the keen movie fan, are the characters who make an impression of sorts (like the lass who plies Hall with drugged wine) but are enacted by players who are not credited! The credited thespians generally come off worse than the unknowns. One exception is Australian actress Finis Barton who gives a good account of the kidnapped harem girl who rescues young Master Fairy. Admittedly, most of the cast are saddled with atrocious King James dialogue which has to be heard to be believed! But the way to play this rubbish is tongue-in-cheek, a stratagem which does not seem to have occurred to a single one of the film's roster of no-talent players. Maybe director J.P. McCarthy scotched that idea. Anyway, it's sad to see the lovely Kathleen Burke forced to trade lines with the likes of Richard Carlyle (her dad) and Jon Hall (her suitor). Admittedly, Mr Hall delivers his lines with marginally more conviction than Mr Carlyle, but that is no recommendation.
Man To Man tries hard to be a good movie: it has its heart at the right place, it aspires to be epic and it has a message that no doubt everybody will appreciate. But there lies also some of the problems of this picture. It strives so hard to be good and to get its message across that sometimes the viewer must feel unchallenged. So it is only adequate that the images which are used by this picture are simplistic - Man To Man doesn't let the viewer decide what he thinks is right but is hammering its message in his head. Joseph Fiennes exemplifies this in his role: he does his best to look concerned, genuinely moved and all the other emotions you can express with the single one facial expression his repertoire has to offer. Add that the movie is overlong and loses its speed towards the end you would be easily led to the conclusion that Man To Man is not worth watching. But there are enough points to defend it: it is entertaining, has some humorous scenes and the show-stealing Kristin Scott Thomas. Of course you should not compare it to humanistic masterpieces like The Elephant Man (David Lynch) but you'll be leaving the theatre satisfied. It tries to grab your heart (even if your brain thinks that it is too obvious) and succeeds most of the time.
The problem is the role of the characters in the film. Man to Man shows a British anthropologist kidnapping two pygmies and taking them to Scotland and then realising that they are not animals or subhumans but actually equal to himself. The problem is the role of the pygmies in the film - two people who are kidnapped, treated like animals, and yet given such a shallow, stereotypical role within the film... The kidnapper (british anthropologist) ends up being the hero of the film because he 'manages' to relate to the pygmies... No notion of how the two hostages feel, of their point of view, of their ordeal... I find it is a shallow film, with a one sided fundamentally racist view... it never manages to move away from the 'white mans' view
Do we really need any more narcissistic garbage on the Baby Boomer generation? Technically, I am a Boomer, though at the time when all the "idealistic youths" of the '60s were reading Marx, burning their draft cards, and generally prolonging a war which destroyed tens of thousands of lives; I was still in grade school. But I remember them well, and 9 out of 10 were just moronic fools, who would believe anything as long as it was destructive.<br /><br />This is just another excercise in self-importance from the kids who never really grew up.
Is there any other time period that has been so exhaustively covered by television (or the media in general) as the 1960s? No. And do we really need yet another trip through that turbulent time? Not really. But if we must have one, does it have to be as shallow as "The '60s"? <br /><br />I like to think that co-writers Bill Couturie and Robert Greenfield had more in mind for this two-part miniseries than what ultimately resulted, especially given Couturie's involvement in the superb HBO movie "Dear America: Letters Home From Vietnam" which utilized little original music and no original footage, letting the sights and sounds of the time speak for themselves. This presentation intercuts file footage with the dramatic production, but it doesn't do anyone any favours by trying to do too much in too little time; like so many of its ilk, it's seen from the point of view of one family. But the children of the family seem to be involved tangentially with almost every major event of the '60s (it's amazing that one of them doesn't go to the Rolling Stones gig at Altamont), making it seem less like a period drama and more like a Cliff Notes version of the decade.<br /><br />The makers rush through it so much that there's little or no time to give the characters any character, with the stick figures called our protagonists off screen for ages at a time - the children's father is especially clichéd - and then when they're back on BLAMMO! it's something else. Garry Trudeau could teach the filmmakers a thing or two about doing this kind of thing properly. In fairness, Jerry O'Connell, Jordana Brewster, Jeremy Sisto, Julia Stiles and Charles S. Dutton give their material the old college try, but they're wasted (especially the latter two); it's undeniably good to see David Alan Grier in a rare straight role as activist Fred Hampton, and Rosanna Arquette (in an uncredited cameo in part 2) is always welcome.<br /><br />What isn't welcome is how "The '60s" drowns the soundtrack with so many period songs that it ultimately reduces its already minimal effect (and this may well be the only time an American TV presentation about post-60s America never mentions the British Invasion - no Beatles, no Rolling Stones... then again, there's only so much tunes you can shoehorn into a soundtrack album, right?). Capping its surface-skimming approach to both the time and the plot with an almost out-of-place happy ending, "American Dreams" and "The Wonder Years" did it all much, much better. Nothing to see here you can't see elsewhere, people... except for Julia Stiles doing the twist, that is.
The 1960's were a time of change and awakening for most people. Social upheaval and unrest were commonplace as people spoke-out about their views. Racial tensions, politics, the Vietnam War, sexual promiscuity, and drug use were all part of the daily fabric, and the daily news. This film attempted to encapsulate these historical aspects into an entertaining movie, and largely succeeded.<br /><br />In this film, two families are followed: one white, one black. During the first half of the film, the story follows each family on a equal basis through social and family struggles. Unfortunately, the second half of the movie is nearly dedicated to the white family. Admittedly, there are more characters in this family, and the story lines are intermingled, but equal consideration is not given to the racial aspects of this century.<br /><br />On the whole, the acting is well done and historical footage is mixed with color and black and white original footage to give a documentary feel to the movie. The movie is a work of fiction, but clips of well-known historical figures are used to set the time-line.<br /><br />I enjoyed the movie but the situations were predictable and the storyline was one-sided.
The 60s (1999) D: Mark Piznarski. Josh Hamilton, Julia Stiles, Jerry O'Connell, Jeremy Sisto, Jordana Brewster, Leonard Roberts, Bill Smitrovich, Annie Corley, Charles S. Dutton. NBC mini-series (later released to video/DVD as full length feature film) about the treacherous 1960s, as seen through the eyes of both a white family and a black family. The film's first half is driven by the excellent performance of Dutton as Reverend Willie Taylor and evenly spreads the storyline between the families. However, Dutton's character is killed halfway through and the black family is completely forgotten in a dull, incoherent, and downright awful 2nd half. RATING: 4 out of 10. Not rated (later rated PG-13 for video/DVD release).
I like a lot of the actors/actresses involved in this project so being insulted by the movie felt even worse than if they used a unknowns .The main problem was this movie was clearly just a concept created to appeal to baby boomers .In 20 or 30 years Nbc will probably do a movie just like this about the early 90's . I can see it now a black family where the kids are involved with the la riot's and the white family has the kids rebel and listen to grunge rock music .The soundtrack will feature bands like Nirvana , N.W.A , Public Enemy , Soundgarden etc .The movie like this will be just as cheesy as The 60's and I gurantee you NBC will do it .See the biggest problem with period pieces when done buy networks is that when you are living in a certain time period you aren't thinking i am living in the 60's or whatever decade is trendy retro at the time .Next time someone does something like this they should put more weight into there project
The '60s is an occasionally entertaining film, most of this entertainment is from laughing at the film. It is extremely uneven, and includes many annoying elements. Take for instance the switch between black & white, and color. If done right, this could of been fairly effective, but because it was done poorly , it turned into a nuisance and only detracted from the already bad experience; much of the film had an odd feel to it. The acting wasn't extremely bad for a made for TV flick, but then again it was downright embarrassing at other times. Many of the events were not coherent, and ending up being confusing. How did this family somehow end up being at many of the big events during the 1960's? The ending was much too sappy for my tastes; because it was hollywoodized, everything had to turn out right in the end. I would advise you to not waste your time on The '60s and do something else with your time. I'm glad I watched this in class, and not on my own time. I think I can safely say that the best part of the movie was the inclusion of Bob Dylan's music. Those are just my rambling thoughts on the flick. I hope you take my advice, and stay away from this.
Even if you could get past the idea that these boring characters personally witnessed every Significant Moment of the 1960s (ok, so Katie didn't join the Manson Family, and nobody died at Altamont), this movie was still unbelievably awful. I got the impression that the "writers" just locked themselves in a room and watched "Forrest Gump," "The Wonder Years," and Oliver Stone's 60s films over and over again and called it research. A Canadian television critic called the conclusion of the first episode "head spinning". He was right.
Somehow they summed up the 60's, ten years that radically changed our country, in four hours. And what a painful four hours it was. They trivilized the major events and happenings and they "claimed" it was about two families yet you barely saw the african-american family. If I were NBC I would be ashamed and embarrassed for airing such trash. What was amusing was this happy-go-lucky family you saw in the very beginning was tortured in so many ways, but managed to attend every major 60's event through the country. And the second family was such a non-factor. They devoted maybe five or six scenes total to this family. That poor son... Please NBC, do not make any movies about any other eras....leave that to PBS and the History Channel
To this day when you speak of the Japanese cinema, most folks won't talk about Rashomon, or the Seven Ronin, or Ran. To the masses the Japanese cinema means all those monsters we've grown to love destroying those Japanese cities over and over again, lots of times in battles with each other. The first and greatest of these is Godzilla who's come back a dozen times or more and in a few films faced the three headed hydra like monster from outer space, Ghidrah.<br /><br />Oddly enough in keeping with the times, the special effects got slightly better. But part of the charm of those old films was seeing those paper mache city sets destroyed, they looked so phony, maybe three steps above Ed Wood.<br /><br />Some visitors from the future have time traveled to Japan to urge that Godzilla be destroyed from when he was first discovered. And in fact he was first discovered as a surviving dinosaur during World War II when he protected the Japanese garrison on a Pacific island from those American troops. But later on with atomic testing on Bikini, Godzilla the friendly dinosaur just like Barney became the mean machine we've grown to know in the cinema.<br /><br />Of course you eliminate Godzilla than you give Ghidrah a clear field to wreck Japan so it does not become the economic colossus it was by 1991 when the film came out. More I won't say, but we all know Japan is doing reasonably well as 2010.<br /><br />Like all the other Japanese monster films, just sit back and enjoy the mayhem.
This is one of those movies in which people keep saying "That's a great idea!" about the worst ideas you've ever heard. Then they act on them. I like it. This picture's funnier than any 3 dozen Seth Rogen projects. Well, so is SHOAH. <br /><br />Gojira movies have been cannibalizing their own origin-stories since the 60s, but this one goes further. What can you say about a culture willing to rape its own sacred cultural icons for a quick buck? This travesty presents a WW2 suicide brigade on "the last of the Marshall Islands" presenting arms to a dinosaur who chased the US Marines away. Then the Japanese inexplicably decide not to fight to the last man, and instead abandon the territory annexed on their behalf by this giant lizard. They retreat to the mainland, where one of them becomes a business tycoon.<br /><br />Then it gets complicated.<br /><br />Blonde men from the future, irritable over not yet curing male pattern baldness, come back in time in a sort of flying saucer to ask a failed writer and a celebrity psychic for their help in eliminating Godzilla before he destroys Japan. The "help" is questionable, as all these 1992 citizens do is go back to 1944 to watch some closed-circuit TV, but, hey, they shot the script. You would think that by the 90s the Japanese would know better than to trust people in spaceships. Fortunately for Nippon, the white guys - you can tell they're American because they say "nucyaler" - erred by bringing back in time the one Japanese girl left in the future. In a touching display of ancestor worship, she outs their duplicity after donning a flying suit made from ductwork taped to a Sailor Moon backpack. Turns out these time-traveling, fashion-disabled Caucasians are just jealous of Japan's impending economic imperialist takeover of the known world (in the 22d century Japan's going to buy Africa, which sounds more like a liability than an asset). These blondes in padded chintz suits with nonfunctioning straps and redundant zippers want to replace Godzilla with King Ghidorah, who will destroy all of Japan except Tokyo. A strange choice, but Toho's been known to go out of its way not to have to build that Tokyo skyline set again.<br /><br />Sure enough, we are given the alternate spectacle of Fukuoka ("my garden city") and some other heretofore unscathed-by-rubber-monster metropolitan areas being laid waste by a flying gold metalflake 1/3 of a hydra. In a surprise revelation, we are informed that King Ghidorah was created from some hand puppets left too long in the microwave. Godzilla also does his share of demolition as the movie winds down. Wait - didn't the spaceship blondes already destroy Godzilla? Yeah, they killed him in the third reel. But nobody expected that the Japanese of 1992 had a secret submarine filled with nuclear missiles - "Ha ha, don't worry. We don't keep it in Japanese waters" - with which to jumpstart a new Godzilla from the bones of an old dinosaur. Only they don't have to, because a leaky old nuclear shipwreck has already made Godzilla whole again. Oh, and Godzilla finally gets to Tokyo, reuniting with his old army buddy in a heartwarming moment of tearful recognition. They look into each other's eyes, and Godzilla nods as if to say, "Gotta do it, man." The tycoon nods in understanding. Then Godzilla blows him up.<br /><br />I should also mention here that, in order to prevent Godzilla's revamped angry self from fulfilling his destiny and destroying Japan, the Japanese girl from the future goes BACK to the future to ask for help from - yes - a balding white man. Probably because he pities her as the sole Asian character from the 23d century, he agrees to build a Mecha-Ghidora and send it back to the 1990s, so that together, these two giant monsters can, uh, fulfill Godzilla's destiny and destroy Japan. In a wonderful nod to those notoriously self-willed whipping heads, the girl piloting Mecha-Ghidora has trouble controlling the joystick.<br /><br />This Godzilla suit design owes much to the Sumo - his thighs are flabby enough to double for Rush Limbaugh's, and his belly and chest are thick and ponderous. But there's more exploding masonry in this picture than in most of his adventures, which makes up for a lot. Also features a man with a passing resemblance to Robert Patrick playing a killer robot. Yes, in the future even the robots will have bald spots. Plus Megumi Odaka, reprising her role as Micki, the only Japanese girl ever born with ears larger than her Disney namesake and an acting style even bigger than that. It's not her fault: many Japanese directors seem to feel that a seventy-foot screen isn't quite large enough to display the emotion of a human face. I did some acting for Japanese television, and I can tell you, they push you to go for it. They apparently urge their writers in the same way. Thank God.
"Godzilla vs King Ghidorah" is a perfect example how a great idea can be ruined by pathetic topics like pseudo-patriotism. Here, travellers from the future try to ruin Japan, replacing the local hero Godzilla with their puppy monster, the three-headed golden dragon King Ghidorah. They fail, however and in the end Godzilla fights Ghidorah. The battles between the two behemoths are very cool, but the plot of the movie is full with holes and the all thing about "Japan is great" is really stupid. The creators of this movie didn't even threat with respect the enemies of Japan, making them stupid big blond guys, who are easily outsmarted by the clever Japanese. The good thing is that in the end Godzilla and king Ghidorah nearly destroyed the both Japan and it's ridiculous enemies in one (actually two) spectacular combats. But till this battle royale, the film was really dull and pathetic.
I cant understand at all why so many Godzilla fans think this is excellent, one of the best Godzilla films ever in fact. This film is horrible and one of the very few Gojira films I cant stand to watch again (the other being G. vs Megalon).<br /><br />The plot is too campy to be in the Heisei series, a series that attempted to turn the aging Godzilla franchise into bonafide action films, revolving around ideas that seemed more in place in 1974 than 1991. It just sounded ridiculous, especially with some of the subject matter, take for example the WW2 scene, with the Japanese soldiers praising a dying Godzillasaurus, a mournful and serious tone, take the exuberant former commander turn capitalist and his death, serious seens in a film its fans somehow denote as played for laughs, as a goofy romp with guilty illogical fun, if so than this is easily one of the most tasteless films I've seen, however I think its more likely it was only talent the filmmakers lacked and this was a case of a straight faced action movie gone bad. It was made ever worse by the fact that the special effects are terrible beyond compare, from the jet packs to the android, to the hokey sound effects emitted from everything, its impossible to take anything seriously, and yet the film expects you to, there's no nudges to the camera.<br /><br />Like nearly all Godzilla films there's a pointless romance, and this is no exception, though something can be said about the fact that this one is especially pointless since and inexplicable. There is literally no reason at all presented for the romance, it just happens and there lives make 360 degree commitments for it. Aside from this the other terrible aspect of this film is dialogue, both the Japanese and English is horrible, clunky and possibly the inspiration for Battlefield Earth.<br /><br />The Tristar DVD compounds the problems, making everything look grainy, blurred, dim and just plain ugly, the same was for the sound. I first saw the Japanese Region 2 version and the differences are night and day, with the original vibrant colors and texture, the noteworthy score, the fight scenes especially, are actually watchable.<br /><br />In my opinion, the Heisei series is a disappointment, with the exception of Godzilla 1984 (Japanese version) there is little to praise here, and Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah is case in point of this failure. It doesn't even come close to deserving the reputation and fans it gets.<br /><br />2 out of 10
Yet another colourful excuse for men in rubber suits to wrestle with each other. This time around, time travellers from the future arrive in 1992 and recruit a few people to go back with them to 1944 and prevent the creation of Godzilla, thus saving a future Japan from destruction. But having accomplished this task, the time travellers are revealed to be a bunch of double crossers whose own creature goes on the rampage, and with no Godzilla to stop it… Eek! It all sounds very silly, and it probably is, but the plot is surprisingly decent and the final battle looks pretty good too. Unfortunately the rest of the visual effects are just rubbish rather than enjoyably rubbish, and the movie turns out to be just as dull as its predecessors. Look out for the shaky Spielberg in-joke.
Nothing new in this hackneyed romance with characters put into unbelievable situations, speaking dialogue that borders on the ridiculous. This is an example of another movie put into production before serious script problems were solved. Don't waste your time.
let's value it.<br /><br />entertainment: a trashy script which has been typed by unintelligent people in front of typewriters a thousand times.. pathetic acting that is thwarted by the story...OK production value, including good set/location and gorgeous girl.. -rating 4/10 <br /><br />social message: the movie has no social message. it's thought free... .but if I pretend I were 10, and my IQ were 70. I feel the message is:don't be afraid to love? -rating 0/10<br /><br />objectionable things: nothing special, just the mild Jewish hedonic and arrogant attitude that is presented by the writer/director. generally speaking, good , nothing degenerate -8/10<br /><br />overall rating is 4/10
I've tried to like this film, really. In watching it, all I can think is, "This guy gives me the creeps, I would have gotten a restraining order". It also calls out CODEPENDENCE in capital letters. Was this really the conversation before making the movie? "Let's make a film that puts two chronically depressed, socially inept people into a relationship which deepens their isolation and encourages them to complain about how bad their lives are!" From what I've seen in life is that the last thing on earth we find attractive in a potential mate is constant self-pity. <br /><br />The mood of the movie is distinctly 80-ish; brooding and slow. Don't get me wrong, the film has its moments, just very few of them.
Dolph Lundgren stars as a former cop/boxer who searches Boston's kinky scene to find out who killed his brother,who was well thought of in the community, however along the way he learns how his brother enjoyed kinky sex and that a serial killer is to blame. Dolph Lundgren is very good in this movie, in fact on the basis of his performance here, one would forget Lundgren's rise to fame involved action roles. That said the material gives Lundgren nothing to work with, in fact, Lundgren is completely left out to dry in a dreary thriller which is both predictable and incomprehensible. Co-Star Danielle Brett is also good, in fact the film works best when it centers around the chemistry of Lundgren and Brett, indeed had the film taken the time to explore their relationship the film would've been fairly decent. However the movie is lackluster, the action is non-existent, the plot not given enough exploration (Too much boring B.S around Lundgren's investigation of his brother's employer) and the film is needlessly gory and ridiculous. Once again, Lundgren is actually really good (As is newcomer Danielle Brett) but the film just lumbers from one sequence to the next, which makes this movie particularly disappointing. If anything else though, it shows how underrated Lundgren is, as an actor.<br /><br />*1/2 Out Of 4-(Poor)
Okay, I rented this movie because of the director...he has made some interesting flicks in the past (if you haven't seen Waxork you are missing a fun ride). Anyway, I had my doubts about this movie from the beginning but I decided to suck it up and give it a look. It's bad. Very bad. If you haven't seen the movie and don't mind spoilers read ahead. First of all, the old saying 'You can't judge a book by it's cover' applies here. The box for this flick seems to indicate that Jill is the stone fox with long hair with highlights. The back of the box has a cool shot of the red-leather Jill and some other shots. The description makes you want to rent the movie because it SOUNDS good. You start watching it and suddenly you find out that the movie takes place (inexplicably) in 1977. Jill is a total dog who is not the girl on the cover. The movie is not quite as predictable as you would think...and that's not a good thing. Characters do so many stupid things without any modicum of motivation...it's embarrassing to watch. 10 minutes before the end of the movie Dolph and another lady have sex for no good reason. Also, what was the point of having Dolph kill this other lady in cold blood who had been helping him. Anthony Hickox the director should have seen a stinker when he read the script. Had it been set in the underworld of the new milennium and made the characters halfway intelligent it might have been decent. To set it in the 70's makes no sense and has no bearing on the story whatsoever. Avoid it!
Dolph Lundgren stars as Murray Wilson an alcoholic ex-cop who gets involved with a serial killer who kills during sex, after his brother is murdered, Wilson starts his own investigation and finds out a lot of his brother's secrets in this very dull thriller. Lundgren mails in his performance and the movie is flat and lethargic. Also when has anyone watched a Dolph Lundgren movie for anything but action?
I think Dolph Lundgren had potential at being a big action star a la Schwarzenegger, Stallone, and even Van Damme to certain degree. He had some big moments in his career but he also made some poor choices and this is definitely one of them although made later in his career. The strange thing about Jill The Ripper (or Jill Rips...or Tied Up) is that I honestly think they seriously thought they were making a provocative and serious thriller? It shows in the way that they describe it on IMDb, on the DVD case, in the commentaries, and this film is not serious. To call it campy would be a huge understatement. The film tries to be complex and intelligent when in fact it's nothing more than shallow, confusing and gratuitous. On top of that they put Lundgren, who is known for action films, in an attempt at a serious role which makes it even more campy because his range as an actor is pretty limited. The entire film revolves around the kinky sex world and yet they attempt at making it a serious thriller? Just the plot and premise immediately make it a B-Movie Porn at very best.<br /><br />Dolph Lundgren plays disgraced former cop and raging alcoholic Matt Sorenson who decides to play Detective when his brother is murdered. I mean put aside the numerous plot holes that has Lundgren getting free roam to investigate crime scenes, and witnesses and everything else even though he's not a cop anymore and you still have a pretty strange and rather lack luster performance from Lundgren. Danielle Brett is Lundgren's eventual love interest and his brother's widow. Brett plays her role decently enough considering the script and campy story. The supporting cast is huge and no one particularly stands out in their performances unless it's on the negative side such as the absolutely horrible performance by Victor Pedtrchenko who seems to go by several different names in the film, boasts an awful accent and is a really awful villain.<br /><br />I honestly tried to get into the mystery and film and watch closely but there wasn't any reason to because it was all a jumble of ridiculous plot and gratuitous sex games including a downright ridiculously hilarious scene where Lundgren goes under cover and is strung upside down nearly naked. To explain how classy and well done this movie is (sarcasm...sarcasm) the back of the DVD I picked up (it was really cheap) has Lundgren's character listed as "Murray Wilson" (not the name of his character in the film.) While somehow Lundgren manages to be usually watchable the film falls flat on it's face trying to be serious. Considering director Anthony Hickox is infamous for really B-Movie Horror flicks it only makes sense even though I think he was really trying to be serious. Hard core cult Lundgren fans will have to see it...no one else should...certainly for any sort of mystery or suspense. 3/10
Probably the worst Dolph film ever. There's nothing you'd want or expect here. Don't waste your time. Dolph plays a miserable cop with no interests in life. His brother gets killed and Dolph tries to figure things out. The character is just plain stupid and stumbles around aimlessly. Pointless.
Dolph Lundgren broods and scowls his way through this incoherent mystery/thriller that's not nearly as cool as the box would have you believe. He is actually quite good here, but the story is a mess of B-movie cliches (detectives, revenge, tycoons, hookers, S&M) that looks like it was made up as they went along. The film picks up a bit in the second half but for a more decent Lundgren flick, rent RED SCORPION instead.
This unpleasant film has little to recommend it. Dolph Lundgren gives a performance that is better than either this script or his other action films have allowed. And there are occasional snippets of dialog that suggest the film might have been able to provide some insight into a bizarre subculture.<br /><br />But no. Motivations are either murky or trite. Most of the acting is sub-par. The script creates needless confusion. And the director's needless fascination with focusing on gore is distracting.<br /><br />It's hard to imagine who the audience is for this film.
I saw this film under the title of "Tied Up". In general I have enjoyed Dolph's movies, so gave this one a try. It wasn't worth it. I have read some of the previous comments about the box enticing viewers. Don't be fooled. This is a poor film at best. The acting is nonexistent. The plot, what little there is of one, is very predictable. The movie in places seems to be chopped together. This one just plain stinks the place up. Not even worth the price of a cheap night rental. As a bit of a Dolph fan, I kept waiting to see him in action. By the end of the movie, you will still be waiting. Best to avoid this film, and spend your time watching almost anything else.
It just seems to run true to form, any movie starring Dolph Lundgren is bad! I don't know if it is the fact that the storyline in full of holes, or that Dolph is such a bad actor. No spoiler here, He seems to overdue the pushing and shoving and grabbing and touching thing in this movie. In my opinion it is a wonder that some of these projects find venture capital to get in the can and to the theatre.
This is the worst movie I have ever seen. The Avengers held this dubious honor… but no longer. The acting in "Jill the Ripper" is terrible and was only eclipsed by the plot. This movie is as intellectually stimulating as the Telletubbes. It doesn't know whether it wants to be an S&M flick or a really bad thriller. Only watch under extreme intoxication or if you're bed ridden and need a leather clad distraction. This script should be reworked into a porn, it wouldn't take very much effort and would have a longer shelf life. A porn, even a bad porn, wouldn't do the damage to Dolf Lundgren's career the way that this movie has.
I wont take too much time here, just wanted to state that Darkman 3 is awesome. I have all 3 on DVD, added these to my collection of DVD movie sets. Darkman ranks up there with the best, like Indiana Jones, Aliens, Star Wars, Die hard, you get the point. There isn't too many good horror, thriller, sets out there. Many thanks to the whole crew, and set for giving us the Darkman trilogy. By the way if your wondering how I came across this one on DVD. I purchased it through the internet, it is however region 4, as you know most US DVD players are region 1. If you own a Sony Playstation 2, you have the best DVD player since it is an all region player. Just go to set up then choose witch region setting you want ( 1-9 ).
OK,but does that make this a good movie?well,not really,in my opinion.there isn't a whole lot to recommend it.i found it very slow,tediously,in fact.it's also predictable pretty much through and through.number one and two were somewhat predictable,but not as much.i also felt this movie was quite campy at times,which i didn't really think fits this series and the character.Jeff Fahey plays the main bad guy in this installment.he's a decent enough actor,but i felt he played his character too over the top.i guess that fit with the tone of the movie,which would have been great if i had liked the movie.plus,there were some pretty bad one liners.Arnold Vosloo returns in the title role,but is given little to work with in this movie.the character has not really evolved,as i had hoped.oh well.this is just my opinion.anyway,for me,while this movie is not abysmal,it is pretty bad.my vote for Darkman III: 3.5/5
Within the first 17 minutes of director Bradford May's "Darkman III: Die Darkman Die", we have already been subjected to a silly recap and accompanying voice-over on the first two films, hilarious over-acting, about three minutes of footage simply ripped from the second film and re-edited slightly to seem like new footage, and a lengthy advertisement the scarred and tormented title character watches about Universal Theme Parks- Universal being the company that distributed this film. Yes, "Darkman III: Die Darkman Die" is quite the handful when it comes to cheap cash-ins on the success of a previous film.<br /><br />This time around, the disfigured anti-hero Peyton Westlake (aka, "Darkman"; portrayed by "Mummy" actor Arnold Vosloo) locks horns with evil crime-lord and lousy husband Peter Rooker (played in a brilliantly over-the-top performance by Jeff Fahey), and over the course of the 87 minute film grows to develop an affection for Rooker's wife and daughter, once again learning to care for another person.<br /><br />Blah. Blah. Blah.<br /><br />This film is basically just a silly way for the studio to make some more money off of Sam Raimi's original film, which I consider to be a great action-suspense film.<br /><br />Oh yeah, and there are also a number of silly sub-plots, including a villainess who supposedly was one of the original doctors to save Darkman following his scarring, and her seducing our hero into thinking she is an ally before revealing her nefarious plot to help Rooker create more super-human powered thugs like Darkman. Apparently, she can't just do the same procedure on the thugs that she performed on Darkman. Why? I can't really explain it, because the movie certainly doesn't.<br /><br />There's also an assassination sub-plot involving a District Attourney who is threatening to bring down Rooker's organization, and some other very silly things going on.<br /><br />But it doesn't really add up. This film feels like two or three episodes of a television show edited together more than an actual film. The direction alternates between pretty good and downright sloppy (a scene where Darkman rides his train-like vehicle and dodges a rocket-launcher is just plain silly), and the editing is a mixed-bag. The film just moves too quickly for anyone to really care what's going on. And without spoiling it, the final 15 minutes of this movie, and indeed, the entire series is just kinda... I dunno... Another 15 minutes of mixed-bag footage.<br /><br />In fact, commenting on the editing, one of my favorite things in this film is watching for footage re-used from the previous films, and then looking for footage within this film that is repeated multiple times. Yes, it's that cheap. It's one thing to do a re-cap at the beginning of the film, and maybe repeat a shot or two, but in the sheer volume they do it (minutes of footage repeated from previous films), it's just sloppy and amateurish.<br /><br />Also, I have to say that Darkman's psychedelic montage freak-outs are a bit overdone in this film. They are so stylized and overdone that they do work, but only in light doses and in proper context, as Raimi did in the original film. Here, there are at least four or five, and they feel very abrupt and out-of-place.<br /><br />That being said, the film is not without some good points. A few action scenes are well-done. The cliché story of Darkman yearning for a real life works suitably for a direct-to-DVD feature. Some of the acting is nice, particularly from Rooker's wife, portrayed by the beautiful Roxann Dawson. Also, while no Danny Elfman, composer Randy Miller composes some nice music that builds off of Elfman's original themes.<br /><br />But overall, the film is too quick, cheap and silly to be taken seriously. Arnold Vosloo seems alternatively bored and exuberant from scene to scene, and Fahey, while a joy to watch as an over-the-top villain, just doesn't quite fit in with the series.<br /><br />Like "Darkman II", I would recommend this to fans of the original, who will surely get a laugh. Otherwise, you need not apply. A four out of ten.
Normally I'm quite disposed to like low budget gonzo films, but Darkman III is so appallingly unengaging that I feel nothing but contempt for it.<br /><br />It looks and feels like a TV show, and a particularly shoddy one at that. The sets are sparse, the lighting flat, the score and effects disjointed, and the camerawork is film school 101. There's no plot to speak of, the characters are one dimensional, and the actors are sleepwalking. Most of the cast look like they should be doing soft core porn..... In fact, the only reward that I got from this mess was spotting the startling squint faced Roxann Biggs-Dawson (B'Elanna from Star Trek: Voyager) without her Klingon bumpy head makeup on. Her skin tone is about two shades lighter than it is in Voyager; either she's been bleached down for this role, or blacked up for Voyager. Very strange either way.
Darkman 3: Die Darkman Die is directed by Bradford May, the same guy who made the first Darkman sequel too. Darkman 3 is worse than Darkman 2, and is nothing special, in my opinion. Larry Drake is no more as a main villain, who is now played by great Jeff Fahey, whose character once again wants to get Darkman's work and create this time some ultra strong humans in order to get the leadership of the whole city. The film is pretty much the same in plot and execution as Darkman 2, but I was mostly irritated by the presence of many scenes from Darkman 2. These sequels were made in short time and with little money, so these kind of decisions had to be made. Couple of scenes are pretty stylish and exiting, but still this is pretty tired film and often irritatingly stupid, too. The characters scream and laugh too much and it is very annoying. There is no any philosophical depth in the film, and this is like a remake of Darkman 2 which it still cannot equal. Darkman 2 had many great scenes and stylish camera work, and Larry Drake's ability to play great villain. Darkman 3 offers only some nice scenes and moments, but mostly this film is tired and full of cliches. The few positive things in this movie are flashback edits (Westlake's nightmares) and couple of truly surprising plot turns and tricks. And worth mentioning is also pretty nasty death scene of the main villain which was pretty comic book like and inventive without any gore. Far more interesting than the death of main villain in part two. <br /><br />Darkman 3 is worst in the whole series, and we must remember that these two sequels were made directly to video and they don't come even close to Raimi's original Darkman with Liam Neeson. Darkman 2 was okay actioner with plenty of great scenes and suspense, but this last (?) entry is tired and often stupid and boring piece of sequel. It has some merits as mentioned, but overall feeling is that this should not been made in the first place. May is talented director so hopefully he can get some more noteworthy projects in the future.<br /><br />3/10
This third Darkman was definitely better than the second one, but still far worse than the original movie. What made this one better than D2 was the fact that The Bad Guy had been changed and Durant was not brought back again. Furthermore there was actually some hint of character development when it came to the bad guy's family and Darkman himself. This made my heart soften and I gave this flick as much as 4/10, i.e. **/*****.
This show comes up with interesting locations as fast as the travel channel. It is billed as reality but in actuality it is pure prime time soap opera. It's tries to use exotic locales as a facade to bring people into a phony contest & then proceeds to hook viewers on the contestants soap opera style.<br /><br />It also borrows from an early CBS game show pioneer- Beat The Clock- by inventing situations for its contestants to try & overcome. Then it rewards the winner money. If they can spice it up with a little interaction between the characters, even better. While the game format is in slow motion versus Beat The Clock- the real accomplishment of this series is to escape reality. <br /><br />This show has elements of several types of successful past programs. Reality television, hardly, but if your hooked on the contestants, locale or contest, this is your cup of tea. If your not, this entire series is as I say, drivel dripping with gravy. It is another show hiding behind the reality label which is the trend it started in 2000.<br /><br />It is slick & well produced, so it might last a while yet. After all, so do re-runs of Gilligan's Island, Green Acres, The Beverly Hillbillies & The Brady Bunch. This just doesn't employ professional actors. The intelligence level is about the same.
How has this piece of crap stayed on TV this long? It's terrible. It makes me want to shoot someone. It's so fake that it is actually worse than a 1940s sci-fi movie. I'd rather have a stroke than watch this nonsense. I remember watching it when it first came out. I thought, hey this could be interesting, then I found out how absolutely, insanely, ridiculously stupid it really was. It was so bad that I actually took out my pocket knife and stuck my hand to the table.<br /><br />Please people, stop watching this and all other reality shows, they're the trash that is jamming the networks and canceling quality programming that requires some thought to create.
You do realize that you've been watching the EXACT SAME SHOW for eight years, right? I could understand the initial curiosity of seeing strangers co-exist on an Island, but you'd think that after watching unkempt, stink-ladened heroes run roughshod through the bush with an egg on a spoon for half a decade would be enough to get you to commit to something a little more original (and interesting).<br /><br />And I'm not even speaking of the shows validity which for the record I find questionable. It's just hard to suspend disbelief for "Bushy Bill" eating a rat when the entire crew of producers and camera people are housed in an air conditioned make-shift bio-dome sipping frosty mochcinno's with moxy.<br /><br />What's the appeal here? I don't care about these people or their meandering lives. I just don't get it. But if you DO find yourself being captivated by hairy, unwashed people, I suggest you turn off your TV and just take a trip to your local bus station where you can see people like this in their TRUE habitat. They call them HOMELESS PEOPLE, and free of charge, you can sit back and marvel in their uncanny ability to retrieve various cigarette debris from a plethora of garbage canisters, eventually striking "pay-dirt" and fashioning a homemade Dr. Frankenstein-styled cancer-stick, all the while begging people for change for food when the stink of "Aqua Velva" on their breath is enough to suggest otherwise. And the best part? Much like Survivor, every week one member of the tribe "Leaves" the "Island" when they are unceremoniously sent packing to the local Institution when the frightening unmedicated state of full-blown schizophrenia kicks into gear! Now THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT!
"This might mean the end of the white race!" gasps a general as a dozen Native Zombies wander around the battlefields of Europe during the "Great War". An expedition sets out tor the long-lost, back-projected city of Kennif-Angor to stop this sort of thing and keep the battlefields clear for decent honest white people to slaughter each other by the tens of thousands.<br /><br />It is a bit hard to tell when people are zombies or not in this film as the acting is so wooden. Even by 1936 standards the acting in this film is bad. From a previous decade. It looks like it came out of a correspondence school text book on 'How to Act' <br /><br />------------- Chapter Three: Emotions -------------<br /><br />"How to express fear and loathing (Female) Clench both fists. Place fist of one hand on heart. Open mouth as it to scream. Place other fist, palm out, against mouth. Hold pose for 10 seconds longer than is comfortable then quickly turn head 90 degrees away from direction of loathed object and sob".<br /><br />"How to have difficult, heavily emotionally charged scene with ex-fiancé explaining your love for someone else. Do NOT make eye contact. Do not move. Do not show any emotion. Do not move your eyes too much as you read your lines off the studio wall." <br /><br />To give us a respite from the leaden acting the director cunningly cuts in long pauses where nothing much happens except that film keeps running through the projectors. Thus 35 minute's worth of story is padded out to 60ish minutes.<br /><br />The revolt of the zombies when it comes is so slow! Released from mental bondage the armies of ex-zombiefied minions turn on their former master by ambling slowly up hill and then sort of stabbing a door a bit and smashing a window. "Yea... let's... oh, I dunnno yeah. Let's get him grrr. Frankenstein must be destroyed - manana." (though I have just found a bit of hidden symbolism. Jagger is shot by a Native as some sort of ironic counterpoint to all the Natives being shot by the Germans at the start of the flick. see, even downtrodden Natives don't want the end of the White Race!) The chase (it you can call it that) through the back-projected swamp is hilarious and worth the admission price alone. Roy D'Arcy has a hell of a time camping it up, but is totally wasted, as Col. Mazovia.<br /><br />There is one interesting moment in this film. A nice little montage of the zombied natives and white cast members falling under the evil eyes spell. face after face, cross-fade into one another. It works, though there is a strange little blip in the middle of each close up like a frame has been cut. I guess these must be Neg Cutters' frames between the fades.<br /><br />Best watched with friends and in a silly mood.
Though the title includes the word "zombies", this film is not what you'd expect from a movie made today, though for 1936 the concept is played out about as well as would probably be expected. Dean Jagger portrays Armand Louque, an officer in the French Army of World War I, who has stumbled upon an ancient tale of soldiers turned into automatons, or "zombies", who are impervious in battle and may hold the key to victory in the war, though on whose side is not certain. At first he has trouble convincing his superiors of this phenomenon, but eventually French General Duval (George Cleveland) orders a non military expedition into the ancient Cambodian city of Angkor to find the secret of the zombies and destroy it.<br /><br />The story is played out against the backdrop of a love triangle involving Louque, Duval's daughter Claire (Dorothy Stone), and Clifford Grayson (Robert Noland), all a part of the expedition. When Louque laments over his lack of forcefulness and resolve, Grayson offers him advice to go after what he wants in life with all his power. That advice begins to transform Louque, particularly after he's successful in obtaining a stone tablet resembling a photo from the ancient city. Having followed a temple priest into a swamp, Louque now appears to hold the secret he had been seeking, though it's not made clear how he has instantaneously been able to command the power of "zombiefication". All it takes is placing his right fist to the forehead simulating a third eye, and casting his thoughts out to those he wishes to control. This comes in handy for winning back his girl, and taking Grayson's early advice as he comments to his servant, "Buna, we're learning to be ruthless".<br /><br />Fans of early "B" horror flicks will recognize the use of Bela Lugosi's signature eye stare, plucked from the 1932 film "White Zombie", also from director Victor Halperin. Of the two movies, "White Zombie" is preferably superior, both in story content and in it's depiction of the undead, where the zombies have a more sinister appearance and are more threatening. In "Revolt", the zombies are enemy soldiers with a glazed over look that merely react to their mentor's commands. In fact, the actual revolt of the title occurs only when Louque releases the soldiers from his mental command in deference to his love for Claire; they overrun his compound and kill him in the process.<br /><br />Not to be too harsh on the film, it plays out decently within the parameters of it's story outline, but if you're thinking "zombies!!!" within the traditional context, you'll probably be disappointed. If you want to sample an early treatment of the subject, the aforementioned "White Zombie" with Bela Lugosi is the way to go.
REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES (2 outta 5 stars) No, this is not a long-lost ancestor to the classic George A. Romero zombie flicks. This is a low-budget potboiler from 1936 that probably seemed very cool to audiences of the time... but seems awfully routine these days. There is actually a pretty good scene at the start of a soldier firing off his pistol into a horde of approaching zombie soldiers... and a close-up of bullets entering the bare chest of one of them. The effect looks hopelessly fake these days but in 1936 I'm sure it had audiences gasping. The story concerns the search for the secret of mind control... ostensibly to create an unstoppable zombie army... but later as a means for one character to win the woman he loves. The movie is barely an hour long but moves at a snail's pace so it seems feature-length, believe me! There really isn't much to recommend it... you may get some amusement from the faked studio shots of the star "wading" through a "swamp". The ending is interesting... so I'd say the movie is worth seeing at least once. More than likely you will see it as an extra feature on some cheap "4 movies on 1 DVD" compilation at Wal-Mart for five bucks. Hey, it's well worth the money...
This film is something like a sequel of "White Zombie", since it is made by the same man (Halperin) and features zombies. Halperin, the George A. Romero of his day, fails to deliver with this one, though.<br /><br />We have a man who can control the minds of people in Cambodia, and a search to destroy the source of his power so the zombies can be sent free. Also, a love interest for the evil man.<br /><br />Where this film really excels is in the imagery. The Cambodian temples and dancers are very nice and the zombie look very powerful in their large numbers. Unfortunately, we don't really get to see much of the zombies in action and the love story seems to play a much too large role for a horror film (though this has a valid plot reason later on).<br /><br />I would have loved to see some 1930s zombies attack helpless city folk, but this film just did not deliver. And no strong villain (like Bela Lugosi) was waiting to do battle against our heroes. And the use of Lugosi's eyes? A nice effect, but misleading as he is never in the film... why not recreate this with the new actor's eyes? Overall, a film that could be a great one with a little script re-working and could someday be a powerful remake (especially if they keep it in the same post-war time frame). Heck, if they can fix up "The Hills Have Eyes" then this film has hope.
"Revolt of the Zombies" proves that having the same director revamp and recycle an idea doesn't necessarily make lightning strike twice.<br /><br />The Halperin brothers, responsible for the horror classic "White Zombie", made this trite piece of garbage a mere few years later to cash in on its popularity and even recycled close-ups of Lugosi's eyes from that previous film. There was a court battle with the "White Zombie" film's rights owners, who didn't want the Halperins to be able to use the word 'zombie' in this title. That word was the only thing that could help this film, because, as everyone knows, bad films can make much more money simply by having the word 'Zombie' appear in the title. Knowing what Victor Halperin was capable of a few years before only makes this uninteresting film more insulting. It seems he never directed another horror film after this debacle. The zombies here seem not to be true walking dead, but simply hypnotism victims.<br /><br />Wanna create a mind-controlled army of zombies? Be ready to crack a few eggs, including your own.<br /><br />THE LAME PLOT: Man falls in love with scheming woman who plays with his heart and becomes engaged to him only to make his friend, whom she loves, jealous. This sends man into a spiral of madness in which he tries using zombie mind-control techniques to change things to his advantage in an attempt to win over a woman who isn't worth spit.<br /><br />This includes one of the most blatantly obvious plot developments I've ever seen. You'd have to be blind or stupid not to see the ending coming. The acting isn't even good. This movie makes the racially insensitive "King of the Zombies" (which appeared on the same double bill DVD I bought) seems like an atmospheric horror masterpiece by comparison and reminds us that not every black and white film is a classic. It makes the atomic age sci-fi alien zombie cheese fest "Invisible Invaders" seem like a serious drama. This is one big ball of cheese so ridiculously melodramatic it could probably make many a Korean film fan twitch (South Korean films are often known for their use of melodrama). The credits list the ironically named company Favorite Films. I'm not sure whose favorite film this would be, but they're obviously an idiot.<br /><br />Not recommended for fans of: zombies, romance, or classic films.
While this film certainly does possess the stench of a bad film, it's surprisingly watchable on several levels. First, for old movie fans, it's interesting to see the leading role played by Dean Jagger (no relation to Mick). While Jagger later went on to a very respectable role as a supporting actor (even garnering the Oscar in this category for 12 O'CLOCK HIGH), here his performance is truly unique since he actually has a full head of hair (I never saw him this way before) and because he was by far the worst actor in the film. This film just goes to show that if an actor cannot act in his earlier films doesn't mean he can't eventually learn to be a great actor. Another good example of this phenomenon is Paul Newman, whose first movie (THE SILVER CHALICE) is considered one of the worst films of the 1950s.<br /><br />A second reason to watch the film is the shear cheesiness of it all. The writing is bad, the acting is bad and the special effects are bad. For example, when Jagger and an unnamed Cambodian are wading through the water, it's obvious they are really just walking in place and the background is poorly projected behind them. Plus, once they leave the water, their costumes are 100% dry!!! Horrid continuity and mindlessly bad dialog abounds throughout the film--so much so that it's hard to imagine why they didn't ask Bela Lugosi or George Zucco to star in the film--since both of them starred in many grade-z horror films. In many ways, this would be a perfect example for a film class on how NOT to make a film.<br /><br />So, while giving it a 3 is probably a bit over-generous, it's fun to laugh at and short so it's worth a look for bad film fans.
Seriously, I absolutely love these old movies and their simplicity but I just watched this for the first time last night and it easily slotted itself into my bottom five of all time. Was this supposed to be about the love story or the zombies??? This movie was so bad that after it mercifully ended all I could do is laugh at how ridiculously bad it really was. Thankfully I'm too anal to turn a movie off without seeing the entire thing or I wouldn't be able to brag about watching this all the way through in one sitting! I like to think something positive can be said about anything in life so in keeping with that theory I will acknowledge this film's most positive asset, it was very short for a full length film.
Well, first off, if you're checking out Revolt of the Zombies as some very early Night of the Living Dead (1968)-type film, forget it. This is about "zombies" in a more psychological sense, where that term merely denotes someone who is not in control of their will, but who must instead follow the will of another. The "zombies" here, as little as they are in the film, are largely metaphors for subservience to the state or authority in general, as in wartime. It is quite a stretch to call this a horror film.<br /><br />The film is set during World War I. A "French Cambodian" contingent had heard strange stories about zombification--supposedly Angkor Wat was built by utilizing zombies--and there are tales of zombie armies easily overcoming foes. Armand Louque (Dean Jagger) brings back a priest who supposedly knows the secret of zombification, but he won't talk. So Louque and an international military contingent head to Angkor Wat on an archaeological expedition designed to discover the secret of zombification and destroy the information before zombies have a chance to "wipe out the white race".<br /><br />One of the odd things about Revolt of the Zombies is that it seems like maybe writer/director Victor Halperin decided to change his game plan while shooting the script. The film begins as if it will explore the zombie/military metaphor, and maybe even have adventure elements, but after about 15 minutes, it changes gears and becomes more of a love triangle story.<br /><br />Halperin does stick with a subtext about will and power (and a Nietzschean "will to power"). The film is interesting on that level, but the script and the editing are very choppy. This is yet another older film for which I wouldn't be surprised if there is missing footage, especially since some scenes even fade or cut while a character is uttering dialogue.<br /><br />Amidst the contrived romance story, Halperin tries to keep referring to the zombie thread, but little of the zombie material makes much sense. Louque discovers the secret of zombification, but it doesn't mean much to the viewer. The mechanics of the zombie material are vague and confusing—Halperin even resorts to using superimposed footage of Bela Lugosi's googly-eyes from his 1932 film, White Zombie, but never explains what it has to do with anything. There are big gaps in the plot, including the love story. Promising, interesting characters from early reels disappear for long periods of time. One potential villain is disposed of unceremoniously before he gets to do much.<br /><br />If you're a big fan of old, creaky B movies, Revolt of the Zombies may be worth watching at least once--the acting isn't all that bad, and if you've got a good imagination, you can piece together an interesting story in your mind to fill in all of the gaps. But this is the second time I've seen the film, with the first only being about five years ago, and I could barely recall anything about it--so it's not exactly memorable.
Ever since the cinema-loving universe made acquaintance with a guy named George A. Romero, the word "zombie" automatically gets associated with blood-soaked horror images and non-stop acting sequences. It's safe to say that his "Night of the Living Dead" formed the zombie movie as we know it now. Yet, in the earliest years of cinema, the premise of reanimated corpses was merely used in slow, nearly action-less psychological thrillers. Jacques Tourneur's "I walked with a Zombie" is a perfect example and so is "White Zombie", starring Bela Lugosi. This "Revolt of the Zombies" could have been another example but unfortunately it's a failure over the entire line and easily one of the most tedious movies I ever saw. Dreadful acting, a very poorly written screenplay and a complete lack of atmosphere and tension! The film only lasts 65 minutes and yet the first half hour is entirely wasted on stupid love-story intrigues and unexciting monologues. The setting in the legendary Cambodian city of Angkor surely could have resulted in a more compelling story but all we ever see are interior shots. The lead actress (Dorothy Stone, textbook blonde with curly hair and an ugly nose) irritated me enormously and I kept hoping a ravenous undead would suddenly appear out of nowhere to devour her. Unlucky again…. If you manage to struggle yourself through 60 soporific minutes, you'll be rewarded with a fairly decent finale. Still, this is far too little to give this film a positive rating, let alone a recommendation. Avoid! This is the type of movie you should only see in case you already saw everything else.
After watching Revolt Of The Zombies starring future Academy Award winner Dean Jagger I was left with one burning question. How was a society that created these ultimate warrior fighting machines ever defeated in the first place? <br /><br />That's the question you'll be pondering if you take time to watch Revolt Of The Zombies. Towards the end of World War I, the French discover a cult from occupied Cambodia where these undead creatures who cannot be stopped with bullets form a brigade of monks who go over the top and dislodge the Hun.<br /><br />This scares the living fecal matter out of everyone concerned so an international expedition is formed to find out destroy the secret of these zombies so no nation can get their hands on it and rule the world.<br /><br />But we've got some dissent in those ranks. First is Snidely Whiplash villain Roy D'Arcy who murders the Buddhist monk who has the secret and second is Dean Jagger. Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac as we all know and he's determined to woo Dorothy Stone away from rival Robert Noland.<br /><br />I think you've got some idea how this comes out, especially since a race of zombies didn't conquer the world for one country. Dean Jagger as he got the Oscar for Twelve O'Clock High must have shuddered every time he thought about this film and the awful dialog he tried to give a spark of sincerity to.<br /><br />Moral of the story, you might make an ultimate warrior with the zombie potion and the zombie chant, but you can't make an ultimate love slave.
Wimpy stuffed shirt Armand Louque (blandly played by veteran character actor Dean Jagger in a rare lead role) joins a group of researchers who want to find and destroy the secret technique of creating zombies. Armand falls for the lovely Claire Duval (fetching blonde Dorothy Stone), who uses the meek sap to get Armand's colleague Clifford Grayson (the hopelessly wooden Robert Noland) to marry her. Furious over being used and spurned by Claire, Armand uses his knowledge of voodoo to get revenge. Sound exciting? Well, it sure ain't. For starters, Victor Halperin's static (non)direction lets the meandering and uneventful talk-ridden story plod along at an excruciatingly slow pace. Worse yet, Halperin crucially fails to bring any tension, atmosphere and momentum to the hideously tedious proceedings. The mostly blah acting from a largely insipid cast doesn't help matters any; only George Cleveland as the hearty General Duval and E. Alyn Warren as the irascible Dr. Trevissant manage to enliven things a bit with their welcome and refreshing hammy histrionics. The drippy stock film library score, the painfully obvious stagebound sets, and the crude cinematography are pretty lousy and unimpressive as well. In fact, this feeble excuse for a fright feature is so crummy that not even the uncredited starkly staring eyes of the great Bela Lugosi can alleviate the brain-numbing boredom. A dismally dull dud.
This is not really a zombie film, if we're defining zombies as the dead walking around. Here the protagonist, Armand Louque (played by an unbelievably young Dean Jagger), gains control of a method to create zombies, though in fact, his 'method' is to mentally project his thoughts and control other living people's minds turning them into hypnotized slaves. This is an interesting concept for a movie, and was done much more effectively by Fritz Lang in his series of 'Dr. Mabuse' films, including 'Dr. Mabuse the Gambler' (1922) and 'The Testament of Dr. Mabuse' (1933). Here it is unfortunately subordinated to his quest to regain the love of his former fiancée, Claire Duvall (played by the Anne Heche look alike with a bad hairdo, Dorothy Stone) which is really the major theme.<br /><br />The movie has an intriguing beginning, as Louque is sent on a military archaeological expedition to Cambodia to end the cult of zombies that came from there. At some type of compound (where we get great 30s sets and clothes) he announces his engagement to Claire, and then barely five minutes later, she gives him back his ring declaring her love for his pal, Clifford Greyson (Robert Noland). It's unintentionally funny the way they talk to each other without making eye contact. This would have been a great movie for 'Mystery Science Theater 3000', if they hadn't already roasted it.<br /><br />It's never shown how Louque actually learns the 'zombification' secret, but he then uses it to kill his enemies, create a giant army of rifle carrying soldiers and body guards. We won't see such sheer force of will until John Agar in 'The Brain From Planet Arous' (1957).<br /><br />Finally Claire consents to marry him if he will let Greyson live and return to America. Louque agrees, but actually turns him into one of his hypnotized slaves. On their wedding night he realizes that Claire will only begin to love him if he gives up his 'powers.' To gain her love, he does so, causing the 'revolt' of the title, in which all his slaves awaken and attack his compound and kill him. Greyson embraces Claire, and we seem to be at the end of a parable: "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad." <br /><br />So really then, it's not that bad of a film, despite the low IMDb rating it currently has. On repeated viewings (?) one can see the artistry in the well formed script! Dean Jagger had yet to develop into a good actor, and is almost unrecognizable in his youngness -- is that really his own hair? We remember him more for his bald, old man roles in 'White Christmas' (1954), 'X The Unknown' (1956) and 'King Creole' (1958). The story borrows a lot of its basic themes from the Halperin brothers better, earlier film 'White Zombie' (1932) in which hapless Robert Frazier (as Charles Beaumont) uses 'zombification' to win the love of Madge Bellamy (as Madeline Parker).<br /><br />If you want real zombie movies (of which there are hundreds!) I'd start with 'White Zombie' (1932), 'King of the Zombies' (1941), 'I Walked with a Zombie' (1943), 'Night of the Living Dead' (1968), 'The Last Man on Earth' (1964) and its two remakes. In the modern era of classy films, there are 'Horror Express' (1972), 'The Serpent and the Rainbow' (1988), '28 Days Later' (2002) and its sequel, as well as many, many, others too numerous to mention.<br /><br />This one is not really a zombie film. Judging this movie on its own terms, it's more of a semi-Gothic romance. As such it ranks a little below some of Universal's bottom billed B horror movies of the late 30s and early 40s. So I'll give it a 5.
What? You were not aware that Scooby-Doo battled zombies? Well, you might also not be aware of this little film that was directed by Victor Halperin, who had also directed White Zombie four years earlier. That would probably make it the second zombie film made.<br /><br />No, don't go looking for Dorothy Stone to expose her breasts as you would expect in most zombie films, and don't even look for any brains being eaten. This is 1936, you know.<br /><br />So, what you will see is typical of the period - lots of talking.<br /><br />You do get to see Dean Jagger (Twelve O'Clock High ) and Bela Lugosi's eyes, but that is about it. Zombies in Cambodia, indeed!
Revolt of the Zombies has no redeeming features. I'm tired of people arguing that it's not that bad, and that the effects must have packed more of a punch in 1936. I suspect this isn't true: it's not like IQ's have risen sharply in the last 7 decades. The average viewer in 1936 was probably just as bored by this rubbish as the average viewer today. Why? Just try watching the first scenes, and count the pauses between things happening, the awful choice of when to cut to close-up, the slapdash editing that seems to include an extra two seconds on every shot to pad out the running time. Pay attention to the utterly redundant dialogue: "I'm going to make some tea/go outside/read my book now." "Are you?" "Yes, I am." That sort of exchange happens several times. Normally I would love that, being a HUGE fan of bad movies, but watch the listless actors mumbling their trite and tedious lines, and all desire to laugh at the movie slowly fades away. This sort of disinterested, pot-boiling time-waster is far worse than energetic, imaginative mind-blowers like Plan Nine From Outer Space or Santa Claus Conquers The Martians. Those who claim that this is "better" than those more interesting movies have a backwards idea of entertainment. This movie is not bad in the sense that your jaw hangs open in astonishment: it's bad in the sense that your eyes slowly close in boredom. Which is far worse.
I think the biggest failing something can have is to be boring. Bad is actually better than boring. This thing has no breath. It does have the interesting fact of taking place in Cambodia. How many American made films of the 30's take place in Cambodia. Nevertheless, the conflict there is a little hard to figure out. Even the troop movements are a little confusing. What drags it to a resounding halt is the love story. Why those two guys are so totally transfixed on the dippy blonde I don't know. I thought he should continue to use his Zombies (such as they are) and forget all about her. The movie just plods along. The perfect microcosm is where one of the principle characters follows a Cambodian priest through the water to get to the secret place where the hieroglyphics (or whatever) that explain how to turn people into zombies is kept. I thought they would never get there. One guy takes two steps. He stops. He looks around. The other guy hides behind some columns. He takes two steps. He stops. He looks around. The other guy hides behind some bushes. This is the movie in a nutshell. Then there is the bad acting and insipid dialogue. I actually have a lot of patience when it comes to B movies. This one is insufferable. By the way, a more apt title would be Revolt of the Hypnotized.
I'm working my way through the Horror Classics 50 Movie Pack Collection and REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES is one of the movies in the set. I am watching them with my soon-to-be seven-year old daughter, which makes most of these movies a laugh riot.<br /><br />I had high hopes for REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES, after watching White Zombie, which is really the precursor to so much that is the mainstay of zombies in cinema (think Clive Barker's Serpent and the Rainbow and James Bond's Live and Let Die funeral scene, NOT Night of the Living Dead).<br /><br />However, even though the title includes the word "zombies," it is little more than a love triangle, involving anthropologist Armand Louque, who is smitten with Claire Duval; who in turn is taken with his companion Clifford Grayson. What a yawn-fest, my daughter fell asleep half-way through.<br /><br />I had a real hard time deciphering who these people worked for -- the allies or the axis; but, I guess that doesn't really matter.<br /><br />I was shocked to see Bela Lugosi in the credits for this movie; but, of course those were his eyes (from White Zombie) serving as the mind-control device for the zombies.
Before the release of George Romero's genre-defining Night of the Living Dead, zombies were relatively well-behaved creatures. They certainly had much better table-manners in the old days. But social etiquette aside what thrills did these early zombies offer to the movie-going public? Judging by this film, none whatsoever.<br /><br />The story is about an expedition to Cambodia, whose purpose is to find and destroy the secret of zombiefication. One of the party discovers the secrets on his own and sets about building his zombie army.<br /><br />This film is basically a love triangle with zombies. But seeing as this is a 30's movie, the said zombies are more like somnambulists than the flesh-eating variety we think of today. They seem to respond to mind-control, rather than insatiable appetites. And, quite frankly, the 'revolt' is somewhat underwhelming too. The whole thing is really very dull. Aside from the lack of horror, there isn't any over-the-top melodramatic theatrics to keep us entertained. It seems unlikely that this could've provided much entertainment even 70 years ago. See it if you have to see everything with 'zombie' in the title but otherwise I would advise skipping this one.
The Revolt of the Zombies is not the worst movie I've ever seen, but it is pretty far down on the list. When an expedition is sent to Cambodia to discover the trick to making zombies after World War I, one of the members decides to use the knowledge for his own evil ambitions. And he succeeds, at least at first. A love triangle complicates the story some.<br /><br />This really was a tedious movie, with horrible acting that made it difficult to tell who were zombies and who weren't. The dialog was little better and the plot was unbelievable (not the zombie part of it but parts related to the "romance"). And while I am not any student or expert on cinematography, the camera work didn't seem to help the film much either.<br /><br />While I have seen a few movies that are worse, this is unlikely to please anyone. It's bad, and NOT in a so-bad-that-it-is-good kind of way.
"After World War I, an expedition representing the Allied countries is sent to Cambodia to stop the efforts of Count Mazovia in creating a zombie like army of soldiers and laborers. Hoping to prevent a possible outbreak of war due to Mazovia's actions, the group presses through the jungle to Angkor Wat in spite of the perils. The group includes Armand who has his own agenda contrary to the group's wishes," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. <br /><br />Heads up! the zombie make-up department revolted before the cameras started to roll. <br /><br />Also, this "Revolt of the Zombies" has little to do with its supposed predecessor "White Zombie" (1932) *****, which starred Bela Lugosi. If that film's zombies didn't thrill you, this one's certainly won't. A younger-than-usual Dean Jagger (as Armand Louque) stars as a man obsessive with blonde Dorothy Stone (as Claire Duval). A couple supporting performances are good: devilish Roy D'Arcy (as Mazovia) and subservient Teru Shimada (as Buna); however, neither are given enough material to really pull this one out of the dumps.<br /><br />** Revolt of the Zombies (1936) Victor Halperin ~ Dean Jagger, Dorothy Stone, Roy D'Arcy
Of the many problems with this film, the worst is continuity; and re-editing it on VHS for a college cable channel many years ago, I tried to figure out what exactly went wrong. What seems to have happened is that they actually constructed a much longer film and then chopped it down for standard theatrical viewing. How much longer? to fill in all the holes in the plot as we have it would require about three more hours of narrative and character development - especially given the fact that the film we do have is just so slow and takes itself just so seriously.<br /><br />That's staggering; what could the Halperins have possibly been trying to accomplish here? Their previous film, "White Zombie", was a successful low budget attempt to duplicate the early Universal Studios monster films (The Mummy, Dracula, etc.), and as such stuck pretty close to the zombie mythology that those in North America would know from popular magazines.<br /><br />Revolt of the Zombies, to the contrary, appears to have been intended as some allegory for the politics of modern war. This would not only explain the opening, and the change of Dean Jagger's character into a megalomaniac, but it also explains why the zombies don't actually do much in the film, besides stand around, look frightening, and wait for orders - they're just allegorical soldiers, not the undead cannibals we've all come to love and loathe in zombie films.<br /><br />I am the equal to any in my dislike for modern war and its politics - but I think a film ought to be entertaining first, and only later, maybe, educational. And definitely - a film about zombies ought to be about zombies.<br /><br />Truly one of the most bizarre films in Hollywood history, but not one I can recommend, even for historic value.
Revolt of the Zombies starts with Armand Louque (Dean Jagger) trying to convince General Duval (George Cleveland) that his mate Tsiang (William Crowell) is a priest who has the power to hypnotise people & render them under his control turning them into mindless zombies (a bit like the people I work with really). Anyway, Tsiang is murdered by Colonel Mazovia (Roy D'Arcy) but fails to gain the knowledge of turning people into zombies. An expedition has been set up by General Duval to hunt for the secret since Tsiang ain't going to tell them much anymore. General Duval heads the expedition along with his daughter Claire (Dorothy Stone) who is engaged to Louque who also comes along. During the expedition Claire dumps Louque for his mate Clifford Grayson (Robert Noland) at which Louque isn't too pleased about. In a way that could only happen in a film Louque finds the secret to turning people into zombies by himself & starts to use his new found power to gain revenge on Claire & Clifford... Co-written & directed by Victor Halperin Revolt of the Zombies has a bad reputation & after watching it I can see why. The script by Halperin, Howard Higgin & Rollo Lloyd all uncredited, has a good central idea but is killed stone cold dead by being dull & as exciting as watching paint dry. Nothing much happens for ages & then nothing much happens afterwards either. How Halperin depicts his zombies is different to that which most modern audiences would consider to be a zombie, these zombies are just brainwashed people & filmgoing audiences would have to wait over thirty years before George A.Romero would define what a zombie is now thought as in Night of the Living Dead (1968). At only about an hour in length Revolt of the Zombies still feels too long. Technically the film is OK considering it was made 70 years ago, the black & white cinematography is adequate although some of the scenes look like they were shot against a photo of the background location. The acting is wooden & largely unimpressive. Revolt of the Zombies might have been hot stuff in 1936 but it hasn't dated well & in 2005 it's an absolute chore to sit through. I believe the film is now public domain as it turns up on lots of ultra cheap DVD compilations & budget labels, but it's still not worth watching no matter how cheap you can get it for.
With this movie only running 61 minutes and nothing all that good on television, I decided to pop Revolt of the Zombies into the DVD to pass the time. Even while realizing the era from which it was coming, I was sorely disappointed. It started with the oddly upbeat quality of the opening score (what - no brooding music?) and then the rather slow moving opening sequences. Gosh, I figured a movie about zombies - even from the 1930s - would have SOME chills to it (White Zombie, with Bela Lugosi, certainly did) but this had none. Zero. It was scarcely even dramatic (except for the few moments with the burning eyes superimposed on the film to indicate the mesmerization of someone). Like the equally dull King of the Zombies, this movie may be an interesting curiosity to own, but nothing more.
Revolt of the Zombies is BAD. There is nothing remotely entertaining about the movie. It is dull, lifeless, poorly acted, and poorly scripted. I've often complained that the original Dracula is a little slow for my taste, well this movie makes Dracula look like a roller coaster ride. The 65 minute running time seemed like 165 minutes.<br /><br />The story: An expedition is sent to Cambodia to find the secrets of mind control through "zombification". One man finds the secret and uses it to make the woman he loves marry him. Once this happens, he releases the zombies under his control to horrific consequences. That's it. That's the whole story.<br /><br />For most of the movie, I was trying to figure out where I had seen the male lead. He looked so familiar. I had plenty of time to think this over. Nothing was happening in the movie. Just before the "zombies revolted", it hit me. It was Dean Jagger. I had seen him recently as the General in White Christmas. This is how I "entertained" myself throughout most of the movie.<br /><br />I'm just glad I didn't buy the DVD for this movie. King of the Zombies is on the other side and it's a masterpiece of film making compared with this movie. For what it's worth, I'll give it a 2/10. (I won't go to 1/10 because, believe it or not, I've seen worse.)
Knowing how old a film is, ought to prepare the viewer for a few things, and, with those things in mind, perhaps the movie'll be more tolerable. So it was when I watched Revolt of the Zombies. The heavy reliance on tedious dialogue and corny movements should be expected, as should the primitiveness (or absence) of special effects in those days. A great deal is asked from the imagination of the onlooker - maybe too much, in this case. And the plot isn't easy to follow: Some zombiefied southeast Asian soldiers in WWI performed very admirably. Although skeptical as to why, if true, the explanation should stay out of the wrong hands, so, off goes a group to archaeologically investigate. The key to long-distance hypnosis is learned by a member of the expedition, who uses it to, among other purposes, temporarily dispense with the beau of the gal for whom he has the hots. To prove his love for her, he gives up his hold on everybody, which he shouldn't have done 'cause, once they're all unzombiefied, many want to kill him so that he'll never control them again. Below average, even with precautionary forethought. Recommended for only the extremely patient.
The problem with family dramas is that, outside of TV movies on channels like Lifetime, most people don't want to watch them. And the ones that do get watched tend to be sensationalized and about current or topical problems or issues in the news (or recent news). Movies that explain or explore the human condition aren't popular. Particularly with the young crowd that would be Miss Lohan's fan base or the younger crowd that tends to make movies not simply popular but financially successful for studios.<br /><br />The specific problems I had with this movie is the cartoonishness of some of the characterizations. It was a bit much to blame all of the Lohan's character's acting-out (wrecking the car, drug use, etc.) on what her step-father did to her. While not improbable,it's just a bit much to expect the audience to swallow. Additionally, other aspects, such as her giving the young Morman boy, oral sex, or that she would actually make a good assistant to the vet, who coincidentally happens to have a thing for her mother, etc., all these elements just did not really help this movie along. It placed it more in the element of a situation comedy trying one of their "special dramatic episodes" then it did for a fully realized, well-written feature film.<br /><br />When you watch the DVD and listen to the commentary, particularly for the various alternate endings, you can really see all of this is sharp focus.
I disliked this movie for numerous reasons. Within the first ten minutes of the film, I grew extremely disappointed and came to the conclusion that if this movie was going to salvage itself, for me at least, that it was going to have to pull itself out of the enormous hole it had dug. Unfortunately, that did not occur. The two draws of the movie for me were to see Jane Fonda and Felicity Huffman. I don't know enough about Lindsey Lohan's work to have been interested in what she would bring to the film. Afterward, I just felt disappointed in and for all three of them even though there were "moments" in each of their performances. I imagine that for each of them to find their "moments" was a very difficult task given the fact that there was an amazing lack of character development and uninspired dialog. Although the plot is an interesting one, the movie on the whole is so poorly written, directed and edited that anybody's performance as an actor would suffer and be tainted by it. The disrespectful way in which it dealt with sexual abuse and the trite and insulting viewpoint of small-town America, I think, were the two main reasons why this film failed in hitting it's mark. As one reviewer has noted and I would agree, the movie is almost impossible to market given it's finished form. I suspect that, or at least hope that (for the actor's sakes anyway) there are some real gems on the cutting room floor. Sad for us but if that's true then the actors can take solace in that and feel somewhat good about lending their talents and time to such a flop. Oh yeah and another thing...I wished for just once I could go see an American movie which included the sadly disappearing but wonderfully bucolic settings such as the one in this film where the main characters weren't absentmindedly and/or disrespectfully littering the country side with pop cans, smashed CDs and, other such trash!
Georgia Rule has got to be one of - if not the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. The whole movie has a very surreal feel that made me gasp, "what?" out loud at least 7-10 times throughout its grueling two hour course.<br /><br />Advertised in its trailer as a movie about three generations of women - Jane Fonda as the matriarch, Felicity Huffman as her daughter, and Lindsay Lohan as the rebellious, over- sexed, scantily clad grand-daughter, the viewer thinks this will be a cliché, light, chick-flick about growing up and coming together as a family.<br /><br />Talk about false advertisement at it worst.<br /><br />After many shots of animals doing "funny" things in the background of "pivotal" scenes and not to mention a whole five minutes focusing on an old woman who comes into a doctor's office weekly to have her diaper changed, or the fact that this movie is actually about Lindsay Lohan's character being sexually abused by her step-father, Georgia Rule creates its own genre of cinema : The ungrounded, horribly acted, inappropriate comedy dealing with extremely serious issues in the most awkward, surreal, strange way. If Garry Marshall wanted this movie to be a drama/comedy, then he should have watched The Royal Tenenbaums. Sideways. Junebug. And so on. And so on.<br /><br />The only way I feel I can get a reader to understand the horrific genre that Georgia Rule falls under is to create a hypothetical situation. Say that the movie, The 40 Year Old Virgin, was about the main character being celibate because he was sexually molested as a child. But instead of having the movie take a more dramatic turn, belly laughs and comedy would ensue, with all of the characters' reactions being that of fake, lifeless, human beings pretending to care. <br /><br />Throw in a yellow parakeet, Dermot Mulroney as the flattest, most non-dimensional character that could have been cut completely out of this poorly written script, along with a male character who throws away all of his religious beliefs and morals to be with a trashy, too-tanned girl who shares none of the same interests as he, as well as an an unnecessary car chase scene, unreal moments of characters trying to relate to each other, and you've got Georgia Rule.<br /><br />I found this movie to be an insult to any of those people out there who are struggling filmmakers, screenwriters, actors, editors, etc..who have a lot more talent and aren't getting noticed.<br /><br />Don't see this movie : my rule. <br /><br />And if you must, get sufficiently drunk before hand.
I have been searching for the right words to describe this film. At first I was inclined to simply skip to more significant matters, as the film does not rise to a level deserving comment.<br /><br />Yet, I stopped, puzzled as to how to describe such stuff and somewhat intrigued by the challenge presented by the question: "What can one say about such a film?" Rubbish? No, its not rubbish, rubbish can be recycled into something useful. Greenhouse gas? No, its not greenhouse gas, greenhouse gases help plants grow large and healthy.<br /><br />Finally, I struck on "Not even bad," a rework of the phrase "Not even wrong" used sometimes in theoretical physics to describe a theory that is hopelessly flawed and not even worthy of correction. That's it then, Georgia Rule: Not even bad.
I just came from seeing this movie and decided to see what others thought of it. I'm left wondering if these people who give glowing reviews saw the same film! This is potentially a very good story, but it fails to hit the mark. The script is very weak - the plot has so many holes that it would make a great dip net for the fishing scenes. The characters were not well developed and the storyline jumps around so much that I found myself asking the question "How did we get here?" at least a half dozen times during the movie.<br /><br />There was a lack of any chemistry between the cast members. This is probably related to Lindsay Lohan's antics during the filming. It was pretty clear that everyone showed up and did their job, but didn't commit to their roles.<br /><br />This is not a movie worth seeing...go for a walk, play a board game, take a nice warm bath and save your money for something that's worth it!
This movie was portrayed in the trailer as a comedy. It is an extreme tragedy. It left me sick to my stomach. I hated it. I think if they want to make a movie like this than they should be man enough to reflect the true intentions of the movie in the trailer. I would not have seen this movie if I would have known. I think the trailer should reflect the theme and intentions of a movie. I am tired of it. I really wanted to have a fun comedy and I am extremely disappointed. It has been several days now and I still have a bad taste in my mouth from this movie. I have never been more disappointed in a movie, nor have I ever written a comment on a bad movie. I really think that true deception was involved in this trailer because if they showed the true intention of the movie, no one would have seen it.
Okay, so the previews to this film only tells you that a rebellious young girl goes to live with her grandmother for the summer in order to straighten out. That is actually not the case! It's about a young rebellious 17 year old girl who reveals a secret and it's up to her mother to believe if she's telling the truth or not.<br /><br />To be honest, I really enjoyed the concept of this movie. They had a really good plot and a really good theme of a love/hate relationship between mother and daughter. I did not however, enjoyed watching Lindsay Lohan's acting. In reality, this movie would have been GREAT if they had someone else, perhaps a better actress. The character of Rachel (Lohan) is a very sexually aggressive person and it sort of reminds us of the real Lindsay so it takes away a lot from the film.<br /><br />I do however, think that if you put Lindsay aside, you will enjoy this film. The ending is pretty great (and sad).
I haven't seen this, & don't plan to see this movie or any other that includes Lindsay......unless & until "poor little rich girl" straightens out her life for a 2 year period beginning with her most recent arrest in July 2007.<br /><br />In fact, I don't know anyone that has gone to see ANY of Lindsay's recent movies. I rather imagine 2007 will be the high water mark in her movie making career, until she cleans up her act. All of the recent publicity has only hindered her movie making career, if she has any further aspirations to make any more movies <br /><br />Up to this time, movie producers have actively sought Lindsay for roles in their upcoming production. Now, Lindsay will probably have to go to auditions & actually compete for ANY role. Her reputation is currently "poison" & quite possible could have a negative effect on box office ticket sales on any movie she is in.<br /><br />Sooooo....now Lindsay is going to have to deal with "not being wanted".....is she going to be able to handle this?<br /><br />I wonder if even Jay Leno will want to have Lindsay back on his TV Show?<br /><br />All of the foregoing is merely my OPINION. I have no inside information.
I'm only rating this film as a 3 out of pity because it attempts to be worthwhile. I love to praise a great movie and I'm not biased toward "male" movies. Legally blonde was an excellent film. Georgia Rule on the other hand, was a disorganized, weak, poorly written, unrealistic example of movie making at its worst. by the end of the film I didn't care who was lying or if anything was resolved. <br /><br />The most important thing in a film is a good STORY. This story is weak and never develops (just because the subject matter is deep, doesn't mean the story is good). A good story has dynamic characters. A dynamic character is one that experiences a major character change, and is primed for that change over the course of the movie. In Georgia Rule, the character changes were abrupt and undeveloped. Secondly, there were too many ATTEMPTED dynamic characters. Pulling off a really good dynamic character is a tough job and takes time (you've only got a couple hours in a movie). That means that too many attempted dynamic characters will get too little attention to their personal change. Even if I ignore the poorly written story, and the litter of weak dynamic characters, I can't even say I liked anyone. Every character was a mess. That's fine if your're writing American Beauty but not when you're attempting a dramatic comedy. Georgia was a horrible mother, her daughter was a horrible mother and daughter, and Lohan was a horrible excuse for a human being (no I'm not cutting her any slack because she was molested, crap happens to everyone and we're all responsible for our own actions). The "Dudley Do Right" Mormon kid should have had the guts not to compromise his religion and commitments...and Simon, I mean seriously, what kind of guy lets a 17 year old girl who's been molested just stay over occasionally (unless he's an actor or a politician). This movie is worth watching if you want to remind yourself what good movie making is NOT!
I am uncertain what to make of this misshapen 2007 dramedy. Attempting to be a new millennium cross-hybrid between On Golden Pond and The Prince of Tides, this film ends up being an erratic mess shifting so mercurially between comedy and melodrama that the emotional pitch always seems off. The main problem seems to be the irreconcilable difference between Garry Marshall's sentimental direction and Mark Andrus' dark, rather confusing screenplay. The story focuses on the unraveling relationship between mother Lilly and daughter Rachel, who have driven all the way from San Francisco to small-town Hull, Idaho where grandmother Georgia lives. The idea is for Lilly to leave Rachel for the summer under Georgia's taskmaster jurisdiction replete with her draconian rules since the young 17-year old has become an incorrigible hellion.<br /><br />The set-up is clear enough, but the characters are made to shift quickly and often inexplicably between sympathetic and shrill to fit the contrived contours of the storyline. It veers haphazardly through issues of alcoholism, child molestation and dysfunctional families until it settles into its pat resolution. The three actresses at the center redeem some of the dramatic convolutions but to varying degrees. Probably due to her off-screen reputation and her scratchy smoker's voice, Lindsay Lohan makes Rachel's promiscuity and manipulative tactics palpable, although she becomes less credible as her character reveals the psychological wounds that give a reason for her hedonistic behavior. Felicity Huffman is forced to play Lilly on two strident notes - as a petulant, resentful daughter to a mother who never got close to her and as an angry, alcoholic mother who starts to recognize her own accountability in her daughter's state of mind. She does what she can with the role on both fronts, but her efforts never add up to a flesh-and-blood human being.<br /><br />At close to seventy, Jane Fonda looks great, even as weather-beaten as she is here, and has the star presence to get away with the cartoon-like dimensions of the flinty Georgia. The problem I have with Fonda's casting is that the legendary actress deserves far more than a series of one-liners and maternal stares. Between this and 2005's execrable Monster-in-Law, it does make one wonder if her best work is behind her. It should come as no surprise that the actresses' male counterparts are completely overshadowed. Garrett Hedlund looks a little too surfer-dude as the naïve Harlan, a devout Mormon whose sudden love for Rachel could delay his two-year missionary stint. Cary Elwes plays on a familiar suspicious note as Lilly's husband, an unfortunate case where predictable casting appears to telegraph the movie's ending.<br /><br />There is also the omnipresent Dermot Mulroney in the morose triple-play role of the wounded widower, Lilly's former flame and Rachel's new boss as town veterinarian Dr. Simon Ward. Laurie Metcalf has a barely-there role as Simon's sister Paula, while Marshall regular Hector Elizondo and songsmith Paul Williams show up in cameos. Some of Andrus' dialogue is plain awful and the wavering seriocomic tone never settles on anything that feels right. There are several small extras with the 2007 DVD, none all too exciting. Marshall provides a commentary track that has plenty of his trademark laconic humor. There are several deleted scenes, including three variations on the ending, and a gag reel. A seven-minute making-of featurette is included, as well as the original theatrical trailer, a six-minute short spotlighting the three actresses and a five-minute tribute to Marshall.
There's a lot of good that can be said for this cartoon; the backgrounds are rich, lushly colored and full of nicely done art deco details. The animation is up to the usual studio standards of the time, which are unquestionably higher than those of the present day. However, I find it tedious for a number of reasons.<br /><br />The Music: It's definitely not up to Scott Bradley's usual standards. Although it's probably supposed to be evocative of a "Great Gatsby" setting, it ends up being dreary, sleepy, repetitious AND monotonous (repetitious and monotonous are not the same, as Beethoven's 5th Symphony attests). Since most people (including me) tend to close their eyes when they yawn, there's a lot of the visual part of the cartoon that will be missed by the average viewer.<br /><br />The Storyline: I'm not giving away any secrets that aren't already in the plot summary - country good, city bad. This is a common theme in films, both animated and live, from this era. It's a misplaced nostalgia for a nonexistent rural idyll, which, in the present day, is reflected in a similar nostalgia for "values" that never were.
I don't know about you, but what I love about Tom and Jerry cartoons is the (often violent) interaction between the two characters. Mouse In Manhattan sees Jerry leaving Tom behind to have an adventure in New York, and as far as I am concerned, this one definitely suffers from a lack of cat!<br /><br />As magical as Jerry's exploration of the 'Big Apple' might be for the other T&J fans who have commented here on IMDb, I couldn't wait for this self-indulgent rubbish to end, so I could watch the next cartoon on my DVD.<br /><br />In fact, the only part of the whole episode that I genuinely enjoyed was when Jerry almost 'buys the farm', hanging precariously off the end of a broken candle, hundreds of feet above a busy road.
I've noticed over the years that when a rock star makes his final album before his death, that album, if it's not his best, is usually prolific in some way and worthy of a listen at least. The album is usually good enough to cement a legacy. However, when it comes to comedians, especially mainstream comics who star in their own vehicles, their final movie is usually God awful. John Belushi had "Neighbors", John Candy had "Wagon's East", Chris Farley had "Almost Heroes", Phil Hartman had "Small Soldiers", and Rodney Dangerfield had this movie.<br /><br />"Back By Midnight", although it may not have been Dangerfield's very last film, is weak in every sense of the word. It wrapped filming in 2002 according to this website, and it's safe to say that it would have stayed on the shelves if Dangerfield was still alive. I have been a big fan of Dangerfield's since I was in my early teens, and it pains me to see how rotten this film was.<br /><br />What amazes me the most is that a number of other talented people took part in a movie with a very weak premise to begin with. Dangerfield, a great comedian who usually played his comic persona on film, is a prison warden who houses a close knit group of inmates. When the owner of the prison, Colonel-Tom-Parker-meets-Sam-Walton billionaire Eli Rockwood (Randy Quaid), cuts funding for the prison, the warden sends a group of inmates to break out of prison, rob Rockwood's eponymous convenience stores of consumer goods, and break back into prison with the loot. By taking what's in the convenience stores, they are (I guess) taking what they believe Rockwood owes them.<br /><br />With this flimsy premise, the movie sputters and stalls frequently. On top of that, the jokes that you think would be this movie's salvation are not even close to funny, not even from Mr. No Respect himself. That is incredibly disappointing too, because you'd expect a movie with Oscar-nominated (!!!) Randy Quaid, Kirstie Alley, Gilbert Gottfried, Ed Begley Jr., Yeardley Smith, and others to be at least a little bit funny. Instead, Quaid plays a character we've seen before in countless other comedies, Alley plays a British heiress with an awful British accent (could this movie not afford an actual British person!?!), and every joke was poorly set up and poorly timed by virtually every member of this ensemble. It was just not a good comedy in any sense of the word.<br /><br />"Back By Midnight" was rated R mainly for language (and one scene of nudity). The irony in this fact is that many of the jokes are so audience insulting that even kids (if you edit out the language) would walk out of this film. The physical gags are also incredibly predictable, especially when Alley's pet monkey torments Quaid's character. When the monkey grabs a pair of scissors and jumps on Quaid's couch, who wouldn't know where that gag was going?<br /><br />Being a direct-to-video comedy, of course I didn't expect any Oscar-winning material on here. The truth is, though, Dangerfield has made some great, timeless comedies before. "Easy Money" and "Back To School" are hilarious still, and were definitely not Oscar-worthy in the slightest. However, there's a difference between making a dumb comedy that's funny, and making a dumb comedy. With the latter kind of comedy, it seems like the filmmakers don't even try, which is precisely the case with this lame excuse for a wasted 90 minutes. Rest in Peace, Rodney, but add this film to your batch of forgettable comedies like "Meet Wally Sparks" (1997) and "The Godson" (1999). This film, dare I say it, is not even worth seeing.
Put a DVD of this flick in a time capsule, and it will definitely illustrate for future generations a perfect example of one which warrants the minimal rating on a 1-to-10-star scale.<br /><br />Bill Cosby and Ray Romano have been at the top - in ratings and with tens of millions in earnings annually - with their television series'. Yet each has had no success in big-screen offerings. This has also been true for other TV personalities - perhaps because many of the stories which are presented for two hours or so seem more suited to either a 10-minute skit, or at most, the 22 or 23 minutes of drama during a half-hour program.<br /><br />This film, however, doesn't have one single element which would warrant two or three minutes of time on MAD TV, SNL, or anywhere else on a screen or stage.<br /><br />Its origination date is listed as 2002, but release date - to DVD only - is shown as 2004. It also was filmed not long before Rodney Dangerfield's death, so its one redeeming value is that it probably provided at lease a few hundred thousand more dollars for his heirs.<br /><br />I'd never heard of it, but found it when turning-on my set, and frankly became fascinated by it. Some movies are so truly awful that they rate a sort of top rating in reverse - so bad that you can move the dial backwards to a 9 or 10. "Plan 9 from Outer Space" is the best example - and the Bruce Jenner/Village People opus, "Can't Stop the Music," is another.<br /><br />Unfortunately this flick falls short even there. Even if Rodney's earlier work (as well as some of his fellow cast-members') fell short of "Citizen Kane" or "Casablanca," there were many moments of humor and a story providing at least a modicum of interest.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this presentation doesn't seem to possess even a minute or two's worth of such material.
I must agree with the very first comment: this movie sucks very, very hard. Despite having a very big B-list cast, the cover of this film (for those who aren't watching it on Comedy Central during a weekday which is probably the only exposure this film will ever get) tries to put the blame on Dangerfield but in reality is just a paycheck for every has-been comedian from the '80s. Randy Quaid? Check. Ed Begley, Jr? Check. The voice of Lisa Simpson? She can now say that Maximum Overdrive wasn't her only horrible flick: double check. And so many, many others.<br /><br />The saddest thing about this flick is that it was so lazily written with already-told jokes. Nothing about this movie outside of its existence is funny. You're better off watching paint dry. This is definitely direct-to-video scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel stuff that still believes in the old video adage: throw an old-time star on the cover and you'll get some money back off of the rental. Considering the days of video rental are changing, consider this one of the last examples of putting out garbage.<br /><br />The only use this movie has if you're having trouble falling asleep. It'll get you there.
Rodney Dangerfield isn't the main character of this movie. He's barely in it. Most of the screen time is dominated by unfunny jokes. One running gag is that a character is named Jerk Off. There are also lots of erection jokes, where the punch line is someone has an erection. This movie is as funny as Kirstie Ally's British accent is convincing.<br /><br />This movie started off like a weak action movie: five minutes of back story and then bam! Unfunny jokes. But, aside from the terrible writing, the movie is also poorly directed and the acting is terrible. Also, this movie does the old bad comedy cliché of having lots of well-known B-movie actors. Harland Williams, Gilbert Godfried, Randy Quaid, and Phil La Mar. These are just some of the people that spend more time on the screen than Rodney, even though he's billed as the main character. Don't be surprised to find this movie at a drug store selling for five bucks. Even that is too much.
When I was a kid in the 50's and 60's anything connected with Disney was by definition great. What happened? They are able to get any actors and actresses they want, the best of their time. But somehow Disney manages to screw things up in spite of their abundant resources.<br /><br />Disney can afford the best writers, the best producers and directors, but still...they screw things up! This movie is crap. The sad thing is that I suspect Disney in their arrogance does not even know when a movie is good or bad.<br /><br />It is only due to the talent of the actors that I can even give it a 3 of 10.
Tim (Gary Daniels) wants desperately to break into serious television reporting. When a job he begged for goes awry, he is fired. His beautiful but empty girlfriend (Elizabeth Hurley) says sayonara, too. Coming home, Tim is startled to discover his house has an uninvited visitor (Christopher Lloyd) from the planet Mars! Calling him Uncle Martin, Tim soon tries to help his new friend navigate life on earth. But, Martin gets in trouble wherever he goes, from the bathroom to the laundry room and more. Lovely Lizzie (Daryl Hannah) finally sees an opportunity to make time with Tim but the course of true love does not run smooth in this case, either. Soon everyone in television is stalking Tim, hoping for a story about a true alien. What's a man to do? For those who loved the old television show of the same name, with Bill Bixby and Ray Walston, this film is not worthy to tie the proverbial boots. Its truly, undeniably awful, with no plot and a reliance on supposed special effects which fall flat, too. Daniels is okay as the earthling but Lloyd is simply terrible as the alien, overacting up a storm. The rest of the cast is adequate, as are the costumes, set, and production details. Even if your children see the cover and beg for this film, convince them to pick out another flick at the video store. Be assured, kids and adults will find this movie a colossal bore, so opt for A Night at the Museum or Around the World in 80 Days instead.
This was yet another big screen outing for a US TV show from the sixties It is amusing enough but was very much to formula. Intelligent Martian lands on Earth and meets the not too bright humans, in his view.<br /><br />The usual wackiness ensues with the human, Bridges, eventually bonds with him and helps him to get home. Along the way he also gets the girl, Hannah.<br /><br />This is a nice outing for some pleasant Hollywood stars who I had not seen for a while.<br /><br />Pleasant enough to pass some spare time if you have not got anything better to view.
We went into this movie because my husband had enjoyed the original version of `My favourite Martian'. We had our 6 year old daughter with us. She wanted to leave halfway through the movie which was fine with both her parents! The parts we did see were only occasionally humorous, mostly either too silly or gross. I would expect that this movie might appeal to kids between 9-12, if that. It's definitely not suited for younger children. From what I've heard the original series was by far superior and if you are going to "relive the past" you'll probably be disappointed.
Shazbot, is this embarrassing. In fact, here's a list of 100 that makes up the embarrassment: 1.) a failed comeback for Christopher Lloyd. 2.) Jeff Daniels basically playing the same role he played in the live 101 Dalmatians remake which wasn't too juicy to begin with. He sure has a funny way of promoting his Purple Rose Theatre... 3.) Disnefluff. 4.) another disappointing reminder that Wallace Shawn is to Disney what Jet Li was to Bob Hoskins in Unleashed. 5.) Ray Walston, the original martian from the TV series, played a bit part (read "cameo") in this flick and died two years later of lupus. Coincidence? 6.) awful special effects. Seriously - awful. 7.-100.) that damn talking, farting suit voiced to an annoying degree by Wayne Knight ("Newman!"). My favorite scene? HA! HA ha, ha! Ha ha ha ha ha... Whew!... Good one. You - You're a joker. Okay, let's wrap up this review with a moment of silence for this franchise's agonizing death, and if you would like, you can say a quick prayer that Disney doesn't forget this travesty and do something silly like a movie adaptation of "Mork and Mindy" starring Tim Allen.........................................................
There is no possible reason I can fathom why this movie was ever made.<br /><br />Why must Hollywood continue to crank out one horrible update of a classic after another? ( Cases in point: Mister Magoo, The Avengers - awful! )<br /><br />Christopher Lloyd, whom I normally enjoy, was so miserably miscast in this role. His manic portrayal of our beloved "Uncle Martin" is so unspeakably unenjoyable to be almost criminal. His ranting, groaning, grimacing and histrionics provide us with no reason to care for his character except as some 1 dimensional cartoon character.<br /><br />The director must have thought that fast movements, screaming dialogue and "one-take" slapstick had some similarity to comedy. Apparently he told EVERY ACTOR to act as if they had red ants in their pants.<br /><br />Fault must lie with the irresponsibly wrought script. I think the writer used "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" as an example of a fine comedy script. As manic as that 1963 classic is, it is far superior to this claptrap - in fact - suddenly it looks pretty good in comparison.<br /><br />What is most sad about this movie is that it must have apparently been written to appeal to young children. I just am not sure whose children it was made for. Certainly no self-respecting, card-carrying child I know!<br /><br />If they HAD to remake "My Favorite Martian", why didn't they add some of the timeless charm of the original classic? <br /><br />Unfortunately, IMDB.com cannot factor in "zero" as a rating for its readers, that is the only rating that comes to mind in describing this travesty.<br /><br />One good thing did come from this movie, the actors and crew were paid - I think.
This is the third parody of the scary movies and hopefully the last. This time the spoof is mainly on The Ring, Signs and 8 Mile for some weird reason. In my opinion this movie was very pointless and unnecessary and not even funny. I laughed maybe three times and that is not enough for a comedy. I really enjoyed the first two but this one was just plain dumb. If your jokes consist of corpses getting beat up and people constantly throwing stuff at each other then this movie is for you. In my opinion, if your smart enough stay at home and save your money and please stop making these kind of movies, they just keep getting worse 3/10.
You could say that the actors will make a movie, but this clearly proves that statement wrong. Most of the characters in this film lack anything to hold on to. They play the part of cardboard cut outs being moved about in predictable and uninteresting ways. The story is very simple. It could be summed up in a few words, but I'll hold back in case anyone reading does want to see this film.<br /><br />I had to fast forward the parts where Jack showed us how to be an obnoxious eater. I'd have to say that 70% of this film revolved around cooking, eating, or getting ready to eat. Quite frankly, I'd rather not spend my time watching Jack chew noisily with an open mouth. Personally, I could have done without the footwear references and jokes that pepper the first half of the film too.<br /><br />Outside of my own personal dementia, the film really lacked anything worth it's time. There were countless scenes and camera shots that felt like it was dragging. When something happens, the reactions of the characters are vague and dry.<br /><br />Best not to look this one up.
The movie was watchable while Nicolson was on the screen. However, I had to fight against passing out from boredom when the film depended on Meryl Streep to carry scenes without Jack; she was as bland as could be. The relationship between the characters was nothing special; these characters have been portrayed before -- and much better. It felt like a based-on-real-life scenario in the absolute worst sense: 90% of daily life is boring, and not worth writing about or watching. Why Ephron felt her life and relationship with Carl Bernstein was interesting enough to write about escapes me. Perhaps she wrote it as therapy -- for many writers, putting an episode from their life on paper is cathartic. Fine: but then why anyone in Hollywood felt this story was worth filming remains a mystery to me.
This should be a great film... Meryl Streep and Jack Nicholson co-starring as two newspaper writers. Mike Nichols directing. Uh uh. It's dull dull dull! Pointless and predictable! Slow and unfocused!<br /><br />It's a cookie cutter 'boy meets girl, boy marries girl, boy has affair, girl leaves boy' story. Now theres an original concept! After squirming through two hours (was it only two? It felt like six.)I wasn't sure whether it was a comedy, a romance, a tragedy or a soap opera. It was done in 1986. I'm sure all of us did things sixteen years ago that we rather would forget. I hope the damage to the reputations of Streep et al is beginning to heal and that the emulsion on the master is beginning to fade. It's not that it's such a bad picture. It's just that it's such an un-good one.
I saw this film at its New York's High Falls Film Festival screening as well and I must say that I found it a complete and awful bore. Although it was funny in some places, the only real laughs was that there appeared to be o real plot to talk about and the acting in some places was dreadful and wooden, especially the "Lovely Lady" and the voice of the narrator (whom I have never heard of) had a lot to be desired. J.C.Mac was, I felt, the redeeming feature of this film, true action and grit and (out of the cast) the only real acting. I am sure with another cast and a tighter reign on the directing, this could have been a half decent film. Let us just hope that it is not sent out on general release, or if you really want a copy, look in the bargain bin in Lidl.
I watched mask in the 80's and it's currently showing on Fox Kids in the UK (very late at night). I remember thinking that it was kinda cool back in the day and had a couple of the toys too but watching it now bores me to tears. I never realised before of how tedious and bland this cartoon show really was. It's just plain awful! It is no where near in the same league as The Transformers, He-man or Thundercats and was very quickly forgot by nearly everyone once it stopped being made. I only watch it on Fox Kids because Ulysses 31 comes on straight after it (that's if mask doesn't put me to sleep first). One of the lesser 80's cartoons that i hope to completely forget about again once it finishes airing on Fox Kids!
...though for a film that seems to be trying to market itself as a horror, there was a distinct lack of blood.<br /><br />There was also a distinct lack of skilled directing, acting, editing, and script-writing.<br /><br />Jeremy London put in one of most appalling performances I've ever seen - his "descent into the maelström" of madness is achingly self-aware and clumsy. Oh look at him twitch! Oh look at him drink strong spirits! Oh look at him raise his brow, and cock his head at a jaunty angle! Oh look at his unwashed, greasy dark hair! Oh listen to his affectedly husky voice! He must be a tortured artist/writer/genius! Oh, yes, out comes the poet-shirt - it's another boy who thinks he's Byron. (Or Poe.) Oh for the love of... did someone give this guy a manual on "How To Act Good" or did they just pull him out of a cardboard box somewhere, the defunct little plastic toy-prize in a discontinued brand of bargain-bin cereal. Okay, that was a stupid line - but that's only because London's performance has melted my brain with its awfulness.<br /><br />Katherine Heigl is cute, and very briar rose, but has yet to grow into her acting shoes in this film - she delivered her lines like she was being held up, in fact, her whole performance was very wooden, her poses as stiff as her lines - who knows, perhaps she was just reacting to, and trying to neutralise, Jeremy London's flailing excesses, but if that's the case, she takes it too far.<br /><br />Notable is Arie Verveen as Poe - while his character's role is confused, he delivers the best performance of the piece. He, quite simply, looks right, but it's more than that - he has some sort of depth, I believed that he had a life beyond the dismal two-dimensional quality of the rest of the characters. Huh, maybe it's just because I like Poe, and could thus just let my mind wander and invent while he was on screen - whatever, he had an interest factor otherwise missing.<br /><br />The rest of the characters are a faceless blur - there are all the usual caricatures: the perky blonde best-friend who's a bit of a floozy; the smitten local cop who's a bit of a dork; the protective older man who perhaps has too much un-fatherly interest in our heroine; the scheming old witch, etc., etc., yawn, yawn. <br /><br />As with the 'distinct lack of blood for a horror movie' issue, none of the themes that they mention (and that London's character mentions - so scathingly - in his attack on Poe's writing) are followed through on. As another reviewer said - there was potential here: murder, incest, - genuinely shocking stuff, but instead they skirt away from the issues, and cut away from the violence (a raised candlestick swinging through the air - closing in on it's victim - then---cut to black! This is fine in a Noirish traditional horror, indeed, it's expected, and is fondly received when it happens - it's a dear convention, especially when accompanied by fake lightning bolts and intense Siouxie eye makeup - but in 'Descendant' it just comes across as clumsy, or as though the editor got queasy at the last minute and cut it out.) This could have either been a very tense psychological thriller - the horror of palingenesis/delusion/madness - or a simple (and fun) slasher movie: it tries to be both, or neither (something new and exciting!), but either way it fails dismally. The only horror element of this entire movie is it's epic dullness.<br /><br />I think the editor (if there was one at all) must have been drunk when s/he chopped this thing up - there are awkwardly foreshortened scenes; scenes that appeared to be out of order (but that could have just been the poor script). LIkewise the director & cinematographer - there were some very strange shots and framing that I think were meant to be tributes to Hitchcock or Browning, but just ended up looking silly (again, fine in a noir, but this was trying to be something else.)<br /><br />The whole thing perhaps may have been funny (in that way that previous reviewers have mentioned - "OMG how did this get made?!?") if I had been in the mood for some trash- bagging, unfortunately for me I had settled on the couch, with the lights down low, with the express intention of scaring myself silly - this is a very poor film, and I'm afraid I can't recommend it to people, not even for laughs.<br /><br />Please, please, don't waste your time or money on this - either borrow a real horror/thriller film, or find yourself a copy of Poe's fantastical tales, either way, you'll have a far more enjoyable and frightening night than you could ever hope to achieve with this rubbish.
I don't usually comment, but there are things that need to be said. Where to start...<br /><br />The acting, on Jeremy London's part was horrible! I didn't think he could be so bad. The plot could have been good, had it been well directed, along with a good solid performance from the lead actor. Unfortunately, this is one of those movies you read about and think it has great potential to be entertaining, but get disappointed from the start. <br /><br />Well, at least I got good laughs. I wouldn't waste my time if I were you.
The Film must have been shot in a day,there are scenes where you can see the camera reflections and its red pointer,even the scenery's green light that blends with the actors!!!The plot and the lines are really awful without even the slightest inspiration(At least as a thriller genre movie).Everything that got to do with Poe in the movie,has a shallow and childish approach.The film is full of clise and no thrilling.If you want to watch a funny b-movie for a relaxing evening with friends then go for it you will enjoy it (As I Did) but there's no way to take this film seriously!
actually, it was pretty funny... in a "god, how the hell did this movie get made" kind of way. if you life making fun of movies... which i kinda do... go ahead and watch it... but if you're actually thinking "is this a good movie?" eff off.<br /><br />this movie sucked from the very beginning scene with the worst acting i've ever seen in any movie.... usually they get five minutes into it before you realize "this movie might suck".. but no, you know right off the bat. this movie talks about edgar allen poe... never tried to explain it though, to people who haven't memorized poe's life story... so i don't know if any of what was said is fact.<br /><br />this movie is about a writer "ethan poe" hookin up with his cousin "ann".... they're both descendants of edgar allan poe... or are they?!? apparently, people give a what their ancestors did. this guy ethan poe is actually ethan "usher", who is supposed to be descendants from the story "the house of usher" that was written by edgar allen poe. ann's brother shows up sometimes to try to rape her... ann's also being stalked, at one point in the movie, by three different people on the same street (seriously, three... they're like right behind her glaring at her and she doesn't even realize). the characters that are being murdered throughout, show up at the end to try to save the day.... but they can't. at the end, ann shoots ethan while he's trying to kill her best friend. of course, before she shoots him she has to scream out "nevermore!" this movie should be seen nevermore!
This is surely one of the worst films ever made. Each scene is painful. You will groan at the flimsy attempts at humor, the awkward camera work, the sexism and racism, the ridiculous story line, the wooden acting. Poor Joan Bennett; she is the only one in the movie who is not an embarrassment. In all, dreadful.
I have to say I hated this movie. I don't like to say that because Gerard Butler is in it. About a half an hour of boring conversation, sorry to all who actually care about the plot, I started fast-forwarding to Gerry's scenes. I really don't know the ending, I was that bored with it. If Gerry wasn't in it, I probably either done one of two things: fell asleep or turned it off, but Gerry is the bright light of this movie, as he is with most of his earlier movies. If you're a fan of Gerry's don't worry, he's as adorable and precious as he always is, but if you actually want to watch the movie for the plot, good luck because you'll need it, either that or lots of coffee or soda to keep you awake! <br /><br />4/10...and that's just because the casting director had the sense to put Gerry in this movie, even though they had no idea of how to spell his name!
I love Zombie-Movies and I love amateur-productions. And Meat Market 2 starts really promising with a nice homage to Fulci´s Classic "Zombi".<br /><br />So I leaned back and waited to be impressed. Okay, some of the makeups are great for such a no budget movie and some actors (the vampirelady and the cook) really stand out, but else there´s nothing.<br /><br />I didn´t expect a new Romero here but there is not one sequence in the whole movie which has even a little bit of suspense or shock value. The director sure knows how to stage body rippings and interesting eating habits, but now (after two parts) it´s time to learn something more.<br /><br />In MeatMarket2 Gore rhymes with bore - for me that´s not enough - sorry.<br /><br />** out of *****
About the worst movie in distribution right now! I love zombie movies and saw this in the used rack so I thought why not? Oh my god a shame to zombie movies and fans to the genre! Whoever made this movie needs to put away your camcorder and go to film school! There are so many gore hounds out there who have put time and effort into their films and they have something that this film doesn't dignity. I know it what it takes to make films and I'm sure there was a lot of money and time spent in making Meat Market but none of that money and time went in to making it good. You need actors, a script, a real camera, invest in some books on how to make independent films. I don't know how you got a DVD release but whoever did that is either a really good friend or banging their head on the wall. In gore films it is quality not quantity, the effects are weak! I was so angry that this is actually in stores and that I couldn't get my money back. Please if you have seen this film write here and put an end to shlock. I know I'm being very harsh, I only had 10 lines so I'm trying to get to the point.
This film was the recipient of the 1990 Academy award for Best Animated Short Film. Over the last few weeks, I have seen dozens of the nominees and recipients of this award from the last 30 years and I really think that this film might just be the worst of them all--yet it wasn't just a nominee but it won!! I assume that 1989 must have just been a horrible year for the genre.<br /><br />The film shows a group of characters that look a bit like super-skinny Uncle Festers. The appear to be simple articulated figures who are moved using stop motion animation. All are identical--with the same faces, bodies and clothes. The only difference is that each has a different number drawn on their backs. They are all standing on a large platform that is suspended, as if by magic, in space. Each has a pole and their is also a box on the platform. The platform begins tilting slightly and in response the men move about in an effort to balance the platform. This goes on and on and on and on for the longest time. The only relief from this tedium is when one of them acts rather nasty towards the end, but it just isn't enough to make this fun to watch in the least. Aside from passable stop motion animation, this short offers nothing of interest to me....NOTHING.<br /><br />By the way, the great short KNICK KNACK also came out in 1989 and I have no idea why it was not among the nominees. It was a GREAT short and was far better than any of the nominees that year or the year before. Perhaps Pixar's success in previous years resulted in a bias against them, but KNICK KNACK is so clever and so funny it seems almost criminal to have ignored it. Could Pixar have not entered it? This seems unlikely.
This movie was horrible, simply put. It was so bad I registered with IMDb to warn you of its dangers.<br /><br />I am a campy horror film expert, per se. I have watched "Redneck Zombies", "House of the Psychotic Women", "Slumber Party Massacre II" and many others. I know my schlock. And I know this movie sucks.<br /><br />Three fourths of the film is comprised of scared individuals running from one side of the screen to the other. When they are not running, they are spouting non-sequitur lines, devoid of emotion or motivation. When the actors begin to be acceptable, the direction falls to pieces. There were so many jarring low-angle shots; I figured Leif Jonker had a 3 foot tall tripod. He used what I call the "Leif Maneuver" several millions times: that is, zooming out from an object of interest like an amateur. Apparently the film crew couldn't get up early enough to film a sunrise, so they filmed a sunset... and played it in reverse. With direction this lazy, you are actually impressed with the final gory scene. The only thing you can figure is that the last five minutes was filmed before the first eighty-five minutes.<br /><br />If you want a good (bad) gory movie, rent "Riki-Oh" or the foundational "Dead Alive." If you are a schlock buff, and are looking for a challenge, give "Darkness" a go.<br /><br />Quote o' the movie-<br /><br />Vampire: It's die time!
Yes, I know I'm one of the few people longing to trample this movie into the dust of oblivion.So let me me tell you why I feel this way. In truth,had it been advertized as a Zombie film or the like,I might have enjoyed it.But right now,I'm totally speechless.<br /><br />*SPOILER...Though I'm not sure what's to spoil* Let's start with the first HUGE flaw. If I did not know that the movie is called "Darkness - The VAMPIRE Version" and had I not seen some sequences where some individuals seem to be sucking blood, I would not have seen the connection with Vampires. I mean, FANGLESS???? Give me a break!!!<br /><br />Second bad point: what's with the Metal? It appears that all young people, but mainly those so-called "vampires", are into various kinds of Metal,judging mainly by their shirts! Don't get me wrong, I've been into the more extreme forms of music for almost 15 years, but nobody 's going to scare me by showing me some ridiculous teenagers in Iron Maiden (of all bands!!!) T-shirts running around,pretending to be Vampires! "Pathetic" is the only only word that I could use here.<br /><br />Third weakness: the actors. Wait a minute. WHAT actors?! You mean the director's wooden friends! Words would be a waste here.<br /><br />Yes, alright, the movie is very gory, but what difference does that make? It WOULD have been a strong point and something to enjoy if the "briliant" director had not chosen to create an ARTIFICIAL vampire topic in this movie. I wanted to see Vampires,but was treated to some stupid looking kids I would have loved to use my baseball bat on. The Film-makers should simply have advertized the movie saying "cheap B-grade horror with no plot but a lot of gore" !!!<br /><br />This movie is blasphemy against the whole concept of Vampirism. And it makes me sick.
When I borrowed this movie from a friend (thankfully I did not buy it) on the package (which truly looked bad and ugly) was printed "The ultimate vampire horror". After watching it I thought that the marketing campaign was probably more expensive than the film itself. The "story" begins when a teenager (surprise!) is chased by some vampire/zombie-creatures.<br /><br />Lighting, sound and everything reminded me of my first attempt to make a holiday-video on a ten year old VHS-system if not worse. I gave the movie a 2 out of 10 and only because the promo-T-shirts looked kind of cool. I don't want to dis' film-students or splatter-movies generally but I've seen Braindead and I've seen a 20-dollar-budget movie from students that was ten times better than this crap.
<br /><br />I am a big-time horror/sci-fi fan regardless of budget, but after watching countless horror movies late night on cable and video, this has to be the worst of all movies. With bloody special effects (what looked like a roast covered in fake blood or ketchup that kept being shown over and over again) and people running around screaming from left, then to right, then back again. It should have stayed with the beginning convenience store scene and stopped there and been 15 minutes. Instead, it is dragged out very long. It is very, very x5 low budget. Many scenes were way, way too long. Narrator sounded very amateurish like a random person out of junior high was talking. This is the only movie to rate lower in my opinion than Manos, Red Zone Cuba, Benji,and Godzilla vs. megalon despite their higher budgets. 10 snoozes, try to stay awake through whole movie in one setting or better yet, avoid it like you would an undead brain-eating mob. The Why-Did-I-Ever-See-This-Piece-Of-Zombie-Dung-Blues. Epitome of nauseatingly bad made movies etc..ad infinitum. -infinity/10
I found Darkness to be just too DARK. It had a kind of cool idea and some ambitious ideas, not bad action scenes and a few splashy moments to make you go UGH! BUT, it was underlit to the point of confusion. You don't really know what is always going on in the dark scenes and for a film that is shot on Super 8 Film, you already have all that nasty grain to deal with. As with Nathan Schiff movies, it's just too much. Director Leif Jonker seems to want to make an original film, but he lacks the know-how to do it. The camera is never pointed in the right place, lack of fundamentals such as how to shoot simple dialogue scenes and how to light a movie hurt as well. The actors are all pretty uneven and hammy. But despite these negatives, the music is good, the gore is plenty and ranges from silly putty to really good appliances. Is this a classic like it says? Is it worthy of the two discs worth of praise? NO. But it is a good first try. Now if these guys would stop patting themselves on the back about this movie (from what I understand here the only one they have ever finished) for a while and try again, they may do better.
A small town is attacked by a horde of bloodthirsty vampires. The only hope is a lone avenger and a group of ragtag survivors.<br /><br />Released in 1993, "Darkness" garnered something of a cult following upon release. It's easy to see why-it's loaded (and I mean freaking loaded) with gore, and it's energy and enthusiasm, like that found in other no-budget cult horror flicks like "The Dead Next Door" and "The Children of Ravensback", is actually rather infectious.<br /><br />While that may be true, that's sadly not enough to save it. The film was shot on a Super 8, so the image is grainy and dark, making things very difficult to see (it would have been great if it had obscured the protagonists dreadful mullet.) Also grating is the soundtrack, made up of annoying Casio Keyboard and even more annoying Death Metal (seriously, what is it with these no budget horror flicks and bad Death Metal?) While one isn't expecting Oscar worthy performances, the acting is still strictly amateur hour, as the actors sometimes seem almost confused instead of frightened or threatened.<br /><br />In the end, I'm sure fans of no-budget gorefests will love this. Everyone else though, will wish there was a little more meat on the ribs.
"Darkness" was entertaining to some degree, but it never seemed to have a plot, lacking one more so than other films that have been accused of this detriment; i.e. "Bad Taste". It started off really good, with a man running from something. It was very creepy for these first few minutes, but after a time the film just became entertaining on the level of gore, which was hard to make out at some points due to poor lighting and horrible recording quality anyway. The film was hard to believe because of the juvenile acting, which most of the time, seemed like some friends talking to a video camera, making lines up as they went. That, with a lack of any plot whatsoever, made it look like the film was started without, and ended without, a script of any kind. As said before, gore was this film's only drawing point, which much of the time was hard to make out.
First of all, the actor they have to play Jesus has blue eyes... half the actors they have playing Jews have blue eyes. Aren't there enough brown-eyed actors out there? Jesus being depicted as having blue eyes is one of my pet peeves. He was a full-blooded Jew! Second of all, what is it with old English-language movies that are supposed to take place in non-English-speaking countries, and everybody has English accents? (Another example is David Lean's "Dr. Zhivago".) Aren't there enough either Jewish actors or actors who can do a Israeli accent? The movie often is not true to the Scriptures, and so seems to doubt the legitimacy of Jesus's claim to be the Messiah. In the bible, when Jesus is baptized by John, a voice comes from heaven saying "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11, Luke 3:22). In the movie, John the Baptist says this! The screenwriter seems to be trying to portray the believers as crazy, as well. For example, in the bible, the angel Gabriel tells Mary she will become pregnant with the Son of God (Luke 1:26-38), but in the movie, we do not see or hear any angel - Mary appears to be talking to a moonbeam, and when Mary's mother hears her talking to someone and peeks in on her, she doesn't hear or see anyone either. Also, in the movie, when Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees in the Temple in Jerusalem, he says, "You shall not see me here again, not until you learn to cry, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord', for I and my father are one and the same." The correct line (Matthew 23:39 and Luke 13:35)is "You will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" Period. Jesus never claimed to be God. The movie cuts out a lot of important parts (the Sermon on the Mount is very expurgated), but then spends a lot of time on stuff that isn't even in the bible (a whole scene with Mary Magdalene talking with a john). It seems like the screenwriter, instead of wanting to do a movie version of the Scriptures, wanted to make a movie about what he thinks might have really happened behind (and between) the scenes. The movie has one gem though - during the scene where Jesus tells the parable of the Prodigal Son, at Matthew the tax collector's house, I had tears streaming down my face. It is the best movie I've seen about Jesus's ministry (but that isn't saying much, because the others are just terrible). "Jesus Christ Superstar" is my favourite movie about Jesus's last days ("The Passion of the Christ" is way too graphic), though I like how "Jesus of Nazareth", instead of just ending with Jesus's death, continues on and shows his resurrection.
This is one of the worst films I've seen in years!! You could randomly pluck 5 people off the streets and they could act better than anyone in this film. Absolute waste of time watching it. I only gave it a 2 as I like gory films but this is just plain rubbish. The acting (and I use that term VERY loosely) is abysmal, someone please tell me that the 5 main actors in this were making their first ever film?? Don't waste your time watching this. Hostel was a better film by some way. I cannot believe that someone has spent money making this, I hope for the producers sake it only cost $50,000 to make - it looks like a school project, made by kids who haven't got a clue. Did this even make it to the cinema??
First of all, this is a low-budget movie, so my expectations were incredibly low going into it. I assume most people looking at the info for this movie just wanted a bloodfest, and essentially that's all it is.<br /><br />Plot? There really is none. It's basically Saw but in China and a whole hell of a lot worse. Cast? There is none, period. Special Effects? Absolutely awful in my opinion... There were cutaways and the blood was often completely unbelievable because of amounts, splatter, color, texture, etc.<br /><br />I believe the purpose of this movie was supposed to be a brutal, shock film. Now it had some great potential on a bigger budget but poor scripting, poor dialogue, awful acting, what seemed like camcorder video shots, and just plain unbelievable "gore," made this movie truly awful.<br /><br />There are movies worth taking a chance against some reviews, even "b-rate" movies deserve some opportunities (blood trails for example was the most recent I saw against reviews that was worth it), but this was simply awful. I hope that people considering this movie read my comment and decide against it.<br /><br />I'm all for brutality and shock, but the overall unrealism and truly awful acting makes for an awful experience. Save your time/money and chance something else, you won't be disappointed.
This is the kind of movie that's so extremely bad that you cant stop watching it because you keep telling yourself that 'it cannot continue to be this crappy all the way to the end. It just cant'. You know, 'worse than Jaws 4'-kind of bad.<br /><br />I honestly think I've only seen ONE movie that was worse than this, and then we're talking religious crap about how you'd end up in hell for lying or watching football.<br /><br />Gore? Indeed and lots of it. Well made gore? No way.<br /><br />The acting is beyond bad and all the lines are lousy clichés. Same goes for the storyline which only really consist of sex, blood and violence, like so many other gore movies.<br /><br />If you're hoping for a mix between Ichi the Killer and August Underground… keep looking. You wont find it in Live Feed.
just watched it, me and my better half could not believe how awful and badly acted it was. If anyone else thinks its good then you must be easily pleased. I actually gave up a night out to watch this, its all been done before. IE. hostel springs to mind, but at least that did not make you cringe with the bad acting and lack of story line, same old stuff, re-hatched,i read so much about this film, i even recommended it to my mates, my fault,someone said it was good! no more gory,horror or reeling back in disgust than your average "scary movie" it has to be said, please don't bother with this movie. get mary poppins. now thats scary! I'm off out now, go to the cinema and watch something scarier than this, little miss sunshine maybe
I'm all for a "bad" horror movie but this was just a pile of dog sh!t! How anyone can call this movie cool or decent is beyond me. If you like rushed editing to cover the special effects, bad acting and a bad script then go for it! There was no suspense whatsoever and the gore factor was laughable because it was so fake. I'll take Hostel or Wolf Creek over this pile any day. My partner gave up after about 20 minutes, she knows a stinker when she sees one. I on the other hand stupidly sat through the whole movie just to wait and see if it got any better. No such luck! I haven't sen his other movie Torched and I doubt if I'll bother now.
I watched the Unrated version of this film and realised about 30 minutes into it that I was never getting my time back. I persevered to the end hoping that the dialogue would improve, the martial arts would look realistic eventually, the special FX would actually look special. I was so wrong. I love Horror, I am a complete gore hound. I number some of the eighties splatter flicks amongst the greats of the film world. This however was not made in the eighties, if this film had come out in the early eighties the fax could be forgiven for looking so bad. It wasn't so it hasn't got that defence. The dialogue is terrible with so many bad lines I was wincing at the writing rather than squirming at torture. I don't like Hostel, never have, I thought it was over rated, over hyped and I felt nothing for the protagonists, however it shines as a beacon to greatness next to this garbage. The back of the cover for Live Feed promised a twist you would never see coming, I'm still waiting for the twist that was promised.
Where to even start? The horrendous acting? The nonsensical plot? The bargain basement effects? The completely loathsome characters? The choppy editing? The headache-inducing Casio keyboard score??? The embarrassingly racist remarks ("Watch it, Charlie!", "Back off, Jackie Chan!!"??? The constant misogyny??? I am a lifelong horror fan, and I have no problem at all with the current "torture-thon" trend of movies. However, this is a poorly-made piece of garbage. I think I suffered more pain watching this than the characters did dying in it! If you like girls being forced to eat stir-fried penis, really poor soft core porn and think lines like "I'm gonna find that b**** and staple her c*** shut!!" are clever, LIVE FEED is for you.<br /><br />As for me, I feel the need to go wash my eyes out with oven cleaner to prevent from ever seeing this movie again!
This has to be the WORST movie ever!!! The acting is scarier than the movie. Lots of blood, but no idea where it comes from, cuz they don't even show you the cuts. I can't believe I wasted my time watching this movie. We laughed like we were watching a comedy and not a horror movie. This is a disgrace to horror films!!! For one if they are in Asia why is there a white cop driving past Waste Management trash cans?! There's so much of another language that you don't even know what's going on half the time. The film editing is a joke, my teenager could do better. And if I went to a movie theater and that nasty old man was working the window that would be the first clue. DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!! NOT TO EVEN SEE HOW BAD IT IS, YOU WILL BE SORRY YOU DID!!
Live Feed is set in some unnamed Chinese/Japanese Asian district somewhere as five American friends, Sarah (Ashley Schappert), Emily (Taayla Markell), Linda (Caroline Chojnacki), Mike (Lee Tichon) & Darren (Rob Scattergood) are enjoying a night on the town & taking in the sights. After a scuffle in a bar with a Japanese Triad boss (Stephen Chang) they decide to check out a porno theatre, as you would. Inside they are separated & quickly find out that the place belongs to the Triad boss who uses it to torture & kill people for reasons which aren't made clear. Can local boy Miles (Kevan Ohtsji) save them?<br /><br />This Canadian production was co-written, produced & directed by Ryan Nicholson who also gets a prosthetic effects designer credit as well, one has to say that Live Feed is another pretty poor low budget shot on a camcorder type horror film that seems to exist only to cash in on the notoriety & success of Hostel (2005) & the mini craze for 'torture porn' as it's become known. According the IMDb's 'Trivia' section for Live Feed writer & director Nicholson wrote it after hearing about certain activities taking place in live sex theatres, for my money I reckon he wrote it after watching Hostel! The script is pretty poor, there is no basic reason given as to why this porno theatre has a big fat ugly freak dressed in bondage gear lurking around torturing & killing people, none. Was it for the Triads? Was it for his pleasure? Was it to make snuff films to sell? Some sort of explanation would have been nice. Also why did he turn on the Triad boss at the end? If your looking for a film with a coherent story then forget about Live Feed. It seemed to me to be some sort of uneasy misjudged mix of sex, S&M, horror, torture, gore & action films which doesn't come off. I mean just setting a horror film in a porn theatre isn't automatically going to make your film any good, there still needs to be a decent script & story, right? The character's were fairly poor clichés & some of their actions & motivations were more than a little bit questionable. It moves along at a reasonable pace, it's fairly sleazy mixing gore, sex & nudity but it does look cheap which lessens the effect.<br /><br />Director Nicholson doesn't do anything special here, the editing is choppy & annoying, he seems to think lighting almost every scene with neon lights is a good idea & the film has a cheap look about it. Available in both 'R' & 'Unrated' versions I saw the shorter cut 'R' version which really isn't that gory but I am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the 'Unrated' version & say that it might be much, much gorier but I can't say for sure. There's a fair amount of nudity too if that's your thing. I wouldn't say there's much of an atmosphere or many scares here because there isn't & aren't respectively although it does have a sleazy tone in general which is something it has going for it I suppose.<br /><br />Technically Live Feed isn't terribly impressive, the blood looks a little too watery for my liking & entire scenes bathed in annoying neon lights sometimes makes it hard to tell whats happening, it to often looks like it was shot on a hand-held camcorder & the choppy editing at least on the 'R' rated version is at times an annoying mess. Shot on location in an actual porn theatre somewhere in Vancouver in Canada. The acting is poor, sometimes I couldn't tell if the actresses in this were supposed to be crying or laughing...<br /><br />Live Feed is not a film I would recommend anyone to rush out & buy or rent, I didn't think much of it with it's very weak predictable storyline lacking exposition & which goes nowhere, poor acting & less than impressive gore (at least in the 'R' rated cut anyway). Watch either Hostel films again or instead as they are superior.
I just want to start by saying this is the first review of a film I have done on the net. I felt the need to warn people about this film because it truly is one of the worst films I have ever seen. After reading interviews with the director he says he respects constructive criticism and so i will try to avoid bashing the film just for the sake of it and offer my opinions as to why i found it to be so catastrophically terrible.<br /><br />1. The actors. I know the budget may not have allowed for great thespians but with Nicholson working in the industry for over ten years surely he knew some actors who were at least average.<br /><br />2. The incredibly lame make up and special effects. Once again budget obviously interfered with what was originally intended but after working in make up for so many years there is really no excuse.<br /><br />3. The obvious similarities to Hostel. Whilst not being exactly a rip off it sure does try to cash in on the former films success. Only problem is Roth knew where he was going and exactly how to get there...<br /><br />4. The music. Not at all creepy or haunting not even sickening just plain annoying.<br /><br />5. The script in general. All dialogue was forced and terrible! Also the sub plots about the theatre and the guy who comes in to save them were weak as and almost like an afterthought.<br /><br />6. The editing. WTF. How jarring, and not in a good way. nuf said.<br /><br />Seriously I would like to hear the director's thoughts on my post (he no doubt frequents his pages on IMDb.) cause buddy... what were you thinking. Surely at some point during either the shooting or editing you realised what a turkey yolu had on your hands... Sorry I don't want to be harsh but you must have more talent than this i hope your next feature that gutterballs movie or wahtever is better, hopefully practice makes progress.<br /><br />But in the mean time avoid this like the plague. I want my 81 mins back with interest. (At least I didn't pay to watch it.)
An obvious b-grade effort to cash in on the Hostel/Saw buzz, my expectations for this film were low (really low!) and yet it still managed to disappoint on every level. The acting is so bad it's not even funny, the plot-line is non-existent and the only scare was realizing that I had wasted 1hour 21 minutes watching it! I'm surprised to note that 34 people gave it a 10 star rating. I can only suspect that 33 of these are Cast and Crew. The 34th is possibly the directors mother? - although I'm sure even she would find it hard to go higher than a 2! DVD extras include an hour long "making of" feature. Which raises the question, "Why?" (although perhaps it serves to demonstrate what not to do!). Avoid at all costs.
2005 gave us the very decent "gore porn" flick Hostel, and 2006 gave us Live Feed; a not so decent rip-off of Hostel. Live Feed follows pretty much the same formula as Eli Roth's earlier film, except this time the dumb kids are in Asia rather than central Europe. The plot focuses on these dumb kids, and one of them has annoyed one of the locals so they find themselves in trouble. The locals decide to lock them all in a theatre, and kill them. Despite the fact that I'd heard some less than favourable things about this film before seeing it, I still hoped that it might be at least half decent because director Ryan Nicholson previously made the very decent 45 minute rape and revenge film 'Torched', but this film falls down simply because most of it is either ridiculous or boring. The film is obviously trying to hark back to the good old days of Grindhouse cinema (which Hostel did, successfully), but it really doesn't come off. Surprisingly, considering Nicholson's previous work in special effects - not even the gore is impressive...although it is a lot better than the acting! There's not much else I can say about this film...it's bad and not in a good way. Avoid it!
I agree with the last reviewer that this movie had terrible acting. Yes, there was a lot of gore and some nudity. But it was overshadowed by a slow-moving, meaningless plot and dumb ending. Where was this supposed to be filmed anyway: a Canadian Chinatown or Hong Kong? Hostel was a much better movie and I would recommend seeing that instead. A technical annoyance I had with the DVD is that if you shut off the Spanish subtitles, they return after a few scenes and then you have to go back to the main menu and turn them off again. Also, don't waste your time on the deleted scenes because there's no audio and it just looks like tourist footage.
Anyone who has said that it's better than Hostel is talking complete crap, believe me I'm not a fan of Hostel but this is just ridiculous. This is just another shot on camcorder, straight to DVD, low on ideas waste of your time, I can't believe how many of these films there are and I'm yet to see a decent one. In the 80's video nasties, gore and horror movies were made with no budget but a great story and a load of new ideas and most importantly the heart and soul of the director who had something to say. Now they just seem to be pumped out in an attempt to trick people browsing in Blockbuster to rent a copy, until people stop doing this then I guess these films will keep appearing. This film is so low on ideas it's just amazing how it ever got made, the acting is also terrible, the location completely unconvincing and the soundtrack is so annoying it beggars belief. This waste of time has absolutely nothing going for it, unless you're on a quest to compile a list of the worst movies of all time. My best/worst part of the film is when a female character is pointing a gun at someone and threatening to shoot them if they don't back off, you can see that she isn't even covering the trigger with her finger just holding the grip. An absolute joke.
First I'd like to excuse my bad English.<br /><br />I'm not a HOSTEL-hardcore-fan, but I liked that movie nevertheless. Live Feed, however, SUCKED BIG TIME! I have never seen a gore-movie with superb acting, but hey, who's surprised? The acting in Live Feed was... well, not there! I've seen some commented this as it must have been a school project or something. Okey, but not by students in media or acting school. This was NO class at all! And what about the story? A really sad rip-off on Hostel. And what about the gore? What about the psychopathic torture scenes that supposed to make your guts twist and leave you cold-sweating? That was the most disappointing about the hole movie! Short, quick and NO edge. More like an execution rather than a torture. Okey, there where buckets of blood, but it didn't even look real. The slaughtering and the violence reminded more of Braindead than Hostel or any of the Saw-movies. And Braindead was fun! Okey, I laughed at Live Feed a couple of times, but that was more out of disappointment than out of sheer fun!<br /><br />So instead of wasting 80 minutes by watching Live Feed, watch ANYTHING else!
I wasn't at all a fan of the 2005 gore fest hit "Hostel", and most of these lame ass knock-offs are just as bad or worse - yet "Live Feed" managed to keep me somewhat entertained for about the first 30 minutes. Started off with plenty of sex and sleazy settings, followed by some good death scenes involving the Chinese Organized Crime Squad and a 7-foot, leather-aproned butcher... What put me out of the movie was the tough 'hero' with the guns and a grudge saving the day... I would call this movie mediocre, at best, since a premise mainly involving obnoxious young people being slaughtered in a seedy porno theater, doubling as a hideout for the mafia, is appealing to me. If only the torture was prolonged enough to be thoroughly effective, then my rating would have differed greatly. Unfortunately, most of the gruesomeness is heaped together in one scene, leaving the rest of the movie to conclude as a revenge-type scenario. So, basically, it IS just a low-budget "Hostel" rip-off with the redeeming use of gratuitous sex, almost constant during the first half of the film... Overall, I would say don't bother with this one.
Some gorehound-friends recommended "Live Feed" to me, and basically I can't really complain as the film certainly does deliver copious amounts of gross smut and buckets full of sleaze, but it is of course not a very good film. More than obviously cashing in on the latest trend in horror cinema, the so-called Torture Porn, Ryan Nicholson tries to surpass every other film in this sub genre (and that includes the role models "Hostel" and "Saw") with its sick & twisted make-up effects and thoroughly depraved shots of naked co-eds tried up, suffering and begging for their lives. There's no actual plot to describe. Five utterly brainless twenty-something friends take a trip to Asia. One of them has Asian roots, but other than that I don't really know why they opted to travel there instead of to Cancun. They're clearly not interested in the continents culture and even cause a hectic scene when they witness a local butchering a cute puppy dog on the market. The quintet subsequently dives into the lurid night life and one of them accidentally insults the leader of a criminal clan. A simply apology clearly doesn't suffice, as the gangster follow them into an adult theater and gradually subject all of them to vicious torture. One girl has her breast impaled and another poor wench even has a poisonous snake shoved down her throat; yikes. "Live Feed" is surprisingly boring despite of all the bloodshed and the amateurish production values are quite difficult to overlook, even if you're used to watching independent fan-boy trash cinema like this. The fat bloke depicted on the cover, an oriental S&M executioner, is admittedly quite cool and he's also the most talented of the whole bunch, because he at least keeps his mouth shut the entire time. I wouldn't exactly recommend this pile of filth, but hey, if you like loud & hideous metal music, nauseating torture footage and dim-witted losers, go right ahead and watch!
This movie is a lot like the movie Hostel, except with *BAD* acting and not much suspense. The gore elements are there, but you don't really feel anything for the characters, making the violence not very effective. Some parts are just strange... like forcing a snake down someones throat. What's up with that? Is that supposed to be scary or gory? It's just kind of stupid. As for torture, there really isn't any (except for the guy getting blow-torched in the beginning, which they don't show anyway). The main bad guy keeps saying "make them die slowly", yet the butcher kills them all very fast. The deaths are all relatively quick. Yes, I did watch the "unrated" version. So, overall, not the worst gore movie I've seen, but not at all good either. You won't miss anything if you skip this one.
There was no characterization in this movie and really shows how much this talentless hack who directed this needs to learn his craft. All his characters in this movie were so unlikable and I could care less. The best point in this movie was the end credits and the hour long shower after this cause I felt so damn dirty that I wasted money on this stinking load. Hey genius....triads and yakuza are from two different places learn something about Asian culture. The dog scene in this felt so tacked on and useless. This DVD does prove useful I do love my new coaster.<br /><br />So kids don't waste your cash on this crap buy Hostel instead.
Whoa nelly! I've heard a ton of mixed reviews for this...but one of my go to hardcore horror reviewers really found it to be disappointing. Man was he right on the nose! This movie was acted by pure amateurs. They HAD to have done one take, maybe two on each scene, the movie seemed soooo rushed. The script was also poor....they had lines that tried to be unique but failed. Miserably. "Get your meathooks off of me!" Oh man, I hate it when movies try to do that. It happens all the time with comedies...but, with a horror movie and with below average actors....the results are incredibly pathetic. The lines and scenarios were all very predictable. But what made me feel so negative towards this movie was, again, the damn acting. It was awful. Besides by the little Asian guy who worked the booth. I thought he was great.<br /><br />The movie is about 5 stupid dumbsh!t tourist who are on a vacation in Asia. They end up at the wrong place and fall into the hands of a mafia run sex/slaughterhouse. Sounds like a cool story. But watching someone with a bad case of diarrhea is probably more fun and intense to watch. The only reason this is considered horror is because of the killing. There wasn't a trace of suspense.<br /><br />I like many other horror fans were dying to get their bloody little mitts on this. But unfortunately with a HUGE capital U, the movie was incredibly disappointing. I did enjoy the ankle break and the blood effects. The flabby chicks were also so so.<br /><br />Everything about this movie screams amateur. This is Ryan Nicholson's first feature length, and for the most part he failed. There's no denying he has a sick sense of humor and taste for horror. I pray his next movie doesn't play out like another B horror flick...unless he tells us that's what it's gonna be. Even after this disappointment I'm willing to give Ryan another shot. From what I've seen of him, he's a true, dedicated man to the genre. Good luck next time, because this was bad news.
This film is not deserved of the next few minutes I will spend criticizing it, but I know many people, like myself, rely on IMDb.com to assist in deciding on films. For that reason alone, I am writing this.<br /><br />"Live Feed" is like an Asian version of 1976's "The Incredible Torture Show" (aka "Blood Sucking Freaks") http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077247/. Torture, dismemberment, murder, cannibalism... sure, it's all here along with a third-grade script, pathetic acting, and a perverted failure of an attempt at black comedy.<br /><br />The film takes place in China, yet everyone speaks English. There is an abundance of girls in the film who are horrified by the butchering of dogs in a marketplace, yet are sexually excited about entering a porno parlor. One gal who is disgusted by the filth in a restroom stall moments later is still there having at it with her friends boyfriend (how he even got in there might be the only engaging thing about this whole film.) The film is absolutely awful, even for a B-movie. Even if you were to download it for free, it would be an insult to your hard drive.
'Say Yes' is one of those flicks that you keep hoping is going to get better, but it never does. It's the kind of 'motiveless psychopath decides to menace an innocent couple' crapfest, so beloved of straight to video film-makers. <br /><br />The dialogue is clunky and, in several places, poorly translated. The acting is uniformly poor, especially from the villain of the piece, played by Joong-Hoon Park. He seems to think that by not blinking and trying to talk in a deep voice he is making his character seem threatening, when all it really does is make him seem a bit simple.<br /><br />The plot deserves special mention, as it is idiotic beyond all belief. The 'heroes' don't think it overly strange that their hitchhiker threatens to kill them. The 'heroine' twice manages to miss seeing the villain when he is no more than a foot away from her. The villain gets past a police checkpoint (while wearing a shirt covered in blood, and a bloody head bandage) by showing the cops a burnt corpse in the passenger seat of the car he is driving. The villain is punched, clubbed with a shovel and stuck through with a pitchfork, but never seems to be impeded by these, rather serious, injuries. And don't even get me started on that terrible 'twist' ending. Sheesh.<br /><br />The only plus point in this film, for me, is Sang Mi Chu. Who is very pretty, but really no more than a mediocre actress.<br /><br />Overall, this film comes off like a poorly written, flaccidly acted and shockingly directed attempt to copy 'The Hitcher' and 'Spoorloos', but it fails at every turn due to a lack of talent in everyone involved.
I have seen many good Korean Movies including thrillers and movies with darker overtone, but this one sucks. The director seems to be a sadist, who happened to get someone to produce some junk. The movie lacks any sort of entertainment value and is not even a thriller. I can't believe someone really made such a movie. Even though acting is OK, the story line and the feeling it leaves is awful.<br /><br />I am sure, I am not going to see any movies of this director. No sense of movie making, and utter disappointment in having thriller moments. All this has is showing scenes with psychopath wasting the reels with badly shot scenes and showing more blood and violence thinking that makes it thrilling. Very disappointing movie and I strongly recommend skipping all the movies of this sort.
There's nothing worse than renting an Asian movie and getting an American movie experience instead.<br /><br />It's only my opinion, but a good thriller is dependent upon the establishment of likable, intelligent characters. As far as likability is concerned, the protagonists in Say Yes are a quaint married couple. Nicely done. Unfortunately, they are stupid beyond belief. Let us count the ways they mishandle being terrorized by a stalker.<br /><br />1. After a hitchhiker threatens to kill you, be sure to tell him what hotel you're staying at when you drop him off.<br /><br />2. Beat the hell out of the stalker in broad daylight and in front of dozens of witnesses, thereby allowing him to press charges of assault.<br /><br />3. Don't bother telling the police about the stalker and simply assume (for no apparently good reason) that the cops were bribed by him.<br /><br />4. While trying to escape, let your lady out of your sight as much as possible to ensure that the stalker kidnaps her.<br /><br />5. After getting help from someone to find the stalker after kidnapping your wife, be sure to send them away as soon as possible so you can face him one-on-one. No point in being unfair, right? <br /><br />Now, I'd never expect that any person would be immune to making a few mistakes under these stressful conditions, but the characters in Say Yes are so dense and make so many unbelievable mistakes that it's effectively impossible for the viewer to care about their safety, since they are victims of their own doing. This kills the enjoyability of the entire film. <br /><br />In case you were wondering, the scriptwriters didn't stop with dim-witted characters. Since they themselves are surely dim-witted for writing this crapfest, they decided to make situations so absurdly unrealistic that all sense of reality goes out the window.<br /><br />1. The stalker kills a cop inside a police station – while the protagonist is asleep no more than ten feet away.<br /><br />2. The stalker engages in all sorts of dubious activities in broad daylight and around tons of people, yet no one other than the married couple seems to notice his odd behavior.<br /><br />3. The stalker survives an absurd amount of violence that would have killed any human being.<br /><br />4. The "suspense" scenes had no imagination whatsoever. In fact, some scenes were direct rip-offs from American movies.<br /><br />The only positive is the decapitation near the end, which was a pretty brutal scene since it was inflicted upon the wife. It's too bad the filmmakers followed it up with an outrageously stupid ending that comes out of left field.<br /><br />Truly, the Koreans behind the making of Say Yes should be ashamed of themselves. Better yet, they should just move to California and take employment with people who make movies with a similar disregard for quality and intelligence.
After sitting through this pile of dung, my husband and I wondered whether it was actually the product of an experiment to see whether a computer program could produce a movie. It was that listless and formulaic. But the U.S. propaganda thrown in your face throughout the film proves--disappointingly--that it's the work of humans. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but quotes like, "We have to steal the Declaration of Independence to protect it" seem like ways to justify actions like the invasion of Iraq, etc. The fact that Nicholas Cage spews lines like, "I would never use the Declaration of Independence as a bargaining chip" with a straight face made me and my husband wonder whether the entire cast took Valium before shooting each scene. The "reasoning" behind each plot turn and new "clue" is truly ridiculous and impossible to follow. And there's also a bonus side plot of misogyny, with Dr. Whatever-Her-Name-Was being chided by all involved for "never shutting up." She's clearly in the movie only for looks, but they felt the need to slap a "Dr." title on her character to give her some gravity. At one point, Cage's character says, "Don't you ever shut up?" and the camera pans to her looking poutily down at her hands, like she's a child. Truly grotesque. The only benefit to this movie was that it's so astonishingly bad, you do get a few laughs out of it. The really scary thing is that a majority of the people watching the movie with us seemed to enjoy it. Creepy....
National Treasure is about as over-rated and over-hyped as they come. Nicholas Cage is in no way a believable action hero, and this film is no "Indiana Jones". People who have compared this movie to the Indian Jones classic trilogy have seriously fallen off their rocker.<br /><br />I can't really figure out what kind of target audience this film was shooting for. Maybe the pre-teen audience will like it, but I found it to be absolutely ludicrous. I also can't imagine adults or young adults to find this to be that great of a film. Simply put: it's just OK at best.<br /><br />National Treasure is unimagined and uninspired, borrowing what it does have from "The Da Vinci Code". I would recommend waiting for that movie to be released in 2006, and passing on this nonsense.<br /><br />The whole idea of being able to so easily steal the Declaration of Independence and run around all over Washington DC and Philadelphia with it (while never damaging it once), while fighting the "bad guys" and experiencing what is supposed to be "non-stop action" is absurd. I particularly loved the scene with the Declaration folded in its tube laying in the middle of a busy road while cars whiz by it without damaging it. Oh brother! <br /><br />Reminded me of that episode of the "Brady Bunch" where they go to the amusement park and Mr. Brady loses his architectural plans. Except, that episode of the Brady Bunch was much better than this whole film! <br /><br />The idea of such huge treasure that nobody believes exists being buried within a secret ruin of the US is outlandish. Literally, there are thousand of undiscovered "priceless" items in this treasure trove. Yeah right!! Ridiculous!! <br /><br />Even worse, the speed and accuracy of which Cage finds and figures out what are supposed to be "tough" clues to these ancient riddles are pre-posterous!!! Oh.. the humanity! <br /><br />The performances by Cage, Voight, and the other actors in "National Treasure" are as stiff ,wooden, and flat as they come. However, when you're working with such lousy dialogue, it's hard to fault the actor's 100% for that.<br /><br />National Treasure is an OK film to see once. I can't recommend it beyond that and would definitely NOT purchase this over the top, outlandish scavenger hunt of a mess.<br /><br />Rent it if you must see it first.......
Well it looked good on paper,Nick Cage and Jerry Buckheimer collaborate again, this time on a mix of heist movie, Da Vinci Code,American History 101 and Indiana Jones. But oh dear, this is to Indiana Jones what Speed 2 is to Speed. A reasonable cast(including John Voight and Harvey Keitel) battles against a puerile script and loses badly. The film is little more than an extended advert for the Freemasons.However these Freemasons are not your usual shopkeepers who use funny handshakes and play golf, these Freemasons are the natural descendants of the Knights Templar (and nobody mention 'From Hell' or Jack the Ripper.)I don't think I've revealed any plot spoilers because there are none. There is virtually no suspense, no surprises and no climax- it just stops. National Treasure aims for Dan Brown but hits the same intellectual level as an episode of Scooby Doo sans the humour.
Nick Cage is Gates, a treasure hunter (oh, excuse me... treasure "protector", whatever that means) who is descended from a long line of treasure hunters. One of his ancestors had been given a clue to the whereabouts of a huge treasure that our Founding Fathers, most if not all Freemasons, had decided to hide because they just didn't want to finance their Independence all that badly.<br /><br />The first clue turns out to be in a long-lost ship hidden in the Arctic. Gates and his crew, consisting of financier Ian (Sean Bean), Movie Dork Riley (Justin Bartha of the immortal "Gigli") and a couple of faceless lackeys, enter the cargo hold of the ship. They immediately spill out tons of gunpowder all over the floor, not that this is significant in any way. At last they find the clue (a skeleton is hovering over it) and it turns out to be a pipe with writing... on it. Sort of. Don't ask me to explain.<br /><br />It's a riddle, and despite the fact that his expedition is clearly miffed at not finding the actual treasure, Gates wanders around yammering to himself about the meaning of the riddle, in this frozen cargo hold, while the crew just stands around slack-jawed. I mean, come on. Someone should have been a little vocal in their disappointment of coming all the way to the freaking Arctic and not finding anything interesting, but they just stand there as Gates enters his own world, solving the riddle.<br /><br />The next clue turns out to be on the Declaration of Independence. Ian decides to steal it. Gates is appalled. Various characters deliver gratingly obvious exposition (get used to it). All this leads to Ian's lackey pulling a gun on Gates, and the gunpowder going off in a big explosion. (oh, that's why they spilled all the gunpowder! Huh!!) Ian and his henchmen make their escape, and Gates and Movie Dork Riley walk nine miles in subzero temperatures to an Inuit village in order to stop them.<br /><br />To stop them, Gates concludes after trying the FBI and Super Archivist Abigail Chase (Diane Kruger), Gates and Riley must steal it themselves. Riley then tells Gates in excruciating detail why they can not steal the Declaration, because it's so protected with metal and laser eyes and high tech security blah blah. Gates then tells Riley that there's an opportunity to steal it from the Preservation Room. Does Riley know what the Preservation Room is, Gates asks? "A place where they make jams and jellies?" I am not kidding; that's the actual line. Bartha doesn't deliver it like a joke, either. So Riley does all this research about the Library of Congress and the Archives and water and sewage, fercryinoutloud, but doesn't know what the Preservation Room is. This pretty much indicates what level this script is on.<br /><br />To make the rest of this short, Gates does in fact make off with the D of I, in a ridiculous break-in that could only happen in a movie. (I also hate the way they depict computer monitor technology in movies -- full of improbable and impractical graphics and fonts.) Abigail Chase ends up tagging along for convenience's sake, and as an obvious "love interest" angle. At one point, the three of them, on the run from the law, discuss all their plans really loudly in a clothing store, surrounded by people.<br /><br />A series of clues and the kidnapping of Gates' father, played by a dyspeptic Jon Voight, leads good guys and bad guys alike to a huge Indiana Jones fun-house located underneath New York City. Odd that the subway builders never found this thing. Gates and Gates Senior lead Ian off on a wild goose chase. Ian believes they're trapped in a cul-de-sac and leaves them there. However, after they're gone, Riley asks how they're going to get out. Gates...<br /><br />... oh boy ...<br /><br />... presses a button and a door opens. No, I'm serious. A button, like they might have on a vacu-flush lavatory in an office building. Good thing he knew where that was. Anyway, after some more knob-twiddling, they find this immense treasure room (remember, this is all underneath Manhattan!) full of all sorts of historyish golden things. Riley gets to deliver a really stupid line. Again. And FBI officer Harvey Keitel forgives them, arrests Sean Bean, and allows the two chemistry-less leads to get married.<br /><br />For any viewer, I think it would be hard to ignore all the exposition, the leaps of logic, and the stereotyped characters for very long. Though some of its exposition involves nice history lessons inserted into conversation at random moments. I'd like more conversations like that in my life.
People like me will tear this movie apart. It's just not realistic. The Plot is sooooooo predictable. You can anticipate everything that happens convientantly Of course, they find the treasure and become filthy rich, and trick the bad guy. We've seen it a million times before. The writers of this movie must think that the majority of the movie going public is stupid. They must be right because The majority of people actually liked this film. I mean solving riddles in a matter of seconds. The secret treasure room hidden under the Manhattan subway? You'd think with all the work that's gone on in New York underground That room would have been discovered before. and all that was constructed during the civil war? PLEASE And the love story between Ben and Abigail?? how cute, and I thought the romance in Clive Cussler novels was weak. They just fall in love like that, in 2 seconds WHATEVER I'd be more concerned with saving my own ass then getting some. the hell with the girl and the stupid piece of paper. 1/10 Garbage
I watched this movie last night on one of the pay-per-view channels, and while watching it I quickly wondered why I bothered. In all honesty I really did expect something more from this film. Maybe something along the lines of 'Conspiracy Theory'. Why? Maybe because of the casting. I mean, Nicolas Cage and Harvey Keitel, after all. Not to mention Jon Voight and Christopher Plummer. Now I'm wondering, why did they bother? But instead of an absorbing action cum mystery drama I was caught up in a pastiche of breakneck silliness a là 'The Goonies', which to my great surprise appears to have garnered some actual critical praise. Perhaps it's because 'The Goonies' was clearly targeted toward the pre-teen and teen audiences. Whereas 'National Treasure', judging from the previews, was seriously intended to appeal to an adult audience.<br /><br />Suspension of disbelief is one thing. It's how one can enjoy sci-fi and horror. But I found myself actually resisting the heaping tablespoons of paranoid and conspiracy-laden tripe being shoved at the audience. Oh, the screenwriter threw around all the jargon intended to evoke a sense of serious engaged wonderment. "Wow! The Masons. The Knights Templars. You know, this could really be true!" I think the writer really lost me when Gates said the Founding Fathers hid the treasure to keep it out of the hands of the British! And just were did the Knights Templar come from? New Jersey? Oh, I forget. From France! Which goes a long way to explain how it ended up in Philadelphia during the Revolution. It was brought there by agents of Napoleon! Anyway, you see what I'm getting at. The premise of the movie is interesting. And I really do think it could have succeeded as a serious mystery drama. But it just comes off as another kid flick in grown-up clothing. In the end I think it asks the audience not simply to suspend belief but to render itself willfully ignorant to an insulting degree.<br /><br />I've just finished watching several items by Werner Herzog and Istvan Szabo. It's a shock to switch from fine dining to Hollywood Big Mac and fries.<br /><br />Okay, okay. If you pant over chases, explosions, and 'gee-whiz' gimmickry you'll enjoy 'National Treasure'. But it's the sort of movie, well, have you ever stood outside a cinema waiting to get in while the previous audience comes out? And all the young kids are talking excitedly among themselves and saying things like, "Wow! Did you see how that thing blew up? That was so cool!" 'National Treasure' is that kind of movie.
This movie is like the thousand "cat and mouse" movies that preceded it. (The following may look like a spoiler, but it really just describes a large class of movies) There is the passionate, wise main character, his goofy but well-meaning sidekick with his ill-placed attempts at humorous comments, the initially-hostile but soon softened gorgeous lady who triggers the inevitable "unlikely" love story, the loved ones taken hostage, and of course the careless evil adversary with his brutal minions. Everybody has seen tons of these movies already, and "National Treasure" is like any one of them, with only a slightly modified wrapping. Every turn of the story was easily predicted (and I can assure you I am not the sharpest tool in the shed). I am quite tired of feeling tricked for money after exiting the theater from a Hollywood movie, and if you have ever felt that way too, heed my warning; stay miles away from this movie.
"National Treasure" (2004) is a thoroughly misguided hodge-podge of plot entanglements that borrow from nearly every cloak and dagger government conspiracy cliché that has ever been written. The film stars Nicholas Cage as Benjamin Franklin Gates (how precious is that, I ask you?); a seemingly normal fellow who, for no other reason than being of a lineage of like-minded misguided fortune hunters, decides to steal a 'national treasure' that has been hidden by the United States founding fathers. After a bit of subtext and background that plays laughably (unintentionally) like Indiana Jones meets The Patriot, the film degenerates into one misguided whimsy after another – attempting to create a 'Stanley Goodspeed' regurgitation of Nicholas Cage and launch the whole convoluted mess forward with a series of high octane, but disconnected misadventures.<br /><br />The relevancy and logic to having George Washington and his motley crew of patriots burying a king's ransom someplace on native soil, and then, going through the meticulous plan of leaving clues scattered throughout U.S. currency art work, is something that director Jon Turteltaub never quite gets around to explaining. Couldn't Washington found better usage for such wealth during the start up of the country? Hence, we are left with a mystery built on top of an enigma that is already on shaky ground by the time Ben appoints himself the new custodian of this untold wealth. Ben's intentions are noble – if confusing. He's set on protecting the treasure. For who and when?…your guess is as good as mine.<br /><br />But there are a few problems with Ben's crusade. First up, his friend, Ian Holmes (Sean Bean) decides that he can't wait for Ben to make up his mind about stealing the Declaration of Independence from the National Archives (oh, yeah – brilliant idea!). Presumably, the back of that famous document holds the secret answer to the ultimate fortune. So Ian tries to kill Ben. The assassination attempt is, of course, unsuccessful, if overly melodramatic. It also affords Ben the opportunity to pick up, and pick on, the very sultry curator of the archives, Abigail Chase (Diane Kruger). She thinks Ben is clearly a nut – at least at the beginning. But true to action/romance form, Abby's resolve melts quicker than you can say, "is that the Hope Diamond?" The film moves into full X-File-ish mode, as the FBI, mistakenly believing that Ben is behind the theft, retaliate in various benign ways that lead to a multi-layering of action sequences reminiscent of Mission Impossible meets The Fugitive. Honestly, don't those guys ever get 'intelligence' information that is correct? In the final analysis, "National Treasure" isn't great film making, so much as it's a patchwork rehash of tired old bits from other movies, woven together from scraps, the likes of which would make IL' Betsy Ross blush.<br /><br />The Buena Vista DVD delivers a far more generous treatment than this film is deserving of. The anamorphic widescreen picture exhibits a very smooth and finely detailed image with very rich colors, natural flesh tones, solid blacks and clean whites. The stylized image is also free of blemishes and digital enhancements. The audio is 5.1 and delivers a nice sonic boom to your side and rear speakers with intensity and realism. Extras include a host of promotional junket material that is rather deep and over the top in its explanation of how and why this film was made. If only, as an audience, we had had more clarification as to why Ben and co. were chasing after an illusive treasure, this might have been one good flick. Extras conclude with the theatrical trailer, audio commentary and deleted scenes. Not for the faint-hearted – just the thick-headed.
Having read some good reviews about this film I thought it was about time I go and see it. Well I don't know why I bothered. Basically this family is entrusted with a clue that leads to a whole big stash of ancient treasure, hidden by the Knights Templar during the War of Independence. Apparently it had to be kept out of the hands of the British at all costs. Firstly, why did said Knights move the treasure from Europe to America? How did Nic Cages character figure out that 'Charlotte' was in fact a ship? How do they figure out all the clues and riddles in about a minute? And how could two people suddenly become master thieves and steal what is probably the best guarded bit of paper in the world? These are just some of the plot holes in this inane bit of Hollywood action gone wrong. Cage has been in some great action movies - 'Face-Off' and 'The Rock' - so why has he lowered himself to this? Is he getting too old?! His character is pretty annoying really - Somehow this 'ordinary' guy steals the Declaration of Independancd, outruns thieves with guns, escapes from the FBI and generally seems invincible. The whole film doesn't really make any sense and all in all it was quite a disappointment.
Everyone in a while, Disney makes one of thoes movies that surprises everyone. One that keeps you wondering until the very end. In the tradition of Pirates of the Caribbean, this movie is sure to turn into a ghost, and kill and rape your village. It's terrible. If you want a mindless, senseless, predictable "action" movie, go right ahead. I believe that young kids might enjoy this, as they like it when Good ALWAYS wins. But me, I like movies where it's a toss up who's going to win. This movie never lets the Bad Guys have the upper hand. By the end, when th heroes are left in an "inescapeable" pit, you just KNOW that they can get out. Everything works out perfect for Cage and his friends, he never has to think over a riddle or clue for more than 10 seconds, no matter how complex it is. See this movie if you want to see some impressive set designs, not if you want to see good acting, or a good film. Go watch a superman movie, it would be much shorter, and the kids would like it more. For instance, the scene where Cage is fleeing from armed gunmen, and the bullets are all deflected by a the railing of a fire escape. (And I'm not talking about a fence or anything, just ONE LITTLE POLE) This movie shows the decay of films and the film industry to cheap gags and dull, unrealistic action, which this movie provides in huge quantities.
What a disappointment! I hated the mummy but this one was even worse! It was very tiring and unbelievable and at a certain point I found myself sighing and yawning all the time. I can't believe that people actually liked this movie. The role of Nicholas Cage wasn't very convincing. The whole movie felt like a grand tour around America's most wanted buildings. The never stopping flow of hints and combinations wasn't very convincing either. I stopped paying attention around 30 minutes. What was supposed to be a happy night out became a total disappointment. What a drag... I guess I've just seen too many movies to enjoy National Treasure.
And so the great rewriting of history continues Hollywood style.<br /><br />This was senseless ridiculous rubbish.<br /><br />Its shocks me that such an amazing amount of money can be spent to produce what is the most contrived, poorly acted inaccurate film I have ever seen. It is appalling.<br /><br />Nic Cage's brief flirtation with serious acting appears to be over. I can only assume that Leaving Las Vegas was a glitch in an otherwise litany of dreadful films.<br /><br />Diane Kruger proves that her performance in Troy was no fluke, she really can't act.<br /><br />Harvey Keitel should be ashamed of himself for working on such tripe.<br /><br />Only recommended for those either recovering from a recent lobotomy or people of an opinion that America invented the world.
How this film gains a 6.7 rating is beyond belief. It deserves nothing better than a 2.0 and clearly should rank among IMDb's worst 100 films of all time. National Treasure is an affront to the national intelligence and just yet another assault made on American audiences by Hollywood. Critics told of plot holes you could drive a 16 wheeler through.<br /><br />I love the justifications for this movie being good... "Nicholas Cage is cute." Come on people, no wonder people around the world think Americans are stupid. This has to be the most stupid, insulting movie I have ever seen. If you wanted to see an actually decent film this season, consider Kinsey, The Woodsman, Million Dollar Baby or Sideways. National Treasure unfortunately got a lot more publicity than those terrific films. I bet most of you reading this haven't even heard of them, since some haven't been widely released yet.<br /><br />Nicholas Cage is a terrific actor - when he is in the right movies. Time after time I've seen Cage waste his terrific talent in awful mind-numbing films like Con Air, The Rock and Face-Off. When his talent is put to good use like in Charlie Kaufman's Adaptation he is an incredible actor.<br /><br />Bottom line - I'd rather feed my hand to a wood chipper than be subjected to this visual atrocity again.
WOW, this movie was so horrible. I'm so glad i didn't have to pay money to see this horrible movie. it was like a history nut went on a coke binge! the previews of it made it look decent but it was REALLY bad. i will say the idea sounded decent but come on. it was really really bad. If u sat down and thought about it you would also realize it was UNREALISTIC. come on back in the day u think they had all that stuff to work with. It wasn't like ben franklin sat down one day and made a damn riddle. it was completely ridiculous, and it you want to see a bad movie then by all means go see this one. All and ALL HORRIBLE movie it might actually be on my top 10 WORST films I've ever seen.
I almost drowned in CHEESE watching this movie. In fact I could not even finish it. I want my money back. One more of Hollywood's feeble attempts to come up with a new idea. Good thing I keep a bowl of lemons in the fridge. Just in case. They should of gave Nic Cage a hat and a bull-whip. Swashbucklin'. Cage's performance in Raising Arizona or Leaving Las Vegas beats this "lemon". People who are completely and totally marketed(and most of them are) should love this movie. If this film had been animated, I would have taken it more seriously. I would of rather paid to see a completely stupid movie that did not try to hide it. In my opinion, this was a incredibly stupid movie and it made a even more incredibly sad attempt to try and hide that FACT.<br /><br />All the SHEEP seem to love it though.
This is the most elementary sort of traditional ghost story, not even enlivened to any great extent by the use of Irish locations. If the great M.R. James had ever come up with a tale this thin -- doesn't James in fact have a story called "A Thin Ghost"? -- he wouldn't have bothered to have it published.<br /><br />Orson Welles appears in the limp endpieces as a favour to a brace of old friends, this film's producers. His presence and the one movie industry in-joke would have earned this will-o'-the-wisp its Oscar nomination. This is yet more proof, if any more were needed, that the Academy Awards have never been any guarantee of merit.
It kept my attention to the end, however, without spoiling the film for anyone....... when she fixed the fridge by getting a book from the library, you knew how the film would end when she went back to library for a book on self defence against and assassin. The film, for me, said nothing of worth.... is becoming an assassin really a remedy for mental illness or just another symptom.
This film is described as a action/comedy. The first 15 minutes and James Belushi's presence point to it being a humorous gangster film.<br /><br />However, the introduction of the ridiculous female lead begins a number of ludicrous plot twists which do little to conceal the contrived ending. The film moves between comedy(description used loosely) and surreal drama with some out of context adult scenes thrown in. The lead female (the Angel of the title) is poorly acted and the actress is not helped by the script which requires some unbelievable, extremes of character to be portrayed. James Belushi is the only one who handles his part well but is also let down by the poor script. One to avoid.
I'll be honest- the reason I rented this movie was because I am a huge fan of Kyle Chandler's (most notably from Early Edition). Since he usually plays the good guy, I wanted to see him as in a different role (out of curiosity). The plot itself also drew me in; a wanna-be hitman (Tony Greco- a.k.a. Mr. Chandler) must kill a person at random before he is trusted with the life- or, rather, the death- of a witness who will testify against someone in "the family". The movies was nothing like I expected. It was sick, I hated the end (if you saw it, you'd know why), and there were so many unnecessary parts. Basically- it was filthy, and made little sense. Yes, it was a mob movie, and yes the guns do go BOOM. But there's more to a movie than that. This film acted as if it didn't have the time to go into detail- just deal with it and understand it. The acting really made up for it- James Belushi was pretty amusing as "The Rose". Sheryl Lee made Angel seem as believable as she could get. She surprised me the most. And Kyle Chandler was equally convincing as an anxious newcomer to "the family". If only the script did justice to the actors.
I can't believe the positive reviews of this movie - I thought it was one of the worst, most poorly executed and poorly acted movies I have ever seen. And the plot was completely ludicrous (sp?). She starts making out with him while he's tied to the chair? puh-lease. The worst part was that it wasn't even bad in a good, laughable way. Just plain terrible - I couldn't figure out why they even bothered to show it on HBO. I thought Belushi was ridiculously silly - very unbelievable as an "eccentric" hit man. idk, I could go on - again, I am shocked by the positive reviews. The only thing that kept me watching it is that it's fascinating to see how a movie can go wrong and what makes it bad. And the ending didn't disappoint in its silliness either! "live by the sword, die by the sword..." ridiculous.
Dissapointing action movie with an interesting premise: a young Mafia would-to-be killer (Chandler) must demonstrate to his boss that he is a good man for the service so he goes to California to take some lessons with a very known professional killer (Beluschi). First and most important task: to kill a young woman (Lee) that is a completely strange for all of them. But is she a easy target? The movie goes on and on based upon this principal idea but the result is just bad routine; even the weird twist at the end does not save the movie. Good performance by Chandler. I give this a 4 (four).
Consider for a moment what it must be like to be Uwe Boll. Somewhere, perhaps in those places that Jack Nicholson said 'you don't talk about at parties', Boll knows that David Lean had head lice as a child that had more talent for film making than him. Gore Whores, metal-heads and the socially dysfunctional may bump into him on the circuit and tell him otherwise but general audiences find the Teutonic helmsman's output so bereft of originality, wit or imagination that he's become the internet's bogeyman – an online discursive synonym for photochemical excrement. Boll does his best to ride over these naysayers, exploiting tax credits available in Germany and Canada to keep working and raising money from a network of dentists as Zero Mostel did with old ladies in The Producers. The difference being that Mostel's character knew he was making bowel fill. Maybe Uwe knows it too.<br /><br />Such is the level of hostility toward each new 'Bollbuster' that IMDb patrons sabotage their ratings by voting 1 before they've seen it. Boll's attempts at silencing his critics by challenging them to a boxing match and knocking them out just made them more determined. Indeed he's probably the only filmmaker that's boosted thesaurus sales as critics search for inventive ways of describing garbage.<br /><br />This onslaught has made Uwe a very thick skinned man, so much so that he must feel like he's wrapped in a carpet, but one who feels as if he's bullied by the entire world. Like most people in that situation he lashes out, determined to upset as many people as possible with the memory of a tearful evening holding Variety's review of House of the Dead, never too far from the surface. This 'I know you are but what am I' strategy for reclaiming the initiative produced the blunt satire of Postal, which attempted to napalm the dissenters with jokes about 9/11, Christian fundamentalism, Jihad, Nazism and paedophilia. Such a litany of invective requires a satirist with the mind of Peter Cook and the visual imagination of Chris Morris but the closest Boll gets to either man is the o in their surname.<br /><br />In Seed, shot back to back with the aforementioned game adaptation, Boll is back with a story about a sadistic serial murderer (is there any other kind?) who gets the chair only for two attempts to fail in permanently curtailing all signs of life. Mindful of the fictional law that says anyone still alive after 3 attempts must go free, though if you'd been fried with that much electricity why would you want to, they pronounce him legally dead and bury him, only for the disgruntled killer to resurface and begin a whirlwind tour of his gaolers.<br /><br />Boll begins his 'exploration of nihilistic rage' with Seed watching footage of animals being tortured for experimental purposes. From there we're treated to the killer's stock in trade – kidnapping dogs, babies and grown women and allowing them to starve to death on camera only to become maggot food. We're invited to reflect on what a depraved race of amoral meat sacks we all are – our inhumanity to each other and our fellow creatures acting as a lighting rod that acts as a catalyst for the most disgusting vestiges of the human condition. Yes, we're worthless, gormless sadists and worse than that, we won't give Uwe a good rating on the IMDb. In short, humanity is bunk.<br /><br />Of course you might think that Uwe relies on our worst excesses for his livelihood and with that in mind it's a bit of a bipolar piece, on one hand hating its audience and positively basting itself in the sour milk of human kindness – the milk that poor old Boll has had to drink for so long, while simultaneously whipping out its member and inviting those with a pornographic lust for on screen depravity to marvel at its sheer arse splitting girth.<br /><br />The result says nothing about society and its discontents, more the corrosive effect bad press is having on its director. Poor Uwe is obviously a very angry man – one scene in which a poor woman gets her brains hammered to a pulp while tied to a chair, no doubt a surrogate for his own fantasy's about dispatching various web critics. That it's there but takes an avant-garde approach by failing to be attached to any kind of narrative thread, shows that Boll is a pornographer whose happy to engage with the blood lust of his audience and knows that plot is surplus to requirements. He's made a film which is competently shot but utterly desolate. "I wanted to make a horror movie that was no fun" Boll told the audience at the film's world premiere and he has, on that flimsy manifesto, succeeded but if this was supposed to convince the director's detractors that he was a serious genre filmmaker, he'll need something genuine to say as well as a better, more original way of saying it.
First off... I never considered myself an Uwe Boll Hater since I think I never even saw one of his movies but after seeing this cheap excuse for a movie named "Seed" (which is the name of the serial killer this movie is about) I am close to joining the hate club. This movie makes absolutely no sense at all... the plot is a joke and although Boll clearly tries to get attention by shocking people 90% of this movie is just plain boredom. You can sum up this movie like this: <br /><br />1. Hooded killer watches clips of animals getting tortured on TV. This is real life footage from pelt farms and the movie opens with the ridiculous reason of "making a statement about humanity" and giving a Peta address. Since this movie has no message at all and is the worst piece of torture porn-exploitation you already have a reason to hate the movie from the beginning onward.<br /><br />2. Death by electrocution with a pretext that gives away what happens later in this movie printed on screen so every retard gets it.<br /><br />3. Cops watch videos of animals, babies and women starved to death and decomposing in Seeds basement, having stupid nightmares and crying into their whiskey because Seed is such an evil bad mofo. Although the acting is OK the movie takes a dive every time it tries to incorporate any emotions... <br /><br />4. Cops bust Seed in his house, act stupid and get slashed in the dark. This sequence reminds me of a video game, you barely see anything except flashlights. Seed is a super killer that is everywhere at once and all cops act stupid enough to be killed... except for one who busts him.<br /><br />5. Seed gets the chair and we see his electrocution as lengthy as everything else in this "movie"... he won't die and we are reminded of the opening statement that he must be set free if he survives 3 electric jolts. Guess what... they just bury him alive to solve the problem.<br /><br />6. Seed comes out of his grave, kills everyone off in another slashing part and then seeks the main cop to take revenge on.<br /><br />7. A woman gets her head bashed in with a hammer in an endless sequence from one point of view just for the fun and shock value of it. <br /><br />8. Seed captures the cops family, lures him to his house, threatens to kill his wife and daughter. After killing his wife with a nail gun the cop shoots himself in the head considering thats whats Seed wants (its hard to get into that guys head since he not just wears his mask even in prison but also never utters a word ... the movie has barely any dialog anyway so don't mind).<br /><br />9. Boll goes for a nihilistic shocker end where Seed locks the daughter in with her dead dad to rot like the persons we saw on video on sequence 3.<br /><br />This is it... no message, no plot, no reason, no face behind the mask, no background except a stupid story that Seed was burnt as a child.<br /><br />This movie relies purely on few key scenes and their shock value. I hardly remember a movie this empty of any emotion or message or entertainment. Its like watching August Underground ... thats fine with me, some people will enjoy this brainless snuff. But what is really hard to stand about it is the pseudo-message in the beginning and the fact that the movie is well made considering camera-work, effects and even the acting is too good for this waste of celluloid. <br /><br />So how does Boll get money to make such "movies" when thousands of talented directors work on shoestring budgets?? "Seed" is not just the essence of ridiculous, its living proof that the free market is flawed ... lucky Uwe that the German taxpayer is paying for a lot of this waste to get deductments.
Over the past year, Uwe Boll has shown marginal improvement as a filmmaker, cranking out the competent "In the Name of the King" (a "Lord of the Rings" clone) and the proudly vulgar, post-9/11 satire "Postal." But then came "Seed," and the counter was reset to Zero, keeping his bid for legitimacy and respect that much further out of reach. And I'm a fan of the guy–his films exhibit a uniquely screwball vision, and are never dull.<br /><br />Spawned from his frustration over the savage notices his early films received, "Seed" is a colossally misguided attempt at social commentary, and an even worse jab at creating an iconic slasher mythology (Boll often seems to be taking a page from Rob Zombie's successful reboot of "Halloween"). The antagonist is Maxwell Seed (Will Sanderson), a mute, hulking brute who's slain 666 people and sits on death row, awaiting execution; after unsuccessfully frying the beast, he rises from the grave to seek revenge on those who put him there...and so begins a string of wholly gratuitous mayhem.<br /><br />Trying to create a new-millennium slasher in the vein of Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees, Max Seed is too nondescript and boring to leave an impression, ultimately resembling a washed-up pro wrestler doing "The Toolbox Murders" on a succession of equally boring victims. Furthermore, Seed's character and Boll's "message" run contrary to one another: the death penalty is wrong, sure, but are we really expected to sympathize with a soulless killer who's left a couple hundred corpses in his wake? I think not.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Michael Pare acts like a listless, long-lost brother to James Remar's character on "Dexter": a cop who sits at his desk a lot, thumbing through newspaper clippings, and watching pointless stop-motion scenes of decomposing animals and people trapped in Seed's lair. By the time he and a bunch of cardboard cops storm Seed's hideout, the sequence is so drawn-out, ill-conceived (the lighting is almost non-existent), and unexciting (despite a healthy dose of gore) that it almost put me to sleep.<br /><br />The shoddy film-making isn't limited to just that sequence: "Seed" appears to have been shot by a drunken cinematographer, since the camera bobs and weaves endlessly, a technique that's more stomach-turning than the gore itself; these protracted takes of very little happening only draw attention to the meandering, almost non-existent narrative. At 90 minutes, the film is distended enough to be considered a form of torture, which might have been Boll's intent all along.<br /><br />Pure genius...I guess the joke's on me.
Short Version: Seed isn't worthless. It's just derivative and inferior. And soulless.<br /><br />Long Version: If you have never seen any of the films comprising the vaguely-defined "psychological horror" genre, this movie will probably melt your face off. Maybe not, but it will give you a good burn. The opening montage of real animal abuse will be sufficient to open your eyes to possibilities of brutality-on-video, and the (only) memorable gore scene later in the film will perhaps be more than you can handle. The climax will play with your emotions in a way that perhaps no other film has.<br /><br />But that's if you don't have much experience with the genre. If you've seen the real thing..."August Underground's Penance," for example, you will, as I did, find it terribly difficult to stay awake until the end of the film.<br /><br />Other reviewers have compared this to the video nasties of old. I understand this comparison. Like the video nasties, "Seed" is more violent than a mainstream horror film and less subtle. But the reason the video nasties are still known to us is not only for the above reasons--those that are still popular had something special. Permit me to be ambiguous, I think you will understand: those that have stuck around had "soul".<br /><br />Take this quote from Gabriele Crisanti, director of "Burial Ground," on an interview on the new-ish DVD: "...we will never have more films like these, because today, technology has surpassed imagination. And technology is cold. So many things will disappear because small films like these won't be produced anymore. Today we have great, exceptional tricks that are very expensive, but they are cold. Today a horror, a terror film of this kind costs more than a million dollars. These films were not so expensive...they are real effects, made with our hands".<br /><br />Perhaps it is wrong to take the comparison to old school horror so seriously. But Crisanti has hit the nail on the head. Even at their most seemingly exploitational, the best of the video nasties were pursuing a primitive "truth." And this is where Boll falls short. It's like he's seen the movies and not understood them. Everything on the checklist is there...BS about "making a statement about humanity," an obscene torture scene, etc. But it is, as Crisanti puts it, "cold." The gore is all CGI. The whole thing feels like scenes pieced together from other movies of various genres. And the pacing is sooooo slow. Man, so slow.<br /><br />Another interesting note: the one gore scene really reminded me of a video game.<br /><br />Anyway, enough BS. Weak movie.
While not as bad as his game-to-movie adaptations, this hunk of crud doesn't fare much better.<br /><br />Boll seems to have a pathological inability to accept that he doesn't make good movies. One of these days he'll run out of money and stop inflicting the world with his bombs.<br /><br />The acting was sub-par, the dialog sounded like they were reading TelePrompTers and Boll's special little 'touches' were seen throughout the whole thing.<br /><br />Like all Uwe Boll movies, this one just shouldn't exist.<br /><br />Plain and simple.<br /><br />Just like Uwe Boll himself shouldn't exist. >_>
Hello. this is my first review for any movie i have seen. i went through the trouble of doing this to tell everyone that this is quite literally, the most disgusting movie i have ever seen. I feel like the movie was porely made, which i will give some understanding due to budget constraints on making it. I felt like i was watching a very bad remake of the movie saw. Which i can agree, saw as well is also very graphic, but, i did like the movie saw.<br /><br />The scene where he takes the hammer to the head of the tied up victim in the chair is the most disturbing scene i have seen. the scene lasted almost forever, well actually, it was probably around 5 min but still. i want to note that i like some horror movies and i do give credit if they are good. this director uwe boll, and his group of people used to make this movie should think it over before making another one similar to this one. one final note haha!! FOR ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ENJOY WATCHING ANIMALS BEATIN TO DEATH, LETTING ROT, WITH WOMEN AND CHILDREN AS WELL AND A FIVE MINUTE SCENE OF SOMEONE GETTING THERE HEAD SMASHED IN WITH A HAMMER then you will enjoy this movie, if not, and you like horror, go with a higher budget film, like saw for example. I cant believe people actually make movies like this. anyway sorry to anyone who loves uwe boll and took it to heart, this is just my opinion on the movie.
The name Uwe Boll is automatically linked to bad horror/cult cinema and every new movie he releases – which is about two, three per year – immediately always receives negative ratings and harsh criticism. You're actually almost tempted to think this is just a contemporary hype. You know, like it's popular to hate Uwe Boll whether you liked his movies or not. Let me just assure you that this is NOT the case. Uwe Boll is a terrible writer/director and quite frankly a menace to the entire film-making industry. "Seed" is another most unfortunate of proof that. In here, Boll tries so desperately hard to come across as controversial and shocking that he overlooks numerous other elements that any movie essentially needs to exist, like a plot, a narrative structure, character development, tension building… "Seed" is a hideous movie, full of gratuitous filth and incompetent padding footage. I once read that "Seed" was Uwe Boll's interpretation of the nowadays popular horror trend of Torture Porn flicks, but that's not even close. The film inarguably does borrow some influences from "Saw" and "Hostel", but basically it's just another umpteenth dull slasher with an indestructible killer and video game violence. <br /><br />The first 45 minutes of "Seed" are beyond boring and actually just confirm all the obvious things you already knew were going to happen. For you see, Boll was stupid enough to begin his film with a (hyper- fast) scrolling text explaining there's a federal US law claiming that death row prisoners have to be set free if three attempts to electrocute them fail. So you know this will happen later on, but still the first three quarters are wasted on catching a serial killer and bringing him to the electric chair. Seed is a mute serial killer who supposedly slaughtered 666 victims (exaggerate much?) who wears a bag over his head. He watches real-life animal cruelty footage (and thus WE watch real-life animal cruelty footage; thanks for that Mr. Boll) and videotapes people as the slowly decompose in their cellar (including a crying baby which is really sick and twisted). When he's finally captured, during the most amateurish and implausible police manhunt ever filmed, and put on death row, the film even becomes more retarded. After being buried alive because the electric chair couldn't fry him, Max Seed crawls back to the surface and goes on a brand new killing spree; this time mainly focusing on the people who arrested and executed him. <br /><br />The senseless plot twists and complete lack of story depth of this movie go way past being just bad; they're downright infuriating and insulting the intelligence level of the average horror movie fanatic. Multiple twists and sub plot in "Seed" are simply impossible to accept by the reasonable functioning human mind because they're just too dumb! Nobody believes that cops and prison staff members will just bury a mass murderer alive without shooting a few bullets through his head first. Nobody will accept that a fugitive convict cannot be found for another six months even though he went straight back to the exact same hideout place where they first caught him! "Seed" is full of retarded little things like these and the movie gets dumber with each minute that passes. Personally, I refuse to accept that the cast & crew members didn't notice this as well. It really makes you think that Uwe Boll simply neglects all advice and criticism, and just stubbornly shoots his movies the way he wants to. I imagine his yelling stuff like "shut up and do as you are told" to his actors whenever they remark that the scene they're shooting doesn't make a lick of sense. <br /><br />Just for the fun of upsetting people, there's a gigantically overlong sequence where Max Seed smashes an elderly lady to death with a hammer whilst she's tied up to a chair in the middle of her own living room. Instead of shocking, as Boll intended it to be, this sequence masterfully epitomizes how pathetic and wannabe controversial the whole film in fact is. "Seed" is horrendous, it's disgusting, it's pitiable, it's … Boll.
badly directed garbage. a mediocre nihilist sadistic gorefest ... if you are the sort of person who likes that ... see a shrink. even if you are that person it doesn't make this a good film, the acting is really poor, the story full of plot holes, the director really should just give up and find a real job as he has no talent for this one. I can see why people dislike uwe boll .. we have had a few of his films on lately and this is the best of them, which is really sad! A complete absence of any sort of humanity seems to suit some people but here it just grates. Horror films can be full of desolation, they can be miniature works of art, they can be just good viewing when there is nothing else on ... SEED is just really really poor.
From the beginning of the movie I had a feeling like its a movie about another Jason's from Friday the 13th. And It is... Dispute that the movie starts interesting. But as the times goes by its just a pointless movie about muted, supernatural, silent serial killer. I mean he goes under the guy's bed without making any sound, not seen by anyone. He was supposed to be blind after failed execution but he walks and kills people like he used to. I'm tired of it. For me it's all over the same thing.<br /><br />In another words - unreal. Too many mistakes and confusing information.<br /><br />Well scene with tide up woman looked impressive but just at first time :} For that and for intriguing intro 2 stars.
This movie is unbelievably ridiculous. I love horror movies, but this is the worst one I've ever seen. I am a huge fan of gore, but most of the deaths in this movie aren't shown. It just shows us the already dead bodies, and the only death scenes that they actually show in this movie are terrible. The graphics look so obviously fake. The actors are awful as well. There is no real emotion from any of them. Not only did I waste my time watching this piece of sh*t movie, but I had to subject myself to actual footage of animals being beaten during the beginning of it. If I could rate this a -10, I would. F*ck this movie. It's crap. <br /><br />Don't watch it.
After having seen and loved Postal (yes, I actually loved Postal), I decided to try another Uwe Boll film and I picked out Seed because I happened to stumble on it in a local DVD-store and it's supposed to be one of his better films.<br /><br />While the first 10 to 15 minutes of the film were very promising and seemed like the beginning of a not too mainstream psychological thriller, it soon went downhill from there and eventually degraded into one of the most generic slasher films I've seen so far, including a massive amount of plot holes, unrealistic emotional responses and sub-par acting. It seems like Boll tried his best to come up with a decent plot but after a while just gave up on it. Maybe he should stick to comedy?! The few good things about this film is that he does manage to create an overall creepy atmosphere, that the special effects are better than I expected and the soundtrack does go well with the overall atmosphere, but the unbalanced pacing of this film combined with the utter generic nature thereof makes he last half hour quite tedious to watch, which ruined my experience altogether. There are a very fairly well done shocking scenes, but they seem to be there for the shock value alone. And let's not forget the camera work that was pretty nauseating at times.<br /><br />I hope Uwe Boll will one day learn what makes a good film, because between a lot of horrible films he does seem to make a decent film every now and then. Seed just isn't one of those.
If at least the cruelty and drawn out deaths had a purpose to the story to justify their inclusion but the script was just unintelligible and just plain stupid.<br /><br />It went nowhere, the story had no legible continuity. It was just a bunch of drawn out pointless snuff scenes and a really stupid ending tacked on as if to say.. "the end *beep* you my haters and my few defenders for watching my garbage."<br /><br />I don't get it, a masked murderer who never had his mask removed in prison, a prison rape scene that was suppose to be the guards raping a a ugly deformed serial killer and getting killed by him and nothing else? no explanation, no punishment, a really weak main cop character that was a waste of a actor like Pare, who didn't try to off the guy who killed his cops, tortured a baby, a woman and a dog and sent them to you to watch on video.<br /><br />Cops who for some unknown reason all wandered off in the dark by themselves (individually) in his farm house at night like a bunch of poorly written teenage characters to be killed one at a time like a bunch of idiots, and no other cop hears them die in the darkness one after the other and just keep wandering around for no reason till each is killed in turn. <br /><br />A bunch of horrible real life animal snuff scenes in the beginning for no reason or explanation, was he reminiscing, was he watching it to masturbate, was it comedy for him... what was it? nope Boll just thought to throw it in to upset animal lovers.. whatever. <br /><br />then Pare believing the word of a psycho path to let his family go if he kills himself... a more gullible, stupider cop you never saw in a film. <br /><br />I dunno why I try not to totally hate his works. I try to find some reason to explain a horror writers art but this stuff... pure crap. <br /><br />Boll what are you doing anymore? I hope you figure it out because I know a lot of more deserving people who can't dream to get the budget you get over and over again to make their movies.<br /><br />If you want to see Boll actually at his best check out "Postal" it was actually okay.
I was so disturbed by the real footage at the beginning of the film that I felt sick to my stomach and ended up shutting the movie off. How any can give this film more than a rating of 1 baffles me. I know that the intent of the movie is to shock, but showing actual footage of a dog that had been skinned alive (holding back vomit as I type) - PLEASE! I shut it off after the scene with the decomposing baby. I had had my eyes covered most of the time up to that point. No wonder this movie was found at the bargain bin in HMV. I really have no desire to see any other movie by this Uwe person. Anyone who enjoyed this needs therapy. Period.
This would have to be one of the worst, if not the worst, movie I've ever nearly seen. (I couldn't watch it all the way through). Purely and simply it's gratuitous violence just for the sake of it and the ridiculous story line only adds to the lacklustre and incompetent filming. Sick. And only suitable for those with a love for manic mutilation. After murdering several hundred men, women and children, Seed is finally caught after effortlessly killing several more police officers that finally get a tip as to his whereabouts. He's sentenced to death by electric chair and miraculously survives! Buried alive, he digs his way out and plots revenge against those that put him away and flicked the switch. Needless to say, more gruesome murders ensue...
"Seed" is torture porn...no doubt about it. But, strangely, Uwe Boll has written, produced, and directed a more polished film than any other he has made in recent memory.<br /><br />Every time I watch a Boll film, I feel that some pages of the script must have gone missing. There are simply huge gaps in the story and dialogue. Of course, nothing makes much sense, either. The films are somewhat surreal in this respect.<br /><br />*****SPOILERS***** <br /><br />Why do the six cops who go to arrest Seed split up and go their separate ways when they get to the darkened residence, unlike real cops who would enter and clear the house in pairs or by threes? Why don't the cops ever use their radios? How can the bodies decay so quickly, a process that would normally take many months? (I KNOW it's time-lapse photography...but Seed would never be able to stay on schedule killing people if he always waited around for the previous victim to decay to the point shown.) How come Seed gets to wear bib-overalls and a mask while he's waiting on death row instead of typical prison uniforms? How can Seed enter a maximum security prison, stroll around the cell block, and then walk out again without being stopped or even noticed? If nearly 80 people (according to some newspaper articles shown in the movie) have been murdered, why is there only one investigator working on the case? Why did the investigator suddenly decide that he should go look for Seed at Seed's house, where he was originally arrested and where he murdered his victims? (Didn't he think of doing this sooner?) Why does the police detective go it solo, without back-up and without even letting dispatch know what he was doing and where he was headed?<br /><br />This is particularly frustrating when Boll obviously goes far out of his way to make sure we understand why the electric chair fails to work properly. He spends several screen minutes in setting this up, when he could have spent them making other aspects of the film at least a bit more logical.<br /><br />*****END SPOILERS***** <br /><br />In short, the film just sort of serves as a framework for a few assorted scenes (perhaps Boll would think of these as his "visions") of a brutal death by bludgeoning, gunshots to the head, execution by electrocution, and the skinning of live animals raised for their pelts. (The opening scenes of animals being skinned were indeed unnecessary and disturbing, but I understand their purpose in the context of the film.) The centerpiece is undoubtedly the bludgeoning death of a middle-aged woman by Seed using a hatchet. It's obvious that much time was spent on this and it vaguely reminds me of the classic scene in "Reservoir Dogs", though without the Steely Dan soundtrack.<br /><br />Is this a good movie? No. Is it worth seeing? Only if you are a dedicated fan of the torture porn genre or if you are absolutely determined to see a sample of torture porn. As I said at the start of this review, even though this movie is pretty disgusting and can be sickening at points, it is truly much more competent than most of Boll's movies. Perhaps he will continue to improve as a filmmaker. I can only hope that he progresses beyond torture porn and continues more in the vein of "Postal".
This movie shows a clip of live animal mutilation of an animal getting hacked by a machete and getting its skin ripped off. I know these horrible things happen in the world, but Im watching movies based on the fact that what Im watching is not actually happening on the screen. These live animal clips are not meant to be in movies, they are meant to show people that belong to certain organizations to help the horrible things that humans to do other species.<br /><br />This should be banned and destroyed. I have also contacted Netflix and other resources to collaborate getting this movie off the market!!<br /><br />This movie should be removed from the public. The person who made this movie needs psychological help.
Set in the 70s, "Seed" centers around convicted serial killer Max Seed (Will Sanderson), who killed 666 people in 6 years. He is sentenced to death, but in the electric chair he doesn't die, even after being shocked three times.<br /><br />Detective Matt Bishop (Michael Paré) and other officers cover up this secret by burying Seed alive. Seed breaks out and goes after the people who put him in his living coffin.<br /><br />Filmed by the worst director in the world (Uwe Boll), "Seed" is nothing more than a snuff film about trying to stretch the envelope of decent society and fails to deliver in any aspect of a storyline. And he said this is based on true events because if a person survives the electric chair after being shocked three times, they will be set free. This is an urban legend, and it would never happen. Much like Boll's other abominations ("Alone in the Dark" for one), "Seed" is just utterly horrendous.
My god, what's going on? a Uwe Boll film and positive comments? Wow!<br /><br />Nice to note that most of the positive reviews are coming from newbies to Boll's work. I myself, as I have stated in previous Uwe Boll reviews, only watch his films in the hope that one day he will actually make something good. I mean..IT MUST HAPPEN ONE DAY!<br /><br />Alas, Seed is not that day. I don't quite know where to start with the lame attempt at a horror film that Seed is. The thing to remember people is that all the sickos in the world are that way due to having watched various sick acts on video or the net.....or so Mr Boll believes. I still can't for the life of me figure out why footage of real animal abuse and killings was needed in the first 10 minutes of this film. I understand the concept that Seed (the killer) is a sicko and enjoys watching such stuff.....but can't understand why Mr Boll thought putting REAL footage in the film would work. Maybe to shock us? Hmmm.....well, I for one am not squeamish and can handle seeing anything on film. I DON'T though, find the use of real animal cruelty footage entertaining in the slightest. If you were trying to shock me, it didn't work. It just reminded me how messed up the world was because such things happen and also because Uwe Boll is allowed to continue making films. This sort of context may have worked for films in the 70/80's (Cannibal Holocaust) but not todays market.<br /><br />With that out of the way, we can move on to the fact that Uwe has managed to give the film a very cheap feel all round like BloodRayne 2. You can just tell that there wasn't a huge amount of money floating around for production.<br /><br />As per usual, Mr Boll does not really care for making a decent story as we are treated to boring shots of police officers watching various videos of Seed's victims in the first 25 mins. Each of these videos ends in a speeded up decomp of the victim. It's all very boring and tedious. I won't comment on the toddler scene as it's laughable and just another cheap 'shock' factor.<br /><br />If you manage to sit through the first 25 mins then you will be treated to the police officers walking through a very dark house in order to catch Seed. The lighting here is horrible and Uwe has the old 'I'm not using a steady cam' fiasco that he did with BloodRayne 2. Watch as the police officers die in ever stupidly increasing ways until such point as Seed is caught. This scene is soooo bloody stupid you have to see it to believe it. The cop actually tells Seed he could have shot him. For some un-be-known reason, the cop doesn't shoot him. Given that Seed is a sicko that kills kids as well as adults, you'd have thought at this point in the script that sense would prevail.<br /><br />From here we are treated to a stupid execution scene, followed by the cops burying Seed alive (and they know he is alive..why not shoot him in the head????), followed by Seed getting out of the ground and then killing some random woman with a hammer and then kidnapping the one of the cop's family.<br /><br />What I'm trying to get across to you all here is that it's just plain STUPID! It's not even Hollywood horror stupid....just plain dumb. Uwe Boll can not direct ****. Anyone with any ounce of taste would agree with that statement. Anyone who watches this film and found it entertaining in any way shape or form needs to take a serious look at themselves as a person. <br /><br />Once again we are treated to a poorly acted, directed, lighted, produced, scripted piece of UB crap.
I quote Oedpius Rex because it is a tragedy that this film was even made!!!<br /><br />This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen! I am in no way an Uwe Boll hater like most of the humourless people on IMDb! <br /><br />Uwe Boll movies like Postal and Tunnel Rats are hilariously bad and therefore entertaining. But honestly, this movie was just horrible. I hated it so much that I'd give it a zero star rating if I could. The story is just crap! It spends four fifths of the film building the plot and then they have the middle which is just scenes of grizzly horrible tastelessly done murder! The finally end it with a "villan wins ending" which is totally acceptable but surely it could have been more tasteful than this! <br /><br />I am not against Uwe Boll (like I said earlier) nor am I against violent movies! I f**king love violent movies! I loved the Saw movies, the Hostel movies, Tokyo Gore Police, The New York Ripper, the 28 movies, Dog Soldiers, My Bloody Valentine, Last House on the Left, Watchmen, Wolf Creek, every Tarantino movie, every Sam Peckinpah, even Cannibal f**king Holocaust! But this! OMFG!!! <br /><br />This was just cruel, sadistic and perverted! And look at the movies I just listed! If I liked Cannibal Holocaust and not this then it must be bad! Uwe, don't go all dark again! You're funny when you are light hearted, just like Ed Wood. This was just an awful experience! I felt horrible all over after seeing this!<br /><br />DO NOT WATCH!!!! AVOID AT ALL COST!!!!!
I am ashamed to have this movie in my collection. The most redeeming factor to owning the DVD is the short film in the bonus features. My vote for this movie is a big fat ZERO. Don't misunderstand, I'm a horror girl. but i want some meat behind the story, not to mention i prefer the evil to happen to humans, not to be tricked in to watching, what seemed like forever, clips of animal snuff. Acts of brutality interrupt achingly long silence and poor acting. If i was forced to make a comparison to another film, the only one that comes to mind is Cannibal Holocaust. Bad, boring, pointless and a wholly uncomfortable watch.
If you like to see animals being skinned alive, their heads smashed, dogs throats being crushed my men stomping on them, then this one is for you! But if you are somewhat normal, and don't need to see real footage of animal cruelty, pass this one up. This movie tries to shock the viewer, and it sure does.With the animal snuff at the beginning, and the killing of babies in the movie (fake at least)its was enough to make myself turn it off.I've seen movies like this before that show slaughterhouse footage (BTK movie) and this kind of footage should not be allowed in a horror movie.We watch gore and horror because we know its just make-up, and special effects, so we shouldn't sit down to watch a movie and see the real killing of animals, its not what we rented the movie for.If anything, there should be a large warning label put on these types of garbage movies so people won;t be surprised by it. As a very hardcore horror fan, this one turned my stomach. The entire movie cast and crew need their heads checked.
The only reason "The Norliss Tapes" deserves ANY stars is the presence of Angie Dickinson in the cast. Other than getting to see Angie Baby in a pre-"Police Woman" performance, there's nothing else worth seeing here.<br /><br />THE SYNOPSIS:<br /><br />*** MINOR SPOILERS ***<br /><br />David Norliss is tapped to write a book on the supernatural. One day he mysteriously disappears after phoning his publisher and suggesting he has stumbled across something that has placed him in mortal danger. The entire series for which this miserable pilot was written was apparently intended to be a series of flashbacks via the "Norliss tapes" -- a set of audio tapes the writer recorded while investigating cases of the supernatural.<br /><br />In the pilot episode, a wealthy sculptor dies -- but not before purchasing an ancient Egyptian scarab ring from a local occultist who assures him the bauble will give him immortality after death. We soon discover the ring itself doesn't grant immortality. Instead, it only reanimates the sculptor's corpse, allowing him to escape his crypt so he can run around town draining pretty girls of all their blood.<br /><br />Blue-faced, yellow-eyed and growling out ARRRGHHHHHHs you haven't heard since you last watched "Scooby Doo" cartoons, the sculptor attacks his wife (Dickinson) one dark night. She escapes and, via a mutual acquaintance, contacts Norliss to get his assistance in solving the mystery behind her late husband's uncanny reappearance on her estate.<br /><br />So is this guy a vampire? No. There's no vampire in this story despite what you may have read or heard. The sculptor doesn't drink his victims' blood -- he collects it. How? Don't know. We only see him attacking, never collecting. Why? To fulfill the second part of his bid for immortality. It turns out the reanimated sculptor will only be allowed to live forever if he builds a life-size statue of a demon named Sargoth out of a mixture of clay and human blood. Once it's finished, Sargoth plans to inhabit the statue, using it as his gateway into our world.<br /><br />THE FINAL ANALYSIS:<br /><br />"The Norliss Tapes" wasn't picked up as a series for a very good reason... it was garbage. As you can see from my synopsis, the story is a paltry, ill-conceived mess. The acting and dialogue offer no better. This isn't even a contender for a "So Bad It's Good" Award. Sometimes bad is just bad.<br /><br />After years of hearing underground rumblings about the great merits of "The Norliss Tapes," I was very excited to find it airing on Fox Movie Channel on 10/15/03. I wish I hadn't set myself up for the fall.<br /><br />Having screened this groaner for the first time two days ago, I can only assume any applause you've heard so far from other IMDB reviewers is coming from those who are reviewing the show based on dim memories and the nostalgia of youth. Or perhaps they are simply loyal fans of Dan Curtis. Either way, they've offered you misleading reviews of "The Norliss Tapes."<br /><br />Pauly Orchid -- October 17, 2003
The director, outfitted in chains and leather, warned the audience at the SF Frameline Film Festival Friday night that we were about to see an "experiental" film. Experimental? Leave the video camera on the back seat of the car, let the tape roll and edit in all the pointless dreck within eyesight. A meandering pastiche road show manqué that starts nowhere and takes the audience no place. The gratuitous violence that opens the movie drove more than one patron from the Castro theater. I would have left, too, but my cine-buddy needed a ride home and has this thing about seeing even the worse merde through to the end. By the time the lights came up the audience had thinned considerably. Tepid applause. Pro forma questions of the director who seemed pleased with the product. Avoid this film!
First off - there's absolutely no flirting going on in this film - with Anthony or anyone else. These people don't flirt - they just do it. Your first test of endurance is to wade through more than 15 minutes of intense violence and sexual perversion. This wouldn't be so bad - hell, I like violence and perversion as much as the next reviewer, but without a context to put it in, it is repellent. So you make it through the torture and mayhem. Then we meet Donna and the movie turns into something all together different - not better - just different: a road picture without heart. There are lame attempts at comedy thanks to cameos - broadly written and broadly played by broads like Judy Tenuta and Mink Stole (and a few hookers and drag queens, too). They all deserve better. The photography is purposely disorienting, so if you get motion sickness (or really ANY kind of sickness) - this flick is not for you. Come to think of it, I'm not sure just who this flick IS for -except maybe gay and bi-sexual S&M fans who like poorly scripted, poorly shot indy films about themselves.
Had I checked IMDb BEFORE renting this DVD from Netflix, I'd have a couple of hours of my life back. I'm frankly suspicious when I see that a film's director also wrote it. In this case, according to the credits, the same guy was "writter and director" - unfortunately, an indication of the overall quality of this production. There were a few interesting moments (e.g., Judy Tenuta's scene reminded of her early comedy routines touting Judy-ism) which led me to rate this two stars rather than one. Those moments, however, were few and far between ... and I almost did not get to see them because the opening sequence was nearly incomprehensible to me, not to mention reprehensible in its violence. I admit I went back to watch that part again to see if I had missed something that would help me figure it out once I'd seen the whole thing. Nope, though I at least recognized who the characters were who would turn out to be important later. The "spinning camera" technique was overused and essentially pointless. I found myself talking to the TV screen: "What?!?" or "For goodness sake, get ON with it!" Not recommended.
I respect Alex Cox the filmmaker, I really do. He's like the kid at school who you think at first is just trying a little too hard to be "different", a literary punk-rocker who has dipped more than his feet into spaghetti westerns and science fiction and fringe-culture and come out into the world ready to take s*** on... but then you see what he can actually do, the talent and raw feverish artistry and moments of true absurd hilarity capable of him, and you are ready to see whatever he has to offer. But there's two sides to his proverbial coin: he can either really hit it out of the park (Repo Man, Sid & Nancy, Walker arguably) or just try just a little too hard and pull way too many pretentious rabbits out of the hat (Straight to Hell). Death and the Compass falls into the latter category, and while I respect its (mostly) original approach to tackling a detective-killer story, it too falls on its face and its weirdness becomes oddly dull.<br /><br />It has a strange enough set-up and already irreverent style to follow: a detective, Erik Lonnrot, is after a killer with a hell-fire voice, Red (something), and it seems that the killer is leaving disturbing clues with his victims: scrawled in blood on the walls are messages that, according to eyewitness Alonso Zunz (Christopher Eccleston looking as if he just walked off Shallow Grave without changing his look) has religious significance in the Kabbalah. We follow Lonnrot on his case, and his methods of going after the perp, which include following at first a triangular and then compass-shaped pattern on the map- this despite the protests of the flabbergasted Commissioner Treviranus (Miguel Sandoval), who also looks back in flash-forwards sitting at a desk and speaking to the audience in garbled but sad descriptions of his former employee and colleague after the fact of the case.<br /><br />Oh, Cox has his moments of creativity and interest, such as a shot where we see the entire scope of the harrowing depths of the police station where Eccleston's character is taken in by handcuffs ("For his own protection" says Lonnrot in case of getting lost in the wrong room) and we're followed in a long tracking shot- maybe the best or just most curious- where we're taken through very dark hallways with very little direction, lost in the maze of turns and oddities among the characters. And it's never something that isn't fascinating to *look* at, with Miguel Garzon's cinematography a morbid delight. But The plot goes through hoola-hoops to keep things so off-beat it might as well be beat-less all-together. The performances, save for a confident Boyle and for Eccleston at the very end, are pretty bad, especially Sandoval who just seems to squirm in his seat reciting the goofy dialog given to him to speak at the audience.<br /><br />While the murder plot itself contains an intention for the audience that this isn't something we've seen before, that it's in a society with a good many rioters and architecture suggesting Alphaville's next decrepit wave, it too fizzle's out very quickly. What's the conflict here? I was never that much engaged with Boyle's own personal mission to find this killer, and only mildly caught up in the few flashes of deranged scenes of the killer (and/or killers) going after people like in the building early on (Cox himself has an amusing cameo). And just when I started to think it was leading up to something spectacular, with Boyle and Eccleston in that big ("not as big as you think") building in the South section of the city, it suddenly gives us a "TWIST" that we know in the back of our minds is coming but hope isn't, and it deflates any of the humdrum mystery it's been leading up to. For all of Cox's uncanny touches as a filmmaker, for all of his opposition to spoon-feeding the audience with a 'conventional' approach, which I do respect, Death and the Compass ultimately cuts one off at the brain-stem; it's masturbatory.
This wilfully bizarre adaptation of Borges short story is typical Cox. His strong visual sense is, as usual, undone by the appalling half baked acting of most of the cast. The film is definitely in the surreal tradition of Bunuel's Mexican period, and looks at times like a poor man's take on Lars Von Trier's Elements of Crime. Cox's apparent preference for single takes, jump cuts, and ambient sound recording all work against the film's effectiveness. Worth a look but ultimately disappointing.
I liked Boyle's performance, but that's about the only positive thing I can say. Everything was overdone to the point of absurdity. Most of the actors spoke like you would expect your 9-year-old nephew to speak if he were pretending to be a jaded, stone-hearted cop, or an ultra-evil villain. The raspy voice-overs seemed amateurish to me. I could go buy a cheap synthesizer and crank out better opening music. And what's with the whole 1984ish police torture stuff? It was totally superfluous and had nothing to do with the actual events of the story. Cox added a lot of things, in fact, that he apparently thought would be really cool, but had nothing to do with the story. That's a big disappointment because one of the things that makes Borges' stories so good is his minimalism -- they are tightly bound, with no superfluous details. This movie is just the opposite. I stopped watching after the scene where Lonnrot is questioning the guy from the Yidische Zaitung, or thereabouts. I wasted $4 renting this, but at least I can get some satisfaction from writing this review and hopefully saving others from making the same mistake.
This is to the Zatoichi movies as the "Star Trek" movies were to "Star Trek"--except that in this case every one of the originals was more entertaining and interesting than this big, shiny re-do, and also better made, if substance is more important than surface. Had I never seen them, I would have thought this good-looking but empty; since I had, I thought its style inappropriate and its content insufficient. The idea of reviving the character in a bigger, slicker production must have sounded good, but there was no point in it, other than the hope of making money; it's just a show, which mostly fails to capture the atmosphere of the character's world and wholly fails to take the character anywhere he hasn't been already (also, the actor wasn't at his best). I'd been hoping to see Ichi at a late stage of life, in a story that would see him out gracefully and draw some conclusion from his experience overall; this just rehashes bits and pieces from the other movies, seasoned with more sex and sfx violence. Not the same experience at all.
When I read MOST of the other comments, I felt they were way too glowing for this movie. I found it had completely lost the spark found in the earlier Zatoichi movies and just goes to prove that after a long absence from the screen, it's often best to just let things be. I completely agreed with the Star Trek analogy from another reviewer who compared the FIRST Star Trek movie to the original series---millions of excited fans were waiting and waiting and waiting for the return of the show and were forced to watch a bland and sterile approximation of the original.<br /><br />The plot is at times incomprehensible, it is terribly gory (though the recent NEW Zatoichi by Beat Takeshi is much bloodier) and lacks the heart of the originals. I didn't mind the blood at all, but some may be turned off by it (particularly the scenes with the severed nose and the severed heads). In addition, time has not been good to Ichi--he seems a broken and sad man in this film (much, much more than usual)--and that's something fans of the series may not really want to see.<br /><br />This was a very sorry return for Zatoichi. Unless you are like me and want to see EVERY Zatoichi film, this one is very skipable. See one of the earlier versions or the 2003 ALL-NEW version.
The premise, while not quite ludicrous, WAS definitely ridiculous. What SHOULD have occurred, by the second encounter with Tritter was that Tritter should simply be wasted. House hires some guy and de-physicalizes Tritter. In real life, Tritter would have been hauled up for harassment, the rectal thermometer episode would have been exposed in court, providing motive and opportunity and the hospitals lawyers would have made mincemeat out of Tritter and the particular department he worked for. He would be in prison as would anyone complicit in the harassment of House, Chase, Foreman, Cameron, Wilson and Cuddy. The lawsuit would have won House a tasty settlement, enough to keep him supplied with Vicadin well into his old age. While Tritter would wind up somewhere driving a cab, trying to rehabilitate himself by doing good for people for two years before people tumbled to the fact that they'd seen it all before.
I am glad to read so many negative comments about the Tritter plot. Everyone I talk to says the same thing. They like House's gruff nature and his intelligence, but really dislike the vindictiveness of this continuing plot. It cuts into the real nature of the hospital story and makes everyone angry at police authority. It needs to have a more caring nature instead of the vindictiveness to everyone at the hospital. Also, there seems to be many questionable legal aspects to what Tritter is actually doing. He alone cannot freeze accounts and have the authority to stop doctors from writing prescriptions for patients. A lot of the vindictiveness he is showing also is hurting the very sick patients at the hospital and the is not a good storyline to portray. I voted the episode awful not because of the story itself, but when you insert the Trittor piece it turns me off and the rest of the plot gets hurt by it, People say they hate to watch the story lines anymore. Please change it. Get Tritter out.
A disappointing end to a season that started so well ...<br /><br />Exodus part 2 and other notable episodes were amongst the best seen on TV in any series, where as this was rather bad.<br /><br />Well I am not sure if it was the episode that was a disappointment, but the cheesy guitar music at that accompanied the closing sequence was laughable and would have been more at home in the original series.<br /><br />Its almost as if the corporate execs didn't like the low key down note ending and wanted to jazz it up. They failed and rather spoilt everything.<br /><br />Lets hope this is not a trend for the future.<br /><br />Still at least we saw the return of a certain person even if somewhat bizarrely and tritely done.
"Laugh, Clown Laugh" released in 1928, stars the legendary Lon Chaney as a circus clown named Tito. Tito has raised a foundling (a young and beautiful Loretta Young) to adulthood and names her Simonetta. Tito has raised the girl in the circus life, and she has become an accomplished ballerina. While Chaney gives his usual great performance, I could not get past the fact that Tito, now well into middle age, has the hots for the young Simonetta. Although he is not her biological father, he has raised her like a daughter. That kind of "ick" factor permeates throughout the film. Tito competes for Simonetta's affections with a young and handsome 'Count' Luigi (Nils Asther). Simonetta clearly falls for the young man, but feels guilt about abandoning Tito (out of loyalty, not romantic love). The whole premise of the film is ridiculous, and I find it amazing that no one in the film tells Tito what a stupid old fool he is being (until he reveals it himself at the end). The film is noteworthy only because of Loretta Young, who would go on to have a great career. While I adore Chaney's brilliance as an actor, this whole film seems off to me and just downright creepy.
I'm a great admirer of Lon Chaney, but the screen writing of this movie just did not work for me. The story jumps around oddly (I've since learned that the film is missing a section), and characters appear and disappear with irritating suddenness. Some of the intertitles are overly explanatory (e.g., "why, you're not a child anymore!"--cut back to picture for a long, slow beat--"you're a woman!" yes, we got it the first time) but there are a few talking sequences that beg for explanations that never appear. (Let's hear Luigi and his blond girlfriend's argument, please!) The plot, which involves incestuous desires (figuratively if not technically) was disturbing to the point that it was hard to watch. To the writer's credit, this issue was treated as a problem, and a May-December match is not portrayed as the right-and-good inevitability of some Mary Pickford films (e.g., "Daddy-Long-Legs"). Chaney gives a good performance, as usual, but I think he has been better-directed in the past--he overdid it a few times here, IMHO. I did enjoy the clown sequences, and was very impressed at the stunts. Loretta Young was charming, though astonishingly young. The film has its moments, but so far, it's my least-favorite Chaney picture.
Ziab la ta'kol al lahem is an awful movie.This is only a superposition of scenes without a clear link.Acting is also very bad, despite the presence of a good actor like Ezzat El allayli. But something is really astonishing in this movie, talking about sexuality, emancipation of women, nude scenes are very rare in Arab cinema,even in this days. I really congratulate the director and the actors for their courage. We want to see more of this style in Egyptian movies, but with better quality. The reasons that led me to vote this film as an awful one are not only scenario and acting, but also the lack of prfessionalism. This movie look like an amateur one.We can see a lot of errors in the screen. If you want a good arab movie Ziab la ta'kol al lahm is not the one recommended.But if you wish to encourage the uncensored movies in all the arab world watch it and make your friends and your family do the same.
The Egyptian Movies has A Lot Of Filmes With High Level Of Drama Or Romance Or Comedy Or Action Even Sports... "Ziab la Ta'Kohl AL lam" Was banned In Egypt Because It Content Nudity (Full Frontal Female Nudity) And This Kind Of Nudity Is Prohibited In The Egyptian Movies.. When I Saw this Movies I Felt Down... Fool Story.. Nude Actress.. Bad Action.. Some Horror & Awful Colors.. Dear Friend.. If You Wanna See A great Egyptian Movie...Simply: Stay Away Form "Ziab la Ta'Kohl AL lam".. We Have Great Movies In Egypt... We Have A Great Actors Who Won A Global Wins Like: Omar El Sheriff Or Gameel Rateb.. We Have Great Directors Like "Yousef Shahin" So Believe Me Pall.. You Don't Need To See This Movie..
I never heard of this film til it played as part of a Robert Mitchum retrospective at the National Film Theatre in London. Almost 60 years on the cast list looked tasty to say the least with seven names - in addition to top-billed Mitchum - in the public domain; Charles McGraw, not long off The Killers, Barbara Bel Geddes, long before Dallas and arguably still better known as the daughter of Theatre Set Designer Norman, Walter Brennan, who needed no introduction, Frank Faylen, the sadistic male nurse in The Lost Weekend and the much nicer small-town mensch in It's A Wonderful Life, Robert Preston still a decade away from Harold Hill in The Music Man with Tom Tully and Phyllis Thaxter making up the numbers. Alas, most of them were wasting their time. I looked in vain for any 'signature' scenes given that it was Robert Wise on bullhorn. By this time he'd made around a half dozen films and had still to find a style. The story is our old friend the range war and Mitchum must have thought it was barely a cut above the Hopalong Cassidy oaters on which he'd cut his teeth. There are no new twists - if you don't count the unbelievable scene when Mitchum accuses Preston of sleeping with Thaxter to gain information about her father's plans to move his cattle. This is perfectly true but how did Mitchum KNOW? We've seen or heard nothing to indicate how he discovered it. On balance not a lot to be said for this.
Lets put it this way. I actually get this movie. I get what the writer/directer was trying to do. I understand that the dialog was meant to be dry and emotionless. I understand that the plot was supposed to be non-climactic and stale. That was what the writer/director was going for. A very very very dry humor/comedy. With all that understanding, I still think the movie sucked. It seemed like the writer/director was trying to recreate Napolean Dynamite with this movie. It had all of the same features. Even the main character behaved similar to Napolean. But Napolean Dynamite was actually funny. Its script worked. This movie is not. It has no purpose. Well, let me rephrase that. Its only purpose is to rip off Napolean Dynamite and try to capture that look and feel. Too bad it didn't work.
This isn't a bad movie... but it's the type your girlfriend makes you watch. The story isn't bad .... it just makes the hour and a half seem so long. It's hard for me to trash this movie because I really do like the idea of it but it was just to long and thin on story... too bad. The main character never really seems to change all that much from beginning to end . I mean goes through something "life changing" and he can barely break a smile. I really thought Mac was really good. His weird quirkiness kept the movie from being a complete disaster. Maybe I just don't "get" this film. If anyone can explain it to me I'd love to be informed.
In my life I have seen many great and awful movies. I am not an expert in professional reviews, but I have definitely something to say about this one. Firstly, these actors are the worst I have seen... Their acting is so unreal that you even want to throw away the DVD in the first 2 minutes. I think that these actors were not interested in the quality. <br /><br />Another awful thing is about these dialogs - they are so lame. You sometimes feel uncomfortable when you hear them. It seems that your 14 year old son could act better. I feel that this movie had a budget similar to the cost of my 14 year old European car...<br /><br />Please, if my message reaches you - save your time and money.
William Shatner in small doses is tolerable. Unfortunately, instead of leaving his character as a minor irritation, and in that moderately amusing, it has been seen fit to enlarge his role and overdo it. Just as occurred in the original Star Trek series. I guess I will never understand American humour, which frequently goes 'over the top' to get the message through. I vote with my feet. I no longer watch the show, which is a shame, because the rest of the cast were good. It is pity that Shatner's overdone role also, affects James Spader's performance. But the majority demonstrate the way society is going, I guess. I don't travel the same routes. Frank
I don't think this is too bad of a show under the right conditions. I tolerated the first season.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this is a show about lawyers who aren't really lawyers. God forbid anybody actually go to law school based on these shows, which I had heard was the case when I watched some interviews of the show. It just made me gag a bit.<br /><br />That aside, Spader and Shatner, who are supposed to be the stars of the show, are the most annoying. While this might be a compliment in some situations, it's certainly not here. Their constantly harassing the women on the show is funny at first. But since that's what they're doing literally all the time, I've realized that this is as deep as the show is going to get. Trying to intersperse some serious, dramatic, and even tear-jerking moments in the middle of this mockery of a real show fails to compensate for the progressive loss of interest I've been experiencing trying to enjoy the show.<br /><br />Alan Shore's flamboyant and gratuitous "public service announcements" where he spouts off his opinions do not impress. Denny Crane is just annoying. I was embarrassed for him and for the writers of the show for Crane's speech wearing a colonial outfit.<br /><br />I'm giving two stars because there are moments where I thought the show's attempts to deal with some contemporary issues were done with care.<br /><br />I think the show's writers became aware that the sexual harassment displayed by Denny and Alan was getting overbearing even to those who were more inviting of them from the start. The thing is, I don't care if the sexual harassment treatment in the show is done well, but I just felt that the writer was insulting me with artificially implanting sexual banters all over the show in the hopes that my libido will keep me coming back for more. I'm not a teenager anymore, and I think this show is promising if its goal wasn't to cater to the lowest common denominator to get ratings.<br /><br />Of course, I'm writing this after I realized that it's really not gonna get much better than this. It's a shame because it's one of those shows I'd love to love.
Boston legal has turned its tail and is headed for the barn door and th pig slop it has created! When this show first aired almost four season back it was a humorous slap at the legal system which all actors seem to take pride in portraying. It was funny, diversified, and to some extent factual. The characters portrayed were acceptable and to an extent real in their portrayals. The sexual comment and activity were limited and humorous. Julie Bowen is and was beautiful as in other series she participated but is now dragged to the lower depths of Media programming of sex and violence. Julie is an excellent actress and needs a more stable platform than this "production". Rene Adjurdubois Is an excellent actor who has from the days of "Benson" to this production held his own in the field of entertainment, always showing the humor and respectful acting of the production. Captain Kirk "is". Funny and humorous is Candace Bergan and is to be admired for her continuing in this production and is a good actress. James Spader, there is no doubt in his acting ability, however he should go back to his XXX origins such as "Crash" as it appears he has much talent and inclination in that direction. We ask that this series be trashed as it already is and its really starting to smell!!!
We purchased this series on DVD because of all of the glowing reviews we had seen here. I gave it three stars because there can be little doubt that sometimes the acting, directing and writing are brilliant. In fact they are so brilliant we did not see the propaganda that was being transmitted so smoothly on the series. If one watches it with discernment, one will see the entire litany of the radical right wing beliefs being promulgated by the Fox (Faux) News Network. To avoid giving away any spoilers I will refrain from pointing out all of the dozens of specific instances. A brief look at the plots found here on IMDb will disclose that everything from torture to gun control to the right of a network to provide "Infomercials" and call them news is justified with cute plot twists and impassioned speeches given by some of the best actors in the world. We watched many shows and finally gave up in disgust when they justified torture using Attorney General Gonzales as a shining example of why all kinds of torture should be used in the name of protecting all of us. The series also manages to demean male and female gays in subtle ways by using them as plot devices depicting evil people. All in all the complete litany of the radical religious right wing.<br /><br />No doubt the popularity of this program will be used by future historians as proof that America lost its way in the early part of the this century. As a student of history myself I would characterize this program as being in a league with the propaganda produced by Goebbels for Hitler and some of the propaganda produced by Hollywood for the American audience during WWII.<br /><br />So if you want to use this as a teaching tool to help your students understand how subtle propaganda can be then by all means do so. Just be sure to purchase an inexpensive used copy so you can avoid enriching the ultra right wingers at Faux Network who produced this travesty.
Utterly predictable silly show about a man who has killed his wife by mowing her down when driving and claimed he had blacked out. Why was he still driving a car? Why did he still feel able to drive a car having killed his wife with one? This question has not occurred to the writers. The story then witters on about a psychologist and her failing marriage which is tied into the failing marriage of wife-killing blackout driver. An omniscient mother and one dimensional child are thrown in for good measure, and the whole builds up to a predictable denouement and crashing finale. Are police psychologists so easily taken in? Deadful writing that the actors do their best with, but they are doomed to failure. This is on a par with a Harlequin Romance. Don't waste your time watching this one unless that's what you are aiming for.
"I thought I'd be locked away in a padded cell and they'd throw away the key" (Thus is a paraphrased snatch of dialogue from "State of Mind".<br /><br />One wonders in what tangled forest Paula Milne and her co-writer found the magic mushrooms they must have eaten, to create this feeble "whodunnit" and bring such rubbish to our screens. A padded cell should indeed be left available.<br /><br />Niamh Cusack did her best, (as did the other actors) but surely her talent deserves a better vehicle than this. The height of absurdity has been reached, and this particular "State of Mind" is best buried and forgotten, and certainly not just "placed in a box and locked away in a drawer".
Whatever happened to British TV drama? From John Major through Tony Blair, the focus of the genre appears to have shifted from social realism to smugly normative women-focused tales about the piddling domestic problems of nice middle class professionals.<br /><br />(Or perhaps TVNZ doesn't buy the good stuff? Please let that be what it is...)<br /><br />The writer's long career in soaps probably explains why the dialogue is made up mostly of stale clichés. Niamh Cusack's performance is strong on meaningful looks, each held by the director for at least half a dozen beats longer than they deserve. Baleful looks, however, are a poor substitute for depth of character, if the writer has failed to provide such material for actors to work with. <br /><br />Of course this is theoretically a thriller, about a murder investigation; but that's not as important as the central character's failing marriage and its attendant problems. Is Cusack's character's husband a complete bastard? Will her son be utterly traumatized by the marriage break up? Making these the central issues isn't a sign of insight -- it indicates a profoundly narcissistic identification by the writer and director with a character who should be getting on with her job.<br /><br />Lynda La Plante knows how to write this stuff so that it feels as if it matters and involves viewers other than housebound neurotics ; evidently Paula Milne isn't up to the task.
I own 2 home entertainment stores and I've seen a lot of bad movies in my time but this one was so bad it compelled me to register here and comment on it. How bad was it? Let's just say that Sofia Coppola deserved an Oscar for her performance in Godfather III when compared to Giada Colagrande's in this movie.<br /><br />It was robotic and uninspired. Her lover has just died one month prior to her arrival at the 'Rubber House' he had given her. Once there, she discovers he has cheated on her throughout her relationship but none of it seems to register with her. Within a day, she starts a relationship with Leslie, (Dafoe) the caretaker of the house. Even though she is married to Dafoe off screen, her scenes with him were cold and unemotional.<br /><br />If there was a plot, I missed it. Not even Willem Dafoe could save this movie from the amateur, cinematic train wreck that it is.
This title seems more like a filming exercise than a film that should have been released to be seen by the public. For Dafoe and his wife it must have been fun working together in a film for the first time, without taking into consideration that people might actually watch it. I felt like it was 90mins wasted as I waited anxiously for a plot to develop, or even begin.<br /><br />Try to fit this film into a genre and you won't, because it lacks a beginning, middle or ending. I've seen 'arty' movies before and this doesn't even come close to being arty, abstract or original, it just seems to me to be completely pointless.<br /><br />I think it speaks for itself when the only persons that rated this film a 10 were the under 18 age group. No doubt for the constant pointless erotic scenes that the film was insistent on throwing at us. That is if you can call it erotic. It certainly didn't have taste.
Predictable, told a thousand times story with the usual drama in between, a couple of pretty raunchy sex scenes intermingled with some character paranoia, 70's style incidental violin horror music that is comical at times, i couldn't help chuckling to myself.<br /><br />I usually like Defoe, and it has to be said that the acting is not all that bad, the "plot" develops at a reasonable pace and does keep you guessing from time to time. Its just that it's all too predictable, i felt like i was watching a made for TV drama instead of a new movie. Maybe thats the style the directors wanted, but it has to be said that the review i read on here before i saw the movie could only have been written by someone involved in its production.<br /><br />Don't expect too much, and if i could wind the clock back i wouldn't have gone to see it at the cinema. I would wait for the bargain bins at your video shop, I'm sure it wont take long.
I am a huge Willem Dafoe fan, and really sought out this film (I had to get a Region 5 Chinese DVD of it!). But, it is truly one of the worst that I've seen in quite a while.<br /><br />The acting (except for Dafoe) is horrible. Dafoe and Colagrande BOTH wrote and directed this ( though he isn't credited as a director), and they have NO discernible talents for writing or directing. (Stick to acting Willem; Giada get out of the business, PLEASE!)<br /><br />Absolutely nothing happens. Except a series of completely unconvincing, totally without believable motivation, acts by these two people (that just met) in this house. Colagrande's sleepy, I couldn't care less expression practically NEVER changes. And the sex scenes are downright lame. I actually cringed twice at one of them. Yuck! They're definitely not the least bit erotic, and yet are the only time the film isn't putting you to sleep. Then, it's busy repulsing you.<br /><br />Just awful.
I saw this movie today at the Haifa Film Festival in Israel after hearing rave reviews, but I guess the critics were just sucking up to Willem Defoe and his wife (the director) who were present at the festival. It is definitely the slowest movie I have ever seen with numerous pointless, ridiculously long scenes of nothing. Besides Defoe who was decent, the acting of the two and a half other people in the movie, Defoe's wife Giada included, was ridiculously awful (how they cast the part of the salesgirl at the bakery is beyond me). This movie is pretty much plot less with a lame attempt to be abstract and off the wall. The only scene that stirred any kind of reaction in the crowd was vulgar and came from nowhere as if just to add some kind of shock value to the dullness that is this movie. Sorry for being so harsh, but really this movie is a precious waste of time and money. I appreciate good indie cinema, but this movie is not worthy of moviegoers' time.
Only one thing could have redeemed this sketch. A healthy gunfight between the happy couple, the exotic model at the delicatessen, and the old-timer from the motel who was (it would have turned out) secretly watching from the woods and had been aging rent-boy to the guys when they'd shared the rubber house. <br /><br />In the process, they could have blown that freezing shack to smithereens, resolved most of the snags; such as the "whore bitch" ode on the windscreen, the reason why the protagonist had "no friends," as well as explaining his coolness under pressure from bloody tampon, incessant phone calls . . . and that crawl-space chic, the green thumb, and his attraction to the simpler life. Quite the technician with the human body, though. Ex-abortionist? Morgue attendant? A bit of a heartbeat would have been nice.<br /><br />It was fun watching these people move around, I guess, but Eleanora's silly Italian games were suffocatingly stereotypical while the caretaker had been to too many yoga classes: a dick, a mind, and a pick-up truck about summed it up for him. I also wished they could have had a bit more luggage: Eleanora is ready to go after putting some black underwear into her nifty red suitcase and the caretaker just needs a cardboard carton there at the motel.<br /><br />Trifling matters, you may well say. I agree, although the niggling bits just didn't add up right in this rush job. Good owl-wrangling, though, and I really felt cold all the way through.
I understand wanting to make a movie that is edgy and different. I understand the previous reviewer comments that this is a miss-understood movie. My point is as soon as this movie ended my first comment was: " this is what happens when a rich princess wants to be a movie star and has no talent".....she uses daddy's' money to make a movie she wrote, directs, and pays for.....obviously to close to the movie to realize there was no character development and no directions such as a beginning, middle and ending.....the voyeur part was good and edgy but what was the point? I saw a women go to a house, find some pictures, screw the caretaker, come out side on a very cold night (not believable) to check on noise and runs over her caretaker lover....movie ends......some one educate my ignorant arss?? I really want to know what the point is....what was the directors' vision.....why no development of the dead lover? Why no background on the caretaker? What is the point of the night vision? What is the point of the lipstick on the car? Why a dead caretaker? Why tell us about an escaped mental patient/peeping tom? What's with the urn? Oh and the lamp is that suppose to signify whose' house this is? Territorial? Why? Why would the caretaker feel like it's his house? that aspect was never pursued......as for William Defoe...I rented this movie because he was in it and known for edgy characters.....write back and do tell me what I need to learn....I am just a mom in middle America who loves movies....Chris....
This movie was the worst i've ever seen.<br /><br />It doesn't seem to have a plot but the time you realize this is far beyond the beginning of the movie so you have to watch the shut for a long time to recognize the total incompetence of the director, aka the sloth that plays the tampon chick in the movie, and we do not believe the Willem Dafoe in this movie, he's a clone, because the real Dafoe, like we know from "apocalypse now" and "the boon dock saints", would never agreed to such a script.<br /><br />Duh, (Da)foe wrote this bill shut together with his twenty years minus baby. This movie starts with the credits of the two main characters, Dafoe and Colagrande, and then the two script writers, Dafoe and Colagrande, and then the director, Colagrande.<br /><br />Bottomline (the story); Widow meets guy, guy bangs widow, widow smashes windscreen with guy who banged her.<br /><br />Title in Netherlands; The black widow (different title, same bullshit).<br /><br />DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!! It's a total waist of time!!!
I too like Dafoe as an actor but i wasted a few hours of my life actually watching this film, I still cant believe i managed to watch it in its entirety. Was there actually a point to the film?, and the ending, well, Im glad i never paid to see this awful pointless piece of pathetic excuse of a film!<br /><br />Im not sure without hunting the facts out but is Dafoe married or seeing the awful actress in this film in real life, if so was it an attempt to kick start her career?, if so im afraid it must have failed..<br /><br />I post this in the hope i can actually put someone off watching this film, even if 1 person takes heed of my comments and decides they would much rather watch paint drying i will feel i have made some good in the world, if only i had had the same advice...
The poster who called this "Plotless and pointless" literally took the words I would have used in my subject line. The only thing I'd add is "passionless." For a film made by a real life married couple and featuring lots of graphic sex scenes this movie manages to make what should be a sultry situation into one beyond ice cold. Dafoe and Colagrande look bored during the sex scenes, and the viewer might as well take a Valium and have done with it. Also, please, the women in the audience have seen WAY too many used tampons in their time, and any guy who is turned on by seeing Willem Dafoe pull a bloody tampon out of his wife's vagina really needs to get therapy.<br /><br />I think the key to the film (if there is one) is the restaurant scene where a waiter explains to the perpetually sleepy-eyed Dafoe what a "deconstructed jambalaya" is. (All the ingredients of the dish still separate rather than simmered together.) This movie is a "deconstructed thriller". All the elements are there: spooky, isolated house, dead spouse,creepy violins on the score, weirdo caretaker who comes and goes as he pleases, auto accident deaths and near deaths, characters with a secret past. Basically every thriller cliché you can think of, but NOTHING comes together. Everything just sits there and never meshes into a coherent plot or even an artsy mood piece. At the restaurant, Dafoe passes on the "deconstructed jambalaya". Prospective renters of this mess would do well to leave this deconstructed thriller on the video store shelf.
Italian-born Eleonora has inherited from her deceased lover Karl, an ultra-modern and isolated house in the middle of the woods. It's winter and she meets the mysterious caretaker Leslie, who eventually ends up not only just looking after the house, but also that of Eleonora, as she tries to adapt to her new surroundings and a growing attraction between the pair.<br /><br />What was I expecting? A thriller indeed, but it wasn't quite so. That's just the advertising on the package for ya! I'm quite perplex about everything. The title, the story and the motivation. So how to classify it? Well, this wooden character drama is more a enigmatically moody romance bound-story of alienation, possession and dependence twisted into a complicatedly passionate relationship of two masked individuals. Co-writer (along with William Dafoe) and director Giada Colagrande's art-house film is just too clinical, distant and calculated with its mysteriously metaphoric story, which it leaves you questioning what does it all really mean… although when its sudden conclusion materialises, you'll thinking why should I actually care. What we go through feels aimless with ponderous exposition of dead air that focuses of insignificant details and images. Sterile dialogues can contributed to many awkward developments, but more so make for an leaden experience, as it never delves deep enough. Like it believes it does. The sexually salty activities filtered in just never convince and are far from erotic. They are kind of a bump in the already sluggish flow. The base of the plot makes for something interesting and fresh, but it's never fulfilling and I thought there'll be more to it then all of this dreary lingering. Colagrande's direction is professionally stylish and suitably gloomy to want she imagines, but everything feels like it's in slow motion and can get caught up admiring the same views. Most of the action stays at the one location… the house. Camera-work is potently taut, but the sullen musical score can get a bit ridiculous when it goes for some dramatically stabbing music cues that served little sense and purpose to the scenes. Giada Colagrande plays it sensually and William Dafoe sleep walks the part. He looks dog tired! While Seymour Cassel, pokes his head in now and then.<br /><br />Just where is it heading, is anyone's guess. Well, that's if you can wait around for it. I think I'll give it the benefit of the doubt, as it's definitely not what I was expecting from this Indie film.
I watched the DVD (called BLACK WIDOW in the U.S.A.) and felt afterward that it was, indeed, a truly awful movie. But they must have cut quite a bit out of the original film, or I missed a lot. The sex scenes had very little vulgarity and no nudity (not even a breast), but I've read several other comments on IMDb.com mentioning the vulgarity and something about a tampon. I did not see anything like that, just a bad, boring film with unlikable characters and a trite, sophomoric plot. Giada Colagrande is either paralyzed from the mouth up or Botoxed to the gills, and nary an expression touches her face. And her name makes me think of super-sizing a beverage at Taco Bell: "I'll have the Cola Grande!" It was actually kind of fun it was so bad, I got to play like I was in my own Mystery Science Theater 3000, noting things like the fact that Dafoe's skin is too big for his face. It's really like silly putty!
Jane Russell proved to be a delightful musical-comedy performer in the similarly titled "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes"… but, sadly, this film squanders those skills. There is a budget, and nice Paris photography, but the film just doesn't work. Ms. Russell seems to be playing Marilyn Monroe. That leaves nobody to adequately play Jane Russell. Some of the other players are WAY out of their element.<br /><br />There are several embarrassing scenes; most of all, be warned: there is a musical number where boneheaded African cannibals "cook" the brunettes in a pot, after Alan Young sings in a gorilla suit.<br /><br />This is an interesting, at times embarrassing, waste of resources. <br /><br />*** Gentlemen Marry Brunettes (10/29/55) Richard Sale ~ Jane Russell, Jeanne Crain, Alan Young, Scott Brady
I would have left the movie halfway through if I hadn't been with people who liked it. The movie is based on real incidents, but it's so over the top it didn't feel real at all. I have some psychological background, hang out with a lot of psychotherapists, and have known seriously crazy people, so it's not that I think people like this don't exist. But in the film, the only characters who seemed consistently human were Augusten's father (Alec Baldwin) and the young Augusten (Jack Kaedin). (Although Evan Rachel Wood was an intriguing diversion - very sexy with a wicked sense of fun). There were a few amusing moments, but the overall tone of the movie was grim, bizarre, and nasty. What a waste of an outstanding cast! As I watched them go through their turns, I just felt like I was watching an acting class. This was brought home during the credits, when a couple of people were shown just sitting there, not acting, not talking. Those few moments were more entertaining than the previous 2 hours.
to make up a movie-going audience - I'm certainly stunned by the number of positive comments this wretched film has garnered here. I can't credit it, can't help but be suspicious, for that matter, of back alley payoffs to critics who are touting Annette Bening for an Oscar; the hole in the kitchen ceiling might be more appropriately attributed to her scenery chewing. She's a wonderful actress but this is an unfortunately unbalanced performance, lacking that essential quality film actors must master of catching the cadence of the screenplay and maintaining it for the duration of the disjointed madness that is a film shoot.<br /><br />I don't really want to blame Miss Bening or most of the other performers (well, Gwyneth Paltrow has no excuse for her muzzy work), however, because this is a horrendous adaptation, a classic case of mistranslation (I am prepared to assume. I haven't read the book and don't think I will after this). The script launches us into the middle/muddle of unaccountable behaviour and extreme emotional angst spewing from mystifying characters who have developed relationships neither with us nor each other. It quickly becomes a grotesquely excessive tsunami-like assault that sullies characters and audience alike and left me like a survivor shaking my head at the detritus left at the end of each repetitive episode. Shock and awe would describe my reaction to frantic, bi-polar mood swings between ranting and oh-so-quiet sensitivity, the latter telegraphed by one of the most irritating, manipulative, droning soundtracks I've heard - that is, when all this isn't being set to ludicrously incongruous toons - period stuff, ya know, but chosen with an astounding disregard for the tone of the scenes.<br /><br />How this fine cast got mixed up in this I don't know - I can't believe they saw the screenplay before signing. They certainly apply their skills with commitment - I felt so sorry for the wonderful Jill Clayburgh saddled with a cartoon bag lady costume and wig trying vainly to wrench something of significance from sketchy and clichéd dialogue. In contrast, somehow, Alec Baldwin rises above the material to deliver a consistent, nuanced, real performance. Can somebody give this man a lead role of substance, please? And how about Rachel Evan Wood - or Joseph Fiennes? You'd think the industry could make better use of him, and without appearing as hirsute as Elliot Gould in M.A.S.H. <br /><br />My vote? A standup turd, all right, but no link with heaven.
I am a big movie fan. I like movies of all types. This is arguably the worst movie I've ever seen.<br /><br />I get that it follows the book closely, which raises the point that not everything should be made into a movie. Especially since the authenticity of the experiences in the book have been called into question more than once.<br /><br />These characters are not quirky, they are mentally ill. The things that happen are not funny, they are disturbing; especially considering they are supposed to be true.<br /><br />This movie had the feel of The Royal Tenenbaums, another movie I hated, only Running With Scissors was even more dysfunctional and less funny.<br /><br />I will never get those hours back. I wanted to wash my brain after watching.
This movie contains no humor for anyone who has lived with a family member who has a mental illness. So many scenes reminded me too graphically of my own life experiences. This movie was the man's version of "Mommy Dearest." It depicts both graphically and accurately the life many children of a mentally ill parent goes through. It also shows how easy it is for a psychiatrist to become corrupt and act like they are God. <br /><br />Someone told me it was funny. No way, I say! It is sick humor at best. <br /><br />The movie is so intense and depressing that my son and I had to leave the room. The best use for this movie is for people who don't understand mental illness or don't believe what we families actually do live through.
Not sure why this film was advertised as a wild, quirky, laugh filled comedy. There is not much in this movie that will entertain, nor amuse the moviegoer. Annette Bening (whose acting was touted as being Oscar worthy) comes off here as mannered, with her performance seeming routine. Brian Cox's character is confusing and irritating, and the lead playing Augusten – Joseph Cross – appears to simply not have the personality to carry his role. The best thing about the film is Evan Rachel Wood, but she is not enough to endorse this boring, unsavory film.<br /><br />The film disappeared quickly and it seems with good reason. I found some of the scenes distasteful (the scene with Brian Cox and his just utilized toilet rivals some of the worst scenes in 'You and Me and Everyone We Know' and 'The Squid and the Whale'), some embarrassing, and most of them unsettling. I found the whole experience a waste of time. Don't you waste your time…
Absolutely the most boring movie I have ever spent my money on.This was a wrong choice for all these great stars to waste their reputations on. Boring! boring! boring! Each character was portrayed in a less than inspirational way. No acting talent shown -just reading a part. Alec can play realistic characters normally, Gwynyth made herself look ugly for an unrewarding part, Annette needs advise on how to pick the movies she chooses to play in as do all these big stars who have left me disappointed at the way they have all allowed their talents to be smothered in a feature that leaves much to be desired in entertainment. "Running with scissors" leads the public to anticipate great acting in a film that suggests experiencing tension and deep emotion. There was not one moment when the cast was able to portray any interpretation of this onto the screen. Maybe it was the director's fault----whatever.
The film starts to slowly when we got to the cinema we thought it looked quite good but after about 5 mins we were all bored out of our minds and wondering what kind of film we had come to see, i don't like this film and wouldn't recommend it to anyone, the best part of the night was when the alarm and lights came back on because the project broke down because we thought we could all go home. this has to be one of the worst films i have ever seen we were all bored out of or minds and most of the people in the cinema actually RAN out of the doors at the end because it was so rubbish. i am surprised that no one walked out earlier than that. if you go and see it make sure you something to keep you busy, better still Don't go and see it at all.
I wonder how the actors acted in this movie. Annette Bening was really herself, half in and half out, was she faking or being natural? It didn't make any difference considering that even if she had been walking on the ceiling it would not have changed the pattern of the film. Brian Cox acted really well. I almost thought that he had always acted this way, tricky, dishonest, in a dirty surrounding where nobody really cared about hygiene. As for Gwyneth Paltrow, the question is what she was doing in this film.<br /><br />This film is quite sickening and disgusting. Who would pay to see such a crap?
As the front cover says "The hamlet of our time, for our time".<br /><br />I had to study this filmed version of Hamlet directly after watching Keneth Branagh's version and it was truly a disappointing experience.<br /><br />This version takes a different approach to several aspects of the play including sexuality; one very VERY homosexual Osric and an interesting interaction between Hamlet and Ophelia. I think for the time (60's) this was a very well done version of Hamlet but cannot compare to Branagh's complete version.<br /><br />just a note... I found the video at my local video store (in Australia) and I'm actually looking for a Keneth Branagh DVD to buy if such a thing even exists. If anyone knows of one please tell me.
Williamson's accent is tough to wade through. He speaks incredibly quickly, like he is in a rush to get through the lines. During the soliloquies he acts as if he is talking to someone, when he is supposed to be talking to himself. All that and his bald spot just annoyed me. He was just too old for this role. In reading other accounts of Williamson, maybe he got this role because he was mad and the director decided to do a bit of life-imitates-art or forced method acting. When the actors declare Hamlet mad you believe it! Marianne Faithful is a stunning beauty and could botch the role of Ophelia and still get a pass. The set is dark and foreboding but it does look as if shot in a real castle especially the scenes in the tunnels/corridors where the dead king shines as a great light in the sky.
I had to compare two versions of Hamlet for my Shakespeare class and unfortunately I picked this version. Everything from the acting (the actors deliver most of their lines directly to the camera) to the camera shots (all medium or close up shots...no scenery shots and very little back ground in the shots) were absolutely terrible. I watched this over my spring break and it is very safe to say that I feel that I was gypped out of 114 minutes of my vacation. Not recommended by any stretch of the imagination.
This film deals with two ex-football players who are Fred Williamson, (Mack Derringer) and Gary Busey, (Lenny) who work as private eyes and meet all kinds of ladies and men with some bad backgrounds. Mack Derringer is approached by his ex-wife Vanity (Jennifer Derringer) who works at having sex talk over the telephone. Jennifer is being threatened by one caller who wants to do horrible things to her and she asks for his help along with several other ladies. Mack & Lenny have more time on their hands and often go to Miami, Fl. golf courses or hang out in a Sports Bar where all kinds of city things go on. There is lots of punches, killings and plenty of double meaning words that bring this film completely down to a big ZERO. Don't waste your time, this film cost me only 50 cents and that was too much.
one of the worst films i have seen to date. Pathetic action scene and really bad acting also do not help. The only good point is Gary busey's parts but this does not lift the film very much. it lives up to its B film ranking and passes the test with flying colours. A waste of my money although i found entertaining to begin with its gets annoying after a few watches. i do not recommend this film unless you watch it for free or its a gift. ( a gift you can ask for the receipt and send back for a complete refund).<br /><br />Really BAd.<br /><br />1/10.
i don't know what they were thinking.by they,i mean anybody even remotely connected to this disaster.i've seen so bad movies,i've seen so really bad movies,and then there's this.but i will say one thing.whoever wrote the script has manged to put what could possibly the most inane dialogue over written,onto the screen.there is nothing good about this movie,either from a technical standpoint or any other standpoint.whoever allowed it to be made and then released should have been fired immediately.there are a few fairly well known names in this movie.actually i hesitate to use the word movie.it's more like a collection of random scenes that have no relation to another and make less than 0 sense.anyway,i fail to see why anyone with any dignity would appear in this.i got it really cheap,and i still got ripped of.even if i had gotten this movie for free,i would still have been ripped off.this is an absoluter 0/10
I saw this for Gary Busey and Fred Williamson thinking they were buddy cops. They are but Busey is in the opening scene then doesn't show up again until like 40 minutes into the movie. Though every scene he's in is awesome. Especially when he disguises himself as a blind hobo.<br /><br />What's incredible about this movie is the plot. In the movie Fred Williamson is trying to find out who stalking and killing phone sex operators. At one point I think thats its Busey. But it turns out I'm only partly right. Busey is not the killer, but he is calling up and harassing the women over the phone. Why? I don't know. In no way is he connected to the killer, he just does it for kicks I guess.
For me the only reason for having a look at this remake was to see how bad and funny it could be. There was no doubt about it being funny and bad, because I had seen "Voyna i mir" (1968). Shall we begin? Here we go...<br /><br />Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Pierre Bezukhov - a lean fellow that lacks the depth of the original; Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Natasha Rostova - a scarecrow, her image can cause insomnia; Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Andrej Bolkonsky - an OK incarnation which, like the lean fellow (cf. above), lacks depth of a Russian soul and "struggle within"; Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Napoleon - a rather unimpressive leader; Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Prince Bolkonsky - a turd with an English face; Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Count Bezukhov - a spineless freak-show...<br /><br />The rest of the characters are not much better.<br /><br />The movements of the actors and the way they look and speak are often atrocious. They behave like modern EU citizens dressed up for a one-day masquerade. It all looks cheap and never comes close to the standards of our Russian men and women of the early 19th century.<br /><br />A good piece of entertainment to scrutinize and make fun of. We had quite a few giggles in our office when remembering this modern product, which had been shown the previous evening on our TV.<br /><br />"User Rating: 8.0/10 (29 votes)" - I guess, many young people have never watched our film ("Voyna i mir" 1968) or have weird sense of "Tarantino-Spielberg" quality. Remember the scene when our hussar is saving his friend, turns around, shoots, and the bridge goes boom? Looks like a CGI explosion.<br /><br />There is neither sense nor craft to make a better version of the novel, which was screened properly in our country once. But I would be happy to watch a Russian remake of "Gone with the Wind". Hey, directors, wake up and get busy with that, instead of spoiling our classics.<br /><br />Now back to common sense. Jokes aside. What I mentioned above is nothing new, though deadly exaggerated.<br /><br />To make foreign actors trying to pass for Russians (while participating in very serious epics and dramas) is a rude mistake and the filmmakers are making this mistake again and again. Of course it results in numerous laughs - especially Clemence Poesy is uncomfortably ridiculous and her dancing and singing makes a Russian viewer think: "This sucks so much that it's funny!").<br /><br />In order to say something new, I'd like to mention the pace of the movie. To my mind, this new version is very patchy. The narration and the scenes are not naturally flowing - they stagger and pop up like in a modern video. Again I have to remember our "Voyna i mir", where the action is so natural and the narration is so easy that you simply sit back and enjoy "going with the flow".<br /><br />I thought that maybe the Borodino battle would be great (to somehow rehabilitate numerous drawbacks) but it has turned out to be no match for the war scenes filmed in 1968.<br /><br />There should be something good in this movie after all. And there is. The actors seem to be trying hard to make it all work. They did not have a chance from the start but they still joined "the losers' team". Plus 1 point for that recklessness. It makes a Russian viewer uncomfortable - some scenes are ironically ridiculous though they are intended to be dramatically powerful and the actors are doing their best. It all evokes pity, and sometimes - fits of laughter.<br /><br />What I still like about this serial is the last part of it. It shows very vividly how everybody gets his or her "salary and taxes". Besides, judging by the movie trailers I thought that the film would have an adult sex scene, which would definitely kill the whole project. But, fortunately, it does not have such rubbish. And that's a big plus.<br /><br />"Voyna i Mir" is no "Harry Potter" and nowadays even we, here in present-day Russia, do not have enough craft to film it properly. Do I have to say that the moral quality of our life has deteriorated immensely? Fortunately, a proper film was screened during our Soviet times. The American version of the 1950s was justified to some extent - ours did not even exist yet. There were extenuating circumstances then.<br /><br />4 out of 10 (1 point is given from the start, 1 point goes for the recklessness, and 2 points for the last part of the serial. Thanks for attention.
I didn't like this film at all! First of all,I don't know why, but everyone here says, that Clémence Poésy's play is excellent, which in my opinion is absolutely wrong! She is not like Natasha: another appearance, another character... What's worse, she is a very unexperienced actress and that's why she wasn't able to play this role! She disfigured the heroine completely! That was really disgusting to watch her play! To my mind, that would be much better to give this role to a Russian actress, because that would be much easier for her to understand the Russian soul for a Russian person. Unfortunately, Kutuzov looked like a drunk man, who hasn't shaved 2 weeks and defeated a battle in which he lost his eye...( Thank's God, in this film there're some actors, whose play was awesome! I suppose, that Alessio Boni coped with his task very well! I was pleasantly amazed! He is one of the few people who's read the book, which is very important for the play. In addition, I liked plays of our Russian actors, that was really wonderful to watch them)) The only thing I liked in this work was very beautiful views and amazing dresses! My advice is to read the book and to understand a real sense, the aim, with which Leo Tolstoy wrote this masterpiece, and maybe realize the whole idea of the book... 1 from 10
It's been nearly 30 years, and I STILL hate everyone involved in this movie. It remains the worst movie I've ever seen.<br /><br />Before seeing this, I never much minded Rivers, one way or the other. After seeing this movie, I have an allergic reaction when I accidentally see her on television.<br /><br />I got dragged to this - against my better judgment - by peer pressure. However, coming out of the theater, those friends swore an oath to never again overrule my choice of movie. Nearly thirty years later, we still carry around mental scars from this movie.<br /><br />On my deathbed, one of my regrets will be the time I wasted hoping that this movie might get better. It never did.<br /><br />If you are ever given a choice, you would prefer putting your own eyes out to sitting though this movie.<br /><br />I registered for IMDb comments just in the hope that perhaps I can warn others against viewing this movie. If I can save just one person from watching this, then my existence on this earth will have been justified.
Absolutely one of the worst movies of all time.<br /><br />Low production values, terrible story idea, bad script, lackluster acting... and I can't even come up with an adjective suitably descriptive for how poor Joan River's directing is. I know that there's a special place in Hell for the people who financed this film; prolly right below the level reserved for child-raping genocidal maniacs.<br /><br />This movie is a trainwreck.<br /><br />(Terrible) x (infinity) = Rabbit Test.<br /><br />Avoid this at all costs.<br /><br />It's so bad, it isn't even funny how bad it is.
Leonard Maltin compared this film to a Mel Brooks comedy. He was far too kind to Ms. Rivers, and far too cruel to Mr. Brooks. Not even the raunchiest Mel Brooks films are this tasteless, and at least they're genuinely funny. This picture deserves a place on the hundred-worst list.
I remember this movie when i was 13 (seems a lot of reviews are saying the same thing AGE 13!) with a group of school buddies. We all wanted to see Billy Crystal in his first movie, and fell for the typical commercial ads telling us this was a great comedy. We suffered through about 45 minutes of it, and all agreed to leave the theater. It was grotesque & tasteless, and a far cry from the ability Billy Crystal had to make us laugh, we were not laughing. I stumbled upon this review by accident, and decided to register just to tell the rest of the world what a rot-gut waste of film this was, now if you rent this, you deserve what you get, YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!!
I cannot say enough bad things about this train wreck. It is one of the few movies I've ever been tempted to walk out of. It was a bad premise to begin with, first pregnant male, but then they tried to make it a spoof. What were they spoofing all those real pregnant males??? This was the worst movie I have ever seen. If it had enough votes it would be on the IMDB bottom 100. If it was possible to give it a zero I would, and I would still feel I had given it too much credit.
I am quite sure that this was the worst movie ever made. If you can't make a 13 year old boy laugh at silly humor you should give up comedy forever. Unfortunately Joan Rivers chose differently. The movie is full of predictable gags (some of these are racist) and very unfunny jokes. Particularly memorable is the scene where the doctor tells the lead character that the rabbit has died and he is pregnant (as I write this, I cannot believe this was actually a movie scene). The man rushes to a dead rabbit on the doctors desk and tries to give it mouth to mouth. ROTFLMAO! NOT! The punch line that can tell you how bad things are in this movie is "I knew I should have been on top." ha ha ha ha ah ugh ........
I really can't believe this movie is not in the IMDB worst 250, it is absolutely terrible. When I originally saw it I remember talking about it in a college class and two other people had also seen it. We were all telling other class members not to see it because it was so horrible. By the time we were done some others wanted to see it just because they could not believe anything was as bad as we were saying it was. Don't be like them, just pass this by. I'm sure everyone involved with this movie would also prefer you never see them in this movie.
Well to answer one persons's question of "why doesn't anyone remember this film?" it's because really,not that many people saw it in 1978 and it's not been shown much on TV since. (If it's on video that'd be news to me!) Even in the era of sometimes mindless comedies that was the '70s,movie-goers had the smarts to avoid this film. Unless they love Billy Crytal,Paul Lynde or Joan Rivers "that" much! <br /><br />Paul Lynde was funnier on "Bewitched" or "Hollywood Squares" than here. Joan Rivers at this time in her career was getting laughs making cruel jokes about singer Karen Carpenter's lack of weight! Har-har Joan! It also seems like every "somewhat" famous name from the era is in the cast. (Most surprising is Doris Roberts later of "Everybody Loves Raymond".)<br /><br />Anyhow,a somewhat good idea for a storyline,a man getting pregnant instead of the woman goes to waste here. With help from a male friend Crystal gets set up with a hooker to finally lose his virginity but because she was "on top" instead of him,he gets pregnant! (A commentary on women taking positions of power away from men).<br /><br />Crystal's stomach grows,he goes through all the female emotions and related feelings. Unfortunately,he is now a socially misunderstood outcast! He's attacked by a mob who wants him rubbed out (I guess).<br /><br />He's forced to go into seclusion to have his baby...in a barn. Or if you will,a manger (God only knows where it may have exited from! Ewwww!) It turns out (no shock here) to be a girl! <br /><br />Everything else about this movie is worthless and forgettable,the humor is high school level or less.<br /><br />2 stars for a good idea and a few good touching & relevant moments w/ Billy Crystal. Ignore the rest of Rabitt Test,it flunks big time!<br /><br />I can't believe Roddy McDowell signed on either! (END)
I saw this film when it first came out in 1978, when I was a sophomore in high school. I took a date to see it. I didn't "get any," needless to say, because the film was so bad! Joan Rivers' career never tanked as badly as it deserved after making this awful, unfunny crap. In fact, unfunny isn't a severe enough term: this film is ANTI-FUNNY! You walk out feeling like any laughter that might have occurred was beaten out of you before it could happen. This isn't worth watching out of curiosity, or out of any sense of it being "so-bad-it's-good." Not even the gang at MST3K could've made this worth watching! The fact that Billy Crystal's career survived this early suicide attempt is a miracle.
It's difficult to precisely put into words the sheer awfulness of this film. An entirely new vocabulary will have to be invented to describe the complete absence of anything even remotely recognizable as 'humor' or even 'entertainment' in "Rabbit Test." So, as a small contribution to this future effort, I'd like to suggest this word: <br /><br />"Hubiriffic" (adj.) A combination of 'hubristic' and 'terrific'; used to describe overly ambitious debacles like the film "Rabbit Test."<br /><br />Joan Rivers and "Hollywood Squares" producer Jay Redack have severely over-reached their meager abilities to amuse in this 82-minute festival of wretchedness. Trying to put together an Airplane! style comedy with a moldy collection of gags, (Note to Joan: German doctors haven't been funny since Vaudeville) disinterred from their graves in the Catskills - that's is bad enough. But compounding this cinematic crime is River's directorial style, which can best be described as 'ugly', and a cast of once-and-future has-beens so eager to please they overplay even the weakest of throwaway gags.<br /><br />Adrift in this Sargasso Sea of sap is a hapless Billy Crystal in his film debut role as the film's hapless protagonist Lionel. Watching Crystal in this pic is much like watching a blind person take a stroll in a minefield; eventually the cringe reflex becomes a semi-permanent condition as cheap joke after cheap joke blows up in his face.<br /><br />I can only speculate about the sort of audience who might actually like Rabbit Test. Cabbages, mollusks and mildly retarded lizards are all likely candidates. But for self-aware, thinking humans - I'd enthusiastically recommend pouring bleach in your eyes before I'd recommend "Rabbit Test."
Turkish Cinema has a big problem. Directors aren't interested in global cinema. They are local and folkloric, but want to be international. This brings kitsch results such this movie.<br /><br />Film has jokes translated to Spanish from Turkish and they don't have any meaning for non-Turkish audiences. Even for Turkish audiences after 10 years.<br /><br />Players, even Ferhan SENSOY have a worse acting than average. They act like puppets.<br /><br />Movie was shot in Cuba, but nothing includes about Cuba. So Cuba is thought like a banana republic.<br /><br />Waste of money, waste of time.
This was allocated to the fans as the "winner takes all" match occurred between two separate "companies" (the World Wrestling Federation and the "Alliance": an amalgamation of former WCW and ECW superstars. Because the final match to duduce the superior company was a tag-team match, the wrestlers were confined to tossing opponents from each side of the ring to another; each wrestler concludes that in order to debiliate their opponents and to intensify the match, interfernce is necessary. Each wrestler merely pummels an opponent with punches, executes a special move, and tags in a partner. The storyline had previously been tarnished by the subterfuge of Vince that a member of the Allance would be fradulent and join the WWF. It was obvious, with that statement, that the WWF would prevail. Overall: very innovative storyline but poor execution, which is not the scarcity of the wrestlers because the match format is tag-team. The remaining matches are just revolting:<br /><br />Edge versus Test: potent "big boot" by Test, but this did not display the true talents of both stars<br /><br />Al Snow Versus Christian: good match but superflous to the pay-per-view<br /><br />Taji versus William Regal: the worst match of the night<br /><br />Immunity Battle Royal: This was an outstandingly fun match to watch, but because the main stars of both companies were involved in the main event, only a wrestler who characteristically appears on "Heat" and is probably a WCW light-heavyweight reject (i.e. the Hurricane who is merely hired as an entertainer)<br /><br />Hardy Boyz Versus Dudley Boyz: The best match of the night: Jeff Hardy executed a "Swanton Bomb" from the summit of a cage and through a wooden table and Matt was wedged into the cage, which appeared to be extremely painful.<br /><br />Because Stone Cold was the WWF champion, Rob Van Dam was the Hardcore Champion, and Kurt Angle was a "mole" in the alliance, all fundamental stars in the main event on the faction of "the Alliance" were granted work after the match's outcome, except for Booker T., who recently attacked a wrestler on "Raw" and will inevitably be given work. Shane McMahon will return to television somehow, and everyone desired to witness the downfall and demise of "the Alliance" to see Stone Cold out of work. The WWF has done much better. A match in which all tiltes were brought to one faction would have been better, and what ever became of Casket and Iron Man matches?
WWF Survivor Series 2001<br /><br />This was among the worst events of 2001. Perhaps its biggest flaw was the fact that it didn't follow suit to most of the previous Survivor Series'. There was only ONE survivor series match. And that Survivor Series match went on for 45 minutes. What's more, anyone with a working brain would know that it would end with The Rock versus Austin and The Rock prevailing for his team. And don't get me started on the preview before the event. No matter who won it was obvious that no one was going to f***ing die. There was no need for all of that pointless hype. Whatever the storyline, it was just a wrestling event.<br /><br />And as for the rest of the matches: the first match was Christian defending his European title against Al Snow. It was a good fast paced match and its good to see a heel winning a match fairly. William Regal versus Tajiri was boring and we've seen it 2 or 3 times before. Edge versus Test was good but nothing great. The tag titles steel cage match was the best match of the evening. The battle Royal went on for 10 minutes and no one really cared who'd win in the first place. The Women's title match wasn't great. No, not in the slightest. The main event must have been the most hypocritical match in history. The Alliance lost but guess what, after 5 months every single Alliance superstar returned. The match itself was poor. The Rock eliminated 3 of them and Jericho eliminated 2. The Rock was too caught up with his acting to be there when the invasion began. Jericho was the one that jeopardised the whole match. If I wanted any 2 to be eliminated in the early going it would be them. Everyone knew that Kane, Big Show and Undertaker were just fall guys. 7 matches isn't enough for a Survivor Series. If there's ever a Survivor Series as bad as this again I'll
T. Rama Rao made some extremely beautiful films in the 1980s, but he seems to be a filmmaker who cannot mature with the changing times, styles and fashions. He's like stuck with the same old-fashioned film-making style.<br /><br />Actors are not bad, not good either. Anil Kapoor generally acts convincingly his two roles of a father and his son, but the flawed script often makes him look funny and pathetic. Rekha is good, but then - she's always good, and here she's nothing more than such. She makes the best of what she is given, but she always does that. In conclusion, nothing great at all. Raveena is OK, which means ordinary, not bad, not good, nothing.<br /><br />This film is melodramatic, occasionally stupid. Maybe it's a delayed film? Well, even then it still would be below standard. The script is terrible, the film is overdone, and the story goes nowhere. It feels like a film made in the early 1990s, but the script makes it look even older, the style is like from the 1950s.<br /><br />Don't recommend, unless you're a big fan one of the starring actors.
The film released at the start of 2000 alongwith MELA both disasters So sad to start a millennium with such nonsense<br /><br />The film seems to suit 70's but looks like an unintentional comedy for 2000<br /><br />Anywayz some classic gems from the film: Paresh Rawal I don't understand to laugh at his role or cry Reason: He goes searching his mother in the village worst part is when he realises a secret of Anil he keeps the secret in his stomach which becomes big and makes him look pregnant I remember in my childhood my teacher told me the same joke Urrf!!!! as a child i laughed at it that time but here?<br /><br />The whole film is a joke can't explain We have Anil in a dual role(One older and younger) and Rekha playing the older's wife and Raveena the youngers We also have reject Harish while Shakti playing the son of Aruna Irani who both fight on who has the worst wig<br /><br />Direction is outdated Music is bad<br /><br />Anil tries hard looks too old in the younger role and too young in the older role yet good effort Rekha is adequate, Raveena too is okay Harish is bad Shakti Kapoor is terrible Aruna Irani is as usual Rajnikant is okay in a cameo
I just saw this movie on Flix after timer-taping it. I grew up watching F Troop and had a major hard for Wrangler Jane so I was shocked, literally shocked, to find out after seeing this film that the degenerate homicidal nurse was Melody Patterson, who looks pretty good but also looks completely different and is unfortunately poorly photographed. I would never have guessed it was her in a million years. What the hell is she doing in a picture like this? I agree with the guys here that the movie lacks what it's pushing. No sex, no gore, no tease. It's also a remake of the Atomic Brain aka Monstrosity (1964 or thereabouts). Most of the action is tedious; the main character spends enormous amounts of time running around the crazed doctor's house and basement, and the neighborhood in general, or being roughed up by the cop, all of it boring and time-filling. Now if the Italians would have made this, half the film would have been the Slingblade/Uncle Ernest/Jack Elam henchman fondling the unconscious nude girls. But you only get that for 20 seconds.
THE IMMORTALIZER was, uh, interesting. It certainly didn't kill me during its hour and a half duration, but it didn't impress me much either. A group of kids are abducted in an alley by musclehead mutants (in a scene featuring cinema's least convincing head crushing sound effect) and taken to a fancy house in the suburbs. Here Dr. Divine and his team are performing brain transplants for his rich old patients so they can have young bodies again. Hey, this was quietly remade with a big budget a few years later as FREEJACK! Who knew that when you transplant an old person's brain into a different body that their new voice will sound exactly like their old voice? With all this talk of pineal glands and the use of a glowing green serum, you can almost see visions of FROM BEYOND and RE-ANIMATOR dancing in the producers' heads. But the production literally doesn't have the guts to pull it off. I've never understood why, when someone is making a low budget horror film, that they don't pack it to the edge of the frame with gore. The acting is uniformly terrible, with the only good performance coming from Clarke Lindsley as the assistant Dr. Price. He has a nice evil laugh. The only other thing of note about THE IMMORTALIZER is that it features lots of old people doing their own stunts. Seriously, most of the cast takes some serious bumps for old folks.
Bradford Dillman plays a scientist who wakes up one morning in the middle of a bloody crime scene; having partial amnesia (or "global amnesia", which one character claims to define as elective loss of memory), the scientist finds a private detective in the phone book in the hopes of piecing his life back together. Abhorrent concoction very loosely based on Walter Ericson's book "Fallen Angel" (filmed in 1965 as "Mirage" with Gregory Peck). It was probably too racy for television--what with drugs and hippies added to the mix--that NBC initially refused to air it, which is how this low-budgeter wound up in theaters. Director James Goldstone gets freaky with the hyperkinetic visuals and camera-tricks, while editor Edward A. Biery goes wild with the zig-zag cuts. Unfortunately, their admittedly-colorful gimmicks cannot cover up the weaknesses of this updated plot, and the acting is woefully overripe. Dillman, under pressure to recall the events of the night in question, goes through an Actor's Seminar of tics, stammers, nose-wipes, and crazy half-laughs while spitting out dialogue like, "Dream...a dream...drugs...yeah, drugs...that SOUND...bells...help!" As a villainous fellow scientist with a Cheshire Cat smile, Pat Hingle nearly upstages Dillman in the Grand Thespian department by continually addressing everyone in baby-talk, strutting about like a middle-aged peacock and twisting his mouth around in agony. Hope Lange's scientist/love-interest is given the short shrift, but not before she screams at indifferent-lover Dillman: "What do I have to do, talk Ape Man? Me want You!" This is one frantic "Jigsaw"! *1/2 from ****
I doubt Jigsaw was hip even at the time, the whole LSD theme married to a murder mystery being a patently obvious attempt to grab a young audience of the era without in the least truly showing any understanding of the sixties counterculture. The dated aspect aside, Jigsaw suffers from many problems, including overwrought acting, silly and stilted dialogue, LSD flashbacks that go on interminably long even after the point has been hammered home in the first 60 seconds, a failure to create any true suspense even though the actual plot is, on paper, a great vehicle to do just that, and an ending that is so trite and predictable (not to mention reminiscent of a lot of bad television shows) that the climax is actually an anti-climax. If it was a better movie, we might be able to suspend disbelief on a few things where it would help enjoyment, but the weaknesses are so glaring they only serve to highlight the improbabilities viewers might otherwise overlook. I saw Jigsaw on television and it is definitely late night TV fare meant to fill airspace and pass the time to kill somebody's insomnia rather than anything anybody ought to actively seek out. At very best, a three out of 10.
Nell Shipman attempted a plot to lead up to a chase finale in 'Back to God's Country' of the previous year, and she failed miserably. This time, she does better, although it seems pointless. 'Something New' hardly has a plot lying outside of the chase. There's a brief premise, which sets up the hero (co-author and Shipman's boyfriend) to have to save the girl (played by Shipman), then it's nothing but an exciting, implausible chase from there. Of course, it plays out like an hour-long advertisement for a Maxwell Sedan, but the entire movie is congruously ridiculous. It doesn't seem that she learned much from the last-minute rescue films of D.W. Griffith or its parodies by Mack Sennett and other comedians, which she's imitating.<br /><br />One point of interest is that Shipman writes and directs herself into the film as the writer of the film's story, which has as its protagonist a writer (Shipman again), although she doesn't do much else clever or humorous with it, even though she attempts to. Again, others had pioneered the writer's joke in the intertitles, like Anita Loos with 'Wild and Woolly' or Frances Marion with 'A Girl's Folly' (both 1917). At least, Shipman gives the impression that she doesn't take herself or the film seriously--and neither do I. 'Something New,' despite its claim, is hackneyed.
Being a fan of silent films, I looked forward to seeing this picture for the first time. I was pretty disappointed. <br /><br />As has been mentioned, the film seems to be one long, long, commercial for the Maxwell automobile. <br /><br />Perhaps if the chase scene was about half the length that it is, I may have enjoyed the film more. But it got old very fast. And while I recognize that reality is stretched many times in films, without lessening a viewer's enjoyment, what was with the Mexican bandits? I mean, they are chasing a car through the mountains, a car that most of the time is moving at about one mile per hour, yet they can't catch up to it?
Nell Shipman must have been paid a hefty sum of money to promote the Maxwell automobile's off-road capabilities. The plot of the movie is pretty simple, Nell plays a writer who has a bad case of writer's block, and needs inspiration, so she goes to visit Mexico to absorb the atmosphere. There she meets the hero (Bert Van Tuyle), a cowboy who chooses to drive a car rather than ride a horse. While Nell is visiting with her father's partner at his mining camp, a gang of local bandits kidnap her and bring her to their camp deep in the wilderness. The hero needs to get to her quickly, so he decides to drive there in his car. This is where the film takes a weird twist. Bert proceeds to drive over every terrain imaginable, huge rocks, small streams, heavy brush, scraggly tree stumps, steep inclines, etc etc, for the greater part of the film we get to see this car struggling to crawl over obstacles. Now mind you, this isn't a modern-day ATV, it's a 1920 Maxwell automobile, so it looks very out-of-place as an off-road vehicle. And it clearly has limitations for some of the terrain it encounters, we get to see it stuck more than once in this film. But the filmmakers made an effort to show it beating the odds and eventually passing all the obstacles. Once the hero gets to the hidden camp and rescues the girl, he jumps in the car with her and drives off with the bandits in hot pursuit (on horseback), and at this point it became hysterically funny to me. Watching this car slowly rolling over huge rocks, getting stuck in gravel and mountain brush, going forward and back to get momentum enough to pass over fallen tree limbs, the bandits should have had ample time to catch up. But they never do, even though we are to believe this wilderness chase goes on throughout the night. And in a silly climax, the car climbs a mountainside, and helps Nell and the hero push a huge boulder down the side to crush the pursuing bandits.<br /><br />After seeing this film you would think the army should invest in 1920 Maxwell automobiles because they clearly have better off-road capabilities than Hummers and Bradley tanks combined. Watch this film just for laughs, it's worth it just to see Nell cuddling up to the car grill and saying "You did your best, brave little car"
I enjoy quality crapness, and this ranks up there with some of the finest. the cg is out of this world, or at least pre-dates our world, and the insanity of a 6 foot bloke in a rat outfit chasing after people is laughably bad. I quite enjoyed some of this, but the acting is so goddamn awful, and even the obligatory nude scene doesn't really have any baps out in it. just a complete waste of time if ever i saw one. I don't know who wasted more time, me watching this, or the poor saps who got dragged into making it in the faint hope that this will launch their acting careers. I can assure you, it wont. However, on a brighter note, I have managed to successfully do the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon from this movie, so I think it was almost worthwhile watching the 91 minutes of it.
Yes, this is one of THOSE movies, so terrible, so insipid, so trite, that you will not be able to stop laughing. I have watched comedies, good comedies, and laughed less than my wife and I laughed at this movie. The other comments give the idea well enough. The characters are so unpleasant you cheer the rats on, the effects are so poorly done you wonder whose elementary school art class was in charge, the acting-- oh the acting-- talk about tired dialogue and embarrassing pauses.<br /><br />But the rat, yes, the big rat. Why we didn't get to see the rat until the end rather surprised me. Often the 'big one' isn't shown until the end because the budget is limited and good effects chew up so much money. I surmise, however, that in this case the big rat was hidden until the end because the filmmakers were ashamed that the best they had was a guy running around dressed up like a woodchuck with third-world dentistry.<br /><br />The most sublime part of the whole movie is the elevator scene. After figuring out that the rats couldn't stand loud noise (migraines from the bad acting?), the main dude rigs up a fire alarm to send the rats into a frenzy. If you've ever wanting to see a pair of rats waltz while blood squirts out of their heads like a geyser, this film is for you. Really, you need to rent it and see for yourself.<br /><br />But not for more than 99¢, OK?
well after watching this i can say that it ain't the worst movie ever made,, yes folks there is worse than this,, there are some good points to the movie,, you get to watch drunken teenagers, have horrible deaths,, and cute looking rats eating some science experiment, and getting grotesquely huge,, the drunk janitor,, the cranky doctor,, and yes a girl in thong underwear that has absolutely no shame,, dumb jocks,, i could'nt personally wait for the rat to eat these drunken fools,, i was rooting for the rat the e ntire time,, it had a good premise,, the first part of the movie,, was interesting though with the scientific explantation about the rats,, and the little back story,, but i think that it ruined when the dumb drunken horny teenagers come into play,, the rat in my opinion, the one that get's lost,, her name is Brenda, was so fake,, must have been a cGi rat,, looked like a guy dressed up in a beaver suit,, this was pretty schlocky, lame,, but not totally horribble,,
This film is easily one of the worst ones I have ever seen. And I don't mean that in a good way. We wanted to see a crappy horror/thriller, so we picked the one that seemed to be the lousiest in the store. For once, the film was everything we'd expected. And more! (or should I say less?)<br /><br />The actors look like they are reading their lines from posters behind the camera. The so-called special effects are created by putting red see-through plastic in front of the camera to give the impression that we are seeing through the eyes of the killer rats. And the script? Don't even get me started on the script... And just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, it turns out that the first part of the film was Oscar-material compared to the ending.<br /><br />Take it from me, this film is hilarious if you're into crappy horror-films, but if you want a GOOD film, keep on looking. This is not for you.
Altered Species starts one Friday night in Los Angeles where Dr. Irwin (Guy Vieg) & his laboratory assistant Walter (Allen Lee Haff) are burning the midnight oil as they continue to try & perfect a revolutionary new drug called 'Rejenacyn'. As Walter tips the latest failed attempt down the sink the pipes leak the florescent green liquid into the basement where escaped lab rats begin to drink it... Five of Walter's friends, Alicia (Leah Rown in a very fetching outfit including some cool boots that she gets to stomp on a rat with), Gary (Richard Peterson), Burke (Derek Hofman), Frank (David Bradley) & Chelsea (Alexandra Townsend) decide that he has been working too hard & needs to get out so they plan to pick him up & party the night away. Back at the lab & the cleaner Douglas (Robert Broughton) has been attacked & killed by the now homicidal rats in the basement as Walter injects the latest batch of serum in a lab rat which breaks out of it's cage as it grows at an amazing rate. Walter's friends turn up but he can't leave while the rat is still missing so everyone helps him look for it. All six become potential rat food...<br /><br />Also known as Rodentz Altered Species was co-edited & directed by Miles Feldman & has very little to recommend it. The script by producer Serge Rodnunsky is poor & coupled together with the general shoddiness of the production as a whole Altered Species really is lame. For a start the character's are dumb, annoying & clichéd. Then there's the unoriginal plot with the mad scientist, the monster he has created, the isolated location, the stranded human cast & the obligatory final showdown between hero & monster. It's all here somewhere. Altered Species moves along at a fair pace which is just about the best thing I can say about it & thankfully doesn't last that long. It's basically your average run-of-the-mill killer mutant rat film & not a particularly good one at that either.<br /><br />Director Feldman films like a TV film & the whole thing is throughly bland & forgettable while some of the special effects & attack scenes leave a lot to be desired. For a start the CGI rats are awful, the attack sequences feature hand-held jerky camera movement & really quick edits to try & hide the fact that all the rats are just passively sitting there. At various points in Altered Species the rat cages need to shake because of the rats movement but you can clearly see all the rats just sitting there as someone shakes the cages off screen. The giant rat monster at the end looks pretty poor as it's just a guy in a dodgy suit. There are no scares, no tension or atmosphere & since when did basements contain bright neon lighting? There are one or two nice bits of gore here, someone has a nice big messy hole where their face used to be, there's a severed arm & decapitation, lots of rat bites, someone having their eyeball yanked out & a dead mutilated cat.<br /><br />Technically Altered Species is sub standard throughout. It takes place within the confines of one building, has cheap looking CGI effects & low production values. The acting isn't up to much but it isn't too bad & a special mention to Leah Rowan as Alicia as she's a bit of a babe & makes Altered Species just that little bit nicer & easier to watch...<br /><br />Altered Species isn't a particularly good film, in fact it's a pretty bad one but I suppose you could do worse. Not great but it might be worth a watch if your not too demanding & have nothing else to do.
What a terrible film.<br /><br />It starts well, with the title sequence, but that's about as good as it gets.<br /><br />The movie is something about rats turning into monsters and going on a killing spree. The acting isn't so much poor, but the script is pointless and the film isn't even scary despite the atmospheric music.<br /><br />It really is amazing that some group cobbled together this bag of rubbish and thought it would make a good film.<br /><br />It isn't a good film. It's trash, and I urge you not to waste a minute of your life on it! One out of ten.
Spoiler below, but read on or you'll never know the horrible fate that awaits all planing to rent "Rodentz".<br /><br />On a moonlit night, in a remote research laboratory, a major medical breakthrough is about to have deadly results. A chemical compound that was created to "hunt and destroy" deadly cancer cells has leaked from the hazardous waste disposal system into the building's basement. Now, the rodents involved in the laboratory experiment upstairs are not the only rats in the facility that will become the altered species. Professor Schultz, a leading bio-researcher, has just determined that the addition of a new enzyme now enables his "hunt and destroy" formulation to regenerate for the length of time necessary to neutralize deadly cancer tumors. When three varying degrees of the new mixture are administered to three different rats and the rest poured down the faulty "Waste Hazard" sink, shocking side-effects result in a night of terror.....right.....<br /><br />Seriously, this is probably the worst film I've seen this year. Everything about it screams "Low-budget!", from the horrendous acting to the special effects which are some of the worst I've ever seen. The characters are clichéd morons and act in stupid, predictable ways: walking down dark hallways alone, looking for a cat, tripping and falling so the "rats" can catch up with them, boarding themselves up in a small room, etc. <br /><br />While some films are cheaply made, this film really takes the cake. Every possible corner is cut, everything from reusing earlier shots, filming the "Lab" hallways from different angles to make it look bigger (That reminds me--why were only TWO guys working in this freakin' massive building?!?!?!?), to music and special effects that could be done on a children's workshop PC.<br /><br />That brings me to the worst aspect of this steaming pile of dung--the special effects. Just horrendous. The computer generated rats look so fake and stand out in every scene so even the dumbest of film buffs could see they are computer generated. And that giant rat suit--OH MY GOD!!!!!!!! seriously, are we supposed to believe that freaking beany baby is a monster? Just pitiful........On the better side, some of the gore looks pretty cool, especially considering the budget. <br /><br />The actors all suck. no one involved with the production cared or knew what they were doing. I've wasted enough time with review, just take my advice, it's garbage. 1/10.<br /><br />About the DVD: The transfer sucks, the audio is passable and there's a commentary track on the disk by the director and two of his friends, who say they had absolutely nothing to do with making the film but were there to ask questions and make comments. All three of these sub-human primordial slime are so incredibly stupid that they should be institutionalized before they can harm themselves or others. I don't want to waste any more of you kind reader's time or mine, for I am starting to remember more than I want to about this film..... DVD rating: 1/10.
Well then. I just watched an crap-load of movies--all with varying degrees of quality. I wasn't too sure about which one I wanted to review first. Then it hit me like a sack-a-rats: Rodentz. Warn people about Rodentz. This monstrosity stars nobody and is painfully dull to sit through. And it's about mutant rats killing people. Yeah... real freaking' original. "Food of the Gods," or "Willard" anyone? Those were better than this, and that doesn't say much...<br /><br />**POSSIBLE SPOILER**Okay here's the story: Inna laboratory the scientist and his plucky assistant are experimenting on rats and their laboratory is in a crappy neighborhood and crappy building and the plucky assistant's moronic friends show up drunk and everyone becomes food for the crazed rats and just about everybody dies and, oh yeah, there's one giant rat that looks crappy, but it gets killed, the end. There, all in once sentence! Spoiler, you say? Ppfff!! I beg to differ! The second we all realize that there's a giant rat, we all know it's gonna die eventually!!**END SPOILER**<br /><br />Here's the breakdown:<br /><br />The Good: <br /><br />--Well, I watched it for free, but for everyone else... hmmm, no. There's nothing good here. <br /><br />Didn't Hurt It, Didn't Help: <br /><br />--Um... well. the gore was decent. --Very average cinematography. <br /><br />--CG rats not as bad as they could've been in some shots...<br /><br />The Bad: <br /><br />--...and in other shots, the CG rats were pathetically cheap-looking. Look, if your film has a low budget, maybe you shouldn't rely on CG. Lesson to take to heart. <br /><br />--The acting is extremely poor.<br /><br />--The characters are beyond uninteresting--we have a mish-mash of clichés and none of them are even done that well. <br /><br />--Booooooooooooring.<br /><br />--Been done before--plenty of times. <br /><br />--Stupid story, just stupid.<br /><br />--Giant rat looks like fat man in poorly conceived bear costume--that was kind of funny--but not funny enough to give this film any worth.<br /><br />--Retarded, unrealistic, and boring dialog. <br /><br />--All the college student rat chow people are drinking Tequila from huge plastic milk jugs--and yet they don't appear to be drunk for anything longer than a few seconds. Way to stick with continuity, guys.<br /><br />The Ugly: <br /><br />--This film is bad. Simply terrible. Worse than you might imagine. It's not even laughably bad like, for instance, "Scarecrow" (2002) or "House of the Dead." Now those movies are crap you can enjoy. Even if they do make you stupider.<br /><br />Memorable Scene: <br /><br />--The lame action-movie ending, complete with uninjured heroes and explosion. Because it didn't feel at all like the rest of this monstrosity--but still sucked.<br /><br />Acting: 2/10 Story: 1/10 Atmosphere: 2/10 Cinematography: 4/10 Character Development: 0/10 Special Effects/Make-up: 4/10 Nudity/Sexuality: 1/10 (I was tending to my son occasionally during the film, so I may have missed it, but was supposedly in there) Violence/Gore: 4/10 Dialogue: 2/10 Music: 1/10 (average for the time) Writing: 1/10 Direction: 2/10<br /><br />Cheesiness: 7/10 Crappiness: 9/10<br /><br />Overall: 1/10<br /><br />Watch it only if you love rat and vermin-based horror films. Wait... Check that. Don't watch it. It's crap.<br /><br />(www.ResidentHazard.com)
Winter Kills is a terrible, incoherent and very disappointing conspiracy comedy-thriller from little-known director William Richert. While watching the film, I honestly felt as if I was the emperor in the classic fable The Emperor's New Clothes. The film made me feel like a fool because I couldn't make head nor tail of the serpentine plot and the nonsensical characters. But I felt kind of embarrassed to admit to myself that the film was tying my brain up in knots. So I stuck with it to the end, hoping that the whole tangled mess would untangle itself. Then I realised.... the film is SUPPOSED to be serpentine, nonsensical and illogical, because that's the whole point. This is a satirical look at conspiracy theories and theorists, with the knotting-up of the plot used as a metaphor for the knotting-up of truths, half-truths and lies that define any conspiracy. Even when I got that the joke was on me, I still felt Winter Kills to be a pretty awful movie.<br /><br />Young Nick Kegan (Jeff Bridges) is the younger brother of a former United States President who was assassinated in Philadelphia. Nick is present when a dying man claims that he shot the President and gives detailed information about where he hid the gun. Nick follows the clues, but every step of the way the people helping him seem to die in mysterious circumstances. Also, his father Pa Kegan (John Huston), a vulgar and disgustingly wealthy businessman, keeps interfering with Nick's investigation. The deeper he delves into the assassination, the more Nick realises that he is descending into a web of complex lies and red herrings, where nothing is as it seems and no-one can be trusted.<br /><br />The film is an utter nightmare to follow, and in many ways is not worth trying to follow for the afore-mentioned reason that it deliberately tangles itself up. The cast is packed with extraordinary talent but most of them are wasted. Toshiro Mifune has one of the briefest and most pointless cameo roles in cinematic history; Elizabeth Taylor appears uncredited and has not a single line of dialogue; Richard Boone is given what seems to be an interesting role but his character goes nowhere. John Huston has the best role as the powerful patriarch and provides us with the film's few enjoyable moments with his acerbic delivery. Anthony Perkins also gets a creepy role and handles it well, though his screen time is far too short to do complete justice to the character. Some nudity and sex scenes are tossed in for no real reason and, while they're quite graphic and might appeal to voyeurs, they really belong in another film. The film's semi-comic climax is farcical and disappointing, yet paradoxically memorable in its weird little way. There's obviously a cult audience out there somewhere for Winter Kills.... but I won't be counting myself among its number.
With an absolutely amazing cast and crew, this might have been a classic. Instead it is a repetitive paraphrasing of all the conspiracy theories extant in 1979 about the JFK assassination grafted, rather pointlessly, on to a vaguely incoherent plot about the murder of fictitious president Kegan in 1960. Many superb character actors are wasted as they are either not given enough to do - Sterling Hayden or Eli Wallach, for instance, or they are asked to go rather luridly over the top - John Huston. Jeff Bridges and Anthony Perkins do manage to acquit themselves very well, in their very different ways, though.<br /><br />The photography is gorgeous, but does not justify an hour and a half of your life, or the price of the DVD purchase.
i can't say i liked this movie very much.it has some amusing moments,but it doesn't seem able to make up its mind whether it is a comedy or a drama.it doesn't really work as either.it's too light in tone to be a drama,and the amusing moments are few and far between.it also doesn't make a lot of sense.things seem to happen for no reason.and it's also extremely convoluted.i feel like they just made things up as they were going.if they had just taken a bit of time to explain things,this might have been a better movie.i would say the ending was anti climatic, but that would mean the rest of the movie had actually been building up to something,which it didn't.it just sorts ends,and that's that.i didn't find it boring,really,but like i said,there there just isn't any point.i'll give Winter Kills a reluctant and weak 3/10
From the pen of Richard Condon (The Manchurian Candidate 1962) comes this muddled tale of political intrigue and assassination. The story, told in almost comic book fashion is difficult to swallow. All-star cast considered, this poor effort is not entirely the fault of the cast and crew: the novel was replete with the same short-comings. It seems as though at times the story is actually mocking the more sincere effort put forth in "Manchurian Candidate." A disappointment on all counts.
Ah WINTER KILLS , based on the novel by Richard Condon which deals with a conspiracy that killed the president of the United States 20 years ago . I knew Condon also wrote THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE which dealt with a similar theme and was looking forward to seeing an intelligent thriller<br /><br />WINTER KILLS left me cold . It's not a thriller - It's a piece of worthless crap , possibly the worst movie I've seen this month and boy have I seen a lot of bad movies in June . The problem lies in both the direction and the script and seeing as William Richert was responsible for both then he should be blamed entirely for this unfunny farce <br /><br />There's two things wrong with this movie . First off is the way everything is presented in a totally over the top manner . It's not as OTT as say something like that James Bond movie with David Niven and Peter Sellers but everything has a farcial edge to it with actors completely mugging their performances . This might have been justified if there was entertainment value to the movie but there's none . As a satire it's very silly , so silly that it becomes almost unwatchable . Secondly the scenes seem to have been cut so much that they're rendered senseless . Take for example a scene where the hero is confronting a loopy militia leader called Dawson . Dawson tells the hero he has 30 seconds start then it cuts to the hero being on board a plane . The scenes begin and end with no rhyme nor reason<br /><br />A dire movie that's an ordeal to sit through
I watched the pilot and noticed more than a few similarities between 3 lbs and House, M.D.. Tucci's character is brilliant but socially inept out of choice, similar to Laurie's character House, but without the acerbic wit that Laurie brings to House. Meanwhile, Tucci's 'straight guy', the emphatic doctor Seger, is not developed into a more interesting character, like the fallible 'straight guys' Cuddy and Wilson. Indira Varma's character Adrienne Holland is too similar to Jennifer Morrison's doctor Cameron to be a co-incidence.<br /><br />Someone at CBS obviously noticed the success of House, M.D. and told his staff to get him (her) a similar show, hoping that mimicry would prove successful. However, copying a show like House demands the same high level balance of wit and suspense and Tucci and company are just not up to the challenge.<br /><br />I didn't know the show was canceled until I read the comments on IMDb, but it doesn't come as a surprise to me.
3lbs is obviously just a self indulgent programme for Stanley Tucci to be a producer/moody deep doctor. Unlike House he has absolutely no personality and unlike Grey's Anatomy the brain surgery cases are't even interesting. This programme is supposed to be set in a leading centre for Neurlogical cases - yet there's nothing interesting or exciting going on! Not even the so called pathetic 'feud' between him and a rival adds anything to the show and neither do those hallucinations. In the pilot there was a brief glimpse into the leads's social life as a father - snooze! boring and pointless.<br /><br />This show is pants,there's a glut of medical dramas around at the moment and this does nothing to make it stand out as special.
I can appreciate what Barney is trying to achieve, but after sitting through this last night at a college movie house, I couldn't help but think...when is this gonna end? A very long and ponderous two hours and fifteen minutes. I had only seen a part of Cremaster 3 on DVD and thought I knew what to expect. That said, experimental films such as this are better digested in small increments. There are a couple of beautiful/horrible images...including the title sequence (no kidding), but if you go into this expecting any kind of plot or meaning, then you are in for a long, snooze-inducing ride. I managed to stay awake for the whole thing (if that's a compliment) but more often than not, I was waiting for some kind of meaning or narrative...big mistake. Among the collection of images are a very ornate gift-wrapping ceremony, the creation of a disgusting dish of what appears to be petroleum jelly slabs formed with a cookie cutter and sprinkled with shrimp (this is served to the crew of the ship which is shown throughout the film), a large blubber cheesecake with a large tentacle turd placed in the center of it, and the mutual evisceration of Bjork and director Matthew Barney which eventually culminates in some bizarre kind of communion, followed by their transformation into whale-like creatures. The soundtrack is at times beautiful and annoying...sometimes even maddening. At one time, there is a song being sung by Bjork to go along with the ephemeral rituals being played before us, and at other times there is just a constant droning of a high-pitched instrument, which we see a mysterious woman playing at the beginning and end of the movie. If this sounds like it doesn't make sense, that is because is DOESN'T! If this sounds like your cup of tea, then you will absolutely LOVE it! If this sounds like something that you probably won't like, then stay far away from it, because you will most likely walk out of the theater during the halfway mark like several people at the screening I attended. This is the very definition of an art film. You get from it what you take from it. But otherwise, there really isn't much there, other than a few oddities and constant construction and deconstruction rituals. I'm glad that there is a place for films such as this, but I can't say I would want to sit through it again. However, I can't say I wouldn't want to see one of Barney Cremaster films from start to finish and compare it with this. I think, perhaps now that I know what to expect I might enjoy something like this more. To give you an idea of what kind of comprehension factor this film has, I probably would've liked it better if I had gotten stoned. Then again, it could've felt twice as long as it was, and then it would've REALLY gotten ponderous. Definitely not for everyone.
This film is massively boring and pretentious. There is only one good moment when a sailor shaves Mr Barney's(think the purple dinosaur-less pretense) eyebrow. The music is relentlessly cloying-it is sad that Bjork, someone with so much inner beauty, has been brought down to pretentious falsity in her art. The pomp of the tea service makes a beautiful ritual seem vapid. the mythology and culture are not respected in this film they are lifted. Not just from Japanese culture but from another filmmaker...(stay tuned) In a perfect "art imitates life" moment-the crew of the ship finds a giant piece of sh*t. Which is what the audience found in the theatre. There are some set pieces which are very composed and arty without heart---then…prepare for spoilers-I'm talking to you MR BARNEY.<br /><br />The Emperor has no clothes! Mr. Barney you have been outted! I have seen Jodorowsky's HOLY MOUNTAIN. And your thin, fake veil of BS has been lifted. You have stolen your images your style and your ENTIRE ART CATALOGUE from this man. Now that HOLY MOUNTAIN has been released FINALLY let's hope the powers that be at the Art Councils of the world STOP FINANCING YOU! Poor Jodorowsky-lost in a financial battle with the Beatles Lawyer when he is the Lennon/McCartney of film-making. And BTW while Jodorowsky is the Beatle-YOU ARE THE MONKEES! A cheap thin soulless rip off only liked by facile kitschy college freshmen. And BTW I am a filmmaker. If you are interested in making a reality film-I will legally fight you in a ring defending Jodorowsky-you, defending outright thievery.
Drawing Restraint 9. dir: Matthew Barney.<br /><br />How do you know when you're in the middle of a pretentious art film? Is it that there is only 8 lines of dialogue in 140 minutes of film? Is it when Bjork is wearing what looks like a giant furry pita on her head in a pseudo-Asian ritual? Maybe when mammoth turds and spinal columns are used in a whale blubber experiment. Or, when you're about ready to kill the composer for making a minimal, and still annoying, version of a Philip Glass score? In any case, Drawing Restraint 9 is among the most pretentious of the modern art movies. At 135 minutes, it adds to its pretension by being boring to boot. I would call the use of color stunning, and the opening sequence interesting, but the rest of the movie looked like it was filmed for a Discovery Channel documentary. That is until it looks like they were trying to film their version of P-ss Christ, but that will be coming up later.<br /><br />Actually, the documentary-esquire portions were the best parts of it. The surface plot is about a whaling ship, and then there is a ritual about making whale fat. Then, there are the guests in the form of Bjork and Matthew Barney who are welcomed on the ship by being put through a ritual of humiliation which includes passed-out head shaving (think frat boy pranks), nicotine patches, and giant furry pita hats. Then there is mutual evisceration, cannibalism, and lets not forget the giant turd.<br /><br />Matthew Barney has written that this is about "the relationship between self-imposed resistance and creativity." That's almost like saying, "if you don't get it, then you're not creative in your interpretation, so sod off because I'm an artist." Oh, wait, that's the POST-modern interpretation of that sentence and what the movie would be about if it was POST-modern. But, its supposed to be Modern art. Which is about the art itself.<br /><br />So, let's start this whole interpretation bit, shall we? The following lines are only 3/4 serious and should not be taken as any realistic attempt to interpret the movie.<br /><br />The first half-hour concerns pearl divers and the construction of a giant ramp. Obviously, the ramp is symbolic of the need for self-elevation to whatever standards you hold dear, and the pearl divers are looking for pearls of wisdom. Then, on a whaling ship, they build a crate that looks like it is in the crude shape of a whale. Obviously a crude element of foreshadowing.<br /><br />On the ship, they make whale fat inside the shape of the whale, and take out the fins portion. They replace this with a spinal column and later a giant turd. These are supposed to be the states of the movie itself. When its fat, its entertaining but bad for you. When it is the spinal column, its the "important" parts of the movie, or the backbone so to speak. Then, the giant turd is the bowels of the movie, or when the movie is crap.<br /><br />Bjork and Matthew Barney the arrive on separate ships, are put into strange humiliating outfits which AREN'T EVEN WELL MADE OR SYMMETRICAL, one suspects that they ran out of money and Barney was trying to quit smoking. SO, they put patches on his head. They go through a ritual and learn about the ship from a Japanese wise man, who tells them that the ship is scarred from when another ship hit it; a crash or intersection, if you will. This inspires Bjork and Barney, who are different on the outside, to start cutting each other's legs off and eat them so they could turn into whales themselves and be the same person. They intersect. Oh, did I forget to mention that this has been done in a Robbie Williams video? Then, the pearl divers come back with their mouths full of pearls of knowledge which they let fall to make a stupid Venn Diagram. Barney made it through 8th grade geometry, obviously. Or, maybe at least some social studies.<br /><br />Oh, and did I forget Bjork's ear-gouging I-want-to-kill-her score? At times it is hypnotic, but at others you just want to assassinate her.<br /><br />Art film is one thing, but when you just throw up all sorts of symbolism in the hopes of getting a reaction out of people, it becomes a self-destructive joke. When do you cross the line between becoming a joke in terms of art? Dali and Bunuel frequently made surreal pieces of nonsense but were more coherent and/or entertaining than this piece of trash. Un Chien Andalou had the sensibility to cram as much symbolism as it could into less than half an hour.<br /><br />So, can I recommend this? Only if you like dull HIGH ART films with lots of symbolism and flat imagery.<br /><br />D+
I watched this movie as a preview of a Matthew Barney art exhibit. It certainly prepared me. I almost skipped the exhibit and, in retrospect, probably should have.<br /><br />Aside from the score being great (Bjork) and the photography rich and colorful, the content was mostly tedious and predictable. Gee, I really needed to see someone wearing pearls to figure out what the pearl-divers were up to. The film was mostly a silly mixture of Japanese cultural references and industrial shots of modern whaling technology being used in a mock-hunt/harvest. The film "peaks" with enough gratuitous shock-art to turn your stomach.<br /><br />What was the point of the movie? While others might argue that it is an anti-whaling piece, one could equally argue that it somehow also justifies whaling. Personally I think it was Barney's attempt at "flashing" the audience with his anal, fecal, self-mutilation, and cannibalistic fetishes.<br /><br />Bottom line: unless you really get off on Barney's sense of art, don't bother seeing this movie. The message is obscure, the pace slow, and the cultural references pretentious. If you're after shock-art, you'll do better at one of the many "Undead" movies or hunting down an old copy of Hustler and taking in a fecal-cartoon.
I couldn't agree more with another reviewer that mentioned Jodorowsky.<br /><br />Barney seems to be utterly boring and uninspired "content-wise". He can produce eye-candy (and I like candy), but its pretentiousness and fundamental artistic emptiness just diminishes all the joy. <br /><br />I am afraid that many people don't distinguish between similar (but really only on the surface) works of Jodorowsky or even more linear film-makers like Tarkovski or Kubrick (I love 2001 Odyssey and was never bored through the ending scenes...) That kind of art as M.Barney's makes adds confusion and fends off the viewers that could otherwise start to appreciate experimental cinema. Typical empty post-modern "conceptual" art. And check his interviews. I just don't buy it, sorry. And so boring. <br /><br />I was never bored seeing Alejandro Jodorowsky's movies, while Drawing Restraint 9 was an utter disappointment. Especially while it offered the possibilities to be something, to actually tell something in a non-linear unorthodox way (like the beginning and the great choreographed dance and preparations for the ship to sail out. Ships "meeting" on the sea... Ideas of feces as an object of value(if it was feces). Those "pearl" divers... Everything could construct a great surreal movie with some content. But it didn't. ANd those horrible pretentious scenes of dressing up and fake tea ceremony... How vain and fake and philosophically pretentious but empty can it get?<br /><br />I has some great picturesque scenes, but the whole movie became so boring and pretentious and utterly empty and fake that it made me physically sick.<br /><br />And it doesn't have good tempo. I like slow pace movies, but this was just boring in some scenes - because it was pretentious and fake - so I was just forced to witnessed prolonged scenes of artistic vanity...<br /><br />That kind of movies just kill the art and spirit in my view. <br /><br />I want more Jodorowsky!!!
Don't get the impression from other reviewers that this film stinks cos it's ambivalent about the Japanese whaling industry (which, morally, is no worse than the US meat trade or the Scottish haggis cull), it stinks cos it's pretentious tosh, the sort of up-its-own-behind guff that gets modern art a bad name. That said, there are some stunning images, but there are stunning images in the average bus ride if you use your imagination, so that's no reason to go and see this nonsense. What happens in the film happens very slowly and often accompanied by a soundtrack that sounds like a cat being gutted, and then, just when you thinks it's finished, it starts again. I saw it it in a porn cinema in Rome which had been hired for the weekend to show Barney's film works, which is an admirable and clever way to reclaim what had once been a local fleapit from the dirty-old-men-in-macs brigade, but if the trendy young things and the slightly older beard-stroking Bjork fans were to be honest, everyone might have had a lot more fun if they'd just shown one of the pornoes!
Slow and nice images changed one another, with sometimes annoying music (you know Bjork) in background, for the first 75% of the movie. If you did not have enough sleep, that's a good time. <br /><br />But, in the last 20% of the movie director decides to bring idea of re-birth, re-incarnation or else, through S&M images: "spiritual lovers" are cutting each others bodies with knives. For me it was very much disturbing and actually changed general impression of blend of abstract art and images of modern Japanese mystery. <br /><br />Operator and director are great, but weird. <br /><br />Did not enjoy it at all.
This has got to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen! There were people leaving the theatre, others were falling asleep (ok, it was a late night show)... This is a no-sense movie, one of those who can make you never want to see an out of mainstream picture again. I would love to watch the making-off of this movie as I am deeply interested on what goes on the minds of the authors of such garbage. Do they laugh when they create all this ridiculous stuff or do they actually think they're doing something interesting? I wonder... The soundtrack is awful apart from some instrumental stuff that reminds you of a previous Bjork album. Even if you're a fan of Bjork's music, stay home. It's the best thing to do. The little, tiny, pieces of nice music are no reason for you to go out and submit yourself to this torture. God!...
I thought it would at least be aesthetically beautiful. It was slow, pretentious, and boring. I almost fell asleep. There are some decent songs, but there is this one song at the end which is just some guy yelling out "Yaowwww!" while someone taps randomly on a wooden object. That being said, there are some pretty songs, but it's not worth seeing hte movie over. Go on itunes (they have the album), preview it, and choose the good ones. <br /><br />Half the movie is some guy making tea. Well, that's a slight exaggeration. But you'll see what I mean if you see it. That being said: DON'T SEE IT!
"Drawing Restraint 9" is a kind of movie one either loves or hates; fortunately or not, I left it with a strong feeling of wasted time and of being thoroughly stuffed with "killing whales is bad" propaganda. Aesthetically, the movie could have been pleasing, especially its first half, until it is not clear that every action portrayed serves as an allegory of various aspects of whale hunting. Until then, it might be slightly amusing to look at daily chores of japan workers, but later it becomes obvious that anything that appears on the screen is a propaganda, and no single frame is an exception. I use the word "propaganda" because the movie uses basically the old morality play device, where "good" and "bad" are not deduced in the course of action but are set in stone. Probably it's just me, but I find such type of art shallow and preconceived, even when it's all about the noble (no sarcasm here) quest of protecting the environment.<br /><br />In my opinion it is a cardinal sin when a movie material is stretched out without any justification, for the sake of stretching only. In my opinion, "Drawing Restraint 9" could've been easily fit into 75 minutes, but has a torturous length of 2 and 1/4 hours. Yes, there were interesting shots, but there were not enough of these to leave 15-minute gaps of nothingness without notice. The movie has no standard scenario, and there's no evolution of characters, but neither it is a documentary, it's rather a kind of conceptual installation. That's an unusual form for a movie, but it still can be viewed as art even when the concept is as simple and naive as here. OTOH I also believe that the director should've had some honesty and did not pretend that it could be only delivered in no less than 135 minutes.<br /><br />And yes, the music score mostly resembled whale sounds. How surprising.<br /><br />2/10.
Renowned cinematographer Freddie Francis (Glory, The Elephant Man) directs this pretty bad horror/drama film. 19th Century England has a different view of how the practice of medicine should be handled than Dr. Thomas Rock, the law stating that only the bodies of hung criminals can be studied and experimented on. But the stockpile of these bodies is a small one, and Rock needs more - and he prefers them fresher. Being a maverick within his circle, he begins to pay people to find bodies for him to study and test on. Desperate sleazebags Robert Fallon and Timothy Broom get wind of this job opportunity and begin to murder people and sell these bodies to Rock. Naturally, this kind of action has even worse consequences than practicing on the dead bodies of non-criminals, and leads to trouble for everyone. While the overall story sounds intriguing on paper, almost everything about The Doctor And The Devils is laughably bad.<br /><br />After the first fifteen minutes of the film you are already beginning to question your decision of sitting down to watch the film. The entire look of the film is just ugly. Seeing as how the film takes place in the slums of England during the 19th Century, the filmmakers were probably going for an "ugly" look, but they don't do it in an artful way. Everything from the sets to the cinematography just look cheap, feeble, and disgusting. Also, just about everything scene is filled with something that you simply cannot take seriously, and most of the time this has to do with someone (both in the small and large roles) doing something that looks or sounds completely ridiculous. Francis sure didn't help out his actors much.<br /><br />Jonathan Pryce and Stephen Rea play the twisted buddies of the film, Fallon and Broom respectively, and are very bombastic but very bad. Their characters are by nature crazy, but Pryce and Rea overact the parts to death. They especially have trouble keeping the same accent from shot to shot - Pryce in particular goes from Cockney to Irish to Long John Silver to some kind of lagoon creature and so on and so forth. It's also a humor riot to see Twiggy in this film at all, let alone playing an in-demand street whore, since she can't act to save her life (though her song during the final credits isn't so funny). Boy she sure came a long way: from "flower power" to "I'll take mee clothes off for a shillin'!" As bad as those three actors are in this film, Julian Sands takes home the award for the worst performance of the film. He is just as lame as it gets, giving one laugh-out-loud attempt after another at portraying anger, love, happiness, anxiety - pick an emotion, any emotion! <br /><br />There's only one good thing about The Doctor And The Devils: Timothy Dalton's performance of Dr. Rock. Despite being surrounded by cinematic sewage, Dalton is quite excellent; giving an electric portrayal of an overly driven yet good natured man. Too bad the rest of the film could not have been as good as Mr. Dalton....
As others have noted, this should have been an excellent Hammer-style film, and it seems to me that that's how most of the actors were instructed to play it... but the screenplay is so leaden, poorly paced, and filled with a lot of dull soliloquies (poor Timothy Dalton is saddled with most of them) that it's all too overblown and self-important. This is an uncharacteristically weak performance from Dalton, although he quietly nails the climactic scene where Dr. Rock finally realizes what he's done. The only actor who comes off really well is Patrick Stewart who is a most welcome sight. Freddie Francis may have been a great cinematographer, but he was a lousy director.
This film is probably the worst film that I have ever seen. I'm studying french at college and thus understood all the dialog, so the language barrier wasn't an issue. I must say it is really hard to empathize with any of the characters depicted in the movie. There is only one professional actor in the cast and I'm guessing no professional directors or writers.<br /><br />Although I have rated it 1 out of 10 it probably doesn't merit such a poor rating. This is merely a futile effort of lowering its current overall rating of 7.3 to something more realistic. Perhaps 4.3 would be a more accurate rating because the film is a true non-event 100 minutes or so in length that you will never get back.<br /><br />The real shame is that I am sure some college student is busting his nut making a film twice as good and half the length. However if you want to join the bandwagon which seems to be rolling around IMDb you might as well go ahead give "Lost in Translation" a 10 as well.
This is a story of a Jewish dysfunctional family. The parents have divorced and mom remains back east in the house. The father, Murray Abromowitz, moves with his children to California, and moves around Beverly Hills so that his children can get the best education possible.<br /><br />Things really become funny when Marisa Tomei, Murray's niece, comes to lives with the group.<br /><br />The film deals with the various adventures of the family complicated by the drug scene of the affluent neighborhood.<br /><br />Jessica Walter costars as a woman who wants Murray to move in with her since she wants a companion.<br /><br />Carl Reiner and Rita Moreno come in towards the end. They play Murray's brother and sister-in-law respectively; they're also the parents of Tomei. In front of the children, Reiner lets loose reminding Murray that he has been paying the bills for them all along.<br /><br />The film ends on a sour note as the embarrassed family moves out of their fancy digs and take to riding around Beverly Hills in their car. I guess the film is promoting independence and some good old self-esteem.
---what happened to these unlikeable people. Alan Arkin was, as usual, unfunny and just walks through the role. The kids are all a mess. Mariesa Tomei probably wishes this role had never come her way. And what are Carl Reiner and Rita Moreno doing in this really bad, mean movie? If you enjoy watching losers wallow in their disfunction, and not try in any way to do better, this is your film. All others, take a walk, read a book, or see something else.<br /><br />Jane
The most difficult thing about this movie is to say anything positive about it. The characters were stereotypical "white-trash", the movie's "plot" was stunted from the beginning, and the worst feature of this movie was that the nudity was so blatantly from body doubles it was funny. Regretfully, that was the only funny thing in the movie. Ms. Jenkins would be better served if in the future, she would refrain from using her life-story to "entertain" people. It was simply that bad. The one positive aspect of this movie (this has nothing to do with the lack-of-quality of the film) is that my brother shelled out the money for this stinker.
From the critical acclaim, I expected more from this movie and from Tamara Jenkins. The story just meandered along and didn't seem to have a point or a plot. And I find it hard to believe that a 14 year old girl (mature for her age or no) would be so blase about getting the loss of her virginity "over with." Maybe I am too young to relate (I was four years old in 1976), but I didn't have any problems connecting with the stories of Shakespeare in Love or Life is Beautiful and I wasn't alive for either of those settings. The cast is very good but unfortunately for them the script did not alow them to engage the audience. Overall, Slums had its moments but unless you are yearning to reminisce over halter tops and tube socks, I would say skip this one.
I was really looking forward to this movie based on the previews and press it received, but after viewing it I was terribly disappointed. Slums is a totally unfunny film mixed with a Todd Solondz type of disturbing family reality sans Todd's brand of humor. The story drags along and each scene is worse than the last. Maybe I missed the point, but if this film is an example of every girl's growing up experience I am glad to be a man.
The film did what it set out to do: show how a young girl copes with poverty and grows into her maturity. However, for most of us, this subject has been explored adequately and in most instances with more sophistication than done here. The movie fixated on breasts, which soon became boring and I lost interest. If this was on TV, I would've switched to the latest news on the Starr Report. That's how boring I found this movie.
Tierney's an authentic tough guy, but this movie misfire from normally competent RKO undercuts his impact at every turn. The script is about as plausible as OJ Simpson at a Ten Cmmandments dinner. Just count the times Tierney's incredible car companions swallow one lame excuse after another for his evasive and violent acts. The old cliché about it "only happening in the movies" applies here in spades. Then there's the guy playing the watchman, who appears to have wandered in from a boozy WC Fields comedy, ruining the menacing mood in the process. The static one-room sets don't help either, and neither does director Feist's obvious lack of feel for the material. Then add a final car chase missing both imagination and pay-off, and the results are pretty flat. In fact the movie only picks up in the station-house scenes where hard-bitten cops discover the hidden powers of innocent-looking gas station attendants. Too bad that Tieney's career never really gelled. I gather that was due largely to being as big a tough guy off-screen as on and getting in one sleazy scrape after another. His ice-cold manner and clarity of emotion remind me at times of Lee Marvin at his tough-guy best. Anyway this project might have worked as a radio play, but as a movie with a promising noir title, it's a disappointment.
"This story is dedicated to women," according to the introduction, "who have been fighting for their rights ever since Adam and Eve started the loose-leaf system." When "Politics" was filmed, the Nineteenth Amendment, guaranteeing women the right to vote, was only a decade old. And, the film deals with the wielding of political power by women as a voting group. Advocating prohibition, and shutting down speakeasies, was a main concern for women at the time.<br /><br />Good-natured Marie Dressler (as Hattie Burns) becomes politically active, after a young woman is shot and killed coming out of a speakeasy. She wants the liquor-selling joints closed; and, is drafted into a Mayoral run, after delivering a powerful speech at a women's rally. Ms. Dressler is supported by her tenants, best friend Polly Moran (as Ivy Higgins) and her stuttering husband Roscoe Ates (as Peter Higgins). Dressler's run for Mayor of Lake City draws opposition from men in town; so, Dressler orders the women to go on strike, denying them, "everything" in the "parlor, bedroom, and bath." <br /><br />The film sounds much better than it turned out. The humor, frankly, isn't too good; and, it features some unfunny and moderately offensive situations ("You look like Madame Queen" refers to an Amos and Andy character). And, the mixing of shootings and slapstick doesn't mix well, this time. Producers might have considered making the film more dramatic, focusing exclusively on Dressler and the characters played by William Bakewell (as Benny Emerson) and Karen Morley (as Myrtle Burns).<br /><br />**** Politics (7/25/31) Charles Reisner ~ Marie Dressler, Polly Moran, Roscoe Ates
I have not seen this movie in ages but figured I'd comment on it anyway, mostly because the memory of disliking it so intently is burned into my memory cells. The original THE GETAWAY was no prize to begin with but at least had the distinctions of being 1) A Sam Peckinpah movie, 2) Featured Steve McQueen, Ben Johnson, and Slim Pickens, 3) Was a relatively painless way to blow away an hour and a half of time.<br /><br />By comparison, the 1994 version comes across as little more than a vanity piece for the then red hot Alec Baldwin and his soon to be divorced wife, Kim Basinger. McQueen and his then wife Allie McBride also split up soon after their version of the film was made and one can sort of picture the Baldwins at their marriage councilor arguing over who's stupid idea it was to make this movie.<br /><br />Let's just get it said and out of the way -- Alec Baldwin never was and never will be anything close to the Cooler King, and one of the reasons why this remake annoyed me so much is the perceived arrogance on Baldwin's part to presume to challenge our memory of Steve McQueen in the lead role. Like someone else points out, Peckinpah's 1972 vision of the film was a satire piece meant to sort of parody the action/adventure heist genre. By contrast Baldwin, Bassinger & company seem to be trying to evoke a more serious tone, with only Michael Madsen's and James Woods' slimy unprincipled villain characters coming off as real people.<br /><br />The movie is also decidedly mean spirited and unlikeable at a fundamental level that is difficult to put into words. One viewing was more than enough, not just because it didn't have anything new to offer but because of how artlessly it was made. Peckinpah's movie was actually a stylish little entertainment that had an upbeat mood, where this version is a slog that takes too long to amount to little or nothing. There's no artistic urgency to it's existence and some of the more uncomfortable scenes are so uncomfortable that they make the film difficult to enjoy.<br /><br />So I don't know, this was probably one of the films that helped to initiate the wave of pointless, artistically vapid big budget remakes propped up around a then name brand actor/actress, which in itself isn't a really good thing. I'd always rather see a filmmaker at least try to come up with a new idea for a movie & fall flat with something original. This movie just made me want to pull my eyebrows out, and it's revealing that over the ensuing 15 years since it's release Mr. Baldwin has become widely renowned as one of the biggest jerks in Hollywood. Thank god for "Team America" for putting him in his place.<br /><br />3/10
SPOILERS THROUGHOUT: <br /><br />The Gettaway is mostly an action movie. And what action there is to!! Shootouts, chases, dumpsters and much much more. It stars Kim Bassenger and Alec Baldwin as the Mc Coy's.<br /><br />This is a remake and I have not seen the original but really didn't care for this one at all although Bassenger and Baldwin have some nice screen chemistry. But the movie itself didn't do it for me.<br /><br />The Gettaway became really tiresome really quickly. The plot is overshadowed by one fight/chase after another and as the violence keeps piling up, Bassenger and Baldwin retain their great looks no matter what perils they maybe in. In fact, by the end of the movie they almost look BETTER then in the beginning. I don't think Bassenger's eye makeup moves once during the whole picture.<br /><br />This isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, certainly not, but it isn't very good and unless one is an action movie purist I can't see really enjoying this movie because there's just not a lot here. The Gettaway isn't terribly original either, and goes every way from unnecessarily brutal to rather dull. It really could have been better I think.<br /><br />Bassenger and Baldwin give OK performances but they don't have a lot to do except get chased and run for their lives. Sometimes less is more, after seeing the same thing over and over again it gets stale. Didn't enjoy this one to much.
I cannot see why filmmakers remade this movie. <br /><br />The 1972 movie with McQueen and McGraw is almost a classic. Steve McQueen was an outstanding actor and Baldwin is only an inadequate actor. He has no passion in his play.Also the action in the original "Getaway" was fantastic. But the remake has no action! It is almost boring despite the fact that the film-making in 1972 was more difficult than in 1994. <br /><br />I don't understand the way that Baldwin imprisoned from Mexico. I think this is a mistake in the story.<br /><br />So i think that there was no need to remake it, or if they decided to remake a classic, they must choose an excellent actor for the first role, like Johnny Depp or Brad Pitt...
Back when Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger were a mercurial, hot-tempered, high-powered Hollywood couple they filmed this (nearly) scene-for-scene remake of the 1972 Steve McQueen-Ali MacGraw action-thriller about a fugitive twosome. It almost worked the first time because McQueen was such a vital presence on the screen--even stone silent and weary, you could sense his clock ticking, his cagey magnetism. Baldwin is not in Steve McQueen's league, but he has his charms and is probably a more versatile actor--if so, this is not a showcase for his attributes. Basinger does well and certainly looks good, but James Woods is artificially hammy in a silly mob-magnet role. A sub-plot involving another couple taken hostage by Baldwin's ex-partner was unbearable in the '72 film and plays even worse here. As for the action scenes, they're pretty old hat, which causes one to wonder: why even remake the original? ** from ****
Don't even bother with this movie, it's bad when judged on it's own merits, but when compared to the 1972 original (which IS a classic) it's down right awful. And BTW, somebody commented that the 1972 movie is bad when compared to the book. This is silly, movies should never be judged against the books they are taken from. They are 2 completely different art forms (as if this needed to be pointed out but apparently it does). If you used this criteria for all movies then "2001" would suck and so would "Forest Gump" and "Silence of the Lambs".
Nowhere near the original. It's quite accurate copy bringing nothing new to the story. But the directing is very poor. Basinger is weak - without good directing. Baldwin is simply just a second league compared to McQueen. I watched it just out of curiosity, being a huge fan of Peckinpah's masterpiece, and I got what I thought. Almost a B movie with second rate acting and directing. I wasn't even disappointed, I just don't know what they were trying to do. This remake doesn't try to play with the original material, it's not a tribute and indeed it lacks some really good actor of its era.<br /><br />It reminds me of a bad xerox copy of wonderful photograph.<br /><br />This is a complete waste of your time. Save yourself 2 hours or watch the original (again:)))
Any one who saw the original would have to go out and destroy this dreadful remake. Alex Baldwin trying to imitate the late Steve Mcqueen in a word for word remake just doesn't work. While Baldwin has done some admirable work this is a flop from start to finish. McQueen had charisma, never try to compete with a star. As for Kim in the role of Ali McGraw enough said. McQueen looked dangerous, menacing and believable as Doc, the film had excitement and suspense,Baldwin and company made this into a comedy,I laughed the one and only time I saw this miserable film. And that dreadful hairstyle for Michael Madsen who is one of today's more exciting and believable actors! Did the makeup people have it in for Michael, what were they thinking.If you wish to see movie-making the way it was under Sam Peckinpah's direction Get the original!
What's in here ?! Let me tell you. It's the presence of (Alec Baldwin). He's not a great actor but maybe a nice star with some good movies which this is not one of them. He did nothing here more than anything he did before or after. So not to mention (literally !) the matter of (Steve McQueen) being at the same role in the original because I don't want to make that comparison in the first place. I'm not a big fan or even a fan of (Kim Basinger), she got a lot of bad movies on her and even at her best she looks average ! And it gets on my nerve indeed whenever they talk about her seductive rare beauty !!?? Well, if being a blond would make anyone captivating then I'll dye my hair in yellow as soon as possible ! And what is it with all the craziness over miss Basinger's Legs ??!! It's surely insanity or bad tasting ? As I don't see them both as not sexy only, but UGLY too ! And if you hate that so shoot me down but you know what ?! I've just watched this movie so I'm dead already !. Yet, what would make you really suffer in unbearable way is that nothing of the credits goes to the one she deserves the most…And of course I mean (Jennifer Tilly)..Now we're talking about a true genuine seductive chick with such unforgettable body and one unique sense of allurement like a nasty brunette (Marilyn Monroe) however much more healthier !! (I can't help it, she was the only new and watchable thing in here !). (Michael Madsen) as the bad guy was much appealing as well as effective more than the good guys, (James Woods) is here to summarize the early events beside the pool (so the trailer would be by his voice later !) and he knew before all that this is a whole Hollywood's stuff so "Do your thing, take your cash, and good luck as an actor in other movies !", the editing gave the movie a serious personality along with violent atmosphere done by suitable shining cinematography, so the main goods of it (The action, The thrill, ..) are here and fairly well-made, though any echo for deep meanings about (the kinds of betrayal) as the main dramatic motif of the whole thing is not that strong so don't wait for it. OK, it's all in all another remake without anything special (Except Jennifer Tilly's spicy moments !) so I think I tried to be objective as much as I could therefore I shouldn't end my review saying that (Basinger) or anyone here did better than this movie.. It would be an insult because frankly.. Anything is better than this movie!
POSSIBLY VERY MINOR SPOILERS<br /><br />This movie is billed as the first Russian horror movie. Unfortunately, as far as I am concerned, "The Witch" (its Russian title) will take a place of dishonor in the gallery of horrible Russian movies. It is based on Nikolai Gogol's story "Viy" which is a classic in Russia. "Based" is the key word here since no familiarity with the story is required. Instead, the less you know about Gogol, the better. <br /><br />It is a unique production because we are quite used to directors taking stories from other cultures and adapting them to their own culture. The spate of American remakes of foreign films is a prime example, but then again, Sturgess turned Kurosawa's Seven Samurai into The Magnificent Seven with splendid results, and Kurosawa transferred Shakespeare's Macbeth into Japan to make an incredibly powerful Throne in Blood, while King Lear became a riveting Ran. However, with "The Witch," we have Russians transplanting a Russian classical tale onto the American soil. The movie was shot in Estonia in English with the aim of dubbing it into English using American actors and have reasonably synchronous lip movements. <br /><br />As a natural consequence, lost is the colorful Ukrainian background for the story, in comes a drab American small town seemingly lifted from some outdated horror book manual. Gone is the boozy seminarian Khoma Brutus, instead we have a boozy journalist who is about to win Pullitzer prize, and who at the same time writes about X-Files-like events and frequents Miss Boobs contests. (I never thought Pullitzer prize was given for that kind of writing, now I humbly stand corrected.) In a strange nod to Russianness, the journalist is named Ivan Berkhoff. They should've named him John Smith because it is impossible to get more hackneyed, clichéd and generic than this movie. <br /><br />Berkhoff goes to a town named Castleville, gets stranded on a dirt road, staggers on until he finds a dilapidated house and is rather un-welcomed by an old crone. All that to the accompaniment of a radio announcement about the forces of evil being at their most powerful, and people better staying indoors and avoiding water. Need I mention that it's raining really hard? After a few supposedly frightening scenes which had me laughing, the story finds our journalist dressed as a priest, he's mistaken for a priest, and the local sheriff tells him his daughter who died after being brutally attacked wanted the new priest to pray for her for three nights. At this point, the action supposedly starts. Those who have time to kill are welcome to it. <br /><br />What is wrong with this film? Everything, starting with the dialog and down to the prop department. The dialog which I heard in Russian was clearly originally written in English, and it was compiled exclusively from clichés and platitudes picked from American films. The actors just as clearly struggled with English because the timing of their speech was labored and unnatural, and the Russian dubbing followed suit. The acting is mostly atrocious, and not only because the actors find it often difficult to talk but because they don't have anything approaching a range of facial expressions. For the most part, they're just blank or you wish they were. The only exceptions being the sheriff played by Lembit Ulfsak, a fine Estonian actor, and Arnis Lizitis who plays a wheelchair bound resident of Castleville. Oh, and a rooster of course who's absolutely natural on camera! I know actors complain of being upstaged by dogs and cats but when Nikolaev is upstaged by a rooster it is a sad testimony to the general quality of acting in the film.<br /><br />There wasn't a single scary moment in the entire film, and there wasn't a single original moment in the film either. Mind you, this comment's coming from somebody who's rather inexperienced with horror. The film is filled with standard moves used in horror movie since the genre's inception. At a critical moment, the camera lingers lovingly on a kerosene lamp. The lamp promptly goes out. It must have seen a few horror movies, too. An example of supreme idiocy comes at another moment, a character jumps out of a bathtub and runs at the camera. He's wearing something the looks like loincloth! It doesn't get any more idiotic than this!<br /><br />Those in Russia who liked it claim it should've been advertised as a mystical thriller. I wasn't thrilled either. It was run-of-the-mill from start to finish. I particularly enjoyed the fact that the entire population of the little town behaved as if they knew exactly they lived in a horror movie, except they weren't quite sure whether it had zombies or not. Therefore, some of them acted zombie-like just in case. <br /><br />The makers of the film say it's about finding faith. Such a fine collections of idiotic actions, stupidly contrived moments, and, yes, clichés, doesn't deserve to be about finding faith. The movie is so thoroughly and utterly fake it deserves only to be an exhibit in a wax figure museum.
Nikolai Gogol's story "Viy" has been filmed again and released to home video in the US via Faith Films.<br /><br />The original story concerns a priest who has to watch over the body of a witch with only his faith to protect him. Greatly expanded and set in America, though clearly filmed in Russia (the houses,clothing and furnishing are all wrong despite the English signs), this is an odd film that doesn't really work.Part of it is the weird setting that tries very hard to be backwoods America but clearly isn't.There are also some weird, intentionally oblique moments as the main character being a reporter at the start and a priest a short time later. I'm not sure why they did that, even after watching the making of piece on the DVD) The other problem is the dubbing which is beyond awful. Its done in such away that everyone speaks when their lips are not on camera- or if they are the voices don't even remotely match the lip flaps. I don't know if its Faith Films fault or that of the producers who made the film hoping to dump into the West (revealed in the making of piece).<br /><br />The film isn't very good. As I've said it has all sorts of technical issues that just make this an odd ball curio. Despite some really good looking horror images the film never works as a horror film. As film to engender faith its much too confused in this retelling to amount to make anyone feel anyone closer to god.<br /><br />Given the choice I'd give it a pass, even at a bargain bin price. My advice would be to find the 1960's version of the tale called Viy which will bring both some shivers and some understanding about a belief in god.
Ivan (Valeri Nikolayev) is a bitter, cynical journalist who investigates the unexplained. He travels to this small town where it's said that a witch (Ita Ever) is terrorizing the community.<br /><br />His car stalls and he takes refuge in a small building, and meets a beautiful, mysterious girl. Suddenly she turns into a demon and he kills her, and the town is wondering who murdered this woman...who I guess was the witch but I am not entirely sure. Ivan is now being pursued by her spirit, or something, and he has to have faith, or something, to beat it.<br /><br />I really hate Christian films. They are usually filled with lame actors, stupid storyline and minimal effects. Not to mention that this isn't just a Christian film...but a foreign one as well. The voice-over actor for Ivan made the movie more comical than terrorizing, because it is so high pitched and whiny. You won't miss much by missing out on this film.
As a horror-movie fan I try to watch all significant novelties of this genre, especially those which are the products of my native cinema. And I can say that that the "Power of Fear" (or "Vedma" as the Russian title of it) is one of the weakest film among them. Firstly, it can't scary even a little kid, it paces so slowly and so predictable that there is no place for the real horror. Frankly speaking, it's bad in all points: from the goofy plot (I don't know why the Russian producers/director decided to transform the classic story about Ukrainian witchcraft into some lame and ridiculous modern-day-America thriller. I absolutely agree with the previous reviewer – it doesn't thrill a bit) and to the terrible and cheesy actors' work. All actors including the leading Valeri Nikolayev and Yevgeniya Kryukova who are quite famous in Russia look like wooden dolls or something like that and it seems to me they didn't even bother to play at all, only spoke their English lines without any expression. And at the end I don't really understand why they filmed this flick in English with Russian actors? I think it was their wrong turn. At least they could cast some American or English actors for the leading parts to make them look more convincing. The same I can say about so called "small American town backgrounds" which were shot in Estonia and look like it. The only positive moment I found in the "Power of Fear" is the visual effects. They are not excellent but rather good for the Russian film. And the music is OK, at least it doesn't irritate me. That's why I give it two stars. Overall, if you want to see good horror film – don't waste your time and money on this boring flick. And if you are looking for something that claims to be a Russian horror I'd advise you to find a copy of "Viy or The Spirit of Evil". It's really the terrific movie based on the same novel as "Power of Fear" but much, much better.
I rented this film yesterday mostly due to the good-looking art and the summary given on the back of the jacket. After popping it into my DVD player I re-examined the jacket cover and even though I took the cover out of from the plastic viewer, I STILL could not read any of the production detail information about the film. This film is entitled Evil on the Jacket and had to locate it by going to Faith Films website to find out any linkage to it here on IMDb.<br /><br />The filming and special affects done in the film looked quite good ... THEN, a line-reading actor spoke. Oh dear ... this actor's reading sounded like some pimple-faced high school jock whose voice just managed to change pitch, and no attempt given to go beyond reading the lines from the script. At first I thought I got a bad disc out of audio sync, then had to surmise it was a foreign film since I couldn't read the jacket... English dialog dubbed. If they'd casted the right person for dubbing the dialog, this film MIGHT have been decent. I gave it a chance of about 20 minutes before ejecting it when I discovered the bad line reader wasn't going to get killed off, but stay as the constant main fixture. Yes, it is THAT bad! The jacket cover art and the art done in the film are great, so gave the one star, but minus 1,999,999 stars for the rotten dialog. I do not recommend this one!
This movie is a rather odd mix of musical, romance, drama and crime with a sniff of film-noir to it. It's basically one messy heap of different genres, of which none really works out like it was supposed to.<br /><br />This movie is an attempt by Mickey Rooney to be taken more serious as an actor. He's a former child-star who always used to star in in happy comical- and musical productions at the start of his career. In this movie he picks a different approach (although the musical aspects are still present in the movie). But his role is actually quite laughable within the movie. I mean Mickey Rooney as a tough player? He's an extremely small boyish looking man. He actually was in his 30's already at the time of this movie but he seriously looks more like a 16 year old. Hearing him say babe to women and hearing talking tough to gangsters who are about 3 times bigger than he is just doesn't look and feel right. He simply isn't convincing in his role.<br /><br />Because the movie mixes so many different genres, the story also really feels as a messy one. Somewhere in it there is a crime plot and somewhere in it is a romantic plot-line and one about living your dream but none of it works out really due to the messy approach and handling of it all. It just isn't an interesting or compelling movie to watch. László Kardos is also a director who has done only 10 movies in his lifetime, despite the fact that his career span from 1935 till 1957. He must have been a struggling director who had a hard time getting work into the industry and instead once in a while was given a lesser script to work with. His movies are all unknown ones and normally also not of too high quality.<br /><br />Let's also not forget that this is a '50's movie but yet it more feels like a '40's one or perhaps even as one from the '30's. This is of course mostly due to the fact that this movie got shot in black & white. Generally speaking black & white movies from the '50's often have a cheap looking feeling over it and this movie forms no exception.<br /><br />It's a rather strange sight seeing Mickey Rooney and Louis Armstrong and his band as themselves performing together in a sequence. It wasn't the only movie Armstrong appeared in though and he would often pop up in these type of movies, often simply as himself. I guess jazz lovers can still somewhat enjoy watching this movie due to its music, since there is quite an amount of it present in this movie. The movie actually received an Oscar nomination for best original song.<br /><br />An awkward little movie and outing from Mickey Rooney.<br /><br />4/10
I was at first disgusted with director Sun-Woo Jang because I had felt that he cheated me. Jang had the potential to create a strong, deeply emotional film about sex and its effects on people, but instead chose to focus his strength on the pornography element more than the actual human element. I couldn't see the characters at first and his sloppy introduction which blended both realism and cinema together was amateurish at best … yet this film remained in my mind for days after I viewed it. What stayed with me wasn't the story, it wasn't the characters, nor was it the apparent pornographic nature of the film, but the transition that Jang demonstrated between Y and J. If you watch this film carefully, you will see that both begin in an exploration phase of their relationship, eager to jump into the unknown, but not quite certain the next step. As they continue to meet, exploring new avenues of pleasure, they continually jump between the aggressor and the aggressed. Jang initially explores the idea that J is the one that in control of the situation, then hauntingly, the reversal happens when J becomes obsessed with Y. It is a very small change, and due to the graphic content of this film, it can easily be missed, but it is there. It becomes apparently clear near the end when J cannot live with Y, as their meetings become less frequent, and J attempts to become a part of normal society. This was a huge and very exciting element to this film to see right before your eyes, but alas, it was the only element of this film worth viewing.<br /><br />I will ignore those that speak of this film as nothing more than pornographic, because there are human elements at the core of this film, as underdeveloped as they are, they are there. It is a film about a facet of our lives that is very rarely explored in cinema or talked about in the papers. What happens behind closed doors is never known … or so we should believe. While the act itself does becomes repetitive after a bit, director Jang tries to change it up a bit with some constantly changing scenery. Our characters are continually moving from hotel room to hotel room to best quench their thirst for each other's flesh. This is fun at first, but again, Jang's repetitive streak seems to make it feel boring than exciting. This leads me to the biggest issue that I had with this film. Jang had a great story with Gojitmal, but where he failed (outside of the obvious choice to focus directly on the pornographic side) was that he took scenes, repeated them time and again, without changing in front of us to allow us to get to know the characters. Where was Jang going with this movie? Did he want the sex to tell the stories, or did he believe the characters would? He failed in this sense because by the end of the film we know so little about Y and J that we could care less how they resolve themselves. The ending seems almost random at best as Jang attempts to create a final resolution for our two, absolute unknowns, of this film. I have to give Jang some credit for trying, but not much. He attempted to create some sub-stories that would create the personal element that we were lacking, but they just couldn't congeal well together. Y's brother and J's wife were those plot points, but again, due to him focusing so strongly on the sexual element, these stronger sub-stories became un-rememberable and down-right dull. Maybe it was just how I viewed this film, but outside of the sexual scenes, nothing else worked together. We knew nothing about J and Y and that is why Gojitmal failed.<br /><br />Finally, I would like to say that this film could have benefited from having a strong score or a daftly remote music genre element to it to bring us, the viewers, closer to the emotions being felt by J and Y. From what I can remember, and I am trying to push this film far from my mind, I don't remember any musical undertones. Gojitmal may have been a stronger film if Jang either stylized it with music or done something to allude towards our character's beings. While I understand that he wanted the sex to speak for itself, there was just a technical element missing from this film that may have quenched a stronger desire for more. Technically, this was a poor film. Obviously an independent film in nature, it felt more like director Jang was trying to make symbolic references out of nothing instead of your typical independent of this nature. I didn't see as much of a social message or human element like mentioned above, I just felt like he threw this film together over the course of two weeks and understood that the sex would sell it enough. This was no Larry Clark production; this was sub-par and definitely needed some further technical clicks to develop it stronger than the final release! <br /><br />Overall, I think I could have liked this film and there were smaller elements that I did enjoy, but I felt this film was rushed, repetitive, and played too much towards the taboos instead of breaking them. The obvious pitfalls of this film can be seen by the last scene of this film when we are privy to how the title of this film was conceived. Our characters were uneventful, our story was underdeveloped, and we could have used something memorable to make what was happening between Y and J into something more symbolic than sex. To me, Jang was trying too much to capture art house meets pornographic … and it failed miserably. This was not a film worth the time and effort that it took to make.<br /><br />Grade: ** out of *****
I saw this feature as part of the Asian American Film Festival in New York and was horrified by the graphic, sado-masochistic, child pornography that I witnessed. The story line is hidden beneath way too many graphic sex scenes - and, not one is in the least bit erotic - sick is the more the feeling. The director seemed to be going for shock value rather the exploring the various levels of why these characters are like this. See it if you can stomach it - I still have flashbacks.
"Lies" tells about an affair between an 18 year old bucktoothed female student and a scrawny 38 year old married man with the pair of protags spending about half the screen time engaged in naked sex and hokey whipping and the other half meandering through the pathetically naive storyline which seems little more than an excuse for the sex scenes. With very poor production value including obvious sanitary appliances and phony softcore sex to a story which is a messy mix of comedy and drama, "Lies" quickly becomes redundant ad nauseam. With an almost 2 hour run, subtitles, and so little substance, "Lies" is simply not recommendable. (C-)
the Germans all stand out in the open and get mowed down with a machine gun. the Good guys never die, unless its for dramatic purposes. the "plot" has so many holes its laughable. (Where did the German soldiers go once they rolled the fuel tank towards the train? Erik Estrada? Please!) And the whole idea, hijacking a train? How moronic is that! The Germans KNOW where you are going to go, its not like you can leave the track and drive away! What a waste. I would rather bonk myself on the head with a ball peen hammer 10 times then have to sit through that again. I mean, seriously, it FELT like it was made in the 60s, but it was produced in 88!! 1988!! the A-Team is more believable than this horrid excuse for a movie. Only watch it if you need a good laugh. This movie is to Tele Sevalas what Green Beret was to John Wayne.
It really was that bad. On a par with the (mercifully!) short-lived "Dirty Dozen" TV series that starred Ben Murphy and was made at around the same time (also on the cheap in Yugoslavia).<br /><br />I was embarrassed for the cast members of this film - and for Telly Savalas in particular. He was waaaaaay too old and fat for the role (pushing 70 when he made this garbage), and the reviewer who draws parallels with Telly the Greek in this and John Wayne in "The Green Berets" pretty much sums it up.<br /><br />Other reviewers have pointed out some of the many laughable howlers that this crime against celluloid contains, so I won't repeat them here. But I will add that I'm amazed that no-one's yet mentioned the ridiculously tiny-looking helmet that Savalas wears on his big, bloated head. <br /><br />I'm also astonished that this trainwreck of a film has a rating as high as 4.7 here at IMDb.<br /><br />As far as I'm concerned, it's a "1" right across the board. If you want a good example of why flogging a franchise to death really is a bad idea (especially 20-plus years after the original) - look no further than "The Dirty Dozen - The Fatal Mission".<br /><br />Awful - avoid!!!!
Another made for TV piece of junk! This is an insult of a war movie (I use the word movie in it's loosest possible form!) I thought Telly Savalas's career had hit rock bottom when he did the voice over on that visit Birmingham video that's shown on Tarrant on TV on a semi regular basis, but then I'd forgot he was involved in this! I'd tried to push it into my subconscious memory, but cable TV brought the memory kicking and screaming out of me!! <br /><br />I like the bit (laughs sarcastically!) in the film which claims to be a scene from Liverpool in the forties, but it's blatantly a shot of Zagreb Cathedral in the late eighties. Also the steam train the Commando's are training on shows the JZ (Jugoslavia Zeleznice, or Yugoslav state railways) logo's on the side of the locomotive quite clearly, even though the makers have tried to black them out. Why not just film in the UK, if that's where most of the film is set? <br /><br />Cheap rubbish, and a waste of celluloid!
As a Native film professor, I can honestly say that this is perhaps one of the worst films with Native content that I have ever viewed. I would rather get a root canal than view this film again. The use of stereotyping, uncreative attempts at utilizing portions of traditional coyote stories and poor camera work were only made worse by the glib uncreative story-line and bad script. The writer and director have displayed the worst parts of a colonized approach to portraying Native people and communities. If this person is Native, they need to go home and apologize to everyone they know for being an apple and for the internalized racism and poor sense of humor that they have developed. If this person is non-native, they need to seriously re-examine their white privilege and ask themselves if they are displaying unexamined, unintentional racism, or if they are intentionally being ignorant. My only hope is that the Native actors in this film had a good time and at least got paid for their efforts. If you want to see good Native films then check out: Christmas in the Clouds, Dance me Outside, Medicine River, PowWow Highway, Smoke Signals...to name just a few.
This movie is ridiculous. Anyone saying the acting is great and the casting is superb have never seen even mediocre cinema. The acting is obviously terrible in the first 5 characters you meet. Lame. I feel like all the other "soaring" comments must have been made by people associated with the filmmakers. I was not very impressed by the storyline, but just wanted to see some beautiful Oregon countryside, and there was some decent cinematography--but the casting was anything BUT inspired. I think this movie also makes a mockery of the generally noble suggestion that something deep in the Amerindian culture has been ignored and perhaps lost and that reviving it is worthwhile, and possible. It places jokes in the wrong and all-too-obvious places, and makes me think it was written by the State Department or something. Back to the drawing board. To even suggest that this film deserves a place in the same vicinity of classics like Harold and Maude is absolutely retarded, and along the same line of begging and pretension and "joking" as is rampant in this film.
My wife and I really had high hopes for this film, but it was a major disappointment. It was a Native American version of Mr. Magoo. A pathetic father who fails at everything he tries e.g. fishing, hunting, in an obvious way he subjects his family to his wild fantasies. His "visions" are not only ridiculous but in the process he lies to his son numerous times about various obvious things. Words cannot express how bad this film is. The children and wife are very real which makes the film even sadder. I don't get the humor... unless you like laughing at other people making a fool of themselves. I don't get how this could have come up for awards. Save your bucks, it's not worth the rental.
OK, so Mr. Agrama's company (which is involved in some dubious business with former Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi) produced a horrendous mish-mash by a Mr. Carl Macek.<br /><br />What is this horrendous mish-mash I'm talking about? Well, Macek took three entirely unrelated Japanese sci-fi animated series (namely, Macross, Southern Cross and Mospeada), added TONS of dialogue - believing firmly that the American audience is too dumb to understand the narrative and artistic virtue of silence - , edited the whole lot heavily for violent content, added some metaphysical mumbo jumbo, dubbed it using some of the worst voice actors this side of acting Hell (Reba West's singing was - and still is - unbearable and a total outrage, especially compared to Mrs. Mari Iijima)... And the result was an 85-episode series with hundreds of continuity problems and plot holes.<br /><br />Of course, the mecha were cool to look at (especially those in the "Macross Saga") and the plot parts that remained unscathed were good. But whatever was good about Robotech was not the result of Macek's work or the "voice talents" he recruited. It was because of the toils and efforts of the (uncredited - why? would I be too bold to accuse HG of plagiarism here?) Japanese creators. Those of us who eventually got wind of the real deal and compared the originals to Robotech now wish we had never been exposed to Robotech. The originals are so much better, naturally, and make a lot more sense.<br /><br />Robotech, however, DID something worthwhile: it prompted legendary anime creator Leiji Matsumoto to start a campaign for the protection of Japanese anime creators' intellectual property from such unauthorized and uncalled-for reworkings that talentless people like Carl Macek produce.
As far as HEIST movies go, this one is pretty weak. Continuity is pretty lousy, there isn't enough character continuity to really feel like you understand any of the characters. Peter Falk is great, and he is one of the reasons its worth watching. Falk has some great lines, like "he'll be right back, he goin' buy to some saugages" or something like that... there are a few nice scenes, although they are entirely due to the efforts of the actors. Direction, script, and editing is pretty lousy.
When you look at this now and hear all the language in here, it's amazing this was rated "PG," but that's the 1970s rating system for you. Peter Falk spews out the Lord's name in vain six times in the first ten minutes alone in this movie! Yet, few people consider that offensive, and certainly not the scumbags who make movies nor the people who "rate" them.<br /><br />The cast is a clue to how profane this film can be: Falk, Peter Boyle, Allen Garfield, Warren Oates, Gena Rowlands and Paul Sorvino aren't exactly actors you wouldn't find in "The Sound Of Music."<br /><br />I like heist movies, and a lot of films by director William Friedkin, but this script doesn't deliver and it just has way too much of the "Sleazy '70s" feel to it, visually and audibly. For those who loved Falk in TV's "Columbo" it must come as a shock to hear him use as much profanity as he did in films. This is far from the only case.
VAMPYRES <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.85:1<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />A motorist (Murray Brown) is lured to an isolated country house inhabited by two beautiful young women (Marianne Morris and Anulka) and becomes enmeshed in their free-spirited sexual lifestyle, but his hosts turn out to be vampires with a frenzied lust for human blood...<br /><br />Taking its cue from the lesbian vampire cycle initiated by maverick director Jean Rollin in France, and consolidated by the success of Hammer's "Carmilla" series in the UK, Jose Ramon Larraz' daring shocker VAMPYRES pushed the concept of Adult Horror much further than British censors were prepared to tolerate in 1974, and his film was cut by almost three minutes on its original British release. It isn't difficult to see why! Using its Gothic theme as the pretext for as much nudity, sex and bloodshed as the film's short running time will allow, Larraz (who wrote the screenplay under the pseudonym 'D. Daubeney') uses these commercial elements as mere backdrop to a languid meditation on life, death and the impulses - sexual and otherwise - which affirm the human condition.<br /><br />Shot on location at a picturesque country house during the Autumn of 1973, Harry Waxman's haunting cinematography conjures an atmosphere of grim foreboding, in which the desolate countryside - bleak and beautiful in equal measure - seems to foreshadow a whirlwind of impending horror (Larraz pulled a similar trick earlier the same year with SYMPTOMS, a low-key thriller which erupts into a frenzy of violence during the final reel). However, despite its pretensions, VAMPYRES' wafer-thin plot and rough-hewn production values will divide audiences from the outset, and while the two female protagonists are as charismatic and appealing as could be wished, the male lead (Brown, past his prime at the time of filming) is woefully miscast in a role that should have gone to some beautiful twentysomething stud. A must-see item for cult movie fans, an amusing curio for everyone else, VAMPYRES is an acquired taste. Watch out for silent era superstar Bessie Love in a brief cameo at the end of the movie.
I was not nearly as smitten with this as many other reviewers. Sure, it has a pair of lovely girls playing erotic, lesbian vampires. Marianne Morris and Anulka D. play these two lovely sirens with razor teeth that run up to cars on a road out of the way, hitch to their home(at dusk), and invite their prey...sex-starved men to their boudoir. What happens there...well, after they disrobe and kiss each other mostly, they kill their visitors. Director Jose Ramon Larraz does have some flashes of brilliance with his camera. Some scenes are quite eerie and effectively shot, but sex alone does not hold a film up(no pun intended...at least consciously). There really isn't much of a story here. We have the two girls. We are shown some inexplicable and unexplained beginning where we see them shot with pistol. Why? What does it mean" Why do we have the guy that stays for several days greet a guy at the hotel that insists he knows him from years ago? Does that have a purpose? Of course I have even more general questions like what is a couple of nice-looking girls doing as vampires in the English countryside and having a wine cellar filled with wine from the Carpathians? Anyway, the script is riddled with such flaws. It is also very sparse on the action outside of catch victims, wine and dine them(quite literally), and then go to bed in the crypt. The end gets going with some juicier scenes, but it is anti-climatic. There are, as I said, some effective scenes by the director...I particularly liked the way the girls dressed and were filmed in the woods looking for their prey. The house is also a most impressive set. And both girls are as I said very lovely. Marianne Morris in particular stands out - in more ways than one. For you older film fans, silent screen veteran Bessie Love has a brief cameo at film's end.
Ah, the sex-and-gore movie. It's too bad they don't make these anymore (unless you live in Japan). But if they all turned out like this, that is not a bad thing.<br /><br />The movie basically consists of the two lovely vampires picking up "johns" along a country road, taking them home to their castle, having crazy sex with them, and then eating them (except the first victim, who they keep around for no particular reason). Things are complicated when a woman camping with her husband becomes too curious about these mysterious women she keeps seeing. It gets real ugly from here. By the end, the two vamps are in such a bloodlust that they're eating everything in sight, and manage to let their captive victim escape. Oops, so much for that secret existence.<br /><br />The fact that the two vampyres don't mind taking their clothes off and fooling around with each other is the only thing this movie has going for it. Otherwise, it's a bloody, confusing mess (why is their tomb so far away from their castle?), watchable only for the scant few minutes of vampyre playtime. The only thing I got out of this movie was these two valuable bits of advice: shooting lesbians will not kill them; it will only turn them into vampires, and, don't pick up hookers along a country road; they are probably vampires. Other than that, it really wasn't worth my time.
Lesbian vampire film about a couple on holiday who are staying on the grounds of what they think is an empty manor house but is really being used as a pair of lesbian vampires. As the vampires bring in the occasional victim the couple go about their business until the two groups come crashing together.<br /><br />Great looking film with two very sexy women as the vampires there is nothing beyond the eye candy that they provide to recommend this cult film. Yes its a sexy vampire story. No it is not remotely interesting beyond the women. To be honest there is a reason that I've been seeing stills of this film in horror books and magazines it looks great, but other than that...<br /><br />For those who want to see sexy vampires only.
Roman Polanski has made many, many movies that are unexceptional. His fame bewilders me. Nothing stands out as a high point except Chinatown (I haven't seen 'Knife in the Water' or 'Tess'). Any contribution he's made to film concluded more than twenty years ago; his work is just embarrassing, safe and/or dull (The Pianist, Frantic, Oliver Twist, The Ninth Gate, Pirates).<br /><br />R's Baby must have signified the end of the establishment at the time it came out. It's lux-produced and fairly high concept for a 1968 'horror' movie (never show the baby). But this is just misconceived horror sap. Everything is arty to the point that the plot line becomes hopelessly clear very early (Um, thanks for that finale-destroying title), and on a clear day you can see the twist ending coming for days. It did not sustain my interest. I find that whatever this movie might have been, it is utterly derailed by the 1960's version of what femininity was. Farrow is such a chronic distracted, helpless waif/housewife. Her frailty is oversold... she's irritating in the extreme. There's no real ideas in it... nothing to consider except being the mother of the devil.<br /><br />The Dakota is barely exploited for it eerie potential.
I really wanted to like this movie and watched all the way through thinking it had to get better. Don't get me wrong, it's not the worst flick ever but it never lives up to it's potential. The premise is good, the cast is great (I was especially pumped to witness the return of David Naughton) and, God love 'em, you can tell everyone tried their best. It just falls short over and over again. "Brutal Massacre" should serve as a constant reminder to filmmakers that only Christopher Guest can do Christopher Guest movies and, despite the fact he makes it look easy, you should probably just forget trying to do the same. Naughton and Brian O'Halloran are fantastic in this and they should be seen more often...they are the reason this gets 4 stars from me. If you're going to have the "Spinal Tap" of horror I suspect you might want the guy who made "Spinal Tap" to helm it...just thinking out loud there.
I saw this movie a few days ago... what the hell was that?<br /><br />I like movies with Brian O'Halloran, they are funny and enjoyable. When I saw a name of this title and genre I thought great, this one could be really good... some parody for slashers or another gore movies... but.. then i read a preview and thought right it could be good anyway... but it wasn't...<br /><br />my opinion: if like movies they look little bit like documentary, with little bit of comedy try some Moore's movies or Alien autopsy, they are really about something. this one was empty. <br /><br />and put A comedy to title... no comment... really bad joke
Alright, so I've been dying to see this movie. Stoked about the, "who's who" in horror land that are in the film....well, my friend rented this, brought it over, and we started watching it. It's supposed to be a comedy....I did not smirk even ONCE, until the 40min mark.<br /><br />Does it have to do with the budget? Not at all, in fact, there's films out there that cost CLOSE TO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and they're amazing (to me anyways). Also, while watching this film, I couldn't help but realize the similarities (i.e., STEALING) to a low budget indie film titled, "ACTRESS APOCALYPSE", read my review about it (it DESTROYS this film BTW).<br /><br />This film...it had potential it really did. It had the "star power", stolen plot (lets film the behind the scenes of the making of a movie...IE..."ACTRESS APOCALYPSE"....seriously, this angers me the more and more I think about),...it really could've been funny. A LOT, A LOT of the jokes fall flat. The acting is alright for what it is. But it dragged on, wasn't funny, and the plot was totally stolen.<br /><br />I give this a two, because it wasn't SOOO AWFUL, but that's the ONLY reason.
It's funny, when you stop and think about it: fright film fans tend to a deep and abiding affection toward those who scare the daylights out of them. THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE may give us nightmares, but who among us (the Faithful) didn't feel a very real twinge of love for Gunnar Hansen in BRUTAL MASSACRE- or for Ken Foree, forever and ever the resolute hero of the original DAWN OF THE DEAD? His cameo in the remake made me want to stand up and cheer (as did Tom Savini's cameo); I kid you not. And Brian Halloran and... Well, you get my drift (if not, just stand downwind...). These are some of the Heroes of Horror. To see this many of them gathered together in a single movie is almost unheard of (at least to this degree, to my knowledge). If only the writer(s) had been up to such a monumental task. Maybe someone else, somewhere along the line, will try again. As long as it's not another half-hearted effort (like BROTHERHOOD OF BLOOD, for instance).
bad acting, bad southern accents, inconsistent cinematography, horrible script...<br /><br />I was looking forward to this film at a recent film festival and was so discouraged after seeing it. It contains quote/unquote name talent, but they do not deliver. Of course the basis for this is the uneven and uninteresting story that is told.<br /><br />don't bother
They're showing this on some off-network. It's well crap. While it is not as bad as the B-movies they show on the Sci-fi network on Saturdays but still a fairly large pile of crap. The acting is passable. The plot and writing are fairly sub-standard and the pacing is entirely too slow. Every minute of the movie feels like the part of the movie where they're wrapping things up before the credits - not the peak of the movie, the denouement. Also, large portions of the cast look way to old for the age range they're playing. The whole thing is predictable, boring and not worthy of being watched. Save your time. It's not even worth the time it takes to watch it for free.
This movie is a modest effort by Spike Lee. He is capable of much more than this movie.Get on the Bus while apparenly anti racist, does nothing but berate whites and degrade the black status quo. The plot of this movie is about a group of black men who travel on a bus to Louis Farrakhan's million man march. The bus has every type of person you could imagine:gay, muslim, gangbanger and the Uncle Tom(He is thrown off the bus though). There was one only white person on the bus. He was accused of being a racist the minute he got on the bus to drive. Despite him being a jew and the fact that he explained is situation he ended up being a racist and leaving the bus.I hate to say it but films like this need to realize their own hipocracy and rienforcation of steryotypes. This should not be seen as a triumph but a sad dissapointment. You may think I am a racist for writing this but I mean well. Better luck next time Spike.
Another FINE effort by America's most UNDERrated filmmaker. His knowledge on the subject of racism is STAGGERING, and IMPRESSES me on more than one level. Accusations that Lee is really just a devious little racist, a poisonous dwarf who opportunistically exploits Hollywood's Affirmative Action system to make movies of inferior quality is utter NONSENSE, mere Right-Wing propaganda. The very notion that Lee would resort to misusing the current climate of political correctness in America in order to produce hate-filled anti-white movies is simply FALSE and malicious.<br /><br />Some of Lee's detractors even go so far as to suggest that GOTB glorifies African-Americans, while putting down other races: obviously, another FALSEHOOD disseminated by people who are AGAINST peaceful co-existence between different races in America and elsewhere.<br /><br />My favourite scene in the movie is a lengthy dialogue early on between the rich black Republican and the others in the bus. The views presented by that man are simply WRONG - all across the board. 100% UNTRUE. He LACKS education, unlike the brilliantly INFORMED guys who quite DESERVEDLY throw him off the bus.<br /><br />TERRIFIC performances, and an INTELLIGENT script make for a viewing experience that has been RARELY rivaled by any political movies made since.<br /><br />I also want to point out the incessant LIES that the Million-Man March had only 80,000 people taking part in it!<br /><br />(And now all you have to do is take the antonyms of all the words written in capital letters...)<br /><br />So what message does Lee send here? If someone doesn't agree with your political views, you simply apply violence and throw him off the bus. I thought the movie said "get ON the bus"...?<br /><br />Apparently, Mr.Lee is for bus-segregation after all, i.e. is no different than those KKK lunatics before him: the bus is only for those blacks who are in line with the Democratic Party's line of thinking. So much for "freeing the slaves"...<br /><br />The end-credits: "This movie was entirely financed by black people." And distributed and marketed by a major Hollywood studio run by Jews and whites whom Farrakhan despises...
I just have to add, in case anyone actually reads this and hasn't completely gotten the point yet. These other reviewers aren't joking around, this really IS the worst colour movie you're likely to ever see. When the movie started I couldn't believe something like this actually made it out for the world to see.<br /><br />They're not just saying it when they said it looks like a home movie. It really does. Like the "director" took the family hi8 camcorder (before DV cameras and computer non-linear editing), no other equipment (lights, sound gear, etc), grabbed some decent-looking acting students, and went out to shoot a movie. No script, just making it up as he went along.<br /><br />When I watched it, it was on my mono TV, so I only have one channel of audio (left of right speaker). At first I thought I'd hooked it up wrong. The movie was silent until someone spoke a couple of minutes in. I got up and switched over to the other channel and suddenly I could hear music and sound effects but then couldn't hear the dialog. They recorded the sound on different bloody channels! I mean, there's movies that can be funny to watch, so bad they're good, kind of thing. I'm not sure this is one of those. I mean, I'll admit to being a bit of a budding film maker. And seeing bad movies just makes you want to go out there and PROVE you can do it better, you know. But watching this just made me feel sorry for whoever made it.<br /><br />As bad as they were, the actors are the only good thing about this. I thought the chick was hot and was disappointed in the brevity of her bath scene. A bit of T and A from her would have raised the score from nothing to maybe a 3 or 4. But alas, no. If you want to make a movie but it's turning out crap, throw in some gratuitous nudity. Worked for Roger Corman.
I'll start by apologizing to filmmakers everywhere for using the terms "filmmaker", "film", or "movie" in connection with this, but "criminal" and "crime against humanity" seem a bit harsh.<br /><br />The writing: pathetic.<br /><br />The directing: pathetic.<br /><br />The acting: pathetic.<br /><br />The cinematography: too inept for words.<br /><br />The technical skills used to assemble this atrocity: NONE WHATSOEVER.<br /><br />This lump of waste could hardly be called cinema. The majority of family home movies come closer to earning that distinction than Revenge Quest. No, this is just a 10 car pile-up caught on video.<br /><br />We'll skip the plot in this review, because there are far too many holes to be covered at once. Let's just say that it stinks worse than the rest of this movie. To call the acting one-dimensional would be giving them credit. What little there is, is atrocious to begin with, and made much worse by the terrible video and editing.<br /><br />The worst part of this atrocity, though, apart from the plot, would have to be the effects... or rather the disturbing lack thereof. There are no blanks in the guns, no flashpots, and what few sound effects existed were either stock "gun" sounds, or they were generated by mouth (yeah, you read that right). The filmmaker actually had the audacity to record a "shh" sound for the elevator doors; I guess he felt it made them sound more futuristic. This is supposed to be set in the year 2031, after all. That doesn't explain the sounds he created by mouth for the fist-fight scenes, however.<br /><br />If it wasn't bad enough that the sound quality is terrible (he just used the microphone that was mounted on the video camera, and it shows), the use of stock gun sounds was almost worse than not using any sounds at all. The sound effects stand out from the rest of the soundtrack like a drunken yak in a herd of sheep, and they're just as clumsy. Picture this: The bad guy enters an office building searching for his prey. A lady starts to run in fear. He raises his gun (an uzi), and shakes it. We hear a sound that is clearly not an uzi. The woman runs away from camera, and suddenly a single blood pack (only 1) explodes on her back (looked like she was hit by a paintball), and she falls flat on her face.<br /><br />Bear in mind that my description does far too much justice to the ineptitude of the actual sequence.<br /><br />In another sequence, one which almost- but not quite- makes the movie funny enough to watch, takes place in a stairwell. The bad guy chases the good guy and the lady he's protecting down the stairs, shaking his plastic uzi all the way. You may wish to duck; there are badly timed sound effects flying all over the place.<br /><br />I supposed Alan DeHerrera can't be locked away for conceiving of this train wreck, but he did follow through all the way to editing and releasing it. If there's any justice, there's bound to be some karma out there with his name on it.<br /><br />Should you decide to watch this lump of industrial waste- and I would strongly advise against it- be sure to watch for the entire scenes lifted nearly verbatim from Bladerunner, and the AM radio that doubles as a walkie-talkie. Try not to focus too hard on the plot; it will only hurt you more if you do.<br /><br />0 stars of 10. And that's being generous.
If I were to create a movie thermometer, this movie would be absolute zero. Out of ten stars, I would rate it as follows:<br /><br />Plot: zero stars Video quality: zero stars Sound Quality: zero stars Acting: zero stars<br /><br />It is as though high school students got together one afternoon with a camera, made up a plot and shot a movie. It is so lacking in any artistic value that I'd rather watch kids walking around a high school than watch this movie.<br /><br />HOWEVER, something is to be said for the abysymal depths. The "shootout" in the staircase is one of the most train-wreck funny scenes ever. First of all, the combatants simply wave plastic guns at each other, jerking their arms back and forth to simulate recoil. The pair actually "duck" each other's non-existent bullets. No squibs, no sparks, no blanks, just waving spraypainted squirtguns around. If you want to see two grown men play "actor", give it a spin someday... after you have cleaned the fridge, combed the carpet, polished all of the doorknobs, raked the gravel, straightened the books on the shelf, etc.
Elephants Dream was supposed to be the flagship project of the open source community. And while it was a very interesting idea in concept, in reality it has failed miserably.<br /><br />The film is beautifully rendered, which is probably the only redeeming factor. A huge problem with them, however, is the vast overruse of light bloom. It's horrible, although I guess it helps give the film a dreamlike quality.<br /><br />One thing to note is the terrible voice acting. While Proog's voice actor is at least semi-competent, Emo's voice actor is HORRIBLE. I guess when you have a budget that basically amounts to zero, you can't afford to hire real voice actors. To me it seems like they hired one of the animators to do his voice.<br /><br />As a whole, the movie doesn't really go anywhere. To me it seems like it's more of a "look what we can do" kind of movie instead of a real film. The plot goes nowhere and fails at really showing any interesting point. The whole movie feels like it was made as an excuse to make interesting looking areas.<br /><br />Overall, it may be worth a quick download from the official site, but don't expect anything except pretty graphics.
Well, I was excited at first to download an animated open source movie, only to be ruined by a demo reel. The animation is excellent, the lip syncing is awful, and you keep watching the movie hoping to understand what's going on, only to realize nothing is going on. You feel no emotion for the characters, only pity for the creators for wasting their time. I have seen short films with twice the emotion in half the time! This could of been an excellent short film, if they had just taken the time to hire a real director. I'm sure everyone over at Blender is excited to showcase their software and its rendering capabilities, but sorry guys-story telling is what makes a movie.
As said before, the visual effects are stunning. They're breathtaking. I personally use Blender and graphics like that are not easy AT ALL. But that's all this movie is. Not only is the plot confusing, but the overall conflict is not clear. For example, in the first scene, Proog and Emo are trying to run away from who knows what. The conflict seems to be between man and nature here. Later, when they enter the room of the bottomless pit, Proog explains that "one step out of place and (you're dead)". Here, there's a more precise conflict between the careless man and nature. As the movie progresses, it's clear that a conflict exists between man and nature. But suddenly, a conflict exists between man and man when Proog, out of nowhere, murders Emo. Proog immediately changes from being a caring guardian looking after a lost child to being a "sick man". He betrays us. Not only is this depressing, but we don't care because the conflict between the character's thoughts and actions is not developed. It's not a story about someone, through struggle, emerging stronger. It's depressing and has not point because there's no great truth about the human soul or about the world brought to light like a great drama does. In my opinion, the movie is severely underdeveloped in all aspects. However, the graphics are stunning, but a movie is so much more than mere eye candy. There's no truth, no struggle and a bad surprise ending. In conclusion, an underdeveloped movie without a point. ...but the graphics are good.
This was thought to be the flagship work of the open source community, something that would stand up and scream at the worlds media to take notice as we're not stuck in the marketing trap with our options in producing fine work with open source tools. After the basic version download ( die hard fan here on a dial-up modem ) eventually got here I hit my first snag. Media Player, Mplayer Classic & winamp failed to open it on my xp box, and then Totem, xine & kaffeine failed to open it on my suse server. Mplayer managed to run it flawlessly. Going to be hard to spread the word about it if normal users cant even open it...<br /><br />The Film. Beautiful soundtrack, superb lighting, masterful camera work and flawless texturing. Everything looked real. And then the two main characters moved.... and spoke... And the movie died for me. Everything apart from the lip syncing and the actual animation of the two main characters ( except for Proog in the dancing scene ) looked fluid and totally alive. The two main characters were animated so poorly that at times i was wondering if there are any games on the market at the moment with cut-scenes that entail less realism than this.<br /><br />Any frame in the movie is fantastic.. as a frame, and the thing is great if neither actors are moving. I'm so glad i haven't actually recommended this to anyone. I'd ruin my reputation.<br /><br />Oh, and final fantasy had a more followable and cunningly devised plot.<br /><br />this movie would get 10 stars if it wasn't for the tragedy that sits right there on the screen.
Scary Movie 3 (2003) was a bad idea to begin with. The last film was a mediocre effort. Put it next to this load, it's a comedy classic. Whilst part two was filled with a lot of dated humor and cheap shots, at least it was funny. There's nothing funny about forced humor. Jokes, pratfalls and sight gags are supposed to be naturally funny. Hitting the viewer over the head with tired jokes is not cool. The humor in this film was caters to juvenile imbeciles who'll laugh at anything. When they catered to the junior high school crowd, any sense of self respect was tossed out the window. Ring parodies are not funny. I have watched them in comedies since 1998. They're so dated. Michael Jackson jokes are not cool either. What's even worse is making fun of two broken down has been "performers" whose best days were NEVER.<br /><br />The death of American cinema has been a slow one. Films like this are the nails that are being pounded into it's coffin. Whatever happened to real humor? I haven't laughed out loud in a movie theater in a long time. Too many bad movies rot the brain. You want proof? Go to your local mega chain video rental store and see what's on the shelves. This movie is bad. Don't believe the hype. I would rather watch Scary Movie 2 in a continuous loop than to suffer through this poor excuse of a comedy ever again!<br /><br />Definitely not recommended (unless you have a handful of brain cells).
Scary Movie 3 is such a stinkfest its hard to put it in words. It makes movies like Malibu's Most Wanted look like Oscar material, lets just say that.<br /><br />The original Scary Movie was great fun, one of the better 90s spoof movies, coming from a great team who previously rocked our world with Dont Be A Menace to South Central Whilst Drinking Your Juice in the Hood. But what the hell happened?! After the tragedy that was Scary Movie 2, i thought the cast and crew change would help matters, but its even worse.<br /><br />Within 20mins i'd smiled twice. Not one laugh, the jokes were recycled and originality was obviously no factor. The fact that at this point in writing, the majority of people on this site have voted it 10/10 has made me feel physically ill. When there's great flicks like School of Rock out, which actually have jokes that are *gasp* funny, anyone wasting their money on tripe like this needs their head examined.<br /><br />no stars/****
<br /><br />"step aside for hollywood veterans?" (the wayan brothers were 'asked') thats what hollyweird demanded and thats what it got. However, like so many of its recent decisions this one was a stupendous mistake.<br /><br />The director is SO out of touch with todays audience, attempting to bring back physical pratfalls and gags in place of funny dialogue is just a DISASTER. I knew it, the audience knew it and the CAST knew it.<br /><br />What a shame, why did they EVER consider changing directors? Not only that but the two Wayan brothers played as two of four primary characters, without them its just a farce and a sad one.<br /><br />SP<br /><br />
Scary Movie 3 isn't as funny as its predecessors but its still has its funny moments. It all begins when roving reporter Cindy Campbell sets out to find a hard news story in the middle of television sweeps. She soon uncovers an outrageous onslaught of globe-threatening developments including alien invaders, killer videotapes, freaky crop circles and much more. Faced with conspiracies of massive proportions, and a crew of very strange people following her around, Cindy must fight to stop evil from taking over the world yet again. The plot is a non-issue here as the first two were pretty much plot less. This time around they focus on Signs, The Ring, Matrix Reloaded and 8 mile as well as many others just not as much as the previously mentioned ones. The first one was {imo} one of the funniest films I have ever seen. The second one wasn't as good but still quite funny. The third one is mildly enjoyable but its nothing special. Let's just say that I didn't mind seeing it once but I probably wouldn't want to see it again. The jokes are either hit or miss and the ones that are funny usually involve Charlie Sheen. The lame ones usually involve Anthony Anderson as he is very overrated. Why he keeps getting cast is unclear because he isn't funny. Anna Faris gives a funny performance and she's also kind of underrated. Simon Rex shows some potential as he actually wasn't so bad. Regina Hall also returns as Brenda and she gives a pretty funny performance. The rest of the cast were pretty much a bunch of cameos. Jenny McCarthy and Pamela Anderson probably had the funniest scene out of all the cameos. Their in the opening sequence spoofing The Ring and that scene turns out to be on of the more enjoyable ones in the film. Denise Richards, Queen Latifah, Camryn Manheim and many others also have cameos. David Zucker directs and while this isn't another Airplane, it's also not another My Boss's Daughter either. Its pointless to really analyze a straight comedy as the main thing that people want to know if its funny or not. Like I said before if you do like it, you probably won't really like it that much. In the end, I found it a bit disappointing as the PG-13 rating kind of weaken it but it can still be enjoyed. Rating 6.3/10
Hollywood does it again. Lots of money, no creativity. I'm sure the writers were on something other than oxygen when they wrote this one. Based on the previews, I thought that this would be a funny movie. But if you are not up on the latest stupid pop culture then you'll miss most of the silly humor in this movie. Why waste your time. You can sit on a log doing nothing and have more fun than this movie will provide.<br /><br />
Well...i was going to wait till this came out on video to see it, and i wish i had, I actually caught scary movie 2 on cable the other day, and it made me yearn for more of the same, what i got was AIRPLANE on CRACK... i mean if you like Airplane or any other Leslie nielsen vehicles, then you'll probably be in heaven, but if your used to the usually WAYANS COMEDY, then you will be dissapointed, there was alot more Eye candy in this one which will keep young hormone raged teenage boys happy, which is probably why it was a box office hit the first week it came out. I enjoyed scary movie 2 ten times more then this fodder, and part one 5 times as much. Odd that the better of the 3 is part 2, but then again i always liked Halloween 2 better then the original as well..maybe its just me. The funniest part of the movie has to be the way the Aliens Say Goodbye. But that wasnt worth the 11 dollars i spent to catch a matinee of this with my fiance. Save yourself cash and catch part 2 again on cable till this is released on Video tape, and then Rent it, dont buy it.
Never before have the motives of the producers of a motion picture been more transparent. Let's see: FIRST, they get every willing televangelist to hype this film as the greatest thing since sliced white bread. NEXT, they encourage as many fundamentalist Christians as possible to purchase copies of the film so as to recoup its paltry production costs and pump up its advertising budget. And FINALLY, when the film hits the theaters, get as many said Christians as possible to see it yet again, bus them into the multiplexes if necessary, NOT on the merits of the film itself, but because a #1 box office opening will be seen as some sort of profound spiritual victory.<br /><br />But THAT, of course, won't be enough. I imagine that any film critic with the audacity to give "Left Behind" anything short of a glowing review will be deemed "anti-Christian."<br /><br />Of course, this shamelessly manipulative marketing campaign shouldn't surprise anyone. It is, after all, good old fashioned Capitalism at work. What DOES surprise me is how many people have been suckered into the whole "Left Behind" mindset. As someone who tries to balance his spiritual beliefs with some sense of reason and rationality, it leaves me scratching my head. It would appear that there are many, MANY people who actually believe that sometime in the near future a "Rapture" is going to occur, and that millions of people all over the Earth are going to simultaneously vanish INTO THIN AIR. What kind of reality, I wonder, are these people living in? Is this "Rapture" something they actually believe in, or is it something they fervently WANT to believe in? And when they reach the end of their lives and realize this "Rapture" has not occurred, will they be disappointed and disillusioned? Will there still be people 100 years from now insisting that the "Rapture" is imminent?<br /><br />In a way, I almost wish that such an event would occur! What an interesting day that would be! What would be even more interesting is if the Apocalypse were to occur in a more spectacular fashion, not in the anthropological sense the authors of the "Left Behind" series have portrayed, but as more of a Stephen Spielberg production, with boiling clouds, trumpets, angels descending out of the sky, Moon turned to blood, the whole nine yards. Imagine coming to the realization that it was all coming true, just as the evangelists had been warning for years, and that there was something more awesome than just the cold, hard, physical reality we inhabit. Wouldn't THAT be something???<br /><br />Yet in the final analysis, it's that cold, hard, physical reality that I will content myself with. My life is not so meaningless that I need the fear of a "Rapture" and the "End Times" to make sense of it all ... nor do I need Heaven or Hell to bribe or scare me into behaving decently, thank you very much.
Left Behind is an incredible waste of more than 17 million dollars. The acting is weak and uninspiring, the story even weaker. The audience is asked to believe the totally implausible and many times laughable plot line and given nothing in return for their good faith. Not only is the film poorly acted and scripted it is severely lacking in all the technical areas of filmmaking. The production design does nothing to help the credibility of the action. The effects are wholly unoriginal and flat. The lighting and overall continuity are inexcusably awful; even compared to movies with a tenth of the budget. However none of this will matter in that millions of families will no doubt embrace the film for it's wholesomeness and it's religious leanings; and who can blame them. However it is unfortunate that they will be forced to accept 3rd rate amatuer filmmaking.
I've read every book to date in the left behind series, and the movie hardly does any of them justice. Sure, I've seen worse movies, but this was incredibly disappointing. This movie would have made a good MST3K episode. The script was a horrible adaptation of the book, and it felt like the actors were reading their lines, instead of actually saying them. The characters were stiff and unlikeable. The effects were cheesy, and looked terribly fake. The ending was awful. First of all, it didn't even go all the way through the first book. Second, it made no sense. If you hadn't read the book, you'd have no idea what was going on. It had to have been the most cheesy, film student-like ending I've ever seen in a movie. I'm upset that I actually paid money for this movie. If by some miracle, it does get wide release, they ought to totally overhaul it and let Hollywood take over. Those two wannabe film producers, and the wannabe director should leave movie making to the professionals.
I'm not a fan of the Left Behind book series - the books are written at a 6th-grade reading level with a lack of research and understanding of science, technology, and politics. While the books do manage to remain faithful to scripture, their methods of fulfilling prophecy are often ridiculous (an example is their explanation for the Russian/Arab invasion of Israel). Also, the books have an unmistakable preachy tone that will turn off unbelievers rather than bring them to the gospel. Still, I found myself reading these books because of my interest in the events of Revelation. For a similar reason, I watched this film adaptation. I am sad to say that it is a rather mediocre film bordering on poor. The acting is actually rather decent for the most part with occasional bits of poor acting and over-acting. The script is rather bad, though it is hardly unexpected when starting with the novel as a basis. The characters are poorly drawn and underdeveloped. Events feel scattered and disconnected. The dialogue sometimes sounds rushed. At least the book managed to flesh out its hokey conspiracy theory. Here, the viewer is left with an incoherent mess that only makes much sense if one has read the book. The pacing of the film is also very poorly executed with the opening and conclusion seeming extremely rushed, and the middle dragging to an excruciatingly slow trudge that makes it feel padded. The music is schizophrenic. At times, it successfully underscores the mood and sounds fitting for a motion picture. At other moments, it reminds me of sitcom and mini-series music. And still other bits remind me of a poppy MTV soundtrack that just doesn't belong in the film. I can give the film points for the scene of panic on board the plane, but that's it. The other scenes involving the disasters after the Rapture are far from compelling. The film also suffers from the book's preachiness although its message isn't quite as in your face. In all, I found the movie just as disappointing as the series. This is not the film to rally Christians around it. I hope that this film does NOT get any attention at the theaters next year. It would be more unnecessary bad publicity for Christianity. For an example of a compelling, intelligent, well-researched series based on Revelation that presents a realistic and Christian world view without offending the secular reader (who after all should be whom a Christian is trying to reach) read the Christ Clone trilogy by James BeauSeigneur. It's a great read and is a much better choice for unbelievers or believers who appreciate quality.
I didn't expect much from this film, but oh brother, what a stinker.<br /><br />I found this gem in a giant crate of awful $5 DVD's at Walmart (where else)? As cheap as this disc was, I feel ripped off. The special effects had a high school look to them, the camera work marred by wobbly tripods and sketchy lighting and the acting was a perfect example of the 'Christian School'. One can imagine the long and exhausting 'prayer meetings' by the production company after seeing the rushes come back - the people who bankrolled this thing must have had seriously anti-biblical feelings towards the inept production company that cranked this thing out. Think of their anguish as they saw their $914.86 investment go up in smoke.<br /><br />Someone asked why Christian movies are so bad - perhaps the Xian film-makers need to look at GOOD movies and attempt to copy some of the things that make them so good. Believable stories and characters, less hysterical arm-waving and fanaticism, oh, and a story that appeals to -everyone-, not just true believers. I.e. Stop The Sermon, Save It For Church. Take the Omen or Prophesy series, for example. Excellent films with compelling story lines, great cinematography and intense music. No hysterical arm-waving. No preaching.<br /><br />If this film had a laugh track it would have been MUCH better.
This movie is maybe one of the most boring movies of 2000 that I have seen! Especially the music fails to create suspense when people suddenly disappear. Also aspects such as martial law are not treated with the necessary seriousness. The story itself has problems: the UN could never take power over the world since the United States alone would not allow it but nations such as China, Russia, Japan, etc. would not either. This would also play against someone trying to take over the world as Nicolae Carpathia does. This reminds me of James Bond movies, only that those have more action! Naturally the movie is made for Christians and only for Christians and they may enjoy it. Since I cannot count myself a Christian I find the whole idea ludicrous. This prophecy furthermore seems to be, if believed to be true, dangerously close to other prophecies by cults for the end of the world. Why fear such a possibility when we can make life as good as possible here on Earth without
What is it with Americans and their hang-up with religious gobbledy-gook? To think this was a best-selling novel is incredible, but to pull it off as a movie you really need good acting and a script that delivers. In this case, all the good actors have gone to heaven and we're left with Kirk Cameron as a CNN-type journalist(!) trying to discover why a lot of people have simply disappeared. Oh yeah, there's a subplot about an evil world conspiracy and famine, or something. The good news is that this is done so cheaply, and with such inane dialogue, that it has sheer entertainment value in all of its unintended laughs. Not recommended for anyone with a 3-digit IQ.
If you made the mistake of seeing the movie before reading the book, please don't give up on the series. I bought my first copy of any of the books in May of this year, and already I'm almost finished with book 10. I dare say the movie is a piece of trash that doesn't do the series even a sniff of justice. While "Left Behind: the movie" only vaguely follows the story of the "Left Behind" (the book), the characters aren't even close to accurate.<br /><br />A few examples: Rayford never acts on his feelings for Hattie (he is about to when he's informed of the vanishings); Buck Williams is a blonde haired, magazine writer, not a TV reporter; Chloe is at Stanford, and a lot of the book details Rayford wondering if she 'survived'; Buck and Chloe don't meet until much later, at a meeting in New York, set up by Hattie; Irene and Raymie are never 'in the book,' rather just in Rayford's flashback thoughts; the roads are so jam packed with wrecks following the rapture that Rayford and Hattie have to helicopter back to the suburbs... etc, etc, etc...<br /><br />And that's just from the first movie; they're about to release the third. Please, even if you didn't like the movies, give the book series a chance.
Surprisingly enough does movie does have some redeeming quality in it when it moves toward its end. For the other part this movie is being a really bad and lame one, with a small budget, insultingly bad written script and everything that goes with it.<br /><br />It's silly that with all the money going around in the Christian circles they never can seem to get sufficient funds to make a decent movie with. I'm not a religious, so I couldn't care less really but film-making does some like a good tool to reach a new audience for churches and getting people more interested and curious in reading the bible for instance. In that regard these movies always seem like a wasted opportunity.<br /><br />The low budget does really hurt the movie and brings it down. It makes the movie laughable to watch with its effects and it just gives the overall movie a campy B-movie like feeling.<br /><br />But what's hurting this movie more is its writing. The stuff that just happens in this movie is just insulting to the intelligence and then I'm not even complaining or talking about the religious aspects of the whole story. The way the movie progresses is just so improbable and the people within this movie do such highly unlikely things that it's being insulting to its viewers.<br /><br />I also hated how the movie was being like a soap opera at times. Seemed to me that they simply had a hard time turning this into a full length movie and they added in some characters and dramatic developments just to fill things up. I just couldn't cared less really at times.<br /><br />Still it needs to be said that the movie gets more solid and steady toward its end, when its story gets more focused on its essence. Still it remains predictable all but it prevented this movie from being a complete wreck to watch and as far as these type of movies are concerned, there are far worser one to watch out there, though I don't think this movie will win over any new souls.<br /><br />4/10
I didn't agree with any of the theology in the Left Behind series, but nonetheless I found the books gripping and I read 8 of 12 of them. Undeniably good writing and interesting story. However, I didn't have very high expectations for the movie. There was no way mainstream Hollywood would have taken up a Christian series and produced a big-budget movie. So it was done independently... and it just felt like I was watching a really long TV show. It just didn't FEEL like a movie; it didn't have that movie "experience" to it, if anybody knows what I'm talking about. So the movie suffered because of that, and the low-budget, poor special effects were another detraction for me.<br /><br />On top of that, I feel that Gordon Currie was woefully miscast as Nicolie Carpathia. Reading the book, my impression of NC was that he was supposed to be this charming, dazzling, amazingly handsome guy who spoke English with almost zero trace of an accent. So I imagined somebody like Pierce Brosnan in the role. Instead, they found some Clay Aiken pencil-neck who looks like an employee of the month from Best Buy, and gave him a really bad fake accent. So that lost a few stars for me right there. A movie is just not convincing when the major villain doesn't look or sound the way he's supposed to.<br /><br />The acting was okay, but nothing to write home about. Some of the scenes - like one of the conversion scenes (can't remember which one) - were real seat-squirmers for me. And some of the Christian rock music or whatever it was, was really out of place for some of the scenes, like in the one with Kirk Cameron praying in the bathroom.<br /><br />In short, it wasn't a bad movie, but it just didn't do it for me. Stick to the book, folks, it's much better.
This is a classic stinker with a big named cast, mostly seniors who were well past their prime and bedtime in this one.<br /><br />This is quite a depressing film when you think about it. Remain on earth, and you will face illness and eventually your demise.<br /><br />Gwen Verndon showed that she could still dance. Too bad the movie didn't concentrate more on that. Maureen Stapleton, looking haggard, still displayed those steps from "Queen of the Star Dust Ballroom," so much more down to earth from 10 years earlier.<br /><br />I only hope that this film doesn't encourage seniors to commit mass suicide on the level of Jim Jones. How can anyone be idiotic enough to like this and say it gets you to think?<br /><br />Why did Don Ameche win an Oscar for this nonsense?<br /><br />If the seniors were doing such a wonderful thing at the end, why was the youngster encouraged to get off the boat? Why did Steve Guttenberg jump ship as well? After all, he had found his lady-love. <br /><br />This would have been a nice film if the seniors had just managed to find their fountain of youth on earth and stay there.<br /><br />Sadly, with the exception of Wilford Brimley, at this writing, Vernon, Gilford, Stapleton, Ameche, Tandy, Cronyn and lord knows who else are all gone. The writers should have taken the screenplay and placed it with this group as well.
The best thing about camp films in general is that you know what to expect. It's like watching a professional wrestling match or a day time soap opera or a Jerry Springer show: you immediately can follow the skimpy plot, identify the cardboard characters, and watch in satisfaction while all the cliches are being fulfilled. However, at times, the director does something real unexpected. It may be something extraordinarily stupid, or something weird, or something insightful. The director Makinen is up there with the best camp directors, and this is his best movie.<br /><br />In Yon saalistajat, everything seems to come together. There's nothing good about it, but still manages to be a coherent whole. Not once does the movie slow down - the action flows on and punches keep on coming.<br /><br />The weirdest thing is that there's no sense of time: some characters seem to take months doing something while other characters have only spent one hour at a bar. This is partially due to Finnish summer where the sun never sets, so you don't experience the day turning into a night at all.<br /><br />Finally: there is a plot, there, somewhere. You may have to watch the movie three times before you realize it, though.
Sundown - featuring the weakest, dorkiest vampires ever seen, accompanied by one of the most unfitting, pretentious scores ever written - and with Shane the vampire, who's every move and spoken word was so ridiculous that I burst out laughing half the times and rolled my eyes the rest.<br /><br />The vampires don't seem to have any special powers at all - except for strength (sometimes), being able to switch off a lamp with their mind (one time) and... that's it, really. Ever imagine count Dracula worriedly recoiling from a fight 'cause he ran out of bullets? Neither did I. Practically any other movie-Dracula would eat this one for breakfast, skin his followers and use their bones as toothpicks.<br /><br />The main plot of the movie is that a human family of four gets caught up in a vampire gang fight - Dracula's vs. some old geezer's. It could have been some good old B-flick fun, but the overly dramatic music was clearly written by someone who took this movie a bit too seriously, and ends up ruining the remaining part of the movie not already ruined by clay bats, mediocre acting and the laughable screenplay.<br /><br />In the end it's just too silly to be funny. Sure, it has some amusing moments, but they're few, and far apart.
"Sundown:The Vampire in Retreat" is a rubbish.The acting is terrible,the atmosphere is non-existent and the characters are uninteresting.The only scary thing about this piece of scum is that majority of the IMDb users gave it a 10.This is really horrifying.No gore,no suspense,no violence,nothing.Bruce Cambell("The Evil Dead","Intruder")is completely wasted,the supporting cast is also terrible.Yes,some people may like this picture,especially a mainstream society but hard-core horror fans or gore-hounds won't enjoy this piece of crap.Personally I hate horror comedies,I prefer watching serious horror movies like "Cannibal Holocaust" or "Last House on the Left".In my opinion,a real horror movie is supposed to be scary,excessively bloody and disturbing,without stupid humour,which usually ruins the whole concept.This one isn't scary,isn't gory,isn't even funny as a comedy,so don't waste your precious time.
This may sound crazy to even the people who remember this show...But I remembered this as being live-action. I don't think I ever saw the cartoon. but movie? maybe. I remember it very clearly. The guy was in a building kinda like a showroom. He even had the red jacket. It was dark out and he turned into a red car and there was this guy on the second level looking down at him. The car/guy spun around and crashed through the big showroom type window and out onto the street. And then proceeded to drive off. That is all I remember. I really hope someone else out there remembers this too. If not, Maybe I'm still crazy. But I'm hoping I'm not.
Johnathan Frakes is a good actor and, when he's not directing a family film, a fine director. But, he really shouldn't have directed this movie, and the screenplay should've been rejected. The director and writers must understand what the original TV show was really about, as well as who the characters were and how they worked. The original series had many episodes with razor-sharp writing using good dialogue and with situations that American producers would never consider using in children's programming, much less a movie, which made the original series so well received by adults. I mean, the Tracys were college graduates and some of them did even drank alcohol and smoked tobacco! And, there were characters who did get killed, although most were bad guys. If they had written it the way that it was originally done, which isn't dumbing things down with poor dialogue, kindergarten humor, and a weak plot, this Universal/Studio Canal joint venture wouldn't have such bad reviews. <br /><br />This motion picture is almost pure blasphemy. If you've seen the original Supermarionation series, then you'll know what I'm talking about! <br /><br />The first thing that was out of place and annoying were the constant references to Ford Motor Company, even going so far that Lady Penelope was riding around in a disfigured Ford Thunderbird made up to look like FAB-1 instead of using what would've been more appropriate considering Ms. Penelope's station (not to mention being more faithful to the original), a ROLLS-ROYCE FAB-1. She's supposed to be a distinguished member of British society, hence the preference for England's finest make of motorcars in the original series. One other reviewer here indicated that Penelope wouldn't be caught dead in a Ford. He's pretty much right in the context that the idea of her riding in a Ford doesn't work. At least they could have had Penelope ride in a Jaguar made up like FAB 1 since Jaguar is a British car make that is owned by Ford, but NO! They had to use a straight FORD! But the Ford product placement doesn't end there. EVERY single car you may see is a Ford! Even the news flash that is shown on the TV sets in the movie were sponsored by Ford! Ford, Ford, FORD! The predominance of Ford vehicles makes this movie an obvious marketing vehicle for Ford. <br /><br />The original series had a design that was futuristic for the 1960s and still remains ahead of its time even today. But, the futuristic design in the original series worked because there was an effort to make the design look practical and functional. This kind of treatment didn't exist in the movie, where everything is stylized to excess, defeating the sense of functionality and practicality. A lot of things that were done in the design of the movie were done strictly for style, many times with no sense of function to give that style a sense of reason.<br /><br />The original series relied on good acting performances of the voice talent to overcome the limited expressions in the puppets, bringing them to life in the episodes. The brilliant and lively music score by Barry Gray helped even further to connect the audience with the story, the characters, and how everything came together to help achieve the super objective (a little bit of Stanislavski talk). The movie, on the other hand, had some overly grating performances. Anthony Edwards overplayed Brains to a fault, Bill Paxton as Jeff Tracy just didn't work despite decent acting (one of few), there were better choices for the Hood than Ben Kingsley, and many others that I don't care to mention (it would take too long). Quite simply, the puppets were more believable! Second was the overly generic and underwhelming music score by Hans Zimmer, sounding more like a mix between "Days of Thunder" and "Apollo 13." <br /><br />And, of course, the Hood. The Hood in the original series had an ability to communicate with Kyrano through a statue of Kyrano as an outlet for ESP contact. But, that was where his extraordinary capability ended. He's a master of disguise and deception, which allows him to sneak around undetected (for the most part, anyways) to gather information of the Thunderbirds vehicles for his own means. He also uses weapons for his own defense, including pistols, and generally collects information using a film camera, although he tried to steal Thudnerbirds 1 and 2 in the 1960s United Artists release of "Thunderbird 6" (which was the last Thunderbirds show filmed in Supermarionation and was the second Thunderbirds theatrical release). But, while he is a nemesis of International Rescue, the Hood isn't the villain in every Thunderbirds episode and he tends to avoid direct confrontation with International Rescue. In the movie, he's obviously the main villain, but he and his cohorts seem to act more like morons, along with the Hood having extended mind control ability, including the ability to move objects and move himself into flight for brief periods of time. This totally deviates from the Hood as a character in the original series with one that may leave kids laughing and people familiar with the series scratching their heads in confusion or leaving the theater in disgust.<br /><br />There are more criticisms, but the 1000 word limit for IMDb reviews will not allow me to list all of them. So, I will close with the point being made that I didn't enjoy this movie. As a matter of fact, I think it sucks! Having seen the original series and Supermarionation movies (Thunderbirds Are Go, Thunderbird 6), I was hoping for something a lot better than this.<br /><br />The original Supermarionation was a lot more sophisticated and elegant than this live action farce. (And that's saying it nicely.) - Kip Wells
I've always thought that most huge box-office flops usually have something to recommend them, but after the remake of Around the World in 80 Days and Thunderbirds, I'm beginning to doubt it. For those not familiar, it's based on a puppet show about a family of astronauts who use state of the art rockets, spaceships and subs to rescue people from various disasters (falling bridges, stricken planes, burning buildings, etc) each week. Well, the puppets are gone (replaced by far more lifeless teenagers), and so is the premise - only one ineptly staged rescue and a plot shamelessly ripped off from Spy Kids without any signs of imagination, wit or entertainment. Young Alan Tracey feels left out of all the rescuing we never see the other Traceys do because dad won't let him play with a real rocket until he passes his exams. Grounded on a beautiful tropical island (some punishment!), his chance to shine comes when the rest of the family - a bunch of identikit bleach-blondes who look like a gay neo-Nazi boy band without a single bit of characterisation between them - are stranded in space and he has to have the day by, er, running around the jungle, making a phone call, firing a hose at the inept comedy relief villains and dousing them in gunk for bad measure.<br /><br />The good points are few and far between. One of them is that the film is mostly in focus. The other is they all got to go to the Seychelles, which looks nice.<br /><br />The bad points: where to start? Ben Kingsley's career lowpoint performance? The aforementioned inept comedy relief sidekicks who would disgrace the Children's Film Foundation at its worst? The almost complete lack of action or effects in a $70m sci-fi film? The terrible script, the lifeless direction, the odious moralising? But most of all is the fact that the film is so patronising in every possible way. Forget the life lessons and off the peg sentiment, this is a movie aimed straight at the under-eights by people who know they're making a kid's movie and are constantly talking down to their intended audience, throwing in fifth-rate jokes and routines that would insult most children who had only recently mastered the art of speech. This film could replace being sent to bed early without their dinner as parents' favourite punishment for kids.<br /><br />The biggest flop in British film history (it didn't even cover the cost of prints and marketing), it's just about watchable if only as an object lesson in how NOT to make a summer movie.
The basic formula for the original series was; take someone, get the audience to like them, then put them into Mortal danger. This formula worked for the 32 episodes made between 1964-68. <br /><br />Now, we jump forward 40 years to 2004.. We are introduced to Alan Tracy, a somewhat less-than-diligent college school kid, with his friend, Fermat, a young know-it-all. They are whisked off by Lady Penelope in her pink Ford Thunderbird to the island paradise where the Tracy Family live, for the school holidays. Almost immediately, they are left in the care of Kyrano and his daughter, Tin-Tin whilst the adults go to rescue John from Thunderbird 5 which has been damaged by a staged accident. This is all part of The Hood's scheme to take over Tracy Island so that he can steal the Thunderbird machines ...<br /><br />…To rob a bank!<br /><br />Yes. The plot IS as limp as that!<br /><br />The dialogue is banal, the acting more wooden than that of the (fibreglass) puppets, the effects, anything but special and Hans Zimmer's score…? What little there was of Barry Gray's glorious theme shone through Zimmer's lackluster orchestration. The rest of the score was eminently forgettable. In fact, part of the score was broadcast the following week on the radio and didn't recognise it! I didn't even bother to stay to witness Busted's mediocre efforts with the end titles<br /><br />To be fair, Ron Cook worked quite well as Parker, he and Sophia Myles as Penelope seemed wasted. With the right material, they could have been show stoppers. The CGI work was what I would have called leading edge - 5 years ago.<br /><br />The Dynamics of the main craft were just wrong; The original series models at least moved as if they had mass<br /><br />Another sore point is that the whole production seemed to be one long set of product placements, from every vehicle being built by Ford to the entire content of the Tracy Freezer being produced by Ben & Jerry's.<br /><br />My son (9) enjoyed the film but this cross between Spy Kids and 'Clockstoppers', aimed squarely at his age group, added nothing to the Thunderbirds legend. When Star Trek hit the big screen in 1979 with 'The Motion Picture', a whole new lease of life was breathed into the franchise which then continued for another 20 years or so. With this film, Frakes has missed a golden opportunity to do the same with the Thunderbirds franchise.<br /><br />I predict that this film, like 'The Avengers' and 'the Saint' before it, will sink into obscurity within 6 months, leaving the original series to its 'classic' status.
'Thunderbirds' was an immensely popular Sixties show that has transcended the years and generations to the point it is still as popular now, with both adults and children alike, as it was in its heyday. So, one would deduce the chance to produce a live-action feature film with a million pound Hollywood budget was an excellent opportunity to revive the series as has been done with 'Spider-Man' and 'The X-Men'. But a terrible storyline and bland acting obliterated this opportunity and it was soon apparent all that was destined for this film was a trip to the bargain bin of the kiddies' section.<br /><br />Instead of a film focusing on the five Tracey sons, their father and trusty geek Brain striving to rescue people and protect the world from villains, our hero in this drudge is a malcontent and bratty thirteen-year-old Alan Tracey, fourteen-year-old Tin-tin and ten-year-old brain-box Fermat, son of Brains (yes, Brains' son despite this being a man who could surely never score a woman if he tried; maybe he grew the kid in a petri dish). As one can tell from a run-through of our three lead characters, this 2004 remake 'Thunderbirds' was clearly aimed at entertaining only children under twelve instead of trying to appeal to a broad age-range as those involved in the much superior revival of 'Spider-Man' did. The plot itself was so bland with clunky, awkward dialogue and weak jokes that probably wouldn't amuse brighter pre-teens. The scriptwriter seemed more interested in ripping off 'Spy Kids' (which was at least quirky and original) instead of remaking the show people know and love.<br /><br />Although Sophia Myles and Ron Cook were excellent as Miss Penelope and Parker, they only had about three lines between them so their presence was barely felt. Bill Paxton's Jeff Tracey was just boring and there was only the slightest of mention of the other four Tracey boys while Anthony Edwards and Ben Kingsley, as Brains and the Hood respectively, were just embarrassing. The Hood, in particular, is not at all threatening or sinister and instead comes across as a campy, two-bit stereotypical villain as limp as a piece of rotting lettuce.<br /><br />Brady Corbet, who plays Alan Tracey, may well be a good young actor but it was hard to see that in a film where he plays a whinging brat who just grates and the same goes for Vanessa Anne Hutchinson as Tin-tin since the most she gets to do is look pretty and be all for 'Girl Power'. Ironically, it is young Soren Fulton's Fermat who is the only interesting character of the film as Fulton delivers a natural and relaxed performance.<br /><br />'Thunderbirds' the series will be forever remembered as an excellent show that proves puppets can give solid performances! 'Thunderbirds' the film will be forgotten by most and remembered by a few as one big flop.
Thunderbirds (2004) <br /><br />Director: Jonathan Frakes <br /><br />Starring: Bill Paxton, Ben Kingsley, Brady Corbet <br /><br />5…4…3…2…1! Thunderbirds are GO! <br /><br />And so began Thunderbirds, a childhood favorite of mine. When I heard that they were going to make a Thunderbirds movie, I was ecstatic. I couldn't wait to see Thunderbird 2 roar in to save people, while Thunderbird 4 would dive deep into the…you get the idea. I just couldn't wait. Then came August 2004, when the movie was finally released. Critics panned it, but I still wanted to go. After all, as long as the heart was in the same place, that was all that mattered to me. So I sat down in the theater, the only teenager in a crowd of 50…everyone else was over thirty and under ten. Quite possibly the most awkward theater experience that I have ever had… <br /><br />The movie (which is intended to be a prequel) focuses on Alan Tracy (Brady Corbet), the youngest of the Tracy family. He spends his days wishing that he could be rescuing people like the rest of his family, but he's too young. One day, he finally gets his chance when The Hood (Ben Kingsley) traps the rest of his family up on Thunderbird 5 (the space station). This involves him having to outsmart The Hood's henchmen and rescue his family in time before The Hood can steal all of the money from the Bank of England.<br /><br />Trust me, the plot sounds like a regular episode of Thunderbirds when you read it on paper. Once it gets put on to film…what a mess we have on our hands. First off, the film was intended for children, much like the original show was. However, Gerry Anderson treated us like adults, and gave us plots that were fairly advanced for children's programming. This on the other hand, dumbs down the plot as it tries to make itself a ripoff of the Spy Kids franchise. The final product is a movie that tries to appeal to fans of the Thunderbirds series and children, while missing both entirely. Lame jokes, cartoonish sounds, and stupid antics that no one really finds amusing are all over this movie, and I'm sure that Jonathan Frakes is wishing he'd never directed this.<br /><br />Over all, everyone gave a solid performance, considering the script that they were all given. Ben Kingsley was exceptional as The Hood, playing the part extremely well. My only complaint about the characters is about The Hood's henchmen, who are reduced to leftovers from old Looney Tunes cartoons, bumbling about as, amazingly enough, the kids take them on with ease.<br /><br />What's odd about this movie is that while I was watching the movie, I had fun. But once the lights went up, I realized that the movie was fairly bad, I was $8 lighter, and two hours of my time were now gone. A guilty pleasure? Perhaps. Nonetheless, Thunderbirds is a forgettable mess. Instead of a big "go", I'm going to have to recommend that you stay away from this movie. If the rest of movie could have been like the first ten minutes of it, it would have been an incredible film worthy of the Thunderbirds name. However, we get a movie that only die-hard Thunderbirds fans (if you'd like to watch your childhood torn to pieces) or the extremely bored should bother with.<br /><br />My rating for Thunderbirds is 1 ½ stars.
This is a truly awful film. What they have done is taken a TV show, which was never aimed at young children & given it the George Lucas treatment (i.e. ruined it by kiddifying it to appeal to the younger audience).<br /><br />OK so the Thunderbirds TV show wasn't exactly the most cerebral of shows, in fact it was pretty formulaic, but it was always enjoyable to watch (especially when the models got blown up) and the voice cast wasn't too bad.<br /><br />This suffers from bad casting & bad acting (with the notable exceptions of Sophia Myles as Lady Penelope & Ron Cook as Parker, who seem to be the only cast members to have a clue about how their characters should be played) & after this travesty I wouldn't let Frakes direct traffic.<br /><br />The whole point of Thunderbirds was that it was about the whole Tracy family & how they worked as a team, preventing disasters or coming to the rescue of those involved in disasters.<br /><br />Avoid this rubbish like the plague.<br /><br />I only give it 1 out of 10 because a zero rating is not supported.
OK..this movie could have been soooo good! All generations have been exposed to Thunderbirds and have come to love it and this film had some of the features one would look for in a good thunderbirds movie. The craft themselves and Tracey Island were realistically transferred to the big screen, whilst still keeping to the designs we fell in love with. Sophia Miles was, simply, fantastic, as Lady P and Bill Paxton, whilst not exactly who I envisaged Jeff Tracey being, was solid enough...but then the adults were taken out of the equation and we were asked to believe 8 year olds could fly 200 tonne machines.<br /><br />It's not so much the fact that the movie was centred around the children that made me feel like Jonathon Frakes was slapping me with a wet fish and laughing at my hard earned money spent on the film, it was the fact that Alan Tracey was so obnoxious in the film and that he seemed to be as able to fly the machines as well as his brothers...who were at least 19/20. Seriously, these are some pretty damn simple machines to use if this is the case.<br /><br />The film didn't seem to know whether it wanted to be serious or farcical. It tried to pay homage whilst satirising and it just generally fell flat on its face. 3/10 (2 for the machines, 1 for Lady P)
I grew up (b. 1965) watching and loving the Thunderbirds. All my mates at school watched. We played "Thunderbirds" before school, during lunch and after school. We all wanted to be Virgil or Scott. No one wanted to be Alan. Counting down from 5 became an art form. I took my children to see the movie hoping they would get a glimpse of what I loved as a child. How bitterly disappointing. The only high point was the snappy theme tune. Not that it could compare with the original score of the Thunderbirds. Thankfully early Saturday mornings one television channel still plays reruns of the series Gerry Anderson and his wife created. Jonatha Frakes should hand in his directors chair, his version was completely hopeless. A waste of film. Utter rubbish. A CGI remake may be acceptable but replacing marionettes with Homo sapiens subsp. sapiens was a huge error of judgment.
The most embarrassing moment in this film is when Brady Corbet says 'You've blossomed', near the end the film. I practically died. I'm still not really sure why the screenwriters put that line in there. Was it supposed to create romance? Because it nearly made me sick. <br /><br />The rest of the script was almost as bad.<br /><br />I've never liked the original Thunderbirds, but a Thunderbirds movie had the potential to do so much. This movie doesn't. If it didn't have the big draw card of the Thunderbirds brand, it would have been shafted straight to TV, or canned in the post-production. Maybe even before. <br /><br />Like I said, the best thing about the movie is when the credits roll up and they play Busted's song 'Thunderbirds are go'. I can't believe I wasted $7 watching this through pay-per-view.
ba ba ba boring...... this is next to battlefield earth in science fiction slumberness. genie francis (aka general hospital's laura) has a small role as a reporter and that in itself should tell you that this movie must be bad.... there is ben kingsley (an academy award winning actor) in this stinker and a few others decent actors. You have to wonder what possessed them to decide to do this awful movie. The music dramatically goes up and down like it's a major dramatic story. Even if you pay attention the plot is impossible to follow. The effects are mediocre as well and seem really dated. All of the actors speak in a monotone voice and have no realism to their dialogue. I could go on and on on how this is a bad movie. At least with Battlefield Earth it's so bad it's funny but this is just b o r i n g. Avoid unless you want to be lulled to sleep.
I still haven't gotten to see all of this; it's running on cable right now, and I seem to keep coming in on the middle of it. My main reason for being interested in it is that I'm a Bill Paxton fan; he's a pretty good actor, and has turned in consistently good work over the course of his career.<br /><br />The other thing is that, while never really a fan of the old series, I kinda liked Thunderbirds for the ships and effect work. Derek Meddings was quite possibly the best in the business during the sixties and seventies, and his designs for the International Rescue craft are wonderful. The current team has done a fine job of translating his work to the big screen.<br /><br />BUT...<br /><br />This is one lame story. The kids are asked to drive it, and while they do an okay job, it's hard to suspend your disbelief, especially when you have Brains' eight-year-old son flying T2, an enormous multi-ton transport with all the aerodynamics of a Buick. Everywhere you look, you see a Ford logo. Product placement is way over the top here, and it's annoying. Ben Kingsley does an good job as The Hood, but he can only do so much with a one-dimensional role. If you can accept the film on its very slim merits, Thunderbirds is a fun, enjoyable ride. Just don't look too closely at the machinery that drives it.<br /><br />ADDENDUM: I finally got to see all of this, and it's worse than I thought. The acting is fairly uniformly poor, and while the effects are fairly good, the story on multiple viewings has gotten cheesier. The overdone product placement for Ford is annoying, and the kids as central characters grate on my remaining nerves. As with The Avengers, if you ignore the source material, it's bearable. But not very. Watch the original show, and you'll see what I mean.<br /><br />And a word of advice to Jon Frakes. Take a refresher course at the Director's Guild. You can do better than this, old friend.<br /><br />Another footnote...<br /><br />I saw this again. Last night. On Telemundo. Dubbed in Spanish, with cheesy comedy sound effects. And yes, I came in roughly in the middle, with Ben, Ron and Sophia in their fight scene on Tracy Island. <br /><br />I didn't think it was possible for an already lame movie to be worse, but it was. It was embarrassingly bad. <br /><br />If this had been done straight, no kids-to-the-rescue, no tongue-in-cheek jokes, it might have worked. As it is, it's just another beloved childhood joy that's been ruined.
wow i payed £3.50 to go see this movie at the cinema. Cant believe i wasted my time. The acting is cringe worthy at best and the special effects are crude. Probarly the worst script in history some extremely embarrassing quotes i have ever heard in my life. I swear to god 'swept away' is better than this. Madonna should of won and Oscar compared to these guys. An hour and a half of my life i want back. Honestly people don't see this, even toddler would find this movie an insult to their intelligence. i found this movie very strange in the fact that it was hard to tell who is more wooden, theses guys here of the actual puppets. pleas guys don't waste your time on this movie you will live to regret it.
The original Thunderbirds earned a place in TV history. It was, and still is, much beloved - indeed, the entire first 10 minutes of the Wallace and Gromit movie (the Wererabbit) is a direct lift of Thunderbirds, down to a direct replay of the original Thunderbird 2 launching sequence (if you don't believe me, get the movie, and then get a copy of the original episode where Thunderbird 2 is launched).<br /><br />This movie was a crass attempt at making a kids' movie - when the original was loved and enjoyed by kids and adults alike! In the original, the Thunderbirds spent all of their time rescuing people who were often trapped when Mother Nature or Technology went horrible wrong (yes, there was also the occasional criminal act). The Thunderbirds put their own lives and resources at risk for no reward - the very essence of heroism and selflessness. There was little physical violence. The Thunderbirds challenged the imagination to a degree - how many of us would dream of someday building a Thunderbird 2? And don't underestimate the power of entertainment to do this - many Japanese attribute their fascination with humanoid robots to the old Astroboy cartoon.<br /><br />But this movie was a poor re-image of the original. This movie came across as a meld between Thunderbirds and Loony Tunes - I mean, we have Anthony Edwards as Brain imitating Porky Pig's stuttering????? Much of the action consists of Kung Fu/Power Rangers type fighting. Indeed, there were funny sound effects when someone got nailed on the head with a frying pan. The tech that fired our imagination was absent - instead we have these kids running around, using a plot device that was NEVER in the original series (having the entire team take off at once, leaving the base occupied by the kids and Brain). Then there was a dose of "Use the Force Luke" mysticism thrown in when TinTin would levitate something or another, coupled with the The Hood using aerodynamics that looked like they were lifted from "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon". About the only thing missing was for The Hood to go "TinTin, I am your Uncle" with a breath mask voice. The heart that made Thunderbirds unique was GONE.<br /><br />The only bright point was Ron Cook's portrayal of Parker - he caught it perfectly. But the actress playing Lady Penelope came across as a child - HUH???? <br /><br />And this is why we hate this movie. When someone puts out something that was popular to a fan base, and expects the fans to shell out money to watch, and then delivers something than wasn't even close to what the fans expect - well, I am sorry, that is just plain WRONG! OK, so if they were making a kids' movie - fine - next time distribute it straight to video, where many of these belong. But don't package something up in a familiar wrapper and change the innards.
I really didn't like this film. The plot was very predictable. Typical American plot, I'm sorry. Guy gets the girl kind of thing at the end. And London has a Monorail? Bank of London??? Bank of England is what it really is!! - I did however like the look of Tracy Island and the Thunderbirds themselves. And the Brits were baddies? (apart from Parker and Lady Penelope) What was up with that? Oh and they kept on saying stuff like "Here come 'The Thunderbirds'" - but it was never known as 'The Thunderbirds' in the series, why do that?? I'd like to see this re-made in 20 years with more British cast. I preferred the original series. Sorry!
To say that Thunderbirds is a horrid, forced, in-your-face, ugly looking, nasty to listen to and painful to watch film wouldn't be saying enough. There are only two reasons I can think of why you'd watch this film: 1; you've seen Thunderbirds when you were young (like I did) and are curious as to what it is like but you will really only be watching to find out how badly they screwed things up. Or, 2; you're seeing it with someone under ten years old.<br /><br />Thunderbirds manages to cock up everything it attempts. The list goes on and on but there are other more subtle, humiliating things that are painfully obvious when you think about it. From the off, Thunderbirds is wrong, wrong, wrong. The whole moral message and 'goal' is set up in an excruciating way: Jeff Tracy (A new low for Bill Paxton) tells his youngest son Alan he's not yet proved himself to be a Thunderbird after Alan randomly and stupidly decided to go down into Tracy Island's bowels to fire up Thunderbird One. The whole film is then a series of events and miss-fires consisting of Alan trying to prove himself whilst his father and other brothers are trapped in space aboard Thunderbird five.<br /><br />The film relies on kid actors to carry the film: A 16 year old Alan Tracy (Corbet), a 16 year old Tin Tin (Hudgens) and a 14 year old Fermat (Fulton) who is Brains' son. To say that watching the 'adventures' they get up to is painful is an understatement. Frequently trying to act and utilise the script whilst combating the evil 'Hood' (Kingsley) in ridiculously unfunny and hammy ways acts as the entertainment for the duration of the film; it only differs when everyone's in a different location. Also, the whole 'mind control' thing was very tiresome and basically dragged the film down as it was overused and offered a way for our heroes to see a weakness in The Hood – forced and incidental.<br /><br />I know that most 'film's for kids' these days try to integrate some sort of material for adults but in Thunderbirds it's done in a way that fetishises Lady Penelope. Sophia Myles plays Penelope and I think it's no coincidence she's a little older than the rest of the kids – at 24 years old, it's almost too good to be true. Her scenes are often highly charged and carry an erotic push. We see her in the bath, bubbles up to her neck watching TV; in comes her butler and sneaks a peek as she seductively changes channels with her wet, bare and bubble covered foot. Frequent shots of her massive, bright pink high heeled shoes filling the screen during various scenes: This first happens when she is actually tied up with the second happening during a fist fight with another woman! Twinned with this, her bright pink costumes that reveal just enough yet cover just enough are particularly outstanding as is the way she moves and talks with that posh, dominant, English accent; sounding like a commanding mistress (Well, she is LADY Penelope after all – and you'd better make sure call her that) The whole thing is laughable but the editing is so quick that the kids won't notice but it sure as hell is there.<br /><br />The actual plot of The Hood doing all that he does just to rob a few banks is very bizarre, the characters that are his bodyguards: a geeky looking woman and hard bodied black man who gets agitated a lot. Are we supposed to be laughing at this? What about the fight scenes? Poorly choreographed stunts and what the hell was with the silly noises? It's utterly, utterly laughable.<br /><br />The list goes on. The way Bill Paxton plays it all so seriously, like he was told they were doing it one way but it was made another, the way Ford motor company have their logo slapped all over the place. News bulletin: sponsored by Ford, the camera even moves to endorse Ford several times when cars are in shot, the way the CGI looks like something out of a computer game video clip – it's infuriating. The fact we are told to believe that a 16 year old girl can swim in the freezing Thames, against the current, rescue a downed monorail (monorail over the Thames!?), get back to the hatch and thus; save the day all the time holding her breath. It is absolute bull and the makers know it – I don't even know if a 10 year old would swallow it.<br /><br />In short: avoid, avoid, avoid. Thunderbirds is infuriating, unfunny, poorly scripted and even the Rolls Royce was taken out and replaced by a flying car – everything that could go wrong, did go wrong.
This film is just a kids against evil genre. Thunderbirds is just the hook to get people to see it, but are almost incidental in use. The fact that the action takes place on Tracy Island is just a ploy to pull in the public. It was interesting to note what the film makers view of future London will be and how the World all fits together.<br /><br />The best part of this film are some of the lines delivered by Lady Penelope which are highly comical. These provided some light relief for those expecting a rerun of the TV series.<br /><br />Having said that it passes 90 or so minutes in a 'fun' way and so may just be worth watching.
I was one of those "few Americans" that grew up with all of Gerry Andersen's marvelous creations. Thunderbirds was a great series for the time and would have made a great action/adventure movie if only the writers could have figured out where to target it.<br /><br />I expected it to be a romp, but I did not expect it to aim at such a low age group. Like Lost in Space, this could have been both visually stunning and exciting. It should have focused on more action/adventure and the goal of the original series... saving people in trouble.<br /><br />Instead, it focused on Alan saving the day instead of his brothers (who were cast too young anyway vs. the original). The breakout part was Lady Penelope and Parker. I didn't care too much for the characters in the original, but I was grateful for them in the movie. They stole the show!<br /><br />I always enjoyed Thunderbirds more for the high-tech than the stories, and even that did not get enough screen time as far as I was concerned. I would have enjoyed seeing more of the cool gadgets.<br /><br />But then, I'm just a big kid... ;)
I was one of those "few Americans" that grew up with all of Gerry Andersen's marvelous creations. Thunderbirds was a great series for the time and would have made a great action/adventure movie if only the writers could have figured out where to target it.<br /><br />I expected it to be a romp, but I did not expect it to aim at such a low age group. Like Lost in Space, this could have been both visually stunning and exciting. It should have focused on more action/adventure and the goal of the original series... saving people in trouble.<br /><br />Instead, it focused on Alan saving the day instead of his brothers (who were cast too young anyway vs. the original). The breakout part was Lady Penelope and Parker. I didn't care too much for the characters in the original, but I was grateful for them in the movie. They stole the show!<br /><br />I always enjoyed Thunderbirds more for the high-tech than the stories, and even that did not get enough screen time as far as I was concerned. I would have enjoyed seeing more of the cool gadgets.<br /><br />But then, I'm just a big kid... ;)
I am very sorry to say this but "Thunderbirds" does not even come up with a loud pop, never mind any thunder. At one stage I gave serious consideration to walking out of the cinema, I stayed in the forlorn hope that the film might improve. I was to be disappointed, it did not get any better, it got worse if that is at all possible. Had I gone to see the film with the thought that it was going to be a "spoof" I would still have been let down. They had an excellent opportunity to make a great franchise of films here, they have totally wasted that opportunity. Bill Paxton and Sir Ben Kingsley should be embarrassed to have there names attached to this film and Jonathan Frakes well what can I say, he should be embarrassed and ashamed would not be to far from the truth. I saw this film at a pre-release showing, I had been waiting to see it most eagerly, having grown up in the sixties with the original shows. To say I was disappointed would be something of an understatement. One final thing I will say about the film was the puppets in the TV shows were just a bit more wooden than where the actors in the film.
I just saw this movie (mainly because Brady Corbet is in it), and I must say that I was not pleased. <br /><br />Of course, the computer graphics were amazing, but the story line needed a little touch-up. Also, I think this movie would have done much better with more curses and blood, as well if it were rated PG-13. <br /><br />That would definitely attract more people to see it-->teens. What would also attract more teens (particularly teen girls), would be a large close up of Brady Corbet on the Thunderbirds poster! <br /><br />Even though the movie had it's down points, I still saw it and thought it was okay!
There's a group of Fox TV executives sitting around a boardroom table wondering what new show to commission. <br /><br />'How about aiming for something like 24 or The West Wing?' says one of them, but they all agree it would be too expensive, and cheap TV is less likely to harm the station if it flops. <br /><br />'Well, how about getting together some great comedy writers and doing a quality sitcom?' offers another and is fired on the spot. 'Don't you know good writers cost lots of money!' the big chief barks. 'That's why we invented reality TV.'<br /><br />'We could do yet another crime drama...' suggests a man in a bland suit. 'I'm listening...' the boss replies, suddenly interested. 'People like CSI, so let's do another copy of that,' Blandman adds.<br /><br />'But there are already far too many CSI clones out there, what can we do to make ours stand out?' a naive junior enquires and is sacked instantly. 'Stand out! If we do that people may be confused! Let's give them more of what they already like!' the big chief screams. <br /><br />'Let's just add more violence and make it really grisly, we are Fox after all,' another suit suggests to a hearty reply of 'now you're getting it', from the big chief. 'We could make them the Deviant Crimes Unit,' he goes on to add, clearly on a roll. <br /><br />'By Jove, he's got it!' the big chief laughs, 'and the victims could be beautiful and vulnerable women who wear very little on screen.' 'Well that would certainly distract people from the average acting and poor scripts,' Blandman points out. <br /><br />'Then it's settled, we just need a name,' the big chief announces. 'We could call it Sex Cops Violence?' <br /><br />'Too literal, how about Killer Instinct…it conveys violence, but sounds a bit like Basic Instinct which had lots of sex.' <br /><br />'Puuurfect', the big chief replies and then they all slap each other on the back and go and cancel Arrested Development.
Pokemon 3 is little more than three or four episodes of the TV series, strung together without the usual commercials. The story is typical of Pokemon (conflict, fighting, and a resolution where all are happy in the end), and there is nothing original or unusual in the animation. Some of the holes in the plot are filled in (over the closing credits!) without explanation, and everything is just a bit too sweet.<br /><br />Why see it on the big screen? The only reason is to be a part of your child's world. Both of my sons enjoy Pokemon, and by my showing an interest in what they like, we are closer. Seeing a film in a theatre is still different than seeing it on the tube, and my sons enjoy the full movie-going experience. I gave the movie a 4, mostly from my children's point of view.<br /><br />
This third Pokemon movie is too abstract for younger kids to follow and too repetitious to entertain older kids. The message of the film-- about dealing with loss-- is subverted by the return of the young girl's father during the film's credits. Team Rocket provide some amusement, but they're not really part of the small plot, so they don't appear very often.
Wow. I don't even really remember that much about this movie, except that it stunk.<br /><br />The plot's basically; a girl's parents neglect her, so this sicko PokeMon pretends to be her dad. Am I the only one disturbed by that? Then, this weirdo PokeMon kidnaps Ash's mom to pretend to be the girl's. I don't care if he was trying to make the girl happy, that's just gross.<br /><br />There was no real plot. The girl was just a whiny brat who wanted things her own way. She played with Unowns, was the "daughter" of Entei and apparently could grow and shrink in age on a whim with the help of her "dad".<br /><br />That's pretty much all I can remember, but I think you can take it as a hint, and not see it. (Or if you do see it, don't expect much.) 1 out of 10.<br /><br />Seriously. If you want a PokeMon movie, rent "PokeMon; the First Movie".
The rumor is true: girls like COYOTE UGLY more than guys. And the reasons are obvious as soon as the plot is given. Jersey girl goes to New York to become a song writer. And after initial frustration of having no luck, overhears some girls partying about the $300 each they made last night. She gets an audition at the bar they work at and surprise! The place is completely full of "two year old toddlers" bursting at the sight of babes dancing.<br /><br />The story is not bad and some characters are likeable, especially Cammie (the "fashion coordinator" part was cute) and the bouncer but let's face it, the drama was horrible and completely laughable from the beginning. Violet and her father looked far too ridiculous while they were relating throughout the movie. And check out Violet too jamming on that keyboard with the break dancer!<br /><br />For the first time I could think of, how could the production be so terrible? For a brief moment with this movie, Hollywood could stand on its two feet and show a new low without any major public outcry without saying, "You were warned!" Instead, it seems COYOTE UGLY has a purposeful intent on trying to kiss every major rear in the world. Advertising babes in a bar, but showing a paper thin "pursue your dream" story disappointed every male teen you targeted!<br /><br />And finally, the music. There was absolutely no break of music I found in this movie, especially when it was needed (the hospital scene). Every scene felt like some short music video you just wish would stop until the bar opened. But the climax was an ultimate laugher: an '80s like song you would expect Cyndi Lauper to jump on the stage and jam with Violet. Heck, I personally thought Bon Jovi was going to jump out with the long hair and jam too!<br /><br />Other than some really smart camera work with the coyote girls when dancing (especially the wet scene), and a couple cute cliches, COYOTE UGLY is something to be purely embarrassed about. Whether you watched or made it, it looked like nothing but time killing. Or wasting depending on how you look at it.
I never wanted to see this film, then one day, for a joke I watched it to see how bad it was; my preconceptions were confirmed.<br /><br />For starters I'd like to question the politics of the film. It hides behind of mask of women 'making it big in the city' but the only way that women can make it big is through using their sexuality rather than their intelligence or skills. These women are nothing more the whores. Are slightly less attractive girls not allowed to be successful? This is not the only right wing message of the film, there are hundreds of shots of American flags and huge wads of cash. A fine example of how the only powerful thing in America is capitalism and anything of spiritual, moral or artistic value is not even given a look in of this film. Money is depicted as the only important thing to young people.<br /><br />The manageress of the bar states that she does not allow drug users in her bar, and then she goes on to poor gallons of hard liquor down her own neck and then the necks of her staff and customers. Any one who knows anything about intoxicants will know that liquor can be just as dangerous as heroin and more dangerous than most illegal drugs.<br /><br />And finally, why are scenes in which the lead character is a point of sexual interest to the audience (when she is getting undressed or with her boyfriend) is her father always involved? We watch get her undressed with the camera virtually caressing her legs while she is one the phone to her father. She 'auctions' her father just as she 'auctions' her boyfriend. I find this most strange.<br /><br />In conclusion, this film is immoral, fascistic, degrading to women and frankly, disturbing. But what else do you expect from Jerry Bruckhiemer?
Let me start off by saying that this doesn't seem or feel like a movie. It seems like just another TV show about popular girls and boys with no real film language top back it up.<br /><br />The camera angles are so straight forward that the story is told the simplest way possible never making the public connect with it. This film takes us to where no movie I've seen has done before: to a realm where the Film Theater becomes a warm medium giving the public every element of interpretation. Too obvious. The large movie screen is only used as an enlarged TV from where we can see every attribute of these women in a larger than life manner.<br /><br />Lately it seems that young directors are compromising the Art of film making for sales. This is very scary. The industry is spoiling the art in movies. We must educate ourselves and our children about what cinematography and its language are really about. Not just sales and entertainment, but a way to communicate feelings, passions and even culture. Not as a launching platform for young divas and jocks.
This movie is another fine example of what Jerry Bruckheimer, since about 1997, seems to be best at--hyping up a movie a year before its release and not coming through with a quality movie. I'm no film critic, but this movie was as predictable as they come. Every attempt at a joke, every attempt at a touching moment, and the pitiful attempt at a love story, was exactly what I was predicting in my mind. Do yourself a favor and save your money on this one.
What a disappointment! Piper Perabo is adorable, Tyra Banks is beautiful but pitiful as an actor and the talented and beautiful Maria Bello is wasted! Bello must have been embarrassed by some of the lines! The plot, script and premise is a joke!<br /><br />I'm not against silly movies, I think that Something About Mary is a masterpiece, but Coyote Ugly is a waste of 90 minutes........
I was talked into watching this movie by a friend who blubbered on about what a cute story this was.<br /><br />Yuck.<br /><br />I want my two hours back, as I could have done SO many more productive things with my time...like, for instance, twiddling my thumbs. I see nothing redeeming about this film at all, save for the eye-candy aspect of it...<br /><br />3/10 (and that's being generous)
Coyote Ugly might have been much more effective if the film-makers had made it an R-rated guilty pleasure/exploitation film (with plenty of nudity.) But since the PG-13 rating is what all the studios are wanting these days, we end up with a movie like this: a PG-13 "tease" flick that isn't allowed to go nowhere near as far as the movie should have gone.<br /><br />The script is go generic that it is easy to guess what plot point is going to occur 15 minutes before it actually happens. The acting is adequate, but the characters are so paper-thin that nothing could be done with them. There were also a lot of points where it seemed like I was watching a music-video rather than a movie.<br /><br />The film's only assets are the amazingly beautiful female leads. We get to see them in some extremely tight and pretty revealing outfits.....but only so much could be shown due to the PG-13 constraints. There's plenty of cleavage and toned, heaving bodies doing some well-choreographed dance numbers, but there's no nudity or sex to speak of. Tyra Banks (she keeps getting even more insanely beautiful with age) is also in the movie for a very small amount of time. Sexy newcomer Piper Perabo is also very easy on the eyes (and she has a killer smile) and shows some genuine acting potential.<br /><br />The only people I could see this movie appealing to is pre-pubescent boys who aren't allowed to watch R-rated movies yet. That audience might get a lot out of it from a titillation aspect, but adult audiences will feel annoyed and cheated.<br /><br />Rating: the movie-1 the women-10
***SPOILER*** Do not read this, if you think about watching that movie, although it would be a waste of time. (By the way: The plot is so predictable that it does not make any difference if you read this or not anyway)<br /><br />If you are wondering whether to see "Coyote Ugly" or not: don't! It's not worth either the money for the ticket or the VHS / DVD. A typical "Chick-Feel-Good-Flick", one could say. The plot itself is as shallow as it can be, a ridiculous and uncritical version of the American Dream. The young good-looking girl from a small town becoming a big success in New York. The few desperate attempts of giving the movie any depth fail, such as the "tragic" accident of the father, the "difficulties" of Violet's relationship with her boyfriend, and so on. McNally (Director) tries to arouse the audience's pity and sadness put does not have any chance to succeed in this attempt due to the bad script and the shallow acting. Especially Piper Perabo completely fails in convincing one of "Jersey's" fear of singing in front of an audience. The only good (and quite funny thing) about "Coyote Ugly" is John Goodman, who represents the small ray of hope of this movie.<br /><br />I was very astonished, that Jerry Bruckheimer produced this movie. First "Gone In 60 Seconds" and now this... what happened to great movies like "The Rock" and "Con Air"? THAT was true Bruckheimer stuff.<br /><br />If you are looking for a superficial movie with good looking women just to have a relaxed evening, you should better go and see "Charlie's Angels" (it's much more funny, entertaining and self-ironic) instead of this flick.<br /><br />Two thumbs down (3 out of 10).
If this movie were more about Piper Perabo's character and less about the bar, this might have been halfway decent. Piper's Violet Stanford and Karen Friendly (Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle) both have a virgin kindegarden teacher quality to them that's endearing. Here's hoping she'll find a better movie to be in.
Just think, it cost a total of $250,000 to make "Clerks". How the hell did they spend $45 Million to make this glorified music video? A practically unknown cast, two or three sets, no special effects that I could see... I know, it must have been spent on that expertly crafted, economical, tension filled screenplay. Shoot, that bar set must have cost a bundle. Anyway, I guess Jerry Bruckheimer wouldn't be caught dead producing anything for less. I'm just surprised he didn't blow up anything.<br /><br />Anyway, it wasn't an awful film I guess. The female leads seemed to have some good chemistry and the soundtrack was OK. IMO It just seems a pity that this rather mediocre project could have been made for $5 Million without any loss to the production, and 6 more $5 million dollar indy films of merit could have been made as well.
wow! i watched the trailer for this one and though 'nah, this one is not for me'. i watched my husband and our friend's faces during the trailer, and knew this was a 'boy movie'. i mean, hallo! a bunch of chick barmaids that dance - another striptease?<br /><br />then, i started watching it, it didn't look all that bad. so i carried on watching. i watched it right to the end. what an awesome movie. if anything, this is a chick-flick. these girls have attitude. it is really a feel-good movie, and a bit of a love story. really leaves you with a nice feeling.<br /><br />basically, the story of a small-town girl making it big in the city, after going through the usual big-city c**p. there have been a couple of these, it is almost a new urban legend. but it also makes you think of your life, and what you have achieved. well, me anyway. i think it is because the whole working in a bar scenario is very familiar, not just for me, but for many people i know. Don't trust the trailers for this one - it is aimed at bringing the men in.
In 1454, in France, the sorcerer Alaric de Marnac (Paul Naschy) is decapitated and his mistress Mabille De Lancré (Helga Liné) is tortured to death accused of witchcraft, vampirism and lycanthropy. Before they die, they curse the next generations of their executioners. In the present days (in the 70's), Hugo de Marnac (Paul Naschy) and Sylvia (Betsabé Ruiz) and their friends Maurice Roland (Vic Winner) and his beloved Paula (Cristina Suriani) go to a séance session, where they evoke the spirit of Alaric de Marnac. They decide to travel to the Villas de Sade, a real estate of Hugo's family in the countryside, to seek a monastery with a hidden treasure. They find Alaric's head and the fiend possesses them, bringing Mabille back to life and executing the locals in gore sacrifices. After the death of her father, Elvira (Emma Cohen) recalls that he has the Thor's Hammer amulet hidden in a well; together with Maurice, they try to defeat the demoniac Alaric de Marnac and Mabille.<br /><br />Last weekend I bought a box of horror genre with five DVDs of Paul Naschy per US$ 9.98; despite of having no references, I decided to take the chance. The first DVD with the uncut and restored version "Horror Rises from the Tomb" is a trash B (or C) movie that immediately made me recall Ed Wood. The ridiculous story is disclosed through awful screenplay, direction, performances, cinematography, decoration, special effects and edition and with lots of naked women. The result is simply hilarious and I can guarantee that Ed Wood's style is back. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): Not Available
The version of this film I saw was titled 'Horror Rises from the Tomb'. The horror in question is a wicked Medieval magician played by Spanish horror legend Paul Naschy looking like he's playing Abanazer in a church hall panto. He rises from his tomb when a stupid descendant (I think he's a descendant, as he's also played by Naschy)returns to his ancestral home and reunites the magician's head and body, which had been separated by by the witchfinders who executed him, in an attempt to stop him, er, rising from the tomb.<br /><br />Obviously, once head and body are back together all hell breaks loose and lots of people die. Like all good magicians, Abanazer here has a lovely assistant. This one's played by another Spanish horror great, the beautiful Helga Line. Like practically every other woman in the film Line periodically gets her kit off. There's a LOT of nudity in this film, and not just female - we even get to see Naschy's paunchy body, which isn't a pretty sight, I can tell you. Most of the film's sex angle is laughably gratuitous. There's one particularly funny scene where Naschy and Line discuss their evil plans and then suddenly decide to both have a grope of the nubile young blonde they've possessed.<br /><br />It's also pretty gory in places - notably a Herschell Gordon Lewis-esquire moment where Line plunges her hands into a man's chest to remove his heart.<br /><br />The best part of the film is the pretty effective zombies who turn up towards the end. They're quickly scared off by a fire though, and don't bother coming back. Which is a shame. The scene where the zombies rise, however, is the film's most ludicrously inept moment. It all happens in long shot, and we haven't really got a clue what's happening until we see some figures shambling on from the distance. There are several rubbish moments like this, thanks largely to poor editing. When a labourer falls under the hypnotic spell of Naschy's head there's a big close up of his face that seems to last forever and serves no purpose whatsoever.<br /><br />All in all, not a great horror film, but entertaining enough. Of course, the version I saw was a dubbed American version that had probably been chopped to pieces. For all I know, the original Spanish version could be a masterpiece...
This movie starts out with an execution of a practitioner of witchcraft and his mistress. His head is chopped off and buried separately of his body...sounds like "The Thing that wouldn't die" doesn't it? Well it does play out a little like that, but once the body is reunited with the head, all the interesting and gruesome deaths are done and the movie moves very slowly. I mean the movie is only 88 minutes long and I kept thinking "When is it going to end"? The characters in the movie are idiots for the most part and they pretty much deserve to die for being really stupid. The villain is also very bad as he is slow moving and really you wonder how he manages to do anything considering he is afraid of jewelery. The only thing to keep you watching after the head is reattached is the fact that there are so many boobs being flashed that you really begin to lose track. Still I want to see a horror movie, not a soft core porn flick and as a horror movie it is way to slow moving with way to many slow stretches to be even somewhat enjoyable. And don't read the back of the box as it made it out like there were flesh eating zombies attacking the town, there isn't...only a small scene where three or four zombies attack a house and are so easily repelled they are not a factor in the movie at all and their scene is rather pointless. So for the most part I say you should avoid this movie unless you come across it for really cheap.
Paul Naschy made a great number of horror films. In terms of quality, they tend to range from fairly good to unwatchable trash; and unfortunately, Horror Rises from the Tomb is closer to the latter. The plot is just your average story of a witch, wizard or (as is the case here) warlock, who is put to death - but not before swearing vengeance on those who did it...etc etc. We then get a séance and one thing leads to another, and pretty soon the executed warlock is up to no good again. The plot is slow, painfully boring and the film constantly feels pointless. The characters string out reams of diatribe and it never serves the film in any way whatsoever. Paul Naschy wrote the script, and if you ask me he should stick to acting because the dialogue is trite in the extreme, and only serves to make the film even more boring than it already is. Carlos Aured, who also directed Naschy in Blue Eyes of the Broken Doll and Curse of the Devil provides dull direction here, which likes the dialogue does nothing to help the film. Sometimes crap films like this have a certain charm about them; but Horror Rises from the Tomb doesn't even have that. This is a painfully boring film that has little or nothing in the way of interest.
It was all over with the slashers around 88 so it was time for the cheesy rip offs of those older movies. The Brain is well done, the script reminded me of Videodrome but then in a more cheesy way as said before. The acting can go through with it. But it's the effects that makes you laugh, the so called Brain is really a turkey and the blood is never shown. The opening sequence is what makes this movie worth watching, the hallucinations are really nicely done and reminded me of Nightmare on Elm Street, remember the telephone coming alive.... Some how you keep watching this flick, waiting what is happening next. It's viewable for all freaks out there cause there isn't any gore in it and as said the blood isn't there neither but there is nudity for the perverts. I have seen worser movies than this one, only wished they had made it bloodier...
My friends and I rented this for "Bad Movie Night" with high hopes, but The Brain was something of a letdown. The Brain itself is gloriously goofy-looking, but it mostly just sits on its little platform. Who thought that it would be cool that the Brain only gets to munch on three people throughout 94 drawn-out minutes? This movie has a number of things going for it at first, including an Estevez-knockoff lead playing a rebellious genius (we're told that his enormous intellect is misdirected into his elaborate pranks and school stunts, which include putting krazy glue on someone's chair). It also has some great lines, a hilariously out-of-shape and out-of-breath henchman who just barely manages to be everywhere, and, yeah, some chick gets naked. However, the director desperately needs some schooling in the art of pacing. During the last half things just start to drag on and on, with at least 3 or 4 pointless, boring chase scenes making up the middle third of the plot. The scenes inside the PRI complex are especially bad. At least 15 minutes of this movie are people running up and down the same stairwell. I could've fixed the screenplay to this thing in half an hour- more cheese, more gore, more nudity, more Brain action. If you're going to make a bad horror movie, at least give me something cool to look at while my superego shuts down. Maybe the director was trying to really bring the audience into his movie- I started feeling like one of the zombified townsfolk by the end of this crapfest.
A spoiler.<br /><br />What three words can guarantee you a terrible film? Cheap Canadian Production. THE BRAIN fits those words perfectly. Terrible script, idiotic acting and hilarious special effects make this a must for every BAD movie fan. The horror is hilarious. The post production team looks like it gave up. What makes THE BRAIN admirable is in the second half, it actually tries to be good! Can a bit of ingenuity and consistency save what is already a joke?<br /><br />It's around Christmas time. A mother and daughter are murdered by one of the funniest looking villains ever. The day later, a rebel teen gets into enough trouble that he is sent for a psychiatric analysis.<br /><br />If a cop 's head is chopped off and a stranger with blood on him and a bloody axe told you some kids did it, who would you believe? What begins as funny turns dull and tiring toward the end when THE BRAIN tries to be serious. A child cannot be frightened by the scary moments. THE BRAIN is too funny a concept to try and be gritty. The Psychological Research Institute is larger than major manufacturing plants! Our ugly villain and its cohorts get credit for pulling some of the worst acting I have seen. Viewer discretion advised heavily.
In the small American town of Meadowvale Dr. Anthony Blake (David Gale, the IMDb listing for this character is wrong it's definitely Dr. Blake not Dr. Blakely) is the director and founder of the famed 'Psychological Research Institute' and also host's a local T.V. programme called 'Independent Thinkers'. He uses this T.V. show to hypnotise the viewers and make them commit acts of violence. Dr. Blake has the help of a large brain with an evil face that uses it's spinal cord as a tail thingy. Usually the brain is just sitting in a tank, eats mice and the odd bad actor, each time it eats someone it gets much bigger. Meanwhile at the local high-school gifted but troublesome teenager Jim Majelewski (Tom Bresnahan) has been caught putting Sodium down the toilets. Jim is sent to Dr. Blake at the PRI for help with his attitude and behavioural problems. While there Dr. Blake hooks Jim up to, well something I'm not actually sure what. This whatever it is, is attached to the brain. At first Jim is able to resist the brain's mind control. The brain feels that Jim is a threat to itself and it's plans. Once out of the PRI Jim starts having bizarre hallucinations and crashes his car. Jim makes it to his waitress girlfriend Janet (Cynthia Preston as Cyndy Preston) but is handed back to Dr. Blake's assistant Verna (George Buza) soon after by Officer Marks (Harry Booker). The brain wants to kill Jim because he is the only one capable of withstanding it's mind control techniques, and with 'Independent Thinkers' going national the brain doesn't want anything or anyone to stop it's evil plan for world domination! Jim quickly realises that the brain is controlling the entire town and he alone must stop the brain, before it takes over the world!<br /><br />Directed by Ed Hunt who calls himself Edward Hunt here, the Brain wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. Don't get me wrong as it certainly isn't great either. The script by Barry Pearson tries a stab at satire with the brain washing and mind control by T.V. storyline. It moves along at a fair pace and isn't too boring. No explanation is given for the existence of the brain at all, it's just there and that's it we have to accept it. The story is a little choppy and never fully explores one single element, there's the T.V. mind control, the brain itself, Jim being hunted by the police & his misbehaviour and various other little bits and pieces here and there including a bizarre revelation regarding Dr. Blake that isn't explained at all. Production wise this film looks cheap, and probably was cheap. The acting isn't great but I've seen worse, and what is David Gale doing in this? In fact this role is similar to Gale's role in Re-Animator (1985) even down to his character's deaths in both films. The brain itself at first sits in a tank and starts to grow whenever it eats someone and by the end it is pretty big. Each stage is just made of rubber. It doesn't look particularly good and isn't scary or creepy, just cheap. There's no blood or gore in it apart from a blink and you'll miss it decapitation. The nudity is provided by Dr. Blake's assistant Vivian (Christine Kossak as Christine Kossack) before she gets eaten. The brain had a certain entertainment value for me but I would think most people would dislike it. Maybe worth a watch if you can see it on T.V. for free.
Insignificant and low-brained (haha!) 80's horror like there are thirteen in a dozen, yet it can be considered amusing if you watch it in the right state of mind. The special effects are tacky, the acting atrocious and the screenplay seems to miss a couple of essential paragraphs! "The Brain" takes place in a typical quiet-American town setting, where every adolescent works in the same diner and where the cool-kid in high school flushes cherry bombs down the toilet. It is here that a TV-guru named Dr. Blake and his adorable pet-brain begin their quest for nation-wide mind controlling. Under the label of "independent thinkers", a giant cheesy brain sends out waves through television sets and forces innocent viewers to kill! How cool is that? Now, it's up to the Meadowvale teen-rebel to save the world! The funniest thing about the plot is that it never explains where Dr. Blake and his monstrous brain actually come from. There are obvious references towards extraterrestrial life but that's about it. Meh, who needs a background in a movie like this, really? There's not that much bloodshed unfortunately and the "evil" brain looks like an over-sized sock-puppet. The only more or less interesting element for horror buffs is taking a look at the cast and crew who made this movie. Director Ed Hunt and writer Barry Pearson are the same men who made "Bloody Birthday" (guilty pleasure of mine) and "Plague". Both those are much better movies and they wisely decided to resign the film industry. The most familiar face in the cast unquestionably is the great David Gale, whom horror fans will worship forever for his role in Re-Animator. A girl named Christine Kossak provides the nudity-factor and she's obviously a great talent… She has exactly 3 movies on her repertoire of which THIS is her "masterpiece". In her debut, she was credited as 'runaway model' and in "3 men and a baby", her character is referred to as 'one of Jack's girls'. I really wonder how she feels about her career as an actress…
Another horror flick in which a goof-ball teenager battles a madman and his supernatural sidekick who want to take over?! Yes, but the fact that this one was from Canada gives it a slightly different feel. "The Brain" has troublesome teenager Jim Majelewski getting put into a treatment whose leader turns out to be a cult leader aided by a big ugly "brain". Can Jim stop him? I guess that since our northern neighbor has accomplished all that they have accomplished, they're entitled to make at least one ridiculous horror movie. But still, they'll probably want to be known for having national health care and all.<br /><br />The bad guy had a brain. Why didn't the people who made this movie?
Using tons of stock footage, not only from Trader Horn but also the first two films in the series (for example the alligator fight was used last time out) this is one of the weakest films in the MGM series. Its a huge let down after the classic Tarzan and His Mate which is possibly the best film in the series.<br /><br />The plot has Jane's cousins coming into the jungle to tell her that she has inherited a fortune if she'll come back to claim it. They are kind of in the bind since the relative that left her the money cut them out of the will.Hiring a great white hunter, who secretly wishes to capture Tarzan and sell him, the pair heads into the jungle where they run into the usual jungle troubles (more so because of the stock footage). After lots of talk Jane decides to go back to civilization and we get long sequences of Tarzan and Jame making kissy face. Finally into the last half hour the plot to capture Tarzan is put in motion and things at last become interesting as plans go awry and things look very grim for all concerned..<br /><br />Painfully dull film is clear evidence of a troubled production. the film seems to have been assembled from several different films with the first half hour playing as an almost exact repeats of the previous film. The middle third shows signs of having to stretch things out and having plot lines that ultimately went nowhere. The last third where Tarzan is captured and the party is put into peril is the point that the film finally comes to life (it also shows signs of the graphic violence that caused much of the need to re-shoot the film). To me its a great wonder how the series managed to continue on from here since this film isn't very good (except at the end).I would be hard pressed to explain it except I would have to say that it was the relationship between Weissmuller and O'Sullivan as Tarzan and Jane which kept people coming back. Its a beautifully acted pairing and really is one of the screens great couples.<br /><br />(I should probably also mention that this is the point that the film became less real and more fantastical with the appearance of the Tarzan tree house.) I really dislike the first hour or so of this film a great deal and find it a great waste of time and energy. If you can come in towards the end I would recommend giving the film a try. Otherwise I would just skip the whole film and move on to the next film in the series.
This show comes up with interesting locations as fast as the travel channel. It is billed as reality but in actuality it is pure prime time soap opera. It's tries to use exotic locales as a facade to bring people into a phony contest & then proceeds to hook viewers on the contestants soap opera style.<br /><br />It also borrows from an early CBS game show pioneer- Beat The Clock- by inventing situations for its contestants to try & overcome. Then it rewards the winner money. If they can spice it up with a little interaction between the characters, even better. While the game format is in slow motion versus Beat The Clock- the real accomplishment of this series is to escape reality. <br /><br />This show has elements of several types of successful past programs. Reality television, hardly, but if your hooked on the contestants, locale or contest, this is your cup of tea. If your not, this entire series is as I say, drivel dripping with gravy. It is another show hiding behind the reality label which is the trend it started in 2000.<br /><br />It is slick & well produced, so it might last a while yet. After all, so do re-runs of Gilligan's Island, Green Acres, The Beverly Hillbillies & The Brady Bunch. This just doesn't employ professional actors. The intelligence level is about the same.
How has this piece of crap stayed on TV this long? It's terrible. It makes me want to shoot someone. It's so fake that it is actually worse than a 1940s sci-fi movie. I'd rather have a stroke than watch this nonsense. I remember watching it when it first came out. I thought, hey this could be interesting, then I found out how absolutely, insanely, ridiculously stupid it really was. It was so bad that I actually took out my pocket knife and stuck my hand to the table.<br /><br />Please people, stop watching this and all other reality shows, they're the trash that is jamming the networks and canceling quality programming that requires some thought to create.
You do realize that you've been watching the EXACT SAME SHOW for eight years, right? I could understand the initial curiosity of seeing strangers co-exist on an Island, but you'd think that after watching unkempt, stink-ladened heroes run roughshod through the bush with an egg on a spoon for half a decade would be enough to get you to commit to something a little more original (and interesting).<br /><br />And I'm not even speaking of the shows validity which for the record I find questionable. It's just hard to suspend disbelief for "Bushy Bill" eating a rat when the entire crew of producers and camera people are housed in an air conditioned make-shift bio-dome sipping frosty mochcinno's with moxy.<br /><br />What's the appeal here? I don't care about these people or their meandering lives. I just don't get it. But if you DO find yourself being captivated by hairy, unwashed people, I suggest you turn off your TV and just take a trip to your local bus station where you can see people like this in their TRUE habitat. They call them HOMELESS PEOPLE, and free of charge, you can sit back and marvel in their uncanny ability to retrieve various cigarette debris from a plethora of garbage canisters, eventually striking "pay-dirt" and fashioning a homemade Dr. Frankenstein-styled cancer-stick, all the while begging people for change for food when the stink of "Aqua Velva" on their breath is enough to suggest otherwise. And the best part? Much like Survivor, every week one member of the tribe "Leaves" the "Island" when they are unceremoniously sent packing to the local Institution when the frightening unmedicated state of full-blown schizophrenia kicks into gear! Now THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT!
Written by the excellent McGovern and directed by Frears this film was a slight disappointment. It seemed too short. It spent far too long creating the Hovis atmosphere, and laughing at the Catholic demands. Then very quickly you have the fascist and socialists vying for the family's attention, and the terrible conclusion.<br /><br />Still my wife thought Liam was cute.
My first question after seeing this film was, "Why is the title LIAM?" If the intent was to tell a story from the boy's perspective, it was not carried out well. Of course there was the formulaic use of camera angles in the boy's scenes, but much of the crucial action took place outside of his field of view. Having a "main" character unable to speak (obviously suggesting the mute, powerless position of a child) makes it difficult to give that character much depth.<br /><br />Melodrama is defined as: "dramatic or other literary work characterized by the use of stereotyped characters, exaggerated emotions and language, simplistic morality, and conflict" LIAM fits this definition to a T. The viewer is hit over the head with the typical stereotypes of the fire and brimstone Catholic Church in the stern school marm and the well-fed priest squeezing money from parishioners. (A stereotype which is becoming very tiresome.) What's more--the Jewish characters are money lenders and factory owners!<br /><br />Much of the film was predictable...Who didn't think that we'd see Theresa scrubbing the toilet after her mother had told her "No daughter of mine will scrub another woman's toilet!" I'm a fan of British realism if it's done well. In my opinion, LIAM is not.<br /><br />
It is not un-common to see U.S. re-makes of foreign movies that fall flat on their face, but here is the flip side!!! This is an awful re-make of the U.S. movie "Wide Awake" by the British!<br /><br />"Wide Awake" is strange but entertaining and funny! "Liam" on the other hand is just strange. I must give credit to "Liam" for one thing, and that is making it clear that I made the right choice in changing my religion!
I won't mention any of the plot, because, although it would be highly predictable anyway, the one notable plot twist is given away everywhere, in the movie comments, in the plot summary here, and even in the synopsis on my Netflix envelope. I might have enjoyed it more if I hadn't known that. Maybe. This film has a deceptively good cast, most of whom did creditable acting with the rather limited material at hand, including Donald Sutherland, Lesley Ann Warren, and Tia Carrere and Rosemary Dunsmore in smaller parts. It was impossible to like William McNamara, but that was clearly by design. And there were a couple of quick nude scenes by the callipygian Lenore Zann. But none of this brings the slightest recommendation from me. Don't any of these fine actors actually read these scripts before signing on?
This is one of the most hateful and cruel movies I've seen in a long time. Sadly I was duped into sticking with it, since Donald Sutherland's presence misleadingly gave it some credibility. [That's the last time that'll happen.]<br /><br />Lesley Ann Warren's character was annoyingly whiny and as stupid as they come. There were smarter characters than hers who were killed in the film. Thats just one of many things in this movie that made me ask, "Where is the justice?"<br /><br />Why is late-night cable so filled with sadistic garbage filled with pathological mayhem? Most of these films seem to have a particular problem with women, and seem to focus on them being terrorized and murdered. This film could have been every bit as suspenseful without being sick and twisted in the process. All it ends up doing is turning the viewer's stomach with its sickness, and insulting the viewer's intelligence.<br /><br />The cast is misleadingly good. My guess is that they BAGGED Sutherland first, and used him to lure the others like lemmings into this.<br /><br />I'm kicking myself for wasting time, giving this piece of garbage a chance.
There is absolutely no plot in this movie ...no character development...no climax...nothing. But has a few good fighting scenes that are actually pretty good. So there you go...as a movie overall is pretty bad, but if you like a brainless flick that offer nothing but just good action scene then watch this movie. Do not expect nothing more that just that.Decent acting and a not so bad direction..A couple of cameos from Kimbo and Carano...I was looking to see Carano a little bit more in this movie..she is a good fighter and a really hot girl.... White is a great martial artist and a decent actor. I really hope he can land a better movie in the future so we can really enjoy his art..Imagine a film with White and Jaa together...that would be awesome
A black guy fights ..... and supposedly wins .... yeah ... 1/10. Obviously fiction.<br /><br />So we're presented with a damm nice title, a real nice tag line and even a nice plot line .. Thats about it, thats where it ends.. We move into fiction after that.<br /><br />Michael Jai White, the black guy so don't get confused with the name.. portrays a black guy.. Umm, thats all there is to the name..<br /><br />Its so hard to find decent help, must have hired the black guys friends to help cause the low budget, low ineptness of this movie, has the camera's shadow trailing the first scenes.... Yeah obvious idiot moment for the average guy like you and me.. but yeah...<br /><br />10 lines. review submitted,. if you paid to see this movie, you got screwed.
Not exactly my genre, this straight-to-DVD street fight action is one I only encountered due to a friend putting it on whilst we had a few beers. I'm relatively open minded, and quite a fan of Eamonn Walker, so I sat back ready to enjoy myself.<br /><br />Blood and Bone is the story of Isiah Bone, an ex-con who becomes a street fighter for unclear reasons which eventually unfold as the film progresses. Blah blah blah.<br /><br />What a tedious film. I understand that films like this don't rely hugely on plot, but do they have to stuff in such a silly, predictable and entirely stupid storyline? It may not be important, but by golly gum does it annoy me. Better no plot and pure action than a clíche-ridden fleabag mongrel of a narrative. Infused with entirely unfounded and unachieving sentimental drivel, it is the cinematic equivalent of a thin-skinned turkey stuffed with rotten innards. I should probably at this point mention what is, of course, the film's drawing point: the fighting. Even in itself, the fighting is rather poor. Bone manages to take out well established tough-man street fighters in single punches (a large oaf or two is the filmmakers' laughworthy attempt to rectify this inconsistency); fighters who never seem to conclude that attacking one by one is a foolish ploy. Even this is repetitive and stupid, arms broken and faces kicked with a steady alacrity that we get to see time and time again.<br /><br />A run of the mill, film-by-numbers movie which fully deserves its straight to DVD status, doing absolutely nothing new and everything we've seen time and time again. And not even particularly well.
This film reminded me of The Sopranos, and not in a good way. <br /><br />David Chase's seminal mob opera only ever put its foot wrong twice, the most jarring and inexplicable instance of which took place in its fourth season, when Junior Soprano went on trial for his life. Rather than pursue this riveting (and pivotal) plot line, the writers instead chose to completely ignore it, focusing instead on Bobby Baccalieri's constant whimpering over his recently deceased wife's frozen pasta dish. <br /><br />When something of genuine interest happens in Notorious - for example that first, mysterious assassination attempt on Tupac Shakur that ignited the whole East Coast/West Coast feud in the first place, and ended up leading to the deaths of both Tupac and Christopher Wallace - the film treats it as just another bit of plot to plod through. Why exactly was Tupac so convinced that he was sold out by his own people? Did he alone nurture his subsequent affiliation with Suge Knight? And was Lil' Kim's transformation from prim office drone into sex-obsessed, vampish diva really as banal as it appears here?<br /><br />None of these questions are even fleetingly addressed by the film's screenwriters, who are far more interested in depicting Wallace's turbulent love life to zero compelling dramatic avail. These sequences (including a brain-frazzlingly clichéd groupie indescretion in a hotel room) are so toothless and bruisingly manipulative that the only real comparison to be made is with a network TV movie.<br /><br />The storytelling, in both structure and content, is simplistic and trite. But more fundamentally, as a biopic; as something designed to celebrate its subject and educate the uninitiated on the intricacies of their life and work; the film is almost entirely worthless. The reliance on meat-and-potatoes genre plotting, coupled with the lifeless musical performances (an area in which a film like this should soar, surely) result in a film that appears to have been designed only to satisfy the whims and demands of those involved, leaving Wallace's questionable status as a giant in his field as the preserve of the easily persuaded and previously converted only. <br /><br />And the final twenty minutes, in which Wallace's posthumous cultural identity is broadly painted as being akin to that of a latter day saint, quite frankly made me feel like throwing up. <br /><br />On that score, much as with any other, Notorious is crass, calculating and compromised.
If this is supposed to be the black experience, let me out at either the front or back door.<br /><br />A mama's boy one day sees 2 young hoods walk by and from then on it's all down hill for him. Angela Bassett, the one shining grace in this film, plays his over protective, religious mother. Despite her anger at how his life has turned, by the middle of the picture, she really decides to accept this. She allows his friends to come in and suddenly it's all right to use the profanity as long as it's not in front of the children.<br /><br />This is a sad state of affairs regarding gangster rap. You knew where this film was heading.<br /><br />I literally laughed out loud when at the end, when Bassett is accompanying her son's body for burial, she states that while his life had been cut short at age 24, he had become a man. What man? He had been a convicted criminal, wrote the most atrocious rap music with constant vulgarity,and scorned society. That scene in the classroom where he tells a teacher that as a sanitation worker, he will earn more than the teacher is a perfect example of what goes on in our schools. The complete and utter lack of respect for the teacher.<br /><br />The east coast, west coast gang rap rivalry is never fully explained. All we see are guns blazing.<br /><br />A terrible picture doing nothing to prevent gang violence. What horrible role models are these rap singers and their foul music. The African American community should take umbrage at their very being. Who was this classless fat slob who portrayed Biggie? He made Rerun from the old television show look thin by comparison. I know it was the streets of Bedford Stuyvesant that changed this chubby little boy into the vulgar monster that he was. What a sorry state of affairs when this is called motion picture entertainment.
As a fan of Notorious B.I.G., I was looking forward to this movie. I am unfortunate to see it is a terrible movie. Jamal Woodward is not convincing or realistic enough to portray Notorious B.I.G. A lot of the story follows Notorious B.I.G.'s real son, Christopher Jordan Wallace as Notorious B.I.G. as a kid. Unfortunately, he is not convincing enough to pay tribute to his father. Derek Luke is just as unconvincing as Sean "Puffy" Combs. In a nutshell, no one is convincing enough to play their roles here. The big problem with this are these are actual people they are playing. It was boring, and did not give any information about Notorious B.I.G. that fans and non-fans alike did not already know. I was especially disappointed with Angela Bassett, a very good actress wasted here as Voletta Wallace. The movie slugs and slugs along thinking that Notorious B.I.G. fans will spend tons of money on it. I am unfortunate to say that that happened. It's nowhere close to a good movie. I was expecting so much out of it, but unfortunately I didn't get anything I wanted from this. I think you should definitely skip this one.
Look,I'm reading and reading this comments and there's a lot of it that I wanna say but I will try to make it short but clean...<br /><br />First of all, lets forget all of the things how bad this movie was made...How it didn't show anything of Notorious and I agree with the most people here saying that it was "Hollywood", I mean, what did you expect a real life story? When will people wake up and see that u will never ever find the real truth about 2pac and Biggie... Its all covered up and buried deep down.<br /><br />Second, I'm not against neither 2pac or Biggie I love them both but 2pac and Lil Kim DID get embarrassed in this movie for sure...<br /><br />Next, for all of ya that are saying that the movie is awesome and cant see the truth, either u are too blind too see it because u think u know something about BIG or you don't know anything about him at all and u love this Hollywood teenage movies. Use your mind and see though the clouds... There is a lot of it you could say when it gets to this topic, I did not say 60% of what I have to say because its a very wide topic but for the movie I can only say that it could have been a little bit, I mean a much better done. But anyways I'm just some person giving her opinion....No hard feelings...<br /><br />Look, I love hip hop and I live for it but after seeing this movie every person with a little intelligence could see that this is not how someone is suppose to live. With all do respect for 2pac and BIG, like all the other artists who are making for a living like this should turn the other page because u are ruining the youth....Bringing the wrong message to the children and that is: not going to school but living from the streets, hustling and just grabbing for the paper....<br /><br />The true hip hop is suppose to be about love and intelligence, be smart and all.<br /><br />OK I know that many of you will think that I'm crazy, but this is just my point of view. Look I am maybe wrong about something and Im not saying this is a completely bad movie because even if I'm in hip hop for 17, 18 years I still don't know anything bout 2pac or Biggie no matter how many articles I read or how much I support them and listen to their music...Like most of you all out there. Only people who were really close to them and the killers know the truth behind all this.<br /><br />And for the end I just wanna say for all of ya Biggie and Tupac fans and family, this two men were and will be the greatest of all time, no matter how they lived their lives but PLEASE IN THE FUTURE TRY TO BE BETTER, LEARN AND LOVE EACH OTHER, THINK GOOD EVEN FOR THE ONES THAT Don't LIKE YOU, BECAUSE AT THE END...ITS NOT ABOUT HOW MANY MONEY OR FAME U COULD GET AND HOW FAST U COULD GET TO THE TOP, ITS ABOUT ACCOMPLISHING YOUR SELF TO THE FULLEST AND FEEDING YOUR SOUL, YOUR BODY AND MIND...BECAUSE IF U MANAGE TO DO THAT, YOU WILL BE LIVING A LIFE EVEN AFTER DEATH!!!! PEACE AND LOVE TO YA ALL!!!! RIP BIGGIE,2PAC,AALIYAH,LEFT EYE,JAM MASTER JAY AND THE OTHERS WHO MAKE A CHANGE IN THIS WORLD!!!!
I thought the movie was OK but very disappointed that they didn't capture the true image of his life. I was so anticipating to see his mother being an actual Jamaican, that it's driving me crazy. Just watching the beginning of the movie told me that the movie was not accurate. Which I completely lost interest just a matter of seconds from the beginning of the movie. I'm very disappointed, that's like watching a biography story on Mark Anthony and having Arnold play the part. I don't know what the writer was thinking missing a valuable piece of the movie which I'm sure his mother played a huge role in his life. I will say the movie was OK besides the major Fla!!!!!!
if you didn't live in the 90's or didn't listen to rapper EVER!! this movie might be OK for you, but any for any fan or any single person who ever listened to rap this movie was boring and there was no point in the movie where i said thats interesting or i didn't know that. another thing that bugged me was it made it look like anything in his life he did was very easy there was no struggle he made jail look easy, selling drugs, and even rapping it wasn't realistic. i think if the movie where released in about 15 years from now it might have more of an impact maybe!!! good rap movies hustle and flow, get rich or die trying not notorious
Sure, if you ask any mom who's the most beautiful baby in the world, she'd tell you her son is the most amazing kid in the whole world. She's right, at least in her own world.<br /><br />The producers of the movie were biggie's mother and his good friend Puffy. Oh, well, do I need to say more? I'll break it down for those who doesn't want to do a simple deduction.<br /><br />The whole movie was fake. You may just put a few biggie's MTV video together and call it a movie.<br /><br />The beautiful Angela Bassett played Biggie's mother. The real one in life looks like a dog.<br /><br />I just wonder why he called himself biggie small. Big body Small dick? Big mouth Small sound? Big fat Small eyes? Disclaimer: I'm a person of color. So keep your racist remark to yourself.
This film was a disaster from start to finish. Interspersed with performances from "the next generation of beautiful losers" are interviews with Bono and The Edge as well as the performers themselves. This leaves little time for the clips of Leonard Cohen himself, who towers over everyone else in the film with his commanding yet gentle presence, wisdom and humor. The rest are too busy trying to canonize him as St. Leonard or as some Old Testament prophet. Many of the performances are forgettable over-interpretations (especially Rufus & Martha Wainright's) or bland under-achievements. Only Beth Orton and Anthony got within striking distance of Leonard's own versions by using a little restraint. Annoying little pseudo-avant-garde gestures are sprinkled throughout the film- like out of focus superimpositions of red spheres over many of the concert and interview shots, shaky blurred camera work, use of digital delay on some of Leonard Cohen's comments (making it harder to hear what's being said) and a spooky, pretentious low drone under a lot of the interview segments (an attempt at added gravitas?). For the real thing, see the Songs From The Life Of documentary produced by the BBC in 1988.
The saddest thing about this "tribute" is that almost all the singers (including the otherwise incredibly talented Nick Cave) seem to have missed the whole point where Cohen's intensity lies: by delivering his lines in an almost tuneless poise, Cohen transmits the full extent of his poetry, his irony, his all-round humanity, laughter and tears in one.<br /><br />To see some of these singer upstarts make convoluted suffering faces, launch their pathetic squeals in the patent effort to scream "I'm a singer!," is a true pain. It's the same feeling many of you probably had listening in to some horrendous operatic versions of simple songs such as Lennon's "Imagine." Nothing, simply nothing gets close to the simplicity and directness of the original. If there is a form of art that doesn't need embellishments, it's Cohen's art. Embellishments cast it in the street looking like the tasteless make-up of sex for sale.<br /><br />In this Cohen's tribute I found myself suffering and suffering through pitiful tributes and awful reinterpretations, all of them entirely lacking the original irony of the master and, if truth be told, several of these singers sounded as if they had been recruited at some asylum talent show. It's Cohen doing a tribute to them by letting them sing his material, really, not the other way around: they may have been friends, or his daughter's, he could have become very tender-hearted and in the mood for a gift. Too bad it didn't stay in the family.<br /><br />Fortunately, but only at the very end, Cohen himself performed his majestic "Tower of Song," but even that flower was spoiled by the totally incongruous background of the U2, all of them carrying the expression that bored kids have when they visit their poor grandpa at the nursing home.<br /><br />A sad show, really, and sadder if you truly love Cohen as I do.
I would not consider myself as one of Leonard Cohen's greatest fans. He does however feature as an important poet / musician in my literary / musical heritage. By far the most valuable element in this documentary is to hear Leonard's reflections on his own life and career. Warming and humble. <br /><br />Unfortunately the most of the musicians featured in the concert didn't converse the nuances of Leonard's musical / literary manner. Nick Cave, Jarvis Cocker & Beth Orton were the exceptions, even though Leonard highly values Rufus Wainrights interpretations of his songs.<br /><br />What particularly failed in this documentary was the ability of the filmmaker to allow the viewer to see who Leonard Cohen is and how these musicians connect to him. A lot is said in this respect, but the viewer is not drawn into the person Leonard Cohen. This failing is especially evident with the interviews with Bono and the Edge. They view Leonard as a special icon, but can't translate their exact value of Leonard Cohen. The collaboration with U2 is a farce. The entire live registration looks like a rushed job. And just as in the whole film, only Leonard Cohen remains his part and can tell about his own part.<br /><br />The entire montage and screenplay is much like a high school extramural project. The use of effects such as echo, slow-motion or flashed images are ill placed. Some of the camera-work is dismal. Part of the score hardly recalls any associations I may have expected. At times it seemed the filmmaker was adding psychotic elements to the film. Perhaps a reference to his once use of LSD.<br /><br />Some unintentional humor ... at some point Leonard tells how he influenced a musical genre. Initially he can't recall the genre's name, until eventually he says it was punk, the punksters really picked up on his music. The next scene in the film is a live cover of 'I can't forget' ...<br /><br />"And I can't forget, I can't forget I can't forget but I don't remember who"
I've been a fan since his first album. This film is a disservice to him. The performances, except for one by Rufus Wainwright and Teddy Thompson are simply terrible. <br /><br />Those by Martha Wainwright, Nick Cave, Antony, and Jarvis Cocker were particularly annoying. Even the one by the McGarrigle sisters was ruined by the so called harmony of Martha Wainwright.<br /><br />I've never seen my wife get up and walk out of the room on a film before and I found myself fast forwarding through the performances to get to the few interview segments, which were also difficult to watch due to the poor camera work. <br /><br />There are many who have been able to interpret Mr. Cohen's songs, Jennifer Warnes, KD Lang, Billy Joel, Aaron Neville, and Willie Nelson come to mind, but those people selected for this performance were just awful.<br /><br />Hopefully there will be another attempt at capturing Leonard Cohen on film that will illustrate his insight, talent, and intelligence.<br /><br />So sad
What kind of a documentary about a musician fails to include a single track by the artist himself?! Unlike "Ray" or countless other films about music artists, half the fun in the theater (or on the couch) is reliving the great songs themselves. Here, all the tracks are covers put on by uninteresting characters, and these renditions fail to capture Cohen's slow, jazzy style. More often, the covers are badly sung folk versions. Yuck.<br /><br />The interviews are as much or more with other musicians and figures rather than with Cohen himself. Only rarely does the film feature Cohen reading his own work (never singing)-- like letters, poems, etc. The movie really didn't capture much about the artist's life story, either, or about his development through the years. A huge disappointment for a big Cohen fan.
This film should have been only 10 minutes. I mean there is really only 10 minute worth of watchable content in this thing (I even hesitate to call it a movie). The opening credits of the film was somehow promising. As the film begins by short comments of the man himself, you really rub your hands and stay tuned for more footage from Cohen's life. Well, Nick Cave does a reasonable job covering one of Cohen's famous songs. The length of Cave's performance makes you even more eager to see more of Cohen whose wit and well spoken words have already tickled your fancy. But as it turns out Cave's performance is only the start of lengthy super boring performances by literally a bunch of no ones who don't even have a minimal attraction to keep you on your seat. I mean what does the filmmaker really think? five-minute close-up shots of wanna be singers in a fake concert in Australia!!! What does the filmmaker really think to insult the audience by adding "fake applause" to these endless nasty performances. The film is a perfect torture that shows you very little of what you came to see. There is not a single footage of Cohen's past. In fact, except for a few photographs of his early days as a singer/poet there is absolutely nothing! If you add up all the minutes that Cohen talks it may not even reach 10 minutes. But these 10 minutes are tortuously presented bit by bit in between disastrous camera-work that captures some of the most unattractive people screaming Cohen's lyrics. If you ever decided to waste your money on this film, DON'T! just throw it in the garbage and at least save your time.
Hey,<br /><br />If your going to make a documentary about Leonard Cohen try making it about Leonard Cohen! This is filled with only enough Leonard to anger the viewer who will be left wondering why they are listening to all these other singers (some of them questionable) talk about themselves. Puleeze....sounds like them reliving their diary entries in junior high - who cares about you, what about Leonard? Guess what people, if you "do something" worthy maybe someone will make a documentary about you. I found particularly insulting the parading of U2's members as if that would add credibility to this movie - NOT. Leonard doesn't need Bono or the Edge talking about his spirituality. What would have been nice would have been for the filmmakers to embody some piece of his spirituality through the film. Gee, what a concept! I will give props to Rufus Wainwright and Jarvis Cocker for their covers of Cohen tunes - the rest of the performances were a bore and some were unbearable.<br /><br />Cohen fans, don't say I didn't warn you!
The people who are praising this film are the real disappointments -- I am hoping at least that Leonard will see some good $$ out of this, as his life savings were embezzled away by a manager a couple of years ago and he's over 70 now. But this film is simply terrible. At the beginning Leonard himself says he is not sentimental about his past, and then for the next hour and a half the film emphasizes all the worst sentimental elements of Leonard's songs. It is so bloody PRECIOUS with its endless close-ups of over emoting singers. Cohen's interview is all done in lo-fi video closeups and I so wanted to see a medium or a long shot of his whole body! I couldn't care less about the comments of the performers, especially those overblown ego boys Edge and Bono. None of the performers in this film have done even one song as good as Leonard's own music and if you are thinking about seeing this and you have any doubts at all, heed them. This would be an acceptable PBS special, maybe, for a one time showing. But I will even hesitate at getting a DVD of this. When the film finally shows Leonard semi-performing "Tower of Song" it's ruined by Bono taking a verse. Even the occasional good performances (Antony, Rufus' first number, Martha's The Traitor) are spoiled by the context of the rest of this turgid blabla. Forget this one, and go buy Leonard's most recent album if you want to pay tribute to him.
I just don't get some of the big premises of this episode - that Miranda is so remarkable, and that there's anything so ugly it would make you insane. Someone here made the remark that maybe it's the frequency of the light waves or something rather than it being ugliness. Miranda is just a jerk. The episode is slow, inconsistent and way too talky. I also don't quite understand why Kolos is an ambassador - why doesn't the Federation just leave the damn Medusans be? There's one part I do like, when Kolos is speaking through Spock about the loneliness of the human experience. Overall, I love TOS and even at its lamest, I'll always tune in. This episode though - mmm, I wouldn't purchase it except for a used copy under $3.
I am very unpolitically correct guy, so when I say sexist I really mean it reduced the female guest lead, Dr Miranda Jones played by Diana Muldar. in spite of all her supposed brilliance and self control, to nothing more inside but a big, jealous unreasonable baby You prolly got the plot by now, after her technical sidekick Marvik, also a spurned lover, flips out when he tried to kill the Medusan, Ambassador Kollos, out of a jealous rage, but glimpsed first it instead. (You think he could have just walked in to the room with his eyes shut and phasered the box, too easy) he takes the Enterprise into un-navigable space outside the galaxy before the boys could subdue him. Well, the ship is stuck in limbo, at that point they could have gone to the good lady doctor-liaison and discussed it. "Spock has to make a mind meld with the Medusan so we can get home. I mean like beetch do you want to stay adrift until we run out of supplies and die?" But the lady in true Star Trek fashion is a jealous monsters who whines and wails when the idea is broached, even when her Medusan idol told her to shut up & go along with them. So the beetch out of spite messes with the melded Spock causing him to forget to put on his visor which makes Spock go insane. Kirk, naturally, figured out what a total twit she was and shamed her into fixing Spock up with her superior telepathic powers. Of course, at the end the Lady and Medusan leave and all is forgiven. You almost wish the President from Battle Star Galactica showed up to jettison the witch out of an airlock for her destructive stunt. But in Star Trek land, ladies are permitted to be totally unreasonable and cruel, yet at the same time supposedly there is sexual equality. This is what I mean by sexist.
Another weak third-season entry, 'Is There In Truth No Beauty?' nonetheless has at least one key plot element that is very different and as Spock would say, fascinating. The main character is an alien who must be carried around in a black box because his appearance is so horrendous that it drives humans insane. It's too bad the episode cannot live up to this incredible premise. Obviously, I think, it was a mistake to ever 'show' the alien, as its actual visage in no way even approximates such a daunting build-up; all we get is the standard Star Trek psychedelic light display used for any number of things in different episodes, usually when the ship is passing through a magnetic storm or something similar. In any event, Kollos' appearance can at least be tolerated by Mr. Spock, and then only if Spock is wearing a special visor. (For the longest time, I thought the alien's name was 'Carlos,' which I found humorous, but I digress.) Spock is required to mind-meld with Kollos at one point so that the alien can pilot the Enterprise back to safety. This is accomplished, but when Spock/Kollos go back to end the mind-meld, by golly, Spock forgets his visor. Uh oh. He goes crazy but eventually recovers with the help of Kollos' assistant, a blind woman with psychic powers. This might have been a really bizarre, excellent episode but it is poorly directed and comes across as yet one more badly executed show of the series' last season.
Is this the "worse" Star Trek TOS episode? Maybe, at least it gets my vote as being in the bottom 5. I mean, this episode makes absolutely no freaking sense. Seeing something that makes you go mad? Give me a break. This episode also has a different feel to it, the music is heightened, almost forced to enhance a feeling of distress, to the point that it sucks. Give me some Klingons, Gorns, Tholians, Romulans, higher beings like Triskelion's or anything but Medusin's, these are very boring aliens to make an episode around. McCoy gets to utter his famous phrase "He's Dead, Jim". Spock puts on the protective goggles when transporting the ambassador away but Kirk does not. They go through that freaking "barrier" now for the third time that I can remember, boring. At least season three's next episodes would be "Spectre Of The Gun", and "Day of The Dove" and others to follow, making Trek a decent show to watch in syndication where it would pick people like me up as avid fans. Personal observations, Trek loved to use the color purple, its kind of a pinkish purple, like when they are in the corridor outside the compartment, the gangway that is normally grey is now purple. We never had a purple bridge but its interesting to see, I noticed it in several episodes, it was done by a light filter and it works very well but in this episode, in the ships corridor is pretty lame.
Diana Muldaur appears on Star Trek for the second time, but this time as a different character. No one on board seems to notice--maybe it was the hair. Regardless, this time she is not the receptacle for a god (see the previous episode) but is a very famous lady with magical powers that enable her to communicate and see a Medusan without going crazy (the standard human response). Unfortunately, the man that is most in love with her is a few cards short of a full deck and he tries to kill the Medusan ambassador (who, oddly, lives in a small crate--this is a lousy way to travel). And, unfortunately, Muldayr isn't wound all that well herself. What happens next is kind of dumb and by the time the episode was over the first time I saw it, I was pretty relieved. Watching all the men on board go ga-ga over Muldaur was pretty silly and the acting of Spock when he briefly went crazy was pretty campy. Do yourself a favor--if you haven't seen the show before, pick a different episode.
During the Civil War, there were many cases of divided loyalties; obviously, many occurred "In the Border States", where North met South by happenstance of geography. From the border, young father Owen Moore goes off to join the Union Army. Shortly, Confederate soldier Henry B. Walthall, separated from his regimen, wanders onto the enemy's property, desperate for water; he finds a supply where the Unionist's young daughter Gladys Egan sits. When the Yankee soldiers track him down, Little Gladys innocently helps the Confederate hide. Later, when he returns to kill her father, the little girl's kindness is remembered. A sweet, small story from director D.W. Griffith. Location footage and humanity are lovingly displayed. <br /><br />**** In the Border States (6/13/10) D.W. Griffith ~ Henry B. Walthall, Owen Moore, Gladys Egan
My mother keeps a cassette of this film as a general threat to any film loving person who annoys her. Everything about it stinks.<br /><br />As such it is a true classic.<br /><br />Who gave it 10/10? Were you inadvertently watching a good film and accidentally voted for this one?<br /><br />Everyone involved in the movie making process should be forced to watch at least a small section of this film. It should be an indelible stain on the minds on all that hold film sacred and be revered as the tide mark of the cinematically dire.
What exactly was going on during World War 11 in New Zealand when American forces were there?<br /><br />This awful story of 4 sisters was really pathetic to view. Can you imagine casting Joan Fontaine as the older sister to Sandra Dee? Fontaine looked more like her mother. Even funnier was that Fontaine becomes pregnant in the film.<br /><br />Piper Laurie and Paul Newman who showed such great on screen chemistry 4 years later in "The Hustler," have no scenes together in this film. Laurie plays another sister who goes off to Wellington to tramp around there, despite the fact that she is married. Woe to her when her husband comes back from the war.<br /><br />Jean Simmons is widowed and finds romance with a much subdued Paul Newman. There is even romance for the young Miss Dee here.<br /><br />The picture has little to no meaning. Are they trying to say that all is fair in love and war? If they are, they did a poor job in selling this.<br /><br />The conflict of interest with Newman and Simmons is quickly disposed of. That is what should have been quickly done to this terribly disappointing film of 1957.
Unusual? Yes!<br /><br />Unusual setting for an American wartime movie, New Zealand.<br /><br />Unusual subject matter, four sisters and their relationships with American soldiers, from one bearing the illegitimate child of the dead son of a Senator, to another living with seven Marines (one at a time) before being murdered by her returning POW New Zealander husband.<br /><br />Unusual to see Paul Newman deliver such a poor performance so soon after his unforgettable role as Rocky Graziano in the brilliant "Somebody Up There Loves Me".<br /><br />Unusual for two fine "Stars" Joan Fontaine and Jean Simmons, to leave so little of themselves on a movie.<br /><br />Unusual that I could be bothered to write a review of such a poor film, give it a miss!
I rented this movie yesterday and can hardly express my disappointment in little Laura Ingalls for getting involved in something so poorly produced. I am not sure if it was horrible writing or bad directing or both but it leaves a viewer very disappointed in having wasted the time to watch this swill. It consisted of a weak naive story line, very poor lines, and relied solely on pretty scenery, and pretty people to sell it. Unfortunately this was not enough. You would be better off to rent a tape full of static than to waste your time on this crap. Lindsey Wagner also played a pretty pathetic part as a ranch owner who apparently works very hard doing nothing, anybody who has ever been near a ranch knows that this was obviously written by a young person from los Angeles and not someone with much knowledge of the world.
Carl Panzram lived an amazing life and scribbled down his memoirs on scraps of paper for possibly the only person who ever did anything selfless for him. The book "Panzram: A Journal of Murder" by Thomas E. Gaddis and James O. Long, which came out the better part of a century after Panzram's death, gives the historical context to a first-generation American's account of running away from home to go west and be a cowboy, getting caught, thrown in the boy's home, getting away repeatedly and thrown into prison over and over all the time getting tortured and sodomized. As Panzram grew huge and strong, he sought to take revenge for the wrong done to him as he traveled to South America, Europe and Africa, and it didn't matter what people he raped, robbed, or murdered because we are all equally worthless.<br /><br />This film casts skinny James Woods as the rough neck, mean-ass, son of a bitch Carl Panzram who in the film is a "drunk", overly-dramatic and emotional, and who never mentions the joy of sodomizing men and boys. The film neither elaborates on anything else particularly of note about this world traveler and career prisoner (like robbing former President Taft or being released from the Oregon prison as long as he gave his word to return). In short, I don't think Carl would be too happy.
This movie wants to elaborate that criminals are a product of modern society. Therefore, can thieves, rapists and murderers (the Killer of this movie, Carl Panzram (James Woods), is all three and worse) be held fully accountable for their deeds? An interesting notion, but very difficult to bring to the screen in an intellectually and emotionally satisfying way. And this is where Killer: A Journal of Murder falls very short. Although the film tries to put Panzram's behaviour into perspective, with flashbacks to his violent youth and dysfunctional upbringing, the viewer never gets the idea that Panzram is a victim rather than a culprit. Sure, the system is corrupt, with one mobster occupying the whole sick bay of Leavenworth Prison (where most of the movie takes place), most prison guards are sadistic bullies, and the prison director something like a megalomaniacal despot. But why on earth does new prison guard Henry Lesser (Robert Sean Leonard) take such pity on Panzram? Even after having read his gruesome diaries? The movie offers some explanation: Lesser witnesses Panzram being beaten to a pulp by the most sadistic (and stereotypical) guard, and is impressed by Panzram's intelligence (though it isn't clear why exactly Lesser thinks this man is so smart). Surely this isn't enough to sympathize with a hostile man like Panzram, even though this movie tends to downplay his crimes and highlight his personality? Towards Lesser, Panzram is quite loyal, and the viewer is given the impression that for Lesser this outweighs all of the atrocities he has read about in Panzram's diaries. Does this man Lesser have so little friends that he takes at face value everyone who seems only remotely friendly to him? Perhaps it is Lesser who is a product of modern society, judging on appearance rather than substance.<br /><br />I can advise Monster, starring Charlize Theron and Christina Ricci, as a movie which handles roughly the same themes with far more integrity and scope.<br /><br />BTW: Killer looks as though shot for TV (not so good)
The excruciatingly slow pace of this film was probably the director's express intention, in order to convey what life was like growing up as a village teen in China. However, I found the combination of the glacially slow 'plot' and the general filming style so impersonal as to be totally alienating, particularly to a western audience. At times I actually had trouble telling some characters apart, as they were filmed from such a distance. Two hours in and I was totally past caring. As someone who is not only interested in music but is also very into the history and culture of China (and is by the way no stranger to Chinese cinema), I couldn't engage with a single character and found nothing to get my teeth into. It begs the question: If I disliked it, who on earth would like it? Give me Zhang Yimou, give me Chen Kaige. Give me the work of just about any other Chinese director I've ever seen. This sorry effort just doesn't measure up at all. I'd be sorry to see Chinese cinema judged against this benchmark.
I have seen many, many films from China - and Hong Kong. This is the worst. No, the worst one was 'Unknown Pleasures'. I watched 'Platform' yesterday evening and thought that Jia Zhang Ke's other two films must be better. This evening I was disappointed again. I will not be watching 'Xiao Wu' tomorrow evening because I have just placed all three films in the bin! Whoever gave this film, 'Platform' ten out of ten, needs to watch more cinema! The photography was very poor: it was very difficult to differentiate between some of the characters because of the lack of close-up work. The storyline was so disjointed that I fast-forwarded it towards the end out of pure frustration. I would not recommend this film to anyone. Give me Zhang Yimou or Chen Kage any day. These are true masters of Chinese cinema, not pretentious con men!
This movie is truly boring. It was banned in Chinese cinema and i can see why. It's not because it's critical of the communist regime but simply because the movie is of such low quality. I would never want to pay money to watch this. I love movies from Chen Kaige and Zhang Yimou and i am disappointed such a poor movie could come out of China. It totally seems to ignore the audience and the director seems to have made the movie for himself. The shots of a person standing there doing nothing for up to a minute are hilarious and there's plenty of them. The cinematography and video quality are unbelievably bad. I looked this film up on the Net and it seems like people actually like this film. The only explanation i have for this is that some film buffs think that if a film is not in English it is automatically good. I can't see any reason why people would like this. this is not an art film it's of waste of celluloid.(That's if they actually shot it on film , which they didn't)
The concept was ok but hardly original. The acting was plastic. But the real spoiler was that there was only one joke and a grubby one at that. This is a film for fourteen year olds who have been let out on their own for the first time. Don't dare to watch it with your kids.
Having enjoyed Mike Myers previous work (Waynes World and Saturday Night Live) my expectations of a 60s bond spoof were fairly high. It became plain after the first minute that this was an exercise in how to be as puerile and unfunny as possible. I swit ched off after ten minutes. I watched it the other day a second time to see whether I had been unfair the first time. I switched it off after ten minutes. I find it hard to believe how even a twelve year-old boy could find this funny. The dialogue is an e mbarrassment, Myers is painful to watch (as is Heather Graham) and the succession of characters including Fat Bastard makes matters even worse. Apart from the mildly amusing title and the psychedelic set design this is one of the worst films I have ever seen. I personally recommend you avoid this like the plague, though several friends of mine enjoyed it (maybe they were blindfolded at the time).º
POSSIBLE SPOILERS<br /><br />The Spy Who Shagged Me is a muchly overrated and over-hyped sequel. International Man of Mystery came straight out of the blue. It was a lone star that few people had heard of. But it was stunningly original, had sophisticated humour and ample humour, always kept in good taste, and had a brilliant cast. The Spy Who Shagged Me was a lot more commercially advertised and hyped about.<br /><br />OK I'll admit, the first time I saw this film I thought it was very funny, but it's only after watching it two or three times that you see all the flaws. The acting was OK, but Heather Graham cannot act. Her performance didn't seem very convincing and she wasn't near as good as Liz Hurley was in the first one. Those characters who bloomed in the first one, (Scott Evil, Number 2 etc.) are thrown into the background hear and don't get many stand-alone scenes. The film is simply overrun with cameos.<br /><br />In particular, I hated the way they totally disregarded some of the scenes in IMOM. When they killed off Vanessa at the start and had Basil sat that he knew she was a fembot all along. What was the point of that? They killed off Number 2 in the first one, and now they bring him back with no explanation whatsoever. This is supposed to be a spy-spoof, I don't think any of the characters even hold a gun in the film. It just goes on a trail, further and further away from the point.<br /><br />The new characters are very unwelcome. The whole Mini-Me `make fun of my size' joke gets old very quickly. Fat Bastard is just a lame excuse for gross-out humour. In total there's about two or three good jokes. The rest are either tasteless or rehashed from IMOM.<br /><br />If this were the first movie of the series then I'd probably be easier on it. But the series started on a note of dry wit and then plummeted down to a level of gross out humour. So I say, only watch this film if you haven't seen its predecessor, because The Spy Who Shagged Me is one ultimate disappointment.
This film is not even worth walking to the movie theatre. No jokes, but stupid and boring laughing on repeated disgusting stuff. The music and the girls are great, unfortunately you have to watch the whole movie to enjoy them. It was weak, very very weak.
The opening 5 minutes gave me hope. Then Meyers proved he only had one good idea for the rest of the movie. Absolute lowest common denominator humor. Painful viewing. A complete chore. Written no doubt in less than a week, just like the first one. Give Meyers the hook and lock him in a cell with Adam Sandler and Will Farrell. And don't let him out until he's developed a decent script for something, anything. He has it in him. These Austin Powers things are just embarrassing. <br /><br />Let Goldmember sink without trace.
This one is a little better than the first one. It still relies on a lot of its humor which basically keeps saying that the old Bond movies were not realistic. That wears thin after so many parodies. The girls were more interesting in this one.<br /><br />There is a tremendous amount of total gross out humor. Hopefully one day real comedy will come back.
Yeah, that about sums it up. This movie was horrifying. Two minutes in I wanted to gouge my eyes out. This has been praised as an "innovative LDS comedy," but it's not even good for members of that church! I don't think any human being should be so victimized as to watch a movie of this low quality.<br /><br />First of all, you can tell that absolutely no effort whatsoever went into this movie. It seems as if the horribly drab, glib, trite plot was thrown together by two crazy weasels somehow imbued with the gift for coherent (at least semi-coherent) thought. Then, there's the acting, which is dismal from *everybody* involved. Even the cameos fail to liven anything up.<br /><br />And let's not forget the fact that our protagonist is a shallow jerk who we would like to believe can change, but that road is full of embarrassingly bad dialogue, appallingly hideous "gags," and a lot of Mormon "in-jokes" that anyone in their right mind, LDS or not, should consider purely *stupid*! This has to be one of the worst films I've ever seen!
This movie was terrible. The plot sucked, the acting was bad, the editing was inept and this movie makes me want to poke my eyes out. I wish I had the time I spent watching this movie back. The balloon scene was stupid, the Mormon jokes are really old, the soundtrack sucked, I saw no chemistry between the two leads, it's full of stereotypes, stupid local "celeb" cameo's..most noted was Del "I'm going to drive as fast as I want to.." computer idiot. What is worst is that these actors had to play themselves on the spiritual side and even they screwed that up. This movie help create a long line of lackluster efforts to mainstream LDS beliefs into Hollywood. I.E. The RM, Church ball, etc. etc. I would forgo watching this movie and instead run head first into a brick wall. You will be more entertained than watching this poor excuse for a show.
don't see this. this was one of the dumbest movies i have ever seen. its hard to be Mormon sometimes when there are movies like this out there. what a sad view of Mormon life. i can tell you if you did see this movie that it is not all like this at all in a singles ward. if it was i don't think i would have made it through it. its too bad that most Mormon movies are made by a group of geeks who have nothing better to do. the acting was so bad that my wife and i barely made it through. i guess you could say that it had all the signs of a B movie. or are there C movies? anyway...i just thought this movie sucked and was full of cheese. i wish some Mormons would start making some quality movies.
With the runaway success of "God's Army", every Mormon with a camera seems to be trying to make a movie now. In the case of the recent "The Other Side of Heaven", this wasn't at all a bad thing. That film, while not great, was quite good. "The Singles Ward", however, is not.<br /><br />Telling the story of a young, divorced Mormon guy thrust back into single life, the writing and shooting style of "The Singles Ward" is, in many ways, very similar to the 80s comedy "Ferris Bueller's Day Off". However, the similarities end there. While "Ferris Bueller" was funny, original, and well-acted (as far as stupid comedies like this ever are), "The Singles Ward" is completely the opposite. It tries very hard to be funny. However, 90% of the gags either fall flat or are cliches and jokes you've probably heard a million times before. The other 10% seem to be thrown in to fill out the time. And the acting, while not awful, is amaturish at best.<br /><br />In addition, if you're not either a Mormon yourself, or very, VERY familiar with Mormon culture, you won't get hardly anything at all. Whereas "God's Army" and "The Other Side of Heaven" were appealing to a broad range of viewers, both inside and outside of the Mormon church, this film is most definitely one big inside joke, and even if you get it, it's just not that funny.
I live in Salt Lake City and I'm not a Mormon, so why did I rent this movie? Well because I live in Utah and thought it'd be nice to see locations I know in a film. I really knew going into it that I wasn't going to get the inside jokes so I wasn't surprised when I sat with the deer in the headlights stare. What I was surprised at was the ant-non Mormon actions that were placed in this film.<br /><br />I know it's a Mormon film, catered to the members of the LDS Church, but I found it offensive because of the typical stereotype of people that isn't of their faith. Every non Mormon, which wasn't many, drank, smoked and had an amazing selfishness attitude, why?<br /><br />That really ticked me off about this film, they made the Mormons so pure, yet the rest of the state of Utah I guess is filled with punk psychos just because they don't follow the scriptures of the LDS Church.<br /><br />I can understand having the plots revolve around all LDS members, but you'd think Salt Lake City was 100% Mormon, which isn't even close to being the truth. And as I said, the non Mormons in the movie were portrayed as drunken jerks, please!<br /><br />I guess I just don't get it because I don't belong to their faith and I guess I never will.
I went in expecting the movie to be completely dumb. With such a low expectation, any form of entertainment would be a pleasant surprise. The soundtrack was the best part of the movie, but poking fun at the nonsense that goes on in singles wards was also amusing.<br /><br />This said, there were many things about The Singles Ward that were completely annoying. The entire film was poorly dubbed and made watching mouths while listening to their voices very irritating. This lack of professionalism was surpassed only by the cameos of Mormon celebrities who have no business acting.<br /><br />This film will do well among Mormondom, especially in college communities where singles ward exist. However the conclusion will offer no hope for the poor losers who find themselves unmarried. (Only the pretty girls in the Singles Ward get married, the fat, ugly ones don't, but all the ugly men do) Ultimately we realize that the whole film was an advertisement for LDSSingles.com
Something to Sing About was produced at Grand National Studios where James Cagney was working while under a contract dispute with the brothers Warner. He did two films for this B studio, neither of which rank high in the Cagney credits.<br /><br />One of the great losses to cinema is the fact that Jimmy Cagney did so few films that utilized his terrific dancing abilities. The two that come to mind immediately are Yankee Doodle Dandy and Footlight Parade. Two lesser films are The West Point Story and Never Steal Anything Small. Cagney himself said he never used to watch anything but his musicals in retirement. So why did he make so few of them?<br /><br />Well this one was all wrong. The plot of Something to Sing About concerns a hoofer who fronts for a band who's discovered and given a movie contract. There are the usual complications of a conniving studio boss and a conniving press agent played respectively and well by Gene Lockhart and William Frawley. His contract calls for a no- marriage clause, so Cagney and band girl singer lady Evelyn Daw marry in secret. Then we get the complication of a publicity driven studio romance with screen leading lady Mona Barrie. I think you can figure where this is going.<br /><br />The most disappointing thing about Something to Sing About is the lack of dance numbers for Cagney. He dances briefly at the beginning and the end of the film and nothing in the middle. Evelyn Daw had a nice singing voice and the charisma of a ham sandwich. She got the musical numbers such as they were. I'm sure the movie-going public was paying their tickets to see Cagney dance. <br /><br />Also in addition to giving him some dance numbers a female dance partner would have been nice. He danced well with Ruby Keeler in Footlight Parade and with Virginia Mayo and Doris Day in The West Point Story. Weren't Ginger Rogers, Eleanor Powell or Ruby Keeler available?<br /><br />No memorable songs came out of this. And Daw's voice is waisted as well. She has a Jeanette MacDonald soprano voice which was so out of place with a swing band.<br /><br />No wonder Cagney went running back to Warner Brothers. But they should have given him some decent musicals.
Young and attractive Japanese people are getting on the wrong side of some curse again, this time it involves mobile phones. Various people die until the disgruntled spirit behind it all is unearthed, so essentially if you've seen more than 2 recent Japanese horror films you can plot this film in the dark with your hands tied.<br /><br />The main attraction here is the fact that Takashi Miike is behind the camera. So far I've been more impressed with his low key works like City of Lost Souls, however as One Missed Call plodded along I was yearning for his more renowned envelope pushing of Dead or Alive or the overly pseudo-Cronenberg style of Audition. Despite a lot of his films being essentially empty, at least they do have merits such as these, or at least something to keep your attention like Tadanobu Asano prancing about in shiny suits impersonating Johnny Depp. There's none of that in One Missed Call; there's just very little of credit: the acting is bland and average, there is very little (nothing, in all honesty) in the way of scares or suspense, and in places it's just downright boring.<br /><br />However, there are moments where Miike's glacier-like sense of humour seeps through the bland commercialism; most notably with the instance of the TV show intent on filming the demise of one of the cursed subjects, and the TV programmer more concerned about his ratings than the girls' life. But aside from this there is nothing to suggest it is Miike behind the camera; most notably his usual visual flair has vanished without a trace (and that includes his famous gore), although it's more likely he just didn't have any enthusiasm for the project, and I can understand why. One Missed Call isn't offensively bad. It's just frustratingly average.<br /><br />Miike obviously loves directing. With his huge yearly output it's obvious he isn't going to be 100% concerned about all his projects. But even with this in mind, One Missed Call felt like he was just paying the bills.
By all the fawning people have been doing over Miike and his work. I sat through this flick tonight. I figured, if it's half as good as Ringu, as I assumed from these comments it might be, than it will be worth my time.<br /><br />No such luck.<br /><br />I'm all for finding the next great director (or writer), but I don't think Miike is the one. I don't have an NYU Masters of Fine Arts, but I do know this much: a horror movie has to have pacing. It also has to give the viewer more credulity than this movie does.<br /><br />This film's pacing had me shaking my head. Some of the scenes near the end dragged so badly, I went to the fridge and lingered there while Kou Shibasaki stared at the camera for seemingly minutes on end, eyes wide and mouth agape. A famous director once made the claim, and I'm paraphrasing, a movie could be made by turning the camera on a beautiful woman and letting it roll. Kou is not a good enough actress to make that work. She stares paralyzed at the undead girl for more scenes than I care to remember. And she isn't the only one doing an impersonation of a deer in headlights; other cast members apparently feel the need to imitate this non-performance. The script gives them little room to do much else for far too much of the time.<br /><br />I like Asian cinema. Hong Kong action flicks from the last 30 years, Korean horror like "Phone" and "Koma", Ang Lee's work, some of the trashy but fun Filipino movies with gratuitous sex and fighting, as well as others. Chakushin Ari I could have done without.
Basically, take the concept of every Asian horror ghost movie and smash it into one and you get this movie. The story goes like this: a bunch of college kids get voice mails from their own phones that are foretelling their deaths. There's some s*** going on with ghosts, which if you've seen any Asian ghost movie, isn't scary by now. This movie was quite upsetting because it's very clichéd. It's the same bullcrap, different movie.<br /><br />The acting was pretty good. Unfortunately the actors are put into a very Ring-esquire situation, so it's nothing we haven't seen in the past. The two lead acts did a solid job though.<br /><br />As far as gore, there's not much going on. We get a cool sequence that includes an arm twisting a head off (I don't know how else to explain that), but it was cut away so you don't see anything except the final result. You see some blood at times, including decapitated arms and a zombie (that looked really cool I might add), but this movie isn't too bloody.<br /><br />The scares in the movie are few and spread out, and it's really not that scary. You'll get some creepy images at times, but it's not enough for me to consider scary. It's nothing different from Ringu, Ju-On, or Dark Water, and none of those scared me either. That's really the downfall of this (and most Asian horror movies) is that if it doesn't deliver the scares then it's just not that good.<br /><br />As far as directing, Takashi Miike still did a pretty good job. He seemed a little tamed in this movie compared to his past movies, but he still portrays a lot of his messed up style he's become famous for. A lot of images were a lot like Miike (including a scene with a bunch of jars of dead fetuses), and the last 15 - 20 minutes seemed far more Miike then the rest of the movie. Still, the movie is flawed by its unoriginality.<br /><br />I would recommend this only to people who are huge on Asian horror movies (even if you are, I can recommend much better) or big Miike fans. Warning to those who want to get into Miike, this is NOT his best work.<br /><br />I'm giving it a 4 because it's just mediocre. Perhaps if this was released 4 or 5 years ago it might be worth a higher rating.<br /><br />Also, I'd like to b**** about Asian horror movies real quick. How come if it's an Asian horror movie it's automatically suppose to be good over here (US)? A LOT of these movies are the equivalent in Japan to what Scream, Urban Legends, and I Know What You Did Last Summer were over here in the 90's. If you've seen one you've seen them all. And a lot of these movies rely way too much on scares and imagery that if it doesn't deliver the scares they set out to do then they're just not that good, and nothing would change that. More Asian horror films need to be more like Audition and A Tale of Two Sisters, two movies that if they don't frighten or scare you, at least they have great stories, acting, direction, cinematography, and much more to back them up. Two movies that aren't just great horror movies, but great movies in general. More Asian horror movies need to be like these instead of the cliché, "A ghost just wanted to be found so it went around killing people through their phone/video tape/house/electric appliance/water pipes/google search engine/vibrator/groceries/etc."
Acclaimed Japanese director Takashi Miike can't seem to get the wheels moving with this torpid thriller, an adaptation of Yasushi Akimoto's book concerning an evil old woman (and child abuser!) who is part of a new urban legend: if your cell-phone rings with a strange tone--and you see the message 'One Missed Call'--you will replay the message only to hear your own final words before your death. Most successful part of the film is the trenchant satire of Reality TV cameras intruding on the future victims, but the not-so-elaborate deaths (which include a hidden piece of red candy!) are disappointing and dispiriting. The frequent shots of ravaged dead bodies are actually displayed rather discreetly, and this overall politeness may be the reason why the film is ultimately so staid. Hollywood predictably jumped on the far-fetched plot in 2008, yet the U.S. version fared no better. NO STARS from ****
One missed call, another Asian horror based on the cell phone. I recently rented a Korean horror film based on a cell phone called "Pon". One Missed Call was just as boring as that one. Maybe phones just aren't scary or something, but this move was dull and drab. No tension or thrills for me, and the final monster was disappointingly cheesy and unscary. The movie dragged quite a bit in different parts, and felt too long. Didn't keep my attention. It seems phones are hard to make frightening, it's kind of like trying to make a pop vending machine eerie. And it is ridiculous to compare this with "The Ring", it seems every Asian horror movie is compared to it and so far I haven't seen any that measure up in the least. To horror directors - take the phone off the hook as a horror device.
Is Miike like Chabrol, alternating art with dreck, sometimes confusing the two? Does he match the fifty/fifty rate some claim for Chabrol? Do we see here too much or too little Miike? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. But I could easily fill ten lines just citing Chakushin ari's (One Missed Call's) steals, allusions, and clichés. Others here will hit on most of them, though not perhaps Ochiai's Saimin (Hypnosis) for the sleazy telecast taunting things supernatural. Only once, when Yumi takes the zombie-like mother in her arms, did One Missed Call startle me a little.<br /><br />One other point of interest: Renji Ishibashi (looks like Christopher Walken) as the detective. Ishibashi in Audition's abusive back story, and as Dead or Alive's Boss Aoki of the vat of excrement drowning and more, may be the most convincingly evil character actor I've ever seen. So here he's a cop.
How many centuries will pass until the Japanese/Asian horror films abandon the long-haired ghost-woman shtick? Admittedly, they've managed to rip off "Ringu" a million times, and often it worked well - which just goes to show that originality isn't that much of a requirement in the horror genre (or that I'm very uncritical and easy to please?). However, this time around I found myself a little restless, somewhat bored. It's not a bad film, but it's at least half-an-hour longer than it should be, with its absurd 110 minutes length. Compared to many other Japanese horror films, OMC lacks atmosphere and excitement. Plus, the ending is confusing: it makes no sense at all. As for the ring-tone: Miike could have come up with a melody that is more effective than that forgettable little thing. Even though it was played a dozen times I can't even remember it - that's how scary it was. Speaking of Miike, for him this is something of a commercial venture, so if anyone thinks they might be getting perversion of the "Bijita Q" or "Audition" kind, they're wasting their time.
this movie was fantastic great movie all through scary as hell. and i mean it freaked me out as much as pulse and IT and the omen etc. but with a great movie comes a crap ending right? RIGHT! this movies ending was pathetic stuff. i mean a ghost turned back time in a chicks house and it thinks now i have done that it means i can call her and itll be the right time cause she thinks it is. right? wrong. my ass! i don't care if the ghost is Satan, it just doesn't happen. its a movie yes but most evil movies or praised movies like this are meant to make sense but it didn't. it just showed us what i just said and people don't think anything of it. can someone please tell me why you all haven't noticed that pathetic part. the movie for me ended in the hospital and that is all. check out number 3 its much more kick ass
Clearly rips off Hideo Nakata's Ringu (Ring, 1998) and Hongurai Mizu no Soko Kara (Dark Water, 2002), with hints of Ju-On (The Grudge, 2000), but atrociously done gore (a green corpse with red eyes!?) weak story, and a weak theme (I find it very difficult to find a picture message scary). There were two moments in this film that made me shudder, both involving an unexpected hand, and after Oodishon (another Miike Takashi one, this one from 1999) had me tingling all over for hours after seeing it, and all of the films this steals from were actually scary, I can't see this film as anything other than a sell-out to the western popularity of the big Japanese horror films. Two out of ten.
This norwegian movie is so crap, the actors can not act cause they seems to be reading from a book and the story is so (wannabe) hollywood..the only actor who did a ok job was Haavard Lilleheie..3/10 If you want a really good norwegian movie watch Buddy, great actors and a feelgood story 9/10
This romantic comedy isn't too bad. There are some funny things happening here and there, and there are some rather memorable characters in it.<br /><br />The acting, however, is amateurish (with the exception of the banker). While some scenes are great fun, others are simply embarrassing. In particular, I found the "romantic" part of the story poor. <br /><br />All in all, I guess it's worth seeing if you like football and romantic comedies. It's not really a bad movie, and the ending did feel quite good. Just don't expect anything out of the ordinary. Fair enough if you have an hour and a quarter to kill.
First of all, I firmly believe that Norwegian movies are continually getting better. From the tedious emotional films of the 70's and 80's, movies from this place actually started to contain a bit of humour. Imagine.. Actual comedies were made! Movies were actually starting to get entertaining and funny, as opposed to long, dark, depressing and boring.<br /><br />During the 90's and 00's several really great movies were made by a 'new generation' of filmmakers. Movie after movie were praised by critics and played loads of money. It became the norm!<br /><br />Then came United...<br /><br />*MINOR SPOILERS* It's just simply not funny. Not once. Not ever. But the thing is... We THINK its funny. Because we're used to norwegian movies to be funny. Especially with a cast like this with a few really funny comedians. But.. They neither say nor do anything funny! Where's the humor? Show me the humor! Is it the awkward clerk played by Harald Eia? Is it the overacting totally ridiculously unrealistic football coach? Is it the commentaries by Arne Scheie? The movie is just not funny!<br /><br />But thats not my main rant about United. That namely is the predictability. (And it is here I fear that norwegian comedies have come to a standstill since I have seen this in many other movies as well.) All the time you just know its going to end well. All characters are exactly as they are presented in the start of the movie, and everybody gets exactly what they deserve in the end. There's absolutely no room for surprises at all!<br /><br />All in all I can say that I sat with a bad feeling after seeing this movie. It was the one movie that made me realize that we probably need some new blood in norwegian movie making... again!<br /><br />Rating: 1/6
I saw this recently on a faded old VHS tape, and remembered it dimly. Looking at it now, it seems charming.<br /><br />When it was first released, it was recognized by pretty much everyone as a spoof of coming out as a gay teenager. To hammer the point home, the mother is seen reading a paperback copy of "1 Teenager In 10", the most popular coming out book of the time. David Warner hams it up as the persecuting vampire hunter [= gay-hating evangelist], who is of course a self-loathing closet case. The list of sight gags and in-jokes that were included to make sure nobody missed the point would be too long to go into. The producers were having some good-natured fun, and hoping, no doubt, to lighten-up as well as to enlighten.<br /><br />But I have no clue how a teenage audience would look at this film, nowadays. In some places, where there is education and culture, the terrifying ordeals that gay teens had to go through are a thing of the past. But I'm sure there are plenty of dark, nasty corners of our continent where it's just as bad as it always was.
This is indeed quite the strange movie... First, we have an ex-U.S.-gymnast trying to turn actor (or something), and this seems to be the only role he ever got (that I know of anyway) -- and for good reason. While he does pull off the role well enough to keep some interest, it is a rather bland and flat performance. Second, we have the WORST EVER sound effects ever used in a movie!!! I'm not kidding. This alone makes the movie extremely comical, but in that annoying way. hehe And third, while we have a generally decent acting supporting cast (including the required hot chick!), an actually not-so-bad story, and some cool visuals; the dialogue, fight scenes involving gymnastics (hilarious!), and overall execution of the plot are weak. This movie would have been barely better as a network TV movie (too bad Fox wasn't around in 1985). It's one of those movies that's simply bad, yet you can't resist watching and even enjoying it once you get used to it, especially now that it has found the perfect eternal home on late night TV and cable.
Gymkata is without a doubt one of the worst movies ever made. But not the bad kind of bad movies. This one is so awful it's fun to watch and laugh. Kurt Thomas clearly does not have a lucrative career in acting. He should go back to gymnastics. But who can forget such memorable scenes as the high bar with chalk, the stone pommel horse or the five minute chase scene through the village of the crazies in slow motion. I don't think it was meant to be this bad, but who can tell. It's not art, but if you want something lite and fluffy that will make a good conversation, rent gymakta. Makes for an evening of fun.
One night I was waiting for my friends to come back to the apt and "Gymkata" happened to be on; I watched way too much of it. It is indeed hilarious, and horrifying, really. Think about it this way--if in your job you had an idea for something this bad and went on to execute it in as terrible a fashion as this, how long exactly would you last? Not as long as this movie. It's a must-see, obviously.
This movie is hilarious. The problem is that it's not a comedy. One classic scene involves Kurt Thomas just happening to find a pommel-horse in the middle of a village square (which he uses to pummel the bad guys.) Another is the trek into the "Village of Crazies." Too bad this movie wasn't made to be a farce, or it may have gotten better ratings.
Thank G_d it bombed, or we might get treated to such delights as "Skate Fu" where we can see the likes of Brian Boitano performing a triple lutz & slashing bad guys to ribbons with his razor-sharp skates, but I digress. One thing that could have helped this turkey would have been a little T & A from Ms. Agbayani. It's not like the world would have seen anything new (at least that part of the world who saw her Playboy spread.) I truly believe that porn would have suited her 'talents' much better, although Aubrey Hepburn couldn't have stayed afloat in this sewer. One explanation for Kurt Thomas' presence could be a traumatic brain injury, possibly from coming up short too often on dismounts. It's a good thing the IOC wasn't as diligent on 'doping' as they are now, or Kurt would surely have been stripped of his medals. To be avoided at all costs.
This movie was God-awful, from conception to execution. The US needs to set up a "Star Wars" site in this remote country? This is their premise? The way to gain access, the US concludes, is to win an obstacle course like cross-country race, where the winner can ask anything of the leader. And who better to win this race known as the "Game" than a gymnast? Of course! A gymnast would be the perfect choice for this mission. And don't forget that his father was an operative. Lucky for our hero, there happen to be gymnastic equipment in fortunate spots, like the stone pommel horse in the middle of a square (for no reason) amidst crazy town. Perfect.<br /><br />But above and beyond the horrible, HORIBBLE premise, is the awkward fumblings of the romantic scenes, the obviously highly depressed ninjas whose only job seems to be holding a flag to point out the race path, and the worst climax ever. After winning the race, our hero puts forth the wishes of the US government. And lo and behold, all the effort was worth it, because the US gets its "Star Wars" site! Huzzah! THIS IS YOUR TRIUMPHANT ENDING?! Wow.<br /><br />But still, being such a bad movie, it can be great fun to watch. The cover alone, depicting ninjas with machine guns, was enough to get me to rent this film.<br /><br />But if I were ever to meet Kurt Thomas (the gymnast-star) in real life, I would probably kick him in the face after a double somersault with 2 1/2 twists in the layout position.
Whew. What can be said about Gymkata that hasn't already? This is nothing but pure halarity from beginning to end. If you want a movie that will keep you on the floor laughing, this is the perfect movie to get. From Cabot's wild-style mullet/sweater combo to Parmistan (and it's four billion assorted ninjas), everything about this film reeks of crap.<br /><br />Directed by Robert Clouse, the infamous mind that brought you the mirror scene in Bruce Lee's Game of Death, he once again showcases his complete lack of directing talent. A few other faces you most likely won't recognize will appear for your enjoyment as well, from Buck Kartalian to Tadashi Yamashita, although you won't remember them or care about them after the movie is done.<br /><br />Supposedly based on a book called "The Terrible Game," which, if I could find a single trace of it's existence anywhere I would be interested in reading it, to see where this thing went wrong. Instead, the book apparently is a figment of Gymkata's imagination. Probably something Clouse made up in order to sell his lame idea.<br /><br />Pick this one up and Yakmallah it for yourself. It is easily one of the best bad movies I have ever seen, and that is saying quite a bit.
Buck's role as The Kahn brings to mind Bob Barker (of The Price is right) running a country the same way he runs his show. But there's lots more to chuckle and snort through in this turkey. Kurt Thomas as the baby-faced "hero" displays some considerable acrobatic skills, but not a whit of acting talent whatsoever. There's a few spooky moments (in the Village of Crazies, mostly), and some mildly impressive martial arts sequences. But any given "Ninja" movie will give you much more entertainment, and you won't feel as guilty about laughing.
America needs the best man possible to win "The game" so who do they hire? A gymnast (Oh brother!) played by Kurt Thomas who has the necessary skills to win in a game which involves ninjas, a village of crazies and Richard Norton who is told by Kurt Thomas "to keep his hardware in his pants." (His exact words) I missed this in theaters and it's a good reason because I would have probably been kicked out due to the laughing I broke into at regular intervals. The first thing that went through my mind was just how lame these ninjas are if a gymnast can kick their ass. Kurt Thomas is like 5 foot 4 and he hardly strikes one as "The best man for the job" As to the acting talent of Kurt Thomas, well if you can't say something nice... In all seriousness though one has to wonder how much cocaine was being used to furnish an idea so stupid. Only the decision to cast Tara Reid as a scientist tops the dumbness here. For 18 years though this held the title of the dumbest movie I had ever seen. Not to say I didn't find this unwatchable, I was laughing so hard I almost choked to death. Twice. Only in the 80's could a movie with such a bad idea get made. Although for the record it is the only movie to ever feature a hero so wimpy, he can't even pull a wedged sword out from the ground. This is the wimpiest action movie ever made, and one of the most hilarious also.<br /><br />* out of 4-(Bad)
If I could say it was better than Gymkata, I at least felt my money was not totally wasted.<br /><br />Then I saw Steven Segal's On Deadly Ground.<br /><br />This movie should see a resurrection though on MST 3K. If Santa Claus Conquers the Martians could make Tom Servo's head explode, one wonders what mayhem this movie could cause.<br /><br />There is a very good reason why Kurt Thomas never had a movie career.<br /><br />The writers of this dreck should be forced to wear placards every day of their lives that say "Bitch slap me! I was a writer on Gymkata."
Kurt Thomas stars as Jonathan Cabot some kind of a gymnast who trains for a special game which involves being hunted by a group of ninjas, but those ninjas won't stand a chance, especially since Cabot is a gymnast! Taken as a whole Gymkata is one helluva bad movie, the atrocious acting, the god-awful script and really incompetent directing make the quality below human standards, however this movie is so terrible it becomes really, really funny. I mean with dialog such as "I know I'll outsleep them!" or "Ha!, your through!" only add to the mock value that Gymkata more then obtains. Besides it's (Wisely) the only movie that has are hero a gymnast who finds things to swing on in the heat of the moment.
As a kid, my friends and I all believed that Gymkata was the most violent, bloody movie ever made. I'm not sure who started that rumor. It was probably born out of the frustration of 10 year olds who weren't allowed to see it for one reason or other. Years after Gymkata was released, it became a perennial late night cable movie, and as a result, I've been able to make up for lost time. I must have seen scenes from this dreadful excuse for a film over a dozen times, and I can always spot it from 1-2 seconds of screen time. However, aside from the forced coupling of gymnastics and martial arts, the bad dubbing, the stiff dialog, and the outrageously difficult story-line, the film has some things going for it. With all that's bad about the movie visually, the sound is actually pretty entertaining. Never before has a punch or kick landed with so little force and so much volume! The canned kung-fu sounds are cheeky, but the slowed and pitched-down music, and the nearly 5 minute slow motion scene are truly weird. The chase through the city of demented, blood-thirsty villagers isn't really tense as much as it is irritating, and there are enough bad wigs and extras who all but look into the camera and wave to make this train-wreck a little fun. Could it be headed for cult-classic status? Where is MST3K when we need it?
Kurt Thomas in one of the series of gymnast olympic stars turned movie stars movies that mercifully only includes one other..Mitch Gaylord in American Anthem...at least that one had Janet Jones..this one has...um... a gymnast using his martial arts and his gymnastic skills to save a european country from dictatorship..sure it could happen.. on a scale of one to ten.. a 0
During the early 1980's, Kurt Thomas was something of a hero in the United States. Inevitably, men in his position get offered film roles that exist solely to capitalize on that. I have no idea what Thomas was paid to make this film, but I would have to be paid a big heap of money to agree to make a national fool of myself in a motion picture. The film is obviously derived from "Enter The Dragon," as are most martial arts pictures. Only instead of a real martial art, they concoct an absurd new martial art, accurately described by one critic as "a cross between Kung Fu and break dancing." A gymnast (Thomas, of course) is hired to rescue some lady from an impenetrable fortress, yet every room has a prop that is exactly what Thomas needs to kick the assistant baddies. Of course, he fights his way to the lead villain, and of course they have a fancy-dancy fight, with an ending that will surprise only those who have never seen a marshal arts film. There are touches which nostalgic types will like, particularly the mullet haircuts of Thomas and many of the male co-stars have. But the only reason to watch this film is if you have a grudge against Kurt Thomas, who now wishes he had never set foot on the film set.
Judging from this film and THE STRONG MAN, made the same year, I would not place Harry Langdon at the top of the list of great silent screen comedians. There simply is not enough there. Perhaps he was on his way to developing his style but sabotaged himself by taking his first big successes too seriously. In any event, all of his tricks are reminiscent of the greater funny men, but he lacks the acrobatic skills of Keaton and the prodigious ingenuity of Lloyd. He also undermines his own persona by dressing and walking like Chaplin's tramp character. His trademarks are childlike innocence, timidity of approach and a tendency to under-react to calamity by looking perplexed, batting his eyes or touching his pursed lips with the tip of his forefinger. The comedy in Langdon's films results from fate throwing various obstacles in his path which he tries to overcome in wimpy or naïve ways or with a minimum of physicality, such as throwing rocks at an approaching tornado to drive it away, propping up a collapsing building with a two-by-four or dodging boulders by lifting a leg so that they roll under him. In this story, about the son of a shoemaker who joins a cross-country walking race to publicize a rival company's footwear, he manages to win by sheer luck. There is nothing here that hasn't been done far better by the Big Three.
This movie was boring! <br /><br />Yes, there are a few funny moments and jokes, but you cannot base a whole movie on that! <br /><br />The characters are too stereotyped, there is no real story - but short episodes with freaky side-characters, who are not freaky enough to make the plot genuine.<br /><br />Shame, because most of the actors are acknowledged in Hungary, a mystery why they took the roles. <br /><br />This is *not* a new hope for the Hungarian film. It was boring, though it was meant to be genuine or unique. They could have tried much more harder than this... 2 out of 10
As I am from Hungary I have heard many people saying better and better things about Üvegtigris so far, but actually I don't understand the reason of all the fuss.<br /><br />I liked many points of the movie, some of the quotes really cheered me up, but the stereotyped characters are present again, like in every Hungarian film, and the story is also pretty dull. I liked the first half, but then I started to get bored, and then I found the whole film just BORING.<br /><br />Rudolf Péter is good as always, Reviczky is brilliant also, but the others are just there... doing nothing.<br /><br />How many years still have to pass for a GOOD Hungarian film???
For that matter one of the worst FILMS ever made. Plot goes as follows. Slog through jungle looking areas for 10 minutes or so. Have Bo go somewhere and strip. Slog through the jungle some more. Give Bo another excuse to strip. Back to the jungle. Oh look! There's a Tarzan looking guy! Strip, Bo - strip. Kill the safari people. Tarzan looking guy has a fight scene. Saves Bo. Bo strips. Run credits. Run credits, run.
This is the best film the Derek couple has ever made and if you think this is a recommendation then you haven't seen any of the others. There are the usual ingredients: it is just as poorly acted as their other efforts, we can watch Bo disrobing or auditioning for wet T-shirt contests quite frequently, the story is just laughably idiotic, and the film takes itself much too seriously. And then: Orang Utans in Africa?<br /><br />But it has a few things going for it. Bo looks great, the production values (sets, costumes, etc.) are quite good, and this greatly enhances its camp value. In a strange way it is actually quite funny, simply because it tries to be serious and fails so badly.
It is a great tragedy that both Richard Harris and John Derek are no longer with us. But that shouldn't blind anybody to the fact that in 1981, a pretty ugly blotch appears on both men's CVs. No doubt John Derek conceived this movie doing for his wife what 'Some Like it Hot' and 'One Million Years BC' did for Maryln Monroe and Raquel Welsh respectively, creating an iconic sex symbol for the new decade. Having run to embrace Dudley Moore on the beach in '10' Bo's reputation, an all-star cast and location filming in Sri Lanka meant that nothing could go wrong. Alas, as they say, Mortals plan and God laughs. It is said that when this film premiered in 1981, the Edgar Rice Burrows estate tried to take legal action against it. Bo Derek plays Jane Parker who sets off into turn-of-the century Africa to be reunited with her boozy, abusive Dad, Richard Harris. Daddy Parker is an explorer who has set out to find 'the Great Inland Sea' the stuff of local legend, whose existence has been poo-pooed by conventional wisdom. Harris is worth watching for a wonderfully hammy, tanked -up performance which includes singing an Irish ditty at an Indian elephant that somehow found its way into Africa (did it arrive at the same time as the Orang-Utan from Sumatra???) Furthermore, although Jane professes to despise Parker, Bo and Rich's relationship is creepily incestuous, testimony perhaps to the effects of the tropical heat. Before long, however, local legends start to circulate about a 'Great White Ape' and Jane hears the famous yodel. This is the movie's cue for Miles O'Keefe, a future B-Movie star, making a rather odd debut as the loin-clothed Lord of the Jungle. Unlike Johnny Weismuller with his pidgin English or Ron Ely who speaks the language fluently, the O'Keefe Tarzan is mute. Given some of Bo and Richie's dialog, though, this is probably not a bad thing. Harris and his caravan eventually reaches the Great Inland Sea, located atop a gigantic plateau that seems to run halfway across Africa....hang on, aren't seas, lakes and other watery places generally located in low-lying areas?? Nevermind, it is just one of many anomalies in the John Derek universe. The crew attempt to mount the cliffs and when the ropes snap, Harris roars echoing abuse at the hapless men who have plummeted to their deaths. On another occasion, Jane decides to take a nude swim by the Inland Sea, giving another occasion to see some gratuitous nudity. Out of nowhere a single male lion appears. Now lions usually travel in prides and never go near beaches but later on, Tarzan will be wrestling with a (venomous) boa constrictor. Zoology doesn't seem to have been one of John Derek's strong points..... This being a Tarzan movie, Jane becomes enchanted with the Lord of the Jungle and resolves to take his virginity. But having seen his closeness to some of those chimps, you do have to wonder...Speaking of which, it's not only the Edgar Rice Burroughs estate could have sued. It is highly probable that certain primates were on the phone to their lawyers: the chimps here make you miss Cheeta badly. Especially when they do ridiculous things like ride on the backs of elephants and clap their hands when Tarzan and Jane finally get it on! The climax of this film has Bo and Harris captured by some rather stereotypical cannibals who paint our heroine and prepare to sacrifice/eat/execute her. Suffice is to say that The Great Wooden Ape gets his girl and *SPOILER* Harris gets himself impaled on a huge elephant tusk! This doesn't stop the dying Parker from delivering a rambling monologue to Jane. As far as I am aware, the law suit from the Rice Burrows estate never materialized but 'Tarzan the Ape Man' was crucified at the box office (no kidding?) A pity. John Derek could have directed 'Tarzan the Ape Man 2' with Bo Derek and Miles O'Keefe living in domestic bliss and Dudley Moore as 'Boy.'
When I was a teen-ager seeing this film for the first time, I thought it was one of the best movies ever made. Of course, the reason for that is Bo Derek and her various states of undress in this film. However, now that I'm older, I can honestly say that this film is awful. Mind you, Bo Derek is absolutely incredibly beautiful, and she and husband-director John Derek make sure you see plenty of her. But when you take that aspect out of the film, it becomes one big dull ride. And Tarzan, well, he's all muscular like you think he should be, but when he sees Jane (that's Bo, of course) for the first time, he doesn't know what to think. This despite the fact that Bo is wearing a wet see-thru shirt, with her breast prominently displayed. Tarzan would be the only primitive man on the planet who would have that problem. If you are looking for a movie to slobber over a beautiful naked body, then this might fill the ticket. If you are looking for a thoughtful, entertaining and worth-while film, go elsewhere...almost anywhere else at that!!!
Surely one of the most ill-advised remakes of a classic in film history – especially since the promise of its tag-line, “The most beautiful woman of our time in the most erotic adventure of all time”, isn’t even properly exploited! Although this film was regularly shown on TV in my neck of the woods since my childhood days, its notoriety (for awfulness not erotic content, mind you) kept me away from it until now – and I only relented because I have recently enjoyed Bo Derek’s previous film, 10 (1979), and have been watching a lot of fantasy stuff as well over the Christmas period.<br /><br />Lead actress/producer Bo Derek is rather ridiculous playing the schoolgirl-ish sexual innocent (witness the inept banana scene) and, as was to be expected, she is made to get her clothes off a few times but, as welcome as these scenes were, she came off as far more sensual in 10 than she does here; Richard Harris, then, chews the scenery incessantly as Jane’s obsessed explorer father, but John Philip Law barely registers as his aide who meekly shows some initial interest in Jane herself; newcomer Miles O’Keeffe has the title role and he only makes his entrance 45 minutes into the movie, is completely silent throughout except for his famous yodel (which is probably lifted from Johnny Weissmuller anyway!) and, furthermore, is as inexpressive as one of the trees he dangles from at regular intervals throughout the film’s second half!; for the record, he later starred in two ATOR movies (or would-be CONAN imitators) for Joe D’Amato and the King Arthur-era set, SWORD OF THE VALIANT (1984).<br /><br />When still an actor, director John Derek (who also serves as his own cinematographer here) had worked with some good film-makers (Cecil B. De Mille, William Dieterle and Robert Rossen) and a few great ones (Otto Preminger, Nicholas Ray and Don Siegel) but he clearly learned zilch from them as his direction of this one is a major liability: appallingly pretentious at times (witness the perfectly horrid python attack sequence) with a senseless overuse of the slow motion technique and cheesy transitions; this was Derek’s seventh film as a director (and his second of four with wife Bo) and, eventually, he would only get to make two more.<br /><br />The film’s utter failure only needs to be gauged by the fact that the Tarzan legend was tackled once more on film – in GREYSTOKE: THE LEGEND OF TARZAN, LORD OF THE APES (which, surprisingly enough, I haven’t watched myself yet) – a mere three years later!! Nominated for six Razzie Awards (including John Derek, Richard Harris and Miles O’Keeffe) and winning one for Bo Derek herself, TARZAN, THE APE MAN was co-written by Gary Goddard, the future director of another highly anticipated but ultimately disappointing transposition to the silver screen of a (this time animated) heroic figure, MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE (1987) which I will be revisiting presently as well (yay)! Despite a charming closing credit sequence showing Tarzan and Jane playing with around with an orang-utan and a music score that is not half bad actually and quite rousing on occasion, any belated good intentions are defeated by an extremely silly climax involving natives painting Bo completely white and, fatally, John Derek’s clear disinterest in the character of Tarzan himself which makes him come off as an unimportant supporting character in his own self-titled movie!!
This is a re-imagining of Tarzan in the era of the Soloflex and Apocalypse Now. There's nothing inherently wrong with using films eased moral constraints to portray an erotic side to the Tarzan legend. There's nothing inherently wrong with the premise that Tarzan doesn't speak. There's plenty wrong with suggesting a woman who could get herself to an African jungle in 1910, could be this offensively stupid and plastic. Bo has as few lines as possible when bodies are explored because this movie is merely a video-centerfold, as neutral as possible so that you can project yourself and your lecherous fantasies into the project. If it succeeds anywhere it's in the implication that National Geographic has influenced the way the imagery of a Tarzan movie might be constructed.<br /><br />It would be ridiculous to argue that movies shouldn't employ the sexual tease as ONE of many tools to draw in viewers. Some really great film moments incorporate it. But this move is at the opposite end of the spectrum - the tease is the only thing going on here; at the time of its release and now. You sit through awful, dumb scenes that offer no interest, and miles of footage of bad acting to drool over the next peek at either of two bodies. Yes... Bo Derek and Miles O'Keeffe are beautiful (um, congratulations on having a working libido.) but if that's your excuse for giving this schlock a good rating you really should visit a porn store and stock up. There's only a hairs-breadth difference between the two formats and (I'm just guessing here) a horny viewer would probably really enjoy the latter. The question is whether a mainstream movie is the best venue in the marketplace for viewers to seek out products that satisfy lust alone.<br /><br />As a showman, John Derek successfully capitalized on the sexual mystique developed over wife Bo in the movie "10"; and created a media event out of a shallow project whose only merit was the hotness of the two leads. The movie itself was beside the point. He was about 20 years ahead of his time in thinking audiences would applaud him for making an insipid, shallow movie that was only about showcasing superficiality.<br /><br />As a director, John Derek appears to require only that Mrs. Derek look pleasant, empty and hump-able in every scene. It's hideously shot. The camera placement is annoying. In terms of editing, the entire 'wipe' catalog is exhausted. The credit sequence is garish. And it's a toss-up as to who commits the worse screen offense; Bo Derek who's such a bimbo that she can't even figure out how to play a bimbo, or Richard Harris who shouts every line (as he likes to do) until you want to shoot him. At least with Bo you can imagine her blaming some horny writer for shortchanging her.
there are three kinds of bad films - the cheap, the boring, and the tasteless. the only really bad movies are boring and tasteless. <br /><br />boring films are just, well, boring - if you don't leave quickly enough, you fall asleep.<br /><br />tasteless films actually have their defenders; but the fact remains that they are masturbatory aids for very sick people.<br /><br />only the cheap bad films are really funny, because the filmmakers wanted to make their films so desperately, they way-over-reached beyond their abilities and available resources.<br /><br />Bo Derek is just naturally boring and tasteless; fortunately, fate and a lack of funds and skill redeem her by making her seem cheap as well. this film is hilarious and it may well be the last really funny-bad film ever made.<br /><br />i first saw this in a theater, may god forgive me; i was laughing so hard i was rolling off my seat, and so too with most of the rest of the audience.<br /><br />it's clear that Derek and her husband-promoter, conceived of this film as, partly, a satire; unfortunately, the dereks clearly lacked any of the necessary resources to pull that off; consequently, the 'satirical' element comes off as some school-girl's impression of some gay young man's impression of frank gorshin's impression of the riddler in batman trying to pretend he's robin - it doesn't fly over our heads, it has no clue where any human head might be.<br /><br />on the other hand, there are some supposedly serious moments in this film - it is supposed to be an action film, remember - that are so astoundingly cheesy, one wonders if someone squirted spoiled milk in one's eye.<br /><br />as for Derek's infamous tendency to reveal her breasts - i can't imagine a less erotic nudity photographic display, she is so weird looking with those broad shoulders, i can't imagine what any one ever saw in her.<br /><br />as for the plot - such as it is - well, it isn't; Derek chases around Africa, and god alone knows why. then her father - Harris - pretends to act in some maniacal puppet-show, and then of course there's the hunk'o'Tarzan that seems to have wondered in from advertisement without knowing that the subject's changed - probably because he hasn't seen a script - apparently no one has.<br /><br />negligible camera work, shoddy editing - if it weren't for the 3-way with the chimp, the film would be unbearable -<br /><br />as it is, it's a real hoot.
Muscular man-ape in the jungles of Africa is hunted by an opportunistic expedition team; the comely daughter of the team's leader finds him first. Much-ballyhooed version of the Tarzan tale has an OK production, but is crippled by the single-handedly worst direction of a film I have ever seen. John Derek is bereft of inspiration beyond cheesy slow-motion action shots and peek-a-boo glimpses of wife Bo Derek's unclothed body; he has about as much talent behind the camera as Ed Wood. Trying for tongue-in-cheek sexuality, the Dereks lack finesse, snappy timing, and taste. They have a sense of self-parody and bravura abandonment (they do throw caution to the winds), but after a promising opening it all goes to hell. Miles O'Keeffe (who possibly had marbles in his mouth the entire time) has the title role, but plays third fiddle to John Derek's ego and Bo Derek's sense of self-importance. * from ****
This is not a very good telling of the Tarzan epic. There was only one reason for this movie. John Derek wanted to show off his beautiful wife in the buff! Bo Derek in '10' was at least a humorous movie and there was a reason for nudity and sex. This movie is nothing more than soft porn. If you're into that, well, then fast forward to it and skip the rest! This movie (like Bolero) was again a vehicle for Bo Derek to show off her terrible acting. She is undoubtedly a beautiful woman but a poster of her is more exciting than this movie! Richard Harris was a better actor than this; this was one of his few mistakes! don't waste your time on this movie...go buy the book instead.
I can't say this is the worst movie ever made, but personally I think of it that way because when it was originally released in theaters, (1) the initial buzz was positive enough that my girlfriend insisted we go see it, and we actually STOOD IN LINE to get tickets, and (2) it's still the only "serious" film I recall where the audience started snickering at a certain point and basically laughed at the movie the rest of the way through. Once we reached the infamous (and interminable) snake fight scene, I think everyone gave up.<br /><br />The only positive I can concede is the lush location shooting. Oh, and there's also Bo's breasts, although her acting is so wooden that the nudity is unerotic and doesn't rate much more than a Playboy pictorial.<br /><br />The "dramatic tension" in this film is between Bo's terrible acting and her husband's horrible direction. The snake fight has to be one of the most incompetent "action" sequences ever filmed. However, this is one of those films that's bad enough, it may be worth watching on the level of unintentional humor. Definitely the worst film I ever paid to see.
Bo Derek might have had a career had she not let her late husband, John, take over as her director. It's a real shame, no really, with the right direction and the right part (see "10"), Bo was okay. She wouldn't win any awards even at her best, but she is no worse than many an actress who has made it big in the past 15 years or so based on looks alone. But therein lay the problem, John was determined to ride the wave that Bo created with her appearance in 10, that of Bo being the "perfect 10," "the hottest woman in America," "the sex symbol of the 1980s." Problem is, in John's hands, this wave crashed with a resounding thud in only a few year's time. Maybe he knew her limitations as an actress, perhaps that is why he fashioned movies for her that concentrated on her body, not her acting skills. But it got old real quick. It didn't help matters any that the films of John and Bo Derek are (let's be honest) really, really bad. And bad sums up their take on Edgar Rice Burrough's literary icon, the Lord of the Jungle, Tarzan of the Apes.<br /><br />You know what's worst? This film is boring! Make me laugh, make me cry, just don't bore me. Not even Bo's stunning looks and figure can rouse any interest, and that is what the film is of course built around. Richard Harris (God bless his soul, he and Bo were previously in Orca btw) hams it up and makes his scenes at least a little interesting and Miles O'Keefe makes a physically impressive Tarzan. Maybe he got the last laugh, after being hit with a ton of venom from the critics over this film, Miles went on to a solid career as a B movie icon, in films that were not great art, but a million times more fun than this one. But other than that, it's Bo's body,and you can only see it so many times before you long for something else to go with it. Tarzan the Ape Man has nothing else. John Derek was a truly dynamic actor, he was not a director. He should have stayed with his strength. This film unfolds at a mind numbingly slow pace and nothing really happens in the action scenes. Burrough's Tarzan was all about excitement and wish fulfillment (who wouldn't want to be as agile, strong and good looking as Lord Greystoke?) and fun! You get none of that here. Watch it, and you will have wasted 107 minutes of your life. On second thought, you may come away with a valuable lesson, how not to handle someone's movie career. <br /><br />Bo Derek is all right in my book though. She stood by John until his dying day, has a true love of animals and nature and even looks back with a giggle at her time in the spotlight. She has also proven that she is not the dumb blonde many want her to make her out to be. If she could survive Tarzan and Bolero, she can survive anything. So come back Bo, all is forgiven.<br /><br />And as an aside, is the Steve Strong who plays the bad guy the same Steve Strong who a brief pro wrestling career?
The character of Tarzan has been subjected to so many clichés, and so many bad interpretations, that those who are hoping for a different kind of version (people like me, I mean, who liked the Tarzan books as a kid and have always wished for a movie version that followed the books just a little) ought to know how the recent renditions stack up. Some of the IMDb reviews address this point, but here's my $.02<br /><br />I am aware of only two--count 'em--cinema depictions of Tarzan, namely Greystoke with Christopher Lambert and the Disney animated version, that try to depict Edgar Rice Burrough's rather interesting character (the son of a marooned English noble couple, picked up after their death by a tribe of apes who raise him as one of themselves, and who becomes "lord of the jungle" because of his superior human intellect before making it back to England and claiming his other identity) rather than the usual Hollywood jungle-man whose origin remains obscure and whose trademarks are his famous yell, his mysterious inability to speak proper English despite long exposure to people who know the language, his habit of swinging on vines, his strength, heroism, etc. About the only thing these two characters have in common are the name Tarzan and the fact that they both have a wife named Jane. Ron Ely's TV version is something of a compromise: Like Burroughs' character, he speaks good English and is adept and suave in both cultures in a sort of JamesBondish way, but he's no Lord Greystoke and there's no Jane.<br /><br />Well, this film is in a third category of Tarzan films, and I hope it remains a category of one because it's awful. This category uses the character as a vehicle for, of all things, soft porn. Jane, played by legendarily bad actress Bo Derek is in Africa looking for her dad the absent-minded professor who is combing the jungle looking for something which is never specified. Though her dad is supposed to have been missing for a long time, she finds him effortlessly. Richard Harris as the dad is the best thing here; he sees the film is stupid so he has fun overacting and hamming in a way that reminds me of Peter O'Toole's deliberately silly performance in What's New Pussycat. Dad explains the legend of Tarzan ("some sort of ghost or spirit" he says--either a steal from, or an inartistic attempt at homage to, King Kong) to his daughter, who is at this point unfamiliar with the ape-man. Shortly afterward, we hear the infamous cliché of the Tarzan yell. Dad dies, which oddly doesn't seem to faze his devoted daughter very much. And then.....<br /><br />Then Tarzan appears, but says nothing. Indeed, he says nothing during the entire film. He and Jane fall in love, and they romp around wearing almost nothing as she recites doggerel love-poetry off-screen. The End. That's the plot. <br /><br />Well, not exactly; there's also a scene where Tarzan wrestles unrealistically with a boa constrictor--a most unusual boa, since it's the only poisonous one ever seen. Jane treats the bite with the aid of a chimp who helps by wringing out the garment she tears off to bind the wound with (I'm not making this up!), and this is only one of many excuses for her to take her clothes off.<br /><br />I always like to conclude a review by saying something positive, but this time it's hard. Let's see... well, it's unfair to criticize this film for featuring an orangutan, even though we all know orangutans don't live in Africa; after all, the classic Tarzan movies all used Indian elephants, did they not? Also, you have to admit that Bo Derek is pretty in face and form. (But in that case why the hell didn't she just make a career as an art model? What does it say about a movie when it becomes plain boring to look at a pretty woman? I actually haven't decided whether it's a positive or a negative that they never showed her crotch.) But now I realize: try as I may, I can't end on a positive note. <br /><br />See this film if you're a bad film buff. I'm outa here.
Because that's all she does through out this whole movie,is get naked for no good reason.When Tarzan is bitten by a snake,she suddenly removes her clothes.Since when is a boa constrictor poisonous?How did Tarzan get poisoned by the way ? This whole movie is screwed up.They couldn't get the species of animals for this movie right.Whats an Orangutang doing hanging around those chimpanzees?He must have wandered off the set of a much better film.The group of cannibal tribe's men look caucasin.Why?And why was Bo and her dad painted,if they were going to be eaten later?It was probably just a lame excuse to show her breasts and curves again.Her dad while hunting, approaches and acts stupidly around a bull elephant while standing too close to it.Any real African bull elephant that wasn't from the circus,would've stomped this moron's butt.Any smart hunter would've started shooting the minute he saw it.And I can't help but wonder if the camera was on LSD,because it kept showing various scenes that went in slow motion, for no good reason.It didn't make good sense at all.The boa constrictor that Tarzan wrestled with in the water,looks like one of those 12 Ft rubber snakes you can buy at a local Spencer Gifts.Tarzan was strangly speechless in this film,maybe from Bo flashing herself so much.I'm sorry,but this is a rip off of a classic Black and White Tarzan movie,with a similar but better story.Not To mention plotting .There's one scene in that I saw that everyone forgot to mention.*(SPOILERS ALERT)*The scene where he is trying to rescue Jane and her dad,has him standing too close to a running water spout.It made it seem like he's urinating on someone below him.Eww!Also, him and Jane are fooling around on a beach,with perverted monkeys jumping and clapping.She sure did take her dad's death real well.*(END OF SPOILERS)*There should be a Surgeon General's Warning on this film.That seeing Bo naked too much in this movie,will make you go blind.
I screamed my head off because seeing this movie was my first movie going experience ever at some 13 months old. I remember it being incredibly bloody and it made me angry. I watched it again on tv a few years ago. Big mistake -- the acting is wooden, the plot non-existent and the movie lacks merit unless 23 year-old T & A is what gets you going... 0/****
I was thirteen years old, when I saw this movie. I expected a lot of action. Since Escape From New York was 16-rated in Germany I entered the movie as fallback. It was so boring. Afterwards I realized that this was just crap where a husband exhibits his wife. I mean today you do this via internet and you pay for instant access. It is more then 20 years ago, but I am still angry that I waste my time with this film. This is a soft-porno for schoolboys. Undressing Bo Derek and painting her with color - nice. But then they should named the film Undressing Bo and painting her.
Bo Derek will not go down in history as a great actress. On the other hand, starting in the 1980s, actual acting talent seemed to be less and less of a required ability in Hollywood, so Bo could very well have gone onto bigger and better things after the big box office take of Blake Edwards' "10." That is if she hadn't allowed her husband, John Derek, to take over her career. Numerous Playboy spreads and bad movies like this one (this one in particular) directed by John destroyed what momentum she had and made her the butt of many a joke. In the 1980s it was assumed that you could put a certain personality in a certain movie and it would be box office gold. John figured that putting Bo in a movie wherein she was nude for much of the running time would make people flock to the theaters after the 10 hype. Maybe if the movie had been any good perhaps. This version of Tarzan has got to be the all time worst of the many iterpretations of Burrough's lord of the jungle, a slap in the face to character's book and film legacy. Tarzan is in fact an after thought as the film is primarily a vehicle for Bo's breasts and Richard Harris' wonderful over acting (remember, the pair had worked together in Orca). His scenery chewing helps you to stay awake during the boredom of it all and yes, the film is quite boring. Nothing really exciting happens and the few action scenes seem to have been shot by someone in a trance. Bo's body can only get you so far. Miles O'Keeffe who played Tarzan at least would go onto a long and enjoyable B movie career and Richard Harris can put this behind him after his recent acting triumphs, but Bo and John Derek never recovered from this fiasco and future collaborations between the two only served to show why his directing career and her acting career died in the first place.<br /><br />And how did the orangutan get to Africa?
Bo is Jane Parker, whose long-lost anthropologist father (Richard Harris, in the worst role of a very inconsistent career) is in Africa studying something or another. She tracks him down (how?) and he tells her of the natives' stories of a giant monster whose nightly howling can be heard throughout the jungle. Turns out to be the Ape Man himself (Miles O'Keeffe, who has the film's best dialogue), who rescues her from bad guys and falls in love with her, leaving them just enough time in this agonizing two hours to romp naked while a horny monkey looks on and cheers. Normally I'm very open-minded to varying opinions about any film, but this is the sole exception. This is the worst film ever made. If you don't agree, you haven't seen it. (Notes: Newsday called it "unendurable," which is the best one-word summary I can think of. The Maltin Movie Guide comments that they almost had to think of a rating lower than BOMB.)
I wanted to vote zero or lower. I loved the commentary. It IS the worst movie ever made and 'unendurable' is the perfect word for it, unless there is something worse that Roget never thought of. I am also at a loss to think of anything negative enough to accurately describe Bo Derek. The best that could be said of her is, she's consistent.
Tarzan the Ape Man is a remake of the 1932 film of the same time, and like that earlier film, it has little resemblance to Burroughs' literary character. But while the 1932 Tarzan was reduced to "Tarzan - Jane" speech, this Tarzan, played by Miles O'Keeffe, doesn't speak or even grunt. He does do the the Tarzan yell a couple of times, which sounds like it was sampled from the earlier film.<br /><br />No, Tarzan plays second banana to Bo Derek as Jane. Or rather, as third banana to Bo Derek's left breast and her right breast. This movie has no point but to show Derek naked.<br /><br />The two action scenes in the film are presented in slow motion, and are really bad. More evidence that no one cared.<br /><br />Bizarrely enough, Tarzan has an orangutan side kick in this film. Maybe he car pooled in from Sumatra with the Indian elephants that are also on display.
The only way we survived this stinker was by continually making fun of its stupidity. Funny thing is none of the audience around us seemed to mind--we all joined in.<br /><br />This movie is soooo bad, its only potential is to become a midnight cult movie that people can invent lines and throw popcorn at.
This was just horrible the plot was just OK, but the rest of the was was bad . I mean come on puppet and then they even tried to make the movie digital and that made it even worse! Normally I would like low-budget movie but this was just a waste of time and almost made me want to return the set that it came on. I have about ten low-budget movie set with like 6-8 movies on them and I would have to say this is the worse movie out of all of them. Also the wording is off and they use a fake plastic machetes that doesn't even look like a real one, they could of used one that looked even a little close to a real one so save your time and money and don't watch this horrorible movie.
If you are the sort of person who can get a kick out of a very bad movie, then I highly recommend this one. If you aren't, stay away. This is an astonishingly cheap-looking movie, and at times you may find yourself wondering if it isn't just a prank someone is pulling on you. The most positive comment I can make about it is that the people responsible seemed to realize that it was super-low-budget nonsense, so there is at least a sense of fun here.<br /><br />But this is as amateurish as it gets. Their idea of giant killer mushrooms are simply guys covered with beige colored sheets with what looks like trash can covers on their heads. It's obviously not meant to be taken seriously (to say the least), but even with that disclaimer you'll find yourself shaking your head at the awesome cheesiness of it all. Or laughing out loud frequently, as I did.
"Fungicide" is quite possibly the most incompetent, embarrassing, pitiful "film" I have ever seen. The acting is criminal, the direction practically non-existent, and the special effects presumably put together by unleashing a monkey with learning difficulties on a defenceless laptop computer.<br /><br />Far be it from me to stifle creativity, but I actually believe things like this shouldn't be made. I am sure the "film"-makers will say that, yes, the "film" was hampered by a low (as in nothing) budget - but in that case they just really shouldn't have bothered. As it is, they have offered the world something so dire, so execrable, that only imbeciles could get the merest shade of enjoyment from it.<br /><br />Starting the "movie" it wasn't as though I was expecting "Citizen Kane" or anything. I was expecting a low budget little horror with perhaps a modicum of inventiveness, a hint of fun, and even some energy. What I got was the cinematic equivalent of a used handkerchief.<br /><br />The plot? Well, our leering antihero scientist, who works in his parents' basement, is seen manically stirring some goo in a cup. Apparently, such high-level science is the end-result of years of research. His parents then send him off to a strange hotel-type place in the countryside to relax. There are some other people there, who are simply too awful to write about. Anyway, the scientist drops his test-tube onto some mushrooms - and soon the mushrooms grow and kill some people. (Wow, I'm getting suicidal just writing the plot summary). Our heroes save the day by detonating a barrel of balsamic vinegar (by attaching a "fuse" - really a piece of string - to it). The barrel unaccountably explodes with the power of a small nuclear weapon, destroying all the mushrooms. The end. (Thank goodness).<br /><br />That summary is as good as the "film" gets (and actually makes it sound a lot more interesting than it actually is). It really should never have got past this stage of development (by which I mean a plot outline scribbled on the back of an envelope with crayons). Somebody should have really stepped in and given someone a vigorous shake and said "NO." <br /><br />And those "special" effects. Well, they're "special" all right. This is CGI gone crazy. And done by a person who I can only assume believes the bicycle pump to be the pinnacle of modern technology. And when the mushroom monsters are not in the style of a 1984 home computer graphics package, they are represented by actors shuffling along covered in a sheet (I kid you not).<br /><br />One of the most inexcusable things about the movie is its laziness. This can be summed up by the scene in which the hero spins his guns (a la Clint Eastwood) and then fails miserably to get them in his pockets. I mean come on, a couple of retakes and he could have pulled it off, but just to leave it as it is - really weak.<br /><br />I cannot believe money was spent on this camcorder-shot rubbish. The "film"-makers should hang their heads in shame and be banned from going within fifty metres of any movie-making equipment.<br /><br />I also think it's wrong that friends and family of the makers come onto IMDb and post mendacious reviews and give stupidly high user ratings which give a totally inaccurate picture of the "movie." "Fungicide" is an absolute travesty of film-making. Mr Wascavage is either very, very stupid or very, very cynical.
To be honest, i'm surprised by the positive votes that this film has received. The movie just drags along its 81 minute life span, and the audience has to suffer the whole way through. Actually there are some positive moments in this film; Charlie Spradling gives a decent performance. She is given some pretty pathetic dialogue and she handles it pretty well. Scott Valentine(Merrideth's boyfriend in Family Ties), on the other hand, is a pretty rough watch. I guess the highlight of his performance is witnessing the guy laying on the beach wearing tiger-patterned chummies....give me a break. Also, Valentine gives us a boorish and pathetic portrayal of a suffering vampire who misses the day(to see a much more convincing rendition of the suffering vampire see Denice Duff in "Bloodstorm: Subspecies 4"). The movie moves so slow and is only positively punctuated by, and to be honest, Charlie Spradling's dance scenes. This movie can honestly only be recommended to the die hard fans of Charlie Spradling (which i am, and i still had a rough time watching it!).
This movie features Charlie Spradling dancing in a strip club. Beyond that, it features a truly bad script with dull, unrealistic dialogue. That it got as many positive votes suggests some people may be joking.
Almost a two-person play, and as such the dialog and the performances of the leads will be important. Neither are particularly good. This might have been stronger, in fact, if it had first been crafted as a two-person play, and then worked into a film.<br /><br />Anyway, a twitchy vampire who seems slightly autistic becomes infatuated with a stripper (as a result of watching too much porn in his crappy home). He wants to have her tell him about the daylight. He would have been better off finding someone with a day job, or someone who excels at painting a picture with words like a poet, but then they might not have a hot bod.<br /><br />After he gets her to do whatever he wants (and he's not terribly good at it), he intends to feed on her at 6 AM, at which point the sun rises. Much is made of that deadline, despite the fact that he also says that he can go without feeding, it will just make him hungrier. Additionally, he claims he can't let the stripper go, since she knows about him, but he lets a number of other people go who learn what he is. There are a lot of inconsistencies.<br /><br />Why this vampire chooses to live in a house so poorly boarded up that light from streetlamps and neighboring buildings pours in as if it were daytime, I'm not sure. With all the time in the world, you'd think he'd have done a better job, or fixed the place up a bit. He's clearly not a wealthy vampire.<br /><br />This is supposedly a remake, and I'm curious to see the original version of this, Dance of the Damned. Although, that was directed by Katt Shea, and the other films she directed for Corman (Stripped to Kill, StK II) were pretty bad.
Effort aside (This isn't a review about good intentions, its about the final product), this film is poorly written, overacted, and poorly directed. The story obviously had potential, but that story is nowhere present in this film.<br /><br />Clara Barton was a human being. She had passions, desires, love, pain, embarrassment, weakness, and self doubt just like the rest of us. You would never know that from this film of the lead actress's performance. In fact apply that to every character in the film, but in Barton's case: Every sentence is a speech. An epic over the top speech as though from an inhuman robot. In fact the only scene that plays well in one in the board meeting, and I realized thats because she's making a speech! Every idea she has is unbelievable in its context and she comes up with ideas that sound like they take a lifetime of soul searching right on the spot. For example, when she sees a wounded man, she'll start pontificating about the needs of the battlefield and to protect soldiers and putting up white flags, etc. As played in the film, there's no WAY she could come up with such a detailed well thought out idea in seconds.<br /><br />IN conclusion, this film robs Clara Barton of her struggles. It robs her of her humanity, and it inherently cheapens all she did because the script is written in clichés. The writer doesn't know Clara Barton, and seems to have based his script on an encyclopedia Britannica article. (yes they had those back then) But hey, nice Technicolor! (who cares)
This was a less than exciting short film I saw between features on Turner Classic Movies recently. While the film popped out due to its very intense Technicolor, the film itself just wasn't that moving and at times the plot looked pretty cheesy--like this was made for classroom use and capturing the attention of a wider audience WASN'T even a consideration. In particular, I really hated how many times in the film things were reiterated--such as when the characters talked to her, they usually said "Clara Barton" instead of "ma'am", "Miss Barton" or "Clara". Plus, one sickly confederate soldier said that he was a "Johnny Reb, A Confederate a Rebel,..."--almost like he was the cartoon character Mojo Jojo from the Powerpuff Girls. This was just sloppy writing--period.<br /><br />It was interesting to see John Hamilton (later, "Perry White" on the SUPERMAN TV show) in a beard as President Garfield. Yep--it's him under that beard.
Scotty (Grant Cramer, who would go on to star in the great B-movie "Killer Klowns from outer space") agrees to help three middle-aged guys learn how to 'dialog' the ladies in this bad '80's comedy. Not bad as in '80's lingo, which meant good. Bad as in bad. With no likable characters, including, but not limited to, a kid who's the freakiest looking guy since "Friday the 13th part 2"' a girl who leads men on and then goes into hissy fits when they want to touch her, and the token fat slob, because after all what would an '80's sex comedy be without a fat slob?? Well this one has two. This movie is pretty much the bottom of the barrel of '80's sex comedies. And then came the sequel thus deepening said proverbial barrel.<br /><br />My Grade:D- <br /><br />Eye Candy: too numerous to count, you even see the freaky looking kid imagined with boobs at on point, think "Bachlor Party" but not as funny, and VERY disturbing.<br /><br />Where I saw it: Comcast Moviepass
Back in 1985 I caught this thing (I can't even call it a movie) on cable. I was in college and I was with a high school friend whose hormones were raging out of control. I figured out early on that this was hopeless. Stupid script (a bunch of old guys hiring some young guys to show them how to score with women), bad acting (with one exception) and pathetic jokes. The plentiful female nudity here kept my friend happy for a while--but even he was bored after 30 minutes in. Remember--this was a HIGH SCHOOL BOY! This was back before nudity was so easy to get to by the Internet and such. We kept watching hoping for something interesting or funny but that never happened. The funniest thing about this was the original ad campaign in which the studio admitted this film was crap! (One poster had a fictional review that said, "This is the best movie I've seen this afternoon!"). Only Grant Cramer in the lead showed any talent and has actually gone on to a career in the business. No-budget and boring t&a. Skip it.
Sometimes a film comes along that is unique. The Nostril Picker is one such film, The Nostril Picker is like no other film I have ever seen, unfortunately for The Nostril Picker & myself it's unique for different reasons than what the filmmakers had originally intended. Read on & all shall hopefully become clear... The Nostril Picker, as it's commonly know although it was apparently filmed under the title The Changer, starts with some extremely dull shots of an American town somewhere, streets & factory's that sort of thing, as the opening credits play. When The Nostril Picker begins proper we, the viewer that is, are introduced to a real loser named Joe Bukowski (Carl Zschering) who is in his 40's, he lives on his own in a crappy little apartment where he watches T.V., eats beef flavoured dog food & listens to old vinyl records as he dances with a blow up rubber sex doll. Joe likes teenage girls, he has various porn magazines but enjoys the real thing even more. However, being an ugly git Joe can't tempt any young ladies to go out with him, or do anything else with him for that matter. One fateful day an old homeless Vietnam vet (Horace Grimm) sees the agony & pain that Joe has to go through (actually he sees Joe being spoken to by the cops for hassling a teenage girl) & decides to help him out. He tells Joe about an incantation that he learned from the 'gooks' in Vietnam that will transform Joe's appearance into whatever he likes. A process he calls morphosynthesis, but at the same time he warns Joe that 'it makes you crazy if you do it too much'. That night Joe decides to give it a try, in a public place on a podium for some reason. Joe says a few words, does an extremely silly dance & starts yodelling. Joe finishes off by whistling London Bridge is Falling Down, listen yeah, I ain't making this up either. At first Joe is visibly disappointed when nothing significant happens. To console himself Joe tries to buy a porn mag but is shocked when the clerk (Kevin Devoy) refuses to sell it to an underage girl. Joe, the bright spark that he is, realises what has happened & talks his/her way out of it by claiming his/her dad had sent him/her to buy it. Joe, who now calls his alter-ego Josephine (Ann Flood), senses the possibilities & heads straight for the local high school. Joe befriends four teenage girls, Jennifer Armstrong (Laura Cummings), Crisi Stroud (Gail Didia), Tracy Harper (Heidi M. Gregg) & Brenda Kearn (Aimee Molinaro) while under his disguise, oh & Joe manages to become a pupil at the school simply by asking the sports teacher Miss Van Dyke (Vicki Hollis). At first Joe seems harmless enough, he just likes to hang around the girls toilets & stuff like that. But things soon change as Joe brutally murders Brenda. Jennifer's dad, Vince Armstrong (Edward Tanner) is a detective so along with his partner Ed Simpson (Clyde Surrell) & Walt Spencer (Bruce Alden) the pathologist is determined to catch the sicko responsible for killing his daughter's friends, but will they succeed before Joe strikes again? The IMDb listing for The Nostril Picker is wrong, I watched it mere hours ago & it clearly states that it's directed by Mark Nowicki who was also a co-producer & definitely not Patrick J. Matthews who was credited as a co-producer & the cinematographer, not that it makes much difference & I'd have though that Nowicki would have been more than happy for Matthews to take the 'credit' for making this piece of crap. No one involved in the making of The Nostril Picker should be allowed to go anywhere near a camera again, ever. The Nostril Picker is easily one of the worst films I've ever seen, & that's saying something. It's absolutely terrible in every possible way imaginable. The script by Steven Hodge is atrocious, there's no narrative structure, excitement, tension, drama, character development & the things that do happen are so mind numbingly dumb it's untrue. The plot devices & chain of events in The Nostril Picker are totally incomprehensible. The scene where Joe finds out the prostitute (Steven Andrews) he hired is in fact a man & Joe starts to chase him around his apartment with two squirting dildo's is simply jaw dropping stuff. The subsequent scene when the transvestite reports the incident to the police is hilariously written & had me psychically laughing at the dialogue. I hated the ending as well, not only was it predictable but it leaves the door open for a sequel, I psychically shudder at the mere thought! On a technical level The Nostril Picker is awful, point & hope photography, bland & inappropriate music, forgettable locations, poorly edited (Brenda is killed in the kitchen yet her blood splashes on the T.V. screen that was clearly in the opposite room), some of the worst acting I've sat through & very unimpressive special effects which consist of a few cut off rubber fingers, a slit throat & a quick scene where Joe eats some flesh. It comes as no surprise that the cast & crew who worked on The Nostril Picker have virtually no IMDb credits for anything before or after. Even at 76 odd minutes The Nostril Picker is far to long & really boring to sit through. I could go on & on all day long about how bad The Nostril Picker is, I really could. One thing I can't quite work out is was all this intentional by the filmmakers? The Nostril Picker is indeed a unique film, unique in it's awfulness & incompetence. In the the case of The Nostril Picker I hope it remains unique too, having said that it's still not the worst film I've ever seen but it comes close that's for sure. Definitely one to avoid.
i've seen a movie thats sort of like this, were a transsexual drugs woman and he then picks there nose with a knife and rips there nose to peaces. he then slices there tongue and eats it.<br /><br />the most gruesome part of the movie is were he cuts there left eye out and starts dancing with it. he then starts to eat the woman naked.<br /><br />(i'm not sure what the movies called but i know it's a cult movie and that it was made in Germany).<br /><br />anyway THE NOSE PICKER is fairly crap.<br /><br />its a crap movie and the picture and volume quality is very rubbish.<br /><br />please don't waste you're time buying and watching this movie its totally crap.<br /><br />i prefer DAY OF THE WOMAN also known as I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE (its one of the best cult movies ever) check out this link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077713/
I've been largely convinced to write this review for a number of reasons:<br /><br />1) This is, without doubt, the worst film i've ever seen 2) Unless it gets more reviews it will not be listed in the all time worst films list - which it deserves to be 3) I was kinda lucky - i paid five pound for it. i've seen it in shops for 15 pound. DON NOT PAY THAT MUCH FOR THIS FILM! You will be very angry 4) There are a lot of films out there in the horror genre that are not given a fair rating (in my opinion) and giving this film a higher rating than them is criminal<br /><br />The plot summary: a guy with no friends meets a tramp who promises the world - well, the magic ability to appear to everybody else like somebody else. Our hero cunningly turns into a teenage girl and joins their gang - sitting on swings, baby-sitting. He kills them one by one until he is tracked and found by the police.<br /><br />Why is it so bad? To begin with the acting is VERY VERY bad. Someone else compared it to a school production. No, this is worse than any acting i've seen on a school stage.<br /><br />I've bought a number of these previously banned films from the DVD company vipco and not been as disappointed as i was at this. okay, the acting is bad but the film fails to deliver in every other sense. What was the point in making this film when there isn't even any gore! okay, no gore. What else can a film like this offer? Breats? No, not even any titillation!<br /><br />it's true this film may have a certain charm in its unique naffness but any potential buyer/watcher of this film should be fairly advised that this film is, at best, worth only one out of ten.
This has to be THE WORST film I have ever seen. I bought the DVD and it didn't work, well the DVD worked fine, its just the film didn't, in fact its so bad that I think non of the actors have worked since (or before judging from the acting). There is no real plot to speak of and no real horror. The production values are rubbish even for a low budget film with some outside scenes being hard to hear due to wind on the microphone.<br /><br />All in all it was so bad a film that a viewer could think it was going to turn into a porno if they didn't know any better (which have been an improvement). There are only two lines in the film that are funny, both of which revolve around the transvestite prostitute. (Although they hardly merit watching all 76 minutes for)<br /><br />As for the marketing of the DVD I feel thoroughly cheated. I mean reading the back I expected it to be bad:<br /><br />He chose his weapons. He selected his victims. He picked his nose. He turned into a GIRL!<br /><br />But I thought it might be funny. Also the case claims it is digitally re mastered, I would love to have seen it beforehand, the print is so grainy you could use it as sand paper. The case also says it is an absolute disgusting movie, IN WHAT WAY?, disgusting production, acting.<br /><br />This film out stays it welcome in the first five minutes, (if you are considering buying this I would say buy `bad taste' instead it is a much better film and is funny, also it has Peter Jackson the director of the LOTR in it.)<br /><br />Incidentally if anyone knows anything about any of the actors (or director Patrick J Mathews) and what they have done since, please post here as I would love to know, purely to find out if there is a worse movie out there, or if anyone in this film ever bothered to learn to act
Someone must have been seriously joking when they made this film.<br /><br />Firstly, it is an absolute impossibility that this movie was made in 1993. The fashions and music dictate that this is seriously 80's. My guess is that this has sat on the shelf for a long while before some crazed distributer picked it up and released it to a disbelieving world.<br /><br />There is a plot. Kind of. A strange loner meets a random man with a beard who tells him that if he meditates while singing his favourite song he will be able to turn into whomever he chooses. At this point I feel obliged to point out that the loner's favourite song is London Bridge Is Falling Down. Why is this his favourite song? Because he's an idiot. We are only a minute into the film and already the film has reached a monumental level of stupidity. It gets even stupider.<br /><br />The loner is the nostril picker. I can only assume this as there are two scenes in the film where he is seen picking his nose. That clears up the title. He decides to change into a girl so that he can get close to other girls. And kill them. That's more or less it.<br /><br />The acting is universally appalling. Every single performance in this movie sucks. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the acting is of the standard of a pornographic movie. It really is that terrible. The nostril picker appears to the audience as the nostril picker. The characters in the movie see him as the girl he has become through singing London Bridge Is Falling Down. Man, I feel like an idiot even typing this. Anyway, it is kind of strange seeing a middle aged weirdo hanging out with school girls. And not in a good way. There is even an extended montage of scenes where the nostril picker is at school with the girls and a song plays over the top. It is very possibly the worst song ever recorded. I'm not even going to describe it. You'll know it when you hear it. And you'll agree with me.<br /><br />There are some scenes of violence, sure. And there is a Benny Hill style chase sequence involving a transsexual. There is even an immortal bit of dialogue, that may or may not have been taken from Shakespeare or John Milton, where the nostril picker says to a prostitute, 'I've got the cash if you've got the gash'. Lovely, I'm sure you'll agree.<br /><br />Utter nonsense.
I bought this movie exciting a gloriously gratuitous, over the top, entertaining bloodbath. I got none of them. This film fails on practically every level, not in the least frightening, or funny, it is simply terrible film-making, and never provides the audience with anything worth seeing. What is so bad about it is that far from being as raw, violent and brutal as it had promised to be, there is very little violence at all. Virtually no blood shed, and no excitement whatsoever. Acting, direction and dialogue is absolutely unbearable. Honestly, it is truly laughable. I could hardly sit through this total garbage once; I certainly will never want to watch it again. Don't waste your time with a waste of celluloid like this; it is truly possibly the worst film ever made. If I could give it minus stars, I would.
Originally called The Changer. The Nostril Picker is a poorly constructed tale about a loner named Joe Bukowski (Carl Zschering) who "likes em young". Unable to socially interact with girls he bumps into a tramp who teaches him a special Vietnamese chant. This "chant" involves whistling 'London Bridge is Falling Down' whilst hopping around like an epileptic morris dancer. Nonetheless, Ugly Joe tries it out and hey presto! He is now a girl. Ideally he needs to be a young guy in order attract girls. But lets not talk about ideals here - this film was made in 1983 and released in 1993, in an ideal world it should have NEVER been released.<br /><br />The Film Asylum dubbed this horror hokum as "mind numbing, ham handed story telling". Its worse than that. The Nostril Picker really takes the biscuit, in fact the whole god-damn cookie jar. Terribly scripted dialogue delivered by brain-dead actors, a ridiculous plot and a predictable twist. Just when things couldn't get any more absurd the story goes off on its own nonsensical tangent. For instance, Joe decides to kill the girls by changing back into himself. But i thought he wanted to get close to them? Not content with being a murderer Joe also turns into a cannibal and eats some of his victims, of which there were only around 3-4.<br /><br />The highlight of this terrible movie involves Joe picking up a hooker (Steven Andrews) then taking "her" back to his apartment. What happens next defies belief... Joe turns back into a man, but also discovers the hooker is a man. How does he react? Well, in a Benny Hill-esquire fashion, he chases "her" around the apartment with a bunch of squirty dildo's only to trip up on a blow up doll. God knows what Patrick J Matthews and Stephen Hodge were thinking of. At least this scene paved the way for another priceless moment. This involved the male hooker reporting the incident to a curly haired police officer with a 2-bit joke shop 'cop' uniform. The hilarious acting is a must see. Especially the hooker's inability at saying "dildo" and his demand for "satisfaction".<br /><br />Apart from the above mentioned incident this monotonous slash flick was a complete bore. You know a movie's bad when the DVD trailers were more exciting. Normally, i'd fast forward to the good bits, only there weren't any here. The main action sequences involved Joe simply stabbing his victims repeatedly. Forget quick cuts, Matthews utilizes fadeouts (one during a stab scene) to limit any form of suspense there might already be. One girl's non-reaction to her fingers being chopped off is laughable. Normally i'd relish the words "uncut" but in this case they were far from a blessing. Just more agonizing cinematic torture. The whole movie felt like an unedited episode of Midsummer Murders, only less entertaining. I'd hate to see the cut version.<br /><br />To sum up, The Nostril picker is the most unentertaining thing i've seen since Richard Hammond's 5 O' Clock Show. Dismal performances made worse by a terribly tinny soundtrack and bad dubbing. Don't be fooled by the box label, this is NOT a cult classic unless it qualifies for the lets-use-shitty-horror-dvds-for-coffee-coasters cult. Which i think it does. Unless re-edited to 30 minutes stay away from this coma inducing mess.
I like movies about UFOs, which is why I recently decided to rewatch EYES BEHIND THE STARS after seeing it when I was a kid back in the late 1970s. And now I'm compelled to write a review about it because I'm afraid I'll start forgetting everything about it FAST. You see, even though EBTS ain't bad, it's VERY dull and nondescript. The story is sorta interesting but flat. The actors are good but their roles are boring and a little confusing. The FX are terribly amateurish but I can overlook something like that if the movie is compelling, which, unfortunately, this one ain't.<br /><br />Also, there's very little violence and there's no nudity whatsoever, which makes this 1970s Italian sci-fi opus a TRUE oddity, because if there's one thing that distinguishes Italian genre movies made in the 1970s from genre movies of other countries made in the same decade, it's the astonishing amount of violence and sex to be found in them. Oddly enough, because of the almost complete lack of exploitive elements, EBTS stands out from the rest of the pact. I don't know if this can be seen as a compliment though. Personally, I can enjoy a movie without sex and violence but I think EBTS NEEDED more violence and some sex here and there to spice it up because it is so deadly dull and dry. And the special effects aren't that special.<br /><br />The story itself is actually interesting. It's a combo of THE X-FILES and Antonioni's BLOWUP: a photographer accidentally captures aliens on film during a fashion shoot in the country. The aliens know they were captured on film and they proceed to kidnap the photographer and a model, subsequently destroying any evidence of their presence on earth. The problem starts when the model meets a man at the recently abducted photographer's apartment (this taking place just before she's to be abducted herself). The man takes some of the negatives and leaves, with the aliens having no knowledge of the missing negatives. The whole story is about this man wanting to know more about the aliens and a secret spy group who want to get a hold of the negatives. The majority of the movie centers around boring political intrigue, in the spy vs spy variety. The UFO element of the story is almost unimportant and could have easily been replaced by any cold war McGuffin. But as dull as EYES BEHIND THE STARS is, it does resemble THE X-FILES a LOT! I wonder if Chris Carter saw this movie. Anyway, the best thing in EBTS are the POV shots, which are creepy and effective. But the rest is almost completely forgettable, including the goofy looking aliens.<br /><br />Even though I've been mostly negative about this film, I sorta cherish it nonetheless. I still remember the effective ad campaign which scared me when I saw it as a kid. And I own the video. The film could have been so much more if it had been done properly. Oh well...
Why do I watch movies like this ? - other than I have some weird misguided masochistic belief that one day I will find a true gem amongst all this dross I can't think one one good reason. This movie was dross from start to finish - but semi-hilarious dross. Where else but in a bad Italian dubbed movie could you find heated exchanges of surreal mangled English like this one between a honest military type and the sinister chief of a secret X-files like organisation dedicated to hiding "The Truth":<br /><br />Man in Black: Silence is best for us until we are able to prove that the UFOs have no bellicose motives.<br /><br />Military Type: In any event I find your interference abusive.<br /><br />Man in Black: Whoever has to impose his will is.<br /><br />I rewound the DVD (you know what I mean) a good half dozen times and I still can't make those lines mean anything sensible. My other fave line was:<br /><br />"We can be quite hard on those who contravert our interests."<br /><br />It's English Jim, but not as we know it. <br /><br />The other highlights of this dull plonker of a movie for me were the totally spaced out acting of the photographer character at the start. Saddled with the worst haircut EVER in the history of everything, the man just wandered around looking like a stunned fish in a bad wig till kidnapped and forced to look at a piece of Plexiglas by some aliens. The aliens are most effectively not seen as a POV shot - hand held camera with a fish-eye lens - sort of spooky the first time but, used over and over again it lost its power (incidentaly, if it is a Point of View shot, it means the aliens always walk out of rooms backwards for some reason).<br /><br />The film was set in "England". This meant the Spanish Italian set designers put some British number plates on a couple of English cars and put a Union Jack on our hero's press card... and that was about it. No other attempt to make it look like the UK at all.<br /><br />Favourite moment? When the Foley artists didn't notice that characters they were foleying (is there such a word?) were no longer walking on gravel but were now on the lawn so their feet kept on making loud "crunch! crunch!" noises. Other than that, another total waste of 90 minutes of my life. I hope they prove those UFOs have no bellicose motives soon...
This film was not nearly as much of a chore as I expected it to be. There are a few seconds of brilliance in this somewhat idiotic hardcore UFO conspiracy paranoia-fest. Most of the acting is mediocre, but fairly typical for 1970s-style stuff replete with pregnant pauses. A photographer and a model witness some strange goings-on in the woods and soon fall victim to these same goings-on. Flying saucers are spotted, more people disappear - but is it the aliens or our own government's ultra-secret group of cover-up guys? Soon enough, a reporter and a "UFOlogist" (apparently modeled on the character of the writer-director) are drawn into this unraveling fiasco and become the target of the ultra-secret agents who are as menacing as they are improbable and witless. Then the fun really begins.<br /><br />The movie, predictably, makes about as much sense as the average UFO conspiracy theory, but should be commended for taking itself so seriously. The camera work is OK for a low-budget film, the pacing is pretty good, the script is silly and absurd, and there are continuity issues which are fun to look out for. What are the few seconds of brilliance I mentioned? Honestly, I can't say much you without writing a spoiler. Suffice to say that the end of the film is, at least, worth fast-forwarding to if you can't take the middle.
For some reason, in the late 70's and early 80's the local CBS affiliated station in New York kept playing this movie in it's late-night slot on Friday or Saturday nights for several years, usually at 2 a.m. or some such time. It's a fitting movie for that time slot since it's really hard to follow and quite odd (see the other reviews for specific story info). Anyway, after catching it numerous times in those days just before cable TV (And even after it hit but before they offered much all night programming), I kept catching this little oddity. After not seeing it for many years I decided to see if I could find it on DVD. Well, it is only available (from every search i've conducted anyway)in a pretty lousy grainy print on the budget label "Brentwood Video" as part of a 4-pack of movies (4 movies on 2 double sided discs)called "Alien Worlds" if anyone is interested. It's usually available for around $10-but even much less if you shop around. The other 3 movies on this set are readily available in numerous other collections of public domain movies, so no need to comment on them here. But I haven't seen "Eyes" available anywhere else. Though hardly a "restored" version in any way, this print runs exactly 92 minutes, so for once IMDb's stated running time of 90 minutes is not correct. Even with the 92 minute running time it's not unusual for a movie dubbed into English from another language to also have some of the running time trimmed. It seems to be a common budget-conscience practice to sometimes save money by not bothering to dub some scenes at all if they are not considered to be important to the story. Would a longer version make in any less confusing? Who really knows-unless you've seen it in it's native language... By the way, my attempts to watch this during the day don't work and I end up just turning it off. There's something about watching this in the middle of the night that just fits this movie..or maybe it's just from my earlier experiences, who know??
In this paranoia-driven potboiler, our reporter hero battles hindersome authorities, duplicitous co-workers, renegade UFO debunkers, and silent, skulking aliens. (Though capable of mind control and zapping objects from afar, it takes three of them to operate a control panel of about two dozen buttons.) The script clomps from event to event,leaving puzzlers aplenty. Why did the aliens blind the dog? Why do they fry the soldiers with radiation when they're only patrolling an empty landing site? And what space dudes worth their moon cheese abduct the ugly photographer first instead of his model? Inquiring minds want to know! Writer-director Mario Gariazzo apparently researched his subject by skimming a stack of UFO-themed tabloids as he took in a Sunn Classics double feature. (The closing screen crawl boasts that it's based on actual events...just like "Plan 9!") Some may feel burned by the abrupt finale, but it should still appeal to conspiracy cranks.
It's possible that A Man Called Sledge might have been done irreparable damage on the cutting room floor. Maybe someone will demand a director's cut one day, but I seriously doubt it.<br /><br />James Garner decided to cash in on the spaghetti western market and in doing so brought a whole lot of Americans over to fill the cast out. Folks like Dennis Weaver, Claude Akins, John Marley. And of course we have Vic Morrow who both wrote and directed this film.<br /><br />Garner always gets cast as likable rogues because he's so darn good at playing them. But he has played serious and done it well in films like The Children's Hour and Hour of the Gun. He can and has broken away from his usual stereotyped part successfully. But A Man Called Sledge can't be counted as one of his successes.<br /><br />He's got the title role as Luther Sledge notorious outlaw with a big price on his head. After partner Tony Young gets killed in a saloon and Garner takes appropriate Eastwood style measures, he's followed from the saloon by John Marley.<br /><br />Marley's spent time in the nearby territorial prison and it seems as though gold shipments are put under lock and key there on a rest stop for the folks transporting the stuff on a regular run. Garner gets his gang together for a heist.<br /><br />Here's where the movie goes totally off the wall. Usually heist films show the protagonists going into a lot of methodical planning. Certainly that was the case in The War Wagon which some other reviewer cited. But in this one Garner decides to break into the prison as a prisoner of fake US Marshal Dennis Weaver and cause a jailbreak at which time the gold will be robbed. <br /><br />That was just too much to swallow. If taking the gold was this easy it should have been done a long time before. But I will say for those who like the blood and guts of Italian westerns, during that prison break there's enough there for three movies.<br /><br />That's not the whole thing, of course the outlaws fall out and we have another gore fest before the film ends. But by that time the whole film has lost a lot of coherency.<br /><br />The great movie singer of the Thirties Allan Jones is listed in the credits. But for the life of me I can't find him in the film. Maybe a chorus of the Donkey Serenade might have made this better.<br /><br />Couldn't have hurt any.
Two kinds of movies we like are (1) westerns, and (2) movies from 30 or 40 years ago. We ought to have liked A Man Called Sledge; BUT.....<br /><br />BUT... this picture is disagreeable, annoying and stupid from start to finish. Since there is nobody in the story (good or bad) to warm up to, there is nobody to motivate the necessary suspense to keep the viewer interested. No camaraderie among the guys trying to steal the gold, and no camaraderie among those trying to protect it. Sledge has a pretty girl friend, but there's no reason why she slobbers all over the guy or why she wants to be in the same room with this no-account pig.<br /><br />The film also suffers from an intrusive and gawdawful musical score, and from extremely bad writing and direction by Vic Morrow.<br /><br />Of the last 30 older movies rented from Netflix or Video Vault, this was the rock bottom, the only true dud in the bunch.
Although there are a lot of familiar "television" names associated with "A Man Called Sledge", there is nothing extraordinary about the film itself or about any of the performances. In fact, the only thing that distinguishes it from a 1960's-70's television series like "The Rat Patrol" is a bigger cast and a lot more violence. <br /><br />James Garner is the biggest star and apparently thought he should try to break away from all the light comedy stuff he had been doing ("Maverick", "Support Your Local Sheriff"-"Gunfighter" etc.). Unfortunately his earthy likability works against him, as Sledge is a humorless character written to cash in on the popularity of Clint Eastwood's spaghetti western character. But Eastwood's stuff was not this flat and uninteresting.<br /><br />I suppose that "A Man Called Sledge" could be classified as a spaghetti western although the pacing is too slow to really fit that sub-genre. Fans of the slow-paced "Combat" television series will feel an instant connection as Vic Morrow directed the film and co-wrote the script with Frank Kowalski. Throw in some then trendy slow-mo shots and cross-dissolves, which call attention to themselves rather than serve a story-telling purpose. <br /><br />The plot is the standard "big heist" thing (insert "The War Wagon" here) with Sledge plotting how to heist a $300,000 gold shipment. His gang includes Claude Akins and Dennis Weaver. The problem is that while on the move the shipment is guarded by 40 outriders and while stopped it is locked in a vault inside the territorial prison. I think there was an episode of "Alias Smith and Jones" with the same plot.<br /><br />The story would make a decent hour of television but gets old very fast as a very padded feature length film. Garner does not allow any of his charm to leak into his characterization and the film does not generate enough suspense to hold a viewer's interest.<br /><br />The thing finally crashes and burns shortly after the heist when the gang engages in a contrived and totally illogical card game. <br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
A typical 70s Italian coming of age film, original and good music, but with some quirks, interesting but not fantastic photography, poor and at times confused storyline (e.g. the role of the wolf-dog, and where does the boy come from?) with poor dialogue, nice ambiance.<br /><br />The reason it is still (relatively) well-known and sought after is probably the nude scenes (including typical 70s pseudo-coitus) involving an 11 and 13 year old girl with an older teenage boy (Eva Ionesco and Laura Wendel) - it is interesting from a socio-political point of view to see how these representations of very young adolescents was considered acceptable and normal in the whole of Europe (and US) 30 years ago, whereas now it is more than taboo.<br /><br />The story revolves round bullying of one girl (Laura) by the other two characters, and her discovery of sex, a quite accurate representation of an aspect teenage life. The character of Eva (Silvia) does not evolve to the very end of the film and already appears very versed in the erotic arts - there is no "coming of age" for her: she is a very vain young girl who is already aware of her sexual charms, but ultimately is just used and ends the film crying like the little girl she really still is. The boy is an utterly despicable bully, while Laura comes across as a very naive and weak victim.
'Maladolescenza' has the air of a dark fairy tale, with its child protagonists, forest setting, and the discovery of a castle's ruins. Yet at its core, the film is essentially an unusual psychosexual study of adolescents. Opening with a dream sequence employing the not-so-subtle metaphor of Fabrizio wrestling with his menacing hound, the film details his psychological persecution of Laura, the girl who has pledged her love to him, and his eventual romance with the equally malicious Sylvia. The film's psychological complexities do give the film merit, yet there's no doubting how unnecessarily exploitive the film is in its depiction of nudity and sex. The film's look relies more on its gorgeous locations rather than particular cinematographic skill, and there's no doubting the film's greatest asset is the creepy, children's choir-augmented soundtrack. With its odd dreamlike quality, the film is at best interesting, yet pales beside Louis Malle's surreal and brilliant 'Black Moon' from the same era. Certainly deserving of the art versus pornography debate, for unlike many banned films, Pasolini's 'Salo' or Larry Clark's 'Ken Park' for instance, the film is rather unremarkable from an artistic perspective. Cinema seems to be gradually losing its ability to shock, so perhaps 'Maladolescenza' should be admired for retaining that power thirty years after its release. However shock value is the one reason alone the film is memorable. <br /><br />The film does have its defenders. Yet so does Nazism.
the tortuous emotional impact is degrading, whether adult or adolescent the personal values shown in this movie belong in a bad psychodrama if anywhere at all. This movie has a plot, but it is all evil from start to end. This is no way for people to act and degrades both sexes all the way through the movie. teen killing - bad preteen sex - bad emotional battering - bad animal cruelty - bad psychological torture - bad parental neglect - bad the only merit if any is the excellent color shots of contrasting red, blond and green leaves a bad feeling for anyone that respects life and peace, what a bad mistake to make, or to watch... it is UGLY
I rarely comment on films but I've read the other comments and I cannot believe that there are people applauding this celluloid rubbish. I know there are certain people who have their own agenda but lets take it on merit; poorly acted, badly shot and the story felt as the director was making it up as he was going along. I am not going to focus on the sexual aspect of the film involving little kids as the makers of the film obviously knew what they wanted and what their audience would want. All I can say is it is a terrible film, the content is poor and offensive, the production is amateurish and I am glad they could not make a film like this legally today
Would anyone really watch this RUBBISH if it didn't contain little children running around nude? From a cinematic point of view it is probably one of the worst films I have encountered absolutely dire. Some perv woke up one day and thought I will make a film with little girls in and call it art, stick them in countryside and there isn't any need for a story or explanation of how they got there or why they don't appear to live anywhere or have parents because p*rn films don't need anything like that. I would comment on the rest of the film but I haven't ticked spoilers so I will just say avoid, avoid avoid and find yourself a proper film to watch
In THE FAN Robert De Niro plays Gil Renard . Or is it Travis Bickle ? or Rupert Pupkin ? Or Max Cady ? You see the problem with this type of role is that De Niro has played very very similar characters in TAXI DRIVER , THE KING OF COMEDY and CAPE FEAR and unfortunately the characters were better developed and had better scripts . I found it slightly difficult to believe that Renard would have started out as a frustrated obsessive sports fan into being an out and out psycho<br /><br />The character arc isn't the only problem with this script - It also lacks a character focus ( A problem I had with THE UNTOUCHABLES where De Niro should have been superb but ended up slightly flat ) , for several stretches of the movie I kept thinking that Bobby Rayburn was the main character then the story switches back to Renard . It also seems to have disappointed a lot of sports fans who seem to think this should have concentrated a bit more on baseball . I'm not sure if this was meant to appeal to baseball fans originally but again there are elements which hint it might have if the producers had made up their minds has to who and what the story should focus upon <br /><br />I will admit I was entertained by THE FAN ( Especially by the soundtrack ) but it is a very flawed film and it should be remembered that by the mid 1990s characters being stalked by nutters as in SINGLE WHITE FEMALE , UNLAWFUL ENTRY etc had run out of steam a long time ago
One of the worst movies I've ever seen with Robert De Niro, The Fan is a pointless cliché of an exercise in slasher flicks. It tries to spin or twist the genre with preposterous plot lines of a a crazed fan turned psychotic - the movie meanders into nothing. (spoiler) We're to believe that a knife-wielding idiot has access to and murders a baseball player in a lavish hotel with no witness, security, or cameras? The movie is nonsense trying to tug at our heart-strings through the hoopla of baseball ending up mockingly unsophisticated and gimmicky. Not sure what all the actors were thinking when they got onboard this razzie. This is as big a dud as they come. Stay far away if you prefer thought in your movies
What a bad movie. I'm really surprised that DeNiro and even Snipes would be associated with something like this. If you're going to make a movie that involves baseball, and shows scenes of baseball, at least make the action look somewhat realistic. Why was the crowd always standing up for no particular reason during games? ***POSSIBLE SPOILER*** And the last scene in the movie....what was that? We are somehow led to believe that DeNiro has found his way onto the field in an umpire's uniform, and that the game is even being played in a torrential downpour....one of the worst ever scenes in a sports movie. 3 stars out of 10.
*MANY MANY SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW* This movie was horrible. I am a huge baseball fan so I thought I'd watch it, and I was very disappointed. It started out okay.. When I saw the bad influence DeNiro had on his young son, I was hoping that he would become a better father throughout the movie or something. Anyways, at the beginning it seemed as if DeNiro was supposed to be the protagonist. He was the only one that believed in Bobby, and he had his adorable son that he was losing custody of, which gave me a reason to feel bad for him. He wanted to help Bobby by talking to Primo, when out of absolutely nowhere he brutally stabs Primo to death... Not to mention that sketchy reoccurring song "I WANT TO **** YOU!!!!" at random unfitting moments.<br /><br />Later, when DeNiro saves Bobby's son from drowning, I was hoping that the movie could redeem itself.. He could forgive himself for killing Primo if he saved Bobby's son. But of course this is far beyond the depth of the movie, because all he cares about is getting CREDIT for the murder, and does so by stealing Bobby's son, car, and dog and holding them hostage- Bobby just has to hit a home run and announce that DeNiro is a "true fan" while displaying a picture of him biting a knife.<br /><br />Now we get to the completely unrealistic scene at the end... It is pouring like hell and we are expected to believe that the game hasn't been called. Then DeNiro somehow magically appears on the field in an umpire suit and calls Bobby out at home, proceeding to pull out his knife and start stabbing everyone that runs onto the field. There are seemingly no officers on the field (but the police are on their way), so DeNiro steps on the mound and prepares to pitch a knife to Bobby when he gets shot to death. But don't worry, this cheerful and pleasant movie has a happy ending, because Bobby find his son.<br /><br />This is NOT a sports movie. It is NOT about a fan. As far as I know, fans are not rabid psychopaths that threaten, rob, and throw knives at their admirees. This is likely to be the sickest movie I will ever see in my life. The plot was shallow, the soundtrack sucked, the movie had no purpose whatsoever. I warn you not to waste your time on this disgusting excuse for a film.
DeNiro is a master...one of my favourites. And I love GOOD sports movies {not into baseball so much, but hey, its sports movies, right?. I was expecting MUCH more for this movie. It seems to start out well: DeNiro is what I expected, Snipes {whom I don't really like} is very good as the spoiled star. Barkin's role, to me, was OK. She's a good actress, but seemed out of place in this role. To me, they always seemed to rush the scenes, and then it drags a bit in places. It just seemed tio me to be so uneven! Considering the cast and the plot, it could have been so much better. I rated it a '4', and I was being generous ~ I'm a tough one with numbers!
To put it simply, The Fan was a disappointment. It felt like as if I was watching Taxi Driver, except Taxi Driver was much better than this. It seemed like the filmmakers wanted us to root for Robert Deniro's character 100 percent. This approach didn't work.
Tony Scott directs a thriller sports flick that should attract even the non-sports fan. And some say baseball is a dead sport...boring...too damn slow. Well perk up! On the outside he appears to be a disgruntled salesman(Robert De Niro) while on the inside he is a psychotic San Francisco Giants fan. Along comes a new slugger(Wesley Snipes)and designated savior from the doldrums. Our salesman harbors a murderous obsession when the hard hitting all star falls into the worst slump in his career and the Giants are feared to crumble along with him. De Niro is terror personified. Snipes seems very natural as the ballplayer. Other notables in the cast are: the still attractive Ellen Barkin, John Leguizamo, Benicio Del Toro and Patti D'Arbanville. You are a free agent...so enjoy. Violence and very strong language is to be expected and you get your moneys worth.
It never ceases to amaze me how you can take an excellent actor, and put him to waste in a film such as this. Robert De Niro is one of the best Hollywood stars of all time, but even he couldn't save this movie. In fact, his character is much the same as the one he played in Cape Fear, which was actually pretty good, but I can't stand it when actors do the same schtick over more than one movie. I believe it gets old, and that is the case here.<br /><br />There's nothing surprising in this movie, but then, the story has been told a million times before. Wesley Snipes is your typical baseball player, and his conceit shows through in his characterization. De Niro plays the obsessed fan, but his role in this film is less than entertaining.<br /><br />However, because De Niro is IN this film, that makes it a draw if you are a fan (no pun intended) who sees everything he does no matter how bad. But to see De Niro at his best, see "Midnight Run", "Goodfellas", or "Cop Land", or even go way back and check out "Taxi Driver" or "Godfather II". Don't waste your time with this drivel.<br /><br />My Rating: 3/10
Vodka Lemon is a charming, yet extremely uneven Arminian film that will delight some and bore others. Though reasonably well-crafted, the film lacks any real "zing", relying instead on many scenes that will seem commonplace to the astute art-house viewer. The film contains a handful of moments of sheer cinematic brilliance, unfortunately, they deserve a film worthy of their genius. Too dark to be a dark comedy and to light to be a serious drama, Vodka Lemon will leave many views disoriented and ultimately disgruntled. You may laugh, but these moments will be few and far between amid a sea of washed out snow filled landscapes and a seemingly endless series of bus rides. A noble effort, ultimately done in by lack of narrative cohesion.
SLIGHT SPOILERS (but it doesn't matter anyway).<br /><br />An exercise in gobblygook of catastrophic proportions not even worthy of the l0 lines I need to put these remarks on the netwaves. This is the single worst episode of the Masters series to date and the first that qualifies for the defunct Mystery Science Theatre treatment. Even if it took me a full half hour to realize the intended ironic angle, it was still a very lame mess. Its sole value lies in the perspective that forces one to realize that in addition to gore and ugly masks the genre only succeeds when the classic cinematic notions of photography and lighting, dialogue and acting, editing and timing are put to use. Here they are absent and John Carpenter is no master. Period. And no trite analysis of the easy social comment herein will change that. Oddly, Carpenter never has been anything more than a B director, but at least such films as 'Fog' and 'The Thing' had terrific atmosphere (the latter is one of my cult favorites).<br /><br />Abominable acting. Camera angles stuck in cement. Tensionless rhythm. Yet perhaps the single most obnoxious element of the episode is the storyline which of course JC cannot really be blamed for (unless the writers were buddies of Cody.) The initial two minute slo-mo of a girl running through a forest only to be nearly run over by a would be Scully-Mulder duo is the first and last thing that works in the film. But come on, a girl hurtling through a deserted woods to nowhere in particular in desperate need of an abortion fortuitously rendez-vous with the fender of a pair of 'women's rights' MDs whose clinic just happens to be at the end of the road around the corner. Oh, and I won't even nitpick about how the doc whips the accidentee into the car and speeds away at 0 to 60 in six seconds. Does wonders for possible broken ribs or concussion.<br /><br />Then things fall apart real quick. The vacuous dialogue "I just want to help you", the interminably sluggish back and forth at the gate, grandiose battle tactics like cutting the telephone line (in the age of cell phones?) followed by the the shoot-out: a born-again Ramboesque clinic director vs Ron Perlman and the high school bullpen out for a few kicks at Easter break. Another lovely line: "So what are we going to do?" from the kid who had just been sitting on a pile of assault rifles in the back of the van. Er, no it isn't yet pheasant season. So who needs those teen boys anyway. What about the good old tried and true method of the lone lunatic who bashes his way through the gate with his all-American SUV?<br /><br />As for the exchange of bullets scenes themselves, the cuts here were as stiff as the staccato of a DC comics strip. All that was lacking were the Wham, Bam, and Whiz of the balloon titles. And all to the tune of a soundtrack worthy of an old Mannix episode.<br /><br />At one point we learn that Daddy isn't really the daddy, but at this point we haven't been led to care much any more either. This story's single source of drama is the conflict between the pro-life father and his pregnant daughter who is only thankful she's not having twins. Yet there is not a single scene, flashback or not, where they are actually ever found together. They remain mere abstractions to each other throughout.<br /><br />With the exception of the gatekeeper every single one of the characters is absolutely dislikeable. Bland, hysterical, dull-headed, macho. As perfectly flat as human wallpaper can be. None of the doctors seem to have anything medical about them. And there's that bickering Dad who rails at his pregnant daughter as though he himself were the stressed out boyfriend. He fortunately got his. There are two great MST-worthy comic moments: the gusher when Angelica's plumbing goes out and later the new-born lobster with a glued on baby's head. Also cute was Angelica's rugby ball belly before she finally popped the right-to-life little monster from Hell. As for that audacious male abortion scene...well, they should have retained Miike's episode and banned this one instead.<br /><br />In short, a 3rd rate Rosemary's Baby meets Alien set on the turf of a M.A.S.H. episode. This stinker alone, appreciable only to today's permissive under-16 generation, will assure as someone else said here, that this series will not be renewed for a third season. A real shame, since there have been a number of brilliant productions, including such really decent spoofs as Dante's 'Homecoming' or McKee's deliciously quirky 'Sick Girl'. Not to mention the superb imagery of Malone's 'Fairhaired Child'.<br /><br />Sorry John Carpenter, I believe your directing days are over. It's time to run for President.
I was looking forward to seeing John Carpenter's episode in Season 2 because his first, Cigarette Burns, was by far the best from Season 1 (and I did like other episodes from that season). Oh, how I was disappointed.<br /><br />In fairness to Carpenter I think the primary problem with this episode was absolutely horrible writing. The characters, aside from the subject matter, seemed to behave and speak as though they were written for an episode of Walker, Texas Ranger. The acting was bad, and I normally like Ron Perlman a lot, but I can only blame them so much because the writing was so horrible. I'm not going to try to guess what the writers were trying to do because that would be useless but it appeared as though they were trying to mix horror (obviously) with some form of social commentary on abortion and religion. In this case, not surprisingly, it seemed a chance to bash a certain variety or religious nuts as well as fanatical anti-abortionists. And I am in favor of both aims but it was done so horribly that I was embarrassed to watch characters act and speak with such stupid inconsistency. This failed totally to offer any worthwhile opinion on the subjects and the horror element failed as well alongside such inept writing.<br /><br />While I don't think Carpenter can be blamed for most of the badness here I will say he did choose to direct the teleplay and therefore has that to be held responsible for. There are a couple small bits that I found nice, hence the 2 stars I gave it.<br /><br />The actual gore and monster effects were good, but the CGI gore (two separate gunshots to the head) were so obviously inferior quality CGI they should've never been given the OK. I'm generally very critical of CGI but not because I have a problem with it in principle. I have a problem with the execution of it. The technology, while amazing in some respects, is not good enough to match "real" effects, whether they be miniatures or gore especially when it is supposed to match something organic and/or alive, and therefore shouldn't be used until they are. CGI can be used well in small amounts or obviously if the whole film is animated.<br /><br />I'll also take this opportunity to note that the show title, Masters of Horror, is a bad title to have. There simply aren't many actual "masters of horror" around. Maybe two or three. If the show were called "Tale of Horror" or something like that it would be fine. But as it stands the criteria for directing one of these episodes, and therefore being criticized for not being a "master of horror" is that they have directly at least one horror film in their career. And it didn't even have to be a good one.
I went into a Video Store and looked around to find some Horror Movies, after about 30 minutes I just rushed and picked out a few. I stumbled upon "Masters of Horror" which contained "Pro-Life" and "Right to Die". They seemed OK, same-old cheesy Horror crap, but I was interested for some reason. It said about Pro-Life on the case about being a classic, a return to form for John Carpenter (I loved his "The Thing", so I thought this would be good) and all that. So I turned it on thinking it would be something great and interesting, I was very wrong... It started off casual, just a girl running through a Forest, scared of something. A car stops and picks her up (just so being the people she needed to see, amazing?) They take her back to some Clinic and examine her, at the sametime all this is happening her Father appears at the gates and they don't allow him in, he isn't aloud near the area. Most likely from something he would of done in the past, but you don't know of any of this at the moment. He really does not want his Daughter in this place, an Abortion center. He is very strongly against such acts, believing it's sickening and not what "God" would want. He "supports" what I heard is called "Pro-Life". Acting against Abortions and going to extremes to allow the Babies to be born, they are sick. They don't like the Life of an unborn being taken, yet they've killed Humans in the past to allow the Birth? Justice is only a figment of the mind. Anyway, back on track, after the girl is examined they find out shes pregnant, but far ahead than what she should be. She is only a few weeks pregnant, but is months ahead. She keeps telling them they wont understand her, and that she wants an Abortion and all, but finally tells the truth that she was raped by a Demon from Hell, and that her Father wants this baby (but believes "God" wants this baby, not who truly does). He gets his 3 Sons (they arm themselves with Pistols and Shotguns), and begin to make they're way into the Clinic (shooting down anyone who won't co-operate). The head of the Clinic, who must of had trouble with them in the past, is well prepared this time. Ends up killing one the Fathers Sons, but in the end gets shot a few times (wearing a bullet proof jacket). The Father then performs what he believes is done to the Women. He cuts a hole, where the Vagina would be if he we're a Female, and sticks some sort of sucking thing up there and sucks out all this blood. Whilst all this is happening, the girl gives birth to some Demonic baby with many legs, and some Demon raises from beneath the Earth (not in the same room) and starts looking for its child. The Father sees this later on, and starts questioning why this happened, he did what he was told to do, and doesn't understand why it's like this. The Demon had killed both of his Sons earlier, and now goes for Father... Whilst the girl kills the baby, and the Demon carries it away (not in the same scene).<br /><br />Yeah, it probably sounds pretty cool, and a thrilling Horror Movie, but it isn't. The acting is horrible and lacks enthusiasm, the script is boring and not even creative, they choose the wrong characters and don't even build on them; just everything put together, all the small parts, don't even add up to something great, a waste of time. I wouldn't classify this as a Horror, though it has elements of Horror, they ultimately fail at what they try to succeed. It felt more like a "Beginners" Short-Movie, than by John Carpenter.<br /><br />Sorry for my lack of information, and detailed review, I just didn't have the time to waste to write something exciting. Also sorry if my spelling and details are incorrect, I couldn't really be bothered to research anything.
Well well well. As good as John Carpenter's season 1 outing in "Masters of Horror" was, this is the complete opposite. He certainly proved he was still a master of horror with "Cigarette Burns" but "Pro-Life" is perhaps the worst I have seen from him.<br /><br />It's stupid, totally devoid of creepy atmosphere and tension and it overstays it's welcome, despite the less-than-an-hour running time. The script is nonsense, the characters are irritable and un-appealing and the conclusion is beyond absurd.<br /><br />And for those suckers who actually bought the DVD (one of them being me); did you see how Carpenter describes the film? He's actually proud of it and he talks about it as his best work for a long time, and he praises the script. And in the commentary track, where he notices an obvious screw up that made it to the final cut, he just says he didn't feel it essential to rectify the mistake and he just let it be there. I fear the old master has completely lost his touch. I sincerely hope I'm proved wrong.<br /><br />I want to leave on a positive note and mention that the creature effects are awesome, though. Technically speaking, this film is top notch, with effective lighting schemes and make up effects.
"Masters of Horror" has proved itself a poor arena for 'message episodes,' and while a definite case can be made for Joe Dante's 'Screwfly Solution' (one of the best episodes of the series, period), most efforts to do so have come across as anvil-heavy and unimpressive (nothing defuses horror more than a soapbox). And 'Pro-Life' simply fuses reactionary viewpoints with ultra-violence; young Angelique (Caitlin Wachs), seen running through the woods, is nearly hit by 2 doctors (Mark Feuerstein and Emmanuelle Vaugier) who just happen to be driving in to work at the local (and isolated) abortion clinic. Angelique's father, Dwayne (Ron Perlman), is a stone-cold, far-right holy roller who will do anything to prevent his daughter from getting an abortion. If for nothing else, 'Pro-Life' accumulated some buzz for its controversial issue, but John Carpenter treats this whole venture with startling indifference--he seems even less interested in making a movie than the script itself (which is admittedly poor); the slow pacing builds no tension, and simply brings the already ambling plot to a crawl. Even when Dwayne and his sons storm the clinic, guns blazing, it is a stunning non-event; later, when a doctor is tortured with a 'male abortion,' the scene comes off as gratuitous and unnecessary--an effort to pad out the underwritten film. The poor performances (Perlman is sadly wasted here) become an outgrowth of the script, and Carpenter's direction feels exhausted, as if 'Pro-Life' is the source of his next hot meal. By the time a spider-creature with a human head and a guy in a latex monster suit are prowling the hallways, you just have to wonder what the minds behind this mess were thinking...
Wow. The only people reviewing this positively are the Carpenter apologists. I know a lot of those. The guys that'll watch John Carpenter squat on celluloid and pinch out a movie and proclaim it a masterwork of horror. This "movie" is utter crap. It looks and sounds like a porno (good lord, the soundtrack is awful...), and has sub-par porn acting, which is shocking, because normally Ron Perlman is really a very good actor. I honestly have no idea what Carpenter was thinking when making this. Most likely "Beans, beans, beans.." until somebody fed him and rolled him up into a blanket for the day... They say nothing about the abortion debate whatsoever, when they could have had a very interesting central theme (how do religious zealot anti-abortionists feel when it's the devil's baby?) but instead they chose to have Ron Perlman and his terribly acted kids kill a bunch of people and have the horribly cast doctors try to calm the hysterically bad pregnant girl. Not a single person from this episode or what have you should come away unscathed. It's just awful. Like, Plan 9 From Outerspace awful. Like, good god please would somebody turn it off before I soil myself awful. Try watching this and The Thing in the same day and your mind will implode.
This installment of Masters of Horror was terrible. Apparently, Mr. Carpenter needs to learn a thing or two about pacing and decent, plausible dialog. There were times when I literally shouted at the TV for something to happen. Maybe he thinks he building suspense, but Carpenter needs to trim back that overdone, over-simplified musical score of his (or his son's) and advance the action a little bit. How many times did the girl say, "Oh no, I can't have this baby!" and "Oh, no here it comes"? Carpenter takes elements from much, much better films (Assault on Precinct 13 and The Thing) and throws them in here as if we are supposed to acknowledge and appreciate his trademark style. What is lacking here is genuine suspense and energy. It's as though he's sleepwalking through the process of movie making. <br /><br />For better Carpenter films, stick to the tried and true classics-- The Thing, Halloween, and They Live. For better masters of horror episodes, check out my personal favorites: Family, Jenifer, and Dreams in the Witch House.
There is this girl and she's running in the woods but she ends up at this woman's clinic and she wants an abortion. Her daddy is outside in a van and he is all angry about it. The whole episode takes place in and outside of this abortion clinic. I'm not really pro-choice but I wanted the choice to kill this episode. I was laughing when I saw the baby come out and it went into the corner. The part where they were doing the ultra sound was pretty funny too. I was really feeling sorry for the poor dad in this episode. He just wanted to protect his daughter and I couldn't really blame him for what he did. I don't know what happened to him at the end or what happened to the other father and daughter in the waiting room. I was just laughing too hard and I would suggest watching "Pick me up" instead of this episode. It wasn't the worst episode but it wasn't that great.
I have to say as being a fan of the man who created Halloween/The Fog/Christine/The Thing - probably his best films.<br /><br />Then you got this POS. I can't logically think he put any effort at all into this like he did with Cigarette Burns. At least his son made a decent soundtrack.<br /><br />You have to look at this from the standpoint that it didn't seem like a movie. It looked as if someone else directed it for one thing. I won't believe Carpenter put any effort into this at all.<br /><br />I was just listening to his old school H2/H3/The Fog soundtrack and it was awesome, especially for the times.<br /><br />He was using a style that no one had and it worked so well for his films.
A plot that fizzled and reeked of irreconcilable differences in opinions constituted a judgmental havoc with one side pro-life and the other a destroyer of a demon's seed. The horror was left out and replaced with an overall dull effect quite possibly meant to be horrific, but, instead demonstrated an ill dose of beliefs which ridiculed each other to death, despite the title itself. Being a fan of Masters of Horror since the beginning, this ridiculous plot twist with it's sordid depictions crashed apart like a spindly old rocking chair after being sat upon. I view this episode as being thrown together from the get go, never really taking off anywhere other than to see it through for what its worth and relieved when it finally came to "The End"..
Could anyone please stop John Carpenter from continuously and deliberately ruining his reputation? How low can you go? It seems this man has lost any self respect.<br /><br />This episode looks like it has been done by a film student, it isn't even worth beginning to talk about WHAT was bad, because it was just a borefest, directed by somebody with no talent as a filmmaker or without any motivation...<br /><br />Come on, Mr. Carpenter, please retire immediately with a rest of self-esteem and stop spilling out trash like this in a bad tradition from Escape from L.A. to Ghosts of Mars.<br /><br />Get drunk instead.
To be honest, this film is another in a series of huge disappointments...most of these so-called "masters of horror" films are only horrifying in terms of their sub-par effects and laughable story lines...aside from Ron Perlman, everyone else in this film cannot act to save their life...the gunshots sounded like someone was playing Bop-it under the boom mike or something, and looked completely unrealistic...overall, this film is about as scary as Home Alone...the only good masters are Cigarette Burns, Jennifer, and maybe Pelts...I don't know how these directors can sleep at night knowing that they have ruined the very genre that some of them used to actually understand...
I originally gave this episode a rating of two- I now wish I'd thought more about it. I also wish they had negative rating options.<br /><br />Watching it, I was amazed at how poor the whole thing was from start to finish. I adore Ron Pearlman, and John Carpenter... so what went wrong?? Last season episode 13 was pulled due to the way it handled the abortion issue. I think that this season Mr Carpenter managed to make something so grey-area that you can't immediately see if he is pro-choice or anti-abortion. It was only after I sat and thought about it that I realized he is very much anti-abortion- you get this most clearly in the end when the 'Mother' shoots the baby and kills it, to the dismay of the 'Father', who walks off in grief, leaving the mother unharmed. But you also see it in the way the Ron P. character is treated- I hardly think that if someone has proved themselves enough of a threat in the past so as to have a restraining order against him that they would not immediately be ringing the police. Instead we have the guard almost sympathetically dealing with him (only to pay for it in the end) I don't mind someone having a strong view on something, even if it isn't something I agree in, but I do think its a bit lame not to stand by that view, rather than trying to look like they're sitting somewhere in the middle.<br /><br />But, political issues aside, this episode was beyond poor. The music was retro-70's and just plain didn't work. The acting (other than Ron P.) was poor. The effects were dreadful- it might have been better just to -not- show the monster at all rather than show the lame excuse for a monster they had.<br /><br />All this being said, I'm glad they have the Masters of Horror- I don't mind sitting through some really poor episodes to find the good ones. Its a bit like renting horror movies from the video store- every now and again you get a good one and it makes it all worth while. I do agree with the poster that said maybe the name needs to change from Masters- some of these people just plain don't deserve the title. (Let me stress tho- even tho I hated this episode, John Carpenter TOTALLY deserves the title. He is a master thru and thru)
I'm not sure if Carpenter is looking to raise questions on abortion, and make the really heavy-handed and obvious point that a woman should be allowed an abortion if Satan is the father, but it drags on and on. Ron Perlman is laughable. The baby is really stupid looking, basically a crab with a baby head mounted on it. You can pretty much see the material on the Satan costume. What a mess. This episode has about five minutes of story and 55 minutes of tedium. Very, very bad. And the ending is just ridiculous. After learning his baby is dead, does the devil destroy the abortion clinic and kill everyone in a huge, bloody, gory, uproar? NO! He just puts his head down and sulks out of the room. Terrible.
absolutely trash. i liked Halloween and from then on johnny's been in a downward spiral. this is about the pits. we get it john. pro-lifers are scary! you don't have to make a shitty film that bores the hell out of me to 'tell' me.<br /><br />The pacing is way off here. It feels like john didn't have much to work with here. to his credit it looks like he did not write this junk. There are countless times where the camera just sits and waits for the actors to look dumb or say something dumb. i love the long cut. too bad carpenter doesn't know how to employ it. he needs to bunk up with Herzog and Fassbinder 30 years ago. Please John, stop making a fool of yourself and boring me to death!
Despite its flaws, I enjoyed "Cigarette Burns", John Carpenter's Season One episode in the Masters of Horror series. Yes, the story seemed like a cheap cross between IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS and 8MM, but it was still quite good for the budget and time constraints given to it. With "Pro-Life", however, the low budget and time constraints definitely show more than anything else. There is solid directing as always from Carpenter yet there is a quality to the writing and whole production itself that gives the feeling it was made in a total and complete rush. The script isn't always clear, the message fuzzy, and the story is full of plot holes once you look back on them. Maybe had Carpenter re-written the script, it could have been a worthwhile episode. Instead, it's a mess that only hardcore Carpenter fans will find the slightest enjoyment in. Definitely the worst Carpenter has ever done. 2/10
urgh! 3 things a movie needs: a good script, a good plot and good casting. i watched this movie expecting it to be hilariously terrible and was unfortunately disappointed when it was just plain terrible. I lost the will to live halfway through. The only thing which stopped me from stabbing my eyes out with a fork was Rose Byrne (who was the reason for me watching it in the first place). She did a good job as Rastus and her appearance hasn't changed much since she was 13. it was a fantastic first effort in a movie. the dog was also very good. both did a great job with such awful material. Sandra Bernhard i think was the biggest mistake of the movie. she was completely miscast, and i don't think she ever quite got the character.<br /><br />I give the movie 2 out of 10 - and thats only because of Rose.
I simply cannot believe the number of people comparing this favourably with the first film. It moved me to leave this comment! This is just an obvious attempt to cash-in on the success of the first film. The dialogue is appalling and nothing like as authentic or compelling as the original film.<br /><br />The storyline is ridiculous, the portrayal of the French police laughable and the characterisation of Doyle a mile away from the first film.<br /><br />How many drug bosses do you think go down to the docks in person to see a shipment come in? The ease at which Doyle finds his guy is just pathetic. Like all the French Police were just drinking coffee until Doyle turns up from America and does some REAL police work. What a joke. Try going to a foreign city and unearthing the biggest crims in the place with a travel map and some tourist pamphlets. Pathetic. <br /><br />A truly awful sequel, anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy.
First off, anyone who thinks this sequel to William Friedkin's "The French Connection", is superior is most definitely completely insane or moronic or both. The problem with reviewing this film is that, a.) it's a sequel to a brilliant movie, which always makes watching it objectively difficult, and b.) it's directed by John Frankenhimer, one of the best American directors ever, so I wanted to like it. William Friendkin was the perfect person to direct a film about drug traffic in decaying new York city, because of his documentary-like approach to the action and story, Frankenhimer on the other hand is one of the most stylish directors ever, i.e. "The Manchurian Candidate" and "Seconds", and with his "French Connection 2" it feels like someone trying to be gritty and not having the true understanding to pull it off. That fact that Frankenhimer was chosen to direct the sequel by Gene Hackman himself really tells a lot about Hackman's understanding about the original film too. It's well known Hackman hated Friedkin on the set and vowed to never work with him again, it's also known he envisioned the character to be more one dimensional, loosing weight and trying to play him like a straight character. it shows you Hackman, despite being a great actor, had no idea who to make the movie and the story great. The plot point of Doyle becoming an addict is interesting, but doesn't warrant the rest of the film. An unfortunate low point in Frankenhimer's filmography.
Even duller, if possible, than the original (I hope I may say that under the IMDb guidelines). THE FRENCH CONNECTION at least tried to absorb European influences, to complicate the conventional view of the American police detective, even if the attempt was foundered by Friedkin's ambivalence, Americaness and general indirection. The (relative) arthouse boom of the 1960s (especially with the nouvelle vague) allowed for a huge influence of European cinema in Hollywood. This lent a new vigour and complexity to a weary medium, and, in the best of them (eg BONNIE AND CLYDE, early Scorcese), a new subversion of received practice. The original CONNECTION was part of this movement, with its difficultly distanced style, and anti-detective figure. TWO is old Hollywood's right-wing reassertion of American values.<br /><br />This is figured in the film's very tiresome America vs France dialectic. For instance, TWO is shot like a 70s French policier. It was the French, of course, who insisted on the greatness of American movies when they were ignored at home, and this, in a sense, is a reclamation, a warning against Gallic presumption. This can be seen in the pattern of the two movies. CONNECTION has French gangsters invading New York, with the French style smothering the American thriller - this leads to the dissolution of the detective figure, and irresolution of plot - the baddie got away. <br /><br />TWO has the American returning to France, with American thriller values imposed on the native genre - the power of the detective is reasserted and conventional resolution is achieved. This is further dramatised in Doyle's relationship with French inspector Barthelmy, whose dominant influence he must shake off before he can control the plot.<br /><br />TWO seems to follow the original by undermining its detective hero. From the start, Doyle's importance is diminished at every turn. Despite the ending of CONNECTION, he is considered a hero. But he is an American in a foreign land, and his inability to control language or customs means he cannot dominate the plot. He even misreads the signs of the police force, mistaking an informer for a criminal, and getting him killed. <br /><br />A detective's power comes from his power as subject to see and interpret, but Doyle spends much of the movie being watched, controlled, an object, a body (literally in the scenes after he is dumped by Charnier) to be viewed and interpreted. In CONNECTION, he instigated the action, chasing the criminals, forcing the plot; here he is passive, tied to a bed, locked in a cell, an addict, a dependent.<br /><br />This loss of phallic power is predictably symbolised in the loss of his gun, and the film follows a depressingly familiar Oedipal trajectory. In the heroin sequences, he is comforted by an old lady who says he looks like her son. His drugged state is like a return to the womb, robbed of adult pressures. Her taking his watch reinforces the timelessness of this state, doubly significant for a man whose career depends on timetables and precision.<br /><br />Oedipus was the first detective, and to avoid his fate, Doyle must reject this false mother who is dissolving his unified identity, and kill the father (Charnier) so that he can take his accepted masculine role in society. Psychoanalytic theory was popular among academics in the 70s(ironically instigated by a Frenchman, Jacques Lacan), but it's rare to see a film so literally full of it. <br /><br />If all of these facts tended towards the minimising of Doyle, then the film's style doesn't. Friedkin distanced us from his hero by refusing empathy or character motivation, focusing on the mechanics of plot. Here, Doyle is a very conventional Hollywood hero. Instead of being lost in murky long shot, he is made knowable and understandable to the viewer with the traditional devices - point-of-view shots, close ups, connecting shots etc.<br /><br />TWO is all about the fall and rise of Popeye Doyle. Plot in this case is subservient to the acting, which is the usual Hackman showiness. The cold turkey scenes, therefore, despite their tediousness, are not disturbing. We are allowed to share rather than coldly observe; this a far less discomforting experience. The scenes are also shot through with a lachrymose manly sentimentality that is very American. <br /><br />So while CONNECTION tried to imitate the complex thrillers of Jean Pierre Melville, TWO does the complete opposite. Melville's LE SAMOURAI featured a gangster who started the film whole, powerful, outside language, and charted his eventual disintegration. TWO starts with a disintegrated character, achieved partly through inability with language, whose dominance begins when he steps outside language - the concluding action sequences are largely wordless. <br /><br />In the film, the locale and language are important as they fixed and undermined the detective, but as he regains his power (figured in the return of his gun, and the cathartic burning of the primal site of vulnerability, the tower block where Charnier held him), the Marseilles setting becomes more irrelevant, and the mythic stand-off, which could take place anywhere, takes over. Compare the endings of the two films: one admits ambiguity and despair, the other absolute certainty.<br /><br />
What made the French Connection work so well was the relationship between Doyle (Hackman) and Russo (Scheider). In this catastrophe directed by Frankenheimer (who also brought us such gems as Raindeer Games and the Island of Dr. Moreau) the movie focuses on Doyle and his singular obsession of capturing Charnier (Rey). The fictitious idea that the NYPD would allow Doyle to travel to Marseilles to find Charnier with the help of the French local authorities is laugh out loud funny. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Charnier skip town with 65 pounds of pure smack!!! A street value of 32 million but yeah, let's send Doyle to find this guy, it was his pinch after all. Please!!! The story was weak. The acting was terrible (with the lone exception of Hackman, who completely overplayed his part). The direction was all over the place. Even the cuts between scenes were terrible. Do yourself a favor and watch the first installment twice and skip this one.
This film is basically two hours of Dafoe's character drinking himself - nearly literally - to death. The only surprise in this film is that you didn't have enough clues or character knowledge to be surprised. It was just a grim, sad waste of time.<br /><br />Willem Dafoe is excellent actor. Peter Stormare is an excellent actor. But this film just sucked. Slow doesn't make the movie bad, it was just bad. The sketchy plot mixed with artistic ramblings of anamorphic detail aren't cohesively drawn together in a meaningful way for a plot except to highlight some gore which is illustrated from several perspectives, finally at the end. I really appreciate the artistic vision, but as entertainment, it put me to sleep. (Seriously, I fell asleep and had to re-watch the film - which was even more disappointing.)<br /><br />I generally don't like to make negative comments or reviews on the works of others, even when they suck, but this film warranted one. It's just too bad that these great actors were shamed with this end result.
This is an interesting idea gone bad. The hidden meanings in art left as clues by a serial killer sounds intriguing, but the execution in "Anamorph" is excruciatingly slow and without much interest. There is no other way to describe the film except boring. The death clues are the only interesting part of "Anamorph". Everything connecting them is tedious. Willem Dafoe gives a credible performance as the investigator, but he has little to do with a script that is stretched to the limit. Several supporting character actors are wasted , including Peter Stormare as the art expert, James Rebhorn as the police chief, Paul Lazar as the medical examiner, and most notably Deborah Harry, who is featured on the back of the DVD case, yet only has a couple lines spoken through a cracked door. Not recommended. - MERK
A well put together entry in the serial killer genre that unfortunately gets mired down in its own pretentiousness to be really satisfying. Willem Dafoe is superb as a NYC detective trying to track down what appears to be a copycat using the same Renaissance art-related killing techniques used in a series of murders he solved years earlier. Scott Speedman is Dafoe's junior partner and they have pretty good chemistry (at least for a while). Other characters pop up to conveniently tie the two cases together. Clea Duval is the friend of an earlier victim and Peter Stormare is some sort of art broker/mentor to Dafoe...that's a bit hard to take, although Stormare is, of course, never dull. The film's ending is particularly disappointing. Look fast for Deborah Harry as Dafoe's less than forthcoming neighbor.
you must be seeing my comments over many films under Evren Buyruk ..I am off to make another comment over a movie that is not even worth a minute of talking though..This film is basically two hours of Dafoe's character drinking himself - nearly literally - to death. The only surprise in this film is that you didn't have enough clues or character knowledge to be surprised. It was just a grim, sad waste of time.<br /><br />Willem Dafoe is excellent actor. Peter Stormare is an excellent actor. But this film just sucked. Slow doesn't make the movie bad, it was just bad. The sketchy plot mixed with artistic ramblings of anamorphic detail aren't cohesively drawn together in a meaningful way for a plot except to highlight some gore which is illustrated from several perspectives, finally at the end. I really appreciate the artistic vision, but as entertainment, it put me to sleep. (Seriously, I fell asleep and had to re-watch the film - which was even more disappointing.) I generally don't like to make negative comments or reviews on the works of others, even when they suck, but this film warranted one. It's just too bad that these great actors were shamed with this end result.
I should say right away that I checked the spoilers box only because I'm giving this comment the amount of thought proportional to what this mess of a movie deserves, and don't want to be held responsible for some plot point incidentally slipping out.<br /><br />This comment will take the form of a tirade for the simple reason that I am still under the influence of this movie, having just watched it, and the unique effect this has renders one incapable of the sort of forethought and paragraph structure required for coherent, reasoned criticism. That is not a compliment. It isn't the narcotic effect of a truly hypnotic or thought provoking movie. The feelings it stirs up combine like some uncomfortable emotional Voltron, composed of a confusing mix of some form of rage, the vague desire to take a shower, the rudderless, sinking feeling of true betrayal one gets when they realize they have given 109 minutes of their lives into the hands of someone who would not only squander it, but do so in such a pompous, artless way. And I probably wouldn't have done anything super productive with that 109 minutes anyway! But even if I'd spent it on something trivial, like a power block of masturbation and online poker, I would have felt more fulfilled when all was said and done.<br /><br />The problems with this movie are myriad, and in better times I'd articulate exactly what they were in a semi-adult fashion. But in keeping with what this movie deserves, I think I'll most likely stick to the realm of masturbation jokes and cartoon references.<br /><br />The most irritating and terminal flaw is that while watching this movie one is keenly aware that the makers and participants think they are making a much smarter movie than they are. Demonstrating the depth of knowledge one could pick up in a one semester survey of Western art history at a community college or trade school, the art-jargon is piled on thick and from all directions, with much of it supplied by talk between our hero, the tortured detective Stan (Willem Dafoe, who I will forgive for this movie due to him being Willem Dafoe) and his accented antique dealer buddy Blair (Peter Stormare, taking a break from playing a sociopath for whom murder comes easy by playing a 2-dimensional plot device in a movie about a sociopath for whom murder comes easy). And talk they do. In fact, we are dropped into this story at a crime scene that may indicate the reemergence of a serial killer Stan thinks he killed years earlier, so all the back story is established partially through unclear flashback, but primarily through stilted conversations between Stan and his dealer, or Stan and his colleague, the unforgivably irritating Carl (Scott Speedman). And although I differentiate the character Carl (Scott Speedman) from the actor who plays him by using parentheses, I must admit that very early on in the film I despised this character so much that I actually found myself sincerely wishing harm on the actor portraying him (Scott Speedman). Not anything too fancy. Not death or paralysis, necessarily.. But maybe herpes? Or maybe a stage light could fall on him and crush his arm? This is a dangerous digression, but I'm not editing it out because I want to leave anyone reading this who's thinking about paying to see this train wreck of a movie with a clear impression of the horrible wishes and feelings it stirs in even the most peaceful man.<br /><br />Well, I'm sort of running out of steam here.. over the course of writing this the sick feelings this movie brought up in a me have subsided, my head has cleared a bit. Realizing now that I'm still investing time in something related to this piece of sh!t is startlingly similar to waking up after a night of suicidally heavy drinking next to the heaving form of a still slumbering 200 pound college girl. Your first urge is a desperate desire to flee. This is natural.
This story about three women is a very sensitive study about: Muriël (Charlotte Van Den Eynde) the youngest, Laura (Els Dottermans) who is about 37 and Martha (Frieda Pittors) the oldest who is the mother of Muriël. They live together in the same building. They have different expectations of life. The vital Laura wants a child. Muriël comes from a village and wants to change her life in Brussels. Martha dreams about her youth when she was a young girl. In fact nothing happens in this movie so you wait for something - for instances an accident - which could dramatize this story. As times goes on, you discover that the director Dorothée Van Den Berghe only wants to develop a psychological portrait of the three women and nothing more. This movie is disappointing because you expect the women to learn from their experiences which is not the case, so one is left with a feeling of emptiness.
Where to start, this movie started badly and ended badly! It consists of extremely poor acting and unrealistic effects that had me cringing in my seat, seriously, my cat could have acted better than this lot.<br /><br />Some of it was actually laughable because it was so unbelievable, i would of rated this lower but they haven't got anything else! So, heed my warning and unless your so bored your close to suicide and would like a good reason to continue with your suicide mission, don't bother with this one. I'm still in shock that this could actually be released to the public, this should be a crime and all involved should be arrested. I gather you've got the gist by now so i'll leave it up to you to decide.
The Legend of Bloody Jack is set in the Alaskan wilderness & starts as a relative of some murderous deceased occultist Lumberjack reads incantations (The Evil Dead (1982) style) from an ancient spell book in an attempt to resurrect him, he succeeds & not being a big believer in family unity the Lumberjack dude kills his relative. Two days later & Ray (Travis Quentin Young) along with his sister Dawn (Erica Hoag), her boyfriend Nick (Craig Bonacorsi) & four of their friends pull up outside a cosy log cabin (The Evil Dead style...) with a view to a relaxing weekend in the wilderness. Unfortuntaely the killer Lumberjack dude show's up with his axe & starts to slaughter the friends one-by-one...<br /><br />Edited, written, executive produced & directed by Todd Portugal this is a pretty rotten modern slasher flick the likes of which are killing the horror genre for me, I'm just not a big fan of ultra low budget horror films with the production values of a holiday video. The script is absolutely terrible in every way for 80 minutes, it has every bad slasher cliché, the character's are awful, the dialogue is terrible & it's hard to care about anyone or anything in this pretty worthless excuse for a teen slasher film. The teens are even more annoying & stupid than usual, the script is more moronic, predictable & flawed than usual & the killer Lumberjack dude is just lame. Then there's the final 10 minutes or so which, if you make it that far & believe it's tough going, produces one of the worst twist ending in slasher film history which as far as I'm concerned pokes fun at us the paying audience who has just had to sit through 90 minutes worth of crap. I will now spoil the ending so anyone who doesn't want to know it stop reading now. Basically just before the end of the film it cuts back to Ray telling a story & it turns out he was telling the story of what we had just seen & Nick & Dawn & everyone else berates him for telling such a bad story (I felt their pain) & then proceed to pick holes in it & laugh at it. From saying why did they stand around & argue, why didn't they pick the axe up & such things, I felt like this was poking fun at the audience as those were the sorts of things I was asking myself while watching this crap & to have it shoved down my throat & made perfectly clear that the makers knew the script was crap & could see all the holes in it & went for a twist ending which unashamedly rubbishes the preceding 80 minutes (which we have just had to sit through remember) is just a little grating. Then to add insult to injury the Lumberjack dude turns up & kills everyone within two minutes, why didn't he do that to start with? It would have saved everyone a lot of time.<br /><br />Director Portugal turns in a real mess, this has the worst continuity between night & day in a film I have ever seen. The whole film is meant to set at night & I suspect the makers tried to use the day for night process but it didn't work & most of it looks like it is set during the day. For example, look at when Lisa is trapped in the bathroom & she climbs out of the window. It is clearly pitch black outside when we are looking out from inside the bathroom but when she falls to the ground & the films cuts to an exterior shot it's bright daylight. Then there's the fact Ranger Vince says we can't get a search party out here until 'the morning' indicating it was supposed to be night, then several minutes later when he walks outside & it looks like it's the middle of the day he is actually carrying around a torch which is clearly on & he is clearly pointing it in the directions where he is looking like it's night. Anytime there is a scene set in the cabin look at the windows, it's pitch black outside & when the Ranger walks in through the door to start with is also another clear example. The continuity in this film is simply the worst I have ever seen. There isn't much gore, there are a few scenes of an axe going into people bodies but nothing memorable. It's not scary, there's no tension or atmosphere & the appalling day & night continuity is just so distracting because it's so obvious.<br /><br />Technically the film is rock bottom, again the continuity between night & day has to been seen to be believed how bad it is. The special effects are poor & they couldn't even afford to show a car blowing up even though it's pretty vital to the plot. This has amateur hour written all over it from start to finish. The acting is absolutely brilliant & everyone involved should get an Oscar, nah only joking, not really they were utterly awful & even the girls who got their breasts out weren't very good looking.<br /><br />The Legend of Bloody Jack is just an awful teen slasher flick, it looks like it was shot on a camcorder without the use of a tripod or steadycam, it has awful effects, is boring & has a twist ending which is either the most insulting in horror film history or I've got it totally wrong & it's the most clever. Not recommended, watch a decent slasher from the 70's or 80's to remind you how they should be done.
I had no expectations other than to be entertained for 90 minutes, and that is exactly what I was.<br /><br />Of course it is campy, of course some of the dialog wasn't perfect, of course the "special effects" were a bit hokey. That is exactly why I enjoyed the movie so much. It is a perfect fit for this genre of a 70's Horror classic.<br /><br />The talent needs to start some where, that goes for the actors and the crew, and what better piece of material to sharpen your skills on than this.<br /><br />I for one look forward to another film from these producers and directors.
Moron and girlfriend conduct some ritual to resurrect the dead, in attempt to prove that the dead can not be brought back to life. Not surprisingly, they do resurrect a dead soul who commences chopping them up with an axe, and the next day some college aged people are telling the story around a campfire. The guy with the axe turns up and starts hacking up the idiots telling the story. The group calls the cops, the cop sees blood splattered all over and thinks it's a mountain lion(!?) and soon after is axed by some deformed killer who may or may not be a ghost.<br /><br />Moronic little splatter movie which was filmed in broad daylight but where several characters are carrying flashlights and talking as though it were the middle of the night, and wanting to send up a signal flare to attract attention. One guy has a gun in one hand and bullets in the other but doesn't bother to load it, then after he finally loads it, he has several opportunities to shoot the killer but doesn't bother to, because that would end the movie too early. Then he throws the gun away! Also detrimental is characters who show no emotion and don't look the least bit concerned after their friends are chopped up into pieces and lousy effects (the human heart looks like a piece of chicken meat, the car blown up at the end clearly was a model car) and awful dialogue and some really ugly female nudity doesn't help. And in the end it tries to get away with it's incoherence by saying that it was all the invention of the same college aged people telling campfire stories at the start of this movie. <br /><br />Then the killer turns up for real in the last scene hacks them into pieces. Again.<br /><br />Mediocre of it's kind, good only for some unintended laughs.<br /><br />*1/2 out of ****
Starring an unknown cast which seem likely to remain that way, this "film" is yet another cheap slasher flick which amazes me how this was released. I have no problem with horrors and slasher flicks in particular, in fact they are my favourites. But when they are done THIS BAD, it really does take the monkey and its no wonder the genre has such a hard time. The story is as clichéd and without imagination as possible with a bunch of people in a cabin out in the woods being slashed and hacked up by this zombie/ghost guy. Its not the story that sucks the most, its the atrocious acting and dialouge, home made directing quality and an awful soundtrack. Not to mention laughable effects and some incredibly lazy film making - these morons are outside in clear daylight yet we are meant to believe it's night?? What the hell was the director thinking with this move? What, he had only one day to film all this in? He was scared of the dark? ( Is hilarious seeing a cop walking around in pure daylight with a torch acting as if its pitch black, though)<br /><br />I guess the positive side for the actors is they look like people who work in the local supermarket so at least they could possibly escape from this film without ever being noticed. Im sure one of the "teens" plays bingo down the local pub - but she's 40-45.<br /><br />Anyway, good for a laugh but just another waste of film and time.
I really wish i could give this a negative vote, because i think i just wasted 83 minutes of my life watching the worst horror movie ever put to film. the acting was just god awful, i mean REALLLYYYY bad, the dialog was worse, the script sounded like it was written by.... i can't think of anything horrible enough to say. And the day "outside" and the night "inside" shots make you think the events took over several days. Terribly acted, directed, written, etc etc. all the way down to the gofer how gets lunch for everyone. STAY AWAY FROM THIS ONE AT ALL COSTS. If my only saving grace to stay out of hell is by doing one good deed, it is to tell the world to not watch this crap. This movie is the exact reason why horror movies are never taken seriously.
Oh my, where to start... this movie was just awful. The writing was bad, acting was bad, special effects were bad. I think the only good thing about this movie is that it made me laugh! I was in the mood for a scary movie but certainly didn't get that! I thought it would be decent enough since i'm not picky. i've watched several bad horror movies. In fact, it is my goal to see all horror movies, not matter how awful they may be. At one point in the movie i made a comment about the "corn syrup blood" and in the special features they actually admit that it was Karo syrup (brand name corn syrup...) The movie had all the necessary things for a horror movie (blood, nudity, crazy killer, stupid moves) but it was just completely lacking anything to really make it good. The writer should either take some classes or just give up!
Guys who-ever even THINKS about watching this movie has already got some disturbance going through their heads.. This movie has NOTHING to do with Jack the Ripper (incase you thought) its another B, i mean E-Grade movie comprised of a bunch of horny teens in certain sex scenes being watched just before they get their spleens splattered on a nearby tree. Its not scary, funny or amusing. If you really feel like gory stuff with no plot, then watch Cabin Fever, at least the director did not fall asleep midway through directing this crap.only watch this if you absolutely have nothing to do in life & the only thing on TV is Oprah Winfrey crying on the TV set.
I'm a Christian who generally believes in the theology taught in Left Behind. That being said, I think Left Behind is one of the worst films I've seen in some time.<br /><br />To have a good movie, you need to have a well-written screenplay. Left Behind fell woefully short on this. For one thing, it radically deviates from the book. Sometimes this is done to condense a 400-page novel down to a two-hour film, but in this film I saw changes that made no sense whatsoever.<br /><br />Another thing, there is zero character development. When characters in the story get saved (I won't say who), the book makes it clear that it's a long, soul-searching process. In the film it's quick and artificial. The book is written decently enough where people like Rayford Steele, Buck Williams and Hattie Durham seem real, but in the movie scenarios are consistently given the quick treatment without anything substantial. In another scene where one character gets angry about being left behind (again, I won't say who), it seems artificial.<br /><br />I realize as a Christian it's unedifying for me to say I disliked this film, but I can't in a good conscience recommend a film that I feel was horribly done. Perhaps it would've been better to make the first book into 2-3 films. Either way, Christians need to realize that to be taken seriously as filmmakers, we need to start by putting together a film in a quality way. I realize a lot of effort probably went into Left Behind, but that's the way I see it.
It's been a while since seeing this the first time, so I watched it again with the second movie in the series. While I realize there is a 3rd movie out that I haven't seen yet, I'll review under the original title...<br /><br />Just from the standpoint of production value, screen writing, and movie making, this movie fails on many levels, though it succeeds on a few as well. What can you expect from a low-budget, "B" movie? Not much, and it works from the standpoint of production. However, the writing is certainly disjointed, with little in the way of character development...exactly what I'd expect when there is an agenda to a film. I didn't have a problem with the acting...the cast is solid; however, the screenplay in both movies gives the actors little opportunity to really stretch themselves. Because the film is "Christian," this is predictable, as you can't very well portray violent chaos of the "end times" without also breaking some of the ethics which are normally associated with Christianity. In other words, the mistake comes in making this into a G-rated film when the content, even in the most conservative of Bible interpretations, would be R-rated by any measure. So, if the purpose of the movie is to scare people into Christian faith, then the movie should be somewhat scary, right? However, you can't comment on a film adaptation from a book without commenting on the book, or in this case, series of books. There are certainly plenty of Christian materials worthy enough to be made into movies...but not the "Left Behind" series...and these movies ultimately fail because, while being best-sellers, they are poorly written novels based on bad theology.<br /><br />As a Southern Baptist minister, I confess that the books were a guilty pleasure for me, though I have yet to finish the last two books of the series. I have described them as decent fiction, and if the books would take the point of view that this is one "possibility" or interpretation of the subject of biblical eschatology (study of the "end times), then I could live with that. However, this series is divisive in Christian circles because it promotes the "literalist" interpretation of all Scripture above a more proper hermeneutic. Inevitably, this leads to the "pre-trib, pre-millenial" dispensation point of view, which confines an all-powerful God far too by humanity's world. In other words, as I've always said, God shouldn't need our helicopters and bombs to do his ultimate work. But because many people, particularly unstudied Christians, can't think beyond their own world-views, we are left with a pro-conservative, fundamentalist stance with regard to Bible interpretation, and attempts to push it through as the "only" interpretation.<br /><br />Thus, the books carry with them an agenda, not so much to get the "lost" to understand their need for Christ, but to state that the fundamentalist point of view is the only valid way to understand the Bible. I recall very clearly reading (several years ago) in the second novel a scene where the characters reference a person who was "left behind" BECAUSE of his non-adherence to this point of view; as if "real" christians worthy to be "raptured" couldn't possibly hold to another eschatology. This is disturbing for several reasons, the least of which is because a "rapture" is only briefly mentioned in Scripture and it's connection to real, end-time prophecy is tenuous at best.<br /><br />But the real issue with these books is comes in the way they divide the Christian community and how they portray "true" Christian behavior. Ultimately, I feel they harden more people to an otherwise legitimate faith/religion instead of win people towards it. It turns all Christians into caricatures, equally disdained and laughed at by the world despite the fact that there is theological room for a wide diversity of believes within Christian thought and practice. As a Christian body, on the whole, we've done enough of that kind of damage to society over 2000 years of history...and we certainly don't need to promote it by film to thousands, maybe millions of others.<br /><br />Thus, the "Left Behind" movies fail because the "Left Behind" books aren't worthy to be interpreted into movies.
Okay, now, I know there are millions of Americans who believe in The Rapture: that moment when all people born again in Christ will be raptured up to meet God and all the rest of humanity will be left on earth to perish in plagues and fire and the heartbreak of psoriasis as the Antichrist battles it out with Jesus (in an uncharacteristically warlike mode). And I know the books were best sellers. . .among believers, anyway. And I mean no disrespect to all that.<br /><br />But I have to say, they stuffed this movie into a sack and beat it with the Suck Stick.<br /><br />I'm sure the books are much better. Really.<br /><br />The plot needs no reprising. If you've watched this movie, chances are you read the book. I may be one of the only people on earth who actually watched this just for the sheer bad-moving-making experience, and I wasn't disappointed. Especially not by Kirk Cameron, the creepy little "Growing Pains" gremlin, who came of age on that show, found Christ, and decided that the SHOW should reflect his Christian values. Well, Kirk, your career has gone to the dogs, but now you can be happy that you're spreading the word of God in movies so bad, they never even make it to theatrical release. Well, that's not strictly true: I guess this was the only movie ever made that went to DVD FIRST, with a voucher for a free viewing of the movie when it was briefly released in theaters! I still have the voucher! How many people do you suppose showed up? I don't know about you, but it never came to my town. Of course, I live in NYC, where we Godless liberals sit around tearing pages out of the bible and use them to roll joints. So there you go. In fact, I'll bet out of three million people on Manhattan Island, not one would be raptured.<br /><br />Check out the supplementary materials on the DVD, where you'll learn the creepy behind the scenes details of these movies. . .the CAST and CREW all must be of the same religious mindset. They don't come right out and say this, but listen closely to what the filmmakers say. It's like a bunch of Pod People got together to make a Pod movie. How creepazoid is that? Honestly, this stuff just preaches to the converted, doesn't it? Can you imagine anyone who DOESN'T subscribe to the whole apocalypse thing watching this, slapping his forehead and saying, "HOLY HOOVER DAM! I better get saved PRONTO!" Anyhow, I'm hooked. I gotta see the rest of these Christian fiasco movies, especially the one with Gary Busey, which I think is TRIBULATIONS. At least Busey has an excuse for taking the part.. . .he cracked his head on some pavement when he crashed his motorcycle.<br /><br />Oy.<br /><br />Oh, and one more thing. What's with all the shots of poor,innocent dogs whimpering, their leashes dragging uselessly along the ground, because their owners have been called to heaven? What's up with that? Are we supposed to feel badly for the dogs, and if we do, what are we to make of God? Doesn't it IRK people that there's no room in heaven for man's best friend? Foo.<br /><br />This is one more reason I'm agnostic. Good night and good luck.
If you are wondering where many of the conspiracy theories and paranoid ideas about the the UN, Israel, and international affairs come from, look no further.<br /><br />This isn't a supernatural Hollywood film loosely based on some biblical passage. Instead, this movie was made by a company (Cloud Ten Pictures) with a political and religious agenda. As a movie, the end result at times more looks like clips out of a televangelism program (complete with family prayers and light breaking through church windows while harps are playing).<br /><br />For mainstream viewers, it may be hard to believe, but many people believe in this stuff literally, as presented in the movie. And that, perhaps, makes the movie important. You probably won't find a more concise exposition of the bizarre views of a significant number of your fellow citizens. So, if you view it, view it as a social/cultural document. If you are at all media savvy, you don't need to be warned about the unsubtle attempts at propaganda and manipulation in the movie.
I am a Christian... and I feel this movie is awful.<br /><br />Nobody but hard-core, Bible-belt Christians are going to like this movie. The message is just too in your face. If you want to touch a wider audience, you have to be way more subtle. You can't have the dad waving the bible around and carrying it with him in EVERY scene. RIDICULOUS! <br /><br />Poor direction. The reveal of people missing should have been terrifying, but it was laughable. They leave their clothes on the ground? It reminded me of old Ed Wood movies: "Oh my God! People are missing!" That scene in the plane is just stupid. Think about it: if you found your relative's clothes next to you, you wouldn't just scream "oh my god. they disappeared! they're missing!" and start crying and yelling. You would first be in denial... you just wouldn't jump to that conclusion. Watch Jodie Foster in FLIGHTPLAN. My favorite shot is the dog sitting out on the lawn with a pile of clothes and boots sitting next to him. I about fell off the couch I was laughing so hard.<br /><br />The music was so bad and so distracting. It was as if the composer was in his own world scoring his own movies. "here's my chance to do a thriller", "here's my chance to do action!" STOP TELLING ME HOW TO FEEL JAMES COVELL! A good score supports what's happening on the screen... this movie needed more of an UNDER score, but instead it was as much in your face as the message was.<br /><br />The writing was bland. So was Captain Christian Kirk Cameron. Chelsea was the worse: "you don't understand! People are missing!". Brad Johnson was laughable. The two stand out performances came from the Anti-Christ and the older guy (sorry, can't remember their names) In watching the "making of" (to answer my question of "what were they thinking???"), the producers and filmmakers and actors are just deluding themselves... saying "we're gonna reach wide audiences" and "brad Johnson is amazing" and "this is just like a Hollywood movie". I came to the conclusion that they just don't know what the "heck" they are doing.<br /><br />I commend the effort. Getting the message to a wide audience is a fantastic idea. Film is the best medium possible to do that. Look at movies like WIDE AWAKE, SIGNS, CONTACT, PASSION OF Christ, even O'BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? The bottom line is that the film needed to be made by people who have talent and vision. Unfortunately, it was not.
I grew up Baptist and I know the story this movie is trying to tell, although I no longer believe the story. I'll give the movie kudos for being as good as the average Lifetime Movie of the Week. Mildly interesting, mediocre acting, a bit slow, the script is predictable, the music is sappy, and it is a bit melodramatic. And all the people left behind have got to be the squeakiest clean non-Christians, ever. Not a single curse word from any of them. But I laughed out loud when the actor playing the man who runs the United Nations pronounced "nuclear" as "nu-cu-ler," just like Bush. Is there some Christian code of honor that mandates that since Bush claims he, too, is called by God, that all Christians must cover up his ignorance by mispronouncing that word the same way he does? LOL! I really had a difficult time taking the movie seriously at all after that. After the "nu-cu-ler" incident, the movie began to feel like packaged, manipulative propaganda. I was looking for something bold. Actually, I was looking for something that might make me think, but I didn't find it here. If you're looking for mindless entertainment, stop here - it's good for killing a rainy afternoon. But if you're looking for intelligence, look elsewhere.
*review may contain spoilers*<br /><br />predictable, campy, bad special effects. it has a TV-movie feeling to it. the idea of the UN as being taken over by Satan is an interesting twist to the end of the world according to the bible. the premise is interesting, but its excution falls waaaay short. if you want to convert people to Christianity with a film like this, at least make it a quality one! i was seriously checking my watch while watching this piece of dreck. can't say much else about this film since i saw it over a year ago, and there isn't really much to say about this film other than.....skip it!
Left Behind is the kind of "we know what we know cause we know it" movie that Christians (and most any other naive person) needs to help them feel like what they "THINK" and "BELIEVE" (not "KNOW") is right. But, at the same time I feel bad for the little guys, because this is not a well made film. It does not help ANY message. I work at a video store, and I KNOW the ONLY reason people went to see this movie was because they were religious and they thought it was. ANYBODY on this earth who THINKS they know what will happen in the future is wrong, unless they think they know that they don't know. I've had about enough (but only after I've had too much) of these people walking around with their noses in the air thinking that a movies starring a semi-talented TV actor means something above me.<br /><br />Please, if you love yourself you'll stay away. I refuse to go into any detail about this movie (not because A-I didn't see it (because I did), B-it was too shocking for my atheist-self to handle (because it wasn't), or C-I really don't have anything to say bad about it (because I do). The Reason, (which is a word nobody who helped make this movie understands) is that I want this movie out of my head, I want that it was made out of my head, I want that I watched ALL OF IT WITH AN OPEN MIND out of my head, I want the message that Kirk so proudly and coachly gives at the end of the movie out of my head. I only want all the things that were in my head BEFORE viewing this movies there, anything directly connected with this movie that's floating in my head GET OUT! My peaceful rage is ending. I'm sorry that somebody in this world went to the theater to see this movie about what could happen in the future (but won't) when they could have given that Seven Dollars Plus to any number of Human, Animal, or Rain Forest charity. But if they did that then they wouldn't be able to "BELIEVE" in the fact that it's real, they might have to fact what is. LEFT BEHIND ZERO (out of ****)
I watched about 30 minutes into this film before I finally got sick of getting bludgeoned over the head with this movie. The soundtrack, the so-called 'plot', and each and every actor. It's like they all think they're the main part of the movie and scream "NOTICE ME!" over and over again. The bad guy has his bad-guy music going on and says sinister bad-guy-like things, just in case you didn't quite catch on. The good guy does brave and noble things just in case you didn't know he was the good guy. And oh lord, the plane scene. "MY HUSBAND IS MISSING! OH MY GOD! IT'S IMPOSSIBLE THAT HE GOT UP TO STRETCH HIS LEGS OR GO TO THE TOILET OR ANYTHING, HE MUST BE MISSING!" (And yes, I know, his clothes were still there, but honestly, she woke up and started to panic before she even had time to look at the damn seat he'd been in.)<br /><br />As a religious girl, I want to apologize to the world for wasting the film this was printed on.<br /><br />And I want my 30 minutes back.
This reminds me of when I was a born-again believer who was going to be a minister. I never actually thought I would be a minister or even graduate from high school because I was almost positive I would be raptured to Heaven before that would ever happen. That was before I discovered that Christianity was a bunch rubbish. I am now an atheist, and that just proves that the "once saved always saved" doctorine that Christians tell us is no more real than elves. If it were true then why did I leave after many years of being a devout born again believer? Yes, I really was saved. I prayed that silly sinners prayer with all my heart.<br /><br />If Christians were to read their Bible they would discover that their god thinks like rape, genocide, abortion, and many other atrocities are alright according to him. They might be surprised to learn that no where is the word "rapture" mentioned.
I'm getting a little tired of people misusing God's name to perpetuate their own bigoted view on the world. Well I don't dismiss the idea of Armageddon, or the coming of the anti-Christ, I do dismiss the idea that only certain people who live truly good lives(They seem to be mostly white Christian children) will go to Heaven, while the rest of us must suffer through a millenia of Hell on Earth, just because we weren't good enough. God may be a judge, but I don't think He is going to measure every level of goodness. Give the Creator some credit.
I cannot believe that they managed to spend US$17million on this film. Spectacularly bad acting, egregious scripting and effects that you could do on your average PC, unbelievable plot contrivances...a reporter who can get an inexperienced stewardess a major job at the UN? What? Not only that, but the message of this film is so unsubtle that you come out feeling as if they've tried to batter you over the head with a full size crucifix. All this movie will do will preach to the choir and make everyone else laugh at such a ridiculous waste of money. If the makers of this film really wanted to sway people to christianity and show what it means to truly believe, they would have used the money to help people truly in need. Now, /that/ might have swayed some people into actually listening to them.
I like end-of-days movies. I like B-movies. I was hoping I would like this movie.<br /><br />I could ignore the poor effects, the often atrocious music, the cringe-inducing lines. I could ignore the unexplained events, and the fact that the movie constantly relies on deus ex machina is excusable, given the subject matter. I could ignore the fact that the people who fight hunger and try to reach world peace are the bad guys. None of these things kill the movie. What kills this movie is that it's just plain and simple boring. Nothing actually happens; almost all scenes in the movie are designed to push the movie creators' morals on the viewers, at the cost of actually having a coherent story, or any kind of suspense.<br /><br />If you're looking for an entertaining B-movie, look elsewhere. This movie is just boring.
This movie is one reason IMDB should allow a vote of 0/10. The acting is awful, even what some here have lauded, the Carpathia character! The script looks like it was written in haste. In one scene, the black preacher who was left behind, when asked by Buck what "dan7" in the computer graphic meant, said, "Daniel 7, *CHAPTER* 24." He probably meant VERSE 24, but the film makers missed this slip up. Perhaps the worst part is that the film's eschatological position is Biblically unsound. While many Christians have espoused the film's interpretation of end-time events, such interpretation, in *my opinion*, is faulty. To understand these flaws, read "Christians Will Go Through The Tribulation" by Jim McKeever and "The Blessed Hope, A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and the Rapture" by George E. Ladd.
I find it sad that Christians (and I am one) feel that we must make movies like "Left Behind." We have much better stories to tell that don't have to be so preachy. I was very disappointed with this film. As an aspiring filmmaker who believes in Christ, I see this film as the perfect example for what I am not going to do with my career in film.
the only enjoyable thing about this highly mockable movie is playing "guess" that location. What Toronto landmark will stand in for what American/international location.<br /><br />who knew that the anti-christ would be russian? obviously he can't be american since we need the yanks to save the day - oh Buck... you'll tell us all the truth... you'll show us the light... and the way outta the building should those nasty anti-christers get their way.<br /><br />Five golden raspberries. Faith is not enough to hope they don't make another of this ilk! We don't gotta prayer.
This movie which was released directly on video should carry a warning label that it is dangerous to human health and may subject the viewer to terminal boredom. It is yet another thinly veiled, evangalizing "rapture" religious movie with the good guys (the believers) suddenly vanishing and the bad guys (the non-believers)left behind. It's an interesting concept, especially since we see it happen on a flight captained by a non-believer who is having a sinful affair with a stewardess aboard (needless to say that sinner doesn't disappear either!). Unhappily, with all the pilots being non-believers, the plane did not crash or the movie would have been mercifully over. Though this could have be interesting without the heavy religious browbeating, as a whole the plodding movie makes one gag, the acting is horrible and the obviously computer-generated simulations are very fake looking. Plus it's yet another movie shot in Canada that purports to be New York City. Spare me...I'll just read the Bible.
There are no words to explain how bad NIGHTMARE WEEKEND is. It simply defies description. Something about a computer that can change personal objects into silver balls that enter the victims' mouth, which kills them or turns them into zombies. The whole thing is so wonky that it's stunning. There's also a girl with personal computer in her room and the computer talks via a hand puppet!!!!!!!! I'm not making this stuff up. The computer also controls things like cars, even though there's nothing linking the computer with the vehicle.<br /><br />The "film" is total trash. Surreal bad trash. Spectacularly, one-of-a-kind bad trash. There's a lot of sex scenes thrown here and there, which aren't very hot or erotic. There's even one scene where a woman seemingly makes love or wants to French kiss a tarantula, which had me rolling on the floor.<br /><br />Definitely one of the worst movies ever made. Up there with the equally wretched direct-to-home video BOARDINGHOUSE, or BOOGEYMAN II (both NIGHTMARE WEEKEND and BOOGEYMAN II have scenes with a killer toothbrush!). At least it's fun to watch it and try to make sense of whatever is going on.
Somehow a woman working with a scientist puts round metal balls into people's mouths that supposedly changes their personality but in reality turns them into crazed, zombie-like killers. The "guinea pigs" for the experiment are scantily-clad, nubile young women in desperate need of acting lessons. This movie is awful, atrocious, and amazingly bad. It has little to no logic in the script. You really will have trouble following what is going on. It has no special effects. The computer screen that is supposedly representing a huge scientific advancement looks nothing more than an old Atari screen. And what is even worse is that there is also a puppet with strands of felt hair(looks like a lonely kid at summer camp made it) named George that is like a personal servant/confidant to Jessica(the leading "actress"). Throughout the movie you will be subjected to the idiotic, sophmoric utterings of this puppet. But wait...you also get loads of softcore, unerotic, barely nude scenes with the girls with some bar guys. All the while a most annoying soundtrack plays in the background like some kind of spiritual discovery has taken place. None of the actors are good. There are just varying degrees of bad. The gore and "horror" aspects are especially ineptly filmed. The film really looks like an adolescent put it together. No coincidence Henry Sala, the director by name but not by trade, has not made another film. I was bored almost into a coma watching this stupid, silly, dreck! And how bout the ending? What happened? If you know let me in on the secret because for the life of me I cannot figure it out. All I know is that I lost the time spent watching this garbage that made the beginning of my weekend a real nightmare of a bore!
Sniffing girl's panties kills a guy...and a stupid freaky puppet says a lot of stupid freaky things......My eyes could not leave the screen, my finger could not leave the Fast Forward button....I had to rewatch this spectacle to see if I had really experienced what I thought...I did.....God help us all!
Nightmare Weekend stars a cast of ridiculous actors with even less of an idea of what is going on than the director had, if you can imagine that. There is no decipherable plot or story, the special effects are a joke, and even the sound is terrible. This film was directed by Henry Sala. It was the only film that he ever directed, and the reason is obvious.
The acting in this movie stinks. The plot makes very little sense, but from what I gathered it's supposed to be about this scientist who develops the ability to turn people's personal items into tiny steel balls that then fly into their mouths and turn them into zombies (or blow their heads up, whichever). And the effects are lousy, too. Most of the movie consists of bad music, with the actors dancing equally as badly to the bad music, interspersed with multiple boring sex scenes. This should be one of the worst things ever made, but for one thing. One element of shear brilliance that makes "Nightmare Weekend" stand above all others. And that special quality is the presence of George.<br /><br />George is the lovable interface device between the scientist's daughter, Jessica, and the home computer security system. With his green hair and nose, balding scalp, and heart-shaped mouth, George is the guardian angel/confidant to Jessica, who asks him for advice on how to meet guys in one of the most dramatic pieces of dialogue ever captured on celluloid. With his monotone synthesized voice, George tells Jessica what percentages of males prefer women in white dresses, and also that hitch-hiking is the third best way to meet guys after discos and bars. Of course, little Jessica just can't seem to stay out of trouble, causing George to execute "Emergency Program Code: Protection Jessica", which results in the violent death of Jessica's would-be assailant via one of the aforementioned steel balls.<br /><br />Kubrick was an utter fool for thinking he could give a computer personality using closeups of a red light. HAL should have been represented by our friend George in order to better translate compassion for his eventual demise. The light and sound show at the end of "Close Encounters"? Not bad, but how much better would that movie had been if the means of first communication with the aliens had been George the Hand Puppet. Bishop, Data, R2 – kitchen appliances next to the Almighty George! He might only be in the movie for 8 minutes out of 90, but don't be fooled. This show is all about George. With even that limited amount of screentime, George joins the ranks of such luminous film characters as Hollywood Montrose, Majai, and Pappy from "New Moon Rising" as icons of American cinema. "George to Apache" – you are my hero.
It seems like anybody can make a movie nowadays. It's like all you need is a camera, a group of people to be your cast and crew, a script, and a little money and walla you have a movie. Problem is that talent isn't always part of this equation and often times these kind of low budget films turn out to be duds. The video store shelves are filled with these so called films. These aren't even guilty pleasures, they're just a waste of celluloid that are better off forgotten. Troma Entertainment is known for making trash cinema, but most of their films are b movie gold. However, some of the films they've put out they had nothing to do with making and some, like 'Nightmare Weekend,' didn't deserve any form of release at all. <br /><br />Pros: The cast members do the best they can with the lousy material. Some unintentional hilarity. Moves at a good pace (Should at 81 minutes).<br /><br />Cons: Awful writing, which includes putrid dialogue and countless plot holes. Poorly lit, especially the night scenes and the ending, which you can't make out at all. Doesn't make a lick of sense. Badly scored. Cheap and very dated effects. Total lack of character development and you won't care about anybody. This is supposed to be a horror film, but it's lacking in that area and isn't the least bit scary. Nothing interesting or exciting happens. Loaded with unnecessary padding.<br /><br />Final thoughts: I never expected this to be some forgotten gem, but I never imagined it would be this bad. I don't know if it's the worst film ever made, but it's a definite contender. Troma should have let this film rot instead of giving it a release. Don't make the same mistake I did and let your curiosity get the best of you.<br /><br />My rating: 1/5
I happen to be the director's nephew. It's taken me years to get my hands on a copy of this film and I can confirm that it is indeed one of the worst movies of all time. My uncle doesn't even have a copy of it anymore (I asked). I'm looking forward to bringing him a copy.<br /><br />Currently the film's average rating is 1.9/10. As far as I can tell, that should put it somewhere in the mid-30s in the IMDb "bottom 100," however with only 206 votes, it hasn't yet placed.<br /><br />It's sad that the film doesn't even get the respect of a bottom 100 title.<br /><br />Anyhow, I'm giving copies of the movie to family members this year for holiday gifts. Best/Worst gift ever?
Nightmare Weekend is proof positive that some people are so desperate to be 'in the movies' they are prepared to do almost anything.<br /><br />I'm not referring to the countless women who seem quite happy to appear completely starkers in this dreadful piece of trash (after all, the naked female form is a beautiful thing and nothing to be ashamed of). No...I'm talking about those who are more than willing to co-star with a badly made hand-puppet called George. Now that is embarrassing!!!<br /><br />A bio-electronic being created by brilliant scientist Edward Brake (Wellington Meffert), George (who looks like a demented felt clown with green wool for hair) is the artificially intelligent interface for an advanced computer system that operates a revolutionary device (a silver sphere about the size of a golf ball) that, when ingested, can reverse character disorders.<br /><br />Edward's personality altering experiments have been successful on lab animals, but the cautious scientist is reluctant to carry out tests on human subjects, fearing that there may still be side effects. His evil assistant Julie (Debbie Laster), however, has no such qualms, and proceeds to use three beautiful young women as guinea pigs. Inevitably, they all turn into hideous killer mutants.<br /><br />With bargain basement special effects, a cast totally devoid of talent, and a plot that is almost impossible to follow (I took notes as I watched the film, and even then I am not entirely convinced that my synopsis is accurate), Nightmare Weekend is a complete and utter disaster that not even several soft-core sex scenes and a touch of gore can rescue.<br /><br />This film also features one of the most irritating characters I have ever seen in a horror movie: Tony (Bruce Morton), a Walkman wearing idiot who bops away to crap 80s music in a manner that makes me look like Justin Timberlake in comparison.
Henry Sala's "Nightmare Weekend" is a rotten piece of sludge from Troma.This is a juvenile,sloppy and stupid low-budget horror film about some teenage girls spending the weekend at a mansion.The professor's evil assistant lures the girls into a bizarre scheme to perform hideous experiments.Using a brain implant she transforms her victims and their dates into zombies."Nightmare Weekend" is a completely braindead piece of garbage that features lots of nudity and some cheesy gore,not to mention a laughable musical score.The acting is horrendous and the script is utterly incoherent.Why such piece of crap is widely distributed is beyond me.Avoid it like the plague.1 out of 10.
I agree with those reviews I have read here, and I have no words to define such a turkey like this, but despite everything, I still can find a reason for movies like this to exist. Do you remenber those happy days in which video was a prosperous business, and a lot of movies were made with the only reason of filling the shelves of the video stores? this movie comes from that period and I can imagine that was the only reason for which it was produced and the same happened with many, many, many other stinkers. Do you remember "Rambo" imitations? and so many slashers of Z grade?, I still feel nostalgia for that period.About this movie I can say I didn´t waste my time watching it because I pressed the fast forward button after the first fifteen minutes, just to find a very funny scene in which a guy was pushing an axe against heads which exploded because, as you perfectly notice, they were made of plastic. And about the end, well, it was so badly filmed I could not understand what happened. That´s the same, I had not followed the non-existing plot at all. But boy, Video-age was a great age despite movies like this.
A couple move into their dream home, unaware that it and its neighbours have been built over land formerly used as a cemetery. The film is said to have been based on a true story, although how much of it is supposed to be true is not disclosed. The plot is hardly unique - see Spielberg's 'Poltergeist' (1982). Within a short time, they experience various supernatural phenomena: these range from the disturbing - mysterious shadows, the serious illness of the daughter - to the frankly ridiculous - toilets continually flushing and garage doors going out of control. There is little depth to the story: once it has become established that the land had been used as a cemetery, we do not learn anything more. The plot does not seem to develop. The characters are not particularly well drawn or in any way memorable, nor is the atmosphere particularly special. The film could be disturbing to some viewers. There is no sense of catharsis or any kind of positive message from it.
Bathebo, you big dope.<br /><br />This is the WORST piece of crap I've seen in a long time. I have just stumbled onto it on late night TV and it is painful to watch. Really painful. How does something like this get made?? Horrible, horrible, horrible! OOOOOO ..... The toilet is flushing by itself again! Scary toilet! Scary toilet! Scary toilet! 1992 doesn't seem like that long ago to me, but watching this makes it seem like 1952. I mean its horrible. Please don't waste your time on the drivel!<br /><br />Scary old black man telling them not to build the pool in the yard. Scary! Scary! How does this stuff get MADE???
Well, maybe the PC version of this game was impressive. Maybe. I just finished playing the PS2 version and it's pretty much a complete mess.<br /><br />There are a couple elements that are okay or promising. I'll mention those first because it will be over quickly. First, the idea of a historical GTA-like game is a great one. The game Gun was a historical GTA-like game and unlike Mafia, Gun was excellent. I'd love to see a game set during Mafia's era done right. Next, the storyline is well written. The story makes sense, it has dramatic arcs, it uses an unusual device (with much of the game being a backstory) and it's interesting. Finally, some of the graphics--especially those used during cutscenes--are impressive. Mafia's designers seemed to focus on getting the graphics right in the places where GTA skimped on that effort, especially the characters. Unfortunately in many other areas, the graphics kinda stink, and I'd much rather have excellent gameplay than impressive-looking characters.<br /><br />The gameplay is what sinks this title so low. First off, the controls and camera absolutely suck. That has to be the first focus of any game developers. You can't release a game where the controls and/or camera suck. Number one, there's no reason that the player's character, Tom, can't have his full range of motion controlled by the left analog stick. Unless it's absolutely necessary, and it hardly ever is, I hate the set-up where the left stick moves the character in a "strafing" way and the character can only turn using the right analog stick. Here, it's not only unnecessary, it makes most of the simplest actions a challenge. For example, Tom has to climb on a couple missions. But the game is designed so poorly that you have to frustratingly keep manipulating both the right analog stick and the camera, and then press L1 every time you need to climb, or Tom will descend instead.<br /><br />Next, I've never seen a worse fighting system. The first problem is that you can't auto-aim or lock on to any targets. At one early point, the game seems to tell you that you can use L2 or R2 to lock on to targets, but that never worked. So to focus on any enemy, you have to struggle with the stupid right analog stick and try to keep adjusting both the character's orientation and the camera, which tends to drift to the wrong angle or make Tom disappear all the time. By that time, you're probably getting pummeled or shot to death.<br /><br />Next, if you're touching or almost touching an enemy--and that's certainly going to be the case for hand to hand combat or when using melee weapons, the fighting system--which primarily consists of tapping or holding R1, is completely useless. Enemies can pummel you almost in a bear hug, but you just can't move unless you back off. So close fighting tends to consist of you yanking on the left analog stick, yelling at the character to move away, which it won't do 50% of the time, then tapping R1 as much as you can before the enemy gets too close again and makes R1 useless. And if the enemy changes their angle to you in the meantime, you're also going to struggle with the right analog stick to get your character oriented in the right way and to get the camera in position so you can see anything. By that time, you're probably getting pummeled or shot again, and your only option will be to try to move the character away again. My fights often consisted of making Tom run circles around an area like a comedy film, hoping that I could gain enough time to struggle with the analog stick and get a couple shots in before being at the AI's mercy again. So much for realistic fighting.<br /><br />And the same problems and more exist when trying to fight with guns. If you're touching someone, half the time the controller just won't allow you to fire off a shot, yet they can still riddle you full of holes. Additionally, there's no auto-aim, and the aiming system is ridiculously sensitive, even with the sensitivity set to zero under Options. Gunfights tend to consist of you hopelessly trying to aim or move away while the enemy puts shot after shot into you. Luckily or not, damage seems to be recorded almost randomly. It can take one to ten shots or more to incapacitate any character, and there's no rhyme or reason to it. You can put five shots into an enemy's head and near point blank range and they'll still return fire and hurt you. Yet, the game designers seemed to care enough about realism than they built a recoil into your aiming system, so after shots with powerful enough guns, your aim will float off target, and you'll have to fight with it again.<br /><br />As for the celebrated graphics, except for the characters and textures that you're close to, they're actually pretty disappointing. The distance always seems mostly empty, and there are often expanses of flat colors and textures nearby when you're driving. The city wasn't very well designed. It's not varied enough, and there aren't many interesting things to see or do. The cars seem slow and they're difficult to control. They also all drive about the same. Some have mentioned the music, but that was also pretty nondescript. A much better job could have been done on that end. Also, as many others have mentioned, the load times are ridiculous and constant. They tend to be over a minute long, and they occur between and in the middle of everything--even races.<br /><br />Overall, the Mafia port to PS2, at least, seems to have been very rushed. The game feels and plays like an incomplete hack job.
Writer-director Tony Piccirillo adapted his own play about a straight man, recently widowed, learning in the last three weeks he is HIV-positive; he tracks down the one homosexual partner he ever had, brings him to an apartment and ties him up, forcing a blood test on the guy and promising bloody revenge if the results come back positive. Intriguing idea sounds better on paper than it plays out. James Marsden's captive is realistically cynical and snotty, but the actor's own artificial mannerisms are disconcerting--it's like watching a roadshow version of Tom Cruise. Scott Speedman has to work harder with the more challenging role, but his personality-turn from shy guy to kidnapper-on-the-edge isn't convincing, and neither are the conversations the two men have. Marsden's gay party boy isn't apathetic, of course--he's momentarily sympathetic to Speedman's plight--but he doesn't react or behave the way any homosexual man would in this circumstance. The movie isn't a cop-out, exactly, but it is a fraud, handicapped further by the bad editing, the poorly-conceived flashbacks, the low-budget production, and the big finale which smacks of silly pretension and soapy melodrama. *1/2 from ****
SPOILERS. Strange people with generous tastes have been reviewing this film. Allow me to add balance by pointing out the following:<br /><br />Script: Dreadful. As Tom and Dan are "getting to know each other," bantering about films, the talk is clearly that of one person, and I suspect it was the director, who carefully worked his words to sound intelligent. At one point, Dan asks, "Have you heard of the HIV virus?" and it sounds about as natural as asking, "Have you communicated with the nine alien races?"<br /><br />Acting: White teeth do and a chiseled face do not a sensitive performer make. Speedman did well enough with what he was given, I suppose, but Marsden was terrible -- unsympathetic, unbelievable, and downright smug and smarmy throughout his captivity. There is an emptiness to his performances (also see Interstate 60).<br /><br />Plot: Spare me! The moments of half-escape were not thrilling but irritating and weak. Recall Marsden pretending to try keys in the door and then throwing them down: "They don't work, man!" Tee-hee. And beware the semi black-and-white flashbacks, which are initiated with some schlocky sound taken from CSI and other crime dramas. <br /><br />Most important of all, most dangerous, evil, and offensive, is the homophobia (external or internal, you decide) in a film in which HIV is considered a weapon. Tom says that Dan may have taken off the condom or not used it at all -- excuse me, where was Tom while they were having sex? There is some villainizing of the inserting partner which comes off as a villainizing of the gay man in general.<br /><br />In sum: Beware!
Hmm… I agree with the reviewer who said that "strange people with generous tastes have been reviewing this film". I thought the film was intriguing enough to watch it. I think that was primarily because of Marsden and Speedman - not the plot.<br /><br />The bottom line is that this film is mildly psychologically tantalizing on the one hand and profoundly homophobic on the other. Thumbs up on the former and triple thumbs down on the latter. I'm not sure if the film is intended to promote dialogue or to spread fear and propaganda.<br /><br />I thought the acting was mediocre. A lot of conversation that was about 90 degrees askew of reality. I kept wanting to derive some meaning from the plot, but it's ultimately just a conversation with a mad man (Speedman). I feel mildly sorry for him (Speedman) because of his loss, but not really. His loss is no greater and certainly is less than losses suffered every day around the world by more significant causes.<br /><br />Does the film expose naiveté about HIV/AIDS? Yes: That of the intended audience. Is HIV a dark, mysterious, evil killer? What about it's victims? The answer to both questions is NO. Neither HIV nor its victims have any more or less malevolent intent than lupus, multiple sclerosis, TB, hepatitis, CANCER, or their victims, FOR GOD'S SAKE. Just because a disease is communicable does not make it EITHER deliberate OR negligent - or evil - it just IS.<br /><br />Does this excuse ignorance or fool-hardy risk taking? - NO. Should all people practice safe sex? - YES. Will safe sex save the world? - NO. Is safe sex realistic in all instances of love and lust between passionate and emotional human beings? – OF COURSE NOT. What kind of a world would we live in if everyone followed the rules, no one ever took risks, and sex was never spontaneous and passionate??? Am I ignoring that the film deals specifically with gay sex? – YES. HIV is spread by sharing blood or bodily fluids between infected and non-infected individuals. Sex is not necessary for transmission, gay or otherwise.<br /><br />I'm always disturbed by willful violence of one person upon another. I actually thought the film did do a good job of portraying the absurdity of Tom's violent abduction, captivity, and intent towards Dan, and this kind of insane violence does occur every day.<br /><br />Stream of consciousness notes from the film: Tom is crazy.<br /><br />Why doesn't Dan ask "why" do you feel this way, rather than "what are you doing"? Implication: men who have sex with men get "AIDS" Implication: HIV = AIDS Where was Tom's responsibility in the sex act? Why was it Dan's responsibility to use the condom? "maybe you slipped it off before you stuck it in…" What are we talking about here? Was one of the parties unconscious? "Maybe she didn't want to hear the truth" are you kidding me "She's up in heaven and so unbelievably hurt about what she now knows about me" …right… Is Dan's life over if he has HIV? Certainly NOT! Is this why the whole world is so homophobic???? They think gay men are the cause of HIV, that they will give it to the rest of the world, and we will all die… are you kidding me??? Are people really stupid enough to think that homosexuality is the cause... is the problem??? Do we feel that way about the victims of tuberculosis? of malaria? I can see that Tom is hurt because of his wife's death, and he blames it on AIDS, but seriously… who's at fault here? The victim or the virus? Are illnesses really the responsibility of the ill? (presuming they did not seek and did not seek to spread the disease).<br /><br />Sure, safe sex is essential to a safe life, but so is not-driving, not-flying, not-leaving the house, not-living. Do we really want to blame the disease on the victims? Would safe sex between Tom and Dan have prevented Tom's wife's ultimate demise? Perhaps, but not Dan's sole responsibility.<br /><br />Tom is crazy. Did I mention that.<br /><br />Tom to Dan: "maybe you get what you deserve"… COME ON! 24 Days: Violent, naïve, and homophobic.<br /><br />Am I overreacting? Perhaps. But I think this film points a judging finger at gay men for their reckless and malevolent intent towards a "straight world" by practicing unsafe sex, when the rate of homosexuals practicing safe sex is proportionately equivalent or better than that of heterosexuals. We all need to wake up and get serious about HIV/AIDS. HIV is killing hundreds of thousands of STRAIGHT Africans every year.
This is the only movie that my wife and I have ever walked out on. Totally sucked. We saw it in Omaha even. Not funny at all, looks like a 14 year old kid wrote the humor. I can't believe these real politicians were actually in the movie. awful.
A friend of mine was in the cast as a FEDS agent (a non-speaking part, as I recall). He brought it over on DVD so I could see it. It was "interesting", but very much felt like an amateur film. A well made amateur film, though. Really boring and poorly written. It was probably fun to make and be involved in, but it definitely didn't deserve any kind of wide release. Maybe in Omaha they'd enjoy it, but this California girl was bored and honestly kind of embarrassed for my friend's involvement.<br /><br />If this film maker has made or makes any more films, he really should try to have a really interesting story line, and GOOD actors. I'm sure this was a great learning tool for them. I wish them luck in the future, and hope they can improve their film making.
Not a very good movie but according to the info it's pretty accurate in depicting torture techniques. The purpose of the film was to show the brutality of the NK POW camps and that's done effectively enough, with surprising frankness for the time. Whatever technical flaws exist (and there are plenty) by watching this you'll see a forgotten corner of a forgotten war and some pretty nasty stuff - again, nasty because it's being done north of the DMZ and not in Guantanamo Bay.<br /><br />I don't think any of the Korean veterans brought up his torture when running for office, and if you watch the movies like this one and Pork Chop Hill in comparison to the Vietnam films. I don't know if it was the people in '54 being trapped in the WWII concepts (the boys tend to wisecrack a lot) or the war or what, but it's interesting to see this from the same system that 16 years later would be making movies like "Go Tell The Spartans".
Ronald Reagan and a bunch of US soldiers in a North Korean POW camp. They are tortured... We learn North Korean Communists are bad people... We learn Americans' beards grow very slowly during days of torture...<br /><br />I tried to suppress it, but I finally burst out laughing at this movie. It was the scene when Mr. Reagan comes out from telling the Communists he wants to be on their side. Then, he asks for a bottle of brandy. Next, acting stone-cold sober, he takes a drunken companion, Dewey Martin, to get sulfur to cure Mr. Martin's hangover. Of course, the North Korean communist guard is as dumb as they come. So, the drunk distracts the guard while Reagan goes over to get something from a drawer, which is next to a bunch of empty boxes. I'm sure he boxes were supposed to contain something; but, of course, Reagan causes them to shake enough to reveal they are empty. Ya gotta laugh! I think "Prisoner of War" will appeal mainly to family and friends of those who worked on it - otherwise, it's wasteful. <br /><br />* Prisoner of War (1954) Andrew Marton ~ Ronald Reagan, Steve Forrest, Dewey Martin
I was able to hang in for only the first twenty minutes of this low-budget movie. The most glaring absurdity was that while the American inmates in a North Korean POW camp are all supposedly suffering from severe deprivation of food and medicine, going without bathing, shivering in flimsy and filthy parkas, and sleeping on bare floors, and - let's not forget enduring torture - they always manage to sport impeccably coiffed hair. With the exception of a suitably austere-looking Harry Morgan as an army Major, the casting and acting are simply awful. Ronald Regan cannot seem to stick to portraying a single character and instead creates a rather schizophrenic amalgam of past roles. A mostly Caucasian cast portraying the North Korean camp officers might have been forgivable, but when supposedly Russian officers acting as advisors to the Koreans strut around wearing re-badged Nazi uniforms complete with jodhpurs and jackboots (obvious costume-department recycles from WWII flicks) and speaking with accents like General Burkhalter from Hogan's Heroes, well, that's just six kinds of silly. Don't waste your time on this one.
I really did like this show, once upon a time. That is, until I realized all the faults in it. It's so unrealistic. I know it's fiction, but it isn't even the slightest bit believable. Here's why. **Spoilers ahead folks...** Are we really supposed to believe that a kid like Yugi would be descended from a Pharaoh of ancient Egypt? C'mon! He's the biggest nerd on the face of the Earth. And what's up with the Pharaoh (a.k.a. Atem and/or Yami's) hair? Last I checked, Pharaohs were shaved (except for a small bit of hair atop the head) and wore fancy hats.<br /><br />And, are we supposed to be convinced that an evil wealthy boy genius, named Seto Kaiba, can legally run a successful business while still having time to go to a shoddy little school like 'Domino High'? Puh-leeze! First off, he'd have to legally be an adult to run a company. And that would make him not really all too much of a boy genius, since he'd be the only adult in his class. And second off, why would he attend a school like 'Domino High', when his business is clearly successful enough for him to attend a fancy snobbish academy? Plus, the side plots with his little brother are so sappy and lame. Every time you turn around, that kid's been kidnapped by goons for the baddie. *yawn* Nothing new, nothing new.<br /><br />Joey is the poor kid, who lives with a good-for-nothing father. It says that Joey earns all the money to attend his school, because his father's an alcoholic, but you never once see Joey do anything that resembles work. He doesn't even mention work. And his sister Serenity is a complete moron. Why would she choose a snob like Duke (who dressed her brother in a dog costume and publicly humiliated him on television) over a nice guy like Tristan? Is she really that clueless? Various characters throughout the show, get possessed by demonic forces, get their souls stolen by demonic forces, and fall prey to mental illness. (Oh, that's child-safe, NOT.) Tea is the typical girl-next-door type, whose only purpose is to be Yugi/Yami's girlfriend. And while she has some cool points to her, she just doesn't have enough time to shine as a main character.<br /><br />The animation is simply awful. All the characters look sickly and anorexic. The perspectives are terrible (especially when they do close-ups of somebody's hand) and the colors look good, but not stellar.<br /><br />But the worst plot hole to the series was the fact that Yami says that his Millennium Puzzle can send souls back to their bodies. If this was so, how come he didn't save Yugi's Grandpa in the first place, when Pegasus stole his soul, and save himself the trouble of getting it back?<br /><br />All it really is, is a commercial for itself. The only plus side to it is "Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series" by LittleKuriboh.<br /><br />Please. Do something more worthwhile. Like, watch the Abridged version.<br /><br />1/10
(r#97)<br /><br />There is one good thing about this poor man's Pokémon (make of that what you will): the opening theme. It has to be the coolest theme music of any sloppily dubbed Japanese made-for-the-consumers-oops-I-mean-the-young-fans anime TV show. Unfortunately there was need to add some sort of show after the opening theme. And they just couldn't come up with something more interesting than people arguing loudly about whose cards are better than the others' cards. Freud would have a field day, unfortunately I can't imagine why any kids would want to sit through a show where dialogue written by a thousand monkeys in five minutes takes up 98% of the running time.<br /><br />"My Uber-Fantastical Doomsday Creature of Ultimate Doom will take your measly Pyramid Diamond Animal in a single strike! Can't you see that you have no chance of winning this battle, you fool?! HAHAHAHHAHHAHA!"<br /><br />"Oh yeah? Well watch this! I am about to use my Destruction Force Delta Times Pie Card which eradicates every single one of your Power Munchers and renders your Uber-Fantastical Doomsday Creature of Ultimate Doom's Destroy Beyond all Significance Attack useless! I bet you didn't see that one coming!" <br /><br />Seriously, that's all they ever do in this show, talk. Whereas in another crappy kids' show I used to watch, namely the commercial phenomenon Pokémon (every soccer mum's pet peeve), at least the monsters had the courtesy to duke it out every once in a while, "Yu-Gi-Oh" is just, in the quiet words of Roger Ebert's A Clockwork Orange review, "plain talky and boring". Not to mention long-winded (I realize I'm being hypocritical here considering the sentence I just wrote).<br /><br />This show goes on forever. I don't know if there's any plot, and the static monsters have none of the character of Pokémon. Even when not compared to my fave cartoon as a kid, this show sucks. It's unintentionally funny, but not funny enough to be worth seeing. Bye bye, sleep tight, dream wet dreams.
Something very strange happens when you talk about Global Warming: science goes out the window and "belief" and "consensus" becomes the topic of discussion.<br /><br />It's because of that fact that I give a failing mark to Al Gore's documentary.<br /><br />Instead of promoting intelligent discussion, he kept the debate at the level of "belief" and "consensus".<br /><br />Of course, when you're trying to sell the world into spending trillions of dollars to "stop Global Warming" you may thing it's a problem to tell the scientific truth: we don't know how much of the current warming was caused by humans. Maybe none of it, maybe some of it, or maybe it has over-ceded the next Ice Age and we got really lucky not to have boiled the planet.<br /><br />But the fact remains that we don't know.<br /><br />so we're asked to "believe" in the "consensus". Never mind that any scientist that strays from the "consensus" is ostracized. Never mind that scientific inquiry is about straying from the consensus. Einstein didn't "believe" in the consensus, neither did Copernicus or Galileo.<br /><br />So why so much scorn placed on those very researchers who would advance the field by asking the tough questions? If Global Warming is so incontrovertible, surely a few people testing that theory can't be so threatening.<br /><br />What is going on here? That's the movie I was hoping Al Gore would have made. Istead, he chose to shore up his support with the true "believers" of the "consensus".<br /><br />Sad, really.
An Inconvenient Truth is as entirely simplistic and demagogic as the turgid slop created by the rabid and idiotic Republicans, it meanders along intangible lines until it attempts to gorge something into your face, namely that we'll all be dead in a few hundred years, which is already indisputable, but who cares, humans are selfish, destructive creatures, I frankly do not waste my time caring about human extinction. I'll just call it a "natural progression". Let the apocalypse begin, but meanwhile, we have to listen to the same brazen, slanted politicians who propose another "new society", well, don't be fooled, we'll all still be controlled by the wealthy, by those in power and by those idiots who created the catastrophes in the first place. Nothing will ever change.<br /><br />Al Gore, whose hypocrisy is quite evident in the film, as he is being driven in a gas guzzling car all alone using a consumerist computer, he also lives on huge acres of land in a rather large mansion, the land itself was used for destructive erosive purposes including cattle, tobacco, pig farming (which accounts for methane gas traces) and who knows what else, his wealth is predicated on exploitation, greed and his investments include numerous large companies in the world with disputable records. I hardly think this man is qualified to lecture the less fortunate, but his prestige is based on his opposition to another ludicrous political party, that is all, meanwhile he emits those very same rancid characteristics that make politics and politicians so appalling. This bozo happens to be living the comfortable life and yet he's lecturing poor people in Africa about crop farming and cut and burn techniques? He travels across the world in first class seats in fuel wasting jets, uses product placed computers in the documentary, and yet he thinks everything is a "moral issue". He's entirely absorbed in his own deluded nightmares, he says he came to these conclusions because of the death of his sister (from tobacco induced cancer and the near death of his son by an automobile of all things). Did he fight against the tobacco companies or propose that automobiles be banned because they are dangerous hulking machines? NO. Everything must serve the "economy", so why is he any different, the answer is he is not.<br /><br />His forlorn and exhausted attempts at humanistic philosophy are disastrous, all this while he's being filmed in the forest or along a little river eschewing stale life affirming quotes. Well Mr Gore, why don't you try living like the common people then? He is a politician, plain and simple, he has a career invested in the power structure. My question is, why doesn't he concentrate on the powerful industrial nations of the earth who are to blame for most of the complications? He doesn't do that because it would be unwise for "investments, stocks and corporations".<br /><br />Al Gore gives monotonous lectures about the subject in the documentary, namely to wealthy white people in the audience, who clap on cue, while showing them graph charts, numbers and percentages, and speaking in a dreary tone, no one without a Harvard (which the elites control) education can make sense out of it, but he tells us everything is going to hell. No kidding, but I think he fails to account for this problem precisely in the approach that capitalism has taken for the planet, namely that it is expendable and a waste dump. He never once mentions how industrialization has created these problems, he just wants to put mild bandages on them but not eradicate the whole oppressive system. Its obvious he was spoiled, sent to the schools for elites and has the same basic temperament for politics as any other back stabbing, inconsistent dullard in Washington. Whoever made this propaganda, as it is in no way different than what the Republicans have conceived, had only goals in mind that were directed by capitalistic impulse. That is to say, someone is going to benefit, and it seems the "new green" politicians who support venture capitalist companies who are buying up hordes of land in an attempt to develop the "new Utopian future" with "new technologies". It's the same old story, Al Gore is a believer in the elitist structure, he actually believes there is a "democracy" in the US which I find very naive. If we aren't paying wages to the oil companies, then we'll be paying them to the wind and solar companies.<br /><br />I find the speech at the end quite rancid, along the lines of something GW Bush would have oozed over to the dumb downed masses, Gore speaks about "people uniting together to defeat communism" in the 1990's, what it had to do with global warming, absolutely nothing but he attempts to get base emotions ruminating in people. With that said, he didn't understand that communism never existed in the world, the systems in Europe and USSR were merely a tyrannical form of authoritarianism and capitalism, no less different than what controls the US interests. Social ecology was not even mentioned here, which is really a travesty. If you want to change the world, then one must dispose of those antiquated systems that are based on greed, exploitation and violence.
It does touch a few interesting points.. But! - It fails to show evidence of all the 'exclusive' studies shown. Who are the 'friends' and 'small groups of scientists' that gathered this data? - What's up with all the Al Gore biography going on there? Like how he liked playing with the cows on the ranch or that his kid got hit by a car.. too bad but.. what does that have to do with the ozone layer?<br /><br />I've seen MUCH better stuff, in much less time, on Discovery Channel.. I really don't understand why this has such a high score on IMDb. Unless you've been living under a rock, this 'documentary' shouldn't be any news to you... all this is old news... And all Al Gore is trying to do is get some popularity points. P.S. i'm not American so don't even try saying that i'm a bush fan :p
The only thing that "An Inconvenient Truth" proves is that Al Gore is still an idiot. These "unchallenged" experts are unchallenged because a response to their inane hypotheses is generally beneath real science. This is mostly false science folks. The greatest source of greenhouse gases - CO2 - is people, we exhale it and unless you're willing to start sacrificing your brethren to save the world, there's not a darn thing to be done. We've heard how the world was going to end as the result of man for more than 50 years. Fools publish a time line for their doomsday and when the time passes, nothing has happened. "An Inconvenient Truth" is just another vehicle with which a disingenuous faction of American society can peddle their poop.<br /><br />And as to Al leaving the tobacco business because of his sister's death from cancer, that is a load too. Al couldn't run his farm any better than he could run the country. He was losing money on the operation because he didn't care to farm when he could make more $ on speaking tours. The only global warming that is unchallenged is the hot air produced by this gasbag!
Mario Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute has written a definitive 120-page point-by-point, line-by-line refutation of this mendacious film, which should be titled A CONVENIENT LIE. The website address where his debunking report, which is titled "A SKEPTIC'S GUIDE TO AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH" can be found at is :www.cei.org. A shorter 10-page version can be found at: www.cei.org/pdf/5539.pdf Once you read those demolitions, you'll realize that alleged "global warming" is no more real or dangerous than the Y2K scare of 1999, which Gore also endorsed, as he did the pseudo-scientific film THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, which was based on a book written by alleged UFO abductee Whitley Strieber. As James "The Amazing" Randi does to psychics, and Philip Klass does to UFOs, and Gerald Posner does to JFK conspir-idiocy theories, so does Mario Lewis does to Al Gore's movie and the whole "global warming" scam.
Don't drink the cool-aid.<br /><br />This is an opinion piece disguised as a documentary. And to title it as a "truth" is just plain crap. The debate over global warming is far from over, and will only be over when the eco-zombies start acknowledging the mountain of evidence contrary to their beloved theory. Just Google "Global Warming" and "Hoax" or "Junk Science" and you will find a river of information refuting nearly every link in the chain of logic that Gore sites. The reason it is so important for people to educate themselves is the disastrous economic impact that global warming prevention measures would have. Wake up people. Anyone with a computer, a little time, and some common sense can find many many reasons why this theory is not even close to credible. Don't just read articles that support your present opinions, read everything you can find. There is no in-depth analysis to make, really. There is simply too many alternate possibilities and counter-evidence for the theory to have even the most basic level of scientific credibility. It is so uncredible, in fact, that it may be the single biggest hoax in the course of human existence. It's time for people to start speaking out against this kind of propaganda, and it's time for people to admit to themselves and others that you can be a both a conservationist AND recognize the glaring conclusion that global warming hysteria is a big lie.
Let's be honest shall we? Al Gore no more TRULY cares about the environment than most folks care about contacting foot fungus. It's a hook! Make no mistake, Al Gore is a POLITICIAN! Three years ago he was busted/ticketed in his home state doing 70 mph in a 55 mph zone driving NOT a hybrid, a Yugo, or even a GM Metro but a LINCOLN (go google it if you like)! Or how about the fact that Mr. Gore & his Hollywood buddies continue to use a private fuel-guzzling jets to attend the premiers of "An Inconvenient Truth." So much for conservation huh, Al? Anyway, it takes a mere minute to subjectively look at "An Inconvenient Truth" & discover the main fundamental flaw. While the film parades out many seemingly impressive scientists to tell the audience the EFFECTS of supposed "global Warming" there is not one scientist to tell us the supposed CAUSE of it. For example: I can take a hundred folks out to a parking lot & they can point out an automobile which is not running right. BUT can they tell you with any degree of certainty WHY? Generally not! A second flaw, just how accurate were the weather instruments 100 years ago (the toilet wasn't even invented yet)? What did they have, a June bug in a match box? Hell, even 50-60 years ago? Therefore, how do we know with ANY degree of certainty that the planet is "getting warmer" when the records of yesteryear are highly questionable at best? Or that man is THE sole cause of it? The answer is we don't & Science is NEVER a consensus. Thirty years ago, Time Magazine did a cover proclaiming a "New Ice Age". The truth is that any 6th grade science teacher well versed in Earth Science will tell you that Volcanic Erruptions, Solar Activity & El Ninos have more to do with our eradicate changes in climate conditions than supposed "Global Warming." Finally, what Al Gore fails to adequately address is; even IF America decides to follow the global gospel according to Al & implement everything he recommends, how are we going to get the rest of the world to follow suit when we can't even get them to agree on something so obvious as terrorism? Answer: It's wishful thinking, Mr. Gore & you being a former VP of the USA know it! If the folks who produced "An Inconvenient Truth" were really honest, they would have titled their film "Al Gore Wants Attention." But what I'd really like is for someone to ask the former VP this; why were two of the planet's biggest polluters (AKA China & India) EXEMPT from abiding by the Kyoto Accords? Anyway, I hear the producers of A.I.T are working on their next film entitled "Gnomes, Fairies & Elves: Our Endangered Friends."
Something that really does not go down right with Al Gore (and his supporters)'s theory is the whole thing about "concensus".<br /><br />If there were such a consensus, why is it that the "believers" in the almighty global warming feel the irrepressible need to try and bully anyone who questions them.<br /><br />Why is it that anyone who does not toe the line on global warming is met with smug accusations of being either stupid or on the payroll of the oil companies (apparently being a professional global warming researcher does not mean you're on anyone's payroll in that wondrous world...) Why is there such a need to tell everyone how the whole question is settled, when it is the very nature of science to honestly question assumptions? For some ideas on the answer to those questions, read Prey by the well-know oil-stooge Michael Crichton... oh wait, he is rich and not on the payroll of the oil companies. He just took a huge career risk in not toeing the line of the Greens and other Kyoto worshippers and told the truth as he researched it. By the way did you know that abiding to the Kyoto protocol would result in almost no lowering of temperatures, according to its own backers? Just a few questions that Al Gore made sure to stay away from lest he not get every penny of the environmental lobby in case he decides to run again.<br /><br />So who's a stooge..?
A hint I think may be gathered by the various comments on this thread.<br /><br />I was quite amazed at the number of people who liked this film who want to make it "mandatory" or "compulsory".<br /><br />I think this gives us a little bit of insight into the reason this film and the issue underlying it is so polarizing.<br /><br />The Global Warming issue appeals a lot to people who want to force others to "do right". It appeals particularly to more "liberal" leaning people because it doesn't have to do with bedroom morality which is what usually gets conservatives who want to force you to "be good" going.<br /><br />And that's the problem with the film. Al Gore is a politician. And a very successful one at that. He just can't help himself from appealing to those people who want to force others to do as they would. The political appeal is just too great.<br /><br />And there we are left with a scientific issue that may be of huge importance, reduced to a political issue appealing to those in the body politic with a predilection to force other to "do right".<br /><br />Another interesting question is how did the Environmental movement get hijacked by such people?
Where was his critique of democratic administrations as well as republican ones? After all he did serve for 17+ years in a body of government where his influence was unwaivering. Oh I forgot about the 8 years he was the 2nd in command of the most Powerful nation on Earth. The film is happy to show shots of a young Senator Gore asking why a NASA scientist was forced to change a conclusion in his scientific paper, but fails to ask about the complicity of Clinton/Gore in global warming. Probably too close to an election year, or maybe it would hurt the chances for Hillary in '08. Either way he's a political coward and party man to the bitter end. He offers no criticism of consumerism, no criticism of capitalism, no way to is the history of the industrial development which has led us to this point in time <br /><br />In the end this film was much more about Mr. Gore himself than about any real problems our environment faces. Mr. Gore if you really wanted to make a campaign film - shorten it & call it what it really is.
Oh man, it is amazing how somebody can claim global warming to be a science, well, I guess this elitist nonsense is now replacing the science of eugenics! Al Gore tries to make this issue sound complicated, even though it just needs common sense to see this whole thing is a big hoax by a man with his own moneymaking agenda!<br /><br />How have scientists estimated historical temperatures of this planet? By estimating the sun spot activity. Has nobody ever questioned if this method has been accurate? No, not even Gore himself! So how the heck would it not be accurate to forecast future temperature with sun spot activity if it has been that accurate in the past? According to sun spot activity the temperature today is totally in line with what it should be. How come the temperature in the entire universe has risen (relatively) equal much as on earth? Does our SUVs cause temperature on Jupiter to rise?<br /><br />Use some common sense! You do not need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that this can be nothing else than a HOAX. Please research it yourself. What does Al Gore and his elitist friends like Rothschild (banking family that arranged live earth event) to gain from this? Well, the new world bank will be founded on carbon credits, that is tax on everything that gives CO2 omissions, and it is easier to get away with these taxes if the people are lured to think it is to save the world when it is only about money, centralized control and more power to the elitist bankers. Al Gore has even a company that sells carbon credits! Is it not noble to pay voluntarily carbon credits to save the world, especially if it goes into his own company? <br /><br />I do not want you to blindly believe me, please do your own research and use your own common sense and I am sure you will come to the right conclusion!
The statistics in this movie were well researched. There is no doubt about it! Al Gore certainly presents his case very well and it is no wonder that this movie got the praise that it got. Al Gore is certainly quite an actor. He sounds so concerned. But actions speak louder than words! Throughout this movie, there are political tidbits and references to his political career sprinkled throughout the movie.<br /><br />Jimmy Carter, unlike Al Gore, is a man of integrity who not only talks the talk, but walks the walk as well. When Carter thought we needed to conserve energy, he turned down the thermostat in the White House and got warm by wearing a sweater.<br /><br />Al Gore tells us that we have to conserve energy and claims that we are creating global warming while he travels around in his own private jet. How much energy does his jet use and how much more pollution does his jet create? How much energy does it take to heat Gore's swimming pool behind his mansion? It would be nice if we could conserve electricity by using smaller appliances and making it a point to turn off anything that is not being used. But if we did, the power company would react to a 50% reduction of energy by calling it a "50% loss in revenue" and recouping their losses by raising the rates by 50%. So "just turning it off" would not be a very good idea.<br /><br />This movie is a veiled appeal to allow Big Goivernment to take control of everything, in the name of saving planet earth, that is.
This movie was the most out of line and liberally fed movie i have ever seen in my life. (Besides Farenheit 9/11). All of the information was only supported on the opinion of FIVE scientists while 80% of the Asssociated Press highly criticize the science promoted be Gore. Global Warming is a Mass Media Hysteria and nothing more. Most of the information in the movie was either misquoted or it was wrong all together. THis movie has been investigated over and over again and has been shown evidence against that prove its lies were nothing but lies.<br /><br />LIBERAL BLINDNESS! An to think that they show this in school proves that the media has brainwashed us into believing this garbage!
Well done Al Gore! You have become the first person to have made 1 Billion dollars of the global warming lie! Just like all the other man made fable's in the world this one is up there with the best lies to have sucked in so many people. Sure polution is not a good thing, and I would love for all the tree's to keep on growing, but global warming is a business! It employes thousands of people that are all very mislead.<br /><br />Google it! There are just to many things that just don't add up, but well done Al, you failed as a politician, but went on to make lots of money sucking in the world.<br /><br />Whats next? Santa is real?
Not even Goebbels could have pulled off a propaganda stunt like what Gore has done with this complete piece of fiction. This is a study in how numbers and statistics can be spun to say whatever you have predetermined them to say. The "scientists" Gore says have signed onto the validity of global warming include social workers, psychologists and psychiatrists. Would you say a meteorologist is an expert in neuro-surgery? The field research and data analysis geologists are involved in do not support Gores alarmist claims of global warming. As one of those geologists working in the field for the last 40 years I have not seen any evidence to support global warming. My analysis of this movie and Gores actions over the last couple years brings me to the conclusion that global warming is his way of staying important and relevant. No more, no less. Ask any global warming alarmist or "journalist" one simple question- You say global warming is a major problem. Tell me. What temperature is the Earth supposed to be?
Outrageously trashy karate/horror thriller with loads of graphically gory violence and gratuitous nudity, and a thoroughly preposterous and bizarre "plot". This is lowbrow and low-grade entertainment that will appeal only to viewers with particularly kinky tastes, but it's kind of cheerfully bad and I must admit that I wasn't actually bored while watching it.... (*1/2)
"Raw Force" is like an ultra-sleazy and perverted version of Love Boat, with additional Kung Fu fights, demented cannibalistic monks, white slaves trade, energetic zombies and a whole lot of lousy acting performances. No wonder this movie was included in the recently released "Grindhouse Experience 20 movie box-set". It's got everything exploitation fanatics are looking for, blend in a totally incoherent and seemingly improvised script! The production values are extremely poor and the technical aspects are pathetic, but the amounts of gratuitous violence & sex can hardly be described. The film opens at a tropically sunny location called Warriors Island, where a troop of sneering monks raise the dead for no apparent reason other than to turn them into Kung Fu fighters. The monks also buy sexy slaves from a sleazy Hitler look-alike businessman, supposedly because the women's flesh supplies them with the required powers to increase their zombie army. Tourists on a passing cruise ship, among them three martial arts fighters, a female LA cop and a whole bunch of ravishing but dim-witted ladies, are attacked by the Hitler guy's goons because they were planning an excursion to Warriors Island. Their lifeboat washes ashore the island anyway, and the monks challenge the survivors to a fighting test with their zombies. Okay, how does that sound for a crazy midnight horror movie mess? It's not over yet, because "Raw Force" also has piranhas, wild boat orgies, Cameron Mitchell in yet another embarrassing lead role and 70's exploitation duchess Camille Keaton ("I spit on your Grave") in an utterly insignificant cameo appearance. There's loads of badly realized gore, including axe massacres and decapitations, hammy jokes and bad taste romance. The trash-value of this movie will literally leave you speechless. The evil monks' background remains, naturally, unexplained and they don't even become punished for their questionable hobbies. Maybe that's why the movie stops with "To Be Continued", instead of with "The End". The sequel never came, unless it's so obscure IMDb doesn't even list it.
All the ingredients of low-brow b-movie cult cinema. Topless (and bottomless) girls, kung-fu kicking chefs, slave traders, evil Germans with mustaches, Cameron Mitchell and sword-wielding zombies.<br /><br />And, of course the breasts of Camille Keaton, who's best known display occurs in the feminist exploitation classic I Spit on Your Grave. We also must mention the hooters of jewel Shepard, who play a hooker in the recent film The Cooler.<br /><br />Lots of blood and action with knives and swords and martial arts among topless dancers in a bar, in a whorehouse, and on a boat load of martial artists heading to some zombie island where bad martial artists go to die or something like that.<br /><br />Tops and bottoms come off easily and frequently as travelers are well lubricated thanks to the boat owner.<br /><br />Then disaster strikes as their boat is destroyed and they land on the zombie island where mas monks sacrifice young girls to the dead martial artists to bring them back to life.<br /><br />Just when you thought it had everything, there are piranhas in the water. Yum Yum A big fat German for dinner.<br /><br />Just the thing for your next zombie fest.
i was kinda interested in this movie as a trashy cannibal flick. i was thoroughly disappointed. it was the same kind of disappointment i felt watching 'friday the 13th: jason takes manhattan'. so much potential wasted!<br /><br />the opening scene is a decent attention grabber. then it grinds to a halt. copious breasts and egregious 80s fashion cannot help this movie. the only things eating near this island of cannibal monks are the piranha! i'm not asking for 'cannibal holocaust' level of gore, but i was looking for cheap over-the-top exploitative gore. i got none of that.<br /><br />i found a couple parts of the fight scenes somewhat intriguing, hence the 2 stars. i don't think its really worth the time it takes to watch it, though. i could see showing it at a party where nobody cares about what is going on and you just want something on in the background. but i would not tell anyone, "oh, dude, you GOTTA see this movie." it is neither good enough nor bad enough to warrant much attention.
First of all, let's get a few things straight here: a) I AM an anime fan- always has been as a matter of fact (I used to watch Speed Racer all the time in Preschool). b) I DO like several B-Movies because they're hilarious. c) I like the Godzilla movies- a lot.<br /><br />Moving on, when the movie first comes on, it seems like it's going to be your usual B-movie, down to the crappy FX, but all a sudden- BOOM! the anime comes on! This is when the movie goes WWWAAAAAYYYYY downhill.<br /><br />The animation is VERY bad & cheap, even worse than what I remember from SPEED RACER, for crissakes! In fact, it's so cheap, one of the few scenes from the movie I "vividly" remember is when a bunch of kids run out of a school... & it's the same kids over & over again! The FX are terrible, too; the dinosaurs look worse than Godzilla. In addition, the transition to live action to animation is unorganized, the dialogue & voices(especially the English dub that I viewed) was horrid & I was begging my dad to take the tape out of the DVD/ VHS player; The only thing that kept me surviving was cracking out jokes & comments like the robots & Joel/Mike on MST3K (you pick the season). Honestly, this is the only way to barely enjoy this movie & survive it at the same time.<br /><br />Heck, I'm planning to show this to another fellow otaku pal of mine on Halloween for a B-Movie night. Because it's stupid, pretty painful to watch & unintentionally hilarious at the same time, I'm giving this movie a 3/10, an improvement from the 0.5/10 I was originally going to give it.<br /><br />(According to my grading scale: 3/10 means Pretty much both boring & bad. As fun as counting to three unless you find a way to make fun of it, then it will become as fun as counting to 15.)
This movie is incomprehendably bad. It begins with several random explosions and then cuts to a sock puppet of a T-Rex that talks (!) to the audience. It goes back and forth between sock puppetry and animation throughout, probably because the film makers couldn't afford live actors. I'll spare you the long, tiresome, relentless plot that drags this pitiful film on for a brutal 85 minutes.<br /><br />One of my friends found this very rare video at a hobby shop somewhere that sells out of print b-movies, and he bought it for the sole purpose of making fun of it, but, as it turns out, our intervention was not neecessary. This film makes fun of itself better than we could.<br /><br />I thought that Ed Wood's "Plan 9 from Outer Space" was the cheesiest movie in existence, but leave it to Japanamation/Lego cars/Sock puppets to outdo him. If you see this movie anywhere, buy it without hesitation. It is very rare and worth many, many good laughs.
Good performances can't save this terrible script, larded with every cliche in the chick-flick book. Both main characters are deeply unsympathetic, and the scene where Laura Linney's character reminisces about sex with her dead husband in front of her teenage son -- which I think is supposed to be poignant -- is just horrifying.
I cringed all the way through this movie. First of all, the idiotic plot has little to do with Parson's own story. Hollywood has attempted to create a kind of comedy car chase movie. Imagine "Englebert Sings Hendrix".<br /><br />Do not take anything about this movie to be accurate. The name Parsons in the title and stealing of his body is just used as springboard for a low budget chase movie, a blatant attempt to grab a few bucks from the Parsons legacy and his fan base. Gram's father had long since been dead in 1973, the other global characters are fictional, none of this has anything to do with Grams life or death.<br /><br />If you are a Gram fan, I advise you to not see this movie. I wish I hadn't. It's saddening to see something special be treated as such disgracing fodder. I'd swear I could hear Gram turning in his grave while the movie was playing. If you are not familiar with Gram's life and legacy, do not take anything in this movie as being representative of Gram.<br /><br />I cannot say enough bad things about this movie. If Gram were alive and saw this movie, he would kill himself. Then again, maybe he'd be afraid to if he knew this movie were to result.
I doubt this will ever even be a cult film. I loved Gram Parsons to be sure and I did not expect much out of this film and got even less. What could have been clever and moving was campy. It was devoid of the music that made Gram and had more filler than cheap dog food. There was no background on Gram or the colorful people of that era. The characters shown were not familiar to me even as a fan of Gram's and all the versions of his "afterlife adventures" I have heard. Rock and roll is full of tales, good ones too but they should taken with a grain of salt. They can be great stories even though exaggerated. However, this movie took a good story and turned into tripe. Stealing any dead body and the ensuing implications should never be a dull tale but they made it dull, somehow. I am tempted to steal every copy of Grand Theft Parsons, head out to the desert and burn them all.
From the Q & A before and after, this is what I could gather: Some Irish guy wants to make a movie. Nothing in particular, just any movie. So, one night at a party, he hears some ex-roadie tell him a classic bit of rock n' roll lore; the one about how Gram Parsons' corpse was stolen from LAX by his loyal roadie so he could honor Parsons' wishes that he be cremated out in JoshuaTree. Wow!<br /><br />What a great idea for a movie! Rock n' Roll (well, country), grave robbing, escapes, friendship, the 70's! I guess we could get Johnny Knoxville from "Jackass", cause it's kind of a prank, right, and Knoxville wants to do "a movie" too. Why he must have thought he had the next "Snatch" on his hand!<br /><br />But this story's not really that exciting...we need something for Knoxville to struggle against.like a psychotic girlfirend after his money! But Parsons' was married at the time. That's O.K., no one knows that. Besides we could get Christina Applegate. But what if the audience doesn't like the idea of stealing a corpse.well, we'll get his dad to join the chase, but give permission in the end. But Parsons' dad killed himself when he was 10, in fact his orphan status, and tragic childhood, are key parts of the Parsons Mythology. Mythology? We're making "A Movie!" This is creative problem solving.<br /><br />It's an uncomfortable experience for anybody even vaguely knowledgeable on or interested in the subject. Applegate's presence is doubling jarring. First her invented character is a Beverly Hills bitch before her time -she might as well have walked around the whole movie a cell phone in her hand, and secondly, what kind of man would Parsons be if he ever associated himself with that kind of harpy? Facts aren't just distorted or left out, but REVERSED. They could have easily found the villain they wanted in Parsons STEPfather, who was attempting to whisk the body back to his home state where law would favor him in dividing up the considerable inheritance.<br /><br />And the music, oh, the music I love. The music is hacked up (the bridge of a song here, the chorus there), forced to the background, and in the end, horribly covered by the hippest new indie band, Starsailor. My girlfriend asked the unnecessary, but irresistable question after the movie --was anyone up there, the writer, the producers, the director, actually a Gram Parson's fan? Well, no. He'd never actually heard of Gram Parsons, but of course, blah blah blah, I learned to love it, and here's some factoids I read in a bio online. Another guy vouched for Parsons' coolness by saying he and Keith Richards tripped on acid together and wrote "Wild Horses" together, a mixed up bunch of facts as off-base as the movie. Another person asked, wasn't it morally questionable to rewrite history when most people would only know about it from this film? Well, he had the real roadie's permission (he was even set) and the Parsons estate gave permission, and all these other people who got paychecks said it was great.<br /><br />But what I really wondered was, and asked in the embarassingly trembling voice of a truly impassioned Parsons geek, was, if the movie's so cheaply made (a million), had they not considered the original Gram Parsons fanbase as an audience? The director and writer seemed to think he was a nothing figure with no fanbase, though I doubt any Mojo magazine reading, country-rock 70's music fan would agree. But a bunch of Brits made it I guess, and they just didn't care about Cosmic American Music, or even knew it existed. This isn't just not a truthful Parsons flick, it's not even in the right spirit -it doesn't even fit the legend. At the very least it should have had the sentimentality of one of his songs. And plenty of people would love to be told.<br /><br />I should mention the movie was received well from the bunch of stoned college kids, just off the slopes, and into Johnny Knoxville. But if you're a Parsons fan ignore the title, it's just a movie for Jackass fans.
If you're a fan of the late Gram Parsons then this movie is definitely going to divide you! Part comedy, part road movie, but mostly a bad fictionalization of one of rock history's oddest tales.<br /><br />SPOILERS-- <br /><br />Basically the story concerns a well-known roadie named Phil Kaufman (played by Johnny Knoxville) who "supposedly" made a pact with cult rock/country/folk music hero Gram Parsons that stated when one of them died first (it didn't matter which one it was) that the other living one was to take the deceased out to the desert, Joshua Tree National Park in California to be exact, and set the body ablaze...so as to free the spirit and become one with the earth, and so on! Sure to keep his word the barely sober Kaufman, with the assistance of a self-hating, pot-headed buddy, jacks the body of the late Parsons -whom had fatally overdosed from a drug and booze bender a day prior- from the airport. And shortly after that what ensues is a cringe-worthy combination of fiction and truth where the late Parsons girlfriend, Kaufman's girlfriend, Parsons stone-faced father, and a gaggle of police officers and other pointless idiotic characters all try to beat the clock (so to speak) in trying to catch Kaufman and his pal before they get the chance to torch Parsons body! <br /><br />The film's incompetent direction, bad acting, and lame offbeat tone in general all sink this movie faster than the Titanic. And not to mention the huge fact that this movie is not even halfway telling the truth of the actual events that took place. The accuracies that should have replaced the inaccuracies, as far as I've heard them, include: number 1., Parsons was married at the time of his death and even had a child, so what the hell was that all about with the girlfriend's and the chasing and whatnot?, number 2., Kaufman's drugged-out buddy was a known willing participant (unlike what the movie attempts to portray) in the disposing of Parson's body, and finally number 3., Gram Parsons real-life father died when he was just a boy, and so it was Parson's step-father (who could have honestly cared less about Gram Parsons when he was still alive) in real-life that took care of the body after it was torched! Altogether though, what probably disturbs me the most about this movie is that the real Phil Kaufman was actually on set to help assist with the facts of the story. And yet still, the movie ended up becoming so untrue and so bad that it really boggles my mind, frankly! <br /><br />Also as the mediocre aforementioned acting in the film is concerned it's lead character, played by the ultra-grating Johnny Knoxville (Phil Kaufman), is not only a bad actor but it actually seems as if he were asleep throughout most of the movie, and the rest of the pathetic cast are for the most part either hysterical, brain-dead, or seem utterly clueless as to what they're actually doing there in the first place! Overall, if you like Johnny Knoxville and or really dig the so-bad-they're-not-even-good buddy flicks then I suppose you just might get a kick out of this movie! But, if you're like me and are a fan of the late Gram Parsons, enjoy films that attempt to tell the truth as much as they can especially if they're based on an actual real-life story, and or you just like good films, be-them road movies, or fictional slice-of-life stuff, you will truly loathe this film and advise others to do likewise. I obviously hated this movie and wished it had never been made in the first place, but since it was made I would have preferred it to have turned out differently than what it did, unfortunately! Maybe some day the real facts of the story will come through and be made into a really great biopic on all of Gram Parsons life...not just what happened to his body after his spirit left it. But, until that time comes all we as an audience, and or fans of the late performer get is this sad waste of film and an all-around terrible memorial (of sorts) to the musical legacy that Gram Parsons was known to have left behind. It should also be noted that they did actually use Parsons music, and a few others as well in the flick, but not surprisingly though, you never get to hear enough of it to really enjoy it even in the slightest bit. (Turkey-Zero Stars)
I'm not sure if users ought to be allowed to review films after only sitting through half, but I'm afraid I just couldn't stand another minute.<br /><br />If this abject excuse for a film doesn't have the late, great GP spinning like a wheel in his grave, then I doubt anything will.<br /><br />The excellent review above 'Not a film for Parsons fans' sums up most of my feelings. How dare a (second rate) director and writer attempt something to which they're so clearly incapable of delivering. What were they thinking? Where to start?<br /><br />THE SCRIPT: I thought I'd be getting a slice of bittersweet Americana. What I got was poorly executed slapstick with no cliché left unturned. Stupid hippy? Check. Stupid fat cop? Check. Awful plot contrivances? Check. Embarrassingly written female characters? Double check. Total disregard for the story which you're trying to portray? Check.<br /><br />After a while, you realize that what you're watching is a soap and not a very well written one at that. Scene with Knoxville. Scene with Ex girlfriend. Scene with Knoxville which hasn't moved on much. Scene with Ex girlfriend which was a bit like the last one. And so on...<br /><br />THE DIRECTION: My friends and I decided, after some consideration, that watching this was like watching a bad episode of Quincy, or maybe a particularly poor Dukes of Hazzard. That's how bad the direction was. Terrible jump cuts, awful camera work, clunky ins and outs to scenes. God, it was cringeworthy. And then I discovered the director was an Irishman who's most noteworthy recent work is a really lousy BBC Sunday night drama called Monarch of the Glen (trust me, it's lowest common denominator TV). And then it all made sense...<br /><br />THE ACTING: Are we now so critical that when some random guy from the TV decides to give acting a go, if he's not so bad, he stinks, we applaud his efforts? Knoxville JUST ABOUT manages to get through every scene. Poor Christina A. has no such luck. Her performance is a car crash (though what you do with those lines, I don't know). The 'hippy' in the hearse: oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Have we not moved on since Cheech and Chong?<br /><br />I could go on, but I think you get my drift. What I would say is that, as other reviews have mentioned, no one on this film clearly gives a flying damn for The Byrds, The Flying Burrito Brothers or Gram's solo work. They knew nothing about the American road movie and they certainly give a damn about trying to do anything with an admittedly decent story from rock mythology. This film was shallow, failed to explore anything and was jaw droppingly unfunny from beginning to...oh wait, I didn't quite make the end. And I suggest you stay away too.
First of all, this movie isn't a complete disaster. If you had never heard of the real story of Gram Parsons then it might seem a reasonably entertaining diversion. Johnny Knoxville can't really be criticised for his performance as Phil Kaufman - he's pretty good at looking laid-back and down to earth and you can sort of root for his long-suffering everyman. Michael Shannon is due credit for pretty much the same reasons, except he's a hippy stoner. There are some good individual comedic scenes - the hippy-hearse crashing into the airport hanger door stands out. But that's where the good things end, and we begin to see the aspects that make this movie so truly disappointing. The character of Robert Forster as Gram's actual father is an invention so disgraceful as to cast a taint over the entire film. We all know his real father committed suicide when he was young - something that could surely be compared to Gram's life on the edge by a better film-maker. Having Forster as his supposed real father, and not his step-father would be bad enough, if not for the well known difficulties Gram had with the man who actually flew to collect his body. It has been suggested that his step father had admitted to providing Gram's mother with alcohol as she lay dying and that this enraged Gram when he later found out about it. Also the controversy over where Gram's body was buried would surely be reason enough not to invent a benevolent made-up father who actually catches up to the duo and their hearse, but then allows them to go ahead with the burning. Whatever the truth about the man who Gram got the name Parsons from, he certainly bore no resemblance to Forster's character here, and it is hard to see why this role was written. Then there's the addition of Christina Applegate as a greedy chick (yet very pretty of course) who wants Gram's body back so that she can begin to cash in on his estate. Her character, and her acting are non-existent and one wonders why the director didn't just go the whole hog and include a lesbo scene between her and the chick who plays Kaufman's girlfriend(it wouldn't have lowered the tone a whole lot more). When you think of the ingredients that could have been used in a good movie about Parsons, the shortcomings of this film are easily apparent. Country music being changed by a young, polite, southern gentleman - who was also long haired, drug loving, popular with the ladies and ultimately self destructive. Real events like the hanger door crash and the painted hearse and friends like Keith Richards. Instead of these things we have to concentrate wholly on Kaufman's input into Gram's life. Kaufman is obviously still lapping up the cult status he received for what he did (he certainly is a little cult). From interviews it is obvious that he's delighted with the attention. Remember this is the man who made a remark about the genitalia of the naked corpse of Gram Parsons as he was preparing to set it alight. What he did was not an act of great loyalty, but a doped up alcoholic escapade. Looking at Knoxville and the director in interviews, a few things become clear also. It's obvious that they have no real grasp of the story of Gram's life, nor do they wish to have. They want a hit movie about an event that is infamous and crazy. It was an amazing life with a strange end. That the end is the only thing covered by this movie shows how limited an understanding of Gram Parsons the makers had.
This movie was a real disappointment to me. I have been a fan of Gram Parsons for a long time, and when i found out they were making a film about him i was very exited, I got the movie on VHS when it came out, and was sickened by what i saw, This film wasn't about his life, it was about the aftermath of his death. I thought it would be a descent film about Grams Life and Music, but they had to make a film about his death. I am tired of hearing about his deaths in books and movies, i wanted a film about his life, not his infamous death. I was very Disappointed. I wish people would look at his life, more then his death. The only thing good about this film was its soundtrack. This film is a disappointment to any Gram Parsons Fan.
When THE MAGIC OF LASSIE opened at Radio City Music Hall, I was foolish enough to believe it would be as heart-warming as some of the first Lassie films were. Not.<br /><br />The story was abysmal, the songs by the Sherman brothers were way below their usual level, the characters were uninspired and JAMES STEWART and MICKEY ROONEY had both seen much better days.<br /><br />Then too, I was interested in seeing what ALICE FAYE's contribution would be like, since she'd been absent from the screen for so many years and was always so fetching in her earlier roles at Fox. Alice too, was letdown by the foolish script and the unflattering photography. Another disappointment.<br /><br />Nothing original here, nothing even remotely interesting for an adult to enjoy--and clearly, no magic present for anyone. You can skip this one without missing a thing.
My thoughts on the movie, 9<br /><br />It was not good, not good at all. Visually, it was great. I was pleased with the pacing, the camera angles, etc. However, the characters? eh, kinda bland. Plot? It sucked.<br /><br />This movie seemed more new age crap than anything else. Organized religion is presented as cowardly and fearful. Science isn't portrayed any better. It creates a monster weapon that kills everything... but "souls" have the power to destroy monsters and bring life? Really?<br /><br />That's something that bites my ass a bit too. Here we have a CGI movie... created with science... and they're using it to give us the message that science will destroy the world while promoting the idea that spirituality will save us? At least they had the decency to have one of the characters ask,<br /><br />"Okay, so now what?" (or something similar). I couldn't hear it too well because of the crowd immediately getting up and making a break for the exit. It was a "okay... it was just barely entertaining enough to sit here for the entire movie but now let's get out of here as fast as possible!" type of exit.<br /><br />This is one of those movies where you can't think if you want to enjoy it. Just look at the visuals and nod your head prettily. Any thought as to, "what's the point of that?" will suck you out of disbelief and make you eye the exit sign with longing.<br /><br />Okay... SPOILERS follow.<br /><br />So, basically, a scientist creates "the Machine" that is capable of creating other, intelligent, robotic life. Evil humans use it as a weapon. However, the scientist realizes that he is also at fault. He gave the Machine his intellect, but didn't give it his heart. <br /><br />The Machine goes Skynet on humanity's collective ass and wipes out all life on earth, finally slowly powering down. However, the scientist manages to survive and create walking sock-puppets. Each one, containing a piece of the scientist's soul.<br /><br />The last one, #9 wakes up not knowing anything about the world. He sees a strange device nearby and picks it up. He meets up with another like himself, #2. <br /><br />Well, #2 gets captured by a last surviving robot of the Machine. #9 finds more like himself ands sets off to rescue #2. <br /><br />They succeed.<br /><br />#9 notices that there is a matching hole that fits the device perfectly. He inserts it and the Machine comes back to life... pulling out #2's soul in the process.<br /><br />The movie then continues with action scenes with #9 trying to rescue his soul-yanked compatriots. <br /><br />They eventually succeed and destroy the Machine. They release the souls of their fallen friends, who go up into the clouds. It then rains and we see life returning back to the planet.<br /><br />Hunh?!?<br /><br />That makes no sense. None at all. Why the heck did the scientist want to split his soul into 9 homunculi? What did it accomplish? Were they created to stop the machine? Everything is dead! The machine was dead! Why bother?!?<br /><br />Why did he expect nine little critters to succeed when nothing else had? Why not create a second intellectual machine, but with a "soul" to fight the first.. at least that would have seemed like it would have had a reasonable chance at success.<br /><br />Why did they have to have their souls sucked into the device by the Machine and then destroy the Machine and then release the souls in order to bring life back to earth? Why not just wait for the machine to power down and bring life back without all the rest of the insane steps?
I seriously can't believe Tim Burton and Timur Bekmambetov, two people I LOVE, signed on to produce this crap. Tim Burton is a brilliant director, but to be honest I've been losing interest in him for a while since his last few movies were either remakes or adaptations. He did produce the brilliant "Nightmare Before Christmas", which is one I've watched multiple times, and directed movies like "Beetlejuice" and "Sleepy Hollow", which are awesome films. Bekmambetov directed 3 films that I LOVE: Night Watch, Day Watch, and Wanted. I've only seen those three of his, but they prove he's an awesome director.<br /><br />Those two people producing one of the many reasons I was excited to see 9. So today I went to go see it at the theatre. I was so excited to finally have seen it. I had waited 7 months for the movie to come out.<br /><br />This movie is the first time I've walked out of a Tim Burton-related movie and said "I enjoyed almost NONE of that". I felt heartbroken to even have felt that way. I mean, with him and Bekmambetov at the production helm you'd have expected this movie to be a good watch. Right now I still can't get over how let down I was by this movie. I hadn't even heard of the original short film before seeing it but now, I can successfully say that this movie should have remained a short movie. Hell, Neil Blomkamp made an AWESOME full length remake of Alive in Joburg entitled District 9, what was so hard to get right about 9??? I really wanted to think this movie was awesome. I really did. But no, it failed on so many levels.<br /><br />The plot was extremely confusing and disjointed. I had no idea what was going on, let alone what it was about. Basically it's about a bunch of rag doll robots trying to save the earth. Well, OK, that's what I got from it. But the writing here is extremely poor. The whole film jumps around like a 6 year old with A.D.D. telling a story. There's this big, giant clanky monster robot that 9 awakens, causing destruction and stuff. That's the main villain. However, what else is wrong with this movie is that EVERYTHING COMES OUT OF NOWHERE. There were too many monster robots, most of which have no logical explanation behind them. They have 0 development whatsoever. I mean, that flying pterodactyl like monster just rips out of nowhere, we have no idea where it comes out of and Acker just expects us to know what it is. What was even more retarded was that snake-like creature with the strobing eyes that hypnotize. I dare you to give that description to someone else out loud and expect them not to laugh. All of the 3 people I told about it burst out laughing. Oh and it wraps victims up and sews them inside it. I'M. NOT. KIDDING.<br /><br />The twist in Act III is the most retarded aspect of the whole movie. So basically 9 goes back to the room he woke up in, finds this box with a hologram from the scientist in it for 9, and he tells him that the big scary machine robot was designed to bring robot life to earth, but then evil humans use it for war, and it was supposed to help protect the earth, but then the scientist gave his life to 9 so that it could help protect the world with it. And HE ONLY MENTIONS GIVING HIS LIFE TO 9. But what about the other robots? WHO GAVE THEIR LIVES TO THEM???????? This is the perfect example of poor, rushed writing. There's only one of the life taking device thingy that exists so how did the other 8 get life given to them??????? The characters are not likable at all either. They risk their lives for no reason at all. The only good character is 7. 6 annoyed me with his "GO BACK TO THE SOURCE!!!!!!" ramblings, 1 is an overpowering idiot, 2 we don't know ANYTHING about, 5 kept annoying me with his "Are you sure..." or "Can I stay here instead...?" questions. And that ending? UGH. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that the ending was a huge WTF moment.<br /><br />There's nothing redeeming about this turd except for its beautiful animation. Everything looks realistic and beautiful, I love the gloomy and depressing look of everything. However, beauty can't save a good movie.<br /><br />While it's true that this movie is very pretty looking, pretty is as pretty does, and 9 does squat. I'm sure Burton fans will be flocking to the theatre to see this movie without a doubt, in fact with his and Bekmambetov's names being thrown around the promos, people will be flocking to the theatre to see this movie. I know I may be making a big deal out of nothing, but watching this movie made me realize how much I hate movies with unlikeable characters, nonexistent plot and just pure style over content. And this movie is one of those movies.
9, the film I've been looking forward to for months.... was little more then a disappointment.<br /><br />I was deeply surprised by 9's lack of story and strange character development. All the awesome action sequences in the world don't make up for a single unsympathetic character. <br /><br />The strange, almost thrown in occult sequences were not only out of place, they were infuriating. The story is about robots and scientists... why does it suddenly turn into a necronomicon horror wannabe with mystical symbols and green magic ghost lines instead of giving answers to what could have been excellently scary story devices??<br /><br />How, what, when, why.... questions that bode asking only if you care and it becomes less and less likely that you will as you get away from the theater. <br /><br />A film like this is frustrating because of its lack of depth.... I would watch this film drawn in crayon if the story was good. But the filmmakers have relied on CGI wizardry and Tim Burtons name to draw in the crowd. Which... is what drew me in but failed to gain my respect.<br /><br />9 could have been awesome... with a few more rewrites and a little more respect from its own creators.
This really was a waste of time...the movie has a weak plot, the story is fragmented and ends very abruptly with many loopholes....though the animation is top notch. <br /><br />Once the movie started, I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt by telling myself that it might get interesting in the later stage, but it was never unique. This same plot has been played over and over again, but what made it worse was that the major plot hole was the whole story on how to kill the baddies...The writer could have done so much more with the entire concept, but seemed that he or she did not have their heart in it and wanted to close the movie as soon as it started.<br /><br />Overall, too much hype but not able to deliver.
What?!?? Why are people saying this is "mind blowing?" Just face it the ending is on of the worst endings in the history of cinematography! 4 left and the whole world has ended! Not to mention the character 9 was a idiot the whole time he got everyone killed. 1 was right the whole time, if he sacrificed 9 then non of this would have happened. People giving there lives for a stupid cause and for what?... to make it rain? I admit the movie had it's parts, and the whole concept was fascinating. But a lot of it was clichés one after another. And did anybody else get this feeling that this is a lot like "Lord of The Rings?" Characters died for stupid reasons, there was almost no character development, and honestly ask yourself is it good to have only four guys left in the world; its pointless and stupid. It was one of the shortest movies I've ever seen, and thank god! How is robots turning against humans creative in any way! It's been done like a hundred times! This movie is really stupid, go see a movie that's worth watching like Star Trek, The Hangover, or Inglorious Basterds, those were good movies!
This movie made it into one of my top 10 most awful movies. Horrible. <br /><br />There wasn't a continuous minute where there wasn't a fight with one monster or another. There was no chance for any character development, they were too busy running from one sword fight to another. I had no emotional attachment (except to the big bad machine that wanted to destroy them) <br /><br />Scenes were blatantly stolen from other movies, LOTR, Star Wars and Matrix. <br /><br />Examples<br /><br />>The ghost scene at the end was stolen from the final scene of the old Star Wars with Yoda, Obee One and Vader. <br /><br />>The spider machine in the beginning was exactly like Frodo being attacked by the spider in Return of the Kings. (Elijah Wood is the victim in both films) and wait......it hypnotizes (stings) its victim and wraps them up.....uh hello????<br /><br />>And the whole machine vs. humans theme WAS the Matrix..or Terminator.....<br /><br />There are more examples but why waste the time? And will someone tell me what was with the Nazi's?!?! Nazi's???? <br /><br />There was a juvenile story line rushed to a juvenile conclusion. The movie could not decide if it was a children's movie or an adult movie and wasn't much of either. <br /><br />Just awful. A real disappointment to say the least. Save your money.
It used to be my thinking that movies required plots, or some other means of making you care at all about the story line or anything that is going on. This movie has showed me that you don't actually have to have anything like that.<br /><br />I could sum it up simply as that. But, IMDb wants me to have more lines. It was kind of pretty. not compelling in the slightest. The way the characters talk in the movie makes you think it should have taken place over a matter of days, but there is no passage of time and i'm pretty sure it all happens in an hour.<br /><br />If you are looking to entertain yourself, then buy a gallon of milk and see how fast you can drink it before throwing up. It would be a far better use of your time. Time that you will never get back. Jurassic Park 3 was pulled off better than this movie.
I'm not sure what dragged me into the cinema to watch this movie, but few minutes after it started, I wanted to leave the theater. For a while I hoped at least the story will surprise me, but then realized it's a waste of time, there was just nothing there. I stayed only because I had another show after it.<br /><br />Design: some designs where quite beautiful, mostly of the environment, but the characters were terrible both in terms of animation and design. They look great while still - on posters and screenshots, but not when they have to come to life! They just didn't work, mostly because the very same mistake most 3D companies make: technically it is very hard to create really natural materials in 3D, that would make you feel that the character is alive. You need a lot of effort and knowledge (hence money) to create something that really feels like hair, skin, fabric, etc. Those characters in the movie were made out of "cloth", and that just didn't work! So they had this ugly cold feeling of the computer artificiality, where the cloth stretches or squeezes like a piece of plastic. It just didn't have the feel of a material, that dolls are made of (that's what those characters meant to be). I think it was a big mistake choosing this style for the characters. It just had a feeling of a 3D shoot'n'run computer game. I don't want to go to cinema to have a computer game on my screen, don't know about you...<br /><br />Animation was also a disgrace. I am a professional animator and was terribly disappointed at the low level of animation in "9". It was stiff, boring, almost lacked any imagination or mood. It was just a little bit above most average 3D animations I saw, and that doesn't add to it any good...<br /><br />And all that - the bad character design and bad animation could be solved with a good story, right?! That was not the case here. Actually the story was the worst thing in that movie. It was below any level. It starts straight forward, it goes straight forward and it ends the same. There is no twist, no surprise, no good dialogs, even no development. We've heard and saw stories of machines overtaking the humankind thousands of times and "9" is just one of them, and we know how it ends at the very first minute of that movie. The characters don't even have time to get into the story - they are just there, showing themselves almost immediately, and immediately some of them take action without even getting to know what's going on. It just didn't work. There are also many repetitive action sequences, that looked as if they were made to fill in the time for the lack of a story...<br /><br />Acting, sound and script - oh my gosh, what can I tell, it was pathetic. Bad story has a bad script, and except dialogs like "No, don't do it!" "I will do it!" "But... you cannot do it alone!" "We can do it together!" "But there are rules!" "But we have to save him!" etc etc and so on, and repeating itself all the time, so besides those terribly pathetic dialogs, there were those non stop "Ahh" and "Ohhh" and"Ehh", and "Oooh", and "Whatchout", and "Run!" and "OhOhh!" that were following almost every jump, run, or fall of the characters and it even sounded as if they were out of sync or even unrehearsed.<br /><br />Conclusion: bad acting, bad animation, bad sound, bad story, bad script, bad characters, everything expected, no surprises, no twist, nothing. Only some good designs are not worth the time. BIG NO!
This is the worst movie I have seen since "I Know Who Killed Me" with Lindsey Lohan. <br /><br />After watching this movie I can assure you that nothing but frustration and disappointment await you should you choose to go see this. Hey, Tim Burton, I used to be a big fan of yours... did you even screen this movie? I mean seriously, what the f%#k?<br /><br />Without giving anything away, here is the story in a vague nutshell... Nine wakes up, he does stuff, his actions and decisions are irrelevant... and the movie ends. Oh wait... here comes a spoiler...<br /><br />Spoiler alert! Spoiler alert! At the end of the movie.... it rains. I think a part of my soul died while watching this movie.
I am always wary of taking too instant a dislike to a film. Look at it a month later and you might see it differently, or dig it up after 50 years in a different continent and some cult followers find something stylistically remarkable that went unnoticed at first. After sitting through The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael at its UK premiere, it came as no surprise to me that I found the question and answer session afterwards more interesting than the film itself. Shane Danielsen (Artistic Director of the Edinburgh International Film Festival), aided by the film's director and producer, gave a spirited defence of a movie than received an overall negative response from the audience. Edinburgh Festival audiences are not easily shocked. Only one person walked out in disgust. The criticisms of the film included very articulate and constructive ones from the lay public as well as an actor and a woman who teaches M.A. film directors. This was not an overly 'shocking' film. There was a degree of uninterrupted sexual violence, but far less extreme than many movies (most actual weapon contact was obscured, as were aroused genitals). The audience disliked it because they had sat through two hours that were quite boring, where the acting standards were not high, where the plot was poor, predictable and drawn out, and where they had been subjected to clumsy and pretentious film-making on the promise of a controversial movie. Metaphors to the war in Iraq are contrived, over-emphasised and sloppy (apart from a general allusion to violence, any deeper meaning is unclear); and the 'fig-leaf' reference Marquis de Sade, as one audience member put it, seems a mere tokenistic excuse for lack of plot development towards the finale.<br /><br />We have the story of an adolescent who has a certain amount going for him (he stands out at school for his musical ability) but takes drugs and hangs out with youths who have little or nothing going for them and whose criminal activities extend to rape and violence. When pushed, Robert seems to have a lot of violence locked inside him.<br /><br />The film is not entirely without merit. The audience is left to decide how Robert got that way: was it the influence of his peers? Why did all the good influences and concern from parents and teachers not manage to include him in a better approach to life? Cinematically, there is a carefully-montaged scene where he hangs back (whether through too much drugs, shyness, a latent sense of morality or just waiting his turn?). Several of his friends are raping a woman in a back room, partly glimpsed and framed in the centre of the screen. In the foreground of the bare bones flat, a DJ is more concerned that the girl's screams interrupt his happy house music than with any thought for the woman. Ultimately he is a bit annoyed if their activities attract police attention. The stark juxtaposition of serious headphones enjoyment of his music even when he knows a rape is going on points up his utter disdain in a deeply unsettling way. Robert slumps with his back to us in the foreground.<br /><br />But the rest of the film, including its supposedly controversial climax involving considerable (if not overly realistic) sexual violence, is not up to this standard. Some people have had a strong reaction to it (the filmmakers' stated intention: "If they vomit, we have succeeded in producing a reaction") but mostly - and as far as I can tell the Edinburgh reaction seems to mirror reports from Cannes - they feel, "Why have programmers subjected us to such inferior quality film-making?" Director Clay Hugh can talk the talk but has not developed artistic vision. His replies about holding up a mirror to life to tell the truth about things that are swept under the carpet, even his defence that there is little plot development because he didn't want to do a standard Hollywood movie - all are good answers to criticisms, but unfortunately they do not apply to his film, any more than they do to holding up a mirror while someone defecates, or wastes film while playing ineptly with symbols. Wanting to try and give him the benefit of any lingering doubt, I spoke to him for a few minutes after the screening, but I found him as distasteful as his movie and soon moved to the bar to wash my mouth out with something more substantial. There are many truths. One aspect of art is to educate, another to entertain, another to inspire. I had asked him if he had any social or political agenda and he mentions Ken Loach (one of the many great names he takes in vain) without going so far as to admit any agenda himself. He then falls back on his mantra about his job being to tell the truth. I am left with the feeling that this was an overambitious project for a new director, or else a disingenuous attempt to put himself on the map by courting publicity for second rate work<br /><br />Andy Warhol could paint a tin of soup and it was art. Clay Hugh would like to emulate the great directors that have made controversial cinema and pushed boundaries. Sadly, his ability at the moment only extends to making high-sounding excuses for a publicity-seeking film.
There is just one word for this film. Appalling. The director clearly has talent but like his character Robert Carmichael he throws it all away.<br /><br />Carmichael has potential, but like Cray he can't be bothered to use it. Being drawn into petty crime and then descending into depravity is Cray's vision of British youth. Like the British tabloids this film portrays young people with no aspirations or respect. Cray cries out for attention, but deserves none.<br /><br />I was appalled by the act of violence that Cray chose to shove in the faces of the audience. He assumes the audience are ignorant of world atrocities. Like a piece of obscene graffiti on a toilet wall he shows us male depravity with adolescent glee.<br /><br />Some actors of quality have small parts in this film. Danny Dyer and Leslie Manville both make short appearances. The acting is otherwise amateur, the young men Joe and Ben are cringe making. Carmichael played by Daniel Spencer is creepy. Miranda Wilson plays Monica, the attractive wife of celeb chef Jonathon (Michael Howe); how she was able to subject herself to such an ordeal is beyond belief. The film is never subtle and Monica is treated to the most gratuitous violence which is cut with war action. War imagery is used to convey the idea that young men cannot help themselves, that acts of violence will occur within even "civilised" countries. This is most certainly true and is symptomatic of our altered society where males have an increasingly less important position, but Cray descends to the level of the barbaric males he seeks to expose through his use of such brutal and violent images. The female characters in the film offer no relief. They are either victims or in Manville's case a washed out mother. The community is represented as dysfunctional.<br /><br />This is Cray's first film. I listened to what he had to say during a Q and A session at Edinburugh and he is not unintelligent, he simply lacks experience and his film exposes his naivety. The film is due to be released later this year, but I hope the company goes bust cos the public really don't need this kind of messed up material.
This movie commits what I would call an emotional rape on the viewer. The movie supposedly caused quite a stir among the critics in Cannes, but for me the final scene was just a pathetic attempt for a newbie director to get himself noticed. Hardly a voice in the discussion on the issue of violence, drug abuse or juvenile delinquency (or any other issue, for that matter).<br /><br />The main character's metamorphosis from good, but troubled boy to the vicious rapist is virtually nonexistent, whereas the rape scene (being an over-dragged, exaggerated version of the rape scene from "A clockwork orange") is unbearable and I refuse to comment on its aesthetic values. There are some things an artist should not do to try and achieve his/her goal. At least in my opinion.<br /><br />To wrap it up: shockingly brutal, revolting and NOT WORTH YOUR TIME. See "A clockwork orange" or "Le pianiste" instead.
Thomas Clay has been mixing with the wrong types. That's the trouble with young people these days, they have no respect.<br /><br />Seriously this film should be avoided at all costs. The action in the main body of the film is slow and rather stodgy and ambles to the drug crazed ending as if, like it's director, it has no where better to go. We are introduced to the main title character who is a bit of an outsider, we see him at school and at home not quite fitting in, feeling awkward in himself as so many adolescents do. Robert falls in with bad lads and starts missing school and taking drugs and before you know it he is a psycho rapist.<br /><br />The film is really about Clay's total failure to understand the links between violence imagery and violent acts. Clay seems to think a generation of crazed youth are made evil by scenes of war on our TVs. yet he has filmed the most disgusting piece of SIMULATED violence. Is this guy for real?<br /><br />If Clay has not seen YouTube perhaps he is naive and unaware of will be done with the brutal climax scene from his film? All anyone will want to see is the most hideous scene from the end of the film and I am sure that will be what sticks with people. <br /><br />The rest of the film is pointless for in committing such an act of violence to film Clay not only damns young people who are actively engaged in preventing war, he also damns himself as perpetrator of extreme, tasteless violence for no better reason than his own personal celebrity status.<br /><br />Shame on all involved.
So they hyped the violence and it's been branded as sick. Well, the violence is the best bit I'm afraid, but unfortunately the characters are not developed enough to allow us to understand why they go on their (entirely predictable) rampage. This film has a truly dreadful script. We never get a chance to get to know Robert and his actions at the end are just plain pathetic. The acting isn't much better, either, the worst of them being the TV chef and the school teacher. The direction is clumsy, the pace enough to send you to sleep. And what on earth is the school film project all about? A comment on the film itself perhaps? The use of newsreel during the climactic murder is laughable. These guys obviously think they're intellectuals but are hopelessly out of their depth. How on earth they got the great Yorgos Arvanitis to light it I'll never know. And how they got the money to make it in the first place is an even greater mystery. Absolutely awful beyond comprehension.
Violence whether real or not always has an impact. In this film the violence is about as crass as you could ask for. In the Great Ecstacy the director has successfully demonstrated what extremes of violence people are capable of. But what was the point? The violence looks like a mix of Noë's 'Irreversible, and ' Kubrick's 'Clockwork Orange'...both of which are remarkable films. Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to screen violence at all and I've seen some nasty stuff in my film-going years, but this film as a whole is totally juvenile. The story is never developed enough to offer any reason for the extreme violence, the rizla paper thin reason we are give for Robert's demise is his introduction to drugs. Danny Dyer plays the character who is partly responsible for Robert's drug fuelled demise, however he is on screen for less than 5 minutes. Lesley Manville is Robert's unable to cope mum, I am not sure what either of these actors is doing in a film of this low caliber. The acting is wooden, the scene in the kitchen with the TV-cook and his wife for instance is as painful to watch if not more so than the shocking finale- who wrote those dialogues?! Some of the comments the boys make...'looks like she's enjoying it' are so trite as to tempt one to laugh if it were not for Clay's ardent desire to bombard us with harrowing images of mutilated female genitals. Why we need to be shown such detail possibly down to the director's adolescent obsession with sadistic pornographic imagery...one can only wonder at this young man's psychology.<br /><br />The 'political meaning' of the film was repeatedly brought to our attention due to the amount of scenes; in the bar, outside the TV-cook's house, war in Iraq reports, was perhaps too obvious in my opinion. Yes, war is violent, social determinism causes frustration, we're all prone to horrifingly violent acts whether you're in politics or on the street popping E. Juxtaposing all these things as part of the same underlying issue is evading the actual issue which is the meaning of violence in man. This issue is one that we still haven't managed to grasp and certainly not in this film.<br /><br />My opinion: derivative, badly-made and pointless.
I saw this at the Edinburgh Film Festival. It was awful! Every clichéd, violent, rich boy fantasy was on display, you just knew how it was going to end especially with all the shots of the chef's wife and the rape of the first girl.<br /><br />The worst part was the Q&A with the director/writer and writer/producer they tried to come across as intellectuals but you could tell they're the types that get off on violence. I bet anything they frequent brothels and do drugs.<br /><br />Don't waste your time. I had to keep my boyfriend from walking out of it.
I did watch all of the film through to the disgraceful ending even though I felt so angry at what I saw. I felt that the director was screaming for attention and the only way he could achieve this was to be as repulsive as possible. Since I have lived in the UK I have come to love this country but this film depicts British young people in the worst way imaginable. There is nothing to be said but avoid it, it will make you angry and sick. The people involved should be ashamed.
I have seen it. It's not "good" but interesting in an understated way. The boys in it are quite naturalistic but................the graphic/gratuitous final gang rape scene is repugnant and -oh yes- the arbitrary insertion of second world war footage is offensive in the way it attempts to compare real horror with this misogynistic contrivance. Real atrocity is real- this film is just atrocious. However, the film has a look which can draw you in. But it seems to me that is the "Emperor's New Clothes", but in fact in reverse. The film looks good, but the direction, story, content and final feeling you take away from this film is vacuous. If a feeling can be vacuous-this is it.
This is the most disturbing film I have ever seen. It makes "Requiem for a Dream" look like a Disney film. Although, technically, it is reasonably well made, acting, cinematography, music, directing, etc., are good. However, the concluding gang rape scene is the most appalling and violent thing I have ever seen and I really wish I had not seen it. I am afraid that it will haunt me for the rest of my life. Although I think anyone would find the film extremely disturbing, my wife and some of her friends were victimized in a very similar manner and I really didn't need an explicit reminder of the horror that they experienced. I saw the film at the SXSW film festival in Austin, TX and none of the cast or crew were in attendance. I would have liked for them to have had the opportunity to defend the violence in their film, which I felt was excessive, gratuitous and unnecessary. An earlier scene successfully conveyed the mood they were apparently striving for, but without rubbing your face in the extreme and explicit sexual violence. This film should have a big WARNING label on it. For these reasons I would not recommend anyone seeing it. You've been warned.
First a technical review. The script is so slow, it is really a 25 minute story blown up to 1 hour 40 min. The dialogue is so flat and truly one-dimensional. The "acting" is pathetic, they seem to really have lifted schoolchildren out of class to read a few lines from an idiot board. As for the whole "point" of the story, namely "war is bad" (oh, there's a shock!) is really non-existent. Without out the "lets shock 'em and get great publicity" scene nobody would be talking about this film. It is so bad it actually bothers me to think what better things the money used this could have gone on. Believe me I've seen some bad "emperor's new clothes" films but the one thing I can say for them is at least they were well shot and well made while the camera wobbled during two scenes in this! Read all the other reviews - avoid at all costs and don't talk about it.
This cowardly and offensive film had me intrigued to begin with. The characters are the familiar dispossessed young males frequently to be seen hanging around bored in a sea side town. Robert is an outsider but he has his music which could have been his soul. Instead Clay makes Robert into a freak who embarks on a journey into cannabis and ecstasy and getting in with the wrong crowd. Clay seems to believe in "reefer madness" and Robert ends the film as a homicidal rapist. One wonders how much experience of real life this young director has. No one can save poor Robert. Clay leaves us with the message that young British men are out of control. A very unsubtle link is made to the Iraqi insurgents; during the needlessly graphic rape we are subjected to explosions and images of war. The film shows male peer group extremism pushed to it's limits. The young bombers in London draw a parallel with Clay's hateful depiction of modern male. Clay implies that men simply cannot help themselves from inflicting terrible acts of violence. It is a wonder the British film industry allows money to be invested in films which advocate such divisive propaganda, when in London we are still reeling from the recent attacks. This is Clay's first film, I would be delighted if it is his last.
At the end of the film I just asked myself :"is it the worse movie I have ever seen or is it the worse movie I have ever seen ?". And the answer is... Actually, after having seen this movie and thought a bit about the meaning of it, you just can't find any meaning and you can only remember the two rape scenes, which are unbelievably brutal and useless. It seems to me as if the director tried to push this question into the crowd's head : "what are such crimes compared to horror of war and extermination ?" because i noticed that the two awful scenes where directly connected to war and it's horrors (during the first scene you can here the girl that is being raped screaming and in the same time you hear one of president Bush's speeches about the necessity of starting a war with Iraq and in the second scene, the pictures of the three criminals sticking a sword in a woman's vagina, are directly followed by archive pictures of World war II. But as a matter of facts, i really could not think about the relative gravity of theses two different kinds of human horror's expression, being done i was too shocked by what i had just seen and felt. (sorry for bad English)
I saw this movie on the film festival of Rotterdam (jan '06) and followed the discussion between director and public afterwards. Many people reacted shocked and protesting. He will get a lot of negative critics. But: the world is cruel like this, and it's not funny. People don't like it. That itself doesn't mean that the movie is bad. I can see that difference. Don't shoot the messenger that shows us the world outside our 'hubble'! Nevertheless I think this a bad movie. Film-technically it's a good one. Nice shots and script, most good fitting music, great actors. The director pretends to make a psychological movie, - the psychology however is of poor quality. Describing such a powerful violence itself is not the art. The art would be a powerful description of the psychological process behind that violence. How does a shy boy come to such a cruelty? The director pretends to describe that, - but is not good in that.<br /><br />The director used several times the word the 'selfishness' of people, mentioning for instance the teacher. Only: this teacher wasn't selfish,- just someone in several roles, caring for his pupils, ánd worried about his script. I think it's a simplification to call him selfish. The atmosphere in the village is creepy, and the mother made awful mistakes ('you terribly let me down…') but it doesn't become believable for me, that there is caused súch a lot of pain, that the shyest boy comes to such terrible things. In fact, reality is far more complex than the way, this film describes – and it needs far better descriptions. The interesting thing would be: how does it work? Describe that process for me please, so that we understand.<br /><br />With the written phrase on the end, the director said to point to an alternative way of life. It was the other extreme, and confirmed for me that director and scriptwriter are bad psychologists, promoting black/white-thinking. The connection between violence in films and in society has been proved. Use such a violence gives the responsibility to use it right. There are enough black/white-thinkers in the world, causing lots of war and misery. I hope, this movie won't be successful.
Badly made. Dreadful acting and an ending that the Director appeared to contrive out of nowhere as the film had frankly been nothing short of dull. Shocking that this film is considered for an award at the Gijón Film Festival.<br /><br />Everyone that came out of the theatre was of the same opinion as I - what was the point of even making the film? The references to Iraq were either bizarre or just not thought through properly. I am astonished that this film has been given a release - very, very disappointing and a waste of my time. Sorry, terribly negative review but hopefully will deter some people from making the same mistake. What a pity we did not have a Q and A at the end of the film - now that could have been interesting.
With a title "borrowed" from Werner Herzog and liberal helpings of Kubrick, Haneke and Noe it is painfully obvious that Thomas Clay considers himself a cut above the usual sort of rubbish our British cinema churns out. "Robert Carmichael" (for short) sets itself up as a realistic study of youthful alienation and at the same time seemingly a critique of the Iraq war. The problem with the realism is that the characters are so patently unrealistic and atypical - contrary to the fetid imaginings of "extreme" filmmakers most teenagers are not drug addled rapists. As a critique of the Iraq war, a film about youth violence (by a talented classical musician - subtext society has damaged this sensitive individual)is so infantile as to hardly bear thinking about. There are signs of technical ability but some reviewers have overstated this. Like Kubrick and Noe he does show that the desire to shock linked with supposed serious intent may be the worst cinematic con trick of recent film. People liked "Clockwork Orange" and "Irreversible" because they liked the rapes and the violence, but most of all they liked feeling culturally superior for liking things that most hated. So too much Kubrick and not enough Haneke (a serious and moral filmmaker) here labels this as one of the most moronic films in years. (I am not against violence in film. To do it seriously is a hard trick though - people in cinemas cheered Alex in "Clockwork Orange" showing how Kubrick's supposed intent was missed by miles. Gratuitous violence is much easier to achieve and is less offensive than the pretensions of many art-film directors.)
I can't believe I've just spent one and a half hours watching such a weak film. If there is only one film you have to miss, this is the one.<br /><br />Robert is a teenager whose father's died recently so he starts hanging out with some local anti-social teenagers and using drugs. All these make him subconsciously more violent and at last such subconsciousness explodes...<br /><br />The first thing is that I don't think I can find any sense or trace of great ecstasy in this film, not in any single character. If the director considers what I saw in the last couple of minutes as great ecstasy, I have to say that that's not even close.<br /><br />The use of cinematography is also not mature. Most of the time I couldn't see any facial expressions from the actors and I didn't feel the body language was sufficient enough to make an impact. Maybe the crew was just so tired that they fixed the camera there to include everything in the settings. Everybody happy except the audience.<br /><br />The plot is particularly weak. There are a lot of unrelated scenes and talking which might be supposed to be related but they are really so random that you can never pull them all together, perhaps unless you're the one who wrote them.<br /><br />In the one and a half hour you may find less than 5 minutes of real acting and all other time there are just people walking, talking and moving. So I really can't comment on acting here.<br /><br />Nice choice of music in the last couple of minutes though. Maybe this is the only good thing.<br /><br />I have never given a film a 1 but this film certainly deserves it (at least you laugh when you watch Scary Movies). This is a film about when a failed attempt to portray troubled teenagers meets extremely disturbed audience. Hope you fall into neither group.
The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael is bad film in every way. The script, the dreary pace, the lack of depth in any character, the pointless sub-plots, the dreadful acting, the needless climax all make this possibly the worst film I've ever seen. I found nothing likable, enjoyable or intellectually stimulating in any way.<br /><br />I imagine the film makers thought they were making something clever and dark, with its moody lighting, long protracted silences and vaguely haunting classical soundtrack. If so, they failed utterly. It just bored me, and I wish I had never watched it.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs.
I watched this film, along with every other adaptation I could get my hands on- including seeing plays- in preparation for some academic research. The cinematography is very moving, as is the music. Unfortunately all of the life was taken out of the story. I have never seen such an awful portrayal of Mr. Rochester. All of his most fundamental traits are gone. Where is his wit? Where is his passion? Scott's Rochester more closely resembles Rochester's foil, St.John, than the character from the novel. In fact, the actor playing St.John in this adaptation played a passionate St.John while Scott is content to smash things or just stare at the ceiling (which he does all the time). I have no idea what they were thinking. I would like to give this film a slightly higher vote based on the wonderful music and cinematography but I honestly can't bear to see this film for too long because of George C. Scott's performance.
This TV production of 1970 starring Susannah York and George C. Scott is another proof of how difficult it is to adopt "Jane Eyre" to the screen, and how much can go wrong in doing so. It is true that the movie suffered in the transfer to DVD - some scenes which were complete in the original were shortened and so badly edited that there are striking continuity gaps and that even one crucial scene between Jane and Rochester starts in the middle of a sentence! But even if the editing were better, the film would not be. The script is bad, the portrayal of the characters is untrue to the novel and nearly all actors are miscast. As a consequence one does not have the feeling of watching an adaptation of Charlotte Brontë's novel at all. The problem is not only that a number of scenes are shortened or left out - this is the case with all the short adaptations - but that the remaining scenes do no at all capture the tone, the spirit, the atmosphere and the concept of the novel.<br /><br />This Jane Eyre for example completely leaves out Gateshead and begins with Jane's arrival at Lowood. While this is perfectly all right, since some scenes must by necessity be left out, it is not understandable that, instead of using the time gained (so to speak) and thoroughly portraying Jane's friendship with Helen, the influence Helen has for Jane's development, the lecture in Christian stoicism that she teaches her, the film nearly exclusively concentrates on the physical ill-treatment of Helen, which is driven to absurd extremes in this adaptation. What Helen has to suffer is bad enough as described in the novel, but here Miss Scatchard is portrayed as a kind of sadistic prison ward, who deliberately wants to drive Helen to a premature death. And this is about all which happens at Lowood. If you compare that to the deep impact the years spent in Lowood have on Jane in the novel, one can only state with regret that the movie does not even touch the surface of that particular episode in Jane's life. And this is the problem throughout this adaptation: It rushes from scene to scene, very often without transition, and nowhere comes even near the essence of the novel. The dialogues are an odd mixture of made-up lines and lines from the novel, very clumsily patched together, and the scenes between Jane and Rochester are so shortened that both share only 5 minutes together on screen before they fall in love, and the little conversation they have contains nothing of the brilliance, the intensity and also the humour of the conversations between Rochester and Jane in the novel. But the scriptwriter not only did Brontë's language injustice but in addition managed to ruin her moral set-up with just one sentence. When Rochester and Jane go to see Rochester's wife after the would-be wedding, Rochester says: "Yet I once loved her (his wife) as I love you now." The whole moral concept of the novel depends on the fact that Rochester is indeed an innocent victim of an amoral scheme and was trapped into marrying a mad woman whom he never loved, and that his effort to seek a true life partner is, if not sanctified by God's and man's law, yet understandable and forgivable! But this one sentence completely undermines Brontë's whole carefully constructed moral concept and turns Rochester into a dirty old man who wants a new young wife because his old one is of no use to him any longer.<br /><br />From the errors regarding the script to the errors regarding the casting: Now I am by no means one of those who insist on physical resemblance between an actor and the literary figure he portrays, but by no stretch of imagination is it possible to picture lovely, blonde, blue-eyed and full-mouthed Susannah York as the novel's plain heroine. In addition, Ms York was in her thirties when the film was shot and looks it. Played by her, the novel's shy, reserved and inexperienced young Jane becomes a perfectly poised, graceful and mature woman, completely sure of herself and her deserts. I do not say that Susannah York does not play well and convincingly but the woman she portrays is not Brontë's Jane Eyre. To cast George C. Scott as Rochester must have been motivated by the desire to have a Rochester who looked old enough to make the 18 years difference in age between Jane and Rochester plausible. Scott looks as if he were around 50 but acts in various scenes as if he were 70.<br /><br />To compliment the "maturity" of the leading actors all passion, desire and despair seems to have been deliberately wrung out of the script. The scene between Jane and Rochester after the wedding, the emotional climax of the novel, has become a calm, rational conversation between two middle-aged persons, at the end of which Rochester falls asleep. When Jane returns to him in the last scene, he is just as mildly pleased as a grandfather who has just been paid a visit in his old people's home by his favourite granddaughter. The only character who displays an appropriate amount of emotion is St. John, of all people. Ian Bannen plays him so passionately and his eager plea for Jane's love is so touching that one gets the impression that Bannen was modelling his St. John on the Rochester of the novel. But good though Bannen is, his St. John is just as far from the novel as York's Jane and Scott's Rochester. The only redeeming features of this very disappointing "Jane Eyre" are the locations and the score, and I would only recommend this production to those who want to watch and compare every single adaptation of "Jane Eyre".
I bought the DVD version of this movie on the recommendation of my wife who loved the version she saw aired in television. But the version put to DVD was a disaster. The lighting was poor to non-existent and entire scenes were simply excised. In one instance Adele is being put to bed, and we immediately cut to another scene - coming in in mid-sentence - where it's the next night. Characters such as Grace Poole and Mason are never even introduced, leaving one to wonder if they'd dozed off for a few minutes during the movie.<br /><br />The DVD we saw was produced by Platinum Disc Corp and even at $6.32 it was a gyp.<br /><br />Be careful which version of this movie you buy! We're sending this one back.
This is by far the worst adaptation of Jane Eyre I have seen. It is uncertain whether or not the writer of the screenplay ever read the book by Bronte. George C Scott is ridiculous and bumbling as Rochester -- when not just plain old acting angry. Susannah York has the most dated 1970's hairstyle I have ever seen in a Victorian movie. The characters hardly speak to each other, so the rich banter enjoyed in the book that is the basis for their deep intellectual and abiding love, is gone. The ending is ludicrous.<br /><br />Please, rent the Timothy Dalton version instead. It is so true to the book, it's like having the novel read aloud to you. Dalton is superb as Rochester. G. C. Scott is laughable.
This was in short a terrible disappointment. By far the worst adaptation of one of my favourite novels. The dialogue was horribly clumsy; I could sense no feeling behind the words expressed by the characters. The lines were delivered too hastily and felt rather out of place. They could just as well have been cited by statues. The chemistry between George C. Scott and Susannah York was non-existent and watching an American Rochester felt strange. He could have at least tried to do a British accent. I like George C. Scott as an actor, but this simply did not work. I felt like I was watching highlights from Jane Eyre, where the main pieces of the story had been randomly put together with no regard to the flow of the story. The scenery and music were all very nice, but I could feel none of the passion and love that is supposed to be between Jane and Rochester and the movie left me totally unmoved.<br /><br />If you want to see a good version of Jane Eyre I suggest you watch the 1983 BBC version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke or the 1997 version with Ciarán Hinds and Samantha Morton. Now these two are brilliant adaptations.
Miscasting happens. Susannah Yorke is a luminous young Jane Eyre, and her performance is impeccable. However, Edward Rochester is supposed to be 35. White-haired George C. Scott looks and behaves like an arthritic 80. Jane's deceased uncle is in better shape! He creaks and snarls, obnoxious and grim. He looks like an ax-murderer who has sent his ax out to be sharpened; we're not surprised he keeps a wife caged in the attic! The great love story looks like a sado-masochistic nightmare. There is enough darkness in the novel, but Bronte's Rochester is relatively young, athletic, powerful, and charming when he chooses to be. He has a fine speaking and singing voice, a good mind, and a conscience that he unsuccessfully attempts to stifle.
My first review of 2010 is "Into The Blue 2: The Reef". The story is about two divers played by Chris Carmack and Laura Vandervoort who love to explore hidden treasures at a bottom of a local reef. One day after a day of exploring they are approached by a couple played by David Anders and Marsha Thomason. They tell the young divers that they want to hire them to explore the reef and find a rare artifact about Columbus' hidden treasure that is reported at the bottom of the reef.<br /><br />Next day the four dive to the bottom of the reef and of coarse after a whole day of diving they find nothing. A few more days past and the two hired divers found out that they a part of a major deadly plot in which they can't escape otherwise they will be killed. They were hired to find two big containers. One contains a nuclear reactor and the other contains a core.<br /><br />The movie also has a back story about another person (brother of the lead character) trying to patch things up with his girlfriend, I reckon this part of the story was a waste of time, this also includes a very steamy sex scene between the couple which to me is a complete waste and wasn't needed to be shown.<br /><br />However apart from that, this movie does have some good underwater photography and the colors blend in well which is why it receives 4 stars. Into The Blue 2 is a sequel only by name. None of the original actors or characters return, it has a dumb plot, stupid characters and a boring climax.
Brainless film about a good looking but brainless couple who decide to live their dream and take people on diving tours. The pair almost instantly make the wrong choice of customers and get mixed up with some people seeking to recover the items that we see falling to the ocean floor during the opening credits sequence. Great looking direct to video movie could have been so much better if it wasn't so interested in primarily looking good. Performances are serviceable and the plot is actually not bad, or would have been had the director and producers not redirected the plot into making sure we see lots of shapely people in bathing suits (or in what I'm guessing the reason for the "unrated" moniker a few fleeting bare breasts). The film never generates any tension nor rises above the level of a forgettable TV movie. If you get roped in to seeing this you won't pluck your eyes out since the eye candy is pleasant but we really need to stop producers from making films that are excuses to have a paid vacation.
In 2005,George W. Bush started with his second period as a President of the United States; North Korea announced its possession of nuclear weapons; Pope John Paul II died after a long illness; and a movie called Into the Blue appeared.The existence of this movie is not as bad as the other things that happened on that year,but the film itself was pathetic and maybe,the worst one from that year.Now,in 2009,the United States have another President,there is another Pope,new Korean nuclear weapons...and the film Into the Blue 2 : The Reef,which is better than the original one...but that's the same as saying : "getting your fingers cut is better than getting your head cut".This sequel is a really bad film which kept me tremendously bored and uninterested.The cast of Into the Blue 2 : The Reef is composed by TV-series actors who completely lack of any credibility and dramatic weight,but who are perfect for showing their bodies.Chris Carmack (The O.C.),David Anders (Heroes and Alias),Laura Vandervoort (Smallville),Marsha Tomason (Lost) and Audrina Patridge (The Hills) bring hollow and boring performances.I have liked some previous movies from director Stephen Herek (Critters and Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure specially) but on this movie,he cannot generate even the minimum level of tension,emotion or entertainment.The characters from this movie are not only badly performed,but they are also repulsive.Honestly,I wanted all of them to die.The cinematography from this movie is also lame and it seems to have been made by a technical team who makes promotional videos for Hawaiian hotels.Into the Blue 2 : The Reef is a horrible movie which is better than the original film,but that's the same as nothing,as I previously said.Avoid this crappy film at all costs.
This movie makes Peter an elf in Robin Hood costume instead of a human boy in probably-not-Robin-Hood-costume and ignores all the persona features in him that really matter. This movie makes Wendy a babbling idiot. And poor Captain Hook a TOTAL clown. And of course as every Disney cartoon must have a character which has had too many hits in the head, they made one of the Lost Boys that one. The only character that has not been disgraced in this film is Tink. The only star is for her.<br /><br />The story itself then? The Darling parents don't even get the time to notice their kids are gone!!! Probably one of the most significant point in the original story and they ruined it! Also the famous nursery scene between Peter Pan and Wendy is a stunning piece of- There are no thimbles and no acorns - one of the little things that makes the original story such a unique one. It's a wonder he even had lost his shadow and she helped him stick it. (Even though to his shoes and it makes no sense to me.)<br /><br />Ruining a great story like this just to amuse children should be illegal. So know now if you haven't known it before - this Disney version does not have anything significant in common with the original story - which is not really a children's story but just a great, great story.<br /><br />This just annoys me to no end.
If you're a fan of Mystery Science Theater 3K, Attack of the Giant Leeches, or Pinata Survival Island, this movie might be for you.<br /><br />I live in Nashville and I didn't even know of this movie's existence until the day prior to its release, when the advertising company panicked and blanketed Music Row with dozens of fliers and billboards. It barely lasted two weeks in theaters anyway.<br /><br />Bad acting, bad writing, and poor production only begin to describe this embarrassment of a film. For starters, the names are a bit much: Bo Price, Angel, and Dixie? Eesh.<br /><br />Toby's awkwardly slow delivery of lines makes one wonder what production assistant got stuck holding the cue cards off camera. Angel's character rapidly transitions from her city-slicker ways to a cowgirl, slipping into southern slang after two days on the ranch. Her wardrobe goes from chic to a female version of Toby's--in fact, in the final scene, their outfits are identical, making one wonder if the wardrobe assistant called in sick.<br /><br />The audio is inconsistent - perhaps the most noticeable example is when Toby decides to go for a swim and his voice suddenly sounds like he's shouting in a gymnasium.<br /><br />There's never quite enough explanation or character development to suffice what happens on-screen. Overacting, exasperation, grimaces, and moodiness best describes the actors' interpretation and direction of the terrible script.<br /><br />This movie is best enjoyed after consuming a couple of alcoholic beverages and in the company of your wittiest friends. But that's not saying much.
I attended one of the premieres last night and have the following observations: <br /><br />1. Just because you've directed a ton of music videos DOES NOT make you qualified to make movies. The movie had an overabundance of lingering shots that made no sense, horrible angles, and terrible lighting. The editing didn't help this mess at all. When "Dixie" shows up late for the memorial service her mother remarks about her hand but it's never clear what the heck she's talking about.<br /><br />2. The plot had promise, but the script was thin and full of Ford Truck sized holes. We never get to understand what drives the characters, what's really behind the conflicts they all have with each other or exactly how they resolve them. Sixteen years of distance is wiped out in 4 days seemingly by magic. The deep conversations were marred by stupid clichés. (In fact, the whole town was one big cliché of southern life.) Half the audience groaned when Toby drawled "Ya got my blood runnin through your veins gurl"...and we were treated to that insipid line not once, but TWICE! The revelations were yawn inducing, and the dramatic confessions boiled down to "I was stupid and stubborn".<br /><br />3. The acting was okay considering the wreck of a script they had to work with. Toby was dark and brooding most of the film, but when he smiled and lightened up he was charming. It's a shame he didn't have more screen time like that. Kelly Preston's acting chops are pretty rusty and it shows. Lindsay Haun is talented and it's certainly not her fault the writers made her character so unlikeable in the beginning that you don't blame her father for not coming to look for her. Burt Reynolds and Tess Harper were able to make more of this movie but still looked more or less lost. (And indeed, their characters get lost in this film!) <br /><br />4. If you're a Toby fan you'll love the songs. But often the movie felt like a scene was forced in just so they could feature one of his songs--or the artists on his record label. For instance, the movie's official love song is "Crash Here Tonight". You'd think that would play around a tender love scene, but nope...we hear about 45 seconds of it as he's heading to a memorial service. It was as if they said "well, we gotta use this song somewhere". The song "Broken" is haunting and the best thing to come out of this movie.<br /><br />In summary...a promising plot never fully develops and the movie is horribly uneven as it forceably tries to be a vehicle for Toby Keith's music and product placement for Ford Trucks. It goes from being about people rebuilding broken bridges to trying to be about the power of music but the story is told so poorly that both points get lost in this overgrown music video. I like Toby and really wanted to like "Broken Bridges" but the people he counted on to make this movie let him down and deserve one of his famous boots you know where.
This movie is the second worst film that I have ever seen (the first being Ghost Rider). There is absolutely no plot, climax, conflict, or any other major detail required in portraying a story. This 'film' is basically just another excuse for Toby Keith to show off his manly side and, the 'tough guy he really is'. I completely wasted my time watching this film. The best part would have to be the ending credits. If I were Ebert or Roper, I would have cut my thumbs off and thrown them at the producers. Whoever in their right mind gave Toby Keith the chance to act in a feature film, is obviously on the same mental level as him. In conclusion, do not waste your time watching this movie, it could quite possibly be the only thing you regret.
Frank Tashlin's 'The Home Front' is one of the more lifeless Private Snafu shorts, a series of cartoons made as instructional films for the military. Rather than have Snafu take some inadvisable actions leading to disaster, 'The Home Front' instead focuses on his loved ones back home and how much they have to offer to the war effort too. Snafu realises he was wrong when he thought they had it easy. It's a concept with few possibilities for good gags and instead Tashlin plays the risqué card more heavily, extended jokes involving strippers and scantily clad dancing girls in place of much effective comic relief. The result is a well-meaning short which has little relevance or entertainment value today other than as an historical artefact.
The real irony is this: Joe Besser was a top notch comedian, in other situations away from the Stooges. He had a definite track record for being very funny and clever. Moe and Larry and Shemp had actually known him or at least of him for many years and liked his work. So what on Earth was going on when he joined the troop as the "third stooge"? Obviously, nothing. In most of these "late Stooge" era shorts, more often than not, the boys are pitted against each other or Joe against the other two and this is not accurate Stooge etiquette. "One for all, all for one, every man for himself", to quote Curly from "Restless Knights". One thing about a good comedy team, Laurel & Hardy, Abbott & Costello, The Marx Brothers, no matter how much they all try to take advantage of each other or slap each other around, when the chips are actually down, they stick together and come to each other's aid. In this particular one, none of that happens. It's almost like watching a dog fight as one tries to cheat the others or be mean and nasty, and not for comedic effect either. One might assume that there was something behind the scenes going on here, art imitates life. Maybe there really was hence why Besser did not stay very long with Moe and Larry. Just look at the history of the other teams and tell me I'm wrong.
I'm not a big fan of the Stooges' slapstick, but I find their history interesting. I've recently tried to check out stuff from each Stooge era, but the opportunity to see Joe shorts doesn't seem to come easy; this is the only one I've seen so far.<br /><br />Some say the quality problems with Joe-era shorts are really not Joe's fault, and I suspect that's the case. Joe as a performer is far from the worst thing about this. The thing that bothers me the most about it has been pointed out in another comment: the pitting of the other guys against the third violates the whole comedy-team/Stooges ethos. Perhaps Joe's style was perceived, by those in charge, as not really fitting in -- though there were no real off-camera conflicts between him & the others -- and this was their way of working around that.<br /><br />And what's with the titles of this and some of the other late Stooges shorts? Definitely a lack of creativity going on there; was that sort of thing the cause or the effect of the shorts market drying up?
Was it a thriller, as I thought when I saw the cover at the video library? No. Was it a 'food fr thought' as the author was maybe trying to make it? Not really. So what was it? It was a very average movie, that had great potential, and was nicely directed but let down by a confusing story without strong points, beginning middle and end, with poor acting expect from the serial killer guy, who although he seemed overzealous at some points delivered the best performance of the cast overall. It was nice cinematography, with good colours, cool hi-tec stuff, beautiful scenics but leaves you lost about where it's going and where it has just been. And with a feeling of let's just quickly wrap it up in the end. OK to watch if there's nothing else on TV.
I saw this film on the History Channel today (in 2006). First of all, I realize that this is not a documentary -- that it is a drama. But, one might hope that at least the critical "facts" that the story turns on might be based on actual events. Reagan was shot and the other characters were real people. The movie got that right. From there on, reliance on facts rapidly decays. I had never heard of this movie before seeing it. Having been a TV reporter at the time of these events, I was stunned that I had never heard anything about the bizarre behavior of Secretary Haig as portrayed by Richard Dreyfuss. The whole nation had heard the "I am in control...", etc., but Dreufuss' Haig is bullying a cowered cabinet and totally out of control personally. Having watched the film, I began researching the subject on the Internet and quickly found actual audio tapes and transcripts of most of the Situation Room conversations that this film pretends to reenact. Incredibly, many the the principal "facts" of the film meant to show a White House, Secret Service etc. in total chaos -- and the nation's leadership behaving irrationally and driving the world near the brink of nuclear war -- are demonstrably incorrect. They didn't happen! There is internal conflict, to be sure. Haig makes missteps, his press room performance is historically regrettable and he is "difficult". But there is nothing approaching the scenes depicted in the film. There are too many gross errors to list, but any fair comparison of the recorded and written record and the fantasy of this film begs the question as to what the producers were really trying to accomplish. Enlighten? Inform? Entertain? I believe they failed on all three fronts. It is difficult to ascribe motives to others, but one must seriously question what was behind such shameless invention. And, as for my beloved History Channel's "Reel to Real" follow-on documentary, there was almost no mention of the issues that were the central focus of the film -- namely the events within the Administration on the day of the shooting. So, the viewer was left to research those without much -- if any -- help from the network.
This movie is a blatant attempt by the left in Hollywood to portray Reagan's administration as incompetent and bungling. Some mistakes may have been made at the time of the crisis, but I'm sure not to the extent portrayed in this lame movie. My first reaction was that this movie had to have been directed by Oliver Stone, but I was wrong this time. There are apparently many others.
I'll get to the movie in a minute. First, someone wanted "proof" about Clinton's comments at Georgetown, where he claimed that the USA "deserved" the 9-11 attacks. Well, here's what Clinton said:<br /><br />"In the first Crusade, when the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem, they first burned a synagogue with 300 Jews in it and proceeded to kill every woman and child who was a Muslim on the Temple Mount. I can tell you that story is still being told today in the Middle East and we are still paying for it."<br /><br />WE'RE still paying for it? Whaddya mean "we", paleface? The Marines didn't storm the Temple Mount. <br /><br />But in truth, Clinton never really came out and flatly said that we "deserved" 9-11. Like all his statements during his presidency, he IMPLIED that we deserved 9-11. Just point out "fact" A, B, C, and maybe D, and let the listener deduce that they must add up to conclusion X. When in truth, most of Clinton's "Facts" added up to guacamole.<br /><br />But that's beside the point. We're here to talk movies, not politics. Unfortunately, when Oliver "Captain Conspiracy" Stone does a movie, you can't escape his warped politics. It was only a matter of time before he focused his paranoia and bitterness on the Reagan Era, and what better time than when Stone's dreams almost came true, on the day Reagan nearly bought the farm. Unable to find any nefarious plots or schemes in Hinckley's assassination attempt, he invents one with Al Haig. From a simple misunderstanding of the chain of Constitutional authority, Haig is transformed from a public servant who really should have brushed up on his remedial civics into a raving megalomaniac. You almost expect Haig to rub his hands together like Montgomery Burns and tell Cap Weinberger to "Release the Hounds." Stone even recruits the smarmiest person in Hollywood to play our former Secretary of State, Richard Dreyfuss. A guy you love to hate on sight.<br /><br />Overall, the movie is OK. Average, hovering on below average. Don't bother renting or buying. Try to catch it on cable. 4 out of 10.
Well. this was not a surprise. many people will tell you this is gory. but they are all talking "shiztz" this film is very slow.<br /><br />It starts off with some guy who makes a concoction to feel no pain he calls it "my son" there is some gory scenes but i found them kind of weak. you might as well skip 40 minutes of the movie and get to the eyeball scene which was surprisingly impressive and sickening. there is some really stupid scenes in this. and they dub over the hits and slaps with stupid fake slapping sound which makes me laugh! i would not recommend it. keep looking gore hounds.<br /><br />check this out if you want the like 20-10 minute ending scene which still is not that amazing and has a random scene of the guy trying to like rape his mum.. yeah its weird.
This movie starts out very VERY slow, but when the action finally gets started, it's a little had to follow. I couldn't understand why some of the events were taking place, and a lot of events happened before they were explained, making them sort of confusing. The only thing it really has going for it is the massive amount of blood/gore it has, although most times the special effects are lacking. Blood looks like red Kool-Aid. Skin tearing sounds like somebody is stepping on a pile of sticks. Again, the story has a sort of amateur feel to it, like the writer didn't take a long time to perfect it. I feel like it could be a much better movie if the effects were done better and more time was taken on the script. I honestly wish I hadn't watched it, not because of the gore, but because I feel that i wasted 90 minutes of my life. If you like extremely gory movies, this is for you, if not, stay away.
As a huge fan of horror films, especially J-horror and also gore i thought Nekeddo burâddo sounded pretty good. I researched the plot, read reviews, and even looked at some photos to make sure it seemed like a good gory and scary movie to watch before downloading it. So excited it had finished and ready to be scared and recoiling in horror at the amazing gore i was expecting i was terribly disappointed. The plot was ridiculous and didn't even make sense and left too much unexplained, the gore was hilarious rather then horrifying, and what was with the cartoon style sound effects ? The acting was probably the only thing mildly scary about it. I did not understand the cactus idea and the way the mothers husband disappeared in the middle of the sea after following a flashing light, they left both pretty unexplained, or perhaps i missed it as my mind couldn't understand what i was actually seeing. I appreciate the way it was supposed to be; shocking and a few scenes (the strange cannibalism and own mother kissing?)certainly were, i just think they went a little bit far and not even in a horrifying way, they made it to unconvincing which made it more believable to be a comedy rather than a horror in my opinion. However it is a very entertaining film and got a lot of laughs out of me and a couple of friends, but sadly we were expecting horror not comedy so its worth a watch for the entertainment value, but don't be expecting a dark, deeply scary and horrifying film; you'll just be disappointed. If this was a horror comedy/spoof i'd probably rate it about a nine, the climax being the weird scene when the husband climbed inside his wife's stomach and closed up her wounds, but as a horror sadly i gave it a one.
Hmm, IMDb rating of 7.5, good comments, bla, bla ... okay, two of my friends and me, we orderd Pizza, sat down and wanted to see something as cool as Ichi or at least something brainless but funny like Versus. But Naked Blood sucked. It's a complete waste. Okay, the scene with the woman who likes to eat is quite outstanding. But that's it. Nothing more, nothing less. I won't summerize the plot, other people did already, I just wanted to stop the hype. But watch it and rate for yourself. Maybe we can push the rating where it sould be. One more thing that comes to my mind: the soundtrack is even worse than Carpenter ever was - okay, John's cool ... :) 2/10
Like most people, i was drawn to buy this film because of the pictures of the mighty Bolo Yeung plastered all over the box, and the assumption (from the aforementioned pictures and the title of the film) that this film is all about the Beast from the East kickin' ass for 90 minutes.<br /><br />However, to my disappointment, Chinese Hercules is to Bolo Yeung what No Retreat No Surrender was to Jean Claude Van Damme and Fearless Tiger was to... erm, Bolo Yeung - maximum exposure on video box, minimum actual screen-time! Oh well! <br /><br />The storyline is pretty basic stuff, but it was well done - peaceful kung fu fighter (played by Chen Hui Min) accidentally kills a man and promises never to fight again. He then runs away to work as a labourer on a pier where he impresses his co-workers with his heavy sack lifting prowess, causing them to suspect him to be a formidable fighter (dont quite know how that works but never mind). Meanwhile, the corrupt boss of the pier does a deal with gangsters, giving them exclusive use of the pier. As a result, the workers are thrown out on their ear and forced to live on the beach, where they unite against their boss, the gangster boss, and his hulking henchman Bolo Yeung.<br /><br />While the film was quite watchable (mainly through waiting for the next glimpse of Bolo), i had a few problems with it - firstly, the bad dubbing, but of course thats a given in old kung fu films. But also, the film tended to drag between the various fight-scenes. And as for the fight scenes themselves, i found them to be over-long, badly choreographed (apparently by Jackie Chan!), badly shot and at times performed by people who didn't seem to have any martial arts ability.... in fact, most of the fights in this film weren't 'fights' at all, just people getting beaten up without offering any resistance!<br /><br />Finally, the hero - played by Chen Hui Min. I've never seen any other films with this guy in, but at no point was i rooting for him. Not only did he look wimpy and on the verge of tears at all times, but i found his insistence on not fighting infuriating! I understood his reasoning, but he could have saved a lot of people a lot of pain if he had done earlier what we all knew he was gonna do eventually, and fight! A bigger mystery was why this entire community of people were pinning their hopes on a guy they've never even seen fight! <br /><br />Really, the big saving grace in this film was the presence of Bolo Yeung. Not only is he as huge and brutal as ever, he has some great, funny lines and gives the rest of the cast a master-class on how to fight on film. The guy oozes screen presence and you can easily see how he became a star. The guy scares the life out of me, but i'm sure i wasn't the only person to have watched this film who was rooting for Bolo all through the end fight! <br /><br />All in all then, a below-average kung-fu film lifted several huge notches due to you-know-who. I've never met a person who didn't think Bolo Yeung was great. The man's a legend!!
I do not recommend this movie , because it's inaccurate and misleading, this story was supposed to be in Algerian Berber territory, this one was shot in the southern Tunisian desert, (completetly different culture, I know I am from both Tunisia and Algeria), the other shocking element was the character of her companion aunt, speaks in the movie with a very eloquent french, university level academic french while the character she plays was supposed to be of a disturbed never left her mountain kind of personage, so living as a Bedouin with that kind of education i that context is impossible, The most disgraceful scene and disrespectful especially for the people of the region is the "femme repudiee" segment which is s pure invention from the writer/director, things like that will never happen in a Algerian Society ever!!!
Allen goes to the country (somewhere he hates going in real life) and has a weekend with his friends - which are the usual successful white middle-class bellyaching types that feature in many of his films.<br /><br />I usually find something to amuse in Woody Allen comedies, but here he really falls totally flat on his face. Even the one-liners seem to have deserted him. The really is no plot (bar bits and pieces of cod Shakespeare) - but Allen seems to use the location to allow a semi-mystical air, which just makes the thing even more witless and half-baked.<br /><br />It just doesn't work at any level and is just a giant bore. The best thing about this film (apart from the end credits coming up) is that the bad reviews seem to get him to wake up and realise that simply throwing together a slapdash script and casting your mates in it doesn't make for entertainment.
The greatest sin in life is being dull, and this movie is crashingly boring. its funny, its left out of his "a life in film" documentary. He goes from a long piece on "Stardust Memories" and then fast forwards to "Zelig". This little piece of cubic zirconia just isn't worth the effort.
Hooper is Not Funny, Not Fasted paced, Not romantic and Non informative. There is no real drama. You would think that a movie about the world's greatest stuntman would have some drama, there was an attempt but it didn't seem real. No Character study, no lessons learned, it did not even look like the actors were having any real fun, they were just trying to act like they were having fun. There is no reason to watch unless you like to look at Burt and want get an occasional glimpse of Sally. Prancer the horse was beautiful and did what he was supposed to do. In fact Prancer was the best actor in this movie. Smoky and the Bandit was such a fun movie that I was ready to like Hooper. This movie turned out to be a real disappointment and waste of time
"Smokey And The Bandit" wasn't exactly Shakespeare, but then nobody wanted it to be. It was lowdown slapstick, but it did have brains. It had a very smart script with definable characters and a fun wrap-up. People came out of the theater smiling. "Hooper" provides none of this. There is no reason to smile. If it's supposed to be a tribute to the Hollywood Stuntman, it makes them look awfully lazy by providing nothing but badly-choreographed fight scenes and one of the most unconvincing car-jumps I've ever seen. It all looks phony, badly-filmed almost on purpose. Poor Sally Field (as the girlfriend who wrings her hands on the sidelines) is given her weakest role, with not a single funny or smart line ("If you do that jump, I won't be here when you get back"). Burt Reynolds keeps looking at the camera and winking, but the joke is on any audience who sits through "Hooper". * from ****
This is possibly the worst fencing, sword-fighting, movie ever made. That is not just because the so called sports fencing is poor but because the plot, characters are so weak that they've got to throw in a semi nude sex scene and, later, supposed group dancing around a fencing scene in the fencing club trying, I suppose to maintain audience interest. What a waste of F. Murray Abraham's talents. You're better served with overblown swashbuckling movies like Zorro, Scaramouche, anything that has Basil Rathbone as the villain. As a fencer myself I recognize the near impossibility of capturing fencing as a sport on film, but if it ever happens it's got to have fresher, better drawn characters and a plot with more depth.
I wouldn't say this is a *bad* movie. Unfortunately for me, I get the feeling that the more you know about fencing, the worse it gets simply due to the fact that it becomes totally unrealistic. I've been fencing since i was 14 years old, and this movie portrays it very poorly. F. Murray Abraham is good (and appears to have some fencing background), but most of the other actors--especially the students--just seem to be lost.
Why is it that everyone who has seen this movie feels it is their responsibility to tell us whether or not they are fencers? That point is completely immaterial to any argument to be made against this total dog of a movie.<br /><br />I think sports movies fall into two categories; well made movies about the human spirit and competitions, and `By the Sword'.<br /><br />Honestly this movie never could decide what it wanted to be, a touching drama for trying to be your best in life, an indictment of competitive motivation or a martial arts flick. In the end it didn't do any of those convincingly or completely enough to make me give one ounce of care of any of it.<br /><br />For the record I also am a fencing instructor (and now I am officially as bad as the rest). But putting bad fencing in a movie doesn't make it bad automatically. I mean look at Star Wars (Episodes 4-6, good movies, bad fencing). I liked those movies. But when you put bad sports into a bad movie for some reason people think that it is only the purists that think it a lame effort.<br /><br />Don't be fooled by any comments on the smaller issue of fencing. This is just a bad movie. In the end, this movie has nothing for the fencing enthusiast or the movie buff or simply anyone with a pulse and three brain cells.<br /><br />When I see a movie and am forced to think, `Man, I wish I was watching the Mighty Ducks.' I know that it is time to bypass the argument with the theater manager to get my money back and see if there is anyone in the lobby that will somehow give me two hours of my life back.
Once upon a time in the mid 1990s I used to write for DOCTOR WHO fanzines and the whole of fandom was holding its breathe about the new American produced DOCTOR WHO TVM . As soon as it was announced that the Doctor`s arch enemy the Master was going to be played by Eric Roberts everyone scratched their heads and exclaimed " Who is Eric Roberts ? " . I should point out this was before the IMDB came online when all you had to do was type in a name into this website to their resume , but one helpful soul wrote into a publication I wrote for to explain that Eric Roberts was best known for a role where he starred opposite F Murray Abraham , the film was called BY THE SWORD and was about a fencing school . Actually looking back now Roberts is best known for THE POPE OF GREENWICH VILLAGE and RUNAWAY TRAIN but that didn`t stop the person putting the boot into both Roberts and BY THE SWORD and his mind was made up that this American Master with his southern drawl was going to a debacle . Strangely most fans were furious about Roberts playing the Master but after they saw the DOCTOR WHO TVM a great many fans ( Myself among them ) thought Roberts performance was the best thing about the disappointing American production <br /><br />Yeah I`m digressing but BY THE SWORD was a film that I wanted to see simply because it was the first time I`d heard the name of Eric Roberts but I didn`t get the chance to see it untill this weekend and I was fairly disappointed with it . I know nothing about fencing ( Everyone else on this page seems duty bound to mention if they fence or not . I don`t fence ) so I don`t know how accurate it all is , but as mentioned the film feels somewhat anachronistic even if you saw it on its release in 1991 , the hairstyles seem a few years out of date along with its mixed teenage cast doing a little dance routine that makes you wonder if it wouldn`t have worked a lot better if it`d had been produced by Jerry Bruckheimer in the mid 1980s . You could argue this would have meant the relationship between Max Suba and Alexander Villard being off centre for most of the film but I wasn`t convinced about their love/hate relationship and Abraham and Roberts have given much better performances before and since BY THE SWORD
Yikes, it was definitely one of those sleepless nights where I surfed the channels and bumped into this stinker of a movie. For some of the names in the cast, I'd expect a much better movie. I'm almost embarrassed to see Oscar Winner F. Murray Abraham being reduced to such a horrible part. I hope the money was worth it. And the students, they talked about fencing like they were talking about survival in a war or through a horrible disaster. I mean, I've fenced, it's a fun sport, but I've never been that intense. The only reason I even watched this entire movie was because the remote fell under the sofa and I was too lazy to get it back.
This is a bad, bad movie. I'm an actual fencer: trust me when I say that this film's pretension of accuracy is just that. This is especially true during that vile little scene when the fencers are combining footwork with 80's pop. The ending is predictable, and the movie is a bore from start to finish. Horrible.
A strange mix of traditional-80s, smartassy, Chevy Chase-type, "every-ten-lines-you-get-a-funny-one" farce and sickie black comedy. Mildly amusing in spots, but utterly tasteless. There is a skiing sequence that includes the fakest-looking back-projections since "On Her Majesty's Secret Service". (**)
Portly nice guy falls for a luscious blonde; she likes him too, but not for the reasons you might think. Little-seen black comedy from writer Pat Proft features very good performances by Joe Alaskey and Donna Dixon, yet it makes no lasting impact. It's just a quickie throwaway effort, helmed by Norman Bates himself, Anthony Perkins. Even on the level of B-comedies, the somewhat-similar "Eating Raoul" is a better bet. There's definitely an amusing set-up here; unfortunately, the picture has nowhere to go in its second act. An interesting try, but it misfires.<br /><br />** from ****
So let me start off by saying that I saw this movie as part of a bargain. I was really bored one fine 1997 day and so I biked over to the movie rental store. I asked the clerk what the worst movie he had in stock was. Without hesitation he walked me over to "Lucky Stiff." He told me that he'd waive the $1 rental fee (he said it would be wrong to charge more) if I promised to watch the whole movie. So watch it I did, for free...<br /><br />This movie is terrible. God-Awful even. I don't need to go into plot details, read the other reviews. The jokes make no sense. The acting was terrible. I know it was supposed to be a comedy, but the stupidity of the main character was exhausting. You might try to watch it as something to laugh at, but it's so bad that it isn't even funny in that way. Avoid!
When many people say it's the "worst movie I've ever seen", they tend to say that about virtually any movie they didn't like. However, of the nearly 700 movies I can remember ever seeing this one is one of two that I walked away from feeling personally insulted and angry. This is my first movie review, by the way, and I registered with IMDb just to rave at this movie's badness. I went to see it when it was in the theaters (myself and my two buddies were 3 of 5 people there), and after 15 years I can't remember very many specifics, but my attitude upon leaving the theater is still crystal clear.<br /><br />---Spoiler alert---<br /><br />Oh my, where to begin. Fat loser left at altar, goes on ski weekend, meets blonde bombshell who takes an interest in him, takes him home to meet the family, they're all cannibals and he's the main course, pathetic attempt at a dramatic escape, kicks all their butts and runs off with the brother's girlfriend, they live happily ever after. Puke. Firstly, the gags are so bad that it took me a while to understand that they were trying to be FUNNY, and that this was a COMEDY. The special effects, what few there are, look like they were done 15 years earlier. The big dramatic ending was so hokey and poorly acted that it was nearly unbearable to watch (he knocks out the entire cannibal family with rakes laying in the lawn, that stand up Tom and Jerry style when they step on them). I'm sure that there's much, much more, but I have no intention on seeing it again for a refresher.
... and in *no way* as clean, logical, and understandable as in pictured in that pathetic sum of tired Hollywood cliches.<br /><br />I'm 27, and I've spent 16 years of my life struggling through delusional phobia and paranoid hallucinations. Like the main character in the film, I was successful mainly because of logic : because I kept thinking over and over to keep delusion away from reality, and to know what was really going on and what wasn't. In the end, I was really successful because of medication, by the way, but I certainly escaped madness because I knew before I took medication the difference between what was real and what wasn't.<br /><br />So, I feel entitled to tell you that this movie is a total fraud. Not only does it cheat with the main character's story (who wasn't faithful to his wife, who was bisexual - something really important here), but mostly, it shows a comforting, tamed view of schizophrenia - which is entirely missing the point.<br /><br />Schizophrenia is a mind structure, not a disease. A schizophrenic *isn't* a "normal man with a disease", it's someone who from early on views and feels things differently from most people : for him, things like time, space, and people's personalities aren't solid things. He feels it can be bent, it can change, it can mutate, and maybe even disappear. To cope with this, a schizophrenic has a rich, very imaginative inner world which "normal" people don't expect - but he's trapped in it because he can't relate with most people, and his world gets poorer and poorer until he finishes in a blank, delusive dead end.<br /><br />This is very different to what's depicted in this ridiculous "cure", tear-jerking movie. It should be violently frightening. People other than the main character should appear strange, weird and absurd, like in Lynch's "Eraserhead", for example. There should be *really* impressive, weird, gross hallucinations, because that's what schizophrenia is all about. It's not about *details*.<br /><br />I mean, watch "Naked Lunch", "Lost Highway", read P.K. Dick's "Martian Time-Split" or "Ubik", DO watch "The Cell", "Perfect Blue", "Dark City", or play "American McGee's Alice" on PC, and you may have a vague idea of what it's like. Don't watch the "feel good" movie of the month, with banal situations, cleaned characters and visuals, and stupid plot tricks. "The Cell" is the most accurate movie about a schizophrenic's mind, his visions and his inner consistency - it's violent, weird, confusing, and very, very scary.<br /><br />Once again, Schizophrenia isn't about details, it's not a neat, tame trick played to you. It jumps in your face and won't let you go : walls fall apart, people turn into strange hostile creatures, you feel like you go backward in time, you're not sure you're who you think you are, everything feels... strange, unnatural. Believe me, this is much much more than what's depicted in this soap-like melodrama
I saw this movie with the intention of not liking it. I sure didn't. It's one of those movies that seems to have been made exclusively for the Oscars: music throughout the film in almost every single frame, almost no profanity, set in a time long gone, sepia-toned imagery, pretentious title, NO SEX, and a genius that explains everything he thinks and concludes in sfx/cgi so that we (the stupid audience) get it. One thing that amused me though is the fact that they spelled the NOBEL PRICE WRONG! Instead they call the Nobel-price (named after an actual person called Alfred Nobel) 'the noble-price'.. Jesus! How can one make such a mistake in such a big production, supposedly based on a true story. What a sham! What were you and the others thinking RON?
I will spend a few days dedicated to Ron Howard before I swear off his work entirely. Having, unfortunately, dealt with Lucas at such a young age, Howard is now caught up in so many of Lucas' traits. How else do you explain his rampage of disasters? His only useful film, of course, has been 'Willow'. Everything else, including this, is too reliant on superficial junk.<br /><br />Some spoilers.<br /><br />He can't even have semi-intelligent focus like Peter Weir. No, poor Howard so stuck on his Spielbergian knockoff qualities that he will be quickly forgotten. <br /><br />Here we have the old adage: "love conquers all, even disease." Too bad for Howard that Lynch already got through the whole subtext with more skill. Heck, even Disney did better than this. Ron even goofs up on the possibilities presented by imagined realities.<br /><br />Howard's commentary track is just awful. Don't even rent the DVD.<br /><br />Final Analysis = = Cinematic Dud
First off, the movie was not true to facts at all. I just saw the documentary a few days earlier and the movie wasn't anything like it. First of all Nash was a genius at mathematics and this is what the movie should have been about not a story about a man who was cured and who found love at the end and so on. Also there are a lot of scenes that were just plain wrong - the scene where he rode around with a bike at the campus happened in his early university years not after it. In my opinion Russell Crowe didn't fit to this part at all since he doesn't look the intelligent/individualist type, therefore he really couldn't play one. It would have been great if it would have focused more on the mathematics (similar to Pi) and not the over-dramatized lovelife. At this level ABM was too hollywood-ish and too superficial to be great. Personally I think he wasn't mad nor paranoid and he was onto something since people of that caliber tend to know more than we "lesser mortals". 5/10
I really don't get all the adulation that this film has received. It's mawkish, unnecessarily manipulative and dodges many of the big issues - ie Nash's affairs and his predilection for having sex with men in public places. That, I suppose, in the context of a commercial Hollywood film is just about tolerable, but what's with all the praise for Russell Crowe's performance? The man just seems to shuffle about, clutching his briefcase and wearing a grungy hat and somehow that seems to qualify as fine acting? Anyone who has ever known a person with mental health problems will realise that Crowe's performance is little short of caricature. It is also rather offensive. And, dare I say, just on the right side of being truly terrible
How this movie escaped the wrath of MST3K I'll never know. "Gymkata" is a ridiculous action movie, filled (or is that empty?) with paper-thin plots, dumb characters, and preposterous situations. But take it from me, if you enjoy watching poor, yet goofy, movies, you will enjoy "Gymkata" a great deal.<br /><br />The action centers around a gymnast who is chosen by government agents (at least I think they were government agents) to become a spy. You see his dad was another quasi-government agent, who has gone missing competing in this game, called, eloquently, "The Game." So the gymnast (played blandly by Kurt Thomas) trains to compete in this game and find out what happened to his lost dad.<br /><br />Sounds promising doesn't it? Okay, so it doesn't but still, that bare bones plot sypnopsis doesn't begin to describe the joys of this movie. They can be found in the movie's strange details. Like the gymnast's mysterious Asian girlfriend, who doesn't speak for the first half hour of the movie, then all of a sudden begins to talk, and doesn't shut up for the rest of the time! Or the really tough shirtless bad guy who likes to make and break "The Game"'s non-existent rules whenever he so pleases. And of course there's our hero's delightful romp through the "Village of The Crazies" (Evidently that's the place's real name!). Nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.<br /><br />But where this movie really shines is the action scenes. Since our protagonist is a gymnast, the director thought it wise to stick gymnastic equipment into the back alleys and town squares of Middle Eastern cities, so that our Gymkata master would be better able to use his gymnast skills to fight the scourge of evil on parallel bars and pummel horses. It has to be seen to be believed.<br /><br />One interesting thing of note. A lot, I'd say about half the cast, dies from being shot with an arrow. Interesting because the arrows are the only believable effects or action in the entire movie. If these were indeed effects, my one major note of compliment to whoever devised these very realistic arrows wounds. More likely, this was the film's way of not paying extras. Nevertheless, "Gymkata" deserves a look if you can see it without paying and are looking for some silliness that is an easy target for riffing.<br /><br />
Although I had seen "Gymkata" in a theater way back in '85, I couldn't remember anything of the plot except for vague images of Kurt Thomas running and fighting against a backdrop of stone walls and disappointment regarding the ending.<br /><br />After reading some of the other reviews I picked up a copy of the newly released DVD to once again enter the world of Gymkata.<br /><br />It turns out this is one of those films produced during the '80s that would go directly to video today. The film stars champion gymnast Kurt Thomas as Jonathan Cabot, recruited out of the blue to infiltrate the nation of "Parmistan" to enter and hopefully win "The Game," a suicidal bloodsport sponsored by the Khan who encourages his people by yelling what sounds like "Yak Power." The goal of the mission involves the Star Wars defense system. Jonathan is trained in the martial arts by Princess Rubali, who never speaks or leaves the house. Once trained tries to blend in with the locals by wearing a bright red sweater with dashes of blue and white. Needless to say Cabot finds himself running and fighting for his life along the stone streets of Parmistan, on his way to a date with destiny, and the Game.<br /><br />Star, Kurt Thomas was ill served by director Robert Clouse, who it looks like was never on the set. The so called script is just this side of incompetent. See other reviews for the many howlers throughout. The town of crazies has a few good moments, but is ultimately ruined by bad editing. The ending...meh. Still there's the germ of a good action adventure here. A Hong Kong version with more visceral action and faster pace might even be pretty good.
Ironically, although he can do the "splits", Thomas is a complete stiff as an actor. <br /><br />This film is seared into my memory as one of the most side-splittingly cheesy and incompetent movies I have ever seen. As such, I'm actually rather fond of it. <br /><br />Still,the only reason this gets more than one star is that Thomas is great shape, and it's fun to see his tiny, muscular body performing various feats of gymnastic skill on the oddly shaped rocks and poles scattered about the East European country side (including the infamous "pommel horse" shaped well cap in the middle of a village square that Thomas uses to plant his feet in the faces of various insane villagers). But let the poor guy open his mouth and try to emote, and any illusion that he might have a film career is immediately dashed to bits. <br /><br />Thomas at least had the excuse that he wasn't really an actor. Everyone else in the film - actors, director, editor, camera guys, etc. is at least as bad, or even worse, and most of them are professionals. So Kurt doesn't come off quite as badly as you might think. <br /><br />I hope poor Kurt took the money and ran. If anyone ever asks him to perform in a martial arts film again, I'll bet that Thomas kicks the guy in the face.
One: Richard Pryor and Jackie Gleason, two great comics turned into saps for a bratty kid. They've both sold themselves out in this one, worse than Pryor's character. Two: Horrible, overly sentimental script that could have been used in a Harold Lloyd movie its so cliched. Three: Choice of a black actor as the toy; the racial subtext of this is unbearable, as its never addressed. There's no message here, Pryor's part could have been played by any comedic actor. Four: That kid...I wish I could go back in time and prevent him from ever acting...that would mean movies like this one and Kid Co. might not have been made...and my childhood would have been free of their mind-warping power. So if you want to watch a couple of great comics defile themselves in a sickly sweet kiddie flick, go ahead. If you want to see them in something good, see Pryor's old standup act and Gleason in something better, like the Honeymooners.
Richard Pryor's early 80s running down the street on fire incident must have affected him somehow. In his stand up,he jokes about it getting great laughs. It seemed to have done something involving the projects he chose. The Toy is about the lamest he ever chose,aside from I guess Another You.<br /><br />A movie where a white man buys his son a black man? Nice little bit of underlying political incorrectness before thee was such a thing. It's seeing Richard getting all sentimental that made me finally walk out before the end. I wanted to see Pryor get even with this brat,instead it becomes the misunderstood kid nauseum! At least Gleason had his moments. Ignore this and watch Pryor with Gene Wilder or any of his '70s stuff. This is a waste of any movie watcher's time!
That's a problem I have with movies that come on television, when there is nothing else to watch. I somehow get sucked into really bad movies.<br /><br />But this one was fairly watchable. The concept of being the only ones left on Earth after a comet, then finding out zombies are around makes me laugh. And that's why I gave this movie a 2, instead of 1. The story was stupid...but in that way that makes you laugh (too stupid >funny).<br /><br />I think I only watched it because the guy from Star Trek was the lead. I was surprised to see him as a younger guy...and he was the only funny character anyway.
This was the only time I ever walked out on a movie. Years later, I saw it in the cable listings and thought, "Maybe I should give it another try." Suffice to say that I was right the first time. This ranks second only to Godzilla 1998 as the worst movie I've ever seen.
Night of the Comet starts as the world prepares for a once in a lifetime event, the passing of a 65 million plus year old comet. Instead of watching the light show Regina Belmont (Catherine Mary Stewart) decides to spend the night with cinema projectionist Larry Dupree (Michael Bowen) in his booth... They awake the next morning & as Larry attempts to leave the cinema he is attacked & killed by a zombie, the same zombie attacks Regina but she manages to escape where upon she discovers that almost everyone on the entire planet has been turned into red dust. Almost everyone because by some amazing coincidence the only other person to survive happens to be her sister Samantha (Kelli Maroney), they desperately search for more survivors & meet up with a long distance trucker named Hector Gomez (Robert Beltran). Meanwhile an evil bunch of scientists need human blood to develop a serum to save themselves from turning into dust & they're on the look out for unwilling donors...<br /><br />Written & directed by Thom Eberhardt I found Night of the Comet a pretty rubbish viewing experience, I'm surprised at the amount of positive comments on IMDb about it because I just thought it was boring crap that never lived up to it's potential. The script starts off 100 miles an hour with the obliteration of the entire population of Earth & a zombie attack but then it goes absolutely nowhere & then eventually introduces the sinister blood stealing scientists towards the end of the film because by that time the slim story has run it's course. There are plot holes too, if these scientists want blood why shoot the three or four gang members & save the two sisters when the guys would have provided more blood for their experiments, killing them just seemed a totally bizarre & an almost suicidal thing to do considering they need blood to develop a cure, it just doesn't make sense I mean if your going to die & you need to experiment on human blood would rather have five or six donors providing blood or just two? I'm not having the fact that the two sisters survived independently of each other, I mean what are the odds on that? When Hector confronts the female scientist for the first time she never mentions Samantha or where she was or where the underground facility was where they took Regina before she committed suicide so how did Hector know these things? I also thought after the first twenty odd minutes the film slows down to a snails pace & became incredibly boring & dull to watch, after hearing so many good things about it Night of the Comet comes across to me as nothing more than an overrated boring piece of crap.<br /><br />Director Eberhardt does a really good job, I liked the look of the film with it's red tinted sky & he manages to create a really cool atmosphere of isolation. Unfortunately there are far too many shots of empty streets, there are constant montage's of empty streets, deserted roads & abandoned buildings & it gets extremely repetitive & dull. OK we get it there's no one else about so there's no need to keep ramming it down our throats by constantly showing roads without cars on them. The zombies are totally wasted, there are two zombie attacks in the entire film & that's two individual zombies as well although there are a couple of effective nightmare scenes. Night of the Comet pays homage, or rips-off whichever you prefer, several other much better films including the obligatory end of the world shopping spree in a mall lifted from Dawn of the Dead (1978). Forget about any blood or gore as there isn't any.<br /><br />Technically Night of the Comet is pretty good, the special effects are decent enough & the production crew were obviously very good at closing streets off. The acting was alright expect for Maroney as Samantha the air-head blonde who became highly irritating.<br /><br />Night of the Comet was a big disappointment for me, I had hoped for so much more. Persoanlly I found this film dull, boring, uneventful & the puke inducing sequence where the sisters go shopping to the tune of 'Girls Just Wanna Have Fun' is probably the worst moment in the film. Really bad & I just don't get why so many people like this, I'm sure I'll get slaughtered for saying it so let the abuse begin I can take it...
This movie was bad. This movie was horrible. The acting was bad. The setting was unrealistic. The story was absurd: A comet that appears once in eons is set to appear one night. Most of the world's population decided to watch this comet. Then, the next morning everyone but a select few of people has been turned to dust from the comet's radiation. People's clothes are still intact, there are plants which are still alive, but the people were turned to dust. No bones, nothing. Thats ridiculous. How can radiation incinerate people but leave their clothes and other biological substances intact?<br /><br />Even better, the comet mutated some people into zombie flesh eating monsters. Their makeup would not have even looked frightening to a newborn child. The Insane Clown Posse scare me more...and they're supposed to look stupid.<br /><br />Then there were the survivors. People who had been surrounded by steel when the comet passed were spared from zombie-dom and death. How can steel block a comet's radiation that supposedly incinerates people in their tracks?<br /><br />Equally insulting is the 60's horror music playing in the background through parts of the movie, or the 80's hair rock which serves no purpose in the film and makes you want to shoot your television.<br /><br />The stupidest part of the movie, however, are the characters it focuses on: two Valley Girls and Chakotay from Star Trek: Voyager. These three characters were totally unrealistic. Who would go looting the day after an apocalypse with flesh eating mutants running everywhere? There were four 5 minute horror scenes in the entire movie, and most of them were dreams. In between these scenes is unsophisticated dialog which makes South Park seem intelligent. The silence in between the elementary dialog was painful. I could have made a better movie with four monkeys and a bag of Cheetos. Don't see this movie, ever.
I will admit that I did not give this movie much of a chance. I decided pretty early on that this just wasn't my kind of movie.<br /><br />For the most part, it has an excellent look in terms of its cinematography. The scenes of early 70's Manhattan look very good, as does the lead actress. It is a very crisp black and white, which could almost make the movie feel undated and fresh. However, some of the other techniques the filmmakers employ shoot that prospect all to hell. The disjointed editing is VERY late-60's, somewhere between surrealism and new wave. The story also feels like it came from a very specific time, somewhere between free love idealism and artsy experimentation.<br /><br />The film follows a young girl around the city as she looks for a man who she had anonymous phone sex with. As she meets other odd characters, she reveals her quirks and they reveal theirs. The movie seems to be meant as an off-the-wall, irreverent comedy, but adds an avant-garde feel. I would expect that if you like Andy Warhol movies, you would be very excited to discover The Telephone Book.<br /><br />Some problems I had: Near the end of the movie, one character tells a rambling anecdote that lasts over twelve minutes—-brutal to sit through. Also, there is a very explicit animation sequence that I found gross and juvenile that serves as the film's climax. I did laugh out loud four or five times, and I liked the ending (minus the flat-out disgusting animation). And when the film switched to color for the final phone-booth-at-night sequence, I actually liked the way it looked even better. It ended up being one of those experiences where I felt like I could have really liked it if it been a little different. But this is what the filmmakers gave us. It is obscure, artsy, and way left of the dial, but none of those are reasons to recommend it on their own. I didn't find it to be unique or creative so much as forced and pretentious.
Fans of goremeister Herschell Gordon Lewis should look elsewhere if they are picking up this film for his usual buckets of blood being sloshed about, for there is precious little in the way of bloodletting in this film. Instead, Lewis decides to try and tell the bizarre story, relying on bargain-basement special effects on a budget which could have probably been doubled if the cast had turned out their pockets for change one day. Oddly enough, while cheap and very poorly acted (especially by McCabe as Mitchell), the total outlandishness of the plot keeps attention throughout. Imagine what this film could have been like with a decent budget! Overall, it strains for champagne tastes on a beer budget.
hg is normally exploitive, and it's never really bothered me before--i loved "bloodfeast 2", but i really don't like pseudo sciences or playing on heuristics. the whole movie is based on a man with esp caused by an electrical accident and a witch. i'm not opposed to witches, and i liked "carrie" (the novel and the movie) but this one bothered me. i think it's because of the main character developing esp from an electric line. also the university professor wasting his time studying esp cases. i wasn't alive in the 60s to know first hand whether or not esp was a common fallacy then, but i assume that any theory of such nature would simply be discredited. what really bothered me was the way the police were describing schizophrenics as ruthless, unpredictable villains who can seem like normal people 99% of the time and then just snap. nothing could be further from the truth. i detest such concepts because they add to public idiocy. many people still think that schizophrenia is dissociative identity disorder. whoever wrote this script didn't know much about psychology.<br /><br />there were some decent concepts to the movie. i liked the way the witch used men; it was a nice change. i liked how she could make herself attractive, but didn't when she was around her forced lovers. i found it interesting how her second lover also burned his face. had the script been touched up for a few weeks before production and not focused solely on making its audience dumber, this may have been a decent movie.
I have seen about a thousand horror films. (my favorite type) This film is among the worst. For me, an idea drives a movie. So, even a poorly acted, cheaply made movie can be good. Something Weird is definitely cheaply made. However, it has little to say. I still don't understand what the karate scene in the beginning has to do with the film. Something Weird has little to offer. Save yourself the pain!
I waited almost 25 years to see this movie, thinking it might be an underrated work, from a period animation was no longer of the quality it had once been. It starred one of the best film villains of all time, was based on a beloved series of children's books, and was a Disney Studios production. What could possibly be wrong with it? As it turns outs, almost everything.<br /><br />Well, not everything. Vincent Price as Rattigan and Henry Mancini's swanky score are the movie's two saving graces. Price is wickedly enjoyable, and Mancini more professional than the material deserves. They bring class to a project that otherwise belongs in obscurity. <br /><br />Meanwhile the rest of the movie, while filled with inappropriately adult situations, still suffers from a completely dull script, blandly generic voice work, terrible songs, and lazy animation that wouldn't have been out of place on any of Disney's mid-1980s Saturday morning TV shows.<br /><br />This was a complete disappointment to me. It's amazing that this movie was nearly contemporary with The Secret of NIMH. Costing a fraction of this, an independent studio produced something with more creativity in its trailer than GMD has in its endless running time.<br /><br />The extra star that keeps this from being "awful" goes to Price and Mancini.
The Brothers Quay are directors, judging by conventional thought, should have stuck to making short films. I myself actually really liked their first feature, Institute Benjamenta, but judging by their sophomore effort, The Piano Tuner of Earthquakes, I'm willing to agree they don't come close to equaling their past genius at feature length. Piano Tuner is, without a doubt, a gorgeous film to look at, and often to listen to. Unfortunately, it's borderline painful to sit through with its convoluted narrative and glacial pace. Reading the plot synopsis, it sounds like a pretty good story. But the Brothers fail miserably to bring it to life. One thing they should consider avoiding completely in the future: dialogue. My God, it's awful here. A huge bust.
When I first picked this film up I was intrigued at the basic idea and eager to see what would happen. I'm a fan of animation and love it when it's successfully merged with live action footage. However, the animation in this film was about all I enjoyed. Although it must be said that the actors' performances were excellent. The visual look - including the animation - gave a wonderfully unnerving air to the piece. However this was quality of unease was lost amongst the overblown imagery, both visual and in the script, that you were practically hammered over the head with. Most annoying about this was the relative lack of importance to the plot. It seemed that the plot was shoe horned in at irregular intervals giving a stuttering effect that detracted massively from the flow of the piece. The voice overs from Felisberto - especially the one at the end - very much felt like a desperate attempt to fill in gaping holes in the plot which had been ignored in favour of side issues such as the whole ant thing (and even that wasn't properly addressed). I'm afraid the whole piece came across as, at best, a 'reasonable first attempt', by a teenager who has spent far too much time reading DH Lawrence. Not what you expect from seasoned film makers at all.
I really wanted to like this movie, but it was just imposable. The acting was ultra hammy, the plot was annoying, and the pace was SLOW, sooo slowwwwww. The whole time sitting in the theater i wanted the movie to end. Twenty minuets into a films and I'm praying for an ending. Sure some of the visuals were nice, but c'mon guys, I mean really! And for a movie about a guy tuning magical instruments there really wasn't much music to speak of. The music there was was annoying, and boring. There were sound loud shrill sounds at times too, those were also annoying. Mainly this film managed to bore me, and creep me out at the same time.<br /><br />I'm glad its over. I need to go see "Tideland" and wash this bad taste out of my mouth.
Gayniggers from Outer Space is pretty much summed up by its name. Running only 27 minutes long, it describes a spaceship of gay blacks that come to Earth to free the men from women. While I see a little significance to the plot, it also is really illogical. Granted, its meant to be a comedy/spoof on society and science fiction. I found myself laughing several times, so it succeeds there.<br /><br />The special effects are horrible. When the spaceship is floating above the Earth, you can see stars zoom by for no apparent reason. The asteroids shown in the beginning look fake, the equipment on the ship is illogical, there are several misspellings in the text, the actors are unconvincing, the characters are messed up; in general, the whole thing doesn't take itself seriously. If you get past all the aspects that make it a bad movie, its very accessible and easy to see through to the end. Some parts are hilarious. But overall, the only thing that you are left remembering is that it was one of the most ridiculous concepts ever.<br /><br />Seeing that its a short film and has some funny aspects, its not the worst thing to see. But its illogical and holds little long-term value. I can't really recommend it; if you do watch it, do so for the unique concept, not the quality.
I was recently online looking at a site that featured public domain movies. In their long list of films was this film and I thought I must be hallucinating at such an offensive title and premise. But, no, that's really what it was. And since the film was only about 27 minutes long, I decided to give it a try. If it had turned out to be some porno movie, I would have stopped watching. Instead, it turned out to be the most bizarre film I have ever seen. The Danish production crew tried, with a budget of about $49, to make a Star Trek-style film about a crew of very gay men traveling about the galaxy wiping out female oppression by killing all the women--like they proceeded to do on the Earth! And in every case, they were met with cheers and thanks from the now gay men of the planet.<br /><br />Subtle, this ain't. With some of the most obscene and juvenile names of characters I've ever heard, I don't even think I can write them on IMDb without having my review removed! However, despite the utter crappiness of it all, it was strangely watchable and worth a peek. But, as I mentioned already, due to the crude names and odd subject matter (though no nudity), it's a film for adults only. <br /><br />By the way, this movie left me with 1001 questions as to WHO would make this, WHY make it and WHO was the intended audience?! It may not be the absolute worst thing I have ever seen, but it probably is the weirdest and possibly the most offensive!
Gayniggers from Outer Space is a short foreign film about black, gay aliens who explore the galaxy until they stumble upon Earth. Being gay, their goal is to have a male-only universe in which all people are gay. Hence, when they discover women or "female creatures" live on Earth, they are at first terrified; eventually they decide to eliminate all women on the planet and liberate the male population.<br /><br />An offensive title with a racist, homophobic and sexist storyline, albeit probably intended as a satire, give this film some shock value. However, there's little substance underneath. As another reviewer pointed out, there are few jokes besides the characters' names (eg. ArmInAss); I think I laughed once at one small gay joke. I think I got the point of the film quickly, a satire of bad science fiction, but after that I had had enough; I kept wanting the film to end already (and it is a short film!). Not brilliant or particularly well-written.
It's hard to know what was going through Per Kristensen and Morten Lindberg's heads when they wrote "Gayniggers from Outer Space" - the movie is billed as a comedy, yet there are no real jokes beside the crude character names (Capt. B. Dick, Sgt. Shaved Balls). The rest of the movie is a (presumably) unintentionally funny affair with ridiculously unsynchronised voice-overs (with the 'actors' basically reading their lines with no hint of feeling), 'futuristic' computer displays filled with spelling mistakes, and a plot that makes almost no sense.<br /><br />Even though 65% of viewers have given this movie a perfect 10 out of 10, this is the complete opposite of what a good film is. It may be ENTERTAINING to watch with some friends, but this film only deserves about a '2' out of ten...slightly higher than the lower possible rating only because of the sheer fact that the writers somehow managed to get some black guys to star in this movie.
This film is about a group of extra terrestrial gay black men exterminating females on Earth, in order to create a gay Universe.<br /><br />I watched it with the intent of seeing how bad it was. Still, I was shocked at how bad it was. It looked more like a film made 50 years ago. The acting, if any, is ultra bad. The sets and props are so ridiculously fake, making any college film look mega budget. And the special effects are laughably simple, indeed jaw dropping as others have commented, but jaw droppingly embarrassing.<br /><br />One has to be severely intoxicated, or in an altered state of consciousness in order to appreciate this film. If I was from Denmark, I would be severely embarrassed and humiliated that my countrymen produced such a horrifyingly bad film.
Well, what can i say about this movie. I'm speechless. I could go on about how stupid this movie is forever though the one thing that REALLY pi*sed me off was the music. And to top it all off someone commented on how much they LIKED it. To them all I have to say is that it was ripped off from one of the best martial arts movies of all time Fistsof fury starring Bruce Lee. IF he was still alive and ever came across this movie he'd be horrified. the rest of the movie is absolutely ridiculous and a waste of tape. I say tape because a movie like that couldn't possibly have been shot on film.I now feel more stupid for wasting 30 minutes of my life watching it. The only reason why i even saw it was because my roommate downloaded it out of morbid curiosity. What is this world coming to.
With a movie called "Gayniggers from Outer Space" how could you go wrong? Just throw in some over the top stereotypes for the characters, use the Village People as the main suppliers for the soundtrack, and throw in tons of gay-gags. Plot is unimportant. Too bad, this film doesn't contain any of this and every joke misses the spot. The characters all look alike apart from the german gaynigger, one or two jokes work, the rest fails.<br /><br />The title made me laugh and I was prepared to laugh even more about the film. My expectation were to high apparently.
This movie was amusing at times, hell sometimes it was even downright funny.<br /><br />The underlying message I got from the film though, was that women are responsible for all of the troubles of man. Every time a woman is depicted in the film, she is being lazy, being slutty or lambasting some poor guy for no apparent reason. I don't think the message involved is good for women or gay men.<br /><br />But, it is a comedy, and a piece of art, so it is simply someones point of view. Even if I don't agree with it, they are still entitled to it.<br /><br />An amusing film, but some of the comments others have made are just plain stupid. Best film ever my foot.
This is easily the most disappointing, least gratifying movie of the entire so-called blacksploitation genre, which, by the way, are films we generally enjoy a great deal in our home. Rather than being "exploitation" or demeaning, these films actually provide a priceless insight into an era. Well, not Bucktown.<br /><br />In this story, Duke returns to Bucktown to operate the night club left to him by his recently deceased brother. He quickly learns that the city is entirely controlled by a corrupt police force, bleeding protection money out of all the local businesses. Duke resists, and determines that he will rescue the city from the corrupt police. Unfortunately, he does so by calling in a posse of his friends (these people are vaguely explained as some former black-militants who have worked with Duke on "jobs" in the past) and they simply murder the entire police department in cold blood. And literally in the presence of hundreds of witnesses who do nothing to stop it. Ignorance is not a justification for murder, and it would have been much more entertaining to see the Cracker Police suffer for their actions as opposed to merely getting whacked in the street. While revenge is a ubiquitous and generally satisfying theme in films of this genre, it is a far cry from seeing Pam Grier track down the thugs who off'ed her family, cuss them out, give them a jujitsu ass-kickin' and set their 'fro on fire. That has art (and a reason for existing) and merits a level of respect that is quite undeserved by simply shooting someone in the back. Of course, in this bizarre tale, she is playing a woman completely under The Man's thumb, afraid of the Crackers who run her town and oppress her people. Indeed, her advice to Duke is, "Run, man, they gonna kill you!"<br /><br />Following the sickening and gratuitous violence, we are expected to believe that the town's mayor wholeheartedly condones the actions of Duke and his friends, congratulating them and offering to throw a parade in their honor, as opposed to, say, calling the district attorney to press capital murder charges against them and have them taken into custody. Duke's posse declines the parade and instead opts to fill the numerous vacancies on the police force created by their recent killing spree. They immediately prove to be even more corrupt than their Cracker Police predecessors (to quote the mayor, "They are ten times worse than what we had before!"). Now Duke finds he must again rescue the citizens of Bucktown from corrupt, protection-racket law enforcement officials and again make it safe for decent folk to operate a prostitution business in the streets. Unfortunately, Duke has already lost all moral high ground and sympathy due a hero, as he was a willing participant in the murder of the original police force. I wouldn't have cared one way or the other if he had rescued Bucktown or gotten plugged himself at this point. I suppose we are to be entertained by the clever way Duke has to outsmart the new Police Goons, but in reality the film has now just become an opera of gratuitous violence, Duke murders all of his former friends and allies in cold blood with the same absence of compassion he had when gunning down the Cracker Police. Duke is a pig.<br /><br />Finally, when everyone in town but Duke, Aretha, and the employees of the local brothel are dead and bleedin' in the street, our hero and heroine walk off into the night as though they had some admirable qualities or redeeming values; they don't. Duke is merely a murderous thug and Aretha his enabling misogynist accomplice. If you are interested in this genre of film, by all means, I highly recommend them, see Coffy, Foxy Brown, Truck Turner, Blacula, Sheba Baby…but if in the process you should run across this DVD, throw it as far away as you possibly can! Drop it like it's hot! It should be treated as one would treat a glowing puddle of nuclear waste! There is no single film in the entire Blacksploitation era that is not dramatically more entertaining, satisfying and populated with more sympathetic and admirable characters than this piece of slime, obviously written by and targeted at some hormonally imbalanced high school sophomores.
Jennifer Cassi (Gina Philips from "Dead and Breakfast") returns back to the house she grew up in which she recently inherited from her deceased sister, unbeknownst to her grandmother (Fay Dunaway) who's still living in it. Jennifer decides to sell it as she's in dire need of the money much to Granny's chagrin. She also begins to have troublesome recurring nightmares of a mysterious raven. There was really no one to relate to in this film. Jennifer seemed cold, distant, unsentimental, and narcissistic, whereas the grandmother seemed spiteful, sad, and also narcissistic. The film is good and well-made, but with no one to empathize with I found it hard to care about what happened to them.<br /><br />My Grade: C-
Jennifer's Shadow is set in Argentina & starts as Jennifer Cassi (Gina Philips) arrives there after her sister Johanna dies. Jennifer is left Johanna's large house in her will, Jennifer decides to sell the house & head back to Los Angeles even though her Grandmother Mary Ellen (Faye Dunaway) is opposed to the sale. However strange things begin to happen, Jennifer starts having nightmares about Ravens pecking at her & she starts to feel very ill. After a check up in hospital it seems that one of her kidney's have mysteriously disappeared, what is happening to Jennifer? Is it an ancient family curse? Will Jennifer be the next to succumb to it...<br /><br />This Argentinian American co-production was co-written & co-directed by Daniel de la Vega & Pablo Parés & is a really dull waste of ninety odd minutes, a tedious & predictable modern ghost story that I would imagine will put more people to sleep sooner than scare them. The script by Vega, Parés & P.J. Pettiette is pretty slow going & tedious which is not what anyone wants, I mean I'm sure most people don't want to sit down & be bored out of their skulls. The character's are all uninteresting & fairly faceless with little or no motivation for anything they do. For instance who is that graveyard caretaker guy? How did he know about the demons? What is his interest & motivation for getting involved? I couldn't see it. Jennifer herself is a pretty unlikable & bland leading lady, her Grandmother Mary Allen is as clichéd as they come & it's surprising that she is so obviously the villain. I mean for this sort of mystery based horror/ghost story it's surprisingly predictable & routine. There are gaps in both logic & the story which together with the terrible twist ending which isn't much of a twist I didn't like Jennifer's Shadow one iota.<br /><br />Directors Vega & Parés goes down the much used route of bleaching almost all of the colour from the picture which often renders it not too far from black and white, I suspect that they wanted to give it a period Gothic feel but it's been done so many times before & often so much better that it didn't do much for me at all & just makes the whole film look dull & lifeless. There's a definite 40's period look as well, from the costumes to the interior of the large house but again it's rather half hearted & cheap looking. Jennifer's Shadow is well made but it's rather forgettable, it's not scary or creepy & it's rather predictable. If that wasn't enough there's no gore either, there's a few scenes of Ravens pecking away at people & a beating heart but nothing else.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $1,000,000 & retitled to The Chronicles of the Raven for it's US & international DVD release this is reasonably well made but a million won't buy you too much these days & Jennifer's Shadow pretty much proves that theory. There are too many scenes of actor's speaking in thick Argentinian accents as well, even though it might be realistic I actually like to be able to understand what people are saying. The acting is alright although Dunaway overacts badly & is obviously there for the money.<br /><br />Jennifer's Shadow is a rubbishy ghost film that I thought was a total bore from start to finish, I would rather watch The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!!? (1964) again instead. A total waste of time.
This movie was a littttle confusing at first. I usually like Gina Phillips, but this one I have to say was a bad choice just like her doing the movie Ring Around the Rosie, that one also not one her good movies. Jeepers Creepers was way better. Anyway, Faye Dunaway was good. She totally creeped me out and at the end, that was crazy. It was about Jennifer Cassi(Phillips) who comes to her twin sisters funeral. She stays at a house that her sister owns and her grandmother(Dunaway) lives at with an Aunt named Emma. Mary Ellen(Dunaway) is kinda sacrificing her relations to stay alive and as long as she wants to live, she can't die. Even if Jennifer tries to kill her, which she tries. Ravens have a weird part in it. When the relations go to sleep, the Ravens eat there organs, so they can't go to sleep. But they do. Basically it all crazy and Mary Ellen will never die and her relations will be buried, but not dead, b/c they have to suffer forever so Mary Ellen can stay alive. Yeah, I hope this helps. If it doesn't, sorry. Love ya.
Oh this was a really bad movie. The girl who plays Jennifer is OK, but I think she acts bitchy through the movie, not because she is having her organs ripped out by a raven at night, but because she is thinking of firing her agent for putting her in this piece of crap. Faye Dunaway acts like she is remaking Mommy Dearest and the ending is completely silly. I really can't recommend this movie at all even though as a fan of Edgar Allen Poe, I was intrigued a bit by the references to his work(Ravens, House of Usher-like family curse,and being buried alive)-still he would probably turn over in his grave if he knew about this film.
Don't bother. A little prosciutto could go a long way, but all we get is pure ham, particularly from Dunaway. The plot is one of those bumper car episodes... the vehicle bounces into another and everything changes direction again, until we are merely scratching our heads wondering if there were ever a plot. Gina Phillips is actually good, but it's hard playing across from a mystified Dunaway playing Lady Macbeth lost in the Marx's Brother's Duck Soup. Ah, the Raven...now there's an actor. And there is the relative who just lies and bed and looks ghostly. Or Dr. Dread who's filled with lots of gloom and no working remedies. I'm one of those suckers who just has to see a movie to the end. Quoth the Raven, "Nevermore."
...cause they're both pretty lousy. I think the best part of the movie is the horrendously imperial picture of Faye Dunaway at the top of the stairs. She looks like she could very easily step out of that picture, rip someone to bloody pieces, and calmly re-enter the portrait looking as if nothing had happened. Now, you know a movie's in trouble when part of the set furnishings manages to attract your attention.<br /><br />I admit, I paid $30 for the DVD just so I could see Faye Dunaway in a contemporary horror movie. I know what you're thinking--30 bucks right down into a gaping black hole. And you would be absolutely correct. This movie sucks. There, it's right out in the open. I was expecting some actual scares, and I waited and waited and waited. None came. The raven (probably a crow in makeup) didn't scare me, seeing small pieces of internal organs didn't scare me, and even Faye didn't scare me. I'm not that brave, I know, so it must be the movie itself that is the trouble. What's more, Jennifer wasn't scared either. Her internal organs were literally falling apart and she seemed more peeved than anything. Her life was rapidly coming to a close and she's worried about attaining more money. Honey, you can't take money where you're going!!! "I need money," she continually says, completely ignoring the fact that her lungs have collapsed and ceased to function.<br /><br />Meanwhile, I spent the whole blasted movie wondering what was up with the grandmother (Faye). I was suspicious at first, Faye playing a grandmother and all, and I was still suspicious at the end. There is another relative living in the house that Jennifer and Mary Ellen the Grandmother-From-Hell are forced to share temporarily, and I'm guessing she is of the same generation as said grandmother. Here's the weird part--the relative looks like she's just endured her eight hundredth birthday party. Mary Ellen looks like she's just gotten a face-lift from a renowned surgeon. Face-lifts can't work miracles, but I think Faye's appearance is important to the rice-paper plot. SPOILER!!! It seems that the family is plagued by an illness that affects bad acting...sorry, my little joke. Seriously though, there's all illness that causes their organs to fail and ultimately disintegrate. Yuck, huh? Interestingly enough, Mary Ellen is still alive and all her organs are intact. How did she avoid the Family Curse? Something's up with her, obviously.<br /><br />Another reason for mourning the loss of my thirty dollars--this movie features one of my all-time movie pet peeves. I refer to the double ending. This movie ends twice. I absolutely hate it when that happens, and in this movie it feels like the director shot the ending, didn't like it, and forget to remove it during editing. I guess it's supposed to be scary, but it is only if you're a film editor.<br /><br />There is one perk to this debacle, though, and it's one of the reasons I bought the DVD. The "filmmaker" commentary features Faye Dunaway, and I wanted to see how she acted when she didn't have lines to recite. Guess what--the movie sucked so bad I wasn't able to sit through it again. Drat.
For some reason, TV Guide gave this two and a half stars, plus Faye Dunaway is in it, so it definitely looked like something to see. My, oh, my, this may be the worst film I've ever seen. Ever. From its horrid acting (every time the girl asks the boy what's wrong with him, I shouted to the TV "I can't act!" When she asks what he needs, I yell "I need acting lessons!" to the unbelievably bad dialog ("Give me back my organs!").<br /><br />And the Brian DePalma wannabe ending, too, it was all just beyond awful. I wanted to like it. Dunaway is one of the best actors ever. And the production values were pretty good.<br /><br />But wowzers, this had me laughing, LAUGHING!, most of the time.<br /><br />Don't even bother out of curiosity, that was my first mistake. Staying with it was definitely my second, and third and fourth.
The only reason I rented this was because of the article in Fangoria Magazine. The article made this film look interesting. Well, it isn't. This was a very boring, amateurishly written and directed movie. All the actors in this movie are awful, except Faye Dunaway, who is always a joy to watch. But too much time was focused on Gina Phillips and her ridiculous encounters with ravens and Duilio Marzio. Marzio has such a thick Argentinean accent, you can only understand every couple of words he says. Also on hand is Nicholas Pauls, who plays the ultra-bland love interest to Gina Phillips. The bottom line: this movie is not scary. There is only one good scene and that is the last five to ten minutes of the movie. I would have given this one star, but I gave it three just because I like Faye Dunaway so much. But even she wasn't that great in this.
This is the last time I rent a video without checking in at the IMDB reviews. The Limey is directed by Steven Soderbergh who also wrote wrote the truly awful Nightwatch with Ewan Macgregor and directed such trash as Out of Sight with the anti-talented Jennifer Lopez. Terence Stamp is a fine actor and it is a shame he involved himself in such a bad film. There is frequent confusing editing that seems like it was a last minute decision in order to make up for the lack or story, filming and just plain common sense. This film does everything wrong. What were they thinking?
This film has the look and feel of a Student film project. Yeah, there are some interesting (albeit gimmicky) edits and shots, but the end result was juvenile.<br /><br />The director didn't seem to be saying "Look at this film." It seemed as if he were saying, "Look at ME! I'm a DIRECTOR!"<br /><br />Thumbs down.
There was not one single redeeming factor in this movie. The girlfriend and I both love action films. Especially fight scenes (Bloodsport and Kickboxer was awesome), but this movie was not entertaining. Five minutes of action followed twenty minutes of talking and "angry" facial expressions. The main hero is a troubled character who has seen battle and thus is forced to look seriously constipated at all times. The Army has disrupted his bowel movements on top of perfecting his fighting technique. The music isn't good either. They fight to the rap and hip-hop style of the streets, 'cause these guys are thugs. The rest of the soundtrack is the usual background noise to low-budget dramas.<br /><br />Everything about this movie is classic B-style. The actors deliver their lines as if reading them from cue cards and the lines themselves should be set on fire and left burning in some rotten Hollywood alleyway. The film is called "Honor," but there was no honor in making this film. It was simply a waste of money, and spending wisely is something I consider to be honorable.<br /><br />Go see Felon instead. The fight scenes and situations are more real.
Wow, I knew this film was going to be bad but not this bad. Spoilerific comments ensue.<br /><br />Roddy Roddy Piper is sickly sweet retired cop (cliche!), helping out everyone - smiling like a post-op lobotomy patient through-out and lamenting over his dead son. His adopted son returns from Armed Forces "Special Ops" and because he's "seen things" - portrayed by clenching his teeth if anyone mentions anything about the past. Time to clean up the streets from another guy who once knew Piper and his dead son (who the bad lad killed) and his adopted son.<br /><br />Oh, the love interest is a pretty young lady who decides for no reason that she wants to jump the bones of the ex-Army bloke. This happens in about 2 minutes of 1 scene.<br /><br />The action could have saved this film, but it's even worse than the storyline and acting. It's all been done before, it's all been done much much better (Ong-Bak is a prime example). This is the worst film I've ever seen - and I've seen Waterworld, twice.<br /><br />Erm, the film is called HONOR (Spelt Wrong for the Americans) and the tag line has "from the makers of Bloodsport and Kickboxer" - check out Director David Worths other films and you'll soon realise why they put these 2 films on there, even though they are over 10 years old. Such classics as "Shark Attack 3: Megalodon" - says it all really.<br /><br />I'll give you £10 if you don't go to see this film.<br /><br />PS - Apologise for not know character names, tells you something though.
Absolute garbage, worse fight scenes than a 20 year old van damme movie or American ninja etc.<br /><br />Truly dire acting, not a skill in sight in the entire movie its like a cast of wooden sculptures.<br /><br />Watch it just for how truly bad this film is, it may have been acceptable in the 80s but this is a 2006 movie, i don't have much love for this movie as it wasn't born in the 80s.<br /><br />If you like real fight movies then check out tony jaa in ong bak and the protector, those are proper martial arts films.<br /><br />have a laugh and watch this today you may see the unintenional humour at how grim it is.
I have not yet seen anyone slate this film and i think i may be the first.<br /><br />It was awful. I actually didn't watch the end of it. It was like watching a boring soap or a really good one (all soaps are crap). The actors were poor and storyline was bad. The person who rated it 10/10 has no idea what he is on about. The script was awful. 2 People was in an angry conversation together involving threats and you expect the good guy to say some thing really good and beat the crap out of him but no. He says "If you do that ... I will hurt you" Hahahahaha. If comedy is your thing, watch away. Please do not watch this film because ... It's CRAP!!! <br /><br />Summary: Poor acting, bad fights, bad script.<br /><br />Don't watch! Of course this is in my opinion.
I'm a big fan of Italian films from the seventies, and I wouldn't hesitate to list the beautiful Barbara Bouchet among my favourite actresses of all time, so I did go into this film with some hopes. However, it soon becomes apparent that this is a largely pointless film that isn't going to go anywhere. Clearly nobody would go into this expecting much more, but the fact that this is pointless gets more annoying when you consider that it's also rather dull and none of the characters are interesting. As the title suggests, the film focuses on a 'rogue'; in this case one that steals, womanises and smuggles stuff. That's basically all the plot that this movie has. The film does have a real 'seventies style' to it and the idea of it all being very carefree gets across well. It sometimes seems like directors Boro Draskovic and Gregory Simpson were trying to put across some sort of point, although whatever that point is doesn't come across very well. Seeing Barbara Bouchet on screen is always a pleasure, and that is the case here too; she's definitely the best thing about the film and the sequence in which she hangs out of a car naked is the best part of the film. Overall, The Rogue will probably have some appeal for people who love the seventies style, but unfortunately it doesn't have much else to offer.
Wow this movie sucked big time. I heard this movie expresses the meaning of friendship very well. And with all the internet hype on this movie I figured what could go wrong? However the movie was just plain bad. It was boring and the character development was never there. Space Travelers was also a horrible movie, if you didn't like that movie there is no way you will like this.
May I please have my $13.00 back? I would have rather watched "Hydro- Electric Power Comes to North America". Again. This is a movie with one voice. The same voice, which comes out of every characters mouth regardless of age or gender. To listen to that voice again I would have to charge at least $150 an hour. And I don't take insurance. It was eerie watching Will Ferrell morph into Woody. But I don't think imaginative casting is enough. One should wait until they have a story before they bother making a movie. Unless he's just doing it for the money. And if that's the case why not just reissue an All-Rap version of "What's up Tiger Lily?"
Woody Allen, when at his best, has one of the sharpest pens around. He can make an acute observation and wrap it around a punch line like nobody else. However, when he's at his worst his movies can stench of pretentiousness. Unfortunately, "Melinda and Melinda" has this stench from opening to closing. The set up is one of his more intriguing ideas in a while. Four friends sit in a restaurant discussing whether the essence of life is comedy or drama. To help settle the argument, one man relates the beginning of a story and asks the two other men arguing (one a comic playwright, the other a dramatic playwright) whether the story is a comedy or a tragedy. The two men then continue the story and the movie plays out the stories that they weave. Now, when I first heard about this film, my understanding was that they tell the exact same story, the genre (comedy or drama) only changes by how you look at it. Now that would have been interesting. However, the stories only share one main element and a few side elements. They are entirely different stories with major plot differences. The drama is so stiffly scripted and pretentious that it can only really work as self-parody. If this was the point, then it failed because these elements prevent the audience from feeling any emotional investment in any of the characters. The comedy is the story that has moments of success, but they are still short and fleeting. Will Farrell is obviously meant to be the stand-in for Woody, but he could have played this character so much more believably without adding Woody's stutters and hand-ticks. Woody is the best at being Woody. When someone else tries, they're not playing a character, they are modeling a recognizable actor. This type of thing only pulls the audience out of the story.<br /><br />My favorite Woody Allen movies make me leave the theater a little bit lighter in spirit than I walked in. This one made me wish I could get my money back.
And how many actors can he get to stand in for his own neurotic, compulsive uber-New Yorker persona? In this film Woody is played by Will Ferrell in what is mercifully less a direct impersonation than the one Kenneth Branagh did in "Celebrity." It's an annoyingly repetitive story now: nebbishy, neurotic man with a wife or girlfriend falls madly in love with a shiksa queen upon which he projects all manner of perfection. Everyone lives in perfect gigantic apartments in great Manhattan neighborhoods, everyone constantly patronizes expensive, exclusive restaurants during which all the characters relate fascinating anecdotes and discuss arcane philosophy, there is always a trip to the Hamptons during which the nebbishy main character spazzes out about sand and physical exertion and possible exposure to diseases, and then of course, said main character feels guilty about his lust for the shiksa queen but pursues her anyway, sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing, etc.<br /><br />This a tired formula, and proof that Allen isn't really a great film artist at all. He just seems like a dirty old man with the libido and emotions of a 20-year-old who is intent upon telling the same boring old stories again and again.
I am so disappointed. This movie left me feeling jipped out of my time and mental energy. Here was the quintessential Woody Allen film all over again: the neurotic upper-class Manhattanites debating whether or not they will cheat on their spouses. Woody, I've seen these characters already, I've seen the storyline from you ten times already. Where did your creativity go??? You need to open your eyes and look around you. The world has changed dramatically since Annie Hall - and you need to change along with it.<br /><br />There are far more interesting and funny scenarios to which you can apply your brand of angst and neuroticism - why not try them out instead of rehashing the same old slop over and over and over again.<br /><br />When I hear that Woody Allen has a new project coming out, it does nothing for me - because now I've come to expect his old standby: the couple who are growing tired of each other and end up cheating. Depressing and same old, same old.<br /><br />If Woody wants to win his fans back, then he has to understand that our sense of humor and intelligence has to be stimulated - not insulted.
If I accidentally stumbled across this script in textual form i would read it and maybe laugh. I would not, however laugh at the points in the film where the director would seem to want me to laugh. Although I am still not altogether sure where these are. I don't care if this is Woody Allen, this writer cannot write dialogue, or at least he cannot knowingly write dialogue then draw performances from actors capable of drawing laughter from even the most ticklish of clowns. For example:<br /><br />(paraphrase) "I'm an art historian, i'm looking to get a job in an art gallery." <br /><br />OK, so it states the fact but honestly, do you know of any art historians who would say that? How would you answer? <br /><br />"Really? An art gallery? who would've thought it?"<br /><br />The entire script is littered with the kind of tawdry quasi-intellectualism that i would not have expected from such a respected character writer. I admit that I have no knowledge of Allen's other work and, judging by this one i don't want to start learning. The characters are loathsome without exception, an attempt to illustrate that we all suffer from the human condition? Or really really poor character writing? You be the judge.
I couldn't wait to see this movie. About half way through the movie, I couldn't wait for it to end. All of the (white) actors were delivering their lines like Woody Allen had just said, "Say it like this..." Then they said their lines on screen like they were trying to imitate Woody Allen. It was so annoying. We all know how Will Ferrell really talks, and he doesn't stumble over his words like Mr. Allen. The comedy portion of this film was just as boring as the tragedy and definitely never funny or even entertaining. I must admit that I have never been a major Woody Allen fan, and this movie definitely has not converted me. I think that his writing was just as bad as his direction. This movie will go down as one of the worst 10 movies I have ever seen.
Woody Allen has lost his ability to write dialogue or characters that are clearly distinguishable from each other. This is the case with "Melinda and Melinda," where all the characters speak with Allen's generic pseudo-sophistication and have problems and points of view that are not relatable to anyone outside of a four block radius of where Allen lives. They also share the same curious condition of being able to afford multi-million dollar Manhattan apartments that appear to have been designed by professional decorators regardless of their financial situation or what they do for a living.<br /><br />The only character who exists outside of this dull mindset is Will Ferrel as the obligatory Woody Allen surrogate. Although he does not simply come off as merely doing a Woody Allen impression (like Kenneth Branagh in the god-awful "Celebrity"), Ferrel lacks the charm or charisma that the real Woody had when he was playing the part himself in his best movies.<br /><br />The end result is another in a string of self indulgent bores from a once-great filmmaker who has been trading in on his former reputation for years.
For a comedic writer, Woody Allen really lets the paying viewer down with this meager attempt at character development. There are a few entertaining moments, but no more than one would have listening to their dryer tumbling tennis balls.<br /><br />Will Ferrell wastes his time in this movie which fails to showcase his usually funny delivery. Amanda Peet did well, but again, didn't have the room to move in this otherwise corpse like movie. The movie is so heavy and dull that it cannot be carried but if it were carried, Radha Mitchell did it. <br /><br />If you enjoy movies that go on and on in one scene and don't really accomplish anything but to show that their writer can write a few lines of snappy dialogue on occasion, then you'll love this movie.
I've always been a great fan of Woody Allen and always will be for most of what he did in the past, but only a blind lover could ignore how dull, meaningless, pretentious and most of all horrendously acted this movie is. A vacuous mental masturbation based on inconsistent grounds. And what a disastrous idea to artificially recreate a presumed "actor Allen-clone", that is putting into Will Farrell's mouth and gestures what Allen would have done in Farrell's place had he been 30 years younger. The outcome was obviously ludicrous. And not to speak of the dialogues... what was intended to be philosophical reflections turned into an involuntary mockery of intellectual pondering, unaware of its comic effect. How sad...
Possible spoilers.<br /><br />Although there was some good acting - particularly Chloe Sevigny, and Radha Mitchell in the comedy half - this simply was not an engaging film. The segues between the comedy part and the tragedy part were awkward or sometimes not obvious. This viewer was initially confused by the fact that the supporting cast differs in the two halves; I thought with the way things were laid out in the opening scene that the people surrounding Melinda would be the same people, just reacting differently (more of a "He Said, She Said" premise). However, what we have is two totally different stories and two totally different women, both of whom happen to be played by Radha Mitchell.<br /><br />The two playwrights in the opening scene - the comedian and the tragedian - supposedly take the same premise and go from there, but the two stories are only tenuously related. They do little to support the topic of discussion, which is that almost anything can be looked at as either comedy or tragedy. Nice cast, but a disappointing film.
I've seen my share of Woody Allen's movies, and while they're not always great, you can usually be sure you're going to be entertained. Probably the last really good ones were Bullets Over Broadway ('94) and Mighty Aphrodite ('95) - since then the ones I've seen have been patchy but watchable. And so when I was invited to see the new Woody Allen movie Melinda and Melinda, which I wasn't even aware had been released yet, I went along happily. I hadn't really heard much about it so I hoped I would be pleasantly surprised.<br /><br />What I got was definitely the worst Woody Allen movie I've seen. The premise is over-explained, the cast is terrible, the script is slow and lifeless. Too many scenes said nothing and yet were stretched out, I assume to fill out what would have otherwise become a 15 minute short film.<br /><br />I don't mind the concept behind this film - two directors discuss how a simple situation could be interpreted as a comedy or a tragedy, and obviously the film proceeds to show us that, by playing out both scenarios. The problem is neither of these 'two films' are any good at all. The comedy isn't funny and the tragedy isn't very tragic. It seems like Allen came up with a good idea but then ran out of steam, or time, to actually complete the film.<br /><br />The general level of acting is notably bad also - Will Ferrell is the only one who brings anything to the table, and it's basically a Woody Allen impression. Previously good actors like Chloe Sevigny just come off as annoying, and the worst of the bunch is Radha Mitchell as Melinda (which is a shame, because her character is in nearly every scene!).<br /><br />To be fair to the actors, the script they are working with is lacking if not non-existent. Definitely a long way from the Allen we know and love from classics like Manhattan or Annie Hall.
Woody Allen has made some of the greatest comedies ever and I would seriously consider saying that Annie Hall is the greatest movie ever but if I really think about it I will probably think of one or two that are better, but it would be hard. He has had of course some films that aren't quite good but not that bad either like Manhattan Murder Mystery and Sweet and Lowdown but he has never before had a film quite as bad as Melinda and Melinda. Not quite so tired and so unfunny, his films are usually witty and hilarious but how did this happen, is it still our good old Woody? The plot runs around four friends who are having dinner together. Two are play writers and one of the others mentions a funny story that happened to a friend of hers. It is about a young woman who bursts in on a dinner party unexpected. We never hear the rest because the two play writes start to debate whether it would make a better comedy or tragedy. Than we begin to see the two points of view. Both center on this woman named Melinda who is having trouble both with drugs and with her ex-husband. In the tragedy she is an old family friend who after attempting suicide decided to show up at her old best friends front door for no apparent reason. The comedy is about Melida who stumbles in on the dinner party after popping 28 sleeping pills. Both go on a wild whirl wind of events that never really make sense or fit together, or make you laugh more than once or twice. There are some nice performances by Radha Mitchell and Will Ferrell but they can't fit it together on there own. They cam't stop it from sinking farther down than most of the other films this year.
Utterly pretentious nonsense. The material is dull, dull, dull, and most of the cast wouldn't even have made understudies in Allen's earlier films. And to have to listen to the unfunny Will Ferrell do his Woody Allen imitation makes me loathe the second-rate (though mysteriously popular) Ferrell even more. It appears that the morose 70-year old Allen should have knocked off work when the clock rang in a new century.<br /><br />I truly tried to get involved in the film, but it was just impossible; my snyapses couldn't fire that slowly. So, rather than doze off and kill the afternoon sleeping in an upright position I got up, left my wife and daughter in the theater, and went out to the car where I had a really good book to re-read (George Bailey's great tome of 30 years ago, "Germans.") The day turned out pretty well after all, no thanks to Woody.
I will probably always go to see a Woody Alleb movie, as one never knows when he just might make a real return to his past greatness. Just one or two great moments or lines could make it worthwhile. sadly however this film just does'nt make it on any score. Saying thar actually makes me sad and even a little guilty. I'm sure my reaction is much like a lot of other fans of Woody, but what can one say? It's probably time for him to concentrate on his Clarinett, which in my opinion, he is rather quite good. Saying all of this, I'll still probably go to any new film Woody may come out with in the future. There's always hope and I'll continue to love and respect The WOODY!!
This movie stinks! You will want back the two-plus hours it takes to get through it. Sliding Doors, w/ Gwyenth Paltrow and directed by Peter Howit, did what Melinda & Melinda tries to do much much MUCH better. That movie was clever, witty, and well-acted. I cared about what happened to both Gwyenths -- or rather the characters she played -- and the performances by supporting cast were fantastic.<br /><br />Where as Melinda & Melinda is tiresome, the dialogue is contrived and I could have cared less about any of these people -- least of all Melinda. One Melinda is so dysfunctional -- her first glass of wine is at 10 a.m. -- and so melodramatic she is laughable, and not in the comedic sense. The 2nd Melinda is fine, but forgettable.<br /><br />Woody Allen's previous ensemble movies worked because, I'm guessing, he spent time on the screenplay and the actors were talented. One piece of trivia for this movie is that he wrote this screenplay in two months: you can tell. And while Chloe Sevigny is talented -- those around her are not, not enough to be a whole presence. The movie ends up being Chloe Sevigny and a bunch of other people you know you've seen in other movies but can't quite remember which ones.<br /><br />Sad, very sad.
this movie is just an excuse for the writer to make a film out of 2 failed scripts.<br /><br />its characters are just an assembly of characters with cliché tragic or comic attributes the sum total of which is neurotic dialog like only woody Allen could write. woman love this because its like looking in the mirror so they will enjoy this film probably<br /><br />this movies was not enjoyed by me however because there was no car chase and also the film didn't have any fights. there was also no drug lords or gang bangers. Not to mention a lack of snakes. This film had no snakes. Not my cup of tea and maybe not yours ether so think about what I have said before you find yourself watching this film.<br /><br />Unless of course you resemble a female have weight issues man issues enjoy sex and the city and ally mcbeal then this is meaningful for you.
Well I'm blowed, a Woody Allen film that I walked out of after half an hour (I'm aware of the moral fragility of commenting on a film of which I've seen less than half, but I hope you'll understand why). Basically, it became apparent very early on that we were going to be patronised from the screen with: a script that set out its conceit as if with bullet points; a cast that were all trying to be characters from Hannah and Her Sisters (with the exception of Chloe Sevigny), and were badly directed into doing so; and a camera that sat around portentously, only for there to be nothing to film but chat and the actor delivering it. Drama? None; it's partially pre-narrated, but the action does nothing to develop a dramatic situation.<br /><br />Maybe I did leave too early in this case, but by then I'd decided against another hour and a half of one-liner-Allen clones. The script has its funny moments – I went almost entirely on the back of Will Ferrell's excerpts in the trailer (trailer-hooked again, doh!) – but there's little pace to let them fly off nonchalantly, as is best. Worse than this there's no fluidity. Saying this film's wooden makes a forest look like a jelly: the opening café-bound discussion being the most abject case-in-point. The only thing that should be done by numbers is potted reviewing – 2/10.
Perhaps I'm not a sophisticate. This and Closer are two of the more supposedly cerebral films I've seen recently, and both suffer from exactly the same problem to an excruciating extent. The dialogue is false false false. Nothing that comes out of anyone's mouth seems remotely believable. Perhaps the way this film is set up that's the way it's supposed to feel, but it was unwatchable. And boring. I walked out after 20 minutes of tedium.<br /><br />I'll stick with Sleeper and Bananas for my Woody Allen fix. If I ever come across this on the teevee, I'll turn over and try to find an episode of Quincy instead.
I picked this up at the video store because of Tarantino's recommendation ("If you don't like (this), go f&^% yourself!") on the box... seemed like a ringing endorsement.... I was expecting something a bit more like "Death Proof"... not much actual violence in this one tho, or plot, of character, or dialogue. <br /><br />Look at the poster. It's all there. Stunts, and rock. It goes back and forth. A week or so in the life of an LA band that does a crappy magic show, at a level that you'd maybe see in one of the lesser casinos off the Strip, and an Aussie stuntman new in town finding his feet... They work, they meet girls, they party. End of story.<br /><br />The band obviously needed all that stuff because they are frankly second-tier, and playing a style that was already dated in 1978. It has to be said that the stunt bits in the film are genuinely spinetingling - that Aussie fellow really is something, and the film seems largely motivated by love and respect for the "art". I hung it there to see what crazy thing he'd do next. Just wish he could have found a better vehicle.
East Palace, West Palace reminded me somewhat of The Detective, with Frank Sinatra in the role of the cop, and William Windom is the boy. It's a progressive film for China, I guess, but it also perpetuates myths about the femininity of gay men: much is made of Chinese myths in which men take on female roles. The movie focuses on an effeminate man who wants desperately to be dominated and hurt by a macho guy. He cruises the park without fear--he hopes to be taken into the stationhouse by the officer. And that in fact happens. Then he tells the officer his entire life story while being subjected to mild torture: made to squat for a period of time, handcuffed, slapped. This is what the gay man wants, and, implicitly, the gay man is challenging the cop's self-image as a manly man. The story's about the gay man's life (which include flashbacks) are tolerable, but when he starts describing old Chinese myths and dramatic works, the movie becomes unbearable. It becomes a cry of pity for China's gays, who only want to fulfill a traditional role in Chinese society. Sorry, I can't relate.
This is the kind of movie i fear the most. Arrogant and Irresponsible, it presents a sketch of the colombian conflict so cliched and dumb it represents an insult to all Colombian people. The performances are godawul, from Grisales (her naked scene is absolutely pitiful), to Bejarano, to Fanny Mickey (who looks right out of a Tim Burton nightmare), to Díaz, who makes a notable effort to bring life to a character so one-dimensional, so cliched and so badly written all he´s left to work with is a mustache. Not to mention the gratuitous ending, a gore fest so cheesy that it would make Ed Wood cringe. It fails in all ways, cinematography, art direction, costumes, makeup, editing, and most of all directing, Jorge Alí Triana has always been a lousy filmmaker but at least his previous movies had some dignity. I can't say anything good about this waste of money, except that i hope Colombian filmmakers learn a lesson about honesty, integrity and responsability from this mean-intended fiasco.
All of David Prior's movies are terrible on all counts: bad writing, bad acting, bad cinematography, no budget (the director's brother is usually cast as the male lead). But they all have incredible entertainment value because of their unintentional hilarity. The plot of almost every David Prior "film" (as I like to refer to them) is basically the same. Manly all-American commandos team up to blow up Communist baddies. But unlike other Cold War-era garbage such as Red Dawn, Prior's movies are actually funny because of their over-the-top premises and acting. The best part of Jungle Assault is the scene in which Becker (or was is the other dude?) is being summoned by General Mitchell for a top-secret mission in South America. The funniest line in the movie is then delivered, something to the effect of "this is my roommate, I trained him well". WHAT. You trained your roommate? And apparently this is going to be their solution to avoiding eviction.<br /><br />If you can find these gems on video used anywhere, BUY THEM. They are all funny and even funnier after a few beers. Watch them with a group of your friends for a true MST3K-style experience. So far my friends and I have managed to get a hold of Night Wars and Aerobicide aka "Killer Workout". But the one I recommend the most over them all is Final Sanction, with the freakish-looking Robert Z'dar.
Imagine the worst A-team episode Add even more bad taste Remove humor and you might get an idea of how despicable this movie is ! Looks like a teenager stole Daddy's Camcorder and filmed the explosion of his little sister Barbie model house. Pathetic.
This one features all the (bad) effect of Prior's cheap-o movies, but is so overtly racist, nasty and unpleasant that it is difficult to give this piece of dreck any redeeming feature. Unless you plan to enlist in the Marines, skip this one. Oh, and even if you do, avoid it at all costs.
Updating of the Bliss theme is merely the latest in a lengthening queue of bad-to-average local comedies which appeal to the conservative cinema-going set. (For the record, this list, all of the films on which appear to be attempting a Castle-esque miracle, includes, Strange Bedfellows, Thunderstruck, Bad Eggs, The Honourable Wally Norman, Horseplay, The Wannabes and The Nugget. The only one to have worked has been Crackerjack.)<br /><br />Here, the performances never mesh, as John Howard doesn't even look like he's in the right film – though perhaps that was the intention, as Franklin plays sleepy, conservative suburbia against its more interesting inhabitants. 20-year-old virgins who live with their parents are becoming rarer on-screen, but this is hardly a reason to watch the film. In fact, the only reasons may well be (1) Howard's bizarre – but quite fun – performance, and (2) the 'suburban nightmare' theme, which has run through Somersault, Strange Bedfellows, Tom White, Alexandra's Project, Danny Deckchair, The Rage in Placid Lake, Traveling Light, Teesh & Trude, Swimming Upstream and Lantana, many of which are very good/excellent. Enter at own risk! May be one for people who titter at the word 'penis'. 4/10.
It is a real shame that nearly no one under 30 knows the "over the top" writing of Michael O'Donoghugh- magazine articles and SNL skits that were genius for the time...and so it is a true shame that anyone who may take the opportunity to research his work will no doubt take the easy way out and watch videos- thus leading them to MR MIKES MONDO VIDEO. <br /><br />This movie has clever elements that never fully connect to the funny bone. The viewer experiences such things as cat diving/swimming with the man who thinks he's found feline happiness by hurling these kittens into a pool which the camera follows in slow motion and montage sequence. Then we are taken to an island to where all past fads are retired (hula hops, pet rocks, rainbow dread wigs etc.) Then we enter the music world (punk was a new variety of music at the time of this film) where "D" rate bar performer Rootboy Slim performs "boogie till you puke" in his own lazy style of dirt and eclectic sleaze. Now the real beauty of all this is the back ground music. In many different styles with many different instruments the sound of TELSTAR plays and replays- for those who don't understand Telstar was the first American Satellite launched into space and the theme was created to celebrate mans genius and triumph. MR MIKES seems to have been meant as a signal of societal decay ridiculous wastes. Now one thing the theater offered that the video release does not was a live performance of Sid Vicious (ex sex pistol not the wrestler) singing MY WAY. His version is very different than Sinatras as one might imagine but frankly I feel it is very much worth the listen...it's good! That is the sad part- in the VHS release Paul Anka refuses the rights of his song and the viewer is forced to experience 3 1/2 minutes of silence with an explanation rolling across the image of the singing dead sex pistol. <br /><br />I would give the theater release a 5 or 6 the video is closer to a 4 and now that so much is passé I can see where many people would give it a 3 or 2.5. If you want to see a good O'Donoghugh script watch SCROOGED...it is a better tribute to the mans insight and talent.
I saw this movie in 1979, I was 17 or 18, when it was released. The theater was perhaps 1/4 full when the movie started. Ten minutes into the movie me and the friend who went with me to see the film were the only two people in the theater. The movie was really weird and had no plot or reason to its script and people demanded their money back. We decided to stay for the ENTIRE movie.... why endure such torture??... here's why. We wanted to be true movie critics... to have a standard to base all other movies on it is hard to justify saying you have seen the best movie (a 10)they always come up with something better. But, it is easy to be able to base all other movies off of the worst movie ever made (and this is it... a 1 at best). There may be other movies out there that truly qualify as a 1, but I have yet to see them. I now base all movies I see on a scale based on this worst....I AM A TRUE MOVIE CRITIC...he he.
I actually saw this movie at a theater. As soon as I handed the cashier my money, she said two words I had never heard at a theater, before or since: "No refunds!" As soon as I heard those words, I should have just waved bye-bye to my cash and gone home. But no, foolishly, I went in and watched the movie. This movie didn't make ANYONE in the theater laugh. Not even once. Not even inadvertantly! Mostly, we sat there in stunned silence. Every ten minutes or so, someone would yell "This movie SUCKS!" The audience would applaud enthusiastically, then sit there in stunned, bored silence for another ten minutes.
I looked forward to seeing this movie when it came out, since I was a huge SNL fan. When my boyfriend and I went to see it, the people coming out of the early show were yelling, "Don't waste your money!" But of course we had to find out for ourselves.<br /><br />While there were a few funny bits (Laser Bra 2000, Root Boy Slim), most of it felt like it could have been severely edited down to an amusing 1 hour show. It was pretty bad.<br /><br />When the opera singer came on, many people got up and walked out. This made me laugh, because I realized that O'Donoghue was just pressing people's buttons on purpose with this movie. Or else he was just insane. Whatever - you don't need to waste your time watching it, it's that bad.
Mr. Mike was probably the most misanthropic comedian of all time, so I was interested to see what he'd do with total creative control over a movie. Sadly, it is unwatchable, though not because the jokes aren't funny--some (I won't say most) of them are, and in fact Mr. Mike did a good job translating his mentally unbalanced screeds into visual gags. The trouble is that the technical quality (sets, lighting, sound, editing, you name it) is so God-awful, the movie is intolerable. Some outfit called "PKO Productions" gets the producing credit, but it doesn't look produced at all; it looks more like Mike stole one of the cameras from the SNL set and made the whole thing in an afternoon. I realize Mike's goal was to torture the audience, but even that deserves some basic standards, such as the ability to actually see, hear or comprehend whatever it is that's supposed to be shocking. Still, the DVD isn't a total waste: it includes a eulogy for O'Donoghue by Bill Murray and three "Mr. Mike's Least Loved Bedtime Stories" from SNL. Plus, the "cat swimming" section of the movie is a great scene to be caught watching if you want to freak someone out. 3/10
If you enjoy the original SNL cast and shows then avoid this movie at all costs. When this first came out my friends and I waited in line for over an hour to get in to a sold out movie house. half way through the movie the theatre was 3/4 empty. We refused to leave thinking it would get better. When the movie ended we were the only ones left in the theatre. The movie lasted only one day in all theaters then vanished from sight. In interviews with "Mr. Mike" he refused to comment on this film. The film was an inside joke on the episodes of SNL that came out right after the films release and closing in one day. We all tried to contact "Mr. Mike" by phone and mail to get a refund but were totally ignored.
I saw this cinematic wretchedness in a dollar theater with a friend in 1979 (back when the tickets actually sold for $1). This is the only film I have ever walked out on (with my friend, while the idiocy that is the "Laser Bra 2000" sketch was on screen). Evidently, my and my friend's reaction to the film was a common one. It is not that I found the film offensive (either as an 18-year-old or now), but rather that it is mind-numbingly stupid and patently unfunny, devoid even of the unintended humor that makes a Ed Wood film watchable. This is the real reason why NBC refused to air it, rather than a failure to comprehend Mr. Mike's "vision" (unless, of course, his vision was to drive the film's backers into bankruptcy).<br /><br />I remained surprised to this day that this film does not seem to have made any published "10 worst films of all time" list. It certainly makes mine. You have been warned.
Why does this movie fall WELL below standards? Ultimately, the answer lies in the poor, humourless script. A slim/average looking Travolta (looking rather dapper in black I must say, even with a HUGE mullet) and Gross both act very well as two young-ish 'slick-dressed' but nevertheless dimwitted New Yorkers eager to open their own nightclub. Other than that, the rest of the film is just boring to watch. It is SO dull that it's really not worth knowing what happens in the film's climax on any level. Kelly Preston obviously exudes sex appeal and the sexually charged dance with her husband-to-be Travolta is one of the film's few pleasures. Charles Martin Smith is quite fun to watch as struggling KGB honcho "Bob Smith". Personally, I think the movie would have been better if the plot was altered a little so that the settings did not change from NY to 'Indian Springs, Nebraska' (which is in the former Soviet Union?)--you'll understand if you see the movie... Apparently, this movie was filmed in 1986 ready for a 1987 release. I guess Paramount stalled on releasing the movie until January 1989 because of the unbelievable plot. It was reported they deemed it "unreleasable". Nevertheless, this $6,000,000 film garnered a little over an embarrassing $163,000 in revenue as it was released only BRIEFLY in places like Texas and Colorado before heading straight-to-video. This is testament to the overall BAD quality of this movie.
I thought this film would be a lot better then it was. It sounded like a spoof off of the spy gener, and the start of it reminded me of Pleasantvil, but this film came up short.<br /><br />The plot is just to ridiculous. The KGB and Soviet Union in Russia have started up a spy school to teach their spies' how to act like Americans, but the town they set up in it for training is a bit dated, so they grab two yanks from the US to spice things up. I don't know, but this seems just to out there. It gets really odd when next to no one in this all Russian town speaks in a Russian accent. Someone screwed up in the casting job.<br /><br />Also, for a comedy this is painfully dry. There is one, two funny spots tops, and they are nothing to sing and dance about. The film in the end will likely put you to sleep.<br /><br />And, as a twisted punch in the face, this film is so pro the US it makes me sick. The movie keeps on saying again and again, the US is God and Russia is the devil. This is the kind of smear campaign that was done against the Japanese in World War 2. It's films like these that makes everyone think that the US is full of itself.<br /><br />This gets a 4 out of 10, and I'm being kind. It should really get a one, but the dance scene was funny, but then again it dragged far to long to be really funny.
If you're in the mood for some dopey light entertainment, this will pass the time. If you expect one jot of plausibility, don't bother. To me, the dance scene looked like it was exaggerated for comic effect; it didn't look especially hot or skilled.
One of the five worst movies I have ever watched. And I'm not exaggerating. In fact, I recommend watching it so you can get the same feeling of incredulity as you might by watching Showgirls.<br /><br />Out of 400 votes, the movie gets a user rating of 5.3/10. But there is a disproportionate number of voters who gave it a 10/10, probably due to the message of the movie - nuclear weapons are the bane of mankind. Chuck Murdock is an all-star little league pitcher who gives up baseball because there are nuclear weapons. Soon "Amazing Grace" Smith is an all-star Boston Celtic who is inspired by Chuck's story and gives up basketball. Soon all sports leagues from the professional level to college to high school to little league dismantle in a world-wide protest. Later all the children of the world go on a silence strike. This inspires the President of the United States to meet with the Soviet Premier, who in time agree to eliminate all nuclear weapons in time for the start of the next Little League season. The movie ends with Chuck about to throw out the first pitch, with the President telling his new best friend Chuck not to worry about striking out every batter, as he hasn't thrown a baseball in a year.<br /><br />Somewhere along the line a nefarious underworld boss kills Amazing Grace. When the President finds out he is told that the FBI can verify the killer but will never be able to prove it. So the President calls the underworld boss ("But it's one a.m." "I don't care, get him on the line") and tell him that he is to resign from all company boards that he sits on and sell all stocks that he has. And to not get out of line again.<br /><br />Honestly, this movie was so crappy that I couldn't turn it off. It was on television from 2:30 am to 4:00 am, and I watched it all. I wasn't turned off by the anti-nuclear weapons propaganda. I was turned off by the implausible break down of all organized sports. I don't even understand why "Amazing Grace" Smith was killed. And with all these famous athletes becoming Chuck's friends, why the father was constantly upset with his son taking a principled stand. And there was the cliché moment near the end when dad tells Chuck, "I never told you this, but I'm proud of you." Cue hug.
I spent eight years running movie theatres in the 80's and 90's. This was, by far, the worst film I ever showed to the public. One thing that made it so bad was that it put on airs of trying to be a great, inspiring film. Even the great Gregory Peck could not save this horrid piece of drivel from being far less than mediocre. Jamie Lee Curtis, in an early non-horror film role, demonstrated clearly that she had not yet learned to act (she's still trying, but it isn't getting much better).<br /><br />I'm sorry, and here's the spoiler, international nuclear disarmament is never going to happen just because it makes children afraid to play little league baseball! Even the shows on Nick and The Disney Channel are not stupid enough to try to make us believe that dreck.<br /><br />This is not worth the time you would waste watching it on cable TV. It is not worth the price of a movie rental; your dollar would be better spent on an extra package of microwave popcorn to go with the other movie you picked (because it can only be better than this).
This movie is a bad memory from my childhood. This is one of those movies that they show kids on a rainy day at school when you can't go out for recess, and you'd rather be watching anything, ANYTHING else. At least that's what it was like when I was in elementary school. I just remember HATING this movie. Granted, I haven't seen it in 15 years or so, and they probably don't use it on rainy days anymore but I just want to warn everyone: You'd be better off using this to put your kids to sleep than entertaining them. Trust me, pick anything else. Even though the topic is kind of controversial, the plot is so tame and slow that I can't remember anything about it except that I disliked it so strongly that here, 15 years later, I felt the need to warn all of you against it.
This was among the STUPIDEST and PREACHIEST of the anti-nuke films out of the 1980s.<br /><br />The idea that a kid and a basketball star could "change the world" is pretty far-fetched, given how many "children's peace marches" and "celebrity protests" there were and ARE.<br /><br />But the idea that the Soviet Union would agree to a TOTAL nuclear disarmament, because some apparatchik kids learned of a "silent protest" in the West, is ludicrous.<br /><br />What ended the Cold War? America's tough, dare I say "Reaganesque" stance and the internal failures of socialism. It was NOT the peace marches, the "die-ins" or films like "Amazing Grace & Chuck", "Miracle Mile", or "Testament".
I can't imagine anyone would ever, in a million years, want to watch this movie. Not because it was one of the worst ever made (it wasn't), but largely because it's about 20 years old and oh-so-out of the mainstream. I was trying to find out where I saw an actor before and this popped up. So, yeah, a kid stops playing little league because he doesn't like nukes, this prompts major media attention and a quick resolution to the cold war. The end. A fantasy, to be sure, but one so cockeyed it would make John Lennon blush. Since terrorism has replaced communism as the -ism that scares the hell out of us, this movie really has no relevance, except as an (innaccurate) look back at those times. The writing, acting, and film craft are similarly undeveloped. The reason I rated it as highly as I did was because I watched this movie around 50 times while I was 5-6 years old and still have a little place in my heart for it, but I now realize that it doesn't quite cut mustard. So, if the law of large numbers holds true and someone eventually does decide to check out this movie, realize that there are much better ways to spend your time, but also much worse ones. (I will refrain from a John Q. tirade for now.)
I saw this in the summer of 1990. I'm still annoyed by how bad this movie is in 2001.<br /><br />Implausible plot. You'd have to be a child to think this could happen.<br /><br />I'm just really annoyed by it. Don't see this.
This film reminds me of how college students used to protest against the Vietnam War. As if, upon hearing some kids were doing without cheeseburgers in Cow Dung Collehe, the President was going to immediately change all US foreign policy.<br /><br />The worst thing is that, while dangerous, the concept of a policy based on if the USSR and US went to war it could mean the end of the world, WORKED. The US and USSR NEVER WENT TO WAR.<br /><br />Had we only conventional weapons, the notion of yet another war, a "win-able" war, in Europe and Asia was not unthinkable.<br /><br />Not that I think they should get rid of this movie. It should be seen by film students as a splendid example of "How NOT to make a film."<br /><br />It should be 0 stars or maybe black holes...
I saw this in the summer of 1990. I'm still annoyed by how bad this movie is in 2001.<br /><br />Implausible plot. You'd have to be a child to think this could happen.<br /><br />I'm just really annoyed by it. Don't see this.
I've no idea what dimwit from San Francisco came up with this stupid plot, but apparently they need to get off whatever drugs they are taking and put their analyst on danger money -- NOW.<br /><br />Yeah, this is a plausible story, if you regard the alien abduction sequence in "Life of Brian" as plausible.<br /><br />This film is little more than a leftist pipedream. Had the US and USSR give up nuclear weapons, the result would've been to eliminate the only real obstacle that kept the two from engaging in a war. Bad as Korea, Vietnam and other wars of the era were, they were "proxy wars" fought to keep the superpowers from a direct engagement.<br /><br />This film makes me think about how realistic it was when some group of high school kids would go on a hunger strike against nuclear proliferation. As if someone would say "Mr. President, some kids at Drastic High are not eating!" and Ronald Reagan would reply "My God! I'd better revise my Defense policy!" Right.<br /><br />Like this film? Wouldn't it be better if the Soviet Union would've collapsed because they could not support their massive arms build... wait, that happened!
A film like Amazing Grace and Chuck is a perfect example of how the left in this country just doesn't get it. They never did. And liberalism continues to slip further and further into political oblivion.<br /><br />This film deals with a little league baseball star who decides to stop playing ball as a protest to the existence of nuclear weapons. The boy is understandably ridiculed until a bevy of professional athletes, led by former NBA star Alex English, join his cause. Not just a few of them join the cause. By the time his movement reaches its zenith, entire leagues of professional and college sports have to cancel their seasons since nobody will play any more. Just to move this review along, I'm prepared to grant them this premise. Even though it would never happen in a million years, I'll just imagine it could, then go from there.<br /><br />I don't quite remember how, but some type of agreement is reached, and the boy decides to go back to the game he loves in an incredibly sappy and ridiculous scene.<br /><br />Before criticizing the message of this film, let me just say that this film is poorly written, acted and directed. Even if one does agree with the boy's stance, it would be impossible to overcome how badly the film was constructed. And that's a shame since there are plenty of good actors that go to waste. (Peck, Curtis, Petersen). Alex English does as well as he could have with his character however, and I wish he would try to act in more films. Alas, it's likely much easier to find work in the coaching world of the NBA. One wishes Mr. English would teach more of these thuggish NBA types of today how to shoot the rock a little better. Alex certainly knew how to put the ball through the hoop.<br /><br />As far as the film's message in concerned, it's just wrong-headed. Plain and simple. All of those nuclear warheads tucked away in those missile silos out west PREVENTED WAR!!!!! It would be one thing for this boy and his flock to protest an actual war or the USE of nuclear weapons. These weapons were in fact never used, and that was the genius behind their existence. Neither side during the cold war was crazy enough to fire a single missile. Without these weapons, who knows what might have happened between the USA and USSR.<br /><br />The makers of this film obviously intended for kids in America to take up their cause and follow in Chuck's footsteps. Kids in America however are more intelligent than the left wing kooks who created this dreck. <br /><br />The film is worth only 2 of 10 stars.<br /><br />If you want to see a great film about the dangers of nuclear war, stick with Dr. Strangelove, instead.<br /><br />Mr. Newell, you are no Frank Capra!
This sleek, sexy movie is a must-see. Only upon multiple viewings can one truly understand the uniqueness of this film. Personally I enjoy the narrator for his intelligent, no subject left untouched, style of narration. The introduction grips you right away, and holds you at the edge of your seat throughout the film. He provides wonderful insight into the world of the trainables and allows the audience to really 'connect' with internal horror this film exhibits. The script itself holds the movie together wonderfully. Not only for kids, but the elderly alike will gain a higher understanding of the trainables and the modern grasp that they have on the sexual experience. Ahead of its time and groundbreaking in cinematography, it surely defines the word 'masterpiece'.
I love Seth Green. His appearances on THat 70s' Show is always worth watching but last night, I felt the show needed to overhauled. Four single young guys inherit a New York City apartment that most of us would die for. The grandmother must have been an heiress to have such space in the first place. So I felt the need for realism should have been brought out. Anyway the plot about four best friends getting this apartment was not believable. I would have been thrilled if they had to move in with one of their parents which would have provided great humor and dysfunctional about the show's set up. There did not seem to be much humor in it. I am only watching it because it falls before My Name is Earl on a winning Thursday night. I think they should go back, scrap this series, and start over. We need more family involved series. How about Seth and his friends move in with his wacky parents in the suburbs after a fire burns their place down. THey could have Dabney Coleman play the father and Christine Estabrook, play the mother and dysfunctional siblings. The list of possibilities with somebody like Seth Green are endless and the network is blowing it.
Well it's not often that we in the UK have a film made about inner city life from the perspective of the Afro Caribbean community, the last example that I can remember was the underrated Babylon way back in 1980. So I had high expectations when I heard about Bullet Boy, a film that has been touted as the British version of La Haine! Well La Haine it is not! I agree that the use of dialogue and environment gives this film an authenticity that has been missed in other British films of late, but my concern is that this film predictably ends sadly.<br /><br />The film intelligently deals with the escalating problem of black on black violence that is sadly all to common in London, but I'm concerned that film makers now use type-casting in plot as opposed to characters which is equally as damaging. Saul Dibb had a great opportunity to make a film that could be both entertaining and inspirational to us all, but sadly missed and created a film that only reinforces the idea that to be a young black male in London the only future is violence & tragedy
Over the last 20 years the majority of British films are about how horribly poverty stricken the UK is and how our youth doesn't stand a chance of a good life whilst they live on the mean streets of British cities. The British film industry is obsessed with the idea of 'broken Britain'. Trainspotting, This is England, Kidulthood, Football Factory, Kes and From London to Brighton.<br /><br />Bullet Boy is just another British movie added to that list. The main character expresses a desire to go straight yet he still insists on hanging around with dead beats who carry guns and fight with gang members over nothing. I was never convinced that he did want to go straight as there was nothing stopping him pursuing an education or a trade. In fact it would have been a breath of fresh air if he had of gone straight and we had a character who turned his life around. Instead he spends his time helping his friend trying to commit murder. I felt no sympathy when he is predictably shot by another teen at the end of the film, which is sad because at the beginning of the film I really liked the entire family and their desire for success. I believe the makers missed a great chance to show the world that success belongs to those who are willing to really strive for it (like the Pursuit of Happiness). <br /><br />I know the purpose of this film was to try and paint a realistic picture of what life is like for black teens living in working class areas of Britain but don't we already have enough films in the UK with that very same plot? Isn't it time these talented producers and writers give Britains youth something to aspire to and show them a better life is just around the corner?<br /><br />I applaud the makers of Bullet Boy for not loading the film full of mindless violence in order to try and get success through shock factors (like Kidulthood, Football Factory) but at the same time this movie offers nothing new to a long list of British films that are effectively dull and depressing to watch. There is no happy ending to this movie or any of the others I have mentioned.
It's a bad, very bad movie.<br /><br />Well, for people a real realistic movie is a good thing. For me it is not. Life is also predictable, bad, nasty, trivial, senseless, sometimes. Maybe that's the reason for people say that this film is real.<br /><br />Too many common places: you're black, you're a criminal, you're doomed and cursed, whatever you do you'll end up by shooting or being shot by someone; don't let the kids play with the weapons, it could be dangerous; and then there are those who go to the church, and then they are good, very good...<br /><br />Before this one, I hadn't seen such a bad movie. That's perhaps the reason for I never noticed how important the photography itself is important in a movie. In this one, every scene shot in daytime, outdoor, is clearly and annoyingly blue. They didn't even care to correct the colour balance. Oh! I've "rated" more than 300 movies in this database so far, and this (3/10) is my lowest ever.
I watched this movie last night and was a bit disappointed. A lot of the "time facts" were off. At the beginning of the movie, the grandfather made a comment to this grandson and his friends about how they felt when 9-11 hit. This movie was supposed to be taking place in 1994. Also, one of the grandsons friends was wearing an Eagles Donovan McNabb jersey. He hadn't even been drafted as of yet. The story line was good but the facts and actuality of the time frame was so far off base that it made the movie seem cheesy. My boyfriend is an avid reader of WWII books and memorabilia. I rented this movie hoping that it would be good. The acting was so-so. The dog was cute. But the way that this movie was carried out made me glad that I only paid 4 dollars to rent it as opposed to the 50 it would have taken me to watch it in a theater. I hope that who ever reads this understands that I mean no discontent to those who fought the war but the facts and time frame should have been a little more closely monitored.
This movie had good intentions and a good story to work with. The director and screenwriter of this movie failed miserably and created a dull, boring filmstrip that made me feel like I was back in Mr. Hartford's 8th grade Social Studies class -- way back in 67.<br /><br />What a waste, will somebody please take this story and make a real movie out of it - the story deserves it.<br /><br />Every time a scene had potential, all we were left with were a few clichés, combined with black and white footage that they probably got from The History Channel to show the action. Shameful.<br /><br />Ossie Davis was the only bright light in this dull fest. The other acting was incredibly dull - it fit in with the movie well and whomever played the Captain set a new low standard for line delivery.<br /><br />However, if you are willing to accept all the numerous flaws in this movie and aren't concerned with being awed or entertained, but want to learn about the USS Mason, it is worth a watch.
Full marks for the content of this film, as a Brit I was not aware that there was segregation in the US Navy during WWII. A very brave attempt to bring this fact to the world. However, the movie is pathetic, direction is non existent, the acting is wooden and the script is just one cliché after another. I can honestly say that this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I sat and cringed from the start until the end at the very poor way that this had been put together. This could have been a great movie, the story for many of us outside of the US was new, unique and also interesting. The sad fact of the matter is the way that it was put together. It is unfortunate that a true story like this, which could have changed people's attitudes, has been squandered on a low budget, badly directed movie. I only hope that some time in the future, one of the major studios will take this theme and do it justice.
I will give it a 3 just because it showed history that we need to know about, to prevent it from happening again. I agree with the comments from the gentleman from UK. The movie was pretty terrible. All cliché, no real plot. Historical and technical inaccuracies abound. Look up the technical specs on DE 529, or any Everts class Destroyer Escort, and you will see what I mean. I now its black history month in the US, and Im going to be called a racist just for saying this, but the history of this ship is not that great. They did some escort work, chased a "submarine" that turned out to be a hulk that they rammed. Sorry, but black people did a lot more in WWII then this silly movie gives them credit for. This movie makes them look like whiners. Let the name calling commence, I can handle it.
Working at a video store I get to see quite a few movies and on occasion I try to watch some of the not so big movies. Proud happened to be one of them. The initial idea of telling of the story of a primarily black crewed ship during WWII had some merit. However in less than 10 minutes of watching the movie you find out that the primary point of the movie was to tell about racial tension in WWII. The underlying story is about the ship, the crew and their exploits in the war. This primary point is hammered at you to the point of excessiveness all throughout the movie. I commend the men that served on the USS Mason for their triumph in the face of adversity and for the hardships that they endured. A movie should have been made focusing on the accomplishments these men did for themselves, the Navy and for their country and not making a movie whose focus is racism during WWII.
This is a great story and was just the beginning of equality in the United States. (We are still working on it too.) However despite the fact this is true, it's still a movie and this is a movie site. I realize independent films have a hard time getting good actors, but wow. The only one even mediocre is the excellent Ossie Davis. But even he couldn't make up for all the actors (including the one playing him as a young man) absolutely atrocious acting. Granted the script was terribly cliché, but even then you have got to get some decent actors! I wouldn't recommend this to anybody because it is so poorly done in every category. Read some books about the true story of the U.S.S Mason, because they give these men the respect they deserve.
As a WWII naval history buff, and someone who is not proud of this country's history of race relations, I was looking forward to seeing this movie. What a disappointing piece of schlock. I made it about 3/4 of the way through, but I should have turned it off at the sub attack scene. The idea that a U-boat would fire a torpedo at a DDE, as if there was a hope of hitting it, and then be able to "run away" from the DDE while submerged, is preposterous. And that's just a small detail. The whole movie was poorly written, poorly directed, and poorly acted. I agree with others on this board that this could have been a good movie. It's as if they decided that, since all those crappy WWII propaganda films were made with all-white casts, they needed to make one with black people. And as bad as those old movies were, this is actually worse. And it almost smacks of false advertising to headline Ossie Davis and Stephen Rea. It turns out they had very minor roles. I have to believe those two fine actors were embarrassed to be associated with this film. I'm done. I've given way too much of my life this crap movie.
I had high hopes for this film. I thought the premise interesting. I stuck through it, even though I found the acting, save Helena Bonham Carter, unremarkable. I kept hoping my time spent would pay off, but in the end I was left me wondering why they even bothered to make this thing. Maybe in George Orwell's version there is a message worth conveying. If this film accomplished anything, it has inspired me to read Orwell's classic. I find it hard to believe his tale could be as disappointing as this adaption. If the film maker's message is "the mundane life is worth living", well then, they've succeeded. I would recommend this film to no one; 101 minutes of my life wasted.
The British 'heritage film' industry is out of control. There's nothing wrong with filming classic novels, but why must they all be filmed by talentless nobodies? This film rips the guts out of Orwell's tough novel, turning it into a harmless, fluffy romantic comedy. 'Aspidistra' may not be Orwell's best work, but no-one who reads it can forget its superb depiction of poverty. Orwell emphasises not only the cold and the hunger, but the humiliation of being poor. In the novel, London is a bleak, grey, cold, heartless city, and Comstock prays for it to be blasted away by a squadron of bombers. But this film irons out anything that might be in any way disturbing, and creates instead a jolly nostalgic trip to charming 1930s London, in which everything is lit with shafts of golden sunlight, and even the slums of Lambeth are picturesque and filled with freshly scrubbed urchins and happy prostitutes. Comstock's poems about the sharp wind sweeping across the rubbish-strewn streets seem completely out of place in this chocolate-box world. Worst of all is the script's relentless bonhomie, ancient jokes, and clunking dialogue. It's so frustrating because Richard E. Grant is the perfect person to play Gordon Comstock, and the film is packed with great actors. But it's all for nothing. This film made me so angry! Britain's literary history is something to be proud of for its richness, complexity and power. And what do we do with it? We employ bland nobodies to turn it into soft-centred, anodyne pap for people who want to feel that they are 'getting some culture' while they drink their Horlicks and quietly doze off.
In spite of sterling work by the supporting actors, and an intelligent script by Alan Plater, this film suffers from a fatal flaw - the lack of charm of the central character/actor. One of the characters describes Richard E Grant's character as "a whining little turd" and unfortunately this sums him up perfectly. There is nothing about him or his performance to make it credible that his girlfriend and upper-class publisher/friend would spend so much time and emotional effort on him. He is rude, arrogant, selfish, self-destructive and thoroughly annoying. The part called for an actor who can make you love him even when he is being a prate - a Ewan McGregor, for example.<br /><br />All of the witty satire on the class system etc was wasted, thanks to this irritating and thoroughly unlikeable performance. All I wanted to do was shake him and tell him to get over himself.
this seemed an odd combination of Withnail and I with A Room with a View.. sometimes it worked, other times it did not. tragedy that they changed the name for the US release though.. Keep the Apidistra Flying is much better than the nothing title A Merry War. acting was okay, script was okay.. overall it was a mediocre film..
This inept adaptation of arguably one of Martin Amis's weaker novels fails to even draw comparisons with other druggy oeuvres such as Requiem For A Dream or anything penned by Irvine Walsh as it struggles to decide whether it is a slap-stick cartoon or a hyper-realistic hallucination.<br /><br />Boringly directed by William Marsh in over-saturated hues, a group of public school drop-outs converge in a mansion awaiting the appearance of three American friends for a weekend of decadent drug-taking. And that's it. Except for the ludicrous sub-plot soon-to-be-the-main-plot nonsense about an extremist cult group who express themselves with the violent killings of the world's elite figures, be it political or pampered. Within the first reel you know exactly where this is going.<br /><br />What is a talented actor like Paul Bettany doing in this tiresome, badly written bore? Made prior to his rise to fame and Jennifer Connelly one can be assured that had he been offered this garbage now he'd have immediately changed agents! Avoid.
A terrible storyline (Amis at his worst), pointless and self-conscious 'decadence', obvious shock tactics and patchy acting make this film (rather like "Rancid Aluminium") embody everything that went wrong with the much-vaunted British film revival. The humour is, at best, limp, and the pretentiousness of the whole set-up (including some kind of "internet terrorist group" - ooh, how contemporary) really begins to grate.<br /><br />Final summary - a half-baked attempt to be 'edgy' that does no-one any favours. Still, it's always a pleasure to see Katy Carmichael on screen...<br /><br />
I am a great fan of Martin Amis, on whose book this film is based. Unfortunately the director has been unable to translate the book to the screen. The novel is thoroughly post modern and highly artificial in its wildly overblown characters and the disintegration of traditional plot line and character development. It is an hilarious examination of human greed, excess and emptiness by one of the most moral of contemporary British writers. The director of the film has completely missed the point of the novel. In his hands, the film screams along at breakneck speed, indulging in every known trick shot and 'odd' camera angle possible. It is like Ken Russel on acid, and suffers from that older director's self indulgence cranked up to a hundred. Not even the (brief) glimpse of gorgeous actor Christian Solimeno's penis was enough to save this wretched film for me. Abysmal!
This film looked interesting; I'd read the book a number of years ago and it informed me that the feature followed the plot outline pretty tightly.<br /><br />Started watching it and almost from the outset it failed to live up to expectations. In fact, I didn't bother watching the whole thing... utter drivel - bad performances, bad acting and instantly dislikeable characters - that was the point of the film, I guess.<br /><br />Watching this film left a bad taste in the mouth and put me on a downer for the remainder of my weekend.<br /><br />Do not bother with this feature.
Suffice to say that - despite the odd ludicrous panegyric to his soi disant "abilities" posted here - the director of this inept, odious tosh hasn't made a film since. Well that is excellent news as far as I'm concerned.<br /><br />Dead Babies has all of the bile of its creator, but lacks the wit and technical proficiency that make Martin Amis the novelist readable.<br /><br />When will the British film industry wake up and realise that if it wants to regain the status it once had it should stop producing rubbish like this and make something real people will actually want to watch?<br /><br />Avoid like the plague.
A couple of days after writing about how garbage like MAD COWS and THIS FILTHY EARTH receive money while Ange , Duncan and Theo are totally ignored I had to sit through yet another British movie * that had me scratching my head as to why it received a single penny . Some people may claim that because DEAD BABIES is based upon a highly regarded novel it has an in built market but both THIS FILTHY EARTH and MAD COWS were also adapted from novels and they were an ordeal to sit through as well <br /><br />I had read the synopsis of the plot where a bunch of high class wasters go to a remote mansion where they're stalked by an internet cult but to be honest this isn't really how the story unravels and anyone expecting Friday THE 13TH meets THE SHINING is going to be bitterly disappointed since 90-95% of the running time is taken up with said characters taking drugs and discussing sex . And what hateful characters they are too . Not one of them is likable in any way and within minutes you'll be getting nostalgic for Stalin , Mao and Pol Pot hoping that next time someone embarks on communist democide they'll be successful in creating an egalitarian utopia . Anything that will signal the end of such decadent bourgeois meaningless that the hateful characters in this movie embark upon can only be welcomed <br /><br />Not content with giving us a movie where the plot is meandering and where the audience fail to connect with the characters the director continues to spoil things further by getting all clever and arty . No doubt that is to impress us so we will fall upon our knees and cry " Oh my god , what a wonderful director the way he bamboozles us with his highly artistic technique and only a worthless pleb will fail to appreciate what a god given talent this man is " . I'm sure the vast majority of people either screamed " How come my projects got turned down while crap like this didn't ? " or " WTF was the last half hour of this piece of crap all about ? " You might defend the movie by saying the original source novel was unfilmable and this makes the film unwatchable . I will agree that this movie is unwatchable <br /><br />* I know the IMDb classes this as an American movie but the style and faults with DEAD BABIES is uniquely British . Americans might think they've got things tough with Bush but we've got Tony Blair , not to mention DEAD BABIES , MAD COWS and THIS FILTHY EARTH . No wonder everyone is ashamed to be British in the 21st century
I had the pleasure of viewing this movie early and I have to say I thought that it was going to be boring and wondered how could they ever improve upon the 1984 version of Bachelor Party starring Tom Hanks, which I thought was pretty good...I was right...In all honesty I thought it could have been better...Sure there were some funny moments but it just didn't seem to hit the mark with me...The acting was OK and the storyline pretty well follows the original but I think it could have been so much better...This movie I'd say is for teens and the young of heart; full of female bodies, alcohol and sex...It's just another typical run of the mill party movie that has been done over and over again. 4/10 is my vote for this one.
I wonder how much this movie actually has got to do with the 1984 movie "Bachelor Party", starring Tom Hanks. Is this movie even an official sequel? This movie is lacking in every department and you're obviously better off not watching it.<br /><br />For a comedy this movie simply isn't good or funny enough. It relies mostly on the character's their stereotypical assessments, rather then the movie actually features some good, original and funny moments.<br /><br />Of course there also is very little story present and the movie nude breast than script pages. You just keep waiting for things to finally start off. There is a main plot line in it somewhere but that one is so terribly unoriginal and gets executed so poorly in the movie that it feels more as if it's something non-existent. I guess there even is a message and moral story in it somewhere but this again is so terribly unoriginal and poorly done in the movie that it simply does not work out.<br /><br />It's basically a typical teenage comedy, with lots of sex jokes and nudity, only without the teenage main characters, which makes the story all the more sad and tasteless. The movie makes some really wrong jokes, that are misplaced for any type of movie.<br /><br />I regret ever watching this.<br /><br />3/10
Now I recently had the viewing pleasure to watch the hilarious comedy Bachelor Party, one of my new favorite comedies, laughed until it just hurt type of movies. So I naturally wanted to see the sequel, hoping it would have the same laughs, but instead Bachelor Party 2: The Last Temptation is made by the American Pie generation where it's tasteless and defeats the hole purpose of the first film. Yeah, the first film has nudity, but it doesn't show in every single scene. Also the plot is exactly the same from the first, it's not always a complaint with me, but this could have been a little more original. The only thing is that I'm glad that at least no old actors from the original appear in this movie, because it would have been cheesy or really silly looking.<br /><br />Ron and Melinda are engaged, after only 2 months of dating, everyone is against it. Melinda has a rich family, but they're pretty happy with Ron, and Melinda's brother, Todd is scared that Ron will take his job. So they go out on a weekend to Miami for a bachelor party and Todd is going to make sure that he'll trap Ron into a picture that will make Melinda change her mind about the marriage.<br /><br />Bachelor Party 2: The Last Temptation has a couple laughs here and there, but over all fails to deliver what the first film accomplished. These guys, Ron's friends, were more obnoxious than likable, except for Seth, he was kinda funny. The only likable characters other than Seth is Ron and Melinda, everyone else just more or less gets on your nerves. You wanna watch this film? Just watch Girls Gone Wild, it's the same thing only it doesn't try to pretend that it's a film. Stick to the original Bachelor Party, that's the movie that's going to get you in tears of laughter.<br /><br />3/10
Recap: Ron is about to marry Mel. They are deeply and love and certain they are perfect for each other even though they met just a few months ago. Todd, Ron's brother in law to be is not so happy. He is afraid the marriage is a threat to his cushy job in the family business and decides to arrange Ron's bachelor party. But his real plan is to put Ron in a compromising situation, get evidence and break Ron and Mel up.<br /><br />Comments: Supposed to be a sequel to a comedy classic but it isn't funny at all. It is mostly a pubertal show and a juvenile excuse to show scantily clad women. Actually, in a way, it is almost impressive have many you can put in there, because they are everywhere. Unfortunately that is also one of the signs of a movie that can't support itself. It simply isn't good enough.<br /><br />It has three redeeming points though, or actually three actors that is worth a better script than this. It is lead actor Josh Cooke who actually manages to give an impression of some common sense. Sara Foster I know has more talent than to do movies like this, and Emanuelle Vaugier seem to have a lot more talent than this movie.<br /><br />What is suspiciously absent are good jokes. Actually, bad jokes are rather scarce too. It just isn't funny.<br /><br />3/10
This is the most cliche ridden and worst romantic comedy I have ever seen. Every scene is cringe worthy and the two lead actors - Corey and Danny are soo annoying. Corey is very dumb and naive and should have never listened to Danny's false promises.<br /><br />Neve Campbell and the killer from Urban Legend are the only redeeming qualities in this poor attempt of a film. Danny (Dean Paras) looks in his late thirties and the girl he's trying to bed - Corey looks as if she's still in college.<br /><br />Here in Australia, this film is called Too Smooth; there is nothing smooth about this film at all. 1/10 Avoid
Having read many of the comments here, I'm surprised that no one has recognized this as basically an overlong remake of a Twilight Zone episode from 1960 called "Mirror Image," starring Vera Miles. Rod Serling did a much better job of creating an effective spooky tale in 24 minutes than Sean Ellis did in 88 minutes with this tedious snooze. A short piece can be effective with a mysterious and unexplained ending, but in a feature film, there should be a bit more substance and the story should make sense. Sadly, substance and sense are two things missing from "The Broken." Yes, it has some moments, but they are not enough to justify your time. Some further observations: although this is clearly a contemporary story, not one character in the movie has a cellphone! And even though a car accident is the event that gets the story going, there is never any reference to an insurance company, to the person who was driving the other car, or to the police who would have been required to do a report. My advice: skip this bore and watch the original instead!
I read about this movie in a magazine and I was intrigued. A woman, who one day sees herself drive past in her own car. Well, I thought, this could be interesting...<br /><br />...but it isn't. First, the title. The Broken? The Broken...what? What is broken? The...oh, wait...I get it, the title itself is "broken"! WOW, clever! Unfortunately, this is virtually the only thing going for it.<br /><br />The premise is not that bad, but I think Kiefer Suderland did much better in 'Mirrors'. A cross between Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Mirrors, and a rather mediocre one at that. A more suited title would be 'The Boring', since it draws out every single scene for bloody ages. Or maybe 'The Confusing' since it doesn't explain anything at all, not in the narrative nor in the story itself, only some vague idea about evil copies and somesuch, dotted with cheap scares and scenes used to death, but nothing tangible. It's just messed up.<br /><br />On the other hand, the acting and the special effects are quite good, but then again, it's not a difficult role to act.<br /><br />After watching the movie twice, I still feel unsatisfied, a little confused maybe, and not in the E. A. Poe or Stephen King kind of way. Do yourself a favor, and don't watch this one. Simply put, there are better thrillers out there.
This film is pure, distilled, unadulterated boredom. I knew nothing of it before I entered the dark room, took my seat. I was seduced by the "mysterious and suspenseful" blurb on the poster I suppose. Also, Lena Headey is nice and unconventionally sexy, and Richard Jenkins is always a reliable guy to have around, so the cast seemed reasonable. It may have been his name above the title that convinced me to go with this instead of whatever else was on. I should've gone to see Valkyrie for the second time instead.<br /><br />The thin plot revolves around Headley's Gina McVey, her boyfriend, her father, her sister and her sister's husband who for some reason are being stalked, in a very louche and unenthusiastic manner, by their evil doppelgangers who emerge from mirrors that mysteriously smash. There could be a great film behind this idea (not exactly an original idea, mind you, but still...) and in fact, if the filmmakers had shorn away all the supporting cast and simply stuck to Headey's character's story, The Broken could've made a reasonable 20-minute short. As it is, it is desperately unmotivated and boring, and terribly inconsistent.<br /><br />For instance, in one scene, a mirror smashes on its own in a room housing all the main characters; they look puzzled but quickly forget about it. In another scene, a mirror smashes in an empty room, and a doppelganger is visible as she "steps out" of the shards left hanging on the wall. So why did the first mirror smash if no creepy crawly was to come crawling out? Just for a little thrill? There are far too many scenes of the characters in the dimly-lit London flats, peering around corners cos they thought they heard something, but seeing nothing there and moving on. We begin to wonder, why doesn't this malevolent doppelgang actually ever want to try to scare them? Scare the characters and you have a chance of scaring the audience. But we, the audience, will need to start threatening each other, in the darkness of the theater, if we want to have any thrills during The Broken. By the way, once we've spent time with these evil doubles, we are totally bemused as to why anyone should be expected to be frightened of them - they just stand around, blank looks on their faces, perhaps totally harmless after killing their others.<br /><br />There are some nice moods and touches throughout, and I dare say director Sean Ellis could fashion a genuinely stylish and suspenseful mystery movie if he was to hire an imaginative screenwriter next time.
Horror movie??really???? i cant believe how bad this movie was,what the point of this movie??? the movie almost 1h and 30 min and the first 70 minutes of it,is just lena walking around with this stupid look on her face after she had an accident....not much talking at all,not even much actions at all.. i have to say tho,the last 20 minuets it got little tiny action.. and was still stupid....... and the end oh my god,i don't know where to begin,it also end up with this stupid look on lena face lol.. don't get me wrong i love Lena Headey,i think she is great actress,but i don't know what got into her to do this movie.. don't waste your time and watching it,because this movie has no story,has no acting ..and has no point...not to mention how slow this movie goes and it feels like you been watching it forever.
I liked the initial premise to this film which is what led me to hunt it out but the problem I quickly found is that one pretty much knows what's going to happen within the first 20-30 minutes ( the doubles will come from behind the mirror and take over everybody).<br /><br />There is no real twist (which is fine) , but the final reveal doesn't make a great deal of sense either (how can she be racked with uncertainty and fear for the whole film, if she's an evil id from beyond the mirror?).<br /><br />Admittedly the scenes 'beyond the mirror' were chilling when they first appeared and the blonde's murder is also effectively creepy, but ultimately alas this seems to be a film in search of a story or a more engaging script, piling atmosphere upon atmosphere and over the top scary sound design for 80-90 minutes does not really cut it, in fact it gets quite dull.
What an incredible fall for Sean Ellis.<br /><br />You gather a bunch of your friends at home, all hyped about the follow up work of Sean Ellis. You have an vague idea of the plot, no spoilers that could kill the fun, very high expectations.<br /><br />It is late at night, perfect atmosphere for a movie of this type.<br /><br />15minutes passes and you start telling yourself it is bound to pick up, at 25mins you start wondering if you should just go to sleep and save this for another time when you can fully appreciate the expected not existent subtle touches. Over the half hour mark you realize half of your your hyped up audience is already asleep and call it a day.<br /><br />A few days later when you exhaust all other material to watch you go back to this, in the middle of the day this time, hoping your mood will keep you awake this time. 10 minutes later you find yourself fastforwarding the unbelievably and needlessly long intermediate transitions and images. Any other stuff I would have given up already but there is cashback and its legacy. But that legacy can only carry you so long, this is a new level of boring movie-making, imagine a short story extended to a novel with just descriptions, this is what it is.<br /><br />Decent cast is wasted, there is no cinematography that leaves you in awe like cashback either. There are films that annoy you, there are films that lack certain aspects, or just cheesy, unfortunately this is just a waste of time.<br /><br />Final words, stay away.
If the myth regarding broken mirrors would be accurate, everybody involved in this production would now face approximately 170 years of bad luck, because there are a lot of mirrors falling to little pieces here. If only the script was as shattering as the glass, then "The Broken" would have been a brilliant film. Now it's sadly just an overlong, derivative and dull movie with only just a handful of remarkable ideas and memorable sequences. Sean Ellis made a very stylish and elegantly photographed movie, but the story is lackluster and the total absence of logic and explanation is really frustrating. I got into a discussion with a friend regarding the basic concept and "meaning" of the film. He thinks Ellis found inspiration in an old legend claiming that spotting your doppelganger is a foreboding of how you're going to die. Interesting theory, but I'm not familiar with this legend and couldn't find anything on the Internet about this, neither. Personally, I just think "The Broken" is yet another umpteenth variation on the theme of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" but without the alien interference. "The Broken" centers on the American McVey family living in London, and particularly Gina. When a mirror spontaneously breaks during a birthday celebration, this triggers a whole series of mysterious and seemingly supernatural events. Gina spots herself driving by in a car and follows her mirror image to an apartment building. Whilst driving home in a state of mental confusion, she causes a terrible car accident and ends up in the hospital. When dismissed, Gina feels like her whole surrounding is changing. She doesn't recognize her own boyfriend anymore and uncanny fragments of the accident keep flashing before her eyes. Does she suffer from mental traumas invoked by the accident or is there really a supernatural conspiracy happening all around her? Writer/director Sean Ellis definitely invokes feelings of curiosity and suspense in his script, but unfortunately he fails to properly elaborate them. "The Broken" is a truly atmospheric and stylish effort, but only after just half an hour of film, you come to the painful conclusion it shall just remain a beautiful but empty package. There's a frustratingly high amount of "fake" suspense in this film. This means building up tension, through ominous music and eerie camera angels, when absolutely nothing has even happened so far. By the time the actually mysteriousness kicks in, these tricks don't have any scary effect on you anymore. Some of my fellow reviewers around here compare the film and particularly Sean Ellis' style with the repertoires of David Lynch, Stanley Kubrick and even Alfred Hitchcock, but that is way, way … WAY too much honor. PS: what is up with that alternate spelling; the one with the Scandinavian "ø"
I give this movie 3 out of 10 because I have watched zillions of movies and I can tell clearly what an intellectual movie with a mind-teasing message should look like. Definitely, The Broken is not one of those movies. I have to admit that the movie made me think a lot trying to understand what the whole thing was trying to lead to and despite the explanations I've read in prior comments, they seemed only an exaggeration just to have one self in the intellectual league of people. the photo on the cover clearly shows that the Broken is the broken upper piece of the face which normally contains the brain. It's a clear message that once this part of the body is broken the rest will be deformed and lifeless. So, you start waiting on the movie characters to show their defected sides and this is not obvious in any of the scenes because the movie starts right away without any introduction to the characters and their lives before. Though we see the father holding a rifle when his children try to surprise him as if he is aware he has enemies but still this is not a very strong clue. Had the clues been planted more in the movie, one would have said about that it is a masterpiece indeed. But though the movie was so slow in pace, it was at the same time so empty with no metaphorical scenes at all. And the reuniting of the evil dad with the evil Gena at the end is a strong refuting evidence of the existential messages that some people spoke about in other comments. Furthermore, if Gena truly lives in the apartment as her brother tells her at the end, then how come she is the evil one? I bet I can defy any theory about this movie with so many questions that can only lead to one conclusion: This movie is a pretentious one and a waste of time. Obviously it shows someone trying to make out of a meaningless mystery something which is of no value at all. I am a huge fan of horror movies and specially slasher ones that some people call popcorn movies. Horror movies are not supposed to convey deep messages! They're supposed to uncover the beautiful mask of life and show you the other dark side of it which is the truest, I guess. Horror movies should have blood, screams, intensity, skeletons, body organs and parts. Because that is the real horror and it's never away from reality. I have watched almost all horror movies and I can prove that each one of them can be as real as the sunrising. Nothing is unreal as long as the mind had thought of. For instance, the horror movie "Train" with all the slashing and tensity of it and its similarity almost in everything with "Hostel", it speaks about a very real thing which is selling body organs illegally by abducting people in foreign places where no one would ask or search for them.<br /><br />And even if we considered the Broken a movie that has an existential message, it is still very poorly presented and the least scary. I prefer the addiction message presented in Requiem for a Dream which went beyond drug addiction to highlight the fact that any kind of addiction whether for sex, TV, safety/being pampered, etc... can be so destructive and it scared the hell out of me. And those who always criticize horror movies for being meaningless and very commercial, are usually just bunch of people who get scared easily and simply don't like this genre but this doesn't mean that there are fans of such movies and that they have a lot to offer to the viewer from adrenaline turmoils, ecstasy, leadership lessons (believe it or not!), entertainment to most importantly the face to face interview with the essence of life, as ugly and scary as it may seems, Death!
Have you ever had a cool image in your mind that you thought it would be nice to be in a movie: Like seeing a detective peeking through the cracks of a broken fence of some abandoned house? Or seeing a woman walking down a street looking cold and intense and awfully alert? Yeah. Imagine stretching that image to a whole movie, you pretty much got the idea of Broken, though there's no detectives in this movie, I'm just using it as a visual example. But, the intense looking woman is here and she filled pretty much 99% of the screen time. I got nothing to complain about that woman, she's a perfect choice for this role.<br /><br />I consider myself a very open minded individual who can find enjoyment out of all kinds of artistic expressions and I can truly enjoy some really moody stuff. It would be really cool if I can frame one of the scene from this movie and hang it on the wall. Let's be honest here, the acting is superb. Some of the expressions on the actors face are what keep me watching.<br /><br />Now onto the problem of this movie. Beyond the mood, there's not much anything else here. The director basically took an obsession of an idea and ran it far beyond what it was worth. I don't consider it to be a spoiler if I say the obsession is "mirror". Let's face it, this singular idea is all over the bloody place and that's all the director got to work with. Granted, there are a few twist and turn here and there. If you paid any attention, nothing is going to surprise you in the end, obvious plot holes aside.<br /><br />Now, I'm not picking bones with this style of art since I enjoyed them most of the time. I still believe that we should judge an art base on the medium it uses to express whatever the artists want to express. Movie is not a piece of music, or a picture, or a painting, or even a poem, and certainly not just a cool image in your mind. It's all that plus a good story and character development. I consider the Lynch style of movie making cheating. It is irresponsible and cheap and a waste of the medium. We gave movies 2 hours running film time for a good reason. Therefore, we should judge it differently than judging a single frame of imagery such as a photograph or a painting.<br /><br />This movie is not completely Lynch style, thank goodness. It has a linear development and eventually came to a conclusion. It does not have much story or character development. It presented itself rather seriously with characters composed of common folks, thus distance itself from other fantasy stuff at least from the surface. It does not offer any explanation of the fantasy element nor did it ever attempt to build a coherent world around it. The oddity came from nowhere and seems rather isolated and accidental. Maybe the coherency remains in director's head but from what I can see he did not put much effort into realizing it on the screen.<br /><br />Where did he put his effort in then? It seems that he spent a lot of effort in building the mood and enhancing it with the music. The music often built up tension which eventually turn into a tease. Only in the later part of the movie the scare and tension materialized.<br /><br />In the end, I felt like: OK, I know what you are trying to say here but is that the point you are trying to make by spending two hours building up all these tension? It is rather irrelevant with who the characters are and what kind of life they have. And we are given very little about who the characters are. All we have is this circumstance that just took placed. Disappointing but I guess the director did not have much material to work with and it shows.
No,<br /><br />Basically your watching something that doesn't make sense. To not spoil the film for people who actually want to this take a look at the flick I will explain the story.<br /><br />A normal everyday to day women, is walking down a street then find's herself driving by in her own car. She follows her and many events take place during that time that include her and her family.<br /><br />I specifically made an account to comment on this film, of how horribly written this was. The acting was great, the events were great, but the story just brought it nowhere - it could of been added to tremendously and be made into a worldwide epidemic. I'm not sure what the writer was trying to accomplish by making this, usually at the end of films most of your questions get answers but this film has you asking, What just happened and 1 hour 20 minutes just passed for nothing.<br /><br />Spoiler Starts__<br /><br />They had this area between 2 dimensions (ours and behind the glass) that would come into our world and kill us. It was not elaborated on all during the film, and you never know how it was happening or why it was or when it happened. Nothing gets explained during the film. The main character shouldn't of even been the main character. At the end of the film the guy who finally figures it all out and runs away (her sisters boyfriend) should of been the main character but sadly the movie ends 20 seconds after. <br /><br />I bought this movie for $10, threw it out right after.. don't waste your time. I really hope nothing like this is made again.
You gotta wonder how some flics ever get made... this one decided to skip with the why among many other things and just wanders off beyond the moot. <br /><br />And yet you have a number of decent actors doing their best to pump some life into the story. The blue tint throughout the movie overshoots into 'yet again', which on its own would be depressing but here it's overkill. The idea that it's not a medical condition, not some house or gypsy or trinket curse but just something that for no apparent reason starts to happen to our protagonist and then to everyone else around her, just winds up being much like taking a big swig out of an empty mug. Some doppelgangers have super powers but others don't or don't know they do? It seems they're just as clueless as we are.<br /><br />It's a poor man's rip-off of "Invasion of the Body-Snatchers" with Keifer Sutherland's "Mirror" and "The Sixth Sense", were you to seriously botch those three together.
this film really tries to hard. if your going to make a horror film, at least give it a reason to believe in to hook the viewer. <br /><br />you wait and wait through the film expecting for some grand explanation but it doesn't. instead it tries to be too clever ending and not revealing anything. <br /><br />what was the point of the movie ? where it's actually going ? and more importantly what the hell was going on . . . <br /><br />why were they there and how does it tie into anything? just another weak sci-fi horror. i love the fake reviews on IMDb saying how great it is by related press releases to bump the movie (either that or people have low horizons). it's not worth your 2hrs at all.<br /><br />i'm not saying the film is better than the fragile, but at least that gave you reasoning and why things happened and has an end result. this doesn't and it just waffle's on with tons of padding to make everything feel scary. this film is about as low as when a stranger calls. god that was lame too. <br /><br />big tip, if your gonna make a horror, make it believable with reasoning and explain to the viewer what's going on, so they have a hook into your story. because if there's no reasoning or believability then there's no firm hold on anything and it can't be scary. no disrespect to the cast or crew cause they did a good job. it's just the poor writing.
THE BROKEN is part of the After Dark Horrorfest III. Not a slasher or filled with gore. Plenty of broken glass and mirrors in this edgy thriller from France and writer/director Sean Ellis. A successful radiologist Gina McVay(Lena Headly)inters a strange world as her life seems to spiral out of control. While attending her father's(Richard Jenkins)birthday party, the guests are stunned when a mirror crashes to the floor for no obvious reason. Things get really strange when she witnesses a woman that is the spitting image of herself driving down a London street in a car identical to her own. Gina sneaks to her doppelganger's apartment and finds a photo of herself with her father. She drives away and is involved in a head on collision. Then mysteriously her boyfriend is not the same; to be exact family and friends are not easy for her to trust. Is Gina beside herself? Is she in a parallel world? Her nightmares become more horrific...is she broken?<br /><br />Kudos if you can figure this one out...it won't be easy. Editing couldn't be any tighter. Lighting is questionable. Other players: Melvil Poupard, William Armstrong, Michelle Duncan and Ulrich Thomsen.
Very unnecessary movie with characters that are acting so unsympathetically that I really didn't care who would fare the best (or was that the purpose of the film, to portray some smooth talking cold-hearted New York city folks?) No romance here, no comedy either. Acting is very flat and a very predictable plot. What annoyed me the most was this constant joking with quotes from classic movies. Man, can't you see that the more you quote, the less significant your own movie becomes? Try to be original yourself! A small budget is no excuse at all, first-time director neither. Crappy, crappy, crappy. No wonder it only cost me one buck...
i'm being generous giving this movie 2 stars. the line about "have you even seen the wizard of oz" was the best part for me! with terrible writing and acting like displayed in this movie it's no wonder so many are taken in by worthless tv reality shows. do yourself a favor and get out of the house and hit a royals baseball game, your gonna be glad ya did!
This was a cute movie until the ending. The ending was merely one more despicable effort to emasculate men and empower women at their expense. The girl refused to listen to reason and logic and used her passive/aggressive nature to control and impose her will on the guy who ultimately yielded his power and control over the relationship to her. It is not by chance that she was sitting behind the driver's wheel in the car as they drove away at the end after he had to beg her and plead with her to take him back. This movie is a victory for all women who think they should be in charge of all men and in control of their relationships with them. It was a despicable movie for that reason.
That's a snippet of choice dialogue delivered by the evil, ballbusting lady assistant of a famous scientist to her prim maid just before she lures three incredibly dumb college girls to a mansion for behavior modification experiments. Meanwhile, at the local bar, people drink and dance to lame 80s rock songs. A biker punk has sex with a cycle slut on a pinball table in front of a crowd of people, then tries to rape the scientist's virginal daughter Jessica (Debra Hunter), who is in love with another biker (Dale Midkiff, from PET SEMATARY), who, in turn, is in cohorts with the assistant! Back at the house, the sorority bimbos swim, shower, change clothes and have sex with men from the bar. A small silver ball (part of the experiment) flies into victims mouths and turns them into drooling, killer zombies!<br /><br />If that isn't enough to entertain you, there's a hilarious theme song ("Nightmare Fantasy"), roller skating, some serious daisy dukes and a psychic hand puppet (!?) that warns "DANGER! DANGER!" just like the LOST IN SPACE robot and recommends hitchhiking as one of the best ways to pick up men!<br /><br />This filmed-in-Florida mess is so mind-numbingly awful that multiple viewings are recommended to soak it all in. And, hey isn't that NYPD Blue's Detective Jill Kirkendall turned CNN newscaster Andrea Thompson as one of oft-nude bimbos? Sure is! Supposedly this was started in 1982 and new footage was added later for the video release in 1985.<br /><br />Score: 1 out of 10 (and I mean that in a good way!)
Surely no Saturday morning TV kids' show was ever done this poorly. After all, those producers had to count on the audience coming back. Well, in this awful offering, they could at least count the money they saved on sets. The script could have been a reject from some long-forgotten space opera serial, with a few smarmy lines added for cool-dude Gerald Mohr to murmur to Naura Hayden. No director could have done anything decent with such a loony storyline, so the action just plods boringly along. The spaceship props are absurd--a Bulova wall clock and portable typewriter, for example--but the planet sets have got to be some of the worst in cinematic history. Most are crude drawings, and it's all bathed in an often misfocused red light. Even Mohr's bare hairy chest is used as a prop. And it's a bad one--as rib-thin as the plot. Any viewer who can make it to the end of this movie will hear a message from the Martians--and will probably agree completely!
Hopelessly inept and dull movie in which the characters stand around in rooms or a rocket ship and talk endlessly. You might think things would perk up when they explore Mars but these scenes are filmed through a heavy red/orange filter which makes everything very murky. The Martian landscape/vegetation consists mainly of drawings and the monsters are entirely unconvincing. There are echoes of 'Bride Of The Monster' when the heroine carefully winds the octopus like tentacle of a flesh eating plant around her before weakly thrashing about, the difference being that the Ed Wood film is a hundred times more entertaining. Better wear earplugs when watching otherwise the 'sci-fi' music score, repeated endlessly, will drive you insane. If you find yourself unable to sleep one night just slip this one into the VCR and your insomnia will be cured in no time.
I gave this movie a 2, and though I consider myself a science fiction fan, I found this movie very difficult to take seriously. It was on AMC one late night, and I'm glad I saw it for free. This movie is probably good for a few laughs, but not much more.<br /><br />The special effects are about average for the time period - not awful, but not great, either. Of course we know more about Mars now than we did back then, but we really can't hold that against this film. The main reason I did not like this movie is because of the story.<br /><br />There were several parts of this movie that I wish would have been explored in a little more detail - the astronaut's injury/condition, the city on Mars, the creature in the lake, etc. Overall, the movie is much like a lengthy episode of the 1960s version of The Outer Limits - complete with a cheesy ending.
The Angry Red Planet (Quickie Review) <br /><br />Like "The Man From Planet X," this is a bizarre science fiction tale culled from an era where fantasy and science fiction were still damn near the same thing. Meaning, we have some highly laughable special effects and rampant pseudo-science masquerading as science fiction. And yes, it's another "classic" released in a high quality transfer with a crisp picture and sharp sound--by Midnite Movies.<br /><br />So, the main reason to watch this film? Oh, it's definitely the whole time our space crew is on Mars. (What, you thought "Angry Red Planet" referred to Neptune?) Prior to that is some rather poor quality space crew boarding a space ship, inside of which they smoke and toss around sexist chauvinistic banter aimed at the "puny female" member of the crew. It'd be somewhat offensive by today's standards if it weren't so damn funny. But Mars is the real reason we're watching this thing. The film is generally black and white, but Mars, well Mars is screaming bloody red. It's filmed in this bizarre red plasticy sheen giving the angry red planet quite an interesting look of overexposed redness. It's really quite a sight—as are the (ha ha) aliens viewers are to witness. The best being the "ratbatspidercrab." You think that's a joke? That's what they call it in the movie! It's a gigantic chimera (small puppet) of a thing combining traits of rats, bats, spiders, and crabs. It bounds along all puppety and scares the sh*t out of our "heroic crew." There are other weird, and poorly imagined, aliens to be seen, but that one takes the cake. Eventually, after their harrowing experience on Mars, the sexist crew boards their "ship" and returns to whatever planet it was they came from.<br /><br />This ain't for everyone. Science Fiction film buffs & curiosity seekers, and some general film buffs. Fans of Mystery Science Theater 3000 will have a field day with this one (if they never got to it on the show).<br /><br />2/10 Modern score, 6/10 Nostalgia score, 4/10 overall.<br /><br />(www.ResidentHazard.com)
PLEASE TAKE A MINUTE TO READ MY ENTIRE REVIEW. I AM NOT KNOCKING THE FILM ITSELF - ONLY THE DVD VERSIONS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.<br /><br />***<br /><br />I really wanted to give this film even two stars. I mean how could it possibly rank a mere 1 out of 10!?!<br /><br />Here's how: An epic film adaptation of Tolstoy's novel "War and Peace" with historically accurate battle scenes, courtesy of the Red Army, and an extremely faithful, scene-for-scene adaptation of the novel would be difficult but worth sitting through for seven hours - if that's what you were seeing.<br /><br />The trouble is you can't see that film - anywhere as far as I know.<br /><br />I am attempting to watch the RusCiCo DVD version - widely considered the best version available since it's letter boxed and restores the scenes that were cut from other DVD releases. <br /><br />But, it is one of the worst film prints I've ever seen transfered to DVD. The picture is muddy and inconsistent, often strobing. It's almost tolerable if you crank your brightness, color and picture levels up to maximum.... but the problem doesn't end there.<br /><br />The sound is also way inconsistent, blaringly loud in parts, virtually inaudible in others. <br /><br />And as for languages, it's a HUGE problem for English speakers - the dubbed option has some good actors, and some really terrible ones whose performance grates, and parts of the film just aren't dubbed at all, slipping back into Russian and even French randomly.<br /><br />The subtitled option isn't much better. The subtitles don't appear below the image, but right over it - obscuring some of the beauty (or what's left of it) in the scenery. Furthermore, the subtitles are often a poor translation (a shame given that the script took pains to hew so close to Tolstoy's actual words), and the subtitles too seem to just drop out in parts. <br /><br />So, even if you max out the color, brightness and picture settings, and turn the volume way up, and choose subtitled *and* English dubbed, you're still going to get a film that's annoying to watch and listen to.<br /><br />Can it's content overcome that? It might have been able to, but at seven hours - who can stand it for that long?<br /><br />Maybe someday, someone will come along and restore this - and maybe then I will see a masterpiece - but for now, I just can't give more than one star to something I've only been able to stand watching about the first 12% of.
This is not a commentary on the actual movie, but on the RUSCICO DVD release for North America. I don't know if there have been different releases and updates, but the disks we rented had a 2000 copyright on them, if that means anything. Anyway, the sound mixing on these DVD's was absolutely horrible. The levels often yo-yo-ed up and down; when the scene cut to a battlefield panorama, the orchestral track would thunder so loudly that I didn't know which would blow out first -- my eardrums or my speakers. When it was time for dialog, the volume would usually drop to something barely audible. Occasionally, the orchestra and Foley-work would stay loud while the dialog was superimposed at a much lesser level. My wife and I found that the only way we could watch this movie at all from these DVD's was if one of us kept a hand on the remote to continuously modulate the volume. And, like another user has already commented, when we selected English audio the dialog kept switching back and forth between Russian and English; and occasionally when the characters spoke in French on the native track the dubbing was in Russian, so you're SOL if you understand neither. Ultimately, we gave up watching after the first disk. Before you fork out $50+ for this movie on DVD for your own library, I'd heartily recommend getting your hands on a rental copy to see whether you can really enjoy this epic flick when burdened by such bad sound, particularly if you've never read the book and really want to understand the storyline.
I'm probably not giving this movie a fair shake, as I was unable to watch all of it. Perhaps if I'd seen it in a theater, in its original presentation, I might have appreciated it, but it's far too slow-moving for me.<br /><br />I read the book some 25 years ago and the details of the plot have faded from memory. This did not help the film, as it's something less than vivid and clear in its presentation of events.<br /><br />This is really four linked films, or a film in four parts, and was, I believe, intended to be seen over four nights in a theatrical presentation. I found Part I to be enjoyable enough, but it was all I could do to sit through Part II, which drags interminably. Reading Tolstoy's philosophizing is one thing. If you get a good translation or can read it in the original, his brilliant writing far outweighs any issues one might have with the pace of the story. On film, however, it's hard to reproduce without being ponderous.<br /><br />I have other issues with the parts of the film that I saw. It's very splashy, with a lot of hey-ma-look-at-this camera work that calls attention to itself, instead of serving to advance the story.<br /><br />Clearly, I'm missing something, but I just couldn't summon the enthusiasm to crank up parts III and IV.
While Bondarchuk was by no means a young man when he was commissioned to work on this project, he was still a novice director with only a single pictures, a successful adaptation of a short WWII story, to his name. Bondarchuk of course had already been an established acting star for a decade but thespian skills mean little behind the camera, and as a director he was woefully unprepared to undertake a production of such scale. And it shows through muddled shot compositions especially apparent in group scenes, often unfortunate camera positions, performances of wildly varying quality for the director was apparently so overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of the task actors were apparently left to their own devices, awkward voiceovers that sound like radio broadcast announcements.<br /><br />Vidor's "War and Peace" was probably the main reason that prompted the Soviet government to spare no expense on this production. The USSR release of the Vidor's picture made quite a splash. Certainly, Bondarchuk wanted to emulate the greatest strength of the Hollywood film and find his own Audrey. His final choice, Lyudmila Savelyeva, a big-eyed sprightly dark-haired thing indeed somewhat resembles Hepburn. Unfortunately she was a Kirov ballet dancer without neither acting experience nor talent, so unsurprisingly the most kind word that I can find to describe her performance is "awful".<br /><br />Though it might be expected that Soviet actors, speaking the same language as Tolstoy's characters, would have better understanding of them than foreigners but this War and Peace often proves that not to be the case. The revolutionary upheaval swept away the thin upper layer of Russian cultural soil, that the world of War and Peace grown out of, so a good share of these big name Soviet actors involved in this production often look as clueless as Americans performing Shakespeare ( I don't mean of course that American actors can't possibly play Shakespeare credibly, but you'll know what I mean if you witnessed American members of the cast in Branagh's adaptations). Of the three main characters only Bondarchuk's Pierre is commendable, but even he was too old for the part and feels out of place in the early going.
Filmed in a documentary style, but you can pretty well tell participants had been coached. A recently divorced wannabe film maker(Myles Berkowitz)sees a chance to liven up his love life and step into the movie biz at the same time. He intends to make a documentary piece about finding love by filming twenty dates including ramifications. The comedy is spotty at best; the rest is mishap after mishap. Also taking part are Richard Arlook, Robert McKee and the enticing Elisabeth Wagner. Trying for credibility the fetching Tia Carrere is talked into a cameo. This will suffice as a handbook on how NOT to get a satisfactory date.
The movie is pretty funny and involving for about four dates, then it becomes a blatant commercial for some guy you (and even his "friends") really can't stand. It is a pretty interesting concept; film dates on a quest to find true love in modern LA. The problem is that it feels incredibly (and badly) scripted at times and blatantly self-promoting. It is difficult to care about and be drawn into any of the characters because the writer/actor is so egotistical, uncool, untrue, and simply unlikeable. You end up feeling sorry for his dates.
I went to a screening of this movie and while it had a couple moments that made me laugh, it had some very major flaws. It first of all presents itself to be the humorous exploits of a real-life divorcee trying to find love in LA. What it morphs into is a depressing, narcissistic, and unfunny romp through the history of the film director's love life and professional life. Jokes wear thin quickly and you find yourself suddenly not caring how this man's dates progress. The ridiculousness is that the director simultaneously presents himself as an extremely annoying and heavily flawed character and then expects us to be concerned.
....ripoff of a dozen better films. Particularly Steven Martin's "LA Story", which at least had the grace to be obviously fictional even though it starred his then-girlfriend playing his girlfriend in the film.<br /><br />Yes, naive boys and girls, "20 Dates" IS a mockumentary, although I am not absolutely certain that was Myles Berkowitz's intent when he started. My impression is that he started the project semi-seriously, then quickly realized that it would be pathetic and not funny unless he made the situations more and more ridiculous. As a result, the whole thing has an uneasy, cheap and insincere feeling about it.<br /><br />As someone smartly pointed out, the film has two of the "dates" suing and putting restraining orders on Myles and yet they appear in the film, which would be impossible as it would require a consent form. It also appears to me that the majority of women who appear as "the dates" are professional actresses (albiet not famous ones, excepting Tina Carrere) -- they are simply too obviously pretty, polished, thin and comfortable in front of the camera to be average civilians.<br /><br />Mr. Berkowitz makes a classic error in only casting this kind of very pretty thin actress, instead of utilizing a variety of believable women, which might have made the premise (even in a mockumentary) more believable and funnier. He also skates over what is probably his real-world problem, and which is that both the movie character and the real world Myles Berkowitz appear to be functionally unemployed (his real life IMDb credits are practically non-existent, excepting this film). Even in the world of the movie, his ex-wife divorced him for never being employed. I think the viewer (let alone Mr. Berkowitz's real life dates) are deserving of an explanation of he manages to live in one of the most expensive urban environments in the US, in a luxury apartment, driving a fancy car and eating out at pricey restaurants when he doesn't seen to have any source of income whatsoever. (Is he drug dealer? Living off his rich parents? No clue!)<br /><br />You can get away with most anything in a film, if the jokes are really funny. "20 Dates" is painfully, embarrassingly UN-funny. Mr. Berkowitz's idea of a joke is to have his character, while on restaurant dates, announce to his companions how the food served is likely to give him either diarrhea or constipation -- the WORST kind of childish potty humor.<br /><br />It is not very surprising to discover that Mr. Berkowitz never made a film before "20 Dates" and in the last 8 years, has not made a single film, appeared as an actor in anyone else's film OR had a writing or producing credit of any kind. My gut instinct tells me that this film was not financed by "Elie" (the gangster money man who appears off-camera) but more likely by Mr. Berkowitz's affluent parents, or perhaps represents a shocking abuse of credit cards. Whichever it was, we can all rest easy that we are unlikely to have to see Myles Berkowitz or any of his creative efforts EVER AGAIN. Hallelujah!!!
This is not a boring movie, the audience might stay on its chair fascinated by this selfish character, Miles Berkowitz, both film-maker and actor here. The storyline is simple : after a divorce and ten years of a hollywoodian non-career, the author plays is quest for love in front of the camera. The first question is about how true is all that : what is written, what came by chance ? Both answers, "yes" or "no" portrays M.Berkowitz as a low average human beeing. If you look for a self-fiction about love like this one, I recommand you to read some independant comic books : Chester Brown, Joe Matt...<br /><br />Beside of this, I felt quite disappointed to hear so much against my country, France. I know american people usually say that the french are arrogant (that might be true then), etc., and for sure the french (and the whole world) have lots of griefs against america, but why so much hate ? Don't think I couldn't like this movie only because of that anyhow.
The film attempts to be a mockumentary--shot in the documentary form but with many obviously scripted parts--but fails in not providing the audience with any characters with which to create the illusion of the mockumentary. Also, the film purports to be about finding real love in Los Angeles, but is nothing more than an uninteresting look at an amateur filmmaker trying to make his first "big movie."
I would rather have 20 root canals than go through this film again. The Prince of Annoying, Myles Berkowitz, has wasted nearly two hours of my life with this piece of cynical pseudo-cool. The only amusing thing in this whole mess is Mr. Samaha's obnoxious off camera patter about tits and ass. Berkowitz takes a great concept and grinds it into the dust. It is choppy and badly done, in an apparent effort to make it seem edgy or funny. It is neither. I seldom feel that a movie was a waste of film (or tape), but this one qualifies for that distinction. If a date suggests seeing this film, run.
With no affinity towards any type of filmmaking, and a healthy appreciation of documentaries, I can honestly say I was angry at myself for bothering to sit through the entire length of "20 Dates". I won't waste your time with the plot, you may read other reviews. I will say though that Berkowitz's hyper, Woody Allen-style narration was extremely annoying. You either wished he'd lay off the coffee or ingest some tranquilizers. And it's potentially apparent to Berkowitz himself that this film was a bad idea, as parts of it details his trials to finance the documentary. Forgive me for disguising insults as compliments, but I'll give credit to Berkowitz for having the skills to convince some idiot to finance this horrid piece of ****. I appreciate the boundaries & intentions of the film here, but even when regarding the standards Berkowitz sets for himself, he fires off and misses on all levels. In closing, I'm sure many of these female companions were not at ease going on a date with a twitchy wanna-be filmmaker, and therefore I question the film's sense of authenticity. Hey Myles, I loved your film the first time I saw it... when it appeared as an episode of Seinfeld or was a film directed by Woody Allen or Kevin Smith.
No likeable characters (the lead is a combination of the WORST of Woody Allen/Paul Provensa/Reiser) and the contrived scenes (did anyone REALLY think thiat kid on the rollerblades was NOT going to knock the guy down?) were just sickeningly bad.<br /><br />
<br /><br />However, the ladies of all ages will lap it up, no doubt; at least the opposite sex understand what it is to be a mother, and most of us men try to fathom out what it is to be a father. Whether changing nappies is not at all my favourite occupation and trying to get those bottled baby-foodstuffs into errant toothless mouths must rank very high on household duties preferably left to its mother, has absolutely nothing to do with the matter.<br /><br />Some good interpretations here, and a good story idea; the handling of the matter, limited to rather scanty TV-production concepts, gives the film a rather over-mellowy taste with not much new to offer. An insipid way of delivering the goods, and in the end the outcome is so forseeable during the last 20 minutes or so, even my wife dozed off, and I was jumping up to the computer to get the on-line scoring in the Barcelona-Deportivo match, hoping the away team would do something rather good. They did. This film did not.<br /><br />Better by far is Mike Leigh's magnificent "Secrets and Lies" (qv) which touches on the same subject matter, but with Brenda Blethyn playing a far superior part.
Sean Bean is great, as are the photography, locations and costumes. However, the plot is somewhat muddled, and the conclusion flat. The plot has been SUBSTANTIALLY altered from Cornwell's novel, and not to the better. Unfortunately, this adventure is much better read than watched. Sharpe was too narrowly drawn here, in contrast with his literary alter ego, who seems more intelligent and determined despite his apprehension in his new role as an officer promoted from the ranks. I really enjoyed the brief scene in which Sharpe is tripped by a "real" officer, and after a quick pause and piercing stare, pushes the surprised and cowed officer right back. It sets the tone for his later trials as a commanding officer.<br /><br />Rating: "4" of "10."
This is a rip off of the old Frankenstein premise. An acclaimed scientist is killed in a freakish accident and his father, a noted brain surgeon saves the brain. It is then put into a robotic body of his own design. His brother, an electrical genius, gives the 'colossus' impetus to transfer thoughts into motion. The whole project goes bad, when the creation goes berserk.<br /><br />Special effects are undeveloped. The script is lacking. And it is humorous that this is not scary a bit. Well, very small kids will think this is good. If you are wide awake at three in the morning and this comes on....night, night.<br /><br />The lead characters are played by Otto Kruger, John Baragrey and Ross Martin. Ed Wolff played the 'Colossus'.
You know this is gonna be a cheesy movie when:<br /><br />1. It was made it the 50's 2. It's in black and white. 3. It has no name actors! 4. Screaming makes up for the lack of special effects!<br /><br />Well not to be outdone - this movie brilliantly incorporated all four of the above elements to turn this into a true cinematic blunder.<br /><br />Okay - shhhhh but I am gonna discuss special effects here - or lack of them - <br /><br />Did you catch the underwater scenes? It looks like it was poorly filmed through an aquarium - note the cape flapping in the breeze.<br /><br />And the repeated re-use of Stock Footage, (exterior house shots, the bridges scenes -- great enhanced the K-R-A-F-Tiness of this film - not since "PLAN 9" - have I seen such creative usage of stock footage.<br /><br />And hey where there was a lack of special effects - not to worry - screaming DOES take the place of special effects in this movie as well. Yes this movie even cleverly used that old hack trick.<br /><br />Grab the popcorn - set your brain on stun (several fermented beverages DEFINITELY helps), sit back, and wonder: why the heck did they put this on film again?<br /><br />Wayno<br /><br />
Unless you are geeky film student who has to see everything, this film will not only be a waste of your time and money and a huge disappointment, but it will also make you angry beyond belief.<br /><br />There might be a story worth telling somewhere inside, but Hopkins decided to hide it and encode under so many incessant chaotic layers of apparently random audio video microcuts, making the viewer's patience run thin after a very short while.<br /><br />Why would someone like Hopkins choose such a heavy, most difficult and highly unstable project as his first script, first score and third film can by anyones guess. Maybe he played with it in his mind for such a long time until it became unrecognizable as what it became, not even for himself. The result proves that he has by far not enough experience or skill to achieve the desired result.<br /><br />Even the weirdest Carpenter and Lynch films, to name just two uncoventional filmmakers, had 90% more coherence, 95% less characters and 99% more story flow.<br /><br />Sir Anthony you aimed for the stars, but unfortunately missed by a couple of light years. Please stick to acting, in that department you are a unequaled giant and nobody should ask more from you, not even yourself!
A confused mess from start to finish. Like they used to say about the Beatles'songs, there was a secret message if you played the LP backward. If one had the patience to watch this films scenes from finish to start, you'd come away with the same degree of disappointment.<br /><br />Apart from all of this psychedelic hodge podge of flashbacks and false starts, the clearest characters were the movie backers, out for revenge if the movie didn't get sorted. There was nothing to like about these two either. Overacting, shouting and threats were delivered in comic book fashion. I think one dimensional was an overstatement.<br /><br />Okay, so maybe the artsy types are rolling their eyes reveling in the fact that unlike them, we plebeians just didn't get it. Well I'm afraid there was nothing to get. And the two cardinal sins of any bad movie carried from start to finish. A non-existent and pathetic story line if you want to call it that, and by far the worst, not a single character you cared about in the least.
Why did I waste 1.5 hours of my life watching this? Why was this film even made? Why am I even commenting on this film?<br /><br />One reviewer said this film took patience to watch and it was n't for everybody. I cannot figure out who this movie is for. maybe after dropping a hit of acid, SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE could watch this and make some sense out of it. It is incoherent, it isn't experimental, it's plain and simple garbage. The film follows no plot line whatsoever, just when you think you have something, well.....you don't. <br /><br />I think the ending brought some finality to the film (no pun intended), the viewer gets a glimpse of what might have been going on. I don't think I put a spoiler in here, not that it would matter. This film is another must miss in the world of filmdom.
What Hopkins does succeed at with this effort as writer and director is giving us a sense that we know absolutely no one in the film. However, perhaps therein lies the problem. His movie has a lot of ambition and his intentions were obviously complex and drawn from very deep within, but it's so impersonal. There are no characters. We never know who anyone is, thus there is no investment on our part.<br /><br />It could be about a screenwriter intermingle with his own characters. Is it? Maybe. By that I don't mean that Slipstream is ambiguous; I mean that there is no telling. Hopkins's film is an experiment. On the face of it, one could make the case that it is about a would-be screenwriter, who at the very moment of his meeting with fate, realizes that life is hit and miss, and/or success is blind chance, as he is hurled into a "slipstream" of collisions between points in time, dreams, thoughts, and reality. Nevertheless, it is so unremittingly cerebral that it leaves no room for any hint of emotion, even to the tiny, quite rudimentary extent of allowing us a connection with its characters.<br /><br />I didn't think the nippy and flamboyant school of shaky, machine-gun-speed camera-work and editing disengaged me, but reflecting upon the film I am beginning to realize that it had a lot to do with it. There are so many movies of the past decade in which the cuts or camera movement have sound effects as well as other atmosphere-deteriorating technical doodads. I suppose in this case it was justified in that its purpose was to compose the impressionistic responsiveness of dreams. However, I knew barely anything about Slipstream when watching it, and I came out the same way. And I just do not care, because Hopkins made no effort to make us care. There are interactive movies, and there are movies that sit in a rocking chair and knit, unaware of your presence. Slipstream is the latter.
Given the chance to write, direct and star in my own movie, I would probably choose something about robot women with guns. Anthony Hopkins, however, decided to make possibly the strangest movie anyone has ever seen. "Slipstream" is a movie that is so strange that even David Lynch would probably look at the person next to him and say 'What's going on?'.<br /><br />This is a movie where, in one scene, a man crosses the road towards a yellow car facing to the right which suddenly changes into a pink car facing to the left. This is a movie where two characters have a conversation interspersed with shots of random people laughing and insects climbing up walls. This is a movie where a man starts talking about "Invasion Of The Bodysnatchers" only for the actor of that particular movie to suddenly show up as himself (and then disappear into thin air). <br /><br />This is a movie that decides to throw the need for a coherent plot straight out of the window and use fifteen different edits whilst doing so, as well as changing from black and white to colour for seemingly no reason at all.<br /><br />I must, however, commend Mr Hopkins for his choice of actors in this movie (some of whom portray multiple characters). All of those involved throw themselves into their roles, even if they probably have no idea what they're actually doing. My favourite here was Christian Slater's thug in a hat who was impressively menacing whilst babbling nonsense and singing the American national anthem. <br /><br />Anthony Hopkins has been quoted saying that he did this movie as a joke and that's possibly the best way to sum up "Slipstream". It's a joke on the audience. You'll watch it from beginning to end, trying to understand what is going on and hoping that the answer will come, only to discover that the answer never actually does. What the punchline to this particular joke is, only Anthony Hopkins will ever know.<br /><br />I mentioned David Lynch earlier and I'm a big fan of that particular director. I would guess that Anthony Hopkins shares my love for the likes of "Twin Peaks", "Blue Velvet" and "Lost Highway". However, "Slipstream" isn't as satisfying as any of the movies of Lynch despite imitating many of his techniques (although I was surprised to discover that nobody talks backwards in "Slipstream"). It's far too chaotic and random - as another reviewer here pointed out, it's the movie version of Alzheimer's disease. No doubt there are a small number out there who are able to watch this and draw something from it. Unfortunately for the rest of us, "Slipstream" quickly becomes an annoying and confusing experience that was only made due to Hopkins' involvement.<br /><br />Watch at your own risk.
This movie is once again, one of those movies that someone thinks or tries to make others think that they understood it. Anyone who tries to make any sense of this is a MORON! My advise would be to take TWO not one but TWO hits of very strong acid and at least you'll get a visual thrill out of it!! Although at the end you may kill yourself for wasting your acid!!!! Being that this comment requires 10 lines of info, let me write something for those of you that will try to defend the movie. Unintelligble. Garbage. Schitzoid. Waste of talent. Movie is ice, with paper on destination with ringing clouds, on a sunny dive in the pudding.... Sounds like lion in a red light with seeing hair. Now explain that to me!!!!
Look, I'm sorry if half the world takes offense at this, but life is confusing enough. I don't need to watch it that way. I dig Anthony Hopkins, big time. I even watched Fracture, and I knew that would be a steaming pile of Quentin. But this thing is not well shot, and it's not daring--even if it is artsy. Well-produced films have reasons for cuts and fast edits, not this "oh, but it's a realistic interpretation" excuse. This thing'll make your head hurt. It's the fastest moving picture ever to take you nowhere at all. I still love AH, and I'll always give him another chance, but if you aren't made of time to watch bad ideas on screen, skip this.
What a muddled mess. I saw this with a friend a while ago and we both consider ourselves open-minded to the many wonders of cinema, but this sure isn't one of them.<br /><br />While there very well could be some good ideas/concepts and there are certainly some good performances (under the circumstances), it is all buried under random nonsense. Sir Anthony draws way too heavily from the same gene pool as Natural Born Killers, U Turn and similar films as far as the editing is concerned, or maybe he watched himself in Nixon for inspiration. Say what you want about David Lynch, but at least he more often than not has a method to the madness.<br /><br />His quote of stating that he made the film as a joke says it all. It's not worth your money, bandwidth or time.
I have seen bad movies before, but this one takes the "Worst Movie of a Lifetime" award by far !! Anthony Hopkins has to be completely mentally ill to have his name attached to this one - anywhere ! I will never see another movie with him in it, directing it, etc., etc. ! I can't believe the other actors & actresses that I liked, (in this picture), that stooped so low to be a part of this disaster ! There must be some great drugs out there ! For anyone to not be embarrassed to be a part of such a film, is beyond me ! Save your money on this one ! HUGE FLOP from beginning to end ! Shame on you Mr. Hopkins ! Also, shame on Christian Slater ! I can't believe you put your reputations on the line for this one !
I actually had quite high hopes going into this movie, so I took what was given with a grain of salt and hoped for the best. About 1/3 of the way through the film I simply had to give up, quite simply the movie is a mish-mash of stuff happening for no apparent reason and it's all disconnected. I love movies that make you think, but this movie was just a bunch of ideas thrown together and never really connected.<br /><br />Don't think it's David Lynch-esquire as some would have you believe, it is nowhere near that realm other than some trippy visuals. Saying it's artsy to disguise the fact there's no apparent plot or story is just a manner or justifying why you wasted the 1.5 hours in the film. The acting was good, but that cannot save lack of story. I do agree with the one comment posted previously... "it's like being in some other person's head... while they're on drugs," in other words nothing makes sense.
This movie was a disappointment. I was looking forward to seeing a good movie. I am the type of person who starts a movie and doesn't turn it off until the end, but I was forcing myself not to turn it off. <br /><br />Theonly reason why I didn't turn it off was because I am a huge Christian Slater fan and I wanted to see him act in it. I was really speechless after I finished watching the movie. <br /><br />This movie was one of the worst movies that I have seen in my life. Thank you Christian Slater for putting some humor into it. If you hadn't been in this movie I would of been bored out of my mind.<br /><br />I also agree that Anthony Hopkins needs to stick to acting. By the time the movie was over I didn't even get the plot. I was both confused and annoyed.
I rented this movie on the merits of what the trailer showed, and of course Sir Anthony Hopkins.<br /><br />If Jackson Pollack teamed up with David Lynch, and Timothy Leary to make a movie, this would be the end result. I don't think I've seen a movie like it that made an LSD trip look like an episode of Sesame Street.<br /><br />It's a bunch of set pieces where the characters flash in and out of reality, or various realities, and the film doesn't culminate into anything until the last 5 minutes, where all of a sudden it makes sense. I wrote a scathing review on my movie review blog that essentially gives everything away, and I won't do that here. It's a well acted piece of cinema, and the soundtrack was written by Sir Anthony Hopkins, and let me say this, if there's one redeeming feature to this film, it's the music. It fits perfectly. Some of the dialogue is unbelievably good, and unbelievably bad all at the same time.<br /><br />I enjoyed parts of this movie, I truly did, and once you get to the end of it, you'll actually figure out what's truly going on. It's unfortunate that you have to wade through 2 hours of crazy to get to a salient point, which minimizes the effect of the entire movie.<br /><br />I give it a 3 out of 10 for the simple fact that the real problem with this film isn't the acting, it's everything.
I love Anthony Hopkins as an actor so I was very interested to see how he would do as a writer/director. I could not have been more disappointed by this move. The movie was so disjointed and the cinematography was so over done to the point I wanted to pull the plug out of the wall. The actors were very good but it was such a waste of talent. Not all actors are cut out to be writers or directors and clearly Mr. Hopkins falls into this category. Of all the movies I have ever seen in my 50 years, this is absolutely the worst movie ever. Please do us all a favor Mr. Hopkins and stick to acting, which you are excellent at, and leave the writing and directing to those who are talented in those areas. If I could give this movie a rating less than one I certainly would.
Oh dear... as an Englishman, and a small part Welsh, a fan of Anthony Hopkins' work in the industry..... to date, I am truly disappointed. <br /><br />You see I am a nobody, who hoped for better. So my comments are as 'straw in the wind'. But, that's the point isn't it? - I have no axe to grind on the commercial value of a work. I, a full member of the great unwashed, go to see a movie to be transported to another place. To yes, suspend belief for a brief period. But not to enter a state of total disbelief.<br /><br />Had this been by an unknown author and director, I would guess that this 'production' would have been castigated into oblivion. Unfortunately, its not, and I was left wide eyed and confused. Having seen some of the rave reviews given this work I am faintly worried....<br /><br />Perhaps its that I try, without prejudice, to view each movie on its own merits. Regardless of author, director, studio or even the notoriety of the content.<br /><br />My advice, as many before me: Don't Write and Direct the same production. It is fraught with danger. Movies need to be moderated to retain a semblance of credibility.<br /><br />As they say in school reports "Could and can do better..."
I wasn't entirely sure what to expect from a Comedy, Drama, Fantasy, Sci-Fi genre, but, given the actors involved I thought I'd give it a spin. The tone of the film felt awkward, going through patches of each of the genres but never quite felt balanced, so eventually I gave up trying, and concentrated on the cinematography and individual performances, which I thought were good on the whole, considering each character had little depth because of the nature of the story (won't give anything away here). I have to say it felt a LOT longer than its 96 minute runtime, and not in a good way. In the end I was looking for closure, some measure of satisfaction but it didn't turn out to be the clever or ingenious piece I had hoped it would be. I think Tony mistakenly thought what he did do at the end of the film gave us that... but it was a tragic mistake to try and validate the previous 95 minutes with the ill-conceived conclusion. Ultimately I feel cheated. IMO it would have been better to let it stand without the "ending" as a piece of Art... just. Or... I may have missed the point completely :)
This movie was a complete waste of time.<br /><br />I viewed this movie with a group of cinematic enthusiasts, who have varied taste in movies yet always a keen eye for a work of "genius" (as one of my fellow commenters on this site had the gall to label this steaming pile…); not one of them found a single redeeming quality. We ended the movie with a rousing chorus of expletives I will not reprint here.<br /><br />I can only guess that the positive reviews provided here were written by Sir Anthony Hopkins, himself. Afterall, as one of those reviewers will tell you, he financed the film himself – because no one else in Hollywood or anywhere else in the world, for that matter, would risk a single penny or their good name in association with this film. Don't let the semi-famous actors who appear in the film lure you into its clutches – as Christian Slater admits in the special features "making of" he signed on to the film without reading the script or knowing any details (a folly I am sure he will never repeat).<br /><br />I pity the hapless individual who stumbles into this quagmire of self-indulgence written, directed, produced, and financed by a man who is too famous to admit to himself that not everything he creates is a masterpiece (and if you don't believe me please google "Anthony Hopkins" AND art).
Okay...so i've seen a lot of really odd/unusual movies in my day. Fear and loathing in Las Vegas comes to mind when I think of that. Well not anymore...from here on out, whenever someone asks me, "hey, what's the most unusual movie you've ever seen?" Slipstream is what i'll say! And I do not mean "unusual" in a good way.<br /><br />From the very beginning of the movie, it was obvious that this was going to be one of those "trippy camera effect" movies. By that I mean, little things like flashing images on the screen, rewinding and fast-forwarding people's words and scenes, messing with the color on the screen, flash forwards and flash backs constantly...then you have the actual acting itself. People randomly get violent, shoot things/people, say the weirdest things that just don't make much, if any sense.<br /><br />The movie is about a writer who starts to intermingle real life with the book he's writing and for a lack of a better way to explain it, you basically see this "trip" he goes on throughout the movie. The thing is, Johnny Depp went on a similar trip in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas but the only difference is that his trip was entertaining to watch, not painful! Honestly, I had a real hard time even finishing Slipstream. It kind of hurt my brain a bit.<br /><br />I can see some film buff making a claim as to this movie having certain cinematic nuances that make it not only unique but add to the feeling of dementia...blah, blah, blah. Point is, this movie hurts your brain when you watch it....it makes very little sense, it takes all of your concentration to even remotely try and understand what is going on and even at the end, the only thing you can be happy about is that it's over...and you can say you actually sat through it! So in closing, if you want to see a movie that will have you saying "what the heck" over and over again both out loud and in your head, go ahead and waste an hour and 30 minutes and check this out.<br /><br />Mr Hopkins, while I applaud you as an actor and commend your choice to take a stab at directing....please, do not ever make a movie like this again. Next time, try something that relies a little more on great storytelling than camera techniques that tend to leave the viewer with a headache.
What seemed as a good premise for a movie...unfortunately it fails to deliver on nearly every level. Very hard to follow at the start of the movie I actually found myself fighting the urge to turn it off the biggest problem from a visual aspect is the fact that the camera work is simply over the top with so many "arty" splicings and semi-subliminal cuts throughout the movie that actually distracts you from the from the overall story. It really tries too hard to immerse you in the moment and build to a suspenseful ending but the movie just has so many half conceived characters and non relevant script it just leaves you feeling disappointed and confused as to why they tried to go so deep with it.
Yep, the topic is a straight quote from the movie and I think it's pretty accurate. I was so bored to dead with this pointless effort. All the flashes etc. making no sense after first 20 minutes is just bad film making + If you are epileptic, you would have died at least five times already. Of course all the David Lynch fans would raise a flag for this kind of turkey to be "the best film ever made" because it doesn't make any sense AND when it doesn't make any sense it's got to be art, and art movie is always good. Right? I say WRONG. This kind of artificial art grab is just a pathetic way to try to show that you're a good film maker. Anthony Hopkins as a excellent actor should just stay acting.
Well then, thank you SO MUCH Disney for DESTROYING the fond memories I USED to have of my FORMER favorite movie. I was about 5 when the original movie came out, and it was one of the first movies I remember seeing. So, now that I'm 16, and feeling masochistic enough, I decided to rent this movie. Thus, I managed to poison all my memories of the original movie with this sorry excuse for a movie. This movie takes everything that made the original endearing and wrecks it, right down to the last detail.<br /><br />In this movie, Ariel and Eric celebrate the birth of their daughter, Melody, and go to show her to everyone in the ocean...BROADWAY STYLE! After the musical number ends, within minutes, the sea witch Morgana shows up and threatens to kill Melody if Triton doesn't give up the trident. Thus, he gives it up without even a fight. Eric stands there gaping, though Ariel figures out how to use a sword and save Melody. Morgana escapes, so Ariel and Eric decide that Melody should never go near the sea until Morgana is caught.<br /><br />Well...uh, nothing of note really happens. Eric is a total wuss. He never really manages to do anything. Ariel sort of does something. Melody manages to screw things up. Plus, the animation is a new low-point for Disney. The computer graphics wind up clashing with the backgrounds. Ever single opportunity for character development is wasted. The songs bite.<br /><br />Look, don't waste your time. I'm pretty sure even the little kids are going to be bored out of their skulls with this, since nothing even remotely exciting ever happens. They won't want to sing the songs. If you manage to grab a copy of this, throw it out into the ocean and hope that nobody ever finds it. Ever.
If there's one thing you can count on Disney to do, it's their uncanny ability to take a story and tell it again and again and again. Even watching the commercial for Lady and the Tramp II was a horrible experience. Disney's going to ruin one of their most awesome classics ever. It even had that spaghetti meatball scene. It's been done before! And that's what I say to this sorry direct to video(the entire concept should be banned). Everything is just a rehash of the original movie and even several of Bluth's really bad movies. The penguin and walrus duo(I've even forgotten their names) are just a really poor carbon copy of Timon and Pumbaa. Morgana is another Ursula. She even repeats practically all her old lines. The songs are pathetic, really abysmal. I've never heard songs so bad from them before until now. And the dialogue is atrocious. It's pathetic and simplistic. On the plus side, at least they took the time to make the animation somewhat decent. All of the usual characters aren't as annoying as they used to be(or maybe that's a minus for Little Mermaid fans). Back on the negative, Melody is just so sickeningly cute you just might vomit. I almost did. Do yourself and your Little Mermaid fan a favor. Don't waste your money on this. True, it's not as horrific as Return of Jafar or Pocahontas II, but that's little consolation.
This movie makes me want to throw up every time I see it. If you take the first movie, and reverse the plot (ariel wants to leave the sea, her daughter wants to go to the sea), take the same characters and give them new animals and new names, and then throw in crappy animation and the biggest suck factor, possible, you get the little mermaid 2. Its basically a copy of the first movie with a reversed plot. I'll take you through the horror of it step by step. These are the people from the 1st movie: First of all, Prince Eric is still prince eric, with about 3 lines in the whole movie. Ariel is uptight, annoying, and is not the carefree, headstrong spirit we saw in the 1st. In fact, she is the exact opposite. Sebastian is still sebastian only less cute, less convincing as being stressed out, and the jokes just aren't funny anymore. Flounder has about 2 lines. He now has kids and he talks with a dumb nasal voice. Scuttle is still dumb scuttle only not funny. King Triton's character is probably the best, he still retains the intimidation and love for his daughter, Melody. Ariel and Prince Eric appear not to give a hoot about their daughter. <br /><br />Like i said, all they did was use the characters from the first movie and copy them. This is what they did: Ursula- The new evil villain is Morgana, Ursula's sister who feels like she always lived in Ursula's shadow. I wouldn't be scared of her if she showed up at my doorway with a knife. She can't do anything right and she's a failure as a villain. She has the same voice ursula did. Sebastian & Flounder - Have been replaced by probably the most stupid sidekicks, Tip & Dash, a walrus and a penguin. They try to be hero's but always fail when trying. the plot is so predictable. They become heroes at the end. Yawn. Flatson& Jetsom- Now replaced by a shark who was turned about 10x smaller by triton. Hes really bad too. Morgana and the shark (sharkbait, I think was his name) have no chemistry, good or bad. Ariel-Ah, Ariel. Our lovely mermaid was replaced by her un-lovely daughter, melody. Melody cannot sing, her voice is about 2 octaves higher than it should be, and you want to punch her in the face because shes so fake sugary sweet. She wants to go to the sea, she is clumsy and the kids make fun of her, she has to go find herself. yawn.<br /><br />Not only is the movie boring and unoriginal its so simplistic when you watch this movie you will gasp at how bad it is. Certain parts of the movie make you want to call Disney up and demand why such a horrible movie was made as a sequel to such a wonderful original.<br /><br />Basically, comparing the little mermaid 2 to the little mermaid is like comparing and Ed Wood movie to Casablanca. Don't ever watch this, not even when your bored.
I suppose it was for Temple Matthews who written basically a remake even though there are few changes which just make it worse. SPOILERS: It is much similar to the original. Melody, Ariel's new daughter is threatened by Ursula's sister, Morgana. Morgana escapes, but keeps her promise to take Melody away from them. Did Ursula have a sister?! And she is not that great a villain as Ursula was. This is where there is similarity. Medoly is kept from the sea until Morgana is captured, but she doesn't know a thing about it, because it all happened when she was a baby. A wall surrounds the palace to keep her in and morgana out. She goes under the wall day to day to have a swim and talk with Sebastian, who is not as funny or fun as in the original. She finds a seashell with her name on it and runs away from home and to look for answers and finds Morgana. Here is a similarity; Morgana tricks Melody, making her happy by turning here into a mermaid. Meanwhile, Eric, Melody and King Triton look for her. To stay a mermaid she needs to steal the trident from Triton. So Melody does, because she does not know King Triton is her father. She makes friends with a penguin and a walrus and here is where it is awful. The penguins who live with them in an icy ocean, hate them because they are cowards. So they try to prove they are heroes and fail. That does not suit the little mermaid. And the dialogue during those conversations between the penguins and those two characters is ear-bleeding. you know why? Because the first had a great story. This one is not and is not magical. It is just an example of how bad many sequels are.<br /><br />Melody finds them and they help to take her to Atlantica to prove themselves. When they take the trident, Ariel finds Melody with Morgana. Melody is angry at her mother for keeping her from the sea so she gives the trident to Morgana, then she shows her true colours once she grabs it. Poor Ariel and Melody are in her custody. The penguin and the walrus begin to prove themselves when they fight Morgana's shark friend. Sorry I did not mention him earlier. They finally prove themselves. Eric, King Triton and his soldiers arrive but are forced to bow down before Morgana by the power of the trident. Melody takes it, throws it to Triton and he ices Morgana (literally). Then Ariel apologises to Melody and thinks it is all her fault. It was not! Ariel did the right thing to protect Melody, but they never say so. Triton offers Melody to live in sea or land. She in fact has a "better idea". She uses the trident to vaporize the wall so humans and mer-folk can be together. Then everyone sings an awful song. THE END.<br /><br />Whoever has seen it and likes this obviously has not seen the original. I do not dislike this because I am a teenager. I liked it when I was very very little. Then as I grew older I began to see what is bad about this film. young, young kids will enjoy it, but it is likely that when they are in primary school, they will forget about it. Normally I would think I over-judged a film and it was better than I remember when I watched it again, but not this one. It is even worse. Story is no exception. If you thought, by reading this that the story is good, read more of this comment and you will know the other bad points: Well, you know the story now. I am sorry for spoiling it for you, but I had to point out some bad parts of it. One of the worst things is the animation. Colour is awful. The original had beautiful colour. Watching this almost made me want to go blind. Even the illustrations and landscape design were not good. The original had beautiful, magical colouring and beautiful underwater landscape design and for land as well, making it a joy to watch.<br /><br />The music is unbearable. Compared to the first, the music here is crap. Songs are not that well composed and Tara Strong (I think that is her name) who did Melody can not sing. She at times either sang too high or did not keep track for the melody in the song. So much for having "Melody" as a name.And the music is not at all beautiful or moving. Little Mermaid 1 won an Oscar for it and it truly deserved it. This one deserved a razzie award for worst musical score in a sequel if it would exist.<br /><br />I did not like the voices. Several people who played characters from the first, did the same ones in this. Jodi Benson is a great singer, but now that she is older, no offence to her, her voice is too deep and not so beautiful anymore. And I am really disappointed in her and others who were in the first for being a part of this. If I was chosen for this film, just by reading the script, I can tell it would be a bad film. The characters are different now. Ariel is more wiser now, but annoying. They overdid her character, making her too mature. In sequels you are not meant to change the characters unless it is for a special reason. She was sixteen in the first. There is little chance she changes. That is the stage when you become the person you are going to be for the rest of your life. Screenwriters should think of that. They should think of the character.<br /><br />Well, I suppose that is it for me. I hope you find my comment useful, because I am sure a lot of you will agree with my point of view.
It wasn't good. The characters were underdeveloped and the only personality were from the memories I had of the previous movie which contrasted with the 'new' personalities (or lack thereof). I seriously thought the opening scene was a nightmare by Ariel because of how absurd it was. It was serious. It just reminded me of all the annoying characters on the Disney channel-everyone is hyperactive and the story jumps from action to embarrassing scenes without any really connection.<br /><br />The most disappointing part was the horrible songs-not catchy, not amazing. In the original Ariel had an amazing and powerful voice and all the song are catchy and fun. You remember them and want to sing them. But the songs in this movie weren't creative in the least; it's as if they're talking in a annoying sing-song voice-quite weakly, disappointing. I don't have that want-to-sing-them feeling you normally get from a Disney movie.<br /><br />It's as if not one wanted to do this movie, so they barely made an effort . . . this movie would needs a new story line, new catchy songs and more warmth and enthusiasm without the annoying "look at me! look at me! I'm so annoying!" mentality of this generation of Disney. :'(
Disney has yet to meet a movie it couldn't make at least two sequels about. And this one was no exception to the people at Disney to give a weak story to receive a quick reward. Somehow, although I did not pay to view it, I feel cheapened by watching it.<br /><br />Ariel is grown up now and had a daughter. Yet doesn't allow the daughter to go into the sea because of some idle threat made by the sister of the deceased sea-witch. So here we go again.<br /><br />The daughter is tricked (of course) and helps the sea-witch. After a not-so-glorious battle, she is defeated and the mermaids and humans live in harmony. Yawn.<br /><br />There is nothing to view here. Go back to your lives. "D-"
Since the Little Mermaid was one of my favorite Disney movies when I was little, I was curious about its sequel.<br /><br />The Little Mermaid(one) is a classic animated feature with top quality everything, a grand music score, and targets a general audience. In contrast, the Little Mermaid 2 is targeted primarily at young children, because it is spontaneous, reflects a child's self perspective, the music is bouncier and less dramatic, and the ending feels like recess.<br /><br />The Little Mermaid 2 starts out when baby Melody is presented to Ariel's side of the family. Abruptly without any visual cues to aid the drama, a giant tentacle grabs the baby. I laughed, wait a minute it's not funny, the baby's being attacked! Okay, I'll stop laughing. Morgana's crime in broad daylight and her spontaneity, takes away potential drama since it happened so quickly.<br /><br />Throughout the feature, Melody seems superhuman, which I defend is how most children envision themselves. This quality in Melody's character is clearly brought out toward the end when she fights Morgana without an inch of fear on her face.<br /><br />Like the first movie, Melody has a lot of Ariel's problems, except the reverse. Queen Ariel turns out to be like her father by restricting her from the ocean, whereas King Triton restricted Ariel from the surface. Ariel and Melody both rebel against their parent.<br /><br />The music is more emotionally moving in the first. This sequel has a bunch of songs, but not as much orchestral work went into it. It's great for little ones, because it doesn't take an orchestra to impress them.<br /><br />The ending in the first movie was strong and uplifting. The sequel ends with a bouncy song and everyone playing in the water. It's definitely more targeted at kids, because instead of the ending being solemn and leaving you blown away, this ending leaves you thinking, "It's time for recess!" Ultimately, this movie is fun for kids, so we should let them have fun.
It was nice to see all the familiar characters again, but the story bothered me. We loved Ariel in the first movie- so why is the second one centered around her daughter? The new characters were annoying and I didn't like the plot of this. Worst of all, Christopher Daniel Barnes didn't come back as the voice of Eric! Disney, please stop remaking classic movies with these shoddy imitations.
Okay, as a long time Disney fan, I really -hate- direct-to-video Disney sequels. Walt HIMSELF didn't believe in them. He believed in "AND THEY LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER" being the end of it. But this one...REALLY ticked the taco. There were so many ripoffs of other Disney films in this, it wasn't funny. Quick summary, if you don't already know...: Melody, the daughter of Ariel and Prince Eric, is born. Ursula's sister, Morganna (who basically looks like Ursula, if she were to dye herself green and go on the Ally Macbeal starvation diet) shows up and, after trying to do the newborn tyke in, and failing, prophesizes doom for the characters. After that ordeal, Ariel goes into a lapse of being like her father, and refuses to tell Melody about her mermaid heritage, and later on, forbids her to go near the sea. Well surprise surprise. Melody finds out, being the stubborn brat she is, and runs away, then makes a deal with Morgana to become a mermaid, in exchange for something. (Gee does THAT sound familiar?) She becomes one, but in her half of the bargain, has to retrieve her granddaddy's Trident and bring it back to the sea witch. While doing THIS, she runs into a couple of outcast animals, a penguin and a walrus named Timon and Pumb--huh? wait...no! that's not Timon and Pumbaa! or is it? Could of fooled me. Anyway, i'd like to reveal more, but pretty much anything that could be guessed to happen does. OK so...long story short. This movie "borrows" too much from other (better) Disney films...and does it horribly. Come on...Tip and Dash? Why not just make Dash obscenely flatulent and make it an even more obvious ripoff! Ugh. Not to mention, the total character butchery of Ariel's persona. She's gone from being a freespirited, headstrong woman, to a clone of her father. Not good at all...they're basically telling us the sweet, firey little mermaid we've known to grow and love is dead. Plus Melody herself isn't such a great character either...she's damned annoying! And bratty! Not to mention what they've done to Flounder. Ugh...anyway if you decide to see this piece of created-mainly-for-profit-reasons, no-imagination, Eisner-sponsored c******t, I suggest maybe waiting 'till its on the Disney channel or some other tv station. Because, it's not even worth the price of a rental.<br /><br /> * out of ***** stars.
I'll say it again: this movie was totally lame. Kids will like it, sure, but adults...doubtful. The whole thing was basically a rehash of the original, which is to be expected, since they pretty much explored the whole concept in the first movie, but still, did they have to completely rehash the entire movie? I mean, everything is re-done from the Little Mermaid. The worst part of it is Morgana "Ursula's crazy sister" who appears out of nowhere and threatens Melody, which is ridiculous since Triton is there with his magic trident. Why didn't Triton do anything about it? Because the plot required him to do nothing. I could go on, but I won't. The whole thing is a shameless attempt to rake in more money from the Little Mermaid, and was obviously thrown together without any thought, because they knew it would sell. Overall it is a terrible waste of time.
I loved the first Little Mermaid. I know the songs, I love the characters and I love the story. I can't say anything like that about The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea. It was terrible. Let's start with the story. The plot was a reversed copy of the first movie. Same situations, except in reverse! Ariel wanted to live on land, her daughter Melody (creative name) wants to live in the sea. Ariel was tricked by Ursula, Melody is tricked by Ursula's sister, Morgana. Ursula had a sister?? Not sure where that came from. Besides being a strange copy of the first movie, this movies plot seemed tired and was uninteresting compared to the first movie. Now the characters: 1. Ariel- What happened to her??!! No longer the spunky, headstrong teenager we all knew and loved from the first movie, she has now "grown up" and her personality went down the drain. Her singing voice wasn't as strong either, due to either Jodi Benson being a lot older, or the songs being so terrible that her talent was wasted. 2. Prince Eric- While he didn't have a lot of personality in the first movie, like all Disney princes, somehow his new voice and his very few lines made him even more robotic. To top it off, he just can't seem to defend himself, and Ariel becomes the tough one of the two. 3. Sebastian- Say goodbye to the lovable crustacean from the first movie, because a whiny, aggravating little crab just took his place. He also had no good songs in this movie. You can almost forget the glory he earned from singing the incredible "Under the Sea" and "Kiss the Girl" from the first movie, and it is very sad. 4. Flounder- They destroyed him!! He is not cute anymore, his voice is terrible, and he has kids now?? Who's the mother??? 5. Morgana- She appears to be Ursula's sister out for revenge against her mother, who always picked Ursula over her. So she plans to get King Triton's trident to become the new ruler of the sea. Sound familiar? Anyway, she's a very cliché villain and falls short of Ursula's greatness as a villain. She epically fails at witchcraft, she's not very tough, and not threatening at all. 6.Melody- Ariel and Eric's daughter. Ironic name because she, unlike Ariel, can't sing. Her voice is annoying, her friends (a walrus and a penguin?? Really?!) are not funny or likable, and she's exactly the same as Ariel, in reverse and not as likable. Skip this one. Don't watch any Disney sequel except for Lion King 2. This movie butchered the classic that lives in all our pleasant memories. I will look back at this movie and just laugh.
I had such high hopes for this film because I loved the original so much. It seems that Disney, however, is trying to perfect the art of crappy straight-to-DVD sequels. They deserve a razzie. Several, in fact. I thought the idea had merit, but the music was absolutely awful and the story wasn't much better. What happened to the great music Disney used to have in their films. Mary Poppins, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King...even Hercules and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. They've made so many great movies over the years that it's really sad that they've sunk to point of making sequels that aren't even good enough to put in theatres.<br /><br />I hope this movie is not an indication of things to come for the Walt Disney Corporation.
Though I've yet to review the movie in about two years, I remember exactly what made my opinion go as low as it did. Having loved the original Little Mermaid, and having been obsessed with mermaids as a child could be, I decided I'd take the time to sit down and watch the sequel.<br /><br />Disney, I've got a little message for you. If you don't have the original director and actors handy...you're just looking to get your butt whooped.<br /><br />In the sequel, our story begins with a slightly older Ariel and her daughter, Melody. My first big issue was that Eric and the rest of the crew sang. Yes, I understand that Disney is big on sing-and-dance numbers, but really, that's what made Eric my favorite prince. He was calm, collected, and a genuine gentleman that knew how to have fun. And he DID. NOT. SING.<br /><br />And then there's the villain. Oh, how could we forget the shivers that coursed down our spines whenever Ursula slunk onto the screen, terrifying both Ariel and audiences around the world? Unfortunately, that gene was not passed on to her seemingly useless sister, Morgana. Nothing was ever, EVER said about Morgana in the first movie; she just pops out of nowhere, trying to steal the baby. Oh, how cute. The younger sister is ticked off and instead of going after the trident, decides to kidnap a month-old baby. Gag me.<br /><br />Other than being a flat character with no sense of originality in her, Morgana was just very unorthodox. The same plan as her sister, the same minions (who, by the way, did not scare anyone. I had a three year old on my lap when I watched this movie, and she laughed hysterically.) She had no purpose being in there; I'd like to have seen Mom be the villain. I'm sure she would have done a better job than Little Miss Tish over there.<br /><br />King Triton held none of the respect he'd earned from me in the first movie, and don't even get me started on Scuttle, Sebastian and Flounder. Triton was a stern but loving father in the first movie, and in the second, it's almost like he's lost his will to knock fear into the hearts of his subjects. Scuttle, once a comic relief that made everyone laugh with his 'dingle-hopper' (yes, I'll admit it; I did call my fork a dingle-hopper from time to time after that). In this film, Scuttle's all but forgotten. A supporting character even in the first, he at least added something to the movie. He was rich with a flavor the others didn't have, and in the sequel, they all but stripped it from him entirely. Sebastian was still the same, but twice as worrisome as before. Disney, don't do that. Don't even try to mess with our favorite crab. Or our favorite little fat fish, who becomes a dad and has a multitude of very annoying children. He's fat, and he's bland, and he looks like he's going to flat line any second.<br /><br />The walrus and penguin were unneeded, and after a while, you just start to resent everyone. Especially Melody, who has no depth to her whatsoever.<br /><br />And one of these days, Disney, I'm kicking out of my life.<br /><br />If I didn't love your originals so much.
This was the first sequel I'd seen (apart from Return of Jafar) and I honestly thought before watching it that it would be close to the original. I was horribly disappointed.<br /><br />The storyline was, basically, the first script with a few extra characters and the situation turned around. Ariel and Eric have a daughter, Melody who isn't satisfied with life on land. She wants to become a mermaid. However, Ariel has kept her past from her daughter because she wants to protect her-and when Melody finds out she's upset and angry. And she then decides to run away, and she becomes a mermaid. So she's happy swimming around, and Ariel sets out to find her-as a mermaid.<br /><br />The story doesn't sound too bad written down, but the clichés and repeats of situations from the first movie are just too obvious. And adding the fact that Melody is, overall, extremely annoying, and the movie becomes almost unbearable.<br /><br />There's also a whole load of other new characters-Tip and Dash being two of them. They aren't too bad as characters in themselves-just try not to think of Timon or Pumbaa! The songs leave a lot to be desired too, they just don't have the same magical energy as the songs from the original did. The animation obviously didn't have a whole load of work put into it either-in parts it's jumpy, and not much imagination is used for the characters movements.<br /><br />Another piece of advice-try to forget about Ariel's original character while watching this movie. The beautiful, rebellious, curious teenager has 'all grown up' into a bland, boring wife and mother, and her trademark red hair is all tied up. This is much better viewed if you've never seen the original-you'll have nothing to compare it to.<br /><br />However, all in all, it could have been worse-it's not as bad as certain other sequels, such as Cinderella II. But it's not in the same league as the original. But it for your collection if nothing else but if Disney go on like this they'll lose all their older fans.
As a child the first installment ("The Little Mermaid") was my favorite movie. It was filled with great characters, songs, and a fun family film. A week or so again I watched this movie for the first time. I believe that this movie was like most sequels and didn't surpass their original. I think that I feel this way possibly because I had high expectations and I have grown up. However, it is not a bad film.<br /><br />It starts when Ariel has just given birth to a beautiful child, Melody. Eric and Ariel feel threatened by Morgana (Eurselas' sister), so they build a large wall around their house which lies on the sea. As Melody grows up she begins to wonder outside of the walls where she is forbidden to go. Trouble stirs up as Morgana tries to take control of the seven seas.<br /><br />I don't want to give away any of the movie so you have to see it to find out. I did like that the voices are the same and again wonderful singing. I think this is a good family film though overall!
The Little Mermaid is one of my absolute favorite Disney movies. I'm sorry to say, however, that Disney completely messed up when they made this sequel. I'll admit it has some good points to it. The songs aren't bad, and the animation is clean and clear. There is some humor, I'm sure--I don't remember, because after watching it I immediately banned it from appearing before my eyes again. The worst point of this movie is the plot. In this movie, Ariel becomes her father. She forbids her daughter to go near the sea (yes, out of fear), just as she was forbidden to go near the land. I personally think that, given her past, Ariel would maintain some of her headstrong ways and not treat her daughter like she herself was treated.<br /><br />Besides this fact, Ursula was replaced by a non-scary, pathetic sort of sea witch (the underfed, forgotten sister) who is more comical than scary. She, too, has some little underling to do her bidding--but she's not scarier or worse than Ursula. Ursula spoiled us with her believability for badness. This sea witch is a joke.<br /><br />To make matters worse, Flounder is a fat, deep-voiced father (no longer the cute guppy we all know and love) and Eric's voice is not even done by the same actor (something that always annoys me in a remake/sequel). (His voice difference was very obvious to me, by the way!) I felt that the only reason this movie was made was so that Disney could catch a few fast dollars, something I hate to think about a corporation I actually really do enjoy. I felt that this plot lacked imagination. I know that this act (child following in the footsteps of a parent) happens, but Ariel was different. That was what we loved so much about her. She had a dream, she fell in love, and she made that dream come true. Until she appeared in this movie, that is. Then she became just like the other adults. This isn't the Ariel I know. And I don't like her.<br /><br />I know of some children who have enjoyed this film, and I know some adults who didn't mind it, either. But for me, and for all of you out there who have the utmost love for Ariel, please don't see this movie. The Ariel we know dies within, resurrected only for a song or two and one final scene that actually isn't bad (where she accepts the water back again)--although she takes very little part in the ending, regardless.
This is a movie that is bad in every imaginable way. Sure we like to know what happened 12 years from the last movie, and it works on some level. But the new characters are just not interesting. Baby Melody is hideously horrible! Alas, while the logic that humans can't stay underwater forever is maintained, other basic physical logic are ignored. It's chilly if you don't have cold weather garments if you're in the Arctic. I don't know why most comments here Return of Jafar rates worse, I thought this one is more horrible.
Disney goes to the well one too many times as anybody who has seen the original LITTLE MERMAID will feel blatantly ripped off. Celebrating the birth of their daughter Melody, Ariel and Eric plan on introducing her to King Triton. The celebration is quickly crashed by Ursula 's sister, Morgana who plans to use Melody as a defense tool to get the King 's trident. Stopping the attack, Ariel and Eric build a wall around the ocean while Melody grows up wondering why she cannot go in there.<br /><br />Awful and terrible is what describes this direct to video sequel. LITTLE MERMAID 2 gives you that feeling everything you watch seemed to have come straight other Disney movies. I guess Disney can only plagiarize itself! Do not tell me that the penguin and walrus does not remind you of another duo from the LION KING!<br /><br />Other disappointing moments include the rematch between Sebastien and Louie, the royal chef. They terribly under played it! The climax between Morgana and EVERYONE seemed to be another disappointment.<br /><br />I will not give anything away, but in 75 minutes, everything seemed incredibly cramped and too much to handle. An embarrassment to Disney, LITTLE MERMAID 2 is better left to rent and laugh at. Then you can prepare for the rest of the other sequels Disney is going to drown you in later on.
When I was younger, I thought the first film was really good in childhood, so I decided to see the sequel. This is an example of why some films shouldn't have sequels, because the first film is usually best, and it is. Basically now that Ariel and Eric are married they have a daughter who isn't allowed outside the house because they are worried about the sister of Ursula (the octopus legged villain from film one), Morgana getting to her. When the kid gets out she asks Ursula's sister to turn her into a mermaid, like her Mum was. This makes Ariel go back to the sea to find her. The same good voice artists, it's just the story that could have had a bit more thought. Adequate!
It's a good thing The Score came along for Marlon Brando as a farewell performance because I'd hate to think of him going out on Free Money. Not what his fans ought to remember him by.<br /><br />Brando in his last years is looking more like Orson Welles and Free Money is the kind of film Welles would have done looking for financing of his own work. Brando is the warden of a local prison which in America, when it's located in a small rural setting is usually the largest employer in the area. That gives one who is in charge a lot of clout. <br /><br />Unfortunately he has one weakness he indulges, his two twin bimbos otherwise known as daughters. Even when they get simultaneously pregnant by a pair of losers, Charlie Sheen and Thomas Haden Church, their hearts still belong to Daddy.<br /><br />Not to fear because Brando's willing to give them jobs in the prison where they work under conditions not much better than the convicts have. What to do, but commit a robbery of a train which goes through the locality every so often carrying used money to be burned by the Treasury. <br /><br />Although Free Money has some moments of humor, for most of the time it's quite beneath the talents of all those involved. Some of them would include Donald Sutherland as an equally corrupt judge and Mira Sorvino as his stepdaughter, but also straight arrow FBI agent.<br /><br />Of course these people and the rest of the cast got to work with someone who many rate as the greatest American actor of the last century. Were it not for Brando's presence and were it some 40 years earlier, Free Money would be playing the drive-in circuit in red state America where the populace could see how they're being satirized.<br /><br />Or a feeble attempt is made to satirize them.
I still can't believe this movie. They got so much unbelievable things in it, that it's hard to believe anyone wanted to make it.<br /><br />The story is a joke, but in the sense of being funny, but more like no story at all. How can you mix a slapstick comedy with a train robbery, a prison movie, town conspiracies, sex-jokes and a FBI-agent? You can't.<br /><br />Beside the terrifying directing the most noticeable thing are the actors. I watched this film and thought: 'Is this really Marlon Brando? No, it can't be. (5 minutes later) Is this Charlie Sheen? Wow, maybe Brando is true. (5 minutes later) This can't be Donald Sutherland. (5 minutes later) No, not Mira Sorvino. This movie is too bad for all of them. (At the end). No, no, no, this can't absolutely not be Martin Sheen!!! Not for 10 seconds of such a movie.' Then it was over and I down with my nerves. SO many good, oscar-winning, usually convincing actors in such a stupid, dumb, awful movie. I rarely wanted to know so much how they came to act in this one. They couldn't got so much money.<br /><br />Only just an unbelievable silly idiotic movie.<br /><br />3/10 \ 1/4 \ 5 (1+ - 6-)
Marlon Brando had long since lost interest in acting when he made this film. His performance as "The Swede" is the worst of his career, and that is precisely what he intended it to be. He doesn't overact. Instead, he simply acts in a bizarre fashion and pokes fun at his embarrassingly gargantuan girth. The scene where Brando climbs over the toilet stall is probably the worst, funniest moment in the history of cinema. As we witness him fall head-first into a toilet, it is hard to believe that we are watching the same actor who starred in A Streetcar Named Desire, On the Waterfront, and The Godfather.<br /><br />I guess the real question is why Marlon behaved like this in his later years. Was he sick of the movie business? Did he just like making a complete and utter fool out of himself? I guess we'll never know. But this film serves as a fascinating study as to what bad acting is all about.<br /><br />On that note, watch fellow acting veteran Donald Sutherland as he struggles to deliver his lines, embarrassed at himself for agreeing to participate in this travesty.
This Charles outing is decent but this is a pretty low-key performance. Marlon Brando stands out. There's a subplot with Mira Sorvino and Donald Sutherland that forgets to develop and it hurts the film a little. I'm still trying to figure out why Charlie want to change his name. Every movie with "Charles" has been pretty bad.
Watching Marlen Brando on screen is like watching a master carpenter chiseling intricate details into a piece of mahogany. Brando's acting is the ONLY thing that makes this movie watchable. The plot is inane and laughable (not comic). The other big name actors seem to be making desperate attempts to give the characters they portray some modicum of humanity... these characters have the humanity of wet cardboard. Everything about the technical side of this film is either mediocre or just plain awful. The director throws freeze-frame and slow-motion shots about with impunity. The incidental music is cartoonish and destroys any hint of dramatic effect. It's not something I really look for in a movie, but even the wardrobe was way off. The venerable Brando couldn't take focus away from the awful rags they had him decked out in. I've heard this movie called "David Lynch-esquire" and "irreverently funny"... it is neither. David Lynch films are borne of wicked creativity - this film was in no way creative. And don't confuse irreverence with stupidity.
I watched Free Money last night & it was the longest 90+ minutes of my life. With such an intriguing cast, I really thought that I was in for a treat - especially since I'm a Brando fan. WRONG! What a waste of talent. It's almost embarrassing to watch at times (like the cattle prod scene), & there were so many missed opportunities for humorous setups (why didn't they show Charlie Sheen's character going back to tow Brando's truck?) Ugh. It tries to be a slapstick comedy, but I just wasn't buying into it. Skip this one. Only for die-hard Brando fans.<br /><br />I'm giving it 2 out of 10 because I still think the worse movie ever made was Skidoo.
This wretched movie shows that not even some of Gollywood's best can salvage a true landfill deposit..<br /><br />I could spend much time describing everything that was bad about this effort, but that would require more time and I've already wasted 91 minutes watching...IT.<br /><br />Looking at it now, after Brando's death, shows how tragic the life of one of our greatest actors had become.<br /><br />Donald Sutherland? Why? <br /><br />I have to fill more lines to get this accepted. I have to fill more lines to get this accepted. I have to fill more lines to get this accepted.<br /><br />Don't waste your time with this movie. I'm overdue to do something interesting. Bye.
I think it's a great movie!! It's fun, maybe a little unrealistic, but fun and dramatic!! I would like to see it again, if they were showing it in TV!! Just 1 question: Are we still talking about the same movie???
*Can anybody tell me WHERE is the COMEDY ??!! <br /><br />*(Charlie Sheen) is a very weak comedian, (Thomas Haden Church) is looking so feeble (with him !), and the whole thing is so thickheaded ! <br /><br />*They tried to make a live comic book which turned out to be super bloody comic nightmare and it wasn't even funny? Like the plan's scene in the bathroom; it was so good with its cinematic imagination but there is nothing more.. except PAIN ! <br /><br />*Donald Sutherland ??! His relationship with his daughter ??!<br /><br />*This is actually a kind of work which they made it just to made it and earn some money from it , but it became such a crime when THIS money would be robbed from the very us whom got deceived by so low art work and an entertainment had absolutely no entertainment AT ALL !<br /><br />*Well, it would've been uglier if it was big production and starring Brando in his golden years with a REAL star.<br /><br />*The Sheen's family in here. Just be aware of that !<br /><br />*Anyone who found themselves admiring this movie or -God Forbid- loving it ! Then you must go directly to therapy before you become more dangerous and hurt anybody else !<br /><br />*(Brando) undoubtedly is a genius but the movie isn't ! And he wasn't intending to be one in here after reading this for sure !! But the main big problem is that no one else ever worked in this thing trying, or wanting, to be a small time smart or even good !!! (Sorry I'm crying now ! The movie's torturing is unbelievable !). <br /><br />*There is a scene where (Brando) hitting (Mira Sorvino) by her shoes ! That was so realistic !? Maybe he was seeing himself in her so he was punishing himself for being in such a crap ! <br /><br />*For the milliard time : This one could've been better (or less worse !). The script, till the train's heist, was nice and I just imagined that they'd escape to have some chase like it's another (Smokey and the Bandit) but with (Brando) as the sheriff. In fact any of those chimeras was much merciful than what I've watched !<br /><br />*Why this masterpiece didn't receive any Razzie award ?! You want to make me believe that there was lower movie than THIS ? I do not think so ! It's a situation where the Razzie's supervisor must himself win one for his negligence !!<br /><br />*Martin Sheen is here also as a guest star maybe for supporting his failure son but ironically the father was as failure as his son ! and why is that ?! Well ! Because I hate Martin Sheen maybe more than I hate comic movies weren't as good as its ambition ! <br /><br />*It's not a comedy movie, NO.. It's a horror one !, and I just hate horror movies especially those which have been propagandized as comic ones ! <br /><br />*Name good thing about it? Hmmm ! Well, this one compared to another Marlon Brando's monster movie (The Island of Dr. Moreau - 1996) would be close to (Casablanca) !! <br /><br />P.S : if you still want to know what are or who are precisely the bad, the ugly and the very ugly in this movie.. Just pray your last prayers and go watch it.. May God Help You !
Such great actors such a disappointment. Marlon Brando plays and awful character, the movie is not funny at all, a subconscious message can be seen "IT IS A DAMN CRAP!!!", "IT SUUCKS SO BADLY!!", "THROW YOUR TV THROUGH WINDOW", and so on. It is simply disgusting and irksome. In addition to foolish plot, sense of humor, there is something else. The way the rooms are decorated, the colors. It makes me sick, everything is so colourful that it might cause epilepsy. Usually I do not care about the decoration in movie but this from "Free Money" made me angry. Avoid at all costs! "Free Money" - probably for Charlie Sheen, Sutherland and Brando, but a viewer gets nothing! One watches it at cost of sanity.
In all my years of film-going, only once have I walked out on a film, and that was the dreadful "Stay Tuned." Fortunately, the cinema refunded the ticket and I went to see "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" instead (a minor improvement). That film is "Gone With the Wind" compared to "Dick," a comedy so unfunny that it nearly became the second film I ever walked out of. "Dick" was so unfunny it was even impossible to laugh AT it, let alone laugh with it.<br /><br />Granted, paying to see a movie with a title like "Dick" suggests that it will be filled with inane "dick" jokes and wind up a huge letdown, and yet I had high hopes because of the notable cast (Daniel Hedaya, Bruce McCullough, Dave Foley, Kristen Dunst, etc., etc.) and a premise that at least promised something fresh. What the film delivered was, as portended, four woefully predictable "dick" jokes, comic timing suffering from jetlag, and a premise that wore thin after the first five minutes. In short, it was the Watergate scene from "Forrest Gump" stretched--nay, laid on a rack and mangled--over 90+ excruciating minutes.<br /><br />As soon as you understand that the two main characters--airless, insipid squealers who gasp and roll eyeballs incessantly--will participate in every major Watergate event, you begin to mentally check off the plot as it progresses: 18 and a half minutes erased from the Nixon tapes, CHECK; the Deep Throat meetings with Woodward and Bernstein, CHECK; John Dean getting a change of heart and testifying, CHECK. The process drags out more languidly and about as engaging as the real Watergate affair with about as much laugh-getting to boot. And though it posits to be an amusing re-deconstruction of the events leading to President Nixon's resignation, it turns into a paint-by-the-numbers, choose-your-own-adventure, fill-in-the-blanks comedy that says very little and entertains even less.<br /><br />Even the film's strong point--the aforementioned cast--is bewilderingly unproductive here. The most disappointing of all is Harry Shearer as G. Gordon Liddy. Trapped as he is behind the thick Liddy moustache and strait-jacketed in this numbingly morose screenplay, Shearer mumbles a few lines, tries desperately to leer from behind the prosthetic nose and eyebrows, then disappears. Dave Foley, one of the comic masterminds from Kids in the Hall (two others, Bruce McCullough and Mark McKinney also appear in this film--ah, the blessings of nepotism) fares badly as well. His H.R. Haldeman occasionally lends a much-need lightening of the funeral plot, but the funniest thing about him is the buzz-cut he sports--perhaps the films funniest bit of all. And then there's Daniel Hedaya as Richard Nixon--oops, I mean "Dick." (Ha ha how amusingly funny.) He manages to play a solid Nixon, avoiding the pitfalls (such as overdone make up, rubbery nose and false teeth a la Anthony Hopkins) while preserving the essence (the vacillations between human tenderness and coarseness). I seem to be forgetting someone . . . oh yes, the two stars of the film, those over-bubbly teenagers. Can't remember their names, perhaps because I have repressed their performances. Nothing could be farther from funny; nothing could be more painful than having to endure their deliverly that ran the gamut of "hyperactive" and "super-hyperactive" with an occasional "pouty" tossed in.<br /><br />This film seemed to be a bad excuse to string together a 70s soundtrack and parade outrageous period clothing, both of which seem to be the norm these days for films and TV shows set in the "Me Decade." But the clothes and the music wind up being an ersatz substitute for true characterization and plot, a kind of extra-plot shorthand that the producers hope will compensate for anemic writing.<br /><br />The only possible use for this film is years down the road when any one of its talented cast appears on David Letterman or Conan O'Brien. This dreadful cinematic excretion will be dragged out to embarrass and hopefully humble the stunned guest star. The sad thing is that the real bad guys in all this--the writers and producers--will be far from the cameras gaze, possibly cooking up another disaster such as this.<br /><br />
I guess I've seen worse films, but that may be becuz I'm so jaded by how standard these bad horror movies are. The killer monster thing is really really bad, basically its a guy in some kind of green body suit. There is much worse acting as far as B movie go, but don't think for a second this was anything stellar, hell no. It actually did have a plot with substance, but was still pretty stupid. Basically its just a bad low budget horror movie. But at least its not as bad as titanic, that movie sucks balls, this one just sucks. The blood looks really fake in this movie. Thats one complaint I have about all the horror of the new millinium, low grade gore, looks stupid. A good gruesome death scene with really fake blood is so stupid. At least there was a nice shower scene
Well, what can it be said about this disaster? I watched it because it aired on cable. I regret for wasting my time but at least I didn't waste money. <br /><br />The creature is the cheesiest you can get! Please, you need to be very generous not to get angered by the CHEAP Halloween costume. Oh well, there are also displays of horrible acting, f/x, and dialogues. The confrontation with the creature is unbelievable, you can't get a more pathetic scene. <br /><br />This is the worst you can get from direct to video flicks. "Creature Unknown" makes FULL MOON PICTURES movies look like "Halloween". <br /><br />Avoid this one at all costs, please. The only "positive" thing about this trash are the sexy women.
Really a terrible movie. It's to be expected, though. Clearly a low budget: nothing all that innovative, an actress (if you can call what she does "acting") who always has roles with nudity in a shower scene, a man in a reptile suit almost modeled after predator, a cabin in the woods, etc. But there are some redeeming points. Although the story is not new, for the most part, there's a few parts that aren't so regurgitated. For one, the black guy doesn't die when he's attacked (the first time) and he isn't even one of the first couple to die. But that's minor. More importantly, there's a very interesting twist regarding Kat's experiments and Wes & Steve that I didn't see coming. When Steve told Kat he knew what she did, I believed what he said and what Kat replied with. But when the creature revealed who he really was, I was pleasantly surprised at the novelty of the revelation. It could be because of my lack of experience with the genre, or that it's a genuinely clever twist.<br /><br />Either way, the movie's pretty bad and don't watch it if there's anything better on... Unless you're in the mood for a cheap scifi flick.
The monster from Enemy Mine somehow made his way into a small mountain community, where he has taken up residence. He's being hunted by a female doctor-turned-vigilante who is out to exterminate him. This female assassin, who looks like a refugee from a Motley Crue video, rides around on a motorcycle and tries to save a bunch of kids who have chosen to have a Big Chill weekend right smack dab in the middle of the monster's turf. Decapitations and lots of blood are primarily in place to draw attention away from the story which limps along like a bad version of the Island of Dr. Moreau (and yes, it's worse than the one with Val Kilmer).
There's hardly anything at all to recommend this movie. Chase Masterson is always nice to look at and actually can act, though her role in this clunker is a waste. Unfortunately the rest of the cast ranges from bad to mediocre. In a lot of films like this someone will shine through the material and you make a note of them for future reference. No such luck here. Creature Unknown" a clichéd monster-on-the-loose flick with the kids getting knocked off one after the other. The monster is a man in a rubber suit which hearkens back to the days of Paul Blaisdell. So bad it's good! The rest of the show is just so bad it's bad. A little humor might have made this more palatable, but everyone plays the deadly dull material straight up. There is a twist or two at the end, but by then you won't care anymore.
You know the story..Pretty kids alone in the woods,when BAM!something starts cutting them up.<br /><br />Well this crap is no different.A bunch of kids return to a cabin where the male leads twin brother disappeared for years before.Suddenly an "UNKOWN CREATURE" stars cutting them up,and their only help is a doctor/biker.<br /><br />To say this film was bad is an understatement,it's smut! The acting was horrible.<br /><br />The creature looked very cheesy. And as all films do these days they try to get you with a twist ending,which they do not!<br /><br />There is one bright spot to this film- LOST star Maggie Grace as the female lead.
"Steve"(Chris Hoffman)gathers a group from high school for a reunion at the cabin location where his twin brother Wes went missing. While they are there, a reptilian creature in the shape of a man(reminded me a lot of the Gillman from CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON)awaits in the wilderness choosing the right time to pick them apart one by one. A biker, Ellen Ripley-type time female bad-ass, Kat(Chase Masterson)has an underground military bunker she practices experiments in, while it also serves as a place of safety from the thing on the bloody rampage. Kat knows more than she's telling(she also suffered the loss of a child), but there's another novelty twist most of the group have no idea of. This creature might just be more human than they realize..and it's former identity might shed some light on a deception only one other person has been hiding since Wes' death. Kat holds the key to many of the mysteries that unlock as the group remains near the cabin.<br /><br />Thankfully, a large portion of the film stays away from the creature which leaps in the air while we also see a hazy screen when we look through it's eyes. The film has Dawson's Creek-type melodramatics which often hinder any real tension that needs to build in a little monster movie. The direction is very bland leading to a relatively dull experience instead of eliciting scares. The cast is rather life-less and uninteresting. Pretty Maggie Grace(THE FOG remake) might be the only draw for this film.
Well this movie is amazingly awful. I felt sorry for the actors involved in this project because I'm sure they did not write their lines. Which were sometimes delivered with slight sarcasm, which lead me to believe they were not taking this movie seriously, nor could anybody who watches this obnoxious off beat monster slasher. While watching this " Creature Unknown" I could not help but think that there was not much of a budget or a competent writer on the crew. But, if you go into watching this for a laugh you'll be happy, the movie is shameless to mocking itself because i cant see how anybody could look at this and be proud of pumping this straight to DVD clichéd wanna be action thriller/horror movie fightfest to light.
Imagine The Big Chill with a cast of twenty-somethings whose characters are all unlikable, and an iguana-like man-lizard chasing them around and you have an idea of the foolishness herein. On the positive side, the movie does not skimp on showing the monster. There's no peek-a-boo shots, or nighttime scenes where you have to imagine what he looks like; he's right out there folks. Unfortunately, the design and construction aren't that inspired. A little bit of mystery might have helped. Mind you, I've seen far worse, but if you're going to have him out on full display for a lot of the flick, your monster better look damn good. <br /><br />Spoiler Ahead!!!<br /><br />Oh, and there's a twist ending involving the supposedly dead brother that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. This came as no surprise given the shoddy writing of the script. As for the acting; well let's just say it wasn't painfully bad, but I don't expect we'll be seeing many of these kids in future cinematic outings.<br /><br />Gore quotient: 2 out of 5; Nudity quotient: 1 out of 5; Intelligence quotient: Negligible
Creature Unknown is the right word for this movie. Or maybe it should be called Unknown Movie. This movie is a piece of crap right from the beginning. It has a really stupid "plot," really pathetic "acting," and so-so "special effects." <br /><br />Some thirty-something year old "post-teens" are trapped in the woods with a mad, reptilian, rubber-suit creature lurking around endlessly. What you get with this movie is a bunch of talk and precious little action. You have girls walking through the woods talking, and then you have guys (with heavy mascara on) walking through the woods talking. The whole thing is so boring!<br /><br />The creature itself is rarely seen throughout most of the movie. When it is shown the picture is distorted to mask the fact that it is a man in a rubber suit, and the movement shows that it is a suit, hence the reason for the blurring and distortion of the image. <br /><br />This is NOT a good movie in ANY since of the word and the ones here who have praised it are most likely the people that were picked up off the street to "act" in this truly stupefying movie! Skip this one for certain!
I purchased this film for $5 in a bargain bin at my local video store for one reason only, Chase Masterson, but I should have crumbled up the five, thrown it in a toilet and flushed. The film is about a bunch of twenty somethings that peaked in high school and reunite on the anniversary of their idiot friends death, who got drunk and wandered into the woods and died. There problem is a reptilian monster is hunting them down one by one. The acting is abysmal, these worthless people were apparently cast offs on shows like 90210 and Dawsons Creek. The directing was on par with a twelve year old and the script was probably done by a thirteen year old. The entire set looks like someone's backyard in Malibu. The people on here that have praised this film are obviously friends of the director and/or actors. Avoid this pile of garbage at ALL costs.
The Western society has been fed ideas about India being a poor country. Movies like these only make those beliefs stronger. Such illustrations make it all the more difficult for Indians to be accepted abroad. Agreed there are poor and homeless in India, but why is there no representation of educated people if not the successful ones.<br /><br />I totally hated the idea of the movie portraying Patrick Swayze as another Mother Teressa. In my opinion this movie has shown India in a very bad light giving wrong notions. It is unjust to discuss only one aspect of the society. Exactly the reason why people ask me, "When we go to India, can we hire an elephant right outside the airport so we do not have to walk on the roads so full of filth and snakes?"<br /><br />Those who want a second opinion on contemporary Indian society should watch "Monsoon Wedding".
When evaluating documentaries that focus a relatively small group of Ugly ultra right wing and conservative groups like this in the USA you must consider the following. The United States of America with its population of 270 million and its complex history as an aspiring democracy and its hopes and desires to uphold Human Rights that it has its failings and downside. It is of course expected that extreme right wing groups and ultra –conservative groups exist in sizable numbers however relative to the size of its population they are very small and isolated . On a per capita basis Europe, Britain and even Australia have similar right wing groups in fact on a per-capta basis the actual size of Neo-Nazi groups in Australia is actually higher than in the United States of America. It is for the above reasons that it is unjustifiable to demean and vilify the American people and their level of debate in Educated American Society by very fraudulently and deceptively presenting this ultra-right wing bunch of psychopaths as being representative of American Society. By doing so Greenstreet, deliberately chose small and isolated groups at opposite ends of the spectrum to construct an image of America that is an outrageous and deliberate sensationalist lie. This film is clearly designed to inflame and pander to the views of people who harbor this subconscious and morbid hate the American people and way of life under the guise of spurist fashionable and cliché idealist left wing ideology. This film was made for profit not for furthering the truth about American Society and the Human condition. Greenstreet can make documentaries that focus on ultra right wing conspiracies, the Military Industrial complex but fail miserably to present an intelligent and balanced factual debate let alone alternative solutions to the failings of a vibrant democracy. Movie Show is exposed as Anti American by its support for this trash. SENSATIONALISM at its worst anti -USA garbage shameful.
Most college students find themselves lost in the bubble of academia, cut off from the communities in which they study and live. Their conversations are held with their fellow students and the college faculty. Steven Greenstreet's documentary is a prime example of a disillusioned college student who judges the entire community based on limited contact with a small number of its members.<br /><br />The documentary focused on a small group of individuals who were portrayed as representing large groups of the population. As is usual, the people who scream the most get the most media attention. Other than its misrepresentation of the community in which the film was set, the documentary was well made. My only dispute is that the feelings and uproar depicted in the film were attributed to the entire community rather than the few individuals who expressed them.<br /><br />Naturally it is important to examine a controversy like this and make people aware of the differences that exist between political viewpoints, but it is ridiculous to implicate an entire community of people in the actions of a few radicals.
I was one of the few non-liberals who showed up to see Steve's video. It was quite an experience... in propaganda film-making and boredom.<br /><br />I was hoping the film might be an actual documentary of Michael Moore's visit to my local school, UVSC, but it turned out to be another liberal, slash-and-burn effort to slam conservatives and the local religious community. It sure seems self-serving for a filmmaker to make a documentary that only reflects his preconceptions on issues.<br /><br />What's more surprising is to see all the '10' votes his homeys have posted here. Did they even see the video? Golly gee Batman, this must rank with All The President's Men! Their ratings are as obvious as the bias in this film. <br /><br />Yeah, like stacking the votes at IMDb will help a lame movie. Maybe my vote will help balance this out.
Not only does the film's author, Steven Greenstreet, obviously idolize Michael Moore, but he also follows in his footsteps by using several of Moore's Propaganda film-making tactics. Moore has expertise in distracting the viewer from this focus though, while Greenstreet is obviously less skilled here.<br /><br />Having been privy to all of the issues surrounding Moore's speech at UVSC, I was disappointed to see that the major complaints of the community -- that Moore was being paid $40,000 of the State of Utah 's educational funds to basically promote John Kerry's campaign and to advertise his own liberal movie -- were pushed to the background by Greenstreet while lesser issues were sensationalized.<br /><br />The marketing methods for this video have been equally biased and objectionable... promoting the film by claiming that "Mormon's tried to kill Moore". Not only is this preposterous, but it defames a major religion that Greenstreet obviously has some personal issues with. I followed Moore's visit very closely, and all of the major news agencies noted that Moore's visit came and went without any credible security problems or incidents in Utah.<br /><br />Greenstreet has banked on this film to jump-start his film-making career to the point that he has even dropped out of film school to help accelerate this. This seems to have been a severe miscalculation though, since Moore's visits to roughly 60 other colleges and Universities across the country in 2004 diluted interest for this rather common event. Greenstreet's assumption that American audiences would be interested in this film due to the promoted religious and conservative angles doesn't seem to be well founded.<br /><br />Even the name of the film, This Divided State, is somewhat of a misnomer since Utah voted overwhelmingly for Bush's re-election and thus appears to be more politically unified than any other State. The division in the movie title seems more indicative of the gulf that exists in Greenstreet's ideological differences with his religion and State. If anything, I find a humorous correlation between the religious angle of this supposed documentary and Woody Allen's hilarious contention in Sleeper (1973) that, "I was beaten up by Quakers".
When i looked at this years Wrestlemania's match card, i was SO stoked and unable to control myself because i was full of excitement.<br /><br />It starts...and it ends.<br /><br />I'm sitting there, angry to hell because of how much i wanted my money back. I mean, you watch Wrestlemania 22 (one of my favorites) which will go down as a classic and then you expect the same and get the average garbage they have every now and then. The one moment in the entire show that ruined it for me was when HBK tapped out!!!! That very moment of HBK losing to JOHN CENA!!!!!!!!!! John Cena is such a loser/poser. It almost ruined Wrestlemania 22 for me when he beat TRIPLE H! I couldn't watch WWE after seeing Wrestlemania 23. I'm starting to watch it again (luckily). I again have faith in WWE after Wrestlemania 24 (the greatest i have ever seen) which was a pure classic Wrestlemania. It definitely made up for 'Mania 23 and gave us lots of memorable moments as well.<br /><br />If you have watched ANY of the Wrestlemanias before this one, like the ones that turn you into fans (Wrestlemania 20 turned me into a fan), PLEASE don't watch this and make the same mistake i made and leave WWE behind. And if you DO watch it and are angry, start watching it again and watch Wrestlemania 24, it is absolutely classic.
This was one of the worst Wrestlemania's I've seen. It just didn't stand out at all, really. Card wise, I thought it was going to be pretty good, but every match just seemed to fall short.<br /><br />Chris Benoit vs. MVP One of the better matches. Benoit carried it. I just didn't think MVP was that great, but Benoit saved this match. <br /><br />Kane vs. Khali Wow, these two guys don't mix. Or maybe it's Khali and any other person alive don't mix. Awful match.<br /><br />Melina vs. Ashley I'm not a fan of female wrestling.<br /><br />ECW Originals vs. New Breed I was excited about this match, until I saw it. Really, Really disappointing.<br /><br />Edge vs. CM Punk vs. King Booker vs. Jeff Hardy vs. Matt Hardy vs. Mr. Kennedy vs. Finlay vs. Randy Orton Absolutely the worst MITB match so far. Just a major let down, to many people in the ring at the same time. It just didn't live up.<br /><br />Bobby Lashley vs. Umaga O.K. not extremely impressive, but not the worst of the night.<br /><br />Batista vs. Undertaker This was maybe the best match of the night. Very, very, very nice to see something good for a change. <br /><br />John Cena vs. Shawn Michaels I really feel like this match deserved to be last. People make a case for Batista vs. Undertaker, but this match was just as good. I am starting to get sick of seeing Cena win every match though. It's getting a little old. Now, I have to say, I feel this match is the best of the night, but I'm a huge Shawn Michaels fan, so I'm a little biased. Batista vs. 'Taker may have been better, but I'm biased, so...sorry. The last two were undoubtedly the best matches of the night and most everything else really came up short.
Honestly, this is easily in the top 5 of the worst movies I have ever seen. Partly, because it takes itself so seriously, as opposed to regular light hearted trash, this movies wants you to be emotionally involved, to feel for the characters, and to care about the alleged conspiracy. None of this ever even comes close to happening.<br /><br />****MILD SPOILERS******<br /><br />There are 3 main reasons why this movie is so terrible: 1.) Incoherent and totally non-sensical plot. 2.) Annoying style-over-substance "MTV" camerawork. 3.) Moronic characters and plot holes.<br /><br />Allow me to elaborate.<br /><br />1.) Apparently, when this movies was being made, they couldn't decide whether to make a movie about church conspiracies, the stigmata, or possession. So, guess what? They combined them! An aetheist gets possessed by a dead person, who then makes her exhibit the stigmata so as to expose a church conspiracy. How a regular person is able to transcend death and possess another human being through his rosary is never explained, nor even talked about. Now, instead of just saying what he wants to say, he gives her the Stigmata. WHY? Why not just spit it out? Instead, we get treated to scenes of screaming things in harsh voices, carving cryptic messages on cars, and writing messages on walls. Apparently this priest was also a violent guy, because the possessed young lady also wigs out on one o f the characters, while talking in that cliched, harsh, "possessed" voice that we all have heard countless times. This also starts to tie into my second complaint, because whenever the young lady gets the stigmata, she also defies the laws of gravity by floating into the air, and tossing everything and everybody around her as if they were in an earthquake? Why does this happen? Who knows!?! My guess is that the director thought it looked "cool".<br /><br />2.) This movies contains dozens of shots, in slow motion, of course, of birds showing up out of nowhere and flying off, and most annoyingly, of water dripping. This woman's apartment is constantly dripping water! CONSTANTLY! Logically, the place would probably fall apart with this many holes. To sum up this complaint, towards the end, and for absolutely no reason, the camera cuts to shots of water dripping, in slow motion, in reverse!! WHY!?! I have no idea! It has no relevance to anything, and once again, I'm betting it's because the director thought it looked "cool".<br /><br />3.) One of the main characters says he became a priest to explain away holes in science. This doesn't make sense to me. I would think that going to church would be enough, but no, he has to go through the entire rigamarole of becoming a priest. I just don't buy it. Secondly, there are lots of plot holes, a few of which I will elaborate on below. For starters, when she first gets the stigmata, the scene ends with her laying unconscious, bleeding. Next, she's in the hospital. Who called the ambulance? Another one is towards the end, when the previously mentioned "scientific priest" character is talking to the spirit who is possessing the girl. He says, "Take me as your messenger!" Not a word for word quote, but you get the idea. His response? "You have no faith, only doubt!" So, because of this, he possesses an aetheist! An aetheist has no faith, far less then any scientific priest! And then, there's the fact that the object of this movie's conspiracy, this Lost Gospel (of St. Thomas, I believe) is available at local bookstores. The characters are willing to kill to supress this document, but you could walk down to a bookstore and buy it. Maybe this is supposed to take place in an alternate history, where it isn't wide known, but the movie never tries to tell us this, or to even hint that this is an alternate happening of that document's uncovering.<br /><br />In closing, this movie is terrible to a spectacular degree. It is my arch-nemesis, which I feel the need to insult every chance I get. I loathe it. Final Grade: F
I didn't really know what this movie was about when I went to the theater to see it (hype about the Satanism etc etc etc) as the trailers in the last movie I saw looked pretty interesting.<br /><br />Oh dear, Roman Catholic mythology? Not my idea of a good scare and honestly, I just felt like watching a really good, scary movie, not some loosely plotted religious farce that tries to score cheap thrills by having some chick getting bloody every few minutes!<br /><br />I'll try to keep away from the spoilers (!) but I found it very odd that an Atheist, who gets a string of rosary beads from a deceased priest, could suddenly end up with Christ's wounds (aren't stigmata supposed to be deeply religious??) I mean, she hangs out with losers, does loser stuff, behaves like a typical rebel et al, and here she is displaying the wounds of Jesus Christ?? Come on!<br /><br />Scenes of her crucified, head thrown back, screaming, blood everywhere, became rather tedious after seeing it a dozen times. It was neither frightening or scary, just repulsive. It did, however, become quite painful to watch - those flicking scenes were highly annoying...<br /><br />CONCLUSION: If your a Catholic, defintly don't see this. If you're not, still don't see it.
Spoilers.<br /><br />First off, nothing really happened in this movie, other than a woman bleeding inexplicably. Second, it wasn't scary. Third, it had the worst soundtrack of any movie ever. Let me elaborate. The sound was edited by either Beavis or Butthead – I'm not sure which, so let's just go with Beavis. The movie gradually gets more and more quiet and the people mumble and mutter, forcing you to turn up the volume (I watched this at home). Then Beavis blasts some really loud sounds with supposedly scary/shocking images, forcing you to quickly lower the volume again. This occurs many times until, mercifully, the movie ends. I can picture Beavis laughing vulgarly from behind the two-way mirror while watching the test group franticly reaching for the remote each time. If you have children and prefer to watch scary movies after they fall asleep, this one is a big mistake. But then it's a big mistake anyway. Here's a thought – if you're going to make a horror movie, at least add a gratuitous beheading, a 19-year-old blond girl who screams at the top of her lungs just before she can take off her sweater, the shadow on the wall of someone being eaten alive just out of the camera range, a cat being thrown at the camera to scare the audience, some drifty weirdo with a maniacal laugh, or a monster who looks like a stage hand covered in aluminum foil (a la TV's Lost in Space). These people didn't even try to scare me. They just wanted to hurt my ears.
I am a kind person, so I gave this movie a 2 instead of a 1. It was without a doubt the worst movie that I've seen in a long time. There was very little plot and the deeper interesting areas that were touched upon i.e. what Jesus may really have wanted us to know, were glossed over and instead we were given heavy visual doses of sadistic punishment inflicted upon our heroine (Arquette). Total crucifixion in the first 15 minutes would have been more humane to both her character and the audience. The acting was barely there and the direction was uninspired. And, if I saw one more drip of water or dove flying toward the camera, I may have started screaming louder than Patricia.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would put this movie in the same context as the Exorcist. Where the Exorcist was subtle and creepy, Stigmata was blunt, clumsy, and way too formulaic.<br /><br />This is one of the most visually beautiful films I've seen in a while, but the imagery does not make up for the downward spiral of patronizing exposition that makes it unbearable. <br /><br />My interest in this movie was peaked when it was compared to The Exorcist, and my visit to the official web site increased that interest. The web site had many tales of "actual" stigmata throughout history. However, scene by scene, the movie is so obsessed by its quest for "genuineness" that it becomes comical at first, then outright hard to watch toward the end. I began getting suspicious when the priest charged with investigating potential miracles walks into the beauty parlor where our would-be heroine cuts hair and, evidently, flirts with priests.<br /><br />The plot: A woman without faith in God begins receiving the wounds of Christ (the Stigmata) and is baffled and upset about the ordeal. A priest is sent straight from the Vatican to investigate the case. Is Frankie possessed by Satan, or a vessel for Jesus Christ?<br /><br />The only miracle in this film is that it finally ends.
I'm always suprised on how different all people are and how for almost every movie you get both extremes. People who think it's the best movie and people who think it's the worst.<br /><br />Stigmata wouldn't be the worst movie I've ever seen, but it's up there. First of all the sound. The producers spent more time on the soundtrack than the editing. It was so loud when the soundtrack was playing and no one was talking and then when Patrica was talking in her monotone voice, she could hardly be heard.<br /><br />I usually like Patrica and Gaberial, but they were both flat in this movie. Patrica had basically 3 emotions. Quiet, in great pain, or really angry she has stigmata. The first was the predominate one, the second involved screaming pain, the third involving raising her voice. It was loudness that distiguished the three and not emotion.<br /><br />Maybe I missed a lot of the deep meaning and subplots everyone was talking about, or maybe I was distracted by the terrible filming and MTV like style. When you watch a 3 minute video you need fast cuts and slow motion to convey a quick story, in a 2 hour feature film, it's nauseating. I fail to see the meaning of her seeing that women across the steet and dropping a child. And no Pittsburg does not rain that often!!<br /><br />I think maybe a real story, with something to say could have been intended, but all the budget was spent on buying music and the equipment to do slow rain drop shots and renting that gorgous apartment that Ms. Arquett lived in that they ended up firing the guy with the story.
A hard to find film which coasts on the still pervasive mythology of Senator Joe McCarthy as a political demon king. Boyle (as Joe) gives a compelling but historically inaccurate portrayal of the Wisconsin Senator, the caricature McCarthy many take as the real one. Meredith, as wily Army lawyer Joseph Welch, who outsmarted McCarthy at the Army hearings in 1954, is very good, as always.<br /><br />In fact, McCarthy and Cohn were quite right in worrying about the appalling security situation in the Army, and the 1954 Army hearings became enmeshed in the smokescreen used by the Army to deflect the investigation away from their security failings, which the committee were investigating, by counter-charging that McCarthy and Cohn were trying to get favours for their staffer, David Schine, whilst in the service.<br /><br />The film is self satisfied agenda driven polemic, based in the pervasive myths which have passed for the truth with many people for decades-that the "red scare" was essentially phony and McCarthy, HUAC etc were always blasting away at the wrong targets, being no more than lying, career ruining publicity hounds, who were trampling over the constitutional rights of startled innocent liberals, who were accused of being security risks/communists.<br /><br />People who know little about the matter still feel confident in repeating misinformation on McCarthy and the "red scare" to this day-Clooney's Murrow hagiography is an example. The misinformation is pervasive, no wonder people have swallowed it. A recent obit of Budd Schulberg in the serious left wing UK newspaper "The Guardian" headlined that the Hollywood writer "named names" "to McCarthy"- perpetuating the lie that McCarthy "investigated" Hollywood as head of HUAC-the truth being that McCarthy was never even a member of HUAC and he had little interest in the politics of Hollywood types-his investigations were confined almost exclusively to arms of the US government.<br /><br />The mythology about the "red scare" being baseless is now completely exploded by recently opened Soviet and US government documents, if anything McCarthy and co underestimated the sheer scale of Soviet and fellow traveller infiltration in the US, but decades of public misinformation about this period will be hard to correct.<br /><br />One day maybe some really brave Hollywood soul will make a movie telling the truth about how many American men and women clandestinely aided the mass murderer Stalin, and worked to impose his vicious system of government on the western world, giving an accurate account maybe of Joe McCarthy's career-but I won't hold my breath. Till then, we have this mythical, drunken lying scoundrel of popular imagination so familiar in the media...."Tail gunner Joe".
The title says it all. "Tail Gunner Joe" was a tag given to the Senator which relied upon the ignorance of the public about World War II aircraft. The rear facing moving guns relied upon a latch that would prevent the rear gunner from shooting off the tail of the airplane by preventing the gun from firing when it pointed at the tail. When the Senator was practicing on the ground one day, he succeeded in shooting off the tail of the airplane. He couldn't have done that if the gun had been properly aligned. The gunnery officer responsible for that admitted, in public, before a camera, that he was responsible -- he had made the error, not the Senator. The fact that the film did not report that fact, shows how one-sided it is. This film was designed to do one thing, destroy the reputation of a complex person.<br /><br />A much better program was the PBS special done on him. He was a hard working, intelligent, ambitious politician who overcame extraordinary disadvantages to rise to extraordinary heights. He made some mistakes, some serious mistakes, but shooting the tail off an airplane was not one of them.<br /><br />The popularity of this film is due to the fact that the public likes simple stories, one=sided stories, so that they don't have to think.
This movie is a horrible distortion of lies and exaggerations that were put together by the most shameless lunatics to ever work on a TV movie. The story is wrong and a complete lie. There is nothing in this movie that accurately portrays Senator McCarthy. It's just a horrible scam and it amazes me that anyone associated with this production ever got another job in the industry. The marxist-leninists who wrote this trash did so in order to attack a man who has been vindicated by history and their fear that anyone would dare to destroy communism. Unfortunately for these communist nut jobs, Ronald Reagan took over where McCarthy left off and they couldn't stop him, thus the end of the Soviet Union and its' cohorts.<br /><br />Never, ever watch this film if you're looking for truth regarding Sen. McCarthy. Read Ann Coulter's book, "Treason" for a better look at the truth about Sen. McCarthy.<br /><br />It will also help if you read about what really happened to Senator McCarthy by reading http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1996/vo12no18/vo12no18_mccarthy.htm
I only watched this film from beginning to end because I promised a friend I would. It lacks even unintentional entertainment value that many bad films have. It may be the worst film I have ever seen. I'm surprised a distributor put their name on it.
Personally I would advise people to stay clear of this movie. It's on the whole a bore to watch and the fighting is poorly choreographed. Slow and not very convincing. If you buy the Hong Kong Legends DVD release of this movie, then the only thing worth listening to is the Bey Logan audio commentary.<br /><br />But in any case, since when has there ever been a Ninja film worth watching. I cannot think of one and frankly do not wish to.<br /><br />Overall, when it comes to Movies, I have one golden rule: Avoid any films that contains the word 'Ninja'.
This makes the third Errol Morris movie I've seen, and I'm increasingly not liking his style. He seems to find very interesting and varied characters, great personalities to create documentaries for, and then with tongue-in-cheek editing make fun of everything they are about. It's never really a direct caricaturation of them and Morris seems most of the time to be saying, "But no, no, these people are really fascinating, really!", but there's always these subtle little canted angles and not-so-subtle editing techniques that show that Morris seems to be mocking them behind their back.<br /><br />This movie tracks four people who break the traditional boundaries of organic separation... a man who studies African hairless molerats to find that they are amazingly ant-like, a lion tamer, a man who keeps a garden full of animal-shaped shrubbery, and a robot designer. The general theme of the film seems to revolve around the question of what designates animal, human, and life features? So the title of Fast, Cheap, & Out of Control doesn't really seem to mean anything in terms of the movie... right? Except of course Morris seems just a little disturbed by these individuals' passions (he might call them "obsessions") making synthetic designs on life. I share not that fear and honestly don't appreciate some of the connections Morris makes in the film.<br /><br />But I stress his subtlety. With no voice-over narration and leaving the words entirely to the interviewees, it's not as if Morris ever pounds that anxiety onto the spectators' collective head. Instead he mixes circus footage and ant footage together often at times when they're taken out of the context of the circus and the ants, showing a sort of collective absurdity behind what all of these people are talking about. I don't find them absurd, I find them all very neat and interesting individuals.<br /><br />Unless, of course, he didn't intend such juxtapositions, which means he's just a bad craftsman instead of a silent subverter. Considering none of this films I've seen so far have particularly impressed me, I don't really care to find out what he's trying to do.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB
so altogether i found this documentary to be strange and really pointless. i know it got awards and things, but i personally did not enjoy it too much. there was no humor or drama in it to keep you interested, just a bunch of wierdos and their jobs. some of the people in are rather different which isn't a bad thing, it just didn't leave a good impression on me. i was thoroughly bored by this movie, no offense to my creative writing teacher. the circus theme throughout the whole movie was kinda cool but i didn't get it, and robotics and lion taming is definitely not my thing. the green animals thing was neat, i really liked the garden lots of colorful flowers, but how did these four jobs connect? it just didn't make much sense to me why someone would make a movie about that. But if you are into stuff like this you might enjoy it. who am i to stand in your way. I am just forewarning you about possible suffering.
I found the documentary entitled Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control to be a fairly interesting documentary. The documentary contained four "mini" documentaries about four interesting men. Each one of these men was extremely involved with his job, showing sheer love and enjoyment for one's job.<br /><br />The sad part, I must say, would have to be the subjects in which these individuals worked/studied. They were interesting for about five minutes, afterwards becoming boring and lasting entirely too long.<br /><br />The video was filmed in a very creative way though. I very much enjoyed the film of one thing with a voice dub over another. It played out excellent and also coincided nicely with the music.
Sorry, I just didn't find the subject matter as compelling as the filmmaker did. The robot guy and the mole rat guy were pretty interesting, although Morris didn't really tell us much about them. The other two subjects were a bore. And the supposed "connections" between them didn't hold up.
A broke would be screenwriter and his would be agent (Tom Wood and Arye Gross) are forced to live in a self storage facility run by an eccentric and intimidating manager (Ron Perlman) whom they come to believe is the serial murderer that is terrorizing the city, the "Costume Killer" (so named because, after injecting his victims with Windex, he dresses them in silly costumes). They convince him his life story would make a great film and gather together a group of misfit wannabe film makers (John Considine, Joe Pantoliano, Kristy Swanson) and discover that the art of movie making can be murder.<br /><br />There is more to this movie but it was unfortunately left on the editing room floor and it shows (rumor is the studio wanted a "lighter" dark comedy). Our loss (and the actors, who all do fine jobs and deserve better) as this has the makings of an exceptional black comedy but only rises to mediocre cute.<br /><br />If you're a Ron Perlman fan this is absolutely worth getting just for his performance. His comedic timing is excellent and he has the chance to do some really great impressions (he wasn't kidding when he said on the Hellboy movie commentary that he needed an intervention when he gets into Jerry Lewis mode). He's just simply fun to watch in this one. <br /><br />David Dukes also shines in a two-scener (but pivotal) role.
The first 30 minutes of Tinseltown had my finger teetering on the remote, poised to flick around to watch something else. The premise of two writers, down on their luck, living in a self-storage-space "bin" was mildly amusing, but, painfully bland.<br /><br />The introduction of the character, played by Joe Pantoliano - the big deal movie guy, that lives in the park and sleeps in a lavatory, offered hope and I decided to give it a few more minutes. And then a few more until Kristy Swansons introduction as a budding film director & borderline nymphomaniac, added a bit of spice. Her solid acting performance raised her presence above and beyond just a very welcome eye-candy inclusion.<br /><br />Ultimately, the obvious low-budget impacts on the film with poorly shot scenes, stuttured pace and slapstick handling of certain moments. Some of my favourite movies of all time have been low budget, Whithnail & I being one that also deals with 2 guys with a dream, but down on their luck.<br /><br />However, for my money, the actors save Tinseltown from the "Terrible movie" archives and just about nudges it into the "could have been a cult movie" archives. I laughed out loud at some of the scenes involving Joe Pantoliano's character. In particular, the penultimate scenes in the terribly clichéd, but still funny, rich-but-screwed-up characters house, where the story unravels towards it's final moments.<br /><br />I can see how Tinseltown was a great stage play and while the film-makers did their best to translate this to celluloid, it simply didn't work and while I laughed out loud at some of scenes and one liners, I think the first 30 minutes dulled my senses and expectations to such a degree I would have laughed at anything.<br /><br />Unless you're stuck for a novelty coffee coaster, don't pick this up if you see it in a bargain bucket.
"I just viewed this movie last night and I don't think I will ever think the same about any of the actors involved, because this movie will stick in the back of my mind."<br /><br />The above statement can be thought of as a good or a bad thing. I mean every time I see Tom Cruise or Demi Moore in a movie, I think of "A Few Good Men" which is a good thing. Now, every time I see Ron Perlman or Kristy Swanson, I will think of "Tinseltown" which is a VERY bad thing.<br /><br />I picked this up thinking that it might be something intelligent or at least make me chuckle and with Arye Gross and the aforementioned Swanson and Perlman, I thought that it at least wouldn't be bad. You could tell the movie was made on a budget the size of Wheeling, Indiana (Where? Exactly.), but maybe they used every dollar to make a good movie. WRONG.<br /><br />This movie is NOT funny or entertaining in any sense of either word. It is just there and lasts for 84 excruciating slow minutes.<br /><br />The characters are paper-thin. You almost care about NONE of the characters, and since the leads are two struggling Hollywood writers with a dream that is all the two struggling writers with a dream who wrote this need you to know about them. Okay, the two REAL writers know all about there onscreen versions of themselves, so they figure so does the audience. They don't even think about character development, except for trying to tie there story back to "Gilligan's Island".<br /><br />The plot is unoriginal. Two guys live in a storage center, where one of them stores a bed, and there are about twenty other people living there, too. The rest of the story is contrived and stupid. Have you seen "National Lampoon's Favorite Deadly Sins"? The second story with Joe Mantegna is about a television writer who can't find a good story to make a TV movie about, so he creates one. Now substitute the television writer for a screenwriter, morph Mantegna into to annoying actors half his age, and take away the comedy and you have this movie.<br /><br />The actors try. Kristy Swanson is in the movie for maybe 10 minutes and still gives the best performance in the movie. She is still hot, but it would help if she would actually STAR in a movie instead of constantly making CAMEOS. As for everyone else, I don't think it was the actors fault because they have BAD material<br /><br />Go watch the National Lampoon's movie, but stay away from this movie.
I am amazed with some of the reviews of this film. The only place that seems to tell the truth is RottenTomatoes.com. This film is awful. The plot is extremely lazy. It is not scary either. People out there who think that because it stars Sarah Michelle Geller it is somehow like The Grudge should forget about it. This film is more like Dark Water, except it is even more predictable and slow moving than it. I was extremely disappointed with this film. It didn't scare me nor interest me either. Let's face it , this type of plot has been flogged to death at this stage e.g. the dead trying to contact the living - Dragonfly, What Lies Beneath, Ghost Story, Dark Water, Darkness, The Changeling etc.etc. It seems to me that the only ones writing original horror films nowadays are the Japanese and the Koreans. The films that are coming out of Hollywood, like this, are cynical exercises in money making without a shred of respect for the viewer. They're just being churned out
OK i will admit, it started out very pleasing and good, but then it just dropped downhill, i cannot believe Sarah Michelle Gellar could have even finished reading the script after about 5 minutes into the movie, the only reason i actually sat through the whole movie, was i wanted to see the twist at the ned, and to my surprise, well, folks i cannot even tell you if there ven was one, because the end just leaves you confused, and then the credit role, i was like what the hell? this did not deserve a theater run, i am sorry, but it didn't i mean it was horrible, the only reaso i gave it a 4 is because it had a few jumpy parts...thats it! you can watch it, im not telling you not to, hey you might even like it or even love it! but if you hate it, don't say i didn't warn you!
Think of the ending of the Grudge 2 with the following :<br /><br />- a man who repeatedly says the word Sunshine - a cowboy - a love story - Sarah Michelle Gellar cutting herself - and a creepy mirror<br /><br />OH AND UNDERWATER SEA ANIMALS...yay...<br /><br />not a good movie... I seriously did not enjoy it whatsoever. The poster for the movie is extremely misleading as well and I found that it was just to suck people into watching it...I can't believe i went. <br /><br />Save your time and money...go watch Saw III...a film where the writing makes you feel like there was effort put into it...<br /><br />Im Mike and Im out
Let me start off by saying I am not a fan of horror movies. I never watch them.<br /><br />Let me tell you about my experience...<br /><br />The only reason I watched this movie was because my girlfriend and her friends wanted to see it over Happy Feet.<br /><br />...I never saw Happy Feet, but I am sure it is better than this...movie? Anyway, we didn't actually expect it to be good...we actually went in just to laugh at it. Cool with me...I have a problem with ruining the movie for other people in the theater but since it was just other couples talking and making out, it did not matter.<br /><br />After 15 minutes the 2 other people left to go sneak into Borat, a movie I would have gladly seen again over this. The movie was not scary, and not stupid so it would be funny...it was just boring. It wasn't terrible like "Baby Genuises" terrible, it was terrible like...not entertaining at all. Avoid.<br /><br />Now I am no expert, but it seems the problem with the horror industry these days is that you can have a PG-13 horror that is boring and not scary, or you can have an R gruesome horror movie that either is too bloody or too disgusting for people.<br /><br />You want a PG-13 horror that sucks but is funny? See "The Grudge." Avoid this movie like the plague...because it may literally bore you to death.<br /><br />0/10
How do comments like the one that was the headline by high school girls even make it on this site, this was the stupidest movie I have ever seen, it was ridiculous, how can any moron sit there and say that just because a movie makes you jump it is a good movie, that might be the most idiotic thing I have ever heard, I could sneak up behind you and go "Boo" and it would make you jump, but that does not mean I am qualified to write or direct a movie, not to mention "they tied everything together at the end" is not a good reason for a movie to be well received. What kind of movie would it be if they didn't tie everything together, I guess that would make it half a movie, not a whole movie. So basically this idiot girl is complimenting them for finishing the movie, well I love how the youth of today hold the media and production companies to such a high standard. No wonder the political system of this country can get away with whatever they want, we have idiots like that coming up in our country, what would happen if this girl actually ends up leading something someday, that is a scary thought. Get a life and go watch a real movie sometime, try Shawshank Redemption or On the Waterfront, or something like that, and don't comment that it was "boring" after you see it, just use what little brain God gave you to analyze it a little.
SOME NOT-SO-SPOILY SPOILERS AHEAD<br /><br />Why do people, when they are disoriented or sick or scared at a club, cut through the middle of the crowded dance floor on their way to the bathroom? <br /><br />Who in their right mind would hide under a bed when someone breaks into their room? <br /><br />How often do you knock on a stranger's door and when they don't IMMEDIATELY answer, you open the door, walk in, shout a few hello's and then start going through their stuff? <br /><br />If you were being pursued by someone you just discovered was a murderer, what would you do? Quietly sneak off and hide under a wooden platform or among metal implements? Run, quietly of course, to a ratty old barn or other decrepit structure? <br /><br />I could be talking about almost any thriller that's come out in the last few years, but since this is the "The Return" page, obviously I'm talking about "The Return." I saw it free because I work at a movie theater and make a point of screening all the "scary" movies. I thought this one was tolerable... aside from the well-worn clichés. Sarah Michelle Gellar is really drab and looks kind of "Huh?" through most of the film. The details of the plot are slowly given out as the movie progresses and it's almost enough to make it interesting except there wasn't enough explanation as it moved on and so I was almost lost until the last 2/3 of it.<br /><br />If you're a die-hard thriller fan, it's worth seeing at least once. If there's nothing better at the theater and you really want to watch a movie, eh, I guess it's worth a matinée ticket. If you thought the trailer made it look like an interesting movie and you can't wait... wait.
This was far and away the worst movie i've ever seen in my entire life. It was slow, boring, not scary, not funny, not dramatic, not entertaining.<br /><br />Sarah Michelle Gellar was up to her old playbook of empty expressions of fright and shock. She couldn't sell her character nor could anyone else in the picture.<br /><br />For those who thought the Grudge was 'kind of alright' then don't go see this unless you get enjoyment out of wasting your time and your life.<br /><br />I saw this movie for free by the way so I don't want this to come across as a rant from a guy that lost 8 bucks on a terrible movie. It was free, it still sucked, I hated it.<br /><br />Avoid.
This is by the far worst piece of cr4p I've ever seen in my life. It barely made sense. It wasn't scary at all (unless you class scary as loud noises and screaming?) Sarah-Michelle Gellar needs to stop with these sh1tty horror films. I think everyone else in the cinema agreed with me when i shouted "SHITE" when the credits rolled up. <br /><br />On my list of the worst movies ever made this is how it would go:<br /><br />1. The Return 2. Cabin Fever 3. Silent Hill<br /><br />The reason i made Silent Hill 3rd is because it showed some frightening scenes, but the rest was absolute cr4p. Same with cabin fever, made no sense, but the return topped that list. Its worse than Silent Hill and Cabin Fever put together
My friends and I went into this movie not knowing what to expect, but hoping for the best. When we came out, we were only slightly more informed on what the plot of the movie actually was. Though not the worst movie I've ever seen, I definitely do not recommend spending your money to see it in theaters. Maybe have a friend rent it for you (it's not even worth the rental cost, either) if you really want to see it.<br /><br />When a movie is so convoluted that you have no idea what's going on until the last five minutes, there's really not much that can be said in its defense. The acting was decent, more than you'd expect to get from this movie, and some of the shots were good, but it was all bogged down by a lame plot and poor script.<br /><br />This movie was actually so bad that as soon as it got out, I went and purchased a ticket to see a good movie just to cleanse my mind. I recommend that all of you just skip the first step and go see a good movie instead.
I just got back from the film and I'm completely appalled. This movie is an absolute mockery to all of mankind. The theatre I was in maybe had 4 other people. This movie was recommended to me and I couldn't believe that this person liked it. I can't believe that any sane human would like it. There was no plot NO PLOT AT ALL. It was a joke. How can you make a movie about nothing. This movie only goes to show why Hollywood is in such a shambles. I can only just look at the spiral of the "Horror Movie" industry and giggle. What a travesty to all filmaking, this is true of all the new "teen horror flicks" Grudge,Boogeyman,Ring,Saw series. It is all such trash. Don't support this kind of hogwash!
The Return is one of those movies for that niche group of people who like movies that bore and confuse them at the same time. Sarah Michelle Gellar plays a lame buisnesswoman who does not kill vampires or get naked at all throughout the movie. I was willing to put up with this, however I was not willing to put up with the worst editing ever combined with pointless flashbacks. At the end it turns out she crashes her car into herself when she was young. Or maybe I'm wrong and that was just a flashback. With this movie it's impossible to tell. Can you believe the same dude who made Army of Darkness produced this crap? A much better idea is to stay at home and watch Army of Darkness on Sci Fi channel. That movie had it all: sluts, zombies and a dude with a chainsaw for an arm. The Forgotten didn't even have one of these things.
I think a round of applause is in order for whoever pieced together the trailer for Rogue Pictures' latest release, 'The Return'. I myself, along with everyone else have been duped into believing it is in fact a horror film. On the contrary though, its actually a supernatural thriller. Too bad it is not the least bit thrilling.<br /><br />'The Return' stars Sarah Michelle Gellar as Joanna Mills, a young woman who has had personal problems since the age of eleven. It was at that age that she began having haunting visions depicting the murder of a woman whom she has never met. While in Texas on a business trip, she is led by these visions to the murdered woman's hometown, La Salle. There she comes face to face with another person who has frequently appeared in her visions. A man by the name of Terry Stahl, who is played by Peter O'Brien. Joanna is now on a desperate search for answers. A search that could in the end result in her very own murder.<br /><br />I really don't know where to begin here folks. Which should I mention first? The atrocious acting, hideous directing, or the terribly bland story? No matter which one I choose my point behind each is the same: they simply suck. Adam Sussman's screenplay is downright moronic. Its not interesting. Its not compelling. Its just plain unpleasant. I kept waiting for something to jumpstart the "film" (I've placed quotations around film because I don't believe 'The Return' deserves to be called an actual film due to it's foulness.) and at least give it some slight chance of hope, but nothing ever happened. I was left out in an unbearable cold to freeze. Not even stellar performances from the actors themselves could have saved this disaster. Of course they probably knew this having read the script then agreeing to do the "film". I assume this is why the acting was so awful. At least that's what I'm choosing to believe. I really hope the cast doesn't pride themselves on their performances. They need immediate medical attention if they do.<br /><br />Now the directing was unmistakably bad, but I can't quite crucify Asif Kapadia entirely. (Well I could, but I won't since I'm such a nice guy.) I look at 'The Return' as a test for Kapadia because for all of you that don't know, this is his first full-length feature "film". He's just getting his foot in the door and still learning. Next time around, well if there is a next time, hopefully he will have improved vastly. The only thing he was able to accomplish here was almost completely duplicating the visual style of Marcus Nispel's 2003 re-make of 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre'. Now that's nice the "film" was given that, but unfortunately he still won't be receiving any kudos from me for that. Copying someone else's work isn't something I consider to be praise worthy. (Even if it is from a film I very much enjoyed.)<br /><br />I think Jim Sonzero's American re-make of 'Pulse' will now have to fork over the title of Worst Film of the Year to 'The Return'. It beyond question is deserving of the title in almost every imaginable way. Now I don't doubt this will make a small, and I mean very small, profit. No matter what though, it won't surpass or even parallel the fluke success of Gellar's previous acting effort, 'The Grudge'. On that note, there's one last thing I'd like to add. I can honestly say I had never been embarrassed to have been seen leaving a theater auditorium until seeing 'The Return'. That is something I never wish to experience again, along with the "film" itself.
I just saw this movie yesterday...I cannot believe the reviews on this site. The ones that give it over one-star must be Buffy fanatics. Well, I am a Buffy fan of the first order, but I know crap when I see it. On every level, this film is terrible. Technically, much of the time you don't know where you are in this movie, even within one scene, it jumps POV like crazy for no reason. No logic whatsoever in cinematic terms. Emotionally is bleak for bleak's sake and attempts to be a psychological thriller when it is just confusing. Throwing nasty-looking red-necks in your movie is a cheap way to convey "atmosphere". I ran out of patience with it a long time before the last act, but I was having too much fun with my friends doing MST3K riffs to turn it off. Since leaving Buffy, SMG has had 2 successful movies, if even listing "Scooby Doo" on your resume could count. Gellar is a fine actress, but she (or her agent) sure can't find a vehicle for her. And Mr. Shepard, if you are having trouble paying your mortgage, I'll send you a few bucks if you promise to not appear in a movie like this again! ( Also, the estate of Patsy Cline should sue for defamation! )
The films of UPA are surprisingly well rated on IMDb despite the fact that the animation quality is light-years behind that of Looney Toons, Disney and MGM at their prime. Sadly, due to rising costs in making pretty cartoons with high frame-rates and lovely backgrounds, the UPA style (which debuted about 1950) began to dominate in the late 50s and 60s. After all, the films were dirt cheap to make and they'd received several Oscars to "prove" that the cartoons were now mainstream. So as a result, lousy animation was becoming the norm and this trend wasn't reversed until the 1980s.<br /><br />This UPA film is one of the early ones. The characters are very simply drawn (any simpler and they would have used stick figures) and the backgrounds were ugly--simple line drawings with colors added in a very slap-dash manner (often with a sponge and rarely completely filling the items).<br /><br />As for the story, it's a jive story with a strong jazz style attitude. Some will love this, others will just find it very, very loud. It's the traditional "Frankie and Johnny" story and because of the shootings and all, it's probably not a great film for the kids. Heck, because of the animation and jazz, it's not a particularly good film for me, either! Some will read my review and no doubt think I am a crank (which I am, to a degree). However, I love animated films and a little of this minimalistic UPA style goes a very, very long way and you can't seriously consider them great works of art--just very, very quickly made cartoons. Ignore the Oscars and try watching some classic cartoons or something--anything else!
I watched this film for 45 minutes and counted 9 mullets. That's a mullet every 5 minutes. Seriously though, this film is living proof that formula works. If it ain't broke, it don't need fixin. A streetwise-yet-vulnerable heroine, a hardened ex-cop martial arts master with a heart of gold and a serial killer with 'issues'. Pure magic.
An update of the skits and jokes you would have seen on a Burlesque stage in the first half of the 20th Century. It's a string of several jokes acted out. Some of them you could tell your Grandmother, some of them not, but it's a fairly safe bet she's heard them all before. For what it tries to be, it's not too bad. Before you rent it, remember that it's an older style of entertainment and has more value as history than as comedy or titillation. Robin Williams has a couple of bits, but he's interchangeable with the other players.
No real plot to this one, just a series of short skits acting out some VERY old jokes. I chuckled once or twice in the beginning, much to my chagrin. But even at only 73 minutes this film wears out it's welcome before too long and becomes stale and tedious (with some nudity sprinkled in here and there to keep you awake). Still as bad as this movie is (and that's pretty putrid), it's a comedic gem compared to pretty much ANYthing by Aaron Seltzer & Jason Friedberg (Date movie, Epic movie, Meet the Spartans) Also the song is sadly kind of catchy in a sad way.<br /><br />Eye Candy: 11 pair of tits, 3 bushes, 3 asses <br /><br />My Grade: D <br /><br />Code Red DVD Extras: Original trailer for this film; and trailers for "Beyond the Door", "Dead Pit", "the Farmer", "obsessed Ones", "Power Play", "Sole Survivor", & "Wacky Taxi"
Spoilers... if such a thing is possible... . . . . . . . As a rabid Robin Williams fan, I felt it necessary to buy this film as first on-screen appearance. Wow... I could not imagine a more mind-numbing movie. Essentially, the movie takes one bad joke after another that your uncle Artie would tell you after dinner and dramatizes them. Robin Williams plays a lawyer in a 30 sec skit.<br /><br />I'm all for bawdy humor, but this humor wasn't pleasantly vulgar, or ribald... it was just mind-numbing. There are no redeeming qualities to this film, other than Robin Williams fanatics, like me, who simply have to own every piece of film.
....as to the level of wit on which this comedy operates. Barely even reaching feature length, "Can I Do It....'Till I Need Glasses" is a collection of (mostly) dirty jokes. Many of them are so short that you can't believe it when you realize that THAT was supposed to be the punchline (example: the Santa Claus gag); others are so long that you can't believe it when you realize that they needed so much time to set up THAT punchline (example: the students' awards gag). And nearly all are directed without any artistry. Don't get me wrong: about 1 every 10 jokes actually manages to be funny (the iron / phone one is probably my favorite). There is also some wonderful full-frontal nudity that proves, yet again, that the female body, especially in its natural form, is the best thing on this planet (there is some comedic male nudity as well). And I agree with others that the intentionally stupid title song is actually pretty damn catchy! But none of those reasons are enough to give this film anything more than * out of 4.
When I saw this movie, circa 1979, it became the first movie that I ever walked out of in the middle. There is nothing worse than comedy that just misses being funny, and this misses every time (although I can't speak for the last 25 minutes of the movie). There was nothing original about any of the skits. While I enjoy racy humor where appropriate, these skits were needlessly vulgar. What was even more irritating was that this movie was advertised as "Robin William's first movie", capitalizing on his new found fame in the "Mork and Mindy" television series. Yet his role turned out to be so minor that you cannot even notice him on-screen.
Can I Do it 'till I Need Glasses? at the very least proves the point that anyone can make a movie. Talent is not a consideration. The folks who unleashed this wretched pile of spewing vomit upon the world, lack any semblance of talent, taste or intelligence. The target audience must consist of the recently labotimized, and infants who play with their own feces. Anyone else would be far too world wise to get even a snicker out of this film. It consists of a series of sophmoric skits in which the punchline does not even extend to the obvious. It ends at the ludicrous. The jokes told are the types of jokes that elementary school children tell (usually potty or sexually related) where they don't know the meaning of all of the terms they use. You know, like the one about daddy's car and mommy's garage. To apply any sterner method of criticism would be pointless, since the usual standards of acting, writing, direction and such have never even been heard of by the creative "minds." behind this mess. Not to be judgemental, but anyone who enjoyed this film should seriously reflect upon their purpose on this earth.<br /><br />
The comedic might of Pryor and Gleason couldn't save this dog from the tissue-thin plot, weak script, dismal acting, and laughable continuity in editing this mess together. It has a very few memorable moments, but the well dries up quickly. As a kid I remember this as a Luke-warm vehicle for the two actor-comedians, but there was always something strange about the flow and feeling of what was being conveyed in each scene and how this ties to the plot overall. Watching it again after many years, it screams schlock-a-mania. I'm not so concerned with the racial controversy, as I wouldn't mind seeing a movie take that issue on with a little levity. The most obvious fault to me is that the scenes are laid out like a jumbled, non-related series of 2 minute situation comedy bits (any not very good ones at that), that were stapled together by the editor after an all-nighter at the local watering hole. Characters change feelings and motivations on a dime, without rhyme nor reason, between scenes and within scenes, making this feel as though no one had any idea of what to get out of the screenplay. Not that it was any gem to start with. I feel bad for the two actors whose legacy is marred by this disaster that should never have been made. Maybe my sense of humor has become too refined...
The only redeeming quality of this overlong miscast melodrama is the scenery of southern France and the voice of Nana Mascouri singing the theme song. Stephanie Powers is miscast and betrayed by a phony accent. As has been pointed out, she is too old to play an 18 year old and looks far too young as a grandmother with a college age granddaughter? Lee Remick is good although she also is ageless in her later years. The talented Joanna Lumley is under utilized and also manages to look forever young when her middle aged son (Robert Urich) finally marries Grandma Stephanie Powers. Stacey Keach's ceaseless arrogance makes you wonder what these women saw in him. Don't know how any viewer could relate to his excessive portrayal? The most credible performance is given by Ian Richardson, who makes the rest of the cast look like rank amateurs. It strains credulity that the handsome male suitors in this epic would remain ever single while they patiently await the subject of their affections to finally consent to accept them. Can anybody believe that handsome Robert Urich would remain single for decades waiting for Stephanie Powers to finally accept his endless marriage proposals? The WW2 engagement between the Wehrmacht and the Marquis is laughable. To begin with, the Germans did not occupy the Provence section of France until late in the war, it was controlled by the Vichy French puppet government. We see the French resistance staging a daylight raid on Mistral's villa to steal sheets after which they all lounge under a bridge waiting for a lumbering truckload of Nazi troops to surprise and annihilate them? If you want to see a well acted mini-series set in a foreign country, don't watch Mistral's Daughter. A far better alternative would be The Thorn Birds.
Usually, I don't think Hollywood productions are fit to be called film, so I call them 'movies' instead. But this piece of elephant manure, is not even fit to be called a movie, hence the quotes in the title.<br /><br />Where shall i start? 1. If this isn't the start of geriatric casting, it sure is the epitome of it. Stefanie Powers is supposed to play someone even LESS than half her age, she's supposed to play an 18 year old, and she is FORTY effing TWO!!!! <br /><br />2. A horrible and stupid mindless portrayal of Paris and France, where we see cliché characters such as: the sympathetic grumpy shop owner, the bitchy queen of models, the fairy god mother ex-queen of models, etc. This film is surpassed only in this respect by the Da Vinci Code, (which reviewers correctly determined was a comedy). <br /><br />3. It's highly and utterly ridiculous to have no nudity in a film about a time and a place where nudity was so common place, especially if the whole focus is about that<br /><br />4. The horrible accents!!! <br /><br />5. The Nana Mouskouri elevator-music!!!<br /><br />I could go on, but i think this is enough. And I was able to make these observations after watching this crap for just half an hour, WHILE surfing the internet and talking to my friends about math equations ... I mean ...!!!!!<br /><br />I invite everyone to add to my list. :) :P :D
I just saw this movie, and I have to say that it was a big waste of time. The girl who played Eva (Ellen Fjaestad) can't act at all. She read her lines very un-naturally, and she had a very un-natural facial expression through the entire movie. Rosanna Munter who played Petra on the other hand, is a natural. She played her part with great perfection.<br /><br />SPOILERS! The story was simple - we've seen it many, many times before. She breaks up, he finds another, she get jealous, he breaks up with the other girl and they end up back together in the end. There were no surprises at all, one knew that Eva would break up, and that Adam would "hook up" with Petra. The only thing that nobody saw coming was that Petra told Adam to go after Eva at the party. She became all serious, which is a side of Petra the viewers hadn't seen earlier in the movie, and told him to win Eva's heart back, which was really cute.<br /><br />Besides Rosanna Munter, there isn't a single actor who gives a memorable performance.<br /><br />This is a mediocre movie with mediocre actors, so I don't recommend it!
This was a strange kind of film about a low-lifes in New York City and centering around a main character (the title name, played by Brad Pitt) who thinks he''s a Ricky Nelson-type musician, except he has no real talent. <br /><br />It's kind of fun to watch until a profane tough New York City-type woman with horrible accent enters the picture and takes over. That ruined the film for me. It must have been Catherine Keener, who usually plays tough and garbage-mouthed women. <br /><br />The hairdo on Pitt - an exaggerated Pompadour - was fun to look at. I can picture Johnny Depp playing this role better. One last note: it odd to hear a film made in 1992 (other than Woody Allen's) with just mono sound.
This is absolutely the worst movie I've seen all year.<br /><br />First, I will say that the acting was very good, and by all of the cast.<br /><br />This was apparently meant to be very offbeat, and in that regard it succeeded. By the same token, the story revolves around a self-centered wannabe, who is a clueless, talentless chronic liar, whose source of self confidence comes from a pair of leather slippers.<br /><br />This was worse than watching a car wreck.
I think this would have been a much better film if the Cajuns had been portrayed in a more believable light. My family is from the southeast region of Louisiana and I live in southeast Texas (about 20 miles from Lake Charles). I have never heard the people I grew up around talk like these folks did. The Cajuns were portrayed as backwards rednecks. Most of the Cajuns I know are well educated, proud people and don't sound uneducated at all when they talk the way these people did. All in all it was an OK movie, with great scenery and music. I understand that the writers were from Lake Charles, and have knowledge of the area, but for the love of all things Cajun, please have the actors study the language, live amongst the people you are portraying and get an all around understanding of how they are before you go trying to act like them. In my opinion, when the actors make you believe they are that person, it's a much more enjoyable movie!
OK, anyone who could honestly say that this movie was Great or even Good is either delusional or knows the Director, Writer and Producers and is trying to boost the buzz on this film. I watched the movie because a friend of mine worked on it and it was Horrible. I'm an actress and have worked in the industry for a while now on big films and even independents and this movie bored me to tears. The reason I'm being so harsh is because this film was clearly a different take on "Of Mice and Men" and they should sue because it is such a horrible rip-off of the story. In an industry where Hollywood seems to be creatively bankrupt...for someone to take a classic book and film "Of Mice and Men" and destroy it with a new spin bugs me so much. The actors, the accents, the dialog and the direction were amateurish and the writing was dismal. I mean if your going to take a new spin on an existing story make sure its just as good or better than the original to make the new spin justified. Did not like this movie at all.
This is one of the weakest soft porn film around. I can't believe somebody wrote this stupid story before making some changes. The guy Mike is a major wimp and moron I can't believe he didn't want to take a shower with his bride-to-be Toni and be in a threesome with the french photographer Jan. He does do a threesome with Toni and Kristi but that was short I hate that every time in Soft Core Porn Films threesomes between a woman, a man, and a woman is short but a girl-girl thing is about an hour. To the makers of these films have the threesomes alot longer this film should've have two threesome scenes not one but two.
A drama at its very core, "Anna" displays that genuine truth that all actors age, and sometimes, fade away. Anna is a character that believes America is her safety net, her home, and it can do her no wrong – but she refuses to belittle herself to do work she doesn't believe in. She is hard-nosed, optimistic, stubborn, and arrogant when it comes to her life, yet not afraid to let others in, yet drop them at a moments notice. Anna flip-flops between personalities, which makes this film ideal of an aging star, but not idea of the viewing audience. "Anna" has been praised for its star Sally Kirkland, and her ability to get "grungy" for the role, but a month into 2008, "Anna" does not remain a staple of film culture. It is dated, dull, and formulaically chaotic.<br /><br />Director Yurek Bogayevicz has a message hidden within "Anna" about the falsehoods of Czechoslovakia, both politically and socially, but Kirkland refuses to let them upstage her. Bogayevicz is not afraid to play with the camera, to use wooden frames to allow Kirkland to stand out, and he is not afraid to lessen the surrounding characters so that when you walk away from the film, it is Kirkland you remember. If it isn't obvious, this film didn't sit well with me. From the opening of the first act and deep within the second, "Anna" felt like a high school theater production. The characters were non-existent, there was no enlightening pre-story, and there was no definition of time or place. There was Sally Kirkland, stubbornly saying that she is better than the other actresses vying for the same lifestyle that she wants. Randomly she encounters a friend, a young girl that has also traveled a long distance to get to America for the glitz and glamour, and two of them (within the span of 20 minutes) build a friendship that could break all walls. It is emotionally boring and unbelievable. Again, randomly, we meet Anna's boyfriend Daniel (played by the weak Robert Fields), who brings nothing to the table in terms of definition or character – only to boost the attention onto Kirkland's Anna. Through the course of nearly two hours, we watch as more random acts coupled with unnamed characters intertwine together to feebly create a story that is held together by loose threads – and SALLY KIRKLAND. Arg, it pains me to continue to say this but "Anna" could have been a fantastic film had Bogayevicz presented equal time between Anna, Daniel, and Krystina, but instead we are forced into a one-sided game where emotional scenes speak louder than plot.<br /><br />Is this where Charlize Theron found inspiration for her beauty-less role in "Monster", or Halle Berry in "Monster's Ball"? Was Sally Kirkland one of the early actresses discover that by letting themselves go for a character Oscar will shine in their direction? Throughout this film I was disgusted by Kirkland's portrayal of Anna, and Bogayevicz's lack of excitement for anything else fluent. Bogayevicz gives us an Anna that doesn't work hard for her parts, doesn't care for others, and is generally mean spirited – yet we are to feel sympathy for her? Near the beginning of the film, she forces what she wants to do onto others, and gets upset when she doesn't get her way. Sure, aging actresses my have that appeal to them, but Kirkland creates a more childish character instead of a mature one. That is where "Anna" could have improved. If this was a mature Kirkland, I would have gobbled it up, but this stammering childish Anna was impossible to believe. While my favorite scene was near the end where Anna goes to watch one of her older films playing (included is absurd make-out characters) and the film burns, this scene is also one of my least favorite. Anna has made a phenomenal life for herself, creating films and building the dream, yet when anyone else wants to enter that spotlight, she gets jealous and outraged. This didn't make for a character I wanted to stand behind nor win Oscars. Coupled with the classic 80s background synthesizer, the outrageous over-the top wardrobe, and the displaced ending (where did that come from and what happened??) – "Anna" slipped far in the scope of amazing cinema. It was a show-piece, an opportunity for an aging star to yell at the world one more time. In this one it worked, but I don't think I will be fooled again.<br /><br />Overall, I cannot say that I was impressed with this film. "Anna" is not a film about an aging film star; it is about Sally Kirkland, and ONLY Sally Kirkland. Bogayevicz tries to do more with the story, but fails either because Kirkland will not allow him or he just realizes that there isn't enough to support a full story. There are one or two decent scenes in this film, but nothing that promotes this film as innovative or influential. Bogayevicz did not create a character that audiences would believe, tear up for, or dedicate a Sunday afternoon with – he created an annoyance. Kirkland wasn't Anna, she was an actress playing her a bit overdone and crusty on the sides. Perhaps I missed the scope of this film, but what makes films like this work is the cooperation of everyone involved. That wasn't the case here. In "Anna", Kirkland orders Daniel to act like a dog (apparently as a symbolic act) and yet during the entire emotional scene, I couldn't help but think that was what Kirkland was like to those on the set. She didn't make this into a film, she transformed it into her own production, and because of it "Anna" failed. I cannot suggest this to anyone – from one Czech to another – skip it! <br /><br />Grade: * ½ out of ***** (for that pesky theater scene that creeped me out)
It's so sad that Romanian audiences are still populated with vulgar and uneducated individuals who relish this kind of cheap and demonstrative shows, as superficial and brutal as the "Garcea" series or the "Vacanta mare" child-plays... The difference is that Mugur Mihäescu, Doru Octavian Dumitru and other such sub-artisans never presume to claim their shows as "art". Pintilie, who 40 years ago made a very good movie ("Duminicä la ora sase") followed by another one, nice enough ("Reconstituirea"), tries to declare his film-lenghts "art works" - but, unfortunately, he masters at a way too limited level the specifically cinematographic means of expression. As such, "Niki Ardelean" offers again a sample of "HOW NOT" - this being about its only merit.
This guy has no idea of cinema. Okay, it seems he made a few interestig theater shows in his youth, and about two acceptable movies that had success more of political reasons cause they tricked the communist censorship. This all is very good, but look carefully: HE DOES NOT KNOW HIS JOB! The scenes are unbalanced, without proper start and and, with a disordered content and full of emptiness. He has nothing to say about the subject, so he over-licitates with violence, nakedness and gutter language. How is it possible to keep alive such a rotten corpse who never understood anything of cinematographic profession and art? Why don't they let him succumb in piece?
Yes, he is! ...No, not because of Pintilie likes to undress his actors and show publicly their privies. Pintilie IS THE naked "emperor" - so to speak...<br /><br />It's big time for someone to state the truth. This impostor is a voyeur, a brat locked in an old man's body. His abundance of nude scenes have no artistic legitimacy whatsoever. It is 100% visual perversion: he gets his kicks by making the actors strip in the buff and look at their willies. And if he does this in front of the audience, he might eve get a hard-on! Did you know that, on the set of "Niki Ardelean", he used to embarrass poor Coca Bloss, by telling her: "Oh, Coca, how I wanna f*** you!"? She is a great lady, very decent and sensitive, and she became unspeakably ashamed - to his petty satisfaction! And, as a worrying alarm signal about the degree of vulgarity and lack of education in Romanian audiences, so many people are still so foolish to declare these visual obscenities "works of art"! Will anyone have ever the decency to expose the truth of it all?
Terminus Paradis was exceptional, but "Niki ardelean" comes too late. We already have enough of this and we want something new.<br /><br />Big directors should have no problems seeing beyond their time, not behind. Why people see Romania only as a postrevolutionary country?<br /><br />We are just born not reincarnated, and nobody gives a s**t anymore about old times. Most people dont remember or dont want to remember, and the new generation of movie consumers dont understand a bit. This should be the first day of romanian movie not the final song - priveghi! Maybe younger directors should make the move.
this movie begins with an ordinary funeral... and it insists so hard on this ordinary funeral feel that i lost interest within 5 minutes of watching, and started skipping scenes. it seems to me whomever made this movie is afflicted to the extent of becoming trapped in a permanent morbid trance, unable to contemplate anything else but death and destruction. well, i ain't one of the dark kids from Southpark, i want a movie that within 10 minutes gets me well into an interesting story, i won't sit and watch 10 minutes of nothing but preparations for a funeral.. my grandma on her last years was fascinated by funerals, perhaps she might have enjoyed this "movie".
I saw this movie twice. I can't believe Pintilie made such a fantasy movie. I'm also a movie/theatre director and I know what I speak. This is not Romania anymore, but I see the events are happening in the same period with the incident from 11 September. No story, no plot, nothing. No conclusion, no message, nothing profound, nothing hidden. Just empty images.<br /><br />What most of Romanians don't know, this movie is for the french viewers, not for us. They really believe that is the reality in Romania. Also for teenagers. Pintilie should stop making movies. I don't really know if we can call this a movie, maybe a horror :) And we wonder why we've got such an image in Europe. This WAS a reality, but isn't anymore. A good friend of mine from the Brithish embassy said: "You have no idea what a long way Romanian people walked from Ceausescu".
I find it rather useless to comment on this "movie" for the simplest reason that it has nothing to comment upon.It's similar to a rotten egg which has nothing good to show to the world excerpt for the fact that it is rotten as other endless number of eggs have been before it. But since a comment is mandatory for such a grandiose insignificance ... <br /><br />Filth is definitely the proper word to describe this movie created in the same manner as any other Romanian "movie" directed by Lucian Pintilie who insists to depict the so called "Romanian reality" following the Communist era (1990 to present days).<br /><br />Under no circumstances recommended for people outside Romania as for the others (who lately find amateurish camera, lack of plot, lack of directorial / actors's quality etc, noise etc. as being trendy and even art-like) : watch & enjoy this "movie" (as I know you will) but do the other well intentioned IMDb members a favor, don't write an online review for it will misguide, irritate and in the end waste their time.<br /><br />On the other hand this movie (among others) has some value whatsoever, an educational one for it sets the example for : "How NOT to make a movie."
It's very sad that Lucian Pintilie does not stop making movies. They get worse every time. Niki and Flo (2003) is a depressing stab at the camera. It's unfortunate that from the many movies that are made yearly in Romania , the worst of them get to be sent abroad ( e.g. Chicago International Film Festival). This movie without a plot , acting or script is a waste of time and money. Score: 0.02 out of 10.
A note to all of you budding film writers: Study this film. If your dialog reads like the dialog in this film, please shred your script and try again.<br /><br />I didn't have high expectations, but was intrigued by the description indicating there was a mystery at the Christmas Ornament Factory. The Mystery is resolved very early and the film becomes a straight romance. I almost stopped watching it at 5 minutes, 10 minutes, and at the first break. My spouse , who is the Hallmark & Lifetime fan, gave up at the first break. <br /><br />Forest River is a company town - the main business is Aikens Ornaments, who make all manner of holiday decorations.The patriarch of the company has recently passed away, so the companies future might be in question. We soon meet Noelle, who would rather be on Wall Street than Main Street, and the mysterious Justin, who gets a date with Noelle after a large snowman she is inflating crashes into Justins car. Once we meet Alison Aikens, doing due diligence for the Board, we have our story setup.<br /><br />If you can't nail all the story arcs by the first commercial break, you haven't seen enough of this kind of Holiday film. Maybe that's a good thing.
They should have named this movie ...Blonde women that needed to get their roots colored. Also the main character, geeze, the too tight sweaters. The giggling. Thought the guy did a good job though. I keep hoping we'll find a good 8 star Christmas movie to watch this week. The dart throwing. Had to laugh at that too. We've still got 3 more on the DVR to watch, maybe we'll get lucky. Oh yeah, I figured the guy out pretty quickly and nailed it when he picked up the flowers and then drove out with his cousin. I told my daughter they were on their way to the cemetery. And how stupid was it that the two gals followed them there spying on them? Creepy.
Some of the worst, least natural acting performances I've ever seen. Which is perhaps not surprising given the clunky, lame dialog given to the one note characters. Add to that the cheap production values and you've got a movie that doesn't look like it even belongs on television. One doesn't expect much from a Lifetime movie, especially one this old, but this is nearly unwatchably bad.<br /><br />Plot-wise, it's a dreadful, clichéd romance of a type even Harlequin would consider beneath them. It's possible to guess how the remainder of the movie will go by simply watching the opening couple of scenes. Surprise, the only female character who gets any focus and the mysterious stranger end up falling in love.
Four years after making his directorial debut with the art-house snoozer "Welcome To L.A.", Alan Rudolph shows us what he really wanted from Hollywood was to be one of the guys. "Roadie" is a frat-boy fracas complete with barroom brawls, horny harpies, Art Carney in a souped-up wheelchair...and Meat Loaf at the wheel. Meat Loaf (playing Travis W. Redfish!) is actually a rather charming presence on the screen, and perhaps in a smaller role (in a better movie) he might indeed be ingratiating, but Zalman King's script is full of stereotypical redneck humor and helpless Meat Loaf is kept wide-eyed and moronic. Alice Cooper, Roy Orbison, Hank Williams, Jr., and Blondie all make appearances--and all look embarrassed. They certainly should, "Roadie" is one bad trip. NO STARS from ****
The first look on the cover of this picture, it looks like a good rock n roll movie. But don't let the cover fool you, or the fact that Alice Cooper and Blondie is in it. The storyline is just horrible, and so is the acting. Plain and simple: BAD<br /><br />It's not a movie about a roadie, its just a thin love story, so awful that you see right through it. The only good thing about this movie, is the soundtrack.Some good songs, and that is why I give 2 out of 10. If it wasn't for the music, it would of been 0 out of 10. Meat Loaf is a horrible actor(at least he was in 1980), and the girl who plays the groupie isn't even good looking! This movie was a huge disappointment for me, because it makes a lot of good promises.
Where to begin? How best to describe just how awful this movie is???<br /><br />Let's start with the campy hick humor. It isn't very funny. Add a bunch of musicians impersonating actors - Meat Loaf is horrible and Deborah Harry is even worse. Pity poor Art Carney, who should have known better than to do this movie.<br /><br />And then there is the plot. A roadie whose life goal is to work an Alice Cooper show meets a girl whose life goal is to be a groupie for Alice Cooper. At least they get what they want...<br /><br />And then, just when the movie should end, they can't come up with a more plausible last scene than a - well, I won't ruin it for you if you really want to see the movie.<br /><br />There are certain actors that let you know that this is going to be a "B" movie or perhaps worse. Gailard Sartain is one of them for me - and he has a more prominent role. That's a sure sign that the movie probably won't be very good. If nothing else, the movie lives up to the low expectations - even exceeds them by being worse than poor.<br /><br />Let's just say this. This is the movie against which all bad movies are compared. And none are worse than Roadie.
What on earth has become of our dear Ramu? Is this the same man who made Sarkar, Satya, and Comapny? I refuse to believe so. If AAG was Ramu's most ambitious project, he has clearly jumped off the high cliff he has ascended by giving the industry some of the greatest works of all times. This movie is made to fall like a brick. I was cringing to leave the theater, but I was forced to sit because I wouldn't have been able to take my car out of the parking lot before others also left. Else, nothing would have made me sit beyond interval.<br /><br />This movie is nowhere close to Sholay. It doesn't even come near it within a mile. I believe Ramu surely loves The Godfather more than Sholay, since Sarkar was a classic piece of work. I read Ramu's interview a couple of days back, in which the interviewer said that Ramu doesn't sleep for more than 4 hours a day, that too not at a stretch. I completely agree with this now, as his lack of sleep has probably taken its toll on the movie.<br /><br />There is no power in the performance. Amitabh Bachchan doesn't even look scary. He looked more terrifying in the few posters and wallpapers I saw earlier. Ramu's favorite Nisha Kothari did a fantastic job in Sarkar because she didn't have many dialogs (in fact none if I remember clearly). She opened her mouth in this movie, and has found a place in history. The new guy playing Jai's role seems to have that brash look, but didn't manage Jai's role at all. I cant go on... Im sorry... my pain is too big for me to manage right now.<br /><br />I promised myself throughout the movie that I will watch the original Sholay once more just to see that it is still there.<br /><br />Bottom Line: Horrible movie. The media and critics are going to cook Ramu's goose. And just to remind all readers once more, I am one of the biggest Ramu fans, and even I cant spare him for this act.
Ram Gopal Verma has proved himself as a very innovative and competent director. He had done a remake/reworking of Godfather with Sarkar, and succeeded tremendously. Ditto for Lolita which he made as Nishaabd.<br /><br />Sholay is been the movie he repeatedly says has inspired him the most. Unfortunately, he has managed to make a disappointing and ultimately boring remake.<br /><br />The acting ranged from decent to very good, with Amitabh Bachchan being suitably menacing as the villain Babban.<br /><br />The songs were awful and forgettable. The Mehbooba Mehbooba song came off as a second rate music video.<br /><br />The worst part was the pacing, and the dialogues - which were forgettable.<br /><br />Watching the movie in a theatre, I found myself waiting for the intermission, and then for the ending. Some viewers were wise not to wait, and were seen leaving throughout the duration of the film. Ultimately, one of the worst movies made by Ram Gopal Verma.
This so called remake is terrible. I went to see this tonight.. on the first day as the anticipation and hype was too much for me to handle. But within the first half an hour, we knew that this is a disaster. It not only does not match the hype created but also insults the original blockbuster. The script had loopholes, the editing was untidy quite a few times. Mohanlal who is an excellent actor did an okay job. Amitabh was alright.. the director wanted to portray how evil his character is but he went a bit overboard which resulted in it being forceful. Ajay who is especially smooth in these kind of roles was also a disappointment. Lets not even get started about the new guy Prashant.. one wouldn't be proud to start off a career with something like this. Rajpal Yadav who was thrown in for a few laughs couldn't even get a smile out of anyone because of his forceful humor and the shrill voice. Nisha Kothari proved that she is one of the worst actresses we have today. All in all, RGV who I thought was one of the most talented and gifted directors India has had.. failed miserably. He took up such a huge challenge and responsibility to remake what is known as the best Hindi movie ever and made a mess out of it.
If you have seen the Sholay of 1975, Don't watch this movie. If you have NOT seen the Sholay of 1975, Go WATCH IT. But do not watch this movie. This movie has all the ingredients that could possibly have gone wrong with making a remake of Sholay. <br /><br />Amitabh 'Babban' Bachchan plays the role of a psycho villain to the best (Probably the only 40 mins of the reel that shouldn't be burnt). If you remove the rest of the movie and just watch amitabh play around with his character, it would still be worth a watch. But as Insp. Narsimha, Mohanlal doesn't do justice to his talent. Ajay Devgan(Heero) is extremely mundane and the only reason i think, they cast Prashant Raj in the role of Raj is because he has a striking resemblance to Amitabh of his young days. Sushmita Sen carries herself well, with grace and make-up. But the award for the "WORST performance and any role till date" must go to Nisha Kothari. She manages to degrade her acting to such levels that even high-school drama would would outshine her performance.<br /><br />If you have a mortal enemy, take him to this movie. :)
If the scale went negative I would be happier. Seeing Sushmita Sen was nice, and Nisha Kothari has a bright future but the producer and the director ruined any and all enjoyment in this story. The choice of angles, choice of lighting and well everything distracted from trying to remember what is the story. Oh, if the songs and dances haven't caused you to rip your ears off your head, first. The film could have been made twice at 1.25 hours, and been pretty good, kinda like "Seven Samurai" but the director and writer didn't go that direction, even if the "townsfolk" finally find their backbone and want to help. This movie fails on so many levels: editing, writing, photography angles, style, lighting, script - name any aspect of this film - it was BAD - probably the food from the caterer was bad too. I have never in 6 years of watching Indian (Bollywood) movies seen something this badly made.
What's happening to RGV? He seems to repeat himself in every movie. Has he run out of creative ideas? If he has, time to take a back seat. Went to see the movie with great anticipation - of course not once did I imagine it would be anywhere near the original. I knew it wouldn't, the promos said it all. But even then I thought it would be a great RGV treat, after all isn't he the same guy who directed Sathya and Company? Or is he? I have my doubts after watching Aag. I am not going to talk about the plot or the story, as most of it is taken from the original, if you are really dying to go and see this one, you could play a fun game with friends: identify the scenes from the original one and give ratings of your own! So Veeru becomes Heero (how corny is that?), guess Heeru wouldn't sound that great. Ajay Devgan is quite a disaster as Heero, the comedy is strained and the slurred talk that really was effective in Company sounds fake. The chemistry between Heero and Gunghroo (Nisha Kothari) doesn't exists at all. In fact the more charming Nisha tries to be the more irritating she becomes. This reaches a peak by the end. Raj is in fact not bad as compared to the others, he is a guy to watch in the future. I was really disappointed with Amitabh Bachchan as Babban, he looks like a caricature of Gabbar Singh. There is a scene where he is drinking something from a bowl all covered in a shawl, instead of inspiring fear he looks like a beggar with his bowl. The only performance that really stood out was Mohan Lal as Inspector Narasimha. I am afraid I don't have the patience to write more.
i saw the film and i got screwed, because the film was foolish and boring. i thought ram gopal varma will justify his work but unfortunately he failed and the whole film got spoiled and they spoiled "sholay". the cast and crew was bad. the whole theater slept while watching the movie some people ran away in the middle. amithab bachan's acting is poor, i thought this movie will be greatest hit of the year but this film will be the greatest flop of the year,sure. nobody did justice to their work, including Ajay devagan. this film don't deserve any audiences. i bet that this film will flop. <br /><br />"FINALLY THIS MOVIE SUCKS"
this is the first time I'm writing a comment on a movie on IMDb. but i had to write it for this one. its 3 hrs of unadulterated torture. from the starting u get the idea that the movie is gonna be bad. the acting is pathetic. I'm a big fan of Ajay devgan (loved him in bhagat singh) but he is at his worst in this movie. amitabh seems to have worked hard for this one, but somehow the fear is missing. prashant raj is a non actor. and the most irritating part of the movie is nisha kothari. i have no clue why the director took her in this movie. the background score is repetitive. somehow i felt that ramu tried to repeat a sarkar, the color theme, the background score, the camera angles, but it didn't work. PLEASE Don't WATCH IT
This film was absolutely...ugh i can't find the word oh wait... crap! I mean when it started i was like yeah this looks good and then after it was so boring. I nearly fell asleep and it had nothing to do with the fact that i caught a late showing because it was utter filth. Ram Gopal Varma has tried his best but the cast could never live up to the cast of the original Sholay i mean what was he thinking doing a remake. What was he trying to do? Be like Sanjay Leeli Bhansani and win all the awards next year like he did for Black? Ajay and that other guy were good especially the other guy who played raj because out of all of them he was the one to look at. What was Amitabh doing? He's destroying his own dignity by doing all these stupid films. First Nishabd then Cheeni Kum then Jhoom Barabar Jhoom and now this i mean hes got to gather a bit of his money and move as far away from Bollywood as possible before he loses all his respect and I'm telling you he's already past half his way. I mean all this is really good for the other actors like Shah Rukh Khan who's getting a really good name now because of the recent downfall of Amitabh. I never really liked him because he thinks he's God and i just knew Abhishek was going to be in that movie. <br /><br />If you want to save your £17.75 and spend it on something good go watch Heyy Babyy because that's just the funniest movie ever and it's number one in the charts!
First of all sorry for giving even a rating of 1 to this movie (nothing less than this available). The film fails in every department be it screenplay, direction, characterization or acting. <br /><br />1) To start with, the name of the movie is really C class (though the movie itself match up to the name). 2) Amitabh Bachchan tries his best to live up to the character but the weak script coupled with pathetic direction ends up making him a humorous character. 3) In Sholay Gabbar Singh has reward of 50,000 on him (which was convincing). Here in Aag the figure was 100 crores for Babban (Amitabh Bachchan but poor man was beaten by our so called hero's and had only few men bikes to commute (with all automatic guns). Making a Sholay like movie in Mumbai type setup in modern time doesn't look convincing. 4) As for Nisha Kothari, somebody needs to tell her that she doesn't know acting. Why is Ram Gopal Verma casting her again and again ? 5) Mohanlal was good but there is hardly anything for him to do. 6) Sushant Singh and Rajpal Yadav who are great actors are wasted in the movie. 7) Legendry role played by Lila Misra (Mausi of Basanti) in Sholay is replaced cheaply in this movie by some Gangu Mummy. Ramu please grow up and understand that there needs to be some intellect in your movie. Enough of stupid characters in your movie like Shiva and Aag. 8) Should not say anything about modern Jai and Veeru..pathetic to the greatest extent.<br /><br />To summarize, I was shocked to see this movie because it looks like a cheap and comic translation of original classic. Please don't waste money and time on this movie. I think watching Aap Ka Surror (which I thought was the worst movie possible) would be a better idea than to see this horrible package of stupid characters, bad songs and miserable direction.<br /><br />Thanks, Saurabh
I, like many other Bachchan fans, having been eagerly awaiting the remake of Sholay. This movie was not it. Thank god they didn't let them use the name "Sholay" in the movie title. Ram Gopal's remake is not worthy of the title. The camera work, the locations, the costumes, the totally out-of-place dancing, the dialogue all combined to make the worst movie I have ever seen. You wonder if the cast of actors agreed to make this movie because they needed money and Ram Gopal was paying a lot of money for the cast. The only non-paid actor, the ant, was the only resemblance to the first movie. Abishek's role was totally ridiculous, did he need money to pay for the wedding to Ash? Save your money, your mind and your time, don't bother with this movie or the DVD when that comes out.
Something somewhere must have terribly gone wrong right at the time when the director was perceiving this plot. The movie, that was supposed to be the remake of one of the most loved movies in cinema, fails to deliver in every aspect of movie making. The best of the artists could also not pick up the tuning, that simply goes on to show that the movie in itself was a grave mistake.<br /><br />The editing is poor. Direction is crap. Acting is out of this world(omg)! The characters who are supposed to look scary force people to laugh on the stupidity of their dialogues and costumes.<br /><br />I wouldn't watch the movie even if someone paid me the cost of the tickets or even gave me a free burger with it.
I can't come up with appropriate enough words to describe the horror I felt sitting in that cinema watching Ramgopal Varma Ki Aag, the director's half-hearted attempt to pay tribute to that classic Bollywood western, Sholay. The biggest problem with Varma's remake is that he doesn't even try to make a credible film. It's evident in every single frame of this movie that Varma's heart is just not in it. What you see on screen is a bad joke at best, a gimmick on the part of the filmmaker, and it pains you to see what little regard he actually shows for a film he claims he's been a fan of all his life.I've seen several bad films over the years, but I can't remember one that's been as much of a torture to sit through as this one. Consider yourself very brave if you're able to survive the entire film, because it tests your patience like few films have before.Varma may borrow his plot and characters from the original film, but his version is trite and hollow and doesn't have any of the spirit and energy of Sholay. Ramgopal Varma Ki Aag is actually a mockery of that timeless gem because it turns out to be everything that the original film was not - way-over-the-top, too-long-too-boring, and entirely mindless. Much-loved moments from Sholay are parodied by Varma and for that you want to wring his neck. One of the most memorable scenes in Sholay in which Dharmendra as Veeru climbs up the watertank and threatens to jump down to his death is turned around in this film with Ajay Devgan playing Hero, pulling a pistol to his head threatening to shoot himself. How you wish he'd pulled the trigger and spared us all the agony.Not only does Ramgopal Varma Ki Aag fail as a remake of Sholay, it's a pretty bad effort even as a stand-alone film. The eardrum-damaging background score sounds more like someone clanging vessels in the kitchen, and the camera-work alternates between dramatic and head-spinning. Partners in this terrible crime of bringing this ridiculous film to screen are the film's mostly dead-as-wood actors. Sushmita Sen as Devi the widow takes both her role and the film too seriously, punctuating her lines with pauses, staring into camera for effect, and generally performing like her life depends upon it. Mohanlal as Narsimha, struggles with his Hindi dialogue and looks embarrassed to be delivering some of the stupidest lines in his illustrious career. Newcomer Prashant Raj playing Jai-equivalent Raj has no acting chops to speak of and can't strum up any of the brooding intensity Amitabh Bachchan brought to the part in the original film.As Hero, the new-age Veeru, Ajay Devgan is entirely hopeless, failing miserably in his attempts at comedy. But the film's weakest link, easily the most shocking casting decision is Nisha Kothari as Ghunghroo, who steps into the shoes of Hema Malini as Basanti, the endearing airhead from Sholay. Nisha Kothari is not only the worst actress in this country, but possibly the worst actress in this whole wide world, she gives the word annoying a whole new meaning, and she makes you want to slit your wrists every time she's on screen. And then, there is Amitabh Bachchan playing Babban Singh, Ramgopal Varma's version of Hindi cinema's most popular villain Gabbar Singh. The only actor in this ensemble who recognises the film's over-the-top tone and plays along accordingly, Bachchan constructs a menacing character who is a treat to watch. He's meant to be a comic book villain who snarls and sneers and hisses and hams, and he does all of that to good effect. But because he's trapped in such a doomed enterprise, his performance doesn't really help elevate the film in any way.No surprises here, I'm going with zero out of ten and two thumbs down for Ramgopal Varma Ki Aag, it one's of those painful movie-watching experiences you wouldn't subject even an enemy to. It's not like Varma hasn't handled a remake before. With Sarkar he gave us a smart, gripping take on The Godfather, and it's a pity he's made this Sholay bhature out of such a much-loved classic. Ramgopal Varma Ki Aag is his worst career decision ever, it's also a dark spot on his resume he'll be embarrassed of forever. I suspect this film will go down in movie history as Ramgopal Varma Ka Daag.
This is by far the worst movie I have ever seen in the cinema!! Could not wait for it to end. To make matters worse it is given a 12A certificate so you do not see anyone getting shot, just bodies slumping to the ground, even Babban getting killed was cut out!!! Too many scenes were cut to bring in the younger viewers as I think the makers knew it would flop disastrously!! Amitabhs acting was great but that 'Basanti' wannabe and the other idiot who plays Devgans mate can't even act. Devgan was wasted!!<br /><br />I would not watch this for free again and I advise all others who read this to do just the same YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!
OVERALL PERFORMANCE :- At last the long waiting AAG hits the screens. Unfortunately, it couldn't set progressive fire in the audience. The first best thing to talk about the movie is The idea of remaking the mighty SHOLAY. And Varma made a nice choice of changing the total backdrop of the movie. If he repeated the same Ramghad backdrop, people will again say there is nothing new in this. Different background is appreciative but the way he presented it is not worthy. Right from the start of his career with SIVA in Telugu, he had been using the same lighting and kind of background. I seriously dunno this guy Varma considers about lighting or not or may be he has no other lighting technique other than like gordon willis GODFATHER. It's all DUTCH DUTCH DUTCH DUTCH. Why would some body use so many Dutch angles and extreme closeup shots!!!!!!! The shot division is lame. Characters couldn't carry an emotion, performances are not to their mark, Storytelling is worse, Background is really really terrible.<br /><br />Babban:- Amitabhz been over prioritized to his job. VARMA produced great villains like Bikumatre, Bhavtakur Das, Mallik Bhai but this time he failed in carving the all time best characters of Hindi Cinema. There's no comparison of Gabbar with Babban. Babban is a more psycho rather than a villain, still he has a soft corner for his brother ( It's a gift in this movie). Amitabhz performance is not to his mark. His appearance itself is pathetic. The scar on his nose, symbolizes forgotten villains of black and white cinema. What ever they worked on Babban is not successful. Babban is no comparison with Gabbar.<br /><br />Narsimha:- The first best thing about this character is not to put audience in suspense about his hands. If varma did that , it would be like teaching ABCD to a Bachelor degree holder. Itz good he opened the secret early. But the flashback is pathetic. Varma couldn't use a great actor like mohanlal to his mark.<br /><br />Durga:- The only character with betterment. This character has been improved with satisfactory changes and was used according to the story.<br /><br />Heroo, Raj, Ghunguroo:- No body bothers or at least considers these character. The utter failure of movie starts when director could not work on the close friendship between our heroz. These characters carry nothing to this movie.<br /><br />RAMGOPALVARMA:- His quality is degrading, diminishing. AAG totally can be treated as a C grade movie. Sholay is a fire of revenge, problem of a town, meaning for true friendship and highly appreciated nuisance and fun by Dharmendra. AAG never carried an emotion with its characters. Storytelling is too weak that it could not make audience feel sympathy for the characters. Don't compare AAG with sholay, still u will not like it.<br /><br />If you dare watch this movie. You will be burnt alive in RAMGOPAL VARMA KI AAG
Truly shows that hype is not everything. Shows by and by what a crappy actor abhishek is and is only getting movies because of his dad and his wife. Amitabh as always is solid. Ajay Devgan as always is shitty and useless and the new guy is a joke. The leading lady is such a waste of an actor. Such pathetic movie from such a revered director and from such a big industry. With movies as such I have decreased the amount of bollywood movies I watch.<br /><br />RGV has been making very crappy movies for a while now. Time to get different actors. Hrithek anyone? Bollywood needs Madhuri and Kajol back. Every other leading lady is a half-naked wanna be. Pffffft.
I must tell you right up front, I am certainly NOT an authority on Bollywood films and have only seen a handful. However, if you've never seen one, DON'T start with this one! I have greatly enjoyed the ones I've seen up until this one, but I just couldn't stand this one. I also must tell you up front that I could not finish this film--it was that annoying. So why was it so annoying? <br /><br />1. There is a character named 'Rambha' in the film. He is even more annoying than Jar-Jar Binks--which I never would have believed would have been possible. He is so #@^!# annoying!! He spoke in a falsetto voice and I think was meant to be comic relief. Instead, he just grated on my nerves and wanted him to die...slowly! His voice, his mannerisms and his obnoxiousness--he just didn't seem to shut up and dominated every scene he was in--and he needed to die! <br /><br />2. The heroes had the amazing ability to dodge AK-47 bullets with ease. I kid you not--there was a scene where several unarmed guys took on a small army of guys with these assault rifles!! And, again and again, they avoided taking a single bullet AND beat up the ruffians!!! This made Stallone's actions in "Rambo II" look mundane!! <br /><br />3. The film was so gosh-darn loud, in your face and intense--it practically made my brain bleed!! It was as if the film were made by people under the influence of meth!! Crazy camera angles, INTENSE music and action, action, action...this movie is clearly designed for someone who can't take a movie with plot and wants nearly 100% action.<br /><br />4. The two main characters and their actions and motivations made zero sense...none whatsoever! <br /><br />Perhaps if you are the most ardent action and Bollywood fan you can stand this film, but as for me I can see why it's on IMDb's infamous Bottom 100 list. Wow...this film is bad AND intensely bad!!
Once in a while in Indian cinema there comes along a movie like Sholay that changes the way the audience perceives a good movie. And den just once in a while(hopefully) we have a RGV ki Aag that breaks all the standards and creates one of its own. A standard so low, it can never be broken. Ram Gopal varma manages to take a melting pot of talent and create a dish so stale u can smell it from a distance. To take a classic like Sholay and assassinate it is totally unforgivable and I can't believe he almost called the movie RGV ki Sholay. Although Sholay had a lot of folklore elements in it, the movie managed to build on its plot by merely defining the characters so distinctively that they lived on forever. What Aag does is take these characters and mess them up so badly u'll need a contest to pick the worst. The realism element is totally missing and what the movie ends up providing is a bunch of "actors" parading along in a plot less and seemingly unrelated set of events. One star for this film is a ridiculous waste of a vote. its time for RGV to wake up to the reality of his failure and conjure up another "different" plot that can be categorized under cinema.
Sholay: Considered to be one of the greatest films. I always wondered if they would ever remake being the classic it is. That was the time RGV announced this movie and I was somewhat excited to see it. I always thought that maybe this will be a good movie, but every week we would here RGV change something. And the movie is a very B-Grade movie, something that I had not hoped.<br /><br />I really tried looking for positives, but I promised to keep Sholay out of my mind. The cinematography is awesome. The movie tries to be its own. But that is the up side. The action sequences are weak. The screenplay had potential. The biggest flaw is editing. None of the scenes excite you. For example, the comedy sequences felt very out of place and forced. Ironic because comedy was just as entertaining in the original. And none of the characters are developed. And no scenes will linger until the end. And the ending was very disappointing.<br /><br />The biggest question is acting. Amitabh Bachchan was good as Gabbar Singh, nothing great. It seemed as if they concentrated too much on his look, that the character only looks menacing, but you don't get creeped out. Mohanlal is barely in the movie, but he impresses in his few scenes. Ajay Devgan was decent. It wasn't so much the performance, he gave it his all, it was the weak script. Prashant Raj is very confident, and has potential to make it far with better movies.<br /><br />I had most expectations for Sushmita Sen, who was probably the best of the lot. She was expressive, but this still was not enough. Nisha Kothari surprised me. She seemed disinterested for the most part, but her emotional scene after her friend's death was quite good. Seems as if she needs to find a director who will help her talent, not her cute looks. But what disappointed me most was chemistry. Ajay Devgan and Prashant Raj didn't look like friends. Ajay-Nisha were not a strong couple. No passion was to be found between Sushmita and Prashant. And Amitabh and Mohanlal did not the hateful passion they needed.<br /><br />As for songs, they pretty much suck. Urmila's Mehbooba was too overblown and I pretty much slept through it. It was however nicely danced. The Holi number was enjoyable, but not memorable. Same went for the other songs. For someone who looked forward to this movie, I was heavily disappointed. I had high hopes for RGV because of his Jungle, but seems as if he lost his talent during the shooting of this movie. But hopefully he regains his talent for Sarkar Raj. But this movie is best forgotten. All the positives still do not make up for the boring movie it is.
Iam a Big fan of Mr Ram Gopal Varma but i could not believe that he made this movie. i was really disappointed.<br /><br />Ram Gopal Varma Ki Aag doesn't come anywhere close to the real Sholay. It does not leave a lasting impression on a viewer. Ram Gopal Varma fails to create chemistry between the characters . There is no camaraderie between Heero(Ajay Devgan) and Raj(Prashant raj). There are hardly any scenes with more than two people in the frame together. The sequence outside the courtroom with Amitabh Bachchan and Mohanlal face off is remarkable. Amitabh Bachchan should not have done this movie. Ajay and Sushmita sen was trying their best but no use. Rajpal Yadav's voice modulation - ineffective and rather pointless. Mohanlal did full justice and proved it again that acting is all about facial expression and body language. Rest of the cast was below expectation. The comedy situation which was adapted from the original sholay fall flat in this movie.<br /><br />Ram Gopal Varma could have worked upon the script but because of the controversies surrounded against the movie he messed up and just for the sake of making he made this Aag. But there is no fire.
I downloaded this movie yesterday through an internet site the Quality was kinda good! I was watching the movie with high expectations (though i knew it was a flop), especially as the film has superstar Amitabh Bachchan playing the role of a villain.I though at least actors like him would have done some worth to their roles.But unfortunately Mr Bachchan failed to impress as villain this proved that nobody can compete AMJAD KHAN's magic Rgv's trial to re-kindle the past backfired royally! Sholay, the old one is a milestone in Indian cinema with an all-star cast, cult dialogue, stylish cinematography and a brilliant soundtrack which is still a hit with present generations too.A good actor like Ajay Devgan's TALENTS ARE wasted and his performance was average.Prashant Raj, a newcomer doesn't know what acting is . Nisha Kothari proved she is one of the worst actresses we have I don't know how she is still in RGV's crew Urmila & Abhishek seen in a song with no excitement and passion Mohanlal tried his best and Susmitha Sen's work was good i somehow liked her work in this movie It was a Total carnage of the original Sholay
In a variant of Sholay , Ram Gopal Verma ventures into what can be called an unknown territory where the blockbuster takes a new shape. The Thakur goes south.Mohanlal as Narsimha the police inspector whose family has been killed seeks vengeance Madrasi style. The accent is totally South Indian in contrast to Thakur from the north. The severing of the hands of Thakur by Gabbar is also cut down to the fingers in Aag. So make up costs are cut down because there is no effort to hide the hands instead only a long shouldered Kurta covers up for the cut fingers. Moreso in the climax where the Thakur uses his legs and says"Tere Liye to mere paer hi kaafi hai" here Narsimha uses his finger stubs to fire a gun and kill the villain. Babban, the new avtar of gabbar is also different. He is not from Bihar or UP. He is Bambaiya. Gabbar's infamous laugh is also in two instalments this time and is more subdued. Babban asks for Diwali instead of Holi and romances Urmila the replacement of Helen in Mehbooba. he also dances and enjoys dancing with Abhisheh who plays Jalal Agha in Mehbooba.Babban is more intelligent this time. He tosses the apple and asks the question that made Isaac Newton discover laws of gravitation. Basanti is more verbose than the Auto driver Ghungroo. Nisha Kothari cannot play the auto driver and looks too artificial using words like 'entertain' and 'too much' with gay abandon. Viru was fun whereas Ajay Devgun is a misfit for the role. The God Speaks to Basanti incident and the shooting lessons and the Koi Haseena song and the water tank sequences are painful. The water tank turns into a well and the drunk Devgun is so bad in the sequence that the audience would have wanted him to commit suicide. Jai was composed and serious. Prashant Raj is better than the others because we do not expect anything from him. But he also bungles on the Mausi sequence. He is not as romantic as Jai with the mouth organ . Jaya's role played by Sushmita changes careers. A pure housewife turns into a doctor this time plunging into full time social service after her husband is killed. She too lacks the pain that Jaya displayed. Her flirtations with Jai are more open this time. Samba gets a bigger role this time as Tambe. He does not have to point guns and answer questions of Gabbar this time. He follows Babban wherever he goes and is a bodyguard with more visibility outside the den. Horses give way to Jeeps and auto. The Gabbar's hideout here keeps changing and Ramgarh becomes Kaliganj. All in all it is more of a spoof than anything else. RGV comes up with his own interpretation of the classic. But we remember the original so well even after three decades that our minds refuse to accept stylized versions and changed dialogues. So we call it a spoof. So Mr.RGV(Sholay ) and Farhan Akhtar (Don) and JPDutta(Umrao jaan) stop making remixes and start making originals.
This movie should not be watched as it was meant to be a flop. Ram Gopal Verma first wanted to make this a remake of classic bollywood movie "Sholay", but after having problems with the original makers decided to go ahead with the project and... i guess leave all the good parts of the movie (acting, script, songs, music, comedy, action etc) out and shoot the movie just because he already happen to hire the crew. Waste of money, waste of time. After making movies like Rangeela, Satya, and Company he pulled a Coppola (Godfather) on us; What were you thinking RGV? Anyways, the story is, though hard to follow, is almost like the Old sholay. Ajay Devgan playing Heero (Beeru, sholay) and Ajay, new kid on the block playing Ajay (Jay,sholay). Both "bad yet funny" friends help a cop capture a bad guy first. Later in the movie, now Retired cop hires them as personal security and safeguarding from the hands of a very most wanted Bubban played by Amitabh Bachan. In case you haven't been watching Bollywood movies, the Good guys win in the end. There I just saved you 3 precious hours of your life!
I cannot say that Aag is the worst Bollywood film ever made, because I haven't seen every Bollywood film, but my imagination tells me that it could well be.<br /><br />This film seems like an attempt at artistic suicide on behalf of the director, and I for one be believe he has been successful in his mission. No A-list actor outside of this film would risk sharing the same billing as him for all the humiliation this film is bound to carry with it.<br /><br />But lets not just blame the director here, there is the cinematographer, who looks like he's rehearsing for the amateur home movie maker of the year award. There is the over dramatic score, that hopes to carry you to the next scene. The lighting man, who must have been holding a cigarette in one hand and light bulb on pole in the other, and hoping that the flame burning off the cigarette would add to that much needed light in every scene. And, of course the actors! Some of them are by no means newcomers, else all could be forgiven here. The ensemble of actors in Aag were put together to promote a new beginning and dimension to the re-make of India's most loved movie of all time, 'Sholay'. One must not forget that these actors were not forced in to this film, they are A-list and willing participants to something that, let's face it would surely have had high and eager public expectation??? So it begs the question, Amitabh aside (for now), did the other actors really believe their performances even attempted to better the original? Did Amitabh Bachchan read the script and believe that people would remember his dialogue in this farcical abomination of a film? Don't be stupid, of course he didn't, this was a demonstration to the public of how much money talks hence can make actors walk.<br /><br />I truly hope everyone involved is satisfied with what is truly a vulgar attempt to remake a classic film, which only succeeds in polluting everyone's mind when they watch the original.
its a gem movie if anyone who hasn't seen movie sholey he cant understand what is going on there. a thakur call men for catching a big terrorist who is like god and even police don't know abut him but these ppl do.<br /><br />biggest advantage of film is its speed u never know what is going on and the part is completed. actors are at there best of worst acting and actress is here for time-pass of songs. and what u cant forget is the cool dialouge which seems to come in very long time but u cant understand them so easily try hard for that and last word i haven't seen movie complete due to a brain roast so plz tell me ditz end if it have
Not as bad as some are making it out to be, though obviously pathetic compared to the original. In my opinion Amitabh was great as the villain Babban Singh - try not to compare to Gabbar in the original as they were clearly not going for the same effect. Other than some mediocre action scenes however, the rest of the film is flawed. Character development was poor and the development of the story was hopeless, with many loopholes, and missing pieces of information which i wouldn't have known if i hadn't read the back of the DVD case. The worst part of the movie was the support roles from Nisha Kothari and especially this new dude called Prashant Raj. Nisha is just plain annoying from the time her lips first open. As for Prashant Raj - seriously who is this guy? where is he from and why on earth was he present in the film studio for anything other than to serve drinks?. His acting ability is zero and he has the same tone, dialog delivery and staunch expression in every scene, whether it be action, comedy, or even a scene when someone has just died. Ajay Devgan was average, at least his expressions changed which is more than i can say for his mistake of a companion. overall, RGV's Aag is worth watching for Amitabh's solid performance, and also a very sexy Urmilla Matondkar in a special appearance.
Please Don't hate me but i have to be honest, watching this movie, i had a lot of fun,,<br /><br />It's a Movie with a Stupid Cast and Stupid Songs!!!<br /><br />Unnecessary songs!!! Mehbooba... A Total Insult to the Original One Holi.... well.. it was OK! due to the Tradition Every Movie got to have one!! Chad Raha hai Nasha Whatever... Very UNNEEDED stupid Song jee Le... Sounded like a Playboy Song Stupid Song...<br /><br />Other than Songs. The Movie was OK This was Ram Gopal Verma's Own Adaptation... If you think like that you will like this movie<br /><br />Well this movie only Depends on the Viewer and on his judgement whether he/she thinks this movie is total Copy He/She would want to hit her Head on the Cinema Seat OR if he/She Thinks of the Directors Own Look he/she would be relaxed and take a look at this movie<br /><br />Anyways I looked at both ways i would Congratulate and Abuse Ram Gopal for this Disaster that he made...<br /><br />Well Some other Things that bothered that The CAST was Incredibly Bad<br /><br />Amitabh Bachchan As Babban/Gabbar (Amitabh in his own Movie Remake Funny what was the Director Thinking) Ajay Devgan As Heero/Veeru(Bobby Deol Could have been Better) Prashant Raj As Raj/Jai(Abhishek was Meant for this role Despite doing a Special Appearance in the Mehbooba song) Sushmita Sen As Radha/Durga(Jaya Bachchan was Right Tabu was Right for this Role) Nisha Kothari As Ghungroo/Basanti(I think Esha Deol would have been Great) Mohanlal As Narishma/Thakur(Mohanlal Is So Cute....Oops Sorry hehehehe, He Was OK I could not Think of anyone)<br /><br />The Movie would have Even FAIRED a LIttle if the Cast was OK<br /><br />I movie wasn't even exciting, the movie was just OK , Just for watching<br /><br />The Overall Rating<br /><br />Direction... 8/10 I Got to him some credit Cinematography... 9/10 Script... 3/10 BAD Scripting Songs... 5/10 Unnecessary in the Movie, could have been better, Easy on the Ears on to be played in PC's and IPod's and Stuff Cast... 1/10<br /><br />Total ... 3/10<br /><br />Syed Shabbir Aly Naqvi from Pakistan
Designed only to annoy (or amuse) any self-respecting intelligent person. If the director's intention had been for the viewer to dislike the title character, then it would have been okay, but I know that there is no such thing as a Hollywood director who'd make a critique of America's pro-Marxist 60s movement, especially not a filmmaker from the 70s. There is so much idiotic dialog going on here, that sometimes I wondered if I wasn't actually watching a comedy. You wouldn't be at fault for thinking that this is a satire – that's how naïve the movie appears. Spacek has been in her share of Leftist movies which brings me to the obvious, inescapable conclusion that the redhead hick is one of those Hollywood liberal morons. But, I mean, aren't they all? Nice boobs, but s**t for brains.
The first one was the best. The second one sucked because the dialog was terrible. Although, the storyline wasn't so bad (in fact, all story lines are good and bad). Throughout the movie, I dosed off a few times. I know that Jackie Chan is a great martial arts expertise, but not a good actor in Rush Hour 2. Chris Tucker, too, wasn't good. And Zhang Ziyi, what can I say, a few lines, terrible acting (But that's based on her script). All the characters there were not that good. But, some of the things I like in Rush Hour 2 is always the action and less sex scenes. I know that Jackie Chan doesn't do those things which is good for him.
"Jason Priestly stars as 'Breakfast', a psychotic jewelry store thief whose grip on reality is frighteningly precarious, according to the DVD sleeve, "With his accomplice 'Panda' (Bernie Coulson), the duo make off with a carload of cash, a result of a tip-off from beautiful cashier 'Ziggy' (Laura Harris). Her reward: to hitch a ride with the out-of-control duo so that she can meet her long-lost father Francis (Stephen McHattie). But he's on a suicidal quest to even a score with his former boss (Louis Gossett, Jr.) and has the cops hot on his trail. Rage, murder and revenge are about to collide!" Stay out of their way!<br /><br />*** The Highwayman (4/28/00) Keoni Waxman ~ Jason Priestly, Laura Harris, Stephen McHattie
For the life of me I can't figure out why anyone would make a movie like this. The plot is tired, the acting is strained, the language is consistently foul and at times the over use of the "F" word seemed like a lack of dialog was prevalent so 'let's throw in another couple of "F's" for good measure, that's what the American public wants to hear'. Gossett was particularly foul and seemed to enjoy his part. Forget this c__p, rent 'Shrek" and have a good laugh.
I can see why Laurel and Hardy purists might be offended by this rather gentle 're-enactment', but this film would be an excellent way to introduce children to the pleasures of classic L & H. Bronson Pinchot and Gailard Sartain acquit themselves reasonably as the comedy duo and there's a reasonably good supporting cast. I enjoyed it.
Yowza! If anyone who loves Laurel and Hardy can watch this movie and feel good about it, you're a better person than me! This movie, while a great attempt at 'imitating' Laurel and Hardy through appearance, sound and routine, falls very short of honoring them, or even being a movie of any substance. I blame Larry Harmon. Dialogue is torn from old L+H movies and planted in unrealistically, the plot is muddled with useless characterization of the other needless co-stars, Pinchot's accent was bizarre for Stan, and while Sartain did an excellent job with Ollie's accent, he tried too hard to create the wonderful mix that was Mr. Hardy. Where was a (good) musical number? Editing is choppy, acting is stiff, lines are horrid, physics are -implausable- (although perhaps they were TRYING to give it that feel of cheap sets?), and overall it's a terrible thing to witness. It's even more painful to watch than ATOLL K, where the legendary duo did their last film in awful 1950's era writing and photography. Do yourself a favor and watch as much of the ORIGINAL Laurel and Hardy films as you can, and learn how things WERE. You know what a MAGNATE is, don't you? Stan Laurel did not perpetually reply with semi-moronic quips at every sentence.<br /><br />I pity anyone who thinks that THIS was a decent update/honor of the boys. Where was THE CLASSIC THEME SONG?!? Why ruin 'Here's another fine mess'? Why skip 'any the wiser'? Why was there a pointless gaggle of co-stars?! WHY MISS GULCH FROM THE WIZARD OF OZ???? WHY MUST LARRY HARMON BE IN IT? WHY BOZO!? And did THE LEARNING CHANNEL help fund the thing?<br /><br />I mean, really. Fart jokes, for God's sake.<br /><br />FART JOKES.
Who was George C. Scott? George C. Scott was a renowned actor. Practically any movie that he's been in is the better off for it. Now ol' George had absolutely NOTHING to do with this movie..., but he once said something that describes said movie to a T.<br /><br />I don't recall his exact words, but he basically said that Great Writing can Save Bad Acting, But Great Acting CanNOT save Bad Writing. Never has this little observation been truer than in "The All New Adventures of Laurel & Hardy: For Love or Mummy".<br /><br />The casting of the two leads was absolutely perfect. Bronson Pinchot (Laurel) and Gailard Sartain (Hardy) not only look the parts, but they do an exceptionally good job at mimicking the real deal (mannerisms and all). This movie should stand as a lasting testament to their talents. That said, this movie falls flat on its face when it comes to (you guessed it) WRITING.<br /><br />Aside from the opening dialogue between Pinchot and Sartain (which was very "in character") and a brief gag involving a taxi, this movie is an absolute chore to sit through.<br /><br />PROBLEM # 1: Too much time and effort went into the plot.<br /><br />I don't want to know why the mummy wants to kidnap the pretty British lady. What I WANT is to see Stan and Ollie (or at least, their stand-ins). Way too much screen time was devoted to explaining the plot or to the not-very-funny secondary characters that said plot revolved around.<br /><br />However, even if this movie had been all jokes, that would still leave us with...<br /><br />...PROBLEM # 2: Most of the jokes are what I would call "watered-down" slapstick. <br /><br />What do I mean by "watered down"?<br /><br />In slapstick, a character gets hurt in an exaggerated way for comedic effect (ala Looney Tunes, 3 Stooges...,or how about Laurel & Hardy?).<br /><br />In "watered-down" slapstick (as I define it), a character gets mildly hurt or inconvenienced, and the filmmakers play that up for comedic effect.<br /><br />Maybe an illustration would help:<br /><br />In Looney Tunes, Daffy Duck gets shot by Elmer Fudd. His bill falls off and he puts it back on. That is classic slapstick.<br /><br />In this "gem", Ollie accidentally bumps into some people. They turn around, tell him to be careful, and continue on their merry way. That's not slapstick. That's not even funny. That's just...boring...and this movie is full of these kinds of jokes. It's as though they're this movie's bread and butter. The writers and directors just take these dull moments and act like they're supposed to be funny. Granted, the example I just gave is the most extreme case, but I can only cut it so much slack.<br /><br />Long story short: The film just doesn't work because the script fails to capitalize on Pinchot's and Sartain's abilities to impersonate Stan and Ollie. Instead, the script capitalizes on plot exposition and lame jokes. Watching this movie is basically watching two excellent impersonators who were given no real material to work with.<br /><br />Not a good movie, but an incredible sleeping aid.<br /><br />I say give this one a miss and stick with the real deal (just so long as you steer clear of "Atoll K" and "Be Big").
This "film" is a travesty. No, wait--an abomination. NO, WAIT--this is without a doubt the absolute WORST film ever made featuring beloved characters created and established by other actors.<br /><br />I thought "Inspector Clouseau" with Alan Arkin (!) instead of Peter Sellers was ludicrous and sacrilegious, but even daring to "remake" Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy is asinine and money grubbing.<br /><br />Mr. Laurel and Mr. Hardy have been dead, respectively, since 1957 and 1965. Why anyone would even begin to imagine that suitable updates for L & H would be in the persona of Bronson Pinchot and Gailard Sartain is beyond me. I tuned in fully expecting to be horrified and embarrassed and I certainly wasn't disappointed. Everyone involved in this pathetic, moronic, disgrace should be blackballed from anything and everything associated with Hollywood and film-making. AVOID THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS--YOU HAVE BEEN DULY WARNED.
This is far worse than those awful Laurel and Hardy cartoons of the 60s. They were terrible, but at least they were simple ripoffs of a then Stan and Ollie resurgence. New audiences had rediscovered the pair's comedic genius and the cartoons were mind-numbing garbage geared to cash in on children's interest. It was to be expected. But, how does one even attempt to rationalize this work of... I can't even think of a word. I'm sure the makers hoped it would somehow inspire another Laurel and Hardy revival, but you can't inspire interest in the past with a shallow and unfunny caricature of what made the original so appealing. The impressionists (I hesitate to call them actors) do a Vegas act and that's where it belongs. The plot is even flimsier than those used in the old days, trying to stretch out two-reel ideas for a feature. If this film was someone's first exposure to the REAL Laurel and Hardy, I'm sure that viewer would dismiss the original duo's reputation as senility gone amok. The only movie I hate worse than this is I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE. And, you know, these filmmmakers basically did the same thing to Stan and Ollie.
This is the kind of film one watches in gape-jawed, horrified silence, and yet continues to watch, mesmerized, as if watching a train wreck in slow motion. And yet, in the back of your mind, thoughts are churning: "Who on EARTH green-lighted this garbage?"<br /><br />Some of the preceding user comments say things like, "A good way to introduce children to Laurel and Hardy" -- an insult to children everywhere. That children would need some sort of training plan to learn to love slapstick comedy shows a profound misunderstanding of the nature of children the world over. Others have commented on the faithfulness of the two stars' characterizations of Laurel and Hardy to which I would respond: so WHAT? One would think that the rash of movie BOMBS based on beloved series (Rocky and Bullwinkle, Avengers, Flipper, Mod Squad, ad nauseam) would have taught Hollywood that there are some things that simply can't be recreated. The films of Laurel and Hardy are readily available on video: why bother with this?<br /><br />As for F. Murray Abraham, a fine actor of stage and screen... well, all I can say is, he must have been in trouble with the IRS.<br /><br />Run, don't walk, away from the television if this trash comes on!
I put this movie on in the hotel room to entertain my children the morning we were leaving to go home, because I had packed away all their toys. (Toddlers don't like to watch "Regis and KAthie Lee" or "The View.") My four year old found one scene funny, but told me the rest of it was "too silly." This is a FOUR YEAR OLD, folks. Anyone over the age of, say, nine will want to kill their television rather than let this one play itself out.<br /><br />To say this movie is bad is like saying the Holocaust was a little mistake. There are no words for how ridiculous and utterly terrible this "film" truly is. The acting is bad, the plot is stupid, and the script is pathetically unfunny. Since this is supposed to be a comedy, the fact that you cannot even laugh at the badness of the movie makes it even worse. Bronson "Balki" Pinchot is the worst with some weird fake accent (Irish-Pakistani-Bronx-Cockney-Cajun as far as I could tell), but all the characters are awful. I haven't watched a real Laurel and Hardy film in ages, but I KNOW that they HAD to be way better than this. What is the point of ruining a classic comic duo with... this?<br /><br />Bottom line: derivative garbage. Avoid at all costs unless you have some freaky Bronson Pinchot fetish. 2/10
I have seen most, if not all of the Laurel & Hardy classic films. I have always enjoyed there comical stupidly, even after watching it over and over again. This new film attempts to bring back the classic with two new actors who resemble both Laurel & Hardy, however fails miserably for various reasons. One of which is how out of place their cloths are (still early 20th century) however are both portrayed in the 90's setting. Some of the former dialogue was brought back, however it also fails miserably to come close to the classic series. This film could very well be the worst film I have ever seen and should be pulled off the shelf and locked away forever. The real Laurel & Hardy are surly spinning in their graves at such a bad imitation.
Even if it were remotely funny, this mouldy waxwork of a film would still be soberingly disrespectful. Stopping just short of digging up the boys' corpses and re-enacting 'Weekend At Bernie's' – but only just – producer Larry Harmon and the director of the frickin' 'Ernest' films use holding the copyright as an excuse to crap all over Stan and Ollie's legacy. Gailard Sartain does a fair Ollie impersonation but Bronson Pinchot wouldn't reach tenth place in a Stan lookalike contest; even if they were both spot on the film would be no less detestable. The less said about the surrounding catastrophe the better. Makes 'Utopia' look like a dignified swan song.
Brief summary: This movie demeans everyone it touches. That means you.<br /><br />First off, let me say I'm not a purist, and this might have been funny for a few minutes. The impersonations are not bad. But overall it's just dull and excruciatingly not funny. A few simple jokes are repeated over and over again.<br /><br />It's clear that this movies only exists to squeeze the last few dollars out of the now-trademarked Laurel and Hardy. The producers cannot have any real regard for their place in film history, or their talents. This is what offended me the most.<br /><br />Of course, my daughter liked it, so I'm also a failure as a parent ;)
That's the sound of Stan and Ollie spinning in their graves.<br /><br />I won't bother listing the fundamental flaws of this movie as they're so obvious they go without saying. Small things, like this being "The All New Adventures of Laurel and Hardy" despite the stars being dead for over thirty years when it was made. Little things like that. <br /><br />A bad idea would be to have actors playing buffoons whom just happen to be called Laurel and Hardy. As bad as that is, it might have worked. For a really bad idea, try casting two actors to impersonate the duo. Okay, they might claim to be nephews, but the end result is the same.<br /><br />Bronson Pinchot can be funny. Okay, forget his wacky foreigner "Cousin Larry" schtick in Perfect Strangers, and look at him in True Romance. Here though, he stinks. It's probably not all his fault, and, like the director and the support cast - all of who are better than the material - he was probably just desperate for money. There are those who claim Americans find it difficult to master an effective English accent. This cause is not helped here by Pinchot. What is Stan? Welsh? Iranian? Pakistani? Only in Stan's trademark yelp does he come close, though as the yelp is overdone to the point of tedium that's nothing to write home about. Gailard Sartain does slightly better as Ollie, though it's like saying what's worse - stepping in dog dirt or a kick in the knackers? <br /><br />Remember the originals with their split-second timing, intuitive teamwork and innate loveability? Well that's absent altogether, replaced with two stupid old men and jokes so mistimed you could park a bus through the gaps. Whereas the originals had plots that could be summed up in a couple of panels, this one has some long-winded Mummy hokum (and what a lousy title!) that's mixed in with the boys' fraternity scenario. I can't claim to have seen every single one of Laurel and Hardy's 108 movies, but I think it's a safe bet that even their nadir was leagues ahead of this.<br /><br />Maybe the major problem is that the originals were sort-of playing themselves, or at least using their own accents. It at least felt natural and unforced, as opposed to the contrived caricatures Pinchot and Sartain are given. And since when did Stan do malapropisms, and so many at that? "I was gonna give you a standing cremation"; "I would like to marinate my friend." Stop it! <br /><br />Only notable moment is a reference to Bozo the Clown, the cartoon character who shared Larry Harmon's L & H comic. Harmon of course bought the name copyright (how disconcerting to see a ® after Laurel and Hardy) and was co-director and producer of this travesty. <br /><br />Questions abound. Would Stan and Ollie do fart gags if they were alive today? Would they glass mummies with broken bottles? Have Stan being smacked in the genitals with a spear and end on a big CGI-finale? Let's hope not.<br /><br />I did laugh once, but I think that was just in disbelief at how terrible it all is. Why was this film made in the first place? Who did the makers think would like it? Possibly the worst movie I've ever seen, an absolute abhorrence I grew sick of watching after just the first five minutes. About as much fun as having your head trapped in a vice while a red-hot poker and stinging nettles are forcibly inserted up your back passage.
The reviews I read for this movie were pretty decent so I decided to check it out. BAD IDEA! This is another movie about a ghost out for revenge against a group friends. The story is stupid, mix two parts Ringu with one part Prom Night, a sprinkle of I Know what you did Last Summer, and add a tiny dash of Single White Female - now blend until completely nonsensical. There is nothing new to this plot, and revisiting the clichés I've grown so fond of wasn't even entertaining this time. This movie jumps to and from the past too much, and once I made sense of it all I realized it still didn't make much sense. Characters go from sane to psycho killer in the blink of an eye. Speaking of characters, they are all your stereotypical favorites - the greedy selfish lawyer, the egocentric actress, the has-been baseball star, the video voyeur, the bitter girl, the spooky quiet chick, the 'nicer-than-nice' nice girl, a freakin' black cat... and I didn't care about any of them. Perhaps a better writer could have made the movie work, there were some decent scenes in it, but overall this movie was a mess. I should also mention a certain 'video tape' that would have been IMPOSSIBLE to shoot. <br /><br />This movie isn't the worst Asian horror has to offer by far, but it is still pretty bad. If you just want to see some creepy images in the dark, or just want to laugh out loud at some over the top acting, or just want to yell "you're stupid!" at a movie screen, or just want to have another Asian horror flick up your sleeve when someone asks you how many you've seen - this movie is for you. <br /><br />Those seeking a decent plot look elsewhere.
I'm afraid that I didn't like this movie very much. Apart from a few saving graces, it's nothing to write home about. <br /><br />J-horror has boomed for the last five-six years but the films themselves have on more than one account been repetitive and carbon copies of a previous success. This is one of them.<br /><br />Basically this is a supernatural slasher movie. The beginning is promising with chilling scenes from a morgue where a dead girl has her eyes graphically sewn together, but soon after opens them. However, after that, it's quickly downhill for this flick.<br /><br />To be kind I will start with the things I like about "Gawi". On the plus side, the visuals are gaudy and the movie looks great for it's type. For those who like their horror movies gory there are a few nicely executed (no pun intended) murder scenes. We also get a few good suspense sequences/set-pieces.<br /><br />However, there are quite a few drawbacks also...<br /><br />First of all, and my major complaint about this movie, is that the plot skips and jumps forwards and backwards in time with an alarming intensity. Usually that's not a problem for me, but here, where the students look exactly the same no matter what age they are, I was confused on more than one occasion.<br /><br />The performances are okay I guess (a little hard to tell when you don't know the language), but seem a little stiff. And for a horror movie, I don't think it was scary enough. For a while I was quite bored actually.<br /><br />Being a fan of giallo movies, I was expecting quite a lot from "Nightmare", but unfortunately I was quite disappointed.
The following are some of the most blaring problems with this movie: 1) Clichés abound. Seriously, awful "twists" are everywhere.<br /><br />2) The narrative jumps around in time, which would be fine if done well, but it's not.<br /><br />3) Lame characters that don't develop so much as either remain utterly static, or drastically change for no good reason.<br /><br />4) Big one: HORRIBLE ACTING. Over the top from nearly every person.<br /><br />The following are some of the best points from the movie: 1) The lead is damn good looking.<br /><br />As I see it, there are only two kinds of people who would be into this movie: a) People who can sit through 90 minutes of tripe simply because the lead is attractive.<br /><br />b) People who often think to themselves, "I like Hollywood dreck rife with clichés and overacting, but if only I could watch it in Korean..." There's a lot of good Korean cinema out there, so why waste your time with garbage?
We see a body of dead girl in a morgue with the coroner trying to close the eyes of the girl, but whatever he tries they won't stay open. After this we move into the future and we follow a group of former school friends who hide a terrible secret, but suddenly they start getting picked off one by one in many grisly ways. Through flashbacks we learn of this awful suicide of a shy girl who was trying to be one of the group, but she was shut out by them because they dug up her past and found out some weird occurrences. So, is she back from the grave seeking revenge? <br /><br />Oh what a great and always spooky story! Well, that's what I hoping I could say. And 'hoping' was as good as it got. This is an forgettable, so-so supernatural horror flick that I actually watched before, but I went in thinking it was my first viewing. So to my surprise it hit me when I started picking up on certain things, but like I said it's quite a forgettable mix that it felt like a first viewing again. "Nightmare' is just another type of it's field that adds a 'few' changes to the gruel. Oh, please give me something that's a bit more fresh. It doesn't have to be entirely original, but this is one formulaic and at times quite tired J-horror flick. Even though it strings along the usual ghost story involving you guessed right… an evil looking, vengeful chick spirit.<br /><br />But in spite of my negativity of it being the same old, same old story and jolts. This one kind of entertains when its being grisly and popping in some creepy visuals. The deaths are vividly displayed with bite and some originality. While, the gloomy atmosphere alienates the audience with it's murky lighting. The first scene involving the spirit terrorising one of the girls is one blood-curdling experience, but really when it's not trying to shock you. I found it rather coma inducing and I thought about getting some shut-eye. That might be harsh, but it just didn't go anywhere of any interest between those shock moments. You could say that because the supposed mystery is really not much of one, the unsure story is just simply flat and the characters are a self-centred bunch that you don't really care what happens to them. The disjointed story should have focused more on the spirit than that of these bland characters who have one unconvincing group relationship. It just overplayed its cards by becoming overly muddled and taking too long to get going that when it comes to the climax it's just plain ludicrous. The film's haunting ending is a high point, though.<br /><br />The film looks fine, although it could have done without the snazzy, quick fire editing and the music score was a bit overbearing in playing up the mood. The performances tread a fine line, but Gyu-ri Kim is strong in the lead role.<br /><br />It's nothing new and it shamelessly steals ideas, but if you can look past that it delivers some nasty thrills. Although, I found the handling of it rather lethargic, despite the odd effective chills. A standard effort all round I guess, but still it's equally missable.
If you appreciate the renaissance in Asian horror, don't bother with Gawi. The film scarcely deserves mention alongside A-list work such as Ringu, A Tale of Two Sisters, Cure, and Ju-On (or even such good material as The Eye or Inner Senses). Those films brim with subtleties, unexpected imagery, rich characters, and a decidedly non-Western take on what's frightening. Gawi is strung together with the leftover limbs and organs of everything that has made American horror lousy for the past twenty-five years.<br /><br />The film tries to blend Asian ghost story and Hollywood slasher flick, but it's a bad fit. One aesthetic is bound to smother the other; guess which? Having no story of their own to tell the filmmakers loot Ringu for an evil-child subplot, but the situation is hopeless. Clichés, crap characters, witless plotting, a dull ghost, ho hum.
In reviewing this film I can only go by my experiences as a weekend warrior doing my basic training in July, August, and September of 1971 in that garden spot of the earth, Fort Polk, Louisiana. Take the High Ground was not anything like I remember basic training.<br /><br />But one has to remember at the time this was post Korea which ended in a stalemate, but it was a conventional war as we knew them. It was not Vietnam, a jungle guerrilla war where we kept pouring draftees into an endless pit. The draft at that time was an unwelcome, but accepted as still necessary for the country's defense.<br /><br />Richard Widmark is a veteran of Korea now assigned state side to train the troops to go overseas. The film is about one of his training cycles and the men of the platoon he has to train. They're the usual kind you would find in just about any war film from the previous decade. <br /><br />One thing I will praise Take The High Ground for is the fact that MGM recognized our army was now an integrated one with the presence of William Hazard as a black recruit in the platoon. It was in keeping with the spirit of the times which were a changing.<br /><br />But I will say that a recruit like Russ Tamblyn would have been cured of his smart mouth from day one. Richard Widmark would have not risked death or becoming a eunuch in order to give Jerome Courtland confidence with a weapon. And no way would have he worried so much about Robert Arthur deserting. He's have just let the MPs deal with him.<br /><br />Of course being shot in and around Fort Bliss and El Paso, Texas did give Take the High Ground good authenticity. But view it as an army recruiting film and you can certainly understand why the government so eagerly gave cooperation back in the day.<br /><br />I do remember the drill sergeants having their little conflicts which you could pick up on when you weren't worried about them getting on your case for something which was 95% of the time. But there ain't no way that Karl Malden would have slugged Widmark out in the open during training in front of several witnesses among the recruits. Both would have realized that would have undermined authority, something the military just doesn't let happen.<br /><br />I wish I could have said something better about Take The High Ground because I certainly like its talented cast, it's talented director Richard Brooks, even the silly theme by Dimitri Tiomkin and Ned Washington, fresh from their Oscar a year before for High Noon. The film actually got an Oscar nomination for Best Screenplay and story by Millard Kaufman. It must have been for Kaufman's vivid imagination.
Being the only movie I was able to see at this year's "Nordische Filmtage" at Lübeck, this year's festival will be remembered as a all-time low for me.<br /><br />This movie, which was announced as an erotic thriller, is nothing more than a sick piece of crap! Excuse the language, but there aren't any decent words to describe it.<br /><br />First of all, the actors are not the best. But even better actors would not have rescued the movie. E.g. the plot: after the first 15 minutes it was quite clear that John was sick, the neighbour girls were not real and that he killed his first girlfriend. The so called "sex-scene" was nothing else but disgusting (hitting each other until blood flows for me hasn't anything to do with sexuality), but unfortunately that were not the only disgusting images to be shown. Everything else was copied by other directors like e.g. Lynch, but of course without their geniality.<br /><br />So, to summarize the whole film and to save other viewers time and money: guy loses girlfriend, girlfriend turns back home, guy kills girlfriend and becomes mad afterwards, guy imagines hot, but crazy neighbour girls, guy has very disgusting sex with one of them (or so he thinks), in the end he realizes, he is crazy and his girlfriend and her new lover lay in his apartment all the time... bad story, bad actors, pictures, that make you want to vomit...<br /><br />1 out of 10 (1 point for the fact, that you realize how good you can understand Norwegian if you learned Swedish - at least one benefit of the evening - and you can't choose 0 points here).
Interesting idea and storyline which didn't quite work.<br /><br />When you see the film, maybe you will feel as dissatisfied with the ending as I did. I didn't really know who to root for in the movie, Taye Diggs looked bored as the detective, the rest of the characters seem so one-dimensional and unpleasant.<br /><br />If the victim Alicia(Mia Kirschner) had been more of a nice girl, we might actually have enjoyed seeing the plot unfold and the perpetrator brought to justice. The problem was that she was as bitchy as the other girls, turning from sweet girl to conniving opportunistic cokehead. I can't understand the moral message of this film, and as a detective story and thriller it doesn't work.
Geez, another Lifetime movie, but once again isn't exactly the worst movie in the world, but far from the best. I think the main problem is that it's pretty obvious who is responsible for what, and it's generally fairly predictable. Worse yet, some of the flashbacks ended up being confusing, and the viewer is left wondering "Okay, how much am I supposed to care?" One thing I did like is that the movie goes to show you that it's never THAT simple as "the good guys are good and the bad guys are bad", and sometimes it IS evil vs evil rather than good vs evil. Hadley didn't do what she did out of a sense of justice, she did it because she considered herself entitled to a job for being family, AND to eliminate the competition. As for Alicia, it simply proves that a victim isn't always a good person. Some of them really do "have it coming", even if "it" was a painful, horrible death. "The Burning Bed" is a great example of this, but the difference is that the vile man in "The Burning Bed" got exactly what he deserved. But, did Alicia "have it coming"? Some will say that she did, but others don't agree, and the law generally doesn't either.<br /><br />As for acting, it's a mixed bag. Some do a good job, like Mia, but others just came across as indifferent to their roles. They were mostly wooden or simply not convincing. The music was pretty cool though and some of the scenes are nice and steamy, especially if you like girl/girl action. The movie isn't badly shot at all, but given its glaring weaknesses, the strengths are in background, unfortunately.<br /><br />I've heard rumors of a sequel, but given the years, I doubt it'll happen. But, I wouldn't be surprised if a sequel suddenly appeared. If Alicia is as EVIL, conniving and horrible as people say, then I don't think she'll be thinking, "YAY! I woke up from a coma! Oh, Hadley was responsible? Oh! That's okay! I totally forgive her and want the charges dropped!" No way Hadley would be in jail for long anyway, if she even does any time since no murder actually happened. <br /><br />Anyway, worth checking out at least once!
I rented "New Best Friend" hoping for a movie similar to enjoyable teen thrillers such as "Gossip" and "The Curve". Instead, "New Best Friend" is much more like "The In Crowd", in which there are no thrills and the acting is incredibly phony. "New Best Friend" is boring, and the events during the movie are the same. Skip this movie...it's a waste of time.
Not very interesting teen whodunit saved from being a turkey from some decent performances. The main cast consisting of Taye Diggs, Mia Kirshner, Dominique Swain and surprisingly Meredith Monroe are all good but the story is not very original.
"New Best Friend" is another entry in the "steal another woman's life" sub-genre; the best of which are "Single White Female" and "The Hand That Rocks the Cradle"; the worse of which you can catch almost any afternoon on the Lifetime Channel. For some reason this type of identity theft happens exclusively to women.<br /><br />There are just two basic ways to play this type of story. You can make the woman evil at the beginning and let the audience watch knowingly as she hatches and implements her evil scheme. Or you use misdirection to make her appear a good person, as a seemingly unplanned series of events break in her favor until she is revealed to be evil in the climatic scene. Unfortunately the makers of "New Best Friend" could not decide how they wanted to play it and things crash and burn early. We first meet Alicia (Mia Kirshner) scamming the college's financial aid office for scholarship money. We now know that she is a bad person and will view all her subsequent activity with suspicion. But the director and editor apparently forgot that this revelation had been made and spend the next 50 minutes laying misdirection to make us think that Alicia is a good person. This introduces the only element of suspense, not about whether she is evil but about when the director and editor will wise up and stop wasting our time with transparent misdirection.<br /><br />"New Best Friend" suffers more than most from the teen movie curse of a cast too old to be portraying undergraduate students. There are really only two big parts, Hadley (Meredith Monroe) and Alicia (Kirshner). They were 31 and 26 respectively at the time of the production. It almost works for the 26 year-old Kirshner when she plays the mousy version of Alicia but it becomes glaring when she is transformed into the glamed-up version of Alicia. Monroe's casting is simply a joke, about like having Nicholette Sheridan try to pass as a classmate on "Lizzie McGwire". She looks much closer to a mid-life crisis than to a term paper.<br /><br />The producers must have owed a lot of favors because this age issue extends to most of the supporting characters. Taye Diggs who plays the town sheriff is younger than most of the students.<br /><br />The basic setup is that Hadley and two other rich party girls (played by Dominque Swain-age 21 and Rachel True-age 35) are undergrad roommates at college. They share (as their student residence) a mansion that is nicer and better furnished than the mansion on Real World-New Orleans (a premise more believable than soccer moms playing students). Alicia moves into the mansion and begins to take over Hadley's life. At least that way Swain finally gets a roommate from her own generation so the two can have a lesbian scene. Swain's supporting performance is the only good thing about "New Best Friend" and her love scene with Kirshner is fantastic, so cool and artsy that it doesn't fit with any of the other segments, maybe it was subcontracted out to a good director and cinematographer.<br /><br />The unintentionally hilarious story is presented in a series of dreary flashbacks of rampant sex and nonstop parties, each proceeded by a shot of a comatose Alicia in a hospital bed. About half of Kirshner's screen time is spent lying motionless with a tube in her mouth. Not a good career move Mia.<br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
Unentertaining, uninvolving hybrid of "Cruel Intentions" and "Wild Things", but it isn't nearly as good as either of those trash min-classics. It's about the acting sheriff, Artie (Taye Diggs) being called in to investigate a near-fatal drug overdose at a posh upper-class Univesity, but to keep it on the down low. As he digs deeper he thinks it's much more than it at first glance seems to be. We follow Alicia, the girl who overdosed in flashbacks as well. At about 90 minutes, if this film was welcomed to begin with, it would have worn it out. This film brings absolutely nothing new to the table. But it IS the only movie thus far that has Miss Swain topless so the grade is higher just for that.<br /><br />My Grade: D<br /><br />Eye Candy: Dominique Swain gets topless( fixing a mistake of "Happy Campers"); another girl is topless <br /><br />Anti-Eye candy: more men ass than girl tit
Small college town coed OD's? (Why do we care?) Acting sheriff investigates the incident. (Why do we care?) The interviews show us the comatose subject (Kirshner) as different as the opinions of the subjects being interviewed. (Why do we care?) Result? A mess of flashbacks in this mess of a movie featuring a handful of one-hit wonders and B-flick divas which begs the question...Why do we care?
I totally disagreed with those comments which said this is a good movie. This is a totally SUCKED movie. I mean SUCKED - S.U.C.K.E.D. The story development is strange. Mia Kirshner changed from an innocent girl to a party-fun seeking chick for no convincing reasons at all. In addition, all the actresses looked way too old for being college students - College students looked like about 30 years old - you figure out the rest. I watched only about first ten minutes and started fast forwarding to look for sex scenes. all the sex scenes are lame, hasty and, most importantly, no frontal at all. All the sex scenes are laughable, considering how many clothes they had on. Do yourself a favor - put it down and save yourself a few bucks. Conclusion: Story - 0, Sex - 0, Acting - 0, Score - 0 out 10.
Interesting film about an actual event that took place during the Civil War in Vermont. It kept my attention to the end and I don't regret viewing it. I haven't ever read any on this raid incident so I was curious to see if the rebels pulled it off. I enjoy historical films from that era.<br /><br />My major complaint is with the Confederate uniforms. They look too good!!! The acting was a little stiff at times. I like the old man eating the mashed potatoes because he didn't have any teeth. The wounded soldier playing fetch with a hound was a little strange. Overall, it was a descent film.
(Avast, slight spoilers ahead) I got this tape from my local library, which keeps a copy for obvious reasons.<br /><br />I once went to the town of Matewan, West Virginia, and in a little museum there I saw the schedule for the town theatre citra May 1954. Movies would change at the theatre each day. As there would be no TV for another decade or so in those parts, this was much of the available entertainment in the town. "The Raid" seems to have been made for towns like Matewan in the 1950's. Although it wasn't listed for that month, I am sure showed there some Monday or Tuesday night for an audience which probably wasn't too demanding. The historical raid - daring and remarkably successful - didn't seem to have been very well researched, so the movie is full of Hollywood embellishments, including a loose cannon played by Lee Marvin. Marvin uses the opportunity to practice being Liberty Valance. And St. Albans seems to have had more Yankee soldiers coming and going through the town than Washington D.C. had.<br /><br />What really made me snicker was when the raiders change into their Confederate uniforms. Only in tacky Civil War paintings do Rebel uniforms look so pristine. When Anne Bancroft's son catches Van Heflin in his uniform just before the raid, I expected the boy to think it was Halloween.<br /><br />And then there's Anne Bancroft herself. While watching the movie I actually looked on the IMDb to see if there was a second Anne Bancroft. The then-studio contract actress looks nothing like in her later films, and has none of the presence she would later have in "The Miracle Worker," "Agnes of God," and of course "The Graduate."<br /><br />Worth seeing if only 1). you live in St. Albans and 2). you have a couple hours to kill on a Hollywood fictionalization of your home town's biggest news story.
I read the reviews for this and while not expecting a saving private Ryan I was expecting a film of some substance.<br /><br />The film starts off very lob-sided with the usual intro of history and how the unit came into being. But immediately it's 1944 and you are not sure where everyone is. The accents etc are very poor as this unit is supposed to be Hawaiian/Asian American but everyone speaks in a very poor take on Harvard English imitation of a Japanese person.<br /><br />I gave this film 3 out of 10 as after 10 minutes I couldn't watch any more of it. The characters were 1 dimensional and even though they were most likely based on real people I had no feeling for them and this left me not caring about them. Very poor direction of a very average TV movie which will be shown at midnight on some cable channel. I'd avoid and look out for better efforts.<br /><br />This is a good story but it was deserving of a better telling. You got a sense the director had seen band of brothers and thought that that was enough to sell his movie. My advice, avoid and watch band of brothers, Tuskegee airmen, Glory or any other movie like when trumpets fade...
In my opinion, this movie's title should be changed from "Only the Brave" to "All About Lane". I went to a screening of this film a few months ago and was quite disappointed with the outcome. Although, I appreciate that the director made a movie about the men of 442nd - a subject matter that long deserved addressing in the film industry - the acting in some parts of film was quite stale. The performances of Marc Dacascos, Tamlyn Tomita, and Jason Scott Lee were all great. However, the director should have NEVER put himself as the main character in the movie. Sorry Lane, you are just not a film actor. Stick to what you're good at - theater acting. Gina Hiraizumi's performance in this film was also horrible. She should never have been given a speaking role and her looks were unfit to play the part of a Miss Nisei queen. There were other young actresses in the film who were naturally beautiful and whose performances were wonderful... Why weren't they cast for that role? Another major problem with this film were its action sequences. The Japanese-American soldiers don't look like they were fighting German soldiers... let alone anyone. Granted this was a low budget feature, but since this was a war-based film, isn't it important to show some actually fighting? This film was a worthy attempt, but definitely not worth a major distribution.
While I totally disagree with one reviewer who described Charley Chase as unfunny, in this film he certainly is. It's a shame, as I suspect the other reviewer must have only seen a few Charley Chase duds and assumed the guy wasn't funny. Films like MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE and WHAT PRICE GOOFY? are very good Chase films, so he COULD be really funny given good material. Unfortunately, in this film he's given absolutely nothing. Even the inclusion of the usually good Oliver Hardy as a foil isn't any help because the basic premise (boy wants to marry girl but girl's father thinks the boy is a wuss) and the gags are so poor. It's a shame, as I really wanted to love this film but couldn't.<br /><br />By the way, for those used to the look for Charley from the mid-1920s on, you'll be pretty surprised as Chase sports no glasses or mustache--and looks very little like you'd expect.
I've never found Charley Chase very funny, even though his on-screen character sometimes reminds me of John Cleese, whom I find VERY funny. (Charley Chase also reminds me of gowky Hen Broon from Scotland's 'Sunday Post' comics page.) In Chase's best films, I tend to admire his professionalism rather than laughing at him. I'll give Chase credit that his very best films -- such as 'Mighty Like a Moose' and 'His Wooden Wedding' -- have inspired a fandom who are fiercely loyal to him ... but I'm positive that even the most die-hard Chase fan will agree that the very early and very crude 'Married to Order' just isn't funny at all.<br /><br />Chase -- eager, awkward, gormless, naff -- is a young swain hoping to court the fair Rose. Oliver Hardy gives the best performance in this film as her blowhard father, who disdains Chase as a 'mollycoddle'. Leo White, who did more notable work as a foil for Chaplin at Essanay, is on hand here as a rival.<br /><br />There's some action involving an Ingersoll watch. I was intrigued that the brand name is mentioned in the dialogue titles: is this an early example of product-placement? <br /><br />Sadly, a major flaw in 'Married to Order' is the casting of Rosemary Theby as Rose: she's meant to be a standard-issue ingenue, but Theby -- flat-chested, hawk-faced -- is physically wrong for the role. Theby (the wife of Harry Myers) had a successful career as a screen actress, but was never a believable ingenue. Film historian William K Everson dealt with her very dismissively in one of his film books.<br /><br />I'll rate 'Married to Order' just 3 out of 10, and I'm being charitable ... because I keep suspecting that Charley Chase has got something that everyone else gets but I keep missing.
Max had the V-8, Trace (Wheels of Fires last and only hero) has a jet engine on the back of his car allowing him to make unintentionally humorous faces as he rockets around the halfway desolate wasteland. Be amazed as Mad Max 2 (aka The Road Warrior) is dissected and spliced back together as a new movie albeit filmed in a lackluster manner with bad actors and lousy stunt work.<br /><br />Why is WoF set in a post-apocalyptic wasteland? Simple, The Road Warrior was! Actually any questions can be answered by: it was that way in the Road Warrior! Except for the out of work mutant actors from the original 60's The Time Machine film that make a cameo appearance for sake of giving the audience some non-vehicular action to chew on for a few minutes.<br /><br />In typical 80's fashion, all cars driven by bad guys that are bumped or slightly jostled explode in a huge billowing explosion. Inevitably all car chases will happen near convenient cliff sides and cars will unavoidably fall off of them. Along with this 80's cinematic wild ride is the general rampant misogyny in this style of cheapie film. Generally I waited for Trace's rocket powered car to accelerate and shoot flames so there would be another shot of him scrunching up his face like he is supposed to be tough, which comes off more as him looking constipated. Badly choreographed action coupled with bad acting makes this film a true sinker. The unintentional humor value even manages to wear thin.<br /><br />Rats: Nights of Terror by Bruno Mattei is superior. And that in and of itself is saying a lot! By this count 2020 Texas Gladiators is a cinematic masterpiece compared to Wheels of Fire. A poor Road Warrior knock off that doesn't have near enough cheese factor to make the film watchable.<br /><br />
It's curious that the two stars of Meet The People were a pair of movie stars who went into the new medium of television and became even bigger successes and who both went into the production end of things and enjoyed tycoon status on the small screen. Lucille Ball however was not a major star, that would come with television. As for Dick Powell he desperately wanted to get out of doing films like Meet The People and his career salvation would be coming in his next film.<br /><br />I think the only reason that Dick Powell did the film was because a young player from MGM was cast in a specialty number and he was seeing her at the time. His private time with June Allyson was far better than what we see on the screen. Powell looks crashingly bored and can't summon up any kind of emotion at all.<br /><br />He was probably tired of doing these musicals with silly plots, the kind he ran from Warner Brothers from. The original show Meet The People was not a book show, it was a revue and it ran in the 1940-41 season on Broadway for 160 performances. When MGM bought it, they scrapped everything but the title and the title song. The rest of the score was patched together from various and sundry songwriters, none of the songs is memorable. Odd when you consider some of the source material is from Burton Lane, E.Y. Harburg, Harold Arlen, and Rodgers&Hart. These guys just must have emptied the trunk for material.<br /><br />The plot is sillier than even most of the musical propaganda pieces of the time. Powell is the writer of a revue called Meet The People and he's a shipyard worker who wins a lottery date with movie star Lucille Ball. She's interested, he's interested, they're both interested in the revue, but creative differences keep them apart of course until the finale. That's the film in a nutshell.<br /><br />MGM did give Powell and Ball some good musical acts which are the main reason for watching Meet The People. The big bands of Vaughn Monroe and Spike Jones are here and the highlight of the film for me is Bert Lahr dressed in a commodore's suit like Lou Costello had in the dream sequence in In The Navy. The song Heave Ho is written by Arlen and Harburg who wrote for Lahr, the Courage number from The Wizard Of Oz. And as just about everyone in the world has seen that film, you have an idea of Heave Ho is like.<br /><br />Dick Powell's next film was Murder My Sweet in which he finally bid a not so fond adieu to musicals. And Lucy would have to wait for television before the world got to see what she really could do.
I went into this movie hoping for the best. I like wartime musicals in general. Dick Powell and Lucille Ball did good jobs with their roles; however, the writers gave them boring dialog. The love-interest between the two of them was not given any real growth; just suddenly it was there. I did not think much of the music; the best number was the snippet we heard of Spike Jones with "Der Fuhrer's Face." The one complete number that Spike Jones did had little of his great musical comedy; pretty tame stuff,even with the monkey. Bert Lahr's comedy skits were interminable.<br /><br />There were parts to enjoy: Lucille Ball was quite a looker, and there was a good selection of bit players who really deserved more time on screen.
I watched this movie after having so much of trouble in downloading it through rapidshare. And I have to say, it did not deserve it.<br /><br />Parinda was so hyped, that I was really looking forward to watch it.<br /><br />Parinda is one of those movies which fail to satisfy the standards set by other good Indian film-makers, despite having a great story. It was even more pathetic to know, that the story itself was not original, it was loosely based on the classic "On the Waterfront".<br /><br />Anil Kapoor was irritating, especially when he comes from America. The direction lacked quality many a times, except a few in-between scenes.<br /><br />Give this script to any of them - Ram Gopal Verma, Deepa Mehta, Mahesh Bhatt, Sudhir Mishra, and I'm 100% sure, they'll make a mind-blowing movie out of it.<br /><br />I'm not saying Parinda was bad. It was just not good enough.
This movie is chilling reminder of Bollywood being just a parasite of Hollywood. Bollywood also tends to feed on past blockbusters for furthering its industry.<br /><br />Vidhu Vinod Chopra made this movie with the reasoning that a cocktail mix of "Deewar" and "On the Waterfront" will bring home an Oscar. It turned out to be rookie mistake.<br /><br />Even the idea of the title is inspired from the Elia Kazan classic. In the original, Brando is shown as raising doves as symbolism of peace.<br /><br />Bollywood must move out of Hollywood's shadow if it needs to be taken seriously.
This is one of the worst movies i have seen to date, the best part was Christian J. Meoli "Leonard" attempting to act jumping up and down outside the bar, kind-of like i wanted to do on the DVD, to spare the rest of humanity the agony of watching this shitty film. It has a great cast so you keep watching waiting for it to get good, i mean with Sean Astin "Andrew" (played his part perfectly, did a great job, too bad it was in this film), Kyra Sedgwick "Bevan", Ron Livingston "Chad", Renée Zellweger "Poet" (they put her name on the cover she has a total of 1 line and less then 4 seconds in the whole movie...<br /><br />If the cast had any dignity, they would go out and buy all the copies of this film and burn them along with Writer / Director George Hickenlooper and Writer John Enbom
Bugs Bunny accidentally ends up at the South Pole while trying to vacation in Florida. Where he meets a little penquin, which he tries to save from an Eskimo. This short tries and the penquin is adorable, but in the end it's a bit too light in the laughs department. The Eskimo isn't really that great of a foil for Bugs and I just seen a lot better Bugs Bunny cartoons frankly, even other shorts when he's paired with other unknown antagonists. So I can't in good conscience recommend this one. However it is nice to see it in it's uncut form. This cartoon is on Disk 3 of the "Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 1" <br /><br />My Grade: C
You can tell a Lew Grade production a mile off – distinctly British in style; epic in conception; peopled by international all-star casts; usually set in exotic climes. It's a formula that Grade and his company ITC employed throughout the 70s into the early 80s, resulting in titles like The Eagle Has Landed, Firepower, and Raise The Titanic! In 1977 Grade produced March Or Die, a remarkably old-fashioned Foreign Legion adventure that models all the characteristics mentioned above. Directed by the usually dependable Dick Richards – who helmed the acclaimed Farewell My Lovely just a couple years earlier - March Or Die is an unfortunate disappointment.<br /><br />A company of Foreign Legionnaires led by the harsh disciplinarian General Foster (Gene Hackman) is sent to Morocco shortly after World War 1. Their mission is to protect an archaeological party fronted by the dedicated Francois Marneau (Max Von Sydow). The archaeologists are carrying out an excavation at the ancient city of Erfoud, but fear an attack from Arab tribesmen following the decimation of an earlier archaeological group. Foster is not happy with the assignment – he does not consider historical artifacts worthy of his men risking their lives. This creates ongoing tension between himself and Marneau, who believes that the legionnaires should sacrifice their lives to make the excavation possible. The problems heighten when a beautiful woman named Simone Picard (Catherine Deneuve) tags along with the legionnaires. She is hoping to find out what happened to her father, a historian abducted by the Arabs when they wiped out the first archaeological team. Her presence arouses desires amongst the legionnaires, none more so than gypsy thief Marco Segrain (Terence Hill), a charming and courageous rogue who initially shows indifference towards his legionnaire colleagues but gradually grows in stature. Things climax with a huge battle at Erfoud, with swarms of united Arab tribes charging against the handful of legionnaires as they desperately try to defend their lives.<br /><br />On paper the star duo of Gene Hackman and Terence Hill seem a mismatch – Hackman is the heavyweight Oscar-winning character actor, Hill the handsome but limited Italian heart-throb from numerous low budget spaghetti westerns. One expects Hackman to act his counterpart off the screen. Yet, bizarrely, it is Hackman who gives the weak and uninvolving performance, while Hill raises his game to surprisingly high levels. The film is attractively shot on desert locations, but the pacing is awfully slow and few of the characters are worth caring for. Maurice Jarre's music is uncommonly flat too – very disappointing from the guy who gave us the Lawrence Of Arabia score. It is remarkable that anyone had the nerve to try an old-fashioned adventure of this type in the 70s (it was a genre that peaked in the 30s, and had been all but forgotten during the intervening decades). Sadly, the gamble doesn't really pay off – this homage to the legionnaire flicks of old becomes more of a plod than a march.
The opening sequence is supposed to show the Legion arriving in Paris on 13 Nov 1918. The troops pile off the train -- wearing the uniform in which the French Army, including the Legion, marched off to war in 1914! This a sure sign that the war flick you are about to see will be a turkey. (The French Army realized by 1915 that going to war in red trousers and dark blue overcoats was not working. Metropolitan French troops were put into "horizon blue" and Colonial troops were put into khaki.) The Claude Van-Damme (sp?) remake at least got the uniforms more or less right. Really is too bad when directors make these sorts of mistakes when they then go to all the effort to get other things right.
"Shadrach" was not my favorite type of movie. I found it overly sentimental and the acting was below par. Harvey Keitel and Andie MacDowell were good but some of the other actors weren't at all believable. I also did not believe that Paul's parents would go away and leave him with the Dabney family, especially when they had a housekeeper living in the home. Their social classes were too far apart to consider this believable. It seemed the Dabney's lifestyle was too exaggerated. There was a scene in the beginning of the movie that showed Andie MacDowell getting out of a car after having sex with someone. Who was it? Her son? What was the scene supposed to show us? Why was the scene even included? It had nothing to do with the rest of the movie and was in fact never alluded to again. It seemed gratuitous and not fitting into the story at all. There were too many inconsistencies in the movie for me. The story concerning Shadrach was nice but I wasn't convinced that the Dabneys would have been as kind and generous as they were portrayed.
My girlfriend picked this one; as a southern born and raised African American I found this movie's plot and premise totally without credibility. To believe that class and racial biases would be so easily and comfortably suspended would only come from someone totally unfamiliar with the ante-bellum south. Totally absurd !!! I wonder how they got a good actor like Harvey Keitel and a good actress like Andie McDowell (who being southern knows better) to participate in this crap
We rented five movies for New Year's Eve weekend and watched this one first. All I can say is that there was no place to go but up after watching this one. It was pointless and vulgar. Harvey Keitel's script must have been easy to write -- just make two out every three words a curse word. Andie McDowell is surprisingly good in a character roll, but the movie has nothing else to recommend it.
Really, They spelled it BRAIN in the credits, not BRIAN.<br /><br />OK, they didn't have the budget for a spell checker. All the production money went for great old cars. There are at least two Packards visible here. One is a Darin Convertible. A nice yellow Packard convertible.<br /><br />The scenes of the movie studio show that there was some money spent for costumes and set decorations. Old Cameras, an exterior of Ciro's, street signs and whatever was needed to make a visually pleasing picture was there. Poorly written and directed.<br /><br />My DVD says it runs for 104 minutes, approximately. It was more like 85 minutes. It came to an end without reaching a conclusion. There was a collision but no conclusion. The movie just smashed up against the credits. 99 cents for this. I paid 99 cents for this. I could have bought 3 cans of cat food and watched my cat's face as he emoted more excitement.<br /><br />For a few seconds in the Ciro's scene after Darren McGavin gets a phone call, it looked like, maybe... this movie would have a surprise twist that would make for an interesting film. Then it just sat there.<br /><br />The young Latin actor played by Steven Bauer (Tony Montoya) could have had a much bigger part in all that was going on here. This cast could have made a good film.<br /><br />I think if they cut Brian's part and use Steven Bauer in his place and change the script and keep the Packards and lose the band and add a Johnny Otis sound alike band, then they got something.<br /><br />Here Kitty, Kitty...<br /><br />Tom Willett
I bought this on DVD for my brother who is a big Michelle Pfeiffer fan. I decided to watch it myself earlier this week.<br /><br />It is a reasonably entertaining piece containing two completely separate story lines. The section with Michelle Pfeiffer was by far the more interesting of the two. She plays a rising Hollywood actress who has had many short unfulfilling relationships. She literally bumps into Brian Kerwin (A regular married guy with Kids)after driving her car into the back of his. After being initially hostile to one another he offers to drive her home as she no longer feels comfortable to drive. Romance develops eventually leading to tragedy when his wife finds out. What happens at the end I was not prepared for but the slow pacing and routine TV direction takes any drama out of the plot.<br /><br />The other section involves an old Studio boss played by Darren McGavin. This section actually has the better cast with Kenneth McMillan, Lois Chiles, Steven Bauer & Stella Stevens. They all want something from the studio boss but in the end when he is asked to resign, they all realize their careers will now be going nowhere. <br /><br />It passes the time but is not all that interesting and I am glad this was not bought for me. I am not a Michelle Pffeifer fan but she was admittedly the only actor worth watching in this film and even in 1983 she was a decent actress. Overall though unless you are a fan of hers avoid this as it is very routine.
So the other night I decided to watch Tales from the Hollywood Hills: Natica Jackson. Or Power, Passion, Murder as it is called in Holland. When I bought the film I noticed that Michelle Pfeiffer was starring in it and I thought that had to say something about the quality. Unfortunately, it didn't.<br /><br />1) The plot of the film is really confusing. There are two story lines running simultaneously during the film. Only they have nothing in common. Throughout the entire movie I was waiting for the moment these two story lines would come together so the plot would be clear to me. But it still hasn't.<br /><br />2) The title of the film says the film will be about Natica Jackson. Well it is, sometimes. Like said the film covers two different stories and the part about Natica Jackson is the shortest. So another title for this movie would not be a wrong choice.<br /><br />To conclude my story, I really recommend that you leave this movie where it belongs, on the shelf in the store on a place nobody can see it. By doing this you won't waste 90 minutes of your life, as I did.
I wouldn't give this movie a rating, it's not worthy. I watched it only because I'm a Pfieffer fan. I love her and would watch anything she made. Even in this dud, she didn't disappoint. Every scene with her in it, kept the viewer watching...waiting...for something to happen but nothing ever did. It had some good story lines but they ended abruptly as soon as it started. Some of the other characters had potential but nothing became of it.<br /><br />Pfieffer was 29 when she made this film and at her most lovely. The wardrobe and set was surprisingly good. <br /><br />I can watch mostly anything and rarely come across a movie I can't find something to like about it, but this was a dud. I don't understand. <br /><br />The worst thing about it all, it had a big cliff hanger at the end. It had an ending scene that woke you up and say wow, this film is finally going some place, then the credits roll. Good grief. <br /><br />I agree with the review that said .99 would have bought 3 cans of cat food and watching my cat eat would have been more exciting. Well said. Actually, that comment was more entertaining than the film because it sums it up so well. I too wasted .99 cents on this dud.dud.dud.
Years after the fall of the last of the great corporations, the world has fallen into a new dark age where cyborgs are harvested for their parts. Cash, a female cyborg, travels to a wasteland doctor to receive news that she is pregnant. On the run from Recyclers (bounty hunters who hunt cyborgs), Cash tries to find her way to Cytown, the mythical refuge for cyborgs.<br /><br />"Cyborg 3: The Recycler" is the third (& last so far) entry in the CYBORG trilogy. The first film was originally planned to be a sequel to MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE, but was quickly rewritten into a standard post-apocalyptic martial-arts fest that became something of a cult classic due to its cheesy action scenes. CYBORG 2: GLASS SHADOW was a sequel that actually improved upon its predecessor but was not widely seen (& was dismissed by those few who saw it as cheap fodder).<br /><br />This film, for one thing, tries to be a meld of the first two films (the first was a cheesy action film while the second was a smart Cyberpunk story) but unfortunately falls short on both counts. The budget was obviously lower than CYBORG 2, with the film being set in the desert wastelands (like so many post-apocalyptic action films of the 90s were), shot around old industrial buildings to conserve costs.<br /><br />The film's story centres on a plot device, that of a pregnant cyborg, that is as interesting as it is absurd (this film is not the first to try that idea; the anime OVA series ARMITAGE III uses it to a greater extent). But the film falls into the same trap that so many low-budget sci-fi action films fall victim to, in the fact that the snags (synthetic organisms) featured are nothing more than androids. The visual effects amount to nothing more than prosthetic arms & makeup effects.<br /><br />The acting is pretty standard for this kind of film, with the lead actress (Khrystyne Haje) being the single worst performer on display. Instead of being joyed at the news she is pregnant, she acts all whiny & sullen. Her co-stars are much better, Malcolm McDowell being the usual gangster type who enlivens the scenes he appears in & Richard Lynch has a lot of fun as the chief villain. Of particular note is Andrew Byniarski, playing Lynch's right hand man, who would later appear in THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE remake & its prequel.
Cash (Now played by Khrystyne Haje in for Angelina Jolie) has wandered to a post apocalypse wasteland (after her protector has died from old age, said protector was played by Elias Koteas, an actual decent actor) and now she finds that people wander through the rubble looking for cyborgs to trade for scrap metal and cash. She leads a group of burned out cyborgs (That includes William Katt, Evan Lurie and a human scientist played by Zach Galligan) against bounty hunter Richard Lynch. Malcolm McDowell has two minutes of screen time as Lynch's employer. Cyborg 3 does manage to be better than the other two entries but it still is a largely dull feature. The problem this time is that the ideas with potential are never used well, the action sequences are routine and the name cast such as McDowell, Katt and Galligan are given little to do. Haje is indeed a whiny heroine and Lynch is too over the top(as usual) and the film lacks the inspiration or ambition to be as fun-bad as it's hilarious predecessor. (The one with Van Damme, the second one is just dull.) Also disappointing is the science fiction angle which almost aggressively resists any good idea it has. As an action flick this is routine and by the numbers B-movie stuff and it is competently made, that's the only thing positive I can say about it.<br /><br />*1/2 out of 4-(Poor)
A study in bad. Bad acting, bad music, bad screenplay, bad editing, bad direction and a bad idea. Pieces of schlock don't come any cheesier or unintentionally funnier than this... thing. By the end of the "movie", you are left wondering why did they bother in the first place. Poor Malcolm McDowell, was he short of cash or something? Still thinking of seeing this? *SPOILERS AHOY*: If you haven't died of laughter in the first thirty minutes, by the time you'll see the cyborg-populated town named "Cytown", you will. Avoid this, my movie-loving friends. Avoid.
I almost made a fool of myself when I was going to start this review by saying " This movie reminded me of BILLY ELLIOT " but then I looked up the resume of screenwriter Lee Hall only to find out that he was the guy who wrote BILLY ELLIOT so it's Mr Hall who's making a fool of himself not me <br /><br />Am I being a bit cruel on him ? No because Lee has something most other aspiring screenwriters from Britain don't have - He has his foot in the door , he has previously written a successful British movie that won awards and made money at the box office and what does he do next ? He gives the audience more of the same <br /><br />Young Jimmy Spud lives on some kitchen sink estate . He is bullied at school and no one loves him . The only thing keeping him going is that he has aspirations to be a ballet dancer . No actually he has aspirations to be an angel but considering his household he may as well be a ballet dancer . He has a macho waster of a father who thinks " Ballet dancers are a bunch of poofs while his granddad says " Ballet dancers are as tough as any man you could meet . I remember seeing the Bolshoi ballet ... " Yup Ballet is a main talking point on a run down British council estate those days - NOT . Come to think of it neither is left wing politics which seems to be the sole preserve of middle class do gooders who live in nice big houses , so right away everything about this set up feels ridiculously false <br /><br />Another major criticism is that this is a film that has no clue who it's trying to appeal to . I have often criticised Channel 4 for broadcasting movies at totally inappropriate times ( THE LAND THAT TIME FORGOT at 6 am for example ) but they showed this at 2 am and for once they've got it spot on . Considering the story involves politics , ballet dancing ( Gawd I hate it ) lung cancer and poverty there's no way this can be deemed suitable for a family audience but since the main protagonist is an 11 year old child and features angels and ballet dancers ( Don't blame me if I seem obsessed with the subject - there was no need to refer to them ) there's not much here for an intelligent adult audience either . <br /><br />Of course if Lee Hall had been told at the script development stage by the producers that he should write a story featuring a schoolboy and an angel and had flatly refused saying that he wanted to write about other themes and stories then I will apologise but throughout the movie you do get the feeling that once the film was completed it was going to be marketed to the exact same audience who enjoyed BILLY ELLIOT
Not that I want to be mean but this movie really surprised me a lot. During the whole film, I was like...erm...what is this movie all about? I don't get the animations at all. Probably this movie will only be suitable for those who belongs to the 1980s. During the film, there is a group of people walked out. After the movie, many people said, "That's it?" Frankly speaking, I cannot believe that this movie was awarded the best children film award. If you are thinking of watching this film, I strongly recommend you not to. You will regret it. I'm not joking. You will find that you are just wasting both your time and money of you go and watch it.
If you're watching this without an inkling of an idea what the story is about, then you're in for quite the surprise. Even then the synopsis has painted a picture of a rather sane storyline, but the actual film is anything but.<br /><br />As the synopsis went, it tells of an obsessed mountain climber, which you'll see as the prologue before the opening credits and text crawl, which tells you of the presence of Chronopolis, an imaginary city that exists in dreamy manuscripts of the mind (note to self – this spells trouble with flashing lights), where its inhabitants are immortals yearning for a change in their omnipresence. They can see our world, and notice of all persons this mountain climber, and the synopsis explained that they decided to contact him through alchemy, creating an intelligent sphere to meet the man.<br /><br />What that translated to, is a repetitive piece of animation that a 5 year old kid could produce. Have shapes created, though credit goes to the stop motion style, and put it through a mind-numbing loop. And repeat until your eyes start to close, then move on to the next scene. If anything, the Chonopolisians (if this term exists) really love their sticks and balls, constantly playing at conjuring up that magical sphere, and having a field day playing with it before releasing it to the "other" world. It gets no better as well, when the man interacts with the sphere in yet another hypnotically boring and sleep inducing sequence.<br /><br />Thank goodness of course that the run time is shorter than what's advertised, which is 57 minutes (or less) against the 70 stated. While firmly dated, its dull colours, non-existent story, scratchy soundtrack and repetitive pictures will win over no fans. Don't waste time.
Well, you might not actually SEE any women in love in this movie, but you'll certainly hear women TALKING about love, and men talking about love, and women talking about men, and men talking about women, and men talking about men, and everyone talking about death, and talking, and talking, until you yourself will want to scream and do something that requires no talking at all, like paint your bedroom or water your plants.<br /><br />Welcome to the world of D.H. Lawrence, where psycho-babble reigns supreme, and where no one can get down to living a productive life because everyone is too busy talking about how unproductive their lives are. Spending time with the characters in a D.H. Lawrence novel is like being locked in a closet with a group of your most self-absorbed acquaintances who you would run away from if you met them at a party. When I read "Women in Love," I so desperately wanted to strangle every single character in it, but since I couldn't, I was hoping they would at least strangle each other. Alas, only one of them dies, not by strangulation, and I won't spoil it for you by telling which one, in case you actually give a damn about this story or any of these people.<br /><br />To give director Ken Russell his due, he makes this filmed version about as entertaining as it's possible to make this essentially unfilmable novel. He throws out much of the psychological mumbo-jumbo that Lawrence adored, and focuses instead on all of the naughty parts, so we get lots of histrionic lovemaking in beds and fields, two buck naked men wrestling by firelight, and one embarrassing scene featuring Alan Bates (yup, buck naked again) roaming around in a meadow making love to bushes and grass (I'm not kidding). Glenda Jackson won an Oscar for her performance as Gudrun, the more dominant of the two sisters at the story's focus, and she certainly tries her hardest to do something with this material; anyone would deserve an Oscar simply for having to bear Russell's decision to give her a scene where she has to dance wildly in front of a herd of mystified-looking cattle. Oliver Reed has one expression, an intense glower. The whole thing is over-written and over-directed, and it's deliriously campy. Indeed, this vies with "Mommie Dearest" as perhaps the most unintentionally hysterical movie I've ever seen.<br /><br />Grade: D
The old axiom that bored people are boring people is well demonstrated in "Women in Love." The script, taken from D. H. Lawrence's novel, contains an endless flow of concepts that are, at best, sophomoric.<br /><br />What a pity so much effort went into so vacuous an exercise; what an empty array of characters given such attention. In spite of high production values, this film comes across as tedious as its personnel.<br /><br />A revisit in 2001 merely confirms a 1969 impression of juvenille minds in adult bodies, dawdling nowhere, and fumbling every step of the way.
Practically the only other actor who would be less likely to play Evel Knieval than Hamilton is Anthony Perkins, yet somehow Hamilton manages to turn in a reasonably effective portrayal (and as producer of the film, he wasn't likely to be fired or told he wasn't right for the part!) The early life of the daredevil motorcyclist is recounted here in multiple flashbacks. The film opens with a rather silly prologue with Hamilton in his white-leather, star-spangled gear spouting the world according to Knieval as if to say, "Don't worry. This film is about my youth, but I'll be back in my familiar costume by the end of the picture." Hamilton is preparing for a huge jump, yet is still licking his wounds from the previous one as devoted wife Lyon both supports and derides him. He recalls various vignettes of his childhood and delinquent teenage years along with his early days as a stunt rider and blossoming celebrity. This flip-flop approach is pretty abrupt and sometimes disjointed, but it does prevent the movie from sticking to one of its inexpensive sets for too long a time or from getting into a rut with the fairly pedestrian characters. Hamilton, usually a suave and debonair persona, does a very fine job of enacting the tiny details of his subject's mannerisms and demeanor including his walk. His hair is a shade lighter and longer and he works hard to give the right inflections in his speaking. (He even pays minor tribute to Knieval's many injuries by appearing in a skimpy towel while his shoulders are covered in "scars" from the multitudinous accidents.) Facially, he looks nothing like the real cyclist, but he does suggest him in his physical performance. Lyon is excellent at playing the young girl he loves and then the more worldly wife, though her 3-pack a day voice does threaten to give her away at any given moment. She and Hamilton strike up an easy chemistry which goes a long way in putting the film over. Other nice supporting turns are given by Freed as his jaded doctor, Cameron as an early influence and Taylor as a flea-bitten sideshow barker. The film was made on a low budget, but the story is a rather low rent one anyway, so that doesn't affect it too badly. The makers wisely used actual Butte, Montana locations to give the film a proper small town ambiance. Several of Hamilton's antics are amusing, though the character is certainly reckless and inconsiderate of other people's property! Some of the real Knieval's completed and failed stunts are included in some blurry footage, one of which features a mind-boggling "splatter" in which the man is rolled up and snapped around like a rag doll. Hamilton's then-wife (Stewart) appears briefly as a nurse.
I paid one dollar for this DVD and at first I was feeling ripped off, but then I started thinking about it and I should be grateful. I have found a holy grail, a real touchstone of bad cinema. If you think the opening dramatic shots of an empty stadium successfully fizzle with Evel's awkward camera address monologue, then wait until the opening credits roll on the chauffeur's butt. The script seems to be pasted together from press clippings, and ESL textbooks. But..... I just can't believe how bad George Hamilton is. He seems to have absolutely no connection to anything he says, the only internal monologue I can detect is "gosh I bet they think I am cute. really cute!". This is an epiphany! I now know how bad it can get.
The 1990's begun to have day time talk shows sprout up left and right. Every network had one, and they all lacked one thing Originality. Ricky Lake was just another show to entertain the obese trailer park mother with a Marlboro cigarette hanging out of her mouth while breast feeding one of her dozens of toothless, illiterate children. The English language and other cornerstones of mankind where ruined by this shows existence. Titltes ranging from Girl you a Pigeon Head and so on. How could anyone want to watch this pure and utter garbage? Has our society really became nothing more than a bunch of hill billy's and dead beat fathers? The people who appear on this show were Trash. The people who watched this show were Trash. Anyone that wishes to see this show re aired or put onto DVD is TRASH. People wonder why Americans are becoming huge piles of lard and too fat to even get jobs, its having shows like this tell them Its OK to be 500lbs overweight, and have 12 year old girls act like prostitutes. Having such trash on TV has ruined morals.
The person who wrote the glowing review of this misguided project must be related to the writer/director/star--or is, in fact, the same person as it defies rational thinking that this movie would be appealing to anyone not connected to a very tightly woven inner circle. How about this? You want to make a movie--tell a story; entertain; draw me in with vivid characters. Sure, you can do it artfully without bowing to the commercial elements designed for mass appeal. However, do not address elements of artistic expression in a vacuum in which the audience is in a continual struggle to grasp at skimpy narrative threads. If I'm to be moved by a dreamy psychological thread then make the concrete fabric easier to buy.
60 minutes in the beautiful Christina Galbo tries to escape the isolated boarding school she's brought to at the beginning of the movie. Is she running from some kind of fate too horrible to contemplate, a monster, black-gloved killer, or supernatural evil? No, she's running from a bunch of bullies. For the OTHER 40 minutes that follow, various figures walk around the school in the dark holding candelabras and looking alarmed or distraught, which doesn't say much in itself perhaps because great movies have been made about just that but if you're going to have characters walking around corridors and staircases you better be Alain Resnais or you better know how to light that staircase in bright apple reds and purples like Mario Bava. We know a killer stalks the perimeters of the school but his body count is pitiful and sparse and in the absence of the visceral horrors one expects to find in the giallo, we get no sense of sinister mysteries/unspeakable secrets festering behind a facade of order and piety and rightness which is the kind of movie La Residencia wants to be but doesn't quite know how to do it. We know something is off because girls are reported missing but we never get the foreboding mysterious atmosphere that says "something is seriously f-cking wrong here, man". When Serrador tries to comment on the sexual repression of the female students, he does so with quick-cutting hysterics and detail closeups of eyes and parted lips while high pitched "this-is-shocking" music blares in the background. None of the aetherial beauty and longing of PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK to be found here. It's all a bit clumsy and aimless, with no real sense of urgency or direction. A number of people are presented as suspects but there's little reason to care for the identity of a killer that goes unnoticed by the characters inside the movie. I like the first kill, the image of a knife hitting target superimposed over the anguished face of the victim as a lullaby chimes in the background, but the rest is too inconsequential for my taste. I have to say Serrador did much better with the killing children and paranoia du soleil of WHO CAN KILL A CHILD?
I can't believe that so many are comparing this movie to Argento's. His work is far more imaginative and vicious--and a lot more fun.<br /><br />The director simply lacks the ability to build real tension. The murder scenes--and let's face it, that's what this genre is all about--aren't interesting. It was not hard to guess who the murderer was, and I really didn't care when it was revealed. The cinematography isn't memorable, and the much-praised 19th century Gothic atmosphere just didn't draw me in. Several of the actors are quite good (especially the headmistress and the sadistic girl who lords it over the younger students), but they're given very little to do.<br /><br />Yes, there are undertones of incest, sadomasochism, and lesbianism, but amazingly, they add very little spice or suspense. <br /><br />If you're looking for a good horror movie, look elsewhere.
If this could be rated a 0, it would be. From the atrocious wooden acting to the dull, plodding pace, the puerile exploitation angle and the sophomoric pseudolesbian titillation added purely for the sake of the sad viewers, this is a disaster of a film.<br /><br />The plot is predictable, as from the beginning one is absolutely certain of what will happen to all of the characters and how the plot will commence. From a boring, unexceptional beginning to a pathetic and bleak ending, every single presence in this film is wasted, and every meagre scrap of talent dug up for this turkey is squandered.<br /><br />If you want to watch something as relentlessly bleak with plenty of the same childish titillation, watch one of the Ilsa films. At least they're unapologetic and up-front about what they're trying to do. How something this horrendously bad ever managed to be rated above a 5 is a miracle of how people with no taste or discerning standards can sometimes come together for the most dubious of purposes.<br /><br />It's not scary, it's not interesting, and above all it's not arousing in any sense of the word. It is, in my opinion, a crime; it is a crime that such a horribly offensive and incompetent piece of trash was ever conceived of and given the resources to come into existence, and even more a tragedy that it is still defended by some woefully misguided viewers.<br /><br />Not even Elvira's cheerful personality and joking ways could soften the blow that this horrifying travesty of film is. Avoid it at all costs.
Reading my review of THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED, many may assume that I'm some 14 year old who thinks SCREAM is considered "classic" horror. This is not the case, as I'm 30 years old and have been watching horror films for most of my life. But admittedly, I'm a child of the 80's that grew up on slasher/zombie/ghost/cannibal, etc...types of horror films - so I do typically prefer horror films that are more graphic and faster-paced. Just like someone who can appreciate different music, painting, or in this case, film - but not necessarily like them - I can appreciate why some people may enjoy this sort of film...I just don't...<br /><br />THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED is an exceedingly dull and tedious film about a school for wayward girls. The heavy-handed mistress of the school rules with an iron hand (or whip in some cases...) to keep the girls in line. She has a young son who creeps around and peeps on the girls while they shower (in their nightgowns no less (?!?)...), and meanwhile, girls are disappearing from the school as they are the victim of a murderer who's lurking about the campus...<br /><br />I can see why THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED is often compared to SUSPIRIA (which is a masterpiece of a film in my opinion...), in terms of the atmosphere of the school itself and the interaction between the girls and their guardians - but this film is so dull and uneventful that I could barely stay awake. I'm all for "tension" and "suspense" in horror films - but this film held neither for me. Luckily, I wasn't expecting a whole lot going into this one, so I can't say I was really disappointed - THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED just reinforced the fact that I personally don't typically enjoy most horror films much older than from the 70's. This isn't a hard and fast rule, but those that I HAVE enjoyed definitely seem to be more of the exception. Probably a "must-see" for horror fans who enjoy more understated and suggestive horror films - but as I don't really know too many fans of that sort of material, I can't really recommend this one...4/10
First be warned that I saw this movie on TV and with dubbed English - which may have entirely spoiled the atmosphere. However, I'll rate what I saw and hope that will steer people away from that version. I found this movie excruciatingly dull. All the movie's atmosphere is lost with dubbing leaving the slow frustration of a stalker movie. I'm sorry, but the worst movie sin in my book is to be slow except when the movie about philosophy. I didn't see any deep philosophical meaning in this movie. Maybe I missed something, but I have to tell it like I see it. I rated it a "1". What can I say, U.S. oriented tastes, maybe.
This DVD appears to be targetted at someone who will just put it on and play it in an endless loop in the background. It's organized as a series of music videos of the Grand Canyon set to various pieces of Tangerine Dream music.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the TD music is dull, and the transfer to DVD looks rather blurry and dim. Too expensive a DVD for what it is.
A spaceship returns from Mars; about a couple of months earlier, a 4-person expedition had been sent to the red planet. Most of the picture is a flashback to what transpired over there. The picture is saddled by inane, melodramatic dialog, typical of many sci-fi efforts of the fifties & sixties. Note, for example, how the ship's commander (Mohr) tells another crew member to 'stay there' for no reason; as if moving to another spot inside the ship will cause a problem. Later, the commander orders two of the crew to remain in the ship while he and another go outside. The two he ordered to stay say 'no way' and follow out; I didn't have high hopes for the expedition's success by this point. There's much talk of 'ears twitching' and hugging a freeze-ray gun named 'Cleo' (short for Cleopatra, of course). It would at least be pretty funny, unintentionally, if the story didn't drag.<br /><br />There's a very slow pace to the whole thing; the astronauts spend as much time looking out the ship's window portals (which change color from red to blue), commenting on what they see, as they do outside actually exploring. The martian landscape, advertised as filmed in 'Cinemagic,' usually resembles animation cut-outs, or drawings, shot through an orange-red filter to give the illusion of interacting with the actors, who do take on an odd surrealistic appearance due to the process. But I don't think it fools anyone over 10 years old. The one clever mention I did notice was that the memories of the surviving astronaut would be tinged with unreality, so that would explain the unreal nature of the martian vista. Oh, okay...<br /><br />I was amused by some of the astronauts' actions as they begin to explore; right off the bat, they test their freeze gun on a plant, killing it, just for the hell of it. Then the female member hacks with a machete at what she thinks is a tree but turns out to be the leg of the spider-rat monster. Nice going, lady. Look up next time. No wonder the 'intelligence' on Mars gets upset and doesn't mind that one of the lower lifeforms, a giant amoeba, attacks the explorers. The acting isn't too impressive. Mohr especially, had a very annoying technique, saying a line and then abruptly erupting into a huge grin which always creeped me out - reminded me of It! the Terror From Beyond Space. The ending is fairly anti-climactic; don't expect any huge revelations beyond the 'no more expeditions' with freeze guns named Cleo.
This sci-fi adventure is not the best and by no means the worst. I agree with the statement that bad sci-fi is comical. Bizarre pink tinting and unusual special effects make this a favorite for the late, late, late show viewers. Space explorers on the planet Mars fight off strange giant amoeba-like monsters and other strange creatures. Pretty cool.<br /><br />The cast includes Les Tremayne, Naura Hayden, Gerald Mohr and Jack Kruschen. Get comfy and enjoy. Don't feel bad if you nod off for a moment. I agree with adding this to the list of cult classics to not miss.
It's telling that as of the entry of this comment, NO females have submitted a vote of any kind for this movie. Not surprisingly, cheesy science fiction doesn't appeal to them quite as much... If you like a good "B" movie, and especially if you like to satirize them as you watch, you will like this. If you don't have fun watching bad movies, this one's not for you.
The film begins with people on Earth discovering that their rocket to Mars had not been lost but was just drifting out in Space near out planet. When it's retrieved, one of the crew members is ill, one is alive and the other two are missing. What happened to them is told through a flashback by the surviving member.<br /><br />While on Mars, the crew was apparently attacked by a whole host of very silly bug-eyed monsters. Oddly, while the sets were pretty good, the monsters were among the silliest I have seen on film. Plus, in an odd attempt at realism, the production used a process called "Cinemagic". Unfortunately, this wonderful innovation just made the film look pretty cheap when they were on the surface of Mars AND the intensity of the redness practically made my eyes bleed--it was THAT bad!! Despite all the cheese, the film did have a somewhat interesting plot as well as a good message about space travel. For lovers of the genre, it's well worth seeing. For others, you may just find the whole thing rather silly--see for yourself and decide.<br /><br />While by today's standards this isn't an especially good sci-fi film, compared with the films being made at the time, it stacks up pretty well.<br /><br />PS--When you watch the film, pay careful attention to Dr. Tremayne. He looks like the spitting image of Dr. Quest from the "Jonny Quest" cartoon! Plus, he sounds and acts a lot like him, too.
First off, I'd like to say that the user comments alone left me with tears in my eyes from laughing. One comment that bad SF movies become good comedies is right on the mark. MST3000 made it's living off that.<br /><br />If you look at THE ANGRY RED PLANET as the fever dream of a 10 year old comic book reader from 1959, you'll have the handle on this sucker. All the elements are there: the pseudoscience, occasionally logical, more often hilariously infantile. The adolescent boy attitude toward sex, with the "gigolo" captain (good call on that one, guys!) making eyes at the buxom "scientist" with hair so red it's a wonder it doesn't set off the fire alarms. The ridiculous conception of Mars as a planet so alien that everything glows red, yet one alien monster has a mouse face, and the blob alien has an eye that rotates like a kid's toy. The comic relief, an overweight astronaut (!) who sounds like he never finished the 8th grade in Brooklyn and has a psychotic fixation on his ray gun. And of course, the mere fact that alien = dangerously evil. If these people had met E.T., they would have roasted him in two seconds flat! "OW" indeed!<br /><br />Don't get me wrong. I rated this movie low. Still, it's never boring (except when the scientist tries to explain everything - only to make it all sound more and more ridiculous), and you have to admit, in your little kid core, it makes you jump a few times. <br /><br />Okay, then don't admit it. I guess you were never 10.
**Possible Spoilers Ahead**<br /><br />Gerald Mohr, a busy B-movie actor during the Forties and Fifties, leads an expedition to Mars. Before we get to the Red Planet we're entertained by romantic patter between Mohr and scientist Nora Hayden; resident doofus Jack Kruschen; and the sight of Les Tremayne as another scientist sporting a billy-goat beard. The Martian exteriors feature fake backdrops and tints ranging from red to pink–-the "Cinemagic" process touted in the ads. Real cool monsters include a giant amoeba, a three-eyed insect creature, an oversized Venus Fly-Trap, and the unforgettable rat/bat/spider. The whole bizarre adventure is recalled by survivor Hayden under the influence of hypnotic drugs. THE ANGRY RED PLANET reportedly has quite a cult following, and it probably picked up most of its adherents during the psychedelic Sixties.
This movie is funny and painful at the same time. The "Cinemagic" almost gave me a seizure. Despite what they imply, "Cinemagic" is not some innovative technical procedure. It was "developed" as the result of an accident, and they used it because it disguised the fact that their "monsters" were so stupid-looking. I also don't think it's a coincidence that the writer is Sid "Pink".<br /><br />This movie is good for a laugh, if you are really looking for a movie made in 9 days on 200,000 dollars. It is entertaining; at least I can say that about it. The bat/rat/spider is the highlight.
Very bad but watchable science fiction film that suffers from abominable special effects, poor acting, and a ridiculous story. The film opens with a spaceship returning from exploration on Mars with a woman and a man with green slime on his arm. She, through some hokey plot contrivances, begins to tell what happened on this fateful trip as almost all the tapes seemed to be magnetically wiped off. Four astronauts take on this journey: a military type played by Gerald Mohr, a poor man's Humphrey Bogart who enjoys saying the word "Irish" and has the acting savvy of a codfish, then there is Naura Hayden, a beautiful redhead and only female crew member on flight with three men wearing the most formfitting suits possible to accentuate all her curves, next, Les Tremaine, a wonderful character actor from cheap sci-fi films like this as the egghead, and last, Jack Kruschen as Sammy - the guy from Brooklyn with jokes and doesn't seem too bright although chosen for his expertise in electronics. None of these performers are really any good, and all of them say their dialog with little conviction. Watch Tremaine as he utters that scientific nonsense! Really, the best out of the four is Kruschen - and that really says a lot about this film. But bad acting aside, the movie just falls apart when they land on Mars via flashback. The Angry Red Planet had a real cheap budget because Mars is really the American Southwest with a heavy red tint over it. When the story calls for something that might look Martian, there are drawings placed with a heavy red tint over them. You can tell they are drawings The monsters are perhaps even worse as we get a Bat-rat-spider with a size upwards of 40 feet that looks like some kids got together piecing dead animals together. The other significant creature is a giant amoeba with an oscillating eye. Whew! These are bad. There is a nice drawing of a Martian city, but there just was not enough of this in the film. Despite all these big problems, The Angry Red Planet is a fun bad film. It is really fascinating to see how far we have come as a civilization. Most of the stuff they used in the movie is so outdated. One guy is using an electric razor with a cord and I thought they can get to Mars but they are still using cords. Director Ib Melchior gives an interesting look to much of the film even with the budgetary constraints, but the story by him and Sid Pink doesn't fly. And how bout that ending with the music and the psychedelic colors? Groovy man!
There seems to be a surprisingly high number of 8-10 star reviews here from people who have never written an IMDb review before or since. Given the very low average rating given to the film by other people, I think you may draw your own conclusions.<br /><br />This is a very bad film. I'll admit it, I thought the concept was kind of cute, and I was pleased to see the actresses who played Eve and Harmony on Angel getting work, but it didn't take long for the sheer awfulness of this film to make itself known.<br /><br />Acting: The leads seemed competent enough, but everyone else? Terrible.<br /><br />Plot: Chock full of holes big enough to drive a truck through.<br /><br />Direction: Non-existent.<br /><br />Humour: Did they really think people were going to laugh? Oh boy.<br /><br />Eye Candy: OK. there were some really beautiful women in this film. Not just the three main female characters, but right across the board. It was as if the producers hoped the scenery would keep male viewers so distracted they wouldn't notice how terrible everything else was. If so, they failed miserably.<br /><br />In the right hands this could have been cute but darkly funny camp classic. It wasn't even close.
Not one of Keaton's best efforts, this was perhaps a veiled attempt to revenge himself on the family he married into - the Talmadges. A Polish/English language barrier and a series of coincidences leads Buster into a marriage with a large Irish woman, who (along with her father and brothers) treat him shabbily until they think he may be an heir to a fortune. Mistaken identities abound here - gags are set up and but for the main fail to pay off.<br /><br />This Metro short does have at least two real laughs - Buster's cleverly turning around his lack of dinner by using the calendar on the wall and the basic ignorance of his adopted family to literally bring the meat to his plate. The other is a family photo, with the entire group slowly collapsing to the floor as the tripod of the camera loses its stability.<br /><br />The yeast beer overflow could have been the catalyst for a massive series of gags built upon gags, but stops short (for all the buildup) of development.<br /><br />Kino's print is crisp and clear and the score is one for player piano, drums and sound effects. Not one of Buster's best efforts, but worth a few laughs.
A good cast (with one major exception) pushes its way through Epstein's smart light satire. Mansfield was never better, or funnier, than she is here paired with Walston, who's a veteran who's determined to become a congressman to get out of the war. He and his buddies -- including suave con-artist Grant -- head to San Francisco on leave and start the city's swinginest party while conniving to escape the service altogether through industrial speaking tours. The only thing about this movie that's not delightful is Suzy Parker's one-note performance as Grant's love interest, which takes up too much of the film's time and slows down the pace in the second half. Walston and Mansfield have good chemistry; the gimmick is that she's set on making love to every serviceman (to do her duty for the war effort, of course) but he's a married man who, nonetheless, loves his wife. They steal the movie with little trouble from Grant (who's amusing here in the first part of the film, when not paired with his non-actor co-star.
This film was a critical and box-office fiasco back in 1957. It was based on a novel which was later turned into a play--which flopped on Broadway. The story is about some navy officers on leave in San Francisco during WWII. They have 4 day's leave which they spend at the Mark Hopkins hotel. The film meanders a lot and none of the characters seem very real. Cary Grant is generally brilliant in comedy and drama--but here he plays a sort of wheeler dealer and he doesn't really pull it off. Tony Curtis or James Garner would have been better choices. Audrey Hepburn was initially set to play opposite Grant, but had other commitments--so Suzy parker stepped in. She had never acted before, but was America's top photographic model at the time. I think that she did a good job, considering all the pressure that she was under. Grant's pairing with Jayne Mansfield in a few brief scenes--did not really work. The Studio was trying to give her some class by acting with Grant--but the character had no substance at all.
There is a level of high expectation when you sit down to watch a comedy with a cast headed by Cary Grant, Jayne Mansfield, Ray Walston and Werner Klemperer. Those expectations are buoyed further when the film is directed by Stanley Donen, whose comic touch was so evident in, among others, DAMN YANKEES!, BEDAZZLED and CHARADE. For the first five minutes, or so, it seems that those expectations might be met and then…. Nothing. What is supposed to be a light comedy, plunges into leaden, heavy handed melodrama, with nary a chuckle to be had.<br /><br />Relative newcomer Suzy Parker has often been criticized for her performance, or lack of one, in this film, but in a movie in which even the great Cary Grant frequently appears flat and wooden, attacking Parker seems unfair. Not even as bright a light as an Audrey Hepburn or Doris Day could have changed the fortunes of this meandering, dreary and wholly pointless script, which drags itself lamely along and drags the viewer's interest and patience down with it.<br /><br />The rest of the cast, especially Ray Walston, keep trying to breath some life into the proceedings, but the horrible script is beyond resuscitation. The desperate, inane effort to drag a half hearted laugh from the numbed audience in the film's final moments only serves to add insult to injury.<br /><br />This film is nothing but a major disappointment on all levels.
Oh dear, oh dear...<br /><br />For JM fans, this was the nail in the coffin as far as her A-list Hollywood career was concerned. After solid turns in Girl Can't Help It, Wayward Bus, The Burglar and Rock Hunter it seemed Jayne was well on the way to becoming one of Tinsel Town's hottest stars. However, an obsession with racy publicity and an appearance in this clunker relegated Mansfield to the sidelines, namely cheap Euro loan-outs until Fox could drop her contract at the earliest opportunity.<br /><br />This movie really is a diabolical waste of everyone's time with the exception of Suzy Parker who is the only thing in this movie bad enough for the material. Many people blame poor Jayne and her grating performance for this film's poor returns at the box office and while she is a pain in this film, she can only do her best with the material. After all, Cary hardly sets the screen on fire does he? After a handful of very good dramatic and comedy turns Jayne takes 10 steps back in her pursuit as a serious actress by agreeing (simply for the sake of appearing with Grant) to portray this squealing, idiotic menace. Her character of Alice is a complete cartoon bimbo and although she looks good enough to eat in a boiler suit, her every appearance in the film jangles your nerves. We all know Jayne could do so much better than this dross and yet here she is parading around like a prize pudding. A real shame.<br /><br />Steer clear of this so-called comedy. It's more depressing than funny.
While I recently gave OPERATION PETTICOAT a positive review, I really didn't like this film even though it had so many similarities. Both were made just a few years apart, both starred Cary Grant and both were WWII comedies. However, the overall tone and style of the films were quite different. KISS HER FOR ME, overall, just seemed like a cheaper film--with poor writing, little energy and some VERY broad performances--even when compared to OPERATION PETTICOAT. I think that at least much of the blame for this lies in casting Jayne Mansfield. The combination of her ample talents and limited acting ability really made this A-budget film look like it came from a 3rd rate studio. Plus, there wasn't much chemistry or energy in pairing her with Cary Grant--an actor generally loved for his grace and class. It's sort of like pairing Sir Lawrence Olivier with Marjorie Main.
I wanted to love this movie. How could I not love it? Cary Grant, Jayne Mansfield, Stanley Donen; all icons in their own way. However, the train wreck that was Suzy Parker ruined the entire experience for me. Her acting was so appalling that I sat there with my jaw hanging open, not believing my eyes or ears. I could barely make it through one viewing, THAT'S how hideous she is in this.<br /><br />Cary? Gorgeous and in fine dramatic form. Jayne? Adorable, endearing, and obviously having a ball. The supporting cast does alright, and the city of San Francisco is captured in all its stunning, retro elegance.<br /><br />Then you see Suzy Parker attempting to speak her lines with a woodenness, a deadness, a cluelessness that simply defies belief. Who told this creature she could ACT?? Oy VEY, people.
I was quite pleased to find this movie in the local video library - Cary Grant in a comedy set in the services, director Stanley Donen, so far what's not to like? It's the sort of film that has me wondering two things - when did all involved (including some well-known names) realize they had a turkey on their hands, and what's the worst thing about it among a number of contending aspects? Still pondering the first, but my vote for the latter goes to the meandering storyline, ahead of the wordy sometimes pretentious script, the uncertain tone, the lack of consistent and well-developed characterization, and the lack of rapport between the characters. You have to add very uneven acting to the criticism but it's understandable that the actors were struggling with this stuff and in addition seem under-rehearsed. Quite often they can hardly get their lines out quick enough. Cary Grant tries to portray his usual charming and urbane persona but at times seems uneasy and staccato in his delivery. I have to say however that I was relieved when the initial suggestions his character will be paired with the unspeakably vulgar Jayne Mansfield go away with the appearance of Suzy Parker. What's to like about the film? - for me chiefly the beauty of Parker who also acts with restraint and a Grace Kelly-like dignity. Generally speaking the film is nice to look at. The naval characters are very smart in their uniforms - however you have to truly wonder at the ghastly black Fu Manchu tunics they don in their luxury hotel suite. Even Grant can't look elegant in his. Back to the credit side, Ray Walston does a commendable job with his character and for me there was an interest in hearing a pre-Hogan's Heroes Werner Klemperer speak without an assumed German accent!
As an avid fan of Cary Grant, I expected to watch this movie and howl with laughter, as AMC billed it as a comedy. I have never been more disappointed with a film! Cary's usual charm and effortless comedy are AWOL from this entire movie; he comes across as strained, bored, and just not himself. Mississip's character ranks among one of the worst stereotypes I have ever witnessed - his accent is terribly exaggerated (and incorrect, according to which part of Mississippi he claims to hail from), and whenever he does deliver a line, it's several decibels higher than any other cast member. Mississip tried to make himself stand out in the film as a lovable, country-bumpkin goofball, but in the end, he manages only to detract from the already weak plot. Mansfield looks more like an obscene blow-up doll than a Hollywood sex kitten, and while she was never known in Hollywood for her acting ability, this film screams that she never had that ability to begin with. Ray Walston's character was sugary and ultimately contrived. For four men on shore leave, it was the tamest leave I've ever seen. I watched this nightmare until its very end, and while I won't spoil that for anyone, I will tell you that it's the most absurd you'll ever see. The film tries to spark patriotism and a sense of debt to the fighting men, but the film misses that point totally because of its weak plot line and weak cast. Sorry, Cary!
One of the most common entries in the 'goofs' category is anachronism. Though I'm beginning to believe that anachronism and other goofs are more acceptable, even ignored, in very good films, but are found front and center in rotten films. KISS THEM FOR ME is a rotten film and reeks of anachronism, yet when watching it closely, I found almost nothing specifically anachronistic.<br /><br />The shots of aircraft which bookend the film are certainly out of place. The big 4 engine transport seen after the title "Honolulu 1944" appears to be the post war C-97 Stratofreighter (in MATS colors). The combat planes seen taking off from the carrier at the end are Douglas Skyraiders which entered service after WW2 and were made famous by their service in Vietnam.<br /><br />But excepting these two pieces of film and, of course, the hairstyles, everything else is very possibly period authentic. It just 'feels' so wrong. I'm an admirer of Stanley Donen, we share the same birthday. In his co directed ON THE TOWN (1949) there is a car chase at the end with the police driving 1949/50 Ford's yet there isn't the slightest feeling that this is out of place in a WW2 period film. In fact, as I reflected later, there isn't anything which says that this is supposed to be a WW2 period film. It just feels that way. Based on a wartime Broadway musical which was based on a ballet (Fancy Free) which may have been based on the work of artist Paul Cadmus (The Fleet's In! 1934) its a great film about sailors on a 24 hour pass in New York and, so heavy with wartime associations, its merely assumed it takes place during the war and yet these contemporary cars do nothing to break the spell.<br /><br />The first problem is old Cary Grant. Though far too old to represent a Navy SBD dive bomber pilot, it is a Hollywood tradition for stars like Grant, Gary Cooper (Lou Gehrig), Jimmy Stewart (Charles Lindbergh) to play younger. It was the role which he is miscast in, not his age. He plays an operator, as they used to call them. A guy who gets things done and breaks all the rules while doing it yet remains admired and loved for it. A hustler. A wheeler dealer. A de rigueur character in a service comedy. Grant is the comic center of what is after all supposed to be a service comedy which is contra to his comedy style.<br /><br />Thinking back on the great Grant comic performances like BRINGING UP BABY (1938) or ARSENIC AND OLD LACE (1944) and he is the great reactor whose comedy is to be reduced by his context from dignity to a befuddled puddle of inert jelly. IN KISS THEM he is expected to be the comic spark plug which just isn't him. People had already been exposed to the type, most recently to comic Phil Silvers as Sgt. Bilko on television. The role would be perfected later by James Garner but here Grant just isn't funny and appears to be a bully getting his way by aggressively pushing his Cary Grantness rather than cajoling and finessing.<br /><br />But the thing which really stinks the place up with anachronism is the lead women. There can be no more echt 50s women than Suzy Parker and Jayne Mansfield. They are unique to the decade. Marilyn Monroe can be placed in a continuum with Carole Lombard and Marie Wilson and any number of dumb blonds, and Grace Kelly was another high class dame (think of Mary Astor), but there never could have been an anatomically exaggerated woman in films like Mansfield. Sure there were the 'sweater girls' (e.g. Lana Turner) of WW2, but Mansfield was stretching the point. Suzy Parker was THE model who revolutionized the model business, who changed the mannequin like poses to become the first natural girl who moved and whose personality was captured by the camera (see FUNNY FACE (1957) also by Stanley Donen).<br /><br />Of course in high 50s style, there seems to be a lot of gender mixing at 'wild' parties but never even a hint of sex (think of the 50s TV shows Bachelor Father or The Bob Cummings Show where dinner jacketed men returned from 'dates' alone). The original book, which I haven't read, was published during the war and appeared as a play on Broadway at the end of the war and the nuances of the situation must have been inescapable for contemporary readers and audiences, but broken down, bowdlerized and reconstituted a dozen years later and fatally miscast, it remains a once forgotten stain on otherwise exemplary careers until the invention of the VCR and cable television resurrected this petrified turkey.<br /><br />So the lesson here is whatever the 'goof' it will be ignored in a great film like CITIZEN KANE (who actually hears Charles Foster Kane say 'Rosebud'?), and tolerated in fun dreck like WESTWORLD ( why were the robots given live ammunition in the first place?) but absolutely despised in a rotten film, even if the goofs are really non existent.
So, back when Herbie made his first appearance, I was perfectly happy watching Dean Jones mug away. I only wanted to be entertained for a few hours and eat overly buttered popcorn. Now, unfortunately, I have expectations of a riveting/delightful story whenever I watch a movie, if I'm not on some sort of medication. And this is another good movie for the medicated. There are no major laughs, no complex plot lines, no difficult twists. Herbie Fully Loaded is great for the fully loaded.<br /><br />This was the first time I had seen La Lohan on the screen since she swapped places with Jamie Lee Curtis (I thought she was excellent in that), and I can't say I was terribly impressed this time around. Aside from her constantly changing and distractingly unnatural hair color, she just didn't ring true as the kid next door who had spent a lifetime hanging around road racers. Her 'need for speed' wasn't portrayed consistently in the film - perhaps it was elsewhere - she looked older than her part, and seemed to always be looking for something (a party? designer togs? new place to spend money?) off set. I couldn't see any chemistry with Justin Long; that romance seemed obligatory at best. The only time Lindsay appeared engaged was when she was interacting with Matt Dillon, who I thought was appropriately over the top as Evil Bad Guy Trip Murphy.<br /><br />It was great to see Herbie again, and I loved the movie intro with material from the old movies. If Disney had popped out with some Car 53 jewelry, I might have worn some just to be loyal. His new feature (?) was a little inconsistent (does he channel the thoughts of his driver? Does he now skateboard?) but whatever. We all knew how it was going to end, but I do wish he had ended up with someone a little less dopey than Maggie. And my head still hurts from that lesson Maggie and we viewers had hammered home. <br /><br />What would have made the movie worthwhile? Have the old Herbie in a real story with a real plot - at the very least, Herbie's as good as Lassie - but clearly that's asking too much. Why is it that Disney always goes back to the same well as "Herbie Goes Bananas" and "the Computer That Wore Tennis Shoes" when it comes to innovation? <br /><br />I'm sure this was a great movie for kids and those with no expectations. For the rest of us....it's for when you have the 'flu and just can't take the suspense of Rear Window.
There are few uplifting things to say about this, but I can mention Matt Dillon doing his best to make something out of nothing and the many split screens and graphics that are worthwhile. As most race movies suffer from the premise that car lovers are not that intelligent, we end up with movies like this.<br /><br />Lindsay Lohan who surprised so much in Mean Girls has to make better decisions which roles to take. Here she can only fail.<br /><br />Children will only be mildly entertained because it tries to appeal more to adults than children (although still pretty dumb). The ones in the theater I saw it with showed no real interest after a couple of minutes. And as a family sports movie this is horrible. The better moments are in the beginning at the scrapyard creating some sentiment and later in the car-bash fest creating some tension. If you develop a car as a central character you have to develop it better than here. After a few obligatory race scenes you are in for the best part: being able to leave the multiplex in your own car.
I went to see this movie with my 17 y.o. daughter. I insisted we go the matinée showing, not because I'm a tightwad, but just feeling I had. In the NASCAR spirit, this is a sponser's dream. SO much blatant advertising, it almost qualifies as an info-mercial, if it weren't for the so-called acting. Keeping with tradition, the Herbie franchise continues with its cheesy story lines, the car is only a 'vehicle' (no pun intended)for this cornball of a motion picture. Earlier Herbie installments (although cheesy as well) were produced during more serious times, making them a little easier to digest. Ms. Lohan, Disney's reigning drama queen, has little acting ability. I was surprised that Mr. Keaton and Mr. Dillon would get involved in such a project. Only the snack bar, was a bigger ripoff!
A failure. The movie was just not good. It has humor that 5 year olds that will not even giggle at. I mean, sure, some parts were amusing, but most of it is not. Lindsey Lohan is a great actress (and a bad singer,) and she should be working on better movies. The movie should have been aired as a Disney Channel original movie, that is FREE.<br /><br />The only thing that was well done about this movie was the music. Nothing like a remade rock soundtrack to brighten up your day. These songs are so good. Especially Alyson and Amanda's Walking On Sunshine and Caleigh Peter's, Beach Boy song, Fun Fun Fun.<br /><br />4 out of 10. If I gave it a ten, 9 of that would be the music and 1 will be the movie. Not worth your money, but the soundtrack is.
Herbie, the Volkswagen that thinks like a man, is back, now being driven by Maggie Peyton (Lindsay Lohan), a young woman who hopes to become a NASCAR champion. The only thing standing in her way is the current champion, Trip Murphy (Matt Dillon), who will do anything to stop them.<br /><br />The original love bug wasn't that good. Even as a kid, I remember not liking it very much. I had some hope for the sequel though. I mean the cast is pretty good and the trailer makes it seem like a pretty fun movie. Unfortunately, Herbie is no better now than he was before. The film is defiantly weak for people over the age of 12. It will probably entertain the kids but that's all.<br /><br />I realize it's a kids film and all but they could have made the film a little more interesting. There were very few laughs and it got boring near the end. Most of the actors seemed dead in their roles too. Lindsay Lohan was alright as Maggie Peyton. She usually gives better performances like in Freaky Friday and Mean Girls. Matt Dillon gave the best performance out of everyone. He was very good as the bad guy even though he didn't have a lot to work with. Justin Long, Breckin Meyer and Michael Keaton are really just there and they don't do anything special.<br /><br />Angela Robinson directs and she does an okay job. She tries to keep the film interesting but she's working with a weak script. Thomas Lennon and Ben Garant wrote the screenplay and would it be any surprise to you that they were also responsible for Taxi and The Pacifier? These two make light films yet they fail to really make the stories interesting or enjoyable. It's not completely their fault but hopefully next time they will try harder. In the end, Herbie is a safe, predictable family film that's worth watching if you're a kid. Everyone else is better off skipping it. Rating 4/10
I can sit through this movie once, but I doubt I could make it through a second time. Mildly entertaining mainly for the physical presence of Lindsay Lohan. The fun of Matt Dillon(think Something About Mary), and the re-emergence of a more serious acting Micheal Keaton. This is not the fun romp The Love Bug was but it is watchable. One of my main detractions from the movie was the fact that Herbie had evolved into R2D2 antics for the most part. I was bored with the headlight eyes effects about the second time of the 30 or so times they were used and the bending front fender caused the same reaction from me. Go see this with your little ones, i.e. the "single digit bracket" kids and don't expect a lot from this film.<br /><br />_X
You probably heard this phrase when it come to this movie – "Herbie: Fully Loaded with crap" and yes it is true. This movie is really dreadful and totally lame.<br /><br />This got to be the second worst movie Lindsey is ever in since Confession of the Teenage Drama Queen. The only good thing about this movie seem to be the over talent cast which by far is better than the movie million times and is the only selling point of the movie. I don't see how such a respected actor like Matt Dillon could be a part of this movie, isn't he read that horrible screenplay before he sign on to be in it? <br /><br />What I didn't like about this movie is also base on how Herbie is surreal and fantasy like extraordinary ability and climb on wall and go faster than a racer car after all it just a Beatle. I know it is a kids movie but they have gone overboard with it and it just turn out more silly than entertaining. Little realism is needed plus the story is way too predictable.<br /><br />Final Words: Unless the kids are actually 5 -12 years I highly doubt that any one could enjoy this senseless movie. What wastage of my money. I feel like cheated.<br /><br />Rating: 3/10 (Grade: F)
*Spoilers* Some people claim that Natural Born Killers is brilliant criticism of the media obsession with violence. But this contention ignores the actual content of the film. Oliver Stone could have shown his serial killers as vicious, inhuman murderers of innocent people and contrasted this with a morbid media fascination. Instead he lends them justification. The movie portrays just about every victim as someone who deserved to be hurt. Engaging in vicious stereotyping, Stone presents the victims as unpleasant caricatures - dumb rednecks, broken-English speaking immigrants, lazy fat people. The one person that the homicidal lovebirds is also a stereotype. Of course they befriend the old, hallucinogen-using American-Indian - because they're trendy, dude? Let's make him an admirable character. Fat, Chinese clerks and "hicks" are uncool, so let's make it seem like the deserve to die. Instead of twisted,hateful that are corrupted by their misdeeds, their rampage makes them happier and more in love. Mickey and Mallory are made sexy and cool and surreal visuals are bound to entice more impressionable people. Justice is mocked. The police and prison officials are portrayed as brutal, ugly and scowling compared to the GQ murderers. Again, this is not in the media reports within the film but in the "reality" in the film. There is no nuance or subtlety in the film - just overblown performances and visuals. The film says nothing new or specific about the obsession with violence. The proof that the film fails in its message lies in actual real world reactions to it. Some impressionable young people who saw this movie cited it as inspiration for murders that they committed. The film's "message" is a failure because it inspires people in the opposite direction with horrendous real-life results. The clever message is nowhere to be seen.
NATURAL BORN KILLERS (1994)<br /><br />Cinema Cut: R <br /><br />Director's Cut: NC-17<br /><br />It's an unusual Oliver Stone picture, but when I read he was on drugs during the filming, I needed no further explanation. 'Natural Born Killers' is a risky, mad, all out film-making that we do not get very often; strange, psychotic, artistic pictures.<br /><br />'Natural Born Killers' is basically the story of how two mass killers were popularised and glorified by the media; there is a great scene where an interviewer questions some teenagers about Mickey and Mallory, and the teenager says 'Murder is wrong.... but If I was a mass murderer I'd be Mickey and Mallory'. Mickey describes this with a situation of 'Frankenstein (the monster) and Dr. Frankenstein' - Dr. Frankenstein is the media who has turned them into these monstrous killers<br /><br />Most Oliver Stone films examine the flaws of the America, the country that the director loves and admires. I guess 'Natural Born Killers' is about the effect of mass media, technology and how obsessive as a nation, Americans are (and most of the world) over things such as mass killers and bizarre situations.<br /><br />The killers played by Woody Harrelson (Mickey) and Juliette Lewis (Mallory) are executed astonishingly by two excellent actors who step into the lives of two interestingly brutal killers. Mickey and Mallory believe that some people are worthy of killing, perhaps in the cruel theory of Social Darwinism (survival of the fittest) - Mickey says in his interview in prison, that other species commit murder, we as humans ravage other species and exploit the environment; the script is interesting, but it is questionable how much this film amounts to, in the sense of making us think about society and human behaviour, rather than the intensity of a 2 hour bloodbath that we have seen.<br /><br />The last hour of the film takes place in a maximum security prison; we see the harsh realities of prison life; the attitudes of the warden etc;overfilling of prisons - maybe Stone is questioning the future, the path that society is leading to.<br /><br />Two other interesting characters; First, a reporter who runs a show about 'America's Maniacs' and is obsessed with boosting ratings, that he goes to any length to capture the story of Mickey and Mallory. The other is police officer Scagnetti, an insane, perhaps sadistic officer that is in love with Mallory - he also has some weird obsession with mass killers, since his mother was killed during the massacre at Waco, Texas by Charles Whitman.<br /><br />The cinematography is superb; different colours, shadows, styles create a feeling of disorientation; the green colour most evident of all is green, to resemble the sickness of the killers (in the drugstore when they are looking for rattlesnake antidote).<br /><br />The camera work is insane; shaky, buzzy, it takes some determination to get use to it and accept it. Highly unorthodox, psychedelic and unusual.<br /><br />'Natural Born Killers' does not glamourise the existence of insane murderers, it questions it and how we as the public may fuel this attribute...<br /><br />Although the above review sound quite positive, I did dislike the film. Quentin Tarantino, who originally wrote the script for the film, was not pleased with the altered screenplay and he asked for his name to be removed. I can see why. While mildly interesting at times, Natural Born Killers is a mess of a picture.<br /><br />4/10
God, what an awful thing ! Oliver Stone probably wanted to experiment or something (see the terrible use of music and pictures here) but what for really ? The whole thing behind "Natural born killers" seems to be a "clever" look at how medias can turn into complete trash but unfortunately the movie turns into trash itself. Please Mr. Stone, next time you want to criticize the fascism of tv shows using violence to get high rates, avoid doing the same with your movie ! Michael Haneke said quite cleverly about this film that it was denouncing media fascism with fascist cinematographic ways. How true... Only he forgot to tell us about the massive headache you get after sitting through this overlong load of crap !
This is the kind of film that everyone involved with should be embarrassed over. Poor directing, over the top acting and a plot that rambles on with no point other than to show violence. I thought when I first saw it that it would be perhaps a satire of the media and how it shows violence but it's not. I'm not sure what makes the film worse. Oliver stone does his worst directing ever. From scenes where Woody Harrelson's face morphs for no reason or Robert Downey Jr's dreadful performance as Wayne Gale who is a reporter who seems totally bonkers, this movie is simply a mess.
Let's be honest. As a film school project, made without budget and "real" actors, this is a passably interesting film. As something to be released on DVD for an innocent viewer, it's a very poorly produced product. If I would be idly changing channels and happened to catch this film accidentally, it would probably arrest my eye and attention for a while. As a person who bought this DVD under the impression that I would be getting a proper cinematic product, i.e. a film, I feel deeply disappointed. It's a videotaped TV play, something along the line of old sixties serials, but without that certain charm. Aside from the leading man Mr Redfield (who also is the director), the other actors seem to be either chaps from the campus (a bit too old for that actually), or members of the director's household, who appear before the camera without any help from not only the acting couches, but also the make-up artist or hairdresser (a bonnet over outgrown permanent bangs or a top hat over mullet is a very long way from creating 1840s). It's all shot using a motionless mounted camera in a small, bare studio, sometimes using blue screen for outdoors backgrounds. Synthesizer generated uninspired score of lame "period" inspired romantic karaoke insults the viewers ears on more than one occasion. The film attempts to be "dreamlike", whereas in fact it's merely conceptionless collage of those shots that made it to the editing (and believe me, the standards weren't too high to start with). There are interesting dialogs every now and then, but overall it's pretty lame and two-dimensional production in more than one way with no flashes of genius from either the director or any members of the crew. That's how "artsy" films attempted to look in the 80s. Mr Redfield does a much better job as an actor than the director.
Renown writer Mark Redfield (as Edgar Allen Poe) tries to conquer old addictions and start a new life for himself, as a Baltimore, Maryland magazine publisher. However, blackouts, delirium, and rejection threaten to thwart his efforts. He would also like to rekindle romance with an old sweetheart, a significantly flawed prospect, as things turns out. Mr. Redfield also directed this dramatization of the mysterious last days of Edgar Allen Poe. Redfield employs a lot of black and white, color, and trick photography to create mood. Kevin G. Shinnick (as Dr. John Moran) performs well, relatively speaking. It's not enough.
Another case of a decent DVD case betraying the shot-on-video quality of the film. <br /><br />It wasn't that bad. Rochon does a serviceable job and Damn! the cast is good looking. I've never seen that many musclebound guys hang out together on a regular basis. This movie really wanted to make you think Rochon was the killer, but it was not to be. My biggest problem with the film was that by the end, I didn't much care who was the killer, and the real killer made little sense, since it was out of the blue and the filmmakers were thinking 'ha, betcha didn't see that one coming, sucker!'. Yeah, there were continuity errors about (mainly with ms. Rochon's ever-changing wardrobe), but for an indie slasher it's not that bad. I was pretty sure at the beginning it was just a thinly veiled excuse for girls to go topless, but that was just a gimmick. The dialog was overly think and painful at times.<br /><br />Just don't have high expectations going into this, and it won't be that bad. And Lloyd Kaufman's cameo is wonderfully understated.
Quite possibly the nicest woman in show business, and the sexiest, Debbie gives another fine performance here. Although her work in American Nightmare was far superior, she is still worth watching in this film.<br /><br />The cast is filled with your typical Melrose Place types, chiseled features and seductive curves, that I had never seen before. Other than Debbie, Laura Nativo was the only actress I had seen before, in the similar Delta Delta Die.<br /><br />The plot centers around a group of California arrogants who initiate poor naive Debbie Rochon into their clique. They tell her that they have a murder club, and that she must kill someone to be accepted. Debbie wants nothing more but to be accepted by these cool people, so she quickly kills a person, and now the group must decide what to do with her, after she fell for their joke.<br /><br />VIOLENCE: $$$$$ (Plentiful! Debbie Rochon occasionally has blood splattered all over her and all of the murder scenes are done in your face. Gore hounds will surely enjoy!)<br /><br />NUDITY: $$$$$ (Plentiful as well! Debbie Rochon has several nude scenes as do many of the no-name actresses and actors. The pool party seems as just an excuse to get everyone naked; man and woman alike. Julie Strain also has a topless cameo but her character is gone after the first five minutes).<br /><br />STORY: $$ (Could have received a higher vote because the plot was very interesting and unique but the plot serves as filler between nude scenes. I understand that B-Rate films use nudity often, but this is borderline excessive).<br /><br />ACTING: $ (The acting is sub standard to say the least. Rochon is always a treat, easily the best B-Rate actress in the business today, but her character in American Nightmare was superior. Danny Wolske does a fine job as Debbie's object of lust but the other actors were nothing to write about).
Odd slasher movie from Producer Charles Band. In the days of Full Moon's greatest success Band said that he would never make "real killer films" because he felt that little puppets and big monsters added a fantasy element that made the films better - people killing each other is thus real and less fun. A nice philosophy and a true shame that Band, having destroyed the Full Moon studio through possible shoddy business dealings became so desperate for home cinema profits that he started making exactly what the likes of Blockbuster wanted and therefore sacrificed creativity and originality. The team behind this one also worked on 'Delta Delta Die!' and 'Birth Rite' - both equally bland by Full Moon standards. Debbie Rochon is on usual top form here as a newbie to a gang of dudes and dudettes who decide to make up a story about a 'murder club'. She - as one would obviously - does all she can to join and then panic sets in because it was not a true story and silly Ms Rochon believed it and now everybody will have to run around getting covered in blood and maybe killing each other or maybe not. The choice is there's and with regard to this movie its yours...not recommended but not entirely bad either.
Devin Hamilton is probably better known as the new name in legendary Full Moon entertainment. Sadly, his arrival to this independent studio happened in a time when budget and production values are at its lowest in years. However, in his short career Hamilton has established himself as a creative director that manages to make inventive and original stories. Now, this doesn't mean that his movies are good, but at least they are different to the usual in the horror genre.<br /><br />In his debut, "Bleed", Hamilton presents us a creative twist on the slasher sub genre. Maddy (Debbie Rochon) is a young woman that finally gets the job of her dreams. Not only that, but it seems that she has also found a boyfriend in Shaun (Danny Wolske), it seems that life finally smiles for Maddy after many sad events. Until on a party with Shaun's friends, they tell her that they created a "club" where members have to kill somebody to enter.<br /><br />Obviously they are joking, but Maddy wants desperately to fit in, that she actually murders someone. After that event, someone starts to kill the rest of the members of the "club" one by one. it is up to Maddy to figure out what is going on as anybody could be the killer, including her.<br /><br />Maddy is a very interesting character wonderfully played by the beautiful Debbie Rochon. It is a very interesting twist on the genre to have the lead actress as part of the suspects. The concept is so original and Rochon's performance is so good that it is a real shame that Hamilton didn't develop the whole story a little bit better. The movie feels quite slow at times and overall the feeling is the one of a good idea wasted on a bad movie.<br /><br />The rest of the cast is weird in the sense that all the female cast is very good, while the male cast is painfully bad. Danny Wolske is terribly wooden and his performance as a yuppie is quite stereotypical. Julie Strain, Brinke Stevens & Lloyd Kaufman appear in small cameos and are wonderful in their small roles. Also, there is lots of nudity (both male & female) and the cast is very good looking, so it is really a plus.<br /><br />The low-budget hurts the film in the effects department, as there are very few gory scenes and are not really graphic (probably because they would look bad); nevertheless, considering the budget, the film at least looks good.<br /><br />Hamilton's more recent effort, the sexploitational venture "Delta Delta Die!", is a better crafted and overall funnier film. While this one is not as bad as other better known films, it still has a lot of flaws and may be interesting only for fans of Debbie Rochon or fans of independent no-budget films. 4/10
Maddy (Debbie Rochon) is a mentally unstable young woman with a troubled past who gets more than she bargained for when she goes to a pool party with a handsome coworker. When her date and his friends jokingly say they belong to a `Murder Club,' Maddy takes it seriously and moves straight up to `Level 3' by bashing in the brains of a woman in a parking garage (for denting her car!). But is Maddy also the one donning a plastic mask and killing off other members of the group or has someone else lost it?<br /><br />The plot of this film (originally titled MAKE 'EM BLEED) is very poorly conceived, full of holes and spirals completely out of control before a ludicrous, out-of-left-field twist ending. Some of the dialogue is downright laughable. I didn't have a problem with Rochon's performance, but the supporting cast was atrocious. However, I managed to sit through this Full Moon release thoroughly entertained. There's plenty of skin and blood and it's the perfect type of flick to sit around with a group of your buddies and pick apart. Horror fans may also enjoy the cameos from Brinke Stevens and Lloyd Kaufman (as Debbie's parents) and Julie Strain (an early victim).<br /><br />Score: 4 out of 10
The only reason i am bothering to comment on this movie is to save you all 97 minutes of your life and maybe your money.<br /><br />I bought it ex-rental for £3.00, it looked interesting, so i took a chance.<br /><br />Within minutes of turning it on i realised i'd made a mistake. The entire cast should be stored away until winter and then thrown on the nearest log fire, where they could meet more of their kind.<br /><br />As for the Devin Hamilton (Writer and Director), he should just be shot, sadly this should have been done before he made this rubbish.<br /><br />Avoid this film, If you see it in the shops run away.<br /><br />1/10
A killer, wearing a plastic white mask and black overcoat, is killing the friends of Hollywood producer Shawn Banning(Danny Wolske)who inherited his position when someone sliced open his former employer from crotch to chest. Perhaps the psychopath is newly hired Maddy(Dabbie Rochon), an attractive, raven haired beauty with a troubled family past, plagued with nightmares. Shawn and his friends play a practical joke on Maddy, concerning a supposed Murder Club they started where each member randomly selected a victim to kill. When Maddy accidentally murders a woman in a parking garage because of a dent put into her car by this person, she finds that Shawn's pals were jerking her chain. But, Shawn and his comrades are concerned about Maddy's admittance towards committing the murder and contemplate turning her into the proper authorities. Deciding to wait on a definite decision, each member fall prey to the white-masked psycho with Maddy a suspect considering the fact that she already has killed before. Or, is someone else behind these murders? Low budget slasher, executive produced by Charles Band, with gore murders that fail to convince. Plenty of tits on display and Allen Nabors goofy character Chris might entertain those with low expectations. The murders include a stomach being opened with intestines showing, a neck sliced, an electrical cord thrown into a pool frying a female victim who had all day to escape, an ax buried into the back of a male victim, and, to top it all, a couple are strangled by a rope during their sexual climax(..for added effect, the killer uses the breaker bar of a socket wrench as extra leverage to twist the rope as tight as possible snapping their necks). There are enough plot holes to drive a truck through, such as why Maddy has nightmares of murders she didn't commit, how she could murder someone so violently(..with blood all over her)winding up waking in her bed without leaving something at the scene of the crime that would easily implicate her, and how Shawn could go so long, allowing her to continue working at the company despite what she told regarding the murder she committed, and a continual desire to join the supposed club that doesn't exist.<br /><br />What bothered me the most was the film's desire for having us somehow sympathizing with this female protagonist who wanted to join a club after killing someone, later proclaiming it to be an accident. The film builds Maddy as the potential psycho throughout because of her past. Her family disowned her for an abortion. She has black-outs and always appropriately winds up at the scenes of crimes after the fact. In a lot of slashers, the one who seems the most likely killer is often the red herring, but this film goes out of it's way to point the finger at Maddy. When the twist occurs, we're left rooting for Maddy, yet we know she's not right in the head. It's a tough sell caring for this chick. She does look great in a man's Army shirt, though. And, Rochon isn't afraid to let her puppies breathe, either. Low budget horror fans will get a kick out of seeing cult favorite Brinke Stevens as a religious fanatical mother who preaches against what Maddy did, calling her a murderer as beloved Troma producer Lloyd Kaufman is the aloof father who can not get in a word edge-wise to protect the daughter he truly cares about. Cult siren Julie Strain has a minor cameo, showing her tits(of course)as the opening murdered male's girlfriend getting her head crushed by a hammer. Oh, and check out the office for which Shawn works, you'll see a lot of Full Moon posters and art-work spread throughout the walls.
Sadly, more downs than ups. The plot was pretty decent. I mean, nothing out of the ordinary, but it had a story, unlike the other modern horror flicks. The other good thing was the cast. I'm not saying that the acting was good, because it wasn't, but every actor/actress was hot and attractive.<br /><br />One of the downs are that the movie only become exciting after the first 40 minutes or so. The rest was quite boring. Another down (or you could consider it an up if you want) is the excessive nudity. All 4 girls were topless for a few minutes, and all the guys showed their butts for a long time. It's not that I'm against nudity, but this was a horror movie, not 'The Dreamers'.<br /><br />Unless you're very desperate to watch some guy take off his swimsuit and run around naked for a few minutes, or watch a girl get naked for no reason, or you're a die-hard fan of Debbie Rochon, than this is the movie for you. But if you're looking for a good horror movie, stay away.
My boyfriend and I rented this because we thought it might be a good 'Halloween' take-off. A killer terrorizing young people, a white mask...you get my drift. We were dead wrong! No pun intended. We not only discovered one of the worst movies out there, but also that it is a cult classic! It is filled w/plot holes and makes no sense. The actress who plays Maddy is pretty, but that's about it. I do give credit for it being shot on a VERY low budget--I always support movies like that. Just not this particular one.<br /><br />This movie may be good to see if you're drunk or high; otherwise don't bother. Unless you want to lose your movie privileges like I did!
When you put this DVD into your player and hit "play," you will experience a brief moment of silence and see a black screen as the laser is guided to the correct starting point in the center of the disc. CHERISH THIS MOMENT. Make sure you have some Tylenol or something (preferably PM's so you can fall asleep), because you're going to have a massive headache once this movie starts.<br /><br />Starring a bunch of big-breasted girls and with an opening that actually made me chuckle a bit, I thought I'd be in for a good time. Sure, the opening sequence was a WEE bit awkward and most of the jokes fell flat and it seemed like this was going to be a Scream ripoff (by the way, my sole chuckle was from Julie Strain's final comment in this scene). But then I knew there was trouble... the opening sequence had a terrible rock song. During this terrible rock song, I looked over the DVD Chapter titles and saw things that said "TOPLESS IN THE BACKYARD!" and "BETTER THAN SEX!". I knew what the selling point of this movie was going to be.<br /><br />And that's the sad truth: The ONLY good thing about this movie is the attractive cast. Other than that, it's a sadly routine slasher film that throws in an "innovative" concept about murder clubs, which ends up being fake anyway. So, the whole movie then points in another direction to try to be confusing and this huge mystery, but it all just adds up to not being interesting at all and leaves you feeling like you don't care for any of the characters. I mean, when the main character of the movie is revealed to have murdered an innocent woman, can you really feel ANY sympathy towards her when she's in fear for her life? The Scream influence is prevalent throughout, with a ghost face killer and some really terrible jokes. We're also treated to scenes of the main character talking to her mom and dad (Lloyd Kaufman! The only other cool part of the movie!) about an abortion or something. Uh. Yeah... This isn't a "so-bad-it's-good" movie, it's just BAD.<br /><br />Someone compared this to a Troma film, but... you know, most any film that comes from Full Moon (or its offshoot, as this film proves) is horrible. NOT horrible in a Troma sense -- I've seen many Troma films, and I can honestly say they all offer something, ANYTHING that you can walk away with and tell your friends about later. However, this film has pretty much nothing at all enjoyable about it. Beware.
This mess is so bad it doesn't even qualify as horror. <br /><br />Debbie Rochon's talent is completely wasted in this film. She is not even the villain. The rest of the actors look like porno wannabes and the plot is so lame I won't even mention it.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and skip to the end credits to hear upcoming band TwoMarlowe perform "Better Than Sex" it's total 80's Disco candy song. Nice up tempo song about Gambleing & Sex. Way more entertaining than "Bleed". Put it this way, When one has the equipment to copy videos, but decides only to record the song at the end of movie, you have a really "BAD" movie.
Let me being by saying the I followed watching this video by watching Saw and after Bleed, Saw looked like the all time greatest horror flick ever even though I thought it was only fairly good. Bleed is pretty bad. The best part is seeing the female cast nude. The gore is very fake looking and over-done. It has its funny parts but its extremely predictable and I didn't want to stay to see the horrible ending. If I could, I would ban these actors and actresses, the only reason being is that Debbie Rochon (Maddy) has been in over a hundred other videos and I've also seen two other members of the cast in equally or worse motion pictures. They should not allowed to continue this madness.
Wow...speechless as to the making of this film, I can't say much. The coverbox at the local videostore should've said it all...nothing but 6 actors/actresses who get lost on the set of Scream and decide to shoot a movie!<br /><br />The acting was apparently not in the budget, but they were able to afford nudity and good-looking actors! Style over substance almost makes its mark here, except most of these acting-class failures keep forgetting that there is a plot that needs to go somewhere when they were reading this script. After only 4 or 5 kills by the so-called masked murderer and a confusing tie-in plot about a Murder Club which the dumb lead actress thinks is a real club that she can join (only if she can get over a girl bumping into her car), you want to stab your hands with the nearest sharp object to remind yourself never to get overly excited by a possibly good movie such as this.<br /><br />I feel bad for the people who bought this film and can't find anyone to take it off their hands. Another example of what's wrong with the growing number of straight to video horror releases with no thought put into the essentials. Throw it away if you did buy this.
*SPOILERS INCLUDED*<br /><br />With a title like "Bleed", you know the creative juices weren't running on high when this puppy was conceived. The movie is your basic run-of-the-mill low-budget slasher movie. Oh sure, it tries to be creative with the premise of the "murder club", but we learn that was just a joke anyways. Okay, for those who really care about these things, the basic plot is that new girl in town starts dating her co-worker. He invites her into his circle of friends, and at a party, they tell her how they have a "murder club" and they murder people, blah blah blah. Well, we learn that it was all a joke, but not before our heroine kills a lady in a parking garage. Now, the "members" of the Murder Club are being killed one by one. Oh, and the bad guys wins and the movie ends on a downer. By that time, you won't really care though.<br /><br />In retrospect, the first 10 or so minutes of this movie make no sense. The motivation for the killings in the beginning of the movie is never explained. I would say that it was a way for the director to pad out the film, but on the DVD there are deleted scenes! I'm not sure why anyone would want to see more than the feature length version of "Bleed", but apparently the people behind the DVD thought the viewers would be clamoring for more. On the box, it says there are Easter Eggs, but why the hell I would want to waste my time looking for extras on this movie is beyond me. <br /><br />I was expecting a bad movie, and "Bleed" delivered on that front. It wasn't a fun bad movie though. Everyone looks good in the movie, and there's plenty of nudity, but the acting is just awful. My least favorite character is the guy who ends up being the killer...I think he's supposed to be funny and amusing, but he just ends up coming off as a tool. I think the funniest moment of the movie is when our heroine kills the lady in the parking garage, in a hilariously unconvincing death. Heroine shoves the women into the parking garage cement pole, and the woman looks like she barely hits the thing, and she spits out a mouthful of blood, and "dies". <br /><br />For those who think that movie making is an intricate, creative process done by professionals, check out "Bleed". It will change your mind, and you'll realize any hack get can a movie made. <br /><br />Otherwise, don't waste your time or money on this.
This is a low-budget "Scream" style movie. "Maddy" is a new worker at a conspicuously-unnamed office, where she meets and starts a relationship with her co-worker "Chris". During a hot tub-party, Chris and his friends convince Maddy they belong to a "Murder Club" where everyone has killed someone for kicks. When Maddy loses it and kills someone for real, hijinks ensue.<br /><br />The film looks good, and there are the requisites for this genre and budget level (nudity, gore, maybe a few cameos from slightly bigger stars than the cast), but, after the credits roll, you'll ask yourself why you spent 80 minutes of your life watching it.
As you all may know, JIGSAW did not make its way to Blackbuster because of a member of Full Moon's own staff, Devin Hamilton. Devin is the one who sells to all of the video chains. He recently released a movie, BLEED, which he was selling to Blackbuster at the same time as JIGSAW. He convinced the Blackbuster buyer not to take any JIGSAW, and double the number of BLEED. The result is that JIGSAW looks like a flop, and BLEED looks like a hit. The major problem with that is that BLEED is one of the worst movies ever, and as we all know, JIGSAW is, well, gold. I urge all of you to go on to the BLEED page on the internet and vote for the movie that wronged JIGSAW, and all of your talents. Likewise, you should go to the JIGSAW page and cast high votes for it (if you already haven't). We need to get JIGSAW up to at least an 8 or 8.5, and BLEED down to around a 2 (thus putting it on the internet's 100 worst movie listing). Also, try to convince friends and family to do the same.<br /><br />Hope you all are doing well, - Matt
How many times do we have to see bad horror movies with a killer in a Scream-ripoff mask? The plot of Bleed is kinda original but the movie itself is a complete failure. For one thing the dialogue is poorly developed, it's boring and wastes too much time on trivial details, the acting is bad, et cetera. I want my money back, this rental stinks worse than a skunk.
For romantic comedies, I often judge the quality of the film based upon the mistiness of my eyes by the end of the experience. Unfortunately for "The Wedding Date," I can only rate the film with 4 out of 10 possible tears.<br /><br />My apologies to fans of Debra Messing and Dermot Mulroney, but I did not see much chemistry between their two characters. The premise of the film is a reverse "Pretty Woman," with Dermot playing the role of Nick, a high-priced male escort hired by Debra's character Kat to accompany her to England for her sister's wedding. A romantic relationship presumably develops between patron and client. But the dialogue seemed forced and artificial. And there weren't enough romantic sparks flying in the relationship of Nick and Kat.<br /><br />In a supporting role, Amy Adams was a standout as Kat's sister. Whenever Amy came on screen, she served as a spark plug and catalyst for the film's energy. Perhaps if Amy Adams had been cast in the role of Kat, the film might have had more dynamism. But as it turned out, instead of reaching for Kleenex, I was looking for the Visine in attempt to at least pretend that this film had some genuine sentiment and romance.
Seriously, I'm all for gooey romantic comedies and will get sucked into Miss Congeniality as easily as Goodfellas...but this movie? It doesn't make any sense!!!! And I'm not even talking about the willing suspension of disbelief kind of not making sense. Why does her family live in England? Or, at the very least, why doesn't she have a British accent? She's sure cozy with her dad and he's surprisingly forgiving of her not being around for the last two years. (On that subject, no one ever makes much of a deal about her being away for so long). And what was with the goofy outfits at the bachelorette party? I'm not even going to get into the fact that the escort she paid for falls in love with her--that could've been overcome by better movie-making. I'm just saying that the characters, the setting, and the plot aren't fleshed out enough to make an even somewhat cohesive story. Oh, and the worst part, in my opinion, is the filmmaker's consistent use of the most unflattering angles on Deborah Messing's nose--I'd have sued the filmmakers if I were her! I mean, honestly, I'm all for women being who they are, but why, in seven loyal years of Will and Grace viewing, have I not ever noticed how incredibly odd her nose is? Oh! Because those producers are kind to her! This movie, like my other least favorite movie ever, Armageddon, is the fault of the filmmakers, not the actors. I can see both Messing and McDermott in these roles with a better writer, director, and producer.<br /><br />This easily gets my vote as one of the worst movies I've ever wasted time on. I'm just glad a friend loaned me her DVD, so all I wasted was time. If there were a way to make this review ZERO stars, I'd do it.
Too Much of Something Borrowed Grade B-<br /><br />Super Bowl Sunday is one of the slowest days at movie theaters every year. Because of this, movie studios tend to avoid releasing bigger budgeted films that weekend. Every few years a studio releases a counter-programming female skewing movie (2001's "The Wedding Planner") to compete with the big game. This Super Bowl weekend similarly titled "The Wedding Date" will try to find success and attract viewers not watching the game. <br /><br />Sick of people feeling sorry for her, single-woman, Kat Ellis (Debra Messing, TV's "Will and Grace") hires male escort Nick ( Dermot Mulrony, "About Schmidt") to pose as her boyfriend for her sister's wedding in London. Her family has been giving her a hard time about her not being married, and her ex- fiancé of seven years, who dumped her without a reason, is the best man. To make him jealous Kat parades Nick around her ex to make him see what he is missing. But ultimately Nick helps Kat realize that she can open up, and let someone love her.<br /><br />The film borrows too much from similar wedding movies. It is almost a carbon copy of 1999's "Picture Perfect" and mixes in scenes similar to "The Wedding Planner" and "My Best Friends Wedding". The movie also has a reverse "Pretty Women" theme going for it, and knowing her audience, the director makes clever references to that and other films.<br /><br />"The Wedding Date" has all the clichéd elements of a typical wedding movie, there is the stereotypical overbearing mother (Holland Taylor, "Legally Blonde"), and practically plagiarized wedding speeches by the family and friends at the wedding and rehearsal dinner. The twist at the ending has been done before, but it was something that wasn't completely expected. The real reason why Kat was dumped comes as a surprise and changes the direction of the film for the last half hour.<br /><br />Even though "The Wedding Date" is predictable, it is able to stand on its own. Debra Messing, in her first lead role, proves she can be charming and funny. Dermot Mulrony has great chemistry with Debra Messing, but most of his dialogue was too corny and unrealistic. He is able to make best of what he is given, and be able to salvage the character. <br /><br />By the use of many clever puns (often sexual), the film is actually funny. Although primarily a chick-flick the film has components everyone can enjoy. The feel good story, and humor make it the best date movie released in a long time.
One wonders why anyone would try to rehash successful movie plots that have already been seen, like it's the case with this movie. "The Wedding Date" is one of the best examples of why not to even try to remake, under the guise of a new story, something that should have been let alone. If a project like this goes ahead with the studio big honchos' approval, then go all out with big stars and glossy production values, that way, people will come for the stars.<br /><br />Alas, that's not what happens in this misguided attempt at comedy. The problem seems to be the way the screen writers have transplanted the story to London, when basically, this seems to be a typical American situation that not even the setting will be able to fix. Then there is the problem with the stars. Debra Messing and Dermot Mulrooney? They have as much chemistry as oil and vinegar!<br /><br />Since the Kat and Nick have no conflict from the start, the viewer is not pulled into the film the way the creators thought they would be. It's clear that Kat will fall for Nick, and vice-versa in this predictable story. Amy Adams, who was the best asset in "Junebug", comes across as a shallow girl who is willing to keep her lie going on and not come clean to the man that loves her and is going to marry her.<br /><br />For anyone interested, the credits at the end of the film run for almost seven minutes!
There have been so many many films based on the same theme. single cute girl needs handsome boy to impress ex, pays him and then (guess what?) she falls in love with him, there's a bit of fumbling followed by a row before everyone makes up before the happy ending......this has been done many times.<br /><br />The thing is I knew this before starting to watch. But, despite this, I was still looking forward to it. In the right hands, with a good cast and a bright script it can still be a pleasant way to pass a couple of hours.<br /><br />this was none of these.<br /><br />this was dire.<br /><br />A female lead lacking in charm or wit who totally failed to light even the slightest spark in me. I truly did not care if she "got her man" or remained single and unhappy.<br /><br />A male lead who, after a few of his endless words of wisdom, i wanted to kill. Just to remove that smug look. i had no idea that leading a life of a male whore was the path to all-seeing all-knowing enlightenment.<br /><br />A totally unrealistic film filled with unrealistic characters. none of them seemed to have jobs, all of them had more money than sense, a bridegroom who still goes ahead with his wedding after learning that his bride slept with his best friend....plus "i would miss you even if we had never met"!!!!! i could go on but i have just realised that i am wasting even more time on this dross.....I could rant about introducing a character just to have a very cheap laugh at the name "woody" but in truth that was the only remotely humorous thing that happened in the film.
If Deborah Messing were not already cast as "Grace", this might be a tolerable film. However, it is simply another story of a frustrated spinster with issues, who hires a paid escort (Dermot Mulroney) she reads about in a Time magazine article to travel to London for her sister's London wedding. How new is this plot?<br /><br />Neither funny, nor remotely romantic, the Wedding Date slides over the storyline of deceptive sex by bride and best man, and paid for escorts to pass off the film as Four Weddings without Hugh, and definitely, a dead end deal for the naive groom who is ignorant to the sexual history of his bride (Amy Adams). While Messing has perfected the repressed princess, 30- something woman with a failed relationship history, her neurotic and drunken moves on yet another faux beau is simply the restating of her TV series. If this woman is an actress, get a role that does not rehash what is already on prime time.<br /><br />Lots of drunken female bonding, cricket visual jokes, and Mulroney in a towel (nice!), but the film is a bore with the obvious happy ending. Expected Messing sequel: Divorce Date.
No cinematic achievements here, however that's not even the important question. How does it fare in its endeavour to be a competent date movie--and star vehicle?<br /><br />The formula requires the cute female lead a la Ryan or Aniston--check; there's a built-in TV audience!<br /><br />Add thick-headed, compliant men, usually including the problem ex-boyfriend/fiancée--check. <br /><br />Assemble a plot that maximizes the bankability of the stars. So far, so good.<br /><br />What is the male lead to consist of? He has to make all the women in the movie and in the audience (and the gay flight stewards) instantly swoon. But...he cannot be so hunky as to threaten to the male audience, and he can't outshine the star. Roll cameras...<br /><br />The problem is Messing thinks she's still in a sitcom...she has only one presentation: as the wide-eyed doormat that she's made a career out of. A capable actress might have pulled it off after the love scene, where things promptly nosedive into the soap suds. <br /><br />You can't help feeling good for Mulroney...you can read it in his face that he sees through all of this. He's gotten all the respect of a lifetime .260 hitter. This time, he smacks one out to the warning track, and no one can figure out what to do, as he amusedly takes home plate.
The best thing I can say about this film is that it is well-paced. It did not fall flat. The next best things are the supporting performances by the actor playing foppish groom-to-be Edward, the always marvelous Holland Taylor, and the actor playing Taylor's husband. The actor helping to critique Messing's potential outfits in an early scene brings a delightful absurd-yet-winning quality to the proceedings. Okay, that's about it on the positive side.<br /><br />Dermot Mulroney, whom I adore, is far more believable expressing contempt for Messing than in any scene where he's attempting to be either businesslike or supporting. As others noted, he appears to have no emotional investment in this enterprise other than wrapping it up as quickly as possible. Messing, on the other hand, sincerely tries to carry the film and to create the illusion of chemistry with Mulroney. She is adequate doing so, but is simply not strong enough an actress to pull all of this off without help. Give her an "E" for effort and a "C+" for achievement. Given Mulroney's indifference, the one thing that could've helped Messing would have been a brilliantly cavalier Irons-esquire performance from the actor playing her ex-fiancé, Jeffrey. Instead, his performance is weak-kneed, mewling, and feckless.<br /><br />If I tried to analyze this one any further, I'd obviously be paying more attention than most of the people involved. It's harmless enough to pass time if you have nothing else to do, and less obnoxious (and less creative) than The Wedding Singer, but you're much better off watching "My Best Friend's Wedding" again.
I found this movie to be a great idea, that didn't deliver. It seems they found a way to build suspense, but couldn't stage their payoffs very well. In one case the police, are on the clock to find the hideout of the kidnappers. They painstakingly go from dentist to dentist to match a dental record. At the same time, the kidnapped man (Mason) escapes through the elevator shaft. After all the build up, the police arrive at the same time he gets free, which is very anti-climatic to say the least. There are also large narration scenes that take us "inside the thinking" of the terrorized husband and wife, which detracts from the suspense rather than adds to it. We are fully aware of their tension, and the voice-over is an insult and robs the viewer of any chance of a personal experience with the fear, as Hitchcock proved time and again, is far more effective. The greatest disappointment, is to sit through the whole movie, and the get the quick, rather bland ending. I mean it just..."ends" in a snore.
The exclamation point in the title is appropriate, albeit an understatement. This movie doesn't just cry -- it shrieks loud enough to shatter glass.<br /><br />Filmmakers Andrew and Virginia Stone made shrill, humorless suspense thrillers that strove for a semi-documentary feel. Here, they shot on actual New York locations with tinny "real-life" acoustics to jack up the verisimilitude. But the naturalism of the sound recording only serves to amplify the Stones' maladroit dialog and the mouth-frothing histrionics of tortured butterfly Inger Stevens.<br /><br />In a performance completely devoid of modulation, Stevens plays the wife of electronics whiz James Mason (looking haggard and bored); both are held captive by extortionist Rod Steiger (looking bloated and bored) and his slimy cohorts in a scheme to blackmail an airline with a deadly bomb that Mason has unwittingly helped construct.<br /><br />Here is another credibility-straining instance of a criminal mastermind so brilliantly attentive to every detail, yet knuckleheaded enough to hire a drug-addicted degenerate as an underling. The Stones' idea of nail-biting tension is to trap the hysterical Stevens alone with Benzedrine-popping rapist Neville Brand, filling the frame with his sweaty, drooling kisser. But the camera work is so leaden and Brand so (uncharacteristically) demure that the effect is hardly lurid, much less suspenseful. The Stones, a square pair at heart, don't even have the courage of their own lack of convictions.<br /><br />The film, which ends with the portly Steiger chasing the fleet-footed Stevens on a subway train track, is as clumsy as its ungainly heavy. With Angie Dickinson as Steiger's amoral girlfriend, Jack Klugman, Kenneth Tobey, and Barney Philips.
I discovered this movie on IFC, and I thought it would be interesting. For "tiny" love stories, some of the stories really dragged on in this movie. The fact that none of these women had names almost makes you suspect that the actresses were talking about their own real sex lives, including Kathy Baker and Alicia Witt. I have to admit, I want to start seeing some more romantic views of first sexual encounters again, like in "Strike!(1998)," when Odette Sinclair's acquaintances started asking about her presumed first time, and Tweety asked "Was it beautiful?"<br /><br />Some might think re-enactments and flashbacks would improve this movie. I think it would make things even worse. It doesn't necessarily have to be hardcore porn to get my attention, but somehow I just expected more.
Contrary to another reviewer, I think that this is WELL-written, especially the more fictional it is, because greater imagination would be required; and well acted, because there were no other characters with whom to share the focus of these dozen-minutes-plus, well-done monologues. But I'm just not entertained by such solemn, pious rememberances. Everybody has a story to tell and some are more interesting than others. Everybody has problems and some are more intense than others. These are just ten, not-very-atypical stories and problems, exemplifying how anybody's life (or part of it) is fodder for film. Then again, I think poorly of TV's reality shows, too. So, if that's your bag, you may like this. It's the kind of stuff that would make for good 'phone and/or internet gossip; but absolutely without other-than-verbal action. And, although each of the speakers is female, I'm gonna leave gender outta this.
This is a movie about how men think women think about love. No woman describes a one-night sexual encounter and declares it a love story.<br /><br />Of the ten monologues I felt only three really had any kind of truth ring through them. I kept waiting for the film to get better, and it did a bit, but never better enough.<br /><br />This is an interesting concept, and I kept wanting it to be good, but it never succeeded. Maybe if they actually WERE love stories it would have worked.
Evidently lots of people really like this, but I found it infantilising and reasonably offensive codswallop, saved from oblivion by Jane Russell and a couple of memorable musical numbers, especially the opener (but there's a marked dip in invention later on). I don't get on with Monroe - she's supposed to be playing a dumb blonde who ain't that dumb, but she just comes over as dumb. Russell can't quite convince when she claims never to have been in a gymnasium, but is otherwise rather wonderful. The men are staggeringly uninteresting, as is the plot. By no means atrocious, but so patchy that, if this is a classic, God help us all.
This film is hardly good, not great at all. A few memorable scenes and the unlucky choice of pairing Norma Jean with an actual actress. Jane Russell has it all working for her, Marilyn's lesser woman and/or actress. One can only wonder why this is considered being one of the highlights of her lame career. 3/10
The Soloist has all ingredients to impress the Academy. Its director, Joe Wright, has already authored a best picture candidate. The leading actor, Robert Downey Jr., starred in a widely praised superhero film. Finally, the movie itself is a drama. When it was mysteriously pulled from release in late 2008, filmgoers and critics were baffled. Now that I've seen it, I assure you Universal didn't just delay this film to promote Iron Man-Oscar buzz. The Soloist is a weak drama with no external conflict that is vastly inferior to any 2009 best picture candidates.<br /><br />Downey and co-star Jamie Fox aren't to be blamed for this mishap. Joe Wright is largely at fault but even he can't save a Lifetime story. Many movies are too complex and alienate viewers. This one is unusually simple. It's a movie about a newspaper reporter, Steve Lopez (Downey), who befriends a homeless musician, Nathaniel Ayers (Jamie Fox). That's it. Ayers is schizophrenic and doesn't resonate with Lopez's traditional approach to friendship. The two become friends. They begin this movie as acquaintances and are BFFs by its end. Tension consists of moments like this: will Ayers let Lopez take him to the homeless shelter? This material would have been better suited as a made-for-TV production rather than a feature film.<br /><br />Wright includes many scenes of cheap humor to obscure the lack of content. Lopez battles yard-defiling raccoons in what I consider a sub-plot. Do you remember when this happened in Atonement or Pride and Prejudice? Those films were structured enough to permit an occasional joke but nothing so prolonged. Ayers' back story is fleshed out when it doesn't need to be. Worst of all, these scenes are not connected and appear at random intervals. It's a way of admitting that the main story carries little appeal. Nathaniel was a violin prodigy with a tough upbringing (I was too). This is a fabricated attempt to create sympathy with Ayers when most of us already have it. He's a homeless schizophrenic for crying out loud! The movie somewhat conveys humanity's love for music, like Amadeus and Beethoven Lives Upstairs. It isn't as effective as either of those pictures, however. The entire film is hinged on Ayers' schizophrenia. It ultimately is how he interacts with everyone else. His being a musician is a nice touch but hardly worth including. The film doesn't incorporate this characteristic fully into his persona. Take music out of Amadeus or Beethoven Lives Upstairs, and no film remains. The Soloist is more about friendship in general than music. Nathaniel could be a writer or film critic and few lines of dialog would need to be seriously altered.<br /><br />This is only Joe Wright's third film, and his first that isn't a romance staring Keira Knightley. Let's hope this film isn't an indication of how limited his abilities are. There are stylistic nods to his earlier works but The Soloist is much weaker than either of them. In his defense, Universal should not have agreed to widely release this picture. This film seems tailored for Imagine Entertainment (distributors of Changeling). I wouldn't be so disappointed with it if had a limited release. Its poor box office performance may inhibit better dramas from being distributed nationally.
Anyone who has seen 'Shine',Scott Hicks film of the heartbreaking yet ultimately joyful life of the pianist David Helfgotts; will I am sure realise that 'The SOLOIST' is very poor in comparison.It is as slow as a lullaby( I took five breaks answering emails just to wake up). The depiction of the homeless area way over the top and extremely self indulgent, on a par I fear with the awful beach battle depiction in Joe Wrights other disaster Attonment. .J Fox performance was an extremely poor example of acting and lacked credibility from the offset.Downey on the other hand; although struggling with a badly paced film, still manages to charm,9Is it me or is he turning into George Clooney in more ways than one?). Comparing both these well known so called 'STAR'actors though is unnecessary as the light that shines brightest as far as acting is concerned must be that of 'shine's' Geoeffry Rush who's brilliant performance definitely SHONE far brighter in my sky. With both 'Attonment' and 'The Soloist' the written word wins far more prizes for empathy of subject. Read the book and articles or wait for the DVD its bound to be in the bargain basement soon.
What could have been an engaging-and emotionally charged character study is totally undermined by the predictable factor. Fox is OK as Nathaniel Ayers, the Julliard trained musician who dreams of playing with the Walt Disney orchestra until his bouts with schizophrenia drive him into the street and ultimately skid row. Looking for a good story to boost his flagging career, reporter Steve Lopez {Robert "rehab" Downey } gets to know him and tells his story. Taking every element of the classic "how we hit the skids" movies, borrowing very liberally from "A Beautiful Mind", taking the bogus "feel good" attitude of films like "Rocky"-you pick the sequel number-and whipping up too much 1930s style melodrama all that is left on the screen is a burnt out shell of a movie. It is corny, trite, utterly predictable and plays way too often on our sentiments. I hate to say it, but this is the kind of movie that, if you say you hated it, people will give you bad looks. I really wish I could say something positive about this film, but I really can't. The acting redeems it somewhat, but not enough for me to give it more than one star. Strictly made for TV movie stuff. Not worth your time.
When you pick a movie I hope one factor you will consider, are the actors in the movie using their fame to influence the moral fabric of our society in a positive or negative way? This is not a political statement this is a moral issue that effects are society. When a comedian/actor makes curl sexual and racist remarks about a teenager and her father we should ask ourselves (do I want to support that behavior)? In this case Mr. Foxx behavior tears at the social fabric that teaches our youth right from wrong, good behavior from bad that loving-kindness is better than hatefulness. Mr. Foxx should remember he is only entertainment and there is a lot of that out there for us to choose from. Saying sorry does not get him off the hook. It will not undue the hurt or remove the bad behavior he spreads to our youth. One way to stop this behavior is to stop being a fan of it. No longer see anything they are part of. We cannot change them but we can stop the fame we give them.
Charlotte's deadly beauty and lethal kicks make the movie cooler than it'd be otherwise.The story is so poor and Charlotte's character dies in such a foolish way, that you wonder if this's the ending they had thought of for this movie. I wish somebody could tell that an alternative ending exists, but I fear it doesn't. As for the rest of the cst, well I'd say they simply didn't act very well; although the blame should be put on the poor script.This movie reminds me of Rush Hour 2 where Zhang Ziyi dies in absurd way, since she had been the only one who had stolen the show during the whole movie. I could give this movie 2/5
You ever sit through a movie and after it's all over it's like one big "wtf!?". <br /><br />Welcome to Decoy. <br /><br />Another straight to video action fodder flick you can immediately forget about having watched or better yet don't watch it at all. Peter Weller and Robert Patrick star and are quickly wasted in this going nowheres fast mercenaries-for-hire action dud where the story is pretty darn bad and the action sucks and what's the point of watching an action flick if the action blows? Robert Patrick in particular hits a new low in an action sequence that has him firing a machine gun while standing on the hood of a moving school bus. Co-stars the ambient Charlotte Lewis and Canada's own Scott Hylands (of TV's Night Heat fame).
A pointless movie with nothing but gratuitous violence. The only fun I had was playing "spot the location", as much of it was filmed in my home town of Regina, Saskatchewan. I like to support locally produced films but this one was a major disappointment.
Now here is a film that if made in Australia would have easily been a comedy. Sadly and annoyingly, here it is, flaccid and cheesy and overbaked from Lala land. How did the di-erector get it so wrong? Well, mainly by being serious about a job so hilariously startling that nobody in their right mind could take seriously. Unless of course they were a nerdy lonely gay cliché (but somehow cute)...or is that cliché piled upon cliché. No value in the story that almost seems like a prequel to Gus Van Sant's GERRY..... and with a title like THE FLUFFER how is it all such a lead weight? Well this auteur must have soooooo mad that he didn't get to Burt and BOOGIE first that he had to make his own. Convoluted and undeveloped apart from the 'unrequited love's a bore' theme left over from a faded Streisand lyric, we have only moody beefcake and TV serial level storyline left. The un necessary fourth act of this overlong turgid drama is truly terrible as the film wanders off like the Gerries into to desert and gets stuck there. In Oz in the late 90s some 20 somethings made a similar but actually hilarious film called MONEYSHOT. Originally filmed as THE VENUS FACTORY it too suffered from an auteur more awful than Orson so they re-filmed half of it, got a ruthless TV editor to chop it up and down down to 72 minutes and hey-presto..comedy, tonight! A lesson there in when bad films turn good by lightening up. I guess THE FLUFFER stiffed on release and after seeing it not perform, I can understand why.
This is a great idea for a film but it, unfortunately, doesn't turn out to be a great movie. What starts out as a sweet and almost goofy romantic comedy about a Fluffer in love with his Fluffee spirals out of control into a bizarre combination of genres and a veritable stew of plots, with liberal borrowings from BOOGIE NIGHTS, THELMA AND LOUISE, SHOWGIRLS, FRISK, and even a curious "dash" of 400 BLOWS thrown in towards the end. (At least the director did his research!) The result is not necessarily boring but, in the end, this slick, well-produced flick doesn't quite add up to anything. However, the actors all do a game job with the material and there are a few good laughs at the behind-the-scenes world of gay porn.<br /><br />
I wanted to see the movie because of an article in a film magazine. It wasn't a highly recommended one by the critic. The storyline is different and I am sure that it could have been a good movie if it was in right hands. Directing and acting were awful!! I had the feeling of watching a movie which was made a bunch of amateurs. Although the movie started promisingly, it got worse and worse. I think this is an unoriginal movie with awkward characters.. I still think that it is worth watching as I haven't seen films subjecting gay porn. Don't keep your expectations high though,then you will be very disappointed. * out of *****
This was god awful. The story was all over the place and more often than not I was confused because of horrible editing. I felt no sympathy for anyone because their characters were not developed enough. They were extremely superficial people with no dimension. Cheesy, cheesy stereotypes with subplots that went nowhere. The stripper chick was just a distraction, even if she was decent looking. I don't know what this was attempting to be, but how shocked was I when they showed this trash on Sundance? I almost cancelled my subscription. You'd think a channel like that would show more quality films. There are much, much better gay and lesbian themed films out there. "The Celluloid Closet" is an excellent documentary. I thoroughly enjoyed "Wigstock: The Movie". I'm sure there are others that have slipped my mind at the moment, but what I'm trying to say is that this just wasn't worth it. If you catch it on TV, ok, but otherwise don't bother.<br /><br />There were maybe three or four shots that looked really nice (sad I can count them on one hand), otherwise the cinematography was pretty crappy as well. The lighting was way off in a lot of places. I think some of the effects were used to try and add to something that just had practically nothing going for it.<br /><br />I can't deny Johnny Rebel is pretty hot (without the blond hair of course). Too bad his acting did nothing for me. Stick with real porn, buddy.<br /><br />3/10.
The Fluffer may have strong elements of porn industry truth to it - but that doesn't make up for the fact that it's pretty shabbily directed and acted - and with a very mediocre script.<br /><br />B grade from start to the exceedingly drawn out finish.<br /><br />It would be embarassing to think of the general public being offered this piece as an example of state of the art gay film making.<br /><br />Hopefully it has a limited life in the gay film festival circuit and is allowed to die a natural death on video.<br /><br />This film will open the Queer Film Weekend in Brisbane on April 10, 2002. I think its success there will be strongly influenced by the amount of alcohol consumed in the preceding cocktail party - they're gonna need it.
I entered the theatre intending to pass a pleasant 90 minutes being entertained if not enlightened. I left neither entertained nor enlightened. This movie can't make up its mind what it wants to be and ends up being not much of anything. There are a few funny lines and a few incredibly pretentious movie references (The 400 Blows--for this character? come off it!). While none of the characters gets treated with much respect, the over thirty gay men get the worst of it: all predatory, fat, sad, slobs. If you're in the mood for a movie dealing with gay relationships check out Parting Glances, Longtime Companion, Trick, All Over the Guy, Red Dirt, Maurice, Philadelphia instead. You'll thank me.<br /><br />
Oh, well, this movie starts off well. It's kinda funny and seems like it could be a fun movie. Then it becomes a bit serious and goes off the rails. It sort of wants to be 'Boogie Nights' but it can't achieve it. If only it stayed with the tone of the first quarter of the film...
But this movie was a bore. The history part was fine but the musical part was not. Not one song I cared about and no soundtrack to be heard.<br /><br />If Sweet Jesus" was suppose to be comic relief it never work. If John Adams was suppose to be the obnoxious annoying one, the rest of them were trying to overthrow him in every scene.<br /><br />Hancock and Jefferson were the only bearable characters in the whole movie.<br /><br />The historical quotes and the debate about slavery in their historical context were interesting enough but not enough to overcome the lack of music in a musical.<br /><br />Shouldn't you be humming the songs after a musical, except for a few chirps, nothing else was worth the breath.
I guess you have to give some points for the sheer courage of writing a musical around a history lesson but how about some decent music? <br /><br />Is the cartoonish acting of Howard DeSilva meant to pique the interest of otherwise jaded children? <br /><br />Is William Daniels' campy contemporary (for the time) acting style meant to appeal to a 1960s/70s demographic? <br /><br />Do we need all the "in-jokes" about NY & NJ? (I can hear the blue-haired Broadway audience guffawing on cue.) <br /><br />Sorry, I find the whole piece dated, boring & the acting far too strident for the screen
1993 was the year. This was long before Phillip Seymour Thomas had won an Oscar. Who knew I would be an extra in a movie with him? I was actually a paid extra in "My Boyfriend's Back," which was shot in a suburb of Austin called Georgetown, TX. The original title was "Johnny Zombie" (thank God the producers had a change of heart!) I was in the theater scene. I rushed out to watch the movie the day it was released in theaters. It is more of a comedy than a horror movie. But... for a good laugh, you might want to check it out. Nothing that is even close to "Dawn of the Dead" or even "Shaun of the Dead" quality, but the cheese factor is good enough. ciao
I have seen over 1000 movies and this one stands out as one of the worst movies that I have ever seen. It is a shame that they had to associate this garbage to The Angels 1963 song "My Boyfriend's Back." If you have to make a choice between watching this movie and painful dental work, I would suggest the dental work.
I'm easily entertained. I enjoyed "Hot Shots" and "The Naked Gun" and their many sequels, even when most people found them unbearable. I've even managed to enjoy most Pauly Shore movies. There is only one movie that I've seen that I can honestly say was bad...and this was it. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I do remember sitting in the theater thinking, "This is a dumb movie. Why did I see this?" It's honestly the only movie that I cannot recommend.
Turn your backs away or you're gonna get in big trouble out of MY BOYFRIEND'S BACK! Only a happy ending can bloom your innocence that is full of gloom and doom at the very moment you're watching this. It's safe to say that the entire movie falls apart, with a sarcastic approach and tribute to zombie shows that defy nonsense to the max. We get a name like "Johnny" every so often, and this "Johnny" has nowhere to go. There isn't a specific reason to why our "dead corpse" crawls out of his grave just to survive until prom night, so that renders the movie totally useless. Without a feeling of sorrow, his mother is convinced to tell the doctor that he's dead. Johnny takes a bite out of Eddie's arm afterwards. The viewer is asked a tough question: Why does the movie have to be this cornball? There is an answer. Any resemblance to all persons living or dead is purely coincidental. "Living" is a coincidence. "Dead" has nothing in common with the movie. Show this one to your girlfriend and she'll skip the senior prom, turning your life into a deserted ruin. Blah!!!
Please make me forget. Please. Please. This is the worst film I have ever had the misfortune to watch. I consider the film an insult to my brain as well as my backside who both have suffered from me sitting and watching this film. I have yet to see what damage it has caused my sight and my ability to complete sentences. What a load of garbage!! And don't get me started about the acting... Someone please help me forget!! "Weird Science" -- come back!! Everything is forgiven...<br /><br />I am "proud" to give this film the first 1 here at IMDb... And I've voted for hundreds of films... Many of them c**p but this is so bad I can't even believe it. Someone actually came up with the idea and thought it was worthy of becoming a film? Someone actually read the script and decided to produce the film? Someone read the script and auditioned for it? Someone saw the film and decided *not* to put it on a shelf to collect dust for eternity? *These* are the questions I want answers to. Not the philosophical question about that tree in the woods and well, you know...
I saw this move several years ago at the Central Florida Film Festival if I recall. I liked it, it showed great potential. I guess most people here are blasting this film because the film did seem hobbled together (by the filmmaker's own admission on the official site -- the short was exhibited as a "rough-cut").<br /><br />But nonetheless, it was an easy-going comedy. I think many people try to read far too much into a comedy. All they are supposed to do is make you laugh -- that's all. I did just that at its showing, so it succeeded on that level. Just my 2 Cents Anyway.
This film is just a shame. Orlando, Florida seems to becoming a more recognized filmmaking area (like Vancouver's rise to prominance). The Brothers was shot in Central Florida and this short film is a bit of a setback for the area (which made great strides with the Indie film Walking Across Africa and the great HBO miniseries From Earth To The Moon).<br /><br />I will try to be as honest as possible. I think Orlando was the perfect place to film The Brothers. It had the potential to give a new spin on the 'Boy Band' craze. After all, both N'Sync and the Backstreet Boys come from this area. But, The Brothers falls short probably because of a weak script. Both lead characters are flat with almost no development (part of this could be the amatuer actors, but some of it is certainly the way the script was written).<br /><br />Also a problem is the choice of jokes. Many of the jokes are too repetitive (they do come off funny the first time, but it does grow to be a bit boring). Some of the 'concert' scenes are staged poorly (and many of these scenes also don't seem to move the story along in any way).<br /><br />I had high hopes for this one, but alas its a disappointing effort. I also hope the best for the upcoming feature based on this short. But I think the best thing for filmmaker John Figg is to move to different genres (quickly). Comedy isn't his strong suit. But, its indisputable that he definitely is one of the more prominant filmmakers in the Orlando area (its just a shame that right now he's infamous, not famous).<br /><br />
this is just a terrible 'comedy' -- it really is a bad film. there are no funny elements. no jokes that are funny. i don't know how some people can claim this dismal short film could be 'smartest' or 'quality.' perhaps if its the only film that a person has seen you can make that claim of the brothers. but, i have seen thousands of better films: namely leonard part six (now, that's funny)! i don't know how the brothers is even considered eligible to be listed on the internet movie database: its more like a home video than an actual film.<br /><br />jokes aside, just skip this film. a root canal is more enjoyable that this cliche-ridden unfunny material.
I noticed that this film has taken the brunt of a lot of insults. It probably earned some of them, but it wasn't that bad. Well, I'll be honest: I never want to see this film again. It was a bad film. But I don't hate this film, it tried to tell a story. As a drama, this film could work very well actually. I just think the filmmakers misgauged which road to take when they made this (they should have added more funny bits if they wanted it to be a comedy). With a rewrite, it could have been a great film. But as a satire, it didn't work in its current form -- many scenes did not fit within the context of the plot: for example, the robbery scene makes little sense in the story. Still, it wasn't the worst independent film ever made -- is it in the Top 10 Worst? That's debatable.
i can't figure out who greenlighted this thing! it has no redeeming qualities, none, nada, zip, zilch.<br /><br />the acting was bad. the directing was bad. the writing was bad. the plot was bad. the music was bad. the editing was bad. ....well, at least the filmmakers were consistent.
I have been an environmentalist for years and was really looking forward to this show. I had it set to record all episodes because I thought I could really learn some great new things. I probably could if I could get past Rachelle.<br /><br />I'm sure a lot of this is staged to seem like a reality show and appeal to that class of viewer. It doesn't work for someone who's really interested in improving the planet.<br /><br />This show should be called Nagging with Rachelle.<br /><br />Since Ed is such a great font of information, maybe a second show that's really serious about the environment would be a good idea. Dumbing things down is not necessary for some of us. <br /><br />I no longer record episodes or watch the show, but do let me know if a real green show may be in the works.
Is there a movement more intolerant and more judgmental than the environmentalist movement? To a budding young socialist joining the circus must seem as intimidating as joining a real circus. Even though such people normally outsource their brain to Hollywood for these important issues, the teachings of Hollywood can often seem fragmented and confusing. Fortunately Ed is here to teach neo-hippies in the art of envirojudgementalism.<br /><br />Here you'll learn the art of wagging your finger in the face of anyone without losing your trademark smirk. You'll learn how to shrug off logic and science with powerful arguments of fear. You'll learn how to stop any human activity that does not interest you by labeling it as the gateway to planetary Armageddon.<br /><br />In addition to learning how to lie with a straight face you'll also learn how to shrug off accusations that are deflected your way no matter how much of a hypocrite you are. You'll be able to use as much energy as Al Gore yet while having people treat you as if you were Amish.<br /><br />In the second season was even more useful as we were able to visit other Hollywood Gods, holy be thy names, and audit - i.e. judge - their lifestyles. NOTE: This is the only time it's appropriate for an envirofascist to judge another because it allows the victim the chance to buy up all sorts of expensive and trendy eco-toys so that they can wag their finger in other people's faces.<br /><br />What does Ed have in store for us in season three? Maybe he'll teach us how to be judgmental while sleeping!
"Algie, the Miner" is one bad and unfunny silent comedy. The timing of the slapstick is completely off. This is the kind of humor with certain sequences that make you wonder if they're supposed to be funny or not. However, the actual quality of the film is irrelevant. This is mandatory viewing for film buffs mainly because its one of the earliest examples of gay cinema. The main character of Algie is an effeminate guy, acting much like the stereotypical "pansy" common in many early films. The film has the homophobic attitude common of the time. "Algie, the Miner" is pretty awful, but fascinating from a historical viewpoint. (3/10)
To say Funky Forest: The First Contact is a bad movie is an understatement of incredible proportions. I can really get into a good art house film, even a surreal and twisted romp like El Topo, Naked Lunch, and Survive Style 5+, because those movies actually have something worth discussing when the credits roll.<br /><br />FFFC attempts at every avenue to be this deep and intellectual, essentially there is no substance in this movie. This movie is badly done, the visuals in this movie are not inspiring, the dialog is worse, the musical numbers destroy this movie.. I chuckled for GUITAR BROTHERS, but that was immediately wiped out by something completely unnecessary, and irrelevant. It attempted to be deep and meaningful I think, but its just pretentious disoriented nonsense. Freshman film students without a camera could craft something more interesting.<br /><br />Guitar Brothers and the stand up routines in between skits get 1 point each, everything else is just badly paced, pseudo-creative, heavy handed attempts at being AS good as films by other REAL directors like, Sogo Ishii, David Lynch, and Jodoworsky. Give me a break. I am convinced that people that rave about FFFC are doing so because they have no idea of what they saw, because it was nothing but mild pertinent statements here and there mixed with stupidity and blended until you puke on your own shoes.<br /><br />This movie was an extreme disappointment, coming off the high that was Survive Style 5+, a film that actually has meaning, combined with excellent use of scenery, cinematography, catchy dialog, funny moments, good soundtrack, excellent performances, fantastic pacing and flow. FFFC features the exact opposite in every way, boring scenery (20 minutes staring at a bland beach at night? a completely white stage? Alien balls floating in white space? a dinky school hallway and then a... school hallway?), terrible cinematography, forgettable dialog, nothing funny or humorous, save the fact you just wasted your life for two hours, soundtrack?, amateurish performances, uneven, disjointed, and often flat out dragging pacing, zero flow whatsoever.<br /><br />There are those that claim this is what makes FFFC a great movie, that it is so unconventional at every turn that its pure genius. This is simply a way to stroke your own ego it seems, because "unpredictable" could be a good quality for a film if it wasn't coupled with "boring", "innane", and "terrible". Personally I have spoken with two people who admitted to me that FFFC was terrible when they left the theater, but overwhelming rave by art-house elitist made them watch the movie again and then come back to me with a... "Hey it was pretty good I liked it".<br /><br />I'm going to put my foot down, this movie is slop, I don't care if Roger Ebert says this film is the best thing he's ever watched since he lost his own virginity. "The Emperor's new cloak" I say... this movie is no way indicative of the other psychedelic/trippy films to come from Japan in the last 10 years. Taste of Tea, Party 7, and Kamikaze Girls are much better movies (even with a low budget), and none can honestly compare with Survive Style 5+. Watch FFFC only if your interested in making a pretentious pile of nothing on a shoestring budget.
Crazed Shotgun toting-incest driven-revenge seeking truck drivers & obsessive control disorder "daddy raped me when I was 12" handcuff carrying, all latex wearing prostitutes is just a few of the character you will be introduced to in this complete disgrace of a movie that can easily be viewed on any cable TV station (IE: Skinemax) at 4am on Sunday nights. (…And yes I know that was an entire sentence, but bare with me people; this is a long-winded review for a short pointless film).<br /><br />Filmed in "somewhere" Canada, with almost no budget, the plot to this freak show is trite, the police in it obviously never heard of "State Jurisdiction" because they end up chasing both Miya (Hookers) and Trent (idiotic, Anal Retentive, Generic, insecure College Student) all across the U.S. (and I thought only the FBI could do that). The camera is shaky, the sex scenes are mediocre and the acting is so bad it might actually cause unintentional acid flashbacks to movies like "Ishtar" and "Leonard Part 6".<br /><br />As far as the Skin scenes go (which is the only reason to even rent this movie, don't even think of buying it) there are two of them. The first one is the only one worth watching though which is the Dominatrix Sex scene with Kari Salin and ____(insert unknown actor here, he's obviously done nothing else worth noting) in a seedy, disgusting Motel room (the kind with the busted sink that drips, and the soda machine outside that only has blue tonic water left in it). It's all S&M (riding crops, handcuffs, hot wax, and underwear licking) folks and in the end, he gets left in a motel room, with no money and cops waiting at his door (that's goes to show you guys, don't let a hooker tie you up in a "middle-of-nowhere" motel room). Sadly though, Kari shows no skin worth remembering, and that alone can cause deep-seeded traumatic experiences for some gentlemen, so that is definitely a downer towards this flick.<br /><br />As for the ending, *Snicker*Snicker* I know you probably wouldn't mind if I revealed it to you but I won't, you should spend your hard earned money for that one. All in all I give it a 1/5 for action, a 3/5 for Skin (See last paragraph) and a 0/0 for acting, character development or intricate plot twists.<br /><br />- Laughing Man
(There are Spoilers) Homicidal nymphomaniac hooker Miya, Kari Wuhrer,takes over the life and car of 18 virgin, even though he's too embarrassed to admit it, collage freshmen Trent Colbert, Kristoffer Ryan. By the end of the movie Myia not only deflowers but give poor innocent and naive Trent a lesson in how to spot a dangerous nut job and keep as far away for him, or her,in order to keep from ending up turning into one. <br /><br />Hanging around a trucker rest-stop Miya is picked up by Roy, Burt Young, for some hot and heavy action, in the back seat of his buggy. Roy is either too drunk or stupid to realize that Miya is non other then his estranged daughter! Outraged that Miya is reluctant to get it on with him Roy almost strangles her to death only to be interrupted by first year collage student Trent Colbert who plows into the rest-area side swiping one of the truckers. <br /><br />Seeing her chance Miya jumps into Trent's car and the two are off in what turns out to be the weirdest car chase ever put into a movie. Going all across the North Eastern USA the two end up involved in a truck car smash-up a murder and a shootout with the state troopers that then leads to Trent's parents home, with them being held hostage. It's there that there's another wild shootout between the crazed Miya with an entire SWAT team reinforced by the local police and state troopers. <br /><br />You would expect a movie like "Hit and Run" to be intentionally or unintentionally funny but it's not. In fact the film is very disturbing in how Miya treats everyone in the film that she comes in contact with even her perverted and child-molesting father Roy. Getting Trent to drive her all over the North-East Miya gets the poor slob drunk having it on with him in a motel room, together with whips handcuffs and a lighted candle. Miya also gets it on with the motel owner the horny Mr. Foster by tricking him into giving her his gun, as being part of some weird sex game. After holding Foster up she takes off with Trent's, who out cold in his motel room, wallet with some $400.00 in it yet doesn't bother to drive away with his car. <br /><br />Needing the money to pay for gas to get home to his parents for Thanksgiving Trent gets a call on his cellphone from Miya to pick her up at a local diner to get his money back. Like the jerk that he is Trent picks up Miya, who's now a fugitive from he law, and later gets involved with her father Roy on the open highway as he tries to run both Trent & Miya off the road. <br /><br />The chase ends up in this deserted wear-house that Roy chases Miya,out running him on a muddy road in high-heels, into with him getting it in the you know where with a blast from his own shotgun. Roy was so busy trying to take his pants off that he forgot he left the gun unattended. <br /><br />With both a holdup and murder, as well as a hit and run, charge against them the two desperadoes stop off at a S&M/Tattoo boutique where Trent gets his ear and nose pierced and is dressed up in leather and chains, by Myri, together with a matching his and hers dog collar. This in order to meet his straight-laced and conservative parents for Thanksgiving Dinner. <br /><br />Having a running shootout with the state troopers, with one of them ending up badly injured,the two fugitives from the law end up at Trent's parents Mr & Mrs Colbet, David Keith & Elaine Martyn home with the entire local police force, with a SWAT team, waiting for them there. <br /><br />Obnoxious movie with a truly disturbing final ending that made you wonder what exactly the movie was trying,if at all, to tell it's audience. You felt a lot of sympathy for Miya at first but as the movie rolled along to it's downbeat ending that evaporated as fast as a tray of ice cubs in Death Valley. Even though Roy was the most unlikable person in the movie at first by the time the film ended Miya totally eclipsed him.
I've had a thing for this Kari chick for a while, and as far as how she looked in this movie, no complaints. But after catching it last night in HIGH DEFINITION, I am certain: that's the only thing in the movie that isn't substandard. The script is horrible, the acting is horrible, the direction is horrible. I saw in another comment someone commenting on how great the sex scenes were...what? Not at all. When a movie is this bad you might as well just turn it into softcore porn, but instead I get to see some pasty white dude blocking me from seeing Wuhrer's body and scenes that offer me nothing except a tease. They should have just gone cinemax so that the movie wasn't a complete waste of time, but no. With a script this awful they should've capitalized on Wuhrer's looks, since that's the lone pro of the movie. 2/10, only because she looked so hot.
I actually had hopes for this movie since I've seen Kari in a few other things and think she has some talent. Alas, this dud is a case study in what not to do in a screenplay. Completely undefined characters without a shred of likeability, and no plot whatsoever. Is it a road/buddy/comedy/thriller/romance/drama? The filmmakers don't have a clue, and neither do we.
Run away from this movie. Even by B-movie standards this movie is dreadful. It is also insidious in it's theme. The main theme is that people who reject society and have no respect for anything are cool and worth admiring. People who treat others with respect are losers. Guncrazy is a movie that speaks for the disenfranchised a lot better than this movie, see it instead.<br /><br />No normal kid would do what Trent does. State Troopers do not work as they do in this film etc. Seeing this movie makes you realize why writers use the hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold cliche. Mija is a completely unsympathetic hooker,who yes, has had a terrible life. However, she is such a terrible person the audience cannot identify with her.<br /><br />Usually there is one thing a movie can be recommended for, in this case there is none. It is such a ridiculous movie it insults the person who tries to identify with the main characters. The acting is adequate by B-movie standards and the direction presents nothing new or interesting.
During a sleepless night, I was switching through the channels & found this embarrassment of a movie. What were they thinking?<br /><br />If this is life after "Remote Control" for Kari (Wuhrer) Salin, no wonder she's gone nowhere.<br /><br />And why did David Keith take this role? It's pathetic!<br /><br />Anyway, I turned on the movie near the end, so I didn't get much of the plot. But this must've been the best part. This nerdy college kid brings home this dominatrix-ish girl...this scene is straight out of the comic books -- or the cheap porn movies. She calls the mother anal retentive and kisses the father "Oh, I didn't expect tongue!" Great lines!<br /><br />After this, I had to see how it ended..<br /><br />Well, of course, this bitch from hell has a helluva past, so the SWAT team is upstairs. And yes...they surround her! And YES YES! The kid blows her brains out!!!! AHAHHAHAHAHA!!<br /><br />This is must-see TV. <br /><br />
MY EYES! IN THE NAME OF GOD AND ALL THAT IS HOLY MAKE ME UNSEE THIS MOVIE! what drugs are you people on! this could very well be the worst movie ever! i felt like i was on a bad acid trip the whole time, i need to call a therapist to help me deal with the trauma of this epic disaster. From start to finish glow ropes is an unholy masterpiece of satanic cinema. when i thought to watch this movie with my Jewish best friend and his family we thought "oh hey, this may be funny! it will probably be bad but still a little funny" how wrong we were, we were not prepared for how awful this movie could be. All of my friends lined up for lobotomies as soon as the film was over, and during the course of the movie, one of my friends attempted to hang himself with his belt while another tried to slit his wrists with a wooden spoon. I wish I had watched the video from The Ring instead, that way the pain and suffering would be over in only seven short days. For all who wish to see this movie, YOU ARE NOT PREPARED! you may think you are some sort of "tough guy" by renting this but this movie will break you, push you to the ground and urinate on you.
I sat down to watch this movie with my friends with very low expectations. My expectations were no where near low enough. I honestly could not tell what genre this movie was from watching it, and if it was a comedy, the humor was completely missed. The plot was nonexistent and the acting was horrendous. My friends and I managed to watch approximately 30 to 40 minutes of this film before we turned it off and promptly begged the video store to take it back. I do NOT recommend this movie to anyone unless you are purposely trying to watch the worst movies of all time. I honestly don't know how this film lasted more than a day in theatres and moreover I can not understand why anyone would willing watch it, considering not only it's very uninteresting title but also the lack of any famous actors/actresses in it's cast. This review is not a joke and I honestly think this could possibly be the worst movie ever made. It's certainly the worst movie I've ever had to sit through.
I can only assume that the other reviewers of this "film" are stockholders in the production company, as this was quite possibly the worst movie I've seen in the last five years. From the opening shot of a Rabbi laughing uncontrollably for no apparent reason, it was clear that the actors in this film would kill to be considered "B-Level." Both my wife and I were in a great mood before starting this film, and we were genuinely looking forward to a funny popcorn movie. We knew we hadn't rented Citizen Kane, and we weren't expecting to see the most amazing movie ever. However, after 40 minutes of enduring the most painfully unfunny bit of garbage I've ever seen, we shut it off instead of wasting another minutes of our lives.<br /><br />If a "comedy" with no laughs, terrible acting, thin plot and annoying characters are your thing, then this film is for you. Honestly, Troll 2 is better--at least I laughed at the popcorn sex scene.<br /><br />I cannot justify writing a longer review of this picture because I've already wasted almost an hour trying to find one joke.
This movie is pretty awful but I have some interesting information about it:<br /><br />It was filmed in 1976 at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, AZ, as well as at Oak Creek Canyon near Sedona, AZ. A good bulk of the extras in the film are then-drama students from NAU. I was a freshman there that year, minoring in theatre, but for some reason I didn't get involved with the production. I did however know several people who did and can supply this rather odd fact:<br /><br />There is a scene in this movie where two of the principals, as part of their hazing ritual, have to run naked into the woods. They are seen from behind in the movie, doing just that. The thing is, those aren't the actors at all but two guys I knew from the theatre department. The identity of these "stunt posteriors" will remain anonymous, at least to this website, unless they decide to, um, "reveal" themselves!
"The Hazing" is one of them films I always wanted to see solely based on the illustrated cover image here on IMDb. Yes, that's how shallow I am! I don't care if ten million people call it a crap movie, the poster looks awesome so I guess I'll just have to see it … Now, "The Hazing" can somewhat be described like its alternate title: curious! The poster and title make it sound like a genuine horror movie set on campus and dealing with sinister initiation rites, but this movie is actually more of a crossbreed between comedy and thriller. First of all, there's something very wrong with the tagline on the old VHS box I watched. It says: He had good grades, a good girl and good buddies … until they put him through the Hazing". That's not the case, actually. Protagonist Gilbert Lewis is finally accepted by an acclaimed campus through an athletics scholarship. It takes over half the movie before we even hear about his girlfriend back home and the only "buddy" he has is a very nerdy Charles Martin Smith (still with hair in this film). Both of them are approached to become members of the prestigious "Delts" fraternity, but during their hazing exam – in which they have to descend a mountain dressed in their tidy white undies – Barney falls off a cliff and breaks his leg. When Lewis returns with the other frat boys, Barney froze to death already. Together they intended to keep the body frozen for five days and then claim he never returned from a weekend ski-trip. With Barney's body hidden in the cafeteria freezer, Lewis has to cover for him so that Barney's absence doesn't look suspicious. The set-up of "The Hazing" is quite original and potentially innovative, but the problem here is that the execution could easily have been a lot better. The tone is too steady and too serious for a comedy movie, even a black one, but on the other hand there aren't any proper attempts to build up suspense or thrills, neither. The soundtrack is cheerful and full of light-headed tunes, but that's nearly not enough to make this film a comedy. Around an hour into the film, the plot also runs out of steam and idea, and the makers have no better alternative to fill up the emptiness with romantic compilations of Lewis and his outer town girlfriend biking through the countryside. I didn't like the final twist, because it's quite implausible and because it has been done numerous times before and after (though admittedly after). "The Hazing" is not a complete waste of time, but still I'm glad I found an ex-rental tape at a friend's house instead of having to spend any money on the recently released DVD.
There is not a speck of entertainment in this entire film. There's not one scary, funny, or even interesting scene in this film. It advertises itself as a horror, then goes on to call itself a comedy. It doesn't even ATTEMPT humor. Neither does it attempt to be scary.<br /><br />In order to not be bored by this film, you would have to be one of the most easily entertained people on earth. If you like this movie even a LITTLE BIT than you have no standard for what you watch at all. I'm having a very difficult time trying to understand what the filmmakers were trying to accomplish with this. Its not funny, scary, shocking, or intriguing. So was it supposed to be a drama? Because it really wasn't dramatic either.<br /><br />Please just do yourself a favor and don't watch this film. Life is too precious to be wasting 90 minutes of it watching this.
Although the movie takes place at an "Ivy League" college, it was in fact shot entirely in Northern Arizona, mostly at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff in the fall of 1976. I was involved in the theater department there, and most of the extras in the film are then-members of the theater department. <br /><br />There is an absolutely ludicrous scene in this film (if you know your Arizona geography) that shows several cast members riding bikes from the college to a creek. We NAU'ers know that the campus and said creek (Actually Oak Creek Canyon) are about 35 miles apart, and while the trip there is all downhill, it would be literally IMPOSSIBLE to ride a bike back UP that same road!
This should be re-titled "The Curious Case Of The Unscrupulous Filmmakers Who Misrepresented A Non-horror Snorer As A Shock Film." It's one long, boring tale of a fraternity hazing, a gag so transparent that even Flounder from Delta House could see through it. Jeff East, an actor in the dues-paying stage, can be forgiven for taking any work he could get. The same can't be said for Charles Martin Smith, who formerly acted for such cinematic heavyweights as George Lucas and Sam Peckinpah. Once available on tape but, thankfully, not out on DVD. Misrepresented garbage like this belongs in a landfill and nowhere else.
I'm glad the folks at IMDb were able to decipher what genre this film falls into. I had a suspicion it was trying to be a comedy, but since it also seems to want to be a dark and solemn melodrama I wasn't sure. For a comedy it is amazingly bereft of even the slightest venture into the realms of humour - right up until the ridiculous "twist" ending, which confirms what an utter waste of time the whole movie actually is. It is hard to describe just how amateurish THE HAZING really is. Did anyone involved in this film have any idea at all what they were supposed to be doing? Actually worth watching so that you can stare at the screen in slack-jawed disbelief at how terrible it is.
This comedy is really not funny. It' a romance that plays so much on stereotypes it makes no impact. It's a caper film so derivative -- yes, even back then -- it has no snap.<br /><br />The cast is adequate. More than that it's hard to say. However, what's nice is that the players are unfamiliar. At MGM, this would have starred Robert Montgomery. The wife of a businessman with no time for anything but work could have been any number of actresses.<br /><br />We can be grateful that this little known film is peopled by performers mostly unknown today. And the production values aren't awful. Yet it makes no real impression.<br /><br />It's a generic knockoff. And who wants that?
I don't know why, but when I am asked about bad movies I have seen, I often think of "The Air Up There". I know that technically, lots of movies are horrible compared to it, and I have seen worse acting. it's just that it's so bland, so predictable. In a word: mediocre.
Wow, what a snoozer. Definately one of bacon's worst films. The bad acting coupled with a formulatic, if not incredulous, script make me yearn for time I wasted on viewing this on cable television back. Not really much I can say about it, a basketball scout gets too attached to the person he's recruiting, who happens to belong to a tribe that happens to be on the verge of war which happens to be decided by (spoiler) a basketball game. Grade: F+
Manoj Agrawal after the failure of PARDESI BABU(1998) returned with this film<br /><br />The film has Govinda in 8-9 roles, as his father, mother, grandfather, sister and later-on he also has disguises <br /><br />He in short is a useless detective send on a case by his friend to get proofs against his wife, whose photos he looses at the airport while flirting with Rani<br /><br />He disguises as a Sardarji in the plane and again as a girl The funny part is how easily and in short time he does that?<br /><br />Then he disguises as a french singer and enters a TV to get proofs lol and then as a maharashtrian(yes inside the TV itself) <br /><br />The rest of the film has the same mistaken identities and ends on a predictable note There are some funny scenes like Govinda being bashed by an African and also many other portions <br /><br />Direction by Manoj Agrawal is okay Music is okay<br /><br />Amongst actors Govinda again proves he is one of the most watchable actors He as usual is fantastic though he has done such roles before he fits in all the get ups and roles too well here again though the much hyped 6-7 roles don't actually fit in the film Rani looks fat, teams up well with Govinda thatz it She is nothing great and kept doing such type of roles Amongst rest Nirmal Pandey is as usual Johny Lever is too loud at times and funny in places in 1 role and irritates as the older Tinnu Anand is okay Satish Kaushik is hilarious, Paresh is okay Tanaaz is okay
This is a copy of the 1948 Doris Day classic, Romance on the High Seas.<br /><br />The story line is more or less same but is contemporary. Govinda plays a sharp witted fellow who replaces the husband on the trip. While Rani plays the college friend of the wife who does her the same favour. They ostensibly try to catch each other out while the actual husband and wife tries to trip each other in Bombay.<br /><br />On the trip, Govinda mistakes another girl for Sanjiv's wife and spies on her while falling in love with the ravishing Rani.<br /><br />Lever plays a dual role of father and son both lawyers specialising in divorce proceedings. They are pitted against each other for the warring couple.<br /><br />It is a poor attempt at copying the original classics and the songs are quite appalling. The comedy is slap-stick and will not make one laugh too much.
After reading the first 5 reviews on IMDb I was very enthusiastic about this movie. But it's really an awful movie, the total time you see the alien is about 5 minutes (the rest of the movie is cheap suspense), the acting is over the top en the story, oh boy, which story?<br /><br />The story doesn't seem to go in a direction, first they capture the alien (after 7 years! they finally succeed), then they don't know what to do with it (after 7 years?) and even want to release it (why the hell did they capture it?). Then the girlfriend, who's acting is the most over the top, wants to walk away from this madness, then suddenly she doesn't, then again, she does and then she doesn't. Then they come to the conclusion that killing the alien will kill the whole human race (and remember, in all those years no other human have seen these permanently settled aliens) and what do they do? They torture it and blow a bunch of aliens to peaces.<br /><br />This is my first review on IMDb, I'm a very lazy person who doesn't write very soon, so listen to my warning: this move is not worth your time, don't watch this movie.
I might not have been the biggest Blair Witch fan but nonetheless appreciated that effort, so I was looking forward to Altered, especially after reading the superlatives thrown around in various IMDb comments. "Unique", "intelligent", "A future cult classic" and so on... you gotta wonder where people come up with that stuff to describe such a poor effort.<br /><br />Because alas, Altered is a poor, weak movie that fails to engage in any and every respect. The silliness is not funny. The horror and gore is not scary. And whatever "thinking" aspect some poor fellows saw in this movie were due to severe delusions because there's certainly nothing profound or smart about this mess.<br /><br />OK, so we know nothing stands out. Is it at least bearable? Is the experience worthwhile in any way? Unfortunately, no. For starters, get very poor acting. It's not a stretch to say most B-movies these days feature better acting. The plot? Boring and messy. Dialogs? Many amateurs actually do better.<br /><br />It's really the direction that puzzles. I did not expect major improvements over Blair Witch but at least small steps forward. Instead, our director seems to have worsen over time, completely oblivious to previous experiences.<br /><br />If there is a major flaw in Altered, it's the main set. A major part of the plot takes place in a single location, where the main characters are confined but Sánchez has failed to give the place any personality whatsoever. Considering that in Blair Witch, the forest plays a major part and is as much a character (an antagonist, if you will) as the three students, you would think the director would realize the same thing was needed here. But no... this place has no personality whatsoever thanks to sloppy direction and no attention to details.<br /><br />There's nothing salvageable here. Die hard fans of "Blair Witch" are better off following Daniel Myrick. Although his output is far from being golden, it shows better structure than Sánchez and some lessons from Blair Witch are applied (unfortunately, in weak stories but still).
This weekend just passed I watched "28 Weeks Later" which was very good. After that I watched this film. <br /><br />I have tell you it is one of the most boring so called horror you could ever watch. The scenes were unrealistic, there was no script and no plot. The alien creature was unreal. And the fight scenes mild compared to a school yard fight. And to make it worse the guy named Cody had an uncontrollable loose filthy tongue which distracts attention from the main film.<br /><br />Forget about this movie; rather go and watch 28 Weeks Later.<br /><br />Cheers, Mesake C.
I'd have to admit that the draw of this movie is director Eduardo Sanchez, who helmed the wildly popular and successful Blair Witch Project. Besides, this is an alien movie of sorts, and sounded something like Stephen King's Dreamcatchers, one of those movies that the critics hated, but I enjoyed.<br /><br />But nope, unfortunately I felt that for the most parts, Altered is a waste of time, so I shall keep this review short. Premises are always promising, and Altered's no different. It tells the story of a group of men who experienced strange encounters when they were younger, and as usual, others will take you as a nutcase imagining stuff. Stories about alien abduction always have to deal with probes into the orifices, so I shall not go into details, but you get the drift it's damn uncomfortable, and something you'd like to forget.<br /><br />What if you're given a chance for revenge? That is, you manage to successfully hunt down, and capture one alive. What will you do? For this group, it's a gleeful payback time, or so they thought. And this is where the movie begins to develop into a snoozefest, with bad, uninspiring dialogue, and even worse acting. Even if it's low budgeted, there aren't many redeeming factors, be it strength of storyline, or any help from the cast in making their characters just a tad interesting. It's the standard cardboard fare from a vanilla plain script, coupled with some cheap scare tactics employed.<br /><br />What's good though is the makeup. Much effort has been put into making some of the stuff which I shan't mention, because that'll spoil just the few elements of what makes this movie tolerable. Other than that, there are the usual cheap special effects, blood and gory moments which is nothing you've never seen before.<br /><br />Watch this only as a last resort. Compared to the other monster movie in town - Feast, this one is less fun, and takes itself too seriously. Bogged down by an uninspiring direction, you've been warned.
My first clue about how bad this was going to be was when the video case said it was from the people who brought us Blair Witch Project which was a masterpiece in comparison to this piece of garbage. The acting was on the caliber of a 6th grade production of Oklahoma and the plot, such as there was, is predictable, boring and inane. 85% of the script is four letter words and innumerable variations on them. Mother F seems to be the "writer's" favorite because it is used constantly. It must have taken all of 10 minutes to write this script in some dive at last call. Thank God I rented it and could jump through most of it on fast forward. Don't waste your time or money with this.
I'm 47 years old and I've spent as much of my life as I can remember, a fan of horror and sci-fi films. Be they silent, black and white, no budget or big budget, there are very few of them that I can't find something to like about. That said, I'll give this movie credit for good gore and creature effects but that's all. This is a case of effects over story. Truth is we live in a time where there is very little left that hasn't been seen in a horror film. Therefor for a film of any kind to really entertain it must have a good, original story. A good story can overcome poor effects and bad acting but a bad story with good acting and good effects is still a bad movie. This movie doesn't even have good acting, only good effects. So unless you can only about the gore, pass this one up.
I felt this movie started out well. The acting was spot on and I felt for all the characters situation, even though the true family unit was not completely revealed. We never got enough info on the father to truly feel his pain for his whole involvement or the build up for his animosity with Tobe. I mean in one scene you see him admiring her for tensity and in another scene he just about takes her head off. Another problem with the movie was it just unraveled and lost all focus by the end, and I was begging for it to just be over with. Any movie with such a long drawn out , and painful ending should never get an automatic rating of 7 or above just for the acting. We are looking at the over all quality of the movie experience. In the case of this movie the end is so bad I seriously contemplated just walking out of the theater. This movie pulled me in then just spit me out.
This film really got off to a great start. It had the potential to turn into a really heartrending, romantic love story with cinematography that recorded the love between "Harlan" and Tobe in long, poetic and idyllic scenes. It really didn't need to be anything more than that, and for a moment there I became excited that someone was finally making a beautiful film for its own sake, another timeless classic, a modern myth perhaps. Why, oh why, then mess it up halfway through by making the lead character (Norton)another psycho? Maybe I'm missing the point, but do we really need another film about psychos? Or is this need in Hollywood to portray the sick side of human nature indicative of a more general malaise in the movie industry? For a moment there, I was going to make a mental note of the director's name; now I'm left feeling indifferent. At least it should be added in the film's defense that all the actors seemed to invest in their roles. Also, Evan Rachel Wood is really lovely to look at and a good actress with lots of potential.
I saw this film in my cinema class. I am glad that I did not pay to see it. I came into it with an open mind, and was even a little excited. I really enjoy Ed Norton and Evan Rachel Wood, and the rest of the cast was interesting. I just never connected with this movie. The acting was great, the cinematography was interesting, but the storyline, or rather, lack thereof, was a problem. There was no central, connecting theme to the movie. Was it a romance between Norton and Wood? Well, no, not really. Was it a western? Kind of, but no. I'm all for twists in movies, I recently saw "Brick" and loved it, but the place that this movie went was just too out there. It was so weird, and if I weren't required to have sat through the whole film, I would have walked out. The writing wasn't terrible, but it was just all over the place. By the time this movie ended, I was just left terribly confused and wishing that it had ended sooner. There was just something about this film that didn't resonate, I understand more offbeat films like "Fight Club", but I just did not care about the characters at all.
The longer this film went on-and it seemed to tediously go on for ever- the more annoyed I became, as quite frankly, what a waste of time sitting through this total nonsense. How on earth do people get to make films like this,or indeed receive finance for such rubbish? Don't be fooled by the relatively high ratings on IMDb as it just proves you can fool some of the people all the time. And in this picture the main players have an obsession with guns, so it is not difficult to work out the way this movie will ultimately unfold. America can never understand that the rest of the world finds it bizarre how society in the USA has such an obscene and fatal 'gun culture'. <br /><br />Anyhow:<br /><br />The lead actor portrays a loser who escapes into a fantasy world of being a cowboy in an Urban sprawl.He comes across a family with two spoiled brat children, a teenage girl and boy; taken care of by a strict single parent father who can barely cope. The cowboy is seduced by the teenage girl or vice-versa, and the impressionable boy is seemingly taken in by the lunacy of the loser.<br /><br />The cowboy spends the whole time in a state of unreality and depression.A total loser who prefers to go to the beach then work for living, and then commits a burglary on his family as he is too lazy to make money legally.<br /><br />Ask yourself:<br /><br />Who wants to watch either a sad failed loser in a fantasy world holding a death wish, or indeed view a poor family who are in effect not much better than white trash?!<br /><br />This film is pointless drivel.<br /><br />It only saves itself from getting the lowest mark possible by some half listen able music:<br /><br />2/10.
was sort of enjoying this movie until the issues of Ed Norton's facial hair. Without revealing any plot details--on one afternoon he was sporting a light beard but by the same evening the beard was gone and a very luxuriant moustache was in place. It was much fuller than the moustache that went with the beard. Later on, in the course of a dark night in the open the moustache was gone and he appeared cleans haven. This was on an occasion where stopping to shave wouldn't be an option. These continuity discrepancies totally distracted me from the rest of the movie and ruined any credibility it had previously had. Also, I found the lengthy scene of the cowboy alone in his bedroom was way too reminiscent of De Niro in Taxi Driver. Even if it was meant to be an homage it was laid on too thickly for this viewer.
I really wanted to like this film, but the story is ridicules. I don't want to spoil this film, - don't worry right from the begin you know something bad is going to happen - but here's an example of how sloppy this film was put together. The Cowboy and "Twig" ride up the ridge. The Cowboy has a handle bar mustache. The Cowboy and "Twig" get into a shoot out and race half way down the ridge. The Cowboy is clean shaven through out the rest of the film. Sometime between the gun fight and the ride down the mountain the cowboy has had time to shave, in dark, on the back of a horse.<br /><br />To be fair, the acting by the four main characters is solid.
OK, the story - a simpleminded loony enters a life of bored to death young chick and her kid brother and wreaks havoc in their lives - is mildly interesting one. Anyway, ideas are nothing (everyone has some...) - the execution is everything.<br /><br />This is what bothered me with this flick. And it did bother me immensely. The rhythm (directing, editing) was slow, the pace was uneven and the climax expected. We have seen those frigging highways five, six, seven times - why? Norton character's troubles were seen as a childish game, not enough deep to understand his problems / soul / blah and to root for or against him. Is he a coward, a manipulator or just a loony? References to the "Taxi Driver" were ridiculous and unnecessary and for certain not in favor for this flick (or to E.N. for that matter).<br /><br />And IMHO, it is cowardly executed at the end. Cheap emotional tricks for teenage lovers somewhere in Mid America. This guy should have killed the kid, blamed the father, create a real havoc. Or the kid should have killed the father at the end etc., but no, we have gotten cheesy ending where kids miss the loony, the father is puzzled over his own life and relationship with them and the loony, of course, dies. The happy dysfunctional family stays unharmed, safe and happily bored again so we could enjoy our pop-corns, undisturbed.<br /><br />And that scene where the loony enters the movie, oh my God, I would have to think long and hard to find something stupider than that! You do not shoot such a scene with a hidden camera and hidden crew. Creators of that movie probably thought that was a good idea but it was more than annoying. Again, if you're a 16 years old girl somewhere in Kansas nowhere or whatever-where and dream about having sex with a crazy man twice your age, OK, then you might enjoy this movie and its "message".
What starts out as a gentle country yarn, inoffensive and mildly enjoyable romantic tale changes pace as Edward Norton's initially charming Harlan gradually reveals more about himself and things take a turn for the sinister, as the film gradually changes from a southern romance to a modern wild western.<br /><br />An amiable rancher (Norton) wanders into town and charms a young girl (Evan Rachel Wood), seemingly rescuing her from a dead-end existence with her bad-tempered father with a whirlwind romance, but it gradually becomes apparent that there is more to this cowboy than meets the eye.<br /><br />Edward Norton – a real chameleon actor (with changing facial hair to match) playing a country hick, accent slightly dodgy but maybe because he's merely trying to act the part without worrying about the accent. He certainly makes it appear effortless to make all the nuanced little adjustments as we learn more about Harlan. However, with too many small changes it means we are never sure exactly where Harlan is coming from, and what seemed like a good performance from Norton gradually becomes confused. Evan Rachel Wood is likable without ever really having a great deal to do other than bat her eyelids at Norton.<br /><br />Down in the Valley strikes as a slightly uneven tale due to its change of pace, and by never really making the protagonist's motives clear the audience's sympathies for the characters remain uncertain. Should we like this drifter or not? Even after a dramatic turn of events it remains unclear. This ambiguity is to the film's detriment, as if the writer could not make up their mind what kind of story they wanted to tell and settled for somewhat of a hotch-potch. Had the film remained one or the other it might have been a solid film, but as it is what we are left with is something of a mess. Fans of old-fashioned romance will enjoy a portion of the film but will be put off by the darkening tone. Completist fans of Norton aside (or fans of the lush scenery of the San Fernando valley), give this a miss.
I cannot stand this show! Has there ever been even one redeeming quality, one funny punchline, or one plot line that "didn't" make the average viewer want to drown himself in a bowl of soggy cornflakes? <br /><br />The voices. Oh, those horrible, wretched voices. Akin to repeatedly dragging a set of fine cutlery across a dusty blackboard, each character is uniquely annoying in his or her aptitude for shrill, nasal vocals. Cosmo sounds like a whining mongrel, Vicky sounds like a stereotypical shrew, and Timmy's dad makes every line sound like a bad impersonation of a game show host (Guy Smiley from "Sesame Street" comes to mind).<br /><br />The animation is awful; even the producers of "Yu-Gi-Oh!" laugh at the overwhelmingly bad artwork on this show. Every character has buck teeth, or a square head, or a head three sizes too big for his or her body. And what's with having the characters speak every single line wide-eyed and grinning, as though posing for a photo op with the president? Then, there is the fact that every character on the show is completely moronic. Not since the subtle grace of Amelia Bedelia, Homer Simpson, and Buddy Lembeck of "Charles in Charge" fame have characters been portrayed as so unrealistically dumb. Usually "unrealistic" is synonymous with "unfunny", and that is most definitely the case here. There hasn't been this much slapstick based on cluelessness since "The Naked Gun 33 1/3"...and at least Leslie Nielson was good at it.<br /><br />Finally, the premise of the show (and it's the same every single episode, so big time spoiler alert here): Timmy wishes for something with his two "Fairly Oddparents", something goes wrong, there's always some contrived reason why he can't immediately reverse course and wish away the damage, and then everything turns out just fine in the end. Oh, and on a side note, Timmy's parents never believe him when he complains about Vicky, and they continue to employ her at every opportunity. Maybe it's just me, but it seems that a kids' show containing the subtle message that it pretty much does no good whatsoever to tell on an abusive babysitter probably isn't a great idea. <br /><br />If you're writing a paper and want to cite an example of just how far the quality of cartoons has fallen, "The Fairly Odd Parents" has to be a great place to start. A prime example of television producers throwing together a worthless product aimed at kids with little or no effort simply because they know that someone somewhere will watch it.
*Spoilers and extreme bashing lay ahead*<br /><br />When this show first started, I found it tolerable and fun. Fairly Oddparents was the kind of cartoon that kids and adults liked. It also had high ratings along with Spongebob. But it started to fall because of the following crap that Butch Hartman and his team shoved into the show.<br /><br />First off, toilet humor isn't all that funny. You can easily pull off a fast laugh from a little kiddie with a burp, but that's pretty much the only audience that would laugh at such a cliché joke. Next there are the kiddie jokes. Lol we can see people in their underwear and we can see people cross-dressing. LOLOLOL!!! I just can't stop laughing at such gay bliss! Somebody help me! But of course, this show wouldn't suck that bad if it weren't for stereotypes. Did you see how the team portrayed Australians? They saw them as nothing but kangaroo-loving, boomerang-throwing simpletons who live in a hot desert. But now... Is the coup de grace of WHY this show truly sucks the loudest of them all... OVER-USED JOKES!!! The show constantly pulls up the same jokes (the majority of them being unfunny) thinking it is like the greatest thing ever! Cosmo is mostly the one to blame. I hated how they kept on mentioning "Super Toilet" (which also has a blend of kiddish humor in it just as well) and Cosmo would freak out. And who could forget that dumb battery ram joke that every goddamn parent in Dimmsdale would use in that one e-mail episode? You know, the one in which every single parent (oblivious to other parents saying it) would utter the EXACT same sentence before breaking into their kid's room? Yes, it may be first class humor to some people, but it is pure s*** to others.<br /><br />If I'm not mistaken, I do believe Butch Hartman said something about ending the show. Thank God! Everyone around my area says it's, like, the funniest Nickelodeon show ever. I just can't agree with it… I think it's just another pile of horse dung that we get on our cartoon stations everyday, only worse.
I first started watching this show probably around the year of 2003 or 2004 with my friends. Of course, at the time I was younger and enjoyed some of the jokes on this show. I was 11 in 2003, and I am 14 now (2007). Though my age probably plays a major role in how I judge this show, after reading other's reviews, I have come to see that after the third season, this show went down the tubes. I agree. This show is obnoxious, repetitive and usually focuses on the same plot.<br /><br />The show revolves around Timmy Turner, who was granted two Fairy Godparents because basically his life was horrible - his parents were never around, and he had a nasty baby-sitter. The plot of the entire show is that this kid (Timmy) and his Godparents always wish up some destruction that cannot be prevented by making another wish, because something in "Da Rules" says they can't. The show has a lot of lines that keep being repeated, like "magic cannot break true love, super toilet" or even just some scummy jokes lines that Nickelodeon probably thought was funny and decided to put in the episode various times.<br /><br />The show is aimed at kids younger than 10, because it involves gross situations and "kid humor" that most kids of my age wouldn't care for. The character voice selection could've been better too. Timmy has an extremely loud, shrill, feminine voice as does Cosmo. Wanda sounds like an old lady. Timmy's dad sounds like some announcer or game show host, Timmy's mom's voice is too exaggerated to sound feminine. Attitudes in this show are: in some episodes, Timmy talks back and acts spoiled and snobbish. Wanda apparently is smart and wise. Cosmo is stupid, dumb and incapable of thinking as is Timmy's dad. Timmy's mom seems to end up doing whatever Timmy's dad does.<br /><br />The show is too far flung from reality to get my likings anymore. Maybe as a younger kid, I could see more of the humor in this show, but as I grow up, it really grows old. And not to sound conceded or "trashing" but the show does have that mentality that makes you want to commit homicidal activity towards the characters. A show like this just has to be your attitude, if you know what I mean. If not, it basically disgusts you.
Seriously, the fact that this show is so popular just boggles the mind. This show isn't funny, it isn't clever, it isn't original, it's just a steaming pile of bull crap. Let me start with the characters. The characters are all one-dimensional morons with loud, exaggerated voices that just sound like fingernails on a blackboard. The voice acting could've been better. Then there's the animation. MY GOD, it hurts my eyes just looking at it. Everything is too flat, too pointy, too bright, and too candy coated. Then there's the humor, or lack thereof. It's completely idiotic! They just take these B-grade jokes that aren't even that funny in the first place and then repeat them to death. They also throw in some pointless potty humor which sickens me. And finally, last and least, the music. It's just plain annoying. It sounds like it was composed on a child's computer and generates no emotion whatsoever. I wish there was a score lower than 1, I really do. This show seriously needs to be canceled. It's a show I try to avoid like the plague. Whenever I hear the theme song I immediately turn the TV off. If you've never watched this show then don't. Watch quality programming like The Simpsons or Futurama.
During the first 3 seasons Fairly Odd Parents was as tasty as hard candy, bright and sweet and addictive. Now it's as tasty as Pepto-Bismol. And unfortunately Pepto-Bismol is what you'll need after viewing the more recent episodes, where all the sweetness has been replaced by insults and violence resulting in no laughs. Cosmo, once one of the more endearing Nick characters, has devolved into an abusive unfunny cretin that the cast of Family Guy wouldn't even want to know. Timmy has become a selfish arrogant jerkwad that Bart Simpson would happily beat the snot out of (and given Timmy's snottiness, that would take a lot of beating). And poor Wanda...a real charmer who's become the victim of her husband and godchild, she's now labeled a "nag" for caring about the well-being of others. Plus Cosmo's stupidity causes pain to everyone else but he's never punished for it, nor does he learn any lessons. Which pretty much sums up Butch Hartman's attitude towards kids: they're crude, vulgar and not too bright. Thank god this crummy toon has been cancelled, along with Butch Hartman's darling, Danny Phantom. At least Butch got what he deserved - unlike Cosmo.
There are some redeeming qualities to this show. One is that the theme tune does have a decent melody. The show does have a nice premise. Also, I am probably in the minority, but I like Wanda. I like the fact she is caring, and is more a mother figure to Timmy. However, despite all this, I do not like this show, it isn't excrement but I do find it very annoying.<br /><br />I wouldn't say that it is the best animated show on Planet Earth. When I use that term for an animated TV show, I think of Peter Pan and the Pirates, I think of Darkwing Duck, I think of Scooby Doo and I think of Talespin. And I hope I am not the only one who really likes the Wild Thornberrys and resent the fact it gets poked fun at. Nor do I think Fairly Odd Parents is the worst animated show on Planet Earth. I accept it's annoying, and in some ways overrated, but it isn't the worst show on Nickolodean. That is Chalk Zone, god that show is unwatchable. But the worst animated show I've ever seen is Shaggy and Scooby Doo:Get a Clue, which is crudely animated, unfunny and frankly a disgrace.<br /><br />One thing I don't like about this show is the animation. The characters, forgive me if I offend, have very weird facial features, and a lot of the backgrounds are dull and lack the colour that make Spongebob Squarepants and Wild Thornberrys so nice to look at. The characters with the exception of Wanda I find very annoying. I can't believe such a talented voice actress like Tara Strong(aka. Charendoff) voiced Timmy. Timmy I don't find very likable as a lead character at all, he is annoying and sometimes patronising, and he is a poor decision maker as well. And his voice gets on my nerves. I actually like Strong but not in this show. Another annoying character is Cosmo, the supposedly funny character. Instead, his jokes are as unfunny as they could become. They are either a) contrived, or b) over familiar. Timmy's parents are awful characters, who don't give a toss about their son, and their personalities wear well thin.<br /><br />The story lines are very unoriginal on the most part, and I keep thinking, where have I seen this before. The episodes after the arrival of the baby I thought were unwatchable. Even worse is the scripts, very unfunny, childish, witless and suffer from a complete lack of energy.<br /><br />All in all, not the worst show ever, but pretty poor for an animation fan, and fairly uncomfortable to sit through. 3/10- there are redeeming qualities, and I completely understand if people like it. Bethany Cox
I really hate this retarded show, it SUCKS! big time, and personally I think it is insulting to fairy kind (if you believe in fairies that is); I mean the people who had come up with such crap 'ought to have their heads examine huh? and also there is a LOT of craziness (the evil school teacher, which I think is getting really old) and also stupidity (the boy's parents and fairy godfather) in this show - two of the things that I dispised and loathe in the WHOLE world (especially stupidity).<br /><br />Overall, I say that this show is so f*****' annoying and should not be seen by prying eyes at ALL (it would make'em bleed to death)!
This gets a two because I liked it as a kid, but it became so redundant that I just started to hate it... I can't give this a descriptive review because it would be restating one thing after the other, I probably wouldn't say anything that everyone else didn't say already.<br /><br />The only other thing about this show is that it's pretty nasty, with the kid with the boil to that twisted babysitter to the stupidity that runs around and about in it. I have a cousin that loves this show and he's the strangest and dumbest person I have met. This show should be pulled from the air. It's always the same thing over and over... They need to put better shows on Nick. I'm getting really really tired of stuff like this.
What a HUGE pile of dung. Shot-on-video (REALLY crappy camcorder, NOT digital) pile of garbage. It is without a doubt, the stupidest thing ever made. The fact that this crap was actually released is completely asanine. Everyone who sees it will become stupider for having watched it. Seriously. I felt like it killed several brain cells after I watched this garbage. The positive reviews of this a$$crap were obviously made by the "filmmaker" (and I use the term VERY loosely) himself and/or his family and friends because no normal person with the intelligence of a squirrel would honestly like this waste of life. Trust me, stay the hell away from this video. You'll thank me for it. Avoid it like herpes.
I've never actually seen this film but can tell you one thing about its production. While a comedy/oldies radio DJ in 1988, I got a call from the production company. They asked if I'd write and record a bit they'd drop into the soundtrack as sounds eminating from a TV (the television screen itself would never be shown). I said sure, wrote a parody of '50s sci-fi monster clichés, rounded up some sound effects and called in another DJ, Pam Landry, to play the female part. As she happened to be on the air at the time, she put on a long song, joined me at the mike in the production room and we cut the voicetrack in a single take. Giggling, she then went back to her show while I mixed in the goofy sound effects. We'd have never done it if we'd known that "Woodchipper Massacre" was going to be such a turkey -- but, then again, we never got paid for our efforts, either! -- Gary Theroux
This pile of sh!t is tied in my book as the worst thing ever made. I can't BELIEVE that someone actually relased this CRAP, let alone acually MADE it. HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE. Not even worth mentioning the damn story or any details about it. THAT's how bad it actually is. Avoid it like SARS!
This series had potential, but I suppose the budget wouldn't allow it to see that potential. An interesting setup, not dissimilar to "lost" it falls flat after the 1st episode. The whole series, 6 episodes, could have made a compelling 90 minute film, but the makers chose to drag it on and on. Many of the scenes were unbearably slow and long without moving the action forward. The music was very annoying and did not work overall. There were few characters we cared about as their characters did not grow during the time frame--- well, one grew a bit. The ending was as terrible as the rest of series. The only kudos here is to the art dept and set dressers, they created an interesting look, too bad the writer and director lacked the foresight to do something interesting with that element
No artful writeup here because it doesn't deserve one. Not an art film. Not even one of those 'hidden' gems. You know, like those movies you hear about through a friend who saw this amazing movie downtown where they show all the good independents and art films.<br /><br />Just pack it into the christmas boxes, and dispose of quickly.
Not only does this movie have a poor plot, bad direction, and terrible acting, its opens up a whole new meaning to racism.<br /><br />In this film "White" chicks are the sluts, "White" boys are the wana-be gangsters, and successful (yes again) "White" businessmen are revolting toilet shitters.<br /><br />I just wonder what would happen if I made the exact same movie with the exact same story line and script, only I made it about Caucasians. "He dude, its good to finally see your've stopped dating those black chicks".<br /><br />Nobody seems to notice it, but watch this film again and you'll vomit at how they have portrayed the new Zealand "white boys". All of a sudden its white folks who are the main cause of gang aggression, and whores out for a quick bang. Only Samoans girls have a heart, there's no such thing as a non-slutty white girl.<br /><br />It disgusts me that they couldn't make this film without giving the Caucasian community in New Zealand a repulsive profile. If you think I'm overgeneralizing, go watch this film, and see what you make of the "white boys". Just because Samoans choose to call us "white boys" in actual life, doesn't mean its funny. If I said hey black boy I'll loose my teeth.<br /><br />Don't see this movie. Don't waste your money. Don't be racist.
The clichéd Polynesian males drink, fight and make a stream of sexist, stupid and unfunny remarks. Real life Polynesians are much funnier than these stereotyped, cardboard characters. The supposedly Samoan girl didn't look or act Samoan at all, seemed more like the stock white female who has sex with anyone on a whim. With weak as water story lines you can't say anything about the acting - even the most brilliant actors could do nothing with this script. It's sad to see Polynesian actors willing to play such sad stereotypes in a film with not one good scene, and only two or three 'jokes'. What a waste of Kiwi taxpayers' money, what a lost opportunity to make a great film about a vibrant community. It's better not to make movies if they're as bad and mindless as this.
It seems to me, as a recent film school graduate, that in these times of New Zealand film reaching new heights, the general public seems to think every New Zealand film made is great. Sione's Wedding proves this is dead wrong.<br /><br />It's completely overrated and not funny, and far from the 'hilarious' film other users of IMDb have commented. The only really funny thing I found in this film was Derek the wannabe black guy, but other than that the jokes were recycled crap that we'd all heard before.<br /><br />Being of half-Samoan decent, I wanted to see how the film was going to deal with Polynesian representation. It was a complete balls-up - I know it's a supposed comedy, but I didn't feel like the characters had anything new to say about Polynesian identity, even if it was in a tongue-in-cheek manner. I was most disappointed with the ending of the film and the resolution of the character's relationships - Mikaele was the player who only messed around with white women, comes to slightly turn his ways when the 'Dusky Maiden' comes to town, has an epiphany that maybe he should start looking for a stable relationship, then at the very last minute rejects it and accepts his position as a Polynesian Playboy for palagi women. I didn't understand why they did this.<br /><br />All in all, it was very disappointing. My whole family went to see it expecting to have a good laugh, but ended up being really bitter about paying to see it at the cinema. The jokes are lame at best, the acting, particularly of Sefa's girlfriend, APPALLING, and honestly I would've been happy if I had got my hands on one of those pirated copies of the film to save myself the $15 ticket price.<br /><br />I think the only good thing to come from the movie is that it's the second step (behind No. 2, of course, a far superior film to this one) in the birth of Polynesian cinema. I hope Pacific filmmakers in the future can learn from Sione's Wedding in how to NOT reflect Polynesia and have something more meaningful and sensible to say. Even if it is done in a comedic fashion.
Probably New Zealands worst Movie ever made<br /><br />The Jokes They are not funny. Used from other movies & just plain corny The acting Is bad even though there is a great cast<br /><br />The story is Uninteresting & Boring Has more cheese then pizza huts cheese lovers pizza kind of like the acting Has been do 1,000 times before<br /><br />I watched this when it came on TV but was so boring could only stand 30 minutes of it. <br /><br />This movie sucks<br /><br />Do not watch it, <br /><br />Watch paint dry instead
Despite the rave reviews this flick has garnered in New Zealand, any hype surrounding the production is sadly undeserved. Apart from a clichés-only plot, the movie is let down by some weak acting, accents, and overall lack of tension.<br /><br />Whilst having the overall look of a big budget (for NZ), the feel is decidedly small-town Kiwi...<br /><br />Has anyone not seen The Brothers ?? ( http://imdb.com/title/tt0250274/ ) Those who have will pick the similarities straightaway....I've heard comments that scenes like the boys playing basketball etc were shot to poke fun at the clichéd "boys talking crap", but it comes across as forced...<br /><br />I believe Oscar Keightley sees himself as deeply ironic, but again his delivery always seems merely vaguely self conscious.<br /><br />Those who have any doubts left at all that Samoans-living-in-NZ culture has been deeply , hopefully not permanently ,affected by American speech , culture, and everything inbetween will certainly have their minds made up at the end of this movie.<br /><br />Robbie magasiva always looks good on screen , but is let down by the script..<br /><br />It always rubs me up the wrong way when a "comedy" has scenes that are set up in such an obvious way, you are left feeling like having a good groan at the clichéd punchline - see the wanna be white boy...<br /><br />I know someone who found this movie hilarious -however, that person has the brains of a tadpole, and would struggle to spell her name if offered a million dollars....<br /><br />That kinda sums up the mentality of this flick , OK but not great , fun but not funny.....Wake up NZ - this is NOT a 5 star movie despite all the glowing (middle class white guilt ?? :-) ) reviews....<br /><br />My advice ? if you watch it, get drunk first!!!
The most positive thing I can say for this dull witted local "comedy" production is that it's inoffensive. In fact it's so astonishingly bland that one wonders how many dozens of re-writes by committee it went through to have such a complete removal of personality. It's not witty, it's not entertaining, it's not insightful, and it's not charming. It's just a staid, laughless, progression of four losers who must change their ways - and their attitudes towards women - to be allowed to attend their best friend's wedding.<br /><br />With acting that would be sub par for the local amateur dramatics society, a plot line so tired it'd make a forty third season of 'Allo 'Allo look fresh, and jokes about as humorous as watching decaying vegetables, Sione's Wedding nonetheless scored ten (yes 10) nominations in the NZ film awards recently.<br /><br />Fortunately, somebody saw sense and it didn't win any.
I just sat in the theater bored as hell, i wanted to leave halfway through the movie. The plot is simple 4 Samoan guys wreck weddings. So They have to bring a dates in order to get into the wedding. Yawn.<br /><br />The thing that peeved me off the most was the so-called crude jokes... They were highly UNfunny, clichéd and thrown in your face, to make you get into the already dull movie. The acting was below-average and i felt this movie just went on and on about nothing but a bunch of unfunny jokes and a predictable plot.<br /><br />All in all, one of the worse movies i've seen of 2006, unfunny, bad acting, just ugly.<br /><br />Well thank god a friend shouted me. <br /><br />Avoid.
Ever wonder why Pacific Islanders seem to automatically assume the sense of humour of Black Americans? regardless of their ethnic origins? Well this film will not provide any answers to this often pondered question - but it will provide an excellent case study.<br /><br />From its onset this film acts as a sort of "Old School" for Pacific Island New Zealanders, which immediately raises the question what exactly is the point of such a task. Is it meant to perpetuate ingrained stereotypes of Pacific Island New Zealanders? or is it intended to exploit this potential market? The story is weak, jokes humorless, and the ending is expected. This film has done nothing for New Zealand cinema, as it is merely an appropriated romantic comedy that is devoid of any merit.
Avoid this crap at all costs. Bad script, bad directing, bad acting, bad editing, bad sound, and bad music. Get the idea? This movie tries to be western flavored, it's not. It tries to be hard core violent, it's not. It tries to present a fresh look at an old genre, it doesn't. The actors try there best, and my heart goes out to them. But with such inane material to work with it's hard to make something shine. To me this has all of the looks of a "fresh outta film school gonna set the world on fire" first attempt. Freshmen film makers often bite off more that they, or their budget, can chew. The best thing they can do is to take a few steps back, reassess what is possible, and work within their limited budget the next time out.
I can see where the film makers were going with this. But they never really reach their destination. It's supposed to be a homage to Spaghetti westerns albeit set in a sort of mythical modern time frame." But unfortunately it fall short in its attempt. It doesn't have that gritty realism that spaghetti westerns are known for. The characters are not vile and desperate enough like their Italian western counterparts. And, failing these two points, it lacks the humor of a successful parody. In fact it looks like they intended to make a serious film, but upon completion realized they had missed the mark so far that it couldn't possibly be taken seriously. Unfortunately, they also missed the humor mark by a mile. A whole lotta bad movie!
Sadly IMDb does not allow me to rate Judges lower than 1. What a shame. This ghastly movie is so bad that I actually turned the damned thing off well before the ending. The script had a few bright moments, but the directing, editing, acting, audio quality, and especially timing on line delivery was so abhorrent as make Judges utterly unbearable.<br /><br />Judges was advertised as being like a modern day comic book style western, but in reality was nothing of the sort. What it is most like is dog poop on the bottom of your shoe. You can try to pretend it is okay, but it just keeps on stinking.<br /><br />Why video stores think it is okay to carry this kind of crap with constant gaps in the audio and worse than high school drama class acting is beyond me. We rent movies in order to see something better that what is on television. But Judges is worse than the most pathetic SciFi Channel original. I intend to demand my money back from Hollywood Video.
The plot is rocky. The acting is somewhere south of a Jr. High School play. The cinematography is not bad but it looks like it was cut with a machete. I couldn't decide of this was an intentionally hokey flick or if the people behind it actually thought they were making a good film. Think Death Valley Days meets Mayberry RFD. People running around in a 'lawless' modern town wearing quick-draw 6 gun rigs. It has more than its fair share of 'cutsey' stuff. Picture the Good Guys pulling up to an old farm house, and parking the Ford Mustang right in front of a hitching rail. Picture the clerk in a hotel watching an obviously western (hemisphere) movie sporting a Japanese sound track but with English sub-titles. It's all really strange but might be improved if watching it while partaking in a little peyote. It's a real curiosity with modern parallels to every western movie cliché you can think of. There's even a modern version of the good hearted dance-hall girl, AND a twanging Jew's-harp in the soundtrack. Really! If someone brings this to your home for a Saturday night movie session, tell 'em your DVD player died.
It's sad when you can see what a movie was attempting to do, and it is quite obvious that it fell far far short of the mark. Film students should take this as a lesson and a warning. Would be graduate has an idea. He wants total control. So he writes, directs, produces, his cinematic masterpiece all by himself. Usually, his concept is far beyond his budget. Usually he writes an overblown script full of every tag line he can come up with. Usually, he is more interested in the grand sweep of the story rather than on the nitty gritty of working with actors on individual scenes. Usually, he ends up with a movie that is feeble in it's attempt to create miracles on a tiny budget. Usually, he ends up with a series of encounters (we cannot do justice by calling them scenes) that feel like they were written by a 12 year old. And usually he ends up with badly acted scenes that fail to grab the viewer. When you look at Judges from this perspective you can immediately tell it's just the usual fare.
I had high hopes for this movie. The theater monologue is great and Nic Balthazar is a very interesting man, with a lot of experience and knowledge when it comes to movies. <br /><br />I am a fan of a lot of Belgian movies, but this movie is bad. It's completely unbelievable that actors who are 34 are suddenly playing the roles of teenagers. The "linguistic games" were hideous and over the top. Nothing about the film seemed real to me. The ending was way too deus ex machina for me.<br /><br />I am very disappointed and think I wasted an hour and a half of my life.
Oh my goodness. This was a real big mess that just couldn't help itself. Jeffrey (Jon Heder) is a 29 year old man still living with his mum (Diane Keaton) and not planning on going anywhere. Until his mother meets a rich businessman named Mert (Jeff Daniels) who she may be getting married to.<br /><br />It would have been an OK movie if Heder didn't play his Jeffrey so annoying, from the very start there is no chance of liking him and it only gets worse and worse. In the end, we are supposed to like him, but there was no reason to as he hadn't changed from the selfish brute that he was at the beginning of the movie.<br /><br />Keaton doesn't look to even be trying and is in horrible form after 2007's Because I Said So. Not to mention the shocking chemistry between Heder and Keaton, and where supposed to believe that their mother and son? The only saving grace is Jeff Daniels and Anna Faris although they don't look very interested either. Apart from a few little smiles, this film really doesn't deserve to be called a comedy simply because there is barely anything to laugh at! If your in the mood for a recent Diane Keaton flick watch Mad Money or Smother which are a lot better than this abysmal effort.
Starts really well, nice intro and build up for the main characters but after about 5 minutes, the charm is lost.<br /><br />The character is in the same mould as the main protagonist from American Pie and Loser without the supporting cast or innovative storyline that made the Pie movies more of a commercial success.<br /><br />Let's be honest - Heder's acting was pretty poor. Keaton, Daniels and Faris did their best but had no substantial plot or script to get their teeth into The movie just plods on without any pace or clear logical storyline justifying its length.<br /><br />The ending is about as predictable as they come - so predictable I've ticked the spoilers box for this one line.<br /><br />My advice: avoid at all costs unless you really really have nothing else to do/listen to or watch and even then you'll feel the producers just cheated you out of an hour and a half of your life.
...except for Jon Heder. This guy tanked the entire movie.<br /><br />The plot sounded entertaining. A 29 year old slacker son(Heder)still lives with widowed mom (Keaton)who happens to meet a new love (Daniels). Slacker son is jealous and anxious to lose his comfortable life and tries to sabotage the relationship. He also meets a girl(Faris).<br /><br />I really liked the performance of Daniels and especially Faris but whoever casted Hader would be better of selling hot dogs at the beach. Heders performance is annoying, which would be a good thing since he plays an annoying guy, problem is he is to bad an actor to loose this act making this guy likable in the finale. At the end you still wish you can personally punch the guy in the face and you're upset about the end. In the future every movie with this guy will be a no go for me!
The wife and I saw a preview of this movie while watching another DVD and thought "Jon Heder, Diane Keaton, Jeff Daniels and Eli Wallach, it's gotta be better than summer reruns, so I ordered it from local library. Well, any episode of "Lawrence Welk" would bring more laughs than "Mama's Boy". I actually felt sorry for the actors for having to read the script in the privacy of their own homes and I couldn't imagine what it must have been like for them to have to actually say their lines in front of a camera. Perhaps, at least, maybe next time they're offered a movie of this sort, they'll "Just Say No!' A one anna two....
This movie is poorly conceived, poorly acted, and poorly written.<br /><br />Jon Heder is terribly annoying, and cannot escape the same Napolean Dynamite routine. Self-obsessed and ignorant.<br /><br />Furthermore, Diane Keaton plays the same manish, overly obsessed mother, who cares too much and yet not nearly enough about the lives of her children (see Because I Said So). <br /><br />Anna Faris, though i generally like her, plays a vapid idiot in this film as well.<br /><br />Jeff Daniels is passable but nothing special. <br /><br />Please, skip this film if you want to keep your soul.
Yet another "son who won't grow up" flick, and just the other recent like entries. Heder in another bad wig, channeling Napoleon for, what, the third time? Anna Faris is forgettable, as always; Jeff Daniels phoned this one in from another state, at least; and Diane Keaton...how does one become typecast this late in a career? Do not bother. Nothing is said here that hasn't been covered many times over. I will say this; it's about a hundred times better than "Failure To Launch". There are very few amusing bits in the movie, unless you think Eli Wallach cursing is funny. Ha, Ha! He's old and he dropped the f-bomb! Tee, hee, hee. Pitiful!
John Heder was absolutely horrendous in this movie. I felt like I was watching a bad college kid act for the first time in a student film. Anna Farris was par for the course, not good, but not horrible (plus she's cute). Dianne Keaton should have known better. Jeff Daniels was the only saving grace in this movie (even though it was poor judgement on his part as well). <br /><br />All in all, I would avoid this at all costs. I'm just glad I didn't pay to see it! <br /><br />John Heder will forever be stuck in the typecast role of' the dorky kid,' unless he does some SERIOUS work on his acting chops.
...in an otherwise ghastly, misbegotten, would-be Oedipal comedy.<br /><br />I was the lone victim at a 7:20 screening tonight (3 days after the movie opened) , so there is some satisfaction in knowing that moviegoers heeded warnings.<br /><br />The bloom is off Jon Heder's rose. The emerging double chin isn't his fault; but rehashing his geeky kid shtick in another bad wig simply isn't working. It would be another crime if this were to be Eli Wallach's last screen appearance. Diane Keaton will probably survive having taken this paycheck - basically because so few will have seen her in this, the very worst vehicle she's chosen in the last few weeks.<br /><br />Sitting alone in the theater tonight I came alive (laughed, even) whenever Daniels was given the latitude in which to deliver the film's sole three dimensional character. He really is among our very best actors.<br /><br />In summary, even Jeff Daniels's work can't redeem this picture.
You have to respect this movie. It may be "just a dumb kid's movie" but it's the #1 most frequently requested film title in online movie forums, requested by people who remember the story but can't remember the title. Therefore what follows is a much-needed, detailed plot description, since I haven't been able to find such a description anywhere else on the Internet.<br /><br />A typical 2-story house is shown in suburbia. 7-year-old Bridget narrates about suspecting something is going on since she and her 11-year-old brother Andrew are getting presents from their parents for no apparent reason. Bridget's present is a stuffed penguin that she immediately names Sweet William. Bridget describes her relatives: Aunt Ruth, a bossy nurse taking care of grandmother, Grams the hugging grandmother who makes dolls out of socks, and her brother Andrew, who's into electronics and is grumpy. Grams accidentally hangs up on the lieutenant-governor, which indicates she's getting in the way while living with the family. The two children eat breakfast while the adults discuss moving Grams to a retirement home. Bridget makes an awful-looking pancake sandwich containing cereal, eggs, bacon, strawberries, and syrup, as Andrew looks on incredulously. The two kids then discuss Grams, and Andrew says bluntly that Grams is being "put out to pasture." Bridget talks with Grams in the attic, has a play tea party with Sweet William in her bedroom, then a living doll unexpectedly pops out of her bedroom closet mirror.<br /><br />Bridget and the living doll become acquainted. The curly-haired living female doll is named Huggins and lives in Huggaland. Bridget gives Huggins a baseball cap from Andrew's room. Huggins hides under some laundry when Bridget's mother comes by, then the mother throws the laundry into the washing machine with Huggins in it. Bridget rescues Huggins and dries her off with a hair drier. They discuss the problem with Grams getting old and having to move away, Huggins says Bridget could talk to the bookworm in Huggaland about it, since he knows everything. They step through the mirror to visit Huggaland, but one of Bridget's tennis shoes becomes lodged in the mirror.<br /><br />Rather than walk around with one shoe, Bridget goes without shoes in Huggaland. They immediately meet Hugsy, a curly-haired living boy doll in Huggaland. Huggins gives Hugsy the baseball cap. They also meet Tickles, Bubbles, Impkins, and Tweaker, and all the dolls sing a song while sitting on a bridge. Hugsy takes Bridget and Huggins in his hugwagon to see the bookworm, who lives atop a stack of giant books. The bookworm consults "the old encyclopedia" and finds that old age can be cured by eating the fruit of the "youngberry tree." However, only one such tree exists, and it's in the country of Shrugs, ruled by the mad queen of quartz. The only way to travel to Shrugs is to jump down a deep hole that is located inside a nearby giant book.<br /><br />Bridget and the two dolls gulp three times, jump down the hole, and tumble out. Soon they walk down a sideways sidewalk, hear the sea of glass breaking, and fall off the sidewalk when the sideways gravity ends. They encounter "the hairy behemoth," which looks like a mastodon, has four tusks, and breathes fire out its trunk. But Hugsy boldly goes over and hugs the behemoth, who thereby turns into a baby elephant whose name is Hodgepodge. Hodgepodge had been under a spell by the queen, and owes Hugsy a favor, so they all ride on Hodgepodge's back to the castle. They enter the castle, are surrounded by troll-like beings, the queen (Queen Admira) comes, and Bridget asks for a few youngberries. The queen refuses, then eats one for herself, and brags about her own youthful good looks while looking in a hand mirror. Hodgepodge faints when the queen says he should be "digested." The queen is upset when Bridget mentions that wicked witches should have warts, so the queen freezes Bridget and orders the three others to be taken to the dungeon. But the queen carelessly leaves the key to the youngberry tree's dome by the lock to the dome-lifting apparatus.<br /><br />Hodgepodge wakes up in the dungeon and uses his "noodle" (trunk) to pull the jail's door down, thereby freeing himself and the two dolls with him. They find Bridget standing petrified, the dolls hug her, which causes Bridget to be revived. Before they flee, Bridget finds the left-behind key to the youngberry tree dome, lifts the dome off, and they pick some glowing youngberries and put them in a jar. The queen catches them, but the queen's arm is trapped under the descending dome while reaching for the key that Bridget left on the ground. The queen suddenly turns very old since she is deprived of the youth-giving berries, and appears to die. Soon Bridget steps back through the mirror into her bedroom but trips on the bottom of the mirror, spilling the berries onto her floor, and the berries quickly vanish into smoke, one by one. Her mother calls for her and Andrew to say goodbye to Grams, who is leaving for a retirement home. Andrew drops his usual grumpy, standoffish facade and hugs Grams, telling her he loves her and that he doesn't want her to go away. Their father is moved, and decides to keep Grams there after all, and everybody hugs and cries, including Aunt Ruthie, who had been the main person pressuring Grams to move out.<br /><br />Andrew asks Bridget for his St. Louis Cardinals cap, Bridget starts to explain how she gave it to Huggins of Huggaland, but Andrew doesn't want to listen to what he believes are her fantasy stories, so he turns around to look for it in her bedroom. One of the dolls secretly hands the cap back through the mirror to Bridget, Bridget puts the cap on Andrew's head, Andrew is mystified, and leaves her bedroom without saying anything. Bridget cheerfully waves at the mirror.
I being of Puertorican descent, had mixed fillings about this "documentary". First I was offended that Ms. Perez compared Senor Campos to Che Guevarra. Also just a point of fact,Mr. John Leguzaimo is not of Puertorican descent.His parents came from Columbia. Whomever did research on this was not very accurate. I feel that the future of our race rests on education. This message should have been resounding throughout this film, Education is our road to freedom and power I think any future endeavors of this production team should make this their focus.In my opinion,this film swayed toward an anti-American sentiment.
I hated the way Ms. Perez portrayed Puerto Ricans! We are not all ghetto - and we do speak Spanish- not Puerto Rican! I can not speak for the uneducated persons you have run into. But our language is intact, our island is our pride. Puerto Rico is better off economically than any other Caribbean island! I'm glad we are not like Cuba, Dominican Republic or Haiti, free from American influence? Free in true poverty, not the U.S. standard of poverty. We are not victims we are resilient, humble,honest and intelligent people. Our ancestry does include strong African roots, but not "black" roots- I have nothing in common with Black Americans 9do the research).<br /><br />The analogy between Pedro Albizu, Che Guevarra and Martin L. King could not be more off the mark.<br /><br />MLK was a great hero a true revolutionary- an honest man who saw a day when we would all be free.<br /><br />Che Guevarra helped Castro create the Cuba that is today, is that why boat fulls of Cubans risk their lives to come to America- because Che made such a better place for them? You had a great, awesome, bright idea but you politicized it too much. We have so many things to be proud of as a people - don't bring shame to our people by victimizing us. I am not a Nuyorican and perhaps that is why I can't share your views. I am Puerto Rican, I speak Spanish, I am not a victim and I have been able to accomplish many of my goals in America. If there is a part 2 in the future - less politics more history more stories of triumph- there are many.<br /><br />Damaris Maldonado
I am so appalled by this documentary. I am deeply embarrassed and ashamed by the way Puertoricans were portrayed. This documentary was not about the culture of Puertoricans. It was about the culture of Nuyoricans. Puertoricans and Nuyoricans are two different cultures. Very different cultures and should not be generalized to the Puerto Rican population. Rosie, before you make a documentary, you need to do the research. You also need to check and make sure your sources are credible. Puerto Ricans are not all loud and they do have class, which is one thing the documentary lacked to show. When I saw Rosie and Jimmie on the View and Rosie on Martha Stewart I was very excited about watching. I even made sure to let my parents know since they love Puerto Rico so much. After the first five minutes I could not believe how the documentary bashed the US and made Puerto Ricans look like a bunch of guinea pigs. You need to go and visit Puerto Rico and you will see that Puerto Rico is not a 3rd world country where more than 50% of the population is in poverty. Puerto Rico has colleges and well known Universities, roads, cars, shopping centers, malls (The largest Kmart and JCPenney's I've ever seen), restaurants, theaters, beaches, hotels(Ritz, Hilton,etc.), casinos, churches, agriculture, Auto Expresso, and restaurants just to name a few. Poverty? NOT 50% of the population is. Puerto Rican culture is about family, music, food, celebrating, and trying to move forward not backward. Oh, and new cousins don't just pop up out of no where. No that is not a Puerto Rican thing, that is a ghetto thing. We are not bastards. Parents of Puertorican descent who would like to teach their children about Puerto Rico should invest in a trip with the family so they can see first hand what Puerto Rico is all about. They will see its beauty, people and culture. Please don't show them this documentary because it will only cloud their minds with negativity. Oh, and please don't tell your American friends to watch this documentary because it will only make the Puertorican people look ignorant.<br /><br />Yes, I am born and raised PUERTO RICAN from the island. Just so you know!
I was excited to hear that someone had made a documentary on what it was like to be Puerto Rican. When I heard it was Rosie Perez, I wondered..could she possibly know what it is really like to be Puerto Rican. As far as I knew....she was a Nuyorican. Well anyway, I anxiously sat with my popcorn to watch. I realized 10 min into it that my initial apprehension was right. Rosie Perez has little knowledge about what it is like to be Puerto Rican. This "documentary" is more a 1st hand, very very personal account on what it is like to be a Nuyorican..and all of what that entails. She (like most of the Nuyoricans I know) have a watered down, partial and sometimes twisted sense of history. (How could they not..they live here.) Yes, all of them are proud. As they should be! But a lot don't know the ins and outs of the REAL culture, history and political background or language for the most part. It all became very very apparent with her participation in the Vieques issue. Regardless of my personal take is on this issue..at least I know what the hell the fight is for. There is she is getting arrested for something she knew little about.. and only participated in because it was a "Puerto Rican Cause" I really don't understand how she is not embarrassed to admit to it. For those of you that are not Puerto Rican, please view this as a partial account of a woman's journey of self discovery and acceptance. Do not take this as gospel...a lot of it isn't even true. Please consider the source. Rosie is an actress; not a historian. This movie is not and should never be, for other Nuyoricans, the base for their information. Instead, just a step towards finding more info, learning and debating what the reality is. Not just the one coming from this woman's eyes.
Rosie wasted a lot of TV time talking about the Tainos as if they were super influential in the dynamics of the modern day Puerto Rican. They were not. The truth is that the Africans and the Spanish were and she knows it. What kills me is that she is standing on the screen looking like some average light skin black chick ( with an obvious black daddy, cousins and auntie)pretending to truly acknowledge the real essence of what makes them the modern day Puerto Ricans,but barely mentioned how Africans influenced the way their Spanish is spoken, the food and music. She is so typical and I lost a lot of respect for her and will not support anything else she does. Also, since she wants to dance around her African-ness then she need not take more roles associated with blackness (i.e. Lackawanna Blues). We can find a prideful Black Latina next time (thank you Zoe Saldana,Gina Torres, Gina Ravera and Melissa DeSousa).<br /><br />To the Puerto Rican on here that said they are African and not "black"....thank you. We "blacks" certainly do not have anything in common with "you" so there is no love lost. But, since you are probably in the States and have benefited from the Civil Rights movement we would like for you refuse any decent human treatment you received courtesy of the blood ,sweat and tears from the backs of the "blacks" you share nothing with.<br /><br />If I am correct Puerto Ricans have a terrible image in the media, but we blacks do not spend our time trying to disrespect you because we know that the media loves to exploits the low points and behaviors of all minorities to maintain mindless generalizations. However, you evidently have fed into the hype that one you are somehow white or superior...you are not. Also, you somehow feel compelled to believe that black culture is BET...again you are incorrect and need to take a vacation out of the hood. Try visiting Atlanta, Ga., Houston, Texas, Charlotte, N.C. Trust me none of those blacks want to claim your "culture" either.
I am Puerto Rican and this is one of the worst documentary of I've ever seen of any type. You can see that the people on it are clueless. They don't know much about Puerto Rico and its culture. They claim to be Puerto Rican because they are from Puerto Rican descendants, but they probably know less than others who are not from there. You can see while they are talking that they are contradicting themselves. If you would like to see a real, and I mean a real, genuine documentary from Puerto Rico, then you must see "Mi Puerto Rico". That's a serious, real documentary. Not like this piece of junk. Rosie Perez based this documentary on herself. I thought it was suppose to be about Puerto Ricans. They keep repeating I didn't know. Well, that's about the only thing they got right on this so called documentary. I hate to see such a piece of garbage being done using the name of the Island. It brings down the standards.
I sat down to watch a documentary about Puerto Rico, and I ended up watching one about Nuyoricans. When I go to Puerto Rico, I fail to see the 50% that live in poverty. When I do see struggling people, they are usually Haitians, Dominicans, or Cubans that have recently arrived to the island. There is no such thing as spanglish... either you speak Spanish, or you don't.... and from what I heard... you don't. Pedro Albizo Campos IS NOT MLK to me. MLK was a great man. Campos is a great man to those that want independence which is 1%. To the rest he as loco as Osama Bin Laden. Puertoricans that want independence are a bunch of fools. If you want any proof to all of you dreamers of an independent Puerto Rico see Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Bahamas, all of South and Central America, and Mexico. Its worked wonders for them. This documentary is not about Puerto Rico, this documentary was about the Nuyoricans and their struggles.<br /><br />To the person that complaint that not enough of Africa was on the show... it was suppose to be about Puerto Rico... not Africa. Denzel will make one shortly just for you.<br /><br />In conclusion... to all those ignorant white people that think we need green cards to come to the US, and want to learn how the prime minister runs things, this is not a good documentary about Puertorican culture. Tell your kids to pay attention in Geography, and History class.<br /><br />***Update***<br /><br />Bocabonita... "doc." was about Nuyoricans. She promoted it as if its how we all feel. Should have been titled... "yo soy nuyorican... lunche...can't speak Spanish." PLEASE STOP USING PUERTO RICO, RICAN, BORICUA, OR ANYTHING ELSE ASSOCIATED WITH PR WITH THIS NUYORICAN HISTORICAL LESSON. God forbid they play this on the island.
Yes, this was pure unbelievable condescending babble. We know that the French often have a skewed idea of the USA, it's puritanism and views towards sex. As an American (Hoosier) who lives in France, I have ample opportunity to observe these attitudes. And while some of these preconceived notions may be true, NOT ONE ELEMENT of the midwestern town portrayed in this film rang real. A man who has never had sex because he was told in high school 20 years prior that his penis is too big? Where in the world would you find that? A juke box in a bar that plays only vintage bluegrass? A town with maybe 16 people less than two hours away from Chicago, but with no major gas station, no Tvs in the home, no McDonalds, no kids... A population that knows each other's intimate details yet relentlessly gets together like one big family that hates each other. The adult males plant whoopee cushions at the local cafe, have farms but don't harvest, kill the guy they don't like in front of everyone and seem to get away with it, and all with equal emotion? The liberated French girl who will screw the 17 year old virgin boy because of her sexual generosity, the too much flesh guy who goes from getting off in cornfields by the mere breath of an Illinois breeze to helping deflower this same 17 year old farm boy? HELP! I am so baffled and astounded by the absurdity of this film that I am not expressing clearly how ridiculous it is. Go see it for the A-to-Z primer on what to avoid. Gosh, I hope I didn't ruin it for you!
Kind of drawn in by the erotic scenes, only to realize this was one of the most amateurish and unbelievable bits of film I've ever seen. Sort of like a high school film project. What was Rosanna Arquette thinking?? And what was with all those stock characters in that bizarre supposed Midwest town? Pretty hard to get involved with this one. No lessons to be learned from it, no brilliant insights, just stilted and quite ridiculous (but lots of skin, if that intrigues you) videotaped nonsense....What was with the bisexual relationship, out of nowhere, after all the heterosexual encounters. And what was with that absurd dance, with everybody playing their stereotyped roles? Give this one a pass, it's like a million other miles of bad, wasted film, money that could have been spent on starving children or Aids in Africa.....
Jean-Marc Barr (Being Light, The big blue, Dogville) has directed and interpreted this strange movie which is the second installment of some kind of trilogy. I might be wrong but I don't think this movie's part of the Dogma '95 manifesto, though it really looks like it. I'm not really sure of what I think about this film. All actors are good. They deliver pretty good performances, especially Rosanna Arquette and Jean-Marc Barr. The story is somehow interesting. But I don't know, there's something about the movie that I don't like. The sex scenes are way too long. It goes from an interesting work of art to an erotic piece of crap I don't know exactly where it stands. Sure it's not a bad movie, but I won't suggest people to see it neither I'll tell them not to watch. Just do as you want. If you feel curious and you're open-minded, give it a try, you might like it.
The TV productions at the 2000's start were between weak and bad. Before marks like (Alias, Lost, Prison Break, Desperate Housewives, or Monk) the TV didn't have the right hit yet, which could capture the attention and the interests of the 2000s' viewer. Titles like (Relic Hunter), (Mutant X), (The Lost World), (Sheena), or even (Baywatch Hawaii) weren't encouraging for you to watch and follow, or at least weren't that captivating and interesting all the time as what preceded them. (Special Unit 2) was no exception. In fact it's Men in Black meets The X Files' spoof ! (As if these were the special unit 1). But even according to this brilliant formula; it didn't work well. It was promising; at the time there was some saturation out of the "supernatural" cases after a decade of many X files already, so the natural spirit to lampoon it naughtily too (imagine Mulder as womanizer !). However (Special Unit 2) wasn't the strongest in this, or a strong when it comes to make a comic Sci-Fi show. It was highly ridiculous, where for instance every sexy situation must turn into ugly disgusting one. It enjoyed that bad taste sickeningly. (Michael Landes) was non-charismatic and mostly unbearable as a comedian. His chemistry with (Alexondra Lee), as well as any supposed sexual attention, was all languid. Sure the show got a funny look but overall it was unfunny work. It's clear that there was nothing more interesting than its main idea. Among (Evan Katz)'s other works as a co-writer and a co-producer like (Seven Days) before or (24) later this must be a low point !. Despite the distinctive personality, it managed to be a silly jest for most of the time. Therefore if that was there goal, so they made one of the silliest indeed ! And truly, it would be one of the rarest times to be thankful for the cancellation of a show after 19 episodes of it only !
This show had pretty good stories, but bad dialog. The main character was especially annoying. It's quite obvious why this show was canceled, although, like most UPN shows, I never knew it even existed until it was in syndicated re-runs.<br /><br />Most of it's plots seemed to be copied from other shows and movies, leading me to think the producers didn't have an original idea in their heads. <br /><br />I haven't commented enough. You've got to have at least ten lines of text. The special effect were not bad for a 2001 show.<br /><br />The gnome was a nice character.
A great concept gone wrong. Poor acting, even worse writing....After watching the first two episodes I was wondering why it ever made it to season two. The characters are forgettable, the writing is poor, the sets are just OK. The special effects are simply sad - so much better has been made in the same time-frame - where is the money going on this one? The first episode starts out interesting then goes downhill fast - the precept of the whole show is just silly. Now don't get me wrong, I am a huge Sci-Fi fan and 'geek' - but this show simply doesn't cut it. As I said in the beginning, I am truly surprised it made it to season two - so much better has been canceled after only one season (Jake 2.0 for example). This show was just bad.
A well-intentioned movie about Sonja Horowitz (Renée Zellweger), the wife of devout Talmudic scholar Mendel (Glenn Fitzgerald). who is deeply unhappy. Mendel's brother Sender (Christopher Eccleston) sees this and hires her to work in the field in which she's already an expert—jewelry. He also starts an affair with her, and then when she spends time with a Puerto Rican artist, he dumps her and betrays her to the family, which shuts her out. There's a subplot in which Sonja's dead brother talks to her, and apparently takes the form of a magical beggar woman, but why is not clear. Much is not clear, unfortunately, including what is going on with Sonja, why she tells the Rebbe there's a fire inside her and maybe it's not from god, and what this means, and what the magical beggar woman tells her means. To an extent the story touches on the plight of women in the ultra-orthodox community, and yet Sonja is not exactly liberated. Nor is the notion of being redeemed by the love of a man of another race very well-thought-out. The title comes from the biblical definition of the worth of a good woman—and yet it's the bastard Sender who quotes it to Sonja. Zellweger struggles with the part; she's supposed to be a Jew from the mid-west and sometimes her accent is flat, and at other times it's taken on the characteristic sounds of Brooklyn. She's at her best when she's being tough and taking charge, but ultimately the movie's a mess.
The movie is steeped in religion, so it is impossible to separate it from religion in commenting upon it. In my opinion, this movie pretends to explore deep issues, but thrives on stereotypes and prejudices; with little true insight. What the people in the movie (and therefore, the writer) failed to see was grace. They failed to understand that God is the author of beauty and He is the Creator of passion and sexual gratification in the proper context of marriage bonds. To imply that the people of the society in which the story is based believe that nudity is sinful, and both the man & the woman enjoying the act of marriage is dirty, is just an oversimplification. Such stereotypes really don't exist, for even Jewish holy writings speak clearly of the caring husband who will seek his wife's pleasure before his own. Scripture says that a man ought to love his wife as his own flesh, and that no man ever hated his own flesh, but he nourishes and cherishes it. Even if you want to ignore the New Testament, the writers & characters completely ignore that there are passages such as the Song of Solomon in the Old Testament, and the even the book of Proverbs which says, "Rejoice in the wife of thy youth, let her breasts satisfy you always"! How can that be read in any way other way than that God knows, and approves of, and smiles on, the marital union and the enjoyment thereof? Real men don't ignore the value and needs of their wives. Those that do deny a very basic teaching of the Judeo/Christian religion. God NEVER said those things. It's absurd. Sonia rebelled because of the misapplication of the teachings of the true God of Abraham. It didn't need to be so. How sad. What Sonia desperately needed was TRUTH, not tradition. In knowing, loving and obeying God, we love others more; before ourselves. That is the faith of the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob & Joseph; once for all delivered to the Saints; bought & paid for by Jesus Christ, the Righteous. But alright, ignore all this and abandon ancient, holy Scripture and turn to the wisdom of homeless people & ghosts. That's a good plan. I would never recommend this movie; partly because the sexual content is unnecessarily graphic, but also because it really doesn't offer any valuable insight. Check out "Yentl" if you want to see a much more useful treatment of Jewish tradition at odds with society.
OK, admittedly as an Orthodox woman who LIVES in Boro Park, I'm going to be a little biased against this film. However, it seemed that Boaz Yakin's sole purpose in making this film was Orthodox-bashing. With our wigs, modest attire, and separate seating, we're a pretty easy target already. Yakin never made it past the surface. The result is a film with more holes than Swiss cheese: 1. Yosi tells Sonia off for loving him more than G-d or their parents. Then he deliberately defies his father's order that he not go swimming because of his poor health. 2. Sonia flips out at her son's bris. Why would a Hasidic woman from Monsey have such a strong reaction? It's hard to believe that she never attended one before. Let's face it, even Reform Jews hold bris milah ceremonies nowadays. 3. Was Mendel sleeping during his chosson classes? He's supposed to satisfy his wife's passions in bed and refrain from kissing her in the street. Especially in the middle of the busiest street in Boro Park! 4. Sonia and Mendel had to have been married for over a year, and he just now noticed that they were not meant for each other? A little clue--arranged marriage does not mean that the girl has to take the first guy her parents set her up with. Nor will she be shunned by the community if the marriage doesn't work out. 5. If Sonia really wanted to get into the jewelry business that badly, she did not have to go through her lecherous brother-in-law. There are Orthodox female doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc. Sonia came off as more whiny than sympathetic. Instead of taking control of her life, she sat back and waited for things to happen, and then complained that she didn't like the outcome. That's not standing up to one's environment; that's pandering to stereotype. Frankly, I think she got what she deserved.
We can start with the wooden acting but this film is a disaster. Having grown up in NY I can tell you that this film is an insult to anyone who is familiar with the community or the people. I'm not even a defender of the culture in any way and found this to be a Hollywoodized piece of trash to fit its own fictional, ridiculous culture presentation and language that anyone who watches Seinfeld knows is inaccurate. This is a colossal waste of time and, even worse, is not exactly interesting since the outcome is obvious and the scenes of confrontation are laughably bad. Who acts this way? Nobody.<br /><br />The writer's name sounds Israeli or something of that nature but it is clear he doesn't have a clue about the subject he is writing about. Looking at his bio, it is shocking he lived in New York and wonder how much real connection he had with the community. Even mediocre films like "A Stranger Among Us" are better and more closer to the truth than this dreck. Reading this guy's credits it's no wonder he has written scripts on all C grade films that somehow feature stars. shocking. Perhaps he knows someone because this script is even below par for a bad Dolph Lundgren film.
This film has so little class in comparison to Strangers on a Train or even, Accidental Meeting for that matter, that despite plot similarities I wouldn't feel right in actually comparing this to either of them. The Yancy Butler character came across as such a dopey dimwit I was too embarrassed for the writer and director to continue watching.<br /><br />I don't enjoy many Lifetime movies but feel compelled to watch one every now and then in the interest of promoting harmony at home. I often groan silently but this film caused me to protest out loud, stand up leave the room and walk around the house mumbling to myself, before I returned to my normally favorite chair to subject myself to more torture.<br /><br />Dean Morgan, Rochester, NY
This movie was so bad it was laughable. I couldn't resist watching it though. The plot is standard, the acting quite horrible (supporting cast such as the nutty neighbor and the lawyer friend were better actors). Kind of amusing if you have some time to waste and like seeing the conclusion to a dramatic plot.<br /><br />The headliner who plays "Kathy" was just fascinating because I couldn't decide if her deadpan, flat affect was the result of bad surgery or simply bad acting (I decided it was both). This leaves the script to comment on, which was pretty awful. Pat remarks, idiotic decisions, and reckless stupidity on the part of every character in the movie. Maybe this is what was so riveting; I don't know. I just watched it to see how bad it could be. (Actually the dialog doesn't even qualify to be called "cliche'" - but it's almost completely inane.)<br /><br />All in all, very bad, cheaply made movie. The sets, the same scenes (a house, a building) were shown over and over with no artistry or actual tie-in to the action; more like props that were randomly dropped into the action in a bad play. A chase scene could have been shot by any juvenile in a warehouse or an old school: poorly shot, cheap props, minimal action.... and I still wanted to see the ending. Go figure.
There is a bit of a spoiler below, which could ruin the surprise of the ONE unexpected and truly funny scene in this film. There is also information about the first film in this series.<br /><br />I caught this film on DVD, which someone gave as a gift to my roommate. It came as a set together with the first film in the "Blind Dead" series.<br /><br />This movie was certainly much worse than the first, "La Noche del Terror Ciego". In addition, many of the features of the first movie were changed significantly. To boot, the movie was dubbed in English (the first was subtitled), which I tend to find distracting.<br /><br />The concept behind the series is that in the distant past a local branch of the Knights Templar was involved in heinous and secret rituals. Upon discovery of these crimes, the local peasantry put the Templars to death in such a manner that their eyes can no longer be used, thus preventing them from returning from Hell to exact their revenge. We then jump to modern times where because of some event, the Templars arise from the dead to exact their revenge upon the villagers whose ancestors messed them up in the first place. Of course, since the undead knights have no eyes, they can only find their victims when they make some sort of noise.<br /><br />The Templars were a secretive order, from about the 12th century, coming out of the Crusades. They were only around for about 150 years, before they were suppressed in the early 1300s by the Pope and others. Because they were secretive, there were always rumors about their ceremonies, particularly for initiation. Also, because of the way the society was organized, you didn't necessarily have church officials overseeing things, which meant they didn't have an inside man when things heated up. And, because of the nature of their trials, they were tortured into confessions. The order was strongest in France, but did exist in Portugal and Spain, where the movies take place.<br /><br />Where the first movie had a virgin sacrifice and knights drinking the blood directly from the body of the virgin (breast shots here, of course, this is a horror film after all), and then, once the knights come back to life, they attack their victims by eating them alive and sucking their blood; in this sequel, this all disappears. You still have the same scene (redone, not the same footage) of them sacrificing the virgin, but they drain the blood into a bowl and drink it from that. Thus, when they come back, they just hack people up with their swords or claw people to death, which I have to say is a much less effective means of disturbing your audience. There's also a time problem: in the first film the dating is much closer to the Templars, where here they are now saying it is the 500 anniversary of the peasants burning these guys at the stake, which would date it around 1473. And the way that the Templars lose their eyes is much less interesting as well. In the first, they have them pecked out by crows. Now they are simply burned out, and in quite a ridiculous manner.<br /><br />Oh yeah, and maybe it was just me, but there seemed to be a lot of people from the first movie reappearing in this film (despite having died). Not really a problem, since the movie is completely different and not a sequel in the sense of a continuation, but odd none-the-less.<br /><br />The highlight of this movie is the rich fellow who uses a child to distract the undead while he makes a break for the jeep. The child's father had already been suckered by this rich man into making an attempt to get the jeep, so he walks out and tells her to find her father. It comes somewhat out of the blue, and is easily the funniest scene in the film. Of course, why the child doesn't die at this point is beyond me, and disappointed for horror fans.<br /><br />I couldn't possibly recommend this film to anyone. It isn't so bad that it becomes funny, so it just ends up being a mediocre horror film. The bulk of the film has several people holed up in a church, each making various attempts to go it alone in order to escape the blind dead who have them surrounded. When the film ends, you are not surprised at the outcome at all; in fact, quite disappointed. If you are into the novelty of seeing a Spanish horror film, see the first movie, which at least has some innovative ideas and not so expected outcomes.
oh my god, i give this film three stars out of ten for the following reasons. the final sequence is once again quite effectively handled and it was absolutely hilarious. that is what it gets those three points for. other than that, it was atrocious. it wasnt meant to be this funny, that much is obvious, but the dubbing, the acting of the dubbed voices, the dialogue they said, where often hilarious. the actions performed, and/or not performed also lead to much hilarity and/or throwing things at the screen. such as when the whole town is being slaughtered and one small group of people stand on a balcony looking on as if they were watching a cooking glass, or the "attempted" escapes from the church in which they hole up.<br /><br />evil mayor: i think something is going on outside so you should go upstairs and look out the window.<br /><br />hero: ok.<br /><br />evil mayor: now is my chance to make some idiot go outside and flail around with fire being totally ineffective and getting hacked up.<br /><br />insert sequence in which this occurs.<br /><br />evil mayor: damn, wait, i will get this small child and she will walk outside and cry pappa seemingly obvlious to the fact that those rotten corpses are not just spooky strangers but are actually zombies with no flesh or skin or anything and she will lead them away and i will flee! insert sequence in which this occurs.<br /><br />hero (upstairs): he is trying to escape again, fool, and he has left the door open, he is silly, this is a nice view.<br /><br />woman: where is my daughter?<br /><br />hero (downstairs now): i dont know, i cannot see her anyway and she was not outside because i could not see her despite her being out there and me having a view of the entire neighbourhood and she is standing right outside, where on earth could she be?<br /><br />needless to say, anybody would be throwing things at the screen after 10 minutes of this. so, watch the first film with a couple of friends, having a few drinks, and make sure by the time you get to watching this one, you are absolutely blindly drunk and can just giggle at the stupidity of it all. and there wasnt even any decent gore, such a shame.
This superior inferiority to the original dumb "Blind Dead" movie is another trash bin waste. So many people have hyped up these films that I can't believe what they say about it. Since I was a kid I have heard about how scary and great these films are and I saw them all and was throughly disappointed, was everyone on drugs, from the 1970's or do they just not know how boring this crude is?
My first exposure to the Templarios & not a good one. I was excited to find this title among the offerings from Anchor Bay Video, which has brought us other cult classics such as "Spider Baby". The print quality is excellent, but this alone can't hide the fact that the film is deadly dull. There's a thrilling opening sequence in which the villagers exact a terrible revenge on the Templars (& set the whole thing in motion), but everything else in the movie is slow, ponderous &, ultimately, unfulfilling. Adding insult to injury: the movie was dubbed, not subtitled, as promised on the video jacket.
beyond the fact crazy people exist and there are religious nuts out there.<br /><br />The characters basically make no sense most of the time.<br /><br />The film has no real beginning, middle or ending, nor is anything ever explained much.<br /><br />The film opens with a young man, with the unlikely name of Hazel Motes, apparently returning from a stint in the army.<br /><br />He hitches a ride to a two story house that is in extreme disrepair, windows boarded over. He goes in the house, walks around and finally writes a note that he leaves there. This scene comes to nothing, and we learn nothing further about the house or its history.<br /><br />It is never explained exactly whose house this is, or where the people have gone, but we are given the impression Hazel has probably lived there at one time.<br /><br />Hazel decides to go to a city. Why - we don't know. Once he arrives in this city he writes down a name & address that he sees on a bathroom wall, and goes to visit this woman, who is a surprisingly fat hooker. He sees her for awhile and then he apparently isn't seeing her anymore. Like everything else in this movie, it comes to nothing and serves no purpose.<br /><br />A young man named Enoch, tries to befriend him, but Hazel really isn't interested, although they keep crossing paths.<br /><br />Enoch is about as crazy as you can get. One of his habits is to go to the zoo and stand in front of the cage where the chimps are and talk at them insultingly.<br /><br />We never really know why Enoch behaves as he does, or why Hazel behaves as he does, beyond the fact Hazel had an overdose of old time scary, fundamentalist religion via his grandfather.<br /><br />Enoch later becomes enthralled with a man who dresses in a gorilla suit, and manages to get the gorilla suit from him and then runs around in it.<br /><br />Hazel, who is wound rather tight and seems to be in a constant borderline rage does a bit of street preaching. I got the impression he was trying to free himself from the untruths of the religion that had been drilled into him.<br /><br />He has several encounters with a preacher and his daughter, although their interactions never really make any particular point, and there is no plot line.<br /><br />Eventually Hazel succumbs to complete religious fervor and begins self-harming.<br /><br />It is a very odd film. Interesting in it's oddness but other than that it has absolutely nothing going for it.<br /><br />The cast does an outstanding job,but this film completely fails to deliver either a point of view or a storyline.<br /><br />The film also has the characters tossing around the N word from time to time with no connection to the rest of the dialog.<br /><br />2 stars
I realize that bringing a novel to the big screen is always problematic. That is the only positive thing I can say about this truly horrid adaptation.<br /><br />Have you read 'Wise Blood?' It's an amazing book. Flannery O'Connor wrote about the south as no one else has. She was a southerner herself, a devout catholic, and a remarkably gifted writer. In her first novel she wove together a dark and deeply disturbing tale of faith, doubt, and redemption with a macabre sense of humor and surprising evenhandedness. The characters in the book may seem outrageous to those who have not lived in the rural south, but I can assure you that such people do exist. Not only do they exist, they are human beings with families, feelings, and concerns like anyone else. Flannery's intentions were so often misunderstood - she was not lampooning these backwoods zealots - she saw in them the beautiful operation of what she would have called 'grace'...even in the most violent, distressing, and maddening of circumstances. To read 'Wise Blood' is to be washed over with a sense of dread and impending doom. Finally, it is to think long and hard about our judgments and preconceptions - our entire world view.<br /><br />None of this comes through in John Huston's 'Gilligan's Island'-like adaptation. None. It is a farce. A bad farce. The entire film is saturated with a hauteur that turns the stomach. The acting is poor, the southern accents are fake and insulting. The filmmakers show no insight into the thinking of religious southerners. Ms. O'Connor's intense prose are reduced to sight gags and cheap, amateur theatre. The soundtrack is a mixture of hayseed silliness and 'Clockwork Orange'-style cheeseball electronics that doesn't fit the story or even the MOVIE. I was granted free admission to this movie and almost walked out. Truly, truly terrible.<br /><br />As an aside, I do not agree with Ms. O'Connor's religious views, and while I was raised in the deep south, years ago I made my way north and have not looked back. But the south is a beautiful place full of fascinating individuals (like every other place on earth), and the cartoonish mockery with which southerners and their attitudes are dealt in this movie borders on offensive. If you're into being offended (which I am not), then this movie most DEFINITELY crosses the line.<br /><br />I don't like to talk crap about an artist's work - John Huston was a man that I did not know, and I'm sure he was a sincere and gifted filmmaker, to which his respected place in film history attests. My views are clearly skewed by having read (and loved) Flannery O'Connor's work. So I don't claim to be coming from any other perspective. Maybe as a stand-alone film it works for cinephiles. But for Flannery O'Connor fans - and, I might add, for self-respecting southerners and openminded individuals of all stripes - this movie is a waste of time.
John Huston's Wise Blood was a more horrifying misrepresentation of Flannery O'Connor's book than I could have imagined. From the utterly terrible acting performances (and don't you, "Oh that was done on purpose, you just don't get it" me!) to the musical score that was more suited to an episode of Rockford Files, this film was revolting. I viewed it with no ill-will at the outset, and, in fact, expected a pleasant experience. But the misrepresentation of the southern characters, from the ridiculously fraudulent southern drawl to the lilting, comedic way their faith was portrayed, was inexcusable. Right down to it's end, which was completely devoid of any character sentiment, it failed in every place that O'Connor's book shined and resonated. The actors portraying the "southern" policemen may as well have been eating smothered hot-dogs from NYC street stands and quoting Godfather. The one redeeming acting performance was Ned Beatty's lively and dead-on representation of Hoover Shoates, a religious con-artist who hears Moates preaching the Church of Christ Without Christ and sees dollar signs and business opportunities. O'Connor's powerful book is most well-known for it's creepy, religious undercurrent that jibes the seemingly lifeless cadaver of "Faith". Mr. Huston's film is a shameful mockery of the author's intentions, as they are understood by me and most of her fans, if I may be so bold as to say so. While I acknowledge that I can't know exactly what the author wished to convey, I have enough affection for her and her works to desire to remain a fan. If I viewed Wise Blood the way Mr. Huston apparently did, I would have thrown it in the trash. For Flannery's sake, and mine, I forgive you, John Huston. The forgetting....that will take some time.
This "screwy comedy" seems very forced. Indeed, the actors TRY very hard to make a go of an essentially unfunny script. And, as a result it doesn't really go anywhere. The idea of a woman finding out she was pregnant after getting a quickie divorce just isn't all that funny. And then, when Cooper sneaks off with the baby because he doesn't want it put up for adoption just seems terribly unfunny and it's really pushing hard to turn this into a comedy. It's really a shame, too, as the actors were more capable than the script and I found myself just bored by the whole mess. Considering that Cooper made so many GOOD comedies, I recommend you see them instead.
This movie starts out promisingly, with an early scene in which Frank Morgan advises against Gary Cooper's marriage to his daughter, Anita Louise. Frank Morgan, playing an unabashed gold-digger, loudly complains to Cooper about his perceived penury at the hands of his family - including his daughter, Anita Louise. I am a fan of all 3 actors. Frank Morgan is (to my mind) a Hollywood treasure, Cooper a legend, and Louise a very lovely, versatile and under-appreciated actress seldom seen in the leading role. I also have nothing against Teresa Wright, and while not blessed with great range, she usually delivers heart-warming performances.<br /><br />From a promising opening, the story slides downhill all the way to the end. I found nothing humorous about burning down the home of Cooper's would-be in-laws. The butler in such a fastidious, non-smoking household would never just blithely walk away, allowing Cooper to continue smoking, or alternatively he would certainly supply him with some means of disposing of his ill-timed cigarette. Moreover, nobody with any common sense would permit himself to be left holding a lit cigarette without asking for some means of disposing of it. And finally, nobody in his right mind crushes out a cigarette in a handkerchief and sticks it in his pocket! This whole sequence just made Cooper seem foolish and gauche. It is a poor contrivance - ill conceived and filmed in a way that induces ridicule not laughter. <br /><br />The forced medical examination of Cooper is equally contrived. Nobody lets himself undergo a complete medical examination without his being advised of its purpose or giving his consent! That Cooper did so is too removed from reality to be funny - it's absurd! Stealing babies from hospitals is a serious legal offense, and that, too, is nothing to laugh about. Finally, the scenes of Cooper's overly fastidious, neurotic attention to his baby's feeding and weight may have struck a nerve with a few people who have experienced anxiety over their own newborn babies. But to me they just seem tedious and slow. The wardrobe and prop departments went over the top in those scenes, while paradoxically, the script writer went to sleep.<br /><br />The lines are just not in the script to generate humor. They just miss on all cylinders. The laughs come not a mile-a-minute, but more like a light year-a-minute. The only time the movie has any energy or humor is when Frank Morgan is on camera.<br /><br />The scene that is totally wasted is when both of Cooper's love interests and their respective fathers are cooped up in the same hotel room together. There is probably a rich vein of humor somewhere in that mine, but none of it was extracted.<br /><br />In the end, one of the two very likable girls is going to get hurt. Predictably, it is the Anita Louise character, who gets jilted on her would-be-wedding night! While it is not on camera, that is her fate, and it is not particularly funny - even as a loose end. She hadn't done anything in this film to make me unsympathetic (unlike Gail Patrick, say, in My Favorite Wife). Consequently, I was expecting (perhaps "hoping" is a better word in the context of the film!) for Anita Louise to enjoy a happy ending, too. The fact that such a nice character is essentially wiped out at the movie's end really undermines the effect of the "happy ending" for Cooper and Wright.<br /><br />I kept waiting for something to happen, for the witty dialog so characteristic of movies of the era... And it never delivered. A good performance by Frank Morgan in a slightly different role is totally wasted here.
Why is it that a woman cannot be a strong character in a movie without sleeping with the leading man? The campaign manager in this movie dreams of leading Tom Sellick to the White House. It's all she can think about. So, why on earth must she have had an affair with him? It added nothing to the plot and served only to demean successful women. The only value of that tidbit was the cute "we've all slept with your husband" scene. <br /><br />Also, couldn't the people who made this movie have watched the national conventions they were spoofing? Airing between the two major political conventions only served to highlight their total ignorance of the nomination and selection process.
Dreadful acting. A thinly veiled attempt to slam those on the left side of the aisle.<br /><br />Women are subjugated and revolve around men. Tom Selleck shows his acting range from A to B.
Another trashy Grade Z quickie from the prolific Albert Pyun. Tim Thomerson´s 13 inch Clint Eastwood-like cop from outer space chases an ugly flying head(!) to Earth and gets involved in a gang war in South Bronx! Mercifully short, but deadeningly dull, with the cheesiest effects since Attack of the 50Ft Woman. They should have fired the continuity guy, too: Note how Thomerson´s sunglasses disappears and reappears in every second shot. Laughably bad, but that´s why we watch these movies, ain´t it? Sequel ´Dollman Vs. Demonic Toys´ is reportedly even worse, if that´s possible.<br /><br />0 (of ****)<br /><br />
This film is really unbelievable. I've seen so much cheap trash-movies, especially a lot 'Full Moon'-Pictures, but 'Dollman' is really hard. So much comes together: the laughable story, the actors always at the edge of parody and the special effects! How long I could talk about them! It is a really bad movie, but also one of the funniest ones. If you're a fan of bad movies to laugh about, you have to see it. And don't miss 'Dollman vs. Demonic Toys'. It really funnier and worse.
Feh. This movie started out in an interesting manner, but quickly ran the gamut from confusing to dull. The confusing parts happened mostly at the beginning, where the cut scenes are so numerous that its hard to tell just what is going on for the first twenty minutes or so. The dull comes later, with a tepid romance between the two living people(pusses both). The vengeful spirit of the dead girl is actually the most lively person in the film, which is sad. If the rest of the cast had been up to her caliber, the movie might have been better.<br /><br />Maybe. Because the storyline gets really interesting for awhile, as it appears that the insane priestess mother of the dead sixteen year old girl is trying to resurrect her daughter from the dead, with the decidedly unfortunate side effect that all of the other dead people would come back as well, take on solid human form, and most likely start killing off everybody. A sort of Japanese mystical Night of the Living Dead type thing. But this doesn't come to pass. Even though this hairy unwashed priest with a tiny basket strapped to his head tells the uninteresting young people that this will come to pass if the priestess finishes her ritual, she does just that and the only dead person who manifests is her daughter. No mass rising of the dead, no walking army of corpses, nothing. The priest merely makes the girl's spirit go back to the land of the dead, taking the washed out wuss of a boyfriend with her, as she'd crushed his spine like peanut brittle(at which point I was tempted to cheer loudly, as this idiot went over to kiss and fondle the DEAD girl,,ewwww!!!). The Robitussen sucking, spineless best friend has a long introspective shot at the end as she leaves the village for the last time, and that's it. No real horror, no real creepiness, which the Japanese tend to do far better than American film makers with their emphasis on over-the-top cheesy face make-up, no screaming mimis. I was very disappointed.
As a girl, Hinako moved away from her small village to Tokyo, leaving behind her two best friends, Fumiya and Sayori. She returns as a young woman, surprised to find that Sayori died when she was a teenager. She reunites with Fumiya and they are horrified to learn that Sayori is mysteriously being resurrected via the island of Shikoku. Oh boy. I rented this because I like Asian horror and I think Chiaki Kuriyama a nifty actress. Unfortunately, if I had to describe Shikoku in one word, it would be "fruity." This movie is silly, boring, poorly filmed, unimaginative, and most of all, unscary. Kuriyama has minimal screen time as the resurrected Sayori, and her character is given little to work with.
This quasi J-horror film followed a young woman as she returns to her childhood village on the island of Shikoku to sell the family house and meet up with old friends. She finds that one, the daughter of the village priestess, drowned several years earlier. She and Fumiko (another childhood friend) then learn that Sayori's mother is trying to bring her back to life with black magic. Already the bonds between the dead and living are getting weak and the friends and villagers are seeing ghosts. Nothing was exceptional or even very good about this movie. Unlike stellar J-horror films, the suspense doesn't really build, the result doesn't seem overly threatening and the ending borders on the absurd.<br /><br />This movie is like plain white rice cooked a little too long so that it is bordering on mushy. Sometimes you get this at poor Asian restaurants or cook your own white rice a little too long. You end up eating it, because you need it with the meal, because what is Chinese or Japanese food without rice, but it almost ruins the meal because of the gluey, gooey tastelessness of it all. 3/10 http://blog.myspace.com/locoformovies
I must say that I am fairly disappointed by this "horror" movie. I did not get scared even once while watching it. It also is not very suspenseful either.... I was able to guess the ending half way through the movie... So.. what's left?<br /><br />"The Ring" is a trully scary movie... I wish other movies would stop copying from it (e.g. the trade-mark: long hair). Please give me some originality.<br /><br />Will not recommend this movie.
This was one film i wanted to watch always when it released The promos were eye catching and Govinda in a negative role was a surprise<br /><br />But the film isn't that good<br /><br />It has lot of flaws<br /><br />The start is good and till the murder everything goes well but the film falls flat when the romance track starts between Govinda and Karisma and the songs that follow<br /><br />Then the twist about Govinda and Tabu being in love leaves more doubts and flaws and then How come Govinda turns into a rich criminal from a poor villager?<br /><br />The last flashback too is prolonged and also the entire clash between Govinda-Karisma and Tabu<br /><br />N Chandra disappoints Music is okay, Bahot Khoobsurat stands out<br /><br />Govinda tries a negative role and does very well in it though he overdoes it too much at times Karisma is good but irritates at times with her cries Tabu is okay Nirmal Pandey still doesn't know the difference between loud screaming and acting rest are okay
i am a big fan of karishma Kapoor and Govinda. I watched this film after i had seen Fiza, which was absolutley brilliant.<br /><br />There are films that are bad, and there are films that are cr*p. but this film just takes the biscuit.<br /><br />We were so annoyed that we were conned out of paying our money expecting a decent film.<br /><br />avoid at all cost, dont even rent it.<br /><br />1/10
"I went to the movies, to see 'Beat Street' / it wasn't bad, it was kinda' neat / 'Krush Groove' was a flick, that I didn't mind / but when it came to 'Rappin', I drew the line." Word to your mother.<br /><br />Want me to stop?<br /><br />That's just a small sample of the stupa-fly style of rhymin' on display in this waste of film and location permits. This movie is seriously wack (thats 80s-speak for just f*cking awful). As an emcee, Mario Van Peebles is one hell of an actor. And as an actor, Mario Van Peebles is one hell of a bodybuilder.<br /><br />Any film calling itself "Rappin'" had better deliver at that genre's highest standard of the time. So why were 6 year olds rolling in the aisles, even back in the day when standards were so knee-high-to-"Webster"-low? Because this rap is weak. So weak that not even B.E.T. or Comedy Central will touch it with a 10-foot gold-rope chain.<br /><br />Blondie's "Rapture" is def poetry next to this bit of Dr. Suess in the hood. So don't be a boobie, avoid this movie!<br /><br />
I have copy of this on VHS, I think they (The television networks) should play this every year for the next twenty years. So that we don't forget what was and that we remember not to do the same mistakes again. Like putting some people in the director's chair, where they don't belong. This movie Rappin' is like a vaudevillian musical, for those who can't sing, or act. This movie is as much fun as trying to teach the 'blind' to drive a city bus.<br /><br />John Hood, (Peebles) has just got out of prison and he's headed back to the old neighborhood. In serving time for an all-to-nice crime of necessity, of course. John heads back onto the old street and is greeted by kids dogs old ladies and his peer homeys as they dance and sing all along the way.<br /><br />I would recommend this if I was sentimental, or if in truth someone was smoking medicinal pot prescribed by a doctor for glaucoma. Either way this is a poorly directed, scripted, acted and even produced (I never thought I'd sat that) satire of ghetto life with the 'Hood'. Although, I think the redeeming part of the story, through the wannabe gang fight sequences and the dance numbers, his friends care about their neighbors and want to save the ghetto from being torn down and cleaned up. <br /><br />Forget Sonny spoon, Mario could have won an Oscar for that in comparison to this Rap. Oh well if you find yourself wanting to laugh yourself silly and three-quarters embarrassed, be sure to drink first. <br /><br />And please, watch responsibly. (No stars, better luck next time!)
Fairly interesting exploitation flick in black and white written by David F. Friedman. The lead actress Stacey Walker is well-cast and strangely attractive. She resembles a deranged Renee Zellweger with a bad hair-do. This chick only made two of these films and then moved back to Texas. The music is terrible. One of her boyfriends is played by Sam Melville (from the TV show THE ROOKIES) using a different name.<br /><br />Best line in the film from Tony - "Are you putting me on, doll? None of my chicks put me on". Good B/W cinematography from Laslo Kovacs (EASY RIDER & TARGETS & many others). Good locales (cool swimming pool, also used in THE DEFILERS). Strange ending but fitting. A 4 out of 10. Best performance Stacey Walker.
"Paula, I may be a bitch, but I'll never be a butch!" <br /><br />A hilarious line in an otherwise rather tiresome skin flick which features a pretty honey in Stacey Walker, but that's about all. This gal's a real tease who lures her boyfriends, co-workers and even her lesbian roommate Paula into her bedroom, but then turns into a whack job who cries "rape" and calls for the police! <br /><br />The schizophrenic personality of this certified c**t is interesting for maybe a little while, but this story ultimately turns into a real repetitive one-note affair. At least the ending is worth the wait, for those who will still care by that time.
I'm hearing rumors of an upcoming "Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the Blu-ray Disc". With advances over the past 25 years ranging from Steady-cam to CGI, it'll be interesting to see if the franchise can be reinvigorated. I just hope it helps to remove the bad taste left in my mouth by that whole Magnavision demonstration fiasco.<br /><br />And yes... "Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the Betamax VCR" was a brilliant milestone in entertainment history. After the tentative "Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the Compact Cassette" and the downright tacky "Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the 8-Track Tape", who would have expected such a glorious piece of cinema? I'm weeping right now just thinking about it.
While this outing certainly doesn't live up to its predecessor, it does have more than its share of memorable moments. My personal favorite, just after laying waste to a city block with his "Videodisc Cannon," we see a close up of Nimoy's face. As a single tear sheds from his left eye, we know at that point that Nimoy is more than just a killing machine. The viewer can't help but be pulled into his emotional turmoil and we understand that his previously flat affect was only a facade. Absolute brilliance!!! The sex scenes display a nice balance, carnal, but not pornographic. Afterwards, I felt I had a pretty good understanding of how to work the Magnavision Videodisc Player. Too bad they haven't produced them in over 25 years.
Twin brothers separated at birth (Due to the deaths of their parents) reunite twenty five years later to avenge their parents and take back their million dollar tunnel. Double Impact runs at two hours long and basically adds no real approach to the Corsican Brothers plot and Jean-Claude Van Damme while adequate as the evil twin brother is just embarrassing as the good twin brother. Also the action sequences aren't as exciting this time and Jean-Claude relies more on gunfire then on his martial arts. Also the supporting cast is wasted and at two hours the movie is just plain dull.<br /><br />* out of 4(Bad)
Plot Synopsis: Hong Kong, 1966. Paul Wagner, the man who built the Victoria Tunnel, is murdered along with his wife by his associates. His twin sons, Chad & Alex, are split apart. 25 years later, Chad, a karate instructor in Los Angeles, & Alex, a smuggler living in Hong Kong, join forces to avenge their parents' murder & rightfully claim the tunnel.<br /><br />This is the second time that Jean-Claude Van Damme & Sheldon Lettich have worked together, having previously done "Lionheart". This is also the first of three films to feature Van Damme playing dual roles ("Maximum Risk" & "Replicant" are the others). The plot is a very simplistic take on the revenge story, the film's sole redeeming feature being Van Damme's performance as two very different people – the prissy rich kid & the rough-&-tumble, cigar chomping tough guy. As it goes, Van Damme doesn't do a very good job in either role, although his take on Alex is mildly amusing. It is puzzling as to have the brothers mistaken for each other, with them wearing different clothes & having different hairstyles. Bolo Yeung makes a very worthy henchman for the baddies.
Normally, I don't like revenge films....PERIOD. But Double Impact has a little more than your typical revenge plot premise. You see, DI has action, accuracy, exotic locales(i.e. Hong Kong), awesome gun battles, and enough martial arts to satisfy your cravings for impressive unarmed combat. Like all revenge flicks, it has villains you'd love to throw out of a plate-glass window on the top floor of a 40-story building! However, Double Impact has none of the sensationalist crap that suffocates the plot and the elitist, racist, and venomous social stereotypes that invaded "Eye for an Eye" and "Death Wish 2".<br /><br />But in the plot department Double Impact is as transparent as saran wrap. Chad and Alex's parents were killed by a mob hit squad connected to a family friend with money problems or at least that's what I remembered. The explanation of why the boys were talking in French accents is a lousy one. It wasn't the watery plot that made this movie bad, but the use of clichéd lines and moves from other movies (from Lethal Weapon to The Princess Bride) really made it worse. But nonetheless Double Impact is still watchable. But why is that shitty movies like this have villains(for example,that greedy British guy that killed Chad and Alex's parents and that lethal lesbian redhead chick) you would love to hate with fiber of your being?
Please, even if you are in the worst of the moods, refrain from watching this flick. <br /><br />I don't think whether anything was right with this movie at all. On a friend's recommendation I watched this and I literally flushed 1h and 48 min of my life down the closet. Poor acting, stupid direction, weak storyline and pathetic action sequences - and when you blend this together you get "Double Impact". Even least of the expectations were not met. <br /><br />I guess I did learn one thing - Never watch Van Damme action flicks. They are pure wastage of time !
I don't see how anyone who even likes Van Damne could like this movie.<br /><br />The movie actually starts out with some promise. I would say the action scenes at the beginning of the movie is excellent. The actions scenes with the family ward trying to save the twins is a great start and is good lead in to the main story. However, the film is all down hill from there. <br /><br />It would have been nice if the director could have stayed with the original premise. That is the brothers are born in different parts of the world and thus learn different skills. One brother is supposed to be skilled in Martial Arts, but the other brother is supposed to be skilled in firearms. How convenient when the time arises that the brother who has never picked up a gun before all of the sudden is a great marksman, and the brother who has not been taught any martial arts is all of the sudden doing the splits and high kicks.<br /><br />The plot, action, etc. are just plain ridiculous. My favorite scenes? How about when Van Damne is confronting an armed soldier with an AK-47. The soldier is about 100 yards away. Instead of aiming and shooting at Van Damne he is doing a war cry like he is wielding a battle axe and running at him. Van Damne proceeds to pick up a pistol from a fallen soldier and shoots him,...while he is still about 75 to 80 yards away. <br /><br />This movie has one of the most disappointing endings. Bolo Yeung is a skilled martial artist. However, instead of choreographing a decent fight. Bolo is throwing barrels at Van Damne like Donkey Kong. Absolutely aggravating movie that had so much promise. If your a Van Damne fan, save your time and see Hard Target or one of his earlier films.
Gee, what a heck of a movie!... I said I wanted to become a specialist in bad movies from all decades, so I decided to start by this one. It was a pretty adequate choice. I entered this adventure to find some lost gems and uncomprehended masterpieces, but I didn't see anything of the sort in this pastel-coloured mess. I haven't really watched many bad films before, but I've got the feeling this is what's called "so bad that's good", probably because it is so unintentionally damn funny! First of all, there are the inaccuracies. There are plot-related inaccuracies, physical inaccuracies, and also psychological inaccuracies. The latter in particular are as insane as Van Damme's ass cheeks inside that blue spandex. Extremely tacky lines exist too and I won't even start to talk about some of the hilarious action moves. There isn't exactly bad acting from everyone involved in that hot mess of a movie, except in one particular case. Geoffrey Lewis looks completely pathetic as Frank, which is an utterly stupid character. And, to tell the truth, I was actually very surprised to see that Van Damme did a decent job playing the twins. He succeeded in achieving a different tone and mood in the two roles that was convincing to me. But the movie was mostly very bad and the sad part is that it was produced by a major motion picture studio... which is now bankrupt.
Jean-Claude Van Damme plays twin brothers Alex and Chad, both whom are martial arts expert who team up to take down the mobsters responsible for the murder of the parents in this empty headed martial arts actioner which doesn't have a plot that would make better use of the gimmick of having two Jean-Claude Van Dammes. Some okay actionscenes, but this is not one of Van Damme's best.
I would of enjoyed this film but Van Damme just does the same old same old rubbish time after time. Poo knickers fight scenes as per usually. The only thing this loser left out was the Russians normally end up being killed in the end. This film is utter doggy do do of the highest nature, please please please Van Damme get some acting lessons, you need them. Anyone who likes Van Damme has issues, It seems sad that the only way Van Damme ever gets any acting work is when he co writes the film, co produces the film and does the screen play for the film. AVOID VAN DAMME AND HIS SLICKED BACK NASTY WIG. I give this film a two out of ten, because the one with the the sandman was better. To add insult to injury I wasted a quid on this manure
I suppose if you like pure action... you'll find it here. I suppose if you find a gorgeous blonde designed to be screwed... find it here. I suppose if you want to find a couple of extra baddies, headed by 1-2 extra, EXTRA baddy bosses who meat a nasty end... you'll find it here.<br /><br />Overall, routine stuff, and the good guys come out on top big time under extra-ordinary circumstances.<br /><br />What I marvel most at... How the good guys armed only with pistols, can kill dozens of bad guys with machine guns who are shooting at them at point blank range... and missing. The goodies even get time to reload their pistols amid the hail of machine guns bullets.<br /><br />Ho-hum!!!
Well, it was funny in spots. This film is a 4 or maybe a 3. Its a film that sits on the video shelf and gathers dust. Rent this one after you seen everything else. Beats boredom, but not by that much. My wife like like this film better then I do, maybe its not that bad.
I've written at least a half dozen scathing reviews of this abysmal little flick and none get published, so I must opine that someone at imdb.com really likes this awful movie. The idea that a bunch of oilmen can resurrect a military tank that has set in the desert for over a decade, and make a fighting machine of it again is ludicrous. So is the acting and direction. Pass on it.
In a movie that follows a struggling actor, played, evidently, by a struggling actor, this does no favours for Chris Klein. He struggles to bring anything memorable to the role and meanders on through the shallow script managing to display, what could only be described as, a bland leading man. The story exists, but that is all, and fails to show any basic start, middle and end and the viewer is left shrugging his shoulders feeling as though nothing in the past hour and three quarters has really happened.<br /><br />One bright light in the midst of this is Fred Durst, who manages to stand out above his seemingly averagely talented co-stars and does a semi-decent job of bringing the backward character of Legde to life. Whether Fred can re-create this when working with a higher calibre of cast remains to be seen but I'l be watching out for him in future.
Dumb is as dumb does, in this thoroughly uninteresting, supposed black comedy. Essentially what starts out as Chris Klein trying to maintain a low profile, eventually morphs into an uninspired version of "The Three Amigos", only without any laughs. In order for black comedy to work, it must be outrageous, which "Play Dead" is not. In order for black comedy to work, it cannot be mean spirited, which "Play Dead" is. What "Play Dead" really is, is a town full of nut jobs. Fred Dunst does however do a pretty fair imitation of Billy Bob Thornton's character from "A Simple Plan", while Jake Busey does a pretty fair imitation of, well, Jake Busey. - MERK
It's been a long time since I last saw a movie this bad.. The acting is very average, the story is horribly boring, and I'm at a loss for words as to the execution. It was completely unoriginal. O, and this is as much a comedy as Clint Eastwood's a pregnant Schwarzenegger! <br /><br />One of the first scenes (the one with the television show - where the hell are you?) got it right - the cast was 80% of let's face it - forgotten actors. If they were hoping for a career relaunch, then I think it might never happen with this on their CV! The script had the potential, but neither 80% of the actors nor the director (who's an actor and clearly should stick to being an actor) pulled it off. Fred Durst was the only one who seemed better than any of the rest.<br /><br />I'm sorry, but if you ever consider watching this - I highly recommend you turn to something less traumatic, because not only it's a total loss of time, but also a weak example of what bad cinema looks like.
Once big action star who fell off the face of the earth ends up in a small town with a problem with drug dealers and a dead body of a federal agent. Reuniting with some former co-stars to clean up the town.<br /><br />Low key, often to the point of blandness, "action" comedy mostly just doesn't work. Part of the problem is the casting Chris Klien as a former action hero. he's not bad, but he's really not believable as some one who was taken to be a tough guy. As I said he's not bad, he's just just miscast for what his back story is. The real problem here is the combination of the script, which really isn't funny and seems artificial at times, and the direction which is pedestrian to the port of dullness. There is no life in the way things are set up. Its as if the director had a list of shots and went by that list. It makes for an un-engaging film. And yet the film occasionally springs to life, such as the in the final show down that ends the film. That sequence works, but because the earlier parts of the film floundered its drained of much of its power.<br /><br />I can't really recommend the film. Its worth a shot if you're a fan of the actors or are a huge fan of independent cinema in all its forms, but otherwise this is just a disappointment.
After having watched Koyaanisqatsi two or three dozen times and loving every second of it, I finally had a chance to see it's sequel Life In Transformation. I was truly dissappointed as it did not nearly stand up to the high standards of the first. 90 minutes of people with baskets on their head is not my idea of a good movie. The Philip Glass score for this one had neither the beauty nor the correlating strength of the first. Compared with Koyaanisqatsi this movie seemed slow and pointless. A watered down version of Baraka, which is the same idea but done better. I truly hope the third movie in this series will not follow the example of this waste.
I should have trusted my instincts better: No expectations - no disappointments. Instead, however, I expected to experience a similar masterpiece like Koyaanisqatsi (1983) and was brutally disappointed. Powaqqatsi is in my humble opinion nothing but a cheap attempt to cash in on the cult success of its predecessor, and - artistically - it fails miserably. It appears some producer gathered up leftover material from Koyaanisqatsi, hurriedly threw it together, placed everything in slow motion and got some pop entertainer under the pseudonym of Philip Glass to hurriedly throw together some banal background music, which is incessantly repeated. Where Koyaanisqatsi entertains the viewer with clever fast and slow motion changes, Powaqqatsi is one long sequence of mundane images in slow-motion (if you view them on your VCR in fast preview mode, you'll see what I mean). What disappointed me the most, however, was Philip Glass's soundtrack. I couldn't - and still can't - believe that these commercial-sounding New Age type drones, which could easily have been composed in one afternoon by any 14-year-old on a Casio calculator, were from the same composer who so brilliantly composed the emotional and perfectly-synchronized music for Koyaanisqatsi. All in all, a big waste of time! My advice: Forget commercialism! Watch Koyaanisqatsi again instead!
Drones, ethnic drumming, bad synthesizer piping, children singing. The most patronizing "world music" imaginable. This is a tourist film, and a lousy one. What really kills it is the incoherent sequences. India, Egypt, South America, Africa, etc, etc. No transitions, no visual explanation of why we're suddenly ten thousand miles away, no ideas expressed in images. Just a bunch of footage of third-worlders with "baskets on their heads" as another reviewer said. Walking along endlessly as if that had some deep meaning. If these guys wanted to make a 3rd World music video, all they had to do was head a few hundred miles south of where the best parts of Koya were shot, and film in Mexico. That would have been a much better setting for "life in transformation."<br /><br />But no. What they decided on was a scrambled tourist itinerary covering half the globe and mind-deadeningly overcranked filter shots. The only thing to recommend this film is that it doesn't suck quite as much as Naqoyqatsi.<br /><br />RstJ
It was a good story, but not very well told. I liked the themes and the main story line, which wasn't as clear as it could have been. Maybe there was too much going on and a lack of ability to reign it all in. The acting was okay to cheesy, some were stronger than others and even the stronger actors had their moments of lesser quality acting. It took me a couple of months to get through the entire movie because it didn't keep my attention and the flow was just bad. I only just finished watching it and I'm glad I did as the movie finally gets moving and has some continuity toward the end. Again, a good story, but the delivery was sub par. Would recommend it for the story line and maybe a little eye candy, and I do mean, a little.
This foolish, implausible tale is redeemed only by the opening scene in which a hard-boiled police detective delivers some nearly-audible lines confirming our greatest fears: He is dead. Perhaps the film would have been saved had the director forgone the dazzling star power of A. Martinez in favor of this sadly-anonymous actor who filled the screen for a brief moment. That a no-name hack-tor off the street could salvage such a dishwater film is no less likely than a villain committing murder by dropping stones into a quarry for an unsuspecting diver. His moment is brief; his promise is immense. Perhaps we will be treated to more screen time by this obscure thespian if there is ever a sequel to this ill-advised film.
in this movie, joe pesci slams dunks a basketball. joe pesci...<br /><br />and being consistent, the rest of the script is equally not believable.<br /><br />pesci is a funny guy, which saves this film from sinking int the absolute back of the cellar, but the other roles were pretty bad. the father was a greedy businessman who valued money more than people, which wasn't even well-played. instead of the man being an archetypal villain, he seemed more like an amoral android programmed to make money at all costs. then there's the token piece that is assigned to pesci as a girlfriend or something...i don't even remember...she was that forgettable.<br /><br />anyone who rates this movie above a 5 or 6 is a paid member of some sort of film studio trying to up the reputation of this sunken film, or at least one of those millions of media minions who can't critique efficiently (you know, the people who feel bad if they give anything a mark below 6).<br /><br />stay away...far away. and shame on comedy central, where i saw this film. they usually pick better.
in this movie, joe pesci slams dunks a basketball. joe pesci...<br /><br />and being consistent, the rest of the script is equally not believable.<br /><br />pesci is a funny guy, which saves this film from sinking int the absolute back of the cellar, but the other roles were pretty bad. the father was a greedy businessman who valued money more than people, which wasn't even well-played. instead of the man being an archetypal villain, he seemed more like an amoral android programmed to make money at all costs. then there's the token piece that is assigned to pesci as a girlfriend or something...i don't even remember...she was that forgettable.<br /><br />anyone who rates this movie above a 5 or 6 is a paid member of some sort of film studio trying to up the reputation of this sunken film, or at least one of those millions of media minions who can't critique efficiently (you know, the people who feel bad if they give anything a mark below 6).<br /><br />stay away...far away. and shame on comedy central, where i saw this film. they usually pick better.
Profanity, stupidity, self-indulgence, and bad acting all join forces for a true tour de force in terrible movie-making. Pesci's attempt to prove My Cousin Vinny was no fluke, shows the opposite instead. He is generally too lightweight and foulmouthed to handle the lead. A true must-miss!
I have to say that there is nothing wrong with low budget films, so that was not my problem with it. My problem with it is that I felt like I was watching my next door neighbor's home movie. IMO everything about it just seemed like a guy wrote out a quick story, grabbed a camera, and started shooting. I understand how hard this must be to do effectively, but when I pay to rent a film, I expect to feel like I am watching some type of professionally made movie.<br /><br />John Schneider has a huge resume, is a great actor, and was fine in this film. The other people in it were not. I understand how it must be fun, and cheaper to use friends, and relatives as the cast, but it doesn't make for convincing acting. It seemed like the way it was shot, he was trying to give many of the scenes a more interesting look, but when the writing, plot, and acting are there to begin with, that type of style isn't necessary, and it is a distraction.<br /><br />Also on a technical level, it had digital artifacts all over the place. In the first scene of all of those fine cars, when they did a slow scan of them, they appeared to jerk back and forth just a little bit. The problem isn't in my viewing equipment, (Benq PE-8700 84" diagonal) but somewhere in the production. I've never seen that kind of artifact in a professionally made film before. Then there was the sound. It sounded like they didn't do any voice-overs, which may be o.k. unless it sounded like the track in this film. It sounded like the built in microphone on the camera.
The eight Jean Rollin film I have watched is also possibly the weirdest; the intriguing plot (such as it is) seems initially to be too flimsy to sustain even its trim 84 minutes but it somehow contrives to get inordinately muddled as it goes along! A would-be female vampire (scantily-clad, as promised by the title) is held in captivity inside a remote château and emerges only to 'feast' on the blood of willing victims (who are apparently members of a suicide club) As if unsure where all of this would lead him, the writer-director ultimately has the human villain – actually the blank-faced hero's kinky father – ludicrously revealed as a mutant(?!) from the future! The languorous pace and dream-like atmosphere (the cultists wear hoods and animal masks to hide their features from the sheltered girl) are, of course, typical of both the film-maker (ditto the seashore setting at the {anti}climax) and the "Euro-Cult" style, as are the bevy of nubile beauties on display. Personally, the most enjoyable thing about the whole visually attractive but intellectually vacuous affair was watching familiar character actor Bernard Musson (who appeared in six latter-day Luis Bunuel films) crop up bemusedly through it from time to time!
French director Jean Rollin isn't exactly known for great films, and this confusing mess is one of the reasons why. One of the most confusing things about this production is the title. For a director who is well known for directing erotic films about lesbian vampires; you would expect a film with the word 'nude' in the title to be a particularly bare-breasted one; but in fact, there's not a lot of nudity here at all. Instead of erotic lesbian vampires with no clothes on; we've got a cumbersome plot about a man who wants to unlock the secret to immortality, a young woman whose affliction might hold the key and a suicide cult, who don't get to do much. The film starts off promisingly with a sequence that sees a young girl carried off by a mysterious bunch of people in masks under the watchful eye of a young French man, who also happens to be the son of a man of importance. Through his investigation, he soon discovers that this woman is not just a normal lady, and as he delves deeper into the cult; he discovers that cannot be killed by bullets, drinks blood and can't go out in daylight...sounds like a clear cut case of vampirism to me.<br /><br />Jean Rollin keeps the fantasy atmosphere going throughout the film, but it fails to be interesting because the plot is so badly executed. It is possible to keep up with what's going on, but only because there's so many other films that follow similar plots to this one. The director seems to know that he's messed up the plotting too, as the climax is basically an excuse to explain the film to the audience. There is a twist thrown in at the end also; but the film would have been better without it. I guess this was Jean Rollin's attempt to be a little original, but it comes off as a ham-fisted attempt at such, rather than a logical continuation of the story. The cinematography is fairly neat, with lots of the plot taking place in suitably Gothic locations. The girls on board complete what is a pretty picture, and what Rollin's film lacks in logic and consistency, it somewhat makes up for in style. In the film's defence, it was made in 1969; which somewhat explains the lack of shocks but I can't recommend this movie as it doesn't have much about it that is worth taking note of.
Jean Rollin artistic nonsense about vampires, aliens and the quest for immortality.<br /><br />The women are beautiful and the photography stunning. The dialog is inane. Its a laughable mess. Great to look at but as any semblance of a horror film or thriller purely awful. I'm trying to figure out if we're suppose to be scared or not. At the same time is it a put on or not? Its an odd mix of art film and horror that never quite meshes and while its nice to look at it never seems to "mean" anything, and its by no means scary even if the occasional shot or sequence creates a moment of frisson Its well made pretentious twaddle. Something to leave on in the background as a living wall paper for those who like naked women.
from the start of this movie you soon become aware that the name of the film has nothing to do with the movie itself from watching a naked woman being chased by people in very silly masks to servants running round in the worst clothing I've ever seen and all this in subtitles makes this the kind of movie you should think twice about seeing and as the film slowly moves along you soon realise that the vampire is not a vampire you got to wonder where the title came from some parts of the film made a bit of sense with Pierre and is father but as the film gets to its really silly ending you have got to think why end a film this way and surly they had a better ending if only in there heads this is not a film to watch basically
When I first saw this film in cinema 11 years ago, I loved it. I still think the directing and cinematography are excellent, as is the music. But it's really the script that has over the time started to bother me more and more. I find Emma Thompson's writing self-absorbed and unfaithful to the original book; she has reduced Marianne to a side-character, a second fiddle to her much too old, much too severe Elinor - she in the movie is given many sort of 'focus moments', and often they appear to be there just to show off Thompson herself.<br /><br />I do understand her cutting off several characters from the book, but leaving out the one scene where Willoughby in the book is redeemed? For someone who red and cherished the book long before the movie, those are the things always difficult to digest.<br /><br />As for the actors, I love Kate Winslet as Marianne. She is not given the best script in the world to work with but she still pulls it up gracefully, without too much sentimentality. Alan Rickman is great, a bit old perhaps, but he plays the role beautifully. And Elizabeth Spriggs, she is absolutely fantastic as always.
To be honest, I didn't like "Executive Decision" - which was obvious the template - very much, but compared to this piece of crap, it looks like a masterpiece of art.<br /><br />Not only that the people moving in the film (the term actors would be an insult for all other actors) should attend more acting classes, the guy who build the setting hasn't even seen an aircraft from afar. It is so ridiculous, that on a 747 only 3 flight attendance are aboard, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. The film is full of illogicalness (e.g.: use sleeping-gas, then don't use it, then use it anyway), which dropped my rating finally to the bottom.<br /><br />You can have more fun in rearranging you sock drawer or in drilling a hole in your knee and fill it with milk.
One Stinko of a movie featuring a shopworn plot and, to be kind, acting of less than Oscar caliber. But to me the single worst flaw was the total misrepresentation of a jet aircraft, and especially a 747. Some of the major blunders:<br /><br />1. No Flight Engineer (or even a flight engineer station. 2. Mis-identifying the F-16 interceptors as F-15's (no resmblance whatsoever). 3. Loading passengers into an "aft baggage compartment" supposedly accesible from the cabin - Even if such a compartment existed, placing that much weight that far aft would make the aircraft unflyable. 4. Hollow point bullets that "won't damage the aircraft". 5. The entire landing procedure was so bad I wanted to puke. 6. An SR-71 (of all planes) with a pressure seal hatch 7. Opening a cabin door outward - into the wind - in flight!!<br /><br />Ah nuts, it was just a truly lousy movie. Gotta make the list of bottom 10 of the year.
What a complete piece of trash. Plot notwithstanding, when a movie's action revolves around airplanes, you'd think the writers/producers/director (or ANYONE!) would do a little bit of homework as to at least a FEW of the details. The mistakes were so glaring that I was fuming by the end of the movie. Here are just a few: I'm glad I missed the SR-71 sequence - certain to have been worse than the "Air Force One" F-117 spectacle. Commercial airlines usually have their logos painted on the aircraft rather than BOEING 747 – likely the (cheap) use of some Boeing advertising/publicity footage by the director. Exposed wiring connected by wire nuts is mediocre at best for house wiring, much less multi-million dollar aircraft avionics wiring. Airplanes like the 747 rely on pressure alone rather than ship's supply oxygen to maintain breathable air, and if they did rely on an on-board supply, the canister would be far bigger than fist sized. Medical tape is not a suitable substitute for a threaded hose connection. Those were F-16s, NOT F-15s. Mach 1+ (speed of sound) would be difficult to attain on a static engine run up for takeoff (watch the airspeed indicator). "Standard formation" is simply keeping the formation inside one nautical mile, "route" formation is what they were flying - not the most useful formation for an intercept. "Acquiring missile lock" is not likely to get an airline pilot's attention - they have no radar detection or countermeasures. "Wait for my signal" is not inter-flight communication for preparing to fire anything. Depressurization from a door opening in flight is not grounds for an immediate steep left bank. Yelling into a headset does not make it transmit. Magnetic headings are given as "headings" not "bearings," and headings are between 001 and 360 degrees (compasses in the air are just like compasses on the ground!), so turning left (not "port" – that's a boat thing) from a "bearing" of 618 to 502 is just stupid. It is in most cases impossible to just "turn the yoke left until the correct heading is reached" – that sort of thing will result in 360 degree rolls until the yoke is centered again. The likelihood of a flight attendant immediately finding and successfully engaging the autopilot is only slightly greater than the likelihood of her actually landing the jet safely. Airplanes don't stall immediately upon pulling the throttle back, and 747s have more than one little lever to control the multi-engine thrust. Flaps are lowered in increments usually just prior to and immediately following landing gear extension, not seconds before landing (good way to crash). Wheel brakes are required to stop an airplane, simply pulling the throttle(s) (this time a different lever in the movie) to idle will just allow you to go off the end of the runway at a slower speed. Did I mention that those fighter aircraft were F-16s and NOT F-15s? Guess I did… And that's just what I REMEMBER from recently watching this horrific movie.
Spoilers? Maybe a few details, but nothing too plot related. Not like it would matter with this movie. <br /><br />Air Rage blatantly rips off the mid-air infiltration premise of Executive Decision. Ice-T leads a team of four "elite" commandos who wear baggy black shirts that we can only imagine must conceal invisible body armor as their idiotic tactics (similar to what 3rd graders use when playing Star Wars on the playground) lead them to absorb a hail of gunfire. <br /><br />What entertained me the most about this flick was the use of look-alike has-been actors. You'll immediately recognize Cyril O'Reily as someone who once acted in a movie that you really liked, though it was so long ago that you probably won't be able to place it (it was Porky's). Here Cyril plays a decent knock-off of a Bill Paxton character. Most Hilarious is porker Gil Gerard, who's so fat that you will never recognize him as TV's Buck Rogers. Instead of evoking his mildly heroic character past, Gerard gives us a passable performance of the crusty fat tough guy persona, which was clearly imagineered for John Goodman. Finally, Alex Cord gives us a nice hybrid look-alike performance as a Chuck Connors/Kirk Douglas type. In the 10 years since New Jack City, Ice-T's acting has deteriorated remarkably. It's not acting so much as regurgitation of lines that he might have actually memorized. <br /><br />One of the items that plays into this movie is a CD-ROM of classified information. It's being hand carried, and it's apparently and unbelievably not encrypted, despite the security-savvy aura of Gerard's NSA character. What a joke. I'm severely doubting that the information purported to be on the CD would ever even all be assembled into a portable format. <br /><br />Despite being in a closed aircraft without silencers, the gunfire is about as loud as canned air, and causes nary a person to flinch, so apparently no foley budget. The assortment of weapons chosen is pretty funny. The flight attendant's use of a coffee pot is about the most realistic depiction of violence in the film. When she takes intuitively to the mini-Uzi pistol, which has got to be one of the worst pistol designs ever, that's just too stupid. A true elite team would carry MP-5s for this type thing or maybe SOCOMM .45s, or even customized Hi- Powers if they were really old school, or maybe something FN 5.7 if new school... The lame-o standard issue 92Fs are totally unbelievable, having lost most of their cool after Lethal Weapon I. The bad guys, supposedly experienced soldier of fortune types, have an assorted mixture of absurdity, like the aforementioned mini-Uzi pistol and a Tec-9 with the infamous non-functional barrel extender that isn't a silencer. <br /><br />There was one touch of realism on which I would like to correct the other reviewers: The flight attendant and Ice-T did lower the craft to 10,000 feet for "breathable air" before they opened the door. And I also got the impression that the flight attendant was NOT able to get the door closed, that she basically just gave up on that point. As far as the landing, there was no mention of flaps until about 2 seconds before touchdown. Sigh. <br /><br />Only the Dukes of Hazard eluding Roscoe P. Coltrane at the "pass" could shame this movie for use of stock footage. They obviously chose the incredible (and retired) SR-71 because they couldn't get stock of an F-117. Aside from the fact that they were mothballed already in 2001, let's also forget for a moment that the SR-71 is not a pure stealth aircraft in the sense of the B-2, and that at point blank range... Well, I'm no expert, but I'm having doubts as to whether it would be invisible on Radar. <br /><br />As others have pointed out, the repeated references to "F-15s" when they were showing F -16s was laughable. Details of the 747 were pretty stupid. No airline would put that few passengers on a 747 to begin with, not to mention everything else that was idiotic about it. Pay attention to the use of exposed electrical wiring. <br /><br />Wow. What a show. Catch it on Stars or something. Don't pay to rent it, but do watch it for laughs. In contention for worst movie ever, right up there with No Holds Barred, which at least had some originality.
Besides all of the technical mistakes ....<br /><br />How about a female flight attendant who's able to kill, all by herself, 4 out of the 7 terrorists (including ex marines), 2 of whom without even using a gun. Then, she lands the plane perfectly. We're not talking about Sigourney Weaver or Linda Hamilton; we're talking about a regular, frightened, yet very well composed flight attendant. :D How about the leader in charge of the assault/rescue squad, having a full-proof (according to the logic of the script) plan of sleep-gassing everyone and having someone from his team fly the plane. Only he decides at the spur of the moment to change plans and instead lead an attack on the terrorists, guns blazing, not knowing where the terrorists are, or how many, and not securing a position of advantage, so that his whole team gets easily wiped out. Yeah, that's using the old noggin. Only later to decide to use the sleep gas anyway. And it turns out useless for all intensive purposes.<br /><br />Bad as this movie was, though, I couldn't stop myself from watching and wondering, what next? :D I can't help but imagine all the excellent, unemployed script writers thinking to themselves, it's not fair. lol! :D
I ve finished seeing the movie 10 minutes ago..WoW i still cant believe what i've watched.<br /><br />This is absolutely the worst movie EVER. If i would list all the flaws in the movie , this review would take me a lot of sentences.( very funny flaws, because of being that bad though)<br /><br />You got to be Amazed with the skill of the commandos assigned to rescue the plane. they didn't even know how to move.<br /><br />Ice-t is so bad actor... and the thing i don't understand, is how the production wanted him to be like a hero, but he's a zero..<br /><br />of course the major flaws will be the landing of an 747, needing only 3 or 4 tips from a guy in transmission to land the plane...amazing.. as well as the dead bodys that had almost no blood at all..<br /><br />But i strongly recommend of watching this movie, as its very interesting to see how bad can something get
This has to be one of the 5 worst movies ever made. The plot looked intriguing like that of Passenger 57. But with the latter movie it somehow worked a lot better. The plot has been worked out in the worst possible way. Just a few of the awful moments in the movie, A flight attendant is standing in the opened doorway of a flying 747 and trying to close the door without being sucked out by the 250 mile per hour winds?!? Thereafter the lands the aircraft from a few miles out starting at 8000 feet, thats impossible even for 747 pilots with thousands of hour experience. When on the runway (perfectly straight of course) she is instructed to pull on the flaps, HUH!! Come on flaps are there to ensure lift at low speeds, when on the runway you use thrust reverse on the engines and give maximum power! I can go on and on about little and mostly big mistakes in the movie, but then my reply would become the size of the English dictionary. This is a movie you want to miss, take my word for it!
When i come on IMDb boards,I'm always fed up when i see a "the worst movie ever" post.After watching this *movie*,i think that i am soon going to create my own post!!<br /><br />The opening titles:great,some kind of lame zoom on a gas oven (yeah,focus on the fire=explosions=great action packed movie!!)<br /><br />The actors:I think that Ice T is a cool rapper,even a nice actor (sometimes, i insist,"sometimes") but the Steven seagal like policeman he plays is...beyond the words. The rest of the cast is...well i don't know where those actors were hired but jeez!!I bet my dog would have been a much better actor than them!!<br /><br />The plot:Hijacking.original isn't it??<br /><br />The action sequences:The first shot of the movie is an explosion.I told myself,well, cool!!At least there will be some nice pyrotechnics...I was dead wrong.The rest of the movie is mostly filled with low rent stock shots taken from the Air Force...<br /><br />The dialogs are hilarious,the music is pure crap,the end is happy( i mean i was happy at the end because the movie was over!!!)<br /><br />My cousin who was watching the movie was delighted( I'm 22, she's 42...well).I was on the verge of taking the movie and burn it.Maybe next time I'm gonna watch it...(who said never???)
Words can't describe how bad this movie is. I can't explain it by writing only. You have too see it for yourself to get at grip of how horrible a movie really can be. Not that I recommend you to do that. There are so many clichés, mistakes (and all other negative things you can imagine) here that will just make you cry. To start with the technical first, there are a LOT of mistakes regarding the airplane. I won't list them here, but just mention the coloring of the plane. They didn't even manage to show an airliner in the colors of a fictional airline, but instead used a 747 painted in the original Boeing livery. Very bad. The plot is stupid and has been done many times before, only much, much better. There are so many ridiculous moments here that i lost count of it really early. Also, I was on the bad guys' side all the time in the movie, because the good guys were so stupid. "Executive Decision" should without a doubt be you're choice over this one, even the "Turbulence"-movies are better. In fact, every other movie in the world is better than this one.
Firstly, I won't tell you WHY I rented this movie, as I'm still confused myself...<br /><br />Air Rage is much like any movie I've seen where a plane is hijacked. There is of course that one important person on the plane, and the hijacker looking for revenge. The sad thing is, some of the methods to stop the hijackers have already been used in other movies. Are we really becoming so unoriginal so quickly?<br /><br />Although it's Ice-T (who for some incomprehensible reason makes painful attempts at ACTING while he's not busy putting the "c" back in front of rap) who is glorified on the cover, the movie actually stars the less than amazing Kim Oja as a stewardess who is 'surprisingly' OVERLOOKED by the five hijackers, which naturally comes back to haunt them. As for the rest of the cast, the only person I managed to recognize was Steve Hytner, more commonly known as Kenny Bania from "Seinfeld".<br /><br />I can't forget to leave out my favorite part of the movie, when a hijacker used about a POUND of PLASTIQUE to blow a lock off a door... BRILLIANT.<br /><br />The plot was unnaturally predictable.<br /><br />The script - atrocious. It got to the point where I could say something, which I felt would make a stupid comment, and it would be the next line in the movie.<br /><br />As for special effects... the only thing special about this movie is that I wasted the cost of electricity to run my TV and VCR for 100 minutes.<br /><br />And the title - the movie DID take place in the Air. But due to the less than stellar performances, the only Rage in the movie was that of the viewer.<br /><br />So, if you're in the mood to even pick apart a movie, just because it's bad. Please SAVE YOURSELF, don't choose this.
I signed in just to comment on how awfully stupid this movie is. Besides being a rip-off of Executive Decision or Air Force One or any other kind of terrorist story, this is the kind of movie that makes you appreciate seeing a movie that can take the same basic ideas and do it well. It's hard to blame the actors when they are given such a stupid, cliché-ridden script to work with. It's bad enough if you groan once in a movie when you encounter an insult to your intelligence, but when you find yourself groaning over and over again, you have to conclude that the director also isn't the brightest bulb in the movie business, nor are the producers for deciding to bring this story to the screen in the first place. The mostly low-rent actors you can excuse for taking on this assignment, because they most likely showed up to get the money and exposure, not that being a part of this joke-of-a-movie is going to earn them any awards or recognition. It may end up embarrassing them for having such poor judgment as to get involved in such a loser. I see no point in summarizing the plot or even in giving any examples to prove my case, for, to do so, would be cruel and unusual punishment that no one involved in this debacle could withstand. Just as studying well-made movies can inspire you how to make a good, skillfully put-together work of art and beauty, the only thing that you can learn from watching this monstrosity is what NOT to do and what does NOT work! Be warned.
don't expect much from this film. In many ways this film resembles a film that Doris Day starred in in 1956,title, Julie. In this film Doris,who was a flight attendant,stewardess,in those days,landed the air craft after her derange husband,played by Louis Jordan shot the captain. She did a far better job,more convincing,than Kim Ojah,who took control of a 747 and manage to land it without much help from the control tower. I know a little about 747 aircraft,i use to be a flight attendant myself. Like i said,do not expect much from this film,it was done on a cheap budget. The producers were to cheap to use a plane with the name of a airline on it. Oceanic is one name that several movies have used. The only writing on this plane was the name of the company that made the aircraft.
This is the worst movie I have ever seen. Everyone involved should be embarrassed. Everyone. Ice-T is pitiful, the dialogue is absolutely awful, and hokie does not begin to describe the performances by every single actor in this movie. The plot steals heavily from Executive Decision, but compared to Air Rage, Executive Decision is Academy Award material. I have never been so disappointed when watching a movie. Air Rage should be burned with its ashes locked in a vault never to see the light of day again. Anyone who has seen it should take a shower and wash the stink of horrible movie off of them. The best part of this movie probably comes from the ending, when the credits rolled. This was easily the worst movie I have ever seen. <br /><br />Ice-T should stick to Law and Order, and the other people in this film should retire early or commit suicide. Either way, they should never attempt to be in a movie again.
What can you say about a grainy, poorly filmed 16mm stag film, where the best and most attractive performer is a German Shepherd? Nothing that would be positive. Avoid this travesty at all costs. In any case, it would be difficult to find, since bestiality remains a taboo and illegal subject in the USA. I strongly suggest IMDb to re-visit their weighting formula for establishing ratings, since an 8.8 rating for this piece of fecal matter is absurd! I am, by no means, a prude and have spent many hours enjoying the classic porn movies of the 70's & 80's; but this is inferior product even by the looser standards of the (then illegal) stag loop.
Linda Lovelace was the victim of a sadistic woman hater, Chuck Traynor. I don't understand how having sex with a dog (which is animal abuse, as well) can be found to be entertaining or funny. Linda Lovelace was a virtual prisoner who was coerced into making these films. I know some people will criticize this comment but I feel strongly that these types of films fuel the fire of hatred and further misogynistic feelings towards women. This society continues to portray women as sexual objects as opposed to human beings. We call ourselves "civilized" however I feel we have a long way to go before we can ever scratch the surface of being civilized.
The Comeback starts off looking promising, with a brutal death scene by a mask wearing killer. The mask itself is pretty cool too, and looks almost identical to the one used in the 1990's slasher film "Granny". From then on the film is mostly boring. We get a few more deaths, which again are good, but there's not enough of them. The reason the deaths are so good is because they are frenzied and bloody. The story behind the film is actually rather interesting and would have worked very well had it not been so boring for the most part. <br /><br />I would avoid this unless you're a die-hard collector - there's not enough here to even make it an average slasher flick.
Friday the 13th step over! There is officially a worse movie than your hateful series out there. I won this movie in a contest at college, and it was a waste of money even if it was free. Jack Jones stars as a truly awful singer whose trying to find some murderers or something. At least Friday the Thirteenth never bored me. I'd rather have my fingernails pulled than see this again.
Gritty, dusty western from director Richard Brooks, who seems thoroughly engrossed in the genre while keeping all the usual clichés intact. Early 1900s horse race attracts a low-keyed cowboy (Gene Hackman), a suave gambler (James Coburn), a cocky kid (Jan Michael Vincent), and even a FEMALE (a surprisingly game Candice Bergen). Once the preliminaries are out of the way (with the predictable arguments over whether or not a woman should take part), this becomes a fairly engrossing entry, though one which breaks no new ground (it instead resembles something from Gary Cooper's era). Good-looking, if overlong piece has macho verve and a fine cast, yet the mechanisms of the plot get tiresome rather quickly. ** from ****
Here's a movie with a good cast and nice looking location work but it just don't have it. Director Richard Brooks must have been a little bit tired at this stage of the game; How much better his THE PROFESSIONALS was! The horses and the rest of the action seemed to be in slow motion even during the non-slow motion scenes. This film needed to be sped-up, if anything. That horse lather sure looked awful phony to me and the obvious tire tracks in those desert tracking moments- just lazy. sloppy work. Too bad. The actors did OK, but I've certainly seen all of them do better. Ben Johnson's always a joy, though. I first saw this flick almost 30 years ago; was disappointed then and remained so upon second viewing 30 years later.
This is a movie about animal cruelty. Under the guise of a marathon race, we see depictions of extreme animal abuse, including literally running a horse to death IN SLOW MOTION. The guy who did this then has his conscience spiritually cleansed by the flames from the burial/burning of the horse, which of course is still dead, having been tortured to death. This is one of the sickest, slimiest movies I've ever had the displeasure of viewing. As Gene Hackman and James Coburn near the finish line on their DYING animals, we're supposed to admire their spirit for finishing the race. I'd like to put the producers and director in a marathon race; I'll decide when they're finished, probably about 20 minutes after they stop breathing.
Ohhh the brutality, ohhhhh the dying breed, ohhhh the sense of loss, ohhhh the prejudice! Jeez, when are all you whiney revisionists going to stop analyzing Westerns for crying out loud? S**t happens. If it offends your socially engineered sensibilities then go back to the comfort of your Meryl Steep collection.<br /><br />Boring, tedious, and very tiresome waste of celluloid-particularly in light of Coburn/Hackman/Bergen's presence. Nothing interesting or intriguing here, unless you are obsessed with 19th century desert dentisty. May have been a little better without the constant diversion of the out-of-place mexican guy with the bad tooth. A monument to the stupid ultra-left creeping sensitivity of the 60/70's. Virtually impossible to sit through the entire film. I think I'd rather have my eyes stapled open for the entire Lucky Luke/Trinity series. 4 Horses/10-all deader'n hell.
The plot of this movie hangs on one important point: that this murderer was also a responsible, loving, caring father. Not that being a father and a murderer is impossible. But this man is shown murdering a teenage girl without provocation or reason and without emotion. This girl was someone's daughter. I don't think a father who cared so much about his own daughter could have been so cold-blooded to someone else's daughter. Or, alternately, could have been so cold blooded and yet worry about and care for his own daughter. And the idea that a convicted murderer would actually ask his victim's parents to take in and care for his daughter is beyond belief.<br /><br />That said, the characters were acted with conviction by the actors. I thought changing Scott Bakula's eye color did make him seem more cold and menacing than he usually is. You couldn't see into his eyes at all.
The idea of In the Name of the People is good, a murderer doesn't want his only daughter to end up in an institution and asks the parents of the girl he killed to take care of his daughter. And you could expect of the actors, especially Scott Bakula to do some good acting, unfortunately they don't! In the Name of The People turns out to be the regular Friday night tearjerker. The flashbacks with the girl that was killed are pretty pathetic and at a certain stage you can just predict what the actors will say... If you want to watch a good film about this subject then watch Dean Man Walking!
I'm sorry to report that I have seen this film several times. When it bombed at the box office, it was repeated nightly for about a month on HBO. And I watched it over and over because television in general is so bad--or was at that time. I no longer watch, so it might be wonderful now--like Samuel L Jackson says about swine, "It might taste like sweet potato pie, but I'll never know because I wouldn't eat the filthy mfer." Let's see. Dudley plays Arthur wandering in the desert, always a few steps behind Moses. It came out right after Life of Bryan, so you can guess where the inspiration for this came from. The few mildly funny bits go on way too long until you just close your eyes and grit your teeth. There's one scene where Arthur and Dom Deluise meet in the desert, both of them dragged out and dessicated, dying of thirst. Then they meet like old acquaintances who didn't really know each other very well, promise to do lunch. It could have been funny.<br /><br />But the scene that I remember most clearly is a meeting with pharaoh in which pharaoh is a black street kid done up in full King Tut regalia. He must have read the lines straight because at some point before the release, they overdubbed his scene with the Hollywood equivalent of black street lingo voiced by a Jimmy Walker wannabe (Kid Dyno-wannabe). Or it might have been Jimmy Walker--who knows? Who cares. They managed to turn an essentially boring scene into a very racist, very unfunny, very long piece of excrement, one of those legendary things that just won't flush, no matter how many times you try, so you leave it there for someone else to deal with.<br /><br />Well that's my review. If you rent this movie (DON'T BUY IT, WHATEVER YOU DO!) prepare yourself with a bottle of tequila and a six pack of Corona.<br /><br />Now that they've remade the Poseiden Adventure, this one is probably high on the list for remakes. Maybe they'll hire a comedy writer this time.
In the questionable comedy vein of Mel Brooks, "Wholly Moses!" tries to take the Bible story of Moses and make fun of it, resulting in the unfunniest Biblical spoof ever filmed.<br /><br />There is no real plot here, just excuses to trot out stalwart comedy talent in underwritten roles. Dudley Moore and Laraine Newman are on a bus tour of the Holy Land, when they stumble across an ancient scroll in a cave. There they read the story of Herschel and Zerelda, also played by Moore and Newman. Herschel's life parallels Moses'. He was sent down the river to be found by the pharaoh's family at the same time Moses was. Herschel's birth father, the late James Coco, becomes Herschel's slave after Herschel is rescued by idol makers and works as a sculptor. Eventually Herschel comes to work for the pharaoh as an astronomer, is banished, and ends up tending Moses' flock of sheep. Herschel and Moses are brothers in law, marrying sisters, and Herschel thinks God has chosen him to free his people in Egypt. Of course, Moses was receiving the Divine Word, but Herschel misunderstood. I'll pause here to laugh hysterically...pause...anyway, the rest of the film is a series of badly written scenes involving Moore and actors who are making "special appearances." These scenes do not propel the plot forward, they bring what little story there is to a grinding halt.<br /><br />Jack Gilford plays a tailor. Dom DeLuise has maybe three lines when he meets Herschel in the desert. John Houseman is an archangel, just giving the same line readings he gave in "The Paper Chase." David L. Lander is a fake blind man "healed" by Herschel. Andrea Martin is one of Zerelda's sisters. I was not sure who Madeline Kahn was supposed to be, she gives a ride to Herschel, and has about a minute and a half of screen time. John Ritter plays a very unfunny devil. Richard Pryor has one scene as the pharaoh, but it was obviously shot at a different time than Moore's scene because the two do not appear onscreen together! In the end, Zerelda turns into a pillar of salt after looking back on New Sodom's destruction, ha ha. Herschel writes the Ten Commandments, and gives them to Moses, who is basking in all the glory. In the final scenes, the screenwriter decide to try and salvage this shallow film by having Herschel bait God into an argument. God comes off as an all powerful bully who was leading Herschel around for his own amusement, speaking through him only to give him the Ten Commandments. We even have Zerelda quip "God works in mysterious ways," thereby excusing everyone's very unChristian behavior during the film.<br /><br />This film is not funny. There is nary a laugh to be found anywhere. At least Monty Python made fun of many established religious mainstays in "Life of Brian" in addition to their questionable take on Jesus' life, but here the humor consists of poo poo jokes and characters constantly bumping their heads. This makes Mel Brooks look like Merchant/Ivory. Churchgoers will be offended, not by the film's attitude toward religion, but by the smugness the movie exhibits, impressed with their own hoitytoityness (I know, not a word) on a subject they obviously know nothing about. "Wholly Moses!" is wholly bad, and an embarassment to all involved. I suggest you read the Book instead.<br /><br />This is rated (PG) for some physical violence, profanity, sexual references, and adult situations.
> you are warned this is a spoiler! > This movie is so bad that i doubt i can write enough lines. great direction the shots were well thought out. the actors were very good particularly Richard pryor tho i would have liked to have seen more of him. Madeline Kahn and john houseman were classic. Dudley More god bless him could have done better. John Ritter again i would have liked to see more of him. In my opinion this failure is due totally to writer failure. Maybe the producer could have pulled the plug once he saw what he was creating. Its just too bad that so much money went into this boiler,when with a little change here and there would in my opinion fixed it.They must have paid the writers standard rates. To produce one chuckle.
I attempted watching this movie twice and even then fast forwarding the irritating parts but still could not make it to the end.<br /><br />I don't understand how this movie *genuinely* got any good reviews. I think these people giving such good reviews are just trying to hype the movie for marketing purposes. Their reviews seem very unrealistic and it looks like an inside job, which makes things more pitiful. Movies should get true positive comments on their own steam and not contrived ones!! <br /><br />The acting was reminiscent of a cheesy porno movie, and not in a funny way. I don't mind low budget movies with bad acting if they know how to work with it. <br /><br />I found the lead character to be irritating. His facial expressions and humor was unbearably childish. I thought this was intentional to make the womens conspiracy seem more enjoyable and founded, but they were even worse. <br /><br />The script was also very awkward (his bosses overdone business speech) and the unfunny sarcastic remarks. <br /><br />I did not find anything redeeming about this movie other than some of the attractive women.<br /><br />Never have I felt that a rating was this misleading. I was interested by its premise but scared off by everything else. Of course see it if you want, but I just didn't want anyone else to get their hopes up/waste their time. <br /><br />Maybe it is just me... Probably not.
this video is 100% retarded. besides the brain cell killing acting and plot, it's way too long. don't waste your money at the video store. i actually was mad that i sat through this garbage and spent money on it. just absolutely awful.
Ah yes the 1980s , a time of Reaganomics and Sly , Chuck and a host of other action stars hiding in a remote jungle blowing away commies . At the time I couldn`t believe how movies like RAMBO , MISSING IN ACTION and UNCOMMON VALOR ( And who can forget the ridiculous RED DAWN ? ) made money at the box office , they`re turgid action crap fests with a rather off putting right wing agenda and they have dated very badly . TROMA`S WAR is a tongue in cheek take on these type of movies but you`ve got to ask yourself did they need spoofing in the first place ? Of course not . TROMA`S WAR lacks any sort of sophistication - though it does make the point that there`s no real difference between right wing tyrants and left wing ones - and sometimes feels more like a grade z movie than a send up . Maybe it is ?
This is truly an awful movie and a waste of 2 hours of your life. It is simultaneously bland and offensive, with nudity and lots and lots of violence. However, the nudity is not that exciting, and the violence is repetitive and boring. Also, the plot is flimsy at best, the characters are unrealistic and undeveloped, and the acting is some of the worst I have ever seen. <br /><br />I have heard that this movie is supposed to be funny, but it's not. I did not laugh once while watching it, nor did I even crack a smile. The makers of this film tried to combine a comedy movie with an action movie, and they failed on both counts. <br /><br />Some poorly made movies are funny because they are so bad, but this is not one of them.
I'm not ruining anything when I inform you that you get to see a woman have sex with a goat in this movie. If that is your thing, then your movie has arrived.<br /><br />A woman and her husband go to see her estranged sister in the family mansion in the woods. Her sister is a creepy lady to say the least, and she seems to have interests that go beyond family love. On the side a group of unsavory characters show up and begin enacting all kinds of pagan rituals.<br /><br />The plotting is pretty weak and the characters are pretty dumb. The woman sticks around even after her husband starts turning into a jerk and hanging out with the pagans, even continues the have sex with him. On the exploitative side of things, there is much bared flesh and a couple of kinky couplings, but nothing that hasn't been better somewhere else. Oh, and the aforementioned goat-sex scene.<br /><br />Most viewers won't make it to the end. Exploitation fans will ride it out, but will be left wanting more.<br /><br />4/10
Extremely thin 'plot' of satanic rituals or some such mumbo-jumbo provides the hokey excuse to thread copious amounts of sex scenes together. Straight vanilla sex, masturbation, lesbianism, S&M, bestiality, incest, and a few other sexual proliferation's all get their time in the spotlight here. The problem is the storyline is so dull that the rampant sexuality gets pretty tedious after awhile. Who knew that a film with an intimate goat/ girl encounter could be so damn boring? Well now I do.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Venessa Hidalgo shows all; Helga Line provides T&A (both on display quite frequently); women viewers get the occasional penis.<br /><br />My Grade: D+<br /><br />Region 1 DVD Extras: Trailers for "Pick Up", "Legend of Eight Samurai", "Don't Answer the Phone", "Prime Evil", & "Sister Street Fighter" (also the same DVD holds a second feature movie "Evil Eye")
I absolutely despise this movie. No wonder Jose Larraz "disowned" it at one point and refuses to discuss it. I admire Larraz's work, especially his more obscure slasher/sex maniac thrillers like SAVAGE LUST or SCREAM AND DIE. His work has a kind of inescapable artiness about it that he can't seem to switch off, owing in part to his secondary career as a painter & cartoonist. It's too bad he never made a Western, his vision would have been perfect.<br /><br />BLACK CANDLES is easily his most notorious film and probably his best known after the masterpiece VAMPYRES. And it's notoriety revolves around one scene where a Satanic coven enacts a bizarre rite involving extracting the reproductive fluid of a goat -- symbolizing The Beast -- as some kind of nauseating balm to be used in preparing the waif like sister of a murdered man for her role as the bride of Satan. The scene in question is staged in a way that looks rather convincing even without the display of any plumbing apparatus the goat may have been endowed with, relying upon the histrionics of the actress recruited to play the supplicant in the ritual and lots of guttural chanting on the film's recycled musical score heard in a half-dozen films attributed to Jacinto Molina. The perverse nature of the scene is more implied than shown in graphic detail, heightened somewhat by the knowledge that said supplicant is actually the teen-aged daughter of the Satanic priest. My but they had fun concocting this movie.<br /><br />The problem with it is that there isn't much to deconstruct or contemplate aside from the paper thin ROSEMARY'S BABY derived story of a woman being weaned into her role as Satan's bride by a sophisticated coven of Satanists living in the hedgrowed outlands of a very sinister Britain. Led by Eurohorror sensation Helga Line these Satanists are comprised of doctors, lawyers, land owning magnates and other upper crust dignitaries who actually owe their professional success to their worship of the devil. All you have to do is sell your soul and the world can be yours, only watch out whom you may sell out to pay back petty personal conflict or you may end up being felched with a sword.<br /><br />The film attempts to combine this heady Satanic trip with oodles or borderline graphic sex, and should correctly be regarded as a kind of apex or culmination of the sex and horror Spanish thriller traditions popularized in part by Mr. Molina & Ms. Line, and which had amazingly flourished under the disapproving eye of one Generalissimo Franco, the dictator who controlled Spain up until 1976. While he lived his decree was that Spanish cinema was to be free of graphic depictions of on-screen sex. Spanish directors often made two versions of their films, one with the sex concealed for their own screens and one with the fornication on display for export. As difficult as it was for the filmmakers to express themselves the result was a sort of interesting tension that usually results when artists flirt with the forbidden: Spanish horror from the 1970s has a very special flavor to it that is somewhat of an acquired taste. It's not for everyone.<br /><br />But in a bizarre turn of events, without Franco's influence on their culture Spanish horror sort of dried up in the late 1970s, when their Gothic castles and demonic orgies suddenly found themselves passé when compared to new sensations like JAWS and the STAR WARS phenomenon. And without Franco's constraints their were suddenly a flood of overtly graphic thrillers that came tumbling out of the pipes in the very late 70s/early 80s, of which BLACK CANDLES is perhaps the best known due to it's emphasis on sexual deviancy with a barnyard animal. Larraz' major horror films have always revolved around sexual taboos (the lesbianism of VAMPYRES, the incest of SCREAM AND DIE & DEVIATION) but here the effect of the depravity is to overshadow the rest of the production. Nobody cares about anything else but the traditionally censored trip to the Goat Barn, and watching a cut version without the scene in the barn is almost an exercise in pointlessness. The sex isn't graphic enough to rate as porn and the chills aren't chilling enough to rate as horror.<br /><br />So, BLACK CANDLES is essentially a behavior study -- Here is how high society British Satanists might behave in their secluded mansions out in the West Midlands or whatever. Between sex scenes the actors/actresses sit around and have lots of discussions. The best thing the film has going for it is an undeniably oppressive atmosphere of claustrophobia, with most of it's action taking place in the tightly confined interiors of Ms. Line's character's mansion. Nearly every avenue of fornication is hinted at so fans of soft-core sex romps with a hinting of supernatural horror will be amused, and of course the vicarious sex criminals amongst us will enjoy choking their chickens to the goat barn scene. But the ultimate conclusion of the film is silly, pretentious, intelligence insulting, and probably perfect for such an otherwise forgettable exercise in applied sleaze.<br /><br />2/10; Without the Goat Barn this movie just isn't the same, and with the scene it's probably a bit too much for most viewers. Larraz was correct to disown it.
Black Candles is rather a muddled mess from the same director that brought us "Vampyres" and much later, "Rest in Pieces", among others..I'm only noting the ones I've seen. At any rate, we have a couple making love and then somewhere near by a pin is poised over a voodoo doll and then pierces it, and the man keels over. Not sure if it was good for either of them, at that point. Fast forward to where the man's sister has come to the house to investigate and hear the reading of the will, or something to that effect, and of course everybody else except her is in on something, which happens to be devil worship. It's really hard to say who is who at moments during the movie and it does get a bit confusing at times. To spice things up though, there's a simulated bestiality scene (I HOPE it's simulated) with a black goat, sure to be a crowd pleaser. Ugh. At times this echoes "Rosemary's Baby", minus the baby, because the hostess is always giving one woman herbal tea and the place reeks of whatever nasty Satanic herbs these are too, because that keeps getting remarked upon. However, the herbs aren't the only thing that reeks about this film. The end seems to be back to the beginning again, and many viewers might find themselves wondering where they've been during the middle part. It's not unwatchable, it's just not very good, and I guess it all depends on what you like to see in films, and there wasn't much here that did anything much for me. 3 out of 10.
When Carol (Vanessa Hidalgo) starts looking into her brother's death, she begins to suspect something more sinister than "natural causes". The closer she gets to the truth, the more of a threat she becomes to her sister-in-law, Fiona (Helga Line), and the rest of the local Satanists. They'll do whatever is necessary to put a stop her nosy ways.<br /><br />If you're into sleazy, Satanic-themed movies, Black Candles has a lot to offer. The movie is filled with plenty of nudity and ritualistic soft-core sex. One scene in particular involving a young woman and a goat must be seen to be believed. Unfortunately, all the sleaze in the world can't save Black Candles. Most of the movie is a total bore. Other than the one scene I've already mentioned, the numerous sex scenes aren't shocking and certainly aren't sexy. The acting is spotty at best. Even genre favorite Helga Line gives a disappointing performance. The plot really doesn't matter. Its main function seems to be to hold the string of dull sex scenes together. I'm only familiar with one other movie directed by Jose Ramon Larraz. Compared with his Daughters of Darkness that masterfully mixes eroticism and horror, Black Candles comes off as amateurish. 3/10 is about the best I can do.
What made me track this movie down was the viewing Vampyres, I thought I have to get the other movies this guy (Larroz) has made, I was sorry I tracked this down,it is a weak attempt at an occult/satanic type movie laden with sex and only sex(with ugly actors and actresses, this is an excuse for sleaze. The only redeeming factor was the setting and atmosphere, avoid this one, too much hype surrounds it, not worth the effort of finding it, this refers to the welcome to the grind house edition. I hope he has some other movies which lives up to Vampyres, Oh and the goat scene was very boring, I understand that this is what carries the hype.
One of the cornerstones of low-budget cinema is taking a well-known, classic storyline and making a complete bastardization out of it. Phantom of the Mall is no exception to this rule. The screenwriter takes the enduring Phantom of the Opera storyline and moves it into a late '80s shopping mall. However, the "Phantom's" goal now is simply to get revenge upon those responsible for disfiguring his face and murdering his family. The special effects do provide a good chuckle, especially when body parts begin appearing in dishes from the yogurt stand. Pauly Shore has a small role which does not allow him to be as fully obnoxious as one would expect, mostly due to the fact that his fifteen minutes of MTV fame had not yet arrived. If you're looking for a few good laughs at the expense of the actors and special effects crew, check this flick out. Otherwise, keep on looking for something else.
Phantom of the Mall is a film that fits best in the "easily forgotten" category. It's a pretty lousy variant on the famous story by Gaston Leroux, the Phantom of the Opera. Not a bad idea to itself, but the plot and production of this movie are way to weak to bring a decent homage to that story. On the bright side, Gaston Leroux doesn't has to turn over in his grave just yet. It could have been a lot worse. <br /><br />Phantom of the Mall has too many useless flashbacks in it and way too many boring sequences to make it memorable. Also, the scriptwriters wanted to give too much draught to the story than necessary. And even though there's a lot of mystery getting build up about the character of Eric ... the basic plot is ordinary and déjà-vu. ***SPOILERS*** It's about a young couple that brutally gets torn apart because the boy gets killed in a fire. That fire was set to his house because he and his parents refused to sell their home in order to make room for a huge mall to be build. The boy survived the fire and he has hidden himself in the mall to avenge himself. Meanwhile he guards his girl who now works in the mall and tries to forget her loss ****END SPOILERS*** This pretty simple - but rather effective - plot gets thickened by lots of pointless elements and annoying conspiracy theories. While it should just be an entertaining horror movie, it desperately tries to be an intelligent thriller...and that's not what the fans look for. There are a few innovative killings but they're not satisfying enough for people who want to see a relaxing horror movie. And besides, Phantom of the Mall could have used at least a bit of humor!! This entire production - the cast included - takes itself way too serious. <br /><br />I'll try to finish with a few positive aspects...Like for example, it stars Ken Foree !! Die-hard horror fans will certainly recognize him as Peter for Dawn of the Dead! That's like the horror milestone that yet has to find an equal. Even though his role in this movie is limited and even completely unnecessary...it was good to see him again. TV-movie fans will also recognize Morgan Fairchild as the mayor, she's a fine actress and an elegant lady. Pauly Shore is also in this but I can't stand him...so my opinion about him may be a bit biased. And finally, a bit of praise for the leading actress named Kari Whitman. She's an extremely beautiful girl and she does have a bit of talent...too bad she never made it to the top. Actually, this movie is her biggest achievement and that says enough about her career...
Somewhere between the Food Court and Zip's, the mall in this film<br /><br />has an explosives store. This is the only place the title character<br /><br />can purchase the bomb he plants in the mall in the dull finale.<br /><br />A fictional town has a new mall, built on some land that was<br /><br />condemned. Cute Girl (I didn't catch her name) gets a job as a<br /><br />waitress there. She lost her boyfriend in a fire at the site where the<br /><br />mall stands. The villainous mall owner hires the arsonist<br /><br />responsible for the fire as a security guard after his first security<br /><br />guard ends up dead. Rob Estes, eons before "Silk Stalkings," is a<br /><br />photog/reporter trying to find a story. He hooks up with Cute Girl,<br /><br />and their mutual "funny" friend Pauly Shore, and try to find out if Eric<br /><br />is still alive. He is, living in the mall basement (?) and traveling<br /><br />through the air ducts and offing different people who upset his<br /><br />former girlfriend, including the arsonist. Eventually, he kidnaps her<br /><br />and the finale involves the bomb and everyone running from the<br /><br />scene before the big kablooey. Morgan Fairchild is along for the<br /><br />ride as the mayor...yes, she's the mayor.<br /><br />Of course, you probably did not need a plot sketch since the entire<br /><br />story is in the title. Someone named Eric is taking revenge against<br /><br />people as a phantom of a mall. This also means there is no<br /><br />suspense. We know Eric is behind this, but we still have to see<br /><br />Estes and Cute Girl go through the motions of a silly investigation.<br /><br />Watch as Fairchild, who we know has been in cahoots with the<br /><br />mall owner all along, pull a gun on our heroic duo in the middle of<br /><br />a crowded party, yet no one says a word as she leads them to her<br /><br />office, and her eventual death. The fictional town is huge, yet nary a<br /><br />policeman is ever called, everyone relies on mall security for order.<br /><br />Eric has been hiding since the mall was built, but I am not sure<br /><br />where. He seems to live in a basement area, but you would think<br /><br />some construction worker would have found him. He also has<br /><br />furnished his love pad quite well, and found a few outlets, since he<br /><br />has electricity. It might be nicer than your own apartment!<br /><br />Pauly Shore fans, both of you, take note. He tricks a security guard<br /><br />out of his booth by mooning the camera. Yes, stop scanning<br /><br />Celebrity Skin and Playgirl, this is where you get to see a grainy<br /><br />black and white shot of Pauly's south shore, although no weezil.<br /><br />This is just junk, and proof positive that I am down to renting just<br /><br />about anything at the video store to stay in the horror section. This<br /><br />film is not Eric's revenge, it is the film maker's revenge for me<br /><br />being dumb enough to watch it. Here is my revenge: I do not<br /><br />recommend it. That'll show 'em!<br /><br />This is rated (R) for physical violence, some gun violence, gore,<br /><br />some profanity, some female nudity, brief male nudity, and some<br /><br />sexual content.
On the face of it, Ruiz has set out to make a psychological thriller. Although it's not as satisfying as a classic piece in that genre, there are compensations. The tensions generated between Huppert and Balibar as women calmly but calculatingly at war over a boy they both claim are compelling; however, in a true European art-house style, Ruiz doesn't give us release of this tension as the women alternately also try to behave compassionately towards each other. The only raised voice is that of Huppert's waking from a nightmare (an uncontested irrational event in the film).<br /><br />In fact, if we follow the title, the film is as little about its thriller skeleton as Jane Campion's In The Cut. Instead it is an intergender psychological study focusing on men. The boy, Camille (Nils Hugon), decides on a practical joke, playing his mother off against an emotionally vulnerable other woman. Both women seem to pander to him rather than scold and this compounds the problem. In the background is an intemperate psychologist (Charles Berling), swift to confront the women in his life - his sister Huppert, the nanny or his pa - and so acting as a symbolic adult counterbalance to the, calm and (we learn) manipulative Camille. It is particularly interesting that, like the father in Henry James' The Turn of The Screw, Denis Podalydes' law-enforcer Father is absent for the duration of the film. Ruiz fashions an Oedipal moment out of Huppert's reaction to his return at the film's close.<br /><br />Read either as a thriller or as a psychiatric essay, this film is ultimately rather disappointing. I'm officially rather fed up with Mme Huppert's screen method, which is too buried and so I'll be looking to see her on stage before I come back to her (European - enjoyed Heaven's Gate) films again. The support is good. Ruiz does the cast no favours though. Quite apart from some poor lighting and some wilfully odd shots, its as if his direction has left characterisation quite out of reach - I'm thinking particularly of Edith Scob's Shamanic neighbour to Isabelle, who acts knowing but communicates bafflement. The set pieces do not link up to a forward driving plot - the tension I have already referred to is not only weakly dissipated but wasted in its directional potential.<br /><br />Want to see a good contemporary French thriller? Go and see L'Appartement instead. 4/10
On his birthday a small boys tells his mother he is not her son, and that he wants to go home to his real mother.<br /><br />In some ways Comedy De L'Innocence feels like it comes from a different time of movie-making, perhaps the 60's or 70's. Certainly it reminded me of Losey's Secret Ceremony (1968), and Richard Loncraine's Full Circle (1977), both of which deal with loss, grief and relationships between parents and 'lost' children (curiously both films star Mia Farrow).<br /><br />All three films are populated with unsympathetic characters who behave in strange and unexplained ways. All three films have a chilly feel, both emotionally and literally. All three films focus on mother-child relationships, and ultimately all three films pose the question - 'what is real, what is imagined?' <br /><br />Beautiful but flawed, it offers no easy answers and leaves much hanging, unexplained and strange.
I wish I could give this movie a zero, or even lower, because sadly that's what it deserves. I honestly never walk out of a movie, but this one was so dreadfully awful that I couldn't stand another minute of it. Please,please, please- for the sake of mankind- skip this movie. If you want a hot lesbian movie that you can really delve into, this isn't it.<br /><br />It has unattractive, unappealing leads, choppy structure, ridiculous dialog, and it is absolutely unconvincing in every imaginable way. On an absolutely basic level, it fails to entertain. Everything about "Mango Kiss" is so stagey, it is WORSE than any student film I have seen.<br /><br />As if that weren't enough, the entire movie relies on constant (and I mean CONSTANT) voice over narration. The script writer may as well have written a novel, because they insisted on TELLING everything, instead of SHOWING it. We are just supposed to assume that Lou and Sassafras are the best of friends and have a special connection, even though there is no character development to illustrate this. Also, this film continues to introduce to new characters after the first five minutes, and not in a natural way, but in a freeze-frame of the characters with their name written over the screen. There is no introduction, no development of any of the characters. We don't really get to know any of them.<br /><br />This is the most amateur movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />I am a gay woman, who watched this film with my roommate (another gay woman) and we both found this movie to be a depressing representation of queer cinema. I am beginning to think that lesbian and gay movies are a lot like Christian rock - it doesn't matter how atrocious it is, people will still flock to it, and champion it, no matter how poor the quality is. Please don't rent this!! Instead, let's encourage the production of QUALITY gay and lesbian movies by renting "But I'm a Cheerleader" or "Fire" or "Heavenly Creatures", instead of swallowing whatever mindless tripe they aim at the gay community (i.e. Queer as Folk).
I borrowed this movie because not only because its gay theme but the thought of role playing really intrigued me. I was pleasantly surprised that it was shot in San Francisco since I live near SF. And of course it was nice to see shots of the Castro district (although the castro to me really caters more to gay male than female). But other than that I can't really recommend this movie. The characters aren't really developed for me to care and when they finally started to get to the "role playing" I was already bored out of my mind. And the role playing scenes that I did see were a bit embarrassing to watch. The acting leaves something to be desired. Needless to say I didn't finish the movie. I'd skip this one.
OK, my girlfriend and I rented the DVD and about 30 minutes into the movie, we'd exchanged a lot of "ehhh, what IS this movie about and more importantly, do I care to find out what it ends with" glances and decided we either needed drugs to keep us interested in the "plot" or just end the pain right there and then and watch something else. We opted for the latter.<br /><br />I liked "But I'm a Cheerleader" a lot, but Mango Kiss is too silly and surreal for my taste, sorry! I definitely prefer "D.E.B.S", "Better Than Chocolate", "Fucking Åmål", "Goldfish Memory" and "Fire".<br /><br />-Sorcia
In over 70 years of watching movies,This has to be one of the very worst comedies ever made. Mel Brooks, Mike Meyers & a few other have made some very bad comedies, this however is the absolute bottom of the barrel.<br /><br />It is unfunny from the very opening,to the tacked on scene during the credits.<br /><br />Diane Keaton who I normally like must have needed her paycheck badly. She desperately needs to re-learn her craft.<br /><br />Dax Shepard (I do not know who he is),needs a better director,to show him how to act.<br /><br />Liv Tyler is also not up to her role.<br /><br />Mike White needs to find another character,he has done this same type person a few times too many.<br /><br />Ken Howard who started out years back as a first rate actor, also not as good as he used to be.<br /><br />There is nothing decent I can say on this attempt at movie comedy.<br /><br />Ratings: * (out of 4) points 25(out of 100) IMDb 1 (out of 10)
Whatever happened to Keaton is what I want to know.<br /><br />Actually I don't, I crawled away, heaving, thinking she must owe half the bookies in Vegas, or maybe not, maybe she was just brainwashed, blackmailed and bored to death. Rich enough to adopt a third-world country, she somehow had to star in yet another cookie-cut, cliché-ridden drool'athon, based on the same character-franchise she's been rehashing since 'Father of the Bride'('91). You'd think she's going head to head with Mr.Bean.<br /><br />(Spoilers) <br /><br />So hubby (Dax) get's fired by obnoxious son of boss, his mom (Keaton)leaves his dad after classic row, and crashes over with her own dog-show in tow, oh those little rascals. Hubby's got cold-feet for diaper-duty, wifey's clock a-ticking and hey, let's toss in a space-cadet as second house-guest for good measure, all in one day because that's so funny and original. Wife gets fed up and walks away, mom leaves dad for space-cadet and the couple makes up in time for closing credits, 86 very long minutes later.<br /><br />Now if you have to have a space-cadet, he can't be devious as well, he can't scheme some excuse for his stayover, and if mom leaves dad, she can't hop into a cab dressed as a pumpkin just because some scriptwriter agonized over how to cheer thing up. <br /><br />Plus that gag whereby they invite her in only to then discover she's got her canine entourage in the cab has got to be outlawed by now. And you only get one obnoxious 2-dimensional boss to denigrate. Another movie-killer would be the movie-script the space cadet is toiling away at, supposedly more lame than the actual one, again, dejas-ad-nausea.<br /><br />Liv Tyler doesn't seem happy here, her voice was weird at times, it had me wondering if they later had her redub some of it, and she's a smart one, she's handled great roles and we'll forgive her for Jersey Girl, it was disaster-prone, could happen to anyone. Dax Shepard was watchable and that's being generous considering the material.<br /><br />Personally, it's the director, the screenwriters and especially the producers that I would love to see tar'n'feathered before shipped to Guantanamo as playthings for the prisoners, and that's me keeping this 'lite'.
Watching Smother was perhaps the longest not-quite-90-minutes of my life. There wasn't a laugh to be had; in fact, I don't remember ever cracking a smile. Diane Keaton was horridly unfunny as a middle-aged chain-smoking dog hoarder, the textbook overbearing mother character, a relentlessly irritating woman who clearly suffers from some kind of personality disorder. She is manipulative, conniving, melodramatic, childish, narcissistic, and worst of all, boring.<br /><br />I suppose I should briefly mention the other characters, but why bother? It was just a long string of movie clichés--the dippy, socially inept distant relative who's just trying to break into "The Industry", the gruff and long-suffering but somehow still lovable father, the mild- mannered wife who just can't take it anymore (but eventually moves beyond the discord and resignedly comes home), the herd of unhousebroken dogs who like to chew throw pillows while everyone is away, etc.<br /><br />God, what a snore. I've never been a Diane Keaton fan and Smother only reminded me why. Overacting is overacting, no matter how many pictures you did in your prime. Her attempts at physical comedy were especially humiliating. What was the director thinking?<br /><br />While I like Dax Shepard and can even sometimes tolerate Liv Tyler, their performances were so lackluster and dull that it was clear that neither actor gave a damn about this movie. That was okay, because neither did I. Keaton's endless self-absorbed prattling was intolerable and at times Shepard's dislike for her seemed genuine. By the end of the movie I wanted to slap her myself.<br /><br />Awful.
After seeing the poster from the film Smother,I knew I was about to live one of those intolerable film experiences which make me want to take my eyes out.However,I felt a slight optimism because the movie had a solid cast which I thought it was going to rescue the movie.Unfortunately that did not happen.Smother is a horrible movie,but it is not execrable.That is the best I can say about it.<br /><br />The screenplay from Smother (written by the same guys from License to Wed,something which explains they have anything but talent for writing movies) is full of cheap and predictable humor.Seriously,I did not laugh even once watching this film.Besides,the solid cast I previously mentioned is absolutely wasted.After the big number of garbage she has been involved in (like the monumentally atrocious and execrable Because I Said So),some people may think the career from Diane Keaton is extinguishing.However,it is impossible for me to forget the excellent performances she has brought in previous decades,on films like Annie Hall or Baby Boom.On Smother,she makes her best effort with her performance,but her character is so horribly written she cannot do anything with it.Dax Shepard has left on me a good impression with his solid performances on the films Baby Mama and Idiocracy.However,he does what he can with his character.Mike White also makes a good effort,but he does not reach too far away.He is a very talented screenwriter (like he has shown on films like The Good Girl and School of Rock),so I would have liked to see he was one of the screenwriters from this movie,instead of only acting on it.Liv Tyler suffers from the same situation of all the previously mentioned actors : being wasted.<br /><br />The worst fail from Smother is being absolutely boring and unfunny.Its screenplay is nothing more than a collection of forced scenes and situations we have seen on sit-coms.Stay far away from this crappy comedy.
Totally forgettable. Specially because of the weak acting. This is the first movie I've seen with Dax Shepard. To my surprise, he's been around since the late 90's. I thought he was a newcomer, since his acting was so bland. I could say the same about Liv Tyler. Although I've seen her do well in other movies, she gave Clare Cooper a strange personality. Liv is not the kind of actress that will give the character a fiery, emotional personality like Diane Keaton would be able to, but it was pretty strange to see her say her lines in whisper mode. It seemed that altogether there simply wasn't a very good chemistry going on between the actors, and I think Diane Keaton sensed that as well. She's a fantastic actress, but seemed just a bit over the top in this movie. It felt like she just wanted to get this movie over as soon as possible. I wouldn't blame her.
If you hit your teens in the 70s, as I did, you probably remember the stories about Studio 54 whether or not you liked disco. An exclusive club, it was the perfect symbol of 70s cultural overindulgence and self-absorption; there's even an excellent VH1 documentary about the club that could tell you everything you wanted to know about its heyday, and the stories are easily interesting enough to spawn a very captivating film.<br /><br />Sadly, this isn't it. 54 follows the lives of a few of its employees, a bartender named Shane (Ryan Phillippe), a busboy named Greg (Breckin Meyer), his wife, a coat-check girl, Anita (Selma Hayek), and of course the master of ceremonies himself, Steve Rubell (Mike Meyers). While the goings-on at the club are well represented, this film concerns itself more with the personal lives of the workers, following Shane's story the closest.<br /><br />The movie works in spurts. Sometimes it captures perfectly the shallowness of the nightlife culture (such as when Shane is taken to a dinner party and doesn't know who 'Errol Flynt' is), and other times it waxes into hokey melodrama. Some of that is inherent in the premise – following the underlings as they mingle in the world of the rich and fabulous – but a lot of it is due to the kid-gloved treatment with which both the club and Rubell are given throughout the movie. While Rubell certainly electrified the scene in New York with his penchant for over-the-top spectacle and his exclusive hand-picking of the crowds each night, the rampant drugs and sexuality are only briefly touched on; and Rubell himself, while his excesses are mentioned, come off oddly positive for a guy who was in life a liar, a cheat, a drug abuser, and promiscuous as all hell. Not that I was looking for the man to be pilloried here, but his ego directly contributed to the fall of his club and the diminishing of the nightlife culture he helped to elevate. A final scene where he gazes down at the regulars paternally is so emotionally false as to be patently absurd.<br /><br />Meyers does his best to capture Rubell, but he's given so little to work with here it's surprising his performance is effective; but he's good, and he helps to anchor the film. Philippe, whom I find generally to be a good actor, is hamstrung here by the shallowness and stupidity of his character; he's limited to a deer-in-the-headlights smile or a sullen uncomprehending frown, and even he can't translate that into a strong performance. Hayek and Meyer are both okay, again, undercut by the writing, and Neve Campbell – prominently featured on the DVD cover – appears so briefly she really has an extended cameo.<br /><br />For some reason I still find myself interested, even fascinated, by the popular culture of the second half of the seventies. But even given that, this is not a film that particularly engaged me, despite a predisposition to like it. I'd say if that era, or that club, has any interest for you, track down the VH1 special rather than this middle-of-the-road melodrama.
54 is a film about a club with that very title in the setting of the 70s era. It features the classic good-looking bartender. The sexy females. The high powered owner. The partying. When all entwined together chaos ensues, and the bartender (played by Phillipe) seems to be at the brunt of it all.<br /><br />I'm going to be as blunt and honest as possible, whilst avoiding any outright unfair or untrue comments (like, it's an 'ok' film). I really do find it a completely dire film complimented by it's dire cast. Every time I sit down to watch a film casting Salma Hayek, I am always awaiting to see her beauty, radiantly expressed simultaneously with a great performance, but, reality invariably reminds me quite abruptly how utterly talentless she is. I mean, really, what has she ever bequeathed the masses with, other than her immense table dance in 'From Dusk Till Dawn'...? The same goes for Ryan Phillippe, another poor actor who gives nothing to the screen but his good looks and insanely dull facade otherwise known as 'acting'. Mike Myers, isn't quite as bad as these 2, he does at least give the Film something worthy. Playing the seedy, extroverted co-founder of the 54 Club. The type that the majority watching would hate (i.e. job well done), he puts in a somewhat convincing performance that gave me rare enjoyment from the flick. But alas, it is not enough to rescue the film from it's baseless and flat nothingness. Most 'bad' bad films I find something to take from the film, but this has nothing to it, really. Neve Campbell isn't too bad, but she is just 'there'. The storyline is dull, it appears the writer was more bent on making a film of this style and embellishment and forgot to add anything else. Any meaning. Any class. Anything at all. Because like most ornaments, they are just hollow pointless objects, that are merely pretty to look at, much akin to the basis of this disastrous film.<br /><br />Genuinely an hour and a half of time I could have spent better doing something much more exciting, like talking to 90 year old relatives on the phone about the weather.
"54" is a film based on the infamous "Studio 54" of the 1970s - the hangout for the social elite and party clubbers. In the film, Ryan Phillippe is the main character, based on an actual employee of Studio from 1977 - 1982.<br /><br />The film's problem is that it's all glitter and style and no substance. It tries to be a really grimy and probing satire like "Boogie Nights" but ultimately comes across as an inferior wannabe. Mike Myers is given the thankless task of playing cocaine-snorting club owner Steve Rubell. It's only a slightly comedic role and if this was Myers' best attempts at sliding into drama like Lemmon and other comedic actors did in their time, it's a total failure.<br /><br />"54" could have been insightful and interesting but instead it's just another dumb teen flick that isn't entertaining or even remotely engaging. View at your own peril.
What a waste! This movie could have really been something decent, but the writing, in particular, is crap, and the main characters are rather shallow and uninteresting. Mike Meyers was good, and the historical recreation of late 70s decadence was well crafted, but overall, this movie was a big waste of time. Instead, the movie to watch, that deals with similar themes and the same basic time frame, is the great BOOGIE NIGHTS.
Unfortunately this film, 54 was a pathetic attempt of the true story of 'Studio 54.' The only thing that was good about the picture was 'Mike Myers' who was a joy to watch. 'Neve Cambpell,' although her role was little was unfortunately bad. The bottom line is that this film lacked a good performance from the actors, except one and that the conversion of the true story was a desperate attempt for a good screenplay.
Me and my girlfriend went to see this movie as a "Premiere Surprise" that is we bought at ticket to the preview to a movie before it opened here in Denmark. We sat through the 1st hour or so and then we left! The point of the movie seemed to be simply to portray the era (and club 54), but it did so at the expence of character development, of which there was none, and plot of which there was little.<br /><br />Seldom have I been so indifferent to the characters in a movie!<br /><br />The music was good though. So if you like to hear some good music and get a fix of that 70ies mood I guess it is OK. But don't expect to get a plot of believable characters.<br /><br />
Unless you understand wretched excess this movie won't really mean much to you. An attempt was made to interject a bit of humanity into a cold and bleak period consumed by alcohol and drugs -- it doesn't work.<br /><br />When Salma Hayak does her big disco number her voice is so obviously dubbed it is pathetic -- the producers could at least have gotten someone that sounded remotely like her.<br /><br />The documentary that has been playing on television lately is far superior and gives a much truer view of that period of our history.<br /><br />No one, with the exception of Mikey Myers, could be accused of acting; however, he does an incredible job.
I know no one cares, but I do. This film is historic for one reason. It is the unity of two heroes from two great seventies sci-fi films. Well, one is great, and one is quite bad. The great one is truly great, in fact it's the best. The bad one is truly bad, in fact it's the worst. Of course of the great I refer to "Star Wars" and it's star Mark Hamill, aka "Luke Skywalker", who is the hero of this film about a kid who gets his Vette swiped and then goes to Vegas (on a lead) and after a whole lot of adventures, eventually recovers it. (Since he's into fixing cars I guess you can call him "Lube Skywalker"). Along the way he meets a hooker with a heart of gold, and ends up facing off with a character played by Kim Milford, the hero from the seventies sci-fi cult film "Laserblast", which is, as I've hinted at earlier, the worst sci-fi film ever made. Milford plays the lead baddie whom Hamill must steal his car back from. I realize that no one cares about this meeting of two great sci-fi heroes, but I do. And I also must say that this is one of the best/worst movies of all time. Mark Hamill's acting needs the force, the plot needs extensive Jedi training, and the character of the hooker played by Annie Potts just might be the most annoying character of all time, ever, in any film I've ever seen. But it's a fun movie to watch on a weekend day, or a weekday night, late at night, very late. It's one of those films that meanders, looking for something but without quite finding it and yet, at the same time, it's entire purpose is, like free-form jazz, to simply exist as is. And it does. And what is, isn't that great, but you can't say it isn't entertaining, because for an hour and a half you might feel ripped off, but you won't feel cheated. So turn off your mind, relax, and enjoy this muddled gem without any expectations, and may the force be with you, always.
The summer of 1979, when this flick was a staple on that new movie medium called HBO, was Gas Line Summer & Iranian Hostage Crisis Summer. A change of mood was about to end low-budget, loner-on-a-mission car films, although "Smokey & the Bandit" kept need-for-speed flicks going as live-action Roadrunner cartoons for a few more years. "Corvette Summer" is as quirky as any earlier movie like "Vanishing Point" or "Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry," if lighter & sexier than most. Just-graduated, high-school automotive genius Kenneth (Hamill) hitchhikes to Vegas in pursuit of the car theft ring that ripped off his Shop Class masterpiece, a super-custom, right-hand-drive Vette. In the spiritual limbo of the I-15 desert (see "Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas") he gets into a custom van (yes, this was the tail end of the van craze, too) tricked out as a mobile bordello & driven by sassy, aspiring hooker Vanessa (Potts), on her way to Sin City to make her, well, whatever it is ambitious hookers make. VANessa, get it? Shy, innocent Kenneth is in way over his head in Vegas, with only his all-American resolve & his new friend to help him, although the hard-edged young call girl is predictably less world-wise than she first seems. Why, in the "I am Woman" age, Vanessa invested her talents, money & future in the world's oldest but least dignified profession over, say, college or even hairdressing, can be explained by young men who'd like to think that all women at least consider the joys of that career path. Remember the target audience, right? Hamill is a good choice for the whitebread Kenneth (the car doesn't even belong to him personally, but to his school), who won't be deterred from his goal by violence, money or even love--until he finds out why the car was really stolen. Potts acts with style & energy but Vanessa is too incredible for any but the most credulous testosterone machine to buy into. The bad guys are made surprisingly human, especially by the always-fine Brion James. But there's not much action & this isn't the kind of movie that can be carried by dialog, plot twists or Heavy Themes. You could always reach up, turn the TV dial & plug in your "Pong" console. The similar but meaner Chris Mitchum vehicle "Stingray," which appeared at about the same time, featured lamer acting but more skin, speed & mayhem. The best features of each film might have produced a Vette movie worth remembering. Thus the Trans Am was left to rule the box-office muscle car showroom. Another forgotten car movie brought back from the dead by "Speed Channel's" fine weekend series, Lost Drive-in.
Annie Potts is the only highlight in this truly dull film. Mark Hamill plays a teenager who is really really really upset that someone stole the Corvette he and his classmates turned into a hotrod (quite possibly the ugliest looking car to be featured in a movie), and heads off to Las Vegas with Annie to track down the evil genius who has stolen his pride and joy.<br /><br />I would have plucked out my eyes after watching this if it wasn't for the fun of watching Annie Potts in a very early role, and it's too bad for Hamill that he didn't take a few acting lessons from her. Danny Bonaduce also makes a goofy cameo.
This is a pretty bad movie. The plot is sentimental mush. I suppose the production values are OK, decent photography, unobtrusive direction and all that. Mark Hamill was terrible. I've never cared much for him, and this movie validates that perception. It's no wonder that he never really had any sort of career aside from his "Star Wars" films. I'll just say "Buh-bye, Mark" as he sinks into well-deserved obscurity. On the other hand, a very young Annie Potts utterly stole the show. She showed charm, beauty, and acting chops all in one performance. I remember seeing her in "Texasville" recently and taking note of her beauty. It's interesting seeing her from ten years earlier. Anyway, unless you are interested in Miss Potts, run away from this film screaming for the hills.
Mark Hamill should have felt mighty embarrassed with CORVETTE SUMMER! This time, he uses a new kind of "force" to regain the possession of his dream machine, a bright red 'Vette. It looks like another sour teen-age flick the first half-hour and does a U-turn in heading for the wrong direction. The writing and directing jobs are dreadfully done, with a few scenes you can't hardly take. You're expecting this to happen anyway, and you're also sniffing the smell of late-70s hodgepodge. Only a former newcomer like Annie Potts would easily steal the show and save this poor movie from the repo creeps! Her impractical but delightful personality holds on to your interest for good, and this is the finest chance to see her in a swimsuit. Hooray for Annie! Sorry, Mark! I guess the Force wasn't with you this time around.
What if Somerset Maugham had written a novel about a coal miner who decided to search for transcendental enlightenment by trying to join a country club? If he had, he could have called it The Razor's Edge, since the Katha-Upanishad tells us, "The sharp edge of a razor is difficult to pass over; thus the wise say the path to Salvation is hard." But Maugham decided to stick with the well-bred class, and so we have Darryl F. Zanuck's version of Larry Darrell, recently returned from WWI, carefully groomed, well connected in society and determined to find himself by becoming a coal miner. <br /><br />Or, as Maugham tells us, "This is the young man of whom I write. He is not famous. It may be that when at last his life comes to an end he will leave no more trace of his sojourn on this earth than a stone thrown into a river leaves on the surface of the water. Yet it may be that the way of life he has chosen for himself may have an ever growing influence over his fellow men, so that, long after his death, perhaps, it will be realized that lived in this age a very remarkable creature." <br /><br />The Razor's Edge has all of Zanuck's cultural taste that money could buy. It's so earnest, so sincere...so self-important. As Larry goes about his search for wisdom, working in mines, on merchant ships, climbing a Himalayan mountain to learn from an ancient wise man, we have his selfish girl friend, Isabel, played by Gene Tierney, his tragic childhood chum played by Anne Baxter, the girlfriend's snobbish and impeccably clad uncle played by Clifton Webb, and Willie Maugham himself, played by Herbert Marshall, taking notes. The movie is so insufferably smug about goodness that the only thing that perks it up a bit is Clifton Webb as Elliot Templeton. "If I live to be a hundred I shall never understand how any young man can come to Paris without evening clothes." Webb has some good lines, but we wind up appreciating Clifton Webb, not Elliot Templeton. <br /><br />Zanuck wanted a prestige hit for Twentieth Century when he bought the rights to Maugham's novel. He waited a year until Tyrone Power was released from military service. He made sure there were well-dressed extras by the dozens, a score that sounds as if it were meant for a cathedral and he even wrote some of the scenes himself. The effort is as self-conscious as a fat man wearing a rented tux. Despite Hollywood's view of things in The Razor's Edge, I can tell you that for most people hard work doesn't bring enlightenment, just weariness and low pay. <br /><br />After nearly two-and-a-half hours, we last see Larry carrying his duffle bag on board a tramp steamer in a gale. He's going to work his way back to America from Europe with a contented smile on his face. "My dear," Somerset Maugham says to Isabel at the same time in an elaborately decorated parlor, "Larry has found what we all want and what very few of us ever get. I don't think anyone can fail to be better, and nobler, kinder for knowing him. You see, my dear, goodness is after all the greatest force in the world...and he's got it!" Larry and the audience both need a healthy dose of Dramamine. <br /><br />Maugham, lest we forget, was a fine writer of plays, novels, essays and short stories. To see how the movies could do him justice, watch the way some of his short stories were brought to the screen in Encore, Trio and Quartet. And instead of wasting time with Larry Darrell, spend some time with Lawrence Durrell. The Alexandria Quartet is a good read.
The author of numerous novels, plays, and short stories, W. Somerset Maugham (1874-1965) was considered among the world's great authors during his lifetime, and although his reputation has faded over the years his work continues to command critical respect and a large reading public. Published in 1944, THE RAZOR'S EDGE is the tale of a World War I veteran whose search for spiritual enlightenment flies in the face of shallow western values. It was Maugham's last major novel--and it was immensely popular. Given that the novel's conflicts are internalized spiritual and philosophical issues, it was also an extremely odd choice for a film version--but Darryl F. Zannuck of 20th Century Fox fell in love with the book and snapped up the screen rights shortly after publication.<br /><br />According to film lore, THE RAZOR'S EDGE was to be directed by the legendary George Cukor from a screenplay by Maugham himself--and it does seem that Maugham wrote an adaptation. When the film went into production, however, Cukor was replaced by Edmund Goulding, a director less known for artistic touch than a workman-like manner, and the Maugham script was replaced with one by Lamar Trotti, the author of such memorable screenplays as THE OXBOW INCIDENT. Tyrone Power, recently returned from military service during World War II, was cast as the spiritually conflicted Larry Darrell; Gene Tierney, one of the great beauties of her era, was cast as socialite Isabell Bradley. The supporting cast was particularly notable, including Herbert Marshall, Anne Baxter, Clifton Webb, Lucille Watson, and Elsa Lanchester. Both budget and shooting schedule were lavish, and when the film debuted in 1946 it was greatly admired by public and critics alike.<br /><br />But time has a way of putting things into perspective. Seen today, THE RAZOR'S EDGE is indeed a beautifully produced film--but that aside the absolute best one can say for it is that it achieves a fairly consistent mediocrity. As in most cases, the major problem is the script. Although it is reasonably close to Maugham's novel in terms of plot, it is noticeably off the mark in terms of character and it completely fails to capture the fundamental issues that drive the story. We are told that Larry is in search of enlightenment; we are told that he receives it; we are told he acts on it--but in spite of the occasional and largely superficial comment we are never really told anything about the spiritual, artistic, philosophical, and intellectual processes behind any of it. We are most particularly never told anything significant about the nature of the enlightenment itself. It has the effect of cutting off the story at its knees.<br /><br />We are left with the shell of Maugham's plot, which centers on the relationship between Larry and Isabell, a woman Larry loves but leaves due to the growing ideological riff that opens up between them. Tyrone Power and Gene Tierney were more noted for physical beauty than talent, but both could turn in good performances when they received solid directorial and script support. Unfortunately, that does not happen here; they are extremely one-note and Power is greatly miscast to boot. Fortunately, the supporting cast is quite good, with Herbert Marshall, Clifton Webb, and Lucille Watson particularly so; the then-famous performance by Anne Baxter, however, has not worn as well as one would hope.<br /><br />With a running time of just under two and a half hours, the film also feels unnecessarily long. There is seemingly endless cocktail party-type banter, and indeed the entire India sequence (which reads as faintly hilarious) would have been better cut entirely--an odd situation, for this is the very sequence intended as the crux of the entire film. Regardless of the specific scene, it all just seems to go on and on to no actual point.<br /><br />As for the DVD itself, the film has not been remastered, but the print is extremely good, and while the bonus package isn't particularly memorable neither is noticeably poor. When all is said and done, I give THE RAZOR'S EDGE four stars for production values and everyone's willingness to take on the material--but frankly, this a film best left Power and Tierney fans, who will enjoy it for the sake of the stars, and those whose ideas about spiritual enlightenment are as vague as the film itself.<br /><br />GFT, Amazon Reviewer
(aka: TRINITY IS STILL MY NAME) This sequel looks like it was done to capitalize on the outstanding European box-office success of THEY CALL ME TRINITY, only this time Joseph E. Levine and Avco-Embassy pictures wanted to capitalize on it in America as well. Too bad they didn't get very far since the Hill/Spencer pictures have had only had marginal success here in the U.S., and this largely boring, drawn-out film doesn't help it out any.<br /><br />Trinity and Bambino swear to their dying father (Harry Carey Jr.) that they will become successful outlaws and take care of each other. They later get involved with arms-traffickers who smuggle guns out of a monastery, and who mistakenly think they're a pair of federal agents. It all winds up falling flat in spite of a couple of funny scenes, especially the one where Trinity and Bambino are in a fancy French restaurant and don't know how to carry themselves. And the scenes with the card sharks was mildly humorous as well.<br /><br />The opening title music sung by Gene Roman sounds like a fair Bobby Goldsboro-like early 70s pop song while the music cues sprinkled throughout the movie are pretty good. Not sure if I'd want to buy the CD soundtrack of it but some others might.<br /><br />The film could have had a half hour whacked off of it and it wouldn't have dragged on for so long. It looks like a lot of scenery is being chewed up here. In fact, I lost interest in it about 2/3rds of the way through. The DVD is also terrible, with a constant hum in the soundtrack and a poor print that looks like it should have been sent to that great scrap heap in the sky.<br /><br />A big step down from the previous film.<br /><br />4 out of 10
I have seen this movie and the other one. Trinity is my name and i find that this one is worse then the first one. I have no idea why they even made another movie it was stupid and pointless sorry to say that i have all of them. I have sat through them number of times and it still drives me to turn it off 5 minutes into the movie. I like Terence Hill movies and i like Bud Spencer but this movie just drove me up the wall. If it had a different story line or at least more of a plot and more comedy it might have been funner and worth the 5 dollars i spent buying all the movies. But you make mistakes so i would say save your money and don't bye this movie or any of the ones that go with it trust me on this one.
<br /><br />I didn't see They Call Me Trinity, but this sequel is really unfunny at all. It has many gags that are supposed to make people laugh. I guess the filmmaker just don't have the talent to do it right. Wonder why it was so popular in the 70s.
Hollywood, the home of hype, glamor and the search for profits, is scarcely ruled by spiritual values, and so it comes as no surprise that its attempts at investigations of the spiritual life are thin and often silly (better to go farther afield--to the films of Bresson, Dreyer, Rossellini and Bergman, for probing depictions of the spirituality). "Strange Cargo" is no exception. This odd hybrid of adventure film, love story and religious parable trivializes the very insights it tries to communicate. That a figure of providence and salvation would work to match Verne (Clark Gable at his most cockily mannered and self-regarding) and Julie (Joan Crawford, snarling and spitting out every other word in an attempt to be the Queen of Tough Dames) seems ludicrous at best. Is this the Patron Saint of the Star System at work, matching warring egos before sending them off to further penal servitude on the M-G-M lot? BUT. . .there are good supporting performances here, and visually arresting moments: the shadowy prison barracks; the escaping boat by moonlight, or against a painterly cloudscape; Julie walking along the seafront as the wind whips up; Julie and Monsieur Pig (Peter Lorre) bargaining for Verne's freedom as the storm builds; an unusually ennobling gay prison romance between two convicts. . .Above all, there is Paul Lukas's dignified and detached performance as Hessler, a murderer who can appreciate Cambreau's virtues, yet turns his back on him. In the film's most arresting moment, Hessler, having left Cambreau, stands outside the cabin. We hear the wind through the jungle, see the shadows on his face, which conveys a moment of fear and self-doubt. Then he exits into the night. In this moment, Hessler achieves an ambiguity, depth and existential strength that none of the other characters manage to achieve. is the film's secret that its deepest sympathies are allied with Hessler?
This film is pure 'Hollywood hokum'. It is based upon a novel called 'Not Too Narrow … Not Too Deep' by Richard Sale, which may or may not have been interesting; it would take research to find out! The story in the film takes for granted many incidents and much background which obviously existed in the novel but are nowhere to be seen in the film, so either the film was savagely cut or the screenplay was a mess from the start. There is not one millisecond in this film which is remotely realistic, either in terms of events or characters. It is pure Hollywood fantasy in every respect. Two well-known actors, Paul Lukas and Peter Lorre, are so under-used and wasted that there was no point in their being in the film at all. They must have been thrown into the mix in the manner in which one adds a sprinkling of chopped chives to an omelette, hoping that the flavour will be enhanced. The film is a ponderous attempt at producing a 'morality tale', and is so corny that it is laughable. The story concerns some hardened criminals imprisoned in French Guiana who want to escape from their French colonial prison through a jungle (very much a Hollywood set jungle, with a rubber snake). Naturally there has to be a woman in the story, so Joan Crawford hams it up as a down-on-her-luck tramp who for some reason becomes irresistible to Clark Gable, one of the escaped criminals. Crawford in escaping through the jungle wears high-heeled shoes and keeps her makeup fresh. Gable flirts and grimaces and makes mawkish expressions, crinkling his brow as was his wont, smirking and looking suggestively at everybody, which was his manner of acting. It is hard to treat such a character as a hardened criminal when he is always trying so hard to be Clark Gable that surely he hasn't any time left to be a thief. (Attention-seekers are by definition too busy to steal and unsuited to a task which requires that people NOT see them.) The whole escapade is so ridiculous that it can only be regarded as light entertainment. An attempt at religiosity and 'depth' is made by injecting into the story a mysterious 'angel of mercy' who voluntarily walks into the prison and pretends to be an inmate. He helps in the escape and accompanies all the criminals and ministers to their various deaths, helping them to find 'peace' in their last gasps. This character is played very well by Ian Hunter, who retains throughout a convincing air of secret knowledge, smiles enigmatically, makes cryptic prophetic remarks, and has a small spot trained on his face to give him a heavenly glow. The theme is meant to be redemption. You might call it the Donald Duck version of 'Hollywood Goes Moral and Gets Heavy'. For real depth, Hitchcock's 'I Confess' of 1953 shows how it should really be done. By contrast, this piece of trivial nonsense shows just how bare the cupboards of Meaning were in Tinsel Town, and that when they went rummaging for something that might mean something, all they could come up with was, you guessed it, more tinsel.
Hollywood always had trouble coming to terms with a "religious picture." Strange Cargo proves to be no exception. Although utilizing the talents of a superb cast, and produced on a top budget, with suitably moody photography by Robert Planck, the movie fails dismally on the credibility score. Perhaps the reason is that the film seems so realistic that the sudden intrusion of fantasy elements upsets the viewer's involvement in the action and with the fate of the characters. I found it difficult to sit still through all the contrived metaphors, parallels and biblical references, and impossible to accept bathed-in-light Ian Hunter's smug know-it-all as a Christ figure. And the censors in Boston, Detroit and Providence at least agreed with me. The movie was banned. Few Boston/Detroit/Providence moviegoers, if any, complained or journeyed to other cities because it was obvious from the trailer that Gable and Crawford had somehow become involved in a "message picture." It flopped everywhere.<br /><br />Oddly enough, the movie has enjoyed something of a revival on TV. A home atmosphere appears to make the movie's allegory more receptive to viewers. However, despite its growing reputation as a strange or unusual film, the plot of this Strange Cargo flows along predictable, heavily moralistic lines that will have no-one guessing how the principal characters will eventually come to terms with destiny.
I watched this with a growing sense of unease. Why would God, in the shape of Ian Hunter, help these particular people in their attempted escape from Devils Island ? And what was he doing there in the first place ? I mean, I know God works in mysterious ways, but helping thieves and murderers and prostitutes find redemption, forgiveness and changes-of-heart in such a godforsaken location.... In any event it is hardly a likeable movie. Whatever Gable had by way of charm is missing in this portrait of a thoroughly selfish man, Crawford is as endearing as ever she was i.e. to me, not at all, and the whole look of the film makes it seem as if it was made 10 years before.Compared to contemperaneous films like "Stagecoach" and "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town", this looks prehistoric.
What a great word "re-imagining" is. Isn't that what they call Dawn of the Dead MMIV (2004)? A clever word indeed - it disguises the term that everyone has grown to hate, "remake" that is, and makes it almost sound as if the process of making one was creative and involved the imagination. Well, damn, was I misled. At least I was seduced more by the thought of countless gore and unbridled violence than by the idea of "re-imagining," though it played a role.<br /><br />Still, why make a remake? Directors do it for only a few reasons really: to update a movie for a modern audience, or because they personally love the original and want to make a tribute to it. An homage, if you will. Nonetheless, it all generally (I do admit exceptions) boils down to one thing: stealing someone's idea and reshaping it (or "re-imagining" it) so that those who would never see it or understand it would pay money to see it. It's like Coles'/Cliffs' notes; dump everything in a blender, purify all that is more puzzling and curious and throw in a few artificial flavors. In other words, a great marketing scheme.<br /><br />So what's wrong with this one? Well, I'll start with what I liked. I liked the opening scenes. Thanks to CGI and a bigger budget we could actually get a grasp of the chaos of the zombie holocaust Romero tried to communicate in the original through minimalist means. We see the city in ruins, thousands of zombies: chaos and death. Two words that look beautiful on screen. Then it all falls apart.<br /><br />This set-up leads nowhere. The movie does what almost every remake does. It adds more of everything except character, atmosphere, and story. It's noisier, (in some sense) bloodier, and more full of main characters who appear only to die in nonsensical subplots. The setting, the mall which played a crucial role in the original film's story and theme, is purely coincidental. The idea communicated in Romero's film, the pure ecstatic joy of having "a mall all to yourself as a fortress," is gone here. Further, this "re-imagining" has no moxie, no spirit, no balls. It assumes (probably quite rightly) that the audience has no attention span and doesn't bother to get us interested in the characters or the story. The film is rushed and misses the quieter interactions of the four characters of the original. You actually grew to care about those people in Romero's version because there was a certain realism to their existence despite the insanity outside the mall. Here, you don't care when or who goes: what matters is how they go.<br /><br />What else is their to say? The film is not scary. It has one or two "jump" scenes and it tries to make up for the rest with gore and loud special effects. As a story it's really too choppy to be followed and the conflicts between the characters are too underdeveloped to save it. The humor is also reduced to a few one-liners (and one really good character: Andy). After that, what remains? An ending that is plainly ridiculous and far inferior to the subdued, inevitable ambiguity of the original film. But, despite it being a pretty bad film (though not quite as bad as some other remakes), it should be remembered for one thing: it kicked The Passion of Christ from it's number one spot in the box office. Well done zombies.
Funny how many of the people who say this is far superior to Romero's version tend to be very young (judging by their other posts). What we have here is a slick, action packed, gory and "Whoopee" filled 2 hour MTV video. Frantic editing, pop-video camera work, "cool" music blah blah blah<br /><br />Actually it ain't bad compared to other recent remakes (Chainsaw Massacre was a total disaster)... pretty good acting all round, totally predictable in the "who will die next" stakes and a total cash in on the Dawn Of The Dead name that will generate plenty of revenue alone by fans of the original who will go and see it out of curiosity...<br /><br />Don't remakes of classics get on your nerves? Can they REALLY not come up with something original? Why remake Dawn Of The Dead? The things that made the original special (the middle segment kids think is so boring is supposed to be slow to show how when you get everything you ever wanted you still ain't happy) are totally missing. This is an action flick, plain and simple. The faster the better. If you are into action flicks (and as this, the 2004 version is well done) fair enough, but for anyone who likes a little substance to their films... get ready to sigh (again)...<br /><br />Watch the cinemas over the next few years as we get The Godfather series remade by whoever the most fashionable Pop director is at the moment, and Star Wars remade, with all the kids saying how the new version is miles better cos the old version is slow and boring and holds a camera shot for more than 5 seconds...<br /><br />Not bad, but in 10 years they will still be discussing the Romero version, not this pap
When I went and saw this movie, I had great expectations. But I had so wrong. This movie was exactly as every other horror movies. It's a virus, zombies etc. Exactly as Resident Evil and many, many other movies. But the difference with this, and other movies, is that the story is very week. It's bad actors and boring music. The photo is OK but the rest is total crap. Don't see this "horror" movie, go and see the Ring 2 or any other movie who's much more of a story. I hope they will stop making horror movies who has a virus and the virus spread and make people to zombies. We have seen enough of that. The only good thing in the movie is when they are standing at a roof and shoot famous, infected celebrities.
What a horrible movie. I cannot believe i wasted 90 mins of my life watching this re-make. Please tell me why Ving Rhames and Mehki Pfifer starred in this film? Mehki Pfifer is great in E.R and Ving Rhames probably didn't know what he was doing. I feel terrible for them. The music background i must say did not fit AT ALLLLL with the story and it's amazing how you can find these directors who have absolutely no lives in creating a well and balanced film. I hope that in the future no director as horrible as this one was, could ever distroy such a great classic film. This film should not have been made in the first place. An advice to everyone who has seen it, please tell me that i'm right because i couldn't possibly be the only viewer who did not enjoy it.<br /><br />BOOOOOO!!!!!!!! -10 out of 10.
The plot is about a female nurse, named Anna, is caught in the middle of a world-wide chaos as flesh-eating zombies begin rising up and taking over the world and attacking the living. She escapes into the streets and is rescued by a black police officer. So far, so good! I usually enjoy horror movies, but this piece of film doesn't deserve to be called horror. It's not even thrilling, just ridiculous.Even "the Flintstones" or "Kukla, Fran and Ollie" will give you more excitement. It's like watching a bunch of bloodthirsty drunkards not being able to get into a shopping mall to by more liquor. The heroes who has locked themselves in, inside the shopping-mall to avoid being eaten by the hoodlums outside, are not better either. Even though they doesn't seem to be drunk, they give the impression of being mentally disabled. Save your money instead of spending it on this!
Just don't bother. I thought I would see a movie with great supspense and action.<br /><br />But it grows boring and terribly predictable after the interesting start. In the middle of the film you have a little social drama and all tension is lost because it slows down the speed. Towards the end the it gets better but not really great. I think the director took this movie just too serious. In such a kind of a movie even if u don't care about the plot at least you want some nice action. I nearly dozed off in the middle/main part of it. Rating 3/10.<br /><br />derboiler.
What the hell is this? Its one of the dumbest movies I've seen. I don't understand why people on this site love it so much. Its senseless &nudity for no reason. Its worst then Resident Evil. I strongly don't recomend it unless you want to watch chessy, bad acting crap. Watch real horor movies such as Stephen King's It, The Shining, Jurassic Park(kinda horor), JAWS, etc. Leave this crap for a rental when there is nothing else to rent. It is bad as Crudy vs Gayson. Attack of the Killer Tomatoes is better then this crap.<br /><br />Oh wow flesh eating zombies. How many damn zobie movies do we need. SKip this one.<br /><br />* outta ****
<br /><br />Worst. Movie. Ever.<br /><br />What was the purpose of filming this remake (aside from turning it into a 90-minute informercial for the movie's soundtrack)? Zombies that *run*??? I guess the director never watched the original "Dead" films, which show stiff-limbed (from rigor mortis) creatures shuffling/shambling toward their living prey.<br /><br />And how, exactly, did the survivors know which boat in the marina belonged to the recently departed Steve?<br /><br />1/10
I was so eager to see this one of my favorite TV shows.I saw Universal trademark followed with a newly acquainted title and theme song which still impress me.Computer animation on some scenery like a solid title name"The Jetsons" or a dimension view of a spaceship approaching an amusement park and more made this version splendid and fantastic.Shortly after that till the end...I couldn't believe my eyes!!!!How lucky I was that I could forget all I had seen.Just songs by Tiffany and its theme song in new arrangement were in my head.Anyway,I wish to see this space-aged family (also The Flintstones and Yogi Bear) in all graphic computer design as Toy story or Bug's life.The best style for Hanna-Barbera's in my opinion.
I'm all for the idea of a grand epic of the American Revolutionary War. This ain't it. (And for that matter, neither was the Emmerich/Devlin/Gibson THE PATRIOT. But I digress.)<br /><br />I saw this film at a publicity screening at the old MGM Studios (now Sony) just before it came out. The audience had high expectations for this expensive period piece, written by veteran Robert Dillon, directed by the esteemed Hugh Hudson (of CHARIOTS OF FIRE fame), and starring Al Pacino.<br /><br />But it didn't take long for people to start squirming in their seats, whispering derisive comments about Pacino's horribly misconceived accent -- he was supposed to be an American frontiersman of Scottish ancestry(!) -- and that of Nastassja Kinski, who was supposed to be recently emigrated from England(!!). Then the story started and it all went downhill fast.<br /><br />Motivations were muddled, dialogue was atrocious, events had no historical or political context. What there was of a plot lurched forward on absurd coincidence; by the second or third time that alleged lovers Pacino and Kinski stumbled into each other it had become a bad joke. Donald Sutherland gave an unhinged performance as a British officer/pederast. His accent was all over the map too. I guess there weren't any English actors available.<br /><br />Lots of people left. Those who stayed tried to stifle giggles, then openly guffawed. I stuck it out -- I figured that at least the battle scenes might be good. I was wrong. Inexplicably, Hudson chose to film them with hand-held cameras, not even Steadicam, the jerkiness giving a misplaced newsreel 'authenticity' which ruined the sense of scale.<br /><br />There was a semi-famous TV reviewer in the audience a few rows ahead of me: (the late) Gary Franklin of Channel 7 Eyewitness News. I could tell he was peeved by the behavior of the rest of us. And sure enough, on his TV segment the next day he gave the film a '10' on his notorious 'Franklin Scale of 1 to 10', while remarking churlishly about the louts who'd disrupted the screening the night before, who clearly didn't know art when they saw it. What a buffoon.<br /><br />After this disaster, Pacino didn't star in another film for almost 4 years. Hugh Hudson's career never recovered. You can't say I didn't warn you.
I can't figure Al Pacino out. I watch him in the Godfather, Scarface, Carlito's Way, and I think I am watching one of the greatest actors of the last thirty years. Then I see him in Two for the Money, Any Given Sunday and Revolution, and I wonder what the guy is thinking.<br /><br />I stumbled on Revolution a few nights ago, and thought I would invest the next two hours on this. Here is a news flash: Want to get prisoners to talk? Force them to watch this over and over...they'll confess to anything.<br /><br />I won't rehash the plot since there is no coherent plot, but it does take place during the American Revolution and Pacino plays an uneducated peasant who does not want to get involved, but ultimately does. While he has no money, no education and dresses like a caveman, a very hot Natasha Kinski falls in love with him for no apparent reason, since they have only two minutes of dialogue together.<br /><br />Quite frankly, if "Al Smith" starred in this movie, instead of "Al Pacino", it would have ruined their career. The script was horrible, but Pacino's demotivated performance and obvious fake accent made it even worse. Donald Sutherland's role was laughable. I really can't describe it. Natasha Kinski is a main character, but has like 5 lines in the movie. In fact, nobody speaks much in this movie.<br /><br />One of the most laughable premise in the movie is how Al Pacino and Kinski have this uncanny knack to continually run into each other on the battlefield. Its like the entire Northeast is a Starbucks. "Hey, funny to see you here again, on ANOTHER battlefield 100 miles away...see you in a few months".<br /><br />I am required to give this one star by IMDb, since there is nothing here for a negative score.
Brilliant actor as he is, Al Pacino completely derails Revolution – his Method acting approach is totally ill-suited to the role of an illiterate trapper caught up in the American War of Independence. Much of the blame should be attributed to director Hugh Hudson (yes, the man who made Chariots Of Fire just a couple of years earlier – talk about a come-down!!). One of the many jobs of a director is to marshal the actors, coaxing believable performances from them, but in this case Hudson has allowed Pacino to run amok without asking for restraint of any kind. It's not just Al's career-low performance that hinders the film though: there are numerous other flaws with Revolution, more of which will be said later.<br /><br />Illiterate trapper Tom Dobb (Al Pacino) lives in the north-eastern region of America with his son Ned (Sid Owen/Dexter Fletcher). He leads a simple life – living off the land, raising his son, surviving against the elements. The country is lorded over by the English colonialists, but during an eight year period (1775-83) a revolution takes place which ends with the British being defeated and the independent American nation being born. Dobb gets caught up in the events when his boat and his son are conscripted by the Continental Army – swept away by events they can barely understand, the Dobbs finds themselves fighting for their lives and freedom in one bloody engagement after another. Tom also falls in love with Daisy McConnahay (Natassja Kinski), a beautiful and fiery woman of British aristocratic ancestry. Their forbidden love is played out against the larger historical context of the fighting.<br /><br />Where to start with the film's flaws? Most key actors are miscast – Pacino has been criticised enough already, but Kinski fares little better as the renegade aristocrat while Donald Sutherland is hopelessly lost as a ruthless English soldier with a wobbly Yorkshire accent. Robert Dillon's script is muddled in its attempts to bring massive historical events down to a personal level. At no point does anyone seem to have decided whether this is meant to be an intimate character study with the American Revolution as a backdrop, or an epic war film with a handful of sharply drawn characters used to carry the story along. As a result, the narrative falls into no man's land, flitting from "grand spectacle" to "small story" indiscriminately and meaninglessly. John Corigliano's score is quite ghastly, and is poured over the proceedings with neither thought nor subtlety. Hugh Hudson's direction is clumsy throughout, both in his mismanagement of Pacino and the other key actors, and in the decision to use irritatingly shaky camera work during the action sequences. The idea of the hand-held camera is to create immediacy – that feeling of "being there" in the confusion of battle and musket fire. Like so many other things in the film, it doesn't work. The one department where the film regains a modicum of respectability is the period detail, with costumes, sets and weaponry that look consistently accurate. But if it's period detail you're interested in a trip to the museum would be a better way to spend your time, because as a rousing cinematic experience Revolution doesn't even begin to make the grade. Nothing more than a £18,000,000 mega-bomb that the ailing British film industry could ill afford in the mid-1980s.
This movie was promising: my favorite actor in a historical drama during the Independence war. It had memories from "Dances With Wolves" for the big prairies, Indians, military fights & from "Barry Lyndon" for the British & candles lights atmospheres...<br /><br />Unfortunately, the script is awful: the continuity of the story is lacking (cuts with "5 months later"; "3 years later") & the romance is so ridiculous that it's hard to believe in it: America is a big country but the characters kept bumping at each other; Above all, wait for the ending & you understand how to kill a story (imagine the same in "Titanic").<br /><br />Sometimes, a bad script is saved by a brilliant filmmaker. Unfortunately bis, Hudson is a poor one. He has already committed "Greystoke" and i find again the same flaws: no dynamic in scenes, in editing, in scoring: it is long, dull, flat....<br /><br />I knew that this movie was a disaster for Pacino's career: now i understand. Finally, this last movie for 2006 is in the vein of this year for me: A painful one...
Revolution is a terrible movie, I don't care if you're a history teacher, news writer, Al Pacino fan, there's no way this movie can possibly earn a legitimate '10'.<br /><br />The key point to the plot is Tom Dobb (Al) trying to get money from a note he got for radical patriots taking his boat. Everything revolves around that note. Tom's son joins the army to make up for the note, making Tom join the army as well, they go on an adventure trying to get out of the army, years later the war is over and they can finally turn in the note for their boat. The End.<br /><br />It had a few battle scenes, and they were pretty mediocre at best. Transistions between scenes used "five months later" and magically put the characters in some famous historical battle. The love story is a joke, and the movie as a whole is just hard to follow. So save your "Notes" and watch the Patriot instead.
Damp telling of the American Revolution.<br /><br />When farmer 'Tom Dobb' (Al Pacino) and his son arrive in New York Harbor, they are immediately conscripted by street urchin Annie Lennox... Annie Lennox?... to contribute to the war effort.<br /><br />After getting chopped down by bits of chain-link fired from British cannons, Tom and his son are promptly chastised by Continental Army sympathizer 'Daisy' (Nastassja Kinski) for 'not standing their ground'. Following this Kodak moment, a series of digressive chapters take place including Tom's participation in a 'foxhunt' in which he must carry a model of "poor old Georgie Washington" stuffed in effigy while running from a lace handkerchief-wielding English captain (Manning Redwood), and having a barbecue with a group of Iroquois Indians as they plan on the best way to sneak back into the fighting so Al and his ingrate kid can kick the crap out of British officer Donald Sutherland's butt.<br /><br />Director Hugh Hudson presents a unique style of film-making and the atmosphere is as thick as the proverbial London fog, but the scriptwriter's painting of the redcoats as evil monsters once again reveals Hollywood's patented hatred of the British.<br /><br />Steven Berkoff appears as an enlisted American soldier.
How they got Al Pacino to play in this movie is beyond me. This movie is absolutely terrible. I discovered, after reading some of the other reviews, that a couple of people actually enjoyed this film, which deeply puzzles me, because I do not see how anyone in their right mind could possibly enjoy a movie as awful as Revolution. It's not just that it's a bad movie, with a lame plot and overall strangeness that is extremely unpleasant, but it seems as if the filmmakers were either mentally retarded (which is a very possible explanation as to why this movie sucks like it does, though it probably still sucks even compared to other films made by retards) or deliberately made every illogical decision to make this movie suck as much as possible. For example, we see Donald Sutherland running around with a huge, fat ugly mole on his face. He does not normally have a mole. The mole does not add to his character. It is extremely ugly and distracting. It's not like Robert De Niro's mole; it's much worse. Why the hell has he got that mole? It's as if the filmmakers just said, "Let's see, how could we make this movie even worse than it already is? I know, let's give Mr. Sutherland a giant, ugly-ass mole right on his face."<br /><br />Another example of the filmmakers' stupidity is the character Ned. We see, for the first three-quarters of the movie, young Ned. At one point, "six months later" appears on the screen. We see Ned again, and it is, of course, the same actor playing the boy. Five minutes later, "three weeks later" appears on the screen, and all of a sudden we've got a different actor playing as the now older Ned. What, do they think we're idiots? Good God! Again, it's like the filmmakers are saying, "How can we possibly make it any worse? I don't think we can...Oh wait! I just had a terrible idea!" I know a kid doesn't grow much in half a year, which is fine, but he at least grows more than he does in three weeks. Just don't get another actor to play Ned, or at least get him to play the five minutes when he's three weeks younger. Furthermore, the kid who plays the "older" Ned does not look any older than "young" Ned. As a matter of fact, he just looks completely different, much skinnier, and no taller or older than the original actor, which is very confusing, as I, like any rational human being, thought at first that it was a new and different character.<br /><br />What, did the first kid die while they were filming the movie? Because he was in it for the first hour and a half, and then all of a sudden, three weeks later, the guy from Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is playing Ned for the last five minutes of the movie. And even if the original actor did die, the filmmakers should have at least gotten an actor who looks like him to play the remainder of his role, and re-shoot the measly five minutes of "six months later" scenes. Better yet, just scrap the movie completely, never finish it and never release, never even tell anybody about it, because by that point they should have realized that their movie sucks and in finishing it they would only waste more money and time and succeed in making one of the worst movies of all time.<br /><br />I'm not saying that this movie is so bad you shouldn't watch it; it's so bad that you SHOULD watch it, just to see how badly it sucks. It's terrible, terrible.
Historically accurate? Hmm... Perhaps... if you squint, and light falls upon the subject just-so. But core accuracy is no compensation for a dismal, patchy and inconsistent plot, reams of cardboard dialogue and an unsatisfying conclusion. The principal characters are merely characterizations; embarrassing stereotypes that range from the 'enigmatic and noble' American Indians through to the 'stuffy but sadistic' British officers. A wretched and unworthy rendition of a fascinating period in American history. I want my money back.
I watched this movie also, and altho it is very well done, I found it a heartbreaker and would not recommend this to women who have small children.. The terror on this mother's face when she sees her child about to be run over by a train is truly heartbreaking. And the sad thing is--internally she dies. Eventually she goes back to the Applacian mountains. All the money in the world which she makes from making dolls does not conceal the grief she has. I remember her desperate face as she pulls money out of her clothes to try to have her child healed. I'm surprised this movie takes place in Detroit, because when I watched it I thought for sure the people had come to Cincinnati, Ohio. This also was a route for the poor from the mountains.
*McCabe and Mrs. Miller* takes place in the turn-of-the-century Pacific Northwest. Into a soggy, muddy mining camp John McCabe (a hirsute Warren Beatty) comes barging, full of cigar smoke and big ideas about building a proper saloon/whorehouse for the town, replete with a trio of the sorriest whores in movie history. He also comes with an unearned reputation as a gunslinger: too shameful about this to blatantly advertise it, but not exactly afraid to use it in order to assert alpha-male credentials amongst the locals. And thus he wrangles the boys into building his saloon at the rate of 15 cents an hour.<br /><br />It looks to be a rather sorry operation until Mrs. Miller (Julie Christie) shows up on a startling contraption that's half-railroad car, half-automobile (where did Altman find that thing?). Mrs. Miller immediately takes on McCabe as a business partner, with the aim of classing up the new joint with proper whores and an insistence that all visitors take a bath before entering. Noting that McCabe doesn't know how to add, she also insists on handling the accounts. It's not clear what McCabe's function will be.<br /><br />The plot thickens when a pair of oily representatives from the mining company show up in town and offer McCabe to buy him out for five grand. McCabe tells them to buzz off -- he's holding out for fifteen thousand. The company finds negotiation distasteful, so they hire a trio of assassins to simply kill McCabe . . . though how they think they can get away with murdering a man in broad daylight in the center of town is as unclear as McCabe's function in the whorehouse partnership. (Excusing this whopping plot hole on the grounds that the locals would be too cowed to talk doesn't cut the mustard when one considers that any reward-money offered by the local Marshal would be pretty tempting.) <br /><br />*McCabe and Mrs. Miller*, purportedly "classic Seventies cinema", should be a lot better than it is. The movie tells a pretty good story; the main characters have the potential to be interesting. There are some striking scenes, especially one involving what looks to be a 14-year-old stone-cold killer. But it's really, really hard to enjoy a movie when you can hardly hear what anyone is saying and when you can hardly see what anyone is doing. Once again, this director hijacks his own movie with sheer barnyard laziness and sloppiness. According to the trivia-sheet here on IMDb, the movie's editor griped to Altman that the sound was muddy; Altman disagreed; and when everyone said the sound was muddy after the movie's release, Altman blamed the editor. (Nice.) Along with the bad sound, the movie has an atrocious look. Only Robert Altman can hire a world-class DP like Vilmos Zsigmond and make a movie that looks as if they sprayed the camera lenses with dirty dishwater. Reviewers here who praise the "dark brown glow" of this picture have GOT to be kidding me. The interiors are shot through what appears to be a dark scum. The exterior photography is even worse: it's as if Altman placed 500 fog machines behind the copious trees. During the climactic stretch, when Beatty is dodging the assassins while the local church is on fire, Altman insists on pretty much wholly obscuring the view with an animated snow-fall that reminds one of a Rankin-Bass Christmas special.<br /><br />Look -- I can't watch a movie under these conditions. Get back to me when you learn how to place boom mikes, when you remove all that annoying "Altman-esque" overlapping dialog, and when you wipe the lenses with some Windex, or something. 3 stars out of 10.
I've read all the rave reviews here and am impressed with the imagination of those who loved this film. I can't say that I found much to recommend it. The Leonard Cohen sound track is not only excessively heavy-handed but dreary beyond measure. The film looks authentic enough, but something's got to happen for it to work, and nothing much does: a cursory plot (not a real problem for me), not much character development, nothing thematically. It just slogs along. Flawed as it is, Cimino's "Heaven's Gate" has some moments of genuine wonder and is a film I'd sooner watch again. For a brilliant reconception of the West, HBO's "Deadwood" is much superior to "McCabe."
Robert Altman's downbeat, new-fangled western from Edmund Naughton's book "McCabe" was overlooked at the time of its release but in the past years has garnered a sterling critical following. Aside from a completely convincing boom-town scenario, the characters here don't merit much interest, and the picture looks (intentionally) brackish and unappealing. Bearded Warren Beatty plays a turn-of-the-century entrepreneur who settles in struggling community on the outskirts of nowhere and helps organize the first brothel; once the profits start coming in, Beatty is naturally menaced by city toughs who want part of the action. Altman creates a solemn, wintry atmosphere for the movie which gives the audience a certain sense of time and place, but the action in this sorry little town is limited--most of the story being made up of vignettes--and Altman's pacing is deliberately slow. There's hardly a statement being made (just the opposite, in fact) and the languid actors stare at each other without much on their minds. It's a self-defeating picture, and yet, in an Altman-quirky way, it wears defeat proudly. ** from ****
Oh God,what an idiotic movie!Incredibly cheap with fake special effects(the creature is played by one guy in lame costume)and stupid plot.All dialogues are unbelievably bad and these actors(HA!HA!HA!)...they're simply ludicrous.For example I have never seen so annoying characters like in this junk(these dumb kids or pregnant woman with his husband and many more).All in all,this is a great entertainment if you're drunk.Avoid it like the plague.Am I drunk?I don't think so...
Blue monkey is actually mentioned in the film but not in any way that makes any possible sense. At one point,some kids are wandering thru the deeper levels, exploring. <br /><br />They begin to discuss what they'll find down there and one of them (a girl) says she bets they'll find a blue monkey.<br /><br />Yes, thats it. Totally inconsequential to the story, the only sad connection to the title, and no idea why she would suppose she'd find a blue monkey in a hospital's basement.<br /><br />I'm embarrassed for having remembered it but somebody had to remember I suppose!
Never even knew this movie existed until I found an old VHS copy of it, hidden deep in my dusty horror closet. The title on the box said "Insect" and the illustrations on the back made clear that it is just another insignificant and poorly produced 80's horror movie. They can surely be fun, of course, as long as don't expect an intelligent scenario and as long as you're not irritated by seeing a giant amount of cheesy make-up effects. Just about every important aspect that makes a horror movie worthy viewing is substandard here in "Blue Monkey"! The plot is ridiculous and highly unoriginal, the acting performances are painful to observe and there's a total lack of suspense. Following the always-popular trend of "big-bug" movies, "Blue Monkey" handles about a new and unknown insect species that wipes out the doctors and patients of a remote hospital. The makers couldn't be more evasive about the actual origin of this gigantically over-sized critter! All we know is that it's not from outer space and it initially crawled out of a tropical plant. Other than this, there's absolutely no explanation for where this new type of insect all of a sudden comes from! Like I said, don't get your hopes up for an intelligent screenplay. The first half of the film is entertaining enough, with some nice gore and the introduction of a couple deranged characters (an 80-year-old blind and alcoholic lady!) but the second half (when the entire hospital is put to quarantine) is dreadfully boring. It is also near the end that "Blue Monkey" begins to exaggeratedly rip-off older (and better) films. Approaching the climax, they apparently ran out of budget as well, since the lighting becomes very poor and the guy in the monster suit isn't very well camouflaged anymore. "Blue Monkey" is worth a peek in case you're really bored or if you really want to see every 80's horror movie ever made. Fans of B-cinema may recognize John Vernon ("Killer Klowns from Outer Space", "Curtains") in the small and meaningless role of Roger, who's in charge of the clinic.
When I first saw the cover of this movie (a giant bug chasing a few nurses) And the name "Blue Monkey", I knew I wasn't in for any big Hollywood movie. I was pleasantly surprised to see Steve Railsback in this cheese-ball flick, who always does a good job in whatever role he tackles.... The FX are pretty corny, there isn't too much of a plot, and I'm still not sure why this movie is called Blue Monkey, because there is nothing in this movie to do with monkey. But come on people, what did you expect?? It's not really as bad as it seems.... If you enjoy the old 50's style black and white bug attack movies, this one is basically an updated version, without the updates special FX
All this dismaying waste of film stock needs is Count Floyd popping up every sixty seconds. Somehow they got Steve Railsback, Susan Anspach, John Vernon, and Joe Flaherty together on a set and couldn't get within five miles, about eight kilometers, of an actual movie. BOY does this thing suck. There isn't one original line, thought, shot, or effect from brainless opening sequence to brainless close. The magical, ethereal Susan Anspach of Five Easy Pieces - boring. Steve Railsback - boring. John Vernon - boring. The big bug - boring. If this is a scary movie, Buttercream Gang is a thuglife documentary. <br /><br />Seriously - every bad movie contains its own explanation of its badness. Usually it's in the opening credits - "Written, Directed, and Produced by" one guy. Or at the very center of the action is some bimbo so talentless that you know there's one and only one reason this turkey got made. Here, you don't find out till the very last of the credits, where the cooperation of about a dozen subfunctions of the Canadian Government is gratefully acknowledged. <br /><br />Right now I'm watching MST's take on Beast of Yucca Flats to get the taste out of my mouth. Ghod, what an improvement.
Now, it would be some sort of cliché if i began with the bit about the title, so i'll wait on that. First, this movie made me wonder why kids do stupid things like wander around in labs and break bottles. Then i realized it, this is a movie with a message, that message is beat kids and things like this won't happen. Things like what you ask? Things like a giant insectish monster growing up and causing a bit of mayhem before dying in the typical "kill the monster indirectly" fashion. Now, as promised... Blue Monkey... has nothing Blue in it nor any Simian of any kind. Now it snot like i was cheated or anything. The picture on the cover had a giant bug/crab/idiot/thing on the front chasing some screaming nurses. That kinda happened but i wanted apes! having just enjoyed MOST EXTREME PRIMATE a few nights before(half drunk on Cask and Creame's brandy mind you) i was in the mood for more monkey hijacks 80's style. Not so much. If you like snow boarding apes or blue things this movie is not for you. If you like bugs and good reasons to hit kids, rent this.
Blue Monkey (1987) or 'Invasion of the BodySuckers' as it's known here in the UK was a pretty boring horror movie about an old man who gets bitten in a greenhouse by some mysterious toxic plant!!!! The man gets rushed to hospital, where this worm like creature comes out of his mouth, of course this transforms into this insect monster and proceeds to go on the rampage!! Despite Steve Railsback and John Vernon being in the movie, i found it to be boring, with a flat predictable storyline, un-interesting characters, cheap special effects and lack of action!!!! Horror fans don't really need to track this rare movie down, you wont be missing much trust me!!! I give this movie 2/10.
An older man touches a flower in his wife's greenhouse that seems to be wilting. He gets pricked by it, or bitten by something on it. He quickly becomes ill, and at the hospital spits out a large writhing white larva of some kind. A later attempt to resuscitate him with paddles results in a splatter of blood.<br /><br />A cop is at the hospital because his partner got badly hurt in a shoot-out. Somehow the cop gets paired up with one of the female doctors, as well as an entomologist who is brought in. There are several young kids wandering around the hospital, who I suppose we're supposed to find adorable, but who are extremely annoying little brats. They happen to wander into the room where the specimen is being kept, and happen to dump a growth hormone on it. Horror movie logic would say they deserve to die for this, but they're never even in any danger.<br /><br />The critter grows and starts breeding. People run away from it, and sometimes towards it for some reason. The hospital gets surrounded by military who are prepared to destroy everything if need be.<br /><br />There are no really compelling characters in the movie, and most of the time it seems like people are searching around for the monster. It was fairly boring. Clearly it owes something to the Alien movies, with the monster being born inside a human and having several stages of its growth. There's also a character named Bishop, and the lead actress has Sigourney Weaver's hair.
Oh God,what an idiotic movie!Incredibly cheap with fake special effects(the creature is played by one guy in lame costume)and stupid plot.All dialogues are unbelievably bad and these actors(HA!HA!HA!)...they're simply ludicrous.For example I have never seen so annoying characters like in this junk(these dumb kids or pregnant woman with his husband and many more).All in all,this is a great entertainment if you're drunk.Avoid it like the plague.Am I drunk?I don't think so...
This movie is a mess, but at least it's not pretentious. The box art for the video markets it as a "fun throwback" to 1950s giant bug movies. In reality, it's a transparent bargain basement ripoff of "Aliens".<br /><br />The producers clearly wanted to make an "ALIEN" picture, but they mustn't have had much money. In fact, it doesn't look like they had ANY money, really. I hope everyone got paid who worked on this thing.<br /><br />The basic plot is retained--group of people isolated with murderous insectoid creature--and an earthbound location is inserted for budgetary reasons, I presume. Instead of setting the film in space, where no one can hear you scream, they set the film in a hospital, where everyone can see your budget laid bare. The amusing thing about "Blue Monkey" (and there is only one thing amusing about it) is, the filmmakers didn't abandon the "ALIEN" aesthetics. Even though we're in a hospital, we still have an improbably cavernous annex where science fiction experiments are being conducted, in this case the venerable "growth hormone" plot device. The annex also doubles as a boiler room (or something), so we can have an explanation for the monster seeking out the warmth. The boiler room is so large that it is laced with multi-leveled steel catwalks, perfect for allowing slime to drip down between the slats.<br /><br />The idea is that a man working in a greenhouse is attacked by a drooping flower from a rare imported plant that grows in an exotic location. He touches it and says "Ow", so we know he's been hurt. The cut on his finger causes him to lapse into unconsciousness in a matter of minutes, and at the hospital he gives birth to a white worm through his mouth (I guess in an "ALIEN" picture this would be called the "mouthburster"?). The worm is isolated, but some naughty little kids (leukemia patients) sneak up on it and "accidentally" give it some experimental growth hormone. You know everyone's in trouble when some fornicating hospital staff workers are attacked by a camera on a crane, and pretty soon a maintenance man finds some obligatory cocoons, right before he's grabbed by a pair of semi-convincing insectoid arms. The rest of the movie is dominated by the semi-offscreen monster, semi-obscured by the semi-darkness.<br /><br />Which brings us back to "ALIEN". How, you ask, can a movie set in a hospital incorporate all those flashing strobe lights that are always in the "ALIEN" movies? No problem...a power outage (or something) causes the electrical system to go awry, which apparently causes strobe lights to blossom in every room of the hospital and flicker constantly throughout the movie. This doubles as a convenient cloak for the less-than-special effects (although the bugs are pretty neat looking, they don't move too well, and the baby bug looks charmingly like a Cootie toy).<br /><br />OK, so what "ALIEN" bases haven't we covered...OH, water dripping down the walls! Check...we'll divide the massive hospital into two parts, then send some of the characters through the damp, drippy basement to get to the other side. Problem solved, we now have the opportunity for numerous "foreboding tunnel" shots. And don't forget the fog...well, you never really need an excuse for this in horror movies, do you? OK, maybe inside of a hospital you do, so we'll create smoke by having lots of things spark & burn.<br /><br />I haven't said anything about the negligible acting, not that the actors are given any kind of script to follow. I take it "Blue Monkey" was supposed to be lighthearted and fun, and if so then it is a nice try, but the pieces don't come together and the movie ends up being a real drag. See a film called "Return of the Aliens: The Deadly Spawn" if you want to see a film of this type that gets it right, with even less money and even more marginal acting talent. This one falls flat on its ALIEN.
This was the worst MTV Movie Awards EVER!!! I barely laughed, none of the presenters were funny, the hosts really sucked, and the parodies weren't so great either. Why can't we go back to the good olden days when the show was a riot?
I usually check out the MTV movie awards to watch a witty, entertaining show that delivers a unique award show (Chewbacca winning a life-time achievement award as example). So this year was no different. While I'm not a fan of Justin Timberlake, Seann William Scott has always been funny-albiet stupid-to me. I've laughed at Stiffler in both American Pie movies, and even enjoyed him in Dude Where's My Car?. But the MTV movie awards were simply horrible. Nothing was coherrent, humorous, or entertaining. Justin Timberlake should stick to singing and dancing; he sure as hell can't act.<br /><br />I'm curious as to who the writers were for this show. Last year's performance by Jack Black and Sarah Michelle Gellar was extremly funny (The Lord of the Rings parody alone was worth watching the entire show), but this year was completly different. Did anyone understand Timberlake's comments regarding Luke Wilson and Kate Hudson ("They're staring in a movie together, but have never met! Here they are...") Where was the joke? Kate and Luke just went into their lame dialogue, never making a reference to the "joke" by Timberlake. And Seann was completly wasted as a talent, not even causing me to smile, yet alone laugh. And what was the point of Harrison Ford's one-liners? Did they make ANY sense to anyone? Perhaps the MTV writers figured the young viewers would only know the aging Ford as Han Solo, Indiania Jones, or the President from Air Force One. I'm baffled. And would someone tell me the deal with Adrian Brody? How old is this guy and how old does he THINK he is? The guy looks 30, trying to act 19 again....give it up, show some class (like in your best actor academy award speech) and act your age!<br /><br />I give this show 1 star out of 4, simply because of the speech by Gollam for Best Visual Performance. This was very creative, extremely well done, and caused the only genuine laugh of the entire evening.
The Japanese have always had incredible ambitions in their fantasy movies. They have always been ready to destroy cities by huge plastic monsters coming from outer space and elsewhere. The problem is they have never had the money to succeed in making convincing special effects. This film, released in France under the title Les envahisseurs de l'espace, is no exception. Its ambition is to show three creatures from the giant octopus to the giant lobster trying to have the upper hand on the humans. It's extremely awkward and laughable, but well quite enjoyable too. After all, we do like these creatures and these films after all, don't we?
How can such good actors like Jean Rochefort and Carole Bouquet could have been involved in such a... a... well, such a thing ? I can't get it. It was awful, very baldy played (but some of the few leading roles), the jokes are dumb and absolutely not funny... I won't talk more about this movie, except for one little piece of advice : Do not go see it, it will be a waste of time and money.
I completely agree with the other comment someone should do a What's up tiger Lily with this film.<br /><br />It has to be one of the worst french films I've seen in a long time (actually along with Brotherwood of the Wolves, 2 horrendous films in a much too short period of time).<br /><br />It's really sad because the cast is really interesting and the original idea kind of fun. Antoine DeCaunes in particular and Jean Rochefort being among my darlings, I was bitterly disappointed to see them compromised in such a poor film.<br /><br />Lou Doyon is quite bad, as usual which goes to prove that a pretty face and famous parents can get you into the movies but they don't necessarily give you talent.<br /><br />avoid this film, if you want to laugh watch an Alain Chabat instead or some nice period piece full of fun like LA FILLE DE D'ARTAGNAN.
After watching the first 20mn of Blanche(sorry I couldn't take more of it), I have now confirmed she does not. <br /><br />Basically, this "movie" is an insult to the real french actors participating in this farcical piece of junk. It starts from a concept successfully used in French comedies ("Deux heures moins le quart avant Jesus Christ", "La Folie des Grandeurs",...): a historical movie with anachronic tone / dialogues. This can give brilliant results if supported by brilliant actors and a "finesse" of direction avoiding the dreaded "heavy comedy" stigma.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the horsey-faced Lou Doillon ruins everything and Blanche, instead of a comedy, just turns into an horror movie. Horror to cinephiles who want to be puzzled and shocked watching fine actors such as Decaune, Zem or Rochefort struggling in the middle of this gaudy burlesque kitchy-prissy farce.
I went to see this a few days ago, and it's hard to forget that film...for the wrong reasons. This film is supposed to be funny, it's not, not a single laugh in the theatre( perhaps for josé garcia and gérard Depardieu ), and it's boring, boring, boring. It was even hard sometimes to understand what they were saying. They just talk to fast and don't open their enough for us to understand. I was with a friend and more than 4 or 5 times i caught myself saying after a line that was supposed to be funny " what, what did he say", and i'm french. I hate to say that, given the fact that i think good films are made here, but i apologise in advance for all foreigners who will go see the film ( if ever shown outside of France ).<br /><br />We're deeply sorry for that cr@p. 2/10
This is one of the worst movies I saw! I dunno what are the reasons for shoting suck a crap. Don't waste your time watching this. Good actors, but extremely bad screenplay and dialogues. Hope there'll be no Blanche 2 :-) Avoid this movie by all means!
Avoid this one, unless you want to watch an expensive but badly made movie. Example? The sound is good but the dialogue is not clear - a cardinal sin in a French film.<br /><br />This film attempts to combine western, drug intrigue and ancien regime costume epic. What? Well, consider this. The cowboy music is hilarious during sword fights. Or how about the woman in her underwear, holding a knife and jumping up and down on the bed?<br /><br />Someone should do a 'What's Up Tiger Lily' on this bomb. Rewrite the script and then either dub or subtitle it. Heck, it's almost that now. (BTW, Gerard Depardieu and Carole Bouquet, both known to American audiences, have roles.)
Sorry, but every time I see a film wherein a woman sucker-punches a man and the man does nothing but cower, the film looses all credibility. So the new (female) Starbuck immediately tainted the plot before it even got off the ground (no pun intended). Dirk Benedict was so much more plausible as the sensitive hero-type than the new-age Kattee Sackhoff-- whose overacting will probably be henceforth lauded as "a compelling, exciting, must-see, ground-breaking performance," by the politically correct new-speak of today's review copy editors; but in essence, it is just a tired, old image of a woman with a chip on her shoulder as big as a townhouse: the biggest cliché on screens today. I may give this series one more shot, but human caricatures alone will not keep me tuned in. As James Hilton once bemoaned, "A story, please; just give me a story."
I fail to see the appeal of this series (which is supposed to be sci-fi). It's really just "let's see what soap operatically happens this week" and oh, the Cylons are involved through flashbacks.<br /><br />The Cylon "babe" that keeps nailing the other guy is pretty lame, it's pretty obvious that T&A was added to the show. Every time she pops up I'm bewildered as to WTF is supposed to be going on. And don't even try to bullsh*t me about "story arcs".<br /><br />It's a soap opera with some CGI thrown-in. This is not science fiction aside from the original premise.<br /><br />This series is not everything it's worked-up to be. If you like trendy, edgy, dodgy, jumpy, vague editor-on-crack camera work, this show might be for you. Since nerds seem to be raving about this show, it's a clear indication that vocal nerds' opinions have been changed from Picard's TNG.
I have yesterday seen the second part. And I must say, it was actually better then the first one. At the begin, I realized, It is actually a sequel, not a remake but not a good one. I do not like the old movies and series of Galactica, because the cylons saw like toasters (just as it was mentioned in this new movie) and were completely harmless for the old galactica. This movie turns the sides - the Humans were harmless but the whole movie was for me completely chaotic and stupid. Many scenes were unnecessary, for instance the story of the "computer expert" - completely a crap. If I were a scriptwriter I would leave him die in his house, killed by the cylon woman. And the evacuation from the planet? Oh, please if it would be bombed by 50 Megatons (why exactly 50 MT??) nukes, they would be dead killed by the radiation. And how is it actually possible that the big fleet of cylon was completely hidden before the attack? Aha, it was possibly this computer virus, created by the cylon - the script was probably written by ten-years-old school boy. The good side of the movie is, that the humans are at last defeated!! Really defeated, the population is near the extinction (children are dieing - two times explicit in the movie: 1. a baby!!! maybe one month old and a girl in age of max ten - what a violence...). And the bad-asses won and I think it is the first time in such sci-fi galaxy fight movie. I also appreciate the design of the cylons (not only of the humanoid cylon:-) a good job with these ships - I like the design of the ships by both of them - human an cylons. The human ships are a good never version of the old ones. And galactica - really pretty with these docks, I liked that. But this is all, only the design is not enough. The acting was really bad, the whole plot was expectable (only two things not - the human-cylon on the ragnardocks and the human-cylon at the end).The dialogs were trivial (and in the Slovak dabbing just stupid, but that is not fault of the movie). The whole movie looked like a pilot film for a series, but who would shoot such series? What it would be about? One star for the design the second one for the near extinction of humanity.
Rating: 4 out of 10<br /><br />As this mini-series approached, and we were well aware of it for the last six months as Sci-Fi Channel continued to pepper their shows with BG ads, I confess that I felt a growing unease as I learned more.<br /><br />As with any work of cinematic art which has stood up to some test of time, different people go to it to see different things. In this regard, when people think of Battlestar Galactica, they remember different things. For some it is the chromium warriors with the oscillating red light in their visor. For others, it is the fondness that they held for special effects that were quite evolutionary for their time. Many forget the state of special effects during the late 70s, especially those on television. For some the memories resolve around the story arc. Others still remember the relationships how how the relationships themselves helped overcome the challenges that they faced.<br /><br />Frankly, I come from the latter group. The core of Battlestar Galactica was the people that pulled together to save one another from an evil empire. Yes, evil. The Cylons had nothing to gain but the extermination of the human race yet they did it. While base stars were swirling around, men and women came together to face an enemy with virtually unlimited resources, and somehow they managed to survive until the next show. They didn't survive because they had better technology, or more fire power. They survived because they cared for and trusted each other to get through to the next show.<br /><br />The show had its flaws, and at times was sappy, but they were people you could care about.<br /><br />The writers of this current rendition seemed to never understand this. In some ways he took the least significant part of the original show, the character's names and a take on the story arc and crafted what they called nothing less than a reinvention of television science fiction. Since that was their goal, they can be judged on how well they accomplished it: failure. It was far from a reinvention. In fact it was in many ways one of the most derivitive of science fiction endeavors in a long time. It borrows liberally from ST:TNG, ST:DS9, Babylon 5, and even Battlefield Earth. I find that unfortunate.<br /><br />Ronald D. Moore has been a contributor to popular science fiction for more than a decade, and has made contribution to some of the most popular television Science Fiction that you could hope to see. One of the difficulties that he appears to have had was that there could be no conflict in the bridge crew of the Enterprise D & E. That was the inviolable rule of Roddenberry's ST:TNG. Like many who have lived under that rules of others who then take every opportunity to break the rules when they are no longer under that authority, Ron Moore seems to have forgotten some of the lessons he learned under the acknowledged science fiction master: Gene Roddenberry. Here, instead of writing the best story possible, he has created a dysfuntional cast as I have ever seen with the intent of creating as much cast conflict as he could. Besides being dysfunctional, some of it was not the least bit believable. Anyone who has ever been in the military knows that someone unprovokedly striking a superior officer would not get just a couple of days "in hack," they could have gotten execution, and they never would have gotten out the next day. It wouldn't have happened, period, especially in time of war.<br /><br />The thing that I remembered most of Ron Moore's earlier work was that he was the one who penned the death of Capt. James Kirk. He killed Capt. Kirk, and, alas for me, he has killed Battlestar Galactica.
The most horrible retelling of a great series. It should not have been named Battlestar Galactica, because it's only the same in name alone. Too many changes to just have changes. You have characters turned from male to female, black to asian to cylon all in a way to "attract female audiences," when there was already strong female characters that could have just been made stronger. Gone are the egyptian feeling. Gone are the quest for earth. The lack of cylons to go to terminator rejects takes away from the film, especially when one is made a fembot. Granted the original show had a lot of cheese to it, but it had a large following. They tried to hold onto this following but give the fans nothing to work with and basically spit in their face as they make it "their own story." Changes are good, when they make something better, not to just make them.
Don't you just hate it when you order steak but the restaurant gives you chicken?<br /><br />Such is how I felt watching this so-called "Battlestar Galactica". Arguments can be made over its quality but the fact remains, it's NOT what the fans ordered.<br /><br />Imagine if you were sitting down at that proverbial restaurant I mentioned. You have waited years for them to bring back their famous New York Strip steak which you loved. When your meal arrives, you find they've applied the name "New York Strip" to a chicken dish. You complain but the waiter merely states "but ze cheeken, ees really GOOD zir"! Do you really care if the chicken is good? You wanted New York Strip - a STEAK! The waiter then explains, "you zee zir, ze chef wanted to to do, as you zay, zomezing NEW. We felt ze cheeken would be more popular zo we gave it the name of our previous delicious deesh". You ask if you will ever find the original New York Strip on the menu in the future but are informed that because the restaurant HAS a dish called "New York Strip" now on the menu, you'll never see the original New York Strip - ever again.<br /><br />Such is the case with creating something NEW and slapping the "Battlestar Galactica" namesake on it.<br /><br />* This mini series is an affront to all fans of the original show! *<br /><br />It's a shame the production team put in charge of this new version obviously held contempt for the original. The team put in charge of resurrecting BG should have LOVED the original series - seeking to improve what the fans loved, not try to shamelessly sell this new series by exploiting the Battlestar Galactica name.<br /><br />If SciFi Channel wanted to give us a NEW show, then DO so! Give it a new name! Don't use the name we fondly remember in an attempt to lure in viewers. That effectively robs us of the chance to see any semblance of the original in the future.<br /><br />We have been waiting for 25 years to see what we knew as BG because we LIKED something about the original! We didn't simply want the NAME and remnants of the basic concept. There are things we LOVED about the original series!<br /><br />Sadly, probably the BEST elements of the original were those which were omitted. Sure, the original BG was imperfect and could have used some updating. This mini series, however, was not an improvement in any regards but the special effects (which were good but not anything unusual by today's standards).<br /><br />Many viewers will debate back and forth about the quality of this NEW show but we will not forgive SciFi and Ron Moore for destroying our dream.<br /><br />That being said... I shall offer some comments about the merits of this new mini by itself (not in comparison to the original):<br /><br />The battle sequences were the best part. Effort was obviously put into making the effects more "real" in appearance and less "wow - look at that effect". I would not say these sequences were exceptional by today's standards yet they were in keeping with made-for-cable original movies. What was the deal with this "pseudo-live-cam"? Some views tried to fake the effect of a "real" camera with lagging tracking and jerky zooms. However, it was over-used considering there was no apparent SOURCE of these cameras. The infinitely more intelligent series, Babylon 5, is the only instance I've seen such "live cams" used effectively, when we were supposedly witnessing action from Security Cams.<br /><br />The script, you ask? The script felt like it was written by a teenager, FOR other teenagers. The characters felt cardboard and stereotypical. Indeed, the whole story felt pieced together from other well-known stereotypes. The only good features of the entire story were those few elements which were preserved from the original series. It was obviously "dumbed down" for digestion of your average TV audience.<br /><br />The human interaction was pitiful. Rather than drama based on subtle looks, expressions and fine timing, every moment of human tension was exaggerated to the point of being so obvious they lost all ability to move any refined viewer. Such was obvious in any interaction between Adama and son. The director must have been trying to make sure the most dense and unfeeling viewer wouldn't miss it even if not paying attention. Sorry, but real humans don't behave like the continually.<br /><br />I wouldn't have considered this a BAD show had it stood on its own. Nothing great; it will never be revered by true SciFi fans or artisans, but it would be watchable by the masses. I personally could have lived without it, though. I only watched it to see how it really DID capture the spirit of the original. <br /><br />How this mini series will always be remembered is as a symbol of how quality in storytelling has been cast aside to appeal to greater numbers. How even SciFi Channel has "dumbed down" its productions to cater to the masses as opposed to its true niche market, the Science Fiction fans. It will be the time we asked for steak and they insisted on giving us chicken, despite our complaints.<br /><br />I leave you with only one thought - <br /><br />NO "MOORE".<br /><br />
We all knew even before it aired, the Ron Moore mini-series is no Battlestar Galactica. That's fine. It just means it must stand on its own. It can't lean on Battlestar Galactica. If it's any good, it's good on it's own merits, and Ron Moore has something to be proud of. If reports are true, this is what Moore wanted. However, if his mini-series rots, he has shamed all the excellent actors that performed on-screen, not to mention the myriad off-screen personnel. And this is what he's done.<br /><br />Yes, this mini-series is no remake. I wouldn't even call it a re-imagining. It's a new production, inspired by Battlestar Galactica. It does not take place in the Galactica universe, with the same places and jargon and technology. It doesn't tell of the Galactica's search for the thirteenth tribe. Nor does it rely on the legends and mysteries that underpinned Galactica. Ron Moore's mini-series is a space-opera, action flick with a ceremonial nod to Battlestar Galactica.<br /><br />Maybe I should say, "just another" space-opera, action flick. Because as plots go, his has little that's original, or even interesting. I could relay the whole thing to you without a spoiler warning. But I won't inflict that on you. I'll just hit the most important point. Ready now? Here it is: Just watch the trailer. It will tell you everything there is in the story.<br /><br />Yes, creations of man turn on man and seek to destroy man. (I guess they forgot Azimov's rules, again.) They look like humans, so there's the whole aliens-among-us thing. At least there's no time-travel. Oh, and lots of fighting scenes and random acts of sex and violence. The end result was that when Moore did draw from Galactica, that ceremonial nod, it came off more corny than respectful. I mean, couldn't he even think up anything of his own?<br /><br />From the first few minutes, I wanted to watch something else. I didn't care about any of Moore's characters, since I couldn't identify with any of them. This fact hit me in the face when the Cylons began their attack. Armageddon on a planetary scale, and I didn't give a damn. How depressing.<br /><br />Moore's heroes when faced with an insurmountable obstacle, instead of overcoming it, rather tucked tail and saved their own butts. After all, it was the only way to save humanity, yadda yadda yadda. They took the safe way out, rather than risking their own lives to defend others. At least disgust is not apathy.<br /><br />But in the end, the Ron Moore mini-series was just activity without purpose, a movie on a treadmill, forever running yet going nowhere. And I just wanted it to be over. And by the time it was over, my life-force had been sucked from me. Against my own will, I was turning into a mindless, soulless zombie, probably of the type to which this mini-series would appeal. I needed to replenish myself. I needed to-and I swear this is true-I needed to watch an episode of Babylon 5. Two episodes, in fact, and I felt much better. And happier.
After a lively if predictable opening bank-heist scene, 'Set It Off' plummets straight into the gutter and continues to sink. This is a movie that deals in nasty, threadbare stereotypes instead of characters, preposterous manipulation instead of coherent plotting, and a hideous cocktail of cloying sentimentality and gratuitous violence instead of thought, wit or feeling. In short, it's no different from 90% of Hollywood product. But it's the racial angle that makes 'Set It Off' a particularly saddening example of contemporary film-making. Posing as a celebration of 'sistahood', the film is actually a celebration of the most virulent forms of denigrating Afican-American 'gangsta' stereotype. The gimmick this time is that the gangstas are wearing drag. Not only does the film suggest that gangsterism is a default identity for all African Americans strapped for cash or feeling a bit hassled by the Man, it presents its sistas as shallow materialists who prize money and bling above all else. Worse, 'Set It Off' exploits the theme of racial discrimination and disadvantage simply as a device to prop up its feeble plot structure. Serious race-related social issues are wheeled on in contrived and opportunistic fashion in order to justify armed robbery, then they're ditched as soon as the film has to produce the inevitably conventional ending in which crime is punished, the LAPD turns out to be a bunch of caring, guilt-ridden liberals (tell that to Rodney King), and aspirational 'good' sista, Jada Pinkett Smith, follows the path of upward mobility out of the 'hood and into a world of middle-class self-indulgence opened up for her by her buppie bank-manager boyfriend. 'Set It Off' illustrates the abysmal state of the contemporary blaxploitation film, pandering to mindless gangsta stereotypes and pretending to celebrate life in the 'hood while all the time despising it. While the likes of 'Shaft' and 'Superfly' in the 1970s might have peddled stereotypes and rehashed well-worn plots, they had a freshness, an energy and an innocence that struck a chord with audiences of all races and still makes them fun to watch. 'Set It Off' wouldn't be worth getting angry over if wasn't a symptom of the tragic decline and ghettoisation of African-American film-making since the promising breakthrough days of the early 1990s.
An interesting idea (four African American women crushed under society's boot heel take their revenge by robbing banks) is ruined by F. Gary Gray's horribly slow direction and an excruciating script (by Takashi Bufford and Kate Lanier) full of unintentionally funny moments. Instead of delivering a pointed commentary about the role of urban women struggling to stay afloat in a world where men cruelly abuse and humiliate them, Gray, Bufford and Lanier prefers to pummel their unsuspecting audience with highbrow notions of operatic tragedy. It's melodrama at its worst. Gray has his actors linger over every tired line and John Carter's lazy editing refuses to pick up the slack, choosing instead to keep his camera trained on the performers' bemused faces. And bemused they are: although actors such as Jada Pinkett, Kimberly Elise and Vivica A. Fox have some raw talent (Queen Latifah is the fourth and as an actress she's an excellent rapper), they need a surer hand than Gray's to guide them and as a result they come off as shrill and uncomfortable in front of the camera. Steer clear.
Without a doubt one of the worst movies I've seen in recent years. The story focuses on four women driven to robbing banks who we are somehow supposed to sympathize with. It's tough to sympathize with characters who keep making such stupid decisions. Oh no, the cops are on to us, they know who we are, what do we do?...Let's rob one more bank then we're outta here! What!?! Every character is a stereotype and it's easy to tell who's gonna end up dead.
I watched this film a long time ago (aprox 10 years or so) and liked it then. I remembered it the other day and decided to watch it again. The second time around was not pleasant. The acting is 'so,so', the plot is illogical, unreasonable and predictable.<br /><br />The acting...I'm sure it wasn't a stretch for those actresses to play those characters. The plot...there's no way in hell those women would have gotten away with the first robbery much less the 2nd. (side note: Why did TT not realise that even if she came up with a load of money for her court date they would ask where she got it and she would have no logical answer! Ding, Ding...we have a crook!). It horribly stereotyped black women in saying basically that the only way black women can 'beat the system' or obtain a large amount of money was to steal it and not use their intelligence or other resources. It plays too much on sympathy b/c all of them die in the end (bar Jada) but it's not sad (you're thinking 'They were so stupid; they deserve to die). You just don't really care about the characters unless you're a shallow person.<br /><br />I can't believe this film rates over a 5.
Thomas Archer (Ron Eldard) has his child killed and his wife viciously attacked in a home invasion. Dr. Heller (Christopher Plummer) tries to help him through the post traumatic stress. Then Archer finds himself confronted with a man (Til Schweiger) bound and gagged to a chair. He is told this is the man who killed his child and attacked his wife and he can do whatever he likes to him. And there's a large assortment of instruments there to help him...<br /><br />Film is interesting at first (and shows real restraint in terms of blood and gore) but gets stupider by the minute and has some highly unlikely plot twists and turns. It all ends in a final twist that was so old and stupid that I was shocked anyone would actually think of using it anymore. How such talented actors like Eldard, Schweiger and Plummer got involved in crap like this is beyond me. This gets three stars for the acting but the stupid plot and truly unbelievable twists make this a chore to sit through.
The premise of the film is that Thomas Archer's son was murdered and his wife was brutalized -- and he is given a chance at revenge when (after Post Traumatic Stress Disorder therapy), he is put in a room with a man strapped to a chair and told this was the culprit. He is given a large table of implements with which to offer retribution: drills, bats, nails, sledgehammers, torches, whatever you can think of that someone could possibly want to use to physically hurt another human being.<br /><br />We go way too many scenes of torture before we figure out that The Man Archer is torturing is not the man who committed the crime. The two then create an uncomfortable alliance; who put them in this situation and why.<br /><br />Well, when all is said and done, we don't really care...
This movie is deeply idiotic. A man wants revenge for a crime- but when he enacts his revenge- there is a video camera pointed right at him the entire time. What man with a brain cell in his head would sit there and do this for so long in front of a video camera?<br /><br />Just the fact that this script could never even happen except with someone unable to dress themselves destroyed it for me- but it got dumber!!!<br /><br />I am thinking the script writers have some serious habits that are cooking their brain cells and making them miss plot holes you can drive an battalion of armored tanks through.<br /><br />PLOT: a man seeks revenge for the death of loved ones, but in the middle of the plot something goes totally wrong, and then the unexpected unfolds.<br /><br />If only these people writing this story hadn't been so dumb as to write totally unrealistic plot turns that could never happen this way. To the writers I say- seek help for your serious mental problem.
This thing is really awfull. There´s no charachter with weight, they´re all floating around in the BG´s. The Motion Capture is a fine toy, but this movie demostrates that you really need people who knows animation to do an animated film. THE MACHINE CAN´T DO ANYTHING WELL BY ITSELF. If you see it as a bizarre film, you´ll have fun finding mistakes of continuity... IN A 3D MOVIE!!! It´s funny to watch the princess dress move around like a thing with diferent phisics. You need animators and 3D animators, not data-entries whom know 3D programs. Note the junctions, like the elbows, how they lost volume and get deformed. The person who made the charachter design (a very good one) sufered for sure when he/she watched them move, ´cos you can´t say they come to life.
This movie is not only boring, it is also really badly done. The graphics are so bad, they are not even second rate - they are dreadful. The characters do not show any facial expresssions, the voice acting is empty and without any soul, and the plot absolutely lacks .... well... anything and everything. My 5 year old likes it - but thinks it's a bit boring. I agree with him.
When you have two tower house of performers pitched against each other, the least you can expect is the superb camaraderie and that is the case in this film where we have a 64 yrs old Amitabh Bachchan romances a 34-yr old Tabu. Wait! In fact that is all there in the name of plot therefore instead of "cheeni" it is the content that is "Kum" in this Adman turned Writer-Director R. Balki's maiden effort..<br /><br />Trust the two senior actors to bring the house down with their wise-cracks and bitter-sweet moments when love happened in this unconventional pair, and that is all you find in slow but refreshing first half. The locales of London as captured in rainy season are captivating. By the end of first half, romance completed and mission accomplished. There is not much left to be said. Therefore in the second half a strange opposition comes in the form of girl's father to the extent that he goes for a Satyagrah is really a test of patience. There is an equally strange climax about how he gives in. The result, second half is dry, flat with no energy. There is a subplot with a girl child dying of cancer, not making much impact. Nonetheless, the film is recommended for its fresh approach and the performances.
R Balki tries to tell you a story that had been earlier told by Ram Gopal Verma in Nishabd in a sensuous way. This time it is mixed with mature humors.<br /><br />Amitabh Bachchan is a Chef and owns an Indian Cuisine in London. He is very dominating and arrogant and respects his job just like any other job. According to him, Cooking is an art. Still cannot make Hyderabadi Biryani properly.<br /><br />Enter Tabu who sends her the proper Hyderabadi Biryani made by her and they soon starts meeting up and finally falls in love with each other… Amitabh is 65 and Tabu is 35…. No probs! But one Hitch! Tabu's father Paresh Rawal!! The couples decide to meet the father for the approval of their marriage. But Amitabh realizes that Tabu's father is much younger to him. And the complications begin… Performance wise all three actors are brilliant. The script of the film is very tight and interesting. The dialogues of the film are catchy. But somewhere you feel that your stomach is not properly filled. The comedy is sometimes not properly understood. The film also tries to go lengthy at some parts.<br /><br />Musically nothing much to sing about except the Title Track. The camera-work is good. Director R Balki could have given much better from this script. But in the second half he himself looks confused. The "Satyagrah" scene of the father looked irritating. But the lines spoken by Amitabh Bachchan during that scene are clap worthy.<br /><br />On the whole, Cheeni Kum needed to have more sugar!
In this movie, the old Amitabh Bachchan falls in love with a much younger woman, again. He meets her in his restaurant. The younger woman, Tabu, flirts with him. He does not know what to do and asks her out. Her reaction on his invitation is rather weird. Is was supposed to be funny.<br /><br />And that annoys me about this whole movie. It wasn't that funny. The jokes and script was terrible! The only jokes I liked was about the teeth of a waiter, but after a several times, even that began to bore.<br /><br />Amitabh has a little girlfriend called sexy. This was a weird relationship! A little girl with the mind of an old woman! It was frightening! I know someone can be attached to a kid, but this man has adult conversations with this child. It did not make any sense.<br /><br />Tabu's father is Paresh Rawal. He has to give Amitabh a hard time, but we all know Paresh, he can't do that. So even the conversation at the end, when they sit all around the table, even that was supposed to be funny.<br /><br />I only like movies who really are funny. I suppose I will never watch this movie again.
The subject this latest adman-turned-movieman tries to tackle in his debut (ad)venture is quite an age-old topic of discussion by almost any cultural standard -- timeless romance (pun intended).<br /><br />However, the exploration (and exploitation for Desi auds) falls woefully short as the usual inclinations to 'pepper, spice and sugar' up the usual masala mix of b/g score, dialog, dance, drama, etc creates a nice-looking package with not much inside.<br /><br />In the first 40 minutes of the movie, the kitchen scene has been repeated at least 8-9 times. Further repeats follow thru-out the movie (after all the lead character's a cook). But therein lies les problemos -- no story! Hah, no wonder. Someone forgot to write a script.<br /><br />Amitabh puts in a Cheeni Jyada (more) amount of over-acting. Really when is this guy ever gonna stop?? How many 60-somethings prance around like that even when teased by a nubile 30-something??? Timeless mind yes, but surely what about the not-so-ageless bod? And sole? Sorry, soul?! Reasonably good acting by Paresh Rawal who has the only sensible role in the film. The director lacks any sense of realism getting all caught up in his new-fangled discovery of a hot new idea. Nowhere are we presented with any real-life problems or issues such a pair might face, other than actually getting married which is only the initial obstacle. The sub-plot of a little kid with cancer (the bachelor boy's first love) goes nowhere and whatever little bit of poignancy this otherwise insipid presentation would have evoked is quickly killed off along with the girl's character.<br /><br />Anyway, nice try but not quite there yet.
well i don't know what people saw in this movie i don't know. <br /><br />i saw this movie yesterday and i got a severe headache. other than few good dialog there is nothing in this movie.<br /><br />the big b rt now is preaching to fall in love with girls of half of you age. <br /><br />i didn't like the movie at all. i wanted to give 1 rating but giving 3 as <br /><br />i like the role of the small girl who is called "sexy" by AB. my word "DONT WATCH"<br /><br />save your self donot watch this movie.<br /><br />save time and money.
Was this a comedy or was it a drama? I begin this review by asking this question because the film that I just witnessed, Hollywood Shuffle, was neither funny or rather dramatic. While it tried so hard to make a point, because of this lack of definition (comedy or drama), the clever themes and pointed remarks were lost. While I am a strong believer that there is too much racial profiling happening in Hollywood, even today, I do not believe that Townsend's directorial debut did much to stop it. Instead, I feel it only added more fuel to the fire. Townsend's comic timing in this film was disastrous due to the fact that the elements he was supposed to be making fun of, he was instead promoting and vice versa. The parts that were supposed to be serious were somehow destroyed by the poor lack of funny comedy. Townsend had a decent concept with this film, but sadly the execution is what ultimately hurt this film. If you watch the preview before the film (which I constantly do), you will immediately get the wrong impression of what you are going to see. The preview gives the impression of a very intelligent, comic film that prides itself on the intelligence of the viewers, but the actually film could not be further from the truth.<br /><br />The main problem with Hollywood Shuffle is not story itself (because it is lacking in elaboration); it is Townsend's direction. He had a wonderful concept with this film. Exploit the Hollywood that exploits our race. Decent idea, but why couldn't he execute it very well? The first reason is that his ideas are too random and sporadic. The structure of this film was like watching a heart attack on a monitor at the hospital, we are literally everywhere without any warning or map. It was obvious that Townsend had quite a bit to say, but only a short amount of time to do it in. So, instead of defining his characters, developing his themes, and actually creating a smart film, he just throws it all together and prays that it works. Sadly, it doesn't. Instead of a smart comedy, we have a hodgepodge of so many ideas, comedic skits, and underused actors that this film goes from decent to nearly unwatchable. What hurts Townsend the most are his brief, attempt to be funny, interruptions throughout the film. From battling a villain known as Jerry Curl to parodying Siskel & Ebert, Townsend's attempt to poke fun while speak a message about the film industry falters. This is because these small intermittent skits actually distract from the central focus of the film and actually destroy internally. While Townsend seems to be trying to make a joke about life in Hollywood, he actually is simply connecting to every stereotype and cliché in the book. What could have been beautiful satire transforms into simply generic humor that never quite stands apart from the rest.<br /><br />So, if you find yourself not laughing at the humor of this story, perhaps there is some comfort in knowing that some of the Wayans brothers are around to help spice up this dull story. WRONG! The Wayans are in this film, but Townsend demonstrates that he has the ability to even bring the worst out even in this entertaining family. Definitely in their pre-In Living Color moments, we see that comedy was something that all needed to constantly improve upon. Perhaps it was Townsend's direction, or just maybe this atrocious story, but these typically funny comedians were obviously underused and ignored when it came to critics of this film. I just thought that with the talent pool that Townsend had to pull from that Hollywood Shuffle would have been funny, bright, and a true stab at this obvious Hollywood dilemma. Sadly, it was none of the above.<br /><br />Finally, I would like to say that this was a workable film. There were some moments (while they were few and way far between) that had a smile on my face, the final product just didn't settle well with me. Townsend can be funny, but in this film it just felt like he was playing against himself, instead of through his personal experiences and troubles. I realize that he was probably speaking the truth, but it never came through as that. Instead, we are threaded through a weak story, which supports itself with idiotic flash clips that may have worked for a sitcom, but surely didn't work for this film. Even for those that comment that this was his directorial debut and that he was learning from this film, I would have to disagree. If you are starting fresh, either have a tight script or defined themes. Townsend had neither of these, and combined with the inability to control his actors, he just failed in a ball of flames.<br /><br />Overall, this was rather disappointing to watch. It reminded me of a grade school Spelling Bee where it is finally your child's time to spell. The word is tough, but as the first two to three letters come out, you think that it is going to work perfectly, but then there is that random "P" and silent "R" that forces your excitement to come tumbling down. That is how I felt with Hollywood Shuffle. At first, I saw the potential, I saw the theme and the motive behind the picture, but through fuzzy and inexperienced technique and after the first couple of scenes, I experienced that deep fall feeling. Townsend sank his own ship on this one, and I don't think Hollywood Shuffle will ever re-submerge as a pivotal moment of Hollywood cinema.<br /><br />Grade: * out of *****
OK, so obviously ppl thought this was a good movie in 1955.<br /><br />I pity the fools who still think so... Its absolute rubbish.<br /><br />The story is just ... ridiculous. The characters are absurd caricatures - but this film is not meant to satirise, im sure its meant to be a serious drama isn't it?<br /><br />Dean and others, are too old for their parts. People say Dean is great in this film, and well, maybe he did play his part as well as he possibly could've. His character is meant to be 16 or 17 or so. But Dean was a 24 year old man when he made this film. Seeing him agonise and throw little tantrums like a 4 year old boy... its pathetic.<br /><br />Natalie Wood is gorgeous, but the early scenes at the police station where she is crying and whining are very unconvincing. It sets a bad precedent for the film... and for the rest of it, you feel like cringing every time one of these badly acted emotional scenes comes along.<br /><br />It may've been good for its time, but, really, its drivel.<br /><br />It must've just been hype about Dean's death that has over-inflated the reputation of this film.
Relative to other Columbo movies, this can only be rated a 1 (awful). I seriously do not understand what the other reviewers have seen in this appalling train-crash of a film. It was only through morbid fascination that I continued to watch it - to see what bizarre or inept decision the director would make next.<br /><br />Another reviewer suggested that it was Falk's only directorial outing because it interfered with his acting role. In fact, I think the real reason lies with the studio bosses, who must have been horrified when they saw what he had done with their money. It's a wonder they didn't murder HIM.
I've waited a long time to see DR TARR'S TORTURE DUNGEON and after I watched it, I was really disappointed by it. It's not the Baroque film I expected it to be. The trailer (which I saw on a Something Weird DVD) is much better than the entire film, which is remarkably forgettable. There are almost no stand out scenes in it and the look and feel is interesting but it doesn't even come close to other Baroque styled movies out there, from Fellini or Jodorowsky. The characters are dull and there's almost nothing dramatic going on, even though we see rape, crucifixion, insanity, etc.<br /><br />The main problem with DR TARR'S TORTURE DUNGEON was the fact that it was a talk-a-thon more than anything else. It was almost like watching a book. I just wanted the film to have moments of silence or mood or something, instead we see/listen to the main characters chit-chat endlessly about dull stuff.<br /><br />A missed opportunity.
A stupid rich guy circa about 1800 wants to visit a nearby mental asylum to see how a famous doctor cares for his patients. Despite an initially hostile response, he is soon cordially invited in and given a tour by the good doctor. And, as the doctor shows him about, he talks and talks and talks!!! And as he talks, loonies run amok here and there doing nothing especially productive. While there is SOME action here and there (and some of it quite disturbing), it's amazing how dull and cerebral the whole thing is--lacking life and energy, which is odd for a horror flick. Even a guy who thinks he's a chicken and dresses like one becomes rather tiresome. The further this tour takes the guest, the more disturbing it becomes until ultimately you realize that the inmates have taken over the hospital and are torturing their keepers. Yet again, despite this twist, the film is amazingly lifeless in many places--particularly when it moves very slowly as a bizarre ceremony is taking place or people are just wandering about the set. Only when the workers from the asylum found in a prison cell, starving, does the film have any real impact. Considering this plot, it sure is hard to imagine making it boring, but the people who made this cheap exploitational film have! Now with the same plot and competent writing, acting and direction, this COULD have been an interesting and worthwhile film.<br /><br />You know, now that I think about it, this was the plot of one of the episodes of the original "Star Trek" TV show! You know, the one with "Lord Garth--Master of the Universe" and Kirk and Spock are held prisoner by this madman and his crazed followers.<br /><br />A final note: The film has quite a bit of nudity here and there and includes a rape scene, so be forewarned--it's not for kids. In fact, considering how worthless the film is, it isn't for anyone! However, with the version included in the "50 Movie Pack--Chilling Classics", the print is so incredibly bad that it's hard to see all this flesh due to the print being so very dark.
Dr Tarr's Torture Dungeon is about a journalist who travels to an insane asylum to write about a new technique they use with their patients. However, the journalist soon finds out that things are not what they seem to be, and the asylum is being run by the patients, and the doctors are in cages. First of all, some parts of the film are just plain boring and just makes you want to fall asleep, and the interesting parts are interesting for all the wrong reasons(A guy who thinks he's a chicken, for instance). I have to admit that the story is actually pretty good, but the film itself bombs. The music of the film is really odd and like something you would hear in some insane comedy, and yes, there is a scene involving dancing chicken men, which pretty much made me want to shut off the screen. Watch this film at your own risk! <br /><br />Rated: R for Violence and Nudity.
I read reviews on this movie and decided to give it a shot. I'm an open minded guy after all and I’ve given good reviews to some pretty bad flicks. As the end credits rolled on this one I searched for meaning and something nice to say. Here goes: "This film was mercifully short." That's all I got.<br /><br />Okay, Okay. The sets and visuals were well done and the music helped lend to the mood of asylum life but the film was painful to watch and the endless dialogue took away from the good bits. I did find myself laughing at this film but the way you laugh at your best friend who just embarrassed himself in front of a large crowd.<br /><br />By the time of the "chicken dance" at the finale I had just decided to tuck and roll with the film and let the bodies fall where they fall. I don't know what could have salvaged this film. The acting was not bad and it looked like it had a budget but there just wasn't any way to make it watchable; not even the presence of beautiful bare breasts. Maybe I should have sparked a doobie or drank a LOT of beer to get the full experience of the film. Either way, I'm not watching this film again unless I'm really depressed. Then I can tell myself “At least I wasn’t in ‘Dr. Tarr's Torture Dungeon.’ I’m better than those guys."
All the other comments already said what I was going to say, here goes anyway. I thought this was Italian at first, sorry about that, Italy. I wasn't bored because I kept waiting for something to happen. Who did that song about Dr. Tarr and Professor Feather way back when? Was it Alan Parsons? Saw this on a Brentwood 10 pack and the quality was as expected, terrible. Full of streaks and stuff. The movie was an incoherent mess. Goofy music and clueless characters. The main guy should have known in the first minute that the doctor was nuttier than the patients. I thought the "doctor" directing the "battle" scene was never going to end. Had some good looking babes though. It seems these dumb ass movies always throw in a naked chick or two and that gets you hooked. I gave it a 2 for the nekkid women. That bird people dance made me want to pull out my own eyeballs. Poe probably did about 3,000 rpms in his grave when this thing came out because it was loosely based on a story of his.
Although I rated this movie a 2 for showing a complete lack of effort in trying to create a quality horror film it was a 10 on the unintentional funny scale. I couldn't figure out what was going on in the movie or who the people were but I didn't care because I knew every scene was going to have something to make me cry with laughter. Dialogue is a minimum throughout the movie but I believe this is because they started filming without a script. The fact that there is no plot line makes the movie extremely versatile. It doesn't matter if you sit down and watch the movie from beginning to end or if you watch it in rewind you will be confused with enjoyment. I particularly like the scene in which the inmates are taking turns running around outside beating each other with sticks. I believe the doctor refers to this as treatment. Genius!
I got this in the DVD 10 pack CURSE OF THE DEAD. You gotta love those bargain packs. For even if they don't feature true remastering, restoration and all that hoo-ha, and the films are generally in full-frame pan and scan format, there's no denying that there are always a few gems included. And by "gems", I mean there's always some good crap to be seen, especially if the films are from the '70s as The Mansion of Madness is.<br /><br />My copy is called Mansion of Madness, but when the title screens roll it's Poe's Dr. Tarr's Torture Dungeon. Doesn't matter, really, as crap is crap is crap, no? Yes! But saying this film is completely worthless is not true at all. There are some funky elements here and there, and obviously the flick did have a decent budget.<br /><br />The opening title sequence is cool with its colored negative run through a cheap TV look. The dialogue is always hilarious. Near the beginning of the film, the horse and buggy driver gets out to move a dead tree stump in the middle of the road. "WHAT STRENGTH!" says Our Hero. Funny, then, that this dude should later not be able to fight off the wacky woodsmen when they come to make freaky fun. You'll completely forget that this guy was even in the movie until he crops up again later near the end. That's how memorable these characters are.<br /><br />The best part about Mansion of Madness, however, has to be the wacky music and screwball hijinks that the good guys have to endure. It's like bad cartoon music that a three year old would find enjoyable. And why all the weirdo slapstick, anyway? I'd say my fave moment had to be when the horse and buggy is ambushed by the forest freaks when they pull a stupid looking homemade ghost up by a stick in the middle of the road and make the buggy stop. What the hell? Oh yeah, there's plenty of boobies to be seen, too, for those of you that dig such things. Boobies, bad dialogue, and wacky music. That best sums of Mansion of Madness for me. It's well worth at least one viewing, and may be a lot better if you've had a few to drink or whatnot. I can't say I was ever bored watching it, but I can't deny that it's also a barrel of poop. Kinda like Magical Mystery Tour but with a plot, but not. Hmm.<br /><br />And Mr. Chicken PWNZ.
I feel much less generous with this film than others of its ilk. The portrayal of madmen in this century is always done with them being so totally bizarre as to be a different species. Their antics are so outrageous as to be totally fictionalized. Everyone is Napoleon or some other historical figure; or they have a fascination with chickens. They are on the make or beating each other up. It's as if the scriptwriter said, what can I make up for them to do, without an sense of what insanity or even mental illness is. Watch the wonderful human portrayal in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" where the illnesses are believable and real. I once worked in a State Mental hospital. I didn't see any of these guys. These are too smart and calculating to make them come to life.
If this movie were any worse, it would have been directed by Uwe Boll. This nonsensical mess makes Ed Wood look like Hitchcock. It has been a while since I have seen this steaming pile , but I do remember that I wanted to do grievous bodily harm to all those involved. How anyone can give this movie any more than 1 star amazes me to the graciousness of all those that viewed this tripe. I give it one star because there is not a rating lower. All copies of this movie should be burned the ground sowed with salt and reserved as a landfill for the most toxic of waste. No, one copy should be kept under ultra hi security and shown only to film makers as an example of how not to do it.
Absolutely dreadful Mexican film supposedly based on a short story by Edgar Allan Poe about a newsman wanting to go into the confines of an asylum hidden in the woods to write a story about how it works, etc... When our hero, Gaston, is given the grand show by Dr. Maillard, head of the asylum, we see all kinds of things which are suppose to be horrific, such as men hanging around long in a dungeon, and comedic, such as our hero being joked upon by soldiers as he climbs down a ladder hanging over the side of a building. Then there is one sight which might have been meant to be both: a human man dressed as a chicken, yes, that's right a chicken, that pecks around the ground for chicken feed. The scene was to be a comedic highlight of the film, but, at least for me, it was the film's low point and really most revolting when you considered that grown men and women thought this might even be remotely entertaining. Ah! That is indeed the real horror that is Dr. Tarr and his Legion of Name Changes. And that brings me to this salient fact about the film which is most films that undergo multiple title changes usually have some kind of serious problem. Yes, this is obvious, but some have distribution problems and others, of which this is one, have numerous title changes so that someone might unsuspectingly buy the same garbage more than once. This is definitely garbage. It has very little going for it. The only performer worth having a look at is Claudio Brook as the head of the asylum. He is one huge slab of ham as he laughs maniacally, bellows orders, sashays with sword in hand, and praises the chicken. I got so tired of hearing him talk about the "soothing system" as his means to cure the mentally sick. What a bunch of ludicrosity(Hey, a film like this with a script like this deserves this kind of word). It won't take you long to figure out what is going on in the asylum nor will it be any more interesting. Cinematic chicken scratch!
The one sheets and newspaper campaign suggested (as often they did) a far more lurid and violent piece than showed up on the drive-in screens. Claude Brook is actually an Americanization of Claudio Brook, who worked in films for years. This one's quite hard to find anymore; I'd love to see it again to compare it to other international horrors of the day, but don't remember particularly impressed way back when. Chances are it was a chopped up version that made it to U.S. theatres and video. But oh, that one sheet...still a gem of my later horror collection.
I went to a prescreening of this film and was shocked how cheesy it was. It was a combination of every horror/thriller cliché, trying to comment on many things including pedophilia, Satan worship, undercover cops, affairs, religion... and it was a mess. the acting was pretty washboard; the kid and the Jesus dude were alright, but apart from them.... Anyways. I admire the effort (though slightly failed) on the attempt at showing the Christian people in a different way...even though they did that, the way it presented the gospel was a bit stock and kiddish. But then again, it may have to be since he was talking to a little kid... no. actually, I've decided it's just all around bad. music... oh my gosh... horrible... toooo over-dramatic. Okay. I felt bad for the people who made this movie at the premier; It seemed like a poor student project. I'm going to stop ranting about this now and say bottom line, go see this movie if you want to waste an hour and fifty minutes of your life on crap. there you go.
Body Slam (1987) is a flat out terrible movie. The low budget reeks, the direction is pedestrian (at best) and the writing and acting is lame. But if you're into old school wrestling (circa 1970's through the mid-80') then you'll be more entertained than the average viewer. I have to warn you, this movie stinks on ice. I gave it a two because I felt like being generous. This turkey was "directed" by stunt master Hal Needham. The stars are Roddy Piper, The Tonga Kid and a bunch of scrub wrestlers and c-list actors (Dirk Benedict).<br /><br />The synopsis of this "movie" is about a promoter who wants to combine "hair rock" and wrestling. But their are others that don't want him to succeed. There's more but I don't want to SPOIL it for you. If you can stomach the bad acting and inane storyline, there's a few surprises near the end for die-hard wrestling fans. <br /><br />I wouldn't recommend this to my worse enemy (and I mean it).
My roommates & I nearly shorted out our TV from the numerous spit-takes we did while watching this hilarious piece of 1970s self important pseudo-zen dreck. I'd read about this campfest for ages and scanned my local late night TV listings for YEARS in search of this elusive turd. Several years ago our local ABC affiliate was known for showing cool flicks for its late night weekend flick (ie "Frogs", "Night of the Lepus", etc). Then one day it happened: at 1:40am on a Saturday night (over 5 years ago) there it was! We had over 15 folks over and the flick did NOT disappoint!<br /><br />See! Andy Griffith as the silliest & most unthreatening bad guy since Jaye Davidson in "Stargate"!<br /><br />See! William Shatner sport a variety of things atop his head that only faintly resemble human hair (or anything organic for that matter).<br /><br />Hear! jaw droppingly inane 1970s psychobabble that makes "Chicken Soup For The Soul" sound like BF Skinner<br /><br />Feel! Content that any decade was better than the 70s.<br /><br />For those still reading...the plot surrounds a bunch of middle class mid level a--holes who decide to suck up to their s---head boss (Griffith) by joining him on a cross dessert race that spans California & Mexico. They all wear leather jackets, looking more Christopher Street than anything else. Along the way they stop at a Cantina, get drunk, smoke joints (the sight Robert "Mike Brady" Reed smoke a joint is an image you won't soon forget), start a fight, attempt rape, and just act like a bunch of suburban middle class jack offs. Although I have an excellent copy that I taped off TV I WISH this one would be released on video so the whole world could enjoy its half baked goofiness.
I went for this movie believing it had good ratings. Firstly, it is ridiculous that they're releasing a movie originally made in 2001, seven years later in 2008 here in India. Everything in the movie looks dated. Even for 2001 the movie looks like its been made on a shoe string budget. There is a scene where a taxi hits a man to elaborate how low budget you can get. Anthony Hopkins doesn't seem to know what he is doing in the film. He ends up giving a long monologue towards the end. If the film had bright sparks during that scene, I missed it as I was sleeping on my seat. Nothing about Jennifer Love Hewitt resembles a Devil. She wears ill-fitting trite clothes and scowls at random kids. As for Alec Baldwin a scene where he goes to meet Webster for the first time is not to be missed. What a waste of money! As Anthony Hopkins rightly put it, "Go back home and write better!"
Once again the same familiar story about a man (writer here) who sell his soul to the devil in order to have his most desired ambition in life: success. Unfunny script (we should "go home and write better"), ridiculous lines in order to understand the "strong" "Christmanish" message (our only aspiration in life is to find love, respect and a good friendship) and a very long trial scene at the end where the agent Hopkins beat the devil (Jennifer Love Hewitt is no sexy or evil at all) for all the bad things she made to this unlikable character. Not bad efforts from the actors (Baldwin also as a director, Cattrall in a "Sex and the City" role again, Aykroyd with some funny lines in his limited role). P.S. Try also a not so popular film from Greece called "Alloimono stous neous", a brilliant adaptation of this myth (an old man give his soul to the devil to get back his youth)
I had high hopes for it when I heard that it was being made back in 2001 because I read "The Devil and Daniel Webster" when I was a kid and I found it very interesting. They made some changes to the story that don't make much sense to me. Daniel Webster in the story was a famous lawyer from New Hampshire in the story. In the movie he is an editor. A lawyer makes more sense since he ends up representing Jabez Stone against the devil him/herself (he was a man in the story, but was a woman in the movie) in a trial where both of their souls are on the line. As an editor, it doesn't seem likely that Daniel Webster would have the skill to do this.<br /><br />The acting was decent by all except for Alec Baldwin and Dan Aykroyd. These are two actors that I like, they just did an awful job in this movie. It was as though they thought they were acting in a comedy, but the movie was more a serious one than a comedy. This might be partly due to the fact that the movie was filmed with a particular vision in mind, and was then re-edited by somebody else. Given this fact, it's surprising that it was at all coherent. I was surprised to see a fair amount of SNL cast members in the movie, which further leads me to believe it may have originally been filmed with the intention of it being more of a comedy.<br /><br />All in all I would have to say it wasn't completely awful, but it wasn't much good. If I could get the hour and a half back and do something else with it, I would. The ending was especially disappointing. As in the original story, Daniel Webster defeats the devil in the trial. Jabez then starts out again at the beginning of the movie...literally, we are just brought back to the first scene with Jabez, and then the movie abruptly ends. It actually looked as though they just replayed Jabez' first scene over and called it the end. There is no indication that Jabez has the benefit of any of the knowledge or experience he gained, so who is to say he didn't just repeat his mistakes over again, and perhaps over and over in an endless loop? It was an extremely disappointing end and did not make a lot of sense. The decent cast, and the acting of everyone except for Baldwin and Aykroyd are the only things that keep this from being a complete and total crap sandwich.
This is one of those films that I remember being in the can for years before anything happening w/it. I don't think it's terrible, but it's not really good either. Alec Baldwin was pretty good, but the plot is it kind of flimsy at best. The cast is pretty good in what they're given, but again you are only as good as the script. Baldwin directing this although I could have sworn he didn't direct all of it, I thought I read somewhere or lots of re-shoots wasn't bad but he definitely has some potential in there. Although his work on "30 Rock" is nothing short of genius & should keep him busy for a little while longer. I just hope the show bows out gracefully a la Seinfeld, but maybe not even that long. 9 years it went. So if you want to see a film that you won't get much from, but won't really hate either well this is for you. I can't remember the last time a film had been wrapped so long before finally being released & only on DVD at that. It was nice to see Alec Baldwin & Anthony Hopkins again together since their excellent yet not much people have seen "The Edge." Now pick up that excellent film for some real entertainment.
I saw this film awhile back (while working on a trailer for the film's production company) and it was TERRIBLE. Hewitt is mediocre at best, Hopkins phones his performance in (but still blows away Hewitt in their scenes together) and Alec looks bored. Trust me on this: you should avoid this film like the plague if it ever gets released. It seems to go on forever as the tired plot unfolds at a snail's pace. It is relentlessly unfunny, the cinematography is crappy and the direction is pedestrian. Alec Baldwin should go to film school if he plans to direct again. In terms of his acting, his character is totally unlikable, which makes it impossible to root for him. Dan Ackroyd is pretty funny and the surprising makeup of the jury near the film's end is cute, but this film is just plain awful.
Believe it or not, "The Woodchipper Massacre" gave me full-blown gonorrhea! That's right, I've got a rainbow of discharge spewing from me just because a group of kids went playing around with a camcorder and somehow made a deal with the Devil and got distribution. It's beyond my comprehension how anyone with moderate intelligence could tolerate this pant-load of a film. The only reason I managed to sit through the whole thing (not without several suicide attempts along the way) was because, well first off, I was delirious with boredom, and second - I guess I wanted to further explore this newly discovered type of hate I was experiencing... This movie is a 'shot-on-video' "horror/comedy" about three siblings who are left for the weekend in the care of their bitchy elderly aunt. The youngest kid ends up stabbing the old lady accidentally with his Rambo-replica hunting knife. They then get to dismembering auntie with various tools (apparently she didn't have a single drop of blood in her body!) and heave her into their dad's rented wood chipper... Her convict son then stops by looking for his mom and the kids end up grinding that jackass too... I don't recall ever seeing a cast of annoying actors that actually caused me nausea. Seriously, that one blond chick's voice had me wincing in pain constantly. ALL of the actors were downright atrocious - literally just screaming their phony sounding dialog and cracking jokes that must've been written by a chimp that just didn't care! Now, I can usually appreciate independent efforts, but only from those who can realize that people other than their relatives might be watching this! I don't need to see a 3 minute shot of a car pulling out of a drive-way and a torturous, painfully long lawn grooming montage with some ridiculous, fluttery music playing over it. Plus, why the hell does the box of this movie have a bloody piano on it?! There WAS a piano in ONE scene and no one is killed near it! I'm through with reminiscing about this movie. Unless you like insufferable crap, I would advise anyone with half a brain to avoid this trash.
The only reason I even gave it a 1 out of 10 is because the option to give it zero out of 10 was not allowed. This was the biggest waste of time I've ever endured. For roughly 75 minutes, you are subjected to the WORST acting (and I don't mean that in a good way either, like as in KILLER NERD which had great horrible acting) and a plot that is not only ridiculous but also has absolutely NOTHING to do with a massacre. The reason I even rented this piece of crap was because it has massacre in the title. That said, there was only one killing in the entire movie and it was pretty lame at that. You spend more time watching the kids bickering and doing yard work than anything. Speaking of the kids, the little boy actor is probably the most irritating child actor since bob from house by the cemetery. Did I mention it was shot on video as well? If you want to throw away money and over an hour of your life, then by all means watch it. But if you savor your hard earned dollars and time, then stray as far away as possible.
Saw a trailer for this on another video, and decided to rent when it came out. Boy, was I disappointed! The story is extremely boring, the acting (aside from Christopher Walken) is bad, and I couldn't care less about the characters, aside from really wanting to see Nora's husband get thrashed. Christopher Walken's role is such a throw-away, what a tease!
This movie could have been very good, but comes up way short. Cheesy special effects and so-so acting. I could have looked past that if the story wasn't so lousy. If there was more of a background story, it would have been better. The plot centers around an evil Druid witch who is linked to this woman who gets migraines. The movie drags on and on and never clearly explains anything, it just keeps plodding on. Christopher Walken has a part, but it is completely senseless, as is most of the movie. This movie had potential, but it looks like some really bad made for TV movie. I would avoid this movie.
This is a total waste of money. The production is poor, the special effects are terrible. In my country they had the courage to put this film on video named as "The Mummy" because of the success of Brendan Fraser`s film. I`m sure that you can find better horror movies.
This movie is more deceiving than ever, using a suspenseful looking actor like Walken to play in this piece of junk made it look like he had nothing better to do than play a boring role like this one! And the fact that the movie was supposed to be about some witch and you really don't see that until almost the end of the movie but meanwhile you have to sit and watch this boring film while it gets, or tries to get to the meaning of the point and you have to go through this whole trail of boring actors and actresses thinking the whole time of how you passed off another movie and decided on this one and how you have just waisted your money just makes the whole point of time useless sitting there. I'd rather watch cartoons for goodness sakes. Leave this one alone,please!
<br /><br />Upon concluding my viewing of "Trance," or "The Eternal," or whatever the producers are calling this film, I wondered to myself, "Out of all of the bad movies I could have seen, couldn't I have at least seen one that was entertaining?" Even if a film is not well made in terms of acting, directing, writing, or what have you, it can at least be fun, and therefore worthwhile. But not only is this film bad in artistic value, it's incredibly boring. For a plot of such thinness, it moves awfully slowly, with little dramatic tension. At the very least, in a low-brow attempt at entertainment, the deaths of the characters could have been cool and/or gory, but the creators of this dreck failed in that department as well.<br /><br />What does this movie have going for it? Pretty much nothing, unless you get entertainment out of watching Christopher Walken, who is capable of being brilliant, put so little effort into his acting that he falls into self-parody mode (WHY did he decide to do this film anyway?).<br /><br />I give this film 3/10, because, God help us, there actually have been worse movies made before.
This film takes what could have been a good idea, a mummified 2000 year old witch and completely destroys it. Nora and Jim are alcoholics who go to Ireland to dry-out. They go to stay with her Nan and Uncle. The uncle has discovered a 2000 year old witch preserved in the peat. He revives her and she takes the form of Nora. She cannot be killed conventionally,(more is the pity). Nora, however, works out a way to do so.<br /><br />This is a Gothic horror movie that has been done on the cheap. It is a sprawling mess. I have to ask why anyone would want to make such a bad film. I am tempted to learn witchcraft in order to make it disappear.<br /><br />AVOID AT ALL COSTS
A young American woman visits her Irish roots and fends off a druid witch who is out to possess her. Sounds intriguing but after an interesting start, I got lost and spent most of the time wondering where it was going. The movie seems to be dithering in two directions -- are we watching the travails of the Irish-American woman battling her alcohol problem or are we watching a straight off horror flick about an evil witch that returns from the past? The director can't seem to decide. The two doesn't seem to gel and in the end you get nowhere. This could be so much better done and the story seemed to drag towards the end. This was most boring and disappointing.
Well - when the cameo appearance of Jason Miller (looking even more eroded than he did in Exorcist IV) is the high point of a picture, what've you got?<br /><br />It's a little bit country, a little bit rock n' roll: mix two drunks with money who drag their kid all over the place with a bog-dried mummy (have you figured that one out yet - DRIED in a bog?) in the basement, Christopher Walken with a bad dye job, and a little girl who might have been an interesting character if they'd developed her.<br /><br />I understand - sort of - that they're going back to visit her relatives. After that....<br /><br />Problem: There are several interesting flashbacks to what I must assume is her mother being killed in a car bombing (I think). This is never connected to anything. <br /><br />Problem: What do we need the grandmother for? Now, the grandmother could be interesting. She speaks Gaelic, or Celtic, or something. Maybe you can make something of her. The best they can do is that she 's got a tobacco habit. That's all.<br /><br />Problem: They cast a real shifty character as the husband. Is he type-cast (will he sell his wife to the devil? Maybe he can look forward to the trust fund he manages for her)or is he cast against type (after all, he has a good haircut and nice clothes)? He drinks, he hesitates. He's not a bad guy. Not a good one. But dislikable. Why didn't they DO something with him?<br /><br />No problem: an old boyfriend shows up. The husband knocks him down. He comes back to knock down the husband. (It gets pretty stupid, but at least THAT character has motivation.) <br /><br />NOW - she's an alcoholic, he's an alcoholic; he might only have married her for her money. The grandmother is locked in the bedroom. The blind uncle takes our heroine to the basement to show her the mummy of a witch (are you following this?) who may come to life. In fact, you KNOW she'll come to life, the music swells. A little girl lives in the house, takes tea to the grandmother (unlocks the door to do so) and provides granny with cigarettes. Periodically, granny gets out. But nothing happens. <br /><br />Husband and wife lose the kid in the house, subsequently lose their bedroom. Uncle gets his throat cut in the basement. The leading lady has nose-bleeds. The husband drinks. They both drink. In the face of all of this, the awful truth alluded to in the first over-voice is - omigod - an abortion when the leading lady was twelve years old.<br /><br />In spite of all these dangling-thread ingredients, nobody managed to get a story on the screen. No bridge between situations, no graduation from mild disturbance to awful horror, just long slow scenes that go nowhere.;nbody, really, to care about - and they had places to go with that aspect - the innocent kid in the charge of drunks,the grandmother who might be locked up because she's a monster, but no, her worst fault is smoking. She's got great hair, good makeup. <br /><br />In short, no plot. Just a little random (predictable)violence in a dark library, with the rain gushing in, and the sound track cuing us in. You need more than a few drunks and Christopher Walken to make a movie.<br /><br />The production values were good. Oh. Nice scenery, good wardrobe. The cameraman, at least, knew what he was doing.<br /><br />I bought it. Poor me.
I thought that I was never going to find a horror movie as bad as "The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre", but this film compete with it.<br /><br />I´m not a person that get asleep when watching a movie, but I did it 15 minutes after the Trance started. I woke up, and started to watching it agian. Why did I deserve that? All the movie was a torture, I have to use fast forward to watch it complete.<br /><br />I can´t stand why one of my favourites actors of all time (MR. WALKEN) could done this thing. I have to think that he made the director a favor, or he was really in the need of money, because film after film he is doing, he is ruining himself; and so fast...<br /><br />What about the movie? it´s not scary, stupid plot, characters are awful (but I really liked the one played by Jared Harris), effects are very poor, lack of deaths & blood, etc; in three words, it has anything. And I mean it. Can´t stand how a director can make a film like this.<br /><br />Anyway, When I got more disappointed was when I saw in the video cover, that the film was presented by "Stephen King", I think he could never present this crap, no? (I rented it in Argentina). I not recommend it in a million years.<br /><br />I rate this movie with a 2 out of 10. (As I say in my "Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre" review, there will be always a worse movies, thats why it don´t deserves a 1 out of 10)
This is some of the worst acting I have ever seen. I love Almereyda's Nadja, but this is just absolute dreck. Aside from a few moments of interesting cinematography and music this film is just nonstop bad acting and dumb material. Jared Harris is particularly bad, but no one in this is remotely good. The plot is a joke, but not the haha kind. I don't even know if you can forgive movies that are this bad. Please erase the last hour and a half of my life. How did this director make Nadja and Another Girl Another Planet?
1st watched 5/26/2002 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Michael Almereyda): Weird story about a druid witch who tries to capture eternity by inheriting her granddaughter's body. At least I think that was the relationship. A kind of eerie quality is held throughout this film not unlike Stephen King's The Shining. The difference is that there was campiness in Nicholson's performance that isn't at all in this film. This is all taken very seriously until near the end when some lame one-liners and attempts at litening up the mood don't work at all. The performances are not the problem here, but the story is. Everything doesn't seem to come together very smoothly and the viewer is left with a lot of pieces of information and no real understanding of what happened in the film. There is a very small throwaway performance by Christopher Walken as the uncle of the granddaughter which, of course, gives him top-billing in an attempt to sell the film. Don't buy into this gimmick and avoid this film.<br /><br />
Dooohhh! My Bwainn Hurrrts! Well it certainly does after this endurance test of a film. How on earth I managed to keep going without hitting the fast forward button lord only knows. <br /><br />Maybe it's me!!Maybe I don't get the premise of the film... or maybe I don't appreciate it's alleged mystical atmosphere. In my humble opinion though the film has about as much mystical atmosphere as a trip to McDonalds.<br /><br />In addition the characters were all dreadful and there is more character development in a Tom & Jerry cartoon. Yaarrrghhh! Why do I do it? why do I watch such tripe? It's enough to make one run away and join a monastery or the Foreign Legion!! YAARGH!! An absolutley dreadful film in just about every respect. Apart from that it's not to bad.
I'm sorry but I didn't like this doc very much. I can think of a million ways it could have been better. The people who made it obviously don't have much imagination. The interviews aren't very interesting and no real insight is offered. The footage isn't assembled in a very informative way, either. It's too bad because this is a movie that really deserves spellbinding special features. One thing I'll say is that Isabella Rosselini gets more beautiful the older she gets. All considered, this only gets a '4.'
This film has all the earmarks of too many cooks spoiling the stew. Based on Shielah Graham's autobiography, it seems like the powers that be couldn't leave well enough alone. They couldn't decide if this was to be Graham's story or Fitzgerald's story, and also how much they should soft-pedal whoever's story it turned out to be. So a film that could have been a story about two fascinating (Fitzgerald) and notorious (Ms. Graham)personalities becomes a dreary disjointed soap opera about that tells us little about either. Added to this there is absolutely no period feel other than for 1959. Clumsy scene follows clumsy scene and we have no idea where we are in the story or how much time is passing. However - and this saved the film for me - Kerr has never looked lovelier, and Peck is as always a very handsome man. They truly make a beautiful, mature couple, and I only wish they had better material to work with. There is one scene that does work - Scott goes after Shielah while in a drunken state, and to see these two normally refined stars knock each other around is very disturbing and gives some fleeting idea of what goes on in a relationship such as theirs. Other than that, the movie is a wasted opportunity and achieves nowhere near the classic stature of other Wald produced soaps of the 1950 (PEYTON PLACE, THE BEST OF EVERYTHING).
There is a scene in this film at about the 42 minute mark that is among the worst I have seen in some time. As F. Scott Fitzgerald (Gregory Peck) and Sheilah Graham (Deborah Kerr) are lounging on the beach, suddenly things become tense and Sheilah begins to cry--at which point she tells her lover about her sordid past. This "dramatic scene" becomes so terribly overdone and histrionic I couldn't help but turn to my wife and exclaim how stupid it all was...as dramatic music swelled on the television as it all came to a phony crescendo. NO ONE experiences moments like this--no one. Now how much of the rest of the film is true, I cannot say, but this particular moment was laughably bad and as fake as an $8 Rolex--and leads me to assume that some of the other reviewers were correct--the film is a lot of bunk. However, I am not an expert on the life of these two people and the internet didn't seem to clear this up, either. <br /><br />Just who were F. Scott Fitzgerald and Sheilah Graham and what was their relationship really like? What I do know about Fitzgerald, however, does seem different from what I saw in the film. Was he the suave and decent man we initially see in the film? Well, considering he was married at the same time he was carrying on with Graham and drank like a fish, I'd assume he wasn't. Was he as obnoxious and boorish as we later see in the film? Perhaps, but if he was this bad AND yet Ms. Graham stayed with him, then this makes her out to be a complete dummy--and not someone you'd like to see featured in a film. And, if he wasn't, then the film does a poor disservice to his memory. Either way, it made for a painful and not particularly pleasant viewing experience.<br /><br />The sum total of this film appears to be a tale of two not particularly likable or healthy people. In a dark and salacious way, some might find this all very entertaining, but most are sure to see this as a train wreck with no surprises along the way! Unpleasant but with glossy production values (especially the music, which was lovely but way over the top) it begs the question "why did they even choose to make this in the first place?". The bottom line--it's a pretty bad film all around and probably not worth your time--even if, like me, you are big Gregory Peck fan.
Based on a self-serving novel by one-time girl friend and groupie of F. Scott Fitzgerald, gossip columnist Sheila Graham wrote this trashy story. Gregory Peck carries on in shameless excess as a forceful be-drunk-or-be-damned alcoholic; in contradiction to the gentle and soft spoken real Scott Fitzgerald. Focusing on Fitzgerald's Hollywood writing era, late in his life, the much-honored author was, in fact, living a quiet life and effectively fighting his alcoholism at a time when AA was not yet well known. Fitzgerald was none-too-proud to be recycling his flapper stories in order to support both his wife (in a mental hospital) and his daughter (in college). Living in a small apartment and driving a second hand Chevrolet his life was 180 degrees different than as portrayed in this movie.<br /><br />Virtually every 20th Century-Fox movie made during Daryll F. Zanuck's leadership, as well as virtually every film directed by Henry King, was a work of excellence. Beloved Infidel was the exception.
Im proud to say I've seen all three Fast and Furious films.Sure,the plots are kinda silly,and they might be a little cheesy,but I love them car chases,and all the beautiful cars,and the clandestine midnight races.And Ill gladly see a fourth one.<br /><br />Wanna know what the difference is between those three and Redline?Decent acting,somewhat thought out plot,even if they are potboilers,and last but not least,directors who have a clue.All three were made by very competent directors,all of them took the films in a different direction,equally exciting.Redline looks like the producer picked out a dozen women he slept with on the casting couch,and made them the extras,then picked up his leads from Hollywood's unemployment line.And the script.Yikes.Its Mystery Science Theatre 3000 bad.This is 70's made for TV movie bad.<br /><br />Yeah,the movie had a few cool cars,but you don't really get to see that many in action,and the action is directed so poorly you cant get excited by the chases,and if the cars aren't thrilling you,why go to a movie like this?<br /><br />Im in the audience with a bunch of teenagers,and I cant stop laughing out loud.Im getting dirty looks,but this was just a debacle.<br /><br />Rent the F&F movies.Go to Nascar Race.Go to a karting track and race yourself.Whatever you do,avoid Redline like bad cheese.
After seeing the previews I felt that this movie was going to be a nice improvement over that fast & furious series. So, I already expected it to have a lacking storyline, but at least this time it won't be loaded with a bunch of powerless civics with fart cans. Unfortunately, I was wrong. If you could only imagine a Fast & Furious movie with a worse story line than by all means this movie is for you.<br /><br />This is the absolute worst movie I had ever seen (I'm being nice - no I would not take baseball bat to my nuts like what others have said). Not only was the storyline non-existent, but the action was crap too. I guess the director thought that they could just throw bunch of females and exotic cars and then call it a movie. For an example, there is a point in the movie where the guy pushes the nos button and his Lamborghini takes off in the air and flies over a SLR McLaren to win. And after the bit where Eddy Griffin got in a fight with one of his "girls" (an Imus comment would work in this case) the girl asks to pull over and get out of the PLANE and of course they do in the middle of the desert. After this wonderful scene I couldn't take it anymore. So, I only got to see half of this monstrosity. This is the first movie I had ever walked out on. Afterwards, I had to stop for some drinks to kill all of my corrupted brain cells.<br /><br />I gave it a 1 because 0 is not an option. You're better off going to the local car show and stopping at a strip joint on the way home. I will keep all viewers in my prayers.
Whoever wrote up "Redline" as a great car movie must be getting paid off by Daniel Sadek to promote this ultra crappy flaming, steaming pile of amateur crap. Easily the worst automotive movie or any movie ever made. This makes Showgirls look like Citizen Kane.<br /><br />Take every cheesy cliché out of an 80s action TV series, put in some really crappy special effects and lame characters with no relevance and you have living proof that Daniel Sadek should not write screenplays and produce movies but should remain in the real estate business.<br /><br />This is such a lame movie with such a lame plot and the most contrived action sequences ever. What offends me is not that the makers of this film are idiots but that they consider the movie going public to be idiots enough to fall for this crap.
Before watching this film I had very low expectations and went to just see the cars. Eventually I even regretted going for that reason. Plot is almost non-existent. Character development is non-existent. So many clichés and so much jaw-dropping cheesiness existed in the movie that I could only stare and wonder how it was even released. If not for the exotics, I wouldn't have even rated this movie a 1. An attempt at a coherent story line is destroyed by the sheer absurdity of this elite racing cult and the laughable characters that make up its members. In fact, the movie's plot is so predictable and simple-minded that an average child could foretell the majority of the storyline. Bad acting, bad plot, bad jokes, bad movie.<br /><br />Don't see it. Play Gran Turismo HD instead and it'll satiate your thirst for fast sexy cars without leaving a bad aftertaste.
My Favorite part was when the credits started to roll. I wish I could give it a .0000000000001 out of 10. I really wish I had that Hour and thirty minutes back. Don't waste your money or time on it. I really could have watched grass grow and felt better after wards.<br /><br />Nadia was really pretty and I hope the movie didn't destroy her career. But she chose to be in it.<br /><br />All in all it sucked more than any other movie has sucked. More than Kazaam and Glitter combined. That's saying something.<br /><br />Don't<br /><br />Do<br /><br />it!!!!
I registered just to make this comment (which pretty much echos some of the ones here already) The acting is worse than subpar, it expounds on commonly held stereotypes, has some of the worst displays of tasteless female objectification (all bod no brain), and has some of the cheesiest lines known to man.<br /><br />including but not limited to "allright lets see what these guys can do" I should also mention that when they show the crashes involving innocent civilians, you end up feeling bad for the innocent people and start to hate the characters themselves. Eddie Griffin's character is also one of the most stereotypical black guy personas that just rubs people the wrong way. He may or may not be a good actor but this movie doesn't allow for that kind of character exploration. You want a movie that leaves the audience on the side of the bad guys? Oceans 11. This movie just makes you hate the bad guys instead of capturing the audience.<br /><br />Even the cars can't make up for this fluke of a movie. That Enzo that Griffin wrecked sums up this movie perfectly. It just sucks.
Apparently Hollywood is just handing out money to anyone with a camera and the ability to speak. This movie was mind numbingly bad. The casting was terrible, the acting unspeakable, and the story filled with holes. Script? who needs script? I was surprised that the movie wasn't as verbally vulgar as I thought it would be, however I got enough shots of T&A to last me a lifetime. The movie was like listening to a 19 year old street racer with ADD (who decided to buy a car instead of go to college) tell a story. Being so poorly scripted, I thought the two brothers in the film were lovers at first. The scenes at the racetrack, along with the main female actor in the film kept making me think of Herbie: Fully Loaded. This is the kind of film is what Grindhouse modeled itself after...only the writers thought they were being serious.
It was almost worth sitting through this entire god-awful "film" just to know that I can never experience anything as bad as this again. Acting - 0, script - 0, fight scenes - 0, male lead - 0 (cheddar bob from eight mile as a suave war hero who gets the girl), Nadia Bjorlin - 10 (She is gorgeous and not a terrible actress). This is the criteria I used to average it out to a two. I lost count but I believe ever movie cliché, ever, is in this movie. When the driver that supposedly killed her father miraculously shows up at the end to race against her, from out of nowhere it cemented the previous statement. Plus he just shows up for no reason. He was never even mentioned before. I don't know what else to say here. Just watch it when it comes out on TV in a couple years. At least that way some of it will be edited out for commercials.
This movie has some of the most awesome cars I've ever seen in a movie, and definitely the hottest women, but I would have to say it is still one of the worst movies I've ever seen.<br /><br />Here is the plot, and if you read it with a little inflection, you have the acting as well.<br /><br />Beginning, bring in characters, hot woman singing (obvious lip sync). Music agent or producer comes in, thinks that she is awesome asks her to race. She turns down, too many bad memories. Flash to war hero, back from war, has several fights, and becomes movie hero with attitude that he is better than everyone. Drive off in fast exotic car. Brother races, then dies. Hero to avenge death, cut away to getting weapons from friend. (You have never seen this friend before or after, but seems to really care about him) Are you sure you want to do this; Yes; I mean are you really sure; Yes, give me weapons; are you REALLY sure; Yes; OK, I guess I can't talk you out of it, be careful man, I love you.<br /><br />Now he goes to blow up his uncles house who owned the car his brother drove. Finds woman, decides to rescue her, She drives off, and he doesn't finish killing his uncle. Now there will be a race to finish the movie. Oh yeah, need to throw in one more scene with bad people coming in to beat up people that don't really matter, but maybe it adds a little plot. Race is not even that exciting, of course it ends with two cars racing, and one that should win throws in a surprise ending.<br /><br />OK, I just saved you $7.00. You can send all of your money to me, because I should have given you the same amount of enjoyment as this movie does. Don't get me wrong, the cars are awesome, and Nadija is beautiful, but it is truly an awful movie.
This is by far the WORST movie I have ever seen. I was going in expecting a cheesy movie but at least with some cool car scenes/races. What I got was nothing. The racing scene are so low budget they sped them up to make it look like the cars are "going fast" In one scene a Mercedes SLR goes from over 200 to 0 in like 4 seconds by just spinning around in circles. Its just ridiculous.<br /><br />If you wanna see a real movie about cars, see the fast and the furious series. They may be a little cheesy, but 100x better than this movie could ever hope to be. Better yet just watch Mischief 3000, the best car movie ever made I think.
Okay so I went into this movie not really expecting much I figured an action flick similar to The Fast and the Furious. Some nice cars some nice girls somewhat of a decent plot. Unfortunately I would have to say that this was probably the worst movie I have seen this year. Don't get me wrong the cars were nice and the girls were OK but the way they put the movie together was just plain crappy to put it nicely. The story just never made you care about the cast and the movie seemed just pieced together. So overall this movie was not the worst thing ever by far but if your looking for a movie to go to this weekend I would pass on this one for now.
You already know how painful to watch this movie is. But I wonder why one of the worst movies ever should include one the most beautiful cars. Why the cars should be not only the victim of violation, but also the only true actors and performers in it. So how on Earth you Porsche, Lamborghini or whatever could allow those people to get in touch with your cars and ruin you reputation for which you give millions.Stop the getting an advantage of the cars and earn money on their chests. It is painful for those who love cars. It is painful for those who love movies.<br /><br />I want my money back !!!
Redline is a knockoff of Fast & Furious, without any of the redeeming qualities. It doesn't need to have a convoluted plot with multiple twists and surprises, but it needs SOMETHING! This is the equivalent of a porn film, where the storyline and dialogue consist of 60 seconds at the beginning and the same at the end. Except that this is worse, because you don't get your money's worth. Mind-numbingly boring, impossible race sequences, and a terrible waste of expensive beautiful cars, which almost acquire negative points for having appeared in this movie. Sure, she's hot, but who's that desperate for an on screen female? I feel like the director sat there with a hat full of dialogue and plot snippets, and shook an 8 ball every time they switched scenes. No serious person who races or knows anything about it would watch this movie and enjoy the race scenes.
Acting is horrible. This film makes Fast and Furious look like an academy award winning film. They throw a few boobs and butts in there to try and keep you interested despite the EXTREMELY weak and far fetched story. There is a reason why people on the internet aren't even downloading this movie. This movie sunk like an iron turd. DO NOT waste your time renting or even downloading it. This film is and always will be a PERMA-TURD. I am now dumber for having watched it. In fact this title should be referred to as a "PERMA-TURD" from now on. Calling it a film is a travesty and insult. abhorrent, abominable, appalling, awful, beastly, cruel, detestable, disagreeable, disgusting, dreadful, eerie, execrable, fairy, fearful, frightful, ghastly, grim, grisly, gruesome, heinous, hideous, horrendous, horrid, loathsome, lousy, lurid, mean, nasty, obnoxious, offensive, repellent, repulsive, revolting, scandalous, scary, shameful, shocking, sickie, terrible, terrifying, ungodly, unholy, unkind
The cars in this movie are awesome. The acting in this movie is awful. The plot and driving scenes don't make much sense and are equally bad. If you get really bothered by movies where someone shifts and suddenly goes ridiculously faster, save yourself the trouble and money. Good movie for racing fans? Well, there is a part where they make the mistake of referring to a NASCAR driver as a rally car driver. If you can't tell the difference, go watch it, you'll have a blast. It really comes down to this, there are really really really nice cars in this movie, they are driven horribly and are completely unrealistic. The acting is horrible mainly because of the extremely bad plot. If you want to see hot girls, turn on mtv or vh1 instead. I am disappointed that such nice cars would be represented in such a bad movie. If the class of the cars were to match that of the movie, they should be racing with rusted bicycles.
"A total waste of time" Just throw in a few explosions, non stop fighting, exotic cars a deranged millionaire, slow motion computer generated car crashes and last but not least a Hugh Hefner like character with wall to wall hot babes, and mix in a blender and you will have this sorry excuse for a movie. I really got a laugh out of the "Dr. Evil" like heavily fortified compound. The plot was somewhere between preposterous and non existent. How many millionaires are willing to make a 25 million dollar bet on a car race? Answer: 4 but, didn't they become millionaires through fiscal responsibility? This was written for pubescent males, it plays like a video game. I did enjoy the Gulfstream II landing in the desert though.
I'm sorry to say that there isn't really any way, in my opinion, that an Enzo would really be able to keep up with a Saleen S7 Twin Turbo. The power to weight advantage possessed by the S7 would just be too great. The S7 has a power:weight ratio of 3.93 lbs/hp while the Enzo has 4.61 lbs/hp. The S7s low end is much better too. Sorry Ferrari fans but the Saleen just gets it done so much better.<br /><br />As for other parts of this film, I just have to say it's so substandard as to be pathetic. The story is way too weak. The acting in this lemon is worse than daytime soaps.<br /><br />I can say that as far as it being a treatise on negative psychology its kind of a gem. This film is nothing if not a glaring definition as to what narcissism and sociopathy are all about. Its all about these rich punks getting their rocks off while showing only traces of feigned remorse for all the innocent road users they cause injury or death too.<br /><br />I can't give the film a "1 Star" rating because it didn't compel me to actually walk out of the theater. I also think that having an amazingly beautiful brunette with killer blue eyes as the leading female saves it from being completely abysmal....although there is no way her singing would put her on the cover of 'Variety'.<br /><br />ps: the guy who plays Jason is SOOOOO the skid row version of James Vanderbeek.
So it has come to this. Fast, expensive cars that only the upper 1% will ever drive. The girls that pose next to them in gearhead magazines. Second-tier and no-name actors. Cheap promotional appearances by people from niche culture. <br /><br />This is the garbage that Hollywood has to offer. Don't get me wrong; I love the mindless action flick with hot chicks as much as the next guy. But please, will the collective Braintrust that greenlights this stuff please stop, count to ten, breathe, have a hearty "Woooooosaaaaaah", then rewind twentyfive years and recall what made movies enjoyable once upon a time? Then actually MAKE some movies like that again? <br /><br />I have nothing against poker, but the entire pop-culture explosion it has enjoyed over the past five years is ridiculous. Everyone and their mother thinks their Maverick now (not that half of them even will get that reference). Some executive said, "Hey, what demographic do you want to leach $9.50 out of?" "I know, sir. The 18-35 market." "Ok, let's give them poker, girls, and fast cars." "Brilliant idea, sir." The result? A film that I've seen a hundred times late at night on Spike TV, and more often than not, starring Dolph Lundgren. <br /><br />Now don't misunderstand me;I am not a film snob. Over-the-top artsy flicks like The English Patient don't float my boat, but generic films that should not have even been made straight to DVD bother the hell out of me too. Only adolescent gearheads will have their engines revved by this, and I imagine the ones in the higher end of their IQ range will see this for what it is: a junkyard.
I felt like I was watching the Fast and the Furious again, but with different actors and a little bit different plot. I will say the cars in the film are very cool. So, if you like fast cars, then you will probably find this movie mildly entertaining. I also liked Nadia Bjorlin because I've seen her from Days of our Lives. She is a really good singer, but too bad they gave her such lousy songs to sing in this movie. I mean songs about cars; not exactly what you would here on the radio. Since it is a Hollywood film, you have to give this story a little lee way, but in real life I don't think any average joe would come across such a hot girl as Nadia Bjorlin who can drive a race car, fix a car engine, and be a lead singer. It's just all very silly.<br /><br />Another side note, any one willing to wager 25 million on a car race is a nut. But it was kinda of cool at the end when Natasha stops right before the finish line and screws Michael over. Priceless.<br /><br />FINAL VERDICT: This movie is for car freaks. So, if you like fast cars, then I'd recommend this.
You cannot deny that we have an affinity for speed. That's why movies like Fast and the Furious, Dhoom, Rempit get made to play to the satisfaction of audiences, especially local ones. We live on a tiny island, and I cannot fathom why, for the relative efficiency of the public transportation system, most of us want to get into debt by owning a set of wheels which come with 100% tax when they reach our shores, and the myriad of taxes and bills to pay when operating one. Not only that, the high end sports cars were once quipped by a prominent politician up north that they will never reach fourth gear, lest they reach the sea.<br /><br />And these movies are relatively easy to make. Hot wheels and hot chicks always go down well together in targeting the required demographic. For once, those plunging necklines exposing uncanny buxom and short skirts accentuating legs two meters long, can't compete with the attention given to those beautiful curves that exotic cars possess in movies such as these. Of course there are amongst us (ahem) those that go for the sexists portrayal of women as mere sexual objects (otherwise explain why motor shows come with truckloads of models, and movies such as these cannot do without a leggy model in a frame), however, they don't warrant the kind of collective orgasmic sighs whenever the four wheelers come on screen, even when they do exactly nothing and have their gears into Park. The guy sitting beside me, I swear he wet his pants every time his dream car(s) appear, and creamed his pants even more when he hears those growling engine moans.<br /><br />So there we have it, the fan boys who turned up in droves just to watch which of the latest cool cars get featured in the movie. With the Fast and the Furious franchise, the Japanese models like the Evos and the Skylines take centerstage, as does the GT. Here, the Ford GT takes on an incredibly drool-worthy facade modification, that even I'm impressed, alongside the latest models like the Ferrari Enzos, Porshe Carerra GTs, Koenigsegg CCXs, and every car out there that has wings for doors. But seriously, my heart goes out to the cars each time they're mercilessly wrecked just for entertainment. I mean, this are perfectly fine, high performance models that are at the apex of motoring, but yet because whoever financed the movie had millions to blow, they do so because they can,<br /><br />There's no story in Redline, just excuses to put together a movie full of beauties (the cars that is) that can rip down the tarmac in probably the most boring fashion possible, and with the usual shots of pedals (always the accelerator, mind you, tapping the brake pedal is tantamount to blasphemy, and earn you no respect), steering wheels, gear shifts (always shifting up and not down), all these while having the actors make pretend that they're the baddest asses with an engine, snarling and giving each other dirty looks. Not a very tall order for an actor, and that's why we get the most woeful performances ever, with lines that seem to be written by elementary schoolkids.<br /><br />The heroine (yes, it made a statement that girls can drive) Natasha (a very plasticky looking Nadia Bjorlin) is one of those million dollar finds - a girl with model looks who don't mind getting down on fours and immersed in oil, who has racing pedigree within her, and performs with a rock band singing songs with lyrics that are just plain laughable (every line had to do with cars, and when singing about love, just had to string those innuendos like shifting gear shafts, lubricants and going for rides). Introduced against her wishes to illegal racing by a gangsta called Infamous (Eddie Griffin), she gets drawn into family squabbles involving a Leo DiCaprio lookalike Iraq war veteran, and some sleazy lecherous looking rich uncle. Everything else, well like I said, just serves as an excuse for the movie to go from race to race.<br /><br />And it's almost always the same, as there's very limited to what you can do to heighten tension between race cars, especially when you know the race is rigged (for narrative reasons) and can see the race outcome a mile away from the finishing line. While Fast and Furious had quite charismatic actors, and I will put my head on the chopping block by naming Paul Walker, Sun Kang, and of course, the star it created - Vin Diesel, Redline had none, just pretty faces with lots of air unfortunately. It looks like a TV movie in its treatment from the get go, with a very insipid opening sequence where it's one man, one car, and a 105 minutes race against time to get to Vegas.<br /><br />If not for the cars, then this movie seriously is a piece of junk, with bad acting, bad lines and bad action. Strictly for the car fans, or those who like their movies with countless of bevy beauties who pimp their bodies without any speaking lines.
I like bad movies. I like to rent bad movies with my friends and rip on them for their duration. Then there are abhorrent movies like this. Redline is not just a bad movie, but a telling sign that maybe the American movie industry should please, for the sake of the viewer, at least proofread scripts before funding a movie.<br /><br />If a stereotype took a crap, this movie would spawn from that. The storyline is unbearable, and the acting all around is laughable. Nadia Bjorlin and Eddie Griffin have, perhaps, the worst screen chemistry I've seen in a good while, and even individually they should be isolated from humanity and beaten with a bag of oranges until they change their profession to street merchants (about the only thing they can legitimately qualify for). Furthermore, how Angus Macfadyen got convinced to do this movie is so far beyond me that I can't even think of an analogy. I am a loyal fan of his, but this has made me question him.<br /><br />To sum it up. Several people want revenge for different reasons (and if you care enough to know what they are, you're a bigger person than me), so much so that it turns to violence (I guess). The movie is like Ouroboros, the snake that swallows its own tail, in that it's an endless cycle of confusion and dialogue not fit for human ears. This movie is essentially one big car commercial for the first half, and an indecipherable action movie for the rest, it should be avoided at any and all costs.<br /><br />I wish I could find one positive aspect to this movie, and I think it lies in the fact that eventually the credits do roll.<br /><br />P.S. Nadia Bjorlin, if that was YOU singing those two songs in this movie, then you are a hack, and I hope old age ravages you.<br /><br />P.S.S. If you DO rent this movie looking for a laughable experience, listen for the lyrics to Nadia Bjorlin's awesome songs.
This movie should have been named Need For Speed: The Movie. For those who have not played the games Need For Speed is mostly about hot cars and beautiful women and almost no plot. This applies perfectly to Redline. The only thing about this movie that was A-Level were the cars. The acting seemed forced and scripted, the premise was flimsy at best, and the plot was almost nonexistent. I only really watched this movie to see how bad it was and, while it was pretty bad, it could have been worse. And at least it was entertaining. I just wish they had showed Eddie Griffin crashing the Enzo somewhere in the movie. All in all, don't pay for it, don't go out of your way to see it, but if it's on Showtime or HBO and there isn't anything else on, it's a decent distraction.
This will be best known for the Ferrari that was crashed when Eddie Griffin was doing promotion.<br /><br />Tale of racing and betting is a poorly made by the numbers that appears to have a director who couldn't see the numbers. Largely a point and shoot affair with a group of actors in it for a paycheck. This is not a good movie, but its not bad enough to be watchable and end up as a some what nothing film isn't worth bothering with no matter how you look at it.<br /><br />Misogynistic, despite the fact one of the leads is a woman, this is a film that was clearly made just to get the producer and director close to pretty girls. Want evidence? There are long lingering shots of women in next to nothing that serve no purpose other than perhaps to get a rise out of people too afraid to rent a porno or the Sports illustrated swimsuit DVD.<br /><br />Avoid this movie at all costs
I am a dumber person for renting the DVD REDLINE. Chicago Pictures who made this stupid movie never paid Palisades Media Group to buy web ads on various automotive sites including mine which has an ALEXA rating of 16K. They ripped me off on the deal and now I am out $16,000 and they wasted much of my personal time (peter rapport of Palisades Media) you know who you are!<br /><br />Please don't rent or buy this movie!!! It sucks and the people behind it are ripoff artists.<br /><br />REDLINE has a cast of losers and poor actors!<br /><br />This movie is a Joke
This movie was bad to say the least!!! The plethora of superb cars are disgraced to have have been showcased in this LAME movie. It starts off with a race from L.A. to Las Vegas to be completed in 1HR 45min...in a Ferrari F430. I did that in 1HR 50min in a tiny 4cylinder 140HP 1993 Honda Accord. Seriously...this movie does not do justice to these cars. Obviously these writers are just that and probably drive under the speed limit with their hands @ 10 & 2 o'clock. I remember seeing on the news how Eddie Griffin crashed a 1.5 million dollar Ferrari Enzo going 30-40MPH>>> youtube.com/watch?v=cNVrMZX2kms <br /><br />And...the director ANDY CHENG is THE biggest SELLOUT!!! He brings shame to his own race. I wonder just how many people he orally pleased just to break into Hollywood. He partook in a movie that portrays Asian Americans in such a negative and FALSE way. Asian women>>cheap money grubbing whores. Asian men>>losing compulsive gamblers & thugs that get beat all the time . What the heck is all the fear about asians?? Why the need to always portray them in such a negative connotation?? I am SO sick of the way Hollywood ALWAYS portrays asians in SUCH a negative and false pretext.
I mean, I thought I heard this dialog in the movie, but it was so bad and out of place that I can't really believe it. I was laughing so hard at what must have been the worst writing and acting in human history, i was seriously worried that I might have a heart attack and die right there in the theater.<br /><br />So this is the scene I am talking about, the "hero" just watched his brother crash and his brothers car exploded right there just feet away from him (the hero). The "hero" was throwing the expected "fit" at seeing something so tragic and people were trying to hold him back from running into the burning car.<br /><br />In the middle of his fit and his uncontrollable rage/emotional break down he says "I am so sad" - he said that right? Am I crazy?
VILLA RIDES (1968) turns out to be something of a big disappointment! And even though Sam Peckinpah had a hand in the screenplay, along with Robert Towne, it still emerges as a leadenly written movie dryly directed by the undistinguished Buzz Kulik. Firstly, top billed Yul Brynner as Pancho Villa is wrong for the part! He's not charismatic enough to play the great Mexican revolutionary! His one note performance lacks the fire and gusto Anthony Quinn or Gilbert Roland could have brought to the role. Brynner simply looks like a Russian aristocrat dressed up like a Mexican bandit who is in the middle of the Mexican revolution instead of the Russian one. Also, second billed Robert Mitchum is totally wasted in the picture! His part as a biplane flying ace lobbing home-made bombs from the air in the cause of the revolution is a poorly written meager role that could have been played by any minor star. Mitch hasn't a decent line in the entire movie and brings to one's mind his other Mexican revolution picture the far superior "Bandido" (1956) which unfortunately nobody seems to have any interest in releasing on DVD. Besides lacking any kind of style "Villa Rides" also suffers badly without the presence of a female star! There is starlet Grazia Buccella as a young Mexican girl who gives Mitchum the glad eye but her casting is merely perfunctory. Someone like Claudia Cardinale or Jean Peters could have perhaps added a couple of badly needed notches to the faltering story line.<br /><br />There are a couple of good action scenes in the movie but a couple of good action scenes do not a movie make and the less than perfect Panavision picture quality plus the over repetitive Maurice Jarre theme tune doesn't help matters.<br /><br />As is Paramount's wont there are no extras - not even a trailer! Yup, a disappointing movie and DVD presentation that could have been and should have been a whole lot better.
A man brings his new wife to his home where his former wife died of an "accident". His new wife has just been released from an institution and is also VERY rich! All of the sudden she starts hearing noises and seeing skulls all over the place. Is she going crazy again or is the first wife coming back from the dead? <br /><br />You've probably guessed the ending so I won't spell it out. I saw this many times on Saturday afternoon TV as a kid. Back then, I liked it but I WAS young. Seeing it now I realize how bad it is. It's horribly acted, badly written, very dull (even at an hour) and has a huge cast of FIVE people (one being the director)! Still it does have some good things about it. <br /><br />The music is kinda creepy and the setting itself with the huge empty house and pond nearby is nicely atmospheric. There also are a few scary moments (I jumped a little when she saw the first skull) and a somewhat effective ending. All in all it's definitely NOT a good movie...but not a total disaster either. It does have a small cult following. I give it a 2.<br /><br />Also try to avoid the Elite DVD Drive-in edition of it (it's paired with "Attack of the Giant Leeches"). It's in TERRIBLE shape with jumps and scratches all over. It didn't even look this bad on TV!
Welcome to a bad ghost story and someone's nightmare. This horror tale finds a newly married husband(John Hudson)and wife(Peggy Weber)haunted by the memory of his previous wife and screaming skulls found throughout their empty mansion and lily pond. Is the husband really trying to drive his already anxious bride insane? Or is it the learning challenged gardener Mickey(Alex Nicol)who has taken care of the mansion's grounds since the death of the original mistress of the house? This low budget horror flick has a story line that keeps you involved all the way the finale. Special effects are pretty bad even at 1958 standards. I swear at times the screaming skull sounds much like it should be in a Godzilla movie. Also in the cast as Reverend Snow is character actor Russ Conway. By the way...the lurking gardener(Nicol)is the film's director. You can catch this as part of AMC's Monsterfest.
"The Screaming Skull" opens with a warning and an offer for free burial services if you should die watching it - Now there's a hook! The story itself has a fairly interesting premise for a horror flick: scheming husband marries a wealthy woman with a history of mental illness, then attempts to convince her that she's going insane with shrill noises, mysterious knocking and skulls that turn up at inopportune times. Add to the formula a sufficiently creepy gardener who still cherishes the memory of the man's first wife who he was devoted to. Maybe it's just that the 1950's didn't have the technology to pull off some of the scare scenes needed to juice up this movie, the techniques used here seem contrived and mundane. But then again, when I first saw "House on Haunted Hill" as a nine year old, it gave me the heebie jeebies in the same way I'm sure this film did for young viewers of the same era.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, the film is not terrible, it just seems to get tedious at times. But there's some great atmospheric tension in the generally huge but unfurnished Whitlock home, and the gardens and pool are a nice touch. For me the best played out scene involves Eric Whitlock (John Hudson) going maniacal in the pond attempting to retrieve the hidden skull, he just wades right in clothes and all, in neat contrast to the mentally challenged gardener (director Alex Nicol in a dual role). It makes you wonder who the real dimwit was.<br /><br />In it's own good way, perhaps the most shocking thing about the film: how about that neat roadster the Whitlock's make their first appearance in - gull wing doors in 1958! That at least made me jump out of my seat!
When you have a disembodied skull, an empty mansion, a schizophrenic wife, a scheming cad and a nutzo gardener, throw in a minister and his wife - what have you got?<br /><br />AIP's answer to insomnia.<br /><br />"The Screaming Skull" gets points for audacity, offering free caskets for anyone who dies of fright from watching the film. Pretty safe bet, when you're lulled into a stupor by people who think they're in a production of "Suspense for Dummies".<br /><br />But Peggy Webber was a cutie, anyway. She had a few good moments of acting here and there (especially when trying to communicate with the gardener) and no one else fills a nightgown like she. But that scared face she makes - scary in itself. Whoa.<br /><br />As a whole, though, there is little suspense here and everything is telegraphed like a punch thrown by a mime. You can't be scared by this film, it's impossible. It has its moments, but not enough of them.<br /><br />HOWEVER, thanks to a certain Mike Nelson and his two robot pals, there are several moments of pure joy, especially in the copy THEY got hold of ("The film jumped, and it was really scary!").<br /><br />One star for "The Screaming Skull", eight and a half for the MST3K version.<br /><br />Talk about a "Screaming" bore....
I first saw this movie on MST3K. And although I laughed my posterior off at the jokes, I don't particularly think this movie was all that bad. Sure it was a little hard to understand it is quite obviously low budget, But it had a very Hitchcock-like plot and I can honestly say that when I viewed the non-MST3K version, I was genuinely entertained. This movie is crying out for a Hollywood remake.
*SPOILERS*<br /><br />I'm sure back when this was released in 1958 it was much appropriate for its time. Back then films were slower paced to allow audiences to follow and analyze the story. Here a man moves into a house owned by his last wife that died mysteriously with his new wife. The gardener Mickey (played by Alex Nicol, who also directed he film) really is an underappreciated character. He gets a skull to indirectly warn Jenni that she is in trouble, since he knew that there was foul play in the first wife's death. He can't tell Jenni directly what happened, so he tries to scare her off with the skull. Jenni, we also find out, saw her parents die, thus causing a lifetime of mental anguish that lead to institutionalization. Like many audiences today, I found the pacing to be a little too slow for my tastes. But if you like slow-paced horror without a lot of gore, this film is for you.<br /><br />
I couldn't tell if "The Screaming Skull" was trying to be a Hitchcock rip off or a modernized Edgar Allen Poe tribute. These days, someone would have chopped it up a bit and presented it as one of those TV anthology episodes from the old "Tales From The Dark Side"...but only after an extensive rewrite.<br /><br />The sad thing is, there seems to be a nice, nasty little story trying to get out from under the rubble of this movie, and the actors are obviously doing the best they can with both their talent and the material they have to work with. But the director just didn't know how to stage or pace a dramatic scene; the special effects simply didn't work; the screenplay telegraphed its threadbare plot points so plainly that a bivalve could have seen them coming; and the soundtrack kept playing German "oompah band" music when it was supposed to be trying to scare the audience. <br /><br />They tried; they tried really hard. But this is of interest only as a period piece.I suppose someone very young who hadn't seen a lot of suspense or horror might get a charge out "The Screaming Skull", but someone that young probably wouldn't get most of the subtext or plot motivation. ("Mommy, why is that nice man trying to scare the twisty faced scaredy-cat lady??")
As the film begins a narrator warns us THE SCREAMING SKULL is so terrifying you might die of fright--and if such happens a free burial is guaranteed. Well, I don't think any one has died of fright from seeing this film, but a few may have died of boredom. THE SCREAMING SKULL is the sort of movie that makes Ed Wood look good.<br /><br />Very loosely based on the famous Francis Marion Crawford story, SKULL is about a wealthy but nervous woman who marries a sinister man whose first wife died under mysterious circumstances. Once installed in his home, she is tormented by a half-wit gardener, a badly executed portrait, peacocks, and ultimately a skull that rolls around the room and causes her to scream a lot. And to her credit, actress Peggy Webber screams rather well.<br /><br />Unfortunately, her ability to do so is the high point of the film. The plot is pretty transparent, to say the least, and while the cast is actually okay, the script is dreadful and the movie so uninspired you'll be ready to run screaming yourself. True, the thing only runs about sixty-eight minutes, but it all feels a lot longer. Add to this a truly terrible print quality and there you are.<br /><br />There are films that are so bad they are fun to watch. It is true that THE SCREAMING SKULL has a few howlers--but the film drags so much I couldn't work up more than an occasional giggle, and by the time the whole thing is over your head will roll from ennui. If it weren't for Peggy Webber's way with a scream, this would be the surefire cure for insomnia. Give it a miss.<br /><br />GFT, Amazon Reviewer
*WARNING* Possible spoilers below<br /><br />The film is more boring then anything else. There seems to be some attempt to build tension through badly lit shots of empty rooms and empty lawns, but none of it works.<br /><br />MST3K did a fairly good job with it, but on its own the movie is mostly tedious.<br /><br />Funny moments:<br /><br />When the fake skull rolls out of a pile of ashes, the wife becomes hysterical and woozy while the husband (who is trying to drive the wife crazy) says in a deadpan voice "There is no skull there, there's no skull."<br /><br />When the real ghost-skulls have the husband caught in a pickle, as if trapped between first and second base.
Okay, so the introduction, with its hokey offer of a free coffin to anyone who dies of fright during the film, is so lame it's funny. And so the first "skull scene" is so drawn out and un-suspenseful it's funny. The actual plot of the movie is somewhat decent, there's at least a little bit of genuine food for thought in the behavior of the characters, and the plot twist is decent as horror flicks go. The acting is average, not truly bad. <br /><br />Altogether, this movie doesn't quite fall flat in the way a 1/10 movie would. It's not terrible enough to get the lowest rating or even second lowest. If I just read the screenplay, I'd say there was potential for this to be a decent movie. It's just that the horrid direction and production that ruin the movie. So it's a bad movie, but there are much worse ones out there.
As far as cinematography goes, this film was pretty good for the mid 50's. There were a few times that the lighting was way too hot but the shots were generally in frame and stayed in focus. The acting was above average for a low budget stinker but the direction was horrible. Several scenes were dragged out way too long in an attempt at suspense and the effects were non-existent. The attack by the skull in the pond should have been completely removed from the final cut and every attempt to bring life to the skull was obvious with stick pokes and strings. I also couldn't help but think the budget didn't allow them to furnish the house so they kept making references to the movers and that all the things in storage should be coming soon. Honestly...it would have been more entertaining if it were a worse movie. It wasn't bad enough to be a "good-bad" movie but wasn't good enough to be "good" either. Get the MST3K version...it's more fun.
THE SCREAMING SKULL (1 outta 5 stars) This movie boasts some pretty cool opening credits (an offscreen narrator warning that movie patrons will be offered a free burial if they die of fright watching this movie, a scary shot of a skull emerging from a placid pool and the ubiquitous scary music) but, sadly, the movie is all downhill from there. A widowed man takes his new bride to his secluded mansion... admonishing his servants and friends that the new Mrs. has a very fragile disposition due to a tragedy in her past. Well, in no time at all she begins to see and hear mysterious things that no one else can. Her husband assures her that it's all merely in her mind and... well, you can probably see where this all is going. You will have figured out what's going on long before our hapless heroine... because you have probably seen the exact same plot in hundreds of other movies and TV shows (and done better, too). To add to the movie's myriad transgressions, most cuts of this movie (on numerous cheap DVD compilations) seem to be missing a few key scenes. You see the heroine slowly walking towards the window... she goes to open it... you know she is going to see something scary... and then... suddenly the scene cuts to her sobbing in her husband's arms. So what did she see??? I guess we'll never know.
Well I have to admit this was one of my favorites as a kid, when I used to watch it on a home projector as a super-8 reel. Now there isn't much to recommend it, other than the inherent camp value of actors being "terrified" by replicas of human skulls. The special effects are pretty silly, mostly consisting of skulls on wires and superimposed "ghost" images.<br /><br />But there's something to be said for the sets. The large mansion in which it takes place is pretty creepy, especially since it's mostly unfurnished (probably due to budgetary reasons?).<br /><br />It definitely inspires more laughs than screams, however. Just try not to get the giggles when the wife (who does more than her share of screaming) goes into the greenhouse and is confronted with the ghost of her husband's ex.
- A newlywed couple move into the home of the husband's dead former wife. It's not long before the new wife begins to have the feeling that someone doesn't want her in the house. She sees skulls all around the house. But when the husband investigates, he can't find anything. Is someone trying to drive her back to the asylum that she was recently discharged from? Or, is the ghost of the dead wife trying to get the new wife out of her house? <br /><br />- This is the first time that I've watched The Screaming Skull without the assistance of the MST3K crew. And, it will in all likelihood be the last time I watch it this way. Can you say dull? I'm not talking ordinary dull - I'm talking watching grass grow dull. There are great stretches of the movie where nothing happens. The screen could have gone blank and I would have gotten as much entertainment out of it. The characters drone on and on with the most monotonous conversations imaginable. The Screaming Skull could probably be marketed as a sleep aide.<br /><br />- The actors don't help matters much. Most of them deliver lines with the conviction normally reserved for a grade school play. I haven't looked it up, but I would be shocked to find that anyone associated with this movie ever appeared in anything of cinematic value. I won't even go into the script the actors are given to work with. Let's just say that the characters are given some of the most idiotic lines ever uttered on film.<br /><br />- You've been warned! Either avoid this one at all costs or, at least, seek out the MST3K version.
Well, one has to give the director credit for how gutsy he was. Gutsy would be the right term. Not only did he use a total cast of five people (no extras at ALL), but he also decided to use sub-par special effects with a confusing and boring plot, he also, and I AM NOT kidding, put a warning at the beginning of the movie that you might DIE OF FRIGHT!!! However, they do promise a FREEEEEE COOOOFFFFFFFIIIIINNNNN. To have a creepy limping gardener is always a good move. Yaaa-unique-aaawwwwnnn....<br /><br />If you watch Mystery Science Theater 3000, you might've seen this. They like to showcase horrible movies, just to let you know.<br /><br />A good gift for someone you hate.
Now I get it. The title refers to each audience member's immediate post-reaction after 68 minutes of mental torture. Trying too hard to be terrifying, lacking good dialogue even any fear for that matter really makes The Screaming Skull more like A Snoring Dull. Albeit, the mansion and property set in black and white does set a dark tone for the movie, but that's about it. The only scary thing about this flop is that people actually made money on this! Remember the coffin guarantee in the beginning? That may be the funniest thing I have ever witnessed on screen. Sad thing is that viewers probably hoped director Alex Nichol was forcibly placed in a coffin, nailed shut, and buried alive for his lame effort. Jenny placed in this unfortunate horrific situation never really draws any sympathy you would feel for a woman whose anxiety is blamed on a haunted, cranial receptacle. Also, her husband John comes off as a condescending wannabe smooth talker, but this doesn't work and he ends up proving how tough he is by slapping a helpless cripple around! Ah, Mickey…the days before you could get a restraining order against estate caretakers like him. This guy's approach is not very good or maybe too much airplane glue. Still, despite his strange persona, Mickey probably is the only good thing going for this movie providing a slight sense of entertainment and I can't get enough of a guy saying "It was Mary!" and rummaging through pots in a greenhouse.
After seeing the credits with only one name that I recognize and that was the preacher in this film (Russ Conway), I did not expect much from this film and I was not disappointed. A man is planning on killing his new wife by convincing other people that she is insane and will take her own life. Unbeknown to the husband is that the plastic looking skull that he uses, in contrast, a ghost of a woman apparently his first dead wife has revenge on her mind and uses a real skull. A simple plot with a twist of irony at the end. If you are tired late one night and in need of sleep, this will help you to sleep that sleep.
I am SURE there is some sort of IMDB cult that likes movies that MST3K made fun of. After seeing both this and "Werewolf" and reading dozens of comments about how underated they are, I became convinced that there is some conpiricy going on here. Alot of people are saying that people who hate it "are only scared by gore", "Don't know good horror" or stuff like that. Well, I don't really care for gore, but I do want SOMETHING to happen in a movie! Most of it is just the wife sitting and looking around! Or walking around the house/garden! A movie requires something to give it atmosphoere, you don't get it by just have pointless scenes were someone walks around and stares. Oh, and "Makes you think"? Yeah, I was thinking "MOVE! YOU @#$0&%!!" One of the worst horror movie I have ever scene! <br /><br />P.s. For the record, I am a big fan of the old style of horror, Dracula, Frankenstein, That kind of stuff.
I am not a big fan of horror films, and have only seen a handful of them (and none of the "Halloween"s or "Friday the Thirteenth"s) - but I can appreciate a frightening horror film not because of gore. And I'm pretty sure this isn't scary.<br /><br /> What's so spooky about a little plastic skull that pops up everywhere? In all of its appearances there are faraway establishing shots, so there's no real surprise in any of this film. (Not that a skull in of itself is that scary anyway, but . . .)<br /><br /> The plot concerns Claus Von Bulow's third cousin (John Hudson), who marries a Donna-reed look-a-like (Peggey Webber, giving one of the worst performances ever) who begins seeing skulls and hearing the mysterious screams of a group of peacocks on her husband's mansion. Did I mention that her husband lost her first wife in a mysterious drowning incident? OOOOH!!!! Wonder who did it!!!!<br /><br /> This is the same old plot about a rich boy trying to kill and/or drive their wife insane. If you want to see a well-done version of this stuff, try "Reversal of Fortune". And BTW, Jeremy Irons is one hundred times more talented than John Hudson.<br /><br /> The MSTing was okay but nothing special; paired with the "Gumby" short, however, it makes for good viewing.<br /><br /> Two stars for "The Screaming Skull"; eight stars for the MST3K version.<br /><br /> And now, to paraphrase Mr. Von Bulow himself: "How bad is this film?" "You have no idea!"
I saw this movie on Mystery Science Theater 300. It sucked so much. If I hadn't been watching it on MST3K, I probably would've thrown it out the window. The characters were incredibly lame and it didn't provide much of a plot in my opinion.
The producers of this film offer to pay funeral expenses for anyone who dies of fright while watching this movie. They should have offered intensive psychotherapy for anyone who really enjoyed this stinker. A young couple moves into a house, where a woman who looks like the woman from the couple lived. Extremely boring, and very predictable. In the end I ended up not caring about anyone in this movie.<br /><br />Avoid this one at all costs.
That is the best way I can describe this movie which centers on a newly married couple who move into a house that is haunted by the husband's first wife who died under mysterious circumstances. That sounds well and good, but what plays out is an hour of pure boredom. In fact one of the funny things about this flick is that there is a warning at the beginning of the film that promises anyone who dies of fright a free coffin. Well trust me, no one ever took them up on that offer unless someone out there is terrified of plastic skulls, peacocks, weird gardeners, and doors being knocked on. And the music is the worst, it consists of constant tuba music which sounds like it is being played by some sixth grader. And you will figure out the terrible secret that is so obvious that you really have to wonder what the people in this movie were thinking. Someone dies while running and hitting their head and the police are never called to investigate. Yes in the end this is a slow paced (which is really bad considering the movie is only just over an hour), boring little tale, that is easily figured out by the average person. Apparently none of the characters in this flick were the average person.
OK, I admit I watched this movie on Mystery Science Theater 3000 (which I am a huge fan of), but I am not one of those people who automatically gives an MST3K movie a 1/10 rating. Although I hate many of the movies they play, and some are among of the worst movies I've ever seen, I have actually been able to enjoy some MST3K movies. That being said, this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. (It is no wonder, in fact, that the MST3K writers themselves commented that this one was one of the worst. Don't believe me? Check out their site.)<br /><br />To me, this movie is a good example of what NOT to do in filmmaking. The dialogue is very bad, the acting is worse, the cinematography is pathetic the direction (while perhaps being the best thing in this movie) is bad.<br /><br />The pacing is the worst part in this movie. A few times in this movie, the viewer had to wait literally minutes for something to happen. While minutes may not sound like a very long amount of time, it can be in a movie, particularly in this one. I'm sure it was meant to create a mood, but I was just very bored. It truly felt like ten minutes.<br /><br />If "suspension of disbelief" means "almost falling asleep during a movie", then this has plenty of that. But THE SCREAMING SKULL is just so horrible, there is no way I could have possibly even gotten interested in anything that was actually going on in the film, and thus the "suspension of disbelief" was indeed non-existant.<br /><br />One of the worst, and probably the most boring movie I've ever seen.<br /><br />1/10
I would of given this film a zero out of ten, but i will give it a two. Reason One is that Shah Rukh Khan appears in the film, which is not really a reason. Last Point is that Rani Appears in this film and does a smooch with Kamal. I Love Rani very much and have a respect that she is a great actress. Which is why i didn't enjoy her in this movie kissing Kamal, but its no big deal. Anyway enough of the bedroom scenes that made this film noticeable, lets actually talk about this film. Is it good or bad, I think its a completely rubbish movie that made me yawn. Me being a Fantastic critic, you can see my other 250+ review's by clicking on my name, I have great taste. The movie is not entertaining is one thing and if this is suppose to be hard hitting cinema, why is there no morale in this movie. Its a biased movie thats not a true story and it stinks. Watching Kamal kissing these actresses makes me sick, Man cant kiss properly anyway.
This movie makes a promising start and then gets very confused and muddled. Kamal Hasan has made a lot of effort in getting the period look right, pity he did not spend more time on the plot. Most of the small characters in the movie show up for no particular reason.<br /><br />Overall very disappointing, I would recommend avoiding this movie.
I had high expectations for this movie and was excited about renting it but was very disappointed when I saw it. It was very poorly written and sort of just fell apart. There wasn't a lot of good anything in this movie except maybe special effects.
An interesting idea for a film, both showing the last dragon on earth and showing the struggle he and someone evil have together. When he was younger, Einon got stabbed in the heart, so Bowen (Dennis Quaid) took him to the dark lord who gave him half his heart. Now grown up Einon (David Thewlis) is now the selfish and evil king. Meanwhile, Bowen is using a new friend Draco the Dragon (voiced by Sir Sean Connery) to get rewards for "killing" dragons. But because Einon has half of Draco's hear, they both feel the pain in one of them is hurt, or killed. Also starring Pete Postlethwaite as Gilbert of Glockenspur, Jason Isaacs as Lord Felton, Julie Christie as Queen Aislinn and John Gielgud as King Arthur. It was nominated for the Oscar for Best Visual Effects. Worth watching!
This movie has such inexorable B class cheapness to all its scenes, effects etc as to make you think they spent 80% of their budget on Connery. It's like watching some Wing Commander stuff after Star Wars (quite apart from content).<br /><br />Story can be described in one word: FLAT. And oh my God I can't remember a villain so uninteresting since long long ago. We're given neither a reason he's so wicked (an inborn defect, we're lead to think:) nor any real convincedness or flair to his wickedness.<br /><br />If you're out for Connery rather go rent `Hunting Forrester'.
It is incredible in that it succeeds in being terrible on so many levels. The script, the acting, the directing and the choice of cast are all appalling. The costumes, sets and pseudo-medieval language are also utterly awful. In an odd way I actually enjoyed this film, once I had accepted that it wasn't going to be any good. It seems a shame that people would spend so much time and effort producing something so poor, when really they could have made something pretty decent out of the premise (albeit not very believable!), but instead we are treated to a rather nauseating and cheesy tale of dragons and knights, that lacks any of the charm to be found in other such fantasy films. Let's just hope that The Lord of the Rings is a bit better! Oh, and David Thewlis' haircut makes him look like He-Man. It does!
"Diary of Sex Addict" is a pathetic attempt at a serious drama about sexual compulsiveness. Probably a movie marketing scam, this flick is a stylish shoot with a good cast and little else going for it. Bottom line, "Diary..." would have us believe that our sex addict character has the dumbest wife in the world, a stable of babes on the side who have nothing better to do than drop their panties for him at his whim, and no job in spite of being a restaurateur. At the best, this flick could have been good drama. At the worst, cheap softcore. "Diary..." isn't either and nowhere in between. This one's for the dumpster. (D-)
This trashy B movie attempts to masquerade as a study of sexual addiction, but it is really a poor excuse for a sexploitation flick. The story revolves around Sammy Horn (subtle name) played by Michael Des Barres. Sammy is a restaurant owner with a clueless wife Grace (Rosanna Arquette) and a young child. He has a sexual addiction and must have meaningless sex every five minutes with any woman in his field of vision who will agree (and of course every woman on the planet finds him irresistible despite the fact that he looks old enough to be collecting Social Security).<br /><br />The story is centered on a conversation with his therapist (Nastassja Kinski) where he is describing each of his sexual exploits via flashback. This is nothing more than a convenient launching point for a parade of serial sex acts, which consumes at least 75% of the screen time.<br /><br />It is hard to know where to begin criticizing a film this bad. The production values are abysmal. The movie is shot on video with a look somewhere between a TV soap opera (at best) and an amateur porn flick shot in someone's garage. The direction by Joseph Brutsman is horrible with bad lighting, uninspired framing and poor actor direction. The script is vapid and the dialogue mindless and vulgar.<br /><br />Women are generally portrayed as sex obsessed nymphomaniacs just waiting for an addict like Sammy to come along and rough them up while feeding their insatiable appetites with some impersonal copulation. As an example, Grace's sister comes over to indignantly inform Sammy that she knows he's been sleeping around and that she is going to tell his wife. His response to that is to throw her up against the wall and begin raping her. About three seconds into it she has an epiphany and is instantly converted to one of his sex disciples begging him to give her more. Just as they finish Grace walks in and sis says to her, `Oh, great to see you, gotta run to pick up Timmy' and mum's the word about Sammy's indiscretions. The bond of loyalty has been sealed with a good ravishment. No spoiler here because it is so typical of the obvious nature of the film that anyone who had seen the first fifteen minutes could have predicted it.<br /><br />The sex depictions are all overdone, mechanical, and so poorly simulated that they are more comical than erotic. Most of them are done with both participants fully clothed. The acting is wretched. Michael Des Barres presents all the depth of a rain puddle. He really seems to get into the thrusting and profanity of the sex parts, but when it comes to actually acting with Arquette and Kinski, he is adrift. Rosanna Arquette is the closest thing to an actor in this film, giving a bearable performance and looking genuinely hurt when she finally discovers that her perfect husband is a lecherous animal. Nastassja Kinski is far too compassionate as the therapist, but at least we have some acting happening here. The rest of the cast is just a collection of elevated body doubles to whom they give thought provoking lines like `hit me harder, is that the best you can do?' and `Oh, God…YES'.<br /><br />This movie is among the worst I have ever seen, a dubious distinction given the thousands of films I have viewed. I have given it the extremely rare dishonor of rating it 1/10. Not to be seen within three hours of any meal.
let me first say, i watched this movie around midnight, and usually there only is trash around this hour, but this movie broke the record<br /><br />first of all the main character is an old non attractive creepy guy, yet he gets to f*ck all girls that come on his path for example he goes to a shop, talks to a girl and then you see them f*ck<br /><br />secondly there are loads of sex scenes, and in many of them there is no nudity at all, i would not have been surprised if one of the characters in the movie would say: fast put your clothes on so we can f*ck!<br /><br />thirdly this movie should show what a sexual addiction can do to a man or a family, this movie only shows soft bad acted erotica it makes me wonder why those actors agreed to play in such trash
<br /><br />This movie (not a film -- clearly recorded on a cheap cam-corder) may be one of the greatest cinematic stink-bombs in history. Beware: the packaging advertises the flick as an erotic exploration of sex-addiction. The film is not an exploration of anything, and it is no more erotic than staring at one's own warts. The script is pointless and meandering, with all plot elements serving as segways between supposed sex scenes. However, even the sex scenes are lame lame lame. Except for the first, they are around three seconds long (then again, maybe my version was cut) and comically overwrought.<br /><br />If you are looking for a decent film, you don't want this. If you are looking for a titillating sex-flick, you don't want this. Whatever your life's goals, desires, or perspectives, you do not want to watch this movie. How they got Rosanna Arquette, Natashia Kinski, and Ed Begly to act in this stink bomb is puzzling in the extreme.
This film was so amateurish I could hardly believe what I was seeing. It is shot on VIDEO! NOT film! I have not seen the likes of this since the early 70's, when late night networks showed movie of the week 'horror flicks' shot in......video. It looks like a bad soap opera, and that is paying it a compliment. Some of the actors give it their best shot. Michael Des Barres does okay with what he is given to do, which is to act like a sex addict out of control. I can't say that it is pleasant to watch.<br /><br />Nastassja Kinski as the therapist sits in a chair for practically the entire film, with very little variation in camera angles. I can't fault her for someone else's poor blocking, but she is totally unbelievable in her role. Her little girl voice works against her here. And I consider myself a Nastassja Kinski fan. She is certainly ageless and exotic, but she's outside her range with this.<br /><br />Alexandra Paul is pathetically overwrought. Every line she delivers is with three exclamation points. Someone must have directed her to scream at all costs. Why would Michael Des Barres want to have sex with such a raging shrew?<br /><br />Finally, Rosanna Arquette as the sweet, maligned wife comes off okay, and probably the most believable of the bunch. But that is not saying much.<br /><br />This has to be the worst film I have seen in years.
I fell asleep on my couch at 7:35pm last night watching Larry Sanders (I usually DirecTivo it, but not last night). Woke up at 3am (invesment banker on the west coast), and was fascinated to see this on HBO2. I was shocked on how poor this 'movie' was. Seriously. shocked. So shocked that I had to write a commentary on iMDB. This is really really bad. the writing is boring, but the directing and editing are simply below those of a freshman at a film school.<br /><br />Yes it is shot video. Mind you, that is shot on VIDEO, not DIGITAL VIDEO. It does look like a soap opera. The clips from skateboard videos have a more 'film' feel to them then this horror.<br /><br />I wanted to describe the poor directing but i honestly cant remember anything. The shots and blocking are stupid. yes, i chose the word 'stupid'. not unconventional, not daring, not bold, not boring, just stupid. I know people reviewing this review will say "well give me an example". I cant. It was 3am. but trust me, I know you will watch it anyway, you will be drawn by the horrible reviews.<br /><br />
A sexually obsessed chef leads a duplicitous life: one as a "happily" married man with a ten year oldish child, the other as a sex fiend. The bulk of the documentary-like film follows him for five consecutive days and is told in flashback with Nastassja Kinski as a clinical sex therapist, listening to his story and intelligently probing him. Nastassja's role is very restrictive and she is the only principal adult character who does not take off her clothes. If she had, I would have rated this movie a big fat "F." As it is, it rates an F+, implying that it is still a failure unless one likes to be bored. It is probably a lot more interesting to spend ninety minutes cleaning out the garage. "Diary of a Sex Addict" falls into the category of films that once one has seen it, one wishes that one hadn't.
I was subjected to this atrocity by my wife, tried to turn it off after 10 minutes, but was forced through the whole thing. This must be, hands down, the most gruesome pretense of a movie ever...<br /><br />There were great script moments, such as:<br /><br />Sammy - "If she gets over here right away, she gets a bonus" Madam - "A boner?" Sammy - "No, a bonus"<br /><br />To summarize: Horrible script, terrible acting and incredibly illogical.
I wouldn't normally write a comment on-line, but this is the worst movie I've ever seen. Not only that it's filmed just like a soap series ("The young and the restless" is really filmed by professionals compared to this), but it also has awful cuts. It has no action. It is full of useless garbage.<br /><br />Here's an example: a guy wants to kill the main character as he got fired because of him. So (after loads of crap) here they are: the guy puts a knife at his throat and says something like "You're dead now". Then the main character says: "If you kill me you're dead. I've told the police you're threatening me". So the (killer) guy goes like (just about to cry): "Oh no... the cops are following me!?!! Oh... my God".<br /><br />Remember: this is just an example. I really cannot believe this movie actually exists. So: IF you want to see the WORST movie ever... go ahead, I recommend it :)
This film was so amateurish I could hardly believe what I was seeing. It is shot on VIDEO! NOT film! I have not seen the likes of this since the early 70's, when late night networks showed movie of the week 'horror flicks' shot in......video. It looks like a bad soap opera, and that is paying it a compliment. Some of the actors give it their best shot. Michael Des Barres does okay with what he is given to do, which is to act like a sex addict out of control. I can't say that it is pleasant to watch.<br /><br />Nastassja Kinski as the therapist sits in a chair for practically the entire film, with very little variation in camera angles. I can't fault her for someone else's poor blocking, but she is totally unbelievable in her role. Her little girl voice works against her here. And I consider myself a Nastassja Kinski fan. She is certainly ageless and exotic, but she's outside her range with this.<br /><br />Alexandra Paul is pathetically overwrought. Every line she delivers is with three exclamation points. Someone must have directed her to scream at all costs. Why would Michael Des Barres want to have sex with such a raging shrew?<br /><br />Finally, Rosanna Arquette as the sweet, maligned wife comes off okay, and probably the most believable of the bunch. But that is not saying much.<br /><br />This has to be the worst film I have seen in years.
I really tried to like this movie. It deals with an important problem in any society: sex addiction.<br /><br />In this story we learn that you can lose everything when you're addicted to sex. In this case, our main character and hero, for having non-stop sex with all kinds of women (crazy, kinky, neurotic) puts in jeopardy his marriage, job, and even his life.<br /><br />The production values are terrible; mainly the acting. Oh, you won't enjoy ANY of the sex scenes, most of them are done in very poor taste and you might think you're watching a home made flick.<br /><br />Second, the plot is just non sense. How could such a smart and beautiful wife stand all the nasty stuff from the husband? How could she believe him?! The threesome situation is priceless and will make you chuckle for a while.<br /><br />Also, the scene with the black movie theater attendant is just pointless and will leave you thinking "wtf?". <br /><br />Scenes like those you will find plenty. <br /><br />Avoid this movie. Please, avoid it; it's not soft core, it's not a documental, it's not a dramatic feature. It's a pretentious effort form a so called documentary director or whatever.<br /><br />Only Mrs. Kinski's legs on display are worth the watch. I caught it on HBO and I'm glad I didn't spend my money on it. But those 90 minutes of my life won't come back.
As many others have stated, this is a terrible movie, from every aspect of movie making. How they ever got some known name actors to take on this project is amazing.<br /><br />Many people have complained that it was shot on 'cheap' video cameras. Yes, it was shot on video, but not 'cheap' video. What made it bad was the lighting, white balancing, shooting technique and editing.<br /><br />There were so many different shooting and editing techniques used that it was a production mess. Harsh, inconsistent lighting, over use of hand held shooting (ala Woody Allen), choppy editing (another Allen technique), but poorly done, without real purpose.<br /><br />The lack of white balance in the restaurant kitchen scenes is embarrassing; very amateurish.<br /><br />The simulated sex scenes had no acting value at any level.<br /><br />How this video ever made it to print is beyond me. It is worth watching if only to be amazed at how bad it is.
My husband rented this from a video store thinking it was suspense. (He never reads the synopsis).<br /><br />Well, it would be funny if the thing was watchable. It simply isn't. The same thing over and over, no intrigue, and WHERE did they find the leading man?. The leading man, Michael Des Barres, is not even feasibly good-looking, especially for this role he is given. Also, sexual harassment at work is something, if you want to see, rent Michael Crichton's "Disclosure". At least Michael Douglas looked good in the early 90's. <br /><br />Alexandra Paul, who is usually watchable, plays an embarrassing scene here. There are also lighting effects cheaper than your at home web cam. Don't even waste time renting this. 0/10.
Ok, I wrote a scathing review b/c the movie is awful. As I was waiting another review (for Derrida) of mine to pop up, i decided to check out old reviews of this awful movie. Look at all the positive reviews. They ALL, I say ALL, come from contributors have have not rated any other movie other than this one. Crimminy! and wait till you to the "rosebud" [sic] review.<br /><br />Checkout the other movies rosebud reviewed and had glowing recommendations for. Oh, shoot!, they happen to be for the only other movies by the two writers and director. Holy Window-Wipers Batman.<br /><br />Joe, Tony, you suck as writers, and tony, you couldn't direct out of a bad script. No jobs for you!<br /><br />ALWAYS CHECK POSITIVE REVIEWS FOR A LOW RATED MOVIE!
Don't let the title trick you into watching this movie. I read the title, saw that it came on in the middle of the night, and figured it was one of those soft porn movies. This movie is bad. If you like soft porn movies, then I'm sorry to say this isn't one. There are a lot of sex but nothing shown and they only last for 5 seconds or so.
This movie could had been an interesting character study and could had given some insight on its subject but real problem with this movie is that it doesn't have any of this in it. It doesn't give any insight-, or solutions to the problem. It's just the portrayal of 'old' male sex addict and the problems this is creating for his every day normal life and family. Why would you want to watch this? It's all so totally pointless and meaningless.<br /><br />It also really doesn't help that the main character is some wrinkly 50+ year old male. You'll have a hard time identifying yourself- and sympathize for him. He just seems like a dirty old playboy, who is an a constant hunt for woman and sex. He has all kinds of sexual intercourse's about 3 times a day with different woman and not just only with prostitutes.<br /><br />It also doesn't have a bad visual style, though it all feels a bit forced. But nevertheless it's all better looking than most other direct-to-video productions. Who knows, if the film-makers had been given better material to work with, the movie would had deserved a better faith.<br /><br />The story really gets ridicules at times. There are really some pointless plot-lines that are often more laughable than they were obviously supposed to be. I'm talking about for instance the whole Ordell plot-line. Things get worse once they movie starts heading toward the ending. Also the whole way the story is being told, cutting back and forth between the events that happened and the main character's sessions with his psychiatrist feels a bit cheap and simple.<br /><br />But as far as bad movies are concerned, this just isn't one of them. It's not really any better or worse than any other random straight-to-video flick, with similar concepts.<br /><br />Still seems weird and quite amazing that they managed to cast Nastassja Kinski and Ed Begley Jr. in such a simple small insignificant production as this one is. Guess they were really desperate for work and money.<br /><br />4/10
No reason to bother renting this flick. From the opening credits on, I knew I was in trouble.<br /><br />It was filmed as though it was a soft porn movie, but there really isn't anything erotic about it. The look into the world of sex addiction is intriguing, but only to a point.<br /><br />Boring sex scenes, bad plot, and cameos by Ed Begley Jr. and Rosanna Arquette aren't enough to save this film.
This movie could have been a decent B-movie if 3/4 of the the movie wasn't so much focusing on the sex scenes. I mean, he's a sex addict, and I'm sure that there's a lot more that goes on with sex addicts outside of having sex on a constant basis. Michael Des Barres did a good job considering what all he had to do, which wasn't much. At one point or another, one would have to laugh at him, because his character was so pitiful. Nastassja Kinski was alright in her role as the concerned sex therapist, she could've of done more though and I'm not suggesting her having sex. The person that stood out the most to me in this movie was Rosanna Arquette in her convincing role as the loving and concerned wife. There's something about beautiful inside and out that strongly appeals to me. She played that role and as you watched the movie, you start to feel bad for her.<br /><br />"Diary Of A Sex Addict" while not Oscar material or a modern classic to anyone's standards, is quite informative and does a fair job in showing you how one's personal demons can take over and ruin the very things in life you think highly of.
Sammy Horn (Michael Des Barres) is the head chef and owner of a famous restaurant in California. He has a lovely wife, Grace Horn (Rosanna Arquette), who is pregnant, and a beautiful son of about five years old. Sammy indeed loves his family, but like Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde, he has a double life, having sex with many different women. Dr. Jane Bordeaux (Nastassja Kinski) is trying to help him. OK, it is my fault: I read the summary of the other IMDB user comments, I saw the IMDB user rating, but I really did not believe that Rosanna Arquette and Nastassja Kinski could participate in such a bad movie. I decided to check it, and actually some comments are very complacent. The storyline, the screenplay and the dialogs are so silly and laughable that even in some X-rated movies we can find more intelligent stories. The photography is so amateurish and naive that in some parts it seems to be taken through a VHS camcorder. Michael Des Barres does not have sense of ridiculous: being an old man, bald, would be acceptable in an advertisement of Viagra or grandfather of the small boy. But as an attractive man who gets and has sex with any woman, it is scary. In Wood Allen's comedy, maybe he got a chance, but in a `serious' movie, it is funny. I am trying to figure out why or how Rosanna Arquette and Nastassja Kinski accepted to participate in such awful, amateurish and trash movie. Do they need money? Lack of chances in better movies due to their ages? Are they friends of the `director' (sorry for using this word) and decided to help and promote him? I do not know whether the intention of Rosanna Arquette was to show her breasts full of silicone, but it is unacceptable that such a great actress accepts such a script. The same is applicable to the gorgeous Nastassja Kinki. She is presented fat, without make-up, without any glamour. A total lack of respect with one of the most beautiful actress in the cinema history. A fact is really intriguing me: how can a reader, without any personal interest, promote this trash, giving higher ratings or writing favorable comments about this movie? Are they friends of the `director' (again, I am using this word...) or the cast? It sounds very strange to me that a normal IMDB reader can like such a film. My vote is two.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): `Viciado Em Sexo' (`Addicted In Sex')
Race car drivers say that 100 mph seems fast till you've driven 150, and 150 mph seems fast till you've driven 250.<br /><br />OK.<br /><br />Andalusian Dog seems breathtakingly bizarre till you've seen Eraserhead, and Eraserhead seems breathtakingly bizarre till you've seen Begotten.<br /><br />And Begotten seems breathtakingly bizarre till you've seen the works of C. Frederic Hobbs. Race fans, there is NOTHING in all the world of film like the works of C. Frederic Hobbs.<br /><br />Alabama's Ghost comes as close as any of his films to having a coherent plot, and it only involves hippies, rock concerts, voodoo, ghosts, vampires, robots, magicians, corrupt multinational corporations, elephants and Mystery Gas. And the Fabulous Woodmobile, cruising the Sunset District in San Francisco, of course.<br /><br />What's really startling is that somebody gave him a LOT of money to make Alabama's Ghost. There's sets, lighting, hundreds of extras, costumes, lots and lots of effects. Somehow that makes Alabama's Ghost SO WRONG. You watch some awful cheeseball like Night of Horror or Plutonium Baby, and at least some part of the weirdness is excusable on the basis that they were obviously making the film off the headroom on their Discover cards. But Alabama's Ghost was made with an actual budget, and that's EVIL. I mean, I've got a script about a tribe of cannibals living in Thunder Bay, Ontario, building a secret temple in the woods out of Twizzlers, and nobody's beating down MY door waving a checkbook - how did this guy get the funds for FOUR of the flakiest movies ever made?
This is at least the third remake of this movie so if while watching it, there is a sense of deja vu, don't be surprised. All they did was change the setting of the story and tell it differently but the differences are not significant. And it doesn't get any better because the plot is flawed to begin with. It never works. And like its predecessors, the acting is mediocre.<br /><br />The plot has a unique ending which will surprise any one who has never seen the movie before but the ending doesn't fit the story. Had this movie ended ten minutes earlier, it would have worked and have been very satisfying and I would have thought it more worthwhile. But here is the spoiler and that in the end crime does pay because the criminal is not caught. I never like this message resulting from a movie.
My god this movie is awfully boring. I am a big fan of Gina Gershon, when I rented this movie I expected a romantic drama, and some great performance from Gershon. Gershon is great as always, but she is not right actress for this role, she is too good for Rade Serbedzija. The romance between Gershon and Serbedzija's characters is too unconvincing. And I absolutely hated Serbedzija's character (a wonman organizer), he is not charming in anyway in the movie. How did Dr. Lauren Graham (Gershon) is beyond my comprehension. Maybe Sean Connery, Robert DeNiro or Harrison Ford would have done a better job on this role, but they don't have the European-ish looking I guess. Any way, I was so bored druing the movie. If you are looking for a good Gina Gershon movie, check out Bound, her best film so far. If you are looking for a romantic film about a younger woman and an older man, try some Harrison Ford or Sean Connery movies. Gina Gershon is so underrated, and she deserves better chance than this, I wish her to make better choice in the future.
We have an average family. Dad's a famous rapper, we have the "rebelious teenage daughter", the adopted white kid, and the cute little kid. And we have careless housemaid, what show has had a housemaid like that? Do we have a messed-up Brady Bunch? Yay! When it first came out I thought it was really cool, mostly because I was young. The music was bad. The raps were so bad and they were too g-rated. All of his raps were about his family and friends and problems. The dad was kind of the "Danny from Full House" type of dad. Always gave the advice out. But he wasn't a clean freak. They had a house-keeper for that. Remember? The plots were basically Lil' Romeo was in trouble of some sort, or... not that's it. Oh and maybe some preteen drama. Yeah that stuff is good. Not really. But its still a good show for kids. But Nikelodean could do better.
My title just about sums this heap of crap up I should have taken a hint when I saw it was a Fred olen Ray movie - but i thought 'HEY, IT MIGHT BE BETTER THAN HIS USUAL RUBBISH' boy, was i wrong! This has to be the worst movie ever targeted at children. The acting was awful, the humour was non-existent, The Direction was the worst i have ever seen & The special effects wouldn't seem out of place on a 1950's Disney movie.<br /><br />WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO DEE-WALLACE STONE! Who once had such a promising career in the 80's. Movie veteran & former child actor Russ Tamblyn was a awful bad-guy & the budget was so low it was a totally unbelievable even as a kiddie movie.<br /><br />I haven't seen the sequel made in 1999 and nor do i intend to<br /><br />If you want a good kid movie Watch 'HONEY I SHRUNK/BLEW UP THE KIDS/KID' OR ANY DISNEY MOVIE<br /><br />MY RATING AS A 19 YO :- 2/10<br /><br />RATING AS A KID MOVIE :- 3/10 AT THE BEST!
When this film was released in 1997 the 'special effects', such as they are, were poor. They would have been dated even for the 1980s, and even some films made in the 1970s and 1960s have had the same or better SFX work. Certainly no-one involved in the production of this film was looking for an Oscar. It's a wild departure from director Fred Olen Ray's usual stuff, most of which has the word "Bikini" in the title (Bikini Pirates, Bikini Chain Gang, Bikini Girls from the Lost Planet, etc) and are little more than T&A flicks, but here we are with a film rated "U" and aimed squarely at the kiddies. You've got to give him credit for diversifying!! This was a minor direct-to-video cult hit which later resulted in a couple of sequels - Invisible Mom 2 and Invisible Dad. Dee Wallace-Stone (whose career went downhill fast after 1982s "E.T.) plays the 'invisible mom' of the films title and would return for the sequel. Russ Tamblyn (whose career had been in free-fall even longer since 1961s "West Side Story") plays the villainous Dr. Woorter. It's probably fair to say that most of the cast were at the point in their careers where they would be prepared to work on almost anything just to pay the bills that month - except maybe young Trenton Knight as Josh. It's rather telling though that although he worked prior to this movie, this child actor didn't work again after the sequel, "Invisible Mom 2". Maybe the film was cursed. After all, he wasn't that bad in this film. For a child actor, he's pretty good - no better or worse than any of his more experienced co-stars.<br /><br />As mentioned above, the "invisibility" effects are naff to say the least, the direction is poor, the writing obvious and the acting nothing to write home about. There are plenty of worse films out there though, and for anyone under the age of about ten, this film will no doubt be quite watchable. Most adults will probably want to do a disappearing act of their own while it is on though, and I wouldn't blame them one bit!
Boy oh boy oh golly gee,<br /><br />The most interesting thing in the movie was the hilarity of the bluescreen effects used to create Mom's "invisibility." They looked like they were shot on cheap video, and it looks totally unreal, and not even in a good way where its so funny that you end up loving the movie...<br /><br />I did NOT end up loving this movie. The attempted "steadicam" shots were really pathetic as well. I mean, hey, if they had a low budget flick, that's fine. You can still make a great movie with a low budget. But, a BAD movie and a low budget AND effects. That makes for a bad combination. In this case, such a doomed combo created the craptastic film, "Invisible Mom." If you have kids, and your kids have no taste, perhaps they will stay awake through all of this one.
When the movie was released it was the biggest hit and it soon became the Blockbuster. But honestly the movie is a ridiculous watch with a plot which glorifies a loser. The movie has a Tag-line - "Preeti Madhura, Tyaga Amara" which means Love's Sweet but Sacrifice is Immortal. In the movie the hero of the movie (Ganesh) sacrifices his love for the leading lady (Pooja Gandhi) even though the two loved each other! His justification is the meaning of the tag-line. This movie influenced so many young broken hearts that they found this "Loser-like Sacrificial" attitude very thoughtful and hence became the cult movie it is, when they could have moved on with their lives. Ganesh's acting in the movie is Amateurish, Crass and Childishly stupid. He actually looks funny in a song, (Onde Ondu Sari... )when he's supposed to look all stylish and cool. His looks don't help the leading role either. His hair style is badly done in most part of the movie. POOJA GANDHI CANT ACT. Her costumes are horrendous in the movie and very inconsistent. <br /><br />The good part about the movie is the excellent cinematography and brilliant music by Mano Murthy which are actually the true saving graces of the movie. Also the lyrics by Jayant Kaikini are very well penned. The Director Yograj Bhat has to be lauded picturization the songs in a tasteful manner. <br /><br />Anyway all-in-all except for the songs, the movie is a very ordinary one!!!!!!
Chillers starts on a cold, dark stormy night as a bus drops off three passenger's outside a bus station, a young boy named Mason (Jesse Emery), a college professor Dr. Howard Conrow (David Wohl) & a woman named Sharon Phillips (Laurie Pennington). Inside they discover that they have missed their connecting bus & are stranded for the night. In the waiting area they find two other people, Ronnie (Jim Wolf) & a sleeping woman named Lindsay (Marjorie Fitzsimmons) who is currently having a terrifying nightmare...<br /><br />While swimming in an indoor pool Lindsay encounters & befriends guy named Billy Waters (Jesse Johnson), the next time Lindsay sees Billy he dives into the pool & then seemingly disappears into thin air before he surfaces. Shortly after Lindsay discovers that Billy Water died in a diving accident 5 years ago...<br /><br />Lindsay wakes up & tells the others about her nightmare, everyone else responds by saying that they too have suffered disturbing dreams recently & decide to share them to pass the time...<br /><br />Next up is Mason who tells a story of how he & two friends, Scott (David R. Hamm) & Jimmy (Will Tuckwiller), are terrorised during a camping trip...<br /><br />Then it's Sharon whose story revolves around a newsman named Tom Williams (Thom Delventhal) who she phones up, in no time at all Tom is at her front door but he actually turns out to be a Vampire...<br /><br />It's Ronnie's turn next & he describes how he discovers that he can bring the dead back to life, unfortunately he brings executed mass murderer Nelson Caulder (Bradford Boll) back to homicidal life...<br /><br />Finally Dr. Conrow tells a tale of how two of his students brought an ancient Aztec war-god named Ixpe (Kimberly Harbour) back to life...<br /><br />Then it's back to the bus station for one last (predictable) twist...<br /><br />Written, produced & directed by Daniel Boyd Chillers is one of the worst horror anthologies I've ever seen & I usually really like this sub-genre. The script by Boyd lacks what is needed for films such as Chillers to work, you can see the final twist coming a mile off & each story is really lame. The first one is totally pointless & didn't seem to have an ending & the best thing about these anthologies are the short snappy stories that are rounded off with a neat twist. The second story is predictable &, again, just ends without any payoff. So it continues throughout Chillers that each story is deeply unsatisfying to watch & have no reward for doing so. The character's & dialogue are poorly written, the stories seem to have no original ideas of their own & as a whole the film totally sucks. At least each story doesn't last long & I liked the idea behind the linking segments.<br /><br />Director Boyd was obviously working with a very low budget & it shows. All I can say is if you want to watch a 15 odd minute short story set entirely within a swimming pool then Chillers is for you. The stories are neither clever, scary or have any sort of tension or build up to anything. Having said that it does have a few nice scenes & some surprising competence shines through on occasion. Violence & gore wise there isn't much happening in Chillers, a ripped out heart, a decapitated head & a bitten off hand is as gory as it gets.<br /><br />Technically Chillers is poor stuff that won't impress anyone. Basic cinematography, bad music, cheap special effects & below average production values. Chillers also features one of the worst closing theme songs ever, period. The acting is also of a very low standard.<br /><br />I am sure a lot of effort was put into Chillers as a low budget film & at least the filmmakers tried so I will give credit for that at least, but that still doesn't stop me from thinking it's crap. Similar anthology films like Tales From the Crypt (1972), Asylum (1972), The Vault of Horror (1973), Dr. Terror's House of Horrors (1965), Creepshow (1982) & Tales From the Darkside: The Movie (1990) are far superior to Chillers so watch one of those instead.
Five passengers at a bus depot tell each other their scary dreams while waiting to be picked up. But is there more to these nightmares than meets the eye?<br /><br />Lucky me, five bad movies for the price of one! Each segment features the very worst in acting, special effects, make up and music. And these were supposed to be scary? Hmm.. I think I've been more freaked out during an episode of Teletubbies. I swear, you'll sit there like I was, bored to tears waiting in vain for something interesting to happen. Don't bother. It never does. In fact, I even stopped fast forwarding the commercials, as they were a good deal more entertaining than the main feature. AND the ending is the ultimate cop-out. Yep, none of this actually ever happened. If only the same could be said for the day I set my VCR to record this cobblers.. 2/10
Going into this I was expecting anything really good, but after the damage this inflexed on me, I'm just happy to think strait. It's hard to think what the film-makers( HA!) this was a good movie. the stories, and I use the world loosely, are incoherent and do make any sense at all. There just stupid things that happen at random. the acting, if can be called acting is horrible I've seen batter acting in toy ads! I know it's a low-budget video-bin garbages, but still even it's not like they tried. Will after stetting thought it, I feel very sleepy and still #yawws# do, I'm going to go lie down.<br /><br />WARNNING: DO NOT ATEMP TO DRIVE, WALK, READ OR DO ANY AFTER Watching CHILLERS. OTHER SIDE AFFECTTS MAY ENGULED LOSE OF ANY OR ALL METAL FUNKIONS.
OK well i found this movie in my dads old pile of movies and it looked pretty good from the cover but the movie actually sucked!! OK the first story with the swimmer was pretty good but it took a while to get into, then the one with the boy was completely retarded! It wasn't even scary! His dream sounds like a little kid's bedtime story. Then the news girls one was completely retarded too. I'm sure someones going to call up the news guy and ask him to go out with you. But that one ended cool where she stabbed him and she was in the hospital and she saw him on t.v and he said all that junk to her. Next was that pretty gay story about the guy who brought back the dead people..OMG its so stupid I'm not even going to say any more about it.The last one was the best. It wasn't that scary but the idea of the story was pretty cool..uh yeah the girl gets possessed and she kills all her classmates or something. Then when they're all done telling their dreams to each other the losers get on the bus (TO HELL AHAHAHAH) and they see all the people from their dreams on the bus(Ha). The End.
"John Hughes' son wrote a high school drama! Wow!" I thought as I checked the flick's info here on IMDb, late on a Saturday night, having found myself watching the opening credits on BBC2.<br /><br />I've just finished watching it, and sadly it was downhill from there on. Arguably you can't spoil a film this poor, but I'll leave the spoilers out of this review... <br /><br />There's an awful lot of style over very little substance: unfortunately the style hasn't dated too well in the eight years since its release. As for the substance, the film tries to pose an interesting look at the nature of control in society through the microcosm of school-life; but beneath the shiny veneer, a remotely meaningful or relevant argument fails to materialise. Characters are painted in childishly broad strokes, falling into the kind of generic stereotypes the writer's father sought to question in Breakfast Club. <br /><br />Director Kyle Cooper does a decent job keeping the pace up (perhaps relying a little too much on montages of information, which soon becomes a tiresome device, but at least pushes the story along), but his efforts don't sufficiently detract from the poor script and bizarre casting (how anyone is supposed to side with 'Maddox', when Blake Shields gurns and glowers his way through the part, I just can't understand), not to mention the numerous gaping plot holes (I'm all for creative license, but when the "bad guys" know the identities of the "good guys" making their lives a misery, but fail to act in any way to stop them, you really have to wonder why this script didn't undergo another few re-drafts before production - did Daddy even read it?).<br /><br />I'm sure a younger audience might get some enjoyment from this film (and all power to them), but they're really better off sticking with Hughes Sr.'s high school output, and if the idea of school-time rebellion is what really appeals, the 1968 classic "If..." is a much more satisfying examination of the subject.
The guy did a lot of title design for a bunch of movies and I guess one day he said; I should pick a cheap scenario, try to put as much title in it as a can ( cause after all i'm a title designer ) and try to persuade people that this is in fact a movie. One of the worst i've even seen that's for sure. If you fell the urge to see nice titles, go check out some posters don't waste your time watching this.<br /><br />It kinda ironic don't you think, did you saw the poster? the only part of his project that SHOULD had title work done have almost none !
OK, not possibly, honestly the worst movie i've ever seen.<br /><br />this made absolutely no sense, there was no plot, no characterization, no acting, just nothing.<br /><br />here's what i thought when i first saw it may 28th, 2003 **caution, this is a spoiler alert. it's also alot of me complaining about how bad the movie is::<br /><br />ok so the movie begins and the characters are introduced, but there is no character explanation. as far as i knew the main character was new to this school, but apparently not. also it appeared that he lived by himself... then that he was a foster kid... then that his mother was a raging alcoholic who lived with him still. also all his friends apparently had no parents and lived by themselves.<br /><br />now we come to a main plot point, this insane guy has broken out of the insane asylum and is running rampant. now our main character is obsessed with this guy and focus' intently on him for the contingency of the movie. i think i must have missed a main plot element here, there was no REASON for the main character to get hooked. even if that's the point, having no reason, why do all his friends, who are skeptical like 5 minutes before, suddenly follow him and do what he wants.<br /><br />so the movie continues on, and it gets all right. they're running havoc on the school, blah blah blah. but wait a minute... suddenly everyone knows that the main character is running the 'show' here. wait a second, didn't the insane guy specifically tell the main character NOT to do that? it was supposed to be anynomous.<br /><br />ah another important plot element has been skipped over... the insane guy was supposed to not be insane... everyone said he wasn't insane. but as the story goes on, he is VERY CLEARLY OUT OF HIS MIND. but i thought the news people said he wasn't... hm...<br /><br />now the movie comes to a close. THAT WAS THE CLOSE? WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT? not only did the ending not answer any questions about the main character, it didn't answer any questions about the insane guy. are these people in the same situation? if yes, then there are some very basic story lines that do not tend to this. if no then what is the point in saying "that's you in two weeks."??<br /><br />*end of the thing...*<br /><br />that's what i thought then. that is pretty much what i still think now. it's 6 months down the line, and if i can get it for free, i might give it another chance, but i doubt it. i highly doubt it.
I'm still trying to figure out if there was a point to this film.<br /><br />For content that's supposed to be so 'rebellious' and 'controversial' the things that Maddox distributes to the students are awfully lame. Students seem to be easily swayed by vague anti-authoritarian sentiments and snippets of words illegibly scrawled onto leaflets. Rebel, everybody.<br /><br />I suppose it would have been too much to ask to have a teenage rebellion film where a school fire alarm doesn't get set off.<br /><br />Apparently a 'huge fight up on the football fields' is a fight that consists of two people.<br /><br />Characters personalities seem to wildly vary at random. A football jock who Maddox was fighting (and who subsequently got a staple on the face) is all smiles and apologies the next day.<br /><br />The fact that it doesn't come to any real conclusion of the plot makes me feel that the whole thing could have been fitted into a half hour after school special. If they had cut most of the attempted pseudo-glitch soundtrack.
this film is terrible. The characters are completely unbelievable, and wildly inconsistent. The plot is awful and some of the classroom scenes are cringe-worthy and make for uncomfortable viewing.<br /><br />In fact the quality of the script and characterisation would suggest that this film was written by high school students, only the utter lack of credibility to the school environment would suggest that, in fact, the writers probably never went to high school. The acting in most cases was weak too, although a lot of this was down to a poor script and plot, i am not sure that any actors could have made this film watchable.<br /><br />having said that the sound track was OK, and the cinematography was nice in places (although the editing was poor).
About five minutes in, and I saw where this was heading. Bunch of high school kids get annoyed by the school's administration and thoughts of rebellion start fomenting. I said to my girlfriend: if it gets below a 5 on IMDb, I'll go and read a book. It got 5.0, so she persuaded me to go on watching. What are the good things? Well, it is a good thing this film does not have a story, because you would surely be distracted from it by the editing. It's like the student's drawing that was torn up by one of the teachers, all the footage for this film was cut up in a freak accident involving a meat-grinder, and left half the stock destroyed, with the other half spliced into two-second bits. Even in a ten-second scene of the local TV news, there are about six cuts and three different angles. And then there are the montages. These are all set to electronic music, which forewarns you of yet another montage, so that like Pavlov's dog you start cringing every time you hear it, which is about every three minutes. Oh, I was supposed to say what's good about this film. Well, the film was shot very well, with a nice color palette, that nicely matched the emotional content - such as there was - of the scenes. Okay, now with the film's major flaw, and it wasn't the story, or lack thereof. The director made that fatal mistake of leading you astray about people and situations, not by clever storytelling, but by being highly selective about what to show about the main characters. That's just cheating. I guess he did it in order to make the central character more likable. But it just became plain annoying. If the story is full of holes, it's no good trying to patch it up by misdirecting the viewer. And often there wasn't even any point to it. And then the ending. Basically, the main villain of the peace turns out be an okay guy, if a coward. Plus it turns what seemed to be the whole point of the movie, that you should stand up for a just cause on its head, by the already mentioned misdirection, and makes it into a point about the nature of revolutions, that was already made, and much better, by animal farm. It also committed what I call the Bill Cosby sin: no matter how things may seem at first, in the end adults are always right, and children always wrong. And let's face it: unless you're me, that's just not true.
I came to NEW PORT SOUTH expecting a surrogate movie about the Columbine school massacre similar to Gus Van Sant's ELEPHANT and certainly the synopsis in the TV guide stating that a student sociopath rebels against the system did give me that impression but this is a very boring movie where little happens so consider yourself warned <br /><br />The story is about Maddox , a Chicago high school student who decides to strike back at what he perceives to be an authoritarian regime . The major problem is that the character is underwritten and the actor who plays him Blake Shields is unable to embellish any script deficiencies . You have the gut feeling that Maddox should have the evil charisma of Hitler , Saddam or Bin Laden but he never comes across as anything more than a petulant truculent teenager and it's impossible to believe he could rally any disciples . The subtext of you overthrow one manipulative authoritarian regime only to replace it with another manipulative regime is too obvious which means NEW PORT SOUTH is an entirely unconvincing drama that's not worth going out of your way to see
This is one of the most irritating, nonsensical movies I've ever had the misfortune to sit through. Every time it started to look like it might be getting good, out come more sepia tone flashbacks, followed by paranoid idiocy masquerading as social commentary. The main character, Maddox, is a manipulative, would-be rebel who lives in a mansion seemingly without any parents or responsibility. The supporting cast are all far more likeable and interesting, but are unfortunately never developed. Nor do we ever really understand the John Stanton character supposedly influencing Maddox to commit the acts of rebellion. At one point, I thought "Aha! Maddox is just nuts and is secretly making up all those communications from escaped mental patient Stanton! Now we're getting somewhere!" but of course, that ends up to not be the case and the whole movie turns out to be pointless, both from Maddox's perspective and the viewer's. Where's Ferris Bueller when we need him?
This movie is a great example of how even some very funny jokes can go terribly wrong. i really expected at least something from this movie after seeing the add which was funny as hell but the movie wasn't half as good.<br /><br />The weird part is that the jokes are actually funny, the spoofs of the smoking ban, Jo Bole... etc. are genuinely good jokes but i don't know whom to blame this movie flop on.<br /><br />The prime candidates may be:- 1) The hammers ( actors) and hammeresses (actresses) and not even the funny kind 2) The director 3)The guy who cast the actors and/or the director Anyway if you are really really bored and i mean really see this movie, or else get a copy of each and every ad or teaser of this movie and laugh your butt of because those will be far funnier than the film.<br /><br />p.s the only saving grace of this film is mahesh manjrekar and the funny chappu bhai
lets start off by saying that "JAWANI DIWANI" is just a pathetic movie. I agree with the last person who said "I missed the joyride". lol. <br /><br />The jokes were just terrible. Performances were average. Something went terribly wrong with the film. Emraan totally deserved something better. All CELINA JAITLEY did was expose. Hrishitta bhatt was OK. Emraan hashmi was OK too.<br /><br />MANN (EMRAAN HASHMI)is a desperate guy who wants to become famous. therefore, he uses RADHA and pretends he loves her, only because her father is a music director and could help him become famous (since, the father obeys everything his daughter says). One day, MANN and his friends go to GOA to have some fun. There he meets ROMA (CELINA JAITLEY) and totally falls for her looks and tries to flirt with her BLA BLA BLA. <br /><br />Then, that night ROMA cannot open the door to her room, and MANN decides to help her. Seeing that he cannot as well, ROMA goes to ask for help. While she is gone, MANN is able to open the door and decides to come inside and sits on her bed BLA BLA BLA. ROMA comes in and they have a one night stand. However, in that one night- stand ROMA falls in love with him. That morning, they spot the underworld don (MAHESH)who sees it all. The don loves ROMA and couldn't stand what he saw. He orders them to get married, and being frightened, MANN obeys the order and Merry's ROMA. Then, their marriage news ends up in the newspaper. MANN is later finds out that he loves ROMA after they do a music video together. He is now trapped between love and fame. BLA BLA BLA.<br /><br />the movie is horrible. The songs "SINI NE SINI NE" is fantastic the remix version is even better. "DIL DIWANA" is also great. The title track is also awesome. GUYS, AVOID WATCHING THIS MOVIE.
This movie was absolutely pathetic. A pitiful screenplay and lack of any story just left me watching three losers drool over bikini babes. At times I felt like I was watching an episode of Beavis and Butthead. I couldn't even sit through the whole movie. Emran Hashmi disappoints, and Hrshitta Bhatt is not impressive at all. Celina Jaitley was not bad. The only worthwhile part of the film is the spoof on Anu Malik and his obsession of shayaris. It was pretty hilarious. The songs "Sini Ne" and its remix version were really good. You can always count on Emran lip-locking and lip-synching a chartbuster. All in all, it seems Emran doesn't have a good script from the Bhatts to back him up this time.
Okay the promos promised a comedy and people(few) went to watch it Being the first release of 2006 is not a bad thing, or for that matter of any year, because the first and last films mostly flop except GHAJINI and some more<br /><br />Okay coming to JAWANI DIWANI<br /><br />Review in short The film is about Emraan Hashmi doing his usual stuff sadly it's annoying this time after repetitions It has an irritating Hrishita Bhatt and a flop Celina Jaitley<br /><br />Cringeworthy dialogues, comedy scenes and badly handled drama and lots of loopholes<br /><br />Direction is bad Emraan Hashmi is annoying here, luckily now he is coming of age But post FOOTPATH and MURDER and some decent work in some more films the actor in him took a backseat and directors focused on his kisses and womaniser image which sadly lost it's touch after repetitions Hrishita and Celina are bad Mahesh is horrible
God this film was just so boring apart from the music which i really loved, i mean what was the point in actually making this movie please anyone who reads this review do not watch this film, it is a waste of time.<br /><br />Emraan can act but was really pathetic In this film, i am actually ashamed to be one of his fans especially in this movie, it was just really bad.<br /><br />Celina is just another pretty face with no lack of talent what so ever, she can't act at all, and there was no point of her being in this film, as for the other girl Radha she was okay i guess but could have done better.<br /><br />what a waste of time. please buy the great music and don't watch this movie.
A movie about dealing with the problems with growing up and being true to yourself, Blue Juice is mind candy for those who like surfing and Cornwall. Sean Pertwee is the real star of this film, while the more famous Catherine Zeta Jones plays his girlfriend and Ewan Mcgregor plays his drug addicted pal.<br /><br />For those who don't like surfing or Cornwall in the slightest, you'll find that it takes a long time before the movie even hints at being interesting. The beginning is slow and spends too much time on long shots of only slightly interesting landscapes. Plus too many main characters leads to most of them being one dimensional. The plot is an interesting idea but because of the shallow characters you have no idea why they act in the situations they're put in.<br /><br />Only Ewan, Sean and Catherine's characters make this a film worth being on videotape, which is why it was only released on videotape in the US after Ewan and Catherine reached mainstream fame.
Note to self- just because a film is foreign, obscure, and stars Catherine Zeta-Jones doesn't mean it's any good. Such is the case with 'Blue Juice,' a 1995 Brit flick about an unlikely group of surfing enthusiasts in what would seem (to a dumb American, anyway) an even more unlikely place to find surfers: Cornwall, England. You might be thinking this has the makings for an amusing, quirky little comedy. If only. The film is just a bit over ninety minutes but it seems interminable. The easiest way to describe it is as a sort of '90's British version of 'Grease' without the dancing, but even that makes it sound better than it is. No, the best way to take it is as a little slice-of-life set in a small town. Catherine Zeta-Jones plays Chloe, a young woman living with a surfing instructor, JC (Sean Pertwee; you remember him). Pertwee is actually the film's star, and his character is something of a surfing legend to a small group of surfing devotees, the requisite oddball group of free spirits that inevitably inhabit films like this. In this case, it consists of a drug dealer who wants to be a journalist, a former nightclub dj who wants to be a record producer, and a fat nerdy guy who, in a needlessly extended scene, gets stoned and loses all his inhibitions which of course turns out to be the best thing that ever happened to him. I can't honestly say everything that goes on in 'Blue Juice' is predictable, since it's set in a place and reflects customs and manners I'm not very familiar with, but there's certainly nothing surprising or even interesting that takes place there or with the characters. The comedy, though, IS very predictable and tired. One can sense the set-ups a mile away and almost recite the dialogue (in American form, of course) before the actors do. The relationship between JC and Chloe is every bit as hackneyed. She wants him to grow up; he wants them to stay the impetuous teenagers they started out being. He's afraid of losing face with his gang; she thinks he prefers them to her. You get the idea. As I struggled to stay focused on 'Blue Juice,' toward the end I felt, as the saying goes, that this was an hour and half of my life I'd never get back.
The only thing worse than surfers without any waves is a film about surfers without any waves. For viewers who love surfing this film will be a gigantic disappointment since the total number of minutes of surfing footage struggles to reach three.<br /><br />The story is a slice of life about beached surfers who are waiting not for the perfect wave, but for any wave at all. J.C. (Sean Pertwee) is an aging super surfer who is flirting with a commitment with his girlfriend Chloe (Catherine Zeta Jones). Just as he is about to find grown up bliss with the woman he loves, three old surfing friends turn up and convince him to hit the beach looking for monster waves at the Bone Yard. The trouble is, there are no waves until the very end of the film, so most of the story dissipates itself on a meandering succession of disconnected beach happenings.<br /><br />The acting is mostly mediocre. Sean Pertwee has a few comical moments, but mostly his acting was mundane. Ewan McGregor was decent as the drug dealing wild man, by far the most interesting and peculiar character of the bunch. Probably the funniest performance was turned in by Peter Gunn as Terry who turned his corpulent body into a continual sight gag. Catherine Zeta-Jones was sexy as usual, but her character didn't really have enough meat for her to show much acting ability.<br /><br />There is really not much here on which to comment. I rated it a 3/10. It's a real beach bummer.
I chose this movie by the cover which was a bad move. It wasn't funny at all and the main characters were obnoxious. The girl was beautiful but the story and the acting were terrible. It had absolutely nothing to do with surfing. Terrible movie with a surf "theme" that had nothing to do with surfing and no real surfers. Catherine Zeta Jones was beautiful and the movie will probably see a resurgence just becuase she is in the limelight now, being married with Gordon Gekko and all, but if you haven't seen it don't waste your time. A bad movie with GREAT surfing, REAL surfers and AMAZING, BEAUTIFUL cinematography was IN GOD'S HANDS.
Be warned: Neither Zeta-Jones nor McGregor plays the main part as the poster would have you believe. Their roles are in fact minor.<br /><br />The film stumbles badly between exaggerated comedy and realistic drama, with neither being really engaging. Especially I find it impossible to muster much sympathy for the main protagonist, not to mention his screwball friends and sex obsessed fiancé. The plot drags terribly, and I turned this one off after about 2/3 - unusual for me, as I like to finish what I start. The good acting and beautiful setting takes it from 1 to 2 stars.<br /><br />2/10
I saw this dull waste of time on HBO's Comedy Channel, so I quite innocently and obviously assumed that this was a comedy. But there is absolutely nothing funny here. A good cast is basically wasted on a script that I could have written with my left butt-cheek - after it had been beaten senseless by 15th-century Inquisition torturers. The first half is particularly bad, as it has some of the most dull, pointless dialogue I've come across in a while, and zero comma zero plot to speak of. Just the fact that stars such as Ewan McGregor and Zeta-Jones are in this little movie and yet this film has less than 1000 votes on this site, should tell you everything. A couple of nice shots of waves hitting the cold British coast, but that's about it.<br /><br />This is the sort of movie that gets made just because the people who wrote it have good connections (family connections, preferably) and/or plenty of cash lying around.
This has to be the worst, and I mean worst biker movie ever made! And that's saying a lot because the line of stinkers is long and smelly!<br /><br />Now at least we know what happened to Ginger after she was rescued from Gilligan's Island! A frightened looking Tina Louise(she was probably afraid someone would see this mess!)is a stranded motorist who is tormented by the most repulsive motorcycle gang in film history. But, don't worry fans! Batman, I mean Adam West as a hick-town doctor comes to the rescue! Pow! Crush! Boom! Holy Toledo Batman! <br /><br />The only good points of this "bomb" are some cute women, some laughable fight scenes, and the still "sexy" Tina Louise!
How sad to see the beautiful and talented Tina Louise reduced to making this horrible excuse for a film. Tina still looked fit and attractive, but for some reason seems truly frightened. I can understand her fear; fearing that this 3rd rate stinker would somehow be released to the general public. Also, I'm a fan of the likable Adam West. Again, as with Tina, Adam looks good and in great shape for a man his age. His acting here is passable, but the script is so bad, that it's difficult to even listen to the dialog.<br /><br />The movie is a rip-off of the classic Brando biker flick, The Wild Ones; out-law biker gang is out-of-control in a small hick-town. The bikers here look like a motley group and I sure wouldn't want them to date my sister. The acting is stiff and wooden, and the story-plot is as old as sand. Hellriders is hell to watch!
I was prepared to laugh throughout this movie like a Mystery Science Theater experiment, but it was just boring. It appears that the producers had many biker enthusiast friends, and from there casually decided to make a movie. <br /><br />It is frequently unwatchable. Lots of footage of the bikers riding on a dirt road, with the same music played repeatedly. Unfortunately, Renee Harmon is barely in the movie. Harmon probably would have livened things up. Perhaps she had other commitments the day this was filmed.<br /><br />Of course, the bikers terrorize a small town. Fights, murder, a cowardly cop, a goofy mechanic, etc. One of the bikers always wears a football helmet, a weak attempt to distinguish him from all the other outlaws.<br /><br />The script has nothing to offer. One scene features a biker assaulting a woman, yelling in the lady's face "You're all the same! You're all the same!". We come back to the scene a minute later and he again declares "You're all the same!". Couldn't the writer think of something more creative to say??<br /><br />At the end the good guys have killed the bad guys. We also learn that the wedding between middle-aged mechanic Joe and young Susie has been canceled. Susie is going away to college, and we abruptly learn that Joe's wedding is still on (but with a different bride). End.
This has got to be one of the worst movies ever made. Even for a biker movie, it's rock bottom. The minimal plot involves a gang of bikers taking over a small town (how original!) and the townspeople's attempts to fight them off. Why don't they call for outside help? Who knows? The fight scenes are obviously fake. Adam West and Tina Louise are in it but both have little to do and both look ashamed to be there (understandably) This movie belongs in the trash heap!
What else can you say about this movie,except that it's plain awful.Tina Louise and Adam West are the reasons why to see this,but,that's it,but their talents are wasted in this junk.I think that they used a double in some of Adam's scenes,like when he's running because you can't see his face.If Adam was embarrassed in being in Zombie Nightmare,just think what he must've felt about appearing in this??? If it was before or after,I'm not sure,but,still,Zombie Nightmare is a classic(check out the Mystery Science Theater 3000 version first and last)compared to this.The gang is very annoying and over-acting by some of the actors.A rip-off of The Wild One starring Marlon Brando,of course.Tina looks stunning though.I hope her and Adam got a good paycheck!! Pass!
Just bought the VHS on this film for two bucks, Did I waste my money! Hey, I dig Adam "Batman" West and Tina "Giligan's Island" Louise, but hello! This third rate production is a rehash of a dozen other biker films; crazed bunch of bikers psychos ride into a hick town, beat up everybody and everything, and then are defeated in the man by a dashing hero. Adam West looks the part as a hero, but he's missing cape, and his Batman uniform. Sorry, just isn't the same. Tina L. looks really nervous and frightened the whole show, but at least we know what happened to "Ginger" once she was rescued from the island...LOL! The bikers are a motley group, and known of them ever acted again or at least shouldn't have. Hell Riders is Hell to Watch!
First of all, the reason I'm giving this film 2 stars instead of 1 is because at least Peter Falk gave his usual fantastic performance as Lieutenant Columbo. He alone can get 10 stars for trying to save this otherwise utterly worthless attempt at making a movie.<br /><br />I was initially all fired up at reading one poster's comment that Andrew Stevens in this movie gave "the performance of his career." To me, it was the abysmal performance by Stevens that absolutely ruined this movie, and so I was all prepared to hurl all sorts of insults at the person who made the aforementioned comment. Then I thought to myself, what else has Stevens done? So I checked and, you know, that person was absolutely right. In the 17 years since this Columbo movie was made, apparently every one of the 33 projects that Stevens has been in since then has been utter crap, so it is doubtful that anybody has even seen the rest of his career.<br /><br />If you like Columbo, see every other of the 69 titles before watching this one. Do yourself a favor and save the worst for last.
This is possibly the worst of all the Columbo movies. Andrew Stevens' acting is poor as the villain, and the plot is weak. In fact none of the cast seem able to act other than Peter Falk, who puts in a creditable performance as the Lieutenant.
Aaron Spelling produced this made for television western that gets awfully plotty for a seventy three minute film. It plays like a probable failed series pilot.<br /><br />Handsome Clint Walker is U.S. Marshal Dave Harmon, who wanders into Yuma, Arizona Territory in time to kill one of the brothers of the local bigwig rancher who is out on a trail drive.<br /><br />Walker takes the other brother to jail. Walker also meets a "cute" homeless Mexican kid who sleeps at the jailhouse. One night, Andres is snoozing when a villain and another man dressed in Army blue take the remaining brother into the street and kill him, pinning the murder on Walker. Not good for your first twenty four hours on the job. Walker visits the local Army fort, and rankles the chains of the commander. The bigwig hears of his brothers' deaths, and rides back to town in time to get his chains rankled as well. The local native population, who get short changed by the Army on their beef, also get rankled in the chains area. With all these chains getting rankled, Walker still has time to woo the local hotel owner. The Army guy involved in the murder ends up dead, the local cattle buyer is implicated, the indians do a lot of hesitant speechifying, and the climax brings about an unlikely showdown as Walker must prove to the town that the villainous cattle buyer had a boss, someone we have suspected as being too helpful all along.<br /><br />There is a semi-subplot involving the death of Walker's family at the hands of Army raiders, and I think this would have been the force behind the series, had it been picked up. Instead, the film ends abruptly, and I kept waiting for scenes from next week's exciting episode. Because of the fade outs for nonexistent commercial breaks, the pacing is all off on this and its story jumps in fits.<br /><br />Walker is handsome, rugged, and has a voice deeper than a well. The rest of the cast is full of television actors you have probably seen in other television movies. Much of the action is pretty lame, and the violence is tepid. The first brother killed gets a shotgun blast midtorso, and falls without a scratch on him. I did not expect "Reservoir Dogs," but this is the wrong film to use to teach children about the evil of guns! Speaking of children, the Mexican kid here goes from "cute" to "aneurysm inducing annoyance" very quickly.<br /><br />If you dislike westerns, then you will dislike "Yuma." If you like westerns, then you will still dislike "Yuma." I cannot recommend it.<br /><br />This is unrated, but contains physical violence and gun violence.<br /><br />
Sunshine is a European import set in Hungary between 1880 and 1980, it's the epic story of Hungarian Jews, the Sonnenschein family. This name literally translates to Sunshine. The family has humble beginnings, then is prosperous, becomes upwardly mobile, changes it's name, and hopes to assimilate into Hungarian society so successive generations can advance professionally. The story is told through the eyes of the eldest son in each of three generations; Ralph Fiennes plays these three roles. For those who missed the WW-II and the Holocaust in Europe, the Sonnenschein' approach to life doesn't work out very well.<br /><br />Sunshine is being acclaimed as an artistic success, but it is an opportunity missed. The story line, dominated by world history, is predictable and transparent; this is reinforced with voice cover narration and newsreel footage. The family 'plot' lurches from one predictable event [ie. the Hapsburgs, WW-I, WW-II, Fascism, Communism, etc.] to the next with little continuity, depth or detail. The Jewish assimilation theme is unfocused, and important sub-themes [the 'secret' diary and family philosophy] that could have given the family character and credibility are l ost until the very end. Alternatively, the filmmakers provide generation continuity using common themes of incest / infidelity.<br /><br />Ralph Fiennes exhibits flashes of brilliance but his performance is far from award winning material. The "3 for 1" casting format is a viewer distraction and feels more like a cheap cinema gimmick than good theater. Sunshine is basically Hungarian "History Channel" material. It has the look and feel of Winds of War morphed with Forrest Gump morphed with Something About Sex.<br /><br />
In order to hold the public's attention for three hours, we were treated not so much to a family's romp through four generations and 120 years of Hungarian history, as to sexual liaisons with a sister, a sister-in-law and other adulteries. Oh yes, there was also a totally gratuitous rape. Having said all this, the first story of the relationship among the children of the patriarch was fresh and sensual - thanks to Jennifer Ehle.
What a long, drawn-out, pointless movie. I'm sure that historically this film is delightful but as entertainment goes it just doesn't make the grade. Ralph Fiennes has been in some fantastic movies, the English Patient, Schindler's List, but this one was such a let-down. It didn't seem to be going anywhere, his character at the beginning was so shallow and uptight it amazes me that his "sister" would ever have been interested at all. Don't bother paying to rent this movie, buy yourself a copy of the English Patient instead.
This is a film of immense appeal to a relatively well-defined group (of which I am not a part). I went to a preview of this movie not knowing what to expect - I ultimately found it disappointing. The history of a dreadfully dysfunctional (oftentimes downright "twisted") Hungarian Jewish family is not my cup of tea. An epic saga like this should really provide its viewers with something more in the end. Ultimately, pictures such as this are about the human condition - this picture cast almost no new light on any of its more meaningful facets.
NOTE TO ALL DIRECTORS: Long is not necessarily good. This movie is incredibly long. However not good. The scenes were drawn out way, way, way, way, way too long. The sex scenes were unnecessary, and often too long. The movie edited down to 2 hours and 10 minutes or so would have been exceptional, but alas it became so boringly long that I can only give it a 2 of 10. It is way below average.<br /><br />Some other problems also exist in this marathon. <br /><br />1) Ralph Fiennes plays a whole family tree. The guy who played the Great-grandfather looks nothing like him, but the Grandfather, Father and the son (who gives us constant unneeded voice over) are all Ralph Fiennes with different facial hair and the same basic bull-headed personality. No one seems to notice that each of these children look like a clone of the last, even though photos of them are being snapped at every turn. This one is minor, but if the movie hadn't been 3 weeks long it wouldn't have been so annoying.<br /><br />2) The fact that no news from Germany was even whispered for the longest time about Jews being rounded up and sent off is ridiculous. Some word would have gotten to them and the thought of trying to run off would probably have been discussed. The uncle in France would surely have sent warning to try and get them to leave.<br /><br />3) The love stories in this movie are totally wrong. You are spending forever telling us this thing and the development of relationships between main characters is extremely short. Suddenly... people are in love and almost instantly... married. Then having children. Then we draw things out for 6 centuries and forget about developing relationships. This again would not have stuck out so much in a 2 hour movie, but with time spent nothing was given to us.<br /><br />4) The ending was just bad. I don't want to spoil it for anyone, but you won't like it either...unless you are sadistic.<br /><br />The director/writer should be tortured with having to watch this bloated garbage on a weekly basis, I mean endless loop, oops they are the same thing. <br /><br />I wonder if Robert Redford did anything for this movie, I mean I think Istvan Szabo must be modeling his directing career after him. Long drawn out movie which totally ruins any substance in the movie. A short description of 'The Horse Whisperer', and Sunshine.<br /><br />Sunshine, perfect title. If you start watching while the sun is shining it will quite possibly be well after dark when you leave.
<br /><br />Back in his youth, the old man had wanted to marry his first cousin, but his family forbid it. Many decades later, the old man has raised three children (two boys and one girl), and allows his son and daughter to marry and have children. Soon, the sister is bored with brother #1, and jumps in the bed of brother #2.<br /><br />One might think that the three siblings are stuck somewhere on a remote island. But no -- they are upper class Europeans going to college and busy in the social world.<br /><br />Never do we see a flirtatious moment between any non-related female and the two brothers. Never do we see any flirtatious moment between any non-related male and the one sister. All flirtatious moments are shared between only between the brothers and sister.<br /><br />The weakest part of GLADIATOR was the incest thing. The young emperor Commodus would have hundreds of slave girls and a city full of marriage-minded girls all over him, but no -- he only wanted his sister? If movie incest is your cup of tea, then SUNSHINE will (slowly) thrill you to no end.
<br /><br />Back in his youth, the old man had wanted to marry his first cousin, but his family forbid it. Many decades later, the old man has raised three children (two boys and one girl), and allows his son and daughter to marry and have children. Soon, the sister is bored with brother #1, and jumps in the bed of brother #2.<br /><br />One might think that the three siblings are stuck somewhere on a remote island. But no -- they are upper class Europeans going to college and busy in the social world.<br /><br />Never do we see a flirtatious moment between any non-related female and the two brothers. Never do we see any flirtatious moment between any non-related male and the one sister. All flirtatious moments are shared between only between the brothers and sister.<br /><br />The weakest part of GLADIATOR was the incest thing. The young emperor Commodus would have hundreds of slave girls and a city full of marriage-minded girls all over him, but no -- he only wanted his sister? If movie incest is your cup of tea, then SUNSHINE will (slowly) thrill you to no end.
The sun should set on this movie, forever.<br /><br />It goes on forever (which isn't usually a bad thing - The English Patient, Schindler's List) but is SO tedious. The aging of the actors is unbelievable and so is the drawn-out never-ending story line which really seems to go nowhere.<br /><br />In short, a waste of talent and film.
Wow. I read about this movie and it sounded so awful that I had to see it, and my gosh, I can smell it in St Louis. Where do I start? National Lampoons was trying to follow up 5 years later on the success of Animal House, but they completely missed the mark. I'll go chronologically with these short flicks.<br /><br />Short Film #1 <br /><br />Poor Peter Riegert (Boon from Animal House). Apparently, he wasn't working back then, so the boys at National Lampoons probably called and said "hey, we're making a c**ppy movie, wanna be in it?" Peter was like "well, I'm not doing much these days, why not?" He was a great side character in Animal House, but he couldn't carry this sorry short flop for 5 minutes.<br /><br />POSSIBLE SPOILER The premise is funny enough, with Jason Cooper (Riegert) telling his wife to leave him, she needs to find herself. It's too weird that they're actually in a happy marriage. So he chases her off, there she goes, and Cooper is in charge of the kids. This, off course, leads to him burning the house down, losing several of the kids, and sleeping with an assortment of New York bimbos (including an ever so young Diane Lane). Then the wife comes back, wants the kids, and the film ends with a coin flip that'll decide the fate of the children. The idea was actually somewhat clever, but the director stunk. The characters all seem like they're falling asleep, they HAD to be doped up. Sorry Boon, your legacy was tarnished with this flop.<br /><br />Short Film #2 <br /><br />MORE SPOILERS <br /><br />Enter Dominique Corsaire. Pretty girl, recently finished college, not sure what to do with her life. So she becomes a slut, starts sleeping around with some mega rich guys, takes their money when they die, and she doesn't stop until she beds the most powerful man in the world, Fred Willard (Ooops, I mean the president of the United States). Once again, it could have been funny, and though I was happy that Corsaire (Ann Dusenberry in real life) wasn't afraid to bare all, her acting was horrible. What a waste of time.<br /><br />Short Film #3 <br /><br />I can't believe I made it this far. Here's the rookie cop Brent Falcone (Robby Benson) with veteran Stan Nagurski (Richard Widmark). Falcone is young, naive, thinks he can really help people, though he becomes cynical after being shot several thousand times. Nagurski, really, has just given up caring. He watches muggings, assaults, you name it, and never intervenes. He figures the world is lawless and he'll probably get sued if he does anything. Even Christopher Lloyd (at the end of Taxi's run) gets in on the action, getting the police called on him, committing a crime, but having his lawyer there to protect him. God bless America!!<br /><br />Once again, could have been funny, the performances were intentionally campy, but goodness, no energy whatsoever. Henry Jaglom and Bob Giraldi should be ashamed of having their names on this schlock. I think the writing wasn't bad, the ideas were there, but the execution was pulled off as well as the rescue attempt in the Iranian hostage crisis. If I had been a part of this film, I would want my name removed, it's horrible. Then again, that's why I watched it.<br /><br />The only good thing about this garbage is that Dr John did the film score (repeating "Going to the Movies" over and over again) and the film isn't much longer than an hour and a half. Show this one in film classes with the heading "what you should NEVER do in film-making." This script should have been left on the shelf because yep, it's that bad.
Facts about National Lampoon Goes to the Movies, a.k.a. National Lampoon's Movie Madness:<br /><br />1. The movie is poor, even by Lampoon's typical standards. 2. It's not funny. 3. No one goes to see a movie.<br /><br />So, after I finished watching it, I began wondering why on earth it's called 'National Lampoon Goes to the Movies,' and why it was ever conceived, much less actually made. It would be like calling Austin Powers 'An American Guy Goes to the Movies.' How lame. He isn't American, and he doesn't go to movies. None of the characters in Lampoon's so-called 'satire' are funny, and none go see movies, which causes a bit of a problem. I had hoped it would be something in the vein of Mystery Science Theater 3000, but it isn't.<br /><br />This was National Lampoon's first film after Animal House, although you couldn't tell it from the quality of film. Poorly developed, rough and amateurish by any standard, it induces headaches – not a good sign for an 89-minute movie that seems double the length.<br /><br />I've noticed a pattern. Really bad movies are typically renamed – and this little disaster falls under that category. It has two separate titles -- probably to help try and promote it to people too stupid to remember how bad a panning it received from home video critics in 1982/83. 'Hmm, Movie Madness – I've never heard of this movie before! Let's rent it!' And then, the realization: 'Hey, wait a minute, this is just National Lampoon Goes to the Movies!'<br /><br />It was shelved by MGM/UA, never to be released into theaters or DVD; it occasionally pops up on television a few times per decade, which is just about the only place you'll manage to find it.<br /><br />It's split up into three stories – a parody of self-enlargement videos, butter and corporate ruthlessness, and police brutality/cop-buddy films (I guess). The first segment stars Peter Riegert (Animal House) as a frustrated guy who divorces his wife and does some other stuff. I'm not sure what because it was so boring my mind started to drift. Until the sex scene popped up.<br /><br />Part II is about an exotic dancer raped by a stick of butter (don't ask) who decides to become Queen of the Margarine so she can cut off the supply of dairy products. Ouch! This contains the only funny line in the movie: 'Only I can make love with my son!' If you think that doesn't sound very funny, you're right – it's not. And just imagine – it's the highlight of this film!<br /><br />Part III is about a cop who chases down a serial killer (Christopher Lloyd) only to lose his nerve and shoot the guy. It does contain one funny scene but it's extremely over-acted – only Lloyd really exhibits any humor, playing his character dry and compassionate, yet strangely surreal. The part where he's choking his victim and the meek cop stands by watching it all unfold, at least, evoked a chuckle or two.<br /><br />It's a shame to watch such a cast of semi-famous names resort to low standards. The writers of each segment clearly believe that they're being very ironic and clever by spoofing so-called stereotypes – the fault being that the movie becomes one huge contradiction, favoring the standard T & A instead of plot; crude humor instead of witty dialogue; desperate performances instead of inspired ones. It's easy to see that none of the actors were enthralled with the material, muttering their lines, often so embarrassed they can seldom make eye contact with the camera.<br /><br />The movie isn't funny, as I said before. I laughed once, at only one line, and even then it was a halfhearted one. Two chuckles, a smile, and a very weak laugh. Compared to Movie Madness, a number of other decent comedies seem like regular laugh tracks.<br /><br />I like National Lampoon's Vacation series (or, at least three of four installments), and their classic Animal House, but their recent slew of direct-to-video bombs such as Golf Punks (with that great comic genius Tom Arnold) provide a good example of why their magazine went out of print more than a decade ago. It gets really old, really fast.<br /><br />Sad to see a new film, called Gold Diggers, is being released with their 'stamp of approval.' It's like condemning a film before it even hits theaters – maybe they should start not advertising their name all over the place…<br /><br />Distributor: 'This movie is bad. It gets the National Lampoon stamp of approval. That'll teach you not to make something so awful next time.'<br /><br />Forget the death penalty. Just stick a bunch of criminals in a room and make them watch this over and over every day for a month.<br /><br />It's so bad that I can't even begin to explain its putrid vileness. I give up.
National Lampoon was once a funny magazine. Whether you liked the stoner hippie days of the late sixties or the smug and sassy coke-head days of the seventies (when the comedy was fortified with plenty of naked babes) depends very much on your date of birth, but everyone agrees that by the early eighties, middle age had killed off whichever remaining sparks of anarchic humour that the drugs hadn't, and offerings like this film and the increasingly terrible spin-off records shot further holes in the hull. Outside of a nicely illustrated title sequence, there's absolutely nothing to recommend this singularly depressing stinkbug. If you make it through the baffling opening segment, 'Growing Myself', hoping things will get better, tough luck - they don't. Whoever thought the idea of a woman being brutally raped with a stick of butter was comedy gold deserved to have his head handed back to him on a platter of dog mess. If there's ever a global shortage of guitar picks, the negatives of this rambling, incoherent ragbag of crummy ideas and dire performances may well serve some purpose.
I chuckled a few times during this movie. I laughed out loud during the notarizing of the margarine company handover (pun intended).<br /><br />There are three segments in this movie. The first one is supposed to be a spoof of "woman 'grows up' and launches career" movies. The Tampax® box was the funniest thing in this segment. Most of the cast members aren't listed here on IMDb. They are the lucky ones. Few other people will be able to connect this thing to the ruin of their acting careers.<br /><br />The second segment is a spoof of "sharkish woman sleeps her way to the top and seizes control of huge industry" movies. Robert Culp has several funny moments, all physical humor, including the aforementioned handover. After his character dies the segment sinks lower and lower as Dominique Corsaire rises higher and higher. By the time she becomes First Lady I wanted to rip the cable out of the TV and watch "snow." I switched to Pakistani music videos instead. I don't understand Urdu, or whatever language the videos were in. It was still better than listening to the dialogue in this painfully dull "story."<br /><br />Then came "Municipalians" with the *big* stars, half of them on screen for less than a minute: Elisha Cook, Jr., Christopher Lloyd, Rhea Perlman, Henny Youngman, Julie Kavner, Richard Widmark and ... *Robby Benson.* It's supposed to be a spoof of "young cop teams with hardened, substance abusing older cop who needs retirement *badly*" movies. The horizontal flash bar on the police car is very impressive. It was interesting seeing old RTD buses, and a Shell gas station sign, and an American Savings sign -- none of them are around anymore. Nagurski's "Never stop anywhere you might have to get out the car" made me smile momentarily. Then they discuss how boring the young cop is. A lot. Back and forth about how boring he is. That was as boring as this description of how boring it is. Nagurski's Law Number Four, "Never go into a music store that's been cut into with an acetylene torch," made me think that the music store is a real business at the actual location the dispatcher gave. Thinking about that was more interesting than the set-up for the gag which followed. Young Falcone (Benson) gets shot. A lot. He becomes a hardened cop like Nagurski. The segment keeps going. On and on. And on. It won't stop. It rolls relentlessly onward no matter how many times you wish he'd just *die* already so this thing will end. It doesn't. It goes on and on and on.... Then a "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" episode which I've seen four times already comes on. Thank God! This abysmal movie ended while I went to get the mail.
I'll keep the review of this program as short as possible. Skip it. Low budget, not funny, lousy script. Acting not quite as bad as the writing, but still bad. That's all you need to know, but I will continue for the sake of writing more than necessary.<br /><br />This is a film with three segments, each one parodying some other type of movie. A MUCH funnier film with this same exact idea is "Movie Movie," with George C. Scott. Very obscure, but worth searching out. MM parodied films of the 1930's, and did it with elegance, precision and dry wit.<br /><br />This movie did not. It parodies three types of films, supposedly from the late 70's, early 80's era, only it is parodying films I've (almost) never heard of. The first is, I guess, a parody of "Kramer Vs. Kramer," in a way. Peter Reigert does his best with a dirt poor script. The second is a parody, of, I don't know what...a Danielle Steele novel? I mean, you might see a story like this on Lifetime TV, but in a movie theater? I mean, I remember the 70's, I was there. This is a soap-opera type parody about a fetching young woman who sleeps her way to power. These type of things usually parody themselves, so I don't see how this was even necessary.<br /><br />We are on somewhat easier ground with the third segment, "The Municipalians," which parodies cop movies. I noted elements of "The New Centurians" and some "Dirty Harry", both of which were almost 10 years old when the film was created. Yeah, nice and current. Robby Benson plays the idealistic young rookie (over-the-top wimpy) while Richard Widmark plays the grizzled veteran cop who drinks whiskey while sitting in the police car (OH! Stop! My sides! He's actually drinking booze in the Police car! How irreverent!) Note that this was the first film after "Animal House" to have the "National Lampoon" name attached. Wow. To go in five years from that classic flick to this pile of dung is nothing short of shocking. I could go on for hours about the sad decline that caused one of the most cutting-edge and original voices in American humor (that would be National Lampoon, the original magazine for about its first 10 years or so) to sell out and begin a long, slow slide into a world of crap, where now the magazine is long gone and it only exists as a brand name to slap on low-budget "comedy" films for a fee. Yet another reason why capitalism (and cocaine) sucks so bad.<br /><br />Anyway, this movie is a serious time suck. Don't waste your 90 minutes. I want mine back. On the positive side, Fred Willard's in it!
I just saw this Movie on a local TV Station (TV8's "Big Chuck and Little John" in Cleveland, Ohio) I had never heard of this movie and decided to watch it.<br /><br />I know of no thesaurus that can even come close to aiding me in describing how bad this movie really is. The script is awful. The acting, well other than one of two exceptions, is pointless since there is nothing in this material that merits any real effort.<br /><br />It looks like a bunch of little ideas, leftover from various writing sessions, that where thrown into a blender. It's not just funny. The "parody" aspect is strained at best. Some references where almost out of date (even for the time of it's release). No wonder I had never heard of it, it's really bad, worse than anything Saturday Night Live, MAD TV or even In Living color put out in their worst days.<br /><br />If you see it on TV, it is a great example of how NOT to make a movie. Whatever you do DON'T WASTE A CENT.<br /><br />Adam
This barely watchable film was a bit of an ordeal to sit through. None of the segments are good, but at least the first one was mildly amusing, and the middle one was somewhat imaginative. The final one was just plain brutal, and after sitting through two weak comedic shorts, the third one was truly painful to watch. Even by the low standards of a National Lampoon movie, this one seemed especially boring and joyless.
"National Lampoon Goes to the Movies" is the worst movie ever made, surpassing even the witless "Plan 9 from Outer Space." At least that movie was just inept; the Lampoon film, on the other hand, is both inept and mean. Once upon a time, movies used to respect their audiences' intelligence. This one, however, holds a fetid, rotting carcass up to our faces -- and then tries to rub our noses in it.<br /><br />Another reviewer on this site wrote that the only good parts of the movie are the nude scenes; and I agree, Misses Ganzel and Dusenberry do flash a bit of flesh, and very nice flesh it is. But the directors seem not to realize that even T&A needs a good story to surround it. There's none of that here.<br /><br />Perversely, the film makers save the worst for last. The third of the three segments is the ugliest of the trio. In this vignette, Robby Benson plays an eager-beaver young police officer reporting for duty on his first day on the job. He is paired with a weary, cynical oldtimer played by Richard Widmark. For just a moment, we are given hope that this film will end triumphantly. Surely, we think, the youngster's spunky attitude will rub off on the cynic and change him for the better.<br /><br />Forlorn hope! Instead, the cynic wins the day -- and the youngster's spark is doused forever. "National Lampoon Goes to the Movies" and heads right for the toilet, asking us to follow it down the drain. Nominally, this is a comedy. But where's the humor?
You can call this one a flop, and that's a very big one too! Quality isn't associated with the words National Lampoon, but at least the Vacation and Animal House entries were fun, but this offering has got to be their most inane feature to date that I've watched. Ugh! The three piece story crazily attempts to parody the clichés and stereotypes that flooded Hollywood genre films, which turns out to be completely unfunny and boorish dross.<br /><br />"Growing Yourself." - Jason a corporate lawyer decides to quit his job and split up with his wife so they both can grow and do what they always wanted to do. That's life, as Jason sees it and he takes over looking after the children, but his decision to follow this path might not be the right one.<br /><br />Talk about leaden, boring and stiff. There only real interest is the small performance of the lovely Diane Lane. The satirical element here seems to be pointing out something than actually just delivering it. The silly humour is strained, flat and particularly senseless. Peter Riegert's keeps it very deadpan in the lead role and Teresa Ganzel bubbles along in her role.<br /><br />"Success Wanters" - After just finishing collage Dominique Corsair gets a job as a stripper and is rape with some butter by the Dairy Company Presidents. For payback she becomes interested in the margarine industry and virtually works her way to the 'very" top.<br /><br />Probably the best one of the three, but the competition wasn't too great. The gags seem to want go more subtle with its sexual and power orientated tone, but still they do feel more tacky and forced. The idea had something promising and inventive to build on, but the languid pacing begins to wear thin by the end and disastrous dialogue don't do it any favours at all. The humour tries, but more often doesn't come off, despite the hunger. The seductively Ann Dusenberry is pretty cold and manipulative throughout (well after the painful ordeal) and likes to gracefully bare it all quite a bit. Even the skimpy stripper outfit seems to get full workout for the opening half of the story. Popping up in amusing minor cameos ranged from Dick Millar, Mary Woronov, Olympia Dukakis, Fred Willard, Robert Culp and a favourite turn by Joe Spinell.<br /><br />"Municipalians" - A serial killer who leaves copies of his driver's licence behind after each murder, is being tracked down by an enthusiastically naive rookie cop and his old grizzled partner. However the young cop learns that being tough is the only way to go, when the pair encounter one situation after another.<br /><br />Stupid! Oh yeah. Sure if you're going to spoof something extremely over-the-top, make sure laughter will stream off it. Obviously they forgot that! Even at its 30 minutes running, boy does it drag! Robby Benson's gratingly mock performance got rather overbearing with a wearied Richard Widmark doing very little as his partner. Christopher Lloyd underplays the role of serial killer, but his creepily wry and sympathetic performance works well and pretty much shows up the other leads. Elisha Cook Jr., Rhea Perlman and Harry Reems appear. When the jokes come, they truly feel out of sync and get rather stale with its repetitiveness of making fun of these cop clichés.<br /><br />In all, the idiotic material laced with its skits comes across as disposable, and the unbearable script is basically inept and witless. Only one or two few gags make it out each segment, but really there's too many cheap stinkers or plain misses which stick in your head. This is because it virtually becomes what it's trying to poke fun at and this basically shows in each story. It loses sight. The performances range from hot to cold, but who can't deny the embarrassment that's felt on most of their faces. Director Bob Giraldi's first taste is a vapid one for "Growing Yourself" , but "Success Wanters" showed some minor flourishes of mild effectiveness. Henry Jaglom does a labouredly jaded job on "Municipalians" . Rick Meyerowitz's vividly crass drawings that opens the film, are neatly devised and go on to set the style and mood.<br /><br />This low-brow comedy flunks it by overplaying it, with the main interested being derived by the familiar cameos. But really, is it worth going through this putridly lame and restless get-up, just to spot them. Well, that's up to you.
"National Lampoon Goes to the Movies" (1981) is absolutely the worst movie ever made, surpassing even the witless "Plan 9 from Outer Space." The Lampoon film unreels in three separate and unconnected vignettes, each featuring different performers. The only common thread is the total lack of any redeeming qualities.<br /><br />Well, maybe there is one. Another reviewer on this site has said that the fleeting nude shots are nice, and he's right. Misses Ganzel and Dusenberry flash their assets prettily, in part one and part two, respectively. But their glamorous displays are, alas, wasted. The directors seem to have forgotten that even T&A needs a credible story to surround it, and there's none in sight.<br /><br />The third segment, starring Robby Benson and Richard Widmark, is the most disgusting of the three, and an unfortunate choice as the windup of this film. Benson plays an eager-beaver young policeman, brightly reporting for his first day of duty, ready to rid the streets of evil. He is paired with an old, cynical cop played by Widmark, and when these oil-and-water partners set out on their first patrol together, we sense a possible redemption of the film's earlier failures. Maybe, just maybe, the cynical old-timer will be reformed by his new partner's stalwart sense of duty and loyalty. Maybe all will end happily after all. But alas, this movie heads straight for the toilet, with no redemption, no happy ending, no coherent story of any kind.<br /><br />Before "National Lampoon Goes to the Movies," I thought I had already seen the worst schlock that Hollywood could possibly turn out. Unfortunately, I hadn't seen the half of it.<br /><br />
"National Lampoon Goes to the Movies" (1981) is, simply put, the worst movie ever made, far lamer than even the inept "Plan 9 from Outer Space."<br /><br />The Lampoon film is told in three segments, each one supposedly a spoof of a conventional movie genre, but each one landing at our feet with a sickening thud. There is no rhyme or reason for these execrable vignettes, and no discernible story lines.<br /><br />Another reviewer on this site has written that the only good points about the film are the nude scenes. True, Misses Ganzel and Dusenberry do flash a bit of flesh, and very nice it is too. But the directors seem not to realize that even T&A needs a good story to surround it. There's none of that here.<br /><br />Probably the worst of the three segments is the last one, featuring Robby Benson and Richard Widmark. Here, we see Benson as a young, eager-beaver policeman being paired with a cynical oldtimer played by Widmark. And for just a moment, those of us who are still watching this odious cinematic exercise are heartened by the thought that we are about to see a redemptive tale about how the young, idealistic cop brings about a purifying change in the old-timer's approach to police work. But no such luck. As we've said, this film has no redeeming values. It is sickening all the way to the final fade-out -- which, perversely, is stretched out longer than it should last on the screen. Apparently the film makers knew they had a bad thing going, and wanted to make the least of it.
This early role for Barbara Shelley(in fact,her first in Britain after working in Italy),was made when she was 24 years old,and it's certainly safe to say that she made a stunning debut in 1957's "Cat Girl." While blondes and brunettes get most of the attention(I'll always cherish Yutte Stensgaard),the lovely auburn-haired actress with the deep voice always exuded intelligence as well as vulnerability(one such example being 1960's "Village of the Damned," in which her screen time was much less than her character's husband,George Sanders).She is the sole reason for seeing this drab update of "Cat People," and is seen to great advantage throughout(it's difficult to say if her beauty found an even better showcase).Her character apparently sleeps in the nude,and we are exposed to her luscious bare back when she is awakened(also exposed 8 years later in 1965's "Rasputin-The Mad Monk").The ravishing gown she wears during most of the film is a stunning strapless wonder(I don't see what held that dress up,but I'd sure like to).All in all,proof positive that Barbara Shelley,in a poorly written role that would defeat most actresses,rises above her material and makes the film consistently watchable,a real test of star power,which she would find soon enough at Hammer's studios in Bray,for the duration of the 1960's.
The film is a bit tedious. It's mostly a silent film, with the bulk o the story provided through a series of voice-overs. While making a silent film like this is not such a bad idea, this is one of those films where the lack of dialog and the repetitive early scenes make it simply tedious. You don't understand the reason for the tedium until well into the picture, and by then it's too late. The first 40 minutes of film is something of a slow piece of Mexican soft porn, and unimaginative soft porn at that. Later in the film the style of the first 40 minutes starts to makes sense, but it's too late, because by then the audience is lost. There is some nice location shooting at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. I've often wondered why more films aren't shot there. The campus is built on the edge of lava fields that lend the campus a very otherworldly feel. My biggest problem with the film is that the director/writer has made the film the way he wanted to see it without regard for how a viewer who doesn't know the story will view it. You can't ignore the audience when you tell a story.
This could have been the gay counterpart to Gone With The Wind given its epic lenght, but instead it satisfied itself by being a huge chain of empty episodes in which absolutely nothing occurs. The characters are uni-dimensional and have no other development in the story (there's actually no story either) than looking for each other and kissing. It's a shame that an interesting aesthetic proposition like having almost no dialog is completely wasted in a film than makes no effort in examining the psychology of its characters with some dignity, and achieving true emotional resonance. On top of that, it pretends to be an "art" film by using the worst naive clichés of the cinematic snobbery. But anyway, if someone can identify with its heavy banality, I guess that's fine.
I gave this loooooooooooong film a "2" because of the attractive actors and semi-sexy love scenes. Otherwise, if you can't read like a speed-reader you will NEVER get through the subtitles that try to keep up with the Spanish speed talking! And, what the hell is going on in the plot if you can't read the subtitles. Endless stares and goof-eyes and constant rejection. Just boring after an hour or so. Some good cinematography but also some so DARK you think your screen has burned out. How this won anything I will never understand. Difficult to talk about "ACTING" since the lead actors seem to just stare and look lovingly at each other when they are not pushing each other away. The character Geraldo is so attractive that it is difficult to believe that ANYONE would push him away. And what is with his mother? I just plain didn't GET IT most of the time except that there were three guys that all seem to have had a history with each other....but never figured out who was whose "EX."
how many minutes does it take to paint a poem? in this film much too long. <br /><br />it tells the story about the impact of a first love between two schoolboys. <br /><br />the boys can't withhold touching each other and making love. after a while one gets distracted by a brief encounter with a sensual guy in the disco and that raises doubt: exploration, fantasy, longing, lust and feelings of loosing grip on your love are themes that are all extensively painted with music, close-ups and silent scenes like telling a poem. but it really takes too long, annoying long, shame, the effort was promising
Boring, long, pretentious, repetitive, self-involved – this move felt like a bad date. Worse, the tedious art-school direction -- with a heavy-handed use of the whirling shot that gets so overdone it almost made me throw up –- is constantly screaming to be noticed. Add the thinnest of plots and virtually no dialogue, and the film begins to feel like a four hour epic about 30 minutes in. It gets worse: instead of dialogue there are poorly written voice-overs AND quotes and songs that comment all too obviously on the characters. Really loud opera music too. Blame it all on the director.<br /><br />The actors are all quite good. The lead actor Miguel Angel Hoppe is particularly suited for film stardom. He and the other actors have some tender erotic moments. Even these start to get boring after 5 minutes however, and one wonders if the director is auditioning for a Bel Ami porn job. The stunning college campus architecture as a location in Mexico City is inspiring. How come universities in the US are so bland (SFSU, UC, etc.)? But wait for the DVD on this film. You'll want to use the fast scan button – a lot.
This movie is simply far too long, far too repetitive, with the male nudity and sexuality being (as this is said as a gay with my own collection of adult titles) far too gratuitous and unnecessary. Much of the first third of the movie could have been cut down to ten minutes and been equally as effective without trying the patience (and stamina) of an audience.<br /><br />I saw this movie on an early Saturday afternoon, with a film festival audience; the type of crowd that tends to be more adventuresome, interested in more experimental or atypical films, such as one without much dialog, shorts, foreign films. The near sell out crowd in an approximate 275 seat theater started to dribble out within the first half of the movie and while the great majority did stay for the "pay off" (which never actually arrived), I have never, in about 14 years of attending any number of film festivals, experimental, gay and otherwise, seen such a large number of people walk away from a film. <br /><br />This movie could easily have been cut down by more than half and been as effective as it was. It also could have gone in different directions, still with a shorter running time, and been far more effective.<br /><br />As it currently exists, this is not something that one can readily recommend or one I would have any desire to watch again.
... and yet, we were told, there was another hour and 20 minutes left to go.<br /><br />Why, oh, why wasn't there an editor to tell the writer/director to snip, snip, snip? Apparently that writer/director has previously done shorts; as a short, this would have been okay. But the lack of dialogue starts to grate after twenty minutes. The lack of much music glares. The background noises (talking, traffic, and especially a ubiquitous helicopter) get old really fast. But the worst failure is in story. There is precious little beyond a short.<br /><br />After an hour we saw variations of the same scene over and over again. I nearly screamed at the screen, "We get it, we get it!!!!!" It's amazing that after that left the theatre, we could drive home, watch the Daily Show and parts of the Colbert Report, get ready for bed,and know that the audience was STILL trapped in the theatre.<br /><br />It's not enough to indulge your vision. You have to give the audience enough to share your vision.
Just saw this at the Chicago Film Festival - avoid it at all costs unless you have sleep problems. It is a film filled with pretensions - it opens with a minor quote from "Hiroshima mon amour" and it's all downhill from there. Camera work - imagine a child trying to imitate Wong Kar Wai. Story line - Smokey Robinson and the Miracles' "The Love I saw in You Was Just a Mirage" expanded from 3 minutes to over 2 hours but filled with repetition. For butt numbing pain this film ranks with the benches at the Methodist church my parent dragged me to when I was a kid. I want 2+ hours of my life refunded. Julian Hernandez's promoter prefaced the viewing with comment that the film was "controversial" - that is true only for the film's narcotic effect.
Just another film that exploits gratuitous frontal male nudity; awful acting, plus, the lovemaking scenes are the most un-sexy I've ever seen (and this is not about me not linking the idea of two young men making love, since I'm gay).<br /><br />Again, as in Mil nubes de paz, Julian Hernandez directed an incredibly pretentious film with a story that makes enough argument for a short film of about five minutes but manages to make a 2 hour film with it... And this time, there isn't even the issue of racism and commodification in the Mexican gay community to talk about! God gracious have mercy on us!
This star-studded British/Spanish co-production looks great, what you can see of it. I have three versions, two VHS, one DVD, and all are terribly cropped, so badly that it looks as if buildings are having conversations with each other. Few films suffer as badly from pan and scan as this one, as director Robert Parrish seems to have been so enamored with the widescreen process that he tended to use both sides of the screen at once, neglecting the middle. Another user comments that we see the entire inhabitants of a church massacred at the beginning; not in any of the copies I have. There are some abrupt cuts of peasants firing their rifles, one Mexican officer is shot, Shaw and Landau celebrating, and that's it. We never find out why Shaw has become a priest (if he really is), we never find out what happens to Don Carlos (Savalas) although I suspect he was called home to star in Kojak, as his departure seems arbitrary. And there is a strange flashback sequence where Michael Craig (Mysterious Island) is dancing around in a bowler hat and bad suit in the great old English music hall tradition to the 1960 hit BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS, not sung by Johnny Horton here but with some lyrics I've never heard before. On the plus side, the location is great, a huge old ruined fortress with Escher-style stairs leading nowhere, some nice scenery-chewing by Robert Shaw, and good performances by Stevens, Landau, Lettieri, and Telly Savalas as Telly Savalas. I didn't really like this film, but I haven't exactly seen it. I will seek the widescreen version and make my decision then.
There are some really terrific ideas in this violent movie that, if executed clearly, could have elevated it from Spaghetti-western blandness into something special. Unfortunately, A TOWN CALLED HELL is one of the worst edited movies imaginable! Scenes start and end abruptly, characters leave for long stretches, the performances (and accents) of the actors are pretty inconsistent, etc.<br /><br />Robert Shaw is a Mexican(!) revolutionary who, after taking part in wiping out a village, stays on to become a priest(!)...ten years later the village is being run by "mayor" Telly Salavas. Stella Stevens arrives looking for revenge on the man who killed her husband. Colonel Martin Landau arrives looking for Shaw. They all yell at each other A LOT and they all shoot each other A LOT. Fernando Rey is in it too (as a blind man). The performances aren't bad, but they are mightily uneven. Savalas has an accent sometimes as does Landau (who is really grating here). Shaw and Rey prove that they are incapable of really embarrassing themselves and Stevens looks pretty foxy (if a bit out of place amongst the sweaty filth).
This British-Spanish co-production is one of the countless films shot in Spain in the wake of the unexpected phenomenal success enjoyed by the Italian "Spaghetti" Westerns and, as is typical of such genre efforts, features an eclectic assortment of established and emerging international stars: Robert Shaw, Telly Savalas, Stella Stevens, Martin Landau, Fernando Rey, Michael Craig, Al Lettieri, Dudley Sutton, Antonio Mayans, etc. Ironically, however, this incoherent mess of a movie serves as a shining example as to why that most American of film genres became a dying breed in the 1970s and is nowadays practically (or is that officially?) extinct.<br /><br />I really wanted to like this film, not only because the Western is one of my favorite types of movies but also because it had all the qualities, including an intriguing premise, to be a good one - not to mention the fact that my father had purchased a paperback edition of A TOWN CALLED BASTARD's novelization following its original release! As it is, the film's sole virtue (if, indeed, it can even be called that) is its sheer eccentricity: for instance, Stevens, playing a widow out for revenge on the man who betrayed her revolutionary husband, sleeps inside a coffin(!) driven around in a carriage by her dumb manservant(?) Sutton; Savalas, as a blood-thirsty renegade, who at first appears to be the film's main villain, is unceremoniously dispatched by his own henchman Lettieri very early on in the picture; the villain of the piece, then, turns out to be Landau who, in the film's very first scene, is seen pillaging side-by-side our legendary hero-turned-priest Shaw!; Fernando Rey, playing a blind peasant, is the only one who can identify rebel Shaw who, in the end turns out to have been merely a front for...well, nevermind! As you can see, the plot is very confusing and it gets stranger from there! The production team responsible for this film were also behind other Western fare around the same period of time, like CUSTER OF THE WEST (1967), BAD MAN'S RIVER (1971), CAPTAIN APACHE (1971) and PANCHO VILLA (1972).
"A Town Called Hell" (aka "A Town Called Bastard"), a British/Spanish co-production, was made on the heels of Clint Eastwood's success in the Italian made "Man With No Name" trilogy. The template used in most of these films was to hire recognizable American actors, whose careers were largely in decline and dub their voices. This film is no exception except for the fact that they used some British actors as well.<br /><br />It's difficult to summarize the plot, but here goes. The story opens with rebels or whatever, led by Robert Shaw and Marin Landau raiding a church and killing everyone inside, including the priest. Fast forward to the subject town a few years later where the Shaw character is masquerading as a priest. The mayor of the town (Telly Savalas) is a brutal leader who thinks nothing of meting out justice with his gun.<br /><br />Throw into the mix a grieving widow Alvira (Stella Stevens) who is searching for her husband's killer. Add to this the fact that she rides around in a hearse lying dead like in a coffin for God knows why. After the mayor is murdered by his henchman La Bomba (Al Lettieri) the town is invaded by a federale Colonel (Landau) in search of a rebel leader (I'm sorry but the name escapes me). The Colonel takes over the town and begins summarily executing the townsfolk to force them to reveal the identity of the leader.<br /><br />Even though they opened the film side by side, its difficult to tell from the dialog that the Landau and Shaw characters know each other. A blind man (Fernando Rey) claims he can identify the rebel leader by touching his face. He does so and..............................................<br /><br />I'm sure the principals regretted making this film. It's just plain awful and well deserving of my dreaded "1" rating. Shaw spends most of the film fixating his trademark stare at whomever is handy. Even Landau can't salvage this film. The beautiful Ms. Stevens is totally wasted here too. Having just made Peckinpah's "The Ballad of Cable Hogue" the previous year, I found it odd that she would appear in this mess of a movie. Savalas made several of these pictures, ("Pancho Villa" and "Horror Express" come to mind) during he pre-Kojak period.Michael Craig is also in it somewhere as a character called "Paco".<br /><br />Fernando Rey appeared in many of these "westerns" although he would emerge to play the villain in the two "French Connection" films. Al Lettieri would also emerge with a role in "The Godfather" (1972) and go on to other memorable roles before his untimely death in 1975.<br /><br />In all fairness, the version I watched ran only 88 minutes rather than the longer running times of 95 or 97 minutes listed on IMDb, however I can't see where an extra 7 or 8 minutes would make much difference.<br /><br />Avoid this one.
This is definitely one of the weirder 70's movies out there, and it's most notable for kicking off a decade of Bigfoot hysteria. It is also notable for the little touches of insanity throughout the movie, especially when the dark, moody first half is replaced by a MUSICAL INTERLUDE of all things (as another user pointed out, one of the songs is dedicated to a character, Travis Crabtree, who paddles around in a canoe for a while, then... leaves, never to be seen again). Although it's painfully dated now, i's still a fun scary movie to show to kids, and anyone who enjoys either Bigfoot lore or 70's hillbilly culture is bound to get a kick out of this. My favorite part: a guy gets so scared that he jumps headfirst through a door (!?) and the narrator explains he went unconscious from "shock." Uh, I'd say breaking a door with his head is more likely why he went unconscious, but whatever.<br /><br />4/10 stars, or 7/10 if you like bad Americana.
This grainy film has a cult following and one of those word-of-mouth features you just had to see. Maybe hard to believe, but there is a rural community in southwest Arkansas, Fouke, that knows the legend is true. This tale is told in documentary-style narrated by Vern Stierman and filmed in actual locations talking to actual folks involved. The legend changes with the telling, but during the late 60s and most of the 70s the surrounding area of Fouke was visited by a Bigfoot-like creature that traveled along Boggy Creek. Long limbed with three toes and standing over 7 foot tall, this hirsute creature periodically caused damage and frightened the 'bejeebers' out of most of the community. I personally crossed over the small Boggy Creek bridge in 1974, and yes the hair on the back of my neck did rise. Of course it was about 1 a.m. in the rain. By the time I arrived in Shreveport, I was laughing.
I was expecting a B-Movie French musical. After all, Dhéry, Blanche, DeFunès were superstars of low budget French films of that time. And it is in color! But I have hallucination in this unbelievable one hour 30 of pure mediocrity. Musical numbers are awful, and comedy is absolutely boring and stupid. And the songs? What songs? This is just a succession of bad numbers, one after another. The only one very rare thing about that thing is the nudity of women. It was not familiar at that time. In fact, some numbers are just there to show us topless women. It adds to the mediocrity! And try to find young Michel Serrault, the future great actor of French cinema, in a bit part as a musician, in his very first movie. Good luck!
I purchased this movie on blu-ray because it promised great visuals and music. I was also a great fan of a similar movie... Baraka. The movie is very much styled after Baraka, wide angles, very similar shots with cameras set to capture long time passage in each shot. Even some of the scenes were identical (the street with traffic). Whereas Baraka told a great story, juxtaposing nature, man-made environments, spirituality, and horrors of the world in an engrossing fashion and great music, this movie just jumped from shot to shot with no encompassing story, mediocre musical score, and then.... POOF, it's finished! I thought there must be some sort of mistake! History of the world? Half the movie is Egypt and landscape (looks like Arizona, but I didn't bother to check). Seriously folks, this is horrible, rent it if you must, but do not buy it. The filmmakers should be ashamed of themselves for putting this out.
I wasn't particularly impressed by this movie that has lackluster music and only lasts 40 minutes. Thank God, because I was falling asleep. I makes excellent use of time lapse photography to display the passage of time in the movement of light and shadow, people, water, clouds, etc. Unfortunately, that's all it is.<br /><br />My preference is for its predecessor, the excellent Koyaanisqatsi made in 1983 at 87 minutes and to prove that a sequel can be better than the original, Powaqqatsi made in 1988 running 90 minutes.<br /><br />Try them both.
Who ever wrote the two or three glowing reviews were either involved in the making of this film, term used loosely, or bank rolling it, and should the latter be the case, I would want my seven dollars back! The actors, again term used loosely, are awful, in fact almost none of them did anything ever again which is a relief. The scenery and everything about this screams, we had 7 dollars to work with and a day to do it in. Was this filmed in someones back yard? Everything about this project says, low budget. The actors at best were D list. Do not waste your time, unless of course you want to take it back and try to get the rental back. The lead bad guy looks like that punk from the 70s show that ended up marrying his grandmother dummee moore. My local blockbuster video store lists this as the movie most returned with sad commentary attached. Even as a 99 cent rental this flick gathers dust. Someone really must have owed some favors. This is a super stinker and I give it 10 turds.
We rented the DVD hoping for a good western. The film was pretty and the scenes reasonable, but the ideas were very bad. Here are my problems with the film.<br /><br />In the first part, why exactly did the bad guy kill the mine owner? Not really connected to the movie except to establish how bad he was and to have a hideout.<br /><br />The bank employee gone bad just acts too poorly to convincingly decide to hire killers to off his employers. At least keep us guessing. No character developed at all for the bank owners or the bank employee.<br /><br />Very long delay in much of anything happening.<br /><br />Absurd premise that Martin still needed to see the judge after the gang confessed to killing the in-laws. Even more absurd that he confesses to judge and judge will not listen to the sheriff guy. even more ridiculous that Martin his hung and rope breaks then the sheriff takes him at gunpoint to finally head back to his town and save his wife from the bad bank employee. Wouldn't he just return after the quick dispatch of the gang to save wife and arrest bad bank guy? Just send the judge a note that gang confessed before being killed on trail????!!! Overall, very sad acting and no point to movie.
THE DECOY is one of those independent productions, made by obvious newcomers, but it doesn't have all the usual flaws that sink most such films. It has a definite story, it has adequate acting, the photography is very good, the hero and the bad guy are both formidable men, and the background music isn't overdone. This is a DVD New Release, so people will be looking here to see if it's worthwhile. I don't know where all the 10's come from, as there's no way this film is that good --- even if you're the filmmaker's mother. <br /><br />The last film we saw at a theater was Warner's trashing of J K Rawlings much-loved and excellent book, Order of the Phoenix. In comparing THE DECOY with PHOENIX, consider that PHOENIX (as made by Warners) had no story, certainly no acting was allowed by the director, the photography was dreadful, and the wall-of-sound overbearing musical score was just a mess. I rated Phoenix a "1" because the scale doesn't go any lower. THE DECOY is 4 times better -- in all regards.<br /><br />If you have the opportunity, give THE DECOY a chance. Remember, this isn't "Decoy 3 -- the Shootout" or any such nonsense. It's original. If your expectations aren't overblown by the foolish "10" scores here, you might just enjoy the film on its own terms.
Great western I hear you all say! Brilliant first effort! Well I'm not sure what film you all watched but it must have been a different one to the one I saw. Great westerns or indeed good films of any genre have characters you can believe in and this film had none! The acting was poor to say the least and I couldn't care less about any of the characters, making the whole film pointless. the story was too big for the makers and perhaps they should try their hand at making straight to TV low budget rubbish like you see on those "FACT OR FICTION" programmes on sci-fi.<br /><br />Please, if you are looking for a good film, a great western or even just an enjoyable hour and a half, please look elsewhere.
After reading the other reviews for this film I am of the opinion that the high markers are probably paid studio lackeys as the film I saw was absolutely dire, with wooden acting, lacklustre scripting and plodding predictable directing, one of the few plus points has to be the stunning scenery as this film features some stunning backdrops with great sweeping vistas and dramatic skies and wide open prairies, sadly when the most memorable thing in a film is the part featured behind the actors this has to be a warning sign as to the quality of the movie, all in all a thoroughly uninspiring addition to the western genre which even at the very reasonable price it can be obtained on DVD is best to avoid.
This movie rivals "Plan 9" as one of the dumbest movie ever made. Always be concerned when the same person is the:<br /><br />1. Star 2. Director 3. Producer 4. Writer 5. Stuntman, and 6. Editor. Unfortunately, Justin Kreinbrink did all 6 jobs! IMDb shows that he and his father were western 'stunt men'. So maybe that was the problem. <br /><br />Here's just ONE example from the film: in the film the sheriff has to take a witness to another town for protection. Of course, the bad guys find out and are waiting for them. But, what happens? The good guys are riding along and a shot rings out and hits a tree near them. When the camera shows us the bad guys they're all just sitting on a log, chatting. What's wrong with this picture!<br /><br />I could go on. Perhaps this film was meant as a comedy. If so, it didn't do that well either.
When his in-laws are viciously murdered by a gang of thugs, a young deputy is ordered to escort his mute friend, forced to take the rap by the gang, to Tucson for trial and ending up having to face the real killers along the way.<br /><br />The Decoy is a real-life decoy sent to video stores to lure you away from better films! It's talky, illogical, slow, and ultimately very boring.<br /><br />There's some good costumes, sets, and photography but nothing else is good about this vanity project from writer/director/producer/star Justin Kreinbrink, who apparently had too much money on his hands.<br /><br />They used to make westerns like this, that were under an hour long. Trim this of about half it's length and you might have something watchable.
In a nutshell: this is a cookie cutter romantic comedy that really WANTS and TRIES to be something more. It wants to be Harold and Maude, Annie Hall, The Graduate. It wants to be deep and human. It has interesting camera shots, lighting, music, editing, all of which give it the feel of an important movie. The dialog is smart -- at times. There are some "laugh out loud" moments.<br /><br />But here's what keeps it from ultimately being anything more than a formulaic late-night-cable, in-flight, time-killer: <br /><br />1. David Schwimmer -- how many times can Joe sad-sack puppy dog stare blankly into space with his jaw hanging open before it starts to get annoying? Maybe some drool would have helped.<br /><br />2. Gwenneth Paltrow -- she's really flat here and not just in the chest. Her role is supposed to be this lively, nice, caring girl who just keeps getting herself into wrong situations, is very confused as a result, and that is why a sad-sack loser like Schwimmer has any chance with her. But Gwenneth plays her very dull. Combine this with puppy-dog drool-face (above) and you have very little chemistry to care about.<br /><br />(I kept picturing someone else in this role -- Kate Hudson for example.) <br /><br />3. The script and the plot -- the stuff that happens just basically doesn't ring true; all the problems get wrapped up in the end with such a neat and tidy bow on top that it seems like a whistle blew and the script writers just said "oops, time to wrap it up, got a train to catch!" So they pulled out the Hollywood formula book, checked off all the boxes, and went home.
Gwyneth Paltrow is absolutely great in this movie, but the story is, unfortunately, half-baked, and David Schwimmer's energy is sort of like cold mush. When he closes his mouth and gets serious for a moment or two there is a rush of what-might-have-been. Who thought 25-year-old kiddies would be entertaining?
I'm not to keen on The Pallbearer, it's not too bad, but just very slow at the times. As the movie goes on, it gets a little more interesting, but nothing brilliant. I really like David Schwimmer and I think he's good here. I'm not a massive Gwyneth Paltrow fan, but I don't mind her sometimes and she's okay here. The Pallbearer is not a highly recommended movie, but if you like the leads then you might enjoy it.
I wish I had my rental money back from this piece of trash so I could donate it to the Home for Aged Actors. Total rubbish!! Five people watched this movie at the same time and there wasn't one single laugh to be heard, lots of yawning though. Paltrow's a beautiful woman and she was the best thing to look at in the entire so-called comedic movie..
no comment - stupid movie, acting average or worse... screenplay - no sense at all... SKIP IT!
The Pallbearer is a disappointment and at times extremely boring with a love story that just doesn't work partly with the casting of Gwyneth Paltrow (Julie). Gwyneth Paltrow walks through the entire film with a confused look on her face and its hard to tell what David Schwimmer even sees in her.<br /><br />However The Pallbearer at times is funny particularly the church scene and the group scenes with his friends are a laugh but that's basically it. Watch The Pallbearer for those scenes only and fast forward the rest. Trust me you aren't missing much.
... You can't exactly shove her out of the way, because she's old; and if you were being charitable you might say that the ponderous gait she ambles along with isn't really her fault. Nevertheless, in these circumstances it's often difficult not to become irritated when you find yourself dragging your heels in her wake. So it is with "The Pallbearer", an attempt to do something 'different' with a romantic comedy that in this way is chiefly hamstrung because the venue is all wrong; sort of like showing off your 'breakdancing' skills at a grandparent's funeral.<br /><br />To further extend the metaphor (perhaps unwisely!); like the old lady, one starts to feel with the set-up of the film that its demise cannot be far away. Sure enough, this particular 'death' is agonizingly protracted, slowly chipping away at our reserves of empathy in tiny little increments, as depressingly we come to the realisation that the proceedings are only headed in one direction: Downhill. Its laboured attempts at 'humour' can be seen coming a mile off - again, not unlike the grim inevitability of death!<br /><br />Returning once again to the image of 'dragging heels', the main character, Tom, is shown to ceaselessly repeat this action throughout his life. If there are indeed degrees of 'pathetic', then this sap is possibly a good few notches ahead of Schwimmer's other - more famous - role. To find oneself in the awkward position of having to align audience sympathies with a character even MORE 'clueless' than Ross is certainly a tough ask even for as 'able' a comic performer as Schwimmer, but I guess he can find fault with himself for signing on to some seriously 'echoing' situations in the first place.<br /><br />How will he ever escape his most famous portrayal if he's picking scripts where the characters could almost be 'interchangeable', even if the situations aren't? A man with a longstanding high-school crush on someone he hasn't seen for years. Sound familiar... ? Paltrow is nothing else if not bland in her 'Rachel' role, but all of this going over old ground would perhaps be forgivable if the noticeable DIFFERENCES present weren't so incongruous as well. Unfortunately, the romantic element is so well-worn it's threadbare, and the 'backdrop' is so inappropriate that it seems the best way to describe the resultant film is as something of a 'stiff'... ! 2/10.
Some 25 year olds behave like teenagers, coping with the death of a high-school mate, trying to find their purpose in live and love. The script is so lame that I had to force myself to even finish this movie. Stay away from it. 1/10
This film is advertised as a clever romantic comedy. It is neither clever nor romantic and it is definitely not an effective comedy. The fortunes of the well meaning yet pathetic character, "Tom", oscillate from one extremely embarrassing disaster to another. The only saving graces are the competent performance by Toni Collete and the frequency with which we glimpse Paltrow's pleasant face. Overall, to be avoided!
The interplay between the characters is a moral disaster. You end up disliking most of the characters and you don't particularly like any of them.<br /><br />Even the two main characters played by David and Gwen are so badly written that you really don't care one bit about them. The movie has no plot, no direction and no purpose. The single redeeming quality of the movie was to treat it as a glimpse into the messed up lives of a few losers - and that's hardly stimulating even as an afternoon waste.
Life is really too short for movies like this. I knew it couldn't be good when I realized what I'd already suspected - that David Schwimmer would be playing the exact same type of person he plays in 'Friends'.<br /><br />Let's face it, either the guy can't play anything but a nerd or he is never offered any other parts. I have a feeling that it's a mixture of both.<br /><br />And I have to say that it is extremely difficult to like a movie that utterly wastes the considerable talents of Gwyneth Paltrow, Barbara Hershey, Toni Collette and Carol Kane!!!
Let's see...I'm trying to practice finding the positive in everything, so what kind thing can I say about the Pallbearer?<br /><br />I know! The performances were -- no, that won't work as they succeeded in draining all personality from Gwyneth Paltrow, usually so vibrant, and ended up creating caricatures out of Carol Kane and Barbara Hershey...<br /><br />Oh - how 'bout the story -- nope. That isn't gonna fly either, as it was doze-inducing. What was the genre anyway? It wasn't funny, that rules out comedy. It wasn't interesting enough to be dramatic. Was that a romance between Schwimmer and Paltrow? I have to ask, as I can't be sure - let's just call it "losers in like." I'm sure those behind this film started with a vision, I mean, they must have had one to pitch to the studio suits, but I need help finding it.<br /><br />Even if I were a patient person who could forgive the pure stupidity of the story, I couldn't in good conscience recommend a film that allows a guy to go into a professional job interview in a windbreaker and messy, fluffy, stupid hair. Speaking of hair -- are we supposed to be amused by the deliberate black roots and platinum locks worn by Hershey?<br /><br />What am I doing? I already lost 97 irretrievable minutes in the actual watching of the movie -- I cannot devote any more time to this loser.
Not even Bob Hope, escorted by a raft of fine character actors, can save this poorly written attempt at wartime comedy, as his patented timing has little which which to work. The plot involves a Hollywood film star named Don Bolton (Hope), and his attempt to evade military service at the beginning of World War II, followed by his enlistment by mistake in a confused attempt to court a colonel's daughter (Dorothy Lamour). Bolton's agent, played by Lynne Overman, and his assistant, portrayed by Eddie Bracken, enlist with him and the three are involved in various escapades regarding training exercises, filmed in the Malibu, California, hills. Paramount budgeted handsomely for this effort, employing some of its top specialists, but direction by the usually reliable David Butler was flaccid, and this must be attributed to a missing comedic element in the scenario. A shift toward the end of the film to create an opportunity for heroism by Bolton is still-born with poor stunt work and camera action in evidence. Oddly, Lynne Overman is given the best lines and this veteran master of the sneer does very well by them. Dorothy Lamour looks lovely and acts nicely, as well, and it is ever a delight to see and hear Clarence Kolb, as her father, whose voice is unique on screen or radio, but there is little they can do to save this film, cursed as it is with an error in script assignment.
In one word: excruciating. I was advised to read some articles about this film's philosophical meanings afterward, but, having sat through the movie's interminable 115 minutes and being slowly crushed beneath its bloated symbolism and lava-flowing oppressiveness, it seemed better to just report my reactions to the movie. After all, who goes to see a movie with a syllabus in hand? And this flick was dismal. Lead actor Claude Laydu, from the film's opening to its end, wears the same wearying and annoying mask of agony as to be practically indistinguishable from the film's eternal, dreary voice-over. Filming one over the other might have worked better than subjecting an audience to both, as they basically say the same thing: The priest of Ambricourt is a wretched human being. The story, about a persecuted priest who tries to help out a troubled rich family, does nothing toward making its characters remotely interesting or sympathetic, as the family are a bunch of unpleasant weirdos, and the priest, himself, comes across as a nosy pest. The last 30 minutes suggests some breath-taking message about grace and one man's suffering equaling that of others, but due to all the indulgent close-ups of a suffering Laydu and the vague subtext in Robert Bresson's script, all I felt was, Finally, it's over, let's have some ice-cream. Interesting for fans of Bresson fanatic Paul Schrader, just to see how many elements of character and setting Schrader carried into in his own scripts and movies, especially "Taxidriver", "Raging Bull" and "Light Sleeper".
I kind of feel like a genius; I feel like I'm the only one who saw through this fake film. I watched it three times, once with commentary, and I found myself getting annoyed at all the close-ups, all the times the screen just blacks out, and worst of all, I feel the film never really resolves anything. Yes, the priest dies, but he didn't really seem at peace with the town that gave him so much grief, or with himself. That and he was an idiot. If it weren't for the commentary by Peter Cowie which explained not only the movie but the book it came from, I wouldn't have been able to stomach it at all. I enjoy French movies, but this is one that was completely absurd.<br /><br />Diary of a Country Priest is filmed in beautiful black and white photography but, that alone cannot save this deadly dull tripe. Scene after scene of extreme close-ups where characters don't say anything until the camera cuts away and goes to a black out do NOT make an interesting or relevant story. How this film ever became a classic is mind boggling: it reminds me more of The Emperor's New Clothes.<br /><br />Yes, Claude Laydu's performance is heartfelt and thought provoking, if you are a sadist, but this film left me feeling empty because overall it is a weak impression of the Catholic priesthood, which is an ignoble and inglorious institution of corruption. The young priest's triumph over the countess's pride is a weak scene but 90% of the film will drag you down with its dreary introspection and window into the young priest's melancholy thoughts. This priest doesn't come across so much as being humble as he does just plain pitiful.<br /><br />Being that I don't speak or understand French I was looking forward to doing the English SUBTITLE thing to help understand the film. Well, the English SUBTITLE is at times impossible to view/read and the text rolls by so quickly that there was much I could not read (and I am not a particularly slow reader - I just finished Dostoyevsky in 3 days). <br /><br />I really wanted to like this film . I try out everything "chosen" by the Criterion Collection, and yet can not see why in many ways this one merits some sort of critical nod. However, I sat through this entire two hour film yearning to feel some sort of empathy for the main character, and it never materialized. He just seemed like a victim rather than a fighter. And for that, I say it stunk.
I thoroughly enjoyed Bilal's graphic novel when it came out, and was amazed when I saw the trailer for this film, and even more so when I found that Bilal had directed it himself. The film, however, was a major letdown. The visuals are nowhere near the rich and gritty texture of the original artworks, and the story is poorly told. Bilal seems to have chosen to focus on the more esoteric aspects of the graphic novel, and he doesn't do a very good job at it, either.<br /><br />The most enjoyable part of the original graphic novel was the friendship-hate relationship between Nikopol and Horus. They were both out of their right time and place, forced together by circumstance. Most of all, they were funny and likable. Not so here. Nikopol has no discernible personality whatsoever, and Horus is a pompous twit who just wants to get laid. Even though the film is French, Horus doesn't have to be!<br /><br />We have all seen films we enjoyed, but wouldn't recommend to everyone, for some reason or other. I wouldn't recommend Immortel to anyone, except maybe as a warning not to overreach your talent and resources. Bilal's a master storyteller, but obviously not a master of every visual medium.
I saw this at an arty cinema that was also showing "Last Days" and some Charlie Chaplin films. Based on the quality of the other features, I decided to give "Immortel" a chance. I nearly walked out of this movie, and I LIKE science-fiction! The story is set in a futuristic New York city, filled with Blade Runner-style sky advertisements and some similar debates about cloning/synthetic humans. Unfortunately, the screenplay was not condensed enough for an hour-and-forty-five-minute movie. Three groups exist in this world: humans, artificial humans, and Egyptian gods. The artificial humans seem to have the upper hand and control the politics of the city. The humans are slaves and are used for eugenics and organ donation. The Egyptian gods have a floating pyramid (modeled on the Great Pyramid of Khufu, and complete with a deteriorated exterior, leaving a smooth "cap" on the pyramid. Wouldn't a floating futuristic pyramid be in perfect condition?). The pyramid rests above the city and nobody on the ground understands what it is or why it's there. I won't bore you with the so-called plot, but there is lots of unnecessary gore and many gross-out scenes. The film, as I said, looks to have been influenced by Blade Runner, and perhaps also by The Fifth Element and The Matrix. At the end of the film credits were listed thank-yous to the United Kingdom, France, and Italy. The film is FRENCH, but uses British actors who don't speak French. Hence, it is obvious that their French dialog has been dubbed. This is a distraction, and I also thought that switching back and forth between real humans and animations quite distracting. It doesn't help that the animations are poor--no better than a video game. Skip this one.
I love science fiction, I am fascinated by Egyptian mythology and I appreciate digital animation. I figured a movie that combines these three would be at least enjoyable. I could not have been more wrong: The story (or actually the lack there of) was completely uninspired and lacks imagination - while imagination usually is the biggest component of any science fiction story. The dialogue and acting are even worse than in an average porno movie. Especially Thomas Kretschmann gives new meaning to the term 'bad performance'. Bad acting wouldn't have been such a huge problem if only 'director' Bilal didn't take himself so seriously; all the lines sound like they are supposed to be poetic, it looks like Bilal really thinks he has made a piece of art here. Well, there's no art or poetry to be found in this piece of junk, only pretentiousness! This man should really stick to making comics, since he fails on all possible accounts as a director. Worst of all is the terrible digital animation, which is so ugly that it actually turns watching this movie into a physically painful experience. The graphics look so fake they even make the werewolves in 'Van Helsing' look like live actors! And since half the characters are CGI-animated, it is quite a problem that the CGI-effects look so fake. If the Egyptian Gods actually exist then Bilal's a dead guy, since they will no doubt take gruesome revenge on him for the ridiculous way in which he portrays them in this disastrously bad movie.
This movie seems to start in the middle, introduces peripheral players as if they were significant and presents main characters without any substance and paper-thin and/or impenetrable back-stories. Almost nobody has a credible or discernible motivation for their actions in this film. The plot rambles and ultimately goes nowhere, the dialogue is clunky and trite and the director has little concept of how to get the best from his actors. It almost feels like there's a first half of this movie but it never got made.<br /><br />We're told that a mysterious pyramid has appeared over New York City and that Central Park has inexplicably become an arctic wasteland. Yet none of this seems to have caused much of a stir amongst the general population and is only of minimal concern to the government.<br /><br />We're presented with the "evil corporation" in Eugenics but that's really just a convenient conceit to populate the universe with a couple power-tripping minions. The whole "Eugenics-is-bad" double-entendre is heavy-handed and never really pans out here. We're supposed to care about the central characters but we never learn enough about them to know why. So much about this world is underdeveloped or completely undeveloped that it comes off as a 1-hour, 40-minute fatalistic rationalization for rape.<br /><br />On the "ground-breaking" digitally animated world created here, all I can say is that at about the same time as this film was made several other directors did the same thing with more seamless and believable results.<br /><br />After spending the time to watch this film the most burning question left in my mind was, "so what?"
The Good:<br /><br />Effective color scheme. Good costumes. Top notch set production. Well detailed CGI buildings and vehicles.<br /><br />The Bad:<br /><br />Horrible mixture of actors with all CGI actors mixes Fifth Element with Final Fantasy. The CGI actors look even worse than video games from a few years ago. Flawed logic. A giant pyramid shows up and no one researches it, no one really even questions it? And there is no explanation as to why the god Horus was even cast out, nor was there any reason why he must do something as trivial as impregnate Jill?<br /><br />The Ugly:<br /><br />Awful script. So many unnecessary subplots with too many ideas that are not fully realized. The dialog was almost laughable at some points. Random characters and events that are not needed. Dull characters. Jill is supposed to be this mystery, but apparently she was just a mystery to the writer. There is nothing to her. She is uninteresting and boring to watch. She has no substance, no texture. Her character has no redeeming qualities. In fact, there is not one character in the entire film who has any purpose, any goals (besides the obvious one of Horus), any motivation. They are weak and ill-conceived. There are no stakes - the key to screen writing. Horus will not become immortal, but, big deal, he is a bad guy. One cannot even decipher whether Horus or Jill is the main character. That is the problem: devoting half the movie to each character means the writer never fully explores one character, never brings one to fruition. They are cardboard cut-outs who walk around and talk and pretty much do nothing but explore the fine set pieces. First time director pacing. Slow, slow, slow. I am still watching the movie as I write this. I cannot pay attention because it is boring. Everything is flat. Even the action is not interesting because it is short-lived and sometimes unnecessary.<br /><br />Overall:<br /><br />Not worth a watch. Threadbare story, sub-par character development, corny CGI does not save the nice set production.
While others may contend that by viewing other works by Bilal, one will better appreciate this movie, it does fail in one major way. It does not stand on its own. The plot is a mishmash that is confuses symbolism with substance. Here's an idea start with a definite story. Then craft symbolism around it. We start with two different narratives, this female that is somehow turning human, a "god" that is for some reason being judged, but getting one last fling on Earth, and this mysterious John character who seems to be developing some sort of "resort" just beyond the bounds of the city. Why? None of these questions are answered. But do we care, no. There is no development to want us to empathize with any character in the story, the closest we get Jill and even then the development is spotty at best. Unfortunately the movie gets caught up in the the whole visually impressive (which it is,) but at the expense of motivic development. I would love to see this rewritten by someone who could distance themselves from the material a bit and not have to feel that every image has to be in the picture.
I love the comics. Although I do have problems fully understanding the stories – the visual style is unique with all its dirt, dust and decay. So I thought I knew what I was up for. Surprisingly I understood the main plot – but some extremely poorly decisions where made for its visual style. <br /><br />I mean - really bad looking "CG human actors"-in close ups? …Why?! It did not work at all!! Horus - and the other Egyption gods - was successfully made in CG and very close to the comic version. <br /><br />I think with real actors this movie could have been a cult movie. <br /><br />What a shame.
I sat through this film and i have to say it only just managed to keep my attention. The film would have been a bit more bearable if i did not have to watch the awful CGI, for future reference to the industry if your going to use CGI watch this so you know what to avoid.<br /><br />Apparently this is supposed to be a graphic novel for the screen but all i saw was a bad movie which bears no resemblance to a graphic novel whatsoever.<br /><br />All in all, the story was not as bad as the CGI, i was quite impressed with the acting and thought the casting was good and little more character info would have been nice as it did get a little confusing for me on occasion but that's not surprising as like i said it only just kept my attention, but in all honestly i wish i had given this one a miss.
The movie remains in the gray for far too long. Very little gets explained as the movie progresses, with as a result lots of weird sequences that seem to have a deeper meaning but because of the way of storytelling they become only just weird and not understandable to watch. It sort of forces you to watch the movie again but no way I'm going to do that. It is that I watched this movie in the morning, I'm sure of it that if I watched this movie in the evening I would had fallen asleep. To me the movie was like a poor man's "Blade Runner".<br /><br />The movie leaves far too many questions and improbabilities. It makes the movie leave a pointless and non-lasting impression.<br /><br />Also the weird look of the movie doesn't help much. The movie is halve CGI/halve real life but it's not done halve as good, impressive, spectacular and imaginative as for instance would be the case in later movies such as "Sin City" and "300". They even created halve of the characters of the movie by computer, which seemed like a very pointless- and odd choice, also considering that the character animation isn't too impressive looking. Sure the futuristic environment is still good looking and the movie obviously wasn't cheap to make but its style over substance and in this case that really isn't a positive thing to say.<br /><br />Some of the lines are also absolutely horrendous and uninteresting. The main God of the movie constantly says lines such as; 'I'm going to do this but it's none of your concern why I want to do it'. Than just don't say anything at all Mr. Horus! It's irritating and a really easy thing to put in movie, if you don't care to explain anything about the plot. Also the deeper questions and meanings of the movie gets muddled in the drivel of the movie and its script.<br /><br />The actors still did their very best. They seemed like they believed in the project and were sure of it that what they were making would be something special. So I can't say anything negative about them.<br /><br />The story and movie is far from original. It rip-offs from a lot of classic and semi-classic, mostly modern, science-fiction movies. It perhaps is also the reason why the movie made a very redundant impression on me.<br /><br />A failed and uninteresting movie experiment.<br /><br />3/10
My first attempt at watching this ended in 8 minutes, roughly after the TV report scene, which I couldn't handle. It went approximately like this:<br /><br />Reporter 1: Hmm, there's a pyramid in our skies. Reporter 2: I think it's aliens. *awkward silence* Reporter 1: In other news...<br /><br />A few days later I watched it to the end, and it wasn't as horrible as I've imagined, but there are serious problems with this. About half of the plot can be easily discarded. And the other half should be expanded to explain the background story or something.<br /><br />What use are the detective, the eugenics people, and the monsters which are disposed of momentarily by Horus? More amusing was the monopoly scene. "We're all powerful "Gods", who have lived for aeons, and of all the games in the multiverse we happen to play monopoly." Monopoly? Monopoly?! Even Erich von Dainiken looks coherent, compared to that.<br /><br />The other half is terribly lacking. What did our protagonist do to get himself cryo-frozen? Why was there no big event when he was released at the end? He had those pesky followers, remember? What happened to normal humans? What's the deal with the masked guy? How did the blue-haired girl appear? What's with her eyesight? Etcetera, etcetera.<br /><br />Visually it's OK, more or less, if you disregard the Egyptian Gods looking like walking turds with rotweiller heads.
Knowing Enki Bilal's comics for quite some time, I had to see this movie. I have thought this would be a good way for the artist as Bilal to spread his art and ideas to wider audience. I have also thought this would be a good movie to recommend, and I thought I will enjoy watching it... I was wrong! The movie was a true torture to watch. The idea has potential... but, movie leaves way too much to be desired, and basically everyone who sees this movie is left with impression that he could do it better. I will not make suggestion whether you should see this movie or not. Chances are if you're reading these pages that you have already seen it, or that you're gonna see it - but be prepared for very bad 102 minutes.
....CAUSE IT'S CRAP! The kind of movie that makes you want to go and smack the movie maker and say "WHY?". Horrible camera work...count the times the camera tries to remain steady on one person and can't. The dialog is ridiculous. The acting is comical. It looks like they took over a ghost town in the west to see if they could make a movie on the least amount of money possible. I'd bet $10 they used home video cameras to make this. Either that, or most of the cameramen were drunk. Truly the trailers are more entertaining than the movie. If you ever want to host a "Worst Movie Party", bring this one. Want more entertainment...stare at a wall.
Where do they get the money to make films like this? I mean, there's nothing redeeming about this film. None of the actors are known, the writing is terrible, the photography is blurry, the story wanders between being a bad version of Repo Man and a nicklodeon western and the acting is unbelievable. For someone who watches all kinds of film, good and bad, I must admit that this film is about the worst I've seen since Attack of the Eye People back in the 50's. I don't really like to trash the effort of people trying to create some entertainment or, heaven forbid, art but this film would seem to appeal to no one. The story bends on a mystical contamination of a person who's a bad version of the Celtic Soul eater, although he functions more like a male succubus without the sexual overtones. The bad guys have to team up with the good guys in a town where they are unable to escape from. Take it from there as that, alas, is the best part. My advice is that unless you are into bad mythology, amateurish writing, unconvincing acting and tedious settings, you will best be served by leaving this one on the shelf when you're out renting videos.
I still find it difficult to comprehend that a movie as bad as this could be made in Hollywood. The acting and story is simply pathetic & the direction is awful. I don't see any logic behind this trash except may be that the director had nothing good to do. I took me ten minutes to realize that i had wasted my precious thirty rupees. It filled me with dismay that i was going to waste some more time of my life on this crap. I bet the movie was made in less than a day. I don't know what category it falls into. Please, avoid this movie at all costs, just do anything, even bang your head against walls but don't go for this movie.
There is a scene near the beginning after a shootout where horses are running. If something red catches your eye it is because a white van is parked behind a bush by the trail. I thought I had seen bad but this is it. A white van in a western. Did they not catch this? Oh well, and I paid top dollar at the rental. It will make you want to grab your buddies and have them all put in 10 grand and make a better movie. The talking was so so slow, the acting was mostly OK but couldn't be taken seriously due to the poor nature of the filming. There is a door at the sheriffs that looks like a door today with the particular trimming. I say watch this movie, and move Cabin boy into #2 on the worst of all time.
I just got through watching this DVD at home. We love Westerns, so my husband rented it. He started apologizing to me half way through. The saddles, costumes, accents--everything was off. The part that made me so mad is where the guy didn't shoot the "collector" with his bow and arrow as he was taking the fat guy's soul. His only excuse was "he only had 2 arrows left." We watched it all the way through, and, as someone else said...too many bad things to single out any one reason why it sucked. I mean, the fact that the boy happened to snatch the evil stone from the collector on the same month and day it was found, what's the point of that? And why were there a grave yard where everyone died on April 25 but the people whose souls were taken by the collector were still up walking around? If you want a movie to make fun of after a few beers, this may be your movie. However, if you want a real Western, you will hate this movie.
I love Westerns. I could watch them all day. "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" is my all time favorite. I watched "Silverado" for probably the 8th time just the other day because it was being featured on CMT. However, this movie, Shiloh Falls is without a doubt the worst Western I have ever watched. The acting was terrible all around. They explain nothing at the end of the mysterious compass looking thing. The only good part I can think of is the good-looking cantina girl. The very noticeable long pauses between the dialog seemed intentional just to make up time to make the movie of acceptable length. This movie wasn't even worth the new rental fee I paid at our local movie rental store. I felt like I was robbed and deserving of a rental refund if there was such a thing. Only reason I finished it was because I hate to not see a movie through to the end. I turned it off half way through because it was so bad. To the director, please do a better job if you decide to make another. This is the kind of movie that has the potential to turn people off to Westerns.
This movie was a stupid piece of crap. Bad everything. Why is it that we who love western movies get jilted nine out of ten times when renting westerns. It seems that if you don't see names like Robert Duval, Kevin Kostner, or Tom Selleck attached to the cover, it isn't worth messing with. For the most part the main action of Shiloh Falls was taking place in 1892, yet the revolvers used were 1860s models. Even the shooting was bad - in one scene the Marshal fanned his six-shooter about nine times and couldn't hit any of three large men who were only about twenty feet away. I had to turn it off after about 15 minutes of this inanity. Perhaps those who participated in this movie could have taken some lessons at the Sunset Carson School of Acting.
Nahhh! Leila (Grace Mills) is a teenager turned on to Satan (and LSD) by her archaeologist fiancé Richard. There's a neighborhood hippie demon cult hanging out at the local decrepit ancient castle, where Leila and Richard drink blood, drop drugs, join in sex orgies, dance to lame psychedelic rock and participate in black mass ceremonies where the guys wear pants, masks and capes and the women don't wear anything at all. Unfortunately, these kind of extracurricular activities have left Leila open to demonic possession from the dreaded "spirit of evil." Leila also comes from a screwed up family, which doesn't help either. Her older brother John is a recluse who seems to be in love with her. Her mother Patricia (Maria Perschy) is depressed because she thinks she was responsible for the father's death. To top it off, her sister (Maria Kosti) is a slutty semi pro golfer named (gasp!) Debbie Gibson. There's plenty of hired help around also to waste more time. Two maids (a young one who takes her clothes off a lot and an old one who spies on everyone), plus Udo (Luis Induni), a bald voyeuristic handyman who spies on Leila changing clothes, takes nude pictures of her and sneaks into the pool house to take a sniff of her freshly used bathing suit. Oh yeah and Borg, the pet German Shepherd.<br /><br />Paul Naschy is Father Adrian Dunning, the doubting priest (zzzzz) who starts snooping around after John and Richard both have their heads twisted around backwards. Leila tells him "They say I am perverse and I'm going to prove it is true!" During her birthday party, she tells her guests "You make me sick! I hate you all!" and when mom suggests having a doctor come over she she screeches "I don't want to see that fat ass!" Debbie suggests they commit Leila to a "sanitory," but Leila runs off and joins the cult again. She is rescued (again) and brought back home (for the third time).<br /><br />By this point in the movie, there's only about ten minutes left to go and all we've basically seen is some very boring scenes of characters talking and whining about how terrible and f-ed up their lives are and how Leila is acting weird. It's almost as agonizing to sit through as an Andy Milligan movie, minus the gore and laughs. But finally during the last few minutes we get the movie the title implies - an EXORCIST-like possession flick. Unfortunately, the best part of it are the contact lenses Leila gets to wear. Some cheap time-lapse slashes appear on her arms, legs and face, she gets scabby lips and her eyes take on the appearance of blue and white marbles. She begins reeking of rotted flesh, spits up some clear gunk, starts speaking in her dead dad's voice, sneaks into her mom's bedroom, slaps her around a bit and calls her a "filthy bitch of a whore." In comes Father Adrian, who now finally believes she is indeed possessed, fends off her attempts at seduction, hallucinates frogs and eels are in the kitchen and douses Leila with holy water. Doors open and close, a mirror breaks, there's sudden thunder and her bed rises up off the floor. After she tackles Dunning and the two roll down the stairs, the spirit is out of her and into - guess who? Why, Borg the family pooch! The demon dog then turns on Adrian and chews him up a little before he impales it on a fire poker. Then we get one of the most irritating final shots ever committed to film. It's Leila on the floor going from her hideous appearance back to her normal sexy self. But then there's ANOTHER time-lapse effect that sort of seems to suggest that the demon has possibly reentered her body. It's so badly done, you really have no clue what to make of it, which is the final slap in the face to anyone who has just realized they've wasted an hour and a half on this worthless POS.<br /><br />Screw the contacts, 1 out of 10 it is.
While I certainly consider The Exorcist to be a horror classic, I have to admit that I don't hold it in quite as high regard as many other horror fans do. As a consequence of that, I haven't seen many of The Exorcist rip-offs, and if Exorcismo is anything to go by, I'll have to say that's a good thing as this film is boring as hell and certainly not worth spending ninety minutes on it! In fairness to the other Exorcist rip-offs, this is often considered one of the worst, and so maybe it wasn't the best place for me to start. It's not hard to guess what the plot will be: basically it's the same as the one in The Exorcist and sees a girl get possessed by a demonic spirit (which happens to be the spirit of her dead father). The village priest is then called in to perform the exorcism. Like many Spanish horror films, this one stars Paul Naschy, who is pretty much the best thing about the film. Exorcismo was directed by Juan Bosch, who previously directed the derivative Spanish Giallo 'The Killer Wore Gloves'. I haven't seen any of his other films, but on the basis of these two: I believe that originality wasn't one of his strong points. There's not a lot of good things I can say about the film itself; it mostly just plods along and the exorcism scene isn't worth waiting for. I certainly don't recommend it!
Why every horror director wants to imitate "The Exorcist" is a complete riddle to me, as William Friedkin's "classic" is a very overrated film and, in my opinion, not all that tense or shocking. And yet here's another clean rip-off, a Spanish one this time, that shamelessly repeats the story of a young girl that gets possessed by pure evil and turns against her own family. Paul Naschy (who I must admit looks quite hot here) plays the honorable priest who gets approached by John Gibson because his sister Leila's behavior changed drastically since she met her new boyfriend. At first the priest doesn't believe it but when John's body is discovered with its neck twisted, Leila's demonic behavior becomes more noticeable... "Exorcism" is not only very unoriginal, it's also an insufferably boring film! Here Naschy and director Juan Bosch had an open opportunity to make a religiously themed exploitation flick full of shocks and gore, and yet the result is a tame and overall bloodless drama that'll nearly put you to sleep! The last twenty minutes contain some atmospheric moments, albeit very stupid, and there's quite a lot of stylishly filmed female nudity and sleaze. The absolute lack of budget is no real excuse since Paul Naschy already proved before that he has enough imagination to make up for a shortage in money. This is just an awful film, end of story. Other European "The Excorcist" rip-offs are "The Antichrist" and "Beyond the Door" and they suck as well!
I grew up watching Inspector Gadget. It was, and still is, one of my favorite cartoons, if not my absolute favorite. I learned a lot of geography and history from the spin-off Inspector Gadget's Field Trip. I wanted to slip on a banana peel and become the greatest detective ever.<br /><br />But the film has ruined the reputation of the wonderful cartoon.<br /><br />Matthew Broderick, an actor with potential, was definitely NOT the role for Inspector Gadget. First thing- in the film, Inspector Gadget is smart. Not so in the cartoon. In the film, Gadget solves the mystery mostly by himself. In the cartoon, it was almost always Penny, Brain, and the awesome book (I still want her book!). If Gadget solved the mystery, it was by accident. Gadget in the film seems to be a competent detective, but in the cartoon was pretty dumb, which was where the humor came from.<br /><br />Another thing is that it's too much "Good Guy v. Bad Guy" in the film. It's not just meant to be a silly Saturday morning cartoon. Also, Gadget never should have a love story, but Disney Corporation is filled with idiots.<br /><br />Also I miss the true gadgets that Gadget had, and especially the Gadget car. In the movie it was a chic convertible. In the cartoon it was a sedan police car and could turn into a van. It also barely had any gadgets and was mainly there to get him from place to place.<br /><br />But if anything, the one thing that was terrible about the movie was that it was a feature movie. Inspector Gadget was a silly Saturday morning cartoon. The movie was too serious, too overdone, had too much of a plot and wasn't even remotely as funny.<br /><br />Tip for those who haven't seen it: NEVER see it. EVER. Watch the cartoon, it's a true classic.
Once again, Disney manages to make a children's movie which totally ignores its background. About the only thing common with this and the original Gadget cartoons is the names. The most glaring errors are the characters - Penny does not have her book, Brain has been reduced from a character to a fancy prop, Dr Claw is more a show-off than an evil villain, etc. but there are more than that. The horrors start from the first minutes of the film - having Gadget as a security guard called John Brown doesn't help identifying him as the classic Inspector Gadget. And right in the beginning we see Disney's blatant attempt to turn every story ever into a love affair between a man and a woman - they introduce Brenda, who only serves to make this movie Disney-compatible. Add to this the fact that the "Claw" seen in this film and the classic Dr Claw are almost diagonally opposite and you'll see this is going to be nowhere near the original storyline. What would help would be a better storyline to replace it - but as you guessed, Disney failed in that too. The whole movie is just Gadget acting silly for silliness's sake and lusting after Brenda. As if to add insult to the injury, Disney introduced the "new" Gadgetmobile - it doesn't look, function or think like the old Gadgetmobile at all, it's just the canonical "comic relief" figure. Disney obviously recognised that the Gadget cartoons were a comedy, so they made the film a comedy too, but they took out all the clever running gags (like the assignment paper exploding in the Chief's face) and replaced them with Gadget being a moron, the Gadgetmobile being a wise-ass, and "Claw" showing off. Someone should tell Disney that "children's movie" doesn't imply "total lack of any brain usage". Gadget should be targeted for children of 10-12 years... not children of 10-12 months like this movie. Whatever this movie is supposed to be, it is NOT, repeat NOT, the real Inspector Gadget. Because I love the old Gadget, I hate this.
I used to have a fascination with the cartoon back in college when it was being made. It had much the charm of "Get Smart". While it admittedly had its faults, it was rather enjoyable.<br /><br />Naturally I was very interested in seeing the film version. That was before I saw it. Afterwords I wished it had never been made.<br /><br />Besides being miscast all around (who on Earth though Broderick was even close to the role?) it just didn't make the grade.<br /><br />The effects were reasonable and perhaps the ONLY thing I liked about the movie; seeing a live-action version of the gadgets in action! What was missing was a story and treatment which made it funny or charming or interesting.<br /><br />The original was a wacky cartoon with a very lighthearted attitude. It was FUN. The motion picture became murky and took itself FAR too seriously. If it had seriously had a great plot or went crazy enough to make it seem like a "cartoon on film" it might have been enjoyable.<br /><br />As it exists it doesn't deserve to be considered part of the "Gadget Legacy".
I grew up watching the old Inspector Gadget cartoon as a kid. It was like Get Smart for kids. Bumbling boob can't solve any case and all the work is done by the walking talking dog Brain and his niece Penny. I had heard the live action movie was decent so I checked it out at the library. I rented this movie for free and felt I should have been paid to see this.<br /><br />Broderick comes nowhere near the caliber of acting Don Adams had as the voice of gadget. His voice was all wrong. The girl who played Penny looked nothing like the cartoon Penny. She is brunette where the cartoon version was blonde with pigtails. But she does do a decent job given what she had to work with. Dabney Coleman gives a good performance as Cheif Quimby. Saldy he never hid in any odd place or had exploding messages tossed at him accidently by Gadget.<br /><br />The gadget mobile was wrong. It never talked in the series and it did fine. Why did they do this?<br /><br />Gadget was too intelligent in this film. In the show he was a complete idiot. Here he had a halfway decent intellect. It would have worked better if he was a moron.<br /><br />Also the completely butchered the catchphrase. Borderick says "Wowser". It is and should always be "Wowsers". It sounds lame with out the 's'. I got upset when they showed the previews and they didn't have the correct phrase.<br /><br />The ONLY decent gags were during the credits. The lacky for Claw is in front of a support group for recovering henchmen/sidekicks. Seated in the audience is Mr. T, Richard Keil aka Jaws of Bond movie fame, a Herve Villacheze look alike, Oddjob, Kato and more. This is about the only part I laughed at.<br /><br />The other is at the end where Penny is checking out here gadget watch and tells brain to say somethin. Don Adams voices the dog saying that "Brain isn't in right now. Please leave your name at the sound of the woof. Woof." of course this isn't laugh out loud funny, just a nice piece of nostalgia to hear Adams in the movie. He should have at least voiced the stupid car.<br /><br />Kids will like this, anyone over 13 won't.<br /><br />
I was a huge fan of the original cartoon series, and was looking forward to finally seeing Gadget on the big screen -- but I never in my wildest dreams expected something so extremely extremely terrible. The pace was WAY too fast, there was no plot, and 'wowser!' - what the hell is that?? It was 'WOWSERS!!'.
Well. Where to begin. Let's just say this; avoid this movie at all<br /><br />costs. It's based on a cartoon series. The movie makes the cartoon look<br /><br />like Hamlet. Filled with emasculated actors who seem embarrassed to be<br /><br />here, lousy camera work, terrible music, and enough product placement to<br /><br />make you want to never visit Yahoo! again, this movie is really the<br /><br />bottom of the barrel. To quote the New Yorker, Matthew Broderick and<br /><br />Rupert Everett mug their way through this picture with the gay abandon<br /><br />of men who have spotted a rare species of paycheck in the distance."<br /><br />They should pay us some of the millions they earned for watching it.<br /><br />Awful.
If you enjoy seeing what must have started as a 2 hour movie in unconnected bursts of unwatchability, you'll love this film. Otherwise, you'll just wonder how they could have made such a film from something so simple to translate to the big screen as Inspector Gadget.<br /><br />In the previews for the film, many scenes were shown which were not in the film, and within the film, some scenes just don't make sense. While the movie is slightly less than 1 hour and a half, I can only think of one truly memorable moment, and that is just before or during the credits!<br /><br />
This is one of those movies you think that the makers would refuse to release it because it is so terrible. Obviously they were thinking that children are stupid and are excellent for absorbing endless ads and would think they are entertainment because it is slapstick funny. What is it with the talking car with buttons that say Wendy's, McDonalds, M&M's and Skittles? There was no talking car in the cartoon. (Dr.) Claw is supposed to be evil, not handsome and charming. Why is Rupert Everet 'Claw' anyway? Were the writers on drugs when they wrote these scenes? It looks like they were (badly) lampooning Robo Cop, with the turning a man into a crime fighting android thing. I tried to get my money back but there was a policy where if I watch more than 30 minutes of a movie, you don't get a refund. I'm sorry I watched more than 30 minutes of that pile of crap. After I was told the no-refund policy, I decided to watch the rest of the hideous garbage called Inspector Gadget.
I'm not quite sure why, but this movie just doesn't play the way it should. It should be humerous and fun, but instead is just boring. I think a large part of it is because they way over played the "gadgets." The old cartoon it is based on is much better.<br /><br />3/10
Since I had loved the Inspector Gadget cartoon in the 80's, I went to see this movie. I wasted my money. The plot was very thin. Also, the movie could not keep me interested for long. I was glad it was over.<br /><br />If you want to see Inspector Gadget, watch the cartoon instead. It was much better than the movie.
Luckily I did not pay to see this movie. Also, I cannot even reveal any spoilers because I willingly WALKED OUT after forty minutes of the movie. It was that bad. I laughed once, when the Yahoo! billboard fell on the guy, and the theme song came on. However, that was only because I thought it was making fun of it, but then I realized it was yet ANOTHER product placement. <br /><br />I loved the cartoon. I used to watch it almost religiously. (although i missed the last episode. I heard that they show Dr. Claw and it was nothing more than a Claw, somebody comment on the show's page) The cartoon had Penny and Brain alot more than the movie had, as to that point. I hated the setup of the whole thing, reminiscent of Robocop. Then Broderick screws with the whole feeling of Inspector Gadget. He is not nearly as clumsy as the cartoon was. Another fact is his gadgets actually work to the point I saw, except for the oil slick. He also screwed with the tone of "Wowsers" which used to be in an excited tone. I felt so disappointed that they slaughtered the cartoon so badly. Everybody else felt that way too. Us 14-17 year olds remember the cartoon fondly and we loved every minute of it.<br /><br />I went into the movie with an open mind, knowing that they would have screwed with the cartoon. I was taken aback at how retarded the movie was. It relied on sight gags, and stupid dialogue for humor. Disney relies on pain and physical humor to push a kids movie along. Product placement is pointless in this film, and it shows. The wise-cracking car is not that good at cracking wise. The gadgets look nice, but they were almost overly glossy. The cartoon was a better look. The silly scenes were crap. In the 40-45 minutes I watched the movie, not one laugh was heard, and they laughed at the Dudley-Do-Right preview. This movie should not be watched by people who want intelligence in their family entertainment. I highly recommend "The Iron Giant," which was sad, but very very good. This movie is a travesty to the whole family drama.------------1
I really wanted to like this movie - the location shots were mostly filmed in Pittsburgh and the trailer had some wonderful photography. But, even for a filmed cartoon, it was a really badly-made movie. The continuity and pacing were both simply awful. The best bits in the movie are under the ending credits, so it's (almost) worth sticking it out to the end (though, oddly, it does pick up a little over the last half hour or so).<br /><br />When the best performance in a movie is by Andy Dick, you know there's got to be a problem...
Why?!! This was an insipid, uninspired and embarrassing film. The embarrassment comes from being from the city where they made it...Pittsburgh PA! Why did they let these people do such a BAAAAAD movie there?<br /><br />When this movie was originally to be released...it was more of a romantic comedy...and no ROBO-anything. That all got changed along with cuteness courtesy of Disney. WHY???? They did a terrible interpretation of this classic comic character. Seeing Matthew Broderick make fun of his own movies was not fun either. Sheesh!!
After Disney's witty live-action George of the Jungle, I had high hopes for this flick. Major disappointment. Thread bare plot, bad acting, bad visual effects. This film relied on lame one-liners, idiotic ( and pointless) product placement, and the lamest most annoying side-kick in that gadget car thing. I took two young kids to see it and they where bored out of their mind. The only laugh received from this movie was bad standby of when needing a laugh show a guy getting it in the groin!
OK. I think the TV show is kind of cute and it always has some kind of lesson involved. So, when my kids decided they wanted to see this movie, I decided to tag along. I wish I'd stayed home and watched the TV show instead.<br /><br />The fact that the humor is silly and unoriginal is the least of the problems with this movie. The plot is next to non-existant, the characters seem to exist in a vacuum, and, worst of all, Gadget does not carry any lesson whatsoever. It appears that Disney took all of the things that make Inspector Gadget work on TV and tossed them all. To be fair, my younger child (8 years old) liked the movie but the older one (10 years old) came away thinking it silly (he was too old for the youth humor but too young for any of the adult humor).<br /><br />Generally, I like Disney films but this one misses by a mile. It is OK for a very narrow age band (say 7 to 9) but a must miss for everybody else.
INSPECTOR GADGET (1999) **<br /><br />Starring: Matthew Broderick, Rupert Everett, Joely Fisher, Andy Dick, Dabney Coleman Director: David Kellogg 80 minutes Rated PG<br /><br />By Blake French:<br /><br />Disney's new film, "Inspector Gadget" is about a cop named John who survives a major accident and is saved by a state of the art experimental operation that turns him into a robotic machine-like agent who has tools and contraptions of all sorts built into his body at his use when he says "Go Go," only to be called Inspector Gadget!<br /><br />The actual movie's structure is much like the body formation of Inspector Gadget himself. It is noisy, fragmented, energetic and consist of a bunch of half hearted contraptions thrown together to make something that doesn't have much in common with anything else present. The film is basically a series of zany action sequences that are kind of pasted together with characters and an uneven story that only kids between the ages of 6-9 would enjoy.<br /><br />The cop who is dramatically reinvented is played by Matthew Broderick, who, until "Inspector Gadget," was on a success spree with movies like "Election." His character becomes Inspector Gadget after an encounter with the film's heavy handed villain named Claw. He is played by Rupert Everett, who has already experienced catastrophe this year with the dreadful "William Shakespeare's A Midsummer Nights Dream."<br /><br />There is a romantic subplot in this movie as well as ample amounts of scenes involving Inspector Gadget's wacky body parts and mechanism elements. It has Gadget and Claw drooling over the attractive character Brenda, played by Joely Fisher, for both her looks and her knowledge of a specific invention made by her late father, who was earlier killed by Claw. Competition evolves into fight scenes and a reason for many happenings in the film. Also a major character is the Gadget Mobil, a life like automobile that is devised for Inspector Gadget himself. It is voiced by D.L. Hughly from the sitcom comedy "The Hughly's."<br /><br />"Inspector Gadget" is a movie that I found quite bad. I know, I am not exactly a target audience of the filmmakers, but even my ten year old relative found the film to his disliking. The movie is full of distinct flaws and obvious problems. I never found myself caring about the characters. There is no mood development beyond some neat opening credits, unlike the much worse 1997 film, "Mr. Magoo," which opened using clips of the original cartoon. Is it too much to ask for that same type of thing in this comedy-which is seldom funny and hardly ever convincing. The overall production design is nothing but a mess of incomplete sight gags and consists of one joke: Inspector Gadget's bumbling goofiness.<br /><br />In movies like this the audience lusts for boundaries-something to help make out what can happen and what can not. In "Inspector Gadget" there are no such boundaries. This is truthfully nothing more than a party time for the actors, who surly had lots of fun. I am reminded of another lacking comedy released a few years ago called "Blankman" which again, contained lots of props and energy, and the actors certainly had fun time with all the gizmos and props, but it too lacked something needed for every movie: audience participation.<br /><br />A character that I found being left out a lot is Gadgets daughter, who by the end of the movie, I still has not clue of what her name was. She is used only as a plot device-and I question how she was used to further the plot as well. For her presence brings nothing relevant or productive to the film. We never know her reactions to her father's operation or accidents. Thus, this is someone who could have been completely left out and would have not affected the movie a bit.<br /><br />In closing, I'd like to state that "Inspector Gadget" is an awful, insufficient excuse for a children's comedy. And believe it or not, I find myself comparing this film to last years violent and very anti-young audience action picture "Blade." I am stating once again that I had much rather have a movie where nothing happens than one in which everything happens. "Inspector Gadget" had so much going for it at the same time, it made literally made me dizzy.<br /><br />
Disney's done it again. The company that made "Mr. Magoo" and "George of the Jungle" has made another movie that barely resembles the cartoon on which it is based, and keeps none of the spirit of the original.<br /><br />"Inspector Gadget" was one of my favorite cartoons when I was a young one, and for a movie of it to exist may have been a dream come true back then. Now that that movie does exist, I was severely disappointed, even outraged.<br /><br />First we have the characters.<br /><br />Gadget himself has the gadgets that made him such a fun character in the original cartoon (with well-done special effects accompanying them), and he even has some of the naivete of the original Gadget, but he is now more competent and is expected to solve the crime himself while Penny and Brain just watch.<br /><br />Penny has little to do; while she played a major role in the cartoon, discovering the crime and halting it, and occasionally getting captured by the MAD agents, now she is simply introduced and then forgotten, although she does at least sneak into Claw's base.<br /><br />Claw is the movie's version of Dr. Claw, who was a rather sinister, raspy-voiced man who wore metallic gloves and sat in his chair, his face hidden from view, as he stroked his cat and oversaw various crimes. Now he is simply a man with a claw for a hand, with no mystery behind the character.<br /><br />Brain and Mad Cat exist in the movie, but are rather insignificant to it.<br /><br />Even small parts of the cartoon aren't spared in this butchering. The famous expression "Wowsers!" was mysteriously changed to "Wowser", and Gadget's Gadgetmobile now looks different and talks.<br /><br />There is even product endorsements everywhere. Why is "Yahoo!" advertised on a sign? Why does the Gadgetmobile have buttons for M&M's or Skittles?<br /><br />Fans of the cartoon will hate it, others might will likely find the movie below par, and when all is said and done, this movie is another attempt to make some quick bucks off another old show.
In keeping with Disney's well-known practice of stealing.. I mean.. buying out known properties and bastardizing them, this live-action version of the venerable cartoon classic has got to be one of the worst re-makes in a year of bad re-makes. I grew up on the original cartoon TV series. Any episode of the original cartoon series will give you more laughs than this entire movie. Not present is Penny's cool computer book. Also not present is the gag with the self-destructing orders that always ends up detonating on the Chief. New are a smooth talking Gadget convertible (the original cartoon had a cooler vehicle that could turn into a van or a car) and an element of a typical, unrealistic Hollywood romance. Don't fill the coffers to pay for Disney executives and even their _ex_executives - don't see this movie.<br /><br />
I had absolutely nothing to do the past weekend, and tagged along with my friends to check out a movie...any movie. And since the only movie we'd not seen was Inspector Gadget, we decided to go in for that.<br /><br />BIG MISTAKE. This is a movie that might appeal only to kids. Oh, and it's not like I don't enjoy movies targeted at the younger audience. But this movie had absolutely nothing to hold my attention. If you have nothing to do at home, go to sleep. Better than wasting hard-earned cash on this. Go check out the film if you're a kid or if you're a parent with a kid :)
5 minutes into this movie I was hyperventilating, shaking, and writhing in pain. And not in the good way. The story is about a troupe of idiotic children making prank phone calls to a psycho which is always a good idea. Turns out psychos don't like prank phone calls because in 2 minutes time he's at their door killing poor Williams mom and dad. Well skip ahead 15 years and guess what? Still prank phone calling people. Yep you would of thought that a horrible murder would of deterred them from doing that ever again but no. So after about two hours later and way too many scream ripoffs I realized that this movie gave me nothing but a terrible taste in my mouth and a severe urge to take my own life. This piece of crap isn't even worth laughing at the shoddy production, the "acting", or Rutger haurs dwindling career. I love crappy horror movies but this is the most unsatisfying piece I've ever seen. Just don't.
Saw it yesterday night at the Midnight Slam of the Festival des films du Monde in Montreal. What a disappointment. This movie is clearly over rated by IMDb fans. The acting was only but regular. The directing didn't bring anything new or interesting. The plot lacks considerably : the movie is all about those college grads and the game they play making prank calls(7eventy 5ive). And on top of that, you can predict the movie's end in the first five minutes. If you like prank calls and a slasher with an axe that makes you jump only once or twice during the whole movie, you might like it. If you don't, this movie is not worth it.
The plot of 7EVENTY 5IVE involves college kids who play a cruel phone game that unexpectedly (to them, if not to fans of horror) gets them in over their heads. The STORY of 7EVENTY 5IVE, on the other hand, is that of a horror film that had a wee little bit of promise, sadly outweighed by really bad writing.<br /><br />What could have been a fun, if somewhat silly, old-fashioned slasher tale is derailed early on by its filmmakers' misguided belief that the audience would enjoy watching a bunch of loud, whiny rich kids bitching at each other for most of the film's running time. With the exception of a police detective played by Rutger Hauer, (in a minor role that is designed mainly to add the movie's only star power) every character on screen is a different breed of young A-hole.<br /><br />Male and female, black and white, straight and gay, an entire ensemble of shallow and shrill college kids carries the bulk of the film's narrative. Worse, since the tale deals with a PARTY game gone awry, most of the time the scenes are completely filled with these little b*****ds. Because of this, there are few breaks for the viewer, who must put up with the angry sniping of the thinly-drawn protagonists. Even though at least some of these people are supposedly friends, invariably all characters interact in a very hostile manner, long before any genuine conflict has actually arisen. This leads to the worst possible result in a slasher film: The audience, intended to care about the leads, instead not only cheers on the anonymous killer, but wishes that he had arrived to start picking off the vacuous brats far earlier.<br /><br />The real shame of this poor characterization is that otherwise 7EVENTY 5IVE actually DID have some potential. Visually it's fine. First-time directors Brian Hooks and Deon Taylor know how to build a suspenseful mood. They also manage to deliver on some competent, if sparse, moments of classic 80s-style gore. Surprisingly, the production's cast is also fairly able. It isn't that the actors aren't capable of expressing realistic human emotion; it is simply that the screenplay (co-written by newcomer Vashon Nutt and director Hooks, who fared much better behind the camera than with a keyboard) is short of such moments.<br /><br />7EVENTY 5IVE can hardly be recommended, as its familiar premise and few thrills can't outweigh the bad taste left behind by a story driven by a gaggle of unpleasant characters. In this tepid whodunnit, the real mystery is why anyone should care about a group of young folk who can't even manage to like each other.
What an utter disappointment! The score of 6,1 here on IMDb built up some mild expectations but, oh my, was I disappointed. The first thing that bugs me are those braindead, stereotyped university kids. Yes, I know teens can be childish and so on, but why are they in movies always portrayed as complete braindead morons? There was one character that I thought was alright, but he/she (not revealing it here) was killed off way before the end. The other characters was poorly executed and even the supposed hero/heroine just didn't do it for me. On the plus side: The plot is pretty good and the productions values a cut above for these kind of flicks. The acting was generally not very good, Rutger Hauer stands out in a small role. But it all fails with bland and braindead characters. You just stop caring about them after 10 minutes. 4/10 (and thats being generous).
When I caught a glimpse of the title I thought are we going to get another try-hard hip slasher, but actually I found "7eventy 5ive" to be a mildly passable, and almost 80s throwback after a tediously slow mid-section it picks up momentum for the final half-hour leading to it's outrageously tacky climax and downright cop out ending. It won't win awards for originality, because it's as systematic as you can get and steals its thunder in the way of thrills (usual cheap jump scares), location (secluded mansion) and motivation from other films. The gleaming direction is by-the-book and the material is quite hackneyed with poorly realised red herrings within its elaborate plotting and flimsy script. Sometimes laughable, but nonetheless I was entertained mainly due to its brutal and grisly acts of pulpy violence towards some rather obnoxiously annoying college students by a psychotic killer with a battle axe. The performances weren't bad in the shape of a spunky young cast, however the characters they were portraying weren't particularly enticing. An always presentable Rutger Hauer shows up in a short supportive role as a grizzled detective. A slickly made, but a shallow and forgettable addition to the fold.
Here we go with other slasher movie, Good looking people and Acting from everyone was really good!<br /><br />Few kids playing pranks phones calls and there parents are killed by the killer in front of the kids! 20 Years after they are still friends, They go to huge house, have fun, Drugs and Sex (no nudity) for least half a hour of the movie! Again they start making pranks phone call all over again! and then killer comes back kills them off one by one and killer is in BIG BLACK COAT with axe just like Urban Legend movie,<br /><br />Deaths scene really weird, really odd times too.<br /><br />Nice slasher movie at this part would gave 7/10 but the twist at the end of the movie made the whole movie kinda of pointless<br /><br />The twist killed the movie for me so I going to give it 4/10
I'm sorry to all the fans, but this is a useless movie. The acting is bad, even wooden, it over-hypes the fright-factor early on, and doesn't exactly work. I think there was supposed to be a twist at the end, but it just ended up being maddeningly confusing. What the hell? The dude who was killing everyone was one of the hunted? Try again.<br /><br />Its hardly original, and it isn't even particularly good as a straight slasher. And that's saying something.<br /><br />I think whoever did the castings, whoever wrote the script, and whoever thought of the concept should be mercilessly fired and deported.<br /><br />Don't watch this movie. If someone puts this on at a party, throw the disc out the window and put on a good horror movie, like Silence of the Lambs or The Shining.
I was attracted to seeing this movie because of this plot and my desire to watch a horror.<br /><br />To my disappointment, this turned into more of a comedy than a horror. The acting, dialog, and flow of the movie was all very poorly done. Much of it didn't make sense. For example, there's a party of about 30 people and they're all terrified of one person despite them being at a secret location and are all healthy looking young adults and the guy threatening them sounds haggard. I kept thinking, maybe this was a parody of another movie like Scary Movie, but they were trying too hard to make it look gruesome - emphasis on try.<br /><br />The blood and gore are also poorly done. I've seen Halloween costumes look more believable than this. A guy with his head cut clean off... looked clean - missing signs bone, flesh, blood, and even the head. A strong downward strike with an ax on a corpse should lodge itself into something... seemed like the guy was swinging a bat instead of an ax.<br /><br />Revealing who the main villain was supposed to be a twist, but contradicted other parts in the story. What was going in the guy's mind to turn out like that? If there was going to be a twist, you should at least build up to it adding mystery and suspense.
This wasn't really a very good movie. There were lots of implausible and predictable things that happened during the course of the film...but I think that most of the reviewers are missing the point of why this movie should be enjoyed by a wide audience. THIS MOVIE WAS PRODUCED BY MAGIC JOHNSON! Isn't that enough to inspire us all to check out this film? A film produced by a former NBA star doesn't come along every day, you know. Beautifully stupid kids in a big house getting slashed by an axe wielding psycho. Every cliché trotted out for us to groan over. Teen sex. And it was all produced by MAGIC JOHNSON! I can't say enough about this movie! Teen drug use! College hijinx! And it was all produced by MAGIC JOHNSON! Yippeeee!
This is the worst adaption of a classic story I have ever seen. They needlessly modernize it and some points are actually just sick.<br /><br />The songs rarely move along the story. They seem to be thrown in at random. The flying scene with Marley is pointless and ludicrous.<br /><br />It's not only one of the worst movies I've seen, but it is definitely the worst musical I've ever seen.<br /><br />It's probably only considered a classic because "A Christmas Carol" is such a classic story. Just because the original story was a classic doesn't mean that some cheap adaption is.
I couldn't not recommend a Christmas movie more than this worthless piece of drivel (trust me, double negatives are required here -- it's that bad). This film was in trouble from the opening credits when it was revealed that the screenwriter was the same person as the songwriter. The musical numbers are all far too long and none of them any good ("Thank You Very Much" has a decent melody, but the lyrics are stupid beyond words). I would gladly bear the chains worn by Scrooge in the film's bizarre hell sequence than sit through this insult to movie musicals again.<br /><br />The only entertaining part of this movie (completely unintentional by the way) involves Alec Guinness as Jacob Marley. Dressed in a silly powder white costume, Guinness foppishly prances through his scenes in what was either an attempt to make it appear as though he was floating like a ghost, or to show his utter disdain with having to be in this dreadful movie. Albert Finney, meanwhile, blends the best of Alistar Sim and Charles Laughton to create his hopelessly loathsome character of Quasimodo/Scrooge. Finney's Scrooge is so hideous a person, it's impossible to believe his transformation.<br /><br />Steer clear of this abomination of filmmaking at all costs.
now don't get me wrong, i do enjoy christmas movies. i love its a wonderful life and i really enjoy the versions of a christmas carol with george c. scott and alistair sim. but this particular movie is awful. i think the i love life song the ghost of christmas present sings is especially painful. albert finney sings fairly well in annie. i don't know whats wrong with him in this movie but it sounds as though someone is trying to sing through a mouthful of dead gerbils. the only thing that saved this movie for us was shutting the sound off and watching the dance numbers accompanied by the south park christmas cd.
This is a bigger budgeted film than usual for genre director Honda (with more evidently elaborate sets) – though the special effects still have that distinctive cheesiness to them (witness the giant bats and rodents on display). It also utilizes a surprising number of American actors: Joseph Cotten playing the visionary scientist looks ill-at-ease and frail (but, then, his character is supposed to be 204 years old!), an innocuous Richard Jaeckel is the photographer hero while, as chief villains, we get Cesar Romero and Patricia Medina (both essentially campy). As I've often said, I grew up watching English-language films dubbed in Italian…but hearing Hollywood actors in Japanese is another thing entirely! <br /><br />LATITUDE ZERO feels like a juvenile version of a typical Jules Verne adventure, and is fairly entertaining on that level; indeed, it's preferable to Honda's low-brow variations on the monsters-on-the-rampage formula because of the inherent quaint charm of the set-up in this case. The plot involves the kidnapping of a famous scientist by Romero – he was intended to establish himself in the underwater, technologically advanced city devised by Cotten (to which the world's foremost minds are being recruited). We're treated to plenty of silly battles between the rival subs, but the most amusing scenes are certainly the raid on Romero's cave – in fact, Cotten doing somersaults and fending off men in rubber suits (via flames and laser emitted from his glove!) must surely count as the nadir of his acting career; the other elder in the cast, Romero, is more in his element – after all, he had been The Joker in the BATMAN TV series and movie of the 1960s! Cotten has a scantily-clad blonde physician on his team, and is assisted by a hulking Asian; Romero, on the other hand, is flanked by an Oriental femme fatale – who, however, ends up getting a raw deal for her efforts (the girl's brain is eventually transplanted into a hybrid of lion and condor…which is among the phoniest-looking creatures you ever saw!). Apparently, a 2-disc set of this one from Media Blasters streets on this very day!!
No matter how well meaning his "message" is - this film is a terribly made trainwreck - awful acting, lame camera work - I do not know why Carr agreed to try and pull off a stutter - he is lousy at it. You watch the extras on the DVD and the way he has a camera follow him around - he just soaks it up - he loves being the center of attention. He is a bad actor - he reminds me of another arrogant filmmaker - Eric Schaffer. Some how Carr has had this film shown at city Youth Centers and New Age churches - where damaged people looking for reinforcement and attention themselves babble on about how the film touched them and maybe it did - but as a film itself it is choppy, predictable and sappy.
Overrated and only for those people in their 20's whom wear particularly thick rose tinted glasses, who never actually saw it in the first place because they were to young. Awful animation, dialogue and a tired narrative. A real product of the 80's, the novel gimmick of a puzzle TOY (thats right, TOY not the absurd, pretentious and child alienating "collectors action figurine"), sold on the back of a poor cartoon and other paraphernalia, only matters to those who bought the TOY when they were "actual" children in the period of '84' to '87'. It Has become cult because of those same adults are to immature to let go of their memories. Avoid.
Being that I loved the original "Caligula" even with all its flaws, I have to say this remake trailer was abysmal.<br /><br />Listening to Jovovich say in that lazy American accent "Mmm cuhligyooluh..." makes me feel sick. The set doesn't look Roman at all... it looks like some rich actor's Hollywood mansion backyard, and the Roman costumes look like cheap crap you buy at a suburban costume shop.<br /><br />That "charming" Adriana Asti looks like a fifty year old Hispanic woman totally terrified out of her mind, as if not knowing it's a movie trailer.<br /><br />The acting has got to be some of the worst I've ever seen, with most of the lines I hear being random actors screaming "CALIGULAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!" as loudly and obnoxiously annoyingly as they can.<br /><br />The random sex scenes also filled a good 40 or 50% of the trailer, and the scenes with notable actors/actresses like Gerard Butler (who graces the screen in shadows for all of three and a half seconds) not doing anything but looking uncomfortable or going all-out over the top with their minimal lines, just dragging it down with the ridiculousness of their delivery.<br /><br />Courtney Love's part consists of her looking like her usual dumpy crack-whore self leaning against a door mumbling about the moon or something. You can't tell because she's either drunk or high or just mumbling idiotically.<br /><br />Karen Black is just annoying... randomly laughing, and screaming in such a way that irritates you.<br /><br />Helen Mirren... she was in the original, and her return to "Caligula" consists of... "CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALIGULAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" I particularly "love" (and by love, I mean hate) Ennia's line, "Caligola... j00 no maki me *something incoherent*.... *something that sounds like j00nalo*" It's also insanely arrogant to say Caligula's four year reign was greater than Jesus's birth and death.<br /><br />Honestly, this has got to be the worst, most exploitative, self-indulgently arrogant piece of crap labeled as "art" I've ever seen. Even if Gore Vidal hated the original Caligula, he shouldn't have shown up or given his name over for this crap-pile, no matter how much they paid him (unless it was a billion trillion yen). Worst trailer ever.
I have nothing more to say but it was awful. I cannot imagine why Helen Mirren and others were part of this degrading mess. And if certain actors don't want people to question their sexuality then perhaps they should refrain from making more of these films. There was at least one seen that left me curious. Just my opinion. SHUDDER to think what was going on that was cut from the film. SHUDDER to wonder what went through the minds of the actors who made this film. Shudder to think about the thought process and voyeurism that went on in the directors mind. Like I stated before its a degrading mess. Its not even funny. As Ebert said of the film Caligula with Malcolm McDowell, Its not a good film, not a good story and its not even good porn. YEESHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH............
This may have been based on historical events, and we know that the makers of this TV docu-drama took liberties to make it more dramatic - I can live with that - but it was just so badly done! I was amazed in the event of an unfolding mid-air crisis how calm everyone seemed, surely someone would have panicked, and what a smooth flight, no passenger discomfort apparent - come on! Not sure about the regulations, nowadays some of the airline security stuff seems OTT nonsense, but why take your shoes off before the emergency landing, common sense tells me this is not a good idea! The shots of this massive airliner coming down on this remote airstrip were unconvincing and fake. In reality it would have been an awesome sight viewed from the ground nearby, in this movie it was out of proportion and looked like the model it probably was. Escape slides appeared at the front and mid emergency doors, yet nobody appeared to exit from the front, even though the drop was much less. The Captain went back into the plane after the landing - why? this was never explained. We know the emergency landing was due to being out of fuel, but even so there must have been some fuel sloshing around at the bottom of the tanks, and the risk of explosion must have been a very real danger, yet the evacuation seemed almost leisurely, and everyone stands around at the foot of the escape slides instead of getting as far away as possible, as I am sure I would have done. There were just too many inconsistencies, errors and faked action in this. I would have preferred to have seen a representation of the drama in real time, and with realistic motion of the plane portrayed. It had the potential to be quite thrilling, but doubtless due to the budget restrictions failed, and made one feel that a plane losing all engines was no big deal really, and you would safely glide down to a bit of a bumpy landing, but no real danger! - the reality of course being somewhat different!
I wanted to read the other comments before leaving my review and the majority definately rules: This movie is aweful! From the acting to the non-realistic animation to the countless errors. I was actually hoping that the flaps would have been extended by a stretch of the imagination (can't extend flaps without engines). The landing gear cannot be lowered unless you have electricity. That tiny little fan that was going was not sufficient by any stretch to lower the landing gear. The one thing I thought was quite peculiar is when they landed, the back wheels touched down and then the nose one broke off, thus suspending the plane with both back tires in the air. How did the captain apply left and right brakes to tires that weren't touching the ground? Did they forget the spoilers? Word to the director: Find out *all* you can about planes before attempting a "plane" movie. Sorry for the technical rant, but I give this movie 1/10.
I HATE plane crash movies...ALL of them! In fact, I hate them all with a passion! First of all, they are cheap-looking and have no craftsmanship! Secondly, they insult the airline industry and say to the audience that all planes do is...FALL OUT OF THE SKY AND CRASH!<br /><br />Why I wince at such a film? This could happen to any of us and with worser consequences than those suffered by the characters in said movie...which is the only chilling aspect of an airline disaster yarn such as this. I hate this movie because it's like all the 50,000,000 stupid-ass airplane chaos movies before it! Freefall is like all the others: nothing more than boredom before the clichéd bullshit dramatic scenes take place. <br /><br />First, off we have same cast of retards on this flying death trap: The Cleaver-esquire family of three, the yuppie baastard, and the bitch of a flight attendant complete with a big blond hairdo from 1987 scolding anyone who is the least bit frightened! <br /><br />My second gripe is this shouldn't be a full-length movie, but a documentary explaining everything about the Air Canada "Gimbli Glider" incident a.k.a "Freefall" right down to the safety precautions.<br /><br />My third and final gripe is with all airline films of this caliber(with the exception of Fearless) Why the hell did the male steward instruct the passengers to remove there shoes? (I could understand high heels and sharp, loose objects, but c'mon!)Like that's gonna' make them any more f#*king safer than they are now! This plane if they(the passengers) didn't know any better: knew they were going to crash land. Why would you force 100 injured people down a rubber slide that can cause skin to peel and bleed on impact only to walk in their stocking feet on a debris field! Does this make any sense to anyone?<br /><br />Fearless and the hit ABC series "Lost" had more depth and realism to air disaster than just "plane malfunctions-people panic-stewards become assholes-plane lands without wheels in a field-people wander without shoes and jackets, etc. The same old crap from Airport 1975! Freefall was so typical of a air-crash movie that I almost expect to see either Charlton Heston or Peter Graves burst into the damn passenger cabin at any moment. Could we at least see how these poorly-acted characters go back to normalcy instead of people rejoicing amidst the impending tragedy that is staring in front of them? Typical moronic Lifetime movie! Cheap and Stupid! <br /><br />The director of "Freefall" should stick to cheap made-for-TV movies with white middle-aged women with stupid teenage kids who do drugs and have marital problems. As for suspense...leave it to the professionals...you hack! Why should we the audience sit through over an hour and a half of this Airport wannabe rehash. I hope to god they don't make plane crash movies like this anymore. If this were like the ABC series "Lost" then it would be something to watch. But this is utter crap and then some. Stop turning every plane disaster movie into "Airport 1975"! This is not "Airport" this is cheap pathetic waste of my time. I would not recommend this movie or any made-for-TV air disaster movie to anyone not even my worst enemies.
A good cast and they do their best with what they're given, but the story makes no sense, the characters' actions are inexplicable, and there are too many moments of unintentional humor, as when a man is killed by being pierced with pieces of a phonograph record or when they get the witch drunk to a hip hop beat and then hit her over the head with a bottle and she grabs her hostage and pouts off. The scene when the two witch and her victim (played by the same actress) are in the house together sets up like a 3 Stooges routine, and the plot begs the question: if the witch wants to possess this other woman's soul, why doesn't she just do it instead of leading these people on this elaborate chase? Not to be missed is Christopher Walkin's eyeglasses and his automotive explanation of the afterlife (paraphrased): "The ancient Egyptianas - they wee materialists. They expected the body to last through eternity, like a used car that you souped up. But the Druids, they knew you couldn't drive in the afterlife. You had to get out and walk." Huh? The ending is absolutely indecipherable. Seems like they just ran out of film.
This film seems to be completely pointless. There is no reason why anything that happens in it happens, as if it was written by a small child who got bored halfway through and thought "how can I wrap this up?". And what were Jared Harris and Christopher Walken thinking? Did they do it for a bet? I couldn't tell you the plot, I'm not entirely sure there is one to be quite frank, but if there is it didn't register. Jared and his bird go to Ireland after she falls down the stairs while lashed up, as you do. They go to a house with a very annoying small girl in it, meet Christopher Walken who has dug up some ancient woman preserved in peat. He brings her back to life for no other reason than it continues the story and she shows her gratitude by immediately icing him. From then on it all gets a bit silly. A couple of hours of my life that I'd like back!
Yikes did this movie blow. The characters were weak, the plot weaker. I figured this couldn't be too bad because it has Christoper Walken, oops. He must have done this because he was bored and needed the money. The characters were supposed to be Irish but noone had an Irish accent. I am desperately trying to find something nice about this, I can't except Walken did a fine job with a wooden character. Find something to read, or watch discovery, don't ever see this movie.
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. However, the little slave girl, Alice and Jared Harris imitating Christopher Walken is what makes this movie entertaining. Alice's smoking, drinking and uncanny way of showing up when her name is called is strange and interesting. I have to applaud Jared for his Christopher Walken imitation, and Christopher Walken for allowing this to be in the movie.
The writer came up with a pretty decent idea for a story, but many flaws in the execution of the plot took so much away from the film as to nearly render it unwatchable. Basic elements such as character development were glossed over, at best. Inconsistencies also reared their ugly heads. A massive mansion in the middle of the rural Irish countryside? Characters just "showing up" in the gardens during a stormy night (at very convenient times, I might add)? All in all it wasn't "bad". I rated it a 4, based mostly on the story and talent of Alison Elliott.
There's really not a lot to say about Las Vegas Lady. It's harmless enough, but it is little more than a dull heist film from the 70s. The movie is neither as clever nor as sexy as it strives to be. The plot is a retread of the tired old casino robbery storyline that's been done to death. Except in the case of Las Vegas Lady, I think the robbery plot was designed by a 3 year-old. The plan involves three women – one to unnecessarily and in plain view scale the outside of the Circus Cicus building, one to pose as a waitress only to blow her cover at the first opportunity, and one to stand around exposing her cleavage. That's pretty much it. Intricate, huh? Other than Stella Stevens and her aforementioned breasts, the other women involved in the plot aren't particularly memorable. Las Vegas Lady co-stars Stuart Whitman. When not pawing Stevens, his involvement in the movie is highlighted by one of the most idiotic gun fights ever put on film.<br /><br />I really wanted to like this movie. It does have that 70s feel to it that I always enjoy and some nice shots of Las Vegas circa 1975. But the movie itself is too dull to rate any higher than a 4/10 – and that's probably overstating it. In the end, Las Vegas Lady is a waste of some perfectly good cleavage.
Well, i could nt get into the plot, but thats just me maybe. Listless camera-movements at times, nevertheless this movie has got a charming vintage quality.The acting is genuine at times and entertaining with the occasional chase sequence involving scantily clad ladies, which was nice. The climax is confused and disjointed, but still ...err riveting, thanx to Stella Stevens.<br /><br />The stunts are interesting, specially because of the 70's las vegas backdrop. There are a few jerky hand-held camera-movements at the end, which keep me guessing, for a while. But i don't think I ll b chasing the DVD, just yet.
Watching beautiful women sneaking around, playing cops and robbers is one of the most delightful guilty pleasures the medium film lets me enjoy. So The House on Carroll Street was not entirely a waste of time, although the story is contrived and the screenplay uninspired and somewhat irritating.<br /><br />There are many allusions to different Hitchcock pictures, not least the choice of Kelly McGillis in the starring role. She is dressed up as Grace Kelly, and she is not far off the mark. Not at all. But her character is not convincing. The way she is introduced to the audience, she should be someone with political convictions and a purpose in life. After all the movie deals with a clearly defined time period, true events and a specific issue. But the story degenerates within the first minutes into a sorry run-off-the-mill crime story with unbelievable coincidences, high predictability and a set of two dimensional characters. This is all the more regrettable, as the performances of the actors are good, as are the photography and the set design.<br /><br />The finale in Central Station, New York is breath taking. It starts in the subterranean section and then moves up to the roof. The movie can be praised for its good use of architecture.
a romance without feeling, a drama of issues without point (or drama).... This film is supposed to be all these and fails on each and every account, as if it isn't trying. Or as if the director/editor/scriptwriter team isn't really trying. The actors are able--they need better support.<br /><br />One element that doesn't fail is the score by George Delarue. Beautiful and moving. What a shame it's attached to this film. In a good film actors' words and movements and music synchronize and enhance the impact. This editor plastered on music with no regard for dialogue and movement. The love scene is particularly grating in this respect: an insult to the talents of the lead actors.<br /><br />There is another element in the film that works: location photography. Notably one moment in Grand Central Station. I'd guessed in advance what was going to happen; but how it was filmed in that setting was breathtaking.<br /><br />Some commentators on this board have pointed out that US assimilation of criminal Nazi scientists actually happened during these years of the MacCarthy scare. The moment the film seems to start looking seriously at American society, it switches into conventional romance; before any human feelings can move us, it's away on a (predictable) 'thriller' escapade.<br /><br />Just as the film insults the talents of the actors, it insults the issues it's pretends (and fails) to take up.<br /><br />You are warned.
This movie was awful and an insult to the viewer. Stupid script, bad casting, endless boredom.<br /><br />In the usual tradition of Hollywood, the government of the US is shown as always evil. The Communist-sympathizer nitwits in Hollywood, most of whom are as dumb as a box of rocks, love taking the lone nutcase Eugene McCarthy and picturing him as the leader of a vast movement. The truth is that at the time he was considered a fringe character who was exploiting a legitimate concern about the Soviet Communists for political gain.<br /><br />Oh yeah, and the US brought over all those evil Nazis. Like Werner VonBraun, without whom we would have no space program. He actually loved being American and became a great asset to the country.<br /><br />And yet the irony is that the fools in Hollywood, an uneducated lot who live a fantasy existence, still believe that the government should run EVERYTHING and give us all what we want. And yet, this is the same government that they continually portray as a consummate evil in films like this.
Oh god, what a horrible, horrible film. Meant to be a comment on the state of society, it's just a reflection of the worst of the worst in reality TV. Interstitials hosted by Jason Jones and Don McKellar are the most obnoxious part, written in a tone that is perhaps meant to be reflexive and insightful. Rather, these moments are mind numbing as they speak to the camera with dialogue written by someone with a love for insulting, condescending speech that shoves the "meaning" of the film down the viewer's throat.<br /><br />Also, a point to would-be filmmakers: Long takes and quiet scenes do not equal art. Neither do extreme angles or logic stretched to the point of absurdity.<br /><br />If anyone out there is interested in watching this film, please don't. Seriously. Please. You have better things to do.
This film is so bad - dialogues, story, actors and actresses - everything! - that it's hard to imagine that we'll see a worse movie this year or in the following years. "Love's Brother" (set in Australia among Italian immigrants) has nothing but shallow clichés about Italian culture to offer, and it is quite telling that even the Italians from and in Italy speak ENGLISH in the film. The message of the film - ugly people have to marry ugly people, beautiful people have to marry beautiful people - is truly discomforting. Giovanni Ribisi is quite good in films like 'Suburbia' or 'Lost in Translation', but here his pseudo-Italian accent is hard to bear. See this film at your own risk. Trash as trash can!
A fashion designer trips over a cat and falls into a pool, hitting her head on something floating on the surface. With rather cheesy effects (this was a TV movie) she floats up out of her body. She floats through a tunnel of rings of swirling orange smoke, and black rigid figures tip into her view (they look like the mannequins in her apartment). I almost thought I was watching a Jess Franco movie.... As her friends revive her, a black arm grabs her by the wrist, and she has to struggle to get loose. When she is revived, she remembers everything, and has a nasty bruise on her forearm.<br /><br />Shortly thereafter, she nearly gets hit by an out-of-control car that comes up on the sidewalk behind her. On Halloween, she decides with her boyfriend to go to Mexico for a vacation. When she gets there, she's surprised to find it's the Day of the Dead. They're annoyed by another American tourist who keeps following them, and he almost drowns them.<br /><br />The designer is encouraged to join a group of people who've had near death experiences. They've all experienced the tunnel, but not the black figures or the repeated near escapes from death. One of them has, and he's very anxious. She's also encouraged to meet with a psychic.<br /><br />A Doctor tells her about people he calls "Walkers" (the name of the novel this was based on). They're people who supposedly died of one cause that, when examined, prove to have died of another cause. Thus it's like they continued walking around after dying until they died again, but he blames it on poor record-keeping.<br /><br />I watched this on the 102 minute video, and it felt awfully long. I can't imagine that there's actually a 192 minute version! Perhaps if it was meant to be watched over two or more nights on TV it would better be watched that way than in one sitting.<br /><br />I've only read one Gary Brandner novel, Floater, and if it is representative of his work, he's not the most original of writers. Floater had the common plot of: picked on kid kills people in revenge. Even the variation was pretty common: picked on kid dies and kills people years later in revenge from beyond the grave. And in fact it has a point in common with this movie, in that the kid practices astral projection, and when he is drowned he floats up out of his body as here. I don't know how closely From the Dead of Night follows his novel Walkers. I understand the Howling movies don't bear much resemblance to his novels.<br /><br />It's quite a slow movie, and the special effects and cinematography are really held down by the (presumably) low budget and made-for-TV shortcomings. There are a lot of easily recognizable character actors in it. It also feels very dated, more early to mid 1980s than 1989. I found it to be boring. A much better low-budget movie covering similar subject matter that I don't think has dated as badly is Sole Survivor (1983) (arguably the inspiration for the 2000s Final Destination movies). It blows From the Dead of Night away.
What do you call a horror story without horror and story? <br /><br />This is the most irritating thing about the film: I get the feeling the writers never really decided what's actually going on in the film! It's a different thing to know it, give hints for the audience and not completely reveal it, but here, you get the feeling the screenwriters don't know it, characters in the film do not know it and audience sees that no one knows! (Remember "Cube"? Even that film knew more about itself.) <br /><br />I've consumed a lot of 80's horror / gore films and this movie certainly has its roots deep in those films. But a lot of important things are missing. We really know nothing about the characters. They keep repeating empty lines over and over again. The story isn't really developing - it never goes anywhere. B-acting is OK in this type of horror films, but there's not much to act in the script. We don't care about the characters. There's nothing to remember about them. There's not even cheesy humor or unnecessary sex. And most importantly - no thrills, no chills.<br /><br />You only get some commonly used elements of the horror film genre. They show the Lordi monsters one by one but their characters don't really contribute anything for the story.<br /><br />I honestly believe that this amount of story, character development and atmosphere could be achieved with minimal amount of crew and equipment. Oh yeah, film makers used to do that - and more - some 20 years ago! I felt the shared embarrassment of the audience as the film ended. Too bad really.
Lordi was a major hype and revelation in 2007 because they won the Eurovision Song Contest with a (not-so-heavy) metal song called "Hard Rock Hallelujah" and appeared on stage dressed like hideous monsters. But, let's face it, their victory most likely had very little to do with their great musical talents. The Eurovision contest gradually turned into one big political circus over the years and Lordi probably just won because their song finally brought a little change and – even more importantly - because their whole act sort of ingeniously spoofed the whole annual event. The absolute last thing Lordi's first (and hopefully last) horror film brings is change and ingenuity. "Dark Floors", based on an idea of the lead singer and starring the rest of the band in supportive roles, is a truly unimaginative and hopeless accumulation of clichés. The immense budget ("Dark Floors" supposedly is the most expensive Finnish film ever) definitely assures greatly macabre set pieces and impressive make-up art, but what's the point where there's no story that is worth telling? The film takes is set in a busy hospital where a bunch of people, among them a father and his young daughter with an unidentifiable illness, become trapped in the elevator during a power breakdown. When the doors open again, the floors are empty and it looks as if the hospital lies abandoned since many years already. Trying to reach the exit, the group stumbles upon several morbid and inexplicable obstacles, like eyeless corpses, screaming ghosts and Heavy Metal monsters emerging from the floors. The only three points I'm handing out to "Dark Floors" are exclusively intended for the scenery and the adequate tension building during the first half of the film. For as long as the sinister events don't require an explanation, the atmosphere is quite creepy, but as soon as you realize the explanation will a) be very stupid or b) never come, the wholesome just collapses like an unstable house of cards. Lordi's costumes never really were scary to begin with (except maybe to traditional Eurovision fans) and, in combination with a story more reminiscent to Asian ghost-horror, they just look downright pathetic and misfit. With all the national myths and truly unique exterior filming locations, I personally always presumed Finland – The Land of a Thousand Lakes – would be the ideal breeding ground for potentially horrific horror tales, but I guess that's another disillusion on my account.
Just finished watching, can't say I was impressed.<br /><br />It starts of quite good, the visual and the atmosphere gives a creepy feeling as this type of movie should. But it all ends when the first lordi monster appears. Not only do you recognize them from the band lordi, but they are seriously malplaced in the movie. Doomsday monsters with leather jackets and piercings are so 80's.<br /><br />As for the storyline, it starts of as similar horror movies, people trapped inside a hell hole. But there is no clear story on why and what is happening. The viewer is thrown some lines on possible reasons, but the lines never meet and end up to anything but a mess.<br /><br />With all the money spent on this film, with an intriguing start and some good effects, I had thought someone would have taken better care of the product. I wonder if lordi made this movie just to prove that their show costumes could be scary (except they aren't).<br /><br />So the movie gets cred for the visuals, i guess the money had to go somewhere. But the rest is an embarrassing attempt from a rock band to make their on-stage monster aliases scarier.
I love cheesy horror flicks. I don't care if the acting is sub-par or whether the monsters look corny. I liked this movie except for the bewildered feeling all the way from the beginning of the film to the very end. Look, I don't need a 10 page dissertation or a sign with big letters explaining a plot to me. But Dark Floors takes the "what is this movie about?" thing to a whole new (annoying) level. What IS this movie about?<br /><br />This isn't exceptionally scary or thrilling but if you have an hour and a half to kill and/or you want to end up feeling frustrated and confused, rent this winner.
An interesting idea involving an alternative dimension inside a hospital. It recalled - Stephen Kings "Langoliers", "Kingdom Hospital" and old twilight zone episodes. Atmospherically strong, the set up was great. There were also some very clever 'time loop' moments which always have that head-melt appeal. The story had plenty of vague references which led me to believe that all the ensuing weirdness of - time slips / ghosts / a weird bat winged demon and a rather silly heavy metal attired ghoul-thing would be explained. And THAT was were Dark Floors severely let me down. Based on my viewing the movie gives NO EXPLANATION as to what is behind the events. Whilst, some ambiguity is always expected/welcome in these kind of films. Dark floors took it to new heights of vagueness. I don't expect things wrapped up in a pretty ribbon, but neither should I be left feeling "Huh? .. is that it? ... Did I dose off? Maybe, I hit chapter skip by mistake?" Dark Floors left me with a deeply unsatisfying suspicion that "It was all a dream" which is a shame because up until the last reel I was very much on board and enjoying the movie.
I love horror movies that brings out a real amount of mystery like say "silent hill" ( which i found to be quite good, but still, was missing something ) and movies that keeps you guessing, this i thought was one of those movies. At first the movie starts out with some really good suspense and builds up a good starting point for a good horror scene, but after that it just rolls down the hill and from there it only goes faster and faster down. I mentioned silent hill at first for a reason because i can see a lot of "stolen" themes from that movie in here.. All in all i would say, watch silent hill instead of this one, its better, its more scary, it has a lot more suspense and also the ending is a lot better.. And best of all, you wont feel ripped off as i did with this one.. This just seems to be one of those "i like that movie so I'm gonna re-make it in my own really bad version" kinda movie.. Oh and one more thing... Lordi.. in a horror movie... thats like trying to scare a kid with a care bear who has "hug me and i will love you forever" written on the stomach of it..
There are some elements that save this movie from being a total catastrophe, but are overshadowed with bad acting, plot holes, deus ex machina thrown ins, stupid dialogs, weak script, and predictable clichés...<br /><br />What we have here is a horror movie with a storyline that goes nowhere for most of the time. A group of unlikely heroes including a black guy that gets it first (yeah, that cliché seems to be still very much alive even in Finland), seem to have trouble trying to exit a mysteriously empty hospital. There are shrieking ghosts (very imaginative), zombies (at one point I thought at least they didn't use zombies, but they came), and Finnish glam-rock band with demonic make-up on, getting in their way. There is also some time-shift doodle present, but it adds up nothing to the storyline. Autistic girl and a hobo seem to have some deeper understanding of a situation, but they never spell it out to the viewer, or their confused friends. Their lines consist only of profound life lesson thoughts like: "What happens will happen..." or "Light can't live in the darkness..." or the ominous "I need a red crayon... red crayon." So all this characters (including worried father and sweet doctor in distress types) end up doing is running around them dark floors, and from or mistakenly to the demons. Occasionally a ghost or a group of zombies show up, and if it seems a demon keyboardist can't spot a group of six people coming towards it, waving a flashlight and conversing, it was just pretending. And apparently this demon can break through walls without much hassle, but opening elevator door is beyond its capabilities.<br /><br />In the end we even get a "it was all a dream" sequence twist. Or maybe it wasn't. Oh, boy I wish this movie was, and that kind that makes time seem to move faster so it all plays out in just 10 minutes or so...
I'm not sure quite why I clicked "contains spoiler", because quite honestly there is not enough explanation ever given in the movie to know enough of what is supposed to be going on to spoil it.<br /><br />Visually it mostly delivers. Well, apart from some 80's throwback rubber-mask monsters. I'll say now that before watching this I had never seen the band Lordi, nor knew anything about them bar that they won Eurovision. Apparently the monsters in this are members of the band, pretty much in their stage personas. Whatever. Anyway, I didn't know this while watching. I just thought the monsters/demons were mostly passable. Just about.<br /><br />I'm almost sure there is a semi-coherent explanation behind what we see on-screen, but it may actually be better not to know it. It probably would actually have been incredibly lame come to think on it. The action keeps it rolling along pretty much well enough to keep the viewer mostly entertained, even if half the entertainment factor is joking about wtf is supposed to be happening in this movie exactly.<br /><br />I gave it a four mainly because I got a good laugh out of it, especially out of how it explains pretty much nothing. Must have been the mood I was in, but I found that hella funny for some reason. Then I look up the movie on the internet and find out that NOBODY knows what the hell it's supposed to be about. That amused me further, and raised my score an extra half point to a 4/10.<br /><br />It's not scary, or particularly coherent, but it's pretty nice visually and sonically. Overall, far from essential, but watchable. Don't expect too much and don't expect it to make any sense and it might entertain you if you are in the right mood.
1st watched 6/18/2009 – 2 out of 10 (Dir- Pete Riski): Weird psychotic movie about a girl with autism who is being tested in a hospital, the power flickers, and then all hell breaks loose. I'm honestly not sure what the intentions were of the filmmakers on this one. What we get for the next 1 hour and a half(at least it wasn't longer) was a twisted horror/twilight zone/zombiefest/ghost movie that really ended up making no sense at all even to the very end. Initially, after the power goes out, everyone is missing in the hospital except for a small group of misfits including the girl and his father. There is the typical annoying character, a creepy old man, and the typical tough guy similar to many scarefests and, of course, the young girl the main character gets attracted to. Random stuff starts happening at various times like ghosts and monsters appearing, a hinting that time has stopped, and dead people as this small group try to escape whatever they're in. Of course, the autistic girl is the center of everything somehow and I really hate how they used this girl's affliction and insinuated that she was the cause and to place it in a hospital where people are cared for is really lame. We never really find out the answer to what was going on…which is very strange, so please avoid this dog. Unless you want to be creeped out and confused for one hour and a half this is not for you or any moviegoer. What a waste of time…really!!
Well how was I suppose to know this was "the" dumb ass promotional "Lordi Motion Picture"? I mean, I realized this when that "dinosaur" costume showed up and by the time the lead singer made his appearance I was humming "Hard Rock Hallelujah" to myself... even though I hate that song. "Dark Floors" is about a young autistic girl who is in the process of being sneaked out of the hospital by her over protective father when they, and the rest of the people in that particular elevator, become momentarily trapped... When they arrive at their floor it comes as quite a surprise to find that there is nobody else around. The hospital is empty... Except for a variety of monsters that seem to be stalking them for no apparent reason... They run through the hallways and stairwells, encountering all of the band members of the heavy metal band in their outlandish, shock-rock costumes... Nothing really memorable here, except the lousy acting, lack of gore/nudity, and the utterly shameless promotional edge, reminding me very much of "KISS Meet the Phantom of the Park". Yeah, remember that dud? Wish I didn't... I would just recommend avoiding all of these Ghost House films like a fungus and not listen to Lordi since they are a Gwar ripoff band!
I think they really let the quality of the DVD production get away from them. I rented this DVD from 2 movie stores and the second time I finally got it to play on the 3rd DVD player I tried.<br /><br />Anyone else have this issue? It's really hard to give the film an un-biased review after going through such a hassle to play it. For one, I've never seen a Finnish horror film before so I was sort of bummed that the movie was done in English. Also since it's never made clear what is wrong with Sarah, she just came off as retarded and therefore I really just hoped someone would shoot her in the face and make all the horrific happenings go away.
I initially gained interest in this film after reading a review saying this movie reminded the reviewer of Silent Hill.<br /><br />Being a huge Silent Hill fan, and disappointed with it's movie debut, I thought I would give this one a chance. Mind, Fearnet only lists this movie as "Dark Floors", not by it's full name. So when I saw the name "Mr. Lordi" in the credits I immediately thought of the band (I had a few friends in college that like them) but didn't think it was important and quickly pushed the thought aside.<br /><br />The film starts out strong. Despite the fact "creepy little girl" has been done to DEATH, the good use of audio and sense of isolation really started to piece the the story together. The tense atmosphere built rapidly, and every indication pointed to the film being excellent. As monsters are the true stars of horror, I couldn't wait to see what was lurking in the halls of the hospital the main characters had found themselves trapped in...<br /><br />And then the first monster showed up, and I found myself greatly underwhelmed. By the time the second appeared, I boggled at the fact it looked like it had just come from a Megadeth concert, and the silliness turned me off completely.<br /><br />Over the course of the movie the atmosphere did remain intact, and the story left you wondering just what was going on, but the scares were pretty much non-existent. However, I held out hope that the end would make it all worthwhile. Unfortunately that was not to be the case. By the time the movie had reached it's climax, I was in utter disbelief, and I immediately recognized the big bad in his final reveal... The lead singer of Lordi? Seriously? <br /><br />Was that what the movie all boiled down to? A bunch of poor souls being chased around a hospital by Lordi band members? The silly monster design suddenly made sense. If you're going to be that corny, may as well through the members of Marilyn Manson, or even KISS in there too. Not to mention the fact that I'm pretty sure I saw the ending in one of Lordi's music videos a few years ago. They had to go and make an entire movie off of it? <br /><br />Worst of all, when I found out what really had been going on, all I could manage was a yawn. I'm not going to "ruin" it for you, but I can safely say it's probably a plot device you've seen before. Most likely more then once.<br /><br />So, unless you're a huge Lordi fan, stay away from this. It's not scary, it doesn't bring anything new to the table (although it does a decent job of borrowing from other horror movies, mainly Silent Hill). And, I can't stress this enough, LORDI is the antagonist. LORDI. Talk about a buzzkill. <br /><br />Really, you'd be better off trying to scare yourself watching Slipknot music videos. In other words, it's just not possible.
This was not the worst movie I've ever seen, but that's about as much as can be said about it. It starts off with some good atmosphere; the hospital is suitably sterile and alienating, the mood is set to "eerie". And then...nothing. Well, somethings. Just somethings that clearly don't fit in...and no effort is made to clarify the connection between the bizarre and yet not particularly intimidating critters, and the hospital they've taken over. I mean, come on, biker duds? Some band watched a bit too much Gwar.<br /><br />My personal favorite was the head demon, who looks rather a lot like a middle-aged trucker desperately attempting menace, while simultaneously looking like he'd really like prefer to sag down on an afghan-covered couch, undo his belt, pop a can of cheap beer (probably Schlitz), and watch the game. Honestly, I've seen far scarier truckers. At truckstops. Drinking coffee. WWWwoooooohHHHHHoooooooo!!!! Scary!!<br /><br />The other monsters are even more cartoonish, and even less scary. At least, on the DVD, the videos give some explanation of their presence in the hospital...they apparently just randomly pop up in places, play some bippy "metal", and cause people to be dead a bit. Barring a few good special effects, and acting that is not entirely terrible given a lack of decent writing, there's just nothing here. It's a background-noise movie only.
This is a typical example of technically highly skilled directors of video clips/commercials trying to do their first full feature length movie. On one hand the imagery, camera, lighting, CGI and even the sound are highly polished and have a truly "expensive" look and feel. Even the actors show a certain amount of potential - unto the point where even the best acting could not hide a bad plot.<br /><br />In this case it is not a bad plot but hardly a plot at all.<br /><br />So 50% of the dialog consists of "What the hell was that ?", "What was that ?" and "What the hell was that ?". In none of the cases any of the characters nor the audience is provided with the slightest hint of an answer though. In most of the other dialogues one gets the feeling that there never was any form of dialogue book and the actors had to freely improvise to a plot that wasn't ever explained to them.<br /><br />The only reason why Skye Bennet's performance could be so good is that her character as an autistic girl didn't allow giving her these tragically horrible dialogue lines the other actors had to deal with. That way she was able to just show her acting talent which the rest of the cast couldn't even get close to. I mean there's not one actor in the world that could make up for a dialogue like this:<br /><br />Ben: Is this real, huh ? Emily: Stop it. Ben: A mass psychosis, huh ? Jon: Somebody has to take control of this situation. Ben: This situation can't be controlled. Not by you, not by anybody. Emily: Not by you either. Ben: No<br /><br />Got me goosebumps. But not for horror, more for the horrible attempt. In some moments I felt ashamed for the actors to have added this to their vita.<br /><br />2 stars for the excellent technical work.
*Sigh* Leave it to us Finns to take a stupid idea, blow it out of proportion and try to market it as cool. Lordi is a mediocre band at best, and a single gimmick will get you only so far.<br /><br />To all you marketing idiots out there: this is the reason for the inherent minority complex that is often encountered when Finland tries to export something.<br /><br />Lordi isn't scary. Lordi is lame. Lordi is OVER.<br /><br />I want to apologize to the rest of the world for this plastic-faced idiocy. Sure, they won the Eurovision.<br /><br />No, wait - they won the Eurovision. That's it. I rest my case.
I have seen some pretty bad movies, and this is right up there. No plot to speak of, it's like one of those bad coma episodes on a soap-opera. I just wanted to smack that little girl because, well lets just say, she's real suspicious all the way through the movie. The monsters running around wearing some bling was funny. I also saw a bit of "Silent Hill" in there. And I read that this was done by, and or stared a Finnish metal band, Lordi. So it's no wonder that it didn't make much sense. It seem to be a vehicle for promoting there band and nothing more. The FX are very good, the look of the movie, the monsters, and even the acting also good. But the story and the telling of it, just aren't there.
Going down as the most expensive film in Finnish history, to date, "Dark Floors" is a horror film with an extremely Lynchian narrative that recounts an ever increasingly decrepit series of "Floors" (ironically enough) in an abandoned hospital, in which our protagonists are trapped. Lead by an autistic daughter and her father, himself disenchanted with the hospitals apparent lack of medical progress with his daughter, make their way into an elevator debating the issue with one of the hospitals nurses. Accompanied by a security guard, a businessman and a seemingly intoxicated tramp the collective soon find the complex abandoned, but they are not alone. Directed by Finnish- born Pete Riski, more known for his television work, "Dark Floors" is filmed in English, using mainly English actors but has the notable inclusion of Finland's arguably most famous group "Lordi" (2006 Eurovision song contest winners) as themselves, i.e. in their on stage monstrous costumes, as the films antagonists, yet for all this razzmatazz the production fails where it is needed most, in convincing the audience.<br /><br />Any film that has their lead character use the phrase "it's too quiet" is already headed down a dubious path, and this Lordi influenced horror does not break that convention. For all the good ideas that are thrown into the mix there are a handful of ripe clichés alongside and worst of all, anything that is interestingly original isn't fleshed out enough for it to resonate. The concept of the degrading floors is initially highly ominous and does provide a sense of inevitable doom as the audience is aware those trapped in the hospital must progress ever further down in the mire. However, there isn't enough atmosphere created to scare and intimidate the audiences into the unknowing fear, the viewer is aware the journey will become ever more dangerous, as the levels degenerate from shiny white through to hellish black, but I don't think the characters are aware enough of this fact for it to be threatening. Also, the entire film taking place in what is essentially its own time bubble is again a very nice touch, a concept not often used in the horror genre, but the characters don't confront the situation with enough fear and trepidation when they stumble across this fact, they continue about their business far too readily and without enough genuine concern for the idea to mean anything to the audience. These initially good ideas are just left to go to waste, as if the director and/or Mr Lordi (who had many of the ideas used within the film) had these thoughts, but couldn't agree or decide on how to best use them and as such lose their purpose and point. <br /><br />Yet for all the frustration there are large quantities of comedy, yet not for the reasons the creators would have hoped for. Too much is clichéd, too much is recycled and too much is just simply ridiculous. While the lead is amicably acted by Noah Huntley, the characters are mere cardboard cut outs that have been pasted into the story from other films. We have a lead man doing everything possible to protect his daughter alongside a clunkily developed love interest. Accompanying the "couple" we have the traditional token black man as a hard-nosed security guard, with the nigh on infinite clip for his sidearm, and a weasely disbelieving businessman only on the look out for himself. Worst of all though, unfortunately, is the introduction of the cast of Lordi as the creatures of the night that torment our wandering band of misfits, but not for them appearing as themselves. What makes a horror film scary to the viewing audience is contextualising the fear. "The Shining" is scary because it's a member of your own family hounding you, in "Dawn Of The Dead" it's our fear of each other and the primordial cannibalism and irrational thought patterns the zombies possess, in "Alien" the fear is explained, the creature is rationalised and in "Dark Floors" there is none of that. Perhaps it's unfair to compare this production to these monoliths of the genre but when you do it shows it pales significantly and that it's aggressors feel like nothing more than demented Klingons where you can almost see the zip on the costumes they wear, without a build up of any atmosphere "Lordi" just aren't scary.<br /><br />It's infuriating because we all cheer for the underdog and hope they do well, you want the smaller productions to say that they can create the same quality of film as "Hollywood" churns out, much in the similar way that George A Romero started out, but it doesn't always materialise. I enjoyed the film and didn't feel as if I had wasted the ninety minutes I had just sat through, but I felt enjoyment on a completely hollow level as if nothing that had occurred mattered or affected me subconsciously, emotionally or critically. I felt the almost Lynchian narrative was a standout plus point, but it fades out into nothingness. Why did it happen? What does it mean? Will they go through this all again? Without even the slightest insight into what will happen the film is simply puzzling for the sake of trying to be arty. Was the entire sequence of events real or was it merely a dream sequence? Had the autistic girl watched the Eurovision Song Contest of 2006 and simply had a highly bizarre nightmare given the stress she was under? Who knows? And unfortunately I fail to work up the energy to even care. "Dark Floors" is an infuriating experience that while ultimately shallow hallmarks potential and at the very least shows a plethora of creative energies from Mr Lordi, who perhaps should look into working solo to fully develop his ideas. It's one that fans of the group or the genre should perhaps pursue but will leave you feeling left in the lurch for not having enough light shed on the situation.
I rented this because I'm a bit weary of '80s NBC programming and apparently I saved myself a lot of money. I have nothing against any of the actors and for their credit they do a good job but this show is flawed from the premise.<br /><br />We have a character who is unlikable. He's full of flaws, not enlightened, and a complete jerk on a good day. Yet the reason why anybody should care just isn't there. While creating an American sitcom centered around a complete bullheaded jackass is revolutionary and full of potential, it just isn't met here within this show. Most of the supporting characters aren't fully fleshed characters but rather sad punching bags that want empathy from the audience for being punching bags. As in any sitcom, they are the ones who are made the most normal for the audience to relate to, and in doing this they negate the lead character to such an extent that we see Bittinger being himself and harming people and they just stay there because....why? There is no reason. Any normal people would have simply left the abuse. Keeping them there without any real reason--even the really unbelievable one given by Joanna Cassidy in the very special 2-part abortion episode that has major problems of its own--is where the show just falls apart. To simply believe that people put up with this guy because we are told he has a heart of gold does not mesh with the reality of the situation. If anything, this isn't even dramedy. This is a badly plotted, conceived, and executed premise that had a few moments but overall met the fate it deserved. Someone had the guts to go out and make a very good idea, but the execution is so haphazard that it just looks like a weirdly scripted version of the Jerry Springer show where someone is abused by this tyrant that we're supposed to root for because we are told to. A show like this requires a deft touch that the actors here could have provided easily, but somehow aren't able to. And that's a fatal error that really killed the program.<br /><br />Chalk it up to a show in its infancy. Regardless, the show is worth a watch. But it really screwed up when trying to aim for the stars, and made the whole enterprise not what it could have been.
I've seen this film several times in a variety of short-film festivals and it always causes me the impression that i have seen a movie trailer! <br /><br />For a school-film is very well produced and directed, but the story... well it needed something else to be a bigger and interesting film. The character named Tim Watcher needed some in-dept approach. This is something that lacks in some Portuguese short films - the script is always superficial.<br /><br />But still... i liked this movie...<br /><br />Parabens! (congratulations!)
Unfortunately I have to agree with the critic written by halopes.<br /><br />For a short film the cinematography, costumes, sets, sound, editing and everything else is very, very good. This might seem surprising at first but I was told that the technical crew working on this consisted of professionals, so the quality is to be expected. The problem, as usual, resides in the story itself.<br /><br />Thing is, it's not really a story. To tell a story (or in cinema's case, SHOW a story) you need plot and conflict. You need things that happen to the protagonist: events. These events happen because the protagonist wants something and, for some reason, he can't get it. Tim Watcher has no problems or goals. He's a kind of supernatural entity who observes mankind. That's it. So what we have here is pure exposition. Instead of being shown a story, we're simply learning things about this Tim Watcher individual. Of course, considering the peculiar nature of Tim Watcher and the film's short duration, it's hard to give enough background about him so the movie resorts to Voice-Over Narration. In this case it's used in the worst possible sense which is to give information that otherwise we'd never glean. In fact, if it wasn't for the VO we'd think the character was just a kooky old man going around looking at things. To make it worse the VO also explains what's happening on the screen! The images we're shown are just decoration for the text we're listening to.<br /><br />I could say that this short film would make a good video for a band or something, but because the images don't stand on their own it's impossible to say that. What's left obviously has value as a measure of the crew's technical capabilities (not incredible, but good) but fails to entertain, amuse, thrill or, at the very least, show a story.
As far as I can understand, TIW WATCHER is the first work of a young director. My doubt is if this is the work of a regular guy who happens to love films or if this is the work of a cinema student, since there is a reference to Oporto School of Arts in the final credits.<br /><br />Nevertheless, director Ricardo Pinho demonstrates with this movie a total unawareness of some basic notions about cinema. What is a movie? How to tell a story? It doesn't matter, for the novice director. One of the first things you learn in school when you're studying cinema is how to tell a story. You learn that, just like in novels, in movies you should also construct your story in three acts: the introduction, the development and the conclusion. You learn that your story should have a protagonist and an antagonist and that there should be a climax. You learn this is valid for a 3-hour-epic, for the regular movie, for a short film and even, believe it or not, for a 30-second commercial. You also learn there can be levels of subtleness in your approach to the academic structure and that, ultimately, you can even deconstruct it.<br /><br />In rough terms, TIM WATCHER introduces us its main character and then, the movie ends - the whole movie sounds like the introduction of the characters in Jeunet's AMÉLIE. There are no second or third acts in TIM WATCHER. This is not a parody or an art film, thus you can't even try to justify the disrespect for the academic structure. You are expecting to be told a story, and it doesn't happen. Worst than that, TIM WATCHER defines itself as a warning; and one with no real purpose. It doesn't make a point, or at least, not a valid one. Its point is childish, with a sense of vengeance. The situations portrayed are utterly simple and its approach is Manichaean.<br /><br />I was expecting a lot more from this short. The movie opens with a rather good-looking credits sequence and you quickly realize you are watching something with better production values than the regular Portuguese short film. I don't know the budget for this movie, but judging for the thanks-list in the end credits, merit must go to the production team for such good connections in a country where's difficult to have doors opened to young filmmakers.<br /><br />TIM WATCHER seems to be an exercise in style, color and carefully chosen plans, combined with a fine score. That's all. There's nothing else. There's no plot. And that's a shame because it feels like a waste of production values. Hardly, you can see in the regular Portuguese short such diversity of locations and so many available extras to enrich a story.<br /><br />As absurd as the comparison may sound, I must refer the BMW shorts as a fine example of how you can tell a good story in a very short film severely conditioned to product placement and over-the-top stylish cinematography.
Attack Force has a horrendous title, and can almost certainly be judged by it's awful cover, because the film is horrible! A mish-mash of plot lines, a choppy mess, and a horribly stagnated pace, make the film hard to watch start to finish. I managed this and I'm proud. As a fan of Seagal's work (mostly of his old days), it's painful to see him star in such tripe. True Seagal's last half dozen movies or so, have sucked a lot, but some of them at least had some redeeming features. Attack Force is a mess. From conception to delivery this film has undergone many changes, from an alien plot line, to the current one about a highly addictive super drug, about to be unleashed on the Romanian (the film has several settings, none of which are Romanian, but all look like Romania because they are in Romania!) populace. The film is tacked together with little regard for whatever state the original shooting script was. Plot-holes and loose ends are abound in the film that's for sure. That's been a problem in Seagal's last few films as well, but never has the result been so boring. There's a whole plot line about the water supply being poisoned with CTX (that's the drugs cool name) that is never resolved! <br /><br />Of course in recent years the plot's haven't been the main draw in the Seagal canon so there was a big onus on the other departments, especially the action. Before I regard the action though, all the other departments are poor. The direction is poor, or perhaps better put, made to look poor. Who knows how director Michael Keusch originally intended this film? Between him finishing his job, the re-shoots by stunt man Tom Delmar, and the editing, a coherent auteur vision is completely lost. The best way to describe the film is that it's just all over the shop! The cinematography is dull, nearly inducing sleep, while the droning score (sounding like it was produced on the cheapest of cheap synthesizers) does nothing to excite matters. The cast too are poor, unable to salvage anything here. Seagal looks bored beyond recognition, and is dubbed through much of the picture, clearly when plot-points are being changed. He looks tired and overweight, and lethargic, unlike he's looked in previous pictures too (remarkable as the aforementioned have been key complaints in Seagal's recent pictures). The only redeemable cast member is Adam Croasdell as one of the villains, doing a slimy Brit routine. He seems to be a throwback to the alien plot line, because he's playing it inhuman. He seems like a cross between a body snatcher and a vampire (ditto to the lead villain played by some hot chick who appears on occasion, seemingly waiting for her husband… Dracula).<br /><br />Finally the action. Well it's poor. Poorly conceived, poorly shot. There's not much either, and there's even less featuring Seagal. Stevo doesn't really bring out the stunt double here, because there's so little to do. There's even a lengthy (repetitive and boring) action scene on the hour mark that inter-cuts occasionally with little flashes of Seagal's stand in because clearly Seagal wasn't there while the scene was being shot, and they wanted to have him feature in the action scene. Seagal eventually appears in person to shoot two guys in the head. Seagal has a producers credit here and a script credit, but from what I understand the film has been altered behind his back to the current state it's in. Seagal will apparently not be working with these people again, or with Castel Studio's who continue to deliver horrifically sub-Nu-Image (that's saying something), material.<br /><br />Overall this is one to avoid if you are not a Seagal fan. Seagal fans can also be safe in the knowledge that the big man probably won't want to do anything this bad again. Unfortunately his next film which has already been shot, with the same people, promises to be even worse than this. *
I'm a huge Steven Seagal fan. Hell, I probably weigh as much as he does although I don't have the street cred to sport the frizzy-mullet-ponytail. Having stated my own bias and affection for America's favorite corpulent stage and screen hero, it is with a heavy heart that I must declare this to be his worst movie ever. I'm not sure he could make a movie any worse than this.<br /><br />In his defense the major problems with this film seem to occur in post-production. It's painfully obvious that this movie was supposed to have a different storyline. That results in woeful voiceovers in which Steve's voice doesn't nearly sync up with that of the dubbed voice. The editing is pisspoor and overall this starts bad, gets even worse, and by the end you'll wish you had rewatched The Da Vinci Code instead. Yes, it's that bad.<br /><br />After this I don't know what to expect from Steve. My friends still laugh at me for listening to his CDs. Is it time I start checking out some of the Van Damme direct to DVD nutty logs? If you are tempted to watch this movie, rip your eyeballs out and flush them down the toilet. A lifetime of darkness is better than 89 minutes of this.
I look around in the video store still in shock how Steven Seagal with his track record of Bad action movies can still have 3 movies hit the shelves in less than a Year.Attack force being the 3rd no less promised the first-time entrance into the Sci Fi Genre for our ever widening Seagal.Visions of bad movie entertainment flashed before my gullible eyes.Sadly this is not the case one bit with no entertainment and a movie as bad as they come.<br /><br />Seagal rebounded a tiny bit with the Trashy-but enjoyable Shadow Man last time we saw him.However Attack force has to be his absolute worst movie ever!Don't argue for out for a Kill,Ticker,or even Black Dawn folks.This is the bottom of the Septic tank here.<br /><br />Anyone who says this is Steven Seagal's return to form should be forced to write a 100 page essay on the word Taste. <br /><br />Seagal is yet another agent/I'm a supreme bad-ass yet again named Lawson wants revenge for the killing of his Team that leads him to a nefarious plot to distribute a really bad drug to the unsuspecting public.Not to mention the dealers are not from around here.<br /><br />The whole Production from Directing to the acting is poor.Was this movie shot in the Dark?Its gotta be the most poorly lighted movie since Howling 2.The action is terrible and very badly done.<br /><br />The Producers have also unwisely decided to do what the fans hate the most:throw in stunt double after stunt double and horribly dubbed Steven Seagal.Who seems to show little enthusiasm here.Can ya blame him?<br /><br />While it has been said that Attack Force was not the movie Stevie signed on for(originally Harvester)and surely has to be better than Attack force.The post-production tampering has not made it more coherent and made Seagal look worse.I feel bad for Directer Michael Keusch and writer Joe Halpin as they are gonna be judged forever for the ill-advised production re-shoots.<br /><br />So Now This leaves Seagal in the impossible position to come up with something to atone for this mess.But after seeing how bad Attack Force has turned out do we really want him to make another movie?
Okay like most Steven Seagal fans I know I not going expect a masterpiece every time he makes a film but I do expect the film to at least have some sorter budget. The main problem with the copy I watched was the terrible over dubbing I know that in some films this has to be done and I accept that but when they overdub with a totally different actors voice and keep doing this thru out the film it does take the magic of overdubbing away. Also the sets seem to be built with no care as in one scene the sliding glass top in a top secret lab has a massive crack going thru it. I was truly disappointed with this film and only hope Stevens next project will be more finished off before sending the film out for buying/renting. The story of this film had me wondering if I was watching a sci-fi film or not some parts seemed alien like but they never fully explained what was going on I found it very confusing.
How do you spell washed up fat Italian who can barely pull off a martial arts move without needing some heart medication? In this movie we see Steven Seagal at his lowest level of accomplishment- since his career started it has been a steady decline into pathetic over indulgent behavior that has scuttled his career. In this movie it looks like most of his training consisted of ordering the fetuccini alfredo at his restaurant every day.<br /><br />He is fat, slow and very old looking in this movie, hardly a martial arts action hero, more like a laughing stock clown.<br /><br />It's time for Steven Seagal to retire- this movie is about 2 hours of reasons why.<br /><br />Plot: fat Italian guy with a big reputation on the force gets wind that a crime group may be playing around with a drug designed by the military to create the ultimate warrior response. This pretense, although pathetic and laughable, gives opportunity for some over the top fight scenes that include blasting through walls like a comic book.<br /><br />Did I mention this movie totally sucks and Steven Seagal is a complete joke? yeah. I did.
I buy or at least watch every Seagall movie. He came out with a handful of good movies then descending into poor stories, bad camera work and a walk-thru persona, he nearly lost me. A few movies ago he remembered how to make a decent movie. Now he's forgotten again. This film is seriously dark (on any level you care to name). There is a lot of slash & gash going on here with no discernible purpose unless it's meant as a warning against the military.<br /><br />Seagall may have had a stand-in for many of his scenes as it was often too dark to tell and someone else's voice was used most of the time. Sadly the only interesting character was the bad guy who killed his guard to escape custody & then proceeded to raise havoc all over the place. Okay since when do we place an armed guard in the holding room with a prisoner? Anyway this bad guy was at least colorful, and very focused. There's lots of gore if you like that king of thing. It looked to me like the bad guys tore the same gash every time. I'm just glad they didn't suck the blood from their hapless victims. I harken you back to my summary. Basically it is a horror movie disguised as an action film.Dec 6,2006
drss1942 really took the words right out of my mouth. I loved Segal's early films and feel like the only one who is still faithful to him. I just saw this movie (ok, fell asleep about 90% through, so I didn't see the end). When I woke up and saw I was at the DVD menu, I was thankful I didn't subject myself to any more of that movie and didn't dare find out what happened at the end. There was something strange about the voice of Segal and others. Kinda reminded me of the original Mad Max where the voice were dubbed, but in the same language (Australlian is English, right? :) Anyway, if I had 10 thumbs, they'd all point down right now for this Segal injustice.
The DVD was a joke, the audio for the first few minutes was terrible with sound out of sync and Segals voice not even his!!!! Pathetic! When the audio sync was better in about 5 minutes the poor plot, lines and actors should get another job because the movie business is not where any of them should be.<br /><br />While Segal had some good movies in the early days the latest ones are a joke and should be a an embarrassment to him and the company that made it.<br /><br />If Segal was the one that handled this he better return to having another party run the show, because he has no talent what so ever in this.<br /><br />This film is a complete embarrassment to all involved in its production and a disgrace to all who viewed it. I turned it off in about 20 minutes.<br /><br />I will be asking for my money back at Block Buster! Mark from Ontario, Canada
I tried restarting the movie twice. I put it in three machines to see what was wrong. Did Steven Seagal's voice change? Did he die during filming and the studio have to dub the sound with someone who doesn't even resemble him? Or was the sound on the DVD destroyed? After about 10 minutes, you finally hear the actor's real voice. Though throughout most of the film, it sounds like the audio was recorded in a bathroom.<br /><br />I would be ashamed to donate a copy of this movie to Goodwill, if I owned a copy. I rented it, but I will never do that again. I will check this database before renting any more of his movies, all of which were (more or less) good movies. You usually knew what you were getting when you watched a Steven Seagal movie. I guess that is no more.
The movie is boring, the characters and scenarios are unrealistic, unbelievable, the action is hilarious. This movie is a big mess. It almost seems like when the action music kicks in, the most impressive stunt is running. Either voice is dubbed over with Mr. McGregor or steven sang too much and it changed his voice. There is way too much dialog in this movie, and extremely bad acting on everyones behalf. The movie is great sleep therapy. The fighting is laughable. The eye shape shift effect on the evil designer drug addict females was decent. The main villain was a joke and his character was poorly developed. The main villain was used to explain the story through interrogation, he would just throw random plots in such as (spoiler) "CTX (his designer drug)is going to be in the water supply" which is never addressed in the conclusion or even mentioned again in the movie. This movie is highly recommended to pass.
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />Marshall Lawson (Steven Seagal) is assigned to France on a reconaissance mission along with three new young strike-team recruits after disobeying a direct order from above. However the night before they're due to strike, they are all found grusomely slaughtered by a killer with seemingly inhuman strength. With the French police dallying around with their own investigation, he goes in search of those responsible himself, only to uncover a corrupt faction of the military dealing in a deadly new drug that alters a person's DNA and gives them terrifying new strength.<br /><br />Bad cover. Bad title. Bad post-production tampering. And bad trailer. Pretty bad film. But, I've got to say, I don't think Attack Force is quite his worst. I know this will make me unpopular with most of the other reviewers here (perhaps not Steveday!) but I think a lot of the criticism has stemmed from all the bad news that went before the film rather than the actual quality of it itself.<br /><br />I must say there was nowhere near as much dubbing or ropey editing as I'd been lead to believe. The dubbing there was (which made him sound like Martin Sheen with a groin problem!) was pretty awful and quite frequent but not in use for as large a segment of the film as I'd thought. The plot flowed pretty smoothly as well considering all the messing about with the original finished film called Harvester that went on. Also as another reviewer noted, the film has a nice Gothic look to it, a new touch for a Seagal film.<br /><br />The absolute killer low point, though, was the complete and total lack of any exciting action, with only a few poorly filmed fight scenes for any fun.<br /><br />I have to be honest, though, I would rather watch this again than Flight of Fury, Today You Die or Out for a Kill. **
I feel blessed to own what is known as the worst Steven Seagal movie ever made. I knew I was on to something special when Steven opened his mouth and someone else's voice came out. By the middle of the film my eyes were beginning to hurt and I was almost falling out of my chair with uncontrollable laughter.<br /><br />Steven is Steven (with an ever changing voice) and totally unbelievable in his role (as always). Who the hell lets people with bad nappy-hair pony tail mullets into the Forces anyway? He also always writes himself into totally unbelievable love interests with women at least 20 years his junior. The supporting actors all look like they've been shot in the dark - btw, did they shoot this movie in the dark with just a penlight torch for lighting? <br /><br />This is truly abominable in every way possible. Invite all your friends around and make a social event out of it - this one's truly special.
Well let me say that I have always been a Steven seagal fan and his movies are usually great but this just don't measure up to the rest. This in my opinion is very stupid I did not like it all. The biggest reason I don't like it is because it is very flawed and to me does not make much sense. The acting is very bad even Steven seagal does not do good acting, The rest of the actors I can see because they just do direct to video movies. It does not follow a straight storyline everything happens at once so that why it doesn't make much sense. Ther is barely any action in it at all and in order to make an action movie good you usually need action in it. The special effects are very bad and you can tell are fake. So all in all this has to seagals worst movie of all so if you want to see a Steven seagal movie don't rent this one just pretend it does not exist. So just avoid this movie.<br /><br />Overall score: ** out of ********** <br /><br />* out of *****
Okay, first off, Seagal's voice is dubbed over for like 50% of the film... Why? Because apparently there were rewriting the script and story as they were shooting and they need to change his dialogue for story continuity as they have multiple versions. From the very beginning, you just scratch your head because the overdubs are not only distracting, but they make no sense.<br /><br />That said, the story still sucked and doesn't make any sense at all. When I got the the end, I was just scratching my head cause the movie was so pointless and the ending didn't even make sense.<br /><br />Avoid like the plague. This movie made me stop watching Seagal straight to video movies cause they just get worse and worse.
I think its time for Seagal to go quietly into the night. What I have just seen makes all his direct to video releases in the last few years look like his early 90's smash hits in comparison.<br /><br />A secret bio lab is making a new kind of drug that jacks up a human's adrenaline system to the point where they become psychopathic killers or something. Somehow Seagal is supposed to stop the infection or its the end of the world...or something. Seagal also went through hit squads like jellybeans, every time I look up he was commanding a new face so it kinda got hard to follow character development as well I know Steven's athsma prevent him from yelling at the top of his lungs but even so why is he constantly being dubbed by people who sound nothing like him? Usually the films plot and action sequences can save it from being a total waste of time but this was not even close. Like I said, it was more of a horror movie with a lot of blood and shank stabbing rather than straight up fighting. The problem was it wasn't really scary and Seagal looked completely out of place because the infected people were supposed to have speed of light movement yet the 40 year old 280 lb Seagal killed them all singlehandedly? I guess the lone highlight of the movie was the first 20 minutes where the new recruits ask Seagal to come to the strip club with them.<br /><br />2 out of 10
What was Steven Seagal thinking? I mean firstly I love Seagal. I love all his movies up to the mid 2000s. His early stuff is some of the best in the genre. This however does not live up to its excellent name. Attack Force (with protagonist Marshall Lawson {Seagal}) would be expected to be a mindless action movie with Seagal in typical one-liner ass kicking form. However, what we get is a crime mystery, bordering on a political thriller with little or no action. Seagal is always in shadows because of his weight. I could not follow this story. There's people who mutate to superhumans when they take a drug. What happened in this movie. The dubbing of Seagal is a disgrace, a shambles and a shame. Why dub the man? The story is terrible. This got a 2/10 from me because of the scene where Seagal asks for backup despite having an army with him, and an hilarious fight scene where seagal swings his hands like a girl facing the camera! "Revenge is a two way street" seagal says in this movie...well forget revenge Steven, you need redemption!
Steven buddy, you remember when you said this: <br /><br />"Try to find the path of least resistance and use it without harming others. Live with integrity and morality, not only with people but with all beings." <br /><br />you have not been doing that, you have mortally wounded your fans and their morality with these "films" I wouldn't even bother if I didn't know you are so much better than this, I've seen the videos of you teaching, you are so much better than this why why brother why...<br /><br />steamroller productions has been steamrolled I promise bro i am not afraid of you I will tell you the truth to your face so we can fix it.<br /><br />well I like some others fell asleep 90% in, but to be fair i was tired and had a large meal just an hour before hand Sensai, what are you doing. 12 million? really? do you have any idea what we could have done with $12,000,000 It could have been in the theaters and a blockbuster hit, if you wanted we could have donated money from the huge profit to a homeless shelter or something. These post production people are ripping you off man the choreography was non existent, we can do better man, the eye blinking thing was from the men in black movie, i half expected will smith to appear or tommy lee Jones to tell your they were gills not eyelids.<br /><br />Seagal you are an Aikido master, why are you doing this to yourself, to us? when you came on the scene, you had such a fresh direct style, and it was obvious you are a teacher cause the way your moves were so clear and crisp, watching your first three movies i felt like you were teaching me something, now i feel like you are just being ripped off or something i feel like I need to save you buddy, this time you are the one who was killed and I'm gonna go and get revenge for you by helping you make the best movie ever. bro i know who you really are, i know the truth about the Nico movie. let's talk.<br /><br />contact me man i got some fresh ideas I am a nit picker, I swear you will not be disappointed with my attention to detail and we'll do it for the fans man, your fans deserve better, we're hanging on, but the strand is about to snap. I swear I will not let your movie out the door with a single mistake in it I'm still trying to figure out if that was the worst dubbing ever, or you have laryngitis, but i promise you i can do a better impression of your voice than the lame **** who didn't even try. I sure hope you kicked him in the nuts as his payment. i can come up with a story and a plot that can be matched to your avenging the death of your student/daughter/wife/dog/house plant niche and I promise you we will bring you back, I promise, also I want to go in the direction, that makes people think, if you let me in i promise we will make a movie that people will walk away and have to have a discussion about it, a serious thought provoking, perception altering experience.<br /><br />Steven Seagal This is my official in writing permission for IMDb to release my contact info to you for the purpose of resurrecting one of the best martial arts heroes I have ever seen also, for the record hes not Italian, hes Irish and Jew so you call it bad acting i call it terrific acting, because you have believed for 20 years that Seagal is Italian :) kinda changes your perception doesn't it.
Even though the plot was very well detailed,and the story line was understandable the fact that Steven Seagals voice was dubbed with some one else's through out most of the movie was distressing as you were unsure who was talking . There were many parts where he would start to talk in his deep raspy voice and then the next some one else's voice was doing the talking for him. I don't know the reason however if he had difficulty with his voice during production of the movie I think they could have re shot the events that did not contain his own voice when he had recovered. I have rated this movie 3 out of 10 based on the quality of the film. When one pays for a movie whether or not its at the theater or on DVD this movie was not worth the admission price that was charged. I have been a long time follower of Steven Seagal and all his movies that he has done over the past years.To date I think this is one of the worst ones we have seen yet
Steven what have you done you have hit an all new low. It is weird since Steven's last film shadow man was directed by the same director who did this trash. Shadow man was good this was diabolically bad so bad it wasn't even funny Steven is hardly in the movie and feels like he is in a cameo appearance and when he is in the film he is dubbed half the time anyway. As for the action well let's just say the wizard of oz had more action than this trash there is hardly any action in the film and when it does finally arrive it is boring depressing badly shot so called action scenes. Seagal hardly kills anyone unlike his over films where he goes one man army ie under siege 1 and 2 and exit wounds. the plot is so confusing with so many plot holes that it doesn't make scenes sometimes. flight of fury better be good what a shame i wasted 5 pounds on this garbage 0 out of ten better luck next time
This movie was heavily marred by the presence of Steven Seagal. Or as I should say Steven So-dull! Like before Seagal is either too good or too stupid to re-dub his own lines, leaving someone to impersonate his voice for the shots where the sound needed to be looped. A few films before this was he has done this too, but I don't think to this extent! To be honest the film looks pretty good, the script could use some work but parts of this film looked like a real movie! Of course, all told, this film is pretty bad.<br /><br />It would have been much better without Seagal who has become a cartoon of himself. Don't bother. Anything over a buck for this one is too much! I honestly think this is the last time for me and a Seagal film. What's taken me so long to realize this?!
This is without a shadow of a doubt the absolute worst movie Steven Seagal has ever made. And that says a lot. Don't get fooled by the rating, it's way too good. This abomination hadn't even been worthy of a 0/10 rating, if such a thing existed. <br /><br />- Absolutely no plot <br /><br />- Worst action scenes ever, and there aren't too many of them either <br /><br />- Seagal doesn't do anything himself, including the fighting, talking (lots of dubbing), and so on. As always. <br /><br />- Seagal is fat, lazy and couldn't care less about this movie. Something which is very obvious all the way through<br /><br />Take all the other garbage DTV movies Seagal has made, multiply them with each other, multiply this with a thousand billions, and all the badness you then get won't even describe 1 % of this absolute crapfest.
I don't know what the rest of you guys watch Steven Seagal movies for, but I watch them because, as silly as they are, they're at least always good for a laugh. Why would you rate this movie a 1 out of 10 based on the dubbing, when that kind of thing is exactly what makes a movie like this into a cult favorite that you can laugh at the silliness of?<br /><br />Attack Force is by no means a great movie, but I felt it was as worthy a Steven Seagal vehicle as many of his other movies; in fact I didn't think it was one of his worst by a long-shot. It had, most of the time, a half-way coherent plot line, and it was, most of the time, fundamentally exciting. The ending really sucked, but even that had some enjoyably trashy elements. In the end the story itself did not deliver what it promised, but I actually thought that the acting, characterization (if I may use such a big word) and the rest of the production values delivered exactly what a true Steven Seagal fan would expect. Seagal himself in particular was exactly the stone-faced, no-nonsense man's man that we've come to expect, and the rest of the cast backed him up pretty well, without ever up-staging him. This, people, is what a Steven Seagal movie does. Deal with it. Or even better: laugh at it.<br /><br />4 out of 10.
I'm so confused. I've been a huge Seagal fan for 25 years. I've seen all of his films, and many of those dozens of times. I can only describe this film as "bizarre." Steven Seagal shares screenplay writing and producing credits on this film, but I have a really tough time believing he would choose to dub over his own voice for so many of his lines, with a thin, whiny imposter's voice no less. What I also don't get is, if they had to dub SOME of his lines, why does his own voice appear on the rest of them? I expect Seagal to age like the rest of us. But the Seagal in this movie barely exudes a fraction of the same swagger, confidence, bravado, charm, and sex-appeal he so easily showed us in ALL of his previous movies. What I found myself missing most of all was his cocky, self-assured attitude and his bad-ass sneer that so easily shifts into that adorable grin. Where is that in-your-face attitude and charm that made him such a huge star??? I hope that this film is not an indication of what Seagal has left to offer us - if so, his lifelong fans will have to concede that the Seagal we all knew and loved is gone.
Steven Seagal....how could you be a part of such an awful film? I rented this movie because your movies usually have been pretty clean. I have lost a lot of respect for you being in an awful movie such as this one. Very, very poor taste! I am embarrassed that I even rented this movie. Steven, if you keep acting in movies like this one, I believe that your career is over. My husband and I have enjoyed watching many of your movies because you always can "get the bad guy" with a few hand maneuvers and make it clean...and also the language is pretty clean in your movies...but this one is something else. I will think twice before I rent another movie of yours.
I've seen a lot of Seagal movies, and while most aren't great, or even good, this steamy pile lowered the bar for bad movies.<br /><br />The plot: not sure really. Something about a drug that makes you all crazy and strong or something. Who are the good guys and bad guys? Hard to tell. Most of the movie is cut scenes going back and forth between people in darkly lit rooms complaining about how good Seagals character "Mashall" is.<br /><br />Acting: Blows.<br /><br />Voice Dubbing ,,,,,, What was with the horrible voice overdubbing?! Could they of found anyone who sounded any less like Seagal? May as well had Cheech or Chong doing the voice overs, might of at least been entertaining then.<br /><br />This movie is boring, and completely stupid. Avoid it at all costs!!!!
I had a feeling that after "Submerged", this one wouldn't be any better... I was right. He must be looking for champagne money, and not care about the final product... his voice gets repeatedly dubbed over by a stranger that sounds nothing like him; the editing is - well - just a grade above amateurish. It's nothing more than a B or C-grade movie with just enough money to hire a couple talented cameramen and an "OK" sound designer.<br /><br />Like the previous poster said, the problems seem to appear in post-production (...voice dubbing, etc.) Too bad, cause the plot's actually OK for a SG flick.<br /><br />I'll never rent another SG flick, unless he emails me asking for forgiveness.<br /><br />Too bad - I miss Kelly LeBrock...<br /><br />--jimbo
I had the misfortune of wasting 10 quid buying SS new movie on DVD: Attack Force. Now i usually can suspend my belief watching films like this. A pinch of salt and some beers on a dark evening on the sofa watching a noisy late evening shoot em up is perfect for a single alpha male like me. I bought this film thinking I'd see cool martial arts and shoot em up.<br /><br />Did i hell. Segal is old and bloated, the plot was ludicrous even by SS standards and to cap it all off Segal's acting (such as it was to start with) is exceptionally dire. So dire in fact that half of his voice was dubbed over by a man who sounded NOTHING LIKE HIM. Either SS cant act no more (a moot point) of the crew were so dreadful at their jobs they couldn't record the sound properly. The voice would flick back and forth between Mr Whisper Segal and the man who does voice overs for Honda adverts!<br /><br />Plot wise isn't the issue because most action films work along the same premise as this one, nothing new there. The usual mix of characters who will die horribly as cannon fodder and stereotyped bad guys waiting to get blown away.<br /><br />Avoid this film like you would avoid walking in front of a speeding train or a dose of H5N1 avian flu.<br /><br />Utter garbage.<br /><br />1/10<br /><br />This has been a public health warning.
I am truly beginning to believe that Seagal is on a mission to see how crappy his films could become.This particular movie was a complete and utter waste of time to see.My first complaint was the cover of the DVD where they have doctored his pic and made him look slimmer and younger when in the film he looks like crap.He has his big pot belly and double chin going for him and the most miserable and bored look on his face.<br /><br />The whole plot was ridiculous to begin with and drawn out way too long.The whole film was leading up to the finale where Seagal and his team had to take on a bunch of people under the influence of a top secret military chemical adrenaline enhancer.There was way too much useless dialogue and not to mention the ridiculous and constant dubbing of Seagals voice even in the middle of a statement.The dubbed voice sounded like a man with a frog in his throat and was quite comical.<br /><br />The fight scenes in the film were horrible.Half the time when Seagal fought you could not even see what was going on.There would be tight shots of him flapping his arms at the camera and then the person flying through a wall or something.It was reminiscent of the old Kung Fu series on television.They used way too much slow motion for the fight scenes.<br /><br />I believe this is Seagals worst film to date and I am glad I did not purchase this film or I would have been very upset since I am a huge fan of Seagal the Aikidoist.The action star is quickly fading away and seems to be getting worse with every performance.
What the F*@# was this I just watched? Steven STOP!! Please! This movie is insatiably bad and silly. In a bizarre departure from action and adventure, Mr. Seagal is now fighting (obviously) wish-they-were-vampire 'like' creatures with super human strength.? OK? Oh, and their eyes blink sideways in an inhuman way? Wow! Even still in this movie however, to quell Seagals have-to-have-the-last-punch-and-no-one-can-kick-my-a$$ ego, HE is somehow stronger than they are. However all of the average humans are getting crushed all around him. Come on, I can understand the big mouth neighborhood bully or drug dealer, but these are super human strength people. Oh and get this, Seagal goes through a brief sting of identity issues, because apparently he and his cohorts in the film think he is Wolverine! Oh My GO... And worst than all of that! Yes, there is a worse than that. He has a voice over even changing voice in mid sentence while we are looking at his face. They obviously sound nothing like him and I believe it may be one of the other actors in the film. It was pure madness. Although I wanted to turn it off I always watch a movie to he end. This is an all time low even for your direct to video movies Steven. Awful! Awful! Awful! Two thumbs down! Redemeption qualities? Well I guess so, I will be fair in that aspect. At least some of the special effects were OK, and I like the choice of wardrobe for the actors and actresses. The women all were quite attractive IMO. Still, and I said STILL, it does not make up for the blatant X-Men, Underworld, (insert your favorite zombie, vampire movie here) rip off! The director, writer, producer, ALL should be bansihed & exile from the movie business. I think I feel the way that most people feel about Blood Rayne (and just about all other Uwe Boll pictures) about this film. That's my whole $1.00 on this film. View if you dare.
A not bad but also not so great heist film. Kirk Douglas is a recently released from prison safe-cracker who, after turning down an offer from the Mob, decides to pull the job himself. He recruits circus gymnast Giuliano Gemma. Mayhem ensues. Douglas and Gemma soon find themselves pursued by mafia goon Romano Puppo as well as entangled in a really goofy love triangle with Douglas's infinitely patient girlfriend (Florinda Bolkan). Director Michele Lupo keeps the pace moving quickly and there's at least one excellent and creative car chase sequence involving Puppo & Gemma. Though an Italian production, most of the filming appears to have been done in Germany. Douglas is fine, not just slumming it in an Giallo quickie. The striking Bolkan gives a terrific performance. The music is by Ennio Morricone and the cinematography is by the great Tonino Delli Colli, who managed to work with everyone in Italy (from Wertmuller and Fellini to Pasolini and Leone).
In 1692 Salem, a devious child's lies about a slave's involvement in witchcraft sends an entire community into an uproar. Costume drama starring Claudette Colbert and Fred MacMurray isn't stuffy, though neither is it a vivid depiction of contagious hysteria. Worked on by three writers (Walter Ferris, Durward Grimstead, and Bradley King), the story elements are rather interesting (especially coming out of Hollywood in 1937), though to anyone who has since read Arthur Miller's "The Crucible", the hoked-up melodrama on display here won't be tolerated for very long. Biggest problem with the picture may lie in the casting: Colbert and MacMurray are an ill-matched pair of lovers hindered by the witch-hunt, MacMurray being far too contemporary a presence for these surroundings. *1/2 from ****
The only reason I saw "Shakedown" was that it has Erika Eleniak in it. She's sexy as always, but she plays second fiddle to leading man Wolf Larson. It's a pity, because she has more action capabilities than she's allowed to show here. The film largely consists of endless shootouts that quickly become monotonous - especially when most of the time you are seeing the bad guys armed with machine guns constantly missing Larson and him armed only with a revolver (that NEVER runs out of bullets) taking them all out rather easily. The earthquake effects are decent, but there is also a lot of blurry motion and poor CGI explosions. As the psychotic "spiritual leader", Ron Perlman tries, but the pseudo-religious mumbo-jumbo he has to spout is simply boring. Eleniak, Perlman or Larson (assuming he has any) completists might want to give this one a look, for others it is barely worth a rental. (*1/2)
An average TV movie quality, totally formula story of religious fanatic (Ron Perlman, who gives good "I'm not just the President of 'Psychos R Us,' I'm also a client.") who gets control of a biochemical virus (think the virus from the movie "The Rock"). Too bad for him that he also gets stuck in a bank building during an earthquake with bank robbers and the government agents trying to stop him (led by the impressively physiqued, mildly entertaining Wolf Larson, backed by Fred Dryer) along with the standard "in the wrong place at the wrong time" spunky female (the forever bland Erika Eleniak) and "lived as a wimp but died as a hero at the last minute" male (Brandon Karrer). Has the standard background story to give sympathy to the religious fanatic (wife and son killed in a police raid a few years previous). <br /><br />Basically a decent rainy day movie.<br /><br />Favorite line, spoken by Ron Perlman after he finds the vial of the virus hidden in Erika Eleniak's cleavage: "A woman and her mystery."<br /><br />Worth a rent.
Mr Perlman gives a standout performance (as usual). Sadly, he has to struggle with an underwritten script and some nonsensical set pieces.<br /><br />Larsen is in "Die Hard" mode complete with singlet and bulging muscles, I'm sure he could do better but seems satisfied to grimace and snarl through his part.<br /><br />The lovely Erika is very decorative (even though fully clothed!) and shows some signs of "getting" acting at last.<br /><br />SFX are mainly poor CGI and steals from other movies.<br /><br />The shootouts are pitiful - worthy of the A-Team<br /><br />Not even worth seeing for Perlman - AVOID
This is one of the worst action films I have ever seen. This is particularly due to much of the factual implausibility (like an obvious agent posing as a bank loan officer while making obvious that he is speaking to someone through a wire or the scene where the scientists assume it is safe to enter a room in which a virus has been released even though 'it has not found a viable host' does not mean that it will never find one), the cheap sets (the bank looks like it was poorly constructed to resemble a dungeon), and the bad acting. It is the story of an organized crime group that has successfully stolen a capsule of the lethal virus. However, the head honcho who decides to remove it from a bank security deposit box, does so at the same time a bank heist is going down, at the same FBI agents have been informed of this, and at the same time a terrible earthquake erupts. Needless to say, the aftermath of the quake is messy in more ways than one. However, the results do not make for an enticing action film, but instead, one that has been obviously z-grade junk from the beginning of the film. (Perhaps this is why some of the screen captures on the packaging look to be created with computer graphics rather than being actual screen captures from various sequences of the film). What the hell Ron Perlman was doing in this, I have no idea. I wonder if he was as embarrassed to be in it as I was to have watched it.
Anyone who's watched a few Lifetime Movie Network movies knows that plot credibility is the first thing that gets brushed off the planning table. So, when crazed Lara moves into Patti's home and methodically begins to drive her landlady bonkers, I didn't even blink. When Lara eventually ramps up her activities to threatening poor Patti, and dares her to do anything about it, I just nodded. You see, on Planet LMN, people don't behave the way they do for any particular reason, they just do it to keep the action going. Only on Planet LMN could someone almost have the owner of a home thrown out of their own house by means of their seductive powers!! Poor Patti - she just trusted too much, and Lara went off her medicine, and then there was this big fight at the top of the stairs involving a syringe full of deadly stuff that ends up injected into someone's tummy, and a body bag going out the front door. The horror!<br /><br />But take it from me, this Planet LMN product is a classic. You need to watch it once, just for the great laughs you'll have. On the Improbability Scale, I give this film a 95/100. Make a big batch of popcorn and get some apple slices, too. You'll understand later.
This Lifetime style movie takes the middle aged divorcee victim who then finally fights back genre to new depths of cartoon-like absurdity.<br /><br />Here the 40 something stay-at-home ex-wife of a successful lawyer protagonist (daughter away at college) is starting a new life after her divorce, helped by a female college friend in opening a new dress shop as a sort of franchise expansion deal. She has even started up a friendship with her attractive, slightly younger perhaps, landscape architect / gardener (who's black). But then horror of middle-aged women's horrors, ANOTHER 20 something female she took on as a tenant to let a room to, starts 'taking over" her life.<br /><br />What this new younger woman threat really does is mildly flirt with the gardener, and offer him a glass of wine that * gasp * really belonged to the divorcee!! She runs up the utility bills by not turning down the thermostat!! And backed up the toilet! And leaves old food gone bad in the refrigerator! And hangs her pieces of (African) artwork in the living room!! And so on. Well she may have killed the cat as well. Yeah, ok, the extent to which this one does these things is bad enough, but its more than a little ridiculous, especially as it turns into a campaign. The character reality is that any tiny part of this would drive this particular prissy woman insane. (So why did she rent the room -- and to horror of horrors, a much younger woman?)<br /><br />Supposedly this increasingly arrogant (natch) younger woman has a mania for seizing control. And our brave 40 something must learn to fight back against this evil (and erotically hot looking, of course) 20 something. But there's this problem. Anytime the 20 something starts to maybe get into trouble she uses her POWER -- and just flirts or has sex with some guy, and escapes the consequences. (Well, there actually is something to that capability of good looking 20 somethings. It just isn't * generally * used in quite this sort of way.)<br /><br />The premise is moved along by the device of the 20 something conning the divorcee into formalizing their room rental deal with a written lease produced by her. Of course the 40 something doesn't know about these things, and the 20 something has had help. The lease actually gives the younger woman equal right to the whole house during the rental period, with utilities thrown in at the fixed price. Even though an eviction proceeding is soon pending, the 20 something soon gets a temporary restraining order against the older woman, supposedly because she has been threatening the 20 something. You know, the judge is sympathetic to all the woe-is-me of the sexy sweet young thing. Finally the 40 something's "heroic" battle back for THE HOUSE then begins. Woopie!!<br /><br />The only realistic or perceptive thing in this movie is how horrificly easy TRO's (or orders of protection) are for women to get on nothing more than her unsubstantiated say so -- although they are generally only this easy against men. They are sometimes just as unjustified and just as motivated to seize control of a home as it is here. Indeed, girlfriends who have moved in with their boyfriends can often get them evicted from their own homes or condos on the basis of no proof whatsoever, but only an unsubstantiated claim of threats, and sometimes without even hearing his side. Even when there is a hearing, it is routinely impossible to rebut claims of threats (to prove a negative), when the burden of proof is effectively on the accused, rather than the accuser. (This is one of the only areas of American law where that is true -- and it's a signal outrage of feminist overreaching, and the failure of any organized group to resist the steamroller.) Of course that's not likely to be the subject of any Lifetime movie in this lifetime.<br /><br />The absurd basic premise of this movie relies upon the explanation that the 20 something is psychotic, and isn't taking her medicine. Even so it makes no sense. She isn't after the successful lawyer ex-husband, though she does con his help (to the ex wife's fury) in her quest. She's after THE HOUSE (technically, to drive the divorcee out of it during the period of the lease). This second younger woman is after ALL THAT'S LEFT after the divorce, after affairs with other 20 somethings STOLE her husband!! (The ex-husband seems unattached and basically solicitous after his fling -- doesn't matter, he still strayed!!!)<br /><br />The protagonist is good enough looking for her age. But her outlook, attitude and focus is so small minded, frumpy and utterly without imagination or life force that it's impossible to care about her. Well, a core group of Lifetime fans care, I guess, judging by the average score the small number of raters gave it. (I kept watching it only because it was so extremely bad and cartoonish that it had a camp appeal. I couldn't resist seeing just how far they'd take it.)<br /><br />** Spoiler ** (if such a thing is possible with this flick).<br /><br />Well, here's a clue. The movie ends with the 20 something getting bailed out of jail by promising to "listen to" her 20 something male co-worker and sometimes lover, and "do whatever he says" and "let him take care of her" (he means get her to keep taking her medicine) -- and then tricking him and returning to THE HOUSE. There she climbs the stairs with a knife, demonicly stalking her nemesis 40 something, who is taking a bath by candlelight, secure in the thought that the younger woman is out of her life. There's a struggle -- and the 40 something mom wins -- by sticking the 20 something with a hypodermic needle full of anti-psychotic medicine she had found. She then begins stroking her, mom like, and the two women have a bonding, female solidarity moment!!! How sweet.
There was a reasonably good looking girl starring the film(Zoe Mclellan) but even her looks couldn't stop me from voting it the lowest possible - one.<br /><br />The plot is bad and irrational.<br /><br />What more can I say. The movie sucks.
Got into this flick, just as it was beginning, on an afternoon where I was home with a touch of flu - otherwise I'd have missed it. That probably would have been best.<br /><br />I noticed the presence of Lindsay Crouse and Jay Thomas - both very good performers - and thought this might be worth a look. It proved to be to some extent, but only because it is one of those stories so awful it fascinates.<br /><br />Zoe McLellan has little to recommend her talents, except for her Jayne Mansfield- or Loni Anderson-like bosom. Unfortunately, her acting prowess - at least here - makes Mansfield and Anderson seem to be Garbo or Davis by comparison.<br /><br />The young nut case's white rat, the owner's cat, the young nut case having the owner evicted and restrained in her own home, and a bunch of doophus's (including the young nut case) running around a bio hazard facility, and the absurd conclusion. I kept waiting for at least some scene or plot element to contain at least a modicum of realism, believability or being capable of evoking some empathy/sympathy -- but this proved to be in vain.
Don't get me wrong - I love David Suchet as Poirot. I love the series as well as the movies but enough already re: Death On The Nile. Everyone has done this one! We know who dies. We know why they die. We know who the killer is. We know how it was done. So I say enough already! Mr. Suchet could have used that awesome talent in another one of Agatha Christie's novels. I will say that the acting by all the actors was superb. The sets were terrific and very realistic. I especially liked David Soul but I was surprised at how 'awful' he looked. I hope he doesn't look that way in 'real' life! I honestly can't remember from other movies whether the very end was the same. Somehow I don't think so. I thought that was a rather brilliant touch whether or not Ms. Christie wrote it that way. I would much rather have that ending then wasting away in prison!
As a Hammer completist I was dreading the time when I would have to raise the courage to watch this film and the one following it, Holiday on the Buses. I had seen One the Buses the film and thought it one of the worst films I have ever seen. It was full of all the awful comedy that plagued British TV screens around the early 70's.<br /><br />I am ashamed to say that there were actually parts of this film that I laughed at. I don't know if it was because I was now familiar with the characters and enjoyed some of the situations, knowing how they would react. I found Blakey particularly funny, although I could swear at no point in the trilogy does he say his catchphrase, "I'll get you Butler".<br /><br />Having watched Holiday on the Buses the jokes were starting to wear thin and these three films could be compared to an early Hammer trilogy, Dick Barton, in that the second film made is the best (although this is probably the only way they could be compared).<br /><br />The only people who would want to watch this film are probably fans of the TV series, who will no doubt enjoy this, and Hammer completists like myself. To the completists I would say that this film isn't that bad and I can certainly think of worse Hammer comedies.
Watching it now it's still as skanky and sexist as I remember. comes from a time when girls were "Dolly Birds" and basically men's playthings. It's hard to take in that it is from the Hammer studios and the fact it's available on DVD when good films are not. Our nations shame where the working class are portrayed as work shy layabouts or worse! Trouble is you can't help feeling nostalgic for a Clippie on a bus. Try to hold your stomach contents when you see Olive in a fluffy? Blue "saucy" nightie or something similar like Shirley Bassey used to wear for a concert in 1972. Warning this film shows the illegal practice of towing a motorcycle combo by a red double decker bus, which I've been informed is not a Routemaster but a Bristol.<br /><br />Look just don't bother watch something decent instead like Porridge or Dad's Army...or a fly crawling up a wall.
This wasn't funny in 1972. It's not funny now.<br /><br />Unlike a lot of other people, I'm not bashing the film because it is incredibly sexist - I quote enjoyed that bit, or rather I enjoyed the reaction it generates in annoying PC people - I'm bashing it because it is poorly written and acted.<br /><br />The only really memorable character is Blakey, which British people 25 years old will recognise immediately since he was a favourite with impressionists for a long time.<br /><br />Avoid.<br /><br />
Sometimes you need to see a bad movie just to appreciate the good ones. Well, that's my opinion anyway. This one will always be in the bad movie category, simply because all but Shu Qi's performance was terrible.<br /><br />Martial Angel tells of Cat (Shu Qi), a professional thief turned straight after leaving her lover, Chi Lam (Julian Cheung), two years before. But her past returns to haunt her as Chi Lam is kidnapped for the ransom of security software belonging to the company Cat works for. In order to rescue him, she calls on her old friends from her orphanage days, six other feisty women, to save the day...<br /><br />I may have told the synopsis cheesily, but this is a cheesy story. In fact, the whole script and direction lacked any quality at all. Much of the dialogue was meaningless and coupled with a plot that was as thin as rice-paper in water. If I could sum it up, take a bad Jackie Chan movie, remove the comedy, remove the choreography, throw away the budget, and you have Martial Angels: a formulaic piece of work with no imagination at all.<br /><br />Mind you, I do have to give credit where credit's due, and Shu Qi was probably the only person to emerge unscathed from the terrible action, as it was her performance that shone through. Okay, you can't say she was excellent - after all she had absolutely nothing to work with - but she did manage to dig some character out from her role. Other than that, only Sandra Ng and Kelly Lin made any other impression - although these were mostly glimmers and very brief.<br /><br />Elsewhere, the film just fell to pieces. Scenes and dialogue were completely unnatural and unbelievable, special effects were obviously done on the cheap with no attempt to clean up edges between persons and the mask of the blue screen, poor editing involving numerous discontinuities in fight scenes, camera angles that were elementary and unflattering, and direction I've seen better from a lost dog.<br /><br />I guess this film was a too many cooks affair. Most probably, the budget was blown away on the over-enthusiasm to have seven babes on the same silver screen. That didn't leave much else.<br /><br />Frankly, the way this film was made was like a cheap porn movie without the porn. Charlie's Angels, it ain't. In fact, while sisters can do it for themselves, none of that was really that apparent here.<br /><br />Definitely one to forget.
Despite pretty bad reviews, I just had to give this film a go – it does, after all, star HK super-babe Shu Qi plus 6 other oriental lovelies as a team of all-action cat-burglars. Surely that's worth checking out? Well, as babe-fests go, Martial Angels is hard to beat. The eye candy is top quality. Shu Qi looks as fantastic as always, and of the rest of the girls, Rosemary Vandebrouck and Amanda Strang caught my roving eye in particular.<br /><br />Unfortunately, if one is to judge this movie by any other possible merits, it is an absolute stinker! The story is weak, the action shoddy and the special effects downright pathetic. Director Clarence Fok and Producer Wong Jing have given us a photogenic cast and little else.<br /><br />If Shu Qi is the only reason you're contemplating seeing this one, you would be better off watching Sex and Zen 2 again!
Polyester was the very first John Water's film I saw, and I have to say that it was also the "worst" movie I had seen up to that point.<br /><br />Water's group of "talent" included several people who I am sure worked for food, and were willing to say the lines Waters wrote. Every thing about the movie is terrible, acting, camera, editing, and the story about a woman played by 300 lb transvestite Divine was purely absurd.<br /><br />That said, I have to recommend this film because it is very funny, and you won't believe the crap that happens to poor Francine. Her son huffs solvents and stomps unsuspecting women's feet at the grocery store. Her daughter is the sluttiest slut in town. Her husband is a cackling A-hole of a pornographer who does everything in his power to embarrass and humiliate poor Francine.<br /><br />Francine's only friend is played by Edith Massey, possibly the worst actress ever. Edith looks and sounds like she is reading the lines off a cue card and has never seen the script prior to filming.<br /><br />Despite all of Francine's travails, Waters cooks up a fabulous Hollywood ending and everyone (who survives) lives happily ever after.
I was really disappointed with this film. The first Waters movie I saw was Serial Mom and I loved it. Then I saw Pecker and I loved it. Then I watched Polyester and really sort of hated it. The only thing I liked about that movie was DIVINE. She/He had a hell of a lot of talent. I was truly surprised. As a whole, I wouldn't recommend this film...
No spoilers here but I have been a fan since Waking the Dead started but the last series, of which only 3 have been on so far is awful. The stories bear no resemblance to the original idea of the series. I found these 3 in the last series jaw droppingly ludicrous. As a BBC licence payer, after the show I rang BBC complaints to pass on my disappointment. I'm amazed that actors of the calibre of Trevor Eve and Sue Johnstone didn't object to the story lines. These actors have been with these characters for 8 seasons, surly they can see it's lost all direction. It's a good job it is the last series or the next series may start with the team investigating the death of Father Christmas!<br /><br />Paul Bentley, West Yorkshire, England.
I feel like I've just watched a snuff film....a beautifully acted, taut, engrossing and horrible thing! A two hour litany of perversion in the most basic and all inclusive sense of the word, sexual violence and torture, rape, decapitation, incest, corruption, live burial, and abuse, abuse, abuse. No redemption whatsoever. And I WAS entertained. I couldn't stop watching. What does this say about me, about the people who make and act in this sort of thing, and a world that has become so desensitized that eventually real snuff films will be the norm. And I'm neither puritanical nor humorless, I don't try to hide from the existence of darkness, and I definitely have not led a sheltered life, but I am ashamed of myself. AND I'm sorry to see my British cousins dragging the subject-matter sewers the way my own tribe does. It doesn't have to be cozy, but does it have to wallow in vicarious sadism?
I absolutely hate this programme, what kind of people sit and watch this garbage?? OK my dad and mum love it lol but i make sure I'm well out of the room before it comes on. Its so depressing and dreary but the worst thing about it is the acting i cant stand all detective programmes such as this because the detectives are so wooden and heartless. What happened to detective programmes with real mystery??? I mean who wants to know what happened to fictional characters we know nothing about that died over 20 years ago??? I wish the bbc would put more comedy on bbc1 cos now with the vicar of dibley finished there is more room for crap like this.
This is the story of a young woman seduced and then dumped by her older, married lover after she gets pregnant; she avenges herself against him, and his entire family, through black magic — which, disappointingly, she doesn't do herself but has someone else do for her. Good production values for a Thai horror flick. But the bland script never generates suspense, the director approaches the material entirely conventionally, and the final act loses viewer sympathy for the victims by throwing logic to the winds. At one point, a character has a prime opportunity to simply shoot the villainess dead, and instead she gets up and runs away without picking up the gun. Bad writing — you're soaking in it! <br /><br />Some icky gore effects, including a really tasteless late-term-fetus corpse and one guy dying from having hundreds of live eels burst out of his stomach. Only recommended for genre completists who simply have to see every horror film produced in Asia in the last 15 years.
Ever heard of a taiwanese horror movie? Or any taiwanese movie? Propably for a reason. This one was a really boring one, even though it has black magic including withered baby bodies and people exploding from the inside with thousands of eels.<br /><br />Having read other peoples thoughts, I was looking forward for some violence and gore, but there's not much at all. Some blood puking and other lame stuff, if you are waiting for graphic gore or any gruesome effects you will be disappointed. They clearly didn't use the eel exploding and other things to their maximum potent.<br /><br />Pretty much nothing good about this movie; a single character that wasn't completely bland and a few OK black magic spells, like the eel one. The plot was confusing and boring. The characters were thin and annoying, including the main character. The horror aspect didn't work at all, the most horrifying thing was an albino girl (not that scary really). This is the worst Asian horror movie I have ever seen.
"The Man In The Attic" is a movie set in the 1910s. It is inspired by a true story. Unfortunately, it's a story that really didn't need to be told.<br /><br />Looking at the box, the people responsible for packaging the movie tried their best to make this film appear steamy and erotic. They use terms such as "illicit passion", "forbidden affair", and "unlimited pleasures". They even show a picture of Neil Patrick Harris (little Doogie Howser, M.D.) holding a gun!<br /><br />The story involves Krista, played by Anne Archer. She is unhappily married to a gentleman who owns his own business. Edward (Harris) is an employee of her husband's company. Krista and Edward end up falling in love with each other.<br /><br />The supposedly "shocking" part of the movie is this: Krista's husband finds out about the affair and forbids them from ever seeing each other again. So what do they decide to do? Krista ends up having Edward live up in their attic. Wow! Krista ends up seeing someone else and Edward gets extremely jealous. So on and so on and so on.<br /><br />"The Man In The Attic" doesn't cover any new territory. It's a Showtime original picture, which explains why the stars are a couple of B-list actors and both appear briefly in the buff.<br /><br />
OK, I am not a professional movie critic but come on...a true story!!!!<br /><br />They are tunneling under another store to get underneath the bank and stumble across a tomb. At tomb with a passageway which goes directly under the bank.<br /><br />OK, I'll play along.<br /><br />But then they get into the bank and decide to go to sleep. Yeah!!! I am sure with all the adrenaline pumping through them they are going to just fall asleep. <br /><br />This blows the whole picture!!!! How lame!!!!!<br /><br />Glad I didn't have to pay to watch this one.
Impressed! This is the worst SRK movie and one of the worst Bollywood movies I ever saw! I didn't like the novel, but this movie made it worse! Very bad music, even worse actors (apart from SRK of course, though even he doesn't manage to save the movie), and not much sense. The director makes it all look very confusing, God knows why... Maybe it's because he's trying to make it all look very surrealistic, and yet credible. Well, he manages neither.<br /><br />Even if you've got a few hours to loose, don't watch this movie, please! (Saying this for your own welfare!) Keep searching, you will find something else to watch!
Maya is a woman without any interests. She just dreams her life away and wonders, why she does not feel fulfilled. This could be an interesting topic. That would need a good story, a nice setting and good dialogues. It doesn't have any of these. This movie is totally boring. There are only lengths and no climaxes.The only climax is Shahrukh Khan. But although I am a huge fan of his, I couldn't stand this movie. Even he can't make this movie exiting. The movie is not as bad as "King Uncle" and if you're an Art-house fan or like it slow, you might maybe like it. It's not funny, it's not interesting, it's not catching. My recommendation: Don't watch it.
I've been watching this movie by hoping to find a pretty and interesting story yet the story line wasn't good at all. The play of the actors weren't any better.<br /><br />Of course Shahrukh Khan was there yet he wasn't enough to make this movie "credible" and interesting.<br /><br />I've read that this movie was based on the novel of Flaubert "Madame Bovary" yet for me I didn't see it matching with the Indian mentality.<br /><br />In general we buy movie to dream and have a good time, not to waste our time and change our mood into worse. I just can't understand how it could get such a "high" vote with an average of 6.8/10.<br /><br />So it's the kind of movie you should run away & ignore because there is nothing to appreciate in it! You will just waste your time unless if you like "dark movie" with "strange and non sense story".
Painful. Painful is the only word to describe this awful rendition of such a fun and interesting Shakespearean play. I gave it a shot but was terribly disappointed and couldn't bare to even finish viewing it. To the person who wrote a novel about how wonderful this twist of Much Ado was, I pity you and your bored brain. May your pretenses about young viewers be lifted without retribution. Please do not even bother with this gut wrenching, disgusting excuse for a performance of an acclaimed Shakespeare drama. You will be forced to induce vomiting and will require a commode close to the television with which you choose to watch this crap because involuntary defecation will take place.
This is a very bland and inert production of one of Shakespeare's most vibrant plays. I can only guess that the intent was to make the play as accessible and understandable as possible to an audience that has not been exposed to Shakespeare before. By doing this, though - by making every line clear and every intent obvious - they have drained the play of life and turned it into a flat caricature. Somehow, it is actually boring - a very hard feat given such wonderful material.<br /><br />The acting is forgettable at best - Sam Waterston as Benedick and Douglas Watson as Don Pedro. Others, however, do not fare so well. April Shawnham's Hero is a pouty, breathless airhead that frequently provokes winces. Jerry Mayer's Don John is a nonsensical cartoon character on the level of Snidely Whiplash (though Snidley was much more enjoyable).<br /><br />F. Murray Abraham (you know, the guy who killed Mozart?) is not in this version, unless he was in disguise and had his name removed from the credits.<br /><br />Given that the producer, Joseph Papp, is basically a theater god, this production is not only disappointing but head-scratching as well.<br /><br />Don't bother with this. Watch Branagh's Much Ado instead - his version is overflowing with vitality and humor, to say nothing of wonderful performances.
This is possibly the worst version of the play I have seen - several times on stage apart from the movie.<br /><br />A very nice idea for the set up - the American South can give a credible backdrop for the extreme reaction round Hero's supposed misdemeanour.<br /><br />But the execution! Widdoes is a very mannered Beatrice giving a particularly poor performance. Waterston, a fine actor, is not much better as Benedict.<br /><br />The poorest performance is in the role of Don John - it makes Keanu Reeves look good. Perhaps the desire to make it a caricature along the lines of the villain who ties the maiden to the train track fits with the keystone kops capers of Dogberry and his men - but the acting makes you want to cringe.<br /><br />Successful set-ups include the scene where they fool Benedict into believing Beatrice loves him - were the acting competent it would be superb. But the use of the river and the visual humour of Benedict moving closer is well produced.<br /><br />Overall I had to force myself to keep watching but it certainly didn't keep my attention.<br /><br />Very disappointing.<br /><br />With respect to latter comments above I am nearly 40. I've been watching stage and screen productions of Shakespeare for over 2 decades. Might I suggest when trying to defend your friends you speak to the piece rather than attack other reviewers when you are so inadequately armed in terms of fact. I can assume though, from your distaste regarding youth, that you are of sufficient age where the mannered acting of bygone days is more to your taste.<br /><br />My personal favourite pairing was Rylance and McTeer on the London stage. Unlike Widdoes, McTeer, a skilled and charismatic performer, can act.
I consider Stuart Bliss the worst movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />The acting was terrible and the plot ludicrous. I get the fact that the main character's wife leaving him triggered a mental breakdown, but it got so silly and boring, after a while I could have cared less about any of the characters.<br /><br />The movie kept going over and over the same ideas without anything fresh or surprising to add to the plot. The whole thing with the Geiger counter got too much after a while after Stuart started opening up his wall to see what was behind it after the counter indicated something was there.<br /><br />Then there was the repetitive scenes with the flyer, and the confusing ones where he meets himself.<br /><br />I should have guessed that this movie was a flop when I didn't recognize any of the actors. Do yourself a favor when this movie comes up, read a book! You'll be better off.
I enjoyed the feel of the opening few minutes, but 20-minutes in I was liberally applying the fast-forward button. Far too many shots of Stewart (Michael Zelniker) walking from room to room, down hallways, through doors and down the street, and as many shots of him looking pensive and confused. Gave me the impression that the story had originally been meant as a short (20-30 minutes), and then stretched into a feature as a labour of love between director Grieve and star Zelniker (they co-wrote the screenplay).<br /><br />It might have been more entertaining if any of the characters had anything to say that I hadn't heard said in many other films before, or if the ending wasn't - disappointingly - the one I had predicted three minutes into the film (atypical for an independent/smaller studio film). At least its heart was in the right place - it wasn't your standard formulaic Hollywood manipulative nonsense.
Despite being a 2001 movie, the direction is the kind of 90's art-house style that was considered "old" and out-of-date a few years ago. The cheesy cuts and effects were painful to watch. The script is decent enough, and a few scenes did kind of captivate me (like when the taxi driver brings her to the bridge at night). But the story line with the detective who's sister killed herself and how he was obsessed with suicide was just plain terrible. The performance by the actor who plays Selma Blair's married boyfriend seriously bothered me. I did sit through the whole thing, though, which is rare for the kind of random, what-is-this movie you just find on TV and decide to watch.
this movie was clearly done poorly and in a rush. I realize that the funding for any such movie is hard to come by. However if the plot had any kind of original substance someone would have seen that it got the necessary funding, this was not the case and movies like this are not necessary themselves and have no purpose in existing. The plot for this movie has been done and done better i might add, many times before. There is no reason to make a movie that has no chance in competing with any others. i was informed by my computer that i need a minimum of ten lines to submit my comment so the following lines are just bull to fill in space. In my opinion there is no need for anything else to be said about this film. what i've said is plenty and if you wasted enough time reading this review, than for God's sake don't waste more time watching this movie. The only exception to this is if you are the kind of person who likes watching crappy movies that get played on the womens entertainment network at 2:00 a.m. in that case go ahead see what i care.
Kill Me Later" has an interesting initial premise: a suicidal woman (Selma Blair) on the verge of jumping off the top of an office building is protects a bank robber (Max Beesley) who promises to "kill her later."<br /><br />The actual execution of this premise, however, falls flat as almost every action serves as a mere device to move the plot toward its predictable conclusion. Shoddily written characters who exhibit no motive for their behaviors compromise the quality of acting all around. Lack of character depth especially diminishes Selma Blair's performance, whose character Shawn vacillates from being morose to acting "cool" and ultimately comes across as a confused dolt. This is unfortunate, as under other circumstances Ms. Blair is an appealing and capable actress.<br /><br />Compounding matters for the worse is director Dana Lustig's insistence on using rapid cuts, incongruous special effects (e.g. look for an unintentionally hilarious infrared motorcycle chase at the end), and a hip soundtrack in the hopes of appealing to the short attention spans of the MTV crowd. Certainly Ms. Lustig proves that she is able to master the technical side of direction, but in no way does her skill help overcome the film's inherent problems and thus the movie drags on to the end. Clearly, Lustig has a distinct visual style; however it is perhaps better suited to music videos than to feature film.<br /><br />The producers (Ram Bergman & Lustig)can be commended for their ability to realize this film: they were able to scare up $1.5 million to finance the film, secure a good cast, and get domestic and foreign distribution. This is no small feat for an independent film. Yet given the quality of the product, the result is a mixed bag.
After viewing this film, I felt the compelling need to vent a bit of my frustration. Selma Blair is a fabulous, currently underrated actress and Max Beesley was rather charming in "Kill Me Later". The story, while not exactly original, certainly showed some promise. None of that mattered though...at all.<br /><br />I don't know what her deal is, but director Dana Lustig has virtually no talent whatsoever as a director. She slowed footage down, sped footage up, reversed footage, used awkward camera angles, used annoying color filters, made a zillion quick cuts, jumped back and forth in the timeline and topped it all off with an obnoxious "modern" soundtrack of blaring junk. I can't remember the last time I saw such an incompetent job of directing a film. Her ego must be huge to toss out the acting and story and put her direction front and center for the audience members to take notice of. It is crammed down their throats.<br /><br />There are a couple of good scenes in "Kill Me Later" which show what could have and should have been. Unfortunately, just when things would start to show promise, Ms. Lustig would dig into her bag of film school tricks and jumble things up again. It's a shame because Blair and Beesley had good chemistry and you could tell that the film really had a good heart. 3/10
I see a lot of people liked this movie. To me this was a movie made right of writing 101 and the person failed the class. From the time Lindsey Price the videographer shows up until the end the movie was very predictable. I kept on watching to see if it was going anywhere.<br /><br />First we have the widowed young father. Cliché #1 movies/TV always kill off the the mother parent if the child is a girl, or a brood of boys so the single father can get swoon over his dead wife and seem completely out of his element taking care of the children. Starting from from My 3 Sons to 2 1/2 Dads. These movies are usually dramas and comedies are TV shows.<br /><br />Cliché # 2 When a pushy woman has a video camera in her hand she will play a big part in the movie. And will always have solutions or even if that person is a airhead <br /><br />Cliché #3 If the person in peril is a foreigner they have to be of Latino origin. And they must be illegal. Apparently there are no legal Latino's and illegal Europeans, unless if there is a IRA element involved.<br /><br />Cliché #4 The said Latino must be highly educated in his native country. In this case he was a Profesor who made 200 per month. And the said highly educated Latino must now act like he hasn't brain in his head now and lets the air head side kick take over.<br /><br />Cliché #5 The crime the person committed really wasn't a crime but a accident. But because in this case he has lost all of the sense he had when he crossed the boarder he now acts like a blithering idiot and now has put his own daughter in peril by taking her along on a fruitless quest to the border with the idiot side kick.<br /><br />Cliché #6 One never runs over a hoodlum running from a crime , but some poor little cute kid. This is because the parents of the child have to play a big part of the movie, and because the the person who accidentally killed the child can have ridiculous interaction with the parents.<br /><br />Cliché #7 Name me one movie in which one cop is not the angry vet and they get paired up with a rookie. Even if they are homicide detectives who have to be the most experienced cops on a police Force. Sev7n and Copy cat and Law and Order come to mind right away. And the vet even though gruff on the outside has a heart of gold.<br /><br />Cliché #8 Let's go and round up some unemployed Soap Stars. Now I like Lindsey Price. But Susan Haskell IMO can not act her way out of a paper bag and when she use to be on One Life To Live as Marty he swayed from right to left every time she opened her mouth. It use to get me sea sick. She might be anchored on land better now, but she still cannot act.<br /><br />The movie might have been more insightful if it wasn't filled with clichés. I don't think a movie has to be expensive or cerebral to be good. But this was just bad.<br /><br />***SPOILER**** Now I am not going to spoil the ending. Oh heck I will because I feel it will be a disservice to humanity to let a person waste time they will never get back looking at this movie. It involves Cliché #6 and #7. Unless a person has never seen a movie before you had to see what was coming. The father makes even a dumber mistake runs from the cops at the end and gets shot by the angry veteran, who all of a sudden is very upset. You would think she thought the poor guy was innocent all through the movie and she shot him by mistake. When she didn't. Now for the little girl who the dad brought along with him. Guess what happen to her? Times up, she ends up living with the family whose child was killed by her father!! Come on! You all knew that was going to happen, because she is a replacement child!! That is why she did not go and live with the Lindey Price character. <br /><br />This movie was a insult as far as I was concerned. Because there were so many avenues this movie could of explored and went down but it chose to take the cliché ridden one. The 2 stars are for 2 of the stars, the little girl, who I thought was very good and Lindsey Price who character was annoying but she did what she could with it. My advice is take a vice and squeeze your head with it instead of looking at this dreck
Heavy-handed moralism. Writers using characters as mouthpieces to speak for themselves. Predictable, plodding plot points (say that five times fast). A child's imitation of Britney Spears. This film has all the earmarks of a Lifetime Special reject.<br /><br />I honestly believe that Jesus Nebot and Julia Montejo set out to create a thought-provoking, emotional film on a tough subject, exploring the idea that things are not always black and white, that one who is a criminal by definition is not necessarily a bad human being, and that there can be extenuating circumstances, especially when one puts the well-being of a child first. However, their earnestness ends up being channeled into preachy dialogue and trite situations planted to move the plot along. The decent production values and interesting use of documentary-style camera footage are not enough to accomplish their aim when the script and the acting fall flat.<br /><br />Logic is often compromised for the sake of creating tension: Soid first tries to blackmail Pablo into participating in her documentary in exchange for helping them escape, then in the same breath basically tells him not to trust her because she's not helping them out of altruism. Well, duh. And for a man on the run, Pablo is far too swayed by a temper tantrum. Cristina's well-being is so important to him that he's fleeing capture and jail or deportation for her, but he's willing to risk all that to appease her when she doesn't want to go to Mexico. Right. Talk above over-permissive parenting. Third, when Pablo's employer Charlie gives the phone to Detective Bright, she is remarkably unprofessional, especially given her seniority - did she really think she was persuasive? Oh, yeah, I would have turned myself in. CCH Pounder's Detective Wims could wipe the floor with her.<br /><br />To be fair, I'd like to list the things I liked. Um, I liked the midget. And I liked the fact that the midget was named Sexy. There's cross-dressing, always a plus; juvenile cross-dressing, no less! Harry is infinitely cuter than Cristina. But my favorite moment in the film has to be when Cristina kicks Detective Not-So-Bright. I also find it interesting that, in a heavily minority cast (which I much appreciate, by the way), the black character is the racist one. Too bad it's just thrown out there and not further explored.<br /><br />There's a distinctive, unconventional score, but it's nonetheless generally context-unspecific, not enhancing mood or tension in any scene, except the pathetic, anguished wailing every time the main character is in anguish, as though they think his acting doesn't show it enough: 'Just in case you weren't sure, he's upset, and we have the musical cues to prove it.'<br /><br />Stilted, clichéd dialogue results in a depressing lack of subtext; everything has to be spelled out in dialogue, even when the body language had been up 'til then conveying it just fine. For example, every impassioned speech Pablo makes, and Mrs. Knight's lament that her child won't be crawling into bed with them in the morning.<br /><br />'Papi, tell me about Mama again' - what shameless, blatant exposition introducing the generic dead wife! (She's always the most beautiful woman the widower had ever seen, the kindest he had ever met. Why can't we see a man cry over a woman like Shakespeare's - she may be fat, ugly, obnoxious, but his love for her is deep as oceans? Now _there's_ a story which would move me.)<br /><br />The police always being literally one step behind them gives many scenes the out-of-place feeling of a French farce. Most boring foot chases ever - Bright and Lightning are so out-of-shape and easily-fooled (he certainly isn't quick as lightning, and she, well, I don't feel the need to spell things out). Some guy dragging along a small child outrunning a bicycle cop, complete with macho biker picking a fight but then being felled by a child? To quote Margaret Cho, that's so sad. Would we ever see this on 'Cops '?<br /><br />Hackneyed and over-the-top deus ex machina: as an employer, would you really waive checking his green card just because he can quote the author of the inspirational saying on a poster behind your desk?<br /><br />Plus several scenes, including the above, threaten to devolve into porn: 'Well, I'll do this favor for you, as long as you do something for me...' I can almost hear the bowm-chicka-bowm-bowm.<br /><br />When the parents view the footage shot of Pablo's remorse, the grieving mom's freak-out is the most real the movie feels. Unfortunately, this is diminished by the fact that she looks completely swayed by his emotional speech right up until she goes ballistic. A more ambivalent look would be more convincing here.<br /><br />I'm in constant awe of the stupidity of the main character doing things for the sake of plot: holding up a convenience store without a mask, visiting the dead girl's grave. And why doesn't the mother recognize his face from when she saw him before he drove off?! 'You seem awfully familiar...'<br /><br />What is the purpose of that wholly unnecessary, somewhat gratuitous scene with Soid and the artificially-enhanced bartender? Character development? Tch. Too little, too late.<br /><br />Speaking of unnecessary traits that never went anywhere, Detective Lightning's saying skeptical Detective Bright must be a Scorpio shows how little he really knows about the occult. And I don't think that believing in fate quite qualifies as voodoo mumbo jumbo.<br /><br />At the end, when Bright holds Pablo as he dies - wait, why does she care now? Her character is as inconsistent as Soid's. What, she has to shoot him just because she said 'Stop, or I'll shoot'? (She's cared _so_much_ about her integrity thus far.) He was unarmed. There was no need for lethal force. What's wrong with shooting him in the leg to immobilize him?<br /><br />Finally, Cristina's childlike acceptance of her mother's death giving Dr. Knight peace over his daughter's death - so forced. And the contrivance of the family whose child was killed becoming Cristina's new family... It angers me that she could be a 'replacement' for their little girl. It's also unrealistic that a white couple would take in the Latino daughter of the man who killed their own daughter. I'm not saying there aren't generous, loving people who would do that. I'm just saying that the characters here are never developed far enough for me to believe that _they_ would do that.<br /><br />I find it offensive that another IMDb reviewer said that of course as a woman she was moved by the sappy scenes. I am a woman who reserves my emotional movements for moments that don't wax sentimental in a manufactured manner.<br /><br />Co-writer, co-director, co-star Nebot said himself he wore too many hats during this production. Too many cooks may spoil the broth, but one cook alone just might end up making an after-school special.<br /><br />In conclusion, this film's title has less to do with the story and more to do with the feeling of regret, helplessness, and loss accompanying the revelation that you will never see your money again.
This film has an interesting plot, but the acting is quite bad and the script is poor. I was very disappointed. The moral dilemma faced by the main character is an intriguing one, but due to poor writing and casting this potentially winning premise is plundered. 2 of the 4 other people in the theater left after about 45 minutes and the other 2 were laughing at how bad the film was. I stuck it out to the end, but I must admit I played Blackjack on my cell phone to make the last 30 minutes bearable.
It makes the actors in Hollyoaks look like the Royal Shakespeare Company. This movie is jaw dropping in how appalling it is. Turning the DVD player off was not a sufficient course of action. I want to find the people responsible for this disaster and slap them around the face. I will never get that time back. Never. How is it possible to create such a banal, boring and soulless film? I could not think of a course of action that would relieve the tedium. Writing the required ten lines is incredibly difficult for such a disgraceful piece of cinema. What more can you say than reiterate how truly awful the acting is. Please avoid.
Being a Film studies graduate I would like to think that I have seen a diverse range of films, some good and some bad, but I would have to say that 'Summer rain' is by far the worse film I have ever seen! I chose the film in the hope that it was going to be a great British classic such as 'Secrets and Lies' or 'Lockstock' but oh no this was so bad that my flat mates and I ended up laughing and cringing at the ridiculous acting and cheesy script (reminded me of a bad 'theatre in education' school production). The main characters Michelle and Gary began to annoy us from the start. 'Michelle' the main character who lives with her two friends has the type of face that you would never get tired of slapping and Gary was so wet (he kept breaking down in tears every 5 minutes) that by the end of the film I really didn't give a damn about either of them. All I could think was ' I paid £3 for this pile'. I have never written a review before but after watching this film it has spurred me on to warn people of this disastrous production. So please avoid at all costs. Thanks for reading.
Well.......in contrast to other comments previously written I have to say that the only good thing about this film is the fact that one guy in it looked a bit like Jason Donavon which reminded me of my youth. I have no idea how it won any awards, and although I'm sure a great deal of effort went into making it it was all fruitless as the final outcome is one which screams of early 90's foreign soap operas. The plot was non-existent, the cinematography was hopeless and the acting was on par with an a-level performance. It was unfortunately long and the sub-plots were incredibly unrealistic....for example....if your best friend slept with your ex-boyfriend of 6 years after only 2 weeks of being broken up you would not all remain the best of friends. It was all fantasy. That's all! Oh yeah, and the weird 90's house/soft core indie was mind numbing!
I'll give credit where credit is due, and say that Linda Fiorentino gives a good performance as a hard-drinking actress who does what she wants. She's brash, sassy, hard-edged, and very sexy; she is much better than this film deserves.<br /><br />But that is IT. This dull suspense film is a fragmented mess, attempting at once to be a stalker thriller, a murder thriller, a tale of loyalty and betrayal, and a steamy erotic thriller. The film, my friends, isn't thrilling in the slightest.<br /><br />For instance, who thought of casting C. Thomas Howell as a desirable leading man? He is not ugly, but for crying out loud, it looks as though Fiorentino's tough-cookie goddess is getting it on with a kindergarten teacher. Howell has neither the authority or screen presence to fill the leading man role.<br /><br />The script is by far the worst aspect of the film. There is no tension as Fiorentino's character gets eerie phone calls, there is no mystery concerning her guilt in the murders that are the focus of the film, there is no sense of liberation as Fiorentino gets wimpy Howell to lose his inhibitions.<br /><br />Look for interesting but poorly-done cameos by Adam Ant and Issac Hayes, and one really, really good sex scene between Howell and Fiorentino. Besides that, my first impulse would be to put this sorry piece of trash down and go rent something else.
Perhaps not my genre but plot was horrible as was acting by Nancy Allen and Linda Farentino. C. Thomas also seemed uncomfortable in role of being seduced here (while on marijuana? why did this need to be included? this weakened plot considerably). Also Farentino's charac. would have been better had she had more respect for a relationship. Would does movie try to say? not much.
A bondage, humiliation, S&M show, and not much else. The plot is flat, really just a banal setup for the stylishly depraved set-pieces. The host of the aforementioned show, a silly little man who spouts drivel while prancing around the stage in dresses, was almost as painfully distracting as the attempts at artful editing. The dream-like ending felt tacked on. To the film's credit though, Aya Sugimoto was fairly convincing as the tortured lead. Flower and Snake has been compared with Eyes Wide Shut but aside from some minor surface similarities, Kubrick's is easily the more layered, artistic, and atmospheric picture.
when you get to the scenes that involve Albert Brooks without his shirt... try not to gag on a fur ball.<br /><br />I like Albert Brooks. I've seen most, if not all of his movies but it was the first time seeing this one. Modern Romance is an interesting take on the subject of love. There are few movies that handle the desperation of love as well or as overtly as Modern Romance, although 1979's Chilly Scenes of Winter comes very close. They both essentially deal with obsessed men that are too psychologically attracted/obsessed to their respective women.<br /><br />Where-as Chilly Scenes of Winter borders on the subject stalking, this movie has a more grounded foundation with the subject of love because both people are already in a relationship.. and out of the relationship.. and back in it again.<br /><br />And because it's a movie that was released in 1981, it is of its time in terms of styles and such. That's the main reason I like this movie. My basic rule when it comes to movies is "If it sucks at least it may have some historic relevance", you know time capsule stuff.<br /><br />Which leads me to the horrific scenes of Albert Brooks sans shirt.<br /><br />The man is hair. Very hair. Like he's wearing a black curly fur sweater-hairy. And what's worse is he almost looks burn victim-hairy. It's not a pleasant sight and the scenes with him without a shirt go on and on. Back in the early 80's hairy men were seen as normal and nothing shocking. But in 2009 the sight of something like this is just plain revolting. Sorry, Albert! I wish at some point someone said "hey let's try this scene but with you wearing a simple t-shirt, I mean you might scare people". It's just really bad and I feel sorry for the poor pretty actress that had to deal with Albert Brooks naked body on top of hers. She was probably pulling out his hairs from her teeth for days after that.<br /><br />Anyway, it's an OK movie. It could have been better if I hadn't see Albert Brooks without his shirt for what seemed like 10 long continuous minutes because that will forever taint my viewing of this movie.
This is a depressingly shallow, naive and mostly unfunny look at a wildly improbable relationship between Brooks' psychotic film editor and Harold, his vapid girlfriend. The two have ZERO chemistry together - primarily because Harold is incapable of doing anything besides looking pretty at this stage of her career; but also because Brooks' character is neither interesting nor likeable. There are 15 static, excruciating minutes at the beginning where Brooks, having just broke up with Harold, stumbles about his apartment in a depressed, drugged out state - unbearable.<br /><br />Sappily and unimaginatively bookended by Joe Cocker's "You Are So Beautiful", there simply is not enough material here for a feature film. There is hardly anything going on on the periphery of their relationship to give the appearance that these people exist in a real world. I'm sure Brooks' intention was to shine a white hot spotlight on the affair and, in a way, deconstruct it; but if you're going to do that the writing and acting needs to be far far better than what it is here.
Having read the other comments on this film, I would like to share my own view that this is one tough movie to see unless you are a total Brooksophile. I am not.<br /><br />When looked at by a purely objective observer, the film is an unbalanced narrative that presents us with more undistilled neuroses than are capable of being absorbed in one sitting. It is quite difficult to watch. The Brooks character (Robert Cole) is so unsympathetic and unpleasant that it is hard to relate to him---let alone root for him as he stumbles from one dysfunctional self-absorbed situation to the next. And he should NEVER do a topless scene and expect to be taken seriously in a romantic context. No man could have that much exposed foliage and be supposed to turn on a babe like Kathryn Harrold----unless, of course, he is Albert Brooks in an Albert Brooks-controlled production.<br /><br />"Modern Romance" has its amusing moments-----but they are fragmentary and infrequent. More often than not, I felt as if I were on a confined journey with a thoroughly dislikable person and wishing that it would end already. It confirms the problems that can develop when too much control of a film is placed in only one person---someone who lacks the self-discipline to be able to step back from it and see what is clearly happening.<br /><br />As most people probably know, James L. Brooks, who played the director in this film, is in fact what he portrayed. Six years later, he cast Albert Brooks in the very successful "Broadcast News." James showed us how Albert can shape a credible and entertaining comic performance. Albert allowed us to see James (generally not cast as an actor) do a rare comic turn in a surprisingly effective manner.<br /><br />Fans of "Modern Romance" will by now have moved on to the next laudatory comment about it. To you I say-----there is enough pain in the world without having to find it in a film intended as an entertainment.
When I saw the previews for this movie, I didn't expect much to begin with - around a second rate teen horror movie. But wow, this movie was absolutely awful. And that's being generous.<br /><br />First of all, the casting for the movie was terrible. You feel no sympathy (or for that matter any morbid feeling) for the characters. The acting was so terrible that I was just simply waiting and hoping for the God-awful thing to end.<br /><br />Secondly, there are points in the movie that had absolutely no relation to the plot whatsoever. Can somebody please explain to me why the girlish-looking boy starts screaming "PANCAKES!!!" at the top of his lungs while going into Jackie Chan moves I've never seen before, and even further biting the guy who has the virus? Why does the father of the kid proceed to get angry with the virus-infected guy, and go on a redneck hunting spree to find him? I was left with a feeling of such confusion and utter disbelief that I literally said out loud, "Where the hell did that come from?"<br /><br />I just simply couldn't believe what I had seen. I really thought I had seen some bad movies, but I have to say that Cabin Fever tops them all. This movie made me want to puke and then puke again. Then blow my brains out.<br /><br />Please, save yourself an hour and a half and do something more productive. Watching grass grow, perhaps, is a proper alternative.
OK let's get right to the point. We have five recent college grads (must have majored in the F word) going out on a weekend camping trip. They run into someone who is in need of help, but instead of trying to assist him, they decide to set him on fire instead. Nice bunch of people. Next some of them start go get sick - must be something in the water at the cabin they are staying at. However the neighbors seem to be OK. Oh well, when things start getting really bad, they lock up one their companions instead of getting help (try the neighbor by the way). Some locals don't take a liking to them. They chase one on a high speed romp through the woods for many miles, until the truck breaks down. Somehow ten minutes later he shows up at the cabin (how he could find it and how he could travel at the speed of light to get there is a mystery). Another of the brain surgeon type at the cabin realizes something is amiss so he hides out in a cave to let this blow over. He then decides the next day to return to the cabin believing it must be some type of shrine. He is giddy with relief that he survived (he must have thought it was a 24 hour bug). Unfortuneatley he is met by some not so friendly police officers. Another couple decide to have sex while the flesh eating bug is working its magic, and then the women realizes she needs to shave her legs (taking a lot of the diseased skin with shaving cream). Anyway you get the idea. Nothing makes sense here. These are five people I would not want to be friends with. I was rooting for the flesh eating bacteria. Other characters were introduced who were also somewhat amusing but utterly unlikeable as well. Ninety minutes of good life wasted here.
Anyone who has read my review for Uwe Boll's "Alone In The Dark" will remember that I compared the unenviable task of sitting through that piece of human waste to having each and every hair on your arm pulled out. Well, take that analogy a step further with this irredeemable gutter trash and try to imagine the pain of getting your teeth extracted without novacaine. Do that, and you'll have a general idea of what Eli Roth's "Cabin Fever" is all about.<br /><br />I never believed any one film was capable of topping the sheer agonizing dreck that Uwe Boll cranks out as the "worst film ever made." But, in all honesty, I have to say "Cabin Fever" comes very close. This is yet another sad excuse for a motion picture that had absolutely no valid reason to meet with any form of theatrical release. For somebody who claims to love the horror genre as much as Eli Roth does, he has created the single most annoying and convoluted patchwork of a movie I think I have ever seen in my entire life. How do you screw up a story like this? Think of the potential this plot would have had without the poorly written characters, without the bad writing, and without all that unnecessary and unfunny comedy. A movie dealing with a grotesque flesh-eating virus could and should have been so much better than what Roth dished out for us here. This script failed on so many levels with me. And, while I do not doubt the evident talent this director possesses, I do know that he fumbled the ball big time on an idea that could very well have redefined the horror genre.<br /><br />To say this was a production of missed opportunities would indeed be a gross play on words. A generous amount of blood and unsettling special effects can't even save it, and that is one element I normally go for. There really was nothing about "Cabin Fever" that I could easily recommend to anybody. When three quarters of the crowd walks out of the theater halfway through, you know the movie is sinking fast. My best advice to those reading this would be to simply rent before purchasing. One viewing was more than enough for me to know that I will most likely never bother with it again.
I wasted 5.75 to see this crappy movie so I just want to know a few things:<br /><br />What was the point of the dog being split in half at the beginning of the movie, the disease had nothing to do with being split in half.<br /><br />What was the point of dragging Karen into the shed, she already totally infected her room, they could have just locked her in there where she would have been safer.<br /><br />Why would the Hermit be running around the forest asking strangers to help him when he could have just asked his relative, the hog lady, to take him to the hospital?<br /><br />Why didn't any of the characters bother to walk into town to get help when things started getting bad, are they all really that lazy?<br /><br />Even if Paul was threatened by the guy w/ the shotgun for peeping on his wife, Paul could have just sent Jeff or Bert back to the house to ask for help. the girl he loves is deteriorating.<br /><br />What was the point of the box?<br /><br />Why did Jeff go back to the cabin after he left when everyone else was getting infected, if he was that big of a jerk to leave in the first place wouldn't he have just gone back home?<br /><br />If the police went to all the trouble of gathering up the kids and burning them on the fire pit, why did they throw Paul halfway into the river, it wasn't even necessary for the plot because the water was already contaminated.<br /><br />Who makes lemonade out of river water, that crap has dirt leaves and bugs in it. Why couldn't the two kids have just use the tap water, it was contaminated too, so the stupid ending would still work.
I don't really know whether Cabin Fever is supposed to be a joke or a film... But as far as I know, it's much closer to being a joke than anything else. A few years ago, the community of horror film makers decided to take a new step and make fun of the genre, thus giving birth to the Scream series. A list was given in Scream, of all the stupid things horror film characters will do that are predictable, and the characters in Scream ended up doing exactly the same things, which added a lot of humor and irony to this analysis of the genre, and led to hope that horror films from now on would show a bit different, either full of irony towards the genre, self-derision towards the film itself, or at least different in their dramatic process than all the "old" films that responded to the same tired criteria. In seeing "Cabin Fever", alas, many will see how unoriginal, serious, pretentious, boring and even not scary some supposedly "scary" films are now, even a few years later. First of all, this film lacks originality in a way few others do. It has been said several times, how little imagination horror directors have today, remaking remakes of foreign sequels, but setting the film in a cabin in the woods just doesn't seem to be an "hommage" to anything, it seems to be, simply, a ripoff. Whoever wishes to be surprised by other factors of the film's story won't be: once again, we are dealing with a film whose characters are all in their early twenties, who won't think rationally when placed in front of a problem, will rather argue for hours and pick up fights than try to think and do something about it. Not much excitement there either. For the umpteenth time in a horror film, they are tempted to kiss, make love and just basically have fun, all sorts of things that don't really make them any different than any other horror film victims seen previously. Secondly, this film is unimaginatively serious. Every situation the characters are in, every dialog, every situation in the film is treated with such seriousness that any viewer with a little sense of derision will be relieved when some characters finally end up dying. Nothing in the way the film is directed, written or acted shows any sign of humor or sarcasm, which is quite amazing considering the film is about an invisible-never-heard-of-before-flesh-eating-virus (no laughs please). I won't even bring up the acting, since there are no actors in this film. The cast was most certainly hired for being friends or neighbors with the director. Thirdly, and this will strike whoever has seen a "good" horror film before, the screenplay is absolutely empty. Nothing really happens, some actions are repeated several times ("let's try to get help!"), nothing makes sense, either in the facts, the psychology of the characters, or even the hilariously lame last sequence of the film, which is probably supposed to be funny according to the director and screenwriters. In the end I will only remark that a horror film is supposed to have something scary in it. Gallons of fake blood, whether they are being vomited, squirted from severed limbs or simply dripping from wounds, never were enough to scare an audience. Such major features as screenplay, ideas, and even cruelty are requested for whoever claims to have shot something scary. If I wasn't considering it to be a total failure, I would agree to reckon that the film has one talent: it is filthy disgusting to watch. Yet being grossed-out and being scared are two very different feelings, let it be known.<br /><br />I would like to encourage anyone a tad curious or interested in seeing this film to check older major horror films first, why not from the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, films made by Wes Craven, Dario Argento, Sam Raimi, Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch, Roger Corman, William Lustig, John Carpenter... it might not only give a good definition of what is scary, or self-derisory horror, but also convince viewers that "new" isn't necessarily "better". A good example related to the film is the few tracks composer Angelo Badalamenti provided for this film, even although they are unmistakably close to his previous compositions, they are below anything he has ever done before.
Okay I had heard little about this film, so when it came on the movie channels on TV, I wanted to watch it, being a horror aficionado. I think I can do a collective "huh?" for everyone who watched it.<br /><br />I decided to move on with my life, but at a party with my closest friends, we saw it was coming on and some of us having seen it already decided we could laugh our way through it, both of us proclaiming "this is the dumbest thing I've ever seen". It wasn't scary; Ill give it to Roth (who I think is a young hack); characters do change throughout the film, ala "Cube".<br /><br />HOWEVER despite your typical "rats in a cage" scenario- who will turn on who, etc., it was pretty average horror.<br /><br />A few points: 1.) What was with that kid? I'm not even talking about him being weird and biting people. I'm talking about the whole "slow motion karate kicking", what was that? 2.) Okay I know Rider's character liked Jordan Ladd's, but as a young woman, I was appalled that he just went ahead and molested her in her sleep. Uh, thats illegal.<br /><br />3.) Roth was in the movie just so Roth could be in the movie. Talk about pointlessly writing yourself in! 4.) What was with the deputy? 5.) So she was just instantly pulled apart by the dog? And there was little to no blood left? Just a scrap of her jeans? Anyway we were LAUGHING our asses off, and I love laughing during horror movies (Return of the Living Dead 2, Evil Dead), but I don't know if we were supposed to be laughing here...
**SPOILERS BELOW!!!**<br /><br />Cabin Fever has my nod for WORST film of the year...that I've seen that is. This movie is straight GARBAGE! There is so much wrong with the film you can't help but be amazed at how bad it really is. This movie had so much potential to be good, but ultimately made nothing of it. The characters were as dumb as one can be; for the entire movie you're just asking yourself "why would you do that?" or "what's your point in doing this?"...this is how illogical and stupid the characters are. We get NO background into them, so naturally you really don't give a rats as$ about their fate...you could only laugh at their stupidity. <br /><br />- The 'slut' (Marcy) for instance... was she that horny that she had to sleep with Paul (Rider Strong)? There was no point in that....its almost as if the filmmakers needed a excuse to give her the virus so voila! UGH. <br /><br />- Would anyone really go into the woods and drink water from the faucet of a cabin WITHOUT looking at it first?<br /><br />- Why didn't Bert just shoot the sick guy from the start? Movie would've been over that way....besides, they ended up killing him anyway.<br /><br />- Why did it take them so long to finally decide to leave the cabin, even if they had to walk? 'No, I'll just wait until 2 of my friends are infected (one a blink away from death) to finally opt to walk outta there.<br /><br />- What was exactly the reasoning behind Paul's attempt to fish out the body of the Hermit, only to fall in the contaminated reservoir and get infected with the virus? Pure STUPIDITY!<br /><br />I swear, common sense was not a friend, much less an aquaintance to these idiots. I don't think there has ever been a worse ending to a movie. In the beginning the kids ask the hick store cashier what the rifle was for, and he replied that 'its for the niggers'. In the end of the film, 3 young Blacks (dressed in baggy clothes, one of them in a du-rag no less) go into the store....come to find out that the cashier was cleaning it for them to be used for hunting. THEN, he proceeds to give them all pounds and handshakes and joke around with them as if they're his homeboys.<br /><br />Okay, WHAT THE HELL WAS THE POINT OF THAT?!?!?!? How tasteless can one be, what were the filmmakers THINKING putting that in the movie? I as a Black man was of course offended by the initial 'Nigger' comment. It was a tasteless, pointless remark. My question to the filmmakers: what was the point of the ending with the Black kids? Was that to force me to forget about the initial racist comment made earlier? To smooth things over with Black viewers, by making a joke out of it? Well, I for one, did NOT find that pathetic attempt at humor funny in the least bit. The whole movie was a joke....a PATHETIC attempt at filmmaking that shouldn't be given the time of day. Peter Jackson really thought this film was that good? What film was HE looking at? <br /><br />ZERO * out of **** stars....if I could give it a lower rating I would. Please, fellow IMDb'ers, don't waste 1 1/2 hours of your precious life watching this abomination of a 'movie'. This is one of the worst movies I've EVER seen.
I've rented and watched this movie for the 1st time on DVD without reading any reviews about it. So, after 15 minutes of watching I've noticed that something is wrong with this movie; it's TERRIBLE! I mean, in the trailers it looked scary and serious!<br /><br />I think that Eli Roth (Mr. Director) thought that if all the characters in this film were stupid, the movie would be funny...(So stupid, it's funny...? WRONG!) He should watch and learn from better horror-comedies such as:"Fright Night", "The Lost Boys" and "The Return Of the Living Dead"! Those are funny!<br /><br />"Cabin Fever" is THE reason why I registered to www.IMDb.com so I can release my thoughts of discontent about it.<br /><br />I've decided to watch the movie a second time >AAARGH!< and make notes for my partial "review" to show how foolish the movie is. "Resident Evil" (horror) or "Dude, Where's My Car?" (comedy) I can watch over and over again and still enjoy! But this...!<br /><br />How bad can a script and a director be??? This bad. Here are the awful scenes in chronological order:<br /><br />In the early scenes we see Henry, who doesn't realize his dog lying on the ground with its tongue hanging out of its mouth and dead-glazed stare is dead!<br /><br />The movie doesn't explain anything about the blonde long-haired kid who like to bite people.<br /><br />And my answer to Marcy's unanswered question ("What's wrong with the woods?") is "nothing". The script has that bearded guy warn them about the woods just for "suspense".<br /><br />Then the "smartest" of the 5-pack, Bert, almost gives us an example of how to start a forest fire. He meets now-infected Henry who begs for help and from here on the movie wants to break the record in using the "F-word". Bert starts to freak out because Henry looks awfully ill. Bert:"Don't make me shoot you!" (he forgets to add: "...with my BB gun!")<br /><br />Bert heads back to the cabin but how about that? He meets Marcy and Jeff who were having sex, but now suddenly decide to go out for a walk! Marcy wisely takes out the unguarded campfire Bert had started earlier (A moment of clarity for a change?) Bert doesn't mention a word about Henry because the fool thinks he has killed him with his BB gun.<br /><br />Later, as the Five Estupidos sit around their campfire, another weirdo shows up with his dog. (Maybe that's what the warning about the woods is all about? It's filled with weirdos...and their dogs!?) They let him sit with them only because he has a huge bag filled with cannabis. (Their brains are completely intoxicated! No wonder why they are all so DUMB!) This is the last time we'll see this forgettable character...alive!<br /><br />Henry shows up at their cabin, (NOTE: He was lying all the time a few yards from their cabin!!!) looking worse, almost like a zombie, covered in goo! He says he needs a doctor. But the Young Einsteins refuse to help the poor sucker. He gets into their unlocked truck which of course also has its key in the ignition. Henry almost seems smart enough to drive the Hell away from there but instead starts puking blood all over the dashboard, seats and windows. The Fantastic Five come out running, armed with: a BB Gun, a knife, a baseball bat (*huh? Ever tried playing baseball in the middle of the woods???), a poker, and a (insecticide?) spray-can, ready to combat the single, unarmed and terribly sick man. (clever script!) Bert manages to kill the car with one single shot of his BB Gun, which is only possible in the mind of director Eli Roth. "What else am I supposed to do?" Bert yells in his defense. Jeff and Paul try to knock Henry down with their bat and poker but miss and crash the truck's windows instead. Henry walks up to the dumb girls who say: "He's coming towards us!" (Thanks for the info, dumb broads, I can see that! But I don't think he wants to do you any harm!) Marcy sprays in his eyes, making Henry yelp! And our "hero" Paul touches Henry's arm with a burning log from the campfire, which they recklessly left burning while they were INSIDE the cabin! (Where has all that wisdom gone? I guess the cannabis had started to take its toll!:-) Henry turns into The Human Torch and runs away, screaming.<br /><br />The following day, Bert and Jeff head out for a mechanic. And Marcy decides to "go for help" all by herself, in the woods, as Paul stays behind with Karen...Doesn't that sound idiotic? Marcy could have stayed with Karen and Paul because Jeff and Bert were already "going for help"!<br /><br />I skip my comments now to how we suddenly see Marcy in a CANOE rowing over a huge and winding river! How did she get a canoe? Does she even know where she's going!? Anyway, she goes to the riverbank and finds a very big and seemingly abandoned cabin and, like in most horror movies, walks inside the cabin saying:"Hello? Is anyone there?" Bert suddenly pops up from behind a furniture and scares her (and me at first). And along comes Jeff, as well. How did THEY get here!? Did they swim across the river??? Do you see how brainless the script is!?<br /><br />Deputy Winston meets Paul at the cabin. He somehow doesn't notice the blood on their truck. This happens around 35 minutes of viewing and I have decided to stop torturing myself anymore and popped the DVD out. (Before I take my own eyes out!...Now, THAT's funny!)<br /><br />If you liked this movie, do yourself a favor and watch "Fright Night", "The Lost Boys", or "The Return of The Living Dead". Then you'll see they are MORE entertaining than this...thing. Even the "Toxic Avenger part 2", which is also a lousy film, is way MORE funnier than "Cabin Fever".
Liongate has yet to prove itself. Every single movie from lionsgate has been abysmal. i've tried and tried to give them more opportunities and they just keep slapping me over and over again. And Cabin Fever is definitely no exception.<br /><br />I couldn't even pay attention to most of this movie it was so frustrating and bad.<br /><br />here's the plot. Guy cuts up dead dog for some reason. Gets infected by random virus, transfers it to kids at a camp, kids start to get infected and die, town finds out about it and rather than help them, kills them. then the water is infected and everyone dies. the end.<br /><br />Seriously, that's the whole movie.<br /><br />all the characters are completely retarded, you don't care for any of them, and the one kid should have stuck with boy meets world. Me and my friend found that talking about how fat and bitchy our one classmate was to be far more enjoyable than paying attention to this movie. We did manage to make it all the way to the end while screaming bulls$@t, because this film will make you do that.<br /><br />and i'm still confused by the random slow motion karate moves of the one random kid and how apparently everybody out in the country is completely retarded and hickish. And again, why did this dog attack the girl? why did the kid the hicks were trying to kill sit in a chair waiting for them to kill him? that was part of the two of their's plan? wow. best plan ever. i cannot believe this movie got a theatrical release. i could barely stomach the DVD, let alone have to sit in a theater not moving for an hour and a half. It wasn't scary, or funny, or cool, or anything. it's just a waste of 90 minutes that you could be using to...i don't know, plant a tree or something. it's more productive than this piece of garbage. The acting, special effects, and script are a joke. don't ever pick this up.<br /><br />Cabin fever gets one nasty leg shaving scene, out of 10
This is probably one of the worst films i have ever seen. The events in it are completely random and make little or no sense. The fact that there is a sequel is so sickening i may come down with a case of cabin fever (I'M SO SORRY). I describe it as bug being smooshed to a newspaper because it seems to be different parts of things mixed together. e.g Kevin the pancake loving karate kid is just freakishly weird on its own, then there's the cop who is slightly weird and perverted, then the drug addict, then there's the fact that they attack some random guy who clearly needs help. then all of a sudden the main character is having sex with his friends girlfriend just because she says something stupid about a plane going down. then at the end some good old family racism followed by a rabbit operating on Kevin the karate kid. Its actually pretty despicable that they can use racism as a joke in this film. There is no reason for anyone to enjoy this film unless you love Eli Roth, even that did not make me like this film. Hate is a strong word but seeing as it is the only word i am permitted to use it will have to do. BOYCOTT CABIN FEVER 2!!!!!
Truly one of the most dire films I've ever sat through. I've never actually taken the time to write one of these but felt compelled to after witnessing this affront to film-making and feel somewhat aggrieved to be wasting my time on such a piece of turd to be honest. There were so many parts that infuriated me with their complete randomness and lack of sense (e.g. when would the police force ever shoot people with infectious diseases? When would hospitals ever through out such people for lack of a cure? Why was the guy who spotted him spying on his wife wandering around outside in his dressing gown whilst carrying a gun as she rolled around on the bed?). Also, the characterisation - as we've almost come to expect in such films - was awful (e.g. the way the blonde guy - I don't remember his frickin name and don't give a toss anyway - completely turned against his girlfriend and ran off to leave her) and I ended up wanting them all to meet grisly ends! The production was horribly disjointed and the cinematography nothing to write home about.
The premise of Cabin Fever starts like it MIGHT have something to offer. A group of college teens after finals (in the fall?) goes to a resort cabin in the woods where one by one they are attacked by an unseen flesh eating virus.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the first paragraph is where any remote elements of film quality stop. Cabin Fever is little more than college kids looking for sex, booze, talking non-stop about nothing, and seeing how many F-bombs they can get into 1:40 minutes or however long this mess is.<br /><br />The kids act and react stupidly to everything around them. One of them for instance discovers that the skin virus has infected her legs, so what does she do? She keeps shaving her legs failing to take proper medical attention for her wounds. The scene is little more than a gross out. In another scene, Rider Strong from "Boy Meets World" gets bitten on the hand by some kid who only says "Pancakes" and likes to do karate kicks on those who sit next to him. If you can figure out the reason for why the "Pancakes" kid was included, I'd love to know. Anyway, Rider pets a wild dog and goes off to wash his bitten hand in a most likely contaminated creek. Another kid likes to drop F-bombs in reacting to everything around him and shoot squirrels. Why? Your guess is as good as mine!<br /><br />Rider Strong is the ONLY kid with any recognition in this movie. He tries to calm people down in-between the yelling and screaming and F*** Y**! bombs that people are throwing around. When the kids aren't yelling, they are having or talking about sex or talking nonsense to the other adult characters who are EVEN MORE (if that is possible)idiotic than the kids! The idiot cop with an IQ of 60 at best may be one of the WORST acting jobs I have ever seen in a movie. You talk about people not playing with a full deck, this dork doesn't even know how to find the cards! LOL! I was like, "Will you PLEASE shut up already?!" He makes the kid actors look like geniuses! The only part that I sort of liked was Rider's scary story (although gory) about the deranged bowling alley guy. In interviews, Rider said that he had a great deal of respect for director Eli Roth. But the problem is that Mr. Roth appears to be going for little more than shock and gore. There are far too many bad things about this movie for Mr. Roth to get any credit. I wish I could agree with Rider and find something likable about this movie. Maybe the fall scenery in the beginning? Actually, Rider Strong JUST saves this movie from being a 1! Hopefully, he was compensated for this junk!
I had heard some bad things about Cabin Fever almost as much as I heard the cultish hype. As it turns out, the first film from the new impresario Eli Roth, it's just a so-so effort with the IQ points dropping as the film progresses. There are worse movies out there, and surely more gory ones (while I'm not sure how the hype-meter got so high on the blood-count for Hostel, there is a good amount for genre fans here). The premise isn't necessarily bad either though: kids go to a cabin for a week of partying, only to come across a very sick man, covered in blood, whom in a panic they set on fire. He winds up dead in the water that feeds the reservoir, and soon the characters all succumb to the flesh-eating virus one way or another. The characters, either the lead college kids (including Rider Strong as the hero and James DiBello as the goofy side-bar) or the supporting 'village' folks are archetypal to the point of inertia, if not painfully so. <br /><br />As they meet their fates, the townspeople get pretty weird, and it just seems to be non-sensibly thrown together without the many laughs; 'Pancakes kid' comes out of nowhere, and maybe might have been funnier in another movie or by itself, but in the context of the rest of the movie, it just doesn't work. There's also a young police character who is even dumber and less convincing than the others. And the family that goes after DiBello following an incident has some possibilities that aren't realized. But all the while, Roth pumps up his script with common sense out the window and sudden scares and frights with people hacking up blood on one another and a killer dog rambling around. Which isn't all for not either. Now, unlike lesser Troma horror movies or even lesser ones of the 70s or 80s- to which I'm sure Roth is a die-hard fan- he doesn't make it unwatchable. It's also smart to not have any explanation for where the virus comes from. <br /><br />But unlike those films too, he also doesn't really have a fine idea of what makes for great campy-horror times. His film tries for that, of course, and only once or twice does he make it a goofy, bloody time (I did like the random bunny Strong sees while on the gurney). It's not even very poorly shot a lot of the time (albeit with its own contrived style-choices ala red tint on the lens or that story with the bowling-alley worker). It simply contains a lot of illogical scenarios and choices made (shave your legs with a deadly virus, uh-huh), and it aims for fairly typical ground. If that's your cup of tea, more power to you. But at the end I found it to be actually un-exceptional genre territory that doesn't offend audience sensibilities ala Saw, but doesn't swing for the fence either as a clever B-movie. Roth also has the temerity to end the movie on a true note of 'what-the-hell' as the Santa Claus bearded convenience store clerk from earlier in the film serves a bunch of black people. It could work if he followed up on it with something better, or if he dropped it altogether. Same could be said for a lot of the movie. C-
Cabin Fever is the first feature film directed by Eli Roth.Roth and Randy Pearlstein co wrote the script from a story by Roth.this a zombie film,which owes a lot to George Romero and his earlier "living dead movies",and to the original Texas Chainsaw Massacrenot to mention Sam Ramie's "Evil Dead".there is nothing original here,and the story is not compelling.the acting is about par with this genre,it's just that the story fails.we have pretty much seen this movie before and better made.having said that,after having achieved commercial, if not artistic success from this movie,Roth decided he was a director and came out with the abysmally atrocious,mean spirited,pointless(though much more ambitious)crap fest Hostel.Roth should have quit while he was behind.Cabin Fever is not a good film,however compared to Hostel it is a work of art.I hope somebody (preferably a psychiatrist)convinces this guy that film-making is the wrong career choice.as for Cabin fever,a weak 3/10 for not being as abysmal as Hostel.
The first five minutes of this movie showed potential. After that, it went straight from something possibly decent to some sort of illegitimate comedy. The best part is that I couldn't stop thinking of Supertroopers thanks to Joey Kern. I would recommend watching this movie for the sheer fact of learning how not to make a movie. There are so many scenes in this movie that makes one just stop and wonder if the entire cast and crew just stopped caring at some point. The thing that amazes me most about this movie is that it grossed $22 million in the box office and only cost about $1.5 million to make. Congrats to Lion's Gate for being able to pull that one off.
There's a major difference between releasing an original, intense, edge-of-your-seat, scary, gore-fest, and doing like filmmaker Eli Roth and his team have done with "Cabin Fever" and simply acted like it. The film follows five college graduates into a cabin in the woods that begins to prove fatal as one after the other succumbs to this mysterious, fast-acting, flesh-eating disease. It's not long before the friends turn on one another, and can barely stand the sight of one another, much less want to be in the same vicinity as them. As gross as it all sounds, there's a certain spark behind the basic premise of this film that could have worked, in the hands of a less cocky filmmaker. Unfortunately what we end up with is poorly drawn characters whose sole purpose seems to be to look beautiful at the beginning to make the inevitable decomposition more contrasting, a hackneyed script so profanity-laden as to leave the viewer tuning out the dialogue, and several incomprehensible subplots that motivate little more than (in one instance) an on-screen appearance by director Roth. This is sloppy film-making in several ways! Avoid this time devourer.
This film is about a group of five friends who rent a cabin in the woods. One of the friends catches a horrifying flesh-eating virus. Suddenly, the friends turn on one another in a desperate attempt to keep from contracting the disease themselves.<br /><br />"Cabin Fever" is a horrible film. For one, it tries to be many genres at once. Is it supposed to be a homage, a slasher, a black comedy, or a scary movie with unintentional comedy? Nobody can tell. There's a serious scene at first and a second alter, it turns funny. When the film tries to be funny, the humor is quite bland, excluding the ending. I liked the ending a lot.<br /><br />But apart from the ending, I was pretty disappointed and disgusted. The violence is cringe-worthy, more looking away from the screen than being scared. The tone changes within each scene, sometimes funny, sometimes scary, and sometimes quite random. In fact, you see a girl doing karate in slo-motion. What are we supposed to get from that? This same girl would bite one of the characters. Was that supposed to be funny? I don't know.<br /><br />Some of the performances were decent, and many were quite amateurish. I didn't care for most of the characters. I liked the plot but the execution was done horribly. As a horror film, I didn't know what it was trying to be. I didn't find it funny, tense, nor scary. By the end, you're left indifferent, thinking, "What have I just been through?" Unfortunately, you'll never know the answer to that question.
Sure I've seen bad movies in my life, but this one was so bad that I actually became angry in the theater. I wanted my money back. I wrote to the director asking him to refund my movie ticket, of course I didn't receive a refund (or even a reply) but it's the point that matters. On a scale of 1-10 I give this movie a -42. Why did the "Jeep" (Chevy Blazer??) stop running from being hit with a bat? Why did they hit the "Jeep"(Chevy Blazer?????) with the bat in the first place instead of cracking the bum's skull? The plot was thin, the movie filled with obvious clichés, and certain parts of it just didn't make any sense.
no redeeming qualities can possibly be expressed. i wish i could get my time back. nice skull face broad really smiles, bright at the camera when the disease has already wreaked enough havoc on the ill informed script. i was ((spoiler)) happy to see all the characters dead or severely incapacitated by the end, especially the party poopers that drink the tainted juice on their way to the alleged sunset. Eli Roth does shine for moments of maybe ten, putting forth the theory on how well weed smokes in the woods when others really fiend on top of beer consumption. overall, i found most of it pointless, though not without gratuitous violence and not enough nudity, happy to witness the demise of cast, in a way though, wishing that journey never happened (probably should've been getting laid instead of watching TBS late night, ugh).
From the opening dialog and scenes, I knew I knew I was in for a train wreck. Didn't want to look, but couldn't turn away. If it weren't for the meer eye candy of this film, I would have given one star. The fact that the interaction between characters and relationship behavior were so far fetched, added by poor direction and horrible story make this movie nothing more than a low-budget disaster. Money is definitely not a necessity to make a good film. But this movie fails so horribly there was no chance to rebound.<br /><br />If you were stuck out in the woods, your childhood best friend dying from an unknown disease, other friends dying around you, stranded in a strange place, what would you do?<br /><br />A.) Run away from everyone and try your luck on your own. B.) Have sex with your friends girlfriend. C.) Take a hot bath to relax your sorrows to include shaving your legs. D.) Bash in the head your childhood best friend and life-long crush with a shovel. E.) All of the above.<br /><br />According to Eli Roth, none of these answers are that far fetched. In fact, all are plausible and well represented in Cabin Fever. The total lack of reality and illogical attempt at explaining what people would do in traumatic situations throws this film in the bonehead bin at your local rental store. Stay away. Stay far away.
Columbo movies have been going downhill for years, this year it may have reached the bottom. Peter Falk gives the same uninspired performance and comes over as creepy in this movie. As is usual in this series, crime scene protocols are unheard of so plausibility is always lacking. Brenda Vaccaro chews the scenery and pulls pantomime faces and Andrew Stephens is a pretty unconvincing lady's man. (His faint, though, was a hoot!)The script was by the numbers and its delivery patronising. They should never have brought Columbo into the nineties, just left us all with one or two happy memories of clever plots, better scripts and sharp characterisations.
Well, finally got to see the remake last night in London, unintentionally hilarious, sexless and devoid of any real humour. I don't really know where to start, whilst I was entertained by this strange homage, it didn't really move me. The acting is screamingly hammy, there is no original music, the costumes are far too 'Disney' there is a ridiculous 'six months later' insert after the burning of Nic Cage (which didn't come soon enough for my liking) The bit with Cage in the bear suit had the audience suppressing mirth as did the comedy punching out of various 'baddies' on the island. It's such a weird remake that I cant quite believe I saw it, it reminded me of something that The Comic Strip presents would have done in the eighties, a bit like their Hollywood interpretation of the Miner's Strike, very strange!
OK, so I am an original Wicker Man fan and I usually don't like British films remade by Americans, so why oh why did I put myself through the most painful cinema experiences ever? I am not a Nicolas Cage fan and I had some kind of moment of madness perhaps? The film was appalling! The bit at the beginning with the crash/fire had no relevance to the film at all and the female cop knew where Edward was going, so the bit at the end with the two girls visiting the mainland, well it wouldn't have happened as the whole thing would have been investigated. The history behind the wicker man wasn't really explored - and I guess being set in America didn't really help the whole pagan theme. This film was slow and contained no atmosphere or suspense. I must say that the best bit was right at the end, when Nicolas Cage goes up in flames! I am in such desperate need to see the original again now, in order to cleanse my disappointed soul. I really can't stress how disappointing this film is, please don't see it if you:<br /><br />A) Don't like American re-makes of British Films B) Are a fan of the original C) Hate Nicolas Cage
If Edward Woodward was the the flicks watching this film then that's what he would scream out in horror. <br /><br />I'm sorry folks but enough's enough. We had Get Carter, The Italian Job, Alfie and now this. What's the similarities? No. It's not exactly a coincidence that three of the originals star Maurice Micklewhite and the other stars another great British actor. The main common ingredient in those originals IS the britishness of the films. They weren't made to impress Hollywood. They were quirky English films with a unique charm/atmosphere that just cannot be replicated in the USA. The word is CULT and what better way to destroy a cult film than to bastardise it with a remake or even a sequel. <br /><br />Wicker 06 had a tough task before it even hit the road. Wicker 73 is even more enigmatic that other said cult films; it defies genre, intelligent scripts, A-grade actors, the music score, set-pieces that defy description and all the stories surrounding the film.<br /><br />So here comes a remake. Don't worry. No originals were harmed in the making of this remake. Some major aspects of the story needed to be reworked for the modern USA - communications, paganism, virgins. But that's just about the whole premise. So we give the cop a Nam style trauma past complete with shock music flashbacks for the cheap scares. Then with no mobile phone mast on the island that sorts the communication out - but in the real world this wouldn't happen. Cops just don't go missing. Give him a blood link for motivation rather than the clash of beliefs and you have the remake. Wafer thin though, isn't it?<br /><br />It's just that it was all laid on with a trowel. The name alterations were simply hammy, almost Carry On, there was no sense of community on the island, no centre of town to catch your bearings, just a few houses dotted about a forest and that was it. Willow was just annoying by not giving out any info at all and Cage was useless to let her get away with it. When he went into the well you just knew he would get locked it. The screenplay was signposted all the way to the end - and you just wanted it to hurry up and end. The epilogue was absolutely hilarious and didn't know when to stop. <br /><br />That ending is probably the best way to summarise the difference between the two. One ends in the most beautiful sunset after the most horrific day. The other ends with a post-production explain-it-all-to-the-thickies type conclusion.<br /><br />I loved the original but went to the cinema with an open mind and was excited to see the film. I left thankful in the knowledge that this film will probably end up beneath a highway somewhere only this time mercifully forgotten forever.
Sometimes laughter in the middle of a horror film is a signal of its greatness. I remember the nervous laughter from the audience in the re-release of The Excorcist… really nervous laughter. It punctuated just how freaked out we all were watching the voice of Satan coming out of a 12 year old girl. In the case of the 2006 remake of the 1972 cult classic The Wicker Man however, it made me think that this new Wickerman is about as scary as the South Park character, Scuzzlebut, the friendly forest monster with TV's Patrick Duffy for a leg and a celery stalk for an arm who's favorite hobby is weaving wicker baskets.<br /><br />3 years ago a friend of mine in Hollywood told me that he heard that Nicolas Cage was going to do a remake of the film. I started laughing and my friend (Keith) got mad at me touting Nicolas Cage as a great actor. I just didn't think that he could pull it off and unfortunately for moviegoers I was right. Gone is the realness, the outstanding original music, the originality, the creepiness and the wonderfully powerful dialogue. Instead we have horror movie clichés, affected acting and changes to the storyline that make any believability fall apart. Like many of the countless Hollywood remakes we have been inundated with lately this feels like we are watching 4th graders on a playground "playing Wickerman".<br /><br />The original film takes place on a remote Scottish Isle where a Scottish police officer is lured there to find a missing young girl named Rowan Morrison. In the new spin a California cop (Cage) is lured to an island of the coast of Washington state by his ex-girlfriend to find her missing daughter. She sends a photo and the missing daughter looks exactly like a young girl he tried to save in a fiery crash not long ago. The crash still haunts him in part because the girl's body was never found. Yet even after he gets a letter with her picture in it that connection is completely cast aside as he heads north, alone, to help his ex-girlfriend find her daughter. He arrives to find an island full of actors pretending to be the descendants of Wiccans, many of whom seem like they didn't get call backs for roles in The Village. And like The Village it isn't long before you realize there is nothing to be afraid of here. Not even the cloudy eyed blind sisters who speak in unison.<br /><br />I think that the opportunity in Hollywood to make great amounts of money on a film often comes at great expense to the artistry. I think someone like Nicolas Cage who is in so many films these days loses touch with the magic that film can be when it gets to the point where he has a personal chef on the set preparing his snacks. We needed a bad re-make of the Wickerman like we needed yet another '9-11' movie. I'm starting to wonder if Nicolas changed his surname from Coppola because he wanted to or because he was pleaded with to do so.
Waitress: Honey, here's them eggs you ordered. Honey, like bee, get it? That's called pointless foreshadowing.<br /><br />Edward Basket: Huh? (On the road) Basket: Here's your doll back, little girl. You really shouldn't be so careless with your belongings.<br /><br />Little girl: Yeah, whatever.<br /><br />Crash! Boom! Whoosh! Crackle… Basket: I think that something bad is about to happen.<br /><br />(Later) Basket: Mmmm. Vicodin! What the… ? (Tears open letter.) Wow! My ex-girl's handwriting has really improved. And look, her missing daughter looks kinda like the girl with the doll I accidentally was sort of responsible for getting killed, in a way. And she kind of has my hairline. I wonder, should I torture myself and go find her? Let's see what my friends at the precinct think.<br /><br />Basket's fellow male cop: HAHAHA. Willow's a funny name.<br /><br />Basket: I think that something bad is about to happen.<br /><br />(On the island) Basket: What's in the sack? AHHH.<br /><br />Tree-named crone: It's not her daughter, though.<br /><br />(In the tavern) Basket: Can you swing that? Big-boned, tree-named tavern wench: Huh? Basket: (smashes a bee). Everything is OK.<br /><br />Sensually pretty, formerly promising actress playing a lusty tavern scullery maid: That's good. Honey's not a plant, though.<br /><br />(On the greensward) Willow: Oh, yeah, and I forgot, you are the father my child, Conan, er, I mean Rowen. (Yawns.) I could have stayed and had a life with you. But I didn't. I wanted to be princess of the beehive, instead. I mean, never mind. (Nods off, jerks awake, widens eyes to anime proportions). Mwah, kiss-kiss. Love ya! What were we talking about? Basket: Who burned it? Who burned it? Who burned it? Who burned it? Who burned it? Willow: Edward. Sniff. Blink. Why. Are. You. Yelling. At. Me? Is it because I jacked your Vicodin? Sniff. Snore. What were we talking about? Basket: I think something bad is about to happen.<br /><br />Willow: My lips hurt.<br /><br />(In the schoolroom) Rose: What is man? Unappealling twins, in unison: Phallic symbol, phallic symbol.<br /><br />Rose: Echo? Echo? Basket: Step away from the bike.<br /><br />Rose: And I'm the good twin.<br /><br />Basket: I think something bad is about to happen.<br /><br />(At the beehives) Basket: Hmmm. Hallo? Ow, ow, ow, oh bother. Silly old bear. Snore.<br /><br />(At the Queen Bee's mansion) Sister Summersisle: You have so much potential. What are you doing here? Weren't you the stud Cher slapped in the face in Moonstruck? (Licks lips.) Basket: I was about to ask you the same thing. Where's the girl? Sister Summersisle: How you drone on. Let's talk about the significance of my superfluous "s." Basket: Look out for that semi-truck barreling toward us! Aaaaah! Oh. Never mind. Goddammit! (Pops another pill.) Mmmm. Thorazine.<br /><br />(Back at the tavern) Big-boned, supercilious tavern wench: I've tried Weightwatchers, Jenny Craig, South Beech, and I still went up a bear-suit size since last year.<br /><br />Tree-named crone: HAHAHA. All the better to roast that nosy cop in, my dear.<br /><br />Big-boned wench: Totally.<br /><br />Basket: That was the last straw that broke the Basket Case's back! Take that, wench! (Slugs her.) (Edward Basket is mysteriously attacked from behind) Voluptuous tavern wench: EEEE! Snap out of it! Leave the island already and take me with you! Do I have to tackle you or what? Snap out of it, I say! EEEE! Basket: Take that, wench! (Courageously kicks her in the face. Her eyes roll back in her head and become cartoon Xs.) Voluptuous wench: Snore… (At the Nicolas Cage roast) Ellen Burstyn: And who can forget the part where Basket's cell phone rings in the middle of his bear suit scene and then the call gets dropped. It's like a wireless ad: Help me! Can you hear me now? Hahaha.<br /><br />Kate Beahan: And remember when I produced the bullets I jacked from Basket's gun? He looked so surprised. You should be more careful with your belongings, Nick. Hahaha. And your movie choices.<br /><br />All: The drone must die! Basket: (screaming) Oh, yeah, you bitches? Well, roasting me isn't gonna help your goddamn honey! Aaah. My legs! Honey, (honey, get it?) put down that torch and step away from the Basket Case. Honey! Smokey bear says don't play with matches. Hahaha. What the…? Look out for that hurtling semi-truck! Ahh! Oh. Goddammit, these flashbacks from my drug experimentation phase in the seventies are getting old! Where's my heroin? Ouch. Ouch. My watch isn't fireproof. Ouch. I think something bad is about to happen. Can you hear me now? I'm ready for my close up. Goddammit! (Six months later) Voluptuous wench in modern-day slutty attire: I told that eponymous Basket Case to take me with him.<br /><br />Innocent young drone: I like to help people.<br /><br />Volptuous wench: Then get me out of my contract for the sequel! I think something bad is about to happen. EEEEE!
I'm a big fan of Nicolas Cage and I never thought he would work on a movie like this. I couldn't believe the other reviews and I thought it shouldn't be bad to watch it at least once...but trust me, it is.<br /><br />I haven't seen the old movie..but why would they want to remake a movie like this. The very basic idea of a good horror movie is either it should have an extremely intelligent script or it should be extremely graphic. This film doesn't fall under any of those and just remains dumb.I just kept watching the movie hoping it would get interesting at some point , but it never does. <br /><br />So this movie is a big no no for both Horror movie fans as well as for the Cage fans. You could probably for it show up on television.
It's unfortunate that you can't go any lower than one star. Prior to watching The Wicker Man, I had considered Aliens 3 to be the only movie that would actually merit negative stars. In all fairness, The Wicker Man doesn't detract from the enjoyment of an earlier film, but the fact remains that my cumulative movie enjoyment has been reduced by seeing it.<br /><br />There is a cheap trick all too often used in Hollywood when the producers are too stingy to hire good writers or in too much of a hurry to allow them to bring a plot to a satisfactory conclusion: slap in a shocker ending and hope that the public will mistake it for something artistic or meaningful. It is a gambit that rarely succeeds and in this case manages only to splatter embarrassment on a fine actor and ridicule upon the producers. Even more so in that the "carefully crafted" (or however they put it) conclusion didn't seem to follow logically from the plot (which naturally I can't elaborate on without introducing spoilers), and instead negates what merit the plot had up to that point.<br /><br />It is a film that might logically appeal to psychopaths, pedophiles, and possibly die-hard Nicholas Cage fans, but only to a few of the mainstream audience. If you really want something along these lines, I heartily recommend M. Night Shyamalan's The Village instead. Lacking some kind of memory-erasing pill, I suppose I need to watch something better to force it from my mind, say, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes or Pee-wee's Big Adventure?
First this movie was not that bad.It was entertaining...at least to me for probably all the wrong reasons. I have never seen the original so can't compare the two.<br /><br />This movie reminded me of that weird Christopher Reeve movie Village of the Damned. THe two movies have different plots, but that creepy disgusted feeling and unwanted comedy exist in both.<br /><br />The wicker man is suppose to be a mystery/thriller/men please don't anger the women movie. I don't know the whole pagan thing and sacrifice was a little off.<br /><br />Nicholas Cage, his glorious bad self goes to a secluded Island called Summerisle when he receives a letter in calligraphy from his long lost fiancée who claims her daughter has been taken and hidden by fellow islanders. <br /><br />Cage is a police officer and being the weary policeman he is he goes to the semi uncharted island leaving no word of his whereabouts to anyone who is located in the real world. Stupid.<br /><br />Things get weirder when the large Amish-esquire women who populate the island snarl at him and lie about the whereabouts of the missing girl. His fiancée is no help who seems to be elusive and weary the whole time. Cage stays on the Island when he learns that the missing girl is his daughter and he is the lucky man tricked to come to this island as a sacrificial victim during the islands sick harvest festival.<br /><br />In this movie males do not fare so well. A sick twisted display of feminism? <br /><br />I found the movie laughable at times particularly when cage punches some women and runs around in a bear suit. I think there were too many potholes in this movie. I find the whole concept of angry women secluding themselves on an island without any care for males quite entertaining, but the way it was portrayed in this movie was just weird. While most women have had some jerk hurt and anger them this is clearly a form of sexism. I would have turned the movie off in disgust if the roles were reversed. This movie is something to watch maybe just once or twice. It is NOT a thriller it should be categorized as just strange.
A trooper is on the side of the road making sure every1 is obeying the speed limit (doing his job); he then pulls over a woman who appears she is a mother (there is a child in the back seat); he then is telling her what is wrong and BAM...they get killed. Okay, this is the start of what i personally thought would have been a good movie. When I was watching this movie in the theatre I was with some friends. This was our first night out after the summer so we wanted to go and see a good movie. We all decided to see a suspense/thriller that looked good to everyone in the group...this was one of the biggest mistakes of my life. Not only did I waste $7.oo on a movie ticket, but I had to sit through torture for the brain. This movie started off with mystery and suspense and I seriously thought "this cant be bad"...I was so wrong. The whole problem with this movie is that it makes no sense; even if you can get passed the bad acting, the "not so scary" storyline, and the over all horrible mess this movie was, you will still be puzzled. It's not because you're not smart enough to understand it, it's because no human with a brain could comprehend what this stupid movie is about. Right now you may be thinking "Oh man! I have to watch this movie just to see if it's as bad as this person says it is". GET THAT THOUGHT OUT OF YOUR HEAD RIGHT NOW!!! I'm trying to save you the trouble of watching this movie by telling you that it is so bad that there is no point in even considering seeing it. Please people don't make the same mistake i did thinking that this movie has potential...it doesn't. I give this movie 1 out of 10 (if I could give a zero I would), and I do not recommend anyone to ever see this movie, you'll be saving yourself many sleepless nights trying to think w.t.f. that freaking movie is about.
This movie is suppose to be a mysterious, serious thriller about a man looking for a missing girl. However, 30 minutes into the movie, it turns into a funny, unrealistic story with annoying characters and random scenes. I can't imagine anyone not laughing when Cage randomly Karate kicks that blonde girl or when he "bear" punches that old lady. The lines, characters, and acting are all poorly done from the get-go. I've always liked Nicolas Cage as an actor, but he has made some terrible movies this year; this being by far the worst one (yet...).<br /><br />I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone who wants to watch an intense story-gripping thriller. If you really want to enjoy this story, go rent the original. However, if you intend on watching it, get ready to laugh at some of the lines and end scenes rather than taking them seriously; that's the only way you enjoy this film.
great mystery, but the film goes down hill from there. The beginning is promising with a car wreck and a woman and her daughter being burned alive in front of a police officer, Edward. He is traumatized over this and is seen popping pills. A mysterious letter turns up from an old girlfriend asking for help in finding her missing daughter. So Ed travels to an island commune of mainly woman. They don't like outsiders. A lot of filler is with Ed shown looking around town for the girl. That made the movie too long. It finally gets a little better toward the end when we learn of the crazy rituals the woman perform and finally of the sinister plan in store for Edward.<br /><br />Overall, not a well written story and too long. <br /><br />FINAL VERDICT: I would skip this.
The Wicker Man, starring Nicolas Cage, is by no means a good movie, but I can't really say it's one I regret watching. I could go on and on about the negative aspects of the movie, like the terrible acting and the lengthy scenes where Cage is looking for the girl, has a hallucination, followed by another hallucination, followed by a dream sequence- with a hallucination, etc., but it's just not worth dwelling on when it comes to a movie like this. Instead, here's five reasons why you SHOULD watch The Wicker Man, even though it's bad: <br /><br />5. It's hard to deny that it has some genuinely creepy ideas to it, the only problem is in its cheesy, unintentionally funny execution. If nothing else, this is a movie that may inspire you to see the original 1973 film, or even read the short story on which it is based.<br /><br />4. For a cheesy horror/thriller, it is really aesthetically pleasing. It's pretty obvious that it was filmed on location instead of using green screen or elaborate sets, so we get to see some very great scenery. There are also many nicely composed shots. It is a very good looking movie.<br /><br />3. Nicolas Cage is not so much an actor as he is a force of nature. Whether you're a fan of his or not, it seems as if it's impossible for Cage to play a "normal guy". There is always some kind of eccentricity or nerdiness he brings to the characters he plays, and personally, I am always fascinated by watching him in any movie he does. Whether Nicolas Cage is great or terrible, he always brings his unique energy into play, and he is never boring to watch. He is terrible in The Wicker Man, but in the most wonderful kind of way.<br /><br />2. A student could probably write a hell of a paper on this movie, as it seems to be the strongest anti-feminist movie ever made. "See?" you could write, "this is what happens when women are allowed to run a society!" Also, the similarities between this "Summersisle" society and a bee colony are pretty interesting and worth noting.<br /><br />1. If you're reading this, there's probably a good chance you may have seen a YouTube video that has become very popular: a collection of "highlights" from the movie, including Cage running around in a bear suit, and of course, the infamous "AAGHH!! THE BEES!! MY EYES!!!" line. These scenes are hilarious out of context, and they are still fairly funny while watching them in the film's entirety.<br /><br />I bought the used DVD at Blockbuster for about 5 dollars...when you work that out, it's about a dollar per reason. It's a pretty good deal.<br /><br />NOTE: The Unrated version of the movie is the best to watch, and it's better to watch the Theatrical version just for its little added on epilogue, which features a cameo from James Franco.
Where oh where to begin in describing the comprehensive wretchedness of Neil LaBute's latest attempt at film making? <br /><br />There are many kinds of film fans out there, but by far the most annoying and shallow is Mr. Intriguing. You know Mr. Intriguing, don't you? <br /><br />He's the fellow that no matter how stupid, lame, and incomprehensibly dull a film is, he says "Gee, I don't know why everyone hated it, I found it intriguing." He's the kind of guy who finds the scent of dog poop intriguing. Especially when he smears it in the shape of a Hitler mustache on his upper lip and marches about the house ranting about the brilliance of science fiction that features thinly veiled references to Greek mythology. He's also the guy this version of The Wicker Man was made for. No one else could stand it.
I watched this movie because I like Nicolas Cage and well, I found it strange and completely pointless... so I decided to poke around a little bit and got my hands on the 70s copy of it. Wow. what a difference. The original one was way better. I'd like you all to know it did originally actually make a statement, it's existence did have a purpose. It was really the Christian public expressing their fear of paganism. If you dig deeper into it it also makes comments on life but I don't want to go into details, just, simply put, if you were disappointed and you'd like to know what it SHOULD look like, feel free to watch the 70s version, a little dated, but A lot better.
And I thought The Beach was bad, with the difference that this movie has one of the greatest actors of our time, Nicolas Cage. Don't blame him for the awful script, if any one can make any sense of what the hell was the point of that movie, give your self a pat on the back. Its a cross between The Village and a crappier script. Its starts off kinda catching your eye, and then as it goes further into the plot, it just makes no sense, and don't get me started about the ending!!!! What was that? The only thing that makes this movie exist is Nicolas Cage usual great humor, and his ability to be funny in the weirdest situations. If you go to a blockbuster and this is the only movie to watch, save yourself five bucks and just go back home and turn put some thing on fire and when some ones asks you why, just say the stupidest thing that comes into your mind, and there you go!
I'd like to start off by saying that I am NOT an anime fan (with a few notable exceptions), and I generally have a low opinion of so-called otakus, as they are so in love with their particular brand of cartooning that they label every movie starring spiky-haired, big-eyed characters as a work of art without even considering other more vital factors, such as the plot. And no anime movie better represents this division between otakus and people with actual taste than this elegant piece of trash, Fatal Fury: the Motion Picture.<br /><br /> As seen through the glassy, witless eyes of an otaku, there's little to find fault with in Fatal Fury-- there's plenty of quirky Japanese-y humor, one-on-one duels, some "dramatic" moments, and everything is beautifully drawn. But everyone else will be turned off by the cliched, predictable plot with cliched, predictable characters, culminating in a cliched, predictable ending. The love scenes are hilariously overblown-- the scene in which Sulia "heals" Terry is obviously intended to be a tender moment, but it's virtually impossible to not be thrown into spirals of giddy laughter by the sheer ludicrousness of it. And of course, Fatal Fury is not without the obligatory cartoon T&A-- this is supplied gratuitously by the huge-breasted Mai Shiranui. And since Fatal Fury IS based off the video game series of the same name (oh boy), we're treated to numerous pointless cameo appearances by popular characters with little or no relevance to the plot whatsoever (they go through all the trouble of introducing Kim early on, only for him to disappear from the movie totally after that point). This mess of a movie reaches its climax with the unintentionally farcical final battle, in which all the main characters engage the all-powerful main villain in one-on-one combat in turn. That's some thing that's always amused me... even when battles in animes AREN'T taking place in a tournament, they always happen as if they were, regardless of the fact that it makes no sense whatsoever!<br /><br /> Otakus always rave about how anime movies should be treated as MOVIES as opposed to merely cartoons, and a disturbing portion of those same people love Fatal Fury. So would Fatal Fury have been good if it wasn't an anime? The answer is an emphatic "no"-- all of this movie's charm, what little of it there is, resides in the actual drawings. Had Fatal Fury not been an anime, it would have been worthy of an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000, if the show was still on the air. That's the key-- this is nothing more than a laughably bad B-movie in the guise of an anime epic. If you're a fan of movies so bad that they're actually entertaining, consider renting Fatal Fury (or catch it on the Sci-Fi channel), as it is definitely one of those. If you're an otaku, please WAKE UP and realize that a good 90% of the stuff you're watching is garbage. As for everyone else, buy a Dreamcast and Fatal Fury: Mark of the Wolves, but don't even consider seeing this movie.
its awful i cant believe that one of the greatest nonsenses in the world can be a blockbuster and the favorite movie of millions of people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! a movie which has no story,again shahrukh khan has been appeared on the screen with nothing new the same as usual he is trying to make you cry by start scrambling his head for thousands of times,i think this is to much,pretty zinta spouse to act the character of a Pakistani girl i didn't know that there is enough facilities in Pakistan for the Pakistani girls to do so many plastic surgeries on their face and also there are enough make up facilities??!! and also i didn't know that an Indian can cross the March's between both countries,go to Pakistan and start dancing and singing may be Pakistani soldier's were sleeping!!!!!!!!!
A mummy narrates vignettes about men, women, and the sex between them. Huh? At the beginning, the mummy randomly asks the viewer, "Imagine having sex with this girl. Imagine having sex with this boy" about 37 times, while flashing pictures of half naked mod youths. Later, said mods boys pelt mod girls with...vegetables? If you ignore (or fast forward) through the mummy's rambling, the shorts aren't bad in their own right. I found a few of them rather funny. My personal favorite is one where the sexually-confused man tries to convince a girl to have sex with him while his pet lizard sits on the bed. This is one, well, bizarre movie.
The film had some likable aspects. Perhaps too many for my taste. It felt as though the writer/director was desperately trying to get us to feel the inner conflict of ALL of its characters. Not once, a few times...but all of the time. <br /><br />This is the job of television, not cinema. <br /><br />The location of the train station was well chosen and I enjoyed Sascha Horler's performance as the pregnant friend. <br /><br />I felt as though Justine Clarke's performance was wan. Her reactions to things felt forced, as though the director were trying to vocalise the themes of the film through her protagonist's expressions. I also can't believe that a director can make the wonderful Daniela Farinacci into an unbelievable presence. <br /><br />I cannot understand the choice of pop music slapped over entire sequences. This is a lazy device, especially where the pop music comes from no place diagetic to the film and/or where the lyrics of the song feel embarrassingly earnest. <br /><br />That said, there is a breezy quality about the film that evokes the Australian heat and local attitude with originality. It does create an atmosphere of heat and sunshine. Especially with the usage of wonderful animation sequences that rescue the film from complete mediocrity, infusing it with passion and hand-crafted charm. <br /><br />I am curious why the dialogue feels so overworked. "Who knows if there's a god? Like some guy sitting there up in the sky telling us what to do" or whatever the line was. <br /><br />Perhaps one of the more embarrassing moments was the friend returning home from cricket with a bunch of flowers to declare to his wife "I'm giving up smoking." <br /><br />An anti-smoking commercial? A TAC ad with some tasteful animation? I had to leave the cinema at the 50 minute mark -- it was all too much.
Something I really love about this woman's short films was the elusiveness of theme -- especially in "Living with Happiness." This film has some nice beginnings -- unusual location and the potential for a strange cinematic treatment, but fails to succeed with clunky expositional dialogue, patchy performances and very television coverage.<br /><br />It's once again charming television and very ordinary cinema. The ideas are so fleshed out that they almost feel pat like a television commercial. But the sentiment is good so we can't complain too much.<br /><br />I really would love to see this director make a full length animation and try and work with a producer who doesn't demand so much boring clarity.
This is, ostensibly, a movie about multiple grief. As such, it ought to move viewers and make them empathetic with the plight of the main characters. However, its irritatingly postmodern style makes it almost incomprehensible. The camera continually switches from one scene to another, from one personal crisis to the next, creating a choppy, disjointed effect. Most characters appear to live aimless, unstructured lives, held together by their professional commitments. (It also stretches credibility that a man who has just been given what amounts to a likely death sentence, would cheerfully indulge in a sex romp with a woman he has just met). The storyline (if there is a storyline) is difficult to follow. In sum, the overall effect is rather disappointing. In spite of all that, the acting is generally good and some of the scenes are quite powerful.
I found this movie boring, monotonous and quite uninteresting with a hurried, shallow "upbeat" ending that didn't ring true to the overall story. Following these characters through a weekend of awful events, unfriendly attitudes and bad news just isn't my idea of a watchable, interesting movie and I got very tired of its "one note" theme and couldn't wait for it to end--in fact I almost stopped about halfway through. The whole movie just seemed pointless and wandering, and the characters were for the most part depressing and unpleasant, though the acting was good. A small movie with small ambitions and small appeal--sorry, but it just didn't make it with me, and I love good, small films! This one just didn't jell, though I kept watching it hoping and trusting that it would. I was disappointed, especially after two local reviewers put it on their "Year's 10 Best" list. I'd strongly recommend watching "The House of Sand" instead--now there's a good, small film!
Bruce Lee was a great martial artist, but this film still is probably one of the worst films ever made. It has Bruce Lee die as the result of falling off a helicopter after being hit by some kind of a ninja knife to the back of the neck but it doesn't explain how he came to be on a helicopter since the prior scene has him near but not on the helicopter which is already 200 feet in the air. It just gets downright absurd from then, like something out of a cheap comic book. Maybe the idea isn't so rotten but it isn't done with any degree of artistry from a film making point of view. There are dozens of such martial arts bombers out there, usually all made in Hong Kong. I think that Jean Claude van Dam improved the genre with adding plausible stories in his films and having film makers who know how to use the camera. Even Steven Seagal's films are way better than 90 percent of the martial arts junk movies made during the 1970s and early 1980s in Hong Kong. 'Game of Death II' falls into the category of junk cinema in my opinion, despite Bruce Lee being in it.
This is even worse than the original Game of Death. A jumbled, incoherent storyline leads to "Billy Lo" falling from a helicopter to the ground below, killing him, as we're left to follow his younger brother, Bobby Lo. So not only do we start out following some Bruce Lee clone, the film kills that one off and has us follow another one thirty minutes into the story. The main reason to watch this one is when Bobby Lo fights a lion, which is quite obviously a guy in a lion costume. Jang Lee Hwang is also the villain, who is usually pretty awesome but his screen time is significantly small. Mainly watched this and the original Game of Death because they're a part of the Bruce Lee boxed set. It's no wonder they're included with Lee's finished works. No one would buy them otherwise.
There are so many stupid moments in 'Tower of Death'/'Game of Death 2' that you really wonder if it's a spoof. At times, it felt like I was watching a sequel to Kung Pow rather than a Bruce Lee film.<br /><br />To be honest, this film has bugger all to do with 'Game of Death'. If anything, it's more a sequel/remake of 'Enter the Dragon', incorporating many elements of that film - particularly the actual footage. Bruce Lee's character Billy Lo (apparently) investigates the sudden death of his friend and encounters a piece of film that was left with the man's daughter. When the body is stolen during the funeral (!), Billy is also killed and it's up to his wayward brother to avenge both men's deaths.<br /><br />Tong Long stars as brother Bobby Lo and doesn't really have the sort of charisma to carry the film. His fighting abilities are very good however. Bruce Lee obviously turns up thanks to (no longer) deleted footage simply to cash-in on the legacy. Saying that, on the whole, the footage is actually edited-in better than in 'Game of Death' but it doesn't stop the film from being a mess.<br /><br />OK, so the fights are actually very entertaining (dare I say mind-blowing) and make the film at least watchable. But there are so many daft elements to this film that it really tests your patience. First off, there's the supposed villain who lives on his palatial estate... or is that mental institution? Seriously, the nutter eats raw venison, drinks deer's blood, carries a monkey on his shoulder and owns some peacocks and lions (?!). This attempt to make him look tough and intelligent just makes you feel sorry for him - you half expect someone to escort him back to his room.<br /><br />In fact, this middle section is awful and when the scene involving a naked hooker and a lion suit arrived I turned it off. However, I did finish the film and was kind of glad I did because the fight scene towards the end (much like 'GOD') was the whole reason for watching. While the story is an embarrassment, the action is very good and contains excellent choreography.<br /><br />But even the finale disappoints if the premise was anything to go by. What we were told was that the 'Tower of Death' was a pagoda that was upside down and underground. This sounded great, like a twist on Bruce Lee's original idea with different styles of fighting on each level. Could this be the 'Game of Death' that was originally planned? No! The film should have been named "Generator Room of Death" because thats as far as the tower goes. Of yes, there were indeed one or two 'different' styles... there were foil clad grunts, leopard-skinned henchman and stupid monk. It's as though Enter the Dragon had never been made, with the plot being a poor imitation.<br /><br />Worth watching once for the fast paced fight scenes, but so stupid sometimes that it hurts. If this was intended, then fine. Thumbs up, however, for recreating that projector room scene from 'Enter The Dragon'.
This is high grade cheese fare of B movie kung fu flicks. Bruce "wannabe" Lee is played by Bruce Li...I think. Of course, let's show quick clips of Bruce and do closeups of his eyes and if you quint at the right angle during a certain time of the day during the winter solstice, it kind of looks like Bruce. You'll laugh in awe at how the film splicing isn't very good, but some cool deleted scenes from Enter the Dragon are thrown in the mix. According to the movie, Bruce Lee was killed by a dart while hanging from a helicopter. Of course, they think this can excuse Bruce Li for trying to be Bruce even though his character is supposed to be Bruce's brother (who for some reason still mimes Bruce's gestures and fighting style - very POORLY). See Bruce go one-on-one with the cowardly lion. The props department stopped by Kay-Bee, you see. Bruce also finds nothing wrong with savagely beating up a crippled man. Towards the end, the director decided "let's throw a flashback" for a scene just shown 3 minutes ago!! They must've thought that only one-celled organisms with attention deficit disorder could fully understand this film.<br /><br />
In this 'sequel' Bruce is still called Billy Lo (get it? Bruce= Billy, Lo= Lee. No?) But apart from that, that's all it has in common with the other movie. Billy doesn't seem to be an actor anymore. He seems to be in another country. He's more like a spy. He's the only cast member to return and sadly, they kill him off to make way for a new character, his brother, Bobby. Sadly, when Bruce dies, the movie pretty much dies with him. This was extremely poorly made. It seemed like they were writing the script as they were filming. The footage works for a while (it's not too obvious at first) but soon Bruce is always shown in the dark all the time (he kicks out a light at one stage for no other apparent reason to hide the fact that it's not Bruce playing the part). Sadly when he dies the movie changes. I can't help but wonder if they were filming as they were writing and may well have planned to keep Bruce alive, but later decided to kill him off because it would not have been plausible as Bobby does not appear until Billy is dead. It's hard to change the lead character halfway in the movie and Bruce is a hard act to follow so it's hard to now accept Bobby as the star. Bruce is never seen again in this movie. I think they should have made this sequel without Bruce he has a lame role in this movie. People hoping to see a new Bruce Lee movie will be disappointed to see that although he's given the top billing, he only has a featuring role. Even the worst movies have at least one memorable bit. If there was one bit about this movie people seem to talk about, it's the scene where Billy fights in a plant nursery. Ironically it doesn't even use Bruce Lee footage. Mind you, they did it more convincingly in No Retreat No Surrender. Not one of the other actors here ever made anything else memorable. Bruce's girlfriend (Colleen Camp) is never mentioned. My advice is to turn it off as soon as Bruce is finished writing his letter to his brother. Nothing else in the movie is worth watching. I found it really sad to see Bruce die. I don't see how a small budgeted movie like this could get enough money to use footage from Enter The Dragon. This was a cheap way of trying to cash in on Bruce's name. Oddly this and the original are credited in Bruce's filmography. Thankfully so far, no one has tried anything like this again. 1981 was the year of Bruce's last movie appearance. It was a sad way to end it, but thankfully this is proof that Bruce's movie career should be left alone.
A handful of critics have awarded this film with positive comments. I don't wish to argue with their opinion, but I strongly disagree. When I first watched this film I was mildly impressed. But after comparing it with other films, particularly with the late master, Bruce Lee I quickly changed my mind. In fact, if it wasn't for the title of the film, I would never have bought it. Game of Death 2 doesn't relate to the original Game of Death, (except it shares one character, Billy Lo.)<br /><br />I was stunned to see how similar Game of Death 2 was compared to Enter the Dragon. The plots have striking similarities: Both Bruce Lee and Bobby Lo are on a mission to avenge a relative. The two locations are similar, in which they both are very isolated and are surrounded by thousands of Blackbelts. There is an element of prostitution in both films (women are sent two the guests rooms in both films.) Both Han (Enter the Dragon) and Lewis's henchman have a hand missing. Their is an underground drug operation in Enter the Dragon, believe it or not, there is one in Game of Death 2. Han has a pet cat in Enter the Dragon, the director has used his imagination and awarded Lewis with a pet monkey! The list continues. <br /><br />Regarding other aspects of the film, such as the script and the acting, I felt it was very poor. It seemed to me that the director was looking for a group of martial artists to star in the film and prayed they could act. <br /><br />On a positive scale, I cannot deny that the choreography is impressive. Although the fighting sequences have strong elements of acrobatics in them, they are none the less skillfully performed. However, as the plot is insufficient, i couldn't relate to the characters, therefore the fighting sequences were more exhibitions rather than having a meaning to the film. <br /><br />In conclusion I would say this film is recommendable to any martial-arts fans, but for those who enjoy a solid action film, with a good storyline and strong characters, I seriously wouldn't recommend this film. My opinions towards this film may seem very bias and one-sided, but when Bruce Lee set a new standard in the martial arts cinema, particularly after his masterpiece: Enter the Dragon, this film failed to rise to these standards. If anything they imitated a truly brilliant martial-arts film, in hope of achieving the same level of fame. <br /><br />In reference to my evaluation, awarding this film a very harsh 1 out of 10, the film is barley watchable, and must be thankful that it had the fighting sequences it did.
Once again I took a chance and rented this bag of crap. Billed as a horror flick, there wasn't one scene, not one, that was even remotely scarey. NOT ONE!! Sure there was some nudity, but all the lesbian action got a little old. I guess maybe that was suppose to be this movie's saving grace? And Dan, what an annoying ass bag!! Right from the beginning I knew I was in for it when good ol' Dan first spoke. And he was suppose to be intimidating? What a laugh!! All in all, this movie is dreadfully awful! How in the hell do movies like this get made? If you want a movie with a few thrills in it, don't rent this one. This movie is about as thrilling as the Teletubbies.
Wow...where to begin...picked this up at Big Lots for only $2.99. That's three bucks I'll never see again...ever...and for what? I'll tell ya. An hour and fifteen minutes of boring, boring, boring chat and college angst that seemed more suitable for a Lifetime movie than the horror flick advertised on the box. (May the marketing droids who designed it burn in Hell for all eternity). Follow that up with a little bit of cheap gore (not even good gore mind you...) and a plot twist at the end that comes out of nowhere, and makes no sense. Awful, awful, awful...<br /><br />Was there any redeeming qualities? Well, on the Joe Bob Briggs scale, there WERE six breasts involved, but that's hardly worth my long lost three bucks. Without those, this coulda been on Sci-Fi at, say, two or three in the morning...<br /><br />Bmoviefreak
I probably give this more credit than it deserves because it's Halloween, I was just at "Knott's Scary Farm" and I was in a mood to watch a really cheesy Halloween movie.<br /><br />Oh, and it only cost me one dollar.<br /><br />Usually I'll ffwd through a movie like this to get to "the good stuff," but I resisted the urge here and I'm still not sure why. It was obvious from the opening shots this wasn't a "real" movie, not even a B-movie. It's more in the category of the DeCoteau "horror" movies like "The Brotherhood" that are shot on film-look video for about 50 cents (in fact, I was half afraid any minute one of his beefy college boys would stagger out rubbing himself in his underpants or something). There were no cutaway shots (too expensive to do multiple camera setups) and flat lighting but...it's hard to pinpoint. There's something refreshing about watching a director with no money pull off a half-decent movie. The fact that he's doing even a half-decent job is commendable, and this movie has it's share of merits--the acting isn't bad, the photography is pretty good (if too bright to be scary), there are some surprises, and the whole thing is sort of...different somehow.<br /><br />A bunch of college kids are (for some unknown reason) stuck in the warehouse where they are decorating the annual haunted house. A creepy old man gives them a satanic book and they accidentally summon up the powers of hell. This results in the costumed people in the haunted house becoming who they are made up to be, and causing a lot of mayhem and human suffering. Along the way we are treated to an oddly complex and thoughtful lesbian relationship subplot--it's interesting that this couple seems to be the most well-rounded in the movie. Yes, there's a sex scene but it isn't salacious--or at least no more so than you'd find in any legit movie about lesbians that shows them having sex. It's rather unusual for a horror film to take the time and effort to do this without resorting to cheap exploitation. <br /><br />The other thing about this that held my interest was how it was clearly trying to emulate the "stupid kids have sex and get killed" vibe of the 80's slashers. It's hard to take that on because there are so many of those films that already exist, the genre has been done to death. I'm not sure if it's good or bad that these filmmakers simply tried to make another entry in that genre, without irony, as if it was still a LIVING genre, but I appreciated the attempt.<br /><br />Which is why I sat through it; sometimes you just want to watch a mindless, no-budget, "A-for-effort" horror film. There really was too much set up, not enough gore, endless plot-holes, dead-ends and clichés and the unfortunate overall feel of a movie that simply did not have enough money behind it to be the film the producers envisioned...but at the very least the haunted house scenes were pretty cool. I'd pay to go to that haunted house if it existed, and didn't mind paying a dollar to see it on DVD even if I'll never watch this again.<br /><br />Oh, and **possible spoiler**, but there was great, brief business with the vampire girl in the coffin: "I used to be claustrophobic. But I've changed." Ha ha, good one.
This movie proves that you can't judge a movie by the awesome artwork on the DVD cover. It also goes to show that you should learn more about a movie before you buy it (or get it for someone at Christmas). The beginning of this movie actually looks somewhat promising. Well, until you meet the characters. Pumpkin Jack (the old guy from down the street) brings the college co-eds a book full of witch's spells that he leaves at their annual haunted house (where the movie takes place). After that there is some drinking, fighting, and soft core porn. Then the action of the movie finally takes place after over an hour.<br /><br />Overall, Hallow's End was predictable, unsuspensful, and reminiscent of a soft-core porn. This movie is probably best viewed with a group of friends who have nothing better to do, as it is a good movie to make fun of. And for first-time viewers, it is really fun making predictions of the order of people who die.
*WARNING. THERE MIGHT BE SPOILERS AHEAD, IF YOU CARE.*<br /><br />Okay, the basic premise of this homegrown Texas film is: College kids + spookhouse + evil magic book = scary stuff. In practice, it equals a lot of time looking at the time to see how much longer this movie is going to drag on. A bunch of frat boys, along with assorted girlfriends & volunteers, is setting up a charity haunted house. The project is being presided over by a thoroughly repellent character, whose main purpose seems to be verbally & physically assaulting as many cast members as possible. I had a hard time believing that anyone would even attempt to work with this person in any capacity: he's nothing but rude and abusive to everyone, including his girlfriend and his buddy. Regardless, the kids are visited by local character & annual pumpkin-carving champion "Pumpkin Jack", an elderly coot who is described as the "Santa Claus of Halloween", and who drops off a load of props for the house, including an ominous book that figured prominently in the irritatingly strobe-flashed prologue(where a gaggle of robed cultists get turned into stir-fry). Needless to say, some damn fool starts messing with the book, and eventually most of the costumed monsters turn into real ones, and the remaining few normal folk have to try and survive. There's some good stuff in this film, but not much: everything is shot well, and the makeup effects are decent. On the other hand, the performers either underact, or overact drastically; much of the plot makes little sense outside of a "this happens so that can happen" series; there is hardly any musical score to speak of, just snatches of songs throughout the film; and the movie takes an hour to actually get anywhere. That last problem is the most telling: two-thirds of the 90 minute running time is used to repeatedly set up the characters. Tom is a nice guy dating Heidi the control freak, but he used to date Jill, who is now dating Dan the jerk, but she's started a relationship Kira the girl who wears too many shawls/capes. Dan is a really big jerk, Gary likes to play jokes, and Steve & Lily like to have a lot of sex. Stuff that could have easily been dealt with in 20 minutes or so drags on and on, to the point where the lesbian "sex" scene(calm down, it's pretty tame) left me looking for the fast forward button. That leaves us with half an hour of lo-calorie scares, a klunky ending and a deep-seated dislike of ol' Pumpkin Jack, who I blame for the whole mess. Unless you can get this on some sort of deep-discount rental(and really have seen everything else in the store), put it back on the shelf and keep looking.
Horror movies can be a lot of fun with low budgets, bad acting, and a bit of panache. I think the film is just missing panache, because, one thuddingly dull scene after another, people make laughably harmless claw-handed grabs at the air. If it weren't so boring, it might be funny.<br /><br />A horror film can go a long way with a tired concept like "college kids in a haunted house," in much the same way the Evil Dead movies had a lot of fun with a similar standard plotline. Hallow's End, unfortunately, doesn't go a long way. Actually, it doesn't go anywhere. It spends the better part of an hour setting up faceless and anonymous characters with what seem like endless interpersonal drama. I have nothing against character development, not even in a horror movie, but these are strictly one-dimensional characters (the alpha-male, the milquetoast, the... um... throwaway characters that exist mostly for sex scenes.) Spending forty-plus bloodless, droning minutes with them was more horrific than when the bloodshed started.<br /><br />Well, implied bloodshed anyway. When the college kids turn into whatever they dressed as for their haunted house (one's a vampire, one's wearing O.R. scrubs and some white pancake) they look pretty much the way they did in their amateur haunted house costumes; The Dead Hate The Living, using a similar theme, is a masterwork in comparison. There isn't really any gore to speak of, nor are there any real scares.<br /><br />I've thought about this one from almost every approach. If it was supposed to be a tight, suspenseful horror movie (which would explain why things moved so slowly), the pathetic sex scenes and cheap monsters would invalidate it. If it was supposed to be a genuine blood & guts horror movie (which would explain the schlock)... where's the blood and guts? And the anticlimax is one of the unexciting endings to a movie I've ever seen. It's the kind of movie that, though it doesn't have a narrator through the film, is bookended by voice-overs because all of the meaningless dialogue just wasn't enough.<br /><br />This was a hard one... coming out of it, I wonder if I've just sat through a christian horror film. Maybe the "I know hell exists" of the opening wasn't meant that way, but there are some hints (or misdirection-- I'm not sure which). For all the profanity in the film, a line like "gosh-darnit" comes off a little absurd, and so does most of the crucifix worshipping, god-fearing, and satan-dreading, especially after some lecherous T&A sex scenes (one heterosexual, one lesbian).<br /><br />If it a christian company (Highland Myst's logo even has a bit of a crucifix resemblance), then this film weighs in heavily for the atheist camp. An omnipotent being can't be this bad a filmmaker.<br /><br />
***One Out of Ten Stars*** <br /><br />Because if it was, it gets an F. Holy Mother Mary of God was this bad. I mean, I gave it every reasonable accommodation considering it was a straight to video film, but it let me down at every turn. Like so many other B movies, the basic storyline was decent and the filmmakers seemed to have a reasonable level of resources, but the execution was ridiculous. It's a shame they attached the good name of Halloween to this fiasco.<br /><br />The basic premise surrounds some frat douche bags hosting their annual Halloween haunted house fund raiser, when a satanic spell book shows up out of nowhere and hurls the frat boys into a living hell. Well that's the idea anyway, but instead most of the film is devoted to displaying these frat boy's relationship escapades, abound with an outrageous lesbian subplot. Very little of the actual story is devoted to Halloween or the mysterious spell book. It actually makes me mad that the film makers thought they could get away with making such dribble. <br /><br />The film is essentially about frat boy relationships. This IS NOT what the movie is billed as. I'm tempted to track down the producers and at the very least threaten them with bodily harm. The acting is about as bad as it gets, it's atrocious! The script is unintentionally funny. The cinematography is just plain lazy. The whole film is amateur night. This movie actually makes the SyFy channel movie productions look like masterpieces.<br /><br />The last half hour of the film felt like the film makers realized they weren't producing a soap opera and had to throw in some sort of horror sequences. The evil spell book finally comes into play and turns everyone in the haunted house into the character their dressed up as. I almost feel like crying as I write this review. Wow! I mean wow! This thing was an undecipherable chopped up disaster.
Ya I rented it, so shoot me!<br /><br />A decent premise sets up an otherwise awkward story with no real payoff, but at least it's shot well. Director Jon Keeyes takes the simple idea of a fake haunted house with real danger inside. In most cases this should be a slam dunk, but this little stinker derails quite quickly. The cinematography is above average and the acting is mediocre at best, but the story and writing is just plain awful. Slower scenes drag on forever and the scares are too few and far in between with no real climax to the film. An eerie mood is set at the beginning but loses it's luster before any type of horror transpires, and I found myself bored to death and making another sandwich... The cover art is appealing and I suppose it's worth a rental if you're looking for mindless low budget dreck, but if you enjoy a good story and eventful ending, reach for something else.
SUcks. That's all I got to say about this sorry excuse for a film. Sucks. Sucks. Sucks. I mean, what the hell were they thinking? The idiots involved should never be allowed to make another films. The acting was so bad that it even failed to entertain on a bad level. The attempt at a "lesbian scene" was sad. I felt so bad for the ladies involved. This movie sucks! Sucks! Sucks!<br /><br />I heard rumors of a sequel.<br /><br />God<br /><br />Help<br /><br />Us<br /><br />All
A low budget effort from Texas that's at least filmed well, but that is little consolation. Bad acting, or, should I say, bad over-acting, a pretty limp story line that's nothing new, bad special effects, bad, bad, bad. Seems like a bunch of young folks are putting together a haunted house for Halloween, which is done every year, but this year things are different. Has a long extended lesbian theme that is not only annoying but definitely fills out the empty spots, of which there are a lot. Putrid, puerile, definitely avoidable, at all costs.
What can I say? I think I have to write "Spoiler alert" and then "reveal" they used the F-word a LOT in this movie - like in every two sentences. I did not like this movie at all - too much hints on sexual perversions, sidesteps and cheating. And that swearing was totally out the window. I gave this movie "3" and two of those points are for Mira Sorvino's sexy movements on the dance floor.
I had to walk out of the theater. After an hour, all I was seeing was people cheating on wives, schtupping like dogs in a rut, and using the f-word like a diabetic using Equal.<br /><br />No thanks.<br /><br />It was especially frustrating because the movie could have done a lot. Any one of the characters could have been quite interesting if they were given more to do than fornicate, talk about it, and swear at each other.<br /><br />The few times that it looked as if there were about to be some sort of character development, all that happened was another sex scene. Plot development in the 1st hour can be summarized as 1)several murders occur, 2) Vinnie sees murder scene 3) Vinnie stares moodily across Atlantic/East/Hudson River 4) Vinnie cheats on wife, and 5) Joey (most sympathetic character in the show) gets kicked out of his parents' house. More than that, I didn't wait to see.<br /><br />The photography and the interplay between the characters were superb, but THERE WAS NOTHING for them to DO. The flood of sex and vulgarity was hardly worth waiting another hour for SOMETHING to happen.<br /><br />Sorry, Spike. Take some lessons from Notting Hill, or Shawshank Redemption. Either one is a better study in community and interpersonal relationships.
This was one of the most ridiculous and badly directed movies I've seen in a very long time. I've never liked Spike Lee, but thought I'd give this one a try: bad mistake. The movie is supposed to show how the Son of Sam real life murders affected a neighborhood in the summer of 1977; what it really did was center around the most boring characters that I doubt anyone cared for as far as their drug problems, marriage problems, and so on, etc. The scenes that depict the murders are just that, and nothing more; a shooting and then it's back to Saturday Night Fever! What's even more ridiculous is Spike Lee's choice to show up as a reporter in the movie: Spike, trust me, you're no Hitchcock, stay out of the movies, it makes them even worse off. The most silly scene had to be the dog speaking in a goofy voice, which was depicted in a scene before it where it was supposed to have been shot??? Spike, what were you thinking when you made this film? Not thinking at all is my guess. People who think they'll see a crime drama, take my advice and do not waste your time or money on this loser. You're better off watching Jerry Springer in this case! Waste of film, I gave it a 1 out of 10: awful dud.
The film is a collection of cliche's on just about anything out there. It has no focus whatsoever, no goals, no real message. Symbolism is pushed over the top and stereotyping is abundant and outrageous. This movie can't resist the temptation of making drama where non exists. Every small exchange of words turns immediately into a lengthy, unjustified dialog that is so typical of an acting class rehearsal. Where there is no substance to this exchange, the actors (regardless of how good they are normally) can't help but compensate with exaggerated emotion, aka "raising the stakes". Over acting, to put it simply. The directing is of no help here. Nothing can save this non-story. It is forced, faked and boring to tears. Inaccuracies in portaraying punk rock with The Who, piercings and flashy 90's outfits. Characters wander without a role, detail and motive. Locations are arbitrary. This is Boogie Nights cum The Good Fellas cum Saturday Night Fever, with meaning and art ripped out.<br /><br />Good DP. I'll give it that.<br /><br />Some films have flaws. This film is Lee's flaw. He sold out, like the rest of them. Became irrelevant. He has nothing of interest to say anymore.<br /><br />I have no desire to see anything again from this guy (whom I'll refrain from naming from now on).
"Why?"<br /><br />That simple question had to be on the lips of every single New Yorker during the 12 months of terror that David Berkowitz created in 1976-77. That same one word will surely become the same perplexing question 22 summers later as people exit theaters exhibiting the trite and exploitative "Summer of Sam".<br /><br />Director Spike Lee attempts to weave the story of a pack of misguided thugs searching for the celebrated psychopath -- who paralyzed New York City for over a year -- with a stark and graphical depiction of the killings, the demons inside Berkowitz's head and the frustration of a futile NYPD manhunt. He presents an ensemble of despicable losers who hear their own "barking dogs" as they live lives devoid of love, honor and humanity -- no different than Berkowitz. Lee browbeats the audience in nearly every frame with "not one of us are what we seem to be". Often a critic of the white establishment, Lee perpetuates the stereotype by including a scene where Mira Sorvino, playing a newlywed with a cheating husband (John Leguizamo), hopes to have oral sex with a black man "in the back of a big black Cadillac". An Italian Mafioso tells a black detective that the famous Willie Mays' over-the-back center field catch was "lucky". Lee even makes sure to deliver the racist musings of one middle aged black woman who declares "I'm happy it's a white man killing all these white people because if it were a black man killing all these white people - there would be the biggest race riot in NYC history."<br /><br />Other than an outstanding opening pan shot of an arrival at a disco (reminiscent of shots from Martin Scorcese's "Goodfellas" or Orson Welles' "The Third Man"), this film has no soul, purpose or passion. He parades characters on the screen bereft of human decency. Although we learn nothing about the true victims of this horrible spree, Spike Lee seems to be saying New York City got what it deserved during that frightening, boiling summer over two decades ago.<br /><br />"How could anyone wreak such havoc on his beloved city?" "How could someone show such hatred toward his fellow man?"<br /><br />Are these appropriate questions for Berkowitz or Lee?<br /><br />You decide.
I wish Spike Lee had chosen a different title for his film. "Summer Of Sam" conveys the impression that the film is about the infamous serial killer, David Berkowitz. It's not. It's a gritty, earthy portrait of NYC street life during the hot summer of '77 when Berkowitz terrorized that city.<br /><br />The film follows several young fictional characters in an Italian-American neighborhood, and their reactions to the Son of Sam threat. There's Vinny and his wife Dionna; there's Richie and Ruby, and several other characters.<br /><br />The problem is that these characters are not likable. They are routinely annoying, and at times unbearable. Lee then belabors their high energy, chaotic lives, which are filled with anger, lust, and general turmoil. There are at least two protracted fight scenes between Vinny and his wife, redundant disco dance scenes, countless gabfests ... Over and over I kept wondering: where's the film editor?<br /><br />Meanwhile, with all that bulk, the film passes up the chance to convey any real sense of fear or dread arising from the Son of Sam menace, which is too much in the background. Lee is more successful at showing a different kind of menace, that arising from neighborhood vigilante groups.<br /><br />The acting is uniformly good. That, combined with 70's disco music, and lavish attention to costumes and production design, make you really feel like you are in an Italian-American neighborhood in NYC in 1977.<br /><br />The film's atmospheric authenticity, however, is not nearly enough to offset a rambling, overblown script about the lives of grossly irritating people.
This movie is bad news and I'm really surprised at the level of big name talent who would ever agree to appear in such a piece of junk as this. I imagine there were a few strangled agents sprawled across Hollywood Blvd. as a result of this fiasco. What really gets you is that it could have been good. The directors star appeal and the subject matter was sufficient fodder to spark interest and ticket sales, but this is a flop. The multiple story lines all go from bad to silly by the pictures end, and you end up feeling like a mouse in a maze looking for a piece of cheese that turns out to be rotten. What Spike is able to achieve is revenge against any Italians who may have beat him up when he was a kid or insulted him, as the movie does quite a number on perpetuating outdated and probably offensive Italian stereotypes. As with any Spike Lee film there is some really thought provoking and magical camerawork. He does have the gift of grabbing your psyche and transporting you into his vision if only for a few memorable scenes. But the question remains...can you endure the other 2 hours of head scratching and clock watching as you wonder and wait for the ending that has to be there somewhere.
Good actors and good performances can't mask a pointless script, bad dialogue, and patterns of behavior spiraling into nothing you'd care about. The most interesting character is David Berkowitz. No character development - no growth, no interest, just some suffering for no particular reason, teaching us nothing and not even bothering to entertain.
This long winded film turns out to be less about Berkowitz and his effect on NYC, but more about painting caricatures of a certain group of Italian-Americans, known locally as "Guidos." The problem is that "Guidos" are uninteresting, no matter what kind of story or setting they are immersed in. They are already living caricatures, so Lee only amplifies them, rather than simply portraying them.<br /><br />When someone has a caricature done of themselves, they don't go home and say, "Hey, let's make the ears and nose even bigger!" That's what Lee has done in this film. The most interesting characters in the film are the two (Adrian Brody and Jennifer Esposito) who wish to escape the "Guido" lifestyle. Top it off with an uninteresting storyline for the characters, particularly John Leguizamo's, and you get a nice film to fall asleep by. Especially considering it's lengthy run time.<br /><br />One more strike against it: For someone proclaiming to be a Yankees fan, and has grown up in New York, Spike Lee should know how to spell Phil Rizzuto, which is spelled incorrectly in the closing credits.
I'm afraid that I have to disagree with the majority. I found Spike Lee's latest a wee bit boring! Although he was trying something different, i.e. not just documenting the rise and fall of the serial killer, I don't think it worked too well.<br /><br />There's really a bit too much going on - Vinny (John Leguizamo) and Dionna's (Mira Sorvino) relationship, Ritchie's (Adrien Brody) lifestyle and then the local mafia types. The story is good, but at the end thats all you have - 2 or 3 stories. With such a provocative killer could Mr Lee not have put more into that side of the film? ><br /><br />There are some good points though. All scenes with the 'Son of Sam' killer David Berkowitz look very nice (colour saturation etc...)and the acting is pretty good throughout.<br /><br />Overall I felt that the different stories would of worked well on their own or else without the killings. It just wasn't strong enough in the end.<br /><br />
Before I give Spike Lee's mess of a film SUMMER OF SAM a well-deserved thrashing, I would like to make one thing clear. I do not revile this film simply for its abundance of sleazy and unpleasant images. What makes this film so unwatchable is the fact that Lee seems to believe that SUMMER OF SAM should be taken seriously as a socially enlightening drama. The crime caper films of Quentin Tarantino, for example, are filled with violence, profanity, and other sleaze, but are nonetheless highly watchable because Tarantino does not attempt to pass these films off as socially redeeming works of art. He knows that such films are for entertainment value only. On the other hand, serious dramas such as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and SCHINDLER'S LIST are often unpleasant to watch, but the unpleasantness serves to develop the film's plot and characters, with the end goal of getting the audience emotionally involved with the story and characters onscreen. SUMMER OF SAM, unfortunately, merely wallows in its own sensationalism and sleaze, while believing that it is serving as social commentary, much like other trash epics .<br /><br />SUMMER OF SAM does not serve as a serious drama because its characters are merely cardboard-cutout stereotypes. Its plot purports to show the emotional impact of the hysteria over the Son of Sam murders on the residents of the predominately Italian-American north Bronx neighborhood where the murders ocurred. However, instead of of presenting the locals as a diverse mix of personalities, Lee simply wheels out every negative Italian stereotype imaginable. The men are ignorant, lazy, oversexed goombahs. The women are split between weak, complacent "good girls" (Mira Sorvino's Dionna) and promiscuous "bad girls" (Jennifer Esposito's Ruby). Lee seems to vindictively wants to "payback" Hollywood for their years of negative African-American stereotyping by wheeling out stereotypes of his own, and few critics seem to care. If Martin Scorsese, for example, presented residents of an African-American neighborhood as a bunch of Amos 'n Andy and Aunt Jemima stereotypes, critics would rightfully condemn such blatant stereotyping. More importantly, one-dimensional, stereotypical characters undermine any film that attempts to be a serious social commentary.<br /><br />Without exception, the cast of SUMMER OF SAM is excellent. However, the acting, for the most part, is uninspired. The cast is either just going through the motions, or they have little to work with scriptwise. Additionally, there is notable miscasting. Comedian John Leguizamo is very talented, but his Vinny character seems to be a stale, comedic impersonation of John Travolta's Tony Manero from SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER. And Michael Badalucco, a perennial "nice guy" actor, is badly miscast as serial killer David Berkowitz, coming across as funny rather than frightening. The only performance worth paying attention to is Adrien Brody as the troubled, but sincere, neighborhood misfit Ritchie. The Brody performance and the typically stylish Lee cinematography are this film's only virtues.<br /><br />*1/2 out of ****
I have always liked Spike Lee's movies, but this one was a total waste of 2 1/2 hours. I expected more about Son of Sam and instead got a movie that seemed to have very little to do with the 1977 serial killings. The talking dog was laughable (you know you're in trouble when all the movie patrons burst into laughter inappropriately). The whole movie seemed very disjointed and not very interesting. The sex scenes were totally irrelevent to the plot. I'm not opposed to sex in movies, but it should have some point (unless it's a XXX movie). All in all, we were very disappointed at this Spike Lee effort!!
I went to this movie expecting a concise movie relating the effect the Son of Sam had on the society. I didn't expect Spike Lee to force-feed me more garbage on racial tension, mob-justice, or the inability of the common citizen to make a choice under pressure by peers. Lee has presented an extreme opinion.<br /><br />The entire movie could have been more effective if in a 90-min format with more focus, less tangential sub-plots.<br /><br />Don't even bother renting the video unless you passionately enjoy Spike Lee; in such a case, the theatre is worth it. This is not an escapist movie.
Spike lee has to be one of the most over rated directors I have ever seen. He is the critic's darling because he supposedly makes films with a "message" or he is just so bohemian in his approach that it makes critics that are waterlogged from formula Hollywood films eat his stuff up just for being different.<br /><br />Summer Of Sam does not even do that well. The cinematography and editing style is Oliver Stone, and so is the narrative. The plot is a lot like "Do The Right thing". The portrayal of "Guidos" or for the PC set Italian-Americans (of which I happen to be one) is straight out of Eddie Murphy's Raw. Only Eddie Murphy's impression of a macho Italian guy picking a fight with a much taller African-American is much, MUCH more believable than the cartoonish, broad Italian caricatures shown here (the John Leguizamo character being a possible exception).<br /><br />Is there anybody who saw this movie that could not figure out how it was going to end up? As soon as Richie came into the film I could already see the fist in his face and the foot in his stomach, I could already see him being accused of being the killer. This character had the most integrity in the whole film so, of course, Lee is going to show what happens to people that stand out in a crowd (what a white bearded clique!)<br /><br />Someone please, please give Spike Lee a lifetime pass to all the Basketball games he wants. So, maybe he will be enjoying himself too much to pick up a film camera for a long time and we won't have to be subjected to his self important drivel and furthermore I won't have to see critics (some of them whom I respect) ohhhh and ahhhh to an Emperor with no clothes.
John Leguizemo, a wonderful comic actor, is a New York Latino, able to get inside a myriad of characters, both male and female, to show the bizarre foibles of an ethnic group trying to cope in an alien culture. He is not, however, Italian. He doesn't look, think or behave Italian...Especially Sicilian or Calabrese, immigrant groups who live in Bensonhurst or Bayridge Brooklyn. Every scene in which he interacts with his "Gumbas" rings false, as though he'd wandered in from a college production of "West Side Story" while the other guys were doing a low-rent "Mean Streets". That's only one problem with this ill-conceived, mean-spirited flick. Spike blew this one big time. Btw, CBGBOMFUG means "Country, Bluegrass, Blues and Other Music For Uplifting Gourmets [or possibly Gourmands] Ask Hilly Crystal who founded the club. <br /><br />
Spike Lee has been in a decline since his early successes and this mess does nothing to help. I looked at my watch frequently hoping the movie would end or get to the point. Lee's first movie with an all-white cast is a major disappointment.<br /><br />What's the point? That Italians swear and like funky sex, but not with their wives? If I wanted to see Scorsese, I'd go to a Scorsese movie. The incredibly lame Godfather character only adds to the stereotype.<br /><br />I've admired several of Lee's films, especially "Do the Right Thing". This movie is a waste of time.
After seeing the trailer for this movie and finding out Spike Lee was directing, I was excited to hear about this event. I wasn't alive at the time, I didn't live in New York, so I expected more of a history lesson than anything. What I got was some interesting acting, a lot of sex, and about 30 minutes worth of film that actually had anything to do with the Son of Sam. I guess the film wasn't about the Son of Sam, but it was a peek into the summer of '77. Label me disappointed.<br /><br />
It's difficult to put into words the almost seething hatred I have of this film. But I'll try:<br /><br />Every other word was an expletive, the sex scenes were uncomfortable, drugs were rampant and stereotyping was beyond the norm, if not offensive to Italian-Americans.<br /><br />I'm not saying the acting was terrible, because Leguizamo, Sorvino, Brody, Espisito et. al, performed well. But...almost every character in the film I despised. Not since The Bonfire of the Vanities have I disliked every character on screen.
Fox's "The True Story Of Jesse James" (1957) is a remarkably poor widescreen remake of their prestigious 1939 Tyrone Power/Henry Fonda classic "Jesse James". I'm not sure where the fault lies but the casting in this version of the two central characters, the uneven direction of Nicholas Ray and the ham-fisted screenplay must surely have something to do with it.<br /><br />In the late thirties and forties Tyrone Power was Fox's top leading man but in the fifties his star began to wane and studio head Darryl Zanuck started to groom newcomer Robert Wagner to take his place. This was a major error on Zanuck's part as Wagner proved to be a less than a suitable replacement. With the possible exceptions of "Broken Lance" (1954) and "Between Heaven & Hell" (1956) it is hard to think of Wagner distinguishing himself in anything! Also, Jeffrey Hunter was nothing more than a Fox contract player before being assigned to play Frank James to Wagner's Jesse in "The True Story Of Jesse James". Borrowed from the studio the previous year this actor's one distinguishing mark was his excellent and revealing performance in John Ford's classic "The Searchers". But his playing here, along with Wagner as the second half of the James Brothers, is nothing short of boring. Neither player bring any personality or colour to their respective roles. They totally miss the mark, lacking the charisma and appeal so vividly displayed by Power and Fonda in the original. The movie is also marred by too many flashbacks and with the all over the place screenplay Wagner, as the Robin Hood of the American west, comes across as a charmless introverted twit that you can feel no empathy for whatsoever. The supporting cast are hardly worth mentioning but it is a shame to see such a great actress as Agnes Moorhead barely getting a look in as Ma James.<br /><br />The best aspects of this uninvolving so-so western is the wonderful Cinemascope/Colour cinematography by the great Joe McDonald and the excellent music score by the underrated and little known composer Leigh Harline!
That word 'True' in this film's title got my alarm bells ringing. They rang louder when a title card referred to America's Civil War as the 'War Between the States' (the circumlocution preferred by die-hard southerners). Jesse James -- thief, slave-holder and murderer -- is described as a quiet, gentle farm boy.<br /><br />How dishonest is this movie? There is NO mention of slavery, far less of the documented fact that Jesse James's poor widdered mother owned slaves before the war, and that Jesse and his brother Frank actively fought to preserve slavery. According to this movie, all those Civil War soldiers were really fighting to decide whether Missouri is a northern state or a southern state ... that's ALL. (Missouri: It's a candy mint! It's a breath mint!) Black people are entirely absent from this movie, except for two glimpses of a pair of beggars, one of whom wears a "HELP THE POOR" sign that's very implausibly typeset instead of handwritten. (Some shots of 19th-century newspapers are inaccurate too, with 20th-century type fonts.)<br /><br />This film has a weird flashback structure. There's some very impressive stunt riding (and some fine work by stunt horses), and one excellent montage. I savoured one line of dialogue: 'Some of those boys will never taste beans again.' The movie gets a few facts straight: Agnes Moorehead, as Jesse's mother, conceals her right arm in the scenes following the raid by the agents of Pinkerton (here called 'Remington') in which Jesse James's real-life mother suffered injuries requiring the amputation of her lower arm. Some errors here are pardonable: during his bushwhacking days, the real Jesse James accidentally shot off part of his left middle finger, but Robert Wagner (in the title role here) does not have a stumpfinger. I've seen a photo of Jesse James's real wife; if she had looked half as glamorous as Hope Lange looks in this movie, Jesse James might have stayed home more.<br /><br />There's plenty of revisionism here, and most of the male actors wear 1950s hairstyles. But many of this movie's errors were avoidable. Jesse James's mentor William Quantrill is mentioned several times, but all the actors mispronounce his name. We see Jesse and his wife moving into an elaborate two-storey house (where he will soon die) after paying a rent of $18. Actually, Jesse James's last residence (at 1318 Lafayette Street, St Joseph, Missouri) was a simple one-storey cottage, renting for $14. There was no upper storey ... so, when Jesse James is killed, his wife could not come running from upstairs as Hope Lange does here. (She was actually in the kitchen.)<br /><br />One continuity error: Robert Wagner (with no stunt double) does an impressive job of taking a slug to the jaw and falling over while his hands are tied behind his back ... but when he gets up, the rope binding his wrists has vanished.<br /><br />The screenplay does some weird and unnecessary juggling of dates. Following the Northfield robbery attempt, Jesse says he expects to get home by his birthday. The actual Northfield bank raid by the James Gang (7 September, 1876) was two days AFTER Jesse James's birthday. (Maybe he meant next year's birthday.) Later, we see Jesse and his wife moving into their St Joseph home on a fine summer day, while Jesse tells her what he plans to do when Christmas Eve arrives ... but in real life, Mr and Mrs Jesse James moved into that house on 24 December, 1881 ... so this scene should *BE* on Christmas Eve! These errors were entirely avoidable.<br /><br />Some of the fictionalisations here don't make sense. According to this movie, the Northfield bank raid failed because one (fictional) henchman was late in cutting the telegraph wires. If this had actually happened, it would indeed have hampered the James Gang's getaway ... but it wouldn't have affected the robbery itself, which failed for other reasons.<br /><br />There are good performances here by Jeffrey Hunter (as Frank James), Moorehead, Alan Hale Jnr (as Cole Younger) and by stage actress Marian Seldes in a rare screen role. I was disappointed by Robert Wagner, normally an under-rated actor. Elsewhere, Wagner has proved his impressive range by convincingly portraying heroes, villains and morally ambiguous characters. Here, he can't seem to decide whether to depict Jesse James as a goodie or a baddie ... so he doesn't much bother. John Carradine phones in his performance in a brief role as a fictional jackleg preacher who baptises Jesse and his wife at their wedding. In fact, Jesse James was baptised in childhood by his uncle, a Methodist minister ... but perhaps this second baptism is a topping-up.<br /><br />Jesse James was no Robin Hood. (I doubt that Robin Hood was Robin Hood either, but that's another story.) There is not one single documented instance of Jesse James ever sharing his loot with anyone beyond his own family. After some of his hold-ups, he didn't even split the swag with the rest of his gang. In this movie, Jesse gets gunned down right after he vows to give up his bandit ways forever. In reality, the night before his death, Jesse James and the Ford brothers stole horses that Jesse planned to use the next day in a robbery of the Platte City bank. As preparation for most of his robberies, Jesse James stole horses from local farmers ... the same poor folk who (in the inaccurate legends) were supposedly the beneficiaries of his largesse. I cringed at one scene here, in which the fictional Jesse James is so gol-durn refined that he disapproves of an oil painting which tastefully depicts nudes.<br /><br />'The True (not much!) Story of Jesse James' is wilfully dishonest about a thieving murderer, and likewise dishonest about the Civil War. For the very impressive stunt work, one good montage and a few fine acting turns, I'll rate this obscenely dishonest movie 2 points out of 10.
I couldn't believe my eyes when I watched Nuremberg yesterday on Dutch television. It starts very slowly, the backgrounds of the Nuremberg trials become clear step by step, the Germans have a funny English accent, but then, suddenly, in the last few minutes of the first part of the series, the audience gets to see the most shocking, horrific footage I have ever seen.<br /><br />It is important that people get to see such footage (although I absolutely don't agree with people stating that there is no minimum age at which children can be exposed to this kind of material), but in this film it was completely ridiculous. It was purely meant to improve the impact of an ordinary TV series. It was meant to shock the audience which is very cheap and unbelievably easy. In stead of trying to move us with well-done scenes, inspiring dialogue or interesting viewpoint's, the audience is being tortured with horrible images of skin-and-bones camp inmates. It doesn't show any respect for the victims of the holocaust.<br /><br />I'm very angry.
Apparently most viewer knows nothing about the history of Europe, including Germany, Hungary and the whole Central and Eastern Europe as well as the Hitler and Stalin Era. Nuremberg (and a lot of forgotten trials all over Europe) was a revenge and injustice of the winners. What do you think, why were not any American, British, French or Soviet defendants after the WWII? There were no American, British etc. war crimes? There were no Hiroshima, no Nagasaki, no Tokyo, no Dresden, no Hamburg, no Berlin, no Katyn and so on? The Germans had war crimes too, but in Nuremberg the justice was not a real consideration. The main point was: Vae victis! Germany must perish! (That was also a book title in America, 1941.)<br /><br />This film is an awful, ignoble American brainwashing instrument, full of error, lie, propaganda, prejudice and injustice. And first of all: full of hypocrisy. But not surprisingly... Why wasn't enough the Nuremberg process itself? This film is a nightmare. Total darkness after 60 years! This darkness (and hate and narcissism and lack of self-criticism) is the real cause of the massacres in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Serbia, Iraq and so forth. And there are no American war criminals... Bravo, America! Very clever. Even Stalin would become envious of it...
An accurate review of nuremburg must consider the door to history inadvertently opened with the movie "valkyrie" (Tom Cruise). "Valkyrie" (2008) at long last tells the world there was a German resistance during world war two professionally organised with bureaucrats, military generals, soldiers and civilians who tried to over throw the Nazi political regime, install a new chancellor, obtain peace and close the concentration camps. However, these unknown absolute heroes received no help at all from the allies who helped the French resistance just next door. History writers have used an institutionalised agenda ever since to conceal an allied evil which cost many tens of millions of lives with everyone conditioned to believe a deception that the German people completely supported the Nazis and consequently deserved the 24 hour bombing genocide and "unconditional surrender" that was imposed on the Germans. <br /><br />The German enigma codes were broken by English scientists in 1943 so much of what the Germans were doing was known. During 1943 the Germans developed new jet fighters and jet bombers by companies including Arado, Heinkel and Messerschmitt. However, even if the Nazis were eliminated and the German resistance succeeded the allies wouldn't allow any democracy in the world to have jet fighters, jet bombers, high speed submarines, ballistic missiles and radio guided missiles without the USA having them first! This is where the institutionalised agenda is relevant. Consequently, the German resistance got no help at all from the allies although they always had crucial intelligence to eliminate Adolf Hitler. The 20 July 1944 coup is proof there were significant efforts by the Germans to obtain peace. Instead, the Germans got ultimatums of "unconditional surrender" and 24 hour saturation bombing in an agenda to avoid peace. The allies wanted to steal the world's greatest technology and scientists from the Germans and contain complete ownership through an "unconditional surrender." It was a premeditated allied agenda to allow the war to perpetuate and keep the Nazis in power to justify the 24 hour bombing but it took one year after d-day before allied armies advanced into Germany to steal the world's greatest technology and scientists at the barrel of a gun. However, tens of millions of people had died since the allies abandoned the German resistance for their own greed. <br /><br />The allies imposed "unconditional surrender" on the Germans as a pretext to complete ownership and control of German property and government and it was done without using the German resistance to over throw the Nazis. The allies wanted to steal the world's greatest technology and scientists from the Germans to achieve world technological supremacy. Consequently, everything else took second place to the evil allied agenda which killed millions of German people in the 24 hour bombing; the concentration camps stayed open; the war was prolonged and led to the "cold war" with weapons based on German industrial achievements, technology, and scientists taken from the Germans in world war two.<br /><br />The 1946 Nuremburg war crimes trials were a public relations deception and mass murder perpetrated by the allies as retrospective justice to the Nazis. It was a smoke screen to hide the evil and greedy allied agenda for world technological supremacy rather than help the German resistance overthrow the nazi political regime.<br /><br />Tens of millions of people died because the allies abandoned the German resistance to an agenda but they inflicted retribution against the German chiefs of staff anyway whom paid with their lives at Nuremburg war crimes or not although the allies had perpetrated genocide to achieve world technological supremacy.
This movie was disappointing. It was incomplete and dull. While Alec Baldwin tried to portray himself as the Perfect fair and just prosecutor (not to mention executive producer), the movie never showed any of the defense counsels or tried to challenge the audience with an actual meaningful debate on the subject of how a country could be led down such a terrible path.<br /><br />Sure, nobody wants to defend the Nazi's point of view, but THAT WAS THE POINT of the Nuremberg Trails! Four hours of simply bashing on the Nazi's.... c'mon! Thats been done already!<br /><br />I really think Alec Baldwin should just stick to being Kim Bassinger's husband.<br /><br />Right after the movie ended, TNT showed the 1959 movie, Trail at Nuremberg. That movie is FAR superior.
American movies about war and Nazis simply cannot be good. They can not refrain from becoming idiot and following an agenda. All Nazis are bad, crazy, too proud, and Americans are so modest yet so capable and sensible and human. Come on, stop this bullshit. The main character says something like "by this trial, we have to make aggressive war a crime". Is America a peaceful nation with its world #1 $420 billion "defense" budget (#2 China with just $51b)? Is it simply spent in this without any... ROI? Why portray America as a peaceful nation when it isn't? I deeply dislike movies with an agenda - they throw art to hell and try to persuade us into believing something. Hollywood should put a label on movies, just as record companies have that "parental advisory" label. We should have a "bullshit advisory", "propaganda advisory" or a "politically correct advisory" label on some movies. This is one of them.
Anyone who saw the original 1970 movie knows how an excellent cast, script, and director can put together a comedy masterpiece. By the same token, it's easy to see how the opposite of that can create another insipid Hollywood bore-a-thon! This movie was pathetic! Had it not been for John Cleese (a comic genius), I would have walked out about 15 minutes into this dreadful waste of celluloid.<br /><br />Neil Simon wouldn't write another screenplay for this version (he said that he couldn't improve on the first), and I'm surprised that after this cinematic fiasco he wouldn't sue for defamation of humor!<br /><br />Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis did such a wonderful job in the original, what were the producers thinking about when they cast this one? How could the director and editor look at these scenes and think any of them were funny? I don't know, but one thing I do know---it's no surprise why foreign and independent movies are becoming more and more popular.......
Unfortunately, this movie is so bad. The original Out of Towners was manic and very funny, of course they used the script written by Neil Simon. For some reason Neil Simons script is not used in this film so it falls flat time and time again. Even the audience I was with never laughed. The direction is very slow and tedious and when there is a joke it is given away so the joke dies i.e. The couple having sex in the park. They announce it is a lighting ceremony for New York, well we all know the lights are going to come on and we will be able to see cute and mugging Goldie & Steve do a bit of slap stick. The whole movie winds up being like this...a joke is set up and given away. Why isn't Goldies hair ever even messed up in the movie. You will also notice every close up of Goldie (they use a very intense soft lens). I suggest you rent the original with Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis, that's if you want to laugh.
In an apparent attempt to avoid remaking the original movie an excellent cast that should have made this inherently funny, classic Neil Simon material better than the original failed on every level.<br /><br />The chemistry between Goldie Hawn and Steve Martin that was magic in `Housesitter' was nonexistent in this effort.
Granted, this seems like a good idea. Steve Martin, Goldie Hawn, and John Cleese in a Neil Simon comedy. Where can you go wrong? Watch the movie, and you'll find out.<br /><br />In truth, Martin, the lead, is mis-cast. He's not doing the great slapstick he's known for, from movies like "The Jerk", but instead plays a sort of in-between character that doesn't work. Hawn, with no one to play off of, is terrible. Cleese is the only even partially funny member.<br /><br />To top it off, the plot is pretty stupid. I can't say how much of it may have been changed, but the characters seem to lack the slightest bit of common sense. They blunder through New York, not doing anything right, and unfortuneatly, nothing funny. Not only is the whole premise completely unbelievable, it seems to give the message that people who don't live in New York aren't very bright, a theme repeated throughout the movie.<br /><br />In summation, instead of seeing this, go rent the original "Odd Couple" again.
Within 15 minutes, my whole family was rooting for Goldie Hawn's character to die, or at least for Steve Martin's character to leave her. At 40 minutes, we turned it off. There are only a couple of movies a year we try that turn out so annoying that we can't even stomach it long enough for the story to get established.<br /><br />Normally I like both Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn, and I remember enjoying the Neil Simon original. So I blame Marc Lawrence and Sam Weisman. Combine the director of "Whats The Worst That Can Happen" and the writer of "Miss Congeniality 2", and I guess this is what we end up with.
One would think (as I did), that with Steve Martin, Goldie Hawn, and John Cleese, a movie should be, at the very least, decent. These stars (especially Martin and Cleese) have produced some of the funniest works of comedy of all time.<br /><br />Well, apparently I was grossly mistaken--this is single-handedly one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It boggles my mind how one joke after the other can be so profoundly unfunny. It pained me to watch these talented actors execute one of the most positively lame scripts I have had the misfortune to come across. Based solely on the big names, I remained hopeful for a long time through the duration of the film, but it consistently failed to provide any entertainment whatsoever.<br /><br />Normally, both with movies and in life, I try to stay away from biased comments and broad generalizations. But with this film, it's hard not to let loose. I can count on one hand, perhaps even two or three fingers, major Hollywood productions that left me more bitter than this. This is easily one of the worst comedies ever made.<br /><br />I tried to enjoy this---I really did. But The Out-of-Towners ultimately fails miserably. If you really want time-efficient entertainment, just take your money and watch it swirl as you flush it down the toilet. Just please don't watch this movie.
This film so NOT funny - such a waste of great stars, who seem to be caught up so in their own stardom that they forget. Only shining moments belong to John Cleese as the hotel manager who likes to dress up - you almost fall out of your chair with helpless laughter when he dances to Donna Summer's "Bad Girls" while wearing high heels, a mink coat and a dainty hat. The rest: FORGET IT!
Someone should tell Goldie Hawn that her career as a teen-age gamin ended thirty years ago. <br /><br />This is one of the worst films released in years, an unequivocal disaster in which the two leads give themselves over to a frenetic exposition of their trademark tics in an effort to make up for a bad script and bad directing. This thing should have been smothered at birth.<br /><br />I hope John Cleese got paid a lot for having his name attached to this disaster. He is the only performer who came through this stinking mess more or less unscathed, his only fault being a failure to realize that the rest of the cast would sink the picture.
We all know what's like when we have a bad day at the office, right? Well, this Neil Simon comedy looks at what it's like when you have the worst of all days just trying to get to the office. Sometimes, it's just not worth going, know what I mean? And, sometimes, it's just not worth doing something when it's already been done before, in 1970, with Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis... and much better also.<br /><br />It's not that Steve Martin is a lousy comedian or wrong for the role as the harried and stressed advertising exec; quite to the contrary, on both counts. And, it's not that Goldie Hawn is equally inept either; her work has been consistently good, if not great, ever since I first saw her in TV's Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In of the 1960s.<br /><br />The problem with this movie is that it's not about the hapless couple at all: it's really about New York and why everybody should come to New York to live and love their lives away in married bliss – sort of – in the greatest city in the world. That's if you're a New Yorker...<br /><br />Look, the 1970 movie is still an excellent comedy that realistically explored all the things that can go wrong when you take a trip somewhere, and included most of the situations and sight gags that you can imagine about what can happen to you in a strange environment. This 1999 version unfortunately goes off into gratuitous tangents specifically for an audience these days that expects or wants to see excess. For example, not content with the star appeal of the main players, there is a cameo (relatively long also) from Rudy Giuliani, then mayor of New York, as we all know. What – Giuliani bucking for President even then? Worse – a walking talking advertisement for the kinder face of New York.<br /><br />And then we have John Cleese, reprising his role as Basil Fawlty – but this time, as a prancing cross-dresser also – once again browbeating hotel staff, sycophantically sucking up to rich customers and generally making himself look like the idiot he is, in this role. And, in the process, doing great damage to the memory of Fawlty Towers, arguably the best British comedy series, bar none...<br /><br />Why was this 1999 movie made? In the 1970s, New York was a dying city, in many ways. It was almost literally bankrupt. So, when made in 1970, that was the city you saw: grim, dark, moody, unsettling and not the place that the harassed couple finally chose for their new life together in the Big Smoke (as it was then, polluted and all). By 1999, things had gotten better: glitz was back, New York was thriving, it was the Big Apple, ready for you to bite into, if you had the moxie...<br /><br />So, naturally, the couple in this second coming find that moxie within themselves and finally join the fabulous fray to continue the American dream of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Hence, this movie is truly comic but not for reasons that the producers perhaps envisaged. As much as I like Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn in comedy, this movie is a travesty of the much better one made with the great Jack Lemmon. If you've seen the latter, then definitely don't bother with this one.
It's terrific when a funny movie doesn't make smile you. What a pity!! This film is very boring and so long. It's simply painfull. The story is staggering without goal and no fun.<br /><br />You feel better when it's finished.
When I saw previews of this movie I thought that it may be dumb, but it will at least be funny. Well I was wrong. Even though somewhere deep down the producers had an interesting message to convey about parents being left alone and re-evaluating their life, the way they tried to deliver that message was horrible. The first fifty times something silly happened to the couple was relatively funny. But by the end, I could almost predict what stupid mishap is going to happen next.<br /><br />Throughout the movie I like a total of maybe five lines of dialogue and everything else was at best mediocre, which is still more than I can say for the movie itself.
Largely dense road movie with some comic relief provided by the excellent John Cleese (although he is really sending up his performance in Fawlty Towers). Seems to flip from over the top slapstick to slushy sentimentality at the drop of a hat, and the worst part of the film is that Martin and Hawn have to "find themselves", who they are, etc. See it at your peril.
Evil Aliens owes a huge debt to Peter Jacksons early films Bad Taste and Braindead.I must confess to never enjoying those films particularly and i say the same about this.Jake West is a director who clearly lacks inspiration of his own and chooses to steal from those whom he looks up to.I lost count of the amount of times a major Hollywood film was quoted most notably James Camerons Aliens.The amount of blood and gore on show here isn't funny either,the latter end of the film becomes tired and dragged out.Maybe it would have worked better as a short film.The actors a poor,the direction is weak and the plot is non existent.I can see what the director was trying to do,the homage he was trying to pay,but others have done the same thing a lot better than presented here. 4/10
To be honest I knew what to expect before I watched this film, and I've got to say it has the worst acting I've ever seen. It does have its moments, and on a comedy level its very entertaining, but i'm afraid its not scary, and stupidity is taken to a new level. There's a lot of unnecessary gore, and the plot is all over the place. I have no idea why the aliens were evil, and why they even came to this remote part of wales, (i mean who'd go there anyway?) but I didn't care at that point, because I was amused by the costumes, and the bad CGI. As far as B-movies go, this deserves the title of 'being so bad, its good', and kudos to the film-makers, because they probably knew what they were doing. Long may these films continue.....
This program didn't do it for me, although I'm a fan of the genre. The major factor that disappointed me was that there was not a single scene which was not dominated by the main character. This made it a bit two-dimensional and I gave up before the program was over.<br /><br />I was hoping to leave my critique there as I'm no movie critic, however, the guidelines on IMDb state that you must put in 10 lines of commentary. It did remind me of Hudson Hawk in the way the main character is in every single scene, and I would hope that the writers of this program could employ some more diversity to engage with the viewers. I don't doubt the talent of any of the cast and crew, it's just that after watching things like "the wire", I've come to expect great things from cop drama.
My husband and I were intrigued by the spectacle - a strong willed Southern lady with a messy personal life solves crimes for the LAPD. The first season was must-see TV for us. Unfortunately, the stories of her personal life in the second season became so tedious and unworthy of the strong character that we stopped watching.<br /><br />My husband and I were troubled by the episode where she tries to hide from her mother the fact that she is shacked up. But the deal breaker was the episode where she hides her possible pregnancy from her boyfriend but tells her boss. Why would a strong, middle aged woman do those things? The answer is she wouldn't. Additionally, my husband and I pick out the bad guy with almost perfect accuracy. It is almost always a white male or female introduced in cameo at the murder scene or in an idealized family. Can't the script writers do something original from time to time? As I mentioned, we are no longer viewers. We prefer shows that don't betray the characters and insult our intelligence.
This show seemed to be kinda good. Kyra Sedgwick is an OK actress and I like police series, but somewhere in the production this program went awfully wrong. <br /><br />First of all, the writers should have more suspects than one, you know who did it EVERY TIME!!!!! That makes it boring. The main character is unbelievably annoying and its not believable in any way. I know they wanted her to be tough, but shes mean, stupid and a bad chief. The crimes are uninteresting and bland, and its just lame all the way. As stated above, I hate it.... <br /><br />All in all, this was a big disappointment and very bad indeed...
Though I'd heard that "Cama de Gato" was the worst Brazilian movie of the decade, I watched it giving it a chance; after all, first-time director/producer/writer Alexandre Stockler managed to make his debut feature (shot in video) for just US$ 4,000 and -- though it looks even cheaper -- I can't begin to imagine all he went through to finally get it exhibited in theaters with no big sponsors or production companies behind it (then as I watched it I realized why). But whatever chances you're ready to give to "Cama de Gato", they shrink to zero within 10 minutes: it's an unbelievably preposterous, verbose, ideologically fanatical and technically catastrophic attempt to portray Brazilian upper-middle class youth as a bunch of spoiled neo-Nazis hooked on bad sex, drugs and violence (and they're made to look like closeted gays too), made with no visible trace of talent, imagination, expertise or notion of structure. Visually and aurally, it recalls the worst amateur stuff you can find on YouTube -- only here it lasts NINETY TWO (count'em) minutes of unrelenting hysteria and clumsiness, and it's not even funny-bad.<br /><br />We've all seen the story before: bored young guys want to have fun, go partying, take drugs and everything goes wrong -- there's gang-rape, spanking, murder, the accidental death (falling down the staircase!!) of the mother of one of the boys, culminating with the boys deciding to burn the corpses of the girl and the mother in a garbage landfill. Moral and literal garbage, get it? The film is heavily influenced by Larry Clark (especially "Kids" and "Bully"), but Clark's films -- though also moralist and sexploitative -- are high-class masterworks compared to this crap.<br /><br />I don't think there was ever such monomaniacal drive in a filmmaker to stick his ideas down the audience's throat: Stockler grabs us by the collar and tries to force his non-stop moralist rant into our brains by repetition and exhaustion -- you DO get numb-minded with so much babbling, yelling, inept direction, shaky camera and terrible acting going on. Stockler doesn't care a bit about technique (the quality of the images, framing, sound recording, soundtrack songs, dialog, sets, editing, etc is uniformly appalling), but he's a narcissistic control-freak: he anticipates the criticisms he's bound to get by adding subtitles with smartie/cutie comments, and by making the protagonists comment at one point how far-fetched and phony it all is (I could relate to THAT). <br /><br />Despite his megalomaniac ambitions, Stockler seems incapable of giving us a minimum of visual or narrative structure -- he can't even decide if he wants gritty realism (hand-held video camera etc) or stylization (repetition of scenes, use of alternate takes, etc). Damn, he can't even decide WHERE to put his camera (there's use of subjective camera for the THREE leads)! The dialog features some of the most stupefyingly banal verbosity ever; the plot exists simply to justify the director's profound hatred for his characters and what they stand for. All you see is a filmmaker being hateful, preachy, condemning, moralizing without the benefit of a minimum of talent (or technique) to go with it.<br /><br />It's very disappointing to find Caio Blat in this mess. Certainly one of the most promising young film actors in Brazil, with his sleepy-eyed puppy dog looks and emotional edge that often recall Sal Mineo's, Blat can be highly effective under good direction (as in "Carandiru", "Lavoura Arcaica", "Proibido Proibir"). Here, he's told to go over the top and he has to play with some of the most embarrassingly under-equipped "actors" in recent memory. He also enters the risky realm of graphic sexploitation scenes (so goddawful they look rather like web-cam porn).<br /><br />The film opens and ends with real interviews with "typical" (?) middle-class youth -- Stockler wants us to take those interviews as "proof" of what he's trying to preach in fiction. But he blatantly despises and makes fun of his interviewees, selecting a highlight of abject, racist, sexist, stupid statements (which only shows assholes exist everywhere). Stockler wants to prove that Brazilian middle-class youths are ALL present or future fascists BECAUSE they're middle-class and enjoy recreational drugs (is he saying all neo-fascists are on drugs?? Or that drugs potentialize fascist behavior?? I couldn't tell). <br /><br />With its dogmatic self-righteousness, headache-inducing technique and mind-bending boredom, "Cama de Gato" is bad for a 1,000 reasons but, above all, it's harmful in a very insidious manner: it gives detractors of Brazilian cinema a powerful case of argument. "Cama de Gato" is best unwatched, unmentioned, buried and forgotten.
In São Paulo, the upper middle class teenagers Cristiano, Chico and Gabriel have just joined the university and on the eve of the opening class, they go to a party with drugs and booze. On the next day, after their classes, the date of Cristiano in the previous night comes to his house and the three friends rape the girl. The girl dies, they panic and decide to get rid off the body, but Cristiano's mother arrives, startles with Gabriel and rolls the staircase, breaking her neck. The trio decides to dump and burn the corpses in a garbage landfill, but along the night other tragedies happen.<br /><br />The polemic and shameful "Cama de Gato" is an overrated pretentious crap about alienation of the youth, and is certainly the worst Brazilian movie that I have seen along many years. The shallow, tragic and dark story is actually a black humor comedy of bad taste. The screenplay is not funny, with stupid lines and dialogs, and boring, manipulative and silly footages with interviews with morons teenagers in the beginning and in the end. The acting is terrible, apparently with many improvisations, but no talent, and I was disappointed with presence of the promising Caio Blat in this trash. The camera, framing, cinematography and edition are amateurish and of very low quality. The sound is awful and in many parts it is impossible to understand what the actors and actresses are speaking (probably it is a plus, since this flick sucks). The gang bang is very realistic and used to promote this mediocre movie in a very poor marketing of sex-exploitation. My vote is one (awful).<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Cama de Gato" ("Bed of the Cat")
The script for this TV soap opera is so bad that even A. Hopkins at some point had to play like an undergrad drama-student so as to bring some life in his script-dead character. I do not know whether this was the purpose of the director, but Hopkins' Ciano reeked nothing but vanity, fear and lack of self-esteem. The real Ciano possibly was all that but then, why make a movie about him? Mussolini was a bit more convincing, and his long way down was as if closer to the truth. Edda Mussolini was plain ridiculous (not because of Sarandon, but because of the impotent script), while she had to be the central character of this alleged familial drama. Watch it only if you enjoy Venezuelan soap opera.
Probably the only thing that got the movie up to a four for me is the fact that I love Peter Falk. One of the world's great portrayers of bumbling incompetence . . . and yet he is one of the only anchors that prevents this from being a chaotic disaster. As Pops Romano, he provides a respectable mix of gangster charm and straight man to Chris Kattan's manic foolishness. Respectable performances are also offered by Richard Roundtree as the harried boss, Vinessa Shaw as a talented female FBI agent bouncing her head off a glass ceiling and Fred Ward as Falk's advisor and Benedict Arnold.<br /><br />The plot concept actually has some wonderful possibilities and, in the hands of a young Steve Martin or Chevy Chase, could have proved a great comedic vehicle. Kattan, who seems to idolize Ernest or Pee Wee Herman, just provides a muddled mess. Sadly, Peter Berg and Chris Penn, who portray his misfit brothers, both fall far short of their proven capability.<br /><br />There are some very funny scenes, but they are far too few and separated by way too many boring ones. What I truly miss here is what always attracted me to the Leslie Neilsen movies. There is no 'second level' of wit riding over the slapstick. No cultural references that only the adults get. . no double entendre. . it is just silly.<br /><br />And, by the way, this doesn't all mean that I am recommending it for your 9-year-old, because hopefully they have better taste and less fascination with some of their body parts and their functions.
Why is this film so bad? Well, if being so stupidly annoying and unfunny is a reason, then this film is it. The character of Corky Romano is unlikable at best and downright infuriating at worst. The gags are predictable but that isn't what makes it bad. They are the lame sort of predictable jokes that your unfunny friend would say.<br /><br />Corky Romano is about a mild mannered vet that tries to do right but is so clumsy. His quiet life is thrown for a loop when the family that once spurned him now needs him to infiltrate the FBI to destroy any trace of the family's crime history. However, it isn't that easy for Corky because the FBI believes him to be a super agent and pegs him with the duty of spying on his very own family. Mishaps and mayhem ensue but it really doesn't feel like any comic hijixn are there. Corky ends up in love with his beautiful FBI partner and has to set the record straight with both the FBI and his family if he is to settle down to the quiet life again.<br /><br />I think what makes this film irritating is both the lead actor and the supposed jokes. Chris Kattan reveals his alarming limitations as and actor here as his one note slapstick routine falls flat about 10 minutes into the film. It is okay to have a full movie based solely off of dumb, slap stick humor. Will Ferrel, Kattan's SNL partner, seems to have made a full career out of it. The only difference between Kattan and Ferrel is that Ferrel knows when to tone it down and rely on other ways of telling a joke. There is absolutely no diversity in Kattan's routine. It's hard to hear the same joke twice, but for a whole movie that is just pure torture.<br /><br />The other problem with the movie was the lack of truly original and FUNNY jokes. The gay mafia brother, the awkward guy sch-tick, and plenty of other forgettable jokes appear none as funny as the first time you barely laughed at it. It seems as if the screenwriters had more of a fun time writing this than any one had watching it. Even with a cast that has some comedic talent (Chris Penn, Peter Falk) the jokes that commence are tired. There is no chemistry too. This film was obviously one for the pocketbooks for the actors. No body seemed to care about it, or even try. Sad thing is, no body told Chris Kattan that.
Wow. Some movies just leave me speechless. This was undeniably one of those movies. When I left the theatre, not a single word came to my mouth. All I had was an incredible urge to slam my head against the theatre wall to help me forget about the last hour and a half. Unfortunately, it didn't work. Honestly, this movie has nothing to recommend. The humor was at the first grade level, at best, the acting was overly silly, and the plot was astronomically far-fetched. I hearby pledge never to see an other movie starring Chris Kattan or any other cast-member of SNL.
I could only get through about 25 mins of it. Not one laugh in the 25 minutes I gave it, one of the most painful films I've ever had to endure. Chris Kattan is so nervous on screen that it made me nervous to watch him. Just a horrible movie.
I did not watch the entire movie. I could not watch the entire movie. I stopped the DVD after watching for half an hour and I suggest anyone thinking of watching themselves it stop themselves before taking the disc out of the case.<br /><br />I like Mafia movies both tragic and comic but Corky Romano can only be described as a tragic attempt at a mafia comedy.<br /><br />The problem is Corky Romano simply tries too hard to get the audience to laugh, the plot seems to be an excuse for moving Chris Kattan (Corky) from one scene to another. Corky himself is completely overplayed and lacks subtlety or credulity - all his strange mannerisms come across as contrived - Chris Kattan is clearly 'acting' rather than taking a role - it bounces you right out of the story. Each scene is utterly predictable, the 'comedic event' that will occur on the set is obvious as soon as each scene is introduced. In comedies such as Mr. Bean the disasters caused by the title character are funny because you can empathise with the characters motivations and initial event and the situation the character ends up in is not telegraphed. Corky however gives the feeling that he is deliberately screwing up in a desperate attempt to draw a laugh from the audience.<br /><br />If Chris had not played such an alien character (who never really connects with the other characters in the movie) and whose behaviour is entirely inexplicable (except for trying to draw laughs) and the comedy scenes weren't so predictable and stereotyped - all the jokes seemed far too familiar) this movie could have been watchable. But it isn't. Don't watch it.
I vowed a long time ago to NEVER, EVER watch a movie that has ANYONE who EVER was a regular cast member of "Saturday Night Live". I didn't rent "Corky Romano" but I was forced by my unfailing good manners to watch it for half an hour. Then my good manners failed. Stupid, not funny. Tedious, not hilarious. Bad, not good. That in a nutshell is all I can say for this video.
Direction must be the problem here. I recently heard John Cleese speaking of working a skit for Fawlty Towers. He was supposed to attack his car with a branch. The first branch was too flimsy and not funny. The second branch was too stiff to be funny. The third was just flimsy enough to be funny. This sort of attention to detail is missing from "Corky Romano". No matter how embarrassingly unfunny a comic bit was, it wasn't fixed, and wasn't left on the cutting room floor. The one value I can find in this movie is as a study of a very flawed movie which somehow escaped into distribution without being repaired.<br /><br />I've scanned dozens of other reviews here. The number of reviews praising this absolute waste of time bolsters my suspicion that some people are getting paid to promote titles. I can't fathom how anyone over the age of 9 could rate this title more than a 4, MAX. I mean, come on, 5 is average. I can't imagine anyone, even those making money off of this, rating it even as much as average.<br /><br />This makes my list of the 10 worst movies of all time. And, hey, I actually LIKE the Three Stooges and can even tolerate Ed Wood!
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** From its very opening credits this fantastic movie sets the record straight: it's an instant classic. It doesn't take long to realize that this movie is big, bigger than `Kindergarten Cop' or `Police Academy 7.' The sheer greatness of it left me speechless as I walked out of the movie theater and proceeded right back to the ticket counter to purchase myself another dozen of tickets.<br /><br />This is a movie that simply requires multiple viewings. The first watching will surely leave you with that strange `Huh?' feeling, but don't feel embarrassed - it happens to the best of us. The story is so diabolically clever that one has to wonder about the mortality of its authors. What seems to be a simple story of an idiot infiltrating the FBI, turns out to be an allegorical story that works on several levels and teaches us all about the really important things in life. The complexity of the plot structure will baffle you on your first viewing, but don't give up! Not until my sixth or seventh viewing did I only begin to unravel some of the hidden mysteries of `Corky Romano.' And watch out for the unexpected twist at the end, otherwise you might be caught completely off guard when it is revealed that FBI agent Brick Davis is FBI's most-wanted criminal, Corky is not a real FBI agent, Pops Romano is innocent, Peter Romano admits he's illiterate and Paulie Romano comes out of the closet as a homosexual. Surprised the hell out of me, I can tell you that much.<br /><br />Chris Kattan's comedic talents are unmatched as he leads his character Corky Romano through a maze of totally unpredictable situations. Reminiscent of John Reynolds' performance in `Manos, the Hands of Fate,' Kattan takes on innumerable multiple personalities and tackles all scenes with perfect comedic timing. However, Kattan is not just about comedy. He is a master of drama as well, as he controls the audience's feelings with the slightest moves of his face. His facial expressions reflect life itself, in a way. For example, in the scene in which he farts into his brothers' faces, you can see the expression of social injustice and alienation clearly reflected on his anguished face. At a moment like that, it's hard to find a dry eye in the house.<br /><br />Screenwriters David Garret and Jason Ward are the real heroes of `Corky Romano.' With a story of such proportions, it's easy to understand why two experienced writers had to be employed to complete this ambitious project. Their skillful storytelling and unorthodox structuring makes `Pulp Fiction' look like a mediocre Saturday Night Live skit. Garret and Ward's story is so compelling and alluring that it grips you by your hair, swallows you entirely, shakes you around and spits you right out. At the end of the out-of-this-world experience known as `Corky Romano' you find yourself a different person with different worldviews and different ideas, and with only one question on your mind:<br /><br />Why, God? Why?!?
Corky Romano has to be one of the most jaw dropping and horrific "comedy's" ever made.<br /><br />While the sometimes amusing Chris Kattan who pulled off a very funny performance in the hilarious 'Undercover Brother' his character in Corky is so stupid and so unfunny-which is a shame since the premise is a wonderful idea. To bad they ran out of them when they got to page 3 on the script.
please save your money and go see something else. this movie was such piece of crap. i didnt want to go, but i had to so i thought i'd laugh at least once, NOPE. not a single laugh, it was that horrible! chris kattan will never get a good comedy role after this and "a night at the roxbury." this movie is completely obvious, has no smart humor at all, and just repeats itself over and over again. listen to me, and stray as far away from this movie as you possibly can!
Admittedly, I didn't have high expectations of "Corky Romano." But then again, who did? However, I felt it deserved the benefit of the doubt. I had no high hopes of "Joe Dirt" either--another recent comedy starring an SNL cast member--and I ended up being pleasantly surprised. But this film is just as bad as it looks in the previews. Chris Kattan is actually a talented comic actor--contrary to what you might think after watching this movie--with great energy. He's been in many hilarious SNL skits, and I think he's one of the most talented cast members on SNL as of now. In this case, he's given a lame, pointless script and he tries to remedy each scene with his incessant mugging. Throughout each scene, he attempts a lame Jerry Lewis act and fails miserably. Jerry Lewis knew how to pull off this type of physical comedy, not to mention he worked with much better writing. Kattan simply looks like some ignorant fool with ADHD who had one too many Cafe Lattes. He doesn't even wait for the punchline; he assumes we'll all laugh once he starts jumping around like an ape on crack. In one scene, he ends up in a tugging match with a dog who has a package of cocaine in his mouth. The package explodes and the cocaine splashes all over him. He comes back to the job, strung out on coke. Now, how are we supposed to laugh at the fact that he's acting hyper and on-edge, when he's doing the same thing throughout the whole film? <br /><br />As for the rest of the cast members...Vanessa Shaw is really hot, Peter Berg is wasted in a thankless role and so is Chris Penn. Peter Falk is also wasted, though he has a few funny lines that I'm pretty sure he improvised. I hope Falk gets a decent movie someday soon. That's too much talent too waste on a clunker like "Corky Romano." I didn't like Falk's last movie "Made" all that much either, but at least he had a decent role. <br /><br />I chuckled a few times, but I could not get a single laugh. Each gag is performed with no sense of timing or delivery. And it's made worse by Kattan's hammy acting. And there are certain gags that are streneously dragged out. For example, when Kattan is about to fart in his two brothers' faces. He stands there for 2 or 3 minutes, trying to get out a fart and when he finally he does it's a little tiny one. It's bad enough when you have a gag that's funny and drag it out, but when you have a lame gag and you drag it out it's a hell of a lot worse. And another example of this is when he tries to translate what those two Asian men are saying during a drug bust. I can go on and on about what's wrong with this so-called comedy, but I'm not gonna waste my time. Like I said earlier, if you predicted bad things from the trailers--you predicted right. <br /><br />My score: 3 (out of 10)
Chris Kattan is a great sketch actor on Saturday Night Live...but he should probably leave the movie industry alone unless he gets some sort of creative control. He plays an annoyingly peppy character who basically comes off as mildly retarded and on speed. Wanna know the only funny parts? The stuff they showed in the previews. Yes, his rendition of take on me is funny. Nothing else is. ESPECIALLY when you can tell he's trying very hard to be a physical comedian, which he shouldn't have to try at because he is one. And yet, his 'demolishing the vet's office' bit comes off as cringingly bad. This movie made me develop an eye twitch. Avoid it at all costs, and keep watching SNL.
This may not be the worst comedy of all time, but it's close. The producers of this movie stole an hour and a half of my life, and I want it back!<br /><br />Chris Kattan is funny for about 10 minutes. His high pitched voice and mad flailing start to get old, and then you realize that the rest of the movie is much worse. He falls into a long line of former SNL-ers that have attempted movies. Some have been brilliant, some have failed miserably. There's not much middle ground in this category. Although Chris Farley was brilliant, and then okay, and then not so funny, and then dead...so I suppose he hits the entire spectrum in one career.<br /><br />Avoid this movie like the plague.<br /><br />c
I didn't mind the film that much, but it was incredibly dull and boring. A few laughs here and there but nothing to go crazy for.<br /><br /> You should give it a go if you like silly, stupid humour because this is the film for you.
I like the cast pretty much however the story sort of unfolds rather slowly. Danny Glover does a good job making you wonder if he's the bad guy. Meanwhile, the other characters are just part of the story. Dennis Quaid didn't have as much room in the story as he could have had. I thought the first scene was a bit over the top grim compared to how the story unfolded. I'd watch it again though. I rated it a 5 (wish I could rate it a 5.5)
Wonderful actors. <br /><br />Lousy script and not too great direction either. My main problem was I simply didn't CARE about any of these people. Not the killer not the victims. The settings were pretty drab. Dennis Quaid's character was so poorly written in, I didn't even care when the end came. He got his kid back. Big deal! I wanted my money back.
For me, this movie just seemed to fall on its face. The main problem for me was the casting of Glover as a serial killer. I don't know whether this grows out of type-casting or simply his demeanor, but I doubt Glover could ever portray a convincing villain. He's a good guy, and that's always obvious in his performances. Other than that the film is your run of the mill serial killer story. Nothing very innovative .
Sorry, not good.<br /><br />It starts out interesting, but looses its way a few minutes into the movie.<br /><br />It does not help a lot that none of the normally great actors (Quaid, Glover, Ermey, Leto etc.) delivers a really good performance. <br /><br />It might be owed to the fact that I saw a dubbed version (german), but Dennis Quaid's character was especially wooden and annoying, and Danny Glover does not really make for a believable villain. Moreover, Jared Leto's character does not really contribute to the story whatsoever (except saving one main character's life at one point, but that scene is as necessary as a windshield wiper on a submarine in the first place ;-)<br /><br />Speaking of unnecessary scenes - the main complaint is really the tangled and cliché-ridden storyline: The detective (of course!) has to settle a personal matter with the villain and is (of course!) suspended from his official duties courtesy of his personal entanglement. The killer (of course!) *wants* to be tracked down and plays a cat-and-mouse game with his opponent for years ... I don't know how many movies build on a similar plot - most of them better, however.<br /><br />The plot has got holes galore and many completely unbelievable and unnecessary scenes that do not contribute to or work well with the storyline at all (e.g. the truck stop scene or the car at the cliff's edge etc.)<br /><br />To top it off, the ending tries to be original and exciting, but fails completely in these regards. We've seen *much* better finales with a similar kind of ultimate-battle-on-a-train-in-a-forlorn-winter-landscape setup ... In the end there is the supposedly moving reunion of parent and child ... hokey, at the least.
I have seen this movie at the cinema many years ago, and one thing surprised me so negatively that I could not see any redeeming virtues in the movies: Dennis Quaid was cast as a policeman that never smiles or grin, while his smile and grin are two of his trademarks. Danny Glover was cast as the bad guy, but - again - most viewers' imagination could not go far enough as to believe him in that role. Also, Jared Leto was not believable as the former medicine student. The tension was just not there, since the killer was known very early. The finale was, again, neither dramatic nor tense: nobody around me cared about what was going to happen next. All we could wait for was the end of the movie. All in all, a disappointing evening spent at the cinema.
Very disappointing version of Lorna Doone. Too many missing characters, no romantic scenes, changes in story line, too short, appeared low budget. Hardly enough dialogue to understand the story if you're not familiar with the novel. In some scenes it looks like Lorna has a cold sore on her upper lip. I'm sure make-up did it's best to hide it. I guess they didn't want to halt filming until it healed up, pity. Most likely why this movie lacked kissing scenes. Only one disappointing kissing scene at the very end. Lorna Doone is a great epic tale and should be told true. The 2000 version of Lorna Doone is twice as long, more romantic, much more enjoyable and more true to the book.
I watched this film version of R.D. Blackmore's classic novel as a substitute until the 2001 A&E version was released on video. And what a poor substitution it proved to be!!!!<br /><br />This version does not have the authentic, I-feel-like-I'm-there aspect of the A&E movie. The actors are, for the most part, wooden (with Sean Bean the exception) and the "romance" seems forced and contrived. In fact, there is no kissing until the end of the movie!!!! The triangle between John Ridd, Lorna Doone (or Lady Lorna Dugal, whichever you prefer)and the evil Carver Doone isn't mentioned or expanded upon. We don't get much insight into Carver here, or as to why he has some (if any) romantic feelings for Lorna. This movie cuts out many of the key and interesting characters of the novel, such as Counsellor Doone, and John's sharp-tongued youngest sister Lizzie which were crucial to the plot. The screenplay itself is lacking in conviction. The political intrigue also doesn't figure in the script. The way Lorna came into being with the Doones isn't true to the original story. Now, don't get me wrong, Clive Owen is a handsome and talented actor (watch Gosford Park and King Arthur for confirmation) but he comes across as bland and stoic throughout, and long hair (it may have been a bad wig) just doesn't suit him!!!! Polly Walker is a lovely and accomplished actress (see Enchanted April and Patriot Games, in which she also costarred with Sean Bean), but she appears colorless and lackluster. She has a cold sore on her lip that make-up can't hide, and the costumes don't seem authentic. The late Robert Stephens does a respectable turn as Sir Ensor Doone, although he only refers to Lorna as his favorite rather than his granddaughter, which she was reputed to be in the book. Also, it seems to me that Owen and Walker are too old for their roles (maybe it's the make-up) and the scenery is brown, cold, gray and barren, without so much of a hint of a sunny sky. I understand that it is set in Southwest England, but it is green there and they do get their sunshine!!! The portrayal of Tom Faggus' character and his "death", which doesn't happen in the novel, depresses the film even more. The one positive note is Sean Bean's performance as Carver. Although it doesn't even come close to matching Aidan Gillen's portrayal in the A&E movie, Bean does make one mean villain. In short, watch this only if you've got a few hours to kill, but don't expect anything exciting or for it to be true to the novel. See any other version ( but I highly recommend A&E's film) over this tired adaptation.
I first read "Lorna Doone" about 20 years ago and absolutely loved it! It is a classic historical romance set in the 1600s when the west country was several days' journey from London and law and order was much harder to enforce. Sadly, this version of the book takes several liberties with the story and was incredibly disappointing in my opinion. The acting and production values are OK but the way the story was messed about with was dreadful. Why do television adaptations do this? Why would they think that the thousands of fans of a book would want them to change the story??? One of life's great mysteries!!! The BBC made an excellent version which was televised at Christmas in the early 1990s which I am still trying to track down a copy of! Take my advice, read the book and don't bother with this paltry version!
I have 2 words for you. Sean Bean. He is the only worthwhile presence in this film. But even so, don't see this movie. Even though he is good as the main villain, you don't want to waste your time. <br /><br />I didn't care about the characters (except the little boy) and in fact, I didn't really care if the star crossed lovers ended up together or died. The movie did not make me care or BELIEVE that these people cared about each other at all. I have read a lot of "classic" novels after seeing the movies and this movie made me not even want to read the book. The story seems so boring. But I may go ahead and read it to try to redeem the story in my head. <br /><br />Stay away from Lorna Doone. The actress who played Lorna was also in Sense and Sensibility and she was much better in that. Watch Sharpe, Horatio Hornblower, A & E has great movies of novels like Pride and Prejudice. Or miniseries like the Forsyte Saga. Check them out, don't bother with Lorna Doone.
Extremely dull drama starring a very young Roddy McDowall, who trains a wild horse, the Flicka of the title, and is the only reason for watching the movie in the first place. Coated in blaring, overbearing music and weighed down by schmaltzy dialogue, this is one of those interminable films that bores you to the point of a gnawing headache. The naffly-titled sequel, 'Thunderhead, Son of Flicka', in which McDowall trains the next generation of nag, is marginally better than the original but the pace remains slow and the score continues to pummel you into submission, although there are at least one or two scenes that don't induce a coma.
Unless you are petrified of Russian people or boars, this movie is a snorefest. Actually, I fell asleep about 40 minutes in & had to fight the urge to just leave the theater. I wish I had. A waste of a perfectly lovely Saturday evening.<br /><br />Even "Silent Hill" was scarier. Heck, even "Pan's Labyrinth" was scarier. I'm still unclear on what was supposed to be scary in this flick.<br /><br />To begin with, I'm very leery of movies that use "pidgin Russian" like this one did in the opening credits. It's embarrassing to me since I brought a group of my Russian friends & we all cringed. Oh my god.<br /><br />Hmm. Well, luckily for me (& probably you, too) this movie has already escaped my brain & I just stepped out of it an hour ago. So I have no specifics, just murky visuals that go nowhere & some languishing-now-dead hope that anything would happen.<br /><br />Perhaps I saw a completely mutilated version of this film because I can't believe it got such great reviews here (which is why I saw it) & ended up being so completely devoid of not only Horror or Suspense but Overall Entertainment Value as well.<br /><br />I give it a 2 because, yes, I fell asleep & wanted to leave after 40 minutes but I woke up & didn't leave.
There were some scary scenes, which I've always liked more than straight out gore, but otherwise this movie was rather weak. THere were too many questions left unanswered, and when they tried to explain anything in the movie, it was still rather unclear. After watching this movie I still seemed lost in a lot of ways. It sort of reminded me of Silent Hill a few years back. That movie was also unsatisfying, but still better than this because it did try to work and the story did actually make sense. This one, not so much.<br /><br />The acting for the most part in the Abandoned was decent, but the movie dragged on an on, and never really gave any type of satisfying conclusion. Like I said above, there were some creepy scenes, but otherwise, this movie was a mess. Sorry, I can't recommend it.
Sorry this movie did not scare me it just annoyed me. It was just so frustrating when I saw the potential and that, all that, fell by the wayside. The children! The father! The premonition! Had so much potential and ziltch! zero, nada! I have heard it all before. Scary! No! I can scare myself alone, here where I sit, than they could in the movie. Are there men writing that figure that women should be so annoying? Huh? This movie was quite atmospheric. Or at least it could have been, had the director/writer bothered to work it. We could have had some good music that would have added to the tension too, if someone had made the effort. What I really want to know is why do they get the money? Just give it to me and save all that hassle. Abandoned?... No we where betrayed
To quote the film, "It's better not to know. Better still to forget. Best of all to be abandoned." Oh, the irony.<br /><br />A ghost story with all the technical refinements of a Hollywood horror film, but horrifyingly bad dialogue after the first quarter of the film, and you feel like you're being preached to from the start.<br /><br />It's as if the writers' cumulative character dialogue can be summed up by bad cop TV and a Jerry Springer show. Fitting, maybe, for a film like The Hitcher, not a Russia-set horror film. The result is that a potentially great setting and some potentially great gore scenes go to waste and become just silly, not scary or meaningful.
I'm going to go on the record as the second person who has, after years of using the IMDb to look up movies, been motivated by Nacho's film, The Abandoned to create an account and post a comment. This was hands down the worst movie I've ever seen in my entire life. The plot was on the verge of non-existence, and none of the "puzzle-pieces" added up in any way whatsoever. The acting was laughable and the writing was embarrassing. How this film got backed and came to be is completely beyond me. The only saving grace I could find was Anastasia Hille's cunning and repetitive use of the f word. (and brilliant sound design) If I were faced with the option of seeing this film again or being mauled by wild bores I would be up against a difficult decision. I'm disappointed that I am unable to give it 0 stars.
A different look at horror. The styling differences between American and Russian films is interesting. However from my American perspective this movie just wasn't that good. The protagonist, Marie played by Anastasia Hille wasn't a pleasant character and I had a hard time identifying with her. She was disagreeable most of the time and confused for much of what little time was left. Also too much time was spent in bringing her to the main location of the film. Then a long time passed before any real suspense built up. Once that happened it seemed volume was used as the main effect which was more annoying than anything else. The concept was more original than most Direct-to-video movies and they didn't use sex to make up for a thin plot. All in all I'd recommend it for renting, but not for theater goers.
This movie is an utter waste of time, the plot is awful, the dialogue is awful.<br /><br />The acting is OK, but the actors have absolutely no plot or script to work with. The photography and some of the special effects are OK, too, but again there is nothing interesting in this movie to watch. There is no logical progression to the story, the story line is utter nonsense. It isn't even scary. For a movie to be scary, there has to be at least a small element of believability. This movie has no believability at all.<br /><br />There are only three characters in the movie. Each character is shallow and has no personality. <br /><br />Most of the special effects and make up work are both badly done, or at most mediocre.<br /><br />I hope you read this and do not waste time on this movie unless you are curious to see an entirely awful movie.
This movie is simply not worth the time or money spent. Full of clichés and a plot that makes absolutely no sense ! I cant believe that so many people have given this awful movie a 10. My guess is they are stooges of the movie maker. <br /><br />If I could give this movie a zero, I would. Too bad IMDb doesn't allow that. <br /><br />The only reason I watched it because I went with a friend who really wanted to see it. Whats sad is that I never had great expectations from this movie to begin with and yet I felt short changed. Take my word, don't waste your $8 on this piece of trash. The only entertainment I got out of the movie was making fun of the directors name. In all, highly NOT RECOMMENDED !
This movie is a waste of time and money. Throughout the entire hour and a half, I continued to wait for it to get better and it never did. It was slow moving, the plot jumped around, it wasn't scary or interesting, and really never amounted to anything. The credits during the introduction were long and drawn out, which was basically like the rest of the movie (long and drawn out). Numerous parts of the plot made no sense. Several times during the movie I had thought that maybe I had "zoned out" because the incongruity of the plot, however, my companion had the same issue and assured me I did not "zone out" from boredom, but it was indeed the movie. I've actually never posted on here about a movie before and have been actively looking up movies on IMDb for numerous years. So the fact that I'm actually taking the time to write something should speak volumes of how bad this movie is and that you should not waste your time or money on it.
This film (along with Rinne) are minor gems amongst the retread homage pics that have passed for horror movies so far at the 8FTDF "HorrorFest." And, yes, that's faint praise indeed. 'Cause there's not much worse in filmdom than would-be auteurs who think atmosphere is a substitute for a coherent plot.<br /><br />And that's all you get with The Abandoned. This is a film that was made almost entirely in the directors head. Sure, it would have been nice if he'd transfered it to film, but this happened instead. It's a very pretty film with a few genuine scares, but the last reel is strictly for the latte slurping cineaste crowd.
If this is based on the true-life relationship, as purported, between Ms. Curtin and Mr. Levinson, I'm thrilled I do not know them personally. This is painfully slow, and both characters take stupid pills liberally throughout the movie while the theme song gets played into the ground. Many stupid scenes with people acting stupid does not make for a comedy.
I have to be completely honest in saying first that I fell asleep somewhere in the middle, so I cannot give a full opinion about the film until I see it in full. Basically, a group of thieves, including Sid Carter (Sid James) and Ernie Bragg (Bernard Bresslaw), plan to make a fortune stealing a shipment of contraceptive pills from Finisham maternity hospital. This is where title character Matron (Hattie Jacques) works, along with staff members Sir Bernard Cutting (Kenneth Williams), Dr. Francis Goode (Charles Hawtrey), Dr. Prodd (Terry Scott) and Nurse Susan Ball (Barbara Windsor). Patients and their visitors are around too, including pregnant Mrs. Tidey (Joan Sims) and her nervous dad-to-be husband Mr. Tidey (Kenneth Connor). Also starring Bill Maynard as Freddy and EastEnders' Wendy Richard as Miss Willing. This plan by the way is not working out by the way, because all the staff are getting in the way. That's pretty much all can say about the film until I see it again in full. Okay!
One of the weaker Carry On adventures sees Sid James as the head of a crime gang stealing contraceptive pills. The fourth of the series to be hospital-based, it's possibly the least of the genre. There's a curiously flat feel throughout, with all seemingly squandered on below-par material. This is far from the late-70s nadir, but Williams, James, Bresslaw, Maynard et al. are all class performers yet not given the backing of a script equal to their ability.<br /><br />Most of the gags are onrunning, rather than episodic as Carry Ons usually are. So that instead of the traditional hit and miss ratio, if you don't find the joke funny in the first place you're stuck with it for most of the film. These continuous plot strands include Williams – for no good reason – worrying that he's changing sex, and Kenneth Cope in drag. Like the stagy physical pratt falls, the whole thing feels more contrived than in other movies, and lacking in cast interest. Continuing this theme, Matron lacks the customary pun and innuendo format, largely opting for characterisation and consequence to provide the humour. In fact, the somewhat puerile series of laboured misunderstandings and forced circumstance reminds one more of Terry and June ... so it's appropriate that Terry Scott is present, mugging futilely throughout.<br /><br />Some dialogue exchanges have a bit of the old magic, such as this between Scott and Cope: "What about a little drink?" "Oh, no, no, I never touch it." "Oh. Cigarette then?" "No, I never touch them." "That leaves only one thing to offer you." "I never touch that either." That said, while a funny man in his own right (livening up the duller episodes of Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased) no end), you do feel that Cope isn't quite tapped in to the self-parodying Carry On idealology and that Bernard Bresslaw dressed as a nurse would be far funnier. This does actually happen, in part, though only for the last fifteen minutes.<br /><br />Williams attempting to seduce Hattie Jacques while Charles Hawtrey is hiding in a cupboard is pure drawer room farce, but lacks the irony to carry it off. That said, Williams's description of premarital relations is priceless: "You don't just go into the shop and buy enough for the whole room, you tear yourself off a little strip and try it first!" "That may be so," counters Jacques, "but you're not going to stick me up against a wall." Williams really comes to life in his scenes with Hattie, and you can never get bored of hearing a tin whistle whenever someone accidentally flashes their knickers.<br /><br />Carry On Matron is not a bad film by any means, just a crushingly bog-standard one.
CARRY ON MATRON was released in 1972 and it's becoming clear that the series has reached a natural end with the best entries like CLEO , UP THE KYBER and SCREAMING being from the mid to late 60s <br /><br />In itself MATRON is by no means bad it's just that we've seen it all before with a thin plot ( A bunch of spivs trying to break into a hospital to steal a supply of contraceptive pills which they plan to sell to third world countries ) surrounded by gags of a slightly amusing though unsophisticated nature . I think that's where the problem lies - The gags aren't all that amusing with the unsophisticated nature starting to show its age . Did we need another movie that uses a man dressed up as a woman in order to drive the plot ? Perhaps the worst criticism I can make is that I saw CARRY ON MATRON this afternoon , less that twelve hours ago and I have a problem in trying to remember a very funny line . That's a serious problem for a comedy
It's interesting to see what shape Pierce Brosnan's career was in before Bond arrived on the scene. In this "tense" thriller, Pierce Brosnan plays the gentle Patrick, who works leading ghetto kids on "confidence courses". He romances a woman, who has a bog-standard mop-top mid-90s kid called Eric. The woman's drunken ex-husband soon arrives on the scene and begins to mess with Pierce.<br /><br />At one stage Pierce is innocently making "vegeburgers". The husband enters. Pierce resumes making vegeburgers. The husband then assaults Pierce. Little chunks of half-eaten vegeburger call fall from Pierce's mouth. The fight abruptly ends without showing the outcome. This is as good as the film gets.<br /><br />
Who me? No, I'm not kidding. That's what it really says on the video case.<br /><br />Plot; short version: Pretty woman stands around smiling. This, for some reason, makes all men kill each other.<br /><br />"Find Ariel...Where's Ariel...Can't Find Ariel..." She's right behind you, you idiot...<br /><br />Most of what can be said about this horrendous little Space Opera has already been said, looks like.<br /><br />A bunch of corny actors playing mostly convicts come in after the first selection of actors is knocked off very quickly. Then they get knocked off in the same way. Every scene is broadcast nearly fifteen minutes in advance. Perhaps it was a drawing of straws to see which actors had the most screen time and bigger pay check. The alien virus/hologram/VR witch/glitch seems physically powerless and doesn't do a thing. Why can't she just stay in the computer instead of doing her "teleporting vampire" routine? (Actually, it would've been more interesting if she had been a vampire, or doing more than just standing around looking at people, which is all she ever does. This is enough to make all the men kill each other. Go figure...)<br /><br />This isn't really a space flick. There are far more shots of the old western trail, 1950's Easy Rider trail, Film noir's night club scene, even a jog on the beach in fantasy-land, none of which has any real depth or even makes any sense. The night club scene is in black and white, of course. Worked with "The Wizard of Oz". Doesn't work so well, here. This is probably a good thing, as those few shots they DO show of space are depressingly silly. You will probably cry during those moments, especially upon seeing that swirling "space ship", which looks about three inches long.<br /><br />Nothing is felt for any of the characters, not because they are convicts or have no personality, but because they are in serious need of acting lessons, except for Billy Dee Williams who really does look depressed and at a loss, probably by being in this work...<br /><br />This is one of those movies that, when viewed with friends, is going to cause some extremely "loud" silences, especially when the nerd throws out his attempt at comic one-liners (including the line about French-kissing a meteor...? Did I hear that right? Perhaps not...)<br /><br />The original virtual reality girls get "killed", which means nothing, as they are not even real to begin with. Well, the other "characters" aren't, either, but that's beside the point. Haha.<br /><br />What's kind of funny is that the scene that graces the video case is some sort of skull-horror-alien looking thing (green filter added on top of that, to give it more of a...uh...green look), which is actually the android after he gets killed and ultimately has nothing to do with anything else afoot.<br /><br />Another odd deal I noticed. Whenever there is an explosion (at least on my cheap DVD copy), everything becomes highly pixelated. I don't mean a LITTLE pixelated, I mean HUGE blocks about 1/16th the size of the screen. Wow.
As usual, on IMDb, going by the majority vote instead of the "weighted average" is far more indicative of the movie's entertainment value. In this case, the majority gives it a "one". How right they are! To start my review, I'll first admit that I am completely clueless as to why this movie is titled "Alien Intruder". It does involve space and even an "alien" (I suppose), but there's no rhyme or reason (at all) for anything in the long run, at least, no actual plot basis or resolution that I can make out anywhere.<br /><br />There are quite a few scenes that are so atrocious (with regard to both the lines, the timing, and how they are spoken), that it far exceeds the weird feeling you get when watching similar really bad movies. I have no idea about that part near the beginning where an electronic Bugs Bunny seems to be ranting about something.<br /><br />The "plot" solely involves an area of space known as the G-Spot, sorry, make that G-Sector...and a virtual reality program infected with some sort of alien(?) virus. I think it is alien since the image of the otherwise normal Ariel appears as a photographic negative.<br /><br />For most of the movie, we see people getting shot with space weapons, falling out of lofts, and seemingly endless, pointless close shots of "Where's Ariel?", "Can't find Ariel" (pointless because most of the other shots INCLUDE interaction with Ariel, anyway - whatever) on a computer monitor. Commander Skyler (Billy Dee), sits and watches each fantasy of the convict's VR programs hoping to find this Alien virus and become one with it...??? Or maybe I missed something...<br /><br />Billy Dee Williams took a few courses on "how to act in despair" prior to the filming of this. We know this because he spends a lot of time moving his fingers down over his face and looking mournful.<br /><br />The docking scene with the nose of one ship going into the rear of the other was semi-hilarious at least, and provided for a laugh in addition to the early scenes where we see several shots of the ship as it is just spinning in a circle, looking much like a Lego experiment gone awry.<br /><br />It seems everyone dies in this movie, so why bother? Even the VR females get killed, as if that is supposed to mean anything (especially since everyone else dies anyway)...outrageous.<br /><br />Because of the money I save on groceries, I won't rant about wanting my money back that I paid for the DVD of this. The dollar that I saved on that bag of vanilla wafers paid for this reviewer's time.<br /><br />I'll just add that the story itself, at least as a novel, and with far more detail added, could probably be quite interesting with the right author.<br /><br />1/10
When a friend gave me a boxed set of "12 Amazing Scifi/Horror Movies!" I was understandably a little cautious. But, since the item was a gift, I really didn't truly pay my common sense much heed. After all....movies for free! So what if they are a little ropey. After much consideration, Alien Intruder was the first of those movies. Ironically, it was first choice because it looked the best of the bunch. All I can say is, if this is the best of them, I shudder to think what the rest are like.<br /><br />On the surface, it had some good things going for it. Four (count 'em!) actors that I was familiar with. Billy Dee Williams, Tracy Scoggins, Maxwell Caulfield and Jeff Conaway. I told myself..."Billy and Tracy have been in some good scifi (Star Wars and Babylon 5, respectively) so they wouldn't sign up for a turkey. Max is a veteran soap actor who never really managed to break into film....but not too shoddy an actor. An Jeff....well...he's done the good and the bad as far as films and TV go." I was soon to discover that Jeff had decided to add "the ugly" to his repertoire of movies.<br /><br />The first clue was in the opening scenes. Jeff mugs his way with gusto through an "I'm mad" scene before finally killing himself. An amusing cameo performance, really. Unfortunately this is, without much exaggeration, the highlight of the film. It goes downhill from there.<br /><br />Next up we have the commander of the mission (Williams) who is being sent out to see what happened to Jeff and his crew busy picking his new shipmates from among the ranks of the criminal element. But this assortment aren't so much the Dirty Dozen - more like the Unconvincing Foursome. Plus, one of the crims, a computer hacker, is shown in his cell working away on a laptop computer. Isn't that a bit like letting a murderer run a gun shop in the slammer? Pretty lame prison, if you ask me.<br /><br />When they finally take off the effects are truly horrible. It looks like the spaceship model was knocked up in an afternoon by some bored 8 year old who had parts left over from his Airfix kits.<br /><br />But the horror doesn't stop there. Whilst on route to the area where Jeff's ship vanished, the criminal crew are rewarded for their good behaviour by being given weekends of virtual reality, in which they indulge their male fantasies. All well and good, and the use of scenes from their fantasies serves as an introduction to the "Alien Menace" which begins to appear there. But did they have to drag it out for quite sooooo loooooong? Alien Intruder? Alien Boring, more like.<br /><br />Finally they make it to G-Sector and the alien presence makes them fight against each other for her affections until only good old Max is left. The ending, in truly optimistic rubbish film vein, hints at a sequel - as if! Also making an appearance in this movie is a character I'll nickname the "Sweatdroid". He's supposed to be an android, but apparently that fact was lost on the make-up crew, who provided him with sweaty features at any opportunity. But don't worry, he's just there to make up the body count numbers at the end.<br /><br />Williams and Scoggins, to be truthful, do very little in the film. They only just barely stay awake, let alone act. And, as I mentioned earlier, Jeff gets an early trip to the showers, so his manicness isn't allowed to enlighten much of the film. Max tries his best, as do a couple of the other cast members, but the movie is just direly atrocious, to be honest.<br /><br />The one, and only, half-way imaginative thing this movie offers is the ship naming convention. They are all named after musicians - Holly, Presley, Joplin. The rest of the film is bland and uninspired.<br /><br />Made in 1992, I had thought, on initial viewing, it was one of those 80's straight-to-video jobs. Looks like they still made crap movies well into the 90's, it seems.<br /><br />It's best avoided. Even as a beer n chips movie this film is a stinker, but at least you can fast forward it, I suppose.
I couldn't believe it. I had to rub my eyes a few times. Was it true? <br /><br />Yes, there were Billy Dee Williams, Jeff Conaway, Maxwell Caulfield and Tracy Scoggins - all of them have some manner of talent but here they all were in what basically adds up to a Cinemax-style skin flick set on board a spaceship!<br /><br />Sad as it is, "Alien Intruder" tries to be unique, with a computer virus/alien demon/harpy/whatever else you want to call her named Ariel (Scoggins) infiltrating this sort-of high-tech virtual reality station on board a spaceship where four men are allowed to live out their fantasies as the system is over-seen by their captain (Williams).<br /><br />Interesting? Maybe, but here everything just plays out like a well-padded episode of "Red Shoe Diaries". Williams out-classes everything right and left, and looks like he'd rather be doing anything else, ANYWHERE else. Ah, the things people do for money....<br /><br />The FX are pretty static, maybe even less than what you'd expect for a straight-to-video cheapie like this. Unfortunately, even the female nudity is less than you'd expect. SEXUAL INNUENDO is the real star here and, of course, it gets ALL the best scenes.<br /><br />If you like a movie that's all tease and no brains, check out "Alien Intruder". Of course, you'll probably have to look no further than Cinemax at 2 or 3 in the morning.<br /><br />No stars, not even for what star power this flick can muster.<br /><br />Leave this one lost in space.
This tiresome, plodding Las Vegas casino heist movie in almost impossible to watch and get involved in. It's something you 'look at' if you have absolutely nothing else better to do. The only two decent things in this movie are both attached to gorgeous Stella Stevens and one spends the entire program hoping she'll fall out of one of those skimpy tops she wears. Many great shots of mid-70s Las Vegas (when it was still a cool place to visit) and the fashions of the day are good for a giggle as well. Otherwise, one big yawn. The Rhino dvd has a very good widescreen transfer but even at under 10 bucks it still ain't worth it in my humble opinion.
Very, very humdrum movie fare here with Stella Stevens taking directions from someone in disguise(it didn't take me long to guess who it was) in Old Nevada Town outside Vegas for a money heist in the Circus Circus Hotel in Las Vegas. Stevens leads her girl gang of three, and they find out that they must act much quicker than had been anticipated. Despite some neat looks at Las Vegas in the 70's, very average yet credible acting from most involved, and a plot line with potential, Las Vegas Lady lays one big boring egg. It seems forever for the film to kick into gear,and when it does it just sputters here and there and never really speeds up. I was somewhat disappointed with this film. Sure, I wasn't expecting anything great, but I at least thought this might be one of those neat exploitation films from the 70's or something like it. Not even close. No one dies. There is a lame gunfight between creaky Stuart Whitman and officious George DiCenzo, one year prior to his grand performance as the prosecuting attorney Bugliosa in Helter Skelter. The gunfight has all the suspense of watching a waterfall. There is one punch and one head hit with a blunt instrument. Beyond that nothing in terms of action. And as for the girls, don't expect much there either. Stella and her girls(both very mediocre yet pretty talents, get in a sauna and a bath. What do we see? Nothing but a fleeting side profile. Stella wears these nice open blouses accentuating her real talents, but I wish she would have been a bit more open with her performance. That way I could write one thing that would recommend the film. Alas, it was not to be, and I have little to say in this film's favor. It isn't a horrible film in any way, it just has nothing going for it either. YAWN.
Snow White, which just came out in Locarno, where I had the chance to see it, of course refers to the world famous fairy tale. And it also refers to coke. In the end, real snow of the Swiss Alps plays its part as well.<br /><br />Thus all three aspects of the title are addressed in this film. There is a lot of dope on scene, and there is also a pale, dark haired girl - with a prince who has to go through all kind of trouble to come to her rescue.<br /><br />But: It's not a fairy tale. It's supposed to be a realistic drama located in Zurich, Switzerland (according to the Tagline).<br /><br />Technically the movie is close to perfect. Unfortunately a weak plot, foreseeable dialogs, a mostly unreal scenery and the mixed acting don't add up to create authenticity. Thus as a spectator I remained untouched.<br /><br />And then there were the clichés, which drove me crazy one by one: Snow White is a rich and spoiled upper class daughter - of course her parents are divorced and she never got enough love from them, because they were so busy all the time. Her best girlfriend, on the other hand, has loving and caring parents. They (a steelworker and a housewife) live in a tiny flat, poor and happy - and ignorant of the desperate situation their daughter is in. The good guy (= prince) is a musician (!) from the French speaking part of Switzerland (which is considered to be the economically less successful but emotionally fitter fraction of the country). He has problems with his parents. They are migrants from Spain, who don't seem to accept his wild way of living - until the father becomes seriously ill and confesses his great admiration for his son from a hospital bed.<br /><br />And so it goes on: Naturally, the drug dealer is brutal, the bankers are heartless, the club owner is a playboy and the photographer, although a woman (!), has only her career in mind when she exposes Snow White in artsy pornographic pictures at a show.<br /><br />This review doesn't need a spoiler in order to let you add these pieces to an obvious plot. As I like other films by Samir, e.g. "Forget Baghdad", I was quite disappointed. Let's hope for the next one.
This is a badly made, poor remake of Bimalda's classic Parineeta. The story is based on Sarat Chandra's book of the same name and it is a distortion of the original. Well one can appreciate some degree of creativity but not sham creativity. The acting by everyone is affected and the entire movie is a sham. Shekar's father's choice of words in abusing Lolita ( Balan ) sounds cheap and morbid and destroys the spirit of the original story. Again the scene where Shekhar ( Saif ) slaps Lolita is quite out of place with the flow of the movie and the characters, is quite jarring to the senses, and could have been easily avoided. Similarly the sex scene between Saif and Balan is quite unbecoming the movie and a cheap gimmick to attract the audience. When a creative work is not faithful to the original and destroys it's spirit, the work falls apart. The song "piyu bole" is quite OK. Another silver lining in the dark cloud of this movie is the scene where Saif stands up for himself and rebels against his father. This is a positive departure from the original and deserves credit. On these counts this movie deserves 3 stars. The song and dance by Rekha smacks of artifice and it is a put on. The song is tuneful but I remember having heard it somewhere before and if Iam not mistaken the tune appears to have been plagiarized. <br /><br />Well, agreed the times have changed from then to now. But then this movie is not even reflective of the modern times.<br /><br />This is what happens when the modern Bollywood film makers get increasingly obsessed with impressing the NRIs and grabbing the lucrative NRI entertainment market. Such movies end up neither belonging to India nor to any other part of the world.
I stopped watching lost at this episode because I thought Ana-Lucia and Libby's deaths were unnecessary and really depressing. Then I found out that they kept Libby around just to die in the next episode! Gah! I can't handle it.<br /><br />I liked this show for the first season, but it definitely declined in the second season, I found Jack and Locke's little religious feud to be annoying. The deaths of Rodriguez & Watros' characters was the final straw! <br /><br />I give this episode a 4/10, for being the end to my viewing of this formerly great series created by Alias legend J.J. Abrams. I hope his series in the future will improve on this one.
I was honestly surprised by Alone in the Dark. It was so bad, I could hardly believe what I was seeing. There are no characters, just a few stereotypes wandering around and getting killed. The extent of the character development was giving each character a name and an occupation, and that's about it. There was no real plot, and none of the characters seemed to have any motivation. In fact, many action scenes just began on their own, coming from nowhere with a pounding techno track. While I was watching this movie I kept asking "Where is this happening? What's going on?" The acting was high school drama quality, with stiff wooden delivery, as though the actors were reading from cue cards without comprehending their lines. Their trouble delivering lines was made even more obvious by horrible sound design. ADR sounded like it was recorded in an open room. The actors were constantly taking obvious care to hit their marks, looking almost robotic in their movements. So, these listless automatons are whisked through a series of implausible and confusing scenarios, often without even the benefit of transition scenes. They were here, now they're there. This was happening, now that's happening. Random scenes with little rhyme or reason. I had a lot of fun watching it. Definitely not worth nine bucks though.
Can it ever be said that there are some movies that have no redeeming features whatsoever? Answer: Yes, and this is one of them. After helming the appalling 'House of the Dead' director Uwe Boll has now cast his less-than-talented eye towards yet another video game adaptation. Don't these guys get it? To anyone who can't understand, here it is in block capitals for you: VIDEO GAMES DO NOT MAKE FOR GOOD MOVIES! The acting here is, at best, sub-standard. The set design and special effects are poor. Unlike the video game (which did have its scary moments) the movie has no atmosphere of impending doom, no sense of danger or menace. Pacing and plotting is confused and the paper that the script is printed on would have been better used as toilet paper. The main culprit is the director. Uwe Boll uses the camera with the grace and skill of a monkey using a paintbrush. Hackneyed zooms, swoops and pans are spliced into the whole dreary affair at unpredictable moments leaving the audience disorientated and bored. Why this guy was ever let near a movie set in the first place must stand as one of modern cinemas greatest secrets. Avoid at all costs.
True, there are many movies much worse then this movie. This movie was no Manos: The Hands of Fate, or Troll 2 (yes, I have seen them both.. twice) but at the same time this movie is No Alien, Predator or even Alien Vs. Predator (Yes, even that movie surpassed this). Movies like this make Battlefield Earth look like a Star Wars it is so bad. Razzie awards lookout, your biggest competition has just arrived in theaters. This film I'm talking about is of course Alone in the Dark. I'll try to take you though a step by step process on why this film was so bad.<br /><br />Acting- I'll first start off with what perhaps was the best component of this film (next to the ending credits, which played 'Wish I had An Angel', the acting. Christian Slater must be proud of himself, he successfully proved that it is possible to act decent in a film worse then drinking antifreeze. Though all his awful dialog he had to speak, it made me wonder why he just didn't walk off the set halfway. Perhaps it was because of Stephen Dorff being in the film as well (somebody he wishes he could be but fails at it). Tara Reid is a bad actress but good looking and that's all that really matters in films like these. That is not to say the acting was perfect though, it was average, not good, and perhaps the only thing in the film not good.<br /><br />The Soundtrack- Except for 'Wish I had An Angel', the soundtrack is pointless and bad heavy medal being pumped into the viewers ears, perhaps to disguise the awful story (something I will get to soon). A long and very expensive 2 CD soundtrack is now up for sale for those musically challenged.<br /><br />The Directing- Directed by Hollywoods favorite director Uwe Ball who brought us the classic House of the Dead. Telling us "Yes, movies can get this utterly bad and that's just the beginning to my deadly saga of awful movies". At least it is said to be directed by Uwe Ball. Without being told I would have guessed a monkey was kidnapped from the Congo, brought here and forced to make opinions on how to make the movie under penalty of being shocked. The director of photography was probably a camcorder taped onto a skateboard and pushed forward until it hits a wall. On the scenes where the camera should stay still it is constantly moving, not allowing us to stop anywhere and when it should be moving in action, the camera stops for some reason.<br /><br />The Producing- Who on earth is stupid enough to put money towards this bomb? I pity the fool... sometimes. Sometimes I'm glad he or she was taught such a lesson to never put money towards garbage worse then dog dung tied up in a bag.<br /><br />The Writing / Storyboard- Trying to Analise the story is more painful then jamming an ice pick under a big toe and kicking a soccer ball as hard as I possibly could with it right after but I will still attempt it.<br /><br />Edward Carnby escapes as a child from an orphanage where 20 children where to go under science experiments. He escapes and hides in an electrical outlet where he is electrocuted (this is the point where it got so bad i started to laugh out loud). Then it fast-forwards many years later where he's a paranoia detective. He get's attacked by some zombie that can't be shot to death, kills it and moves on with life. Later on he gets attacked by some crazy looking monster and he discovers secrets that nobody else knows.<br /><br />Yeah, the plot is bad, really really bad. The film beings with expecting us to read approximately 10 minutes, which felt like 100, of random text about an untrue civilization called the Abskani. The film goes not to have one twist after another, more then the audience can handle, more then the audience wants to handle, more then the audience could ever care about. This storyline is rock bottom bad that even Double Dragon does better.<br /><br />Overall, miss out on this movie. I gave it a 1 out of 10 but that is because there is no 0.
I don't know where to begin. Tara Reid needs to be stopped before she's put in another movie. Stephen Dorff looks like he got his character's motivation from Val Kilmer in "Top Gun". Slater sleepwalks through this dreck. The direction, editing, sound (do we really need a heavy-metal video in the middle of a gunfight?), costumes (bulletproof vests with muscles on them), and hey, there's no discernible plot either. It amazes me that no one attached to the project stopped and said, "hey guys, this just doesn't make any sense, let's start over". Hopefully Slater's career can rebound from this disaster.<br /><br />Hands down the worst film I've ever seen.
Obviously a lot of talented behind the scenes crew members worked on this movie, so don't even look at the credits at the end, you'll only hold it against them. Nobody seemed interested in seeing this movie, only 3 were in the theater; two passed out after 10 minutes, and they were the lucky ones. The 'monsters' were the unemployed worm from Star Trek 2, The Wrath of Khan, and rejected designs for the space creatures in Alien. The creators of the movie obviously didn't want to overshadow the third rate movie monsters, so they hired forth rate actors who apparently didn't get to memorize their lines, or in some cases learn to pronounce the words before filming began. Some scenes are incredibly inept in conveying just what is supposed to be happening, if anything is. If you are unfortunate enough to be in a theater where this movie is showing, and you don't pass out, you'll laugh at what are supposed to be frightening or suspenseful moments of the film. The implausibility of several scenes will just stun you, and Stephen Dorff's regular spewing of the 'Queen Mary of curse words' conveys the feeling of anyone who pays to see this. If you must see this movie, do yourself a favor and wait until it's in the bargain bin at the video store. If there's any justice in the film industry, one of the main actors will be there to rent it to you.
The movie starts out with some scrolling text which takes nearly five minutes. It gives the basic summary of what is going on. This could have easily been done with acting but instead you get a scrolling text effect. Soon after you are bombarded with characters that you learn a little about, keep in mind this is ALL you will learn about them. The plot starts to get off the ground and then crashes through the entire movie. Not only does the plot change, but you might even ask yourself if your watching the same movie. I have never played the video game, but know people who have. From my understanding whether you've played the game or not this movie does not get any better. Save your money unless you like to sleep at the theaters.
Well where do I begin my story?? I went to this movie tonight with a few friends not knowing more than the Actors that were in it, and that it was supposed to be a horror movie.<br /><br />Well I figured out within the first 20 minutes, what a poor decision I had made going out seeing this movie. The Plot was crap, and so was the script. The lines were horrible to the point that people in the audience were laughing hysterically.<br /><br />The cast couldn't have been more plastic looking. Even some of the scenes seemed like they should have been made much quicker...like they dragged on for no particular reason. Very poor editing.<br /><br />All in all this movie was a giant waste of time and money. Boo.
This movie succeeds at being one of the most unique movies you've seen. However this comes from the fact that you can't make heads or tails of this mess. It almost seems as a series of challenges set up to determine whether or not you are willing to walk out of the movie and give up the money you just paid. If you don't want to feel slighted you'll sit through this horrible film and develop a real sense of pity for the actors involved, they've all seen better days, but then you realize they actually got paid quite a bit of money to do this and you'll lose pity for them just like you've already done for the film. I can't go on enough about this horrible movie, its almost something that Ed Wood would have made and in that case it surely would have been his masterpiece.<br /><br />To start you are forced to sit through an opening dialogue the likes of which you've never seen/heard, this thing has got to be five minutes long. On top of that it is narrated, as to suggest that you the viewer cannot read. Then we meet Mr. Slater and the barrage of terrible lines gets underway, it is as if he is operating solely to get lines on to the movie poster tag line. Soon we meet Stephen Dorff, who I typically enjoy) and he does his best not to drown in this but ultimately he does. Then comes the ultimate insult, Tara Reid playing an intelligent role, oh help us! Tara Reid is not a very talented actress and somehow she continually gets roles in movies, in my opinion though she should stick to movies of the American pie type. <br /><br />All in all you just may want to see this for yourself when it comes out on video, I know that I got a kick out of it, I mean lets all be honest here, sometimes its comforting to revel in the shortcomings of others.
The minute the forward started, I knew we were in for trouble! The premise is laughable at best. The story line was even worse, if that is possible.<br /><br />The acting was stiff and the actors gave off a sense of inexperience. You expect more from the likes of Slater, Reid and Dorff. Lines were delivered as if from a robot. And I'm sorry, I like Reid but she was VERY unbelievable as an archaeologist. Slater and Dorff picked a lousy film to try and stage their comebacks. <br /><br />The continuity was off through out the entire film. The creatures weren't bad, but they really weren't good either. <br /><br />Bottom line, I want that ninety minutes of my life back. They can keep the money, but give me the time! What a waste.
The definition of an abomination as defined by Webster's Dictioary is "a cause of abhorrence or disgust." If someone can think of a more appropriate word or definition than this for Alone in the Dark, please let me know because this is the best I can come up with. However, I do no feel that in anyway this word describes how truly awful this film is.<br /><br />I went to see this film with two of my roommates. One has very similar tastes to me, the other is an action/adventure flick guru. This latter guy usually doesn't care about the size of the plot holes, as long as the movie contains lots of explosions he will walk away satisfied.<br /><br />That being said we entered the theater for the Friday viewing of Alone in the Dark. Little to my surprise we were the only people in the theater. When it started I knew why immediately.<br /><br />It begins with the worst opening scene of any movie, and unfortunately I have to admit it only gets worse from there. The opening scene is a 5 minute scroll text that is narrated. Yet, I understand why it was narrated. The director must have understood that only illiterate people would even ascertain the thought of PAYING to see this movie. Yet, not only is this first scene the longest scroll text in the history of cinema, but it also makes no sense. It seems as if in the same sequence we are hearing about to completely separate movies. One is about an ancient civilization and its tampering with a portal, the other is about a crazy scientist and his experiments on orphans. If you are reading this and are confused, you are not alone.<br /><br />Then the awful storyline, acting, effects, and camera work begin. Tara Reid is horrendous as an actress. She does nothing to even for one second make you think that she is a museum curator. Slater is just bad, not convincing, and has no chemistry with Reid.<br /><br />The plot is probably the worst thing ever created by man. The entire time myself and the roommate with similar tastes are asking questions like: What is this? And what is going on? Other than this scrolling garbage we have a few narrated sequences by Slater himself. Are they good? NO. Do they explain anything? NO. Do we at any point as an audience have the slightest inkling as to why we should care what happens? Once again, NO.<br /><br />Then we have a random sex scene. We are told that Slater and Reid are together, yet at no time do they act as though they even care about on another. But then BAM...sex scene. Once again I don't know.<br /><br />A good, oh i don't know, 30 seconds after that woeful scene ends we have a gunfight with 20 or so military and a similar number of alien things. This is set to a heavy-metal track and causes more brain hemorrhaging than one ever thought possible.<br /><br />And if that wasn't enough...<br /><br />There exists no main villain. There is the scientist and there are the "alien" things. At one point the scientist controls the alien things and stands on a hill commanding them to attack the military outpost. Why? How did he become the supreme commander of these things? Why do they listen to him? Once again I have no idea.<br /><br />The movie ends with Slater and Reid walking in an evacuated city. Why was the city evacuated? Did the alien things break through? Did the military tell them? Who knows...and by this point who cares? I didn't and you won't.<br /><br />But to top it off, Slater and Reid are attacked by an alien thing. Even though it was stated that alien things will be killed by exposure to sunlight. And thats right, you guessed it, it the middle of the *&%$ing day and it's bright as can be. Maybe the alien thing bought a pair of sunglasses, I don't know and I don't care.<br /><br />Now after the movie ended I ran outside the theater, all 6 foot 6 inches of me, waving my arms and shaking my afro telling everyone not to go see this movie. Even my gung-ho action/adventure roommate (who would consider a movie that just cut and pasted 2 hours of explosion into 1 film to be the greatest thing ever created) admitted that plot holes were very evident in this film.<br /><br />To sum up this CRAP-FEST i give it a 0.0/10 and would give it lower if I could.<br /><br />Unequivocally, the worst movie ever made. I wouldn't wish this movie on my worst enemy.
I usually start by relaying the premise of the film, but before anyone makes any hasty judgments about my review, let me preface it by saying that I'm someone who likes most films (just check my other reviews). Alone in the Dark is a film by director Uwe Boll, whose film right before this one was House of the Dead (2003). Like Alone in the Dark, it was also a film adaptation of a video game. Almost everyone hated it. Well, I loved it. I even gave it a 10 out of 10! My point in stating this (which will surely turn some readers off immediately) is that if even I hated Alone in the Dark, there must be something wrong with it.<br /><br />The Premise: Who am I kidding? Attempting to state a premise for this film is about as easy as trying to balance the United States' budget, but here it goes anyway. Some archaeologists discovered evidence of some lost American Indian tribe. The Indian tribe apparently had discovered some means of broaching the "second world", which was evil in nature. The bad stuff wiped them out, but not before they could lock the door to the evil world and throw away the key. Later, some scientist/government researcher who had been experimenting with the paranormal, and specifically this tribe, decided to experiment on some kids, to try to produce some kind of hybrid with the second world. (Believe it or not--everything up to this point and then some is told to us in a written prologue to the film--it's just white text scrolling across a black screen with a voice-over also reading it to us). Then, there was something about the kids being in an orphanage, but the government takes them back out, and then a bunch of people are searching for archaeological relics, and there are super humans roaming around, and a bunch of military people are called in and on and on.<br /><br />In fact, the exposition never really stops. It's like a neverending backstory from hell. There are enough ideas here to fill at least 10 films, maybe 25. But not one of them is presented in a coherent way to create one good film. In addition to the mystical lost Indian tribe and the superhumans, we also get monsters that resemble a cross between Alien and a werewolf, worms that invade your body and turn into snake-like aliens, tunneling worms underground, zombies, Starship Trooper-like wars, evil scientists, underground lairs, gold mines, spooky warehouses, impalements, big mostly unused museums, government conspiracies, golden trunks pulled out of the sea, nuns, explosions, complex backstabbing plots, a very ambiguous romance, car chases, home invasions, kitchen sinks . . . wait, I can't remember if that last one was in the film. Even more amazingly (amusingly?), in Fangoria #240, producer Shawn Williamson was quoted as saying, "We're spending much more time on story, being very meticulous about that". Tara Reid called Alone in the Dark "a smarter film".<br /><br />Let me not mislead anyone. A lot of that stuff above might sound yummy to the potential audience for this film, but the problem is that nothing has the slightest connection to anything else. I usually had no idea what any setting's relation was to any other setting, why we were there, or what anyone was doing (at least when each scene began). It's just a random mishmash of settings and clichés, as if director Uwe Boll had 250 unrelated ideas in a hat and pulled them out like lottery numbers. Then when he was done, he and editor Richard Schwadel decided to cut the film by using dice, then reassembled it by throwing the I Ching. Sometimes the film plays like an extended director's reel (which is a combination of short, varied, unrelated scenes that directors circulate to try to get work), but perhaps that's being too generous. I'm not sure Boll would get work if this were his reel. <br /><br />Just as I tend to at least like most films, I tend to like most actors and most performances. It's very rare that I say that a performance was bad. Well, Tara Reid was bad here--and I'm someone who usually likes Reid. I don't know what happened. For a large percentage of the film, they just move her around the set like a prop. They might as well have just bought a blow-up doll. That would have saved them money that they could have used for some cgi ghosts and vampires in castle and graveyard settings. Maybe they chose to move her around like a pretty piece of driftwood after they saw the dailies of her mumbling nonsense dialogue in a monotone that's usually reserved for entertaining mother-in-laws.<br /><br />And speaking of that dialogue, a lot of Alone in the Dark plays like a Godzilla film without Godzilla. By that, I mean that it's a lot of pseudo-scientific gobbledy-gook. At least in Godzilla films, there's a campiness to it, because they know how ridiculous it is, and there's a big payoff in that we get to see Godzilla destroy downtown and battle a giant gnat with radioactive death beams shooting from its eyes or something.<br /><br />Just what Stephen Dorff and Christian Slater are doing here, besides overacting and filing lawsuits against their agents, is difficult to say. I can't say that I thought anyone in the film had a decent performance, although maybe Slater at least saw the cigar. I think that's unprecedented for me.<br /><br />Still, I didn't give this film a 1. There was some competent cinematography, even if Boll and Schwadel made mincemeat out of it, and the hard rock tunes over the end credits were good. Heck, even the novelette prologue wasn't so bad. I actually thought the film had promise at that point. But this may just be the worst film I've ever seen with a budget of 20 million or more.
Honestly, I can't be bothered to spend my time writing about this milestone of cinematic incompetence - life is simply too short. What I will say is that, Alone In The Dark succeeds in only three things: 1. It will make you laugh, but for all the wrong reasons. 2. It manages to throw several useless plots into the air but dropping all of them.<br /><br />and<br /><br />3. It utterly disgraces the classic PC game on which it is supposedly based by being a complete failure in all aspects of film-making.<br /><br />Doctor Boll, if that is indeed what you are (I'm thinking proctology here), what on Earth are you doing in a director's chair?
Spoilers ahead, but does it really matter? Have you ever read a movie review composed entirely of questions? Could this be it? Why did an ancient civilization bury artifacts all over the world? Why is this question never answered? Why was the opening text crawl incoherent? Why would a nun (she sure seemed nice!) hand over 20 orphans to a madman? Has there always been a gold mine in downtown Vancouver? Why does one of the gold mine's shafts exit in the front yard of an orphanage? Why does Tara Reid's character suddenly show up at Christian Slater's apartment for sex? (Or did I just answer my own question?) Why would even a non-archaeologist bang open an obviously valuable solid gold chest with a sledgehammer? Why would modern computers still display green pre-Tron-era grid outlines of objects, complete with little "bleeps"? And must all movie explosive timers have digital displays? Why doesn't ANYTHING in this movie make any sense?
Tara Reid as an intellectual, Christian Slater(usually great) as a dollar store Constantine and Stephen Dorff as...well it's STEPHEN DORFF FOR Christ SAKE!!!! I personally just want to thank those brilliant casting directors for the hard work and effort. You guys are on. Heres an idea, just my humble lowly opinion as the movie going public but it follows directly with your previous choices,a movie about the most brilliant neuro-physicist in history invent one pill to cure all diseases ever known to man and get this, heres the clincher they have to be played by Jessica Simpson and Paris Hilton. I knew you guys would love that. Seriously though you owe me $7.50.
This should be my kind of movie. Even if it sucked, it still should have been right up my alley; hell, I like "Congo," and "Allan Quatermaine" movies. I have a soft spot in my heart for silly alien/demon/adventure movies. Let's go over why I decided to watch this in the first place.<br /><br />1. Horror/Sci-fi almost always intrigues me 2. I'm a big fan of archaeology, and this movie does involve a rare treasure. 3. Super-natural enemies with quality FX. 4. Christian Slater and Dorf I generally enjoy. 5. Tara Reid is hot.<br /><br />So this movie had potential, at least in the cheese-horror section of the video store, but boy did it suck ass. The only redeeming aspects are Slater and Dorf, and not everyone finds them as entertaining as I do...I mean, let's face it, both are melodramatic. But now on to some of the many faults.<br /><br />Tara Reid. Even though the movie as a whole is worse, Reid's performance is truly awful. We're not just talking bad, I'm talking about nominating Tara Reid for worst performance of the year. I don't know if she is capable of acting, but playing the museum curator is simply out of her league...completely. Watching her try to carry the roll of educated scientist wasn't much different than what you get watching the setup in bad porn. I mean this isn't just bad, it is laughably bad. Oh, and for those of you curious, she doesn't get naked, only down to a bra in a silly, totally unnecessary love scene.<br /><br />Even with Reid's performance, perhaps the movie could have worked, but the plot is what dominates, and the plot seems written by a 10 year old. I hadn't realized this was a video game adaptation until AFTER watching the DVD, otherwise I would have appreciated the stupidity in real-time. <br /><br />The storyline jumps back and forth from Slater's childhood at an orphanage where he gets flashbacks of something terrible that happened, he has amnesia, of course. In his adult life Slater was recruited by some Unit 713, a paranormal military force that apparently hunts evil or something. Slater had to leave because he was too rebellious, I guess, you never really know unless it was in one of those voice-overs I zoned out during. The movie starts with Slater hunting artifacts, obtaining his latest piece after some dealings with a "Chilean mercenary force specializing in selling rare antiquities." I may have the exact quote wrong, but you get the idea.<br /><br />There is an evil doctor that wants to unleash some hellions on earth (no reason given), experiments on children, super demon/alien-human hybrids, "photonic" bullets (the demon things can't stand sunlight) and, of course, Slater and Dorf to try to save everyone.<br /><br />Jesus, I can't even being to wade through the clichéd elements. The script badly needed reworking to narrow the focus and provide SOME depth. I mean, why is this evil scientist so damn evil? Oh right, humans are doomed and he is just trying to save the human race. I guess he's infected? How did that happen? Oh right he has one of the evil demon things in a cage and draws its blood to shoot into himself. How the hell did that happen? Why and where did he get the super slugs (oh yes, they use the old sci-fi stand by of parasitic aliens/demons which "fuse" with the spine of their host)Of course, Slater is, like Blade, half super-slug powered, but his slug "didn't fully fuse due to an electrical shock," thank god. Oh, and the people with these "fused" spines, have no idea they're half-alien/demon and act as good members of the community until some secret signal is given whence they turn killer zombies. Yeah we get zombies.<br /><br />So lots of crap that could be entertaining, but none of it is.<br /><br />Also, the ending is completely stupid as everything turns out to be not that big of a deal to fix in the first place...at least nothing a little dynamite can't handle.<br /><br />Not the very worst thing you'll see, but a truly bad movie.
The title of worse film of all time is one that gets handed out quickly and often. Most of the time it is exaggeration of the fact but I would like to welcome Alone in the Dark to the short list of real candidates: Plan 9 from Outer Space, Battlefield Earth, and the Adventures of Pluto Nash.<br /><br />As I watched the 90 minute bore I found it difficult to even stay awake even while I was trying so hard to laugh at the film. But alas I felt alone in the dark (I was gonna try to avoid the pun but I couldn't resist) as I looked around hoping to see Mike Nelson and his two robot friends. Alas my friends and I had to provide comedy throughout the film.<br /><br />So... about the film itself. Lets talk about the action and effects since that should be the only positive part of the film. The film contains evil creatures that are a cross between the Xenos in Aliens (they even call them Xenos), and the creatures in Pitch Black. The can turn invisible at random (and I assure you it is random) and get hurt by light. Also present are small centipede creatures used to control humans that transform them into something resembling a zombie. All of these are shown with outdated special effects that would have been mediocre in 1997. The action scenes are chaotic and are impossible to follow. People shooting randomly on a blue screen stage or an empty set at monsters who were inserted in post. Light quickly flashes on a dark screen making your pupils burn from overwork while bad rock music blares in the background.<br /><br />And those were the high points. The story revolving around a paranormal investigator (Slater) whose idea of looking tough is wearing a black wife beater Tshirt with a trench-coat and not shaving for 2 days. An archaeologist (Reid) who is rather inept. And a government agent(Dorff) whose lines involve barking order. All three should be ashamed at their performances (not that they have really ever done a good a job before) and the casting director should be ashamed. Reid and Slater are supposed to be lovers in the film I guess. The film contains the single most awkward love scene I have ever seen on film between the two.<br /><br />Then comes the plot. Quiet frankly the parts that make sense are not interesting at all. The rest is illogical at best. The plot holes could contain the collective egos of all three stars. The film begins with text and a voice explaining the back-story. This opening lasts for over a minute and already the viewer knows they are in for something terrible. This opening narration is later repeated adnausem in the awkward dialog in a very clumsy and heavy handed fashion through the rest of the film. And the ending did not make one ounce of sense. Not only did it not make sense in the world of the film, it simply did not make sense.<br /><br />Finally the direction of one Uwe Boll. Disgrace, thats all that can be said. His use of shaking the camera to simulate suspense. His lack of direction with the actors. Just watch Reid in scenes in which she is not center focus of the shot. The complete waste of special effects money for bullet time effects. And finally choosing to use voice over to explain something that should be painfully obvious to the viewers.<br /><br />I payed a $1.50 to see this show at a second run theater. And while the laughs me and my friends provided made it worth every quarter I would advise people to avoid paying any more for this film. Grab about 3 friends and split the rental cost and tear this movie a new one.<br /><br />Shame on you Uwe Boll. Shame on you Tara Reid. Shame on you Christian Slater. Shame on you Stephen Dorff. Shame on anyone who was associated with this film.
0*'s Christian Slater, Tara Reid, Stephen Dorff, Frank C. Turner, Mathew Walker, Will Sanderson. Directed by Uwe Boll.<br /><br />Based on the video game director Uwe Boll attempts to recreate the game into an action-packed nail biter sadly he doesn't succeed. Instead he makes one of the worst movies ever MADE! Even though he gets minor celebrity such as Christian Slater, Tara Reid and Stephen Dorff his movie lacks the necessary fundamentals that a movie needs to be good such as a story line, and some basic relativity of what's going on in the dark and the light. The movie bounces all around and Uwe Boll has no creative control. And not to mention the bad CGI used on making the monsters. Even though they did look cool and the feedings were well, a little lame. Honestly this is one of the worst movies ever made. My final rating 0/10.
Alone In The Dark is one BAD movie and tied with Deuce Bigalow for worst movie of the year. I wish that was ALL I had to say but of course the IMDb stipulates a word count and all that.<br /><br />I'm in two minds about what kind of bad movie is a worse kind of bad movie. A low budget dreck like Red Zone Cuba, Monster A Go Go and Manos. Or a huge budget disgrace like Gigli, Superbabies or this guff. You see movies like Monster A Go Go and Manos happen because the director hasn't a clue. Movies like this happen because the director is a stupid, money grabbing idiot who simply doesn't care about his audience.<br /><br />It's more shocking when you consider that Uwe Boll (The mastermind behind this shocking crap and already has some real garbage under his belt) has created something that only happens once in a blue moon. The really terribly bad horror film. Everything about it is a mess. Cheesy CGI, bad plot, insane random camera cuts and appalling soundtrack.<br /><br />Alone In The Dark is a dreadful movie that should be watched by absolutely nobody. Woo hoo! Review over. Give me a bud, roll on 2006 and may I NEVER speak of this again.<br /><br />Don't watch this film.
Alone in the Dark is Uwe Boll's kick in the nuts to Hollywood after House of the Dead's punch in the face.<br /><br />If anything it proves just how much of a master manipulator Boll is. After forcing Artisan out of business over the flop that was House of the Dead, one can only assume the normally credible Lion's Gate Films only released AITD under contractual obligation after acquiring Artisan's assets. Because AITD is an even bigger example of complete lack of coherent film-making ability, plot exposition and just plain stealing poorly from other movies because it was supposed to look cool instead of because it fitted within the movie's framework.<br /><br />But then that's the point, isn't it. Boll isn't trying to make a coherent film because he isn't trying to direct Alone in the Dark. He's just trying to manipulate Hollywood.<br /><br />Alone in the Dark, like House of the Dead, Dungeon Siege, Far Cry, Bloodrayne and the other 3 or 4 projects that are "announced" or in "pre-production".<br /><br />These aren't movies to be directed, but investment portfolios. Every single one of them rushed into production under the pretence that the tax law Boll and his investors are exploiting may be closed within the next 2 to 3 years. The more bomb projects he can release within that time-frame, the more money he and his investors can gain. Why bother making a good movie when a bad movie's making you a mint anyway? The result is movies like the awfulness of Alone in the Dark.<br /><br />Alone in the Dark, like all his other movies are just a cynical exploitation of Hollywood's current trend for lazy film-making.<br /><br />And to those who support Boll by calling him misunderstood or the next Ed Wood, congratulations, by making a cult figure out of the man, you're just making it easier for him to get investors but giving him notoriety.<br /><br />For more information, read here: http://www.cinemablend.com/feature.php?id=209 http://www.cinemablend.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21699 As an aside, just don't ask me how he's getting his cast-lists together. Unless the actors are in on the investment-scam somehow, that mystery has still to be uncovered.
There should be a rule that states quite clearly that movies like Resident Evil are supposed to be made in the spirit of the game, not in the spirit of blowing up everything possible. RE was a survival horror game, and a damn effective one at that, yet Paul WS Anderson managed to make it like any other video game movie to come along. Alone in the Dark is essentially the same kind of a spirit as Resident Evil, so of course, there is the slight hope the director will manage to have some piece of a brain enough to make a horror movie and not an action movie. Instead, Alone in the Dark just proves that there is no longer hope for video games becoming movies.<br /><br />The plot, despite the fact that it obviously isn't supposed to matter, is the largest of many problems with the movie. The movie starts with what can only be described as five minutes of scrolling text that may or may not be important, as after a minute passes, the audience stops caring and just sits through the rest hitting the object closest to them. Then there's something about an orphanage, some artefacts, an ancient tribe, some bureaucracy and some demons, all of which get so jumbled together that the viewers really can't follow with what is going on. Characters move in and out of the plot like candy, some having huge build-ups for meaningless deaths. Basically, what I can understand is that some demons got released, and Edward Carnby (Slater) has some link to them thanks to some operation given to children in his orphanage which has failed on him. He finds an artefact involving the demons and brings it to an ex-girlfriend anthropologist (Reid), who of course he manages to have sex with right away for no good reason. Then, out of nowhere, all hell breaks loose, and the pair end up with a military team led by some asshole commander (Dorff), who apparently has a mutual hatred for Carnby.<br /><br />It's all ridiculous, and the reason I don't really understand it isn't just because it's complicated and jumbled, but it leaves no room for anyone to really care. Instead, I highly recommend that, if you must see this film, bring a tennis ball or something to occupy yourself when the plot manages to bore you into confusion.<br /><br />The action scenes in a movie with a plot as terrible as this should at least bring it up a little, right? Too bad, this movie is like any other ruined crap ever made, with enough quick cuts to behead a coop of chickens. Considering that this is based on a horror game, not an action game, it is especially annoying.<br /><br />The first action scene involving a man chasing Cranby from a taxi is among the worst I have ever had to witness, and the rest isn't all that great either. The demons look somewhat cool, though the fact that they turn into powder when killed takes away all that effect. Scenes involving lots of guns which should be cool to watch instead involve the muzzle fire as the only source of light and the camera zooming and panning faster than the head of a crack addict. It's all the kind of seizure inducing crap that keeps children in bed at night.<br /><br />The acting is what I like to call taking actors and making them do nothing. Slater does nothing but sound important for the whole movie, though he does seem to have more talent than he is letting on. The same is true of Dorff, who gets a thankless role despite actually having some talent (something that has happened to him a lot). Reid is pretty much exactly what she should be, background sex appeal, as whenever she tries to act it is a disaster (as is the incredibly bad scientist look she has in the beginning).<br /><br />In all, this is the type of movie that worries me about future video game movies. If they keep ruining the spirit like this, it's only a matter of time before Samus Aran is killing Middle-Easterns with an AK-47 and Tommy Vercetti is fighting a squadron of aliens. Unlike Resident Evil, however, this one doesn't deserve a second chance, as I don't think anything could possibly help me forget just how terrible this movie is. It's bland, uninteresting and unexciting. This is the movie equivalent of diarrhea; it's all thrown together, nothing really fits and, in the end, you're just glad it's over.<br /><br />TOTAL: 4%
Alone in The Dark is one of my favorite role-playing-games of all time. I remember spending whole nights facing the PC screen, trying to escape that mansion and actually being startled at times when monsters came surprisingly charging in. Now, mind you - I am weary of "computer-game-generated" movies. I don't remember a single success story in this new Hollywood genre, although some are entertaining enough to be watchable. And yet, I am such a big fan of the game that I couldn't resist. My rationale was that if the movie had a plot that so much as resembled the game's, it would be OK. <br /><br />Man, those were 90 minutes (which seemed like 300) of my life that I'll never get back. If I had that chance, I would have gladly spent them rearranging my sock drawer instead. This isn't even in the "so bad it's funny" category. You would think even Christian Slater had a bit more sense than joining this stink bomb. Now, Tara Reid... I'm not complaining about her presence. However, if the purpose of putting this chick in a starring role is to have a sex scene, - which I totally understand and support (hey, I'm a guy!) - I've seen more of her body on press conferences.<br /><br />There is no plot to speak of. Won't waste your time pitching it to you. The credibility of the story sinks below 'I did not have sex with Ms. Lewinski'. The acting is but a few notches above 'Street Fighter', which, by the way, being one of the worst movies I've seen, I would recommend OVER this one.<br /><br />Kids, I recommend the Video Game. It has far better story, acting and much more thrills. As for the movie, here's a spoiler - it STINKS! Wait for the porno version.
We should all congratulate Uwe Boll. He's done the unthinkable. He may be the only director to have two movies in the bottom 100 on IMDb! He's like some kind of cinematic cockroach. No matter how little talent he has, and no matter how bad these movies are, he manages to keep making them. I know, he finances them all himself through some kind of bizarre German fund, but even so, his ability to keep making movies despite absolute, complete failure is one of the great mysteries of the universe.<br /><br />It wouldn't be so bad except that video game developers keep giving their best properties to this guy. I really enjoyed the Alone in the Dark series of games. Even the latest one, the New Nightmare, was good for a few hours of game play. There was a good movie to be made out of Edward Carnby's adventures, but this is not it. Now Uwe Boll has gotten his hands on Bloodrayne and Hunter: the Reckoning. What's next, Silent Hill? Doom? I can only imagine the swath that this guy is going to cut through game-to-movie adaptations if he's not stopped. Someone needs to take away his line of credit, or these video game publishers need to wise up and realize that when they make a bad movie out of a game that kills the franchise, no one is interested in that title any more.<br /><br />Think about it, is House of the Dead or Alone in the Dark a viable game title anymore? No way. A new House of the Dead game comes out for X-Box and nobody's gonna care. The title is dead, and all because of Uwe Boll. So if any of you out there work for a game publisher, or know a game publisher, or have access to a game publisher... please warn them. <br /><br />This movie itself is not even worth reviewing. I can't separate what I didn't like about this pile of dung from the rest of it. Literally, everything about it sucks. The writing, the acting, the music, the CG effects, the editing. I thought that if I waited until it came out on DVD and then rented it with low expectations, I wouldn't be disappointed. Boy, was I wrong. Never underestimate Uwe's ability to turn out a big, steaming pile of BOLL sh*t.
I remember reading all the horrible, horrible reviews for this film when it came out. I meant to go see how horrible it was but it was out of theaters in three weeks. The only other movie to manage that is Gigli. <br /><br />When the movie came out on DVD, I bought it to see how awful it was. I couldn't think of the sheer horrible attention that this film was getting was possible. After seeing it, I can understand. <br /><br />First off, let me say that this film is not without some cool shots. There's a nice shot at the beginning that shows a bullet being fired from inside the gun, which I thought was neat. And the way the monsters in this movie die is sort of cool to look at; but it gets old after the first time you see it. <br /><br />Let me start with the worst thing in this movie: Tara Reid. If bad acting was a sin, then Hell would've chucked Tara Reid right out since she's so unbelievably awful in this movie it's unthinkable. And of all the roles, she plays a curator. Now if she played a dumb, empty- headed sex toy then maybe I might be able to forgive her for how she treats her character. Apparently, Uwe Boll didn't realize that, although he did seem to think that if she took off her shirt in the movie, people would see it. He just didn't realize that making her do that in the middle of the film at the absolute wrong moment just made the movie even more hilariously bad. And is that a Mexican song or something during the scene of dry humping? I couldn't tell. <br /><br />Which brings me to my next complaint: Uwe Boll shows off some of the worst directing skills you'll ever see in a movie. I mean, I'd give House of the Dead an F (and I only do that for very few movies) but HotD would score at least a B compared to this screwed up piece of junk. The movie starts off with a very, very long narration that causes immediate confusion (and read by a horrible narrator) and from there, the cuts are really, really dumb. There's this one point where Slater and Reid are looking around a building that's been destroyed and the screen blackens out. When it comes back, Slater and Reid are shooting everywhere and suddenly, an entire army has joined them. Huh? <br /><br />And someone did NOT bother checking the mistakes in this movie. At one point, a team breaks through glass, but the glass breaks before they touch it. Tara Reid's earrings switch colors in the middle of one scene and after Slater walks away from a dead comrade, you can see her begin to get up. <br /><br />As for the story... I was really lost. Something about an old tribe releasing darkness and someone "opens the path" or something and all the evil monsters pop out. It's just an excuse to have a lot of gun scenes (the technology is so advanced here that no character ever needs to reload in this film) that get, quite simply, BORING. <br /><br />I bought this movie hoping to laugh at how incredibly stupid it was. I didn't laugh, but I still think it's stupid. Very, very, very stupid.
First off I'd like to say that if I had to honestly rate this movie from a 1 to a 10, then I'd give it a -4. It's not that I'm a tough critic, it's just that this movie is THAT bad. Everything from the story, to the directing, to the editing is awful. The story is not even halfway decent to begin with (you can't expect much since it is based on a video game, something I was not aware of going into the movie) but the directing and editing made it even worse. The movie cuts at awkward points and goes to scenes that are completely unrelated to the previous ones; some, like a quick sex scene in the middle, don't even make sense being put into the story seeing as how the characters don't show any feelings toward each other. You could go into this movie expecting to see a pile of crap on the screen for an hour and a half and you'd still be disappointed. Honestly, if you pay to watch this movie then you are wasting your money, and if you don't pay anything then you are still wasting an hour and a half of your life. So do yourself a favor and don't watch it.
In 1967, mine workers find the remnants of an ancient vanished civilization named Abkani that believe there are the worlds of light and darkness. When they opened the gate between these worlds ten thousand years ago, something evil slipped through before the gate was closed. Twenty-two years ago, the Government Paranormal Research Agency Bureau 713 was directed by Professor Lionel Hudgens (Matthew Walker), who performed experiments with orphan children. On the present days, one of these children is the paranormal investigator Edward Carnby (Christian Slater), who has just gotten an Abkani artifact in South America, and is chased by a man with abilities. When an old friend of foster house disappears in the middle of the night, he discloses that demons are coming back to Earth. With the support of the anthropologist Aline Cedrac (Tara Reid) and the leader of the Bureau 713, Cmdr. Richard Burke (Stephen Dorff), and his squad, they battle against the evil creatures.<br /><br />In spite of having a charismatic good cast, leaded by Christian Slater, Tara Reid and Stephen Dorff, "Alone in the Dark" never works and is a complete mess, without development of characters or plot. The reason may be explained by the "brilliant" interview of director Uwe Boll in the Extras of the DVD, where he says that "videogames are the bestsellers of the younger generations that are not driven by books anymore". Further, his target audience would be people aged between twelve and twenty-five years old. Sorry, but I find both assertions disrespectful with the younger generations. I have a daughter and a son, and I know many of their friends and they are not that type of stupid stereotype the director says. Further, IMDb provides excellent statistics to show that Mr. Uwe Boll is absolutely wrong. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Alone in the Dark – O Despertar do Mal" ("Alone in the Dark – The Awakening of the Evil")
It should come as no shock to you when I say that Alone in the Dark is a crappy movie. To put it bluntly, it's as if a dung monster defecated, ate the result, and then vomited. The final product would still outshine this movie.<br /><br />Seemingly based on an ancient (!) Atari video game, the movie has something or other to do with a portal to the bowels of the earth, the unleashing of demons, and ancient civilizations. Something about there being two worlds, that of darkness and that of light. (Guess which one's ours.) Oh, and 10,000 years ago a really super-duper advanced civilization opened the portal, demons came over and had a blast, then wiped out the civilization. Which is why we've never heard of them, conveniently enough.<br /><br />Christian Slater, perhaps pining for the days of Heathers and Pump up the Volume, plays Edward Carnby, a paranormal researcher to whom Something Bad happened when he was 10 years old. He's hot on the trail of one of the artifacts of said advanced civilization. Carnby used to be part of a secret institution called 713, which has been trying to figure out what happened to that long-ago civilization. But Carnby believed he wasn't going to be able to find the answers he sought, so he left the group.<br /><br />But see, these beasties are out, and they get their prey in varying ways, such as gutting them, splitting them down the middle, implanting neurological control devices in them, or just turning them into killing zombies. Yes, it's another zombie movie.<br /><br />That's about as distilled I can make the plot. It's pretty convoluted and incomprehensible. In similar movies, one might see the intrepid researcher/adventurer figure things out a step at a time, and when we the audience are mentally with the researcher, it's a lot of fun. But when the scenes shift from attack to attack with no perspective or context... not so much fun.<br /><br />The acting is dreadful, save for Slater, who (although he almost seems embarrassed to be in the movie) showed he was capable of carrying the acting load. He had to; get this - Tara Reid is cast as a museum curator! Honest to goodness, I thought I'd seen the casting of a lifetime when Denise Richards was cast as a nuclear physicist in Tomorrow Never Dies. But Reid here matches Richards, crappy emoting for crappy emoting. Hightlights include Reid pronouncing "Newfoundland" as "New Fownd Land," Reid delivering most of her lines in a dazed, throaty monotone (kinda like she'd been on an all-night bender for the past week before filming), Reid - a museum curator, mind you - spending a lot of the movie in a midriff-bearing top and hip-hugger jeans. Oh yeah, she was as believable as Jessica Simpson giving stock quotes. Oh, why must the pretty ones be so dumb? (Note: I don't think Tara Reid's all that good looking. She looks like she's in perpetual need of food.) Almost everyone else in the cast is completely forgettable, except perhaps for Steven Dorff, who played Burke, one of the leaders of 713. Dorff's character wasn't terribly well developed, but nothing in the movie was, from the sets to the characters to Tara Reid. But I digress.<br /><br />Anyway, the perplexing and utterly preposterous storyline is tough enough to follow with the film moving at such a breakneck pace, but director Uwe Boll tosses in a pounding, mind-deadening soundtrack; it's so loud you can't hear what the actors are saying in some of the scenes! That can't be right. Given the acting level, however, perhaps thanks are in order to Mr. Boll.<br /><br />Oh, and a fun note. The opening moments of the movie include narration... of the words that are crawling across the screen at the same time. Remember the first Star Wars? You heard that now-familiar Star Wars theme while the prologue crawled. There was surely no need for narration; why do I need some doofus to read what's on the screen for me? Were the producers simply looking out for blind people? Maybe that also explains why the soundtrack was so loud - they were also looking out for hard-of-hearing people. Also, the narrator inexplicably had a lisp for the first few lines of the crawl - then lost it. Bizarre.<br /><br />Alone in the Dark is a loud, dopey mishmash of dreadful acting, an incoherent script, and ham-handed directing. Hardly a note rings true. There's so much chaos that the audience simply gives up caring about the characters and roots for their demise. Even in the dark, the demonic creatures seem cooler and much more developed by comparison.<br /><br />Ironically, since there were only three other people in the theater, I watched this Alone in the Dark. I wonder if Uwe Boll planned it that way? I can't quite give this the lowest rating, because I had low hopes for it to begin with - and because it never grabbed me enough for me to get worked up about it. It's atrocious, although Slater redeems himself a tiny bit.
I know I'm in the minority, but...<br /><br />Uwe Boll is about as talented as a frog. Not even a toad; just a frog. He's reminiscent of about a hundred other no-talent hacks who churn out one useless crap-fest after another. <br /><br />This movie? Is a crap-fest. Slater's talent is only minimally utilized leading one to believe he's got other things (like his failed relationship) on his mind. Reid performs as if she has either forgotten her acting lessons, been severely hit on the head and MADE to forget her acting lessons, or has one of the worst directors in the history of film. I'm voting on the third choice, myself, although the other two are always possible. <br /><br />Uwe Boll has never done a single thing from which I've derived even the slightest pleasure. Frankly, I'm satisfied that he made this stinker. I was concerned with Bloodrayne competing with "Underworld: Evolution" for ticket sales. Now, I'm confident that Len Wiseman has nothing, and I mean NOTHING, to worry about.<br /><br />This rates a 1.0/10 rating for this messy, convoluted crap-fest, from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.
Joyce Reynolds seems a might grown-up for the role of Janie, a boy-crazy sixteen-year old in small town America who ditches her steady guy for a visiting soldier AND winds up on the cover of Life magazine (smooching at a blanket party) all in the same week! Non-stop barrage of wisecracks, put-downs, bull talk, and unfunny bits of business such as Janie's little sister bribing family members, Hattie McDaniel (as the maid) constantly scuttling after sassy kid sis, Janie's mother involved with the Red Cross, and Janie's father trying to write an editorial on the problems with today's teenagers (as the parents, stuffy, sexless Edward Arnold and pert, chatty Ann Harding make an unlikely couple, even for 1944; he looks incapable of helping to conceive a child much less raising two of them). Nominated for an Academy Award (!) for Owen Marks' editing, Warner Bros. followed this in 1946 with "Janie Gets Married". Reynolds must have outgrown her co-horts by then--she was replaced by Joan Leslie. *1/2 from ****
It is considered fashion to highlight every social evil as a result of patriarchy and male dominance, however moronic this illogical 'logic' may be. However within the story and theme of the film, there is no grey area and the woman who should be called the film's antagonist, is the ''villain of the story''. Under no circumstances can what she did be justified. Sexuality of women is just hype in this case and has nothing to do with the actuality. It is betrayal of the ultimate sort. The man ended up spending his resources and time in the wasteful raising of another man's offspring. To top it all, the most feeble of arguments raised by the 3 'liberated' female characters in the climax is pathetic. A woman's sexual needs are no excuse for her to commit adultery and continually betray her husband and worse, there are no other children. So in essence his life has been wasted. In some societies where justice still prevails, such situations result in the execution of the unjust.
Bridges of madison county is a better made version of this story. I felt the ending of this movie was not handled sensitively as they did in the original English movie. This movie is very indianised, if you are a very sensitive person who cries in a movie when hero dies in the end you'll love this movie, On the other hand if you are a fighter in life and think crying is for wimps you may not like the ending.But on the whole it's pretty good subject is well handled for indian conditions. Tabu was good as a caring wife and mother. Everybody acted well.
In a movie that follows a struggling actor, played, evidently, by a struggling actor, this does no favours for Chris Klein. He struggles to bring anything memorable to the role and meanders on through the shallow script managing to display, what could only be described as, a bland leading man. The story exists, but that is all, and fails to show any basic start, middle and end and the viewer is left shrugging his shoulders feeling as though nothing in the past hour and three quarters has really happened.<br /><br />One bright light in the midst of this is Fred Durst, who manages to stand out above his seemingly averagely talented co-stars and does a semi-decent job of bringing the backward character of Legde to life. Whether Fred can re-create this when working with a higher calibre of cast remains to be seen but I'l be watching out for him in future.
Dumb is as dumb does, in this thoroughly uninteresting, supposed black comedy. Essentially what starts out as Chris Klein trying to maintain a low profile, eventually morphs into an uninspired version of "The Three Amigos", only without any laughs. In order for black comedy to work, it must be outrageous, which "Play Dead" is not. In order for black comedy to work, it cannot be mean spirited, which "Play Dead" is. What "Play Dead" really is, is a town full of nut jobs. Fred Dunst does however do a pretty fair imitation of Billy Bob Thornton's character from "A Simple Plan", while Jake Busey does a pretty fair imitation of, well, Jake Busey. - MERK
It's been a long time since I last saw a movie this bad.. The acting is very average, the story is horribly boring, and I'm at a loss for words as to the execution. It was completely unoriginal. O, and this is as much a comedy as Clint Eastwood's a pregnant Schwarzenegger! <br /><br />One of the first scenes (the one with the television show - where the hell are you?) got it right - the cast was 80% of let's face it - forgotten actors. If they were hoping for a career relaunch, then I think it might never happen with this on their CV! The script had the potential, but neither 80% of the actors nor the director (who's an actor and clearly should stick to being an actor) pulled it off. Fred Durst was the only one who seemed better than any of the rest.<br /><br />I'm sorry, but if you ever consider watching this - I highly recommend you turn to something less traumatic, because not only it's a total loss of time, but also a weak example of what bad cinema looks like.
Once big action star who fell off the face of the earth ends up in a small town with a problem with drug dealers and a dead body of a federal agent. Reuniting with some former co-stars to clean up the town.<br /><br />Low key, often to the point of blandness, "action" comedy mostly just doesn't work. Part of the problem is the casting Chris Klien as a former action hero. he's not bad, but he's really not believable as some one who was taken to be a tough guy. As I said he's not bad, he's just just miscast for what his back story is. The real problem here is the combination of the script, which really isn't funny and seems artificial at times, and the direction which is pedestrian to the port of dullness. There is no life in the way things are set up. Its as if the director had a list of shots and went by that list. It makes for an un-engaging film. And yet the film occasionally springs to life, such as the in the final show down that ends the film. That sequence works, but because the earlier parts of the film floundered its drained of much of its power.<br /><br />I can't really recommend the film. Its worth a shot if you're a fan of the actors or are a huge fan of independent cinema in all its forms, but otherwise this is just a disappointment.
Everybody just seems to be raving about the subject, and not really noticing how the movie was made. The deaf, mute guy is fine, the underdog wins - that's good, the cricket aspect is great, but the movie is average overall. I think it could be made much much better than it is.<br /><br />The plot is too predictable for a movie that is not based on a real life event. I'm sure the movie could have been made more interesting. The songs are just stuffed in there, and I had to literally forward the scenes where the same thing would be shown from different angles.<br /><br />Good acting, though. Watchable.
This is one of those movies that's trying to be moody and tense, and instead, ends up tripping all over itself. Having seen it at a queer film festival, I was intrigued by the "young college threesome gone wrong" write-up, however, over-all ended up quite disappointed.<br /><br />It's hard to critique a "true story" since there's not much that can be done about the plot - but I found this disjointed, melodramatic and wholly depressing. It's dark and almost sinister, painting a darn creepy flash of the seventies with imposing music and jerky close-ups. It just doesn't work - some scenes where so cheesy that instead of hushed awe, my audience was supressing snickers and rolling eyes.<br /><br />The story has an interesting premise, but this just spins downward into a dark, miserable spiral.
I basically found Eden's Curve to be a very poorly constructed that made it difficult to watch. However, there is something I must say about how the director captured something about the atmosphere of the early 70's in the choice of settings and clothing. The "back to the earth" philosophy and the interest in sexual exploration and drugs that was not dramatically decadent, as portrayed in many later versions of the 70's was right on, as was the "don't ask don't tell" pseudo-liberalism of the fraternity made up of east-coast intellectuals, except that I would have thought this was more likely of a New England school rather than one in Virginia, where I imagine the "good ole boy" mentality still dominated even elitist schools like this one. Another thing I appreciated and could relate to is that this was a time when homosexuality was not linked so much to leathermen or drag queens and I appreciated some homosexual roles not related to these terribly overused images. I felt it was very unfortunate that "gay culture" took on certain standard forms in the 80's out of Castro and Christopher Streets and these defined the movement and left out huge numbers of gay men that were more subdued in their lifestyles. I appreciated the film mainly as a way of remembering a more natural way we were about our sexuality and personal relationships without "the scene."
I saw this film at the NY Gay & Lesbian Film Festival and thought it was pretty bad. First and most distracting was the way much of it was shot; that is, a lot of slow motion and overly arty close-ups that seemed to have no point--story wise or aesthetically--other than to show the skills of the cinematographer (who I believe was also the director). This film seemed what a pretentious film student would come up with. The lead actor (Sam Levine) was certainly very cute, but was a mediocre actor at best; and the rest of the cast ranged from so-so, to bad. The story itself was mostly annoyingly predictable. I do have to concede that most of the audience seemed to enjoy the film; laughing and sighing constantly, but I disliked it a great deal.
I could not even bring myself to watch this movie to the end. I cannot comment on the story as I did not watch the whole film and the reason I couldn't watch it was because of the 'actors'. Firstly, for the most part they just looked stiff and I'm sure their scripts were in their hands just out of frame - but that's a minor issue. The main issue I have with the actors isn't really their fault... it's whoever cast this film! Come on, this movie came out in 2003... I thought that casting people in their late twenties to play teenagers went out of fashion with new wave?! I cannot watch a movie where one of the first lines, from a grown man older than myself, is "I'm 17!" How can anyone take that seriously????? Don't fall victim to this movie, go out for a walk for 90 minutes and you'll get far more than this movie could ever give.
This could have been a very good film, if I had been able to watch it. The hand held camera was very bouncy. From the opening credits I was worried. Several of us watching it felt very nauseous by the end. But we did stay until the end because it was such a charming and interesting film, giving some insight to the young pop culture in South Africa. The black and white film did enhance the artful feeling of it. The acting seemed very authentic. Some of the dialog was a little hard to understand, but a theater full of non-South Africans seemed to find most of it funny. If you get motion sickness at all though, you may seriously consider skipping this film. It's quaint, but not worth the nausea.
I so wanted to believe in this movie after the only form of mainstream comedy this country recognises is slapstick and stereotypes.<br /><br />Of course, it went completely the other way - let's be cool and edgy - and came out the other side with little to show for it. I bet One Small Seed went nuts for this. I know SL did.<br /><br />None of the main characters have the comedic chops to pull it off. Even Danny K had better timing. I'm actually being serious. Every time they introduced a bit character I kept thinking, "Darn, this person should have been the lead!".<br /><br />Independent doesn't mean that the camera work needs to be horrible. Black and white did nothing for this movie - actually with such flat dialogue it hurt this even more by bringing the boredom into sharp relief. The black and white also wasn't crisp. The composition was horrible. The use of music was horrible. Strangely enough I watched Little Miss Sunshine after this movie and the composition on that was superb - maybe that's why the deficiencies in this movie stick out in my mind.<br /><br />I think Corne (who was funnier than the leads before he even said anything) was speaking to this movie and not David - see it and you'll understand. I bet the guys who organise Oppikoppi were dismayed. One would think nothing happens there at all. I got the feeling it could have been filmed in someone's back garden. I know regular guys who have much funnier, raunchier and wittier conversations than any of these "comics". The dude who they hooked up with end was OK though.<br /><br />Guess SA comedy's gonna stay in the stone age a little longer. Nice work guys.
I totally agree with the review by a reviewer of Variety that the film is never quite as funny, lively or insightful about the creative process as its premise would seem to warrant. Narratively it is messy and the lighting is really problematic. If the film is supposed to be character-driven the poor lighting doesn't enhance the acting and it is sometimes difficult to observe the facial expressions of the actors. Many non-South Africans will have difficulty in following the spoken English in the film and some of the local humor will be lost in the process. I watched the film at the Cape Town World Cinema festival last year. Comments and reactions to the film ranged from unwatchable and sloppy to a welcome departure from the films about our painful past. Unfortunately Bunny Chow won't be remembered as one of the bright lights of the South African New Wave, but some of the remarkable films about our apartheid history will indeed be rated among our best in our 110 year old film history. Not surprisingly the film disappeared from cinemas in Cape Town only two weeks after its release and from most of the cinemas in Durban and Gauteng. It has clearly limited appeal among South African audiences.
This is the kind of movie which shows the paucity of French cinema when it comes to making thrillers.The director's desire to "sound American" is so glaring that you will not be fooled a minute,unless you have not seen a serial killer movie since "Peeping Tom".<br /><br />Two male cops (or one and a half,more like,as you will see),horrible murders,a plot more complicated than complex.Charles Berling is not lucky with the genre(see the astoundlingly dumb "l'inconnu de Strasbourg" a couple of years ago).The scenes with his pregnant wife -which are supposed to be a counterpart for the otherwise noir atmosphere of the rest of the plot-are among the worst ever filmed.Add a steamy love scene between them and a gory autopsy to get a PG 12 and thus to attract the huge adolescent audience.A violent and absurd conclusion,followed by a silent epilogue who could make a nice commercial for the côte d'azur,it's really the silence of the lame.
It's sort of hard for me to say it, because I so greatly enjoyed both "Targets" and "Paper Moon", but I thought "The Last Picture show" was a somewhat fascinating but overly self-indulgent film. Its main positive, as far as I'm concerned, is the stunning photography. But for me the film had nothing to offer beyond surface beauty (and a kind of hidden beauty, at that). The characters were very hard to relate to or to care about. Basically you had this very slow pace and this naturalistic style of acting, but it was all there to prop up a very formulaic and predictable story, complete with all the trappings one would expect from any small town melodrama -- everything from the boy cheating with his teacher's wife to the handicapped kid who everyone picks on. It was like "American Graffiti" without the joy of life.<br /><br />Some might say this film is more realistic -- nowadays a lot of people seem to think that realism is the only virtue a film can possess. But for me the film was simply oppressive, and I want to see it again about as badly as I'd like to spend a few hours in that miserable town the characters live in.<br /><br />Maybe this film really just belongs to its time -- perhaps if I'd seen it in 1971 I would have been impressed by its novelty, just by seeing something different on the screen. But that would basically assume that I had never seen anything like, say, Godard's "Breathless". Maybe the overt references to classic films would have appealed to the movie geek in me and helped me to overlook some of the film's weaknesses. But in the post-Tarantino world that hardly seems unique or special either.<br /><br />It is interesting though how he uses the films in the film to give his own film more depth. We see 3 films as I recall in the picture show. First we see Vincente Minnelli's "Father of the Bride" -- Liz Taylor's exquisite looks provide a contrast to Sonny's girlfriend and Minnelli's studied upper-middle class milieu contrasts to the character's "real life" surroundings in a similar way. Later, clips from Howard Hawks' "Red River" emphasize the theme of a broken friendship between a mentor and a protégé. It really just reminds me that Bogdanovich is kissing his own mentor's butt, much as he did if I remember correctly by selecting a Hawks film as part of his own on-screen reverie with Boris Karloff in "Targets". I guess in 1971 this kind of thing was new but looking at it today it just seems self-indulgent, like so much of the rest of this film.<br /><br />Ultimately, I'd rather see another film by Hawks, Ford or Minnelli than to have Bogdanovich's film remind us of why they were so striking in such a less-than-subtle way. Maybe he intends to remind us of the giants whose time had passed -- all he really does is remind us how small he and most of his contemporaries are in relation.
Many people see this as a classic, but I obviously must have missed something. Life in Anarene, Texas in the early 50's is pretty dull - which means that a movie about life in Anarene, Texas in the early 50's will be pretty dull too! What is it that so many people see in this? Once the last picture show in Anarene closes there really won't be anything to do in town. Duane (Jeff Bridges) makes that point at the end of the movie. But even before it closes there isn't much to do, so basically everything revolves around sex. High school students make plans for how to lose their virginity - sometimes with each other and sometimes with some of the equally bored adults in town. You see, there's not much for them to do either - except to have sex (sometimes with each other and sometimes with the bored teenagers) or to whine about the local high school football team. Three times something happened that I thought was going to add some spark of drama to the movie. Sam (Ben Johnson) dies unexpectedly, but nothing really happens because of that, Sonny (Timothy Bottoms) and Jacy (Cybill Shepherd) elope, but nothing really happens because of that, Joe Bob (Barc Doyle) kidnaps a little girl, but nothing really happens because of that. The only thing that added anything of dramatic value to the movie came at the end with the death of Billy (Sam Bottoms) which really points out the emptiness of life in this pathetic little town, as the men stand around looking at the body debating where to go for breakfast.<br /><br />Peter Bogdanovic filmed this in black and white, which is intended I suppose to point out how grey this town is, but the only thing I found interesting was the early look at actors like Bottoms, Shepherd, Bridges and Randy Quaid. (As an aside it was terrifying to see how much Quaid - in 1971 - actually looks like his character of Cousin Eddie in the National Lampoon Vacation movies.) Classic? I don't think so! 3/10
I'm not going to comb over TLPS's obvious peterbogdanovichian flaws. Instead, I shall take a look at the positive aspects of this overrated celluloid pygmy of a film.<br /><br />1. Peter Bogdanovich managed to make a movie that can be endured in its entirety. This fact alone places the movie high up above and all the way up to the top of his lame filmography.<br /><br />2. Bogdanovich had shown how amazingly generous some lucky boyfriends can be, by sharing Cybill Shepherd's (his then-gal) fabulous body and breasts with his male audience - and not just on one but on two occasions. Brava! The unquestionable highlights of this cinematic festa del siesta.<br /><br />3. TLPS has barely a scene without stereotypical country music doodling in the background. (Peter tried to make the obvious point that the movie is set in America's Deep South (as if it weren't bleedin' obvious) so he hammered that point on and on and on...) How is this an advantage, you might ask? Well, when the movie finally ends and the monotonous country music finally ceases massaging your tired ear-drums, you start experiencing a strange exhilaration: "The movie's finally over!" It's pure joy.<br /><br />4. The movie gives all women who look like Cloris Leachman hope. Hope that they, too, may one day snatch a much younger and maybe even good-looking boyfriend.<br /><br />5. Cloris Leachman's biography (which I realize isn't technically a part of TLPS) gives hope to all women that look like that, that they too may one day win a Miss Chicago beauty pageant. (Provided they have enough money to bribe the jury with.)<br /><br />(You think I'm joking abut Cloris having won a beauty pageant, huh? Well, check out her bio and then we'll see who laughs last...) <br /><br />6. The movie was shot in black and white which spared us the sight of Cloris Leachman's face in its original, natural non-glory.
A boring movie about a boring town in the 50's. How can anyone think this is a classic? The producer pretty much ended his career by pushing his girlfriend, Cybil Shepard, into several movies that were way above her acting ability. I think this movie gives an insight to how bad Peter Bogdonovitch's future movies were going to be. Cybil Shepard's career took a dive after being in several movies that Peter Bogdonovich produced. It wasn't until "Moonlighting" that her career started to come back. I thought the acting was poor rendition of the, "Graduate". I have noticed that this movie hasn't been shown in the US. The only place I have watched it was overseas in Europe late at night.
I gave this movie a very fair chance, and it betrayed me. This is very little more than a black and white excuse to bore the hell out of the audience even as the egotist Bogdanavich (who did way better with TARGETS) gets "great performances" out of a ton of hams in their debuts. Lots of teenage sex clichés come out of this movie, such as Doing the Teacher's Wife, Impotence, Doing the Ugly Prostitute(which is very awkwardly shot and grinds things to a complete halt, not that things were really going anywhere anyway) and skinny dipping.<br /><br />I suppose this movie is supposed to be funny because of all the sex nonsense, to me, it was just annoying. I was seriously much more entertained by cleaning my finger nails than watching this mess.
Black and White film. Good photography. Believable characters. <br /><br />Just awful.<br /><br />I have wasted another perfect evening watching a film that other rated as "worthy" and "very good." There is some good acting here and the back ground setting for the plot is good (more should have been done with this) but it is very slow to grow and never develops. It is totally bases on sex without much romance with much un needed nudity. More could have been done with the main characters. If you are looking for something to watch with you family this in not the movie and if not you will have trouble sitting through it. Though this film is long its only about 1 inch deep!
For getting so many positive reviews, this movie really disappointed me! It is slow moving and long. At times the story is not clear, particularly in the evolving relationships among characters. My advice? Read the book, it's a fabulous story which loses it's impact on screen.
After hearing raves about this movie for years, I finally decided to rent it and watch. Let me start by saying that I'm glad that the rental was free from the local library. This move was slow, boring, unrealistic and the plot made no sense. After 2 hours, I was ready to nuke that backwater Texas town and put the group of those characters out of their misery. I realize that taste is subjective, but believe me, I just do not understand all of the hype that I have heard about this movie. Dallas provided as good a detail of the life in Texas as this movie. Rent it only if you want to understand how movie studios can pay enough money to reviewers to convince the general public that a bad movie is good.
This is your only spoiler warning. What a sad state of our cinema when unprofessional junk like this is considered "Oscar worthy".<br /><br />I divide material into three levels. The first is the stage theatre. Here the viewer is stagnant and the power rests in the presentation of the actor and, most importantly, in the power of the writer. A good playwright is better than a good screenwriter because he or she knows the ways of words better. The best playwrights know how to create imagery that the barren stage cannot show.<br /><br />The second level is film. In this medium, a weaker writer can be used, but the viewer is not sitting in one spot the entire time. With film, the context can take the qualities of visual poetry and meaning in addition to strong writing. Furthermore, film can manipulate everday elements like sound and color in ways that are almost surreal.<br /><br />The final level is literature. In this context, everything is imagined by the author, translated onto paper, and then re-imagined by the reader. Far more detail can go into a novel than is conceivable for a film studio.<br /><br />This is why adaptations can go up, but never down. Novelizations are never better than the base film (see the dime-per-dozen ones at your local book store), whereas the film cannot convey the same power as the original book (Catch-22 and LotR). Movies can rarely be made into plays and plays can always be made into movies.<br /><br />As for 'The Last Picture Show', it fails. It is a film that should stick to the stage because the director is too stupid to shoot anything right. The characters talk the same and act the same, it's pure futility. Add to that an obnoxious soundtrack and you have an entirely unwatchable film.<br /><br />I saw this in my high school drama class with about 20 other wannabe thespians. The instructor raved about how sad the movie was. What is sad is how such stagnant work is considered depressing when the material itself is hilarious. Had this been in color the scenes of impotence, the pool party, and the old hooker would be considered great comedy. Look what Lucas did with 'American Graffiti' a few years later.<br /><br />The American secondary education system needs to start teaching ABOUT film rather than trying to teach WITH film. Two visually powerful downbeat films: Apocalypse Now and Barry Lyndon. Rely on them, not this. It's the 'Last' I want to see of it. 1 out of 5.
Florence Chadwick was actually the far more accomplished swimmer, of course. She swam the English Channel both directions. She swam from Catalina Island to the California coast. Marilyn Bell's is a sweet story, but the usual glorification of us Canadians in the face of a superior world. Another sample of our inferiority complex. Our political system works pretty well and the health system allows people not to die in hospital lobbies. That's pretty good. Better than Lebanon. What should we do about hockey though...? And curling. The notion of calling this a sport, of its inclusion in the Olympics...! ah, but we digress...
This little show is obviously some stupid little prequel/spin off of the original series.<br /><br />Compared to the live action series this show is utter crap. The live action show had intelligent jokes and story lines. While the animated series is basically a toned down bittersweet version for younger viewers to digest but i think maybe kids deteste this crap.<br /><br />The storyline in every episode is basically just Sabrina has some stupid and pointless dillemma and she uses magic to fix it. Thats basiclly the idea every episode. The most bizarre episode was when Sabrina uses magic to become Gem and Gem to become Sabrina. So then Gem becomes a witch and hypnotizes harvery to become her slave. This then leads to a bizarre yet rather interesting scene were Gem says "just adore me for now" and harvey get down on his hands and knees and starts kissing her feet like shes a god. (which is quite right since he's her mind control slave) But this stupid spin-off is not worth the time or the effort.
One can only assume that Robert Osborne is contractually obligated to express delight at even the least appealing films in the TCM library as this would explain him extolling the 'virtues' of this "charming" film during his introduction when I saw this on cable TV. Seeing as any old film on IMDb receives 'classic' status from a number of fawning amateur reviewers, I thought there was a dire need for a more honest review of this film.<br /><br />This is not your father's 'Shop Around the Corner'. For all my quibbles with 'You've Got Mail', it still outshines this as a remake in just about every way imaginable. For those who have seen the original, the flaws will only be all the more obvious.<br /><br />From one of the lamest Meet Cute sequences I can recall seeing (a sad slapstick attempt at 'humor'), this film gets off on the wrong foot and it never really gets back in step. This 'musical' only qualifies as one in the sparsest sense of the term. There are a sprinkling of instantly forgettable musical numbers and then there's Judy singing "I Don't Care" while flailing her arms around as if in a seizure. The Christmas song she sings in the store is probably one of her better numbers here. Miss Garland was wonderful in a number of musical films, but here she seems horribly miscast. The role was originally to have been filled by June Allyson and Judy is definitely unable to fill the shoes of Margaret Sullavan's old part. Van Johnson also turns in a rather bland performance as a second rate Jimmy Stewart type. The leads never achieve the chemistry of Stewart/Sullavan or even that of Hanks/Ryan.<br /><br />This is a film that knows (some of) the notes, but not the music. It doesn't really seem to understand why the original worked and even feels the need to add another possible love interest for Van Johnson's character to complicate things unnecessarily. The remake's substitution for the original's infidelity subplot is a hackneyed plot device involving a priceless violin. It is almost embarrassing to watch and feels as if it had perhaps been lifted from an episode of Three's Company by someone with a DeLorean and a flux capacitor. It's really just an excuse for a Keaton pratfall. Even the big resolution scene between the romantic leads is mishandled. After seeing both films, you'll understand why they called it 'the Lubitsch Touch' and NOT the 'Robert Z. Leonard Touch'.<br /><br />Avoid this and rewatch either the original film or one of Judy Garland's earlier films unless you're an iconoclast who enjoys seeing a once great star falling down to earth.
As has been noted, this formula has been filmed several times, most recently as "You've Got Mail", with Tom Hanks and Meg"Trout Pout" Ryan. Of the several versions, this is my least favorite. The problem i think is that the studio coasted on the Stars charisma, which doesn't quite cut it here.<br /><br />The chemistry betwixt the two leads never comes to a boil in this movie. There are no real sparks. Van Johnson and Judy Garland remind me of day old donuts, pleasant but bland. And when the leads are boring the rest of the movie can only follow. Judy in particular is disappointing. She looks like she has no neck! I don't know if she was having trouble with pain or something but she looks like a turtle trying to pull it's head into it's shell, all hunched up and everything. I couldn't figure out what Van Johnson was getting so hot about. I would have made a bee line for that cute violin player. And Van wasn't great either. I've always thought of him as a rather generic Hollywood leading man and he doesn't do anything to dispel that image here.<br /><br />If you're a fan of the stars or the early 1900's then you might like this movie. But there are a lot more entertaining romantic comedies out there, and they offer you much more than a mouthful of stale confection.
I rented this movie because it sounded pretty interesting but to my Horror this movie was the worst movie I had ever seen! I read the comment from Gumby-8 and he has to be a part of the cast or the crew. Unless Gumby-8 is a 4 year old child or some demented cult member no one in their right mind would think that this movie had any potential at all.<br /><br />I couldn't believe Gumby-8's comments. <br /><br />Quoting: "From the "Dune" inspired opening animation to the quick pace...this film keeps the eye moving and works so well that repeat viewing is not unexpected."<br /><br />The Animation is the only aspect of the movie that was interesting and the fact of that the film keeps the eye moving, well that's because you keep looking for any type of suspense. I mean give me a break Halloween was shot with a budget of $100,000.00 and a painted mask and also by the way became a cult classic. As far as "repeat viewing is not unexpected" I think he made a typo.<br /><br />Another quote from Gumby-8 the only Fan: "The acting is also a strong aspect of the film."<br /><br />With all due respect for the actors, their performance is nothing more than the respective talent of Robert Napton.<br /><br />The catchy Tagline: "Beware the hour between dusk and darkness"<br /><br />That's because there is no dusk or darkness in this movie.<br /><br />MPAA rating "Rated R for some violence/gore"<br /><br />The only gore you see is some red paint on a sheet over a dead body you never see. As far as I know it might be a clump of grass.<br /><br />In summation, I have seen horror flicks from the 50's, 60's and 70's. I have seen what I thought to be the absolutely worst and some that were very good. The director of this film either did not make any attempt, was asleep, or took a hit of acid. Whatever the case I think the actors deserve applause for trying to salvage a very poor job of direction. I would give this film a rating of .5 for a 'B' movie.
As a Mystery Science Theatre 3000 fan, I can withstand ANY motion picture that can be foisted upon me, but there is absolutely no reason for this.<br /><br />Rated "Super Action" in the Blockbuster Video section and given the dreaded "Restricted Viewing Sticker" I'm assuming these are the only methods that film maker (HA!) Robert Napton could use to get at least 4.50 from one unsuspecting person.<br /><br />Shame on you Robert Napton! Shame on you for exploiting these poor Mexican actors who you probably promised hopes for making it big in American cinema. You are a disgrace!<br /><br />There isn't one moment in this movie that holds the slightest bit of action. Did you use snot on these people? Oh, look, they're having a rave in a field! Like all 6 of them. And isn't that an Asian guy in the background? Why is it always daytime? Why did it take 1/2 of the movie to show anything.. and more importantly why did we watch the other 1/2?<br /><br />PS: You owe me 4.50.
This isn't cinema. It isn't talent. It isn't informative. It isn't scary. It isn't entertaining. It isn't anything at all.<br /><br />I got this because my cousin says, "Diablo! COOL!" Yeah, right. The only thing cool about this experience was the lone fact that I didn't buy it but rented it instead.<br /><br />It's shot like a bad soap opera. No wait. Soap operas at least LOOK professional...sorta. This? This looks like it was shot with someone's camcorder. It's horrid! Wretched! It sux.<br /><br />The cinematography is detestable! WHO IS this director anyway? I don't even care enough to look him up. He STINKS! The performances by these poor unsuspecting actors were far better than this crap-fest deserved.<br /><br />2.6/10 on the "B" scale. <br /><br />That registers about a 0.3/10 on the "A" scale from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.
It is one of the worst movies i've ever seen, but Hostel is definitely much more worse. This movie is more funny and ridiculous, than scary. I laughed most of the time when watched it. Low quality effects (when you gonna watch it, you'll understand what i'm talking about and HOW LOW quality is that), bad actors (i hear of them for the first time), and it seems like it's shot by an amateur camcorder (so it looks more like a TV show, than a movie). But at least i've had the patience to watch it till the end. Like comedies? Watch it. Wanna horror? Go watch Ju-On: The Grudge or some other good horror movie.<br /><br />If i'm talking about the Legend of Diablo, i don't even know if i can classify it to a Horror genre. Just some low-budget crap.<br /><br />I rate it 3 out of 10
The good news is a movie was made, drawing on a supposed Aztec myth and featuring an unusually Aztec-American (is such a word exists) cast. The bad news is, it was dead at birth.<br /><br />If Ed Wood had come out of retirement and coached George Romaro through his classic 'Night of the Living Dead,' this is what we might have come up with. 'The Legend of Diablo' is clearly fodder for any future resurrections of 'Mystery Science Theatre 3000!'<br /><br />I don't think one can even call this a 'B' movie. The production values are so abysmal that I kept getting the feeling I was watching either a lengthy skit from a variety show or a backyard 8-mm film shot by a group of school kids. <br /><br />SOME SPOILERS<br /><br />The basic plot line sounded interesting enough to lure me into renting it. A rural California sheriff finds a box containing an Aztec demon and accidentally unleashes it on the unsuspecting community. His daughters, one hot and one homely, team with a gringo FBI man and a priest, to try to re-cage the demon. <br /><br />Meanwhile, every zombie scene one has ever seen in previous undead movies is re-enacted-poorly. These zombies walk more like an army of Nutty Professors than the undead! The supposed infrared scenes from the demon's viewpoint are nothing special … and he/she/it sure seems to back up a lot (as opposed to turning around the moving forward). And the scene where the priest lures the demon out of the cave in fast-motion is ludicrous! It really, really appears to be done for comic effect-although I know it wasn't! I kept expecting the Benny Hill theme music to start playing & for the whole gang of zombies to start chasing the priest all over the beach!<br /><br />Of course the Darth Vader/Field of Dreams voice, calling the FBI agent becomes downright comical. Then again, so was most of this cheese ball! Robert Napton, director and writer of the screenplay, should win SOMEthing for this effort! (How about a lifetime blackballing, like the 'Hollywood 10?') This one, I now see, is rated 1.5 on a 10-scale. I fear this might be a tad generous! <br /><br />Is there anything good about this movie? Well, Lindsey Lofaso looks pretty hot as the younger daughter of the dead sheriff. This is probably why her homely older sister (Calvi Pabon) really ran away from home! Fred Estrado is reasonably decent as the FBI agent. I wonder if Mario Soto, who played Father Rodriguez, is the same Mario Soto who pitched for the Cincinnati Reds? If so, he should have stuck to baseball. In fact, they couldn't have done any worse if they had gone with a baseball theme and called it 'Demons in the Outfield!'<br /><br />If I find out this was actually a project for a community college cinema class, I will issue apologies. It might be good enough for a B or even B+ as long as the gang got the college's camcorder back to campus in one piece! 'The Blair Witch Project' proved that a cool, campy movie could be made on a shoestring. 'The Legend of Diablo,' though, didn't appear to have a shoestring OR shoes to work from! It was low-budget, low-talent, low-everything. The very final scene-and I mean about the final 10 seconds of the film-is the ONLY mildly creative or interesting moment.<br /><br />I paid $3.45 to rent this. I could have better spent it on a hamburger!
me, my boyfriend, and our friend watched this "movie" if thats what u wanna call it, and we agree with the last person, but we were stupid and bought the damn thing, we thought it really was about diablo so we bought it.<br /><br />we hate it Really SUXZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so beware: DO NOT BUY THIS THING THEY CALL A MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />we would return it, but don't no if anybody would want this stupid movie.<br /><br />oh and another thing, the shouldn't call it "The Legend of Diablo" they should of called it "Legend of Azar".<br /><br />and this movie is rated R????? this should not of even been not rated.<br /><br />we think that diablo would be crying his eyes out laughing at this stupid movie.<br /><br />this is a movie that would have been done by a Church.<br /><br />theses "actors" are never gonna become nothing because this movie.
This may be one of the worst movies to ever make it to production, ever.<br /><br />1. The most exciting part is the beginning, where the guy is walking... and walking... and walking (spoiler). There is about 15 minutes of just walking. How? <br /><br />2. Not to mention there's a lot of issues with the lighting, and it's almost like they even shot the night scenes during the day. <br /><br />3. The acting was TERRIBLE. It looks like they found a community theater (in Mexico)... and then took the people who were turned away.<br /><br />Please, for the love of everything holy, don't rent this movie. If you know someone who owns it, apologize to them. The director should be subject to punishment through the war crimes tribunal for foisting this on the public.
The small California town of Diablo is plagued with mysterious deaths after sheriff Robert Lopez unearths an ancient box.Legend has it that the box holds the sixteenth-century Mexican demon named Azar.FBI agent Gil Vega is sent to investigate the murders and joins forces with the sheriff's daughters,Dominique and Mary to fight with evil and bloodthirsty demon."The Legend of Diablo" is an absolute garbage.The film lacks scares and gore,the acting is amateurish and the direction is bad.The animation is the only one aspect of the film I enjoyed.I'm a big fan of indie horror flicks,for example I loved "Torched","Live Feed","Bone Sickness" or "Neighborhood Watch",unfortunately "The Legend of Diablo" is a huge misfire.Definitely one to avoid.
I cannot get past the message of this movie. It's laid out much too clearly to ignore, and it is obscene because it has lost its sense of what it's about. I haven't read the novel, but Pollack's film opens with a scene at a CIA-front organization in New York, which is broken into by two professional assassins, headed by Max von Sydow, who proceed to brutally slaughter the half dozen quirky staff members we've come to know and understand. The staff include an elderly female receptionist, a fussy elderly professorial guy who's toupee falls off when he is machine-gunned (is that a joke?), and, last, the beautiful Tina Chen who looks up from the copier, realizes she is about to be murdered, and says, pitifully brave, "I won't scream." Von Sydow replies sympathetically, "I know." These murders are completely unexpected, savage, unmotivated by anything that we are aware of, and graphic. It is a brutal scene. <br /><br />There is absolutely no way in which von Sydow and his henchman can be redeemed. And yet that is exactly what Pollack tries to do towards the end.<br /><br />After having killed these innocent good guys, von Sydow switches sides (because the other side is willing to pay him) and assassinates the evil mastermind behind a complicated intramural CIA plot. The script then turns him into a perfectly reasonable, sensitive human being. "It is better to live in Europe. Things are not so rushed." Or whatever. I swear I'm not making this up. Pollack wants us to believe that it is better to be an honest mass murderer than a crooked bureaucrat. That's the message. You should write it down in case you forget. Just exactly what kind of psychiatric shambles do you have to be in order to turn ordinary values, not to mention common sense, upside-down like that? I understand that there are thoughtful adults who dislike the government of the United States, even hate it, and who see conspiracies just about everywhere, providing a knee-jerk explanation for otherwise unexplainable events. I know that people who think this way exist because I number some of them among my closer friends. Nevertheless, at some point this dislike, this hatred, if it increases in intensity, must pass beyond politics or ethics and into the realm of the psychiatric. I don't for a moment believe that a man who murders people for money is better than a sinister government official. I don't care how suave and cultured the murderer is or whether he knows how to reach the Louvre on the Metro. Whoever is purveying that message needs either medication or meditation.<br /><br />I'd like to be able to argue that the production is as thoroughly rotten as its message, but I can't. It's quite well done. (In some ways that's worse, because it makes the film less dismissable.) Even New York City looks photogenic on the screen. And it's been a long time since I've thought of New York as photogenic. Robert Redford does an admirable job of projecting his character's initial shock and confusion, but then turns into a telecommunicational semi-genius. And, man, he looks just fine! His wardrobe is just right. Even his rimless glasses are becoming. And his peacoat. It's not everyone who can make a navy pea jacket look glamorous. He seems extremely handsome too, the swine. I want to look like that. I want to wear a denim shirt and a tie with such panache. Faye Dunaway is alright in her role but it's not too believable a role. Would anybody eagerly sleep with a guy who has just kidnapped her and is holding her at gunpoint? Even if he did look like Redford? Would anyone be emotionally wounded if, when this ambivalent relationship is about to end, Redford asked her not to tell anybody about what happened? Cliff Robertson is surprisingly good. He does one or two extremely good double-takes. The mailman is superb. The fight between him and Redford in a crowded apartment is exquisitely choreographed and, for once, we really don't know for sure how it will turn out, because Redford (a book reader after all) seems mismatched against the brute cunning of this hired assassin. This is one of John Housemann's final roles. A shame. He's a magnet on screen. And what an end to his life: a friend finds him lost, wandering the streets of New York, in a neighborhood he'd been familiar with for most of his life. <br /><br />Yes, the movie is very well executed, but I can't ignore that vicious, paranoid message. I have the same problem with Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will." Or her Olympic documentary in which the announcer is watching a foot race in which Jesse Owens is pulling into the lead and says ominously, "This Negro is dangerous."
1st watched 2/28/2006 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Sydney Pollack):-DVD version I watched titled "3 Days of the Condor"- So so CIA drama full of laid-back performances making for a very laid-back movie. The premise of the story revolves around 7 out of 8 members of a CIA research group being killed with Robert Redford's character, codename = Condor, being the one that was left. Who killed them and why? That's what Redford tries to find out while trying to not be the 8th victim at the same time. Along the way, he gets Faye Dunaway's character involved involved, originally because he needs a place to hide, and then she eventually helps him out after a little lovey-dovey time. This is one of a handful of innocent guy on the run stories but this one doesn't have a lot of suspense. The flat performances don't help and the finish doesn't seal the deal for the audience enough either. Despite having a good director in Sydney Pollack and a group of classic performers, the story and the performances are not what they should be and therefore the movie is not what it should be.
Generally I don't like films directed by Sydney Pollack ("The Firm" being somewhat of an exception) and I've never been a Robert Redford fan either. Still, I thought "Three Days of the Condor" must be good because of the number of praising comments it has received.<br /><br />Although the widescreen cinematography is quite pleasing for the eye and Max von Sydow does a nice job as the sinister professional killer, I found the whole affair tremendously disappointing. The film undeniably radiates paranoid atmosphere, but everything is ruined by the muddled plot which doesn't seem to make any sense.<br /><br />The film also contains one of the most unsatisfying endings I have ever seen which really leaves the viewer hanging in the air. And what can one say about that absurd romance between Redford and Dunaway? I'd much rather watch any of Hitchcock's films five times in succession than to sit through this piece of waste once more.
Being a big fan of Corman's horror movies I expected from his western a bit more than I got. Well, I was entertained all right. I had almost as many laughs as watching Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles.<br /><br />See the spectacle of mobile tire tracks on the prairie of the old west. You can kill time by counting them if there happens to be an otherwise boring scene going on. And the horses seem to have gears in them too, considered the fast-forward chases. See also the swinging bar room queens of the traditional wild west saloon doing a number that reminds of a certain fashionable dance from 1920's, here decades before the style was invented. Hope the saloon around them won't crumple.<br /><br />In the middle of all this mayhem the main actors do a decent job. Ireland, Garland and Hayes are all truly fine. A special praise for them for doing the best they could with the material that seems mostly having been lifted from 'Johnny Guitar', but doesn't quite impress the same way. But there is really nothing wrong with a laughable western like this. Just like a really bad old horror movie, it might fail one way but succeeds to give joy anyway. That is one of the reasons Corman's work appeals to me and that is why I dare to recommend you to experience this movie if you get the chance.
I'll admit that I don't expect much from a Roger Corman film. Generally, I expect a lot of walking and bad scripts. Yet in this case, I am pleasantly surprised.<br /><br />The Gunslinger is a story of a woman (played by the spunky Beverly Garland) who takes over as sheriff after her husband is brutally murdered. Ms. Garland is a pretty good shot herself, killing one of the murderers the next day at her husband's funeral. Her first task is to shut down the local bar that is violating the town curfew. The bar's owner is trying to buy land in anticipation of being bought out by the (hoped-for) railroad. However, Ms. Garland is a thorn in her plans, and the bar matron hires a man to kill Ms. Garland.<br /><br />Because of Ms. Garland's plays her role honestly and realistically, there is absolutely no temptation to go to Suzanne Somers "She's the Sheriff" jokes. With the exception of a couple of faux pas (the apartment door that opens OUT from the inside, jeep tracks, and the two horsemen waiting on screen for their cue to ride around a corner), the movie becomes quite passable as movie fare. However, Corman could not resist padding his film with horse riding scenes, much like he does walking in other films.<br /><br />Sterno says The Gunslinger is a horse opera worth your time.
- When the local sheriff is killed, his wife takes over until and is determined to clean-up the town. Not everyone in town, however, is happy with what she's doing. When the sheriff orders a curfew in town, the local saloon owner (also a woman) hires a killer to take care of the sheriff. There's no way the saloon owner could know that the sheriff and the killer would fall in love.<br /><br />- Gunslinger is an example of what happens when you have a fairly interesting concept and combine it with poor execution. There's a good movie here somewhere trying to get out. In more capable hands or with a larger budget, Gunslinger might have been an entertaining look at the role of women in the Old West. As it is, Gunslinger is a sloppy mess of a movie.<br /><br />- There are just so many things wrong with the movie: a supporting cast with no acting ability, stilted and unnatural dialogue, and sets that look like sets. But the biggest offender is the editing. I was amazed at how many times a scene would begin with the actors (and horses for that matter) obviously waiting for Corman to yell "Action". The best is the scene of two riders on horseback just standing beside a building. All of a sudden, they take off and come racing around the corner like they had been riding hard for several miles. Or, take the example of people who can seemingly transport themselves across town. We see a man enter a building and a second later emerge across town to mount his horse.<br /><br />- It's not as if Corman didn't have a few decent actors to work with. While none were great stars, Beverly Garland, John Ireland, and Allison Hayes were all capable of turning in a good performance. But, in Gunslinger, they're not given much to work with.<br /><br />- I have now seen both the MST3K and non-MST3K versions of the movie. I would strongly recommend going the MST3K route.
Beverly garland was born in the wrong time. She was an actress ahead of her time, bringing power and grace to even such lame flicks as the Corman films she starred in. In Gunslinger, she's the town sheriff's wife. He gets offed, so she takes over his job to pursue his killers. She's better than the material she's working with, by far. The movie is gray, stilted, and mostly boring. There's some(unintentional)humor with the tire tracks everywhere, people running behind one building to emerge suddenly in front of another (I've heard of false fronts, but this is ridiculous!), and the truly stupid plot line of the newly widowed sheriff falling in love with the guy hired to kill her. Even if she hadn't loved her husband, it had only been something like a week or two since he'd died! And she ends up shooting the guy to death in the end, anyway. No luck with men, this one.<br /><br />The villain of the piece is another woman, the saloon owner. She's scheming to buy up a bunch of land just in case the railroad goes through and makes her rich. Her plan of action if it doesn't is pretty lame-she'll just steal as much from the town as she can and skedaddle. Hell, it's just her and her hired gun at the end against an entire town. Are you telling me these people aren't armed? Look what happened in real towns of the Old West when bank robbers came in to rob the bank, then were cut down in a hail of bullets by the armed and dangerous town folk.<br /><br />There'a a lot of pointless talking and riding around, interspersed with a few lame shoot outs. The ending is as grim as usual in a Corman flick, although thank goodness it lacks the moral proselytizing at the end that was in It Conquered the World. The sheriff turns over her badge to Sam Bass and rides off into the sunset, although the movie was so gray that you never saw the sun.
I guess that "Gunslinger" wasn't quite as god-awful as most of the movies that "Mystery Science Theater 3000" shows, but westerns just aren't Roger Corman's forte. Portraying Rose Hood (Beverly Garland) becoming sheriff in an Old West town after her sheriff husband gets murdered and having to fight off baddies, the movie is pretty predictable. John Ireland is Rose's new hubby, secretly working for unctuous Allison Hayes (yes, the 50-foot woman). Also appearing briefly is frequent Corman co-star Dick Miller as a mailman (Miller nowadays stars in Joe Dante's movies).<br /><br />I do wish to assert that you'll probably want to watch the "MST3K" version to really enjoy this movie. They had a great time with it.
Sure it takes place in the west, but the title makes it seem like it is a conventional western. Instead, it is a movie of a woman sheriff. Make no mistake though this is a bad movie about a woman sheriff. She becomes sheriff when her husband is gunned down; she is only a tad bit upset by this. Her main goal is to go after the villain who is also a woman, but the villain hires a guy to kill her. So this is what happens, the hero falls in love with the killer and vice versa. Utterly stupid, as anyone killed in this movie has the new sheriff to thank. She had more than a few chances to put the killer behind bars, but I guess because she liked him she wouldn't do it. The killer is also after the mayor of the town for personal reasons that are also rather dumb. This movie is very boring and not really worth watching...it is not one of the better episodes of MST3000 they made. I can not imagine anyone seeing this without them because that would make it that much more painful. Corman is a low budget director, but even he should know better than to have people go into one place and coming out another.
I'll be blunt. I'm not one for politically correct movies where the woman plays the bad ass who's not going to take any crap from anyone. If any one of the cast members wanted to, they could have just taken her out in a heartbeat. It was entertaining on MST 3K, but don't rent the real version. Trust me. Have I ever lied to you?
One of the other commenters mentioned that they almost walked out. If I hadn't been with my wife, who wanted to stay, I would have left. It's a shame, too, because I think it could have been a good movie. But this is easily one of the worst adapted screenplays I've ever seen. It starts out nowhere and it goes nowhere (I would say it goes nowhere fast, but it really goes nowhere slow...painfully slow). From time to time there are hints that something interesting might happen, or that there is potentially some depth underneath one of the characters, but that's all we get - hints. There is not a single payoff or revelation in the entire movie. Not that I need a slick plot to be entertained...I love a good meandering character study as much as the next indie buff. But these characters add up to nothing. For the entire duration of the film you don't care what happens to a single one of them. As a matter of fact, you almost start hoping they die, because at least a death might be more interesting than watching their inexplicable behavior, which is so strange and unpredictable that you'd think it in itself would be compelling, but it's not. Instead of quirky, noir-esquire characters acting in hard-boiled fashion, you simply recognize it immediately for what it is: a bunch of talented but miscast actors, brooding and raising their eyebrows while reading bizarre dialogue without a hint of relevant context. All this for two plodding, painfully slow hours. Awful.
This is a movie that demonstrates that mood and music and texture aren't enough to make a good film. Sure, the viewer is treated to numerous fine scenes of Los Angeles in the thirties--I especially liked the view of the trolley approaching the tunnel, and the tram rising up the hillside--but in a sense this fine cinematography is self-defeating, because it creates a mood that "something's going to happen"--and nothing does. The script too keeps feinting toward some plot or action or trauma--and time after time not delivering. Not even delivering the (I assume) theme of the movie, the characters' essential misfit. The lead actors, both too pretty for their roles, didn't convey any repression or agony, and the script didn't expose us to any.<br /><br />Now, Donald Sutherland? That's another story. His character was so well fashioned, so perfectly played, that I wanted the camera to follow him.
This movie proves that good acting comes from good direction and this does not happen in Ask the Dust. Colin Farrell is usually a fine actor but in this he is juvenile. Donald Sutherland comes across as an amateur. Why? Because the script is awful, the adaptation is awful and the actors seem bored and half hearted. The atmosphere of the movie is bad - I could only think when it would finish and I turned it off half way. The director has done a very poor job and even though I have not read the novel it is certainly a missed chance. The atmosphere this film is trying to evoke and the message and storyline never reaches the audience. In one word, it is a TERRIBLE film.
A friend told me of John Fante last summer after we got into a conversation about Charles Bukowski. I did not know that Fante was a favorite writer of Bukowski's - an author with similar edge and humor except from one generation earlier. 'Ask the Dust' was the first Fante book I read, and it remains one of my favorite novels. The novel was a brilliant piece of writing about a sad, frightened young writer posing to himself and the outside world as an overconfident, masterfully talented author who had no idea how to write about the real world experiences he had none of. In the novel the protagonist is a virgin, with no idea how to win the graces of the women he desperately wants to write about in magazines. The story of his bizarre relationship with Camilla, how he settles for his first sexual experience with a 'wounded' admirer, and how he eventually is left with nothing but the story of his failed attempts at love is biting and real, with no touching Hollywood ending. The film adaptation stays true to the book for a while, but meanders into the cinematic trap of love persevering through racism, sickness and death. The heart of this story lies in the fact that Bandini is a jerk and Camilla is f-ing crazy, and their love never was and never would be the real thing, no matter how much either of them wanted to find it in each other. This movie tore out the real meaning of the story out and replaced it with schlock. I can't believe the man who wrote Chinatown could read this book and make a movie about it that got it so wrong.
It must have been excruciating to attend the dailies as the shooting continued on this failure of a film. Probably Cruise, the Exec. Prod., saw what was happening and had Towne use much, much more of the nude footage in the final cut then Towne wanted to, to make up for the disaster he saw looming.(Maybe Cruise even thought of "Titanic".)A few items: Colin Farrell can't act his way out of a paper bag. But he's one of the flavors-of-the-decade, a producer's darling and one is forced to avoid the embarrassment of watching him by not attending his films. He has so many moments of not believing in what he's doing and you can see it in his eyes. I think he would have been at his best as a film actor, albeit not as rich or famous as he is now, playing second banana to dynamic leads who can act. The trap of spending a lot of money for period sets, costumes, cars, et al and photographing them as if they just came from the dry cleaner or car wash/wax. No one seems to want anything to look, well, worn. Or dirty. Is this because the production designer was told by the line producer to make sure they didn't ruin the stuff because then the company wouldhave to pay for the ruined items?<br /><br />This was a story about the depression-thirties folks, not a Disney Broadway musical about that era. How about doing it in black and white or better yet, given Caleb Deschanel as your D.P., have him desaturate the colors during the mix to suggest some of the actual grime and poorness of the times. It should have been, after all, a bit depressing to live so desperately as these folks did, in the Depression. More on Farrell. Did anyone for a moment believe this guy was a writer? H.L. Mencken on the wall; did I see his eyes roll at one point? Hayek and Farrell as a sexually dynamic duo? Sending a boy to do a man's work? Perhaps in the book, which I haven't read, the story was about an older woman and a youth. I cannot delve too deeply into the middle to latter parts of the film because I bailed out early on. But the memory of the scenes I did see made me think that someone was doing a not-too-amusing parody of a noir movie. Sort of what Saturday Night Live has been like for the past decade: not funny. (In my mind I kept thinking of a Guy Noir sketch, music and all.)
I love the depiction of the 30s and 40s in film. I love Salma Hayek. I was more than ready to love this picture. but . . .<br /><br />BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ! ! ! !! ! <br /><br />No sir, nothing good about this. The only entertaining aspect for me was Colin Farrell's character is an insecure writer and this screenplay, despite tackling the juicy subject of racism, approaches the audience in the fashion of an ABC Afterschool Special.<br /><br />The only person who didn't sound like he was "acting' was Sutherland, and his minutes were few.<br /><br />Stale approach to a tired plot.
A film starring Salma Hayek and Colin Farrell, two respected and talented actors, sounds like a great idea. An independent film sounds even better. The studios will control less of the content allowing the actors and writers and director more creativity.<br /><br />But then why is this movie so bland? Ask the dust.<br /><br />This film assumes right off the bat that we are deeply invested in the characters. No one is given a proper back story, so we don't ever know why the characters act the way they do.<br /><br />Explanations for physical and emotional scars are left to our imagination, if you still have one left at the end of this movie.<br /><br />I told a friend that I went to see this film, and that I thought it was awful.<br /><br />Her question: "Not even Colin Farrell could save it?" My response: "Not even Colin Farrell's ass could save it."
"Ask the Dust" looked intriguing from the trailer, and we especially like all of the actors. Unfortunately, the movie was not compelling enough to be considered drama, and it wasn't funny enough to be a comedy. It practically seemed to satirize itself, and to no entertaining effect. After seventy minutes of waiting for this thing to get better, my wife and I walked out, valuing not having wasted any more time on such nonsense. It simply was not interesting, moving, funny nor artistic. It appears as though it were written, produced and directed by a high school kid; worse yet, it was such a shameful waste of otherwise extraordinarily talented actors, not to mention our time and money.
Given the history of the director of this movie, it is hard to believe that this was such a painfully bad movie to sit through. I was at the European premiere last night and one of the Executive Producers was there. He was yet to see the movie and, boy, was he in for a surprise. I have not read the book that this is based upon, nor do I know if it highly rated or appreciated, but I have read "Captain Correlli's Mandolin" and given how poorly that was adapted for screen and how bad this movie was, I can only presume that something similar has happened here. The acting wasn't bad albeit that there were a couple-too-many raised eyebrows from Farrell. Honestly, I can't believed how little I cared for any character in this movie. Situations play out on the screen in an empty sequence of nothingness. Donald Sutherland's part comprises a few scenes where he opens a door, says something and closes it again. I kept looking at my watch when I wasn't cringing at the dialogue on the screen. I have never walked out on a movie but I was tempted to start during this. I gave this movie a score of '2' for reasons which seem horrendously shallow to me but these are the best things that I can say about this movie. The first is that I really enjoyed the all-too-short earthquake scene and the second is that Salma Hayek got naked and looked beautiful. I can say little else positive about this movie. Don't ask the dust anything, it can't talk!
I don't like this film, but then I didn't think much of the book either which, although lauded by many as a "masterpiece", I found lacking in character development and disjointed and illogical in plot, although it was far more readable than Fante's dreadful first effort "Road to Los Angeles" not published until Fante became fashionable in the mid 80s.<br /><br />I was intrigued to see what sort of soup Towne would make with such meager ingredients. He has worked hard script-wise to repair the many shortcomings of the book but for my money didn't rescue it. There was never a movie in Ask the Dust while ever he tried to stay faithful to the book. I consider this film Towne's folly.<br /><br />In a word: forgettable.
The 1930' were a golden age of Los Angeles with its film industry and great potential of various other possibilities to become rich and famous and happy. People were arriving there hoping to fulfill their dreams. Expecting open arms and welcoming offers there were only a few who managed to succeed and find their way to stardom, majority then condemned to live starving, disillusioned and unwanted, searching for a bit of respect in dirty bars and nasty hotel rooms. <br /><br />Young Italian-American writer Arturo Bandini arrives to LA on a similar quest - to spread his charms around to get one of those beautiful wealthy women and to write an excellent novel that would set him on a career path, having so far written a single short story published in an obscure anthology. Wishing to create a romantic masterpiece he seems to be unable to produce anything without experiencing it himself though, occasionally, he sends pieces of magazine stories to a local editor that helps him survive. He is proud to present himself as an Italian but deep in his heart he truly feels his Italian origin as a burden. The little money and the courage to conquer the world he once had are all long gone and watching his dream turning into a hangover he holds a last single nickel to spend. <br /><br />The coffee she brought him was cold and sour and spitting a curse on her triggers a never-ending relationship of insults, unspoken excuses and a love concealed beneath. Camilla being an uneducated girl trying to receive US citizenship through a marriage also carries her heavy cross of a non-perspective racial heritage. Though she is much of a stronger and life experienced person her situation as a beautiful Mexican woman is much harder to deal with than Arturo is able to realize. <br /><br />Is it obvious that Arturo eventually finds his inspiration to work on the novel? Is it possible that their love finally finds its place in the sun? Is it likely that their romance takes an unlucky turn?<br /><br />It is very surprising to find out that the chemistry between the two main characters, performed by Salma Hayek and Colin Farrell, does not work. The relationship lacks the raw and authentic feelings. Hayek though livelier a character compared to Farrell's forgot to arm Camilla with the passion and strength of her once brilliant character Frida. Also it is hard to have faith in a character which being intelligent but uneducated and illiterate uses quite difficult vocabulary and complicated sentences. A tougher character of a Phil Marlowe sort would definitely suit Farrell better, though he looks stunning in a period costume, he seems very lost trying to find the fragile world of a twenty-year old dreamer balancing between a hidden love and desire to be true to himself. <br /><br />Feeling embarrassed watching the two on the screen is not right. Their relationship might have been wild but it is more likely what a thunder and a lightning are without a storm, far from real passion, feelings just described not felt inside. It is very sad that such a potential of an interesting script and good actors was wasted, turned into a grey average of soon-to-be-forgotten.
This film is based on the novel by John Fante. Could someone please tell me why? I see absolutely no reason why this fine book should be adapted in this way. If you want to make a romantic melodramatic Hollywood production with Colin Farell and Selma Hayek, then how could you possibly make a connection to Ask The Dust (the novel)? -And if you wanted to make this story into a film, then why would you want to make it into a romantic melodramatic Hollywood production with Colin Farell and Selma Hayek? I don't get it.<br /><br />The adaptation of the story is poorly made, and if you have read the book and liked it, I'm almost sure you won't like what Towne did with it. <br /><br />In the beginning of the film you'll maybe find the casting odd, the acting bad and the cinematography just a bit overdone. But you hope for the best. I really hoped a lot during this film. I actually wanted it to be good. But it only gets worse, and it is as simple as that: Whether you read Fantes novel or not, this is not a good film. Just another romantic melodramatic Hollywood production combined with bad acting, lack of structure and - of course - plenty of shots of Colin Farells naked butt.<br /><br />I could complain a lot more about this film, but why waste my time. I've seen it. Alright. I had to see it, because I like the book so much and was curious. And I'm very disappointed.<br /><br />1/10 is for Colin's sweet little mustache in the end of the film. So sweet... Had he worn it the whole time through, I'd given it 2/10.
Gorgeous bodies, gorgeous colors and camera work, pretentious dialog, banal plot. The name of the prima donna, Camilla, and the eponymous flowers that appear frequently, are enough to remind us of the plot similarities from Dumas' novel La Dame aux Camelias, the movie Camille starring Garbo and (I think) Robert Taylor, and last but not least Verdi's opera La Traviata. Beautiful, not-too-virtuous young ladies, social outcasts for one reason or another, loved, split up, reunited just in time to die of tuberculosis in the last scene... One forgives banal plots and stupid unrealistic dialog in opera, but why waste Hayak, Don Sutherland, a beautiful rendition of LA in the 30s, a deus ex machina earthquake that conveniently kills the other woman, and all that beauty on this mediocre turkey where there isn't even any beautiful singing?
What do you expect when there is no script to begin with, and therefore nothing that the director can work with. Hayek and Farrell, and Donaldson and Kirkin are good actors, they just don't have anything to say or anything to react to. Even the earthquake was pretty poor. And I don't know how closely the movie follows the novel, but two have the Jewish girl show up out of nowhere just so show that Arturo has a nice, warm heart, but some stereotypes don't amount to anything. And he even buries Camilla out in the desert, instead of bringing her back to L.A. for a nice Catholic burial where he could at least bring her flowers once in a while. Pathetic. And the L.A. set was ridiculously graphically created. Anything good? The window to his apartment felt real, the curtains, the sounds, the wind. And Donaldson is always great. Has been since the Body Snatchers or Night of the Living Dead, whichever it was.
A warning to potential viewers: if you are looking for an adaptation of the classic story "The Most Dangerous Game," look elsewhere. "Seven Women for Satan"<br /><br />only superficially addresses the original work by using the name of Zaroff and having said character murder people.<br /><br />Some of what follows might be considered by some to be spoilers. Or not.<br /><br />Boris Zaroff is played by writer/director Michel Lemoine. Whereas his ancestor hunted men because they were the only prey that were truly challenging, Boris' victims are usually in a position where they cannot defend themselves. The film rambles from scene to scene with a near-total lack of clarity. The director seems to have totally disregarded pacing and left the viewer with a suffocatingly dull film. A few individual scenes are mildly interesting (such as a torture rack sequence), but as a unit, the film fails to entertain. Viewers who are more<br /><br />interested in an assortment of attractive and semi-attractive actresses in various stages of undress might find the film watchable. Most will probably find their time is better spent watching Mentos commercials.<br /><br />In a side note, the DVD extras included a fair amount of information on the film's history. Apparently, it was banned for several years in its native France which pretty much ruined any chance it had for widespread distribution.
You just got to love opening sequences like the one in "Seven Women for Satan" … During the intro there's a naked girl running through the woods, chased by a hunting dog and a malignant looking dude on a horse, until she falls off a cliff and splits her head open on a rock. Then the camera zooms out on the face of the guy and we notice how he's simply sitting behind a desk whilst his secretary waiting for him to sign some papers. "Oh I'm sorry, I was lost in my thoughts…" he then says! Sweet, I have stumbled upon yet another completely bonkers movie. Even if you only understand a minimum of French and have a look at the original title, you immediately know that "Seven Women for Satan" hasn't got anything to do with Satan or ritual sacrifices, but simply revolves on the flamboyant escapades of a perverted and mentally unstable count during his weekend in the countryside. This is, in fact, another sleazy variation on the classic milestone "The Most Dangerous Game" about a lunatic's disturbing hobby of hunting people – preferably hot naked chicks - in the forest for sports. Well actually, this is more than just a variation on the 1932 classic, as writer/director/actor Michel Lemoine had the pretension to directly link his protagonist to Leslie Banks' legendary villain in "The Most Dangerous Game". Count Zaroff supposedly is the original Count Zaroff's son but he exchanged his private island for the remote French countryside. He also can't afford to be unemployed anymore, so he's an office clerk from Monday to Friday and a maniacal killer during the weekend. Zaroff is a genuine weirdo who hallucinates about dancing with deceased woman but actually runs his car over the live ones. His butler once pledged to prevent the Zaroffs from killing, but he's obviously doing a lousy job. There isn't any depth in the screenplay and the build-up certainly doesn't pay attention to suspense or sinister atmosphere. Really, the only useful thing to do during this film is count the girls that are lured for Zaroff's deceptive trap and hope they'll reach seven rapidly. Half of the film is pointless and tedious padding footage, like the overlong erotic dance act in which a statue inexplicably transforms into a muscular black guy (???), and the other half exists of psychedelic sleaze that eventually grows tiresome as well even though all the girls look ravishing. I have the impression that it was Michel Lemoine's intention to imitate his pal Jean Rollin and make a deliriously kinky sex-thriller. "Seven Women for Satan" is a French production, so inevitably it also stars Jess Franco regular Howard Vernon ("The Awful Dr. Orloff", "Zombie Lake"). Lemoine himself surely has the looks of a crazy killer, but not the talent to depict one.
Summer Holiday is the forgotten musical version of Eugene O'Neill's Ah Wilderness and deservedly so with the Broadway musical adaptation of Take Me Along. With the exception of the Stanley Steamer song, none of the other Harry Warren-Ralph Blane songs are worth remembering and even that one is questionable. <br /><br />It was right after the release of this film that MGM let Mickey Rooney go and I don't think it was a coincidence. The film was made in 1946 and released in 1948, so Mickey was 26 playing an Andy Hardy like teenager. He was just way too old for the part of the 17 year old who was affecting radical ideas in a spirit of youthful rebellion.<br /><br />Rooney made four films for MGM from 1946 to 1948, this one, Killer McCoy a remake of Robert Taylor's A Crowd Roars, Love Laughs at Andy Hardy and Words and Music. In all of them Rooney was playing an adult part. Even in the Andy Hardy film, Mickey played an adult Andy Hardy returned from World War II. Why he was in this Louis B. Mayer only knows. <br /><br />Rooney's bad casting makes Summer Holiday all the worse because in the original Ah Wilderness the emphasis is on the father's character played here by Walter Huston. And in the Broadway show Take Me Along which won a Tony Award for Jackie Gleason, the Great One played the inebriated brother-in-law Uncle Sid here played by Frank Morgan and that's the central character.<br /><br />Gloria DeHaven steps in for Judy Garland as Rooney's sweet and adorable girl friend and Marilyn Maxwell plays the show girl who gives Rooney an adult education. In the original play O'Neill has her as a prostitute, but this was the Hollywood of the Code so all Marilyn does is get young Rooney soused.<br /><br />A lot of really talented people had a hand in this one and they do their best, but Summer Holiday fades rather quickly into a chilly autumn.
I love watching early colour films - you mean those 40s clothes weren't all grey? <br /><br />Margaret Rutherford dominates this movie. Her "eccentric" garb is actually rather attractive and yes, she has an amazing hourglass figure. But I feel she was given her head rather too much. She probably developed this characterisation over many performances, and nobody told her "If it gets a laugh, leave it out." She does too much deranged fooling about when she's supposed to be surprisingly down to earth. The Madame Arcati joke is that mediums were usually portrayed as wispy females in long drapery. Arcati behaves like a retired headmistress (We'll really put our backs into it!). The contrast between her breezy, commonplace manner and her wacky beliefs isn't really brought out.<br /><br />Just because all the actors are English (apart from Cummings), the Americans feel they have to use the words "Brit", "stiff", "lip" and "upper". Oh, give it a rest! The three main characters lose their tempers constantly and make risqué remarks (Did he make love to you? Yes, but very discreetly - he was in the cavalry!).
I recently saw the Broadway revival of "Blithe Spirit" starring Angela Lansbury, Rupert Everett, Christine Ebersole, and Jayne Atkinson. It's a terrific production, and shows what good actors can do with a play that is less than perfect. Angela Lansbury is extremely funny as Madame Arcati.<br /><br />It was probably a mistake, then, to check out the film version of the play starring Rex Harrison. The movie does not have the energy or the laughs of a good stage production.<br /><br />"Blithe Spirit" is probably one of those plays that works better with a live cast, in an audience full of people who have come to laugh. The actors can improvise, give touches and nuances to their performance and delivery of the lines, and involve the audience on a personal level that you can't get in a movie house, or with a DVD showing, where the audience is separated from the story by the "Fourth Wall." The story: Charles Condomine (Rex Harrison), a successful writer, lives with his wife Ruth (Constance Cummings) in a house in the English countryside. Seeking information for his next book, a book dealing with the supernatural, Charles invites Madame Arcati (Margaret Rutherford, reprising her role from the original 1941 London production), a local spiritual medium, over to his house to conduct a séance. Charles believes that spiritism is a sham, but hopes to pick up "the tricks of the trade." But then Madame Arcati brings back the ghost of Elvira (Kaye Hammond), Charles's first wife, who died of pneumonia seven years ago. Elvira refuses to leave, and develops a spitting rivalry with Ruth over Charles (complicated by the fact that only Charles can see or hear Elvira).<br /><br />On stage, the actors can give performances that invite laughs in this situation. But on the screen, the actors in "Blithe Spirit" tear through the lines as if they don't know that anyone is listening to them. They mumble lines that were designed to get laughs on the stage. The performances by Harrison, Cummings, and even Kaye Hammond are flat and lifeless. Only Margaret Rutherford seems to have retained her spark and humor as Madame Arcati.<br /><br />The Oscar-winning visual effects in the film are unimpressive -- not just by today's standards, but by the standards of 1946! They consist mostly of Kaye Hammond walking around in fluorescent green outfits and makeup, being photographed in special lighting to make her look like a glowing ghost.<br /><br />The cinematographer deserves some credit for creative lighting. But compare the dull visual effects of "Blithe Spirit" to the truly groundbreaking effects in Disney's "Song of the South" -- which was eligible for awards the same year. In "South," humans and animated characters share the screen seamlessly for minutes at a time. Compared to "South," the Oscar that "Blithe Spirit" received for special effects was completely undeserved.<br /><br />At any rate, I can only encourage you to catch the Broadway revival of this play with Angela Lansbury before it closes. As for the movie with Rex Harrison, skip it.
David Lean's worst film. Even 'In Which We Serve' was'nt as bad as this. Usually a film with a really good reputation like this one, has at least some redeeming qualities, which makes one understand why it might be considered a classic. But after watching this I just could not get why this piece of crap was liked so much even back in 1945! I disliked the acting, stiff upper lip British mannerisms, story, script (which may be quite witty at times but totally unfunny) and soundtrack. The elvira character is meant to be alluring and attractive, but was in actual fact ugly and had a weird and annoying voice. Just another film that has convinced me not to trust a films reputation. Another very overrated 'british classic'.
High heels are tricksy things. They can elevate women (or cross-dressing men) to newfound heights, put forward a sharp statement of style and bring a touch of fragile elegance. Alternatively, they can be a perilous foot pain that will inevitably lead to trips, falls and ultimate tragedy. Tacones lejanos is more of a disappointment trip than a stylish high riser.<br /><br />Almodóvar's mother-daughter drama is stylish for sure, but in terms of plot it's a tongue-tied and tedious affair full of confusing, complex characters that never fully engage or make sense. A few moments of comedy aside, Tacones lejanos just isn't interesting. The best bit comes at the beginning in a marvellously macabre case of manslaughter orchestrated by a child. From this brilliant bit of black comedy things are looking up, but then the film comes to a heel.<br /><br />There's solid enough acting performances and there's some stylish, arty direction that you'd expect from Almodóvar, but otherwise Tacones lejanos isn't an impressive piece of Spanish cinema. With a story of murder, showbiz, femininity, fractured mother-daughter relationship and a character who is alternately a judge, a transvestite and a police informer this could have been a melodramatic powerhouse. Instead it's poor. High Heels stumbles for sure.
I saw this movie the other day in a film school class, and I hadn't seen an Almodovar movie before but went in expecting it to be good. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a pointless film with only a couple of laughs mixed in with two hours of sheer boredom. High Heels is just a collection of random scenes that might have worked in their own separate movies but together don't add up to any kind of meaningful whole at all.<br /><br />Or so I thought. Then, the next day, my film professor spent the entire class period explaining all of the movie's hidden little details, like how the mural depicting stereotypical flamenco dancers in the background of the drag queen scene is some kind of commentary on the lack of identity that Spain as a nation has developed under fascist rule. Apparently, the whole movie is chock full of clever little visual tricks and references like this.<br /><br />Great, but you know what? It's still a bad movie. It takes more than depth and complexity to make a good film--you still need to give the audience a reason to keep paying attention, something to interest the viewer enough to actually care about all the subtle tricks. High Heels gives us strange, off-beat characters but keeps them in mostly mundane situations recycled from other movies, and Almodovar doesn't seem to be using them to make any kind of point. What is the significance, for example, of the Hitchcockian surprise character revelation that occurs towards the end of the film? Why is that even in there? Just to surprise us?<br /><br />There is one funny scene that has to do with a news broadcast. And that's it, that's the only entertaining moment. The rest of the movie is just nonsensical filmic references and visual cues that apparently exist only for the sake of showing us how smart Pedro Almodovar is. But no matter what my film professor says, it takes more than self-indulgent trickery for a movie to be good.
This was an awful movie. Basically Jane March was a half-Korean North Korean spy sent by Kim Jong Il to do something horrible to the American forces in South Korea. She becomes a maid for an American military family, they all regard her as being Korean even though she looks more white (I believe the actress is either 1/4 or 1/8 Southeast Asian, not at all Korean), and the teenage boy of the household starts out hating her and ends up sleeping with her. The way Korea and the U.S. military in Korea is depicted is completely insane. Of course, the screenwriter and the director were obviously white men who've never spent a day in Korea prior to this movie and had no intention of showing any real insight into life in Korea for either Koreans or American GIs and instead just tried to fulfill their pathetic Asiaphile fantasies without any regard to how completely unbelievable it made the movie. Anyone who's ever been to Korea will know this is utter garbage. In the end the North Korean honhyol spy-girl gets killed, in an obvious "paying for her sins" way. Very bad film with a made-for-TV feel to it.
The name "cult movie" is often given to films which continue to be screened, or to sell in home movie format, more than a generation after they were first released. Superchick, which was first released in 1973, now comes into this category. Its cult status is largely due to ongoing interest in it by those women who regard it as an early and effective feminist film.<br /><br />Despite the "Superwoman" connotation, "Superchick" is not a cartoon character but a very competent young lady working as an air stewardess - a career option which in the 1970's was commonly regarded as one of the most glamorous open to any girl, and which also enables her to emulate the traditional matelot who reputedly has a wife in every port. Since she holds black belt status in karate, she is in a position to make it quite clear that she is very happy with her bachelor existence, and is in no way beholden to any of her extensive suite of male admirers. This film is a situation comedy which avoids the generally much shorter lived appeal of outright farce. Its appeal to feminists is also heightened by a climax in which our heroine uses her karate abilities to avert a hijacking and save all the other passengers on her plane from a potentially unpleasant fate. To ensure that this film will appeal to men as well as to their partners, the Director has wisely ensured that is liberally sprinkled with eye candy.<br /><br />Superchick can be enjoyed by those who are not too critical and want a very light easy to watch comedy which they will forget soon after viewing. It is so forgettable that they will probably find it equally enjoyable if watched again in a year's time; despite its age it may therefore retain its status as a cult movie for some time to come. However the dialogue and acting would make it hard to give this film a rating of more than 4/10.
Suggesting nothing less than a movie-length version of the 1970s TV hit "Love, American Style," decked out with flashes of nudity, "Superchick" (1973) is a lighthearted piece of fluff that somehow still manages to entertain. And the lead character here, Tara B. True, really IS some kind of superchick. A stewardess (not flight attendant) who's so good-looking that even her plane's autopilot has made a pass at her (!), and with a hunky boyfriend in every port, this wingin', swingin' gal really does put the "lay" in "layover." What with her germaphobe surgeon beau in New York, her playboy with gangster problems in Miami, and her creatively challenged rock star dude in L.A., Tara sure does keep busy. And when she's not draining these guys of all their manly energies, as the viewer learns, she's liable to be taking a karate class, mile-high clubbing, fending off flashers and rapists, attending groovy pot parties AND stopping a hijacking attempt on her airplane. As I said, lighthearted fun, and surely good for a night when you're feeling somewhat brain-dead and just want to veg out in front of the tube. Future astrologist Joyce Jillson does bring some vacuous charm to her role as Tara, and the film looks handsome enough to please. Disappointingly, buxom '70s faves Uschi Digard and Mary Gavin (aka Candy Samples) are wasted here in very small roles, but still get to do what they do best--show off their chesticles! Though the picture is never laff-out-loud funny and doesn't really have many thoughts in its metaphorical head, it does succeed in being consistently amusing, and I suppose that is something. Strange that the end credits should call attention to Ms. Jillson's body double, however; don't think I've ever seen THAT before!
This is only somewhat attractive for fans of "bad movie" entertainment. It is more worthwhile for students of 1970's pop culture: the fashions, the furniture, the attitudes, and that great "women's lib" moment of the early 1970's, when it was still fresh and novel for a self-employed, independent woman to exist.<br /><br />"Superchick" (Joyce Jillson) had a monetarily rewarding if stultifying career (after all, what is a flight attendant but a waitress at 30,000 feet -- that goes for the male ones too), she slept around with multiple men, could protect herself and others (with karate) and wasn't tied down to anything. This is the kind of emancipated woman that scared the juices out of anti-feminists, those retrograde idiots who believe that no woman is complete without a husband.<br /><br />The "sexy stewardess" was a potent archetype of the late 1960's to 1970's, (geez, even on "The Partridge Family," I remember swinging bachelor Ruben Kincaid constantly hooking up with stewardesses) and from that point of view, this silly film is an important pop culture time capsule of the pre-AIDS, free-love, women's lib, swinging Seventies. The plot is quite awful though. And for those cavemen in the audience, there are few bare breasts to look at.
This was a quite brutal movie. There were huge implausibilities, and a silly script, bad acting, etc.<br /><br />The only reason to watch this movie is that from time to time some quite impressive sets of breasts were exposed.
A retired diplomat, played nicely by Michael York, goes to Russia to get revenge on the Russian gangster that murdered the diplomat's policeman son. There the diplomat meets an exceptionally strong and decent Russian cop who helps him bring the Russian gangster to justice.<br /><br />I remembered the old action flicks of the 1980s that always portray the Russians as evil bad guys out to undermine the righteous U.S. government. It's interesting to see this time the Russian guy as a hero.<br /><br />Not a great flick, it's really typically a "B" action flick. Michael York lends some class to this mediocre movie. Alexander Nevsky, who plays the Russian cop is kind of "blah" but surprisingly has some chemistry with Michael York. Face it, Michael York is such a good actor that he'd have chemistry with anyone he's doing a scene with. Disappointingly, the handsome Adrian Paul gets killed within the first 15 minutes into the movie. Now, if Adrian Paul was in this movie longer, it would've been an above average "B" action flick. All I can say about Adrian Paul is that he is real nice to look at for the first 15 minutes of the movie. The villain, played by Richard Tyson, is your typical bad guy. He's very blonde and very villainous in this movie.<br /><br />Rent this flick if there is nothing else on TV to watch. It's okay. It doesn't suck too bad. The action scenes are decent. The acting could be better, the plot could've moved much faster, but hey, you get to see what Russia looks like today!
But it does have some good action and a plot that is somewhat interesting. Nevsky acts like a body builder and he isn't all that attractive, in fact, IMO, he is UGLY. ( his acting skills lack everything! ) Sascha is played very well by Joanna Pacula, but she needed more lines than she was given, her character needed to be developed. There are way too many men in this story, there is zero romance, too much action, and way too dumb of an ending. It is very violent. I did however love the scenery, this movie takes you all over the world, and that is a bonus. I also liked how it had some stuff about the mafia in it, not too much or too little, but enough that it got my attention. The actors needed to be more handsome...The biggest problem I had was that Nevsky was just too normal, not sexy enough. I think for most guys, Sascha will be hot enough, but for us ladies that are fans of action, Nevsky just doesn't cut it. Overall, this movie was fine, I didn't love it nor did I hate it, just found it to be another normal action flick.
This movie is a vehicle for Schwarzenegger-clone Alexander Nevsky. His charisma however is insufficient to lift this movie above the level of its poor script. He has little to add to his Arnie-act.<br /><br />Michael York is quite pathetic as the begging diplomat. Watching him revisit his D'Artagnan-act from the time that he was a better actor made me feel uneasy. Come on, you can do better than that!<br /><br />The story is full of holes and unexplained relations; top of this bill is the informer of Vlad, who sounds like an American woman, but from the context appears to be working for a Russian government-department.<br /><br />Although the story takes place well after the end of the Communist-regime, all the Russian characters are still very communist-like. In contradiction to that, Vlad is allowed to drive a pimped up all utility vehicle as police-car. The action scenes are poorly shot and therefore lack dynamics.<br /><br />Not a must see movie...
It felt like I watched this movie thousand times before.It was absolutely predictable.Every time the story tried to get a bit twisted,every time I awaited something interesting to happen, I saw nothing but what I expected. Like "The bread factory opened up another facility,because there was not enough bread". In two words:Flat story,that has become a cliché,bad acting,bad special effects...Only the dumb Russian cop,Vlad, was a bit funny while punishing around the bad guys.The pile of muscles was so incredibly STUPID,that it made me laugh at him for a moment. I wonder why i waste my time spitting on that shame-of-a-movie... It won't get worse (because it is not possible) :D
Woman (Miriam Hopkins as Virginia) chases Man (Joel McCrea as Kenneth) for father (Charles Winninger as B.J.). Woman wants to get Man to invest some of deceased mother's money in father's business venture; but, father is notorious for losing money on hair-brained schemes. Little does anyone know, but real evil schemers are posing as Man's best friends in order to steal his fortune...<br /><br />The production looks engaging, but the story fails to engage. The players don't play drunk well. Notable as Broderick Crawford's first appearance - as gopher "Hunk"; other than running errands, Mr. Crawford gets pinned to the floor by Mr. McCrea. <br /><br />*** Woman Chases Man (4/28/37) John G. Blystone ~ Miriam Hopkins, Joel McCrea, Charles Winninger, Broderick Crawford
You don't expect much from a PRC picture, and with rare exceptions--mainly from Edgar G. Ulmer and a few by Joseph H. Lewis or Lew Landers--that's exactly what you get: not much. This "epic" about Nazis in Africa trying to incite an Arab revolt against the British isn't much different. The script, by longtime PRC hacks Arthur St. Claire and Sherman Lowe, is trite, laughable, full of unfunny "wisecracks" and plot holes the size of Outer Mongolia. The direction, by longtime PRC no-budget specialist Al Herman, is semi-comatose at best. The performances, though--except for spectacularly incompetent and irritatingly hammy lead Walter Woolf King--aren't really half bad. Veteran comedian Parkyakarkus is actually the best thing about the film. He plays a guy from Brooklyn masquerading as a razor-blade salesman and brightens up the screen considerably when he shows up. He's got great comic timing, charm to spare and seems to be having a heck of a good time. Duncan Renaldo is fairly convincing as an Arab sheik--despite his Spanish accent--and veteran bad guy George J. Lewis as Renaldo's Arab rival does his usual fine job of villainy, even if he goes a bit over the top sometimes. Joan Woodbury is quite pretty and has a nice light touch, and she and Renaldo have great chemistry together, although--like the rest of the cast--she has none at all with King. H.B. Warner, whose career stretched back to the silent era, lends a shred of dignity to the low-rent proceedings, even though he blows his lines several times and, PRC being PRC, they weren't cut out. There's a great deal of stock footage spliced in from a big-budget silent movie with a similar Arab theme--although I have no idea which one it is--and, PRC being PRC, no effort was made to try to make it inconspicuous: I've seldom seen stock footage that was so blatantly obvious.<br /><br />"A Yank in Libya" isn't very good, of course--well, OK, it stinks--but it would be worth a look just to see Parkyakarkus in his prime. I had heard of him and knew that he was the father of actor/director Albert Brooks and Super Dave Osborne, but had never actually seen him in anything before. It was worth watching this tenth-rate PRC "extravaganza" just to see him in action. Otherwise, forget it.
It definitely fits the time period as the Axis & Allies were playing espionage games throughout most of North Africa & the rest of the world. It's not the best of films, but certainly not the worst of the budget films as described previously from the compilation War Classics. <br /><br />Duncan"Cisco Kid" Renaldo was actually very good in one of his first feature films. I really enjoyed the performance of Harry Parke (credited as Parkyarkarkus). Why he never got any bigger roles is beyond me. He played the perfect buddy/partner role and saved the movie...imho.<br /><br />As said, this film was part of a budget package from Superbox-Mart entitled War Classics. Eight movies for eight bucks, which included other never-heard-from-films that has some decent stars trying to pay the bills.<br /><br />This script is...well, not so hot. The editing & cinematography is...worse. If you can by-pass all of that and want to see the future Cisco Kid & a great sidekick that sadly never fulfilled his true potential, definitely pick it up! Otherwise, there's other WW2 films to watch.<br /><br />-Thunderossa.
Chan Wook Park is nothing if not inventive. I'M A CYBORG BUT THAT'S OK is chock full of amusing little technical flourishes with some ingenious ideas sprinkled in between. Attempting to walk in the footsteps of the likes of Marc Caro and Jeunet (CITY OF LOST CHILDREN, DELICATESSEN), Park embarks on a fanciful, lighthearted tale which is a radical departure from his usual morbid fare. Hardly one to be faulted for his ambition or his vision, it is genuinely unexpected, then, to see all Park's effort add up to so very little.<br /><br />I'M A CYBORG BUT THAT'S OK seems astonishingly to subtract from itself as it goes along, with the the end result being a fraction of the sum of its parts. The premise is promising, gags are copious and offbeat humour abounds but it all fails miserably to create any meaningful connection with the audience. The characters are cute and quirky and played with gusto by the cast, but, try as i might, i could not bring myself to care for any.<br /><br />SYMPATHY FOR LADY VENGEANCE was a misstep, indicating perhaps that Park was overindulging himself a little bit, but it still managed to showcase some of the director's unique flare and in the wake of an impressive filmography, was readily forgiven. None of the assured confidence that commanded JOINT SECURITY AREA or SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE is evident here. I'M A CYBORG BUT THAT'S OK left me so utterly unengaged i caught myself instinctively fast forwarding from time to time (more regularly as the film progressed). I gave LADY a 5/10, and by that measure, this probably deserves no more than a 3. For old time's sake, i'll be generous: 4/10
The story: Young-goon is a girl whose family has a history of mental illness. She ends up in a mental institution after she starts believing that she is in fact a cyborg. In the institution she meets Park Il-sun, a young man who develops a bond with her.<br /><br />If you're reading this you probably already know how talented Chan-wook Park is. But 'I'm A Cyborg...' is a big departure from familiar, and (sadly) stronger territory. I'm a big fan of any film or story which is attempting to do something different. God knows, we all get subjected to enough crap at our local cinemas. The main point about the movie I need to say is, that it fails to say anything about mental illness, or create a characters that you care about.<br /><br />This story has to be one of the weirdest things I've seen in years...but weird isn't enough. There's no heart to the movie...just surrealism and confusion. Confusion does seem to be the main theme of the movie. The characters all try to make sense of their own problems, but it's Chan-wook Park himself who proves to be the most confused of them all.
Prior to this release, Neil LaBute had this to say about the 1973 original: "It's surprising how many people say it's their favorite soundtrack. I'm like, come on! You may not like the new one, but if that's your favorite soundtrack, I don't know if I *want* you to like my film." <br /><br />Neil, a word. You might want to sit down for this too; as Lord Summerisle says, shocks are so much better absorbed with the knees bent. See, Neil, the thing about the original, is that Paul Giovanni's soundtrack is one of the most celebrated things about it. The filmmakers themselves consider it a virtual musical. Along with Richard and Danny Thompson, and Bert Jansch, it practically kick-started the 1970s Folk New Wave. To undermine it is akin to imagining Jaws without John Williams. Or The Buddy Holly Story without Buddy Holly. The result's one of the most breathtakingly arrogant, pointless remake of a British cult classic since Sly Stallone's Get Carter.<br /><br />The original had apparently left Nicolas Cage "disturbed for about two weeks." So disturbed, during that fortnight's window, that he pitched the idea of re-imagining one of the most nuanced films about inter-faith struggle ever devised to a writer-director previously known for his wholly unsubtle depictions of male chauvinism. It's like some parlor game: what would you get if Sam Peckinpah took on Bambi? Or Gaspar "Irreversible" Noe remade Love, Actually?(Actually, I'd quite like to see that). Unfortunately, someone took this parlor game seriously: All LaBute's succeeded in doing is ripping out the original's guts while saddling it with his own gormless Sex War preoccupations.<br /><br />After failing to rescue a little girl and her mum from a fatal car crash, Cage's highway patrolman spirals into a medicated torpor. Then he receives a letter from ex-fiancée Willow Woodward (this one trades on name-homages for kudos), now living on the private island community of Summersisle – that extra 's' stands for 'superfluous' – and wants Edward to help locate missing daughter Rowan.<br /><br />Summersisle, it transpires, is a female-dominated joint, conceived as a haven for oppressed womenfolk and refugees from the Salem witch trials. Here, the matriarchs observe the Olde ways, and the few males are near-mute breed-mules. It's like Lilith Fair on a grand scale. Summersisle's main export is honey – a symbolic and literal headache for Edward, as he's allergic to bees. "Beekeepers!" cries Edward. "They seem to be everywhere on this island!" Well, that's probably because Summersisle's main export is honey.<br /><br />While making his investigations, Edward overhears of an oncoming Mayday ritual called "the time of death and rebirth". He discovers the previous year's crop failed; nearly dies from bee stings; and eventually comes to the conclusion (a conclusion which admittedly couldn't be more obvious if the locals had tattooed a timetable of events on the back of his hands) that Rowan will be burnt alive in a pagan rite to ensure a bountiful harvest. He also meets the Queen Bee of the hive, Sister Summersisle (Burstyn), who has her own plans for him involving the eponymous Wicker Man: "The drone must die." <br /><br />First, the good news: any concerns Cage would be airlifted from the Wicker Man's flaming jaws at the last minute by a fleet of black CIA helicopters can be laid to rest: he toast. That's about it for the good news. "This is a story whose chapters were carefully written" intones Burstyn with sublime irony. Though retaining the basic cat-and-mouse premise (and credits typography), what's left subjects the original to a scorched-earth policy.<br /><br />Crucial to Shaffer's original screenplay was that his Christian copper, in accordance with ritual, came to the island of his own free will – and most importantly, was a virgin; the perfect sacrifice. In reducing matters to a sexual, as opposed to a religious power-struggle, LaBute presents the flimsiest of qualifiers for a harvest sacrifice. By the time Cage has worked out he was the bait, you honestly couldn't care less.<br /><br />And Cage is one of the very worst things in this; a lumbering, drawling donkey – an arsewit whose tongue seems just slightly too big for his mouth. "Goddamit" he moans after he hallucinates a drowned Rowan, with all the mental torment of a man who's set his morning alarm clock half-an-hour too early. One hopes it's his character's frequent reliance on pills that has reduced him to this state – alternately fatigued, then full of preppy, overbearing vim. If so, it's a fine portrayal of an undistinguished IQ addled with anti-depressants. If not…it doesn't bear thinking about. As Willow, the saucer-eyed Beahan is similarly dreadful, presenting her lines as if in competition with Cage for the…most…half-hearted…delivery. While Burstyn entirely lacks the mercurial menace to convince. Who's afraid of Naomi Wolf? <br /><br />Every element that made the original great – the lovingly detailed depictions of folk customs, the ingenious score, the dialogue (Lord Summerisle's majestic "You did it beautifully!" has been replaced with the rather less attractive "You did it excellently!" Whoah, dude!) – have been substituted for a meandering battle-of-the-sexes thriller with occasional crash-bang wallop. Namely, walloping women; this is a LaBute flick, after all. Cage's Sister Beech bashing is just one of the more embarrassing episodes; impotent little men will be hooting with glee at how them uppity hippie chicks finally got what was comin' to 'em, hyuk hyuk.<br /><br />The closing coda sees the whole rotten mess collapsing under the weight of genre cliché: in a bar, two guys run into a couple of Summersisle maidens on shore leave, flirty-fishing for fresh martyrs. At the moment of their successful pick-up, you half expect the women to turn round and give an exaggerated wink and a thumbs up to the camera.<br /><br />One more thing: keen credit watchers may have noticed that films sporting an unusually high producer count (anything up to 10) tend to be Not Much Cop. The Wicker Man has 18 producers in total.
This movie is the biggest waste of nine dollars that I've spent in a very, very long time. If you knew how often I went to the movies you'd probably say, that's hard to imagine, but never-the-less, it's true! After seeing the trailer for this movie, I knew that I had to see it! If you're a fan of horror, mystery, and suspense, why wouldn't you? The trailer is nothing less than intriguing and exciting; unfortunately, the movie is none of these.<br /><br />From the cinematography, to the script, to the acting, this movie is a complete flop. If you're reading this, planning to go to the movie expecting some thrills, mystery, action, horror, or anything other than a waste of an hour and forty-five minutes I'm afraid you are in for disappointment.<br /><br />"Why is it so bad," you might be asking yourself. Let me tell you. The movie was neither mysterious nor suspenseful. Nothing about the movie made me the least bit "on edge," frightened, or curious. The script was at best laughable. There were numerous times throughout the film where the dialogue was just so ridiculous I began to write it off as comic relief only to find out a few seconds later that it wasn't. The acting was absolutely dreadful. I like Nicholas Cage but this was a miss. Without exception, every performance in this movie was incredibly below average. The cinematography was awful with not one moment of suspense or mystique. Finally, the story is completely transparent. You can see the end of this movie coming a mile away.<br /><br />I am not usually a very harsh critic. Frankly, when I go to see a comedy I want to laugh and when I go to see a mystery/suspense/horror, I just want to be surprised. This movie was boring, poorly acted, poorly written, and an overwhelming disappointment. Do yourself a favor and go see something else.
The Wicker Man. I am so angry that I cannot write a proper comment about this movie.<br /><br />The plot was ridiculous, thinly tied together, and altogether-just lame. Nicolas Cage...shame on you! I assumed that since you were in it, that it would be at least decent. It was not.<br /><br />I felt like huge parts of the movie had been left on the cutting room floor, and even if it's complete-the movie was just outlandish and silly.<br /><br />At the end you're left mouth agape, mind befuddled and good taste offended. I have never heard so many people leave a theater on opening day with so much hatred. People were complaining about it in small groups in the mall, four floors down from the theater near the entrance. It's that bad.<br /><br />I heard it compared to : Glitter, American Werewolf in Paris and Gigli. My boyfriend was so mad he wouldn't even talk about it.<br /><br />Grrrr!
Unfortunately, this movie does no credit whatsoever to the original. Nicholas Cage, fairly wooden as far as actors go, imbues the screen with a range of skill from, non-plussed to over the top. The supporting cast is no better.<br /><br />The plot stays much the same as the original in terms of scene progression but is far worse. Not enough detail is given to allow the audience to by into what is being sold. It turns out it's just a bill of poor goods. Disbelief cannot be suspended, nor can a befit of a doubt be given. The only saving aspect of this film is that it is highly visual, as the medium requires, and whomever scouted the location should be commended.<br /><br />There was much laughter in the audience and multiple boos, literally, at the end.<br /><br />Disappointed! Wait for the original to come on television, pour a whiskey and enjoy.
I haven't seen the original, but just wanted to drop a quick note to anyone who happens to scroll down this far: Wicker Man is the worst movie I've seen this year. Maybe even in two years. I wish I could ask the theater for my money back or turn back time to warn myself not to see it.<br /><br />I'll give it two positive nods: The sarcasm of Cage's character at least got some laughs from me and the scenery of the island was beautiful. Sorry, that's it. Here come the jeers. The movie's plot is only propelled forward because other characters won't give Cage any straight answers--and he puts up with this!!! How this could go on for over an hour of my time(much less days in the movie) is beyond me. <br /><br />Not to mention that the plot is full of holes. You leave the theater with enough unanswered questions to fill a library. How anyone could read this script and think, "Yes, people should pay $11 to see this shady outline of what a film should look like" is beyond me.<br /><br />Do not go see this flick. Or even rent it on DVD.
Anyone not aware of the 1973 original British Lion movie ' The Wicker Man' would,no doubt, have left the cinema with the impression 'Poor' and 'Peurile'.<br /><br />As a devotee of the original I left with the impression Purely Poor.<br /><br />From the grim reality of haggle toothed inbreds drawing the force of law and order into a web of paganistic barbaric ritual on a remote Scottish island, named Summerisle(the original) to a near Amazon-ic colony off the Maine coast of the US, named Summersisle, the remake hardly hits the spot.<br /><br />This is, quite sadly, a case of what 'could' have been a classic remake of a classic being tampered with to cater for a simple minded public. NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS. <br /><br />Gentlemen (or given the reworked context of the film) Ladies involved ... hang your heads in shame.
How this film could miss so many of the fascinating, complex and mysterious aspects of the original story or the original movie is truly remarkable. An unbelievably thin and unengaging plot, ankle-deep characterisation/motivation and a really awful soundtrack (replacing tension with vast swathes of noise, replacing the arcane musical references of the original for digitised crashes and roars. Then there are the specific references to the original which are merely "plastered on" over the cracks... Dreadful. In a world where gormless, brain-dead Amerikan remakes of The Italian Job (a tear appears), Get Carter (sobs uncontrollably) and Alfie have desecrated our screens recently, this one takes the proverbial biscuit. Execrable nonsense. How Ellen Burstyn ever got involved is a wonder... Rubbish.
This has got to be one of the worst fillums I've ever seen and I've seen a few. It is slow, boring, amateurish - not even consistent within its own simplistic reading of the plot. The actors do not act. I can't blame them - they have been given a script of such utter banality all they can do is trudge through it with a pain behind their eyes which has nothing to do with the evil goings on in SummersIsle.<br /><br />There is not one moment in this film that rings true - not an honest line nor a single instant where one is moved. The Nicholas Cage character is so badly drawn that one feels not a smidgeon of compassion for him through all his tribulations. I have no doubt that I was seeing a suffering man up there but it was Nicholas Cage fully aware of the fact that he was in the worst movie of his entire career.
what ever you do do not waste your time on this pointless. movie. A remake that did not need to be retold. Everyone coming out of the theater had the same comments. Worst movie I ever saw. Save your time and money!!!<br /><br />Nicgolas Cage was biking down hills, swimming in murky water and rolling down hills while being attacked by bees but yet his suit was still perfectly pressed and shirt crisp white until the very last scene.<br /><br />Although a good cast with Ellen Bernstein and Cage the acting was just as unbelievable as the movie itself. It is amazing how good actors can do such bad movies. Don't they get a copy of the script first. If you still have any interest at all in seeing the movie at the very least wait for it to come out on DVD.
This film was terrible. OK, my favourite film is 'The Wicker Man' (1973), so I was always bound to be a little biased. <br /><br />The plot rambles along, throwing out enough of the key elements of the original to make the term 'remake' highly dubious. (He's not a virgin, but IS allergic to bees. WOW!) So many things happen that make no sense and are unexplained, which I'm afraid Mr LaBute does not a horror movie make. (How are two people we clearly saw blown up in a car at the start alive and well at the end of the film?) Cage looks haggard and bewildered throughout, and his character is prone to calling out "Rowan!?" at the slightest noise. The 'nods' to the original are irritating as they come off as tacky rather than as intelligent homage. For example, certain incidents mirror the original (The girl falling out of a cupboard pretending to be dead when Woodward/Cage is searching the island) and several lines of dialogue are plucked straight from Anthony Schaffers original screenplay and shoehorned in.<br /><br />I'm sure others will provide a better and more detailed analysis than this, I really can't be bothered to write any more about this film. It lacks any kind of substance. Throw it on the scrap heap with all the other remakes that have sullied the good names of the films they were 'based' on (in this case very loosely).
Everyone else who has commented negatively about this film have done excellent analysis as to why this film is so bloody awful. I wasn't going to comment, but the film just bugs me so much, and the writer/director in particular. So I must toss in my hat to join the naysayers.<br /><br />I saw the original "Wicker Man" and really loved the cornucopia of music, sensuality, paganism in a modern world, and the clash of theological beliefs. This said, I am not part of the crowd that thinks remakes of great movies shouldn't be done. For example, I liked the original 1950's "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", but equally enjoyed the 1978 remake. Both films can stand on their own. Another example is "The Thing". The original, as campy as it looks compared to today's standards, has a lot to be proud of in the 1982 remake with Kurt Russell (my all time favorite horror movie). So that small minority of people who like "The Wicker Man" re-make can not accuse me of dissing this piece of crap just because it's a re-make.<br /><br />This film solidified for me Neil LaBute's sexism and misogynistic tendencies. It also made me wonder how executives, wanting to make a serious thriller, would green light a product that is so anti-female. There are too many scenes of Cage hitting women just because he's frustrated with them thwarting his investigation of a missing girl. would he react like this off the island in other cases where suspects aren't forthcoming? The original created a society in which men and women are equal participants in a Goddess based religion. The threat to the main character came from everyone, male and female. There was no sexual hierarchy.<br /><br />The metaphor of bees, drones etc was a bit heavy handed and convenient ("The drone must die!"), especially when Cage's character has bee allergies. I kept wondering why the men on the island didn't fight back and use mere physicality to stop these women from treating them like grunts. These were not women with special supernatural powers, and half of them seemed to be pregnant, the other half old and fat, and the rest girls and thin blonde waifs, so if the men really wanted to escape they could do what most men do when they hate women. Physically dominate them. There didn't seem to be any guns or weapons beyond cutting tools to hold them if they were unhappy. But if they were content being drones, why make them unable to speak? They could be used as a threat to Cage because they will defend the community. They are drones because Neil LaBute seems to believe that a society ran by women would leave men castrated. (That movie was made already. "The Stepford Wives" anyone?) Classic symptoms from men who are afraid of what may happen if women got their sh*t together and were truly equal citizens.<br /><br />The problem with the man-hating female society is that it makes uninteresting movie viewing and creates unintentional humor when Cage starts knocking women out. I belief LaBute should've left the society an egalitarian one, kept the sexuality and uninhibited lasciviousness, and pushed buttons of discomfort in regards to the children on that island. No one likes pedophiles or children to be sexually exploited. So how would a cop react if he saw lewd acts performed by adults with children around? There would be a logical mental leap that these children are abused, thus, an urgency created to save the missing child and get help for all the children. LaBute has said he created the fiancé and daughter story thread to give Cage's character an incentive to search. I don't think you need that. Any child abused will make an adult react to save them. The irony of course would be that the child Cage "saves" ultimately brings him death.<br /><br />The dialogue was contrived and campy. The whole third act was hilarious. The audience I saw it with guffawed (and later booed at the end). I just thought the movie started off wrong when the letter arrived written in the fancy handwriting and all the flashbacks cutting into to show how wounded Cage is. We don't need that. Just show him arriving on the island for an investigation of a missing child. Most of us in America have seen "Law & Order" and other cop procedurals. We come into the movie as if we are Cage's partner solving a mystery.<br /><br />So much potential...wasted. Neil LaBute, stick to talking head pictures for people who enjoy your male angst-ridden plays and flicks of that sort. Stay with your own company of men. Leave the thrillers for people who understand thrillers. Here is your jar of honey. I'll watch that.
Don't let the premise fool you--this was one funny movie. The problem--it wasn't supposed to be a comedy. The story sets you up nicely for an ending that never comes. Even worse, the set-up is NEVER explained. You will leave the theater asking "Is that it?" I rate it a 2 simply because there were a few brief moments of promise, but the finish leaves you completely flat. Nicholas Cage did as good a job as can be expected in the role, but he had very little to work with. There are odd quirks, and interesting turns everywhere, which had absolutely nothing to do with the movie. Let this one come out on video before wasting your money.
I have never seen the 1973, older highly rated version. I am a Nicholas Cage fan (by the way, fine acting as usual). This movie probably took all of five minutes to hammer out the whole plot (I can see it being done on a cocktail napkin at a dinner party), if you can't figure out the ending of this drool in the first thirty minutes you will probably find this movie entertaining. This is, of late, the terrible rut that Hollywood seems to have dug for itself with the horror/mystery/thriller genre, unable to give the audience enough credit and write a fresh, smart, and tantalizing screenplay, they dish out some creepy music and throw in a couple of things to make you jump a little and then send the final print off to your local theater. At least, it didn't have the jiggling hand-held camera syndrome.
A phenomenal achievement in awfulness. It's actually hilariously awful.<br /><br />First off...Nicholas Cage must now have made it to the finals in the Over-Emoting Category in his acting class. Wearing new hair plugs and with a face that has been lifted so many times his pinned back ears seem to be straining to touch in the back he oozes not only a sick smarmiess but creates a "hero" character that you have no vested interest in.<br /><br />I don't know what it is with Neil Labute and female characters. He makes females out to be totally deviant and evil...and pays them back by having Cage punch several of them directly in the face and call them all "b****es" a few times too. I've enjoyed LaBute's early films and a few of his plays...but it's a strange fascination he has.<br /><br />I'd give this film a 2 out of 10 solely based on Ellen Burstyn's performance. By the time she finally makes her appearance (bravely soldiering through her scenes with her wig line clearly visible on her forehead) it seems like all hope may be lost. She deserves an Oscar right here and now for saying her lines with a straight face and when she appears wearing a white mumu and blue, white, and gold face paint booming about The Wicker Man you know that working with Scorcese and Friedkin really prepped her for this role dang well.<br /><br />This movie is so wrong-headed and cuckoo that is has to be seen to be believed.<br /><br />Highlights include: Nicholas Cage running away from a swarm of bees and then falling down a hill.<br /><br />Nicholas Cage stealing a bicycle and looking like Ms. Gulch from The Wizard of Oz riding around on it.<br /><br />Nicholas Cage running around the island kicking down doors looking for the missing girl.<br /><br />Leelee Sobieski PLUMMETING from a once-promising acting career in a "brawl" with Cage.<br /><br />Ellen Burstyn dancing around in a said while mumu.<br /><br />Nicholas Cage screaming "Who burned it? Who burned it? Who burned it?Who burned it?Who burned it?Who burned it?" for no reason.<br /><br />Nicholas Cage in a bear costume (I'm not kidding) running through the woods, taking off the costume (but leaving the bear feet on) and then doing some karate moves to some villains.<br /><br />And you haven't lived until you have seen the final 15 minutes of the movie and its dreadful epilogue that looked like it was shot yesterday in your cousin's basement.<br /><br />Needless to say, if you can make it through this film without laughing out loud then you deserve a medal. There was actually a point in the movie where I stopped snickering to wonder if maybe this wasn't an elaborate send-up of "hysteria" films...only to be reminded when Cage would scream/shout/whisper his dialogue that he really was taking himself quite seriously.<br /><br />I think this one is destined to be a cult film all over again...just because it's so dreadful.
The Wicker Man Has Done The Impossible! It replaced Cat Woman as the worst recent movie in my steel trap cinema mind. YES it's really that bad. So bad that when sitting down to write this review I thought to myself "If I had a choice to either see this movie again or to have red hot needles shoved in my eyes" I might actually go for the red hot needles.<br /><br />Neil LaBute created a rare movie where Joel Schumacher could sit back and say with comfort and a guilt free mind "Yeah that's some bad direction right there".<br /><br />I think the first clue for myself should have been the tag line: "Some Sacrifices Must Be Made". Sure it might sound sort of cheeky ominous line to intrigue you but the sacrifice will be all on the audience side of the screen. Trust me on this the people responsible for this movie should be charged with a hate crime..or at least fraud for trying to pass this off as anything resembling entertainment. Seriously! The movie is about an island where men are just there for breeding and I would still rather with be stuck on Gilligans Island with only pictures of Condoleezza Rice then find myself stranded there.<br /><br />The most entertaining part about this movie was the guy who ripped the loudest fart I've ever heard in a movie theater. That's not a joke nor is it fictional. I've never been to a "thriller" and heard so much laughter through out the entire film. I can't tell you with an certainty if the laughs were intentional in some effort to lighten the cinematic tension or if they just really thought this crud would actual fly. I honestly found myself routing for a power outage or a perhaps a fight to break out in the movie theater, anything to make this more interesting which is pretty sad since Deez, Powder and I pounded 2 beers each before the film just for a little mental anesthesia (soon to be a law before all Nic Cage films, write to your congressman today, don't delay). At one point I actually thought perhaps this movie is really a spoof and Anna Ferris is going to show up…oh how I wish.<br /><br />Nic Cage throws out so much ham per frame I'm thinking of having a cholesterol test done today. To think that I ever thought Sean Penn was a d*ck for slamming Nic's acting, oh he's still a d*ck just lesser of one…yes Sean Penn's d*ck was lessened because of this film. Do us all a favor Nic play your strengths and stick to being pathetic losers and drunks. You cannot play superman you do not get to play strong hunky roles go straight to jail do not pass go do not collect 200 dollars. His best moments in this film are when he finally comes unhinged and actually punches out a burly woman to steal her bear suit (like the fart, not a joke or a functional moment during this review) then proceeds to run amok like Conan O'Brian's masturbating bear, but with half the hilarity of a bear knocking his junk around. Thankfully he meets his end shortly after when it turns out he's to be a sacrifice to the crowd at the new tour hybrid show of Burning Man and Lilith Fair. Yes!!!! I just spoiled the ending for you…and if you knew any better you'd build statues of me in worship and sing songs of my legend. I sat through this crap-fest so you don't have to.<br /><br />About half way through this little misadventure I kept thinking to myself Jack Bauer would have wrapped this case up in 20 minutes of real time..OK 35 minutes if Kim gets attacked by a mountain lion first. Even Steve Martin as Inspector Clouseau could have figured this out in under an hour…and you Sir are no Inspector Clouseau.<br /><br />If for some reason you are taken captive and you have a choice to see this film or take a bullet, take the bullet.<br /><br />Somewhere Uwe Boll is laughing at us all.
I picked this DVD up at the Dollar Store. The DVD was on the 2 for $1 rack, but since it had Michael Madsen in it, I thought that since I had never seen the movie, I bought it anyway.<br /><br />I must say that I didn't like the movie. The movie played more like a documentary or an advertisement for religion than anything else. I found that the director's use of flashbacks did not add to the story line for me. I would have preferred to view the story line in chronological order.<br /><br />I won't throw it away like one of the other commentators, but It may be quite awhile before I would consider watching this movie again.<br /><br />Who knows, since it was Michael Madsen's film debut, maybe it might have some archival value at some future date.
Poor Michael Madsen; he must be kicking himself to know folks have found out about this horrible flick. I really can't think of anything worse I have ever seen, except amateur porn. It's that bad, and all here; wooden acting, bad script, crappy moral ending, you hate it and it is in this movie.<br /><br />My question is: "Who the Hell put $$$ into this piece of doggy doo? At least we could have seen Michael's sister Virginia nude in a scene, but I don't think even that would save this stinker...<br /><br />For a cool guy that has made some exception movies, I want to know what wacky church sponsored this piece of crapola.
An actor's first film is usually something one can afford to miss - it's often that first job where the lack of film experience by everyone involved is truly on display, and this film is no exception.<br /><br />But worse than that, even by 1982 standards this is so bad, it's hysterically funny. Filmed entirely in the Chicago area on an obviously small budget, most of the acting by the entire cast is stiff, wooden, and cartoonish - a cross between a high school play and bad community theater. Noise from nearby traffic often drowns out the dialog, and the dialog is truly bad, very declarative in a way that comes off as forced and expedient rather than natural and organic. Scenes are contrived and choppy, and even though the characters go through a span of years, neither the children nor the adults age at all.<br /><br />I do believe it's possible to make a Christian film that's palatable to a large, secular audience, but too often the creators of such films are so focused on 'The Message' or in this case, their own autobiographical ties to the project that good film production values are tossed aside. (I'm sure it's no coincidence that the main character has the same name as the producer/director/editor - and cast member.) <br /><br />Luckily, Michael Madsen was much more interesting - and believable - to watch in his subsequent films. Careers like his are certainly not built on films like this one.
THE TEMP (1993) didn't do much theatrical business, but here's the direct-to-video rip-off you didn't want, anyway! Ellen Bradford (Mel Harris) is the new woman at Millennium Investments, a high scale brokerage firm, who starts getting helpful hints from wide-eyed secretary Deidre (Sheila Kelley). Deidre turns out to be an ambitious daddy's girl who will stop at nothing to move up the corporate ladder, including screwing a top broker she can't stand and murdering anyone who gets on her bad side. She digs up skeletons in Ellen's closet, tries to cause problems with her husband (Barry Bostwick), kills while making it look like she is responsible, kidnaps her daughter and tries to get her to embezzle money from the company.<br /><br />Harris and Kelley deliver competent performances, the supporting cast is alright and it's reasonably well put-together, but that doesn't fully compensate for a script that travels down a well-worn path and offers few surprises.
"The Secretary" is one of those cheesy, cliched, "thrillers" that one is subjected to watching on a Sunday afternoon, when there is virtually nothing else on. While the plot (a demented woman becomes jealous of all who succeed over her in the office and decides to do whatever she can to stop them) may be one of a kind, I recognized countless plot twists, probably taken from other TV movies that I had been subjected to for the very same reason.<br /><br />To make matters worse, I was not wild about the cast. Mel Harris is one of those actresses who appears in so many TV movies as either a "mom" or some sort of "victim" of foul play or abuse, that one must wonder the kind of life she leads. In this one, she gets the joy of playing a mom AND a victim of psycho secretary Sheila Kelly, who was not a very good choice as the villain. While Sheila Kelly has made some good career moves(Singles, Breaking In, and I guess, Law and Order), she is also beset by a string of pitiful TV movie roles, and this one just adds to it. As for the others, I don't have any clear memories of them, so that must say something.<br /><br />This one WILL play on the Lifetime network(I think that's where I saw it), but don't bother watching it, unless you are too bored for words. Not that it will make you any more excitied...
A chemical spill is turning people into zombies. It's up to two doctor's to survive the epidemic. It's an Andreas Schnaas film so you know what the par for the course will be. Bad acting, horribly awful special effects, and no budget to speak of. The dubbing is ridiculous with a capital R and the saddest thing is that I feel compelled to write one word about this piece of excrement, much less the ten lines mandatory because of the guidelines placed on me by IMDb. My original review of merely one word: Crap wouldn't fly so I have to revise it and go more in to how bad it is. But I don't know if I can, so.. wait I think I may have enough words, or lines rather to make this review pass. Which is cool, I guess. So in summation: This movie sucks balls, don't watch it.<br /><br />My Grade: F
I will keep this as short as possible as this piece of crap barely warrants a mention. ZOMBIE 90 is one of the worst films ever made - right up there with Schnaas' other horrible zombie entry - ZOMBIE DOOM (aka VIOLENT SH!T 3). These films suck so bad that everyone involved in their creation should be shot. I somehow managed (barely...) to sit through ZOMBIE DOOM - but ZOMBIE 90 is so horribly inept - even when compared to Schnaas' other horrible film - that I had to fast-forward through everything after the first 10 minutes. ZERO acting skills, inept gore, horrible camcorder-style camera-work, ridiculous dubbing...it just goes on and on. I really can't find a single thing redeeming about this garbage - and I can usually find SOMETHING redeeming in just about ANY film. This truly is one of the worst films ever made - You've been warned...1/10
Beyond dirt cheap, this shot-on-video exercise in ineptitude was difficult to get through. It's got the typical gore that you'd expect in a zombie movie, but none of the required atmosphere to make it worth while.<br /><br />What's strange is that this is an amateur German video, and the version I saw is English-dubbed! The dubbers seem to be American fans (penpals of the Germans?!) who can't decide whether they want to play it straight or turn it into a comedy. One character (a white German, of course) is dubbed by a black guy apparently, who speaks with thick ebonics! 'Kno wahm sayin', Comrad?
What in God's name happened here? How does one go about creating what is practically a cheap knockoff of Redneck Zombies? Was Zombie '90 ever supposed to entertain someone ...anyone, or even make a dollars profit? But mainly, what happened here? <br /><br />Zombie '90 Extreme Pestilence was directed by a lunatic by the name of Andreas Schnaas, who specializes in earth-shattering gore films, such as Goblet of Gore, and Anthropophagus 2000, and some of which contain profanity in the titles. In the gore department, this one isn't much different than the rest. Although, the level of ineptness ...well, earth-shattering.<br /><br />Zombie '90 Extreme Pestilence is as bad as Peter Jackson's Dead-Alive is gory, think about it.<br /><br />Getting too specific with the story would be a waste of time. An accident, involving chemicals causes the dead to come back, and eat the living. Never has the concept been treated in such a manner. The gore effects are a whole, new low. Just a Z-grade nightmare. I can't tell whether, or not this was originally meant to be funny, somehow, I doubt the English dubbing was being very true to the original script, but stranger things have happened. The whole thing just reminds me of a shot-on-video introduction to a Troma movie, except it lasts a hell of a lot longer.<br /><br />I've seen only one film that was worse than this, The Chooper.<br /><br />For proof that Andreas Schnaas is an actual director, I would highly recommend Nikos The Impaler If you think you have no standards in what you look for in a bad movie, give Extreme Pestilence a try, but you've been warned. It takes nerves of steel to make it all the way through. But if gore is all you're here for, then you might be able to stomach this one. Other than that, no atmosphere, no, and I mean NO budget, no entertainment value, but mostly, no pride. Show some pride, Schnaas. 1/10 <br /><br />Updated 7/5/09: After a few more viewings of Zombie '90, I've had a change of heart, or I guess I just get it now. Zombie '90 is hilarious, so nevermind the harsh words, Although, Extreme Pestilence still only deserves one star.
This review is based on the dubbed Shock-o-Rama video released on an undeserving world in 2002. How bad is it? It's awful, which is what a '1' represents on the IMDb scale--but it's much worse than that. It's nice to imagine that an original German-language print might improve matters--the comedic English-language dubbing isn't funny at all--but truthfully, this is one of the worst amateur films of any genre you're likely to see. The zombies in the film are as slow and clumsy as ever, and they don't seem to have the ability to speak or think about anything beyond their next meal. However, they're also intelligent enough to operate chainsaws and malicious enough to know that western taboos about genitalia will no doubt enliven their dinner table conversation. George Romero's Land of the Dead posited a zombie nation that retained a shred of social coherence; here, zombies are nothing more than an empty canvas for the perverse imaginings of director Andreas Schnaas. Utterly without redeeming social value, and even worse, entirely lacking as entertainment, Zombie '90 is a bad joke on anyone who wastes money on it.
This is one of the worst movies i've ever encountered, but i want to say that some of the criticisms i had heard turned out to be unwarranted..<br /><br />As far as pure film-making technique goes, this director is competent. He's held back by the limited budget and the VHS camera, but the actual editing, camera angles, camera movements and scene staging are pretty professional. i've seen many movies where the "directing" was much worse. At least the scenes flow in a way that is not confusing and he has a few clever shots here and there. Also, the forest scenes contained a decent atmosphere. There is only so much you can do with a VHS camera, and he does a nice job as far as the technicalities go. As far as artistic merit, there is none. The scene where the camera pans down so that we can watch a guy urinate in the woods for 15 seconds sort of epitomizes the artistic style of the whole film. This is pure trash... Total garbage.<br /><br />The gore is decent for a film in this budget range. , it's obviously fake but there's lot's of it, and it's very outlandish..<br /><br />I saw the American version with the intentionally campy dubbing. This was a good idea (and it's the only thing that allowed me to make it through the film)... Unfortunately, it's overdone, especially towards the end.<br /><br />It's really a terrible film, but i have to recommend it for it's camp value. It's really hard to find a movie that's worse than this and that sort of puts it in a unique category.
Wow, not only is this film a "new lesson in real bad taste," but also a lesson in "real bad film making." Don't get me wrong, I appreciated the concept of 'Zombie '90: Extreme Pestilence,' but at the same time one must realize when a movie is terrible. In case you missed out on the storyline, the plot of 'Zombie '90' is about a government plane carrying toxic chemicals that so happens to crash into the wilderness, causing the chemicals to spill, turning locals into hideous looking zombies. The next thing you know, zombies are all over the city eating people alive, while a goofy-looking doctor and a government agent are trying to figure out the disease that's making these people eat one another - hence the name "Extreme Pestilence." From then on, all we see is zombies having a field day on every local in sight - nothing but extreme and sickening disembowelments and dismemberments accompanied by endless buckets of guts and gore. Since this is a German film, the film had to be dubbed into English and when you're not laughing at the feeding frenzies of the zombies, the voice-overs are quite hilarious and entertaining as well. As user UnratedX mentioned *SPOILER* *SPOILER* *SPOILER*, there is a scene in the film that crosses the line between what's acceptable and not acceptable, hence the scene in which a woman, who is carrying her infant baby, is being wheeled around in her wheelchair by some dude and a horde of zombies come out of nowhere and attack them. One zombie grabs the baby and rips it into pieces, eating its organs as you hear the baby crying. Wow, that is a new lesson in REALLLLLLLLLY bad taste. Atrocious I tell you, atrocious.
First, I am not really a fan of the whole "things eating flesh in disgusting new ways" genre of film but I am a bad movie afficionado so my next door neighbor said he had the worst movie ever. This one. So we start watching it. First and foremost - it is recorded on a camcorder sans tripod! Second the voice of the skinny white doctor is dubbed by a large black man! Third, none of the dialogue makes any sense. Fourth, the zombie scenes, though unconvincing and chockful of poor makeup and tomato paste, lead me to believe the director (and my next door neighbor) are in need of psychological help. It's funny for about 5 minutes but it gets old fast. It's so amateurish it's like watching a poorly dubbed high school video yearbook.... with zombies. A note to anyone involved with this movie - I want the 20 minutes of my life I spent watching this, before I fell asleep, back.
This movie is god awful. Not one quality to this movie. You would think that the gore would be good but it sucks bad. The effects are worse and the acting if you can call it acting is the worst I've ever seen. This movie was obviously shot on a camcorder and runs on a budget around 500 dollars probably. If you want to watch a good Zombie movie than watch Dawn of the dead or Day of the dead. If you want to watch a good cheap shot on video Zombie movie like this but way better than watch Redneck Zombies. Please avoid this movie at all costs. It is unwatchable and pointless. You've been warned. I've got nothing else to say about this stupid movie.
This really is one of the worst movies ever made. I consider myself a HUGE zombie film fan and usually tolerate bad acting, lame "special effects" a dumb story and whatever you may encounter in second rate movies, AS LONG as the film has a good atmosphere/story/suspension or whatever to offer. This one has basically no positive aspect to it and is third or fourth rate, maybe worse. Some friends of mine and myself made a small movie during a week´s holiday and definitely did a better job (no zombie film though).<br /><br />This flick is not even funny, not speaking of anything else. Really bad and redundant special effects, zombies that look like normal people (except for a white additional skin pulled over their faces), WAY TO MUCH fake blood (I like realism a lot, the combination of realism and Zombie films being debatable, but the presented gore is just plain silly). The camera stays quite long with feedings scenes, it gets boring and you cannot help but wonder, why the zombies use WEAPONS (!) to kill their prey. I will not go into the details of the dubbing (others have done so). Although I am from Germany myself and am at least a bit curious about the original version, I will NOT waste more of my time with this movie.<br /><br />Keep away from it, as far as you can.
A movie best summed up by the scene where a victim simulates disembowelment by pulling some poor animal's intestines out from under her T-shirt. Too terrible for words.
I've seen the original non-dubbed German version and I was surprised how bad this movie actually is. Thinking I had seen my share of bad movies like Ghoulies 2, Rabid Grannies, Zombie Lake and such, nothing could've prepared me for this! It really was a pain to sit through this flick, as there's no plot, no good acting and even the special effects aren't convincing, especially the so-called zombies, wearing nothing more than white make-up and their old clothes, so their good set wouldn't be ruined by ketchup and marmalade stains. <br /><br />If you really want to waste 90 minutes of your life, then watch it, for all the others, don't do it, because you WILL regret it!
Like some of the other folks who have reviewed this film, I was also waxing nostalgic about it...before I had the misfortune to actually watch it again. Alas, my childhood memories of this film were completely untrustworthy, and The Perils of Pauline is now revealed to be an embarrassing exercise in banal, racist, and plain boring film-making. Even the presence of old pros Edward Everett Horton and Terry-Thomas can't overcome a rancid screenplay, a horrible theme song, and some wretched 'special effects'. In addition, the stereotypical depictions of African and Arab characters make for painful viewing, especially considering this was produced in the immediate wake of the Civil Rights movement. Michael Weldon's original Psychotronic Encyclopedia reports that The Perils of Pauline was originally produced for television but inexplicably ended up getting a theatrical release. Judging from the results, that is a completely believable (and baffling) scenario.
While not exactly offensive, the 1967 version of "The Perils of Pauline" is certainly moronic. The title might lead you to expect a tribute to Pearl White (the original Pauline in the 1914 silent 20 episode serial) but for that you would be better served by the 1947 version starring Betty Hutton. This 1967 version is like a mix of "Casino Royale" and the weakest of the Elvis movies. Worst of all it is not a blend of these but more like someone scotch-taped together segments from each so that the thing skips back and forth between the two styles. <br /><br />What unity there is in the production comes from the pairing of Pamela Austin (Pauline) and Pat Boone (George Steadman), a good match because both lack even the most basic of acting skills (imagine Mandy Moore playing opposite Dan Quayle). <br /><br />Austin would later play opposite John Aston in "Evil Roy Slade", with the talent disparity between them actually painful to watch. In the mid-60's she was the "Dodge Rebellion" girl, as such she was featured in a similar series of perilous situations-imagine Sandra Dee in a dark blue jumpsuit. When the automaker's ad agency replaced her with the "Dodge Fever" girl someone got the bright idea to showcase her in a feature film. <br /><br />What story there is here begins with Pauline growing up in the Baskerville Foundling Home run by the actress who played Mrs. Chatsworth Osborne Sr. on "Dobie Gillis". George falls in love with her (Pauline-not Mrs Osborne) and sabotages several opportunities she has to be adopted. George leaves to seek his fortune and 19 year old Pauline gets a job tutoring a young oil rich Middle Eastern prince. When he tries to add the attractive blonde to his harem she runs away and goes from peril to peril. These include African pygmies, a 99½ year-old millionaire who wants to freeze her until his one year-old grandson is old enough for marriage, the movie industry, and the Russian space program.<br /><br />All this is intended to be silly and charming but manages only the silly part. There is some effort to incorporate a silent film look to the action sequences by simulating the under- cranking of a camera (which speeds up the action). Unfortunately everything else (film stock, production design, editing) is depressingly 1960's. Nothing here even approaches the images of Pearl White strapped to a log moving toward a buzz-saw or tied to railway track waiting for the approaching train.<br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
I've noticed how all the other reviews of this film mention how "wholesome" and "entertaining" it is. These people need to get out of the house more often. I don't know why they're shilling for this vapid, insipid, brainless piece of fluff. Pat Boone has absolutely no acting talent whatsoever, and his ineptness is exceeded only by that of his co-star Pamela Austin, a former model (yet one more reason to outlaw the insidious practice of inflicting talentless models on an unsuspecting moveiegoing public, a foul habit that unfortunately persists to this day). A good supporting cast (Terry-Thomas, Edward Everett Hortyon, among others) tries hard to make some sense out of this, but to no avail. I noticed that two directors shared credit, although "credit" isn't the word I would use (neither is "director"). As for "wholesome entertainment," there are plenty of those types of movies available without torturing your loved ones by forcing them to sit through this. Find one of those films, and skip this one.
This is one of those films that's more interesting to watch from an academic perspective than from an entertainment perspective. I do my ratings based on how much I enjoyed or was entertained by the movie, so I'm giving it a 4. If I were to rate it as an academic film, though, it would get a 10.<br /><br />It is shot in a very interesting manner, like a pseudo-silent film with elements of sound effect and reality. It's meant to convey disjointed memory and fragmentation of the mind, and it is interesting in these respects.<br /><br />However, the film has a lot of disgusting elements to it that I didn't find all that entertaining. They're mainly just disturbing. It has some very interesting imagery too, and some interesting concepts, but some of the character relationships (especially between the mother and son) are pretty disturbing.<br /><br />In all, this film will either appeal to you or it won't. For me, it was interesting from an academic perspective, but it wasn't a good watch, and I'll probably not go back to it a second time.<br /><br />4/10 if you're looking for entertainment. 10/10 from an academic standpoint.
I should have never watched this movie. The style of filming may be considered artsy to some, but it is considered migraine-inducing to me. I think it may have had an interesting plot, but since I couldn't watch it for long stretches at a time I missed a lot. The flickering pictures and stop motion filming branded my brain. I stopped watching mid way through and won't be back for a second try. I suppose if I were home alone in my own lighthouse some dark and stormy evening, this might be just the ticket... PS Not sure if the lighthouse/ film style thing can be considered a spoiler, but I don't want to be blacklisted on my first review ;)
I didn't know this was a silent movie with narration. I don't care for silent movies - the corny humor, flickering lighting and film, etc. I'm sure that attributes to the low score I assigned it. It was about chapter 8 before I found any interest in this story and had I had popcorn I may have thrown it at the screen. Maybe this appeals to the sci-fi crowd? The only thing missing was a zombie scene and a brain transplant. I went with two other people on a Friday night and there were a total of 6 people in the entire theater. Isabella Rosselinni narrated this movie - the one enjoyable aspect of the movie. No one left commenting how much they enjoyed this nor appreciated the unusual approach to telling this story. I cannot recommend this movie.
This is a wonderfully goofy example of a self produced, written and directed vanity project ...while I was working as a crew member John Carradine commented to me (before the burning at the stake sequence): "This is the worst piece of sh*t I've ever worked on ...and I've worked on a lot of pieces of sh*t." Also An interesting moment earlier when Jim Mitchum was having trouble with his lines and started cursing in the courtyard location of the Santuario (a religious shrine in Chimayó) - at which point one of the local "vato loco" low-rider onlookers growled "...show some respect man", which apparently caused Jim to remember where he was, as he then made a very profound and heartfelt apology for his inappropriate behavior. In any case the crew did the job on deferment and were never fully paid - but came away with plenty of particularly bizarre stories - like the night we caught the producer/director's 10 year old son entertaining himself by constructing miniature Burmese tiger traps for us to break our legs in. Like they say: "Ya gotta' love the Biz..."
Hey HULU.com is playing the Elvira late night horror show on their site and this movie is their under the Name Monsteroid, good fun to watch Elvira comment on this Crappy movie ....Have Fun with bad movies. Anyways this movie really has very little value other than to see how bad the 70's were for horror flicks Bad Effects, Bad Dialog, just bad movie making. Avoid this unless you want to laugh at it. While you are at HULU check out the other movies that are their right now there is 10 episodes and some are pretty decent movies with good plots and production and you can watch a lot of them in 480p as long as you have a decent speed connection.
Monster is a mind numbingly awful movie about an evil American concrete factory (are there any else in Hollywood?) polluting the waters of the small Colombian town of Chimayo somehow creating a catfish-like beast with a predilection for lamb and loose women. James Mitchum is Bill Travis the man who is sent down to Chimayo by his foul-mouthed boss Barnes who himself can't keep his hands off of his secretary's rear to get to the bottom (pun intended) of the story. While in Chimayo Bill must contend with an annoying reporter who apparently broadcasts all of her stories in perfect English directly back to America. I guess in the seventies there was a market for news from small South American towns. There is also a radical named Sanchez that wishes to sabotage the factory for polluting the water which, by the way, also supplies the town with jobs for the locals, but why let cold hearted economics get in the way of touchy-feely enviro-marxism. Pete the factory boss is unwittingly aided by the monster when he has sex with his ex-girlfriend on the beach, tells her that he is seeing the mayor's daughter Juanita and it's over between them, then she is promptly eaten that night. A little side action without the evidence. My hat is off to you Sir. John Carradine rounds out the cast as a priest that believes the monster is sent by God to punish sinners. You can see the contempt he has for being in this movie in his face. Might as well filmed him running to the local currency exchange to see if his check didn't bounce.<br /><br />Supposedly based on a true story, so much so they say it twice in the opening credits, this film is awful on all fronts. Filming began in 1971 and was abandoned until eight years later when Kenneth Hartford put his foot on the throat of Monster by adding his two annoying children as new characters, even putting his daughter, Andrea in top billing with Mitchum and Carradine. The sound quality is nonexistent and most of the scenes seem as if someone smeared tar over the camera before filming. This is made even more tedious during the many scenes done at night. The monster itself is laughable as it rears its ugly rubbery head for the anticlimactic ending. James Mitchum along with his brother Chris are proof that nepotism in the acting industry needs to be curtailed. Utterly unwatchable dreck. Shame on you John Carradine.
Tough guys, sexy women, lots of swearing, and a most unconvincing monster that rises from the depths of a polluted lake. You'd think "Monster" would be fun...but it isn't, really. It does star Tony Eisley and John Carradine, however, and in my book that makes it worth viewing at least once. In an interview with "Fangoria" in 1987, Eisley recalled that Herbert Strock had directed the bulk of the film, but somehow Kenneth Hartford--who only directed the footage featuring his children Andrea and Glenn (portraying characters named Andrea and Glenn, in a particularly inventive turn)--received full credit. Considering how awful the end result was, Strock was probably glad that he hadn't been credited! "Monster" has the look and feel of a mid-to-late-seventies TV movie, which is why I like to leave it on in the background every so often. As entertainment it falls flat on its face, but as a reminder of another age and a vanished type of film-making, it's very effective. The only thing that's missing is a car chase.
I could barely keep myself from either nodding off or just turning off this turd, but I decided to stick it out if only for the reasoning that maybe *something* would happen. This is the work of a writer/producer/director/special fx, Kenneth Herts, who wants to make a statement on ecological damage while making a monster movie. That's what he wanted, anyway. What it turns out to be is a lot of acting, either slightly hammy or just mundane and without much merit, and scenes that seem to repeat themselves as the monster ATTACKS in the river waters (oh, and what luck, a woman just happens to be naked in it... even though there have already been DISAPPEARANCES!) <br /><br />This is just nonsensical stuff, but I suppose it's not too harmful; it's not very obnoxious at the least and once or twice we get a semi-interesting peek at Brazilian "culture" (which is the father walking through town with his flock or other pieces of a semblance of 'hey, this is NOT America!'). But whatever hope the director had in casting Mitchum or Carradine is squandered on at best pedestrian and at worst excruciatingly banal and dumb dialog. It doesn't help that when we finally get something of a good look at the monster and the "action" happens, it too is stupidly staged and with only sleazy appeal. Usually I would feel sorry for a filmmaker who had a lot of problems getting a particular picture finished- in this case it took the better part of the mid 70s- but with Monstroid or Monster or whatever it's called... nah.<br /><br />If you happen to get the Elvira DVD double-feature of this (bad print with bad transfer quality) with Blue Sunshine, make sure to skip this one. Unless, of course, you're an Elvira die-hard and can't help yourself to hear her luscious commentary; personally, I'd rather get Joel or Mike Nelson with the robots from Mystery Science Theater on this roast turkey.
"True" story of a late monster that appears when an American industrial plant begins polluting the waters. Amusing, though not really good, monster film has lots of people trying to get the monster and find out whats going on but not in a completely involving way. Give it points for giving us a giant monster that they clearly built to scale for some scenes but take some away in that it looks like a non threatening puppy. An amusing exploitation film thats enjoyably silly in the right frame of mind. (My one complaint is that the print used on the Elvira release is so poor that it looks like a well worn video tape copy that was past its prime 20 years ago.)
This has got to be the cheesiest, stupidest, most retarded monster film of all time. It's a complete joke that this even surfaced into theaters. This is sort of like watching the Loch Ness monster in rural America. This movie deserves to be thrown in a toilet and completely forgotten. John Carradine, shame on you. The people involved in this moronic pile of trash need to be lobotomized. Wait! Maybe I'm giving them too much credit. I'm sure they were lobotomized before the filming. How else can one explain the utter and sheer stupidity that this bucket of crap contains. Don't waste a minute of your life watching this. Don't even waste your time sending a review.
This could be a cute movie for kids My grandson watched it once. he was watching it a second time I was watching some of it with him.<br /><br />When the little bear gets lost on the ice burg and he is in the water he is trying to get to a piece of ice it says "Come back stupid ass fool".<br /><br />I don't want my 3 year old grandson watching movies with words like this in it.<br /><br />That is why its rated for children. Should be child friendly. That is what I would expect. put out by warner brothers and G rated I would expect this to not have cuss words in it. The words don't even fit the movie in most places as it seems added later. And the movie drags out in many parts.
What a load of rubbish.. I can't even begin to describe how awful this film was. The rating it has here is really hard to believe.<br /><br />Avoid... Particularly if you enjoyed the first ginger snaps. The first one was well written, well directed, well executed.. a brilliant film with a fantastic aesthetic and atmosphere. The second one was 'alrite'- decent as a self-standing film, but clearly not up to the level of the first... The third is an insult to the series, period. I rate the films: 10, 6, 1. It's that bad.<br /><br />Oh, and yes it really is set in the past, the sisters are still called Ginger and B Fitzgerald... all muddled in with some half-assed native American mythology. The sisters don't have any real story, or progression, or even a clear relationship... They're just trying to survive and be 'together forever'. That's about as deep as it gets.<br /><br />Staggered that the girls agreed to be in this pile-of-shite, after reading the script.<br /><br />Oh and another thing, staging of action was terrible- people appearing from nowhere regularly, like the girls turn around and there's an elaborate candle-lit setup with a mystic native American woman just sitting there, about to go into a speech. Sets were terrible, couldn't get away from the fact that it was all obviously based in a set, which really didn't help. Also, there was consistently snow outside the camp, but not a trace inside (..on the set).<br /><br />Arrghh,,, so bad! I really was hoping it would be at least as good as the second one.
Am not familiar with the trilogy but came upon this film last night on Showtime. The film looked very well done with the set design and the cinematography, but the screenplay was stilted and wooden. The acting was fairly bad- thought the two female leads were serviceable. You never really believed anything the supporting actors said though. There were the stereotypes- bible-thumping Reverend without a hint of nuance, authoritative Captain, hot-headed soldier, etc. I am sorry to say that based on these deficiencies I clocked it straight away as Canadian without knowing it to be such-the Telefilm Canada end credits gave it away. I know I'm a horrible person.<br /><br />Maybe I missed something in the beginning but the hostility towards the girls is never explained. Here they are besieged in a fort by werewolves and the men are wasting time and energy brutalizing two young women for no reason. FOCUS people. There's a bit more of a pressing situation beyond your walls than whether or not these girls are lesbians-that's just my inference for the hostility directed towards them. If they can aim and fire a gun you might as well make nice with them. The question of their "immortal soul" can be resolved later.<br /><br />Also, I guess this relates to the rest of the trilogy, these girls are supposed to be the protagonists? One of them murdered the Indian guy at the end that saved one of their lives. I guess one is just a victim of her condition who can't be necessarily blamed for her actions, but the other is just a murderer who doesn't deserve her happy ending.
For a good half hour or so, I remember myself thinking: "Hey, this could very well be Bill Rebane's best achievement ever!". The opening sequences are atmospheric, there immediately are some scary moments to enjoy and our director even refers to his own notorious stinker "The Giant Spider Invasion" in a playful way. The concept is shamelessly stolen from William Castle's "House on Haunted Hill", with three old and extremely bored millionaires luring nine losers to an isolated mansion to win $1,000,000 in an elimination game. Naturally, the participants start vanishing quickly and one by one, and it takes the remaining greedy boneheads too much time before they realize either the old folks are sadists...or there's another murderer amongst them. The film begins & ends with an odd narrator telling a lot of senseless stuff that isn't relevant or even interesting to the plot, but there's some nice T&A to admire in the first ten minutes and that dumb bimbo (Shelly, I believe she's called) is really hilarious to observe. After the first half hour, naturally the inevitable happens and "The Cold" turns into a textbook Rebane-production with retarded plot twists, the dumbest dialogs ever and a total lack of excitement. There wasn't any budget for bloody murder sequences but our multi-talented director (?) tries to compensate this with endless footage of disco dancing girls and an amateur rock band. The film also has four or even five different climaxes and none of them are a slight bit satisfying. Maybe it was an inspiration for LOTR: Return of the King? Avoid this film, you'll live longer and happier.
This movie had what sounded like a good premise: 9 people facing their fears to win one million dollars. Unfortunately, it did not turn out to be a good movie. There are several scenes that are way too long and really pointless like the dancing scene. A few scenes are just an excuse to point the camera at female body parts. The acting is bad, but some of the lines are amusing in their awfulness. What's really strange is that towards the end of the movie it turns into like a 5 minute western, and at the end, the twists, of which their were several, don't make sense with the rest of the movie. It seemed as though the director just added stuff on because he thought it would look cool, while conveniently ignoring the plot of the movie up to that point. It just didn't make a lot of sense. The only creepy thing was the old people dancing down the hall, but that doesn't even come close to making up for the rest of this mess.
This is one lowly film. It has no real plot. We never are made privy to motivations, other than wealth. The characters are some of the worst actors ever to be put on film. The threat seems to be supernatural, but then it's being controlled by these three older people. Why are they doing what they are doing; in order to strike fear into other members of the group? I don't know. There is some mist from a fog machine that rolls around in the halls and everyone seems to be scared of it. Does it do something? I don't know. There's some nudity for its own sake. I'm always surprised to see this in films this old. Things have actually settled down in this regard these days. Anyway, the people run around like chickens, ready for the ax. They have no plan; no resources; no nothing. There are about five silly climaxes in the film. Who are these people and "is" there a ghost or demon. What happened to the other people? I challenge anyone to tell me this with any confidence. What a mess.
This is one strange hacked together film, you get the feeling that the bond company had to come in on this one, I'm not surprised there's no credits on it, who would want to be associated with this film. The Acting of all involved is terribly stilted and the plot jumps around all over, it all makes very little sense. As I said before it looks like the bond company had to come in because it seems like there was alot of footage that wasn't shot that needed to be, and all the music was very ill-fitting library music (cheap I guess). Very, very odd. I might actually buy a DVD of it though, if it could let me in on what the hell was going on, and what happened to this movie.
This complete mess of a movie was directed by Bill Rebane, the man partly responsible for the truly infamous anti-classic Monster a-Go Go. As I was nearing the end of The Cold I came to the unbelievable conclusion that this film was in fact even worse than that 60's shocker. The story – such as it is – is about three eccentric millionaires who invite a group of people to their remote mansion to play a series of macabre games. Whoever manages to last the pace and survive to the end will win $1,000,000. It's a very simple plot but Rebane still somehow manages to make proceedings verge on incomprehensible. Things happen. Characters are completely forgotten about. Nothing makes too much sense. And then it ends. Weirdly. I mean what the hell was that ending all about exactly? I guess you are left to draw your own conclusions. Production values and acting are without question of a pornographic movie standard. In truth Pamela Rohleder (Shelly) isn't even that good. She is so unbelievably terrible she's compelling. Sadly the same thing cannot be said about this crap-fest as a whole, it's just a bargain basement rotter.
A real head scratcher of a film by Bill Rebane who appeared to be getting worse in his trade throughout the eighties. Three crackpot millionaires invite nine people to a remote hotel to compete in a last person standing contest in which the final contestant will be given $1 million provided he or she makes it that far. A series of lame pranks are pulled on some of the guests while the others engage in what most adults would do under the circumstances namely get shatfaced at the hotel bar. Most scenes are merely an excuse to focus the camera on various female body parts including an opening dance number that is a crossover of American Bandstand meets geriatric aerobics complete with hookers. If there was any hesitation that white people can't dance this scene hammers the final nail in that coffin. Pay close attention for the nipple slip. This continues on for about forty-five minutes until Bill Rebane begins throwing darts at various plot twists and whatever he hits becomes the inspiration for the next scene making this one incoherent mess. It's a game until it's not a game. The three old coots are in complete control until they're not. The hotel is possessed by a supernatural force until it becomes just props. They're dead until they're not. Even the narrator at the end replies that he doesn't know what the hell happened. I defy anyone to reason where Rebane was going on this one. The acting is dinner theater caliber minus the dinner. Most of the actors probably went back to their day jobs at the local Stuckey's. I give it a few points for the scene where the yuppie broad opens the closet and a skeleton is inside skull humping himself. Let's see Gone With the Wind do that! This Chilling Classics collection is really becoming the bane of me. Bane, Get it! Like Rebane! I hate myself.
This God forsaken film is about three dumb millionaires who gather a bunch of people to play a deadly game, and the winner gets a million dollars. First of all, the acting is terrible, and the movie makes absolutely no sense at all. It is not scary in the least bit, it is so stupid that it made me laugh, which is why it earned that 1 star.The movie is not violent at all, but is pretty sleazy and focuses mostly on the women's breasts the whole time, and some of the characters are very annoying and whiny. Plus, the monsters in this movie are so cheesy and fake and not scary that it just makes you want to throw something at the screen. Last, but not least the ending is terrible. I don't want to give it away, in case you actually are strange enough to see this piece of junk. AVOID AT ALL COSTS!!!!!<br /><br />Not Rated (But should be R) for Nudity, Profanity, and Mild Gore.
To anyone not familiar with c.S. Forrester's book this film should be interesting. It is colorful, well acted and depicts high adventure, but to those of us who know the original stories it is appalling. I could hardly sit through it.<br /><br />For some reason screen-writers seem compelled to rewrite the stories they are working on. Of course, the spoken word is different from the written word, and there are some episodes that would be difficult to film. But, why do the screen-writers rewrite the story instead of just adapting it? In this case the writers out-did themselves.<br /><br />Just a few examples: There was no mutiny on the Renown. The officers did take over the ship after the half-insane Captain was driven completely mad when he fell through a hatchway -for reasons implied but never given. There was no court martial. The court of inquiry was conducted in an almost congratulatory atmosphere. Captain Pellew does not appear appear in this part of the Hornblower saga, nor does Col. Ortega's wife. Hornblower, himself, was never in the brig either on the ship or on shore. There are plenty of such manipulations of Forrester's story.<br /><br />On a purely technical basis, I think the film's repeated use of the flash-back device hurts the continuity of the story.<br /><br />Why, oh why did screen-writers have to mess up a good story?
<br /><br />As with the other episodes in this made-for-TV series expanding on the many adventures of the sea legend, Horatio Hornblower's super human infallibility ruins all chance for suspense.<br /><br />As little Wesley Crusher ruined many seasons of THE NEXT GENERATION, Horatio Hornblower invincibly saves every situation. Each and every clever solution inevitably comes only from the lips of Horatio Hornblower. Immeasurably superior, Hornblower's main trouble in this movie series seems to be tolerating the many error ridden characters above and below him in the chain of command. A perfect being makes for dull story telling. So superior is our hero, that even those who attempt to help him are powerless to do something correctly unless Hornblower is there to direct and control their every move.<br /><br />What is the sense in telling a story about any person who cannot do wrong and will repeatedly win at everything every single time? What is the point of watching such a story?
Strange, almost all reviewers are highly positive about this movie. Is it because it's from 1975 and has Chamberlain and Curtis in it and therefore forgive the by times very bad acting and childish ways of storytelling? <br /><br />Maybe it's because some people get sentimental about this film because they have read the book? (I have not read the book, but I don't think that's a problem, film makers never presume that the viewers have read the book). <br /><br />Or is it because I am subconsciously irritated about the fact that English-speaking actors try to behave as their French counterparts?
What is this ? A low budget sex comedy ? Anyway it describes perfectly the people in Spain. They could come up with a better idea, I mean they do this kind of movies since the 60s.. and people like them ! This is neither a teen comedy nor a family one (you can't let your 12 year old watch 2 guys in bed kissing, he'll never want to go to Spain). This should be rated "R", because only people 35+ seem to laugh watching :S I'm truly disappointed, maybe I don't like gays (which is quite an important part of the movie).<br /><br />Foreign humor is awful in films (except Kusturica), stick with doing dramas! If you want a new comedy try Talladega Nights
My giving this a score of 3 is NOT what I would give the original Soviet version of this film. It seems that American-International (a studio that specialized in ultra-low-budget fare in the 60s) bought this film and utterly destroyed it--slicing a two hour plus film into a 64 minute film! Plus, much of this 64 minutes was new material (such as the "monsters")--so you know that this film bears almost no similarity to the original. The original film appears to be a rather straight drama about the Soviet conquest of space--though I really am not sure what it was originally! For insight into the original film, read Steven Nyland's review--it was very helpful.<br /><br />By the way, this was the third Soviet sci-film I've seen that American-International bought and then hacked apart to make a "new" film--standard practice to a company that was willing to put just about anything on the screen to make a buck--provided, of course, it didn't cost them much more than a buck in the first place!! This Americanized film was about two rival world powers (NOT the US and Soviets) trying to be the first to Mars. The tricky "bad guys" try but fail and the "good guys" rescue one of the idiot astronauts and then head to Mars. Unfortunately, they are temporarily stranded on a moon of Mars where they see some monsters (added by American-International) that are REAAAALLY cheesy and one does bear similarity to a certain part of a female's anatomy. Then, they are rescued--returning to Earth heroes.<br /><br />The bottom line is that the film was butchered--turning an incredibly beautiful piece of art (for the time) being turned into a grade-C movie. Because of this, the Soviets really had a reason to hate America! I'm just shocked that the horrible job A-I did with this film didn't convince them to refuse to sell more films to these jerks! It's worth a look for a laugh, but the really bad moments that make you laugh are few and far between. So, the film is a dud--not bad enough to make it a must-see for bad movie buffs and too dopey to be taken seriously. I would really love to see this movie in its original form--it must have been some picture.
Considering John Doe apparently inspired Kyle XY's creator I was expecting its pilot to be quite interesting. However I probably had too high expectations because I was quite disappointed by it. First they turned the protagonist into a freak who had the crazy idea of showing off his amazing knowledge in front of an audience, in a public area. So after that scene I began to worry that it was just entertainment. But the problem is that it got worse as none of the other characters were properly introduced. They focused too much on John Doe which made the story far less intriguing. I was also slightly disappointed by Dominic Purcell's performance because I found he didn't make a believable John Doe. An other problem was the police story. It really felt like déjà vu and it wasn't a pleasant sensation. It leads us to the worst issue in the bunch, the episodic format. I could already see the fillers coming one after an other.<br /><br />So overall I was very disappointed by it and don't recommend it to anyone. Considering how bad it was I better understand now why the show got canceled. In some way I have the impression that it missed its target, developing characters to help the protagonist find his own identity. It's sad because there was potential, like the people he met at the club. The production quality was also quite good and the casting correct. But I'll never know if it got better, probably not, because I don't plan to watch the next episode.
After a series of power-outages on a remote island zoo, genetically engineered sabertooth tigers are on the loose and mauling residents of the island. Man, the sci-fi channel has made some bad "original" movies, but I think this might possibly be their worst so far! This badly written and directed "Jurassic Park" rip-off offers all the usual clichés (mad scientists who thinks people killed by the monsters are "expendable losses", characters walking down long dark hallways alone, brain-dead teen characters who's only function in the film is to die a horrible death, etc.), and, unsurprisingly, no suspense whatsoever. The special effects are atrocious—the puppet heads in close-ups of the title beasties are bad enough, looking like stiff plush dolls, but the CGI—which makes the computer-generated dinosaurs in "Walking with Dinosaurs" look life-like by comparison—are just downright awful. There's some gore, but most of it looks pretty unconvincing. Oh, and the death scene of the scientist at the end is truly one of the worst things I've seen in years. I couldn't even laugh it was so bad!<br /><br />Don't waste your time, this one is just downright bad.<br /><br />2/10. <br /><br />Oh, and here's some interesting trivia for you—this film borrowed music cues from the 2003 sci-fi film "Alien Hunter", which was far superior to this piece of crap.
In the Fiji islands, the greedy and unscrupulous owner of the Valalola Resort Primal Park invites investors and guests for an opening party of his compound composed of hotel and zoo aiming to find partners for his discoveries. When a bunch of college smalltime thieves puts a virus in the security system to participate in a scavenger hunt, the greatest attractions of the zoo – sabretoothes from the prehistoric age developed from DNA found in fossils – escape, killing the hosts and guards for pleasure.<br /><br />The incredibly lame and cheap "Attack of the Sabretooth" is one of the worst movies I have recently seen. The characters are awful and not funny or pleasant and the story is a terrible Jurassik Park rip-off with a bad collection of clichés. Basically all the lines and situations are poor and stupid, but the winner is when the guard explains that the sabretoothes are bulimic and like to kill for pleasure. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "O Ataque do Dente de Sabre" ("The Attack of the Sabretooth")
The film starts with a manager (Nicholas Bell) giving welcome investors (Robert Carradine) to Primal Park . A secret project mutating a primal animal using fossilized DNA, like ¨Jurassik Park¨, and some scientists resurrect one of nature's most fearsome predators, the Sabretooth tiger or Smilodon . Scientific ambition turns deadly, however, and when the high voltage fence is opened the creature escape and begins savagely stalking its prey - the human visitors , tourists and scientific.Meanwhile some youngsters enter in the restricted area of the security center and are attacked by a pack of large pre-historical animals which are deadlier and bigger . In addition , a security agent (Stacy Haiduk) and her mate (Brian Wimmer) fight hardly against the carnivorous Smilodons. The Sabretooths, themselves , of course, are the real star stars and they are astounding terrifyingly though not convincing. The giant animals savagely are stalking its prey and the group run afoul and fight against one nature's most fearsome predators. Furthermore a third Sabretooth more dangerous and slow stalks its victims.<br /><br />The movie delivers the goods with lots of blood and gore as beheading, hair-raising chills,full of scares when the Sabretooths appear with mediocre special effects.The story provides exciting and stirring entertainment but it results to be quite boring .The giant animals are majority made by computer generator and seem totally lousy .Middling performances though the players reacting appropriately to becoming food.Actors give vigorously physical performances dodging the beasts ,running,bound and leaps or dangling over walls . And it packs a ridiculous final deadly scene. No for small kids by realistic,gory and violent attack scenes . Other films about Sabretooths or Smilodon are the following : ¨Sabretooth(2002)¨by James R Hickox with Vanessa Angel, David Keith and John Rhys Davies and the much better ¨10.000 BC(2006)¨ by Roland Emmerich with with Steven Strait, Cliff Curtis and Camilla Belle. This motion picture filled with bloody moments is badly directed by George Miller and with no originality because takes too many elements from previous films. Miller is an Australian director usually working for television (Tidal wave, Journey to the center of the earth, and many others) and occasionally for cinema ( The man from Snowy river, Zeus and Roxanne,Robinson Crusoe ). Rating : Below average, bottom of barrel.
this movie had a lot of blood in it when the sabretooth attack it also i loved it when that guy and the women were having some good time and then the sabretooth attacked the women and ate her stomach and took the liver out. that was the best and the 1ton sabretooth walking on its front legs hilarious to make this movie better more action and less talking if you know what i mean and also please please people who made this movie don't make anothwer movie like this movies ending cause it was terrible 1 sabretooth alive and killed that women in the end this movie reminds me of the grudges ending always there's 1 enemy left! OK damn it this movie sucks i can 't believe it i loved it when my lil bro got freaked from the attacks stomach takin out and the blood ya
I have a piece of advice for the people who made this movie too, if you're gonna make a movie like this be sure you got the f/x to back it up. Also don't get a bunch of z list actors to play in it. Another thing, just about all of us have seen Jurassic Park, so don't blatantly copy it. All in all this movie sucked, f/x sucked, acting sucked, story unoriginal. Let's talk about the acting for just a second, the Carradine guy who's career peaked in 1984 when he did "Revenge of the Nerds" (which was actually a great comedy). He's not exactly z list, he can act. He just should have said no to this s--t bag. He should have did what Mark Hamill did after "Return of the Jedi" and go quietly into the night. He made his mark as a "Nerd" and that should have been that. I understand he has bills to pay, but that hardly excuses this s--t bag. Have I called this movie that yet? O.K. I just wanted to be sure. If I sound a little hostile, I apologize. I just wasted 2hrs of my life I could have spent doing something productive like watching paint peel, and I feel cheated. I'll close on that note. Thank you for your time.
I remember watching ATTACK when it first came out and caught it again recently. The sci fi channel has run worse, but not by much. A shameless ripoff of Jurassic Park, ATTACK substitutes sabertooth cats for dinosaurs. And they are on the loose, devouring as many extras as possible. The CGI is pretty bad, and closeups of prosthetic cat heads are laughable. We get some gore, which helps a little. Wait until you see how the mad scientist who started this whole mess gets it. Other than Robert Carradine, who has very little to do, the cast is unknown. Apparently this was shot in Fiji. Nice work if you can get it. Reminds me of all those low-budget monster STVs that were popular in the 80s and 90s.
Three giant sabretooth tigers(..created in a laboratory from mitochondrial DNA, a "genetic breakthrough" derived from fossil material)are on the rampage accidentally set free through a series of events(such as a computer geek's introduced virus in order to unlock security measures keeping the resort novelty shops closed during construction & a security guard's leaving a gate open while searching for the missing page from a porn mag that flew away in the breeze)that threaten the lives of those it comes in contact with. The tigers are always hungry, but are unable to digest what they eat. So pretty much the tigers just rip their prey to shreds. Victims include a group of college kids(..the stereotypes include a goth girl, jock and tech nerd), security personnel, and those somewhat developed rich scoundrels who we can easily despise and wish horrible death.<br /><br />Rounding out a series of bad sci-fi channel flicks, Attack of the Sabretooth has some of the most wretched computer simulated animals I've seen yet. And, the final death sequence is so putridly presented, you'll demand within the deepest recesses of your soul the time spent on this truly awful exercise in the creature feature canon. There's some good dark humor deriving from heads being torn from necks, but even here the prosthetic work is unconvincing. Prosthetic body parts and blood aplenty as victims are pounced upon, crying for help and receiving none. I'm starting to sound like a broken record, repeating myself in every user comment I write for these sci-fi channel flicks. I think maybe it's time to move on to other kinds of cinema. Robert Carradine has a role as a ruthless businessman who is being wooed by his truly repellent ex-brother-in-law, Nicholas Bell, the one opening "Primal Park", a resort / zoo featuring genetically created sabretooth tigers as it's major attraction. Stacy Haiduk, still quite yummy, is a security officer who attempts to convince Bell to get the investors he hopes to goad into putting money in his multi-million dollar project to leave the island. Brian Wimmer is Haiduck's lover and his role is a mechanic keeping operations running smoothly.<br /><br />Bell's fate at the end, resulting from a dislodged tooth from a sabretooth tiger statue is the pits. Carradine spends a great deal of the film taunting Bell, his arch nemesis. The tiger's point-of-view shows humans in a bright color as it moves towards them. The film ultimately consists of characters walking through darkened corridors(..the tech nerd's virus cut off the power)worried for their safety. The college kids commit breaking and entering to score certain items needed(..it's a scavenger hunt type of activity)to enter a fraternity / sorority. The cast playing these kids do not rise above their clichés.
Spoilers will be in this. The movie could have been better if they had just had a different script, director, and CGI provider. Not much right? The movie has a man starting his own theme park...err...zoo on a deserted island where people can see dinosaurs...err...Sabretooths and it is called Jurra...oops...Primal Park. I do not mind rip-offs, because there are no original ideas for these kind of movies, but this one just slaps you in the face with it, R e p e a t e d l y.There is even the "creature's shadowed head on the design" thing. The Sabretooths, that are not sabretooths according to Mr. Primal Park (Just ancient killing cats), Are rather junky but the crowning accomplishment is the one I call "Sloggy". Because, after disposing of one big cat, a hero is relaxing a little because there is only one left. Enter the weird feeding guy who says, Nah, we made three, the third being a monster who pulls itself around with its front feet. Great, groovy. A group of college students are also on the island for a scavenger hunt, there test to get into their cliques frat or sort (Always thought that needed a short nickname). Out of the ones who do live, only one has completed their task, so I got a kick out of that. Oh yeah, the mandatory "Evil Capitalist Must Die" Clique is in force with not one, but two of them! Mr. Primal Park's death is the most laughable thing you will see in one of these movies as a Sabretooth statue's tooth jars loose (Courtesy of Sloggy), shrinks a few sizes, and impales the man through the throat. If I had only gotten away so easy. I like "Sabretooth" better than this spin-off.
Everything about this film is hog wash. Pitiful acting, awful dialog, ugly native girls. this movie sinks into oblivion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The director must have been a weekend bender. Robert C. is totally lost and has not got a clue on what is going on . The college kids are worst. No acting talent at all, very stupid reasoning, and just down right dumbbells. Special effects are for the birds. The so called security force around this park belongs in toy land: with stupid looking guns, walkie talkies that are useless; and a computer system that ranks with a roll of toilet paper. if the park is under construction and nothing works; why bother inviting potential clients until everything is complete. the writers should be the first victims of the mess along with the producers and the crew. The whole film belongs in a septic tank shot to another planet for viewing. What a gem. Convicts should have to watch this, so they can commit suicide.
The film is about a sabretooth on the lose at a amusement park where teens are on a scavenger hunt. Since there are no rules they break into a building and start getting killed off. The deaths are cheesy and are dumb. But at least it had better effects then sabretooth. I gave it a three because Stacy was in it and I loved the movie Sabretooth. I thought it was okay but some deaths were off-screen. There was a dumb scene where the two teens kiss and the sabretooth's head pops out and the boy leaves his girlfriend behind leaving her to have her totally fake looking red guts out. Then the sabretooth gets up in the vents and bites the kids head off. The end death with the owner was totally fake looking graphics. Even that death was stupid because the statues tooth went through his mouth and hangs there like that will support it and there is a scene when a goth girl loses her contacts doesn't find them, and seems like she doesn't need the. The film is idiotic and a waste of time.
First, the CGI in this movie was horrible. I watched it during a marathon of bad movies on the SciFi channel. At the end when the owner of the park gets killed, it's probably one of the worst examples of CGI I have even seen. Even Night of the Living Dead had better animation.<br /><br />That said, the movie had almost no plot. Why were they on that island in particular? Well, it wasn't stated in the movie. And, why would the people keep coming into the cat's area? Makes no sense.<br /><br />One thing that stood out in this movie was moderately good acting. In what could be called a "B made for TV movie" movie, the acting was very good. Parry Shen stood out in particular.<br /><br />If you have absolutely nothing to do on a Saturday, watch this movie. It may be good for some memorable quotes.
This movie was the worst movie ever made on the planet, I like BARNEY more than this movie. The graphics suck, half the movie is animated, the deaths suck, and over all, I was ready to SUE the people that made this movie!PLEASE DO NOT WASTE HOURS OF YOUR LIFE WATCHING THIS MOVIE. The only good part was when the movie ******* ended! This movie is 50 percent Jurassic park, .1 percent Sabretooth, and 49.9 percent DUMB! Please do not waste your time watching this movie, you will regret it.You want to know why this movie sucks? Well, the cover sucked, the graphics sucked, the blood looked ( I mean is) ketchup, the people tried to blow themselves up, the college students think there all that and can stand up to the animal. I mean, there was a 5 ft. tiger running straight at a woman, she throws a spear at it from 100 ft away! WAIT TILL YOU CAN Actually HIT IT! The acting was horrible too. Jurrasic Park is actually a good movie, and this just had to go and ruin it.
This movie should have NEVER been made. From the poorly done animation, to the beyond bad acting. I am not sure at what point the people behind this movie said "Ok, looks good! Lets do it!" I was in awe of how truly horrid this movie was. At one point, which very may well have been the WORST point, a computer generated Saber Tooth of gold falls from the roof stabbing the idiot creator of the cats in the mouth...uh, ooookkkk. The villain of the movie was a paralyzed sabretooth that was killed within minutes of its first appearance. The other two manages to kill a handful of people prior to being burned and gunned down. Then, there is a random one awaiting victims in the jungle...which scares me for one sole reason. Will there be a Part Two? God, for the sake of humans everywhere I hope not.<br /><br />This movie was pure garbage. From the power point esquire credits to the slide show ending.
This movie was pretty bad. Sci-fi is usually my favorite channel so I watch all the original movies that play on it. I really don't know if this movie can be called original. Starting a zoo/theme park on a remote island sounds pretty familiar. What was it, oh yeah, Jurassic Park. But this has Sabertooth tigers instead.<br /><br />The movie starts out with a few stereotypical college kids on an island doing some kind of treasure hunt. One of them ends up dieing a rather gruesome death with some of the worst special effects I've seen. The blood looked a lot like ketchup. Also at the beginning there is a scientist who wants to make as many saber tooth tigers as possible for people to enjoy. 3 of them have already escaped and are going around eating the tourists, or the people invited to the island to see the tigers first hand. Again, sound like Jurassic Park. Probably the coolest thing was the 1000lb saber tooth who crawled around on his front legs killing the mad scientist with a tooth statue of sorts that somehow shrinks and goes through the guys neck. Funniest death I've seen on TV.<br /><br />The acting is extremely cheesy, the special effects are horrible. The CG tigers could almost pass for clay models, and even some of the sounds were off. For instance, when one of the college students is trying to escape, he uses an ax to break down a door, the ax goes into the door and about 2 seconds later you hear the sound. This movie was pretty bad. The cheesy deaths were quite funny though.
Just the fact that the cover is a drawing, like those old B-movies should give you a warning about the quality of this movie. This is, however not a B-movie. It is a D-movie! <br /><br />There are no known actors, and the animals - WOW - it is the worst data-animation ever made during the last two decades. <br /><br />You hardly ever see the SCAAARY sabretooth shown on the front cover. You just hear people scream, bleed and die and you occasionally see a teeth or a tiger-paw. It's so amateur! Maybee worth seeing, just because it's so bad. Give it to a friend and say: "This is the best movie I have ever seen, and wait for their reaction" He, he. <br /><br />The movie is to weak to give it a Spoiler Alert! THIS IS A SPOILER.
Literally every aspect of this science-fiction low-budget flick falls under the categories that have been classified for its predecessors, contemporaries, and those to follow. Bad special effects, a weak storyline, ridiculous amounts of blood and gore, annoying and pointless characters, all that you can expect. "Attack of the Sabretooth" is about a new vacation resort where the proprietors are genetically engineering Smilodon cats for an attraction. The cats escape and begin to kill people, the guy running the show wants to save them and not warn the unsuspecting visitors about them, and there is a band of visitors and some employees who rebel and plan to kill the cats.<br /><br />Special effects-wise, the film is about an average achievement given its budget. The sabretooths are portrayed through poor CGI. Amazingly, though, the cats look more realistic in an up-close, detailed shot rather than the longer, more distant shots where the CGI is better concealed. Their attacks are recklessly bloody and distasteful. Just as you'd expect, they attack, rip off some arms and legs, and leave very little behind. This is part of the reason why the film descends into poor schlock.<br /><br />The plot and characters are just as horrendous. We have some college kids who come to the island and they plan a scavenger hunt. And take it very, VERY seriously. Even so much as to trespass on private property, tamper with security systems, and steal. Why are they taking a simple game so seriously? Did I miss something? Was there money involved? Or were they sent to do it? I don't know, I could barely follow the film. But it seemed to me like they were just doing it for the fun of doing it. Even so, they went too far for normal.<br /><br />"Attack of the Sabretooth" is a very poor film. Even for a low-budget sci-fi flick, it is a very poor and cheap example. It will bore most viewers to tears, might be attractive for some, and will make you chuckle and laugh all the way through. And keep in mind, this is not a comedy, this is a cheap horror flick, so it's not suppose to be comical.
Where to begin? the special effects should be named special defects, When the director shouted "action" I guess he also indicated to the actors to carry out the worst performance they could think of. Maybe he was annoyed with the producers and wanted to make sure that they would not recover a single cent out of their investment and that the work would be a case study of how not to make movie. Or maybe he hated art school and wanted to be an accountant but his family did not let him.<br /><br />The only thing that is sure that whoever employs him in the future is because its in love with him (so its objectivity jumped through the window) or because he changed its name and deleted all past previous references.
Well this movie actually made me feel so strongly that I signed up for an IMDb account just to warn people. It is patently AWFUL!! NOTHING makes sense in this movie. There is way too many subplots for a start. Josh Hartnett's character is an aspiring actor and yoga instructor as well as a cop who seems to be living way beyond his means and only teaches yoga to hot girls (Some of whom wait naked in his jacuzzi for when he comes back from work). Add to that the fact that his dad was killed by a crooked cop who just so happens to be in on the current crime being investigated by the hapless duo. Harrison Ford's character is trying to sell real estate on the side and is sleeping with the Internal Affairs investigator's ex-wife who happens to run a psychic radio show which Ford's character calls from time to time. NONSENSE!!<br /><br />I can't remember the characters names (that's how forgettable this is) so I'll refer to them as Ford and Hartnett.<br /><br />Then there's the dialogue which is brutal. I mean cringe-inducing stuff here. Throw in every cliché in the book (having a heart-to-heart in a dark bar during the day over a drink where the bartender knows his name; the duo being investigated by internal affairs (why??); hartnett confronting his dad's killer) and you've got one hell of a mess.<br /><br />As I mentioned the plot is preposterous and continuity is non-existent: 1) When Ford's car is being repossessed, how the hell did the repo guys know where it would be parked? Were they following him?? 2) When Hartnett goes to the morgue and it just so happens that the only clue from the crime scene (an earring) is replicated on of the charred bodies there (that was lucky!) 3) When the two are arrested and taken in for questioning - Ford keeps answering his phone and Hartnett "centers himself" with a yoga pose on the table. Instead of taking the phone from Ford the IA guy waits for it to ring each time and then tries to grab it off the table before Ford does. Meanwhile the female IA officer in with Hartnett is rubbing herself all over him. Then, inexplicably, the two are released without answering any questions. 4) During the car chase Hartnett's car is crashing and smashing its way around Hollywood but then suddenly the car is perfect again. Not a scratch! 5) When Ford chases the bad guy into the building and he gets in the elevator how the hell does he know which floor the bad guy got off at?? 6) When the two are chasing the bad guy around in hartnett's car, Ford is trying to close a real estate deal. Come on! 7) The bad guy is the most unconvincing record exec ever. His motivation for killing an aspiring group of rappers on his label? They might leave his label and it's a warning to keep his other groups loyal. But hang on, how is he ever going to sign anyone new with that business plan?? 8) Why is the IA guy who is investigating Ford arrested in the end? There is no explication!! 9) And Hartnett gets to use his "acting" to capture the bad guy in the end.<br /><br />I could go on, I really could. Anyone who is looking deeper into this movie than a straight up action comedy needs their head examined because that's all it is. There's nothing else to it! It's not supposed to be satirical or ironic. It's just crap.
This film was one of the worst I've seen in a long while. <br /><br />It's a combination police drama and comedy about two Hollywood detectives, Harrison Ford and Josh Hartnett, investigating a shootout at a hip hop club. <br /><br />The plot is contrived and there are way too many side issues going on. Ford is hustling real estate on the side (Martin Landau is one of his clients), Hartnett runs a yoga school where he's hustling chicks in his spare time, the two are under investigation by Internal Affairs, Ford is screwing the ex-girlfriend (Lena Olin) of the IA investigator and she's a psychic who has a radio show, the man who set up the killing at the club is a dirty ex-cop who shot Hartnett's father years ago.<br /><br />Toss in the obligatory car chases and some lame attempts at humor, and that's about the gist of this turkey.
Lame movie. Completely uninteresting. No chemistry at all between Indiana Jones and the guy from Black Hawk Down. The car chase scene just goes on and on and on ad nauseum. They manage to switch vehicles a few times, but always end up right on the tail of the baddies. The scene where Hartnett grabs the family's car with the crying kids in the back was just as stupid as could be. He is telling them about Eastern philosophy and how it is all right to die, which I imagine the writers thought was funny or even witty. It just came off as moronic, totally unbelievable and even cruel.<br /><br />Some subplots weren't even explored, they were just used as filler. Why does Hartnett get sick seeing dead bodies yet keeps ordering burgers at crime scenes? Why, and on what grounds, is the bad IA guy suddenly arrested out of the blue by the chief? Why can IA pick up the buddy cops and then just let them answer their phones or pretend to be Indian mystics and then just let them waltz out of there without so much as a slap on the wrist? For some reason, even though Ford is uncovered as a cheat and a fraud when acting as a realtor, (he makes up the prices when he is trying to sell the producer's house to jack up his own commission), they keep coming back to him anyway! They knew he lied to both of them! Yet there they were, coming to terms that both said they would never go for. Stupid, just stupid. This is also one of those cop movies where they just fire wantonly on public streets with no care in the world for innocent bystanders. There they were, just standing on the sidewalk blasting away while people ducked for cover. Amazing that they didn't hit a single person after having fired about 60 rounds each....<br /><br />The scriptwriting was terrible, the action sequences were boring, the plot just a sidestory to a very pathetic attempt to have us root for Ford and Hartnett. It fails miserably. And Ford's phone! Turn the damn thing off! How many times could it ring in a 2-hour movie? 50? 60? It was frustratingly aggravating by the midpoint in the movie! Every 30 seconds, that stupid tune would play! And if it wasn't Ford's, then Hartnett's was ringing! It was incredibly annoying!<br /><br />Complete waste of time, Ford's worst movie since 6 Days 7 Nights, which was without a doubt, the lowest point of his distinguished career.
Josh Hartnett's dead eyes, the thick writing of it, and Harrison Ford being in a buddy-cop comedy ! Here's 3 reasons to hate it, avoid it, and to utilize 116 minutes of your life better.<br /><br />The buddy-cop movies are fun. However their real golden age was back in the 1980s and the 1990s. Making one that tries to mix action and comedy through the police of Hollywood itself is sure a good idea but the final result of that turned out to be not at least a spoof of the subgenre but a reason to ask God to have mercy upon all the past movies of the same kind whereas the worst of them was by all means greater than (Hollywood Homicide).<br /><br />What really did happen to this entertaining formula ?! Since a whole decade the things hadn't been the same. You'd have a buddy-action stubborn flop after another. I'll delight you with some titles to catch on the disaster well : (I Spy - 2002), (National Security - 2003), (Taxi - 2004), (Starsky & Hutch - 2004), and the worst of them all yet (Miami Vice - 2006) ! <br /><br />I believe one of the reasons is the natural case of saturation after many similar cinematic flicks and TV shows during 2 decades already. Add to that, particularly here, the negligent dealing and the dull humor. Actually the matter this time is totally unbearable. Yes, we've got the characters of 2 loyal cops who have second jobs, and the background of sinful city, but what else was new ?! It's not about cliché; it's about few renewals mixed with clichés where both have been badly made.<br /><br />The acting, especially from (Hartnett)'s side, is terrible. This guy is anything but a comedian (or actor !). So his character was wanting to revenge for his father's death ! Revenge on yourself man, he probably died out of watching your acting !!. Even the small roles got people that have nothing to do with comedy (or that's what they seemed here anyhow !).<br /><br />The directing fails in presenting something that comic or that harsh, some parts managed to be highly dull (arresting the black guy through the lack ??) ; it's a rare time to be boring in what supposed to be action/comedy ! They didn't utilize Hollywood itself whether as an ironic place where there is ugly face behind the superficial charm, or even as a place which's full of shining or fallen stars (cameos that could've given it few interesting moments).<br /><br />It's a very easy movie that relayed on being watchable by only its stars' glamour, and as being a Buddy-cop movie to end up as one of the worst cases of 2 stars with non-chemistry on the screen (one of them has no chemistry with the screen itself ! Guess who ?!), and a Buddy-Cop destroyer more than movie ! God, don't make me, or my children, live enough to witness (Hollywood Homicide – Part 2) ! At last, look at Harrison Ford's performance, he wanted to have a good time, but at least we didn't.
This film actually manages to be mindless enjoyment for 2/3 of the journey. Sadly, the film ends up being too 'confused.' While I know some of the plot contrivances are standard of 'buddy cop' films I got drawn in to the characters who foil each other brilliantly but in the end the film relies too much on chase sequences as a crutch and I lost interest.<br /><br />The filmmakers did a great job of getting the characters alone and doing their own thing and we got to see who they are and identified with both cops early on. We formed our own opinion instead of being force fed a view of them through constant bickering.<br /><br />In the end there is too much going on and it detracts greatly from what could've been an enjoyable piece of escapism. Here's what's concerning Joe Gavilan (Harrison Ford) at the end of the film:<br /><br />1. His real estate deals 2. His affair with a radio psychic 3. He's being investigated by internal affairs 4. The homicide investigation<br /><br />If you add in Casey's concerns you fond out he wants to be an actor and avenge his father's death. Now some of these things do come together and even come together well but all the plot elements come together amidst this bogus chase that is so long and pathetic that I hardly have time to break my ennui and give a crap about what just happen. The impressive screenwriting acrobatics cannot overcome the bad filmmaking.<br /><br />As if a ridiculous chase sequence wasn't bad enough, one which has four separate sections and could last close to half an hour, wasn't bad enough, Joe Gavilan fields calls about his real estate deal while chasing the perpetrator with a gun. All these extra-curricular plot lines and jokes make it absolutely meaningless to me whether or not the criminal gets caught. We already forgot or no longer care about the murder plot at this point because multiple plot-lines and eye candy of the chases have numbed us beyond all comprehension.<br /><br />While I could go on about the chases and how they ruin a decent story, I won't. This could've been a very enjoyable formula film but it got much too big for its britches and it turned into a redundant waste of time. Harrison Ford and Josh Hartnett actually did rather well and a small appearance by Gladys Knight is worth noting. Sadly none of the actors can help this hopelessly misguided film from being forgettable.<br /><br />While this will probably be better than the likes of "The Hulk" and "Lara Croft II" that still doesn't make this film good. I once heard that Harrison Ford claimed to only make films that eh thought would make money, I'm not sure if that's true or not. What is true is that to get great box office you don't need a great movie or a great actor, this film has neither in its lead roles. My advice to Harrison Ford would be: to stick to Indiana Jones because at least you can still run.
Remember when Harrison Ford was the biggest star in Hollywood because he made great movies? Those days are feeling like a more and more distant memory.<br /><br />While "Hollywood Homicide" is by no means terrible, it is a routine and surprisingly boring buddy cop movie. It's a comedy that's not particularly funny, and an action movie that's not especially exciting. An overabundance of subplots cannot mask the weakest of the central storyline.<br /><br />Ford at least appears to be enjoying himself more than is his last few projects, and he is able to carry the film most of the time. Hartnett is adequate, but he and Ford aren't exactly Newman and Redford as far as chemistry is concerned.<br /><br />All in all, "Hollywood Homicide" is a reasonably amusing diversion, but just barely. Take out Ford, and it's not even that.
The movie was "OK". Not bad, not good, just OK. If there was anything else in the theater this would be skipped by far. Sadly, Fast and Furious 2 also stunk, but I'd rather see this than FF2. :) If you have a fetish for harrison ford or that other young punk, this will be a "cute" movie for you. Personally, I'd wait for HBO or Blockbuster.
Who in the world told Harrison Ford that this was a good role for him???<br /><br />And Josh Hartnett...how does a 19 year old who can't fire a gun become a cop? Over used cliches plus zero character development and about 15 pointless music industry cameos equal a surprisingly bad film!!!
Journey to the Center of the Earth is the story of some tourists of Hawaii, three of them siblings, and one of them a young British nanny babysitting a dog. When the siblings accidentally drive off in their jeep with the basket of dog biscuits, the nanny follows them (it might've just been safer to purchase more) all the way to the cave the siblings intended to explore (I guess). For some reason, they actually go in the cave and then, when the place starts caving in, they try to get out to no avail, except for the six-year-old sister who they tell to go get help. Meanwhile, the more they move around in the cave, the more they continue to plummet further and further towards the earths cavernous core. And behold, it is here where they find the City of Atlantis and its bizarre alien habitants who are living under the oppressive rule of one alien that doesn't want them asking to many questions about the worlds external to their own.<br /><br />I see that Rusty Lemorande, the named director of the film has provided comments on this film, in which he explains that part of latter half of this film is actually the sequel to Alien in L.A. Well, whatever it was, it was an amazingly cheap movie that I would rank only slightly higher than City Limits (a 1988 sci-fi film also made on a non-existent budget) because at the least ending of this dreadful piece of mostly incoherent film-making that cuts corners where it can aims for some humor and amusement in the last 20 minutes when we finally see what life is like in the alien world at the center of the Earth. I also give it a two star rating rather than one because it was at times, funny, even if only in its subtleties. For example, the aliens asks the British girl if she's an alien and she explains that the Ministry should be sending her work visa shortly. Or when the alien girl finds Bryan and explains that he is in the city of Altantis and he mistakes this for Atlantic City, New Jersey. Little things like that make the idiocy of the first hour or so tolerable. Imagine how great the film could've been though if they had 1) actually intended to make it, and 2) actually had money to make it.<br /><br />I do like how in the end, no one wonders what happened to the little sister who was sent away in the beginning to get help. She'd just be wandering around the Hawaiian caves and not too far from the erupting volcano, mind you.
The funny sound that you may hear when you eyeball this execrable version of Jules Verne's classic "Journey to the Center of the Earth" is Verne spinning in his grave. The only thing about this 80 minute opus that has anything to do with "Journey to the Center of the Earth" is the title. Otherwise, everything else in this lackluster production is new and not worth watching. In fact, the director has written here at IMDb.COM that he directed only eight minutes of "Journey to the Center of the Earth" and the studio tacked on part of "Dollman" helmer Albert Pyun's sequel to his own "Alien from L.A." with Kathy Ireland. Evidently, the producers ran out of money and to satisfy overseas contractual obligations, they grafted Pyun's sequel onto director Rusty Lemorande's movie. Please, don't rent or buy this wretched piece of garbage.<br /><br />Unlike director Henry Levin's period piece "Journey to the Center of the Earth" (1959) with James Mason and Pat Boone, Lemorande's "Journey to the Center of the Earth" takes place in contemporary times in Hawaii. Two fellows, a British nanny, and a dog are brought together for the adventure of a lifetime purely by coincidence. Richard (Paul Carafotes of "Blind Date") and his comic book obsessed brother Bryan (Ilan Mitchell-Smith of "Weird Science") are going out to explore a cave. The heroine, Crystina (Nicola Cowper of "Underworld"), works for a domestic service called 'Nannies R Us.' Being a nanny has been Crystina's life-long dream, but she has made a less of all five of her nanny jobs. Nevertheless, her sympathetic supervisor, Ms. Ferry (Lynda Marshall of "Africa Express"), sends her to Hawaii. Crystina's new client, rock star Billy Foul (Jeremy Crutchley of "Doomsday") who is scheduling one last concert to revive his flagging career, has a dog named Bernard. Foul wants Crystina to take Bernard to a doggie day spa. Crystina is waiting on the arrival of her taxi when a careless motel attendant accidentally puts the basket that conceals Bernard in Richard's jeep. You see, Foul has hidden his canine in a basket because motel management strictly prohibits pets on their premises. Foul has disguised the dog as a human baby. Anyway, Crystina catches a cab and tells the driver follow Richard.<br /><br />After she catches up with them to get her dog, the cabbie cruises away and abandons her. Crystina demands that Richard drive her back to town, but he has other plans. Unhappily, Crystina joins the guys and they get lost, and then find themselves in the lost city of Atlantis, a police state ruled by a dictator, at the center of the Earth. The rulers of Atlantis repeatedly notify their citizens that life on the surface does not exist. Our heroes and heroine stumble onto Atlantis quite by accident. Atlantis resembles a disco and everybody looks like they are straight out of a punk rock opera. The ruler of Atlantis, General Rykov (Janet Du Plessis of "Operation Hit Squad"), is orchestrating a raid on the surface with clones of the first human, Wanda Saknussemm (Kathy Ireland of "Necessary Roughness"), to visit Atlantis. Predictably, General Rykov machinations to rule Atlantis and overthrow the Earth fails, and our heroes and heroine save the day.<br /><br />"Journey to the Center of the Earth" is an abomination. The movie seems to be a comedy despite its superficial satire about dictatorships. Albert Pyun is one of my favorite low budget action directors, but he blew it on this lightweight shambles of a science fiction saga.
This film is the worst film I have ever seen. The story line is weak - I couldn't even follow it. The acting is high-schoolish. The sound track is irritating. The attempts at humor are not. The editing is horrible. The credits are even slow - I would be embarrassed to have my name associated with this waste of film. Don't waste your time even thinking about this attempt at acting.
What a disgrace! I was checking this out hoping it would be an undiscovered James Garner gem and what a stinker it turned out to be! The production quality was fine, but the plot was undeniably lame and I can honestly say that I am only a couple hours older and a lot dumber now. The movie really had no redeeming qualities and if this kind of stuff keeps coming out, it will give Hallmark a bad name. For those of you who insist on knowing what it was about, it's about nothing, and in this case, it's not a good thing. We are subjected to watching one old ornery woman who is one of the dumbest creatures ever to roam the earth, who happens to be married to a real sweetheart who is probably the only person alive that could put up with her. She drags him through one mess after another, gets him into one embarrassing situation after another, and is proud of herself the whole time. Then the movie ends. What a relief that was! Not worth the time it would take to watch it, so do yourself a favor and skip this one, you'll be glad you did if you knew how bad this one really is.
Before writing this review, I went back and reread the reviews of others. This movie was a particular disappointment to me, since it features two of my favorite dancers, Gene Kelly and George Chakiris, boasts a score by the often wonderous Michel LeGrand ("Wuthering Heights," "Ice Station Zebra," "The Thomas Crowne Affair"). The dancing was stilted, unmotivated and unoriginal, the songs forgettable, the story a joke. Even the costuming was not particularly flattering. Only the photography correctly captured the proper mood and spirit. I'm glad other people enjoyed "The Young Girls of Rochefort," though I most certainly did not.
The comparison is perhaps unfair, but inevitable. Those attracted to the intimacy and depth of Umbrellas will be slightly horrified to discover a cut-and-paste musical in the American style - awkward, stilted dialogue with inexplicable song-and-dance numbers. Gene Kelly's French accent was apparently so poor, that a dreadful job of dubbing was substituted (as you'll remember, the dubbing was almost perfectly pulled off in Umbrellas). The translation of the French (for subtitled versions), as well, leaves something to be desired, although this can't be attributed to Demy. The film also has several self-aware moments that come off a wee disconcerting, such as references in songs to LeGrand himself. And the costumes - well, the tight pants/white boots combination, and the freakishly unnatural colors, reminds one of an Austin Powers film . . .<br /><br />But Demy does reward the viewer with allusions to Umbrellas; note, for instance, the suitcase carried by Maxence in his departure from Rochefort - this is the same suitcase carried by Guy in his departure from Cherbourg. Also, note the "Convenient Brunette of Resolution" - Madeleine in Umbrellas, and Josette in Young Girls.<br /><br />Generally speaking, those expecting the natural feel of Umbrellas (save the floating bicycle scene), or looking for similar deeper questions and ambiguous endings as in Umbrella's script, should probably pass this one b y. Those looking for a French version of a thin '60s American musical will be quite happy.
Despite much style, flash, and glitter, this French musical fails to speak. The tunes are repetitive, predictable, and tedious. The story is uninteresting, as are the many characters. <br /><br />People break into song and dance, without motivation or reason. Most of the cast wears phony looking wigs and hairpieces, and the sets look hopelessly studio bound.<br /><br />To be honest, this video of the restored version was stopped before the end, so negative an effect it had on me. Certainly a shame, to have such a multi-talented cast in so feeble a final effort. <br /><br />Goes to show, I guess, where followups (in this case, to the great classic, "Umbrellas") often do go awry. One cannot recapture, only recreate.
A wonderful television mini-series completely ruined by a 45-year old woman trying desperately to pass herself off as a 16-year old ingenue! No exaggeration - that's the ACTUAL age of the character played by Ali MacGraw when the film opens just prior to the surprise attack at Pearl Harbor. This TV mini-series really is the most classic example of the title of this post and one I refer to whenever the topic comes up.<br /><br />That alone makes this completely unwatchable, despite the fact it's one of the best filmed WWII 'global' dramas TV has ever produced. If you have the stomach - or a decent fast-forward ability - you might be able to enjoy the late Robert Mitchum in a very strong performance. <br /><br />I'm stunned at some of the comments referring to the love story (pun intended). Did they watch the film with their eyes closed? Or are they aging boomers who never cease to amaze me with their "selective memories" and "selective vision". I'm a Boomer myself so don't think for a second I'm some hubristic young punk. 45 WILL ALWAYS LOOK 45. Get used to it. Deal with it. Age gracefully damnit.<br /><br />The Winds Of War could have been... so good. How much more would we be talking about this mini-series today, some 25 years later, had an ACTUAL ingenue been cast in such an important & critical role? Right now, with the constant haggard old biddy distraction, that alone cancels out most of the wonderful aspects of The Winds Of War.
....this mini does not get better with age. I saw this and it's sequel when originally broadcast, and like so many others was blown away. In early 2002 I borrowed the novels for both WOW and W and R and was even more impressed. I then decided that I had to see both again and invested $200 plus on the DVD sets. I watched both minis again in painful detail and realized I had done things backwards - I should have purchased the novels and borrowed the DVD's.<br /><br />Don't believe it is abysmally miscast? Read the novels and see for yourself. Don't think this is dated? Screen it for somebody not old enough to have seen it originally broadcast and watch the reaction you get (warning - reactions from such people range from looks of horror to belly laughs).<br /><br />According to the trivia section for this mini - Dan Curtis himself chose Ali MacGraw and Robert Mitchum. Yikes!! Production quality, music scoring, dialog - a great story was turned into a late 70's soap opera by an overly ambitious producer/director who was in way over his head. This thing was dated the minute it was completed.<br /><br />These two minis were great when original broadcast and to those of us who saw them then, tug at a nostalgic string that reminds us of younger days. IMO - this mini does not nearly live up to its reputation and severely disappoints.
I am commenting on this miniseries from the perspective of someone who read the novel first. And from that perspective I can honestly say that while enjoyable, I can see why it hasn't been rebroadcast anytime recently. More specifically, this mini has some serious problems, such as:<br /><br />1) It is terribly miscast. The actors who played the younger generation were all 15 to 20 years older than the characters. Ali McGraw (45 at the time) was playing Natalie Jastrow who was supposed to be about 26. Jan-Michael Vincent (39 at the time) was playing Byron Henry who was supposed to be about 22. The other Henry children, and Pamela Tudsbury, were also played by actors way too old for characters who were supposed to be in their 20's.<br /><br />2) Some of the acting was absolutely awful. Ali McGraw at times almost made this mini unwatchable. I have seen more convincing performances in high school plays. <br /><br />3) The directing was poor. To be fair to Ali McGraw, the bad acting and character development were probably the directing. The portrayal of Hitler was way overdone. His character came off looking and behaving more like a cartoon villain than the charismatic, sometimes charming, but always diabolical genius Herman Wouk painted him as in the novel. Some of the other characters are done so stereotypically (Berel Jastrow) they do not gain the depth of character that Wouk created for them.<br /><br />4) This mini is very dated. The hokey music, the pretentious narration (it sounded like a junior high school history film narration), and the entire prime-time soap opera feel of the mini made it almost comical at times. Also, too often Byron and Natalie are costumed and made up to look like they are in 1979 rather than 1939.<br /><br />Someone who watches this without the benefit of reading the novel first will probably not sit through it all, because it will come off more as a late 70's / early 80's "take myself too seriously" prime-time soap drama, rather than the television version of what is certainly a modern American classic.<br /><br />Remakes of older movies and the like are sometimes poorly done, but this is probably one case where a creative and inspired director could make a very stunning, memorable, and critically acclaimed production. I don't ever see that happening since a remake would have to be just as long (15 hours) or longer to do it right, and given the short attention span of most of the current American viewing public, it wouldn't fly.
*** Warning - this review contains "plot spoilers," though nothing could "spoil" this movie any more than it already is. It really IS that bad. ***<br /><br />Before I begin, I'd like to let everyone know that this definitely is one of those so-incredibly-bad-that-you-fall-over-laughing movies. If you're in a lighthearted mood and need a very hearty laugh, this is the movie for you. Now without further ado, my review:<br /><br />This movie was found in a bargain bin at Wal-Mart. That should be the first clue as to how good of a movie it is. Secondly, it stars the lame action-star Dolph Lundgren. That should be the second clue as to how good of a movie it is. I'm still shocked that it was even put on DVD (who would waste their money doing such a thing?), though as you might imagine, there aren't any extras or bonus footage on the DVD. In fact, there's not even a menu; the movie just starts playing.<br /><br />First, the writer for this movie deserves to be tortured and killed. It has one of the worst scripts ever written and is plagued with terrible one-liners; remarkably unbelievable, fake dialogue; and inappropriate comments (like Lee's comment on Lundgren's. err. manhood, which I'll mention later). There isn't one single sincere sounding line in the entire movie. The dialogue and plot go hand-in-hand, as the script and plot both progress in an entirely nonsensical fashion. The two cops hate each other for no apparent reason at the beginning, and then for again no reason at all, Lee's character pulls over to the side of the road, runs around to the other side of the car, and says `I'm not going to let you go alone, 'cause despite myself, I like you! And I don't want to see you get killed!' . or something to that extent, anyhow. There are disgusting one-liners, mostly said by Lee. For instance, when duking it out with a bad guy, Lee says `You have the right to remain silent . You have the right to be dead!' Lastly, I'll mention the entirely inappropriate and nonsensical comment that Lee makes about Lundgren's nether-regions. When bad guys start to attack after a seemingly random love scene between Lundgren and Carrere, and Lundgren decides to fight them off in his underwear, Lee says to him: `Incase we die, I just wanted to let you know that you have the biggest dick I've ever seen on a guy.' . Yes, he actually says that. It makes no sense and isn't even possible (Lee never actually sees Lundgren naked, so how would he know?), but the writer threw it in the script anyway. The entire movie looks like some kind of action video game, and Lee even admits it. After Lee and the underwear-only Lundgren defeat all of those bad guys, Lee makes a comment that is also truly beautiful: `Wow, this is sort of like a video game; we just defeated the first wave!'<br /><br />Second, the plot of this movie is despicable. It suffers, in my opinion, mainly from the fact that it just doesn't exist. The trailer for this movie - which IMDb has available for viewing, by the way - makes it sound like the movie is about two cops trying to stop the Japanese Yakuza from taking over Lost Angeles. This is extremely misleading, however, since the movie has practically nothing to do with that at all. They make very brief, vague references to the Yakuza trying to start up a methamphetamine business with local drug dealers, but the entire movie ACTUALLY revolves around a poorly-written attempt for Kenner (Lundgren's character) to revenge the death of his parents, whom the Yakuza leader (named Yoshida) killed when he was only 9 years old. The entire plot can basically be summed up like this: Yoshida wants Kenner dead, Kenner wants Yoshida dead, and the two try two kill each other. And of course all the while Kenner's sarcastic sidekick (named Johnny and played by Brandon Lee) acts like an ignorant idiot, and Tia Carrere gets naked. twice.<br /><br />The acting is one of the worst parts of the entire movie. The dialogue is so unrealistic, and their entirely insincere portrayal of it emphasizes this even more. You'd expect poor acting from action stars anyway, but this movie highlights some of the most unimaginably bad acting ever recorded.<br /><br />Finally we get to the heart of the movie's baseness: the flagrantly bad action. There are so many astoundingly bad, unrealistic action sequences in this movie, it's just downright impressive they managed to fit them all in. Although Lee has his fair share of bad scenes as well, most of the truly terrible action involves Lundgren. For instance, Lundgren nonchalantly takes on four or five kung fu bad guys one-handed, without spilling his tea. Then, when surprised by an oncoming speeding car, Lundgren casually leaps over it. Or how about when he reaches THROUGH a closed door, grabs the villain on the other side, pulls him back through the door, and beats him up? Or when he picks up Tia Carrere, gently walks (not runs) backward through a glass door that shatters around him, and leaps down a one-story height with Tia still in arm, only to then lift up an entire car without the slightest effort and uses it as a barricade to shield them from bullets? All of the shameless gunfights are terrible as well, with Lundgren and Lee killing every bad guy instantaneously, while the rain of bullets from their fifty attackers never seem to hit either of them. That is, of course, until the final fight scene of the movie. Lundgren gets shot point blank in his bare chest in a region that even if it did manage to miss his heart, would still immediately begin to fill lungs with blood and kill him within a matter of seconds. Despite this, Lundgren remains in top-notch condition and manages to duke it out in the middle of a parade with Yoshida, the evil super villain. And of course the passing people in the parade dressed as samurai are carrying REAL, fully sharpened katanas, which the two use to sword fight. Now in addition to his bullet wound, Lundgren gets several deep slices in his chest and arms. Does this stop him? No, of course not! In fact, a few seconds later after easily killing the evil Yoshida (who gets pinned to a dartboard-like wheel and then bursts into flames for no reason), Lundgren casually walks off with Tia and Lee as if he wasn't injured at all. God, it's terrible.<br /><br />All of these factors are then mixed up with an entirely unnecessary, gratuitous nude scene every five minutes, including topless women at a party, the beheading of a topless woman, women at a strip club, nude women at a Japanese spa, and the pointless hot tub and love scene with Tia. Not to mention the trip to the bizarre sushi bar, at which rich Japanese men are eating sushi off of naked women. Which, by the way, prompts Lee to say with much fake enthusiasm that after defeating the bad guys he and Lundgren will `go eat fish off those naked chicks!' Which, of course, is followed by a disturbing high five. And we can't forget the terrible editing either, like when the villains are crushing a man trapped in a car at a junk yard, and the editors left in a really obvious glimpse of a prop dummy. The credits also list an enormous list of stunt workers, which implies that a lot of the action probably wasn't done by the movie stars after all.<br /><br />In the end, this movie repeatedly outdoes it self with brazen badness. It is illogical and impossible, and as a result, remarkably entertaining. If you're looking for any kind of thoughtful cinema, this movie will make you want to die. If you're looking for a good laugh and a good time mocking bad movie making, this movie will delight you. As an actual movie, I'll merit this movie a 0.5 out of 10. As an entertaining way to waste an hour and eighteen minutes, however, this beauty takes the cake.
This movie is one of the most unintentionally bad action films ever put to film. Dolph Friggin' Lundren with a Japanese accent is funny enough, but add really corny buddy-buddy action to the mix, an eccentric and over-the-top villain, a clichéd love interest subplot and one of the worst endings of all time, and you've got yourself quite the little suicide-inducing cure for people who enjoy their life and, up till watching "Showdown," had never contemplated killing themselves with a blowtorch.<br /><br />I don't know if it's just me but the whole homosexual subtext is none too subtle. There are constant references to male genitalia, and not by females, either. Brandon Lee and Dolphin talk about each other's manly parts, and in fact before going on a suicide spree, Brandon says to Dolphy, "In case we don't make it, I want to tell you, you have the biggest d--- I've ever seen."<br /><br />Now, is this what a normal man would say to another man? In an ACTION film no less? And would you want those to be your _dying words_??<br /><br />Later, there's this gem:<br /><br />Dolph (regarding the villain): "I would like to cut off certain parts of his anatomy." Brandon: "Man, you've got a fixation." <br /><br />As the guy at RuthlessReviews.com pointed out, "Unfortunately, Dolph doesn't respond with, 'I've got a fixation? I've got a fixation?! You're the one who decided that his last words should be about my privates! I was just gonna chop of his ears and his nose, man."<br /><br />This is relentlessly silly stuff and great fun if you're someone who enjoys receiving root canals from unlicensed dentists, without novocain. It's about on par. Great fun for the whole family!
Seeing all of the negative reviews for this movie, I figured that it could be yet another comic masterpiece that wasn't quite meant to be. I watched the first two fight scenes, listening to the generic dialogue delivered awfully by Lungren, and all of the other thrown-in Oriental actors, and I found the movie so awful that it was funny. Then Brandon Lee enters the story and the one-liners start flying, the plot falls apart, the script writers start drinking and the movie wears out it's welcome, as it turns into the worst action movie EVER.<br /><br />Lungren beats out his previous efforts in "The Punisher" and others, as well as all of Van Damme's movies, Seagal's movies, and Stallone's non-Rocky movies, for this distinct honor. This movie has the absolute worst acting (check out Tia Carrere's face when she is in any scene with Dolph, that's worth a laugh), with the worst dialogue ever (Brandon Lee's comment about little Dolph is the worst line ever in a film), and the worst outfit in a film (Dolph in full Japanese attire). Picture "Tango and Cash" with worse acting, meets "Commando," meets "Friday the 13th" (because of the senseless nudity and Lungren's performance is very Jason Voorhees-like), in an hour and fifteen minute joke of a movie.<br /><br />The good (how about not awful) performances go to the bad guy (who still looks constipated through his entire performance) and Carrere (who somehow says her 5 lines without breaking out laughing). Brandon Lee is just there being Lungren's sidekick, and doing a really awful job at that.<br /><br />An awful, awful movie. Fear it and avoid it. If you do watch it though, ask yourself why the underwater shots are twice as clear as most non-underwater shots. Speaking of the underwater shots, check out the lame water fight scene with the worst fight-scene-ending ever. This movie has every version of a bad fight scene for those with short attention spans and to fill-in between the flashes of nudity.<br /><br />A BAD BAD MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, I couldn't even enjoyed this movie much for its cult values. It's a B-movie action-flick, by the director of "Commando", that is however far too lame and silly to consider it a good B-movie with enough entertainment value in it.<br /><br />It's an '90's flick but foremost the movie should remind of an '80's action movie, when these type of B-movies were at an all time high. These movies always went over-the-top and never paid much attention to its story or acting. It was all about blowing stuff up, big muscle heroes and bullets flying around. This movie has all of that ingredients in it but yet I really didn't liked watching this movie as much as I like watching some similar type of movies. Hard to say why really, since the story and acting and such are just as bad as would be the case in basically any other genre movie from the same era.<br /><br />It's probably because the movie is being often far too silly. All these type of movies have its silly moments but this movie is just filled with it. The fighting, Dolph Lundgren running around shirtless, the characters, the story. It all just isn't very good because it's often just too lame for words. The story at times isn't even trying to make a bit sense and what's even the main plot-line of the overall movie? Its story is all over the place really and seems only to be written to create a movie out of with fighting sequences, gun fights and such. And those sequences aren't even much good to watch really. The moments are way too short and quite disappointing to watch really, from the man who brought us "Commando".<br /><br />It's foremost a Dolph Lundgren, in which he gets to play the big action hero star, who kicks butt with seemingly relative ease, knows how to handle guns and other weapons and of course also gets the girl, played by Tia Carrere. This all also brings us one of the worst montage sequence in action movie history and also definitely one of the worst sex sequence I have seen in any movie really. Both are just too lame for words and just very poorly put together.<br /><br />None of the characters work out really. The good guys are cops but they never seem to behave like one. They simply kill around without having to face responsibility to anyone and they are not very keen on making any arrest, or to inform anyone about their discoveries. Not even when they find out a big Japanese crime syndicate is trying to take over the streets of L.A. and a beer brewery is working as a cover for a drugs factory and large scale drugs smuggling. And also just think about it for a moment, what is Brandon Lee's overall purpose in the movie? The movie could had easily done without him and the girl as well.<br /><br />Too silly, lame and simplistic and just not entertaining enough.<br /><br />4/10
Extremely poor action film starring the ever wooden Dolph Lundgren and Brandon Lee trapped in a sidekick role that never seems to gel. The action is at best average, a bit of nudity chucked in and yes Tia Carrera does use a body double! <br /><br />The set-up is the usual renegade cop forced to break in a new partner on a big case, the makers at least try to give the formula a twist making Lundgren the cop with Oriental values and Lee the modern city slicker but there is zero character development making it almost comical, Lundgrens oriental warrior outfit for the big showdown has to be seen to be believed. The action sequences are by the numbers and Lee(who would go on to make the excellent The Crow) is never given the scope to show off any particular martial arts brilliance. But given his illustrious parentage he must have been under a hell of a lot of pressure and was far better served not having to live up to his father by taking on a very different role in The Crow which showed what a unique actor he may have become if not for his tragic and early death.<br /><br />Unless your a hardcore Lundgren fan or a fan of poor 80's style action movies (think Cobra etc.) then avoid.<br /><br />Poor 3/10
The fight scenes play like slow-motion Jackie Chan and the attempts at wit are pathetic (worst pun by far: "Guess what? This time I heard you coming"). The stars are a mismatched pair: Brandon Lee, despite the terrible lines he has to say, actually shows traces of charisma and screen charm - things that Dolph Lundgren is completely free of (at least in this movie). Note to the director: in the future, please stay away from any love scenes, especially when your main actress won't do any nudity and you have to rely extensively on a body double. (*1/2)
There aren't enough gay-themed movies and there aren't enough `coming out' movies. Every one is a welcome addition to the genre. Although the production values are high(the movie `looks' good, Matthias Freihof (Philipp) looks REAL good in a pair of jeans) this is a bad one. It is a period piece: gay life under an oppressive regime(East Berlin, 1989) a life that seems 40 years behind the west. In a way we're seeing our own history; what it might have been like for gays in the 40's and 50's here(it often reminded me of `Last Exit to Brooklyn :the book not the film).But it is unremittingly depressing and SLOW in a contrived way that evoked an old SCTV send up of Ingmar Bergman. It is so sloppily edited I wonder if the director just didn't hack at random. Yes, it is a miracle that this was filmed and released before The Wall came down and yes, life behind the `Curtain' was hard for gay people. A good director could have shown all that without stupefying the audience. A good director would have had me mark this one as one of the great coming-out movies and not one of the misses.
The easiest way to describe this movie is as a satire. The target of the satire is quite vast, from the US Government to corporate America. It is also not a stinging satire, but rather a silly one.<br /><br />Think of this movie as a mix between the Kentucky Fried movie, Airplane and Police Squad series, done with a much smaller budget and not as funny. I can see how this movie is a satire of many sci-fi disaster movies from the 50's and 60's. I see this movie as a big influence on Tim Burton's Mars Attacks.<br /><br />The plot is simple enough. Genetically engineered giant tomatoes go "crazy" and start attacking people and cities. At first there is a cover up and then it blows over into full blown war.<br /><br />The movie runs the gamut of characters and characterizations : Lois "Fairchild" (a Lois Lane clone), a very ambitious Presidential Press Secretary, Clark Kent, Mason Dixon (FIA agent who hasn't worked since the Bay of Pigs), a useless President (who only seems to be able to sign his name and attack New York), an even inept Congress, a sleazy marketing CEO, and Mason's team consisting of an obese East German "female" swimmer, a scuba diver, a crazed WWII paratrooper and an African-American disguise expert (disguised as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Hitler and finally as a tomato). Did I also forget to mention, lots and lots of tomatoes? There are all kinds of tomatoes from small tomatoes, to giant plastic tomatoes, to smashed tomatoes, to tomato juice and finally to people dressed up as tomatoes.<br /><br />On top of all this, you have a couple of musical numbers as well. They aren't that good and seem to be dubbed. The best tune is by far the theme of the movie ("Attack of the Killer Tomatoes"). It is way too catchy and you might end up humming or singing it in public. Be warned.<br /><br />Most of the movie is quite amusing and shows the absurdity of various real life situations as well as various entertainment genres. I don't believe I was induced to laughter, but mostly smiled and scratched my head. I definitely recommend this movie for fans of B and C grade movies, but only as a rental.<br /><br />-Celluloid Rehab
In case you're a self-acclaimed connoisseur of cult cinema and/or bad movie-making, there comes a certain point in life – preferably sooner than later – that you have to watch "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes". It's an inescapable certainty, as this is one of the most notoriously awful cult movies ever made. One tiny but essential detail, however, is that "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" is deliberately awful. Right from the opening message already, mocking Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds", this is clearly intended as a zero-budgeted parody and I can't escape the impression that writer/director John De Bello never expected for his film to become such a hit. The film spoofs the contemporary popular trend of so-called "eco-horror" movies (plants, animals and nature in general revolting against humanity) and introduces the least menacing type of vegetable imaginable as undefeatable killing machines. A secret government agricultural project to produce bigger and tastier tomatoes goes horribly wrong and soon there are reports about tomato-attacks coming from all over the country. The president puts together a Special Forces team to battle the juicy enemy, which includes secret agents with very specific areas of expertise and scientists with horrendously dubbed voices. The first half hour of "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" is very entertaining. As silly as it is, the sight of normally shaped vegetables jumping up from the sink and attacking hysterical housewives is quite original and funny. The first half hour also contains numerous memorable moments like the catchy theme song, the "Jaws" homage and the infamous unforeseen helicopter crash (see the trivia section for more details) that made it to the final cut. After that, however, the whole thing turns into a tedious, unstructured and insufferably amateurish mess. The quality level of the jokes goes from fresh and inventive towards embarrassing and downright not funny and there are too many characters and sub plots. Personally, I prefer the late 80's and early 90's sequels (which I saw before seeing the original) because they benefit from slightly better production values, incredibly over-the-top tomato special effects and the presence of veteran actor John Astin ("The Addams Family") as the mad scientist Dr. Gangreen. But, as said before already, the original inexplicably remains obligatory viewing material at some point in your life.
When I heard the plot for this movie I simply had to see it, I mean whole cities being wiped out by killer tomatoes! Sadly the title is about as funny as it gets.<br /><br />Led by Detective Dick Mason, a special team of military and scientists (including Greg Colburn who never takes his SCUBA outfit off and Lt. Finletter who is never pictured without his parachute trailing behind) 'Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes' is a parody of B-Movies, in particular Japanese horror of the 1950's. The film begins with a standard sized tomato being discovered by a women washing up in her kitchen before we find ourselves in a middle of a crime scene as the tomato has supposedly murdered this lady, and let me tell you it doesn't get any saner as the film progresses! To be fair there are a couple of funny moments, for instance anytime the Japanese scientist Dr Nokitofa speaks his voice is dubbed over in an American accent, or when disguise expert Sam Smith infiltrates the tomatoes 'hey, can somebody please pass the ketchup?'. Equally this film was probably a lot funnier in 1978 with the whole so bad its good concept. Unfortunately for 'Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes' spoof films such as the 'Airplane' and 'Naked Gun' series have been released and done this kind of comedy a lot better since.<br /><br />The acting is atrocious; there is zero continuity in the editing and it just feels genuinely slow and lacking energy. For a parody film to work you need a lot of things happening at once, one gag after the over. The singing in the film seems pointless and the adverts for the furniture store that flash across the screen are damn right bizarre, even for this film. Ultimately, however, you can see why this film is a cult one; I can't see many people being indifferent to it. Unfortunately terrible would be the way I would sum this up.
I have only had the luxury of seeing this movie once when I was rather young so much of the movie is blurred in trying to remember it. However, I can say it was not as funny as a movie called killer tomatoes should have been and the most memorable things from this movie are the song and the scene with the elderly couple talking about poor Timmy. Other than that the movie is really just scenes of little tomatoes and big tomatoes rolling around and people acting scared and overacting as people should do in a movie of this type. However, just having a very silly premise and a catchy theme song do not a good comedy make. Granted this movie is supposed to be a B movie, nothing to be taken seriously, however, you should still make jokes that are funny and not try to extend a mildly amusing premise into a full fledged movie. Perhaps a short would have been fine as the trailer showing the elderly couple mentioned above and a man desperately trying to gun down a larger tomato was actually pretty good. The trailer itself looked like a mock trailer, but no they indeed made a full movie, and a rather weak one at that.
Yes, it can be done. John De Bello and Costa Dillon cleaned out the garbage of their minds and come up with the worst comedic, horror , Sc-Fi musical. If there is any acting, it is terrible or way over the top. Special effects; take your pick...very low budget or kindergarten. Every cheap cliché thought of is used. No doubt a fun movie to watch. Worth a cold six-pack or two. Point the finger at radiation if you need an excuse. Mutant tomatoes grow to almost the size of a tow truck and begin attacking mankind. San Diego is a good place as any to start. Scientists and an absent minded military must find the way to stop this red rolling menace. This cult favorite features: David Miller, Eric Christmas, Al Sklar, Tom Coleman, Sharon Taylor and John Qualls.
Awlright, damn it, the MooCow will grudgingly admit the truth: I kinda' like this cheap, cheesy 70's parody. The idea that vast hordes of killer tomatoes are destroying the US is a great idea, and in spite of itself, the moovie does provide some decent chuckles, moostly the sight of terrified extras running away from large, obviously fake tomatoes. This film, along with The Kentucky Fried Moovie, is one of the earlier attempts at spoofs, which became so popular in the 80's & 90's, thanks largely to Airplane!. This one, like moost spoofs, is pretty poor. Many attempts at humor are dismal failures, and will induce much groaning. But thanks to the ravenous tomatoes hordes, the obnoxious "Puberty Love" song, and the awesome helicopter crash scene, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes does provide some goods, though largely for the wrong reasons. There are sooooo many things wrong with this film...and so right, it's hard to explain. Enough people must also have enjoyed it as the Tomatoes made a comeback in 2 moore films, and a cartoon series!! Large chunks of time spent away from the tomatoes are pretty dull. And dig those 70's clothes, dude!! ;=8) This tomato is seedy and cheesy, but worth a chuckle or two; the MooCow says grab a pizza and pop in the Tomatoes!! :
I knew this film was supposed to be so bad it was funny, so I went into it with that expectation. I just found it to be so bad it was murderously boring. The whiny theme song is funny for about 10 seconds, until you realize there is nothing clever about it except its intentionally irritating quality. Seeing things get splattered with tomatoes gets old in about 30 seconds. There is just nothing clever or funny about the film except for the premise. It could sustain a 3-4 minute comedy sketch maybe, but this is just not a feature film by any stretch of the imagination.
<br /><br />Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes is a "parody" of bad monster movies which ends up being worse than the movies it spoofs. The (very meager) story tells of tomatoes who revolt against those who treat them badly. Basically,they spin and growl (yes,they growl) and the next thing you know the person is covered in ketchup. The actors are no-names who never made movies after this,so there would be no point to name them. There's a guy who's hired by the governement to try and stop the menace of tomatoes. He's accompanied by a black guy who's master of disguise and a girl and a guy who dives. Anyway, there's another woman who spies on the first guy that works for the government. if this isn't making much sense to you, you understand. This movie never would have been very good in the first place, but it even lacks the fun of laughing at stupid attack scenes. The movie is horribly cheezy, which although being the whole point,really really hurts what could've been a (reasonably) entertaining movie. At one point, a giant wax tomato "slides" on an unconcealed plank of wood with wheels on it! Maybe I would've recommended the movie if it would have enjoyable camp value, but even this is lacking from this terrible movie. 2/10
This movie's heart was in the right place, no matter where its brain was.<br /><br />"Attack" is basically a spoof a la "Airplane!" (two years before the fact - nice going.) of what happens when vegetables, or in this case fruits, attack.<br /><br />Through all manner of film magic (stop motion, papier-mache tomatoes on skateboards, reverse filming, people watching off-screen tomatoes, people throwing basketball-sized tomatoes at the on-screen actors), the tomatoes do indeed attack everyone in their leafy grasp. <br /><br />Then, it's up to Mason Dixon (Miller) and a group of spies I wouldn't wish on any government's side to save the day. Of course there's a meddling reporter (Taylor) who pops in at the worst times, dancing and singing Army soldiers, Japanese scientists with dubbed-in voices, some guy dragging around a parachute and a samurai sword...and oh yeah, the San Diego Chicken before he made it big.<br /><br />The gags here aren't all that great. In fact, you could probably make up better yourself after watching these. Some of the dialogue is inutterably bad ("Please pass the ketchup" - not something to say in front of tomatoes.) and as far as "Puberty Love" goes...well, I can't blame the tomatoes for shriveling up on hearing it.<br /><br />What's good about it? Well, I liked the theme song and the beginning credits, and there was a scene with four people on the phone at once that was pretty well executed. ...that's about it.<br /><br />Three stars. Not a "Killer" comedy, but it tries.<br /><br />Rock on, Peace.
"Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" consists mostly of rambling, poorly assembled footage in search of a movie. The plot makes no sense, and the various characters drop in and out of the picture with no explanation at all. Watching this silly spoof, you get the feeling than so many other comments have captured so accurately: that it's easy to make a cheap, low-quality film and then use the "parody" angle as an excuse for its cheapness and low quality (in one scene, female swimmers are terrified of tomatoes that are floating near them; how far can "suspension of disbelief" go - even in a parody?). The title song is great, though. (*1/2)
Never see this movie.<br /><br />It tries to be a spoof on scifi/thriller films of the 1950s and 1960s but all it succedes at is making you wish really badly that you were watching one of them and not it.<br /><br />It is very lame. A spoof has to have some aspect which has some above par quality to it. This movie does not have any such aspect.<br /><br />Save yourself. It's too late for me but... just don't watch it.
The only aspect of this film that saves it from being my least favorite piece of celluloid trash is a single line uttered by an agent attempting to infiltrate the man-eating tomatoes by dressing in a tomato costume: "Can somebody please pass the ketchup?" I highly urge anyone with a sleeping disorder to use this film as a sedative; it works better than an overdose of demarol.
With a title like "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes!", anyone going into this thing would be expecting either a) a bad science fiction movie or b) a comedy making fun of bad science fiction movies. It's supposed to be a mix of both, with a dose of parody splashed in. Unfortunately, it falls flat very soon.<br /><br />You're never supposed to take this movie seriously, I realize that, but you're supposed to think it's funny, right? I found only a few of the jokes or situations were funny (i.e, the side-by-side phone conversations, the Russian Olympic spy eating steroid cereal, Superman walking by Lois, etc.). "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" strives to be a cult classic, but it doesn't make it. A cult classic is a movie that is so different that only a select group of people understand it (or a similar description). "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" could be enjoyed by any 8-year-old with a bad sense of humor, so therefore, it does not qualify as a cult film.<br /><br />There is one good actress in the entire thing: Sharon Taylor as Lois Fairchild. She is a thin, gawky reporter, but has an endearing personality, loves to overact, and is a natural comedienne. Unfortunately, she is put to bad use here.<br /><br />"Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" is not as funny as, say, "Amazon Women on the Moon" or "Kentucky Fried Movie", but it does have a few hilarious moments, so I would still recommend seeing it once. Avoid the director's cut, it has interruptions by the producer of the movie and some supposedly "lost" footage dubbed in a pretend African dialect (it can be found in English on the out of print tape).
The same night that I watched this I also watched "Scary Movie 4," making for one messed up double feature. Unfortunately for these killer tomatoes they could not stand up to the laugh riot that is the Scary Movie franchise. While I fought boredom here watching jokes that were silly and stupid, brutally dated and brutally bad, the more recent parody had me laughing out loud. How could I desire any more than that. Director John De Bello uses the basic premise that some sort of growth hormone has gone terribly wrong and turned the tomatoes into killers. But his main objective here is to slap around the disaster movie genre that was so big back in the day. The script reeks of stoner humor, and perhaps if you take illegal substances with your movie nights this could be your cup of tea. I, sober, was stuck watching a grown man go under cover as a tomato. And that one joke, that is never funny, where the discrepancy between the Japanese speaking actor and the voice over is also here. Some may giggle, I did not. They even had a Hitler joke that wasn't funny, and I thought all Hitler jokes were funny.<br /><br />The narrative of this film is so splintered (for no good reason) that it is nearly impossible to explain. Tomatoes kill people, the government tries to stop it, bad jokes are told. Their aim may have been correct as their targets include the media, consumerism, and paranoia (three things that still control our lives today). Oddly enough the main selling point of this film, those gosh darn tomatoes, really don't make much of an appearance. And when they do, get this, they're played by real tomatoes. That washed up gimmick did nothing for me as I get very little out of watching a pack of tomatoes devour a body thanks to the magic of stop action camera tricks. There is also a fear of going for broke at work here that prevents this film from being truly funny. The gag of having somebody fall asleep in nearly every scene may please some audience members, but more than likely it will be seen as an invitation to join in the fun.<br /><br />I might also add that there does seem to be some old fashioned human egotism at work here. Man eats tomato and that's dinner, tomato eats man and that is a worldwide catastrophe. But that is just the way the world works. In the film the produce becomes evil because of genetic modification, but in the real world our produce (see: Taco Bell) becomes evil thanks to neglect. And like those evil doin' green onions this film's shelf life expired a long time ago. There are a few good chuckles to be had. The last shot was really quite splendid, but it was nowhere near enough to save this moderate stink bomb. I'm pretty sure there is a good movie buried deep within this concept, but the script needed to be filtered through about a dozen rewrites to get there. And by "there" I mean to the level of "Scary Movie 4." **1/4
(spoilers)<br /><br />I shoulda figured. The dvd didn't even show the time or how long it was. I thought Wild Cardz was the worst anime movie I'd ever seen. This one is much worse. Makes no sense. Thrown together plot. All so we can see oversized breasts on a figure that doesn't support them. <br /><br />It had to of been a student film. That musta gotten a C grade<br /><br />2/10<br /><br />Quality: 1/10 Entertainment: 6/10 (until I found out it wasn't going to end.) the ending made no darn sense<br /><br />Replayable: 0/10
Well, there's no real plot to speak of, it's just an excuse to show some scenes of extreme violence and gratuitous sex (which can sometimes be fun, too, but it's not in this case). What else can I say about this...? The action, when happening, is inventive and there's a cool scene where two characters are falling from a skyscraper (one that has to be several miles high), but overall there's not much to recommend "Kite". Watch it if you want, but you're not missing much if you skip this one...
A famous show master enters the elevator with his girlfriend. Suddenly, she kills him and runs away while an old lady gets a heart attack. The name of the female assassin is Sawa. She is still going to school and works for an vicious criminal, Akai, who is sleeping with her. One day Sawa finds out he killed her parents..<br /><br />------- <br /><br />Even the biggest anime fans will have to admit that this vicious action thriller is an disappointing gore fest. "Kite" has style, but it is still trash. The weird plot about a teenage girl that kills people as an assassin tried to be scary and touching at the same time, only causing the story to fall flat on it's face. One of the highlights is an action sequence in which the good/bad heroine Sawa is falling together with a bodyguard from a building, yet the dramatic structure isn't nearly as good orchestrated and the director Yasoumi Umetsu's weird and grotesque animation of the character's faces is awful. Not only that, the intercourse sequences are just simply creepy.<br /><br />Grade: 3/10
I'm a Black man living in a predominantly Black city. That being said, I have some major misgivings about Tyler Perry's work. I realize that some people out there feel the need to praise him, because he's Black and trying to portray a positive image about the culture. But, I honestly do believe that, were Perry White, this film would have had the NAACP, Al Sharpton, and Jessie Jackson all over his ass.<br /><br />I have been forced to watch this movie one whole hell of a lot recently and each repeated viewing makes my blood boil. The characters are poorly written and acted. The jokes are so bad, I have to actually be told something is supposed to be funny. I'm just going to break this big pile of sh-t down.<br /><br />Madea=suck. The character may have had some appeal, but it doesn't anymore. When the only thing she ever seems to do is smack around children and threaten adults with violence she is less than useless. She is unnecessary.<br /><br />The situation with the wife beating fiancé was horsesh-t. If a woman was so scared to death of her husband, why would she try to run away when he's sleeping in bed. Wouldn't it have made more sense for her to leave when he was at work. At any rate, the characters in this arc were so annoying and overbearing that I hoped he would throw her off the balcony and was royally ticked when he didn't.<br /><br />Then there are the two lovebirds. A bus driver asks a woman out by harassing her while he's making his rounds. I couldn't believe it. I really couldn't believe when she agreed to go out with him even more. But, what takes the cake is that a grown man was reduced to tossing pebbles at a window and passing notes like a ten year old by a castrating mega bitch. I don't use this term lightly, but that woman only had two modes. Morose victim and psycho momma. No matter which of these two faces she showed, however, there was one constant. The bus driver wasn't going to get any. He even married her without sampling the goods--WTF! <br /><br />Then there's the family reunion scene. Here we've got the mother load which includes implied incestual taboos, grinding for the sake of grinding, shirtless, overly musclebound, b-ball, plus the great taste of Maya Angelou. When those babes dragged their butts outside and called a meeting, was I wrong to wish that the oldest of them was claimed by a heart attack. All this crap is going on at the reunion, in laughably easy to separate groups, and then they ring a bell. When they do, everyone drops what they're doing and heads on over for a stern talking too, just like a pack of Pavlov's doggies--WTF!! <br /><br />Then you have the final five minutes of the film. In it we see the abusive fiancé get manhandled by his longtime victim and all around bad actress. There is an impromptu wedding where Black people are dressed like angels and are hanging from the ceiling--WTF!!! The only reason to watch it this far, besides testing your threshold for pain, is the hope that the second villain of this story gets her ass handed to her as well. Guess what, it doesn't happen. Instead, Perry takes the testicularly challenged way out and plays it safe, ending the movie on a tone of forgiveness--WTF!! <br /><br />I'm pretty sure that, if given a day , I could probably write a doctoral dissertation on all the ways this movie sucks. Don't even get me started on the rest of Tyler Perry's films. I'm just going to say this. In my opinion, as a Black guy, D.W. Griffith's legacy lives on. The irony is that it is doing so through a Black man who will be praised for doing what Birth of a Nation did, selling us down the river. I only wish Perry's films were dudes so I could kick them in the nuts. Thanks a lot, dude!! What are you going to follow this up with in 2009, a comedy about the raping and savage beating of slaves in Colonial America?
The original show was so much better. They should have left on a good note. This movie killed the whole idea. It was boring, over-dramatic, and the funny parts were too far in between to make up the slack. This movie really seemed like it was trying way too hard to be serious, and that was definitely not what I was wanting from this sequel. Not to mention, that for a long time it was just depressing about the same thing over and over again. So, sorry, Tyler Perry, but try harder next time. This movie is just kinda dull, and not that funny either. Sorry. 4/10 stars is it.<br /><br />Jay Addison
I saw the movie last night here at home, but I thought it was too long first of all. Second, the things I saw in the movie were way too out of text to even have in this what I thought was going to be a comedy type movie like the rest before. The things isn't funny in the movie: fiancé hitting his girlfriend, beatings. The movie was way too long--talk about wanting to go to sleep and wondering when it will end when you wake up and still have it playing! Some of the things at the reunion were too much to capture--like the lady singing--i felt like i was almost watching a spiritual song show here! come on Perry, you can do better then this!
I expected a comedy like the "Big Mama" movies. Instead, the movie was a bizarre mix of comedy, drama and a love story.<br /><br />This movie has three plots: The first involves Madea and her taking in a foster child. The second involves a woman who is engaged to a rich man who is abusing her. The third involves a relationship between a single mother with 2 children and a single father.<br /><br />There is actually very little comedy in the movie. There are also a number of very twisted messages in the movie. For example, Madea beats the foster child with a belt (in a comedic manner), to convince the child to straighten out. The child does, in fact, turn herself around. Apparently, it pays to beat children.<br /><br />There are plots dealing with child rape (with the consent of the mother). There are scenes with old men ogling young girls who are related to them. (The ogling takes place at a family reunion.) The movie jumps from plot to plot such that you are always off-balance. Is this a comedy, a love story, or a drama? It is, in fact, nothing ... except a waste of time and money.
Can I give this a minus rating? No? Well, let me say that this is the most atrocious film I have ever tried to watch. It was Painful. Boringus Maximus. The plot(?) is well hidden in several sub-levels of nebulosity. I rented this film with a friend and, after about thirty minutes of hoping it would get better, we decided to "fast forward" a little to see if things would get any better. It never gets better. This film about some dude getting kidnapped by these two girls, sounds interesting, but, in reality, it is just a bore. Nothing even remotely interesting ever happens. If you ever get the chance to watch this, do yourself a favor, try "PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE" instead.
This mini-series is actually more entertaining than some others with much bigger budgets and grander aspirations. SOTD falls somewhere between "Kung-Fu" and "H R Pufnstuff" on the entertainment spectrum. If it weren't so long (nearly 3 hours) I think that kids would like it quite a bit. It's got adventure, action, "cliffhanger scenes", and not too much romance or other "icky" stuff. When you're young, you're not too critical of flexing rubber swords, campy acting, and scenes that are repeated. (At least two scenes are repeated identically in the movie, just as was done in old-time serials in order to bring the audience up to speed.) Finally, kids are usually more accepting of American English dialogue coming out of the mouths of Asian actors. (Not to mention the fact that several of the leading roles are played by non-Asian actors.) <br /><br />I was going to give this movie three stars, but I felt like the director, producers, and cast deserved some extra credit for at least carrying through on the project. This movie is not art, but, like painting your house, it actually took some time, effort, and discipline to get it made.<br /><br />Overall, not a recommended use for your time, but it might keep the kids entertained while traveling in the mini-van.<br /><br />Oh, yeah...hey, IMDb! "Dialogue" is the preferred and traditional spelling. Your spell-checking seems to think that "dialog" is the proper spelling. While "dialog" is acceptable, both Webster's and the OED consider it an alternative form.
Yeah, stupidity! I just finish watching and I still have bad taste in my mouth. Too much colors, too much unnecessary "addons" to a story, too much stupid characters (I presume they wanted to achieve comic relief, but I only wanted to cry)... too much of everything. Shame to spoil one of divine stories from "Arabian Nights" like this. Childish, naive (both on a bad way) and with lot of magic-breaking mistakes, I don't think this could keep a child of five for more then ten minutes. Princess is lovely, but should be tongueless, cause actress don't know how to carry a role. Rest of the cast is even worse...our "bad guy" is REALLY bad. Shame that the "good guy" is not better. Only light in this dark is, of course, David Carradine, who goes unfortunately deeply down under his level with this, but at least keep his actor/"fighter" skills at top. I'm still sorry to see him in a thing like this, but glad that I had something to watch in whole charade, so thank you David. Only, ONLY, for him, I give this 2 stars to this fiasco...I would give more for him, but that would rise final score to entire movie. The rest is so bad, that I would, maybe, like to grade it, but there is no grade lover then 1 here, and I think that would be too much.
I was in such high hopes of seeing an adaptation of a classic story like the Arabian Nights. Instead i was disappointed in a film that failed to keep my attention from the very beginning, even though i tried watching it twice!! <br /><br />It was a bonus that Caradine was in this movie but it didn't amount to much as the actors lacked likability. For something a little similar Zorro with Anthony Hopkins and Bandaras is much better for action, comic moments and overall enjoyability.<br /><br />OK, so Son of the Dragon has many possible fans out there, but if your looking for something to wow about in terms of martial arts and plot line you wont get it. If you just want the kids to settle down on a Sunday afternoon then maybe this it for you along with the 3 ninjas.
Unless you're twelve, this movie really isn't worth it. It's obviously a low-budget film with B actors, and with a genre like fantasy that sometimes requires intense CGI work that's not good. I knew it would be bad when I rented it. I enjoy laughing at bad movies. I didn't know how bad though. It's bearable, until after hour 2, then it really starts to burn. Fighting styles go between normal fighting that obey the laws of physics, and wire-fighting. There's no real explanation for the transitions. It has a plot, but once again, it's obviously a kid's movie. It seems like there are explicit moral lessons of the day that are being conveyed, like Sesame Street or something. It's bearable. But much better if you're, say, nine.
Is there anything that happens in this movie that is NOT predictable? I think not. Basically the movie is cliché after cliché and really nothing ever comes as a surprise. It makes the movie extremely predictable and because of that the movie is also seriously lacking in tension. So for a thriller it is not tense and unpredictable enough but also as a drama it's a failure. This is because the movie its story is highly unlikely. I mean, no way this could ever happen in real life, as in the same way as the events occur in this movie. So the movie has a real suspense and credibility problem.<br /><br />But it truly are the clichés that killed the movie. It was cringing stuff at times. Everything is so formulaic in this movie. The predator is portrayed as a cool heartless, almost psychopath like sexual frustrated boy and the victim as a naive young woman, who acts like she didn't see any of this coming. Everything that happened in the movie was so obvious and all seemed to happen for a reason. Such as the sequence in which the 'predator' fixes the 'victims' broken car. That has got to be one of the oldest clichés out of the book. I knew what the movie tried to achieve after that point. I tried to look as if the teacher and the student were really growing toward each other trough the eyes of the other persons around them. It was so incredibly obvious and cheap that I almost wanted to stop watching the movie after that point. The movie is filled with moments like these.<br /><br />The title might suggest that this is a cheap porn movie but this in fact is a sappy made for TV movie. Which means that everything is slowly happening and the movie spends halve its time on character development and unnecessary sub-plots to make the movie even more drama like.<br /><br />I'll admit that Elizabeth Berkley is pretty good acting in this movie. She makes some of the clichés and events look even almost realistic at times. Her Hollywood career is as good as over after appearing in the Paul Verhoeven movie "Showgirls", so unfortunately she will probably only still appear in movies- and television series like this one. It's a waste of her talent and she surely deserves better. All of the other characters are a disappointment. Corey Sevier plays the cliché pretty 'untouchable' rich boy and the way the husband of the main character is portrayed is even worse. He looks more like a sexual frustrated predator than the true predator of the movie. He basically tries to have sex with his wife in every sequence. He wakes up, he wants sex. Before he goes to sleep, he wants sex. He gets home, he wants sex. It might be a realistic thing but I don't know, it just didn't feel right for a movie like this one and the story in general.<br /><br />A cliché filled movie and I can't think of any reason why anyone should ever watch this movie. It's predictable and therefor also lacks in suspense and credibility. Not an 'horrible' movie and it certainly is a watchable one at times but all the weak and cliché elements in the movie also make this far from a recommendable one.<br /><br />4/10
There are a couple of prior comments here which opine about this flick's abundance of clichés throughout -- and I agree completely, both with regard to the characters AND the dialog.<br /><br />I'd read about Elizabeth Berkly's awful performance in the equally-awful "Showgirls," which I've never seen - and her performance here, while not awful, is barely up to the standards of Lifetime's worse fare. There was not a hint of depth to her character, but then there probably shouldn't have been. If so, it would have placed the film completely out-of-balance, since there wasn't a hint of depth or charisma - not a trace - in any one character, performer, or portrayal.<br /><br />The principal's handling of Liz's initial complaint after her tutee had kissed her in the hall was laughable. Her husband's initial reaction and advice were likewise (Forrest Gump, attacking Jenny's boyfriend in his car provided a more realistic, intelligent action, and, hell, he was mentally-challenged).<br /><br />The smarmy, unctuous lawyer (excuse the redundancy) father of the lying student actually performed something probably worthy of praise in his performance: he was both laughable and thoroughly annoying at the same time, no mean feat. Her attorney was more of an insensitive nerd, also not unknown in the profession.<br /><br />Finally (and frankly, I rather enjoyed this part), the police were such a collection of insensitive oafs, that you'd rather depend upon Barney Fife, without Andy, to handle all law enforcement and investigation in your community. I know that most real-like cops fall a bit short of the sharpness, intelligence and empathy of the level displayed by most characters on the "Law and Order" series', and the like -- but dolts of this level seem to be a staple on "Lifetime."<br /><br />Finally, I found a kind of "story within a story" fascination with Josh's concoction of his being the "victim" of his teacher. This scripted performance within the story was even worse than his overall performance in the main story. This was something of an achievement, like going from "F" to "F-minus."<br /><br />This whole lame situation should have been resolved - in real life - in about 15 minutes, following a realistic meeting between teacher and school authorities, with husband involved. But then that would have precluded the contrived drama following, and left an hour's blank film in the camera. <br /><br />But the writer(s) here, proved with their ending, they could do even worse. When the situation was finally "resolved" and "righted," this was accomplished in all of about 45 seconds, with no indication of what measures might have been forthcoming in any "real world" context for the perpetrator and his parents, or whether they might have been able to find some sort of path toward redemption.<br /><br />This one's a 2* presentation; the second "*" because it does have some mild "fascination."
Student Seduction finds Saved By The Bell Alumni Elizabeth Berkley on the other side of the desk and attracting the attention of young and hunky Corey Sevier. Speaking for myself I can truthfully say that no teachers save one ever did anything for me hormonally back when I was a student. That was a Ms. Diaz who was a music teacher in Junior High School. Even as a young gay kid, I could see what she was doing to the rest of the class. She was the only teacher I had who in any way could have been played by Elizabeth Berkley.<br /><br />Corey being the hotty he is, is also used to having his own way with women whether they agree or not. The fact that he comes from rich parents reinforces that belief. He's flunking chemistry which is what Berkley teaches and to keep his GPA up she agrees to tutor, but believe no more. <br /><br />So when he attempts a rape and gets no for an answer it's damaging to his ego. When Berkley goes out of channels and reports the crime to the police, the cops who are keeping in mind the cases of Pamela Smart and Mary Kay LeTourneau just don't believe here. Sevier's parents have the wherewithal to get a good publicity spin on this for their boy.<br /><br />Student Seduction which is a misnomer of a title if there ever was one is trash all the way. After the beating that Berkley took for Showgirls this TV film was not an upward career move.
Anyone giving this movie a good review obviously must have had something to do with its creation. This movie is a painful suckfest. The acting is stiff, the stock generic soundtrack is laughable, the direction is bland and strangest of all, the teacher really isn't all that attractive (making the student's blatant advances all the more awkward). The creative minds behind this trash should disband and spread out to prevent further displays of such concentrated craptitude. I'm certain that some starving kids in Africa could have used the money squandered on this project. Hell, the funds would have also seen a more enlightened purpose fueling a crack-addict; at least someone would be getting some entertainment out of it. For the sole reason that it didn't give me a terminal illness, I'll give this film a two.
If you like films that are totally bizarre, then this one is for you! Abdullah is one mean mother, with a passion for strangling people and eating ham. You should check this film out, just for a laugh. It is a low budget sci-fi, musical, comedy, cannibalistic, classic. If you get bored of the film half way through you should persevere, just for the sake of seeing the aliens, which are nothing more than little toy robots, but in my opinion are the films highlight. "I'm the Big Meat Eater, pass me
Terrible film made on a budget of about $9.99. Very obvious miniature sets used, poor acting and an awful storyline concerning aliens who use discarded meat from a butcher shop as fuel for their spaceship. The film contains some blood (not enough to disturb) and a character with an eggbeater replacing one of his hands. (Yes you read that correctly.)<br /><br />One saving grace was a song performed at the "talent show" (how's that for irony?) by a punk/new wave band that I think was called "I'm A Heat Seeking Missile". Other than that, this is not worth your time, not even on a "so bad it's good" level. Watch if you are into cheesy alien films, but anyone else should steer clear. <br /><br />Rating: 1 out of 10
I started to watch this movie with high expectations. However, after one hour I gave up on this movie as it only instilled lots of unanswered questions upon me. This already started in the opening sequence and only got worse.<br /><br />Why would they bury the Hollander under a statue? Why is there an Italian comediant present? Why did the farmers wife save the Hollander? Why did he, upon being saved, not run for his life instead of starting to make love to the farmers wife? Why did the farmers wife not save the Hollander at a time when the farmer wouldn't be around? Why did these presumably illiterate farmers understand Italian? Why did the Italian comediant know about the Hollanders gold? Why did he hide it in the cesspool in the midst of the evil farmers property? These and many more questions popped up, and none of them seemed to get answered in an acceptable way. So I guess I am totally missing the point of this movie, and I am not connecting to the story in any way....
First of all I would like to point out that this film has absolutely nothing to see with the Dutch folklore story of the ghost ship that is also called THE FLYING DUTCHMAN. In this film, you will not see a single sailing boat. You will not see sailors, ghosts, or anything remotely exciting. It is not the story of the ghost ship, and I wish they had notified it in the main credits or I wouldn't have watched it, because I really thought it was the film about the legend. It seems many people think the film has to do with the legend of the ghost ship, since the film is listed on the Wikipedia page for the "Flying Dutchman" legend... I don't understand why. It is maybe based on the resembling legend called "The Wandering Jew"? Or maybe did they just adapt the worst parts of the legend? The film begins with a fight sequence that would let anyone hope the film will have battle scenes. Unfortunately, it is the only battle scene of the film. Then you see Daniel Emilfork (who was Krank in City of Lost Children) for about two seconds, and that would let anyone hope the film will have good acting. Unfortunately he is very bad in the film. The same thing can be said about Italian actor Nino Manfredi, who was one of Italia's best actors ever, and who here is condemned to embody a crazy bird wrangler with no back story whose only purpose is to seem to be the "wise man" of the film. And boy, does that film need wiseness! Every other character of the story seems to enjoy swimming in excrement, yelling, torturing others (in excrement), fornicating (in excrement) or laying in excrement some more just for the fun of it. It seems to be such fun that each character of the story gets to have his or her turn being dumped in feces at a point or another. Coming from a Dutch director, you might think that extreme dirtiness and shockingly real filth are necessary elements in a period piece, elements which contributed to make Dutch filmmaker Paul Verhoeven's film, "Flesh + Blood", such a great film. The thought of "Flesh + Blood" would let anyone hope that a film similarly filthy and visually straight-forward would be good. Unfortunately, and unlike "Flesh + Blood", there is no dramatic progression, no fights, no good acting, and put simply, no "Flesh and Blood". The photography, as the opening sequence unfolds, is well-done and enticing. This too, stops very early in the film. The music, from Nicola Piovani (of "La vità e bella" fame) is repetitive and annoying, when not irrelevant (it sometimes implies that there is grandeur in a sequence, while on screen the actors are splashing in liquid dung). Throughout the first "act" of the film, which lasts nothing less than an hour (!), the film takes place within the same perimeter, which is around the farm where the main characters live. The characters play with excrement a lot, drown in it, play in it. A long period of time elapses through numerous ellipses to allows the main character, a young boy who loves to play in excrement, to become older and play in excrement some more. The bird-man talks a lot to say foolish things in Italian. Spanish conquistadors speak French. Nothing makes sense. Everything is confused and takes hours to happen. Then there is a second act called "the Ship", in which we see what might have been a ship, a long time ago, but which is now remains of a ship (covered with excrement did I mention?). The main character, while walking a bit further away from the farm, just happens to run into it, and decides it's really cool so let's live in it. The hunchback who lived in it before is trying to kill him, but he doesn't really mind because (did I mention?) he's not very bright. He thinks the ship can navigate and hopes to sail on it, until more conquistadors show up (at least they seemed to be conquistadors because of the Don Quixote style hats but as I've said it's really confused who's who), make the Dutchman a prisoner, along with the retarded hunchback, and they burn the ship to the ground. The last part of the film, which is really hard to bear for the spectator because it just consists of even more excrement with even more retarded middle-age peasants fighting in it, takes place in a mad asylum. Yet more torture and drowning each other with feces. Yet more loitering for the director, who seems to have definitely given up on his job, or passed onto the second crew camera assistant to do the rest of the job. In the end, a lot of the mentally-challenged new "friends" that the Dutchman made die. The woman he had sex with who was his brother's wife to begin with tries to have him meet his son. The Dutchman and his son talk. The film ends after two hours of dungy images and calamitous acting and technical performances. Then the credits roll and the spectator fells immensely free from having to watch atrocious films with no plot that pretend to be something exciting like fantasy films based on legends, while they are nothing but a mere catalog of how full of excrement some films can get when they don't have enough financing powers to put battles instead or even horses.
Confounding melodrama taken from a William Gibson story, produced by John Houseman and directed by Vincente Minnelli! Richard Widmark heads up posh, upscale rural nervous asylum, where his loose wife battles with self-appointed queen bee Lillian Gish, and Widmark himself gets the straying eye for staff-newcomer Lauren Bacall, who is putting her life back together after the death of her husband and child. Facetious and muddled, set in an indiscriminate time and place, and with a "David and Lisa" love story hidden in the plush morass. Widmark and Bacall do have some good chemistry together, but this script gives them nothing to build on. For precisely an hour, most of the dialogue concerns what to do about the drapes hanging in the library (this thread isn't used as symbolism, rather it's a red herring in a non-mystery!). The picture hopes to show the loggerheads that disparate people come to when they're working in the same profession and everyone thinks their opinion is right, but unfortunately the roundabout way Minnelli unravels this stew is neither informative, enlightening nor entertaining. ** from ****
This film just goes to prove that not every film made during the glory days of Hollywood is worth seeing. Just because you've got an excellent ensemble cast doesn't mean that this can overcome a script that was probably written by a chimp! Think about it--the film featured Richard Widmark, Lauren Bacall, Charles Boyer, Gloria Graham, Lillian Gish and Paul Stewart and yet it still was a bad film! The basic premise of the film isn't bad--a private psychiatric hospital where the staff are more screwed up than the patients! Also, the subplot involving the overworked husband and wife (Widmark and Graham) had a lot of promise. However, the script was handled with all the finesse and deftness of a drunk buffalo--with bellicose and way over the top scenes again and again in the film. In fact, it was less like a drama and more like a very bad episode of "General Hospital". Subtle, this film ain't!! Realistic, this film ain't!! <br /><br />While most of the reason this film reeked was the awful script, but I also blame the producers as well for miscasting and misusing come veteran actors. For example, Paul Stewart may not be a household name but this character actor had exceptional talent--especially when playing gangsters in Film Noir movies. Yet here, Stewart is cast as a very nondescript psychiatrist with some bizarre European accent--it just didn't work since this was well outside his acting range and his character was totally undeveloped and one-dimensional. Also, Charles Boyer just seemed hopelessly miscast and totally out of place. Seeing this fine romantic actor as a psychiatrist in the heartland of America just seemed bizarre.<br /><br />Overall, this is a rather awful film. It is very watchable in a train wreck sort of way but it certainly isn't very pretty. My wife and I disliked much of the movie but also felt it could have been very good had the writing been competent.<br /><br />PS--In a case of art imitating life, Oscar Levant played one of the patients. In real life, the brilliant Levant spent much of his life in and out of mental institutions.
"The Cobweb" is an example of many examples of movies that feature strong, sometimes noteworthy performances and high points, but unfortunately are shattered and slowed down drastically by a murky plot and very little to interest the audience. It stars Richard Widmark as a doctor working at a mental institution whose life becomes in turmoil due to family problems and a rather ludicrous and overworked conflict that really seems like no big deal at all.<br /><br />The plot is preposterous. Its time for the institution to get new drapes for the library windows. One old woman wants to have her drapes put over them, but a lot of the patients want to make their own. And somehow, this ridiculous and unintentionally loony conflict breaks out into the point where lives are in danger and families start to fall apart. It sounds more like a conflict that would occur between very young children.<br /><br />The questioning of the logic of the plot and whether it could really happen is so massive that one wonders if only a real-like lunatic could buy it. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with the acting. The cast following Widmark is composed of other great actors, many of them Academy Award-nominees and winners. And there is occasionally a moment in the film that works out brilliantly, but it always excludes the stupid plot about window drapes. Unfortunately, there is too much about the doggone drapes and thus, the movie slows down. A lot of the takes are long and done from one camera viewpoint, adhering to the slow pacing and lack of viewing interest.<br /><br />In a short analysis, "The Cobweb" is an unrecognized film and it becomes obvious why to the viewers basically as soon as the plot comes into focus, which it does pretty quickly. It just really doesn't sound like much fun to watch and I tell you that it is not much fun to watch.
Featured in 1955's THE COBWEB is an all star cast ranging from silent screen veteran LILLIAN GISH to Actors Studio progeny SUSAN STRASBERG. Set at an exclusive psychiatric hospital, what is this movie about you wonder......high drama ? Doctor & patient relationships ? Shock therapy treatment ? No, this howler is about who exactly will get to pick the draperies for a psychiatric hospital ! You think I'm kidding ? You won't believe your eyes as you're watching this unbelievable storyline that was turned into a movie ! Progressive head shrink Dr. McIver (RICHARD WIDMARK) wants to have all of the hospital's patients involved in the design, selection and execution of the needed new draperies. McIver's wife played by marble mouthed GLORIA GRAHAM wants to get her 2 cents in on this monumental task too. So does long time staffer Miss Inch (LILLIAN GISH). Directed by VINCENT MINELLI, you kinda wonder if he really became this overly involved in minute detail because of his marriage to worry wart JUDY GARLAND. Talented actors like LAUREN BACALL, SUSAN STRASBERG, CHARLES BOYER, and JOHN KERR are wasted in this hokey story. What were they thinking ?
Sean, you know I think that you are absolutely the greatest actor in the world, but I can't commend you for this. Comedy just isn't your strong suit.<br /><br />However, it wasn't all your fault. Some of the stuff was just too hard to understand. Alfred Lynch did a decent job, but you gotta wonder where the lines came from from the beginning.<br /><br />Once again, Sean... I apologize.
Snow White is in my opinion a bad movie on an artistic point of view. The plot is pretty much foreseeable, the characters are stereotypes, the editing too exaggerated. Anyway, the movie seems not to have a lot of artistic ambitions. <br /><br />Instead, I think this is a straight commercial thing. Including a character from the french part of Switzerland (the actor IS the leader of the band he is touring with in the movie - the band's called SENS UNIK) seems to aim to a larger audience. A straight German-swiss movie would not have sold in the french part - and vice versa. What really got on my nerves were the product placements all over the movie. Sometines scenes remembered of advertisement clips! <br /><br />I also think the topic of "young people taking drugs without any other targets in their lives" is a wide spread reality in Zurich. Therefore, it should be elaborated with more care. I hope Samir got enough money with Snow White, in order that his next movie is gonna show his true artistic skills.
I blind bought this movie and am pretty upset that I paid as much as I did but I would say that it's at least worth a rent for some cool deaths and laughable acting. It is not a good movie in any way but I must say that I was pretty darn entertained. I guess it could be called so-bad-it's-good.<br /><br />As I said, the acting is awful, I feel like I could have done a better job showing, at least, any emotion. The story is nothing new and has been done better. I guess I just have a soft spot for any carnival-esquire type film. I would say rent this or download it but definitely don't buy it. It is not worth more than one watch.
A family traveling for their daughter's softball league decide to take the 'scenic route' and end up in the middle of nowhere. The father is an avid photographer, and when he hears of an old abandoned side show in the town, he decides to take another detour to take some photographs.<br /><br />Of course, the side show is filled with inbred freaks, who promptly kidnap the women and leave the young son and father to fend for themselves.<br /><br />The only cool thing about this film is how the family actually fights back against their inbred captors. Other than that, there's nothing worthwhile about the film.
I'm a huge Randolph Scott fan, but this film is a dud. The whole thing has a canned, fake, soundstage feel to it, with truly awful rear-screen projection. It has a good plot idea that the screenwriter has successfully buried in a nitwit script, which makes it impossible for the audience to become immersed in the action and truly care about any of the characters. The directing is pedestrian, and only accentuates how bad the script is instead of helping to improve it. I've seen plenty of thoroughly enjoyable "soundstage productions" before, but this is not one of them. All it does is make you appreciate the gritty Scott/Boetticher films all the more.<br /><br />Randolph Scott is tanned, trim, and shines that million dollar smile throughout. He's always a pleasure...even in the worst of his films. Aside from Scott, the other main reason I wanted to see this movie was due to how much I enjoyed Ms. Wymore in Errol Flynn's movie, "Rocky Mountian". In "Man Behind the Gun", she is just as beautiful, and you can tell she's a good actress, but she was forced to say some pretty dumb lines, and the blocking she was given by the director was truly awful. I've only seen Phil Carey in "Operation Pacific", and he plays the exact same character here...an arrogant pain-in-the-butt you want to beat into unconsciousness. I guess it proves he's a good actor...he made me hate him. There are some lame attempts at comic relief that only detract from the film, in my opinion. Although there are many elements to knock, I must say that I found myself truly enjoying the two Spanish songs sung in the musical numbers...but that's not why we go to see Randolph Scott movies, right?<br /><br />There are definitely worse Scott films out there, and this one certainly isn't unbearable, but it also certainly couldn't be deemed anything beyond mediocre.
Oh dear!What a disappointment. I've been watching old Westerns on British TV for decades, and I wasn't aware of this one until its showing yesterday - most other Scott Westerns come around every few years or so and are usually worth watching again.<br /><br />The rich colour and outdoor sets were good, but that's all I can say about this film. I have to agree with most of the other negative comments already made. Several times I felt like turning it off, and finally I did, halfway through, something I hardly ever do.<br /><br />Scott seemed unusually oily in charming the girls, his two sidekicks were annoying and so was the Mexican bandit lad. And I've a feeling the army uniforms were 20 years or so too modern, not that this has bothered makers of many other Westerns.<br /><br />Perhaps it got better in the second half, but I couldn't be bothered to wait and see.
The explosion of TV channels must be eternally grateful to the Randolph Scott Western production line, because any any moment there must be one of what seems like a hundred Randolph Scott movies playing on at least one no-budget station.<br /><br />"Man Behind The Gun" is a typical early 1950's period melodrama with pre-WWII production values that relies on a historically-topical murder mystery plot peppered with action scenes to disguise the script's complete absence of character development, and thus lack of suspense. In years to come the role of these films would be taken over by TV shows like 'Gunsmoke', 'Bonanza', etc - and these actually did the job better. Randolph Scott, looking particularly grizzled in this, is the good guy, struggling against the bad guys against whom he will eventually prevail. There's no more interest in what he goes through emotionally than in what his horse is feeling, unless you count wondering whether he'll sort out the initial misunderstanding with the female lead by the end. The music is a stronger indication of the emotional state of the 'characters' than the acting is. But it's fine if that floats your boat; and I wouldn't berate you for enjoying 'Diagnosis, Murder', either.<br /><br />Workmanlike, pedestrian, and ageing rapidly. 3 stars for being competently put together; 0 for artistic endeavour.
This piece of crap might have been acclaimed 60 years ago, but it is one of the most racist movies ever made with the Native American Indians played by white men. The right-wing Republican James Stewart was a huge racist in real life, just like his close friend John Wayne. In 1971 Stewart had actor Hal Williams fired from "The Jimmy Stewart Show" (a short-lived series that mercifully flopped) just because Williams was black. As if that were not bad enough, this film is very dated and boring. Watch "Dances with Wolves" instead for a less racist view.<br /><br />Stewart was in his forties when this awful movie was made, and even with his ridiculous wig he still looked like a paedophile chasing after 16-year-old Debra Paget. I'm surprised it was even allowed.<br /><br />0/10.
I guess if you are into the sci-fi and horror stuff it might be interesting. The acting was okay but not great. The two pregnant girls are supposed to be fifteen but are played by obviously older actresses who turned out to be twenty and twenty-one at the time. The plot is okay, but the story does jump around a bit, leaving one guessing whether you're in Boston or Pennsylvania. The priest seems to use warp speed between the two. The catholic church is portrayed as having a secretive sect for investigating events which only happen to those of that faith. What if the two girls had been protestant? Would the catholics of cared? Therefore some what contrived. Who knows, some day the catholic church might even learn what the Bible teaches. If you miss this one, don't feel you've lost anything.
Actually, the movie is neither horror nor Sci-Fi. With a very strong Christian religious theme, this movie delivers minimal content and no suspense. Second-tier actors do half-decent jobs of reading their boring roles. The only good performance is by Sydney Penny who plays a role of a mother of ... I won't spoil the movie, it's either Christ or Anti-Christ. Avoid watching this movie unless you a Christian religious fanatic obsessed with apocalypse.<br /><br />Being a non-Christian, I had to force myself to watch this movie just because I wanted to write this review. It's a pity that Sci-Fi channel had to air this movie at the peak evening time.
This movie is AWESOME. I watched it the other day with my cousin Jay-Jay. He said it was alright, but i think it RULEZZZ! I mean, it's so cool. Ted V. Mikels is so brave and smart. He made a movie totally unlike those terrible Hollywood films, like the Matrix and STop or my Mom will Shoot. It could have been better, though. I like ninjas and pirates. I also like that big talon that the funny man wears. I think he's the coolest guy since that Domino Pizza claymation guy. Not only does this movie look really cool, like those out-of-focus movies my dad made of my birthday when I turned 6. BUt it tells a complex tale with dozens of characters that seem to be totally unrelated, but they all meet up in the end. It's genius how this web is woven to make everything meet up. I wish Ted V. Mikels would make a sequel. But it needs more aliens. And a pirate.
The original exploitation classic-though far from enjoyable on almost any level concerning some guys who turn cats into human flesh eating monsters because the cat food they make is made with people is remade with scifi elements added. The cats can't get enough and when the flesh tainted food runs out the cats turn on their owners. Poorly put together on almost every level this is an example of the absolute bottom of the barrel material that used to actually play movie theaters in the early 1970's updated with alien cat and dog races battling for supremacy. Director Ted Mikel is a hack, but is so lovable a person (I generally like the guy thanks to his smile inducing interviews and commentary tracks) that you can pretty much excuse the garbage he mostly turned out. Mikels wanted to make films and he didn't care how they turned out so long as he was producing something. More power to him, but I wish he wouldn't subject us to his home movies
Want a great recipe for failure? Take a s****y plot, add in some weak, completely undeveloped characters and than throw in the worst special effects a horror movie has known. Let stew for a week (the amount of time probably spent making this trash). The result is Corpse Grinders, a movie that takes bad movies to dangerous and exotically low places.<br /><br />The movie utterly blew. My words cannot convey how painful it was to watch. This is not one of those bad movies that you and your friends can sit around and make fun of. This is not Plan 9 From Outer Space. This is a long, boring, sad waste of time. Corpse Grinders II is the biggest waste of energy and talent I have ever seen. I depresses me when I realize that people actually took time out of their lives to act in this shit, if you can call it acting. But than again, when you have poor direction, poor storywriting, poor everything, acting is the last thing to criticize.<br /><br />This movie is like a huge, disgusting turd that you yearn to quickly flush out of existence, fearful that a friend or loved one might somehow see it. I really with I could somehow destroy every copy of this film, so it will not pollute the minds of aspiring filmmakers. Thank you, Ted V. Mikels, for giving me new found respect for every movie I have ever seen. You have shown me what is truly awful, and why I should appreciate all those movies that are merely crappy or boring.
Ted V. Mikels's film Corpse Grinders 2 is 103 minutes of excruciating cinematic swill. The plot is pretty much a mixture of nonsensical business dealings among people who grind corpses into cat food while cat aliens, who are losing a war with dog aliens, looking to get some of this cat food. Watching this movie, I began to look for any kind of distraction, anything to reassure myself that I was doing something else besides losing my mind from the inside out.<br /><br />Several scenes go on for far too long, as characters take forever to do simple things. I've heard that Mr. Mikels doesn't like to use jump cuts too often, fearful that they will confuse his audience. I'm not sure if this attitude is "avant-garde" or just "stupid." Try as I might, I could not bring myself to care about any of the characters in the unnecessarily huge cast, well with the possible exception of the old men who are the caretakers of the factory. The majority of the cast are a bunch of no-talent amateurs who don't even bother to learn the lyrics to "Amazing Grace" before they have to sing it on camera. Although perhaps the blame should go to the poor sound quality, since I only actually heard around 80% of the dialogue while watching the DVD.<br /><br />This is quite possibly the worst film to ever be shot. I've listened to snippets of the commentary,and Mr. Mikels comes off as a surprisingly sweet old man, what the hell was he doing making this kind of trash? I'd like to hear the explanations from the old men who had to lie shirtless on a metal conveyor belt waiting to be ground up. Movies I've long hated suddenly seem a lot better. I long for the intermittedly appropriate music of Excalibur, and the consistent lighting of Dawn of the Dead. I need to go do something, anything. Don't see this movie.
I am a huge fan of Ted V Mikels and the original "Corpse Grinders" is the main reason why but this is quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen. Even the brilliant casting of the legendary Liz Renay ("Desperate Living") could not save this worthless piece of garbage. This film should serve as a lesson to all past, present and future film makers...when you have a film as successful as the original "Corpse Grinders" was you should probably leave sleeping dogs lie and you should definitely not try to revitalize it over twenty years later (unless you have the financial backing to pull of a superior sequel such as Herschel Gordon Lewis did with "Blood Feast 2: All U can Eat") Even if you do decide to do this you should probably spend a little bit more money than you did on the original and for god's sake...NEVER film a movie onto video...why do film makers even attempt to do this when everyone knows the quality is going to turn out hideous...I personally have yet to see one film made in this fashion that's even worth the powder to blow it to hell...if you can't afford to make a sequel that is better than your original film then sell the rights of the film to someone who can...and what was Ted V Mikels thinking about (or smoking) when he wrote this god-awful script? I mean come on, dog and cat "aliens" from another planet? A cardboard box painted to look like a devastating machine capable of grinding up human bodies...bones and clothes and all? If any of these actors, aside from Liz Renay, were paid more than five dollars for their hideous performances than they are grossly overpaid! Avoid this film at all costs and watch the original instead.
In a far away Galaxy is a planet called Ceta. It's native people worship cats. But the dog people wage war upon these feline loving people and they have no choice but to go to Earth and grind people up for food. This is one of the stupidest f#@k!ng ideas for a movie I've seen. Leave it to Ted Mikels to make a movie more incompetent than the already low standard he set in previous films. It's like he enjoying playing in a celluloid game of Limbo. How low can he go? The only losers in the scenario are US the viewer. Mr. Mikels and his silly little handlebar mustache actually has people who STILL buy this crap.<br /><br />My Grade: F <br /><br />DVD Extras: Commentary by Ted Mikels; the Story behind the Making of (9 and a half minutes); 17 minutes, 15 seconds of Behind the scenes footage; Ted Mikels filmography; and Trailers for "The Worm Eaters" "Girl in Gold Boots", "the Doll Squad", "Ten Violent Women" (featuring nudity), "Blood Orgy of the She Devils", & "the Corpse Grinders"
The plot of Corpse Grinders 2 is very much similar to the original Corpse Grinders, what is left that is different from the other film consists of weird aliens.<br /><br />It is my belief that this film would be the #1 worst film on IMDb - if anyone had actually watched it. The plot is disconnected and, in several (way too many) instances, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The real wonder here is why in the world was this sequel created to such an unsuccessful and horrendous (but still somewhat better) film.<br /><br />I would highly recommend this film if you enjoy watching terrible movies for a good laugh.
This horrible! The acting, costumes, production values, editing, the script, everything about this film is as bad as it can get. It looks as if it was filmed with a video camera. Can you give a movie a negative rating? Watch The Ring instead.
I found myself very caught up in this movie, at least at the beginning, and any credit I give to this movie, is Lacey Chabert, she was fantastic!! But thats where it ends. I seem to be very good at figuring out who the killer is, and I like it when a movie is able to completely baffel me, but I felt out and out lied to, they whole time they lead you in one direction and then suddenly they decided to go in a completely different direction at the end, they gave no hit to it at all, thats not misleading that very bad writing and planning, someone did not think at all!<br /><br />I felt the movie would have been much better if they had stuck to the plot that the lead you on, they also seemed to not answer anything, why did Jane(maria) burn down the professor's house.<br /><br />Its a great pity as I felt it started out as a relatively good movie.
I found the writing in this movie absolutely terrible.<br /><br />The only thing that saved this movie from me rating it as a 1 out of 10 was Lacy Chabert's performance who I thought played the multiple personalities really well. For me she was definitely the highlight of this movie.<br /><br />Dina Meyer was pretty as always but I found her role pretty bland so I don't think one can say that her acting was great.<br /><br />As for the male lead, Armand Assante, his interpretation of the role reminded me mainly of doctors in cheese 1980s hospital series.<br /><br />All of that I could have lived with. However the terrible, terrible, terrible end/solution, the role of the psychic and even the role of psychic were just some of the worst writing I have seen in a long time.
"Cement" is a bad movie about a bad cop (Penn) with a bad attitude and a bad disposition who has a bad guy in a bad way up to his cajones in fast drying concrete. While we're waiting for the cement to dry and the film to figure out what it's about, we're periodically jerked back in time without rhyme or reason so we can watch events leading up to the cement thing. A boring junk flick overall, "Cement" suffers from lack of a story, a clumsy execution, and that most ubiquitous of filmdom's faults; no reason to care. A time killer for the needy couch potato at best. (D+)
Where to begin? How about with the erroneous synopsis: <br /><br />"X-Men Origins: Wolverine tells the story of Wolverine's epically violent and romantic past, his complex relationship with Victor Creed, and the ominous Weapon X program."<br /><br />His epically violent past turns out to exceptionally non-violent.<br /><br />His relationship with Creed is so glossed over it's difficult to understand how they have any connection at all. We are thrown from one point in the opening scene that shows them as children on the run, to a montage of war scenes that they have fought in throughout their long lifespan, and finally to the present where they are a part of a hardcore government team of assassins.<br /><br />There is nothing by way of showing their relationship as brothers at all. Nothing complex is laid down for us to believe is authentic or even loving. <br /><br />The romantic element of the movie between Silverfox and Wolverine was forced and abrupt. We are thrown into a romance so fast that it's over before you can blink an eye. Having just introduced the character, Silverfox is killed off roughly fifteen minutes later. We are left wondering why we should care about this. Who was she anyway?<br /><br />For a pivotal element of this weak revenge driven story, the romance is surprisingly unexplored. It was rushed in simply because it was required.<br /><br />Oddly enough, when Wolverine finds that his love is dead he leaves her in the woods to rot as he goes off to find Sabertooth. Being the romantic that he is this was out of character for him yet necessary to serve the plot in pulling off a very predictable surprise.<br /><br />As for the weapon X program, lets just say that after the painfully crippling procedure Wolverine is up and running. Eventually he arrives at the home of a conveniently old yet overwhelmingly loving couple. Surprisingly Ma and Pa Kent aren't alarmed when finding a naked sweaty man in their barn. Is it any wonder what fate awaits them?<br /><br />In the previous films and the comic books, the main reason that Wolverines' amnesia plagued him partly hinged on the fact that he was said to have been viciously evil and coldblooded.<br /><br />Knowing this was the case...did he really want to remember such horrors or keep them hidden and continue his current more positive lifestyle of fighting against the villains of the world alongside his team mates?<br /><br />As hinted to in X2: X-men United when Stryker gives up some of his secrets it is said that Wolverine would be disturbed if he had known of the evil works they committed together. This film sets up the team fairly well only they don't really do much of anything. No disturbing violence, no ruthless actions, they merely harass a few natives in foreign lands for the ten or fifteen minutes they are on screen. <br /><br />It seems that Wolverine wasn't an evil man under Stryker at all. Instead he was constantly trying to put a leash on his brother Sabertooth which consequently WAS the violent agent we all thought Wolverine was. Eventually he just leaves all together.<br /><br />No conflict of duality here at all.<br /><br />Idiotically REMOVING that character conflict of good and evil DULLED the story immensely. They may as well have given him rubber claws.<br /><br />There were a ton of other errors in this film that contradicted the X-Men trilogy, including the introduction of one of the lamest Deus Ex Machinas to ever hit a script.<br /><br />Magic memory-erasing bullets. <br /><br />Really?<br /><br />Apparently they are the only thing to bring down Wolverine. Yet this was apparently forgotten when agent after agent was sent to bring him down with bullets and bombs that would surely not work on him at all.<br /><br />Another problem with this film is that it tried to focus on Wolverine while throwing in a ton of other mutants which did little to nothing at all. Interesting characters were mere window dressing and did nothing for the story. Most were in the film for 5-10 minutes max and yet you find yourself wishing we saw more of them and less of Wolverine.<br /><br />Fred Dukes (the Blob but not the comic version) can punch a launched tank missile with little to no physical damage to him at all, but a simple headbutt from Wolverines metal noggin is enough to daze him?<br /><br />Cyclops optic beams (which instead of being concussive force are now more akin to lasers) can burn through buildings but when fired at Sabertooth directly it simply smashes him into the ground without even damaging his clothes. Adamantium trench coats anyone?<br /><br />The (gravity defying) mutant Gambit, instead of utilizing his signature cards, is made into some sort of crazy acrobat. In one poorly edited scene he is knocked unconscious by Wolverine...then amazingly enough a few minutes later he is on a rooftop running TOWARDS Wolverine. How he regained consciousness, ran away a few blocks, climbed up a building, then ran back to Wolverine and Sabertooth in the middle of a scratching match is a mystery yet to be explained.<br /><br />Some have excused this films weakness by claiming it was made from a comic and therefore should be weak on character and heavy on flash. The idea that this movie being a comic film is flimsy and superficial because of that fact is incorrect.<br /><br />The comic book source material, the REAL origin of Wolverine...is a story worth bringing to the screen. It doesn't sugar coat his past nor treat the reader like mindless CGI junkies. It is a well crafted story and although retold and readjusted over time, began with WEAPON X by Barry Windsor-Smith. A much more intense and exciting story.<br /><br />This FOX film should seriously be forgotten. <br /><br />Anyone have that magic gun?<br /><br />4/10
All of the X-Men movies were great. And I mean all of them, including the long hated X-Men 3. They had solid characters (Magneto and Xavier were the best ones, in my opinion), and a good story arch.<br /><br />I was all excited when I heard this movie was on production, and my expectations grew bigger and bigger until I saw the movie. I was so disappointed.<br /><br />Hugh Jackman is not a bad actor (his best movie is The Fountain, although you won't hear about this movie when they talk about the actor), and his acting is not what screws the movie up.<br /><br />The whole film is plagued with lots of meaningless characters that add nothing to the plot (like Blob or Gambit), which were tossed there to make fans believe that the film makers had read the original comics.<br /><br />I am a fan of XMen, I have read many, many of their stories and this movie respected none of them. None. Not even the continuity. It doesn't respect Weapon X project, or the relationship between Wolverine and Sabretooth, or Emma Frost, the motivations for wolverine are plain stupid and seen in millions of movies: Revenge for the death of a loved one.<br /><br />Oh. What I was expecting the whole darn movie was a Berseker moment for Wolverine similar to the one he has in X2 in the school when Stryker men come in and he alone decimates the enemy forces, but hey, this is Fox, this a family flick and you will not see explicit violence from the most violent and gruesome Marvel hero.<br /><br />Besides, I had a feeling of constant dejá vù with this movie because Wolverine's Origins are already explained in X2, we already know how he got his adamantium skeleton so it kind of does not make sense to make a movie of something we already know.<br /><br />I personally believe that wolverine is one of those few characters that does not need a solid back-story because mystery is the nature of the character. Do we really want to know how the Joker got his scars?
This film was slated to be a blockbuster film, and it really is. This is the type of movie that is made to eat popcorn to and watch the flashy graphics. With that in mind, the movie delivers, perhaps not as well as the ultra flashy Iron Man, but well enough. Outside of the popcorn munching action and special effects, the film drops off of the cliff faster than Wile E. Coyote.<br /><br />Many viewers, myself included, will complain about how most of the characters were severely altered, but that only makes the film a poor adaptation, not a poor film. This film is unsatisfactory for other reasons. The makers focused more on making it appealing to the eye than they did to the mind. The characters that have been long awaited and promoted are reduced to 4-scene cameos. The main characters of Wolverine, Victor Creed (never called Sabertooth in the film) and Colonel Stryker are well developed. I was pleasantly surprised by Liev Schriber's performance. The rest of the characters are tossed to the wayside to make way for the all important eye-candy. Wolverine's character is fully developed after 30-minutes, as is Sabertooth, though Victor does pull off some surprises late in the film.<br /><br />The "final boss" of the film is a twisted and perverse adaptation of the original character and barely gets any development to show just why he is the way he is. The filmmakers obviously felt that all they really needed to do was create a bad ass character who could do anything they wanted and slapped on the name of a popular character.<br /><br />Very disappointing...
Soulless milking of cash cow franchise. Generic superhero flick. CGI showcase. Gavin Hood's "A Series of Improbable Events." Combinatoric iteration of mutant fight scenes strung together by inane exposition justifying formation/dissolution of arbitrary alliances. I'm not expecting Shakespeare here but the cliché per minute meter was off the charts: Primal scream while looking skyward and kneeling over murdered girlfriend. Renegade military commander. Predictable double crosses. Revenge sought for slain lover. Erased memories. Evil character discovering morality at last minute. Misguided failures to execute nemeses after defeating them in melee. Lover not really dead. Lover actually acting as spy for hero's arch-nemesis. Girlfriend/spy actually falls for protagonist. Good people work for antagonist in order to save kidnapped family members. Evil mastermind fails to honor promises to reluctant employees. Kindly old couple care for weary hero and get murdered for their troubles. Certain deaths averted as third parties arrive on scene before coup de grace. Hero reluctantly joining secret government agency. Abandonment of elite squad in protest over slaughter of innocents. Scientists unable to control indestructible killing machine of their own creation. Outdated but lovable government 'secret weapon' kills off better designed but heartless successor. Hero strolls away from wreck and casually lights a trail of gasoline behind him. After everyone has given up, flatlined heart monitor picks up a pulse. Evil mastermind explains plans to hero he no longer sees as a threat. Hero refuses to kill defeated foe because he's "better than that". Transparent comic relief character makes hilarious understatements and offbeat comments. Cheerful psychopath revels in random murderous rampages. Nigh indestructible Goliaths hurl one another through a series of walls and other physical traumas that would kill a mere mortal. Man dispatches dozens of gun wielding enemies with nothing but skillful swordplay. Common sense and the laws of physics, biology and chemistry temporarily abandoned. Antagonist using loved one's murder as justification for misguided crusade.<br /><br />I could go on but this is just exhausting. If you're over the age of twelve and not living in mom's basement, there's probably nothing here for you. Depressingly enough, it's not too far off of par for superhero movies so discount all I've written if you can't get enough of the genre.
Most would agree that the character of Wolverine is one of the most intriguing characters in comic book history. I'm no Marvel expert, but I did grow up with the adventures of the X-Men and definitely approved of Hugh Jackman's now widely known portrayal of the scruffy Logan. I enjoyed the first X-Men, found the sequel too heavy and messy and liked the third one as comic book entertainment. All through the three movies, I probably enjoyed Jackman more than anything else. I figured the idea of making an "origins"-movie about Wolverine could very well end up being a better movie than all of the three X-Men movies. If we concentrate on one character, I figured there could be a movie that achieves what I found the second movie failed at - being a fairly complex and character driven comic book adventure.<br /><br />The reason that the Wolverine-movie fails is not because the competition is tougher after The Dark Knight. It's not even because of a plot development that is beyond obvious and rudimentary - even though that certainly isn't good - no, it's because the movie doesn't even seem to try. To begin with, this does not qualify as good entertainment. There is something about the action in this movie that comes off as so very, very automatic. With no greater special effects or elements of suspense, and when one event will make you predict the following five, it almost feels like an Uwe Boll movie, imitating an action/adventure movie concept that you've seen a dozen times before. Of course, nothing in this movie is as downright awful as a piece of Bolls**t but when everybody's talking clichés as if they are part of a chain of events that is so standard, you at least make the connection and that surely is bad enough.<br /><br />But there is an even bigger problem. Even a generic action movie is a generic action movie and, by the way, that makes you forgive a lot of plot holes and character stupidities. I think you find the most fundamental flaw in the very title. I mean, "Origins". Really? What to the people behind this movie think about that title? What do they mean?? You want to know the origins of Wolverine? He grew up with his brother. They ran away from home during dramatic circumstances. Then they went off to war. All of them! The Civil War, World War I and II and Vietnam too. Why did they do this? Still unknown. Eventually, the brother (Sabertooth, played by Liev Shrieber) became evil. "How?" you ask. I don't know, it was somewhere between Omaha Beach and Hanoi. "Yeah, but why?" you still ask. I just said I don't know!! The movie doesn't explain. He's evil alright! "Yeah, but... you know, 'origins'"... Yeah, well that's an origin! I mean, duh! Anyway, eventually they end up with a super secret team of mutant elite soldiers. Something with the government, ho-hum. Wolvie gets enough and leave his brother. For six years he's a happy lumberjack with a loved one, who ends up a little defenseless around the time Sabretooth suddenly appears again. "Yeaaah... but... whyyyy?" - Oh shut up! - and Wolvie decides to be a guinneapig for a bunch of evil scientist who make him a flesh-covered metal war animal. He goes after all the bad guys and they come after him and after all the fighting he ends up with his memory wiped, cue X-Men the first movie.<br /><br />There. That's the origin. You can also find it on the back of the DVD cover. The actual movie won't tell you anything else. With no worthwhile scenes of action, no good heroes, villains or characters in general (lines from my couch audience: Fat suit! Token black guy! Oh, I give you 200 in cash if that girl survives this movie.., That is supposed to be Gambit...? mmhm, yeah well... uh-huh, right), not one line of memorable dialog and zero lines to cover a T-shirt with, added to that the common stupid things that ruin the plausibility in general that you might usually forgive...... well, that sounds pretty much like a waste of time, right? Fans will check this out, or have already. There's no stopping that. But if you liked the X-Men movies for no other reason than that they were well-made and entertaining - see them again and do yourself no favors by trying to look for origins where there are none.
It wasn't notable enough to be truly horrible, it was just incredibly lame. The story was not half bad, but the execution was just horrendous.<br /><br />To start with, it moved too fast for us to emotionally get involved with what was going on. It was just paced badly. The dialog was so utterly un-sparkling, just flat and boring.<br /><br />And the characters, cripes almightly, they made Deadpool boring. How the hell do you make Deadpool boring? He wasn't even funny. He wasn't crazy. He was just an annoying guy with a couple of swords he did not even know how to use properly.<br /><br />Gambit was boring. And since when did he have telekenisis to make the cards just float and fly around, or super strength to leap hundreds of feet into the air? And what the heck was up with all the stupid helicopter moves? I mean, we know they are mutants, but they still exist within the realm of physics. A round bo staff is not a helicopter blade, you cannot fly by twirling super-duper fast. Which Gambit wouldn't be able to do anyway. Nor Deadpool, especially when using it as a replacement for real fight choreography.<br /><br />And this film stands as proof that wire work should only be used by fight coordinators who know WTH they are doing, and know better than to use it in every. single. shot. as a replacement for real fight choreography.<br /><br />Three of the most physical fighters in Marvel comics (Logan, Creed, and Wilson), and some of the worst fight choreography I have ever seen in recent film memory. It was as if the stunt coordinator just shrugged his shoulders and left it all up to the special effects guys.<br /><br />And then you had the break out, with all these mutants who did nothing. Even mutants who had been shown in their cells to have powers (nice to see a Quicksilver nod), did f-all when they got out. Only Emma-really-lame-for-this-film-Frost and Cyclops did something.<br /><br />And since when was Logan so pretty? And the stupid, "The bullet will take his memory away." Don't you think Xavier and the X-Men would have noticed the big freaking bullet holes in his adamantium skull when they X-rayed him in X1? I felt sorry for Liev Schrieber man, he actually brought in a good Sabretooth considering the script. He made one of Marvel's more simple super villains feel real. But he could not save the film from it's own epic lameness.<br /><br />Seriously, this was "Daredevil" level of suck. Decent story, good actors, absolutely horrible execution.
I saw most of "My Bollywood Bride" today at the IAAC film festival in New York and had to leave the theater due to feelings of nausea welling up within me. I've seen Bollywood movies, and I've seen satires of Bollywood movies. This movie couldn't decide which one it wanted to be, so it ended up being a joke on itself.<br /><br />It seems to have been liberally copied from movies like Bride and Prejudice and Bollywood Calling, and what a sloppy, lazy job at that. How can Bollywood ever be weaned off of its determination to stick to overused, well-trodden scripts? Is there no one who can bring to the screen the millions of real, fascinating stories that surely exist and transpire in the land of a billion people? The over-smart auto driver, the cow on the street, gratuitous scenes of foreign locations, pointless scenes of Mumbai streets, they're all in there. Every possible cliché about India has been faithfully included. So sickeningly predictable. ugh!!! Acting performances are weak across the board except for Neha Dubey, who is talented and beautiful. One wonders why she would pick a project like this.
Unbelievable!<br /><br />this film gets a 7 out 0f 10. This has to be one of the worst films i have seen in years. not only was the acting incredibly bad, the storyline (if you can call it that) was just as bad. Offcourse everyone knows what's going to happen within the first 5 minutes. Which is not a bad thing if you can captivate the audience during leading up to that moment. That however, is not the case. There is no action, no suspense, not even a spark between the 2 leading actors. It was unfortunately a waste of my time, and certainly a waste of my money. <br /><br />and the 2 of merely for trying
I didn't expect much when I saw this at the Palm Springs Film Fest this weekend. It was an alternate choice when two other films were sold out. Still, I held out hope. It sounded a bit much like "Bride and Prejudice" (L.A. guy falls for an Indian beauty, parental conflict, blah blah blah). B&P was not perfect but it was an enjoyable film with some good laughs and likable characters.<br /><br />"My Bollywood Bride" had none of that. The acting seemed stilted and way to by-the-numbers. Characters were so cliché the story seemed like it could have been written by high school freshman drama student. Technically, the sound really bothered me. It seemed as if there was a lot of over-dubbing of dialogue. I mean a lot. I know sometimes it's necessary but it sounded like half the film was shot in a closet and it became very distracting.<br /><br />Two stars is being somewhat generous.
An excellent performance by Alix Elias highlights an otherwise mis-directed and confused pile of dreck. I have seen this movie, perhaps 12 times, and with each run through, I find less and less pleasure. Why are Munchies so lustful? Is that ever explained? Are they a reflection of our wanton, boorish 'animal selves?' If they are, why not make it more obvious? Why not peal back just a touch of the subtlety that plagues this movie, and make that connection explicit? Another part of this movie that bothers me to no end - motorcycles. The jacket the little monster wears on the front cover seems to suggest 'street-wise' traveler. The sun glasses say 'pretty cool dude.' With all this I'm ready for Easy Rider meets the Muppets. All I get is Munchies (1987). What gives? Stick to the Gremlins series if you're a fan of diminutive, wise-cracking, reptile puppets - it'll give you the treatment you deserve.
Not a knock on Korman as he was very funny on the Carol Burnett show. He was also good at playing secondary characters in Mel Brooks' movies ("High Anxiety" comes to mind). He is, however, not a person who can carry a movie in dueling roles no less. This one is basically a "Gremlins" knockoff, following a tradition of such movies as "Critters" and "Ghoulies". It is not a very good knockoff either, on par with "Ghoulies", but with a much lighter tone to it as it is no where near as dark as that movie got. In fact, this one is too light and frothy, and unfortunately many of the jokes end up falling flat. Though I did give it a 3 for a score, this is only because there is a movie that is even a worse "Gremlin" knockoff. If you watched Mystery Science Theater 3000 you know the one I am talking about...the infamous "Hobgoblins". This one has a guy finding a little critter in some underground place (I only saw this movie once a long time ago so I don't remember everything to clearly) and it starts out friendly enough. However, this creature quickly becomes unfriendly and of course more are spawned and that is the movie. More misses than hits in the joke department, and it is also really lame to see Korman playing the evil brother role. Best to skip this one, but then you may want to check it out just for kicks.
Munchies starts in deepest darkest Peru (looks more like a dirt road to me) where archaeologist Simon Watterman (Harvey Korman) & his son Paul (Charles Stratton) are on an expedition. Simon thinks that ancient Aztec buildings were in fact spacecraft control centres & he is on a mission to gain proof that alien lifeforms have visited Earth, while in once such structure he discovers a strange small creature which he sticks in his backpack & takes back home with him to the small American town of Sweetwater in California. Simon feels that the creature is the proof he has been looking for & for some inexplicable reason decides to leave the thing at home while he goes to share his discovery. Simon ask's Paul & his wife Cindy (Nadine Van der Velde) to take care of it. Meanwhile Simon's brother & fast-food businessman Cecil Watterman (Harvey Korman again) steals the creature so his brother won't make any money out of it, but his idiotic stepson Dude (Jon Stafford) has a fight with it & chops it up with a knife but the individual parts grow back into separate little creatures that proceed to cause much havoc amongst the townspeople...<br /><br />Directed by Bettina Hirsch this has to be one of the worst horror comedy's ever, if not the worst. The script by Lance Smith is so unfunny it's painful. Every joke in Munchies misses the target by the proverbial mile, I doubt the humour in this piece of crap would even appeal to pre-teens. There just isn't anything even remotely funny or even amusing in Munchies as far as I'm concerned. The basic story is crap too, they just happen to find this creature running around with no explanation of what it is, why no-ones ever seen it before, how it manages to learn English so quickly & how it learns to drive etc. The whole thing is a big Gremlins (1984) rip-off with none of the elements that made that film so good. The character's are moronic, the stupid Deputy (Charlie Phillips) & his dad (Hardy Rawls), Cecil wearing an embarrassing wig & fake moustache & his air head wife Melvis (Alix Elias) & more besides. They just plain embarrass & are ridiculous, I defy anyone to find any of this rancid rubbish funny. Basically Munchies fails spectacularly at being either a comedy or horror & ends up being, yes you've guessed it, crap.<br /><br />Director Hirsch was obviously working with a low budget here & it shows, the entire thing takes place in two houses, the desert, some caves & a miniature golf course. This is really cheap & incompetent film-making. The special effects on the Munchies themselves are really awful, their just dolls that have no movement unless someone off camera pulls a string attached to it's arm. I cannot stress how bad the effects are, these things wouldn't convince my 4 year old nephew (as proved by me & him yesterday!). Total incompetence all the way, this film sucks.<br /><br />Technically the film is terrible, bad special effects, lame production design, rubbish sets & well, just everything's crap. The acting is rotten through & through, from the cops to Korman who has two roles both of which prove he can't act & isn't funny.<br /><br />Munchies is a really bad film that fails in everything that it tries to achieve, sure watch it if you want I won't stop you but just don't say you weren't warned! My advice would be to watch Gremlins again instead, but the decision is yours!
Ridiculous-looking little boogers that spawn foam and reproduce themselves. So far for the horror-elements this movie has. All the rest of MUNCHIES plays out like a really retarded comedy that's so stupid you won't find it funny anymore after about 15 minutes. I can imagine little kids cheering for these little boogers, but adults will be left with only those supposedly "smart" references translating to on-screen stuff like Capt. Kirk's log entries from STAR TREK, the most well-known scene from E.T., a blatant statement from the filmmakers going "Look! We're cashing in on GREMLINS' success here!" and a cardboard cut-out of Clint Eastwood telling us... what about his western movies exactly? That last one was totally lost on me... Oh yes, and chemical waste disposal in caves seems to be a bad thing. Don't know where they got that idea from.<br /><br />Not to say that MUNCHIES is the most insufferable film to sit through, for that matter. It's just really, really dumb. And if you manage to crack a smile while watching it, you'll probably feel as dumb yourself for having done that after the film's finished.<br /><br />Good Badness? Yes, but only if "dumb", "retarded" & "ridiculous" are criteria you're looking for. 3/10 and, well, uhm, 6/10.
I think i watched this movie, but don't quote me, as i may have fallen asleep during watching it as it didn't exactly "grip my excitement and imagination." At least i know i watched enough of it to know i won't be watching it again soon. Or ever.<br /><br />Jeez, talk about lame... Really lame. Totally lame. It wouldn't even appeal to a six year old. It basically had NO worthwhile dramatic impact. Zilch. Nada. Just shlock turned into dreck. Comedy? That was supposed to be comedy? Ya coulda fooled me-ee-ee...!<br /><br />Now, if the aliens had been insatiably carnivorous like in the movie "Critters", we could have had the human characters do something a little more profound than be overly smugly cutesy... like yelling and screaming and running for their lives so they wouldn't be eaten so the story could be something more exciting than watching paint dry.<br /><br />Don't bother watching this. It's not worth the effort. You can find something more interesting to do. Like watching paint dry. Or falling asleep.
Cute and playful, but lame and cheap. 'Munchies' is another Gremlins clone to come out from the 80s. I'm not much of a fan of the imitations.<br /><br />First it was the excellent 'Gremlins'.<br /><br />Then came the very average 'Critters'.<br /><br />Lets not forget the lousy 'Ghoulies'.<br /><br />But the complete pits would have to go to 'Hobgoblins'.<br /><br />Is there more?? <br /><br />Now 'Munchies' for me would have to fall somewhere between 'Ghoulies' and 'Hobgoblins'. Actually I probably found it more entertaining than 'Ghoulies', but I preferred thst one's darker tone. <br /><br />From the get-go it plays up its goofy nature (which it's better for it), but due to that nature the hammy acting (Alix Elias and Charlie Phillips), can get rather overbearing that you rather just see the munchies running amok. That's where the fun occurs. Mostly light-hearted fluff though, as the story mainly centres on the munchies (who are either hungry, horny and destructive) in a whole bunch of supposed comical encounters (some moments do work) in the small desert town as a couple of people are on the chase. It's silly, but strangely engaging thanks to the zippy pacing. The creatures themselves look rather bland and poorly detailed, as they're basic dolls being chucked about. Where their personalities arrived from is that they can actually speak... and with attitude.<br /><br />Charlie Stratton and a feisty Nadine Van der Velde (who was in 'Critters') were fair leads. Harvey Korman was acceptable in two roles. Robert Picardo also pops up.<br /><br />Amusingly low-cut entertainment for the undemanding.
. . . And that's a bad thing, because at least if this had been a Troma film, it would have had wanton violence and a greater sense of anarchic abandon that might have brought my rating up a bit.<br /><br />So what we have instead is a very tame (rated PG), barely lukewarm, low budget (Roger Corman produced it with an unknown director who has subsequently remained unknown) Gremlins (1984)/Critters (1986)-wannabe with almost exclusively flat humor, little of the logic that made Gremlins work so well--fantasy logic or not, no suspense, no sense of adventure, and no violence or nudity to make up for it.<br /><br />Although I'm sure some of the problems with the film are inherent in the script--let's face it, no one could deliver these jokes so that they would be funny--it seems like the biggest blame has to fall into the lap of the director, Bettina Hirsch. In more capable hands, Munchies could have been entertaining.<br /><br />After all, it starts out like many great adventure films. Simon Waterman (Harvey Korman) and his son Paul (Charles Stratton) are in Peru on an archaeological dig. Simon is a bit of a wacky archaeologist who is always floating theories about the connections between ancient sites and alien civilizations. For example, he thinks he sees evidence of laser-cutting on ancient stonework. So they're at Machu Picchu looking for more evidence of Simon's theories when they happen upon a secret chamber. Inside they quickly find the animal they later dub "Arnold", one of the titular munchies.<br /><br />They take Arnold back home to their small California desert town. Simon, who thinks that Arnold is probably an alien creature, has to go off to a colleague's lecture, and he plans on telling the colleague that he finally has an alien specimen. Paul and his extremely cute girlfriend, Cindy (Nadine Van der Velde), are left in charge of Arnold, but as they haven't seen each other in a long time, they leave Arnold unsupervised while they hop in the sack.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Simon's brother Cecil (played also by Korman in a dual role), owner of a successful snack foods company, is eager to buy off Simon's home and land--they're adjacent to his own. Simon doesn't want to sell, so Cecil hits upon a scheme to steal Arnold. Things gradually spiral out of control, and the munchies, who have a mean streak to go along with their cravings for junk food, begin to overrun the town.<br /><br />That reads better in a summary than it plays on the screen. The best shots in the film are those with natural landscapes in the background, such as when characters are driving on the outskirts of the desert town. Interiors, with the exception of Cecil's home, tend to look like poorly decorated, cheap sets, and more importantly, they tend to show that Hirsch is not very skilled at blocking and setting up shots. Oddly, given the paucity of the production design overall, Cecil's home is quite a gem, imbued as it is in overblown 1980s style down to the smallest details, and Cecil's stepson, Dude (Jon Stafford), was an amusing counterpoint. Too bad, then, that he's out of the film so quickly.<br /><br />At any rate, Korman is a fun actor, but he comes across much better here as Simon than as Cecil. Unfortunately, Simon ends up being absent for most of the film. Cecil, who is differentiated physically by a ridiculous wig and facial hair, is not only the "evil capitalist" of the film, he's one of Korman's classic inconsiderate, boorish characters--that was one of his specialties, frequently capitalized on in "Carol Burnett Show" (1967) skits. Unlike "The Carol Burnett Show", which tended to succeed because directors Clark Jones and Dave Powers had a studied way of pushing the skits just to the brink of chaos, Hirsch reins Korman in way too far, and the Cecil character just doesn't work the way it should.<br /><br />There are a lot of other director-related problems, not the least of which is wonky pacing and editing, which completely sap any possible suspense or compelling dramatic impact from the film. Even scenes that should have been shoe-ins for amping up the drama--such as when the munchies are harassing an old lady on the road--are put together far too awkwardly to have much affect.<br /><br />There are also serious logical problems with the story as it stands. Where did the munchie in the chamber at Machu Picchu come from? The film's trailer seems to show an answer to this, but it was edited out of the final cut. A more serious problem is that, unlike gremlins, there is no clear reason for munchies to go from cute, cuddly furballs to menacing monsters. It just happens. Further, because Munchies was kept PG, and the violence remains toned down, when the creatures are in their monster phase, they're never very threatening. They're also easily dispatched, at least temporarily.<br /><br />Admittedly, the gist of the film isn't suspense, horror, compelling drama or any of that other stuff, but humor. It's intended more as a spoof of Gremlins and the countless rip-offs in its wake. The only problem with that is that the film just isn't funny, even though I chuckled a couple times. A surprisingly high percentage of the jokes are bland clichés. Too much of the remaining material consists of non-sequiturs. Given bad timing from Hirsch, it all just falls flat. There was potential to make a film that while a spoof, was both funny and frightening, hilarious and disturbing, cheesy and suspenseful, all at the same time, ala Killer Klowns from Outer Space (1988). Too bad, then, that Munchies comes nowhere near that.
The title creatures wreak havoc at a peaceful little desert town. That's basically the whole plot for this film, and while the scenes devoted to the Munchies themselves are somewhat fun (in a lowbrow kind of way), all the rest is just filler, and bad filler at that. From the "hero", who is a painful Woody Allen wannabe, to the ultra-dumb town cop, it's hard to pick the most irritating character in the film. There were some times when almost all of them were on the screen together and I was thinking, "OK, at least the girlfriend is cute, but why do we have to put up with the rest of those morons?". The film is also filled with pop references (from Ozzy Osbourne to Linda Blair), which probably made it already dated by the early 90's. (*1/2)
I suppose all the inside jokes is what made Munchies a cult classic. I thought it was awful, though given the ridiculous story and the nature of the characters, it probably could've been a much better (and funnier) movie. Maybe all they needed was a real budget.<br /><br />Munchies, as many viewers have pointed out already, is something of a Gremlins parody. Hence, all the references to the movie. The movie begins somewhere in Peru during an archeological dig. An annoying dufus named Paul, aspiring stand up comedian who offers no sarcasm or witty jokes during the movie despite his career plans, is holed up with his dad in the caves. His dad is an unconventional kind of archeologist, searching the caves not for artificats or mummies or anything, but proof of U.F.O.'s. And that's where the Munchies come into the picture. Hidden in the crevice of a rock is an ugly little mutant that looks like a gyrating rubber doll with a Gizmo voice. They name him Arnold, stash him in a bag, and bring him home so Paul's dad can finally show proof of extra terrestrial life.<br /><br />Paul, the idiot that he is, breaks his promise to his dad to watch Arnold (a wager he made with his dad, if he loses, it's off to community college to get a 'real' career). The creepy next door neighbor with the bad rug, Cecil (television veteran Harvey Korman), wonders what his neighbors are up to. So, he and his lazy son, some airhead hippie type (who looks more like they should've made his character a biker or heavy metal enthusiast) to go and snatch Arnold. Why? A get rich quick scheme of course. And of course, even Cecil's son is too dumb to look after Arnold. And after a few pokes and prods at Arnold, he multiplies into more Munchies.<br /><br />This wasn't even a movie that was so bad it was good. It was just plain awful. I was hoping that the Munchies would've mutated and killed the morons that were always after them, even Paul and his girlfriend. At least it would be one way to get rid of all the bad acting in this movie that really hams up the movie. Not to mention poor special effects that look like hand puppets. And really bad writing all around--it wasn't even funny--not even that young cop who can really give you the homicidal twitch in your eye. Like I said, Munchies, if they had been given an actual budget and better actors, they might've been able to pull off a good parody. Pass.
When I saw this movie, I couldn't believe my eyes. Where these hilarious creatures, dustbin muppets with big pointy teeth, really meant to be scary? Or where they designed to have a good laugh (I sincerely hope so). If you watch carefully you can even see the strings operating them (better; dragging them across the screen). The whole was rather funny than scary and I had a good time watching the movie because I was amazed by its overall incapacity to have only one good part. It is one big joke from beginning to end and I believe this movie belongs into a new category: So unbelievable crappy you'll be laughing from beginning to end. (I'm not even gonna try to comment on the acting or all the other things)
This movie was made for people who found Gremlins too serious and Critters to hardcore. Like many of the critters/trolls/gremlins movies of the 80's this movie is bad. The sad part is that there's no punchline to that comment. It's just bad and not in a funny way.<br /><br />The problem with this miniature monster movie is that it actually tries to be funny and ends up being as successful in doing that as Howie Mandell was in Walk Like A Man. What made the other 80's horror movies into classics was that they were genuinely trying to be scary, but were hilarious because they failed so miserably. Someone must have told Bettina Hirsch (yes THE Bettina Hirsch)she had a knack for comedy before she started directing this movie. Unfortunately they were wrong.<br /><br />Sure seeing a weird little mutated cross between a ferret and a tumor wearing a brown trenchcoat and throwing pool balls at an outcast from the Lost Boys is amusing, but not enough to save the movie.<br /><br />By far the most annoying part of the movie is the Paul character. His Paul Reiser wannabe schtick is enough to make you start fast forwarding from the time of his first scene until the ending credits only stopping once to see a scene where a munchie throws pool balls at a guy...not that I did that.<br /><br />So the bottom line is run, don't walk, to your nearest Blockbuster and shake hands with the manager and thank him for not having the grapes to stock this pile of garbage on the shelves.
Not sure why this movie seems to have gotten such rave reviews.<br /><br />While watching "Bang" one night on TV, I found myself bored by the nonsensical, random plot which was occurring on screen. The entire movie seems to be nothing more than an exercise in meaningless, artsy-fartsy self-indulgence on the part of the filmmaker. The fact that the director/writer goes by a one name moniker only reinforces this sense of pretentiousness. <br /><br />Those interested in indie flicks would be better off looking for something better written and dare I say, more entertaining than this complete waste of time.
Germans think smirking is funny (just like Americans think mumbling is sexy and that women with English accents are acting). I had to cross my eyes whenever the screen was filled yet again with a giant close-up of a smirking face. One of those 'housewife hacks corporate mainframe' tales where she defrauds a bank by tapping a few random keys on her home PC which is connected only to a power socket. The director obviously loves the rather large leading lady. Can't say I share his feelings. There's quite a funny bit when the entire family sit in front of the television chanting tonelessly along with the adverts. Apparently this review needs to be one line longer so here it is.
Unless you are an Evangelical Christian then make like an Egyptian and avoid like the biblical plague.<br /><br />Awful - why oh why does IMDb list the most favourable reviews at the top of the list - it was due to one of these that I have just wasted the end of what started out as good evening on this claptrap.<br /><br />The plot premise started out strong enough - I was drawn into the film and was interested right up to the point where the Bible sermons took over. What a waste.<br /><br />This film has so incensed me that I have registered with IMDb for the first time just to complain about it - I hope at least that by doing so I save someone else's evening.<br /><br />Hay - what a Christian act on my part ;-)
At the beginning we get to see the start of a secret council of some sorts. It all looks very promising from the get go. With some supernatural elements thrown in, the mystery gets more interesting by the minute. The main character who seems like a good bloke gets into trouble because of his claim for money he is entitled to (temptation) and other factors. You really empathize with the guy and you want to know what exactly is going on. Normally a person in his situation would have several options. Somehow he does not have those options. In this movie there only seems to be one solution even when it is clear it is not his fault. Out of the blue he encounters characters who talk about church,prayer and God. And they provide the answer for his problem. It should be obvious at a point in the movie what this solution is. Now let me say that there is nothing wrong with this message. Since it always is helpful. But was it really necessary to disguise this message. This religious element actually ruined the viewing experience for me. While the message is good,it's simplicity can't escape the fact that in real life more needs to happen to resolve issues presented in this movie. The mystery that is presented to us never gets solved. In stead you are forced to deal with another topic that essentially has nothing to do with the plot. Don't get fooled because of Malcolm Mcdowell. The once brilliant actor is adequate,but if you watch closely you will see that he is not serious at all. He really must be desperate for money. Otherwise what would posses an actor of his caliber to act in a movie like this.
It started out with an interesting premise. I always like Civil War stuff and ancient secret societies. The more the film progressed, the more I realized that this was a B movie at best. In the latter half, it quickly became a C movie, then D, then F, then "I wish that this wasn't a rental so that I could put it in the microwave!" I can't say that the acting in all cases was awful, just most. The writing, however... I never read the book. Maybe the book is well written. The screenplay was written by a 10 year old. It was ridiculously shallow, the dialog drab and uninteresting, the characters about as interesting as a 5 pound bag of fertilizer. I really hated this movie, as did my wife. I am a Christian and I have no problem with movies that promote or support Christianity. This movie did a great disservice to the cause. Awful, terrible, worthless. If you liked it, I strongly recommend Superman 4.
The IMDb plot summary in no way describes the essence of this film. It should have read 'Be prepared to be catapulted back to the prison of the 3rd pew from the back of your family's church at 8 years old, listening to the preacher drone on about God's will while all you can think of is getting back home to your Lego'.<br /><br />It starts off well intentioned, building intrigue by planting some real and surreal clues such as Renny's 'how did the cut on my thumb heal so fast?' moment. It then slowly morphs into a Christian jamboree, sacrificing its plot completely in a wash of evangelistic-induced babble. I believe I counted the use of the word 'pray' about 53 times in a five minute span near the end. After the 31st, I tried to twist the context of the word to its synonym, 'prey'. Sadly, this little mind game of mine made the film at least bearable for the last 20 minutes. Plus it made me laugh whenever a character would say 'prayer' ('preyer' to me) as it became totally zany. Indeed, even my Catholic wife sunk in her chair from boredom, almost to the point of ending up on the floor.<br /><br />For all the salivating Christians who ranked this film 8-10 stars, I suggest sticking with your theology-reinforcing safety standards like Circle Square, The Ten Commandments, anything from Narnia, Jesus Christ Superstar and the like. Stay away from more cerebrally challenging subject matter in films such as Jesus Camp, The God Who Wasn't There, What Would Jesus Buy, or the soon-to-be released Religulous.<br /><br />Maybe Robert Whitlow's book is better.
How sad there is no option to post a mark lower than 1. I watched this piece of nonsense and could barely believe what i was watching. Every single part of the film was awful. Music, acting, direction, story, everything, simply everything. I actually found myself laughing out loud at various points in the film. I particularly loved the bit where our hero is dashing through the hospital in soft focus slow motion, and knocks the clipboard out of the nurses hand, because, .............well. Just because. Product placement? Crucifix's (crucifi?) everywhere. If you are of a Christian persuasion and very easily satisfied, you may like this movie. If you do like this movie, you really need to get out more.
I just finished watching this movie. It wasn't ridiculously bad, but I'm really disappointed with it. I'm not really sure why someone would make a movie like this. It was marginally entertaining, but I feel like the people making it had a lot of disagreements on what they were making. Monday, the writer was in charge; Tuesday, the director; Wednesday, the guy who gets the coffee; etc. It almost seems like they really wanted to make a couple different movies, but only had the time and money to make one.<br /><br />Someone else commented that the acting was really good, but I'd have to disagree. Then again, if the actors were able to keep a straight face during the filming, perhaps they're better actors than I give them credit for.<br /><br />The back of the DVD gives the impression that the movie would be a mystery... something along the lines of a historical Law and Order or National Treasure. It starts off like that, but then, out of nowhere it takes a turn towards a bad episode of the Twilight Zone, or... what was that other show that wasn't as good... A bad episode of The Outer Limits.<br /><br />My main complaint about the movie is that it is just so played out. There's the evil guy with spiked white hair. There's the love interest, who, when she first appears, the wind actually blows through her hair. Seriously. Once you realize it's a Christian movie, the end is also pretty easy to spot.<br /><br />The cinematography was poorly done, especially in the opening scenes - way to put your best foot forward. It wasn't atrocious for most of the movie, but there was the occasional ridiculously bad shot of an old lady, praying, arms up in a dark room while lightening is striking - the sort of thing that just makes you a little bit embarrassed to be watching the movie.
didn't know anything about the film or that it was based on a best selling book.Tried guessing from the opening scenes what it would be about,best guess,buried treasure and a death list.That lasted about 15 minutes when i got the sneaky suspicion that the film was crap.I'll not bore you with how bad the plot and acting were but anyone who gave it more than two stars must work for the film makers.I watched until the hero jumped into his corvette to rush to the hospital.He had his on his suit,shirt and tie arrived at the hospital in jeans and a t/shirt.Couldn't even get the continuity right. I got the Christian theme,hard to miss it .
...then they will have a proper place to file this crap. Sorry, not a "mystery" as claimed, it is religious mumbo-jumbo. I kept waiting for the "unimaginable evil" that was promised me, but the "evil" in this flick would only be unimaginable by a five year old with learning disabilities.<br /><br />I can't believe that they actually managed to find some bigger name actors willing to be involved in this embarrassment. Unfortunately it has forevermore changed my opinion of them, and I will likely avoid anything they do in the future. I'm also a little cheesed off that I now have a writer's name and director's name to memorize as I'll be avoiding anything they do like the plague from now on too.<br /><br />It's really unfortunate that all the religious fanatics posting on here and saying that this movie is 10 out of 10, etc. will get their reviews posted first. This could lead to more people getting tricked, as I was, into believing this movie was something other than religious preaching.<br /><br />Well, it's off to the video store to get my money back for false advertising. Too bad they can't give me back the 105 minutes I wasted watching this thinking that it was actually a Hollywood horror/supernatural film.
I have nothing against religious movies. Religious people need something to watch on a Saturday night, I guess. But what really ticks me off is when the write-up on the DVD box does not indicate this fact to the potential viewer. Passing off religious propaganda as entertainment is NOT cool, bro.<br /><br />And even if I was a religious person, I would have to agree with most of the other posters here, this movie was a mess. Poorly directed, poorly acted, poorly edited, and the attempt at a soundtrack was hilarious. The fake accents were terrible, the characters were mainly stereotypes, and continuity was out the window. The only reason we sat through this lame waste of time was that it was too late to watch another movie instead. Should have just gone to bed.<br /><br />Absolutely no redeeming qualities to this movie, unless you are the religious type who will immediately endorse anything that will preach your beliefs to the unbelievers, even if it's a pile of garbage. If you aren't, avoid this at all costs. Do not be deceived by the box write-up.
I believe in keeping religion out of government and out of the movies. When I want a sermon, I'll go to church, but I don't want one from a movie. I don't mind some supernatural themes, (after all, religion is about as supernatural as you can get!) but this movie had so much preaching in it that I was really annoyed. The landlady reminded me of witches that of seen in other movies. The bad guy even looked like he had horns. <br /><br />And what a silly ending: the hero went into the meeting and yelled at all of those old men, and that broke the spell. If only life were that simple. I think that when movies are that stupid, they ought to be distributed with a warning: DANGER! PREACHING CONTAINED HEREIN!
Things I learned from "The List".<br /><br />A decent cinematographer, a hot girl who can act and Malcom McDowell couldn't stop this movie from sucking.<br /><br />Blockbuster won't give you your money back.<br /><br />Even when he reads the script and says "Ugh! Really?!", Malcom McDowell still tries.<br /><br />Chuck Carrington desperately needs acting classes.<br /><br />Hire a writer.<br /><br />Jesus hates me too and punished me by making me pay $ 5.50 to see this movie.<br /><br />When making a movie, you don't need an ending. Just leave everything unexplained, unresolved an uninteresting enough so that the audience falls asleep BEFORE the ending. Genius.<br /><br />Any random landlord can cure death just by drawing a cross on a window. So make friends.<br /><br />Your maid can sing you back to life.<br /><br />Chuck Carrington still needs acting classes.<br /><br />Your roommate will hate you and make fun of you if you bring home this movie.<br /><br />Apologies will not be accepted.
The deceptive cover, title and very small hidden print of Power of Prayer tricked me into renting this movie.<br /><br />It started out really well and pulled me in. I REALLY liked it. Between 1/3 and 3/4's of it, the film started throwing in things that were not set up and made no sense. My first thought was, "This is not written by someone who knows how to tell a story." I ended up re-watching parts of the movie, thinking I had missed something.<br /><br />By the time I reached the last 1/5 of the movie, it was all BORING, ANNOYING, RELIGION THUMPING DIALOG that made no sense, said nothing, and was annoying to listen to; I turned off the sound and did a fast forward to the end.<br /><br />Don't waste your time with this flick.<br /><br />Beware of DVDs labeled Whitlow Films and Level Path Productions.<br /><br />And I'm a practicing Catholic.
After stopping by the movie store to find something to watch, we stumbled on this. It looked appealing from the summary, at least, so we gave it a try. And here's the kicker: the first 20 minutes are interesting! It's actually enjoyable! Oh, wait, spoke too soon.<br /><br />Somewhere in there, the movie took a disgusting turn into fundamental, right-wing Christian brain-washing. Not entirely sure what happens, but I think the screenplay writer found God somewhere in there, finished writing this script, and had no time to edit it because he had a KKK meeting to get to with his friends from the Westboro Church and his hood wasn't clean.<br /><br />Can they put warnings on this? I refuse to support this religious idiocy. Much like video games have rating systems, movies need some sort of symbol: maybe a small cross in the bottom corner to show us that a movie is going to take a turn for the worse.<br /><br />Unless you share sentiments with whatever moron came up with this story, and will have your Bible open in your lap while you watch this and plan on how you'll convert your neighbors, don't waste your time. It's some of the worst junk that's come out in a very long time, and the radical religious nuts don't need anymore funding.
This film is a portrait of the half-spastic teenage boy Benjamin who has to visit a boarding school because of his lousy marks in Math. He didn't make the best experiences in life before and got serious self-esteem issues. After a rough start at his new school, he starts making friends, falls in love with a girl and does some American Pieish teenage stuff.<br /><br />Beside some comedy elements, the film is told in a very serious way, focussing on Benjamin and his problems.<br /><br />If you already don't like this story outline, save your time and watch something else. If you do, please be aware of the following:<br /><br />1) Benjamin is a total loser. Whatever he does, he does it terribly wrong and then he goes for self-pity all the time. For me he wasn't that kind of "charming loser" who you can feel sympathy for and laugh with. Instead he and his behavior really annoyed me and with my own teenage years not so far behind I could barely stand watching.<br /><br />2) The film hardly tries to be realistic and the story seems to be but from my experience the characters just aren't (except for Janosch maybe). And yes, I know this film is based on an auto-biography written by a 17-year old - but having some experiences with German schools and German youth myself, I don't believe him.<br /><br />3) Showing the sexual awakening really is an important thing for a film with this subject. But I doubt that teenage boys do an "Ejaculate on the cookie"-contest where everyone has to hit a cookie with his sperm during mass-masturbation in the woods and the loser has to eat the sperm-wet cookie afterwards. Although it kinda amused me in a contemptible way, it's nor funny neither underlining the serious attempts of this film.<br /><br />4) There's a sub-plot about Benjamin's family and his father betraying his wife - still, I don't know why it's there and where to put it. It just bored me.<br /><br />Well, I personally hated this film for having the character of Benjamin, being without a message, concept, scheme, whatever and it's failing attempts to be dramatic and serious. However, I can image that some people may find it sensible and touching. If you liked "The Other Sister" you'll probably like this one, too. I hated both.<br /><br />17-year old boys shouldn't write an autobiography and if they do, it doesn't seem to be the best idea to make a film out of it.<br /><br />2 out of 10.
Animal Farm (1954) was a very good read about the dangers of totalitarianism. How good ideals can be changed and distorted by those who are ignorant or rule with an iron fist and an empty head. Sadly this movie does not portray either of these. What we're shown is a propaganda piece with a lot of finger waving and pointing. The animation and the direction were good considering the budget and the time period but the very essence of George Orwell's novel is sorely missing.<br /><br />If you're one of those who want to see how not to adapt a novel or are just interested in seeing an adaptation of this brilliant novelette then by all means watch. I just found this one to be somewhat mediocre. Just one man's opinion however.<br /><br />The remake is a notch below but not by much.
First off, I have to say that I loved the book Animal Farm. I read it with my 9th grade class, and it was great. We also decided that watching the movie would be beneficial. The movie was so disappointing to me. The movie cuts out some characters, and misses a lot of the main points of the book. It skips around a lot, and doesn't explain anything in detail. If someone was watching this movie without having first read the book, they would be confused. The most disappointing thing in this movie to me, was the ending. The ending in the book was the most powerful, and in the movie, they changed it! It was supposed to be the pigs and men in an alliance and sort of "melting" together, but instead, the movie made it seem like the animals were going to rebel against the pigs. To sum up, I don't think that this movie captured the real meaning that Orwell portrayed in his book.
I am a big fan of the original book and this adaption is simply bad. First of all, it had trouble deciding if it is a kiddie toon or an adult one, that caused a strange mix of an adult story and some pretty violent scenes with a silly little duck that keeps giving "funny" moments in the beginning.<br /><br />But that's hardly important, the film is simply boring, unmoving and not true to the original story. It simply fails to transfer to the picture all the points Orwell tried to make to his book.<br /><br />{SPOILER}<br /><br />Second revolution?!! Haven't they guys learned anything?? Who be the next Napoleon then? Benjamin?!!
The makers of this film have created a future where not only is abortion and birth control illegal in every state,but women are prosecuted for murder and sent away to serve long prison sentences.In other words,this film is every liberals worst nightmare!The political agenda is so heavy-handed here and the style of the film is so low-key that it just loses steam pretty quickly.Regardless of which side of the fence you're on,I'd recommend skipping it.
At a panel discussion that I attended after viewing this film, the filmmakers stated that one should look at this not as a movie but a provoker of thought. Well, the only thoughts that were provoked from me were of the time wasted watching the movie. The gimmicks of the film (documentary style, futuristic setting) served as distractions of what was supposed to be a thoughtful examination of the abortion debate. This film illustrates the problem when people try to use film as a platform for their political views - usually a very boring movie that preaches to the choir.
Les Visiteurs, the first movie about the medieval time travelers was actually funny. I like Jean Reno as an actor, but there was more. There were unexpected twists, funny situations and of course plain absurdness, that would remind you a little bit of Louis de Funes.<br /><br />Now this sequel has the same characters, the same actors in great part and the same time traveling. The plot changes a little, since the characters now are supposed to be experienced time travelers. So they jump up and down in history, without paying any attention to the fact that it keeps getting absurder as you advance in the movie. The duke, Jean Reno, tries to keep the whole thing together with his playing, but his character has been emptied, so there's not a lot he can do to save the film.<br /><br />Now the duke's slave/helper, he has really all the attention. The movie is merely about him and his being clumsy / annoying / stupid or whatever he was supposed to be. Fact is; this character tries to produce the laughter from the audience, but he does not succeed. It is as if someone was telling you a really very very bad joke, you already know, but he insists on telling that joke till the end, adding details, to make your suffering a little longer.<br /><br />If you liked Les Visiteurs, do not spoil the taste in your mouth with the sequel. If you didn't like Les Visiteurs, you would never consider seeing the sequel. If you liked this sequel... well, I suppose you still need to see a lot of movies.
In a way, Corridors of Time is a success story because the movie reaches its goal : being seen by thousands. But it fails at making them laugh...<br /><br />Les Visiteurs has had its success, because the subject was an original way of considering the time travel : forget about Zemeckis's Back to the future, here comes the old France, the middle-age knight and its nearly barbaric way of life. Full of pride, funny thanks to the ancient words he uses, Montmirail can sometimes be disgusting but he keeps his honor. Then comes the sequel.<br /><br />Nobody had foreseen the tremendous success of Les Visiteurs, the first. And it's no use being a movie expert to realize that the Corridors of Time has been made for money.<br /><br />The general story begins after the end of Les Visiteurs, and immediately tries to justify the sequel with a time paradox that would have needed some second tought. Explanation : it's no use trying to get back the jewelry Jacquouille has stolen ; don't you remember this nice red shiny and expensive car he bought at the end of the 1st episode ? Where do you think he found the money ? Selling the jewelry... And that's only one of many holes Poiré tries to avoid... and fails.<br /><br />Let's have a look at the characters : Montmirail doesn't change, he's just a little more boring. Regarding Frenegonde... that's another story : Valérie Lemercier decided not to compromise herself in this sequel to avoid getting stuck in the bourgeoise role. And Muriel Robin tries to imitate her in a way that I found so pitiful I nearly felt pain for her. And Poiré doesn't realize that a cast of humorists isn't enough to make a good comedy.<br /><br />Forget about the time travels, about the digital effects, concentrate on the story and you'll see that there's enough room on a mail stamp to write it 10 times.<br /><br />The main interest of this film is the landscapes. A movie for youngsters, let's say up to 13 years old.
This film is so bad and gets worse in every imaginable fashion. Its not just the poor acting and script nor is it the lame and perverse time one wastes on watching it. What really puts this film in my hall of shame is the apparent struggling that the writers and producers do with the film to try and make it funny. The actress replacing Jean Reno's descendant is to old and learned her lesson in the first film so they add a new girl who is to be married. Nearly all of the original extras and gags return however this time makes me want to ripe my eyes out of my sockets because it's a waste of perfectly good film. The torture of the constant camera cuts and shots in any scene in this movie can put the viewer into violent convolutions. This second film takes the successful original and drags it out of its coffin and parades the corpse out in the public square and perversely degrades not only the original idea and its legacy but our intelligence as well. This film unlike the spruce goose could not fly for it had no plot in the principals returning for a 'necklace'. No script since it was apparently written and added to daily. No attention to camera or shots in mind. Poor lighting and special effects done for the sake of doing so. This film would not even pass for a student film in basic Film 101. How this pile got through no one can tell. It was a big loosing investment and it appears that no one had the strength to put this unnatural cruel mistake out of our miseries. This movie has one good part ...its END! This film is my #1 worst film of all time, finally "Howard The Duck" is no longer the goose.
Everybody who wants to be an editor should watch this movie! It shows you about every mistake not to do in editing a movie! My grandma could have done better than that! But that's not the only reason why this movie is really bad! (It's actually so bad that I'm not able to write a sentence without exclamation mark!) If the first episode of ‘Les Visiteurs' was a quite good familial comedy with funny jokes and cult dialogues, this sequel is copying badly the receipe of the first one. The funny parts could be counted on one hand and maybe half of it. Clavier is over-acting his role even more than in the first part, Robin is trying to act like Lemercier (because she's replacing her) but that's ‘grotesque'. Lemercier is Lemercier, Robin is Robin! Even if Muriel Robin can be funny by herself on stage, she is not in this movie because she's not acting as she used to act. I know that it should be hard to replace somebody who was good in a role (Lemercier obtained a César award for her role in the first movie) but she made a big mistake: instead of playing her role, she played ‘Lemercier playing her role'! As for the story, it's just too much! Of course we knew at he end of the first movie that there would be a sequel but Poiré and Clavier should hae tried to write a more simple story like the first episode. The gags are repetitive, childish and déjà-vu. No, really, there's no more than 3 funny parts in this. The only good things might be the costumes and some special effects. So you have only 2 reasons to watch it: 1) if you want to learn how to edit awfully a movie, 2) if you want to waste your time or if you really need a ‘brainless moment'! 2/10
In 1993, "the visitors" was an enormous hit in France. So, the sequence was inevitable and unfortunately, this sequence ranks among the worst ones ever made. <br /><br />This is a movie that doesn't keep its promises. Indeed, it's supposed to tell a sole story. Jean Reno must go in the twentieth century and take Christian Clavier back in the Middle Ages so that time can normally follow its course. The problem is that Clavier feels completely at ease in the world of the twentieth century, and so make him get back in the Middles Ages is rather hard... Instead of this, the movie goes on several other stories without succeeding in following the main plot. As a consequence, the movie becomes sometimes muddle-headed, sometimes a bit of a mess.<br /><br />But the movie also suffers from the performance of nearly all the actors. Reno and Clavier fall into the trap that however they could avoid in the first movie: they're going over the top and become annoying. Then, why did Jean-Marie Poiré the film-maker engage Muriel Robin in the female main role? He made a mistake because she seems ill-at-ease and is absolutely pitiful. The other actors aren't better: Marie-Anne Chazel is nonexistent and Christian Bujeau, unbearable.<br /><br /> Of course, the movie contains a few good moments with efficient gags but it often falls into vulgarity and easiness. Certain sequences and dialogs are affected. It also appears hollow because Poiré takes back elements that secured the success of the first movie. Thus, a young girl takes Reno for a close relative of her family and asks him to take part in her wedding.<br /><br />A labored and disappointing follow-up. Anyway, what's the interest of this movie otherwise commercial?<br /><br />
The original "les visiteurs" was original, hilarious, interesting, balanced and near perfect. LV2 must be a candidate for "Worst first sequel to a really good film". In LV2 everyone keeps shouting, when a gag doesn't work first it's repeated another 5 times with some vague hope that it will eventually become funny. LV2 is a horrible parody of LV1, except of course that a parody should be inventive. If you loved LV1 just don't see this film, just see LV1 again!!
Corridors of time. The movie you can watch if you're looking for a sophisticated way of suicide. Some use guns, ropes, or gas, but you want to ruin your brains ? Do not wait any longer ! Corridors of time is probably one of the biggest possible mistakes : thinking Christian Clavier is able to act and to bring you fun. I do not miss the 45 francs this poor thing cost me : sometimes, one has to reset its evaluation system looking at the absolute zero. This film deserves a 2/10, but that's only because I like Jean Reno. Too bad for him, he also stars in Ronin. I think I'm gonna dislike him...
I've seen many of Guy Maddin's films, and liked most of them, but this one literally gave me a headache. John Gurdebeke's editing is way too frenetic, and, apart from a tour-de-force sequence showing a line of heads snapping to look at one object, does nothing but interfere with the actors' ability to communicate with the audience.<br /><br />Another thing I disliked about this film was that it seemed more brutal than Maddin's earlier works--though his films have always had dark elements, his sympathy for the characters gave the movies an overriding feeling of humanity. This one seemed more like harshness for harshness' sake.<br /><br />As I'm required to add more lines of text before IMDb will accept my review, I will mention that the actor playing "Guy Maddin" does manage to ape his facial expressions pretty well.
Okay, I've tried and I've tried, but I STILL DON'T GET this Guy Maddin thing. Tales From the Gimli Hospital left me cold, that movie about the Austrian villagers and the one about the Ice Nymph were pretty to look but lacking in the story department...and this nudie movie about abortion and hockey is just boring. I'm glad Maddin has an appreciation for silent film, but I dislike his films for the same reason I dislike the films of Quentin Tarantino: they're empty homages to better, more imaginative films--films that advanced the art form or broke new ground--and are all style and no substance. No amount of jump cuts and odd camera angles can disguise the fact that Maddin is an unoriginal David Lynch wannabe, though he DOES have one advantage over Tarantino: he generally doesn't write embarrassing dialogue, because most of his films rely on intertitles. The bottom line is, Maddin's schtick is clever clever film-making for aspiring film majors.
'The Hills Eyes II', one of the most pointless and blatantly stupid sequels to come around in some time, is 90 minutes of incompetent film making at its finest. Or worst, however you choose to look at it. While 2006's 'Hills' remake was one of the year's best, and truly frightening, horror films, this sequel takes every spark out of what made that such an accomplishment. Part 2 never gets off the ground, and neither does its mind numbing dialogue. Worst of all, it's not that scary.<br /><br />2006's remake followed a family who find themselves in the middle of the New Mexico desert, deserted, and one by one being picked off by deranged and sadistic hill people. People who, as a result of the military testing the atomic bomb on their land years ago, have become who they are. Surviving off travelers who wander into the region. The sequel puts audiences in the same desert, now occupied by the military as they covertly investigate the hills and what might have happened to that poor family. When a group of military trainees are brought to the campsite, they find it deserted with no signs of life. A grim reality soon befalls them, as they come to the realization that they're not alone. And the bloody fate that was handed to many before them will soon become their destiny.<br /><br />It doesn't take a genius to realize that 'Hills' has no legitimate reason to exist. But because last year's remake was received well both at the box office and by critics, it came to no surprise that a sequel would be rushed into production while there's still money to be earned. There's no rhyme or reason to it this time around, just an unbelievable and ridiculous set-up to pave the way for thoughtless characters, unoriginal killings, a non-existent story, and slipping interest. Originally, director Alexander Aja made Craven's cult classic into a remake that was a unique and thoroughly disturbing experience. One that gruesomely crossed the line on more than one occasions. Its frank display of violence, sadistic torture, well-rounded characterization, and white-knuckled suspense were all effectively used to shock and repulse audiences. The second time around, it's rehashed hand-me-downs. There's no style, no grit. It tries to build up tension by dismembering bodies, when all it really does is make for a been there, done that kind film, where even the gore seems tame compared to more recent bloodbaths.<br /><br />It's a sad state of affairs when deformed mutants who capture women for breeding purposes fails to keep your attention. It's a bore, nothing more. 'Hills' has no bite. Despite a jump or two here and there, there's nothing very scary about this by-the-numbers horror flick. It feels like something you'd see on the Sci-Fi channel, only with some F-bombs, a blood splatter here and there, a rape, and a graphic birth scene that's more gross than shocking. It's cheap. And with 'Hills', you reap what you sew. With no effort given, you can't expect anything in return.<br /><br />Replacing Aja with Martin Weisz as director was the film's first big mistake, all he does is drain the film of any sort of emotional resonance. But even more shocking is the uncharacteristically bad script penned by Wes Craven and his son, Jonathan Craven. You ask, how bad could it possibly be? This is the kind of dialogue that makes any comparison look like Shakespeare. Craven has had his fair share of clunkers in the past, but I'd never expect something like this from him. It's so unintentionally funny, you have to wonder, is Craven playing a joke on this? Or did he dump this one on his son after the studio payed him off? The film's characters are one-dimensional talking heads with no emotions or common sense. The acting is just as bad. The only character who may win you over is 'Napoleon' Napoli, the scrawny kid who doesn't fit in with the others. Even the deranged and instinct-driven villains, who we might have found some favor with in the deepest of our thoughts a year ago, are met with indifferent. You don't hate them, you don't like them. You honestly couldn't care less. Just like this movie.<br /><br />Even if you were giddy with fear during 'The Hills Have Eyes', as I was, you'll have a tough time finding anything to enjoy in this piece of garbage. It's as generic as generic gets, and there's absolutely nothing here we haven't seen done many times already. I can't express this enough, avoid 'The Hills Have Eyes II' like the plague. It's frightless, unoriginal, frantic, and a bore. Stick to the remake or Craven's original vision. Because if you don't walk out after the first thirty minutes, don't say I didn't warn you.
Last year's remake of 'The Hills Have Eyes' was one of the better attempts to update the vaguely exploitational horror flicks of the 1970s for a new audience. Alexandre Aja allowed for an admirable degree of character development and when the violence started it was mean and savage and all carried out in a landscape of impeccable photography and production design. I was one of the few people who actually thought that it was better than the original and looked forward to a second visit to the particularly dark and cruel world of the savage desert mutants.<br /><br />'The Hills have Eyes 2', released just a year after the original, seems a rushed and ill-conceived attempt to cash in on the franchise with little thought to quality. Jonathan Craven's screenplay could have been written in a weekend, and given the speed with which this movie made it into cinemas, probably was. It falls back on every hackneyed genre cliché in the book while offering absolutely nothing new to the desert mutant mythology. I always let out a groan of disappointment when a sequel replaces civilian characters with the military. Soldiers are always so lazily written and never fail to thoroughly bore with crude caricatures of strutting macho bullshit. In my mind, 'Aliens' was the only movie to successfully make such a transition, due to James Cameron's talent, not simply for directing the best action sequences around, but never forgetting that an audience has to care about the people being butchered. He was also ably assisted by some genuinely talented actors. With 'The Hills have Eyes 2', it's clear that video director Martin Weisz is no James Cameron, and the cast of television bit-parters haven't the talent or even the inclination to turn their cardboard cutout characters into anything approaching living, breathing human beings.<br /><br />Needless to say, every character is a broad and generic cliché. They act in dumb and illogical ways, making dumb and illogical decisions that lead them to predictably dumb and illogical deaths. The latter half of the movie becomes just another tedious chased-through-dark-corridors scenario. 'The Descent' (on which Sam McCurdy, coincidentally, also worked as cinematography) proved that even this most derivative of sequences can still be carried out with genuine originality and suspense, but we see no such innovation here.<br /><br />'The Hills Have Eyes 2' is just a very lazy movie, devoid of any suspense, tension, or surprise, with not a single individual involved remotely interested in producing anything of quality. It's a tame and tired excuse for a sequel and deserves to spend the rest of its life in a Blockbuster's bargain bin.
The Hills Have Eyes II is what you would expect it to be and nothing more. Of course it's not going to be an Oscar nominated film, it's just pure entertainment which you can just lose yourself in for 90 minutes.<br /><br />The plot is basically about a group of National Guard trainees who find themselves battling against the notorious mutated hillbillies on their last day of training in the desert. It's just them fighting back throughout the whole film, which includes a lot of violence (which is basically the whole film) as blood and guts are constantly flying around throughout the whole thing, and also yet another graphic rape scene which is pointlessly thrown in to shock the audience.<br /><br />I'd give the Hills Have Eyes II 4 out of 10 for pure entertainment, and that only. Although even then I found myself looking at my watch more and more as the film went on, as it began to drag due to the fact it continued to try and shock the audience with graphic gore and the occasional jump scene just to make sure the audience stays awake. The Hills Have Eyes II is just decent entertainment, something to pass time if you're bored, and nothing else.<br /><br />4/10
THHE2 is entertaining in that you'll laugh a lot and cringe and probably say "oh sh*t!" and "get your face away from the goddamn hole you dumb**s" or things along those lines but I don't know if its really worth seeing- I was very annoyed throughout the entirety with the horrible military characters who don't seem to know the first thing about combat.<br /><br />Yes there was more violence, gore, and a higher body count than the first one but I am still am debating whether that cancels out my feeling throughout the whole movie about how ridiculous it is (and not a good ridiculousness like Dead Alive or Feast). My time would have been better spent watching Aja's remake for the 5th time.<br /><br />So go for some laughs, or go for some gore, but don't go hoping to come out of it satisfied.
Okay, let's not get confused here. If this is a sequel to a remake of an original horror classic, does that mean it also automatically is a remake of the original horror classic's sequel? Here's to hoping that's not a general rule, as Wes Craven's own sequel to the original "The Hills have Eyes" – released somewhere during the mid-80's – is easily one of the worst and absolute most redundant horror movies ever made. Part two didn't have an actual plot and re-used footage of the original only to further exploit the success of the genuinely gritty and petrifying premise. Craven also wanted us to believe even dogs suffer from flashbacks and painful memories, as the loyal German Shepard of the Carter family re-experienced his bloody fight with one of the mountain hillbillies. There were quite a bit of alarming signs indicating us that this sequel would be a horrendous failure as well. The remake came out barely one year ago and here's the sequel already? The incredible speed of its release righteously causes you to question the quality of the script. Don't they need a little more time if they want to come up with a film that should be scary, menacing and disturbing? With his excellent film, Alexandre Aja nearly single-handedly altered the general opinion about horror remakes, as he had the courage and intellect of changing essential elements in the plot and adding more nauseating gore than anyone could ever had hoped for. Also, Aja is quite a talented young director and made himself noticed with his French instant cult classic "High Tension", but who is this new director? Aja's "The Hills Have Eyes" was an unexpected hit, appreciated by both experienced and older generations of horror fans as well as the younger and over-enthusiast target groups. It's a really good film and, even though an avalanche of new sequels and clones will be inevitable, it's highly unlikely that one of them will ever equal the surprising quality level of Aja's smashing hit. Bearing all this in mind, plus a rather large dose of personal skepticism, I must admit this rushed sequel really isn't as awful as anticipated. The screenplay is routine and clichéd horror fodder, introducing a fairly large number of characters with few or even no backbone and tastelessly depicting how they get slaughtered by traditionally repulsive-looking freaks. After the events of the first film, the US army has set up a camp in the middle of the New Mexican desert to investigate the effects of the nuclear tests, which took place there in the 50's and 60's. For the horribly mutated survivors of the miner's community that stayed there during the radioactive testing, the scientists and researchers form a tasty starter until the main course of incompetent soldiers arrives by truck. They are just supposed to drop off food and supplies but encounter their ultimate military training exercise when faced with the relentless humanoids that live inside the remainders of the mines.<br /><br />This basically is just another by-the-numbers slasher with dumb characters who are, even after losing several of their friends already, still stupid enough to separate themselves from the group and act like easy targets to kill. It's also very easy to point out which ones will make it out of this adventure alive, especially when one of the soldiers is against all types of violence and another one continuously stares at video images of her cute 3-year-old son. "The Hills Have Eyes II" completely lacks – as to be expected – originality, logic and plausible situations. The mutated miners aren't nearly as menacing as their colleagues in part one, mainly because they aren't organized this time and only just behave like drooling and sex-hungry prototype monsters. Since you don't care for the amateur G.I. Joe "heroes" and definitely don't feel any sympathy for the eyes in the hills, this film is a whole lot less compelling and involving than last year's original. Most peculiarly, this second film isn't nearly as violent and gory as the first! Sequels usually compensate the lack of suspense and the absence of surprise-twists with extra bloodshed and more graphic killing sequences, but the action in this sequel is really tame compared to the sick footage featuring in its predecessor. There are a handful of scenes to satisfy the bloodthirsty horror fanatics – mainly showing soldiers falling down cliffs or getting shot by their own guns – but there sadly aren't any outrageous pick-axe battles or virulent dog attacks. What a shame! What's the point of a sequel if it even fails to surpass the level of grossness and/or gratuitous filth of the original? Luckily enough the film is never boring or unnecessarily sentimental, and you'll have the most fun spotting all the things that don't make the slightest bit of sense! For example, wallets falling out of people's bloodied heads, women without any muscle power cast as tough-ass soldiers and – my personal favorite – assigning the ONE soldier with a speaking disability to operate the radio communications.
The premise of this awaited sequel was really good and after the huge success of the remake I expected a lot sincerely.<br /><br />The sad truth is that this movie is really absurd and inept. The situations are dumb and beyond reason and the acting is truly awful.<br /><br />This time there aren't likable characters or violins unlike the remake. Also, the gore is not that abundant and when it happens it's truly bad.<br /><br />The violence is minimal and it's a shame because there are many arguments that make you think that there's room for heavy violence. I mean, there's a SWAT team that is hunting a family of cannibal mutants. You surely expect something different! When I watched it on the movies I wanted my money back.<br /><br />Anyways this is a clear example of how rushed out movies turn out to be a mess and demonstrate poor quality on all aspects.<br /><br />A mess that let down the fans of the remake like me. That's why sequels are never welcomed; at least this movie isn't as terrible as the 1985 sequel to the original.
Martin Weisz, who directed the solid "Rohtenburg", will be taking the heat, with Wes Craven, for another shabby "The Hills Have Eyes 2". The memory of the legendary original, which boasted an unbelievable storyline and a dog having a flashback, will be erased forever by this more technically polished remake (in name only). A bunch of National Guardsmen (and women) are sent to a desert research area surrounded by hills filled with mutants. One by one the weekend soldiers are picked off. That's it. There is some hardcore violence and a reasonably brutal rape scene, but there is precious little else to get excited about. The film's "heroes" are the usual bunch of clichés and the mutants, a far cry from Craven's original "family", mostly resemble Brian Thompson from "Cobra" coupled with some creatures Stan Winston had left over from the "Wrong Turn" shoot. Much of the action takes place in caves, ala "The Descent", and is well shot by Sam McCurdy. A laughable aspect is Wes and Jonathan Craven's addition of a sympathetic mutant who skulks around his cave like Leatherface in Hooper's original "Chainsaw". Weisz will be blamed for this dull debacle, but he's not really at fault because he does his best to maintain suspense and squeeze some freshness out of the contrived situations. Not a fan, unfortunately.
My God. This movie was awful. I can't complain about it too much. I went to see it just to be grossed out. It did suffice, sort of. It's funny that the most disgusting part of the movie was in the very, very beginning where the woman is extremely vividly forced to give birth to a horribly mutated baby.<br /><br />I also think that it's funny that the most notable actor in the movie was the Hispanic soldier, who was a supporting actor in Next Friday. Everyone in the movie did a horrible acting job. It was some of the worst acting I've ever paid to see. <br /><br />I also expected that it would be much more gruesome than the first one. It wasn't. I expected it to be more gruesome because it's a sequel and horror movie sequels are usually much less successful than their predecessors. I expected it to be more gruesome since gore and violence usually sell a horror movie these days (Grudge 2, Saw 3, Jeepers Creepers 1 & 2, Dead Silence), but It actually wasn't nearly as gruesome as the first one, which was yet another disappointment. <br /><br />The mutants in the first one were kind of disturbing but the filmmakers were trying so hard in this one to make them creepy that they were absolutely hilarious.<br /><br />I also hated the entire concept of showing the clip of the female soldier's son on her camera-phone saying "I love you, mommy" FOUR TIMES. It was stupid to show it in the first place because they were just trying to make us feel worse for the vulnerable mother than the rest of the soldiers, and it was even more stupid to keep trying to make us feel even WORSE for her by showing it three more times for no reason. This movie was a joke.
I appreciate the need to hire unknowns for these kind of 'horror' movies, but they should at least hire some proper actors. The sergeant especially is guilty of using his monotone to bulldozer every single line he has. But let's face it, the lines aren't really important. There isn't really a recognisable plot, so most of the writing involves the words f**k, s**t, m*****f****r and other assorted bad language in place of proper dialogue.<br /><br />The 'story' as it is, is mostly made up of seemingly random gore and death, with a couple of cringe-worthy 'surprises', which happen around 10 minutes after you see exactly what's going to happen. Not only this, but there are several glaring plot holes and continuity errors (Why are they going in there? Didn't he have a weapon? Wasn't he dead?), so it makes the whole film seem as if it has been cut down by the several hours it would take to fix them.<br /><br />Another film which simply relies on blood and gore instead of any real cinematic experience.
Isn't anyone else tired of that old cliché' where a nearly dead person shows up in a horror film, gives us some informations, and then blasts his head off for no apparent reason? I know I am.<br /><br />The sad thing is that it's use in this film is worthless. If you have seen the first film (the first remake I should say) then the information given is completely worthless, because you would have already known it. I guess, you can that it isn't worthless to the main characters..but then why does the idiot shoot himself in the head? Wouldn't he want to live? Sure, he would have died anyway..<br /><br />This is the second film to be titled "The Hills Have Eyes II." The first being the sequel to the original 70's film. This is where it gets a little complicated for someone like me. See, I'm probably part of minority of people my age that even knew there was a HHE2 to begin with, much less an original HHE1. And now that we have a sequel to a remake and the fact that this sequel is named exactly as the sequel to the original HHE1...it just makes it worse! But anyways..<br /><br />Wes Craven's original Hills Have Eyes was decent. In the end, though, the idea was better than the presentation, but he most likely had a low budget. To be quite honest, Wes Craven isn't that good of a horror director. He's only made a few good horror movies (Nightmare on Elm St., New Nightmare), a few alright ones (Scream) and a bunch of horrible ones (Cursed, Shocker, Vampire in Brooklyn). Oh yeah, and he made Swamp Thing, as well...but the original HHE2 falls under the latter category. I've only seen a few minutes, but it was terrible.<br /><br />Now he has co-written the new HHE2..and it's such a disappointment! Last year's HHE remake was even better than the original film. It was tense. I guess it had to do with the fact that the main characters were a family, and not a bunch of beer and pot and sex crazy teenagers. It made us feel dirty. For the first hour, we were in hell, and finally in the last few moments, the good guys got revenge on the bad guys and it felt good..<br /><br />This new film has no tension. No suspense whatsoever. Just violent things happening to mostly stupid people. There is hardly any menacing presence here. Just ugly hobos hiding under rocks.<br /><br />I'm getting tired of horror movies where people die because of the stupid mistakes they keep making. It was just the other day that I watching "Deep Blue Sea" where Samuel L. Jackson kept on walking around the water, while giving the speech, and then he gets eaten by a shark, only because the idiot stayed to close to the water..something that nobody would do in the given situation! Here is the exact same thing. People go off by themselves to take a leak even though they know people are dying..seriously, couldn't a potty break wait? And then when you think people would have learned, someone else goes of by themselves! Seriously, isn't more scary when the characters are bringing their A-game and still losing? I would think so...<br /><br />It even under delivers. It should have made the first remake look like "The Fog" remake (which was less menacing than an episode of "Becker"). More bad guys. More time in the caves. More tension. More of everything.<br /><br />But it actually downgrades. Less bad guys. No tension. Sure we have more time in the caves, but not a whole lot happens there. In the end, it only seems like there is two or three bad guys. The last film made it seem like a whole tribe of people. Where is this tribe? Who keeps on watching them through binoculars? Seriously, these are the things this film should have brought us, but it ends with the exact same promise that the last film gave us, with that exact same "being watched" scene. Come on! I'll give the devil it's due. The look of the film is good..but thats it.<br /><br />I don't even think fans of gore will like this..though I'm probably wrong! There is gore (though most of it is sped-up while in the dark), but without the tension, and characters you even care about..the gore does nothing in my book! In the end, you're not frightened. You;re not shocked (unless you're an 8 year old girl). You don't even feel like you have seen anything new.
This movie pretty much sucked. I'm in the Army and the soldiers depicted in this movie are horrible. If your in the Military and you see this movie you'll laugh and be upset the entire movie because of the way they acted as a squad. It was ridiculous. They acted like a bunch of normal people with Army uniforms on not knowing what to do. It was a pretty gory movie I'd have to say the least. There was a couple scenes where they try to make you jump. I'd recommend seeing it if you are bored and want to see a violent, gory movie. It will be a better movie also if your not in the Military. I also would have to say I liked the first one better than this one.
I couldn't believe my eyes once I've watched this movie. There's no point in it either then blood and violence. Unlike other scary movies that had gore and a meaning to it this movie is just blood, gore, and killing one after another. This movie isn't interesting at all, has no meaningful plot or story line, nor does it have an intelligence in it. The blood looks very fake and this movie overall, is pointless. Don't even waste your time with it. It's just an hour or two of mindless violence. It has many bloody scenes that aren't scary but just plain revolting. This is probably the worst horror film I have ever watched out of all the horror films I ever saw.
wow this is the worst movie ever. the only reason i signed up for IMDb was so i could complain about this movie. i have never walked out of a theater or stoped a DVD but i almost stopped this one (and i should have). but i watched it all the way to the end just to get let down again with an absolutely terrible ending. wow if this is all that wes craven can produce his time is long up. I've never seen the first one and will never after watching this. its terrible acting with a terrible plot. hey looks someone is shinning a mirror at us lets go check it out. and the sad part is that when this movie came to DVD it was completely checked out at blockbuster forever. so i feel bad for all the people that saw this junk.
No plot, crappy acting, and pointless gore....<br /><br />This is supposed to be a horror movie? There's no fear, or suspense, just BOOM BANG GORE, then done. Some kinda Marines are in the desert for some weird, crappy reason and they get hunted down by those mutated beasts from the first movie, which was good, and should have been left it at that.<br /><br />This is just another excuse for money, and use of pointless violence, just like the "Saw" sequels. They know no matter how pointless the plot is, and the more gore they can add, people will see it. I miss good suspenseful horror movies. Come on Hollywood, you can do much, much better.
I'm no horror movie buff, but my wife's nieces and nephews are. So, I saw the first movie. It was gruesome, and tense, but not my taste. Still good though. For similar reasons, at this very moment, I am being exposed to a sequel.<br /><br />The premise itself is beyond absurd. I can buy that disasters occur in the desert. I can buy that mutants exists. I can even buy that the events might be so weird and strange that the military may decide to get involved. It is unlikely, yes, but I'm willing to suspend my belief.<br /><br />HOWEVER, under no circumstances am I willing to believe that the military squad assigned to recon such an area would be unable to fend off the mutants. Being a member of the United States Army, I can assure that while fresh recruits may lack the seasoned eyes and experience of combat soldiers, any such recruits would be integrated into a capable squad.<br /><br />A squad of armed soldiers is not about to be taken out by a few mutants with knives. That's just the way it works. Squad movements, vastly superior firepower, and of course, radio support, would ensure nothing less than total victory. I'm not saying you wouldn't have casualties, but as soon as the area was verified as hostile, military training would take precedence, no-one would go off on their own even to use the bathroom.<br /><br />And if it were discovered that the area was so infested with hostiles that the squad was unable to handle the danger, they would radio in for backup. And believe me, their radios would not be jammed, if there was a chance that normal radios would not do, the squad would have a military issue satellite phone. Chances are, if they were unable to check in every hour, a search would be called.<br /><br />In order to accept this movie, you must accept that our soldiers are incompetent fools, with incompetent leaders, and an incompetent chain of command. While it may still be true that the most dangerous thing in the world is a lieutenant with a map and compass, our military forces are filled with intelligent, well-trained, competent soldiers. Mutants with knives are far below our ability to deal with.<br /><br />With the whole execution of the movie depending solidly on the impossible to imagine, the film fails to deliver. Instead, we are expected to believe that our soldiers, sailors, and airmen are incapable of dealing with even the most mediocre threats.<br /><br />As a combat veteran, I find the movie insulting.
As has been stated countless times, "The Hills Have Eyes 2" is NOT a remake of the (generally disregarded) mid-'80s sequel to Wes Craven's 1977 original. But wishing to give this postmodern sequel-to-a-remake the official stamp of Diminishing Returns, Craven himself (a double threat alongside his son, Jonathan) has decided to pen a film that is of the same quality--in plain English, HORRIBLE. Former music-video director Martin Weisz takes the reins from Alexandre Aja, and is clearly in way over his head--yet one wonders how anyone could have created a watchable film from the Cravens' Screen writing 101 scrawl. Not only are the characters (in this case, a gang of goofball National Guards(wo)men sent to investigate the turbulent hills of the original remake) completely obnoxious and prone to really annoying genre pitfalls (played without a lick of irony, mind you), but they are constantly cracking jokes that aren't funny. After viewing their total ineptitude during a training exercise, their fate against the repulsive, roaming cannibals is painfully obvious. Only this time out--as in the original '80s sequel--the script is so simplistic (barely existent, actually) that any potential subtext is jettisoned in favor of upping the ante in repulsive shocks (we're treated to a combo childbirth-murder during the opening credits, plus a gratuitous rape for those who haven't ejected the DVD by the midpoint!). Even the mutants in this outing are personality-free freaks of no memorable stature--the tacky, rubbery-looking makeup FX seems, like the rest of the film, to be trying to hide its face from embarrassment. I really groaned at the lame 'surprise' at the end of Aja's otherwise excellent film, and the producers quite literally go for broke at the end of "Hills 2," setting the stage--VERY lamely setting the stage--for a third installment...yet the Cravens and Weisz have created a film that is such a cynical bastardization of what made the 1977/2006 versions work that they'd be hard-pressed to find an audience after this insulting slap in the face.
Alexandre Aja's remake of The Hills Have Eyes was one of the bright spots of 2006. Not only was it a remake of a classic horror film, but it was pretty damned good too. So, nearly a year later, we are being treated to the sequel to that remake. While original scripter Wes Craven is back as producer and co scripted, this film just fails to rise to the level set by the original and the remake. A group of military trainees stop by in the desert to check in on some scientists and find themselves run afoul of the mutant family from the first film (at least those that remain plus some new ones). There's plenty of gore to be had here. What annoys me about this film is the utter lack of characterization. The viewer does not give a damn about what happens to any of these people because we haven't gotten into them. Even the mutants had some characterization last time out and this time, nothing. Gore for the sake of gore is pointless. There has to be a reason for this to happen for it to be interesting. Nothing that happens here is interesting. And what is it lately with rape scenes in films? Here we get yet another one for no real reason. Hopefully this is one set of hills that won't be visited again.
The film picks up after last years remake with the military setting up electronic surveillance equipment in the desert where the attacks in the first film happened. The crew is killed not long before a group of soldiers on a training exercise show up to find no one around. You can fill in the rest.<br /><br />This is a paycheck picture all around. There seems to be no passion in anyone's performances, nor in anyone behind the camera. This is a movie that was made for the money and nothing else. On some level this should have worked, it could have been a more horrific Southern Comfort (where National Guardsmen run afoul of some people in the swamps), but instead its not much of anything. In large part you can blame the script, written unbelievably in part by Wes Craven, which hits the same old targets again and again. Add to the mess the fact that the direction is dull and the set up of sequences is so lack luster as to remove any inherent tension in any scene.<br /><br />Its not bad as such, but badly made and dull. Let me put my feelings into context: The reason I saw this film was because a local multiplex screwed up and ran this film instead of the kids flick the Last Mimzy and I wanted to see what caused the out cry(I mean the films have so much in common-he says sarcastically). I'm convinced that this film will only scare those who like the last Mimzy.
this movie was just plain dumb i do not think it was scary at all i went in hoping to be shocked and scared but was mostly laughing some of the scenes were just to fake and thrown together blood scenes were extremely over cg and some of the mutants were ridiculously gay looking it also sucked because the acting was just plain horrible u think they could get some good actors and most of the characters i hated just because how stupid and lame they acted even though they were supposed to be in the military i get to watch movies for free and seen many people walking out im guessing because it was so dumb kinda glad i didn't have to pay for it in short DUMB ASS MOVIE don't see it...but then again thats my opinion
Just recently, I've been obsessing over and anticipating this movie so much that I almost had to see it. Well, having just seen it today, the 5.8 rating is completely understandable. I think that if you anticipate something so much that it becomes a dire need, it turns out not to be worth it. <br /><br />Sure, The Hills Have Eyes 2 has its moments. It has a very cool and well-developed storyline that ties in well with the actual product itself, but the whole thing is so self-indulged that it becomes so hard to follow. And if it weren't for Wes Craven's production on this film, it wouldn't be anything to do with The original remake. <br /><br />But the whole thing makes you go "Is this supposed to be horror or COMEDY?" because there are lots of ridiculous, randomly placed jump moments and stupid one liners (I.E. "There's a hand in the sh**er!" or "You motherfu**er! I'll kill you all damn sons of b**tches!") and the acting (God don't even remind me how bad it was.<br /><br />STORYLINE: (this part contains spoilers, beware!) The movie begins with a woman giving birth to a mutant baby (ooh la la!), and then the screen fades to black with the movie's title appearing, and a monologue. Then we go to this office where there are randomly placed war veteran mannequins. We find that this is for this one scientist keeping track of people looking for mutants. The box to keep track of audio feeds is gone, and everyone dies! After that tone-setting opening, you'd expect more.<br /><br />Then, we go to this one team of military recruits training in Baghdad. As the captain parades them "A good job at stupidity", their last day of training is in New Mexico, the desert where the family in the last THHE had stayed because they were stuck. While in training, things go ultimately wrong, people die, and... do I need to tell you any more? Because right now I have the attention span of a goldfish just forcing myself to sit here and type this.<br /><br />The thing that's wrong with THHE2 is that it just dosen't work. No flashbacks here, and the ending is pretty safe... but with a twist! A stupid one, that is. I'm pretty sure the Ultra Super Director's Cut with a holographic cover and a ticket to The Hills Have Eyes 3 will showcase all of it's alternate endings, but at this point, I'm not sure if I care. <br /><br />So by all means, if you loved the first THHE so much it's almost a sin not to see this, then by all means, see it. But if else, then, Avoid at all costs. It's for your own good.<br /><br />3/10
You know, I went to see "The Hills have eyes 2" wanting to like it. I really enjoyed the original, and the remake was fairly entertaining. They obviously had more money to throw around than Wes Craven did on special effects the second time around. Even though I still prefer the original film, the remake was done well, and it was kind of a guilty pleasure for me. Bloody, intense, and great special effects. In short, a great popcorn movie for any horror fan.<br /><br />Which brings us to "The Hills have eyes 2". Man, where do I start? The plot, or lack of one, is paper thin. We are not exactly breaking new ground here.The military has decided to monitor the area, and all of these people turn up missing. So what do we do now? Let's send in the National Guard to investigate. In true Hollywood fashion we need to make them the dumbest, and worst soldiers ever seen. Gee, I've never seen that premise before. To make a long story short, you have the mutants killing off the moron soldiers one at a time in graphic fashion. Once again the special effects by Nicotero are great, but the kills no matter how graphic become boring, and predictable. Honestly it seemed to me that this flick was done just to grab a quick buck. It was bloody, and graphic, but I found it predictable, boring, and not scary at all. For me it would have been nice if this film contained one original thought.Wes Craven and his son shared the writing duties, and he has been involved with many of my favorite horror films, but sadly this isn't one of them.
THHE remake was a superior movie remake in every way. Most remakes end up being total garbage but under the very talented direction of Alexandre Aja became one of the best ever made in terms of remakes and also as far as the mutant inbreed human sub-genre of horror is concerned. In steps part 2 directed by another individual Martin Weisz and written by the father and son combo of Jonathan and Wes "I cannot make a good horror movie to save my life anymore" Craven and if this is any indication of Weisz directing skills and young Craven's writing skills we are all in for a painful future as THHE 2 not only fails to be as good as the first but also fails to entertain on ANY level.<br /><br />We start off with a fairly graphic mutant baby birth which though is rather cool will not prepare you for the utter garbage that is to come, only hint to what could have been in this film. We then get to see a crew of scientists who all to briefly are introduced and dispatched by our radiated rejects. In steps our main cast of army reservist to save the day, this is where the major problems begin.<br /><br />From very sub par acting (yes even for this kind of movie) to the horrible characters to the lack of true carnage for most of its running time THHE 2 becomes a labor to watch as a lot of nothing happens as idiotic soldiers make mistake after mistake only to meet there demise not by the mutants but themselves. Think the Marines in Aliens only the exact opposite and you have the idea of how well these soldiers are trained. This is the true shame of the film as most of the Hills occupants do not get the kills you would like to see, like in the first film, in fact if this did not have THHE 2 attachment in the beginning and the brief overview in the beginning tying this loosely to the first this could have nearly been a Sci-Fi Channel original.<br /><br />The Mutant Mountainbillies as well are not as amusing this time around in fact in a lot of way they are far inferior to our prior batch as they all come off as being rather under designed and uninteresting. Also the one that took the cake was the Sloth-like Mutant (you know Sloth from the Goonies) who helps them out in the 3rd act. I was waiting for him to ask for a Baby Ruth or start going on about Rocky Road Ice Cream. Truly disappointing and shameful is the only way to describe most of the goings on here.<br /><br />The gore is in the film but not nearly as visceral as the original in fact it seemed toned down for the most part as other than the mutant baby birth scene there really isn't anything that stood out like in the first. Another major strike against this movie. So what did work here, the answer is nothing at all. This felt like a sequel designed specifically to make money off the success of the first and not to make an actually "good" film.<br /><br />I can go on about the crappy Drill SGT., the radio man that has a speech impediment (that's right, he is the kind of guy I want radioing in for help in a real crisis) or the pacifist fighter that resembles the exact same character mold as our "hero" in the first film but I believe you get the point. This movie is not even in the same league or even the same planet as the first. It should have been given another title and been added to the Saturday Night Line up on The Sci-Fi Channel. A true shame as a solid sequel could have been made but alas it looks like another horror movie that drops the ball on nearly every level and will get one of my lowest scores as I give THHE 2 the same score as its part: 2/10 Dreadful: Words cannot describe how bad this movie is a total polar opposite of its predecessor in every way, uninspired and down-right unnecessary. Next time guys if your going to make a sequel this bad...don't even bother. Please don't go support this garbage at the theaters, save your money and thank me later!!!!
No one goes to a movie like The Hills Have Eyes 2 and expects the second coming of Citizen Kane. The same is true for the majority of low-rent horror flicks, especially those Roger Ebert has dubbed "Dead Teenager Movies." The Hills Have Eyes 2 definitely qualifies as a Dead Teenager Movie, only here, the teenagers have been given the superficial appearance of military trainees.<br /><br />Some will argue the line "it's only a movie" when questionable facts are raised in a movie review, but I've always been a firm believer that all good fantasy must be rooted in reality in order to be effective. In the Hills Have Eyes 2, we're to believe the main characters are military people on a training exercise, but they look and talk like high school kids camping in the desert. The dialog is awful and frequently vulgar to excess. Though the films aren't nearly comparable, I kept imagining these "soldiers" being in Platoon, and shuddering with dread.<br /><br />Very little about the characters evokes a soldier other than rifles and fatigues: radio transmissions are carried out like teenage phone conversations; a Colonel is addresses as "hey, asshole" by a Private. And nobody seems to have the slightest idea what to do, or any sense of command structure, when things begin to go wrong. I think of the soldiers in James Cameron's Aliens, a film of pure fantasy, and how even those futuristic Marines behaved like real soldiers despite their fantastic situations. Fantasy rooted in reality.<br /><br />I try to begin watching a movie as a 5 on a scale of 10, and judge it's strengths and weaknesses from there. You have to allow concessions for the material; there's no way Star Wars is as good of a movie as The Godfather, on equal terms. But both are excellent examples of their type.<br /><br />In that respect, while the Hills Have Eyes 2 is a pretty dreadful exercise in amateur and immature writing, it's only modestly worse in that regard than the typical Dead Teenager Movie. On a technical side, the movie appears to have decent production values and is pretty well made from that perspective. Scenes that are intended to shock, or which are intended to evoke urgency or suspense generally work. So, while watching The Hills Have Eyes 2 may indeed be a fate worse than death, there are certainly far worse horror flicks in circulation.<br /><br />It's worth a watch for those who enjoy this type of stuff without the usual fanboy baggage, or those who don't tend towards thinking every movie they see is either the Best Ever or the Worst Ever of all time. If you don't "get" horror, especially the Dead Teenager variety, you're not likely to have a good time with this one.<br /><br />4/10
This is a weak sequel: it lacks the interest and light touch of the magnificent "Man Called Horse" in nearly every aspect and when compared to each other they hardly seem to be the same genre.<br /><br />The Return is almost a parody of the first and tries to evoke different Indian ceremonies but comes across as trying way too hard to bottle the magic of the first. In this film the tribe is lost and abandoned, having lost their homelands, modern life has encroached on paradise and they are living in abject misery and poverty. Perhaps this is the point: the first film took us to a place where we would want to be, a simpler time. This takes us to broken Indians in a miserable world and the White Man is the hero and savior which rather negates the whole idea of the film.<br /><br />The beauty of the first lay in the fact that the white man learnt and discovered that real civilization lies in values rather than western materialism. In the second film this is all but lacking and so we end up with a weak film.<br /><br />A huge disappointment.
Caught this by accident on a t.v. showing - and could hardly believe how utterly awful the whole experience was. By comparison, the original "A Man Called Horse" was spell-binding because it held one's interest throughout. But this piece of nonsense - words fail me. It was bad enough to have some kind of a "story" presented with all the impact of a wet loaf of bread, but that error was compounded by the obvious lack of subtitles throughout whenever the so-called "Sioux" spoke. For goodness sake, couldn't the film-makers have found enough North American Indians who were also actors and near-actors to perform as "Indians" in this farrago instead of the imposters they actually used? I also found it quite embarrassing watching Richard Harris cavorting all around the countryside at the obvious behest of the director standing just behind camera, telling him to run and jump from pointless Point A to pointless Point B just to make up film footage and minutes. Absolutely terrible in all respects!
I thoroughly enjoyed A Man Called Horse when it was released in 1970, but Return played like a typical sequel. Everything about it -- budget, script, plot, casting, and acting -- was inferior to the original. Gale Sondergaard as Elk Woman, an elder of the Yellow Hand tribe, looks nothing like an Indian, and neither do half of the other "Indians," who were played by Italians, Mexicans, and Latinos with cheap wigs. And the old guy who played the chief acted more like a fat old squaw than a fierce leader of warriors. He even used the bow like a woman! Finally, Richard Harris, who did such a superb job in the original, seems to be coasting this time around. I guess he couldn't resist the easy paycheck he got for reprising his role as Horse.<br /><br />To be fair, there are some interesting moments in the movie, such as Horse's undergoing a painful purification ritual to "find his vision" and rally the Yellow Hands against their Indian enemies and white oppressors, but on the whole, Return is uneven, boring, corny, and predictable -- just like most sequels.
This movie is told through the eyes of a young teacher at a catholic school, watching as the RAWANDAN genocide un-furls around him.<br /><br />The movie starts off with a brief explanation about the past history and rivalry of Rawanda. Then it jumps to the story as told through the eyes of a young idealistic "NEW-COMER" a young teacher who doesn't take life or the situation too seriously. As he and the driver approach a road-block he plays around with his drivers I.D. not realizing that this is a serious moment and that if the driver can't identify himself as being of the right tribe to the soldiers they'll be killed. And thats how he treats the unfolding story of chaos and unfolding around him. Suddenly realizes that every Rawandan (including his driver) is involved and that the Europeans soldiers and tourists cannot and will not help. The media cameras cannot stop machete's, and there's too many machete wielding militia-men too shoot. the title comes from the armies captain saying he's going to shoot the dogs eating the dead-bodies around his compound, but won't shoot the Militia-men that are killing people around the compound. Mainly because they haven't fired at the soldiers yet. Finally he realizes the hopelessness of the situation and the guy who tells the evacuation team that he wants to give up his seat for one of the intended victims, flees with his tail in-between his legs, rather than face immanent death with the school kids he's promised not to leave behind.<br /><br />It's more of character study, and a come to Jesus moment for one character, than a story about the genocide in "RAWANDA". This movie didn't have to take place in RAWANDA, it could have taken place any one of the Genocidal hell holes going around this world at any given time.
Serge Farnel made a very precise critics of this film in the revue "The Rwandese night" (www.lanuitrwandaise.net)<br /><br />A critics which shows how France was behind all the situation undergone by the United Nations in Rwanda.<br /><br />The UN soldiers were in a dangerous situation while the french soldiers were warmly welcomed by the genocide forces.<br /><br />The day before, ten UN soldiers had been killed by the genocide forces.<br /><br />That is why the UN soldiers decided to protect their own lives by driving behind the french trucks.<br /><br />By doing so, they gave up the Tutsi which is unforgivable of course.<br /><br />But we must keep in mind that the french soldiers organized this situation.
This film was basically Velvet Goldmine if the writers of party of five got a hold of it and made it a t.v. movie. The film lacks what Velvet Goldmine had which was good acting, writing, and basically everything else. The film had some of the worst writing I've seen since Wild Wild West. It definitely needed to be interesting. I know vh 1 has become a household name for their behind the music shows. which are a lot better than all this which would have worked if it was a behind the music episode but didn't and feel flat on it's face.
The majority of Stephen King's short stories are little gems, with original ideas that don't take a long time to develop; basically lean and mean--he sets them up quickly in a scarce number of pages, you read 'em, and you're finished before you know you've begun. They're like the equivalent of a carton of McDonald's fries--they taste Really good and you know there's not much nutritional value in them (re: from a literary standpoint, they don't say much about the universal human condition), but you're still gonna scarf 'em down, just don't be a pig and go for the extra-super-sized portion and fill up on too much grease ("too much grease" is a metaphor for the prose in King's novels when find yourself reading one of them and saying come on--enough with the pop-cultural observations or clever Yankee asides--get on with the story already!) He has compiled four books of short story collections. I've read them all--from NightShift to the latest, Everything's Eventual, and they all display an efficiency of getting-to-the-point which is sometimes sorely lacking in his tome-sized novels.<br /><br />But his short stories never overstay their welcome...which brings us to the TV adaptations of Nightmares And Dreamscapes...<br /><br />How in the hell did they (the series' producers) get a green-light to turn stories that usually averaged 15 pages into 50 minute episodes? I'll tell you how--two words--"Stephen King." Stories with his name on them probably didn't come cheap, and one hour shows enable more advertising than half hour ones, so...what should have been an anthology of mostly 23 or 24 minute episodes is turned into double that length, and double the commercial time...Ka-Ching!<br /><br />I'm not going to waste time synopsizing the plots of these stories--this review supposes you have already read the stories and/or seen the show; what follows is merely my gut reactions to what TNT presented... Of the four installments so far, here's my ten cent assessment (from first to worst): <br /><br />Battleground-- Not a classic by any means, but hey, how could anyone argue with keeping William Hurt from opening his trap by filming this episode without a single line of dialog? And the tongue-in-cheek reference and destruction of the killer Zuni doll from Trilogy Of Terror proved to me the producers (and the writer of the teleplay, who is Richard Matheson's son--the writer of TOT) knew their mission with this one was to make the action deadly, yet at the same time, fun. It took longer to get to Hurt's apartment than it should have, but I think it fulfilled it's objective. 8/10<br /><br />Umney's Last Case-- Liked this one primarily because of William H. Macy's performance. I think the writer/Umney should have appeared in the story sooner into the private eye/Umney beginning because he was the actual reality of the story, and anyone familiar with the King short story (probably half, if not more of the audience) knew the Chandleresque set-up was due to get interrupted by the writer's reality, so let's get on with it already, and cut-out the cute and clever hard-boiled repartee' Private Dick banter already. Once the writer/Umney's family tragedy began to reveal though, I thought the show developed an emotional connection that made the viewer (me, at least), feel sympathy for the real-life Macy's attempt to escape his sorrows by usurping his fictional creation's exciting life. 6/10 <br /><br />The End Of The Whole Mess-- Uh, this title is how I felt about this episode when it was over. After twenty minutes, I was ready to scream at the TV--OK, we get it already, the younger brother is a Mega Mensa Genius Prodigy Extraordinaire! We know from Ron Livingston talking to the camera ("time is running out for me"--not fast enough, I thought) that the young whiz kid is going to discover something really bad for humanity--we know this because he's already built an airplane but almost died because he couldn't steer it out of the path of a tree; and, he blew up his chemistry lab while teaching himself chemistry (to think the end of the world could have been prevented if only this kid had some more parental supervision). So much time was wasted on establishing the uber-genius of Henry Thomas, when we finally get to the resolution of his discovery--the end of the world through unintended idiocy--how much do we get to see of the world "ending?"--a cheap video shot of a reporter starting to forget what she's reporting on, and brief radio broadcasts announcing the day of judgement is at hand. Oh, and the brother's parents drooling and singing old songs. My point is, if your story is really about the "end of the whole mess (world)", I wanna see the "mess" as it goes up in flames and crashes and burns. Talk about ending with a whimper, indeed. 2/10 <br /><br />Crouch End-- This episode just ticked me off totally. I could have lived with the taking-forever exposition of the happy couple arriving at their hotel, playing slap-and-tickle, having lunch, and getting a taxi (that was half the episode right there), if once they finally crossed-over into Crouch End the episode delivered the chills, but it failed miserabley. Not only wasn't it scary, it was practically laughable. Ooh, look--a kitty...wait, it turns...oh my god! Look at it's scary eye! Uh-huh. They could have gone a long way towards filming the Crouch End sequence at night instead of in daylight, too. Things you might unintentionally find funny can become scarier when you see them in the night shadows. But I guess the budget wasn't high enough to shoot at night on the fake London sets they slapped together for this one. On the page, this is a very scary story about tourists wandering into places they shouldn't and the terrible things that might lurk just around a corner there. The only terror in this adaptation was the directing and acting--those were truly horrifying. 1/10 <br /><br />Overall Series Average (so far): 4/10
The first episode set the bar quite high i thought. It starred William Hurt as a hit-man who is contracted to kill a toymaker. We are given very little information on his character or who is paying him to kill, indeed the episode is notable for having no dialogue at all. Returning to his modernist penthouse he is delivered a package containing toy soldiers, this gives him a smile but he dismisses it and goes about his business. But he is in for a night of hell, the soldiers are alive and are about to wage war, driving jeeps, shooting machine guns and bazookas and even flying helicopters!. The special effects are good for a TV show and it becomes quite tense as he dodges around the apartment using his wits to survive, sometimes getting the upper hand and other times not. I wont spoil the ending but suffice to say it was a clever little twist. This gave me hope for the rest of the series but i was in for a disappointment, the other episodes were all rubbish and i lost interest by the fourth one. Stephen King adaptations are always a mixed bag and these are no exception
Man, I really wanted to like these shows. I am starving for some good television and I applaud TNT for providing these "opportunites". But, sadly, I am in the minority I guess when it comes to the Cinematic Stephen King. As brilliant as King's writing is, the irony is that it simply doesn't translate well to the screen, big or small. With few exceptions (very few), the King experience cannot be filmed with the same impact that the stories have when read. Many people would disagree with this, but I'm sure that in their heart of hearts they have to admit that the best filmed King story is but a pale memory of the one they read. The reason is simple. The average King story takes place in the mind-scape of the characters in the story. He gives us glimpses of their inner thoughts, their emotions and their sometimes fractured or unreal points of view. In short, King takes the reader places where you can't put a Panavision camera. As an audience watching the filmed King, we're left with less than half the information than the reader has access to. It's not too far a stretch to claim that One becomes a character in a King story they read, whereas One is limited to petty voyeurism of that same character when filmed. For as long as King writes, Hollywood will try shooting everything that comes out of his word processor, without any regard to whether or not they should. I don't blame the filmmakers for trying, but it takes an incredible amount of talent and circumspection to pull off the elusive Stephen King adaptation that works. The task is akin to turning lead into gold, or some arcane Zen mastery. Oh well, better luck next time.
i usually don't write reviews but i can't understand why this is rated so high and wanted to give a warning to horror lovers since i can only assume that all those high ratings were given by average TV watchers.<br /><br />i have only watched the first two episodes but those two were so cliché, it wasn't even funny any more. the same old stories you've probably seen/read a couple of times already - living toys, evil things from other dimensions... and it's not just that these stories aren't innovative, they are also pretty bad versions of those clichés. i'd prefer e.g. "chucky" and "silent hill" over those two episodes anytime. and don't even ask about the visual effects... the ones in the first episode are alright but the ones in the second... awful. looks like some film student's project gone wrong. blood... or gore... erm... nothing worth mentioning.<br /><br />it might be interesting for some ten year old kid who probably hasn't seen/read that many scary stories yet (although i'd rather recommend "beyond belief" - now that's what i call a decent mystery TV show). but for an adult horror fan this is worthless. i only gave the 3 points because there is in fact some beautiful cinematography (especially in the second episode) and some nice acting.
I just saw the third week of Stephen Kings' Nightmares and Dreamscapes mini series; meaning, I saw 6 episodes so far. I have to say that the stories are really weak. I have read Stephen King's Skeleton Crew, a collection of his short stories that was published way back. I recall most of the stories were average to poor but there was one that was really excellent, if not outstanding.<br /><br />What I'm trying to say is that just because this mini series is from a collection of stories from Stephen King does not mean that it will be any good. In fact, if his previous collection of short stories are of any indication, then most of this mini series will be average to poor.<br /><br />In Stephen King's defense, I have not read these new short stories. Perhaps they are good as stories in a book and not readily adaptable to television, or perhaps it was the fault of the scriptwriters in trying to write an interesting script. Who knows. Also, these short stories may have been made exclusively for this mini series and not not for print purpose. Maybe that may have been the problem. If Stephen King had submitted these crap stories to an editor, I am sure the editor would have immediately told him to make it more interesting because as is, it is simply boring.<br /><br />What is clear from all of this is that the problem is with the stories/script and not the actors and actresses because this mini series has some excellent people acting on it.<br /><br />Seeing this mini series really makes me appreciate those old "Twilight Zone" series. Each series was only half an hour but it was compelling and riveting. I don't understand why this mini series could not accomplish similar feat. I am sure this mini series had a good deal of money to make a good mini series but unfortunately, something must not have clicked.<br /><br />For instance, this week there were two episodes shown. The first involved a horror story writer who buys a picture drawn by an artist who committed suicide. The writer begins to see changes in the picture as he is driving homeward. Feeling uncomfortable, he throws away the painting but it keeps appearing near him. Also, the portrait of an individual in that picture is killing people and is out to kill him. (I will not even mention the second episode for this week involving criminals and their loot because it was even more boring than this episode!)<br /><br />This premise is interesting and so the story should be good but after seeing it, I was frustrated because there were too many gaps in the story as well as extraneous materials that was shown that did nothing to help the story. After the last scene, I was left with more questions than answers.<br /><br />I tried for 3 weeks to get into this mini series but it was just too aggravating due to poor stories/script. If this was a movie, I would have recommended that people should wait for the movie to come out on cable or such. I would not even recommend that it be rented in your video store. However, given that this is on TNT, a cable channel, I would say if you have not seen it already, then try it for one week. If you do not like it that week, then you will not like the past series nor the future ones, since they all share the same boring trait.
I've barely just made it through one episode ("Crouch End"). The dialog was stilted and down-right cringe worthy. The acting was tragic. Eion Bailey, despite his best attempts to be dramatic, remains mostly expressionless. His eyebrows hint at a recent botox treatment. Claire Forlani could have just as easily been playing the damsel in distress in a silent movie. The characters were cartoons, each playing their stereotypical cog in the plot mostly random, meandering plot. Cheesy special effects can be excused given the TV miniseries budget. But attempts to create suspense and surprise through distracting cinematography added to the unwatchability. I get the feeling that the ending was supposed to be witty and surprising, but it was lame and had little to do with the rest of the story. If I had to compare it's overall quality to something else, I'd put this episode of "Nightmares and Dreamscapes" on par with the NBC's Hercules.
With its companion piece MASTERS OF HORROR, NIGHTMARES AND DREAMSCAPES can only be seen as the absolute nadir of the genre that began so auspiciously with THE TWILIGHT ZONE and THE OUTER LIMITS.<br /><br />Of course, part of the problem is that it does nothing to be of any interest to a comparatively adult audience, instead aiming at TEN-YEAR-OLDS, who are only able to count body-bags, and scarcely that. And so grossness is king, and King is grossness.<br /><br />Stephen King is simply illiterate – in general he has the aptitude for storytelling of Bart Simpson. Since he cannot read his sole inspiration is the movies.<br /><br />True, the cinema is not such a bad place to start, since it has generally escaped the onslaught of "Realism". But these films are only the rumor, not the thing, and if you want to WRITE, you have to dig deeper.<br /><br />Of course, only PICKMAN had monsters as close acquaintances. But even so, it should be clear to any undergraduate that vampires are not Dracula and Lugosi.<br /><br />At least AUTOPSY ROOM FOUR is a clear indication of what is wrong. One can almost imagine this pathetic dolt sitting as his desk trying to come up with something SCARY.<br /><br />Not, mind you, trying to describe accurately the horror of the system of which he is an integral part, making the stupid stupider, but trying to come up with a scary story for his little nephew. Suppose, you were paralyzed, and people thought you were dead and started to cut you open like they do at those autopsy things! Wouldn't that be gross? And that, boys and girls, is the story.<br /><br />What about characterization? Oh yes, he's one of these suits, who never really appreciated life, you know, and now it's too late, right? And he's shouting – well, they can't actually hear him, you know – he's saying that he's going to sue the hospital, but he's not such a big shot anymore, you see, lying there (or is it laying, I can never remember) and all. And he's thinking: Oh no please, please don't cut me and this is terrible, lying (or laying) like that – now, wouldn't that be a great story? You know I read somewhere that a snake bite can do that, I think it was that great medical authority Agatha Christie. What was the name of that snake again, oh yeah, a BOOMSLANG – has quite a ring to it, doesn't it.<br /><br />Let's make it a PERUVIAN BOOMSLANG! Sure, Steve, that's great – except that BOOMSLANG is Afrikaans, you moron! But how can you really tell that the target audience is children, and not simply mental defects? It's easy: There's no sex.<br /><br />Well, there is, but it's the kind glimpsed through a crack in the door to our parent's bedroom. Modern filmmakers are really big on the erotic aspects of the genre, the monster, the female victim, the chase.<br /><br />But unlike UNIVERSAL and LEWTON they have no idea what's going on. All that's really left is the giggling outside the SM club and the Fascist credo that people with sexual preferences are intrinsically evil.<br /><br />In spite of a certain discrepancy in size, King Kong knew exactly what to do with Fay Wray. Freddy Krueger can only kill her.<br /><br />And since there's no real titillation in that, he has to torture her first – not in any way that might excite her, you understand, since that would upset our puritan sentiments. And so, horror and romanticism become simply unpleasantness and the grooming of psychopaths.<br /><br />Our hero, you see, is a rubber fetishist, and can only get a boner if someone touches him you know down there with you know – rubber gloves (giggle). And that's what they use in autopsies, and that's how they discover that he is, in fact, you know.<br /><br />Obviously, this is the author at the height of his inspirational powers. Too bad, they cut it out, since it might have upset the FIVE-YEAR-OLDS watching the show!
So far Nightmares and Dreamscapes has been erratic and disappointing. The first segment, directed by Brian Henson, may have offered little in the way of groundbreaking storytelling or real scares, but at least it was well-directed, suspenseful, and visually interesting, with solid acting by William Hurt and very impressive special effects for a mini-series.<br /><br />However, the second story in the series was just dreadful, and not in the good way. The screenplay is bad, requiring the shallow, unlikable protagonists to act illogically in order to move the plot, and having characters ramble on endlessly for the purposes of clunky, unnecessary exposition. The acting is overdone and unconvincing, and I felt far more empathy for a cold-blooded killer in the first story than for the newlywed couple in the second. The director used a million tricks to try to make the narrative spooky, but with the amateurish acting and writing, the end result looks like a freshman-year film school project, with camera moves for their own sake, and little in the way of plot or tension.<br /><br />If the rest of the series continues like this, I'll be sorely let down. I look forward to William H. Macy's installment, and hope he gets a decent director and screenwriter for his segment. So far the quality is far too inconsistent to predict either way.
The beginning of the 90s brought many "quirky" and "off-beat" independent films, a particular sub-genre of which is the semi-spiritual desert crime movie. Others of note are "Wild at Heart", "From Dusk Til Dawn", and to a certain extent "Natural Born Killers". Good films like those spawned junk like "Highway 666", "Destiny Turns on the Radio" and this ineptly surreal anti-masterpiece "Under The Hula Moon". It's a comedy that aims for a certain emotional tone, attains it, but keeps going to the point of irritation. While the pursuit across the spirit-world of the desert and the casting of Chris Penn are good ideas, the film is not dirty enough or hard enough to be a good crime movie, and isn't focused enough on laughs to really be a comedy. I won't blow the ending, but let's just say it's bad. The film is basically a bad side effect of genre-cancer. This is the dregs of indie-mania.
Along with 2 days in the Valley, I think this is one of worst movies I've ever seen. Just another of the long line of Tarantino rip-offs that have emerged since Pulp Fiction. The atmosphere the movie creates is amusing for the first five minutes, but then the film makers make the unforgivable mistake of allowing unnecessary and grotesque violence to up the "hip" quotient. You're better off skipping this one.
First, let me just comment on what I liked about the movie. The special effects were fantastic, and very rarely did I feel like I was watching a video game. There, that is the last nice thing I have to say about this film. In fact, I would just like everyone reading this to take note that I can't even put into words how hard it was for me to write this review without swearing. <br /><br />I have innumerable complaints about the film, but four major complaints jump to mind. My first major complaint has to do with the incredible cheesiness of the "plot twist" (if you can call it that since most people probably saw it coming a mile away) where Lois's 5 year-old son turns out to be the super-powered child of Superman. When the crying super-child throws a piano at Lex's henchman to save his mother, I almost got up and left the theater. Singer could have made a much better Superman movie without resorting to cheap gimmicks like a seemingly fragile but latently super-powered illegitimate child. It's been 5 days since I saw the movie and I still want to vomit. <br /><br />My next major complaint has to do with the fact that Superman lifts a continent made out of kryptonite up into outer space. It doesn't take comic book guy from the Simpsons to point out what's wrong with that. I don't know how many comic books Brian Singer has read, but when Superman is exposed to even a small amount of kryptonite he barely has the strength to stay on his feet. Whoever had the idea to have him fly a large island made out of his greatest weakness into space has no business being associated with any Superman-related projects ever again. The concept is as ridiculous as making a Dracula movie where the title character has a stake through his heart and still manages to fly a spaceship made out of garlic into the sun. Why not just have Superman eat kryptonite? He can eat it and then brush his teeth with it, and then go to sleep in kryptonite pajamas. That's not any more absurd then having him hoist a continent of kryptonite into space and then fall powerless through the atmosphere without burning up in re-entry or splattering all over central park when he hits the ground. <br /><br />My third major complaint has to do with the fact that Singer slaps movie-goers across the face with religious symbolism the entire movie. I have to take issue with his characterization of Superman as the only son of a God-like Jor-el sent to Earth to be a savior. Jor-el wasn't all-wise, he was just a scientist. And he didn't send his son to earth to be a savior, he threw him in a rocket and hurriedly fired it into space because his planet was about to explode. I'll buy the Christ allegory if Brian Singer can show me the part in the Bible where God sends Christ to Earth because Heaven was about to explode, and then radioactive pieces of Heaven become Christ's primary weakness. Furthermore, the "crucifixion" scene where Luthor stabs Superman in the side with a kryptonite "spear" just makes me want to slam my face into a brick until I'm too brain-dead to notice the brazenly obvious and inappropriate symbolism that will be tainting the man of steel for the foreseeable future. They might as well rename this movie "Superman Returns: the Passion of the Christ."<br /><br />And speaking of Luthor, my last major complaint has to do with Singer's depiction of Lex Luthor. Lex Luthor is a shrewd, cold-hearted business tycoon who is more apt to run for President (which he does in the comics) than try to destroy the world. The man wants money and power; he wants to be in charge, not wreck everything. Yet the Luthor we see Superman Returns, as well as all the previous Superman movies, is a wacky theatrical dunce who comes up with zany schemes to destroy the world. If Singer had the slightest loyalty to the characters instead of the (quite awful) previous Superman movies, this film might not be such an unbearable travesty. Maybe Singer's next project can be a Batman movie where he focuses on the interpretation of Batman from 1960s TV show. ZAM! WHAP! POW!!<br /><br />To summarize, I don't know what I hate more, the movie itself or the fact that so many people seem to be giving it good reviews. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if you don't hate this movie then your opinion is wrong. I sincerely encourage anyone who reads this not to see this movie if you haven't already. Don't see it, don't buy it when it comes out on DVD, don't rent it...basically don't contribute any money towards it in any way. This movie does not deserve to make any money. In fact, I think that for every person that sees this movie, Bryan Singer should be fined 45 billion dollars. If you're a Superman fan and you really want to see this movie, just bend over and have someone kick you in the balls and you'll get the same experience without having to waste 2 hours of your time.
Special effects? Good.<br /><br />Script? Terrible. No plot. No depth. No meaning. This film rendered Superman as a meaningless hero, a hero with no archetype. In the original film, he represented America in the Cold War. Here, he represented nothing but a Hulk.<br /><br />Sure, the actors were fine. Kevin Spacey was a fine choice, among others.<br /><br />This still does not resolve the problem that this film had no depth whatsoever. I cannot see how anyone can come away with anything meaningful from this film, when Superman was, and is, daily created to be a meaningful hero in not only comics but also in people's minds. This was a real waste of money considering how many directions this film could have taken.<br /><br />Just a few instances: Lex Luthor could have been a villain of global corporatism, political domination, totalitarianism, and on and on and on. He was just another goofball Hackman incarnation.<br /><br />And Superman? For what did he stand in this film? Nothing but another hack "savior" figure.<br /><br />Wait until it comes to the dollar theater if you see it at all.
I guess this movie is a fitting tribute to the first Superman film,as it is just as crummy and painfully long as the original.<br /><br />After an opening scene consisting solely of murky intergalactic visuals, the credits pay homage to the even-crummy-looking-for-their-time futuristic sweeping credits of the original Superman film.<br /><br />Then there is some more murky stuff. Ma Kent sees some kind of murky ruckus on the farm, and spends a good portion of my life slowly walking up to some debris in the cornfield. Then Superman sneaks up on her and faints.<br /><br />Next we catch up with Lex Luthor in a scene about many murky close-ups of an old lady as she dies. We don't see Luthor's face until the end of the scene, an early instance of the film's drive to leave no hackneyed stone unturned. Lex Luthor is a guy who doesn't like Superman because he is not human. Also, he probably doesn't like humans either, as the movie occasionally features some kind of plot about Lex Luthor planning to kill most of Earth's population.<br /><br />After a while, Clark Kent shows up back at his old job (I forgot to mention, he had been away on a five year trip where nothing happened). Then he finds out Lois Lane has an illegitimate kid and is dating Cyclops. It upsets him so much that he loses control of his super strength to such an extent that he accidentally breaks a picture frame.<br /><br />At this point we see that Miss Lane is on some kind of jet attached to some kind of space shuttle. It is some kind of important event on account of it is on television. Then we learn that there are people in a control room monitoring this event. There are also people watching it on television and there are pilots in the cockpit. The film then reminds us that these people are involved by cutting between them for most of the summer.<br /><br />As the events leading up to the inevitable disaster started to build, I excused myself to get a soda. I accidentally walked back into the wrong theater and watched that movie about Al Gore showing slides in its entirety. I tried to find my way back to Superman Returns, but I somehow wandered into Prairie Home Companion, which I watched twice in a row. Then it was time to stop messing around.<br /><br />I walked back into the first theater, found my seat, and looked up to see that the impending Lois Lane space shuttle disaster was almost upon us. Still, it seemed to be taking forever, so I wandered around the theater, met a girl, got married, raised a son and sent him off to college. While attending my son's medical school graduation, I remembered that I should probably check in on Superman Returns, so I excused myself and raced back to the theater only to learn there was no need to hurry. It still took about another half hour before things went wrong for Space Shuttle Lane. When they did, Superman saved everybody, which was pretty cool.<br /><br />. And then there is a a subplot where Superman turns really creepy and starts stalking Lois Lane and her family with his x-ray vision and super-hearing. Then he tries to get her to cheat on Cyclops, who seems like a good guy.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Lex Luthor is involved in some kind of contest to display every possible generic villain behavior before the end of the movie. I forgot to bring my scorecard home with me (they give you one at the door), but I think he scored damn close to one hundred percent. I hope he wins the million dollars.<br /><br />At this point, things start to gear up for the big murky finale. I think maybe the projector was broken, on account of the movie seemed to be in some kind of loop for a while here. I remember seeing murky things growing out of the water, Superman getting sick, Superman getting better, back to the murky things, he's sick again, no wait, he's okay again.<br /><br />Then Lex Luthor unleashed his final bad guy move: yelling at his girlfriend a little bit.<br /><br />Then Superman died and came back to life. I thought the movie was over, so I left.<br /><br />Ninety years later, the nursing home where I lived felt a little chilly. I realized I left my sweatshirt back in the theater, and I went to retrieve it. When I did, I was slightly surprised to find that Superman Returns wasn't over yet. I tried to ask some of the viewers what I missed, but most of them were only skeletons with long gray beards by now.<br /><br />I sat back in my old seat and watched as Lois Lane puttered around her house for a while. Then Superman showed up and started quoting the beginning of the movie, and since I already saw that part I thought it was okay to leave.<br /><br />So that is my review of Superman Returns.<br /><br />Oh, also, if you like jokes about people eating dogs or jokes about one dog eating another dog, you will love this movie. On account of there are two jokes like that in it.
I saw the movie last night and I really wanted to like it. My expectations for the movie had been going up and down ever since I heard it was being made. Some days I'd see something spectacular and some days I'd be disappointed.<br /><br />Yet being the kind of fan I am, I had high hopes for this movie but in the end I was sorely disappointed.<br /><br />While I love the Richard Donner movies I didn't like their sometimes campy nature or the changes they made to Superman's character and his powers.<br /><br />Singer however chose to take the worst elements of the Donner movies and put them in his version.<br /><br />While his Lex Luthor is slightly darker he's still nothing more than a shyster, a conman and a common criminal. He's no more intelligent than when Gene Hackman played him. Kevin Spacey does his best to play Luthor well but ultimately he falls victim to shoddy writing and unremarkable dialog.<br /><br />His henchmen are more two dimensional than even comic book henchmen. Most of them literally have no dialog in the movie.<br /><br />****SPOILERS AHEAD**** Kitty Kowalski is almost exactly the same character as Ms. Tesmacher. She seems to be as evil and cold as Lex Luthor but she proves to be just an underling who melts after seeing Superman in trouble and quite predictably betrays Luthor.<br /><br />The biggest disappointment in the movie was Frank Langella as Perry White. I wasn't a huge fan of the over the top Perry White in the Donner movies but at least he had a soul. He was after all said and done, a veteran reporter who cared about the truth and a good story. Langella's Perry White is nothing but a corporate stooge. He wants everyone to concentrate on the Superman related stories because they sell papers even though every other paper is doing the same thing. He doesn't care about the real stories, the real mysteries like the black out and what Lex Luthor is up to now that he's out of prison.<br /><br />The worst thing about Langella is that he's DULL! Some actors can be quiet and sober and yet have an undercurrent that lets you know that still waters run deep. Frank Langella is puddle.<br /><br />Brandon Routh is not a bad actor. He's OK but again there is not a single memorable line in the whole movie. Not the actor's fault. His movements are clearly meant to look graceful, like even the slightest movement of his fingers effects the way he flies. But it still looks choreographed and artificial.<br /><br />Lois Lane while badly written was surprisingly well acted by Kate Bosworth. Unfortunately, again, for a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and writer, she is about as eloquent as any teenage on Dawson's Creek.<br /><br />James Marsden was my favorite actor in the whole movie, mostly because he looks more like Superman than even Routh. Without any superpowers he manages to figure out Lois Lane's message, flies a plane to the location, gets on board Luthor's yacht and rescues Lois and her son.<br /><br />The only moving moment in the movie is when they are all trapped pantry as it is flooding with water and the ship is sinking. You see them slowly going being immersed in the water. You know Superman's going to come by at the last moment to rescue them but still you can't help but feel sorry for them.<br /><br />As I said before the plot is very haphazard. Unlike Singer has said, this is not a movie about a superhero returning and trying to find his place in the world. As soon as he returns the world welcomes him back with open arms. Lois is the only one who's not happy to see him back. Even Luthor is happy to have Superman back because it gives him a chance to settle the score with the man of steel.<br /><br />Superman is shown to be probably one of the dumbest heroes in the universe. A big green piece of meteorite is stolen from a museum, Lex Luthor is out of prison, he now has knowledge about Superman's powers and weaknesses, and yet he's still not able to connect the dots enough to know Luthor would be using kryptonite against him.<br /><br />According to the movie the only thing Superman is good for is lifting really, really heavy things. The action sequences are all incredibly predictable.
This movie was extremely poorly conceived from every angle except technological. I stood and watched everyone waddle out of the theater, their faces drained like their lives flashed before their eyes -- eyes wandering at their neighbor, wondering if it was just them. I mean, how could the movie really be bad. Nobody'll admit it, it's a classic case of The Emperor Wears No Clothes. "Who am I to question a movie containing a guy who stops a jet liner?" But the fact remains, every member of the audience is thinking what I'm writing right now. I actually plagiarized their faces.<br /><br />Obviously Lois is only aroused by power, she won't even have a cup of coffee with the Superman With Glasses who doesn't stop jet liners. It can't be the look in "his" eyes to the depths of his soul or anything like that. In the old Supermans, she had some level of connection with him, he wasn't priority number 1, obviously, but it strengthened her character that she was "torn". I bet Henry Kissinger would have even won this Lois over before Clark Kent.<br /><br />And now it's official, Kryptonite does to Superman what eating at McDonalds does to the avg. person.<br /><br />SUPERMAN "ONE" He loses his earth dad, then finds his real super dad, the story is captivating every step of the way. He's human, he relates to people and he feels love for people, he relates to highschool students, he relates to people who feel different. He relates. The Superman Returns superman seems to relate only to Superpeople and it seems he's just "doing a job" when he's saving people.<br /><br />There's something about Clark that Lois likes, she's really internally in love with him but can't admit it, and when he comes into the picture as Superman, it throws a kink in the on-the-rocks love. Without Superman, she would've fallen in love with Clark (at least that's what the movie points to, whether it was the intention or not). Superman Returns is a love story between a woman and SUPERMAN, Clark is like a pile of horse maneur to Lois. Literally.<br /><br />SUPERMAN TWO I just watched it again. As a kid, I "thought" I enjoyed the action, but now I know it was the STORY that held me then too, watching it over and over again. If I saw Superman Returns as a child, I would've hated it then too, I think.<br /><br />There is so much heart and soul and superpower going around in this movie, it's sick. Superman gives up his powers for love as a world plot is going on and meanwhile, MEANWHILE, Lex Luther's got something fantastic up his sleeve.<br /><br />SUPERMAN THREE Now there's a three-way love story between Superman and Lana and Clark, only humanity wins and Clark's inner nature beats Superman's power, because when his SUPERmoral nature is gone and he's SuperHUMAN (who does human things with his superpowers), she sees it's not the power of Superman that she's in love with, it's not SUPERpowerman, but SUPERMORTALman that she loves -- and who's really SUPER. And when she tells Clark she "prefers" him to Superman, he is elated, he has made a human connection again. He wants to be accepted for who he is, not just for his ability to bend steel. THIS IS THE KIND OF STUFF THAT'S MISSING FROM SUPERMAN RETURNS.<br /><br />Clark super-sneezes to help the kid get a strike - humanity again. Plus, it's an INERESTING use of superpowers. He's not just using straight brute strength.<br /><br />He crushes the coal into a diamond for his woman because she had to sell hers, love is the only thing that drives him to use his powers other than for saving.<br /><br />It seems there's nothing at stake in Superman Returns. Even in Superman Three, we see the damages caused by the nemesis' world domination plot.. we see suffering, we see how it effects Pryor and others and people in the middle of it.. there's no damage, esp. emotional from Lex's plot to sink the US. We see a glob of crystal thrown into space.. Superman had to get very creative in the first three Supermans in order to stop the plot against him, he couldn't just "access" his superpowers. In the first one, he had to stop two missiles going in different directions and then break his universal mandate and erase history to save Lois' life... (this was THIRTY YEARS AGO!!") In the second one, he had to outsmart three guys that he was already more POWERFUL than, but combined with Lex's genius, and the villains' immoral tactics, Superman's overpowering wasn't enough, he had to work one against the other and outsmart them... In Superman III, again, his superpowers weren't enough to win.. He had to outsmart a computer that calculated everything it saw. He couldn't use straight aggression on the computer because it calculated it in advance, so he had to use a benign acid that would only become deadly to the computer after the computer responded to the aggression. And he found that acid earlier when he couldn't simply use his superpowers to BLOW out a fire because it was a chemical fire, so he had to use his superbrains -- he couldn't carry water, so he froze a lake and dropped it on the fire.. Now in Superman Returns, he simply lunges the island into outerspace, like a night temp for UPS. He doesn't need to figure anything out, he just uses his "super strength". And Lex Luther's brilliance was shown at the premeditation level of a junkie who just ran out of junk.<br /><br />To say nothing of the fact that he threw that island into outerspace after getting stabbed with a KNIFE of kyrptonite right in the bloodstream AND the island itself was dripping kryptonite spores in his face, but he just averted his eyes and nose like it wasn't Grey Poupon he was looking at.
This movie is a very poor attempt to make money using a classical theme. I used to love Superman movies, but this one made me want to shoot myself. Very poor acting, outrageous special effects, and a plot equal to zero. To summarize : Superman leaves earth, because scientists discovered pieces of his home planet, some were in space (duh) , doesn't tell his girlfriend anything before leaving (duh again), takes off in a spaceship (?!?),comes back i think 5 years later, and look forward to hooking up with his girlfriend again (who is now razing his son, which son, in my humble opinion is at least 7 years old). And what about that Lex Luthor ? Trying to grow a new continent in order to sell land ? Please !!<br /><br />I vote 1 out of 10 for this movie, only because i am not allowed to vote 0. If you have anything else to do with your time, don't go to see this movie, and even if you don't have anything else to do, stay home and watch TV !
Did the movie-makers even preview this before they released it? The script jumps from place to place without giving much explanation. The beginning doesn't clarify if its a prequel or not. It starts with Superman's beginnings on Earth and then jumps to a point after the last movie - but doesn't really alert the viewer of this. VERY confusing! Superman himself is weak and in need of Prozac. He is portrayed as a potential home-wrecker, a stalker, and someone who is clearly depressed and confused. This type of character rarely makes for an interesting hero. The ending is absolutely ridiculous. Superman ending up in a hospital just made me want to kill him off myself. I'm seriously waiting for a SNL skit where Superman appears on Maury Povich and Maury says, "The results are in - in the case of the child, Superman, you ARE the father." To sum up - OK acting by this Superman and Kevin Spacey, but HORRIBLE script. The movie is basically unwatchable.
or: It's a bird ? It's a plane ? No, look... It's a disaster ! or: No need to look up in the sky.<br /><br />or: (... OK, that's enough.) If singer tried to make a romantic titanic like movie to crash the box office record, he failed. The SR structure can't do this, the dark and restricted color scheme (I would call it "wishi-washi"), the boring usual dialogs, the clown with advanced alien technology, the missing fun and magic, etc. makes the movie completely disappointing.<br /><br />It simply doesn't work.<br /><br />The main thing at a character like superman is, that he is a superhero. That's the core, the most important thing.<br /><br />Love trouble and a sadly lost depressive Supersoftie can maximal only be a facet in a 2:40 long Superman movie, not the whole time.<br /><br />Because then it is not a superman or superhero movie anymore. It's like a (and in this case a very bad and boring) social study, where every 30 minutes a person flies around.<br /><br />That's a big difference.<br /><br />This movie is a joke. Holy skywalker, this is Superman, so give us Supervillains, Superaction and the most important thing, Superfun.<br /><br />We want ENTERTAINMENT ! Singer, if you want to make a 2:40 long soul love trouble drama about lost and sadly people ? Then take normal human characters and make a yentl remake.<br /><br />They say: Superman returns. And then, supersadlysoftie stands in the door.<br /><br />Maybe singer has tried to kill the legend without kryptonite, but one bad movie can't do this. Don't give up, they plan a sequel...<br /><br />Next time singer (and Warner Brothers), make a superhero movie, not a depressive superlame soap, or let it be. A superhero movie means a colorful fantasy with a lot of fun and magic.<br /><br />This movie is like a very cheap chocolate box with a super cover. Yes, technically there are all sorts in, yes, there is a lot of small talks, there are a few jokes, a view action scenes, etc, but the only one what all these worse pieces have in common is their poor quality.<br /><br />It's not more than a super boring patchwork and one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my live.<br /><br />The ridiculous cast strategy (Cast them young as possible, so we can make sequels in the next 25 years) gives the rest. Kate Bosworth plays a 22 year old star reporter, she's looking like 19. Superman was full five years away, so he slept with her 6 years ago, so she was 16, (looking like 13) and a daily planet reporter, wroting "I spend a night with superman". Warner Brothers, that's too much.<br /><br />Routh is not so bad, he is playing a little bit wooden, but the whole movie is wooden, so... ?! Temporary good were marsden and sometimes posey. The rest, forget it. Even spacey, this is not his terrain.<br /><br />Reeve/Hackman/Kidder were acting so easy, with fun. What a difference.<br /><br />The Jesus poses at the end are ridiculous too. What the hell should that be ? The problem here is, they mean this serious, not as a joke. Next time Spiderman or Batman or Ironman falls and rises like Jesus or angels ? Or they speak with god directly. Why not ? They are superheroes, saving human lives every day. So at least one talk with god every week should be possible... Oh my god.<br /><br />Maybe this was not the real announced movie, instead it is from a bizarre dull parallel universe.<br /><br />For the warner brothers this superlame depressive flick will be possibly the greatest disaster in history. Not only because of the money.<br /><br />I understand how difficult it (maybe) was to create and transport some messages or feelings, but showing lone, lost and sadly people isn't new and thousands of movies or TV-Shows did it better, in very old or new ones like magnolia. And the flying frogs there were more impressive than this flying superwoman, sorry, superman of course.<br /><br />Singer and WB, that's simply nothing. In fact it's even more than nothing, it's like a black hole that destroys the passion for (comic/superhero) movies and steals us three hours of our life.<br /><br />Mrs. Smilla's little brother. (Very angry and green like the hulk.)
...This would be the worst film i'd ever seen. Hmmm, OK maybe tied with Boogeyman then. Awful, truly awful.<br /><br />I had low expectations and it failed to meet them! I honestly cant think of one good thing. so here are the worst points...<br /><br />1. THE ACTING 2. THE PLOT 3. THE CGI (Xbox 360 has better graphics....seriously) 4. THE PLOT 5. THE DIALOGUE and finally.... 6. THE PLOT <br /><br />There are so many unanswered questions, Did they make a 2:32 hour long movie then realize they hadn't put Lex Luthor and Superman in a scene together and were forced to settle for the 3 minute bit or did they actually think no-one would notice that the main hero and villain have less screen time together than Superman's son and the henchman he kills?!!<br /><br />Was half the budget spent on persuading Kevin Spacey to do it?<br /><br />When Superman goes to hospital, why don't the doctors ask "What the F*** do you want us to do?! He's a F***ing alien! We don't know jack about his anatomy!"? <br /><br />What happened in the 5 years Superman was away to cause technology to advance 28 years? <br /><br />Where the people who wrote good reviews watching the same movie?<br /><br />and finally, Why? Just, Why? <br /><br />BTW, for those of you wondering how come Superman could lift an entire continent of krypyonite, i think i've figured it out...<br /><br />...since superman is unaffected by the kryptonite till he sees something green in the rocks, it is clearly all in his head. therefore the continent thing is just him suppressing his fear of shiny green rock....<br /><br />either that or the writers are slack-jawed half-wits who didn't think that was a fairly obvious mistake.
I usually don't walk out of a movie, but halfway thru I did. This movie promised something different, but I kept thinking haven't I seen that before? Spoiler Alert! Back in 1, the spaceship crashes and lands on earth, well, all these years later, with a super adult on board no less, this thing still manages to burn up and crash! What, this advanced civilization can't seem to develop landing gear? For an industry that's so liberal, we get to see another Woody Allen movie, no blacks please! Superman runs around saving people, making sure he sticks to Europe and the US, don't go into darkie areas please. Maybe I could stomach this about 30 years ago, but now now.
at the beginning i was happy to know about a new superman movie , i though that will be great but it wasn't.<br /><br />is a bad copy of the Richard Donner work,Lex is again a villain that makes no more else , even played by Kevin spice.<br /><br />the evil plan is the same of the first movie of Donner just a lot forced.<br /><br />the script is predictable and simple (all stuff Luthor finds in a museum or an old lady).<br /><br />the story is the wrong thing , it must be the Kevin Smith Script and may be it could be better.<br /><br />i just hope a sequel without Brian Singer and with a new talent director to do something new and not a copy.<br /><br />all read you later
It really doesn't matter that Superman comic books are unbelievably naive and their target is ten year old. What matters is that "Superman Returns" is bad movie. <br /><br />In the beginning,a question for You Dear Readers, how many of You actually believe that Superman will be defeated by bald Kevin Spacey? Anyone? Just as I thought. No spoilers here. So let's get to some major issues right now.<br /><br />Firstly, this movie looks like commercial (scene in the bar with Superman/Clark Kent drinking Budweiser is only scene which looks as it supposed to). Imagine commercial of Superman, two and half hour long. Let's be serious this isn't "Amadeus" or "The Departed". You actually feel, that this movie is way too long. And special effects are not so special by the way.<br /><br />Secondly, scenario is silly. Sometimes even if something is acceptable in comic, in cinema it looks just stupid. And it's like that in this case. Of course dialogs are disgrace. I can't believe somebody took money to write them. How many times we will be fed with villain making speeches? How many times laws of physics will be raped? (Jesus, it's not only the matter of Superman's strength but also a resistance of materials his dealing with.) How many times Lois Lane will be fooled by Kent? How many times Hollywood producers will seek for a story in a trashy comic books? Since there's hard to make a good story, why having a weak story for a starter? It just doesn't work. Guys, get a grip. Try harder, please. Or just stay on this strike forever, who cares. I got the feeling that WGA is permanently on strike. No offense. I'm not questioning the lame money those people are paid, but the quality of the product they deliver. In this case there is no quality at all. (At this point You may ask yourself: is it that bad? Yes it is.)<br /><br />Thirdly, acting is weak, which is quite a surprise since Bryan Singer (Usual Suspects) is directing. Kevin Spacey is having fun, but he's the only one. Audience is rather not in the mood for jokes. Thing is that comic book hero can be developed into real personality, with clear motivations but also with doubts, fears, some depth. In this case nobody did that job, and characters aren't really interesting.<br /><br />Finally, whole effort of creators turns this movie into parody. Second unit is so bad that attracts attention, since there's nothing interesting going on on screen anyway. The harder they try (if they try), the funnier it gets (but it isn't laugh You could expect).<br /><br />Final conclusion? One word: shame. <br /><br />This particular movie, ladies and gents, is camp. Don't waste Your time and don't waste Your money too. Stay home, read a book.
As a long-time fan of Superman from the comics, through the 1950s series, the first two of the Chris Reeves films and Lois & Clark, and finally Smallville, I was *really* hoping for something clever with "Superman Returns".<br /><br />Instead we got Lex Luthor making *another* attempt at real-estate conversion, another Superman-beaten-up-while-wearing-kryptonite sequence, and internal inconsistencies: he couldn't stop himself falling into the ocean when stuck with 6" of kryptonite, but when Lois breaks off 3" of it, *leaving the rest embedded in him*, he can lift *a continent* into space?? Really, the only hero in the story was Lois' partner - I can't remember his name off-hand. He did all kinds of life-saving, heroic things with nothing but guts and skill - no superpowers, no invulnerability...just a normal human.<br /><br />They keep making Superman so small. Why can't we have Superman battling Brainiac or fighting to save the universe from General Zod instead of Lex's petty schemes. Oh, I forgot...they're doing that in Smallville.<br /><br />Yeah...I think I'll stick to Smallville...<br /><br />You probably should, too...
After a long period in the space, looking for the remains of planet Krypton, Superman (Brandon Routh) returns to Earth. He misses Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth), who got married and has a son with Richard White (James Marsden). Meanwhile, Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) plots an evil plan, using crystals he stole from the Fortress of Solitude, to create a new land and submerge the USA.<br /><br />After so many delightful movies of Superman with the unforgettable Christopher Reeve, or TV shows like "Lois and Clark" (and Teri Hatcher) or "Smallville", a great expectation was created for the return of Superman in this Bryan Singer's version. Unfortunately, the awful story is too long and boring, with many unnecessary parts, lack of emotion and overrated in IMDb. In addition, the romance between Lois Lane and Superman is something shamefully ridiculous. The twenty-two years old actress Kate Bosworth is wrongly miscast, playing the role of a mature reporter and experienced mother of a five years old boy. Brandon Routh is two years younger than Tom Welling, who plays a teenager Clark Kent in "Smallville". The character of Parker Posey, Kitty Kowalski, is actually a silly caricature. Last but not the least and in spite of being a terrific Lex Luthor, Kevin Spacey is forty-five years old, therefore older and older than the rest of the lead cast. The corny conclusion looks like a soap opera and is terrible. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Superman Returns"
In my eyes this is almost the perfect example of Hollywood ego, only beaten by the new king kong movie. Superman is the original super hero and deserves to be treated with respect even though he wears tights. Brandon Routh was the worst superman I've ever seen, from the start of the movie u just wanna shove a chunk of kryptonite down his throat. He looks just silly wearing the costume. But enough about him, Kate Bosworth was a bad choise for lois lane, she is supposed to be a hard ass reporter, but in this movie she looks more like a schoolgirl. The plot was weak and predictable (WOW, He is actually supermans son, who would have ever thought....) and the acting was horrible. This movie has one good thing going for it, and it's name is Kevin Spacey. His portrayal of Lex Luthor was brilliant but even he could not save this movie. What this movie needed was the cast of "lois and clark" (except Kevin Spacey of course) and a different story. I watched this movie after watching "the hills have eyes" and I was chocked to learn that there existed worse movies then that.
In a summer that also boasted such repugnant stinkers as Snakes on a Plane and The Da Vinci Code, that's a pretty bold statement. But I stand by it nonetheless. Superman Returns, like King Kong 6 months before it, is overlong, hyper-indulgent and with CGI up to the eyeballs. My God, this stuff is doing my head in.<br /><br />Richard Donner had the idea of 'keep it real' for his 2 outings. And I do find his approach to the special and optical effects to be the most appropriate. Brian Singer bombards us with so much CGI that it really takes you out of the story and constantly reminds you that you are watching a wannabe blockbuster that thinks that the only way to impress an audience is to spend $250 million (a totally irresponsible amount of money) on obnoxious visual effects that don't live up to the hype. We've seen everything and been everywhere that CGI can take us. There's no real atmosphere or involvement in this. And for a film that is 95% made up of this crap...well you figure it out.<br /><br />I've read so many reviews from fanboy critics about how the movie has 'soul' or 'a human heart' or 'tender character moments'. Puh-lease! We've already had brooding superheros silently screaming 'you'd love me if you knew who I am' dozens of times already in recent years and SR offers absolutely NOTHING new in this regard. Even the plot is recycled garbage. Lex Luthor (a seriously mis-cast and hammy Kevin Spacey) plotting to destroy the landmass of America was done in the first film already! And, well...that's your lot! It's amazing that they managed to draw out this junk to 2.5 painful hours! Even if the cast were likable it would make it less unbearable. But Brandon Routh has the on screen personality of a mahogany hat-stand, Kate Bosworth is completely unconvincing as a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, James Marsden is 250% wooden, as usual and Kevin Spacey really needs to either fire his agent or acquire some better judgement. The only cast member I liked was the lovely Parker Posey. But I'm into weird-looking girls.<br /><br />Every year films like this get bigger and more bombastic. Pretty soon we'll have $300 million films. Studios need to realise that maybe they should start looking down instead of looking up. For all the money that Warner spent on this pile of crap, for all the resources that this movie cost to make...was it worth it? In my opinion, certainly not! This garbage has put me of Superman for life!
Here's how you do it: Believe in God and repent for your sins. Then things should turn around within the next day or so. <br /><br />Until the last fifteen minutes, this movie just plays as a bad recap of a drunk's crappy life. His mom dies. His stepmom's a b_tch. His dad dies. He drinks. He gets married. He has kids. He drinks some more. His wife gets mad. He disappoints his kids. The wife threatens to leave. He calls up a reverend late night b/c he wants to kill himself. Then after the recap happens, that's when we get the "Left Behind"-like subtle message.<br /><br />"He needed a paycheck". This is the phrase I had to repeat over and over once credits started to roll so I wouldn't lose my respect for Madsen.<br /><br />Madsen drops to his knees and begs Christ's forgiveness. Once he does, he walks outside and actually says that he sees the world in a different way. He tells his wife that he's found God and that's good enough for her. Flip scene four months and the wife is tired of going to church. End the movie as Madsen walks by the bar and gives a soliloquy about how happy he is with Christ and without alcohol. Final moment? He gives a little dismissive wave to the bar (i.e. sin house) and give a gay, Miami-Vice, after-school special congratulatory jump in the air as the camera freeze-frames. See why I had to repeat the phrase? "He needed a paycheck".<br /><br />Man this movie is bad. The B-Grade 80's production values don't help much. The script could have easily been a "Touched By An Angel" episode. It could have been knocked out in 30 minutes plus commercials. The acting is wooden and never believable. Even Madsen, of whom I'm a big fan and is the sole reason I sat through this, makes it clear that this is his first acting job and he doesn't know his a$$ from his elbow yet on camera. 45 minutes into it I started to get discouraged. This thing was like homework. I just wanted to put it away and say that alright, I saw half of it. That's good enough. But no. If I sat through Cheerleader Ninjas, I could sit throughout this.<br /><br />The only reason I'm not giving this thing a 1 is for two points: 1) I love Madsen. I know it's not fair. But it's great seeing the opening title "Introducing Michael Madsen". Sue me. 2) Some of the Dialogue is so bad that it's classic. I'll stick some quotes at the end of this so you can enjoy them too.<br /><br />That's about it. To wrap it up ,this thing is a piece of crap that should stay flushed with the rest of the turds. But hey! Look! Michael Madsen! (See also TILT, EXECUTIVE TARGET, MY BOSS'S DAUGHTER, etc). Now I've gotta rewatch Reservoir Dogs and watch Madsen torture a cop to get my respect back for him. See ya, Kids.<br /><br />"This stuff's gonna make me go blind, but I'm gonna drink it anyway" - Madsen's first taste of cheap alcohol<br /><br />"I don't understand! Everything seems so beautiful!" - Madsen walking outside after confessing to God<br /><br />"I'm going downtown later and pick up a bible and I'm gonna get a haircut too" - Madsen after converting at the dinner table, because Satan lives in your hair
Against All Hope is a very poorly made, sometimes painfully so, movie. This is Michael Madsen's first movie, and it shows, he isn't that good in it. Some people might find the story laughable; an alcoholic realizes his life and family are falling apart so he calls a preacher as a last resort for help. After telling the preacher his story, he accepts Jesus Christ into his heart. <br /><br />I actually found many of the religious scenes, as when Cecil Moe (Madsen) goes to a church but walks away from it, pretty realistic. I also liked how Cecil knows his life is breaking apart and tries to get help, but realizes only God can help him. At the end he realizes with the help of God he can go through life without drinking again.<br /><br />This movie is not well made at all. The acting is bad, the script could use some work, and looks worse than my home videos, but it has a good message. Now, just because you become a Christian doesn't mean you will automatically be able to stop an addiction or heal your broken family, and Cecil realizes this and works hard to stay on track. Overall, if your a Christian you will appreciate how this movie portrays Christianity and if you aren't, you may find yourself being called to find out more about the faith.
Definitely an odd debut for Michael Madsen. Madsen plays Cecil Moe, an alcoholic family man whose life is crumbling all around him. Cecil grabs a phone book, looks up the name of a preacher, and calls him in the middle of the night. He goes to the preacher's home and discusses his problems. The preacher teaches Cecil to respect the word of God and have Jesus in his heart. That makes everything all better. Ahh...if only everything in life were that easy. The fact that this "film" looks as if it was made with about $500 certainly doesn't help. 1/10
I am a huge Michael Madsen fan, so needless to say, i bought this movie without even renting it or anything... This movie was so horrible, i didn't even take it back to the store, i wouldn't want anyone else to be subjected to this human poison, i just threw it in the trash, never mind the money, it was worth the price to be able to throw it away. The acting wasn't that bad, it wasn't good or anything. The story was horrible, and the ending was something i despise. He was a broken man, alcoholic. his life was a bunch of junk. i thought his horse, peanuts, was an awful device to show his childhood innocence, a dog would have been much much better. i also hate religion, so this ending without a doubt angered me. Jesus heals all... i hate that i know people just like this that are huge Christians and catholics, and time will show that god doesn't heal all, or anything. It was a horrible movie, if u have the option to see it, pass, or better yet buy it, or rent it, and throw it in the garbage, and leave the coffee grounds on it in the morning
I have anticipated the various Sci-fi and thriller type movies this summer but was so disappointed about this particular film. While some people walked out of the film, I decided to stay, only to laugh along with the other moviegoers at the acting, lack of suspense, ridiculous ending and difficult to follow story line. I found myself almost as confused as the main character in the film. The only redeeming quality of the film was the soundtrack. This is one of those budding star films which they later regret doing. In retrospect, I wouldn't even rent this one, let alone pay more than $5 to see.
I'm just quite disappointed with "Soul Survivors". It doesn't worth even a comment in this forum. The script is very poor as well as all the "acting" and for our entertainment it features a pointless plot.<br /><br />Please, do yourselves a favor! Be a real "Survivor"...Don't waste your time in this piece of crap! Someday you'll thank me!
May I start off by saying that Casey Affleck is a very talented actor and I respect his work very much. I wish he was in more movies that showcased his talent. With this said, Soul Survivors was a very, very bad movie. Very bad.<br /><br />I would have to say that I lay almost all the blame on the poor script. Affleck is a very talented actress, Wes Bentley had an outstanding performance in American Beauty, Melissa Sagemiller did well, and Eliza Dushku is currently the it girl in Hollywood. I don't think any of the actors really got into the script, and I understand why. To say that this movie belongs to the horror genre is an overstatement. It did have the twists and turns you would expect, but they just didn't lead anywhere... except to more confusion. I just found the ending very anti-climatic, because it just didn't seem to make any sense or really answer any of the questions that I had about the storyline.<br /><br />I wish I could give this movie a good review, but I can't. In all honesty, the only thing I think you will find scary about this movie is that you paid for it.
What a bad, bad movie! I tried watching without fast forwarding...That failed. After about 30 minutes I stopped the movie, went on-line to see how many minutes this disaster was. (Only 84 minutes, Whew!) It was a confusing, boring movie. I don't think anyone can get knocked down by getting hit with a fluorescent bulb much less gutted by one!! The one funny thing is that I watched "The Killer Cut" version of the movie. The box boldly states "More Blood!" "More Sex!" "More Terror than the theatrical release!" Yikes! If this movie was horrible with all those claims I wonder just how lame the "UN-Killer Cut" was??? If you want to see a great movie about the world of the living & the world of the dead watch any of The Night of the Living Dead series!!
This film concerns a very young girl, Cassie, (Melissa Sagemiller) who leaves her family and heads off to become a college freshman. One night Cassie and her friends decide to go to a wild party with plenty of drinking and dancing and Cassie is riding with her boyfriend who she likes but never told him she loved him. As Cassie was driving, a car was stopped in the middle of the road and she was unable to avoid an accident and as a result there is a bloody loss of lives along with her boyfriend. Cassie becomes very emotionally upset and has nightmares which cause her to have hallucinations about her boyfriend coming back to life and encounters men trying to murder her and she is struggling to find out who her real friends are, who wants her dead and will she survive this entire horror ordeal. Cassie dreams she is being made love to by her boyfriend after he died and finds another guy in her bed and is told she was asking him to make love. This is a way out film, and not very good at all.
Having seen the hot Eliza Dushku in the pretty good Wrong Turn, I decided to pick this one up instead of Return of the Living Dead, of all movies. Haven't seen that one yet, but, considering it is one of the most highly acclaimed horror movies ever, safe to say I made the wrong choice. There is simply nothing to recommend this movie, and I am talking about the supposedly superior killer cut. It didn't even have the youthful sex appeal of mediocre to poor movies like I Know What You Did Last Summer or Valentine or Urban Legend. It simply made no sense, held no excitement, had very little interesting acting or compelling writing. The release date was apparently put off numerous times for about a year running, and the reason is obvious. The whole movie comes off as a bunch of meaningless scenes thrown together haphazardly, to meaningless effect. Get Wrong Turn instead, if you want to see Dushku. I would like to see a movie with her and the super-hot Elisabeth Harnois--but I don't think even that would have made this movie watchable. Casey Affleck, so promising in Good Will Hunting, is awful here--he seems to lack both intelligence and guts. That's enough on this one.
What's wrong with this film? Many, many things. The editing tries too hard to look good, and does nothing but confuse the viewer whilst also supplying him/her with a powerful headache. The plot is muddled and obviously prolonged from what started as a short (story or film). The plot only makes for less than ten minutes of good story, and this is just stretched out painfully until it reached the minimum length for a feature film. We all know what happens to things when we stretch them, right? Exactly. They get thinner. In the end, the plot is just so paper-thin that you might even miss it, if you aren't paying attention, which is hard to do when watching this movie. The acting is not even slightly impressive. The characters are poorly written and dull, uninteresting. One of the worst things that are wrong with this film is that apparently, whoever was in charge of the score/soundtrack had no idea what the movie was, or what it was supposed to be about(not that I blame him, I couldn't figure it out either). As a result, half of the music in the film doesn't fit the scenes at all. Also, what was with all the sexual undertones between Eliza Dushku and the main character? Naturally, this was in order to attract young males, but it was just so cheaply done. And did the first scene have anything to do with the rest of the film? On any conceivable level? At all? The two creepy guys didn't seem to have anything to do with the film at all, they were just there in order to have some chase scenes. I doubt anyone would really enjoy a film so poorly put together and such a shameless and awful Hollywood-like attempt at a somewhat interesting idea. But I digress. I recommend this to teenagers with low attention spans who don't mind a really bad horror-thriller as long as there's some sex and gore in it(although that may only be true for the Killer Cut, which I saw). 1/10
Inept, boring, and incoherent supernatural "thriller" in which college student Cassie (Melissa Sagemiller) is the constant victim of hallucinations and nightmares after a car accident claims the life of her boyfriend Sean (Casey Affleck).<br /><br />I can't begin to tell you how bad this is...nothing of any importance ever happens nor is there ever any sort of actual entertainment value. I did not like this cast in this particular film - they are all sadly unconvincing (then again, their roles are no good). To promote this as a horror film is a joke. Where are the scares? There's no sense or suspense - there are a few good songs but that's about it.<br /><br />How on Earth did this project get the green light? Writer-director Steve Carpenter has no discernible vision or talent that I can sense. Worst of all, the conclusion really makes the whole movie pointless.<br /><br />The alleged "killer cut" that I watched is 86 minutes of pure tedium.<br /><br />1/10
The film began with Wheeler sneaking into the apartment of his girlfriend. Her aunt (Edna May Oliver--a person too talented for this film) didn't like Wheeler--a sentiment I can easily relate to. The aunt decided to take this bland young lady abroad to get her away from Wheeler. They left and Wheeler invested in a revolution in a small mythical kingdom because they promised to make him their king. At about the same time, Woolsey was in the same small mythical kingdom and he was made king. So when Wheeler arrived, it was up to the boys to fight it out, but they refused because they are already friends--which greatly disappointed the people, as killing and replacing kings is a national pastime.<br /><br />I am a huge fan of comedy from the Golden Age of Hollywood--the silent era through the 1940s. I have seen and reviewed hundreds, if not thousands of these films and yet despite my love and appreciation for these films I have never been able to understand the appeal of Wheeler and Woolsey--the only comedy team that might be as bad as the Ritz Brothers! Despite being very successful in their short careers in Hollywood (cut short due to the early death of Robert Woolsey), I can't help but notice that practically every other successful team did the same basic ideas but much better. For example, there were many elements of this film reminiscent of the Marx Brother's film, DUCK SOUP, yet CRACKED NUTS never made me laugh and DUCK SOUP was a silly and highly enjoyable romp. At times, Woolsey talked a bit like Groucho, but his jokes never have punchlines that even remotely are funny! In fact, he just seemed to prattle pointlessly. His only funny quality was that he looked goofy--surely not enough reason to put him on film. Additionally, Wheeler had the comedic appeal of a piece of cheese--a piece of cheese that sang very poorly! A missed opportunity was the old Vaudeville routine later popularized by Abbott and Costello as "who's on first" which was done in this film but it lacked any spark of wit or timing. In fact, soon after they started their spiel, they just ended the routine--so prematurely that you are left frustrated. I knew that "who's on first" had been around for many years and used by many teams, but I really wanted to see Wheeler and Woolsey give it a fair shot and give it their own twist.<br /><br />Once again, I have found yet another sub-par film by this duo. While I must admit that I liked a few of their films mildly (such as SILLY BILLIES and THE RAINMAKERS--which I actually gave 6's to on IMDb), this one was a major endurance test to complete--something that I find happens all too often when I view the films of Wheeler and Woolsey. Where was all the humor?!
Oh dear, what a horrid movie.<br /><br />The production was so cheap and nasty... Remember the shot from "the Natural", where the lightning hits the tree (leaving a glowing stump) that Roy Hobbs makes a bat from?? Well the producers of this movie used that same scene to prefix a scene where a tree branch slammed into the house.<br /><br />I wonder if they paid to use the footage from The Natural, or did they just hope that no-one who would watch the film would pick it up ?<br /><br />Then at the end where they were getting trying to get away in the truck. Such over-acting in the cabin. <br /><br />A really bad film, a really bad film.
As a premise, this backwoods version of the Dead Calm storyline had promise.<br /><br />However, director Eric Red's inability to render a convincing hurricane leads to a deluge of continuity and lighting errors.<br /><br />Ultimately, the viewer is more spellbound by the bizarre weather effects than the intended storyline. Intermittent spates of ham-fisted over-direction are similarly distracting.<br /><br />Charles Dance, doing an 'inbred backwoods hardass' schtick, does his best to save the movie. But ultimately, Undertow squeals like a pig ... and has more ham to boot.
I sat through this turkey because I hadn't seen it before, and because the premise sounded like it had potential. It was mildly entertaining until the hurricane sequence. At the height of the storm, the wind is strong enough to blow windows out of the house, yet the trees in the background are perfectly upright and not a leaf is moving! In fact, when the characters move outside the house, bright sunlight is visible illuminating the treetops. At that point, whatever credence the filmmakers had developed evaporated faster than the highly localized rain in their film. Too bad all hurricanes aren't like this one, it would surely help our homeowners insurance rates here in the Sunshine State.
The viewer leaves wondering why he bothered to watch this one, or why, for that matter, anyone bothered to make it. There is no plot - just random scenes of ridiculous action. Mia Sara's shower scene appeals to the male libido, but that's not much reason to make a movie.
just below the surface lies what? a simply awful movie is what.<br /><br />as other viewers have justifiably commented, the storm sequences are just plain ridiculous. chopping already sodden firewood in the pouring rain? now that's smart. menace? foreboding? sexual tension? for those read dull & contrived, dull & contrived and dull & overly contrived.<br /><br />i want to say thank god for mia sara's shower scene but in retrospect i think the producers of the film, having seen the completed mess realised that they had to put something in to make it half way worthwhile at all. so it just becomes yet another contrivance. do yourself a favour and give this a miss.
A warning to you not to be seduced by the names Bigelow and Red. _Undertow_ is pointless and unengaging, and made me think often of a phrase by Twain about wishing all the characters would be drowned together. When someone brings up the category of Worst Films Ever Made, it's not the likes of _Plan 9_ or _Attack of the Killer Shrews_ that I think of; it's the likes of this. What a complete waste of time--my own and everyone who was involved with this flick.
Suppose you've been on a deserted island the last ten years. Haven't heard of Scream and left when Halloween part 1 entered the cinema. Then this movie would have been a blast and a completely new vision on the horror scene.<br /><br />At the moment, a 2.7 rating is on IMDb and it doesn't deserve a that low appreciation. Slashing all the way, like "I know what you did", and a who-is-it that when getting to the end convinced me of that who-and-why.<br /><br />No big surprise, just a nice flick to watch with a cola, popcorn and no urge to get a difficult plot, deep characters. If the video rental is out of the top titles, you can take it without a risk, but don't expect a masterwork. I've seen a lot worse.
Simply awful slasher, molded from the I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER type of fodder, has beautiful wealthy college students spending spring break in a Florida condo being murdered one by one. A misfire in every category imaginable from properly built suspense to the executed death sequences..nothing is handled properly and the characters leave little more than caricatures you root to see decimated as quick as possible. Del Tenney(The Curse of the Living Corpse;I Eat Your Skin), of all people, executive produced, co-wrote, and stars as a priest in a pivotal role whose relationship to the killer I guess means something to why he's psychotic. The revelation of the killer is awkwardly handled and ineffective, probably not surprising a soul who watches it. There are a lot of attempted jump scares, with one character popping out to frighten their friend, which couldn't even manufacture a few cheap thrills, because they are so calculated in such a tepid way. Most of the attacks occur off-screen with bleeding throat cuts(..or pools)representing the only real display of violence. The protracted finale, where the killer goes on and on with the actor desperately trying to make his villain as diabolical and demented as possible, is embarrassing and tense-less. There's not one single positive to derive from this clichéd and dull exercise with the pretty cast making little effort to rise past their one-dimensional roles. And, for pity sake, they could've at least allowed us to see Joey Lawrence get decapitated or something for withstanding the misery of sitting through this junk heap for 90 agonizing minutes.<br /><br />Dorie Barton, as the heroine final girl, Beth Morgan, who the killer seems to be obsessed with, couldn't be more vacuous and uninteresting(..oh, she was in rehab, and takes pills for her nightmares;such intriguing exposition). Chad Allen, cast against type as a very intimidating "friend" of the group(..who happens to disappear from the film first, setting up the idea that he's the first victim), has a tough hill to climb with his role, so steep he eventually stumbles, rolling uncontrollably with no end in sight. Jeff Conaway, needing some cash I guess, has the beleaguered FBI agent role, whose daughter's murder motivates him to seek out the killer, leading him to Florida. Jack McGee has his usual a$$hole role as a smart-mouth Florida Police Chief who is often nose to nose with Conaway's agent.<br /><br />Oh, the answer to the title's question..not really. Because once you get the answer, you will wonder why you bothered with this anyway.
No? Didn't think so! Well, in that case all you have to do is stay far, far away from "Do You Wanna Know A Secret", as it's just the umpteenth pointless post-"Scream" slasher with absolutely no redeeming value whatsoever. The plot is extremely ridiculous; the characters are insufferably dumb, the gore-factor is negligible and the whole thing is just plain boring! As you can derive from the title already, this film is mainly inspired by "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer", as the events take place in a similar setting and the killer's motivations are equally stupid. Why anyone would want to steal ideas from junk like "IKWYDLS" is a complete mystery to me, anyway. At least that film could depend on the precious rack of Jennifer Love Hewitt, whereas the girls in this junk are, apart from brainless, also terribly unattractive. One year after the still unsolved murder of her boyfriend, Beth Morgan, her new adulterous lover and four other simple-minded college students go to Florida to spend their Spring Break holiday in a fancy beach house. The killer hasn't made a move all year, but now he follows the posse to Florida and starts butchering them whilst leaving behind the titular message as some sort of business card. You really don't need to be a horror-expert in order to quickly figure out which face hides behind the unspeakably ridiculous mask and the writers' attempts to put you on the wrong track are downright embarrassing. Since the plot is so thin, most of the film is purely irrelevant padding, including the sub plots regarding the incompetent Floridian police force and the 'mysterious' FBI inspector who seems to have a personal score to settle. The murder inexplicably happen off screen (don't you hate it when that happens?), there isn't even any gratuitous T&A to enjoy and you better don't get me started on the quality of the dialogs. Suffering through crap like this only makes you realize that the delightful spirit of the 80's slashers is gone for good.
I am so confused. What in the world was this movie about? What was the killer's motivation? He seemed quite angry, but I have yet to figure out why. Nothing in this movie made sense. It had zero depth. Or less than zero depth. Which I guess would make it a hill. Or a pile. Of crap. The acting was horrible. When I searched for a few of the actors in this movie, they had been in very few things that I had heard of, and that came as absolutely no surprise. I can't decide whether to feel sorry for them for the embarrassment of being in a movie this bad, or to feel that they should never be offered another acting job again. Starting . . . NOW! (Seinfeld reference.) Really, though, don't waste your time with this. There's so little substance that there's nothing there even just to make fun of. This was undoubtedly one of the worst slasher flicks -- NO, one of the worst flicks of ANY KIND, that I have ever had the misfortune to watch, and I've seen quite a few.
Well OK, I watched this movie a little over 2 years ago and now I pulled it out of the dusty shelf to watch it again and I must say, I actually think this movie is good. This movie caught a buzz as the bootleg I Know What You Did Last Summer 3, much like Final Stab was to Scream 4, and well this movie isn't that bad. I mean it had flaws and of course it would be laughable to release this in the theaters but still for a midnight popcorn flick, this movie is not half bad. It has some scares, and some really hot women I might add. Plus it shows off Joey Lawrence's new beefy look though obviously even that hasn't won him any big Hollywood roles either......I feel bad for the man, he had such a career in the early and mid 90's with blossom, some Disney movies and the everlasting Lawrence brothers show.....Joey Lawrence was a bit player in the sitcom scene, but then like in a 360 degree turn, his career went south only doing low budget movies like this one.<br /><br />The movie also throws you off guard in, it makes you think between the crew, there really is a secret that someone knows, to only be disappointed in the end to find out the secret. It also throws you off on who the killer is, I had an idea but still woulnd't think the killer was who he was, but his motives combined with the secret was a huge letdown. Now, had there been a secret that was let out? This movie could've been one of the better b rated movies. But also I am a sucker for college themes and I also in college went on spring break in a mansion sized beach house similar to the one in here so it just made me feel sentimental about this movie.<br /><br />A so-so slasher flick. Good for a midnight movie.
I normally have no problem walking away from a bad movie, however this was an unique case. This movie was so bad that I actually sat through the whole thing almost praying it would have one minute of good movie time to justify the hour and a half that was wasted. Needless to say I was brutally disappointed. Set at a beach house where a group of college friends are celebrating vacation, this movie suffers from numerous problems making it not worth seeing. First, there are gaping plot holes. Second, very few of the C-list (i don't even dare call them B) actors can act worth a damn, so any scenes that have potential fail miserably. Third, the rate of the film is very choppy and awkward to watch most of the time making suspense building very difficult, leading to very few surprises for the audience. Fourth and most importantly, the ending is completely anti-climatic partially because of how it ends (setting/who the killer turns out to be) and partially because the dialog is just atrocious. To the films credit, it is the only movie that I will ever say is the worst movie I have ever scene, and i've seen a lot.<br /><br />So, just like a bad joke you would have been all the happier never hearing, the next time someone asks you if you want to know a secret you will be yelling no, you really don't as you run in the opposite direction.
The secret is...this movie blows. Sorry, but it just did. <br /><br />****SPOILER****<br /><br />In this bad riff on I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER and SCREAM, Beth, played admirably by Dorie Barton, joins several friends on a Spring Break trip. The group rents a fancy house and tries to enjoy a fun vacation. Then, the deaths begin. First one then another then another of the friends is murdered, leading to a sad and trite climax with predictable results. <br /><br />One note, Dorie Barton is the poor man's Reese Witherspoon–she looks like Reese, acts like Reese and could pass for Reese in a police lineup. Maybe that's how they cast her? Anyhoo, decent cinematography and fair acting could not quite make up for bad dialog and terrible writing.
Good Deaths. Good Mask. Cool Axe. Good Looking Girls....But Watch Out!!! No Plot and Little Scares Completely lower it's Standards. They Tried to make an "I Know what you Did Last Summer", but ended up making A "Scream". But Hey, What do people Expect From a Horror Movie? Answers Totally Vary. Rent It If You Want, but I Regret Ever Seeing It.
In a college dorm a guy is killed by somebody with a scythe. His girlfriend Beth (Dorie Barton) discovers him and tries to commit suicide. She's institutionalized. A year later she's out, has a new boyfriend named Hank (Joseph Lawrence) and is about to spend Spring Break with Hank and four other mindless friends in a BIG, beautiful condo in Florida. Naturally the killer pops up (for no reason) and starts killing again.<br /><br />Lousy slasher thriller--a textbook example of how NOT to do a low-budget horror movie. For starters, large portions of this film are ENDLESS filler of these six idiots videotaping themselves, having "fun" (more fun than the audience), getting drunk, acting stupid etc etc. Also there is NO nudity in here at all. I'm not saying a horror film needs nudity but ANYTHING to liven this up would have helped. None of the deaths are really shown (you hear them), are only a little bloody and there is no gore. There's one REAL gruesome one--but that's not till the end.<br /><br />With a few exceptions the acting sucks. Dorie Barton is dreadful as the main woman and Tom Jay Jones is lousy as Oz. Chad Allen pops up as Brad and he's TERRIBLE. Lawrence is actually very good--handsome and hunky and giving this crap his all. And Jeff Conaway pops up in a small role doing a pretty good job.<br /><br />Logic lapses abound--after they realize a friend has been killed two of the girls casually talk about sex; Baston's non reaction to seeing a friend getting killed is kind of funny and WHAT happens to Lawrence? His character disappears without a trace at the end! Dull, stupid, no gore, no nudity--skip this one.<br /><br />Rated R for Graphic Violence and some Profanity.
This mindless movie is a piece of crap and boring like the full house repetitions. For all the people who want to see a great, exciting and cool horror movie shouldn't even think about watching this bunch of mindless work. a F- in my opinion. I have one question, what were they thinking? Let's make a list: 1) bad script 2) bad script 3) bad script 4) bad acting 5) bad directing and last but not least a bad script. I mean I am not like grumping about every movie, but I was disappointed when I watched it. This movie should be banned into a box, locked and sunk down into the sea. So please don't do something like this again, please, please, please!!!!
**SPOILERS** Redicules slasher film that makes no sense at all with a killer running around dressed in a black robe and wearing what looks like a pull-over Peter Lorre rubber mask. Were told early in the movie, almost the very first scene, that young Beth Morgan was in rehab due to heavy drug use after her boyfriend was murdered in Tennyson Collage about a year ago.<br /><br />It's also brought out that FBI Agent Sacker's (Jeff Conaway), who's obsessed in catching the killer,daughter was also murdered in Tennyson around the same time. By the time the movie "Do You Wanna Know A Secret" is over it's never explained just what those two killings back in Connecticute has to do with the slaughter in Florida of some half dozen collage students a year later? other that the killer, at least in the murder of Beth's boyfriend, wore the same silly Halloween outfit. <br /><br />At spring break in the Sunshine State the six students spend their vacation at a beach house and before you know it they start getting knocked off one at a time. Starting with computer geek Brad Clyton, Chad Allen, the killing even spill over into town with a number of people who have nothing to do with the targeted student including the police chief Gavin, Jack McGee, getting sliced open. <br /><br />The masked killer saves Beth for last in this weird ceremony at a deserted church, in what looks like the Florida Everglades. He then finally reveals who his is and what he intentions are which make as much sense as the movie does, none. Trying to scare it's audience all the movie does is confuse and bewilder it with a number of not-too convincing slasher scenes. The most effective ones having the victim Oz Washington, Tom Jay Jones, survive at least three attempts on his life and ending up, together with Agent Sacker, the hero in the film. <br /><br />Oz also had a vicious cut on is foot from a large splinter of glass that almost cut it in half and crippled him but later he miraculously recovered, after getting arrested for a murder he didn't commit, in fact he had it out two more time with the killer with him not as much as having a slight limp in his walk! It also made no sense at all why Oz and Beth went on their own to tack down and catch the killer instead of calling the police, with a cellphone that Oz had, instead? <br /><br />Beth's boyfriend, who loses his head over her, in the movie Hank Ford, Joseph Lawrence, is also very unconvincing as well as the two girls at the beach house.They together with with Beth Oz end up being the killers victims and then somehow disappearing from sight! for a moment you didn't know if they were really killed at all or if it was some kind of hallucination on Oz's or the local police part. Until the off-the-wall final scene where they popped up in the church.<br /><br />We also get an insight on a previous relationship between Tina and Hank with her, drunk and acting obnoxious, trying to get it on with Hank as Beth walks in without Hank and Tina even noticing her. That seemed to have upset Beth even more then her boyfriend being murdered at the beginning of the movie!
OK, a slasher movie. a very, very stupid slasher movie.<br /><br />We got your stereotypical teenagers in a house thing going. We got a FBI agent that's seen Dirty Harry one time too many. "So what's the secret....punks?" We got about 4 different little camera shots and scene that make no sense at all. "Hey man, i'm fixing the sprinklers" ((that guy was my favorite part of the movie)) Suddenly there's a preacher tied up on a couch watching home movies, he gets killed.<br /><br />they follow the killer into the middle of nowhere, with no cops. suddenly she's in a church, wearing a wedding dress. i swear this is the stupidest slasher movie i've ever seen.
Do you guys wanna know a secret?. This movie sucks. Well actually i don't know because if you allow yourself to be indulged by plagiarised versions of original movies, then perhaps you may find this movie astounding (this movie being a plagiarised copy of i know what you did last summer). The first 30 minutes of the movie is based on a typical story setting; a bunch of so-called cool teenagers relishing their vacation in Florida and being themselves by behaving very much like the juveniles they are. The only insight we get at this point is the extent to which the director succeeded in illustrating a pretentious sense of adolescent decadence within the characters. The second half hour of the movie gains a little momentum and begins to illustrate a start to the no- where-near unprecedented killings. The third half hour of the movie will most definitely remain a mystery to me because i switched it off before i could further delude myself into thinking that the movie may still have something interesting and original left to show. As far as the story is concerned, it can easily be explained in a few lines. A bunch of teenagers go to Florida on vacation. While they are busy partying, they slowly (and i mean SLOWLY) begin to get killed because they know some sort of silly secret. The only thread to the killings is that all victims were matriculates of a common high school. One thing that did however amaze me about this movie, was how much betty (im not sure about her name..the blonde character) looks like reese witherspoon. Another thing that amazed me about the movie was that it made me jump from my seat a few times. Does that make it a work of art? absolutely not because my 12 year old niece made me drop a glass of orange juice because she "boo'ed" me when i was just about to go through the guest room door..whats the difference between the director and my 12 year old niece???? <br /><br />Do you wanna know a secret??? I'm not sure about you guys, but i don't..
This is one of the worst horror movies I have ever seen... Unfortunately, I am a horror movie buff and will rent any horror movie unless it's not made for t.v. When looking at the box it says it is rated R for gore and some language... Where was the gore? Was their one good death scene where you actually saw gore? I could have overlooked that if there had been some brief nudity or some good dialogue. There wasn't even one remotely witty or amusing line in this lame movie. Sometimes horror movies are awesome because they are so stupid, but this was just sad.
I know slashers are always supposed to be bad,but come on,what the hell is this?It's like a bunch of 10-year-olds saved their lunch money and started filming this by the end of their week.<br /><br />Anyway,six young people all go to the same house to get killed off screen.We have the brainy one,the slut,the other slut,the black guy,the killer,stereotypes like that.After one gets eaten by a shaking boat,the others all get stalked by some guy who wears a mask the people at the poor box rejected.There's one pretty decent murder somewhere in the middle,but then it's back to even more boredom,and especially more false scares.Seriously,we actually know it can't be the killer when a person gets attacked because the guy sure loves to take his sweet time for everything.<br /><br />After every character you expected to die dies,the standard ugly blonde chick and her soon-to-be-boyfriend eventually get captured by the killer(they get like,pushed down and then faint)and the killer reveals himself.I think the writers of this movie just took a blindfold and a pen and put it somewhere on the list of characters.The motive is just lame and don't even get me started on the damn secret.The killer then of course takes way too much time to explain everything(and then about ten minutes extra in which he slices up his own arm for some reason)and eventually gets overpowered by a guy with a gun.Hey,no fair!<br /><br />Really one of the most awful movies I've ever seen.I could enjoy myself more by watching a Lindsay Lohan-movie,I swear.I mean sure,most 80's slashers sucked as well but at least they threw in some T&A.This movie just has nothing going for it.
In a college dorm a guy is killed by somebody with a scythe. His girlfriend Beth (Dorie Barton) discovers him and tries to commit suicide. She's institutionalized. A year later she's out, has a new boyfriend named Hank (Joseph Lawrence) and is about to spend Spring Break with Hank and four other mindless friends in a BIG, beautiful condo in Florida. Naturally the killer pops up (for no reason) and starts killing again.<br /><br />Lousy slasher thriller--a textbook example of how NOT to do a low-budget horror movie. For starters, large portions of this film are ENDLESS filler of these six idiots videotaping themselves, having "fun" (more fun than the audience), getting drunk, acting stupid etc etc. Also there is NO nudity in here at all. I'm not saying a horror film needs nudity but ANYTHING to liven this up would have helped. None of the deaths are really shown (you hear them), are only a little bloody and there is no gore. There's one REAL gruesome one--but that's not till the end.<br /><br />With a few exceptions the acting sucks. Dorie Barton is dreadful as the main woman and Tom Jay Jones is lousy as Oz. Chad Allen pops up as Brad and he's TERRIBLE. Lawrence is actually very good--handsome and hunky and giving this crap his all. And Jeff Conaway pops up in a small role doing a pretty good job.<br /><br />Logic lapses abound--after they realize a friend has been killed two of the girls casually talk about sex; Baston's non reaction to seeing a friend getting killed is kind of funny and WHAT happens to Lawrence? His character disappears without a trace at the end! Dull, stupid, no gore, no nudity--skip this one.
This had a great cast with big-name stars like Tyrone Power, Henry Fonda, Randolph Scott, Nancy Kelly, Henry Hull and Brian Donlevey and a bunch more lesser-but-known names with shorter roles. It also had Technicolor, one of the few movies made with it in 1939.<br /><br />Now the bad news.......regrettably, I can't say much positive for the story. It portrayed the James boys in a totally positive light....and Hollywood has done that ever since. Why these criminals are always shown to be the "good guys" is beyond me. This film glamorizes them and made their enemies - the railroad people - into vicious human beings. The latter was exaggerated so much it was preposterous. Well, that's the film world for you: evil is good; good is bad.<br /><br />Hey Hollywood: here's a news flash - The James boys were criminals! Really - look it up!
The American Humane Association, which is the source of the familiar disclaimer "No animals were harmed..." (the registered trademark of the AHA), began to monitor the use of animals in film production more than 60 years ago, after a blindfolded horse was forced to leap to its death from the top of a cliff for a shot in the film Jesse James (1939). Needless to say, the atrocious act kills the whole entertainment aspect of this film for me. I suppose one could say that at least the horse didn't die in vain, since it was the beginning of the public waking up to the callous and horrendous pain caused animals for the glory of movie making, but I can't help but feel that if the poor animal had a choice, this sure wouldn't have been the path he would have taken!
Not too keen on this really. The story is pretty horrid and unconvincing. I enjoyed the first 10 minutes, bill nunns good. After that it was pretty appalling. Tim doesn't fit the role, he comes across as a smug self inflated ass & Pruitt taylor vince is entirely unconvincing as a trumpet player. It's a idealist film and as a musician, feel slightly offended after watching it. There's no scenes of 1900 practising or playing with his fellow band mates, he's completely self indulgent. I find it hard to build any relationship with this kind of character, maybe i'm watching the wrong film. If you have no real passion for life or sense of what musics all about then happily indulge in the suspension of disbelief and watch this waffle.
a friend of mine bought this (very cheaply) and decided to give it to me as a birthday present. i thought i'd never watch it 'cause i knew it was a joke and the cover of the DVD looked pathetic, but then my friends and i got really bored and watched it. from start till finish! i know quite an accomplishment but it really is a masterpiece. it's hard to describe. you should see it, it's a real lesson on what people are capable of when they believe they're creative and smart and really aren't. The "acting" is sous-terrain (you can actually see the "leading lady" laugh on some occasions, she's definitely the worst). the "story" is to stupid to be summed up and really everything in this film sucked. please, pay special attention to "the sheriff". the guy is an adult and therefor has absolutely no excuse to be involved in this. he's extremely bad as well. whatever it did have some hilarious moments. check it out, haha
Please! Do not waste any money on this movie. It really is nothing more than a boring German Blair Witch ripoff made by some high school kids. I couldn't finish watching it, and usually I like watching all kinds of B-movies. How on earth could they find a distributor for it?!!! Funny however: Check out Wikipedia for "dark area". The guy who wrote the entry must be completely out of his mind. Maybe he got loads of money from the producers. Money that should have been spend on actors, camera and editing. Even that wouldn't have helped, since there is absolutely no interesting idea behind this film. Unfortunately "dark area" has already gotten too much attention. Please, director, producer and author of this movie, STOP making movies like that...you are not doing yourself a favor. The world would be a better place without this film.
I watched this movie. To the end. And that was really not easy. It is so boring, bad played and in nearly every detail stolen from "BLAIR WITCH PROJECT" that you can't believe the makers take this serious. Even harder to believe, is how this "product" made it onto VHS and DVD.<br /><br />So, if want to see a horror-movie, just watch "Scream", but if you want to laugh out loud and have a good time, watching some kids running through the woods screaming at each other and showing of their inability, watch dark area.
It makes one wonder how this show is still on the air. There's been one couple that has stayed together, married, and has children, but everyone else has broken up. What's the point of continuing this? The show can be entertaining at the beginning. You see all the girls swooning over one man, that almost all of them like instantly. It's just like in real life! The girls start to take sides, bitch one another out, and show their true selves (or so we think). But that one man is left to decide who to pick that he thinks he can marry and live happily ever after.<br /><br />What is true love exactly? How can you fall for someone when you're forced to pick them? This show is unbelievable. You thought dating online was bad, but people have to go on TV to find love? It's not realistic. How could a girl be with a man when he is going out with several others, making out with them? None of these questions are answered, and finally when the show ends, you know there won't be a happy ending in the future. For all we know, everything is scripted.
Yes, even as a fan of shows like survivor and the apprentice, this show is pretty bad. I didn't mind the first couple of shows, but then realizing how pathetic everyone was to actually go on the show in the first place.The antics of Alex and Aaron giving men a bad name at the way they cheated on or dumped their choice at the first opportunity really was not a good look for the show.<br /><br />Ryan, you can have Trista. She had the most annoying voice I've ever heard on television, and she definitely wasn't the smartest girl around (very media savvy, but I doubt there's much more there).<br /><br />I haven't really watched any of the shows since, apart from the occastional re-run on daytime TV. I think the point of reality TV is to treat it as "entertaining trash". View it as something you can laugh over, and don't have to think too hard about ( I don't watch CSI its like reality TV-tired and clichéd, but you have to think too much anyway while watching).<br /><br />A couple of thoughts on some reasons fro going on the show. At the very first 'the woman tell all" Woman such as Amy ( who had a lot of class about her) commented that she had tried every scene aka the bar and club scene to meet a guy and it wasn't happening for her. Hey Amy, how about joining a club? getting a hobby? doing charity work? changing your job to one where you meet more guys? gees, all I know is that going to a bar is not the ideal place to meet a future partner.<br /><br />Amy and many of the other girls seemed to be obsessed with the idea of meeting "the perfect man'. Clue to ladies: he doesn't exist. There are, however, many great guys out there that would make great husbands, some who may be right for you! they may not earn six figures a year or be a JFK junior look alike, but they are great guys all the same. The shallowness of woman on this show is quite unbelievable. Im still a youngster, at was lead to believe that woman gradually grew out of their shallowness as they got older and more realistic about their future partner. This show is proving otherwise.<br /><br />Overall this show does a lot to confirm many stereotypes of how woman view men in society. It really is a terrible show and I think all of these types of shows should just stop being made. The best dating shows by a country mile are Blind Date and The Fifth Wheel because they are fun. Nothing is manned more between the "couples" than a simple night out. the bachelor, sadly takes itself way too seriously.
Sitting down to watch the 14th season of the Bachelor ("On the Wings of Love"), I knew I would be in for an "interesting" time. I had watched some of the previous seasons of the Bachelor in passing; watching an episode or two and missing the next three or so. I find that the Bachelor is often appealing and intriguing, though its quality and morality are often lacking.<br /><br />"On the Wings of Love" details the journey taken by Jake, a 31 year old commercial pilot from Dallas, Texas, to find true love, as true a love as one can find in a season-long reality-drama dating show. Jake meets 25 beautiful girls from all over the country. He begins to get to know them a bit, but it is mostly superficial; how well can you get to know someone in a few 5 minute conversations? Jake tries to make his true intentions known from the very beginning, at least to the audience. He noted that he doesn't just want love or a good time, but he wants a fiancé or wife. We can only assume that he has made this clear to the women in the competition as well. If that is the case, it might explain, to a degree, some of the women's actions. The women are super competitive. While they don't even know Jake at all yet, they are still in it to win it no matter what the cost.<br /><br />Not only were the women competitive, but they were also confident and catty. Threats, backstabbing, and warnings of "Watch out!" all show that these women weren't there for a good time either. Jake noted that he was not just looking for sex appeal, but looking for "a connection." However, the girls pulled out all the stops to try to impress Jake with said sex appeal. They arrived at the mansion in skimpy dresses – either low-cut or short.<br /><br />While some girls seemed to maintain their sense of decorum, others missed that memo altogether. One girl, Channy, noted that Jake was a "good guy" to whom she could be a "naughty girl." She went on to say that Jake could land on her "runway anytime." She got flack from the other girls for her provocative statement which showed their take on these situations.<br /><br />So, a reality dating show couldn't be that bad, could it? Besides the obvious issue of sex-driven attraction, there are other issues that mar this seemingly harmless show. Is this the right way to find a future mate; vying for someone's attention by flaunting oneself to extreme proportions? Unfortunately, however, that is what America has reduced dating to these days: pleasure and sex without commitment and a little happiness on the side.<br /><br />Another problem is the premature emotional attachment by which many of the girls bound themselves to Jake. A few girls in particular seemed to be overly attached. One girl said "If I don't get that first impression rose it will kill me!" As mentioned before, they don't even know him yet and she was talking about a specific rose, not just one of the 15 roses to keep from being eliminated.<br /><br />Michelle, in particular, seemed to have some issues with attachment to Jake. The other girls noticed it too. After one particular Michelle outburst, Vienna asserted that Michelle had a "mental breakdown and we've only been here an hour." Michelle got the last rose of the evening on the first show – narrowly missing elimination – and was extremely emotional about it. The other girls thought it was simply ridiculous. Another girl also cried, but because she was eliminated.<br /><br />It began with Survivor, and from there it just took off – reality TV. It shows our entertainment interests as a country; if we weren't watching the shows and giving them good ratings, the networks would not continue to run them. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that enough of America is hooked. One thing is clear: America (in general) loves reality TV and its ensuing trappings.<br /><br />This begs me to question: why is it that we even like reality TV? What is it about it that draws us to it? Is it because we see the similarities to our own lives, or is it because we want to be sure that we are more stable and less pathetic than others? Whatever it is that draws us to it, we should be careful of the media and entertainment that we allow to fill our minds. I'm not saying that all reality TV shows are bad; however, I am saying that we need to evaluate each one.<br /><br />Episodes used for critique: Season Premier and Episode 2.
After watching this movie on DVD, I watched the trailer. The voice-over describes the movie as surreal. Well, there's surreal, and there's surreal. <br /><br />There was really only one part of the film that seemed surreal to me, but frankly, it was more confusing than surreal. The other unusual imagery, particularly the lunchroom scene where everybody is on the floor, were so nonsensical they had no meaning. I don't mind imagery that doesn't mean anything, but these scenes just seemed irrelevant.<br /><br />My impression is that the director was trying to convey Logan's inner monologue. I don't know what else would explain what was going on. Unfortunately, nothing I saw gave me any clue what Logan was thinking about, what his perspective was, or even his emotional state. All I could tell was that he wasn't particularly happy with his physical appearance, and that he had a crush on an older boy. <br /><br />I thought the ending signaled what the relationship between the boys had become, but not much else did. Purposely juxtaposing ambiguous scenes with those that were more straightforward seemed more like a cop out than an artistic decision. <br /><br />Still, as tiresome and as content-free the movie was for me, it was a definite change of pace. I very much liked Madagascar Skin, and I had the feeling this movie aspired to that kind of narrative, and perhaps even style. It didn't even come close. For me there's no question about it: this movie deserves an A for effort, but a D for execution.
I see that someone already thought of a similar analogy, which was similar to the first thing that came to mind after I watched this movie. They said that the ingredients were there but there was no plot. Besides the sexual scenes which bordered on child-porn (which I feel could have been edited out or been presented more suggestively in nature rather than graphically, I would liken this movie to a recipe that's been torn in half. It's kind of like being handed a list of ingredients, with no directions on how to put them together into a finished product. From the start, character development and story development are lacking...unfortunately, many times in this monotonous drivel we are teased with bits of plot and we think "Ahh-OK...finally we are going to find out something more about WHY this scene is going on...or...WHO this character is...or maybe we are finally going to get to know and appreciate this character more...or understand and get involved more with this inter-character relationship...etc." But no such luck! On the contrary, many times I was tempted to just turn it off more than once but stuck it out when the carrot was dangled, only to find that whatever mini-plot within whatever mini-plot (and that poorly presented) was just a ruse. Why I stayed with it till the end is a mystery, other than usually IFC has better selections and they gave it 2-1/2 stars (another mystery). It's not that the characters aren't likable to SOME degree, or that you can't identify with them or their humanness at all...it's just that this could have been so much better with just a little more effort. I notice this was shot around Santa Cruz and find myself wondering if it was someone's film school project. I wish I could have given this a better review but honestly it was a frustrating and disappointing waste of an hour and a half.
Visually disjointed and full of itself, the director apparently chose to seek faux-depth to expand a 5 minute plot into an 81 minute snore-fest. <br /><br />The moments that work in this film are VERY limited, and the characters don't even feel real. How could you feel invested in a main protagonist who was made so surreal? <br /><br />Substantively AND stylistically, it all feels like a quirky dream sequence. Jarring irregular camera work, awkward silences and gaps in action, and what's with the little spider image crawling across the screen? Whoever thought of that needs to go back to film school. It added no meaning, just cheese, and didn't even stylistically work with the rest of the film (assuming the film even had a style, which is a close call). What a flop.
had some lovely poetic bits but is really just an artsy-fartsy toss-together with no direction or resolution. how do these people get through film school? who gives them money to make this crap? could have been so much more, fine lead actor, and i always like Fairuza Balk, but come on, the alt-rock metaphor of just staring vacantly unable to find anything compelling is just so tired, and it sure doesn't make for good films. the director needs to go away and live life for a good long while and not come back to the camera until they really have something to say. this is like the throw-spaghetti-at-the-wall school of art-making, just juxtapose a bunch of earnest imagery and hope hope hope like hell that poetry emerges. that can work, if the director actually has any kind of vision, or has a brain that knows when it's in the presence of potential, but here it's just space filler, of no consequence. i felt the lazy ending coming moments before it hit, and was yelling "you lazy bastard" at the screen when the credits popped up.
I read the half dozen other user comments on this board and it seems as though the opinions vary greatly. I have to agree with those who found this movie to be awful. It pains me to write that since I would have hoped this would have been great, or I wouldn't have bothered to see it the other day. I like supporting indie cinema, especially if they are gay-themed, but this movie is almost too much to tolerate. Those that walked out, as I considered doing after about three minutes, probably didn't mind shelling out $11.00, or just figured it was going nowhere, fast, and not going to improve. Maybe I am slightly more optimistic than they are..either that or they didn't pay to get in in the first place.<br /><br />Logan is bored. He's a klutz. He's gay. I'm okay with that. The problem is that because the main character in a movie is bored does not necessarily mean that the movie about him has to be boring also! There are ENDLESS scenes of this kid just laying around like a load of laundry, re-establishing everything that you already learned in the first scene, and the second scene, etc., etc...Nothing or no one goes anywhere. NO ONE says anything even remotely insightful or funny or interesting. Probably most appalling of all is that I didn't feel the slightest bit of empathy for Logan. That in itself is a major accomplishment. He didn't grow, he didn't change, he didn't learn (there is no one to teach him anything), he DIDN'T DO ANYTHING, and neither did the movie! Scene after scene of the same thing do not a movie make.<br /><br />Additionally, the title makes no sense at all. 1/10.
Wow, I hated this movie. The subject matter should have resulted in a really fine film, and the lead actor was definitely sensitive and talented enough to handle the topic, but the script - if there even *was* a script - is a mess. This is less a movie than a random slide show that goes nowhere. I'd say it goes nowhere fast, except that it's actually the longest 81 minutes you'll ever sit through. As I've mentioned, the lead actor is good. So is Faruza Baulk (SP?), as his sometimes-harsh-but-ultimately-loving-and-accepting mother. The film makers have a lot to answer for here, because this is a mess. A real shame,because I really wanted to like this movie, but it's basically out-takes from a movie that never got made. Skip this one - it wasn't even worth the $6 I shelled out for pay-per-view.
I haven't actually finished the film. You may say that in this case I have no right to review it, especially so negatively. But I do, only because I stopped it on account of I couldn't watch anymore...I got over halfway, and I only got there by promising myself something good was just around the corner. This film is so tiresome, so lackluster that I was actually insulted. I haven't read many of the other reviews, so I'm not sure if there are other homosexual teens who have suffered through it, but I am homosexual, and I did go through "similar" revelations, day dreams, issues etc etc. There were maybe two moments where I actually felt this film could go somewhere, where I felt it may have some inkling of meaning, or relativity, but these hopes were dashed the moment the next set of cliché-ridden narration came on. I mean, just look at the quotes on the IMDb page. Unfortunately you're not able to hear the scratchy play back, nor the echo-ey fades if you're just read the quotes, because they are just too painful/ridiculous/stupid to miss. I did give the film three stars, and all three of those stars go to the films cinematographer who did a fantastic job attempting to transform Archer's tired "concepts" into something watchable. Mind you, I pray he wasn't the one who decided to include all the long shots of TV closeups...another unnecessary cliché already over done in films such as Korine's Gummo... I think it is extremely fitting that this film premiered at Sundance (only because Archer had connections in the festival via volunteer work he did, by the way...) because Sundance seems to be the one festival where cliché heavy drivel like this is still accepted as "arthouse". No, it's not art house, I'm afraid it's just plain s**t-house. Do not watch.
First of all, this film is GLACIALLY slow-moving, and I can see most viewers losing patience with it altogether in the first thirty minutes.<br /><br />The film's subject matter was one I think would form the basis of an excellent film; what was most lacking here was a plot that would advance the underlying themes.<br /><br />It's unfortunate, because in the hands of a writer like (say) Lanford Wilson, I think symbolism like a mountain-lion invading a school campus could take on great, Tragic proportions without being heavy-handed.<br /><br />I think, with a good script supporting the film, the same filmmaker, with the same tastes, and even with the same actors (who didn't really even get a chance to impress me), might have been able to present a meaningful and touching depiction of the pains and struggles that a boy goes through when he develops a powerful "crush" on an older boy that he admires.<br /><br />However, I'm sorry to say that without this foundation, and armed with a vague, dull-witted, and vastly uninteresting script, without any sort of plot in sight, and lacking any sort of sensible structure (for example, after viewing it, I believe you will find that you cannot point to climactic scenes, and instead, will find yourself enumerating "well, maybe that scene, or that one, were climaxes...")--the result is 95 minutes of tedium.<br /><br />Without a good plot, we never get terribly interested in any of the characters; their trials and difficulties are simply dull and boring.<br /><br />Without a good plot, dramatic devices and surrealistic directorial liberties become puzzling and confusing rather than enhancements to the story-line. I never really could believe, for example, the creation of "Leah" and I think that most viewers would be utterly baffled by the conventional way in which her telephone calls were filmed.<br /><br />As the film stands, I'm afraid it's one I cannot recommend at all. What I can never understand is why a film like THIS one isn't re-made by an enterprising film-maker...instead of all the mediocre remakes of films that were superlatively good in the first release! All it needs is a good script, written by good writers, and I think this film could be easily turned into an unforgettable classic about an aspect of male coming-of-age that is rarely treated in drama. All the elements that were so tedious and seemed so recherche in the film (the messages written on the boy's belly, the "Leah" scenes, the television-screen fantasies) could become rich if underpinned with a good STORYLINE.<br /><br />I see in quite a few comments that people are talking of this film as somehow being about a "gay" subject, and I think that's mistaken. Obviously, the "crush" depicted is that of a newly pubescent boy on an older adolescent boy, but the character of Logan is far too young to have settled on any particular sexual choices, and, indeed, in his depicted masturbation fantasies, we see all sorts of stimuli, sexual and non-sexual, as we would expect in a very young boy like him. I believe "crushes" such as Logan's are common among male youths who grow up to have a decided preference for female sex-partners.
About the only thing I liked about this film is that there was JUST enough in it to keep me in my seat to the end... I kept thinking that maybe in the NEXT scene things would gel... Alas...<br /><br />Those who like Gus Van Sant's films - especially his later ones - will probably like this. Personally, I find van Sant's films to be dull, pretentious and facile. Well, he was an executive producer for this film, so it is no surprise that the film could almost have been made by him - although personally I actually liked this better than van Sant's latest efforts (e.g. Elephant).<br /><br />Contrary to many here, I did not think the film was difficult to understand or disjointed, I thought that above all it is a film that wishes to portray a certain mood - the mood of an adolescent moving slowly into the adult world - but so slowly that the changes are barely visible if at all. But I feel that the problem with the film is that "mood" is not enough... and not only that, but that the mood painted here is, to my mind, incorrectly chosen for the story that is supposedly happening. The dream-like quality, so closely linked to nature, is beautifully captured here, but it is a mood which belongs much more to a much younger child, one who really still does get totally caught up in watching nature unfold (waves on a beach, grasses and flowers, spiders etc). The rhythm of the film reminds me of my summers when I was about eight or nine. There is a LANGUOR to the film that is in opposition to what SHOULD be a very tense time in an adolescent life. When you are caught up in a crush on someone - or being the object of bullying at school - you are anything BUT languorous! There are only two moments that truly worked for me in the film...SPOILERS HERE - first when Logan drops the groceries and his mother throws a bit of a fit. The frustrations of an adult dealing with a klutzy kid - especially with no father present - seemed real to me.<br /><br />The second, and ONLY part of the film with any tension to it, were the scenes where "Leah" (Logan's re-creation of himself) phones Rodeo and tries to seduce him into phone-sex. The first reason I liked it is because the person who did the voice-over of "Leah" was the most convincing actor in the entire film. (It made me think of Claire Danes from My So-Called Life ...the voice even sounded like Claire.) She and Rodeo had the only scenes that seemed totally believable between the kids. And what I especially liked was the fact that Rodeo only pretended to play along... it was perhaps the best moment in the film as - finally! - we got some character development.<br /><br />All in all, a somewhat misplaced effort... we will have to see what he does in his next film before we can really say much about the director's possible talents. In the meantime, if he can get away from van Sant's influence, it might do him a world of good. Who is this director anyhow - one of van Sant's boy toys?
"Wild Tigers I have Known." It will only be showing in big cities, to be sure. It is one of those films SO artsy, that it makes no sense what so ever, except to the director! I HATE those! And all of those oh-so-alternative/artsy people try DESPERATELY to find "metaphors" in what is EVIDENT horseshit.<br /><br />There was NO plot, no story, no moral, no chronology, and nothing amusing or even touching. To me, it was a bunch of scenes thrown together that had nothing to do with one another, and were all for "show" to show how "artsy" and "visual" they could get. It was an ATTEMPT at yet ANOTHER teen angst film, but missed the mark on every level humanly possible. Then the credits roll! I was waiting for it to make SENSE! I was waiting for "the good part." I own about 60 independent films in my DVD collection, many of which could arguably be called "art house" films. This will NOT be amongst them. You will be very angry at yourself for paying to see this film, much less ever buying it on DVD.
One would think that a film about a young person's coming to terms with his burgeoning homosexuality would be anything but boring. Think again. This production should be bottled and sold as a cure for insomnia because it's about ten times as potent as any sleep aid on the market. It's almost as if the film maker *considered* making a movie, but got lazy and decided instead to run a series of random (and randomly BORING) images and go-nowhere scenes, throw in a couple of actual scenes featuring actual acting, pretend that good lighting ins't important in the film-making process, and wrap it up under the auspices of an "arthouse" film. This is exactly kind of crappy product that makes it easy for a lot of traditional film-makers to poo-poo the indie film movement, and which keeps the general public from more easily embracing indie films.<br /><br />If you're interested in films covering this subject matter, you'd be much better off tuning in to some of the great short films available at Logo's website or renting Get Real. Better yet, read Stone Butch Blues. Whatever you do, skip this long-winded piece of dreck.
As a lesbian, I am always on the lookout for films relating to gays & lesbians. However, with this kind of crap out there--it would be enough to discourage any audience.<br /><br />I kept waiting for something to happen--anything!--a story to develop, or just for it to make some kind of sense. Neither occurred. It was just meaningless scenes, unconnected in any way with anything. The film failed to conveyed any kind of story or depth to the character.<br /><br />After an hour or more of this nonsense, I simply turned it off.<br /><br />Don't waste your time on this absurdity.<br /><br />1 Star - and it doesn't even deserve that.
I really must have caught a different film from the rest of the commentators on this site because at a screening of the film last night the audience was so mortified by the dialoge that (I'm not even kidding)half walked out. Shot as if the filmmaker thought he were approaching some daring new territory by presenting a homosexual coming-of-age story, the film utilizes David Lynch inspired visuals with Fassbinder inspired acting. The performances in this film are so dull and bored that I figured one of the actors was going to pass out by how uninspired they seemed to be by the script. What's worse is that it's colored like an episode of Miami Vice. I don't know who this director thinks he is; maybe he has pretensions of the surreal like Bunuel, Jordowsky, etc. But the problem is that all of the afore mentioned directors display a level of erudite sensibility that is sorely lacking here. I could understand the meaningfulness of this film about ten years ago, but when we've got masterpieces such as Bad Eduction, Mysterious Skin and Show Me Love why bother with this cinematic turd? There is nothing new to be seen here.
I am very surprised by the positive comments because there were four of us that saw this at one screening and we all walked out. We personally felt that it was painfully slow to watch and couldn't sit through the whole movie. And we really tried to stick with it. In particular, those in the group who really wanted to like it because of their personal experiences with sexual orientation alienation in the school years depicted didn't like or identify with it at all. :(<br /><br />That said, it is great to see that this film really resonated with a lot of people here on the boards and with reviewers. That's the beauty of the subjective art form of film. :)
In The Lost Son, a private eye searching for a missing man stumbles upon a child prostitution ring. This film incorporates all of the worst stereotypes you could imagine in a worst-case scenario that exists only in the minds of Hollywood, the press and AG John Asscrap. If you get a chance to see this, you'd be better off getting lost yourself.
For Daniel Auteuil, `Queen Margot' was much better. For Nastassja Kinski, `Paris, Texas' was much better. The biggest disappointments were from Chris Menges (`CrissCross' and `A World Apart' cannot even be compared with this one), and Goran Bregovic for use of a version of the same musical theme from `Queen Margot' for this movie (Attention to the end of the film). If this was an American pop movie, I would not feel surprised at all; but for a European film with more independent actors and director, a similar common approach about child abuse with no original insight is very simple-minded and disappointing. There are those bad guys who kidnap and sell the underage people. There are those poor children who hate people selling them and wait to be saved by someone. And finally, there is that big hero who kills all the bad guys and saves these poor children from bad guys. Every character is shown in simple black and white terms: the good versus the evil. Plus, from the very beginning, I could understand how the story would end. Is this the end of the history of child sexual abuse? I believe that the difficult issue of child molestation and paedophilia is much more complex than how it is portrayed in this not very original movie. I think this movie was not disturbing, but very disappointing.
I really, really didn't expect this type of a film outside of America. How anyone can take the subject of sexually abusing children and turn it into a "thriller" is just sick. Auteuil (whom I had previously admired) going around like some sort of child-saving Rambo was ignorant and insulting to all the children being sexually exploited around the world.<br /><br />What's doubly depressing is that the stunning and ground-breaking film "Happiness" came out the year BEFORE this film. Menges and his cohorts should be ashamed of themselves. It's admirable to read some of the comments by the more intelligent viewers out there. They were able to see the shoddy and ridiculous handling of this topic. Those of you who think this is great cinema display a disgusting amount of ignorance and you need to watch "Happiness" to open your minds to the true horrors of pedophilia.<br /><br />Do you think your child is more likely to be kidnapped and sold into sexual slavery or be molested by a neighbor, teacher, friend or even a relative? Hmm...I wonder. If they are going to make a film about international child slavery of whatever kind they owe it to everyone to make it realistic and emotionally involving instead of this button-pushing crap. 1/10
What this movie does well is combine action and horror with comedy and drama in a unique way that teases more emotion form the audience than a typical horror movie. Unfortunately with disjointed storytelling, frustrating plot-holes, and contradictory scenes this movie mainly caused me frustration and is hardly "the greatest monster movie ever." <br /><br />Let's start with the good stuff: comedy, acting and special effects. From the get-go, this movie starts off fast paced and cheeky. The opening scene - the monster's origin - is campy and quick, paying homage the the classic 'environmental' disasters that have given birth to so many other monsters. The pacing is fast, which was a welcome break from the long and often pointlessly dramatic opening scene from other monster flicks and allows the movie to jump right into the action. With in the course of 10 minutes you get the 'why', 'where,' and 'how' of the beast and are ready for action. In this the movie delivers.<br /><br />After another short and well shot sequence the characters are introduced: the lazy son and his precocious little girl, kind grandfather, and talented sister (aunt) and, of course, the monster. The characters are introduced in context to each other and their conflicts are instantly apparent, allowing the audience to feel for them when the monster shows up suddenly to wreak havoc in the river area where they live and work. <br /><br />The monster it's self looks great: alien yet familiar - kinda like a dog and fish pooped out by a squid. The effects of the creature are second to none and although it looks strange it is believable and at no point in the movie could you 'see it's strings.' Even the movement of the monster was horribly familiar, like a growing and excited rottweiler on linoleum the monster barrels through the crowd, slipping on surfaces, crushing and eating those in it's path. When the monster's path intersects with the family and tragedy ensues it truly is a painful moment, and you can feel the need for revenge but from there on out the movie's appeal begins to unravel.<br /><br />Following the dynamite beginning the movie quickly loses focus and continuity. Plot-lines are introduced, then abandoned, characters change their position for no apparent reason, and comedy is interlaced into dramatic scenes confusing intent, while obstacles appear and disappear seemingly at random. <br /><br />As for the comedy, let me say this: I'm willing to accept that a lot of the humor is probably cultural. I am not familiar with Korean humor so maybe things were lost in translation. However, as an Asian studies major in college and as someone who has been living in Japan for the last 5 years (still here) I'd like to think I have a better grasp on Asian humor than the average white-guy. That being said there were many parts of the movie that I understood were supposed to be funny, but, to me, weren't. <br /><br />*********** SPOILER************* For example: after the initial attack where the young daughter is lost the family is at the funeral; everyone is mourning. A new character is introduced - a brother - and tension is raised even higher as it becomes obvious that the two brothers are at odds with one another. They both begin to grieve for their loss and wind up competing with each other over who is grieving harder. This competition is, at it's core, funny: two brothers who dislike each-other so much they even compete at a funeral - it shows the prickly nature of familial love common in Asian comedy. This subtle slap-stick comedy poking fun at family and ritualized mourning is supposed to be funny but, seemed really out of place in the context of a lost little girl. ************** END SPOILER **************<br /><br />Then come the plot holes. there are so many points brought up in this movie that are never explained, or, worse, are explained and fretted over only to be proved impotent and pointless in the end. Finding out an obstacle isn't an obstacle can be a good thing for a character, but you'd expect some comment to that nature. Instead the audience is barraged by moments of anti-climax when problems just 'aren't there' anymore and no one gives an indication that it was ever a problem to start. So I ask you: why even bring it up in the first place? <br /><br />This was prevalent through out the film as problems gave rise to new problems, and suddenly the world of the movie is filled with opposing forces that never resolved each other. Of course introducing new and greater problems is a time-tested story telling tradition, but if the introduction of a new arc leads the the forced shortening of another you would expect at least that the new arc gets full explanation. Not in this movie. Instead it was as if you get several stories, each only explained 20% of the way and, in the end, the parts never converge to complete the whole.<br /><br />Again, I'm willing to accept that a lot of this might be 'cultural.' Maybe its in Korean story- telling tradition to put comedy inside a tragedy. Maybe it's normal for stories to go all over like a child who colors outside the lines on every-page, but never finishes one. Maybe it's OK to present a problem in order to develop the plot but then remove that problem randomly without any apparent solution or catharsis. Or maybe these are all hallmarks of sloppy work and bad storytelling rampant in a movie that seems to have a much better reputation than it deserves.
Gwoemul (The Host) - Due to pollution in the Han river a mutated beast goes on the rampage. The youngest member of the Park family is snatched by the beast, and it is up to the rest of her family to find her, before she becomes the beast's latest meal.<br /><br />Firstly, I love monster movies: Mutated bears, over-sized alligators, packs of ravening Komodo dragons, the whole lot. Creature features are my favourite kind of Horror film. So, I really wanted to like The Host, but it wasn't to be. <br /><br />There were three major problems with it:<br /><br />The first can be seen with a quick look at it's IMDb page<br /><br />Genre: Action / Comedy / Drama / Fantasy / Horror / Sci-Fi / Thriller<br /><br />Too many damned genres. It took itself too seriously to be a comedy, and yet was too light hearted to have any real message (though it did seem to be trying to make some kind of statement. Anti-pollution, anti-American or anti-government). The drama was misplaced and mixed in a confusing mish-mash with all the other styles.<br /><br />Secondly, after the initial monster attack nothing happens for almost the entire film. The central family wander about looking for one of their own while the governments of Korea and America, apparently, do nothing. And that's it, they just wander about, occasionally hitting one another, presumably for a bit of comedy relief. This lack of action made my attention wander, and apparently it did the same for the director, as whole plot threads go unresolved (a mystery plague invented by the evil Americans is completely forgotten about, and is never resolved).<br /><br />And lastly, the film is clumsily political. It paints the Americans as being stupid and evil, but gives us no American characters with any more depth than a cartoon villain. The opening scene has the most obvious stupid American vs wise Korean moment. With a Korean morgue assistant asking his boss, the coroner, not to pour chemicals into the Han river. The American coroner all but cackles maniacally as he orders the assistant to carry on. As well as being racist, it's lazy film-making and there is no excuse for that.<br /><br />On the plus side, the monster is good, kind of a mix of The Relic and Deep Rising. Some of the movement effects are quite cool, and the initial monster chase through the park is a lot of fun. There are also some nice shots in the film. Some of which remind me, strangely, of the way Firefly was filmed (shuddering cameras, out of focus shots etc).There is also a nice scene at the end, where the hero and a little boy he has saved are sitting in the family's mobile food stall. It's night-time and snow is falling, the street-lamp is giving out a cold light, but the food stall has a warm glow coming from it.<br /><br />Overall, I was really disappointed by this film. I'd been looking forward to a decent creature flick, and instead I get some pseudo-political,horror-comedy lite. Looking at the comments on IMDb I can't help but think that if this had been a US production it would have been slated. Just 'cause it's a foreign flick doesn't mean it's any good. There have been some great movies out of Korea in recent years (The vengeance trilogy and Brotherhood, for example), but this certainly isn't one of them. <br /><br />For once I'm in favour of a remake. Tighten up the directing, improve the scripting and this could have been a nice film. As it is, it's not worth a couple of hours of anyone's time.
First of all let me say the first 20 minutes are great, the monster looks superb and the CGI is reasonably done. It's a shame then that the rest of the movie is such a disappointment, <br /><br />******** SPOILERS BELOW ******** <br /><br />From the opening scene we can see this movie is anti-American, normally this sort of stereotyping wouldn't bother me (we Brits get enough from Hollywood) but here it's not subtle about making the Americans brain-dead morons. It goes past the point of realism and your left wondering if a Yank has raped the directors mother.<br /><br />The grieving scene was really poor and the part of the movie where it starts going downhill.<br /><br />Here we are introduced to the Olympic medallist Auntie and drunk Uncle who walk into the memorial and start blaming the father for his daughters death, then hitting him before they all start rolling around on the floor crying. Hardly realistic bonding at a time of crisis!<br /><br />The whole virus sideline is ridiculous. If the Americans know there isn't a virus, why are they wasting time, money and resources investigating? The US government agent orders the brain drilling of an innocent Korean for nothing, making the Americans look evil (or stupid), it wasn't helped by the fact this guy was cross-eyed for comical effect.<br /><br />The movie is about hunting the monster. US and Korean special forces are assigned to finding the creature although through-out the movie they are invisible. The only people hunting the monster, in the whole of Korea, is the main family and some random tramp who appears at the end to save the day! Naturally a few US/Korean agents try to stop them along the way.<br /><br />The sister was only included in the movie so she could make the vital shot at the end. It was clichéd, you knew it was going to happen but to make it worse she does bugger all until that part! and my final annoyance, how the hell did that kid survive at the end? the monster had been swimming with it's head underwater for about 5 minutes! why didn't the monster eat the kids in the first place?
Don't be deceived as I was by the 'glowing' reviews quoted on the DVD box. "Wildly entertaining.", "a seriously scary freakout.", and the worst of all, "ON PAR WITH JAWS." This movie is none of the above.<br /><br />Normally I don't bother with writing bad reviews for films but I can't believe this one is resting at a comfortable 7 on IMDb. It doesn't deserve it.<br /><br />After a so-so opening daylight attack by a monster created by, what else, chemicals dumped by lazy scientists, this movie goes absolutely nowhere and it goes there sloooowly. Basically and improbably, a girl is snagged by the monster (I'll give them points for a good creature design but this ain't no WETA creation) and her semi-comical family spend an hour-and-a-half tracking her down...in the sewers surrounding the Han river. Their search lacks any suspense-again, someone called this on par with Jaws?-and by the time they find her you realize it was all pretty much pointless. Other than that, a big bulk of the movie is committed to a government quarantine that culminates in one funny scene involving a guy spitting in a gutter in front of a crowded bus stop.<br /><br />Blech. This was bad. I'm not kidding. You want to see a rotten monster movie? Rent Deep Rising. At least you'll save 30 minutes of your life.
What a terrible movie. Rotten tomatoes had a good rating for this too. don't be fooled by the positive comments; It wasn't scary. It wasn't funny. It wasn't clever. It won't even hold your attention. I just wasted 2 hours of my life viewing this crap-fest. the computer generated monster was interesting to see the first couple times. after about 15 minutes it no longer entertained. the dialogue was terrible, must be a translation thing. another negative that stood out was the idiot Americans. 3 were portrayed and they were all lacking character, intelligence and judgment. Now I will write a couple of lines to pad this since we have to have 10. The employees at the video store should have slapped me for bringing this title to the counter.
MONSTER - He was great; I loved the special-effects which created this monster which looked like an updated version of "The Creature From the Black Lagoon." The scenes with this beast roaming the land and capturing people ranged from good to jaw-dropping.<br /><br />SOCIAL COMMENTARY: Much of the story takes place in the quarantine area as the doctors (under orders from the government) state that SARS-like disease is out there. In a nutshell, we get the familiar government cover-up story. You know, I expect this Liberal paranoid mindset with Hollywood films always painting our government as corrupt, but it looks like the Koreans are copying the format, and it's very tedious. In here, it takes away from the excitement and suspense of this "monster." It just drags the film down. The main family featured in the film has to watch from a distance while the young girl in their family, presumed dead, was hauled off by the creature.<br /><br />MORAL: A typical "don't pollute the water" message because this is what can happen - a horrible mutated monster. This used to be the anti-nuclear bomb message from the 1950 when radiation caused giants ants, spiders, fish or whatever in those schlocky sci-fi films. Now its "environmental issues" that are the focus.<br /><br />THE HUMOR This was mostly stupid. I normally laugh at slapstick but this wasn't funny. I don't know if the Korean sense of humor is that pitiful, or the film was purposely trying to be ultra-corny with a take on the old "Godzilla" movies. Let's hope it's the latter.<br /><br />TRANSFER - The video transfer was good. This was a sharp-looking picture and sound was decent with a lot rear-speaker crowd noise. I watched this in Korean with the English subtitles. That might have been a mistake as the Korean guttural voice sounds got annoying after a half hour.<br /><br />OVERALL - This had a promise but turned out to be a big letdown and even boring in too many spots, which is inexcusable for a modern-day monster film. Two hours was WAY too long for this story. How this film drew record crowds in Korea I don't know. They must not have much in the way of films to enjoy and support.
I already know that critics and some audiences say that it was a satire, there were numerous political and social messages, the names make refer to some other names etc. It might be. I cannot realize such things (I don't want to do anyway) because I am not interested in, I am interested in 'cinema'. As for the movie itself, again it is said that the movie is clever and dramatically powerful. I could not see anything which we don't see in monster movies except the scene which takes place in a office in the second half. Yes, that scene says somethings about humanity, but it does not make the movie brilliant. The movie is entertaining (mildly) and exciting in some moments or scenes, but no more than that. As for the biggest flaw of the movie, it is visual effects. It was just shocking, I could not pull myself together for a while, because I had expected a realistic monster, because it is not one of the old Gojira movies, it was made in 2006, but it was not. It is like if you don't believe that there is a monster, you cannot care about. If you agree with me about this, I highly recommend you Cloverfield that is extremely realistic. The design of the monster is not interesting, but at least planned, there is an effort. Dramatically powerful critique. Some critics talk about it as if it is a Kurosawa movie. Yes, it is rather a drama than a thriller or action, but it should not mean that it is dramatically powerful. I don't want to compare The Host with other monster movies, but I try to mean that The Host does not do something that other monster movies do not do. By the way, may be some people call the movie masterpiece because of their sympathy for Asian cinema. Yes, I like Asian cinema too, but this is the fact.
this by far one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my life. I gave up to watch it after an hour and regretted that hour a lot. the acting is horrible and there is almost no plot. my guess is that someone came up with a strange shape of an animal and started to make a story around of it. borrowing some ideas from movies like Resident Evil and Aliens doesn't result in a movie like them. if this going to be a top Korean movie, I'd rather won't bother to see even a Korean movie trailer...<br /><br />By the way, this movies is a good reason to believe that not necessarily a high rating means the movie is promising. I think every Korean who has internet for online gaming rated this movie over the 8, even though has no clue what it is about.
Not only was he invariably annoying to listen to, but he had NO jokes. I swear, some fobby Asian guy telling yo momma jokes would've been funnier than Leary's crap. (Well, maybe funny for a couple minutes but at least I'll be able to laugh at least once!) Leary claimed he stopped taking drugs during one of his "jokes"... apparently he was still high on something; he was just some crackhead imprecating rants mostly drug related. One of his jokes was something like, 'I wouldn't use crack, especially having the same name as between my ass' - Oh man, how did he come up with that one?! I swear the only guy that needs to shut the f**k up is Denis Leary. Thank god I didn't have to see him live. This guy totally sucks.<br /><br />If you're easily amused by swearing, and "jokes" where you can come up with yourself, then waste your time with this junk.
Even for a tired movie model as the nature vs. man cycle that prevailed so predominantly in the 1970s, ants falls miserably short of being even somewhat effective(though entertaining for reasons it was not intending). It is sooooo preposterous. Apparently these ants that are bulldozed near an inn have been eating poisonous waste for decades and have now adapted by emitting poisonous bites - hundreds of these bites being fatal. Watching actors of some notoriety clumsily fall amidst tiny black specks is painfully funny in a not-so-good-but very-bad way. So many scenes just look ludicrous: a boy trying to fall in a dumpster whilst being attacked, Suzanne Sommers crying out in horror while lounging in bed, Robert Foxworth and Lynda George breathing through pieces of wallpaper, Bernie Casey faking a gam leg, and the list goes on and on. The peril shown ranges from ants crawling from a drain to black lines of ants all over the walls. The cast for the film is not bad on paper, but none of these actors seem to believe in the material. Poor Myrna Loy has to sit in a wheelchair through this horror. I hope she found a good use for the money, for it is obvious that was the ONLY reason a woman of her pedigree would be in this nonsense. Although it is quite a bad film, it is watchable - once for me, and does have many of those seventies bad film qualities - start-studded actors embarrassing themselves, that made-for-TV feel, and the dreaded creatures of nature reeking vengeance on man. This time man must push his hand into a pile of ants to be affected. Really quite dreadful.
Is there a book titled "How to Make a Movie with Every 'Man vs. Nature' Cliché Imaginable"? If not, Ants would make excellent source material for the chapter on killer insects. Ants doesn't have one shred of originality to be found at any point of its 100 minute runtime. I suppose the most surprising thing about Ants is that they actually stretched the film to 100 minutes. The set-up, the characters, the various sub-plots, the death scenes, and the way the ants are presented have been done before any number of times – and in most cases, much better. It's amazing that so many of these Insects on a Rampage films were made in the 70s because they're all basically the same movie.<br /><br />And can someone please tell me what in God's name Myrna Loy is doing in this monkey-turd of a movie? A woman as talented and classy as Loy deserved better than Ants as one of her final movies.
I remember watching this movie when I was young, but could not recall the title to it then going through horror movies I find it and think to myself "that is the title?" This movie is a kind of combination disaster film/insect attack film with fewer notable stars in it. It is also somewhat boring too, as it has that television vibe to it where you can see the movie fade out for commercials and such. The plot has this sort of resort being invaded by ants. I think they were a bit disturbed by construction or something going on nearby, but do not quote me on that. The most memorable ant attack for me in the whole flick was the first one involving the kid who falls into the swimming pool after being swarmed and of course Summers attack scene too. What else stands out in this one is the very goofy ending where the survivors use cardboard tubes to breath through. In the end though like most television movies this movie is very tame and not very scary in the least unless you panic at the sight of ants.
A pretty worthless made for television movie that pretty much follows the killer insect script. Ants mysteriously turn into killer ants near a hotel. I think it is from the hotel food because the sewage from the hotel kitchen drains directly into the ant bed. There is a lack of suspense in this film and it is not scary either. Watching a bunch of ants sting their victims is not very terrifying.<br /><br />Spoilers section The stupidity of the hero is near incredible. He is told that the health inspector that the ants could not be the hero. It has to be a mysterious virus. After the inspector says this, the hero takes his bulldozer and wrecks the huge ant colony. This disturbs the millions of ants and traps the people in the hotel.<br /><br />End spoilers Overall, this movie is extremely lame. I don't understand why it got a DVD release when so many deserving movies have none. My only guess for the DVD release is that Suzanne Summers is featured in the film. This is a movie to avoid.
This is another one of those 'humans vs insects/eco-horror' features; a theme that was popular in the late 70's. Only you can't really call it horror. There's zero suspense and no gruesome events. In other words: this movie is pretty lame. It's not that it's really bad or something; it's just very boring. A construction site near a hotel uncovers a big nest of ants. Later on we learn that, probably due to different sorts of pesticides used in the past, their bite became poisonous. Some people get bitten and rushed to the hospital and it takes ages for the residents of the hospital to figure out what's going on. Robert Foxworth figures it out first and then you can see him go berserk with a digging machine for what seems like several hours. Then they flee in the house, waiting to get rescued. And, man, you should see all the efforts they make for rescuing them. I won't spoil too much, but at one point they even use a big helicopter. All the time when I was watching this, I sat there thinking "Come on, people, you all got shoes on. Just run out of the building. I'm sure a bunch of ants won't catch up with you." It's all pretty ridiculous.<br /><br />Of course, lots of close-ups of crawling ants are shown throughout the whole movie. Ants in the garden. Ants in the garbage. Ants in the kitchen. Ants on the roof. Ants in the bedroom. Ants in the sink. And the best part: Ants crawling on people's faces while the actors are breathing through straws. But when you see groups of ants in wider shots, they indeed look like black rice the set designers glued to the wall.<br /><br />One small surprise came near the end. No, it has nothing to do with a twist in the plot. It was just that Brian Dennehy made an appearance as a chief-fireman. Ehrr... What more can I say? This movie is called IT HAPPENED AT LAKEWOOD MANOR but the box-art of my copy read ANTS and the title during the opening credits was PANIC AT LAKEWOOD MANOR. There you have it. Now, since this is a made-for-TV movie from the 70's, I'll be once again extremely mild in my final rating. Now, THE SAVAGE BEES, another 'humans vs insects' TV-movie from 1976 was much better than this one. I even feel I have to go back and add a few points to its rating after having seen ANTS. Lacking suspense, action, thrills, shocks and creepiness, the only thing you'll be left with after seeing ANTS is an annoying itch.
I remember seeing this movie a long time ago on television. I remember the premise of the movie being about a bunch of hotel occupants being attacked by man-eating ants. What I didn't remember was HOW AWFUL IT WAS!!!<br /><br />I recently caught this movie on television late at night. I'm sure it must have been a mistake because movies like this usually disappear from existance and are never to be found again! Suzanne Somers (at the pinnacle of her career playing Chrissy on 'Three's Company') plays a vacationer at Lakewood Manor. Constructions workers are installing a swimming pool outside and accidentally disturb an ants' nest. Or should I say, a *MAN-EATING ANTS' NEST*!! One of the workers actually gets attacked by the ants. One minute he's picking them off his clothes one by one, the next minute he's covered in them. The next scene shows a skeleton in the dirt.<br /><br />If you thought that was pretty far-fetched, you should see Myrna Loy playing a wheel-chair bound resident who gets airlifted out of the Manor via helicopter! I could almost picture her thinking in relief that she was getting airlifted out of the movie!<br /><br />The final scenes depict Suzanne, Robert Foxworth and a third guy sitting on the floor of a hotel room with their backs to each other, blowing through straws and covered in ants.<br /><br />That's basically the movie. There's really no "disaster" appeal or "big-star" draw to the film. It was intended to be a 'grand-scale' television event at the time. Now, it's lucky if it gets dumped in a 4:00am timeslot on your local television station.<br /><br />If you want to catch Suzanne Somers at her best, then watch an episode of Three's Company. If you want to see Myrna Loy doing anything to put bread on the table and pay the bills, then watch this movie.<br /><br />0/10
Paint by numbers story and mediocre acting saved by some authentic color - and a few moments that are really wonderful and deeply felt. It does effectively capture the delicate transition of a girl into adulthood, and deals very sensitively and inventively with the cultural conflict the main family experiences.<br /><br />Unfortunately this germ of a good movie is imprisoned in an aimless and extremely convoluted plot that manages to incorporate religious strife, a conflict over a road construction project, the sex life of secondary and even tertiary characters, a mysterious man who lives in the woods, a bunch of racist hooligans, at least three different carnivals, the intricacies of local church politics, and on and on and on. And all of that doesn't even include the actual central plot, which is only about the hopes, dreams, and frustrations of two girls (and their entire families) at the turning point of their lives. I was actually shocked when I realized the whole thing was supposed to take place over the course of one summer (and that so much movie got accomplished in 1.5 hours!) <br /><br />Ultimately the movie is melodramatic, every plot point is predictable, major life altering events happen and then are forgotten about 10 minutes later...and some of those events are extremely distasteful. Most shockingly the fact that one of the characters is involved in a horrible crime (in a totally predictable "twist") and then is completely forgiven and the entire incident forgotten about from then on. Similarly, a secondary character is introduced solely to die a couple minutes later and provide another "twist." It's all totally mechanical, right up to the ending that neatly ties up all the loose ends (well not all of them, just the ones the movie thinks you care about.)
'Anita and Me' is a drama about growing up in multi-ethnic Britain, rather like 'Bend it Like Beckham', or more closely, 'East is East', with which it shares a 1970s setting. The tone is resolutely chirpy (in spite of the dour Black Country accents), but the film lacks 'East is East's vigour and the result seems rather thin and trite. Moreover, the portrayal of the film's central relationship, between an Asian girl and her white friend, is insufficiently deep to justify the way that the movie is structured around it. I have also grown tired of films where the hero years to be a writer, this is naturally often something that real writers have experienced, but hardly a fresh element in a fictional story. 'East is East' was fun and sharp; 'Anita and Me' seems obvious and dull in comparison.
I had high expectations following "My Beautiful Laundrette", "Bend it like Beckham" and (less so) "East is East". The histories of British Asians fitting into their adopted home has had many good runs on the big screen, as well as a number of excellent TV and radio series (Goodness gracious me, etc). This one falls flat. Inspite of a good start it rapidly went down hill.<br /><br />Ultimately this was a horribly typical BBC effort, complete with strong regional accents, whacky over-acting characters, a "those were the days" soundtrack, and lots of "issues" in an attempt to be worthy.<br /><br />I found myself cringing at many points during this film. The writing is predictable. Every possible cliche was dragged out and aired. In fact, I have trouble thinking of any cross-cultural/cross-generational devices that could have been used that weren't. The characters were thin and cliched: the eccentric non-conformist minister; the well meaning but ultimately racist old woman; the over weight, overbearing aunt; the pushy Indian parents; the working class neighbour; the 'wise' profound grandmother; the motorbike riding thug. The script was weak, with every chance to shock the audience with overt racist dialogue from the two dimentional racist white characters taken. And why it had to be set in the 70's (apart from needing an excuse for a 70's soundtrack) is a mystery. Possibly it make unbelievable characters slightly more believable to people born after 1979. I don't know.<br /><br />Even these things aside, good acting could have carried this into respectable obscurity. Instead, the usual "BBC comedy" suspects were wheeled out to ham it up. "Bend it like Beckham" had far better comic acting (and serious acting, in fact) than this, with a virtually unknown cast.<br /><br />In summary, a lazy cliched script, over acted, in a dull predictable story. Give it a miss.<br /><br />
Anita and Me seems to be little more than an excuse for Meera Syal, the author of the novel and screenplay, to air her prejudices, grievances and general antipathy towards the English. The general sentiment of Indian superiority over the English in this film is foul.<br /><br />The English people in this film are portrayed as overweight, violent, foul-mouthed, promiscuous, engaging in child neglect, stupid, uneducated, racist, ugly, eating poor food, and dim-witted -- tellingly, only by turning to Indian culture can the local priest be "redeemed" at the end of the film.<br /><br />By contrast, the Indian family are beautiful, clever, educated, can speak many languages, are caring and loving parents, and grammar-school fodder. The film is so insidiously prejudicial that I am astonished the BBC funded it at all. Had it been the other way round, an English family in an Indian community depicted this way, the film would have been seen as racist.<br /><br />There were a few moments where my eyebrow shot so far up my forehead, I thought it would lodge in my hairline. First, the gossip scene between the women at the Divali celebration -- undertext: the English are dirty and promiscuous -- and the men -- undertext: English women are prostitutes. Second, the meal with Anita where Neema's family lie to her about cutlery -- undertext: the English are so stupid, you can make them do anything.<br /><br />But the underlying contempt towards anything English -- even English weddings are an object of scorn -- is evident all the way through the film. The character of Anita was drawn so appallingly -- almost the fallen woman trope -- that I finished the film feeling angry.<br /><br />This is not a "Bend it like Beckham" where the humour is focused on loving exaggerations of a community's behaviour and customs from somebody within that community, and is a film about two girls from different backgrounds coming together. Instead, Anita and Me seems to convey that a form of cultural apartheid is inevitable, as the English are almost an version of the Indian Untouchable caste, and this is underscored by a thinly-veiled series of attacks upon the film's "other" community: the English.<br /><br />I felt Anita and Me is a hate-filled, grievance-based piece of work. On that basis, the BBC should not have funded its production.
I'm sure this was one of those "WOAH!" attractions in 1982 when Epcot opened, but now it's just silly. The film's message is cliché. The Circle-Vision is disorienting. And that awful song at the end is grating. And I really wish they'd install seats. After so much walking, all you want to do is sit down for a few minutes. And when you hear there's a film to see it sounds pretty glamorous! You get entertained while sitting down, right? WRONG! You're standing there for 18+ minutes leaning against a short little railing. Disney should make a newer Maelstrom like attraction to liven things up and replace this dull, lackluster film. NOT FUN. Skip it. In fact, skip Canada altogether unless you're eating there. Move directly to the United Kingdom.
"Rois et Reine" is a sprawling mess of a movie which will probably irritate as many viewers as it delights. It focuses by turns on ex-lovers Nora (Emanuelle Devos)and Ismael (Mathieu Amalric) as they each confront a major crisis in their now separate lives. While Nora's story is played straight and is sombre in tone, Ismael's is played mainly for laughs, although it's not particularly funny. Nora's crisis is triggered by the terminal illness of her father Louis (Maurice Garrel), and Ismael's by his sudden incarceration in a mental hospital at the instigation of a mysterious third party. Ismael and Louis are just two of the males who have shaped Nora's life, and in turn have been shaped by her, the most notable others being her now deceased first lover Pierre and their young son Elias. As events past and present are played out for the audience, and the ex-lovers become involved in each other's lives once more, it gradually emerges that Nora's personal take on her life story may be less reliable than first meets the eye.<br /><br />Cult director Arnaud Desplechin has fashioned a considerable oddity here, one which has garnered major plaudits in France. He wilfully eschews established narrative convention and develops the movie via a series of dramatic shifts in mood and tone. Had this approach been founded on a coherent unifying core idea or theme it might have worked, but it's not clear in the end what exactly Desplechin's film is actually about. Heavy-handed allusions to Greek mythology and Freudian theory are evidently freighted with meaning but, at least for this unschooled movie-goer, remain less than helpful in illuminating and interpreting the lives of the characters. At other times the treatment lapses into kitsch but the use of the anodyne "Moon River" as the film's theme tune suggests this is probably deliberate.<br /><br />**Spoiler alert** I suspect a major theme of the movie is the not very original observation that how we see ourselves can differ radically from how others see us or even how we think others see us. This idea is most obviously represented in the film by the violent death of Pierre and the revelation contained in Louis' secret diary, but unfortunately both events seem entirely disconnected from what has otherwise been revealed to the audience of Pierre and Louis' respective relationships with Nora. This seems a cheat on Desplechin's part, as if he is thrusting the idea upon us in unmediated form rather than illustrating it more subtly in the natural course of the narrative. One or two darkly surreal touches imply the presence of an alternative but largely unconscious world of persons stripped frighteningly bare, but again these are felt more as pretentious intrusions of film-making technique rather than eruptions from a deeper reservoir of truth inherent in the story. In fact, for all its heavy-handed hints at depth, the characters are curiously undeveloped and unnuanced, as if they function more as ciphers for their creator's many ideas about people rather than as real people in their own right. Much of the detail of their lives seems arbitrarily applied rather than organic. For example, Ismael, as we are constantly reminded, is a viola player, but more than two hours pass before we actually see or hear him play, and the effect of his chosen instrument or profession upon his personality is never elaborated. Hence, he may just as well be a marine biologist or a trapeze artist. <br /><br />Amalric brings a certain manic charm to the unhinged but ultimately sane Ismael, but I found Devos cloying and monotone (which may be intentional, however) as the elusive Nora. Meanwhile Jean-Paul Roussillon as Ismael's father, Elsa Wolliaston as his psychoanalyst and Magalie Woch as the psychically wounded but defiant Sinologist he befriends in hospital make the biggest impact amongst the supporting actors. Catherine Deneuve's in it, too, though her role is little more than a self-referential cameo.<br /><br />Ultimately, "Rois et Reine" is very much an acquired taste. Should it fail to push your buttons, it's very likely that Desplechin's undisciplined and florid approach will frustrate and exasperate even as you somehow keep watching.
"Kings and Queen" is a bloated French drama that rambles on for an interminable two hours and thirty-two minutes to no discernible point or purpose.<br /><br />The film features two stories that seem unrelated at first but which eventually connect with one another about halfway through the movie. The first centers around Nora and her struggles with various men in her life, including an elderly father who discovers he has only a few days left to live. The other story involves a young man named Ismael, a violinist who finds himself placed - unfairly, he believes - in a mental institution through the machinations of an unknown third party. After traveling along on separate tracks for awhile, these two narrative strands eventually come together when we learn that Ismael is a former lover of Nora's and the man she has chosen to adopt her son from an earlier, tragic relationship.<br /><br />With a bit more focus and a considerable amount of streamlining, "Kings and Queen" might have been a potent, engrossing drama about modern day relationships. It certainly has moments of tremendous insight and emotional power, and the performances are, for the most part, complex and touching. But, taken as a whole, the film meanders and maunders to such an extent that, quite frankly, it begins to wreak havoc on our patience and to wear out its welcome early on. Even more distressing is the fact that, even though we spend what seems like a mild eternity in the company of these people, we really don't know quite what to make of any of them when the show is finally over. For instance, Nora's father, on his deathbed, writes a withering diatribe against his daughter's character that simply doesn't gibe with the woman we've been looking at for well over two hours. Nora is admittedly no Mother Theresa (then, again, who is?), but she certainly doesn't deserve the invective thrown at her by her very own father. Nora could be accused of being confused, indecisive, a bit self-absorbed at times, but evil enough to have her father wishing he could give her his cancer and make her die in his place? I don't think so.<br /><br />Perhaps this film is simply operating at a level of depth that I was unable to fathom. But my suspicion is that even writer Roger Bohbot and co-writer/director Arnaud Desplechin would have trouble fully explaining their purpose here. This is a well acted, pretentious bore of a film that takes the viewer on a long, rambling voyage through a sea of personal crises, a journey that leaves him no wiser or more enlightened at the end than he was at the beginning.
Too many secondary plot lines without a primary one. Too many hot buttons are pushed without any reason, they managed to stuff this boring film, that does not say anything, with every drama element that is out there: death, divorce, money issues, parenting problems, suicide, psychological problems, drug abuse, adoption, rejected love, traveling problems, sex, generations misunderstandings, robbery, legal issues, guns, medical ethics, "deep real love"… You would think that it would make for an interesting movie, but hell no – all these events are secondary to something primary which is not there. Boring. Not to mention that the "super-deep" (and super-long) lecture to the child at the end of the film is a total nonsense. Pity.<br /><br />Oh, forgot to mention: the actors, all of them, are quite good. That's what kept me from turning it off. To bad their talents went to waste, The film is well shot, too: the light, the motion etc. of every episode -- that's all in place. It's just the meaning that's missing.
In sum, overlong and filled with more subplots than swiss cheese has holes! The director and co-writer says he wanted to mix genres - in this case drama and comedy. Well, at least here, these two mix like vinegar and oil. To boot, the comedy is not very funny and juvenile. Additionally, the film is not really realistic. Liberties are taken regarding the legal system in committing French Citizens against their will and the apparent ease of absconding with drugs in French Hospitals. I watched this film on my big screen TV at home and found myself shouting at the film to move on. Eventually toward the end I fast forwarded the final long speech one of the main characters makes to his ex-lover's son. By that time I was worn out by the preposterous confused plot that deals with a dead lover, marriage of convenience and a nutty ex-lover. At times the plot diverts to the families of the two main characters and then reverts back to one of them - either Ismael or primarily Nora. To the detriment of the audience, viewpoints keep changing from Nora and Ismael, her ex-lover confined against his will in a psychiatric hospital. There probably are two potentially interesting films here neither of which are well developed. The epilogue does not really wrap up many of the sub-plots and seems to want the viewer to believe Nora somehow will find happiness although given her circumstances in real life the chances are equivalent to a snow ball's chance in hell. The actors do their best and are appealing, but this is not enough to overcome all the glaring faults of poor writing, editing and lack of focus.
It's hard to tell if Noonan and Marshall are trying to ape Abbott & Costello, Martin & Lewis, Curley & Larry, or some other comedy team, but whoever it was they were trying to imitate, they failed miserably. There's barely one weak laugh in this whole incredibly stupid picture. Noonan (who helped write the alleged "script") and Marshall have no chemistry whatsoever; Marshall seems to be trying for a Dean Martin type of devil-may-care coolness, but he doesn't come even remotely close. God knows what Noonan thought he was doing, but being funny sure wasn't it. He seems to think that flapping his arms and legs a lot and staring dumbly at everyone and everything is the height of screen comedy; maybe for him it is, but not for the audience. I remember seeing this in the theaters when it came out. It was on the bottom of a double bill with a three-year-old Jeff Chandler western ("Pillars of the Sky," which was pretty good) and a Three Stooges short ("Sappy Bullfighters", which wasn't), and about 20 minutes into this thing all the kids in the audience were throwing stuff at the screen; it was so staggeringly unfunny that it didn't even measure up to the worst of the Three Stooges shorts. I stayed around for the end of it (not that I wanted to, but my folks weren't due to pick me up until after the movie ended), and by the time this mess was over, I was the only one in the theater. I saw it again about 15 or so years ago on cable one night, and stuck around to watch it to see if it was as bad as I remembered. It was worse. The only thing it had going for it was Julie Newmar, who was as smokingly hot as ever; other than her, this thing has absolutely NOTHING to recommend it. The two of them also play Japanese soldiers, and the way they do it makes Jerry Lewis' infamous playing of Japanese characters as thick-lensed, buck-toothed, gibbering mental defectives look benign by comparison. Marshall went on to host "Hollywood Squares," and Noonan kept trying his hand at making movies, but most of them were almost as bad as this. Not quite, though, as I don't think ANYTHING could be quite as bad as this. A truly pathetic waste of film. Don't waste your time on it.
The Rookie suffers from so much. There are the random musical songs interspersed through the movie, the long pointless script and enough grating slapstick to make Jerry Lewis blush. Noonan and Leavitt just don't know when to quit. It takes a full hour before the story finally gets to the main plot and the characters are shipwrecked. Then the guys start playing Japanese sailors with the standard racist caricature of the day. It is a shame the funniest parts of the movie are when Noonan and Leavitt are playing the stupid, stereotyped Japanese guys. But, it gets pretty tiring after switching back and forth between two sets of characters. Then it just abruptly ends. Even a naked Julie Newmar in a towel can't save this one.<br /><br />There is really little charm in the movie and it is over a half hour too long. The story just flounders along trying to set up funny situations and failing. Stick to Martin & Lewis. At least Deano had charm and Jerry had that animated face.
This service comedy, for which Peter Marshall (Joanne Dru's brother and later perennial host of The Hollywood Squares) and Tommy Noonan were hyped as 'the new Lewis and Martin' is just shy of dreadful: a few random sight gags are inserted, everyone talks fast and nothing works quite right -- there's one scene in which Noonan is throwing grenades at officers and politicians in anger; they're about five feet apart, Noonan is throwing them in between, and the total reaction is that everyone flinches.<br /><br />In the midst of an awfulness relieved only by the fetching Julie Newmar, there are a few moments of brightness: Marshall and Noonan engage in occasional bouts of double talk and argufying, and their timing is nigh unto perfect -- clearly they were a well honed comedy pair.<br /><br />It isn't enough to save this turkey, alas.
This film was slow but tedious and the acting often drifted into the land of ham. Redgrave's character was unappealing as the 60 something woman trying to compete with Thurman's 20 something for the love of Fox's character (why is beyond me). The title of the movie should have been "Shallow people on the lake". The actors played like they were in a rehearsal. A dreadfully predictable ending to boot. I can't believe this is on this website as a comedy!
This film really disappointed me. The acting is atrocious. Unbelievable. And it's about actors. The story is incredibly obvious: A group of independent actors stage a Passion Play and, in turn, they start to live out the lives of the characters they play. I've been watching a lot of movies lately, thanks to Netflix, and this is the first one I haven't watched all the way through in a long time. I felt I didn't need to see the end; we all know the end of this story.<br /><br />For some, it seems, this "modernization" of the Gospels is either sacrilegious or enlightening. I cannot speak to any of this as I wasn't raised in the Christian church. That being said, I was raised in the US and I live in an increasingly Christian culture. I'm curious enough about Jesus and about the modernization of the religion, for better or worse. I haven't seen Mel Gibson's version, but I'm guessing that those who liked that one will like this, except for the most conservative. I just wish this was a better film.<br /><br />Lots of these reviews praise Arcand's direction and especially the cinematography. I liked neither. The film itself is rather prudish and preachy. I didn't believe the characters' personae and I was never involved with their on screen lives. The play within the play is very much dated and would not, I think, carry it's own weight in a real time production. But that's beside the point. What I really needed for this to work would have been stronger development of the characters and the plot to support the philosophical and theological questions the film would like to be about. And the musical choices are obvious and unoriginal.<br /><br />There were two examples of this that come easily to mind. Firstly, there is a reenactment of the parable of Jesus driving the money lenders from the temple: the lead actor, who has fallen for the woman who will play Magdalene and who is also a model and dancer, becomes enraged that she must debase herself by auditioning for a commercial (with a wicked producer and plenty of panting men in the audience) with her pants off. He trashes the place and chases them all out. I guess this is the level that the film wishes to reach. The romance between these two is entirely arbitrary and not at all emotionally realized and the scene is played out like a high-school rendering of Death of a Salesman, i.e., not well. Please stop hitting me over the head with this high-handed "significance." The other is the relationship between the other female lead and the priest who has asked them to do the play and who, eventually, turns against them and betrays them to the nowadays-corrupt Church. Why. Why does she sleep with this guy. "It brings him so much pleasure and me so little pain." Ah, the saintly whore and the lovable old coot. It seems to be just enough for Arcand to signify but not worth the trouble to enrich and enliven these characters. They are going through the motions and I'm reaching for the eject button.<br /><br />Feel free to write me off as bored, jaded or just not interested. Feel free to watch this movie and see the Passion, in all its beauty, sadness and inspiration, delivered as an amateurish and gimmicky charade. Feel free to have all your preconceived ideas affirmed and see any shred of artistic integrity forsaken for monotonous drivel. But don't say I didn't warn you.
Well, Jesus of Montreal is basically an intelligent movie. The actors are indeed good and the technical side of the movie is okay. But, although I was very interested in the topic and like to think and discuss about religion (I am an atheist), it was hard to force myself to watch the movie to the bitter and in my opinion somehow unconsciously funny end. Why is this movie so incredibly boring? I don't know. It just is and so it is not recommendable.
You believe in God or you don't. You believe in Jesus or you don't. You believe He is the Son of God or you don't. The choice is up to you.<br /><br />Director Denys Arcand has really done everything he could to bring back Jesus to a mere historic figure, social worker, son of two humans, instead of the Son of God the Holy Spirit and Mary, Who opened Heaven again for us. Encouraging the Big Bang, a world come from evolution, instead of seeing the beauty of creation. The film depicts a theologian bringing some "modern findings" to the actor who plays Jesus in the Passion Play, who happily incorporates them in his play.<br /><br />The depicted priest who runs the sanctuary where the Passion Play is performed in Montreal has a sexual relation with one of the female players of the Passion Play instead of showing his love for God through celibacy. More often than not the director's abhorrence of the Church is clearly visible.<br /><br />The director has tried to make a parallel between Jesus' life and the Passion Play actor's life. This is an admirable attempt, but depicting the Resurrection with the transplantation of the Passion Play actor's organs in other bodies signifies how the director thinks about Jesus.<br /><br />My opinion is not important, God's opinion is, but I wouldn't want to stand in the shoes of the director and actors when standing before Jesus' throne.
As I sat in front of the TV watching this movie, I thought, "Oh, what Alfred Hitchcock, or even Brian DePalma, could have done with this!" Chances are, you will too. It does start out intrigueing. A British park ranger living in Los Angeles (Collin Firth) marries a pretty, demure brunette woman (Lisa Zane) whom he met in a park only a short time ago. Then, one day she dissappears. The police are unable to find any documentation that she ever existed, and Firth conducts his own search. So far, so good. Just as he's about to give up, he turns to his womanizing best friend (Billy Zane), and they stumble onto her former life in L.A.'s sordid underground of drugs, nightclubs, and ametuer filmmaking, and then to her history of mental instability. At that point, Firth's life is in danger, and the film falls apart. None of the characters from Lisa Zane's past are remotely interesting. The film moves slowly, and there's very little action. There is a subplot regarding missing drug money, but it's just a throwaway. No chases, no cliffhanging sequences, and no suspense. Just some dull beatings and a lot of chat by boring characters. One thing worth noting, Lisa Zane and Billy Zane are brother and sister, but they never appear in a scene together. By the end of the movie, you're torn between wondering what might have been and trying to stay awake.
It's interesting at first. A naive park ranger (Colin Firth) marries a pretty, mysterious woman (Lisa Zane) he's only known for a short time. They seem to be happy, then she disappears without warning. He searches for her and, after a few dead ends, stumbles upon some of her abused childhood and sleazy recent past, which may include criminal activity. And then, it seems the filmmakers didn't know what to do with the story. The beginning, while not as suspenseful as it sounds, is at least watchable. Then it ceases to be interesting or even make much sense. And the ending is so lame, so dull, and so devoid of any excitement or intelligence, you'll think the screenwriters didn't know what to do with it and got bored trying. What a sorry waste of a good idea!
I go to a lot of movies, often I bring my 5 year old son, I am so glad I did not bring him to this one. There are many references to sex and a skinny dipping scene, however, that is not the primary reason I would not take him to it. The trailers lead you to believe it is a light-hearted comedy; nevertheless, virtually all of the funny moments are in the previews. I kept waiting for it to get interesting, funny, or anything but serious; however, I nearly fell asleep as the plot-less story dragged on. I understand that dogs can be great company, that being said, the entire story focused on a poorly behaving dog that the owners were not savvy enough to train. If a human caused this much damage and mayhem that person would be banned. The worst movie I've ever seen with Jenifer Aniston or Owen Wilson, a waste of their talent. The best way to sum up this movie is, couple gets unruly dog, couple falls in love with dog, dog dies, couple sad. The End.
I love B movies..but come on....this wasn't even worth a grade...The ending was dumb...b/c THERE WAS NO REAL ENDING!!!..not to mention that it comes to life on its own...I mean no lighting storm or crazy demonic powers?? Slow as hell and then they just start killing off the characters one by one in like a 15 min time period...and i won't even start on the part of the thing killing the one guy without its head....and then you don't even get to see what Jigsaw even does with his so called "new jigsaw puzzle"....Unless you have nothing better to do...Id watch paint dry before Id recommend this God-forsaken movie to anyone else...oh and to make it even better the other movie totem you can see the guy throwing the one creature in the basement scene from the window..that was funny as hell and probably the only good part of watching that waste of film
I am not sure who is writing these<br /><br />glowing reviews for this movie but trust me it STKINKS. I have seen hundreds of horror films and slasher flicks and this one is LAME it is only about 80min long and believe me that is all I could take. Plot is terrible, acting is even worse. And there is no development at all.<br /><br />Even the David Cocteau films are better than this. RUN AWAY from JIGSAW . I expected to hate the acting, which can be forgiven in direct to video movies, if the plot is good.<br /><br />This had no scares, very little Gore,<br /><br />and a truly unattractive cast.<br /><br />I watched this with three other friends<br /><br />who I hope are still talking to me!<br /><br />They wanted me to fling the disc out the window. I can not believe anyone could have<br /><br />given this tripe a good review.
Whether you want to spend nearly 2 hours of your life watching this depends how you like your horror movies. If you like them so god damn awful they're hysterical, watch away. Jigsaw is without a doubt the worst movie i've seen in my life (and i've seen 'Long Time Dead'), and i say this as a fan of the low-budget horror/gore genre and having seen a good few to compare it to. I'm not even going to go into the specifics of what makes this movie was bad as it is, the only good thing about it is it's so so terrible it's one of the funniest things i've seen in years. If you can find this to rent cheap it's definitely worth watching, if you were involved in making it - shame on you. :o) IMDb need to introduce a 0/10 ranking especially for this movie, it thoroughly deserves it.
OK another film bought by me and Joe Swatman. OK this isn't the worst film i've reviewed this week but it still sucked royaly. we had a lot of fun watching this piece of crap.<br /><br />The Monster Jigsaw is a mish mash of all these dysfunctional students ideas, u just know ur in for trouble when someone equips him with a buzzsaw and a sawed of shotgun, the film wasn't as gory as we hoped, i mean on of the deaths is a heart attack. Again i think the acting sucks, sum of the actors must be porn stars and one get into her undies for what ever reason. <br /><br />The absolute worst part is the ending, it leaves it open for a bit of a Jigsaw 2 but thats never gunna happen lets face it.<br /><br />My ratings:<br /><br />funny 4/100 mock (how much fun we had mocking it) 73/100 acting 8/100 generally 12/100
We've all been there, sitting with some friends watching a bad movie, laughing at how terribly it was made and how poor the acting was; eventually the credits roll and everyone looks around and says "how is it possible such a movie was made? who paid money to have this script made into a feature film?" Well Jigsaw is not that kind of film, instead of asking how this garbage was budgeted you wonder why the makers were shot out of a cannon into the sun. Yes, Jigsaw is quite possibly the worst movie ever made or conceived, this coming from a guy who has seen Campfire Stories and Fever Lake. The film starts out in some kind of college class, what kind of class I am unsure, but it is imagined to be an art class. Now these dorks have been given a final project by their idiot teacher, five of them are given pieces of a mannequin and told to design it in any way they see fit, and since there are only five pieces the other students in the class receive and automatic A, oddly enough there are only six students in this entire class so the one goth chic gets a free A, good for her! A week passes and the five students, plus teacher, plus one hillbilly husband meet in a bar to discuss their and complete their project, they put the pieces together, head, arms, legs and inform the others why they chose their specifics designs, now these creative geniuses used the week to their full advantage, one puts a saw blade in the left hand, the other gets a sawed off shotgun, the right leg gets a bunch of broken ceramic glued to it and the left some magazine clippings, the head is the worst getting a camera in the eye, ala Hellraiser 3, with some bottle rockets for a stylish mo-hawk. After they have all spilled their guts about their specifics designs the now drunk teacher says they are to burn the mannequin, now aptly named Jigsaw. Now up to this point it has been standard horrible movie fair, bad acting, dialog and everything else, but has still been pretty plausible, yet after Jigsaw catches fire things take a turn for the worst...Jigsaw comes alive.. How you ask? I have no idea, he just does because the writers couldn't think of a realistic way for two pounds worth of molded plastic to become alive (Come on guys, a bolt of lighting, a traveling voodoo priest, anything could have worked.) So once Jigsaw comes to life he uses his new abilities of walking very slow and stilted with the use of his molded fingers to wreak havoc. First he kills the cool guy with some barb wire, this guy who was about to get it on with a hot chic decides drinking ground beer off in the distance is more important than what is in front of him. With him gone Jigsaw shoots the sexy girl in the face and then gives an old man a heart attack with a slight twist of his head, he then saws up a nasty looking southern woman and then her hillbilly husband; Jigsaw then kills the nerdy guy with some headless deception. Did I mention Jigsaw was taking body parts off his victims to make a human version of himself? No! Well its not important they don't even show his macabre creation, they don't even show him steal away a torso from his poor creators (Maybe he was trying to create the head detective from In Living Color). So after these five have been killed the teacher and the nerdy girl are all who is left, the teacher figures out that Jigsaw only needs a head to finish his masterpiece, since he is still uninterested in that torso thing. So being the coward he is the teacher ties up the girl as a sacrifice to Jigsaw who comes in only to go for the teacher with his electric buzz saw which isn't even plugged in. That is where the freaking movie ends, we don't even get to see the teacher get killed or what happens to the girl, let alone an explanation why Jigsaw came to life or how he cleaned himself off after being burned. This movie is so shameful it has too be seen, it is only 71 minutes so it is a small part of your day; For the memories of a lifetime, Jigsaw, Jigsaw, Jigsaw. Thank you Total Recall! The Judge has ruled, watch Jigsaw only if your plans of severing off your genitals seems played out.
I might not be a huge admirer of the original "Creepshow", but its trashy sequel makes that anthology look like perfection! And to think I was going into this expecting to like this one more. Five years after its predecessor, George Romero gets back on board the EC Comic style trail and on this outing pens the screenplay for Steve King's three stories. Though, the direction is handed off to Michael Gornick. The film mostly falters in that aspect with uneven brushes by Gornick. But most of the blame would have to go to Romero's dreadfully static and unbearably cringe-like script (especially in those dialogues streaming through the first and final story). Moralistic messages (that came from mostly a sour bunch of characters) simply took over the black humour. Oh it was painful and the same can be said about the lively rotten music score accompanying the picture. Loosely linking the three tales (Old Chief Woodenhead, The Raft and The Hitchhiker) together is a mildly curious and effective wraparound story done in nostalgia (80s) animation form. I rather liked this segment and the wisecracking Creep character was a glowing light. <br /><br /># The first story "Old Chief Woodenhead" sees two elderly proprietors (George Kennedy & Dorothy Lamour) of a general store in a dying native community, Dead River. Get robbed and eventually killed by a couple of punks dying to live it up in Hollywood. In front of the store is a wooden statue of an Indian Chief that comes to live to avenge their deaths. <br /><br />-Listen to George Kennedy waffle.. And waffle on for 10 minutes about how he's committed to his 'great' community. What a nice touchy feely time. Well, just like Kennedy's speeches, this is one monotonously colourless and overdrawn item that never makes good of a fine premise. The overbearing script is plain inane and the performances are suitably so. These two factors really added to my headache. When the Indian comes alive and turns avenger, the goons meet a very quick (though grisly) death in the proper fashion. The effects were commendably done, but what about that free flowing hair. How could Hollywood knock that lock of hair back? Ugh! <br /><br /># Second story "The Raft" follows a group of dope smoking and yahoo teens heading up to a secluded lake. After swimming to the raft in the middle of the lake, they get trapped on the platform because of an ominous looking creature lurking in the water. <br /><br />-Now this is much better, MUCH better. What starts of as your basic teens run afoul turns into a mysteriously creepy set-up that's full of tight and claustrophobic tension. And it doesn't even cop out on the flashes of nudity or spiteful splatter. Quite morbid it is and that goes for its sense of humour too. The surprisingly ironic ending has a beautiful touch to it. The performances from the nobodies are acceptable without making a huge mark. Gornick's direction sticks to the nasty and rather gooey side. While, the alarming music score on this occasion pressed the right chords. The sludge-like creature in the lake (like many have mentioned) looks like an icky black tarpaulin (yeah you're reading that right!) floating on the water. <br /><br /># Finally number three concludes with "The Hitchhiker". A wealthy, but sexually lacking woman is on her way back home after being with her male gigolo, but she's is running late. Thinking of some ideas to explain for her lateness if needed, she skids off the road and accidentally hit's a hitchhiker. Instead of checking or getting help, she drives off in the hope getting home before her husband. Soon enough she's being terrorised by the mangled corpse of the dead hitchhiker.<br /><br />-Not awful, but I really didn't get into this laughably ludicrous exercise at all. Compared to the first two this one was so different in tone and tried to tickle the funny bone instead. Lois Chiles was okay in the lead role, but that constant assuring and the little conversations she has with herself became pitifully aggravating and downright tired. The vivid make-up effects are well-displayed and dripping with vision. When she hit's the hitchhiker that's when it becomes hectic, cheesy and over-the-top in its execution. From there onwards we endlessly hear our supposedly dead hitchhiker repeat and repeat… and repeat the line, "Thanks for the ride lady!" This happens every time she decides to run over him. Have a little courtesy for the dead darling. <br /><br />In all, the second short story "The Raft" and the unpleasantly, well-conceived effects is what lifts this extremely inferior sequel.
CREEPSHOW 2 is the ill-fated sequel to the George Romero's (overrated) original, CREEPSHOW. Any sequel following a Romero film that's not directed by Romero himself has got some large shoes to fill, mostly because of the Romero fans out there who think he's God. I didn't care much for the first film and funny enough, I didn't care much for the sequel. The film series had so much potential but it was short-lived because both films were less than stellar. <br /><br />The biggest problem with CREEPSHOW 2 was that it only had three stories (excluding the in-between story), and because the first story sucked beyond belief, it only left the chance for almost half of the movie to be *really* good. I saw CS 2 at the movies and the first segment was a real groaner. Anything dramatic with George 'I can't act' Kennedy is automatically doomed and the Indian Statue story was too hokey and simply didn't belong in this sequel. So after a really trite and dull start, there were only two other stories left to reverse the fiasco of the aborted beginning and unfortunately the two other stories weren't great enough for me to forget the first story. THE RAFT and THE HITCHHIKER are moderately successful, moderately because though the two other segments have their moments, they still sorta fall flat. The two last stories are basically stretched out for too long. It's not that I wanted the stories to happen at a dizzying pace and end fast, but both good ideas found within those stories were sorta nullified by the fact that they were slow and padded and eventually fell flat when the segments needed to be more energized, more erratic and with punchier endings. Also, if the two last stories hadn't been stretched out to pad the movie or had all three segments been more brief with better editing and direction, they could have added a much needed fourth story to the bunch. Having only three padded segments made for a boring feast.<br /><br />The acting and writing in both THE RAFT and THE HITCHHIKER segments are from awful to good. I like Lois Chiles in the last segment. It's probably her best moment on screen aside from her role as Bond Girl Holly Goodhead in MOONRAKER and in DEATH ON THE NILE. But even her role is difficult to understand at times because of the serviceable direction and the unfocused story. Are we supposed to hate her or sympathize with her? Are we supposed to sympathize with the annoying hitchhiker? If the hitchhiker's body was found by other people on the road, what was he when he attacked Chiles? Was he a ghost or a zombie or what? How did the body eventually left the presence of the other people who found him dead in order to attack Chiles? The whole thing is not very clear, even for a supernatural story. And the ending is rather dull and uneventful.<br /><br />As for the infamous THE RAFT story, well, the acting is mostly on the awful side and none of the characters are sympathetic or interesting. The characters would have been more interesting had the actors played themselves. None of the actors are convincing in their specific roles. Paul Satterfield looks smarter than the dumb jock he's playing and the actress who plays his girlfriend is not very convincing as the typical bitchy slut. She seems too timid. The same could be said with the two others who play the "plain" teens. The idea of the killer oil slick is interesting and creepy but not well executed. There should have been a fifth character to the story, maybe a homeless man or a ranger who lurks around the lake and knows about the oil slick and could have been the watery monster's alter ego of sorts. As creepy as the oil slick is, it doesn't make for a compelling "character". And the way the story ends, everything seems pointless. No punch to it whatsoever.<br /><br />Except for the few titillating aspects which always seems to make boring things worthwhile, seeing CREEPSHOW 2 at a theater was basically a waste of money and time. CS 2 is more rental material than something you pay to see on the big screen.
Creepshow 2 had a lot of potential, they just didn't put enough time in perfecting it. The stories were pretty cool and creepy enough, but it was lacking. It's a good movie, but after you've seen it once, you might want to see it again. This movie could of been better.
"Creepshow 2" is little more than a pale imitation of the original, designed with little purpose other than to cash in on the name of the previous film. It even amplifies the flaws of its predecessor, which was often predictable and heavy-handed. Still, the first time around, there were enough thrills to make up for it's periodic lulls, resulting in an uneven but overall fairly entertaining effort. The sequel has few worthwhile moments, so the transparency of the stories are even more apparent. Once in a while, it delivers, but most of the time, it just lingers there.<br /><br />As in the original, all the stories revolve around the common theme of revenge and just desserts. A wooden Indian comes to life, wreaking vengeance upon the killers of its owner. Teenagers are devoured by an aquatic monster. A hitchhiker returns from the dead to pursue a careless motorist. None of these premises are inherently bad in themselves, but they are utterly lacking in inspiration. There are few surprises and no scares. This a textbook example of unmotivated, by-the-numbers filmmaking. It doesn't help that this cheap-looking movie suffers from a flat directorial style, although to be honest, there wasn't much to work with. In the end, the second story comes off best, but not by much. <br /><br />For the most part, the performances are okay at best. George Kennedy, as the ill-fated general store owner, does an adequate, if not particularly inspired job. Dorothy Lamour, on the other hand, is quite good as the guilt-ridden motorist, evoking sympathy for her plight despite the predictable, redundant material. However, most of the characters are pretty thin overall. <br /><br />One would think that "Creepshow 2" would have turned out better. George Romero, who directed the original, returned to pen the screenplay, based on more of Stephen King's stories. Makeup effects artist Tom Savini turns in some good, gory work. So why is the film a letdown? I guess Romero didn't really want to make a second film, but was forced to do so for financial reasons. It was a decade of horror sequels, clones, rip-offs, and whatnot, so this one was certainly inevitable. I can imagine the guy writing the script in a hurry, picking up his paycheck, and running off. I guess he had to do what was necessary to get his own projects financed; we can't blame him.<br /><br />Rating: *1/2 (out of ****)<br /><br />Released by New World Pictures
I am a big fan of old horror movies, and since I am middle aged, old to me is a movie made before 1970 with most being made in the 1920's to 1960's period. I am not a big fan of more modern horror movies, with one exception being Creepshow 1, which I thought was great. I could reminisce about the stories there but I really really enjoyed the monster in the box story with Hal Holbrook, and also the one about the really clean guy was a great ending. All the stories were great though. So why did I like them so much? The characters had some decent development, the lines were very plain about who was good and who was bad, the horror bits were heightened with a close up of a face aghast with fear, and the funny bits were really funny! This sequel is either greatly lacking of these elements or they are totally absent! I am writing this only having watched it partially because the movie was a complete waste of time and I turned it off to do other things like write movie reviews on IMDb.com, lol. When George Kennedy and an old Dorothy Lamoure get top billing it's telling you something.....4 of 10. Also, Romero's expertise is hard to find here, they must had told him to tone it down to a PG standard (I don't know what this was rated at but it looks PG to me), and that's not a good thing for a movie with nothing else going on. It's shown on the Encore cable channel if your dieing (yuck yuck) to see it.
Sequels have a nasty habit of being disappointing, and the best credit I can give this is that it maintains that old tradition. These three tales aren't anything as good as any from the original Creepshow.<br /><br />By far the best of the trio involves a wooden idol which comes to life to take revenge on the thugs who killed its owners. The second story is about a lake monster which seems to be nothing more than a lot of floating slop, makes you wonder how anybody could possibly be scared of it. The third story includes a cameo from Stephen King as a truck driver, but other than that is a pretty unmemorable tale concerning the victim of a road traffic accident who comes back from the dead for the person who knocked him down.<br /><br />Watch the original Creepshow instead, or if you already have done then be happy with that.
Five years after the original Creepshow, another inferior horror sequel is penned by George A. Romero and Stephen King: Creepshow 2. This time there are only three stories instead of five. None of the three stories is really original or distinguished either. The first story is a horror staple, formulaic story about a wooden Indian statue seeking revenge against the killers of its owners. The effects are really neat in this story, but it's just too familiar to be compelling enough. George Kennedy and Dorothy Lamour play the elderly store owners. The second story, "The Raft", is a Stephen King story. It's about four teenagers that unwittingly spend the day on a wooden pallet in the middle of an isolated lake. Soon the kids are screaming for their lives as a watery blob does each of them in for no apparent reason. However, instead of being suspenseful, the kids are saddled with bad dialog and dopey-headed behavior, preventing us from really caring about what happens next. There is also some unintentional humor in this segment. The third and final story is "The Hitch-hiker", which is actually a retread re-adapted for Creepshow 2. The original story, by Lucille Fletcher, was filmed in 1953 as a film noir suspense film. Then it was adapted for a famous Twilight Zone episode featuring Inger Stevens. "The Hitch-hiker" works the best out of these three offerings, but it's not without its problems either. Lois Chiles plays a cheating spouse, who ends up running over a hitch-hiker, or so she thinks. However, we don't know whether to sympathize with her or condemn her. As in many average stories of this type, the characters exist merely to tell the stories with their twists and turns. The wrap around story with the bullies seems a bit out of place. Tom Savini appears as the "creep" in this installment. The good thing is there haven't been any more sequels. *1/2 of 4 stars.
I rented it because the second segment traumatized me as a little kid. I snuck downstairs really early one morning, started watching HBO, and The Raft (segment 2) terrorized me good. This time around, I still enjoyed The Raft, although I couldn't tell whether it was for nostalgic reasons or if it was actually a good short. The other two segments were complete trash. I can't believe a producer somewhere payed to make this junk. All I've accomplished by watching this was to ruin one more childhood memory. Creepshow 2 will now join Rad among my list of tainted childhood classics. 4/10
Andy Lau stars in another cop undercover tale. Daniel Wu plays Nick who is working for the cops and is also close to the top of a drug dealing gang(Lau). The movie begins as we watch the police try to make a drug bust only to see it go to pieces. We then are introduced to the young drug addicted mother and her daughter living near Nick and to his cronies and the cops, and 45 minutes in I shut off the movie and put on the news. Well acted and great to look at this is as uninvolving a movie as I've seen in a long time. Its not bad as such its just you really don't care. I mean I really didn't care at all. I actually started to do something else completely forgetting I had on a subtitled movie on, thats how much I didn't care. I wish I could have hated the film but the film is such a nonentity that it made almost no impression on me (its not even something I could sleep to its just something to ignore). Come on the box called it the Chinese Scarface,what after he was dead? This is one to avoid.
Protégé runs in a linear fashion; expect no fast-paced action, and neither will you find yourself with baited breath because there are simply no seating-on-the-edge moments.<br /><br />There is not much of a crux, so don't expect one either. I would not fault the acting - the show would have been much worst if not for Wu's acting which was the film's only saving grace. And, oh that cute little girl too.<br /><br />The humour is at best, weak, and the show must as well pass off as an anti-drug campaign which employs the usual shock-tactic (esp in the scenes with Zhang) to tell us stuff that we already know - i.e. drugs break up families, heroin drives you crazy, it is not so easy to wean off, you will fall into a vicious cycle.<br /><br />I know it may seem all a little harsh, but I feel that the show is far from seamless and somewhat patchy (*SPOILER ALERT*: Take for example when Andy Lau got brought to the police station: what? we were just told 'oh we have all the tapes and evidence against you since 1997', and THAT is how he got caught. Nope, no chasing-car action, just a jump-of-scene, which kind of undermined Wu's role as an undercover in the first place.) I suspect the lack of creativity is attributed to the fact that it is after all, a production of Mediacorp Raintree - a Singaporean production film company.
Whoa. In the Twin Cities, we have a station that shows a "Big Bad Movie" Monday through Friday. Tonight's nugget was a film with Carrie Fisher called "She's Back" about a really annoying woman who ends up getting murdered when thugs break into her house. Bea (Beatrice) comes back to haunt her husband. She wants him to seek revenge on her killers, hence "she's back". And she won't let him rest until he does so. She irritates him endlessly... and the viewers, too! This movie is truly one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Hey, I like bad movies, though (my fave movie is Xanadu). I was really shaking my head throughout the whole film, wondering who thought this would be a good idea for a movie. Bea is just so annoying. The plot is silly; the acting is bad; the story... well, you get my drift. Anyway, if you wanna see a really bad movie - really really bad movie, check this one out. You won't be disappointed. Heh.
This movie should be number one on the bottom 100. The acting is so horrible that when my son and I watched it we nearly got physically ill. And the story is worse. I could go on and on about how bad it is but all I really wanted to do was add a warning to frankbob's review as I see no one else has gone to the trouble of doing so yet. Don't waste your time, money, energy or anything else on this movie. Thank goodness we saw it on TV so we didn't spend anything on it. Had we, I would have been forced to write the people responsible for this abomination and be forced to hurl an execration in their general direction. In conclusion, I would like to say that I have always enjoyed watching Carrie Fisher act. But I am sad to say that she is not worth watching in this particular film. Don't spoil your opinion of Carrie by viewing it.
Carrie Fisher has stated on more than one occasion that she made this movie during a period of her life when she had a heavy cocaine problem, and she doesn't remember very much of it. That would explain why she made this film, but it doesn't explain why anyone else in the cast or crew did; I can't believe that EVERYBODY had a coke problem. This has to be one of the absolute worst movies ever made, and that's saying something. The blame can't be laid at the feet of "director" Tim Kincaid or "writer" Buddy Giovinazzo, as it is obvious that this picture wasn't written or directed by anyone. Apparently it just spontaneously came together, as there is little evidence of coherency, consistency, design, plot, sense, intelligence or anything else. What is really amazing is that there were some actual professionals who were involved in this glop. Co-star Robert Joy has done good work in other films, and composer Jimmie Haskell and cinematographer Arthur Marks are both industry veterans, Marks also having been a director, and not a bad one. Why they got involved in this steaming pile of offal is beyond comprehension. Tim Kincaid, the alleged "director", has made quite a few low-rent sci-fi and horror films, and, having seen most of them, I can tell you that not a one of them is any good. This one, though, is by far the worst thing he's ever done, and that is a major accomplishment on his part. Everything, absolutely EVERYTHING, about this movie is 12th-rate--at best. The cinematography is terrible, the acting is laughable, the "special effects" make "Plan 9 From Outer Space" look like "Spider-Man", the story is trite, derivative and stupid. Don't waste your time even looking at the video box cover, let alone renting it. A complete, utter, annoying, total dud.
OK this movie was really "unique" shall we say. Carrie Fisher was by far the most talented in the movie, even though it is said she had a coke problem during the movie. but she said that she can't remember to much of it. well thats her excuse but whats everyone else's??? i can't imagine they all had a coke problem.whatever it wasn't all that bad i mean i guess the plot was OK and it had some pretty funny moments. although the part where the guy gets that thing shoved in his head was a little too violent for my taste. oh well i guess i was disappointed cause Carrie fisher is like so awesome and this movie did nothing for her.
While the acting and directing could be argued as having some merit - the storyline is a very poor wannabe Vietnam movie with the country name simply changed.<br /><br />At the very least, for a movie to hold some credibility, try and have some semblance of accuracy in equipment, weapons and tactics. Nevermind the gross misrepresentation of the behaviour of the troops as a norm.<br /><br />Aside for the limited use as silly propaganda about the South African Defence Force, it serves little purpose - definitely no entertainment value.<br /><br />Aspiring movie makers - this is how not to make a war movie. Do some research, and have some pride in your product.
I am a relative latecomer to the transcendent work of film auteur Yasujiro Ozu, whose masterfully understated views of Japanese life, especially in the post-WWII era, illuminate universal truths. Having now seen several of his landmark films such as 1949's "Late Spring" and 1953's "Tokyo Story", I am convinced that Ozu had a particularly idiosyncratic gift of conveying the range of feelings arising from intergenerational conflict through elliptical narratives and subtle imagery. It is Taiwanese director Hou Hsiao-hsien's keen aspiration to pay homage to Ozu on his centenary with this generally enervating 2003 film. Among with co-screenwriter T'ien-wen Chu, Hsiao-hsien appears to get the visuals right but does not capture the requisite emotional weight that would have made the glacial pacing tolerable.<br /><br />The story concerns Yôko, a young Japanese writer researching the life of mid-20th century Taiwanese composer Jiang Wen-Ye in Tokyo after coming back from Taiwan where she taught Japanese. After 25 drawn-out minutes of character set-up, she reveals to her father and stepmother that she is pregnant by one of her students in Taiwan. At the same time, Yôko's coffeehouse friend Hajime, who runs a used bookstore, has an obsession for trains and seems likely to be in love with her. Hsiao-hsien connects this slim plot line with a series of shots held for inordinately lengthy takes as the frame composition changes. There are also long stretches of silence as well as an abundance of scenes featuring trains. While these techniques are consistent with Ozu's style, Hsiao-hsien cannot seem to dive into the characters' psyches the way Ozu did with maximal fluidity and minimal theatrics, in particular, Yôko's plight seems rather non-committal in the scheme of the drama presented and her parents' reaction overly passive to hold much interest. In fact, the whole film has an atmosphere of exhaustion about it, which makes the film feel interminable.<br /><br />The performances are unobtrusive though hardly memorable. J-pop music star Yo Hitoto brings a natural ease to Yôko, while Tadanobu Asano is something of a cipher as Hajime. The rest of the characters barely register, even Nenji Kobayashi and Kimiko Yo as Yôko's parents. Cinematographer Lee Ping-Bing provides expert work though he violates a cardinal rule of Ozu films by not keeping the camera stable during shots. Hitoto speak-sings the fetching pop song used over he ending credits, "Hito-Shian". The DVD includes an hour long, French-made documentary, "Métro Lumière", which actually does help provide some of the context for Hsiao-hsien's approach to the film. It includes excerpts from Ozu's films, in particular, "Equinox Flower", to show the parallels with this film though surprisingly no mention of either "Tokyo Story" or "Early Summer", the obvious basis for some of the scenes and situation set-ups. There are also edited interview clips of Hitoto, Asano and Hsiao-hsien, as well as the film's trailer.
I've given 'Kôhî jikô' a low score not because it was a bad movie, but because it doesn't do anything worth praising.<br /><br />I've not seen any of Hsiao-hsien Hou's work before, but for the uninitiated (me included) 'Kôhî jikô' is advertised as a homage to Yasujiro Ozu. (A Japanese director whose last film was way, way in 1962) The film is an extremely sparse work...containing very little dialogue, story, music or emotion.<br /><br />Yo Hitoto plays 'Yoko' a jobless, wandering character who spends her time in her local coffee shop or loosely investigating a Taiwanese composer she likes. Tadanobu Asano plays her friend, who works in a cd shop and occasionally indulges his otaku interest in trains. And that's about all it.<br /><br />We watch as Yoko drinks coffee alone...walks around...waits for a train...catches a train...falls asleep on the train. The kind of mundane reality anybody in Japan can see on a daily basis. Hou captures these ordinary moments of these characters life, but without any meaning to these vignettes it's an entirely pointless film to make or watch.
Cafe Lumiere is a beautifully photographed nullity. Unacquainted with the work of the director, I am well-acquainted with the filmmaker he is supposedly paying tribute to - Ozu Yasujiro. While not even approaching Ozu in greatness, Hou has communicated nothing of Ozu's depth of emotion and concentration on meaning within a closed space. One of the things he misses entirely is Ozu's attention to character - we are not even "introduced" by Hou to his lead character (a perfect blank page). There are no medium or close shots of his people. One of the DVD extras offers interviews with the actors and gives us precisely what Hou doesn't - a good look at their faces.<br /><br />There was a great Spanish film by Bardem called Nunca Pasa Nada, which translates to something like "Nothing Ever Happens". That would be a far better title to this pointless exercise. All through the film we are given clues about an obscure Taiwanese composer some of whose work we hear on the soundtrack. But the clues, like everything else, add up to nothing. Unless you're a trainspotter, this film has nothing to recommend it.
It's official, folks -- Hou Hsiao-Hsien doesn't have a thought in his pretty little head. Are you wondering why he chose Shu Qi as his muse?<br /><br />Shu ( or is that Qi? ) doesn't appear in this one. Instead we get a snaggletoothed Yo Hitoto, apparently a pop star in Japan -- judging by her song at the end, she's a pop star just like the girl who serves you at Rockin' Curry is "a actriss" -- and a wasted Tadanobu Asano, typically an indicator of quality, who is required to do nothing here but stand around and look like a mumbling Asian hipster and is too old to manage even that. <br /><br />Hou's philosophy? Life is limbo, a big nothing, feel it and move on. I'd like to do that but Hou gives us nothing to feel in Cafe Lumiere beyond a bland photo essay of Life in Tokyo Circa 2003 and the flabbergasting observation that people are ships that pass in the night, no, make that trains that pass in the day, never connecting, each hurtling to its own destination, usually some variant of a dark tunnel or maybe a bridge if they're lucky. Yikes. Flowers of Shanghai is one of the most rarefied, technically accomplished and mesmerizing films of all time. How could the same director who created the opening shot of that film, which features about twelve actors conversing at machine-gun speed for about ten straight minutes -- an impossible directorial feat -- get trapped making this laconic sub-Jarmusch reality porn for two films in a row now? Millennium Mambo may be dead weight, but at least it has two great shots, shots that hint at Hou's true calling as the film equivalent of Odilon Redon: Those shots are the sex scene with the arrhythmically blinking lights and the opening shot of Shu Qi floating down a blue corridor. His M.O. while making Cafe Lumiere seems to have been to remove the two great shots from Millennium Mambo to make it more consistent. You be the judge if that sounds appealing. <br /><br />Hou does not need to refine -- you cannot refine the limbo idea further than Flowers of Shanghai. He needs to expand, to bloat outwards, to release the inner expressionist and genre-revitalizer that is being squandered so senselessly on clichéd minimalism. It's time for him to do a live-action remake of Akira or something. This kind of art film where the actors are supposed to be authentic because they are held facelessly in long-shot and speak in monosyllables is now every last bit as safe, ghettoized and stagnant as the Hollywood action blockbuster. ( What is the connection between "reality" and people who can't talk? It seems to me that people "in real life" never stop jabbering. ) Then again, considering that 2005 alone brought big-budget movies as diverse and rich in ideas as Aeon Flux, The Island, and King Kong, it's now safe to say that even Michael Bay has surpassed Hou, and that's really sad.<br /><br />The good news is that, though Hou is in his 50s, it frankly feels to me as if he hasn't even begun. There are a couple moments in this film that show the promise is still there, such as a moody bit early on in the bookstore when the room dims to a bloody sunset-red while Hitoto talks about babies with the faces of goblins. But whatever fear is holding him back, however comfortable it is to make the same film over and over and be hailed by the gullible and pretentious as the savior of cinema, Hou, your time as the darling of the Rotterdam, Venice, Toronto, Berlin and whatever else film festivals is almost up and people are catching onto your ruse double-quick. Two words for you: Atom Egoyan. Two more words, or maybe three: Tsai Ming-Liang. You are now cribbing from both of these tedious frauds who are about to go up their own dark tunnels forever. Risk your shirt on a sci-fi epic, sell out, be reviled -- but leave the social critiques to people that have no eye and no heart. Let your painterly talent express itself to the full. You're not going to ever get out of limbo otherwise.
"The seventh sign" borrows a lot from "Rosemary's baby" and "the omen" (it actually blends the two stories).Even its title recalls Bergman' s "the seventh seal" .<br /><br />Nevertheless,it begins well enough,with all the omens scattered on the whole earth,and in parallel ,a -seemingly- distinct plot with Moore's husband trying to save a poor boy (who killed his parents who were brother and sister)from death penalty.This time,both Christian and Jewish religions are called to the rescue (even the Wandering Jew is involved),which makes the lines sometimes unintentionally funny (Have you ever been to Sunday school? But they taught me that God was love!).The best scene IMHO ,is the short dialog between priest John Heard -who does not seem to take things seriously ,too bad he was not given a more important part because his laid-back acting is priceless-and the young Jew.<br /><br />Demi Moore probably registered the same desire as ex-husband Bruce Willis :saving the world.She does not save the movie for all that.
When I saw this film on FearNet, I thought it would be a scary movie. Apparently, it wasn't. I have no clue how this movie was allowed to be featured on that site. FearNet is a site that shows scary horror movies.<br /><br />The acting is wonderful from all the actors. I hated the story. The story was stupid. The movie starts out with a man with a scroll with a signia stamped onto it. He breaks the seal and certain disasters happen. The water turns to blood, the oceans die out, the moon turns red, etc. <br /><br />The female character was annoying as well. A lot of the stuff she did didn't make sense. Like when she sees a piece of paper with a date on it. Coincidentally, it's the date she's expected to give birth to her baby and she starts freaking out about it and starts researching it and asking religious people what it all means.<br /><br />*Spoiler Alert* <br /><br />The two worst things happened in this movie are the execution of a mentally retarded man who claimed that God told him to murder his parents and the end where Demi Moore dies after giving birth to her baby and transferring her soul into it.<br /><br />Here's what happens. The mentally retarded person gets shot and killed and the apocalypse begins. Demi Moore gets into a hospital in the middle of a massive earthquake and gives birth to her child. She touches her child's head, transferring her soul into the child and then dies. Then, the apocalypse stops.<br /><br />Why does God all of a sudden have a change of heart? He gets furious when the Governor allows the execution of a mentally retarded man then he's all about forgiveness once a lone woman transfers her soul into her baby? <br /><br />*End Spoiler* <br /><br />The movie is pretty stupid. It's another religious end of the world propaganda piece. The acting from Demi Moore and Michael Biehn and everybody else is excellent. That's about all there is.<br /><br />I give this movie 2 stars out of 10. Good acting with a lot of nonsense!
one word boring.<br /><br />the young demi looks good, but she's pregnant (- point for that =D) the movie is not scary at all...<br /><br />the first scenes looked little crappy, i could render better clouds with my laptop, and after effects. but that was then... and now is now. some movies do not get old well... this is one of them.<br /><br />not worth renting or buying... get something better instead like the exorcist, ...<br /><br />next =D<br /><br />oh the drama part in the beginning just and simply suxor =D
The movie confuses religious ethics and ideals so much that it fails to create coherent argument against the death penalty on any level. By presenting the lawful execution of a convicted murder as the catalyst for the apocalyptic end of mankind the movie elevates a parent killer to the status of martyr for Christ. Somehow, according to the plot, god is outraged that society has chosen to rid it's self of a fanatic who killed his own parents by starting them on fire while they slept defenselessly in their beds. Yet this same god has no indignation for the acts of the killer. The lead character, an nonreligious pregnant suicidal woman, ultimately gives her own life in a defiant but implausible attempt to unsuccessfully save this convicted killer. In other threads of the underdeveloped plot Jesus comes back as a powerless and frustrated vagabond to symbolically unleash the wrath of God. The modern lackluster incarnation of Christ not just dehumanizes him but mocks the messianic ideal of all religions as well. He is unable to affect humanity for good and unemotionally skates the edges of life waiting for mankind to destroy it's self. Meanwhile, with little help from Jesus the mentally unstable pregnant woman finds herself with the ability to reincarnate herself into her newly born soulless child which somehow saves all of mankind from the wrath of the almighty. I also interpreted that as a statement in support of abortion on some levels. This movie which attempts to weave many religious themes into a thriller fails to make any religious point that I could clearly interpret except to mock people's beliefs. It raises many questions that it never even attempts to answer. It disregards the religious values of its audience while attempting to portray an asinine version of their fulfillment. Silly
<br /><br />Dull Demi, going thru the motions. Ditto Prochnow. Ominous portents that elicit yawns. Michael Biehn trying to be dynamic, which ain't his shtick.<br /><br />To quote Buffy Summers, "If the apocalypse comes...beep me."<br /><br />Going back to sleep now.
THE SEVENTH SIGN has a great opening hook as the Israeli defence force come across a terrorist base . This is the type of hook that is a must when writing a script , it grabs the reader / audience and the introduction of David Bannon as he rents a room from Abby and Russell Quinnn telegraphs the point that this is a man who`s not who he says he is . However after the great opening third I found the rest of the movie confusing and uninvolving with a large number of plotholes and isn`t all that different from umpteen other supernatural thrillers that I`ve seen
Really. Does any week go by that Oprah doesn't remind us that she was abused as child?<br /><br />She makes herself the focus of every interview.<br /><br />Oprah cannot resist commenting on the answer to every question she asks. She often interrupts guests before an answer is finished to interject her own aside or anecdote. Directors are obviously instructed to focus on her closeup reaction rather than guest's faces because that's what counts - what Oprah feels, what Oprah says.<br /><br />Oprah, Oprah, Oprah. It's always all about Oprah.<br /><br />Oprah says - Feel sorry for me, I was so poor. Feel the pain of my battle with my weight. Feel my hurt when I'm turned away from a fancy store after they've already closed. Feel good for buying my magazines and books. Feel good for my success. Feel good when you give to my charity to make me look good. Feel good for making me rich beyond belief.<br /><br />My interpretation of her point of view: YOU VIEWERS ARE ALL DEEPLY FLAWED AND YOU NEED MY DAILY ADVICE. I have all the answers for your life though I have nothing in common with you plebes. I have never been married nor do I want to be. I have never had to raise a family - but I know all about it. I have little respect for men or marriage. I clearly prefer people like me over others - witness "Legends Ball 2006". Gayle is my best friend but we are not gay.<br /><br />As of 7/31/2006, the heading on her website actually reads : "Oprah.com is your leading source for information about love, life, self, relationships, food, home, spirit and health." How presumptive and obnoxious is that ? <br /><br />In June 2006, she crashed two private wedding receptions in Oklahoma to gather footage for her September 2006 shows. She keeps promising to quit TV but her yapfest drags on with no end in sight.<br /><br />Contrary to what she thinks, Oprah is neither a queen nor a goddess nor on a personal mission from God. She's just one very lucky, overweight, black woman who copied Phil Donahue's style and called it her own. She happened to be in the right place at the right time and knew exactly how to suck up to the right demographic. <br /><br />Oprah is the P.T. Barnum of this age and it amazes me that people cannot see through her facade. <br /><br />So ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls and you too Oprah if you can fit that inflated ego through the door - This way now to the great egress ...
As the 2000's came to a close, king Kong's adopted daughter went ahead and made a tearful announcement her show as coming to an end.<br /><br />While Miss Winfrey was tearing up, i was laughing and screaming like a wild Indian from the old west.<br /><br />So what does Oprah do? she takes famous people, and puts them on her show. what kind of famous people? people who've suffered (just like her, except these people have lost more than their virginity) they've suffered melted faces (true story), missing limbs (True story, see end of paragraph), and spousal abuse (too many to count). and somehow they come on the show and tell their story, as if we haven't heard it before tons and tons of times (Bethany Hamilton, i've heard your tale about losing an arm to a shark since day one, which was October 31st, 2003. don't tell me you have no hard feelings.) But the biggest thing probably on Oprah was Michael Jackson's interview in 1993, after being accused of being a child molester. sadly, Mr. Jackson has since passed away. but that one particular show told about Michael's personal life, something not many people knew about at the time.<br /><br />Oprah's Real influence comes from middle aged women and soccer moms. They seem to think she's like a personal Jesus sometimes. but all i see in Oprah is some big ghetto lady who made it big, and she's just showing off how rich she is.<br /><br />I'm glad her shows going to end soon. we need better television programs.
Guy de Maupassant was a novelist who wrote a novel about a man, a poor man, without any moral qualities. He only wanted to success in a society where all the people, the politic men, the businessmen, the journalists, the women are corrupt. The only king is MONEY. The Maupassant hero, Charles Forestier is going higher and higher in the society scale thanks to his seduction poser. He is in love with all the women who could help him in his action to climb the society stapes. At the end of the novel, he married himself with the biggest daily paper owner's daughter, in the greatest church of Paris : "La Madeleine". "Le Tout Paris" is there. He has a fortune and more, he will become a member of Parliament and later a Minister. The "useless" women are out of his view, but he is always keeping in touch with the pretty and the usefull women. The picture "THE PRIVATE AFFAIRS OF BEL AMI" is a story of MORALITY. It is everything, but not a story in the Maupassant idea. Why had they put "BEL AMI" in its title ?
From the decrepit ranks of the already over-saturated 'Hillybilly Horror' sub-genre comes this woeful tale of a vacationing family terrorized by inbred rednecks. Sound familiar? Well it most definitely should to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the horror genre. There is absolutely new here. The film seems content to recycle all thee old worn out clichés (deformed hicks, a peaceful family turned gun-toting killers when push comes to show, the rebellious daughter, the one 'freak' who's good at heart, etcetera...), but does even that half-heartedly enough to make this an utter waste of time. This is forgettable dreck, but humorously enough lead J.D. Hart once starred in a movie called "Films that Suck" earlier in his career, quite an ironic omen indeed.<br /><br />My Grade: D-
A family looking for some old roadside attractions to include in the father's coffee-table book come across an ancient, decrepit old freak show run by an eccentric one-eyed man. When their family van breaks down upon leaving the sideshow, they're forced to stay at a nearly abandoned fishing camp that was the site of a prison break decades prior.<br /><br />There have been many films in the 'freak' subgenre of horror, ranging from Tod Browning's beloved 'Freaks' (1932) to Alex Winter's hilarious 'Freaked' (1993). Those are both classics (or soon-to-be with 'Freaked'). 'Side Sho,' however, never will be. And if it ever does reach classic status. . . well, it will be an obvious clue to the sad state of our genre. From the ridiculously bad opening song to the 17-year-old daughter that's obviously older than her natural mother, this film did not have much going for it. The writing was subpar, but not completely awful. . . just boring. The direction was poor, and the rare freak effects were pretty horrendous and unbelievable. The acting was abysmal and the casting was even worse. Anyone who would believe the ages of these two camp-age teenagers must not have met a teenager in a long, long time. There was far from enough gore & violence to make up for the lack of any other quality. . . and when there was a bit of violence, it was not well done at all. And, I can't forget to mention the ending fight scenes which were, with all honesty, some of the worst I've ever, ever seen in a film. Overall, this is an easily forgettable and poorly made horror film that deserves to be left alone at the bottom of the dollar bin.<br /><br />Final verdict: 2.5/10.
After 30 seconds, you already realize that there was no real budget for this cheap knock-off. The story is taken from great movies like "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "Hills have Eyes". I like those kind of movies, even if they're duplicated well (Wrong Turn, Timber Falls, Carver). <br /><br />But "Side Sho" is hard to watch: the actors are really bad, the dialogue is cheesy and the music is stupid and totally misplaced. You do not care at all what happens to the characters. The so-called bad guys are also not interesting at all and rather stereotypical. So how about the blood and gore ? Well there is some, although it is rather cheap and the action is executed very poorly. 2 Points, just for the gore and blood but do understand that this is hardly worth a look, even for the gore-hounds..
Yet ANOTHER movie about a group of less-than-intelligent individuals on a road trip who wander off their original travel route for either a short-cut or, in this case, to visit a run-down side show attraction. The results, as expected, are not at all good, as this particular side show is home to a bunch of lunatic, in-bred residents who were escaped prison inmates from years before. The father, who is apparently a professionally photographer, just HAS to stop and take pictures of the place, only to find that it still inhabited. The various members of the family wander off to view the various attractions, only to be scared away. Thinking they made it safely on their way, the van tire explodes (surprise!), leaving them to seek refuge and accommodations in the small town, which we find out is inhabited solely by the freaks (surprise!).<br /><br />This film plays out as expected, with the family being stalked and killed by the freaks. There is some fighting back on the families part, but these are probably among the worst scenes in the film, as they are badly executed. There is nothing remotely original here, unless you count the totally inappropriate soundtrack that is played during particular scenes that completely ruins the atmosphere and mood of the film. The acting is about as bad as I have seen in quite some time by everyone involved (it is pretty bad when your cast is out-acted by the cast of "Camp Blood). The special effects are lousy and the ending made me want to punch my television.<br /><br />Still, though, despite all the negatives, I somewhat enjoyed this film. It definitely has a "so bad it's good" vibe to it. I made it through the entire movie and was even pleasantly entertained once I got past the ridiculously clichéd plot, terrible acting, and cheesy special effects. Though the ending left me feeling cheated and angry, particularly because the film is not that great to begin with and the ending makes the entire film pointless.<br /><br />Bottom line, I can list countless films that if you have seen them, you have seen this. The difference is most of those film are better. Though not a complete waste, this film is pretty bad and not remotely scary.<br /><br />My Grade: D
"Fred Claus" somehow avoids becoming this year's "The Santa Clause" by at least having a bit more amusing moments than that Tim Allen starrer, but it doesn't mean that it's got enough going for it that's worth a trip to the theater.<br /><br />As holiday movies go, it's contrived and sentimental. But actually, that could be the least of one's concern as "Fred Claus," boasting of having David Dobkin ("Shanghai Knights," "The Wedding Crashers") at the helm, contains virtually nary a genuinely funny moment as it clumsily treads the line between a boorish Vince Vaughn vehicle and a fuzzy Christmas film. In the end, it amounts to not much of both. And with a cast that comprises of Paul Giamatti, Kevin Spacey, Rachel Weisz, and Kathy Bates, all the more it leaves one disappointed.<br /><br />Vaughn plays Fred, Nick's (Giamatti) older and estranged brother, who once upon a time, left him and their parents (Bates and Trevor Peacock) after having had enough of enduring his parents' favoritism of his younger sibling. Nick grows up to be Santa Claus (and as the voice-over tells us, time freezes on you and your family when you become a saint), while Fred becomes a Yuletide-jaded repo man in Chicago who's having a hard time remembering his girlfriend Wanda's (Weisz) birthday.<br /><br />He runs in trouble with the law and had to call his younger brother (who eerily looks at least a decade older than him) to bail him out of jail. Nick agrees but only if Fred agrees to help out on the toy-wrapping business up in the North Pole. Fred reluctantly agrees but his cynicism clashes with Santa and the elves' perpetually cheery nature, even as an efficiency expert (Spacey) is checking on the toy factory operations, only too happy to have the whole Arctic operations shut down if things fail.<br /><br />The film, as said, does have its moments, but the padded running length stretches them thin across its duration. In between are piles of Christmas film clichés that were handled better in, say, "Elf" and the attempts at sentimentality are as endearing as last year's fruitcake.<br /><br />Vaugn, as usual, brings on his coarse charm to the table, but the neutered script of Dan Fogelman keeps him from REALLY doing his thing. Giamatti, underneath the bad fat suit, brings a jolly old charm to his iconic character, but unfortunately, has to play second fiddle to Fred. Spacey brings his game face, but his turns usually end as unfunnily vapid.<br /><br />Ultimately, "Fred Claus" becomes a forgettable film that falls below what those involved in it deserve. Sure, there are worse ways to start the season at the cinema, but there are certainly far better ways.
My Take: A tired formula Christmas comedy. The laughs are tired and the talents behind it seem to be too.<br /><br />I love the holidays as much as the next guy (even if I often have a bad case of the holiday blues), but it seems it's just being a dumping ground for a bunch of Holiday comedies that would be bad movies on any day of the year, but that doesn't make them any less painful during the season. As if we already had enough SANTA CLAUSE movies (three and *gulp* still counting), who wants to see a movie about his brother? In a plot that would be at home with Disney's SANTA CLAUSE franchise (save the occasionally crude humor and Santa's "Little" Helper wearing a short skirt), FRED CLAUS is a one-joke premise that goes on for 116 minutes. Sure, Jolly Ol' Saint Nick has a brother, but where does it go from there? <br /><br />It's a shame really. FRED CLAUS is blessed with a cast that could have made it an enjoyable Christmastime comedy that will probably melt away along with the snow, but it would have been so much better than this. Vince Vaughn is your typical snob, but we are led to believe he's really the long lost brother of the never-aging Santa (Paul Giamatti), who invites his good ol' brother to visit. Mrs. Claus (Miranda Richardson) is reluctant, and worse, an efficiency expert (Kevin Spacey) has come to keep a watchful eye on Father Christmas, and his THIS close to being shut down. Hah! And guess who plays Santa's mother! Kathy Bates of course. Elizabeth Banks is Santa's Helper Charlene, John Michael Higgins is one of the elves, and Rachel Wiesz plays Fred's girlfriend! SI don't know if I'd praise the casting or to bash it. Here we have some familiar faces to add a touch of quality, but they're given way too little to work with.<br /><br />As for humor, the best that FRED CLAUS could possibly come up with is Santa's brother being his exact opposite and some joke about a DJ elf. I have to admit I had a few giggles involving Fred attending a group counseling for celebrity brothers (where he is joined by Stephen Baldwin, Roger Clinton and Frank Stallone), but the giggles begin and end there. Worse still, the movie even succumbs into sentimentality that's supposed to make us "feel good" and teach us a lesson about "what Christmas really means". Apparently, what Christmas means to Hollywood is getting as much of our leftover Christmas shopping money as they can.<br /><br />Rating: ** out of 5.
It's always tough having a sibling doing better in their life than you, always a struggle to get out from under that shadow and not let bitterness keep you away from your family. So, imagine that your older brother is Santa and then imagine how tough that must be. That's the premise here.<br /><br />Vince Vaughn plays the titular Fred, an embittered loser who spends a lot of his energy making sure that people don't go around expecting good things to happen to them or giving his brother, Santa (played by Paul Giamatti), too much praise for simply being the limelight-hogging, fame-hungry, slightly creepy guy that Fred would want to portray him as. Then, wouldn't you know it, Fred needs a financial favour and so has to make up for it by helping his brother on the run up to Christmas. And hilarity and life lessons ensue.<br /><br />Well, that's what should happen. The reality is that we get a Christmas movie featuring a few good moments of Vaughn's patented fast-talking, a ridiculously out-of-nowhere music video moment, Kevin Spacey playing an auditor out to close down Santa's operation (and he's one of the weakest baddies I have seen in some time), not enough of the gorgeous Elizabeth Banks in a lush Christmas outfit, too much of John Michael Higgins in his elf outfit (to be fair, he's a highlight though) and a movie that's too swimming in bitterness to feel like good seasonal fare yet too schmaltzy in it's latter half to feel like a fun poke at all the bad things about the commercialism of the time.<br /><br />Rachel Weisz is along for the ride too, as is Kathy Bates, but it's really nothing more than a movie for Vaughn and if you like his style you will find something to enjoy here. Unfortunately, there's very little else to recommend this seasonal stinker. Outside of Vaughn's rantings the script barely throws up anything decent with the exception of one particularly good scene involving a hilarious support group dealing with a very specific problem.<br /><br />David Dobkin's direction is as mediocre and staid as the 20p Christmas card that you send the auntie you haven't seen in 10 years and he seems to think that simply putting the ingredients together without a good mix or decent care taken will guarantee a delicious Christmas pudding. Nope, we get a burnt, bland lump with too much sugar on top. Forget this and stick the hilarious Elf on again if you want a great, modern Christmas comedy.<br /><br />See this if you like: The Santa Clause 2, Santa Baby, The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause.
The most ridiculous thing about this ridiculous movie is its conceit that if one becomes a saint, he or she and his or her family and his or her significant other live forever. Let's forget that in order to become a saint, the saint must be dead, and saints don't have significant others. That, for a millennium, Nick has been the Jolly Elf to Fred's Scrooge is never even hinted at! Open on Nick learning how to make toys, then on Fred learning how to run numbers; Nick giving a sick child a dolly, Fred repossessing the dolly, along with the family farm! After a few more such episodes, morph to present-day Fred venting his spleen at Siblings Anonymous as his fellow losers nod in empathy. There, I just wrote a more cohesive storyline than this idiocy!<br /><br />This Santa, who is one "ho, ho, ho, ho, ho" away from a massive coronary, is a neurotic wuss saddled with the Queen of the Harpies, an operation straight out of Mega-Mall Hell, and answers to a Board (huh?) which just gave the Easter Bunny his pink egg. Oh, and his right-hand man is a ditzy blonde in a skin-tight mini-dress and go-go boots. Ho... ho... ho... ho... ho!<br /><br />But what really sent me over the edge was Slam being named #1 on the Naughty List. Shouldn't a Naughty List be reserved for the future Hitlers and Stalins? Children who are the true embodiments of evil? Nope, to Old Sausage-Fingers, a good boy who lashes out because he is unwanted and unloved is the Demon Seed!<br /><br />The nimrods behind Fred Claus should be boiled in their own pudding! Bah!
I went into this movie expecting it to be really god-awful. And it was. I really felt sorry for the star-studded cast- Kathy Bates was a wonderful actress... before she made this movie- Vince Vaughn and Paul Giamatti were disappointing as usual but Miranda Richardson couldn't put in one of the fabulous performances I know and love her for. Fred's dad, played by Trevor Peacock (of Vicar of Dibley fame, amongst others), had about one line.<br /><br />The plot was predictable and all over the place, and the humour was... lacking. (However, there was one part of the movie where Santa enters the house of a Jewish family... that made me laugh just because their expressions were classic) Don't see this movie unless your only other alternative is having a head-on collision with a train (actually- maybe the train would be better...)
Did anyone read the script. This has to be some of the worst writing and directing of the entire year. Three great actors, Paul Giamatti, Rachel Weisz and Miranda Richardson couldn't pull this one out. About two-thirds it looked like Giamatti eyes were saying, I can't believe I signed the contract. It's not the worst movie I ever saw, but it's on the really really bad Christmas movie list. Not enough lines, but what else can be said? Okay, the movie just doesn't move with Vaughn's con-man dialogue, his character is just a creepy guy that you just can't get past. It was just a lackluster walk through, that no one seemed to be able to get into.
Oh my. I decided to go out to the cinemas with some friends, wanting to watch one of those mild, feel-good Christmas movies, and I walk out disgusted. The movie failed. Full-stop. Paul Giamatti who I consider as a good actor played his character and roll just horribly, along with Vince Vaughn who has always been a personal favourite of mine. They try and turn a Christmas movie, into some new-style. Sort of bad, mixed with good, but it all turned out very wrong. The first ten or so minutes weren't too bad, but once we saw Santa, it was over. It didn't get any better, the rate stayed the same, there was NO character development, and certainly is one of the worst Christmas movies ever invented. Don't watch it, whatever you do.
This is almost like two films--one literate and engaging, the other stupid and clichéd. It's really a shame all the problems weren't worked out with the writing, but considering how quickly most B-movies were written and produced, this isn't too unusual. It's a real shame, though, as this could have been a very good film.<br /><br />First the good. The movie is original and involves WWII code-breakers. This is pretty fascinating and I liked watching the leading man (Lee Bowman) go through his paces as a master code-breaker. In fact, the first two-thirds of the film was very good. But now for the bad, the film just went on way too long and lost steam at about 50 minutes. Additionally, Jean Rogers' role as the "kooky girlfriend" must rank as one of the worst-written and distracting roles in film history!! For every smart move made by Bowman, the idiot Rogers then stepped in to screw things up as some sort of misguided "comedy relief". If her role had been intelligently written, the overall film would have improved immensely! Instead, watching her, it's hard to understand how we actually won WWII!!
This is a rather tame fluff piece concerning WW II codes being broken, stolen, etc. The acting is about what I expected from this cast of MGM "B" actors.<br /><br />One big caution. Jean Rogers, who did such a great job playing the very sexy Dale Arden in the first two Flash Gordon serials is just awful in this movie. Her character is extremely annoying. She absolutely never lets-up with her overacting. We are supposed to believe that during the height of a World War in what would obviously be a Top Secret code facility, she would be allowed to just pop in and out of any office of her choosing although she has no official function. From that standpoint I'm sorry that I ever watched this film. It has forever changed my perception of Ms. Rogers. Talentwise, she is an extreme lightweight.<br /><br />Lee Bowman is his usual self, meaning that he is merely adequate.<br /><br />
Ludicrous violations of the most basic security regs are only the beginning. It's hard to see how they achieved such abysmal trash on such a low budget. I turned it off once, then got curious to see if it could get any worse. It did.
I went to see this movie (actually I went to see Family Portraits, which contains Cutting Moments + 2 other short films by Douglas Buck) at the Mar del Plata festival (Argentina)... I just couldn't watch it! I had to cover my eyes after the 1st half of Cutting Moments and take a peek every once in a while. By the time it was over, my stomach was upside down and I felt light headed. I just HAD to leave the cinema a few minutes after the 2nd short begun (BTW, of course I was not the only one who left the room). It was WAAAAY too violent and disgusting for me! I am impressed by the many brave people who actually loved it. I just don't get how you can love that kind of movies! The shocking and bloody and horrible images I saw got really stuck in my head for like two days!! I also try to analyze the story (my boyfriend did see the whole thing and told me about it) and I just don't think it makes any sense. I mean, that amount of violence and stuff, makes no other sense than to try to shock people. And that's not a good enough reason, I think. There's absolutely nothing in this movie that I can say "Well, at least 'x' thing about it was good". But well, I guess I will never understand that kind of films.
The reason the DVD releases of this film are in black and white is because nobody can get their hands on a color print of this public domain film, a modest sea story at best.<br /><br />Distributed for television thru Allied Artists, DVD's (or VHS) on the market at this time for this title are all coming from the same 16MM television print. Films distributed for television prior to 1963 were often distributed in b/w prints, because the bulk of viewers did not have color sets anyway. Striking b/w prints for television was also cheaper, as it often involved quite a few prints to cover all stations running a film on a syndicated basis.
"A trio of treasure hunters is searching the West Indies for a hidden fortune. The lure of gold makes for a rise in tension as the men come closer to the treasure's location. The deep-sea divers hope to track down the gold, but find that greed and hatred leads to murder," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. "Manfish" is the name of their boat, not a monster. The skeleton who gives muscular Captain John Bromfield (as Brannigan) his half of the treasure map is very good. Old salt Victor Jory (as Professor) provides the other half of the map. First mate Lon Chaney Jr. (as Swede) plays dumb, and sexy Tessa Prendergast (as Alita) guards the rum (not very well, obviously). Serious editing and continuity problems mar the picture, which otherwise might have amounted to something.<br /><br />*** Manfish (2/56) W. Lee Wilder ~ John Bromfield, Victor Jory, Lon Chaney Jr.
Have you ever sat watching a movie when 20 or 30 minutes have gone by and suddenly you realize that you have actually seen the movie before? That happened to me with "The Young Graduates". The cover of the video box, if you can find the video, is extremely deceiving. I'd swear that the two women on the cover aren't even in the film.<br /><br />Anyway, I was either born a decade too late to appreciate the finer points of this film or...it is simply pointless junk. I'm heavily leaning toward the latter but I guess some out there have developed a connection to this movie.<br /><br />Hmm...plot. A plot. Let's see...there must be a plot around here somewhere. Nope, I can't find it. It's pretty much about some high school seniors acting dopey and doing drugs and speaking in a language that became outdated decades ago. One of the female students has a crush on her teacher. The teacher has a frigid wife (whom he indeed refers to as an iceberg) so he is receptive to the girl's advances.<br /><br />There's a lot of driving around and inane dialogue and plenty of spastic dancing. Our cat, BooBoo, was transfixed by the dancing high school kids. She watched with amazing intensity as the dancers gyrated and shook out on the dance floor. It's nice to see that at least one species has found something interesting in this relic. 1/10
90 minutes of Mindy...Mindy is a tease to boyfriend Bill...Mindy prances at the high school dance...Mindy hitchhikes to Big Sur, shoplifts a loaf of "shepherd's bread," Mindy nearly gets gang-raped... Ah, the pleasures of Crown International drive-in features. You must remember that these films were never designed to be watched start to finish on DVD players. They were made as 90 minutes of ambiance so the teens of the 70s would have a soundtrack as they got it on in their Pintos and Citations. The lack of pacing and structure didn't matter to the original audience -- they probably only tuned in when the T & A on screen matched what they were up to, out in the parking lot. The film is really irritating when watched as a story. It's a lot more fun to talk about it than watch it. My favorite inanities: 1) Bill and his friend accompany the teacher to find Mindy. With no luggage or change of underwear, they spend 2 nights sharing a motel room with the teacher, just like in real life. 2)After being abducted and nearly raped by depraved bikers, and after their innocent friend "Pan" is savagely beaten, Mindy and her girlfriend find an unattended motorcycle on the road. Mindy immediately brightens up and chirps, "I'm going' to Big Sur!!" But again, it's a lot more fun to talk/read about than sit through.
I watched this film last night with anticipation, but really wasn't very impressed.<br /><br />With the exception of 'Combo', I thought the acting was poor and the narrative was limited. It came across like a 'made for TV' drama.<br /><br />I felt that the film was very contrived. The whole set up of hammering in the context at the start (yes, we get that this is 80s Britain - you can stop now) was tiresome, and gave a very one-sided view of what life was like in 80s Britain - poverty, war juxtaposed with royalty, Margaret Thatcher, yet nothing in between? There were actually middle-classes who existed back then - just ordinary working people, with a decent wage and a mortgage. The Falklands clips also seemed to be added randomly towards the end, for 'dramatic effect', I presume.<br /><br />The sequence of events felt a tad disjointed, as the characters moved one one action to the next without us seeing how their mindset could've changed so quickly.<br /><br />The relationship between 'Shaun' and 'Smell' was toe-curling. I couldn't even look during the snogging scene. I find it very hard to believe that she would've been attracted to a boy who was not only so much younger, but also looked so much younger. I know there were only four years between them, but four years is nothing once you reach your twenties, yet it's a huge difference in your teens! In my experience, that kind of teen age difference only occurs when the girl is the younger one, since girls mature so much quicker, and are more on the wavelength of boys a few years older. Sorry, but I didn't buy it - an unnecessary plot point created for shock value.<br /><br />The ending was somewhat abrupt and, again, contrived. If the flag throwing incident was supposed to be iconic, then it fell somewhat short in my eyes.<br /><br />It bugs me that British films only concern themselves with either the upper classes or the poverty-stricken. Don't get me wrong, I love Trainspotting, and Four Weddings has its charms, but can't we Brits come up with anything different? Why are our films always so hung up on the class system? I was born in 1973, so wasn't much different in age to 'Shaun' would've been in 1983. I grew up in a single parent family on a fairly down-trodden council estate in a city in England. However, my childhood experiences were vastly different to those portrayed in the film - I don't even remember racism being an issue (although i'm not saying it didn't exist). 'This is England'? Not in my experience.<br /><br />The bottom line is that I felt this film lacked substance, and I was completely bored and unimpressed throughout.
The mood of this movie is pretty good and it captures the feel of the 80's well with some good performances.<br /><br />However..... <br /><br />The script is run of the mill with the exception of a couple of comedic moments and comes off as being weird where I expect it was intended to be edgy. The characters are totally over dramatized and unbelievable and full of right wing clichés that the script writer probably saw watching a panorama documentary on the national front. The biggest problem is this movie has no real story. It ticks all the right "arty" boxes but nothing actually happens and at the end you are left wondering what the point was.<br /><br />Very disappointing
The title of this obscure and (almost righteously) forgotten 80's slasher inevitably reminds me of The Cure's mega-smash-monster hit song with the same title, hence a piece of the lyrics in the title-section of this user comment. Also, I didn't have anything else to say that was useful, anyway. But hey, "The Forest" isn't totally hopeless and not even *that* bad, actually. If nothing else, at least it obeys the, admittedly unwritten, first rule of 80's slasher: kill someone within the first 10 minutes of playtime. Sure you've heard about the basic premise of this film a dozen times before, but don't let that discourage you from watching it, as "The Forest" has a couple of things more to offer than just an appealingly sinister cover image. It's actually a bit of an atypical 80's slasher! The main characters aren't ordinary brainless teenagers and the script has solid ambitions towards supernaturalism. The concept isn't always successful, let alone plausible, but it's more than interesting enough to hold your attention and there are even are a couple of surprisingly strong moments of tension and plot twists to enjoy. Two married couples decide to go camping in the most isolated woods of California, but due to a stupid bet the wives travel separately from their husbands. Barely set up for the night, they receive uncanny visits from a mother looking for her two children, the children themselves and finally the father who's out hunting for human flesh. The demented family may be real or imaginary, but the women are definitely in danger and by the time their husbands arrive, they have already vanished. The men too encounter the family, and they find out more about the slightly dysfunction background. "The Forest" is a weird and unusual film, to say the least. It's not exactly a masterpiece of plotting, but the thoroughly strange atmosphere will certainly appeal to open-minded fans of 80's horror. The murders are fairly gruesome and will-filmed, including a slit throat and a painful saw-massacre, and the filming locations are stunningly beautiful. The more you contemplate about the story and its abrupt twists, the less it makes any sense, so my advice would just be to enjoy this odd viewing experience for as long as it lasts and not a minute longer. The acting performances are just above average, the music is okay and at least director Donald Jones (also responsible for the 70's exploitation-sickie "Schoolgirls in Chains") tried to be a little more creative that the majority of 80's horror films. Too bad it ultimately fails.
One of the most boring slashers ever.. If you can even call it that. I wouldn't watch this if it even ended up being some kind of porno movie, which it completely resembles. The fact that you're watching a small group of middle-aged people in the woods is really unbearable. They made these kinds of movies for teens, so who were they really aiming for when they made this sleep-fest? My favorite part of this movie is the cover art and it's the only reason I chose to seek out this movie, which happened to be part of a Suspense Classics 50 Movie Pack.. and after seeing the other movies in this 50 pack, you'll realize that it belongs nowhere else. So if you're in the mood for a decent slasher in the woods, I recommend Just Before Dawn and The Final Terror.
A cannibalistic backwoods killer is on the prowl and two bickering couples might be his next source of protein in this bargain basement Friday the 13th-clone cheapie. There s literally nothing of interest to see in this one, the killings are surprisingly sparse and when they do happen, completely amateurish. It also adds ghosts into the mix for no reason what so ever. I felt drained after watching it as if my brain was liquefying and draining out my nose. And it remains without a doubt Donald Jones' worst movie. If you're thinking of renting it because of Code Red's snazzy new DVD re-release Don't bother<br /><br />My Grade: F
I mean of all the obscure, overlooked, low budget horror movies waiting to be re-discovered in a DVD release, why pick THE FOREST? I love ultra low budget direct to home video or other alternative release horror. I love 80s hacker horror. I love backwoods slashers with fools wandering off into the night to be chased, murdered and eaten by psychopaths. I am all for the idea of non-professionals working on a horror movie as a way to maybe break into the industry or just making a movie because they want to make one. I am all for using found public locations, non-actors, no name talent behind the camera and in the studio. NO PROBLEM! The most evocative image from THE FOREST is it's opening shot of a couple walking in the distance across a forest into the woods: We see them as tiny, vulnerable creatures entering a dank gloomy world where humans may not be the top of the food chain or most feared predator. Then the film takes a dive & never recovers -- we briefly meet the backpacking couple just as they realize that they are being stalked. They get separated, both are butchered, and then we meet the movie's protagonists as they drive their car in a traffic jam. They meet up with their respective mates and decide to take a camping trip. Sounds of snoring fill the room as people who came over to watch a movie fiddle with their cell phones text messaging people not there telling them how much the movie sucks.<br /><br />This film is too slow, this movie is too boring, and this movie is too talky. Which wouldn't be such a bad thing if the writers had given the people something to say other than the most stupid, asinine and unnecessary things. You know your horror movie is in trouble when the character with the most interesting lines is the droopy-faced park ranger who warns everyone away from the Cannibal Woods. And speaking of these "woods" they look about as far away from civilization as the overgrown vacant lot behind the soccer fields, only with bigger rocks and a stream flowing through it. There are impressive shots of the forest primeval, but no real sense of being out in the middle of it. If any one of the characters just sat down on the trail and waited long enough someone would amble by.<br /><br />What is worse about the film is that it fails to generate any human interest: I don't know who these couples are and don't care what happens to them. The hermit cannibal slasher guy is uninteresting even when pretending to saw freshly cooked meat off the leg of one of his victims to serve grisly bites to her boyfriend, who just happens to seek shelter in his cave. The irony of which is the epitome of "underwhelming". Coupled with a deliberately ominous synthesizer music score, cinematography that suspiciously looks like someone strapped a camera on a dog and it follow people's movements, a lack of appreciable gore, nudity, lurid thrills and unwholesome atmosphere and what we have here is a horror movie that isn't even as frightening as a PBS educational TV show about how magnets work.<br /><br />I don't mean to "dish it out" to the people behind this film, since they obviously went into the project with next to nothing, did not push themselves to be creative and ended up with just another boring movie about some maggot chasing women through the woods with a knife. There is nothing wrong with that concept, what is wrong is the unimaginative and utterly pedestrian way this was executed, right down to the utterly pointless conclusion when the film simply peters out at about the 80 minute mark. The best thing that you can say about THE FOREST is that it is over relatively quickly and there isn't much to command a repeat screening -- Hence my confusion at why anyone would feel the need for a DVD release. It was fine as a Prism Video rental years oddity, as a DVD it will be $5.99 rack fare inside a month of hitting the shelves. There is little or no urgency to see the film, unless you are considering making your own ultra low budget backwoods hacker set in a public park where nobody can charge you money for filming there. Here is a guide of steps to avoid making.<br /><br />With all that said and done, the film did have one interesting sequence, or rather one sequence that was so pathetic and ineptly thought out that it becomes an enigma in an otherwise cut & dried film: The madman comes home to find his wife in bed with the local contractor. He dispatches his beloved, arms himself with a kitchen knife that looks like it was made just to be used in a horror film and takes off after the interloper. The guy corners and attacks his quarry, who sidesteps & runs away, only to have the psycho materialize in his footsteps with a bigger, badder weapon. The psycho attacks again, and the guy gets away. The psycho materializes AGAIN, and once more the guy gets away. Then AGAIN! Finally on the fifth try the psycho trips the dude so to fall on some sort of a bladed contraption. How did he keep materializing armed with bigger badder weapons like that? Is there some supernatural element to this psycho? Since the film never makes it clear either way the scene is just an enigma, staged to build some tension. It's purpose remains unclear. The whole film is like that really, existing without any need to be made and executed in such a ham-fisted, uninteresting manner that one cannot help but wonder what the point of it was.<br /><br />3/10, and ample evidence that just because you can release a movie on DVD that doesn't mean you necessarily should.
A friend and I went through a phase some (alot of) years ago of selecting the crappest horror films in the video shop for an evening's entertainment. For some reason, I ended up buying this one (probably v. v. cheap).<br /><br />The cheap synth soundtrack is a classic of its time and genre. There's also a few very amusing scenes. Among them is a scene where a man's being attacked and defends himself with a number of unlikely objects, it made me laugh at the time (doesn't seem quite so funny in retrospect but there you go).<br /><br />Apart from that it's total crap, mind you. But probably worth a watch if you like films like "Chopping Mall". Yes, I've seen that too.
The movie starts with a pair of campers, a man and a woman presumably together, hiking alone in the vast wilderness. Sure enough the man hears something and it pangs him so much he goes to investigate it. Our killer greets him with a stab to the stomach. He then chases the girl and slashes her throat. The camera during the opening scene is from the point of view as the killer.<br /><br />We next meet our four main characters, two couples, one in which is on the rocks. The men joke about how the woman would never be able to handle camping alone at a double date, sparking the token blonde's ambition to leave a week early. Unexpectedly, the men leave the same day and their car breaks down.. They end up arriving in the evening. When the men arrive, they are warned about people disappearing in the forest by a crazy Ralph doppleganger. They ignore the warning and venture into the blackening night and an eighties song plays in the background with lyrics about being murdered in the dark forest. The men get lost.<br /><br />In the next scene we realize that this isn't just another The Burning clone, but a ghost story! The women, scared and lonely are huddling together by the fire. Two children appear in the shadows and decide to play peeping Tom. Well they are obviously ghosts by the way their voices echo! Their mother appears with blood dripping from a hole in her forehead and asks the two ladies if they've seen her children, before disappearing of course. <br /><br />The children run home to papa and tell him about the two beautiful ladies by the river. This causes quite a stir and he gets up, grabbing his knife from atop the fireplace. "Daddy's going hunting," The little girl, exclaims with bad acting. It is apparent here, that the dad isn't a ghost like his children.<br /><br />Freaked out by something in the woods, the token blonde splits, running blindly into the night, carrying a knife. She encounters the father who explains he's starving and it will be quick. This doesn't make sense because of the panther growls we heard earlier (Maybe he's allergic! Are panthers honestly even in California?) She ends up wounding him slightly before getting stabbed in the head. A thunderstorm erupts and the men seek shelter, which turns out to be where papa resides. Clearly someone lives here because there's a fire and something weird is roasting over it. The children appear and warn them of papa, who shows up moments later. They disappear as soon as he arrives.<br /><br />For whatever reason, our killer only goes after females. He invites the men to have something to eat and tells us the story about his ex wife. We are given a flashback of his wife getting caught cheating. The old man doesn't tell them however that he kills her and her lover afterwards, but daydreams about it. We aren't given the reason for the children's demise. The men go to sleep and are left unharmed. The next morning the men discover the empty campground of their wives. After a brief discussion they split up. One is to stay at the campsite, while the other goes and gets help. The one that is going back to his car breaks his leg. We are then reunited with the children as they explain to the surviving woman that they are ghosts who killed themselves from being sad about their mother. They agree to help the woman reunite with her friends<br /><br />The following scene defies the logic of the movie when papa kills the guy waiting at the campsite. He was also dating or married to the blonde. Somehow the children realize he is murdered and tell the woman about it. She decides to see it for herself and obviously runs into the killer. Luckily the children make him stop by threatening to leave him forever. You know where this is going.<br /><br />Overall the movie deserves four stars out of ten, and that's being generous. For all its misgivings, the musical score is well done. It's still watchable too. There are some camera angles that look professional, and some of the sets are done well. The plot is unbelievable. There is such a thing as willing suspension of disbelief, but with the toad 6 miles away; I can't imagine the token blonde would take off like that in the middle of the night. I mean, come on!<br /><br />- Alan "Skip" Bannacheck
A truly disturbed, cannibalistic psychopath, John(Gary Kent, under the pseudonym Michael Brody) who lives in a cave, stalks campers who make the unfortunate mistake of backpacking in his wilderness. Steve(Dean Russell)and his buddy Charlie(John Batis)get into a playful argument with their wives, Sharon(Tomi Barrett, the late real-life wife of Gary Kent))& Teddi(Ann Wilkinson)over surviving in the woods camping by themselves. To prove a point, the gals decide to head for the wilderness out of Los Angeles for a camping trip disturbing their partners to the point that they soon follow afterward. Falling prey to John, Teddi is soon killed as Sharon runs for her life as the men arrive late to the wilderness due to their truck's overheating. Afraid, tired, and paranoid, Sharon receives some very unusual assistance..John's ghost children! That's right, John's children remain in the wilderness, ghostly apparitions which spy on those who exist in the woods, taking a special liking to Sharon, helping guide her to safety and her friends. Meanwhile, Steve and Charlie soon find shelter from a down pour and the darkness of night in the very cave where John lives. Cooking over a burning fire, the meat simmering is actually from Charlie's wife, Teddi! Unknowingly Charlie eats from the meat when offered by John who finds the outsiders inside his dwelling place! Anyway, soon, worried about their wives, Steve and Charlie set out to find them as morning breaks. Meanwhile, John goes a hunting, with Charlie, Steve, and Sharon in a fight for survival. When Steve suffers a compound fracture stumbling between two massive rocks over a flowing river, he will be handicapped only increasing such an already nightmare scenario, with Sharon following her ghostly young friends to potential safety..they even, at one point, plead with their father to not kill her. Charlie, unfortunately, doesn't have such friends.<br /><br />Director Donald Jones(..who also wrote it and went broke funding the film)smartly shoots the film in such a breathtaking, gorgeous location in the Sequoia National Park, in California, where those gargantuan trees tower to great heights, and I basically watch backwoods slashers for this very purpose. For some strange reason, I didn't particularly find Jones' direction of the setting very atmospheric..the dread was missing, although there are some rather disturbing attacks by John using his knife(..shot in a clever way, Jones' camera suggests more than what is actually on screen, yet, somehow, still achieves that gasp at what John is doing to victims). Within such a picturesque landscape, to see innocents preyed upon by a maniac, that kind of increases the terror. City folk attempting to spend a nice few days in a different place, to smell the clean, fresh air, enjoy the sights of a lovely view, only to find themselves stalked by a creepy predator with a very intimidating knife. Providing the back-story to why John is the monster he is, Jones allows us to witness his memory flashback in discovering his wife's adultery and reacting accordingly(..she is also a ghost in the wilderness looking for her children, wishing to punish them for "being naughty")killing both her and the lover in bed(..a refrigerator repairman). The children, sad and depressed committed suicide and now "haunt" the wilderness, still interacting with their pa or whoever they so choose. I realize such a novelty as ghost children in a backwoods slasher is unique and appreciated by some, but I found the idea rather hokey and too silly to take serious. They do help our heroine escape a few potentially dangerous situations, but it was awfully hard for me to keep from giggling uncontrollably. The music I found hideously 80's and the performances aren't mind-blowing. I mean I could react to the situation they were in, because it is indeed quite terrifying to find yourselves in an unfamiliar and hostile territory being hunted by someone who knows the area so well. I think the film is similar in many ways to DON'T GO INTO THE WOODS..ALONE!, except that THE FOREST has the aforementioned ghost children(..their voices echo when talking to Sharon, their father, or each other). Gary Kent looks like a filthy George Lucas, with tattered clothes, and humanity lost. As I mentioned above, the violence isn't as grisly as what is suggested because director Jones is able to effectively cut away from a great deal of knife penetration, yet the way he stages the set pieces leave you rather unsettled(..such as Teddi's murder, the violence mostly silhouetted on the surface of a nearby huge stone formation, her pleas for John to stop and, once stabbed several times, attempts to crawl away from her predator only to be finished off;a hanging corpse John is skinning). I've seen better and worse of this type of slasher film, it's rather mediocre, at best, with some effectively shot scenery. I don't really think it's particularly memorable, for the exception of the ghost children.
The Forest isn't just your everyday standard slasher/backwoods cannibal fare, it also has an interesting mix of supernatural elements as well. The story is about two couples that hike into the forest on a camping trip. A cave dwelling, cannibalistic woodsmen and the ghosts of his dead wife and two children soon terrorize them. There is something you don't see every slasher. Director Don Jones gets an "A" for effort although the film itself falls flat on just about every level, the acting is just simply average except for Jeanette Kelly who plays the dead wife of the woodsman (Michael Brody aka Gary Kent).<br /><br />The film opens with some beautiful shots of a couple hiking through a valley and into a forest. They realize too late that someone is stalking them. They are both dispatched in typical slasher fare. Our killer uses a trusty hunting knife throughout the entire film, except during a flashback when he implements a handsaw, pitchfork and rusty saw blade to dispatch his cheating wife's lover.<br /><br />The Forest has a good story line but the movie just doesn't work along with it I found it pretty boring with simply crappy acting. 4/10
I sought out a copy of The Forest because I was watching a VH1 special, I think "Where Are They Now", and saw the video box flash across the screen during a segment on the actor Corky Pigeon. He played the male child ghost in this B horror horrible, but I remember him from his character Freddy on the Silver Spoons television show. This flick's a major letdown. There's nothing here. It actually took me four months to watch it from start to finish. I kept stopping it in boredom, setting it aside and forgetting about it, then stumbling on it and trying once again to get through it. Obviously, the angle of this film that was intended to set it apart from its counterparts was the supernatural element, the apparitions. And obviously, here, that doesn't work. I can't stand the male leads. I kept expecting them to look down at their palms during the longer dialogue scenes in order to read cheat lines. The situation at the beginning where the couples decide to go camping separately is awkward and plain dumb. I guess the only positive thing to say about this one is the scene where the guy falls and breaks his leg, you can see the bone sticking out of his flesh. It's fairly good gore makeup there. Man, I'm really reaching for a positive now, huh. The only other no-budget horror film on a level as bad as this one would be Home Sweet Home.
It's a ghost story. It's a cannibalism story. It's a revenge story. It's a very poorly done film with a lot of violence. I suppose it follows cheaply along the lines of every slasher movie you've ever seen. It has the usual isolated place, the cocky campers, heading off to the wilderness. Granted, there are some pretty intense scenes. It's just so dull. Bad editing and the whole works. There are ghost children who sound like they are talking into a wastebasket. I'm not really sure what rules the ghosts and the psycho with the seed cap are playing by. It also has the gross out scene where a man eats a piece of meat which is actually what's left of his wife. A friend of mine once asked me why it is necessary to show this kind of gratuitous, sick violence. I fear that it's just another step in our desensitized evolution. Three is no cleverness here, no tongue in cheek, only a sad waste of time. Lots of blood; little plot.
I saw this movie at an actual movie theater (probably the $2.00 one) with my cousin and uncle. We were around 11 and 12, I guess, and really into scary movies. I remember being so excited to see it because my cool uncle let us pick the movie (and we probably never got to do that again!) and sooo disappointed afterwards!! Just boring and not scary. The only redeeming thing I can remember was Corky Pigeon from Silver Spoons, and that wasn't all that great, just someone I recognized. I've seen bad movies before and this one has always stuck out in my mind as the worst. This was from what I can recall, one of the most boring, non-scary, waste of our collective $6, and a waste of film. I have read some of the reviews that say it is worth a watch and I say, "Too each his own", but I wouldn't even bother. Not even so bad it's good.
I agree with everything people said on this one but I must add that the soundtrack is probably the WORST one I have ever heard my entire life! There are actual vocals during times when you are supposed to be listening to the actors talk! And the vocals are like a broadway version of Danzig singing, "The darkness of the forest! Oh the darkness of the dark, dark forest!" or something else so unthreatening. The singer has a terrible vibrato and has been recorded with a treble-y microphone over some synthed-up string section and fake drum beats. It's horrible!! <br /><br />Yes, the male leads are awful. So are the female ones. This is one bad case of gender stereotyping - it's so bad! Everything they say revolves around being a male or a female, just playing up the stereotypes to the max. Makes me sick. Soooo boring!!! <br /><br />The children were so echoey in their lines, you couldn't understand them. And why do female ghost children always wear cute little bows in their hair, pretty blue dresses and long hair? And ghost boys always wear clean cut slacks with cute little shiny blond hair? Not scary - STUPID.<br /><br />Daddy's face was way too blemish free and clean to be that of a man living in a cave. Nice beard and bangs, pa. Did you perfectly cut those with a knife yourself or did you stroll into town and go to the salon?<br /><br />Stupid movie.
Your attitude going into Prom Night II will determine how much joy you take away from the film. If you're expecting a horror masterpiece, look elsewhere. If you like campy movies that are rather fun to watch unfold, you'll like this. Lisa Schrage has the time of her life playing an over the top Mary Lou and Wendy Loyd channels Schrage's rage perfectly during her time "possessed".<br /><br />Not classic cinema but a fun way to kill a couple of hours with a wicked ending.<br /><br />
Mary Lou is a slut whose spirit seeks revenge on those who let her come to her fiery doom back in 1957.<br /><br />Well, the movie mainly takes place in 1986. The movie falls into the 80's trap of weird/stupid special effects, including some weird demented looking rocking horse.<br /><br />Anyway, Mary Lou's spirit does bad things to people and tries to take over one person's body. Whether or not she succeeds, you'll have to watch to find out.<br /><br />Anyway, the movie is largely boring and based around a bunch of worthless characters. This also isn't really a sequel, the only thing in common with the first is the name of the high school. It has the avg. horror flick fall backs, gore, pointless nudity, knocks against the catholic church. Basic stuff, boring movie.<br /><br />The acting is decent enough to give it a 3 out of 10. You can waste your time doing something else.
and not in a fun-to-watch way. it's just bad. it's shocking that people have posted positive things about it here. the story sucks, the acting is bad, it's not scary, the special effects aren't special--oh no! the blackboard has hands coming out of it! oh gee--the mirror turned into water! the hair, clothes and makeup in the '50s scenes aren't accurate, and they got a middle-aged man with a receding hairline to play the high-school version of himself. this is like later-on nightmare on elm street stuff. i enjoy sitting down to watch a cheesy horror movie as much as anyone else, but there are better bad ones out there to choose from.
This is only related to the first movie by the name. The plot has nothing to do with the first and the whole movie stinks!!! I have no idea what they were thinking but this movie is so bad. Avoid this at all costs, the first movie in the series is acceptable as a slasher flick and so is the fourth but this one and the 3rd are rubbish!!
What is the point of creating sequels that have absolutely no relevance to the original film? No point. This is why the Prom Night sequels are so embarrassingly bad.<br /><br />The original film entailed a group of children hiding a dark secret that eventually get them all killed, bar one, in a brutal act of revenge. Can someone please explain to me what a dead prom queen-to-be rising from the grave to steel the crown has to do with the first movie then? Prom Night 2 had continuous plot holes that left the audience constantly wondering how did that happen and why should that happen? But in the end, i guess you could call it one of those movies that is so bad, you end up laughing yourself through it.
Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II starts at the Hamilton High School prom of 1957 where Mary Lou Maloney (Lisa Schrage) is cheating on her date Bill Nordham (Steve Atkinson) with Bud Cooper (Robert Lewis). Bill finds out & is devastated, meanwhile Mary Lou is announced prom queen 1957 & takes to the stage to accept her award. Bill, still hurting, decides to play a practical joke on Mary Lou so he throws a firecracker on stage but the still lit fuse catches Mary Lou's dress setting it & her on fire, within seconds Mary Lou is toast. 30 years later & Hamilton High is soon to hold it's annual prom night. Bill (Micheal Ironside) is now the principal & has a teenage son named Craig (Justin Louis) who is dating Vicki Carpenter (Wendy Lyon) & are both planning on going to the prom together. Bud (Richard Monette) is now a priest, that terrible night 30 years ago still haunt both Bill & Bud. One day Vicki is looking around the schools basement when she discovers a large trunk which she opens, this turns out to be a bad move as the vengeful spirit of Mary Lou is set free & is intent on claiming her crown as prom queen & in her spare time sets out to avenge her untimely death. First up is Jess Browning (Beth Gondek) whose death is put down to a suicide, Mary Lou begins to posses Vicki's body as the night of the prom draws nearer. After disposing of some competition in the shape of Kelly Hennenlotter (Terri Hawkes) who tries to fix the prom so she wins. Mary Lou in Vicki's body is crowned Hamilton High prom queen which allows Mary Lou herself to come back from the dead to make an unexpected appearance & really liven the party up...<br /><br />With absolutely no connection to the original Prom Night (1980) & directed by Bruce Pittman I thought Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II wasn't a particularly good film. The script by Ron Oliver concentrates more on supernatural elements rather than cheap teen slasher themes, whether this was a good or bad decision will depend on your expectations I suppose. Personally I found these different elements didn't really gel or work that well together at all. The whole film was far to slow to be really enjoyable, after the opening sequence where Mary Lou dies no one else is killed until the half hour mark & then the film plods along for another half an hour until Vicki is finally possessed & the film finally picks up momentum for the climax where an evil Mary Lou kills a whole one person at the prom before she is supposedly defeated, come on horror film fans you did expect that clichéd 'killer not dead & ready for a sequel' ending didn't you? Don't expect a hight body count, just five throughout the entire film & none particularly graphic although I did like the way Monica (Beverley Hendry as Beverly Hendry) tried to hide in a shower room locker which Mary Lou crushed & resulting in poor Monica's blood oozing out. The supernatural side of Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II is depicted by Vicki having lots of hallucinations for the first hour & Mary Lou controlling objects during the latter stages including a couple of creepy shots of a rocking horse which comes to life, the blackboard scene is quite good as well as it turns into water & zombie hands drag Vicki into it. The slasher side of Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II isn't outstanding, I did like Mary Lou herself as she churns out the obligatory one-liners & she made for a good villain even if she didn't get to kill enough people. Oh, & yes I did get the running homages to various other horror film director's with almost all of the character's sharing last names with one, this obviously adds nothing to the film but is a nice little touch I suppose. The acting is OK but the normally dependable Micheal Ironside looks lost & uninterested almost as if he's asking himself what he's doing in this & if he'll ever work again. Forget about any gore, someone is hanged, there is a stabbing with a crucifix that happens off screen, someone is impaled with a neon light, a computer goes crazy & electrocutes someones face(!?) & Mary Lou bursts out of Vicki's body at first as a rotting zombie which was quite a cool scene. There are some full frontal nudity shots in the girls shower as well, if that's your thing. To give it some credit Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II is OK to watch, has reasonable production values throughout & is generally well made. Overall I was disappointed by Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II, it was just too slow & ultimately uneventful to maintain my interest for nearly 100 minutes. I'm not sure whether it deserves a 3 or 4 star rating, I'll give it a 4 as there's nothing specifically wrong with it I suppose & I've sat through much worse films but it just didn't really do anything for me I'm afraid.
Prom Night 2 is an OK horror movie but prom night is way better and this movies about how the prom Queen Mary Lou in 1957 gets killed by her boyfriend and comes back 30 years later for revenge.The best actor in this movie is Micheal Ironside and the movie stars other OK actors and actress like Justin Louis (I),Wendy Lyon,Lisa Schrage and Richard Monette(I).And there are some good gore scenes like when Mary Lou kills the girl that is trying to hide in her locker by crushing the lockers together and how one of the students are on the computer and Mary Lou electrocutes him to death.Over all this is an OK/good horror movie and my rating is 4 out of 10.
I actually prefer Robin Williams in his more serious roles (e.g. Good Will Hunting, The Fisher King, The World According to Garp). These are my favorite Robin Williams movies. But Seize the Day, although well-acted, is one of the worst movies I've ever seen and certainly the worst Robin Williams movie (even worse than Death to Smoochy, Club Paradise, and Alladin on Ice).<br /><br />Every good story is going to have its ups and downs. This movie, however, is one giant down. I don't need a feel-good Hollywood cheese-fest, but I've got to have something other than 90 minutes of complete and utter hopelessness. This movie reminds me of "Love Liza" (which is actually worse) because it seems that the only point of the movie is to see how far one person can fall. The answer? Who cares.
The long list of "big" names in this flick (including the ubiquitous John Mills) didn't bowl me over to the extent that I couldn't judge the film on its actual merits. It is FULL of stereotypes, caricatures, and standard, set scenes, from the humble air-ace hero to the loud-mouthed yank flyer. The music track was such that at one point, about an hour before the end, I thought the film was over: loud, rising crescendo, grand flourish and finish then silence, but then the movie continued! I found no real storyline, haphazard writing, but smartly-pressed uniforms and the pretty Jean Simmons (pre-nose job) with a rousing little ditty. I cannot say that this picture has any of the ingredients which make a film great. I found it maudlin, mawkish and minor.
THE TOY BOX (1971) BOMB<br /><br />Sure, I like looking at nude women. While I prefer hardcore porn flicks, I'll take softcore exploitation grindhouse junk like this too under the right circumstances. Well, these aren't the right circumstances. These aren't ANY circumstances. There's supposed to be a horrific subplot lurking in here somewhere, but I'll be damned if I can untangle it. This is another of those amateurish steaming piles of badly made manure that bores you to tears rather than stimulates you, despite all the simulated sex going on all over the place. Bah -- if I want to see good sex scenes, I'll watch the real stuff.
"Don't Drink the Water" is an unbelievably bad film. It's based on a 1966 Broadway play by Woody Allen. It stars Jackie Gleason, the comic genius behind "The Honeymooners". The director, Howard Morris, has appeared in several Mel Brooks comedies (Life Stinks, High Anxiety, Silent Movie)and has made a mark in animation (characters he has voiced include Gopher from "Pooh", Jughead (Archie)and Beetle Bailey) What went wrong?<br /><br />I think the problem is that the premise is played out too seriously to work effectively. Allen's original play was tongue-in-cheek, which is why it worked on Broadway and in Allen's 1994 remake. The screenplay by R.S. Allen and Harvey Bullock beats the premise to death and makes too many changes from the original play. Making Gleason's wife an airhead in this version when she was a headstrong woman in the original is just one example of why this doesn't work.<br /><br />The acting isn't much better. Gleason does the best he can with the material, but he can't save this. Gleason was a comic genius , but also a fine actor as he demonstrated in "The Hustler" and "Soldier in the Rain". His abrasive personality could have worked here, but the lousy script doesn't even give him a chance. Too bad. Estelle Parsons' airhead wife will drive you nuts after 20 minutes. See how soon it'll take for YOU to want to strangle her. That is also a shame because she is also a fine actress, having turned in two exceptional performances in "Bonnie and Clyde" and "Rachel, Rachel" None of the other actors do particularly well either.<br /><br />Woody Allen hated this film so much that he remade the film in 1994 with himself and Julie Kavner (Marge Simpson) in the leads. They manage to hit all the right notes and the film itself is a comic masterpiece. It's finally on video after a long battle over rights. Do go out and find that version. All the 1969 original is good for is clearing out unwanted guests who overstay their welcome.<br /><br />1/2* out of 4 stars
Leslie Sands' stilted play "Deadlock" becomes a poor-choice vehicle for Bette Davis and Gary Merrill, just after their joint-success in "All About Eve". After killing her spouse, a scheming woman is visited by her husband's best friend, who passes himself off as her husband once others begin stopping by the house. Irving Rapper, one of Bette's best directors from her peak years, is sadly unable to elevate this ridiculous material, in which Davis is curiously aloof and restrained until the outrageous finale (where she thankfully pulls out all the stops). Production and supporting cast strictly second-rate; only for Bette Davis completists. *1/2 from ****
If you want an undemanding and reasonably amusing hour or so, then it's OK to watch this. It's not all that bad, really. Yeah, it's got more lapses in logic than I care to describe here and might tax the patience of people - like myself, I have to admit - who are inclined to throw things at the TV on occasion, but it's funny at least. Just because it's not always INTENTIONALLY funny, there's no need to let that get you down.<br /><br />However, if you've read the book - or any of the other books by Brookmyre - then you'd probably best avoid it. I've read them all and when I first watched this film, I despised it. I've trashed it in detail and at great length on another site, in fact. The TV plot bears practically no relevance at all to that of the book and served only to outrage and infuriate many faithful (and admittedly rabid) Brookmyre fans.<br /><br />Best bit of advice..? Watch this, then read the book and only THEN make your comparisons and submit your judgement.
What an absolute pile of pants. Having read Chris Brookmyre's books religiously since I came across "Quite Ugly...", I was delighted to find out that this drama had been commissioned.<br /><br />I obviously had too much faith. <br /><br />Nesbitt is probably the best thing in this show - and even he doesn't quite fit. How anyone can read the book, and then adapt it to this piece of dross is beyond me.<br /><br />Entire characters are changed, situations are dropped, and to see Parlablane's dramatic break-in reduced to Nesbitt doing a quick chin up and sliding open a bay window... it brought tears to my eyes.<br /><br />I dread to think what's going to happen with "Country Of The Blind" if this is the benchmark...<br /><br />Please, just avoid it...
Did I miss something here? This "adaptation" has everything that Brookmyres first novel had. Everything apart from the story, the laughs, the black humour, the political intrigue, the characterisations, the plot, and some semblance of sense.<br /><br />Spoilers;<br /><br />Godamnawful, from beginning to end. They made a mockery of the plot, they had a romance between Parablane and a cop, and what was that all about, Dr Slaughter was portrayed as a bystander, and who the hell was Annette Crosby supposed to be?<br /><br />It looked like they had made a three hour adaptation, then chopped it down to 90 minutes. (Even though the 90 minutes seemed to last forever.) Please, please, do not do this to any other of Brookmyres books, (especially "Country of the blind.)
This movie was a confusing piece of garbage. You never knew what was going on. The characters were poorly written and for the most part they were totally unsympathetic except for Gus (played masterfully by George Eads). I hate this movie but compared to others (Dark Harvest, Dracula's Curse) it should have won an academy award. It was particularly sad to see a talented actor like George Eads in such a disgraceful and tacky film. Lifetime you have sunken to whole new low. Someone needs to make sure that this director never works in movies again. Also was this supposed to be a horror film because it was a lot more funny than scary. For shame Lifetime, For shame.
1st watched 11/7/2002 - 2 out of 10(Dir-John Bianco): Pretty lame gangster movie about a Godfather-like family in Brooklyn who like to say four-letter words a lot and kill people. The only thing of interest here was their attempt to show the feds being a lot like the gang. This is the only attempt at good film-making. The rest of the movie was predictable, and cheaply-made. The quality of the photography on some of the scenes inside bars and floozy joints almost made you think there was a problem with your DVD player because of the bad contrasts and some of the actors were hard to hear at times because of the bad sound. The acting was pretty-much characatures of all your favorite gangsters from better movies with corny names like Vinnie `Knuckles' and Jimmie `Tattoos', and the plot pretty much followed those patterns as well. So, go see a better gangster movie before you put your money out for this one.
This film is so bad I can't believe it was actually shot. People who voted 10 or 9, 8 and even 7, are you insane? Did we really watch the same movie? Or the same sh** should I say. Everything is bad in this film. The story (is there a story?) is going nowhere, completely incoherent, the acting (some dialogs are simply just ridiculous), the music score (what the **** is that?), the editing, and especially the artistic direction, a pure disaster. Reminds me the old Macist movies... To give you an example of the amateurism of the production, the mermaid's costume is a sleeping bag with spangles sticked on it. I'm not joking, that's exactly what it is.<br /><br />Another example of the enormous mistakes we find here: you see in a scene an extra, a fat woman of about 200 pounds, who's talking on her cell phone. The next shot, which is in a complete different location, you can see this same woman, still talking on her cell phone (!) Yes, it goes that far. <br /><br />A big, huge, waste of money. Useless.
I just saw this at the 2006 Vancouver international film festival. The synopsis in the festival guide sounded pretty good so we decided to check this one out. I'm sorry to say I was very disappointed.<br /><br />Besides being poorly written, it was boring. I won't take away from the actors as there is not much they could do with this bad script.<br /><br />First bite was cliché without being ironic, over the top seriousness without being funny. The movie would have been better had Hunt Hoe went with a campy horror feel. Instead he took himself to seriously and this resulted with a boring film. I can't recommend this film. It felt too long and all in all just plain weak.
I had the distinct displeasure of seeing this movie at the 2006 Vancouver International Film Festival. I have been attending this festival for over 5 years, and I have certainly seen some poor movies on occasion. However, 'First Bite' has reached a brand new low in film. In spite of being shot in beautiful locations, with the occasional, exquisite close up of fabulous food, the movie contorts an excessive number of plot twists and stilted characters until I was practically begging for it to end.<br /><br />The lead actor, David La Haye, completely failed to show any character development throughout the movie, portraying a pompous chef from beginning to end. Additional sub-plots, such as eating disorders, were developed so poorly and completely did not fit within any context that the movie had shown up to that point.<br /><br />A theme of mysticism was used as a poor attempt to conceal a movie that achieves nothing, goes nowhere, and completely disappoints.
After being bitten by a bat in a cave,a doctor named John Beck undergoes an accelerating transformation into a man-bat creature.His wife assures him that there's nothing wrong with him,it's all just due to rabies or the anti-rabies drugs he's taking.The local cop thinks that John is responsible for several gruesome murders."The Bat People" by Jerry Jameson is one hell of a horrible film.The script is deadly dull and there is no gore nor nudity.This pointless piece of crap is so mind-numbingly boring that you'll scratch your head in a total disbelief after suffering through it.Even the design of a man-bat creature by a young Stan Winston is completely pathetic and unmemorable.Avoid this stinker like the plague.2 out of 10.
Watching It Lives By Night makes you wonder, just who in the world greenlit this crap. A newlywed couple go spelunking on their honeymoon, get attacked by bats and the husband starts to run around in his pajamas attacking various people. And where exactly are they? They're in the desert, then they're skiing, then they're in a small town that looks like it has mountains nearby. The town is run by a sheriff who likes to watch and has a personal vendetta against whiny doctor boy. The ski hospital is run by a really groovy guy with a nice thick mustache and the wife looks like Mary Tyler Moore or Marilyn Quayle. There's no dramatic tension and the ending will leave you filled with anger. Special effects and makeup guru Stan Winston did the effects for this movie. I guess you have to start somewhere.
I saw this movie on mystery science theater when it was called "It lives by night". That title is much less misleading than "Batpeople". In fact it would more accurately be called Batperson. This movie is about a doctor who studies bats I am thinking because he wants to make a better cure for rabies. This is not really clear. What is clear is that he and his wife take a tour of a cave and he gets bitten by a bat. Why a scientist needs to take a tour to study bats is beyond me. Shouldn't he be able to go in by himself. Well after being bitten he and his wife go on their honeymoon where he starts having fits. They go to the worst doctor ever. The guy stays in the hospital and kills a nurse. In the end the guy kills 3-4 people and his wife stands by him and you are supposed to be rooting for him instead of the sheriff investigating the murders.
Or maybe that's what it feels like. Anyway, "The Bat People" is about as flat as a rug, bland as a sack of flour and as exciting as a rock...and as intelligent as all three combined.<br /><br />Okay, plot in a nutshell (fitting vessel, that...): a doctor (Moss) gets bitten by a bat while checking out a cave with his wife (McAndrew) and subsequently turns into a bat - well, not exactly a bat but a bat-like creature that looks more like a werewolf who kills his victims in a first-person camera viewpoint....<br /><br />But then there's the business of the sheriff (Pataki), who is about the WORST kind of sheriff: the hick kind. He hassles people, he leers at married women, he steals handkerchiefs from haberdasheries (the FIEND!), he smokes with one of those cigarette holders in his mouth and talks at the same time, making him look and sound like Buford T. Justice in "Smokey and the Bandit" and (this is the worst part)... HE'S THE MOST LIKEABLE CHARACTER IN THE WHOLE FILM!<br /><br />The whole film, though, is just TV movie-of-the-week-like crapola (guano, in this case). It's an AIP, for crying out loud! What did you expect, Oscar caliber stuff?<br /><br />And what else can you say about a film that not even MST3K can save?<br /><br />How about...no stars for "The Bat People", full version OR MST3K version!<br /><br />By the way, if there's ever a sequel for this movie, I'm burying my TV.
"The Bat People" is a proud resident of the IMDb Bottom 100. Every once and a while the movie suddenly vanishes from the infamous list, depending on whether there are new movies with Paris Hilton in the lead or documentaries about American Idol stars, but it always reliably returns sooner or later. And why? Because, unlike the majority of crap in that list, "The Bat People" is a legitimate bad film and it deserves to be on there regardless of any media influences or internet buzz! This nearly isn't the worst film ever made, since the basic concept definitely has a certain charm and ingenuity, but it's still indescribably difficult to sit through the whole thing. The script is incredibly boring, with absolutely unnecessary padding footage and gigantic gaps in continuity, and yet the main characters still remain total strangers throughout the entire film. Other than a sensible screenplay, the film also lacks spectacular killing sequences and the make-up effects – although courtesy of a young Stan Winston – are ludicrously inept and remain largely unseen until the end of the film. The film's title is inaccurate, as "people" refers to a number in plural whereas the story actually just revolves on one Bat Person. Much more than Bruce Wayne, the real Batman plays in this movie and he as well has a genuine Bat-cave and a Bat-mobile (a stolen ambulance)! The plot introduces a young couple on their honeymoon-weekend exploring caves. They wander off from a guided tour group and he gets bitten by a bat whilst trying to protect his wife from the animal's vicious attack. Worried that he might be infected with rabies, he undergoes an intense treatment at the local hospital, but still this doesn't prevent him from slowly transforming into a bloodthirsty bat creature. He kills random people at night and toys around with the suspicious police sergeant whilst his loving wife is still vastly convinced the awkward behavior is exclusively due to allergic reactions to the rabies treatment. Sure, honey! The script never explains why a bat would attack people and how come John always changes back into a normal human being at the dawn of a new day instead of gradually turning into a permanent state of bat-guano. So basically, "The Bat People" is a variation on the good old werewolf-theme, but obviously not a very interesting one. The concept showed a lot of potential, but somehow the sub plots center on whiny drunks and perverted Sheriffs instead of on ghastly monsters. Some of the settings and exterior filming locations look impressive, the misfit song playing during the credits is strangely catchy, there's a nice bit of gore during the climax (finally!) and main actress Marianne McAndrew is ravishing to look at (though not to listen to). This truly bad and boring film's current listing in the bottom 100 is spot number 80, and personally I hope it sticks somewhere in that region. The list simply wouldn't feel and traditional without "The Bat People".
Stewart Moss stars as a scientist who is on a working trip with his wife, and one gets the feeling that he was picked for this role for his ability to roll his eyes back in his head...imagine the auditions for this.."can you...no, that's not quite it, thank you, next!". Anyway, he's bitten by a bat, and then, he's either changing into some kind of bat creature and killing people or....he's not. For no one else sees his strange transformations, but he himself seems to think that he's changing because his wedding ring pops off when his hands turn into claws, etc. To its credit the movie does kind of hold back on whether he's just nuts or whether he's actually transforming into something until almost the very end. This has some good locations & sort of a decent atmosphere at times but unfortunately none of that can make up for the somewhat lame story and the wonderfully bad acting. Kind of fun in a "so bad it's good" way, but leans more towards just plain bad. 4 out of 10.
Ok,so.....guy gets bitten by a bat and then turns into a bat (well,sorta). I can only assume this made sense to SOMEONE at the time! Aren't bats supposed to fly, use radar, and eat bugs instead of attacking humans tho?
This movie promised bat people. It didn't deliver. There was a guy who got bit by a bat, but what was with the seizures? And the stupid transformation? Where was the plot? Where was the acting? Who came up with the idea to make this? Why was it allowed to be made? Why? Why? I guess we'll never know.
A man wakes from a nightmare about bats. He and his wife go out into the desert for a picnic on their honeymoon. He seems to hear a strange noise, and she is disturbed by the sight of a bat crawling across their picnic blanket. He wants to go on a tour of a cave, which has something to do with some kind of work he is doing, but she wants to enjoy their honeymoon. She relents. They go on the tour, but leave the group to make out. She falls down a slope, where she is disturbed by insects. He follows her. He hears the strange noise again, and seems to know a bat is approaching; one does, and gets in her hair. He fights it off her, and it attacks him, biting his forehead.<br /><br />They get out of the cave, but when they are in a gondola at a ski resort, he starts having seizures in which he has hallucinations or visions of bats attacking people. He becomes angry when this happens. He's unable to drink alcohol without spitting it out. His wife worries about rabies, and he starts a Pasteur treatment for that, but reacts violently to the injection.<br /><br />And then some people are killed. We see parts of the man's transformation into a bat person. It seems it is not just in his mind. Whether the bat bite causes these transformations is not clear, since he already was having some symptoms prior to the bite.<br /><br />While the title seems inappropriate, the implication at the end is that the same thing is happening to another person. Not a very good movie, but I liked the variety of the desert, cave, and ski-slope locations, and some of the weirder scenes. I didn't think this was as bad as other people do, and I didn't think the 1999 movie Bats was as bad as others think either (I rated that one a 5/10).
The movie is just as fun as staring at the sun.Sheriff Pataki is a total retard that loves nothing better to do than sit on his fat rear making a smoke ring from his puffy cigars and drinking booze while the doctor acts like a zombie version of Nicholas Cage sucking up all that so called "Blood" which in reality seemed like Fruit Punch.<br /><br />Most of all the plotting seemed very horrid to even call this piece of crap a movie.The rest of the characters in this movie are total wastes of time, the ending was awful, the outlines were cheesy, and the scenes were terrible. What else more should I say to you viewers out there? My advice would be to get your Rabies shot if you've already watched the movie. This movie may give you the foam in the mouth if you didn't get your up-to-date shots.
Really, the use of stock nature documentary of swarming bats employed by THE BAT PEOPLE is some of the most effective ever. There are shots of teeming bats hanging from the ceilings of caves, swarming bats flying out of caves or swirling about near the mouths of caves. That alone is enough to be unsettling: Imagine all of them swarming after you? And they do indeed swarm in what should have been a show-stopper sequence that happened at about the forty minute mark, a downright inappropriately hilarious sequence where a teeming swarm of bats seem to attack a police car, splattering across the windshield like bloody broken eggs. The problem is that this sequence happens about fifty minutes too late to save the film, most of which consists of one or more people running around, screaming, waving their arms about at jabbering excitedly about some poor goofball who managed to get bitten by a bat during his vacation.<br /><br />The fear is that he is coming down with rabies, which does indeed suck, so their vacation is ruined, as the plot synopsis on the top of THE BAT PEOPLE's reference page does indeed point out. So here is an effective summary of the movie: A young couple goes on a romantic getaway which is ruined when the guy is bitten by a bat. They bravely try to stick it out but he starts raving, trying to convince those around him that it's a bit more involved than rabies, that he can't control himself, and they everyone should KEEP AWAY.<br /><br />Now, when some one is frothing at the mouth, covered with sweat, eyes boggling about like one of the cheaper Muppets and screaming at you to GET AWAY FROM ME, you get away from him. You don't try to give him drugs, you don't try to tell him you love him, you give the guy his space, go home, and try that scenic getaway next year.<br /><br />But no, the people in this movie all behave like morons, insist on pushing the guy to his brink, and he flips out, mutates into a part man part bat type creature, and kills a bunch of non-essential secondary characters. Nothing wrong with that, but the movie forgets that it's a low budget Creature Feature and tries to be some sort of psychological study. Instead of a monster movie, we get lots of people running around trying to get this guy to take a chill pill, and eventually he runs off into the hills looking very much more human than he should have, people insist on trying to chase him down and pay the expected price.<br /><br />The main thing wrong with the movie is that this should have happened in the first fifteen or twenty minutes, thirty tops, and the movie should have been about the guy AFTER he had turned into a Bat Person, rather than about the journey there. It takes a good eighty minutes to really pick up steam on that front, with some interesting character sketches along the way involving the always entertaining Michael Pataki as a small town cop who's lost his moral edge, and the late Paul Carr as a physician friend who doesn't quite get the message.<br /><br />The movie is dreadfully boring, about fifteen minutes too long and missed the opportunity to be a nice, forgettable little Creature Feature about a mutant run amok like the Italian horror favorite RATMAN, which I watched today and was sadly inspired to try this one after seeing. Me and my bright ideas, though the scene with the cop car was a howler: Too bad we couldn't have had another twenty minutes of that.<br /><br />3/10
Unless the title is supposed to be some kind of spoiler for the wife's transformation (the fiends! ruining it for us). Anycase, if this movie wasn't Made-For-TV, it should have been, it's so remarkably low-budget, underscripted, underacted, and hits every 70's cliche except disco. Nobody is likeable, and you could careless what happens to anyone in this one. Eminently forgetable except for the bad, bad performances.
While exploring some caves with his wife, a doctor is bitten by a bat which causes some alarming side effects...<br /><br />Occasionally creepy atmosphere and some decent (though under used) makeup effects don't save this B horror flick from being a sub-par tale of man-becomes-creature. The Bat People aka It Lives By Night suffers from its senseless story that's awkwardly plotted and lackluster in pacing. The plot never seems to go anywhere much and the movie never offers an explanation for what happens, or even a satisfying conclusion for it all. The cast is fairly mediocre in their performances.<br /><br />Still I give the film some points for its haunting theme song and nice filming locations. The makeup work of the late Stan Winston is pretty good too, but it doesn't get much of a showcase here. A missed opportunity for sure. <br /><br />Definitely one of the lesser man-creature flicks out there.<br /><br />* 1/2 out of ****
I dunno sometimes...you try and try and try to be charitable towards all the B thru Z grade movies out there, but once in a while a particular movie just tests your patience until you want to slap everyone involved. "Bat People" (which I saw under the title "It Lives By Night") is just such a movie. You can't watch this without thinking that it really should have been an episode on "Night Gallery", and not one of the better ones, either. <br /><br />The movie has something to do with a doctor who gets bitten by a bat and consequently starts to morph into a Were-Bat who drinks human blood. (Actually, you'd think if he was turning into a real bat, he'd be eating mosquitoes by the gallon bucket, but because this is a cheap, lurid horror movie, blood's the word.) In spite of the fact that he has grand-mal seizures at the drop of a hat, and black-out episodes almost every night, his friend and fellow physician, Dr. Mustache Aspen-Extreme, insists that he's just having an 'allergic reaction' to the rabies shots. Meanwhile, the world's most obnoxious and stereotyped county sheriff suspects the doc of being responsible for the brutal murder and exsanguination of several local girls (and one wino). Also meanwhile, the doctor's wife decides that denial IS a river in Egypt and alternately patronizes him and nags him to distraction. <br /><br />It's not so much that the acting is bad - you can tell that the actors are making professional level choices, and are trying to bring some juice and life to the script, even the guy who plays the sheriff. (Okay, it IS pretty bad, but it's bad in a clichéd, wooden, professional way). It's just that everything about the acting, the way the scenes are paced, the costumes, the dialog, the script and the story line in general sets your teeth on edge and makes you want to, well, slap everyone involved.<br /><br />I think the movie had an outside chance at being a spooky, unsettling little cult favorite, BUT:<br /><br />1)The director needed to beat Michael Pataki, an experienced character actor, with a chair until Pataki agreed to ACT, and not just channel Dennis Weaver. <br /><br />2)He also needed to find a script that made a little more sense with regard to the whole "Bat Bites Human, Who Then Turns Into A Bat" scenario. <br /><br />3) He also needed the actor who played the doctor to find a little more physically believable bit of stage business for his 'episodes', instead of resorting to "Man Has A Seizure" page from the Little Golden Book of Clichéd Acting Mannerisms. <br /><br />4) He needed to rework the whole 'wife' character, make her both more intelligent, less shrill and waaaaay more observant. <br /><br />I would never voluntarily watch this film again, except with the help of Mike and the Bots. It's bad, but it isn't bad in a silly, humorous or interesting way. Still better than "Battlefield Earth" or "Waterworld", though.
OK, don't let my summary fool you. This movie SUCKS HARD. But the worst movie ever? This movie was terrible in ways people shouldn't have to rack their brains to describe. But it is in no way worse than Manos: the hands of fate, hobgobblins, horrors of spider island, or a small handful of movies. As a review the movie sucks, it's terrible. Don't see it with out MST or you may develop health problems. But there are worse movies.
Currently, this film is listed on IMDb as the 42nd worst film ever made--which is exactly why I rented it from NetFlix. However, I am saddened to report that the film, while bad, is no where near bad enough to merit being in the bottom 100 films ever made list. I have personally seen at least 100 films worse than this one. Hardly a glowing endorsement, but it just didn't meet the expected level of awfulness to be included on this infamous list.<br /><br />The film begin with Stewart Moss and Marianne McAndrew on their belated honeymoon (by the way, they are married in real life as well). He's a doctor who is obsessed with bats and insists they go to a nearby cave. Once there, they behave very, very, very stupidly (hallmark of a bad film) and are soon bitten by a bat. According to this film, bats love to attack people and there are vampire bats in the US--both of which are not true at all.<br /><br />Oddly, after being bitten, the man doesn't even bother going to the hospital!! The first thing on anyone's mind (especially a doctor) is to get medical help immediately, but not this boob. Soon, he's having seizures--yet he STILL isn't interested in seeking help! Again and again you keep thinking that this must be the stupidest couple in film history!! <br /><br />After a while, he eventually goes to see a doctor and is sent to the hospital. But, by then it's too late and his attacks become more violent and he begins killing people to suck their blood. When it's totally obvious to everyone that the man is a crazed killing machine, the wife (who, like her husband, has a grapefruit for a brain) refuses to believe he's dangerous--even after he attacks people, steals an ambulance and runs a police car off the road!! <br /><br />Now most of the time Moss is going through these episodes, his eyes roll back and he looks like a normal person. Oddly, however, a couple times he develops bat-like hands and towards the end they used some nice prosthetics on him to make him look quite bat-like. Had this been really cheesy, the film would have merited a 1.<br /><br />In the very end, in a twist that hardly made any sense at all, the wife inexplicably turned into a crazed bat lady and had a swarm of bats kill the evil sheriff. How all this was arranged was a mystery as was Moss' and McAndrew's belief that this film would somehow help their careers--though they both have had reasonably long careers on TV playing bit roles since 1974.<br /><br />Overall, very dumb. The plot is silly and makes no sense and strongly relies on people acting way too dumb to be real. Not a good film at all, but not among the worst films of all time either.<br /><br />NOTE: For some reason, IMDb shows the graphic for the three DVD set for IT'S ALIVE and it's two sequels of the web page for THE BAT PEOPLE. While THE BAT PEOPLE has been seen with the title "It's Alive", the two movies are not at all related. It's easy to understand the mistake--especially since they both came out in 1974, but the movie I just reviewed starred Stewart Moss and Marianne McAndrew and the other film starred John Ryan and Sharon Farrell.
I didn't think this was as absolutely horrible as some people apparently do. It passes as one of those cheesy horror movies you might waste time with in the middle of the night when you can't sleep, although admittedly it's no better quality than that. It's true that the acting isn't great - I thought Marianne McAndrew as Cathy Beck, for example, came across as completely passionless - but the main problem is that several aspects of the plot didn't really make sense to me. The Becks are on a trip described by John (Stewart Moss) as part work and partly the honeymoon they never had (now that's romantic!) The work part has something to do with touring caves, which in itself sounds strange (how does being part of a tour group through a cave relate to anyone's work?) but it gets stranger when we find out that he's a doctor doing research in the area of preventative medicine (huh? That connection completely lost me.) Bitten by a bat while he's in the cave, he begins to transform into what I guess was supposed to be a human-bat hybrid (although when we finally see him in makeup he looks a lot more like an ape-man of some sort) and a killing spree starts. Here's another problem. The first killing is a nurse in a hospital. At first, everyone thinks her death was an accident. The second murder is of a young girl, who is described as having her throat ripped out. The sheriff (Michael Pataki) then tells us that her death was similar to the nurse's (meaning throat ripped out? - How could anyone think that was an accident?) And what's with the sheriff? He seems pretty no-nonsense until the scene in Cathy's hotel room when he takes a swig of liquor and then almost rapes her, after which everything seems to go back to normal. It's saddled with an ending that left almost everything unresolved, and also with one of the most irritating theme songs I've ever heard in a movie. Even for all that, there was something here that kept me watching. Sometimes pure cheesiness can get you through an hour and a half. Pretty bad, yeah - but not as awful as some people say.
"The Bat People" is a really bad film that deserved the MST3K treatment just as well like that other film "The Creeping Terror."<br /><br />In it, we are in some sort of mountainous terrain full of bats. We see many things happen, like bats flying out and attacking and stuff, station wagon chases, mishaps at the emergency room, and much more! All this, plus the cheesy mediocrity of the 1970s (hey, think "Mitchell" here!), making "The Bat People" actually one of the very best of the last "Mystery Science Theater 3000" episodes made in the series! Moviewise, it's awful. It should be avoided like the plague, unless Tom Servo and Crow are watching with you.<br /><br />"The Bat People" - more like "The Bad People!!!!!" LOL<br /><br />1/10 of course!!!!!
The movie that shoots scenes of a scenic caverns tour.<br /><br />Remember no one from this movie except for Michael Pataki who dished out extreme pain as JC in "Five the Hard Way". He's the really annoying sheriff who I did applaud when he practices nightstick on our rabid doctor. Probably the most laughs you will have is with Dr. Beck's epileptic seizures out of nowhere. Could Mrs. Beck be anymore wooden? Seriously, if you took a 4 foot branch, stuck it in a hot tub, you wouldn't be able to notice a difference. The dread and suspense is looking over at the clock wondering when the credits will roll.<br /><br />Watch it as a late night movie, MSTified, but don't go out of your way.
(spoilers)Wow, this is a bad one. I did a double take when watching an old Star Trek episode the other day-it was the one where everyone gets infected with that space sickness and then go a bit nuts-and there was Stewart Moss, a.k.a the unlikable 'hero' of It Lives by Night! He played the first crewmember infected, who dies from terminal depression. All I could think was that he'd watched his own movie too many times, that's what caused the depression. This movie is full of truly unlikable people. There is no redeeming character in the film, not one. It's very hard to feel bad about Dr. Beck's turning into a bat(or whatever he actually turned into), because you just don't like him. And you don't like his shrill, bony wife, or the nasty sleazy Sgt. Ward, or Dr. Mustache Love...So why would you invest any time or energy in this movie? Where there is no empathy with the characters, there is no reason to bother caring about it. Not to mention the horrible cinematography, which made it look like they'd filmed the movie through urine, and the five cent bat special effects, many of which appeared to be pieces of paper thrown into a fan to simulate hordes of bats flying. Not the worst film I've ever seen on MST3K, but down there in the bottom ranks, definitely.
Painful to watch, and not entirely for empathy with the struggles of the characters. Two of the main characters, Cynthia the mother and Monica the acknowledged daughter, spend the great bulk of the film pathetically mewling and bitterly bitching respectively. Their characters are so firmly established that their redemption into tolerable personalities after a quick family catharsis is unbelievable. It wasn't worth the wait. I wish a worthy pitch for honesty among families was less of a headache to view.
Time is precious. This film isn't. I must learn to ignore critics who rave about small films like Fargo and this complete waste of time.<br /><br />The theater was packed and everyone left with the same reaction: Is this the film the critics are raving about? What a piece of crap!<br /><br />The hook of this film is the upwardly mobile black daughter seeking out and finding her white trash family. Get it?<br /><br />The acting is superb.<br /><br />The production (lighting, sets, editing, sound) is about 2 steps above a 60 minutes story. The characters are shallow and unintelligent. I was insulted by the fact that these people could not figure out about each other what was blatantly obvious to the audience; the audience was murmuring to the movie screen what the characters should say next.<br /><br />I have had more fun doing the laundry.
At least among those movies with 100 votes or more. Nominated for best screenplay written directly for the screen? Brenda Blethyn nominated for best actress in a leading role?? Nominated for best picture?? I always disagree with many of the Oscar picks, but this movie might very well be the worst movie of all time to be honored by the Academy. The writing and acting were both horrible. Blethyn's perfomance in particular was one of the worst I've ever seen, and probably the most over-rated acting performance of all time. Awful movie, not worthy of the big screen and not worthy of any cable or television channel that has ever played it, including HBO(where I saw it). I am only thankful I didn't actually pay to see one of the most over-rated movies of all time.
First of all there wasn't really anything in this movie that grabbed me really. It wasn't a bad movie, just another movie where I said "Well, that wasn't anything special" after I'd seen it. There was probably drama and stuff, but it simply didn't grab me, but more seamed semi-dull. As I said in the headline it seamed very cheap in a way. The quality of the film itself (the images) seamed like a low quality and reminded me more of some cheap made for TV-movie than a well respected English film-maker. The camera angles and shots were very amateur like in my opinion. Didn't really have any close up shots or similar effects to produce interesting scenes. I haven't seen many English films and the ones I've seen didn't really impress me more than this and they seamed kind of similar done with the camera work, colors and such. "Game" tried to be more cool, hip & smart (see my review of "Lola Rennt" about this if you wish), but didn't succeed for me either. Overall just a little indifferent movie that wasn't anything special (at best, I'm afraid) and basically unfortunately over two hours wasted.
Well, EYEboy, I must say that it pleases me to no end when someone singles me out and tries to make fun of me, especially when it is someone who seems as intelligent as you do. My favorite part of your post was "But no big bang-bang good-guy bad-guy here, kimosabe. Me suggest you stick to movie with lotsa bang bang."<br /><br />Well said! I do like action movies, especially if they are well done, but I also like movies that don't have a whole lot of action, as long as THEY are well done. I'm sorry, but Secret's and Lies does not fit into that category and is simply a very bad movie. I really don't see very many non-American films, so maybe I was spoiled, and didn't realize how bad foreign films really were when I saw Secrets and Lies. Perhaps if I judge foreign movies by a different standard I could some day see how Secrets and Lies could possibly be one of the highest rated movies on the IMDB. Hmm... If true, that is very scary.<br /><br />Jeremy Barger bits@midohio.net(new e-mail)
"Horrible People" ought to be the subtitle of this horrible film. If you want to see ordinary people doing ordinary things, then look out of your window at real life. But if you want to see unpleasant people doing dull things, you'll have to watch this horrible film by Mike Leigh. The characters talk at length, but never actually manage to communicate with each other. Why not? Presumably because Leigh things that all of us are as ineffective and pathetic as his actors, and he wants to film real life. But we're not, and he failed.
I have seen a lot of movies...this is the first one I ever walked out of the theater on. Don't even bother renting it. This is about as boring a soap opera as one can see...at least you don't have to pay to watch a soap opera, though.
This movie was the most horrible movie watching experience i have ever had to endure, and what is worse is the fact that i had to watch it, and didn't have the opportunity to stop it because it was for school! Admittedly, the storyline was decent...but i found the acting terrible! The exception was Marianne Jean-Baptiste, i thought her performance was wonderful. She was the only highlight, without her, i doubt i would have been able to bear watching the film. Every time i hear somebody say "daarling" i cringe! i nearly attacked a customer the other day because they said "it". It made me remember one of the worst one and a half hours of my life!<br /><br />(i apologise if this has offended anybody, i am only expressing my opinion)
... mainly because Ju-on 2 boasts an outrageous FORTY minutes' worth of material literally taken straight out of the first Ju-on - and when you consider that the sequel only runs for 76 minutes, that leaves you with 36 original minutes' worth of film. Ho-hum. I found that deeply irritating - as if viewers simply wouldn't remember the same stuff! - not to mention dull, having to watch it all over again.<br /><br />OK, that complaint aside, the byline for Ju-on 2 was that it was supposed to explain a lot of the unanswered questions from the first movie, which frankly, over 36 minutes, simply doesn't go far enough to making any kind of sense of the original's highly convoluted storyline.<br /><br />There are, however, some really nice new horror sequences which show how good the film might have been, had it had some time to develop; and some of the questions raised by the original - some, but not all - are answered.<br /><br />So in conclusion - if you loved the first original movie and want to see some further developments on the story, go for it - but just remember to keep your remote control to hand with your finger on the fast-forward button for forty minutes.
POPEYE AND BIG FOOT **; POPEYE'S ENGINE COMPANY **; GETTING POPEYE'S GOAT **1/2<br /><br />I used to lap these up as a kid but, catching an episode of the series comprising three cartoons back-to-back now i.e. several years later (they preceded the theatrical screening of the pirate yarn RAIDERS OF THE SEVEN SEAS [1953]), I can see how they don't hold up all that well! The character of Popeye isn't exactly sympathetic to begin with, Olive Oyl distinctly overbearing and Bluto's antics failed to elicit much interest either – in short, the scripts were alarmingly thin, fairly awful and generally unfunny to boot. They're strictly juvenile fare, yet I doubt today's kids would even have the patience to stick with them!; furthermore, the animation style is unattractive.<br /><br />Taking each short per se, I guess they improved from one to the other: after the initial shock, one adapted to its mediocre quality as it were, so that the third cartoon easily results in being the most enjoyable of the lot – Popeye is entrusted with a mascot army goat whose immense appetite causes him no end of mischief (hardly original, I know, but always an amusing ploy). One interesting element here was that the shorts were bookended with Popeye delivering moralistic bits of wisdom to the kids in the audience.
Hanna-Barbera sucks the life out of another famous property. The violence is watered down, the stories are formulaic, the animation is bad, the music is obnoxious and repetitive, and frankly, the show just isn't funny.<br /><br />At the time, H-B put every one of its series through the same clichéd situations, regardless if it fit the world of the cartoon or not. Thus, Popeye and Bluto appear in a recurring segment as cavemen ("Hey! Popeye is popular, and the Flinstones are popular. Put 'em together, and you can't miss!"). Also, in an apparent ripoff of "Private Benjamin," Olive Oyl and the Goon have a regular segment that features them as new army recruits. Seriously! Why? <br /><br />Adding to the annoyance factor are the public service announcements in every episode (standard practice at the time for cartoons, but still annoying). Popeye lectures his nephews on crossing the street safely, recycling, and - are you ready for this? - the dangers of smoking! (I swear I'm not making that up.)<br /><br />The only charm remaining from the original cartoons is that Jack Mercer, the voice of Popeye from the early days, continues the role here.<br /><br />Worth checking out once just to get a new appreciation for the old Fleischer shorts. Otherwise, avoid at all costs.
Another great movie by Costa-Gavras. It's a great presentation of the situation is Latin America and the US involvement in Latin American politics. The facts might or might not be accurate but it is a fact that the US was deeply involved in coups and support of Latin American dictatorships.<br /><br />Despite this though the spirit of the movie follows the typical leftist/communist propaganda of the Cold War era. Costa-Gavras is a well-known communist sympathizer and his movies are always biased. For example he presents the US actions as brutal and inhumane, while representing Tupamaros' extremist activities as something positive.<br /><br />As it turned out it was a blessing for Uruguay and the rest of the Latin America that the US got involved. Europe is filled with poor East European prostitutes. I never heard of poor Uruguayan or Chilean girls prostituting themselves en masse as it happens in most East European countries. The US was fighting a dirty war and god bless us all the monster of Soviet Communism was defeated. It is unfortunate the US had to do what it did in Latin America (and elsewhere) but sometimes you need to play dirty. This is not an idealistic world as Costa-Gavras and Matamoros like to believe. Had Matamoros come to power in Uruguay, we would've had another Ukraine in Latin America.<br /><br />All in all this movie follows corrupt and bankrupt leftist ideology of times past and tries to pass it as idealistic and morally correct.
I think Phillip Kaufman read the cliff's Notes version of the Kundera novel and then set about making this film. Okay, of course it won't have the punch of the original. Kundera's novels are great because of his manipulation of the narrative concept, his ability to step in and out of stories he constructs. This film does not even try! The one dream sequence of Tereza's, so vital to the atmosphere of the book, is reworked and makes no sense whatsoever. Also, and this is perhaps a lesser point, Daniel Day-Lewis looks a lot like Ben Stiller in this (I know it's not really a valid complaint, but hey). A perfect example of the Hollywood-izing of otherwise fine literature.
*** Contains Spoilers ***<br /><br />I did not like this movie at all.<br /><br />I found it amazingly boring and rather superficially made, irrespective of the importance and depth of the proposed themes: given that eventually we have to die, how should we approach life? In a "light" way, like Tomas; in a "heavy" way like Tereza; or should we find ways not to face that question, like Sabina? How much is fidelity important in a relationship? How much of the professional life can be mutilated for the sake of our loved ones? How much do we have to be involved in the political life and the social issues of our Country?<br /><br />Unfortunately, I haven't read Kundera's novel but after having being let down by the movie I certainly will: I want to understand if the story was ruined by the movie adaptation (which is my guess) or if it was dull from the beginning.<br /><br />I disagree with most of the positive comments that defined the movie as a masterpiece. I simply don't see the reasons why. What I see are many flaws, and a sample of them follows.<br /><br />1) The three main characters are thrown at you and it's very hard to understand what drives them when making their choices.<br /><br />2) The "secondary" characters are there just to fill the gaps but they don't add nothing to the story and you wonder if they are really necessary.<br /><br />3) I did not like how Tomas was impersonated. Nothing is good for him. He is so self-centered and selfish. He is not human, in some sense. But when his self-confidence fails and he realizes that he depends on others and is emotionally linked to someone, I did not find the interpretation credible.<br /><br />4) It's very unlikely that an artist like Sabina could afford her lifestyle in a communist country in 1968. On top of that, the three main characters are all very successful in their respective professions, which sounds strange to me. a) how can Tereza become effortlessly such a good photographer? b) how can they do so well in a country lacking all the economic incentives that usually motivate people to succeed?<br /><br />5) The fake accents of the English spoken by the actors are laughable. And I am not even mother tongue. Moreover, the letter that Sabina receives while in the US is written in Czech, which I found very inconsistent.<br /><br />6) Many comments praised the movie saying that Prague was beautifully rendered: I guess that most of the movie was shot on location, so it's not difficult to give the movie a Eastern European feeling, and given the intrinsic beauty of Prague is not even difficult to make it look good.<br /><br />7) I found the ending sort of trivial. Tereza and Tomas, finally happy in the countryside, far away from the temptations of the "metropoly", distant from the social struggles their fellow citizens are living, detached from their professional lives, die in a car accident. But they die after having realized that they are happy, indeed. So what? Had they died unhappy, would the message of the movie have been different? I don't think so. I considered it sort of a cheap trick to please the audience.<br /><br />8) The only thing in the movie which is unbearably light is the way the director has portrayed the characters. You see them for almost three hours, but in the end you are left with nothing. You don't feel empathy, you don't relate to them, you are left there in your couch watching a sequence of events and scenes that have very little to say.<br /><br />9) I hated the "stop the music in the restaurant" scene (which some comments praised a lot). Why Sabina has got such a strong reaction? Why Franz agrees with her? I really don't see the point. The only thing you learn is that Sabina has got a very bad temper and quite a strong personality. That's it. What's so special and unique about it?<br /><br />After all these negative comments, let me point tout that there are two scenes that I liked a lot (that's why I gave it a two).<br /><br />The "Naked women Photoshoot", where the envy, the jealousy, and the insecurities of Sabina and Tereza are beautifully presented.<br /><br />The other scene is the one representing the investigations after the occupation of Prague by the Russians. Tereza pictures, taken to let the world know about what is going on in Prague, are used to identify the people taking part to the riots. I found it quite original and Tereza's sense of despair and guilt are nicely portrayed.<br /><br />Finally, there is a tiny possibility that the movie was intentionally "designed" in such a way that "Tomas types" are going to like it and "Tereza ones" are going to hate it. If this is the case (I strongly doubt it, though) then my comment should be revised drastically.
After reading the book, which had a lot of meaning for me, the movie didn't give me any of the feeling which the book conveyed. This makes me wonder if Kaufman even liked this book for he successfully made it into something else.Either that or he is simply bad. Most importantly where is the lightness?! From the very first scene, music drownes out most of the dialogue and feeling, and this continues right through the movie. I think the makers thought that by having upbeat music playing right through the movie, this would make the story feel light- however they have completely failed here. Instead the music manages to give everything that 'movie feel', in a way dramatising events so that we linger on them, so that everything actually feels heavy.<br /><br />Another example of the how this adaptation fails is by embellishing the story line making it more dramatic. In the movie we see Franz passing Tomas on the street, who is on his way to see Sabina. The introduction of this chance meeting/passing, which im sure didn't happen in the book, gives Tomas' story more significance than it does make it light.<br /><br />There are many other examples where the continuity of the story has been changed, imo for the worst, however this might have been done because the book simply doesn't convert well into a movie, such is Kundera's style. This makes we wonder if all the generous reviewers on this site were writing with their book AND movie experience in mind rather than writing about just the film. A film which is as long as it is uncompelling. For those who haven't read the book yet I recommend just reading that. For those who have, I have to say you will just be wasting your time and probably end up here writing similar stay-clear warnings.
This film is quite boring. There are snippets of naked flesh tossed around in a lame attempt to keep the viewer awake but they don't succeed.<br /><br />The best thing about the movie is Lena Olin--she does a masterful job handling her character, but Day-Lewis garbles most of his lines.<br /><br />Kaufman clearly had no idea how to film this. The incongruities in bouncing between domestic household/marriage issues and political crises are badly matched. Character attitudes change without explanation throughout. Badly disjointed.
Seriously, Why do American and Frech actors pretending to be Czechs need to speak perfect English with a fake Russian accent? I am a man, so i enjoyed the gratuitous nudity--but a soft porn flick would have more of that, and at least wouldn't pretend it's artistic.<br /><br />All the political statements where painfully didactic- has the director heard of subtlety? The acting was also woody and melodramatic, and the comic relief was never funny. The characters were very shallow, and I just couldn't identify with them at all.<br /><br />The bit where I did laugh was when they cut the actors into archival footage of the demonstrations in Prague - and they were black and white and then sepia to match the footage-just ludicrous.<br /><br />I read many of Kundera's short stories (not The Unbearable Lightness of Being), and there are good things about his style of writing (although his themes are one big male fantasy)-and I have to say, the film did NOT convey any of the goodness of Kunderas style.
Harsh, yes, but I call 'em like I see 'em.<br /><br />I saw this in the late 80's, and it was truly one of the most awful, boring films I've ever forced myself to watch.<br /><br />Yes, the cinematography is lovely. The Czech settings are truly stunning. The political backdrop is enticing, but unlike similar "historically set" stories (e.g. _Dr. Zhivago_ (qv)), this one failed to make the politics relevant to the story, or even interesting.<br /><br />Sure, Olin and Binoche are beautiful. But this film manages to make even "erotic" scenes plodding and slow. I'm all for romance, but this movie was so boring, I started hoping the Russians would shoot them all and put an end to my misery.<br /><br />I'm sure if I'd read the book, the story would have made a bit more sense. However, life's too short to expend any more time on this one.
yeah cheap shot i know, but this movie is a great example of how a collection of signifiers of 'deepness' (political turmoil, love/lust) can be combined haphazardly to great critical acclaim (see also 'american beauty'). kaufman's movie plods along with gratuitous sex scenes interspersed with often painful dialog sequences (in one scene i counted three different 'generic European' accents affected by the actors) and displays of state might run amok, yet fails to tie them together into the coherent meditation kundera offered. and in its over-long three hours it manages almost completely to gloss over franz,the missing fourth piece in the love triangle that lies at the heart of the plot, and in this manner sacrifices the novel's central mechanism of displaying the spectrum of emotions and of power relations that obtain in love affairs. it also fails to even include token screen time for tomas' son, used in the novel to exemplify some of the political points kundera was making in the novel. combined with the overweening soundtrack, these flaws make this movie's three hours unbearably weighty in tone yet light in content.
This is possibly one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I don't care what the critics say, it's bad. I think the problem is with Kundera's novel. It's not that it's unfilmable; it's just that like 99% of his work, it's pretentious and overdrawn. He seems to be enamored with himself,his characters come off as navel-gazing, and his novels as a whole are misogynistic. I have read many of his works (even his Socialist Realist poetry. That was truly awful) -- I just don't understand what the fuss is about. Characteristics (like the self-absorption) in his novels make for infuriating reading. In a movie, all the things that I dislike about Kundera were magnified. Maybe I just missed something, but I don't think so. On a side note, I cannot believe that this is a Criterion Collection DVD. No way is this movie THAT essential.
Oh, I heard so much good about this movie. Went to see it with my best friend (she's female, I'm male). Now please allow me a divergent opinion from the mainstream. After the first couple of dozen "take off your clothes," we both felt a very strange combination of silliness and boredom. We laughed (at it, not with it), we dozed (and would have been better off staying in bed), we were convinced we had spent money in vain. And we had. The plot was incoherent, and the characters were a group of people about whom it was impossible to care. A waste of money, a waste of celluloid. This movie doesn't even deserve one out of ten votes, but that's the lowest available. I'm not sure why this movie has the reputation that it does of being excellent; I don't recommend it to anyone who has even a modicum of taste or intelligence.
It's frequently said that movies can never equal the original book. Well, in this case, not only the movie is not "as good" as the book, but is an insult to the book. I'd rather see Milan Kundera's novel turned on fire than into this "something," which the director probably calls "adaptation."<br /><br />All the beautiful philosophy that asks "is it better to carry a heavy load on your shoulders, or cope with the unbearable lightness of being?" is put aside, and instead, all the movie deals with is Daniel Day Lewis' (I cannot say Tomas) sexual adventures with his dumb wife, his mistress, and his other mistresses. François Truffaut already said it: bad directors make bad movies. Don't waste your time and money. Read the book instead, it's really worth it.
Bonfires of the Vanities is a film drenched in flop sweat. I can recall no film that has tried so hard to be so unrelentingly outrageous, provocative and important, yet failed so consistently across the board. It is like a stand up comic who's not getting laughs, but can't leave the stage. The harder the film tries, the louder each attempt at a laugh results in a resounding thud. The desperation the film displays is so glaring it almost rouses pity for all those involved.<br /><br />The film achieves laugh-out-loud status only twice. Once is in the sight of Geraldo Rivera playing an obnoxious, arrogant and amoral TV tabloid journalist -- which is funny only because he apparently doesn't realize he is playing himself. The other scene that deserves to be laughed at is the film's final "big moment," wherein the judge played by Morgan Freeman delivers the sanctimonious lecture about what morality is ("it's what your mama taught ya!"). The pomposity of the moment is insulting to the point of being absurd. <br /><br />Yet, one must admit it is a noble effort. It does have a good, if poorly cast, band of actors, who try to make characters out of cardboard thin caricatures. The film looks professionally made and the little cinematic flourishes that director Brian DePalma just loves are apparent, if not particularly effective. But the film, which apparently wishes to be a commentary on modern morals and ethics, never arises above the level of cartoon. Satire requires style. Farce requires energy. Even sitcom requires timing. But the best Bonfires can muster is desperation. In the end, you don't want to laugh, you just want to turn away.
This was a great book and the possibilities for a truly great film were definitely there. But the casting decisions completely wrecked the movie. Hanks is a great actor to be sure, but lacks the smarmy, morally ambivalent characteristics needed for the lead role. Jeff Daniels would have been my choice.<br /><br />Putting Melanie Griffiths in, for eye candy reasons, is understandable, but again, she did not portray the depth or ambivalence, so need to pull this off.<br /><br />This movie is a great example of how every decision, even those early on in the movie production can make or break a file.
This is one of the most atrocious rewrites I've ever viewed. If they want to make a movie with a lousy story, they should refrain from giving it a title of a fine book. There is hardly a relation between Wolfe's book and this movie other than the title. I don't mind changes if they help a story flow on screen. At least the changes shouldn't hurt the final product. The last scene in the movie is painfully unconvincing. The actors are miscast. The director and/or screen writer obviously could not decide whether to make a lame comedy or preach an unconvincing sermon.<br /><br />If you've seen this movie and disliked it, try the book. If you've seen this movie and liked it, read the book.
Regarded by many critics as one of the biggest stinkers of all time (certainly the biggest stinker of director Brian De Palma's career).<br /><br />Sherman McCoy (Tom Hanks) is a smug rich boy whose life goes to pieces when he and his lover Maria Ruskin (Melanie Griffith) are involved in a hit-and-run. His story is chronicled by another smug guy, reporter Peter Fallow (Bruce Willis).<br /><br />Well, as I said in my summary...<br /><br />What is this movie supposed to be? It seems to combine comedy, drama, and satire, but it sure doesn't add up to much. It's undermined by unimaginably loathsome, one-dimensional characters who you'd never want to have the displeasure of meeting in real life.<br /><br />I'm no big fan of the novel (I started reading it once, but couldn't finish it because it wasn't to my liking) but it's obvious to me that those who did / do enjoy the novel consider this film to be a complete travesty.<br /><br />I've never seen so many talented actors strive to hard to give a below-average movie some semblance of quality and fail. What a waste.<br /><br />The problems start with casting nice guy Tom Hanks in a role that is clearly supposed to be UNsympathetic. And the role of Peter Fallow in the novel was that of a Brit. Bruce Willis is badly, BADLY miscast in the role. What was the thinking there.<br /><br />Alas, not even Morgan Freeman can escape the film with his dignity intact, being obliged to deliver a lame, heavy-handed lecture on 'decency' after the climax.<br /><br />This movie ends up turning into an absurd farce.<br /><br />I liked the assemblage of talent; for that I will give it four out of ten, but I'm sure some people will say a MUCH better movie could have been made from the source material.
Most book adaptations are bad but this film left out key parts of the storyline and changed the description and some characters. They rewired the storyline and combined scenes and changed the order. They added ridiculous things into it that never happened in the book and would never happen.<br /><br />If i hadn't read the book beforehand it would have been an incredibly dull film, it didn't make you care about the characters, like them or dislike them. It turns the characters into jokes.<br /><br />Awful.<br /><br />Ridiculous.<br /><br />Waste of two hours of my life.
The point of Wolfe's original novel -- indeed the point of the whole story -- is that things take place because of a carefully calculated sense of expediency. The goal is survival within a particular kind of life style. The novel is full of malice. The only relationship that rings emotionally true is that between Sherman and his daughter, Campbell, and that's only touched upon. That aside, everyone is out for what he can get in the way of publicity, power, money or self aggrandizement.<br /><br />Wolfe was criticized for hitting every character and every social segment of New York City over the head. His response was a denial. After all, he lived in New York himself and belonged to a neighborhood improvement committee and other admirable organizations, exactly the qualifications one would want on his resume in order to deny that he disliked New Yorkers. (Wolfe has a PhD in American Studies from Yale and is no dummy.) Those supposed weaknesses are what made the novel memorable. Nobody was any good. And Sherman McCoy wound up broke, a professional protester for social justice. The movie throws all of that away and imposes a moral frame on the story that simply doesn't fit. Wolfe did his homework. The novel was rooted in reality. Every event was not only possible but thoroughly believable. Wolfe might have made a great cultural anthropologist -- he knows how to get inside a system and record its details.<br /><br />Yes, any of us might have found ourselves, as Sherman and his mistress do, stuck in the South Bronx, threatened by a couple of black kids, and making a getaway after bumping into one of them. That scene is transferred neatly from print to celluloid. <br /><br />But after that scene the movie seems not to trust its audience and at times become frantic in its attempt to spell out its message, however nebulous the message is. <br /><br />Sherman might accidentally hit some kid and be arrested for it as he is in the novel, but he would not immediately upon his release from jail go back to his phenomenally expensive condo, take out a shotgun, and start shooting into the ceiling with it, as he does in the movee. In what's supposed to be a funny scene, ceiling plaster falls all over the party guests and they scurry away, shrieking. It simply would not have happened. The movie has left the novel's unspeakably detailed reality in the dust. Wolfe's sensibility, the work he put into capturing the real, has been lost. What we get instead is a noisy, fantastic, and silly scene that doesn't do anything except wake the audience up. Similar empty scenes follow, screaming out for Wolfe's verisimilitude.<br /><br />The movie also fails because it thrusts a lot of sin and redemption into an entertaining story of moral nihilism. Here we see "Don Juan in Hell" at the opera. We get lectures on redemption from a poet with AIDs. We see a lot of guilt in Sherman. A black judge who preaches from the bench and gives one of those final speeches about how we all have to start behaving nicely again. A reporter who feels sorry for Sherman after turning him into a sacrificial lamb. And a happy ending in which Sherman gets off by breaking the law with an idiotic grin. The scene sits on the movie like a jester's cap on a circus elephant's head. <br /><br />The movie not only makes points that are already trite and unoriginal, it overstates them, as if the audience were incapable of absorbing any subtleties.<br /><br />It's not the acting or the direction that's poor. The film's not bad in those respects. And the photography is pretty good too, including two rather spectacular shots -- the gargoyles of the Chrysler building and the landing of the Concorde. It's the script that is thoroughly botched.<br /><br />The first half of the movie, roughly, is okay in conception and execution. It keeps some of the little details from the novel. Sherman and Judy's dog is named Marshall. Who the hell would name a dog Marshall? It loses its focus almost completely in the second half and on the whole is barely worth watching.<br /><br />Wolfe's cynical redneck right-wingism may be offensive to a lot of people, but he's got the cojones to lay his percepts out. Alas the writers and producers did not have the courage to pick them up and thus blew the chance to make a fascinating study of New Yorkers.
As someone who has both read the novel and seen the film, I have a different take on why the film was such a flop. First, any comparisons between novel and film are purely superficial. They are two different animals.<br /><br />The novel is probably intended as a satire, but it arrives as a cross between tragedy and polemic instead. Any comedic elements such as those which later formed the stylistic basis of the film version are merely incidental to the author's uniformly cynical thrust. And lest the omnipresent white suit of the author fool you into thinking this is another Mark Twain, think again. A more apt literary precedent would be the spectre of Ambrose Bierce in a top hat and tails. Tom Wolfe is equal parts clown and hack, more celebrity than author, always looking for new grist for his self-absorbed mill. <br /><br />It is therefore no wonder that the excellent production skills and direction lavished on the making of the film were doomed from the start. Unlike true satire, which translates very well into film, polemics are grounded not in universally accessible observations on some form or other of human behavior, but in a single-minded attack on specific people -- whether real or fictional straw men -- who have somehow earned the wrath of the writer. Any effort to create a successful filmed story or narrative from such a beginning must have a clean start, free of the writer's influence or interference.<br /><br />Having said that, I too find fault with the casting. It is not merely that incompetents like Bruce Willis and Melanie Griffith fail to measure up, but that real talents like Tom Hanks, F. Murray Abraham, and Morgan Freeman are either totally wasted or given roles that are mere caricatures.<br /><br />There is enough topical material here for a truly great film satire, but it fails to come even close.
Based on Tom Wolfe's satirical novel that was praised by all (i have not read it yet) Tom Hanks stars as a wall streeter who accidentally kills a black boy while lost in a bad part of NYC Willis stars as the reporter who starts Hanks on his downward spiral.. The characters are very thin and there seems to be no empathy for anyone in this movie and for a comedy or a satire there arent a lot of laughs either..Melanie Griffith had her breasts done during filming so a fun thing to do is to see if her boobs change size during different parts of the film..This will keep your mind off other things like the lack of script or humor.. On a scale of one to ten..3
Tom Wolfe's sprawling, brilliantly observed satiric novel of life among New York snobbery gets a glossy look here but is nevertheless not well served. The film suffers not merely from the miscasting of everyman Tom Hanks as an uncaring Yuppie, Kewpie-doll Melanie Griffith as a manipulative southern belle and Bruce Willis (?!) as the darling of New York's literati. The most serious miscasting was in the director's chair. Robert Altman might have breathed life into these unlikeable characters and made them interesting, but Brian De Palma, for all of his visual sophistication, has never had an eye for the nuances of the human experience. The resulting film looks good but seems blah toward its subject of dehumanization in favor of status. Honestly, if a satire does not make the viewer angry, what is the point?
(This is a review of the later English release by Disney, featuring Alison Lohman, Patrick Stewart, and co.) <br /><br />I really wanted this film to be good. Really, really. I'm a huge fan of Princess Mononoke and Spirited Away, and after seeing all the glowing reviews on this earlier Miyazaki film, I was eager to see it. But I was shocked, shocked I say, at the quality of this film. Those later films boast well-crafted plots, 3-dimensional characters, and the best film music since...well...ever. This film just doesn't come close.<br /><br />Might as well start w/ the positive aspects, though. Like all Miyazaki films, this one is still very imaginative, with a bizarre fantasy/sci-fi setting, in a post-apocalyptic world where insects are the dominant species. Nausicaa can also boast some far superior animation to other films from its time. (though not as beautiful and fluid as Miyazaki's later films) And the English voice acting is quite well done.<br /><br />But this film...just...isn't...good... The characters are all cardboard - from saccharine sweet little Nausicaa, to the ruthlessly evil Tolmekians, to everyone in between. Once you've seen each of them for 30 seconds, you've seen all there is. And the fact that the plot just ambles along doesn't help.<br /><br />Then there's the music... Now, Hisaichi is hands down my favorite film composer, but Nausicaa doesn't do him justice. Half the music is 80's keyboards on overdrive, and it usually enters and leaves so abruptly that it distracts the visuals rather than helping them. I highly suspect that Hisaichi was told to compose a lot of the music before he even saw the picture.<br /><br />But wait! There's a great message with this film, right?! Let's all save the environment! Too bad that this film hits you over the head with it like a sledgehammer. There is a scene in which Nausicaa hugs a tree. No, really. I ain't kidding.<br /><br />It makes me a little sad to talk about how lame this film is. But for some reason all the other reviews on IMDb seem to adore it. And when the characters have to talk to themselves in extended sentences to tell you what's going on, that's lame.<br /><br />If you're the kind of person who worships anime, enjoys 80's music, and plants a tree every Arbor day, you will probably like this film. Otherwise, save your money for his later films, because they rock big time.
I am partly a fan of Miyazaki's work. I say "partly" because most of his films fall into two categories: brilliant, and boring. Sadly this film falls into the later category.<br /><br />This film suffers from the same fundamental problems as Miyazaki's recent film "Howl's Moving Castle". An intriguing premise is set up, but then immediately reduced to little more than a backdrop for some unfathomable events that only serve to confuse the plot rather than explain it.<br /><br />The first third of the film reveals the post-apocalyptic world the story is set in, and actually looks like an very interesting story is about to unfold. From then on things go down hill. The middle part of the film is mostly made up of thinly-veiled eco-propaganda, and the ending is heavily marred by the reliance on the kind of impenetrable spiritualism which ruins a large number of Japanese animated films.<br /><br />Overall the film feels as though someone ripped out every other page from the script before passing it on the the animators. What is left is something which is visually stunning (although sadly the version I saw was an Nth-generation copy, with poor colour - which gives rise to the common myth that Nausicaa shows her bare bottom when flying), but which makes little sense and ultimately left me confused.
I don't know what it is about Donald Sutherland's acting style, or vocal style, but he always seems to be acting from behind a massive wad of soggy Kleenex. He's just...I don't know, THICK? Somnambulistic? On meds? Weird.<br /><br />That said, I just saw the flick again for the first time since its original release, and frankly, I don't remember it ending anything LIKE that. A bad ending, too, because nothing gets tied off. What about the dead husband? The annoying child (and was the kid dubbed?)? The Scotland Yard and military pursuers? I would have liked something wrapping things up and giving some dramatic closure to it all, not just the big panoramic pull-away.<br /><br />And what woman sleeps with the man she knows just killed her husband? Even if she was trying to allay Needle's suspicions to protect her kid, she could always have had a headache. That last encounter made me feel way too itchy and uncomfortable...
To make a good movie you either need excellent actors or an excellent director. You need at least one of the two. In this Eye of the Needle we have none.<br /><br />I don't even remember the name of the director. He mustn't have done much in his career. I like very much Donald Sutherland but he absolutely cannot be the main actor in a movie. He falls short. Sutherland is excellent in a movie when he appears for not more than 15 minutes. I would say for instance that Sutherland was excellent in JFK of Oliver Stone when he talked to Kevin Costner on the bench of a park for 10 minutes non-stop without even taking a breath. Wonderful. But Sutherland being the principal actor in a movie is no good.<br /><br />Kate Nelligan? She is probably good for TV series. The DVD is awful. Terrible colors. Terrible light. I couldn't even appreciate the scenery of Storm Island for how lousy the photography was.<br /><br />This Ken Follett story was good but it's a pity they turned it into an uninteresting movie.
The movie lacks credence with the helicopters which didn't exist until the 1950s. But no woman would do what was done here, even a woman before the women's movement of the 60s and 70s. About the only portion of the movie that you could believe in was that Germany would want to know where the landing would be. Ignore for the moment that the British had captured all the spies but even if they had not, they wouldn't have let one roam around like this just to reassure the Germans that the landing would be at Calais. It isn't one major thing that makes the movie not work. It is the culmination of all the things wrong that makes the movie fail. Bad directing, bad scripts, no attempt at authenticity (at all) all combine to just make the movie fall flat. Generally speaking spies should fade into the woodwork. The suspense comes in with the spy wondering if the information they have is valid or not and worrying about being detected. On this one that game was over from the start. This spy was doing anything but spying. Your only chance at getting something that has some credibility and instills some suspense may be to read the book.
When I had first heard of "Solar Crisis" then got a load of the cast, I wondered why I had never heard of a movie with such a big cast before. Then I saw it.<br /><br />Now I know.<br /><br />For a movie that encompasses outer space, the sun, vast deserts and sprawling metropolises, this is an awfully cramped and claustrophobic feature; it feels like everyone is hunkered close together so the camera won't have to pull too far back.<br /><br />And the effects, while good, are pretty underwhelming; we're talking about the imminent destruction of the planet Earth if a team of scientists and soldiers cannot deflect a deadly solar flare. But other than shouting, sweating and a red glow about everything, there's no real feel of emergency.<br /><br />Don't get me started about the cast. What Heston, Palance, Matheson, Boyle, et al are doing in this movie without even bothering to act with any feel for the material is anyone's guess. Makes you wonder who else's condos aren't paid for in Hollywood....<br /><br />And as far as the end goes.... Well, let's just say it's tense and intriguing but it's too little too late in an effort like this. If it had kept up that kind of pace all through the film, maybe I would have heard of "Solar Crisis" sooner.<br /><br />Two stars. Mostly for lost opportunities and bad career moves. <br /><br />I wonder how Alan Smithee keeps his job doing junk like this?
Oh the hilarity! Oh the joy! Another film that is so bad it's good! Or, so I thought. In actual fact, this one misses the "so bad its good" phase and goes, sadly, straight to the "could have been so bad its good, but they screwed it up and made it plain bad".<br /><br />For a start its way too long. Cut half an hour and it might have been more endurable. Then put in such ludicrous plots as "the man who is sabotaging the mission to save the Earth, because he has all the food stockpiled and he'll be rich if the mission fails!". Duh!. Or the "talking bomb" plot device last seen in Dark Star. Guess what....just like in Dark Star, the bomb has a malfunction.....hmmmm. Add in a dash of "we can't act our way out of a kindergarten play" and you have Solar Crisis in a nutshell.<br /><br />Light relief is to be had in the form of Jack Palance (or Jack Pants, as we called him in this flick), whose sole purpose in the film is to drive a kid around the desert and telephone the kid's dad to come pick him up....eventually. Between driving and phoning, Jack dispenses pointless drivel and leers and cackles a lot, but contributes little to the story, such as it is. In short, he's the best bit of the movie.<br /><br />My award for "The Most Ironic Line Delivered Straight-Faced" goes to Charlton Heston, who, when meeting his eldest son for the first time in ages, comments that his son looks a little "out of shape" whilst he himself is standing there with his gut bulging over his waistband and in dire need of a Captain Kirk Corset.<br /><br />Also amusing is the bad guy's top henchman, who has a bright white hairstyle that kept making me think of Andy Warhol, for some reason.<br /><br />Apart from these hilarities, there's little to recommend this movie. The ending is a sequence copied from (but mercifully shorter than) the end sequence from 2001.<br /><br />Tips for enjoying this movie more, if you are foolish enough to watch it, like I did:<br /><br />1. Any time the bomb speaks, imagine it's called Tarquin (Trust me, it works!)<br /><br />2. Whenever Chuck Heston is on screen and about to speak, pre-empt him by reciting a line from Planet of the Apes such as "Get your filthy paws off me!" or similar.<br /><br />3. Whenever the female lead is looking stressed (this is most of the time) keep hoping against hope that she's having an aneurism and will die soon.<br /><br />4. During the interminable "the ship's broke again" scenes, keep hoping the tech/engineer guys will spout a Scotty-ism like "You cannae change the laws of physics!" or some such crap.<br /><br />Other than that, do what it takes to get you through this one. I dozed off half way through and woke to realise I hadn't missed anything, nor had the plot (laughable though it is) advanced any. So don't worry about tuning out for a few, you won't miss anything.
I picked this title up from a friend who had it sitting in his exhaustive DVD/Video/Laserdisc collection, so luckily I didn't personally have to pay for it. I had an inkling that it would be a bad film, but I KNOW what a truly bad film is after watching greats like Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things and The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies, and now there is truly nothing that fazes me unless it is astoundingly bad.<br /><br />Solar Crisis is bad, but it doesn't reach that sweet spot of absolute pain that some movies are at.<br /><br />Anyway, the general plot is that the sun is about to unleash a huge solar flare towards the earth that will essentially destroy it. In order to counter-act this imminent threat, humanity has assembled a spaceship and crew whose duty it is to fire an antimatter bomb (which the opening describes as "the biggest explosive ever") into the sun, which through some convoluted sci-fi logic will cause the flare to shoot out at a different angle, leaving earth unharmed.<br /><br />Never mind that what I have just described to you sounds like a bad episode of the original Star Trek. Even with an ensemble cast (Charlton Heston, Peter Boyle, and Jack Palance), Solar Crisis can barely manage that level of mediocrity, thanks to a plot that starts simple, yet becomes increasingly nonsensical as time wears on.<br /><br />The crowning achievement of this debacle of a movie is the addition of a villain character (played by Boyle) who insists on sabotaging the mission. Through means that are never explained, he sends an evil minion with an embarrassingly bad haircut to exercise some sort of vague electronic mind control over the space crew's genetically engineered scientist, played by female lead Annabel Schofield. Why is he sabotaging the mission? Because by his moronic viewpoint, he believes the flare won't happen and that when it doesn't, he will become fabulously wealthy because he has dug his evil claws into the stock market. In effect, you have a villain with the most absurdly stupid motivation imaginable.<br /><br />The film's plot becomes amazingly convoluted and develops very slowly, in time tapping the use of characters who have only vague or uselessly brief roles in the storyline. I could sit here and explain in detail precisely what happens to demonstrate the sheer inability of the screenwriter to make a plot that actually clicks or holds your attention, but I am sitting here writing this review on Microsoft Word and I know for a fact that this would take three pages, and I would only succeed in losing your interest. But then again, you would probably get the same effect from watching the film.<br /><br />Anyway, the film is miserably bogged down with exceedingly poor dialogue. Imagine if all that ever happened on the Star Trek Enterprise was that the characters spewed sci-fi jargon back and forth at each-other. Yes, I know, they already do that, but imagine if that's ALL they did, and that they used said jargon to set up vague and near-nonsensical scenes that produce no excitement, tension, or interest in the viewer whatsoever.<br /><br />This is best exemplified at the point when a character in a Zero-G environment screws a bolt back onto a metal box before proceeding to cry in agony for a couple of minutes before suddenly exploding. The script alludes previously to the character risking an explosion, but doesn't bother to give any solid answer as to why or how this occurs, nor why he can't really escape. In totality, you have a sorry cross between the bizarre and the laughable.<br /><br />Then we have several scenes where dramatic build-up leads to nothing. Jack Palance's performance is wasted on a character that serves only to drive the boy hero (don't ask) around the desert, before getting roughed up and killed by a bunch of suits. On his death-bed, Palance finally tells our boy hero his last name (while wearing a horrible bruised makeup job that makes it look like somebody put a balloon under his eyeball), which he kept quiet about before. Colonel Travis J. Richards. The boy repeats it quietly after he expires, giving viewers the impression that the name is of some significance later on in the film. Perhaps Charlton Heston's grizzled admiral character knows him and the plot will advance thereby once his name is repeated. Something. Anything.<br /><br />Nope. Sorry. Any hopes you have will be dashed when this moment turns out only to be another of many pathetic, failed attempts at creating drama—for a character so flat and hackneyed that it will forever be a stain on Palance's career, just as those of the rest of the cast are similarly marred.<br /><br />Completing the film is a painfully abrupt ending featuring Schofield piloting the bomb into the center of the sun in an effort to redeem her deeds while under the villain's spell, a climax which features another of the film's considerably well-done visual effects sequences that, even for the visibly elaborate care put into them, still always manage to make the film look just as chintzy as it really is. The saddest part about this film is the obviously large budget, tragically wasted on a stinker of a script and a supporting cast behind Boyle, Heston, and Palance that manage to nail the coffin shut with pure over-acting.<br /><br />Grade: D-
Disowned by Richard C. Sarafian, this disaster stunk up Japanese theaters before coming to the States and going immediately to video, where it was not seen again until the Turner networks needed something other than infomercials to fill their 3am-6am time slots and found this tape at the bottom of their bin. The Smithee name is supposed to be used when the studio hacks the movie so badly that the director no longer wants his name attached to it. But I'm afraid that Sarafian can not blame the studio entirely on this one. The actors, mostly recent graduates of "Overacting 101", deliver one cornball line after another. The plot is convoluted. The special effects are unimpressive. The parts that aren't laughable are just plain boring. The script or the book must have been good - why else would Palance, Matheson, Boyle, or Heston agree to appear in this dud? But something went horribly wrong from the page to the screen. Summary: Avoid. Not even bad enough to be so-bad-it's-good.
It was one of those late night "It's there" I saw it things. Sometimes they are great. This one was awful, but it really shouldn't have been.<br /><br />The movie had a really good cast. How can you fail when you have Charlsten Heston and Jack Pallance? We're talking Oscar winner turf here. It had good special effects. It even had some really good tits! And I mean nicely shown, full breast with full nipple and at one point even some beaver. But it didn't compensate for the one missing ingredient - a story! The plot was ludicrous. I don't mean the "solar crisis" sun exploding stuff, but that was bad enough. It was the rest of the stuff - the oh so stupid and totally predictable evil corporation stuff. Man that just STANK! No amount of good acting or cool space ships or fight scenes could get around that one.<br /><br />I have seen the same cast members be incredibly good. I have seen wonderful science fiction movies that had miniscule casts and budgets. All the difference is in the writing.
One of the requirements of science fiction, at least before it starts to become satire, is that it be somewhat plausible. I would think that an anti-matter bomb would do considerably more damage than for what it was intended. But I'll leave that to the physicists who might have seen Solar Crisis.<br /><br />It is a crisis the earth is facing because solar flares are getting totally out of hand. They're getting close to Earth, so much so that it's become unseasonably hot, as if the entire Earth were Death Valley. The answer is an anti-matter bomb which a space ship will have to take to the sun and explode it there. That will divert the flares off in say the direction of say Mercury providing it's not in direct alignment with the Earth. <br /><br />Who to deliver it, but captain Tim Matheson and his crew. That is if he can keep his mind on the business at hand and not on runaway son, Corin Nemec. Taking care of the personal side of the family problems is admiral Charlton Heston, Matheson's father, and Nemec's grandfather.<br /><br />There's a villain here too, Peter Boyle who is the CEO of a multi-national corporation which in this crisis is trying to control the world's food supply for the survivors. The idea he might not survive doesn't enter into his thinking. He's doing his best to sabotage Matheson's mission.<br /><br />Solar Crisis seems like a bad mix of 2001, A Space Odyssey and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea. Boyle seems to be taking his cue from Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor in Superman, apparently he's the only one in the cast who realizes he's in a turkey and overacts accordingly.<br /><br />The rest of the cast are stalwart, true blue and dull. Except possibly desert rat Jack Palance who finds Nemec and cares for him. <br /><br />The key here is that the film was directed by that noted Hollywood purveyor of flop films, Allen Smithee. The film gets as much as four stars for the cast involved and it was out in time for a Thanksgiving carving.
I had high hopes for this film, since it has Charlton Heston and Jack Palance. But those hopes came crashing to earth in the first 20 minutes or so. Palance was ridiculous. Not even Heston's acting or Annabel Schofield's beauty (or brief nude scenes) could save this film. Some of the space effects were quite good, but others were cheesy. The plot was ludicrous. Even sci-fi fans should skip this one. Grade F
Yet another movie with an interesting premise and some wondrous special effects falling right into the trash can.<br /><br />Boring direction and performances (with the exception of the lovely Annabel Schofield who is much cuter as a brunette and probably deserves better material, and the ever earnest Charlton Heston) earn the rating of a real stinker.<br /><br />It's amazing to watch Heston perform up to his usual par and display how really bad this movie is. He even plays in a sub-plot that kept me interested just to see how it tied back into the main line of the movie. The way they ended up resolving it was that they didn't. It simply falls off the end.<br /><br />Really. Don't waste your time on this one.
The world is facing imminent destruction and a suicide mission is sent to the Sun to avert catastrophe by firing a bomb into its fiery heart: yes, it's Solar Crisis, aka Crisis 2050, which burned up a huge chunk of change that's never apparent on screen back in 1990 and returned barely enough to buy a Happy Meal for each of the cast in Japan before going straight to video (remember them?) in a re-edited version credited to one Alan Smithee. The plot hook's pretty much the same as Sunshine - suicide mission to the Sun, saboteur on board, logic cast adrift - except that this time they're not trying to reignite the sun but to prematurely detonate a solar flare before it can reach Earth. With a talking bomb. Voiced by Paul Williams. Who wants to be promoted so the crew will take him more seriously… Given that the cast also includes Jack Palance at his most dementedly OTT, Charlton Heston at his most rigid, top-liner Tim Matheson at his most anonymous, the original Hills Have Eyes' unforgettable Michael Berryman (you may not remember the name, but you DO remember that face) and Peter Boyle as the industrialist out to sabotage the mission because, er, if it succeeds the world will be saved but his share price will go down, you'd expect if not a laugh-a-minute at least a laugh every reel. No joy. This is the worst kind of bad movie: a boring one. The fate of the world may be hanging in the balance but the whole film is shot with a complete lack of urgency or momentum at the same unvarying deadly slow pace. There's low-key and there's walking through it, but here the cast don't even do that. Instead, they just stand still looking at screens in near darkness for most of the time. You keep on hoping for Paul Williams' talking bomb to suffer an existential crisis, but instead the film just... stands there, doing next to nothing. Literally. This is one of the most inert movies ever made – so inert that if Clive Owen had been cast, he'd almost have looked lively by comparison. Even a poorly explained suicidal repair attempt fails to raise a fritter of interest since it mostly involves, yep, the cast just standing still looking at screens in near darkness. Even when the bomb prematurely goes into countdown before being launched they deal with the new crisis by… standing still looking at screens in near darkness as if they had all the time in the world. Merchant-Ivory films have better action scenes.<br /><br />Things aren't much livelier down on Earth where the movie spends most of it's running time with Matheson's son/Chuck's grandson Corin Nemec trying to hitch a ride to the spaceport across an arid landscape with Palance's insane desert artist "looking for that note out there while the chicks still dig me" while waylaid by rejects from a Mad Max ripoff and evil corporate suits who track him down so they can… release him on a nice beach. Just don't expect logic, if you haven't already guessed that much. Best moment? A ditzy girl in a bar describing Jack Palance as "An old guy with white hair and a face like rotting leather," though Chucky Baby taking out the villain's aircraft with a bazooka fired from the hip from an office window or beating up a barfly who likes his beret are welcome morsels of camp in a film that for 99% of it's running time offers a whole lot of nuttin'. Richard C. Sarafian's slightly longer original cut that played in Japan offers an additional six minutes but cries out to be cut down to a more manageable 17 minutes: the director of Vanishing Point must have thanked his lucky stars when the re-edit gave him an excuse to take his name off the film. A film so bad it's not good, and painfully unfunny with it
I saw this movie a long time ago... luckily it was for free. I have to be one of the maybe twenty people who saw this movie in the theater. I don't remember a whole bunch of it, but I do remember I was incredibly bored, the plot made no sense and when I came out of the theater the only thing I could say was at least now I know what the worst movie I ever saw was. I just was incredibly bothered by one thing: if they can make the temperature as they approach the sun low enough for humans to survive, why can't they turn it down to a comfortable temperature instead of being all hot and sweaty? How stupid do they think we are?
This su*k! Why do they have to make movies that they must know su*k from the beginning? I mean, look at Alien from 1977. If the movie you´r about to make is not better than anything made billions of years before, why make it? I had problems with the plot and who the main character was. That's not good either.
Final Score: 1.8 (out of 10)<br /><br />After seeing 'Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back' I must have been on a big Eliza Dushku kick when I rented this movie. 'Soul Survivors' is a junk "psychological thriller" dressed up like a trashy teen slasher flick - even to the point of having a masked killer stalk a cast of young up-and-comers like Dushku, Wes Bentley (American Beauty), Casey Affleck (Drowning Mona) and likable star Melissa Sagemiller. Luke Wilson is also in there, ridiculously miscast as a priest. The movie, the brainchild of writer/director Stephen Carpenter, seems like a mutant offspring of 'Open Your Eyes' or 'Vanilla Sky' and movies where a character (and the audience) is caught in a world of dillusion caused by an accident/death. The movie keeps churning out perplexing images and leaves us in a state of confusion the entire running time until this alternate reality is finally resolved. I don't think these movies are that entertaining- by their very nature- to begin with, but 'SS' is rock-bottom cheap trash cinema any way you slice it. The visuals, the script, the acting and the attempt at any originality all are throwaway afterthoughts to movies like this. Plus, it's PG-13 so it doesn't even deliver the gore or T&A to sustain it as a guilty pleasure (even the unrated version is tame). I had heard that the movie contained some "hot" shower scene between Dushku & Sagemiller. As the movie fell apart in front of me and all other entertainment seemed to be lost I found myself waiting patiently for the shower scene - at least I would get something out of this. Then it comes: the two girls get paint on their shirts, they jump in the shower fully clothed and scrub it off. That's it. People thought this was hot? 'Soul Survivors' is one of those drop-dead boring movies that is so weak and inept that it is hard to have ANY feelings at all toward it. It puts out nothing and is hardly worth writing about. In the end it leaves us empty. Carpenter's finale is a mess of flashing light and pounding sound and that's probably the most lively part. It will no doubt be making the rounds as a late night staple on USA or the Sci-Fi Channel, due to it's low cost and PG-13 rating - and that's probably best for it.
Like a relative that gives you a bad gift, Soul Survivors has its heart in the right place but trips up with a bad execution. Stephen Carpenter's writing/directing effort borrows freely from other, better films, such as Jacob's Ladder and Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes). For those who haven't seen either of these films, I won't give the premise away; suffice to say it's not nearly as well handled here than in those two superior films.<br /><br />Melissa Sagemiller stars as Cassie, about to go away to college. Her current boyfriend Sean (Ben Affleck) and ex-boyfriend Matt (Wes Bentley), both friends, and Annabel (acerbic Eliza Dushku) are in a car accident after being pursued by two killers (?) in transparent masks. She survives the wreck, but while attending college has visions of the hospital ordeal and dead people reappear and disappear, leaving her in a state of total confusion: who is dead? Who's alive? What's real?<br /><br />Soul Survivors has the look of a bad been-there, done-that, gore-filled, blood-splattered, body-stacking teen exploitation flick. True, it has its share of killer-stalking-the-victim scenes (plentiful, repetitive, and mind-numbing), but at least it attempts to build suspense through ideas rather than cliches, unfortunately rather unsuccessfully. It breeds confusion much more often than cohesion, as the story becomes jumbled, messy and incoherent near key points of the mystery (predictable as it is.)<br /><br />Horror fans who pick up a copy will have no idea they are in for a film that is more concerned with building an uneasy facade of reality than delivering a body count. Credit goes to Carpenter for attempting to create something beyond a derivative teen horror flick; too bad he's created a derivative psychological thriller. Sagemiller also deserves kudos for showing strength in the central performance, actually developing her character and evoking some sense of emotion as the unraveling Cassie. It's great the filmmakers try something different, but the film ends up a mixed bag and failed experiment.<br /><br />4 out of 10
If the writer/director is reading this (and I imagine you are since you should now be out of work) then I must tell you - I have seen some bad movies in my time but this one gets the distinction of having the worst premise I've ever heard.<br /><br />SPOILERS - Nothing happens! <br /><br />A total waste of time. I laughed out loud at the end. <br /><br />SIDE NOTE - (if the whole movie was her in a coma then does the scene where she sleeps with that guy mean someone raped her while she was knocked out?)<br /><br />Utter rubbish.
(A possible spoiler or two) <br /><br /> "Soul Survivors" is quite possibly the worst theatrical released movie ever. Nothing makes sense at all, there's some plot about a girl who has strange visions of people who may or may not be dead. The entire movie is just a bunch of random shots of things that don't really tie together, by the end of the film. <br /><br /> Tha acting is non-existent, the camera work is jerky and the script is so confusing, it just makes the movie even harder to watch.<br /><br /> I kept waiting for something to tie the movie together but nothing came. Definitely the worst film of the year. -****1/2 stars.
I wanted to watch this movie because of Eliza Dushku, but she only has a smaller part in it, and her character isn't very likable. However, the main character, played by Melissa Sagemiller, is extremely beautiful and a perfect delight to look at throughout the movie. This is really nothing but a showcase for her looks and talent. She does a very good job.<br /><br />The story itself is, on the face of it, pretty nonsensical. After a car crash, some friends are possibly dead, but keeps on living their previous lives, while all sorts of mysterious things happen. Some bad guys are after them, but we never really find out who they are (possibly they were the ones in the other car, but we certainly don't hear anything about why they are after them). The final scenes especially seem filmically ambitious, but I can't get anything coherent out of it. The opening scene, where the bad guys (who wear some strange masks) cut a blond girl's wrist and gather up some of her blood is never explained or followed up on. Unless the bad guys are supposed to be a representation of the surgeons who're trying to pull Cassie (Sagemiller) back from the dead... but no, that doesn't seem to work. The bad guys are just bad guys; they really just mess up a story that might otherwise have been interesting. In a supernatural story about death and love and sacrifice, who the hell needs bad guys?<br /><br />3 out of 10.
This is not a very good movie, but it's not a stinker either. It is very confusing and unnecessarily long so rent it at your own risk.<br /><br />My GF and I have figured this movie out (we think) so here it is:<br /><br />***MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW***<br /><br />Firstly, this movie is actually quite simple after you remove all of the confusing unconscious-dream-state junk (95% of the movie.)<br /><br />Ignoring the junk, what REALLY happened is this: A group of school friends go to a rave one night. They leave and get into a car accident where everyone but Cassie and Sean die. That's the simple cut down version. (That's right, I said Sean, bear with me)<br /><br />Right after the accident, Cassie lays in the hospital stuck in between life & death right up until the very end of the movie. This is where the dream part starts.<br /><br />The movie is called SOUL Survivors, right? Cassie's mind and soul carries on after the accident interacting with the other souls (Annie, Matt, Raven, the 2 weirdos and Jude) along with images conjured up by her mind (Sean, school and everything else around her). The souls continue doing what they were defined as: Annie the rave-going chick, the 2 weirdo-killers (from opening scene), Father Jude still helping people etc.<br /><br />We are then taken on a very long ride, shown lots of images (many of which my GF and I still can't tie in) but it all boils down to it not being Cassie's time to die.<br /><br />At the end, Cassie wakes up in the hospital after being "dead" for a while. Her family and Sean are there. This is reality again. She's OK.<br /><br />Then the director adds a little extra spice by trying to confuse us again by showing a little dream snippet of her in the wheelchair being strangled. But this part is really just a nightmare, and she wakes up beside Sean, obviously still dealing with her traumatic experience.<br /><br />Due to space restrictions, we didn't cover every little thing, but feel free to drop us an e-mail if you want to.<br /><br />
An incoherent mess with a gratingly deafening sound track, "Soul Survivors" is the latest entry in the "who's dead and who's alive" genre of horror films. Two teenaged couples, Sean and Cassie and Matt and Annabel, prepare to go off to different colleges, but before they part until Thanksgiving Break, they attend one last fling at a rave-type party in some burnt-out church at the suggestion of lusciously slutty Annabel (Eliza Dushku, a.k.a. Faith, the other vampire slayer). Motiveless creepy guys start paying far too much attention to Cassie (the generic Melissa Sagemiller) for reasons that are never explained, and before long, the quartet leave the party. Driving away in their SUV, they are pursued and then passed by the motiveless creepy guys, who promptly and inexplicably do an intentional 180 in the middle of the highway, causing a nasty and fatal accident as the SUV flips over an embankment and plunges into a river. Sean is killed (or is he?), and Cassie spends the rest of the movie coping with loneliness and guilt (she was driving) when she's not being haunted by Sean's ghost or chased by those motiveless creepy guys. Much unexplained incoherence follows as Cassie's mental state degenerates further, until we reach the predictable conclusion. So, who is dead and who is alive? After ninety minutes of this purgatory, who actually cares?
I didn't have HUGE expectations for this film when renting it for $1 at the video store, but the box at least showed a little promise with its "killer cut" of "more gore! more sex!" Can't go wrong there! Well... needless to say, the box is a fraud. How in the hades did actors and actresses of this caliber sign on for a film this low?<br /><br />It all opens with a drunken college girl walking out of a frat house or some other building like that and saying some useless crap to her boyfriend (?) as a camera on a bad steadicam follows her. Then she gets chased by some dude in a clear plastic mask and grabbed by another. They slit her wrists for no real reason and you can see when they "cut" her that someone drew the cuts with what looks like a crayon.<br /><br />From there, repeat the same theme of the girl getting chased/killed unbrutally by two guys for about 84 more minutes. Add in one tit shot. That is Soul Survivors.<br /><br />I wouldn't have had a problem with this film had the box not frauded me into renting the flick. If I rent a bad film that claims to have more violence and sex.... I want more violence and sex! One full frontal shot in 85 minutes from a chick who is clearly androginous and gore that would not scare a child does not cut it. If this is the Killer Cut, what is the Theatrical Cut?! Of course, I doubt this garbage was actually put into theaters in the first place. Shame on the actors in this film. I could see them making their screen debuts in here because they have not done anything before, but they were all established before this was released. I don't know if it was filmed before they had all been established and the studio sat on the film until they were semi-big names or not. But what i want to know is.... they really spent $14 million on this film?!
First off let me say that this has to be on the top of my list of boring movies. Nothing, and I mean nothing in this movie is even remotely thrilling. Most of it is very confusing and as it progresses you just wish it would end!! Some people want a movie that makes them "think" through the entire thing, to which I say..."More power to you"!! I on the other hand just want to be entertained. Which brings me back to this stinker, entertainment it is not. This movie is stupid and a complete waste of time. Seems that most here agree also. Most of this didn't make any sense, and by the time you think you have one scene figured out another lame scene comes around and....well I guess you see where this is going. Avoid, this one sucks....bad!!
Melissa Sagemiller,Wes Bentley,Eliza Dushku and Casey Affleck play young students at Middleton College in the town of Middleton.The four teenagers form two love triangles.One night during an ominous full moon they drive and argue along a slippery and twisting mountain road.Not looking properly they careen into another car and one or more of them are killed.The ghostly nightmare begins...Pretty lousy and politically correct horror flick without gore and nudity.It's obviously influenced by "Carnival of Souls".The cinematography is decent,unfortunately there is zero suspense.4 out of 10-just another instantly forgettable teeny-bopper trash.
Steve Carpenter cannot make horror movies. First of all, the casting was very wrong for this movie. The only decent part was the hot brown haired girl from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. This movies has no gore(usually a key ingredient to a horror movie), no action, no acting, and no suspense(also a key ingredient). Wes Bentley is a good actor but he is so dry and plain in this that it's sad. There were a few parts that were supposed to be funny(continuing the teen horror/comedy movies) and no one laughed in the audience. I thought that this movie was rated R, and I didn't pay attention and realized it had been changed to PG-13. Anyway, see this movie if you liked I Still Know What You Did Last Summer. That's the only type of person who would find this movie even remotely scary. And seriously, this is to you Steve Carpenter, stop making horror movies. This movie makes Scream look like Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
...had I watched it in my teenage years. This movie was mildly entertaining. What I liked about Soul Survivors were the gothic atmosphere during the party scenes, and the constant flips between 'dream' and 'reality.<br /><br />Had there not been movies like 'The 6th Sense' and 'Don't Look Now' I would have been surprised by the ending.
Quite unimpressive. The 'twists' are all pretty predictable, if you've seen any movies within the last ten years, and the few somewhat interesting parts (wherein someone utilizes context clues to make a decision) are few and lack much punch, since the 'secret' has already been shown before these clues are explained.<br /><br />(spoilers, sorta)<br /><br />The acting is decent enough. The story simply isn't very interesting. The whole 'still awake' premise becomes nullified by the astral projection stuff(not kidding). <br /><br />The surgery scene is initially tense, a bit discomforting, but then becomes utterly banal.<br /><br />Not horrible, but not memorable. Terrence Howard's least interesting role to date, so far as I've seen. <br /><br />Kind of boring, overall.
I have seen already fantastic stories, but the premises of this one are so unbelievable that it comes very close to being ridiculous. A rich and young guy undergoes a heart transplant the day after his marriage, and he is somehow witnessing his own surgery and the plot of his surgeons to kill him. Even if there is a medical explanation to such a phenomenon what next happens is a mixture of dialog among ... say ... souls? ... maybe and real life where the dedicated mother will do everything to save the life of her son. There is no shade of suspense or thrill, just a combination of a bad and simplistic plot with a series of coincidences that can never happen in life.<br /><br />This is not to say that the film is completely lacking quality - actually first time director Joby Harold does a decent job in directing a good team of actors that includes Hayden Christensen at his first major role after having taken off the Anakin Skywalker costume, fabulous Jessica Alba and super-gifted Lena Olin. All would have deserved a better story.
For a film about a killer this is surprisingly dull.<br /><br />Nothing much happens and even when things do happen they don't generate any real excitement or interest.<br /><br />The acting is good from the two leads, Cassetti in particular delivers a great performance combining the certainty and stupidity of Succo but the rest of the cast also do what they need to.<br /><br />The problem is that there is poor writing and direction and the fact that as a true story it isn't interesting, Succo is not a unique character, he isn't interesting or exciting.<br /><br />Films of this sort normally try to generate tension or empathy or outrage and this generates nothing except a feeling of regret that you wasted your time watching it.
Cedric Kahn's films have been character-based, rather than action-based (I'm thinking of L'Ennui and Feux rouges) so it is jarring to see this series of really expert car chases interspersed with some plodding attempts to give character to Succo. I don't find Stefano Cassetti to be an interesting actor; he reminds me of pro athletes who are coaxed into movies, like Bret Favre. That blank stare looks like a really vicious deer caught in the headlights. A real actor would have forced us to reflect more on Succo's personality, rather than admiring his skill at carjacking.<br /><br />The little acting there is comes mainly from Isild le Besco as the needy schoolgirl Succo takes by storm. The interview at the police office is a marvel of bland obstinacy with a little fear of the future blended in. Le Besco apart, there is little to recommend this film.
What a wasted opportunity to actually make an interesting film about a complicated subject. There is very little exploration about what it really feels like to be a straight (or gay) man working in a gay sexual environment.The dancers keep talking about their art as if it has no erotic component. They may not all be prostitutes for hire, but they are indeed sex workers playing out fantasies and selling private sessions where more than dancing is offered. From the film one would get the impression that they mainly appeal to the women who go to the gay clubs and then end up hiring the "dancers" for private sessions. Even the shots in the club only show women in front of the stage and the "dancers" only playing to the women in the audience. This just isn't the reality of these clubs. It would be pretty hard to make a living doing private dances for straight women and couples. So what do they really feel about their gay admirers and clients? We learn very little. Instead we get filler. A gay activist who adds nothing to the study of straight dancers. A manager who tells us about the costumes for the drag acts but offers no insight into the dancers' lives and attitudes.<br /><br />The pictures of Mexico City are generic. The phallic montage showing sausages roasting is ridiculous.<br /><br />This is a totally simplistic film which should be of interest only to those who want to see a few pictures of pretty boys dancing. The rest of the movie is an insult to gay men.
I saw Chan Is Missing when it first came out, about four years after moving from San Francisco to New York. Maybe it was the perspective of a few years away, but this movie seemed to capture the essence of the city and its people better than anything else I'd ever seen (still does). It concentrates on one particular community - the Chinese - but that's fine, because so much of the city's soul is refracted through the settings, the faces, and the maybe above all the voices of the characters.<br /><br />This isn't the tourists' San Francisco. The settings are humble and everyday: a taxi cab, the kitchen of a Chinese restaurant, Richmond District row houses, little Chinatown apartments and small-business offices, the piers, a Philippine elder center. This is what the city looks and feels like day to day to the people who live there - even now, in the era of Silicon Gulch urban redevelopment. Unlike, say, Dirty Harry (in its own way an excellent San Francisco movie as well), everything is filmed at street level: We come to understand the characters' points of view from the perspective their surroundings give them, not from some fancy vertiginous shooting.<br /><br />Wang apparently filmed in B&W because he didn't have the money to do otherwise, yet one of the strongest visual elements of the movie is the natural light he achieves. The often harsh, pervasive quality of the sunlight is one of my closest associations with San Francisco: It seems to expose everything, bringing the buildings, the hills, the other landmarks down in scale and, in a funny way, making the people you pass on the streets seem more individual and potentially closer to you than they might in another place. Wang's photography perfectly conveys this, and even helps the story along at points.<br /><br />Wang captures the speech and conversational style of Chinese and other San Franciscans better than anyone ever has, I think. If there's such thing as a true San Francisco "accent," it's what you hear from the balding taxi medallion broker (I think) who appears talking on the phone in one scene (listen to the way he calls the person on the other end "ya dingaling!").<br /><br />The story is poignant and, despite a few very small missteps, makes its points beautifully about the longings that pull at the hearts of people living in old immigrant communities - including the justified political and ethnic resentments, and little ironic amusements, that help to fuel them. All this is communicated delicately - perhaps why some respondents here think the film meanders. It doesn't - suffice it to say that the two cab drivers' quest for Chan becomes a quest for something more personal.<br /><br />Chan Is Missing finishes up with a Chinatown travelogue sequence backed by a goofy novelty song from the 1930s (I guess) about San Francisco and all its crazy diversity. An American caricature, yes, but somehow not entirely off the mark either.
I watched this on a whim because it was available and I'd heard the Thumb movies were funny. This one was not. The majority of the jokes were based around "Geranium's" physique and, in turn, Kate Winslet's. I think it's really pathetic of the the "Thumbtanic" creators to stoop so low to make jabs at a respected actress just because she (heaven forbid) doesn't starve herself into the model of ideal modern beauty.<br /><br />My favorite part was the line that goes something like, "Hey, I have a great idea! Let's swim over to this makeshift raft that no one else seems to see!" Thirty seconds of amusement out of a 26 minute movie does not redeem its value.
The Thumb idea isn't such a winner the second time round. ThumbTanic wasn't as good as Thumb Wars for a number of reasons. Primarily, I think, Mr Oedekerk had far less to work with in the Titanic send-up. Unlike Star Wars, the movie Titanic hasn't (yet?) become a cultural myth and there are far fewer references to be made which will resonate with the audience.<br /><br />In ThumbTanic, the holes are filled by one-off jokes which don't really seem related to anything. For example, the hero's insinuation that the heroine isn't clean during the "jump off end of ship" scene - it's not funny. Rather, you just think to yourself, "Did I miss something in the original movie?". There were too many of these type of baseless jokes (cf. arachnid).<br /><br />By contrast, the send-up of the smarmy ship's designer had meaning and was funny. Also very funny was the send up of the bloke in the movie who wanted to go "faster" as a maniac running around demanding *everything* be "faster" including the sinking of the ship and himself being the first to die. These sort of jokes meant something in the Titanic context and lent meaningful humour to Thumbtanic.<br /><br />The thumb "media", the faces and the voices, are still amusing. The props and sets and the CG animation are worthy of appreciation. Overall, although ThumbTanic proves that quirkiness alone won't work, this filmette still keeps you amused and chuckling to the end.
What this movie fails from answering is how wrong this war is (and most US wars recently made only to get some oil).<br /><br />How many innocent civilian casualties there has been, how many lives perished and how blatantly stupid the perpetrators are.<br /><br />So, let me ask you - if American soldier kills women and children apart from enemy, its OK, but if government accidentally kills their own forces by deadly chemicals while killing many civilians as well, it is not? Your logic fails, gentleman.<br /><br />I'll give it 5 for the solid performance and 1 to everything else, 3 in total.
Another vast conspiracy movie that tries to blame the US government and the Armed Forces (especially the Army) for every disaster since the Great Flood. Anyone who has ever served time in the US military can see how bogus this film is. Uniforms, equipment, sets, and mannerisms are all wrong. (And of course, all Senior Officers are either corrupt criminals or total idiots.) Blatant propaganda with no attempt at objectivity. Most of the theories presented have been disproven over the past few years. Uses every cliche', rumor, and Urban Legend from the Gulf-all are presented as gospel. (The truth is, no one knows for sure why some GW vets are sick and others are healthy as horses.) PS This is not new. War is NOT fun and I know WWII, Korean, and Viet Nam vets with some pretty serious ailments, too. (And the government has the responsibility to take care of all of them.) Sensationalistic movies like this will not solve the problem!
Apparently none of the previous reviewers,most of whom praise the film for its accuracy, have actually read a biography of Louis Pasteur.The most glaring inaccuracy is in the relationship between Pasteur and Napoleon III.Back in the 1930's the latter was invariably shown in a bad light.While far from an admirable character-he was an inept politician and a self-appointed "military genius" who allowed France to be dragged into a disastrous war,he was not the stupid reactionary depicted here. He had an intelligent interest in science,and like many other people in the 19th century saw a bright future because of the improvements it would bring.Far from exiling Pasteur, he was his PATRON,building him a laboratory and providing him with all the resources that he needed for his research.While the lab was under construction, Pasteur became gravely ill.A bureaucrat, deciding it was a waste of money to build a laboratory for someone who would soon be dead, ordered work halted on his own authority.When the emperor heard about this, his outrage shook the bureaucracy so that there was a flurry of buck-passing, and work promptly resumed.The Emperor personally visited Pasteur to comfort him and reassure him that he would get his lab.The emperor would often bring members of his court to admire Pasteur's projects,and it was obvious to everyone that Pasteur was one of the emperor's favorites.Pasteur's main worry concerning the Emperor was that Napoleon thought Pasteur was virtually a miracle worker who could do almost anything, and was constantly assigning him tasks outside of his previous experience.Pasteur, a very modest man, was always protesting this, but Napoleon would say that he had complete faith in him,and Pasteur despite his misgivings, always came through.They always had a close and friendly relationship,and after the Emperor was overthrown, Pasteur refused to say a bad word about him,grateful to the end of his life.<br /><br />The part about his daughter having the baby, and Pasteur sacrificing his principles to get a doctor, never happened.The part about the anthrax and rabies, for which he was famous, is generally correct, but the notion that the anthrax experiment raised him from obscurity to fame is false.He was famous and respected at the time this happened.This movie is OK from a dramatic standpoint,but very distorted as biography.
Entertainment Tonight has been going down hill for the last few years, but as of last night (Aug 17th 2006) they reached a new low.<br /><br />In an effort to try to hype up their broadcast, they decided to post actual photos of JonBenet Ramsey's body in their teasers last night ...saying "Pictures from the case you have never seen before". The two photos were graphic and very disturbing. One was of the side of her face and head/neck and you could clearly see the cord that was used to strangle her around her neck, and bruising on her face. This was so hideously awful, I could not believe it. How has this got to do with ANYTHING remotely related to Hollywood Entertainment?? Nothing!! They have dropped their level of dignity and values to a new low....and it shows. This used to be THE premiere show to watch...and it's just garbage now.<br /><br />I will watch Access Hollywood from now on.
This show is unbelievable in that . . . what it represents and what it focuses on and . . . words cannot describe how insane ET is. They will report anything. If a celebrity is even remotely indirectly connected to the story ET will report on it. If a dog poop in the Tom Cruise's yard they will report on it. If a celebrity dies . . . they will talk about it for weeks on end to the point where the public envy that celebrity. If a celebrity is on trial . . . ET will report it for MONTHS on end. There is no end to what this show will reports and no time frame that dictates how long they will focus on a story. Is it even considered legitimates reporting? The reports are so dang annoying too, with harsh rambling voices and end with an unnecessary pause to convey a sense of important. I cannot watch this show without questioning humanity's existence. ET is one big reason I avoid pre-evening shows in general. I regret that IMDb can only allow a minimum of one star rating and not zero or even in the negatives. For this show deserve -10 Stars.
ET's obsession with Dannielynn Smith is despicable. Leave the child alone. With all the constant attention she'll most likely grow up psychotic, depressed or worse. Think of Princess Diana and how she longed for privacy. Now poor little rich girl Ashley Olson just wants to be left alone. No wonder Greta Garbo became a recluse and said "I want to be alone". How much does ET make off this little girl? Does ET not have anything better to report on? I bet there's lots of people who really don't care what color her birthday cake and balloons were. By the way, I never heard that Anna Nichole ever won any of those court cases over the will and her inheritance. Who is paying for the lifestyle of Larry, Howard and little Dannielynn? Could it be ET?
Like most people I love "A Christmas Story". I had never even heard of this film and perhaps for good reason--it is awful. Same locale, same narrator, same director but the warm fuzziness of the original was lacking. Charles Grodin was a poor choice to replace Darrin McGavin but I cannot imagine anyone being able to replace him. The story seems forced and lacks the sweetness of the original. The interaction with the neighbors, the Bumpuses, is ridiculous. In "A Christmas Story" Ralphie's obsession with the BB gun seems cute but his obsession in this movie is boring. Scud Farkus, the original neighborhood bully, is replaced in this film by yet another kid with braces and a weird hat but with little of the Scud Farkus menacing appeal. It would be pretty difficult to equal the original, even if this movie had been made with the original crew.
"A Christmas Story" is one of many people's all-time most beloved films. ACS was able to take the viewer to a time and a place in such a way that very few films ever have. It had a sweetness and goodwill to it that is rare.<br /><br />So I awaited (and awaited) its sequel, "It Runs In The Family" . The film was almost released a couple of times, only to be pulled at the last minute. When it finally came out, IRITF was (and is, I guess) a total failure.<br /><br />The sets and cinematography were just fine, but the directing totally, completely missed the mark. The film was nothing more than a cash-flow formula of lazy casting, lazy writing, and disconnected acting.<br /><br />The narrator, Jean Shepard, who was one of America's great humorists and story-tellers, forced upon us a false reprise of the warm wit he used in ACS. He over-emoted, and why he did that I'll never know. He somehow managed to become an annoying, overwrought parody of himself.<br /><br />The writing and acting in IRITF is inauthentic and forced. The actors may have seen ACS, but whatever wit and nuance that was in ACS mustn't have registered at all on any of them. The acting was embarrassingly slapstick and bereft of any of Shepard's dry humor.<br /><br />ACS will always be a real treasure, but to call IRITF a sequel is to insult all of the fans of Jean Shepard and ACS.
Since its release in 1983, "A Christmas Story", the Jean Shepherd-narrated story of his alter-ego, Ralphie, has become a true classic. "My Summer Story", however, still has Shepherd as the narrator, but it has absolutely none of the charm, and the characters are nowhere near the caliber of the original film.<br /><br />"My Summer Story" is basically a mishmash of mediocre and just plain not very interesting stories, which include hillbilly neighbors and battling tops. Charles Grodin, who I normally like, is extremely unlikeable in the role of the father (more aptly handled by Darren McGavin in the original), and his character never seems anything but forced. Kiernan Culkin is a poor substitute for Ralphie, and the little brother is all but forgotten here. Only mom seems to have any worth here and perhaps that's because she beans a cinema manager with a gravy boat when he pushes his luck too far with irate housewives on "free dish night".<br /><br />The stories in this are mostly inconsequential and stretched paper-thin. May appeal to the extremely undemanding but as a sequel to "A Christmas Story", it's a very poor one and not worth most people's time. 2 out of 10.
Funny how a studio thinks it can make a sequel to what was a classic Christmas story with an entirely new cast and expect it to float. Sure they used various actors for Batman, but in that instance Batman was a classic character before any of the actor donned his cape. In this instance you had a classic character in the blond headed horn rimmed glasses wearing Ralphy that wanted a red ryder bb gun for Christmas... Somehow we are supposed to forget him and accept another little boy that share no resemblance to the original... If I had not known it was a sequel I wouldn't have guessed it from the cast... except of course Charles Grodin tries so hard to imitate Darrin McGavin that your are constantly reminded that the original was far better...<br /><br />In the end it might have work if they had cast the movie better. They should have looked for look a likes or simply ignored the original and not tried to copy its look and feel. This one is just a cheap imitation. The Ralphy evokes no sympathy just a desire to seem his character shoot his eye out or die.
Really bad. Why anyone thinks this is a good film let alone funny is a true mystery. I like comedies as much as the next man and I LOVED "A Christmas Story." The fact that it has the same director and was based on the same writer's memoirs has me completely puzzled as to why this film is such a complete failure on every level. Charles Grodin is woefully miscast as the father for starters. For another it does not seem to have the same pacing -- it just doesn't flow well. Everything seems tired and forced. The joy of life that permeated the first film is completely absent here -- you just want the movie to end. I wouldn't even recommend this movie for curiosity-seekers who enjoyed "A Christmas Story." It's that bad. 1/10.
This is an in-name-only sequel to "A Christmas Story," originally entitled "A Summer Story." Ralphie narrates his family adventures during the summer when they moved to a small hick-town in the middle of nowhere. Hilarity, unfortunately, does not ensue.<br /><br />The original worked because of its irreverent nature and honesty - everyone could relate to it. This one is simply stupid and not very funny at all. Charles Grodin's last movie - no wonder! It's one of his poorest roles. I felt sorry for him.<br /><br />Mary Steenburgen is given little to do, everything's formulaic, and you have to wonder why they even bothered.<br /><br />And I mean, come on - a competition with spinning tops?! Sadly, it's the best part of the movie...
A Christmas Story Is A Holiday Classic And My Favorite Movie. So Naturally, I Was Elated When This Movie Came Out In 1994. I Saw It Opening Day and Was Prepared To Enjoy Myself. I Came Away Revolted And Digusted. The Anticipation that Rang True In A Christmas Story Is Curiously Missing from This mess. A Red Ryder BB Gun Is Better to get than a chinese top.And It Is Not Very Funny At all. Charles Grodin Is Good but the Buck Stops There. Bottom Line:1 Star. Don't Even Bother.
This movie was not very entertaining, certainly NO WHERE as original or as good as A Christmas Story. The characters (except the youngest) try to emulate the preceding actors, and they fail. The hillbilly neighbors come out of nowhere as they weren't a part of the first movie. This really sucked, might have been good with the original cast, then again maybe not because the story is so weak. Skip it.
Ugh! Where to begin ... first, Campbell Scott's non-stop angst becomes a real turn-off after awhile (a very short while) as he internalizes his mounting anguish, curiosity and anger. Only we don't care! These characters as presented by the writer and director are wholly unlikable, and therein lies the key. They haven't given us anything to make us care if they are adulterous and whether or not they are still in love with one another. When Scott quietly tells his wife, "I could kill you" before their three daughters at the dinner table, after the shock of his selfishly poor timing wore off I almost wished that he had--and then done the same thing to the smug, wisecracking apparition of Denis Leary before being hauled off the the looney bin. An utter waste of time and perhaps--only perhaps--resources.
Basically, a dentist husband-wife team and their 3 daughters deal with infidelity. The premise is interesting, the acting is good, and the music, although sometimes abrupt and without direction, is pretty cool.<br /><br />The problem is the plot. The husband dentist drops his wife off backstage at an opera before the show (she has a minor role) and then walks back in to give her something, but sees her with another man. The rest of the movie deals with his angst about this episode, his visual hallucinations and a macho alter-ego (Denis Leary, a former patient of his) and his fear in confronting his wife lest he will have to "do something about it." I won't tell you the ending, but let me say that the film goes nowhere and the ending is like a sputtering whimper. The motivations of the characters are missing: Why is she cheating on him? He's a dentist, decent looking, good father. The film doesn't say. Who's she doing it with? Don't expect any answers on that either. Why does he want to keep the marriage going in spite of all this? Who knows. What purpose does all the kids vomiting serve? Where is this film going? Good performances by Campbell Scott and Hope Davis (and Denis Leary as comic relief)are completely wasted by this stilted nonsense which doesn't know if it wants to be American Beauty or a family film. A root canal is more interesting. Avoid it.
I tend to like character-driven films. I also think Hope Davis turns in consistently good work, so I had high hopes for this movie. Those hopes were soon dashed.<br /><br />The main flaw with this movie is the direction. There are a lot of scenes that are daydream sequences. The movie makes frequent use of the Denis Leary character as the alter ego of the Campbell Scott character. It doesn't work for me at all. This would have worked better as a play than a movie.<br /><br />There are problems with the plot as well. It is important that the characters in a movie take a journey and end up in a place different from where they started. I didn't feel that the characters grew in the experiences portrayed in the movie.<br /><br />Finally, the editing wasn't well done, either. There was a very big sag in the middle of the movie that was exceptionally boring.<br /><br />Except for acting, which I felt was consistently strong, this movie failed in almost every aspect of cinema.
There may something poetically right in seeing dentists suffer. Suffer they do, in this dreary, truly dreadful film, but they cause the audience to undergo pain of the non-dental variety too. If you ever wanted to see a movie full of screaming kids, barfing kids, sick kids, lots of long, long meaningful glances, a deadpan wife and a concerned husband: it's all here for you. Boring, overlong, it stands out as one of those examples that scream out: why? Is there a saving grace? Yes, there is. There is a short scene from Nabucco, with some pretty good singing. Save your money, or if it's on TV or cable, save your time. You can always read a book or make an omelette.
Yeh, I know -- you're quivering with excitement. Well, *The Secret Lives of Dentists* will not upset your expectations: it's solidly made but essentially unimaginative, truthful but dull. It concerns the story of a married couple who happen to be dentists and who share the same practice (already a recipe for trouble: if it wasn't for our separate work-lives, we'd all ditch our spouses out of sheer irritation). Campbell Scott, whose mustache and demeanor don't recall Everyman so much as Ned Flanders from *The Simpsons*, is the mild-mannered, uber-Dad husband, and Hope Davis is the bored-stiff housewife who channels her frustrations into amateur opera. One night, as Dad & the daughters attend one of Davis' performances, he discovers that his wife is channeling her frustrations into more than just singing: he witnesses his wife kissing and flirting with the director of opera. (One nice touch: we never see the opera-director's face.) Dreading the prospect of instituting the proceedings for separation, divorce, and custody hearings -- profitable only to the lawyers -- Scott chooses to pretend ignorance of his wife's indiscretions.<br /><br />Already, the literate among you are starting to yawn: ho-hum, another story about the Pathetic, Sniveling Little Cuckold. But Rudolph, who took the story from a Jane Smiley novella, hopes that the wellworn-ness of the material will be compensated for by a series of flashy, postmodern touches. For instance, one of Scott's belligerent patients (Denis Leary, kept relatively -- and blessedly -- in check) will later become a sort of construction of the dentist's imagination, emerging as a Devil-on-the-shoulder advocate for the old-fashioned masculine virtues ("Dump the b---h!", etc.). When not egged-on by his imaginary new buddy, Scott is otherwise tormented by fantasies that include his wife engaged in a three-way with two of the male dental-assistants who work in their practice. It's not going too far to say that this movie is *Eyes Wide Shut* for Real People (or Grown-Ups, at least). Along those lines, Campbell Scott and Hope Davis are certainly recognizable human beings as compared to the glamourpuss pair of Cruise and Kidman. Further, the script for *Secret Lives* is clearly more relevant than Kubrick's. As proof, I offer the depiction of the dentists' children, particularly the youngest one who is about 3 or 4 years old, and whose main utterance is "Dad! Dad! Dad! Dad! Dad! DAD!!!" This is Family Life, all right, with all its charms.<br /><br />The movie would make an interesting double-bill with *Kramer vs. Kramer*, as well. One can easily trace the Feminization of the American Male from 1979 to 2003. In this movie, Dad is the housewife as in *Kramer*, but he is in no way flustered by the domestic role, unlike Dustin Hoffman, who was too manly to make toast. Here, Scott gets all the plumb chores, such as wiping up the children's vomit, cooking, cleaning, taking the kids to whatever inane after-school activity is on the docket. And all without complaint. (And without directorial commentary. It's just taken for granted.)<br /><br />The film has virtues, mostly having to do with verisimilitude. However, it's dragged down from greatness by its insistence on trendy distractions, which culminate in a long scene where a horrible five-day stomach flu makes the rounds in the household. We must endure pointless fantasy sequences, initiated by the imaginary ringleader Leary. Whose existence, by the way, is finally reminiscent of the Brad Pitt character in *Fight Club*. And this finally drives home the film's other big flaw: lack of originality. In this review, I realize it's been far too easy to reference many other films. Granted, this film is an improvement on most of them, but still. *The Secret Lives of Dentists* is worth seeing, but don't get too excited about it. (Not that you were all that excited, anyway. I guess.)
It's common practice for a film about repression to be somewhat muted in style and tone. There's a difference, however, between using restraint and encouraging narcolepsy among audience members. In "The Secret Lives of Dentists," starring Campbell Scott and Hope Davis, director Alan Rudolph plays as close to the vest as possible, with the result being a film that never amounts to much beyond a rumination on how teeth are a metaphor for married life.<br /><br />Scott gives a fine performance in the role of David Hurst, a dentist married to another dentist (Davis). Rudolph sets up the dynamic of their relationship quickly - he is completely absorbed in the day-to-day duties of being the parenthood, she is quietly disillusioned with their frantic family life - and then ratchets up the tension when Scott may or may not witness his wife with another man. From this point on, the film focuses on whether or not David is going to confront his wife Dana about her possible adultery, or whether she will beat him to the punch and leave for good. From time to time, David is treated to visits from an imaginary "friend" in the form of a former patient played by Denis Leary (borrowing heavily from Brad Pitt's Tyler Durden in "Fight Club").<br /><br />While there is enough uncertainty about Dana's infidelity and David's instability to warrant examination, the last two thirds of the film are embarrassingly empty of theme or narrative. Instead, Rudolph creates drama out of a nasty fever that travels slowly through the Hurst family, culminating in a pointless hospital visit at the film's climax. The film never picks up on the hints at what David is really capable of if he wasn't so dedicated to his family; neither does it spend much time looking at Dana's precarious balancing act between her family life and her other, more fulfilling ambitions.<br /><br />By choosing to spend the majority of the film worrying over a fever gone awry, Rudolph kills the momentum of his film. By the time the fifth member of the family shows up sweating and sickly, the film has used up all the good graces of Scott's well-measured performance. David and Dana end up retracing their steps over and over again until a less than cathartic finale. With nothing to build on over the last hour, the conclusion seems awkward and patched-on. "The Secret Lives of Dentists" takes a common theme and does nothing to improve upon it. Altogether, a disappointing, unimaginative film.
An idiotic dentist finds out that his wife has been unfaithful. So, no new story lines here. However, the authors managed to create a stupid, disgusting film. If you enjoy watching kids vomiting, or seeing a dentist imagining that he is pulling all his wife's teeth out in a bloody horror-type, go see (or rent) the film. If not, move on to something else (MY FAIR LADY, anyone?)
Alan Rudolph is a so-so director, without that special touch. As an example, there was one shot in The Secret Lives of Dentists in the dental office which could have expressed the entire relationship between the husband and wife. Rudolph squandered it. The camera is in the hallway looking through the doorways of the two dental offices, with Dana and Dave each alone in their respective rooms. You get the idea of their desolation and isolation, but not much more. The lighting, the colors, the body language, the facial expressions could all have been vastly improved upon. If I were directing, I would have spent all day, if necessary, to get that shot right. That's the beauty and power of film: it can express so much, whole lives, in a matter of seconds<br /><br />The shot with the toddler stepping in the puddle of puke could have been improved on. The child should have shown more fascination with the puddle, should have stomped and shuffled her feet, should have had her head bent down to look at the puddle with all her attention. <br /><br />Campbell didn't deliver. He plays a uncommunicative man, true, but instead of conveying his inner turmoil in voice, gesture, body movement, the film relies on voice-over narration and dialogue with his imaginary macho alter-ego, played by Denis Leary.
I'm sorry, but this is such a bad movie it's hilarious. Football hooligans arguing in a travel lodge? Suits? Shades?! Alan clearly had no idea what he was talking about when he made this, it is as far from the truth as you can get.<br /><br />The casting was atrocious...Gary Oldman as a football hooligan? He doesn't look scary, act scary or even come across as someone who would like football. And as for Yeti? What the hell? Suits, shades and sitting in a travelodge childishly taunting each other with "its about time you got your nappy on". Please.<br /><br />And the Yeti's gang spraying the ICC's underwear? <br /><br />I don't see how anyone can even take this film seriously!.<br /><br />4/10. Its possibly the most inaccurate portrayal of the crisis of the late eighties hooliganism i have ever seen.
What a shame that Alan Clarke has to be associated with this tripe. That doesn't rule it out however; get a group of lads and some Stellas together and have a whale of a time running this one again and again and rolling around on the floor in tears of laughter. Great wasted night stuff. Al Hunter homes in on a well publicised theme of the late 80s- that hooligans were well organised and not really interested in the football itself- often with respectable jobs (estate agent???). But how Clarke can convince us that any of the two-bit actors straying from other TV productions of low quality (Grange Hill) or soon to go on to poor quality drama (Eastenders) can for a nanosecond make us believe that they are tough football thugs is laughable. Are we really to believe that the ICF (on whom of course the drama is based) would EVER go to another town to fight with just SIX blokes?<br /><br />The ICF would crowd out tube stations and the like with HUNDREDS. Andy Nicholls' Scally needs to be read before even contemplating a story of this nature. The acting is appalling and provides most of the laughs- Oldman is so camp it is unbelievable. Most of them look as though they should be in a bubble of bath of Mr Matey. A true inspiration to anyone with a digital video camera who thinks they can make a flick- go for it.
This is very much a television version of the tale, the film starts out like an episode of 'Xena...', with little meaningful dialog or character description. It does get a bit more substantive after a while, but all characters are still cartoonish. <br /><br />Salma is the exotic beauty. Richard Harris is an evil and sexually repressed Frollo, fiending to bust a nut up in Salma. The other characters, including Quasimodo are quite forgettable. <br /><br />Its also a sorta liberal version of the story, Frollo is a suppressor of Enlightenment ideals, like the abbot in 'Name of the Rose', and Quasimodo is a champion of liberty. The shadowy side of the Quas character is ignored, though he does pour liquid led on people. He is really only an outsider in that he looks different and enjoys playing with bells more than the average person. <br /><br />Perhaps the film is intended for children, but I doubt it, considering Frollo flogs himself bloody to amend wanting to spank his monkey. A mostly uninteresting and forgettable, but not awful, and sometimes entertaining, rendition of the tale.
-=contains spoiler from both original and movie versions=-<br /><br />i am a huge fan of Notre dame De Paris musical,i also read book this summer and i watched movie today,in the beginning i was hopeful to watch a good film especially when i saw 6.3 IMDb point.first scenes were good but i actually waited for,theaters scene directly from book,but it was normal but when Esmeralda kisses gringoire i felt something is wrong..they don't even kiss in book,even in musical..<br /><br />and there were huge gap why Esmeralda being judged by sorcerer,in the book she teaches her goat how to respond numbers of clock or write word "phoebus".. wait there were a phoebus weren't there? in this movie he is some soldier junk nothing more,the creators made Quasimodo's love to show around and they even canceled Frollo's love..but Notre dame was frollo. his thoughts his struggles between love of god and love of human in movie we cant find anything like that all we have is,some villain who is really bad and kills people whose clashes with his thoughts..and not mentioning phoebus,not mentioning love of frollo,not mentioning jehan (brother of frollo) not mentioning mother of Esmeralda (maybe it is OK,the storyline would have chopped much)they even not mentioned the real story.. (another PS:frollo wasn't a opus dei or some cult member he actually in interest with alchemy he tries to make gold..he was stuck in science and religion)<br /><br />finally don't watch this movie,it is some kind of directors edition to real masterpiece,and if you have watched it before read the book,god have mercy on you..you must read to book immediately..<br /><br />this movie is worse than hunchback of Notre dame II the animated movie,spend your time with watching Notre dame De Paris musical.. enough said..
This is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Jessica Simpson not only lacks any acting skill, but the script is incredibly shallow and lame. You actually hear serious dialogue that goes, "I love you more." "No, I love YOU more." I stopped watching the movie (online) after the first half hour, I couldn't take it anymore. Her "southern girl charm" just doesn't work and is really quite annoying; her attempts at slapstick humor fall flat and she delivers lines like she is reading the script right off the page.<br /><br />Poor Luke Wilson. Did he not read the script before agreeing to do this, or did he fall for Papa Joe's (Jessica's dad and also the producer of the movie) promise of big profits? Hopefully he now knows better than to sign on to another movie like this. Luke Wilson is actually a good actor - I hate seeing the pained look on his face as he suffers through the bad dialogue.<br /><br />Also, I think the previous commenter giving this movie an 8 out of 10 was probably either involved in the movie somehow or hired by Papa Joe to give the movie a better rating. No one in their right mind would actually find this movie engaging.<br /><br />Jessica has lots of money, right? Maybe buy some acting lessons?
Who wrote this? Some guy named John Cohen. I guess this was the first screenplay he's ever worked on. Someone should've told him you're supposed to write dialog that sounds like something someone actually might say.<br /><br />And who directed this? Scott Marshal? Son of Gerry Marshall. My the nut has fallen far from the tree. Someone might have wanted to let him know that you can, in fact, shoot a scene in a cab in New York, and it will look real, and you won't have to fake it with a blue screen for no reason. Might have also wanted to let him know he should stay away from Jessica Simpson, but hopefully he's learned that lesson now.<br /><br />And Jessica Simpson... naturally she can't act. Hell, she makes Jessica Alba look like Audry Hepburn, and yet she's starring in this movie. OH wait, it was produced by her father. Okay, that's why she got the part. That's really the only reason I can think of.<br /><br />So should I be surprised it's bad? No. Should I be amazed at how bad it is? I think a lot of people would if they saw as much of it as I did. I mean you expect a movie starring Jessica Simpson to be bad, but this... it's not just bad, it's the complete opposite of a classic film. Think of a great Woody Allen movie, this film is as bad as that film is good. It's the Anti-Annie Hall.<br /><br />I am so glad I didn't pay to see it, I stopped watching ten minutes in cus I couldn't go on. No doubt I would've walked out of the theater sooner. In fact I wonder how many of the 6 people who saw it per theater actually stayed and watched the whole thing. The film starts out laughably bad, and then goes to the point of being so bad it becomes a kind of Chinese water torture. And then, around when the first act is ending, you realize it'll only get worse, and that's when you either need to leave, or kill yourself.<br /><br />In conclusion, this film goes under the category of being so bad it should be used in place of water boarding at Guantanamo Bay. Although some prefer the water boarding.
This is an embarrassment to everyone and everything used in making this joke. I personally don't care one way or another about Jessica Simpson and her talent or whatever so many people find fascinating about her. Just as a movie this is something that wouldn't even get a passing grade in film school. The script is a mess, the acting is atrocious, and the fact Luke Wilson (co-writer of "Bottle Rocket") did this makes me wonder what the hell he was thinking. He did "Old School" for crying out loud! This doesn't even belong in the same state as my "Old School" DVD! Please for whatever reason DO NOT WATCH THIS! I see there is a comment that this is so bad it's good, but that frankly is too kind. When will we stop seeing singers that obviously can't act keep trying to, I hope ends soon. The worst part is that there are actually some decent actors (Penelope Ann Miller, Rachel Leigh Cook, & Luke Wilson) who are part of this dump. As far as the plot, well it is almost non-existent and so poorly done and written (yes I know it's another rehash) I very much doubt anyone will remember anything about this. Please whatever you do don't waste your time, but if you do, feel sorry for the ACTUAL actors involved for wasting their time doing this bomb. Jessica Simpson you're pretty, but stick to singing, although I'm not much a fan of that either. And whoever did this film, I wouldn't put this on your resume. 1/10 because you can't give a zero.
By now you should already know about this film, the Jessica Simpson "bomb" that pretty much went straight to video (limited, anemic theatrical run). Basically, Ms. Simpson's Katie travels from a small town in Oklahoma to visit her boyfriend, to surprise him, only to find him in bed with another woman. She is stranded, but has one friend (Rachel Leigh Cook, whom I wish we saw more often in film), who lets her stay. Katie ends up getting a job via two conniving co-workers (Penelope Ann Miller and the always amusing Andy Dick) who are just using Katie to get the president of the firm (Larry Miller) ousted. This is strictly a b movie, its not meant to be profound. Jessica Simpson is not a great actress by any means, but she is pretty much beautiful and never truly annoying. The film is watchable in that its not an abomination, but its throwaway fluff. In a cameo, Penny Marshall is funny (a subtle in-joke about Milwaukee made me chuckle), and there is a funny scene involving Norwegian priests (don't read too much into this). So, not horrible, but easy to skip. Your safe bet is to watch it on television if it ever does. Again, not good, but not a profound disaster.
This was a silly movie with a predictable storyline and dreadful acting!! Willy Nelson was as stiff as his braids. The movie just seemed like a very long advert for the bright red lipstick that Jessica Simpson wore - especially as there were so many close-ups on her face. The premise was not amusing and as I said - soooooooo predictable. Whatever money was spent on making this movie was a shameful waste. Any allusions to other old Marilyn Monroe movies did not enhance the viewing of Blonde Ambition at all. It was also so unbelievable - Jessica Simpson being able to step into an executive secretary position at the drop of a hat - that was laughable!!!
Watching this I mainly noticed the ad placements. DHL, Aquawhite Strips, Rockstar and more. It's one product placement after another. It's quite obvious how this movie got its funding. Jessica Simpson's "acting" is laughable. Any Dick shouldn't ever get work because he plays the same lame character. The "story" is just a backdrop for this very long commercial. I can't believe this movie was even considered for theatrical release. The longer you watch this movie the more you're embarrassed for everyone involved. The only minor saving grace is Larry Miller and Rachael Lee Cook, who gets almost no screen time as Jessica's cousin. I'm embarrassed I watched the whole thing. I would recommend avoiding this one.
This movie had all the elements to be a smart, sparkling comedy, but for some reason it took the dumbass route. Perhaps it didn't really know who its audience was: but it's hardly a man's movie given the cast and plot, yet is too slapstick and dumb-blonde to appeal fully to women.<br /><br />If you have seen Legally Blonde and its sequel, then this is like the bewilderingly awful sequel. Great actors such as Luke Wilson should expect better material. Jessica Simpson could also have managed so much more. Rachael Leigh Cook and Penelope Anne Miller languish in supporting roles that are silly rather than amusing.<br /><br />Many things in this movie were paint-by-numbers, the various uber-cliché montages, the last minute "misunderstanding", even the kids' party chaos. This just suggests lazy scriptwriting.<br /><br />It should be possible to find this movie enjoyable if you don't take it seriously, but it's such a glaring could-do-better than you'll likely feel frustrated and increasingly disappointed as the scenes roll past.
The story goes something like this: A small-town girl, Katie (Jessica Simpson), decides to visit her boyfriend in the big city. When she arrives she discovers he isn't quite as faithful as he should be. Katie then ends up venturing into the adventure that is New York. Filling in as bike messenger comedic and charming mishaps ensues. She falls into a hole in the ground and thus meets charismatic good-guy Ben (Luke Wilson). It's not love at first sight, at least for her, but destiny and Ben, won't give up quite that easy. Being "just" a small-town girl AND blonde a couple of evil executives at a building firm decides she's the perfect scapegoat for their cunning plan. Misunderstandings with hilarious and sad consequences follow. However, this is one blonde who won't take it lying down!<br /><br />People being judgmental of this film will soon enough be proved wrong. The jokes are confident and fitting, and the story well developed. The relationship between Katie and Ben feels so natural that it puts anything Godard has created to shame. The multi-talented Jessica Simpson once again surprises with a strong role only she could pull off. Simpson really is the Marilyn Monroe of our day (there's even one scene honoring her!). She balances perfectly between vulnerable and whimsy. Katie really does show us that you can't judge a book by its cover! Luke Wilson is as charming as ever. Even if he was covered in manure that man would be as appealing as anyone. His light touch, puppy dog eyes and laid back manner makes it difficult to resist. Andy Dick plays the role he was born to play, one of the two diabolical executives. He really cannot be underestimated. The strength of the performance lies in his restraint. It's remarkable, because most actors would just run away with it and play it for cheap laughs. Not this guy! <br /><br />In conclusion, director Scott Marshall has crafted an intelligent and frequently hilarious comedy that is destined to become a classic alongside masterpieces of cinema like Epic Movie and Norbit. Kudos to everyone involved in this, especially Jessica Simpson. Her sincere smile and whole-hearted laughter would make even the toughest man break out in a big grin. You may be tough, but you're not THAT tough! Warmly recommended to everyone who wants to be swept off their feet and see a romantic comedy that for once, feels honest. Thank you for this film! Oh, and the soundtrack rocks! <br /><br />Now if you still haven't gotten it. I'm being sarcastic. 1/10
This might be unbelievable, but this movie has grossed $878,138 in Russia! It's shown in almost all cinema theaters and still running! Well, I have no idea why distributors put their eye on this particular uh "movie", which had almost no screening around the world. That's some kind of enigma! Haha! Maybe it was based on the fact that another movie, "Pledge This" with Paris Hilton, which was as well released only DVD almost everywhere, had major screenings in Russia and grossed more than 1mln$. Besides, both movies had a lot of promotion, like there were the banners all over the city, TV commercials and etc. Speaking about movie, I'd say it's dull and absolutely boring. It could be better, really. Even if it has Jessica Simpson.
I knew this movie wasn't going to be amazing, but I thought I would give it a chance. I am a fan of Luke Wilson so I thought it had potential. Unfortunately, a lot of the movie's dialog was very fake sounding and cheesy. I think that Aquafresh gave some money towards the production of the film because they were seriously dropping some hints throughout. There is a shot where the Aquafresh sign sticks out at you that you can't help but notice it. Maybe they should have focused on writing and acting more than how many times can we drop Aquafresh products in the movie without people getting annoyed. The movie had its moments, but I'm glad I didn't spend $9.50 to see it in the theater.
(First of all, excuse my bad English) Of course only a movie starring Jessica Simpson can include serious goofs like this.. I'm a norwegian and I felt offended and shocked the makers of this movie did not take the time to do their research upon making this American/"Norwegian" movie. Even Wikipedia is more accurate when it comes to facts about this country.<br /><br />So I'm posting my corrections out of my frustration: -The Country is named Norway, not Norwegia. -"Da" is Russian, not norwegian. -Norwegian priests never use those black capes with that white paper by the neck as the protestant church is the dominant by far -It's true we have a native traditional folk-outfit (that we only use like twice a year) but the outfit in this movie is more like a German outfit. -I could NOT understand the so called "norwegian" in this movie.. Jessica was not making any sense.. neighter did the "norwegian priests"<br /><br />The only thing I recognise is the norwegian flag (and the viking hats, but that's so stereotypic what people think about norway - vikings!:O gosh)<br /><br />Well.. I guess the people who made this film will never read this comment. but at least I cleared some things up and got rid of some of that frustration..!<br /><br />I'm proud of my country and I'd love if people in the US were less stereotypic and more accurate when they talk about this country.<br /><br />That was all.. Lenge leve Norge ! ;p
Ahh this film had so much potential! A good cast of quality B actors, the thighs of Jessica Simpson and... that is about it!<br /><br />I believe some guy in some unnamed marketing department had an idea. Basically, lets do a kind of Legally Blond film, but do it in New York. That big bright city of chances, power and money and where everyone is a heartless, power/money hungry person. Let's add to this Jessica Simpson, small town bimbo, that brother of Owen Wilson and for some no apparent reason Andy Dick (only because of him you should ignore this film).<br /><br />Basic story line:<br /><br />Boy leaves girl for NY, girl follows, boy cheats, girl stays in NY with cousin, gets a job under false pretenses, mucks up, is courted by other boy (Brother Wilson) and together save the day and kiss.<br /><br />a few words come to mind when reflecting upon this film, i.e. dire, awful, unbearable, intolerable and xenophobic<br /><br />Just don't watch this film, you will be happier. One reviewer referred to Guantanamo and i definitely agree with him. This film induces shock. And I know what you are thinking... at least at some point will I see Simpson naked or close too. It's not gonna happen, spare yourself the time and YouTube her. You will have better sexy time!<br /><br />The films editing is flimsy, the acting is unbearable, and why do they use blue screens?<br /><br />In conclusion; this is cinematic treason which should be punished to the maximum<br /><br />Another question why does Willie Nelson always play a kind of father figure in almost every Jessica Simpson flick and why are there no black, Latin, Asian or European people in this movie?
A lot of promise and nothing more. An all-star cast certainly by HK standards, but man oh man is this one a stinker. No story? That's okay, the action will make up for it like most HK action flicks. What? The action is terrible, corny, and sparse? Dragon Dynasty's releases up to this point are by and large superb and generally regarded as classics in Asian cinema. This is a blight. They managed to wrangle a couple of actors from Infernal Affairs, but they can't bring life to a disjointed script. There are scenes of dialogue where two or three lines are spoken with a cut in between each and no continuity in what the characters are saying. You almost feel like they're each giving a running monologue and just ignoring the other characters. Michael Biehn is made of wood, really? Sammo Hung uses a stunt double? No way. Yes way. Stay away.
At the end of "Dragon Heat," all I could think of was why I bothered sitting through the whole thing.<br /><br />The film's premise is interesting and that - as well as Maggie Q - is what attracted me to the film in the first place. But was I ever disappointed. Writer-director Daniel Lee can't hold a candle to the likes of John Woo, Ringo Lam and Corey Yuen.<br /><br />This has to be one of the most annoyingly-directed films I have ever seen. Lee is so wrapped up in his visual style - and I use that phrase incredibly loosely - that he fills the film with completely needless black-and-white stills, freeze frames, slow-motion, fast-motion and other visual nonsense. I suppose he did all that to make up for the lack of a good story or dialogue.<br /><br />The action scenes are nothing special and play out like some hopped-up music video more than anything else. There is little to care about any of the characters - including two supposedly professional snipers who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside! - who are then laden with some of the cheesiest dialogue I have seen in one of these Hong Kong actioners.<br /><br />The plot is devoid of any twists and turns - from the initial set-up, everything unfolds in predictable fashion - and Lee feels the need to keep reminding us of the characters' back stories in case we didn't get it the first several times. This is awfully amateurish writing and film-making and wastes the talents of Sammo Hung, Michael Biehn and Maggie Q. Though, to be frank, I am hard-pressed to remember Biehn being in any good film that was not directed by James Cameron.<br /><br />If you really are in the mood for a great Hong Kong actioner, you are much better off sticking to some of the staples - John Woo's "The Killer" (1989) and "Hard-Boiled" (1992), Ringo Lam's "City on Fire" (1987) - which Quentin Tarantino stole for "Reservoir Dogs" (1992) - or his "Point Blank" (1967) remake, "Full Contact" (1992). Or, even check out Yuen's "So Close" (2002), a supremely entertaining, yet preposterous, popcorn flick. And there's always the terrific French police actioner, "The Nest" (2002).<br /><br />True, most, if not all, are a bit over-the-top, but they were films that remain exciting, thrilling and even suspenseful. They have characters we care about and mind-blowing action sequences.<br /><br />"Dragon Heat," on the other hand, is just terribly mediocre. The trouble is that Lee has not made a bad action film, he has made a dull one.
"Handsome Guys With Bad Haircuts !!" "Beautiful Girls Without Any Clues !!" "Stupid Gangsters Who Cannot Shoot Straight !!" From Dragon Dynasty comes the Hong Kong gangster drama, "Dragon Heat." For reasons which will probably forever be completely obscured, the production and casting call for this 'criminals-on-steroids' movie somehow got both Maggie Q and Michael Biehn to sign on as villains. But they don't get all that much to do in this horrid slug-fest.<br /><br />They are two of the best contemporary actors around, each with their own resume' and list of accomplishments, and Biehn in particular has had the courage to take some rather challenging and non-heroic roles.<br /><br />Maggie Q was the super-bad "Mai" in "Live Free Or Die Hard," so 'nuff said.<br /><br />Biehn is, of course, famous for being the soldier-from-the-future who made "The Terminator" of 1984 such a believable science-fiction/fantasy romp, by crashing up against Big Arnold, who is now the Governator of California !! <br /><br />Michael Biehn is almost wholly wasted in this terrible train-wreck of a police drama. There is absolutely no reason for that, as the incredibly convoluted plot -- given mostly in Chinese, as it is a Hong Kong story -- could have been better elaborated for non-Chinese audiences with a foreign narrator.<br /><br />In other words, if Biehn had been used as something like an Interpol observer or coordinator, or an agent under deep cover, who needs to get some 'splaining given to him every five or ten minutes, that would have been great. But no, he's brought in as a part of an odd group of special forces-type bad guys who seem to be freelancing their own corrupt deal, in the middle of somebody else's totally corrupt deal involving the local king of corrupt deals. <br /><br />Yes, there, I said it all. Confused ? Me too. "Welcome to the party, pal."<br /><br />In the truly superb Hong Kong crime drama, known by its English title as "Breaking News," there are also a number of fascinating characters at work, but there is only one story line in the plot. <br /><br />Bad guys vs. good cops. In this wretched and excessively violent foray into the world of a Hong Kong Triad, or gang, it seems that the hot-shot police force is little more than a parade of ducks in a shooting gallery, the way the criminals mow them down.<br /><br />So, not surprisingly, there's an almost otherwise incomprehensible scene ( several scenes, in fact ), where kids are trying to shoot wooden ducks in an arcade game, to win stuffed animal prizes. And so the hot shot good-guy police officers quite naturally intervene on their behalf, so that the arcade owner has to give up the Kewpie dolls.<br /><br />There's also a half-hearted attempt at creating a "love interest" between one of the 'visiting cops' and the sole female 'visiting cop'.<br /><br />The visiting cops are supposed to be material witnesses against the Triad gangster leader, who gets hijacked on the way to his court appearance, but not by his own team but by the mercenaries ( Biehn, Maggie Q, and some others ). These killers all want something but we don't get to learn about what it is, until the very end of the film !! That was a stupid mistake inside of the overall story.<br /><br />You cannot build suspense in a crime drama without something to obtain, or get, or get away from, being introduced very early in the story.<br /><br />Add to that some "cut-away scenes" done for purely artsy effects, all showing the bad-bad guys' and the regular bad guys' recent pasts, and any film buff can readily understand why this barking dog gets a 1 rating from this fan of all things cinematic with criminals and conspirators and Hong Kong.
Non existent plot, tons of poorly directed / super-cheesy scenes (Snipers / world famous sharpshooters who can't even hit their targets a few feet away? plus what's up with the ending?---> a bunch of law enforcers vandalizing a carnival's shooting gallery? WTH?), technical mistakes (how many bullets can you fit into a magazine of a glock? 100+? These people fire their guns without the need of reloading). The movie is so bad that even senior Hollywood actor like Michael Biehn (Aliens, terminator) can't save this junk.<br /><br />DO not watch this movie (I realized that I wasted some good 100 minutes of my precious life on this one). Hopefully the director would either stop making movies, or learn more for his next movie.
This esteemed production has it's fans. But to paraphrase the classic bad review of 'Mary Reilly,' Moby Dick is like a painting, only slower.<br /><br />This is because the philosophical grounds for a movie "production" are never to make a great film, rather it's to substitute the lack of a strong guiding idea (in this case for a books transference to film) with a list of hopelessly atomized, undynamic but dazzling conceits in an effort to trick viewers into thinking they've seen greatness. As viewers & critics are apt to fall for this, Oscars follow, feeding the whole dumb equation.<br /><br />I don't share in the pleasure all these reviewers found. Moby Dick is stunningly uninvolving. Actors dutifully recite essays about Jonah, Moby Dick, the ocean, Moby Dick, Moby Dick... all things that can't respond, and not one of which is absorbing in the slightest. It's dramatically inert. It doesn't build. In narrative terms Moby Dick (as a movie) is little more than a foregone conclusion in search of an actual story. After half an hour I was muttering "Oh terrific... another oath ...another 4 minute soliloquy!"<br /><br />In the failed effort to involve you, it's a pretty campy overacting showcase. A lot of grey hair here. Starbuck is supposed to be a golden god. (!)<br /><br />One knows one is looking at a great director when he makes the medium his own rather than trying to replicate the feel of someone else's paintings & palette, or reverently embalming a classic as Huston does here. Paintings and books are nice but they're a different mediums. A movie like this fails to grasp that an honestly enjoyable piece of crap (Village of the Damned) is better in most respects than an insufferable piece of culture. This is the Eat Your Vegetables school of film-making.<br /><br />One appreciates the work that must have been done to make the movie, but not the narrative. Only a few segments reflecting maritime research are interesting; the recording of shanties as a means of structuring work & various sea efforts; and the technology of whaling. And that doesn't call for a two-plus hour movie.
This movie is horrible. Everything in it has been done before. There is nothing original. I cannot stand when writers don't come up with their own plots.<br /><br />A girl makes a wish on her 13th birthday and wakes up as an adult. Hmm, sounds a lot like a movie in the 80s called Big. What is even more annoying is Jennifer Garner's acting. She doesn't act like she is 13 she just acts like she is stupid.<br /><br />From then on, you can guess the whole plot. She gets a good job and it just so happens that a friend she had at 13 works with her. Wow, how awesome! But, no....her friend is bad and turns on her, trying to get her job. But, of course, she wins in the end when she comes up with a "great" idea.<br /><br />There's also a dancing scene in the movie that I've seen a thousand times before.<br /><br />I hate this movie.
I'm beginning to see a pattern in the movies I give a 1 to. They are almost all movies that my wife made me watch. Maybe I should stop having faith in her taste in movies. Anyway, this is typical drivel aimed at pre-teen girls but done even more poorly than usual. Once again, the writer broke the cardinal rule of any movie. He/she made the main character unlikable. She starts off by being a complete b*tch to her friend at the beginning, and then finds out when she becomes 30, that she's basically a sh*tty person (having affairs, etc.). Why the F would we feel for this person? OK, let's say we can get past that. Jennifer Garner is about as far from attractive as you can get without having some sort of deformity. I don't know if it's her or the writer's fault, but her character goes well beyond my threshold for annoyance. Here's a tip for future filmmakers: 13 year olds are NOT entertaining, they're annoying. Far and away the most embarrassing moment in the movie came when they danced to "Thriller". Holy crap that was painful. It showed her practicing that dance at the beginning. That explains why she knows it, but an entire club full of people?!? Argh!!! The Macarena would be more believable! All of a sudden she's completely incompetent and has no clue how to do her job and no one notices? At least Tom Hanks' character on "Big" had a job that made sense to a child. These body-switching/child becoming adult overnight movies are really getting out of hand, and this is by far the worst one yet.
What the *bliep* is it with this movie? Couldn't they fiend a better script? All in all a 'nice' movie, but... it has been done more than once... Up till the end I thought it was okay, but... the going back to the past part... *barf* SO corny... Was waiting for the fairy god mother to appear... but wow, that didn't happen... which is good.<br /><br />I loved Big with Tom Hanks, but to see such a movie in a new form with another kid who wished that he/she is older/bigger; that just is so pasé<br /><br />Just watch till it comes out on TV. Don't get me wrong, but it ain't all that
She has been catapulted from 13 to 30, with magic dust involved, courtesy the 13-year-old Matt, but nothing is made of that except as an unexplained device. New York City, especially Central Park, but also every other slice of the place incorporated into the movie, seems hope-filled and easily livable, and save for Lucy there's no villain in Jenna's adult life, and even Lucy is not cast as monstrous, only as a nasty 13-year-old grown 17 years more devious. Chris, the one-time boy object of Jenna's yearning, is now a porky cab driver, and you have seen enough films to know that Matt will play a major role in Jenna's future. You don't know quite what might impede this before it is finally achieved, though I'm here to whisper in your ear, so to speak, that the device is not unique. In fact, not only is this a variation on the theme of Tom Hanks' "Big," though nowhere near as fine, it is also a strictly by-the-book version of this subset of the Cinderella story.
This is a film where the actors are all fine, especially Brigitte Bako and Erik Palladino, in a film where every one of the three couples meet in a situation that feels verrrrry forced to be either cute or to set the story in motion. In other words, it feels like they are contrived movie scenes, not like real life. Even if women who work at peep parlors ever go out with one of their customers, it just doesn't seem realistic at all the way it is written in this film. Also, when one of the characters meets the overweight woman in the film, it feels artificial, the way they look at each other seconds after arguing. Again, the actors are all good, and moments of this film are nice, but overall yet another indie that could have used some rewriting before production got rolling.
'Mojo' is a story of fifties London, a world of budding rock stars, violence and forced homosexuality. 'Mojo' uses a technique for shooting the 1950s often seen in films that stresses the physical differences to our own time but also represents dialogue in a highly exaggerated fashion (owing much to the way that speech was represented in films made in that period); I have no idea if people actually spoke like this outside of the movies, but no films made today and set in contemporary times use such stylised language. It's as if the stilted discourse of 1950s screenwriters serves a common shorthand for a past that seems, in consequence, a very distant country indeed; and therefore stresses the particular, rather than the universal, in the story. 'Mojo' features a strong performance from Ian Hart and annoying ones from Aiden Gillan and Ewan Bremner, the latter still struggling to build a post-'Trainspotting' career; but feels like a period piece, a modern film incomprehensibly structured in an outdated idiom. Rather dull, actually.
This is truly terrible: painfully irritating stylised performers screech and mug gratingly incoherent dialogues which take place in scenes which seem to have no purpose, no beginning, middle or end, cut together without any apparent narrative or even cognitive intention, all in the service of some entirely uninteresting and almost undetectable "story". What makes it worse is the film's pretentions to "style": suddenly a remote-head crane shot spirals downwards, and, without any apparent reason there are sudden whip-pans or wobblyhand-held sections: all this "style" merely serves to magnify the almost unbelievably huge misconception of the project and the almost offensive vacuity of the material. Definitely a candidate for the worst film ever made.
I looked forward to watching this film and then realised that any hope of a coherent dialogue between the actors was swamped by the unnecessary swearing. Now I am not a prude in any way, but to shout obscenities at each other does not a good film make. Ewan Bremner is arguably one of the worst actors in the world at this time (witness his performance in the god awful Life of Stuff) & his "Cockney" accent is almost as bad as his Edinburgh accent. Avoid. How many more of these films "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang", "Beautiful Creatures" do we have to suffer before the film makers realise that the f-word, the c- word etc does not replace proper dialogue.
First off, I would like to point out that while I am not an expert, the way the trial was handled will insult your intelligence. Firstly, the prosecution never proved that 'facilitated learning' actually works. Irresponsible for both the prosecution(because they can get an appeal) and the defense for not acting on this. As another commenter said, facilitated learning was proved untrue. Secondly, they used Terry as the translator who has personal interest, and even will testify, in the trial which is just stupid. If the court had allowed him to testify that way, they would have brought in someone neutral otherwise they would be just asking for an appeal. Thirdly, this child was never asked specific questions about the defendant by the prosecution(birthmarks, details of the event, etc.) and even when asked by the defense specific questions like when it started, he could not answer. If that isn't reasonable doubt I don't know what is and a competent lawyer would have gotten an acquittal.<br /><br />Bottom line, it starts off well with the pressures of being the parent of a child with autism, but the trial makes this movie wholly unbelievable.
I saw this movie way back when it premiered.<br /><br />It was based on the notion that autistic children could communicate with typed-out messages with someone else merely aiding them and guiding their hands.<br /><br />Then suddenly these children, many of whom weren't even observing the keyboard or the screen when the messages were being typed out (they could be looking up at the ceiling in some instances), but their moderators were eyes glued on the keyboard, began typing messages of abuse from their parents and other persons, sending parents and child welfare agencies in a proberbial tizzy, left and right.<br /><br />This whole thing was proved a fallacy when a third person presented a folder, opened it to the child and said 'type the picture you see', then as the presenter turned the folder to the moderator, a fold would fall down, revealing another different picture.<br /><br />So while the child may have seen a dog, the moderator saw something like a boat.<br /><br />Every time, every bloomin' time, the name of the picture typed was what the moderator had observed, never what the child was shown.<br /><br />So who was doing the typing? Never the child.<br /><br />This movie further took a disastrous turn with, as the Australia poster stated, the person who molested the child in the movie was IN the situation trying to help the child.<br /><br />Had Melissa Gilbert never put her son IN that place, he wouldn't have been molested, is what the movie says. He was better off under her supervision.<br /><br />If I turn my kid over to your organization for aid and he gets molested instead, do you think I'm going to be keen to listen to anything you have to say after that? Not likely! I think it is a safe bet that all of these accusatory messages that these kids were typing out, that this movie was based on, they never accused someone within their operation as took place here.<br /><br />Unfortunately, I do recall that the movie gave a very good performance from Gilbert as the mother of an autistic, but other than that, the movie really didn't do much.<br /><br />The worst by far was the child typing at the end to Patty Duke, and we hear the mechanical voice read back what he typed, . . . . . "we won!" This child was molested. If you cut my leg off and I take you to court and you are found guilty of damaging me, assault, whatever, then that is legal justice, but it doesn't bring my leg back.<br /><br />At best, in my condition, I will view it as a hollow victory.<br /><br />Whatever chance this child had at what is perceived as normalcy with the autism alone is further damaged by the molestation.<br /><br />A 'normal' child has enough to contend with from such an experience.<br /><br />It's utterly superficial to think that you must look upon any situation and go 'we won' if that person is found guilty in court.<br /><br />Just a bad handling of a situation and circumstances all the way around here.
I had the good fortune of reading the book before seeing the movie. It was an epic of adolescence, a dream of summers gone, a great potential indie film or big budget drama. It somehow got into the hands of a hack, who clearly took notes watching Boogie Nights and Rushmore without actually learning anything at all. The script loses the meat of the book in favor of forced emotional notes and low brow gags. I feel sorry for the actors, since the characters in the book were rich and textured, but cut down to embarrassing charactures in the film. Mason Gamble is great when given the opportunity, as is Dylan Baker, but the skeleton that remains of the story plays out like a bad after school special. Poor people = GOOD, Rich people = BAD. <br /><br />Though it's almost worth watching to see the Southern California beach where Gary Sinise parks his trailer which is meant to pass for a bay in Delaware. <br /><br />It's a good book, but an embarrassing turn for first time director Mills Goodloe. <br /><br />K.
"A Gentleman's Game" uses the game of golf in a country club setting to illustrate an adolescent's discovery about honesty, prejudice, and other life lessons. Several times I thought I knew where this film was heading, only to be proved wrong. Unfortunately, I'm not so sure that the filmmakers ever knew where it was heading, either. The defining moment in this movie is probably the scene in which Gary Sinise mocks "The Karate Kid" and debunks any notions that he's going to become a mentor to the adolescent golfer. It's refreshing, in a way, that this movie refuses to follow most of the simplistic and over-worked movie formulas. However, too much of it still comes off as contrived. At the drop of a hat people drop all pretenses of civility, or fail to stick up for the things in which they believe, or are exposed for something far less respectable than their place in society assumes. Unfortunately, there is often no resolution to these moments. And except for the fact that the club serves as backdrop for them, there is no real continuity or linking of them. It's a shame that the writers and director could not salvage a better film, especially given some of the talented actors and potential in the setup.
the only word i can think of to describe this movie is: Ordinary.<br /><br />The plot line about Gary sinise's character attempting suicide is a ridiculous premise and c'mon..living as some sort Salingeristic hermit or recluse in a shack driving golf balls into the ocean because he couldn't handle life in the lucrative pro/am golf community? cry me a river. I wish these were my problems. I do enjoy Dylan Baker and Sinise but this movie was clearly a bad choice or a pay check for Sinise. The scene in which little Timmy Price gets verbally abused by the other club member in front of his father during the tournament is so over the top that i am embarrassed to watch it
At least it's not full of sensless violence or fluff. It's also not very full of thought or a smooth storyline. This story had some potential but the director appears to have lost site of the green. The story is disjointed and goes off in strange<br /><br />directions, to no conclusion. I also don't believe the director spent much time around a golf country club, either. Some of the depictions are absurd. Not very engaging.
I've seen better production quality on YouTube! I pity the actors, as the writing was terrible and the direction shocking, not sure how they could get the lines out - I really doubt any actor would have been able to salvage this movie no matter how good they were. The characters were not developed at all, and there was no real cohesion in the plot which just seemed to go nowhere much. It's a shame really, as the premise for the movie was good and with better production quality, direction and script it could have been a decent movie. It certainly was not a comedy, unless you laugh out loud at the dubbing - which was amateurish, even the English actors sounded weird.
The movie had a cute opening, I truly believed I was in for one of the best romantic comedies i've seen in a while... there was something particular "foreign" about the way the movie was set up, realistic yet somewhat abstract and mystical. But then the story line started becoming more and more unrealistic. To say that the ending was CORNY and PREDICTABLE would almost be an understatement... The most typical romantic ending where everything goes great for every 'likable' character. A scene where the main character realises that he has made a mistake and chases the "woman of his dreams" only to confess his love for her in front of a sympathetic crowd of on- lookers. Come on. In the end, the 'good guys' win, 'bad guys' loose... You get the picture. A WASTE of a potentially interesting movie.
Whattt was with the sound? It sounded like it was all dubbed.<br /><br />Otherwise, bad. Plot = bad. Accents = bad (even Dougray, and we live in Scotland), Acting = bad, Harp = bad, Sex scenes - bad/cringeworthy.<br /><br />Still, we watched it until the end in disbelief. How could such a good roll call of actors perform so badly? Will they ever get a decent job again? <br /><br />Bad, Bad, Bad. By the way, we gave it 3 because we at least were enticed to watch it to the end due to its bizarre plot, etc.<br /><br />And to the older reviewer - I totally agree, it was like a romantic farce from the 1940s. How did it get made in 2004?<br /><br />OK, OK, there were some OK bits. They had a nice house in Bristol. Dougray had a nice boat. Jennifer looked nice in a little outfit. But how come the sister got all the men?
Watching TRUTH ABOUT LOVE (is this a double entendre about the star?) is like plugging in white noise or manufactured water sounds to help you sleep - you put it in the DVD slot because there is nothing else left on the store shelves and you are in need of distraction after a hectic day. And it works for that for that purpose: being a British romantic comedy it is a bit more.<br /><br />The story is a rather simple one about a wife Alice (Jennifer Love Hewitt) married to an increasingly distant husband Sam (Jimi Mistry) who has put their love life on hold due to the burdens of his busy law practice. His partner Archie (Dougray Scott) is fond of both Sam and Alice, but has a longtime attraction to Alice that goes beyond friendship. Alice pals with her sister Felicity (Kate Miles), a free love advocate, who encourages Alice to have affairs. On Valentine's Day, after a drinking binge with her sister, Alice mails a card to Sam signed 'Anonymous' as a test to see if Sam responds, testing his fidelity. At the same time Archie mails a radish seed packet to Alice on which he has inscribed a suggestive love not. Both have ex post facto regrets. Sam in fact is spending time with a lover Katya (Branka Katic) and is indeed cheating on Alice. Alice arranges assignations with Sam via email and phone calls and plans to meet Sam in disguise as 'Anonymous' to test his fidelity. The entire cast of characters gets caught up in the silly charade and the ending proves that real love must be based on truth - and how that results in the various pairings is the surprise (of sorts) of the fluffy script.<br /><br />British comedies work because of the quality of writing and the tight quality of acting. Perhaps had director John Hay elected to cast a British actress as Alice instead of pasting a phony accent on Jennifer Love Hewitt the result may have been improved. But in the end this story by Peter Bloore bounces between mildly humorous and pathetic in its messages. One terrible distraction is a musical score that is consistently so loud that it covers all the dialogue and is intrusive. There are some nice scenes of London and a few moments of passable humor, but in the end this little film is truly best utilized as background music/white noise. Grady Harp
I ordered the movie from Korea because I was an extra in it and was interested to see how it turned out.<br /><br />Having watched it I can say that I am ashamed to have had any part of it. I feel embarrassed not only for myself but for everyone else who had any part in the making of this mockery of British "comedy".<br /><br />From beginning to end the film is predictable, tedious, dull, monotonous and cringe-worthy to the point that on several occasions I actually looked away from the screen in dis-belief. Until you actually see the movie it is difficult to conceive how un-romantic and un-comedic a romantic comedy can be.<br /><br />It's not only a bad story, but a badly-made film. In one scene, you can actually see a runner or assistant director showing the S.A.'s when to wipe across. I will post details of this in the 'Goofs' section.<br /><br />On the up-side, it did fill me with emotions (disappointment, rage, embarrassment…)
Hiya folks,<br /><br />Well, this movie sucks really. Think "Love Actually" in reverse. Nothing fits quite right, nothing is coherent, and certainly nothing makes you laugh. Love is rare in this film.<br /><br />It IS a total flop. As indicated however, there are three redeeming points about this mangled potential of a film.<br /><br />A) With a star billing of Jennifer Love Hewitt, there will be hordes of guys who will submit with grace to viewing this just to catch a glimpse of the petite Hewitt with form fitting clothing. To tell you now guys....there are some promising scenes....but it's really weak eye candy. The "possibilities" here are watered down. Nevertheless, I watched the whole thing tempted by the next scene of you know what.....titillating!<br /><br />B) The ending is romantic and positive. That it's contrary and "over the top" is relevant.....yet for me was still a positive point.<br /><br />C) Dougray Scott plays an amourous friendly guy........REFRESHING! THANK YOU! <br /><br />2/5, not worthy of your 10 or so dollars.<br /><br />2/3's of the way through, I was convinced Jennifer Love Hewitt was becoming the next softcore legend. Although I'll take that back for now.....it hinges greatly on her next film.<br /><br />Oh, and her sister is way stupid. Her husband is way stupid...and what the heck, she's way stupid.<br /><br />Next time. can't wait for the next Love Actually with JLH!
There have been more interesting polish documentaries on worm farming, in brail_!! The competition (worm farming) had a better plot and more interesting characters. I was physically ill after watching this movie. The cheating husband (i think dougray_scott_) was a joke in every meaning of the word. Poor Jennifer must really need the work, and what was with the accent!!. The locations and random meetings reminded me of a high school prank, and showed the humility of a 10 year old in cooking class. It was that bad that I think I will write the sequel named "this is not a laxitive". Thank you for listening it was a great weight of my conscious.
Yet another British romantic comedy which audiences all over the world seem to have a ravenous appetite for. This feeble effort is an unintentional parody of the genre - all the classic clichéd scenes are here from ridiculously elaborate misunderstandings to running after departing trains to declare one's love. The characters are one-dimensional caricatures save for Love-Hewitt who manages to bring some cohesion to the film. Things threaten to spiral out of control in the plausibility department as the film progresses; our good-natured suspension of belief finally comes crashing down during the preposterous ending. If you're looking for a Bridget Jones, Notting Hill kind of experience you won't find it here.
Daddy's girls Florence Lawrence and Dorothy West receive some terrific news at the local post office, unaware they are being stalked by burglar Charles Inslee. Meanwhile, father David Miles receives a message (from young Robert Harron) which necessitates daddy leaving home; so, when the young women return, they can be… home alone. As the vulnerable pair bed down for the evening, the local "Grand Ball of the Black and Tans" gets underway; and, a dark-skinned drinker portends additional danger for D.W. Griffith's dynamic duo… <br /><br />Mr. Inslee has one of his better Biograph roles, stealing the film from "The Girls and Daddy". Ironically, Director Griffith appears as one of the black-faced extras at the "Black and Tans" ball. "Biograph Girls" Lawrence and West are suggestive of later "Griffith Girls" Lillian and Dorothy Gish, especially in "Orphans of the Storm" (1921); and, they are excessively affectionate in bed! The racist tone is unfortunate, since the story of a burglar redeemed by saving his potential victims from a greater danger, is intriguing. <br /><br />*** The Girls and Daddy (2/1/09) D.W. Griffith ~ Florence Lawrence, Dorothy West, Charles Inslee
I can't believe anyone liked this movie. I've seen a lot of low-budget indie films, but this one absolutely sucked. Low budget doesn't mean the movie has to be demented. Horror doesn't mean the movie has to be demented. There was nothing scary about this movie at all. It was just a gore-fest, and a particularly disturbing one at that. The acting was average, considering they were all unheard of actors, but the story was pathetic, the dialog was pathetic. The movie tries to come off as "artistic", or something. This is not one of those really great indie films that cost only thousands of dollars to make, but are incredibly well done. This was nothing more than an excuse for some extremely sick people to put their perverse obsessions on film. Other reviews here also said that the soundtrack sucked...that's because most of it was written by the same person, and some of the songs were written by one of the writers of the movie. There were no redeeming qualities to this movie at all. A complete waste of my time and money.
I think this movie was supposed to be shocking. But the only way in which it is indeed shocking is how shocking badly it's been made ...and simply is. It's one-and-a-half hour of torment. Even more so for the viewer than for the characters in the movie (the five girls).<br /><br />Sure the main characters get their bloody piece in a bad way, which is basically fine, since it's a horror-movie. And I (usually) like horror-movies. I've no problem with violence in these type of movies per se. However all the violence in this film serves no end whatsoever. It's no spectacle other than that it's simply grotesque. It's so lame it even gets boring, and really quick too.<br /><br />The worst thing (if the above wasn't bad enough for ya) about this movie is that they've tried to copy the Blair Whitch Project, by filming with cheap hand-held-cameras. But (again, this too) serves no end whatsoever. In the "Blair Which", sure enough, there's an explanation, namely they are their with a camera looking for the blair witch. In this film, there's no other explanation than: "Hey ya'll we wanted this to LOOK LIKE the Blair Whitch!!" The sound in the movie is also something to get depressed about. The girls are screaming so hysterically that many a time you can't make out what they're saying. Also, no effort has been made to make anything any better, sound-wise or other wise.<br /><br />Than finally, there's the soundtrack, which is just as bad as the rest, and varies from cheap euro-house to the worst grungy hard-rock...<br /><br />My advise: Don't watch this under ANY circumstances.
The word in the summary sums it up d'oh ;) Five girls get lost trying to find their way home, when they stop at a store to get directions they hit a parked car breaking one headlight on it, they flea the scene in fair of getting in trouble but suddenly they see one headlight coming up behind them (ooooh).<br /><br />From there out everything is screaming, crying and violence when they try to get away from this crazy person who lost it because of a headlight ;), well the screaming and crying pretty much stays through the entire movie (very annoying) The movie is shot, with a cheap camera trying to make it seem "real" or "shocking" I guess, it's just embarrassing and useless though. In lack of anything better to compare it with, "Blair witch style".<br /><br />The screaming and crying for pretty much the entire movie with crappy sound was over the top annoying, you literally get a headache :)<br /><br />I'm sorry but this was not scary, only an annoying painful piece of crap movie.
After just watching FIVE ACROSS THE EYES, I gotta be honest...I just didn't like it. I had read so many good reviews on this movie, but I just did'nt get where these reviews have came from,<br /><br />I have got a lot of time for newcomers into film-making, and I'm sure the directors will do well for themselves, but the budget they had was the main problem, there was two cameras used in the entire film (which was OK) but they seemed like really cheap cameras. Another problem was the sound, you get all these girls screaming and shouting all at the same time, all talking on top of each other - it's just impossible to hear what they're saying.<br /><br />It had a good idea going for it, in a nutshell, they hit a parked car then drive off, a short while later they are getting chased by the car they hit, driven by a mad woman, who wants to kill them, and has plenty of chances to do so!...and on the other hand the girls have plenty of chances to escape, but don't! <br /><br />Very frustrating...I only just scraped through this one!
This movie has many problem associated with it that makes it come off like a low budget class project from someone in film school. I have to give it credit on its campiness though. Many times throughout the movie I found myself laughing hysterically. It was so bad at times that it was comical, which made it a fun watch.<br /><br />If you're looking for a low-grade slasher movie with a twist of psychological horror and a dash of campy ridiculousness, then pop a bowl of popcorn, invite some friends over, and have some fun.<br /><br />I agree with other comments that the sound is very bad. Dialog is next to impossible to follow much of the time and the soundtrack is kind of just there.
Do not waste your time watching this! Unless you want to study it for all the wrong things you shouldn't do to make a good film. I am not one to usually review a movie, but this one is personal. I wasted precious time which they cannot give back. I feel compelled to write this report to warn others not to waste their time watching this crap. If this was a student project, i would have to say not bad, but only for the first 15 min... after that it gets annoying. the screaming, the bad audio, the bad video (a good camera man could have made it much better). and yes, whats with the Blair-Witch effect? no budget? I was hoping it was going to get better, but it doesn't. Now how the hell did it deserves a 4? 2 is more fair but 1 for wasting my time! I have said my peace.
This really is the most dreadful film I have ever seen. I simply have no idea how anyone has the audacity to put this on release.<br /><br />The production standards are atrocious. There is no pretence here at cinematography. The camera work, scripting, acting and sound are unbelievably crass. I think there is a plot, but it could have been done in 10 minutes sparing us the time to watch it. The hysterical neurotic girls at the centre of this piece have no credibility whatsoever.<br /><br />I would urge anyone to avoid spending any time or money on this Title. It is truly atrocious.<br /><br />JDD - 14 December 2008
This film was positively the worst film I have ever watched. I couldn't sit through the whole thing. I also think writer must have some weird fetish for women peeing puking and crapping... I mean what was that all about! I cant believe this was even made and am disgusted at have #ingwasted a £4 rental fee. The quality both picture and sound are terrible, the acting... well doesn't exist . It was a poor excuse for a film and the scenes of pee, crap and puke were reminiscent of 2 girls 1 cup. Urghh....... AVOID AT ALL COST! The girls looked like they had been picked off the street and only got the part cos they'd be willing to take their tops off... While these girls have nice bodies it certainly didn't make up for the fact their shrieking was awful unconvincing and a pain to my ears.<br /><br />This was like (possibly worse) than an ammateur school production without any proper direction and hey there is no need for a set as it all seems to revolve around a car?! <br /><br />Definatey not one to buy folks. Sorry if my first comment is terribly negative but I could not find anything positive to say and I would like to think I may save someone else wasting their money like I have.
How, in the name of all that's holy, did this film ever get distribution? It looks as if it has been shot on someone's mobile phone and takes the screaming girl victim scenario to whole new depths. They literally scream for the full 90 minutes of the movie. And that's all they do. There is no plot, no tension, no characters, and not a lot of acting. Just screaming and more screaming.<br /><br />I gave up after fifteen minutes and fast-wound through it to see if anything happened. It doesn't - except for screaming, of course. Odlly enough, the act of going through it on fast forward highlights another problem - there is no camera-work to speak of. Every shot looks like every other shot - middle distance, one angle, dull, dull, DULL.<br /><br />It's not so bad it's good. It's just plain bad.
I can't believe this is on DVD. Even less it was available at my local video store.<br /><br />Some argue this is a good movie if you take in consideration it had only a 4000$ budget. I find this funny. I would find it very bad whichever the budget.<br /><br />Still more funny, I read the following in another review: "Dramatics aside, if you love horror and you love something along the lines of Duel (1971) updated with a little more story and some pretty girls thrown in, you'll love this movie."<br /><br />What?!? This is a shame comparing those two movies.<br /><br />I give a "1", since I can't give a "0". I just don't see any way this movie could be entertaining.
As horror fans we all know that blind rentals are a crap-shoot. Sometimes we find a real gem, but many times we find that the film we've just spent our hard earned money on is nothing more than a putrid steamer made worse by the completely undeserved rave reviews and film fest awards listed on the box. Such is the case with Five Across the Eyes ( a title I'm sure is a double entendre referring to both the films budget and the compulsion anyone watching it might have to using all five fingers to stab their eyes out ).<br /><br />The story, or, at least what the *ahem* writers think passes for one, centers on a group of teen girls who unwisely decide to go on a backwoods joyride late at night after leaving a football game and run afoul of a crazy woman who plays cat and mouse with them as punishment for what she thinks the girls found in her car after a fender-bender in a gas station parking lot.<br /><br />In fairness, it's an interesting idea. Some of the best horrors have very simple story lines. It's in the execution of Five Across the Eyes that this idea falls flat. The film tries to be a cross between The Blair Witch Project with its shaky camera work and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre in its bare-bones approach to the material but succeeds at being neither. What we get instead are redundant scenes of chase, torture, release; chase torture, release, in that order for 94 minutes with long interludes of bitching, moaning, and incoherent rambling acting as plenty of padding in-between chase sequences.<br /><br />The look of the film is incredibly grainy and dark, which, in a better made film might have enhanced the tension and the realism. Here it's merely annoying. The characters are undeveloped and the viewer is hard-pressed to find anything to sympathize with them. One character stops to get a first-aid kit and tend to some scrapes on her face while gunshots heard in the background indicate her friends may be getting killed. Another girl mutters hilariously dumb lines like "Don't go out there, she'll get you, if she gets you she'll kill you and if she kill's you you're dead".<br /><br />It was an accolade from Fangoria magazine and Dreadcentral.com listed on the box that compelled me to check this one out. Talk about a fake orgasm! Perhaps my expectations would have been met had this been in the comedy section. I'm all for low-budget Indie horror but this one takes the crap-cake. Give Five Across the Eyes (or FATE; get it?) a pass.<br /><br />RazorFriendly gives FATE 1 slash out of five /
The writers and producers of this little outing have plummeted new depths of depravity. Did writer's block set in so badly, OR had ideas dried up so much, that they were forced to include a disgusting scene where a young woman defecates in the back seat of a van, and then promptly throws the excrement at the car behind (mind you at least this summarises what this film is worth). We had already been treated to one of the other women urinating over one of her friends at gunpoint, as well as numerous episodes of graphic vomiting; once would have sufficed... we got the message! This really is taking toilet humour to another level! Had the script and acting been better then I could have easily forgotten that I was watching a film shot entirely on low budget video. This was a fairly original storyline, with a clever (the only) piece of direction in that we only ever got to take the viewpoint from inside of the van; thus making it feel much more real. We never got to see inside any other locations, such as the store or the field where several of the women disappeared, and this could have added much needed tension.<br /><br />The script was dire. Lines like: 'I don't feel too good... I want to go home' after one of the girls has been pursued by a psychopath; subjected to rape by a screwdriver and shot at, seem a little undercooked.<br /><br />The acting was diabolical (apart from the maniac). Did all the main 5 actresses in this learn acting by taking a correspondence course during a long postal strike! The sound was so bad that I had to watch the entire film with the subtitles on.<br /><br />The director seemed to have an easy job in this. It seems that the only direction he must have given was: 'Scream girls'.<br /><br />AND AS FOR THE SCREAMING...... If you watch this please be sure to have some paracetamol at the ready!
This was probably the worst movie ever, seriously. I could actually do better myself, it wasn't even set up properly. It's like this movie had a $5 budget and left with change. Don't watch it. I didn't even get all the way through this movie, had to turn it off. I've give this a 1/10 because it was hilarious how the producer of this movie wanted it to be a horror movie, but actually turned into a really bad comedy. Basically, a bunch of girls crashed into a car, broke a headlight, and the owner of that car went after them. The bit that i saw was a women with a gun telling a load of girls to take all their clothes off, what the hell? it must be some kind of cheesy porn movie as well.
Five across the eyes ain't worth one off the wrist, I must admit at one point i was really worried, for about 30 seconds nobody made a noise and i thought my speakers had blown or that i had gone deaf with the constant screaming and high pitch yelling, me and the speakers are OK now thanks for asking, funnily enough that was the best bit of the film.<br /><br />I won't waste your time telling you the plot, read the other comments for that.<br /><br />If you have bought this DVD but not yet unwrapped it Don't, take it back and demand your money back, i've wasted mine don't do the same.<br /><br />I was actually shouting at the telly " they're over here in the car, look for the camera lights, and get the camera man first ", i have left the swear words out but you can guess where they go.<br /><br />If anybody would like to buy this film (it's really good) it's yours for a ten quid.
MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS...BUT DOUBT IT CAN ACTUALLY BE SPOILT!!.<br /><br />Five Across The Eyes can be summed up in one word....Amateurish. This film tries it's best to be different from most films by the 'Blair Witch' type of filming....it doesn't work....it just ends up looking and feeling like somebody had a cheap video camera, a van and decided to make a movie. The story has no explanation, the protagonist is given no real motivation (and looks like a lesbian wearing a power-suit compared to the five girls) and there is no violence to speak of...just the sounds of screaming and crunching. The whole film takes place inside a van which means decent scenery is out of the question. The five girls really do their best with what they've been given but on the whole come across as pretty terrible actresses...although with the material given it's hard to judge if they can actually aCt....they spend THE WHOLE movie screaming, squealing and whimpering....so much that half the time it's hard to make out what was said and the cameras are so bad it's actually hard to tell who said it. This video paints itself as a violent torture film but is in fact just five girls in a van screaming in terror...that literally sums up the whole movie.....we then get to the end after what seems like 5 hours of constant screaming and all five girls are still alive... with one minus a finger. The only thumbs up(get it...finger....LOL) is for the poor actresses who tried hard and probably lost their voices(and their pride) after making this terrible movie. Do not judge this by the poster....you'll be very let down.
I'm dumbfounded. Yes that's right. I'm really caught here. No way did I find it awful, but on the other hand it was a frustrating experience in macabre hysterical and murky incoherency. The idea behind such a trim, minimal low-budget Indie production isn't bad, but it's a confused muddle and in the end didn't do anything for me. It's amateurish and simple; it wants to exploit beyond reasoning and do so in that of-late fashionably rapid filming style. We have the documentary laced (hand-held) camera moving everywhere (despite never leaving the van), and sometimes feeling unfocused and blurry making certain details hard to figure out. Lately you kind of get use to it, but there are times when it does become too distracting and even nauseating. Keeping it still will help. The context has little groundwork (which has five teenage girls on their way home from a football game late at night and becoming lost on the back roads. At a road-side store they become involved in a minor accident which smashes an unoccupied SUV headlight. Scared, they flee and not too long that one-light SUV appears behind them. Soon to make their night an unforgettable ordeal in terror) spending most of the time playing out a drawn out, noisy and relentless cat and mouse game. <br /><br />As for being disturbing… I guess that depends. Some moments can make you squirm with its attention to pain, desperation and demented brutality (with good use of piercing sound FX that seem to be more favoured over the imagery and not forgetting the alienating background sound effects), but also I found myself snickering too. In passages it can be repellent and intense with a real gradual rush, but hardly believable. The injuries of random characters never seem as serious like you were to believe, despite obviously they should be. Watch how blood runs freely, but it's not entirely convincing and can get dull. The constant nocturnal car chase could only do so much before getting repetitive. We get screaming, spewing, bleeding, running, cursing, body fluids and so on. Quite unpleasant details followed too. With little really to do, it needed a much stronger script than the measly forced one that was penned up. Too many cringe-moments arose from it, and there was not much in the way of depth for the characters and situation they were in. It was about set-pieces, waiting for next torturous encounter and it drew it out long enough. Helping out is it had an unpredictable pattern. <br /><br />The performances; Jennifer Barnett, Angela Brunda, Danielle Lilley, Sandra Paduch and Mia Yi are workman-like with their distraught characters and draw an authentic chemistry to make up for the script's weaknesses in its character-foundation . Veronica Garcia's flipped-out, bug-eyed intensity as the loony driver of the SUV was something… yeah something. Her character's real motivation for terrorising the girls and her unstable state of mind is virtually non-existent. I guess being psychotic was good enough. Now probably the most unnerving thing I came across in the feature was that hideous soundtrack. Terrible techno music, to cheesy hard-rock and an overwrought closing score. It never felt overdone or got in the way, but it did stick out like a sore thumb. Co-directors Greg Swinson and Ryan Thiessen try to get the most out of their slight resources, but even with it edgy spirit it ends up being something quite ramshackle. Maybe it was enjoyable to make, but watching it just wasn't the case.
- Contains miner spoilers - <br /><br />I have seen a number of decent Indie horror films such as The Hamiltons, The Boys Love Mandy Lane and Cabin Fever; unfortunately I felt Five Across the Eyes does not fall into this category. From start to finish the film is plagued with amateurish acting resonating from a very poor script, god only knows why the writer(s) thought dialogue such as "No don't go out there; don't go out there she'll get you: if she gets you she'll kill you and if she kills you you're dead" is of movie quality.<br /><br />This film displays very little character development and to be honest I couldn't care less about what pain and torture was inflicted upon them as they are just a group of ditsy college girls who show almost no redeeming qualities'. All they do is cry and whinge throughout the entire movie and if the girls aren't crying their arguing; when they do converse the topics are completely random: about dating boys or how one of the girls father was recently cremated (appropriate subjects when you're being chased by a psychotic killer).<br /><br />The soundtrack is also abysmal exhibiting corny techno music during both the start and end credits (although hearing the credit music knowing the end was nearing seemed like heaven).<br /><br />The camera-work is appalling and at times makes the film unwatchable. I'm guessing due to having little or no budget the director was limited to just one digital camera which resides in the girls' car almost the entire movie. I think this was an effort to stick the audience as close to the action as possible: to feel and experience what the girls are going through. But due to a very shaky camera, grainy picture and being too close to the action it can be hard to tell what is going on during action scenes and is simply chaotic. It's one thing to make a film subjective but it's another to have action on the screen that an audience can't decipher because of the poor cinematography.<br /><br />I understand that Five Across the Eyes is a low budget indie film but that does not excuse the extremely poor quality. There are no redeeming factors to this film: bad acting, poor scripting, shoddy camera-work and no story. In light off all this I decided to give the film 1 out of 10 as it left me very disappointed; wanting a meteor to hit the earth bringing me sweet relief. Its 94 minutes off stupid college girls crying, arguing, aimlessly running and having random inappropriate conversations. However, how many times do you get to see girls defecating into their hands and throwing the crap onto the windscreen of a chasing car.
The problem with this movie is that it is shot on the worst possible camera and the film is blurry and grainy. Maybe it's just the fact that whoever was holding the camera couldn't hold still because they were having a seizure or something. There is also way too much poop and vomit in this movie. There is someone vomiting every twenty minutes and it makes me think that this was made by some bulimic or something. It was disgusting. Then there is the annoying high pitched screaming that goes on and on and on and doesn't stop until the credits roll. I also didn't like when all her friends were being shot (or not I don't know)and she goes in the van and puts band aids on. That was just really really stupid to even have that in a movie. How much gas can a person siphon to get a van going? It must be a whole lot because they don't run out of gas for the rest of the movie. It was a terrible movie and I would highly suggest not ever seeing it in your whole entire life.
I'll keep this fast and sweet. Five girls on their way home from a football game decide to take a 'short cut' that leads them down a deserted forest-ridden road. Of course nothing but good things happen to them, and they safely arrive at their destination.<br /><br />Alright, they don't. Soon they're hunted down by a deranged chick who has some severe mental issues, and what ensues is 90 minutes of sheer boredom.<br /><br />I hope to never see any of these actors in any movie ever again. Their screaming, screeching voices gave me a headache, and the script was so poorly written that it included a lot of repeat phrases and nonsensical hysterical screaming. All in all, one of the worst cheap horror flicks I've ever seen...and I've seen a lot.
Given that a lot of horror films are based on the premise that one or more of the central characters does something stupid at some stage during the proceedings, the girls in this film would be collecting Gold, Silver and Bronze at a Darwin Awards Olympic ceremony. A mentally disabled baboon would have made better choices than they did, and would have screamed a lot less while doing so.<br /><br />If you like films with a grainy picture, deliberately amateur camera-work (my 92 year-old grandmother wields a camcorder with better results), extremely poor sound and no discernible plot/narrative, then this is your ideal film. Also note that you should enjoy the following: women screaming for no reason, women whining for no reason. In fact reason and logic don't appear much in this film. For example: "we have to find Stephanie" "yeah I can't believe I was speaking to her, like, last night" "she called you last night?" "yeah, she wanted to talk about some date she got asked one" "WHAT? How come she didn't tell me"? As in, our friend is being chased by a serial killer with a shotgun and an array of grisly weapons but I have a problem with the fact that she didn't tell me she was going on a date.<br /><br />Okay, so the budget is low. That doesn't mean you have to make it look like it cost half the budget. The 'score' is interesting since all - with the exception of one - tracks have been written and performed by the writers/directors of the film itself. In fact it would appear that the entire budget has been blown on sampling a track by The Duskfall, a death metal band from Sweden.<br /><br />The most worrying thing of all in the entire film is the ending which leaves us with the possibility for a sequel.
DO NOT WATCH THIS SAD EXCUSE FOR A FILM. I have wasted time and money on this and am pretty p**sed off about it.<br /><br />The acting is comparable with high school plays. The script is shocking. There is no plot. Twenty minutes from the end (which I believe I should be rewarded for reaching) I had a headache from all the screaming, crying and wailing the five girls make.<br /><br />The majority of the violence is (rare for a film nowadays) suggested rather than graphically depicted but I found the characters so damn irritating that I wanted to see them, and indeed every single person involved in the making of this piece of s**t, die in the most horrible ways possible.<br /><br />I spend ten more minutes of my life saving you from a very poor 100 minutes of yours. Don't do it.
Watching this Movie? l thought to myself, what a lot of garbage. These girls must have rocks for brains for even agreeing to be part of it. Waste of time watching it, faint heavens l only hired it. The acting was below standard and story was unbearable. Anyone contemplating watching this film, please save your money. The film has no credit at all. l am a real film buff and this is worse than "Attack of the Green Tomatoes".<br /><br />l only hope that this piece of trash didn't cost too much to make. Money would have been better spent on the homeless people of the world. l only hope there isn't a sequel in the pipeline.
Definitely, definitely the worst film I've ever seen, no questions asked! Contradictors of this opinion might argue that this title should not be judged by the same criteria as others, since it's an independent, low-budget film, but c'mon already – the amateurism and meager innovation is horrifying.<br /><br />Agreeing with everything that has been said about this film, for example the mind numbingly weak acting (when it's this bad you take another go at shooting the scene, god damn it), the thing I found the most annoying was the total lack of common sense in the script, assuming such a thing existed during the production. There was an obvious absence of a dialogue with respect for the viewers, the girls switched personalities several times and they seemed to show absolutely no sing of any rationality or even brains - five relatively fit girls against one slight female psychopath – gang up on her, why don't you?<br /><br />The only thing that can be regarded as somewhat of a conquest for this title is the camera not leaving the van at any time thus the viewer seeing everything from inside it - which is, as the rest of the film, a good idea executed exponentially dreadfully.<br /><br />…oh and by the way, this movie is NOTHING like The Blair Witch Project or Cloverfield or any other title filmed with a hand-held camera – this is an effect and not a trait! Used cleverly it can be breathtaking, but in this case it's an excuse for inadequate cinematography.
Um... Okay, I guess I get the whole shaky-cam, gorilla-style filming technique but unfortunately I think a gorilla could have made a better movie... This thing was just a complete mess from the get go. Bad acting, bad directing, bad story and horrific cinematography. How this piece of garbage was released I will never know, but it has and unfortunately I watched it. Filmed on location in Tennessee by the directing team of Greg Swinson and Ryan Thiessen (Harry and Lloyd), "Five Across The Eyes" I'm assuming is supposed to resemble a "Blair Witch" type film but falls short... Okay it nose dives off a cliff. I was actually embarrassed for these young women, whom I'm sure were promised Hollywood stardom, but ended up in this dung heap. The dialog is ridiculous, and actually aggravates you as you listen to it. How this is supposed to be a horror flick is another mystery, as there is nothing even remotely scary about it, except for the fact that I watched it... Try this one on for size: There is 5 of you and 1 of her, do the math and beat her ass... "The End". Saddly it went on (and on) for 95 more minutes of mind-numbing stupidity...<br /><br />I saw it for free, and wanted my money back.
This "film" attempts to follow the genre of low budget, hand-held camera flicks that have proved to be very effective and successful.<br /><br />This one, fails, and HOW.<br /><br />It's amazing how many so called "awards" this piece of garbage has got plastered on the cover..... it makes you wonder what these critics were on when they actually submitted this....<br /><br />Words fail to describe just how absolutely appalling this movie really is. Seriously, it's THAT BAD.<br /><br />I watched it in 20 minutes flat, on almost continual fast forward.<br /><br />From rubbish lighting to dreadful directing, grainy visuals to muffled sound, and of course not forgetting the ABYSMAL acting, this was one completely and utterly pathetic piece of so-called film making.<br /><br />It seriously, has NO redeeming qualities - whatsoever. Save your cash and watch a decent low budget horror flick, there are plenty out there - Dead End, The Blair Witch, REC, to name but a few.<br /><br />AVOID this rubbish at all costs. DO NOT waste your money or time on this piece of trash pretending to be an actual film.<br /><br />Take heed of all the other comments! You've been warned!
Less than 10 minutes into this film I wanted it to end as it was painful. All this "horror" movie was about was a group of whiny bitches doing stupid things for 90 minutes, arguing, crying and screaming. Do not let the positive reviews fool you as this really is a terrible movie and you really shouldn't watch it.<br /><br />The movies plot had potential to be something great, but it just doesn't happen. A group of five "teenage" girls are driving home one night when they find themselves being pursued by a crazed female driver who wants to kill them. Two minutes into the movie, and the characters are already arguing and this doesn't stop. All we have for 90 minutes is a bunch of girls whining, crying, screaming, "acting" and arguing. None of the dialogue is even remotely interesting too, so you don't get to really know these characters or enjoy them.<br /><br />The acting was terrible and I was shocked to find out that these characters were meant to be teenagers. None of these women looked a day under 20, and one of them easily looked like she was nearly 30 years old. At least get people who look the age. None of them gave even remotely decent performances, and just seemed like they were picked off the street or were friends of the director with no acting abilities. The "actress" who played the killer overdone it, but she at least showed something that the other girls didn't - a little bit of talent.<br /><br />The characters don't help things because these girls are a bunch of whiny, stupid bitches. That is all I can really say about them, and it did not help that they ALL survived. If I have to go into detail, in one scene the girls are being chased by the killer and having their car knocked a lot. One girl injures herself and is whining about it...four of them aren't wearing seat-belts...what do you expect? One of your friends is being brutally attacked by the killer...and you all just happen to be conveniently "too hurt" to help? Whatever.<br /><br />The filming of the movie is absolutely terrible. I don't care if this movie had a budget the size of a peanut, the filming was terrible and it was like watching a pirated version of a movie. The cameraman was clearly in the car with the girls, pushed up against a window somewhere and the amount of times the camera blurred out, shook and brushed up against an "actress" was horrendous. It was also grainy, and at times you couldn't hear what characters were saying (not that it was anything worth listening to).<br /><br />Supposedly the killers car in the movie (that supposedly got hit, even though we only heard the accident) is actually the directors car in real life. No wonder they didn't show the car getting hit! This movie is so cheap, they can't even show a car getting a little scratched up. Oh, gotta mention the soundtrack also...if that's what it was. It was horrid...sad one second, then hard rock the next. <br /><br />At the end of the day, Five Across The Eyes just feels like a terrible home-movie filmed in the middle of the road at night with a bunch of stupid girls screaming and arguing for 90 minutes. It doesn't help when the script is terrible, the scares/tension/suspense and (hardly even any gore to make up for it) are absent, the acting is terrible and the picture quality and filming are horrendous.<br /><br />This was a horrible low-budget movie. Avoid it at all costs.<br /><br />1/10
Im the type of person who always goes 2 to horror section when I'm picking a film, so i picked five across the eyes, i was disgusted with this film and thought there was no story line and no point that you could enjoy it,it made my skin crawl to think that people like to watch films that just encourage violence for the hell of it it was low budget and very rubbish! i think i could of done better myself. i think that it was the worst film i have ever seen in my life and you should not bother to watch it the actors were rubbish the camera was awful the picture was bad and the sound was not up to scratch, i think it was a little bit like a cheep rip of off the baler which project and it has not worked at all it was foul.
I never finished this movie for a reason, it was dreadful and thats just the acting. I wasn't even sure what the film was about tbh it didn't make a lot of sense and the violence was awful. I mean ususally i like some nude in a film (lol) but it was just sick because of what was happening. ALL the characters annoyed me and it was just full of loud screams and the camera was shaking at parts and it looked like a sequel to the blair with project but without any good qualities. This is one of the worst movies i have seen in a long time and would like my time back please. i wouldn't recommend this film to anyone or even consider it. (N)
Five Across the Eyes starts as five young teenage girls are driving home in time for their curfew, they stop off at a store & accidentally hit another car & decide to just drive off & leave it. Soon after the other car forces them to stop & a crazy woman with a shotgun gets out & shouts at them, makes them take their clothes off & makes them pee on them & then randomly drives off. Shaken & shocked the girls think their ordeal is over but the crazy woman comes back for seconds as she seems intent on killing the terrified girls who are lost & are low on gas...<br /><br />Produced & directed by Greg Swinson & Ryan Theissen with Swinson writing the thing & Theissen responsible for the cinematography & editing I have to say that Five Across the Eyes is easily one of the worst films I have ever seen if not the worst, I mean I'm struggling to think of a film I have seen that's worse. Now let me start off by saying that I am sure a lot of the film-making decision taken here were deliberate to try & provoke atmosphere, tension, realism & suspense but there is not one aspect of Five Across the Eyes that I didn't hate it to be honest it looks like a bad home video that has been put up on YouTube & even then it's still slightly embarrassing & a frankly worthless waste of 90 odd minutes of my time that I could have been doing something more entertaining & fun like pulling my fingernails out with pliers. The reviews on the web seem quite positive but on the IMDb (the amount of 1 Star comments is revealing & they can't all be wrong, right?) & it's message board which I think is much more of an indicator of what the average person thinks it's absolutely trashed by just about everyone & the phrase 'the worst film I have ever seen' is used a few times & to be fair most of these negative comments mention th same things & I have to agree with them. The story is terrible, alright I suspect it's meant to be minimalistic but this minimal? There's never any reason or explanation for the events that happen & it just feels totally random. It goes on for ages, the amount of plot here would struggle to fill a thirty minute made for telly program let along a full length feature. The dialogue is awful with these annoying girls who don't seem to have a brain cell between them taking about random stuff & screaming a lot. Oh god the screaming, there are seemingly endless scenes of these girls screaming or crying or whining which not only irritates & annoys & prevents any sane viewer feeling any sort of sympathy for them it also makes what they are trying to say almost impossible to hear properly. Then there's the real killer, the entire film is set & shot within the confines of a mini van, seriously the camera never leaves this car & as you can imagine it gets really boring, add that the low body count of just one person killed on screen & Five Across the Eyes is a film that I hated with a passion.<br /><br />On a technical level again I can see that the film-making style here was a deliberate choice but I have to be honest again & say Five Across the Eyes is the worst looking film I have ever seen. As a fan of film I like my films to look like proper films as it's a visual medium & I definitely don't want them to look worse than the average YouTube video or my home films shot on a camcorder while I was drunk. It really does look that amateurish & that bad, it's a complete eyesore & I hated every moment of every second of it. Just think The Blair Witch Project (1999) only ten times worse looking & sounding & you will be almost there. There are times during Five Across the Eyes when you literally can't tell what's going on or happening because of the camera-work & the almost pitch black & grainy contrast levels. The violence is tame too with a few splashes of blood & a stabbing at the end.<br /><br />Low budget doesn't even begin to describe Five Across the Eyes, with a supposed budget of about $4,000 this is easily one of the lowest budgeted films ever given a wide release. The two vans in the film were owned by members of the production & that's basically pretty much the entire budget right there, the locations. The acting is pretty bad by the main cast, I just hated all the fake put on crying & screaming that didn't convince at all but did irritate immensely.<br /><br />Five Across the Eyes will go down as one of the worst films I have ever seen & I have seen a few films, whenever anyone now ask's me what's the worst film I have ever seen Five Across the Eyes will definitely get a mention. I hated it, every single aspect & wretched moment of it.
And maybe, as Fred Sandford used to say, "one across the lips". That to those who released this film on an unsuspecting public. And perhaps to the person in "Rue Morgue" who called this a "Fender Hellbender" and said it was good.<br /><br />Five young girls, apparently taking a short-cut home from a high school football game, become lost and stop to ask directions at some small store in the middle of nowhere. While there the driver accidentally hits a parked SUV & knocks out a headlight, but the girls all decide to just leave & not go find the driver. But the driver does come to find them, and it's not just that the headlight on her vehicle got dinged, it's for another reason that the girls do not yet understand. When the driver does first catch them she (yes, it's a she) brandishes a shot gun & makes them strip down, and keeps screaming at them, "how much did you see?". Of course the girls are scared to death & don't know what she's talking about.<br /><br />As the night rolls on the girls end up in a cat and mouse game with the driver of the SUV, who manages to inflict all manner of injuries on the girls, who are remarkably resilient to shot gun blasts and screwdrivers where they didn't want them. Eventually they come to find that something happened back at that store after they left that is the reason for this woman's psychotic rage. And eventually they have a chance at revenge and take it about as far as they can go.<br /><br />There are elements of this film that are rather disturbing and scary, but unfortunately, those moments are undermined by bad acting, bad dialog, and huge lapses of credibility. One girl is hit by a shot gun blast and appears to be mortally wounded, and she's feeling cold, her life is passing before her eyes, but she got better? And how far can a mini-van run on an almost empty gas tank at speeds of 80 miles per hour? I need one of those things, it apparently gets GREAT mileage.<br /><br />There should have been an ending when the girls got their revenge, but the film goes on for a bit after that, which is an anti-climax, but they at least learn some of what set the woman off, and the driver is still worried about "messing up her mom's van", which is obviously the least of anyone's worries.<br /><br />So this isn't the worst film I've seen, but it's too amateur to be good and yet a bit too scary and gruesome at times to be completely terrible. But it does take the cake for plenty of shrill hysterics and you'll want to put two across your ears if you watch this. Which, by the way, I don't necessarily recommend. 4 out of 10.
I actually felt bad for the actors in this thing. No doubt a high school drama class could do a better job or at the very least as well a job. The actors must have thought this would be their big chance working in a film, it certainly was not. Besides the terrible acting the stories were boring and for the most part predictable. The one about the remote control didn't even make any sense. To bad cause it had the best premise in the bunch.<br /><br />I'm all for supporting low budget films and giving new film makers a fair chance, but this turkey is a waste of time and an insult to the viewer. I only watched it because of some good comments posted here. They must have been planted by people with ties to the film. You may fool people into watching this, but you can't fool them into liking what they saw.<br /><br />I gave it a 2 instead of a 1 because at least the boxer story tried to be heart warming. Sure it failed miserably, but it tried. I reserve 1 s for the worst of the worst.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and skip this dribble. I wish I had.
This doesn't quite plumb the depths of Creepshow 3, but it comes close. It also uses the same technique of using some of the same actors in multiple roles throughout the anthology, which is distracting to say the least.<br /><br />It also rather irritating rips off The Twilight Zone (with the bookshop being comparable to Serling's later Night Gallery). Unfortunately, the producers & writers forgot that Serling would build up sympathy for his characters before messing them over. None of the characters are particularly sympathetic or interesting until the last segment.<br /><br />Framing story: Adam West is... well, himself. He doesn't go the Bruce Wayne/Batman campy 60s route, but he rarely does. He simply plays the not-particularly-enigmatic "Jay" (there's an ominous spine-chilling name to compare to the likes of Dr. Terror, Eramus, and The Cryptkeeper), and makes some mildly awkward/creepy statements.<br /><br />Abernathy: Seen Rod Serling's "A Stop in Willoughby"? Then you've seen this. The red herring of the nutso wife is introduced to no purpose, but even the main character's friend identifies him as a wimp. As well directed as can be expected, but basically incoherent.<br /><br />Nex's Diner: Reminiscent of various Serling time travel stories, mixed with Steve Allen's "A Meeting of Minds." Most of the actors aren't too bad (except for Josh Astin as Cassius, who manages to walk, talk and even breathe awkwardly), and the idea is mildly interesting. But like Abernathy, it doesn't go anywhere. The main character raises some relatively reasonable questions, bugs out a bit (who wouldn't?), and for some reason he ends up banished to a nuclear wasteland.<br /><br />Life Replay: Not a bad little piece, and manages to predate both Click and Creepshow 3. I suppose it says something that people are fascinated by the magical properties of remote controls. The main character is mildly sympathetic. Nothing substantially innovative here, but it's okay.<br /><br />Fighting Spirit: You see the twist coming a mile away but like the main character, it has some heart and it's a decent story of defeat and redemption.<br /><br />Finale: So... why do people end up in cold storage in silver lame suits? Don't know. And doesn't make sense. So... all the protagonists wandered into the bookstore and became trapped? Kinda undermines the happy ending with the boxer (thanks, guys!), and the guy in the first segment died. So how did he get trapped? Did he visit the bookstore before he died, got trapped and... didn't die? What? Huh? I supposer this isn't expected to make sense because it's supernatural. But still...<br /><br />Overall: basically not dissimilar from the two newer Twilight Zone series, or some episodes of Tales From the Darkside or Monsters. The last two stories and part of the second are probably worth your time. But there's nothing really spectacular here.
I can't believe it, IMDb really does have every TV show known to man! I have not seen this show in over 20 years. I only remember two episodes, and I barely remember those. I remember that Tony may not been on from the start, because one of the episodes I remember is the one in which everybody trying to get Tony to join, but he rejects them, but typically at the end of the show he becomes a member of Power House, with everybody cheering.<br /><br />The other one I remember is the one where Lolo for some reason pretends to be dead,(complete with funeral and mourners). I don't remember why he plays dead, or how the show ends.<br /><br />This is one of those shows that I convinced myself that I must have dreamed up since no one else had ever heard of it.
I've read all the comments on this film. I am a great admirer<br /><br />of the Dalai Lama. As such, I read the book upon which this<br /><br />film was based. The movie is an ugly and demeaning fictionalization of the truth. I do not criticize it for<br /><br />altering small details or events for dramatic purposes; it is<br /><br />not a documentary. But the script CHANGES the impact, reaction,<br /><br />realities, and changes in EVERY main character. It vastly alters<br /><br />the real relationship between Harrar and the young Dalai Lama. <br /><br />From the ridiculous rivalry for a Tibetan woman (which demeans<br /><br />the culture of Tibet) to Harra's music box gift, to Harrar's<br /><br />change of heart, everything about this movie is false - except<br /><br />for the amazing photography. I understand that the shots of the<br /><br />Potala (the palace) were smuggled out of Tibet. However,<br /><br />changing a real story about the relationship between two people,<br /><br />one of them very important to this world, in order to build up a<br /><br />movie star is sad
i read the book "7 years in Tibet" from Heinrich Harrer and was fascinated of it. then i immediately grabbed the DVD and started to watch the movie. i remember the first time i saw it back in 98, i kinda liked it. well, now i watched it again in full knowledge of the book it is based on. and soon i realized how WRONG it all was told:<br /><br />when they enter Lhasa the people start to stick their tongues out of their mouths and Thewlis and Pitt have the impression that its the way to say hello in Tibet, so they greet back... in the book Harrer explains, that sticking the tongue out is a sign of absolute humbleness and loyalty in Tibet and they may do it in front of the Dalai Lama but certainly not for these two europeans! not only the mother but even the Dalai Lama himself was wearing glasses in the public. in the book Harrer mentions, that no one in Tibet wore glasses to that time(sorry forgot the reason, but its explained in the book too).the young Dalai Lama did, but only when he was alone and nobody could see him! and what about that Mao tse tung lookalike, destroying the mandala in front of the young "living buddha"?? childish... and the tailor made Harrer and Aufschnaiter tibetan clothes not European designer suits! why are so many events that really happened eliminated from the story, just to fill the time with a fictional love interest (the female tailor...)that is completely unimportant? just like the whole story about harrers son, rolf. not one word is mentioned about him or even any family member of harrer in the book. but that was OK for me because "7 years in Tibet" is not a book about harrers person. its about tibet. I'm very disappointed by this "adaption" of the famous book. and i bet heinrich harrer was, too... 3 stars, just for the cinematography.
OK, here it is: "Nazi mountaineer befriends the Dalai Lama." What we do is, first we get a major star with no idea whatsoever how to do a Germanic accent, and we let him flounder around between French, German, American, and British for over 2 hours. Then we concoct a series of wildly improbable events and space them apart very widely, so that the plot inches along almost imperceptibly. But just to make sure the viewer doesn´t fall asleep, we throw in details which are shockingly absurd, such as our hero smoking a cigarette at an altitude of 22,000 feet. Naturally, we must also remember that our target audience does not want to read too many subtitles, so we have every character, even the lowliest peasant in the forbidden closed-off city of Lhasa in 1943, speak perfect English, also with dubious accents. Of course, the trickiest part is how to handle the spiritual and political aspects of the story, so what we do is this: we have the Dalai Lama befriend the now-reformed Nazi because the latter is so good at fiddling with film projectors, radios, antique cars, and any other devices with represent the freedom of the capitalist west. In return, our hero learns from his young protegé a kind of vague, undefined Buddhism which is never really brought out or treated in a serious fashion. We also have lots of scenes with the hero flaunting all the marks of respects and protocol which the rest of the Tibetan society accords the Dalai Lama, even as we pretend that the hero has deep and profound reverence for these people and their spiritual leader. In other words, we just expect the audience to believe that this guy is now a Buddhist, sort of, in his own way, even though we ourselves don´t seem to know what his transformation entails or how far we want it to go. And last but not least, we hang a statistic onto the end of the film about how appallingly the Chinese have treated the Tibetans (which is certainly true), thus opening ourselves up to charges that we have made a "political" movie, even though it is nothing of the sort. So, zat ist my idea. Vat do you zink? Can ve make zis movie?
The acting, other reviews notwithstanding, was remarkably well-done. Brad Pitt handles the role of an annoying, obnoxious Austrian climber quite well. Other acting is fine. The story could have been riveting, but somehow, it misses - one never really understands or cares for the characters shown, and so the story, which could have been quite dramatic, fails to draw in this audience.<br /><br />Beautiful scenery and cinematography, a remarkably dramatic true story, important events that shaped the world that we live in - but I could not, try as I might, involve myself in this story. As an unabashed Brad Pitt fan (I consider him one of the top 5 actors of his generation), I expected to *love* this flick - and yet, it left me cold.<br /><br />It could be a failing within myself, but I tend to point toward the creative end of this movie - direction, scriptwriting, production, editing - somehow, they lost me. It's a shame, because it could have been wonderful.<br /><br />Good acting, dramatic story, beautifully shot - it should have been magnificent. It wasn't. Probably worth watching, just to make your own mind up on it - but don't expect too much, and perhaps you won't be as disappointed as I was. Mostly, it bored me.
"Hey everybody! I've got an idea, we found this egg-shaped thingie from outer space so why don't we thaw it out and open it up?" "Yes, I know that would be the dumbest thing a scientist could do, and it could be filled with contaminating bacteria or viruses unknown to earth and could potentially wipe out the human race, but hey, I want to know what's in it". "And nobody tell NASA, they might take it away from us". "Wow this thingie gives off vibes!" "Yes,really strong ones on contact so don't touch it but it's okay to cut it open". "Hi there handsome, check out my nips". (Later that day); "DO NOT OPEN"!!!!! Uh oh, we have to run all the way to the lab and tell them not to open it because we don't have phones or radios or intercoms even though we have a gazillion dollars worth of other equipment here. "I've never seen such organic technology!" "Yeah, lemme take this stick and stab it.". "I'm getting out of here, I don't care if I do kill the other 6 billion people on Earth, nobody's nukkin' me!" "Look! it's the friendly aliens from "The Abyss"! They want us to come with them". THE END
Recap: Something mysteriously dense that transmits radio signals is discovered in the ice of Antarctica. The mysterious block is dug out and brought to a research station on Antarctica. Julian Rome, a former SETI-worker, is brought in to decipher the message. Problem is that one of the researchers is a old girlfriend of his, and the situation quickly turns awkward, especially since the other female researchers practically throw themselves at him. And the block of ice with the thing inside is melting unnaturally quickly. Soon the object is in the open. The mystery continues though as the object generates a huge amount of electricity. It is decided to open the object, but just before that is done, Julian decodes the signal. "Do not open". But too late, and the object explodes as it is finally breached, and two things unleashed on earth. The first is an alien, that had been dormant in the object, and the other is a virus that instantly kills the research staff. And Washington, that is suspiciously updated on this historic event, decides that those things can not be unleashed upon the earth. So a Russian nuclear submarine, carrying nuclear weapons is sent to Antarctica.<br /><br />Comments: The movie holds a few surprises. One is Carl Lewis who surprisingly puts in a good acting performance, and the other is that the special effects that are beautiful, well worked through and a lot better than expected. Unfortunately the story holds a lot of surprises of its own, and this time not in a good way. Actually it is so full of plot holes that sometimes the movies seem to consist of almost randomly connected scenes. It is never really explained why Washington know so much, why Washington is able to command Russian submarines, why the object is in the Antarctic and has woken up now. It is really puzzling that the alien pod is transmitting in understandable English. Some might want to explain this with that the alien had been to Earth before and knew the language (and obviously chose English, why?). But then it is very confusing why the nice aliens that apparently want to save the Earth from the virus, send their "Do not open" message encoded! And finally the end is as open as an end can be.<br /><br />The movie is a little entertaining but too much energy (from me) must be diverted to fill in the voids in the plot. Therefore the total impression of the movie is not too good.<br /><br />3/10
With one of my very favorite actors, James Spader, I expected this film to be at least tolerable. It wasn't. After the first half hour I watched the rest of it with the remote control in my hand so the fast forward was at the ready. So trite, so standard, one knows what's going to happen in each scene. One can even predict the dialogue word for word. This is one of those movies that makes one scratch ones head and say, "How did this movie ever get made?" In an effort to say something positive, I'll add that there are some mildly entertaining special effects. But, on the whole, if you've seen 5 Sci/fi movies, or you are over 9 years old, do yourself a favor and skip this one.
Very bad acting, and a very shallow story. Not even a decent B-Movie<br /><br />Events that were suposed to be shocking like humans geting on board an alien ship were boring and very lame.<br /><br />This is one of the worst sci-fi I've ever seen. I saw the 5.0 stars and decided to watch it since i like the genre, but it sucked so bad.<br /><br />Now there's really very few good movies on ALIEN subject, I think because most of them are low budget<br /><br />I give it 3/10
An unoriginal, overly predictable and only mildly entertaining low budget rehash of a sci-fi formula that we've all seen a hundred times before - a group of scientists in isolation confronting some unknown alien something, and in of all places (surprise, surprise) Antarctica!<br /><br />The film features James Spader and an almost nameless supporting cast (with the exception of Carl Lewis, who's actually not that bad for a non-actor) - who deliver ho-hum performances that do little to invigorate the script's unimaginative dialogue. To make things worse the film's pace is slow, there's almost no subplot, and the few action sequences are stereotypical and not that exciting. Its little wonder that this thing went straight to DVD. What is a wonder is why Spader - an excellent actor at times, who won the Cannes Best Actor award for `Sex, Lies and Videotape', and did a splendid job in the innovative sci-fi flick `Stargate' - chose to sign onto this lackluster project. Or maybe not, if you look at his career, for it seems he has invested his talents in more misses than hits.<br /><br />The most remarkable thing about `Alien Hunter' is how they managed to cram in so many elements from so many great sci-fi films, and still have the thing turn out so listless and contrived. There are huge borrowed bits from `The Thing' (both Howard Hawks' original and John Carpenter's excellent 1982 remake), `Contact' and `Outbreak'; a few hints of `Alien', CE3K', `The Andromeda Strain', `Kubrick's `2001' (i.e. the `alien black box') and `Mission To Mars' (i.e. the mystery message); and even a little dash of `Sneakers' and `A Remarkable Mind' (although not sci-fi films, they share a `cryptology' connection). Hell, there's even cornfields and Antarctica, just like the recent `X Files Movie'. And the luminous translucent spaceship at the end looks exactly like something that was plucked from an outtake from `The Abyss'.<br /><br />Its all been done before and done a whole lot better, although I will admit there were a few mild surprises towards the end. I could say a little bit more about the plot, but there's absolutely no need. You already know over half this movie without ever seeing it. (5 out of 10)
Begins better than it ends. Funny that the russian submarine crew outperforms all other actors. It's like those scenes where documentary shots...<br /><br />--- SPOILER PART ---- The message dechifered was contrary to the whole story. It just does not mesh.<br /><br />
Is it a remake og the Thing (1982/1951), i think it is, there are so many factors from det previous movies do deny it.<br /><br />So the acting is bad, James Spader does a superlow stargate re-enactment of himself, with his coffy mug and his somwhat strange thinking/movements but that's about it, the other actors i did't even notise. You don't get the feeling of getting to know anyone of the main characters. And the plot evolvement is slow, boring and, yah i know what is about to happend in 30mins. Score/music is ultraboring, imean there are alot of ubertallented people out there that would make scores for a coke and a credit, but this is major crap. Some of the special effects are nice, if it was made in early 90's. If you like Slimy Aliens, chills and thrills, don't whatch this movie. its a dull combination of the Thing, Alien 3, Outbreak and some Jerry Bruckheimer/Michael Bay production gone really really bad. Now this combination would be cool if somone knew what they where doing, and the only ones on this production that knew that was, no one.<br /><br />Though i have seen far worse, i would not recomend this movie to anyone, but if you are up one cold night, and just wanna glanse at something, it will pass the time, slowly.
Snuggle down in your favourite chair and switch on the play-station, as you toss this into the waste disposal unit. Spend a useful 90 min. living your favourite game. Disjointed - poorly filmed - non directed junk. It takes a bits from several other "science fiction" movies and badly attempts to join the parts into a pathetically weak story. There's nothing new here, the filmmakers do not seem to realise that providing simple entertainment would achieve a monetary game, but a touch of skill ingenuity and flair is required to turn it into a good film. Any money spent watching this is a waste, and personally i would like my 90 min of life back.
This movie couldn't decide what it wanted to be. There were a couple of sub-plots that for awhile made you think these items would all come together in the end... but they didn't. If you want a "alien in the frozen waste" story, stick with the 1950's version of THE THING (not the abomination that was remade in gore-o-vision 20+ years later).<br /><br />I couldn't get over the fact that the "alien" looked pretty much recycled from INDEPENDENCE DAY. <br /><br />The "bare minimum" sets would have been more effective if they had hired actors who could actually act and carry off the intended mood.<br /><br />Lots of scenery chewing with little payoff.
I am oh soooo glad I have not spent money to go to the cinema on it :-). It is nothing more than compilation of elements of few other classic titles like The Thing, Final Fantasy, The Abyss etc. framed in rather dull and meaningless scenario. I really can not figure out what was the purpose of creating this movie - it has absolutely nothing new to offer in its storyline which additionally is also senseless. Moreover there is nothing to watch - the FX'es look like there were taken from a second hand store, you generally saw all of them in other movies. But it is definitely a good lullaby.
Alien Hunter: 5 out of 10: Is it me or does every movie that starts in Roswell, New Mexico suck. Take Alien mixed with The Thing, mixed with Contact, mixed with of all things On the Beach, The Andromeda Strain, the classroom scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark and a throw in a little Stargate to boot. <br /><br />Derivative doesn't even begin to describe this movie. Of course with nothing original plot wise they amp up the gore and sex right? Nope gore is a blink and you miss it affair and sex is all tease. (James Spader causally mentions he needs a shower and the delectable Leslie Stefanson asks to join him…. he turns her down. AGGH!) <br /><br />In fact if a movie ever needed a shower scene to liven things up this is it. I mean if your going to have impossibly good-looking women in white bathing suits wandering around an Antarctica research base why not go for broke.<br /><br />With about 30 seconds of actual thrill in the entire movie Alien Hunter is remarkable serious and slow going for a sci-fi adventure. Needed a much better plot twist to liven it up and by the way the Alien itself is a horribly clichéd artifice and has virtually no screen time for someone who shares half the title. <br /><br />I also inquired during viewing what is with the Children of the Corn in space motif. (Note that since Jason of Friday the 13th fame, Pinhead from Hellraiser and that Leprechaun have all traveled to space to slay nubile teenagers why not the cornfield?) The characters in the cornfield dress like Logan's Run extras and I was just waiting for the stalks to come alive and attack them.<br /><br />That however would have been exciting and apparently against this movies covenant. The acting is mostly fine as Spader reprises his Stargate role while Stefanson and Janine Eser model the latest in Antarctic beachwear. John Lynch however read the whole script and acts the like the insane bad guy well before the story would indicate it.<br /><br />Alien Hunter is a disappointing derivative slog that makes me pine for a proper Children of The Corn in Space movie.
I just saw this film tonight and I have to say that it's a mess. I love Vince Vaughn but he ends up more annoying that funny here and the film is more than less a remake of the crappy 80's classic " Santa Claus the movie" but with out the camp or the bad Sheena Easton song at the end. .The story is your run of the mill black sheep in the family who comes back to face his family for the holidays kind of thing but with North Pole as its setting. Of course Fred (Vince Vaughn) is the family screw up who comes home after a series of set backs that include his girlfriend (Rachel Weisz in a cameo role) dumping him, so he comes home to face his parents and his more successful brother Santa Claus (Paul Giamatti) and wacky high jinks follow with a bit of sibling rivalry and a bit of anarky as well that threatens all of Christmas. Now if you think you know the ending of this film, I think you would be right because it's predicable to the hill. As for the acting, Vince Vaughn plays the same lovable loser he always plays but this time he ends up more annoying than likable, Miranda Richardson plays Mrs. Claus but the role is more than less one note, Elizabeth Banks plays Santa's assistant but she's not much of a character at all other than a neurotic joke and poor Kevin Spacey ends up basically playing the same person he plays in the film "Glengarry Glen Ross" but a little more anal. The only two actors who come out of this film with their dignity intact is Paul Giamatti, who brings a real sincerity and warmed to his role as Santa Claus but he looks somewhat embarrass to be in the movie and you can't blame him and Rachel Weisz, who manages to do a lot more with a very small role than most of the main actors do with theirs, which is a shame because both Rachel Weisz and Paul Giamatti deserved a lot better than what this script gave them.<br /><br />To put it in a nutshell, a major disappointment.
Painfully bad Christmas film that has an equally painfully bad performance by Vince Vaughn, who is paying his usual frat boy self but this time for a children's movie but with out the wit or charm that is in his R rated films. Vaughn seems like he's on autopilot though most of the film and he keeps running into walls with his lackluster performance. After 30 minutes into the film, you would be in touch your inner scourge and say "Bahumbag" at how unfunny this film is and after another 30 minutes, you will want to walk out over how unbearable the film has gotten during that point. Out of all the actors involved in this mess, only Paul Giamatti and Rachel Weisz brings some life to there perspective paper thin roles and that's manly because they are both way too good of actors to be in this film. Paul Giamatti brings some depth and warmth to the character of Saint Nick himself but he's forced to Vaughn's level of juvenile behavior when they are doing their sad sibling infighting. You can see in Giamatti face that he's not having fun with his role and it painfully shows in certain parts of the film. Rachel Weisz brings a sense of fun and spirit to her role but she really does not have much of a character to work with and you can see in her face that she's well aware of that, so much so that she seems irritated in certain parts of the film. Fortunately for her, she's not in the film much at all and is able to save some face, unlike Giamatti, who looks like he's about to fire his agent by the end of the movie. The direction also feels uninspiring, like there is no feeling or flow to be had and this is a supposed to be a holiday movie but it ends up feeling like you are just staring at a fancy widow display that is being torn down.<br /><br />I don't know what went wrong here but with only two actors involved (Giamatti and Weisz) trying their best to at least bring something to the table with a unfunny script they had to work with, spotty direction with no feeling for the subject at hand ( and this is a Christmas movie of all things) and a actor who just does not care about his performance (Vaughn), you have a very unevenly bad film that is very painful to watch.
Every Christmas eve I make my kids endure yet another showing of It's A Wonderful Life. I also thoroughly enjoyed Bad Santa. So sue me. I admit it. I like cheesy, schmaltzy movies. I like excellent, intelligent ones too, but as with so many things, variety is a good thing. What would the Christmas season be without the annual cinematic ka-ching ka-ching of Santa in all his guises, from Edmund Gwenn to Billy Bob Thornton? Fred Claus will make no one forget Bedford Falls, but I do not believe a Christmas film should have to reach iconic stature to succeed. "Fred" is a perfectly OK holiday movie, with enough humor for the adults and sufficient charm for the kids. My wife and I laughed a lot, even if most of the humor was obvious and Vince was just being Vince. Paul Giamatti was a top-notch Santa, which helped a lot. Not a great flick, and unlikely to become must-viewing for anyone's annual Christmas traditions. But my wife and daughter and I enjoyed it for what it was, holiday schmaltz with a small dash of spice. There's nothing wrong with that.
How hard is it to write a watchable film with Vince Vaughn, Paul Giamatti and Kevin Spacey? Apparently VERY difficult for the writers here.<br /><br />I still have no idea how Santa is younger and looks 20 years older than Vince (who plays the BIG brother). I must have missed that part of the story but in reality, it really didn't matter. Many scenes seemed out of place and contrived; the kind of "funny notion" scenes that are drug out WAY too far to where any sense of comedy is lost.<br /><br />The director/producer tried to go "tear jerker" at the end, which would have been suitable if ANYTHING leading up that point had been worth following.<br /><br />Ugh, major disappointment. I can see how some people might enjoy this OK, since many people will take any garbage they're fed, but I would strongly encourage waiting for DVD on this one. NOT worth the $23,978 it takes to get your family to the movies these days.
Okay, during this past thanksgiving break, whilst having the whole family together everybody decided to go see a movie, and since Fred clause was voted majority, thats what we went and say. <br /><br />To start off the movie had so many plot holes it was pathetic. Simple explanations of why a certain event was happening was void. example; who the heck is trying to 'shut down' Santa clause? Is it some sort of corporation? A little explanation would of been lovely. <br /><br />Second: The movie tossed you flimsy characters that evoked no sympathy from you about their feelings or actions. example: the little elf named Willie and the only tall girl in the elf village. they see each other twice and then they are a couple and i could of cared less because this movie didn't make me care. <br /><br />Third: I suppose this was suppose to be a family film? Its rating was low at just PG. For a family film there were several articles of suggestive conversation. It didn't bother me, but if i were a parent i could see a problem. <br /><br />Through the whole movie Paul Giamatti looked extremely bored with his role, but honestly he was the only one worth watching in the movie. Vaughn had a few funny moments but played the same character he has for the last two movies. mouthy frat boy. (nothing against Vaughn, he's been good in other movies)<br /><br />so this movie gets a 3 out of 10 stars from me, just because somebody had to put in the effort to produce, film and release this flick. <br /><br />In my opinion i would definitely pass on this flick, or if you HAVE to see it save it for a rainy day rental.
Well, I have to say, this movie was so bad that I would have walked out if i didn't have to review it for work. ANd the worst part is, I wanted to see it so badly that I drove all over the city, paid $10 parking two times because the newspaper listings were wrong. Vince Vaughn plays the guy he always does -- the only time I've seen him play someone else was in that movie with John Travolta. Anyways, the plot has potential -- it sounded great in the preview, but it is filled with totally ridiculous, predictable, weak plot turn points. And I was hoping that this would be one Christmas movie where Christmas DIDN"t have to be saved, and that Santa didn't need a replacdmetn, but nope. The only cool part was the sleigh rides, and the little bladck kid was the best character. I'm sure this movie would be great for young kids, but for adults it's so lame that it's chore to sit through.
I don't know what I missed here, but I can't believe all these positive comments by so many people on this film. I thought it was silly, and a bit over the top. I did like the performances of Gregg Henry and Michael Rooker, however the others were just... boring.<br /><br />Now I like B movies, I really do, but this was a bit further down the alphabet for me. I saw someone compare the humor and horror in this to "Army Of Darkness" and "Shaun of the Dead", as well as "On par with The Re-Animator". You must be joking. I didn't find this film funny, it tried, it did make an effort, (possibly too much of an effort), but it failed in my opinion. By the time I was hit with the 3rd or 4th one-liner I was rolling my eyes and checking my watch.<br /><br />There were definitely homages made to several other films, which is always cool, kind of like an inside joke for us horror fans. But here it may have just been a lack of original thought. Admittedly there were some nice special effects, good gore, but that can't carry an entire movie. The mutated Grant looked like a cross between Jabba the Hut, and in the early stages of mutation- Chet from "Weird Science" (after he was turned into the monster) and one of the alien creature/children from "The Explorers". It just didn't work. I thought it looked like something some kid from Grade 5 art class could have designed. Then there was Brenda, the woman that Grant impregnated and chained up in the barn. When help finally arrived she looked like a giant tick waiting to be popped. The design once again was totally unimaginative. A round flesh colored balloon with a face in the middle. *yawn* <br /><br />Now about the zombies- The more movies I see with zombies in them these days the more I wish George A. Romero had a patent on them and was the only writer/director allowed to make movies about them. He's the only person so far to do it right, with the exception of Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg (but that was a comedy). Oh, and Danny Boyle, but they were a different style of Zombie. Maybe Mr. Romero has ruined any zombie film for me due to his ingenious ability to get his actors to moan, groan and shamble about as if their joints are dried up and lacking even a drop of synovial fluid, and their muscles are fighting the effects caused by rigor mortis that had started to set in right before they were re-animated. The people of "Wheelsy" just didn't have the proper motivation... they were horrible zombies.<br /><br />So in the end I give "Slither" a 3, for a couple of laughs and a few nice gore scenes.
Definitely the worst movie I have ever seen... Can somebody tell me where should have I laughed? There's not a single hint or shadow of an idea. The three leading actors are pestilential, especially the one (I think it's Aldo) from Sicily who _can't_ make a Sicilian accent!!! Not to say about the dream-like insertion about Dracula... just another expedient, drawn from the worst cabaret tradition, to make this "film" last a little longer. Massironi and Littizzetto do what they can, but this so-called movie was really too, too hard to rescue. I would have given it "0"/10, but the lowest mark was 1/10 and so I had to overestimate it by one mark.
For me every piece of art is to be judged by these criteria: Form, Function and Meaning. Guernsey seems to be dedicated to forms: nice shots and sometimes interesting acting. The long close ups suggest a function that the viewer may fill in by himself. Because of lacking texts the story becomes a quiz. An introvert person suggests to have depth, but sometimes it turns out he has nothing to say. This film acts like an introvert person. If you have not read the synopsis you cannot see that it was the suicide (and the unanswered question Why?) that changes Anna's view on life and makes her suspicious. 'Why don't you speak to me?' asks Sebastiaan. Anna doesn't answer, she only starts looking a long time at him without saying a word. What is the function of that shot? What does it mean? My question is like Sebastiaans: What has this film to say? What is meant by this movie? The answer for me: It shows us a handful of persons with the passion of a glass of water. The story of their lives is simple and boring. Motives behind their actions are not shown. The rest is: skins, residences, landscapes. Nice and artistic done, but meaningless without having disposal of 'instructions for use'. In my opinion this film is made for fellow artists, not for the common viewer.
This film uses all art-house clichés (slow pace, long static shots, minimal amount of dialog) to try to hide the fact that there really is nothing worth watching here: There is no plot to speak of, the characters are dreary (female lead) or cliché (Tersteeghe's character), and they do not ever talk to each other about anything that concerns their rather uneventful lives. The film is centered around a woman who finds out about her husbands adultery. Instead of confronting him, she half-heartedly takes revenge by committing adultery herself. After a fight and a reconciliation with her sister - who knew about the adultery without telling her - she asks her husband to stop cheating on her. They seem to be re-united as a family. Two other story lines - the planned move of the woman's elderly father with his young wife to Guernsey and the rivalry with the woman's sister - do not offer any interesting developments. The suicide of a colleague of the woman that seems to set off events in the film is not a subject in itself. For 2005 - or any other year for that matter - this is not enough to make an interesting film.<br /><br />Moreover, what little possibilities for dramatic development there are in the script are not used or are consciously avoided, as when both the woman and her sister mark a particular piece of furniture from their fathers house which is going to be sold because of his planned move. Both sisters want this particular piece and given their rivalry in the past - over much more important things than furniture: men - this could in theory lead to a confrontation. Or the matter could be resolved by one sister giving way to the other. Either way, this would not be a very interesting or original development of the story but at least it would constitute some development. The film clearly sets this situation up (with both sisters looking intently at each other during the marking and one sister having mentioned she does not want to draw straws) but it cheats us out of any resolution: the scene simply ends and how this - in itself rather dreary and materialistic - issue is solved, is not shown. <br /><br />Although almost completely absent, the dialog that is in the film is excruciatingly flat and tepid. For example, when during a visit to Guernsey, the 2 sisters address their rivalry it is in a three line dialog that has a childish "yes it is - no it isn't" ring to it. The fight and reconciliation scene with the 2 sisters is completely without dialog - giving a highly artificial, overly stylised and unrealistic impression and considerably reducing its impact. The way the woman finally - finally! - addresses her husbands adultery in a single line of dialog has to be seen to be believed - and is at the same time completely unbelievable. The husband does not seem to have any noticeable reaction or if he has any, it is not shown. The woman does not mention her own adultery to her husband. The scene showing the woman, husband and their young son asleep on an airliner, watched by the sister is possibly meant as a happy end, but the way the characters addressed the issues of their lives in what went before makes this unlikely.<br /><br />Because of its slow pace, uninteresting story, leaden direction and absurd lack of dialog, I found this film an example of everything that can be wrong with an art-house movie and a complete waste of time.
Anna lives with her family in a new housing estate just outside the city. She has been with her husband Sebastiaan for years and they don't talk so much anymore. While on a working visit abroad, a female colleague commits suicide. Anna is deeply impressed by her death, even though she hardly knew her. Nobody seems to know why she took her own life. For the first time Anna realizes that one can be an unknown among your most dearest. Anna doesn't mention the incident back home and starts observing her husband and child. Guernsey is the story of a woman who suddenly starts looking at her own life. And she wonders how she got so drifted apart from the people closest to her.<br /><br />(This is my translation of the DVD cover text synopsis. I hope you find it useful, as this movie doesn't have an IMDb Plot Summary yet at this date.)
GUERNSEY (Maria Kraakman - Belgium/Netherlands 2005).<br /><br />The mousy Maria Kraakman plays Anna, a woman in her thirties, who finds out her husband (Fedja van Huet) is cheating on her but she doesn't dare to confront him. She painfully avoids any confrontation with human beings, her parents as well as her sister, so we have a main character in a feature film that doesn't do much at all. We barely know anything about her background or her motivations. Just a woman who seems to be stuck in a blind alley, not just during this difficult episode of her life. She obviously suffers from something, but why do we in the audience have to suffer as well?<br /><br />I almost gave up on cinema after seeing this unwatchable mess. These were a very dull and painful 90 minutes. Normally I try to avoid wasting energy on bad film making. I'll take the beating and roll with the punches, but in this case a fair warning is in place. How on earth did Nanouk Leopold get funding (in large part from publicly financed funds) for this turkey? Obviously, there was no script to speak off. It could be compensated by an ingenious filmmaker with cinematographic ideas or a cast with only a little more appeal. None whatsoever, just a vaguely defined concept, "I want to do something from a woman's point of view". The result is an insult rather than a tribute to a female perspective on life.<br /><br />To make things worse, there's not an interesting shot to be found in the entire film. I cannot think of a cast who could have spiced this one up, but Johanna ter Steege is a (small) light in the dark, if possible with this dire lack of material. I'm trying to imagine how Leopold tried directing Maria Kraakman: "Maria, look at the horizon, we'll film you for three minutes, just express sadness". A perfect cure for insomnia. Get a copy and watch this late at night, guaranteed too put you to sleep.<br /><br />Camera Obscura --- 1/10
This movie was long and boring. Surprising that it was selected for Cannes, although they tend to like pretentiousness. Point is that contrary to other Dutch stars of the arty genre like Kerkhof and Kruishoop, Guernsey feels utterly empty. Even more so it has no cinematic quality whatsoever. A long opening shot doesn't mean cinematic depth, it's just a long boring shot. The story wasn't interesting and the characters had problems I couldn't identify with at all. The actors didn't shine under her direction and seemed lost at times. Leopold tried, but she is not the talent I hoped she would be. Where are Kerkhof and Kruishoop? They really made some waves in Dutch cinema. Leopold just made another attempt.
For those fans of Laurel and Hardy, the 1940s and beyond were a very sad time for the team. Their contracts with Hal Roach Studios had expired and now they were "free agents"--able to work for any studio who offered them a job. Unfortunately, Fox, RKO, MGM (without Roach) and even a French film company who hired the boys had absolutely no touch for their comedic talents. Plus, Stan and Ollie were a lot older and seeing these geriatric men taking pratfalls seemed sad, not particularly funny. Stan looked very ragged and Ollie's weight had ballooned up to the point where he could barely walk--and so it made me feel uncomfortable laughing at their very, very sedate antics.<br /><br />In addition to their age, this particular film suffers because Fox Studios oddly cast them in a supporting role and created a parallel plot involving a young couple--something that reduced their time on screen AND turned them into insipid "hangers on" instead of just being themselves. A cute and cuddly Stan and Ollie is very foreign to the old Laurel and Hardy of the 20s and 30s--and just seemed awfully strange and suited them poorly.<br /><br />Now even with their age, this COULD have been a decent movie if it had been given decent writing and if it appeared the studio cared--and it's quite obvious they were using the "B unit" here--with, at best, second class support. In particular, there are very few laughs and the last 10 minutes of the film is simply dreadful--relying exclusively on a sloppy rear-projected screen for the stupid chase scene--which might just rank as one of the worst of its kind in film history.<br /><br />For mind-numbed zombie lovers of Laurel and Hardy, it's probably a film they will love. But, for lovers of the team who are willing to honestly evaluate this film relative to their amazing earlier films, it simply comes up wanting indeed. In fact, of all their full-length films pre-1940, I can't think of one I liked less than DANCING MASTERS. Unfortunately, of the post-1940 films, this might just be one of their better ones. Sadly, it got a lot worse--with wretched films like THE BIG NOISE and NOTHING BUT TROUBLE. I just wish the boys had just retired after SAPS AT SEA.<br /><br />Finally, I wonder if all the generally positive reviews for this film on IMDb might reflect the reviewers' love of the team more than it's an indication that this is a good film? For an audience who are NOT already in love with the team, I don't know HOW this film will do anything but bore the audience--it certainly WON'T convince anyone that Laurel and Hardy were comedic geniuses. But even comedic geniuses need material worthy of their talents.
I can understand after watching this again for the first time in many years how it is considered one of the worst Laurel & Hardy's. For me, it isn't as close to as bad as "Air Raid Wardens" and "The Bullfighters", but there are some definite huge flaws in it. The film is set up to show Laurel and Hardy as the owners and instructors of the dance studio. Hardy is funny as the prancing lead of a "London Bridge" dance, surrounded by 20th Century Fox starlets, while in the next room, Laurel teaches the beginners ballet while wearing a ballerina outfit. A clumsy carpenter spills glue on the floor, leading to a predicable gag where Hardy ends up the looser. Then, in come the racketeers, now selling insurance covering up their protection racket. One of them is a very young and handsome Robert Mitchum. But no sooner do they bully the boys into buying insurance, they are arrested.<br /><br />This is the end of the gangsters and the last time we see the dance studio. The rest of the film is devoted to Laurel and Hardy's support of wealthy patron Trudy Marshall and her inventor boyfriend, Robert Bailey. They first try to help them hide their relationship from her disapproving parents (Matt Briggs and Margaret Dumont) and hopeful suitor Allan Lane, whom we can tell right off is a no-good swine. This leads to Briggs' hidden bar being revealed to tea-totaling Dumont, and a gag where a rug is literally pulled out from the wealthy patriarch which crashes his bed into a pond below. When Bailey uses the boys to help display his ray gun, pandemonium ensues. The dead-pan butler announces to Case and Dumont that their house is on fire.<br /><br />Later, Hardy wants to use the insurance policy to gain money to pay their dance studio rent and hopes to get Laurel to break a leg to do so. There is no reference to the fact that the insurance salesmen were gangsters and that the policy would probably be invalid. (Even if they were to have become legitimate insurance salesman, after being arrested, their licenses would have been revoked). Laurel ends up getting off a bus which had been abandoned by the driver over a supposedly rabid dog (only a frosting covered, cake devouring Toto look-alike, or possibly the actual pooch), causing Oliver to end up on a huge beach roller-coaster that somehow the bus has ended up on, perfectly fitting its wheels onto the tracks. Roller-coaster gags can be exciting, as evidenced in "Abbott and Costello Go to Hollywood", and this one is amusing but anticlimactic.<br /><br />As the story wraps up, all of these gags seem to have no point, giving the impression that this was simply a series of one-reelers put together to make a full-length feature, hopefully part of a double bill. L&H, as I've mentioned in other reviews of their later films, had lost much of their luster after leaving Hal Roach's employ, but surprisingly here, they do not come off as old and tired looking as they had in films made in the same year. Had the gags not been as amusing, as was the case with some of their other films, this surely would have ranked a "2" as opposed to a "3".
I suppose bad Laurel and Hardy is better than no Laurel and Hardy at all, but just barely. It's sad that the Fox films are the ones getting a big release on DVD, exposing people who may not be too familiar with L&H to their WORST stuff rather than their classic comedies.<br /><br />Once again the boys are saddled with a dumb romantic plot about a guy who's invented an invisible ray. He's in love with the bosses' daughter, who hates him and prefers some slick guy. It's incredible to think the geniuses at Fox thought THIS is what L&H needed in their films.<br /><br />Without their pancake makeup the boys look tired and old. The only scenes that work for them in this picture is when they try to sneak out of a bedroom window at night and the rather bizarre scene where Robert Mitchum, being a classic noir bad guy tries to sell Oliver Hardy "insurance" on Stan.<br /><br />Otherwise, this script is just a mess. Forget this and see if you can find a copy of "A Chump at Oxford" or "Bohemian Girl" or "Sons of the Desert" instead.
As a big fan of David Mamet's films and plays, especially his first film House of Games that also starred Joe Mantegna, I was expecting great things from this film. Instead, I found myself annoyed by the film's superficiality and lack of credibility. Racial slurs are thrown about without any feeling or meaning behind them, in the hopes of setting up a racial tension that for me never materialized. Identity is totally reevaluated and men become "heroes" for no apparent reason. Because of his oaths taken as a cop, the lead character adamantly refuses to perform one relatively small action that would harm no one and could possibly save lives, and yet performs another action which is very violent and VERY illegal, but then still refuses the minor action. In addition, a highly unbelievable subplot involving a man who has killed his family is introduced just for the sake of a plot point that was all but advertised with skywriting, and the cop's reaction to that occurrence stretch credulity way beyond all reasonable limits. Needless to say, after expecting another exciting thriller from David Mamet, I was extremely disappointed to say the least. 3 out of 10.
David Mamet is a very interesting and a very un-equal director. His first movie 'House of Games' was the one I liked best, and it set a series of films with characters whose perspective of life changes as they get into complicated situations, and so does the perspective of the viewer.<br /><br />So is 'Homicide' which from the title tries to set the mind of the viewer to the usual crime drama. The principal characters are two cops, one Jewish and one Irish who deal with a racially charged area. The murder of an old Jewish shop owner who proves to be an ancient veteran of the Israeli Independence war triggers the Jewish identity in the mind and heart of the Jewish detective.<br /><br />This is were the flaws of the film are the more obvious. The process of awakening is theatrical and hard to believe, the group of Jewish militants is operatic, and the way the detective eventually walks to the final violent confrontation is pathetic. The end of the film itself is Mamet-like smart, but disappoints from a human emotional perspective.<br /><br />Joe Mantegna and William Macy give strong performances, but the flaws of the story are too evident to be easily compensated.
Very disappointing film. By the end I no longer cared for any of the characters. I did enjoy seeing Ving Rhames in a very small part, and William Macy was good as always, still not worth watching. It starts out strong and just keeps getting weaker and weaker. Insomniacs will like it as I am sure it will put them to sleep.
This movie displayed more racial hatred of Jews by David Mamet than I have<br /><br />have ever encountered in an American film. The sterotypes are so over the top that my ability to continue watching died. I was so disappointed at Joe<br /><br />Mantegna calling a bunch of men ,sitting in a New York Jewish center cleaning weapons ,heros that common sense prevailed and I stopped. I am deeply<br /><br />disturbed at the concept that Jews are not Americans and "different". I suggest that Mr. Mamet is one of the causes of hatred not a healer of same.
Pere is an idiot, but he is aware about it and acts in consequence. His life is totally boring and he doesn't know how to change it. When his last friend, Nicco, dies. He feels totally empty and he decides to go out to become drunk. When he is returning home, he crashes with a girl that puts advertisements. Although she ignores him, he fells in love and starts to follow her, obsessively. Well the beginning of the film is a bit slow, and can result boring for most people. However, as action begins, it is a little better (not much!, maybe, the best part is the 5 minutes of sex (almost 30 different scenes about it) that you can see in the middle of the movie; it is not good for the erothism, but for the funny and unexpected that is the scene. Probably it is the best of the film. Neither the actors nor the directing is good, and the results is a boring film that that can result funny for some people (not for me). All the film is based on absurd situations (idiot, as the film says), that have anything interesting. I like Ventura Pons, but I have to admit that this is not one of his best films (maybe his worst!), he knows to do it better.
Leave it to geniuses like Ventura Pons, the Spanish director, to convince the higher ups in his country to subsidize this misguided attempt of a film. The sad state of the film industry in that country is a product of trying to make a film out of such thin material. Most of the pictures that are made in Spain fall under two categories: those about the Spanish Civil War, that love to present past history as the writers deem fit. The other type of films show the viewer with a lot of gratuitous sex because the 'creators' don't have anything interest to say. <br /><br />As the film opens we get to watch Pere's penis as he attempts to cut it off and place it in one of the platters at a party. Later on, Sandra will show all she has been given for the audience to admire. The story of Pere's attraction to Sandra, a married woman that seems to be happily married, is false from the start.<br /><br />Our only interest in watching the film centered on an earlier, better made picture by Mr. Pons, "Amic/Amat", but alas, it has nothing to do with the mess we are punished to watch in this venture. As far as the comments submitted in IMDb, all the negative votes come from Spanish viewers, which speaks volumes coming from them!
Although the actors do a convincing job playing the losers that parade across the screen, the fact that these characters are impossible to identify with had me looking at my watch a mere 20 minutes into the film (and more than once after that). The plot development is disjointed and slow, the verbal diarrhoea of the main character's only friend is practically insufferable, the base quality of most of the characters actions and the cavalier way in which they are treating is annoying.<br /><br />It is typical of Ventura Pons to put forth crass psychologically handicapped characters. However, this faux sociological analysis is a big step down from CARICIAS or Caresses, where the characters maltreat and despise each other for well founded reasons that play out during that film. In AMOR IDIOTA we are forced to follow the meanderings of a truly subnormal intelligence as he stalks a severely depressed and detached woman. Supposedly this is due to his own depression but the script doesn't support that. I won't give away the rest of the story just in case there are any masochists out there… Is he cured through his obsession or is the woman shocked out of her own depression through his unwavering attention? Even though I watched the whole thing I wasn't made to care even for a moment about either of them.<br /><br />If you can sit through all this prejudice, ignorance, betrayal, BAD dialogue, flimsy philosophy, etc… the camera-work was pretty good and seems to be something inspired by the DOGMA group. The makeup also seemed to aim at showing these players in a raw and gritty light as it is the worst I've seen Cayetana Guillen Cuervo in any of her movies (while in person she is actually attractive).<br /><br />I suppose if the idea is that we should be forced to see the lower strata of society so we can be grateful we are not part of it then Pons has achieved his objective. The barrage of nearly identical sex scenes was a proper waste of film (if the actors had been filmed but once in blue green clothing the background behind them could have been changed in the special effects studio for a pittance). True that I heard much of the male audience squirm in their seats during this but an objective viewing proves that was not the real aim of those scenes.<br /><br />Save yourselves and watch something else.
OK, let me again admit that I haven't seen any other Merchant Ivory (the distributor) films. Nor have I seen more celebrated works by the director, so my capacity to discuss Before the Rains outside of analysis of the film itself is mitigated. With that admittance, let me begin.<br /><br />Before the Rains is a different kind of movie that doesn't know which genre it wants to be. At first, it pretends to be a romance. In most romances, the protagonist falls in love with a supporting character, is separated from the supporting character, and is (sometimes) united with his or her partner. This movie's hero has already won the heart of his lover but cannot be with her. His name is Henry Moores and her name is Sajani, and they reside in southern India during the waning days of the Raj (British imperial rule). Henry has been away from London for a long time and has fallen in love with his married Indian maid, despite his legal marriage and child overseas. What could be better than that? They often sneak away for intimate afternoons until some children notice them. Word spreads to Sajani's husband who questions her involvement with Moores. She denies any contact with him, but Moores asks her to leave the area. Sajani refuses because of her devotion to him and commits suicide. Please take note that these events occur in the opening third of the film. The film changes tone and becomes a crime-drama in its final portions.<br /><br />Sajani's body is discovered right as Moores' family comes to visit. The alleged perpetrator is Moores's English-educated assistant T.K. T.K. knows of his master's affair but keeps silent until his life becomes threatened. Once he is declared innocent, he attempts to regain his honor by killing Moores. T.K. is too squeamish and leaves him in a dirt path as the rains fall.<br /><br />I want to warn you, this isn't a romance film. The DVD cover and theatrical posters show an Indian woman and Caucasian man embracing in an idealized tropic setting. This image is captured directly from the film's opening, but quickly disappears. Then it's over. It seems like an effort to capitalize on Western fixation on forbidden love. It isn't effective, at all. Not only is the movie not a romance, but its characters lack any personality. They are bundles of walking clichés. Moores is an arrogant white man who doesn't recognize his Indian friend, T.K.'s intelligence. T.K. is torn between his own heritage and his educative background. Sajani is a woman incapable of having a choice in her romantic life. Oh, and, of course, Moores' family is inquisitive into Sajani's death but still slightly racist to Indians. If the tone wasn't so serious, I would be willing to overlook these problems, but it isn't. The film is presented with a didactic overtone which highlights its poor character development.<br /><br />No, this film isn't terrible. Other than the laughable screenplay, it isn't poor. The actors are all experienced and perform well here. Nandita Das, who plays Sajani, was part of wonderful Indian drama Water. Even director Sivan has an impressive resume. He recently oversaw The Terrorist, which is part of Roger Ebert's "Great Movies" collection. What happened here? Why is this movie so bad? Well, Sivan mentioned how he was inspired to direct this film because of a short he viewed in Israel called Red Roofs. Apparently, the story was "timeless," and Sivan sought to create a similar experience set in 1930's India. I don't have any problem with that approach, but I think Sivan may have been too motivated this time. The actors, cinematography, and set design are acceptable but unless you share Sivan's aura, you'll probably not enjoy it. My recommendation is that you presume you aren't in accordance with him and watch something else. Final Consensus: *and ½ out of *****
This movie fails to offer anything new to a genre that has traditionally shown the cross cultural love story underpinned by the politics mid 20th century / pre-WWII India, where the British and their modern ways are bad and the primitive but honest and true Indians are good. Surely such clichéd depictions of the British are rather passé now.<br /><br />Apart from the drama that fuels the second part of the movie the narrative is predictable, the acting is pedestrian and two-dimensional, and the directing obvious and unimaginative.<br /><br />The story really needed to be fleshed out and would certainly have benefited from another half an hour of screen time to give the characters and narrative more depth and give the viewer something to feel some investment in.<br /><br />All in all, rather uninspiring. Oh and Linus Roache just cannot do tragedy - going cross-eyed with emotional pain just doesn't work for me!
Despite the mysteriously positive reviews and high rating, this is an awful movie. Awful enough, that l feel obligated to warn you how bad it is. <br /><br />The movie is set in the final period of the Raj, during the time of India's fight for independence. What follows in the ridiculous plot just fills me with disbelief. What the characters do and how they behave just does not persuade me that the characters exist in that era. <br /><br />For instance, would the young married Hindu housemaid from the local village have an affair with her married Englishman Master, knowing full well that discovery of the affair would likely mean utter social ostracization and shame if not mortal punishment? Unlikely, but still maybe. However, would the same young Hindu housemaid, in the conservative society of India of that era carry on like a half naked Britney Spears in heat, partake in hot outdoor sex during daylight in open view where they might be discovered at any moment? That is not only bloody unlikely, that is a retarded plot line.<br /><br />Such idiocies combined with the poor acting, drove me to leave the cinema an hour into the movie, so i did not watch the second half of the movie. One could only hope the ending is of more intelligence than what i saw in the first half.
Let me start by saying how much I love the TV series. Despite the tragic nature of a middle-aged man seemingly unable to pursue his dreams because of his overbearing, manipulative father, it was incredibly light-hearted and fun to watch in practice. In my opinion, it is without doubt one of the greatest British sitcoms of all time. The TV series has my 10 out of 10 rating without reservation.<br /><br />This movie spin-off on the other hand is a true tragedy in every sense of the word. Hardly any of the essence of the TV show is transferred successfully onto film. This movie has a very dreary, depressing tone that almost moved me to tears on several occasions. Seeing Harold being beaten up in a pub (and not in a comical way) is not my idea of comedy but is most definitely one reason why fans of the TV series will not like this movie. The movie was painfully unfunny except for the scene where Albert bathes in the sink and is seen by a neighbour.<br /><br />The romance between Harold and Zita is completely out of tone and it makes me wonder whether the producers of this movie ever bothered to watch the TV series. In the TV series, Harold always went after respectable girls, not strippers.<br /><br />Albert's reactions to the remarks made against him by Harold's girlfriends were absolutely priceless in the TV series. In the movie, Albert says virtually nothing when such an opportunity rises.<br /><br />Most movie spin-offs of British sitcoms tend to be quite dull, with the notable exception of the ON THE BUSES films (which in some respects were actually better than the TV series itself!). But, STEPTOE AND SON has to rank right at the very bottom of the pile, even below GEORGE AND MILDRED.<br /><br />My advice - skip this one and see the second spin-off, STEPTOE AND SON RIDE AGAIN instead. It has a much lighter tone, is more faithful to the TV series, and is actually very funny.
"Women? They're all scrubbers...!" <br /><br />No, not a good translation; not at all! This lags behind the previous year's "Dad's Army", entirely missing the special, small-screen magic of the seminal television sitcom original, and failing to play interestingly at all with the big screen... you could just about say that this film well represents a Britain entering decline, and more precisely even than that, a *British film industry* entering decline. And that is hardly a recommendation, is it? To be an exemplar of saddening folly...<br /><br />All that remains after the subtlety of the TV original has been surgically stripped away, by Cliff Owen, Galton and Simpson are: endless, dilapidated musical cues, yawn, from the Ron Grainer theme... bolstered sentimentality (that shoddy, thick-eared ending... how much bolder does the second Steptoe film seem in comparison) an increased seediness - with director and writers seemingly detaching themselves completely - fully applicable to something like the 'misbegotten monstrosity' (yours truly on this site) from 1973, "The Mutations". There is a strangely botched, cut-adrift tone about the scene where Harold is beaten up in a rugby club, that I partly hate and recoil it (so far, as a friend intimated, from the mood of the TV series...), but this at least seems an original slant, and emblematic of tensions just rising to the boil in the Britain of 1972... There is, however, an implied prostitute, aye of a 'heart-of-gold' who turns loose woman-traitor 'pon poor auld 'Arold - and beyond-caricature writing of the 'class' element; not to mention, surprisingly misjudged performances from the usually redoubtable leads. Brambell and Corbett collude with the script, and indeed fail to cure it of an essential ham. What would Anthony Aloysius Hancock have made of it all...? I will merely concede that a few moments just about work - chiefly those where G & S play things a little more carefully and B & C touch tenderer nerves - and it is not on the whole an unwatchable affair. <br /><br />But, and oh, how this pains me to say it: it is tiresome, boring, both wilfully detached from reality and what made the TV series great, and also fully in tune with the lazy, tawdry, misogynist 'fuck it, that'll do...' actuality of much of what was allowed to pass for mainstream film-making in the Britain of the time.
Truly a disgusting, vile film, with only a small amount of real humour.<br /><br />The character of the father in particular is vulgar in the extreme (intentionally so, obviously), and portrayed in the most pathetic, seedy manner.<br /><br />My wife and I found this film horribly upsetting, with absolutely no redeeming features at all. Frankly, I wish I had never seen it.<br /><br />I consider this British effort to be a sick and gross embarrassment.<br /><br />Those who enjoyed this film have an ability I totally lack: that of rejoicing in a display of deep depravity and squalor.<br /><br />The producers should be ashamed of themselves.
This film can be judged from three viewpoints: as history, as a profile of Amin, as a fictional thriller. <br /><br />It fails as history, it mentions in passing the coup that threw out Obote, the expulsion of the Asians, and has the Entebbe hi-jack as background, but not in any chronologically consistent time frame. <br /><br />As a profile of Amin it may have been interesting, because Forest Whitaker is incredibly good, and if this was a better film, he would get an Oscar. (He got it - which proves the Oscar voters don't watch the films they vote on.) It ignores relevant historical episodes in the novel, which observed Amin and the history of Uganda from the point of view of the doctor. It tells instead the fictitious story of the Scots doctor and his impossible love life from the point of view of Amin. But the story told is the one incident that Amin was probably innocent of. <br /><br />As a fictional thriller, there is no plot to hold it together. The beginning is taut - it takes cinematic liberties with the novel, but sets up the story. The character of the doctor is well-defined, but becomes lost in the second half of the film which suffers as a result.<br /><br />Why the doctor decides to stay in Kampala is badly explained - seduced by power? Why he befriends no-one is strange. The character of the friend in the novel has been lost because the Scotsman has the affair instead of the black doctor - a ludicrous entanglement which does not seem even faintly believable, but allows the writers of the film to show the ferocity of Amin close at hand. The Man called Horse bit at the end is risible. <br /><br />Finally in 1971, Uganda drove on the left, not right, the number plates were three letters and two or three numbers - and where are the Equator tusks?! <br /><br />In short - if you've never heard of Amin, you may want to spend two hours watching this film to appreciate Forest Whitaker's acting, but the last hour will bore you to confusion. If you know Uganda or have read the book - don't see the film - it will only depress you. And if you want to know why the doctor was so foolhardy - he wasn't.
Forest Whitaker's performance is all the more impressive for making it almost worthwhile to sit through this dreck. "Historical fiction" does not justify changing history. The absurdity begins from the ground up with the imaginary lead character played by James McAvoy. To create a fictional observer for the purpose of giving the reader a point of connection in the book is regrettable, regrettable that white people can't just read a book without a white protagonist to connect to, but at least he was placed in a somewhat passive role. Making up a fake historical actor and crediting this fiction with exposing Amin to the world is irresponsible, lazy and stupid. Not making the actions of this creation believable or even sane is just criminal, and has opened the door for movies like the one they're planning to make with Leonardo DiCaprio as a heroic Enron whistleblower who NEVER EXISTED. The logic of the world does not apply in this film where some Scottish kid thinks its okay to sleep with the wife of a murderous dictator. It doesn't apply where the wife of the dictator desires to sleep with some stupid scrawny irresponsible white boy. For that matter EVERYBODY is lined up to sleep with this scrawny, irresponsible, arrogant white boy, he even has Gillian Anderson licking her comely chops.<br /><br />Let me declare, I do not like James McAvoy. I'm not sure what it is about him, but I thought his Mr. Tumnus in Narnia was creepy and pervy. I think that Kerry Washington would never look twice at him so I can't believe that the wife of a powerful dangerous man like Amin would risk and lose her life for him. I don't believe him as a Doctor, and I just don't see the appeal. His character seems to have far more arrogance than would make sense, and trying to make him look like a badass in shooting the cow was just...there's that word again...absurd. Think about it, you are watching all of these characters bend themselves into knots in order to accommodate this unbelievable main character and there never was such a guy.<br /><br />Gillian Anderson looks incredible and sounds more British than most Brits. Whitaker gives a great expansive magnetic performance, and highlighted, with his incomprehensible pre-Oscar speeches, just how much he was acting. It's a shame the film around him had no reason to exist.
Before I begin, I want to briefly say that this movie in and of itself is very well made and well acted by all involved, including Whittaker, who indeed deserves his nomination. It is highly entertaining, and . . . taken in the right context as a work of FICTION, it is a very good movie. For that, I give it the two stars.<br /><br />However, rather than wasting your time with what you can read a hundred times elsewhere, I want instead to point out the absolute fictional nature of this film and how dangerous it is to sell people a work of fiction as if it is truth. I stress that this film nowhere in the credits lets us know that the main character, Dr. Nicholas Garrigan, is a complete invention of fiction. Rather, it presents this character into a real historical setting, and allows the uninformed viewer to assume he was in fact real, and what they are seeing is the truth. I have no problem with the blending of fact and fiction - but to do so in such a dishonest matter is, in a word, reprehensible.<br /><br />There can be no doubt that Africa, along with most Third World Countries is rife with human misery and suffering. Hollywood has long attempted to capture the suffering of people in these countries on film. But Hollywood also has its eye toward making money. The only true way to capture the suffering that seems to happen everywhere but the West is to either experience it for yourself, or to at least have it captured in an honest documentary.<br /><br />But these depictions of fictional characters in real historical settings can only do so much. At the end of the day, they become less about presenting the facts for the viewer to decide for himself, and more about leading you from image to image and hitting you over the head screaming, "SEE, WE TOLD YOU IT WAS BAD!" The seminal example of this can be found by anyone willing to watch the documentary on the DVD after sitting through the movie. Arguably the most shocking image of the film is the viewing of the body of Kay Amin, Idi's second wife, whom he killed when he discovered her infidelity. In the film, we see that her limbs have been severed and reattached in reverse (arms for legs and vice-versa). This is the director making sure you understand that Amin is, as the Gungans say, Bom-bad! But watching the documentary, we learn that this is in fact nothing more than a myth, which the sitting Minister of Health at the time himself tells us is not true.<br /><br />So . . . what . . . they just MAKE UP these things? Why? Because Hollywood has a low opinion of our intelligence, that's why! They don't trust us to come to the right conclusion ourselves. Look, that she was murdered and dismembered is in itself enough for us to conclude that Amin was not the likable guy he portrayed to the media - we don't need this Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE inspired imagery to reinforce that! And this is just the tip of the iceberg. What is also not explained to the casual viewer is that lead character Garrigan is himself fictional. There was no young Scottish doctor taken under Amin's wing. As such, Garrigan is clearly present only for the sake of helping us dumb Westerners understand the African world. The producers seem to thing we won't be interested in a film about Africa unless there is a white face in it. (Ironically, even the titular character is portrayed by an American black actor!) The problem with this is that the movie is no longer an expose of Amin and his regime, but instead an exploitative thriller about a white Westerner coming to Africa for all the wrong reasons, making several horrible mistakes, and then "redeeming" himself, even at the cost of three other innocent lives. Honestly, I have to say it is nearly reprehensible to suggest that the real tragic death of Mrs. Amin was the result of a tryst with a fictional Scottish doctor - it almost seems to become a morbid joke for the sake of entertainment! I really wish Hollywood would stop jerking us around for our money. I first realized its propensity to do this with the woefully manipulative A BEAUTIFUL MIND, Ron Howard and Akiva Goldsman's sugary-sweet adaptation of the life of John Nash, which deleted the darker side of the man to present only the tortured hero that America just can't get enough of. The sad truth is that Hollywood has been selling us these fakes for years, and viewers, who are predictably and understandably too lazy or uncaring to investigate for themselves, buy these fake portraits hook, line, and sinker.<br /><br />Look, I'm certainly not suggesting Amin is being turned into a villain he wasn't. My point is, with the truth being so shocking enough to convince us of the brutality of the man, why must Hollywood then go to such fictional lengths? Why must Hollywood continue to insult us by holding our hands through these films? Why can they not trust us to think for ourselves!? Can we not just put the honest portrayals on screen and let the audience decide for themselves? I urge all who continue to watch Hollywood's purportedly "true" movies to do yourself the favor of ALWAYS investigating for yourself, and to NEVER assume that what is on screen is even close to the truth!
Funny that I find myself forced to review this movie, but here I am.<br /><br />I am reviewing it, because just recently, I have had the chance to witness the revival of R.C. Sheriff's play "Journey's End" on stage in New York, at the Belasco Theatre, starring Hugh Darcy, Boyd Gaines, Jefferson Mays and others, as well as being masterfully directed by David Grindley.<br /><br />I left the theater shattered. I am not exaggerating, I was flabbergasted. After almost two and a half hours of a recreated and very claustrophobic depiction of soldier's life in the trenches of the Somme (I speculate), during World War One, brought to life vividly, by everyone involved, I came out of the theater with the shakes.<br /><br />Mind you, I am not easily shocked, nor am I too sensitive. I am a stage actor and a director myself, so I know the buttons being pressed to achieve certain effects, both emotionally, as well as psychologically.<br /><br />But what I had just witnessed, came so much to life, that I had chills in my spine as I left.<br /><br />None of these emotions came to life, while watching "Aces High", the movie based on this play and even adapted for the screen, in cooperation with R.C. Sheriff himself, shortly before he died.<br /><br />The screen adaptation takes place in the skies over France. So, gone is the claustrophobic ambiance to start with.<br /><br />The only plus of the movie, are the aerial battle scenes, which look dated in their special effects, compared to today's standards, but still very valid in the flying tactics adopted on screen.<br /><br />Granted there had been a couple of screen adaptations of "All Quiet on the Western Front" by Erich Maria Remarque, which takes place in trenches, and not in the sky, but that was the "German" vision on things, if one would like to be picky on such things.<br /><br />"Journey's End" is just the other side of the medal, and would have made it into a great movie, if they had left it alone and intact.<br /><br />The transfer on DVD is poor, even though in Widescreen and adapted for 16:9 TV screens, the quality of the film itself is that of a movie theater. Nothing more, nothing less. It sports various defects, such as minor scratches and dots, although the copy, for the rest, is clean.<br /><br />If you want another WWI movie in your collection, especially for those who love and enjoy to see aerial battles among old-timers, then this is a picture for you. But I rather would suggest "Von Richthofen and Brown" as an alternative, although that too, is a movie filled with inaccuracies.<br /><br />For the rest of you, who love good acting and drama, I would leave this one out. Buy the play. Go watch the play, if you have the chance to get a decent revival of it near you, but keep off this would-be adaptation.<br /><br />It is an anti-war movie, granted, but the weakest I have ever seen in my lifetime ever.<br /><br />The presence of actors such as Trevor Howard, Ray Milland, Richard Johnson and John Gielgud, is just a bluff, since they are just seen in very weak and very brief cameo roles throughout the movie.<br /><br />McDowell, the very talented Christopher Plummer, Simon Ward and Peter Firth, all deliver very weak performances, not due to their lack of skills, but rather due to lack of true and solid direction.<br /><br />There are too many gaps in it, and as said before, it drags itself to the dubious end. Dubious because in the original play, none of the men we come to know and sympathize with, stay alive. They are all killed in a fatal and futile mission. In the movie they all die, except Malcolm McDowell, who manages somehow to stay alive another day, being the wing commander of the unlucky bunch, just to receive another three pilots to fly and die for another lost cause.<br /><br />The end of the play leaves a bare stage in total darkness. You just hear the cannons roar, the machine guns rattle, and grenade impacts throughout the theater. Then, suddenly, total peace and silence. The curtain comes up. Lights. And here they all are. Lined up, standing straight and rigid. Obedient corpses...<br /><br />Far more interesting and far more shocking than "Aces High" finale, which is also dragged by the hair.<br /><br />It is up to you to judge.<br /><br />For me, if I had the money and the contacts to do so, I would take the play and develop it, the way it was meant. Adding here and there some action scene in the field, just to visualize the "outer" horror and slaughter going on in the "vasty fields of France", around the men involved, but then, just strictly concentrating on what is going on, in that tiny "shack" at the edge of sanity and the world...<br /><br />Want such a movie?<br /><br />Then ask for it.<br /><br />This is not it.
Despite the excellent cast, this is an unremarkable film, especially from the aviation perspective. It may be somewhat better than the egregious "von Richthofen and Brown" but not by much. "Blue Max" remains the best of a small market over the last 35 years while "Darling Lilli" is fun if not taken seriously. It's interesting to speculate what ILM could do with Zeppelins and Gothas in a new, high-quality WW I aero film.
I had been looking forward to seeing Dreamgirls for quite a while...what with all it's raving reviews, nominations and media attention. And I must say, the first quarter of the movie was good! It really portrayed the black music scene back then. However, as the movie wore on, me and my whole family were bored out of our wits. The singing just kept coming, one after the other. I mean seriously, just one more music number and it would have broke even with RENT.<br /><br />Furthermore, I noticed hardly any character development in any of the characters; I just didn't care what happened to them! Even when Eddie Murphy's character died of a drug overdose, I knew I should have been sad, but I just couldn't feel any emotion for that character. The characters were given a flimsy background about singing in their childhood and whatnot, but there personalities were not revealed enough to draw me in.<br /><br />Finally, the conflict was simply not significant enough to make the viewer care, which goes along with the lack of character development. This movie reminded me of a copy-cat movie based on Ray, Chicago, and Rent (Ray and Chicago were wonderful movies in my opinion). Overall I think this movie would best suit someone who doesn't really care about an overall story, yet would enjoy two hours of entertaining and fun singing performances.
Yes there are great performances here. Unfortunately, they happen in the context of a movie that doesn't seem to have a clue what it's doing. During the first 45-60 minutes of this all the music takes place as realistic performance. Suddenly, about an hour in, the characters who, until this point, had always spoken to each other, suddenly start singing to each other. To further confuse things, a little further in, out of nowhere, they actually do about 15 minutes of sung-through dialog, then seem to drop that idea and move on to other things, such as a number that begins in a jazz club with a drummer and two electric guitars suddenly turning into a fully orchestrated piece with a massive unseen string section. On top of all this inconsistency in how the music is used, is the composers' clear inability to actually write music in the style that is supposedly being portrayed. While the first couple of pieces do sort of mimic the 1950s Motown sound, the rest of the film is just (bad) Broadway show music. Then there's the pure silliness of snippets of a group doing a bad Jackson family imitation and Eddie Murphy morphing from Little Richard to James Brown to Lionel Richie. When he started channeling Stevie Wonder I couldn't help laughing out loud. This was clearly one of those films that make me appreciate how little time I have on earth and resent that I wasted two hours of it watching this film.
I anticipated the release of the film as much as any fan of the Broadway play. I waited and read reviews for months about the award winning performances. I mean with the star power of Eddie Murphy, Jamie Foxx, Beyonce Knowles, Danny Glover... the movie couldn't be less than 4 out of 4 stars, right? WRONG! I was definitely disappointed by the finished product. The film did not match up to the publicity hype it was given and the only saving graces were Eddie Murphy, Anika Noni Rose and Jennifer Hudson.<br /><br />Eddie Murphy's James Brownesque performance rescues the movie just when it hits its multiple lulls and Jennifer Hudson's performance compels you to pay attention each time she's on screen. Her performance of "And I Am Telling You" was the only time that I felt the hype was deserved. You cringed as she begged her no good man to let her stay in the group and in his life. As many reviewers have stated, she steals the movie from the more experienced actors and deserves all the accolades she's receiving for this performance. Anika Noni Rose was also a strong presence with a great voice and comedic talent. <br /><br />Jamie Foxx and Beyonce Knowles, on the other hand, cruised through their performances. Foxx's acting skills for this film seemed to predate his extraordinary "Ray" performance and Beyonce Knowles was on an extended fashion photo shoot or video taping, posing and shimmying her way through the movie. Her performance wasn't strong enough to make you care about her character at any point in the film.<br /><br />The movie was too hyped, 30 minutes and 1 song (Beyonce's "heartfelt" solo to Jamie Foxx) too long.<br /><br />DH -- Vancouver, WA
It makes sense to me that this film is getting raves from Hollywood because oftentimes in Hollywood it's all just a popularity contest. It also makes sense when you think that people who are liking the film may just be reacting to the countless songs being spit out at you rather than story content. Yet, this film is overrated and overblown. Eddie Murphy looks just ridiculous. No way do Jeniffer Hudson and Beyonce Knowles give the Oscar rated performance so many have raved over BEFORE the film was even out. I can't even believe that Condon is being set up to be nominated for a Directing Oscar when all he did was put together an album. Glitz does not replace a nothing storyline. A bunch of songs does not a movie make.
This was longer than the Ten Commandments, All Lord of the Rings and the Matrix Trilogy combined. My oh My, what a nightmare. This is the single biggest over-hype of 2006. THere is not a moment that is not scripted and clichéd. Movie Musicals can be done brilliantly and bring genuine excitement to the viewer. Dreamgirls takes the route of Chinese Water Torture, in the form of endless music montages, shoddy acting, and poor directing choices (Seriously, Mr. Condon, did you HAVE to do the old Billboard countdown shots? It's at #58! No wait, look its rising up the charts and here is the passing Billboard notice to show you again....and again....and again)
Yeah. Pretty sure I saw this movie years ago when it was about the Supremes.<br /><br />Another recycled storyline glitzed up Hollywood-style, borrowing scripts from better making-it-in-the-music-industry films.<br /><br />Nothing original here.<br /><br />More make-up, glammier costumes and choreography = more money for the questionably "talented" Beyonce draw.<br /><br />If you like the throwback style, you should appreciate actual groups who struggled (without having digitized voices and a Hollywood empire).<br /><br />Beyonce's involvement makes this hypocritical garbage.
Dreamgirls, despite its fistful of Tony wins in an incredibly weak year on Broadway, has never been what one would call a jewel in the crown of stage musicals. However, that is not to say that in the right cinematic hands it could not be fleshed out and polished into something worthwhile on-screen. Unfortunately, what transfers to the screen is basically a slavishly faithful version of the stage hit with all of its inherent weaknesses intact. First, the score has never been one of the strong points of this production and the film does not change that factor. There are lots of songs (perhaps too many?), but few of them are especially memorable. The closest any come to catchy tunes are the title song and One Night Only - the much acclaimed And I Am Telling You That I Am Not Going is less a great song than it is a dramatic set piece for the character of Effie (Jennifer Hudson). The film is slick and technically well-produced, but the story and characters are surprisingly thin and lacking in any resonance. There is some interest in the opening moments, watching Jamie Foxx's Svengali-like manager manipulate his acts to the top, but that takes a back seat in the latter portion of the film, when the story conveniently tries to cast him as a villain, despite his having been right from a business stand-point for a good majority of the film. Beyonce Knowles is lovely and sings her songs perfectly well, but is stuck with a character who is basically all surface glitz. Anika Noni Rose as the third member of the Dreamgirls trio literally has nothing to do for the entire film. Eddie Murphy acquits himself well as a singer obviously based on James Brown, but the role is not especially meaty and ultimately has little impact. Foxx would seem ideal casting, but he seems oddly withdrawn and bored. The film's biggest selling point is surely former American Idol contestant/Oscar winner Jennifer Hudson in the central role of Effie White, the temperamental singer who gets booted from the group and makes a triumphant closing act return. For me, Effie has always been a big problem in both the show and the movie. The film obviously wants you to feel sorry for her and rather ham-handedly takes her side, but I have never been sure that this character deserves that kind of devotion. From the start, Effie conducts herself for the most part like an obnoxious, egotistical, self-centered diva, who is more interested in what everyone else can do for her rather than having much vested interest in the group of which she is a part. When she is booted from the group for her unprofessionalism and bad attitude, the charges are more than well-founded, but the stage show/film seem to think Effie should be cut unlimited slack simply because she has a great voice. Even though the film tries to soften some of Effie's harder edges to make her more likable, the charges still stand. Her story becomes more manipulative by suggesting she should have our further sympathy because she is an unwed mother struggling to raise her daughter - using the implication that (much like the talent card) motherhood immediately makes any behavior excusable. Indeed the only big effort the film makes to show Effie's mothering is to tell us about it and then include a scene where she barks at her daughter in the unemployment office, insists that the girl has "no father" and then refuse to look for gainful employment to support them since singing is all she knows. In the hands of a skillful actress, the gaps could perhaps have been remedied with technique and charisma. Unfortunately, Hudson is not that actress. She sings well, but the dialog-driven moments do not come naturally to her nor do high emotional moments. Effie's signature moment (the aforementioned And I Am Telling You... number) is well-sung by Hudson, but emotionally flat in the acting department. Effie is supposed to expressing her rage and desperation at her predicament, but Hudson comes off as a cabaret performer belting out a hot number. All in all, not quite the emotional highlight one expects. The latter portion of the film is basically a predictable melange of events that maneuver Foxx into Hudson's earlier position and allow her to strut back in and lord it over everyone. Foxx's criminal offenses in the film are undoubtedly par for the course of many struggling record producers, but the film's seeming implication that he has it coming because he helped usher in the disco era is rather ridiculous, not to mention pretentious and condescending, particularly coming from a film with all of the depth of a puddle. The end result is a faithful rendition of the stage hit, drained of emotion, energy or anything that can be described as dynamic.
I just saw DreamGirls yesterday, and I was REALLY underimpressed. Despite all the Oscar buzz, this is nothing special. Anyone who was really impressed by this film has never bothered to see any of the true movie musical classics. Except for Eddie Murphy's great musical and dramatic performance, Dreamgirls is just a glorified TV movie with no style or flair. Just a bunch of amateurs singing AT each other!<br /><br />Now, the first half hour was good, but I was irritated at how Eddie Murphy's terrific raveup performances were truncated and interrupted by montages. Those were easily the best songs and best performances in the film. And the "rise to the top" portion of the film was the only part of the film that had a consistent point of view or any momentum. The remaining hour and 45 minutes was a formless, rambling mess that was neither realistic nor fantastic enough to be interesting. It was also visually dull and included too many sound-alike tunes.<br /><br />Condon didn't try to turn any of the tunes into big show pieces as I'd expected they would. Each number in the 2nd half was just one closeup after another of people "singing" AT each other. And the way they shot Hudson's big "love me" number was criminal! Condon just shot her stomping around the stage--no drama at all! God it sucked!<br /><br />AND note to all involved--that "sing-talking dialog" stuff might work on stage, but it DOES NOT WORK IN MOVIES (see embarrassing failures of Evita and Phantom). All that "I'll teeeell youuuu something Efff-ieeee!" crap should have been left on the editing room floor. Those aren't "songs."<br /><br />Again, the film--except for Eddie Murphy's amazing performance--was nothing more than a glorified TV movie. There must have been megabucks behind the PR work for this film! I wonder how much money was spent to give it that pre-release "one to beat" Oscar buzz? As a whole this film was, except for Eddie, NOWHERE NEAR an Oscar caliber movie! (except for Eddie) I'd rank it right up there with Grease 2. BIG disappointment, especially after all the (very expen$I've) hype!
We expected something great when we went to see this bomb. It is basically a Broadway play put on film. The music is plain terrible. There isn't one memorable song in the movie -- heard any hits from this movie? You won't because there aren't any. Some of the musical numbers go on so long that I got up to go to the restroom and get some pop corn and it was still going when I got back! If they were good songs well -- but they suck. The pace is slow, terrible character development. The lead was praised for her singing but sounded like she screamed every song -- it was almost impossible to stand. This movie has NOTHING to offer anyone but die-hard Broadway enthusiasts. This is without a doubt the most over rated movie I've seen in my entire life. A complete waist of time and money. There is nothing memorable about this movie except Danny Glover -- who wasn't on screen enough and whose character wasn't developed enough. Rent the video and you'll agree -- this movie was an expensive, over produced, polished dog do.
This movie is all flash and no soul. The actors put a lot of passion into the numbers, but these numbers often didn't connect with the film and felt like stand-alone music videos. And no effort was made to make the numbers sound as if they were happening right there in front of you, every single one sounds like its coming from a studio, essentially sucking all the life from the songs. Off the stage the performances were all dull and unrealized, especially Hudson, who essentially plays the same angry, "strong" (she's stubborn and selfish) black woman we've seen before. There was absolutely no depth to her character, nor any of the other female leads. Though I think the movie wants us to believe that Hudson's character faces hardship because of her weight, it is really her own refusal to do what's best for the team that lands her in trouble, making the end of the film totally meaningless. Hudson's Academy Award is a joke, there was no justification. When she sang, she put forth emotion (though it was often misplaced, but this was the writer/director's fault), but when she was just acting, she did nothing to flesh out an already underwritten character. Eddie Murphy's character is the only one with an arc, and he did a fine job, but still not Oscar worthy. The only actor who really brought something to the roll was Danny Glover, who took a small, relatively unimportant character and made something real out of it. There is nothing here to sink your teeth into, no drama or heart, or even laughs. The placement of the musical numbers was so bad that at times the movie almost seemed to be making fun of musicals instead of being one; the number when Hudson is arguing with the other girls is so long-winded if it had been any longer it could pass for a Family Guy skit. The movie has no idea what it's about, and I felt insulted by the last few minutes. It's a big, boring waste of time, and really is the worst film I saw in '06, and nothing last year was really stellar to begin with.
Eddie Murphy for best supporting actor??? What an insult to Alan Arkin and Djimon Hounsou. <br /><br />Jamie Foxx (who can act) walks through this film like a zombie. <br /><br />Beyonce ??? That was acting??? <br /><br />This movie pales in comparison to CHICAGO or just about any other recent musical. <br /><br />If it were not for the great singing and performance of Jennifer Hudson I would have given this a ZERO.<br /><br />And no I never saw the stage play so I am not making the typical Broadway vs. Hollywood rap.
Wow, this is very unusual in one regard: usually the first movie in a long string of sequels is the best of the bunch. People are surprised when a sequel is actually better. With Tarzan, I thought this movie was the worst of the bunch, or at least the first six which comprise my Tarzan Collection DVD package. I will gladly watch the sequels multiple times but I am through sitting through this turkey, thanks to several characters.<br /><br />Well, let's start with the good news first:<br /><br />THE GOOD - Plenty of action with a lot of wild animals on display, even if they are just stock footage. You see lion attacks, crocodiles, hippos, panthers, you name it, and you see several of the different tribes of all kinds, including pygmies (called "dwarfs" in the movie.) Since this movie was made almost 75 years ago, I can't knock any of the realism because they didn't have it in the movies that long ago. They do the best they can so you put up with actors talking in front of fake backgrounds. However, Weissmuller did a lot of action scenes and was in great shape. He and O'Sullivan make a well-built handsome couple, if there ever was one in those Golden Years of cinema.<br /><br />The film has historical value (with so many sequels) in that it shows how Tarzan acquired Jane and his beginnings of learning the English language.<br /><br />The BAD - From the moment "Jane Parker" is taken by Tarzan almost every scene with her is Maureen O'Sullivan in hysterics, shrieking and screaming scene after scene. It's enough to give you a headache and it ruins the film. Thankfully, she calmed down in the sequels, but not in this movie. The movie also does no favors for "The Great White Hunter" image as C. Aubrey Smith, playing Jane's father, and Neil Hamilton, as "Harry Holt," the safari guide, shoot at every animal within sight, whether the beasts is threatening or not. These people are kill- happy, particularly Smith. On another note, it's too bad there isn't anything in here explaining how Tarzan got to be in the jungle in the first place. There is no history of him in here or footage of his growing up. He's just there when Jane and the group get to a certain point in Africa.
From the stupid "quaint African natives" travelogue footage with our badly-superimposed principals acting as narrators, to the horrible fake ears which transform docile Indian elephants into African elephants, to the utter lack of any logic at all, to Maureen O'Sullivan's incessant whining of "Tarzan! Tarzan!", there is nothing about this movie which deserves classic status.<br /><br />4/10
A memorable line from a short lived show. After viewing the episode where that line was introduced my fraternity intramural flag football team started using the line to break our huddles on offense. Instead of Ready / Break, our quarter back said FOOTBALL and the rest of the squad responded YOU BET! A fun way to break the huddle that had our opponents scratching their heads as very few of them had watched the show. Using this line added a unique element to our season that I'll never forget. We had our best season during my time in college that year and in a small way it was due to the fun that we had using this line. The show was pretty much a stinker but it lives on in the memories of the 1977 Pi Kappa Phi intramural flag football squad at West Virginia Tech.
Before seeing this movie, I was expecting a fictional drama based loosely on ideas from the book; instead, it's the book, interrupted with dramatic scenes illustrating the different "illnesses." That didn't bother me much, but it hindered my enjoyment of the film. One story or even two or three long stories with excerpts from the book interspersed through the movie would have been preferable, in my opinion. If you're going to base a movie on a psychology text, you've got to find a more interesting (and preferably accurate) text than this one. The film drags during parts where it's little more than a video encyclopedia of 19th century sexual psychology and would be utterly intolerable if it weren't sexual in nature (because "sex = interesting" for most of us, even me). Luckily, there are several stories with actual character development that pull us in.<br /><br />But, disappointingly, Krafft-Ebing's theories of sexuality went unchallenged, for the most part. I was hoping it would use stories to show how the imperfections of his archaic view of psychology which is still held by many to this day.<br /><br />So, in the end, what do you have? A detailed catalog of a few fetishes and orientations, with some mildly interesting stories showing the trials and tribulations of a few "sexual deviants" before they are cured. For most of the film, the film moves with the crawling speed (and mood) of a wake. And, as an obviously low budget film, the cinematography and acting are not exactly top tier. Although I *was* pleased with the music, costume and interior design.<br /><br />I felt this film's subject was right up my alley, and I still feel it's a below average film. It deserves a 3/10; a 4/10 if I were feeling extremely generous. I can't imagine anyone enjoying this if they didn't already have an interest in sexual fetishism.
I have three comments to make about this film, which I discovered hanging out forlornly in a lower shelf at Blockbuster. First off, it is interesting to see the approaches film makers take in trying to film essentially unfilmable works. Some have, as Kubrick did with "Lolita", gotten the original author to write a screenplay that is something like the original work. Of course that can't happen here; Kraft-Ebing is long dead. Some have used the premises of the original work as a launch point to go in a completely new, unrelated direction (the recent adaptation of "Tristram Shandy" comes to mind here). You can dumb it down - the film of "Slaughterhouse Five" is to my mind an example of that. Or you can simply take the format of the original and try to render it in cinematic vignettes. That would be the approach of Woody Allen's "Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex", and, arguably, this film. Upon consideration, it is probably the only thing one can do with a scholarly work like "Psychopathia Sexualis". The potential loss is that whatever cumulative point the original work had is obscured or destroyed. And so it is here.<br /><br />Point two is the cinematic style. Some would call it an "homage" to Murnau, Pabst, Carl Dreyer, etc., but I think it more crude than that. Its far too heavy handed and self-conscious to be effective for long. It is eventually just annoying.<br /><br />Point three is perhaps a less intellectual observation. How did the people responsible for this manage to make a film about wild sexual deviations and perversion that is so incredibly boring? I found the film impossible to pay attention to, and anyone who is not automatically drawn to depictions of sexual deviance will find it so as well. I don't want to be completely uncharitable and say the film is pointless, but I have to say that whatever point the film makers had is rather obscured by the nature of the source material, the overt copying of filmic styles, and the stubborn refusal to engage the audience on an emotional level (possibly for fear of being accused of titillation).<br /><br />The film is a dubious exercise from the start and doesn't really work for me, I'm sorry to say.
I gave this a four purely out of its historical context. It was considered lost for many years until it popped up out of the blue on Showtime in the early nineties.<br /><br />Moe is the straight man and Larry and Curly act as a duo. Spade Cooley has a couple of numbers. I guess it had something to do with working on a ranch. I'm not quite sure because the plot was so minimal nothing really sticks in my memory. I vaguely remember it being a western musical comedy. Even the Stooge's seem to be going through the motions. Overall there's nothing much really to recommend here.<br /><br />If you're not a Stooge fan then don't bother. If you are a Stooge fan, then stick with the shorts.
The Three Stooges in a feature length western comedy-musical? Perhaps "Rockin' in the Rockies" was meant to combine the Stooges comedy short with the western musical, in a matinée; if so, this was a pleasant way to break up a Saturday afternoon. Jay Kirby (as Rusty) is a handsome young hero; and, Mary Beth Hughes (as the blonde June) and Gladys Blake (as the brunette Betty) are pretty women. The Hoosier Hotshots are a harmonious group; their songs are quite tuneful; however, this is the 1940s, not the 1950s, so the film doesn't exactly "rock". There are a few laughs; but the Stooges' brand of humor is more subdued than usual. The talking horse is also underutilized. <br /><br />**** Rockin' in the Rockies (4/17/45) Vernon Keays ~ Moe Howard, Larry Fine, Curly Howard, Mary Beth Hughes
Having just seen this on TMC, it's fresh in my mind. It's obvious that while the stooges are featured stars, they don't really run the show. First, they're broken into 2 groups - Moe, as "Shorty" and Larry and Curly as a pair of vagrants, so there's not a whole lot of full team work. The love story that fuels the plot is uninteresting, the two ladies are the only ones with any acting ability, there's another group of musical stooges that are unfunny, unless you consider their attempts at being funny to be sadly buffoonish. The music is tiresome, they drive cars to the ranch and then depend on horses, the dorky western wear is silly, and there's an awful lot of the movie with no stooges on camera. By the way, this is obviously after Curley's first stroke, and his reduced energy level is clear. Vernon Dent appears early on in an uncredited role. I loved everything these guys ever did, including all the non-Curley stuff, but this little dogie is pretty lousy.
Not even the most ardent stooge fan could possibly like the movie, (I one of them) the stooges just aren't given any material to work with. It is really a shame too because this is the only feature length movie the stooges did with Curly, and this one effort by them is painfully unfunny, when it could have had great potential. Awful musical numbers don't help any either. The short they did with the same title has more laughs.
I am a huge Stooges fan but the one and only redeeming quality this movie has is that Curley is in it. Done long before he started drinking heavily he is his classic self in this (and Larry's not bad either). Moe's character is a straight part (mostly) and this movie would be better named "The Curley and Larry Movie". Not that any of the Stooges movies were very good (in my opinion), but as one commenter here said, how sad it is that this movie had real potential. The casting was good, it was well directed, filmed, and edited, but the story line tried to be about something serious with just some Stooges antics and musical numbers (which I guess were good back then) thrown in. The best thing you can do for yourself during this movie should you actually believe that it has to be better than mowing the lawn and taking out the trash (which is subject to debate) is to wait for Curley/Larry scenes and sleep or find something in the kitchen to eat during the rest of it.
Schlocky '70s horror films...ya gotta love 'em. In contrast to today's boring slasher flicks, these K-tel specials actually do something scary and do not resort to a tired formula.<br /><br />This is a B movie about the making of a B movie...that went horribly wrong. Faith Domergue (This Island Earth) stars as an over-the-hill, B movie queen making a movie about a series of grisly murders that befell a family in their home. Her boyfriend/director, who looks and acts like Gordon Jump with an attitude, is filming on location and on a tight schedule. The Ken doll co-star discovers a book of Tibetian chants that they work into the script to add "realism". Unfortunately, "realism" is something they could have done without.<br /><br />John Carradine, having long since given up looking for the 17th gland (The Unearthly), now eeks out a humble existence as the caretaker for the estate. He goes about his daily work, but always seems to run afoul of the director.<br /><br />The horror builds slowly; a dead cat here, John Carradine entering a grave there, finally culminating in seven, yes seven murders. (At least there's truth in advertising.) It's just sad that the ghoul didn't understand that there was a movie being made above him. How was poor Faith to know that those darn Tibetian chants would actually work? Face it, you just can't go around tugging on Satan's coat and expect him to take it lying down.<br /><br />Sterno says perform an autopsy on The House of Seven Corpses.
After reading the previous comments, I'm just glad that I wasn't the only person left confused, especially by the last 20 minutes. John Carradine is shown twice walking down into a grave and pulling the lid shut after him. I anxiously awaited some kind of explanation for this odd behavior...naturally I assumed he had something to do with the evil goings-on at the house, but since he got killed off by the first rising corpse (hereafter referred to as Zombie #1), these scenes made absolutely no sense. Please, if someone out there knows why Carradine kept climbing down into graves -- let the rest of us in on it!! <br /><br />All the action is confined to the last 20 minutes so I'll attempt a synopsis. John Carradine comes out to the cemetery to investigate, and is throttled by Zombie #1. So far, so good. But then we get the confusing scene where John Ireland and Jerry Strickler, out for a little moonlight filming in the graveyard, discover Carradine's dead body. Strickler repeatedly tries to push Ireland into the open grave from whence Zombie #1 had emerged, but Ireland succeeds in flipping him into the open grave instead, and PRESTO! Strickler comes out as Zombie #2! Yeah, I guess we can infer that Strickler was dead all-along (a witch?), but why he changed from normal appearance into rotting-flesh version by flying into Zombie #1's grave is never explained. (Considering how excruciatingly slow-moving these zombies are, I'd of thought he would have preferred to stay in his "normal" form until his business was concluded). This scene also brings a question to mind -- just who the heck IS Zombie #1 ??? We can only assume Zombie #1 is one of the original murder victims shown during the movie's opening credits, but who knows which one, nor why he has a particular grudge against the film crew.<br /><br />Anyway, after Ireland sees this transformation and runs away, we see the EXACT SAME SHOT of Zombie #2 shambling through the trees as we saw for Zombie #1. (This leads to momentary confusion over just how MANY zombies there really are). Then in best 1950's horror-movie fashion Ireland manages to trip while fleeing. He conveniently knocks his head on the small headstone of Faith Domergue's dead cat (wasn't that nice of John Carradine to chisel a tombstone for a cat that he barely knew?)<br /><br />Meanwhile, Zombie #1 has been wrecking havoc up at the house. He easily dispatches three film-crew members, then starts up the stairs. Faith Domergue hears him, and thinking it's lover John Ireland back from his night-shoot, goes out. Upon seeing it's only Zombie #1, she lets out a scream and retreats into a bedroom where she retrieves Ireland's revolver. While starlet Carole Wells is showering at this point and can't hear the scream, her co-star Charles Macauley (who's boozing and hamming it up at a mirror in his bedroom) does. Taking his sweet time (and only after some more swigs from his hip-flask) he finally decides to investigate. (One thing that strikes the viewer during the last quarter of this movie is how SLOW TO REACT the stars are to screams and gunshots). Domergue comes back out into the hallway armed and ready, but mistakes Macauley for Zombie #1 and shoots him six times! He does a nice acrobatic flip over the railing, then a horrified Domergue backs up, right into the waiting arms of Zombie #1.<br /><br />Carole Wells is by now out of her shower and drying off when she hears gunshots and Domergue's screams; she too feels no great urgency in running out to investigate. So during this time Zombie #1 has time to string Domergue up from the neck with a rope. Wells sees Domergue's hanging corpse and faints dead-away. The next time we see her is in a stream outside the house (???) -- but more on that later. Meantime, Ireland has recovered his senses and stumbles into the house where he discovers Zombie #1's bloody carnage. Though Ireland has just stumbled upon 3 murdered people he's more concerned that his film has been exposed and ruined! Mercifully for him (and the audience), Zombie #1 throws some movie equipment down on his head from the 2nd floor. That's the last we see of Zombie #1. At this point the audience is treated to a montage of all the deaths, showing that the new ones "mirror" the old ones. How profound.<br /><br />Zombie #2, meanwhile, has gotten near the house (remember, these zombies move as slow as molasses in January) where he happens to see Carole Wells floating by in a stream, and fishes her out. How did she get there? Did Zombie #1 carry her down, throw her in, then zoom back upstairs just in time to crush John Ireland? Apparently one of the original victims was drowned in the tub, so Wells has to drown too (but why outside in a stream, instead of in the tub, is never explained). Zombie #2 never makes it into the house himself (everyone's dead by now, anyways, thanks to Zombie #1) but instead he carries Carol Wells back to the graveyard. As the end credits flash on screen, we see Zombie #2 with his dead love still in his arms, descending into the open grave.<br /><br />The viewer is left wondering: Yes, but wasn't this Zombie #1's grave? Why is Zombie #2 taking up residence? And what if Zombie #1 comes along and wants to climb back in -- is Zombie #2 gonna let him, or will there be a zombie fight? Will the zombies share both the grave and the newly deceased Carole Wells? And what about now-dead John Carradine -- where's he gonna stay? After all, from the earlier scenes we know he's clearly at home in the grave... If this plot synopsis of the finale has left you confused, don't worry cause you're not alone.
...but I've seen better too.<br /><br />The story here is predictable--a film crew trying to film a horror movie in a place where murders occurred. Three guesses what happens. This isn't a total bomb--the cast is fairly good with pros John Ireland, Faith Domergue and John Carradine giving the best performances. It's reasonably well-made--for a low budget film. Just don't expect any nudity, swearing, blood OR gore (the film has a very mild PG rating). I was never totally bored--it's OK viewing on a quiet night. I saw it on video--it was a HORRIBLE print--very dark and some scenes were impossible to see. Still I didn't hate it and it does have a cool ending which surprised me--basically nothing happens up till then so it catches you off guard. Worth seeing but only if you're a horror film completest.
- A film crew is shooting a horror movie in an old, supposedly cursed house where over the years, seven people have mysteriously died. One of the crew finds an old book of spells and it looks like it would be perfect to use in some of the ritual scenes in their movie. It is reasoned that the spells in the book are better written than the script they are using. But as the book is read, the graveyard outside suddenly comes to life. Now the cast and crew are faced with real danger .<br /><br />- IMDb lists a running time of 90 minutes. For the first 60 of those minutes, nothing happens. Far too much time is spent on the movie within a movie. Are we supposed to be frightened by the horror movie that they are shooting? We already know that their movie isn't "real". These scares just don't work.<br /><br />- There are very few things to enjoy about The House of Seven Corpses. The acting is atrocious. Most of these "actors" would have trouble making a elementary school play. The score is terrible. It is very reminiscent of a 70s television series and provides no atmosphere. Speaking of atmosphere, other than a few moments at the end of the movie, there is none to speak of. Character logic is all but non-existent. Even in a movie, you expect characters to behave in a certain way. Here, I don't think I remember one scene where a character didn't choose the most illogical avenue available to them. And finally, there's those first 60 minutes of the movie that I've already mentioned. Can you say BORING? <br /><br />- I haven't rated The House of Seven Corpses any lower because of instances where the movie (probably by accident) actually works. My two favorite are the beginning and ending. The opening title sequence presents the deaths of the seven previous owners and may be the highlight of the movie. And, the ending scenes on the massive staircase as the zombie menaces the film crew are somewhat effective (what a ringing endorsement). Overall though, these moments aren't enough to make this a good movie.
Ostensibly this is a Z-grade DTV horror film.<br /><br />But with lines like :<br /><br />"It's easy to die, I have, many times"<br /><br />and<br /><br />"Why are you reading that book ?" "Because it makes the plot more interesting"<br /><br />and<br /><br />"You made your way in here, now you can make your way out again !" (after he leads a man into the basement)<br /><br />(and take a listen to what they chant)<br /><br />- it's not that clear what this film, made in the era known for post-structuralism, is actually about, or whether its just bad film-making. The acting is atrocious, but some actors I know, so are they hamming it up ?<br /><br />An old house, cut obviously with a contemporary dwelling, is the site of murders. A (bad) film is made in the grounds and the story replays again.
John Carradine, John Ireland, and Faith Domergue who as players all saw better days in better films got together for this Grade G horror film about life imitating art in a mysterious mansion.<br /><br />For Carradine it was in those last two decades of his career that he appeared in anything on the theory it was better to keep working no matter what you did and get those paychecks coming in. With that magnificent sonorous voice of his, Carradine was always in great demand for horror pictures and the man did not discriminate in the least in what he appeared in.<br /><br />He plays the caretaker of an old Gothic mansion who movie director John Ireland has rented for his latest low budget slasher film. It's even got a graveyard, but with a missing occupant. Faith Domergue is Ireland's aging star and Carole Wells is the young ingenue.<br /><br />In the last twenty minutes or so most of the cast winds up dead that aren't dead already. The script is so incoherent I'm still trying to figure out the point. I won't waste any more gray matter on it.
This is the type of movie where it actually hurts to acknowledge that it really, really sucks. I normally sanctify stuff like this! Early 70's grindhouse flicks with scrumptious sounding titles and a schlocky low-budget atmosphere usually ROCK. "House of Seven Corpses" appeared to dispose of even more trumps, since the cast is a gathering of great genre veterans (including John Carradine, John Ireland and Faith Domergue) and the filming locations (the titular house, the graveyard) are obviously very expedient for a gloomy tale of terror. The film opens with its absolute greatest and most hauntingly memorable sequences, though sadly enough they're the only ones that qualify as such. The credits are a splendid montage, complete with freakish color-effects and eerie freeze-frames, illustrating how the titular house received its notorious reputation. The last seven owners were mysteriously murdered here and the credits montage gleefully exhibits their final moments. Someone falls down the balcony screaming, a lady drowns in her bathtub, and another female body hangs dangling from the ceiling and four more macabre tableaux. Needless to say the house is cursed and the awkward behavior of t caretaker Mr. Price (Carradine) only fortify this reputation. In other words, the house forms the ideal turf for the acclaimed director Eric Hartman (John Ireland) to shoot his satanic horror film project. The film-within-film structure is what mainly causes "House of Seven Corpses" to be so boring and uneventful. A lot of movie-material is wasted on crew members putting films spools in the camera and dragging around cables or – even worse – Faith Domergue and Charles Macaulay portraying horridly intolerable actor stereotypes. The plot finally gets a little interesting (only a little, mind you) when one of the characters reads some lines from an occult book and accidentally awakes a rotting corpse in the backyard. The asthmatic (judging by the noises he produces) zombie slowly heads for the house and kills the entire movie crew, reminiscent of how the previous seven turned into corpses. After a running time of approximately 60 minutes, the film suddenly turns from humdrum into just plain weird and confusing. I'm still unsure whether the final twist has to do with the concept of reincarnation or just coincidence and all the remaining characters suddenly seem to go undergo vast mental transformations shortly before they die, for some reason. I honestly regret confirming "House of Seven Corpses" is a pretty dreadful movie. The locations and scenery are gloomy chilling, but not nearly used to full effect and there's a serious lack of gruesome bloodshed. Numerous low-budgeted 70's gems were stunningly gross, so the lack of financial means is no excuse and the film-within-film murders really don't count. Even the always-reliable veteran stars deliver hammy performances and Harrison's direction is completely uninspired. Not recommended, unless you think the zero cool four-and-a-half minute playing opening credits montage is worth the effort of purchasing a copy.
Well...now that I know where Rob Zombie stole the title for his "House of 1,000 Corpses" crapfest, I can now rest in peace. Nothing about the somnambulant performances or trite script would raise the dead in "The House of Seven Corpses," but a groovie ghoulie comes up from his plot (ha!) anyway, to kill the bloody amateurs making a low-rent horror flick in his former abode! In Hell House (sorry, I don't remember the actual name of the residence), a bunch of mysterious, unexplained deaths took place long ago; some, like arthritic Lurch stand-in John Carradine (whose small role provides the film's only worthwhile moments), attribute it to the supernatural; bellowing film director John Ireland dismisses it as superstitious hokum. The result comes across like "Satan's School for Girls" (catchy title; made-for-TV production values; intriguing plot) crossed with "Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things" (low-rent movie about low-rent movie makers who wake the dead); trouble is, it's nowhere near as entertaining or fun. "The House of Seven Corpses" is dead at frame one, and spends the rest of its 89 minutes going through rigor mortis, dragging us along for every aching second...
A director and his crew head out to the isolated Beal mansion, to make a low-budget horror film about the seven mysterious deaths of the Beal family that have occurred there in the last century. Even with warnings by the caretaker, the director pays no attention to the supposedly cursed house. One of the crew find a book titled Tibetan Book of the Dead, and use some of the passages from it for their script. But in doing so, when red they raise a ghoul from its grave.<br /><br />Boring, confusing and tacky all rolled up into one, equals this penniless midnight horror production. What feels like an eternity, it just never seems to get going or demonstrate anything effective from somewhat decent ideas. Even though director Paul Harrison's clunky, tensionless direction did construct a couple eerie, moody and atmospheric set-pieces. But laziness did set it early. The whole film within a film structure takes up most of the movie and in this time little to nothing happens of great interest. Nor is it fun. Think of Bob Clark's "Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things (1972)", and now we've got older actors in the part. However I found "Seven Corpses" to be inferior. The script early on has some cutting wit abound, before it ends up being drab, predictable and left with many unfulfilled possibilities. The cheap foundation involving limited sets didn't help matters either, but the mansion's dreary, dark appearance had a creepy air to it. Performances from a recognizable b-cast is mainly rigid. John Carradine in small part mainly lurks about. John Ireland plays a hot-headed director, Faith Domergue's washed-up actress demands attention and Charles Macaulay hams it up. The slow grinding premise is crossed between "Ten Little Indians" and your usual zombie set-up. However its not all that engaging, even with its occult and supernatural edge. Hell they even throw in some graveyard action, with no prevail. When the rotting ghoul makes its appearance… finally, but a bit late. It does get a little better, if very baffling. Just like the inspired opening, the ending is deliciously downbeat. To bad in between, it constantly drags. Continuity in many scenes comes across non-existent, and the death scenes are more exciting and bloodier (but indeed poorly executed) in the movie they're making, then what actually happens to them when the zombie appears. The generic music score flounders on with its shuddery, but frank Gothic cues, and the camera-work is blandly staged with a lack of imagination. Shoot and frame. Shoot and frame. Job done. That's a wrap.
So that´s what I called a bad, bad film... Poor acting, poor directing, terrible writing!!!! I just can´t stop laughing at some scenes, because the story is meaningless!!! Don´t waste your time watching this film... Well, I must recognize it has one or two good ideas but it´s sooooo badly writen...
Comes this heartwarming tale of hope. Hope that you'll never have to endure anything this awful again. *cough* Razzie award *cough*<br /><br />I disliked this movie because it was unfunny, predictable and inane. While watching I felt like I was in a psychology experiment to determine how low movie standards could get before people complained. When I requested my money back at the end of the movie I was informed that because I watched the whole thing 'I wasn't entitled to reimbursement'. I was told by the assistant manager that several people had complained and gotten refunds already though.<br /><br />The movie summary is pretty basic. The midget thief steals a diamond and the poses as a baby to elude police. Underneath this clever outline however, lies a repertoire of original, fresh and hilarious skits. Or not.<br /><br />Ask yourself the following: Do you like to see people getting hit by pans? Do you like fart jokes? Do you like to see midgets posing as babies threatened with a thermometer in the anus? Do you like tired racial jokes? Do you think babies say 'goo goo goo goo goo gaa gaa'? Do you drool?<br /><br />If you answered 'yes' to any of the above then this movie is definitely for you. Although it has been billed in some places as 'The Worst Movie of the Decade', there is probably a movie or 2 that are worse...somewhere. I can't say for sure. I gave this movie 2 stars because we all know a review with only one star would indicate bias on the part of the reviewer and then the review wouldn't be taken seriously. <br /><br />This lowbrow comedy is intended for a less intelligent audience and I cannot in good conscience recommend it to anyone. Save your money for something funny.<br /><br />Respect
This was the worst movie I've ever seen in theaters. It was just a compilation of recycled material. People getting hit in the head is not funny. People getting kicked is not funny. After the third time a guy got kicked in the balls not even the youngest audience member was laughing anymore. It just got tired fast.<br /><br />I went with my younger sister. She actually laughs out loud at King of the Hill but this cinematic masterpiece bored her. I'm not surprised. The story is pretty lame. A midget thief steals a big diamond in what was definitely the easiest heist in Hollywood history. Then he hides out with a family pretending to be a baby. I know it sounds exciting but that's the whole story. Say those two lines over and over for 1.5 hours and you'll get the picture There were predictable jokes galore. I really felt ripped off after seeing this. I wasn't expecting much and I was still disappointed. I wish Keenan would just hire some decent writers to write jokes and/or his next script. This was even worse than White Chicks if that is possible. I've seen high school plays that were better, and cheaper.<br /><br />There wasn't anything positive about this movie. I don't like my entertainment to be dumbed down.
Ripping this movie apart is like shooting fish in a barrel. It's too easy. So I'm going to challenge myself to acknowledge the positive aspects of Little Man. First, I'm impressed with the special effects. It really did look like Marlon Wayans' head was attached to the body of a little person. I never doubted it for a minute.<br /><br />Secondly, I loved some of the unexpected cameos. David Alan Grier played an annoying restaurant singer, and his renditions of "Havin' My Baby" and "Movin' On Up" were priceless. John Witherspoon, who, coincidentally, played Grier's father in 1992's Boomerang (if you remember, he "coordinated" the mushroom belt with the mushroom jacket) now plays Vanessa's father in Little Man. So that was fun.<br /><br />Beyond that, this movie is about as believable as White Chicks. How dumb is it when even the doctor can't tell that it's a 40-year-old man and not a baby? He's got a full set of teeth!!! How is it possible that no one seems to notice that it's not a baby? Little Man is so bad that there's a Rob Schneider cameo. And please, if you're stupid enough to waste $8 on this movie, at least do me a favor and DO NOT bring your children. This movie is way too sexual for small children (lots of jokes and innuendo about sex, going down, eating out, etc.), and I felt embarrassed for the parents who brought their kids to the screening I was forced to endure. If you insist on seeing an idiotic film, as least spare your children the pain and suffering.
I've now just realised that by watching this film I have lost valuable precious moments of my life I will never get back. Thsi film isn't just poor its dire. It reminded me of every stereotypical black sitcom ever made.<br /><br />I regret watching this film.<br /><br />Flixmedia reckons its a race issue, apparently "White" people don't like it because it doesn't have white actors. Mate, I think you'll find the reason why no one liked this was because watching paint dry is far more entertaining and funnier then this pile of drivel.<br /><br />Please stop making crap films
When I saw that IMDb users rated this movie the bottom 250 movies, I thought it was too harsh but little did I know that the low rating was absolutely correct.<br /><br />I am a big fan of the Wayans brothers. I loved their Scary Movie 2 and even enjoyed White Chicks. Little Man, however, had very few laughs and the jokes were stale.<br /><br />Obviously, the joke will revolve around Marlon Wayans, who plays a grown midget that was recently let out of prison. He and his partner, Tracy Morgan, steal a diamond meant for a gangster. Things go awry and the midget has to place the diamond with an unsuspecting couple played by Shawn Wayans and Kerry Washington. In order to get the diamond back, the midget pretends to be an abandoned baby left on the unsuspecting couples doorstep. Of course, he is taken in and the drama begins on quest for the diamond.<br /><br />The movie has some actors and actresses from Saturday Night Live like Molly Shannon and Rob Schneider as well from In Living Colour. All these talents, however, cannot help the poor script and the jokes which simply was not funny.<br /><br />The special effects to make Marlon Wayans to look like a midget was OK. I mean, it was not 100% believable but it was OK...nothing great. I just wish that the Wayans brothers had put more effort into developing a script with good jokes rather than trying to shore up their poor script with cameos from their famous comedic actors and actresses.<br /><br />Wait for it on cable or television. It really is not worth any amount of money.
...Ever. This is the bottom. I am not joking. The theater should've had a warning of some kind. 'Abandon all hope ye who enter here' would've been fitting.<br /><br />I don't have the words to describe accurately the hell that this movie is. Its debilitating stupidity even fails to amuse. This movie is definitely aimed at some of the slower turtles in the sandbox. The story was blatantly stolen from a 10 minute Bugs Bunny cartoon and then stretched like Mr. Fantastic to 90 excruciatingly painful minutes.<br /><br />I remember when the Wayans's were funny. I guess the pressures of Hollywood for them to produce produce produce are to blame for the poop that churns out at a consistent rate. I'm sad and offended that they think we are stupid enough to enjoy 90 minutes of kick-in-the-balls jokes with a thin plot based on a cartoon.<br /><br />I disliked nearly everything about this movie. I won't spoil anything but the baby is actually a midget with Marlon Wayans's face poorly superimposed over the midget's body. What I DID like was the ending. Not the movie's resolution, but the actual end where we all stood up and walked out.<br /><br />I gave this movie one star, but it clearly deserves less. I don't feel that the six minutes they spent writing the script is worth a star. This does deserve a Razzie and I pray to God it gets it.<br /><br />When are people going to learn; if you stop paying to see this idiocy they will stop pooping it out. Seppuku is a reasonable alternative to this film. Avoid it at all costs. You have been warned.
There was a Bugs Bunny cartoon titled "Baby Buggy Bunny" that was EXACTLY this plot. Baby-faced Finster robbed a bank and the money in the carriage rolled away and fell into Bug's rabbit hole. He dressed up as a baby to get into Bugg's hole to retrieve the money. The scene in "Little Man" where he's looking in the bathroom mirror shaving with a cigar in his mouth is straight from the cartoon. This was a hilarious 5-minute cartoon; not so much an entire movie. If you are really interested in this, buy the Bugs Bunny DVD. It's was much more original the first time (1954). Plus you'll get a lot more classic Bugs Bunny cartoons to boot!
There are some extremely talented black directors Spike Lee,Carl Franklin,Billy Dukes,Denzel and a host of others who bring well deserved credit to the film industry . Then there are the Wayans Brothers who at one time(15,years ago) had an extremely funny television show'In Living Colour' that launched the career of Jim Carrey amongst others . Now we have stupidity substituting for humour and gross out gags(toilet humour) as the standard operating procedure . People are not as stupid as those portrayed in 'Little Man' they couldn't possibly be . A baby with a full set of teeth and a tattoo is accepted as being only months old ? Baby comes with a five o'clock shadow that he shaves off . It is intimated that the baby has sex with his foster mother behind her husbands,Darryl's, back .Oh, yea that is just hilarious . As a master criminal 'Little Man' is the stupidest on planet earth . He stashes a stolen rock that is just huge in a woman's purse and then has to pursue her . Co-star Chazz Palminteri,why Chazz, offers the best line: "I'm surrounded by morons." Based, without credit, on a Chuck Jones cartoon, Baby Buggy Bunny . This is far too stupid to be even remotely funny . A clue as to how bad this film is Damon Wayans appeared on Jay Leno the other night,prior to the BAT awards and he did not,even mention this dreadful movie . When will Hollywood stop green lighting trash from the Wayans Brothers . When they get over their white mans guilt in all likelihood .
It's here. finally a movie comes out that I can honestly say is worse than Larry the cable guy: health inspector. Yet I'm willing to bet the the wayan's brothers(hilarious) will make more money than I ever make in my whole life on what is sure to be one of the top five worst films of all time, outside of my fifth grade outside the class re-enactment of romeo and Juliet. I mean really WHY would anyone ever ever see this movie unless they were paid to. The comedy is weak and all even remotely funny jokes from the flimsy plot were surely revealed in commercials. Final word is this movie was a terrible letdown for me. And the commercials looked so promising...
Like some of the other reviewers have alluded to previously, I'd like to know what moron actually read the script and went', "Yea!!! This is it. This is the next film we are going to green light!!" And whoever that person is, should have his or her head examined for actual brain activity. Because whoever is responsible for actually dishing out money to have this made after reading the script, well, I'd love to give you my email address and maybe you'd like to just give away some more money. This film is atrocious in every way.<br /><br />The Wayans are funny, at least they can be. They have made some good films and had some incredibly funny performances along the way. But in here, not only does the premise defy all logic, not only is the acting terrible, not only is the entire movie offensive from start to finish, not only is the direction as amateurish as you can find, but they actually want you to pay to see this film. Maybe if it was free...naaah, it would still be a waste of time.<br /><br />Usually I'd be inclined to write some long winded, detailed review about why this film is so bad, but just suffice to say that let my brevity do the talking. This is the lowest common denominator film making and it is about as unfunny as a heart attack.<br /><br />0/10..makes my top ten list of worst films of all time!
This movie is most possibly the worst movie I have ever see in my entire life! The plot is ridiculous and the whole "Little Man" crap is just so stupid. The entire movie is unrealistic and dumb. Let's face it, It's just a "Black Comedy". This is just a pointless horrible piece that should have never made it to theaters. The jokes are not funny and the acting is horrendous. Please, I beg of to you save your money than see this worthless piece of crap. I had to endure sitting through Little Man for an hour and a half wishing my eyes would bleed. I am disgusted that something like this would even be thought of! Who writes this crap? The actors have NO talent what so ever, how do these people get into Hollywood? They are making money off this junk!
This is exactly the reason why many people remain homeless . . . because stupid producers pay their money to make awful films like this instead of donating if they can bother!<br /><br />This film is even worse than white chicks! Little Man has a lame excuse for posing a character midget as a baby. Story is awful considering it was written by six people. The idea still wouldn't be too bad though, if it was original and not a rip-off of a cartoon episode. it has funny moments but some of them are way over-done and some are just stupid. The acting was very, very bad. So was the directing. Anyone involved in this film should be ashamed of themselves. it is racist and very offensive to midgets. I mean, instead of showing sympathy to them, the film-makers make fun of them! It really disgusts me how they do it. They see midgets being just like babies. And for a character who is a midget, pretending to be an abandoned baby just to get a diamond from a certain family. That is its lame excuse for showing something like that. It just was not worth it. Don't watch this film. It is a huge waste of time and money.
"Little Man", now on DVD, is a Wayans Brothers flop. It's the tale of a smaller than a midget criminal played by Marlon Wayans, who hides a diamond in a lady's purse after a heist. He and his partner Tracy Morgan cook up the genius plan to disguise Marlon as a baby and plant him at the lady's home. He then goes through all sorts of "Home Alone" or "Child's Play" like mayhem to get the jewel back and be treated like a baby. I was surprised by how low the humor was in this film. The jokes have been done in other places so many times, that they aren't cute or funny. I almost think the movie might have been funnier if they didn't use CGI and used the small actor who Marlon's face was pasted over. In watching the deleted scenes (minus CGI) this actor was funny in a Mini-me like way, but they chose a different route. A few cameos and Tracy Morgan make some funny scenes..Spend your rental fee $ on Borat if you want some real laughs these days.<br /><br />http://mcmusicnotes.blogspot.com
America. A land of freedom, of hope and of dreams. This is the nation that, since its independence, has striven to bring democracy, prosperity, and peace to the entire world, for the good of all mankind. There are times, however, when one cannot help but wish that the American's would just stay on their side of the Atlantic. <br /><br />This 'movie' (and I use that word with some reservations) evokes these feelings with an intense purity. This vision of hell follows the adventures of Calvin, a freakish jewel thief who was created by attaching the severed head of Marlon Wayan onto the body of a two foot-high dwarf. After inadvertently dropping a large diamond into the handbag of Vanessa, a career-woman who is reluctant to have children, Calvin realises that in order to recover the diamond he must ingratiate himself with her. So, as any normal man would, Calvin dresses himself up as a 2 year-old and parks himself upon the poor woman's doorstep, where he is discovered by Darryl, the broody husband of Vanessa. <br /><br />Darryl incongruously falls for Calvin's disguise despite the fact that the 'baby' has a full set of teeth, stubble, a tattoo, a knife-scar, and the sex-drive of a 16-year-old. Even more absurdly, Vanessa doesn't see past Calvin's baby-wear either and actually attempts to breastfeed the diminutive pervert. This wretched assault upon the soul of mankind attempts, and fails, to find humour in rape, scatology, sexual assault, and paedophilia, however, in a dishonest attempt to transform itself into a piece of 'family-entertainment' the Wayan brothers stir in a sickening amount of sentiment and flawed morality. <br /><br />The brothers dim attempt a Freudian rehabilitation of their thieving rapist by revealing that he "had a bad father". Repeatedly hitting Darryl in the crotch enables Calvin to develop the loving father-son relationship that both he and Darryl have always wished for. As if this wasn't ridiculous enough, Calvin's attempts to sexually assault Vanessa somehow convince her that it is selfish for a woman to indulge herself with a successful career, and that instead she should spend her life playing the role of the housebound little-woman, who spends her time alternatively squeezing out babies and cooking for her husband. <br /><br />In this movie the Wayan brothers have mixed their crass and twisted form of humour together with the clichéd sentimentality that has infected much of Hollywood's recent body of work. Additionally, they are endemic of the current generation of black comedians who are responsible for transforming African-American humour into a poor and wretched shadow of itself that over-indulges in fart-jokes and crude sexual gags. By rights these two should be legally barred from picking up anything even remotely resembling a camera ever again. <br /><br />Unfortunately the current artistic and moral bankruptcy of American cinema means that by this time next month they will undoubtedly have filmed two sequels and be making millions of dollars from tacky merchandising deals.
What's the point of reviewing a movie like this? It's painfully and embarrassingly bad, not even in a way that allows you to make fun of it.<br /><br />Movies like "Little Man" depress me. They represent film at its most disposable. This movie was made for a bunch of 18-24 year old dipsh*t frat boys who the studio was hoping would come out and see it on opening night before word leaked out about how bad it was, so that the film could quickly recoup its investment.<br /><br />A hundred other filmmakers with great ideas probably couldn't get their films made because resources were going toward making this puddle of vomit.<br /><br />Grade: F
I was not impressed about this film especially for the fact that I went to the cinema with my family in good faith to see a film which was certificate rated 12A here in the UK. To my dismay, this film was full of embarrassing sexual jokes. (Which is not a problem to me as an adult, but not good for watching with children). This film at times was very crude at times with fart jokes, getting hit in the groin etc... and for the most part of the film not very funny.<br /><br />The premise of the film is that Calvin Sims who is a 2inch midget, gets out of jail and steals a giant sized diamond but is then forced to put it in a womens handbag. So the rest of the movie sees him passing himself off as an abandoned baby, getting into this womens house so he can get this diamond back.<br /><br />Up until now, I have enjoyed most of the output from the Wayans Brothers - but this film is certainly taking the biscuit.<br /><br />A Bit of good advice - wait till it comes on TV or Cable
I can catogoricaly and unequivocally say that in all my 51 years on this planet that is the worse (supposibly children's) film i have ever seen in my life.<br /><br />I took my three grand children to see it and even they were struggling to raise a smile during the all tortuous 90 mins. The sexual indendoes i will leave for another day but they were as tasteless as the film. They should pay YOU to watch it not you pay them. It's truly truly awful, there is no other way to describe it. The people that made this film should be brought to task for taking money under false pretences.<br /><br />Aplogise for my spelling mistakes but i am so upset that it spoilt the time i had with my grandchildren Regards, Stephen
I think its pretty safe to say that this is the worst film ever made, When I saw the trailer on TV i knew right from second 1 that this would be a piece of **** and it would be best to avoid it, but I somehow got dragged into seeing this by some friends, I walked into the cinema with low expectations but i was hoping there would be a couple of cheap laughs to keep me awake during this film. The so-called "jokes" in this film bring a cringe to the face, they are mostly comprised of people taking hits to the face and balls, the baby looking weird and acting like a horny gangsta and the typical race jokes we see so often in todays garbage comedies. The film is obvious and the story is not only impossible to believe but also predictable and dull. The characters are extremely annoying and heavily stereotyped. I never want to have to see this **** film again, I'd rather take a bullet to the foot than be exposed to this piece of fuckwood ever again. If anyone I see says they liked it i will physically punch them in the face
So, has it really come to this? Are we, as consenting adults, to blame for the next generation of cinema-goers lack of cinematic understanding and celluloid capability? Concerning the Wayans and Co. latest addition to the moving pictures scenario; Little Man. This United Kingdom P.G. (Parental Guidance), anyone under the age of twelve must be accompanied by a responsible adult, certificated movie, is the epitome of what has now developed into the worse case of dumbing down since cigarettes were "wiped out" from pictures of movie icons of the 1950's.<br /><br />The predominantly under twelve's audience here who, some without grown up supervision too, sat there, obediently, taking it all in, oblivious to their subject and the partly grown up features that Little Man portrays, in part at least too. Movies, in general, can do better than this poor attempt, while this nonsense is getting them in while they are still young and fresh, the biggest fear for the future of Cinema is that a child's ignorance just might carry on through to a grown up bliss. Cinema deserves more than this, and so do its ever growing, and in the literal sense too, audiences, this blatant cash cow feeds on the ever-impressionable minds of the young.<br /><br />There is no Cinema experience here, no open eyed wonder, no awe-inspiring respect to the magic of movies'. There is nothing but bewilderment and contempt, for the lack of substance, originality and its delivery of mind less tedium and parody of everything that is so now ultimately wrong with the Hollywood machine, for the sake of a quick buck, we must endure our future cinema audiences to the likes of this archetypal disaster movie.<br /><br />Will this have the likes of Hitchcock, Fassbinder, Leone, Kubrick and Schaffner reeling in their graves? Money they all liked, no doubt, but talent and exuberance for perfection and quality, and to a vast degree, respect for their profession and audience, they were never short off. We are seeing, once again, with the works of the Wayans clan another cliché of bad taste, while the likes of White Chicks (2004) were in no doubt a stab at the bourgeoisie of American society. The irony here is that the two leading protagonists, played yet again, by the Wayans brothers, are so much undercover, that all recognition is non-existent, this makes for a better movie too, and it is the actor Terry Crews that gives White Chicks its substance and personality, not the Wayans.<br /><br />Yet again, with their pastiche of 1970's Blaxploitation movies, as with the 1988 movie I'm Gonna Git You Sucka, this to can be seen as a comical and amusing movie, with heavy weights as Isaac Hayes, Jim Brown, Bernie Casey and the gorgeous actress Ja'net Du Bois. The point being, that Little Man has absolutely no persona of any kind what so ever, he is shallow and narcissistic, with no appreciation or value toward his followers, he quickly dives in takes your money and before we know it, has hidden himself within the cogs of commercialism. There is no recognisable effort as to where our money has been spent, after Scary Movie (2000), things could only have gone up, but alas they did not, no great pondering of artistic value and no doubt that the instalment from these intrepid movie moguls' next movies shall be straight to video, one can only hope.<br /><br />The Wayans seem to have created a movie genre all by themselves, to a certain extent; they have bludgeoned to death the movie parody, they have watered down each and every avenue and with their inevitable style. They have slowly destroyed the reputation of the last one hundred years that Cinema have given us, may the ghosts of movies past be ever so humble in their judgement, as their growing audiences, so far, seem to be, for when the bubble bursts, may they be as understanding too.
Since this picture is classified a "pure entertainment" work and since there are already many comments on it, I'd like hereby to address something relevant to the abuse of humour. We can see that Marlon Wayans is playing the joker role in this film. Certainly as long as he has been involved in the casting job, he has always been acting as a little man-an actor can change his customary dress but can hardly change his physical appearance-and the latter one can be an advantage when necessary. However far away from what I expected, I saw an image very disguising, pretending to expose different aspects of the baby life by mistake of a forty-year- old criminal. And with a ridiculous happy ending. So what is the point? Many elements are mixed up, some principal ones are violence, sex and criminal activities, amongst which the story is badly composed and to some extent, lack common sense: where is Vanessa when the peace of her house is violated and her husband's life being pursued? In addition the diamond is even bigger than the world's No.1 Cullinan! But the most sickening facet is the continuous attempt to make up the little man as a superman by showing his physical weak points. And they call it humour. A diamond is precious, hard and fragile; it cannot be cut by any other material but only be conquered by the hot blood of a male goat. Hence it's no more a diamond but pieces of debris.
When watching little man , you'll spend its running time trying to figure out its many plot holes . And thats not a good sign because this film is supposed to be a comedy ! Your supposed to be laughing at it !! But will you ? Probably not. <br /><br />The main problem with little man is its concept- its far too ridiculous to accept (even as a cartoonish comedy ), so when the loud , laboured and over the top jokes kick in , they make the whole thing seem ten times stupider than it already is.<br /><br />"But its a comedy " some of you might be screaming. Thats true but thats no excuse for such a dumb plot.I mean come on , think about it if you saw a baby with A GROWN MANS FACE , wouldn't you be the least bit suspicious? And if calvin wanted to hide the diamond so badly, why didn't he put it in a nearby shelf instead of a random womans hand bag? And how can a qualified doctor NOT recognise that calvin is a grown man ? i mean seriously...what ? <br /><br />"Its not about the plot , its about the laughs" you might be screaming . Well heres the thing see, there are hardly any laughs in little man and that just make the dumb ass plot stand out all the more. <br /><br />If you really want to watch a wayans brothers comedy with a belief suspending plot, stick to white chicks because at least that had a few decent laughs.What ever you do steer clear of little man.
This piece of crap, since I can't call it a movie, can be summed up by the following.<br /><br />-Stereotypical black criminal with black midget partner get in trouble -Black Midget pretends to be a baby with a fully developed adult face, body hair and genitalia -Black midget is mistaken(somehow) by man and woman who happen to want a baby -Black midget than goes on to commit acts of physical and sexual violence, demean white people wherever he sees them, and commit more crimes -Happy Ending<br /><br />Honestly, it could have been a good satire if it hadn't been directed so shallowly and had such talentless bastards star in it.
'SherryBaby' is quite a painful and sordid melodrama set in Jersey, the story of a young mother who is out of jail on probe after a drugs-related conviction and fights to stay clean, to find a place for herself in life and especially to win back the love of her kid daughter who is being taken care by her brother's family. The only reason the film is to be watched is Maggie Gyllenhaal, an actress at the top of her career, who fits very well in the role and carries the whole film on her shoulders. This is not enough however, as the story line is too simplistic and expected, and the emotional emphasis is put on the wrong place - I kept asking myself all over the picture whether I am supposed to be sorry about the ex and maybe future drug addicted mother as the director and script-writer wanted, or about the innocent kid who is in the middle. Even Maggie Gyllenhaal's acting could not convince me that I should not care more about the kid.
This is a simple tale but it feels very manipulative. It lacks pathos for it does not leave a room for imagination or a personal thought or time for reflection.<br /><br />The animation is well done but I feel like it is too presentational. I would have preferred more images from behind, more space in the background and maybe then this would not feel so kitsch to me.<br /><br />But for a Hollywood style film it works OK but it is very derivative of Aardman films and this is bothering to me. Perhaps a longer film will test if this maker can do without the voice-over.<br /><br />I think the voice over is too glib.
I can see the guys doing the budget preparation for this flick. "Well lets see now, we spend 50% getting Dirk Benidict, cause Battle Star Galactic and the A-Team were cool. The we spend 40% making a Demon Costume, never mind that the Demon is supposed to be incorporeal in the script. And we spend the rest making the movie." This was pretty bad and VERY cliche.... Have a loved one present when watching (or bring a good book)
I gave it a 2 instead of a 1 because I think "The Wild Women of Wongo" is worse. This is an exercise in patience. It's like having your teeth cleaned by a bad dental hygienist. There's no plot. There's no logic. There is certainly no acting (although the shark has some quality dialogue). We don't wonder about anything. We don't know how people got where they got. It's always amazing to me how things like this even get released. I agree with the previous writer that it isn't even funny bad. I know. It's about 90 minutes long and that will fill up about that much space on a DVD collection. It's like a paperweight. Or a bad painting you bought at a starving artists' sale. It covers the crack in the wall.
This is one really bad movie. I've racked my brain and I cannot come up with one positive comment to make. The acting is atrocious. I've seen more believable performances on cable access. The plot is ridiculous. Stolen diamonds, secret recordings of the President, and a shark that attacks anything that gets near it should have made for cheesy fun at the worst. Night of the Sharks isn't even so bad it's good. The dialogue sounds and is delivered as if it were written seconds before it's filmed. And to top it off, Night of the Sharks has the worst soundtrack I've ever heard. I'm surprised my ears didn't start bleeding from the 80s techno synthesized sounds that someone actually bothered to record.<br /><br />From everything I've read, the Italian film industry was dead by 1987. Night of the Sharks is like a final nail in the coffin.
-SPOILES- Lame south of the border adventure movie that has something to do with the blackmail of a big cooperate executive Rosenlski the president of Unasco Inc. by on the lamb beachcomber David Ziegler who's living the life of Reilly, or Ziegler, in his beach house in Cancun Mexico.Having this CD, that he gave to his brother James, that has three years of phone conversations between Rosenlski and the President of the United States involved in criminal deals. This CD has given David an edge over the international mobsters who are after him. <br /><br />The fact that James get's a little greedy by trying to shake down Rosenlski for 2 million in diamonds not only cost him his life but put David in danger of losing his as well. Ropsenlski want's to negotiate with David for the CD by getting his ex-wife Liz to talk to him about giving it up, Rosnelski made a deal to pay off her debts if she comes through. David is later killed by Rosenliski's Mexican hit-man Tony, with the help of a great white shark, who just doesn't go for all this peaceful dealings on his boss' part. <br /><br />Tony had taken the CD that Liz left for his boss at a local hotel safe and now want's to murder James, like he did David, and at the same time keep the CD to have something over Rosenlski.<br /><br />David who had secretly hidden the diamonds that James had on him at the time of his murder is now the target of Tony and his men to shut him up for good. David also wants to take the diamonds and at the same time give his boss Rosenlski the impression that the CD that David had is lost but use it later, without Rosenlski knowing who's behind it,to blackmail him. <br /><br />The movie "Night of the Sharks" has a number of shark attacks in it with this huge one-eyed white shark who ends up taking out about a half dozen of the cast members including Tony. David who's a firm believer in gun-control uses knives high explosives and Molotov cocktails, as well as his fists, to take out the entire Tony crew. Even the killer shark is finished off by Tony but with a hunting knife, not a gun. When it came to using firearms to save his friend and sidekick Paco a girlfriend Juanita and his priest Father Mattia lives from Tony and his gang guns were a no-no with David; he was more of a knife and spear man then anything else. <br /><br />The ending of the movie was about as predictable as you can make it with David thought to be killed by the one-eyed shark later pops up out of the crowd,after Rosenlski was convinced that he's dead and leaves the village. David continues his life as a free living and loving beachcomber with no one looking to kill him and about two million dollars richer. to David's credit he had his friend Paco give Rosenski back his CD but under the conditions that if anything happened to him his cousin, who Rosenlski doesn't know who and where he is, will shoot his big mouth off and let the whole world know about his dirty and criminal dealings.
What's to like about this movie???<br /><br />It is in colour! <br /><br />It has some impressive underwater photography! <br /><br />It has a rhythmic musical score in the background that works well at times! <br /><br />So 3 out of 10! <br /><br />Sometimes the music is speeded up! Especially when the shark or the baddies are about to move in! <br /><br />Sometimes it is slowed! As if to convey to the audience it's about to be time for sympathy! <br /><br />As another one bites the dust! As if in a "spagetti Western" this has much similarity to! <br /><br />It's not that the Italians can't produce quality productions! There was a series of TV movies with a heading like "Octopus" numbered about 1 to 7, screened on SBS TV in Australia in the 1990s about mafia-type conflicts! And they were excellent! But alas, you won't find it here!!!<br /><br />I assumed it was made about 1960s! Sadly it was 20 years out of date, as evidenced by a funeral scene near the end! <br /><br />Then there was the razor-sharp bite of the speedy shark that makes for a red dust repeatedly emerging in the bluish waters! <br /><br />Amidst it all, either in bar-room brawl or in observing the latest sea-side bloody demolition by the relentlessly hungry shark, the mate of the hero looks on through his glasses of little concern, as if he too was bored in his relentless role amidst a lack of much evidence of plot or anyone's character development! <br /><br />At least the hero indicates a fleeting concern belatedly, for his ex-wife! <br /><br />But of course, even if the music fails to awaken our realisation, we have the sinister sound in the baddies' voices, as if to nudge us that another dark deed is about to emerge! <br /><br />And near the end, someone thought of a twist! Just when we thought it was all totally predictable! But stay tuned, folks, for you may find another twist! If you are watching closely! To, more or less, warm your heart! <br /><br />Follow the advice of the hero, and have a few beers along the way! It'll make your viewing of "Night of the Sharks" more enjoyable! <br /><br />Then you'll be ready for something like a "007" movie to ease your way back into reality when this is over!!!
Despite some moments in heavy rain, an encounter with a drunk as well as an organ grinder with a gypsy and a monkey, and a stay in a sanitarium, this Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle silent comedy short with support from Buster Keaton and Al St. John is only fitfully amusing though there is a quite funny sequence of Arbuckle in drag flirting with Buster that's the ultimate in "meet cute" scenes especially since it's one of the few times we see The Great Stone Face smile and laugh in the movies! Also, many scenes seem to have been jump cut edited possibly because of overuse of the film stock. Still, if you're an Arbuckle or Keaton completist, Good Night, Nurse! is certainly worth a look.
This isn't one of Arbuckle's or Keaton's better films, that's for sure. Fatty's wife is tired of all his heavy drinking, so she takes him to a sanitarium where a psychiatrist (Keaton) claims to have a guaranteed cure! Well, once there, Arbuckle accidentally eats a thermometer and is taken to surgery. Then, he escapes and is chased about the place where he meets a cute girl who also wants to escape. Finally, despite staff chasing them about, they escape at which point it becomes apparent that the girl is crazy and Arbuckle is soon recaptured. However, he awakens and everything AFTER the surgery has all been a dream--there was no sexy crazy girl and Dr. Keaton isn't as big an incompetent as he seemed in the dream.<br /><br />A lack of humor is the biggest problem with the film. Sure, making fun of mentally ill people is pretty low, but in its day it was guaranteed laughs. I'd laugh, too, if there was just something funny to respond to! A lot of energy and that's all.<br /><br />FYI--during one of the chase sequences, Fatty wonders into a race for men over 200 pounds (wow, what are the odds of that?). And, shortly after this, he backs into a post on which the number 5 was just freshly painted. As a result, the five is now on the back of Fatty's shirt and he looks like a regular participant. HOWEVER, the number SHOULD have appeared backwards on Fatty's shirt but came out front-ways--a mistake, as they should have realized the mirror image would have been a backwards 5.
Man oh man! What a piece of crummy film-making! But this is a guilty pleasure from my childhood even though I hate to admit it. They showed this movie on my basic cable system all the time. Where I grew up in San Jose, California (right on the border of Cupertino) we had this thing called The G Channel on our cable system. And they basically showed the same one movie over and over and over again. Wanda Nevada was one of those movies. I fell in lust and love with the young Brooke Shields and loved her dopey adventures in the Grand Canyon in the 1940s. The script makes almost no sense, the direction is poor, the few highlights are that Henry Fonda makes an appearance, a lot of dialog that's so bad it's good and a nice Carole King song played over the end credits. Maybe you have to be stoned to truly enjoy this flick. And hey, everybody knows there ain't no gold in the Grand Canyon!
Peter Fonda is so intentionally enervated as an actor that his lachrymose line-readings cancel out any irony or humor in the dialogue. He trades sassy barbs and non-witty repartee with Brooke Shields as if he were a wooden block with receding hair; even his smaller touches (like fingering a non-existent mustache on his grizzled face) don't reveal a character so much as an unsure actor being directed by himself, an unsure filmmaker. In the Southwest circa 1950, a poor gambler (not above a little cheating) wins an orphaned, would-be teen Lolita in a botched poker game; after getting hold of a treasure map promising gold in the Grand Canyon, the bickering twosome become prospectors. Some lovely vistas, and an odd but interesting cameo by Henry Fonda as a grizzled canyon man, are the sole compensations in fatigued comedy-drama, with the two leads being trailed by cartoonish killers who will stop at nothing until they get their hands on that map. Shields is very pretty, but--although the camera loves her pouty, glossy beauty--she has no screen presence (and her tinny voice has no range whatsoever); every time she opens her mouth, one is inclined to either cringe or duck. *1/2 from ****
Wanda Nevada is a pubescent fantasy movie using circa 1979 ideas of what constitutes illicit romance for 13 year old girls. Script, pacing, and direction are uniformly awful. Action sequences defy belief. Characters speak with the simplified diction one usually finds in films aimed at the under 10 set, but also includes multiple sexual references involving Shields' character as well as graphic deaths. <br /><br />The movie wants to be a comedy on some level but is never funny, an adventure picture but plot and action are insipid, and a children's movie but introduces pedophilia and child rape as real possibilities. It also wants to be a buddy picture, a coming of age picture, a ghost movie, an Indian spiritual movie, a travelogue, and a western. The overall affect is of massive stupidity with a nasty twist. Wanda Nevada is a complete waste of time unless you want to see a good many terrific shots of the Grand Canyon. That it manages to do just fine.
Any movie in which Brooke Shields out-acts a Fonda is going to be both an anomaly and a horror. Shields actually is only bad because she's youthful, inexperienced, and clearly not well directed by her co-star. Peter Fonda is bad because, well, because he's bad. I liked him in Ulee's Gold, years later, but Lord above, he's awful here. Not that anyone else is good. There's not a single performance (outside Henry Fonda's delightful cameo) that is even passable. I've never seen a movie with this many bad performances. In the case of Luke Askew, the chief villain, it's clear this is because of poor dialogue and direction, as he's done good work in the past. But his partner, played by Ted Markland, is an embarrassing ham. The writing is just bloody awful, and the actors cannot be faulted for the terrible things they have to say. But they say them so badly! The editing and direction are worse than pedestrian. Shots are held way too long for no dramatic reason, or cut off before the impact of the scene can be realized. This picture was far worse than I'd imagined and would have been utterly forgotten (and probably never even made) without the participation of a couple of famous names. One bright spot: the cinematography in the Grand Canyon is exquisite, capturing the beauty of that area in a way even big-screen Imax productions have not quite done so well. And finally: either this is a bad version of Paper Moon, with a lovable pair of father-daughter types, or it's a bad version of Pretty Baby, with a considerably more icky romantic relationship between a forty-something and a 13-year-old. It suggests more of the latter than the former, and thus is pretty disturbing.
Beaudray Demerille(a weak Peter Fonda, who also directed), an aging gambler, wins young teen Wanda "Nevada"(pretty, but not talented Brooke Shields) in a poker game. Together the unlikely pair(of course)embark on a search for Indian gold in the Grand Canyon.<br /><br />That's the story and there really is no need to search for a deeper meaning in it. It just isn't there. The acting is very weak too, which was quite a surprise given the fact that Peter Fonda was in the lead.<br /><br />If you're looking for something interesting in this film, take a look at the nice scenery and some good looks of a young Brooke Shields. Her character however is so irritating(especially at the beginning)and dumb, that she never quite comes off as sexy or appealing. Too bad, but, given the story, I doubt anything more could be made of this. I wonder why Peter Fonda directed and starred in this film. He must have even talked his father(Henry Fonda)into a (useless) cameo in this ridiculous mess. Unfortunately, this was their only film together. Couldn't Henry be in EASY RIDER for example? 3/10
I rented this movie because it falls under the genres of "romance" and "western" with some Grand Canyon scenery thrown in. But if you're expecting a typical wholesome romantic western, forget it. This movie is pure trash! The romance is between a YOUNG GIRL who has not even gone through puberty and a MIDDLE-AGED MAN! The child is also lusted after by other leering men. It's sickening.<br /><br />Peter Fonda is portrayed as being virtuous by trying to resist his attraction to Brooke Shields, and her character is mostly the one that pursues the relationship. He tries to shoo her off at first but eventually he gives in and they drive off as a happy, loving couple. It's revolting.<br /><br />I don't see how this movie could appeal to anyone except pedophiles.
Quite average even by Monogram standards, this mystery (a remake of The Sphinx) has an oddball plot which is not unraveled to much effect -- you'll see through it after about ten minutes. The two leads have some nice breezy dialog at the outset, but John Hamilton is hopelessly dull as the villain (perfectly cast Lionel Atwill originated the role) and Warren Hymer's nitwit shtick is pretty annoying. However, it's worth sitting through for a five-minute appearance by the incomparable Mantan Moreland as Nicodemus the janitor, who gets the better of the defense attorney during a hilarious courtroom appearance. You've got to hand it to Bill "One-Take" Beaudine; he wasn't much of a director, but he would always punch up a routine programmer with some goofy vaudeville.
I just came back from "El Otro" playing here in Buenos Aires and I have to say I was very disappointed. The film is very slow moving (don't get me wrong, I enjoy slow moving films!), slow to the point of driving you crazy. All you hear is Julio Chavez breathing heavily throughout the whole film. This is a poorly made film, but more importantly, it is a film without a lick of inspiration, I felt nothing for the story or its characters.<br /><br />"El Otro" was made only for the sake of making a film... making it forgetful. I would advise you to pass on this one, if you want to see good Argentinian films, look for films by Sorin.
Guy walking around without motive... I will never get those two hours of my life back. The guy kept on assuming identities and cheating on his pregnant wife. What was I thinking? How did this win a price anywhere? I understood he loved his father but other than that the movie was completely senseless to me. What was the purpose of walking so much and going to the funeral of a stranger for no apparent reason. How did this enrich his life??? Why did we have to see the dying old lady on her underwear????!!! Why???!!!!<br /><br />I though it would be deep or about something more interesting. I do not recommend the movie even to leave on while sleeping...
I just finished watching "El Otro". I have always taken my hat off to Julio Chavez's performances, as he is a great actor, but this movie is really depressing and slow. I guess that it would have been even worse if it wasn't for Julio. Anyways, this is definitely a film that you will never understand if you are not from Argentina, and even if you are, I would advise you not to rent this movie in order to have a nice time with your girlfriend, boyfriend, family or friends... it is really depressing and incredibly slow, and the plot does not make a lot of sense neither. Probably the director wanted to show the fragility of the human life, but what he does is bore and impress the audience with scenes that shock you a little bit. It gives you something to think about, but not in a good way. Overall, I definitely didn't like this movie.
The title should have been "The walker". That was only he did walk.<br /><br />There was nothing on the movie that was good. The description of the movie doesn't really comply with the plot.<br /><br />The only thing that I can get from the movie is that he was a good son, but a low life terrible person.<br /><br />I'm sorry that I expend my money and time, on this movie. I saw people leaving the theater in the middle of the movie. I stayed hoping that it will better....what a mistake. I got worse.<br /><br />If there is a suggestion that I can make to he producer is to re-direct his life to another field, because making movies is definitely no his cup of tea
The title should have been the walker. The guy expend 90% of the movie walking. He doesn't know what he wants, or what he is. Go through life stealing peoples identity for nothing. He gets no benefit, no money, nothing pretending to be another person.<br /><br />No body was able to understand why he was pretending to be somebody else.<br /><br />The only thing that was clear in this movie is that he love his father and was a good son. But the rest was crap.<br /><br />May be director is a looser that would like to be somebody else. But what he really should do is to get a real job, because after his movie, I don't think he has a chance to make as a movie producer.
This movie could have been so much better, especially considering the talent. Larenz Tate's portrayal of Frankie Lymon was not good, especially in musical performances. He doesn't lip sync well and his stage mannerisms are Larenz Tate, when he should have been Frankie Lymon. The portrayal of the women as a bunch of gold diggers has Hollywood written all over it. The powers that be obviously pushed it, but it only made the characters more unrealistic. The positives of the movie were Miguel Nunez's portrayal of Little Richard, and the cameo of Little Richard himself. Lela Rochon is eye candy, as usual, even in a conservative role. It's too bad that the talents of Halle Berry and Vivica A. Fox were wasted. The whole Frankie Lymon saga was fascinating in real life. Too bad this film was a wasted opportunity.
After reading all of the rave reviews about this film and a few that give it a so-so. I finally decided to throw in my no cents worth. I agree with most on the point that if it hadn't been for Lauren Lewis and Chris Ferry it would have been a disaster. Filmed in Mariette OH. just north of Dogpatch where all the real talent fled south down I-77 years ago, at least as far as a tank of gas would allow. I did get a chuckle from reviewers who subtly claim that they cerebrate a little better than most by claiming they followed the plot without an inkling of confusion. This wee tale by the Brothers Crook is like an old record with a skip in it. As an American I understand the difficulties Ind film artists have to face. A trip to Romania would have wiped out the budget for sure. Lets face it this whole film was a loop de loop of Claire in the gas station, Claire on the side of the road, Claire under the bleachers, Claire in the house, Claire in the cornfield, Claire at school. Claire here and Claire there. It almost became monotonous and would have if she had not been the best actor in the cast. Josh and Jeff have to make a living but don't write a two page script and turn it into an hour,twenty flick. Before writing another screenplay about dreaming ghosts watch an episode or two of Ghost Whisperer or something and get a little background. All of the cast except the above mentioned and a couple of others were engaged in their first and last film. Also, there is an appearance by co-director Jeff as he is in all his films. Just like Alfred Hitchcock, eh? One thing the film had going for it is that the cameraman seemed to have a fixation on Lauren Lewis' derrière. Well, with all sarcasm now satisfied I still recommend the film for the horror buff just to see this young actress in the formative time of her career (I hope)and that Chris Ferry has established himself as a villain worth watching.
Salvage is the worst so called horror film I've ever seen. There is nothing remotely horrific about it. It doesn't deserve to be in a genre so fine. First of all i don't see how so many people can think this piece of crap such a great movie. If I wrote something as boring and utterly ridiculous as this i would be laughed at and too embarrassed to subject others to the stupidity of it. Second: the acting is terrible and the lead actress is excruciatingly ugly. Third: the story sucks, its been used before, and the excuse that its a cheap movie is no excuse. Read the summery on the back of the case, it reveals the whole story. I do not recommend that you watch this movie unless you have 80 minutes to waste on something that will leave you regretting that you watched it. I feel really bad for those Crooks and the irony of their name. All hail Anthony Perkins!!!!!!!!!
Salvage: 4 out of 10. Groundhog Day meets a Christian Coalition horror film. Okay maybe it's not that bad. But it is close.<br /><br />Claire (played by Alicia Silverstonesque Lauren Currie Lewis) is stalked and possibly killed by a serial killer (Chris Ferry who is quite menacing and brutal). I say possibly because she wakes up and it was all a dream….. Or was it? (Cue music)<br /><br />The basic problem with the film is that these fifteen minutes of plot (Done quite well the first time) is repeated over and over again. And since Claire wakes up every time and every scene is clearly a dream or alternate reality I just stopped caring what happened to Claire and started wondering what lame twist at the end was going to pull this together.<br /><br />I was rooting for a séance (which honestly would have made more sense) but instead got one of those too obvious by half surprise endings (Think the Village or Below) Yup the film collapses faster than Donnie Darko's directors cut. All the great twist endings in horror movies The Sixth Sense, the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Happy Birthday to Me worked because the audience wasn't expecting a left field explanation. (Heck even the canoe ending in the original Friday the 13th was worth a jolt)<br /><br />Salvage on the other hand screams twist ending with every scene change. Other nagging faults is the one note piano soundtrack (Though the featured songs were decent) the obvious time padding (Claire doing the dishes, Claire's mother's subplots), the way Claire says "hello is anyone there" every time she thinks there is a serial killer around.<br /><br />Also some of the secondary acting roles (In particular Claire's mother played by Maureen Olander who resembles a Mary Kay zombie) shows the first time actor low budget roots.<br /><br />Both too clever by half and not nearly clever enough Salvage keeps your interest if only to see how they are going to fix this mess. Problem is they really don't.
I love horror movies. I can even appreciate most cheese (face it, 9 out of 10 horror films these days ARE cheese), but this was just ridiculous. Terrible acting, terrible writing, completely hollow and unbelievable characters (no Meisner actors here!) and a total lack of sufficient body count. I wish I could SALVAGE the 79 minutes of my life I just wasted. At least the Crook brothers are aptly named. The only good thing about the whole film was watching the Alicia Silverstone wanna-be get punched in the face. How this EVER made it to Sundance is completely baffling to me. Most of the plot was absolutely unrealistic, even by slasher film standards. I mean, COME ON! Who would rush out to get a cheap earring 10 seconds after a creepy stalker guy just left their doorstep? Lame.
One of the worst films I have ever seen. Got so bored that I switched it off midway through to watch the news. When I switched it back on, I fell asleep. The film starts with a dream, continues with a dream, and ends with a dream. Then there are a few more dreams in between. Come on, what is supposed to keep me interested in that? A film needs to have a reason to be interesting. The minute you felt the film was only a dream is when any sensible film-goer switches off. Ever had someone insist on telling you their dreams and what it means to them? This is it!!!<br /><br />Absolutely awful.
This film just goes around in circles, and the viewer does not know where they are. At first I thought..mmmmm, could be kinda cool movie this, but it just drags on and on, and eventually you don't know what's going on. The lead female is a good actress and played her role well, and the psycho fella, is creepy, but after a bit you don't really care what happens, because this film just drags on. Shame really, this could have turned out a lot better.<br /><br />Would say though that the lead female and psycho fella, will have a good career ahead of them , but will they remember this film, for making them known, or for being the film they regret they ever made.
This movie is very important because suggested me this consideration: sometimes you can wish to be sick ... sometimes you can wish to have a syndrome ... sometimes, for example, you can wish have Goldfield Syndrome... that way you'd not remember this boring movie ... and above all you'd not remember Adam "superfluos" Sandler... sometimes, simply, you can wish... have rented another movie...<br /><br />My vote? 3 out of 10. My suggestion? If you are neither a fan of boring romantic comedies or Adam Sandler (...it's a joke don't exist Adam Sandler's fan...I want to hope it), save yourself... Someone to save? Drew Barrymore. ... perhaps.
Millie is a sap. She marries a rich guy named Maitland and they have a child. She then catches him cheating on her and divorces him...but lets him keep the kid she claims to love. Back then in the early 1930s, she would have been entitled to hefty spousal and child support but lets the guy off amazingly easy...with no support...what a sap! Later, when she has a boyfriend and life seems pretty good, he turns out to ALSO be a cheat! Wow, does she have a hard time picking men.<br /><br />As a result of these bad relationships, Millie changes. Now she's a wild party girl--doing everything she can to distract herself from her hard luck. Suddenly, many years pass. Millie's daughter who she left early on in the film is now 17 and oddly fashions haven't changed one bit. An old friend of Millie's (yes, it's another evil man!) is now pretending to be the daughter's friend, but he has lecherous designs on her. Millie promises him that if he touches the girl, she'll kill him. Take a wild guess what happens next! <br /><br />Overall, the film is a confusing and often bizarre mess--a bit like "Madam X" but much, much less focused. So often Millie's motivations and actions seem to make little sense. And, the film seems to have a little of everything tossed into it--so long as it substantiates the notion that all men are pigs. Unusual but not particularly good.
How the hell did they get this made?! Presenting itself as a caper comedy, the misbegotten "$" is essentially two hours of people mumbling sentence fragments. The usually dependable Warren Beatty looks drunk, and the usually hilarious Goldie Hawn acts like she's on depressants. As for Gert Frobe, his most famous role - Goldfinger - was infinitely more admirable than his character here. Not even the guy with the champagne bottle of LSD can save this litany of worthlessness.<br /><br />Am I comparing this movie to "Plan 9 from Outer Space"? I wouldn't do such a thing even if someone paid me. "P9FOS" was idiotically made but ended up hilarious; this was idiotically made and causes you to feel like your brain just melted out of your ears. Warren Beatty and Goldie Hawn made up for this when they co-starred in "Shampoo", but then they co-starred in the dreadful "Town & Country". Maybe they just shouldn't co-star in movies. All in all, I would rather have my skin torn off than have to watch this again. Awful.<br /><br />Maybe they should remake it with Jackie Chan. Then I would pay to see it.
The pakage implies that Warren Beatty and Goldie Hawn are pulling off a huge bank robbery, but that's not what I got out of it! I didn't get anything! In the first half there's a new character (without introduction) in every other scene. The first half-hour is completely incomprehensible, the rest is just one long, annoying, underlit chase scene. There's always an irritating sound in the background whether it's a loud watch ticking, a blaring siren, a train whistling, or even the horrible score by Quincy Jones. There are a lot of parts that are laughably bad, too. Like, the bad guys chasing Beatty on thin ice with a CAR! Or, the police arriving at the scene roughly fifteen times. I really hated this movie!
This has the absolute worst performance from Robert Duval who sounds just like William Buckley throughout the entire film. His hammy melodramatic acting takes away from any dramatic interest. I'm not sure if this was deliberate scene stealing or inadvertent but it's the only thing I can recall from a truly forgettable film. This picture should be shown in every amateur acting class of an example of what not to do. Thank God, Duvall went on to bigger and better things and stopped trying to effect a cultured accent. He is a good character actor but that's about it. Klaus is so much better. His performance is muted and noteworthy.
This is by far the worst film I have seen in my entire life. The acting is poor and the storyline is almost incomprehensible. Whether or not you like lightships or any ships for that matter is irrelevant. As for special effects the film has none. The whole film crew were probably on the boat out in rough seas rather than in a studio and when some of the men are "stabbed" (if you can even call it that) their reactions are totally unreal. The guns are more quiet than a mute. How this film could have one two awards puts serious questions to the state of the human mind. Well thats about it. This review is probably more fun to read than the film is to watch. If anyone is considering watching it or buying it I would seriously advise you against it for obvious reasons. I have said that it includes a spoiler. If the fact that some people get stabbed and a gun gets fired is a plot giveaway. I suppose it is because they are the only good parts of the film.
Shiner, directed by Christian Calson, centers around three "couples" and their relationships with obsession and violence. Pretty good start as far as I'm concerned. Interesting. The couples break down into a heterosexual couple, two heterosexual male friends and a straight guy being "harmlessly" stalked by a gay man.<br /><br />The "het" couple really don't have much of a role in the film. There are some scenes that show how they like to be aggressive when having sex or playing around with each other, but seem to have no real purpose since the are so marginalized. My assumption is that they represent a more day to day illustration of how sex/violence are integrated in a couples life. The couple aren't very aggressive and it's not even shot in any kind of erotic way. As characters, they don't add much to the theme or plot.<br /><br />The two male friends make up the bulk of the plot. They engage in some gay bashing of sorts by convincing a homosexual man to have sex with them in an alley. This escalates into violence. And the violence changes them. It becomes a means of sexual gratification. And their need for violence t release grows as the film progresses. The main problem I had is the violence is not convincing. Never once does it seem that any of the characters is in any real danger. It just doesn't work. Given that the whole theme of the film is about the characters' relationships with violence, this is a major problem. Unfortunately, the make-up doesn't help either. Sometimes, it's okay, other times it is very bad. In one scene, I really wondered why one of the characters had rouge smeared on his face. Confusing.<br /><br />The more interesting pair of the characters is the "stalker couple." Here Calson seemed to have more to say and was able to develop a more coherent storyline. Perhaps it is because the characters seem to develop more and have resolution at the end. Shiner may well have been much better if it had stuck with these two.<br /><br />I appreciate that Calson wanted to achieve a lot with this film. It is admirable. Most low budget flicks don't aspire to much. I don't think Calson achieved want he was aiming for. Myself, I found nothing particularly controversial or unsettling. Shiner was unconvincing. This doesn't mean, however, that the director can't achieve something with his next film.<br /><br />He seems to have something to say.
What an unfortunate mess is "Shiner." I wanted to like this over-the-top, anti-film aspirant, and in fact found a number of moments with powerful resonance. Sadly, those moments are few and far between. While I appreciate some of what Calson was attempting, any advantage aspired to by bare bones, no budget cinematography was destroyed with some truly atrocious editing that benefited the movie not at all.<br /><br />While bad acting abounds in low budget (and big budget) cinema, Shiner has some remarkably bad performances that are nearly painful to watch. In particular the "straight" couple Linda and Young Guy. These are the two most poorly written characters offering almost nothing to the story. The acting is so abysmal and neither actor seems capable of resisting smirking or cracking up as they drearily drop their lines with an appalling lack of skill. The choppy editing almost lends the feeling that these roles were entirely gratuitous and dropped in to avoid the films being stereotypically cast as an oddball gay film. It would have been better off as such.<br /><br />With all that is going wrong for it, there are several performances that seem to capture what Calson was hoping to get. In particular the story centering on Bob and Tim. These are the two most richly drawn characters and offer the most rewards with genuinely captivating performances by Nicholas T. King (Bob) and David Zelinas (Tim). Tim is a boxer with some serious issues. Remarkably low self esteem is disguised by an almost cartoon like arrogance that he wears like armour plating. Obsessed with Tim, the seemingly harmless yet ultimately creepy Bob, stalks the boxer in classic cat-and-mouse fashion. When the tables are turned and hunter becomes the hunted, the resulting in the film's only genuine emotional catharsis. In a film so artificially hard-edged (that's a compliment) one character MUST have that revelatory break through (or breakdown, as the case proves here) and the final confrontation between Bob and Tim provide Zelinas and King opportunity to display some real acting chops.<br /><br />As played by Scott Stepp and Derris Nile, Tony and Danny seem to be the focus of the movie, and despite some bravado moments of their own (including one truly disturbing scene revealing the sex/violence obsession), but they can't seem to escape a cartoon-like artifice and it's difficult to look at - or beyond their seeming one note symphony and find anything other than the obvious.<br /><br />Ultimately this same raw material could (and should) be used to tell this story in better fashion. Alas, there really isn't much to recommend this yet, the performances by Messrs. King and Zelinas, really do offer something special and a glimpse of what might have been and are ultimately worth seeing.
I saw "Shiner" on DVD. While I was watching it, I thought, "This is a really bad porn flick without the porn." I also thought, "Whoever wrote this has some real issues." Then I watched the director/writer Carlson explain his process as a special feature. Yeah, it was real special.<br /><br />The emphasis of the film is placed on two alcoholic losers who hit each other to get off. They are marginally attractive. There is frontal and full nudity. These factors probably account for the film being seen at all.<br /><br />The most upsetting element of the film is the gay bashing and the subsequent further gay bashing of the same victim who tries ineptly to exact revenge from his assailants, the two drunken losers. Not only is the subject handled absurdly and badly from a technical point of view, but the acting is horrendously bad.<br /><br />Then there's the boxer-stalker theme. This is really insane, not just absurd. This hunky boxer is somehow traumatized by the persistent attentions of a fleshy momma's boy who works at his gym's parking lot. This is in LA, mind you. The boxer is so traumatized that he turns up at the stalker's house, strips in front of him and gets excited in the process.<br /><br />Well, all I can say is, why would a boxer who is at heart an exhibitionist be so traumatized by the attention of a stalker? It simply makes no sense. And, I'm afraid, some psycho-dynamics actually do make sense, if you take the time to read about them. However, bad scripts seldom make sense at all.<br /><br />The director/writer seems to have thought that this film represents a considerable minority within the gay community. Well, he may be correct, I suppose. We may never know, since that minority would be so dysfunctional they would hardly be able to get organized enough to ever get to an obscure gay film festival or DVD store, the only two places they could possibly find this turkey. Thank goodness for that.
I question its importance to Queer Cinema as it seems to be more about having a homosexual encounter via violent behavior than making any clear statements regarding homosexuality and violence.<br /><br />Three tales are tangled together in a rather sloppy manner. I found myself trying to untangle the messy narrative in the first 15 minutes, that alone didn't sit well with me. Weak plot points were endlessly repeated as though we might not have gotten it the first 10 times.<br /><br />There was a feeling of padded dialog throughout the film. More like a 45 minute Boy's Brief short rather than a fleshed out full-length film. It had a certain erotic flair, male nudity and sex appeal but overall the sum did not equal its parts.<br /><br />The 1st part: Boxer/Stalker storyline was the strongest and yet it too felt like it had been pulled thin. Bob has been following Tim for four years and only now is he confronting him? I felt as though their cat-mouse game was not developed enough to merit its conclusion. We needed more information about them and less Parking Lot/Locker scenes with Tim relentlessly saying "What do you want?" <br /><br />The 2nd part: Danny wants his buddy, Tony, to beat him up while he jacks-off. Tony doesn't seem to mind, but he doesn't even appear interested in exploring the implications of his homo erotic hobby -- not even after they do it in the nude. This tale lacks the all-important transition from "I'm a straight boy smacking my guy friend around for fun" to "I think I might be gay and hitting him because I'd like to spread his ass and do him S/M style." A very important thing to leave out.<br /><br />Clearly these stories each could have conveyed their points in half the time. The 3rd part with the man and woman slapping each other around adds to that thought. Furthermore, it was unnecessary and added nothing to the film. Yes, the actors did a fine job under the circumstances and the four male leads were very sexy. The make-up (bruises and cuts) however was on par with a grammar school talent show.<br /><br />There wasn't enough meat to this story to have any impact on the gay politic. The film made no statement, squandered time, and is not engaging or worthy enough for thoughtful investment. Its fatal flaw is its amateurish approach, that makes it ultimately impossible to take seriously.
If you want to watch a film that is oddly shot, oddly lit, weird stories of these men (and one woman) who enjoy beating the crap out of each other, if you want to enjoy a story that goes nowhere of these two guys, one a boxer and the other a gay man, then you should watch this film.<br /><br />After watching this film, I almost felt as badly bruised up and cut up, like the director (of the film) himself beat the hell out of me.<br /><br />This is a movie where one is not meant to watch for plot or for great acting, this is a film to gawk at in horror and wonder. A lot like watching an airplane crash or a train wreck.<br /><br />If you want to watch a great movie, a good movie, a "B" movie, or even a mediocre movie, this movie is not it.<br /><br />A warning to all who watch this film, please don't eat beforehand. You might want to puke by the end of the film.
OK. So it's a low-budget "film" (I used the quotes because it was shot in Hi-8 video). The acting is universally horrid, the makeup is laughable (the blood looks like it came from Sherwin-Williams and I've seen more convincing bruises made from halloween ghoul kits), and the lighting generally looks like they used someone's borrowed Toyota pickup to shine headlights on the actors.<br /><br />I might be able to forgive these low-budget traits if there were some actual content, if a movie made an attempt to tell a story. But this collection of video footage can boast of no plot, no real characters, and no momentum. It's a self-indulgent mess.<br /><br />And don't worry -- no spoilers here, 'cause there's absolutely nothing to spoil.
This is the most ludicrous and laughable thriller I've ever seen. Oh....where to start....<br /><br />Plot (what little there is): Clayton Beresford Jr. (Hayden Christensen), a young billionaire, with a bad heart is desperately in need of a transplant. Clay has been secretly engaged to his mother's PA, Samantha, played by Jessica Alba. On the night that these two secretly get married, it just so happens that a heart donor with the same rare blood type is found. Go and figure the odds of that one! Once on the operating table, Clay finds out the anesthesia isn't working, and he can feel everything and hear everything.<br /><br />Fortunately Clay seems to be able to filter out the pain of a razor sharp scalpel cutting open his chest by simply concentrating on his memories of Samantha, which we are told he's doing through an annoying voice-over which never seems to stop.<br /><br />If you didn't burst out in laughter yet, you will surely start to when you see the surgical scenes. <br /><br />How could a young billionaire agree to have a heart transplant performed by one surgeon, one nurse, an attending physician and an drunk anesthesiologist? There were more people in the room when my wisdom tooth was getting pulled. Not to mention the medical behavior, which is too preposterous to be taken seriously...the operating room isn't even kept sterile...people are practically able to just walk in and out of the room without even having washed up... During the operation the viewer gets to hear Clay's thoughts, none of which are too fascinating. Ah...but here's what it's all about ...the doctors are trying to kill him in order to take his money. Believing him to be unconscious, the villains speak freely. Gosh! What will happen? <br /><br />Well... at least there's no interference from anyone else in the hospital, while an incompetent doctor who's got four malpractice lawsuits running against him is performing major heart surgery. Not even Clay's overprotective mother seems to be able to check on his status. The only one interested in keeping updated is Samantha...but oh no...could sweet Sam be in on it....You'll quickly find out through some Scooby Doo dialog...<br /><br />In the end, it wouldn't even matter whether or not Clay underwent anesthesia awareness, because the end would have turned out the same way in both cases.<br /><br />If you can ignore the feeling that the director/writer is trying to make fun of the patients who fell victim to anesthesia awareness, maybe there's some dumb fun to be had...<br /><br />Enjoy...
I just saw this movie last night and, being someone who had very low expectations to begin with, was still disappointed. The most glaring error in this abomination of a movie is that the main plot point (the guy being awake during the surgery), had NOTHING to do with the outcome. It would have ended the same way regardless. So, what was the point of this? Who knows. Also, this surgeon had 4 malpractice suits against him and he didn't think people would ask questions if a patient died on his table? Give me a break. Jessica Alba is completely talentless and Christiansen is almost as bad. The whole thing was just laughable from start to finish. I'm fairly certain that if you could feel someone cutting through your chest with a scalpel, you would be in more pain than that.
First of all, the big named actors must need the money... The surgical scenes were laughable.... and surely they must know that people who have a little knowledge of medicine would find this utterly absurd......Anesthesiologists do not leave the room during a heart transplant....nor do they do the surgery in a tiny room devoid of instruments, heart lung equipment and sterile techniques... just a joke... couldn't concentrate on the story line because of all the stupid surgery scenes... no blood, no personnel and then the hero doc coming in and taking over... it is not a film for thinking adults....Also the budget must have been limited... the street scenes were OK but who was the technical adviser....Seems like it was directed by a total idiot.. Save your money and wait until it comes out on DVD and Don't rent it..
From the beginning this movie did have a few flaws. The main character played by Hayden Christensen is a the rich young mogul who has inherited his father's considerable wealth and power, and he is struggling to both fill his father's shoes and cut the apron strings mother (and co-executive) keeps too tight. He also has the problem of having a heart condition and waiting in the limbo that is the organ donor registry. There are also minor back stories which your first instinct is to mostly ignore that become important later, such as his friendship with his surgeon (Terrence Howard) and his romance with a middle class girl (Jessica Alba). Uncreative story lines, but not bad enough to ruin the movie. The only real "oy vey!" moment was the name of Lena Olin's character. Overbearing woman named Lilith...subtle!<br /><br />The surgical scenes are not at all censored. I appreciated that, people who find surgery scenes scary might not. The horror of being awake during anesthesia was done well at first. You watch in emotional agony as Christensen screams inwardly through the chest incision and the rib spreader. The moment of irony from the trailers then comes where while he is one of the unlucky few to be awake during anesthesia, he is also luck in that it helps him learn that his surgical team is planning to murder him.<br /><br />The big twist, however, is very predictable and sends the film delving into the conspiracy and his memories of the little signs which were there but he, like us, initially missed. <br /><br />There are two more twists at the end involving his relationship with his mother. One is an impressive gesture by Olin, which comes of as unimpressive due to poor writing. The other is a secret about the family's past which seemed very tacked on and pointless.<br /><br />The initially well done anesthesia awareness drama gets lost in the poorly written conspiracy drama. There is a one final attempt to bring it back which falls flat, taking the entire movie with it.
I was very surprised to see that this movie had such a good rating, when i checked it on IMDb after seeing it. This really is one of the worst movies i have ever seen and i have seen many bad movies. It looks like a good movie in the beginning, but when he comes into surgery i couldn't believe how bad it got. This voice-over destroys EVERYTHING! Just imagine you are being cut open like that and then listen to what he says. I saw the movie in German so i don't really know what he said in English, but ironic stuff like "Yeah right, it doesn't hurt.."?...what is this? Telling yourself "think about something else" and then forgetting your pain by just thinking about your girlfriend is just...stupid. And his mother...how the hell does she figure something like that out? Someone comes to tell her, her son died in surgery (what she kind of had to expect). Plus she found some letters in Jessica Albas bag. plus that "she knows the hospital" stuff... and then it takes her "one second" to figure it out? What the hell?^^ And the ending...why does the police bust them? The patient died in surgery, thats all that happened. That drunk doctor doesn't know anything else either...and then they bust them all, even the girlfriend??? Why??? Despite all that i think Christensen did a bad job, but that doesn't really count for me...those mistakes and stupid things i wrote about above are the problem. I watched this movie with some friends and we all were VERY disappointed... As i said, one of the worst movies i have ever seen... Just don't watch it ;)
Hayden Christianson and Jessica Alba two of my least favourite actors of this century team up in what is quite possibly the flattest attempt at remake the already dire The Butterfly Effect. Awake is so dull and so utterly uninteresting that you'd be better off asleep. Terrance Howard still recovering from the diabolical August Rush puts up a decent fight as the sadistic doctor who seems hell bent on killing Christianson and after viewing his performance I would gladly assists.<br /><br />Alba, still recovering after Fantastic Four Rise of the Silver surfer. Is naturally disastrous and equally unwatchable as she always was. Only once has she ever been rather brilliant at that was in the safe hands of master director Robert Rodriguez in Sin City. Could it possibly be that Jessica alba isn't as poor of an actress as most give her credit for and is is possibly that her acting abilities are being weight down by a poor script. If so then that would explain Awake. What with a script that would shame that of Plan 9 from Outer Space.<br /><br />Jessica Alba, Hayden Christenson, and Terrence Howard star in first-time director/screenwriter Joby Harold's nerve-jangling psychological thriller about a man who experiences the frighteningly common surgical phenomenon known as "aesthetic awareness," in which those laid out on the operating table remain acutely aware of what is going on around them despite remaining completely paralyzed and unable to cry out for help. When a successful young young man (Christenson) goes under the knife and realizes that the anaesthesia hasn't quite done its job, the horror quickly sets in as his worried wife (Alba) waits anxiously and a terrifying drama unfolds in the operating room.<br /><br />Hoping to do for operating tables what Final Destination did for planes, this first effort from director Joby Harold pivots on a blood-frosting conceit. The pre-credits sequence tells us one in 700 people suffers from a phenomenon known as 'anaesthetic awareness', where the patient remains conscious but paralysed during surgery. One such unfortunate individual is Clayton Beresford Jr (Hayden Christensen), who finds himself wide awake during a heart transplant... and he can feel every single slice.<br /><br />Intermittently inventive as it probes away at his tortured psyche, Awake fails to inject true terror into its novel premise. Spiralling from chilling simplicity into absurd conspiracy, it's hindered by stilted turns from Christensen and Jessica Alba. You'll wish you'd popped a sedative before watching… <br /><br />VERDICT: Awake is at very best extremely undemanding. A pull no punches film that undoubtedly looked better on paper. As a film though its awfully generic and extremely derived. Awake fails to inject terror into its novel premise. The end result is really quite lousy. Alba and Christian are the very least of your worries as the films main flaw lies in its inability to scare its audience. Awake is a film you'll most likely sleep through.
After watching Awake,I led to a conclusion:director and screenwriter Joby Harold made Awake with the intention of laughing at the spectator,for the simple fact the movie is full of ridiculous elements.Awake has a lot of plot holes and it is full of absurd and ridiculous elements(for example,the hospital uniform the spirit of the main character uses...did the ghost of a doctor leave it in the floor ?).The concept behind this movie is slightly ingenious but all the plot holes and the absurd things make of this a stupid and crappy film.With the exception of the great Lena Olin,all the actors bring bad performances.Hayden Christensen has zero expressions and the same applies for Jessica Alba.The extraordinary actor Terrence Howard is enormously wasted on his role.Awake makes a laugh of the spectator.It's so ridiculous and full of absurd things that it's impossible to take it seriously.My recommendation is:skip this crappy movie.
******SPOILERS******<br /><br />The unfunny radio quiz show host Kyser and his mediocre band are the excuse for Lugosi, Karloff, and Lorre to pick up a paycheck in this bland, sporatically watchable haunted house spoof. Lugosi is a mystic whose seances are exposed as a fraudulent attempt to bilk an heiress' fortune; Karloff is the butler and Lorre is a professor who exposes fake mediums, but it turns out that they're both in conspiracy with Lugosi. <br /><br />Of course, Kay Kyser and his band of 30-something year old "kids" uncover the truth with the minimum of possible humor along the way. Not recommended to any but the absolute horror completist.
There is something in most of us, especially guys, that admires some really working class small town "real men" populist fare. And Sean Penn serves it up for us with a cherry on top. Hey, A lot of people use Penn as a political whipping boy, but I don't rate movies or actor/directors based on politics or personality. That is what right wing commentators like excretable faux movie reviewer Debbie Schlussel does. While acknowledging he is one of our best actors and a good director, I think this picture was a simplistic piece of aimless dreck that he has atoned for since. <br /><br />Okay, you have the gist of this there is this good cop, a small town trooper, Joe, played against type by David Morse, who in the opening scene chases some guy on a country farm road in big sixties cars. The bad guy stops, gets out, shoots at him so Joe has to blast him dead. There was no explanation what drove this man to do such a desperate violent thing and the dead man's parents do some redneck freak out at the police station while Joe feels real sad and guilty that he had to kill someone. So we know that Joe, the farmer forced off his land into a cop job, is a good basic sort of guy. Then his brother Frank shows up, he is a sadistic, amoral bully, fresh out of the Army and Nam where the war got his blood lust up. Some people here and in other reviews called him just an irresponsible hell raising younger brother and Sean was trying to make some point about what our John Wayne tough guy culture and war does to otherwise good people but what I saw was an amoral, sadistic bully who enjoys hurting and ripping people off. Then there is mom and dad, Marsha Mason and Charles Bronson, who do the requisite turn as old fashioned country couple, then die off; she by illness and he by shotgun suicide, to advance the story for us. Both times Frank the bad guy is away being a miserable SOB. But good Joe brings him back to Podunksville from jail so Frank can straighten his life out by welding bridges and living with his utterly stupid screaming trashy pregnant wife. But Joe has a nice wife, played by Italian actress Valeria Golina, who is Mexican and Sean uses this as an exercise in some affirmative action embellishment of goody Joe and his real soulfulness underneath his uniform and crew cut. For me, that was an utterly pointless affirmative action subplot that Sean uses to burnish his tough guy creds by sucking up to Mexicans because Mexicans are so tough and cool.<br /><br />But Frank is bad and we get the requisite events like stealing friend's car, robbing gas station by beating the clerk over the head then torching the car and all those cool things that hell raisers do. Then there are the mandatory 8mm film childhood flashbacks of young Joey dutifully moving the lawn and cowboy dressed Franky jumping on his back and wrestling him and yadda yadda so we all know what deep bond there is between the two of them.<br /><br />So the film meanders around with a lot of small town schlock to warm the heart of any red stater. Accompanying the film was a great soundtrack of good sixties songs like Jefferson Airplane and Janis Joplin which were totally inappropriate, except for the 60's era effect, to win the hearts of old hippies. The worst offense is that, since the movie was inspired by a Springsteen song, "The Highway Patrolman", that song was not included. <br /><br />So Joe's brain dead wife goes into labor and Joe runs off to the bar to get loaded and spout some populists drunken victim's spiel about how tough things are while good Joey comes to drag him back to his wife. The bartender is good Ole Ceasar, played by Dennis Hopper. So Viggo - Frank whigs out for no particular reason and beats his pal Ceasar to death after good Joe the Cop leaves.<br /><br />So Joe has chase his bad brother down and I was so hoping that he would do the right thing and blow that menace to society away. Instead we get a scene where his brother stops ahead of him in some old 50's junker on some lonely road at night, and little Franky in his cowboy suit and cap guns gets out of the car to face good Joe, the kid from the 8mm flashback home movie sequence. Oy, such dreck! Then to top off this drecky sap fest, there is some Zen crap about the Indian runner, who is a messenger, becomes the message, ala Marshall MacLuhen? See what I mean, Sean has done much better than this so don't be afraid to miss this one.
I don't like Sean Penn's directing very much, and this early work, The Indian Runner, is no exception. The movie has no core, it's colored with a kind of redneck, anti-authoritarian tweeness that in all honesty taints most of Penn's work, his latest work even more so than the earlier. Frank Miller, Robert Rodriguez, Clint Eastwood, Sean Penn, the whole lot seem to produce such fundamentally banal product, ostensibly in some allegiance to honesty, but ending up being, for the most part, glorified pro wrestling matches, and moralistic, almost as if Hallmark cards had developed a line of Hell's Angels greetings, and make me long for the days of Deliverance, which is a fine movie. Viggo Mortensen's acting is much, much more believable here than that ridiculous Eastern Promises thing he did with Cronenberg, and that's about it. The movie is dead meaningless, and seems to be an exercise, a series of techniques, more than a story. Kudos for Charles Bronson, however, who proves he can act. And I wanted more of Sandy Dennis' character. A lousy 3 out of 10 for this The Indian Runner crap.
Thin story concerns two small town brothers and their struggles over family honor. David Morse is the responsible, straight-laced cop and 'good' brother; Viggo Mortensen, the 'bad' boy, is a former soldier and ex-convict. As an actor (particularly in his earliest years), Sean Penn seems to have modulated his performances under the Method. Turning first-time writer and director for this arty, obtuse drama, he works his script and characters out through the same methodical process, slowing the pacing down to a crawl (ostensibly so we can catch every nuance and inflection). This approach might be fascinating if there were three-dimensional characters to care about, but photogenic Morse and Mortensen aren't really convincing as siblings. Worse, we expect more from prominently-billed veterans Charles Bronson and Sandy Dennis, who hardly get a chance to come through with anything interesting. The picture is balky with turgid sequences, a wobbly narrative and confusing editing (always slanted to point up the artistic excesses). Penn's tricks with the camera show off a talented eye, yet they are mostly an irritation. *1/2 from ****
Penn takes the time to develop his characters, and we almost care about them. However there are some real problems with the story here, we see no real motivation for the evil brother's behavior, and the time line is screwed up. Supposedly set in 1963, the music is late 60s/early 70s. The references and dialogue is 70s/80s. The potential for a powerful climax presents itself, and Penn allows it to slip away. But even with all these difficulties it is worth the watch, but not great.
There is only one thing essential to thorough appreciation of The Indian Runner. Unzip your trousers. Peek inside. Is there evidence of a Y chromosome? Okay, you'll do.<br /><br />This film has all the male requisites: blood, guns, car chases, fond women, death, multiple tattoos, cigarettes, liquor, violence, pyrotechnics -- what have I left out? -- oh, yeah, blowtorches.<br /><br />As a woman, I seriously hope Sean Penn regards this as a `when I was a child...' kind of effort. Since he both wrote and directed the thing, he's nearly solely responsible. An uneven cast (Viggo Mortensen as usual demonstrating brilliantly how the job's supposed to be done) tries to save Penn. Too late. The lines and action are there. Even devoted, skilled acting can't change those.<br /><br />I found this movie puerile and silly, as well as predictable. The dialogue staggers along -- Sandy Dennis has my respect for trying to breathe life into a woodenly maternal monologue without motherly authenticity. Then she dies. After a bit, so does the protagonists' father, played by Charles Bronson. Their absence is hardly noticeable.<br /><br />At intervals, the pyrotechnics, etc., noted above appear to liven things up and scare the audience into thinking something significant is occurring.<br /><br />If you're male and under 25, you may adore this film. Plan to return to it at 35. Think you'll still like it?<br /><br />I don't think so.
you can be fooled by your first impressions. as in, initial reactions to a movie, for example. as in, the first time i saw this movie i was bedazzled by the idea of it (first of all, i love black comedies). could even - despite being male, myself - empathise with the feisty girls' fervor to see their husbands deceased without delay. was tripped up by my own face-value (and, i do mean "face-value") response to nicolette sheridan and a couple of the other delicious dames in the picture. it just goes to show you that you've gotta step back from a situation sometimes and see that it's bad (and not "bad good," either): the reason i'm giving this movie a "4" rating is because of ms sheridan and her gams (the rest of 'er is pretty good, too); but this movie has all the hallmark TV movie characteristics - which means you'll be disappointed if your a lover of movies made for the big screen. the story contains plot holes you could run a tunnel through - and i'll generally overlook holes in a plot if the overall thing does it for me; and i just experienced an incredible letdown the second time i saw it. i don't think it's a total waste of time, but....
DEAD HUSBANDS is a somewhat silly comedy about a bunch of wives conspiring to bump off each others husbands`. It`s by no means embarrassingly bad like some comedies I could mention but it never fufils its potential . Imagine how good this could have been if we had the Farrelly brothers directing Ben Stiller in the role of Carter Elson .<br /><br />Oh is Carter based on Jerry Springer ? Just curious because the catch phrase on Dr Elson`s show is " look after each other and keep talking "
When I rented this movie, I had very low expectations......but when I saw it, I realized that the movie was less (a lot less) than what I expected. The actors were bad (the doctor's wife was one of the worst), the story was so stupid...it could work for a Disney movie (except for the murders), but this one is not a comedy, it is a laughable masterpiece of stupidity. The title is well chosen except for one thing: they could add stupid movie after Dead Husbands! I give it 0 and a half out of 5.
So, this movie has been hailed, glorified, and carried to incredible heights. But in the end what is it really? Many of the ways in which it has been made to work for a hearing audience on the screen do not work. The fairly academic camera work keeps the signing obfuscated, and scenes that are in ASL are hard to follow as a result even for someone who is relatively fluent. The voice interpretation of Matlin's dialogue, under the excuse that Hurt's character "likes the sound of his voice", turns her more and more into a weird distant object as the film goes on. Matlin does shine in the few scenes where her signing is not partially hidden from view. But nonetheless, most of the movie, when this is a love story, is only showed from a single point of view, that of the man. As Ebert said, "If a story is about the battle of two people over the common ground on which they will communicate, it's not fair to make the whole movie on the terms of only one of them."<br /><br />The idea that an oralist teacher who uses methods that have been imposed in many deaf schools for decades would be presented as "revolutionary" is fairly insulting in itself. His character becomes weakened as a credible teacher as the movie goes on. Drawing comedy from a deaf accent is, quite honestly, rather low. And his attitude towards the male students of his class is pretty symptomatic of how he seems to act with women: as an entitled man. A party scene involving a number of deaf people including a few academics meeting together leaves him seemingly isolated, in a way that's fairly inconsistent with his credentials: I have seen interpreters spontaneously switch to asl between each other even when they weren't aware of a deaf person being in the area, and yet somehow he feels like a fish out of the water in an environment his education should have made him perfectly used to. As a lover, he seems like a typical dogged nice guy, including his tendency to act possessively afterwards. And yet the movie is, indeed, only really seen through him, as everything his lover says is filtered through his voice. <br /><br />The scenes involving the other deaf kids are, in general, wallbangers. The broken symbolism fails, the dance scene, the pool scene, even the initial sleep scene which is supposed to carry some of it - all these scenes that try to hint at the isolation of the deaf main character are broken metaphors, at best: many hearing people I know do dance on the bass beats that deaf people feel (instead of squirming like copulating chihuahuas), and going to take an evening dive for a hearing person is rarely an excuse to make a deep statement on the isolation of deafness (no, seriously, when I go swim, I go swim)...<br /><br />It also fails at carrying the end of the play, instead making it a story of a deaf woman who submits to a strong man. Even though the original play ended with a more equal ground, where both have to accept each other as they are, and where he has to finally recognize her real voice is the movement of her hands, not the vibrations in her throat.<br /><br />And for all the breakthrough that it may have seemed to be, Marlee Matlin remains Hollywood's token deaf woman to this day.
Sorry. Someone has to say it. This really is/was a dull movie. Worthy perhaps, but dull nonetheless. I nearly cried with boredom when watching it. The acting is pretty dire, the story drawn out and predictable, the score and camera-work totally standard and unexciting. It's one of those movies you are not allowed to hate (becase it is about disabled people) but hate it I suspect nearly everyone does. It is interesting that critics have been so kind to this movie. I suppose they too are not allowed to be objective. This was made to win awards - which I remember it duly did. But it was neither interesting nor entertaining. I haven't seen the play so cannot compare.
The movie itself is so pathetic. It portrayed deaf people as cynical toward hearing people. True, some deaf people are wary of dating hearing people, but they are not necessarily angry like of Marlee Matlin's character was throughout the story. Deaf people do not go to the bar and dance the way Matlin did. All in all, the movie itself is more boring than pathetic. It is so boring that I'd like to believe that it is an insomnia-cured movie. If I have a problem sleeping, I can simply pop in Children of a Lesser God and watch. It will put me to sleep.<br /><br />Keep in mind, this is a deaf guy talking.
It is like what the title of this thread say. Only impression I got from that movie is that Marlee Matlin's character was always angry, so cynical, and so pathetic. Her character's first date with William Hurt's character where they were dancing were dumb. All in all, I've tried to finish watching the movie four times, and of all four times I fell asleep. I would keep watching that movie with one intention... to beat my problem with insomnia, because all it do is to put me to sleep. Sweet dream.
CAMILLE 2000 <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 2.35:1 (Panavision)<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />Whilst visiting Rome, an amorous nobleman (Nino Castelnuovo) falls in love with a beautiful young libertine (Daniele Gaubert), but their unlikely romance is opposed by Castelnuovo's wealthy father (Massimo Serato), and Fate deals a tragic blow...<br /><br />A sexed-up love story for the swinging Sixties, adapted from a literary source (Alexandre Dumas' 'La Dame aux Camelias') by screenwriter Michael DeForrest, and directed with freewheeling flair by Radley Metzger who, along with the likes of Russ Meyer and Joe Sarno, is credited with redefining the parameters of 'Adult' cinema throughout the 1960's and 70's. Using the scope format for the last time in his career, Metzger's exploration of 'la dolce vita' is rich in visual excess (note the emphasis on reflective surfaces, for example), though the film's sexual candor seems alarmingly coy by modern standards. Production values are handsome throughout, and the performances are engaging and humane (Castelnuovo and Gaubert are particularly memorable), despite weak post-sync dubbing. Though set in an unspecified future, Enrico Sabbatini's wacked-out set designs locate the movie firmly within its period, and Piero Piccioni's 'wah-wah' music score has become something of a cult item amongst exploitation devotees. Ultimately, CAMILLE 2000 is an acquired taste, but fans of this director's elegant softcore erotica won't be disappointed. Next up for Metzger was THE LICKERISH QUARTET (1970), which many consider his best film.
The Cowboys could leave you a little sore in the saddle. Definitely not one of Johns best movies. Don't get me wrong, with any John Wayne move there is always some good spots. And this one has it's fair share. But over all the picture moves slow and just doesn't live up to the aspirations it could have been. Bruce Dern again does an outstanding job as the villain. Roscoe Lee Brown is another bright spot in the movie. The kids in the movie were average but could have been cast better. This would be a good movie for the eight to fifteen year old movie goers.<br /><br />This would be a good family move to watch with your children. Just be aware, there is a couple of scenes that you may want to take a look at before you let the young ones see it. But most kids that I know who have seen the movie like it. Maybe it's because they get to see kids their age do all the grown up work.
What a time we live in when someone like this Joe Swan-whatever the hell is considered a good filmmaker...or even a filmmaker at all! Where are the new crop of filmmakers with brains AND talent??? We need them bad, and to hell with mumblecore!<br /><br />This movie is about nothing, just as the characters in the film stand for nothing. It's this horrible, so-called Gen Y, that is full of bored idiots, some of which declare themselves filmmakers with out bothering to learn anything about the craft before shooting. Well, Orson Welles was a filmmaker. John Huston was a filmmaker. Fellini was a filmmaker. Dreyer was a filmmaker, etc. Current films like these show just how stupid young, so-called "filmmakers" can be when they believe going out with no script, no direction, no thought, no legit "camerawork" (everything shot horribly on DV), no craft of editing, no nothing, stands for "rebellious" or "advanced" film-making. Nope, it's called ignorance and laziness or just pure masturbation of cinema (and there actually is an in-your-face "jack-off shot," so be ready). <br /><br />Look at the early films of any accomplished "indie" filmmaker: Linklatter, Morris, Allen, Lynch, Hartley, Jarmusch, Jost, Lee, or Herzog...none made anything as tedious and aimless as this, yet Swan-whatever the hell, is still going to SXSW every year and hailed as some kind of gutsy, new talent. It's crap! I can't imagine anyone liking this, and everything else this so-called filmmaker has done (all seen by me) is just as bad (the newer stuff clearly made to appeal to a more mainstream audience, one of the sitcom calling). Steer clear, unless you're a friend or family member of those involved...on second thought, if you're a family member or friend you'd probably be embarrassed to see a family member or friend in such compromising situations...<br /><br />Utter garbage. This isn't art. This is the ultimate opposite of it.
"It's like hard to like describe just how like exciting it is like to make a relationship like drama like with all the like pornographic scenes thrown like in for like good measure like, and to stir up like contro- like -versy and make us more like money and like stuff." - Ellen, the lost quote.<br /><br />"Kissing, Like, On the, Like, Mouth And Stuff" is like the best like artistic endeavor like ever made. Watching like Ellen's hairy arms and like Chris masturbating was like the height of my years-long movie-viewing experience and stuff. But before I like begin like breaking new U.S.-20-something-airhead records with the my "likes", let me like just briefly list like the high- like -lights of this visual like feast: <br /><br />1. Chris doing the deed with his genitals. And not just that: the way the camera (guided so elegantly by Ellen and Patrick) rewards the viewer with a full-screen shot of Chris's fat white-trash stomach after he finishes the un-Catholic deed - that was truly thrilling. I can in all honesty say that I've never seen such grace. Chris, you should do more such scenes in your next movies, because that is exactly what we needed as a continuation of what that brilliant, brilliant man, Lars von Trier and his "Idiots 95", started. A quick w*** and then a hairy, fat, white belly: what more can any movie-goer ask for?! Needless to say, I can sit all day and watch Chris ejaculate (in spite of the fact that I'm straight)... Such poetry in motion. Such elegance, such style. No less than total, divine inspiration went into filming that sequence - plus a solid amount of Zen philosophy. Even Barbra Streisand could not get any more spiritual than this.<br /><br />2. Ellen's hairy, thick arms. The wobbly-camera close-ups, so skillfully photographed by our two directors of photography (I can't emphasize this enough), Ellen and Patrick, often caused confusion regarding the proper identification of the sex in question. There were several scenes when we would see a part of a body (a leg, arm or foot), yet it was often a guessing game: does that body-part belong to a man or a woman? Naturally, Chris and his fellow artists, Ellen, Patrick and whatsername, cast themselves on purpose, because their bodies were ideal for creating this gender-based confusion. It was at times hard to guess whether one is seeing a female or male leg. Patrick is so very thin and effeminate in his movements, so hairless and pristine, whereas Ellen and the other girl are so very butch, what with their thick legs and arms. Brilliant. <br /><br />3. Brilliant - especially the way that neatly ties in with the theme of role reversal between the sexes: so utterly original and mind-blowing. Ellen behaves like a man, wants sex all the time, while her ex Patrick wants to talk - like a girl. Spiffing.<br /><br />4. Ellen's search for a Leftist mate. "He must love 'The Simpsons', which is quite Leftist." I am glad that the makers of this movie decided to break the long tradition of offering us intelligent Leftists. Ellen is such a refreshing - and realistic - change. The number of "likes" that she and her liberal friends manage to utter in less than 80 minutes is truly phenomenal (3,849, to be exact). They have managed to realistically transfer their real-life ineptness onto the big screen with a minimum of effort, and I applaud them for that.<br /><br />5. The close-ups of toes. Plenty of stuff here for foot-fetishists, which I think is a very liberal, highly commendable way of reaching out to sexual minorities. After all, shoe- and foot- fetishists are offered so little in modern cinema, so it's nice to see that someone out there CARES.<br /><br />KOTM, or rather, KLOTLMAS, offers more than meets the eye. It is not just a modest little film about shallow people engaging in hollow relationships while indulging in meaningless conversations. No, it's much more than that. It's about the light that guides all silly creatures; the guiding light that dominates the futile lives of various pseudo-artistic wannabes who just dropped out of film school, and plan to assault our senses with dim-witted drivel that will hopefully play well at pretentious festivals like Sundance and Cannes, enabling them to gain the necessary exposure hence some real cash for a change, with which they will later hire the likes of Sean Penn and George Clooney in promoting the saving of this planet and the resolving of ALL political problems this world faces. What better way to do that than by making porn at the very start? <br /><br />If Chris and Ellen did the camera here, as is clearly stated in the end-credits, then who held the camera while the two of them were in front of it? They probably hired some passers-by and shoved the camera into their hands...<br /><br />Go to http://rateyourmusic.com/~Fedor8, and check out my "TV & Cinema: 150 Worst Cases Of Nepotism" list.
This film was absolutely awful, I even feel uncomfortable calling it a film. Its the typical "mumblecore" movie, with zero plot and a bunch of aimless whiny twenty somethings stumbling around trying to "figure stuff out". I have tried to give mumblecore a chance, but lets be honest its just horrible.<br /><br />I am not out of sync with cinema, I appreciate Dogme95 films, Idioterne is one of my all time favorite films. So I do not mind if a film is cheaply made so long as there is some (ANY) substance.<br /><br />Everything in this film is horrid, the acting, the writing (or was it all improvised?), the direction, but MOST of all, above everything else, the camera work was just plain and simple nonsense. The camera was never anywhere logical, there was no consistency. I got to admit being a guy I had heard there was nudity in this film so I thought to myself well even if its horrible at least there's nudity (yea I know, I'm a jerk). Well thanks to the uber crappy camera-work you never really get to see anything, and the things you do see, TRUST ME - YOU DO NOT WANT TO SEE. This film made me want to vomit on numerous levels.<br /><br />The dialogue made me want to vomit, the camera-work made me want to vomit, but mostly the idea that this film was praised by some legit critics, well now that more than anything makes me want to vomit.
I admire 'Kissing on the Mouth' for its frankness – pubic hair cutting and masturbation, especially from the lead/director Joe Swanberg. They weren't afraid to show trueness to everyday "private" occurrences. Unfortunately, the film falls under the 'The Brown Bunny' realm, though with a slightly more developed plot of jealousy. Yes, it mirrors 'Bunny' with a whole lot of nothing going on, or too many cinematography shots focused (or sincerely unfocused) on absolutely nothing – feet, hands or genitals. Again, unfortunately, I can see why this film was released, and why people are renting: true life sex scenes and full frontal (equally, both male and female) nudity. Other than that, it was a complete waste of time. We quickly learn of a post-college male/female roommate pair in which the male has obvious feelings for the female that sees him as just a friend while continuously having sex with her ex-boyfriend. Other than that, we are subjected to the every-day events of their boring lives: she works for her parents; he works on an extremely uninteresting sexual awareness project on his computer. For this all to work, the dialogue has to be interesting and the acting real. Neither work and it's as boring as watching someone drive for an hour, i.e. 'The Brown Bunny.' The only actor that stands out is Kate Winterich, and even she does some questionable acting. (The DVD extra with her in front of a mike is actually worth watching/listening to.) Again, I admire the filmmakers, especially Swanberg, for baring it all and not being afraid to expose themselves or shower-habits, but overall the film falls flat. It has narrations that doesn't fit the scenes, too many boring everyday events and unconvincing acting that you wonder, other than the soft-porn factor, why you rented this.
OK, I kinda like the idea of this movie. I'm in the age demographic, and I kinda identify with some of the stories. Even the sometimes tacky and meaningless dialogue seems semi-realistic, and in a different movie would have been forgivable.<br /><br />I'm trying as hard as possible not to trash this movie like the others did, but it's not that easy when the filmmakers weren't trying at all.<br /><br />The editing in this movie is terrible! Possibly the worst editing I've ever seen in a movie! There are things that you don't have to go to film school to learn, leaning good editing is not one of them, but identifying a bad one is.<br /><br />Also, the shot... Oh my God the shots, just awful! I can't even go into the details, but we sometimes just see random things popping up, and that, in conjunction with the editing will give you the most painful film viewing experience.<br /><br />This movie being made on low or no budget with 4 cast and crew is not an excuse also. I've seen short films on youtube with a lot more artistic integrity! Joe, Greta, I don't know what the heck you were thinking, but this movie is nothing but a masturbation of both your egos. You should be ashamed of yourselves! In conclusion, this movie is like what a really lazy amateur porn movie will be if it was filled with 3 or 4 lousy sex scenes separated by long boring conversations and one disgusting masturbation scene. If that's not your kind of thing, avoid this at all cost!
This is a very old and cheaply made film--a typical low-budget B-Western in so many ways. Gary Cooper was not yet a star and this film is highly reminiscent of the early films of John Wayne that were done for "poverty row" studios. With both actors, their familiar style and persona were still not completely formed. This incarnation of Gary Cooper doesn't seem exactly like the Cooper of just a few years later (he talks faster in this early film, among other things).<br /><br />However, unlike the average B-movie of the era, there are at least a few interesting elements that make the film unique (if not good). If you ever want to see the woman that was married to Errol Flynn for seven years, this is your chance. Lili Damita stars as the female love interest and this is a very, very odd casting choice, as she has a heavy accent (she was French) and wasn't even close to being "movie star pretty". Incidentally, she was also married to director Michael Curtiz. <br /><br />But for me, the most memorable and weird aspect of the film is the seemingly gay subplot--sort of like a BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN from the 1930s (and we thought this was a NEW idea). Gary Cooper's character was raised by two men who hate women and do everything they can through much of the film to keep Cooper clear of females. This misogyny alone doesn't necessarily mean much, but there are so many clues throughout the film that indicate the makers of the film really were trying to portray them as a gay couple. In particular, towards the end, when one of them is killed, the other is shot by an arrow and holds off dying long enough to crawl over to the body of his fallen friend and then falls--with his arms cradled around him! This was pretty edgy stuff for the time and I think this makes this dull film really fascinating today! As far as Cooper and the plot go, the film is a bit of a disappointment and very skip-able. Unless you are curious about Damita or the homosexual undertones, do yourself a favor and find a better Western.
The motion picture was, in all likelihood, made in the year 1930 and released in 1931. I would surmise that talking motion pictures had great difficulty in making the transition from the silent era. Nevertheless, this particular Zane Grey plot appears to be very weak. Also, Gary Cooper was probably just learning to act. The result is something that would not be acceptable by today's standards. For 1931, maybe. For 2004, not acceptable. Some of the actors performed well. Sadly, the Indians always get the short end in these early westerns. They were living on the land long before the white man came, but according to twisted history, they had no right to defend themselves.
This is actually a pretty bad film. The ideology is not as perverse as in those films Collins made later. However, my main misgivings about the film are that it is implausible and quite frankly boring for a long time. The whole concept of an ex-SAS man joining terrorists for no particular reason isn't very convincing and you can't help wondering why a group of highly organized terrorists (who later become pretty clueless) fall for it. The film starts with a pretty powerful scene but then meanders for quite a long time building up towards the great finale. Overall, I think Who dares wins could have been an interesting 45 minutes episode of The Professionals but the story doesn't carry a feature film. Although reasonably successful at the time this film initiated the demise of Collins' career who in the eighties mainly made cheap and dubious soldier-of-fortune or army films. Pity, because he actually is quite a versatile actor but at the end of the day Martin Shaw chose his roles more carefully and has a career that's still successful.
... just look at the poor Robert Webber character (great performance, once again!) who tries to wrestle a sub machine gun from one of the terrorists. Everything in this movie seems to be a little wrong. The biggest mistake in my opinion is the effort to give the action a firm footing in the actuality of the early 1980ies (the fundamental difference between this flick and the far more fantastic, ironic and therefore timeless Die Hard). The story comes through as a failed attempt to glorify the SAS commandos. Ideas like when a commando shouts „heads down" all good guys do it and all bad guys don't so that they can blast away ad lib (with a good conscience), that the main character does not get mown down by the gas masked commandos although he wears the same clothes and carries a weapon from their arsenal just seem to be unlikely and make it hard to take the movie seriously. And it just happens that it tries to be more than just fun. Don't talk about the toilet-mirror-signal episode ...<br /><br />I don't mind the criticism of the Pacifist movement as a shield for evildoers and the arguments between the peace fanatics and the settled, even headed representatives of power in this movie. But the political comment is rather lame and uninspired. This is insofar regrettable as the movie features an early performance of Judy Davies. She plays the main fanatic and seems to have done extensive studies on the „subject". Anyway, her performance is a notch above that of the others and somehow I feel the movie let her down.
It's 1982, Two years after the Iranian Embassy Siege which involved the dramatic SAS Rescue from the Balconys, and with a War with Argentina over the Falkland Islands currently taking place, what better film to make than a Gung-Ho "SAS" Film that re-creates the Iranian Hostage siege, whilst using Britains Number one action hero of the day, Lewis Collins. throw in Edward Woodward and a few other Well known actors and you've got a winner on your hands?...Well maybe not! The film itself doesn't make the situation serious enough, whilst the acting is quite second rate. it's like a Movie long episode of "The Professionals", but without the formula. This film goes nowhere fast and is quite predictable. Maybe Cubby Brocoli watched this film and decided to ditch Lewis Collins as a Touted James Bond Replacement for Roger Moore. Watch it if your a fan of Lewis Collins or SAS stuff in General, if not, save your time.
In Europe, it's known as Who Dares Wins; in America, it's known as The Final Option, but under any title this ludicrous SAS action flick asks the audience to put their disbelief to one side for around two hours. I find it incredibly hard to comprehend how Lewis Collins (the hero here) was almost chosen as Roger Moore's successor in the Bond films.... this guy is so expressionless he'd struggle to get a job in a waxwork museum (as a waxwork!!!) Luckily, Judy Davis is on hand to partially redeem the affair with a meaty performance as a hard-line lady terrorist, and there's a climactic ten minute action sequence that is quite competently orchestrated by director Ian Sharp. Let it be added that it's a very, very, very long wait for these closing excitements to come around, and I can't honestly say that a near two hour wait for a bit of decent action was worth the effort.<br /><br />SAS hard man Peter Skellen (Lewis Collins) goes undercover among a group of peace protesters who would like to see the end of nuclear weapons stock-piling. He meets their leader Frankie (Judy Davis), a strong-talking and opinionated woman who might just be capable of taking extraordinary measures to achieve her goals. Frankie's dedicated bunch violently lay siege to the American Embassy in London, demanding that a nuclear missile be fired at a naval base in Scotland (she believes that when the world witnesses a nuclear blast for real, everyone will be so appalled that they will join her campaign for disarmament). Unfortunately for Frankie, she makes the mistake of taking Skellen on her little embassy raid, and he plans to thwart their plan from inside with a little well-timed outside help from his SAS comrades.<br /><br />The film is inspired - quite obviously - by the awesome SAS assault on the Iranian Embassy in 1981. Someone who saw that event on the news apparently thought it would be good to devise a film along similar lines. Unfortunately, the film is rather banal, with too much stupid dialogue and a heck of a lot of embarrassingly bad scenes (the arch-bishop's debate which descends into a riot, anyone?) Frankie's idea to bring about peace by instigating a nuclear blast is ridiculous anyway, so she becomes a laughable figure just when the audience is on the verge of viewing her as an interesting villain. Who Dares Wins tries to be a celebration of the military legend that is the SAS, but at the same time it dips into clumsy action clichés and ill-thought-out plotting. The result is a well-intentioned but wholly ineffective slice of Boy's Own absurdity.
Okay, what the hell kind of TRASH have I been watching now? "The Witches' Mountain" has got to be one of the most incoherent and insane Spanish exploitation flicks ever and yet, at the same time, it's also strangely compelling. There's absolutely nothing that makes sense here and I even doubt there ever was a script to work with, but somehow I couldn't turn it off. The scratching your head with confusion starts right away, with an opening sequence about an angry little girl that killed her mother's cat. So you think this film revolves on children possessed by evil forces? Heck no, because after this intro, the girl and her wickedness simply aren't mentioned anymore. Then cut to a guy, with the most impressively trimmed mustache you'll ever see, who breaks up with his girlfriend in a rather unsubtle way. When she asks him to spend his vacation with her, he promptly phones his employer requesting him any type of assignment! Great move. The movie finally starts now, as he travels to an isolated mountain area to photograph some peaks. Though not before he picks up a new girl (Patty Shepard) and photographs her topless! Throughout their journey, all kind of strange events occur that – you guessed it – are never explained. The girl wakes up in the middle of the forest, loud petrifying music plays everywhere and someone even steals the jeep! Really, car jacking witches? Apparently a coven of silent witches owns the mountains and they practice voodoo on trespassers. That's as close as I get describing the plot, but there's a good chance I'm way off… More important here is the atmosphere! "The Witches' Mountain" is occasionally very creepy, with its spooky music and interesting cinematography. The supportive characters all look uncanny and the ravishing Patty Shepard plays a good heroine. This is the type of European horror film that could have been legendary, if only someone had bothered to write a structured screenplay.
Saying this movie is extremely hard to follow and just as frustrating to sit through is putting it very mildly. Also saying that the current available print is dark, dreary, scratchy, abysmally edited, painfully dubbed, seemingly censored and in almost unwatchable shape is also correct. This film is in dire need of a good remastering from the full, uncut, original negative and seeing how it's reasonably atmospheric (and won the director an award at the Catalonia Film Festival), it might actually be worth the trouble. Then again, maybe not... It's just impossible to tell in its current condition what kind of movie it actually is. It starts fairly interesting, if you can discount the completely senseless pre-credits opening sequence, which involves a deranged cat-killing, snake-loving little girl named Gerda. The girls mom, Carla (Mónica Randall, who should have laid off the eyeliner a little bit), splashes some gasoline around in the garage and torches the brat. Seemingly about as crazy as young Gerda, she goes to visit her estranged photographer (ex?) boyfriend Mario ("John"/Cihangir Caffari). He's on vacation from work, but so desperate to get away from Carla that he begs his employers to set him up on an assignment... any assignment. She scowls "You'll be sorry!" as he heads out the door. Well, Mario is assigned to photograph "Witches Mountain" (somewhere in the Pyrenees, I believe). Before he gets to his destination, he gets sight of a hottie on the beach named Delia (Patty Shepard) and snaps a few pictures of her taking off her bikini top. Only slightly peeved, she claims to be a single writer, the two flirt and then decide it would be a swell idea if they went on the trip up the mountain together. When they stop by her place so she can pack her bags, Mario suddenly hears loud, sinister music. Delia claims he's just hearing things.<br /><br />So the two begin their trip up the mountain, taking a stop at a local inn to spend the night. There they encounter a weird, partially-deaf, crazy-eyed innkeeper (Victor Israel) and Delia claims someone was spying on here through her window. The next day, under some trance, she wanders off up the mountain and is eventually located by Mario, who hops out of his jeep and runs after her. While he's finding out what's up, someone steals their wheels and they're forced to walk a piece, eventually finding the jeep undamaged at the foot of a small, ancient, seeming abandoned village... almost like someone was trying to intentionally lure them there. Well as we will see, that's exactly what has happened. In the village they encounter a friendly old woman named Zanta (Ana Farra) who claims she's the only person still living there and lets them stay in her home. Mario takes some pictures of the "abandoned" city and when he develops them they are eerily full of people. Slightly creeped out, he and Delia begin to leave and get stuck in "treacherous" fog and have to pull over and camp out for the night. The rest of the movie has to do with voodoo dolls, black cats transforming into sexy women, Satanic rituals performed by ladies in their bras and a deadly fall off a cliff. And yeah, coincidentally Carla the estranged wife turns out to be one of the witches, too. It all takes place in semi-darkness and to be quite honest, I didn't know what the hell was going on most of the time. The inconclusive "open" ending is just an additional slap in the face to anyone having to suffer through the rest of this senseless mess.<br /><br />Honestly, there are just a few things that stand out to me as being really good. The first is actress Shepard, who has that great Barbara Steele kind of dark, mysterious beauty. There's also an excellent music score (credited to Fernando Garcia Morcillo) and chanting songs, which aided immensely in making this film as atmospheric as it is. The location work is fairly decent, but as I said, the print is ugly as can be and it doesn't make a lick of sense, so proceed with caution on this one.
This was a fairly creepy movie; I found the music to be effective for this. The photographs Mario took of the village were also unnerving. However, I had three problems with this film. One is that the lighting was very dark so some of the time it was hard to tell what was going on, but this may have just been my copy. The second is that the very beginning is not explained very well and I'm still not sure what was going on there. The third problem is that I didn't understand the ending, but apparently some people do. Of course there are also the usual problems of people doing stupid things, and the male lead is very 70s. All in all, watchable but not even close to being a favorite.
Highly implausible, unbelievable, and incoherent Spanish production about...well, let me see just how close I can get to it. The film opens with a woman having one of her cat's killed by a young girl. She then begs her lover to take her somewhere on his vacation. He calls work and demands that he loses his vacation time and she says he will pay for this. What relevance this plays out to is anybody's guess at the film's end, because the guy, a swarthy photographer, spies a beautiful Patty Shepard, queen of Spanish horror films it seems, taking her bikini top off momentarily so he can snap a picture, ask her out to lunch, and then to his assignment to Witches Mountain - for reasons again we are never privy to. Before they go, Patty must stop by the house and loud, "eerie" chanting echoes in our hero's ears. Again, this is never explained. The film goes on with these two stopping at an inn, going on to the mountain, and finally realizing why the mountain is called Witches Mountain. You know, there are several aspects to this film which make it better than a bad film. It has some atmosphere, some of the character actors are really quite good(especially the deaf innkeeper and the old woman), the leads are at least adequate, and the climax - though it makes absolutely no sense at all - is well-choreographed(literally) with the witches in white brassieres and long black hair. It just doesn't make any sense though, and that is a huge detractor to me. I could watch the film another ten times and still not know more now than I did after the first viewing. That is a major problem. The Witches Mountain is a curious film from the long line of cheap, atmospheric European horror films that blanketed that decade. If you can get more out of it than me, better power to you.
I couldn't make sense of this film much of the time, and neither could anyone else, based on other reviews. The opening scene of this film has virtually nothing to do with the rest of the story. In it, a photojournalist with a big mustache cancels his vacation to get away from his girlfriend. He is assigned to photograph a mountain range. It's rumored to be haunted, but I couldn't tell whether he heard that from his boss or later in the film. On his way, he meets a beautiful writer (Patty Shepard) and convinces her to join him on his working trip. Throughout the film, there is this terrible music score, mostly consisting of noisy singing that makes you want to scream "SHUT UP ALREADY!!!" What really will gall a person is that the film always seems like it's about to become good, though it never does. There is beautiful mountain scenery and some genuinely creepy atmosphere. The inn and the silent, abandoned old buildings scattered on the mountain are rather ominous. The foggy nights look real, not like someone put an artificial fog machine on the set. And the idea, while not original, had potential. But it never does improve, at least not enough to be worthwhile. Here's how it goes, more or less. They stop at this inn run by a weird innkeeper (you expect him to be named Igor) with a hearing problem. There is a scene where the writer thinks a peeping tom is in her window, but the scene is so dark, I had no idea what was going on. Whether this was poor lighting or a poor film transfer is unknown to me. In any event, we never find out know what happened. There is a scene where she wanders off during the night. Whether she is sleepwalking or mesmerized by the witches of the title is never explained. Another scene which is never explained is when their car is stolen, then found again, with nothing stolen. They wind up in this apparently abandoned mountain village whose sole inhabitant is this seemingly kindly old woman. There are other things, including a chained wild man in a cave who is never explained, an attempt to sacrifice the writer in some way (will they kill her or brainwash her into joining them?), the witches themselves, a bunch of brunette women in white robes who don't show up until the last 15 minutes of the film and whose practices and beliefs are never explained. Even the closing scene doesn't make any sense. When all is said and done, most people will be saying, "Huh?"
I was never quite sure where this thing was going. These people seem interested in what is going on on some mountain. They investigate, have narrow escapes, leave, come back, leave, put each other in danger, sleepwalk, get attacked by witches who have consistent wardrobes, etc., etc. The guy seems to like the girl, but leaves her unprotected numerous times. She gets taken off, he gets her back, leaves her again. You get the point. The whole thing seems to get around to some sort of sacrifice, I think, but I'm not sure, or turning people into witches, but I'm not sure. It's just dull and endless and not worth the time. There are some atmospheric scenes, but the print is so bad that there times when twenty seconds of blackness is not unusual. Is this caused by age or the overuse of night filters.
I admit, I had to fast forward through this poorly transferred DVD after about 30 minutes -- NOTHING was happening, and everyone has already described the "plot." But has anyone mentioned the opening scene -- a butcher knife is stabbed through a wig and it's impaled on the grass in the front yard! I'm guessing the bratty kid did it, put it's never explained. Really trippy opening.<br /><br />I wish this had been a better written or thought out film, because what we're left with if pretty daft and a movie that makes no sense isn't a "clever" movie, it's just a poorly executed film.<br /><br />I would like to see a cleaned up version and if there was any missing footage, I would like to see if it would help. Otherwise, this is an odd little film that is best if fast-forwarded through!
I am working my way through the Chilling Classics 50 Movie Pack Collection and THE WITCHES' MOUNTAIN (El Monte de las brujas)is something like the 17th movie in the set.<br /><br />The movie had nothing to it to hold my attention at all. The plot was incoherent. The dialog seemed improvised. The acting was poor. The characters were unsympathetic.<br /><br />The best scene is the beginning, with an exasperated woman that is driven to burning her seemingly bratty daughter. However, the only connection this scene has to the rest of the movie, is the lead character, Mario, who has the most stupendous mustache ever. But, that's it.<br /><br />The film was not effective on any level. The music was too intrusive. The lighting was very dark, so that some scenes are almost completely black. It really is barely watchable -- what more can I say?
Welcome to movie 17 on the chilling classics 50 pack. Where we'll see, That's right. Another movie that makes absolutely no sense. Seriously, this movie had me so confused at the end, i thought i was rewatching "At Dawn they Sleep." The plot seems simple enough....well that is until 3 seconds into the movie where a girl supposedly killed a cat and then...um.. explodes? i have no idea what happened. and that was BEFORE THE TITLE SCREEN. That's really sad when i can't even tell what happened in the first 3 minutes.<br /><br />Anyway it stars a photographer with a big mustache who finds this girl after dumping his other girlfriend on the way to take pictures of something somewhere. so we get there but not before somebody steals their jeep to drive it 200 feet out of the way towards a town. suspicious? nah. so they decide to stay at this deserted village with one old lady. and then blah blah stuff happens and blah blah talking. The guy with the mustache goes out in the fog for some reason even though the old lady tells him not to. He gets lost and then finds his way back.<br /><br />Oh, i forgot to mention this is all after an incredibly pointless 20 minutes of them staying in the house of a guy who looks like that buggy eyed guy from casablanca. Then they leave. There's really no point to this scene. It's really just padding. if you cut it out no one would have noticed or cared.<br /><br />But sadly, that was actually the best part of the movie. wait. let me rephrase that. REALLY sadly that was the best part of the movie. because the rest is so confusing that i had to look on IMDb to find out what happened. But of course no one else knows so i'm SOL. <br /><br />Seriously, the last 30 minutes of the movie were some of the most mindscrewing moments i've ever seen on film. They dressed her up in a dress, he gets kidnapped, then released, he runs back to the house, then at the end the witches are in the house and it ends? seriously. i have hardly ever been so confused in a movie. i mean, as bad as movies such as "War of the Robots" are, at least they MAKE SENSE. this movie doesn't even make the ATTEMPT to be coherent. the ending was as confusing as the end of "At dawn they sleep" and the plot was much more boring. This movie gets a 1 just for its sheer "i have no idea what happened in this movie"ness. "Witches mountain" gets 1 confused movie watcher out of 10.
As someone else mentioned, it begins with a bizarre prologue about a little blond girl killing a cat. Then the main story: a photographer (Gaffari) and a writer (Shepard) meet by chance and take a trip into the mountains. First they spend the night at an inn where the slightly deaf landlord gets hollered at, with increasing irritation to the audience, by Gaffari. Once in the mountains they seek shelter again and are invited in by a kindly old lady who seems overly hospitable to strangers (Hansel and Gretel, anyone?) What happens next I will leave for the bold viewer to sort out because I most assuredly couldn't. Now, I like Eurohorror, and this woulda been better if only Artigot (writer AND director) had made some attempt at logical story telling. The backdrop (Pyrenees?) makes an excellent and intriguing location for mysterious and occult occurrences. The verdant peaks could easily obscure supernatural forces and those who command them. The photography is nice. Just wish the whole thing made sense. You can view this film at archive.org.
This engaging (which it shouldn't be) low-grade Spanish exploitation (quite tame I might add) looks good, but huh? Let me phrase that again 'huh?'. Actually the word 'huh?' would be going through your mind quite a lot. Nothing makes sense, nor does it try too. I just don't know if its complicatedly cryptic or just a convoluted muddle, but there's no denying how laconically uneventful, strange and wordy it feels.<br /><br />Unrelated sequences tied (like that nasty opening involving a little girl, dead cat and fire) in to a sparse story involving photographer Mario (played by a chest-puffing John Caffari, who's mustache is a dead ringer for Nintendo's iconic Mario. What's the odds?) that ditches his girlfriend at home and encounters a young lady (a gorgeously fixating Patty Shepard) who he asks to come with him on an photography assignment, where at this remote mountain retreat they come across some hooded witches.<br /><br />Look past the unhinged plot structure and wallow in what is simply a moody piece of atmospheric mechanisms and growing unease. Raul Artigot directs few jarringly unusual visuals and creepy passages, but for most part seems sporadically non-existent and unfocused just like his writing. Ramon Sempere's striking cinematography lenses the gracefully rich scenery as we take in the scenic views and let the time leisurely grind away. However there are certain areas where it was too dark to see what was going on. Fernando Garcia Morcillo's hauntingly bombastic and overwrought score blends terrifically with compulsively dense atmosphere created. The leads are capable, but there's also a sturdy bunch (the pick being Víctor Israel) of secondary performances.<br /><br />Slow with little in the way of interest, but this dreamy set-up (that seems to go on and on) manages to keep you watching until its closing.
This movie got off to an interesting start. Down the road however, the story gets convoluted with a poor illustration of ancient black magic rituals. The male lead was very good , even though he gets the worst end of the stick in the climax. In comparison, this is "Boomerang" meets "Extremities".<br /><br />
This movie got off to an interesting start. Down the road however, the story gets convoluted with a poor illustration of ancient black magic rituals. The male lead was very good , even though he gets the worst end of the stick in the climax. In comparison, this is "Boomerang" meets "Extremities".
This is a typical Steele novel production in that two people who have undergone some sort of tragedy manage to get together despite the odds. I wouldn't call this a spoiler because anyone who has read a Steele novel knows how they ALL end. If you don't want to know much about the plot, don't keep reading.<br /><br />Gilbert's character, Ophelia, is a woman of French decent who has lost her husband and son in an accident. Gilbert needs to stop doing films where she is required to have an accent because she, otherwise a good actress, cannot realistically pull off any kind of accent. Brad Johnson, also an excellent actor, is Matt, who is recovering from a rather nasty divorce. He is gentle, convincing and compelling in this role.<br /><br />The two meet on the beach through her daughter, Pip, and initially, Ophelia accuses Matt of being a child molester just because he talked art with the kid. All of them become friends after this episode and then the couple falls in love.<br /><br />The chemistry between the two leads is not great, even though the talent of these two people is not, in my opinion, a question. They did the best they could with a predictable plot and a script that borders on stereotypical. Two people meet, tragedy, bigger tragedy, a secret is revealed, another tragedy, and then they get together. I wish there was more to it than that, but there it is in a nutshell.<br /><br />I wanted mindless entertainment, and I got it with this. In regard to the genre of romantic films, this one fails to be memorable. "A Secret Affair" with Janine Turner is far superior (not a Steele book), as are some of Steele's earlier books turned into film.
As I said, the book was pretty good and this might have been a good movie if Melissa Gilbert hadn't been so horrible and unbelievable in the lead roll. What kind of accent was that suppose to be anyway? It sounded the same as her horrible Russian accent in another movie that I have seen her in. Every time she opened her mouth I cringed. It took 3 tries before I was able to watch the entire movie. Brad Johnson was good as the other lead. <br /><br />I really liked the beach location scenes. They added some much needed brightness to take your mind off of Melissa Gilberts depressing portrayal. I think they could have used San Francisco views more to their advantage though. It looked like the night scenes were actually SF, but I could be wrong. I don't recall the character in the book being this depressing. <br /><br />Please keep Melissa Gilbert out of any future movies that require an accent!
Like all the Taviani Brothers films, this one looks great, but it is rotten to the core with false romanticism, and coincidences heap upon each other in some facsimile of a "story". In actuality, this is really just a sentimentally cheap tear jerker posing as an intellectually distinguished art film.
Even by 1942 standards of movie-making the setup which HER CARDBOARD LOVER presents was dated to the extreme. The machinations of one half of a pair (of husband/wife, ex-husband/ex-wife) to get the other back at the threat of marriage to another, divorce, or an eventual separation by means of jealousy, humiliation, or other schemes had been done much better in classics such as HIS GIRL Friday and THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. Both of these movies features women with a strong, indomitable screen presence and who played independent, proto-feminist characters. In both movies, both women were estranged/divorced from their (witty) first husbands and set to marry colorless men who were their exact opposite, and both would be bamboozled into rejecting their soon-to-be husbands and re-igniting their passion for each other.<br /><br />The plot in HER CARDBOARD LOVER switches the gender: here, it's Norma Shearer in the Cary Grant role out, this time, to ward off an ex-boyfriend (George Sanders) by means of hiring Robert Taylor to pose as her gigolo. The problem is, Shearer is much too old to be playing a role more suited to an actress in her mid-to-late twenties; Sanders is about as involved as a piece of furniture for the most -- any man who would be in love with his fiancée, on seeing a strange man come out of her bathroom as happens here, would knock the lights out of him and cause a huge scene. Not here. And Robert Taylor plays his part as if he were trying to channel Cary Grant half the time, not in speech inflections but in overall essence.<br /><br />But the worst part of it is Shearer herself. For an actress used to parts which gave her a sense of intellectual sexiness and dramatic presence, playing Consuelo Craydon seems to put her into throes of complete over-acting, over-emoting, and over-gesturing which, while still a part of her style of acting and more appropriate ten years earlier, makes her look like an extremely mannered performer wrenching the joke out of a situation like water from a fairly dry sponge. It only fuels the fires that tell the theory which gives Irving Thalberg the maker of her career and chooser of (most of her) roles; why she passed on roles such as Charlotte Vale and Mrs. Miniver on mega-hits NOW VOYAGER and MRS. MINIVER is a mystery, but then again, most accounts also state that by this time she had just burnt out from acting, that she'd had lost interest in the whole thing altogether and it's no secret that anyone who has experienced this sort of thing has essentially lost focus and can't wait until retirement or the end of a contract is near to leave as soon as possible. Such could be the case here. She seems lost, she seems tired, she seems ill at ease, going through autopilot instead of living the part. After this film she would make no more, but would be responsible of discovering Janet Leigh who would come into her own as a screen star during the late 40s and into the 60s.
Songwriter Robert Taylor (as Terry) is "dizzy, slap-happy" and can't see straight over otherworldly Norma Shearer (as Consuelo). "She makes the sun shine, even when it's raining," Mr. Taylor explains. But, Mr. Taylor gets a lump in his throat whenever he gets near Ms. Shearer. Finally, at the Palm Beach casino Shearer frequents, Taylor proclaims "I love you!" Shearer brushes him off, as she is engaged to George Sanders (as Tony). However, to settle a gambling debt, Shearer hires Taylor to pose as "Her Cardboard Lover", to make Mr. Sanders jealous.<br /><br />This film's title invites the obvious and appropriate three-word review: "Her Cardboard Movie". It is most notable as the last film appearance for Shearer, one of the biggest stars in the world from "He Who Gets Slapped" (1924, playing another Consuelo) to "The Women" (1939). To be fair, this was likely the kind of Shearer film MGM believed audiences wanted to see. However, the part is unflattering.<br /><br />Plucked and powered, Taylor and Shearer were better off in "The Escape" (1940). If Shearer had continued, she might have become a better actress than "leading lady"; apparently, she was no longer interested, and certainly didn't need the money. Taylor has a great scene, reciting Christina Rossetti's "When I am Dead, My Dearest" while threatening to jump from Shearer's balcony, as directed by George Cukor.<br /><br />**** Her Cardboard Lover (6/42) George Cukor ~ Norma Shearer, Robert Taylor, George Sanders
In this forgettable trifle, the 40-ish Norma Shearer plays a fluttery, girlish socialite in Monte Carlo, caught in a tussle between George Sanders and Robert Taylor. It would be tempting to blame this movie's failure on the dull, talky script, or director George Cukor, who never seems interested in livening up the film's generally comatose state. Mostly, though, it's the fault of Shearer herself, who desperately wanted to keep playing "young" parts as long as she could get away with it. Inadvertently, this makes "Her Cardboard Lover" a bizarre monument to an aging woman's vanity.
"Her Cardboard Lover" is Norma Shearer's last movie. She quit the movies and, I think, joined the Board of Directors at MGM. That was a good move on her part. "Her Cardboard Lover" was talky and boring in parts. It was obvious there were only a handful of actors with speaking parts so they had a lot of dialogue to speak to keep this turkey afloat. <br /><br />The story was a good idea about a wealthy woman (Norma Shearer) hiring a man (Robert Taylor) to make her playboy fiancee (George Sanders)jealous. I am surprised that the director, George Cukor, did not cut many of the talky scenes between Ms. Shearer and Mr. Taylor. Mr. Cukor served Ms. Shearer well in "The Women" but not in this movie. <br /><br />The best performance in the movie was given by Robert Taylor. During Mr. Taylor's career, he was given his best comedy roles in this movie and "When Ladies Meet" in 1941. In 1942, he gave his best comedy performance in "Her Cardboard Lover" and, up to then, his best dramatic performance in "Johnny Eager." He had a busy year. I think of all the actors at MGM, Mr. Taylor worked with all the major and minor actresses on the lot. Also, MGM gave Mr. Taylor all types of movies to make - most of them were successful. That is why MGM kept him for 25 years. <br /><br />Mr. George Sanders was very good as a socialite heel. He played a similar role eight years later in "All About Eve" for which he won an Oscar for a supporting role. As for Ms. Shearer, this was one of her worst performances, she was not funny and too dramatic for this comedy. It is strange that she made a great comedy in 1939, "The Women", and gave her best performance. It was obvious that she was too old looking for her younger leading men in "Her Cardboard Lover." Also, it didn't help that some of her clothes were awful.<br /><br />Too bad she and Mr. Taylor did not make another dramatic movie like their last movie together, the superb "Escape". The same comments about this movie can be said of another movie, "Personal Property" that Mr. Taylor made in 1937 with Jean Harlow. It was too talky, boring, and the actress looked old. Ms. Harlow looked ill throughout the movie and nobody in Hollywood noticed to tell her to see a doctor, so in 1937, she died at age 26. What a waste! She was becoming a good actress and getting better roles.
What boob at MGM thought it would be a good idea to place the studly Clark Gable in the role of a Salvation Army worker?? Ironically enough, another handsome future star, Cary Grant, also played a Salvation Army guy just two years later in the highly overrated SHE DONE HIM WRONG. I guess in hindsight it's pretty easy to see the folly of these roles, but I still wonder WHO thought that Salvation Army guys are "HOT" and who could look at these dashing men and see them as realistic representations of the parts they played. A long time ago, I used to work for a sister organization of the Salvation Army (the Volunteers of America) and I NEVER saw any studly guys working there (and that includes me, unfortunately). Maybe I should have gotten a job with the Salvation Army instead!<br /><br />So, for the extremely curious, this is a good film to look out for, but for everyone else, it's poor writing, sloppy dialog and annoying moralizing make for a very slow film.
What's written on the poster is: "At birth he was given 6 years to live... At 34 he takes the journey of a lifetime." Ami is an American-born Israeli who was diagnosed with Muscular Dystrophy disease at the age of one. At age of 34, after the love toward his 22 years old care-giver didn't go well, he decided to come to the US to face the doctor who said that he would have only 6 years to live. He wanted to show the doctor that he is still alive, and weights 39 pounds. Why? Your guess is as good as mine, even I have seen this film.<br /><br />Obviously it's courageous to live when all he can move is his left index finger, but why does he have so much anger toward the doctor who diagnosed his disease 34 years ago? His doctor just told his mom that based on the medical history, people with his disease won't live long. What's the point of him showing up at old doctor's door for? Why is tracking down this old doctor in the US is a journey of his lifetime? There are so many things we might be interested in Ami's life: how can he make those animations with the movement of only one finger? How can he go through daily lives while totally depending on others? How did he out lived his doctor's prediction? How does he deal emotionally when other people look at him like looking at a strange creature? The movie told us none of that. Instead, the filmmaker got a van and set up a trip to let Ami to show up at his old doctor's door in order to show him that he is still alive. I thought it was a joke.
There are three movies with this animation style that I fondly remember from my youth. This movie, "The Last Unicorn," "Flight of Dragons" and "The Hobbit." I own copies of both "Dragons" and "The Hobbit" (both excellent) and I hadn't seen "The Last Unicorn" in more than a decade. That was until today and now I wish I hadn't. What bothered me the most was the script. It was incredibly choppy and often inane. Things would happen for no reason and other things would happen without explanation. We're not just talking about little things here either; we're talking about key plot points! The story itself isn't that great to begin with, but it could have worked had the script been decent. Not even close. On top of that the music was awful! I know that music in movies such as these rarely have what one would call classic pieces, but the music in this movie made me want to knock myself unconscious with a bowling ball. This was one of those films that I was going to show to my kids some day, but it just got cut. I don't think I could ever sit through that crap fest again. Disappointed is putting it mildly.
I loved "The Curse of Frankenstein" so much that I rushed out to get "Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed" to see Cushing at it again...even if it was without Chistopher Lee this time. To my great disappointment, this movie not only does without Lee, but it does without Frankenstein's Monster altogether! Was it a case of "If we can't get Lee, we won't have a monster at all"? Why would they do that? The monster is half the fun of the whole thing!! This film is dedicated solely to the study of Baron Frankenstein and his quest to finish experiments he had begun in brain transplants before ending up in an asylum. I found the script extremely weak, with the need to suspend disbelief forced upon the audience a little too much. I'm willing to suspend a fair amount, but this movie got fairly ridiculous, which took me out of the film rather than immersing me in it.<br /><br />Peter Cushing, though, is absolutely brilliant playing pure evil in this film. For being one of the most beloved actors and notoriously sweet men, he sure could play menacing and malevolent extremely well. The supporting cast is competent, but has little to do, even the young doctor and his fiancée blackmailed into helping Frankenstein. A bumbling police chief is introduced, along with his put-upon sidekick, to generate some comic relief, then they are completely dropped from the movie! Why? We are led to believe that the police chief will be the main nemesis of the Baron, then we are led to believe it will be the young doctor, and then it ends up being the victim of Frankenstein's brain transplant experiment. There was no tension, we weren't invested in the "creature", and the ending was left so ambiguous as to leave one unsatisfied because it is so clear they are setting up another sequel.<br /><br />Also, there are virtually no "horror" elements. Yes, there is a beheading in the beginning (off-camera), and we are treated to the sounds of Cushing cutting the tops of two men's skulls off (again, off camera), and there is the most unsettling and thoroughly unnecessary rape scene (90% of which is, again, off-camera). I understand that there is a love of "letting the audience imagine it all, for their imaginations are far worse than what we can show", but come on, if you're not going to give us a Monster, then at least let us SEE the few "horrific" elements you do choose to include. Showing us a skeleton in the lab lit with a green light is just not scary.<br /><br />On top of a weak script, I thought the directing was mostly flat. There were a couple of nice shots, but otherwise no excitement, atmosphere, or suspense was generated. The same director did "Curse" back in 1958 and I thought it was brilliantly directed...guess he was as uninspired by this film as I was.<br /><br />The movie gets a 4 out of 10 from me strictly for Peter Cushing's powerful, nuanced performance...beyond that, I found little in this movie worth recommending. Instead, my suggestion is to watch "The Curse of Frankenstein" and see a truly great Hammer horror film.
Oh, man! This thing scared the heck out of me when I first watched it... and I was SIXTEEN!!!<br /><br />That creepy animated Barbie is scary as hell! I want to stop talking about her now.
It is a Frank Zappa axiom that "music journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." If you ever needed proof that musicians can't talk, this is the film for you. Repeated attempts at profundity stumble over themselves to end up in monosyllabic comments delivered in awestruck voices: "Wow." (Thank you, Idris Muhammed.) This film is pretentious but, while much of the pontificating from Youssou N'Dour and his gang of merry men (and one token woman) grates, the music saves the day.<br /><br />The main idea behind the film (what I take to be the main idea, dredged out of the inarticulate commentary) is interesting. To gather a group of musicians from America and Europe and take them on a journey through the different styles of music that grew up in and out of slavery, back to their roots in the music of West Africa, and a concert in the old slave fort of Gorée off the coast of Senegal. We are treated to gospel, blues, jazz and variations of these, including some fantastic drumming both in New Orleans and Senegal. There's also a good deal of N'Dour's own compositions.<br /><br />Sadly, that's another weakness. It's never entirely clear what N'Dour himself wants to achieve. To some degree, the film appears to be an exercise in self-promotion on N'Dour's part. He wants to play his own music, jazzed up to some degree and performed in the company of a bunch of musicians he admires. He's clearly a little embarrassed by this and early in the film obtains the blessings of the Curator of the Gorée museum.<br /><br />The clash between the different agendas shows through in several other places. For example, somebody obviously felt that it was not possible to tell the story of black music without involving a gospel choir, but N'Dour and most of his mates are Moslems (a point made repeatedly throughout the film). The whole early sequence involving the black Christians is uncomfortable and then they disappear from the story until the close harmony group (the only black Christians who can hold a tone?) turn up in Dakar at the end of the film. (To be fair, they turn up triumphantly and perform the best piece in the film.) If the story of black music needs to nod in the direction of gospel, why not also in the direction of Latin America? Where are the black musical influences from the Caribbean and Brazil? Samba? Reggae? Then there's Europe. Here the black diaspora doesn't seem to have produced any musicians of calibre, since N'Dour chooses to draft in Austrian guitarist and a trumpet player from Luxemburg. Are they in the team just because N'Dour has played with him before? What I personally found most irritating, though, was the long sequence which tried to recreate a kind of 60s beatnik/black power/Nation of Islam cultural happening in the New York home of Amir Baraka (a.k.a. Leroi Jones). Hearing people talk about the importance of "knowing your history", and then in the next breath perpetuating ignorance. Why do so many African-Americans believe that taking an Arabic name is an assertion of their African roots? And why do they think Arabic Islam is so much more admirable than European Christianity? Who do they think established the trade in African slaves in the first place? The film doesn't have much to say about the situation in West Africa today beyond the platitude that "present conditions" are a consequence of all the brightest and best having been shipped away for 300 years. The Senegalese appear to be a poor but happy, musical gifted folk, friendly and welcoming, respectful of their elders (and not above fleecing the visiting Americans in the fish market). Is this ethnic stereotyping or just my imagination? There is no comment on the armed guard that N'Dour and the camera crew seem to need in the opening sequence as they walk through the streets of Dakar.<br /><br />There is also a strong implication in the film that the slaves who were taken from Dakar came from Dakar. The similarity between the folk drumming style of New Orleans and the folk drumming style of Senegal is cited in evidence. The last thing the slaves heard before they were shipped away was the drumming of their homeland, bidding them farewell. Except, of course, that by and large, the slaves shipped from Dakar did not come from Dakar. They were captured or traded from the interior by the coastal Senegalese and sold to merchants of whichever European power currently held the Gorée slave fort. The people of Dakar are not the descendents of Africans who escaped the slave trade, they are just as likely – more likely – to be descendents of the people who sold their black brethren into slavery and exile.<br /><br />The two agenda's clash again in the final part of the film. There are two separate endings. On the one hand, the concert which N'Dour and Co have been rehearsing and preparing along the way and which they deliver in the courtyard of the Gorée slave fort. The other end comes when the Harmony Harmoneers sing the spiritual "Return to Glory", in the seaward doorway of the slave fort. This is deeply moving, even if it is hard to believe the performance is quite as spontaneous as it appears.<br /><br />This is a film that is flawed. Unclear of the story it is trying to tell and tugged in different directions. Irritating, confusing, beautiful and emotional by turns. Watch it (listen to it) for the music and the feeling, but don't expect enlightenment or intellectual rigour.
This was a big disappointment for me. I think this is the worst Mastroianni-movie ever made. Cosmatos tries too hard to make this movie a masterpiece and that makes this movie a typical "art"-movie. I give 4/10 for this movie.
very badly made film, the action/violence scenes are ridiculous.<br /><br />1 point for the presence of Burton and Mastroianni + 1 point for the real tragic event of the massacre of the innocent italians: 2/10.
This does give away some of the plot, by the way. A Charlie Brown Christmas is one of those timeless classics that teach you the value Christmas and just enjoying the holiday. This, however, does not. It tries to capture the emotion of A Charlie Brown Christmas, there even is another Christmas play, but fails with lackluster and easy jokes. Charlie Brown is no longer wondering about the spirit of Christmas but is instead wants to buy a present for Peggy Jean ($25 gloves...what?). His sister Sally is the most annoying character in the movie. Here is one of her jokes: Sally wants to write a letter to Santa, but doesn't know how to spell Charlie (for some reason he needs to be in her letter) so instead decides to name him Sam, because she knows how to spell Sam. Also, Sally plays an angel in the play with one word to day: "Hark!" She instead says hockey stick (har har). If Sally saying hark 12 times (all oddly sounding exactly the same) doesn't kill you, nothing will. Peppermint Patty and Marcy are a large focal point, but that hardly makes it better. Marcy is funny with her responses to Patty, but Patty is another story. She sounds like a boy (which doesn't dispel the rumors) and gets mad when she has to be the sheep in the play (terrible baas and all). Apparently she is the sheep every year, and is worried she will forget her lines (lines she doesn't have). She is so worried she mentions it twice, one right after the other, and gets the same response. I'm assuming she must have short term memory loss, or something. Lucy and Linus are more welcome (although Linus still has annoying advice), but hardly amount to much air time. I'm sure Schroeder isn't even in this one. All in all, it tries to be a parasite to the original, but compromised the message for a few quick laughs.
When I noticed that "Hamish Macbeth" was being broadcast in the United States, I was thrilled. I then had the misfortune to watch the darn thing. I adore M. C. Beaton's books about the wonderful Scottish Constable. The characters in the book are entertaining and very well-written. The powers that be who are responsible for this mish-mash apparently have never have read one of Beaton's books. Only the name "Hamish Macbeth" has anything to do with the series. Besides the lack of familiar characters, I find the whole show offensively loud. It seems that the actors feel they must shout their lines and scream at each other. If you love M. C. Beaton's adorable Hamish Macbeth don't waste your time on this rubbish.
I went to see this film based on the review by Siskel and Ebert; not only did I get duped, but I took some friends along, and had to spend the rest of the day profusely apologizing for making them sit through this pointless crap. After this, I never went to see a movie based solely on Siskel & Ebert's advice.
I'm amazed how many comments on this show are about how "real" it is. Maybe I'm not part of the same universe because if Veronica Mars is anything, it's over the top in a big way.<br /><br />The acting is chewing the scenery with enthusiasm and the plots have holes you could drive a truck through. That's not what I call real.<br /><br />It is so earnest in its desire to be "relevant" that it only shows how cut-off from reality Rob Thomas and his staff are.<br /><br />Overall, I found it to be at best a snooze-fest and at worst more than a little annoying. Kristen Bell looks like she could be a good actress, but it's hard to tell with the over-the-top style of the whole show.
The biggest mystery of Veronica Mars is not one that she had to tackle on screen.<br /><br />Rather, the mystery is why this perennial ratings disappointment is still on the air. This week marked a nadir for Veronica Mars: it ranked 146 out of 146 shows in the big 6 (soon to be Big 5). Yes, you read right. Veronica Mars was beaten by every show of the now-defunct WB and every show on UPN. It was beat by all the shows on Fox and of course by all the shows on ABC, CBS and NBC.<br /><br />Now, the hip hypesters are going to say: but this was a re-run. But everything on TV that week was pretty much a re-run! It boggles the mind why CW would choose this proved ratings disappointment as one of the few shows it saved from UPN.<br /><br />Clearly something is going on behind the scenes. Favors are being exchanged and influence peddled.<br /><br />Sorry to be so cynical, but what other explanation is there? The "Veronica Mars has potential" line is clearly dead now that it's had two years to establish itself and failed to do so.<br /><br />Maybe it's Joel Silver's influence and clout, but frankly, I am at a loss why anyone would choose to spend their clout on a bad show that no audience is watching.<br /><br />A great mystery and a very inauspicious debut for CW.
Last week, I took a look at the weekly Nielsen ratings, and there was Veronica Mars, supposedly "the best show you're not watching".<br /><br />Well, they're right that you're not watching it. It aired twice and was ranked 147 and 145 out of 147.<br /><br />Translation: this is the lowest-rated show on any nationally broadcast network... and deservedly so. I tried to watch it a couple of times because of all the press coverage hyping it as a "great" show, a "realistic look" at life and all such nonsense. The reality was otherwise. Veronica Mars is a bore. It's as unrealistic as it gets, and it richly deserves to be canceled.<br /><br />The only Mystery is why CW felt compelled to put on its inaugural schedule the lowest-rated show in memory, after two years of continued commercial and artistic failure.
I was so disappointed by this show. After hearing and reading all the hoopla about it, how it was a "ground breaking show" and all sorts of wild promises if quality, I tried to watch it.<br /><br />What a letdown!! The acting was way forced and exaggerated. The story made very little sense. As for any hint of the vaunted "look into teenagers' lives", I could only see a paltry attempt that had as much reality to it as a reality show.<br /><br />Some are wondering why there are so many negative comments about this show. The reason is that it's really not all that good and beating the drums over quality on this show only serves to attract attention to how poorly made it is.
I give this movie a ONE, for it is truly an awful movie. Sound track of the DVD is so bad, it actually hurts my ear. But the vision, no matter how disjointed, does show something really fancy in the Italian society. I will not go into detail what actually was so shocking , but the various incidents are absolutely abnormal. So for the kink value, i give it one.Otherwise, the video, photography, acting of the adults actors /actresses are simply substandard, a practical jock to people who love foreign movies.Roberto, the main character, has full spectrum of emotions but exaggerated to the point of being unbelievable.however, the children in the movie are mostly 3/4 years old, and they are genuine and the movie provides glimpse of the Italian life..
Awful! Absolutely awful! No plot, no point, no end. It looks like the director turned the camera on and then the whole crew went to lunch. Every day. I'm trying to GIVE this video away but no one will take it. I'm giving it a 2 instead of a 1 because I like Benigni. Roger, I'm going to have to say thumbs down on this one.<br /><br />
I like silent films, but this was a little too moronic. As much as I wish I could say that it was worth the hour I stood up I can't. I don't think any version of the movie even comes close to the book. And don't try it out on kids, they might freak. And the lady who played Pollyanna, how old was she? 38? I know the labor laws were different back then... BUT COME ON PEOPLE.
I could not, for the life of me, follow, figure out or understand the story. As the plot advances it too stays incomprehensible. I'm going to guess and say that there was a preproduction story/plot problem that never got sorted out. The producers could never separate the many details that the novel, or any novel, has the time and space to create from the other idea, which was to make a movie about a serial killer and the killer's pursuit by the police. They ended up with too many things happening in a proscribed feature film time limit. Too bad really because they had a solid cast, a director who knows how to move things around and excellent cinematography. In fact, a well made movie that one could enjoy and relax with for a couple of hours.
When we were in junior high school, some of us boys would occasionally set off stinkbombs. It was considered funny then. But the producers, directors and cast of "Semana Santa" ("Angel of Death" in the DVD section of your local video rental) are adults and they are STILL setting them off.<br /><br />Like the previous reviewer who wondered if the cast were anxious to get off the set and home, I doubt more than one take was done for any of the scenes.<br /><br />Mira Sorvino, hot in "Mighty Aphrodite" and other top-rated films, seems to have undersold herself to this project. Her acting is non-existent, confined mostly to wistful stares that are supposed to indicate how "sensitive" she is to the plight of the film's various victims.<br /><br />But let me warn you--do not be the next victim! Step away from the DVD if you find it on the shelf. Tbere are not many good leg shots of Mira (the only high points I could find in the film) and the supporting cast is of inferior quality, delivering a mishmash of badly-done dialogue with embarrassing "Spanish" accents worthy of the best high school theatrical production.
I saw this movie for a number of reasons the main being Mira Sorvino. With her on the cast it couldn't be so bad. And it even seemed like it had some mystery and Olivier Martinez was her boyfriend at the time and he was pretty good in `Unfaithful'. The story is set in Spain so it could be an exotic entertaining movie with one of my favorite actresses.<br /><br />If you're thinking about the same thing let me warn you: this is a truly awful, uninteresting, boring movie. The only adjective that comes to mind is pathetic.<br /><br />The story is contrived with sub-plots that add nothing to the narrative. They try to build a slasher/thriller with a look at fascism in Spain but fail horribly. The twists have no credibility and the so-called investigation leads nowhere.<br /><br />The characters are paper-thin! I didn't care about anyone. More than that they're irritating and pretty hateful people.<br /><br />The acting is atrocious. Mira what is wrong with you? Why Mira? You're an oscar winner! Keep some dignity! Her character was weak but that is no excuse for such an awful performance. She seems to be sleepwalking all movie long. Come to think of it, I actually think I saw her eyes slowly closing in some scenes. I used to think this woman was sexy. Well she isn't here. If you want to look at some skin try Romi and Michelle because there's nothing to see here. And that accent? My god...<br /><br />Olivier Martinez is even worst. It's too painful to remember his performance to describe it here. Im sorry but I can´t. Ive suffered enough with this garbage.<br /><br />This whole movie is depressing! It's so bad in every way it's a wonder how it was even made. A lousy team to produce a lousy script and make some money over the actor's name. Don't fall for it.<br /><br />Avoid it!<br /><br />
It was agonizingly bad movie. It will eat your heart out while you watch it. I beg you: don't watch this movie! You will hate you losing 1,5 hours of your lifetime! It's not as some movies that are so bad that you can watch those and enjoy... this movie is boring as... there is nothing as boring as this movie. You will hate yourself after watching this movie till the end. And you will hate yourself that you didn't listen to me.<br /><br />I hate myself. I tortured myself and I did watch this movie to the end. Now excuse me, I will shot myself. I have seen all.<br /><br />Please. Read this very carefully. Don't watch this film.<br /><br />Please!
I agree with the previous comment, what a disappointment. Rented it thinking it was going to be a good movie since Mira and Olivier where in it. I was surprised by their performance, expected more since they're good actors.<br /><br />Thought it was a slow beginning but it got worse. I even laughed at some bad stunts!! when is supposed to be a mystery movie. You can even guess who is the killer beforehand!!! <br /><br />For real what happened?? <br /><br />Sorry to say but don't even bother you'll waste time and money.<br /><br />Boring!!!
This may actually be the worst movie that I have ever scene. Incoherent would be a compliment. Even the end made no sense but it was a tremendous relief that it was finally over. I watched it with a kind of fatalistic fascination to see if it could continue to deteriorate and it did. By the end of this mess I was sorry any of the characters survived and I wasn't feeling too charitable about the actors either.If you want to watch a train wreck, I recommend hanging out at a train station. Even waiting on a deserted train platform beats this mess. Apparently I haven't vented enough to fill up my prescribed ten lines so, at the risk of redundancy, I will say it one more time. This movie is a zero and it would be less if I had a word for an even lower rating. How about minus zero?
"Semana Santa" or "Angel Of Death" is a very weak movie. Mira Sorvino plays a detective who is trying to find a killer who shoots arrows in people. Mira has an Italian accent which falters from time to time. Couldn't she just speak English? All the other characters have a forced Mexican\English accent which is distracting. The dialogue is very bad and the delivery of it is wooden. The cinematography looks nice, but that's not enough to save this tripe. THIS NEXT PART OF THIS REVIEW DOES CONTAIN SPOILERS!!!! <br /><br />During the climax it looks like the villain is going to get away, but then he comes back down stairs to get shot and do a cool stunt down the railing. That just shows this script has no originality whatsoever. AVOID!
Semana Santa is jaw-droppingly bad. It's so wrong in so many ways I don't where to begin. So, let's see...Mira Sorvino, whose judge husband has been shot while protecting her, goes from Madrid to Seville for her cop job. During the holy week (Semana santa, see?...everybody begins to fall sleep..told u it was bad in so many points, even from the beginning), a killer executes his victims like bulls in a bullfighting arena. She teams up with male chauvinist pig Olivier Martinez and nice Feodor Atkine. Soon she discovers she'll be the next target of the killer (who wears a red robe). Why, oh but why?<br /><br />Why..;that's the questionthat has been in my head the whole movie.<br /><br />Q :Why did go to see that A : Because i love Mira Sorvino (i even excuse her for that AT FIRST SIGHT crap)<br /><br />Q : Why were we only 8 people in the theater this saturday on the first week end of release? A : ah-ah-ah. Spider-man got relaesed the same day. But also the fact that the movie has been blast with execrable reviews.<br /><br />Q : Why this movie has been made? A : Money I guess. But boy did Mira need the money.<br /><br />then...why???????????? first of all, there's always something wrong with european co-productions. here you got a french-english-german-italian-spanish-danish production. yi-ha.<br /><br />Then it wants to play on the same playgroung as US thrillers/slashers/whodunit/mysteries/whatever. Even VALENTINE, though unnecessary and badly scripted and shot, was much better in the suspense and the fun.<br /><br />Then , to give some credit to the story, the screenwriter wanted to add some political sight to the story. Wrong : done in flash-backs in a Traffic-like photography, it's certainly the most interesting thing i n the movie. Could have stick to it, it wouldn't have to sit through the whole movie. Better go straight to Guillermo del Tros's THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE (El espinazo del diablo)for some clever fun.<br /><br />Then the homophobia. Bullseye! The first victims are S&M drug addicted gay twins who got stabbed to death. The annoying olivier Martinez goes to a dating agency held by a badly shaved overweight transvestive with a blond platinum wig. Calls mira Sorvino's character a big dyke all the time. Do we need this kind of stuff? Nah. Just needless offensive remarks, just like ol'times.<br /><br />Then the suspense. Yipee. No apparent motive. The first murders are plain illusion as they're a representation of a famous painting. But no. And the revelation of the killer (a horrible fascist, of course) could have been done from the beginning as he appears at the end of the movie as, I guess, it was time for the director to say "weel, time to finish that damn movie. let's reveal right now who the killer is and why he kills".<br /><br />Then the director thinks he's a director. Wrong : no sense of suspense, no sense of directing the actors, no knowledge of change of pace. A Giant, mega-bore. The scenes of the holy week are needless (maybe a co-production rule saying : ok, shoot in Sevilla but show some creditsof this beautiful and historical town with the celebrations of Easter. There we are : a mystery movie for tourists!)<br /><br />Then the actors. All wrongs. Mira Sorvino bores herself to death : she does practicly nothing except getting stabbed in the right hand. Everything she did best (the Replacement Killers, Mighty Aphrodite...) were like they never existed. Olivier Martinez...hello, anybody here? When the producers will learn that he's not an actor but a mannequin with no ability of speech nor feelings? Feodor Atkine, bland and transparent. Only do we pay great respect to Alida Valli, one of the greatest actress this last century (and I hope for some more roles in this current one). She's tha main attraction here as she's the only one to give life to her poor lines. I won't mention the other actors as they're only one-sided characters, uninteresting and shallow.<br /><br />Incoherent direction, inconsistent actors, implausible plot. Idiocy incarnated.<br /><br />Superwonderscope says : 1<br /><br />
with all the European studios involved in this one, you would think you'd at least get some pretty photography; but the local color is kept to a minimum.<br /><br />Irritation #1 is Mira Sorvino using a Russian accent in order to play a Spanish cop - WTF? The story is hopelessly confused. There's a supposed romantic back story that is intentionally confused - is she or isn't she a lesbian? - serving no purpose whatsoever. The cops in the movie are the most stupid to have graced a serial killer film in a long time. There seems to be some message about the mid-'30s Spanish Civil War But since pretty much everybody involved in that is dead, one doesn't see the point in it.<br /><br />Despite the bull-fighting backdrop of part of the narrative (which part? who can tell), you never even get a good look at a bull fight. Earnest Hemingway would have punched the director in the nose - with my blessings.
I seems in the beginning a interesting film, a Spanish thriller in a interesting nowadays Madrid, but it isn`t none of that, is actually a film only interesting for future films directors learning about what not to do making a film, it can`t be worse in others words, even the presence of a oscar winner ( Mira Sorvino ) isn`t enough to justify the $ 3.00 dollars expended to see this film , the acting is horrendous and it seems the actors were just waiting to finish the daily shots to go home, it lead to nowhere and is boring, weak and bad, don`t expend time or money on this film.
<br /><br />This movie sucks big time. It reminded me of the movie Resurrection (Christopher Lambert), which i also found extremely boring. And "Semana Santa" is in every way an even poorer movie.<br /><br />Only fine one in the cast doing something for this movie is Alida Valli. Alida is one of the grand old ladies in european movie history. I loved her maniacal looks in "Suspiria" and "inferno" (Dario Argento). I will not spend more time dealing with this movie. I will say another good thing about this movie...use it if you want to fall asleep very quickly...
This film aka "the four hundred blows" is a mistranslation.Faire les 400 coups" means"to live a wild life. As a French,I'm stunned when I see the popularity of this good ,but by no means outstanding film. 1.It's not the first film of the "nouvelle vague" move;check Agnes Varda's "la pointe courte",(1956)Alain Resnais's "Hiroshima mon amour"(1958),Claude Chabrol's "le beau serge"(1958) are anterior .Historically,"les 400 coups " comes after. 2.The "nouvelle vague" was sometimes ponderous and hard on their predecessors:Overnight,Julien Duvivier,Henri-George Clouzot,Claude Autant-Lara ,Yves allégret and a lot of others were doomed to oblivion.THis selfishness and this contempt is typically "nouvelle vague".You 've never heard (or read) the great generation of the thirties (Renoir,Carné,Grémillon,Duvivier already,Feyder) laugh at ,say,Maurice Tourneur or Max Linder.So,thanks to Truffaut and co,some people will never discover some gems of the French fifties or forties(Duvuvier's "sous le ciel de Paris",Autant-Lara's "douce",Yves Allégret's "une si jolie petite plage " and "manèges").THe novelle vague clique went as far as saying that William Wyler,Georges Stevens and Fred Zinemann were worthless! 3."Les 400 coups " is technically rather disappointing:it's very academic ,the story is as linear as it can be,the teachers are caricatures,and the mother Claire Maurier delivers such memorable lines as (you've got to be a French circa 1960 to understand how ridiculous it is): Well ,your father 's got only his brevet (junior school diploma)and,as for me ,I've got only my high school diploma!You've got to know,that circa 1960,hardly 10%of the pupils had the HSD in France! Antoine Doinel should have been proud of his mother after all!She wants him to have diplomas,who can blame her? 4.Compared to the innovations of "Hiroshima mon amour",which features a brand new form,and a new "fragmented " content,"les 400 coups " pales into significance.Truffaut will master a new form only with the highly superior "Jules and Jim", helped by the incomparable Jeanne Moreau. 5.The interpretation is rather stiff;Jean-Pierre Léaud ,arguably listenable when dubbed in English ,is still decent,but he will soon degenerate into the most affected of his generation. 6.The topic=stolen childhood had better days,before (Julien Duvivier's "Poil de carotte" ,Luis Bunuel's "los olvidados") and will have after (Maurice Pialat's "l'enfance nue",Kenneth Loach's "Kes") I do not want to demean Truffaut,his movie is not bad,but,frankly,French movie buffs,prefer "Jules and Jim" "l'enfant sauvage" (a film honest ,true and commercially uncompromizing to a fault)"l'argent de poche"(as academic as "400 coups" but much more funny)or his nice Hitchcock pastiche "vivement dimanche".<br /><br />
This is the sort of thing that only now thrills the film eggheads. After all, Feierstein's Flex Crush will have you know that Real Men don't watch anything by Truffaut. <br /><br />It might have been interesting if Truffaut had anything to -say- here. The camera-as-voyeur motif was nothing new. Have we all forgotten De Sica's "Bicycle Thief"? Or anything by Hitchcock?<br /><br />So all we get is the extended metaphor of the juvenile as Truffaut, who spends all his free time 'screwing up his eyes' at the movies, who wrecks schoolroom discipline, gets accused of plagiarism(the many petty thefts), and ultimately escapes societal confines to make 'his own movie'. Sorry...been there, done that too many times for this to matter.
This movie bewilders me. It may be that I'm just a stupid American, but I really just don't get 400 Blows. Everything I've read about this movie has been a total rave, but I just couldn't stay interested. I'm sure that it was as revolutionary in film-making as all the critics say, but when it boils right down to it, it's just really really boring. Maybe it's the language barrier, may I'm just not "sensitive" or "artsy" enough, but whatever the case is, I hated this movie. The story itself isn't bad; it's about a young French boy who is treated unfairly by his parents and his teachers, and eventually he ends up in a juvenile facility. That in itself ought to be interesting, and it was, at first. There was nothing wrong with the dialogue, but then again it's hard to say because half of the conversations weren't subtitled and for no apparent reason, so I didn't always know what was going on. But for the dialogue we could understand, it made enough sense. The actors were believable enough, but it's hard to say what a real person would do in these situations. So you feel for the main character, but only in the sense that when he gets into trouble you think, well that sucks. The plot isn't even your typical plot. Each time he gets in trouble, he gets into more trouble than the last time, but the reasons never vary too much. And through the entire film you realize that there's nothing the main character can really do about it. So it's more like just waiting to see how it ends. The ending, by the way, was completely over my head. It's way too artsy for me, and I just didn't get it. Leading up to the end was easy enough to follow. The structure was certainly there, and it made sense as well, but everything was really drawn out. For the amount of dialogue and significant moments, the movie could have been an hour shorter. It just didn't end. Part of it was the unnecessarily long shots, none of which were especially memorable; for example, the ending was a clip of the main character running down a country road that lasted a good thirty seconds. Now, I'm sure that had some deeper meaning in it somewhere, but for the average viewer, I'd rather have gotten up to get some more food during that time. Or at least done something a little more useful than sit and watch this boy running, like doing my laundry, or taking a nap. <br /><br />Final Verdict <br /><br />The feeling throughout the whole movie was that this probably would be very moving and just amazing and that it would teach me some great life lesson, if I could only get what the director was trying to say by his… unique decisions. As it was, I just felt cheated out of a good two hours of my life.
My title ought to be enough.<br /><br />It baffles me that a culture so rich in literary excellence (Dumas, Flaubert, Balzac, Maupassant) would churn out such tosh as the "nouvelle vague" cinematic movement. Until the 20th century, France had a great tradition of artistic lucidity and clever philosophy. But the minute you hand them a movie camera they start acting like WOOOHOOO LOOK HOW WEIRD I CAN BE! PLOT? THEME? PSHAW! LET'S FILM AN AMUSEMENT PARK RIDE GOING ROUND & ROUND! At least this is not as bad as Godard (who has an unhealthy fascination with the backs of peoples' heads. Oh-la-la, quel artiste.). No, Truffaut maintains a degree of visual clarity. But so does the security camera at a quickie-mart. The two are indistinguishable.<br /><br />Haha, just as an aside to all you dweeby film school nerds: I bet the vein is popping out the side of your neck right now. But don't leave without reading the last sentence of my review.<br /><br />Anyway, if you like French literature, you will HATE this. People who like this movie probably have never read any books other than the ramblings of Jack Kerouac or maybe "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". Or maybe they have read the lyrics to The Doors songs, and they think that's profoundly moving. Whatever floats yer boat. I find it ironic that this film injects some (weak) allusions to Balzac, one of the finest and most meaningful writers who ever lived. Nice try, Truffles. But you're nowhere near the ballpark.<br /><br />Avoid this film like an aids-infected syringe.<br /><br />If you're the type of person who likes to think, then stick to Jean Cocteau (ORPHEE), Robert Bresson (PICKPOCKET) and the Japanese masters Kurosawa (IKURU), Kobayashi (KAIDAN) and Teshigahara (SUNA NO ONNA).<br /><br />If you're an idiot, enjoy your Truffaut, Godard, and Andy Worhol. And for pete's sake push that vein back in your neck. You look like a cabbage.
Have you ever seen a movie made up entirely of long wide shots? No? Me, neither. Well, I've finally seen one in "Spring in my Hometown," and I must confess, now I KNOW why people don't do this. The technique is "arty," to be sure, but it's definitely NOT ripe for public consumption. The technique is heavily flawed simply because the viewer has no emotional attachment to the characters, and perhaps that might be the director's whole intentions. I don't know, I can't read minds, and I certainly don't know enough about the director to make a judgement.<br /><br />But one thing about this movie that IS painfully obvious is its ridiculous anti-American sentiments. As an American, I'm well aware of my country's participation in the Korean War, and I'm very well aware that we weren't always angels, but I'll be damn if I'll take this guy's version of how things happened. According to this blind fool, Americans were not only at the root of the war, we were the CAUSE of the war, and we almost singlehandedly destroyed the country. Whatever, Mister Director. And I suppose you'd still be making this film in COMMUNIST KOREA if we hadn't interfered, right? Talk about forgetting your history. This is almost akin to making the Nazis the "good guys" while turning the Allied forces into the "bad guys." This movie is so historically naive and so factually inaccurate that it's almost embarrassing to watch. For a man who comes from a country that owes its very EXISTENCE to American interference, he sure comes off as high and mighty and judgemental.
I'm the sort of person who went down to the local library and read books on Babbage's difference engine whilst my schoolmates were playing football etc.. So, if there is any such thing as a target audience for this film, then I guess I'd probably be included in that.<br /><br />Maybe I just need to watch it again. A previous reviewer mentioned not to watch this film whilst being tired. Maybe that was my mistake.<br /><br />I tried my best to enjoy this film, and there are aspects of it that I do like, but overall I found it amateurish and quite plodding.<br /><br />Being somewhat of a self confessed computer nerd, I just can't help but pick up on the exact time frame when the movie was actually made, and how the employed graphics reflect that time (i.e. 1997). Having played games of the era c.f. "Mind Grind" to cite one example, this film cannot escape that 16-bit colour low res multimedia explosion of that time. Now thankfully this has somewhat lessened in more recent years in the gaming world at least, in favour of actual game play.<br /><br />Having to resort to watching this movie via a German FTA satellite channel (as I don't think it's ever been aired on UK FTA TV, well not recently anyway), I was mildly amused to see the end credits note Gottdog (God dog) had 4 people working on it's design. Maybe it's mean spirited of me to be amused by this, given that ten years have elapsed since the movie was made, nevertheless the end result makes movie graphics from the eighties look good by comparison.<br /><br />But, as for the main story, I agree that the format isn't the best idea. Like others I agree that Ada deserves a film without the sci-fi angle, and a more straightforward biographical approach would perhaps be better suited to covering the life story of this remarkable lady.<br /><br />There are fundamental mistakes that undermine my enjoyment of this movie. First of all the underlying idea that somehow lost real-world information from the past can be accurately reconstructed through some sort of extrapolation via software based intelligent agents, seems somehow ludicrous.<br /><br />Also, the theme running through the movie that a computing device can indeed predict the mechanics of all things through the course of time (e.g. the winds) is now known not to be the case.<br /><br />OK, so the Victorians may have held this view, but the 20th century works of Gödel proving that no mathematical system can be complete, Turing's works on the limits of computability, not to mention chaos theory and quantum mechanics, have all completely undermined these ideas, which seem central to how the modern day researcher's software is supposed to work.<br /><br />Finally, the clicking of the mouse in the air to mean "programming" is also just plain wrong, as previously mentioned.<br /><br />This film maybe could have been OK, but at least some technical and scientific consultation would have given the film some much needed credit in the believability stakes.<br /><br />I won't forget the film though, as like "Pi", it is clearly a unique work, but with too many fatal mistakes for me to truly enjoy it, 3/10 from me.
Expecting a combination of scifi and period film about Ada Lovelace, Charles Babbage, the history of computers, etc, I was disappointed by this movies nonsensical pseudoscience and mixture of real and fabulous history. It gives the impression that its writer (Lynn Hershman-Leeson) has no real understanding of the Math, technology, or history constituting the film's subject, but is working instead from a sort of fuzzy artistic impression of them. This hits a sore spot with me, as I've long been irritated by the tendency of the arts to glom onto and awfully misuse science terms and ideas to the point of confusion, eg: Emmy Coer: "information waves have a half-life", Ada: "I'm not at all certain that half a life is better than no life at all".<br /><br />This movie does worse than fail to entertain - it misinforms. The only redeeming value I can imagine for it is that it might attract a viewer to learn about the subject it so badly distorts. It's more likely, I think, to promote a superstitious perception of science and technology of any degree of advancement as indistinguishable from magic.
Many days after seeing Conceiving Ada, I am still in awe that any group of people would spend so much time to make such an atrocious film.<br /><br />No one ought see this film in hopes of learning anything of consequence about Ada Lovelock, her colleagues or the product of her endeavors.<br /><br />Likewise, no one ought to see this film in hopes of being entertained.<br /><br />As a sci-fi film, this would unquestionably be a horrendous failure. Somehow, the main character manages to bring the past to life and interact with it on her personal computer--with the advice and encouraging words of Timothy Leary. I doubt anyone could suspend their disbelief enough to keep this from seeming absolutely absurd.<br /><br />As a drama film, this would unquestionably be a horrendous failure. Somehow, the writer/director manages to fill eighty-five minutes with constant, unnecessary, annoying and trivial drama over essentially nothing. I doubt that anyone could feel that all the drama in the film serves only as an irritating distraction.<br /><br />I find it difficult to fully express my degree of contempt for Conceiving Ada. The circumstances under which I saw it forbid me from leaving the theater but there is no question that I would have otherwise. I am still angry that I wasted the time that it took to see it. Only that I might more effectively criticize this movie, I wish that I were more articulate.
If you make it through the opening credits, this may be your type of movie. From the first screen image of a woman holding her hands up to her face with white sheets blowing in the background one recalls a pretentious perfume commercial. It's all downhill from there.<br /><br />The lead actress is basically a block of wood who uses her computer to reach into the past, and reconstruct the memories of photographs, to talk history's overlooked genius, Ada, who conceived the first computer language in the 1800s.<br /><br />The low budget graphics would be forgivable if they were interesting, or even somewhat integral to the script.<br /><br />Poor Tilda Swinton is wasted.
Despite some occasionally original touches, like the "virtual sets" that provide the background for the Victorian interiors featuring Ada Lovelace and her circle, this film falls short and ultimately disappoints. Newcomer Francesca Faridany seems talented, but is wasted as Emmy, a character who by mid-film is reduced to nothing more than staring at a monitor watching Lady Ada narrate an autobiography. 'Conceiving Ada' takes off briefly when Lady Ada (Tilda Swinton) appears; the camera lingers on her facial expressions, mannerisms, even making her appear to be translucent or momentarily invisible, apporting into scenes to dramatize Emmy's "virtual" rendering of her.<br /><br />A straightforward biopic of Ada Lovelace would have been worthwhile, but this film unfortunately makes a hash of both Lady Ada's life, and that of a modern-day computer scientist (and her broadly-drawn, doltish boyfriend).
This was a nice attempt at something but it is too pretentious and boring to rise above it's low budget trappings. The use of virtual sets almost works but at some points it fails miserably. They made good use of the small budget I guess. I just wish the story and most of the acting was better. There are a lot of parts where you see what they were aiming for and it would of been great if they actually hit those marks but they don't. Confusing and unbelievable story. Bad DVD transfer too. It doesn't take much for me to watch a movie in one sitting. This I had to shut off. It was too boring. I can do slow movies. But just make them appealing in some aspect. Visually, story-wise, acting, etc. This was lacking in all departments so it never added up to an engrossing experience. Maybe the film maker's next attempt will be better.
Yes, In 35 years of film going I have finally viewed the stinker that surpasses all other ghastly movies I have seen. Beating 'Good Will Hunting' Baise Moi' and 'Flirt' for sheer awfulness. This is pretentious blige of the first order... not even entertaining pretentious bilge. The effects are cheap, and worse - pointless.<br /><br />The script seems to have been written by a first year film student who doesn't get out much but wants to appear full of portent! The acting is simply undescribably bad - Tilda Swinton caps a career filled with vacuous woodeness with a performance which veers neurotically between comotose and laughable 'intensity'. Apparently, some fool out there has allowed the director of this film to make another one... be warned
Encompassing virtual reality, the potential of computers, communication with the past, the ongoing struggle to express your identity in a constraining society, and the fascinating Ada Byron Lovelace portrayed by the fascinating Tilda Swinton, this film should have been great. But it is lousy, terrible if you consider the potential! The acting - aside from Tilda Swinton and Karen Black - veers from tolerable to atrocious. The plot construction is awkward to say the least - the modern day programmer is a dull one-note character, but half the movie is spent setting up her character, and then when Ada finally appears, it is to narrate the events of her life, not to present an engaging story (Swinton almost pulls this off, though). You never fully get to know her as a real person, just an icon from a grad student's history paper.<br /><br />The digital effects, such as a digital dog and bird, are lousy and distracting, considering it was 1997 and not 1985. And, finally, the script is just bad. Bad, often pretentious dialog - especially the fights between the programmer and her boyfriend, which made me squirm - cold and distant characters, and zero attempt to create a sense of wonder. The programmer successfully contacts a person in the past! Astonishing! But it hardly seems to surprise anyone, and her boyfriend says, "Well, be careful." (Although we're given no clue then or later why it might be dangerous, and it never seems to actually be dangerous.)<br /><br />Also, despite being about computers and Ada Lovelace and her love of mathematics, it is clear no one involved with the script had any knowledge of mathematics OR computers - any references to these subjects come across as complete mumbo jumbo that defies any suspension of disbelief.<br /><br />One scene, towards the end of the movie, is quite good, a monolog by Tilda Swinton expressing her sadness at the fragility of life but her joy in that life. Poignant, passionate, and insightful, it seems to be dropped in from another movie.<br /><br />So I am disappointed in this movie, because it is a missed opportunity for a fascinating little cult film. If you find the subject matter interesting, you might want to rent it, but be forewarned. See Orlando for another, much much better examination of gender roles in history with a great Tilda Swinton performance.<br /><br />***spoiler/question: * *<br /><br />At the end of the movie, Ada asks that her memories not be preserved (in what I thought was the best scene in the movie). But then the modern day programmer seems to do it anyway, transferring the memories into her little girl (hence the title of the movie). Am I correct, that the programmer violated Ada's wishes without even struggling over it? Or is this another confusing plot point that I'm misinterpreting?
I haven't seen anything this bad since I walked out of the James Bond movie "Moonraker" twenty years ago. I managed to sit through the entirety of this one only because of Tilda Swinton, but there was nothing she could do to save this beast.<br /><br />As a cross between "Pi", "Orlando", and "Tron", this movie failed miserably in every aspect of moviemaking. The characters were cardboard and unable to evoke any kind of sympathy. The plot was wholly unbelievable. The acting was, with the exception of Swinton, amateur. The computer graphics were worse than in "Tron." Timothy Leary was extremely annoying. I could go on, but what's the point.<br /><br />The only good thing I can say about this film is that Tilda Swinton was in it. I have no idea why an actress of her caliber consented to appear in such a dud, but she most likely regrets it now.<br /><br />Don't waste your money or your time on this stinker. There's nothing worth seeing here.
I can't believe anyone thought there was anything original or interesting about this movie. I'm a fan of science fiction as much as the next guy, and I can enjoy even old movies with ridiculous premises as long when they are written by someone other than a monkey. (See, for example, my glowing review of Altered States [1980].)<br /><br />A monkey could have explained better exactly why I should for a second take seriously the basic idea behind this movie. The problem is not that the producers had a low budget--it's that they didn't care.<br /><br />Now, to publicly humiliate the worthless magazines whose glowing reviews appear on the box:<br /><br />Chicago Tribune<br /><br />San Francisco Chronicle<br /><br />San Francisco Bay Guardian<br /><br />(Actually, I enjoy reading the latter two. Still, their movie reviewing credibility has gone through the floor. But I know if I ever make a movie with handheld camera, a cheesy plot and stupid effects, I'll show it to these journalists and remind them what they said about Conceiving Ada.)
From the awful death scenes to guns that fire without making sounds to a character called the Fiend. It's all tiresome, slow moving, unimaginative drivel. It was OK seeing the guy with the cape and the hunchback lurking around. Visually it was creepy and probably occupied the moviegoer of the time, but even in 1936 one would think that there would have been a little more imagination and verisimilitude to even a film like this. I just kept waiting for something to happen of any importance as people stood around making speeches and acting like they were posing at an office picnic. And then there are those bullets as a previous commentator mentioned. Perhaps the best clue would have been to search for a water spot on someone's pants pocket.
"A stage company cast finds themselves terrified when a bizarre killer known as 'The Fiend' targets them for death. A pair of reporters and their clumsy photographer set out to work the story of 'The Fiend' and find themselves targets as well. Just as you think our trio of heroes has the case solved, you're thrown another twist that has you wondering who the killer really is," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />Taking "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" to Hollywood, producer Sam Katzman's lack of studio settings probably helps "A Face in the Fog" look interesting, especially toward the end (1930s traffic). The direction could be improved upon; for example, the camera angle on the fight scene is not helpful. The budget appears slight. Under the circumstances, most of the silent/talkie crossover cast perform it amiably.<br /><br />**** A Face in the Fog (2/1/36) Robert F. Hill ~ Lloyd Hughes, June Collyer, Al St. John
I normally only write reviews for movies I really hated or really liked. And, as you can probably tell from the number of stars up there, I didn't like it. By now, I assume you have read about the plot or maybe even seen the movie, so I'll skip the summary. Let's break this down, pros and cons:<br /><br />Cons: The concept: The premise was set up to be interesting. Using Chaos theory as a theme was interesting. However, it wasn't carried out so well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that Chaos theory was kind of misrepresented. The event that occurred in the movie seemed more like contrived coincidence than anything. I guess the Butterfly effect was represented by the whole "God(s) causes Tsunami to bring back statue." The presentation comes off as really sloppy though. Some people call this intelligent, but it just seems to be another souped up action film.<br /><br />Storyline: Is it just me, or does it seem that Kamal just threw this together to give him an excuse to play ten roles? The plot is extremely contrived; Govind kept losing the vial so many times in obscure accidents (his friend just happens to mix up the vial with a package he was sending to India, a crazy old lady just happens to throw the vial into an idol, half the cast just happens to unexpectedly meet up in the same hospital, and the case with the idol just happened to get mixed up with one that belonged to a famous singer.)<br /><br />CGI: Oh god, the CGI. It was even worse than the special effects in Jaws 3, and those sucked. Right away, I could tell which parts were animated. Even my ten-year-old cousin knows that underwater cars don't look like that. <br /><br />Stunts: Yes, I now that action scenes in Tamil movies aren't realistic, but the stunts in this one were horrid and actually distracted me from the story.<br /><br />Make up: I have to admit, they did a better job than expected. I thought Kamal would be playing people with similar skin tones, so the two fake white guys and the fake Japanese Aikido guy caught me off guard. However, it was still pretty bad, I could easily tell which ones were wearing masks.<br /><br />The songs: The music was distracting and out-of-place in many instances.<br /><br />Asin: Her character was possibly the most annoying one in the movie. She was loud, ditsy, and obsessed irrationally about that idol. I actually found myself wishing she would die.<br /><br />Plot holes and Fridge Logic: Let me get this straight: a lab monkey was smart enough to get past a password-locked door, but not intelligent enough to tell the difference between a bar of chocolate and a vial with a deadly virus in it. And then, an ex-CIA agent who's after the vial figures out it's headed for India. Instead of immediately following it, he marries a pole dancer first. A famous Punjabi singer with cancer checks into a small town hospital in the third world when he could easily afford the best medical treatment available. Furthermore, he gets shot in the throat with a bullet. You'd think he would be killed, but instead, the magic bullet has cleared his tumor. You read that right, a BULLET knocked out the tumor. <br /><br />Pros... The Naidu Character: Possibly the only likable part of the movie was his comedy.
Some of my old friends suggested me to watch this movie but I got chance only recently. I had high hopes of seeing something interesting from Kamal Hans, what I saw was bunch of garbage camera angles mixed at high speed. I could not understand what was the message except demeaning Hinduism. I am more like many religion type but I felt Kamal Hasan is a man low character to have orchestrated this kind of thought. He could have made a horror movie than this crap. He tried to add Hollywood genre of viruses and god forbid he did not convert that guy into a mutant and ultimately going to go for world domination. This is a much befitting movie for a film school vs regular public. Shame on him for not holding up to the talent he has. Starting of story tried Chaos to borrow ideas from Butterfly effect, then in between little religious harmony at the cost of insulting Hinduism (Once again I insult Hinduism more but this movie has no equal and my insult is same for religion in general which may have made this movie intellectual one.)
The acting was horrible and they got both of the sports wrongggg.......not only did they get the figure skating rules wrong, but also they rules of GIRLS Ice Hockey. In GIRLS ice hockey you cannot check. You also don't BLOCK for someone. Not all they girls are disgusting gross mean and big. I play hockey and I'm only 4'11 and have been asked to go to schools like the one in the movie. Also not all hockey players hate figure skaters. A lot of current girls hockey players were once figure skaters themselves. Also we skate A LOT faster then the ones in the movie. I was embarrassed by the movie it gave people the idea that we suck.......although i must mention that it is difficult to transition between the sports because of the toe pick on the figure skates.....also some of those twirly moves KAtelin was doing on the ice you couldn't do in a regular hockey game. She basically tripped the person, which is illigal. Its also unrealistic that she would get a HOCKEY scholarship when she figure skates. That really made me angry that scholarship would normally be used to someone who could benefit the team.
I can't say this is one of the best films I have ever seen. But then again, I can't say it's one of the worst I have ever seen.<br /><br />OK, so it's basically a girl does skating, is good at it, wants to go to an expensive school, can't afford it and has to take a Hockey Scholarship. She has to hide her skating secret from her friends.<br /><br />Personally, I didn't like the actress playing Katelin. She absolutely couldn't cry to save her life, just made wailing sounds, like a toddler pretending to cry to get it's own way.<br /><br />Katelin was just an annoying person. The way she tried to act all nice and helpful to people. Also the part where the two skaters are calling her names and they say something about her choreographer and she says she 'draws the line' made me cringe.<br /><br />We all knew where it was going to go with her and Spencer. Classically they didn't like each other and sort of get together at the end was just typical.<br /><br />Overall, I think this is a movie to watch if you like skating but if you don't mind the main skater being extremely annoying. It's good to kill time basically.
Okay, when I came on the board for this movie, I was really expecting people to be making fun of it. I was surprised to see that people over the age of 7 liked it. I enjoyed the movie... but only b/c me and my little sister (who is, in fact only 10) made fun of the whole thing.<br /><br />I am sorry Jordan, but that acting was awful. You know a movie is headed for the toilet when the lead cannot act. And it didn't even have a good script or plot to redeem it. I also thought that the character of Pamela was very very lame... border-lining pathetic.<br /><br />Even with that being said, I thought there were a few good actors, such as gorgeous Spencer, Hollywood, and Ronnie. Still, not enough to redeem the movie.<br /><br />Two things about this movie that I just can't get over:<br /><br />1.) That that Spencer guy would fall for her. Okay, eww. I looked up the dates and while in reality, he is only about four years older than her, the difference in "Go Figure" seemed much larger. Jordan is a very pretty girl, but in GF, she seemed like 10 or 12... she seemed like a little kid! Jake Abel (Spencer) seemed like a college student.<br /><br />2.) That there is any way that Kristi Yamaguchi would come just to skate for one girl. I mean, I know that Katelin is good and everything, but it still just seemed kinda unlikely that Kristi would go to a boarding school that didn't even have scholarships for skating, or that a school would have employed a skating coach with such connections.<br /><br />That all being said... it wasn't the worst movie ever known, but it wasn't very good even by DCOM standards, which I consider quite low.
This movie was probably the biggest waste of my life ever. The acting was pathetic. Jordan Hinson could not show any upset emotions. At the beginning of the movie, she was supposed to be discouraged. Instead, she bobbed her head with her bottom lip stuck out. She sobbed pitifully without any tears for the crying scene. I was almost angry that out of all girls who wanted to be actresses, they had to pluck out her. Everyone else was suffering from over-acting as well. It was flat out annoying. It was also an insult to figure skaters. Jordan took a month to train, and they cast her as a person who makes the Olympic team. It's practically spitting on the effort real figure skaters put into their work. A pitiful excuse for a movie, and a pitiful attempt to associate hockey and skating. Don't waste your life. It doesn't even deserve one star.
I personally hated this movie because it was predictable, the characters were stereotypical ,and the whole idea was a rip off of "The Cutting Edge", and "Cadet Kelly". <br /><br />The main character is a snotty girl who gets shipped of to a place where she doesn't belong. The whole place hates her, and to make things worse there is a hot guy that seemingly doesn't like her ( well duh the whole damn school can't stand you). Amazingly she finds a way to fit in and make everyone to like her plus, gets the guy to fall head over heels in love with her. Then comes the choice, where she must choose between figure skating and hockey. She chooses hockey then she goes to the figure skating nationals,and gets to be on the Olympic team. No real surprise there.<br /><br />This whole movie was so damn predictable You knew what was going to happen before you even saw it. This was so awful I nearly puked, and by the time I was finished watching it, I had an awful headache and the urge to shoot myself for watching such crap. Don't watch this unless you are under ten, or actually like crappy tween movies.
this movie was a horrible excuse for...a movie. first of all, the casting could have been better; Katelyn the main character looked nothing like her TV mom. <br /><br />also, the plot was pathedic. it was extremely cliché and predictable. the ending was very disappointing and cheesy. (but thats all i'll say about that). <br /><br />the nail in the bag though, was a scene when Katelyn (jordan hinson) was supposed to be crying, but the girl couldn't cry on command! there were no tears streaming down her face, just a few unbelievable sobs. she is not a dynamic actress at all. she gave the same fake little laugh identical to that of hillary duff on lizzie Maguire (sp?). thats when the movie went from not-so-good, to just plain bad. it really looked like she was acting. <br /><br />in a nutshell: this movie was really bad! it was kind of a mix of every cliché kid movie from the 1990's that everyone's sick of--only worse!<br /><br />i give it an 'F', because it was just so darn hard to sit through (b/t/w, i was babysitting when i saw it). <br /><br />however, you may like it if your 9 or under. ;)
(NOTE: I thought I'd be the only one writing what I did below, but I see the others here agree. I guess it was pretty obvious - this was overdoing the bait-the-cat bit. Anyway, here is what I had written:)<br /><br />The owners have left on vacation for two weeks - a trip to California - leaving the cat (Sylvester) all alone and locked in the house. That means no milk, but the cat, to his relief, does find a bunch of canned tuna. However, to his dismay, he can't find the opener.<br /><br />It turns out the little mouse in the house has it...and baits the cat with it. This is a mean rodent who keeps teasing Sylvester with the opener and then yanking it away at the last second. Sylvester tries everything possible to open the can of tuna but can't do it. <br /><br />This is a frustrating story, and why they make the sadistic mouse the "good guy" is beyond me. It's like some of the Tom & Jerry cartoons where poor Tom always gets the worst of it even though many times the little mouse starts the conflict!
The opening scenes move as fluidly as frozen velveeta. The attempt at dramatic dialogue only makes me wish I had better control of the fast forward control. Vampires are usually portrayed as sexy and intelligent or mangy disgusting creatures. This vampire tries to seduce his prey by imitating a lost puppy. I usually tally a body count, so there was a cat (which doesn't count) a bum, a girl who fell out of the sky with a sword in her (whatever that was about) and then the plot. Foley artists are respected for using celery to create the sound of a broken arm, but using the sound of biting into an apple for a vampire biting a victim is just plain silly. I liked Warlock, but this movie just stunk so bad that we turned it off, and it was so forgettable we rented it a year later only to turn it off again.
I love Julian Sands and will at least attempt to watch anything he's in, but this movie nearly did me in. I'm hard pressed to remember when I found any other movie to move....so......slow.........ly.....zzzzzzzzzzzz<br /><br />Pop it in the VCR when you've run out of sleeping pills.
The movie opens upon Julian Sands, lying on his back, a black kitten drooling blood into his awaiting mouth from where he holds it, about two feet above him. That was so provocative, and I thought, "Here we go! A good vampire movie!" <br /><br />And then it died. That was literally the only scene which captured any part of the imagination. It was slow, uneventful drivel thereafter. I was vastly disappointed, as my previous experience with Sands' acting was quite enjoyable. However, this attempt was obviously misdirected and the screenplay left a lot to be desired.<br /><br />Even Julian Sands's questionable performance could not begin to save this already sunken barge of a movie.<br /><br />It rates a 1.1/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.
This is the movie that I use to judge all other bad movies, and so far there hasn't been anything close.<br /><br />The only good thing I can say is that after watching this I know that I have seen the worst movie I will ever see.
I watch lots of scary movies (or at least they try to be) and this has to be the worst if not 2nd worst movie I have ever had to make myself try to sit through. I never knew the depths of Masacism until I rented this piece of moldy cheese covered in a used latex contraceptive. I am a fan of Julian Sans, but this is worse than I would hope for him.<br /><br />On the other hand the story was promising and I was intrigued...for the first minute and a half while the credits rolled and I had yet to see what pain looked like first hand. Perhaps there are some viewers out there that enjoyed this and can point me in the right direction, but then again I know of those viewers who understand if not commemorate me, especially when we had to turn the video off, and that simply is NOT done with our watching (we had to make one exception obviously). <br /><br />If it were up for a remake, I'd give it a chance so long as they had at most 1% of the original incorporated into it. That's all.
"Kids Like These" could have been a decent film, given the subject matter. But instead it has become a below-average, run-of-the-mill TV-movie of the week, with not much going for it. The acting is stale, the plot predictable and the direction non-existent. For a better movie on the same subject, try the excellent "Le Huitième Jour", a film that really cares about the people with Down-syndrome. In "Kids Like These" they are merely used as an excuse for weepy sentimentality. Pretty appalling. 1/10
"They Are Among Us" is poor science fiction at best. Mediocre acting bogs down this film. The plot holes are numerous. Aliens that somehow came to earth on a meteor and have been hiding among us for over 100 years, but need a plastic surgeon to make them appear human. In their alien form they supposedly have exo-skeletons (which is why they need the plastic surgery) but when you see them they have teeth and fingernails. The heroine's father "disappeared" after Project Blue Book closed, but was supposedly an F-16 pilot. And on and on. If you want to see an alien invasion movie, pick "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", and see how it is done right.
My friends and I rented this from Blockbuster because we saw Nana Visitor's name on the box. This movie is a travesty I hope she negates from her CV.<br /><br />The "plot" was lose and flaccid, the acting was mostly dry and unbearable in some parts. The movie made no sense whatsoever. The rough plot of an alien parasite species that infects humans has been done many times by films with much better scripts than this, for example, invasion of the body-snatchers and The faculty.<br /><br />If you ever have the misfortune to come across this movie, I suggest you burn it.<br /><br />How it classes itself as a horror movie when there was no use of fear, suspense, gore, terror or any of the usual horror film techniques I don't know, however if you still find yourself wanting to watch this film I suggest you have a lot of sugar before hand, so you can find parts of it funny.
Words fail me.<br /><br />And that isn't common.<br /><br />Done properly this could have been great, funny spoof B-movie sci-fi, but sadly, it was not to be. Rarely in the field of drama have so many competent actors struggled so vainly with such a dogs-breakfast of a script. I can only endorse the previous reviewer's comments - go clean the bathroom. In fact do ANYTHING except watch this film.<br /><br />Positives: Lucy Beeman's nose. Negatives: Everything else.<br /><br />Most apposite line: "This isn't going anywhere".<br /><br />If only every plastic surgeon could meet with such a fate.
I can't believe how awful this movie turned out to be. I feel magnanimous even referring to it as a "movie". The acting was flat, the editing was terrible and the plot leaves many major questions unanswered. The premise was OK, if unoriginal: a small group of aliens is living in the US and trying to slowly take over humanity. But it goes rapidly downhill from there. How could they convince a "human" to accept an alien as his wife in order to make they alien-human hybrid they require? They show a larval alien but never show what it does. They have a plastic surgeon that can produce perfect looking skin on an industrial scale. They throw in the obligatory huge alien monster with teeth. The ending was almost too painful to watch. I suppose that I'm mostly disappointed that Bruce Boxlietner would have anything to do with this. How could he say to the huge alien monster with teeth, "Get away from him you son of a b*tch" with a straight face? It's a long fall from his Babylon 5 days. Avoid this at all costs.
I am very tolerant of really bad sci/fi and horror movies - I've been watching them since I was 4 or 5, so I've seen some really bad stuff, but I deal with it. I've even watched a lot of SciFi Channel movies so I know not to expect much - a usually promising movie that has no ending to speak of. Hope springs eternal, I guess - or the triumph of hope over experience, as they say. Unfortunately, this is a dog right from the beginning and I knew it, but like a moth to the flame, I kept thinking something, anything, interesting would happen. It doesn't. All of the actors give a decent performance - given the script, I don't know how they all kept straight faces. It has something to do with collagen-starved worm parasite creatures who are slowly taking over the human race, one body at a time. There's an evil plastic surgeon who collaborates with the enemy by giving them the outward appearance of humans...don't worry, he gets what's coming to him. The slug people themselves don't really know where they came from, they think they might have thumbed a ride on a meteor that landed on earth, but...somehow they know about the members of slug royalty among them - the slug princess has managed to breed with a human being who knows that she's the worm queen and loves her for her self...oh, must I go on? Please, I implore you, do not waste 2 hours of your life watching this...anything would be better...think of the worst, least enjoyable way you can spend two hours...it would be better than this.
No scenario, bad actors (poor Melissa Gilbert)... Beurk Beurk Beurk ...<br /><br />Give a such budget to make this... In Belgium, we make ten films which win all prices in Cannes with this.<br /><br />Last time that I've seen a such NULL-Film was Hypercube. But scenario was better.<br /><br />Is anyone knows if the director was a graduate in school-film or a cop ?<br /><br />The better things in this film was the word "End".<br /><br />Why authorize to sell this ? 1ç is to expensive. <br /><br />I've pay ten dollars to buy this.<br /><br />For me, pay for this was my BIG MISTAKE of millennium.<br /><br />Too bad.<br /><br />Next time I'll break my arm but buy this type of sh*t.
"Bullfighter" was made in 2000 but it is being released on video 5 years later for some reason. I wonder why? Could it be: The confusing storyline, the incomprehensible dialogue said by Oliver Martinez, and the annoying editing? It's got to be. I think the plot was Mary (Michelle Forbes) and Jacque (Oliver Martinez) go on a mystical road trip. They meet a lot of wacky characters and avoid some evil ones too. The movie looks great and there is a lot of style, but there is no substance. Most movies, when trying to subtle, don't call attention to themselves with unanswered plot developments, and weak special effects.<br /><br />Don't be fooled by the cover: Willem Dafoe is in it for 2 minutes at most.
I didn't know Willem Dafoe was so hard up for bucks that he'd disgrace himself with such shocking hamming in this monstrosity. Hell: I'll donate that money that I was going to send to Ethiopia if he's that desperate. I have never seen such a pathetic and disgusting film for a long time...who paid for this? They are either pulling some tax scam or insane. A 5-year old would be ashamed of the plot, and I'd rather get cancer than sit through more than the hour I suffered already. Everybody involved should be locked up for a year in the sodomy wing of a third world prison. Avoid at all costs. I'd give it minus 10 if possible...unbelievable.
I only rented this movie because of promises of William Dafoe, and Robert Rodriguez. I assumed that upon seeing RR's name on the cover (as an actor) that this movie would be good. It sounds like a movie that Rodriguez would of made so if He's going to lend his name to it, than it has to be good right? WRONG WRONG WRONG. By far the worst editing since "Manos Hands of fate". The way it was edited made no sense and made the movie impossible to follow and after the first 30 minutes you wont even want to try to follow it anymore. I have no idea how Dafoe and Rodriguez got involved in this film, maybe they owed somebody, but they are way to good for this. Besides they were only in this movie for a couple minutes apiece and Rodriguez didn't even talk. So if you wanna see a movie with Poor editing, poor acting, and confusing storyline than be my guest but don't say you weren't warned.
Some very interesting camera work and a story with much potential. But it never comes together as anything more than a student's graduate thesis in film school.<br /><br />There are two primary reasons for this. Fist, there is not a single likable character, not even a villain we might admire for his/her chutzpah. Secondly, all the acting is awful - even from veteran Willem DaFoe. The ham is so plentiful here, you feel like you're at a picnic - but one of those wretched company employee picnics where you drink too much cheap beer and get your hangover before you even stop drinking. Then you eat an underdone hotdog and throw up.<br /><br />All right, I'm being a little rough on a young director who might still go places - as I said, the camera work is quite good.<br /><br />But I feel cheated - the blurb for this film suggests we will get to watch a "Modern western", and the DVD packaging has pictures on it that suggest this as well - but nobody actually connected to the film's making seems to know that this is the kind of film they're supposed to be making.<br /><br />That betrayal is what hurts; but even without it, the fact remains that we don't like these characters, we feel embarrassed for the actors, the story is hopelessly muddled, and in the last analysis, we just don't care.<br /><br />I took it out of the DVD player about half way through. but the rental store wouldn't give me my money back.<br /><br />Now, that really hurts.
I bought this movie last weekend at my local Movie Gallery. It was buy 2 get 2 free and I needed one more so I chose this one. Horrible mistake. The box reads like it would be a really good movie. Well, it starts out like it is going to be this great movie. For about 5 minutes, that is. The movie is about a young woman, Laila, who gets killed trying to save her beau, Jack, from a bull. Laila's dad, Cordobes, is a rancher that the townspeople are afraid of. He assumes that Jack killed Laila because she was supposedly afraid of this bull, and goes on this hunt to find him. That was the first 5 minutes that is good. What follows after that is only gonna get 100 times worse. Whoever wrote the script, in my opinion, had to of been on some kind acid trip or something because nothing else made any sense what so ever. Jack is on the run and finds this traveling radio DJ named Mary who gives him a ride. I think Mary is supposed to be a virgin Mary type character. You know, Jesus' mother. But, who knows, I couldn't make heads or tails of it. As they're running... we get to see bad guys, magical visions, ghostly encounters, flashbacks, etc... And all these things are done in such a way that your brain hurts from trying to figure out what's going on. Needless to say, I took the movie back and exchanged it for something else. It's horrible I tell ya, horrible. And, there is absolutely no bull-fighting in this movie. Unless you count the first minute of the movie. Hope I helped some other people keep from wasting their time on this movie.
I only watched this movie because I was so impressed with Olivier Martinez in SWAT. But this is no SWAT. SWAT had a plot and some likable characters and made sense. Bullfighter had none of these. <br /><br />I should have realized that it couldn't possibly be any good, after all, the always painfully bad Michelle Forbes had a starring role.<br /><br />One poster here called the movie incoherent. Another called it the worst movie ever. Both gave the movie far too much credit. I am so glad I got it from the library for free, yet I still feel ripped off.<br /><br />IMDb needs to include a "0" in the "rate this film" vote, just for movies like this one.
I began watching this movie with my girl-friend. And after 5 minutes I was alone.<br /><br />I succeed to stay until the end. It has been a painful experience.<br /><br />I liked jean hugues anglade, but I think that he needed to eat, as us, and thus he accepted to play in this movie. <br /><br />There are only 5 characters, and the rest could be called 'art' or something that I couldn't express, but that I didn't understand at all.<br /><br />The only worst movie I saw was crash, but I'm pretty sure now that I have enough experience to watch it successfully again.<br /><br />good luck!! ;o)
"Arahan" adds nothing positive to the Kung Fu genre. To compare this confused motion picture with the inspired craziness and quality of Stephen Chow's films is a mistake.<br /><br />Firstly the fight scenes are nothing new. All that is presented here has been done before and better by the likes of Yimou Zhang, Tony Jaa and Jackie Chan. Fights in intelligent Motion Pictures need logic. There seems no point serving blows that have no damaging effect as in the "Matrix" sequels.<br /><br />The attractive female lead So-Yi Yoon captivated the screen but she never convincingly conquered the physical demands of the role as Ziyi Zhang had done so easily in "House Of Flying Daggers". Having a Martial Arts background serves well in Kung Fu movies. To cast actors inexperienced in these skills is a serious mistake (See Aya Ueto in "Asumi") unless you are a very talented director which as "Arahan" proves Seung-wan Ryoo is not.
This series has its ups and occasional downs, and the latter is the case, here. There's an agreeable amount of spatter, with an inventive implementation of the Baby Cart's weapons, but the editing film is a seriously disjointed, the film-making itself rougher than usual. At times, the action slows to a crawl as the camera follows the wordless wanderings of the "cub," who nearly gets lost early on. All in all, disappointment.<br /><br />That said, there's a spaghetti eastern quality to the music and action that may win the approval of dedicated viewers. This installment spends much of its time following the minor misadventures of the little boy, who begins to stare into the abyss of death his father opened for him.
This movie is a muddled mish-mash of clichés from recent cinema. There are some promising ideas in there, but while the director was clearly aiming to wind up with a hauntingly ambiguous film, what he ended up with was a confusing mess. Lead actor Daniel Wu does a fair job but with no central theme it seems as though he doesn't have much to work with. Furthermore, the movie is largely devoid of scares (although, in fairness, there are some creepy moments amid the drudgery).<br /><br />*MILD SPOILERS*<br /><br />We have the mysterious death of an estranged twin, diabolical librarians, ghostly love interests, identity confusion, death by savage monkeys, oedipal conflict, abusive stepfathers, sublimated homosexuality, and crime gang connections. The only real commonality these elements share seems to be that they cause the protagonist to express a vague sense of confusion and discontent. <br /><br />Perhaps the most disappointing aspect to this film is that despite the brother's death by monkeys being strongly featured on the DVD cover, the act itself is never directly portrayed. Instead, director Julian Lee uses what appears to be stock footage of monkeys - not very scary.<br /><br />*END SPOILERS*<br /><br />Avoid this one. For an excellent psychological, ambiguous horror tale, check out the Korean film A Tale of Two Sisters (2003).
This is the first time I have commented on a film because I felt that if the right person read it, they might wake up and do something about it. Over the last few months, ABC Family began airing a new format of movies. I have seen the last three and enjoyed them. They were engaging and did the trick. My wife likes these films. I was looking forward to viewing "See Jane Date". The trailers looked and sounded great. Unfortunately, this is one film where the book must be light years ahead of the effort displayed by the writers and music people involved with this project. The year is 2003, the source (all bad), the score was as interesting as an elevator ride in a department store. It was intrusive and did not add any emotional content to the film at all. It worked against it. I work in the business of film and television . I enjoy being entertained. This is one instance where I kept thinking could it get any worse. The script had lines from another decade and I know these women can act but you wouldn't know it from this movie. To add to the overall experience, the end left me shaking my head. An advice to the executives at Disney, ABC , ABC Family and the producers: Under any circumstances please do not hire the composer or music supervisor to do any of your future films. They have lost their touch and they need to understand what the word "contemporary" , "present day" and "current" means when describing a romantic comedy. There is a world passing you by. All in all a huge disappointment from folks at Von Zerneck-Sertner and ABC Family.
I have to admit that i liked the first half of Sleepers. It looked good, the acting was even better, the story of childhood, pain and revenge was interesting and moving. A superior hollywood film. But...No one mentioned this so far (at least in the latest 20 comments), when it came to the courtroom scenes and Brat Pitt´s character followed his plan to rescue his two friends, who are rightly accused of murder, i felt cheated. This movie insulted my intelligence. <br /><br />Warning spoilers!!<br /><br />Why did anyone accept their false alibi, witnessed by the priest? If these two guys had been with him, why shouldn´t they tell this during the investigation? Amnesia? If you were the judge or member of the jury, would you believe it? Is it wise to give the motif of the murderers away?<br /><br />I am sorry, but in the end, the story is very weak, and this angers me. This movie had great potential. 4/10
What is happening to ITV Drama. First, "Losing Gemma" quite simply the worst TV drama I have seen in years, and now "Perfect Parents" a complete shambles from start to finish. Whoever is responsible for commissioning this drivel should be receiving there P45 by special delivery.<br /><br />In most Drama/Thrillers, a requirement to suspend certain levels of belief is necessary so that the the plot line can develop, but "Perfect Parents" took this to a new level,I suspended so much belief by the end of this nonsense I felt I had been force fed on a lorry load of "Magic mushrooms", it was like the scriptwriters had decided to try and create a "Drama by numbers" involving some serious issues - Religion, Education,Greed,Fear,Murder,Paedophillia the only trouble was as The great Eric Morecambe once said when playing a piano, "I'm playing all the right Notes, just not necessarily in the correct order". For your next Script guys, I suggest you try reading a few more books on script development than "Script writing For Dummies".<br /><br />Due to the ridiculous Script and the utter lack of Tension in the Direction, the acting was suitably low key, not the fault of the actors as the cast was top notch. But I suggest that all of the actors involved in this sorry piece of drama should instruct their agents the next time the Postman attempts to deliver a script from ITV drama Department, make sure the letterbox is firmly nailed shut!!
what a preposterous story ,murder blackmail,child sex allegations ,gays and the catholic church.....absolute tripe. How is it that most UK based TV dramas ,sit coms etc have to include the obligortory Gay,its really getting tiresome now. Everybody accepts that there are Gay people in society just has there are other minority groups,but we don't want it ramming down our throats(i'll pass on this one) in every single show. Apart from the above, the drama went from what could have been an interesting little story into a pantomime,the priest was a paedophile and there are gays running about every where,oh yes just to be totally PC one of the gay couple was black.i am surprised at c ecclestone for even contemplating this when he read the script.
Slither is a horror comedy that doesn't really have enough horror or comedy to qualify as one or the other. It has one scene that is exceptionally good, any number of zingers that work, but very few real scares and not enough humor to maintain the movie. In addition, the script does not focus on the hero and heroine, and goes off kilter in several places.<br /><br />A major failing of this film is that it introduces and then leaves its hero (Fillion) to follow Grant Grant (Michael Rooker) as he is first introduced and then becomes the monster. This whole part of the film drags - Michael Rooker's character isn't that interesting to us as a person, and watching as he goes through a series of motions while acting in the monster's interest might be interesting if this was Grant - Portrait of a Man Turning Into A Monster rather than a horror-comedy alien invasion movie. In the final analysis this movie's problems are in the script - it isn't that important to the audience how the monster acts or propagates. The purpose of a horror-comedy is to get the heroes backed up in a corner with shotguns and then throw bugs at them, with them cracking wise every time something frightening or disgusting happens. Instead we get an exploration of the alien's habits and tactics that just makes this part of the movie drag. The ostensible heroine (Elizabeth Banks as Starla Grant) is more central to this part, but nonetheless I felt the movie had left its narrative track, unless it planned on following Grant Grant all the way to the end.<br /><br />When Fillion and his posse finally confront the alien the movie does begin to cook, but once again the problem is in the script. By this point that audience knows - and the characters should know - that Grant is not just suffering from some disease, and act accordingly (shotguns) - instead they continuously parley in the face of increasing evidence that this is not something that "let us get you to a hospital" is going to help. Although their reactions might have been human and real, these are characters in an action movie and simply should have done what the movie promised - delivered action. A lack of action scenes in a movie with as few ideas as this is a great failing.<br /><br />*** SPOILERS AHEAD *** After the first confrontation and the bursting of the alien larval sack (a minor character and perhaps the best scene in the movie) the script once again betrays the movie. At this point one of the characters is almost taken over by the alien and develops an insight into the alien. The writer-director (Gunn) chooses as this character a completely new character, rather than one of already developed minor characters. Why? Why did he need to introduce a completely new character more than an hour into the movie that becomes central to the plot? By the time this character is attacked, we know hardly anything about her and could care less about her, even though she is a winsome teenage girl in her bath. Had Gunn decided not to use this character and just used one of the established minor characters, he could have completely avoided introducing her family, and saved time and money. Furthermore, the hero and heroine would have been filled in on the alien's plans without all the additional characters, and could have gotten around to blowing away aliens sooner and with more vigor.<br /><br />My last criticism is based on the movie's look. Gunn is primarily a writer, or maybe it was budgetary constraints, but this movie looked ugly and uninteresting. Most of the action takes place at night in woods or on a field, and the screen simply looks drab. The sets in Wheelsy (the fictional town where the action takes place) look cheap. The whole movie looks cheap. Box Office Mojo states the films' budget was $15 million, newspapers say $29 million, and considering they didn't use any name talent, I would say the money did not show up on screen. The monster is just repulsive, and rarely looks deadly.<br /><br />The last criticism is primarily based on the reality of the character's actions. By the time Fillion and Co have begun hunting Grant/the alien, one woman has disappeared and Grant is known to have been mutilating animals. At this point I was expecting the FBI or at least the State Police to show up and take over from the hick Sheriff. A woman has disappeared and likely been murdered, and a local has been acting psychotic. Time to call the authorities. But basically I was hoping that would happen because I just wanted some characters who would show up and ACT.<br /><br />Although this movie is ostensibly a horror-comedy, the movie it bears the most resemblance to is Dreamcatcher in terms of monstrous invasion and the type of monster and its intentions. Whereas Dreamcatcher had much bigger problems with story (especially the entire Morgan Freeman subplot) and particularly the ending, in many ways it was stronger, primarily because the main characters were stronger, but more importantly because it looked beautiful. Although that may be anathema - preferring the movie that is weaker in general plot and structural spine because of production values - that just shows you how uninteresting I found the look of Slither.
Primal Species (1996, Dir. Jonathan Winfrey) <br /><br />International terrorists get a surprise when their cargo turn out to contain living dinosaurs. The army commando team now have to think fast, if they want to prevent the extinction of the human species, instead of the reptiles.<br /><br />You look at the cover and you gain your first impressions of the film. That is pretty much it. The acting is only just acceptable from a few characters. The story is poor, with the whole film based on the army and the marines trying to kill the dinosaurs. This film came out three years after 'Jurassic Park'. Instead, this film looks to have come out 13 years before 'Jurassic Park'. The dinosaurs costumes are so poorly made, and i do mean costumes. There are obviously people dressed up, and this film makes no attempts at hiding this. A scene when a dinosaur runs down a corridor is created in a way, in which it looks like someone is riding the creature. The is one good thing, which comes out of this film. The short running time. At only 1 hour and 15 minutes, it doesn't waste too much of your life, but still try to avoid it altogether.<br /><br />"It's like a Friday the 13th Nightmare." - Officer (Brian Currie)
This is one of the silliest movies I have ever had the misfortune to watch! I should have expected it, after seeing the first two, but I keep getting suckered into these types of movies with the idea of "Maybe they did it right this time". Nope - not even close.<br /><br />Where do I begin? How about with the special effects... To give you an idea of what passes for SFX in this movie, at one point a soldier is shooting at a "Raptor" as it runs down a hallway. Even with less than a second of screen time, the viewer can easily see that it is just a man with a tail apparently taped to him running around. Bad bad bad bad.<br /><br />How about the acting? If that's what you can call it. There is one character who, I suppose, is supposed to be from the south. However, after living in the south for six years now, I have never heard this way of talking. Perhaps he has some sort of weird disability - the inability to talk normally. I find it fascinating that the character does nothing that requires him to have that accent - therefore there was no reason for the actor to try to do one.<br /><br />How about the plot? It's pretty basic - Raptors escape, people with guns must hunt them down. I'm starting to wonder why the dinosaurs in these movies always seem to run into the nearest system of tunnels... wouldn't they stay outside to hunt prey? Oh well, at least they have the good sense to appear very very little in the movie which supposedly revolves around them.<br /><br />Other things - Let's say you are in a building and you know that there are man eating raptors running around in it. Would you decide to take time out to have an argument about who is better - Army or Marine? And then decide to have an arm wrestling contest to settle it? How about the idiotic idea that they have to track down the raptors - Split up into groups of two. Didn't they ever watch any horror movies (Or at least an episode of Scooby Doo)? In short, this is one of the dumber movies out there. Miss it unless you want to groan your way through a movie.
This is probably one of the worst "wanna be a low budget hit films" to credit the dinosaur genre. The film is so predictable you could go away, cook yourself dinner, go answer the phone or whatever and when you're back you'll know exactly what has happened. The special effects are so poor you would have thought Lego bricks were used and the "super fast" dinosaurs were so tame that it makes a pet dog look like a super predator. The acting is over cooked. They try so hard, yet there just isn't enough character behind them to get into the characters and as for the scientist... Yeah okay we know exactly whats going to happen to the blonde chick in glasses. Stereotypical was created for films like this. If you want to watch this film, I suggest you aren't in as a serious mood as the cast and crew obviously were. And if you are really really into dinosaurs and know everything in the world about them, don't watch it, you might break the screen - the facts are that far off.
I really hope that Concorde/New Horizons wasn't trying to make a serious horror, or even action movie when they made Carnosaur 3. The movie is flat-out silly from start to finish. Even the humor in C3 is funny because it's bad. Definitely a high water mark in the 'So Bad it's Good' genre. If you enjoy the very worst of the worst, this is for you.
Carnosaur 3 is bad... awfully bad. Bad to the point where it is funny. How matter how much I try to convince myself, I just can't believe anyone in this world could find this entertaining for serious reasons. I mean, come on, even the cover is bad! OK, the special effects are absolutely ridiculous. Those "Carnosaurs" are really ridiculous. A scientist tells the soldiers that they move incredibly fast, yet when you see them run, they run at the speed of... an actor in a rubber suit trying to run as much as he can. And the explosions are funny(there is no other word to describe it). At the beginning, a bullet hits a Jeep AFTER a guys says "What was that?"... And the other explosions are also laughable. But the worst thing is the screenplay and the so-called story. You don't expect a good story(or, I don't think anyone renting this movie expects a good movie) but at least the story has to try to make sense. I mean, how hard is it to make a story about dinosaurs killing people at least coherent. Incredibly hard if you look at this. Oh, and if you think that it's easy to makes believable commandos as your characters, tell it to the writers of this awful, awful piece of crap. I mean, what sick human being would make cheap jokes after one of his buddies is dead? And they do lots of it. And if you think that a movie about dinosaurs killing soldiers can only be at least action-packed, WAKE UP!!! This movie is incredibly dull. The carnosaurs(who invented this lame name anyway?) attack(in boring action sequences where you don't see much happening). The soldiers think of how to beat them(in incredibly funny scenes where they try real hard to be serious but can't seem to convince even just one second). So, then, they attack the carnosaurs, but their idea doesn't work(another laughable action sequence). Back to planning(with a few lame jokes thrown in) in another ridiculous scene. And this goes on, and on, and on. And let's not forget the acting which is about as convincing as the special effects... and the story... Oh OK, this movie simply sucks from A to Z.<br /><br />
Okay, I remember watching the first one, and boy did it suck. After watching it, I just laughed it off and told myself, "oh boy, just another low budget B-movie. I'll never see a part 2 to this one." Then, about 1 1/2 years later, there came part two. It sucked even more. But, I just laughed it off again and said, "there's no way I'm ever gonna see a part 3 to this one." Then, about 1/2 a year later, part 3 came out. I was stupid enough to rent it and boy, I just snapped after watching it. God, I never actually realized how much movies can suck these days. Just save yourself $7.50 and don't rent the whole series. Trust me, it's worth every penny.
Carnosaur 3: Primal Species (1996) D: Jonathan Winfrey. Scott Valentine, Janet Gunn, Rick Dean, Anthony Peck, Rodger Halston, Terri J. Vaughn, Billy Burnette. Why even bother reviewing this movie? Another stupid dinosaur movie in which top secret military guys discover those lethal (and very fake-looking) prehistoric monsters running around killing people in gory ways. The original was bad enough, the sequel was even worse. This falls somewhere in between, though unrelated to either of the previous CARNOSAUR films. RATING: 2 out of 10. Rated R for graphic violence and gore, grisly images, and profanity.
I am Anthony Park, Glenn Park is my father. First off I want to say that the story behind this movie and the creation of the Amber Alert system is a good one. However the movie itself was poorly made and the acting was terrible. The major problem I had with the movie involved the second half with Nichole Timmons and father Glenn Park. The events surrounding that part of the story were not entirely correct. My father was suffering from psychological disorders at the time and picked up Nichole without any intent to harm her at all. He loved her like a daughter and was under the mindset that he was rescuing her from some sort of harm or neglect that he likely believed was coming from her mother who paid little attention to her over the 3 plus years that my father took care of her and summarily raised her so her mother could frolic about. The movie depicted my father in a manner that he was going to harm her in some way shape or form. The funny thing is that Nichole had spent many nights sometimes consecutively at my fathers place while Sharon would be working or doing whatever she was doing. The reason that my father was originally thought to be violent was because he had items that could be conceived to be weapons on his truck. My father was a landscaper. The items they deemed to be weapons were landscaping tools that he kept in his truck all the time for work. My recommendation is take this movie with a grain of salt, it is a good story and based on true events however the details of the movie (at least the Nichole Timmons - Glenn Park portion) are largely inaccurate and depict the failure of the director to discover the truth in telling the story. The funny thing is, that if the director would have interviewed any of Sharon's friends who knew the situation they would have stated exactly what I have posted here.
Elizabeth Rohm was the weakest actress of all the Law and Order ADA's and her acting is even worse here. Her attempts at a Texas accent are amateurish and unrealistic. Nor can she adequately summon the intense emotions needed to play the mother of a kidnapped child; at times while her daughter is missing she manages to sound only vaguely annoyed, as if she can't remember where she left her keys.<br /><br />This is an important true story, so it's too bad that the awful acting of the lead actress distracts so much from the message. The rest of the cast is talented enough, but they just can't overcome Rohm's tendency to simply lay on a particularly thick imitation of a Southern drawl whenever actual acting is required.
The female lead was a terrible actress which made the whole movie mediocre. She was smiling too much when she first went in front of the cameras to talk about her daughter. This should have made the police suspect her. I would have been inconsolable in the identical situation. She seemed way calm for a mother who could not find her daughter. It was as if she did not want to even be in the movie. Jennifer Aniston would have played the part better. And it would have made a lot more money for such a controversial, important subject. Everyone else was excellent. I don't know where the lead actress is but I hope she got some acting lessons.
I am from the Dallas/Fort Worth area and lived in Arlington for a few years. This movie was way off as far as making it look like Arlington. I saw mountains in the background of one scene! Texas doesn't have mountains. I guess that happens when a movie that is supposed to be in Texas is filmed in Canada. The accents are also really bad. They should have gotten actors from Texas to play the parts. There a lot of aspiring actors from Texas out in Hollywood. The movie is really sad though, because it is a true story. I pray that the killer is found and convicted. The one good thing is that bc of her death, we now have the Amber Alert to help find missing children quickly after they are abducted.
I think that Elisabeth Rohm, though she may try hard, is not very good at all. I guess it was because of budget that she may have been the only one they could get for that price. I mainly watched it for the performance of Myron Natwick, whose work I know very well.<br /><br />He was the most believable and without doubt the most compelling to watch. When he wasn't on the screen, the thing went dead. This was filmed in Vancouver. He gave me the creeps, but be assured that in real life he is a kind, funny compassionate man. He even said playing that role gave him the creeps.<br /><br />I'll watch anything with him in it, but Elisabeth Rohm - never again. She was as exciting as lint on Law and Order. Maybe a very nice person, but no actress.
If there was a ZERO rating, I would give it to this movie. Today was the second time I tried to watch it and I still couldn't make it through from beginning to end. I can't believe the multiple stars given by others & can only assume they either know the actors or are a publicist in disguise! The acting is atrocious all around, the script is blah, the kid playing Nichole shows zero emotion even when she's being threatened. The "southern" accent from the actress playing Amber's mom is laughable - I'm from Georgia and have friends from Texas - believe me NOBODY talks like that! None of her emotions seemed real in any scene. The subject matter is very serious and deserves much better treatment.
Everyone involved (and the audience) should seek out "The Candidate" to see how good this movie could have been. What happened the South American story? What were Julie Christie and Kate Capshaw thinking to allow their roles to be cardboard cut-outs. Up to now I have liked every Gene Hackman performance and/or movie. He was either disinterested (which I can hardly believe) or dreadfully miscast. I have also liked and defended Richard Gere (and been vilified for it). But here he had no "power". He was never intimidating and only occasionally persuasive. All in all I was very disappointed. I really expected much more from this director and cast. If you can't find "The Candidate" watch "Wag the dog" again or even "Bulworth".
The main problem with "Power" is that it features way too may pointless characters and subplots that add absolutely nothing to the movie whatsoever. It gets boring after awhile, sitting around waiting through scenes that don't connect to find something that drives the movie forward. You could probably pass it all off as character development, but all of them are either recycled from earlier scenes in the movie, or are just simply to flat and uninteresting. Lumet never gives enough time to let any of the supporting cast blossom. He should have cut a few of the characters (hackman, the wife) and concentrated harder on others (Billings). It could have been a great, hard political thriller instead of a jumbled mess that loses any message in a sea of bad writing and acting, a fact that amazed me considering the cast. Even Gene Hackman performance wasn't up to par. Denzel Washington is the only real actor of note here. Gere and the others have all done much better performances elsewhere. <br /><br />Sidney Lumet needs to go back to the fierce one man shows he did in the seventies (i.e, Serpico) and stop trying to recapture his success with "12 Angry Men" and "Fail Safe". It hasn't worked yet Sidney, and it most likely never will. leave the ensemble dramas to Altman. <br /><br />3/10<br /><br />* / * * * *
If the only sex you've ever had is with a farm animal, then the tag line for this movie is probably still misleading.<br /><br />This is by far one of the most boring movies I've had the pleasure to try and watch lately. I found the DVD lying around at my friend's house, and I made the sad mistake of not burning it.<br /><br />I am unable to tell any details without spoiling the movie because there are only about 5 details to this movie. Just try to imagine someone making a movie about things on c-span only the fictional movie is 10 times less interesting than the most boring debate on c-span.<br /><br />I think there is a conspiracy somewhere in this movie, but I was unable to tell exactly what it was after I gouched my eyeballs out and threw them at Richard Gere.
When anti-bush jokes get really easy to do, a show like this had better make sure it has something extra. When that something extra is kid versions of political figures making jokes about the future they don't have yet, it's just plain nonsense. Dick Cheney and George Bush are done well but Dick Cheney mutters mostly. There's also Condoleeza Rice who has a crush on Bush for some reason and Donald Rumsfeld who isn't really that similar to Donald Rumsfeld at all. The democratic characters rarely give their names so it's a mystery as to who could be who aside from Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton.<br /><br />The episodes have coherent stories but that's not nearly enough to keep this from sinking.
I am marking this as a "spoiler" only because of some of my comments of the show's content, not to the content itself.<br /><br />As I read the comments it is apparent that those Republicans somehow tolerate the show, but disdain it, while the Democrats seems to relish in its so called truthfulness. One reader even (so it seems) actually indicates that he believes these events did or could have happened when Bush was in grade school.<br /><br />But as to the content as I see it, trying to be neutral, is that the group that made this series must actually be really Bush haters. In the Episode that I saw last, s02e03, it showed that the program must have been put together long before McCain became the front runner for the nomination; because, the other former front runners are all featured.<br /><br />Another thing that caught my attention, was the use of add in closets. I thought that the series must have been made in Europe of for sure not in the U.S.A., because I know of no home the U.S.A. that does not have built in closets, and most likely in the homes of the artists.<br /><br />As I watch the show, yes I do get caught up in it, I am amazed to see what must be a terrific desire of the writers to do what they can to embarrass our President. Sure there are problems as most American will agree, but that is no reason to be so hateful in public displays seen around the world. Perhaps the trend has now been set by this show and network, so that IF Obama or Hillary got in, would they continue to produce and air the same sort of "humor" about them?<br /><br />Just one more comment on a commentator's remarks. IF there had been some sort of change in the election back in 2000, according to that writer, he was so sure that there would be a completely different acceptable president. Wow, wishful thinking on his part. As far as 911 events, I do believe that it was set in motion back when Clinton was president, and I can't see how if Gore was president anything would be much different.
Honestly, my expectations for Little Bush were low. I was expecting a little cartoon series with lots of fun (but rehashed and overdone) Bush jokes. Apparently I should have lowered my expectations even more.<br /><br />The writing was absolutely pathetic. Aside from the Cheney-Chicken-Eating joke, and some giggly-little swipes, it was really boring and unfunny.<br /><br />The animation was about as sophisticated as a thirteen-year old's Flash Project. It's disgraceful that they used Macromedia's product for this, because it's capable of so much more.<br /><br />I don't like Bush that much, and I enjoy a Bush-joke as much as the next guy, but this was just a half-hour swipe at the President with several painfully un-funny moments. Trey Parker and Matt Stone did so much more with That's My Bush.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor, skip "Lil' Bush" and go buy a copy of the short-lived comedy "That's My Bush". You'll thank me.
Abysmal with a capital "A". This has got to be one of, if not THE, unfunniest show on TV right now. I'm about as anti-bush as it gets, but this show doesn't even get a chuckle out of me. What you think of Bush as a president has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not you'll like this piece of crap show. The "jokes" are not funny at all. For example, in a scene when lil bush has his underwear on his head: "Welcome to camp al-qa-eeda!". There is NOTHING funny about that. Is it even supposed to be joke? The commercials that were shown in the weeks leading up to the show, hyping it up, were funnier than the show itself, and that's just sad. Hopefully this does not even get considered for a second season. It shouldn't even have had a first.
This show is not clever. That's basically what it boils down to. The "original humor" that these writers try to pull off to avoid completely biting off the rest of the worlds bush bashing is just unfunny. In another comment, someone quotes a couple hilarious lines. The standout for me was George H.W. Bush telling the kids they're not supposed to watch any TV besides Fox News. Wow. I thought the episodes I saw were bad. The fact that this line is a high point for the series is pathetic.<br /><br />My problem with drivel like this sad excuse for political satire is that these folks are getting a second season. I'm a liberal republican and I know Bush hasn't been a good president. We all do. But that's no excuse for putting out this utterly poopie waste of time. I place these writers on the same level as the geniuses behind 'Meet the Spartans'. Their formula, bite off as many already unfunny topical jokes as you can and throw in even worse original material to actually be able to give yourself writing credit.<br /><br />Again, just plain bad. Unfunny, and it just makes me more and more unhappy that crap like this is renewed, but amazing and original shows like Arrested Development are canned after 3 solid seasons. Please don't watch this crap, unless you're one of those green blooded liberal hippies who think any sentence with the words Bush and dumb is comedic gold. <br /><br />Oh, and the voice of Bush sucks. All he does is slightly emulate a Texan accent, and exhale really hard at the end of his sentences. At least South Park admits the voices aren't accurate. If you want funny political satire, watch Daily Show/Colbert. Or look for any political sketches on Robot Chicken, which is fun to watch, since the stop motion action figure animation is EXTREMELY well done. Look for the George Bush as a Jedi bit on youtube. Priceless
I want to start by stating I am a republican, even though I don't agree with a lot of the things bush has done in office. And I love the daily show and Colbert report. They have to be two of my favorite shows on TV. I enjoy the bush jokes on Conan, Letterman, Leno, because I admit that W is not the smartest guy to ever walk the earth(I do believe he's not the dumbest either.) But it comes to a point when enough is enough and it's not really that funny anymore. I see where it can be funny and it is(hey he's making fun of our authority figure he's hilarious.). Comedy central though is just trying to hard to poke fun at him. I mean maybe one special episode, but an entire series is just dumb. It seems CC is just saying the same bush jokes that we've heard WAY to many times. I really cannot see this show going past 1 season.
Lil Bush is a 30 minute cartoon show comprised of 2 15 minutes episodes shown on Comedy Central. It takes place in a fictional, cartoonish Washington D.C., and centers around the satirical, childish representations of George W. Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheyney. Other politicians are also satirized in the same manner, and act as minor characters.<br /><br />The pilot of little Bush, much to this commentator's expectations, proved to be a rather shallow and esoteric production, which barely delivers on its featured promise: a satirical look at the current presidential administration. While one must admit that premise of the show does have SOME merit, even though it would be hard to imagine a show based almost completely of the denigration of a single political persona would survive to continue to produce episodes after his term of office expired, execution that can only be described as sloppy at best, and downright awful at worst, has marred what little potential the show had.<br /><br />Lil Bush, which may be technically classified as "satire", tends to disregard its actual use of the particular tool of comedy in order to lambaste its targets in exceptionally vulgar (but not particularly original, entertaining, or funny) ways. The show's consistently weak writing often consists of little more than recording Bush/Cheney jokes heard elsewhere ad nauseam and placing them all in a single 30 minute block of television. As such, most of the jokes that presented by the writers were shameless clichés, some of which that been in public circulation for more than 6 years already. Comparing the Vice President to Darth Vader, for example, may have been funny in the first 300 times one has heard it on the Daily Show/Colbert Report/Letterman/Conan O'Brien/Leno monologue/any late-night-talk-show-ever, but it is not funny here. As if that were not enough, the show's plots seem to exist simply as a means to advance the same old, tiresome Bush jokes that the writers have made the center of the program.<br /><br />In the show's defense, when the writers dare to write in a truly original joke (which seems to be a rarity) it is often somewhat humorous. If the show were to expand its depth somewhat, and place its characters into new situations, exotic situations, rather than the same old mistakes and "quagmires" perpetuated by the Bush administration, therefore not having to rely on the same old Bush jokes over and over again, the show might be considered somewhat tolerable, and possibly even innovative.<br /><br />Ultimately, it is difficult to ascertain which shortcoming causes the Lil Bush series the most damage; its clear lack of originality and weak writing quality, or its painfully narrow minded ambitions. It is reasonable to expect that Lil Bush will be able to maintain a small base of left wing fans, that is, if they are able to endure the exceptionally poor writing; so long as the program continues to lampoon the Bush administration thoroughly. Even so, the majority of viewers will soon recognize the program for what it really is, a weak and pointlessly vulgar attempt at satire, and tune out in search of something more intellectually stimulation; The Price is Right, perhaps.
I just finished watching this film and WOW was that bad. Actually the only thing that kept me watching was that it was SO MONUMENTALLY bad it was kind of entertaining. The action of the characters is hilarious, from the hyper-dramatic way they fall to gunfire, to their incredibly bad acting (were the bad guys all just pulled off the street, or were they actually actors?), to incredibly bad delivery of lines, to their inexplicable actions (if you are going to try and shoot someone through a doorway as they enter, obviously the thing to do is shoot directly at the doorknob!!). This film must break some record for worst written and delivered lines.<br /><br />The camera work was also really bad - you can hardly see what's going on in the fight scenes due to switching camera angles and shakiness.<br /><br />I would have voted "1" except that I do like Chiba and sidekick Sue Shihomi, and I was entertained by a couple of scenes: 1) breaking of a villain's arm so the bone pops out of the skin (that's gotta hurt) 2) a drug kingpin eating a brown-furred animal (a monkey??) by hacking away at the carcass with a meat cleaver 3) Sonny Chiba's performing some impromptu eye surgery on a guy with his fingers.<br /><br />I am actually a big fan of Sonny Chiba but this one is really not worth anyone's time. I've seen about 7 or 8 of his films and have come to the conclusion that the only ones worth watching (and they are great!) are the Street Fighter series, and The Killing Machine. I've also heard the Executioner and Golgo 13 are good. I recommend sticking to those ones.
This is easily one of the worst martial arts films I've ever seen, and that's saying something. The chant of viva Chiba, viva Chiba is heard at the title, soon you will be chanting to yourself stupid, stupid. The basic story is that the mafia is running drugs into Japan and one man vowels to stop them, of course that's our man Sonny Chiba. The Karate master offers up his service to anyone who can provide information on the drug lords. A woman comes forward and he becomes the bodyguard, but what are her true intentions? Let me say at this point who cares? Soon we are treated to or tortured by a series of poorly choreographed fights and a lame storyline that becomes more and more laughable at every moment. Sonny eventually wipes out the bad guys with his karate skills, end of story. Oh yeah the woman was corrupt too. Congratulations you may have just watched the funniest film ever.<br /><br />As stated already this is one of the worst martial arts films I have ever seen. What makes it semi watchable is to see how badly made a film can be. Some have already mentioned the infamous American intro put into the film. That's probably the most entertaining part of the film and it's beyond funny. I would agree its worth watching just to see how lame the 70's karate scene was at the time. Watch as Aaron Banks leaves a guy hanging by his nuts then flips a fat student (bad editing) punching him in the throat. But everything is badly done in this film. Terrible unbelievable fights, fake I mean fake blood, bad acting, dubbing, wardrobe, and let's not forget the story. One man to take out an entire drug problem in a country? I bet. Fight after fight is laughable. This was the 70's when people still believed karate was effective in a fight, but Chiba brings it to new levels with some of the nonsense put out in this movie. Let's see he kicks a gun in half, kicks a guy so hard what looks like his dentures fall out and of course chopping the bottle scene, give me a break. Not to mention the fact that it's very hard to tell what happens in the fights because it's filmed so poorly. One part that was amusing was when he broke the guys arm through the door giving him a compound fracture. OK. As the action goes on we are treated to gobs of blood, really fake blood. Too say it looked poorly made is and understatement. The acting is totally non existent in this film. I don't expect much from a film of this caliber anyway as long as the action is good, but it wasn't and as expected the dubbing is extremely poor. Was it my imagination or did they dub the Asian go go dancer with a black accent? As expected from a 70's wardrobe you'll be in stitches laughing at some of the trends and nasty women put forth for the gratuitous nudity that comes with these flicks. Also why would the mafia be so obvious and all where black trench coats and hats all the time? Don't try and hide it now. The characters were stupid as well. The pimp club owner's one of whom is decked out in a Japanese pimp suit and the other who has a taste for bores head looks like fat hippie. Also one last thing that bothered me throughout the film was the awful music with some woman whaling. It was very annoying.<br /><br />Overall this is a terrible film by both martial arts standards and good movie making. That doesn't mean that it's not entertaining. With a film made so poorly it's hard not to laugh through most of this film, if you can stomach it. This was an old favorite watch with my best friend. If it was purely bad I would give one star, but the laughs it delivers bumps it up. 4 out 10.
After watching "The Bodyguard" last night, I felt compelled to write a review of it.<br /><br />This could have been a pretty decent movie had it not been for the awful camera-work. It was beyond annoying. The angles were all wrong, it was impossible to see anything, especially during the fight sequences. The closeups were even horrible.<br /><br />The story has Sonny Chiba hiring himself out as a bodyguard to anyone willing to lead him to the top of a drug ring. He is approached by Judy Lee, who is never quite straight with Chiba. Lee's involvement in the drug ring is deeper than Chiba thought, as the Mob and another gang of thugs are after her.<br /><br />The story was decent, and despite horrible dubbing, this could have been a good movie. Given better direction and editing, I'm sure this would have been a classic Kung Foo movie. As it is, it's more like another cheesy 70's action movie.<br /><br />Note: The opening sequence has a quote familiar to "Pulp Fiction" fans, and then continues to a karate school in Times Square that is in no way related to the rest of the movie.<br /><br />Rating: 4 out of 10
I liked Chiba in Street Fighter, and I figured hey, no matter how stupid this movie will be, I'll at least get to see him kick some ass, right? Wrong. This is a dull, dreary mess of pointless talking, half-assed scriptwriting and meaningless scheming. There are few action scenes of any kind, even fewer martial arts scenes, and the few that are are shot and edited so poorly that you can't even make out what in the world is going on. The dub is also atrocious, and perhaps the idiocy that is this movie is best illustrated by the fact that it supposedly features the Italian Mafia... EXCEPT THEY'RE ALL Japanese! Avoid like the plague--you would see better martial arts by looking through the window of your local preschool karate class for five minutes.
Avoid the USA version. It is with added US footage and the worst dubbing you've ever heard probably done by New York amateurs. The dubbing is so bad that it sounds like Mystery Science Theater 3000. I think a black guy from the Bronx does Chiba's voice. I couldn't watch the entire film it was that bad. Instead of this Americanized version watch Chiba's other greats like The Streetfighter or Karate Warriors.
The best thing you can say about this movie is that if you are a fan of Sonny Chiba, this movie gives you lots of him. Chiba makes speeches; Chiba poses; Chiba sneers; Chiba glares at the camera; Chiba punches and kicks the living sushi out of a whole bunch of bad guys; Chiba sits around on couches and chairs and looks thoughtful/pensive; Chiba drives his car...<br /><br />I enjoy Chiba as an actor and a martial artist...but even for a Chiba fan, this movie may have a little too much Sonny Chiba. It's obviously something of a vanity vehicle for him. And no, I wouldn't put "Street Fighter" in the same category, because in "SF" he plays a ruthless, amoral anti-hero and he shares the camera with an intriguing cast of friends and foes. Here, he's front and center almost all the time, and he tries to be Batman, Captain America and Bruce Lee rolled into one. Toshiro Mifune and Chow Yun Fat couldn't pull this off for the length of an entire feature film, and Sonny just kind of wears out his welcome. At least he could have changed out of his suit once in a while.<br /><br />The movie is further messed up by an entirely gratuitous and badly done introductory sequence (apparently tacked on to the front of the film for the American version) and a goofy cheer "("Viva!! Chiba!! Viva!! Chiba!!) that starts things on the wrong foot. There is some astoundingly amateurish and inappropriate dubbing - Sonny (or his usual English stand-in) apparently couldn't be bothered to do the vocals for the American version, so they got some poor dope with an entirely different and smoother voice and dialect that is quite jarring coming from the face we all know and love from "Street Fighter". <br /><br />Even with all those flaws and the overexposure, this could still be a minor classic, but the camera work and the fight scenes are hopelessly cheesy. I'm willing to believe that Karate actually works if someone as amazing as Chiba's character is supposed to be does it, but the director and cameraman hedged their bets by chopping and editing fight scenes with a weed whacker so you can't really see what's going on most of the time. It's not all bad: there are some decent shots and compositions, and there's at least one memorable and nightmarish moment when the bad guys appear in the client's bedroom in a genuinely inventive way. <br /><br />And as for the actual plot...forget it. For a "bodyguard", Chiba's character is something of an idiot. The screenplay depends on his making mistakes and oversights that repeatedly place him (and his "client") in perilous situations so he can fight his way out of them, and after 30 minutes, it strains even the most credulous judgment to think that this guy is supposed to be any good. (Also, If his character was really out to destroy the Japanese drug trade, he'd have taken his client by her neck 10 minutes into the screenplay and shaken her until her teeth chattered like a castanet until she spilled her little secrets...and a whole lot of pointless death and conflict would have been avoided.) <br /><br />Still, as a whole this movie is a long way from the bottom of the barrel. It's still Sonny Chiba, and he's still fun to watch. I paid a buck to get this off the bargain DVD rack at a local mega mart, and I feel it was worth watching once.
The first few minutes of "The Bodyguard" do have a campy charm: it opens with crawling text from the Bible (the part that Samuel Jackson recites to his soon-to-be victims in "Pulp Fiction"), continues with two karate school teachers in New York arguing about the eternal question of mankind (who is better? Sonny Chiba or Bruce Lee?), and then Chiba appears, playing himself; he immediately stops a plane hijacking and breaks a bottle in two with his bare hand. Unfortunately, any entertainment value, intentional or unintentional, soon gets crushed by the disjointed story, the lack of action for long periods of time, and the poor quality of any present action. To keep it simple, here's why "The Bodyguard" is an unbearable movie to watch:<br /><br />1) You don't know what's going on. <br /><br />2) There are barely any fights. <br /><br />3) The fights that are there, are short and terribly filmed.<br /><br />Sonny Chiba is cool. Judy Lee is gorgeous, her face is glorious. It's only for them that I give "The Bodyguard" a 2nd star out of 10. This movie makes 87 minutes feel like 5 hours.
Before I begin, you need to know that I am a huge fan of many of Sonny Chiba's films. His biographical series of the life of his master, Mas Oyama, were amazing and among the best martial arts films ever made, as were most of his Street Fighter films. The action was practically non-stop and with the possible exception of Bruce Lee (depending on who you ask), he was the greatest martial arts practitioner on film during the 1970s. Because they are so good, I've seen at least 15 of his films and recently bought some more (which I am in the process of watching).<br /><br />Unfortunately, despite my love of these films, I am NOT a mind-numbed zombie who worships the man to such a degree that I rate EVERY film a 10. There are a few reviews like this here on IMDb and I truly think that anyone giving this film a 10 should be ignored because this is such a bad film from a technical standpoint and isn't even close to the being Chiba's best work. A score of 10 isn't a real rating--it's some zombie fan trying to make a statement about Chiba, not this film! As I said, technically this film is awful. Some of this was the result of my seeing the American dubbed version, with its irrelevant prologue and bad dubbing. But most of the problem would still exist with the original Japanese print. The camera-work is simply atrocious--like it was done by chimps (smart chimps, but still chimps nonetheless). Often, much of the fast martial arts action is missed because the camera is so slow or the tops of the actors heads are clipped off due to the shoddiness of production. And, again and again, the camera pans in and out like it is a new toy being used by an idiot plus the editing is beyond wretched--with cuts being done haphazardly and confusingly.<br /><br />I don't know whether the musical score is original or not--but it was also very, very bad. Sort of like acid rock of 1970 blended poorly with Ennio Morricone's "Spaghetti Western" music--it was annoying, distracting and just plain silly.<br /><br />As for the martial arts action, I think that having chimps do the choreography would have improved things a bit. Instead of the great fight scenes you'd look forward to in a Chiba film, the fights are too brief and often missed by the camera!! So what you are left with is the story...and this MIGHT just be the worst part of the film! It's supposed to be an anti-drug film starring Sonny Chiba as....Sonny Chiba! And when the film begins, he vows to destroy the drug trade in Japan. But, the Mafia (complete with not a single member who looks Italian, but who are ALL Japanese) vows to stop Chiba. And, when a lady comes to Chiba with promises to give him information about how to destroy the drug trade, he agrees to help her and risk his life with no conditions--even though she's NEVER forthright about telling him what she knows! In fact, later it turns out she is just trying to use Chiba to protect her while she herself sells a huge briefcase full of cocaine--and he CONTINUES trying to protect her!! This makes no sense at all and throughout much of the film it looks as if they just shot the film without a script--such as when they went into the bars and brothels and had Chiba walking about as if he was drunk.<br /><br />So if it was THAT bad, why still does it merit a 3? Well, first, there are many more horrid marital arts films (such as many of those from Hong Kong in the 1970s)--including one with guys dressed up in gorilla suits doing kung fu and their handlers with 3 foot long tongues they used for fighting (now THAT'S bad). Second, while the action is very bad compared to other Sonny Chiba films, compared to its contemporaries, it's not that bad. Still, you could easily do a lot better than this horrid little film.<br /><br />By the way, if you are wondering if this is the worst Sonny Chiba film, it certainly is not! In one of his first films, INVASION OF THE NEPTUNE MEN, Chiba plays a leotard-wearing super-hero who battles pointy-headed invaders from the planet Neptune. It's so bad that it rivals PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE and THEY SAVED HITLER'S BRAIN for awfulness.<br /><br />A final note to parents--Like most of Sonny Chiba's films, this one is very violent and has its share of boobies. DON'T let little kids watch this no matter how much they beg! Make them wait until they are older before you let them watch wretched rated-R martial arts films!
Most action films are crass of Hindi cinema, especially of Sunny and his family <br /><br />The film is typical Sunny type with bashes, big dialogues and melodrama<br /><br />The film also has typical Rajiv Rai ingredients of many henchmen and a weird villain<br /><br />The starting is okay and then the shift to Kenya is good but then the film goes on and on <br /><br />The sequence of events move at a slow pace and nothing that great happens<br /><br />They are many stupid scenes like the Kenya policemen are shown like jokers especially Sharat<br /><br />The climax too is prolonged<br /><br />Rajiv Rai does an okay job Music is okay, only 1 song works and that is the last TOOFAN Camera-work is good<br /><br />Sunny Deol is as usual, Chunky acts like a monkey while his serious scenes are laughable, Naseer is alright heroines are pure wood Amrish Puri is not even half as scary as he was in TRIDEV the rest are okay
I watched this movie on march 21 this year.Must say disappointment.But much better than "Tridev".Plot is hackneyed.Tells about Prabhat who lives with his father,Wife and his little brother.The movie opens when he saves a bride.Anyway.Azghar Jhurhad makes a plot to kill his young brother.He makes a plan by sending few man.They come to a school pretended to be Prabhats friends.Kill that kid.His father throws him out of the house.Then later comes back.He and Aakash go to Kenya to find him.Sunny gives a good performance,Chunky was annoying at best,Naseerdun is wasted.Divya did good,Sonam was wasted,Jyotsna was wasted but looked cute.The kid which played Sunnys brother in the movie was cute.Too sad he had to get his character killed.The girl was cute but was annoying.The other kid did good.Alok did good.Kiran was adequate.Amrish and Gulshan did good.The cinematography is excellent in both India and Kenya.Script is weak but has a few good dialogs.Also drags .The movie.The music was alright.I only liked one song"Saat Samundar" the lyrics of that song was good.The other songs were forgettable.Don't watch this. Rating-3/10
Imagine that in adapting a James Bond novel into a movie, the filmmakers eliminated all the action and suspense in order to make it kid-friendly. Or if a television producer told Chris Rock he couldn't cuss so that his specials could be rated PG. In the same way, the director of the movie "Something Wicked This Way Comes" took out the excitement and gore in favor of melodrama for younger audiences. This created a monotonous plot without the complications of the book. In trying to make the story of "Something Wicked This Way Comes" easier for children to follow, the filmmakers eliminated the theme of good and evil both existing in everyone, and good always prevailing over evil. This is apparent in Will's character transformation, Charles Halloway's rescue of Jim, and the carnival's defeat.<br /><br />Will's transformation into a more adventurous boy has been muted in the movie. The scene in which the Dust Witch visits Will's house in a balloon has been cut from the film. Instead, a green mist follows Jim and Will home and gives them the same bad dream about the Witch and her spiders. The balloon attack shows us that Will has begun to conquer his fear of doing things on his own. He gets on top of a neighbor's roof and tears the balloon with a bow, defeating the Witch. "Sorry, Dad, he thought, and sat up, smiling. This time it's me out, alone," Will decides as he prepares to face her (147.) Removing this scene from the movie prevents us from understanding that Will is becoming more adventuresome. The film shows us many examples of Will being afraid to follow Jim, but never growing curious like his friend. In the book, Will has both a good, quiet side and an "evil," daring side like his Jim. In the movie, each boy only has one mode of thought, which destroys Bradbury's theme of both good and evil being present in each person.<br /><br />In the book, Will saves Jim because of their friendship, but, in the movie, Charles Halloway saves Jim to repay Jim's father. Will pulls Jim off the carousel in Bradbury's novel because he doesn't want his best friend to grow up without him. It is the good in Will, the fact that he cares about his friend, that saves Jim from the evil curse of the carnival. On the carousel, Jim "gestured his other hand free to trail on the wind, the one part of him, the small, white, separate part that still remembered their friendship" (269.) This shows that there was good left inside of Jim, which has the potential to still defeat evil. But when Charles Halloway saves Jim in the movie, he does it to repay the debt he owes Jim's father, who saved Will when he was a little boy. By changing the motivation for saving Jim, the filmmakers have ruined Bradbury's original idea that it takes good to win against evil.<br /><br />In the end of the movie, the carnival is defeated by a tornado and lightning instead of smiles and laughter. When the book ends, Mr. Dark turns himself into a little boy and Charles Halloway smiles and laughs at him so much that he can't stand it and evaporates. In Bradbury's world, evil people feed off fear and can only be defeated by happiness and love. His message is that good will always prevail over evil, but only if that goodness is expressed outwardly. "Good to evil seems evil," says Charles Halloway as he holds the dying Mr. Dark. "So I will do only good to you, Jed. I'll simply hold you and watch you poison yourself" (275.) In the movie, Mr. Dark is the only one left on the carousel when lightning hits it, and he dies. By eliminating the weapon of laughter and smiles, the filmmakers imply that bad weather is the most effective way to defeat evil, as if lightning only strikes those who are bad. This takes away the major theme of Bradbury's book, which is that doing "good" toward others wards off evil.<br /><br />Good may always triumph over evil, but trying to make movies more kid-friendly will always force filmmakers to leave out some of the themes from the books they are based on. In the movie, "Something Wicked This Way Comes," Will does not transform, Will's friendship does not save Jim, and smiles and laughter do not defeat the carnival. As a result, the filmmakers have left out too many of Bradbury's main points. The process of adapting a book to a movie too often ruins the world the author has established. In the case of this story, Bradbury's frightening world of opposing forces of good and evil has been reduced to a tamer, simpler version of itself.
First and foremost, I loved the novel by Ray Bradbury. It's the kind of horror that gets under your skin and sticks with you later. It was one of his best books, with, you know, Fahrenheit 451 and Dandelion Wine. I as just hoping that this movie would be all right. It had lots of chances, with a great cast, like Jason Robards and Jonathn Pryce. And Bradbury even wrote the script himself. And on top of all that, it has PAM GRIER!<br /><br />How could it fail?<br /><br />There may be spoilers within.<br /><br />First of all, it was dumbed down. Much of the horror from the book was lost as Bradbury must have been forced to keep the violence to a minimum. All the visuals from the book...gone. Everything that made you squirm...gone.<br /><br />And then there's the acting. Like a lot of movies that Disney threw out in the 80s, the kids in this movie cannot act. And, this bugged me a lot, neither of them looked 13 but 9 or 10. Their strong friendship wasn't addressed. It was more like they were acquaintaces. <br /><br />You'd think Jason Robards and Jonathan Pryce could pull this off in their roles of Mr. Halloway and Mr. Dark. But here it's like they just don't care. All they want to do is somehow pay off some mortgage or something. This is far from being some of their best performances. <br /><br />Pam Grier was fine as the witch, but the charecter of the Dust Witch herself wasn't well pulled off. She's a lot less evil and doesn't have the presence as she did in the book. <br /><br />And everything that was left out of the book. The ballon night chase, the marking of Jim's house, the real death of Mr. Dark, what happened to Mr. Coogan on the merry-go-round, the fate of the lightening rod salesman, the real death of the witch, and oh so much more. <br /><br />And the special effects were bad, even for the 80s. The merry-go-round of doom for one thing with the superimposed horses going around wasn't really creepy, and that weird green mist that really had nothing to do with anything. <br /><br />I could keep going about how this movie ripped apart the original novel, but it makes blood boil. Don't see this movie but read the book. It's a classic of Bradbury.
I have never read the Bradbury novel that this movie is based on but from what I've gathered, it will be interesting (when I finally do read it and I will). My comments will be based purely on the film. As soon as I saw the trailer I knew I had to see it and was so excited but when I finally did, I was so disappointed it hurt. This is because the movie itself felt so amateurish. The actors were not well cast (though Robards and Pryce are both good actors - just not here). The kid actors, it seemed, were merely asked to show up, get in the characters' clothes, say the lines and make the faces. The set and props were cheap and unrealistic. The direction was surprisingly bad. I was so surprised at the awfulness of it that I had to go online and check who directed it, just to see the kind of work he had done. The editing was cut and paste and the plot (screenplay) was just that as well (even though the author had been involved himself, irony?). The building up of the tension, fear and suspense was so mild it was ineffective when the climax finally came.<br /><br />I've read some of the comments on this movie and find it hard to believe people actually like it. What hurts the most is that the content is interesting and fun and intriguing. It had so much potential. Unfortunately, the film was so technically bad it takes away from the brilliance of the story.
This sports a nice, deep cast but for a thriller you better deliver more than name actors and talk. The first third of this movie was nothing but talk, and more talk. Most of that was a bunch of women bitching about everything to each other. <br /><br />The first five listed actors in here are women so that verifies that it's really a "chick flick" and little else. This probably plays on the Lifetime network.<br /><br />There was a quick murder scene and then more talk. By halfway through, they had lost me. <br /><br />By the way, Sally Field looked about 15 years old in here.
This TV-made thriller is all talk, little action. It works hard to set up its convoluted plot, yet the writing is so muddled the exposition is still cloudy at best. By the end, I knew no more about these characters than I did at the beginning. It has a quasi-"Ten Little Indians" scenario, but ditches it mid-way through in favor of spotlighting Sally Field and her uncovering of a killer. Field overacts here with a gracelessness I've seldom seen from her. The early introductions are good, but the writing quickly strays off-course and eventually goes over the top. Lots of hysteria, and constant thunder and lightning effects (which adds nothing). A curious failure from producers Aaron Spelling & Leonard Goldberg. With all this talent, couldn't they give us something more than a script full of red herrings and Sally Field hiding in a closet?
This is a low budget Roger Corman horror/creature flick. A DinoCroc is created when manipulation of prehistoric genes runs amok. An engineered croc first kills one of its own then gets the taste of human and becomes a fast growing terror after escaping. None of the characters have any depth, but then they are not the focal point. We only get a few glimpses of the huge two-legged dinosaur descendant and some of the best "kill" scenes in a small budget film.<br /><br />My favorite scene is of a moronic character trying to use a three legged dog for bait and becomes croc food himself. Nothing left on the pier but ankle top feet. With no real stand out roles: Jane Longendecker, Bruce Weitz and Charles Napier. Most pathetic is Matt Borlenghi and an obnoxious professional croc hunter Costas Mandylor. I was most impressed with the alluring Joanna Pacula as the respectfully feared Dr. P. DINOCROC is redeeming as a crock of pickles.
This is just a joke of a movie,they lost me already at the opening scene (Spoilerwarning) dangerous creature kills other creature in his cage,this is watched by a scientist that works there on a monitor and guess what she does,well lets go in to the cage to check the stuff out,omg how dumb do those writers think human beings are come on thats the same like jumping in a fish tank with a great white shark because it ate your goldfish...Pretty useless and even more dumber.And i will not even talk about the cast because they aren't worth the effort. why they didn't fired the guy that wrote that immediately is a mystery to me.....And this kinda dumbness continues the entire movie. Only good thing where the cgi that is better then average for these kinda low-budget movies.<br /><br />If these kinda things don't bother you go see it,but be warned if your IQ is above 60 you will probably hate it.
Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water...<br /><br />Another computer generated mutant croc on the prowl for human lunchmeat, let loose by another one of those facilities conducting mad science. Gereco Biotech company is fooling around with growth hormone research, accidentally releasing a baby crocodile which is evolving at an accelerating rate.<br /><br />B-movie cast add a deal of fun to this run of the mill "genetic mistake monster movie". Costas Mandylor evokes Mick Dundee, Aussie accent, hat, big ass knife, the works, as a croc specialist hired by Gereco executive Joanna Pacula(..wasted in the stereotypical role of corrupt administrative executive who denies any involvement with the gigantic beast her facility let free on innocent people). Charles Napier is the local sheriff whose town is in danger and Jane Longenecker is his hot daughter, who works at the animal shelter. Soap opera star Matthew Borlenghi is Longenecker's love interest, a local artist who welds sculptures(..his brother is a victim of the croc). Of course, this skill will come in mighty handy when our heroes set up a created trap for the croc, hoping to poison it with carbon monoxide.<br /><br />The croc itself is never the least bit convincing as it rampages through a reserve looking for food, the special effects of a low grade variety. In regards to Roger Corman productions dealing with renegade dino-monsters, I stick with Carnosaur. The monster here is essentially a crocodile standing on it's hind legs, often upright as it pursues potential victims. I felt Mandylor and the filmmakers were spoofing Crocodile Dundee with his croc hunter, and this imitation might amuse where the monster itself fails. Borlenghi and Longenecker actually have pretty good chemistry together on screen. As expected, Pacula gets her commuppance in hilarious fashion(..gulp).
What an awful movie. I love monster flicks but I couldn't watch even half of the terrible acting, cardboard characters and abysmal special effects. There is nothing redeeming about this movie. The characters come from either an endless supply of suicidally stupid cannon fodder or else they are vacuous, uninspiring sock puppets. The plot is formulaic, cut and paste, standard science-run-amok drivel. Even the CGI is horrible. You know it's bad when you can't even depend on the movie to provide some good eye candy. No surprises here,just same old same old. This is truly one of the worst films ever made. Director Roger Corman should be hung from a lightpost so that children can use him as a pinata.
the film looks like as if the director was forced to make this movie by some gang of terrorists . it should actually be called dino crap.<br /><br />there is nothing good about this movie.. even the actors are not worth a penny. don't waste your time watching this movie. the director should be shot in the head for having the mentality to create such a bad movie . i mean isn't he ashamed of looking at peoples faces after they have seen his movie ? the dinocroc looks as if it was made in power point and pretty much cut-and-paste stuff. and its the same old story . man plays god . creates some creature . it escapes and is happy eating people . and finally a pretty girl and a guy in a sleeveless shirt has to come and kill it . bla bla.. u will figure out the plot in the first 5 minutes of the movie
This is possibly one of the worst giant killer animal movies I have ever seen. It follows the typical premise of a laboratory experiment gone wrong and a giant crocodile with a rapid growth chemical in it escapes. The monster looks way to much like a dinosaur, having big Tyranosaurous-like hind legs, when it should just look like an over-sized crocodile. Everything about this movie is unoriginal and it constantly oozes "cliche", minute after minute. Why are there always two drunken redneck hunters out after dark who separate? Plus, there's always a guy and girl who share a lame, obvious love interest while they are in life threatening situations. To much has already been said by me and I feel as if I'm wasting my time writing this...
There are some things I can never understand. Such as this movie. What if I were to create a really really cheap and crappy looking Dino and crocodile polygon model in Maya and then proceed to cut and paste that into an amateur video clip having people scream and getting eaten by the same thing? How can anyone even believe that an utterly fake CGI dinocroc that looks completely out of place, would influence the events in this movie? I know that its B-grade, low budget and all but the producers could do better than making a piece of crap that no one will ever seen see or sit through. It just does'nt make sense. Are people really so stupid that they would sit through this? Apparently so. For laughs? No, this thing isn't even worth laughing at.
A large part of the scenes should be cut off. There is a lot of scenes that should have been cut off. For example the scene where the hunters mentions "I got spiders on my dick", "I like dick", playing in the mud scene, or a bar scene where a professional dinocroc hunters main job is a snake charmer.<br /><br />How about other terribly incoherent scenes featuring a woman, Diane who wants to loose her virginity to a boyfriend who walks like he wears women's panties three sizes too small. While they make love, didn't they realized they are making it out next to the little boy who will soon run away and loose his head? Why did they do in a living room? I mean his head really flipped. How about the beach scene very reminiscent of Steven Spielberg's Jaws scene at Grant Lake. All these strange scene could easily be re-dubbed and billed as a comedy.<br /><br />Here in my local town, the cineplex theaters had been advertising for months about Dinocroc, and I am glad I didn't watch it because I later found out it was shown only for 1 or 2 days before it was canceled. The movie was THAT bad. I suspected that Dinocroc was not a good movie looking at the preview. It features the leg of Dinocroc that looks like a child wearing green pajamas and slippers with claws and walks up and down like a 2 year old. It could easily passed over as Baby Geniuses.<br /><br />If any students of movie making wants to learn what not to do this is a real classic trash. Such as Diane's boyfriend who walks like he had an advanced case of syphilis makes you wonder what the poor woman sees in this guy who looks drunk even before he get to drink beer. When this happens, who cares about Dinocroc? The panties man looked more more interesting than the entire movie of Dinocroc. His acting was so bad, he makes a much better replacement for Mr. Bean. MOVE OVER ROWAN ATKINSON, here is a man with a better comedic talent in a horror sci-fi flick. Perhaps the worse casting in the history of Hollywood.
Now I myself am a lover of the B movie genre but this piece of trash insults me to no end. First of all the movie is starring Lizzy McGuire's brother as the annoying little kid that goes looking for his lost 3 legged dog. Now please what kind of dumb ass mistakes a three-legged dog for a god damn mutated crocodile please I ask you? And heres another point for pondering, why do they show the Dinocroc on the back of the movie box being enormous and actually in the water? I believe if memory serves the thing spent about 2.6 minutes in the water and was just shy of 6 feet tall, that was a heart breaker. But redeeming qualities to this movie were that it was so bad that i almost died laughing because believe me the bad acting made me wish for death. But the fact remains that once again this thing is created by another military testing site to train super crocodiles for military combat or something like that from the source of all things evil E.V.I.L Corporation. And let's not forget the characters let's see we have jerk off #1 as the male lead and half way decent chick (who doesn't know how to act) as the female lead to that I say WOW! The only thing worse then the acting was the end of course the heroes spend about what seems like 2 hours talking and planning some long elaborate way of killing the dinocroc only to have it fail and kill it in an ordinary way that could have taken about 15 seconds to come up with. All in all this movie was beyond gay with its random opera music in the background and the fact that it was probably the gayest of all CGI monsters ever made along with the fact it of course was impervious to bullets and bombs (otherwise it wouldn't have been made for the military DUH!). By far the best scene was when Lizzy McGuire's brother runs into the shack and the dinocroc eats him causing his head to pop clean off with a popping noise i might add. I believe that you would be better off shooting yourself between the eyes then to watch Dinocroc. And as for the director I believe that we should get a bunch of people to hang him by a noose and all take turns kicking him in the crotch for wasting an hour and a half of our lives until he finally dies and then I can go on living.
This is the first non-zombie subgenre review ive done but this movie is worth doing a review for. Dinocroc is a good movie in general but unfortunately it is still an obvious b-movie. The Dinocroc itself looked great but i thought the movie itself needed a little bit more weight as in action and violence because whenever the croc is shown or is in a fight scene not very much goes on except the croc is shown and the croc either kills or runs off in a repeated process. Jane Longenecker was hot which is a plus and the acting was better than average and the most surprising thing is that the croc looked fleshy instead of like a cartoon coughs* curse of the komodo*coughs. I enjoyed this movie enough to be glad that there is going to be a sequel which is more than what i can say about some movies in general. Overall 3/6 stars and worth a watch.
What a terrible film. It sucked. It was terrible. I don't know what to say about this film but DinoCrap, which I stole from some reviewer with a nail up his ass. AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! sigh.. It's not Roger Corman that I hate, it's this god-awful movie. Well, really? But what can you expect from a movie with Homoeric computer graphics. Which is another thing, the CGI sucked out loud; I hate this movie dreadfully. This is without a doubt the worst Roger Corman B-Movie, and probably the gayest B-Movie too. It's-it's--- DINOCRAP! I'm sorry, I must have offended some nerds in these moments. It's just an awful movie... 0/1,000
The movie was completely misleading and the bonus material confirmed my impression that it was a rip-off of Joeseph Conrad's Heart Of Darkness ,the River is replaced by a road and the boat becomes a Jeep and Walter Kurtz is Osama.<br /><br />The claims made on the outside of the DVD box was overt fraud to<br /><br />take this fabricated death of a Journalist and present it as factual<br /><br />while some portions have Muslims supporting the 9/11 attacks for the USA's treatment of Muslims around the world .<br /><br />I alerted the Video store that the movie should be removed from their "Documentary" section and be placed in the War-drama area for quasi fictional accounts of actual events.
i went into this hoping it would be the "thought provoking" little gem people have reviewed this as. i love indy films and expected to dig this too. knowing what a hot button this topics is i expected to be really entertained, maybe even see an outsiders perspective.<br /><br />all i can say is wow....if your into self torture, or mutilation then maybe you'll like this. personally i don't like the idea of being pee'd on or cutting myself so i thought it was garbage. bad script, bad acting, bad story, bad directing, bad editing....i could go on. i have no clue why a reviewer claimed he or she was making a political point by giving this movie a 10. that's misleading and ignorant. voting for a movie on IMDb isn't setting a precedent! it just lets other people think that a garbage bomb like this is OK to watch as long as it's controversial (this film is not, it tries VERY HARD to be but fails). <br /><br />you know the movie is bad when 15 minutes into it your praying that all main characters die horrifically. unfortunately they do die, but not in the painful manners that would have given the viewer some justice or vindication for having watched the 2 hours of crap they just endured. <br /><br />do yourself a favor, just don't even bother. i got this movie in a bargain bin at my local video store for .50 and feel ripped off!
I thought before starting with these movie that it might be a good one, but when i started with it i found it really awful. They said movie is being made in Afghanistan but i think 95% of the movie is shot in India. you can see Indian made cars. you can see lars drinking bisleri(an Indian water brand), Hindi written on the road, you can also see temples in Afghanistan *hahah* its really funny and many more stuff which proves its not shot in Afghanistan. I think one should not waste his/her time watching this movie.. pure time waste.. i would recommend to do something else instead of watching this movie or may be might heart is better idea but don't watch this waste of time
I watched the first 15 minutes, thinking it was a real documentary (with an irritatingly overly dramatic "on camera" producer).<br /><br />When I realized it was all staged I thought "why would I want to waste my time watching this junk??" So I turned it off and came online to warn other people. The characters don't act in a believable way. too much immature emotion. for a guy to travel half way around the world into a war torn country, he acted like a kid. and I don't believe it was because "his character was so upset about the trade center bombings".<br /><br />very trite and stupid.<br /><br />have you seen "city of lost children"? french dark fantasy film about a guy who kidnaps kids and steals their dreams... I liked it!
If it wasn't for some immature gullible idiot I know insisting that I watch this "documentary" I would never have seen this comedy! This film is full of bad scripting and laughable moments. One in particular is where the Afghan police / soldiers arrest Don Larson for filming in the streets while they allow the cameraman to carry on filming his arrest and then drive away, still filming, presumably to his plush hotel. Then there's the scene where a car crashes into another car which has been turned upside down and parked nicely on the side of the road without any evidence of it being in a crash or explosion.<br /><br />I am surprised this has currently got the rating it has (5.8 / 10). I thought IMDb users had more sense.
This movie fails miserably on every level. I have an idea, let's take everyone involved in this movie and ship them into a hot zone in the middle east. Maybe if we're lucky they'll all be shot and killed and we won't have to ever have our time wasted by them again. Did I mention that I have never been so bitter about a cinematic pile of crap in my entire life? My god, I can't think of anything I've ever seen that was this bad. I'd rather watch Ishtar 25 times in a row than sit through 10 minutes of this sorry excuse for a film. If I ever happen to meet anyone who was involved in this film, I'll spit in their face and then beat them senseless. That's my two cents.
Well, basically, the movie blows! It's Blair Witch meets Sean Penn's ill conceived fantasy about going to Iraq to show the world what the "War on Terror" is really about. The script sounds like it was written by 8th grader (no offense to 8th graders); the two main actors over-act the entire film; they used the wrong kind of camera and the wrong type of film(not that i know anything about those things--but it just didn't look like real documentaries I've watched), and worst of all Christian Johnson took a great idea and made it suck. It reminded me of the time I tried to draw a picture of my dog and ended up with a really bad stick figure looking thing that looked more like a giant turd. I'd rather watch the Blair Witch VIII, than sit through that again.
Amateurish in the extreme. Camera work especially overwrought - documentary camera operators needn't spin around ALL THE TIME.<br /><br />The script is truly inane, and the acting is even worse. On top of that, the story is disjointed and meandering - with some gaping holes in logic. At one point the lead wishes to get thrown in jail in order to rub shoulders with suspected Al-Quada operatives, and thus get an interview with Osama. I found the story entirely unbelievable as a result of so many flaws. The "filmmaker"/lead role really portrays a rash, idiot frat boy. The only item of interest really, is that the filmmakers did in fact film on location. It's truly a shame they wasted their opportunity to make something interesting.<br /><br />Who financed this crap?
This is the worst movie I have ever seen. I was going to get up and leave at Tape 4 but I stuck it out. I now consider myself a Masochist! Afghanistan? Come on guys! Who's the idiot who forgot to hide the Sanskrit billboards? I thought the lead actor(George Calil) was particularly inept. Apart from the bad acting and over zealous camera shake, I thought using the events of 9/11 as a reason to make "Larson the Lunatic Implodes, all over a screen near you" disgraceful and irreverent to the victims of 9/11. Using a phone call from Larson's wife, Sarah, supposedly from one of the terrorist held planes on that day, was appalling. The camera shake didn't make me feel sick, that cold hearted stunt did.
I just got back from this free screening, and this "Osama Witch Project" is the hands-down worst film I've seen this year, worse than even "Catwoman" - which had the decency to at least pass itself off as fiction.<br /><br />In "September Tapes," a "film crew" of "documentary journalists" heads to Afghanistan - despite being thoroughly unprepared for the trip, the conditions and, oh yeah, the psychotic and ridiculous vendetta of their filmmaker leader to avenge his wife's death on Sept. 11 - to track down Osama bin Laden.<br /><br />They "made" eight tapes on their journey, which now "document" their travels and, of course, their attempts to kill the terrorist leader. (The eight tapes, thankfully, all end at points significant in the narrative, which is convenient for a "documentary.")<br /><br />The psychotic, idiotic protagonist - who is given to long, significant speeches that he probably learned watching "MacGyver" - cares nothing for his own life or the life of his innocent crew as he gets them further and further into danger through a series of completely dumb mishaps. I don't know why he didn't just wear a sign on his back that said "Shoot me."<br /><br />The crew's translator, supposedly their sensible voice-of-reason, does little more than whine and gets baffled as the idiot hero leads them into doom. <br /><br />You wish they'd brought along someone on their trip to call them all morons.<br /><br />Around "Tape 4," I began rooting for the terrorists to shoot the film crew.
This is a complete Hoax...<br /><br />The movie clearly has been shot in north western Indian state of Rajasthan. Look at the chase scene - the vehicles are Indian; the writing all over is Hindi - language used in India. The drive through is on typical Jaipur streets. Also the palace is in Amer - about 10 miles from Jaipur, Rajasthan. The film-makers in their (about the film) in DVD Bonus seem to make it sound that they risked their lives shooting in Kabul and around. Almost all of their action scenes are shot in India. The scene where they see a group singing around fire is so fake that they did not even think about changing it to Afgani folk song. They just recorded the Rajasthani folk song. How do I know it because I have traveled that area extensively. They are just on the band-wagon to make big on the issue. I do challenge the film makers to deny it.
A Blair Witch-War Movie that is as much of a letdown as Bwitch was! The title says it all, save your money and your time and spend it on a good movie such as "Once Upon a Time in America", "The Shawshank Redemption" or "Enemy at the Gates" (if you want to watch a GREAT "war" movie) etc.<br /><br />This movie, if it were a baseball team and the Major Leagues were the pinnacle and Single A was the rookies, then this movie was High school ball. It was filmed as if it were a High school drama club filming with their daddy's old camera. Sure they went into a hostile area (to make a film) but I don't call that brave, around here we call that plain stupid! This is a pass all the way! Now go watch it and then you tell me what you think.
I have to say this is an awful movie, for the mere fact that when you see this movie on the guide, it is listed as a documentary. As I watched it, I started laughing, thinking to myself, does this guy actually expect me to believe this is real? So I had to look it up, and now see that it is a movie, but now since it isn't a documentary, it is now a movie with bad acting. SO, either way, it is pretty bad. I actually didn't make it to the end. I had to shut it off. I am a NYC Police Officer, and felt that someone was trying to mislead people into thinking this is a documentary, with the intentions of making money off of a terrible day for me and my coworkers. So, I took it a little personal. Maybe I was blinded by that, and it isn't as bad as I personally think it is. Everyone has their own opinion.
Grand Central Murder (1942) Dir: S. Sylvan Simon <br /><br />Production: MGM <br /><br />This mediocre 'B' mystery was one of only five films released in 1942 with Simon as director. Surely he could have fit another Red Skelton film or two on his schedule! Anyway, Grand Central Murder is a shameless rip-off of the Thin Man films minus the wit, charm, and chemistry of the leads. We are treated to a paper thin plot that can barely support its 73 minutes, bad acting and weary gags.<br /><br />Van Heflin and Virginia Grey play Nick and Nora Char--er, Rocky and Butch Custer. He's a PI and she's his wife and sleuthing partner. They engage in "humorous" banter with each other. See? It's completely different already. Heflin's the only one here who hints at bigger and better things, although he's real close to being a jerk in this. Virginia Grey was in Another Thin Man, but again, let me stress, THIS FILM IS NOTHING LIKE THAT ONE, no sir. And just in case we start to think that this film is absolutely nothing like another film (say, THE THIN MAN) we actually like, Sam Levene pops up as the lead detective who's kind of dim and has to have Van Heflin subtly direct him toward all the important leads. Hmmm.<br /><br />Quickly, the 'murder' is that of bitchy schemer Mida King, who likes to trade up on rich men until she finds an even richer one. She's played by Patricia Dane, who's like a C- version of Hedy Lamarr, until she opens her mouth and turns into an F. There's a whole array of wacky suspects, all with their own motivation for wanting Mida dead. There's the society type, the tough talking dames, the thug, the ex-lover, and a shady theater impresario (Tom Conway, here saddled with the unlikely character name of 'Frankie Ciro'). Roman Bohnen plays a nervous, jittery type, something I believe he may have done before. Millard Mitchell plays an idiot cop who, in a running gag that won't quit, can't stop thinking about the piece of ass he's got waiting for him once this case gets wrapped up (that's right, Millard Mitchell, swordsman). Finally, in a completely ground breaking method of storytelling, something we've never seen before, all the suspects are gathered up in one place where they tell their stories (as flashbacks) to the detective, as Rocky takes mental notes, until eventually the guilty person is compelled to dramatically blurt out a confession.<br /><br />On top of the actual picture being a dud, I naively thought going in that there might be a couple of location shots of the actual 1942-era Grand Central, but alas, no. There's merely one very brief shot at the beginning. Thanks for nothing, Grand Central Murder. So, to sum up, a wee bit formulaic, but Heflin was okay.<br /><br />*½ out of 4
I watched 3/4 of this movie and wondered why it got such horrible reviews here. It was fairly easy to watch (at 3am). It had good casting - Kevin Dillon's role of the sociopath serial killer was very believable - he was both charasmatic and chilling. The rest of the main characters weren't so bad either.<br /><br />This is your typical stalker/suspense movie. A married couple cannot conceive so they go to a fertility clinic for help. A sociopathic "genetic material" donor fixates on the recipients and, in typical stalker form, intrudes into their lives.<br /><br />As I said, most of the movie was fairly good.. we see "Conan" grow more and more obsessed in raising his baby and creating the perfect family with the mother. Of course things don't work out for him the way he planned. Not a bad plot line.<br /><br />But, the last 15 minutes were just horrible. I am pretty tolerant with movies (especially at 3am!).. but, I was just amazed at how bad the ending was written. I actually scoffed outloud!<br /><br />All in all, not the worst movie I've seen, but I wouldn't be able to sit through it again (unless I skipped the ending). The only redeaming quality here was Kevin Dillon's role - - one of the best serial killers ever.<br /><br />Try looking around at the other channels before watching this.. But, if nothing better is on, I'd give it a try.. =)
Routine suspense yarn about a sociopath (Dillon) who gives his sperm to a clinic of human reproduction and starts to harrass the lives of the woman (Antony) and his husband (Mancuso). Extremely predictable, far-fetched and with undecided tone all the way. Don't lose your time with this one...make a baby instead!
Action, violence, sex and coarse language are the things that the characters do during the whole movie. And everything they do is done without reason. Mark L. Lester is (un)known for his violent (without reason)movies (Commando, The Base). The story is weird but stupid. The actors play their stupid characters very well...I'm not telling they are stupid but I mean they are very bad actors. It's another low-budget unknown B series action movie. If you saw something like Operation Delta Force, Drive, The Patriot, Sanctuary or something like these bad movies from the same kind than Misbegotten...don't rent it...and, by the way, don't rent any of the movies I mentioned....I give it 1and a half out of5.
More of a mystery movie with some gratuitous horror elements thrown in; mediocre overall.<br /><br />It starts with a woman having a nightmare in which her sex partner gets out of bed, goes into the room of her crying child, and kills it. She wakes up. Then, that man is dying in a hospital, spitting up blood. His estranged daughter arrives, and he manages to contact her through her dreams (I think), and he wants her to find out who killed him before his body entirely decomposes in its grave.<br /><br />There's not too much mystery about who did it, or even how; most viewers will have figured that out long before it is revealed. I'm not sure the way he was killed would really have worked.<br /><br />Anyway, the horror elements get in through: a gory autopsy, the recurring dream of the man killing the boy, a nightmare in which a plate of eggs turn into eyes which are then cut, and several shots of the decomposing man both in nightmares and actually in his grave.<br /><br />I was a little surprised to see a dedication in the end by Fulci to Clive Barker! Interesting.
He really lost the plot with this one! None of his distinctive trademarks here at all, an uninteresting plot and completely terrible acting make this his worst film (in my opinion). Even his trademark gore is gone, bar one scene in an operating theatre. Oh well, at least his next film 'Nightmare Concert' showed that he could still shock when he wanted to...
This is definitely not one of Lucio Fulci's better flicks by any stretch of the imagination. The plot is pretty bad, a millionaire is murdered and his spirt calls upon his daughter to find out who did it. But the biggest problem i have with this (besides knowing who killed him within 10 minutes of watching the movie) was wondering why anyone should even care? The father comes off as being a really big jerk to everyone he came across (including the daughter who he asks to help him) which made it quite hard for anyone to care who killed him. But no one really watches a Fulci flick for a good storyline, to do so would be like watching a porn for incredible script writing and acting. Typically his movies try to compensate for this by adding excessive scenes of gore but even that is lacking in this movie. If you're looking for a good Fulci flick, check out The Beyond.
Seeing a photo of a man being attacked by zombies gave me hope that Lucio "Zombi" Fulci might be up to his old tricks. Unfortunately, other than the close ups of a rotting corpse, there's little to recommend in this story of the murder of a wealthy man and his daughter's quest to figure out who killed him. None of the characters are appealing and by the time you find out how they did it (that twist, at least, was cool), you stop caring. The only good thing I can say is that it made more sense than Nightmare Concert!
I'm a big fan of Lucio Fulci; many of his Giallo and splatter flicks are amongst my favourites of all time, but this made for TV movie is extremely sub par and not what I've come to expect from the great Italian director. The film is neither interesting, like some of Fulci's more tame Giallo's, or gory like the majority of his cult classics; thus leaving it lacking in both major areas, and ultimately ensuring that the film isn't very good. The film works from a plot that has been used many times previously, but still it's an idea that always has the chance of springing an interesting story just because it focuses on the theme of the afterlife, which is the ultimate unknown. This film focuses on Giorgio Mainardi; a man that isn't exactly well liked and after he dies of an apparent stomach hemorrhage, there aren't many people that are sad to see him go. This means that his ghost is trapped somewhere between life and the afterlife, and so he decides to try and get to the bottom of his death, and his only ally in this endeavour is his daughter.<br /><br />The video that I saw this film on is proudly proclaimed that the film is "in the style of HP Lovecraft", and that's one of the most blatant attempts to sell a film I've ever seen. There is nothing even slightly reminiscent of the great horror writer in this tale, and the reason for that tagline would appear to be because of title similarity to the Stuart Gordon/Lovecraft film, 'From Beyond' - which is a lot better. The film does benefit from a distinctly Italian style, and the score is rather good. Unfortunately, however, Fulci has seen fit to positively roast every scene in it - and so the theme quickly becomes annoying. The plot plays out in a really boring way, and most of the scenes simply involve the ghost 'desperately' trying to find things out, or the daughter placing her suspicions over her family members. This movie was made for Italian TV, and so it's not surprising that it's all rather tame. There's a little bit of gore and a nightmare sequence with zombies; but this isn't the Fulci we all know and love. Overall, this film is extremely mediocre and not a good representation of Fulci's talents. Not worth bothering with, unless you're a Fulci completist.
I am a huge Charlton Heston fan. He is without a doubt one of the greatest actors of all time, but what was he thinking when he made this movie. Normally if he made a bad movie I could blame it on the screenwriter or director, but in this case it's all him. The suckiness of this movie is all his fault. It proves that not even Heston can make a Shakespeare story interesting. I wasted 2 and a half hours of my life on this snooze fest and I'll never get that time back. This is by far THE WORST Heston movie that I've ever seen. If you are a Shakespeare fan maybe you'll find this movie entertaining, but if you're not don't waste your time, you'll regret it in the long run.
ALMOST GOLDEN: THE JESSICA SAVITCH STORY<br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.33:1<br /><br />Sound format: Stereo<br /><br />Bland, soap-opera dramatisation of the rise and fall of America's first female TV news anchor. With a tighter script and direction - and a better cast - this might have passed muster, but the flimsy story really wasn't worth the effort. A good documentary on the subject might have been the best way to go. Typically strong production values in the TV movie conveyor-belt manner, but it's all as superficial as old fluff, and just as engaging.
I know that in this episode there's other stuff apart from what I am going to discuss, and in fact I think it has some virtues; for example, the fact, after we had been given a very negative opinion of Jin from seeing Sun's flashbacks in "House of the Rising Sun", we get to see Jin's side of things and get a new, more balanced understanding of his life.<br /><br />But there is an element in this story that made me so deeply uncomfortable that it greatly dampened my enjoyment of the whole episode. Before now, in the scene where Jin appeared with blood on his hands and shirt, it had been hinted that Sun's father was someone who was getting rich through shady, illegal methods. I thought maybe he was a mob boss, even; mobs operate in Korea, just like in almost every other country in the world, so it was a reasonable possibility. However, in this episode we learn that Sun's father is in fact the boss (or a top executive) of a Korean automotive company, and that what Jin had been doing was physically attacking a government official (who was actually going to be murdered) on his behalf.<br /><br />I may be especially touchy about this because I happen to work in the automotive industry, but I would say it is SPECTACULARLY offensive and racist to even suggest that this kind of thing goes on in Korea; that huge, serious companies like Hyundai or Kia (which must be the model for this fictitious car company, as they are the only ones that actually exist in reality) operate with these mafia-like methods, instead of like any normal automotive company of the West. it is just unbelievable to me that the writers would have the gall to write something like that into the story, and that there hasn't been an uproar in Korea over it. It feels like extraneous "Buy American!" propaganda, portraying foreign car companies as criminal, untrustworthy, third-world outfits.
Dear Richard, I know we all loved you on Home Improvement with Tim Allen. But seriously, do you not have anything else to do besides lame sequels to Air Bud? I would have thought Tim might have actually give you a bit role by now or even becoming his personal assistant. I know that seems ironic, but the pay benefits are much more rewarding.<br /><br />Everybody would see you around Tim and instantly think "Tool Time". You would even get roles with Bob Vila more often. Instead, you appear for 10 minutes with a Golden Retriever and smiling. I know there wasn't much of a script, but you could have added to it. I mean, come on. Tim owes you one.<br /><br />But seriously, this movie does nothing for the Air Bud line. Quite the contrary, the fake talking puppies are cornier than actually seeing the dogs play sports. The original was better. And you, Mr. Richard Karn, know that more than anybody.<br /><br />This is an "F" movie.
My 7-year-old daughter loved it, as Disney execs crassly calculated that she would. That's the problem with "Air Buddies." It's a strictly by-the-numbers children's film filled with carefully calculated cuteness, a couple politically correct morals, and enough potty humor to avoid the dreaded G rating. As a parent, or even as a 10-year-old, you've seen it all before, and done better before. Think "101 Dalmatians Meets Home Alone" and you get the general idea. I'm of the opinion that a good children's story is a good story, period. "Air Buddies," which is about as original as recycled paper, fails to meet that standard. It isn't the worst video your child could watch, but there are megatons of better ones.
Although this is generally a cheesy jungle-adventure movie, it does have some highlights - the settings are quite beautiful, and the pacing of the adventure is good. You won't be bored watching it.<br /><br />Keith is as breezy as possible playing the eponymous lead, an unabashedly drunk jungle guide shanghai'd into escorting rich boy Van Hoffman and his gorgeous wife Shower on a hunting expedition in cannibal country. He never takes things seriously . Shower is there as decoration and Keith makes extensive use of her - she doesn't really have to act much. She's not the only female to show off her body and the prurient aspects of the film make it about halfway to a T/A picture.<br /><br />There's nothing in this film that would draw specific attention to it, or away from it. Produced to be shlock, it succeeds without too much fuss. A good 2 AM cable programmer.
Looking through the other comments, I'm amazed that there aren't any warnings to potential viewers of what they have to look forward to when renting this garbage. First off, I rented this thing with the understanding that it was a competently rendered Indiana Jones knock-off. What I got was one of the most offensive movies I can remember trying to sit through, made all the more shocking by the movie's comparatively high production values.<br /><br />I don't think this is a spoiler, but if it is, be warned...<br /><br />If your idea of entertainment is watching Bimbo getting raped from behind by Fearsome Tribal Chief, while she is staring into the dead eyes of her significant other's severed head, by all means, rent this flick. If not, I'd advise you to look elsewhere for entertainment.<br /><br />Come to think of it, that scene so succinctly sums up the movie that there's nothing else I really need to say about it.
In the unlikely case that some aspiring directors are reading these comments, I'd like to offer some advice (free of charge!), from a viewer's perspective. If you want to make a serious exotic adventure film, do it. If you want to make a spoof of exotic adventure films, go ahead. DO NOT try to make both at the same time, it doesn't work. For example, having a goofy "comic relief" character killed and beheaded and following it up with a monkey shaking a tree and dropping a coconut on a cannibal's head just makes you look like you had NO IDEA what kind of movie you wanted to make. This one is boring, meandering, cheap, racist....you get the picture. A couple of smart moments and a few glimpses of nudity from Kathy Shower (way too prissy here) are hardly worth your trouble. There is a reason everyone has forgotten about this film's existence. (*1/2)
The acting wasn't great, the story was full of simplistic turns and transparent characters. It's about the repercussions of the struggle between right-wing Flemish block voters on the one side and the Moroccon people living in the Belgian city Antwerp on the other side. Is it a political analysis ? Is it some kind of Belgian West Side Story or modern Romeo and Juliet ? The film just isn't strong enough to answer both questions (supposing those were the director's questions, too). Still, some of the scenes could function as a kind of Ken Loach film, set in Antwerp. After all, this city has been the starting point of the extremist right-wing Flemish Block party and is struggling with a lot of problems and tensions between different populations and cultures. It's very difficult to make a film about this situation, and this one isn't successful, unfortunately. Still, it's telling a story about a very real and complicated situation in present-day Belgium. The few foreign viewers watching should try and enjoy it and realise it's not the actual film that is important but the social dividing lines behind it that haunt Belgium, a 10 million people country, in the 2000s<br /><br />Dries Van Dongen
This movie is about a cop (Ching Wan Lau) trying to catch a super-clever thief (Ekin Cheng) who blackmails an insurance company headed by a Kelly Lin. Basically, whatever plans the cop tries the thief somehow knows them beforehand. This movie, covered by handsome lead actors, beautiful lead actress and good camera shots of Hong Kong scenes, really has no substance at all. It's all flash, and the flash quickly becomes dull too. I lost all interests a third of the way into the movie, and there is no redeeming quality after that, except for the cinematography, which looks good. Only consider seeing this movie if you can do so for free. Also, consider stopping watching the movie 20 minutes into the movie because it's all the same to the end: BORING. 6/10
Since Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon came along, there's been a lot of talk about a revival of the Hong Kong movie industry. Don't believe it. The people now making movies in HK give new meaning to the word crass. Running Out of Time 2 is a perfect example. Ekin Cheng is the name draw, here, but he spends most of the film just grinning idiotically and flipping a coin. He flips the coin over and over and again and again. Why? Who knows? Sean Lau plays a cop who chases after the coin-flipping pretty boy. But once again: who knows why? There's a pretty actress in the female lead who runs some sort of company and she has to pay a ransom or something but she mostly just looks like she would rather be at a spa or shopping centre than in front of a camera. Nothing makes any sense. There is no action. There is no sex. There is no comedy. All there is is a name: Ekin Cheng. And you know what? Who cares?
The previous poster obviously worked on the movie. It's a joke how bad it is and no one would review this kind of movie the way he did.Mentioning all of the actors' names and what they were in previously is a sure sign that he's involved with it in some way.<br /><br />It's on Cinemax right now and I was sure this was some movie where porn stars (the one called Ava is gorgeous and well-endowed) were forced to make something else for some crazy tax reason.<br /><br />Also, when I first saw it, I was sure it was made in about 1986, and I was born in '73, so I thought I knew what i was talking about...but no...it was made in 1993!! Unbelievable!<br /><br />Though I would call it one of those so bad it's good movies. Like watching a train wreck.
I was unsure whether or not Andy Sidaris could repeat his success with the cinematic hit "Malibu Express." With his film Fit to Kill he has proved that Sidaris is a serious filmmaker and not just a one-shot director. The plot written by Sidaris, which was ungratefully passed up by the Academy, is a complex screenplay involving many unseen twists and turns. The main characters composed work for a sexually based radio station known as KSXY. Cleverly, KSXY is actually their secret headquarters. In "Fit to Kill" they confront their long-time nemesis Kane, who is trying to steal one of Russia's most prized diamonds. A well-written screenplay is not all, excellent acting by the cast helps to ensure this film as a cult classic. Panned by the critics and the box office, this film will be appreciated in years to come. It is now suffering the same fate as Clockwork Orange and Taxi Driver did, but in the future will undoubtly become recognized. I am disappointed no critic circles have recognized Andy Sidaris's trademark filmmaking. The costumes, the special effects, all help to compliment this already beautiful piece of filmmaking. It may do you best to ignore the dismal 3 rating on this film and go out and rent it for yourself. My personal rating is 10/10. The drama is as thick as the blockbuster Runaway Bride, and the action better or equal to the cinematic masterpiece Last Action Hero. Andy, keep up the good work.
If you want to see women's breasts, get a porno. There is no plot, but the last 45 minutes of this movie focus on resolving some sort of dangerous plan. The only value this movie has is that sometimes its so bad its funny, and, yes, boobs are boobs.
Unbelievably awful film. I watched part of this on T.V. recently. My jaw dropped as I watched a horrendously conceived plot and listened to mind-numbing drivel. Not a single line from the master of one-liners could come close to producing anything resembling a chuckle. It was so bad it made me want to exhume Rodney Dangerfield's body, slap him around and scream, "How could you?" I know many films are done in haste, hoping to cash in on the popularity of a given actor or theme. But please, Hollywood, show a little respect for your audience. It's sad and scary that people were expected to pay to see such tripe. The bottom of the cesspool, even by Sunday afternoon television standards.
Having watched 10 minutes of this movie I was bewildered, having watched 30 minutes my toes were curling - I simply couldn't believe it: The movie is really awful. In fact it is so awful, that I had to watch all of it just to be convinced(!). During this, I came to realize that it reminded me of a bunch of Danish so-called comedies from the 60's and 70's. The pattern is as follows: Take one extremely popular comedian, make a script putting this comedian in as many grotesque situations as possible, add a bunch of jokes (especially one-liners), and spice it up with a couple of beautiful young girls - film that, and you have a success! I wouldn't know if this movie was a success, but unlike the Danish tradition which died quietly (with a few great comedians) it seems that there is a market for this kind of movie in the US.
Rodney Dangerfield is a great. He has done a lot of great works. But this one....is awful. The whole plot is whack. It could have been much better. The jokes in the movie aren't funny....their stupid. This was very not so hilarious. He can do much better than this.
This movie was so bad, outdated and stupid that I had rough times to watch it to the end. I had seen this Rodney guy in Natural Born Killers and I thought he was funny as hell in it, but this movie was crap. The "jokes" weren't funny, actors weren't funny, anything about it wasn't even remotely funny. Don't waste your time for this! Only positive things about this were the beautiful wives :) and Molly Shannon who I'm sure tried her best, but the script was just too awful. That's why I rated it "2" instead of "1", but it's definitely one of the worst films I've ever seen.
I have to confess right off that I have never been a fan of Rodney Dangerfield. Indeed, from me he gets "no respect." I watched this only because my wife wanted to see it, and found exactly what I expected: a stupid story without any real humour. It's full of lame, crude jokes and a totally ridiculous plot revolving around a developer's (Dangerfield) plans to build a ski resort in Utah that just didn't capture my attention at all.<br /><br />In addition to Dangerfield the film starred a weak cast, including the likes of Andrew Dice Clay and the totally over the hill John Byner (I didn't even know he was still around until I saw his name in the credits for this.)<br /><br />This truly is a Dangerfield disaster.<br /><br />2/10
I almost burst into tears watching this movie. Not from laughing but from the memories of a great Rodney Dangerfield movie. Candyshack was his first and stole the movie, Easy Money had him at his best, and Back To School is by far an 80's classic masterpiece. Then there was Ladybugs and that's when it started to show. Poor Rodney was getting old (Meet Wally Sparks was a slight step up from Ladybugs but not saying much). <br /><br />In My 5 Wives Rodney plays Monte (a name he must love since that was his name in Easy Money) a rich (isnt he always) guy who loves women and gets married like its nothing. Well now he inherits a huge piece of land and since the land was run by the Amish, he inherits 5 Wives. This sounds like a great idea for a Dangerfield movie. The problem is EVERYTHING. The script is so poor that Rodney seems to be saying his one liners to the camera and all the side characters have nothing to do. The movie looks like it was shot on video with some really poor stunt sequences that are obviously not Rodney. Andrew Dice Clay plays a gangster who looks like he is dying to say the F word (which he should since the film is rated R but plays as if it was PG) and Jerry Stiller has a nice 2 minute cameo. Don't get me wrong, at times I did laugh at a few of Rodney's jokes but the poor man is getting way too old and way too slow. We can see his jokes coming from miles. And the film turns way too PC which thanks to the horrible 1990's, the 70's and 80's Rodney just doesn't work anymore.
This was a watchable movie, but plot was a little weak and most of the jokes were from some of Rodney's earlier movies. With that said, it was worth the time to watch. I gave this a 5 out of 10. So basically, its one of those movies that you do not go out of your way to see, but if you find it on the tube, take a chance.
When Rodney Dangerfield is on a roll, he's hilarious. In My 5 Wives, he's not on a roll. The timing of the one-liners is off, but they're the best thing going for the movie. The five women who play the wives don't add up to one whole actress between them. The plot is very weak. Even the premise is pretty weak; there are a few jokes about having multiple wives, but the situation has little to do with anything else in the movie. Most of the movie could play the same way even if Rodney's character had only one wife, so the premise seems more like an old man's fantasy than a key part of the comedy. Another old man's fantasy: we're supposed to accept that Rodney's character is an athletic skier.<br /><br />Jerry Stiller seems to be phoning in his role just to do a buddy a favor, and the rest of the name actors must simply be desperate for work.<br /><br />The odd nods to political correctness later in the movie don't really do anything for the movie. For those who like their movies politically correct, the non-PC humor is still there in the first place, and the seeming apologies for it still don't get the point. For those who hate seeing a movie cave in to political correctness, the PC add-ins are just annoying digressions.<br /><br />This has to be the mildest R-rated movie I've ever seen. There are some racy jokes, and the bedroom scenes would have made shocking TV 40 years ago, but that's about it. Maybe it was the topless men (kidding).<br /><br />The DVD features interviews where the cast members seem to find depth and importance in this movie and in their roles. I kept wondering if they were serious or kidding. They seem to be serious, but I kept thinking, "They must be kidding!" There's also a peculiar disclaimer suggesting that since the movie never actually names the Mormons or the Church of Latter-Day Saints, that somehow it's not about them. Never mind that the movie features a polygamous religion in Utah, and makes reference to Brigham Young.<br /><br />In short, My 5 Wives was a disappointment. I was hoping for Rodney on a roll, but the best I can say for the movie is that Rodney was looking pretty good for a guy who was pushing 80 at the time.
As much as I love Rodney Dangerfield, this was a terrible movie. The plot was kind of a holistic rip off of various movies, but unfortunately they forgot to rip off any good jokes. In addition it was annoying and boring and that's being kind. If you're looking for a good laugh, rent a copy of Private Parts.
If you seen Rodney Dangerfield's previous movies and performances, you'll recognise several of the jokes made in this odd piece of dreck. Written like a sitcom, this movie fails to strike any sort of likeable chord throughout, from the self-help doctor played by the aways sexy-as-chopped liver Molly Shannon to the 'I'm fat, and therefore funny' John Linette. The 5 wives themselves are likeable enough, and if this had been done as a pilot for an action-adventure series, it might have worked. Instead, it comes off like a male fantasy that's trying hard not to be politically incorrect.
This movie features two of my favorite actors in Kilmer and Downey. It also boasts the always enjoyable Larry Miller in a too-small part. Despite this I found it to be nearly unwatchable. Michelle Monaghan may be pretty but she is nearly charisma free and the reasons for Downey's character's obsession with her character is not at all understandable in terms of the information the film presents or the way it's portrayed. The ending seems pretentious and though the intention seems to be that the audience should join in the nod and wink the film, having failed to bring us in on the side of its protagonists leaves us unwilling or unable to do so.<br /><br />Fans of the film say that those who disagree simply "don't get it". I don't think this is so. The plot was not complicated or beyond understanding. It was simply uninvolving and clumsily and obviously manufactured. I "got it". I just didn't like it. Paddy Breathnach's "I Went Down" and Guy Ritchie's "Snatch" and "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" are much better realized examples of the kind of film-making that director Shane Black fails to achieve.<br /><br />I share a birthday with Shane Black but a look at his credits (mostly as a screenwriter)makes me want to dissociate myself from any other connection.
<br /><br />The movie "Slugs" is unique because the titular vermin are actually the good guys in this horrific tale of nature gone awry. You see, these poor slugs have been mutated through the pollution of evil humans and don't mean to do anything malicious, they're just slugs- slugs with sharp teeth who eat flesh and excrete poison, but slugs none the less. The real bad guys are the humans, who either actively try to destroy our beloved slugs, or overreact when they encounter them.<br /><br />For example, take the scene where the guy puts on the glove full of slugs. They were just hanging out in a comfortable work glove when out of nowhere this giant hand came at them, and they reacted instinctively, defending themselves and biting the guy. Now, instead of seeking medical attention for his slug bite, this guy runs around his greenhouse screaming like an idiot, spills some highly volatile chemicals, starts a fire, knocks a bookcase over on himself, and cuts off his own hand- then the fire and volatile chemicals mix and his house explodes. How can you blame that on the slugs?<br /><br />This movie paints a portrait of humans that is less than favorable. The characters in this movie include the dumb sheriff who hates everybody, the drunk hick who's mean to his dog, and the lumpy sidekick whose wife is at least forty-five years older than him. There's also a set of drunken teens<br /><br />that get attacked while copulating, and we have to see the skinny long-haired freaks' genitals. Meanwhile, there's a guy who looks like a demonic Leslie Neilson who yells "You don't have the authority to declare happy birthday!" for some reason. Finally, this parade of loathsomeness is rounded out by the guy from the MST3K classic "Pod People" whose face explodes after eating a slug-laces salad (another easily avoided fate blamed on the helpful, harmless slugs).<br /><br />Humans are portrayed as greedy, stupid, racist, alcoholic, and, in one pointless scene, as would-be rapists. In the movie's climactic scene, the villainous humans try to burn the slugs who are cowering helplessly in the sewers, Well, since they're idiots, the humans succeed in BLOWING UP THE ENTIRE TOWN. They alone do more damage than the slugs ever did!<br /><br />If you hate humans, and I know I do, you'll appreciate "Slugs". If you're a fan of bad cinema, you'll also appreciate this crapfest from the director of "Pieces" and "Pod People". There's enough bad acting, silly dialog, illogical plot twists, lame special effects, pointless scenes, and poor dubbing to hold your attention.
I love killer Insects movies they are great fun to watch, I had to watch this movie as it was one of my Favourite horror books by Shaun Hutson.<br /><br />I have met him and I wish I did listen to him as this movie was terrible like he Said it was,after he said that I was still dying to see how bad it was.<br /><br />The plot: People are dying mysteriously and gruesomely, and nobody has a clue what the cause is.<br /><br />Only health worker Mike Brady has a possible solution, but his theory of killer slugs is laughed at by the authorities.<br /><br />Only when the body count begins to rise and a slug expert from England begins snooping around does it begin to look like Mike had the right idea after all.<br /><br />This movie as the most overacting you ever see a movie! Slugs in this movie are fast (Then normal) and it looks like they fast forwarding the scenes! <br /><br />This movie is nothing like the book at all, the book was ten times scarier, ten times gory and had a lot more story to it!<br /><br />I didn't like this movie at all! As I am huge fan of Slugs the book and second book called Breeding ground! Both of books are Great <br /><br />Read the book then watch the movie, you may like more then I did Give this 2 out 10
This is a mildly interesting late 80's gore fest featuring some nasty slugs with a taste for human blood. If you can get past the ridiculousness of the whole thing you might actually get some minor enjoyment out of this. The acting is awful and the plot is simply there to hold the movie together between gory slug attacks, but the movie isn't a complete waste of time. The special effects are actually quite good, and the gore is well done. It reminded me of the remake of the Blob, probably because of the sliminess of it all. All in all, you could certainly do worse with an hour and a half of your time, but I wouldn't suggest seeing this movie unless you've got a strong stomach and are into this sort of thing.
Mike Brady (Michael Garfield who had a minuscule part in the classic "The Warriors") is the first person in the community to realize that there's murderous slugs in his small town. Not just any slugs, mind you, but carnivorous killer bigger then normal, mutated by toxic waste slugs (who still only go as fast as a normal slug, which isn't that frightening, but I digress). No one will believe him at first, but they will. Oh yes, they will.<br /><br />OK, killer slugs are right above psychotic sloths and right below Johnathon Winters as Mork's baby in the creepiness factor. So the absurdness of it all is quite apparent from the get go. The flick is fun somewhat through and is of the 'so bad that it's good' variety. I appreciate that they spelled out that this was Slugs: the Movie as opposed to Slugs: the Children's Game or Slugs: the Other White Meat. Probably not worthy of watching it more than once and promptly forgetting it except for playing a rather obscure trivia game. Director Juan Piquer Simón is more widely known for his previous films "Pod People" (which MST3K deservedly mocked) and "Peices" (which is quite possibly the funnest bad movie ever made) <br /><br />Eye Candy: Kari Rose shows T&A <br /><br />My Grade: D+ <br /><br />DVD Extras: Merely a theatrical trailer for this movie
This could have been a rather entertaining film, but instead it ranks with other duds like Leeches and Rest In Pieces at the bottom of the cinematic food chain. Had they played this flick tongue-in-cheek, it could have been a very entertaining film, like Re-Animator or Dead ALive, but Juan Piquor Simon plays it tongue-in-cheek in spots but straight more often.<br /><br />The premise of this film is a small community that is besieged by mutated slugs. There is an abandoned toxic waste dump near a sewer line that mutates the slugs into aggressive, meat-eating monsters - albeit monsters that move slowly and can be squished under your boot. Health Inspector Michael Garfiled and two accomplices are the only people that seem willing to fight the slugs while the sheriff and mayor think they are crazy. The climax is a laugh riot - unintentional at that - which makes you scratch your head as to how stupid (actors and screenwriter) the scenario of destroying the slugs is.<br /><br />STORY: $$ (No new ground charted here. Simon seems to play the gore elements tongue-in-cheek but the dialogue is straight. Had Simon worked with a clever script - one with plenty of one-liners and eccentric characters, this could have been a cult film).<br /><br />VIOLENCE: $$$ (You won't be letdown here. We get plenty of exploding chest cavity scenes as well as a grand head explosion in the middle of a fine Italian restaurant. The blood and guts, that many horror film watchers enjoy, is in full swing here. You also get corpses of people who have been picked clean by the slugs and plenty of slug smashing scenes).<br /><br />ACTING: $ (Wow! Michael Garfield seems to know that this script is a stinker and he delivers his lines with a facial expression that suggests he knows how preposterous this film-making endeavor is. Kim Terry, as his wife, does an adequate job even though she does little beyond the hold-your-face-while-you-scream bit. The "teenagers" were all horrible actors - no exceptions. Man, this film could have used Bruce Dern or Jeffrey Combs!) <br /><br />NUDITY: $$ (Two teens get naughty in bed before they get dispatched - in a poorly done scene - by a horde of slugs that crawled into the girl's bedroom. Both male and female nudity here).
All you really need to know about this movie comes after the opening scene, where a guy falls into a lake and gets eaten. Then they start rolling the title credits: You see "Slugs!" in big letters, followed shortly thereafter by "The Movie." WHEW! I was worried I had accidentally tuned into "Slugs: The Musical" or "Slugs: The Game Show." Anyway, from there the movie deteriorates into a kill-fest. You see a guy cut his hand off because he had slugs in his gardening glove, two people get attacked by slugs while having sex, and a girl falling on her back in an underground passageway get stung to death by killer slugs. It's a pretty silly movie, falling in the "so-bad-it's-good" category. It also is shot so poorly with such grainy film that you're shocked to learn it was made in 1988 (my guess was 1974). I'm VERY surprised it has received as high a score as it has here, because most people here don't give those types of movie any love. But if you want a movie that tries to be scary but ends up being laughable, this is one of your prime candidates.
Ok, where do we start with this little gem? Mutant slugs begin to take over a small New England (?) town. Only one man can stop them... and that man... is Mike Brady! Now, if that wasn't laughable enough, stay tuned.<br /><br />The footage of the slugs is what's known as stock footage. No matter who the slugs attack or where they are, the same shot of piles of slugs oozing everywhere is shown. Keep in mind, this singular shot occupies at least half the movie.<br /><br />The acting in the movie was knock down, drag out, steal your wallet, punch your girlfriend, kill your dog, BAD. I'm sure there's worse, but you're going to be hard pressed to find it. The only gem was... you guessed it.... MIKE BRADY! He must have taken a few night classes at the YMCA, because he was the best in the bunch.<br /><br />As for horror? This film is not to be taken seriously. There isn't horror! They're slugs for crying out loud. The entire rising action could have been avoided with a salt shaker or two. Only watch this film in a MST3K type environment, otherwise I can see some major damage to the brain.
In all of low budget history. this movie has to be one of the worst. True ther are some humorous sides to the movie, but in general it was just plain awful. I just can't understand what person could not out run a bunch of slugs. I mean they have to be one of the slowest creatures on the planet. The only part worth while in this movie is the close up of a slugs attempt to bite the finger of a man. This was rather amusing.
is seismic activity with little or negligible results on the surface. So in that respect, IMDb's average voting score is spot on.<br /><br />A Spanish film made in the USA with third or fourth rate actors giving a kind of "Falcon Crest" dimension to the whole affair is a wonderful way to waste your time, as well as wasting the money of those who backed the project financially.<br /><br />The slugs involved are originals from Asturias, northern Spain, but as they were not allowed into the United States, plastic ones had to be made. However, chopping them up in the lettuce being used for making the evening dinner-time salad contrasts rather weirdly with Parisienne music as well as a rather tatty array of other US forgotten hits (or misses if you have no idea who was responsible for composing it). The actors involved were also a rather tatty array, just suitable for a low-budget film which might be categorised as horrific, horrifying, horrible or just simple awful.<br /><br />As a result, the outcome is negligible on the surface, undetected underground, and about as attractive as Chapter 17,000 of Coronation Street or the latest news from Baghdad.
Just kidding! This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen! It was so bad though, that it was hilarious. My friend and I purposly rented it because it looked so bad. Cheesy old horror flicks are always good for some laughs. The plot stunk, some of the voices were dubbed, the quality was horrendous. But I sure had a blast watching it!
I'm not even gonna waste time on this one; it's not funny, not scary, practically unwatchable and only occassionaly gory(the FX suck though(no pun intended)). This is a disclaimer; WATCH AT YOUR PERIL! Ask yourself 1 question; Are slugs scary?
Basically this is a pale shadow of High Fidelity, which was a witty and wonderfully acted film with several truly winning character turns. Watching the Detectives has none of that.<br /><br />The premise of a video store geek swept off his feet by a quirky mystery woman is a good one but is never fully or adequately explored, thanks to a very weak script and the miscasting of the leads, not to mention the lack of any real visual story-telling style. I mean, this film is centered around MOVIES, yet is itself incredibly uncinematic! That's a major failing right there.<br /><br />But the main problem is we simply don't care about the main characters because the script and the actors (Murphy and Liu) fail to make them true or sympathetic in any real way. So the film just becomes a series of episodes involving two people who seem, well, not terribly interesting.<br /><br />Oh, yeah, another thing: For a romantic comedy? It's not funny. And the romance isn't terribly romantic, either.<br /><br />So avoid it. Even at its 90-something minute running time it's just not worth sitting through...
Lucy Alexis Liu and Cillian Murphy are both excellent actors, who can certainly rise to any acting challenge put to them.<br /><br />Unfortunately 'Watching the Detectives (2007)' offers only one to both actors and audience alike: not to fall asleep during a mind-numbingly boring, very predictable and unimaginative story.<br /><br />'Watching the Detectives (2007)' tries very hard to be funny, but the comedy is forced, extremely poorly directed and embarrassing to the verge of complete ridicule.<br /><br />After a third of the film still nothing that may capture even the most willing audience, like the director's friends and relatives, is even hinted at, not to mention actually happening.<br /><br />I'm pretty sure everybody who liked it faked it or had to fake it like Neil's ex-girlfriend did when he showed her an old B&W film she couldn't care less about. 'Watching the Detectives (2007)' is nowhere near category B, it falls somewhere between Q & R, like -Questions? and -Repress the questions! The director knows what he's doing! Well, if his goal was to bore the viewer to death, he has done a very good job!<br /><br />'Watching the Detectives (2007)' was a complete waste of time for Lucy Alexis Liu and Cillian Murphy, bur PLEASE don't let it be a waste of your time!<br /><br />Rating: 0 out of 100.
At one point, Violet (Lucy Liu) tells Neil (Cillian Murphy) that why she constantly seeks out for an adventure. She said "because I'm bore-phobic". It mean that she can't really get on with her life by doing some mandatory activities. Well, I think her reason and the way this film go is very ironic. Because "Watching the Detectives" is a cheer boredom. <br /><br />Have any of these characters actually doing something exciting for once? Neil is a geek who runs his own very small video rental shop. He and his other geek friends usually hang out around the shop and watching movies together while debating about them afterward. But Neil's life is completely turned around when Violet walks into his store. She's an eccentric woman who hides a little secret from him. Anyway, after some dates, they decide to see each other. The problem is Violet is a person who keep doing prank jokes on Neil and can't really doing something normal, whereas Neil is completely opposite to hers. The question is. Is they are going to be in love at the end? You bet.<br /><br />"Watching the Detectives" is a cliché romantic-comedy to its core. And they made it even worst by pretending to be something else. From the first couple of set-up, we know that Neil is pretty laid-back guy who didn't really commit to anything. And then, Violet enters the scene, looking all weird and annoying. So at this point, we all know that we're going to sit though all meaningless situations to find out how they're going to end up in the end. Is it worth waiting for? I would say no.<br /><br />As I said, they tried to give something more for the audience. "Watching the Detectives" is trying to talk about commitment. To observe how far people go to reach for something they desire. We knew in the end that insane things that Violet has done is all the test how far Neil is ready to go to win her heart (or whatever). Well, I think it is completely bullshit. This movie will end pretty quick if Neil just said to himself "Forget about it, that girl is one of a nutjob !" After collaborating with many great directors recently (Danny Boyle's "Sunshine" and "28 Days Later", Ken Loach's "The Wind That Shakes the Barley" and Neil Jordan's "Breakfast on Pluto" to name a few), it's pretty weird choice for Cillian Murphy to make a movie with one of Broken Lizard comedy troop, Paul Soter. By all means, He's not bad (as usual), but such a talent actor like him shouldn't be wasting his time in the movie like this. On the other hand, Lucy Liu is dreadfully awful as Violet. Her acting is a mess. I mean it's all over the place and so over-the-top. Tony Montana would have been proud.<br /><br />The last but not least mistake that movie made is a completely irrelevant title. You simply can't really connect a dot between the plot and its title; and then you will end up thinking that it makes no sense at all. In short, "Watching the Detectives" is pleasant if forgettable motion picture that you might have a chance to catch it on cable TV so quick that you couldn't imagine.<br /><br />BloodyMonday Rating: 1.5/4
Well, I finally saw it. I didn't go when it first came out because, well, frankly, I was afraid. Afraid of how bad it might be, or how disappointing. While not as bad as Menace, and better than Clones, it wasn't particularly memorable, or satisfying.<br /><br />I was 11 years old when I saw Star Wars. I still remember sitting in the theater. From the opening crawl to the final credits it was a movie experience I'll never forget. A timeless story of the bored farm-boy who just knows he was meant for more, saving the princess and the Galaxy from the evil menace while being mentored by the wise wizard, the rogue pirate and the various comic relief--all in a space-opera setting.<br /><br />And that's not to chastise Lucas for using an old formula. It's an old formula precisely because it works. And to his credit, he gave it new twists that made it very special.<br /><br />Then came Empire and the story became more than just a fairy tale. Darkness entered the picture and we learned one of the great movie twists of all time. The great villain, Vader was Luke's father. Wow, no one saw that coming. Of course, I'm convinced neither did Lucas till it showed up in the screenplay. Go back and watch Star Wars again. Knowing what you know now, particularly in light of the first three episodes, see if it really meshes.<br /><br />Which brings me to the problem I have. Revenge is an entertaining movie--tremendous effects, plenty of action, some good fighting scenes. But a movie still lives or dies on its plot--the story it is telling. Oh, certainly, really good acting can save a weak plot, but a weak plot coupled with bad acting--that's a burden no director can overcome, certainly not one as bad as I'm forced to realize George Lucas is (The man has managed to direct some of the worst performances in their careers from some very fine actors--Liam Neeson, Natalie Portman, Samuel Jackson).<br /><br />*****SPOILERS AHEAD******** The plot. Oh my. Understand, he's already handicapped by what's happened in the first two films so it's an incredible burden. One too much for him to overcome.<br /><br />First we have the sheer absurdities of the background. We have Anakin being found as a child on Tatooine, the product of a virginal, miracle birth--the "chosen one". Well, this detail never gets remotely explained. Indeed, the closest explanation is Yoda's observation that maybe they were wrong. Oh, well, okay then. Our mistake.<br /><br />Now, this same wunderkind turns out to be the creator of C3PO. Hey, what a coincidence that is. And he'll come back to Tatooine and never know he was from there? Wow! How about that. Testing the old willing suspension of disbelief there, eh George? Anyway, we have this bratty kid, moody, petulant, whining young adult, who must somehow become one of the greatest villains in Cinematic history--the great tragedy of Darth Vador--the good guy who falls from grace, only to finally achieve redemption in the end.<br /><br />How, pray tell, does this happen? Why, he has a dream that his wife will die in childbirth. Now, sure, he lives in a star-spanning civilization that treats gravity like we treat gasoline, but does it occur to the "dark one to be" to maybe check with a physician cause maybe, just maybe, this futuristic society might can do something about this problem? Why, no, the only thing he can think to do is go kill some children because the bad guy at the root of all the evil they've been chasing for two films tells him that he's got the secret to immortality.<br /><br />Well, of course he does.<br /><br />Sheesh.<br /><br />How can Lucas expect us to watch such foolishness and be moved by it? How can anyone expect us to care? Hell, why would anyone want this brat to be saved or redeemed in the first place. I wanted Kenobi to kill him not because he was evil, but because he was pathetically stupid.<br /><br />Oh, by the way, Amidala finally dies. In childbirth. Why? Well, they don't know. The doctor, who is a droid and himself indicative of the incredibly high technology to which this society has advanced, offers only the conclusion of "she's lost the will to live". Well, oh, okay, of course she has. Maybe it finally dawned on her what a dweeb she was sleeping with.<br /><br />But here we are. We have Kenobi present for all this. He knows of the birth of Luke and Leia. Knows who their father is and knows what happens to them. Knows, also, the role of both R2 and C3PO. And yet, in several years, as Luke approaches manhood and shows up with 3PO and R2 (curiously, 3PO's mind is wiped, but not R2's--why????) stating "I think these droids belong to you", Kenobi, who knows that the protocol droid was constructed by the one he believed to be "the chosen one" and apprentice to the Emperor himself, and who just happened to be built on this very planet, says "strange, I don't recall owning any droids".<br /><br />Oh good grief.<br /><br />Lucas simply made this up as he went along. Once he introduced VAder as Luke's father, sadly, the story began spinning out of control because HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE STORY WAS. The plot of Episodes 1-3 is simply incomprehensible. Nothing Palpatine did made any rational sense at all. And none of this ties into the story he originally told in Star Wars.<br /><br />It's an afterthought, and it looks it.<br /><br />I can't give this movie a high rating. It reminds me of Triple X. A fun film to watch, but entirely forgettable. Star Wars will stand in my mind forever. Thankfully, this one, and the two preceding it, will soon fade.
To make a film straddling the prequels and the "real" Star Wars trilogy would tax even a great film-maker....Mr Lucas is not that film-maker.<br /><br />To portray the fall of a good man into darkness needs a good actor...Mr Christensen is not that actor.<br /><br />The first 60-80 minutes are overwhelmingly boring with only a few pockets of yet more light sabre fights but there is a lack of edge because you already know which main characters survive to the original Star Wars.<br /><br />Count Dooku (Christopher Lee) has a very fleeting role here and about the best idea is to have Jar Jar Binks silent! <br /><br />No the film only picks up with the Chancellor turning on the Jedi and has one great (overlong) sequence at the lava falls
I'm trying to decide if jumping into a wood chopper would be more enjoyable than this dreck. It finishes the destruction of what was once a classic couple of films. With Jedi, Menace, Clowns and Sith we have the death of Lucas' career. He wants us to swallow the Annakin is Vader nonsense? I never believed it was true. This film vindicates those feelings. The story hasn't worked since Phantom Moron, and each new film just piled the crap on until all that was left was a toy parade. I have to go. I know where some new rocks to throw are. You want spoilers? Here they come. Luke and Leia are NOT related. Vader is NOT their Father. Duke Countoo should have switched sides while he still could. Yoda has less verbal skills than Yogi Berra. His advice has never been any good to anybody. Obi Wan lied to Luke for the first two films. Annakin didn't build C3P0. He found him in the desert and lied to his Mom about putting him together from scratch. Chewbacca has fleas. This whole mess with Vader and the fall of the Republic can be blamed on that stupid b***h Amma-Lamma-Ding-Dong. If she had any brains she wouldn't have come within a light year of Annie, but she had told do what George Lucas wrote for her. What a dope!
Ludicrous. Angelic 9-year-old Annakin turns into whiny brat 19-year-old Annakin, who somehow seems appealing to Amidala, 5 years his senior. Now 22-year-old Jedi warrior hero Annakin has a couple of bad dreams, and so takes to slaughtering children, his friends, and the entire framework of his existence because a crazy old man convinced him a) his precious wife might really die, and b) only he can prevent this. Ludicrosity squared.<br /><br />I think the people who like this movie are not paying attention. The story is ridiculous. The characters are unbelievable (literally, not the perverted sense of "fantastic", "wonderful", etc.).<br /><br />Obi-wan Kenobi was the wise and kind anchor for the entire series, but in the climax, he hacks off Annakin's legs, lets him burn in the lava, and leaves him to suffer. Doesn't anyone think that's a little out of character? Not to mention it was pretty stupid to take a chance on him living, as it turns out.<br /><br />I was expecting at least a story that showed consistent characters with plausible motivations. None of that here. The story could have been written by a 10 year old.<br /><br />Oh yeah, the CGI is pretty cool.
First let me preface this post by saying that I am a fan of the original Star Wars MOVIES...I don't read the books, play the games, wear the underwear or eat the cereal (if there is one). I am simply a fan of the films.<br /><br />With that being said, I struggle to see how people are giving this movie such high praise. Taking this movie by itself, and not comparing it to it's terrible predecessors (EP 1, 2), I don't understand how you can say this is an amazing movie. For all of the terrible shortcomings in the script - cheesy dialogue, contrived scenes (ie R2 suddenly being a badass, and long CGI intense chase scenes that have little human touch), HORRIBLE acting, and noted plot holes...how is this good? There was no real internal dilemma within Anakin; it just seemed like a switch was flipped and he was evil all of a sudden. I was not interested in the movie until the last 20 minutes or so (which by the way was ruined by the "NOOOOOO!" Frankenstein scene). When you BOMBARD the screen with intensely amazing CGI effects and fill in the gaps with absolutely atrocious one-liners when more could have and should have been said, this is NOT A GREAT MOVIE. For a film with such a "dark" tone, there was too much levity in the speech of ALL characters.<br /><br />I close with a question: From the beginning to the end of the film, was there really a sense of urgency and importance for what was actually about to take place?
Revenge of the Sith starts out with a long action sequence that is impressive without being terribly exciting, then gets really boring for the next hour and fifteen minutes, with the same horrible dialogue and dull machinations that have plagued the rest of the prequel series. The only thing that improves the proceedings is the slow--and I mean slow--build-up to what we know will be the birth of Darth Vader. And when that finally comes, it's pretty all right. Not great. Not even good. But pretty all right. This movie is being vastly over-praised because it does not suck to high heaven like the previous sequels. Instead it's just turgid, dull, and routine. But you have to say, wow, those CGI environments are really impressive at times. Bu the lightsabre fights? They're all a blurry mess. I think the dark side took hold of Lucas when he started these prequels and no one noticed. This will make a ton of money, but thank god it's over, this once-worshipped franchise has been beaten down enough. I saw the 12:01 show, and after it, I heard a group of very small kids say, wow that was awesome! But everyone older than eight all grumbled the same thing: I fell asleep in the middle. It was kind of boring. I just thought seeing the birth of Darth Vader would be better. So said we all.
This kind of storytelling is unacceptable The only reason this film is anywhere above the 5 stars out of 10 line is because it's got George Lucas behind it, and it has the words "Star" and "Wars" in its title. That is an insult to aspiring filmmakers, and many others out there who have made clearly superior films with superior story, writing and acting, but did not get the credit. This is a travesty.<br /><br />First things first. The story. Anakin's evolution? There is none. Apart from a little make-up around the eyes, and a little yelling, there is none. He becomes young, stupid, cocky Anakin Skywalker to Darth Vader in a single blow. The only thing consistent about Darth Vader in the original series was his intelligence, how good he was at almost everything he did, planning, fighting, you name it. The only consistent thing about Anakin that is perceived in the prequel trilogy is his consistent stupidity. He even loses his body because of a bout of stupid cockiness.<br /><br />What part of the Emperor Palpatine telling him legends of the Sith does not point to the Emperor being a Sith? Unacceptable!<br /><br />The fight scenes used too many digital doubles. Everyone's flying all over the place like teddy bears in a make-believe doll house. Count Dooku, Emperor Palpatine, Anakin, Obi-Wan, almost every fighter had a rubbery digital double jumping around.<br /><br />In one specific fight scene, Obi-Wan and Anakin in the climactic battle, they both actually stop in the middle of parries and ripostes, to twirl their sabers a few times while inches apart. I realize the fights are choreographed, but that just got me shaking my head in disbelief and disgust.<br /><br />The writing was awful. All the dialogue was of tremendously low quality. The good actors like Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman did the best they could with their lines, but that just wasn't enough. I can't say enough bad things about this film. Too much special effects, plot holes bigger than the centre of the universe, and absolutely no insights into any of the characters. This is the biggest mistake of this film: nothing new is offered. We know the rough picture of everything, all Lucas did was colour it in.<br /><br />We knew Anakin lost his limbs. We knew Luke and Leia are brother and sister, we knew Luke is Anakin's son, we knew Obi-Wan and Yoda go to exile, we knew everything. Nothing new is offered in this film. If that's all the fans wanted, then that's fine, Lucas couldn't have gone wrong.<br /><br />But when Anakin finally becomes Darth Vader, and he asks after Padme, and hears she is dead, he reaches out his arms awkwardly and screams "Nooooooooooooooooooooo." That scene screamed B-movie all the way, and I was half expecting Darth Vader to go "DANGER WILL ROBINSON, DANGER" at any time. That is what this is. A B-movie, disguised by a huge budget and a ultra-loyalist fan base that will settle with anything now that the first two movies have pulled their standards down to the pits of the Earth.
What a disappointment... admittedly the best of the prequels, but the story is weak, the plot is rushed and the end result is just a collection of set pieces, poorly realised and tacked together amateurishly. There are numerous continuity errors that clash glaringly with the original films, and the emergence of Darth Vader was handled so terribly that what could have been a legendary moment in modern cinema is now instead a cheesy goof that will be ridiculed for many years. I won't complain about the abysmal dialogue, as this is Star Wars... the original three films had style, cult feeling and cracking stories, and the strange dialogue added charm. The prequels were shallow attempts to make more money, and this lack of love shows in spades. Utterly disappointing.
Well, I guess I'll have to be the one to say "The Emperor has no clothes." When I saw this show listed for PBS last night I was both hopeful and apprehensive. I loved "Morse" (even going so far as to buy the complete DVD set) and felt that, while I always liked Kevin Whately's Sgt. Lewis character, the show WAS John Thaw, period! After watching the new "Inspector Lewis" (as it is billed here), I am more convinced then ever that I was right...Whately is fine (even though he looks awful (both badly aged and too fat), but he simply doesn't have the charisma to carry the show as did Thaw.<br /><br />And as for his "sidekick" Fox, well...perhaps the reviewers here from England can understand what he's saying, but I for one mostly could not.<br /><br />As for Ms. Innocent...all I can say is that I miss James Grout.<br /><br />I'm sorry to say that they should have left "Morse" rest in peace.
Movie didn't have much plot and was uninteresting. Basically you spend a lot of time watching people paint. Also it's very difficult to hear or understand the dialogue -- partially because of the accents, but also because words are mumbled.
Americans have the attention span of a fruit fly and if something does not happen within the span of a typical commercial, we tend to lose interest really fast.<br /><br />I found out an exciting fact from this film: someone has to paint high tension utility poles and do it on a schedule! And guess what, they really would like to be doing something else (the viewer has similar feelings).<br /><br />Surprisingly, when I was bored watching late night infomercials and decided to actually watch this film, I found the characters to be interesting and highly engaging.<br /><br />I just don't usually watch that much late night TV, so I can't recommend this film, unless watching paint dry is your idea of an exciting two hours out of your life.
Billed as a kind of sequel to The Full Monty, about unemployed men in Sheffield, this movie is a fake.<br /><br />As someone born in Sheffield, and still with links to the city, I was extremely disappointed by this film. Someone said it could have been set in Oklahoma, and that just about sums it up for me. This looked like a romantic view of northern England made for the US market. Probably many Americans - and many southern English people - don't realize that Sheffield is a big city of around half a million inhabitants, with a sophisticated urban culture. In Among Giants it was depicted as some dreary dead-end semi-rural small town, where everyone in Sheffield seemed to drink in the same old-fashioned pub, and where the people's idea of a party was line-dancing in some village-hall lookalike. This was a small close-knit community, not a metropolitan city.<br /><br />The working-class Sheffield men were totally unlike their real-life counterparts, who are generally taciturn and communicate with each other in grunts and brief dry remarks. They don't chatter, and they certainly don't sing in choirs.<br /><br />Even the rural settings, supposedly in the Peak District, looked alien to me. I recognized a few places where I used to go hiking, but some of the aerial shots of pylons stretching out over a bleak landscape reminded me more of Wales. Indeed, in the credits at the end I spotted a reference to Gwynedd, Wales. The Peak District is, in the summer, crawling with walkers and tourists in cars. It is situated between two big cities. It is not some kind of wilderness.<br /><br />As for the notion that a young woman could fall in love with, and lust after, Pete Postlethwaite, that was ludicrous, and could only have been a male dream. Her reasons for becoming his lover were never made apparent. None of the men was shown as having a partner or families; they existed in a vacuum.<br /><br />Anyone wanting to see a film about unemployed Sheffielders would have been led astray. This Sheffield existed only in the minds of its middle-class writers and film-makers.<br /><br />It was a gigantic fake!<br /><br />
This apology for a movie is about absolutely nothing! Rachel Griffiths must have needed the money. The film must have been made on a very low budget, because the lighting was non existent. I made a vow if I ever see Pete Postlesumthingor other I'll commit suicide. I'd be happy to know if there was 1) a plot or 2)a script. My biggest regret is I wasted my time watching this rubbish.
If my memory is correct, when this movie was released it came across as something of a comedy - a funny look at the adult entertainment industry. If that's what it's supposed to be, it doesn't really work. It just isn't that funny. Setting that rather significant (since this is called a comedy!) failure aside, since I have no personal knowledge of the subject matter, I'll avoid comment about the authenticity of the story - which deals with the goings on behind the scenes in a Toronto massage parlour, except to say that - if this is true - the life is pretty dull. <br /><br />For over an hour, this movie really doesn't give us much of anything except some background knowledge of the main characters. Conrad is the newly hired manager of the massage parlour whose basic job apparently is to make sure the girls aren't giving "full service" - a euphemism for actual sex. As for the girls themselves, Betty's goal is to buy a parlour of her own so that she can run her own business, Cindy is an illegal immigrant to Canada working to support her family back home and Leah is - well, Leah is a somewhat strange, undefined character with a nipple fetish - true - who seems to be in the business because - well, because she's in it! I have no idea what her character was about. Those three may well fairly reasonable composite characters who accurately represent the motivations of the women who get involved in this business.<br /><br />The movie meanders about and doesn't offer much until the "twist" reveals Conrad to be the bad guy. We should have gotten to that point sooner. The only thing truly interesting here was that part of the story - Conrad's secret plan and the revenge plotted against him by the girls. That plan for revenge was pretty good, and you're grateful when it comes out because basically up to that point you're wondering why you wasted your time with this. Had the story been more focused on the revenge, this might have actually been a fairly funny movie.<br /><br />The performances from the 4 leads were all OK, although I didn't think anyone came across as outstanding. All four characters were a bit shallow. Cindy was a sympathetic character, and so was Conrad for a while, although he turns out to be the bad guy of the movie. Given the subject matter, there's surprisingly little nudity (and what there is is restricted to one scene.) In fact, there even a certain air of innocence around a lot of this. As for the overall quality of the movie, it's a low-budget effort, which shows, although you expect a certain griminess, I suppose, of a movie set in the context of a body rub parlour, so that's forgivable. It certainly says something, though, that this was released 8 years ago now and is still the only credit on writer-director Soo Lyu's resume and - given the normal lack of depth in the Canadian film industry - that it wasn't even deemed worthy of being nominated for any Genie Awards - the Canadian version of the Oscars. 4/10 - and I'm being a bit generous with that.
I'm afraid this one is pretty dreadful, despite several good performances and generally competent acting-for-the-camera direction. It's a first and last attempt by writer-director Soo Lyu. "Rub and Tug" (2002) is one of the unfortunate by-products of Canada's program to promote home-grown film-making. While the program encourages worthwhile efforts like "New Waterford Girl" it opens the door for untalented novices like Lyu who did not have to aggressively pitch this project but was green-lighted without an adequate examination of her script or her credentials. <br /><br />You don't mind the low budget because the shabby production design, bad lighting, poor audio, and dreary docu-style shot selection is consistent with the subject matter; the workers in Canadian massage parlors. But the dialogue and the plotting doesn't give the actors anything to work with, the editor much to assemble, or a viewer any mental challenge other than suspension of disbelief. When your story is this simplistic the last thing you need is a muddled storytelling technique; even though nothing happens, the movie is hard to follow and point-of-view impossible to pin down. <br /><br />Don McKellar's performance as Conrad is several notches below his similar characterization in "Exotica". Lindy Booth's Lea is her standard quirky airhead; as always she is likable but here she is little else. Kira Clavell's Cindy is a pleasant surprise, a kind of Asian Shelley Duval. The only other role of any consequence, Tara Spencer-Nairn's street-wise Betty, more than cancels out her excellent performance in "New Waterford Girl". Her shallow performance in "Rub and Tug" should curtail any tendency to seek out other films in which she has appeared; unless you need further confirmation of "Waterford" director Alan Moyle's skill in working with young actors. <br /><br />You quickly conclude that Lyu's reptilian brain cannot grasp concepts like plot complexity, so the need to insert a lazy and lame "deus ex machina" device toward the end is hardly a surprise. Still it could be worse, the listless story has so little internal logic anyway that the unlikely ending is not as painful as would normally be the case. <br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
One of the silliest movies of the 1940s, an unbearable haunted house comedy with music starring Kay Kyser. Kyer, orchestra leader and radio-star (and eternal college fraternity goof-off), was sort of the precursor to Spike Jones, hamming it up for his guests and backed up willingly by his merry troupe of musicians. He's hired to play a birthday party in a gloomy mansion, the kind where poison darts imported from Africa are framed and hung on the wall. The shindig is beset with a creepy judge, a scary professor, an ominous swami, lots of giggly females, and enough bad jokes to fill three Bob Hope pictures. The songs (by Jimmy McHugh and Johnny Mercer) are nothing to brag out, and neither is over-confident Kyser, yukking it up with elbow-in-the-ribs material that turns 1940 back ten years. * from ****
I knew my summary would get you. How is this movie like a Pet Rock and Disco?! Well, unless you lived through the 1970s or 80s, you probably can't understand WHY anyone would like a New Coke or own a Pet Rock (and frankly, at least in the case of Pet Rocks, I STILL don't understand it completely). They're just a couple things that seemed to make sense at the time but really baffle the younger generation. The same can be said for Kay Kyser and his band. At the time (the 1940s mostly), they were very popular and had enough clout that the studio starred them with Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi AND Peter Lorre in this film. Yet, if you didn't live at that time (it was well before my time), you wonder why anyone liked this sort of "entertainment". After all, Kyser and his band mates are incredibly obnoxious and their humor is very, very broad (i.e., unsophisticated and cheesy). Frankly, I couldn't stand their antics nor did I appreciate that there were just too many musical numbers in the film. Because of these factors, the great supporting cast was given a back seat and fans of these actors will probably be disappointed.<br /><br />The film involves Kyser and the band coming to a mansion where a young lady and her wacky aunt live. Once there, the bridge is washed out and strange happenings begin. Eventually, it culminates in some attempts on Sally's life and a séance (of sorts). It's all played for laughs--and it's really not a horror movie despite the cast.<br /><br />Overall, it's passable entertainment at best. As a Lugosi and Karloff fan, I sure felt cheated having to watch Kyser and his knuckleheads.
Solid comedy entertainment, with musical interludes, it generates a fast pace that carries proceedings along in zestful tempo through a maze of humorous and chiller complications. Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi and Peter Lorre form a strong setup of sinister villainy. The script contains all the standard mystery film props-sliding panels, secret passageways, thunder and lightning and poisoned blow-darts. Karloff, Lugosi and Lorre go in for heavy leers and obvious melodramatics of the gaslit era. Kay Kyser and his band offered great entertainment for the people living in the 1940's who were trying to forget about the horror's of World War II.
Having heard so many people raving about this film I thought I'd give it a go. Apart from being incredibly slow, which I don't mind as long as the wait is worth it, but it just isn't. As many others have said there are so many inconsistencies and so much of this film just doesn't ring true. The reaction of the 4 men switches from shock, horror on finding the body to complete indifference whilst they fish. Surely if they were the type of men that would go on happily fishing, then they would have just reported the body and said they had only discovered it after their fishing trip....why on earth tie the body to a tree, go fishing and then tell everyone you found the body 2 days previously? Its so hard to watch a film knowing that the behaviour of the main characters is so inconsistent. As for the rest of the townsfolk, well you'd think at least one of them might show some curiosity about who actually killed the woman! The body itself, naked except for the knickers....what scenario leads to that? If she was raped then why still the knickers? If she was raped with the clothes on, then why remove them afterwards bar the knickers? If she wasn't raped, then why take all her clothes off bar the knickers....leaving yourself with evidence to dispose of? I truly cant think of any realistic scenario that would lead to that other than killing someone to steal their clothes so you can fill up your jumble sale stall! Oh well its watchable but only just and only because, despite the poor script, the acting is strong.
Just too many holes in this movie to be enjoyable AND WORSE OF ALL a bizarre almost Hollywood-like ending that is completely out of context with the rest of the movie (this is not a spoiler as you will never guess how it ends!).<br /><br />YOu will also need to be thick skinned to all sorts of politically correct undertones. The conflict between whites and blacks was highly contrived and one sided. I didn't understand why the author had the local black communinity behave in such an unacceptable manner, is he / she trying to be racist?<br /><br />A truly bizare movie. Only watch if you like to be really annoyed by holes in the plot and like to debate all the things that may or may not have supposed to have happened.<br /><br />But on the positive side the filming and acting is excellent.
This is an abysmal piece of story-telling. It is about an hour into the movie before we have much idea of what it is supposed to be about; the characters often mumble inaudibly; actions frequently seem to have no relation to each other; nobody seems to be concerned about who actually murdered the girl; a pair of spooky kids go swimming in waters that seem threatening but nothing happens; the Irishman gets punched in the face by one of his buddies for no apparent reason ... to continue would be as boring as the movie itself. The only half-entertaining element is the landscape photography; but anyone could point a camera at the Australian outback a get memorable shots. Overall - dreary, incoherent, pretentious - and downright annoying for wasting so much of the viewer's time.
Stewart Kane (Gabriel Byrne, VANITY FAIR) heads out with his local Jindabyne, Australia fishing buddies for a weekend of rest, recreation, and relaxation. But when Stewart discovers an aboriginal woman's body floating face-down in a river, things appear to have turned out for the worst. The largest casualty of the weekend is the men's commonsense. They don't hike out of the ravine, and instead finish their fishing weekend with some great catches. Then they head out and report the body.<br /><br />The town and the men's lives quickly turn into a mess. The local media swarms them, and accusations of aboriginal prejudices rear up from the local natives. Stewart's wife Claire (Laura Linney, THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE) senses the deeper meanings of what her husband and his friends did, but has to battle with it through her own mental illness.<br /><br />Amidst all this chaos is the life that was this young woman who is now a media spectacle, splayed out on a morgue slab. Her murder and subsequent dumping into the water are symbolic of what lay beneath the town of Jindabyne: a division of men and women, black and white, social and outcast.<br /><br />The only other people who seem to understand some of what is going on are two young kids: Stewart and Claire's son who is being led around by a half-breed Aussie who's mother was killed also just a few years before. The young girl lives with her grandparents and is trying to let go of her mother the best way she can, and the discovery of a new body seems — strangely enough — a method in which to accomplish this (again, the underlying current of Jindabyne is surmised).<br /><br />Everything and everyone in this Jindabyne township feels what lurks beneath its surface, yet none of them are willing to dive into the murky waters and take a look around (the symbolism here is seen when a nearby lake that is used for recreation and swimming is said to contain the old town of Jindabyne under its surface). None, that is, until Claire forces them to.<br /><br />The movie is interesting if a bit too convoluted. There are far too many story lines that needed exploring and it just doesn't get done; too many loose threads. The acting was okay, but the filming was terrible. Wobbly cameras, grainy or dark shots, and just a generalized sloppiness hurt the overall production.<br /><br />I enjoy symbolic films, NORTHFORK being one of my all-time favorites in that vein. But Jindabyne needed to peak its head above the turbid water so that it could see its own problems, which simply didn't happen.
I love the 80s slasher flicks and I remember when "Silent Night/Deadly Night" was pulled from our theaters, I was very disappointed, so I was very excited to see some of these on Fear.net. You Better Watch Out was what I've come to expect of these types of movies. The quality of the special effects were laughable by today's standards, the character development too long, but all in all it was laugh out loud funny! <br /><br />The scenes where he loses it because Santa, aka dad, is feeling up his mom and later when the mob is actually shown lighting torches - not flashlights as you would in the 80s, but real torches! - really tickled my funny bone. However, the scenes where he was checking on the kids in his neighborhood gave me a creepy feeling of a different nature. I also enjoyed trying to figure out who some of these character actors were. It took me awhile to figure out that the main character was the lovable teddy bear on Brothers.
This (extremely)low-budget movie is compared to the great classic "Silent Night Deadly Night", since it is labeled as a Slasher Flick. First let me say that I think that even "Silent Night Part 2" is better than this (that one was filled with flashbacks of the original for more than half of the movie). "Christmas Evil" tries to get psychological by introducing the main character as someone who goes insane,(a strong word), slowly (very slowly). He is irritated by people who do not get the true meaning of Christmas and at work he can't stand how the fabricated toys are made with such lack of quality and love. Dressed up as Santa he finally goes on a killing spree. Also a strong word, since only 3 people are killed without the real need for special effects. No tension, no thrills, no gore, no cast. For one exception that is: Jeffrey DeMunn is in it. He is best known for playing aside Tom Hanks as one of the guards in the classic "The Green Mile". He still must be kicking himself these days for ever accepting the role. He truly is the only one who really can act, his supporting role is better than the main lead. (who also isn't that bad, but if you're overshadowed by a little supporting character, you're not great either.). And what about that strange ending ? (you have to see it, to believe it). "Christmas Evil" is downright boring, nothing happens and the artwork is just misleading. This is not a slasher. You wanna see a real Christmas slasher, check out the all time greatest: "Silent Night, Deadly Night".
The only reason to give this movie even a single star is how much the ending made me laugh. I had high hopes as I usually love bad campy holiday horror movies, but this just didn't qualify. It's really just a bad attempt at showing a character slide slowly into insanity, which again, isn't a bad plot, but is done poorly here. There are some scenes (such as the ending) which are not intended to be funny, but actually made me laugh out loud. There were a couple of times when I thought the movie would actually go in an interesting direction, but it never fulfills what it could and should be. In my opinion, if you are looking for a Christmas slasher flick, try Silent Night, Deadly Night.
What can possibly said about this movie other than, "viewer beware". Christmas Evil should come with a warning label like cigarettes do, because this was harmful to my eyes and ears. I am rarely this unsatisfied with a "b" horror flick, but this movie couldn't even bring a little scare to a five year old. The point of a relentless lunatic that has a thirst for blood in a film is that he/she should seem almost god-like, like nothing can stop their maniacal rage, but in this film the resident psychopath gets himself stuck in a chimney in a bizarre attempt to surprise his next victim and of course follow along with the all to popular legend of santa claus, it's a reminder to the viewer that this man is in no way dangerous because he's far too stupid to be dangerous. All in all a total waste of film.
This is one of the worst B slashers I've ever seen in my life. The ending is something you have to see to believe.<br /><br />The movie starts with Harry Standing and Phillip Standing sitting on the stairs with their mother watching their father come down the chimney while dressed in a Santa suit. He puts the presents under the tree, eats the cookies and milk and then goes back up the chimney. Phillip goes to bed but Harry comes down only to find his father dressed in a Santa suit sexually pleasuring his mother. Then, Harry goes up stairs, smashes a snow globe, grabs a shard of glass, and cuts himself.<br /><br />Then you move on to the present. You see Harry. He is a lonely man who sleeps in a Santa suit and watches little kids through a pair of binoculars. He has two books. One book for good kids and the other for bad kids. He writes down everything they do in these books. The guy is a creep. He also works at the Jolly Dream toy factory. His brother Phillip has a family and two kids and lives in a nice house.<br /><br />When Harry finds out that his boss only cares about profits, he goes and collects all the toys and delivers them to a few kids. Then, he travels to a church and kills 4 people. Then he goes to another house and puts presents under the tree. The kids catch him but they go back to bed. So, Harry goes to the bedroom and kills the father and leaves.<br /><br />As he is walking towards a house, a bunch of kids spot him and run up to him. The parent's are nervous and try to get their kids to come back to them so they don't get hurt. How do they know that Harry is the killer? Sure, you have to be suspicious because you never know who it could be. Harry gives the kids presents and the father pulls out a switch blade in an attempt to stab him in front of the kids.<br /><br />When Harry runs off, the townsfolk light torches and follow him to kill him. They don't even know that he is the killer. When Harry reaches his brother's house, his his brother and him have a little talk and Phillip strangles him. He only loses consciousness. Phillip loads Harry back into his van. When Harry wakes up, he takes off.<br /><br />The ending is something I could not believe. Once again, you'll have to see it to believe it.<br /><br />One thing that bugged me was the black Santa. That's right, the man in the Santa suit they saw was a white man. So why did they bring in a black man?<br /><br />Skip this and see Silent Night Deadly Night and Santa's Slay. You'll get your money's worth seeing those two films. They are better than this pile of garbage! I give this movie 1 star out of 10. Wish I could give it 0 stars cause that is what this movie deserves.
Depending entirely on your own personal state of mind when watching this, "Christmas Evil" can either turn out to become an ambitious and innovative psychological thriller OR one of the most pathetic and infuriatingly lame holiday-themed slashers ever made. Me, personally, I'm tempted to opt for the latter because I didn't bother to do any research at all and simply anticipated a cheesy and undemanding early 80's slasher with a nutcase in a Santa Clause costume butchering people. Wrong! The movie actually handles about a bloke named Harry Stadling; who's obsessed with Christmas, works in a rubbish toy factory and considers it to be his responsibility to determine on Christmas Eve who deserves presents and who deserves punishment. Harry's issues all started when he witnessed Santa – his daddy in a costume obviously – caress his mommy's naked legs at a tenderly young age. After that he just developed into a social outcast, much to the irritation of his younger brother, who's bound to snap one (holi)day. I fully understand why certain fans appreciate this slightly eccentric horror movie, but did it really have to be so boring? There are several overlong and seemingly endless parts of the film in which absolutely nothing happens. I can forgive the shortness of gore and outrageous bloodshed, but this movie doesn't even benefice from an unsettling atmosphere or unexpectedly demented plot twists (with the notable exception of the finale, I must admit). Also, I would have taken the concept more seriously if the crazed protagonist would focus himself on lethally punishing the naughty children! He doesn't and exclusively kills misbehaving adults. How are you supposed to take wannabe controversial and original Christmas thriller serious when Santa doesn't even commit one miserable child murder? THAT would have made "Christmas Evil" a classic, whereas now it's just a forgettable and pitiable piece of junk.
Why, oh, why won't they learn? When you've got a nice, juicy exploitation gimmick, use it! Don't go messing around trying to get all deep and thoughtful; you're only gonna wind up looking foolish.<br /><br />Christmas Evil is the story of Harry Stadling, who saw a little bit too much of Mommy kissing (Daddy-dressed-as-)Santa Claus back when he was a kid. So, of course, Harry grows up obsessed with Christmas, and finally, when his disillusionment becomes too great, he flips out, dresses as Santa, and wanders the city giving out toys to good little children, and viciously killing anyone he deems naughty.<br /><br />Simple enough, and not a bad place to start. (After all, how many other holiday-themed horror flicks use the same schtick?) Unfortunately, this film wants to be more "Santa, Portrait of a Serial Killer" than "Silent Night, Deadly Night". Two-thirds of the film are spent documenting Harry's slow but inevitable breakdown, when I would have been willing to buy the premise by the time the opening titles were rolling. You know a slasher film is in trouble when you find yourself urging the killer to just get on with it already.<br /><br />Perhaps Harry's descent into madness could have been compelling in the hands of a competent director, but alas, we've got some guy named Lewis Jackson. Apparently, this is his only film, and it shows. The action jumps giddily from scene to scene, without establishing shots or clear views of the actors to let us know where we are and who we are seeing.<br /><br />Even once the film gets rolling, we're still treated to heaping helpings of Harry's self-pity, insecurity, and neurotic behavior. More depressing than frightening, Christmas Evil is one to avoid.
Going into a movie like I this, I was expecting absolutely nothing entertaining except for a whorde of kills.....what I got was even less.<br /><br />Christmas eve 1947 a kid witnesses his parents doing it while daddy is in a santa suit. Horrified, he runs up the stairs and cuts himself. The story begins 33 years later and Harry Stalling is your normal everyday joe.....cept for the fact he's obsessed with Santa. After his boss makes fun of him he goes insane, dressing up like santa and starts killing non-santa believing patrons and his boss. An unruly neighborhood catches up to him and just as they're about to torch him, he drives his van off a cliff.....into the moon. Not the best ending I've seen but it was original.<br /><br />It was a slow paced, boring movie that really had no redeeming quality except when Harry went apeshyt on the church goers. There was hardly any gore and even the "sex" scenes were toned down.<br /><br />Too boring......4 out of 10
this is without a doubt the worst most idiotic horrible piece o' crap i have ever watched.<br /><br />this movies plot is that some guy goes crazy and dresses up as santa claus and kills people BECAUSE he saw his mother give his father oral sex while he was dressed as santa clause. THAT IS WHY HE WENT INSANE? is it just me or is that the worst damn reason for someone to go insane like EVER? and that's not the only thing. i'm being serious when I say NOTHING HAPPENS IN THIS DAMN MOVIE. nothing until like 1 hour and 15 minutes of it have gone by.<br /><br />there's an entire friggin scene where he glues a friggin santa beard on to him. IT'S A FRIGGIN MINUTE LONG. WHO THE HELL WANTS TO SEE THAT? however i must say the ending of this movie made me crap myself laughing at it. so if you see this movie on TV or something come back in like 1 hour and 20 minutes just to watch without a doubt the worst ending in all of cinematic history. and i'm serious about that.<br /><br />it's not even so good its bad, it's tedious, it's idiotic, it made me want to break the vcr. it's just not worth your time also i'm sure every other review mentioned this but The actress who played the mother on Home Improvement was in this movie for a split second. YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW BAD THIS MOVIE IS? I'D RATHER WATCH HOME IMPROVEMENT FOR SIXTY SIX HOURS THEN EVEN LOOK AT THIS MOVIES COVER EVER AGAIN.
Stupid and just plain weird movie about some kid who becomes traumatized when he finds out Santa isn't real (???). He grows up and becomes an adult (Brandon Maggart) who makes lists of people who are naughty or nice. One Christmas he snaps and sets out to kill the naughty people--dressed as Santa of course.<br /><br />Boring and just plain bad killer Santa movie. If you're looking for gore, it's not here. Only a few of the murders are shown and they're not that gory with VERY fake effects. Most of the movie just contains Brandon Maggart talking to himself and slowly going crazy. The script is trite, the acting is terrible and it leads to an ending which had me staring slack-jawed at the TV. Seriously, I had to rewind the tape and watch it again to make sure I wasn't hallucinating! Really REALLY poor ending.<br /><br />If you want a scary Christmas flick rent "Black Christmas" (the original 70s version---NOT the terrible remake). Avoid this one at all costs.
No, I've never seen any of the "Santa Slasher" series, i.e. 'Silent Night, Deadly Night,' the original 'Black Christmas' or this one, 'Christmas Evil.' I've heard all about their reputation, or, MADS (Mothers Against Deranged Santas.) I thought I would rent this one as I've heard it pop up as a reference on a 'Fat Guys At the Movies' segment.<br /><br />Mothers should be against this, but not for the ooooohhhh "killer" Santa, but for the fact this movie was just plain crap. Boring, long – even at only 92 minutes, crap.<br /><br />Little boy sees Santa arrive down a chimney in 1947, deliver presents, eat some goodies and miraculously, float up the chimney. Boy goes to bed, but returns to living room to witness Mommy and Santa (sort of) getting it on. Apparently this messed up that kid for the rest of his life, though the scene was about as steamy as when Ralphie's dad got the "Leg Lamp" in 'A Christmas Story.' He was sooo disturbed, he went to the attic and, well cut his own hand.<br /><br />Fast forward to the future! Now, it's 1980 and messed up boy works in a toy factory. We get a whiff of him being a little off-kilter, and he stalks both kids and parents alike. Who's naughty, who's nice, blah blah. It takes a good two-thirds of the film to get him to finally snap – as if that's not foreshadowed from frame one. NO MOVIE should take that long.<br /><br />I will admit, this movie had its tension building, but only because I kept expecting him to do something, anything to anyone. When he finally does, well, punish "who's naughty," it's as graphic as a "Garbage Pail Kid" card. And I haven't mentioned the WTF ending. I'm thinking it was a metaphor, but in reality, it's just as weird as the rest of the movie. (Take the brother who's upset his sibling is killing, and his solution is…uh, killing.) Don't open this mess, even on Christmas Eve, or Evil. Again, I didn't watch the other "Santa-Slashers" but this one sucked bad. It built up suspense due to the nature of the movie and never once delivered a decent present.
I saw mommy...well, she wasn't exactly kissing Santa Clause; he has his hand on her thigh and wicked thoughts in mind.<br /><br />This was enough to emotionally scar a young boy who wanted to believe. He grew up to be a bitter man who was upset at the quality of the toys being made, and the lack of Christmas spirit.<br /><br />Expecting a real slasher flick, I was very disappointed that less than a handful of people dies, and there was no nudity at all. What a bummer.<br /><br />I wanted to like this flick, but it was just too slow and really didn't have a good script. I didn't expect great acting, but I sure wanted some action. There just wasn't any.
Yes, I am just going to tell you about this one so don't read if you want surprises. I got this one with the title Christmas Evil. There was also another Christmas horror on the DVD called Silent Night, Bloody Night. Whereas Silent Night, Bloody Night (not to be confused with Silent Night, Deadly Night) had lots of potential and was very close to being good, this one wasn't quite as good. It started out interesting enough watching the villain (if you can call him that) watching the neighborhood kids and writing in books about who is naughty and nice, but after awhile you are looking for some action and this movie doesn't deliver. You need character development, but this goes overboard and you are still never sure why the heck the guy snaps. About an hour in he kills three of four people while a whole crowd watches in terror, and the guys he kills aren't even his targets they are just making fun of him. This is one of many unsuccessful attempts by the killer to knock of the naughty. He then proceeds to try and kill this other guy, and he tries to break into his house by squeezing himself into the fireplace. He promptly gets stuck and barely manages to get out. He then enters through the basement and then tries to kill the guy by smothering him in his bedroom. He can't seem to kill the guy this way so he grabs a star off the tree and slits the guys throat. What the heck was a tree even doing in the bedroom in the first place? Oh yeah, the killer before this kill stopped off at a party and had some fun too. Well that is about it except for the town people chasing him with torches and the unresolved part with his brother and that tune he wants to play. What was that even about? He kept talking about something that was never really explained. How does it end you ask, well since I have spoilers I will tell you. He runs off the road in his van and proceeds to, well lets just say it was lame!!!!!!!!!!!!
This movie is not that interesting, except for the first ten minutes. The pace and editing are a perfect introduction in an ensemble piece, even better than say Gosford Park. Then it inexplicably slows down, loses focus and starts resembling a traditional French movie only to regain focus in the end with the love relation between Antoine (Depardieu) and Cécile (Deneuve). In the middle there are too many sidelines and loose ends in the story, several threads started are not ended.<br /><br />*******SPOILERS AHEAD The main story is the relation between Antoine and Cécile. He has been loyal to her after his relation with her many years ago, despite her remarrying and setting up home in Morocco. As builder he now rebuilds his own life and recovers hers by taking the mask of Cécile's marriage. Having accomplished this, he is buried after a freak accident (literally) and becomes a comatose. He wakes only after she has burned their old picture as indication that they've reconciled with the past and can properly start their lives again together. *******END OF SPOILERS<br /><br />It remains unclear what vision this director wants us to see us because there are so many other stories here: Illegal immigrants want to enter Europe, there are frequent radio broadcasts about the overthrow of Iraq's former regime. Cécile's child is bisexual and is bitten by dogs (loyalty) once he meets his boyfriend, whereas the girl he lives with seems to be sick (of that?). Her sister is traditional Islamic, and enters a relation with Cécile's husband. It portrays Morocco as unnecessary backward, despite all the building there is a strange colonial vision shining through that almost glorifies the past. It portrays Islam as backward and prone to extremism, which may sometimes be true, but certainly not in general. In the end it can all best be described as adding some couleur locale and l'art pour l'art.<br /><br />Deneuve and Depardieu are great. With this material they are so familiar they are able to spin something extra in every scene: lifting an eyebrow, body language, radiating pride, awkward behavior. The movie itself is disappointing and only confirming the limited role of French cinema in the world nowadays. With some notable exceptions of course.
Ok I will sum up this movie... A bunch of skanky British women have some disease that basically is turning them into zombies. The whole movie consists of these women talking, smoking, and rarely going out for "meat" Or humans to eat. I swear I had to MAKE myself watch this movie... UGH
Unfortunately, the realism is boring. This movie, I thought it would never end, would have been better if all the characters would have been nuked in the first five minutes. Where's Blade when you need him? While as dismal as COMBAT SHOCK, REQUIEM FOR A DREAM and as nightmarish as BOISE MOI, DEAD CREATURES isn't nearly as entertaining as any of the aforementioned bleak movies. While the gratuitous cannibalism might make the wannabe Jeffery Dalmers hearts race a little faster, it wasn't nearly as interesting as RAVENOUS. Really, I found it about as interesting as late-night infomercials, and as exciting as a trip to the dentist. If you have strong masochistic qualities, you might be able to endure this, otherwise, for no one. I was really surprised that this one wasn't made by the people at Brain Damage as that was the quality of Dead Creatures.
SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />I watched half of this movie and I didn't like it. <br /><br />First reason: Boring. Barely anything happens, the women sit around and discuss how terrible their lives are and how they have no hope, they smoke weed, read magazines, care for their sick friend, and cut up the occasional dead body. BORING!!!!<br /><br />Second reason: There are too many things left unexplained. Many scenes are dedicated to a zombie hunter who kidnaps random men, restrains them in a chair and interrogates them. Who are these men? How do they know anything about illegal activity concerning the diseased flesh eaters? Why does he kill one and let another one go?<br /><br />Also there is this dude who at first I thought also had the flesh eating disease but he puts his fist through a wall with superhuman strength suggesting he's not quite what we originally thought-never explained! How frustrating is that? <br /><br />Conclusion: I found the women annoying, the story uninteresting, the duologue tedious, and the action non-existent. Also the cover art is misleading since it makes you believe this movie is going to be cool when it clearly isn't. I rented this movie based on some of the reviews made by other people on this website, and although I respect the fact that some people might have enjoyed this flick, I will from now on make sure I read more than two reviews deep into a movie so as to avoid renting another movie I regret seeing.
This movie is one of those I regret having invested 90 minutes of my life that I'll never get back in. The premise is really interesting - essentially it's a zombie flick from the perspective of the undead (let's not split hairs as to whether they're actually dead or not}. Unfortunately, they fail to deliver a compelling story within this framework. The nearly unbearable monotony of the lives of the central characters may add to the realism of the film, but it sucks all the entertainment value right out of it. If they had put a little more effort toward keeping the viewer engaged, it would have been much more likely that they drive home the social commentary.
A bunch of women who can't act sit around, talk, smoke pot. They have another woman in a wheelchair they hide because she is deformed, and occasionally they kill some one to feed this person human flesh that really looks like some store-bought ham which they dressed up by sticking on a few plastic fingers. We don't see them killing anyone, suddenly there is a body on the floor, covered by a bloodied sheet. I can't eat Spam cover by a sheet anymore because of this. Just the thought of Spam cover by a sheet is enough to induce the same narcoleptic fit brought on by trying to get through all of this movie. Occasionally there are randomly inserted scenes of a guy who is "hunting" them by way of torturing some guy he strapped to a chair is his basement. Why he caught this guy and how he is connected to the Sit-On-The-Couch Sisters is never explained. There are also scenes of some "superhuman" guy freaking out. He p***es blood and punches through a wall, but who he is or what is wrong with him is neither explained nor even tied in to the story.<br /><br />There is no action, no special effects, no story. If you want to watch some boring people talk in a profound way about nothing while sitting around and eating ham and smoking, then here's 90 minutes of that, because, except for a scene where one chick does some hooking on a street corner and the aformentioned random scenes, absolutely NOTHING happens. (YAWN) Oh, I almost forgot, you get to see them move some stuff, including the deformed sister, when they move to their new apartment. Its one of the few times they're not sitting on a couch or lying in bed.
"ASTONISHING" Screams the LA Times from the front of the DVD box. They must have been referring to the fact that such a sorry piece of crap was ever released. The film revolves around a bunch of girls who have a disease which forces them to become cannibals, and murder innocent people just to stay alive. Their skin peels off throughout the film, we also see severed legs, heads etc that are about as convincing as a Halloween Fuzzy Felt set. There is an awful lot of talking b*ll**ks, a bit of human cuisine and some weird zombie hunter chap who imprisons the sufferers of said skin illness in his closet strapped to a chair, before stabbing them in the head, chopping them into bits...<br /><br />You get the picture. Considering there is no acting talent on display at all, and the gore is laughably unrealistic, what is the point of this whole farrago? Again looking at the video box, the guy responsible for it is an "underground cult director". Would that be like those weird religious cults where they brainwash you into thinking one way when clearly the opposite is true? Because that's the only possible reason I can think of for anyone to derive pleasure by watching this tax write-off. Then, on the same paragraph he compares himself to Mike Leigh, Ken Loach and George Romero. HAHAHAHAHA oh stop it. Now you're just being silly.<br /><br />Do you enjoy this film? Are you offended by the above opinion? If so, you must be a member of said cult. Do they pocket your wages? Do they let you see other family members? Do they force you to watch Andrew Parkinson films till you think he's the best director since A.Hitchcock? Do tell... this sounds like a Panorama special brewing to me. And say hello to the critic of the LA times when you return to your colony, will you? 0/10
I chose "Dead Creatures" because I thought it was a zombies movie just like "28 days" or so... but not at all. It isn't even a horror movie. Nothing happens, except for a group of women that seem to have been infected by a strange virus that make her to eat human flesh in order to survive. <br /><br />That plot gives rise to a series of disgusting scenes of cannibalism...<br /><br />Very VERY BAD MOVIE.<br /><br />*My rate: 2/10<br /><br />------------------<br /><br />------------------
How did this ripoff of "Being There" ever get to be so loved? People say it's proof that a decent, honest man can succeed despite lack of intelligence. They're wrong. The movie is proof that luck is everything: hope your friend invests all your money in Apple and not Atari; hope your shrimp boat is the only one out at sea when a storm breaks; hope that you don't die of shock when you're luckily shot in the buttocks and not in the back; hope you don't get AIDS from your wife. This movie is also politically reactionary -- all who rebel against societal convention lose their legs, do drugs, beat their girlfriends, or die young. In addition, the product placement in this film (Nike and Dr. Pepper) is shameless. An emotionally manipulative film that is very, very empty.
The first half of the film is OK, the second half one of the most tedious experiences imaginable. Quite possibly the most overrated movie of all time. "Pulp Fiction" was robbed for "Best Picture." This is one of those films that people feel required to love because the main character is "slow."
Great CGI effects & a truly Oscar-worthy performance by Gary Sinise as Lt. Dan. <br /><br />Tom Hanks is a one-trick pony in this movie, how he got the Best Actor Oscar that year over Morgan Freeman was a crime. <br /><br />This movie is a pandering treacly love letter to the baby boom generation, with a barely concealed right-wing prejudice, beginning from Forrest's service in Vietnam all the way through to the "resolution" with Jenny at the end.<br /><br />With that said, though, it is hugely entertaining and an American movie through and through. I found certain parts of this film exceedingly offensive, Zemeckis dumbs down this movie almost to the level of Gump himself . . .maybe that was the point he was trying to make.<br /><br />Watch this film and ask yourself "What is Robert Zemeckis saying about what makes a good American?" <br /><br />Forrest seems to have made the "right" choices and been at the "right place at the right time" for the last 45 years. Those who are wrong according to the director's vision seem to pay a heavy price. So is Zemeckis saying that idiocy disguised as innocence and naivety is a patriotic, even AMERICAN quality?
I loved "Anchorman; The Legend of Ron Burgundy" and hoped this would be just as funny, but alas, it wasn't. Some bits are excellent though. I thought the sports guy, Champ Kind, professing his love for Ron Burgundy in the car filled with the other members of the news team was hilarious. Everyone is ignoring him and he just gets louder and louder and finally kisses Burgundy which doesn't get acknowledged either. But on the whole the story doesn't gel. It's a noble attempt, however, to salvage the unused bits from the first movie, including an entire plot about some pretty benign would-be domestic terrorists called "The Alarm Clock." Maya Rudolph of Saturday Night Live is one of the members and has a couple of funny lines, but basically this unused plot line has good reason to be unused in the first movie. The extras on this disk are pretty good, with the best two being the filmed rehearsals featuring lots of improv comedy, and the faux commentary with Will Ferrell and an "exec producer" who Ferrell discovers early on was not even a part of the movie in any way, shape or form. Turns out he's "just a guy" who walked in the side door of the recording studio and pretended to be a producer. It's some pretty funny stuff though and goes on for about 10 or 15 minutes
Look, I loved the PROPER Anchorman film, but this was reaaaaallly bad. The kind of bad that makes you wish you could get that time back in your life, the kind of bad that makes you think "what on Earth were they thinking to film this in the first place", the kind of bad that makes you wish you'd taken 50 more minutes when stepping into the kitchen to grab a snack during the film, the kind of bad that makes leprosy look fun, the kind of bad that makes you think you wish you rented a Pauly Shore film instead....seriously, I cannot explain how very bad this was.<br /><br />Having said that....there were some semi-amusing laughs, but they are all so much LESS funny than Anchorman. Sure, they tried to make it entertaining and fun, but the entire subplot that was left out of Anchorman that made it here was genuinely left out for a good reason...it wasn't even a little bit good.<br /><br />Do yourself a favour (or in the USA, a favor), and don't watch this DVD...it will tarnish the good movie that Anchorman is and you don't want to do that.<br /><br />Okay...I'm alright now.
Pieced (edited) together from dead body parts (deleted scenes) from corpses (Anchorman), the Frankenstein Monster (Wake Up, Ron Burgundy) is definitely not a sight for sore eyes (something you'd ever want to watch twice.....maybe even once for that matter.)<br /><br />More often than not -the relativity of the scenes in WURB are made relevant by a third person narrator. Even more troubling is that the characters in WURB are inconsistent with the versions of themselves that we had at the end of Anchorman (in opening narration we're told WURB takes place shortly after the original.) At the end of Anchorman, Burgundy had grown since the start of the film and embraced having a hybrid co-anchorwoman/lover. In this film, he's back to his immature antics with prank phone calls to Veronica (quite clearly these are the more of the same scenes from the original Anchorman spliced in to WURB.) <br /><br />The part that makes this a movie, a continually evolving story, involves a bank-robbing clan without a cause called the Alarm Clock. These scenes are almost painful to sit through. This part was scrapped from the original scripts for Anchorman.<br /><br />The majority of other scenes involving our Channel 4 news team are clearly alternate/deleted takes on scenes from Anchorman. They go to the same party as in the original, the same original "group bitching about having a woman on the team" scene, and the same cat fashion show segment that Veronica had objections to reporting.<br /><br />Burgundy re-creates their first date with the drive-in spot overlooking San Diego and dinner at his favorite club, Tinos. Neither character make mention that they've been to the drive-in spot before and when Burgundy walks into Tinos with Veronica, he introduces it to her as though they've never been before. Oh, and they're wearing the same clothes as on their original date.<br /><br />Still, I have to give some credit to the filmmakers - even if WURB is nothing more than a clever way of presenting deleted scenes tied together with narration. Between the two Ron Burgundy stories - this is the weaker one. Looking back on it, it's quite a feat for Anchorman to have risen from the ashes of WURB. You stay classy, IMDb. Thanks for stopping by.
A collection of Deleted scenes and alternative takes, edited together and with added voice-over to make it appear to take place after the events of the first. Pretty cool idea, but deleted scenes are left on the cutting room floor for a reason and this is further proof. As it's just not as funny as "Anchorman", and really let's face it THAT film wasn't exactly comedy gold either, so you get a 'movie' worse than one that was moderately funny. In my eyes that STILL puts it one or two notches above "Kicking and Screaming", or "Bewitched". Chross your fingers that "The Wedding Crashers" is a return to old school form (no pun intended) <br /><br />My Grade: D
Kudos to the patience of Paul Muni, who spent hours and hours in the makeup room each day to look the part of Zola. Muni was the one of the biggest stars in the 1930s and I wonder how many people today -other than classic movie buffs - know anything about it. He was a giant in the business for at least a decade. He could have won the Academy Award for this performance, which would have given him two in a row, as he won it for playing Louis Pasteur the year before. My own opinion is that while he tended to overact a bit, I still think he was one of the great actors of the "Golden Age." Whatever part he played; you were riveted to the screen watching him.<br /><br />Unlike the Pasteur role, I thought this story smacked of a little too much of what we've seen in the last 60 years: going overboard to make a Liberal hero. Even in 1937, Hollywood couldn't suppress its disdain for police or for the military, here making it a point to tell us how "corrupt" those organizations are. Filmmakers just love it when authority is challenged and defeated. In that regard, this film is way ahead of its day since we've seen this big-time since the 1960s.<br /><br />However, it must be noted the facts support this story. It also does not in any way diminish Zola's accomplishments as a social reformer, getting rid of certain evils. Good for him! I wish they had spent more time showing that, than concentrating on one trial.
I like a movie that has at least a vestige of a story. This doesn't occur in this movie. It's a series of vignettes with no cohesion.<br /><br />There are scenes of a person collecting pineapple cans. A woman with a blond wig never removes her sun glasses. This woman shoots at other people at the beginning of the movie and we never find out why. She disappears completely after about 30 minutes. There is another coquettish woman who endlessly cleans a man's apartment. There are endless scenes at a fast food joint where the Mamas & Papas 'California Dreaming' is vastly overplayed (I used to like the song). The dialogue is mostly concerned with food (pineapples, chef's salad and ordering drinks…). I assume most of the actors gained weight during this movie because a lot of fast food was consumed.<br /><br />There is no passion in this movie because there is no story. This is purportedly a romance - it is no such thing. I just wonder why I didn't hit the Fast-forward. I kept waiting for something significant to happen – it doesn't. Maybe that's the only consolation to this movie - scenes shifted so rapidly that it tricked you into assuming that there was going to be a revelation to all the nonsense.
A never ending frenzy of clever visual ironies does not necessarily create an engaging film. The "Blonde Wig" half of the movie never took off perhaps due to too much self-indulgence by its makers.<br /><br /> The Wong Faye half (featuring a very playful, if Karen Carpenter looking, Faye Wong) holds much more appeal. All the ingredients are there, however, the girl-meets-boy story element takes a back seat to artsy cleverness. Character development is uneven. Emotion is missing.<br /><br /> For music lovers, Wong Faye's "Mung Jung Yun" (Cantonese version of the Cranberry's smash hit "Dreams") is used effectively in Chungking Express. Faye Wong also recorded a Mandarin language version called "Zhen Tuo." Both are on CD, although only "Mung Jung Yun" is found on the official movie soundtrack CD.
Average viewers looking for any sense of internal coherence in a film should probably give this one a pass. It generates the same feeling as staring at a curious array of individual images that seem to have some relationship one to another, but never coalesce into a totality.<br /><br />While this isolative approach to creating a kind of cinematic montage may appeal to a few students or critics steeped in the inside language of contemporary filmmaking, it is flatly irritating and condescending to us commoners who just fell off the haywagon. An overt avoidance of accessibility may be the intentional hallmark of auteurs like Kar-wai Wong and Tarantino, but to me it comes across as Andy Warhol warmed over. The only redeeming characteristic I find is in the production values, and them there just ain't going to cut it all by themselfs.<br /><br />This is one of those productions in which you watch and listen and wait anxiously and in vain for some clever development of an idea or thought to sustain all the remarkable and beautiful individual scenes. Sorry. The calligraphic credits unexpectedly begin to roll just as your interest begins to stir. I get the same big yawn and let-down reading what I guess are very knowledgeable and thorough comments about this film that never lead to anything truly comprehensible. Ideas and images without some external context are not my idea of fun.<br /><br />Call me a philistine roaming the streets of Hong Kong looking for a bowl of chop suey.<br /><br />
I saw virtually no redeeming qualities in this movie. The only thing I did see was Quentin Tarantino's seeming insane obsession for it... There were some attractive women in this movie and perhaps that is one decent quality. Overall however, I found this movie surrealistic and ridiculous. The hand held film making coupled with slow motion and other cinematic gimmicks I found clumsy and dizzying, even sickening. Overall the music throughout was horrible and repetitive to the extreme as well reminding me of psychological warfare of the U.S. military against various malcontents.<br /><br />The various vignettes that made up the movie are haphazard in their placement and unfulfilling and unresolved in their content and "conclusions." A depressing movie (not a true _film_, a term I reserve for true art) that left me with a bad feeling. Do not believe the various people that try and spin this as a "romantic comedy" though there are certainly isolated elements of both this movie repudiates in content, form, and conclusion any association with this genre.<br /><br />I suggest staying far away notwithstanding the seemingly overwhelming positive views of IMDb and other ratings sources.
I am completely baffled as to why this film is even liked, let alone held in such high regard, especially by so many critics who are, otherwise, quite sensible.<br /><br />There is one key word which describes this film to its core - irritating.<br /><br />The most easily explained example of this is the director's use - or, more accurately, abuse - of music. In the first half, a really dull reggae tune is played about three times (when once is too often). But in the second half, The Mommas And The Papas "California Dreamin'" is played at least seven times, usually at top volume. Godsakes, whether you liked the song or not beforehand, you'd be thoroughly sick of it by the end. Just think, some people claim to have seen this film four or five times. This means they've listened to California Dreamin either 28 or 35 times.....<br /><br />All of this needless hyper-repetition (it contributes nothing to the story) could possibly be excused if the remainder of the film had any lingering merit, or if the story was in any way involving.<br /><br />But it ain't.<br /><br />The only aspect I found likeable was Bridgette Lin's charging around and still playing Asia The Invincible in a raincoat and sunnies. Even this wore off fairly quickly.<br /><br />I'm sure this film's undeserved high reputation will convince many poor suckers to go and see it.<br /><br />I can only warn you - if you've never seen a HK movie before, don't start with this one.<br /><br />If you feel compelled to watch it, avoid at all costs seeing it in a cinema. The fast-forward and mute buttons are essential tools for survival here.<br /><br />You have been warned !
For those deciding whether or not to watch this movie and are reading these comments for insight, I first offer these four words: Don't waste your time! "Chungking Express" was shoddily filmed, slapped together quickly and seems as though it were conceived in its entirety by someone standing in line at a Hong Kong Burger King. I can't remember ever watching a film with an assortment of such one-dimensional characters trying to work their way through a script this mundane! It's an absurd effort with philosophically ridiculous dialog (a man wanders into his flooded apartment and offers the stunning revelation that "tears can be dried with a tissue, but water takes time to mop up"). The same character is also seen carrying on a deep, meaningful rapport with his towels, soap, stuffed animals, dirty laundry, etc. The shaky, wandering, hand-held camera-work was another annoying feature I could have done without. And if that isn't enough to make you puke in your popcorn, we hear the old 60's ode "California Dreaming" by the Mamas and Papas blaring over the soundtrack over and over again during a particularly lengthy sequence.<br /><br />Quentin Tarantino was responsible for bringing this loser to America through his Rolling Thunder Productions company, though I cannot for the life of me figure out why a man with his talent would bother. He was known to have remarked, "I'm happy to love a movie this much." A lot of us, though, hope he will concentrate on making his audiences happy with more worthwhile discoveries in the future.
This film is another example of the curse of east Asian cinema: two or more separate stories rolled into one film. Other reviewers have obviously picked up on it as well because there are several mentions of the "first part" and "second part". How can you have any character development or a deep plot when the characters and the story are featured for such a short time? I was enjoying the first part until it abruptly stopped (it didn't "end", it just stopped in what appeared to be the middle of the story) to be replaced by an inane and totally unbelievable second part that seemed to focus around a girl rearranging and cleaning a guy's apartment (wow!) I look forward to the day when Wong Kar Wai is given a decent script to work with!
Be warned! <br /><br />This is crap that other crap won't even deign to be in company with because it's beneath them! Okay, got that out of the way, let me say something more substantive.<br /><br />I've seen Ashes of Time a very long time ago thinking it was a fresh take on the material which is based on a highly revered wuxia tome of a novel due to the emerging reputation of the director, Wong Kar Wai. Well, despite of all of that WKW hasn't succeeded at adapting the novel on screen according to a lot of wuxia fans; mostly it is just shots of dripping water, beads of sweats, legs of horses running, etc. I couldn't sit through most of the movie.<br /><br />Fast forward many years later when I wanted to give Mr. Wong's movies another shot after hearing many praises, especially from Cannes. I was intrigued by his latest, 2046. A friend told me to start w/ Chungking Express because it is his most accessible movies. So wrong! I was just p.o. that I got duped into wasting my time and money on this piece of pretentious nothingness. Some professional reviewers mentioned it as a meditation on alienation and loneliness in a modern big city, blah, blah, blah. It's all fine if the director has a point of view with something to say as to why these things happen and tell it. But no, he merely shows what is. Faye Wong's acting is very typical of Hong Kong's style: garbled enunciation, deer in the headlight wide eye expression, try to be cute and girlish kind of acting; the rest of the cast is equally uninspired.<br /><br />I think the word, Auteur, is a euphemism for a director who tries something new and different, which is to be applauded, but not one who hasn't yet mastered the art of cinematic story telling, which is what Mr. Wong is, for the last 17 years!
I saw this on cable recently and kinda enjoyed it. I've been reading the comments here and it seems that everyone likes the second half more than the first half. Personally, I enjoyed the first story (too bad that wasn't extended.) The second story, I thought, was cliched. And that "California Dreaming," if I hear that one more time... Chungking Express is alright, but it's not something that mainstream audiences will catch on to see, like "Crouching Tiger."
i checked this one out on DVD for a dollar so I could easily smile as this dreadful movie unfolds. every time that you think it cannot get any worse, it inevitably does. The acting is absolutely horrific. the plot makes no sense at all. The title "cold vengeance" in the US DVD version has absolutely nothing to do with the script. The action scenes are so obviously taken in their first take. There are lots of mistakes during dialogues indicating that there is just no intend to do another take to at least try to make this movie bearable. I cannot remember having seen a worse movie and I do occasionally get bad ones--well, except for unstoppable with Wesley Snipes. No, who am I kidding, while a bad one, Unstoppable deserves Best Picture awards at the Oscars when compared to this piece of crap.
What a shame it is when a potentially captivating and refreshingly low-key story manages to latch onto your interest at the start and then gradually lets you down further and further until you're left scratching your mystified head by the time it reaches its overdone conclusion. Unfortunately, this is what happened to me by the end of WHITE NOISE.<br /><br />It wasn't Michael Keaton's fault; it was a pleasure to see him return as the star of a brand new movie once again, looking a bit wrinkled perhaps, but still managing to give a strong and sincere performance. As a man whose wife has recently died, he becomes obsessed with her wandering spirit in the afterlife (not a new idea), apparently getting contacted by her through that funky electrical fuzz business you see on your television screen when there's nothing being broadcast.<br /><br />The idea of spirits communicating via the airwaves is called EVP (Electronic Voice Phenomena) and there are a lot of people who actually believe in it for real, so I'm not going to make any comments about what I think of that, or them. Let me just say that I'm all for suspension of disbelief when it comes to buying into fantastic films like this, but what I can't tolerate is not understanding what the hell was supposed to be taking place, which is about where I was left stranded when the credits finally began to roll. Much static indeed.<br /><br />There are occasionally movies like this that have me completely baffled, but if a film fails to make itself clear for me, I tend to consider that to be the fault of the filmmaker, not my own (unless I watched it while I was too tired to focus or something). Well, for WHITE NOISE I was wide awake, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed -- so guess who's to blame?
I first heard about White Noise when I saw the TV advert. Before then I didn't even know it existed. I watched the trailer online and decided that I would go and see it. Now being a fan of films like The Sixth Sense, I thought that this film would give me everything I wanted. It has Michael Keaton in it, and he rocks. Unfortunately the film did not deliver. It tried to be another Sixth Sense or Stir of Echoes, and failed miserably. It has a very promising start, but the middle just drags on repeating itself, and ends with a completely poor twist which any monkey could have figured out. Unfortunately like most "Scary" films nowadays it relies on loud noises and bangs to make the audience jump. This film could have been so much more. It's a shame because it was a good idea.
Absolutely one of the worst movies of the year. The plot is ridiculous, the characters poorly developed, and the premise irritatingly stupid. It all begins when Michael Keaton, fresh off of doing nothing noteworthy since Batman, loses his beautiful author wife, Anna, to a car accident, possibly caused by her driving one of those convertible VW bugs even though she's supposed to be rich. In his grief, Batman moves to a new apartment and takes up a hobby: recording nothing and then watching it. He learned this from a really fat pathetic guy who got murdered by three tall shadowy fellows who lived in his TV. Pretty soon, he starts to see dead people, thanks to EVP, or Electronic Voice Phenomenon, which is evidently this deal wherein dead people can send messages to living people through tape recorders, video cameras, dead cell phones ("Anna cell calling? But she's...DEAD!...Must be ghosts. Mhmmm. No other possible explanation. I'd better start messing around with this indiscriminately.") etc. Why they can't just write something down on a piece of paper or knock over some stuff to form creative pictograms is never explained. ANyway, eventually Batman discovers that he's actually seeing the future, and he decides to go help this woman he doesn't know. He gets out of his house just in the nick of time, because the tall dark guys enter just after he leaves ("D*mn it! Can travel between the living and dead using electronics, but I'll be d*mned if we can be on time! Am I right guys? (They nod in bemused agreement)."). He tracks this lady to a warehouse and finds out that this character from the first ten minutes of the movie (look hard, or you'll miss him!) is actually a serial killer working for three tall shadowy demons, who in Raiders of the Lost Ark style swoop down and kill him, looking like the cartoons that they are. Just then some detectives show up and save the lady. After Batman's funeral, he decides to send a message from beyond the grave apologizing to his son for being an idiot, evidently feeling that the best way to protect his kid from the horrors of EVP is to expose him to it. The little kid just smiles. Nothing phases that dude, not even when his dad, Batman of course, starts talking to TV's. The high-point of the movie was when someone's phone rang and some guy yelled out, "It's Anna!"
I frequently comment on the utter dirth of truly scary movies on the market, and sadly White Noise only served to reduce my faith that the film industry remains capable of such an endeavor. I was surprised to find myself growingly increasingly fatigued as the plot wore on and my static-induced headache increased. I found White Noise to be preposterous beyond our best efforts of suspension of disbelief. Even after witnessing the harrowing ordeal sustained by Michael Keaton, I was totally unaffected by his demise. Up until the credits I diligently awaited for something--anything-- of substance to connect me to the characters' story, but such relief never came. Sure, there were the occasional heart-stopper moments, but only because loud noises tend to do that to the dozing viewer.<br /><br />While the acting was lame, Michael Keaton may have played his studliest role to date. Perhaps the only redeeming quality that White Noise has to offer is the stunning archietecture in both of Keaton's abodes. Overall, White Noise leaves one with the morbidly depressing idea that those who die are trapped in a world guarded by three malicious shadows, contriving to trick the living into following the dead to their own graves.
The idea was awesome, the actors were incredible, the story could of been very scary, but the writing was poor and there was no depth. I couldn't really get into this movie. I couldn't feel for the characters, there were a lot of cliffhangers, and the movie just ends very weirdly. Was it a happy ending? I don't know. Was it a sad ending? Again, I don't know. You leave the theater feeling unsatisfied. The movie had so much to give, but couldn't. Just because you can edit, doesn't mean you should, right? I wouldn't really recommend this movie because you just can't say that you left the movie feeling like it was completed. You'll just be confused. Trust me, you will probably thank me if you don't watch this movie.<br /><br />3/10
I don't think I've ever been so bowled over by the sheer absurdity of a movie in my entire life as i was when i walked out of this piece of crap. NOTHING in it makes any sense. none of it is clever or well thought out. out of lack of truly suspenseful moments they repeatedly use that total cop-out trick where you build up the music before the character does something like open a door or push aside a curtain and then nothing's there. thats OK to do once, maybe, but i counted three times. there are things thrown in for no apparent reason, characters, half-formed story lines.... the characters weren't well developed at ALL. the ending was.. bad. bad, bad, bad, everything, every component, of this film is terrible. and I'm just here to warn you all of that.
John Rivers' life as an architect and family man has taken a turn for the worst when his wife has disappeared and has been concluded dead after a freakish accident that involved changing a tyre on her car. During the days she has been missing, he confronts a man that's been following and he tells him that his been in contact with his dead wife from the other-side through E.V.P - Electronic Voice Phenomenon. Naturally he doesn't believe it but then hear gets weird phone calls from her phone and so he contacts the man to find out more about E.V.P. Soon enough John is hooked onto it, but something supernatural doesn't like him interfering with the dead, as now other then contacting his wife, the white noise is foretelling events before they happen.<br /><br />Since this DVD has been sitting on my shelf for a while now, I thought I better get around to watching it since it wasn't my copy. But then again I don't think the owners were in a hurry to get it back, as they haven't question me about it. Oh well. So I decided to give it a play, as I was in an undemanding mood. After hearing and reading all the bad press on it, I wasn't expecting anything remotely good, but I was kept entertained for 90 minutes. Well, more so the 60 minutes, as the last half-an-hour was pretty much a blur of confusion. The film is nowhere as good as it could have been, but the time breezed by quick enough even though it's a rather tepid supernatural thriller. I thought it wasn't all a waste. The first hour I found some effective sequences rather interesting and there's a spooky awe generated with a slow progression of subtle stillness and tragedy that haunts you, but sadly that comes to a crashing halt later on in the film. That's when the predictably forced jump scares come into their own and somehow it just doesn't fit in with the context. It becomes rather hectic, loud and very muddled with its MTV style editing and kinetic camera-work that gets to close into the action. I couldn't understand what was going on within choppy and abrupt climax. The whole explanation how everything fits into the bigger picture is pure hokey. It's a very unsatisfying conclusion because it goes for something big, but hits rock bottom. I thought they did fine job up until that point with the lighting and showy camera-work. Other then the distinctively stark lighting, the score kept this flick atmospherically gloomy. All of it is very slickly done with its glossed up and fancy hardware, which makes it come across as very sterile and empty.<br /><br />You can easily see that the film's heart is in the technical components and not in expanding the characters and story. There's just no connection and lasting sentiment within this flimsy material. After a while, it just tries too hard to convince you that it falls into manipulative thrills and popping in many blood-curdling stuff from beyond the grave. It just got rather repetitious watching someone watch a fuzzy TV screen after while. The E.V.P machine was the star on the show. Well, it did have more impact than the limp performances. Michael Keaton is more than capable actor, but lately his disappeared off the map and here he provides a modest performance as the dangerously obsessed John Rivers. He really deserves much better, though. Everyone else is pretty brittle and forgettable. Not because of the performances, but of the lack of depth in their characters. This clunker wasn't bad to begin with, but it does go pear shape by falling away drastically.<br /><br />I wouldn't care to see it again and I wouldn't recommend to anyone, unless you got a interest for the subject matter and enjoy the recent crop of Hollywood produced horror/thrillers. It's just a damn shame that this over-produced flick couldn't put it together successfully, as it had promise in its idea and a more than decent cast on hand. I didn't hate it, but what a disappointment.
I saw the trailer for this film a few months prior to its release, and MAN, did it look scary, Especially how this film was based on a real life phenomenon. I was incredibly interested, and thought that this could finally be a decent horror/thriller film after years if crap. Well you know how movie trailers make a film look better than it is: maybe by showing all of the creepy parts or by overdramaticizing certain elements. The advertisements for the movie did both, which lead to my ultimate disappointment.<br /><br />By no means is this "the most disturbing movie in years". Hell, I doubt it was the most disturbing movie of that week's release. This movie takes the whole "based off of fact" thing too far.<br /><br />This movie wasn't complete crap. I must admit, it held my interest and Micheal Keaton was believable as a man searching for answers by supernatural means. Other than that, though, this film is one big cliché. After John's wife dies, he learns about EVP, which transmits the voices of the dead into everyday electronic appliances. He all of the sudden receives messages from his wife! My God! It's not just his wife reaching him, it's other dead people. Gee, imagine that. A movie about helping dead people. Come on, give me a break! The clichés don't stop there. There's also the obligatory clock-stopping-at-the-same-exact-time-every-night trick and three evil spirits that menace our hero. Not only was the movie cliché, it WASN'T SCARY. The film literally had two jump scenes, and those two scenes are almost identical. The ending is horrible, as it leaves the door WIDE OPEN for a sequel. There's also an ending message with a message saying how only 1 out of X voices heard through EVP are threatening, with a nice happy tune playing. Way to break the mood, you guys. Jeez! In the end, if you want another forgettable horror film, see White Noise. The only reasons I could possibly think anyone would watch this film for is that either that the person is a Keaton fan or that they are interested in EVP. Sure, the EVP aspects may be slightly interesting, but I don't like my movie concepts to be shoved down my throat and blown up in my face. This film tries to be scary, original, and disturbing, but it's just the opposite. You know you have a lame movie when the commercials use the ghosts to talk about there film. "I WILL SEE THIS FILM NO MORE."
Jonathan Rivers (Michael Keaton) suddenly becomes a widower when his wife dies. Soon after, he's approached by a Dr. Price, an expert in Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP), who claims he's been receiving messages from Jonathan's departed wife Anna via sundry electronic gadgets. Is Anna trying to tell Jonathan something? Is this merely a hint of something on a larger cosmic or otherworldly scale? It's good to see Keaton in a leading role, but the story he's stuck with is convoluted and absurd at points; it's as if the movie doesn't know how to answer any of the questions it brings up, so it just distracts the viewer with new, unrelated questions.<br /><br />Keaton himself is pretty good, convincingly cast as the bereaving widower desperately trying to communicate with his late wife. He's matured quite a bit as an actor, leaving behind the frat-friendly waacky-hijinks roles he played 15 or so years earlier. He looks a little craggy, with a perhaps few more wrinkles than one might expect, but he's lost none of the guile and panache that he's shown during his quarter century in Hollywood.<br /><br />So it's not that Keaton turns in a mediocre performance, it's that the script itself is subpar. Written by Niall Johnson, the plot gets more confusing as it progresses, each tortuous path ending in another tortuous path. This is all well and good if the path leads to some sort of acceptable denouement, something that ties more or less everything together and explains... something. But not White Noise; I knew less about what had happened to Jonathan than I did before I'd first seen him.<br /><br />Keaton's really the only reason to watch this junk, although he gets fine support from Ian McNeice (as Dr. Price) and Deborah Kara Unger as the requisite love interest.
As a cinema fan White Noise was an utter disappointment, as a filmmaker the cinematography was pretty good, nicely lit, good camera work, reasonable direction. But as a film it just seamed as predictable as all the other 'so called' horror movies that the market has recently been flooded with. Although it did have a little bit of the 'chill factor' the whole concept of the E.V.O (Electronic Voice Phenomena) did'not seem believable. This movie did not explain the reasonings for certain occurrences but went ahead with them. The acting was far from mind blowing the main character portrayed no emotion, like many recent thriller/horror movies.<br /><br />Definitely not a movie I will be buying on DVD and would not recommend anyone rushes out to see it.
"White Noise" had potential to be one of the most talked about movies since "The Exorcist" I think. Seeing as EVP is supposedly true it really had an easy passage to be a feared true fact. Not many movies come along that really instill fear into the minds of people. Like I said this movie could have, but did not. The movie degraded itself to a low class PG-13 scary movie. Nothing compared to "The Ring" or "The Sixth Sense" by any means. Someone really needs to just take charge in the horror movie industry and just make a movie that not only makes us think, but it makes us jump, scream, everything a horror movie should do. I'm honestly sick of the PG-13 Horror Genre, because its becoming a genre of its own. We need the old days back, the blood and gore days, the Freddy Kruger, the Jason, The Mike Myers days. Few movies can pull off a think about this mentality being so NOT scary. So why try to pull it off? A few good jumps in this movie amount to nothing but one of the stupidest endings in movie history with no resolution at all...don't waste your money on this movie.
Okay, I struggled to set aside the fact that in selling EVP as real the movie was basically lying to me from the get-go. I reasoned that hell, I don't believe in vampires but I still liked Dracula so I could live with this.<br /><br />However, even with that accepted the movie is just not very good. It's competently made and acted, but it doesn't really capture you at all. There are several "jump" moments, and I just looked at them and thought "yeah, I didn't expect that" without actually jumping in the slightest.<br /><br />Also the resolution doesn't make sense. If the force behind this is capable of doing the things it seems to be, then why the hell does it need to use a proxy? Plus, the end caption was absurd. They obviously put it there as part of the "give the movie credibility by claiming it's all real" thing, but for that to work it really needs to be at the start. But they can't put it at the start because then they give the plot away... sticking it in at the end just made it stick out like a sore thumb.
Michael Keaton has really never been a good actor; in the Tim Burton Batman movies he always falls in the shadows of his great villains. Here, he stars as a widowed husband that picks up radio frequencies that seems like is dead people that tries making contact with the living...<br /><br />Well, this is supposed to be a pretty shocking thriller, but it really misses about every spot there is shocking you. Because there's way too much stuff that ends up unexplained, undiscovered and uninteresting. So where's the shocking excitement when it all gets so bad movie made in the first place that WHITE NOISE makes a fool out of itself? Truly bad acting and horrifying edited, this movie is nothing to watch. Michael Keaton tries making a thriller comeback but ends up missing the target more than ever.
LOC could have been a very well made movie on how the Kargil war was fought; it had the locations, the budget, and the skill to have been India's "Saving Private Ryan" or "Black Hawk Down". Instead it come across as a bloated, 4 hour bore of trying to meld the war move with the masala movie. Even the war scenes were terribly executed, using the same hill in all their battle scenes, and spending unnecessary time on casual talk. Instead of trying to appeal to the indian public, a better movie would have been a to-the-book account of what happened at Kargil (like "Black Hawk Down") or even spending time on the militant point of view (like "Tora, Tora, Tora"). Even better, it could have used a competent director like Ram Gopal Verma to write, direct and edit the film. Until then, I'd like to see some one re-edit this film, with only the pertinent portions included; it would make the movie more watchable.
Storyline: The film spanning 4-odd hours covers in adequate details the happenings at the Kargil sector near the LOC in 1999 when the Pakistani infiltrators had crossed the LOC and had entered deep into the Indian territory and the Indian Retaliation. To know more about the story, I would suggest readers to read the news-items pertaining to Kargil.<br /><br />Comment: If one is looking for a formula story in this movie, then one can be sure that it is absent. LOC is a story of Pure sacrifice, patriotism, courage and lots and lots of bullets and Blood. The movie hall where I saw this film was full of whistles and cheers when the Film shows Indian Bravery. Movie audience seemed similar to Audiences like in an India vs Pak cricket match.<br /><br />Watch the movie as a tribute to the Army's sacrifice and for the characterization of the real-life war heroes (4 PVC honoured heroes) who have sacrificed their lives so that we could see this day. The movie has made a brilliant portrayal of the Army who have battled all odds in rough weather conditions. The film's negatives are that it is too stretched and the songs are extremely boring.
If you have seen very less films, this might be a big one for you. If you have seen lot of films, this is a joke. The acting of real heroes is portrayed very badly. Not to mention, there are songs, there are lot of flashbacks, and most importantly, the fighting scenes are stupidily performed. New characters, good direction, would have done a better job, but since it contains all the bollywood heros/heroines, you can predict whats going to happen next. You do not feel sad when something happens, the emotions they protray is terrible, mainly because we have seen this actor in 1000 other hindi movies. It suppose to be a realistic movie, but it fails to show. There are times you wondering, you have thousands of army vehical filled with soldiers moving and the pakistanis are bombing at them and none of their bomb hits them. Are the pakis really bad at aiming or the director made them look stupid? There were only a few characters acting that was very good, but as far it is concerned with plot, action, it is poorly directed. This movie could have been short if they took out songs, flashbacks, stick to the point.
There's nothing new for me to say: 4 hours of people dying over and over in the same hill. The cast was stellar, but unfortunately the producer/director/editor/God goofed. He should have eaten humble pie (if not for his own sake then for the men who died in Kargil), hired one of these brilliant Bollywood directors, hired a real scriptwriter, hired a real editor, hired a musician that wasn't related to him in some way (and who seemed to have listened to some bad version of "Apocalypse Now" on some cheap Indian drug), hired a real professional crew, thrown away all the fireworks and told a real story. Unfortunately he, like the bigwigs of the Indian Army, made decisions that were terrible for his actors, and terrible for his audience. We all died over and over. <br /><br />Please don't do that again, Sir! Sushma Kathmandu, Nepal<br /><br />ps: Next time an Indian director decides to glorify the Gurkha regiment, I suggest he hire more than one Nepali to represent the team. Surely there are plenty of Nepali men working in Bombay--last count was 40,000 to half a million.
Okay, I was bored and decided to see this movie. But I think the main thing that brought this movie down was that there would be a hour of footage, then basically that same hour repeated 4 times. It consists of 1. Gathering the troops and discussing the attack plan, 2. Flashbacks to the men's wives 3. The approach of the troops marching in a long line 4. Men running up hill and shooting, usually the first getting shot in the head then 3 other men rescuing him. 5. Defeat of the enemy and calling to base to tell of success 6. Men flashing back to wives and singing 10 minute songs. That was the basic movie, and that same order of events happened about 4 or 5 times. and every time it did a flashback to the wives, it would show the man, then his wife and him. There were about 10 men or more who would have a flashback so this took up tons of time. Other than that, the men couldn't kill their enemy except with either bayonets or grenades. I liked the music and there was a lot of action, though the action was repetitive. Overall, I probably wouldn't see it again, but it wasn't too horrible.
This film was the most longest film and the record breaking film for sure It had 30 actors After JAANI DUSHMAN(2002) i guess no one had the guts to do something like that<br /><br />The film as the title suggests is based on the Kargil war but the problem is there are too many characters and the romantic subplots and the songs of many characters are boring<br /><br />Even there are too many cinematic liberties like killing people with knifes, wonder which soldier does that?<br /><br />Direction by JP Dutta pales front of BORDER Music is okay<br /><br />Amongst the huge cast Ajay Devgan stands tall, Saif is very good in his part and also it's his first film with kareena, Abhishek is likable Manoj Bajpai has his moments Sanju is wasted, Suneil is okay Akshaye Khanna does his part well rest are passable Rani is good, Esha is okay rest are passable
This was a movie that I hoped I could suggest to my American friends. But after 4 attempts to watch the movie to finish, I knew I couldn't even watch the damn thing to close. You are almost convinced the actual war didn't even last that long. Other's will try to question my patriotism for criticizing a movie like this. But flat out, you can't go from watching Saving Private Ryan to LOC. Forget about the movie budget difference or the audience - those don't preclude a director from making an intelligent movie. The length of the movie is not so bad and the fact that it is repetitive - they keep attacking the same hill but give it different names. I thought the LOC was a terrible terrain - this hill looked like my backyard. The character development sequences (the soilders' flashbacks, looking back to their last moments, before being deployed) should have been throughout the movie and not just clumped into one long memory. To this day, I have yet to watch the ending. But there was a much better movie (not saying much) called Border.
Now please don't start calling me names like, "unpatriotic" , "weirdo" and more .<br /><br />The very length of this movie (4 hours .. !!!) is its biggest mistake . No editing at all - seems like J.P. Dutta fell in love with his project too much . Even Lagaan was 4 hours long - but it was entertaining and gave a message as well .<br /><br />It's based on true incidents and real people . Kudos to it , but were the repetitive war scenes really needed ? On top of it the focus constantly shifted from one battalion / squadron to another and it was impossible to keep a track of them all .<br /><br />Between the skirmishes , there were songs about loneliness , lovesickness and related stuff . There were chummy conversations . In the beginning it gave some relief from the violence but became so monotonous later that one could even correctly predict nature of the forthcoming talk .<br /><br />Why were the soldiers walking around as if they were lions in jungle , fully unaware that enemy was lurking somewhere near? And when they were shot , it elicited sympathy but it seemed unmindful of them to be so cocksure of their safety in the first place .<br /><br />Music was melodious and the lyrics were soulful but did not fit with the movie . Better to listen to them on the soundtrack rather than in the movie .<br /><br />Acting was the saving grace : From seasoned veterans like Sanjay Dutt and Ajay Devgan , to relative newbies like Abhishek Bachchan and Akshaye Khanna , everyone acted like a pro . Manoj Bajpai and Ashutosh Rana deserve a special mention for lightening up the mood whenever necessary .<br /><br />Dialogues ranged from brilliant ("From Madhuri .. with Love!!") to illogical / monotonous ("Pakistan se zyada musalman Hindusthan mein hain") . And the expletive spree consisting of all the MCs , BCs , Cs and F-words wasn't really required . <br /><br />LOC Kargil attempts to provide a fitting tribute to the brave Indian soldiers , but tries too hard and ultimately fails . Indian soldiers surely deserve a better tribute .
Is this the movie??? Is this what Indians are trying to show?? I think this is one more effort from a sick-minded director to turn down Pakistani soldiers and in fact country....but what we Pakistani's know that we are always ahead of India in every part of our lives...not only in armed counters.<br /><br />Well...this is bad filmed as that of Border in early 1997...and director and writer just tried to overcome a shame of defeat in Kargil by Pakistani armed forces, by creating films like these..<br /><br />One thing is very clear...Whenever there will be an encounter between Pakistan and India....we will win....!!! So Mr. Dutta try to make some good movies instead of Nonsense movies like this
I should put out an alert all over saying that the movie shouldn't be watched. It fails to a fitting tribute in such a magnificent manner that it is almost an insult to the memory of those brave men. The special effect were horrible, I hadn't expected the total failure on the part of the director to appreciate military technology. How can a machine gun which normally fires at the rate of 600 rounds per minute fire at 1/10th the speed? How can soldiers fall forward when a grenade explodes in front of them? How can people survive when there are artillery shells falling as close as 20 feet away? How come the artillery shells fall only on either side of the road and not the road itself?<br /><br />Not only did this disrespect for the weaponry appall me, it was the cliched situations and the incongruity of the dialogues which had me screaming murder. There were the standard dialogues like Ye bhi kisi ka bhai hai, ise laath mat maro and Pakistan se jyaada musalmaan to Hindustaan me hai and LOC cross mat karo ye mera hukum hai. Stupid to say the least.<br /><br />What Shobha De had written is true. The director worked without a script and it shows. There is no flow to the movie. There is no gradual progression from one battle to another. It is just one gunfight after the next with no connection to the overall scheme of the war. The explanatory scenes are awful. The chief of army staff looks unconvincing. To make matters worse the theatre people had indiscriminately cut footage to fit the four hour long movie into 3 hours.
I saw this movie with some Indian friends on Christmas Day. The quick summary of this movie is MUST AVOID. JP Dutta wrote, directed, produced and edited this movie and did none of these jobs well.<br /><br />The movie tells the story of the attempt by Pakistan in 1999 to capture part of the disputed region of Kashmir from India. Supposedly based on fact, you get a hint from this movie of the difficulty the Indian army had in recapturing the area from the Pakistani troops - who occupied the high ground. But instead of telling what must have been a compelling and heroic story, all this movie does is make the Indian military look laughable and stupid, which I know is not true.<br /><br />I watched this movie with an almost completely Indian audience, who were very patriotic and clearly wanted to like this movie, but also found themselves laughing at scenes that weren't meant to be funny.<br /><br />The script was absolutely abysmal. It gave the impression that Mr Dutta knows nothing about how an army operates and was using bad war movies for reference. The result is a script that is brainless and repetitive.<br /><br />The acting from most of the principals was not stellar, but considering the script they were given, I find it hard to criticise them too much. As for the supporting cast, all I can say is that I hope they were amateurs.<br /><br />The editing was also pretty bad. It was pretty hard to follow what was going on for a lot of the time, and music would abruptly end at scene changes.<br /><br />Good things: The cinematography was pretty good, although it was hurt a little by the fact that the movie didn't appear to be colour corrected (the colour balance often varied significantly within scenes). Also, the few songs that were in the movie were quite enjoyable - for the first half a dozen or so verses at least. Unfortunately they went on a LOT longer than they should have.<br /><br />And the worst crime of all? This mess is FOUR HOURS LONG. There is enough here that a good editor could almost squeeze a good 1.5 - 2 hour movie out of what was shot. Sadly, a good editor was not working on this movie.
This movie was absolute torture. First of all, it's a whopping 4+ hours long! True, the Kargil war may have had several points that were captured and fought for, but every single one of those battles need not have been shown. So maybe this is a documentary, not a commercial film as advertised. Sure didn't seem like it, as enough background information was not given and there were some flaws. The battle sequences were so poorly executed. I am terribly disappointed from the man who gave well done sequences in Border. Each battle was the exact same as the previous. It was so predictable. (This might be a spoiler.) The whole army marches uphill, five or so soldiers curse five thousand times each (they also use the same cussword every time), one of the lead actors is shot, someone yells for a stretcher, the actor says, "No, don't get a stretcher. That will take 6 men from the battalion," and then an actor dies. That exact same thing happens over and over and over again. Oh, and the songs are so bad and so long. The cast of the movie is too big for its own good. Despite such a long movie, none of the characters were well developed. The actresses had the most miniscule roles. They all are dressed and portrayed to be the same. Two of them were weeping synchronized. It was so comical. They moved their hands and heads at the exact same time and then bit their dupatta together.<br /><br />The list just goes on and on. I know I'm still forgetting something . Anyways, I think I have bashed the film enough that you get the picture.
I thought I read somewhere that this was the last Monogram production, but whether that's true or not it doesn't matter, because if it wasn't, then it should have been. It's a deadly dull affair starring John Carradine with some gray in his hair to make himself appear like an older scientist who is experimenting with the aid of his young apprentice (Robert Shayne) in bringing the dead back to life. Every time their subjects are revived, they seem to have a whitish face like marble as they are lying strapped to the laboratory table (big deal). Carradine manages to restore his faithful dog to life after it's dead, and the mutt gains an unusual ability to walk through walls in a ghostlike fashion (wooooooooohhhh). That's about all she wrote.<br /><br />For an ultra-cheap Monogram quickie, this thing at least actually utilizes a more fancy-schmancy lab setup than is usually allotted. The funniest running joke in the movie is that the "older" doctor Carradine constantly refers to his "young" assistant Shayne as "m'boy" when, in fact, Carradine was actually 40 and Shayne was 45 when they made this!
A scientist (John Carradine--sadly) finds out how to bring the dead back to life. However they come back with faces of marble. Eventually this all leads to disaster.<br /><br />Boring, totally predictable 1940s outing. This scared me silly when I was a kid but just bores me now. I had to struggle to stay awake! With one exception, the acting is horrible. Such expressionless boring actors! Hopeless.<br /><br />There are some good things about this: Carradine, despite the script, actually gives a very good performance. And there are a few mildly creepy moments involving a ghost of a Great Dane walking through walls. There's also one of the worst-looking knockouts in cinema history. Still, none of this is fun enough to sit through this. Avoid.
My girlfriend has the habit of going to Blockbuster and choosing movies no-one has ever heard anything about. Admittedly, at times, it has led to some fun discoveries. Often times, the best that can be said is they definitely run an hour and a half.<br /><br />She brought home "Advice From A Caterpillar." She was excited because the box said it was funny. Lucky for us, the propaganda on the boxes never lie.<br /><br />This movie was an exercise in patience. This is one of those movies where, unless you are a pretentious and shallow person who likes watching movies about yourself, you will hate every character in the movie. Until the introduction of the one nice character. Which the lead annoying pretentious character will fall in love with and act in such a way that, in the real world, would drive anyone away.<br /><br />MILD SPOILERS FROM HERE ON<br /><br />So a bunch of emotionally vapid, stuck-up, pretentious artists swear off love and find success in their careers. Then, they meet a nice, intelligent, emotionally mature and loving character (an almost perfect guy). We then watch the woman, the annoyingly pretentious artist (in her 30's?) freak out as she falls in love. So she tries to flee from the nice, intelligent, emotionally mature man and stay with the married man with whom she's been having great but empty sex. She is rude to the man and does everything in her power to drive him away. In the real world, she would have been quite successful. I certainly wanted to flee from her and I wasn't even in a relationship with her!<br /><br />Although its nice that the man 'fought for his love', I never wanted her to have him. (Nor did my girlfriend) She didn't deserve him. And, why I wonder, did the director think that the 'almost perfect guy' should be punished by having to win a relationship with her? When the artist was asking the 'almost perfect guy' to leave, we were screaming for him to leave too. There's a problem with a movie when the heroine of the film is so annoying, childish and stupid that you want her to fail.<br /><br />Beyond that, let me say that Andy Dick made me laugh a few times even though his character was also pretentious to the point of annoyance. Regarding the other characters, they were well acted, morally bankrupt and annoying characters.<br /><br />It is a comedy and I can say I did laugh a few times in the film. Unfortunately, not much laughing happened until the last 10 minutes or so. But by the time I had those laughs, I had been praying for the movie to end for far too long. I needed to get these vapid characters out of my life.<br /><br />If you want to watch people you hate struggle with a love for people they don't deserve, then this is the movie for you.
This film concerns purportedly non-establishment types (aesthetically and sexually) who apparently cannot resist basic romantic needs. Although some excellent players take part, including Jon Tenney, Timothy Olyphant, and Cynthia Nixon, they are grounded by a puerile script which relies nearly totally upon clever dialogue; which isn't. Nixon's role possesses the best lines, but she often homes in on them too quickly, a timing flaw which must be saddled upon the director. The grotesque climax utilizes every available cliche, spent or not, and fittingly ends this drab attempt at comedy.
Why? Why did they make this movie? If Timothy Olyphant wasn't shirtless in it several times, there would be ABSOLUTELY no reason to watch this movie, ever. Um...Plot? Nope. Well-defined characters? nope. The only time I laughed was when my boyfriend made fun of the whole she-bang. P.S. Andy Dick? Nope.
Not a movie, but a lip synched collection of performances from acts that were part of the British Invasion, that followed the dynamic entrance of the Beatles to the music world. Some of these acts did not make a big splash on this side of the pond, but a lot of them did. Featured are: Herman's Hermits, Billy J. Kramer and the Dakotas, Peter and Gordon, Honeycombs, Nashville Teens, Animals, and of course,the Beatles.<br /><br />It is so much fun watching these young acts before they honed and polished their acts.
Ostensibly a film that predicts the coming trends in British popular music, it's wrong on so many fronts that it's laughable. Tommy Quickly? The Honeycombs? The movie DOES include a song by the Spencer Davis group, two by the Animals, and one tacked on live film of the Beatles doing their live version of Twist and Shout (all 1:20). But all in all, an awkward display of British music circa 1964. Oh, and Herman's Hermits.
Russell Hopton acted in many films until his death in 1945. He only directed 2 and "Black Gold" was one, (the other was also from 1936). Frankie Darro had a sometimes abrasive screen presence but in this he was playing a good kid. He was obviously quite popular on the "quickie" circuit - he made so many films. In this one he plays the son of an old oil rigger who is convinced that he will strike oil very soon.<br /><br />J.C. Anderson (Berton Churchill) is trying to convince the old man to sell up as he knows there is going to be oil struck at any moment. A geologist, Henry, comes on the scene and helps "Fishtail's" dad. He also convinces "Fishtail" to go to school regularly. Henry has his eye on Cynthia, the pretty teacher. This was Gloria Shea's last film - she had begun her career as Olive Shea in "Glorifying the American Girl" (1929). "Fishtail's" dad is killed when the rig is sabotaged and Henry is determined to bring Anderson and his cronies to justice. When Henry is kidnapped Anderson tries to persuade "Fishtail" to sell his oil lease. It all ends well with oil being struck and "Fishtail" going to Military school.<br /><br />It is okay for a rainy day.
This movie was terrible to say the least. I was hoping for a lot better after seeing "High School Musical". The whole entire movie was a complete rip off of "The Simple Life", only it wasn't a reality show.<br /><br />The acting was not good at all. Amanda Michalka had her moments, when she wasn't that terrible. On the other hand Alyson Michalka was bad all the way through. Chris Gallinger, who played the love interest of Amanda was playing a french guy, but had an awful accent. One good thing about this movie was the completely adorable Michael Trevino, who played Alyson's love interest. Just something to keep in mind, if this movie had been aired before "High School Musical" it probably would not have seemed as bad. But it was no comparison.<br /><br />Overall I give it a 2.
This movie is truly awful. After seeing the advertisement for it, i thought it could have its charms ... but it didn't.The girls cannot act, and they cannot sing either. The soundtrack to this movie is full of their songs, and its not a pretty sight, Terrible story line, unbelievable plot, its one of Disney's worst movies by FAR!. Ally is not a bad actress on "Phil of the Future", so i don't know what happened in "Cow Belles". And her sister, AJ, seems to be just hitching a ride on her sisters "fame", and she displays no talent what so ever.<br /><br />At the end of the movie the girls do finally learn some cliché morals, but this is to late to rescue this train wreck movie.<br /><br />Awful
This movie kind of reminds me of A Mary-Kate and Ashley movie-only worse. Just the rich sisters kind of thing I think even though Alysons more the actress, in this movie Amanda michalka was okay sometimes but Alysons acting stunk. i think that after high-school musical they needed to come up with somethihng better and this definitely wasn't it. The story line wasn't that great and I think they should have gotten two other people to play Taylor and Courtney. I'm not a big Alyson Michalka fan and this movie didn't make me like her any better. i think they should definitely sick to singing and only watch this movie if you have nothing better to do (which sadly I didn't)
I watched this movie really late last night and usually if it's late then I'm pretty forgiving of movies. Although I tried, I just could not stand this movie at all, it kept getting worse and worse as the movie went on. Although I know it's suppose to be a comedy but I didn't find it very funny. It was also an especially unrealistic, and jaded portrayal of rural life. In case this is what any of you think country life is like, it's definitely not. I do have to agree that some of the guy cast members were cute, but the french guy was really fake. I do have to agree that it tried to have a good lesson in the story, but overall my recommendation is that no one over 8 watch it, it's just too annoying.
How Disney can you get? Preppy rich girls act like idiots, buy a bunch of stuff, and get taught a lesson. Is Disney trying to send a lesson to itself? That maybe while buying everything it should maybe still be human? Whatever the psycho-analysis, this movie sucked.<br /><br />The girls want a rich party for their rich lives. But then money disappears and they have to use their riches to get the milk plant (yes, milk) going to employ the workers. They keep it afloat until daddy comes home. And the man at the beginning, who appears to be the one that takes the money, is the one. But the ending is dumb. Webcam in the Cayman Islands? Huh? Not worth my time ever again. <br /><br />But it is better than Howl's Moving Castle. "D-"
Aldolpho (Steve Buscemi), an aspiring film maker, lives in a battered NYC apartment and relies on his mother to help make the rent. He has a beautiful neighbor named Angelica (Jennifer Beals)who may or may not be married but who Aldolpho would love to star in his movie. When Al unexpectedly gets a financial promise of funding for his film from a strange man named Joe, he thinks he's got it made. That is, until Joe takes Al along on an adventure to steal a Porsche for part of the financial backing. Will the film be made before Aldolpho is completely without a moral backbone? And, will Angelica star in the film? This is, in this viewer's opinion, an awful movie. The script is abysmal, with a plot that wanders willy nilly. Beals practically snarls all of her lines and Buscemi, though likable, is nondescript. There is a good deal of distasteful material and unsavory characters to boot. Finally, the production values are very poor, too, making the film look second rate at all times. If you have time on your hands, it is still a good idea not to take a chance with this movie. But, if you are the proverbial glutton for punishment, go ahead and watch the darn thing. Beals does look beautiful, after all.
A terrible movie as everyone has said. What made me laugh was the cameo appearance by Scott McNealy, giving an award to one of the murdered programmers in front of a wall of SUN logos. McNealy is the CEO of SUN Microsystem, a company that practically defines itself by its hatred of Microsoft. They have been instrumental in filing antitrust complaints against Microsoft. So, were they silly enough to think this bad movie would add fuel to that fire?<br /><br />There's no public record I see of SUN's involvement, but clearly the makers of this movie know Scott McNealy. An interesting mystery.
It was interesting to see how accurate the writing was on the geek buzz words, yet very naive on the corporate world. The Justice Department would catch more of the big corp giants if they did such naive things to win. The real corporate world is much more subtle and interesting, yet every bit as sinister. I seriously doubt ANY corp would actually kill someone directly; even the mod is more indirect these days. In the real world, they do kill people with nicotine, pollution, additives, poisons, etc. This movie must have been developed by some garage geeks, I think, and the studios didn't know the difference. They just wanted something to capitalize on the Microsoft antitrust case in the news.
AntiTrust could have been a great vehicle for Rachael Leigh Cook, but the director cut out her best scenes. In the scenes that she are in, she is just a zombie. She is involved in a sub-plot that is simular to a sub-plot in "Get Carter", but she handles the sub-plot better in "Get Carter".(I blame the director) The director's homage to Hitchcock was corny. (It's the scene were Ryan Philippe's charactor realizes he may not be able to trust Tim Robbin's charactor, at least I think it's a homage to Hitchcock. The DVD shows the scenes that were cut out. I think the director should have trust his instincts and not listen to the test audiences.
Obvious attack on Microsoft made by people who don't appear to understand intellectual property or market economies generally.<br /><br />Loony liberal tim robbins plays a painfully obvious caricature of bill gates, and is a cartoonish corporate villain ordering murders right and left.<br /><br />While microsoft may engage in some anticompetitive activity at times, it's unlikely they actually murder people. Therefore, the film is over the top and ridiculous from the beginning.<br /><br />The "deeper" point is apparently that major tech innovations should be free to the public, and not subject to intellectual property laws. However, this ignores the fact that most major innovations would never have been developed if not for the market incentives (and rewards) provided by intellectual property.<br /><br />It's one thing to be opposed to anti-competitive conduct -- that's common sense. It's quite another to be opposed to market competition in the first place, which is what the film's mantra ("knowledge belongs to mankind") represents.<br /><br />Yet another example of Hollywood being completely out of touch with reality.
One more of extremely unprofessional movies about computer programmers.<br /><br />Looks authors of that movie don't know real specific of programmers world.<br /><br />20 top programmers in the world, program which have own satellites (for what?), program which using satellite freq., somebody kill somebody to steal the codes (why?) and much more of stupid moments at this movie.<br /><br />Peoples who not programmers not will see something awful at that movie, because not professionals on this. But peoples will see not real things.<br /><br />Programmers will find that movie odd and awful - because lots of moments inside movie is not RELATED real life (why movie not scifi in this case?).
I sort of accidentally ended up watching this movie. I'm still not sure if I regret it or not. I felt like I was watching the film made by that group of film school students that didn't quite make the cut. It plays up every Hollywood cliché imaginable, all the while flogging us with the 'corporations are the ultimate evil' message. Subtlety this movie does not know. As far as that goes, it even manages to provide it's own spoilers.<br /><br />The story appears to be a computer nerd's fantasy world come true. The lead character is an attractive teenage boy with a girlfriend, yet is a programming genius and apparent hacker (I think), among many other nerd-fantasy-come-true elements that you'll have to see for yourself.<br /><br />As well, I should've known it would be a z-movie when I saw Ned Bellamy... he tends to be a good tip-off.<br /><br />Can't recommend this one, I'm afraid.
Antitrust falls right into that category of films that aspire to make some great point while being uplifting yet falls completely flat. I don't hate the film, but it is missing key elements, such as suspense. There have been other attempts to make an engaging film about computers, such as Hackers and The Net. They all fall short. The improbable ending of both The Net and Antirust seem to be nearly identical. These movie endings suffer from one huge error in perception: People in the PC business having this over-indulgent self ego that assumes the general population lives it's life waiting to hear the latest news about PC's and software. I have worked for many companies and industries, and they all seem to suffer from an expanded view of their own self-importance, as does this film.<br /><br />The way they introduced plot lines was pathetic. Showing Milo, who is deathly allergic to Sesame Seeds, almost ingest one from a restaurant breadbasket crossed the line of stupidity. Only his 'girlfriend' prevented him from sure death. This makes one wonder how Milo could have survived as long as he did, braving the perils of Big Mac buns and Sesame Seed breadsticks, as they cloak themselves as, well.... Sesame Seed breadsticks and Big Mac buns.<br /><br />Antitrust also doesn't provide much suspense. The patterned and predictable plot twists are easily figured out long before they are revealed (come on, was anyone REALLY stunned when Yee Jee Tso was killed?), thereby destroying any real shock value. And here again we have yet another film/story where at the end, the bad guys are chasing the good guys to 'get the disk'. We need to have a moratorium on this Simple Simon plot line for about 20 years. Still, I pressed on. Maybe the ending would be the payoff, but no. The completely ridiculous ending where we have the head of company security, another supposed evil guy, turn around and be the good guy that enables Milo to bring down N.U.R.V CEO Gary Winston was laughable. And of course, the news coverage of the arrest of Gary Winston is more fevered than when Hinckley or Oswald was brought into custody. Gary Winston, played by Tim Robbins, is a cardboard cutout of the same character Robbins played in Arlington Road. But that fits perfectly here in Antitrust, which should be called 'Anticlimactic' or 'Anti-Original'.<br /><br />In the years to come, this film will likely be banished, to be shown only on your local third rate UHF channel.
After seeing the trailer of this film in the cinema, i thought that it was an original concept for a thriller, setting it in the competitive world of computer companies. The all star cast was another message that this film would probably be good. But when i didn't go to watch it in it's first week of release then it disappeared by week 2 i feared something was a miss. Patiently i waited for it's DVD release, then bought it rushing home for an enjoyable evening's viewing. The anticipation on the way home was far better than the film. For a start the direction is appalling. There's no thought gone into it at all and the director just makes up a part for himself, so he can appear in the film. I wouldn't be rushing out to employ him in the future. Secondly the lead role is completely miscast as Ryan Phillipe. Phillipe normally the cool character as in Cruel Intentions and Way of the Gun but in this he's supposed to be a bumbling hero which he attempts to portray by slipping when he's running and having geeky friends, but he just doesn't look right. The female stars, Rachel Leigh Cook and Clare Forlani don't feature enough but when they do neither of the performances are close to their bests. The only highlight of the film is Tim Robbins in a role that could have been made for him and it's his fiery temper and mysterious ways that drag the film along. The final point is that this film is another one which fills the trailer with scenes you don't see in the film and instead feature only in the deleted scenes section of the DVD. Causing even more disappointment as although some of these scenes are crude they do fill in important gaps in the story.
Five minutes into this movie you realize that you have seen it all before. It is BOILER ROOM. It is THE FIRM. And it is THE DEVILS ADVOCATE. And there are NO new elements here. Except for the all-to-clear Bill Gates-allegory. Conpsiracies are always good stuff for movie-making, but why does it have to be so extreme ? Boiler room is a good movie, because it - for a while at least - seems realistic. In Antitrust everything is wrong. How realistic is it for example that your boss pay an impostor to be your girlfriend in order to make you work harder and control you ? I'd give it 1, but the soundtrack is OK, so 2/10.
My friends and I rented that movie last night and we had one of the greatest laughs in awhile. The movie is not supposed to be funny at all, but it is just so ridiculous and it lacks any realism whatsoever. First, Phillippe (I forget what his character is called and I don't really care) uses his regular employee ID to go through all the top-security terminals. Not only is that pathetic but it gets topped when his enormous efforts culminate in his finding the so-scary Lego-room, which hosts the super computers. This is plain funny. The tense mood that we are supposed to experience is completely spoilt by the childish looking room. The ending, like all else, is very very very cheesy, especially when the bad guy's lawyer shows up 'right on time'. Anyway, this movie is a good laugh. If you need something to make fun of, definitely see it.
The best thing about this movie was, uh, well, I can't think of anything. This was bad. The script was especially bad. The technical concepts were bad. The "suspenseful" plot was bad. The dialog was bad. Avoid at all costs. Do not rent. Do not watch. You'll be sorry.
Very businesslike authority with little responsibility and only a desire to keep his/her name clean - check. A veteran cop that has bad relationship with his family - check. Mafia guys that while criminals, want to do something good vigilante style - check. A sociopath and loyal mafia guy not hesitant to kill people to make an example - check. Cops' methods being less effective than the mafia guy's brutal yet very effective methods - check. A corrupt cop tying the authority, the criminals and the police together - check.<br /><br />Slow motion and/or jerky frame rates for showing what the actor's reaction can't - check. A serial killer whose background is explained in far too much detail, esp. using childhood abuse as the reason for everything - check. A child spree killer that is very, very non-menacing - check. Foreshadowing of the veteran cop's moral values not being what the killer deserves in the movie's and the majority of characters' opinion - check. Morally ambiguous and predictable ending thanks to the foreshadowing and the good veteran cop's coming to terms he should submit to the vigilante attitude of the majority of the characters - check.<br /><br />Recently saw this on TV and decided to endure it because it had Dennis Hopper in it and I could not sleep - check. Realized that was a mistake and should just have stared at the ceiling - check.
Dennis Hopper is without a doubt one of the finest underrated American actors of our time, and it was interesting to see how he would play out his role as a cop on the case of a child serial killer. Most movies Hopper has always played to psychotic menace threatening to blow up stuff or go on a killing spree, but in this movie, Hopper tried his best to keep that intensity and emotion while carrying a shield. Once I got into the plot of the movie, I was hooked, but it's just the little things that ultimately murdered the film.<br /><br />The concept of the film is great - not only are the cops on the move of catching the killer, but we get a chance to see how the gangsters operate in catching the killer. The subplot of the football stadium is kinda ridiculous, but necessary to involve the gangsters in the killer hunt.<br /><br />That's about all that is good you can say about the film. Although Hopper did try to act like a tough, experienced street smart cop, I can't help but feel his acting was below par, and there wasn't enough conviction that he was truly attached to the case. The directing was also terrible - it didn't have the feel of a true film, but rather a TV-movie production. This is most evident when the gangsters meet for the first time to form an elite team to hunt the killer down. When the leading gangster shoots the other mouthy gangster in slow motion, the acting was weak, predictable and terribly unexciting. That's when I knew that 1st of all, the action is going to be atrocious.<br /><br />The angling of the camera was amateurish, and the recalling scenes or haunting images of the killer's little sister had no true distinctive effect. If it was supposed to be scary, it wasn't. Everyone's acting was terrible, and even for Hopper, I didn't feel for his character, and I just didn't really care too much about his relationship with his daughter.<br /><br />The final thing that bothered me the most is the swat team. Once I saw the swat team in action, I was thinking, finally, something good. But I was wrong. 1st of all, the entire swat team consisted of 4 guys. That is just impossible. 2nd of all, apparently the swat team has no training whatsoever because many times in the film they carry their HKA4 submachine guns with one hand. Had the killer been hiding near the staircase with a shotgun, these 4 idiots would've been blown to bits because they weren't even aiming at anything or paying close attention. They should have had both hands on the gun aiming forward, but it just looks like they're not taking the job seriously and are just flaunting around. 3rd, SWAT team members do not yell out commands such as "Keep your eyes open, watch out for yourselves, are we good to go...etc." In reality, they use hand signals or have radios. But they're literally yelling at each other - how are you supposed to catch the killer when he can hear you're coming??? And to top it all off, these guys have no plan - apparently they're just running up and down going on a wild turkey chase. Eventually they end up doing nothing. That was the last straw. I'm no expert on special forces, but basically what I've just outlined, is pretty common sense. When the audience knows the movie is terrible, the action pretty much becomes the life-saver of the movie - when you can't even make an effort to make the action great, the movie is lost.<br /><br />I give 2 stars for the concept, but the rest cannot be credited. If you want to watch a crime thriller, don't bother with this one. There's plenty of crime in the movie - but it has the lack of thrill.
The movie had a good concept, but the execution just didn't live up to it.<br /><br />What is this concept? Well, story-wise, it's "Dirty Harry" meets "M". A child killer has begun terrorizing a city. The lead detectives (Dennis Hopper and Frederic Forest) have never dealt with a serial killer before. The Mayor and the Police Chief, in desperation, secretly hire the local mob to speed things up...to go places and do things that the police wouldn't be able to in order to bring an end to this mess as soon as possible.<br /><br />To be fair, this film DOES genuinely have some good things to offer.<br /><br />Besides the concept, I liked the look of the killer's hideout. Norman Bates has his basement. This guy has an eerie sewer. In some of the shots, the light bounces off the water and creates rippling reflections on the walls; often giving these scenes a creepy, dreamlike quality.<br /><br />The acting was good too. Dennis Hopper is one of those actors who gets better with age.<br /><br />Once you get past that, however, it more-or-less goes downhill.<br /><br />The film is paced way too fast. The actual investigation process from both teams feels very rushed as opposed to feeling intricate and fascinating. This could have been fixed in two ways: either make the film longer or cut out some of the many subplots. Either of these would have allowed the crew to devote more time to the actual mystery.<br /><br />For an example of how bad this is, one of the crucial clues that helps them zero in on just the right suspect is this: at one point in his life, the suspect went to a pet shop...That's right...I'm being totally serious here. It's like they went from point A (the first clue) to point Z (the suspect) and skipped over all the "in-between" steps.<br /><br />Then there's the characters. The only ones I actually liked were two pick-pockets you meet about half-way through the movie. Considering that they're minor characters, I'd call that a bad sign.<br /><br />Finally, there's the mob angle. This is the one that gets me the most because THIS is why I coughed up the $3 to buy the DVD in the first place. I mean, what a hook! There's been an absolute glut of serial killer flicks in the last 10-15 years. The mob angle was a gimmick that COULD have helped it rise above the rest..., but it didn't.<br /><br />I figured the gangsters's methods would be brutal, but fun and thrilling at the same time; kind of like a vigilante movie or something...maybe they'd even throw in some heist movie elements too. We ARE talking about criminals, after all. Instead, we're given some of the most repulsive protagonists committed to celluloid. The detectives question witnesses. What does the mob do? They interrogate and kill them. It's not even like these witnesses are really even that bad either. I actually found the criminals less likable than the killer they're hunting.<br /><br />Unless the good points I mentioned are enough to get your interest, I'd say give this one a miss. Maybe some day, they'll reuse the same story idea and do it RIGHT. I hope so. I hate to see such a good concept go to waste.
This movie kinda let me down. It seemed a lot like the movie Jaws when the Hopper was telling the Mayor to close parks was like when Roy Shider was telling the Mayor to close the beaches. They both said no way its summer! But the box says Hopper has to get into the mind of a killer and think like one. But he really doesn't do anything too interesting or exciting. I'm not even a little convinced he and his partner have any experience doing police work when they are in the office wondering how they are gonna solve this case. They just say lets do police work and we'll solve it. And whats up with all the old men with pool cues. I didn't even begin to believe that they were mob bosses. And then the guy who was doubting the guy the mob picked to handle finding the killer. With his hundred dollar haircut and that he thinks his Di@k is the size of a schoolbus. Come on what cruddy lines. I thought he was gonna hit him with a baseball bat like in the other movies. I got this movie used and wouldn't buy it new. I suggest you skip this movie. Oh and it was funny seeing the microphone above the scene where hopper is going out to get coffee.
Maybe I've seen one too many crime flick, or maybe I don't take the right drugs.<br /><br />This was the most cliché ridden, plot deficient, plot-absurd, just plain stupid movie I have seen in a long time.<br /><br />As for the direction, it looks like it took less time to show this than it did to put it together.<br /><br />In fact it looks like to made it straight to video before it was completed.<br /><br />It's a bad rip off of "M" the classic Fritz Lang film starring Peter Lorre. You'd be SO much better off renting that instead.
***Possible Plot Spoilers***<br /><br />I adore Dennis Hopper. I question why he accepted the role of a police detective in 2000's The Spreading Ground. This movie flat out sucks and I'm about to tell you why.<br /><br />This is about a small town which is about to get a contract for a sports arena. One hitch: there's a killer on the loose and that is bad for business. The Mayor makes a deal with the Irish Mob to find the killer and make sure he never makes it to court. Det. Ed Delongpre has other plans. He wants this guy caught too, but he's on the level and believes in the system. He wants to see the system do it's job.<br /><br />That could have been pretty good. It could have been riveting. It was horrible. First, they label this guy a Serial Killer. Err no. There are specific criteria and none of it fits here. The bad guy has killed 5 kids the first day, and I think it was 2 the second day. This entire movie spans like a 48 hour time period.... Hardly Serial Killer action. I don't care what warped motives they give him in the end, Serial Killers do their deed over a long time span. They do not just all of a sudden kill 7 kids in two days. That's a Spree.<br /><br />Ok that irritant aside, the acting was atrocious. The only name here was Hopper, and he's the only one who came even close to pulling off his part. Unfortunately, he's kinda type-cast to me and I think he does psycho parts much, much better. This just wasn't a good vehicle for Hopper. It didn't allow him to do what he does best, which is to act all creepy. It's not that he did bad, it's that I've seen him do so much better.<br /><br />The Irish Mob guy, Johnny Gault (Tom McCamus - Long Day's Journey Into Night), who is in charge of their investigation is just over the top stiff. Contradiction? Not really. He is trying to play the cold, hard kinda guy and he does that to the point that the character is just wooden. Boring to the max. He didn't scare me. He didn't inspire any emotion at all except boredom. I cannot tell you how many times I checked to see how much longer it was til the end of this movie.<br /><br />The other thing about this is that it had the feel of a made-for-TV movie. You know what I mean. The poor production values, low budget, re-use of scenes to save costs. Just eh. Yanno? But, I feel like comparing this to those is an insult to those.<br /><br />Derek Vanlint was both the Director and Cinematographer on this project. He bit off more than he could chew. I can't help feeling that Hopper must have took this role as a personal favor to a friend. That's the only rational I can come up with. This was Vanlint's first job as Director, third as cinematographer. Hopefully this was a learning experience for him.<br /><br />I won't ruin the ending in case you do decide to torture yourself with this one, but I do want to say that they all dropped the ball here...even Hopper. In a scene that should have been emotionally gut-wrenching for the detective, it was just..well.. blah. I didn't see any of the angst at all that would accompany the total gear-change this guy made. Very disappointing.<br /><br />This 100 grueling minutes long and Rated R for violence and language. No kid under 13 is going to have any interest whatsoever in watching this, so no worries there. It's not suitable for anyone anyway. heh.<br /><br />Skip this one. You'll thank me later.
The plot is about the death of little children. Hopper is the one who has to investigate the killings. During the movie it appears that he has some troubles with his daughter. In the end the serial killer get caught. That's it. But before you find out who dunnit, you have to see some terrible acting by all of the actors. It is unbelievable how bad these actors are, including Hopper. I could go on like this but that to much of a waste of my time. Just don't watch the movie. I've warned you.
the lowest score possible is one star? that's a shame. really, i'm going to lobby IMDb for a "zero stars" option. to give this film even a single star is giving WAY too much. am i the only one who noticed the microphones dangling over hopper's head at the station? and the acting, or should i say the lack thereof? apparently talent wasn't a factor when the casting director came to town. my little sister's elementary school talent show provides greater range and depth of emotion. and those fake irish accents were like nails on a chalk board. the only thing that could have made this movie worse would have been...oh, wait, no,no, it's already as bad as it can get.
The thing that stands out in my mind in this film (sadly) is the introduction, where John Berlin (Andy Garcia) is driving into town. You see his Mercedes pass on a winding road through a forest that looks like its loaded with Redwood trees. It's quite beautiful. <br /><br />As to Andy Garcia playing a character with the last name of Berlin, well...Andy is just too hispanic/Latin for it to be passable. Maybe a caucasian father married his Spanish mother for this story? Who knows. But I can tell you that when you put him in a town of farm folks and hicks, he stands out like a sore thumb, especially with his accent that flares up when he gets angry. Yeah, I know, big deal right? He's still a good actor.<br /><br />The title concerns a serial killer who nicknames his victims Jennifer. All of the victims are blind and he dismembers them. The killer has taken a hiatus but suddenly resurfaces when a blind witness (don't ask) appears, Helena Robertson (Uma Thurman). Thurman does a good job of playing a blind person, to my surprise. When I saw Lance Henriksen playing Sgt. Freddy Ross I got worried. Henriksen's played in some pretty strange films, especially of late. I still can't forget him in the bloodbath movie, Pumpkinhead. <br /><br />Berlin movies into a small town from L.A. as a detective. He begins investigating the Jennifer murders after finding body parts in the local landfill. His brilliance in discovering one of the victims was blind seemed far-fetched. So did the irony of *SPOILER* Freddy's murder, with the recording and name similarities. I got very confused as to the logic of how there came to be eight "Jennifers". And the motive of the killer as simply deranged didn't pack much of a punch. In retrospect, this film is probably more true to life in showing an unsuspecting individual as capable of murder simply because they became a little wacko over time or maybe were born looney toons.<br /><br />John Malkovich does a stupendous job in his interrogation of Garcia! Albeit no cop would legally be allowed to press someone that hard and egg them on without rightfully get knocked out. As to the ending, it is a bit of a surprise, but is highly arguable, much like Sgt. Ross' murder. The killer chooses to walk after his running victim, opting instead to frolick I guess.<br /><br />And there are so many opportunities he has in killing her that it's ridiculous. I won't ruin the very end because despite it's shakiness, it's a good surprise. Afterward though, you'll probably say, as I did, "boy was she lucky!" 4/10
This is a thriller with a good concept, good acting, good photography and good intentions all around, but which is confused and disjointed in execution.<br /><br />Garcia stars as John Berlin, an L.A. forensic detective who has moved to a small California town at the behest of a friend of his on the force there. He soon becomes involved in the investigation of an unsolved murder which leads to his theorizing about the existence of a serial killer whom no one else believes in. The known victim is theorized to be blind, which leads to a romance with a blind girl - believed to be a witness - at a nearby school for the blind.<br /><br />Despite a basically intriguing story there were too many quantum leaps and plot holes in this movie where I found myself wondering, 'how the hell did we wind up here?' or 'how did we find this out?' I found it confusing and disjointed, despite the good acting, etc. John Malkovich has a small part toward the end as an F.B.I. investigator out to get Berlin.<br /><br />Not recommended.
This one is bad. A really bad and boring crime movie that has nothing out of the ordinary in it. A series of crimes, the killer that you do not see throughout the whole movie, the classic investigations. And also the classic tale about a cop who figures out what's going on and isn't believed by anyone, so he has to fight by himself to reveal the truth. Not too much in this one. Vote: 4 out of 10.
Let me start out by saying I can enjoy just about any bad Italian horror movie or jungle exploitation flick from the 1970's. Seriously. This one was downright awful.<br /><br />There are way too many elements that Martino tries to inject and none of them work (except for the croc-gone-wild thing) very well at all. There are some ignorant Westerners, of course, who set up a resort in the jungle somewhere. I don't even remember where it takes place...how sad is that... Basically, people come to the resort to see this native tribe and its' ceremonies but eventually they upset the 'Alligator God' of the river who then proceeds to go on a rampage, killing said vacationers and some tribesmen as well. Sounds good, yeah? Well, don't get your hopes up. There is minimal violence until the end, the special effects are so bad it was like a kindergarten class performed them and the love story thrown in is laughable.<br /><br />There is seriously a few scenes where it appears they set up a camera underwater in a pool and threw a toy alligator, like a dart, into the water and that is supposed to be the gator attacking. I'm not kidding. In another wonderfully crafted special effect, a Matchbox van is targeted by the incredible sinking plastic gator, who all of a sudden is five times the size of a van. (A few minutes ago, he was only big enough to eat a human, but now he dwarfs a full-size cargo van...) It is really pathetic. The only other flick I can think of where the effects were so bad I was pulled out of the story was Bruno Mattei's masterpiece, "Rats," what with the plastic rats on the conveyor belt and all who COULDN'T be terrified.<br /><br />Normally I'd say anything Sergio Martino was a solid must-see but this one is a must-pass. Waste of time and definitely not worth buying for the $15+ sticker price from No Shame. This one is a SHAME.<br /><br />2 out of 10, kids.
First off I want to say that this film is worthy of more than the four stars I rated it. I gave it four stars because for me this 86 minute movie always seems like 2 and a half hours and is not engaging enough to sit through it all. However, "The Big Alligator River" (the title my DVD calls it) is better than your average nature strikes back movie.<br /><br />A tourist resort in the jungles of Southeast Asia is just opening and employs the natives while trying to manipulate the wildlife around. Mother Nature seeking revenge comes in the form of the god Kroona, a giant Alligator. But the creature isn't the only thing the tourists and the main characters (a photographer and the resort staff) have to worry about, the natives are getting rubbed the wrong way too.<br /><br />This movie is a pretty well-done adventure/horror story with a good musical score and direction. But the alligator itself, the main attraction of the movie, is obviously fake looking. Some of the close-ups of its jaws are good but that should be all we need to see. Some of the underwater far-away shots make it painfully obvious that what we are really dealing with is an alligator squeaky-toy you can probably get at a zoo souvenir shop. But the natives are believable, if not authentic.<br /><br />Probably not the movie that will give you non-stop thrills, if any, but shot and produced well enough to be given good mention. And like a lot of creature movies, this one ends with an extremely high body count. It also has lots of good jungle scenery. Acting is below par though, but who was expecting it to be better, eh? <br /><br />Much, much better than its recent American counterpart "Primeival" but nothing to be compared with "Jaws". But remember it may not be engaging at a few points.
I really do fail to see the actual surplus value of this movie. It's not bad enough to be hilarious. There's no sleaze or gratuitous nudity (although there was plenty of opportunity). There's no gore. There's no suspense in the first hour of the movie 'cause there's way to much scenes of tourist having a party and natives playing funky tribal music. That last part was actually funny on many occasions: You see these natives hitting congas and 'jembés' and that's indeed what you hear (badly synchronized) on the soundtrack. But they also added this funky bass-line on the soundtrack. So, where was the bass-player? At one point the natives get angry and start killing the tourists. Why all of the sudden? It's supposed to be because the evil white men build this tourist complex, which according to their myth awakened the wrath of the river-alligator-god (I actually missed the explanation for that one). But the natives did help for several months to build the tourist complex, so why the sudden angriness? And how in the hell did they manage to push the helicopter in the water??? It's all silly and pointless. This movie also features the skinniest Afro-American model I've ever seen.<br /><br />At one point our heroic leading couple visits this cave where a weird, crazy old man lives. The only point to that scene is that they make the "shocking" discovery that the killer-crocodile is actually an alligator. Crocodile or alligator, what's the difference? It's big, it's made out of plastic and it eats people. All the same to me. The alligator is a rather silly creation. It's very stiff & motionless and doesn't even flap its feet when it swims. The eyes don't even move when they're shot in close-up. I guess they didn't know 'animatronics' back then in Italy during 1979. There's also a lot of pointless inter-cut shots of the local wildlife. I suspect it's stock footage.<br /><br />Like, I said, the first hour was pretty lame and the only reason I didn't switch off the movie was because my cat was asleep on my lap and I didn't want to wake the sweet thing. But the last half hour of the movie did get better. We finally get to see some action when the alligator swims through a horde of panicking people snapping its teeth and munching on them. The most entertaining (and at the same time funny) scene is when Alice and Daniel drive a van over a bridge and it collapses. We're looking at a matchbox-version of the van falling in the river here. Funny. But nicely shot. In fact there are several other nice traveling camera-moves. Surprisingly for this type of flick. I was gonna point out some stupid details concerning the end of the movie, but I don't wanna spoil it completely, in case you do decide to watch this movie. My advice is to stay away from it. If you wanna see a decent alligator movie, then see Lewis Teague's ALLIGATOR. I admit, that one isn't Italian and isn't a JAWS rip-off, but it certainly is more fun. And if you're interested in other movies made by director Sergio Martino, then I strongly recommend the highly entertaining 2019: AFTER THE FALL OF NEW YORK. That one's an over-the-top rip-off of every possible existing post-apocalyptic-future-of-doom-movie. "Italians" and "rip-offs", two words that go together very well.
OK - the Cons first: The obligatory '70's alligator (all right, correction - caiman) with nonmoving limbs is made the worse for scale miniature underwater shots (with the full length of reptile comparative to the size of the boat) utilizing a toy alligator being swirled around the toy boat in broadly lit water - even for nighttime shots!<br /><br />Unlike most primitives-killing-exploitative-Westerners films, the superstitious natives going bat**** and start massacring the vacationers seems unjustified this time. No one really abused the natives - exploited, yes, but far from abusive treatment. After all it was one of the natives (canoodling with a spoiled supermodel during a taboo full moon) that brought the curse of the River Demon on them, right?<br /><br />The vacationers are easily annoying (with the notable exception of the token old-soul/mildly blasphemous-little-girl-who-takes-a-shine-to-the-heroes that you often see in 70's Euroflicks), but far from from deserving violent death - unless they were your next door neighbors, mind you. A couple actually get killed being heroic - notable in that none of them fill the role of sidekick. There are only two straight villains in the entire film, so the demises feel more arbitrary than cathartic.<br /><br />The sequence where the giant caiman crunches down and scarfs thirty tourists in under five minutes will probably strike you as unintentionally hilarious.<br /><br />The point at which the natives decide not to wipe the surviving Westerners and practically saying "hey, you aren't so bad after all, sorry about that fuss last night" - because they blew up the monster lizard - has you shaking your head as the corny music kicks in. You know, the local military dictatorship will wipe out the village for ****ing with the tourist trade after the credits roll...<br /><br />The Pros: Barbara Bach. Barbara Bach. Barbara Bach. Barbara Bach. You ALL know WHY you're interested in this film in the first place, right? I thought so. If you're a Bach completist, get the DVD reissued by NoShame films earlier this year (digitally remastered with no real extras to speak of, aside from the director bemoaning the current state of international film distribution).<br /><br />The hero isn't half bad, being far from an idiot (always a plus in B films) and the cynical little kid provides most of the comic relief.<br /><br />Worth a look, but get it cheaply!
Very bad film. Very, very, very bad film. It's a rarity, but it defenitly is not worth hunting down. This Italian Jaws rip-off makes little sense most of the time, and no sense the rest. The "alligator" is not at all convincing, and many of the sub-plots go nowhere. If it's at the local video store, you may want to watch it if you're a fan of monster movies, but it's not worth hunting down.
Not to be confused with Lewis Teague's "Alligator" (1980) which actually IS an excellent film, this "Il Fiume Del Grande Caimano" laboriously ends the exotic trilogy Sergio Martino made around the end of the seventies (including the rather watchable "L'Isola degli uomini pesce" and the not so good "La Montagna del dio cannibale"). Tracing outrageously the plot of "Jaws", the script fails at creating any suspense what so ever. The creature is ludicrous and its victims are simply despicable. Stelvio Cipriani's lame tune poorly illustrates the adventures of these silly tourists presented from the very beginning as the obvious items of the reptile's meal. No thrill out of this, rather laughters actually! And we could find this pitiful flick quite funny if the dialogs and the appearance of the natives were not so obviously inspired by pure racism. Very soon the giggling stops in favor of a sour feeling witnessing such a patronizing attitude. We could excuse badly made films and poor FXs, but not that kind of mentality. Never!
I'm sorry but this is just plain pathetic. The little girl was a brat, their were no enjoyable characters and the plot sucked. Besides it wasn't even a gator as the film would like us to believe. If you check out any complete guide to reptiles you will find that it really is a Crocodile, not a gator. Obviously they didn't hire a real animal expert or they would know that the creature is a croc. It is a sad excuse for a movie. Especially the ending. I nearly fell asleep with this one.
Put aside a Dr. House repeat that I had missed, and a Desperate Housewives (new) to watch this one. I don't know exactly what plagued this movie. I never thought I'd say this, but I want my 15 minutes of fame back.<br /><br />Script, Direction, I can't say. I recognized the stable of actors (the usual suspects), but thought Herbert Marshall was a class addition and sat myself down for a good cheesy flick. Boy, was I wrong. Dullsville.<br /><br />My favorite parts: where the "office girl" makes with the 029 keypunch and puts the cards into a 087 sorter. LOL @ "the computer". I'd like someone identify the next device - a 477 ? It's before even this dinosaur's time.<br /><br />And we dinosaurs don't have that much time to waste.
Well here I go with another B industry movie. It's sad enough to see some badly made films but I don't care if a B industry or C industry produces the film. Show some effort in your work. The characters are really bad. The acting isn't in question in this one (surprise), but plot is. How can a tight-knit squad witness two of their fellow soldiers butchered, and then go on as if nothing happened. What sickened me was how the writer even threw in the remaining members a scene where they joke about how nice the doctor's ass was. Give me a break.
The third installment of the "Carnosaur" trilogy features a bunch of Keystone Kops-quality military commandos trying to kill two Velociraptors and a T-Rex. I give it a 4 out of sheer sympathy and my affinity for dinosaurs. The movie is definitely the worst of the trilogy, it really can't be taken seriously. More significantly, however, watching this movie I can't help but notice some interesting parallels between the "Carnosaur" and "Xtro" trilogies. The first installment in both franchises is a dark, disturbing film that has become a cult classic, the second is an "Alien" ripoff, and the third is a tongue-in-cheek, almost slapstick (whether intentional or not) movie that has you rolling on the floor laughing. Also, like the "Xtro" franchise, all the "Carnosaur" movies are completely unrelated to one another. They they only carry the franchise name to drum up interest in the "sequels," I guess. Obviously "Carnosaur" and "Xtro" have two different production groups at work here, but if you've seen all three movies of both franchises you find yourself referring back and forth between the two.
This is one of the most hilariously bad movies I have ever had the privilege to see.<br /><br />I watched this on DVD with a bunch of friends one Friday night and we just couldn't stop laughing from start to finish.<br /><br />The story is simple enough: terrorists hijack a convoy they think is carrying weapons grade uranium, but it's actually carrying a bunch of man-eating dinosaurs. Easy mistake to make. Cue a startlingly incompetent team of Army Special Forces to tackle the prehistoric beasts. They are led by Colonel Rance, played by Scott Valentine; a man who seems to have perfected 'Smell the fart' acting, as advocated by Joey in Friends.<br /><br />There's plenty of gore and an awful lot of shooting, but unfortunately Rance's team seem to have a problem aiming their weapons in the general direction of a horde of giant, lumbering monsters. Also, the lights always seem to flicker and go out whenever a Velociraptor attacks (preumably so we can't see how bad the creature effects are).<br /><br />Having said all that, we all had a great deal of fun betting on who was going to get their head bitten off next.<br /><br />As a Jusassic Park / Aliens style action adventure this movie stinks worse than a dinosaur's crotch, but as ludicrous, tongue-in-cheek entertainment it's a roaring success.
I don't know where to start; the acting, the special effects and the writing are all about as bad as you can possibly imagine. I can't believe that the production staff reached a point where they said, "Our job is done, time for it's release". I'm just glad the first two in the series never made it as far as the UK. I would actually recommend watching this film just so you can appreciate how well made most films are.<br /><br />I don't know how any of the other IMDb users could find it scary when the "terrifying" dinosaurs waddle down corridors with rubber arms flailing around.
Primal Species comes from B Movie legend Roger Corman and as such everybody who watches this needs to realise that this is a Low Budget B Movie and it knows it.<br /><br />A bunch of terrorists high-jack a Lorry and kill an entire army doing so, they believe it to hold uranium, but No..... It contains two Dino's with a taste for Human Flesh... Then a Crack team, who might as well be called Delta Force get called in.<br /><br />OK, This ain't Jurassic Park, and Yes The Dino's are never clearly seen because it's obviously a guy in a Costume that's not too dissimilar to Barney the Dinosaur - only slightly LESS terrifying,but come on guys this had about 1% of Jurassic Park's Budget and as such does what it can.<br /><br />Does this deserve to be in the bottom 100?....HELL NO!!! I think the nearly half of voters who give this a 1 - are being WAY WAY overly harsh, it's much closer to a 4... it's actually a lot better than a whole host of other movies not in the Bottom 100, and has a similar production value to a Sci-Fi Channel Production. (again Movies which get a overly harsh time from critics here on IMDb)<br /><br />The acting is as expected in a B Movie although none of the actors take it that seriously, neither does the script<br /><br />All in All it's an enjoyable B Movie - Not for Film Snobs<br /><br />** out of *****
I just couldn't stop laughing!! This movie is incredibly funny and stupid! But, never mind that, it is very entertaining! In this film, you don't need to pay attention to anything! The acting is the same - LAME! The dinosaurs are the same - RUBBER (Oh, my I could see the stick that holds T-Rex head for a moment.) The raptors are the same from the Carnosaur 2, T-Rex is also the same, but... in some scenes his head looks kinda stuffed and it looks like some kind of project failure from kindergarten. Action is fast, sometimes too fast, actually I talk about fast editing, they edited it so fast, so that we cannot see the rubber dinosaurs, but OOPPS! to late, they are rubber! Well, only things interesting here is to see Rick Dean in this sequel.<br /><br />What can I say... don't rent it... watch it on TV, with friends, it is much more entertaining!
Everything in this film is bad , the story , the acting , the effects but its funny , funny , funny !!!Scott Valentine with the army uniform thats ten sizes too big is so bad with the permanent attempt at a scowl on his face as the leader of a special ops group its hilarious ! The ''terrorists'' are as scary and realistic as the ''raptors'' , this is so phoney and bad at everything it tries you have to laugh .The part where the giant T-REX who somehow snuck on board a ship and then somehow got below is blown up and you see the metal pole sticking up where its head was is the perfect ending .If your into bad films , this is the pot of gold , the mona lisa of b-b-bad !!!
OK I had higher hopes for this Carnosaur movie simply because it seemed like the sequels were getting better as they came out. I did like Carnosaur 2 better than 1. I figured well this one is newer so it must be better right? Well... I quickly learned I was wrong. I was extremely confused with the casting. They brought back Rick Dean for another spotlight character and Michael MacDonald as a police officer. Now for Rick dean lol, in Carnosaur 2 I thought he fit the role pretty well and wasn't really annoyed by him, now in Carnosaur 3 wow they placed him as an elite soldier. Now we are getting goofy here. The movie actually started out pretty good with a decent gun fight and dinos escaping out of there little freezer trucks, but as soon as Scott Valentines team showed up we had a mix of a romantic comedy with very funny performances from retarded and floppy dinosaurs.<br /><br />I'll start with the raptors first, they had there tails drag the ground, which in the second one they were up in the air which looked more common for a dinosaur that can run up to 50-60 mph. Now when they ran they wiggled back and forth and the heads didn't move at all. there hands were floppy all over the place and since they were extremely poorly shot by the director they looked stupid and out of place.<br /><br />The t-rex was extremely pathetic, they would of been better off using the one from the previous 2 movies. At least that one looked somewhat frightening. The one in this film looked like it was smiling all the time. The legs when it walked was hilarious, like it was john wayne in the old west all stiff legged and stuff. LOL another thing I noticed is that the hands did not move, they were stuck next to its body so it looked and sounded (god the sound effects were awful) retarded!!! Now if I was the director and realized that I had this to work with maybe I would of maybe tried a little bit harder to hide the fakeness fact. As for the rest of the movie, well this was the sloppiest and loudest military team I have ever seen. The weapons they used wouldn't make sense for the scenario. They even had an arm wrestling scene inside the warehouse where the carnosaurs were roaming, now I was tickled at this scene because I thought that while this stupidity was going on that the Dinos would get in there and cause some damage. Instead the director wasted about 7 minutes of our time. I would like to look at this movie as the 3 stooges of dinosaur movies. You have retarded military, retarded dinosaurs, retarded scenario and you have a wonderful 83 minutes to spend of your day watching this.<br /><br />Now I'm not saying I wouldn't watch this, bc actually i do recommend everyone see this movie that wants 83 minutes of pure entertainment. It may seem like I'm ranting but really I'm hyping this movie up to what it is. Its really a lot of fun to watch because while watching this you think to yourself, "did the director really make this seriously?"
OK..... This is the third in the series of carnosaur. Lets star with the dinosaur puppets! In the start of the film you cant See the Dino's cause when the body count starts you can only See the Dino's eye vision, pretty smart to hide the bad puppets! and maybe in 16 minutes forward on the film some special force team with Scott Valentine as the leader Rance, the team walks into the warehouse and then they begins to find body parts and dead body's after the Dino rampage, after a while some big box comes failing on the team and you can hear a velociraptor scream, pretty creepy!!! and then a black girl walks forward and now one blooper is found! It pops up a raptor hand and slashed her face but if you pause when the raptor hand comes you can See that its just a guy with a hand puppet!? WTF! The story is simple. 1. Some terrorist's attacks some truck cause they though It wash some weapons in there. 2. They where dead wrong it seams to be ten tons raptor and one giant t-Rex in there! How did the t-Rex fit in there??? 3. Rance and some nerds will kill the dinosaurs! Sadly some stupid blond girl told him to capture one of them alive=( 4. Holy Jesues the raptors have wheels on their feats! 5. The Dino's is now on a boat in the pacific. 6: Strange i didn't know that the t-Rex had a strange thing on hes neck??? 7. THE END. The film is good if you want a good laugh. 5/10
I haven't seen the first two - only this one which is called Primal Species in England. I don't think I'll be bothering to look them out though.<br /><br />This is an awful film. Terrible acting, bad dialogue, cheap rubber monsters. Everything about it is so nasty. The most sympathetic characters die really quickly and leave you with the annoying ones, especially one called Polchak, who is an incredible jerk. No-one like that would survive 5 minutes in the army. He lasted for ages but I was pleased when he finally got his head got chewed off - I was having nightmares he was going to survive. The Colonel was rubbish too - all moody pouts and clueless shouting. And the specky Doctor looked and acted like she was out of a porno. I was waiting for her to take her glasses off, shake her hair and turn into a vamp, but she didn't. Pity that, as it would've livened the film up no end.<br /><br />Didn't Roger Corman used to make half decent films once?
Arg. The shuffling dinosaurs are back to take another bite out of our sanity in this all-awful third film. This time, European terrorists(Irish I'd say) hi-jack an army convoy supposed to be transporting uranium. They pull into a shipyard, open the truck and discover our old friends the carnosaurs. Pandemonium comes visiting then when the rubber dinos chomp the terrorists, the cops and some marines. The whole film seems to be (again) largely inspired from Alien(as Carnosaur 2 was) with the pathetic marines going through the "claustrophobic" shipyard? guns at the ready. This third opus is probably the driest and ungoriest film of the lot, with only one spurt of blood when a rubber dino rips a marine's head off. The dinos are stiff, shuffling creatures as usual and the T-Rex sounds like an enraged elephant when it roars(it also appears to have no eyes). One of the goofiest scenes of the film is when the coppers arrive on the scene: they enter the building where the hijacked truck is kept and hear some weird noise coming from another truck. On opening it, surprise! The Rubber Reptile Gang burst out and devour them. Why were the dinos locked up in the second truck after escaping from the first? How did they get locked in as the truck door could only be locked from the outside? What was the point of filming this scene???? Oh bother, who cares? Both thumbs down for the Over-sized Rubber Iguanas.
Like all Carnosaur movies, this is a joke. The way the dinosaurs move, reminds me of when my sister plays with her dolls, because they cannot be any stiffer or more fake-looking than they were.<br /><br />The plot had no sense whatsoever. I mean, first they're on a bus, then in a warehouse then, all of a sudden, they're on a boat. And let's be serious, does it make sense that a couple of dinosaurs can stay together on a van, or on a ship? I thought dinosaurs were the biggest animals, and now they can fit on a moving van. It sounds stupid even when you think about it.<br /><br />The only reason for which I gave this a 3, is because it's still entertaining. I found it better than the first one (haven't watched the second yet). Just, don't rent it. I saw it on TV and it's a good thing I did because I wouldn't have wanted to waste money renting it.
This is one of the funniest movies i've ever seen. I rented it as a joke, expecting to get a giggle out of the first few scenes, and let me just say I've never laughed so hard in my life. The first scene where ninjas randomly pop out of the air and start a huge and ridiculous fire fight is one of the most incredibly funny stupid action movie moments of my life. This is not a dinosaur movie, but more a movie that makes fun (and doesn't mean to at all) of the action genre. I didn't see the first two, but judging by the complexity of the plot, I don't think there's to much I missed. If you wanna see a movie that goes great with a six pack or any herbal remedy, than I insist you rent this movie and sit back and watch a 100 years of advancement in cinema get thrown in the trash and get shat on by carnosours
If this is your first time experiencing the wonders of cinema, if you've never seen a "Moving Picture" before, you'll think this movie is a child of the gods. BUT if you've seen a movie, a TV show, even Barney the Dinosaur, then you won't be very impressed by this film. Heck Barney the dinosaur was even more realistic than the dinos in this flick.<br /><br />Now I like B movies. I just watched "The Giant Gila Monster" right before I watched this swill, and I liked that movie much better. It works as a B movie. It has lamer dialog,hokier acting, cheesier effects and an honest to gosh real Gila Monster as the monster! Carno 3 just doesn't pack much of a B movie punch. It has some gore, and that Polchek guy comes close to being funny a few times but this movie is underwhelming, almost....flaccid. It's the Little Engine That Couldn't of Dinosaur movies. I'm not saying you shouldn't watch the movie. <br /><br />Some people can watch gum drying on a sidewalk and feel entertained. If you're one of those people, then give this movie a shot.
This movie is the worst movie i have ever seen... it is humorous how bad it is.. the entire time i was watching it i half expected music to start and the doctor starts dancing..(i've seen porno's with a better plot) When the raptor was trying to get in the door i think someone was throwing a plastic doll against the door from about 2 feet away. But as i said it is so bad you need to watch it so that you can see just how bad it is me explaining it isn't going to do anything compared to if you watch it .. i don't recommend renting it but if it comes on TV watch it for about 30min just to see what i mean. I couldn't watch more than 30min but if you can sit through the whole thing then you have some good willpower
In general I like dinosaur movies but this one is pure crap. No script, no dialogues, no acting. And the brave colonel Rance trying to show he is tough and so curving his mouth resembles as a twin brother the stupid Proctor from the Police Academy. So this was a complete waste of time (fortunately not waste of money as I saw the film on TV). And I really cannot understand 7 people who graded this sh*t 10. They must've joked. My advice, if you see this title run from it!
Some people might consider this movie a piece of artwork - to be able to express your imagination on film in order to create a movie filled with antagonizing pain and death.. I personally think that this movie is a disgust, which should have never been released. This movie is repulsive, illogical and meaningless. Not only is it a complete waste of time but it makes you sick for days to come. The appalling images shown in the film not only make you grasp for air but they set in your mind and it takes days to forget them. Such a shame that people waste their imagination on such inhumane suffering.. "Kill Bill" would be another example but at least "Kill Bill" has its purpose, meaning, climax and resolution..
I wasn't really fond of the first "Cube" movie. It was a good idea, but the annoying acting and characters always kept me from liking it too much. Didn't really feel the need to see its sequel but when I heard they were making a third movie that would act as more of a prequel to the original. I was intrigued, thinking that maybe they would fix some of the original's problems and provide us with a memorable cast of characters. Well I thought wrong.<br /><br />"Cube Zero" starts well enough by introducing us with the two characters in charge of watching and maintaining the never-ending maze of traps that plagues the people in the Cube. The filmmakers succeed in providing a sense of mystery with the establishment of the two men's daily routine. Several questions are created from it, concerning the reason why people are send there and also the true nature of the ones who run the entire operation. All of which are left entirely to the viewer. The acting was a bit weak but all in all the movie's first half moved relatively well.<br /><br />With the story moving on, one of the two "watchers" begins to develop serious doubts about what he is doing. And later decides to go and help a group of the people trapped. Here is where everything rapidly starts to dissolve into dull cheese.<br /><br />Sent by the people who run the Cube program we are introduced to the character "Jax". Along with his two underlings play a major reason as to why this movie is failure. To start of "Jax" looks and talks more like a third rate villain taken directly from a James Bond movie complete with the ever "popular" glass eye, that alone ruins any atmosphere created by the first half's relatively nice pace. Whats more is that it begins to feel more like a comedy rather than a serious movie. With some incredibly corny lines, perhaps the screenwriter got bored and didn't care. The acting itself degrades to a further low when the former "watcher" meets the group in the Cube. The entire interaction is painful to watch as is everything else following it.<br /><br />Again failing to impress on anything but weak characters, dialog and acting "Cube Zero" is a waste of time for those searching for a good horror movie.
Incredible. Does it get any dumber than this? Not a chance. The stupidity in this movie would shame even Ed Wood, De Palma, and Woo. If the first part in the series had mediocre dialog and the second one had bad dialog, then this one has cretinous dialog. Amazing. But this time the story has been lowered to the level of the dialog, too. In spite of the acting and the dialog, I liked the first two films, but "Cube Zero" will surely kill the franchise. The utterly moronic plot so obviously stems from the pen of a frustrated left-winger.<br /><br />I sometimes wonder if such leftists even themselves realize just how anti-democracy and pro-dictatorship they are. In this movie they obviously target the US – a democracy. Why don't they target Korea, Iran, Syria, China, Zimbabwe etc. in anti-military movies? Sure, most of these places are hardly likely to produce a cube like this any time soon, but that's beside the point. It's obvious: writers of garbage like this actually admire these kinds of regimes, whether they are aware of it or not. I would even go as far as to say that ANYONE who adamantly attacks US foreign policies all the time, has anti-democratic beliefs in his core.<br /><br />Back to the movie: apart from being so far-fetched that it isn't even funny any more, the film has many obvious illogicalities. For example, for some reason the two men who supervise the cube have done it for a while and are oblivious to the pain and sadism that the project entails, yet the first one than the other suddenly turn against the system! Anyone who has any idea at all about human nature will see right through this idiocy. Or how about that cretinous character, the one-eyed evil bureaucrat who talks as if he's in a bad Mel Brooks comedy. In fact, as soon as this creature appears the movie loses ALL seriousness and hence any chance of being exciting: it really does become a comedy.
Pretty disappointing prequel to the first two films, it's got none of the suspense of the first nor the interest of the second. By concentrating on the guys who 'run' the cube, it basically takes away any of the sense of tension inside the cube, as we simply don't care about the characters inside. Much of the film is simply boring, and it only becomes truly terrible with the introduction of the glass-eyed superior and the green-eyed crazy marine. After that, though, it just descends into over-the-top unintentional hilarity. The ending is fitting though, tying it back into the first one in an indirect way. The script is terrible, the acting mediocre at best, and the direction unimpressive. A much lesser follow-up.
As far as the movie goes, it's an OK science fiction movie. It has a lot of cool stuff in it, and some quality scenes. That said, it's not that good, and some of the stuff is pretty far fetched...<br /><br />As for calling this another cube-movie is utter and complete bullsh!t. This is the very definition of milking a great and inventive original movie... The whole feel to it can be somewhat translated into the core of the first, but the introduction of people/androids as part of the "team" behind the cube itself is somewhat a stretch...<br /><br />I gave this a 3*** because of the backstabbing of the original. This one should have been kept sterile in so many parts of the movie that there is no place or time to mention them all...<br /><br />Watchable for those who have not seen Cube & Hypercube, but not recommendable for fans of the series...
I had high hopes for this movie, because I enjoyed the book so much. However, I don't think I would have understood the premise of the movie if I hadn't already read the book. The movie is a noble attempt to show the despair of people trying to break the bonds of overpowering government rule, but the book portrays the suffering much more thoroughly. The corrupt government officials have comfortable, almost luxurious lives, while the common people struggle to obtain the bare necessities for survival. Perhaps most people feel this way toward their leaders and rulers regardless of whether or not they are actually oppressed or repressed. Orwell's dystopia seems as if it could exist in many places in our modern world. It has been several years since I've read the book, but one hears references to Big Brother, the Thought Police, and Newspeak frequently in the media and casual conversation. Probably many people using these terms don't realize where the terms came from. I strongly recommend that you read the book.
I saw this movie literally directly after finishing the book, and maybe that was a neutral idea or a very stupid one. I think it was the latter. First of all, it was inaccurate in many small, yet important details. One of the first things I noticed was, during Winston's day to day life in his work, his conversations, eating in the cafeteria, etc. he feels free to look unhappy and make suggestive glances at people without immense fear. One of the most important parts of the book, was that even in small activities it was virtually impossible to safely show even a hint of his true emotions on his face AT ANY MOMENT. This is also shown in the scenes on the streets of the proletarions. In the book Winston knew that this was a huge risk to wander around there and was skeptical and frightened at every trip. While in the movie, he does it so often and without fear, that you lose the important feeling of heavy surveillance and risk right off the bat.<br /><br />Other minor inaccuracies included Winston hiding his diary in the wall, yes a very small change, but it begs the question, what's the point? There was also the most annoying thing a director can do with a book, and that is morphing characters.<br /><br /> The large inaccuracies were far more disturbing, however. First of all, one of the important pieces of the book is that Big Brother is a government based on an intelligent, yet crude philosophy. In the movie, they skip that and go straight to making you think that the government is run by Hitler with technology. Which is true, in a sense, when directed with its facism, but if that's all you get out of Big Brother, you really missed the point of the book. The terrifying thing about Big Brother is that, in a way, it has some points behind its philosophy. When O'Brien is picking at Winstons mind in the Ministry of Love, he is LISTENING to everything Winston says against Big Brother. The fact that he listens, and advances forward in his philosophy, is in effect what is most creepy and intriguing. In the end, (careful SPOILER ahead) when Winston says he loves Big Brother, the terrifying thing is that you are not sure whether it was souly the beating and torture that caused this, or the actual power behind the philosophy. I am in no way saying that the Big Brother's philosophy has points that appeal to me, but its intelligence and depth is what makes this book incredibly disturbing.<br /><br /> Also, how could anyone feel any connection between Julia and Winston in the film? It was awful, no connection whatsoever.<br /><br /> And where was O'Brien before he gave Winston his address? One of the things that carried the book was Winstons thoughts about O'Brien BEFORE he made contact with him. In the movie, they just jump the gun.<br /><br /> But that about sums up why this movie was a terrible adaption: because its impossible NOT to jump the gun and morph characters in less than two hours. How could anyone think this movie was watchable if it was under two hours? At the very least, the movie demands 3 hours to be able to capture some of the important moods and connections. Anything less is just pointless.<br /><br />If you loved the book, and I mean TRULY adored it, you will not approve of this movie, and chances are, you already knew you wouldn't. Because the book is unfilmable, and this movie just proves how impossible it is cram something decent into a small reel of film.<br /><br />Two stars out of ten
After hearing about George Orwell's prophetic masterpiece for all of my life, I'm now 37, but never having read the book, I am totally confused as to what I've just seen.<br /><br />I am very familiar with the concepts covered in the novel, as i'm sure most are, but only through hearsay and quotes. Without this limited knowledge this film would have been a complete mystery, and even with it I'm still no more educated about the story of 1984 than I was before I watched it.<br /><br />On the plus side...<br /><br />The cinematography is amazing, Hurt & Burton deliver fine performances and the overall feel of the movie is wonderfully grim and desolate. The prostitute scene was a fantastically dark piece of film making.<br /><br />Now for the down sides, and there are plenty...<br /><br />There is a war going on, (at least as far as the propaganda is concerned), but why & with who? Nothing is explained. There are a couple of names bandied about (Eurasia etc), but they mean nothing without explanation.<br /><br />Who is Winston? what does he do? where does he come from? where does he work? why is he changing news reports? why isn't he on the front line? Why doesn't he eat the food in the canteen? What is that drink he's drinking through the entire film? Why is he so weak & ill? Why isn't he brainwashed like the rest of them? What's the deal with his mother & sister? What happened to his father? A little back story would have been nice, no scrub that, essential for those like myself that haven't read the book. Without it, this is just a confusing and hard to follow art-house movie that constantly keeps you guessing at what is actually going on.<br /><br />The soundtrack was dis-jointed and badly edited and the constant chatter from the Big Brother screens swamps the dialogue in places making it even harder to work out whats going on. I accept that this may have been an artistic choice but it's very annoying all the same.<br /><br />Also, I know this has been mentioned before, but why all the nudity? It just seemed totally gratuitous and felt like it had been thrown in there to make up for the lack of any plot coverage.<br /><br />I personally can't abide the way Hollywood feels it has to explain story lines word for word these days. We are not all brainwashed simpletons, but this is a few steps too far the other way. I can only imagine that it totally relies on the fact that you've read the book because if this film really is the 'literal translation' that I've seen many people say, I would find it very hard to understand why 1984 is hailed as the classic it is.<br /><br />There's no denying that it was light years ahead of it's time and has pretty much predicted every change in our society to date, (maybe this has been a sort of bible to the powers that be?), but many sci-fi novelists have done the same without leaving gaping holes in the storyline.<br /><br />I guess I have to do what I should have done from the start and buy a copy of the book if i'm to make any sense out of this.<br /><br />All in all, very disappointed in something I've waited for years to watch.
I am a massive fan of the book and Orwell is certainly my favourite writer ever since studying Animal Farm at GCSE. I bought the DVD out of sheer curiosity, Burton is an actor I hold in high regard so when I heard that he played the role of O'Brien I was swung.<br /><br />I watched the trailer on the DVD first and some fears started to set in, mostly regarding the frankly terrible "Theme song", hearing the Eurythmics mechanically shouting "1984!" over and over again to an electronic beat is as bad as it sounds.<br /><br />The acting on a whole is pretty good, Burton and Hurt play their roles well and the tension that exists in the Ministry of Truth towards the end can be felt, especially in the harrowing Room 101 scene. However this is also where the movie is let down. The movie spends too much time focusing on the Love affair between Winston and Julia, which frankly isn't what Orwell was writing about. He was writing about a harrowing future, about how Ingsoc build up a mans beliefs and then shatter them all in the name of him being made to love Big Brother. The movie skips over what is essentially the most important part of the book, Winstons coming to terms with his position in life and the world, and his re-education via O'Brien.<br /><br />The comment on IMDb at the moment states that the movie sticks to the book is completely incorrect. Julia is not present when Winston visits O'Brien, they do not commit themselves to Goldstien's Brotherhood and confess their crimes. There is no obvious mention of the initial instances where Winston finds the article with the Unpersons but it does get mentioned near the end, if you have not read the book it is completely confusing.<br /><br />A terrible screenplay, which some excellent acting cannot rescue. Michael Radford seems to have completely missed the point Orwell was trying to make, and the electronica sound track is frankly terrible.
I have heard about this novel a long time ago, many of my friends have recommend me to read it. I searched it in every place and finally found it. This is a book that every man should read, because it is genius and because of it's vision. I enjoyed every page.<br /><br />I knew about the movie and could not wait to see it. When I finally did I was very disappointed, many things that are in the book are not in the movie (I do not think that this is a spoiler) that just makes the movie not logical... Michael Radford might be a good director, but a bad writer. Especially as a book adopter. The movie is not dark at all, the writing is really bad, the only thing that is good, even great, is the acting. John Hurt is an amazing actor and the only face I myself could see as Winston Smith.<br /><br />What angers me the most are the people in IMDb that called this "The Best Adaptation Ever" without even reading the book! Or knowing anything about screen writing!<br /><br />You can only understand the brilliance of the story by reading the book, do not consider this as an alternative. As a fan of the book, I was very disappointed.<br /><br />The points I gave for this movie goes for the acting.
A few weeks ago, I read the classic George Orwell novel, 1984. I was fascinated with it and thought it was one of the best books I've read recently. So when I rented the DVD, I was intrigued to see how this adaptation measured up. Unfortunately, the movie didn't even come close to creating the ambiance or developing the characters that Orwell so masterfully did in his book. The director seems to think that everyone watching the movie has read the book, because he makes no attempt to demonstrate WHY the characters act and feel the way they do. John Hurt, the main actor, is droll the entire way through, and hardly does any acting until the end. We never really find out what he does for a living, or why his love affair is forbidden, or what the political climate is and why the main character desires rebellion. This book cannot be done justice in movie form without proper narration and explanation of the political system oppressing the characters, and the fact that those are missing is the greatest shortcoming of this film. Besides that, John Hurt was a terrible casting choice, looking about 15 years older than the 39 year old Winston he was supposed to be portraying. On a more positive note, however, the rest of the cast was well chosen. It's just too bad they were put in such a horribly adapted film with the wrong lead actor. -Brian O.
'Ninteen Eighty-Four' is a film about a futuristic society in which the government controls everything and no one can be trusted. It is a very dark film, and it is one that will not make you feel good about yourself. It is about a romance taking place in this society and the betrayal of the lovers and about human nature being self-centred. The film has some very good ideas and is done well in portraying this society with the dark tones in colours (contrasting with happiness and bright colours in the dreams) and a general feeling of loneliness through objects and people and places. However, despite the film's cleverness at portraying this idea, the film was very slow and did not seem to quite get the idea across. It seemed to spend too much time being clever rather than telling a story.
The book is fantastic, this film is not. There is no reason this film could not have embraced a futuristic technological vision of the book. Hell, total recall was released a few years later and that did a good job of it, even a clockwork orange released in the 70s did a good job of trying to make a futuristic world. The bleak German expressionistic colours, the black and white footage from the vision screens, there is no reason for this approach for when the film was made in 1984. The main character is in a white collar writing job yet he dresses like he works with oil and grease in a garage. This film decides to take a mock-communistic approach to set design, atmosphere and theme, yet the novel did not necessarily dictate a communist, worship-the-humble-worker theme itself. This book seriously needs to be adapted in a modern context as this book is more relevant today than ever before. I could not watch more than 20 minutes of this crap. The soundtrack is annoying, the lack of foresight is annoying, this film seems to have been made to deny a sense of realism or believability when that is exactly what is required to hammer the novel's messages to the viewer.
I think that the shots and lighting were very poor. When I watched it for the first time I thought it was the old version(1956). When I really found out the true year of the film I was shocked. I didn't know that there could be such a bad film made so recently. Thats really all I wanted to say. This film had a good plot though, nothing you couldn't miss out on if you would simply read the novel that George Orwelll wrote. All I really want to say has already been said except for this: I can't believe that this film could have possibly received so many awards and nominations.I gave this film a One (awful), because I felt that it was very badly made. Well that is all. So long
I must admit, there are few books with corresponding movies that I have actually read before seeing the cinematic adaptation. Nineteen Eighty-Four happens to be one of those rare cases. The book was great. It was immersive and interestingly prophetic. But the movie just plain sucked. It is easily the worst film I have ever seen. The only reason I didn't turn it off after the first 5 minutes was the fact that watching the movie was half of a two-part assignment for a class. It was dark and grotesque, but did nothing in the way of achieving the proper atmosphere. The acting was nothing above average, and considering the fact that there wasn't much to act out, this was severely disappointing. The book, for example, didn't give me the impression that Winston was unable to blurt out more than a single syllable at a time. Boring, disturbing, and visually unappealing, the movie totally cannibalized the book. Wait a second...Isn't it British?
I saw this movie last year in Media class and I have to say I really hated it. I was in year 10 (and aged 15) so that may have has something to do with it. But for English this year, year 11, we had to read Animal Farm, also by George Orwell. Aside from the fact that the book is based on the Revolution, my opinion is that it is a terrible book, and I also hated it.<br /><br />But 1984, I think it was the most disturbing movie I have ever seen, and I think that George Orwell is one of the most deranged people ever to live on this planet. I'm sorry to everyone who loved his work, but I unfortunately did not. The themes in the movie were well portrayed, but the way the whole movie was set and the events that took place within it were not to my standards. This is only my opinion, and I'm sure many many other people thoroughly enjoyed this film.
John Wayne & Albert Dekker compete for oil rights on Indian territory, and for the attention of Martha Scott in this Republic Pictures film shot out of Utah, USA.<br /><br />An interesting Western of sorts due to its characters and its more modern setting, with Wayne & Dekker playing the old and new factions of the West. It's based on a story by Thomson Burtis who co-writes the script along with Eleanore Griffin and Ethel Hill. Albert Rogell directs in the workmanlike way that befits his career. A pretty mundane story is in truth saved by its final third, where thankfully the action picks up and we are treated to something resembling a pulse. The light hearted approach to the romantic strand doesn't sit quite right, and a glorious fist fight between the two protagonists is ruined by Rogell being unable to disguise the stunt men doing the work. But hey, stunt men deserve their moment of glory always. Solid support comes from George 'Gabby' Hayes and Wayne as usual has much screen charisma, particularly when rattling off his pistol. But in spite of its better than usual Republic budget, it remains a film of interest only to 1940s Wayne enthusiasts. 4/10
I bought a set of 4 DVDs for 10 bucks at my local Suncoast, which contained this movie and three other trashy horror flicks (including its sequel "Witchcraft XI"). So basically I paid the rock bottom price of $2.50 for this movie, if you do the math. I can't exactly say I was ripped off. I have a thing for trashy horror movies, but this is the kind of trash that gives trash a bad name. The budget couldn't be over $1,000 (though it appears as if they spent a total of $1.50). I know it's a low-budget film, but that's no excuse for totally uninspired camerawork. The film "Blood Cult," though not very good, was made for an extremely low budget and still had fairly good camerawork and acting. The acting in this movie is the definition of "effortless," especially from that muscular guy with the Texas accent. Everyone is pretty much reading their lines off the page. You can take that figuratively or literally. I wouldn't be surprised if the script was off-camera as they were performing. I said before that I've never seen a bad English actor. This movie has quite a few bad ones. And though English movies aren't always good, they always seem to have at least a level of sophistication, which is why I don't see why any Englishman, or Englishwoman, would volunteer to do a home-video-style schlock flick like this. Did Merchant Ivory put a hold on their casting calls? Usually, I think people are too hard on directors and actors. Even some of the worst movies in Hollywood have some level of professionalism in the directing, acting and cinematography departments. Even when you watch a movie like "Glitter" you can't honestly say it looks like a third-grader shot those scenes (though a third-grader could've written the script). I've seen home movies that are shot better than "Witchcraft X," and that's no exaggeration whatsoever. Even the gore is minimal since the filmmakers only had money to buy some fake blood on sale at Party City. Not a single effort was put into making this movie--let's just sum it up like that. You get the picture. There's a good deal of nudity, though that doesn't save it. However, I must say that girl with the red-orange hair, who's either naked or wearing a cleavage-popping outfit throughout the film, is really hot! <br /><br />My score: 1 (out of 10)
Ed Wood is eclipsed and becomes Orson Welles. This film is fantastic. Vampire witches who fight in terribly choreographed scenes and dialog that could have breaking ribs with laughter. Plan 9 From OUterSpace dons't stand a chance against this. Described by the writer and psychic Stephen Armourae on the Vampire Forum as a masterpiece- he's from England and thoroughly sarcastic.<br /><br />It has Stephanie Beaton and the producers know whats going to save them from bankcrupcy by repeatedly using her. Though she leaves me cold as she looks more like the undead than all the devil raisers. And Eileen Daly is just a lower rate Elvira. The whole thing is badly done.<br /><br />Watch it for the script though
"Mistress of the Craft" Celeste works as an agent for the London branch of Interpol's Bureau 17, which specializes in (I think) occult criminals. She possesses the Eye of Destiny, good in her hands, dangerous if anyone else got it.<br /><br />Bureau 17 has caught a Satanist from California, Hyde (no relation to Dr. Jekyll). Detective Lucy Lutz of LAPD flies to England to bring him back to the US. Lutz is the connection to the earlier Witchcraft movies, having been played by Stephanie Beaton before in Witchcraft 9. In part 7, Lutz was played by another woman; in 6, Lutz was a man!<br /><br />Lutz's part in 9 was not terribly big, but she's one of the main stars in this one. Though she's left behind her high heels and short skirts, she still has revealing tops in this one. And this time around she has nude and sex scenes. Beaton is pretty appealing in the role.<br /><br />As usual, there are a number of sex scenes. An anonymous clubgoer has a fatal threesome with two vampires, the Satanist and head vampire get it on with some kink, Lutz finds an English pal, and Celeste and her boyfriend make love.<br /><br />The main recurring character of the Witchcraft series, Will Spanner, does not appear in this one, although Lutz mentions him to Bureau 17 agent Dixon in a conversation about vampires. She also phones her partner Detective Garner (parts 6, 7, and 9), though we don't hear his end of the conversation.<br /><br />Hyde is sprung from jail by a group of vampires led by Raven, for a Walpurgis ritual having something to do with a god named Morsheba (I think). Hyde delivers all of his lines in a very flat manner, while Raven overacts to a campy degree. The fight scenes are terribly choreographed.<br /><br />The audio in the movie was pretty poorly recorded, and poorly edited. Additionally, some dialogue gets lost under blaring music or sirens. Cinematography isn't great either. Having the movie set in and actually shot in the UK was a bit of a novelty though, at least for this series.<br /><br />Wendy Cooper is very good as Celeste; attractive, certainly, but more importantly she's easily the best actor in the movie (bad fight scenes notwithstanding). I'm quite surprised her filmography is so small. If there's ever a Witchcraft XIV, and I would bet there will be, they should bring her back, even if it means flying her to California!<br /><br />Witchcraft X is available on its own, or in the DVD collection Hotter Than Hell along with Witchcraft XI and two unrelated movies.
Yeah i saw the rough cuts. The unedited sex scenes. The dire cut scenes. Almost on a par with the film 'The Need' for awful acting. This movie is as bad as bad films get.the bad script, bad acting, bad effects, bad locations, bad stunts bad everything. The best 'actors' in the film were the lap dancers they hired for the vampire extras!<br /><br />Sean Harry, the 'foppish actor' as someone else put it, makes a matchstick look talented here. His amazing ability to badly drive a car, when it is obviously being shook by people on the bonnet (check out the reflection in the windscreen), his inability to turn left, which is class. OH and don't forget the sex scene. plus his noteworthy use of a toy gun which the props guys couldn't even be bothered to disguise as a real gun. The other actors on screen could barely deliver their lines.It was as if half the time they were waiting for a line that wasn't there!<br /><br />The 'special effects' were soooo good to the point that the guys who did it took their real names off the credits!<br /><br />If you want a laugh at a party then rent this movie...then again there are plenty of good comedies that are just as funny and don't give money to people who don't deserve it.
I still can't believe how bad this movie was. If I wasn't a massochist I don't know if I would have survived the viewing. It looks like it cost about $1000 to make, but it wasn't the money that brought them down. The acting was horrid - not just bad, 3rd graders could have read the lines better. Second, the only other reason to watch this kind of movie is the skin, and that is sorely lacking in this flick. We don't even get to see the more attractive chicas in the buff. <br /><br />Ahh well, better luck next time eh?
Generally I like horror movies, but unfortunately this fell out of the one pound bargain bin into my friends hand. We sat down to watch it, ready to be scared and ended up spraying food everywhere we were laughing so much. The concept isn't that bad, but why they decided number ten in the series would be lucky I don't know. The worst thing about the movie is the actors. The camera work was poor, the special effects are actually not bad if I am being generous, but overall the story failed to connect on any levels because the actors were as effective as a small lump of badly charred elm. They were wooden beyond measure, especially a foppish young actor who was fifteen years too young to be taken seriously as any kind of government agent. He looked more like a public school boy in fact. There was a really amusing sex scene where he looked like he was bobbing for apples as a busty lady rode on top of him and later his nappy sized underpants were hysterical, but then I remembered it wasn't supposed to be a comedy. I'm desperately wracking my brain to find something positive to say about this movie apart from the occasional flash of breasts, but there simply isn't. Let's hope ten was the lucky number and they don't do another one, I'm not sure my ribs could take it.
MYRA BRECKINRIDGE is one of those rare films that established its place in film history immediately. Praise for the film was absolutely nonexistent, even from the people involved in making it. This film was loathed from day one. While every now and then one will come across some maverick who will praise the film on philosophical grounds (aggressive feminism or the courage to tackle the issue of transgenderism), the film has not developed a cult following like some notorious flops do. It's not hailed as a misunderstood masterpiece like SCARFACE, or trotted out to be ridiculed as a camp classic like SHOWGIRLS. <br /><br />Undoubtedly the reason is that the film, though outrageously awful, is not lovable, or even likable. MYRA BRECKINRIDGE is just plain mean. As a Hollywood satire it is cold-blooded and mean-spirited, but in a hollow pointless way. MYRA takes for granted that Hollywood is a corrupt town, but goes further to attack such beloved icons as Laurel and Hardy, Shirley Temple, Judy Garland and Gary Cooper. The film seems to imply that everything about Hollywood is by its very nature vile. It seems to think that there is something inherently courageous about mocking sacred cows, but doesn't supply a rationale for doing the mocking in the first place. The film is also viscously anti-American and anti-establishment and anti-this and anti-that, but all in a superficial, late-1960's, trendy way. Like CASINO ROYALE; SKI-DOO; I LOVE YOU, ALICE B. TOKLAS and other would-be hip epics, MYRA is a middle-aged vision of the hippy-dippy youth culture. It tries to embrace the very attitude that it belittles. But instead of being cheerfully self-mocking, MYRA makes no attempt to conceal its contempt for everything that comes within its grasp. MYRA BRECKINRIDGE has the humor of a bully; there's not a single moment of innocence in it. Its intentions aren't honorable. TIME magazine aptly described it as being "about as funny as a child molester," but it's not nearly as sympathetic.<br /><br />For instance, poor Mae West bore the brunt of so much of the criticism aimed at the film, being described as looking like everything from an aging drag queen to a reanimated walking corpse. The octogenarian star obviously didn't know just how ridiculous she looked playing a lecherous talent agent lusting after men young enough to be her grandsons or even her great-grandsons. But, director Michael Sarne had to know, but he used her anyway. Why? Because, she apparently was the joke. Just like John Huston, John Carradine, Grady Sutton, Andy Devine and other veteran performers in the film, they are there only so the film can mock their age and use them to trash their film images. They are cast as smarmy self-parodies, as is Rex Reed, the arrogant, fey film critic, who is cast as just that in the film. But the real Reed, the celebrity hound, jet-setting, talk show gossip, can be charming in an obnoxiously funny way; but as Myron, Myra's alter ego, he is just obnoxious. Again, apparently for Sarne, Reed is the joke.<br /><br />You watch MYRA BRECKINRIDGE and you don't see actors, you see victims. None more so than Raquel Welch. No one will ever accuse Welch of being a great actress, but it is a testament to her tenacity and her appeal that she survived this film and her career prospered. Being in almost every scene, Welch was front and center as a target for abuse aimed at the film, but to her credit, she gives a remarkably nuanced performance. Though, of course, centered between the scenery chewing Huston and the almost catatonic West, Welch doesn't have to do much to strike a good balance. Even so, she renders her horribly unfunny dialogue with a deadpan smirk, with just the hint of self-righteous glee that would do any James Bond villain proud. Legend has it that Welch was snubbed by a condescending West and subjected to repeated verbal abuse on the set by bumbling director Sarne, not to mention being featured in one degrading scene after another, making it all the more remarkable that she was able to give such a cool and collected performance.<br /><br />The film's only intriguing element is trying to figure out just what the film's agenda is. The whole story is a fantasy fable, which should indicate that it has a moral to deliver, but what that might be is anybody's guess. With all of its talk about destroying "the last vestigial traces of traditional manhood from the race," it would seem to have a feminist axe to grind. But as a feminist, Myra is a monstrous figure, a sexual predator. Besides, Myra isn't a woman, rather she is a delusion of Myron, who presumably is a gay male. That might explain the male rape scene as well as the character's love/hate attitude toward the macho, seemingly straight, deadhead Rusty, but it doesn't explain his/her obsession for and the supposedly lesbian tryst with Farrah Fawcett's Mary Ann. The film is obsessed with sex, but can hardly be accused of being in favor of the sexual revolution; all the sex is treated as being, if not dirty, than at least perverse and degrading. Turning to Gore Vidal's original novel isn't of any help, because it is as confused and pointless as the movie.<br /><br />And this is a rare movie that actually seems to hate movies. Not just movies as a business, but movies as part of the culture as well. The film itself is wall-to-wall arcane references to old movies, all of which director-screenwriter Sarne approaches with a seething disdain. He has raided the film vaults of 20th Century-Fox and peppered the film with snippets of old films, not as an homage or to provide a social commentary, but to mock the innocence of old Hollywood. How can an artist -- if you generously want to call Sarne that -- make a work of art if he already hates the very medium he is working in? The very effort is totally self-defeating.<br /><br />MYRA BRECKINRIDGE doesn't seem to be in favor of anything other than being just nasty. It hates Hollywood, it hates America, it hates sex, it hates gays and straights and women and men and old people and young people and Laurel and Hardy and, well, you name it and it probably has a scene showing contempt for it. In a very sad and sorry way, MYRA BRECKINRIDGE may be the first punk manifesto, a celebration of pop culture nihilism.
Seldom seen since theatrical release in 1970, MYRA BRECKINRIDGE has become a byword for cinematic debacles of legendary proportions. Now at last on DVD in an unexpectedly handsome package, it is as unlikely to win wide audiences today as it was when first released. <br /><br />Gore Vidal's 1968 bestseller was a darkly satirical statement. Most filmmakers felt that the novel's story, structure, and overall tone would not translate to film, and industry insiders were surprised when 20th Century Fox not only acquired the rights but also hired Vidal to adapt his novel to the screen. But studio executives soon had cold feet: Vidal's adaptations were repeatedly rejected and novice writer-director Michael Sarne was brought in to bring the film to the screen.<br /><br />Studio executives hoped that Sarne would tap into the youth market they saw as a target for the film, but Sarne proved even more out of synch with the material than the executives themselves. Rewrite upon rewrite followed. The cast, sensing disaster, became increasingly combative. In her DVD commentary, star Raquel Welch says that she seldom had any idea of what Myra's motives were from scene to scene or even within any single scene itself, and that each person involved seemed to be making an entirely different film. In the accompanying "Back Story" documentary, Rex Reed says that MYRA BRECKINRIDGE was a film made by a bunch of people who hid in their dressing rooms while waiting for their lawyers to return their calls.<br /><br />The accuracy of these comments are demonstrated by the film itself. The basics of Vidal's story are there, but not only has the story been shorn of all broader implications, it seems to have no point in and of itself. Everything runs off in multiple directions, nothing connects, and numerous scenes undercut whatever logic previous scenes might have had. And while director Sarne repeatedly states in his commentary that he wanted to make the film as pure farce, the only laughs generated are accidental.<br /><br />Chief among these accidents is Mae West. It is true that West is unexpectedly well preserved in appearance and that she had lost none of her way with a one-liner--but there is no getting around the fact that she is in her seventies, and her conviction that she is the still the sexiest trick in shoe leather is extremely unsettling, to say the least. But worse, really, is the fact that West is outside her era. Her efforts to translate herself into a hip and happening persona results in one of the most embarrassing self-caricatures ever seen on film.<br /><br />The remaining cast is largely wasted. Raquel Welch, a significantly underestimated actress, plays the title role of Myra very much like a Barbie doll on steroids; non-actor Rex Reed is unexpectedly effective in the role of Myron, but the entire role is essentially without point. Only John Huston and cameo players John Carradine, Jim Backus, William Hopper, and Andy Devine emerge relatively unscathed. Yes, it really is the debacle everyone involved in the film feared it would be: fast when it should be slow, slow when it should be fast, relentlessly unfunny from start to finish. It is true that director Sarne does have the occasional inspired idea--as in his use of film clips of everyone from Shirley Temple to Judy Garland to create counterpoint to the action--but by and large, whenever Sarne was presented with a choice of how to do something he seems to have made the wrong one.<br /><br />The how and why of that is made clear in Sarne's audio commentary. Sarne did not like the novel or, for that matter, the subject matter in general. He did not want to write the screenplay, but he needed the money; he emphatically did not want to direct the film, but he need the money. He makes it very clear that he disliked author Gore Vidal and Rex Reed (at one point he flatly states that Reed "is not a nice person"), and to this day he considers that Vidal and Reed worked in tandem to sabotage the film because he refused to play into their 'homosexual agenda'--which, when you come right down to it, seems to have been their desire that Sarne actually film Vidal's novel rather than his own weirdly imagined take-off on it.<br /><br />Although he spends a fair amount of commentary time stating that the film is widely liked by the gay community, Sarne never quite seems to understand that the appeal of the film for a gay audience arises from his ridiculously inaccurate depiction of homosexual people. When taken in tandem with the film itself, Sarne emerges as more than a little homophobic--and quite frankly the single worst choice of writers and directors that could have been made for this project.<br /><br />In addition to the Sarne and Welch commentaries and the making-of documentary, the DVD release includes several trailers and two versions of the film: a "theatrical release" version and a "restored" version. The only difference between the two is that the final scene in the "restored" version has been printed to black and white. The edits made before the film went into general release have not been restored, but the documentary details what they were. The widescreen transfers of both are remarkably good and the sound is quite fine. But to end where I began, this is indeed a film that will most interest film historians, movie buffs, and cult movie fans. I give it three out of five stars for their sake alone, but everyone else should pass it by.<br /><br />Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
I bought this DVD without any previous reference but the names of John Huston, Raquel Welch, Mae West and Farrah Fawcett on its cover. I found the Brazilian title very weird, but I decided to watch expecting to see a funny comedy maybe like "Switch". However the non-sense story is awful and hard to be described. Myron Breckinridge (Rex Reed) is submitted to a surgery to change his sex in Copenhagen and he returns to Hollywood telling that she is to be Myra Breckinridge (Raquel Welch) and claiming half the property of his uncle Buck Loner (John Huston). Along the days, Myra and her alter-ego Myron corrupt a young couple in her uncle's academy with kinky sex. In a certain moment, the messy screenplay is so confused that I believe the whole story was only a mind trip of Myron induced by the accident. Unfortunately the beauties of Raquel Welch and Farrah Fawcett are not enough to hold this flick. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Homem & Mulher Até Certo Ponto" ("Man & Woman Up to a Point")
Watching this last night it amazed me that Fox spent so much money on it and got so little back on their investment. It's the kind of disaster that has to be seen to be believed.<br /><br />I'm sure that the first morning of filming Raquel Welch dusted off the shelf over her fireplace to prepare a spot for the Academy Award she would surely win for this daringly original movie. Oops. That's not what happened.<br /><br />The infighting on the set was detailed in print by Rex Reed and this helped the movie attain a reputation before it was even released. When it was finally released there wasn't the usual three ring circus of publicity. If I remember correctly, in Houston it opened at drive-ins and neighborhood theatres and never played any of the big venues.<br /><br />I lay most of the blame on director Michael Sarne, who was hot after having directed (the not all that good) JOANNA, a film with music about young people in swinging mod London.<br /><br />If I recall correctly, Fox wound up firing him and piecing the film together the best they could. That's why scenes play out in no particular sequence and characters appear and then vanish. An impressive supporting cast (Kathleen Freeman, Jim Backus, John Carradine, Andy Devine and others) is wasted with nothing to do.<br /><br />To expand it to feature length there are numerous clips from Fox movies featuring stars like Carmen Miranda (in amazing footage from THE GANG'S ALL HERE) andLaurel and Hardy, who never dreamed they'd be playing in an X rated movie.<br /><br />The X rating is due to occasional language numerous sexual perversions; however, none of the characters seem to be having any fun. Maybe somebody involved with the film had a warped Puritan sensibility and figured that if they could make these things unappealing it wasn't bad to exploit them.<br /><br />This was one of the "youth" pictures that nearly bankrupted Hollywood in the 1970's. One writer joked that EASY RIDER (which was made for pocket change) was the most expensive movie ever made because so many films followed which tried and failed in the worst way to duplicate its success. Sixtyish, once honored directors like Stanley Kramer and Otto Preminger made movies like RPM and SKIDOO in an effort to attract a young audience. White directors and writers attempted to make films to attract a Black audience. Those movies are locked somewhere in a vault and the two named and many others from that genre have never, as best I know, been out on home video or cable. They're the studios' deep dark secret.<br /><br />Raquel Welch's performance in this is, all things considered, very good. With the right direction and script she could played the type of sassy liberated women Rosiland Russel and Barbara Stanwyck specialized in. She looks great and has awesome costumes. Mae West is the liveliest seventy-something actress I've ever seen. On the one hand it's kind of heartbreaking to watch her attempt to capture her glory from years gone by, but I'm sure she needed the money.<br /><br />If you want to see a big budget X-rated movie from this era check out BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS (also from Fox) because it doesn't take itself seriously. It's crazy kids playing with the equipment at a major studio. MYRA BRECKINRIDGE tries to Say Something. There just wasn't anyone who wanted to listen.
I have to say I was very curious on viewing this film, and it was considered a notorious disaster when released by 20th Century Fox in 1970. It has also popped up on several critics lists of bad films, and this only deepened an interest, as I just had to see what made this movie so bad.Upon seeing it, I think I have my answers. Although I will say it does make for curious viewing, the acting, direction, and script are so laughingly bad, that the supposed satire is completely missing. Racquel Welch seems to try to carry the film, but after the opening sequence of the sex-change operation, the film goes so far down hill that she cannot handle this task alone. John Huston as Uncle Buck Loner is certainly no help, as he licks and leers at the screen, he sometimes looks like he wonders himself what he's doing there. Rex Reed bounces around as Myron, Myra's alter ego, and even has his own celebrated masturbation scene. Bravo for debut performances! Farrah Fawcett plays a dumb blonde; she certainly seemed convincing in this role. But , of course, arguably the most notorious role went to Mae west. The sight of a 75 year old woman with a plastic face making sexual innuendos seemed more suitable for a horror film. I don't mean to put this cast down personally; but in this film, no one comes out looking good. The direction seems so unassured and non-existent, that the film is not only bad, but boring as well. Throw in some old film footage of old stars, and the movie becomes even more disconnected. To each his own to anyone that enjoyed this, and I was glad I at least saw it, but Myra Breckenridge seems to be the disaster that it was always reputed to be from the beginning.
Anyone who knows me even remotely can tell you that I love bad movies almost as much as I love great ones, and I can honestly say that I have finally seen one of the all-time legendary bad movies: the almost indescribable mess that is MYRA BRECKINRIDGE. An adaptation of Gore Vidal's best-selling book (he later disowned this film version), the star-studded MYRA BRECKINRIDGE is truly a movie so bad that it remains bizarrely entertaining from beginning to end. The X-rated movie about sex change operations and Hollywood was an absolute catastrophe at the box office and was literally booed off the screen by both critics and audiences at the time of it's release. Not surprisingly, the film went on to gain a near-legendary cult status among lovers of bad cinema, and I was actually quite excited to finally see for the first time.<br /><br />Director Michael Sarne (who only had two other previous directing credits to his name at the time), took a lot of flack for the finished film, and, in honesty, it really does not look like he had a clue about what he was trying to achieve. The film is often incoherent, with entire sequences edited together in such a half-hazzard manner that many scenes become nearly incomprehensible. Also irritating is the gimmick of using archival footage from the Fox film vaults and splicing it into the picture at regular intervals. This means that there is archival footage of past film stars such as Judy Garland and Shirley Temple laced into newly-film scenes of often lewd sexual acts, and the process just doesn't work as intended (this also caused a minor uproar, as actors such as Temple and Loretta Young sued the studio for using their image without permission).<br /><br />Perhaps Sarne is not the only one to blame, however, as the film's screenplay and casting will also make many viewers shake their heads in disbelief. For instance, this film will ask you to believe that the scrawny film critic Rex Reed (in his first and last major film role) could have a sex change operation and emerge as the gorgeous sex goddess Raquel Welch?! The film becomes further hard to follow when Welch as Myra attempts to take over a film school from her sleazy uncle (played by legendary film director John Huston), seduce a nubile female film student (Farrah Fawcett), and teach the school's resident bad boy (Roger Herren) a lesson by raping him with a strap-on dildo. Did everyone follow that? <br /><br />And it gets even better (or worse, depending upon your perspective)! I have yet to mention the film's top-billed star: the legendary screen sex symbol of the nineteen-thirties, Mae West! Ms. West was 77 year old when she appeared in this film (she had been retired for 26 years), and apparently she still considered herself to be a formidable sex symbol as she plays an upscale talent agent who has hunky men (including a young Tom Selleck) throwing themselves at her. As if this weren't bad enough, the tone-deaf West actually performs two newly-written songs about halfway through the film, and I think that I might have endured permanent brain damage from listening to them! <br /><br />Naturally, none of this even closely resembles anything that any person of reasonable taste would describe as "good," but I would give MYRA BRECKINRIDGE a 4 out of 10 because it was always morbidly entertaining even when I had no idea what in the hell was supposed to be going on. Also, most of the cast tries really hard. Raquel, in particular, appears so hell-bent in turning her poorly-written part into something meaningful that she single-handedly succeeds in making the movie worth watching. If she had only been working with a decent screenplay and capable director then she might have finally received some respect form critics.<br /><br />The rest of the cast is also fine. The endearingly over-the-top John Huston (who really should have been directing the picture) has some funny moments, Rex Reed isn't bad for a non-actor, and Farrah Fawcett is pleasantly fresh-faced and likable. Roger Herren is also fine, but he never appeared in another movie again after this (I guess he just couldn't live down being the guy who was rapped by Raquel Welch). And as anyone could guess from the description above, Mae West was totally out of her mind when she agreed to do this movie - but that's part of what makes it fun for those of us who love bad cinema.
It was the Sixties, and anyone with long hair and a hip, distant attitude could get money to make a movie. That's how Michael Sarne, director of this colossal flop, was able to get the job. Sarne is one of the most supremely untalented people ever given a dollar to make a movie. In fact, the whole studio must have been tricked into agreeing to hire a guy who had made exactly one previous film, a terribly precious 60's-hip black and white featurette called Joanna. That film starred the similarly talentless actress/waif Genevieve Waite who could barely speak an entire line without breaking into some inappropriate facial expression or bat-like twitter. Sarne, who was probably incapable of directing a cartoon, never mind a big-budget Hollywood film, was in way over his head. David Giler's book is the best place to go to find out how the faux-infant terrible Sarne was able to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. If there is ever an historical marker which indicates the superficiality and shallowness of an era, Myra Breckinridge provides that marker. It embodies the emptiness and mindless excess of a decade which is more often remembered for a great sea-change in the body politic. Breckinridge is a touchstone of another, equally important vein. Watch this movie and you'll get a different perspective on the less-often mentioned vacuity of spirit which so often passed for talent during those years.<br /><br />Many reviewers have spoken about the inter-cutting of footage from other films, especially older ones. Some actually liked these clunky "comments" on what was taking place in the movie, others found them senseless, annoying, and obtrusive, though since the film is so bad itself any intrusion would have to be an improvement. <br /><br />In my opinion, the real reason Michael Sarne put so many film clips into Myra Brekinridge was to paper over the bottomless insufficiency of wit and imagination that he possessed. That is to say, Sarne was so imagination-challenged that he just threw these clips in to fill space and take up time. They weren't inspiration, they were desperation. His writing skills were nonexistent, and David Giler had wisely stepped away from the project as one might from a ticking bomb, so Sarne was left to actually try and make a movie, and he couldn't. It was beyond his slim capabilities. Hence the introduction of what seems like one half of an entire film's worth of clips. The ghosts of writers and directors - many long since passed on - were called upon to fix this calamitous flopperoo because Sarne sure as heck wasn't able to. This was what he came up with on those days he sat on the set and thought for eight hours while the entire cast and crew (not to mention the producers and the accountants) cooled their heels and waited for something, some great spark of imagination, a hint of originality, a soupcon of wit, to crackle forth from the brow of Zeus. Um, oops. No Zeus + no imagination + no sparks = millions of little dollar bills with tiny wings - each made from the hundreds of licensing agreements required to use the clips - flying out the window. Bye-bye. <br /><br />As for myself, I hated the film clips. They denigrated Sarne's many betters, poked fun at people whose talents - even those whose skills were not great - far outstripped the abilities of the director and so ultimately served to show how lacking he was in inspiration, originality - and even of plain competency - compared to even the cheesiest of them.
This hodge-podge adapted from a Gore Vidal novel (actually one of the great American writers) makes THE MAGIC CHRISTIAN and VALLEY OF THE DOLLS look like Fellini art-works. Raquel Welch, with an incredible body (and she's actually not very tall) in a lead role (except for KANSAS CITY BOMBER when she was quite good) playing Rex Reed's (bad movie reviewer; not critic) alter-ego, only to be surrounded by drag queen (great chick) Mae West, horny John Huston, a young and "naive" Farrah Fawcett (pre-Lee Majors; what a shame), and other various creep-azoids to pretend to spoof WAY too may things has nothing going for it except inter-spliced old films clips (i.e. Widmark in KISS OF DEATH, Lena Horne)...JUST so they can continue to bleed the life out of everyone.<br /><br />A 2 out of 10. Best performance = ?. It's so bad, it's worth seeing!
THAT'S certainly a strange way to promote a film upon which a great deal rested. And it seems like plain suicide on the part of the studio, given that (1) The feuds between the cast were well known long before the movie's release. (2) The feud between the Producer(Robert Fryer) and Director ( Michael Sarne) was also common knowledge. (3) The cast made no secret of their contempt for the film and made it public at every opportunity, with daily bulletins from the set gleefully reported by gossip columnists everywhere.<br /><br />And (4) The author, Gore Vidal hated it practically from day one. Nevertheless, that tagline just about sums it up. Raquel Welch does <br /><br />give a decent performance as Myra, and she looks lovely besides. John Huston is very funny as Buck Loner, the ex-Cowboy Star who runs a phony acting academy. Mae West, (in her first screen appearance since 1943) naturally rewrote her part to suit herself, and she is great as ''oversexed'' (and that's putting it mildly) ''Talent Agent'' Leticia Van Allen. Still, she must have wondered (after waiting so long for a good vehicle in which to return) how she ever ended up in this mess.<br /><br />Tom Selleck (in his film debut) is one of her ''clients''. John Carradine and Jim Backus, as Doctors, also amble in briefly. Rex Reed as Myron, Farrah Fawcett and Roger Herren, as the victims of Myra/Myron's sexual passion, are neither here nor there. The same goes for the script, which not only fails to focus on the basic plot of the book, but seems to head in at least three different directions at once. Although West's part was originally larger, she was reduced to a cameo role by the time Sarne was through with the editing. And, partly because of this, she seems to be in a different movie. Apparently, at some point, the Producers realized that Mae was going to be the film's big draw, and, unable to replace most of her cut footage, they rushed her back to the set at the end of filming for the second of her two songs, both of which come out of nowhere. The device Sarne used of throwing in old film clips of bygone stars to emphasize whatever points he was making, doesn't work at all. By the time the movie concludes, all a weary spectator can do is wonder what in the hell it was all about. Not surprisingly, just about everyone connected with the production felt the same way, and it died at the box office. A technically flawless DVD includes, (among other extras) separate commentaries from both Welch and Sarne, each of whom have completely opposite opinions of just what went wrong.No doubt it's home video re-release was prompted by a 2001'' Vanity Fair'' piece, which attempted (in great detail) to do the same thing. True, the structure of the novel made a screen adaptation a dubious undertaking, but, with Sarne at the helm of what was obviously a ''troubled'' production, it really never had a chance.
Myron Breckinridge (Rex Reed!!!) gets a sex change from a doctor (John Carradine--dead drunk) and comes out as Myra (Raquel Welch). She then decides to destroy male masculinity (or something like that) and proceeds to teach film history at an acting college run by lecherous John Huston (don't ask) and break up a young happy couple (young, handsome, hunky Roger Herren and Farrah Fawcett--yes THE Farrah Fawcett). <br /><br />They took a great novel by Gore Vidal that was unfilmable and, naturally, tried to film it. They also hired an English guy with a decidedly Anti-American attitude and hired a bunch of actors with questionable "talent" (Welch, Reed) and embarassed old professionals (Huston, Carradine, Andy Devine, Jim Backus, Mae West), threw it all together and....SURPRISE!!! An absolute disaster. <br /><br />The film got an X rating at its release (it's been lowered to an R), mostly because of a truly tasteless scene in which Welch sodomizes Rusty (Roger Herren) and a scene in which Welch attempts to have sex with Fawcett.<br /><br />The movie is very scattershot...scenes jump all over the place and people say and do things that make no sense. It's not good at all but I was never bored. <br /><br />Acting varies wildly...Reed is horrible...really sad. Huston chews the scenery again and again and AGAIN to a nauseating extreme. Welch is actually not bad as Myra but her lines make no sense so you never know what to make of her. West is hardly in the movie (a blessing) and it's really kind of sick to hear a woman almost 80 years old cracking sex jokes. Roger Herren (whatever happened to...) was very young, handsome and not bad as Rusty. Fawcett is OK.<br /><br />It's hard to find things to say about this...you just watch it in disbelief. A must see movie--to believe!!!!
I saw "Myra Breckinridge" when it first came out in 1970. I was a healthy 20-year-old at the time, who loved movies and really liked Raquel Welsh. On top of that, I had read the Gore Vidal novel it was based on and thought it was very funny. I saw the movie at a local drive-in and about half way through I was sorely tempted to turn the motor of my car on so that maybe I'd die of monoxide poisoning and not have to see the rest of this shipwreck of a movie. It wasn't "smart" or "trendy", it was gross and sloppy. All the actors were tone deaf and the director didn't have the slightest idea what he was doing. The casting of Mae West was one of the worst casting choices in movie history. As one reviewer here said, her role had nothing to do with the movie or book. Her character in the book is sexually beaten up by the young stud, which would never do for the legendary Ms. West. Oh no, the plot is changed so she sexually beats HIM up, very believable from a 77-year-old woman who looks every DAY of her age. I could go on, but why? It was an awful movie.<br /><br />Bluto
I never much liked the Myra movie, tho I appreciate how it pushed the Hollywood envelope at the time. Certainly Miss Welch's costume became an iconic image, though I have to wonder if many people who recognize the image really saw the film and know what it was all about -<br /><br />I rewatched Myra on FMC a couple of years ago and didn't think it had aged any better thru the years. There's a segment about it in the Sexploitation Cinema Cartoon History comic books, where it's given proper credit for putting such big stars in what was then an outrageous production. However, IMHO, the movie is too bitter to be charming, too silly to be a turn-on, and so busy trying to shock that it fails to inform, engage, OR entertain ---
It was a disappointment to see this DVD after so many years. For me the main problem's the uneven script.<br /><br />While some of it is witty and hip, quite a bit of it is dull, unfunny and lifeless. Many of the gags just sit there, lacking spark and energy.<br /><br />Of the cast, Mae West and Rachel Welch come over well. Roger Herren in the role of Rusty shines (too bad he didn't make more films). But for my money, there's just too much of John Huston, and poor Rex Reed isn't hardly given a fighting chance. His character seems relegated to skim around on the sidelines, wondering what he's doing in this film.<br /><br />The low user rating should give an idea as to the public's opinion of this piece. Vidal's original provided much potential that was pretty much wasted. Not even the 'classic' film clips did much. All in all a rather sub par effort, and it's not likely to get much better with time.
Much like Orson Welles thirty years earlier,Mike Sarne was given "the biggest train set in the world"to play with,but unfortunately lacked the ability to do anything more than watch his train set become a train wreck that is still spoken of with shock and a strange sort of awe. Despite post - modern interpretations purporting somehow to see it as a gay or even feminist tract,the fact of the matter is that it was a major disaster in 1970 and remains one today.How anyone given the resources at Mr Sarne's disposal could have screwed up so royally remains a closely - guarded secret.Only Michael Cimino ever came close with the political and artistic Armageddon that constitutes "Heaven's Gate".Both films appeared to be ego trips for their respective directors but at least Mr Cimino had made one of the great movies of the 1970s before squandering the studio's largesse,whereas Mr Sarne had only the rather fey "Joanna" in his locker. Furthermore,"Heaven's Gate" could boast some memorable and well - handled set - pieces where,tragically,"Myra Breckinridge"s cupboard was bare. Simply put,it is overwhelmingly the worst example of biting the hand that feeds in the history of Hollywood.
Two old men sitting on a park bench . I don`t really have a problem with this scene - Only problem is that it`s not a scene it`s the entire movie<br /><br />Yup movies don`t get anymore low concept than this . They also don`t get anymore boring than this either , but there`s worse to come because these two old men are chalk and cheese . One is Nat Moyer who is Yiddish communist while the other is Midge Carter a former golden gloves champion who`s also black . Let me see now , a Jew and a black man sitting on a park bench getting along fine . Well I guess it`s possible though unlikely , but if this film has such an inoffensive scenario why play up to the Jewish stereotype ? Why make them loud tribilistic rabble rousers who take hebrew oaths ? Slightly ironic that the Jews seen at the start of the movie are exactly the type of Jews seen in Nazi propaganda films in the 1930s<br /><br />Stereotypes aside moi dearz the problem with I`M NOT RAPPAPORT is that it`s written for an entirely different meduim than cinema , it`s based on a stage play and it shows . Walter Matthau sleepwalks through his role as Nat while this commentator almost slept through the whole movie
The premise of an African-American female Scrooge in the modern, struggling city was inspired, but nothing else in this film is. Here, Ms. Scrooge is a miserly banker who takes advantage of the employees and customers in the largely poor and black neighborhood it inhabits. There is no doubt about the good intentions of the people involved. Part of the problem is that story's roots don't translate well into the urban setting of this film, and the script fails to make the update work. Also, the constant message about sharing and giving is repeated so endlessly, the audience becomes tired of it well before the movie reaches its familiar end. This is a message film that doesn't know when to quit. In the title role, the talented Cicely Tyson gives an overly uptight performance, and at times lines are difficult to understand. The Charles Dickens novel has been adapted so many times, it's a struggle to adapt it in a way that makes it fresh and relevant, in spite of its very relevant message.
...but this has to be the worst A Christmas Carol adaptation of all time. And that takes some doing, what with the likes of various Lifetime efforts. Don't get me wrong--I have nothing against Cicely Tyson. I've enjoyed her tremendously in other roles (look at Sipsey in Fried Green Tomatoes, for example). But the script gives her no option but to chew the scenery. And chew it she does, with all the enthusiasm of Tiny Tim tying into a Christmas goose.<br /><br />Give me the classics anytime: Alastair Sim, 1951. With the exception maybe of Scrooged, all the others are just over-the-top efforts to grasp the past, present, or future Spirit of Christmas.
I first saw this when it was picked as a suggestion from my TiVo system. I like Danny Elfman and thought it might be interesting. On top of that, I'm a fan of Max Fleischer's work, and this started out with the look and feel of his 30s cartoon. With both of those, I thought it would hold my interest. I was wrong. Just a few minutes in, and I had the fast forward button down. I ran through it in about 15 minutes, and thought that was it.<br /><br />Afterwards, I read some of the other reviews here and figured I didn't give it enough of a chance. I recorded it again and watched it through. There's 75 minutes of my life I'm not getting back.<br /><br />I can't believe there aren't more bad reviews. Personally, I think it's because it's hard to get to the 10 line comment minimum. How many ways are there to say this is a waste of time?<br /><br />The movie comes across as though it was made by a few junior high kids ready to outrage the world and thinking they can with breasts, profanity, and puke jokes. The characters are flat. The parody of "Swinging the Alphabet" is lame, essentially cobbling the tune, getting through A - E, hitting the obvious profanity a "F", and then having no idea where to go. The trip through the intestines to the expected landing doesn't work the first time, let alone the following ones. <br /><br />Across the board, the entire movie is what you would expect from someone trying to "out-South Park" Stone and Parker without the ability to determine what is and isn't funny. This might be amusing if you're high. Otherwise, it's not.
...thankfully he hasn't, yet! This is crude, simplistic student politics made into drama. It needs the viewer to buy into a series of conceits. Conceit 1: That a British electorate could be swung from being basically right of centre to being overwhelmingly far left. Conceit 2: That all debate in the media and the general public is unanimously ended and that the new Prime Minister's only critics are sinister civil servants, MI5, big business and the Americans (naturally). Conceit 3: That this radical socialist PM can solve all union, economic and social problems with consummate ease in a way that unites the nation. Conceit 4: That severing all ties with the US and NATO is a good thing. Conceit 5: That the Soviet Union isn't a brutal and oppressive regime and that we should have had closer times with them back in the 80's. And finally, Conceit 6: That the reactionary forces of the US would actively seek to launch a coup d'etat against Britain.<br /><br />It's ludicrous and the show only gained the reputation that it did by trying to cash in on some anti-Thatcher feeling in the country and having left wing TV critics singing its praises. When it was made, television was still a hugely popular and influential medium with shows getting huge ratings so a widely talked about drama with a hint of controversy had a good chance of getting a big audience. Ray McInally's performance was great, which is one of the few plus points. History and time has shown the huge weakness in the premise and plot of this show.
The prerequisite for making such a film is a complete ignorance of Nietzche's work and personality, psychoanalytical techniques and Vienna's history. Take a well-know genius you have not read, describe him as demented, include crazy physicians to cure him, a couple of somewhat good looking women, have his role played by an actor with an enormous mustache, have every character speak with the strongest accent, show ridiculous dreams, include another prestigious figure who has nothing to do with the first one (Freud), mention a few words used in the genius' works, overdo everything you can, particularly music, and you are done. Audience, please stay away.
I rented this DVD having seen it while looking for something else. When I saw the title on the jacket I couldn't believe my eyes. I read Yalom's book about a year ago and loved it, in fact admire Yalom's work in general. (I am a clinical psychologist.) I have watched perhaps 30 minutes of this movie and have had to turn it off. I'm not sure if I can take much more. At a superficial level, the faux accents, as others have commented, are simply distracting at best and irritating and vapid at worst. The acting is dull when it should be passionate and comical when it should be serious. The portrayal of Lou Salome is simply flippant, and the brilliant Freud comes off as little more than a schoolboy. I see very little of the book's spirit conveyed thus far. I had hoped to be able to recommend this film to my students. Instead, I will refer them to the book. Imagine that.
My comments on this movie have been deleted twice, which i find pretty offending, since i am making an effort to judge this movie for other people. Please be tolerant of other people's opinion. Obviously writing in the spirit of Nietzsches works is not understood, so ill change my comment completely.<br /><br />I think this is a really bad movie for several reasons.<br /><br />Subject: one should be very careful in making a movie about a philosopher that is even today not understood by the masses and amongst peers brings out passionate discussions. One thing philosophers do agree on is that Nietzsche was a great thinker. So making a movie about his life, which obviously includes his 'ideas' is a thing one should be extremely careful with, or preferably, don't do at all. Wisdom starts with knowing what you don't know. One might think this is not a review of the movie itself, but the movie is not about an imaginary character, it is about the life of someone who actually lived and had/has great influence on the world of yesterday, today and tomorrow. If someone tells a story about a tomato, i can express my thoughts about the story itself, but also about the chosen subject, the tomato. There is a responsibility for producers when they make a movie about actual facts. Specially in a case like this and this responsibility was not taken.<br /><br />Screenplay: One of the first things i noticed were the ridiculous accents. Why? It distracts from what it should be about; Nietzsche and the truths he found. It doesn't help putting things in a right geographical perspective or time! Come on, make it proper English or better yet; German! Even Mel Gibson got that part right... letting his characters speak some gibberish Aramaic in the Passion.<br /><br />Secondly, it is well over-acted.<br /><br />3d, Assante is not an actor to depict Nietzsche. Bad casting.<br /><br />4th, facts are way off.<br /><br />And so on. Its a waste of celluloid.
I had to stop watching this film (a pseudo-intellectual product for pretentious film viewers) twenty minutes into it because it was mediocre and dull enough to inspire yawns, not to mention that I was soon near tears over the $3.99 I had wasted at Blockbuster. Joanna Pacula's acting and her awfully rendered Slavic accent are sufficiently terrible to set one to gritting one's teeth. I knew that two hours of her would be two hours too many. Both Breuer and Nietzsche are played by unremarkable actors of strikingly few talents. While we're on the topic of talent, Breuer's supercilious assistant appears to have been pulled out of a local acting troupe. She clearly has not learned her craft. In fact, she's really quite awful. All the public scenes looked staged, with the extras walking mechanically about in their Sunday best. Turning this film off was far more satisfying than turning it on. Don't rent this terrible movie. You will be sorry you spent your money.
When I first tuned in on this morning news, I thought, "wow, finally, some entertainment." It was slightly amusing for a week or so... But we have to face it, these news reporters (if one can even call them that) have WAY TOO MUCH "playing around" time.<br /><br />At first, I thought Jillian was a breathe of fresh air. But seriously, this woman has got not the least bit of journalist in her. She is very unprofessional. She keeps on interrupting Steve when he starts informing the viewers about a certain news report. It's just really become annoying to the point that I can't watch it anymore.<br /><br />Jillian is NOT a good journalist. Hell, she's more of a celebrity who loves being a celebrity. Hence, she instantly transforms into a celebrity around celebrities whom she's supposed to be interviewing. She's not very professional and quite possibly perceives her relationship with celebrities more important than being a rightfully insatiable journalist- and that's all I can say about her.<br /><br />Also (disappointingly), this show has more entertainment news than necessary news reports about the world, the government, the US, or something that will benefit and/or serve the public's best interest. They're too focus on sensationalism that everything they talk about comes off as a commercial product. On the other hand, their field reporters are interestingly tolerable...<br /><br />I believe "Good Day LA" is for young teenagers and celebrities, and it is definitely not for people who actually CARE about the news.<br /><br />SIDE NOTE: (I'd really rather watch KTLA. However, they try so hard to be entertaining sometimes. They're still a bit dull though. Oh well, I'll stick to NBC's "Today." ABC's "Good Morning America" is also okay... as long as Diane Sawyer doesn't become way too serious.)
Dark Rising is your typical bad, obviously quickly produced horror/sci-fi/fantasy movie. It has a strange, unexplained plot with holes so big you could fit an elephant through them. Most of the time I didn't know what the hell was going on but it didn't really matter, it was a simple demon hunter returns from hell dimension to save campers story with confusing stuff added on about witches and a book of evil with plot elements and characters who make no sense or disappear totally for no reason. The acting is bad but there honestly is not much they can do with this script I am guessing. There is a couple topless scenes which is probably the only reason this bad movie got made (like so many other bad movies). Give this one a pass unless there is nothing else on T.V.
This is one of those horror flicks where twenty-somethings fool around with the dark arts around a camp fire, getting into a heap of trouble for doing so. A portal was opened containing a world of demons known as the Kelippoth of the Sitra Achra by a man whose daughter, Summer, gets kidnapped by something, taken into it. Summer is trained by a mysterious group whose identities are never revealed to battle the demon monsters. This is a portion of the plot which lends itself to scrutiny. Anyway, three wannabee witches, who went to high school together, Renea, the most enthusiastic, serious practitioner in the dark arts, and her lesbian cohorts, Jasmine and Marlene(..it's more or less a passing fad with them, though..) join up with buddies, Jason and Ricky, on a trip in the wilderness where Summer vanished from her home ten years ago. Opening the portal through a spoken text written in an ancient book, a demon is set free, as is Summer, now a warrior babe whose training has led to a very fit and athletic body and skills that have been needed to ward off monsters in the other world.<br /><br />Low budget contains a loopy, but ambitious story, restraining it into a confined setting. These young adults spend a lot of time running around in the woods hoping not to be fodder for a beast. As can be the case in these movies, the demon stands on the sidelines while the story develops as Summer attempts to remember how everything came to pass, while befriending Jason who wishes to help her restore the lost time. The action is shot mostly in the dark, making any violence hard to decipher. Brigitte Kingsley(and the rest of the female cast for that matter), is some mighty nice eye candy, dressed scantily clad as a female Conan, a gorgeous body we have to pleasure to gaze upon from the moment she appears until the closing of the movie. Some lesbianism(..some kissing and fondling)and nudity spice things up nicely, and the cast seem to be having fun with the goofy plot..it's so preposterous that the silly tone is probably appropriate for the material.<br /><br />Might be of interest for co-starring World Wrestling Entertainment's "Captain Courageous" Christian(real name, Jason Reso)as one of the group, spoofing his alter ego, as a chicken, quivering at the sound of a snapping tree twig. Landy Cannon is likable as unlikely hero, Jason, a lovestruck, naive young man whose ex-fiancé, Jasmine(Vanessa James)is now bi-sexual and in love with Marlene(..Jasmine's cruelty is in toying with Jason's feelings by hiding her affair with Marlene from his knowledge), while Ricky and Renea attempt to steer him away from this idea that he can rekindle a dead flame that gone out, never to ignite again. The Kelippoth demon is mostly darkly lit, I guess to refrain from showing how ludicrous/laughable it looks if presented in full. The lesbian antics of Jasmine and Marlene(Haley Shannon) is mostly tame, their love making, once alone in the woods up against a tree, is toned down and also lighted using the blackness of night. My rating is a bit favorable towards it, almost solely because of Kingsley, for purely superficial reasons, rather than the plot or film-making. The movie aims to please and is marketed to the boys(and girls who love hot women). I think, though, for the most part, the humor falls a bit flat.
This film has a very simple but somehow very bad plot. The entire movie is about a girl getting sucked through a gate to another dimension then years later it gets opened again by a witch while a group of friends (including the lead actor who is having trouble getting over his ex girlfriend who is one of the other campers along with her new partner... another girl... that's right they're lesbians and there is some nudity of course for no particular reason). Unfortunately demon follows the now adult girl back through. Also unfortunately, none of this is ever explained. Where exactly were they? Where did the demon come from? How did she survive as a child in a place full of evil demons? Who the hell trained her and made her a gladiator type outfit? The acting is terrible I think but it's hard to tell because the writing is so bad maybe there was just nothing they could do with it. I give it a three because the wrestler was pretty good and the effects were pretty fun even though they were very cheap. I would not recommend it, it wasn't quite bad enough to be funny.
This movie is lame and not funny at all. The plot doesn't even make sense. Some scientist who works on the fringes of science opens a doorway to another dimension (maybe hell???) and his daughter gets sucked through it or something, then one day for no apparent reason she comes back and now she has big breasts and wears a skimpy outfit (I guess the demons in the other dimension made it for her?) The main character is a guy who wants to marry his girlfriend but she is gay so obviously she's more interested in her new girlfriend, and they stumble upon this witch spell book (they want to be witches or something???) and the evil spell ends up getting read again which is how the evil demon comes to earth which only the bikini top girl and the spurned guy in love can stop apparently. There is topless scenes for no reason and a guy in it who my boyfriend says is a well known wrestler but his part is completely unnecessary, obviously they made something up just to put him in it because then maybe wrestling fans will actually watch this pointless movie. I'm sure the topless girls doesn't hurt there either. The extra features on the DVD were even more confusing than the rest of the movie, I thought it might help explain what was going on but it actually just made things more confusing. Who are these people and what are they doing? Basically this is a go-camping-to-make-out-then-fight-a-monster movie but there are a bunch of things (like the other dimension and book seller) than make it confusing. I didn't like the movie but it was only like five bucks so big deal. I don't recommend watching it though it was just too stupid, I can't think of any part of the movie that was good.
This series was CBS networks answer to the success of the Big Valley. It was a 90 minute Western just like the ABC program was. While it was an answer, it did not have the stuff to make it past season 2.<br /><br />The problem really became reality got lost on this show. For example- in one episode, Johnny gets his eye poked out by a stick. Amazingly, by the end of the show, Johnny had healed entirely. Along with that, the stories on this were no where near as strong as The Big Valley.<br /><br />This is a show that I would not want DVDs of, & frankly hope they are never released. Think since CBS was running out of lots, they re-used many familiar settings. This was one the last western series CBS produced as westerns were not real popular in the 1970's.
I rented this on DVD yesterday and did not realize it was a "character study" type of movie, so I struggled to watch about an hour of it before hitting the Stop button.<br /><br />Even with a character study theme, I just could not get into this film at all. Perhaps it was my mood in wanting to watch something else, or maybe I had other expectations, but setting that aside, I tried my best to move on to finish watching, but gave up. The actors played their roles well, but the global combination did not come together to keep my interest. About the only interesting thing was the sergeant's gun being stolen and he hurried to buy another one, and spray painted it black to appear as police issue. I think this movie should have been entitled, "Who Stole the Sergeant's Gun?" Scenes were well done but putting them together I once again felt robbed for anything cohesive to keep me viewing.<br /><br />Since I didn't finish watching it I'd say there is some merit to renting this film ... maybe. To me, it was a waste of good viewing effort and time. I'll leave it up to you to try it, but it's not one I'd strongly recommend.
This is another example of a sucky sequel to a great movie. I highly recommend The Prophecy, but this movie was a dud from the start. The acting was decent all the way around, but the story line was weak and added nothing to the origional. A 4 out of 10 at best.
Everybody knows that Gregory Widen's original "The Prophecy" didn't really require a sequel, but you also don't need a degree in rocket science hanging above your chimney to realize that further cash-ins on this profitable horror concept were inevitable. Part two is a very prototypic example of a straight-to-video sequel, meaning the creative and convoluted plot of the original has been simplified a lot in favor of more action, more witty one-liners and a lot more eerie religious scenery. The only good news is that the producers managed to keep Christopher Walken for the role of Gabriel, and he delivers another gloriously brazen performance that promptly justifies the price of a rental. If it wasn't for Walken's performance (and perhaps a couple of players in the supportive cast like Brittany Murphy and Glenn Danzig), "The Prophecy II" surely would have disappeared into oblivion straight after its release. The movie begins with Gabriel literally getting spat out of hell to proceed with his ongoing War of Heaven here on earth. The purpose of his battle this time is to prevent the baby of nurse Valerie Rosales (Jennifer Beals) from getting born. For you see, her unborn child is the first ever hybrid between a heavenly angel and an earthly "monkey" and the birth of such a superior being would imply the downfall of Gabriel's evil dominion. Thus, just as in the first movie, he engages a suicidal accomplice to assist him and hunts Valerie all the way down to the Eden for the final showdown. "The Prophecy II" is an endurable and occasionally even entertaining movie as long as you don't make comparisons with the original and as long as you manage to overlook the multiple plot holes and errors in continuity. Whenever the storyline becomes too tedious, the makers luckily enough always insert a near-brilliant Christopher Walken moment to distract you. His interactions with the rebellious Izzy and particularly his ignorance regarding modern earthly technologies often result in worthwhile and memorable sequences. On a slightly off-topic note, I often felt like "The Prophecy II" ambitions to look similar to "Terminator II" … Gabriel's resurrection looked somewhat like the teleportation of a futuristic cyborg and the Eden location, where the final battle takes place, looks very similar to the steel factory where "Terminator II" ended as well. Coincidence, I guess? Overall, this is an inferior and passable sequel but still worth checking out in case you're a fan of Christopher Walken's unique acting charisma (and who isn't?).
I personally liked "The Prophecy" of 1995 a lot. Christopher Walken was, as always, great, and even though the film wasn't flawless, it was a creepy and highly original Horror/Fantasy film that entertained immensely. This inferior 1998 sequel is still worth watching, but mainly due to Walken. Walken is one of the greatest actors around, in my opinion, and he is once again outstanding in the role of the fallen Archangel Gabriel, whom he plays for the second time here. Once again, the war between fallen and loyal Angels is brought to earth. Gabriel returns in order to prevent the birth of a child, namely the child of the angel Danyael (Russel Wong) and the human woman Valerie (Jennifer Beals). This child could once be the determining factor of the celestial war... As I said above, Christopher Walken is once again excellent as Gabriel. Besides Gabriel, however, "The Prophecy II" sadly also includes a bunch of terribly annoying characters. The character of Valerie was annoying enough, and Danayel annoyed me even more. The biggest pain in the ass, however was the character of Izzy (played by Brittany Murphy), a suicidal girl who wouldn't shut up. Still, Walken's performance isn't the only redeeming quality of the film. The entire film is quite dreary, and well-shot in dark colors, which contributes a lot to the atmosphere. Gabriel's resurrection scene in the beginning is furthermore quite impressive, and one of the coolest moments in any of the "Prophecy" films. "The Prophecy II" is nevertheless the weakest of the three "Prophecy" films with Walken. Definitely a Christopher Walken one-man-show, entertaining, but nothing beyond that.
The Prophecy II, what's there to say about it? They've completely abandoned the originality of the first film, and simply made a Chris Walken splatter film. It's not even written by the original writer!<br /><br />If you've seen Nr. 1 don't watch Nr. 2 it's a real disappointment...<br /><br />If you haven't seen Nr. 1 don't watch Nr. 2! Go see Nr. 1 to experience something original and fun
It's not often I feel compelled to give negative criticism of a film; after all I often feel the maxim, "if you don't have anything good to say don't say it at all," would be apt advice for the many naysayers we listen to everyday who nitpick at things we like. If it's all the same to you the reader though I feel compelled to point out that with the lone exception of Christopher Walken in a returning role as Gabriel this movie is pathetically HORRID. I say this to you to warn you in advance that even if you are a fan of Walken's deadpan delivery and style or liked the original "Prophecy" that you will be sorely dissapointed. If you buy it, return it. If you rent it, make sure it's only ninety-nine cents.<br /><br />What's wrong with this movie? A full list would take too long to read and would bore you to tears, but a short summary would be the following: the once rather crystalline clear picture of the relationship between angels and mortals of the first film is ripped to shreds. Gabriel is turned from the rather morbid right hand of God he once was (and in this role he is WICKEDLY funny in the first) to little more than a thug for heaven. Since Walken is so good at playing heavies (we all remember Frank White from "King of New York") he is still enjoyable but the supporting cast is an unmitigated and unconvincing mess of mortals and angels alike who couldn't buy a clue for 50 cents. If you can figure out the plot you're a smarter man than I. One gets the feeling we wander aimlessly from scene to scene just to move the film along to Walken's next big line. By the end of the movie you're actually wishing he'd blow his horn and make the walls of Jericho fall on the people who made this un-natural disaster.<br /><br />Bottom line - it's an insult to our intelligence that they made a sequel to this film in the first place. The original told the right story, answered the questions that should have been, and left alone the ones you were meant to ponder afterwards. There are no compelling reasons to follow these characters that was in the first - the priest who lost his faith, the little girl who kept the "big secret", the teacher who protected her children - even Lucifer himself was more interesting BY himself in the first film than all the other characters in the sequel put together. I feel sorry for anybody who sees this film and not the first because they'll probably never want to watch the original and that's a real tragedy.
I'll make this short and sweet....this movie sucked!!!!!!<br /><br />I watched part 1 earlier today and thought it was one of the greatest films ever, gave it 9 out of 10 stars. So I thought perhaps part 2 and 3 would be good sequels, I was wrong. This movie bored me to death and was so different from the first one, it had the plot continue and thats it. It was like bad outtakes from part one or something.<br /><br />I love Walken, but I felt sorry for him here. I was so happy about Glenn Danzig being in this film, but don't blink you'll miss him. There was a full cast full of crappy actors and people I don't like such as Eric Roberts and Jennifer Beals. However, it was a breath of fresh air to see Ethan Embry, he's one of the funniest people on earth.<br /><br />This movie will make you like the first one a little less, so don't watch it because you feel you owe it to yourself, being a fan of part 1. I am gonna wait a few days before I watch part 3 and I pray it is better than this crap.<br /><br />The last scene of the movie with the lightning was one of the most beautiful things ever shown on film. Fast forward or skip to that if you can't stomach the first part.<br /><br />1 out of 10 stars - this was awful!
I liked the first movie, but this is a textbook example of a sequel that would have been better of left on the drawing board. The general idea in the first movie was, if not great, then at least very interesting. This sequel tries to build upon the idea and the characters from the first movie, and though Christopher Walken is still good as Gabriel, the whole idea suddenly gets a bit ridiculous. If you haven't seen any of these movies, then get the first movie and forget about the sequels, they can take away all of the joy from the original.
Where is it written that sequels must suck? Scream 2 didn't! Others didn't! But this one sure did... problems include horrible actors (only Christopher Walken could act in the entire film), bad writing (you will never understand what's going on and I even have done research on the idea of Nephilim before), and just horrible choices for casting. Eric Roberts makes the stupidest Archangel Michael that I have ever seen in my life!<br /><br />Avoid it like the plague unless you are desperate to see Christopher Walken. In that case just fast-forward to the parts where he is in the film, and avoid the others.<br /><br />Yech!!!
Can fake scenery ruin a picture? You wouldn't think so, but it actually for me in here. Listen, I have a lot of classic-era movies and I know pretty much what to except, such as the drivers steering immobile cars in front of a screen, etc. But a lot of that hokey business has to do with action scenes. To have fake scenery, fake mountains and flowers shot after shot as seen in "Brigadoon" gets insulting after awhile. <br /><br />As far as the music entertainment went, this is always subjective. What songs one person likes, another may not so that shouldn't be a big part of judging a film (whether someone likes the songs). I could blast this movie for its corny 1950 songs, dances, romances and characters but that was the '50s and a lot of people liked this sort of things. Musicals did very well in the '50s. Me, I liked the '30s and '40s with the great taps. By the '50s, tap was out and this new stuff - which I can stand - was it. Does that make this a lousy movie? No. It just makes one I didn't care for very much<br /><br />Despite the good cast, good director and high expectations, this film bombed at the box office, and with me. I should have liked it more, being a dreamer myself and that's a nice part of this story. I am not the cynical type and a nice town and nice people making me feel good sounds awful appeal. Then why couldn't I connect with this film? Part of it also was the dancing. I don't care for the stuff that replaced tap dancing on screen. But - no - the thing really turned me off what that staging. There was no Scotland, no highlands, just a hokey- looking background to make it look that way and it turned me almost from the start. Score one point for today's realism where they "go on location" most of the time.
I remember when I first saw this movie, I was in sixth grade when it happened. Before I saw this, i had listened to the original Broadway recording of it, and I really loved it! But when I saw this, I was like, what the heck?! This movie is missing a lot of the songs from the musical for crying out loud! Who decided to do all of that?!<br /><br />I really am a very huge fan of Gene Kelly, but this movie is probably the worst of a musical that he ever did! The movie looked more like a Hollywood set than the beautiful Highlands of Scotland. And who the heck decided to cut all of Meg's songs out of the movie?! <br /><br />I am willing to bet that when they saw this movie, Lerner and Lowe were probably wondering: "Who in the world decided to do this to our masterpiece?" Well they had a right to say that if they did, they were probably mad at the fact that Hollywood turned their great musical into this rather blank movie.<br /><br />Song and acting wise Mr. Kelly, you passed the audition with flying colors, but you are in a movie that is missing a lot of the text.<br /><br />So in short, if you want a good movie based on a musical by Frederick Lowe and Alan Jay Lerner, this one isn't it! <br /><br />3/10
I saw Brigadoon on TV last night (12 Sept 2009). I am 61 years old and have been watching films as long as I can remember. I can truthfully say that Brigadoon stands alone as by far and away the worst film I have ever seen. The accents were shameful. The local children's club would have produced better sets. The characters were so wooden that they probably contracted dry rot from the tears of the patrons who had the misfortune to watch them. It is to be hoped that the stars of this film had hides thick enough to protect them from the embarrassment which they must have suffered on seeing this film. The owners of this tripe should perform a great service to mankind and destroy all copies of this film.
Superficically, "Brigadoon" is a very promising entertainment package. Gene Kelly and Vincente Minnelli, the team behind "An American in Paris", are reunited with a lot of the great craftsmen and women behind their previous collaborations. Gene's leading lady is Cyd Charisse, one of the best dancers of 40s/50s cinema, and unlike the generally superior "It's Always Fair Weather" this film gave them the chance for not only one but two dances. Lerner and Loewe were the rising team behind such future hits as "My Fair Lady" and Minnelli's musical masterpiece "Gigi"; Lerner and Minnelli had already demonstrated their sanguine collaborative juices on the excellent "American in Paris."<br /><br />What happened along the way? Why is the movie itself such a stupid bore? Minnelli himself didn't want to do the movie, despite his previous warm artistic and personal relationship with Lerner. Maybe it was because the movie's innate conservatism was just a bit too much of two steps forward for MGM and one step backward for Vincente Minnelli. But once trapped in this assignment like the denizens of Brigadoon are trapped within its city limits, Minnelli strove to turn it into something that would be entertaining in a specifically distracting, if not liberating way. The ultimate result is truly horrific to behold.<br /><br />While aiming for the naive charm of previous Minnelli hits like "Cabin in the Sky" and "Meet Me in St. Louis", the plaid-tights wearing inhabitants of Brigadoon can conjure up none of the illusive nostalgia of those never-have-been locales. Its whimsy doesn't even match up to the glossy luster of "Yolanda and the Thief" or "The Pirate" because the highlands settings seem at the same time too specific for such an exotic fantasy and too generic for real human emotions. The only people in Brigadoon who I at least can relate to are the malcontented man who tries to escape and the unfortunate fellow-traveler played by Van Johnson who accidentally shoots him. The general proceedings in the township of Brigadoon itself are too arcane and provincial even to be attributed to a backwards form of Christianity: they seem positively pagan in their aspect. For example, in exchange for Brigadoon's immortality, the honorable and most generally "good" pastor of the town has sacrificed his own place in the supposedly blessed refuge.<br /><br />At one point we're assured that "everybody's looking for their own Brigadoon." Suffice it to say the box office for this picture confirms my own suspicion that most of us aren't looking for this kind of quasi-queasy paradise. The premise itself is ridiculous and almost insultingly patronizing, but could work if the players were perfect. But Kelly himself is the most patronizing thing about the movie, and Charisse is horribly miscast as a virginal optimist in much the same way as Lucille Bremer was miscast in "Yolanda and the Thief." Van Johnson does his best version of the classic Oscar Levant sidekick to Kelly (even lighting 3 cigarettes at one point like Levant in "AIP"), and he provides a lot of amusing moments. But it says something in itself if the best part of a big budget extravaganza with all the best talents of MGM is a tossed-off Van Johnson performance.
This movie is phoniness incarnate, a straight 11 / 10 on the phoniness scale. The fakeness of the accents as well as the tightness of the cardigan spandex pants are just staggering. Yanks, although the real Scotland may be just as colourful, if you ever go there don't expect to be given much of a the chance to "dance out" controversies with the locals. Also, don't attempt to sway local opinion through the otherwise fine art of tapdancing.<br /><br />There are a couple of infectious singing-and-dancing scenes, but the plot is far too cheesy and linear, and the dialogue is often too weak. I also doubt whether anyone would want to be stuck in a timewarped 18.th-century Scottish village in the boondocks rather than gay New York City. Maybe it wasn't such a big sacrifice for that priest to have left Brigadoon, maybe he was just trying to get the hell out of that dump.<br /><br />Watch it for the fine alternative-reality view of what a Christopher Streed Day-parade in Scotland would look like on LSD. Other than that I'd only recommend it to Hollywood muscial completists.
Celia Johnson is good as the Nurse. Michael Hordern is good as Capulet, though it's his usual neighing and whinnying and not a patch on his King Lear. John O'Conor reads the verse well as Friar Laurence though he never takes it anywhere. Alan Rickman is good as Tybalt, in the first of his "yuk" roles that would make him famous. Christopher Strauli's Benvolio is sympathetic.<br /><br />The sets are pretty, if not stunning as in some of the other BBC Shakespeare's.<br /><br />And that's it. The rest is weak to dreadful. Rebecca Saire turned 15 during production, and hasn't a clue about how to act Juliet - she opens her eyes real wide and whines every line in exactly the same way. Patrick Ryecart is poorly matched to her, and his self-regard is inexplicable. The Balcony Scene flows smoothly and uneventfully with zero emotional or erotic impact. Their deaths come as a relief. If I had a dagger, I would have offered it to them hours earlier.<br /><br />Anthony Andrews is unspeakable as Mercutio, a great shock if you remember his fine work in "Brideshead Revisited." He breaks the mirror of Shakespeare's verse into a thousand shards of two or three words each, and then shouts the fragments in as disconnected and unintelligible manner as possible. In this production, Queen Mab abdicates. Awful.<br /><br />The director, Alvin Rakoff, shows only an intermittent gift of putting the camera where it will show us what we want to see. The opening brawl is notably incoherent. However there is humor when in a later fight, Romeo apparently knees Tybalt right in the cobblers. Tybalt then grabs the offended region. However did that get through? <br /><br />R&J is a long play. This version is not recommended for classroom use, or much else.
Have to admit, this version disgraces Shakespeare upfront! None can act except the nurse who was my fav! Juliet had good skills as a teen but she can't give emotional depth to her lines and we really can never connect to her. She's worse doing the scene when she is contemplating drinking the sleeping potion...god stop whining! I would have poured it in her mouth to shut her up! Anthony Andrews...yikes! Considering his other great movies (Brideshead Revisited, Ivanhoe, Scarlet Pimpernel), he's quite a shocker in this one. And don't get me started on Romeo...puhleasssssee! It's still good to see if you're on the hunt to see every Romeo and Juliet ever made in the history of film. Olivia and Leonard's version is still the best, followed by Leslie Howard's version and then the current Leo and Clare!
Easily the best known of all the Shakespeare plays, it has been seriously let down here. Shoddy direction, stagnant studio work and erratic performances spoil a fine tragedy.<br /><br />In the town of Verona, the Capulets and the Montagues have been feuding for centuries but tragedy is imminent when Romeo (Patrick Rycart), a Montague, falls in love with Juliet (Rebecca Saire), a Capulet. Bloodshed soon erupts...<br /><br />The studio work, especially in daytime scenes, seriously stagnates the energy of the play. It's a story that, with it's energy, deserves to be shot outdoors. Coupled with this the costumes are hideous, with too many tights and ludicrous codpieces. The stage fighting looks horrendous, with far too much stretching and running around to be engaging.<br /><br />Patrick Ryecart is too lightweight to be a truly effective Romeo. He manages the character's intensity when the plot gets going but his stately accent and bland, often inexpressive eyes limit his range. It is very hard for the audience to relate to this Romeo. Rebecca Saire is too youthful to be a good Juliet - she captures the character's naiveté but a little more sassiness would have been welcome.<br /><br />The supporting roles don't fare much better. Joseph O'Connor's Friar Laurence is fine but too many of his best lines have been cut. Anthony Andrews' Mercutio belongs on stage and not on camera. He gurns and gesticulates excessively and looks rather ridiculous as a result. Alan Rickman, underplaying his role, has virtually no presence as Tybalt. He did develop an edge and intensity to deliver some fine screen performances in later years, but that isn't in evidence here. The Prince can be a fine role with his brief appearances but actor Lawrence Naismith fails to give the part any authority on camera. Only Micheal Hordern, in probably his best role in this series, comes out of this with any dignity. His Capulet is well-played and a joy to watch.<br /><br />See one of the other versions of this story instead.
For my first taste of Shakespeare on stage, I cannot believe what these people did to a perfectly good play. <br /><br />-Let's start off with the good bit, shall we?-<br /><br />Alan Rickman is alright, although some of his dialog could have been delivered with more feeling. The rest of the actors needed to pull it together. <br /><br />Romeo, Romeo, whyfore art thou not dead yet, Romeo? The actor, while not only completely wooden and deadpan, could not read his lines with any gusto at all. He was completely out of focus, had difficulty even looking Juliet in the face, and absolutely NO grace with the lines that he was given. Whoever cast him deserves to be punished. Juliet is almost passable, but she gives no depth to her character,and seems to be completely out of touch with the play. Mercutio was incredibly creepy and completely out of character for the entirety of his dialog. Benvolio was unfeeling and mercilessly choppy with his lines. <br /><br />I was forced to endure this half-baked production of Romeo and Juliet. The acting was stilted and the costumes were nothing short of distracting. I have seen kindergarten puppet shows with more effort put into them. I only wish that i could give this movie a rating of zero.
This is the first of "The Complete Dramatic Works of William Shakespeare" BBC series I've seen, and if all of them are like this, I might watch no more. Being practically the full text of the play is everything this "Romeo & Juliet" has going for it, lacking in all other departments. Alvin Rakoff reveals himself as a dreadful director, both in the technical and artistic aspects. In the former, because he commits mistakes that even a first grade film student would wisely avoid. Take in consideration, for example, the badly edited first shot of Abraham and Balthasar in the opening scene, or the Nurse's entering of Friar Lawrence's cell, asking where's Romeo with him being so very in front of her that she'd clearly see him even if she was blind. And, in the latter, because every single one of the performers is misdirected, even if some of them are good actors. Rebecca Saire looks exactly the way I've always imagined Juliet to look like, and she doesn't seem to be a bad actress for a teenager, but her performance totally lacks passion of any kind. Patrick Ryecart as Romeo is even worse, being not only as dull as Juliet, but also way too old and not even good-looking, coming across as a combination of Malcolm McDowell and the Chucky doll. Putting them together makes impossible to think they feel anything for each other, let alone being the main players of the greatest love story ever written. Alan Rickman, in his screen debut, plays Tybalt like if he was Darth Vader, which is a huge mistake that takes away the complexity that Shakespeare intended, no character being a hero or a villain but all flawed human beings. This Tybalt is so mean-looking that we don't believe the characters' pity after his demise. As for Paris, I kept thinking of "Prince Valium" from Spaceballs. Only Celia Johnson manages to do the character of the Nurse some justice.<br /><br />At 168 minutes, this production is unable to make us empathize with the characters, because the characters don't empathize with each other and never seen to believe their own roles. The best screen version is still Franco Zeffirelli's. But, to be fair, this BBC one isn't nearly as bad as abominations like George Cukor's flamboyant geriatric version, or the crime against Humanity that is Baz Luhrmann's feature-length MTV video. 4/10.
I rated Basic instinct 2 high, yet that movie got less than a 4 rating. This film only got a 4 from me, but it has 7.3 from over 600 people. I don't see a reason why they like this film so much.<br /><br />This film is boring, because it hardly ever leaves those rooms in that broken big house. And it only has a total of 5 people in this film. It is almost two hours long which is totally unnecessary. Many of dialogues are slow and meaningless. The film tone is also dark blue which is depressing to watch. The film can just be shorten to a few sentences.<br /><br />This film reminds me of "Three times" directed by Hou Hsiao hsien, that one is equally boring, the dialogues are also equally boring. It also has a high rating! I had to stop watching that one after the first story finished.<br /><br />This film lacks of passion or excitement.
Good films cannot solely be based on a beautiful garden and a hill top. Surprised to see it has won two awards. Extremely overrated. I first saw that kind of films from China, visually stunning BUT also with really something captivating to say, well, more than 10 years ago and I'm sure there are still more coming up. This is not one of them, I'm afraid.
Not very impressed. Its difficult to offer any spoilers to this film, because there is almost no development in the plot. Everything becomes clear in the first ten minutes and from there on its like watching paint dry. The acting seems very poor as well, and reminds me of the old black and white Maoist era films shown occasionally on daytime Chinese television. Although this is difficult to tell with the female role, Yuwen, as the story seems to only require her walking round like a wooden mannequin. It reminds me of fading star Gong Li who somehow got a reputation as a good actress in the West for having a scowl on her face all the time. <br /><br />Tian Zhuangzhuang's film the 'Blue Kite' was a far better film. But don't be fooled by the fact that Springtime in a Small Town was set in the late '40s. Unlike the Blue Kite, the fact that this film is set in a time of upheaval is irrelevant to the plot itself, the ruins of the town seem to be nothing more than a scenic backdrop.<br /><br />I wonder whether Tian Zhuangzhuang is simply trying to ride on the popularity of Chinese films in the West and appeal to a foreign audience who can't tell the difference between a film that is 'beautiful' 'profound' or 'hypnotic' and one that is simply tedious and insubstantial.<br /><br />If any film fits the description of 'overrated,' this is it. I see no reason here to stop worrying about the state of the Chinese film industry.
I'll have to add dissenting comment here. Various reviews I have read compared this movie to the likes of those by Wong Kar Wai or Hou Hsiao-hsien. i.e. one of the admirable flotilla of mandarin goodies that have come our way in recent years. Unfortunately this isn't quite accurate. The film plays out rather like a film school graduate's attempt to emulate these masters. All the pieces are there - the beautiful backdrop, the vaguely minimalist dialogue, the slow swaying camerawork, and male leads, in particular, who spend a fair whack of time sitting around being contemplative. Sounds good but unfortunately nothing is up to par. The dialogue is leaden. The acting is generally unable to lift the characters above type; the married couple and the little sister are particularly poor and uninvolving. Unfortunately when mediocre character acting is combined with a classical "Chekovian" (i.e. very predictable) plot, the results are at best tedious and at worst painful. I couldn't help but see the "Blue Danube" river scene, for example, as verging on genre parody (although the smoggy looking "springtime" sky over the river did provide a bit of black humour...) I actually went to this movie on the basis that Mark Li Ping was photographing it. While the setting is elegant, and the swaying camera attempts to replicate the mood of "Flowers of Shanghai", the film is not in the same league, visually. In fact I must confess that after an hour of wondering whether it was the script or the acting that was ruining the film, I suddenly remembered that I was meant to meet my flatmate for dinner and took the chance to leave (and I can't recall the last film I walked out of). I'm guessing from the reviews that the ending may have left a positive aftertaste but by that point I couldn't care. If you'd like to see something along similar lines done with real talent then I'd recommend anything by the above two directors, for example "In the Mood for Love" or "Flowers of Shanghai", both of which were filmed by the talented Mr Ping (the former with Chris Doyle), and both of which are films masterful enough to inspire years of failed emulations like this. It's not often Mr Hoberman leads me astray, and perhaps you'd rather listen to him, but don't say you weren't warned. Craig.<br /><br />
"Dominique" is one of those films that the expression "slow-as-molasses" must have been invented for. Too many endless and repetitive sequences (how many times do we see Robertson walking down the stairs slowly because he can hear someone playing the piano?). It is ALMOST redeemed at the end by a surprising twist, which, unfortunately, is followed by a second twist that succeeds only in leaving a bad taste in our mouths. Not a very enjoyable film.
Cliff Robertson as a scheming husband married to a rich wife delivers a razzie-worthy performance here if there ever was one; it's as if director Michael Anderson kept yelling "dial it down; think zombie, only less lively" through his little bullhorn as he coached Robertson's effort. The rest of the cast is barely better; Jennifer Agutter of LOGAN'S RUN fame is hardly seen in what should have been fleshed out as a pivotal role. If the quality of the acting was three times better; if some of the more gaping plot holes were filled; and if the pacing were given a shot of adrenaline, then this yawner might be brought up to a standard acceptable to the Hallmark\Lifetime TV channel crowd. As is, its rating is so inexplicably high one can't help thinking chronic insomniacs are using DOMINIQUE to catch a little snoozing time. Perhaps the late-night TV telemarketers are missing a major opportunity in not shilling it as such.
To call a film about a crippled ghost taking revenge from beyond the grave lame and lifeless would be too ironical but this here is an undeniably undistinguished combination of GASLIGHT (1939 & 1944) via LES DIABOLIQUES (1954); while still watchable in itself, it's so cliché-ridden as to provoke chuckles instead of the intended chills. However, thanks to the dire straits in which the British film industry found itself in the late 1970s, even a mediocre script such as this one was able to attract 10 star names - Cliff Robertson (as the conniving husband), Jean Simmons (in the title role), Jenny Agutter (as Robertson's artist half-sister), Simon Ward (as the enigmatic chauffeur), Ron Moody (as an ill-fated doctor), Michael Jayston (as Robertson's business partner), Judy Geeson (as Simmons' best friend and Jayston's wife), Flora Robson (as the housekeeper), David Tomlinson (as the notary reading Simmons' will) and, most surprisingly perhaps, Jack Warner (as a gravestone sculptor) - although most of them actually have nothing parts, I'm sorry to say!
The character acting is a little stiff, as if it is the first time man of the actors have appeared on screen. Unfortunately one of the better actresses, Jean Simmons (played many bit roles on TV, like in Star Trek TNG and In the Heat of the Night), dies quickly and thereafter her acting can be markedly missed.<br /><br />The lead role is Mr Ballard, as portrayed by Cliff Robertson. Cliff is forced to carry this movie with his body language for most of the time. He doesn't do a poor job, but it is a little overmuch to ask of an actor to plug the oceans of blank screen time during which the characters spend their time NOT talking and also NOT acting. Robertson's most memorable role may have been Ben Parker in the last 3 Spider Man movies (starring Tobey Maguire).<br /><br />The plot is predictable. A husband murders his rich wife for her money. thereafter the wife seems to comeback and haunt the husband driving him insane until he leaps from a high window (fearing the specter of his dead wife approaching him) on the day he is predicted to die no less.<br /><br />The second chauffeur Mr Ballard hires looks a lot like an English mark Hamill. Uncanny really! The only thing that stands out is the utter disregard for dialogue. Many minutes pass in quietness, no one speaks, and few act. It is a shame the MST3K guys never got hold of this movie. It could have been much better, if not just as predictable, with more dialogue, or shorter scenes of 'nothingness'.<br /><br />I kept expecting G'Mork's red eyes to appear from the shadows and proclaim that he works for the "nothing" that inhabits this film.
This movie was o.k. but it could have been much better. There are some spooky moments but there aren't enough of them to make me ever want to see this movie again. There are some scenes you could fast forward through & not miss anything. The biggest flaw is that it is so predictable, & that is the reason why I rated it so low. It's watchable but don't expect anything great.
I think Cliff Robertson certainly was one of our finest actors. He has a half dozen classics to his credit. He does fine here as the heavy, but the direction is so bad and the pacing so tiresome, it never gets off the mark. The story starts off well although it makes me wonder how he could count on his wife hanging herself. Still he mugs well and carries things along. The death knell is twofold. First of all, if we were to take the amount of time characters spend walking from one room to another or one part of the house to another, it would eat up about a third of the movie. Add to that, Robertson's character sitting up in bed in the blue light, looking confused, that might add another chunk. I agree with those that said a half hour shorter would have made it a pretty decent, though insignificant film. The biggest weakness is just a convoluted plot that, when all is said and done, leaves incredible questions. I'm not putting in spoilers, but when it ends, don't think too much. I can come up with ten what-ifs without raising a sweat. It would have been better if it had remained a ghost story.
Judy Holliday struck gold in 1950 withe George Cukor's film version of "Born Yesterday," and from that point forward, her career consisted of trying to find material good enough to allow her to strike gold again.<br /><br />It never happened. In "It Should Happen to You" (I can't think of a blander title, by the way), Holliday does yet one more variation on the dumb blonde who's maybe not so dumb after all, but everything about this movie feels warmed over and half hearted. Even Jack Lemmon, in what I believe was his first film role, can't muster up enough energy to enliven this recycled comedy. The audience knows how the movie will end virtually from the beginning, so mostly it just sits around waiting for the film to catch up.<br /><br />Maybe if you're enamored of Holliday you'll enjoy this; otherwise I wouldn't bother.<br /><br />Grade: C
'Major Payne' is a film about a major who makes life a living Hell for his small group of boys in the marines. This film does not really have a lot to offer, but it provides several hilarious moments that are well-worth a watch. Don't expect it to be a memorable film, however. Just expect to laugh your way through the film and at the expense of other people. The confrontation between Major Payne and the chubby boy were hilarious, and that's really all I remember about the film except for the boys wanting revenge on Major Payne. Again, it is not a great film, and it is probably best watched on a rainy day when you need some laughter.
Sort of family parody blending "An Officer And A Gentleman", "Heartbreak Ridge", "Full Metal Jacket" (and without doubt other movies I am not able to remember now) into a rather dull movie, with some bright spots. The gags are always there where you would expect them, and Damon Wayans's lines are, well, predictable. As I said, unfortunately this movie never surprises you...
If this is someone's "favorite" movie, they need some serious help. There is nothing funny or clever about this crapfest. I haven't seen the original movie this is the remake of (some 1950s film), but it simply has to be better than this newer bastardization.<br /><br />A major gets kicked out of the military for being a fringe element, and winds up teaching children at an ROTC school. Unfortunately, the major is Daman Wayans... so the children are in for a world of annoying, humorless asininity. Can Wayans whip these losers into shape? Can they get him to become a little more human? The film bombs as most Wayans films do, with only a few sparkling moments. William Hickey gets about one minute of screen time, fair too little. This charming old man (known best to me as a "Tales from the Crypt" actor, known best to you as Uncle Louis from "Christmas Vacation") shines every moment he's on screen, which isn't much here.<br /><br />Bam Bam Bigelow also makes an appearance as a biker, which fits him perfectly. I wouldn't mind slightly more Bam Bam, but I think he carried the role of "biker" about as far as it could be carried for a military film.<br /><br />And then there's the attractive teacher, who someone falls for Major Payne even though he treats the kids poorly, has no social skills and is simply impossible to convert into someone you would want to spend time with. She must either be incredibly stupid or incredibly desperate. I'm not sure which (though it would seem "stupid" since the movie makes it clear she gets out of the house often enough).<br /><br />Wayans had one shining moment: a dance sequence where he performs a series of moves (including a very nice "robot"), and with the help of music from 2 Live Crew. This scene was enjoyable but hardly made up for anything else that made this film dog spittle.<br /><br />Seriously, avoid this film. If you want to see a film a bout a loser who helps loser kids become heroes, rent or buy "Ernest Goes to Camp". At least he's a lovable loser, and actually funny. Maybe if Major Payne had fought a badger I'd feel better, but he didn't. Forget Payne, forget Wayans... you can do so much better.
but there are not too many of them. Probably the worst "major release" film I have seen in my life. Definitely the worst for this year. There is no point in commenting on the plot, the cast or the acting. The problem is beyond all that. It lays in the absolute stupidity of the annoying kind (not the funny kind) of everything that takes place on the screen. I don't know why I gave it a 2/10 instead of 1/10. Probably, because of Steven Martini. He really did try. Bottom line - 95 minutes washed down the toilet along with a few brain cells. Avoid at any cost.
Did anyone stop to realise what sort of movie they were producing here ? Now let`s a former marine officer becomes assinged to a group of kids at a cadet school so this should be a family comedy right ? Wrong . This is just a gross comedy aimed at teenagers with many bad taste moments .It might have been watchable in an extremely dumb way at this point but I found Damon Wayans voice to be irritating beyond belief . Does he speak like that in real life ? If he does then he has my sympathy but he won`t be getting any of my money from watching his movies
Major Payne was really not very good at all. Despite being funny here and there, the story was ridiculous and the acting was poor. Major Payne's voice and temperament were especially annoying. The idea was ridiculous and the things that the boys had to do in that film were even more ridiculous. I would not recommend this film to anyone.
I view probably 200 movies a year both at theaters and at home and I can say with confidence that this movie is by far the worst I have seen this year (If not ever, however I have not actually seen "Quest of the Delta Knights" yet). This movie is just bad joke after bad joke geared to the 13 year old and because I had he displeasure of viewing it on a bus trip I couldn't walk out.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and skip this one in the rental aisle. The four dollars could be better spent on any movie by numbers produced by Jerry Bruckheimer.
Stefan is an x-con that five years ago got married to Marie. Their marriage has been stable until Stefan past catch up with them and he's offered to do a courier job. Stefan's job is a heroin delivery from Germany to Sweden which should go easily.<br /><br />In Germany Stefan meet Elli, a girl from Bosnia that has been sold to a stripclub owner. Stefan dislikes what he sees and decide to help Elli out of her misery. Due to the fact that Elli's father during the war fleed to Sweden Elli now goes with Stefan to Sweden. To make up with the past Stefan promises Elli to help her find her father, no matter what it takes. Finally back in Sweden the whole situation seems to be more complicated than Stefan ever thought of..<br /><br />This movie doesn't seem to fit in the ordinary class of swedish movies due to the fact that it's been americanized alot. Regina Lund and Cecilia Bergqvist makes it all average, the effects makes the movie a little too much though. See it and jugde for yourself.<br /><br />
With the releasing of "Farligt förflutet" Swedish film industry has truly hit rock bottom. Stefan (Jens Hultén) has for the past years lived a calm life with his wife Marie (Regina Lund). One day an old friend of Stefan´s arrives with a favor to ask him. Stefan is to do a small courier job. He is supposed to bring a suitcase filled with heroine through the Sweden-Germany customs. Unfortunately things in Germany don´t work out as planned and Stefan is now in big trouble. It is always nice to see a Swedish film that breaks the traditional family-drama pattern. Unfortunately if the people involved in the production have no clue of how a movie is supposed to be written, filmed or cut the result can only be catastrophic. The content can be concluded with: bad acting, an incoherent plot and idiotic dialogs. The only highlight in the movie is the unprovoked sex-scene wit the incredibly beautiful Regina Lund. This lasts for only a few seconds leaving approxamitly 90 minutes of pure, let´s say what it truly is, crap.
Absolutely one of the worst movies I have ever seen! The acting, the dialog, the manuscript, the sound, the lighting, the plot line. I actually can't say anything positive about this, although I enjoy Swedish movies. The fighting scenes are so ridiculous that it's impossible to take it seriously. And when the lead character just happens to loose his shirt, while dodging bullets in a strip bar, I'm not sure if it's supposed to be a joke, or if someone really thinks these are ingredients in a good film?! Regina Lund is the only half descent actor, but she disappears in a flood of laughable pronunciations and unbelievable reactions. It leaves you horrified that someone actually spent time and money on something like this...
This film, by Oscar Petersson, is unique. Its uniqueness doesn't lie in the story, since many a half brained Hollywood production has served us comparably miserable plots, but rather in the thorough way that complete and utter lousiness in one aspect is joined with equal lousiness in all other aspects.<br /><br />The dialog is worse than embarrassing. Rotten acting and abysmal direction are thrown into the mix. Bosnians speaking English with heavy Swedish accents add an unintentional element of humor. Uninspired lightning and camera-work are icing on the turkey film cake. As a sort of surprise for the audience, there are a few completely unmotivated slow motion sequences where you'd least expect any. To add insult to injury, the whole thing is cut by someone devoid of any sense of timing.<br /><br />The "bad guy henchman turns good after hearing good guy's speech" scene in the church, is the point at which is time to dethrone Ed Wood from the position as the worst director of all times; Move over Ed Wood - here comes Oscar Petersson!
In theory, 'Director's Commentary' should have worked. The talented Rob Bryden plays Peter DeLane, a former television director recounting his experiences behind the camera. Amongst the programmes he is alleged to have worked on are 'Bonanza', 'Flambards', 'The Duchess Of Duke Street', and 'The Bounder'. His commentaries are not the least bit informative, due to his habit of wandering off the point.<br /><br />But in practice, it failed dismally. It is a one-joke show, and the joke is not particularly funny. The scripts are completely lacking in wit, and Bryden fails to convince as an old man. Whenever stuck for anything amusing to say, which is like every five seconds, he issues a hissing laugh. Rather than being amused by DeLane, you want to shoot him. If senile old men strike you as hilarious, then this is for you.<br /><br />It didn't help that the shows mocked were, with the exceptions of 'Mr & Mrs' and 'Crossroads', rather good. For the joke to work, they needed to be really dreadful such as 'Charlie's Angels', 'O.T.T.', 'Telly Addicts', 'Neighbours', and 'New Faces'.<br /><br />The show tanked big time, so thankfully we are spared the horror of future editions. Wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if 'Director's Commentary' were someday itself the subject of a spoof?
The Howling II starts as it means to go on with a bizarre and surreal opening narration by Christopher Lee whose image is imposed over a moving star field, oh and a skeleton appears as well for some reason. He says "for it's written the inhabitants of the Earth have been made drunk with her blood. And I saw her sip upon a hairy beast and she held forth a golden challis full of the filthiest fornication's and upon her forehead was written, behold I am the great Mother of #an inaudible word I couldn't make out no matter how many times I rewound the tape and tried to, sorry# and all abominations of the Earth". This opening narration means nothing at all and is just downright bizarre. After the opening credits which are set over shots of Transylvanian architecture we get an on screen caption that informs us we're in 'Los Angeles, California U.S.A. City of the Angels'. I knew I was in for a long 86 minutes. It's probably not too long after the events of the original Howling (1981) and it's Karen White's funeral. After the ceremony Karen's brother Ben (Reb Brown) is spoken to by an 'occult investigator' called Stefan Crosscoe (Christopher Lee) who says that Karen is a Werewolf and that she will come back to life. Ben dismisses such nonsense. But together with one of Karen's friends and colleagues Jenny (Annie McEnroe) he visits Stefan at his home. There Stefan tells them about Werewolves and how they can be killed, he mentions Stirba (Sybil Danning) who is the queen of Werewolves. Stefan also shows them a photograph taken at Karen's funeral of a woman named Mariana (Marsha A. Hunt) and that she is an extremely vicious and dangerous Werewolf who wants Karen. Stefan says he will stake any Werewoves through the heart with titanium. Ben figures out that Stefan means he will stake Karen as well so together with Jenny he travels to the graveyard where his sister's crypt is to stop Stefan. However lots of Werewolves turn up and attack Stefan, Ben and Jenny. They survive the attack and manage to find out that Stirba is to be found in Transylvania. They all decide to travel to Transylvania and stop Stirba and her Werewolves from taking over the Earth by fulfilling a centuries old curse. Once there they travel to a small town called Vlkava which means 'where wolves live' and meet up with the local priest, Father Florin (Ladislav Krecmer) and his small but loyal group of Werewolf hunters, hey what else can I call them? Oh, and a dwarf named Florica (Ludmila Safarova) helps too. They follow Mariana who they hope will lead them to Stirba. But Stirba knows of Stefan's arrival and has plans for him Ben and Jenny. Will Stefan be able to put an end to Stirba's plans for world domination? Will this film get any more bizarre or surreal? Watch it and find out. Directed by Philippe Mora this is one strange mess of a film. It's poorly edited as certain sequences just jump around incoherently. The single biggest problem is the script by Robert Sano and Gary Brandner based on his novel which is all over the place and doesn't make any sort of sense or introduces us to any proper characters that we like. Luckily it moves along like a rocket and is never dull or boring, unlike the original. Something strange or bizarre is always happening to keep the viewer entertained. Most people will probably hate it, but for those of us who enjoy 'bad' films this is right up there with the best of them. There are Werewolf orgies which are just freaky to watch. We get some cool Werewolf killing weaponry. The sets and locations just seem so out of place and I don't know if this was actually shot in Transylvania but it doesn't look like what I thought mid 80's Transylvania would. Stirba's castle is part dungeon, part Gothic castle and part modern luxury house. Stirba and her servant's costumes are very over-the-top, Stirba wears an outfit that looks like it belongs in a S/M video and to be fair to her she looks pretty sexy, and her minions wear skimpy leather clothing too. The special make-up effects range from good to poor, a dwarf's eyes explode, someone has their hand ripped off and a priest has some creature emerge from his mouth but this isn't a film loaded with gore, although there are plenty of effect sequences with Werewolf transformations and attacks. There is plenty of nudity as well as Stirba and her minions are a real randy bunch of Werewolves! I should also mention the music, the soundtrack is dominated by awful rock music that I hated and I ended up turning the volume down. Acting is weak all round and what on Earth was Christopher Lee thinking about when he accepted this film?! I wonder what he thinks of it. Basically the whole thing is a real mess, but I found it a fairly entertaining mess all the same. Impossible to recommend but it kept me watching through to the end. Speaking of which the end credits run over what appears to be deleted scenes and cut footage, it also features the same shot of Sybil Danning taking her dress off and exposing her breasts probably in excess of 20 times! If that's your thing.
After watching this, I had lost a little respect for Christopher Lee (This has passed over time). This film was utter garbage. First, they tried to recreate the ending from the first "Howling," with incredibly bad make-up. Then they try to turn it into a sad excuse of a werewolf porn film! The plot sucks and the whole film is just AWFUL!!!! A brother of a werewolf victim from the first film (From the look of it, it was SUPPOSED to be Dee Wallace Stone)teams up with Lee and another woman to destroy the group of werewolves, lead by Sybil Danning, who seems to be naked all the time.<br /><br />This is not even worth renting (Unless you want to waste your time and money watching the nudity.). Try to catch it on cable instead. It would be so chopped up, it may actually make sense.
Howling II (1985) was a complete 180 from the first film. Whilst the first film was campy and creepy. The second one was sleazy and cheesy. The production values on this one are pretty bad and the acting is atrocious. The brother of the anchorwoman werewolf from part one wants to find out what happened to his sis'. The "scene" from the first film was badly re-created. A skinny plain looking woman accompanies bro' (Reb Brown) to the old country (Romania) to uncover the mystery to her sister's murder/transformation/death. Christopher Lee appears and disappears over now and then as sort of a sage/guide to the two. Sybil Danning and her two biggest assets appear as Stirba, the head werewolf of the Romania. She also suffers from a bad case of morning face, ewww!<br /><br />Bad movie. There's nothing good about this stinker. I'm surprise Philippe Mora directed this picture because he's usually a good film-maker. The film is so dark that you need a flashlight to watch it (no, not the content but the film stock itself). To round the movie off you get a lousy "punk" performance from a Damned wannabe "Babel". Maybe if they forked over a couple of extra bucks they could've got the real deal instead of an imitation.<br /><br />Best to avoid unless you're desperate or you lost the remote and you're too lazy to change the channel.
From the moment Christopher Lee puts on a pair of punk sunglasses and tries to sneak into a punk rock club, you know you've got a stinker on your hands! This film had potential. Beneath all of the sludge there are the remnants of what could have been crafted into a decent film, if not an interesting one. The final product is a real mess, however. Aside from the gratuitous nudity and some very attractive women, Howling II winds up being a laughable excuse for a horror film. Christopher Lee gives it a nugget of credibility, but even he cannot raise it above the level of crap.<br /><br />Having never seen any of the other films in this series, this critic will be forced to accept on face value that this is a genuine continuation of the events in part one. We start off at a funeral for one of the characters from the original, and within the first ten minutes we find ourselves in Transylvania with a small group of heroes ready to battle a coven of werewolves. The film is paced fairly well, and there are not too many dead spots. The action is there; it just isn't filmed well. One bright spot is the music of a punk band called Babel. Though their song is played quite often, it is rather catchy.<br /><br />The problems with this film are great in number. First off, the acting is worse than pitiful. Christopher Lee is good enough, but that's where it ends. The two leads Reb Brown and Annie McEnroe are lacking in just about everything you'd want for such characters. The writing is wretched, the editing redundant, and the direction amateurish. There are a couple nice special effect gimmicks, but the cheesy ones far out weigh them in number. Sybil Danning is nice to look at, but her acting performance is less than satisfactory. Judd Omen looks the part he plays, but his voice and acting are unconvincing to say the least. Much of the dialog is in an unintelligible language that may or may not be Latin.<br /><br />I liked the general idea for the story. I always enjoy stories of true believers out to battle seemingly invincible forces of evil. One scene where a small group of good guys are trekking through a dark forest and shooting down a bunch of werewolves is even kind of exciting. Kind of. Maybe a bigger budget or a better director could have made the rest of the film a bit more compelling. 3 of 10 stars.<br /><br />The Hound.<br /><br />Side note: As of this writing, the censors at youtube.com have still not taken down the ending credits with Sybil Danning ripping off her top several times while the Babel song is playing! Catch it while you can!
Dreadful horror sequel to "The Howling". This picks off with Karen White's funeral (she was killed at the end of the first film). Stefan Crosscoe (Christopher Lee sadly) arrives there and tells Karen's brother Ben (Reb Brown) that Karen was a werewolf. He's going to Transylvania to kill Striba (Sybil Danning) the head werewolf. Ben and a coworker of Karens (Annie McEnroe) join him.<br /><br />A terrible script, bad direction, inept editing and truly horrendous acting by Brown and McEnroe single handedly sink this one. The werewolf effects are mostly kept in the dark--for good reason! They're terrible when you see them. Subpar special effects also--although I DID like the cartoon lightning that comes from Danning's fingers. There's also a werewolf orgy which is particularly stupid and Danning takes off her top at least EIGHT TIMES during the closing credits! <br /><br />There are a few good things--I found the village in Transylvania amusing--it looks like it came from a Universal horror flick from the 1930s! There are interesting camera tricks between transition scenes; Brown and McEnroe have good bodies and Lee and Danning are good in this--but they can't save it. Really--WHY did they do this? Where that they hard up for money??? This is one of IMDb's lowest rated movies. That alone should tell you something. Supposedly Danning was horrified when she saw the movie--I can understand why! A must-miss.
OK, as everyone has pointed out, this film is a complete dog. To some degree this is because it was a gory sexploitation film that had a lot of material excised (or darkened down to near invisibility) to escape the censor's X-rating; but the film has many other flaws as well.<br /><br />To begin with, the scriptwriter seems to have got his werewolves and vampires mixed up. The baddies in this film are furry and don't like silver but in every other respect they behave like vampires. Now you just can't do that with a crappy genre flick, you've got to stick to the rules of the genre or the fans get all confused and annoyed by suspending disbelief in the wrong thing. In fact the whole (confusing and poorly presented) plot is something that has already been done for vampires, but doesn't make any sense in a werewolf movie.<br /><br />Secondly, the werewolf costumes are the lamest you have ever seen. Anybody in the werewolf movie business ought to know that the werewolf costumes and transformations are something the fans assess critically, yet some of these werewolves are just plain goofy.<br /><br />There are a couple of slightly good bits. I actually quite liked the score. Others have mentioned Sybil Danning's tits. And...<br /><br />(***SPOILER***, if such a thing can exist)<br /><br />I also quite liked the plan for attacking the werewolves' stronghold. There are so many horror movies that rely on characters behaving stupidly, but in this case they first acquire a very sensible and effective anti-werewolf arsenal and go slaughter the monsters. I mean, you can kill werewolves with silver bullets, and we have some pretty powerful firearms these days. Shouldn't be too hard to put two and two together, hmm? But in typical style this movie goes over the top and adds some other very zany and amusing anti-lycanthrope weapons.
Ugly shot, poorly scripted and amateurishly paced sequel to Joe Dante's 1981 classic. "The Howling" is one of the two or three ONLY good werewolf-films ever made and yet it got 'rewarded' by a series of obnoxious and unendurable sequels like this one. If it's any consolation, "Stirba" is a sequel in name only and there's absolutely no connection with the characters or events that were introduced in Dante's film. The plot here revolves on a bloodthirsty cult of Transsylvanian werewolves – primarily female ones – led by Stirba. Stirba is played by Sybil Danning who transforms from a curvy old lady into a blond super-babe (with impressive bosom) in the blink of an eye and becomes all hairy when sexually aroused. Her arch-enemy is played by a seemly fatigue Christopher Lee. His character – Stefan Crosscoe – is an occult investigator who travels to Stirba's kingdom, accompanied by an American couple who lost their friend to the werewolf cult. In case you're exclusively looking for filthy gore and gratuitous nudity...this is your film. Even the smallest killing is shown in great detail and we're even treated to exploding eyeballs and the vile image of a dwarf who gets pierced on a pointy fence. However, if you want a little substance or depth, you'll be sorely disappointed. The dialogues are embarrassing and there's absolutely no tension to detect anywhere. The scriptwriters constantly seem to confuse werewolves with vampires (the Transsylvanian setting, garlic, wooden stakes...) and Danning's gorgeous balcony is shamelessly exploited as the film's only gimmick. During the end-credits, a shot in which she rips off her top, is re-edited repeatedly (according to my fellow reviewer Dr. Gore, no less than seventeen times!) which is pretty pathetic and pointless. The music is okay and some of the scenery is rather beautiful. I'm talking about the fierce-looking statues during the opening credits and the dark dungeons of Stirba's castle. The directing by Philippe Mora is a giant mess and – as far as I'm concerned – his only worthwhile film remains "The Beast Within", released three years earlier.
Ben a out-of-town cop is convinced his sister was brutally killed and wants to bring her killer to justice, but he's approached by Stefan who believes his sister was a victim of a werewolf cult. So Ben, his sister's best friend and Stefan travel to Transylvania to put a end to this evil.<br /><br />This is incredibly awful B-grade stuff and I wondered how it even got released. It makes the original 'Howling' look like a masterpiece. What was Christopher Lee thinking, as this has to be his worst performance I've seen.<br /><br />There was a lot wrong with this real cheap-ass film, ranging from the really hammy and wooden performances from Annie McEnroe, Reb Brown, Marsha A. Hunt and Sybil Danning (not to forgot Lee), cheesy fashion (those sunnies), cheap and lame special effects, bad use of lighting, the humour... if there was any, trashy 80s music (with some of the film just focusing on some unknown band playing), werewolf's having orgies which is a sight to see and a tiresome story with flat and annoying dialogue. I thought if it was that bad it would be awfully funny, but I was wrong. <br /><br />The positives were the location and settings of the film looked great, but that's about it... actually I'll add Sybil Danning short stripping scene too.<br /><br />During the end credits the band plays their crap-house song during a weird montage of scenes from the film, which I beckon the question why?<br /><br />An awful piece of mess, however at least it isn't boring.<br /><br />1/5
This film is really bad,so bad that even Christopher Lee cannot save it.A poor story an even poorer script and just plain bad direction makes this a truly outstanding horror film,the outstanding part being that it is the only horror film that i can honestly say i would never ever watch again.This garbage make Plan nine from outerspace look like oscar material.
Lee hosted the 100 Years of Horror for Ted Newsom and was talking about filmic werewolves. He said something to the effect that his only brush with lycanthropy was The Howling II, then he quipped, "The less said about that the better." Indeed he was right as this film may very well be the worst in his entire catalog of screen performances. The first Howling by Joe Dante was a groundbreaking werewolf film with its incredible special effects and its campy sense of style and subject matter. It was a film to be taken seriously. Like other good original films, filmmakers for some strange reason thought that even more campy sequels were needed rather than what worked the first time(See CHUD then CHUD II to illustrate this point). This film is miles and miles away from the first on every front. There is absolutely nothing scary about it. It looks cheap and is pitch black through most of the major scenes. Lee is the only actor in the film worth mentioning(okay, I'll cede Ferdy Mayne too). Lee looks embarrassed as he says inane dialog and does ridiculous things(check out that ending with him and Stirba). Lee looks incredibly tired and knows what dreck this is which is a tad more insightful than the two leads who leave America to go to Romania. The story isn't really worth examining here, and you can bet there is very little story worth mentioning when you have to have Stephen Parsons and his band Babel play through much of the film in the beginning and the ending with that dreadful noise. Sybil Danning is here and, yes, she disrobes once and then we get that scene showed again and again and again - one reviewer said 17 times(I counted ten - but might have been so bored out of my mind by that point). I gave the film three stars, but it really deserves a zero - the three I gave it are 1 for Lee and two for Ms. Danning's contributions. Yuck!
Yes, the first "Howling" was a classic. A rather good werewolf movie that I admit started slowly, but gained momentum along the way to have a rather good finish then the anchorwoman changed into a cute werewolf only to be gunned down on camera. Yes that made for an entertaining horror movie to be sure...well forget all of that as this movie has nothing to do with that film. Oh sure, they kind of make it out that the anchor woman is the same and that her brother or something is wanting to find out what and why things went down as they did, but they go from the little cozy retreat from the first movie to Transylvania or somewhere here where they must battle evil magician werewolves or something. I often wonder what in the world Christopher Lee was doing in this movie, however I read the trivia here where it says he had never been in a werewolf movie before, but still read the script before you take a role. Maybe you could have gotten into "An American Werewolf in London" hell that could have been possible. It was set in London after all. Heck, werewolves do not seem to figure much into this movie except for a rather bizarre and prolonged sex scene. In fact, the most memorable death in this movie for me was when the one gal started talking loudly and this one dude's ear's started bleeding.
We had STARZ free weekend and I switched on the station to see what was on . It was this movie Howling II: The acting was terrible but the eye candy was great. Sybil Danning and Marsha Brown as the afore mentioned eye candy. I was laughing a lot from the few scenes I saw.<br /><br />My friends wonder why I never want to go to Horror movies , If they saw this film they would know why. I would get thrown out for laughing so hard.<br /><br />Just a couple of trivia notes : Reb Brown who played Ben White had played Captain American in a made for TV movie Marsha Brown was Mick Jaggers inspiration for the song "Brown Sugar" Mick has great taste in women for sure.
In the first Howling, we are introduced to a world where werewolves exist and are somewhat organized. The plot in that film made some sense; a TV reporter investigates this and attempts to uncover the truth. She ends up having to kill many of them including her boyfriend who becomes one. Then she shows the world that they do exist by transforming on live TV. The special effects were just laughable in the first movie and they don't get any better in this one. Whether it's the transformations or the bad puppets or the cheesy computer graphics showing the superpowers.<br /><br />The plot line isn't all that bad; they must kill the leader of the werewolves for some reason. This won't destroy all werewolves and it really doesn't end the threat from werewolves as it...they just want to kill her. I think there was some cloudy reason for this but it really gets lost in the film.<br /><br />After the film "ends" we have a 10 minute montauge of the movie we just watched and every other scene is one where the female werewolf leader rips off her top exposing her large breasts while some Devo-esquire band plays to a crowd of werewolves. <br /><br />The only thing that makes this movie even watchable is Christopher Lee.
to be honest, i didn't watch all of the original 'howling', but those scenes i saw made it obvious that the first howling was a great movie. so great, that seven horrible sequels had to be made. they started off with "Howling II: Your Sister Is A Werewolf". i got this movie on VHS from my uncle sometime ago when he was giving away a bunch of old movies he bought back when Atari was brand new. i just watched it last night, and it wasn't really BAD, it was just weird. i mean, the whole thing with Sybil Danning going three-way with two of her werewolf minions was just out of place and quite disturbing (but kinda hot), Christopher lee about to stab a dead karen as if she's a vampire, etc. actually, this movie was actually like some sort of mish-mash of Dracula and The Lost Boys...except with werewolves, because everything Christopher Lee (whom played Dracula himself) was saying about werewolves pretty much ripped off from every other vampire movie (stake in the heart, garlic, the creature of the night must die AT NIGHT, and the ruler of werewolves lives in TRANSYLVANIA). not much for the acting, but the worst of it came from Annie McEnroe. i swear, at some point in the film i found myself rooting for the werewolves to rip her throat out, because that damn throat always had to say SOMETHING. Anyway, the plot is pretty silly and clichéd, so there's no real point in telling you, you could just read about it on Wikipedia. By the way, the thing that really makes me nauseous about this movie is the fact that it's the ONLY film out of all the seven sequels thats related in any way to the original (not counting Howling IV (1988), which was a remake of the original, or in other words, a sequel based on the same novel). so don't see this movie. there's no real horror, hardly any werewolves, and just horrible special fx. 3/10
I have always been somewhat underwhelmed by Joe Dante's original THE HOWLING (1981) – so I wasn't particularly interested in checking out any of its sequels; some time ago, I did catch HOWLING III: THE MARSUPIALS (1987) – by the same director as this one – and found it to be watchable but nothing special.<br /><br />The second instalment, however, has quite a bad rep and I knew I'd have a good time watching it – if mainly to wallow in the sight of dear but pompous horror icon Christopher Lee squirming in the midst of it all (the gracefully-aged star has pathetically asserted a number of times in interviews that he hasn't appeared in horror-oriented fare since his last picture for Hammer Films back in 1976!). Anyway, this film should have borne the subtitle "Your Movie Is A Turd" – being astoundingly inept in all departments (beginning with the all-important werewolf make-up)! <br /><br />The plot (and dialogue) is not only terrible, but it has the limpest connection with Dante's film – strangely enough, the author of the original novel Gary Brandner co-wrote this himself! Still, one of the undeniable highlights (er...low points) of the film is the pointless elliptical editing – which tries to give the whole a semblance of style, but only serves to accentuate its embarrassment factor! Similarly phoney (and grating) are the hokey transitions between scenes, the inane punk-rock theme song, and the cheapjack special-effects at the climax! <br /><br />What about the characters, then?: Lee is the werewolf expert, naturally, whom everybody thinks a crackpot – until they come into contact with the monsters, that is; at the very least, though, one has to admire the makers' ingenuity (or gall) in devising a stupid subtitle with a dual meaning! Incidentally, Sybil Danning (as Stirba, Werewolf Bitch – the subtitle by which this is known in the U.K.!) is quite fetching in an assortment of outrageous S&M outfits...but her character is virtually given nothing to do (except preside over her brood of followers and engage in the occasional hilarious three-way lycanthrope sex!); her two snarling lieutenants (one of them a sluttish black girl) are especially irritating.<br /><br />Aiding Lee on the side of good are the two yuppie heroes (he being the brother of the Dee Wallace character from the first film and she a colleague of hers) and a ragged guerrilla-type band of Transylvians (still, they generally manage to effortlessly overcome Danning's rather dumb werewolves!). Notable among them is a knife-throwing dwarf who gets a particularly nasty (but, at the same time, side-splitting) demise; he's later revived, under Stirba's control, in order to lure Lee (by making childish taunts at him all through the village streets) into a trap. The latter scene has to be a career nadir for the distinguished and imposing actor – well, either this or the early sequence in a discotheque where Lee is made to don a pair of ultra-cool sunglasses so as to appear inconspicuous among the partying youngsters!<br /><br />In the end, if I were forced to mention elements in this which weren't entirely displeasing, I guess I could say that the ossuary set (in which the heroine is to be sacrificed) is interesting, or that the hybrid werewolf/bat creature (Danning's pet who likes to 'inhabit' the body of its victims) is just too weird to be despised...
Now this film isn't going to scare anyone, but it was interesting for two reasons - two big reason and a smaller one- well, that's three reasons, isn't it.<br /><br />The first reason this is interesting is the special effects. I found them to be quite interesting and somewhat spectacular. To see the hair growing on Marsha A. Hunt and Sybil Danning was creepy, especially when they were participating in a ménage à trois.<br /><br />Of interest, is the fact that this Marsha Hunt is the famous "Brown Sugar" of the Rolling Stones song, and that she was in the infamous nude scene in the London cast of the rock musical Hair.<br /><br />Besides the special effects, there were two other points of note in this film, and they were brought out repeatedly during the closing credits. I lost count, but i swear that Sybil Danning bared those points for us in the closing credits at least a dozen times and maybe many more. Theyu were the most outstanding feature of the film.
This is a pretty bad movie. But not so bad as it's reputation suggests. The production values aren't too bad and there is the odd effective scene. And it does have an 80's cheezoid veneer that means that it is always kind of fun. Watch out, too, for Jimmy Nail's brief appearance - his attempt at an American accent is so astoundingly rubbish it's fantastic. Fantastic too are Sybil Danning's breasts - they make a brief appearance in the movie but the scene is repeated umpteen times in the end credits in what can only be described as the 12" remix of Sybil Danning's boobs. Has to be seen to be believed. As a horror movie it isn't scary, the effects are silly and Christopher Lee turns up to sleepwalk through his performance. I guess he was buying a new house and needed some cash for the deposit. The two central characters - the man and the woman - were so negligible that I have forgotten almost everything about them and I just watched this movie earlier tonight. The werewolves are noticeably less impressive than in the original movie, in fact, bizarrely, they sometimes look more like badly burned apes. The eastern European setting is quite good and the music provided by the new wave band Babel, while being pretty terrible, does at least give the film some added cheese.<br /><br />Overall? Good for a laugh. Not good quality but did you seriously expect it to be? And, at the very least, you've always got Sybil's knockers.
Somewhere, buried very deep inside this film is a half-way decent movie trying to get out. The only traces are a few early scenes in Los Angeles (in a bar and a graveyard) and thereafter a couple of pieces of production design. Like I say, buried very deep. One of the biggest challenges faced by movies involving the supernatural is how to have characters react believably in unbelievable situations. Annie Mcenroe's reaction to being told that her sister (presumably Dee Wallace from the first movie) is (was?) a werewolf is, if I recall, along the lines of; "Oh! Really?". Not one of the better responses to said challenge. The non sequitirs continue as the story moves to Trannsylvania in search of Stirba the (apparently self-appointed) "Queen of the Werewolves". As Stirba, Sybil Danning is the two best things in the movie. Yes, even better than the werewolf group-sex scene, Reb Brown's acting, and the oddly simian-looking werewolf suits. The end credits have assumed minor legend status and are available in all their glory (at least until the censor finds them) on Youtube. Check them out to see why and remember, the whole film makes about the same amount of sense. If you happen to catch this on US television the credits have been re-edited to replace the endlessly repeated shot of Danning ripping off her top with another endlessly repeated shot of her ripping open a cloak only this time she has some kind of top on underneath. It's a sort of absurdity, cherry-on-top moment which defies satire.
This U.S soap opera, 'Knots Landing' has all the entertainment value of being trapped in an elevator. Every episode contained plots such as rape, murder, kidnapping and drug smuggling, not much different to the plots of other drama shows of the period. As for the cast, I've seen better actors on a cereal box. From the mid to late '90's, repeats of 'Knots' stunk up U.K-Gold like a mountain of mildewing nappies. I regret to announce that I had to suffer this as my mother was a huge fan of the show and would watch it religiously. Though since then, re-runs have been few and far between (let's hope it stays that way). The only positive thing that can be said of 'Knots' is the catchy saxophone signature tune, later used as the title music for the I.T.V sitcom, 'The Upper Hand'. Great legacy that, eh?
In the Tower of Babel installment of the mini-series, the narrator describes the builders of the tower as "the descendants of Moses."<br /><br />That's like saying George Washington lived many centuries before Alexander the Great.<br /><br />Or that the light bulb was invented before the wheel.<br /><br />Or that the guided missile was the forerunner of the bow-and-arrow.<br /><br />Need I say more?<br /><br />The writers of The Greatest Heroes of the Bible should have at least paid closer attention to the chronologies of Biblical people and events.
I watched this knowing almost nothing about it, other than the brief description I read here. After watching it I was originally going to say that the director shows promise but seems kind of amateurish, then I looked at the other stuff he's done to see if this was his first or second movie, but no, he did House on Haunted Hill and Fear Dot Com. He sort of missed the mark on both those movies and it was the same with this one.<br /><br />The story was pretty awful too, could someone just fall in love with a girl because she's pretty but has the mind of a child? I gave it a 3 because there were some visuals that I rather enjoyed near the end but as a whole this movie is pretty terrible.
I watched this movie after seeing other comments on IMDb, even convincing my wife that it was a "unique horror movie." I wanted to like this movie, but was unable to.<br /><br />The "love story" was good, but the horror aspect was quite bad. If the story was just about a young man who fell in love with a girl suffering from parasomnia, then it would have been a better movie.<br /><br />The care centre stretched credulity well past the limits, in fact it was quite ridiculous. The doctor happily ignors privacy laws and professionalism. A nurse goes into a room for a routine feeding of a dangerous patient (without security escort), and drops the tray and runs out of the room screaming for no apparent reason. The forensic patient (and the film's villain) is tied up in a standing position fully clothed - apparently for years? None of it makes much sense.<br /><br />The movie even had some actors that I've liked in other things, such as the detectives, but still I can't recommend this movie.
This film is very creepy indeed. Unfortunately, not for the reasons the film makers would hope.<br /><br />There's a mastermind serial killer too, but he's not what's creepy either. He's just your standard comic book villain, a cross between Hannibal Lecter and Freddie Kruger, though with nothing particularly fresh to add to either. Incidentally, for even the vilest and most reprehensible of criminals, can they be detained chained in a stress position, on their feet, arms outstretched 24 hours a day week in week out? I suppose in the world that gave us Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, anything's possible.<br /><br />No, what's really creepy about this film is the central character, Danny. This unappealing young man, aided and abetted it's true by some ludicrously lax security arrangements and a doctor entirely careless of any notion of professional ethics or patient confidentiality, wanders into the hospital room occupied by what can only be described as a highly vulnerable and defenceless young woman, and on the basis of nothing whatsoever (her chronic sleeping precludes from being able to give anything like informed consent) imagines himself to have some sort of special relationship with her.<br /><br />Seemingly within days, he has arrogated to himself the right to abduct her, believing (completely falsely, as we discover) that he is better able to care for her than anyone else, and within minutes of getting her back to his apartment, is sexually molesting her though she is (again due to her sleepiness) entirely unable to consent or resist.<br /><br />Our suspicions as to why he would feel this connection are pretty soon confirmed. He is of course more or less unable to form any mature adult friendships, let alone sexual relationships, so instead falls back on this essentially infantilised woman, who because of her permanent sleeping has a mental age corresponding to a lived experience of only a few years. The scene where she discovers ice cream is particularly cringe-making, and the coyly knowing look she gives him when he gloatingly says he'll have to clean her up again causes a particular shudder of horror. But again, I'm afraid, not that shudder of horror the film makers were hoping for, but a much more straightforward spasm of revulsion. We can all see clearly what's on the end of our forks here - it's the paedophile's perfect dream of innocence, sexual compliance and utter dependence. Horrible, horrible, horrible.<br /><br />What else have we got in this mish mash? Twisted dreamscapes not quite as good as del Toro. The compulsory "You need to go to the police" argument, where the lead character always has a reason for not doing so even though it's the only sensible course of action. The automaton sequence, much praised in the comments here, though completely and utterly pointless ("It serves no function!", as Sigourney Weaver memorably protested in Galaxy Quest) and looking to me just like the Abominable Doctor Phibes rehashed in one of the Saw derivatives.<br /><br />Jeffrey Combs does his best though, so a star for that, and a couple more because you have to keep lower rankings for films that are even worse than this, and in general this is well-shot and competently performed.
It's somewhat telling that most of the great reviews for the film on IMDb all come from people who have only reviewed one film in their entire IMDb career and yes you've guessed it, that film is "Parasomnia". I've often suspected suspiciously good reviews on IMDb for what turns out to be an anything but good films as underhand marketing , but it seems fairly transparent in this case.<br /><br />That's not to say Parasomnia is terrible, but it stops well short of being the good or great film it had the potential to be.<br /><br />On the plus side, it has a great baddie in Patrick Kilpatrick who does a brilliant job projecting menacing and evil, I could easily see him having what it takes to play a truly memorable baddie on a par with Hannibal Lecter. There are some beautiful visuals in the dream sequences, in fact if the film had decided to explore that terrain more it might have been something better. The actual concept of devious misuse of hypnosis is great too.<br /><br />Although I understand suspension of disbelief is necessary for immersion in any good story, it's the mark of a good story that it succeeds in letting you do that. If you find yourself being annoyed at what you find illogical or just plain silly, then the story is losing you and that's what kept happening to me with this film. Other reviewers have mentioned this here and I don't want to get into spoiler territory, but I will say the setup at the ending was particularly ludicrous and disappointing, not too mention the varying mental age of a character that is only supposed to have experienced a few years of life.<br /><br />All in all, there is the germ of a great idea here in diabolically misused hypnotism, but sadly this film fails to realise it into anything special.
Parasomnia has an interesting premises, but the story is poorly done without any tension or even a logical approach. The cast in unconvincing, even Patrick Kilpatrick, who played great roles in movies like Scanner Cop 2, Open Fire, Under Siege 2 and Eraser. The rest of the cast is unknown (and not very good) with the exception of Jeffrey Combs. (Herbert West from the great Re-Animator trilogy). But he can play roles like this in his sleep (which is a little what he does here). The main problem is that the actions of the characters make no sense at all. The story is rather dull and predictable with cheap computer effects mixed with some gory scenes, especially at the end.<br /><br />This could have been so much better, I do not get the good reviews on this one. It is below average really.
Here goes the perfect example of what not to do when you have a great idea. That is the problem isn't? The concept is fresh and full of potential, but the script and the execution of it lacks any real substance. It should grab you from the start and then pull a little on your emotions, get you interested and invested in the characters. This movie doesn't have what it takes to take off and sustain flight, and here is why. First you don't really care about the characters because they are not presented in a way that people can relate to, I mean this is not Superman or Mission Impossible here, it's suppose to be about normal people put in a stressful situation. They are not believable in the way they act and interact. Example : Jeffrey Combs as a cop over chewing is gum, frowning and looking intense all the time isn't the way to go here. I mean what is that?, he looks like he's on the toilet or something. I loved him in re-animator and the way he was playing the intense/neurotic, unappreciated medical genius was right on the money. But not for this, he tries too hard to over compensate by looking so intense and on edge but in a still mild neurotic manner, it's not natural, I'm surprised he didn't dislocate his jaw during filming. The movie is basically on life support, it barely has a pulse and it kept me waiting for something that would never come.
Nice attempt and good ideas (redemption of the prostitute, human beings helping each other out,...) but a poor result... The director obviously tried to emulate his French colleague Tran Anh Hung by recreating an ambiance which is suppose to portray Viet Nam... The only problem is that this Viet Nam is long gone and when "The scent of the green papaya" had a historical background... trying to project this kind of ambiance (muffled sounds and the slow pace of life...) on modern days leaves a feeling of fake. Besides it rapidly creates a sentiment of boredom and the outcome becomes too obvious.<br /><br />I can only suppose the action takes place in Saigon or Da Nang because that is where Harvey Keitel, ex-marine in the movie, was probably stationed during the war... But in Southern Viet Nam nobody or very few people speak with the clip Northern accent displayed by the actors... Seriously odd even for a bad Vietnamese speaker.<br /><br />An old poet with leprosy...very doubtful (not a disease for people of his condition), a peasant girl who can read and write elaborate Vietnamese poetry,... even more doubtful... <br /><br />
There are similarities between Ray Lawrence's "Jindabyne" and his last movie "Lantana" – a dead body and its repercussions for already dysfunctional lives. But whereas "Lantana" offered some hope and resolution, "Jindabyne" leaves everything unresolved in a bleak way that will leave most viewers unsatisfied, perhaps even cheated.<br /><br />The storyline - the aftermath of a fisherman's discovery of a corpse floating in a remote river - is based on a short story by Raymond Carver. It became an element in Robert Altman's classic 1993 ensemble "Short Cuts". Lawrence uses this theme for an exploration and exposition of relationships within a small Australian community under stress. The movie poses some moral questions "Would you let the discovery of a dead body ruin your good weekend?" and more poignantly for Australians "Would it make any difference if the dead person was an aboriginal?" The acting, especially by Gabriel Byrne and Laura Linney, is commendable. And there are elements of mysticism reinforced by haunting music, not unlike "Picnic at Hanging Rock".<br /><br />If all this sounds like the basis for a great movie - be prepared for a let down, the pace is very slow and the murder is shown near the beginning, thereby eliminating the element of mystery. And so we are left with these desolate lives and a blank finale.
This film is terrible. I was really looking forward to it, as I thought "Lantana" was great.<br /><br />The following review may contain *spoilers*<br /><br />*****<br /><br />First, the good things: it looks great, some of the performances are OK. The bad things are everything else about it. <br /><br />The story, as you possibly know, is about some blokes who go fishing and discover a body, with the twist that they find it on Friday but continue fishing and finally report it on Sunday when they get back into mobile (cell phone) range. However the film takes it's time (boy does it take its time) getting to this central event.<br /><br />Of the ensemble of characters (about a dozen), not one seems to like another one (which is, I suppose, consistent, because they are all unlikable). I was extremely frustrated by the failure to adequately explain how the characters are related, and it was not until near the end of the movie that I could vaguely construct the family tree. <br /><br />It's hard to think of a film us unrelentingly grim, which is a failure in the structure of the story, as the character's lives seem just as bad before the fishing trip as after. Once you've set the bar so high, it's hard to up-it short of everyone committing suicide.<br /><br />There are silly lapses in logic. The killer dumps the body in the lake, and then it somehow drifts miles upstream into the mountains. The fishermen walk out Sunday morning, but for some reason Byrne gets home late at night after his wife has gone to bed. Then first thing the next morning the cops bang on the door to get him to come down to the station. Um, they haven't heard of the telephone? Down at the station, the media know the whole story, less than 24 hours after they reported the body?<br /><br />Totally missing from the story is the debate the blokes surely had after they find the body. This is a mystery - everyone asks them "how could you do that?" and the audience is asking the same question. (The debate about what to do with the body is the key scene in "Deliverance"). I know exactly what I'd do in their situation. Someone needs to walk out to the car, drive to mobile range, call the cops, wait, and them guide them back to the location. If the others wait at camp and fish, who cares?<br /><br />A lot of all this just seems false. The only thing that rung true was that, as the girl was black, the local aboriginals seized on the fishermen's actions as racist - "wouldn't have done it if it was a white girl." <br /><br />Throughout there is a curious indifference to who might have killed the girl (I think the subject is mentioned once), and there is no mystery, as the audience sees the killer in the opening scene.<br /><br />So I'm sitting there simultaneously bored and confused, when there's a twist - not in the plot, but the theme. Suddenly it becomes about the quiet dignity of the bereaved aboriginals leading to a ludicrous ending with some incoherent stuff about black-white reconciliation. Huh?<br /><br />This is Australian film "at its finest", according to The Age.
This isn't art, it's inner-urban, politically-correct propaganda! Jindabyne's political intolerance is beyond unforgivable... it doesn't see people as individuals, but rather, as members of categories.<br /><br />This is the most patronisingly offensive Australian movie I can recall ever (and it's up against some pretty stiff competition!). A message movie, every tired theme beloved of the trendy left is there: Aborigines are victims; white men are violent or alcoholics; white women aren't that bad -particularly if they are lesbians - but they're most likely of a depressive nature.<br /><br />Four men who go away fishing, find the body of a murdered woman (Aboriginal, naturally) and leave her in the river for several days while they catch trout. It's a strange decision taken with almost no discussion, as if the men are animals. The one man who briefly demurs is the goodie... we know this because he's living with a bisexual woman - he likes to hold his baby a lot - and eventually moves to a more fashionable costal location (away from all these beastly bush-dwellers).<br /><br />This is a film made by those trendy urbanites who live in fear of the Australian landscape and those evil rednecks who reside within. It's ignorance of country life is almost as shocking as its contempt. The film is shot through with long-distance views of the bush backed by foreboding, mysterious music. It's made very clear by the end that Aboriginal people are the only ones at home in this landscape. It concludes with an excruciatingly implausible scene of black-white reconciliation.<br /><br />In Jindabyne, country life is reduced to little more than a backdrop for a story that by implication proclaims the superiority of the values of enlightened leftist urban dwellers over those of other Australians.<br /><br />This film was not made by people with real jobs but funded by the Government's Film Finance Corporation. It's a product of the artsy set, that soulless void populated by the beautiful people for whom lavish government funding sustains these patronisingly offensive projects (which are as detached from real life as possible), as opposed to actually making popular films people want to see. It doesn't matter if the film is a stinker, they still get paid.<br /><br />Spare yourself from wasting time, avoid it like the plague. More jaded social commentary than actual entertainment, this film deserves to pan!
Before I watched this film I read a review here stating that this film could possibly be one of the best films ever!? ha ha Scene by scene the tension grows alright... from the annoying characters in this movie. From the little girl talking gibberish and trying to drown the little boy, to the killer just running about without any notice (and who was the guy at the beach talking to the little boy!?)..things just seem to happen and then go unanswered in this film. As I watched it seemed like the film was going in one direction, then just doesn't go anywhere, but into a new direction...and on and on...<br /><br />The acting is great, but the writing is horrible. Each character, in each scene, says or does something so unbelievable, unrealistic and the reactions of the fellow cast/extras are simply strange. There are no resolutions to the problems developed throughout the film, making it confusing and ultimately a big waste of time.
there was some truth to this movie. I remember a story reported 15 to 20 years ago of 4 fisherman finding a body in the water and they chose not to report it until their trip was finished. I also recall they were charged with interfering with a corpse (or some such charge). I'm not sure if it was in Australia. The viewers outside of Australia must think we live in a country full of rapists and serial murders. Wolf Creek and this film would encourage this perception. The film itself reminded me of A Simple Plan. But as far a being one of the best Australian films ever, as someone claimed, I can't be that generous. Put it this way, I wouldn't bother watching it again.
With no fault to the actors (they all put on great performances), the overall story was not very well executed. The movie opens with a great zinger: a crazy old guy forces a young Aborigine girl's car off the road. But then, we're forced to endure 40 minutes of character development with an entirely new group of characters ... and we don't know why until the 40 minutes are up. It turns out that they are the ones who eventually discover the girl's body ... and the story progresses from there.<br /><br />While the story does pick up at that point, it really goes nowhere. After 2 hours, I asked myself: was there a point to this, or was it just to see the characters struggle with accusations of racism and stupidity of how they handled the discovery? The story was ultimately unsatisfying and felt unfinished. While it is well acted, there's not a strong enough backbone in the film to warrant recommending it.
I had a really hard time making it through this move. It was extermly slow and at times wondered when the plot of the movie would actually come to life.<br /><br />This movie seemed to flow to slow and I kept on wondering when it was going to end. I am normally a person who likes a good indie file every once in a while but this did not satisfy what I was looking for.<br /><br />It seemed they tried to make to much out of this movie. At one point it seemed to turn political which I am not a big fan of in movies. If you are looking for a slow moving movie with little to no plot then this is the right movie for you. As for me I felt I wasted 2 hours when I could of been doing something else.
Canadians are too polite to boo but the audience at the Toronto Film Festival left the theater muttering that they would rate this film 0 or 1 on their voting sheets. The premise is that a modern filmmaker is interpreting a 17th century fable about the loves of shepherds and shepherdesses set in the distant past when Druids were the spiritual leaders. Working in three epochs presents many opportunities to introduce anachronisms including silly and impractical clothing and peculiar spiritual rites that involve really bad poetry. Lovers are divided by jealousy and their rigid adherence to idiotic codes of conduct from which cross-dressing and assorted farcical situations arise. The film could have been hilarious as a Monty Python piece, which it too closely resembles, but Rohmer's effort falls very flat. The audience laughed at the sight jokes but otherwise bemoaned the slow pace. The ending comes all in a rush and is truly awful. This is a trivial film and a waste of your movie going time.
I was aware of Rohmer's admiration for the late works of the ones he considered like great cineasts, and that normal spectators generally considered as artistic failures (as Renoir's or Chaplin's very last movies ; yes, the "politique des auteurs" also has its dark side). But with "Les amours d'Astrée et de Céladon", it's as if Rohmer himself wanted, for what may be his last movie, to perpetuate this tradition of great directors, who made a last senile movie, by adapting Urfé's "L'astrée", with ridiculous aesthetic codes, witch just look like a parody of Rosselini's last movies (the ones he made for TV from Descartes or Marx's lives).<br /><br />In his version of "Perceval", Rohmer refused to film real landscapes in order to give a re-transcription of what may have been a middle age classical representation of things. The director apparently changed his mind when the XVII century is involved, and films actors, dressed like 1600's peasants reciting their antic text surrounded by contemporary trees and landscapes. But the all thing looks even more ridiculous than Luchini and its fake trees. It's not that the story itself is stupid, but the way Rohmer mixes naturalism with artifices seems so childish and amateurism that it rapidly becomes involuntarily funny (and I'm not even talking about the irritating pronunciation of the actors, the annoying and sad humorist tries by Rodolphe Pauly, the ridiculous soft-erotic tone, the poor musical tentatives, or the strange fascination for trasvestisment!).<br /><br />The radical aesthetic of the film ultimately makes it looks like a joke, which mixes a soft-erotic movie made for TV with theological scholastic discussions (sic !). At the beginning of the movie, Rohmer teaches us that the original french region of the story is now disfigured by modernity, and that's why he had to film "L'Astrée" in other parts of the country. However, I'm sure the movie would have look more modern and interesting, if Rohmer would have actually still filmed the same story in a modern area with same narrative codes and artistically decisions. This film may interest a few historians, but most of the cinephiles may laugh at this last and sad Rohmer's movie.
One of the worst movies I've ever seen. Acting was terrible, both for the kids and the adults. Most to all characters showed no, little or not enough emotion. The lighting was terrible, and there were too many mess ups about the time of the day the film was shot (In the river scene where they just get their boat destroyed, there's 4 shots; The sheriff and Dad in the evening on their boat, Jillian and Molly in the evening swimming, the rest of the kids in the daytime *when it's supposed to in the evening* at the river bank, and the doctor, Beatrice, and Simonton at night but not in the evening getting off their boat.) The best acting in the movie was probably from the sheriff, Cappy (Although, there's a slip of character when the pulse detector *Whatever that thing is when people die, it beeps* shows Cappy has died, he still moves while it can still be heard beeping, and while the nurse extra checks his pulse manually, then it shows the pulse again, and THEN he finally dies.) I guess it's not going to be perfect, since it's an independent movie, but it still could be better. Not worth watching, honestly, even for kids. Might as well watch something good, like The Lion King or Toy Story if you're going to see anything you'll remember.
This was the WORST movie I have ever seen! Molly (molly hall) could not act AT ALL! she had no emotion it was all blah blah blah like she was reading out of a boring text book. The smart kid and the kid who loves food (there names weren't worth remembering) were so annoying it drove me crazy.When ever the talked it was about some scientific thing or food. Mollys Dad didn't show enough emotion about his daughter missing. The police officer and Mollys dad said the same thing like four times. it was just horrible. Everything was repeated way to much. Beatrice should have had something bad happen to her for being so mean. I just wasted a moment in my life by watching this movie!
It was so terrible. It wasn't fun to watch at all. Even the scene where the girl is using a vibrator, even that's not fun to watch in this movie. I say again, the scene where a girl is masturbating with a vibrator is not even fun to watch. Or maybe if that was the only part of the movie that you watched, just girl on couch using a vibrator. Maybe they should have just released that one scene in theaters, maybe then the movie would be enjoyable on a certain level. My advice, fast forward to that point, watch it, rewind the movie, watch it again, rewind, repeat. Maybe you could enjoy yourself for 2 hours that way. This movie ranks alongside I spit on your grave and Doom generation in the category of worst movies that I have ever seen.
This is the worst movie I have ever seen. I was deceived into thinking it might be good because a couple of my favorite actors are in it. Now I want to punch Jason Schwartzman in the face for taking this role. I was physically ill after watching this film. I really don't understand Hollywood sometimes. There are so many people trying to break in that I'm sure you can skim off the top and get the very best. That way the worst movie you make is equivalent to Ferris Beullar instead of this sludge. The gags like the hair doll and blatantly ripping off jeans commercials added to the humorlessness of the film. Glad I avoided this film and watched it on TV. This proves that you should avoid January releases at all cost.
There's a lot of movies that have set release dates, only to get pulled from distribution due to a legal snafu of some kind, and then put in limbo for a long time. You can only wish a film as rotten as "Slackers" remained in a coma for what it's worth, which is miniscule. Release dates were continually shifted around for this truly awful movie that is so much a bleep on the radar like it deserves. The premise kicks off under the guise of Ethan, a creepy nerd with a scary obsession for the campus bombshell Angela. Ethan devilishly enlists the aid of David and his friends who have been scamming the school for their entire run with blackmail to help win Angela. I don't like to give spoilers out, but for a piece of crap like this I can make an exception. Angela falls for David, Ethan intentionally screws everything up, the good guys win. That's what happens in a nutshell for another tired retread of the teen gross out genre. Gross humor is funny, it always has been dating back to the days of the immortal classic "Animal House", to the likes of contemporaries like "There's Something About Mary" and "Road Trip" amongst dozens of others of which there are too many to mention. But when you use it as a plot point you can only get so far, case in point, Ethan has an Angela doll composed of her individual strands of hair of which he does god knows what with it. No one wants to take witness to watch Ethan urinating in the shower while singing to himself. No one wants to watch a young man singing "She'll be coming around the mountain" with a sock on his penis. But nothing can prepare you for the full visual assault of seeing 50's bombshell Mamie Van Doren bare her breasts at 71 years old. I don't know if it's the story's lack of coherence, which cuts to scenes that make absolutely no sense. Director Dewey Nicks was a former fashion photographer, and after reviewing this film, you can only wish he'll go back to the profession. The worst thing you can do on any film, is to make it look like you're having fun, because you detract from your objectives, just like "Slackers" does, by burying it's plot outline under a pile of gross out gags, pointless vignettes, and lack of construction. It's like a bunch of college students got drunk, took one's camcorder, and shot a bunch of random crap and compiled it together. If you want to see a teen gross out comedy that's actually good, then I suggest "American Pie" and "Animal House", or "Road Trip", just something that's entertaining, and not dreadfully bad like "Slackers". Coincidentally Cameron Diaz makes a cameo in this film, just as she did in another bad film such as "The Sweetest Thing" where the story treats gross humor like another plot, instead of a device much like this disaster.. If you pass by "Slackers" at your local video store, just keep on walking, and let it end up at the bottom of the shelf like it deserves.
Well, I just ordered this on my pay-per-view at home because I was bored and needed a laugh. I have to admit, I did chuckle a few times, but I don't even remember what parts they were at. I don't understand why this movie was made. It claims to be a comedy but seriousuly, I don't find a singing penis, or a naked 70 year old woman very funny. This movie was trying to fit itself into the 'gross-out' comedies of recent years such as American Pie and Road Trip, but it just failed miserably. It was way to much gross-out then it was comedy. Also, why on earth did Cameron Diaz attach her name to this movie?!?! The only thing I liked about this movie was when Dave and Angela were in the pool. I thought it was sexy and enjoyable and well-done. Besides that, avoid this movie. 3/10
What are people on here talking about? I must have seen a different movie than you guys. I was so bored that I walked out of the theater. What is up with this stuff. I only laughed once and not even that hard. Whoever greenlit this movie should be taken out into the street and beaten. I usually always find something I like in a movie, but this is crazy. "Slackers" makes "Not Another Teen Movie" look like a classic. It ranks up there with such trash as "Body Shots", "Con Air", and "Conspiracy Theory" as one of the worst of all time. AVOID AT ALL COSTS! I thought the studio would be handing out money to people as they left the theater as a sign of their apologies, but to my dismay that wasn't happening. Looks like I will never see that money again or the two hours.
Wouldn't it be great if Not Another Teen Movie actually put an end to all of these stupid, pointless, I'm getting more sex than you are teen movies? In a perfect world, yes. Yet this one is even worse. This one is not humiliating for the stars, it's humiliating for the distributor. All of the jokes are basically college students exposing stuff that people probably have NO interest in seeing, yet it's "funny." Devon Sawa, who was actually good in Final Destination, is just plain dull in this movie. It makes you wonder if it's being bad on purpose. Grade: F
If you enjoy films like American Pie, Road Trip & Van Wilder; avoid this cinematic refuse at all costs. It is an unamusing, mean-spirited, insipid waste of resources that should never have been discussed aloud; much less actually recorded and sold to unsuspecting consumers. Easily the worst film I have seen in the past 18 months; mind-numbingly bad for the entire 86 minutes of it's runtime. Had it been much longer, I would not have been able to write this review without using profanity. Consider yourself warned!
This was surely the stupidest, crudest, most repulsive film I have seen in quite some time. I was tempted to turn off the VCR, but, as in the fascination watching a horrible car accident, I literally found it COMPULSIVELY HATEABLE in every conceivable way and slugged it out through to the end. I am by no means a prude who objects to the comedic portrayal of sexual antics on the screen. Animal House, Porky's, There's Something About Mary, both American Pie movies, and even the notorious Freddy Got Fingered I have found highly enjoyable on their own crude terms. Mamie Van Doren's breast-baring sponge bath is the most horrifying appearance by a naked geriatric since The Shining. Ineptly edited and shot, with incredibly annoying performances from Devon Sawa and Jason Schwartzman, the film ended, without the benefit of having made me giggle once. The only useful purpose for the film is as a textbook example of how not to make a gross out picture. Oh, and it would also serve nicely as a lawn fertilizer.
The Slackers as titled in this movie are three college friends Dave, Jeff and Sam(Devon Sawa, Michael Maronna and Jason Segel respectively), who are about to graduate from university without sitting through an honest exam but making it end successfully. This continues until the very end when unlikeable but the most likable character of the movie Nathan(Schwartzman) figures out what they are up to. Nathan starts blackmailing in order to make up with his dream girl as he cant pursue that in normal conditions. The only problem is when the trio starts to work on it, Dave falls in love with the gorgeous and good hearted Angela(James King) Unfortunately, not a brilliant genre movie. Schwartzman makes to watch the movie easy as his performance is brilliant. King's performance is average, I think she was hired just to be around with her gorgeous look. The Slackers is reminiscent of American Pie with a different direction. Jokes are as shallow as in American Pie. But aren't they all used? I think this movie is a warning to the filmmakers of the genre that they are running out of originality. Overall, a few smiley moments but a horrible movie in terms of acting(except for Schwartzman) and subject. * out of *****
Yet another venture into the realm of the teen-gross-out-comedy, set on a college campus featuring a nerd's quest to coolness, and how he decides to blackmail a trio of popular jocks into making him get the girl. It's all been done before, and it's all been done in a far more satisfying manner. The gross-out humor that has made teen flicks like "American Pie" and "Dude! Where's my Car" so popular is taken completely out of context in this installment, appearing so completely at random that the viewer can only frown and disapprove. The film is badly written, and the actors never succeed in making any of it even slightly bearable. I won't even dignify this terrible picture by divulging, as it's a waste of my time and yours. At best, Slackers never manages to entertain or induce laughter, and at worst it is excruciatingly bad and at times completely unwatchable. <br /><br />Jason Schwarzman, who impressed in his debut Rushmore, humiliates himself by appearing in this picture and one wonders how a career can end up in the toilet so fast. Please avoid, please avoid. Save your money.
This film looked promising but it was actually pretty bad. The premise was O.K, but the plot itself was terrible. The actors tried their best with limited material, but they could not rise above the mean spiritedness of this tacky college film. Jason Schwartzman was once again immensely irritating - even more so than in Rushmore, the rest of the cast were quite non-eventful. Scenes that should have been fun turned out to be off-putting & incredibly juvenile. Tries to be a Road Trip/American Pie but fails dismally on all levels. A total waste of everyone's time.
This movie has no plot and no focus. Yes, it's supposed to be a slap-stick, stupid comedy, but the screen-writers have no idea what the movie was about. Even the title doesn't go along with the movie. It should have been called "Cool Ethan" or "Cheaters Never Win" or something like that. The characters are not developed and no one cares what happens to them! The girl roommate character (from That 70's Show) was the only person worth watching. She was hilarious and stole every scene she was in. The others need to make sure that their own college diplomas are in the works since they'll need a career other than acting.
Dave (Devon Sawa) and his friends Sam (Jason Segel) and Jeff (Michael Maronna) have scammed their way through college. When creepy Ethan (Jason Schwartzman) discovers their secret, he blackmails them into helping him score with beautiful, good-hearted student Angela (James King).<br /><br />Stupid and incompetent "comedy" - a lot more groan-inducing than laugh-inducing. Movie tries appealing to its target audience with its disgusting gags - but NONE OF THEM WORK. What's more, it's full of worthless, unappealing characters - and Schwartzman's character is so repulsive he's a major turn-off. Movie even tries using 50's/60's sexpot/actress Mamie Van Doren in the movie's most outrageous scene. YUCK!!!<br /><br />Further bringing it down are its utter predictability and the waste (yet again) of veteran comedic actor Joe Flaherty's talent - when's this guy going to stop accepting every role that comes along and do something worthwhile?<br /><br />All in all, the only thing I liked was James (a.k.a. Jaime) King, who was very appealing - and deserved better.<br /><br />This gets no more than one out of ten from me.
Slackers is just another teen movie that's not really worth watching. Dave (Devon Sawa), Sam (Jason Segel) and Jeff (Michael C. Maronna) are about to graduate from Holden University with Honors in lying, cheating and scheming. The three roommates have proudly scammed their way through the last four years of college and now, during final exams, these big-men-on-campus are about to be busted by the most unlikely dude in school. The plot is very stupid and there's no reason why to watch this unless your looking to shut off you brain for a little while. Slackers is just a predictable teen flick that really adds nothing new to the genre. The comedy in Slackers is either hit or miss but there's no real true funny or original moment in the movie. Its really just a collection of gags and some are actually pretty funny. Though for every joke that works there's at least eight more that don't. The screenplay is full of penis and breast jokes that some high school and college students may enjoy. Even if they do they probably won't remember this film after awhile as its not a very memorable comedy. Jason Schwartzman plays the freaky Ethan and after appearing in some good comedies he has stoop pretty low. Jaime King and Devon Sawa are the other main stars but they do a rather poor job in this film. This is directed by Dewey Nicks and this is his first film so you can't blame him too much. The funniest character was probably Laura Prepon though, she's not in the movie very much. The film is very short at only 86 minutes long however, that may be too long for some people who don't really like this type of humor. Slackers isn't the worst film of 2002 but certainly is below average. When compared to other films in the genre there's a lot better out there such as Not Another Teen Movie, American Pie and its sequels , Scary Movie 1 & 2 etc. So unless you have seen most of them and you're looking for something new then Slackers might fit that bill but its better if you just watch something else. Rating 4.3/10 a below average teen comedy that's worth skipping.
(David H. Steinberg)'s script seemed initially having some real smart points that could've made good romantic comedy, BUT BUT BUT, oh dear ! What did ever happen in the way ???!!!! <br /><br />I'll tell you what happened. Originally it's (Animal House - 1978) and (Porky's - 1982). Although that was long time ago, but those are the pioneers, the godfathers of the new genre : the crude teen comedy. Then the 1990s came. After important instances that became smash hits (repulsive ones am I add) such as (Problem Child - 1990), (Dumb and Dumber - 1994), (The Nutty Professor - 1996), and (There's Something About Mary - 1998) which I think slackers is affected by, there was the top of the era and the prophet of the next era, the one and only : (American Pie - 1999) which's undoubtedly and incomparably a genre's icon. After that I think every comedy of that kind got to be that highly filthy, cum laude nasty, to be admired by the youth otherwise it might be out of fashion !<br /><br />I believe that (Slackers) had a smart plot first as a script, then its makers got to add some real big amount of : rudeness, filthiness, strangely shameless sex to be made - at those days - as easy as pie ! Like they had to fill every scene with freely elements such as : masturbation, oral sex, urination.. etc just to look a la' mode. They're wholly unnecessary elements to the story but surely THEY ARE so necessary to make the profits, and to catch the latest vogue in making teen comedies. The problem is in how all of that has replaced already any possible comedy in it.<br /><br />Some of its moments looked literally horrible, and that as you see is the point. It's all in (Jason Schwartzman)'s looks and performance; memorably disgusting to the utmost. So the ambition transformed from being that romantic comedy into making what wasn't done before of pure skinning images. To be more like a horror where you're asking all the time; what nastier would happen ? (vomiting, farting,.. etc); these are the easiest combination to create a comedy nowadays.<br /><br />Though even if you hated it you've got to love something (mostly for being bold), for me it was only Gina Gershon cameo's scene. Anyhow they designed it as a whole to achieve being outrages-for-outrageousness, like an adolescent's naughty dream. Though the majority of it was near to anybody's nightmare.<br /><br />What made me sad is that this one at its core was a real potential work, and not another cheap, another stupid comedy as it eventually managed to be. Remember well the details of stealing the exam (the first 2 minutes), so the movie's main plot (weirdo trying to reach a girl by blackmailing cool guys) through the pattern of (boy loves girl, and girl loves another boy) because save that, it's nothing but a candidly schlock. It dealt with its material the tacky way bunch of dirty college boys, who got nothing to do but making mawkish quip out of anything, would do. It ended up as being, and I'm sorry to say it, a smiling sh*t !<br /><br />At its end it said something (can you imagine !) about how it's the time and the place too for the impostor or the slack to win, totally like this comedy itself. It sounds good ending yet for totally another better movie; which could assure my opinion about this one as smart one.. Once ! And it doesn't need much to understand that this movie's makers were the real slackers ! Maybe being stupid is a way to be smart in Hollywood, but even if.. The final result here wasn't at least witty by any sense of the word. <br /><br />P.S : Its scriptwriter (David H. Steinberg), who wrote the story of (American Pie 2) as well, has a main page at the IMDb where you'll find under the "Additional Details" his usual "Plot Keywords" which are : Sex / Vulgarity / Crude Humor /... They just forgot to write Urineing while Showering or Baring 70 Year Old Women !
Nominated for the oscar "worst script ever" in my opinion. There's no decent story, rediculous acting, VERY lousy humor. By every means possible, if you have little self respect please don't waste your time seeing this movie. Although u can see the actors CAN act, it leaves you dumber after watching it. Precious braincells are being killed watching this crap...<br /><br />i warned u<br /><br />DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE
Although I had some hopes for this film, particularly since I enjoy the acting of Jason Segel (Freaks & Geeks, Undeclared) so much, I must say it was one of the worst films I've seen in recent memory (Loser and Dr T and the Women are also on that list).<br /><br />Yes, there were a couple of laugh out loud moments, although the movie could have been so much better. The premise was not bad- scam artists cheating their way through college meet their match when they're discovered by someone with a proposition for them. The problem is that the characters were all so unlikable, that I didn't care about any of them. The blackmailer (played by talented Jason Schwartzman) was such a psychopath that it wasn't that funny to watch him- he wasn't deranged in a particularly funny or charming way, he was just a crazy loser, who was actually rather dangerous and not fun to watch. The editing of the movie was hard to follow-- it kept cutting between fantasy and reality and it was often unclear which was which. Only two or three of the gang's scams were really shown, you just had to take it on faith that they were indeed scam artists-- showing their schemes would have made for a better movie. The so-called love story was absurd and unbelievable, in fact it was silly and poorly written and directed throughout. I could go on about the movie's shortcomings, but you get the idea. Not worth the $4 rental or the gas it takes to drive to and from the movie store to rent!
This centers on unironic notions of coming to grips with guilt. <br /><br />Merrill berates the distraught boy to stop his 'whining' about Rennie's death. Old-style real men in action, here.<br /><br />The crashing model plane and car crash must have been impressive on the big screen.<br /><br />The storytelling itself, despite the flashback sequences, plays it straight -- all the narrators are trusted by us (regardless of the 'truth' or 'untruth' of the dialogue), so there's no game with the viewer about narrative structure. This would become a rough template for future retellings, such as "Fearless".<br /><br />So all we're left with is individual performance, and at that level, it's best for Wynn's bantering, a virtual one-man show.
About halfway through, I realized I didn't care about these characters in the least; however, I watched a bit more anyway. Regrettably, I came back the next day and finished it. I shouldn't have bothered.<br /><br />If you know *anything* about the film beforehand, you know that the lead character will be a plane crash survivor - and the title gives you a pretty good idea of what's gonna happen afterward - he's gonna get on the phone and call people about it! That was almost as bad as "Snakes on a Plane" (another bad aviation catastrophe flick).<br /><br />I realize this is an old film, and the acting style in those days was much less naturalistic than today. But even by those standards, the acting was embarrassing. These weren't characters, they were stereotypes. I suspect this movie was, more than anything, an attempt by Bette Davis to help her husband's (Gary Merrill) career. To no avail however - I have seen oak trees display more genuine emotion than he did.<br /><br />Davis' playing the happy cripple (i.e., a non-glamorous role) was probably looked on as an edgy and bold career move. It wasn't. It was just boring. She was a kind of Tiny Tim in the film, making Trask (Merrill's character) see the truth about love and forgiveness (although she was less winsome than Tiny Tim), calmly dispensing wisdom about life and relationships without a hint that her beloved husband had just died.<br /><br />The final scene, where Trask calls his wife back in Iowa to reconcile, was so affected and over-acted on both ends of the phone line, I almost cringed. I had to remind myself that these people actually got paid for what they were doing in this film.<br /><br />I noticed a lot of people seem to have enjoyed this movie. If you found it uplifting , that's great. But frankly, I just found it bad. There are plenty of old movies from the Golden Age of Hollywood that were far better written and acted.
In fact, Marc Blitzstein's off-Broadway adaptation of "Threepenny" was not so "bowdlerised" as is generally believed.<br /><br />(I have a special interest in "Threepenny"; my dad was part of the first full production in the US; U of Illlinois Theatre Guild did it around the end of WW2. HJitler had been so nearly successful in suppressing the play that they had to reconstruct the script and score from recordings in two different languages {neither English}, a German prompter's script and similar sources.) Blitzstein's adaptation -- not a "translation" -- which had the full approval of Lotte Lenya -- was a lot closer to the original than generally believed.<br /><br />The problem is that the version thereof that most people know is the MGM cast recording (recently available on Polygram on CD)(which includes Beatrice Arthur {as Lucy, the "big complete girl", and can't i see her hands on hips and shoulders thrown back on that line -- Bea was a major babe in the 50's}, Paul Dooley and John Astin) was heavily censored by Mike Curb, head of MGM Records -- i mean, 17 (i think it was) "Goddamn"s got cut to just "damn".<br /><br />(At one time, MGM also offered a 2-LP set of the *entire* play, doubtless as heavily censored.)
The fact that most of the budget for this presumably went on the heavy-duty cast list shouldn't have mattered if it had been staged with flair and imagination and some sympathy for the original's satirical intent. Instead we get risibly bad song and dance sequences featuring picturesque beggars and whores, and the final alienation is accomplished by pulling back to reveal the action has taken place on a music-hall stage, appropriately enough for a production that's more Lionel 'Oliver' Blair than Brecht. The acting talent is shamefully misused: Migenes and Walters are good but don't have to try very hard: Migenes at least has a great voice and some feel for the material. Julia looks perfect as Mack, but struggles with the character, straitjacketed by a fake plummy accent. Harris's Peachum is embarrassingly mannered and Polly is atrocious. The adaptations of lyrics, script and music are often awkward: it was a bad move to base the film on Marc Blitzstein's bowdlerised Broadway version, but at least his words were singable, unlike most of what's been interpolated in gestures of faithfulness. And the attempt at overcoming the low budget by filming at claustrophobic angles on mist-shrouded sets lit in garish blues and oranges as if by some bargain-basement Vittorio Storaro fails utterly -- the film just looks cheap, shoddy and thoughtlessly made. Disgraceful.
This movie was different in that it didn't show the typical gay stereotypes that I'm used to seeing. But that doesn't change the fact that it totally lacks a storyline. I'm sure that there are many gay men who are just happy to see themselves depicted on screen, since Black gay characters are seldom seen, and when they are the characters are usually not fully developed. But, how hard would it have been for the writer to actually script a story with a beginning, middle and end. Or how about a story that was focused. There really doesn't seem to be a point to this film, and even though it is a low budget film, that is still no excuse for the lack of story or plot.
What can you say about this movie? It was not terrible, but it was not good! Two days earlier I had watched Lillies and that was one of the best Gay films I have ever seen. So this was not the best time to watch a mediocre Gay flick.<br /><br />The story was silly and the acting was OK. It was not bad enough to turn off, but it had some bad moments and some terrible stereotyping. It was not very well cast either.<br /><br />Would I recommend this movie? No you would be wasting your time and money. I don't understand why movies like these are made and who is funding them. Spend your time Watching Noah's Arc on Logo instead. I think this is where this movie was trying to go but never got there.
Channel surfing and caught this on LOGO. It was one of those "I have to watch this because it's so horribly bad" moments, like Roadhouse without the joy. The writing is atrocious; completely inane and the acting is throw-up-in-your-mouth bad.<br /><br />There's low budget and then there is the abyss which is where this epic should be tossed and never seen from again. I mean, the main characters go to a ski retreat in some rented house and the house is, well, ordinary which is no big deal, but they choose to show all the houseguests pouring over it like it was the Sistine Chapel. I'm sorry but watching 6 guys stare into every 10'x10' boring room with a futon in it and gushing is lame. I guess they didn't learn anything from the Bad News Bears in Breaking Training (see hotel room check scene)...wow a toilet !!! yaayyyyy !!!! I don't buy the its all over the top so anything goes routine. If it smells like...and it looks like...well, you know the rest.<br /><br />Avoid like the plague.<br /><br />edit: Apparently other more close minded reviewers believe that since I disliked this movie, I am an "obvious hater" which I can only assume means I am phobic, which of course is not true. I decided to do this wacky, crazy thing and judge the movie based on the actual content of the film and not by its mere presence (i.e. its refreshing to see...)<br /><br />Sure, it may be refreshing to see but that doesn't equate into a great movie, just give them some better material to work with and tighter direction. In fact, I applaud the effort. Frankly, I'd rather go listen to my Kitchens of Distinction catalogue than watch this again.
I'll just be vague about my potential spoiling comments. There are enough canned plot elements in this movie that it's essentially pre-spoiled.<br /><br />This movie derives a few ideas from a Southern classic, To Kill A Mockingbird. I suppose maybe TKOM got its ideas from some source.... at any rate, after you watch this, you'll say, "Oh yeah, that is a ripoff".<br /><br />I think the truly entertaining thing about these McMovies is once you've identified a plot element, is to figure out whether they'll stick with the original, or try to twist it around. Not a lot of twists in this one.
When this film plays on television you might want to save about 90 minutes of your time and change the channel. There's nothing special here that you need to see. Story is about two married couples from Arkansas who go on a trip together to Reno. Couple number one is Lonnie Earl Dodd (Billy Bob Thornton) who is a car dealer and having problems with his marriage. His wife is Darlene (Natasha Richardson) and she has a low self opinion of herself and they haven't been intimate in a long time. Lonnie has been sleeping with Candy (Charlize Theron) who is the wife of his best friend Roy Kirkendall (Patrick Swayze). They all drive to Reno and the four of them stay in one luxurious suite. Roy and Candy have been trying to have a baby and finally Candy discovers that she is pregnant. But Roy phones his doctor in Arkansas and finds out that he's sterile. Candy and Lonnie admit their affair and now the whole trip is in chaos. This film is directed by Jordan Brady and he's made a few other low budget films but this is his first with a cast this impressive. Unfortunately Brady doesn't show much comedic flair but you can't lay all the blame on him. This script is just not funny and one of the glaring problems is that the characters are all written down to a sitcom level. Just because they're all from the south doesn't mean that they have to be naive and idiotic. Thornton's character doesn't have the sophistication to tip the bellboy more than a dollar. And Swayze's character is called stupid and dumb by everyone throughout the film and one of the rare good moments comes when he asks everyone to lay off of him for at least one day. Penelope Cruz pops up as a prostitute and it's a totally worthless and pointless cameo. She barely speaks more than 3 or 4 lines! I think she was fulfilling an obligation to Harvey and Bob Weinstein who are executive producers for this film. The only person who actually isn't to bad is Richardson. We watch her become more confident in herself but this plotline in the film is very obvious and cliche. All of these actors should know better and it's hard to figure that they all read the script and liked it. It's a complete waste of time for these actors but at least they got paid. As for the viewers, your not getting paid so skip this one!
<br /><br />What an absolutely crappy film this is. How or why this movie was made and what the hell Billy Bob Thornton and Charlize Theron were doing signing up for this mediocre waste of time is beyond me. Strong advise for anyone sitting down to catch a flick: DO NOT waste your time on this 'film'.
I've seen some crappy movies in my life, but this one must be among the very worst. Definately bottom 100 material (imo, that is).<br /><br />We follow two couples, the Dodds (Billy Bob Thornton as Lonnie Earl and Natasha Richardson as Darlene) and the Kirkendalls (Patrick Swayze as Roy and Charlize Theron as Candy) in one car on a roadtrip to Reno.<br /><br />Apparently, Lonnie isn't too happy with his sex-life, so he cheats on his wife with Candy, who's despirately trying to have a baby. Roy, meanwhile, isn't too sure if his sperm is OK so he's getting it checked by a doctor.<br /><br />Now, I had read the back of the DVD, but my girlfriend didn't, and she blurted out after about 20 minutes: 'oh yeah, she's gonna end up pregnant but her husband can't have any baby's'. Spot on, as this movie is soooo predictable. As well as boring. And annoying. Meaningless. Offensive. Terrible.<br /><br />An example of how much this movie stinks. The two couples set out in their big car towards Nevada, when they are stopped by 2 police-officers, as they didn't stop at a stop-sign. The guys know each other and finally bribe the two officers with a case of beer. Not only is this scene pointless and not important (or even relevant) for the movie, it takes about 5 minutes! It's just talk and talk and talk, without ever going somewhere.<br /><br />I still have to puke thinking about the ending though. Apparently, Roy ISN'T having problems down there so he IS the father of the child. How many times does that happen in the movies... try something new! The cheated wife ultimately forgives her husband and best friend for having the affair and they all live happily ever after. Yuck.<br /><br />Best scene of the movie is right at the end, with a couple of shots of the Grand Canyon. Why couldn't they just keep the camera on that for 90 minutes?<br /><br />One would expect more from this cast (although Thornton really tries), but you can't really blame them. Writers, shame on you!<br /><br />1/10.
Being a fan of Billy Bob Thornton, and the diversity of his skills, I noticed this movie listed, and was surprised I hadn't heard of it.<br /><br />I'd traveled more than usual during both the period it was being filmed in 2000, and when it hit theaters more than 2-1/2 years later (that passage of time is the first clue all was not well with the production).<br /><br />Now Patrick Swayze can't act for sour apples, but Thornton has more than enough ability to make-up for the difference between them. And Charlize Theron is someone whom it would be a pleasure to see, even if it showed her watching paint dry.<br /><br />Being curious, I checked this site's production info. It made a whopping < $600 per screen its opening weekend, and just over $400 each, after its month's theater run in latter 2002. Overall gross was $261K, which I'd doubt could cover cast and crew's hotel and food for a week on location.<br /><br />The story is pretty benign, and even the use of the usually interesting locale of Reno is as dull as the rest of the goings-on.<br /><br />It's something like several SNL bits all pieced together, none individually too great at all, and the overall presentation even worse.<br /><br />Whatever, the expenses for this production had to be considerable - even if all worked for less than their usual fees - so the one thing which made it a barely tolerable opus was the quality of the filming and Billy Bob's present (albeit understandably somewhat laconic here , compared with his usual work.<br /><br />Think of the three superb, totally diverse characters he portrayed in "Sling Blade," "Bandits" and "Bad Santa," and you know he realized this work was below standard, long before the viewers had the opportunity to confirm this. One star for him, even here, and one because production was better than, say, the typical "Lifetime" flick.
If you hate redneck accents, you'll hate this movie. And to make it worse, you see Patrick Swayze, a has been trying to be a redneck. I really can't stand redneck accents. I like Billy Bob Thornton, he was good in Slingblade, but he was annoying in this movie. And what kind of name is Lonnie Earl? How much more hickish can this movie get? The storyline was stupid. I'm usually not this judgemental of movies, but I couldn't stand this movie. If you want a good Billy Bob Thornton movie, go see Slingblade.<br /><br />My mom found this movie for $5.95 at Wal Mart...figures...I think I'll wrap it up and give it to my Grandma for Christmas. It could just be that I can't stand redneck accents usually, or that I can't stand Patrick Swayze. Maybe if Patrick Swayze wasn't in it. I didn't laugh once in the movie. I laugh at anything stupid usually. If they had shown someones fingers getting smashed, I might have laughed. people's fingers getting smashed by accident always makes me laugh.
Simply, I found the TV show "Mash" trite, preachy, oh ever so "politically correct", repetitious, pretentious and biggest sin of all, and that is,? that it is (was) incredibly dull. You have Alan Alda as the main lead, "(star)", who is so in love with himself and his cleverness, that it actually made me uncomfortable to even try and sit through an episode. The original series had both McLean Stevson, and Wayne Rogers, whom I'll happily admit had a certain panache and style to their character presentation. However, Harry (Henry) Morgan, and Mike Farrell, both singularly and compositely together is like eating caviar and fresh oysters with Wonder Bread. Loretta Swit, which I also found dull, also to no fault of her own wasn't a wonder to look at, and Gary Burghoff, who was good in the movie got tired looking and acting as the show wore on. Seeing one show a year showed that to me. Jamie Farr was just low brow "comedy" and is not even worth really mentioning here at all. The reason I did not give it a (one) rating, which anyone reading this by now would be wondering, is that ratings of any sort is not only a subjective call, but a relative one. Television, except for relatively few exceptions, is such crud. That relatively speaking, Mash had some production quality, (by television standards) of that era and today, and therefore it is deserved of a two. Rob Ritter
I respect the fact that this is a very popular show. However, in comparison with Robert Altman's ingenious, hilarious, zany, and groundbreaking 1970 movie classic, this show was probably destined to be less-than-mediocre... even if it did run for 11 years, that doesn't necessarily make it any good. This show formed an all-too-integral part of my early childhood (it was on re-runs every night, and guess whose parents were watching it and laughing it up), but it's one of the memories I don't miss. And now that I actually have seen the movie, I can give this series an accurate critique. On its own, it's not nearly "2 out of 10" bad. However, the characters on this show are nothing like those in the movie. Some of them technically are the same, but they're only similar in name. For instance, since when is Alan Alda anything like Donald Sutherland? His style of humor is totally different, as are his characterization and outlook. The new characters are not that great; they just serve to make you miss the ones that they're replacing. It's the same with the new actors (including Jamie Farr). The only thing that actually transfers to the series is Radar, who's still (even though played by the same actor) merely a pale imitation of the original. What else? Oh, yeah. With a laugh track (it didn't matter whether it was used in surgery scenes or not), it comes across as creepy, due to what's going on in the other settings. And because it lasted nearly four times longer than the actual Korean War, it takes viewers into this bizarre temporal rift that doesn't work outside the world of cartoons. I've never liked this show, and I never will.
I was so excited when I discovered this was available! I couldn't wait to see it. What a waste of energy! It's kind of like that rarities CD by your favorite band you found in the back of the rack at your local music store. Being a hard core fan you were certain that it was a valuable discovery. But once you heard it it became obvious why these dogs never made it onto a real album. This DVD is only recommended for 'completionists' who must have everything Lynch has done. "Six Men Getting Sick" is somewhat visually interesting but short and repetitive. It lacks the power of Lynch's later work "The Grandmother" is quite simply an immature work. It's tedious and looks like a student film. But it was the 70's...It's interesting only if you hope to psychoanalyze the director. But you can see, briefly, the seeds of some of his trademark images and sounds. "The Alpahabet" is forgettable (No really! I can't remember this one at all!) "The Amputee" is pointless. "The Cowboy and the Frenchman" is just plain silly. "Lumiere" is the only worthwhile one in the bunch. Without dialog Lynch tells a disturbing tale comparable with his best work. I had to watch this one several times. But it runs less than 2 minutes. Hardly worth the trouble of renting or buying the DVD.
I saw this film in its entirety in the 1960s & 70s, yes it IS gruesome, and could be the progenitor of the "Faces of Death" series popular in the 80s & 90s. Considering the state of so-called "driver education" these days, this one should be required viewing for everyone preparing to learn to drive. When you see violent death in all its gore & horror, you certainly (if you have any sensibility at all) get a truer perspective on the responsibilities required to drive safely, what one instant of thoughtlessness or inattentiveness at the wheel can do. I worked for Bell Telephone in the 70s & 80s, and at one point was assigned to conduct a safety class. I found this film in the company library, showed it at the session, a number of people got physically sick and had to leave the room! Incredibly, most of them later said "I never knew a car accident could be so terrible!" This film, and another, "RED ASPHALT", is certainly reality in its most graphic form. I'll never forget it, I only wish I could have found a copy when my children were attending "driver's ed" in high school!
Supposedly a "social commentary" on racism and prison conditions in the rural South of the 1970's, "Nightmare" is full of bad Southern stereotypes, complete with phoney accents. Not only would it be offensive to the sensibilities of most American Southerners, this tawdry piece of work comes off as just a thinly-disguised "babe in prison" movie--especially in its uncut original version. Nevertheless, acting is generally above average and the late Chuck Connors, in particular, does a good job of making viewers hate him--even though he looks somewhat uncomfortable in several scenes. There's also a change-of-pace role for the late Robert Reed, who appears as the lecherous warden, and Tina Louise (previously Ginger of "Gilligan's Island") made a rather believable sadistic prison guard. My grade: D. <br /><br />
Originally aired as an ABC Movie of the Week. This involves two young innocent female college students who are railroaded into a prison camp in a little Southern town. They aren't allowed phone calls and nobody knows they're there. What follows is rape, torture, beatings, humiliation and degradation leading to a very disturbing conclusion.<br /><br />The TV version was (for its time) grim. No nudity and the beatings were pretty tame but the overall feeling of sleaziness wore one down. The unrated version is even worse--there's plentiful nudity, the violence is extreme and, in one particularly disgusting sequence, we see a crying female prisoner forced to strip while a lesbian guard "uses" her. YUCK! There's nothing wrong with exploitation films but this one just goes over the brink. You get the feeling that the filmmakers enjoy having these poor women being tortured and degraded--all this is shoved in your face like you're supposed to enjoy it. The needlessly downbeat ending doesn't help.<br /><br />I'm giving it a 3 because the acting is good--but that actually makes the movie harder to watch. A sick, sleazy film. Not recommended.
This movie forever left an impression on me. I watched it as a Freshman in High School and was home alone that night. I think I lost all respect for Robert Reed as an actor having been a huge fan of the "Brady Bunch". I also thought the role of Chuck Connor was horrendous and evil. However, this movie made such an impact on me that I am now a volunteer in the women's state prison doing bible studies and church services and trying to change womens lives, one at a time. What fascinates me is that so few people actually watched this movie. None of my friends watched it and my family is clueless to this day when I discuss this movie because they didn't see it.
Now for the truth, its very very weak storyline - for a Walt Disney film its total rubbish. When the robinson appear, the films all over the place, I was shocked how poor it was. It like "alice in wonderland" gone wrong!. It feels like they were short on ideas some mashed some crazy rubbish together to try and get away with it - and they don't. After that, I sat there wishing for the end. My younger brother lost interest half way through and was confused by the story. The characters are weak and after the robinsons appear you don't care about the ending, you just want the film to finish. Its a film to forget, and forget quickly. If you've got some spare time, don't waste it on this.
This movie started out with some semblance of a plot, then abandoned it for an endless series of random characters and encounters that have nothing to do with moving the story forward. It was impossible to remain engaged with this film. This movie is a very cynical pile of garbage made by some people with animation skills but totally lacking in creativity or storytelling ability. It is a shockingly bad effort coming from a major studio. Clearly there are morale and motivation problems at Disney, not to mention a complete lack of oversight and quality control. That management allowed this movie to see the light of day speaks volumes about their incompetence and desperation. This movie joins my very short "worst movies of all time" list.
I really wanted to like this film, but so much of it is stolen/borrowed from other work -- some of the borrowing is painfully blatant. The New York Times' review pointed out that their singing frog is awfully reminiscent of the one in the famous Warner Brothers' cartoon ('Hello my baby, hello my darlin', hello my ragtime gal...'). But I challenge anyone to watch the Fox/Blue Sky animated feature Robots (2005) and not find ridiculous similarities in: storyline - A young inventor growing up, and a single innovative corporation distributes all great inventions.<br /><br />cityscape - Extremely similar camera angles capture extremely similar futuristic city environments.<br /><br />...robots... - The servant robot in the Robinson household has a very similar design to those in Robots, and both films use a sort of retro-futuristic look.<br /><br />All of this seems to be in sharp contradiction to the obnoxious quote from Disney at the end, implying that the company has been a steady innovator who never looks back (which also contradicts their entire catalog of films in the 90s that were pretty much clones of each other, with some minor tweaks to storyline and ethnicity).<br /><br />The filmmakers seem unable to let the story speak on its own, and instead constantly send objects and noises flying in our direction, as though we don't have the attention span for anything less.<br /><br />The villain is really well-designed and brilliantly animated, and he's a pleasure to watch. Much of the rest of the film seems thrown-together. Some of the landscapes look like CGI from the mid-90s.<br /><br />The film actually opens with a classic Mickey Mouse short. By the end of this cartoon, we are reminded that Disney never did have much interest in innovating or good storytelling -- they seem to think that simply getting something up on the big screen is proof enough of their virtue.
I went to see this with my wife and 3 yr old son. He seemed to like it a lot more than my wife and I did. The writing is surprisingly poor for a pixar / Disney excursion. In fact, I had a very hard time paying attention at all. The movie does look amazing but the story just becomes so weird and long winded that I was hoping my son would fall asleep so I could pick him up and walk out.<br /><br />Not to say that the film isn't an interesting concept, it's just told so oddly, (bad screenplay?) especially when we "meet the family" for the first time. I know we're supposed to get the impression that the family is wacky but good lord, they could've shortened that sequence by a good 15 minutes (seemingly, I didn't actually time it). By that point I was scratching my head looking for an exit.
I wanted to like this movie. But it falls apart in the middle. the whole premise is a good one and ties up nicely, but the middle runs off tangent. The people I watched with were getting annoyed while it ran off course, and hoping it would end sooner than it did. Another person actually fell asleep during the middle segment! I found myself day dreaming elsewhere during the Schtick parts that had nothing to do with the plot. I bought it for the eye candy and it delivered that well, but it lacks Pixar's writing and soul. I think kids 8 and under will enjoy the ride at face vaule, while missing the plot. People old enough to follow a plot will find it wonders too far to return quickly and easily. Edit out most of the middle section, make it 50 minutes and it would be a solid flick. I wish I had better things to say. But I don't
I kinda liked the film despite it's frenzied pace. BUT, I did not appreciate the comment that Canada was referred to as Montana North. It is definitely NOT Montana North and never will be. Americans wonder why they are perceived as arrogant in the rest of the world, and that is one reason why. Stop teaching the kids of the United States of America to think they own the planet. Such a centrist world view is not becoming of one of the world's great nations. Even in jest. I would never refer to the USA as 'Alberta South'. Walt would never put us down, so why start now. Other than that the film was pretty goofy, better luck next time.
I do agree that though this story by Melville just might be unfilmable, this isn't even a credible try. To move the story into the 20th century just outrages the original story's intent and nature; possibly you might have been able to move it over to England, but it must be a period piece. Even our story narrator--the proprietor--tells it in a flashback, going back even further, somewhere around 1800. Towards the end of the 19th century, a strangely disobedient worker would be discarded without a thought. And the 20th century? Come on! Give me an expletive deleted break!!! Even around 1800, such behavior didn't work very well, in view of the ending. And the movie's ending? I don't know what it was, because I didn't watch the entire travesty--I had to stop. This was like setting "Streetcar Named Desire" in Elizabethan England.
A noble effort, I guess, but ultimately a poor one. Before seeing this film, I felt "Bartleby, The Scrivener" was unfilmable. After seeing it, I still do. Unfortunately, I think only those who have read the story will understand what is going on, and they will be upset at the film's needless revisions (updating from 1850 to 1970, moving from New York to London). Even the superb talents of Paul Scofield can't salvage what looks to me like a well meaning but misguided effort to film Melville's metaphysical classic.
This is a terrible production of Bartleby, though not, as the other reviewer put it because it is "unfilmable," but rather because this version does not maintain the spirit of the book. It tells the story, almost painfully so. Watching it, I could turn the pages in my book and follow along, which is not as much fun when dealing with an adaptation. Rather, see the 2001 version of Bartleby featuring Crispin Glover. That version, while humorous, brings new details to the film while maintaining the spirit of the novel. What's important is the spirit, not the minutiae of things like setting, character names, and costumes. The difference between these film versions is like night and day, tedious and hilarious. This version is a lesson as to what can go wrong if an adaptation is handled poorly, painful, mind-numbing schlock.
You might be a bit confused if you watch this silly made-for from the beginning, since the credits list Susan Dey as "Special Guest Star." Um, why would a one-off MOW like this have a guest star? Well, if you stick with it, you'll find yourself paying attention to little else but Ms. Dey's butt, wiggling in a flowered bikini as the "Partridge Family" house babe frolics on the beach to which that imaginative title alludes. Susan's derrière is especially compelling when she shakes it at the camera while teasing and tickling her pseudo-disaffected brother in one mildly incestuous scene. Sadly, Susie and her tush fight a losing battle: the jiggle-TV craze that might have put that bottom over the top was three years off, so that sweet booty just gets a supporting role. In 1976 Fat Freddy Silverman would have put that behind right out front and used this flick as Susan's audition tape for "Charlie's Angels." As is, our Susan was denied cheesecake immortality and had to settle for a very commendable career playing somber, neurotic women.<br /><br />The view beyond Susan's heinie, it must be said, is not very compelling. The scenery is nice, and photographed in a bizarre, hazy way that briefly fools you into thinking there might be some quirky creative intelligence at work behind the camera. Nope. It's just a typically suspense-challenged 70's made-for-TV thriller that allowed weekly series stars to make some extra cash(and collect some cable residuals, though they obviously didn't know that at the time) and show off their "range." Here we're treated to a TV-scale nuclear family, squaring off against TV-scale thugs who can't decide whether they're a motorcycle gang or a hippie cult (thus the filmmakers split the difference by putting them in dune buggies) and have never learned one of the primary lessons of 1970s television: don't mess with Dennis Weaver (see "McCloud" and "Duel"). The only potential for depth in this movie is in the aforementioned teenage-son character of Steve, played by the long-forgotten (if ever-remembered) Kristoffer Tabori, who is supposed to be rebellious and troubled and might feel some sympathy for and attraction to the lawless mob that is (supposedly) menacing his family. But Steve, as played by Tabori (gosh, why didn't we see more from this wunderkind?), is actually just grumpy and moody and isn't one bit conflicted when big D gets serious and draws a line in the proverbial (and literal) sand. For the sleep-deprived and Susan Deyniacs (there must be some of you out there) only.
I can't believe I waste my time watching this garbage! I did because Leonard Maltin gave it an "AA" rating, and for TV movies this is usually a reliable indicator of some quality entertainment.<br /><br />The acting was OK, but whoever wrote it should be forever denied access to any medium of communication. The plot is ludicrous, the motivations of the "bad guys" totally absent, and the various family interactions silly and shallow. For example, Dad preaches that violent reaction to aggression is BAD, but he turns out to be an "admirable" person NOT because of his "ignore the idiots" philosophy, but because he's pretty good with his fists...<br /><br />The ONLY message I was able to glean from this pap was that the nuclear family is Good and alternate living arrangements are Bad. Oh, and Bad people happen to Good people.
Being born in the 1960's I grew up watching the TV "Movies of the Week" in the early 70's and loved the creepy movies that were routinely shown including "Crowhaven Farm", "Bad Ronald", "Satan's School for Girls", "Kolchak the Night Stalker", etc, but this one is just plain dumb.This is obviously the writer's trying to capitalize on the horrific Manson murders from a few years earlier. The movie stars Dennis Weaver of "McCloud" and "Duel" fame as a father who takes his family camping on a beach. The family encounters some hippies who for some reason decide to terrorize the family. The reason for this is never explained, and Weaver's pacifistic stance is hard to swallow. For God's sake, call the police, beat the hell of them or something, just don't sit there and whine about it. The acting is pretty lame, the story unbelievable, etc. Susan Dey looks cute in a bikini but that's about it. Ignore this if it ever airs on TV.
The story is a little slow and a little stupid. Greta Garbo doesn't look very good and I couldn't understand half the things she said because of her accent, which was exaggerated for this role. Melvyn Douglas, meanwhile, plays his normal unlikeable role and Constance Bennett is just so-so except for a couple of her screams, which were funny. <br /><br />On the plus side, Roland Young had the best role in the film. I wish he had more lines, as he disappeared in the second half of the story. Also, it was interesting to see Ruth Gordon look so young. I had only seen her in those crazy roles she played from the late '60s to the '80s and a whacked out old woman. Story-wise, the best part might have been the final few minutes when we see a stunt man doing amazing things on skis, pretending to be Douglas falling down the slopes. That was amazing and humorous footage.<br /><br />Overall, I can see where this film - Garbo's last - was not a box-office success. It just drags too much, going on and on about deceptions. It's an annoying story. Garbo knew it, too, and called it quits.
It seems a shame that Greta Garbo ended her illustrious career at the age of 36 with this ridiculous mistaken-identity marital romp. Coming off the success of her first romantic comedy, Ernst Lubitsch's masterful "Ninotchka" (1939), where she was ideally cast as an austere Russian envoy, Garbo is reunited with her leading man Melvyn Douglas for a sitcom-level story that has her playing Karin Borg, a plain-Jane ski instructor who impulsively marries publishing executive Larry Blake when he becomes smitten with her. Once he makes clear that work is his priority, Karin inadvertently decides to masquerade as her high-living twin sister Katherine to test her husband's fidelity when he is back in Manhattan.<br /><br />It's surprising that this infamous 1941 misfire was directed by George Cukor, who led Garbo to her greatest dramatic performance in 1937's "Camille", because this is as unflattering a vehicle as one could imagine for the screen legend. Only someone with Carole Lombard's natural sense of ease and mischief could have gotten away with the shenanigans presented in the by-the-numbers script by S.N. Behrman, Salka Viertel and George Oppenheimer. MGM's intent behind this comedy was to contemporize and Americanize Garbo's image for wartime audiences whom the studio heads felt were not interested in the tragic period characters she favored in the thirties.<br /><br />However, Garbo appears ill-at-ease mostly as the bogus party girl Katherine and especially compared to expert farceurs like Douglas and Constance Bennett as romantic rival Griselda. Photographed unflatteringly by Joseph Ruttenberg, Garbo looks tired in many scenes and downright hideous in her teased hairdo for the "chica-choca" dance sequence. The story ends conventionally but with the addition of a lengthy physical sequence where Larry tries to maneuver his skis on a series of mountain cliffs that unfortunately reminds me of Sonny Bono's death. Roland Young and Ruth Gordon (in a rare appearance at this point of her career) show up in comic supporting roles as Douglas' associates. This movie is not yet on DVD, and I wouldn't consider it priority for transfer as it represents a curio in Garbo's otherwise legendary career. She was reportedly quite unhappy during the filming. I can see why.
I've never understood the appeal of Garbo. She always comes across in her films as stuck up, not all that alluring, and that annoying voice that could have drowned out the tuba section. She was also a very limited actress, like Gloria Swanson far better off left in the silent era. In this her last film, her performance is very average and even unassured. She tries hard but it all comes to nothing because the script is even worse than her acting.<br /><br />A would be screwball romcom that is never once believable and never gets off the ground (even though Melvyn Douglas manages to get airborne in the skiing scenes, which are really the only amusing thing here).<br /><br />There was potential but the script fails in almost every department, wasting every actor in it. Douglas and Garbo had good enough chemistry together but this one isn't even a spot on Ninotchka, which I also found to be extremely overrated.
Payback is the game being played in this drama and the revenge plot is undone by the absurd story line that sets the stage for the fireworks that come later. Why would a man become involved with the trophy wife of a ruthless mob boss in the gangster's own mansion with suspicious henchmen all around? Why would an unhappy wife encourage the attentions of a complete stranger and expect him to carry her away with him and leave her husband and boredom behind to live happily ever after with her new love? Surely the hero, here Kevin Costner, must have expected a reaction from the cuckold husband that gives the movie an excuse to indulge in senseless gore and violence. Anthony Quinn, great actor that he was, surely deserved better, and Madeleine Stowe is the tragic figure who suffers greatly as she latches on to her prince charming. Stowe is okay but her Spanish accent doesn't work. The cameos of the lesser players are good, especially Miguel Ferrer and John Leguizamo and Sally Kirkland is interesting as a fading rock star.
Faces are slashed, throats are cut, blood squirts, and in end the three main characters are either depressed or they die. They even blow up Kevin Costner's dog with a shotgun. Why would anyone want to see a movie like this? Violence is valid only when the good guys kill the bad guys, not the other way around. Take for instance Underworld and Underworld Evolution where you can enjoy seeing justice done when the demons are slain. In this movie, the good guys are cut up. See the difference? Why would anyone want to MAKE a movie that depresses the audience? Beautiful photography and skilled editing in a motion picture like this is a waste of talent. Let's put this one into the category of the exquisite corpse.
This movie wastes virtually every actor's talents in what could best be charitably called a "potboiler".<br /><br />Despite it's action-packed 'Top Gun' opening it is all downhill from there with plenty of stereotypes and unlikely situations following each other until you try to choke yourself on your popcorn.<br /><br />There are so many dead-end story lines in this movie I was guessing at one point it was made by splicing together a discarded TV series.<br /><br />Quinn's Mexican drug-lord role is laughable and his 'associates' plucked right out of a 1970's Quinn-Martin cop show. Costner's character is wooden and gives us no reason to believe he actually fell in love with Mendez' wife. Nor are we convincingly led to believe the wife is aching for companionship and will jump the first hot body coming along.<br /><br />Definitely a 'B' movie at best and a huge waste of time for everyone involved.
I just watched this movie and I've gotta say that with such a great premise and great talent this turkey just lays there!!! A friend lent me this movie and I watched with an open mind mainly because he had such high praise for the story. <br /><br />Well, the movie started off with Kevin Costner as a fighter pilot retiring... why? Why did they make him a fighter pilot? He was supposedly going to be hired by Anthony Quinn's character to be his new pilot... well, we never see Costner go near a plane for the rest of the movie! <br /><br />Costner runs into a Texan (James Gammon) selling a horse to a big Mexican businessman and Costner tags along for a ride. Without knowing what happened, Gammon is beat to near death and Costner drives him to the meeting, which happens to be with an associate of Quinn! But, nothing comes of it... nada, zilcho! Why did they have Gammon's character? Why did they have the horse sale with the Quinn associate if nothing was to come of it? <br /><br />Also, after they leave Costner for dead, they make Madeline Stowe's character become a whore, then she attacks one of Quinn's men that was paying for a turn... she stabs him with his own knife, and the next thing she's been moved to a convent! No explanation as to why she was moved, or when it was done!<br /><br />Too much talent wasted on such a weak script and poor editing!! I only watched this because a friend owned it and let me watch it... I'm going to throw it at him for the 2 hours I wasted of my life watching the blasted thing!
Revenge on us the viewing public perhaps. I sat through this 2 hour movie and i was waiting for the second act to kick in so that the movie lived up to its title. But Costner never avenges his lovers fate she dies and the movie ends. I was left wondering where the rest of the movie was. If a movie is called Revenge then the hero better get some by the end of the film. I had a choice of seeing this or Black Rain at the cinema thankfully i saw The other brothers movie at the cinema instead.i caught up with this turkey on video. there was one good thing about the film and was its beautiful theme tune. Listen to the cd.dont watch this its awful. 1 out of 10
This has to be some of the worst direction I've seen. The close-up can be a very powerful shot, but when every scene consists of nothing but close-ups, it loses all its impact. <br /><br />Tony Scott has some very beautiful scenery to work with, the backdrops of Mexico, the cantinas, the beautiful estate where Anthony Quinn lives, and the dusty towns Costner rolls through on his journey for revenge. Unfortunately we only catch quick glimpses of these places before the camera cuts to a picture of a big, giant head. Even the transition scenes where Costner is driving alone across Mexico quickly cut to a close-up. <br /><br />The score is over-dramatic and intrusive, dictating every emotion we should feel. The story itself should have been handled much better. Among other things, too many people pop up out of nowhere to help Costner along - it's just bad writing. <br /><br />It's a typical thriller storyline, but many others have taken the same premise and done outstanding things with it. Costner's No Way Out had a somewhat similar storyline, but it was a much better movie. <br /><br />The ending was completely anticlimactic and suffered from the most melodramatic scoring of the film. This movie was never going to be great, but if we saw more of Mexico and less of giant heads this film might have been watchable.
Sorry - this movie is just a cheap TV-Production. I saw very much promotion Material and expect a professionell Movie like "Stormriders" - what i was presented was a Low-Budget-Movie like "XENA" or "Hercules" on TV. No Atmosphere, very boring, more then worse Fight-Scenes. Some good ideas - not more. I hope i will get the Chance to make a movie like this and then i show how to do such a movie!!!<br /><br />My ASIAN-Tips: "MUSA - THE WARRIOR", "STORMRIDERS", "SHAOLIN SOCCER", "BATTLE ROYAL", "VERSUS", etc.<br /><br />Sorry for my bad English!
"Shinobi" is one of those movies that thinks the mere act of killing off a character automatically brings a sense of gravitas or emotion to the story. Unfortunately, for the audience to actually care about the people dying, you have to develop the characters, otherwise all you have is a bunch of random acts of violence. The problem is especially compounded when you have TONS of characters, all of whom die.<br /><br />OK, so if you can't be bothered to make the characters memorable or sympathetic in any way, you can at least make the REASONS for why they die plausible, right? Nope. Here we have a war between two ninja clans, with neither side really knowing WHY they are fighting each other. They kill each other because the emperor says so. Yet even well after it becomes glaringly obvious that the emperor wants ALL of them dead, they still refuse to abandon their meaningless missions. That's not stubbornness... that's just plain dumb.<br /><br />Fine, fine! There is no character development, and the plot provides no reasonable rationale for fighting. At least they die fighting in cool action scenes, right? Yet again, NO! In fact, many of the fights aren't even fights at all: super ninjas that the movie spent so much time and effort introducing die suddenly (and lamely, in my opinion). I'm talking about things like, "Lalala, I'm walking along and I- *neck gets slashed*." THE END for that character. Not even halfway through the film, I threw my hands up in frustration at the ludicrousness of it.
I have watched anime but I'm not a die hard fan; and I don't read manga. I say this because many of the reviewers who are waxing lyrical about this film seem to have that background. I have seen "St. John's Wort," and although it isn't a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, it made me pick up "Shinobi," especially since everyone seems to love it.<br /><br />Well, I watched it this afternoon, and fought very hard to keep watching. Yes, it's very beautiful - the slow motion water scenes, the autumn leaves on the trees, even the CGI eye flicker - majestic. I liked the hawk, the costumes, even some of the fight scenes, but overall this was dull as dirt.<br /><br />It seemed as if someone took "Romeo and Juliet" - the translation even mentions that they are star crossed lovers - and threw in some "X-Men" for good measure. Two of the characters split Wolverine's powers - the guy dressed in a bear costume had his claws and the grey-haired guy had his ability to heal himself. Then you have the girl who has a poison kiss - that's Poison Ivy (from Batman). Why do they give these women such dumb powers? Poison girl shows her leg then kisses you to death. Man, that's some great power for you. And the other girl, can create bugs from this yellow dust that she rubs on her hands. The other woman, one of the star crossed lovers, has the power of a hypnotic stare. Wow.<br /><br />I sort of made it to the end of the film, by fast forwarding it, and did see a bit more tragedy than I expected. Some people are comparing this to "House of Flying Daggers" and "Hero." Don't make that mistake. They may share similar endings, but that's where the similarities end. "Shinobi" is made by an amateur - the other films are made by an experienced filmmaker.<br /><br />I would say avoid this film unless you're 12 to 18 years old.
I gave this movie a 5 out of pure pity. My intention is not to burst anyone's bubble, because I've seen, as I've skimmed through other comments, that this movie is quite appreciated by many. Well, it is not worth any praises, and I say this because I've seen the original anime, Basilisk, and this movie shames it deeply. Perhaps if you see Shinobi alone, you could like it. It is enjoyable due to the well-choreographed battles, based on fantasy more than on martial arts, and I agree that their beauty is deeply enhanced. But the story is nothing like the original one. Now, I understand that when one transforms an anime/manga into a movie, one must make certain changes. I was not expecting to see the freakish characters from the anime, although they have a well-established role, and some are truly profound and well-designed. But I certainly did not expect to see immense and wrongly-placed changes, that basically ruin the entire story. Characters who are dramatically and unethically mutilated, transformed in something the public might love more, perhaps. For instance, Oboro, who, in the anime is a sweet, innocent girl, completely and utterly in love with Gennosuke, becomes a vengeful clan leader in the movie. I liked the fact that the woman becomes strong and evades the limitations imposed on her by the era (we are talking about Japan, 17th century), but her mood changes are unbelievable and badly written. Hotarubi, which is one of my favourite characters in the film, but who is not known for her childish and sensitive nature, becomes a pathetic little girl who is not only not madly in love like in the anime, but is more or less worthless in the plot. I could go on and on, like how they made Tenzen, the worst and most dangerous character in the anime, exceptionally weak and unattractive, or how Gennosuke, the leading character seems completely misplaced and confused, not to mention, again WEAK. The music is beautiful and the image is astounding, which was expected of a Japanese movie, and I appreciate it for that. But do not watch this if you've seen and enjoyed Basilisk, because it is just hopeless. Basilisk, although based on fantasy, with elements of horror and largely exaggerated is splendid and has so much more depth in its characters, storyline, historical value and it is, may I say, heartbreaking. Shinobi was a waste of time and I could not believe it kept on going after what was supposed to be the climax. Alas, it pains me deeply to judge a movie so harshly, but I advise you against it. Please, watch the anime, or at least watch the movie first and then repair your image of what Basilisk really is by watching the anime. Otherwise you will have a seizure when you realize how they've massacred it.
The bad out takes from "Reign of Fire" strung together, without any real story.<br /><br />Dean Cain tries to be a real actor, and fails again.<br /><br />In the end the dragons quit in disgust.<br /><br />BARF!
I mistakenly kept myself awake late last night watching this thing. About the only thing I could say good about this horrid film is that it could be used by film schools to show how not to make a movie. No proper character development, wait, I'm not even sure they were characters. Set-ups were hokey and inane, and the overuse of split screens was wasted since sometimes they couldn't even synchronize with alternate shots. If I could give this a zero or minus rating I would. Sadly, it isn't even worth the time for a few laughs.<br /><br /> It's just a sad example of money wasted by Hollywood, and now I waste my time even thinking about it.
Why else would he do this to me?<br /><br />Not that I expect Dean Cain to produce hit movies. Or even decent movies. I saw Lois and Clark, I am aware of just how... "good" Dean Cain is.<br /><br />Obviously this is gonna be a cheesey flick, and each cheesey flick has its own special way to make you scratch your head. I will not call these spoilers as you can't really spoil this movie any more than it already is.<br /><br />To begin with... why is that a fake helicopter? I mean... why?<br /><br />How come that one scientist is from Chicago and that other scientist is from LA and neither one could be any more eastern european if they tried? How hard would it have been to get either an american actor, or just change that lame state sheet the movie provides us with to say those people aren't american?<br /><br />Why are there 2 occasions when the movie gives us a slug line? We get helipad-day and then mess hall-day later on. And then that's it, who cares about the timeline. To be honest, who cared about it even when they mentioned it, but I guess that's beside the point.<br /><br />Does a movie really get better if you are able to view it through multiple split screens? The answer is no.<br /><br />That dragon sure can walk down that hall..over..and over...and over....and over...<br /><br />Who on earth was responsible for one of the worst endings in film history? It was straight out of scooby doo. Oh, the dragon's dead now...say, wanna get dinner? Sure, but not at some Chinese place....with Dragon in the name!! AH HA HA HA!! HA HA HA!! HAHA HA! I used to be Superman! AHA HA HA! HA HA!<br /><br />fade to black<br /><br />my god, it made me cringe it was so stupid.<br /><br />But never fear..even though the whole building exploded...and no one was left alive..for some reason there's a second untouched, unmanned lab that survived pretty well, so they can make a sequel. Hurray for us all.<br /><br />
This is a formula B science fiction movie, and the director made no bones about it. It is about a dragon who is restored to life by a scientific team. Everything done is stuff you've seen many times before. It is a weak script, with no real characters. In fact, it is full of stereotype characters and situations. The director attacks this by just making it a formula movie, with no attempt to fool us, and that gives this movie a mild appeal, but it isn't something you're likely to remember a while. It is best seen while you're cooking, cleaning, working out. Sort of mindless fun. It has its place in entertainment, but it certainly isn't something you sit down with friends to watch, unless you're all just drunk and don't care. The mass rating of 3.2 is probably fair. I don't think it is as crappy as most people, but I am surprised that some people in the postings thought this was spectacular. That really eludes me, as I see no attempt to even make this a memorable film.
I caught this movie on Sci-Fi before heading into work. If you've any interest in seeing Dean Cain dive and avoid being enveloped in flames at least a dozen times, this movie is for you. If that doesn't peak your interest, well, I'm afraid you'll wish that YOU were the one about to be enveloped in flames, because this movie is pretty bad. The acting, to begin with, is awful, awful, awful. The characters are all completely obnoxious, and the dialogue is worse than your typical Z-grade, Sci-Fi movie. Towards the end, the movie began to remind me of 'Hollow Man' (complete with escape via elevator shaft), except with a Dragon, not a naked, invisible man. Unlike other similar flicks, however, this one wasn't even awesomely bad...it was just plain bad.
Dragon Fighter is the first Sci-Fi Channel (although I guess it's now called Syfy?) original movie I have ever seen. But I have seen one or two others since, and I can tell you that they were stupid, but this one really scrapes the bottom of the barrel. The CGI is done poorly, the acting is bad, the script is ridiculous, and what happens at the very end is unexpected and out of place (if you have seen Dragon Fighter, you probably know what I mean; I didn't want to put a spoiler in my review). Plus, there was this one musical tune that was used in pretty much every single dangerous sequence. That was really stupid; they just played it over and over. And it's definitely not original; I know I've heard that somewhere before (I just can't remember where). This is one to avoid.
The first 45 minutes of Dragon Fighter are entirely acceptable and surprisingly watchable. The characters are believable and interesting. The cloning lab looks really high-tech. After that, it all collapses. The characters start behaving idiotically, and a new subplot is introduced from nowhere about a fusion reactor (and this is supposedly "present day") going critical, the only plot justification of which is that it is required to kill the dragon - only it doesn't. The finish is incredibly weak. One wonders what made a movie that started out so well turn so wrong.<br /><br />All the characters except Dean Cain are played by Russians. This results in some weird situations and details, like the character being played by Vessela Dimitrova being called "Bailey Kent" despite her heavy accent (and despite her, on one occasion, inexplicably switching to *Spanish*!).<br /><br />Because of the decent start, I considered rating this movie a 5, but it really was more disappointing than that, so I only give it 4.
there are those movies that are bad they are funny, then there are those where you scream "i want that one and a half hours of my life back"...thats pretty much what this is.<br /><br />dean cain tries to be an actor but fails. the sfx are really bad (repeated scenes and rocks that look like falling paper) and the fake plastic guns that have torches taped on them...the split screen effect used to show multiple things happening at once is just terrible.<br /><br />this movie cant even be used as one of those simple night entertainers, its just that bad<br /><br />if i could go negative ratings, i would
It's hard to praise this film much. The CGI for the dragon was well done, but lacked proper modelling for light and shadow. Also, the same footage is used endlessly of the dragon stomping through corridors which becomes slightly tedious.<br /><br />I was amazed to see "Marcus Aurelius" in the acting credits, wondering what an ex-Emperor of the Roman Empire was doing acting in this film! Like "Whoopie Goldberg" it must be an alias, and can one blame him for using one if he appears in this stinker.<br /><br />The story might been interesting, but the acting is flat, and direction is tedious. If you MUST watch this film, go around to your friend's house and get drunk while doing so - then it'll be enjoyable.
Yesterday I saw the movie Flyboys and my girlfriend told me it was the worst movie she's ever seen... Since I thought it was pretty awful as well it got me thinking - which film was the worst film I had ever seen and this was the only film that came to mind.<br /><br />Unfortunately it was a couple of years since I've seen it but I remember the horribly miscast Dean Cain as cocky military man (pretty boy Cain doesn't do cocky very well). The strange deal with the CGI-helicopter when it would probably be cheaper to rent a chopper than to hire some CGI-guys to make it, but my guess is that they found the chopper as a free sample for some CGI program or the producer's son liked to play with his new computer. And how did it look?? Awful. And when the dragon charges through the corridors of the complex then reuse the same shots over and over - looks VERY cheap.<br /><br />Avoid this movie - it is truly awful...
Pretty standard B-movie stuff. Seriously, anyone who watches "Dragon Fighter" with Dean Cain and a bunch of people making their first movie should know better than to expect real quality or even moderate intelligence. B movies exist to re-work formulas that are popular. If you give them even token analysis, you'll wind up ruining the movie for yourself (and perhaps writing some self-important, slanderous review on IMDb).<br /><br />I liked the female lead, Kristine Byers. She had charisma and I thought she was notably attractive. It was a memorable B-movie appearance. Unfortunately, I don't see where she has made any movies since. I'll watch for her again.
When you wish for the dragon to eat every cast member, you know you're in for a bad ride.<br /><br />I went in with very, very low expectations, having read some of the other comments, and was not let down. Unlike some other cheap and failed movies, however, this one doesn't really remain hilariously (and unintentionally) funny throughout.<br /><br />-SPOILERS FOLLOW-<br /><br />First of all, plot it very inconsistent. Looking past the "small" mistakes, such as the dragon growing up in 3 hours, the whole idea it's based on is messed up. See, the movie wants us to believe that dragons came from outer space in the form of meteorites which really were dragon eggs. After explaining this, they show some peasant poking at one with his pitchfork and the dragon pops out. Later, the obligatory "crazy scientist" guy babbles on about how dragons outlived the dinosaurs. So apparently humans were around when dinosaurs were, or we just have a fine little plot hole here. The other major thing is that the lab is blown up with a force "half as strong" as what was used for Hiroshima. Then two guys later walk in to check everything out, and it's almost unscathed! There's even another dragon, which grew out of who knows what. All in all it's very predictable. As soon as the guy mentioned cloning, I guessed they'd clone a dragon. That means that our Mr. Smarty-pants security guy isn't so intuitive and smart as the movie would have you believe, if you ignore that I knew this film would be about, you know, dragons.<br /><br />Putting that aside, the second worst thing is the "special effects." Others have mentioned the fake rocks falling during the beginning, the CG helicopter, and the dragon. It looks a bit better than a blob, but it ruined whatever it had going for it when it trudged down the hall in the same manner time after time. To their credit, the flying dragons in the beginning looked OK from far away (although the one in the cave is probably the worst one in the whole movie.) These things are funny to watch, however. The scenes where a million different shots of the same person facing different ways are shown are not. Nor are the "introduction" screens with the vital stats.<br /><br />Coming to the actors, they weren't the greatest, but I guess at least they tried? They seemed more enthusiastic about what they were doing than many of the actors participating in the recent "BloodRayne," for example, and you've got to give them points for that. One thing I noticed though was that the woman who plays Meredith often had her face covered in make-up that was many tones lighter than the rest of her. She looked like she had a bad run-in with some white-face.<br /><br />The script is bad and cheesy. You don't really notice the music, but it's actually not too bad for the most part.<br /><br />The bottom line is don't watch it unless you want to see it because you hear it's bad (like I did), although the only funny things are the bad CG effects. Other than that, don't waste your time and money.
What a dreadful movie! For some reason, scientific laboratories and outposts always have a staff of grubby, dirty, mean-spirited, misanthropes living inside. These folks who presumably work together on complicated scientific projects cannot seem to agree on how to survive death at the hands of a CGI Dragon. Spoilers: An extra-nasty scientist whose main acting skill is "leering" and "the sinister stare" has cloned a Dragon. While the lab was supposed to work on this kind of thing, the other scientists are shocked, because apparently they were all way behind in their experiments and got caught with their pants down. The rest of the story is like THE THING, or Ten Little Indians, where the staff is hunted and killed off as they try to formulate a way to escape and/or defeat the "Dragon." The CGI Dragon creature is dark gray, which seems to be the popular color for most of the cheap CGI special effects. It hardly looks better than a cartoon, and the dark gray tones make it difficult to see any interesting details in the body of the Dragon. All it looks like is a gray blob. The acting is less than horrible. These scientists act like a bunch of children who cannot agree on anything, and this makes it easier for the Dragon to kill them off in various attempts to escape, hide, etc. Dean Cain is hardly better than any of the cast of unknown actors in this movie. He seems to sink to the level of his supporting cast. This movie is really, really atrocious. The acting is bad. The story is dumb. The CGI is very very cheap and amateurish. There is nothing commendable about this movie, it is not even a good time-killer to glance at while doing chores or other work.
There have been plenty of unknown movies or movies given bad reviews that I really liked. This was not one of them.<br /><br />It was overacted and used camera techniques that made me feel like I was watching a soap opera. It was ludicrously predictable and took most of the movie to get going then left you asking "that's it?". Once I decided not to take the movie too seriously and watch it from a purely corny point of view it became more enjoyable. This is one movie that would have wound up on MST3000 if it was still on.
This movie is some of the worst crap I have ever seen. I literally got a sharp pain in my head while watching this movie. The CGI was awful, and the story was just a waste of ink. Dean Cain's character was Mr-Super-Intuitive-I-can-figure-out-anything, except he can't seem to work his own helicopter correctly. The biggest problem was the split screen camera work. I felt like I was watching the Brady Bunch or something, only it wasn't different people in the boxes, just close ups and different views of the same thing. I can only figure that the actors really needed the money, because this movie wasn't worth the film it was shot on.
<br /><br />Once I ignored some of the implausibilities, this was actually a fairly decent horror/monster flick. So, I'll give some of the good points first: - the dragon was quite convincing, especially as she prowled through the tunnels looking for lunch (hint: she likes humans). - the action was fairly non stop, and, after a weak beginning, I got quite absorbed in the storyline. - sorry to say, I was kind of rooting for the dragon - she was probably the most convincing and consistent character in the movie.<br /><br />Now for the implausible stuff **maybe some spoilers**: - if you were hunting a fire-breathing dragon in 1100 AD, would you charge into its cave with a barrel of gunpowder under your arm? Duh. - a female character with an all-American name, blonde hair and obvious Slavic accent, trying to pretend she's Spanish? Huh? - a lead scientist whose Slavic accent you can cut with a knife, and he's supposedly born in Chicago, educated in USA? - a military helicopter pilot who does his own repairs, flies a huge transport copter with no other crew, and is an expert marksman and combat soldier to boot? OK. Uh huh. I won't even mention his giving 3 different call signs in 2 minutes while communicating with his base.<br /><br />It's still better than some of the Japanese monster flicks from the 60's, but not by much. If we're lucky, we won't see Dragon Fighter 2, though naturally the ending left that possibility wide open. Or, maybe, they'll hire a real director next time.<br /><br />In spite of everything, I gave this flick a 4 out of 10. Add 2 more if they rewrite the plot, and Dean Cain gets eaten in the first ten minutes. <grin>
If Alien, Jurassic Park and countless other sci fi horror movies are your cup of tea, add a lot of sugar and you'll get this one down. The film begins in jolly old England around 1100ad and then jumps to present day California. Our hero Carver (Dean Cain) is the new Security Chief and Military Advisor for a Science Lab 400 feet underground. He arrives (Carver is also a helicopter pilot) with the lead Scientist and we soon find out it's a cloning lab and they have something newly found to clone. Is it a Dinosaur or what? As with the above movies, all hell breaks loose and our characters start getting picked off. The special effects on the Monster are pretty good for a "direct to video" movie and Dean Cain does what he gets paid for. But forget the rest of the group as we find out why we have never seen them before. Again, don't go in with high expectations and you'll be ok.
Nothing could have saved this movie, not even Superman.<br /><br />Ten years ago the special effects would have been amazing. Better directing might have gotten some more feeling and better performances out of the actors. But nothing but feeding the script to a dragon could have fixed it. Plot holes, bad lines, terrible pacing, endless replaying of the same shots of a CGI dragon stomping through hallways... ugh.<br /><br />Avoid this one at all costs.<br /><br />
This movie really, i mean REALLY, sucks. Its got plot holes so big, and 30 foot dragon can fit through them. Not to mention the dragon itself, which is inevitably the worst computer generated image ever to be put on the film real. I mean, when you see something like this, you gotta be thinking "Wow, someone actually made this movie. Then released it. That takes guts". Whoever they are, i'm sure they don't work in the film business anymore.<br /><br />When i hired this movie, it wasn't in on DVD, so i (reluctantly) took it out on video. The first thing to appear, was a Lord of the Rings trailer, for the Two Towers. This was a very clever move, putting this trailer on the video. It justifies me (reluctantly) giving the film 1 star, otherwise i would have given it zero stars. Maybe the producers though the star attraction of Dean Cain (I think thats how you spell it) would draw in the crowds (uh, to the video store that is).<br /><br />Next they employed split screen technique (like in Hulk) to (i assume) compensate for what an atrocity this piece of crap film is. On the box cover, we see a picture of our hero, and the dragon. Does the dragon look exactly like the one in Dragonheart, or is it just me? Either way, the dragon in the film looks like a reject from Gremlins 2, and has the CGI of a Nintendo video game villain from the early 90's (perhaps worse). Also, not the Dragons movement as it pursues its victims- its the same F##cking monotonous movement- right leg, left leg, right leg left leg- dom, dom, dom, dom DOM, DOM F#$king DOOOOOM! This just pisses me off. Maybe the filmmakers thought this was thrilling and would have the same effect of Jaws. Why not then have a Dragon POV shot. Either way, that was just funny, much like watching a Weebl toon.<br /><br />Dean Cain gives many puzzled looks during the film (maybe his coming to terms with the fact that this film could end his career). Don't expect Superman here. The first time i saw the trailer for this film, i thought it was an add for a PS2 game.<br /><br />As for the story, its so so bad, my 5 year old brother can come up with better ones when he's unconvincingly trying to lie about why he was messing around in my room while i wasn't there. Oh, and did i mention that I F@#KING HATE THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THIS INCREDIBLY STUPID STUPID CRAP ATROCIOUS FILM?!!!
OK.... I just have 3 words - cheesy, cheesy and CHEESY! The only redeeming feature of this movie is Dean Cain. Other than that - it's CHEESEBALL SUPREME!!!!<br /><br />The movie DOES have some promise in the concept - an underground lab creates a real live fire breathing dragon - basically giving us more of "Jurassic Park" meets "Reign of Fire"..... There are some great possibilities, but they just don't follow through.... The special effects are decent - even though you KNOW the dragon is CGI, it doesn't horribly LOOK like CGI.... <br /><br />I wouldn't lay the blame on Dean Cain (although he IS one of the producers), I'd lay more of the blame on Phillip Roth - the director and writer. It's HIS job to make this film.... and, unfortunately, he failed.
When I am watching a film, I am aware that it is `just a movie,' but nonetheless I do like to allow myself to become engrossed as much as possible under the circumstances. I think this is what makes us cry, scream, laugh, or otherwise react emotionally as audience members, even though, deep down, we know it is `just a movie.' What I don't want is for the movie to remind me it is just a movie so that I am unable to slip into the aforementioned engrossment regardless of the quality of the film. This film's director chose to frequently use multi-angle camera shots simultaneously on the screen. Maybe it is just me, but I find this to be terribly distracting and downright irritating. They might as well run a continuous banner across the bottom of the screen reading, `Attention: This is just a movie. Do not allow yourself to become too interested or engrossed'. If I want `picture-in-picture', I'll activate it from my TV remote, but never during a movie I want to enjoy.
When I rented this I was hoping for what "Reign of Fire" did not deliver: a clash between modern technology and mythic beasts.<br /><br />Instead I got a standard "monster hunts stupid people in remote building" flick, with bad script, bad music, bad effects, bad plot, bad acting. Bad, bad, bad.<br /><br />Only reason why I did give it a 2 was that in theory there could exist worse movies. In theory.....
Saturday Night Live, National Lampoon, and SCTV alumnus are all together in a sometimes funny sketch film.<br /><br />However, it is very interesting to watch now, at the start of 2005. Twenty years after this movie is supposed to take place, look at how many of their gags have become absolutely true: There is a mock movie trailer, that probably wasn't even clever at the time, for something called "The Pregnant Man" which came true with Arnold Schwarzenegger's dumb movie "Junior" There is a commercial spoof, that probably wasn't even clever at the time, for something featuring Sammy Davis Jr. and Jackie Onasis called "Celebrity Wrestling" which has now come true with a popular show called "Celebrity Boxing" There is a mock movie trailer, that probably wasn't even clever at the time, that features John Candy in a movie about a severed head. Watch this trailer and look how similar it's shots and plot are to Frank Hellenlotter's Basket Case!! And finally there is an ad for a late late show documentary about "a dead dream, the only two left ..." The name of the documentary is ... THE LAST HIPPIES! LOL.<br /><br />Four prophecies come true!
Stephen Feinberg, who Played the Proctologist and was one of the writers of the movie, passed away in early 2006. I met Steve in Portland in 1993, it was a year latter when he told me that he had been a writer in Hollywood years earlier, working mostly on TV promos. He asked me not to see 'Tunnel Vision', but it was too late, I had seen it already! Actually I had seen it years before, when it was released. At that time I didn't think it was that bad a movie. However seeing it as an adult my opinion was somewhat different. Yes is is a bit puerile as well as dated. Steve admitted it was not a very good movie. That said he was just a little proud of 'The Proctologist' sketch.
This is the worst movie I ever paid to see and with the exception of "They Saved Hitler's Brain" the worst movie I have ever seen period. When this movie came out I was a big fan of SNL and SCTV and therefore was anticipating what I thought would be the funniest movie that could be produced since it did not have the restrictions the TV improv shows must deal with. <br /><br />The writers must have thought we will throw in some grossness, some flatulence jokes, some cheap sex and hey we have a risky side splitting laughable comedy. The game show skits are nothing more than cheap unimaginable take offs on Let's Make a Deal with stupid grossness. The sit com take off involving the single girl and her boyfriend was just plain bad high school humor. The stun gun advertisement was suitable humor for Seasame Street. The LA subway skit was bland humor using tasteless bloodiness. The french chef walking around blind constantly uttering "there is no difference" with a french accent was, well you get my point.<br /><br />The only funny skit involved Chevy Chase which lasted for a whole minute. This means you get 60 seconds of entertainment in this movie. Oh yea I've read the comments about the entire country being stoned in the 1970's and you will like this movie if you are high. Well most of the country was not stoned in the 70's. If the inept writers were stoned it must have been on drowsy sinus medicine. There were 4 other people in the theater besides myself when I saw this movie. Of course word did not get out yet about how bad the movie was.
In the future of 1985, a governmental committee headed by Howard Hesseman, is holding hearings on TV's first uncensored network. They sample it's programming, that play as a series of skits. I can name the good 'skit' movies on one hand, not using my thumb. "Amazon Women on the Moon", "Kentucky Fried Movie", "The Meaning of Life", and "Mr. Mike's Mondo Video". Notice how I didn't mention "Tunnel Vision"? The reason for that is that this 'movie' is death in cinematic form. None of the skits are even remotely funny, or even the least bit clever. It takes some sort of great ineptitude on the film makers' part to not even get one laugh out of me.<br /><br />My Grade: F <br /><br />Eye Candy: Dody Dorn goes full frontal
I missed the beginning but I did see most of it. A friend got it on DVD in the cheap room at FYE.<br /><br />The skits are all very short, and yet most of them are still too long. The majority of them, they seem to have forgotten to have something funny! Quite a lot of racist/sexist/"homophobic" humor in it, skits based on stereotypes, or skits which use racist terms for people.<br /><br />I'm trying to remember anything I thought was funny in it, and I'm having trouble.... The logo for the Tunnel Vision network is a lipsticked mouth with an eyeball in it. The mouth opens and closes over the eye like eyelids. Kind of creepy.<br /><br />What a disappointment. Most of the actors went on to better things, and it's lucky this bomb didn't hold them back.
This movie is a prime example of squandering great resources in a film. You've got future SNL and SCTV stars in their prime, such as John Candy, Chevy Chase, Laraine Newman, Al Franken,Tom Davis and Joe Flaherty essentially making 70 minutes of coarse, uninspired fart and racist jokes. The concept of a network from the future subverting society could have really been taken to some interesting extremes, but instead right out the gate, makes a lame, juvenile proctology joke and stays in that vein of humor the whole way.Seek out the earlier and much more subversive and witty Groove Tube or the later, hilarious Kentucky Fried Movie. This movie is only for those who want to see a time capsule of bad 70's sketch comedy movies.
Back in the 70's, when I had first seen this, I was in high school. It was cool then. Now as an adult I look back at it and I say to myself..yeah right. What was so funny? It has it's moments but they are few and far between. It is so dated that the jokes no longer stand up. Show this to a younger crowd and they will be totally lost. If you like this type of humor you may want to stick with Kentucky Fried Movie or Amazon Women From The Moon. Tunnel Vision as well as Groove tube are too dated for today's viewing.
This is a decent endeavor but the guy who wrote the screenplay seems to be a bit in the dark as to what exactly makes a zombie movie cool. No, it isn't CGI bugs and software companies. Actually I'm not sure whether it was a software company - I saw it without subtitles so I had to guess what they're talking about. Anyway my point was - instead of wasting your time animating some dumb-ass bug, why not throw in more zombies and more action. 2/3 of the 20 minutes consist of news bulletins, bugs, some guys yelling about something. And to makes matters worse (more boring) most of the deaths occur off-screen. I realize that's all too common for no-budget movies, but then there were some very impressive effects (well, kind-a of) which left me wondering why did the director (or screenwriter, whatever) chose to focus on how the epidemic started - it's a short, nobody's gonna care anyway.
I bought this DVD after seeing it highly ranked here. It's just a short 20 minutes zombie film. Nothing special about it except for the music perhaps.<br /><br />Don't buy it! Not even really worth spending 20 minutes to see it. Only if you're really bored...
Steven Vasquez directed and co-wrote with James Townsend, the star, this strange little drama cum horror flick with evidently very good ideas and intentions: make a gay film that takes a different storyline than the usual fare and make a drama that wants to be judged on its merits as a thriller. So why doesn't it work? For starters the film loses direction from the opening frame and wanders rather aimlessly throughout the film, dead set on making a suspense thriller but getting sidetracked into satisfying an audience who wants to see nude encounters. Not that that is a bad thing: it can certainly enhance some films that have been Hollywood successes. The film also tries to talk about coming out experiences in young men and women, relationships, disturbed parenting, the club scene with all the wild antics that accompany such events - and murder. It is all a bit much to cram into a 96-minute film.<br /><br />Devon (James Townsend) by all appearances is a successful kid with a kind girlfriend Jenna (Sarah Kelly) but he has an eye for boys and visits a bar where he meets Brian (Alex Wilson) who has been down the same path and can offer Devon assistance on every level. They bond, Devon comes out, and the mysteries begin: boys are missing in the neighborhood, Devon's stepfather psychologist Dr. Kirk Tyler (Dan Swett) is not at all what he appears to be and despite Devon's consoling mother Donna (Sonja Fisher) Devon is cast into the streets because of his new relationship. It seems Dr Tyler is in a dark business with hunky Detective Cunningham (Earl McDougle) who apparently is investigating the missing boys... Devon gathers his resources from his understanding girlfriend Jenna and her cronies and together the group unveils the dark doings of Dr. Tyler and his detective sidekick. And through it all Donna radiates warmth and understanding as the perfect mother of a gay boy, etc.<br /><br />Some of the actors are pleasing to the eye (and there is very little the eye doesn't examine frequently!) but the degree of acting is at an all time low. The only thing that makes us forgive that (and in some cases it is just too poor to forgive) is the feeling of commitment on the part of everyone involved. Yes, this is a low budget movie and yes, the director needs time to learn his trade. But in the end there is something to be said for the involved people to try to take a gay film to a different level. Maybe their next one will be more polished. Grady Harp
There are some good things about the movie. The music and cinematography is great. Alex Wilson is hot and gives a great performance. Ryan Bauer is also hot. The production was very lucky to have casted them because they really give production value to the movie. Jonny Vincent (Sean) and a lot of the boys in the movie that don't speak are cute too. Why isn't the actress who plays Amy listed in the credits? Brandon Alexander gives a great comedic performance as Clitarissa Pink.<br /><br />The worse thing about the movie is probably the star, James Townsend. He can't act. He's also very scrawny, not nice to look at at all. His arms are like spaghetti. It's disgusting. They have no muscle tone at all. It's no wonder he has to make his own movie and cast himself in it. No one else would cast him in anything.<br /><br />James Townsend is not believable as someone who would even have a girlfriend because he acts so gay. They should have casted someone else as the lead if they wanted what's best for the movie. Then again, maybe he just wants to use this movie as a vehicle to launch a career in soft-core porn, definitely not real acting because he would have taken some acting lessons. Plus, anyone who does porn is blacklisted in Hollywood.<br /><br />The most ridiculous thing about the movie is probably the casting of a tan-skinned Latina as Devon's mother. Sonja Fisher does not seem like an actress at all. All in all, this movie is soft-core porn and is no better than something you would see on Skinemax. I think even Alex Wilson, probably the best thing about this movie, is embarrassed by it and doesn't want to be associated with it. There is no photo on his IMDb page and nothing else listed, so Alex Wilson is probably a disposable stage name. Plus, I ran into him in West Hollywood one time recently and when I mentioned this movie, he just turned around and walked away. I understand. If I had worked on this movie, I would be embarrassed and wouldn't want to be associated with it either.
Until now, the worst movie I had ever seen was Ben & Arthur. You really should check the reviews for that movie instead of this one. The review statistics for this movie have been skewed positive through a relentless and unscrupulous push by some of the people involved in making it, evidence for which is fairly easy to uncover online. At least the people who made Ben & Arthur were honorable enough to let it stand on its own shaky legs, instead of unscrupulously promoting it so suckers like me would buy it.<br /><br />Everything about this movie is terrible, the script, the story, the casting, the acting, the direction, the photography, the editing, the music... what else goes into a movie? Whatever it is, here it's as bad as it gets. If it weren't so unpleasant it would be ridiculous. I kept watching it thinking it must get better, because I hadn't yet discovered that none of the positive reviews for it are reliable.<br /><br />It does not take a lot of money to make a great movie, nor does a low budget mean a movie has to be bad. My favorite example of a shoestring-budget masterpiece is Gus Van Sant's amazing Mala Noche, but there are many others. Sideline Secrets—Director's Cut or original—is bad not because the people who made it had no money, but because they had gigantic egos and no talent for anything at all except self-promotion.
The only redeeming quality of this film is the actual storyline...Otherwise, this movie was terrible. The acting was ridiculously bad, and the set design was cheesy and very tacky. The story was decent, but it was very hard to watch due to all the horrid acting. I wouldn't recommend watching this one...The only redeeming quality of this film was that the actors were somewhat attractive...Especially Ryan Bauer, the man who plays the soap opera star. Some of the editing was well done, but there are continuity errors all over the place...I'm just starting to get sick and tired of watching gay movies that are bad...Can we get a good one soon?
THIS FILM IS LAME, LAME, LAME!!!!! It takes a lot to bring me to over-exaggeration about a movie, but this movie stunk up my house!! I haven't even finished the movie yet and I had to stop to comment on how bad this movie is. I'VE NEVER DONE THAT!! As a consumer, do not spend your money on this film. Wait until it comes out on a cable channel or something. It's barely TV worthy. I REALLY HATE TRASHING A MOVIE, BUT THIS MOVIE IS TRASH! Barely above porn. Should have and X rating! Good plot, some frontal nudity (if that floats your boat), but HORRIBLE high school level acting. Don't know how this movie received distribution. (Must have been a contractual thing.) Really, if you really like watching good movies, don't waste you time with this one. From one movie lover to another. YOU WILL BE MAD AT YOURSELF! Let me say this as well, if you've been through something like this perhaps you can relate and it will have some value for you. In that case I say watch it, you may take something away from it, if not just seeing something that's happened to you being acted out by someone else (has therapeutic value).
Previous comments encouraged me to check this out when it showed up on TCM, but it was a severe disappointment. Lupe Valdez is great, but doesn't get enough screen time. Frank Morgan and Eugene Palette play familiar but promising characters, but the script leaves them stranded.<br /><br />The movie revolves around the ego of Lee Tracy's character, who is at best a self-centered, physically and verbally abusive jerk. The reactions of "the public" are poorly thought-out and unbelievable, making the "shenanigans" seem like contrivances of a bad writer. And it strains credulity that the Lupe Velez character could fall for him.<br /><br />The "stinging one-liners" mentioned in another review must be dependent on the observer, since I didn't even notice that an attempt was being made.
If you've ever wanted to see a film that stresses style over substance, this is for you. To me, Son de Mar is beautiful to SEE, but there's precious little substance, unless mawkish, melodramatic, manipulative love yarns turn you on. This may be one of those famous 'chick flicks' you've heard so much about. <br /><br />We're about half-way through this film before anything really happens: Ulises (Jordi Molla) goes out to sea looking for tuna, and doesn't come back, leaving his wife Martina (Leonor Watling) and son to fend for themselves. Then, in a furious six minutes of screen time, they bury Ulises, Martina gets married again, and her son grows into mid-childhood. This rapid transposition is jarring, to say the least, and very sloppy: after 40 minutes of more or less hanging around, we're suddenly into a full-blown melodrama, all in six minutes. I think this is called wayward narrative pacing.<br /><br />Five years later, Ulises (as in the wandering superhero Ulysses; get it?), returns to his 'Penelope' (Watling) only to find she's married to Sierra (Eduard Fernandez), an inexplicably wealthy guy (what does he DO to earn all that dough?) who inexplicably keeps crocodiles as pets. When Martina, in great anger, questions Ulises about his absence, he tells her that he'll take her to the island of Sumatra someday and she'll understand EVERYTHING.<br /><br />And here's the thing: he DOESN'T take her to the island of Sumatra. The reference just dies somewhere in the script. He DOESN'T really explain where he was and why he ignored his wife and child for five years. He DOESN'T acquit himself as an honourable guy, and the movie DOESN'T fill in the plot holes that are staring at us for at least half of the film. I can only assume that director Bigas Luna wants us to fill in the story lines with the mystical clues (fish, reptiles, the sea) he offers through breathtaking cinematography and evasive dialogue. It just doesn't work. The narrative 'arc' on this film ends up looking more like a wobbly clothesline.<br /><br />I'm sure Jordi Molla is a good actor, but I just couldn't buy his Ulises as any kind of hero (which is what the original Ulysses was supposed to be). With moist sensuality, he spouts a short stanza of identical poetry from Virgil roughly 2,000 times and each and every time it excites Martina to explosive orgasm. This guy should be rented out to reinvigorate stale marriages. I'm sure Virgil would be impressed. He didn't get laid that often, as I understand it. <br /><br />This poetic 'device' figures prominently in the film, and I had no choice but to assume it was a gender reversal of Ulysses' famous 'siren song' (i.e. beautiful maidens singing seductively to far-off sailors, who were doomed if they answered the, well, siren call). If this is what Bigas Luna is up to, you can see the problem -- he's offering convoluted symbolism in a snatch-and-grab attempt at High Art. Once again, it just doesn't work, at least in my eyes.<br /><br />Watling is a beautiful and magnetic young actor, but she gives us a character here who doesn't seem to have much intellectual or even romantic depth. It's beyond me how she could desperately fall in love with a guy who sports a for-rent sign on his face (as in vacant), oily 1960s-style hair that looks more like seaweed, and one of those trendy 21st-century 'beards' (you know, four days' growth, no more, no less). He's SUPPOSED to be a dreamy kind of guy (I think), but those eyes of his suggest he might be suffering more from overexposure to a preposterous script. <br /><br />But, don't despair, this film is great to look at. Just don't try to connect the dots on the red herrings or think too much about what you're hearing in the way of dialogue. You can do a lost of fast-forwarding on this film (particularly in the first 40 minutes) and you really won't miss much.
Ulises is a literature teacher that arrives to a coastal town. There, he will fell in love to Martina, the most beautiful girl in town. They will start a torrid romance which will end in the tragic death of Ulises at the sea. Some years later, Martina has married to Sierra, the richest man in town and lives a quiet happy live surrounded by money. One day, the apparition of Ulises will make her passion to rise up and act without thinking the consequences. The plot is quite absurd and none of the actors plays a decent part. IN addition, three quarters of the film are sexual acts, which, still being well filmed, are quite tiring, as we want to see More development of the story. It is just a bad Bigas Luna's film, with lots of sex, no argument and stupid characters everywhere.
My nose is bent slightly out of shape as I write this. I had sent a previous comment on this film some weeks ago that has not yet appeared, so I assume it was rejected, even though it met all the usual guidelines.<br /><br />I found this film interesting for the first thirty minutes, particularly the performance of Jordi Mollà, a veteran actor who has appeared in such major productions as "Blow" and "The Alamo." Leonor Watling is also quite good. Unfortunately, everything sinks eventually under the weight of a truly awful, melodramatic script. There is also an abundance of gratuitous nudity that does nothing to advance the narrative or lend even an impressionistic nuance to what is otherwise a beautifully filmed piece of art.<br /><br />An actual day trip to the beach at Valencia would be much less arduous than having to encounter these fictional characters again anywhere, anytime.
This Paramount version/ripoff of OKLAHOMA!/ANNIE GET YOUR GUN/CALAMITY JANE isn't all that unusual or innovative. The marketing and intro comments may be there to salvage what is really a pretty bad movie musical western shot on a soundstage and like a live TV show. I don't find the use of the background cyclorama, lit in various scenes with yellow, or pink, or red, or....all that innovative. As noted, it looks more to me like a movie that was produced on a TV budget: All soundstage, with minimal sets backed by the lighted cycs! (Compare to NEW FACES (OF 1952). The actors come off reasonably well, though. And this style was much better realized when Paramount shot LI'L ABNER in 1959. Of couorse, this movie suggests the often repeated question: "what were they thinking?"
I will never forget the night I saw this movie. We were on a submarine on patrol in the North Atlantic and this was the scheduled movie of the evening. We ALL gave up after the second reel. They did not even try to show it at the mid-night showing. Opting for a rerun instead...... This is all I really have to say but they have this stupid rule that my comment must contain ten lines. I'm not supposed to pad the comment with random words so I will just continue to ramble until I get my ten lines of BS. I could not find George Goble listed in the credits but I remember him in the movie. The sining was terrible and the songs even worse.
It was Jon Pertwee who said " It`s very difficult to be funny but very easy to be silly " . Well if that`s the case PASTY FACES is " Very easy " . David Baker ( As Director /Screenwriter ) and his cast seem to be under the impression that comedy involves stealing scenes and style from superior Britcoms like LOCK STOCK.. and TRAINSPOTTING , using a completely underdeveloped script and jumping up and down speaking in a very fast voice very loudly . Alan McCaffrey especially suffers from this type of OTT performance but not enough to ruin the film because there`s not enough of a film to ruin .<br /><br />PASTY FACES is terrible on all fronts especially scriptwise . I couldn`t understand why it ended the way it did , it just seemed to stop in a very abrupt and silly manner . Oh and other glaring errors are that you need a visa to visit the USA and a green card in order to work there - This film would have you believe you can get off a plane and start a new life in America without any authorisation - that you still get paid to donate blood in America - People who I know in America , and who donate blood tell me payment for donations stopped several years ago - and that you can buy any type of weapon from a gun shop . As far as I know gun laws in America differ from state to state but no gun shops sell anti tank guns over the counter . So we`ve got a very erroneous view of America from a very unreal and oh so unfunny film . Maybe this is revenge for BRAVEHEART a very Hollywood view of the Scots ? Perhaps , but this doesn`t stop PASTY FACES from being a crap comedy
If John Waters had written and directed "House of 1000 Corpses" after being struck about the head repeatedly with a heavy object, the result would probably be something like "The Blood Shed." It's mildly entertaining for the first half hour, but then it slides into a sort of featureless glop of constant screaming and people doing things to each others genitalia with electric carving knives, cutlery and pliers. Susan Adriensen (Sno Cakes) is incredibly annoying and Terry West (Elvis Bullion) is almost as bad in whatever it is he's doing in front of the camera.<br /><br />Maybe the best thing about "The Blood Shed" is that it won't take most viewers very long to forget about it.
A female country singer nicknamed "Big T"--seriously, that's what they call her--risks her budding musical career and her life by falling into the company of a sleazy drunkard (Busey) who wants to be her manager. His mother committed suicide, his father's an alcoholic as well, and he has a violent temper. You can imagine where that leads. In the meantime, there's music aplenty, as Parton, with her fluid vocal talents, belts out song after song (at least half a dozen of them about Texas). Steer clear of this mess and check her out in NINE TO FIVE or STEEL MAGNOLIAS instead.
The first point that calls the attention in "For Ever Mozart" is the absence of a plot summary in IMDb. The explanation is simple since there is no story, screenplay, plot or whatever might recall the minimum structure of a movie. Jean-Luc Godard is one of the most overrated and pretentious directors of the cinema industry and this pointless crap is among his most hermetic films. I believe that neither himself has understood what is this story about; but there are intellectuals that elucubrate to justify or explain this messy movie, and it is funny to read their reviews. <br /><br />My vote is one.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Para Sempre Mozart" ("Forever Mozart")
...said a couple exiting the movie theater just as I was entering to watch this. Hmm, not a good sign, but who knows? Different strokes for different folks, after all. Well, nope. They were being kind. Godard has released work that is passionate (Contempt), entertaining (Band of Outsiders), sometimes both (My Life to Live). This is just dull intellectualism, that grates on the nerves pretty quickly. During my showing, literally half of the audience had walked out by the end of the film. If only I had been so wise.
this movie, i won't call it a "film," was basically about nothing and functioned mostly for the popular acts of the time. yeah the war was on full swing (pun intended), and this movie gave the troops and our audiences a treat.<br /><br />but let's have something with a bit more substance.<br /><br />loved seeing a young Buddy Rich on the drums. the music was good throughout.<br /><br />but one cameo after another gets old fast.<br /><br />i didn't even recognize Zero Mostel! so if you're one from the "greatest generation," as they say, you'll definitely enjoy this...<br /><br />movie.
Really, it's nothing much. I only recommend watching it if; 1.) You're a big fan of any of the main stars. 2.) If you really want to check out the first time Lucille Ball was seen with red hair.<br /><br />4 out of 10 stars
<br /><br />The main question I pose concerning this film is, how do you film a cole porter musical and only use 3 of his 15 songs! merman and lahr played the lead roles on broadway, here they are replaced by the weaker red skelton and lucille ball. plot changes abound and the fun is lost.<br /><br />SKIP IT.
Following the release of Cube 2: Hypercube (2003), and playing off the alleged success of the original Cube (1998), Director Ernie Barbarash takes the liberty of bringing us the third installment in the trilogy, the prequel Cube Zero.<br /><br />Deep in the bowels of a giant and faceless institution, time and place unknown, two low-ranking operators, Wynn (Zachary Bennett) and Dodd (David Huband) sit and observe on monitors the behavior of people that have been placed in a giant network of cubic chambers, some of which are rigged with death traps. Told that the people they are observing are convicted felons who chose this horrific and deadly ordeal over a lethal injection, these observers have had no problem with their jobs until Wynn, a mathematical genius, discovers that one of the prisoners, a woman named Cassandra (Stephanie Moore) never agreed to be put inside the Cube. Suddenly it's realized that perhaps their "jobs" are not what they seem, and that they may be part of something deeply sick and twisted...<br /><br />For people that have seen and enjoyed the original Cube, this prequel will probably not be to your liking. It's not that the story does not have potential; it's simply that the first Cube film never needed to be expanded on. Standing alone, it is a neat little psychological thriller with very interesting concepts and a certainty about its own message. It was also nicely self-contained. The problem with Cube Zero is that it destroys some of the mystique of the original, attempting to answer questions with more questions but only really resulting in making a mess of what never needed fixing.<br /><br />What this new film has to offer, which is questions about the psychological nature of authoritarianism and the banality of evil, certainly are good questions to be raised, but probably should have been done so on their own merits, rather than as a continuation of a film that had no such aspirations.<br /><br />Having said this, the other traits of the film, such as acting and direction and writing, are not awful. There is a bleak, dark look to the film akin to such film noir as 'The Matrix' and 'Dark City', and they have certainly managed to recapture the claustrophobic feeling of the first Cube. Unfortunately for Barbarash, these are not enough positive qualities to save it.
The first Cube movie was an art movie. It set up a world in which all the major archetypes of mankind were represented, and showed how they struggled to make sense of a hostile world that they couldn't understand. It was, on the non-literal level, a "man vs. cruel nature" plot, where the individual who represented innocence and goodness came through in the end, triumphing to face a new, indefinable world beyond man's petty squabbles; a world where there were no more struggle, but peace. I rated Cube a 10 out of 10, and it's a movie that was never meant to have any sequels.<br /><br />The second movie, Hypercube was a massive disappointment. Some of the ideas were kind of cool, but in the context of the original movie, both the story and the setting made no sense and had no meaning. Still, for being fairly entertaining, I rated it a 5 out of 10.<br /><br />The third movie, Cube Zero, while ignoring the second, plays like a vastly inferior commercial B-movie rehash of the first, sans the symbolism. There is no "homage" or "tribute" here; there is only ripping off. The same kind of plot, with some elements idiotically altered (like having letters instead of prime numbers between the cubes - an idea which shows more clearly than anything else that this is a rip-off with absolutely no originality and nothing to say).<br /><br />That we see something from "behind the scenes" means nothing, because the watchers are just part of the Big Bad Experiment, the architects of which we hear nothing of. And, in this movie, those who get through to the exit (like Kazan did at the end of the first movie) are just killed - where the *bleep* is the sense in that?! That's just flippin' stupid. I'm glad I didn't pay to see this.<br /><br />The production values and acting in Cube Zero are not too bad, but the story and the ideas are so utterly devoid of any inspiration that this movie can only get from me a rating of 3 out of 10.
The plot doesn't offer any new excitements, it even starts the same as cube I. This time there are no other enhancements for the cube machinery, except for having an extra exit, which is not guarded, very ingenious. The characters are also not so well elaborated as in the first episode, they just became "flat" as in a soap opera. <br /><br />If somebody makes it to the normal exit, the person would be asked some questions, like "do you believe in god?", its not really creative or original and especially in my opinion it doesn't fit into the mystery of the cube with it traps. Really there is nothing much else to say about it.
The screen writing is so dumb it pains me to have wasted 2 hours of my life I'll never get back (where have I heard this before). The acting is so-so. Things change often enough to keep you watching and waiting for something gruesome to happen. Nevertheless there isn't a single original thing in this movie. While the first Cube was a nerdy horror movie, which didn't make a whole lot of sense in the end, cube zero has picked up on that and tries to retell exactly the same story, except this time it makes an obnoxious point of trying to spoon-feed explanations for every detail that the first movie didn't answer. The comic thing is, the director recycles the exact scenes of the first movie that were somewhat weird, and tries to explain them. But the scenes are just copied over, there is no coherence whatsoever. This script is sooo pointless. I can imagine it being written by some half-wit 15 year old with a baseball cap and a pack of beer for a class project. The best part is in the end, they cripple the 'good' wunderkind guy, and he becomes the retarded fellow in the first movie, and you see him when they find him ('this room is green..') in Cube 1997. Goodie gooodie, clap clap, what a twist. First of all, what about if you haven't seen the first one, this doesn't make any sense you nitwit director. Oh, another great idea: instead of the numbers to identify x,y,z coordinates of the room (cube 1997), this time it is 3 letters, each one giving one of 26 possible coordinate values. Duh. Except now permutations don't make much sense anymore..so he lets the letters disappear before anybody can use them..I want my money back.<br /><br />I guess I had to write this down since there are just so many bad, inconsistent, or just stupid ideas in this movie. Directors/writers should be required to possess some talent.
Follows the same path as most sequels. First one was great. Second was average and this one, full of bad acting and some stupid dialog and well as a lot of suspension of disbelief, this movie was weak.<br /><br />Too predictable and I just couldn't stand that Henry Wrinkler-like boss with that stupid eye, there was so much more they could have done with this. I liked the first one a lot. I wish they would have went more down those lines, rather than what they did here.<br /><br />There was too much unexplained that needed to be explained, what time period this was in and why why why is there an old fashioned phone in that room?<br /><br />I understand there is another one in the works. <br /><br />Blah!
The original "Cube" is a fantastic B-movie rich with paranoia, meaty characterization, and fine over-the-top performances. It's creepy, cryptic, and cool. And it stands perfectly well, on its own, without a stupid sequel like "Cube Zero." <br /><br />This third (!) film in the Cube series is part retread (most of the booby traps are sadly recycled), part aberration. It takes the bold step of explaining what the cube is - something that was never revealed in the first movie - but, since said explanation is bland, I'd rather it was kept a secret. There are some potentially interesting references to the society that exists outside of the cube, but they never develop beyond hints about some kind of political-religious totalitarian state. So, what little social commentary there is feels flat and unfocused.<br /><br />What works? Basically nothing. The acting is purely amateur hour, the pacing is slow (how much of this movie consists of two nerds watching a screen?), and the gore effects, while revolting, fail to convince. In short, "Cube Zero" reminded me of a "Cube" fan-fic, a sloppy and sophomoric clone of a good movie that definitely did not need a sequel.
This is pretty much a low-budget, made for TV, type of movie intended to capitalize off of the success of the original. I'm a fan of b-movies, and this one might have been good had they not attached the name "Cube" to it, because as is, the director and plot of the original were better, and this movie just about ruined my taste for the entire series. The characters are annoying and clichéd, there are problems with continuity, and several outright production screw-ups. The story hardly gets a chance to develop because of superfluous dialogue and suffers from that. They more or less use the same horror gimmicks over and OVER throughout the movie, and because the first one was so good, this simply turns out as a disappointment.<br /><br />If this was a stand-alone b-movie, I'd probably give it about a four. The "1" rating I give it was pretty much a statement about how it utterly paled in effects and intelligence as compared to the first.
Those familiar with the two previous Cube films pretty much know what they can expect: a small group of people trapped inside a bunch of booby trapped rooms, paranoia, bad acting... This one is a bit different though. Roughly half of the film takes place outside the cube, where we get to watch the people watching the people inside the cube (or at least five of them).<br /><br />I guess Cube Zero aspires to explain what the deal with the cube is, but you really don't get to know much more than what was covered in the two first films. Sure, there's sort of an explanation in there, but it feels pretty lame compared to what was suggested in the first film.<br /><br />Cube Zero looks rather cheap (as did its predecessors), and the fact that it shows more than just a couple of empty rooms only emphasizes this feeling. I also fell pretty confident in saying that there's no risk that any of the actors will win any awards in the foreseeable future. They have brought back the traps from Cube 1, though, (by that I mean that they're almost the same ones, which is a bit of a shame).<br /><br />I know that many people kind of appreciate this film and its ties with the first one, but I just feel that it's a completely unnecessary contribution to a franchise that wasn't that great to begin with. [1/10]
The killings in this movie isn't that bad, but for sure the movie is. It's even worse than that. It's not even worth the wear it might cause when you slide it into your DVD-player.<br /><br />Not even the wear it causes on your shoulders carrying it from the DVD-store, not to speak of the money and time you spend renting and watching it. Horrible.<br /><br />It's beyond understanding how anyone could say anything positive about this movie. It was just a bare masochistic tendency of mine that caused me not to stop watching, add to that the group pressure from my co-watchers.<br /><br />The manuscript is awful, the directing even worse and the acting is plain despicable.<br /><br />I hope you don't see this as a spoiling your fun, i'd rather see it as a fair warning: Do not waste your time watching this garbage!
i think this one sucked on ice, because it left the cube, and gave us to much information as to the who's and why's. The original CUBE never left the cube, and it left everything to your imagination. This crap fest however, gives you it all. and i didn't like it...Though the acting is solid, I think the reason this one was a downer was because it was done by people other than the ORIGINAL filmmakers, if they had Vincenzo Natali do this prequel, or even the sequel i think it would have done better and would have been more true to the source. so i recommend you stay far, far away from this one, and HYPERCUBE, another movie i don't even want to discuss...(i gave it a 2 for the acting only)
This movie was yet another waste of time... Why oh why do I keep renting crap like this?... someone please tell me... *sigh* Oh well. back to the movie at hand: Cube Zero is probably worth it if you REALLY REALLY enjoyed the first movie, (like I did), and just want to check out what's up in the last (hopefully) movie scraped together just to keep some poor actors and screenwriters employed, then of course this is the movie for you. But if you are looking for a good movie with good acting and a fantastic plot... *evil grin* then this movie is definitely for you :-D.... OK I'm lying... At best this movie sucks. OK, I have to admit that certain elements to it was cool.. well.. coolish... and I laughed quite a few times, prolly at the wrong things, but nevertheless I was amused. :-) But all in all the few things that barely makes the "ok" category isn't enough to make this movie worth it at all.. Unless you count "Manos - Hand of Fate" one of the top ten movies EVER!
the only thing that frequently pops into my head while i'm writing this review is,i'll never get that hour and a half back!!! to indicate that i'm not just blowing air, i'll compare the movie to the other movies of the cube trilogy(cube and hypercube)!cube wasn't great but it was original and that made up for some technical flaws!hypercube as a sequel lost the advantage of originality but it came out looking pretty sharp and i even liked it beter than cube(the story was better)! but cube zero in comparison to it's predecessors really isn't worth sh*t!a complete lack of good fx, a very f*ck*d up script and just plain old bad acting don't combine well! example:all of the time during the movie i was thinking it would be incredibly stupid if ... should happen and then it would happen, so it's not very original neither! my advice: don't lose that hour and a half i lost!!!!!!!! oh and i hope this movie crashes and burns!!!!!!!
Checking the spoiler alert just in case.<br /><br />Perhaps one of the most horrendous movies I have ever seen, Mazes and Monsters felt like I wasted 101 minutes of my life. The only redeeming quality of the movie were scenes that tried to be serious, but just ended up being funny since they were so bad. Evil Dead anyone? Unfortunately for M&M (fortunately for us) it did not develop a cult following and result in a trilogy. This movie tried to address a series of problems that the main character, Robbie (played by Hanks) encountered throughout the film. It ended up being a fear mongering video about stereotypes that helped fuel the D&D is the Devil movement in the 80s.<br /><br />If you want to avoid wasting your time and money, steer clear of this junk.<br /><br />P.S. - Even though the cover looks kinda interesting, which is why I guess my brother bought it, it in no way takes place in a fantasy realm, unless you consider New England or New York City to be such a place.
Many things become clear when watching this film: 1) the acting is terrible. Tom Hanks and Wendy Crewson are so-so, but the parent-child conflict borders soap opera-ish. The other two boys: an overly pouty child prodigy and your stereotypical I'm-a-babe-but-I'm-really-sensitive-inside blonde dreamboat; 2) the film as a whole is depressing and disappointing; 3) Robbie's dreams and episodes are disturbing (acted by Tom Hanks); 4) the inclusion of the beginning love ballads is an odd choice ("we are all special friends"); 5) the weird lines and side plots are not made any better by the terrible acting; and 5) this is a really bad movie. Expect to be disappointed--and probably disturbed.
I caught this movie at a small screening held by members of my college's gaming club. We were forewarned that this would be the "reefer madness" of gaming, and this movie more than delivered.<br /><br />Tom Hanks plays Robbie, a young man re-starting his college career after "resting" for a semester. What we, the viewer, find out as the movie progresses, is that Robbie was hopelessly addicted to a role-playing game called "Mazes and Monsters," a game that he gets re-acquainted with after a gaming group recruit him for a campaign.<br /><br />This movie is laughable on many, many levels. One scene features the group "gaming by candlelight," which is probably the best way I can describe it. While I'm sure that this was meant to be "cultish" in some way, as most gamers know, it's horribly inaccurate. Most role-play sessions are done in well-lit rooms, usually over some chee-tohs and a can of soda.<br /><br />The acting, while not Oscar-caliber, isn't gut-wrenchingly awful either. This is one of Tom Hanks's first roles, and Bosom Buddies and Bachelor Party were still a year or two over the horizon. The supporting cast, while not very memorable, still hand forth decent performances.<br /><br />Mainly the badness lies in the fact that it was a made-for-TV movie that shows the "dangers of gaming" Worth a view if you and your friends are planning a bad movie night.
the only value in this movie is basically to laugh at how bad it really is. with a plot that makes your average middle-school writer look good, and acting which is almost as good, it gets my bottom score. one of tom hanks very early films where he obviously didn't have the pleasure to be real picky. the best special effect of the movie consists of a guy dressed up in an incredibly fake rubber monster consume.
This film reminds me a lot of the anti-drug films of the 50's and 60's due to the fact that it was made by people that have obviously never experienced the social evil that they are warning us about. Tom Hanks and his buddies are "role playing", but there are no dice, lots of candles, and then you are just swept away in a bad montage showing Hanks falling for the lady in the group. quite funny but misguided. I wonder how many poor kids had their D&D stuff destroyed, and were told that the use of their imagination was the road to destruction. As a film it's basically an after school special, bad acting (although Hanks does show some of his talent) and relationship talks, and no one seems to be having any fun. It seems these films have a psychological focus on adolescents starting on the road to adultism, which is more serious, apparently, and requires you to buckle down and do the things everyone else does. Despite my vote of 2, this is worth watching due to its unique genre, scare films, which I personally find quite funny.
I'd completely forgotten about this film until now. This was the most blatant and worst attempt to demonise a hobby that I have ever seen. It's message seemed to be : "Don't teenagers use their imagination; they might take games seriously, go mad and hurt people." I can only guess that the unimaginative writers of this piece thought that D&D style games are form of evil ritual or arcane worship.
First off, I knew nothing about 'Mazes and Monster' before I watched it. I had no knowledge of the Role-playing controversy behind it or the fact that it was a Made-For-TV movie. When I looked at the cover (the updated DVD one) I seriously thought it would be another Fantasy adventure like 'Legend', with Tom Hank as the nerdy hero from 1980s earth entering a mythical world to save a princess from an evil maze filled with monsters. Sounds exciting, right? That is what the cover suggests to you at first glance. I was given this movie as a gift, obviously under the same premise because my aunt knows I'm into action movies with a medieval myth theme. And it has Tom Hanks, one of my favorite actors. So I popped this movie in, expecting a feel good movie with Tom Hanks in a 80s special effects world that would be good for a laugh.<br /><br />No! None of this happens. Now before I continue I will confess, I am a nerd but I have no interest in Role-playing games. That is all this movie is about so my interest in the content is lukewarm at best. And M&M (copyright infringement?) is not even a feel good role-playing based movie with lovable geeks that uses their imagination to enter a world of awesomeness. No! This is an Anti-Role-playing movie that must have been made by some Religious folk (the same people who also think Barney is the work of Satan.) I understand, Satan is a crafty fellow but I don't think he is desperate enough for soul to lull RPG lovers into worship him. This movie is THEE anti-gamer movie. This is what I get from this movie: it hates RPGs and not only does it make fun of the people engaging in Role-playing but it makes poor Tom Hanks a mental patient.<br /><br />Tom had an excuse to talk to a volleyball in 'Castaway', poor guy was alone but Tom somehow made his insanity fun and you literally saw the Volleyball as a lovable character through Tom's good acting. I wish I watched that movie instead of this. In this movie, Tom is attacked by a make believe dragon creature (it looks like a poorly made mascot for a RPG team) and has a split personality that is creepy at best. Tom's acting only exceeds to make you feel bad for his character and nothing else. I get that the poor guy lost his brother and is not right in the head because of it so the movie does win points for being intentionally tragic. I am not one for films that exploit mental illness and the ending to 'M&M' made me feel like cr*p. Luckily I watched 'Hudson Hawk' afterwards and got a good laugh before my soul was crushed any further. Yah, 'HH' surpasses 'M&M' by . . . a LOT! This is not one of Tom's better films. In fact it is thee most depressing movie I've ever seen him in (Even 'Saving Private Ryan' is not this depressing). I walked in hoping to watch a feel good movie and I ended up feeling the exact opposite. If you want to watch a sad (both emotionally and visually) movie then by all means watch this. If this movie is to convey a message, it is this: "Don't play RPGs if you are Cuckoo for Coco-Puffs."
If you didn't know better, you would believe the Christian moral majority in their preachy testimonial of the sins of the young, their questing for Satan, and that Hell was just brimming with Advanced Dungeons and Dragons fans.<br /><br />None of these items bears one grain of truth, folks. This work does nothing but give the Southern Baptists a chance to take a breath, while the movie continues to spout their erroneous and alarmist views concerning a creative and original gaming system.<br /><br />Tom Hanks contributes a stellar performance for this work, but even that wasn't enough to save it. It's crap. It's beneath crap. It is ignorance breeding ignorance and as such, it rates NOTHING from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.
This film sold for one-dollar at Wal-Mart on a DVD and so I do not feel like I lost anything for watching this film, except my TIME. Enjoyed the acting of Tom Hanks, (Robbie Wheeling), who was very young looking and gave an outstanding performance considering it was a horrible script. The story is about college students who decided to play the game Mazes & Monsters, only in a very realistic setting. Robbie Wheeling has had problems in the past playing this game at other colleges and is advised by his parents to leave the game alone and get good grades. Robbie meets a very nice gal and has a romantic fling with her and once he starts playing the game, he stops making love to her and acts like a Monk. There are some scenes in the film which are taken running around the former World Trade Center and also in the Observation floor and Roof area. It is rather sad viewing this part of the film where so many human beings died because of evil in the world. This is not a very good film, except for Tom Hanks trying to keep the film above the sinking level of entertainment.
The subject matter seems pretty dated today. Adapted for TV from Rona Jaffe's book; we trip and stumble through a fantasy existence. Four college students get deeply involved playing a live version of the board game Mazes and Dragons (based on Dungeons and Dragons). One player, a young Tom Hanks, enters the fantasy world too deep. His co-players must come to his rescue and save him from self inflicted harm.<br /><br />David Wallace, Wendy Crewson and Chris Makepeace round out the game's foursome. Support cast is made up of veteran actors like Murray Hamilton, Vera Miles, Anne Francis and Susan Strasberg.<br /><br />At this date, it seems lumbering and tame. But the highlight of watching is seeing Tom Hanks between his "Bosom Buddies" salad days and his big splash in SPLASH on the silver screen. The youngest of viewer will get most enjoyment.
This film is horrible. Bad acting, bad writing, bad music. It's just horrible. Not only is it incredibly misrepresentative of role-playing games, but the key elements of the film are poorly executed. May the God I don't believe in have mercy on the souls of the miserable wretches who conceived and gave birth to this abomination.
I have seen this movie many times, (and recently read the book the movie is based on) and every time I see it, I just want to slap all four of them. The fact that they don't clue in to the fact that Tom Hank's character is flipping into his D&D(oops M&M) :) persona ("Oh, he's just acting in character.") outside of the gaming session. That and the fact that after three months of therapy, let's just destroy all that and feed his delusions! These kind of people are what give RPGs a bad name.<br /><br />Also the corny 'love ballad', and the music done by 'cat on a piano' and 'stop us if we get too annoying' are almost enough to set your teeth on edge!
Many people like to point to this TV movie when arguing with the vast legions of Hanks-philes out there that Tom did in fact make crappy films (I think "Bachelor Party" was great, but that's another story). The movie focuses on a "Dungeons and Dragons-style game" that eventually drives our young Gump to hallucinatory madness. The story is charmingly early 1980s, focusing as it does on the imminent threat to our youth posed by those evil role-playing games.<br /><br />I, however, prefer to view "Mazes and Monsters" as the turning point in the "Whatever Happened to Chris Makepeace?" story. we all remember him as 'Rudy the Rabbit' in "Meatballs" and as the hapless Clifford in "My Bodyguard", where he gave us all a vicarious thrill by beating the crap out of Matt Dillon. Few could argue (especially those of us who read "Dynamite!" on a regular basis) that great things were in store for him.<br /><br />And then came Rona Jaffe. The line between bad acting and bad writing is razor thin, so I leave it to you to decide whose fault Makepeace's performance in this is. All I know is that the last major release I saw him in was "Vamp", and that was 1986. He had a small role as Sean Penn's brother in "Falcon and the Snowman", but by that time the Brat Pack torch had been passed to others with straighter hair and flashier resumes.<br /><br />I can't in good conscience recommend this movie. Watch it if only to see a younger, more idealistic Chris Makepeace, before Rona Jaffe feasted on his soul.
I own this movie. Not by choice, I do. I was really bored the other day and the box intrigued me. So i popped it in the old VCR and spent the next hour and a half of my life crying "why God why?". The story-line was not that bad, as an gamer I could appreciate bits of it. I think that maybe if you're into super geeky-cheese romantic scenes you'll enjoy this film. "I always thought of myself as a Vulcan you know like Dr.Spock...unable to love" There is very few good things to say about this film, truly it is awful. But if you're up to really badly made film this is the one for you!!! The real story's much more interesting though ;)<br /><br />If I had to sum up this film in one word it would be:<br /><br />LAME
This is the movie that epitomizes the D&D fear of the 80s (and even today). The fear being that people who play D&D (or any other role-playing game for that matter) will be "sucked in" and lose their ability to distinguish reality from fantasy (and go on killing sprees, child sacrifices, suicide, etc). Great movie for anyone who likes to blame the problems of society on inanimate objects, but anyone who has played a role-playing game, a video game, or even acted in a play will see this as an insult to their intelligence. It is to D&D what Wargames was to computers. Plus as a movie, it just kinda sucks.
One wonders how the script came to be written.<br /><br />Wayne and the other performers do an OK job but as it is neither comedy, romantic thriller or anything else it is all rather disappointing.<br /><br />One feels as if one of the threads had been pursued it could have been something worthwhile. It is nonetheless interesting to see a real turkey of a story made just before the USA became directly involved with the war. I wonder if the surrounding politics had something to do with trying to make a movie for all tastes but ending up with something that pleases no one.<br /><br />Nonetheless it has historical value.
Lynn Hollister, a small-town lawyer, travels to the nearby big city on business connected with the death of his friend Johnny. (Yes, Lynn is a man despite the feminine-sounding Christian name. Were the scriptwriters trying to make a snide reference to the fact that John Wayne's birth name was "Marion"?) Hollister at first believes Johnny's death to have been an accident, but soon realises that Johnny was murdered. Further investigations reveal a web of corruption, criminality and election rigging connected to Boss Cameron, the leading light in city 's political machine.<br /><br />That sounds like the plot of a gritty crime thriller, possibly made in the film noir style which was starting to become popular in 1941. It isn't. "A Man Betrayed", despite its theme, is more like a light romantic comedy than a crime drama. Hollister falls in love with Cameron's attractive daughter Sabra, and the film then concentrates as much on their resulting romance as on the suspense elements.<br /><br />This film might just have worked if it had been made as a straightforward serious drama. One reviewer states that John Wayne is not at all believable as a lawyer, but he couldn't play a cowboy in every movie, and a tough crusading lawyer taking on the forces of organised crime would probably have been well within his compass. Where I do agree with that reviewer is when he says that Wayne was no Cary Grant impersonator. Romantic comedy just wasn't up his street. One of the weaknesses of the studio system is that actors could be required to play any part their bosses demanded of them, regardless of whether it was up their street or not, and as Wayne was one of the few major stars working for Republic Pictures they doubtless wanted to get as much mileage out of him as they could.<br /><br />That said, not even Cary Grant himself could have made "A Man Betrayed" work as a comedy. That's not a reflection on his comic talents; it's a reflection on the total lack of amusing material in this film. I doubt if anyone, no matter how well developed their sense of humour might be, could find anything to laugh at in it. The film's light-hearted tone doesn't make it a successful comedy; it just prevents it from being taken seriously as anything else. This is one of those films that are neither fish nor flesh nor fowl nor good red herring. 3/10
There are people out there who will greenlight anything! That is the only explanation I can offer as to why the House of the Dead movie exists. And that's only scary part to the whole movie. It's so bad you'll go off movies forever. I seriously wanted to switch this off and turn the TV over to the Paint Drying channel but I was bound by my word to suffer the whole thing. I don't know why I do these bad things to myself.<br /><br />As if it matters, here's the basic jist of the 'story'. A group of twenty-somethings are so desperate to go out to some island in the Pacific Northwest (Canada actually, because it's cheap) for the 'Rave of the Century' (which consists of about 8 people and un-raving music) that they pay some craggy old fisherman $1000 to take them there after they miss the main ferry. That's gotta be some rave to be worth all that dough! The fisherman warns them that the island is also known as the Island of the Dead (hang on-I thought this was HOUSE of the Dead?) and that they are all doomed yadda yadda yadda.<br /><br />First faults here. Why would a tiny little rave (of the Century my foot!) be held on some remote island? Why would anyone willingly pay loads of money to get it? Why pay even more to the craggy old fisherman to take them back when they could just come back with the others?<br /><br />Once they arrive they discover that the rave (which consists of about 2 tents, a small stage and a port-a-john) has been smashed, there's blood everywhere and no one is around. What would any rationally thinking person do? Run for their lives of course. But no, these clueless, obviously blind people decide to go look for them. Soon enough they discover an old ramshackle house that's 50 times as big on the inside as it is on the outside. Another half hour of stumbling around in the forest follows, as an excuse to kill of some of the lesser characters, and after much tedium they arrive back at the house again. The characters, like the movie, go nowhere.<br /><br />Jammed into this ghastly disaster is a superabundance of gibberish dialogue, heinous acting, mumbo-jumbo exposition and zillions of clips from the once-popular arcade game of the same name. Why this was universally accepted as a good idea with the filmmakers I'll never know. The clips have no reference to any of the scenes and only degrade this trash even further, if that is at all possible.<br /><br />It has nothing to do with the game save for some cheap, throwaway line at the end. It makes Resident Evil look like cinematic glory. Hell, even the Double Dragon movie seems multi-Oscar worthy in comparison to this junk. The only one who comes out of this with his dignity still intact is Jurgen Prochnow. He could have just taken his money and ran but he tries his best with the awful script and brings a tiny bit of pathos to his character. The rest of the cast suck I'm afraid. The characters are idiots and deserve to die.<br /><br />Plus, if you cut out the swearing and pointless nudity, I see no reason why this film cannot be shown on Saturday morning TV. It's not frightening in the slightest. Pirates of the Caribbean is more scary than the skeletal bad guys in this film. And where did all those bad guys come from anyway? There were only a few people on the island to begin with. I guess this justifies the reason they chose to reuse footage over and over. I kid you not, you'll see the same zombie die a dozen times.<br /><br />Who's ultimately to blame for that scandalous waste of celluloid? None other than director Uwe Boll. His control over the movie is non-existent. You can clearly the see actors have no idea what they should be doing and that the zombies aren't really taking it all seriously. The actors seem like they're reading off cue cards as they constantly pause in the middle of long sentences and carry on talking as soon as they see the next card. It all feels very unnatural.<br /><br />Plus the film is shot like a two-part mini-series. I have indeed seen better TV productions. And don't get me started on the editing. The film is an incoherent babble with thousands upon thousands of pointless shots and dozens of meaningless camera pans. No real skill or talent was put into making this at all. It truly baffles and boggles the mind how movies this unfathomably bad can get made and George A. Romero can't even get anyone to take his calls. House of the Dead makes some idiotic reference to Romero in a lazy attempt to be 'post-modern' but it only irritates that they think THIS is in the same league as a REAL zombie movie.<br /><br />For what it's worth, the 1.85:1 anamorphic picture looks great and the Dolby 5.1 soundtrack is clean but very unimpressive and only serves to pronounce the heavily over-used ADR even more. The DVD comes with extras but why torture yourself. Isn't this review warning enough? Stay away! You are all doomed I tell you! Doomed! Doomed!!!
There are some movies you just know they are going to be bad from frame one. Even if you were totally oblivious of Ed Wood's work, one look at that commentator from "Plan 9 from outer space" and you just KNOW you are not gonna see the next cinematic masterpiece. Just like that, when I saw the first shot of Uwe Bolls masterpiece "House of Dead", with that guy sitting at the front of the house starting his introduction while trying desperately to sound like he just arrived from Sin City, I knew I'm in for a helluva ride.<br /><br />So, the movie starts like this - first the lead character says that everybody else is going to die. You know, to keep you wandering. Then he starts introducing the rest of the characters with lines like "Karma..thinks she's Foxy Brown" or "Alicia..my ex.. we broke up recently.. I had to study and she had to fence". No, I'm not kidding.<br /><br />Anyway, this bunch of 20-somethings who couldn't act their way out of a wet paper-bag are going to the "Rave of the century", rave in question being a few tents, a port-a-potty and a shoddy stage located on small island in the middle of the Pacific. Our gang missed the ferry, but thankfully will find a way to get there, the way being a fisher-boat ran by Kirk (Cpt Kirk? Get it? Man, whoever wrote this script is a genius) and his sidekick who is a bastard child of Simpsons' Cpt McAllister and that hook killer who knows what you did last summer.<br /><br />To make the long story short, the gang gets to the island, finds nobody there except some bloody T-shirts and then decide to run the hell away from there. No wait, they do not, they actually get all happy and like cos there's free booze.<br /><br />With that scene the movie hits rock bottom and then against all odds proceeds to go further downhill. Some guys in rubber suits start running around, there is some screaming and shooting, our gang goes to some house to meet some other gang, they go out of the house, meet Cpt Kirk and some police woman (who between them have about 500 pounds of weapons) and then decide to go back to the house. Somewhere along the line they transform into a S.W.A.T. team, enter the Matrix, the rubber-suit guys start multiplying like bacteria and I start to cry because I actually paid to see this. To add insult to the injury, every few minutes there are shots from the video game this crap is based on and there is a cute game-over cut-scene for a few characters when they die.<br /><br />I seriously hate this movie. It doesn't even fit in that famed "So bad it's good" category. It's just plain bad. The script is bad, the zombies are awful, there is no tension, lines are bad, actors are bad.. the list just goes on.<br /><br />You will probably want to see this movie just because of its reputation of being awful. Don't. There are bad movies that deserve to be watched. This is not one of them.
This is one of the worst films I've seen. The only positive thing I can say is it was so bad that is seemed comical. First off, there's no plot. The actors appear to be reading off cue cards and do the dumbest things. Such as being chased by dead people but yet wanting to go out and look for their friends. Also the zombies were terrible, no where near as fun as any of Romero's work, who gets s plug in the movie. And the dumbest part of all was they kept showing flashes of the video game in the action sequences. Like we don't get the video game is about shooting zombies. Also, all the 20 somethings some how know how to use automatic weapons and hit a target without even aiming the gun. And the way the people die is so stupid. It's like they run out of ammo so stand around waiting to be jumped on. And when cornered in front of the house they run out of ammo instead of shooting the door open, So dumb.<br /><br />FINAL VERDICT: If any of these actors appear in another film, then they've been blessed with a second chance. Definitely the worst film I've seen in years. A B-movie on cinemax is better.
Laid up and drugged out, as a kidney stone wended its merry way through my scarred urinary tract, with absolutely nothing better to do than let the painkillers swoon me into semi-oblivion, I happened to catch this movie on cable. I wouldn't want anyone to think that I paid to view it in a cinema, or rented it, or – heaven forfend! – that I watched it STRAIGHT.<br /><br />Having played this sensationally gruesome video game and avidly trod the doomed rooms and dread passageways of The House, battling Chariot (Type 27), The Hanged Man (Type 041), and other impossible sentinels, my curiosity was piqued as to how the game would transfer to the movie screen.<br /><br />It doesn't.<br /><br />The banal plot revolves around a group of "crazy kids" – a la Scooby Doo – attending a remote island for a world-shaking "rave" – whatever that is. (You kids today with your hula-hoops and your mini-skirts and your Pat Boone…) After bribing a boat captain thousands in cash to ferry them there (a stupidity which begs its own network of rhetoric), they find the "rave" deserted.<br /><br />Passing mention is made of a "house" – presumably the titular House Of The Dead – but most of the action takes place on fake outdoor sets and other locales divorced from any semblance of haunted residence.<br /><br />A fallen video camera acts as flashback filler, showing the island in the throes of a – party?! Is that it? Oh, so this "rave" thingy is just a "party"? In the grand tradition of re-euphemizing "used cars" as "pre-owned", or "shell shock" as "post-traumatic stress disorder", the word "party" is now too square for you drug-addled, silicone-implanted, metrosexual jagoffs? <br /><br />It is learned that the party was broken up by rampaging zombies. Intelligent thought stops here…<br /><br />I don't think the pinheads who call themselves screenwriters and directors understand the mythos behind zombie re-animation. Zombies can't die – they're already UN-DEAD. They do not bleed, they know no pain. Unless their bodies are completely annihilated, they will continue being animated. At least, that's what my Jamaican witch priestess tells me.<br /><br />Which means that a .45 shot into their "hearts" is not going to stop them, nor will a machete to the torso. And a shotgun blast to the chest will certainly NOT bring forth gouts of blood. At least in the video game's logic, the shooter pumps so many rounds into each monster that it is completely decimated, leaving a fetid mush that cannot re-animate itself.<br /><br />Yet each actor-slash-model gets their Matrix-circular-camera moment, slaying zombies on all fronts with single bullets and karate chops to the sternum. Seriously, these zombies are more ineffective than the Stormtroopers from "Return Of The Jedi", who get knocked out when Ewoks trip them.<br /><br />I suppose the film's writer, Mark Altman, having penned the not-too-shabby "Free Enterprise", felt compelled to insert a Captain Kirk reference, in the character of Jurgen Prochnow, who must have needed milk money desperately to have succumbed to appearing in this aromatic dung-swill. There is also a reference to Prochnow's primo role in the magnificent "Das Boot", when one of the untrained B-actors mentions that he "looks like a U-Boat Captain". ". I wonder how many of this movie's target audience of square-eyed swine picked up on ANY of the snide references to other films, as when Prochnow declares, "Say hello to my little friend", presaging his machine gun moment. <br /><br />Aimed at a demographic who have not the wherewithal to comprehend the Sisyphean futility of the video-game concept (i.e. the game ends when you die – you cannot win), this is merely a slasher film for the mindless and mindless at heart. Accordingly, everyone dies in due course, except for a heterosexual pair of Attractive White People.<br /><br />A better use for this film's scant yet misused budget might have been to send the cast through Acting School, although Ona Grauer's left breast did a good job, as did her right breast – and those slomo running scenes: priceless! I especially liked the final scene with Ona trying to act like she's been stabbed, but looking like she's just eaten ice cream too fast.<br /><br />Attempting to do something more constructive with my time, I pulled out my Digitally-Restored, 35th Anniversary, Special Edition, Widescreen Anamorphic DVD of "Manos: The Hands Of Fate." Ah, yes! – the drugs were suitably brain-numbing - now HERE was some quality film-making…<br /><br />(Movie Maniacs, visit: www.poffysmoviemania.com)
Ok, first of all, I am a huge zombie movie fan. I loved all of Romero's flicks and thoroughly enjoyed the re-make of Dawn of the Dead. So when I had heard every single critic railing this movie I was still optimistic. I mean, critics hated Resident Evil, and while it may not be a particularly great film, I enjoyed it if not for the fact that it was just a fun zombie shoot-em up with a half decent plot. This however, is pure crap. Terrible dialogue, half-assed plot, and video game scenes inserted into the film. Who in their right mind thought that was a good idea. The only thing about this movie (I use the term loosely) that I enjoyed was Jurgen Prochnow as Captain Kirk (Ugh). While his name throws originality out the window, you can see in his performance that he knows he's in a god awful film and he might as well make the best of it. Everyone else acts as if they're doing Shakespeare. And very badly I might add. Basically the only reason anyone should see this monstrosity is if you a.) Are a huge zombie buff and must see every zombie flick made or b.) Like to play MST3K, the home game. See it with friends and be prepared for tons of unintentional laughs.<br /><br />
Okay, so I'm not a big video game buff, but was the game House of the Dead really famous enough to make a movie from? Sure, they went as far as to actually put in quick video game clips throughout the movie, as though justifying any particular scene of violence, but there are dozens and dozens of games that look exactly the same, with the hand in the bottom on the screen, supposedly your own, holding whatever weapon and goo-ing all kinds of aliens or walking dead or snipers or whatever the case may be.<br /><br />It's an interesting premise in House of the Dead, with a lot of college kids (LOADED college kids, as it were, kids who are able to pay some fisherman something like $1,500 just for a ride after they miss their boat) trying to get out to this island for what is supposed to be the rave of the year. The first thing that comes to mind about House of the Dead after watching it is that it has become increasingly clear that modern horror movies have become nothing more than an exercise in coming up with creative ways to get a lot of scantily clad teenagers into exactly the same situations. At least in this case, the fact that they were on their way to a rave excuses the way the girls are dressed. They look badly out of place running around the woods in cute little halter-tops, but at least they THOUGHT they were dressed for the occasion.<br /><br />Clint Howard, tellingly the most interesting character in the film by far, delivers an absolutely awful performance, the greatness of which overshadows every other actor in the movie. I can't stand it when well-known actors change their accents in movies, it is so rarely effective, and Howard here shows that it is equally flat to have an well-known actor pretend that he's this hardened fisherman with a raspy voice from years of breathing salty air. He didn't even rasp well. It sounded like he was eating a cinnamon roll before shooting and accidentally inhaled some powdered sugar or something. Real tough there, Clint! I expected more from him, but then again, he did agree to a part in this mess.<br /><br />Once we get to the island, the movie temporarily turns into any one of the Friday the 13th movies that took place at Camp Crystal Lake. Lots of teenagers played by actors who were way too old for their parts getting naked and then killed. The nudity was impressive, I guess, but let's consider something for a minute. These kids pay almost two grand to get out to this island to go to the Rave Of The Year, find NO ONE, and say, well, who wants a beer! Even the guy who pulled that stack of hundreds out of his wallet to get them all over there didn't think anything of it that they found a full bar and not a single solitary person in sight. Here you have the input from director Uwe Boll - There's alcohol! They won't notice that the party they came for consists of no one but themselves!<br /><br />So not only do they start drinking, not minding the fact that the whole party seems to have vacated the island, but when one of the girls goes off into the dark woods to find out where everyone is (dragging one other girl and one of the guys reluctantly along), the guy and the girl who stay behind to get smashed decide that it would be a great idea to strip down for a quickie now that they're alone. It's like they expected to find the island empty, and now that they rest of the people that they came over with were gone for a little while, they would have some privacy since there's no one else around. Brilliant!<br /><br />Now for the things that everyone hated, judging by the reviews that I've read about the movie. Yes, intersplicing shots from the video game into the movie, mostly in order to show that, yes, the movie was being faithful to/directly copying the video game. Sure, it was a stupid idea. I can't imagine who thought up that little nugget, but worse than that is the Matrix-style bullet time scenes that were thrown in over and over and over and over. After the first time (at which point I found it pretentious and cheesy for a movie like this to have a shot like that as though it was something original) it is noticeable more for the technique of the shot itself rather than any dramatic meaning or creation of any kind of tension for the film.<br /><br />One of the things that makes a zombie film scary and gets you on the edge of your seat is to have them slowly but relentlessly coming after the living humans, who are much faster but getting tired, running out of places to run, and with a terrifying shortage of things with which to fight the zombies off with. The first two are done right in the movie, the kids are terrified and don't have a lot of places to run since they're on an island, but since they caught a ride over with a smuggler, they find themselves heavily armed. And I mean that very strongly. I mean, these people have everything from machine guns to hand grenades, which removes most of the tension of the impending walking dead.<br /><br />Then you have what I call the techno-slasher scene. Since the rave never happened, and I guess since Uwe Boll thought people were going to be disappointed at not hearing any techno music in the movie, there's one scene right in the middle where all the humans are fighting off the living dead, and amazingly enough it turns into something of a music video. There's techno music blasting as the shots are edited together faster and faster until it's nothing but a blur of gory shot, mostly only about 5 frames long (which is about 1/6 of a second) flashing across the screen in time with the speed techno music. Clever, I guess, but it has no place in a horror movie because it completely removes any sense of scariness or tension of even the gross-out effect because you can't see any one thing for long enough to react to it. You're just watching these shots fly across the screen and wondering what the hell the director was thinking when he decided that it would be a good idea to put something like this in the movie.<br /><br />I've seen a lot of people compare this movie to Resident Evil, mostly claiming that it copies the premise of it, and they're exactly right. I appreciate that at least here, as was not the case in Resident Evil, it wasn't some man-made virus that turned people into walking dead that were able to infect other people, changing them the way vampires turn others into vampires. 28 Days Later was also clearly an inspiration for this movie, it's just too bad that House of the Dead didn't do a single original thing, except for the somewhat moronic idea of putting in quick shots of the video game on which it is based, just in case you forget. I really think that this should have been a much better movie. While obviously I can't say that I know much about the game it's based on, just the title and the movie poster deserve a much better movie, but unfortunately I think that's more often the case than not with horror movies. It's really kind of sad when a movie comes out that is so obviously advertised as a no-holds-barred horror film, and the scariest thing in the entire movie is the closing shot, which suggests the possibility of a sequel.
I found this movie in the 'horror' section of my video store. That seems to make sense as most zombie movies have their place there. From Romero's 'Dead' trilogy to '28 days later.' However upon watching it, you can quickly see what this movie really is.<br /><br />It is actually a music video that goes progressively faster and gets more and more and more gory. There is no horror here folks. Just some half-way decently staged action scenes which soon grow tiresome because they last... and last... and last... and soon you get the feeling maybe you're DVD player accidentally skipped back 3 minutes, but no, this is how they actually made the movie. It's a pity. I think anyone could find a better use for $7 million dollars in the movie industry than make this lump o' crud. Though some of the 360 effects were cool, but once again, they were over used and grew tedious since it was the same stunt over and over again each time, just with a different character.<br /><br />Also what is ROYALLY annoying is the splicing on of footage from the arcade game. I've played the game. It sucks. So why did they put it in here? Oh that's right, this isn't a movie but a music video, and it's a poor one at that. 3/10<br /><br />Rated R: a lot of violence/gore, and profanity
Well, I had to sit down at the computer and write down the review immediately after watching this puddle of ooze. Why? Because I have to let it be known to all of you just how bad this movie is. It's unbelievably bad. Just to let you in on how bad it is, I'll offer this little detail about the movie. During scenes of mayhem, which usually consists of people shooting or kicking zombies, they intercut scenes from the video game. Yes, you heard me right. This movie really sucks. In fact, it makes me think about the fact that it costs ten dollars these days just to get into the theaters these days. And to see corn filled crap like this? There is no story to speak of and the movie basically has nothing to offer other than the occasional boob shot and really cheap kills. I'm really disappointed with this, knowing that I watched it. OK, I'm dumbstruck. It's so bad I can't even find the words. RATING: ZERO out of *****.
This is by far THE WORST movie i have ever watched. I've seen some pretty awful movies in my time but this ones takes the cake, no, wait, i mean the the whole damn bakery. It is so bad that i believe a word to describe the way you will feel after watching this atrocity has yet to be created. Please just do yourself a favor, if you ever get the urge to watch this and watch thirty minutes of that annoying purple dinosaur Barney, then multiply that thirty times fold and you would still only get a small fraction of the horror you would be in store for. In summation, i guess you really can call it a horror movie, but only if you're willing to be scared senseless by the worst acting in the business and utterly pointless story.<br /><br />Real Rating, -10 Disgusting
This movie has received a lot of bad press from people who don't understand what it was meant to be. One must understand that this movie was never meant to be taken seriously. It's camp, along the same lines as "Army of Darkness." AoD was silly, but funny and bad in a good way. "House of the Dead" fails to be "good bad.".<br /><br />There are qualities inherent in good campy movies, most important of those being believable fantasy. One needs to believe what's happening in a movie to see the humor when a situation goes incredibly wrong. Without boundaries, the movie becomes absurd. HotD lacks any believability.<br /><br />Worse still, HotD brings nothing new to the genre, and repeats the same plot twists and character reactions that many horror movies inevitably start to exhibit. For example, all too often, horror movies fall into the trap where the main characters find love amongst the gore and destruction. I don't know about you, but when I'm being chased by zombies, I wanna make out with a hot chick. Believe it? No? Then, you probably won't believe it when the characters start sucking each other's faces in this movie.<br /><br />Beyond the obvious issues that plague this movie like so many other horror movies, Uwe Boll elected to add scenes from the video game of zombies being shot, randomly whenever a character shoots a zombie in the movie. Not only is there no clear rationale for this artistic choice, but it distracts one from an already unbelievable plot. Further, there are frequent and numerous examples of bad acting, and seemingly no attempts by the director to guide the actors' reactions to events... leaving the movie with no redeeming qualities. Avoid...
This is the only film I've seen that is made by Uwe Boll, I knew that he is probably the worst director ever who always makes films based on video games also that "House of the Dead" is one of IMDb bottom 100. But I still wanted to watch it because I'm a huge fan of the game and I wanted to see what doe's the film have that makes it so bad. After watching it I do agree that it is crap, the movie had no story. In the first 15-20 minutes there was nothing but topless teenage girls with no brains running about (for a moment there I was wondering are the zombies brain-dead? or the girls are?) then at night time the zombies popped out of nowhere & started attacking people later a woman started shooting them I mean it takes you one place then the other every 5 minutes. Is it supposed to be a comedy?, or horror? or both? Before I knew it I fell asleep at the second half & woke up during the end credits so I did not manage to watch all of it, which is a good thing! The film is a true insult to the classic game, Uwe Boll please do not make any more films. Thank you!
I have watched some pretty poor films in the past, but what the hell were they thinking of when they made this movie. Had the production crew turned into zombies when they came up with the idea of making it, because you sure have to be brain dead to find any enjoyment in it.<br /><br />I am a fan of most genres and enjoy "shoot 'em up" games, but merging the daft scenes from the game just made this ridiculous and unwatchable.<br /><br />As most have already said, there was hardly any script and the acting was weak. I won't waste my time describing it.<br /><br />Anyone who rates this film above 4 has to be part of the production company or Sega, or else they have a very warped concept of entertainment.<br /><br />I must say, I was more annoyed with the video shop, who gave this a thumbs up, which led me to rent it. Thank god I had a second film to watch to restore some of my faith in movies.<br /><br />Comic book guy would be right if he said "Worst movie ever"!
You know that feeling of hilarity you get when you watch a film that's trying so hard to be a serious, thought provoking piece of cinema and fails miserably? When you can't help but bust out laughing at the sheer terrible nature of the trash littering your screen? "House of the Dead" struggles to achieve even this low graded level of cinema.<br /><br />From start to end "House of the Dead" manages to recreate the feeling like you've just woken up to find out that the cat has laid it's curled business neatly on your forehead while you slept. It is clear from the start that the female actors have been cast for their cleavage size (which they exploit shamelessly) whereas the males for their hardcore "kick-ass" attitude. I honestly did not care any of the characters for any moment of the film and found myself actually wishing their demise so as to spare me a good hour of this torture. Uwe Boll should have considered screening two hours of footage from the actual game as a movie. At least then we'll get better acting… However not all blame can be placed on the actors as it is certainly a challenge to produce a convincing film when faced with the script of this film. It is arguably the worst section of the film and actually contains such lines as: "These are zombies, pure and simple" and "No cap'n, we must not go there! It's evil!".<br /><br />We all know that Zombie movies are never going to be particularly thought provoking or full of meaning; at best they are a harmless two hours of action, blood and closet terror. Trash, yes, but entertaining trash. Not the kind of trash which bursts out of your bin bag as you haul it across the room and smothers your shoes in sour milk cartons and decaying banana skins. According to IMDb, "House of the Dead" received such bad reviews that no Danish cinemas bought the movie. If only we could have had the same privilege.<br /><br />Final Score: 1/10.
WOW! i didn't know that someone would make this movie! its awful! I have written down 5 things that can tell why u do not want to see this movie.<br /><br />number 1: "its the biggest rave ever" where is the that rave? i could only see a few people dancing around.. <br /><br />2. when they are on the rave,they can ONLY see blood everywhere,no people,two ruined tents and one stage.. and what do they do!? they drink!<br /><br />3.the worst actors i have ever seen! the captain and his crew.. awful! <br /><br />4. when one of the people is firing an ordinary gun, he shoots almost 30 times without reloading! <br /><br />5. i didn't knew every person in the world could fight as a pro! must be a new thing..<br /><br />i wonder what the producer was thinking! "this is going to be a big hit, its gonna be a classic" .. sure u dumb s**t anyway don't see this movie, its a waist of time. MY EYES ARE STILL BLEEDING!
F*ck Me! I've seen some incredibly horrific movies in my time but this takes the p*ss!<br /><br />Honestly I can't express in words how bad this film actually is. Besides the plot that isn't really there, the comically crap acting, the hilariously dreadful excuses for zombies; You know what, I could go on all day. Every little thing in this film is either stupid, pointless, crap or embarrassing. I express to anyone who wants to watch this movie... don't!<br /><br />I'm ashamed to say, I have this on my rack. It's hidden away right at the god damn bottom of the huge pile. I couldn't even give this horse-sh*t excuse for a film away. That's how bad it is.
If there were a movie that deserved a 0 out of 10, this would be it. 'House of the Dead' redefines the term "bad movie". Other bad movies, such as 'When A Stranger Calls' or 'Premonition', will actually look much better when compared to 'House of the Dead'. The basic "plot" of House of the Dead is a group of twenty-somethings travel to a remote island to attend the "rave of the century". When they get there, they only find some tents, a bar, a stage, and some bloody t-shirts. They decide to stay anyway, and they are soon attacked by zombies.<br /><br />There is absolutely nothing redeeming about this movie. It is not entertaining. Instead, it is painful to watch because of how terrible it is. The acting is unbelievably bad. In a DVD interview, one of the actors claimed that Uwe Boll, the director, is not afraid to tell someone when they are doing a good job or a bad job in a scene. This is a blatant lie. The script appears to have been written by an 11-year-old, who decided to include a scene of someone throwing up on a girl's chest and to include the hilarious line, "it smells like someone farted out here." The characters have no personality or depth and they do some of the most moronic things ever seen in a horror movie. Somewhere along the way, the characters also magically transform into a SWAT team to take down the zombies. It's like they don't even have to aim their guns and they automatically shoot the zombies in the head.<br /><br />The scariest thing by far about this movie is the directing. There is something wrong with Uwe Boll. Boll's camera work is astonishingly disjointed. His pans to zombies running through the forest are more silly than menacing. Worse yet, Boll actually thought it would be a good idea to include small bits of footage from the House of the Dead video game into the movie. Quite often, and at the most random times, you will suddenly see an animated zombie getting shot. It makes no sense. No one in their right mind would think that was a good idea. It's like Boll wants to remind us repeatedly that this movie is supposed to be based on the video game. Uwe Boll also decided it would be cool to include slow motion 360 degree rotating shots during the action scenes, a la 'The Matrix'. Unfortunately, he does it way too often and each shot is nauseating. The soundtrack to this movie also boggles the mind. Most action scenes are accompanied by loud rap track. This also adds to the ensuing headaches caused by the atrocious 'House of the Dead'.<br /><br />'House of the Dead' isn't bad because it's based on a video game. In fact, it has very little to do with the video game. It also does not fit into the category of 'so bad that it's good'. It does however fit into the category of 'so bad that it's painful'. This movie just plain sucks. Uwe Boll should never be let anywhere near another movie set. Even his presence will curse a production. To all the directors out there: whenever one of your movies gets a bad review, all you have to do is remember that you didn't make 'House of the Dead' and you will feel much better. I will never get those 90 minutes of my life back. To sum it up, words really cannot describe just how bad this movie is. Everyone involved in the production of this film, especially Uwe Boll, should be ashamed of themselves. Although what I have said may make 'House of the Dead' sound funny, it really isn't. Nothing about it is funny. Avoid this at all costs.
Just like everybody else have said, the acting is awful, no story or whatsoever, poor directing. About the SFX, the 360 degree, matrix style shooting, 1 shoot is stupid enough, but for each characters. I mean come on gimme a break. And what's up with all those video game scenes, just to remind us it's a "video game adaptation"? Jesus, they should have fired whoever think up this idea.<br /><br />0.00001/10
I usually try to be professional and constructive when I criticize movies, but my GOD!!! This was THE worst movie I have ever seen. Bad acting, bad effects, bad script, bad everything! <br /><br />The plot follows a group of teen cliche's on their way to a rave (that takes place in broad daylight) at a remote island. However, when the group arrives, all they find is an empty dance floor and bloody clothes. Determined to find out what happened to the rest of the party-goers, the clan set's off on a mission through a zombie-infested forest. During this crusade, they are aided by a police chick and a sea captain that just happens to have the right number of weapons to give to each of the kids. They also meet up with Jonathan Cherry and some other survivors. Basically the rest of the movie is a collection of poorly directed action sequences including a far too long shootout outside of the "house of the dead." This fight came complete with cheesy Hollywood violence, redundant clips from the HOTD video game, and sloppy matrix-esque camera rotations. One of the character's even volunteers to sacrifice himself to save the others. Why? Not because he was noble and brave, but because part of his face got scarred by acid a zombie spat on him after he continued to beat the creature long after it had been disabled! I'm supposed to feel sorry for this guy?!?<br /><br />To sum it all up, there is absolutely no point in seeing this movie unless you want to see for yourself just how terrible it is. The theater I was in was more dead than the zombies on the screen, and I'm sure the money I wasted seeing this piece of sh*t could easily cover the costs it took to make it. GRADE: F
Okay, let me start off by saying that nothing in this will come as a surprise to anyone who's read the other comments. That being said, MY G-D, THIS MOVIE REEKED! I mean, WOW, I didn't know it was possible to throw as much money as they obviously did at something and still come out worse than ANY Roger Corman movie! Corman was probably pitched this movie at some point but declined due to the poor quality of the script! The only reason this movie got made in the first place is that someone said, 'Hey, Zombies are popular. Video games are popular. What game can we get a hold of that has zombies in it? Resident Evil? No, someone else got there first. Silent Hill? No, too silent. People will never sit in a dark room just to be scared silly. Hey, didn't Sega have a game where people ran around shooting zombies? They're out of the platform biz, we could get that for pennies!'<br /><br />Basically they tried their best to make a movie that felt like the video game, even down to shooting the combat as if the characters were actually playing the game.<br /><br />The first and major problem is that the original game was horrid. I mean,<br /><br />bad-movie-merchandising-made-into-a-worse-game-in-two-weeks-and-then-shippe d-out-and-bought-by-morons-and-their-parents-for-christmas horrid. The graphics were boring. The monsters were boring. The levels were boring. The interface was boring. The CASE was boring. In other words, this was a boring game. And that was the ARCADE version. The home version was even worse! With the home version, you didn't even get the shotgun to hold in your hand while you were being bored silly by this pointless game! But I digress.<br /><br />The second problem is that they went so far as to actually intercut scenes from actual gameplay during the fight scenes. HUH??? Didn't the editor have enough confidence in the effects to indicate that there was an actual fight going on? Not to mention that EVERY fight was shot from the perspective of a video game, which may explain the tedious use of Matrix-style effects. The problem with this is that the game was a first-person shooter (the player proceeds from the POV of the character). Maybe that's why they put in the game graphics, to let you know that they were alluding to the game... Right, whatever...<br /><br />Anyway, the only thing that made this ENTIRE experience remotely enjoyable was the fact that everyone in the theatre was making fun of the movie out loud, so my sudden fits of hysterical laughter and general incredulity were taken as commonplace and didn't get me kicked out.<br /><br />To sum up, DON'T GO SEE THIS MOVIE! Don't even deign to rent it when it comes out on video in a couple of week. Run. Just run.
It is cheese. If all you want is a video game, complete with what look like straight-from-the-computer cutaway sequences for action the film was too cheap to actually make special effects for, this is it. My friend and I actually had a great time seeing it, since the theatre was mostly empty and we could heckle a bit. This movie REALLY requires heckling.<br /><br />Plot? There was a plot? OK, some stupid college or later types get invited to "the rave of the year" and go to one of the San Juan Islands ("If they'd only stayed back in Seattle, they would have survived." - direct quote, or nearly.) to attend. They get there and everyone is gone, and the site is somewhat wrecked (but hey, the keg is still full!). With the help of a crusty old captain and a coast guard woman (who acted only slightly less tough - and slightly less well - than Cynthia Rothrock), they fight lots of zombies (some which spit acid), get an earful of freaky legends, and mostly get killed. That's about it.<br /><br />It's not quite as BAD as Demonicus, but not by much, and still better than Severed (they are sort of my own personal alpha and omega for bad movies - the former is bad but fun to heckle, and the latter is just too freaking bad to watch more than once). On the other hand, if you're expecting a video game movie as excellent as Resident Evil, run away!!! run away now!!!<br /><br />OK, some real big questions (without too many spoilers): Since when did Spanish ships of the 18th century venture into the Pacific Northwest????? Why is anyone in the Pacific Northwest smuggling guns, and to whom - CANADA, for crying out loud??? Why is a rave on an unnamed (oh, excuse me, it's called "isla del muerto", shya, right) San Juan Island - and outdoors, still keeping in mind this is THE PACIFIC NORTHWET. And the rave has about 30 people in attendance - "the rave of the year," my patoot.<br /><br />Lucky thing there's lots of hatchets around. Lots of them. Everyone has them. Must be a hatchet sales outlet nearby.<br /><br />Finally, while the movie started out playing with a little "parody" (with nudges at I Know What You Did and Jaws), it didn't carry it through near enough.<br /><br />OK, really finally - when the introductory comments (in a voice-over, no less) casually mention that one of the characters "gave up her boyfriend to focus on her fencing" you can be darn sure there'll be some fencing by the end of the movie. Not GOOD fencing, but a couple of people hacking at each other with swords, anyway.
The thing about calling "House of the Dead" the worst movie of all time is that it's really not. There are worse movies out there. I watch alot of Hong Kong ninja movies that are basically the result of an unfinished Japanese police drama having footage of ninjas inserted at the end to create something that could technically be called "a movie."<br /><br />House of the Dead is however one of the worst films I've ever seen at the theatres. Walking out half way through, I actually felt I was somewhat dumber for having set through 45 minutes of this piece of garbage.
The House of the Dead was the worst movie I have ever seen, between the pathetic 'matrix' 360 camera angle attemps and the cheesy acting I fell asleep. I don't think that the director and set manager could decide whether it was raining or not, because there would be rain on one side of the boat and not the other. I would rate this movie a 1 out of 10, (10 being the best, 1 being the worst). Also jumping scenes from the movie to the game was really annoying, it makes you wonder if they were just making up for lose time. I beg anyone who reads this, NOT TO SEE IT. It's not worth the time.
You know you're in trouble when the opening narration basically tells you who survives. It all goes downhill from there. Unnecessary, "Matrix"-influenced bullet-time camera work. Pointless cuts to video game footage. Crusty old sea captains and wacky seamen. Ravers who become skilled combatants in the blink of an eye. Even the zombies are boring.<br /><br />I was hoping for at least a "so bad it's good" zombie movie, but this one is "so bad those involved with its creation should be barred from ever making a movie again".<br /><br />
This is about the worst movie I have ever seen. This movie does match the quality of such movies as "THEY" & "Cabin Fever", but even those had name actors where this one fell short. The "eye candy" of this movie looked to be a 50 woman with a bad face lift. (just an example of the quality). I would have rated this movie in the negative if possible. Ladies I have to tell you that the men were not bad to look at, but not much either. If you were planning on going to see this movie I would strongly recommend saving your money.
I usually like zombie movies, but this one was just plain bad.<br /><br />The good parts: Girl swimming topless with thong bottoms, Sonya Salomaa's topless, and Ona Grauer's boobs jiggling in a skimpy top when she ran.<br /><br />The bad part: too much video cuts, too much Matrix slow motion (it drags the action), not enough blood and guts, bad acting, and no story. The only other person in the theater was smart and left right after the topless swimming scene. A total waste of $6 and time. I give it a 2 out of 10.
I have never seen a worse movie.<br /><br />It is possible to take a shootem up video game and make it into a decent movie.<br /><br />Mistake 1: absolutely no connection to any of the characters. In this movie you don't bond with any of the characters because... you don't get a chance.<br /><br />The only character that is sympathetic or even interesting is the Deck Hand: Salish as played by Clint Howard. Except for this unique character, the outcome of the movie is meaningless as all the characters were lifeless from the begining.<br /><br />Mistake 2: the worst gunfight scene ever. I love gunfights. I love when the heros open up on the badguys and clean house. heck I even like to watch a badguy clean house sometimes. But this gunfight was weird I guess that the best way to describe it is "Apathetic" I've seen people shoot with more feeling and emotion while PLAYING THE VIDEOGAME. In this movie it looked and felt like the "Actors" were simply walking through shooting everything that moved without emotion.<br /><br />Why? Where's the trash talking? where's the snarls of rage amongst the gunfire? These are supposed to be kids that got caught at a rave gone bad... but even real soldiers acting professionally and ruthlessly show their humanity.<br /><br />If you want a GOOD horror movie about a secluded house full of monsters, I recomend Sam Rami's Evil Dead series. DO NOT see the disaster that is house of the dead. I hope that they burn the master and all copies of this movie.
When I go to see a movie about zombie's, I'm not expecting oscar calibre performances, or writing on the level of The Godfather, but I do expect the actors to at least not look like their straining to read their cue cards, and dialogue that doesn't sound like it was typed out 10 minutes before the actor reads it into the camera. This movie was just awful, I actually got up and left about 25 minutes in and went next door and watched Cold Creek Manor, that wasn't very good either, but it seemed like Citizen Kane compared to this pile of crap. On the plus side, the girls were very pretty, that's probably the only thing that kept me in my seat for longer than the first 5 minutes, in fact I left after the hottest one got killed, there wasn't anything to hold my interest after that.
What can I say? I ignored the reviews and went to see it myself. Damn the reviews were so right. What a waste of money considering it's budget.<br /><br />Good thing, I went to see Kill Bill after this one.<br /><br />To see a really scary movie, would be Crossroads!<br /><br />Bottom line-- I like "Girl in Gold Boots" better than this crap.
The question, when one sees a movie this bad, is not necessarily, "How did a movie this bad get made?" or even, "Why did I see this awful in the first place?" but, "What have I learned from this experience?" Here's what I learned:<br /><br />- Just because the "rules" of horror movies have been catalogued and satirized countless times in the last ten years doesn't mean someone won't go ahead and make a movie that uses ALL of them, without a shred of humor or irony.<br /><br />- If your movie has to be described as **loosely** based on the video game, you have script problems.<br /><br />- The black character may not always die first, but the Asian character does always know kung-fu.<br /><br />- While you may be proud that you figured out how to do the "the Matrix effect" on a budget, that doesn't necessarily mean you should use it over and over again ad nausea.<br /><br />- Being Ron Howard's brother does not guarantee choice roles.<br /><br />- Whenever a scene doesn't edit together, just use some footage from the video game, no one will notice.<br /><br />- If your cousin's rap-metal band offers to write your movie's theme for free, politely decline.<br /><br />- Zombie movies are not about people killing zombies. They're about zombies killing people, preferably in the most gruesome way possible. That's what makes them SCARY.<br /><br />- White people who can pay $1600 to get to a rave deserve to die.<br /><br />- If you find an old book, it will tell you everything you need to know. Anything else you will figure out on your own two lines after someone asks, "What was that?" or, "Where are we?"<br /><br />- Bare breasts are not horror movie panacea.<br /><br />- A helicopter boom shot and a licensing deal with Sega magically transforms your movie from "student film" to "major studio release". Try it!<br /><br />- Just because you can name-drop all three "Living Dead" movies, that does not make you George Romero. Or even Paul W. S. Anderson.<br /><br />I've seen worse movies, but only because I've seen "Mortal Kombat: Annihilation."
It gets really bad. The only half-way redeeming quality is the effects from the thousands of bullets used during the film. There are context errors everywhere. The acting is horrible, save Kirk. The story is as holey as the grail, and the belief that the movie is a video game in itself just kills the movie, if it wasn't already a corpse. So all in all it's a waste of your life. I would have given this a zero had that been an option on the rating scale.
Randolph Scott is leaving the USA for the greener pastures of Canada's British Columbia. He wants to start a cattle ranch there with partner Bill Williams and cook Lee Tung Foo. They stampede their small herd over a toll bridge erected by Victor Jory. Later Jory rustles their cattle and Williams loses his left arm during the fracas.<br /><br />From 1945 until 1962 when he retired, Randolph Scott made a series of good adult themed westerns, some of them considered real classics. Unfortunately the Cariboo Trail will never be listed among his best westerns. <br /><br />It's more like the material that Roy Rogers or Gene Autry might use. The story is downright silly at times. Williams who was along for the ride with Scott, he wanted to go prospect for gold as there was a big strike at the time. He doesn't blame the rustlers, he blames Scott for convincing him to make the trip for the loss of his arm. <br /><br />Also there's a scene in the film when Scott, Lee Tung Foo, and Gabby Hayes are captured by Indians. They escape because Gabby's mule has been taught to kick on command and he kicks away at the Indians allowing our heroes to escape. I'm not sure that would have played in a Rogers film.<br /><br />Furthermore the story actually wants you to believe that tyro prospector Randolph Scott accidentally stumbles on a gold strike after just a few lessons from prospector Gabby Hayes on how to find gold. <br /><br />This was Gabby Hayes's farewell feature film part. It would have been better had he gone out in a good western and in fact he had done a couple of better ones with Randolph Scott before this.<br /><br />I will say this, though no Caribou made any appearance in the film, this is one of the few Canadian locale films from the past that did NOT have any Mounties. <br /><br />But if I were you unless you are a big fan of Randolph Scott or Gabby Hayes, take the next detour off The Cariboo Trail.
"The Leap Years" is a movie adapted from an e-novella by Singapore writer Catherine Lim, which became the first Singapore novel/novella to be sold over the internet. The film had a tortuous post-production schedule: shot in early 2005, it was slated for release at the end of 2005, but only turn up eventually 3 years later, on the 29th February 2008, a leap year.<br /><br />Before I say anything, I must first admit I'm no fan of the romance genre, so I may be a little biased against this film - I watched it merely because it was a Singapore production, and that it's available for borrowing at my neighborhood library. Here's my two cents on the movie.<br /><br />Let's just start by saying that other than Qi Yu-wu's KS and Wong Li-Lin, everybody here of note seems to be a Eurasian. The love interest is a Eurasian (Ananda Everingham), and Wong's trio of buddies are all, er-hem, Eurasians. Does this film perpetuate the stereotype that falling in love and associating with Eurasians are more "in" than the common Chinese (or whatever Asian race you are?) I don't know, it sure seems that way. Also, everyone in the movie speaks in some mystical "anglified" accent which doesn't exist anywhere, certainly not in Singapore. It's the kind of "semi-perfect English" that authorities would like us speak, but which doesn't exist anywhere outside, say, the MTV Channel. The effect is that the dialog of the movie sounds forced and stilted, not helped by the lack of true-blue Singaporeans in the cast.<br /><br />The scriptwriter seems to be trying too hard to string one-liners after one-liners. After twenty minutes, the "wit" of the movie starts to pall and the film starts serving up its usual plate of clichés. <br /><br />I guess I didn't enjoy the movie because the entire premise of sustaining a love affair over 16 long years seems unbelievable. <br /><br />There are other incredulities in the film. I can't for one believe that KS (played by Qi Yu-wu) would fall for one of Wong's girlfriends. And the scene where the bridegroom says, "Go, before I change my mind," has been used in a hundred East Asian (Korean, Chinese, Hong Kong, Taiwanese etc) TV serials...<br /><br />So 4 stars for this film. The production value is fair, and Wong Li-lin tries her best, but she's not helped by the script. Joan Chen has a 15-minute bit-part in the movie as the older Wong and is perhaps the best actress of the lot, but, hey, her role is just cameo.<br /><br />If you come across "The Leap Years" in the rental or library, you may want to pop it in the DVD player for curiosity's sake, but otherwise, for people who don't exactly enjoy the romance genre, you can decide whether or not to give it a miss.
Recherche is a good word to describe this movie.<br /><br />Let's say every movie has a selling point, a gimmick. Transformers' gimmick is the awesome effects as well as fan boys nostalgia. Sleepless in Seattle's gimmick is situational in their tag-line, "What if someone you never met, someone you never saw, someone you never knew was the only someone for you?" Many romance relies heavily on these gimmicks and some through draw of big names. Leap Years employs both by using the Irish folklore as the circumstance and featuring considerably famous names within the country.<br /><br />So now that the audience are in the cinema, besides all the usual elements in characters, conflict or consequences, crisis, resolve and denouement, they also look forward to stimulating dialog, more absorbing situations as a result of the leap years, interesting sub-plots and perhaps, to a certain extent, a good twist in the middle or towards the end of the story that favors the circumstances of the characters.<br /><br />This is what Jean Yeo is trying not to achieve. If they've tried to, their goal was apparently in the other court, at the other stadium, on the other end of the planet. She and her writer, Alain Layrac, utterly failed to provide stimulating dialog. Most of the lines were contrived. It seems that they have a bag filled with lines which she would like to use in her movie: "Okay, these are the lines and quotes which I've heard or read from either movies I've seen or books I've read before and they all sound good to me. If they sound good to me, they will sound good to the audience. Therefore, all i have to do is piece them all together. I am going to use all of them." The result is cathartic. I can't say that the lines were unnecessary and bears no relation to the story or in driving the plot on, but they seem to spring out of nowhere, catching you off guard with these quotable quotes.<br /><br />On a personal level, i know people who cite quotes based on most of the situations in our dialog, trying to make it meaningful to themselves while nodding along. I don't go out with them anymore because the urge to punch them is overwhelming.<br /><br />Secondly, the characters portrayed are silly and one-dimensional. With exception to the unnatural dialog which implies their motivation (necessary to drive the plot), there was no sense of conviction in them. I haven't an idea who they are. They are all simpletons spouting lines from the advice column of a female-oriented magazine.<br /><br />The gimmick in the leap years is not enough to drive the story on because the circumstances are too shallow. Then again, there are movies with less but fared better than this, aren't there. They made it up with my first and second point. Moreover, the sub-plots are inconsequential (not that it's a bad thing for movies) and thin (bad thing).<br /><br />Jean Yeo and the producers are trying to pass off the terrible plot with fancy locations and passable photography. This is because they probably understand that it is possible and easier to attain the approval from some viewers than the others with the good use of cinematography, soundtrack and filming location. These non-discerning viewers.<br /><br />It is not even the kind of movie that is so bad that it's good. It is just bad. Don't watch this.
There are no spoilers in this review because everything was already shown in the movie's trailer. I am trying to be balanced in my review because I strongly support local movies, but I can't help but support the backlash against this movie. It is slow, boring and bordering on pointless. Even the "almost nice and believable moments" were immediately undercut by painful clichés and bad acting. Vernetta Lopez and Wong Li Lin, whom I usually love, were only passable in this movie. It felt like the director was trying to make a melodramatic TV Soap, then got carried away and decided to put it on the big screen. The Leap Years should come with an RA rating (Rated Awful) but it hasn't changed my faith in local movies. More good films will come, so long as more films like these don't get made.
I must preface this by saying I am a huge romantic. Hence I really wanted to like this film. So I'm writing my thoughts to save the rest of you from the disappointment I felt watching it. The Leap Years tells the destiny-filled tale of Li-Ann who falls for the suave Jeremy and they commit to meet every leap year. A very romantic premise, based on a great short story and with a cast that doesn't feel like you're watching yet another Jack Neo flick. Then why oh why is it so bad? Firstly, I feel the filmmakers thought they were shooting a music video, because they chose to replace storytelling and any true emotions with cheesy montages, predictable actions and clichéd lines. I am both upset and embarrassed to have been one of the first few in Singapore to watch The Leap Years, but those of us in the cinema would agree that our muffled groans at the cringe-worthy performances spoke volumes. My hope was to watch a romantic movie that would surpass Forever Fever, the best Singaporean romantic comedy so far, and The Leap Years does not even come close. Some blogs have called it The Crap Years which is harsh but ultimately true. Don't waste your money or your emotions like I did. The movie will make you give up on love forever.
The Leap Years stars some heavy hitters in the local and regional film and television scene. And yet, they cannot save this movie. It has so many things going against it - over acting, overly melodramatic, poor script, inconsistent direction; and too few things going for it - decent music , good cinematography. This comment is mainly for anyone who throws all local movies into one basket after watching this film and says all local movies are bad. Please do not judge the rest based on this one film. This is a television soap opera masquerading as a romantic feature film. My hopes were high when I bought my ticket and my hopes were dashed five minutes into the film.
The only reason that this movie is rated a 1 is that zero is not one of the selection options. With a plot thinner than depression era cabbage soup, horrific acting, and special effects that look like they came out of the "Thunderbirds" TV series, it is amazing that Widmark didn't kill the director for putting this black mark on his resume. Even by 1950's standards, the special effects are atrocious, except for a couple of underwater submarine sequences. I can only assume that it was nominated for best special effects because, except for 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and THEM!, there wasn't anybody else doing effects. It was certainly no contest for Disney that year if this was their only competition. I wouldn't recommend the film, even for hard core submarine movie buffs, as the most realistic scene on the submarine was limited to one shot where seawater can be seen dribbling down the up-raised periscope. There are other, much better, sub films that you can enjoy from this era, like the aforementioned 20,000 Leagues or Torpedo Run.
...well, pop this into the DVD, waste an hour and a half of your life that you will never get back, and find out.<br /><br />Acting? What acting? <br /><br />Production values? ...Production? ...Values?<br /><br />Story? Don't get me started.<br /><br />After many years of posting on IMDb, I never thought I would see a film so bad that I truly wished for a lower rating than one. I always have found at least a reason or two to see merit - if only in the intent or the effort of the writer, the director, the cast, or the producer?<br /><br />In this case, they're all the same guy (!) who really needs to get a handle on the fact, at least as demonstrated by this worthless waste of video tape, that he has no talent. I mean it would be a reasonable excuse if this were some junior high schooler's "production" for his first cinema class, but the referenced "artist" behind this dreck was twenty-six at the time of this miscarriage. <br /><br />Just how did this ever get made? Who in their right mind ever wrote a check for this? Moreover, don't let the box cover fool you: there's not even anything that remotely resembles a good sex scene or any good "exposure" of the hunk on that cover.<br /><br />Two final items: there was one second when this "film" had redeeming value: the aforementioned "talent" gets roundly punched out by his lover. I cheered! And, I did learn one thing from this "film.". There are times when something is so very bad that it is, indeed, truly very funny. But not in any comical manner; it's just sadly humorous. Very sadly humorous.
This movie was laughably bad. A friend rented it from Netflix and made me watch it. There are so many gaffes and goofs that it's impossible to even bother getting to know the characters and the plot. How about these for example...<br /><br />The "Vermont Airport" surrounded by palm trees<br /><br />Ben's miraculously appearing shirt during a phone conversation<br /><br />The priest's palatial office... complete with a folding card table desk<br /><br />There is a decent story hidden behind a very bad movie. But even if you look past the technical flaws, you'll find horrid acting and casting. I was most tickled by the casting of a flamboyantly gay actor to play the right-wing religious zealot brother. His opening scene, sitting in his immaculate apartment, stroking his kitty cat, was hilarious.<br /><br />I applaud the writer/director/producer/editor/star/caterer/cast dentist/composer (and whatever else he did on this move) for actually getting a movie like this distributed. If you have nothing better to do, it could be a fun group movie or even the basis of a drinking game but don't rent it for a powerful story about homophobia and gay marriage.
If an auteur gives himself 2 credits before the main title and about 15 more credits before the movie starts, and the first shot shows the auteur rolling around on a bed in lycra bike shorts, it won't be a surprise to observe that said auteur has the kind of body that should never be seen in spandex. The kind of look that might be useful to a homosexual aversion therapist.<br /><br />Others have given this thing the dishing it deserves. For me the most pitiable moment came when the trip from LA was signified by a plane landing at what appeared to be LAX; and the return was signified by a shot of a Fedex cargo plane.
Oh my GOD. I bought this movie and...I...watched...the...whole...thing. . . Okay, it's going to be alright... I'l know I'll be okay in a month or two. Some time soon I hope to be rid of the flash backs. I was going to eat something after the movie but I just can't seem to get up the courage to try and hold any food down at the moment. Bad? Yes bad. Very BAD. BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD. Wait, bad doesn't seem to get the message across in quite the right way. Hmm... There isn't a word to describe just how awful.... not awful... Hmm disgustingly horribly casted/acted/filmed/directed/written. Now I don't know what to do but throw it out. Possibly burn it I wouldn't want it to end up at the bottom of an architectural dig a thousand years from now. The worst movie ever since "Hey Happy"
Your first clue that this is a cheesy movie is that it was shot on video, not film. The story is convoluted, and the production is amazingly sloppy. Note, for example, that when the title couple are on a plane ostensibly landing in Vermont, where they've gone to celebrate their relationship in a civil union ceremony, the plane is shown coming into an airport surrounded by palm trees. Their ceremony - in Vermont - takes place in a garden of tropical plants, including palms, which wouldn't last five minutes in the New England climate. On yet another airplane trip, the establishing shot depicts a FedEx cargo plane taking off. Presumably they could only afford to travel in steerage. As for the plot, this movie expects you to believe that Victor, the devoutly Christian brother of Arthur, is kicked out of his church when the congregation learns that his BROTHER is gay. Not only that, but the pastor eventually sets Victor up with a hit man to have Ben and Arthur killed "to purge their souls of sin." Apparently no one in this church has ever heard of the Ten Commandments. Were it not for Jamie Brett Gabel, who is surprisingly effective as Arthur, this movie would have no redeeming qualities at all.
Ben & Arthur COULD have been a 10. Sam Mraovich wrote, directed, stared, and produced this movie. Sam should have given his idea to a good writer, director, and left the acting to somebody who could act. this is a good example of one person controlling the whole production. there was nobody to tell him, "Sam this is bad, really bad".<br /><br />Jamie Brett Gabel's acting was the only good point, but he could have been so much better with a good director, and better actors to work with. <br /><br />This movie is so bad i think Sam Mraovich should be tied to a chair and made to watch this movie (twice). the acting and direction was so bad, this movie was turned into a comedy. you just had to laugh, and in the wrong places. <br /><br />A second good point....this would make a great date movie. after the first two minutes you would quit watching the movie and pay more attention to your date!
This film was the worst film I have ever viewed. It was like a "homework assignment" for a film class. It totally misses the mark when it comes to the "message" it is TRYING to relay. Characters are over exaggerated, poor acting and as for a plot...well it is utterly ridiculous. The cover shot is what made me think it may be a decent film, the co-actor is handsome and that's about it. Moral of this movie: NEVER JUDGE A MOVIE BY IT'S COVER! Save your time, money and energy and make your own home movie and you will be far better off than I. It was painful to watch and quite frankly I am surprised that anyone would spend money to make and distribute it!
THE. WORST. FILM. EVER. MADE.<br /><br />After watching this supposedly gay made film, I suspect someone rounded up a brain damaged half blind neo-nazi and had him make the worst gay film ever, all in some deluded attempt to attack gay culture. I had to stop the movie and call a friend to come over just so I had someone to scoff at when I paused the movie out of shock, disbelief and outrage at such sheer stupidity.<br /><br />On top of all the horrible writing and acting and illogical and stupid plot, its just a poorly made film. A dog with a handycam tied to its tail could have churned out better.<br /><br />Seriously, after reading the few positive reviews this movie has here, I suspect the writer must have a half a dozen IMDb accounts. Anyone who says this film is even watchable as anything other than a joke, is a liar or being paid heavily to say so.
I have never posted a review before, but I had to do it for this film! This film is SO bad, I found myself trying to justify how bad it is by trying to think of it as kitsch or parody. But it ISN'T. It is truly, un-self-consciously BAD. This is a serious attempt that flops gloriously. Other reviewers have pointed out the film's many flaws, so I'll try not to repeat these, but I do urge you to see this film. Throughout it I was either speechless, literally gasping with disbelief, or rolling on the floor in hysterics. I haven't had so much fun watching a film in years. In fact, I'm going to try to get all my friends to see it because it's the kind of movie that needs to be shared.<br /><br />My favorite parts: -- When Arthur auditions to be a go-go boy (his dancing is unbelievable) -- The gratuitous nudity (the director/leading actor just had to get a nude shot in) -- The preacher's office with its cardboard and crayon rendition of Christ -- Of course, the famous wedding scene with the palm trees and the forgotten rings (what narrative function does this play?!?) -- The ex-wife's wrestling match with Ben to get possession of her gun -- The detailed sequence wherein Arthur kills the preacher; he apparently burns him up with this incredibly measly match -- Yes, the gay religious-fanatic brother with his bleached hair and WeHo fashions -- And, my favorite, the use of Joplin's "The Entertainer" as the opening soundtrack and "Pachebel's Canon in D Major" as the closing soundtrack! -- the list goes on and on -- a MUST SEE!!!
Intrigued by the synopsis (every gay video these days has a hunk on the cover; this is not necessarily to be construed as a good sign) I purchased BEN AND ARTHUR without knowing a thing about it. This is my second (and I assure you it will be my last) purchase of a CULTURE Q CONNECTION video. As far as I am concerned, this DVD is nothing but a blatant rip-off. I do not make this observation lightly – I am a major collector of videos, gay and mainstream, and I can state with some authority and without hesitation that BEN AND ARTHUR is quite simply the worst film I have ever sat through in my life. Period. My collection boasts over 1,600 films (93% on them on DVD) and of those, well over 300 are gay and lesbian themed. I hardly own every gay movie ever made, but I am comfortable in stating that I pretty much purchase almost every gay video of interest that gets released, and very often I buy videos without knowing anything about the film. Sometimes, this makes for a pleasant surprise - Aimee & Jaguar, It's In The Water, Urbania and Normal are all examples of excellent gay titles that I stumbled upon accidentally. So when I read on the box that BEN AND ARTHUR concerned a conflict between gay lovers and the Christian Right, one of my favorite subjects, I decided to take the plunge sight unseen, despite my previously disappointing purchase of another CULTURE Q CONNECTION title, VISIONS OF SUGAR PLUMS. That film was pretty bad, but compared to BEN AND ARTHUR, it viewed like GONE WITH THE WIND. So what was so wrong with BEN AND ARTHUR? Plenty! To begin with, the "plot" such as it was, was totally ridiculous. This film almost made me sympathetic to the Christian Right – we are asked to believe not only that a church would expel a member because his brother is gay, but that a priest would actually set up a mob style execution of a gay couple in order to save their souls (like this even makes sense). The writing is so poor that many scenes make no sense at all, and several plot points reflect no logic, follow-up or connection to the story. Murder and violence seem to be acceptable ends to the gay activist / right wing conflict on both sides, and the acting is so bad that it's difficult to imagine how anybody in this film got hired. The characters who are supposed to be straight are almost without exception clearly gay - and nelly stereotypes to boot; the gay characters are neither sexy nor interesting. This film is enough to put off anybody from buying gay themed videos forever, and the distributors should be ashamed of themselves. The only advantage this picture has over my other CULTURE Q Connection purchase, VISIONS OF SUGARPLAMS, is that this one has a soundtrack with clear dialogue. Hardly a distinction, since the script is so insipid that understanding the script only serves to make you more aware of how bad this film truly is. It is an embarrassment to Queer culture, and I intend to warn everyone I possibly can before they waste their money on it. At $9.95 this film would have been way overpriced; I understand that it's soon to be re-priced under $20, which is STILL highway robbery. I paid the original price of $29.95, and I never felt more cheated in my life. The only true laugh connected with this drivel is the reviews – I have seen "user reviews" for this film on numerous websites, and there is always one or two that "praise" the director / writer / actor in such a way that it's obvious that the reviewer is a friend of this Ed Wood wannabe. How sad. How desperate. I just wish IMDb would allow you to assign zero stars - or even minus zero. If ever a film deserved it, this is it.
Holy crap this movie was bad. I watched it just as a joke. It isn't even so bad that it's good in an unintentional way. This film seemed to be designed to personally make me angry. It worked really well at doing that. It's as if the people who made this just took all of the really annoying stuff about the movie PRIEST, added in a bunch of ugly dudes, took out anything interesting, funny, or even remotely sexy and clever out of the concoction, and then added in a bunch of old rotten cheese. That's all this is. Cheese. There isn't a single person this film could possibly connect to. There isn't any universe this film could possibly take place in. Why can't a film like this just be about enjoying life and being happy? Why did they have to make this already stupid idea for a film even more ridiculous than it already is? Why couldn't they at least even tried to make it an okay film, or even a B-movie. Now that I think of it, what they hell were they trying to do with this film? I watched it expecting a campy love story and instead I got some boring student project about some idiot who has to find the strength and courage to marry his boyfriend while his annoying Christian brother tried to destroy it all!!! No, I'm not joking. That's what it's about. Does that sound good? This film is pretty ignorant against people of the Christan religion, with it's stereotyping of all Christians being loudmouthed, rude, and hellbent on making as many people as miserable as possible. A lot of Christian people I know would never speak or act like these freaks. The film, however, is just as unfair and ignorant to the gay community as well. These have got to be the most tastelessly crafted stereotypical gay men since the guy on the radio station on that ROADKILL video game. It's so nerve wracking and simply irritating to the point that I wasn't able to fully pay attention to this film. The makers of this train-wreck had no strategy for set design, acting, camera angles, lighting, script, authenticity, or an idea to make this entertaining or interesting. There isn't even a single sex scene, or at least not a believable one. Jamie Brett Gabel was the only guy in the film that looked any good at all, but his good looks were sadly put to waste. This is trash. In a perfect world, this film would get voted a 0.0. It's worth 0 as a film alone. A mentally handicapped nun who is blind, deaf, and has tiny little bones for arms and legs and whose face is located on her armpit could write, direct, and produce a better film, and she'd probably be a better actor as well. the fact that this film exists is a crime against the word "film" itself. This film is so bad that other films should be ashamed of being available in the same watchable format. I could put a broom in a chair and then record it with a camera and then stop the film and then replace it with a mini x-mas tree and then record that and I've already made a film that will always be better than BEN & ARTHUR by at least half. There are only two things worse than death. Torture and watching BEN & ARTHUR. I'm a homosexual and I will probably be the gayest person you will ever meet if you ever met me, and I don't think I've ever been more offended by an entire film than I was by the first five seconds of this film alone. If this movie was a mistake, I will personally find a way to change the famous phrase "It's okay to make mistakes" to "It's okay to make mistakes unless that mistake was BEN & ARTHUR." You know how people always say things like, "Good things come out of everything!"? I think that BEN & ARTHUR was primarily invented so that there could be something on this earth that nothing good would ever come out of. To call this movie the worst movie I've ever seen would be giving it WAY too much credit. It's as if this film were designed just so that it could qualify in a category of it's very own. There are good movies, there are bad movies, and then there's BEN & ARTHUR. This is BEN AND ARTHUR.
I made the big mistake of actually watching this whole movie a few nights ago. God I'm still trying to recover. This movie does not even deserve a 1.4 average. IMDb needs to have 0 vote ratings possible for movies that really deserve it like this one. A 1.4 is TOO HIGH.<br /><br />I had heard how awful this movie was, but I really did not think a movie could actually be that bad, especially in this day and era. I figured all of the cheesy god awful movies were only from the 1950s and 1960s. My god was I wrong. Trust me folks, this movie REALLY IS THAT BAD. It is beyond horrible; it is beyond pathetic; it is beyond any type of word that I can think of for it. BATTLEFIELD EARTH looks like Best Picture of the Year compared to this movie. SNAKE ISLAND (which up until now was the worst movie I'd ever seen) looks like it deserves a few Oscars compared to this pathetic effort.<br /><br />I seriously can not believe that the makers of this movie thought this was a legitimate serious effort of producing a Hollywood movie. This has no business being called a movie. In the first 25 seconds of the film, I seriously thought I was watching some high school theater class attempting to make a short movie. Or better yet, I thought it was some Saturday night Live ripoff skit of the real thing. I mean, it looks exactly like that. The acting is horrible; the whole movie almost looks like it was shot with a 20 year old VHS video camera. the special effects.......well good lord Bewitched from back in the day had better special effects than this movie. The scene where he gets shot at the door is beyond laughable and beyond cheesy. I mean seriously, my Intro to Acting class from 4 years ago in college, all of us could have put together a better movie than this. And the worst part of the entire movie, where Arthur is naked in the bathroom. Oh my god I almost thew up right there. I have a strong stomach, but wow that was horrible. Some people should never be naked, and he's one of them. The plot of this movie just seems to go absolutely nowhere. They talk about legal issues that we never hear about again; Ben talks about getting into music that we never hear about again; arthur says he is looking for a job and money for college and the next thing we see is he's running a porn shop. Everything about the movie is just horrible.<br /><br />This really doesn't have much to do with my critique, but just so everyone knows, I am not a gay man. I DO however support gay rights and believe we should all be treated as equals. And I would support any gay person in my church, unlike the cruel priest in this movie, who by the way seems to cuss every other word. (WHERE IS THE F*(#*ing white out?) hahaha But I didn't want anyone to think I hated this movie just because of it being about two gay guys. It has nothing to do with that: This would have been just as horrible of a movie if it was Ben & Jill instead of Ben & Arthur.<br /><br />I just watched this movie to see if it really was as bad as they say. And yes it was even WORSE than I had read. Let this be a warning to everyone: ONLY watch this movie if you want to just sit back and laugh at how pathetic some movies in the 21st century can still be. If you watch this movie and are actually expecting a good movie or some entertainment, I have no sympathy for you whatsoever.<br /><br />On a final thought: How in the world are there 7 movies ranked BELOW this on IMDb? There is no way there are 7 movies out there that are worse than this!
There is absolutely nothing in this movie that shows even the tiniest scrap of talent. Nobody in it has ever tried acting before, even the extras in the coffee shop look as if they've been glued in place. Nothing looks rehearsed.The film quality is terrible. Most of the 'action' takes place in narrow corridors or apartments with the cameraman crammed in as an afterthought, swinging some cheapo camera backwards and forwards between 'actors' as they deliver their lines. No tripod and no proper microphone either, there sound quality is terrible. Even 'Manos' fares better than this, at least they had proper equipment. What plot there is simply gets lost in the production mess.<br /><br />Stick to home videos, preferably made by some 5 year kid trying out the video feature on daddy's new camera phone. You will be in for a long search to find a movie more inept than this.
I was looking on Imdbs bottom 100 because i thought id never seen anything as bad as plan 9 from outerspace or Roller Ball remake, I was wrong. Ben and Arthur has beaten both.<br /><br />This out of the many countless amount of movies I've seen is the number one worst film on the i ever saw. Bad Directing ,Bad Characters ,Horrible Acting ,Horrible story There's a reason nobody but Sam ever says anything positive about this film. Sam was a horrible annoying actor but his directing was so bad he may just overthrow Ed Wood.<br /><br />The Director should be ashamed of his work unfortunately i have to give it at least 1 star but it deserves - to be continued stars.
I have no idea what on earth, or beyond, could have possibly made Sam Mraovich believe that this would have been a worthy project to undertake. Ben & Arthur is one of the worst movies ever made. In fact, I see no reason why it should not be at #1 on the Bottom 100. For although I have not seen, for example, SuperBabies: Baby Geniuses 2 (#5 at the time of this publication), I would venture to guess that that film is considerably better than this oozing wound, because even in its vapid dismalness at least Baby Geniuses 2 was professionally made. By contrast, everything, and I do mean everything, in this film is completely unprofessional.<br /><br />The movie is intended to be an attack on the Christian Right's supposed bigotry and hatred toward gays. And I do emphasize "intended." Not only does it completely and utterly fail at its purpose, it also leaves an ugly scar. Instead of creating a compelling and realistic portrait of a gay couple's struggle against a society that largely opposes them, it creates tired, crass stereotypes of each party involved. Ben and Arthur, the namesake couple, are portrayed as two crude, sex-starved, and hopelessly romantic cardboard cutouts who marry when the laws change to allow them to do so. This meets with the opposition of Ben's brother Victor, a Christian minister who, like all Christians (as this movie would have us believe), is loud, prying, stupid, and violent. He tries to kill Ben and Arthur after his associations with them get him kicked out of the ministry. Just like in real life. And if you think that's dreadful (it is), you haven't seen it all.<br /><br />The actors (?) here manage to completely destroy any vestige of credibility in this movie by saying their lines as if they were narrating a YouTube home comedy video. But not even Daniel Day-Lewis and Marlon Brando as the title characters could have saved this clunker, for there would still be the matter of the completely inane and laugh-inducing dialogue that fills every minute of the movie. Every scene has at least one awkward or misplaced quote. For example, in one scene, Victor tries to complain about not being able to have nieces or nephews because of his brother's homosexuality. But instead of portraying this idea clearly, he spits out the stupid, utterly confusing, whiny-sounding line, "You know what, I'm never going to have any nieces or nephews, okay, because you're so F***ED UP!"<br /><br />Even more glaring is the complete lack of production values. Yes, I know this ain't The Dark Knight, but even amateur film makers should know some basics about special effects and editing. For example, six dots of red cake dye do not suffice for realistic bullet wounds. People do not teleport across a room between takes. And objects do not fall FORWARD when shot! <br /><br />Do not waste your money on Ben & Arthur. I don't care if you're 7, 17, or 107. I don't care if you're gay, straight, bi, or undecided. I don't care if you're "just curious." I don't care what pathetic reason you may have to be tempted to buy this dung-heap. Stay away, far away. This movie's only redeeming quality is its ability to be used as a Frisbee.
Sam Mraovich should never be allowed to touch a camera again. If he does he should be arrested on the spot...at the very least for petty larceny. Anybody who pays even a dime to rent any of his garbage should file a claim and be compensated. This was innocently my first viewing of his "work"...and it will my last. Ed Wood looks awfully good to me right now.<br /><br />When I return this piece of crap to the video store, I will personally ask that it be taken off the shelf. An active supporter of gay cinema, I am incensed and angered that this warped, exceedingly untalented man-child be allowed to distribute and package something like this, with a coltish pretty boy on the cover (Jamie Brett Gabel, who, thankfully, has no other acting credits in IMDb) and an interesting synopsis on the back used as bait, and then market it as a "movie" rental. Trust me, this has no place being on any rack anywhere; it is simply not a movie in any sense of the word. Offensive, irresponsible junk such as this can only be detrimental to the efforts being made to promote and support gay cinema (hell, gay rights in general!) For those tempting to rent this out because of the cover, you WILL be disappointed. Gabel is not as flattering to look at on film as he is on the cover, and he appears once or twice without a shirt -- that's it. Instead, the homely Mroavich inflicts on us his own disgusting, sorry-looking dough-boy nakedness.<br /><br />This "thing" he "assembled" is a reverse vanity project for Mraovich. Both he and his friend Michael Habousch (who, I understand, puts out similar sleazy garbage) are terrible in this. Mraovich is purposely posing as a complete no-talent (in all fields), desperate to grab onto any "loser" attention he can for himself. He is to be pitied.
Let me first state that I enjoy watching "bad" movies. It's funny how some of these films leave more of a lasting impression than the truly superb ones. This film is bad in a disturbingly malicious way. This vehicle for Sam Mraovich's delusional ego doesn't just border on talentless ineptitude, it has redefined the very meaning of the words. This should forever be the barometer for bad movies. Sort of the Mendoza line for film. Mr. Mraovich writes, directs, and stars as blunt object Arthur Sailes battling scorned wives and the Christian forces of evil as he and his partner Ben "dead behind the eyes" Sheets struggle for marital equality. As a libertarian I believe gays should have a right to get married. Ben & Arthur do more harm to that cause than an army of homophobes. The portrayal of all things Christian are so ugly and ham-fisted, trademark Mraovich, that you can't possibly take any of them seriously. Arthur's brother Victor, the bible toting Jesus freak, is so horribly over-the-top evil/effeminately gay that you have to wonder how he was cast in this role. That's because Sam "multitasking" Mraovich was also casting director. The worst of it all is Sam Mraovich himself. When you think leading man do the words pasty, balding, and chubby come to mind? Sam also delivers lines like domino's pizza, cold and usually wrong. The final tally: you suck at writing, directing, acting and casting. That's the Ed Wood quadruple crown. Congratulations you horrible little man.
This movie is just truly awful, the eye-candy that plays Ben just can make up for everything else that is wrong with this movie.<br /><br />The writer/director/producer/lead actor etc probably had a good idea to create a movie dealing with the important issues of gay marriage, family acceptance, religion, homophobia, hate crimes and just about every other issue effecting a gay man of these times, but trying to ram every issue into such a poorly conceived film does little justice to any of these causes.<br /><br />The script is poor, the casting very ordinary, but the dialogue and acting is just woeful. The homo-hating brother is played by the most camp actor and there is absolutely no chemistry between the two lead actors (I think I've seen more passion in an corn flakes ad). The acting is stiff, and the dialogue forced (a scene where the brother is feeding the detective his lines was the highlight).<br /><br />I'm just pleased to see that the creator of this train wreck has not pushed any other rubbish out in to distribution, and if he is thinking of doing so, I have some advise - JUST DON'T DO IT.
as an actor I really like independent films but this one is amateur at best.<br /><br />The boys go to Vermont for a civil service yet when the plane lands it flies over a palm tree - were the directors aware that palm trees are not in Vermont? Pines yes - palms no. And the same for the wedding service - again nice grove of palm trees.<br /><br />When the boys are leaving VT they apparently could not get a ticket on any major airline since the plane that is filmed is Federal Express. Did they ship themselves Overnight in a crate? Come on guys little details like this separate an indi film from totally amateur.<br /><br />The Christian brother is far gayer than Arthur with his bleached hair and tribal band tattoo. The two should have switched roles.<br /><br />The minor characters are laughable and overact something terrible.<br /><br />Applause to the directors for making a gay film but pay some attention to your locations and casting next time
Just watched this after hearing about how bad it was and wanted to see for myself. Seriously, even if you read all the negative comments on here you will be nowhere near able to comprehend how awful this film actually is, although it has to be one of the most hilarious things I have ever seen! Never bothered to post a comment on here before, but this piece of crap really warrants it. <br /><br />Firstly the entire plot is ridiculous and nonsensical. Brother of the lead character (either Ben or Arthur, I forget which is which, and frankly it's never very clear) wants to stop some kind of gay marriage by killing everyone in sight - because homosexuality is abhorrent to Christians, but apparently mass murder isn't. Then there's some other crap thrown in about one of the gay couple's ex-wife trying to force him to remarry her at gunpoint. This leads to nothing, but provides us with one of the funniest lines of dialogue in the whole "film" - "I don't make sense? You don't make sense! That's who makes sense!". Brilliant.<br /><br />Then there's the acting, which is just atrocious. It must be seen to be believed. My personal favourite is the apparently stoned civil rights lawyer woman, who is clearly reading her lines off of something, yet still managing to mess them up. Enough said. The gay couple couldn't be less convincing. There's the vaguely attractive and completely gormless guy, and his boyfriend who looks like that little cartoon dough man of the bisto adverts. Only fatter. And less talented. <br /><br />The "film" has also been filmed by someone who is incapable of holding a camera even remotely still, and the number of mistakes throughout is amazing. The whole thing kicks off with the fat main guy in bed with a pair of boots on. Yep.<br /><br />But anyways, we all know how terrible this thing is, so I'd like to highlight some of the most priceless comedy moments that the "film" provides. <br /><br />- When the fat guy sets the church on fire and then prances like a six year old girl across the car park to make his escape. Hilarious.<br /><br />- Mildread! No idea what relation she is to the main characters - sometimes they know her, sometimes they don't, but she pops up in a couple of scenes nonetheless. Hilarious.<br /><br />- The stoned lawyer. Already mentioned her, but she's so funny she's worth another mention.<br /><br />- The evil brothers dinner of crackers that he lays on for his guests.<br /><br />- The evil brother's anti-gay potion.<br /><br />- The evil brother's cats.<br /><br />- The ending, which I won't give away because it MUST be seen to be believed. I warn you though, make sure you're not eating at the time!!!! The tub of lard main character/director/producer gets naked. It's foul. <br /><br />Basically, Ben and Arthur is indescribably bad, but unintentionally the most comical thing you'll see for a long time. Literally, nothing is good about this excuse for a film, the goon of a director even manages to make the opening credits into a joke by writing his own name about 15 times.
Oh man, what was Sam Mraovich thinking? What was anyone who was involved in this "film" thinking? Mraovich is the head of nearly everything of "Ben and Arthur": Director, writer, producer (also EXECUTIVE producer!), caster, lead star- you name it, he did it. And he (Mraovich) sucks more than anyone has ever sucked in every department of film making.<br /><br />So what is wrong with this film? Everything. The film is about two gay lovers, Ben (Jamie Brett Gabel) and Arthur (Mraovich- *groan*). Ben and Arthur want to get married in a world where everyone basically hates gay people. To make things worse, Ben's crazy "ex-wife" (they don't exactly divorce), Tammy (Julie Belknap) is steaming mad that Ben's left her for another man and demands Ben that they get back together (saying that she can be gay, too!) and Arthur's Christian devoted, excessively hypocritical, equally batty as Tammy brother, Victor, is hell bent on making Arthur turn straight and then try to kill him after he gets kicked out of his church.<br /><br />The film is absolutely chock a block with so many goofs (ie. Ben and Arthur fly to Vermont to get married- they go there on Alaska Airlines and Vermont has palm trees; they fly back on a FedEx cargo plane- hope they were comfy in a wooden crate, plus many, many more) and plot holes to boot (Victor calls killing Arthur "The Final Plan" which later changes to "The Final Deed"; Arthur and the private (intern) detective drive the same car, blah, blah, blah). The "actors" are all very bad and are way, way over the top; the script is laughably horrible(one such example is "I don't make sense? You don't make sense! I make sense, that's who makes sense!") and there so much more wrong with the "movie" that I can't write them all down.<br /><br />However, the most laughable yet unbelievable thing about "Ben and Arthur" is that Sam Mraovich thinks that he has created something that is truly fantastic (see his fake reviews for "Ben & Arthur" and obvious comments by him on YouTube.). Mraovich is narcissistic and his arrogance blinds him from seeing how awful anything with his name on it really is.<br /><br />So, to conclude, forget every bad film that you claim is the worst movie ever- "Ben and Arthur" will knock them right off that title, even Paris Hilton movies look like "The Dark Knight" compared to the monstrosity known as "Ben and Arthur".
Phew--I don't what to say. This is a film that could be really good a with a bunch of stoned viewers. Some of the acting reminded me of John Waters' early offerings. Perhaps I should take that back--I don't want to insult Waters' ability as a director/storyteller.<br /><br />I particularly loved the lawyer taking about the "full faith and credibility" clause. It's "full faith and credit," by the way!<br /><br />This also reminds me of "The Conrad Boys," where the main actor is also the writer, director, film editor, etc. Those sort of multi-involved undertakings such as that are probably best left to very seasoned film professionals who would have the technical ability (albeit a stunt, some might say) to pull something off like that.
I don't know what it is about this movie- director Sam Mraovich somehow messed up just about every little aspect in this movie. I would normally say that this is a movie that should not exist, but this movie may be the most important of all time. This movie should exist for the sole purpose of being without a doubt 'The Worst Movie Ever Made'. I've seen bad movies in my lifetime, but this somehow breaks what I considered bad into something much more hard to imagine.<br /><br />Everything in this movie is hilarious, but the single funniest thing is that Mraovich himself considers this to be a great movie.<br /><br />Oh wow...
Worst film ever, this is a statement that people here on IMDb often throw around. Whether it's an Uwe Boll movie, bad classics like Manos The Hands Of Fate or the latest no brains summer action fest from Michael Bay, people are often quick to jump to the sudden conclusion that on the board they're posting that there is nothing worse in the movie world.<br /><br />I envy these people, because they're blissfully ignorant and unaware of how deep the rabbit hole of crap movie making really goes. There are films out there so bad, so hideous, so unintentionally hilarious and so ridiculous that cults form around them to celebrate their awfulness and their discussion boards are the kindest places on the internet due to everyone agreeing unanimously that said film is really that bad.<br /><br />Ladies and Gentlemen, i present to you Ben and Arthur, an 85 minute gay epic that is so utterly bad that it's a lot like a violent car crash, you know it's awful but you can't stop looking at it. The brainchild of self proclaimed "hollywood actor, director" and may i add beached whale Sam Mraovich, this film is legendarily terrible. Let me give you a hint of how ego driven this project was. Mr Mraovich not only directed this film, he wrote it, produced it, executive produced it, scored it, edited it and then finally starred in it. This is a man so blinded by his own ego and so believing of his non existent genius that like someone with an ugly child he fails to recognise just how catastrophic his bastard creation really is.<br /><br />Everything in this film fails on an epic level, the acting is the worst you will ever witness, the plot is the most ridiculous, the editing and cinematography is the most amateur and even the music is like nails on a chalkboard. I'm aware i've gone on a bit of a tangent here, but please believe me that this film is really as bad as i describe it, i would say this film is horse crap squished into a film reel, but the truth is it wasn't even shot on film, it was shot on a digital camcorder not much better than the one sitting in your closet right now gathering dust. Don't get me wrong, i forgive low budgets for films provided the concept is interesting, for example as much as i disliked it The Blair Witch Project proved that low budgets can still lead to an atmospheric interesting film. Ben and Arthur does not have a good concept to fall back on, even if this film was shot on a budget of 20 million with Hollywoods finest actors it would still suck, the plot is that atrocious, and the characters are even worse. One of the main characters Arthur who is portrayed by non other than Sam Mraovich is one of the most whiny loathsome little turds ever put in a film. You'll dislike him within 5 minutes of the start of the film and by the end of the film that hate will have turned into outright loathing. Apparently Mr Mraovich forgot that we're supposed to root for the hero.<br /><br />I don't want to spoil all the gut busting hilarity you'll experience watching this film (which i urge you not to pay for) so i will give you two tame mild examples of how stupid this film is, tame and mild as in amongst the least offending mistakes in the movie. In one cut we hear one of the main characters say how "they know a good lawyer and will give HIM a call" the shot fades out then fades back in and this HIM they spoke of earlier is actually a woman, quite a spectacular mistake to make in post production i think. The second is simple, seconds after seeing this transsexual lawyer the characters are told to fly to Vermont, we then cut to a shot of a plane landing amongst palm trees in a sunny area. I've never been to Vermont personally but i'm certain you won't find any palm trees there.<br /><br />Imagine this kind of stupid amateur inconsistency stretched to nearly an hour and a half combined with ridiculous dialogue and plot and then multiply it by 10 and it still won't fully prepare you for Ben and Arthur. Imagine the absolute worst film you've seen in your life and imagine it being even worse and you still won't be on the same level as Ben and Arthur, this film is really that bad.<br /><br />However we should be glad in a way, films like this are a true rarity. They give us hope that one day we can become film makers ourselves or that we can be screenwriters. Simply because we'll have a new found sense of confidence due to the fact that we'll know that nothing we produce no matter how amateur could be as much of a suck fest as this.<br /><br />The real worst movie of all time has finally been discovered, and it is called Ben and Arthur.
What can I say, this is a piece of brilliant film-making that should have won an Oscar. A copy should be kept safe in a secure vault for posterity. It should be required viewing for all high school students across the world. Sam Mraovich is a genius, perhaps the most genius writer/director/producer/chef/babysitter/walmart greeter to ever grace the cinema world with his art.<br /><br />Where do I begin with this one? Every millisecond of Ben and Arthur was so completely breathtaking! And Mraovich as Arthur, wow, he is so attractive I'm surprised he didn't go for Mr. Universe. I couldn't contain myself during the nude scene. I loaned this movie to my brother and he called me on the phone saying how Arthur's nude scene turned him gay. I am totally supportive of course, because of this film and it's beautifully crafted lessons in tolerance. Why just yesterday I burned down a church and I wrote "for Sam and Arthur" in its smoldering ashes.<br /><br />The cinematography was the best thing about this film. When that Fed-Ex plane took to the skies amid the palm trees of Vermont, I wept! Why, I never even knew they had palm trees in Vermont or that people could travel on Fed-Ex planes before this film. It opened my eyes to a new realm of possibilities. This film inspired me to enroll in Sam Mraovich's school of Screen writing, Acting, Directing, Composing, Casting, Producing, Production Design and Real Estate. I just want to say, "Thank you, Mr. Mraovich. Thank you for bringing this creation into the world. We can never re-pay you enough."
When the film began, I was shocked to see it was filmed using a cheap video camera! In fact, the camera shakes and looks worse than the average home movie. Even direct to DVD films should have production values better than this! Heck, a large percentage of the home videos uploaded to YouTube have better production values! All too often, the film seriously appears to be made by sticking the camera on a tripod and turning it on--with no camera person! Closeups and anything resembling camera-work are absent in some scenes where they might have worked and in others there are too many or poorly framed closeups. Yecch! <br /><br />The film is about two gay men who want to become married. As if was made almost a decade ago, their only option was marrying in Vermont--times have definitely changed. However, the recent acceptance of gay marriage cannot in any way be attributed to this film--if anything, it set the gay marriage supporters back instead of helping as the movie stinks and never really tries to seriously address the issue. According to the film, religious people are one-dimensional idiots who carry Bibles EVERYWHERE and shoot people as well as wives who have gay husbands are narrow-minded when they learn their spouses have been living a lie--go figure. I'm sure glad it gives an honest chance to both sides on the issue! <br /><br />The bottom line--nothing about the film shows any professionalism at all and I even hesitate to call this a film. It's more like a home movie and doesn't even merit a listing on IMDb or even inclusion on IMDb's Bottom 100 list of the worst rated films of all time. The acting is horrible, the writing is horrible, the direction (if there even is any) is horrible, the camera-work is horrible and the plot is horrible. It's a home movie!! There is nothing positive I can say about this in any way except that it makes the films of Ed Wood seem like Oscar contenders in comparison and I am sure the ghost of Mr. Wood is smiling every time someone watches this mess! <br /><br />I don't care if you are gay or straight--this film is not worth your time and I don't know how they managed to create DVDs of it. I assume one of the actors burns them on his home computer during his free time! Seriously, this gives new meaning to the word 'bad'!<br /><br />By the way, if the one lady in the film WAS a real lawyer, wouldn't the ability to read be an important prerequisite?! I'm just sayin'.<br /><br />Finally, with gay marriage being such a serious and important topic, can't we have a film that's BETTER than THIS that addresses the issue?! This one, sadly, only invites laughter.
Oh, Sam Mraovich, we know you tried so hard. This is your magnum opus, a shining example to the rest of us that you are certainly worth nomination into the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (as you state on your 1998-era web site). Alas, it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. With Ben & Arthur, you do just that.<br /><br />Seemingly assembled with a lack of instruction or education, the film's screenplay guides us toward the truly bizarre with each new scene. It's this insane excuse of a story that may also be the film's best ally. Beginning tepidly, the homosexually titular characters Ben and Arthur attempt to marry, going so far as to fly across country to do so, in the shade of Vermont's finest palm trees. But, all of this posturing is merely a lead-in for BLOOD. Then more BLOOD, and MORE AND MORE BLOOD. I mean, there must be at least $20 in fake blood make-up in the final third of this film.<br /><br />The film in its entirety is a technical gaffe. From the sound to the editing to the music, which consists of a single fuzzy bass note being held on a keyboard, it's a wonder that the film even holds together on whatever media you view it on. It's such a shame then that some decent amateur performances are wasted here.<br /><br />No matter, Sam. I'm sure you've made five figures on this flick in rentals or whatever drives poor souls (such as myself) to view this film. Sadly, we're not laughing with you.
I tried to like this program; I really did. I even bought the pilot film, first on VHS and later on DVD. However, I couldn't get into this story because its two main characters: "David" (Bruce Willis) and "Maddie" (Cybill Shepherd) just seemed to in love with themselves, for one thing. I admit was some clever dialog in the shows, which was a key part of the success of the TV program, and I did appreciate of lot of that dialog. <br /><br />Basically, this was almost like the old screwball comedy movies of the '30s and '40s with male versus female. You get lots of arguing, accusations, yelling and screaming. A lot of people apparently love that sort of bickering, but I hate it, so I never got on the Moonlighting bandwagon. <br /><br />Only Allyce Beasley as the hapless aide "Agnes," was entertaining. It's too bad she had such little air time. Shepherd was nice on the eyes and I suppose women would say the same for Willis, but too much arguing between the two finally turned me off.
This is strictly a review of the pilot episode as it appears on DVD.<br /><br />Television moved out of my life in 1981, so I never followed the series or any part of it - which means that I'm immune to the nostalgic charm that Moonlighting appears to have for most reviewers. <br /><br />(Possible spoiler warning) <br /><br />The pilot of Moonlighting is your basic "caveman meets fluffball" yarn, where a "charming" red-blooded he-man manipulates a misguided woman into realizing what she really wants and needs. The premises that the script's "wit" is based on must have already felt stale around 1950. It also contains some frankly bad writing, as in the scene where Maddie demolishes the furnishings instead of shooting the villain, strictly in order to prove herself the inept female in need of masculine assistance. <br /><br />I often feel that Susan Faludi overreacts in seeing male chauvinist conspiracy in simple entertainment, but in this particular case I'm all with her - Moonlighting has BACKLASH stamped all over it. <br /><br />In one sense, however, this DVD is a must for all serious Bruce Willis fans: in addition to the pilot episode, it contains the screen test that landed Willis the job. Both features show to what amazing extent Willis' acting ability developed between 1985 and 1988/89 (Die Hard 1, In Country). Impressive! <br /><br />Rating (and I _am_ a Bruce Willis fan): 2 out of 10
The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu starring Peter Sellers in a spoof of the characters created by Sax Rohmer is an injustice to the end of Sellers' career. The plot was very simplistic, and if done the right way could have been handled nicely, but instead it was poorly executed. Part of the reasons why this film wasn't that good was the poor dialog, cheap laughs, choppy directing, and an awkward feeling that the film was somewhat incomplete.<br /><br />The acting, on the other hand, was really the only thing that kept my interest during this mixed up picture. I found Sellers portrayal of diabolical Manchu brilliantly done, with the occasional lines that will be remembered. For example, there is the scene where Fu Manchu is confused which henchman is which in which he says "Ah, you all look the same to me." I hate to admit it, but I laughed out loud with that line.<br /><br />Then of course a fistful of strong supporting characters really caught my attention with the likes of Helen Mirren as the backstabbing constable, David Tomilson as Sir Roger Avery (his last film as well, not a way to end a career), and Sid Ceasar (who gives a rather whimsical performance of Al Capone's relative who works for the FBI). These characters also kept me watching.<br /><br />The sets were also nice. Oriental designs and English society in 1933 was depicted with elegance in this dud-of-a-picture.<br /><br />In all honesty, my advice to you is to watch the film if you are a Peter Sellers or Sid Ceasar fan. Otherwise, you're better off settling on chewing aluminum foil.
I can hardly believe I watched this again last night after more than 25 years...<br /><br />Some time back, I watched 6 Fu films in a row... Boris Karloff, and all 5 Chris Lees. The last 2 Lees, both directed (and I use that word loosely) by Jess Franco, were abominable. At the time, I skipped this one, remembering that, in some ways, it was EVEN WORSE.<br /><br />Well, I watched it. NEVER again. You know what's worse that an abominable film? A really WELL-MADE piece of S***. And that's what FIENDISH PLOT is. It is a VERY good-looking movie. GREAT production design, sets, costumes, music, photography, editing, mostly good cast, some decent acting...<br /><br />...and absolutely, positively, one of the WORST SCRIPTS in movie history!!!!! AAAUGH!!!!! The first minute of the film is so deceptive... one might mistake this for a decent movie. And then they start singing "Happy birthday to Fu"... and it goes downhill. Having Burt Kwouk (of whom his master says, "Your face-- is familiar.") accidentally pour out Fu's elixir vitae to put out a fire, resulting in his being condemned to torture, burial and having one of his ears cut off, was the closest thing to funny they had. It was like someone decided they wanted to do a "campy" film-- so ridiculous it would be funny. RIDICULOUS, it is... FUNNY... it AIN'T. At all.<br /><br />It's sad, because it's clear in the first few minutes that someone did a LOT of research into the Fu Manchu series in order to get so much of it "right". With a different script-- either a really FUNNY one, or a dead SERIOUS one, they might have-- could have-- SHOULD have-- had a classic on their hands. A film that could have made one forget the horror of those Jess Franco atrocities... instead of making one want to dig them out as masterpieces, by comparison.<br /><br />There was a period in the late 70's when a whole slew of classic 30's characters were revived in movies that were universally awful. Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Tarzan, The Lone Ranger, Charlie Chan, even Doc Savage. I'm not sure, this one may be the worst of the lot. It took great self-control not to fast-forward over whole sections of it, especially any scenes containing Sid Caesar (FBI chief who was also Al Capone's cousin-- you see what I mean?). It isn't just that the ideas in the film aren't funny... they often make NO SENSE whatsoever. Like when they "audition" police officers to impersonate the King and Queen, and we wind up seeing people "audition" dance-hall routines like singing, dancing, and riding a unicycle. How many drugs did the writers of this thing have to take for any of this to make sense to them? <br /><br />As I said, a shame... and a real waste of all that talent, including that of Peter Sellers (who played both Fu and Nayland Smith), Burt Kwouk (who'd been in a Chris Lee Fu film in his time), Helen Mirren (the police woman who shockingly falls in love with the villain and damn near steals the last half-hour of the film!). I begin to wonder if anyone will EVER make a "proper" Fu Manchu film, or if fans will have to settle for Karloff's being almost the ONLY one?
It is true that some fans of Peter Sellers work may be disappointed with this, his last venture. But surely any fan of Sellers will find delight in all of his films, simply because of the man's huge talent. and The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu is certainly no exception. Unfortunately this would prove to be Sellers last film, (it was even released after his death), but it's still nice to see how the man had managed to keep his irreplaceable talent right until his untimely demise. And not only do we get one Sellers, but we get to, for Sellers plays not only the title role but also his nemesis, the equally bizarre Nayland Smith, the detective on the hunt for the crazed 168 year old Fu. The story is equally outlandish as we follow Fu's outrageous antics to make his age-defying elixir and also Nayland and his group of associates trying to prevent him. Just like any of Sellers greater films, the film comes with a guaranteed impeccable performance from him, as well as many of his familiar-faced co-stars - David Tomlinson, Sid Caesar, John Le Mesurier, Clive Dunn and Helen Mirren to name a few. It's also nice to see Pink Panther stalwart Burt Kwouk (Cato) enjoying a cameo with Sellers - albeit playing the same role, but still nice. The story is indeed pretty ridiculous, as are many of the characters involved, which classes this as a film strongly under the Goon influence. And, although it never reaches the heights of Goon comedy, there are plenty of amusing jokes that seem to point in the right direction. The film failed commercially on it's initial release due to the entire world mourning after Sellers' death (the film was released less than 3 weeks after)and there is always that sorrowful thought lurking in the back of your mind when viewing it that this was Sellers last film. It's far from a great film - it's often slow, too ridiculous, and sometimes the jokes simply aren't there - but it is nevertheless enjoyable - if only for another top rate performance from Peter Sellers.
There's no getting around it-- this movie is terrible. I've seen the old Christopher Lee/Fu Manchu movies, I'm familiar with the characters and it's serial origins, but it's still just godawful. However, Peter Sellers' genius still shines through with his portrayal of Nayland Smith, with echoes of sadness, tragedy, and strength simmering through a stoic facade; it's a performance I place on par with Peter Cushing's portrayal of Van Helsing but done in a tenth of the cumulative screen time of all Cushing's "Dracula" movies. If the movie was done in a more serio-comic vein like BUBBA HO-TEP by way of the 1960's AVENGERS TV show, this could've been something special. If you're a Fu Manchu or Peter Sellers completest, this is something you need to see, but it's a pass for anyone else.
Even if one didn't realize that Sellers was in poor health at the time of filming and passed away before the film's release, THE FIENDISH PLOT OF DR. FU MANCHU would be painful viewing. It is supposedly a lampoon of Sax Rohmer's famous Oriental villain but it lacks any focus. The potential for satirical commentary on the anti-Oriental overtones of Rohmer's concept are ignored. Indeed, the movie employs racist insults. There are hardly any actual jokes or gags, just mostly actors behaving idiotically and spouting dreary lines. It is especially distressing to see Sid Caesar forced to spout curses and racial slurs for attempted laughs. Most of the other actors embarrass themselves as well.<br /><br />And then there's Peter Sellers. He plays the dual roles of the sinister Fu Manchu, who is trying to concoct a formula to regain his youth and his stalwart British foe Nayland Smith. Sellers isn't one hundred per cent bad; he conveys a quirky warmth as Smith when he discusses his fetishistic attachment to his lawn mower and he's oddly moving as Manchu when he expresses his love for English music hall entertainment. But most of the time, he plays both roles with a weary grimness, thus further sabotaging any comical possibilities. Sellers' routines where he revitalizes his fading strength with electric shocks are particularly excruciating; he seems too convincingly agonized to be funny. <br /><br />A few genuinely witty lines, an apt slapstick bit by Burt Kwouk (Cato in the PINK PANTHER films) as one of Manchu's minions, and Helen Mirren's amusing musical numbers cannot salvage this mess. If anyone wants to understand why Peter Sellers is considered a comedic genius, they won't learn anything from THE FIENDISH PLOT OF DR. FU MANCHU.
Ok so here's the basic plot. It is 1933, Peter Sellers is Dr Fu Manchu, a 168 year old Chinese man who has lived quite a long time. The film opens with his birthday in which he celebrates by drinking a special elixir that (even the film never mentions) prolongs his life. Well on this occasion the elixir is clumsily dropped by an assistant (Kato if you remember the Pink Panther movies) and he orders his minions to then go find 6 rare items to make the elixir. This creates a global man hunt in which his henchmen end up robbing museums of diamonds and venturing into London, to meet up with Dr Fu's nemisis, a retired Scotland Yard detective Nayland Smith, also played by Sellers who tries to stop him in what is suppose to be a witty comedic adventure.<br /><br />This was apparantly Sellers last full length feature film that he made before he died. The terrible tragedy is that he was in it. Sellers who is such a gifted comedian and has had memorable 'funny' roles in the Panther movies and particualrly in the movie 'The Party', is anything BUT that in this film. This film was absolute torture to sit through and I couldn't even finish it. He completly DIES and I kept cringing while watching Sellers performance. After coming of the great work of 'Being There' a year earlier how, I mean HOW can he make this and HOW did this thing even get made??? Like one person mentioned the first 10..15 minutes are ok but then it is ALL DOWNHILL...<br /><br />Avoid like the plague.<br /><br />Rating 1 out of 10.
....shut it off. The prologue with Fu Manchu's birthday, and the opening credits of the assassins training, is amusing. Then it drops off faster than hair sprayed with Neat. Look for a cameo by Cato in the beginning, with a figurative wink at the audience.
It's one of the funny things about being young that one can be fooled easily by advertising. I have spoken before on another film,in which the commercial for the (comedy) film makes it seem funnier than it is. Seeing the ad for this in 1981 made me think this was going to be a wildly funny film. What I and my brother who went and saw it with me didn't know is that the scene used in the TV ad was the very last scene in the film! <br /><br />Since this scene is the end result of all that came before in the film,I can only guess that there was nothing else funny to use! The last scene is,thanks to a youth potion,Dr. Fu Manchu turns from a long bearded old man,into a bright young Asian/Elvis like rock star! (With back up singers no less!) <br /><br />Set for no real reason,in the 1930's,Peter Sellers does his best with the material at hand but he's not given any really good reason for his "comedic" moments. The rest of the actors were just plain dull and my brother and I sat all through this barely laughing at anything. It was only natural that we were expecting a "Pink Panther" type comedy,Peter Sellers was so great at that. <br /><br />It's a pitiful shame this was his last film before he died. His appearance on the Muppet Show was more entertaining than this ill-conceived flop. Still,I don't fault him. I fault everyone else involved for not trying to make a better film of this. 2 stars is being generous!!
This may not be the very worst movie Peter Sellers ever did (I think that laurel goes to "The Prisoner of Zenda") but it is surely the most depressing. Sellers, especially sans makeup as Nayland Smith, looks like he has just undergone chemotherapy. As Fu Manchu, he looks hardly better and spends most of the film (with the exception of those strangely disturbing scenes where he gets jolted with electrical currents) on the verge of collapsing under the weight of all that makeup. The supporting players also look tired and run down, and Sid Caeser's presence is offensive even without his constant references to "Chinks!" (One bright spot: this would be one of the last times a major motion picture would portray Asians so insultingly ... or, for that matter, star a non-Asian as one!). The film seems surprisingly cheap, with soupy photography and drab sets - even the whiz-bang Elvis number at the end looks cut-rate. Only the stunning Helen Mirren and the tall, thin, nervous guy who get his pants wet add any sparks of life to this sad affair. All in all, this film provides an eerie premonition of a great comic's death, and an even eerier documentation of his dying.
I don't have much to say about this movie. It could have been a wonderful tour-de-force for Peter Sellers, but it is one of the most tragic misfires in movie history. That it was Sellers final movie makes it all the more painful.<br /><br />The terrible screenplay, direction and shockingly wooden performances all come dreadfully together to make this one of the most unwatchably awful movies ever made.<br /><br />I wish so much that I could find even a snicker or a chuckle buried somewhere in this pile of putrid blubber, but it's a lifeless, humorless disaster. The truth hurts.<br /><br />Peter, why couldn't you have stopped at BEING THERE?
An unfunny, unworthy picture which is an undeserving end to Peter Sellers' career. It is a pity this movie was ever made.
This is not an all-around terrible comedy, but it is very DULL. It has barely any laughs, and it wastes its lavish production values. There is one poignant moment near the end, when Fu Manchu offers a dose of his elixir to his "nemesis" and tells him that "You've been my one worthy adversary; and now we can start all over again". That scene, however, along with Burt Kwouk's amusing cameo in the beginning, are the only memorable parts of the movie. (*1/2)
The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu (1980). This is hands down the worst film I've ever seen. What a sad way for a great comedian to go out.
I actually saw this movie in the theater back in it's original release. It was painful to watch Peter Sellers embarrass himself so badly. The story was incredibly lame and difficult to follow, and the ending was ridiculous. It was just sad to see how the mighty had fallen. I won't say that I'm a huge Peter Sellers fan, but I did thoroughly enjoy the Pink Panther series and I felt that he gave a strong performance in Being There. But this film should never have been made. From what I've read, he pursued producing this film against the advice of the people around him. Fine, but that still doesn't excuse the studio actually releasing the film.
This is, quite literally, the worst movie I have ever watched in my life. It may be the worst movie possible. Some movies are so bad that they're good; this movie is so bad that it goes past enjoyable camp and simply becomes unwatchably awful. It is the anti-enantiodromia. We bought it with the intent to heckle, and all of my family gathered around for a fun evening of clever remarks; instead, we sat in stunned silence, pitying poor Peter Sellers.<br /><br />This is worse than the animated Lord of the Rings. It is worse than the Matrix sequels. It is worse than Krull. It is worse than any Batman movie.<br /><br />Do not, under any circumstances, let this movie approach within ten feet of your television.
... or maybe it just IS this bad. The plot is a cheap rehash of the first, which is weird, since it's supposed to be a prequel, not a sequel. Pretty much the entire movie seems like a cheap remake of the first, with scenes mimicking the things that happened in the first, only a lot more ridiculous and unlikely. Where the first had a great cast, this one consist of B-list actors and rejects. The acting is mostly horrendously bad. Half of the good lines in the movie are taken directly from the first, as is nearly every major character, including the ones who weren't in the first movie. I realize this was made up by a TV series pilot episode, but that's no excuse. They didn't have to turn the (bad) footage into a movie. Only one thing is marginally good, and that's the erotic sequences. However, as these are nowhere near as good as the ones in the first, even this isn't raising it above a rating of 1. If you have a chance to see it for free, and you're a straight guy, it could be worth checking out, if you want something erotic that isn't porn. If not, avoid at all costs. 1/10
There isn't one decent scene.<br /><br />Amy Adams gives one of the worst performances of all time. Proof that you a can start anywhere. The guy playing Sebastian sucks, too. He doesn't even look much like Ryan Phillipe. More like Joshua Jackson. The two other girls are terrible, as well. <br /><br />Then the dialogue is also crap.<br /><br />Sebastian (About to have threesome): If you cant beat them... <br /><br />Virgin Girl: Who says you can't beat 'em?<br /><br />Lame.<br /><br />The ending contradicts the entire plot of the original. In the first film, it is clearly stated that Kathryn and Sebastian never had sex. One of the reasons Sebastian wanted Kathryn so bad, aside from the fact that she's played by Sarah Michelle Gellar, was that she was "the only girl he couldn't have and it killed him". She was a tease who liked playing with him. The fact that she never gave it to him increased his wanting. Then in this P.O.S., it implies that he CAN have her, along with a girl on the side. What? And we don't even see the sex, either. It's implied, making it not only stupid, pointless, and contradictory, but worthless too.<br /><br />And in the first one, Kathryn rejects Sebastian because he fell in love, making him a loser. Even though he won the bet, that crumbled his chances. Then in this excrement, he looses AND falls in love. So she doesn't screw "losers", only complete losers? Another thing: it's stated that Sebastian has never been in love, so what do you call the thing with Virgin Girl?<br /><br />Then at the end, virgin girl is all of sudden revealed to be Kathryn's evil lesbian lover (dun dun dun) and, like I said, they go into a lame offscreen threesome. Stupid. <br /><br />There's several other plot contradictions. Did the writer even see the first film? A 5 year old can point his stuff out.<br /><br />After the threesome, Sebastian has sex with the blonde virgin, corrupting her innocent mind in the back of a limo while Kathryn and Virgin Girl Turned Evil Lesbian In Lame Sudden Plot Twist sit in the front, listen, and smile evilly into the camera. <br /><br />The end... <br /><br />Seeing Sebastian become the ass hole he was in the first one could have made an interesting film. I guess all it took to make little Sebastian bad was a threesome with two hot girls. Interesting.
If you ask me the first one was really better one. Look at Sarah M. G., she is real, mean, cruel girl, look at Amy Adams she is just little fool hanging around. She is nothing! People don't adore her! Second, Sebastian was cute and hot in first movie, now he is "baby face". Story is not that good, and i do not understand. Why didn't they make this one first, it is the beginning. Loosy actors, nothing with story. This is not cruel, this is playing. First one has better actors, better story, and its mean. I think that the music is better in cruel intentions 1 and the music is better in cruel intentions 3. It is not the worst movie I saw, but in compaer with first one its one big, big, big nothing.
Because 'cruel' would be the only word in existence to describe the intentions of these film makers. Where do you even begin? In a spout of b*tchiness, I'm going to start with the awful acting of nearly everybody in this movie. Scratch that. Nearly does not belong in that sentence. I can't think of even one character who was portrayed well. Although, in all fairness, it would be nearly impossible to portray these zero dimensional characters in a successful way. Still, the girl who played Katherine (whose name I purposefully don't include - I'm pretending she doesn't exist) remains one of the worst actors I've ever seen, only eclipsed by the guy who played Sebastian. The story was God awful. It attempted to mirror the brilliance that was the first one but failed in so many ways. Pretty much every part of it was pointless - though I will admit (grudgingly) that the plot twist was quite good it its surprise. And the ending was at least slightly humorous. But this film is up there with the worst I've seen. Don't watch it. Just don't. There is absolutely no value in watching it. None. It only takes away the enjoyment of the first.
They had such potential for this movie and they completely fall flat. In the first Cruel Intentions, we are left wondering what motivated the lead characters to become the way they are and act the way they do. There is almost NO character development whatsoever in this prequel. It's actually a very sad story but this film did nothing for me. It was as if they left out good writing in place of unneeded f-words. And the end makes absolutely no sense and doesn't explain anything. The writing was just terrible. Another thing that bothered me was that they used at lease 3 of the EXACT SAME lines that were in the original. Such as "down boy", or the kissing scene, and a few others I can't remember. I was not impressed at all by Robin's acting, but Amy did a great job. That's about the only thing that reconciled this movie.
Basically, Cruel Intentions 2 is Cruel Intentions 1, again, only poorly done. The story is exactly the same as the first one (even some of the lines), with only a few exceptions. The cast is more unknown, and definitely less talented. Instead of being seductive and drawing me into watching it, I ended up feeling dirty because it compares to watching a soft-core porn. I'm not sure whether to blame some of the idiotic lines on the actors or the writers...and I always feel bad saying that, because I know how hard it is to do both...but it was basically a two-hour waste of my life. It literally amazes me that some movies get made, and this is no exception...I can't believe they'd make a third one.
Cruel Intentions 2 is bloody awful, I mean uber-bad. Words can not explain how bad it is, but I'll give it a go anyway.<br /><br />The plot of Cruel Intentions 2 is very similar to the first film. Sebastian (Robin Dunne), is kicked out of a private school and is forced to move to New York. There he decides to make a fresh start and just a life a normal life and settle down. Unfortunately he has to deal with his step-sister Kathryn (Amy Adams) wants to drag him down. Sebastain starts to fall in love Danielle (Sarah Thompson), the innocent daughter of the Headmaster of the school. Kathryn wants Sebastain to just sleep around with the whole school which had been describe as a 'whore-house'. Kathryn also wants to get revenge with Cherie (Keri Lynn Pratt), who humiliated her during the school assembly. Kathryn wanted to make the freshman into the biggest slut in the school, a similar sub-plot to the first film.<br /><br />Cruel Intentions 2 is basically a cancelled TV-show, which was turned into a prequel. There are so many problems with the film. It is poorly written, unfunny, and badly acted. Luckily for Amy Adams that the show never took off because now she is a fairly big actress. Whilst Cruel Intentions had a sense of realism and can been seen to be set in the real world, Cruel Intentions 2 is set in sitcom land and as described on amazon.co.uk 'a randy version of Saved by the Bell'. There were some dark themes involving sex and drug use in the first film, but in Cruel Intentions 2 tried to make it funny and some of the ideas in the film shouldn't be, such as Kathryn having an affair with a teacher. Other ideas also don't work such as the secret society where all the popular kids meet to discuss the downfall of other students. The film also had a major problem of sexualised 15/16-years-old. I know that teenagers do have sex, sometimes a lot, but when done on film or television, is treated very seriously. One famous sense was when Daneille encourages Cherie (who is around 14/15 in the film) to simulate sex on the back of a horse to the point where she has a orgasm. The idea of turning a girl around 14/15 into a slut is just very wrong with me, and shouldn't be made into a subject of comedy. The jokes in the film fall flat, whether if it's a verbal gag like 'she goes all moist when she sees you' to a visual gag where Sebastian pushes Kathryn face first into mud.<br /><br />There is a lot wrong with this film, which I don't have time to go into, but I say it should be avoid. Just watch Cruel Intentions, whilst not a classic, still is a decent film and treats the subject matter well.<br /><br />This film is just a pervert's wet dream, having school-kids having lots of sex with each other.
I watched this movie at 3'o clock in the morning, a time in the day where I am usually very open when it comes to movies. But still I think it wasn't good, this movie wasn't good at all. The reasons why are many.<br /><br />The acting isn't all that good, and time after time situations occurring in it reminded me of a poor 90's Chevy Chase comedy. I mean, come on, like the handcuff situation, and the poker situation amongst the servants... This movie was so obviously based very much on the first one, and thats OK. But if I hadn't seen the first one before seeing this, it would have sucked even worse. Like the ending, it came very suddenly, and I felt like I got no closure what so ever... Sebastian changed very suddenly, and this This movie seems like it was made solely to explain nr 1, and like no time or effort was used on making anything else good. The score is the same as in the first one, and it didn't feel like a movie at all...<br /><br />They should have handled the situations with more style and class, but they didn't, and therefore, this movie turned out bad...
The first Cruel Intentions, the original, is my favorite movie of all time. It was an absolute masterpiece. So how on earth could they make a sequel so downright bad. Sarah Michelle Gellar was perfect in the first movie. In this one, Amy Adams sucks. She is terrible. And couldn't they have found a chick who actually looked like Sarah Michelle Gellar? At least the same hair color!!! i mean come on. Robin Dunn isn't as bad as Adams, but he is absolutely terrible when compared to Ryan Phillipe. The Sebastian in the first film is devious, deceitful, and much more evil than the Sebastian in the prequel. And what is up with the story line. It basically goes like this...<br /><br />1- Sebastian has a bad rep at his first school, so the movie says, although it mentions nothing about him and his dating life, and how he has been with girls 2- Sebastian moves to New York, and just suddenly decides he's going to turn himself around. He "falls in love" with Danielle (might i remind you that in the original, Sarah Michelle giller says quote "you broke up with THE FIRST PERSON you ever loved because i said to- so how can he have been in love in the prequel???). And he's all nice and charming, and all "good person", as he turns down sex from the chick his dad was doing.<br /><br />3- He does a complete 180, and ends up in a threesome at the end of the movie, and then seducing Cherry.<br /><br />I mean, its terrible. And i loved the first one so much. I haven't even seen the third one yet. I hope to god its better than this prequel.
This so-called prequel is just a badly made remake to to a better version of Dangerous Liasons. The plots are identical as is most of the script. I loved the book its based off of, and I loved the first movie, but I'm not even going to bother with the 3rd movie. The pointless banter between the two main characters in the prequel was completely predictable and unoriginal, and...I just can't stress how bad the movie was. If you don't want to take my word for it, just watch it, and you'll see what I mean. If you've read a review that says that 'If you likes the first one, you'll like the second one' the only reason that is is because IT IS THE EXACT SAME MOVIE! Although the plot is not even as good. They took so many lines from the first movie, Its hard to tell which movie you're watching.
I was mad anyone made this movie. I was even more angry I lost valuable minutes of my life sitting still to watch this. I could have had a wax job and been more entertained. At least Cherri makes me laugh before it hurts. I was a bit confused at first but then I caught on and realized what was going on. By this time the film was half way through, and Yes I am a procrastinator but I always want to see things through until the end. So I stuck it out I watched it all. Not only are the actors not as attractive as in Cruel Intentions, they just aren't convincing. I've seen my nephew cry for attention more convincingly than the supposed lust portrayed on screen in this movie. If you like bad movies with bad acting watch this.
From the very opening scene you will notice just how hard they tried to mimic the very smart and powerful 'Cruel Intentions', and how flat it landed. You'll also notice what a terrible choice they made by casting Robin Dunne as Valmont... Then in the second scene, you meet the two best things in this movie, Amy Adams and Mimi Rogers as Kathryn and her mother. That is, if you can get past the fact that Kathryn wasn't blonde in the first film... Then the movie goes on, you see the cheap romantic story from miles ago, and you notice Sebastian has already met an Anette in the past, here called Danielle, and a Cecile, here called Cherie... How original is that for a prequel. Then it turns into a low budget 'Wild Things' type of film with lots and lots of oh-my "twists". As I mentioned, Robin Dunne was a very bad choice. Not that he is a bad actor, he's good.. He just doesn't have the charisma Ryan did. Amy Adams, who is in my opinion one of the most talented young actresses of our time, once again delivers. But with all the talent in the world, there is no way one could save this trash. As a whole, this "movie" feels like a 'Beverly Hills, 90210' episode. The score has been stolen from 'Cruel Intentions' and 'Jawbreaker'... Yes, they used the score from JAWBREAKER... Couldn't they at least leave that one alone?! You'll want to pass this one. If you want more Cruel Intentions, watch Stephen Frears' Dangerous Liaisons.
What can I say about Cruel intentions 2? Well, I can say in all honesty, I will only watch this film again if I am fastened to a chair and have my eyes opened clockwork-orange-style.<br /><br />The film 'stars' Robin Dunne (No, I never heard of him either), whose awful impression of Ryan Phillipe made me cringe throughout. In a case of terrible casting, Dunne attempts (and fails) to carry off playing a handsome charismatic, charmer. Since the actor is not handsome, nor charismatic nor charming, the character is left wholly unbelievable. Amy Adams, (she was in an episode of buffy one time), tries to pick up where Sarah Michelle Gellar left off and bring scheming Katherine to life... However, Adams is not that good a an actress and her performance was flat and lacking in any real emotion, often she looked like she was reading cue cards just off camera. There were two good actors in the film however, Barry Flatman (Saw 2 & Saw 3) and Mimi Rogers (Mrs Kensington in Austion Powers), made very good and entertaining performances as the parents of Sebastian and Katherine and are the only reason why I rated the film as a 2, not a 1.<br /><br />The film itself is a poor version of the original, with such lows as carbon copy's of dialogue and mimicked scenes which lacked the originality of the previous film.<br /><br />I think that as a TV show, it might have worked, but if it had been recasted with people who could actually act in the main parts.
<br /><br />When I first started watching this movie last night on Cinemax, I was shocked that it had been made. Cruel Intentions, in my opinion, was one of the best teen-oriented films made in years. This prequel had certain things incongruent with the original. (Sebastian's father married into wealth, then why does he have a rich Aunt on long island?)<br /><br />Then I found out today that it was not really intended to be a new movie, but rather a television series, Manchester Prep. After hearing that, it made sense to me that it wasn't the same as the movie, just as Buffy the Vampire Slayer is different in TV form. <br /><br />I think that Roger Kumble most likely added the ending that this movie had, AFTER the series wasn't picked up by Fox. It just seems like something that would happen too fast (Sebastian becoming the male version of Katharyn) and I just don't know where they would go with the next episode, since it wouldn't be leading to the 1999 Film (Which the newer ending is directed right towards.)<br /><br />One thing I didn't like was that it suggested Sebastian and his father had married into the wealth, which isn't typically looked good upon in this area of new york, and sine Katharyn's mother was just an adult version of her, it didn't seem like something a woman in her position would do, marry a man not of her social class. <br /><br />As a prequel this is fairly lame. But I would have been interested to see where this had gone as a series.
Alright normally i am not as harsh on sequels especially if the first film is done well and was ultimately a good movie. As for 1999 i feel that one of the top five films was Cruel Intentions. It had everything a great movie should have except for an original story, being adapted from a novel it was still damn good. On to Cruel Intentions 2 which was supposed to actually just be the opener for a series based on the film called manchester prep. Which must not have happened. Actually after seeing this trifle of a film i can understand. Before the thing started i was like at least the writer and director Roger Kumble did this one also. Well 1 minute into this movie i was disappointed. It starts off with a rehash of the opening of the original with a different twist sebastian instead of putting the shrinks daughter's naked picture on the net he puts the schools principals wife in the school directory naked. This would have been alright if the lady was not like 50. And basically the rest of the movie is a wannabe carbon copy of the original. Which i understand the if there is nothing wrong with it leave it the way it was. But you can not do that with a movie. This actually being a prequel i gave it a chance just to see how they turned out like they did in part 1. But with Sebastian being more or less just a prankster and Kathryn being a herself and turning sebastian into the sexual predator he was in the real story, this movie had no foundation to it. Whoever did the casting on this thing was way off. They could have at least tried to get people who looked like the original cast but no, they just hired a bunch of not even really good looking actors. I am using this term although i dont know why. They for sure didnt do any in this movie.<br /><br />All this movie is a bunch of one liners that dont even match the wit that the original had, well some of them did but that was just because they were from part 1. Another bad point was in part one you could understand the need for them to act out for attention because there was no involvement from teir parents this one had them in it and they were poorly used, as if to show why the kids are like this. It didnt work though. The best thing though about the original was that the cast had chemistry they took you into this world. The on screen tension that was there made the film what it was. This thing Really ruins the experience of the first one stay way from this.
I was willing to go with the original _Cruel Intentions._ It went along with the plot and stayed true to the characters of one of my favorite stories. However, this movie was, in my opinion, a crummy rehash with essentially the same story line and no clear character choices. I didn't honestly care what happened to any of them. The strongest part of the original story (Les Liasons, not CI) is the characters and their interactions, not the events themselves. I wasn't clear until I read the IMDB that this movie was meant to be a prequel, especially since the title includes a number "2," I expected a sequel, but then determined that it must be a companion piece. Over all, I must say that this movie read, to me at least, like a soft porn version of Les Liasons. I was not impressed.
This movie was like "The Disney Channel after Dark." Take out the "aren't we naughty" language and themes and you are left with dialogue and plot devices that insult the intelligence of anyone who doesn't describe "Saved by the Bell" as quality television. The dialogue so laughably cliched and knowingly dirty, one might think the screenplay was the product of locking Aaron Spelling and Joe Eszterhas in a room with orders to produce an amalgam of every bad script each had ever had a hand in creating. If that was Roger Kumble's intention, mission accomplished.
Christ, oh Christ... One watches stunned, incredulous, and possibly deranged, as this tawdry exercise in mirthless smut unfolds with all the wit and dexterity of a palsied Galapagos tortoise. Can such things be? Does this movie actually exist, or was I the unwitting guinea pig of some shadowy international drugs company, sipping my coffee unaware that it had been spiked with a dangerous hallucinogen? I've seen a lot of films, and a lot of bad films, but nothing prepared me for this; by the end of it I was a gibbering, snivelling wreck, tearing at the carpet with my teeth like a dog, clawing at the walls, howling till my lungs were sore. I pleaded desperately, frenziedly for mercy (to whom this appeal was made, I don't know), and longed with burning desire for the soothing balm of Ozu Yasujiro. Sweet Weeping Jesus, the memories... sometimes they come back to me. When I'm at my most vulnerable, when I'm least able to handle them. I shudder, I break down in tears, I bite my fingernails till my hands are slathered with blood, but I can't quite banish the awful flashbacks from my mind. I'm haunted. I'm damaged. I'm a shell of a man.<br /><br />The other user comments here suggest that I am not alone in having undergone this terrifying experience, which can only mean one of two things: a) the film does, in fact, exist, or b) I am but one victim among legions of an international conspiracy of truly sinister proportions. What is quite mind-boggling is that some people seem to have enjoyed their ordeal, or at least have not been left traumatised by it. Perhaps they're part of the operation. God damn them, the maniacs! God damn them all to Hell!!!!!!
This review also contains a spoiler of the first movie -- so if you haven't seen either movie and want to but don't want the spoilers, please don't read this review!<br /><br />While this movie is supposed to be about Christian and Kathryn meeting for the first time, the movie is a poor copy of the first Cruel Intentions. The actors that they had portray Ryan Phillippe's Christian and Sarah Michelle Gellar's Kathryn are very poor substitutes indeed. Neither can pull off the smarmy, snooty rich-kid attitude that the original actors did. It's absolutely appalling that some of the dialog was verbatim -- not so much between Christian and Kathryn, but if you listen closely enough you'll recognize it. There are also inconsistencies in the plot - if this were truly the first meeting of Christian and Kathryn, then why is it that Christian fell in love with a girl at the end of the movie? He supposedly was supposed to be in love for the first time in the original movie (with Reese Witherspoon's character).<br /><br />Also, the tie-in with the photography/"You could be a model" comment at the end was totally lame and didn't add anything at all. Overall, this movie was a waste of time. I can't believe they made a Cruel Intentions 3.
There is a reason why certain films go straight to video and of course the obvious reason is that if its too naughty for theater audience then release straight to video. Of course it really wouldn't be fair to the films that are good and yet they are also released straight to video. This one is not an exception although the film has good actors or at least actors with potential: Amy Adams (am Oscar nominee and talented actress), Robin Dunne who deserves better or at least a better agent, and Sarah Thompson who deserves roles that are a departure from teen melodramas. The film is also misstated: this film takes place before Cruel Intentions so therefore this film is actually a prequel and rather stupid one at that. This was a waste and its really a film that is in the same level as soft core porn and pay-per-view masturbation films. Fortunately for the actors, hopefully they will be able to erase this from their resumes. So if you are looking to see something naughty, but don't have the courage to buy porn then rent this film as a starter.
Who actually created this piece of crap this is the worst movie i have ever seen in my life it is such a waste of time and money. I hate it how they create low budget sequels featuring D-Lister actors and a storyline so similar to the 1st one.<br /><br />I found this movie in the bargain bin sitting right next to Wild Things 2 and Death To The Supermodels for $2.99 what a fool i was to actually think that this could be good instead i watched in disgust as poor acting stereotypes ripped of the storyline and script from the 1st one.<br /><br />Whoever thought that this straight-to-video production was actually even a half decent film you must be on crackd or something because I think what pretty much most of the people who've seen this film thinks WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!!!!
I think this is probably one of the worst movies I've watched in a long time.<br /><br />Trying to get the 'same characters' with different people is *such* a bad idea. If they couldn't get Sara Michelle G. and Ryan P. in this one, they should have just cut their losses and said to heck with it. Instead they get NEW actors that are horrible at what they did. I seriously felt like I was at a High School or (bad) College play with the lever of acting these people put forth.<br /><br />Where do they get some of these people? Was this their first movie? It sure seemed like it.<br /><br />This movie also parallels the original in a few lines of speech. I had just got done watching the first one and popped #2 in. I was all excited to get to watch the second one and it ended up being the worst show I've seen in a while. I don't hardly EVER *EVER* turn off a movie, but this one definitely went off after about 30 - 40 min.
I don't usually write a comment when there are so many others but this time I feel I have to. I have spoken of taste in another review, saying it's all in the eye of the beholder but when it comes to this film, if you like it, it simply means you have bad taste.<br /><br />I love films. I loved "Isle of the Dead" which is pretty much an unknown B&W film. I even liked "Scream" and "Scary Movie" I liked these films because they have, if not a lot, at least something good about them. I appreciate 99.9% of the films I've seen because they tell a story which I haven't heard before, and most directors only make films with a good storyline. Throughout this film I was thinking "Where is this going?" (even near the end) "Where did they get these awful actors from"? "Was that supposed to be a joke?" and suchlike. With the obvious twist looming I was sceptical, but hoped it would perhaps "make" the film and prove I hadn't wasted my time. I was sadly mistaken. The storyline was bad to begin with and the twist actually ruined any glimmer of hope there was. Here's a rundown: Storyline – much like the first film, which was alright, this one is slow and sparse with no audience relation to the characters or the situations. The situations are cringeworthy and shallow and completely boring and predictable. The twist was terrible, it didn't make me feel a thing, like excitement or WOW. Just "My GOD." There was nothing in the bulk of the film that you could look back to and think "Oooo wasn't that clever" because it wasn't. In "Fight Club" there are flashbacks at the end showing bits where Tyler's true identity was cryptically shown, and when you watched it again you saw more, it really was a work of genius, how it was written, laid out and directed. This was a meaningless attempt at an awesome twist. I think it was "wild things" that had like a pretty poor double twist and I still liked the film because the rest was OK and it wasn't trying too hard to be a big twist. Its like the CI2 writer thought it was gonna be the best twist ever. But really, its just a bad story with a bad twist dumped on the end. The film ended almost immediately afterward, with the whole film void by Sebastian's whole story build up meaning nothing and a horrible half forced, paedophilic ending with a particularly young and innocent acting girl. Acting – the actors in this film are appalling. Almost as bad a "Sunset Beach." - Extremely corny and badly performed. It's not even so bad it's good like "Hunk". The worst acting I thought came from Amy Adams who played Kathryn, it was a rigid, pathetic and badly thought out performance by her. Robin Dunne was also poor. I haven't seen "American Psycho II" yet, but no doubt his laid back "cool" style has ruined that film also.<br /><br />I can't even say it is a good film for teens, as its not. If my son or daughter liked this film I'd be ashamed. But they wouldn't anyway, as they would take into consideration all the things that make a good film, which this film has none of. Really. I'm disappointed that some have said "you might not be in the age bracket for this film, and so dislike it" I like all the films now that I liked as a teen and had very good taste. Also, do you really think that when you reach 20+ you suddenly don't like any teenish story lines? No. I liked "Mean Girls" and other generic teen films, and watch "Beverly Hills 90210" all the time. There's no excuse for poor directing, acting and screenplay I'm afraid. Besides, I was 16/17 when I first watched it. If anything, being older just makes you a better judge of a terrible film. I can't believe anyone can give it 10/10 either, one of my favourite films is "Memento" and I gave it 9 as I know there can be better. It is a shame for this site that people do that, give 10s flippantly, or don't get the films/show, and so give it 2.<br /><br />Anyone who liked this film really should vary their taste, and perhaps their lives, and with this realise that this is the worst film EVER made. (worse than "Loch Ness")<br /><br />If you aren't a teenager with bad taste, or simply don't have bad taste you will absolutely hate this film.
Okay, let me break it down for you guys...IT'S HORRIBLE! <br /><br />If Roger Kumble did such a fancy job on the first Cruel Intentions then why did he do such a bad job on this. I'm sorry but this movie is stupid, true it may have improved if its series was ever aired but lets be realistic...this movie a crock! A lot of bad acting *NOTE The Shower scene* "Kissing Cousins" ?????? What kind of line is that? "Slipery when wet" ?????????? Can we say DUH-M! This movie had effort, I'll give you that, but it was too stupid! They even tried to make it funny by giving the house servants stupid accents which actually....WASN'T FUNNY! It was pathetic. Not to mention that they made everyone in the this one look Absolutely NOTHING like the original cast. It's as if they made them look different on purpose or something! I like watching it when I'm really really really board which doesn't happen occasionally. For those of you who did like it...Okay, what were you thinking? Could you possibly choose this movie over the other one which had great acting and the fabulous Sarah Michelle Gellar? A movie is gold if it has Sarah Michelle Gellar in it, DUH! But this movie doesn't, no offense Amy Adams. Oh, yeah since when does Sebastain have a heart????? UGH!
I've seen this movie today for the first time and I never heard of it before, probably because of it's poor message. <br /><br />First of all, the directing itself is quite good, the actors played well and the CGI (I'm not a fan of CGI) is magnificent. But that alone doesn't make a movie. No story at all, no message behind beautiful exploited talents.<br /><br />Or do I have to make people remember, the art of a director is not only your vision but to know how to tell a story. And this is what's missing the whole 7 minutes.<br /><br />There for a simple 4 rating.
Friz Freleng's 'Speedy Gonzalez' was the second cartoon to feature the title character after Robert McKimson's 'Cat-tails for Two'. In that cartoon, Speedy has been an ugly little creature with a big gold tooth but by his second appearance the famous design had already been adopted. Despite looking significantly more handsome, Speedy never developed into much of a character. A big hat, tremendous speed and a bad Mexican accent do not a classic character make and that's pretty much all Speedy ever had going for him. Nevertheless, the cocky little mouse proved enormously popular and went on to star in many shorts including some truly abysmal films from the studio's latter days. While these early Speedy shorts are better than those later atrocities in which he was frequently (rather oddly) paired up with Daffy Duck, they still leave much to be desired, relying on predictable gags usually based around a similar chase formula. In this self-titled episode, Speedy is recruited by some other mice to steal cheese for them from the local factory which happens to be guarded by Sylvester the cat. Although he brings the extra weight of a star turn to the cartoon, Sylvester's role here could just as easily been filled by any other generic cartoon cat. His personality is sapped by his being forced into the predictable. undemanding role of pursuer. This was always a problem in the Tweety cartoons too but Speedy makes an even duller adversary thanks to his detestable cockiness and the blatant impossibility of his capture. Poor old Sylvester would be forced to appear alongside Speedy for many years to come. Despite it following a pretty basic formula and featuring minimal laughs, 'Speedy Gonzalez' won an Oscar and a thoroughly undeserving star was born.
Seriously, I've read some of the reviews on this film, and I have to ask, were you people watching the same movie.<br /><br />Yes, I give the set directors a lot of credit for being able to recreate 1930 vintage Los Angeles, but so what? <br /><br />None of the characters are likable, the story seems aimless, Karen Black is simply not a very good actress. Donald Sutherland is just icky. (and his character "Homer Simpson" makes me wish for the animated version. D'oh!) Then you had the creepy child actor, the creepier Billy Barty, and so on.<br /><br />This is one of those films cinema buffs love and the rest of us look at each other and go, "What the heck!"
A propaganda film for the Palestinian "cause". If you were expecting an unbiased documentary on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you will need to look elsewhere. If you are an anti-Semite (or merely an anti-Zionist---nothing wrong with advocating the destruction of a country, right?) or uncritically in support of Palestinian goals (e.g., mass murder, the destruction of Israel), this is the documentary for you. Should make for an entertaining evening on college campuses around the UK and US. However, any informed and intellectually honest person would be outraged at the sheer number of lies presented in this video. I just hope those who truly are unaware of the situation aren't corrupted by this anti-Semitic filth.
The movie has only one flaw, unfortunately this flaw damages all credibility of the piece.<br /><br />It starts with the condemnation of the Israeli occupation of disputed territories. It fails to address the reason Israelis are there. Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan attacked Israel. This is why Israel "occupys" their land, because those countries lost it in a war they started.<br /><br />The film also claims that Israel has defied the U N by not complying with Resolution 242. Problem is, 242 was rejected immediately upon it's inception by.....the palestinians, making it void.<br /><br />Many films are put together well, and can really show footage that changes minds, but remember, when watching anything, believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.<br /><br />All participants in this film are known critics of Israel, and some have made many antisemitic public comments, removing any possible credibility to their words.<br /><br />All participants are in dire need of a actual history lesson taught objectively, not by some palestinian sympathizer.
It's been said several times - not least by me - that watching an Eric Rohmer film is like watching paint dry; it seems that Monsieur Rohmer resents this (he doesn't deny it, but then how could he, he just resents it) so much so that his new movie, which may also be his last, Inch Allah, is set so far back in time that it's like watching woad dry. Those wonderful people who gave you the Nouvelle Vague, Cahiers du Cinema have already named it one of the best films of 2007 so that should give you some idea. Reality is not high on Rohmer's agenda so that in 5th Century France we have at one extreme a château that would not be out of place in the Loire valley whilst the only other dwelling we see is a rude wooden hut. The story involves nymphs and shepherds and as he often does Rohmer has cast it with unknowns who just happened to be passing so that the overall effect is that the annual class play at a school for Special Needs pupils was captured on film by accident. One is almost tempted to say 'Come back Godard, all is forgiven' but even this woeful production can't make me utter those words.
How do I begin to review a film that will soon be recognized as the `worst film of all time' by the `worst director of all time?' A film that could develop a cult following because it's `so bad it's good?'<br /><br />An analytical approach criticizing the film seems both pointless and part of band-wagon syndrome--let's bash freely without worry of backlash because every other human on earth is doing it, and the people who like the film like it for those flaws we'd cite.<br /><br />The film's universal poor quality goes without saying-- 'Sixteen Years of Alcohol' is not without competition for title of worst film so it has to sink pretty low to acquire the title and keep a hold of it, but I believe this film could go the distance. IMDb doesn't allow enough words to cite all the films failures, and it be much easier to site the elements 'Sixteen Years of Alcohol' does right. Unfortunately, those moments of glory are so far buried in the shadows of this film's poorness that that's a task not worth pursuing.<br /><br />My impressions? I thought I knew what I was getting into, I had been warned to drink several cups of coffee before sitting down to watch this one (wish that suggestion had been cups of Vodka). Despite my low expectations, 'Sixteen Years of Alcohol' failed to entertain me even on a `make fun of the bad movie' level. Not just bad, but obnoxiously bad as though Jobson intentionally tried to make this film a poetical yawn but went into overkill and shoved the poetry down our throats making it not profound but funny . .. and supposedly Jobson sincerely tried to make a good movie? Even after viewing the 'Sixteen Years of Alcohol' promotional literature, I have trouble believing Jobson's sincerity. Pointless and obnoxious till the end with a several grin/chuckle moments (all I'm sure none intentional)spiced the film, and those few elements prevented me from turning the DVD off. So bad it's good? No. It had just enough 'I can't believe this is a serious movie moments' to keep me from turning it off, and nothing more.<br /><br />Definitely a film to watch with a group of bad-movie connoisseurs. Get your own running commentary going. That would've significantly improved the experience for me. So bad it's Mike Myers commentating in his cod Scottish accent on it as it runs, to turn this whole piece of sludge into a comic farce "Ok dare ma man, pass me annuder gliss of dat wiskey".
Rounding out the 1929-30 all-talkie "Our Gang" release schedule, "A Tough Winter" features two storylines. First, Wheezer and Mary Ann, home alone on a wintry day, decide to make some taffy. Little Wheezer relays the directions to Mary Ann from a radio cooking show. The problem: Wheezer relays information from different shows and Mary Ann ends up putting soap in the mix! Funny moments occur when the rest of the Gang shows up to pull the taffy - and end up getting it all over the house!<br /><br />The second storyline deals with Stepin Fetchit, a neighbor/handyman of the Gang, and his interactions with the Gang.<br /><br />"A Tough Winter," to my knowledge, has never been shown on television, although it is available on home video. The reason for this is the Stepin Fetchit characterization which shows a shifty, sly, and slow-moving character. "Our Gang" producer Hal Roach called Fetchit a "skilled comic" and used this "Our Gang" entry as a pilot for a Fetchit comedy series that never saw the light of day. Understandably, Fetchit's characterization is offensive to many people today, which explains why the film has been shelved.<br /><br />Although there are some funny moments both with Fetchit and the taffy, "A Tough Winter" is a plodding and meandering effort. If one positive came out of this film, it was that the Hal Roach Studios grew confident and experienced in making talkies. The sound in the film is good, and some of the sound effects used are very funny. For this reason, this film in part paved the way for the excellent 1930-31 "Our Gang" films.<br /><br />3 out of 10.
This Hal Roach comedy short, A Tough Winter, is the ninety-ninth in the "Our Gang/Little Rascals" series and the eleventh talkie. Bascally a showcase for black comic Stepin Fetchit who gets special billing here, we see him going to his shack where the gang hangs out. Farina retrieves a love letter from the mail for him and is told by Stepin to read it since he can't read it during the day as he goes to NIGHT school. It happens to be from his sweetheart in Tennesse so now Farina has to have his ears stuffed with cotton since it's too hot for him to hear! In another room, Weezer relays instructions to Mary Ann of making taffy from the radio but because he keeps running back and forth to the kitchen, he misses the lady announcer's segue to rice pudding and Spanish tamale confusing Mary Ann with additions of Tabasco and Lux! After the concoction is completed, Jackie and the rest of the gang help themselves with the awful tasting but very sticky substance as everyone gets stuck on the walls as a result. As they all try to clean the mess, Stepin works in the basement on various pipes and electrical outlets that mixes variable appliances' functions such a telephone that vacuums, a vacuum that rings, and a refrigerator that plays music! The End. What I've just described portends the meandering nature of this "Our Gang" short that served as the pilot for a potential Stepin Fetchit movie short series. It's just as well that it never took place as Fetchit's characterization of the lazy Negro was amusing only in small doses and would be considered highly offensive today. Many of the scenes I've just described are good for some laughs though the final sequence was so confusing that the results were just too blah for me. So in summary, A Tough Winter is a curio worth seeing at least once. By the way, Stepin's real name was Lincoln Theodore Perry.
What a wasted cast.<br /><br />This is one of the most disappointing films I've seen.<br /><br />Usually Roger Ebert does not let me down, but I feel cheated after seeing this movie.<br /><br />The only thrill is seeing Elizabeth banks in her bra. That is a sorry statement about this movie. It held so much promise, but it was like dry humping a transvestite.<br /><br />This is self absorbed tripe.<br /><br />I cannot express deeply enough my bitterness at having sat through this movie, and hope I can forewarn you of the same disappointment.
I thought they should have called this movie "Whites" instead of "Heights". Godawful...the kind of film that makes people hate New Yorkers. People who are so self obsessed and think their lives are so important...give me a break. Such a lily white cast that Glenn Close was the most ethnic character in it, this film was crying out for someone real to come in and steal it...and so they introduce, get this, a character even whiter than the rest of the cast (I thought he was an albino at first)who's supposed to be Welsh!I'm still trying to decipher that accent! Intellectually dishonest...this movie is the kind of film that's able to fool so many people into thinking it's worthwhile because it has the trappings of something more ambitious. Better to fill the theaters with MI5-10 than with this pretentious crap...must have been a better play because you can't fall off the floor.
Pam Grier stars as Coffy. She's a nurse who seeks revenge, on the drug dealers who got her sister hooked on bad heroine. Like any 70s Blaxploitation flick, you can expect to see the racist bad guys get their just desserts. <br /><br />There were scores of these films made during the 70s, and they were really demeaning to both black and white audiences alike. This is mainly due to the vicious racial hostility in these films, and the degrading, stereotypical characters. Especially the female characters. <br /><br />Other common threads between Coffy, and other films of its type, include brutal violence, corrupt cops, car chases, a generous abundance of nudity, and sex-crazed gorgeous women. Not to mention urban ghettos populated by drug-dealers, pimps, mobsters, and other criminal scum.<br /><br />Pam Grier, was the undisputed queen of 70s Blaxploitation heroines. She was magnificent, being both tough-as-nails, and drop-dead gorgeous. Like in her other films, Pam outshines the other characters, in Coffy. In fact, Pam is so charismatic on screen, that these sorts of films are unwatchable, without her as the main character. <br /><br />If you like Pam Grier, you're better off seeing her other films, like Foxy Brown, or perhaps Friday Foster. These films have much less empty sleaze, than Coffy does. Pam's character in Coffy, degrades herself way too much to get the bad guys. Pam's characters in her other Blaxploitation films, don't stoop as low to get revenge, as Coffy did. <br /><br />I'd say, only watch Coffy, if you're unable to see any of Pam Grier's other films. Otherwise, Coffy is a waste of time. Only Pam's talent as an actress, makes viewing Coffy bearable.
Far from providing the caffeine kick you'd expect from a film that shares its name with the most energy-boosting of warm beverages, Coffy clunks about and never really rises above being just a ropey revenge tale. Indeed, if the movie was a cup of coffee, it'd be rather weak and watery, littered with a few undesirable dregs and lacking in a lingering aftertaste. Sporadically it hits the spot, but otherwise it isn't the hot action-drama it hopes to be.<br /><br />Plot-wise, Coffy is a nurse who takes the law into her own hands and delivers hard justice to the drug-pushing, lady-pimpin', mob-suckers that hooked her younger sister into a depraved, sick state. Socio-political commentary on the plight of urban black youths in America is prominent in Coffy, and it makes for some thought-provoking stuff as Coffy crusades against the political corruption and white establishment racism that profits and acts as a parasite off the targeted Afro-American minorities. Sadly, the timely messages are undermined by the film's poor quality and lack of focus. Coffy's ideas are important, it's just that they are not well-aimed.<br /><br />One of the plus points of Coffy is the presence of Blaxploitation icon Pam Grier. Grier goes at her role with gusto and makes for an appealing action heroine as she shotguns down the scum in her often spectacular acts of vigilante violence (how do you deal with a house full of hoods? Drive the car right through the front door!). It's just a shame that the storyline wavers on occasions, wasting time squeezing as much sexual exploitation as possible. The low budget can't have helped, but neither does the fact that for a Blaxploitation flick, Coffy lacks groove. Just as the issues are undermined by the lack of quality, consequently the entertainment and excitement are also skewered by moments of dullness and misdirection.<br /><br />The total result is workmanlike and wooden. We get a hip heroine but not a hip movie. It's a shame as Coffy has its moments and should rightly be regarded as a key film in the Blaxploitation craze; it just never ascends above being an average, lukewarm number.
Poorly-made "blaxploitation" crime-drama aimed squarely at the black urban market of the early 1970s. Pam Grier stars in the title role, that of a nurse who becomes a one-woman vigilante after drug-dealing thugs make Coffy's little sister a junkie. Violent nonsense plods along doggedly, with canned energy and excitement; only Grier's flaring temper gives the narrative a jolt (she's not much of an actress here, but she connects with the audience in a primal way). Not much different from what Charles Bronson was doing at this time, the film was marketed and advertised as crass exploitation yet still managed to find a sizable inner-city audience. Today however, it's merely a footnote in '70s film history, and lacks the wide-range appeal of other movies in this genre. *1/2 from ****
The reason this is such a bad movie is because it is so very badly written, and this is entirely the fault of the hack novelist Robert James Waller, also author of Bridges of Madison County. The writing is bad because the plot is perfectly trite and the dialogue is wooden and implausible. A failing couple—a blocked American writer and a pretty Mexican woman with a history of which she is ashamed—are swept up by a strong, self-directed criminal, and after a few adventures (mostly terrifically violent) alternating with scenes that show the warmer side of the assassin, she leaves the impotent partner for the killer, who, bad as he is, sees her more clearly than anyone has before. Nothing can help this movie succeed, not even the seamed face of Scott Glenn as the killer, not the appealing latinity of Giovanna Zacarías as Luz, and not even the stalwart performance of Harvey Keitel as the CIA specialist assigned to track the killer down. A serious waste of time.
An OK flick, set in Mexico, about a hit-man (Scott Glenn) who hitches a ride with struggling American writer and his Mexican girlfriend after a hit. He pays them to take him to the border – but things get out of hand.<br /><br />It starts well enough, but quickly struggles and dies.<br /><br />**SPOILER**<br /><br />The eventual relationship twist is badly set up and difficult to believe. An absence of passion, and essentially no reasoning behind her leaving one man for the other, made it ridiculous - and the ending was predictable and dull.<br /><br />**END SPOILER**<br /><br />Harvey Keitel is the US agent on the hit-man's trail, but he seems a little confused as to how boring and slow the script is...
Terrible!!! I don't want to be too negative but this film has an IQ of stupid monkey.What a disaster.I just couldn't believe how bad this movie is.The dialogs are just very strange and off topic,the camera work at times just horrible,the music at times like a soundtrack for Lawrence of Arabia,I just watched this film to see how much worse it can get.Some of the side kick "actors" are total disaster.Sorry but all my thumbs and toes and anything that can hang downwards on my body is falling to the ground. Harvey Keitle is a great actor but who knows maybe he is in financial crunch to take a part in such a fiasco film. . . . . this movie should have been presented to all the students in all the film schools just to teach them a lesson of how not to make a film
It's not a terrible movie, really, and Glenn and Keitel are top-notch actors. Further, they do an acceptable job with the very weak script. The scenery is lush and the plot has some interesting twists. Further, I umderstand why these actors and the crew made the film, they are professionals and they get paid for it. But I do wonder why studios spend the time and money to make a film and then don't release it for theater audiences? Even if a film is a box-office flop, surely it makes some money. If you are a fan of Keitel or Glenn, rent the video or catch it on TV, as did I. Granted, the movie won't help solve the immigration quandary with Mexico, but the experience is far better than 90% of the standard TV fare of today.
Are we talking about the same movie? This movie is totally ridiculous, the plot is disgusting and completely without logic. Its a typical straight to DVD/TV-movie including all the necessary ingredients for a horrible movie experience: Over-acting by has been actors, side steps from the plot that are left unexplained, THE GIRL SHOWS HER T*ts(why, god, why??), people do not react to things as they would in real life. I'm not even gonna bother you with details, it would take all night. Well, OK, just one: If two people were murdered in front of you as you were walking down the street, one of the victims practically dies in your arms, his blood spurts from his head-wound all over you, would your first concern be; "Oh, he left the world and the last thing he saw was my angry face!"? My thoughts goes to Harvey and his lost career.
Saw this movie recently and had higher hopes. Not so much based upon the director, who hadn't made a cinematographic release before, but more based upon its cast. Harvey Keitel, Scott Glenn and Craig Wasson (lead role in Body double, a Brian De Palma masterpiece) have all starred in great movies. Not together though, and this fact hasn't exactly changed because of this one.<br /><br />The film is unbelievable, very predictable and cliché. The only thing that might make it slightly appealing is the selection of locations on which it's been shot. In my humble opinion: don't waste your time on this one.
One of the worst movies I ever saw. My only thought was: "how can I get my money back from Hollywood Video". This is no way worth four dollars, or any dollars. I think it was an attempt to rip off The Mexican, or Vin Diesel's movies, but it failed miserably to do this.<br /><br />The acting was terrible, I felt sorry for the actors that they couldn't find something better to do with their time. The story was ridiculous. We were calling out the lines ahead of the actors, it was so predictable. The Mexican accent of the leading lady was insultingly exaggerated, worse than a cartoon. <br /><br />Skip it.
Lucky me! I got a sneak peak at this pathetic little shot-in-Texas 'horror' flick from Artisan Entertainment a week before it hit video shelves and let me tell you...I've rarely laughed so hard in my life as I did watching this atrocious megabomb fly off the rails and steal the title of 'worst killer clown movie ever made' from the insufferably stupid Full Moon fiasco KILLJOY (I'm sure many of us horror fans have suffered through that one!) From all indications, it was shot on DV, and it doesn't really 'look' all that bad quality-wise for digital, but boy does it ever fail miserably in every other area where it counts!<br /><br />The story (slight and cliche as it is) goes as follows... An executive (Ken Hebert, who also scripted and co-produced with the director) takes skeptical co-worker Tracy (Amanda Watson) and horny married couple Mark and Susan (Hank Fields and Chris Buck) along on a weekend getaway to a (yawn) secluded cabin `12 miles' from the nearest town. On the way there, they pick up a bitchy/slutty hitchhiker (Melissa Bale) in a bar and end up at their destination where a nightly campfire tale about a murderous clown stalking the very same wooded area comes true when each of the profanity-yackin, pot-smokin ‘friends' disappears one-by-one, with only mutilated doll parts left behind to tell the tale of their fates.<br /><br />The killer clown doesn't even show up in the film until near the end and it looks nothing like the demonic depiction of it on the video box (aside from being morbidly obese). It basically spends an hour prancing around in the woods, chopping up wood and blabbing nursery rhymes. I cannot say enough bad things about the cast, especially the two guys and the hitchhiker chick, who either deliver their insipid dialogue with a bare minimum of enthusiasm or overact at the most inappropriate times. Doesn't really help that the script is completely and utterly devoid of suspense, originality, intelligence, general coherence or humor. I could go on for days on how inept this film is, how many continuity errors there are and how amateurish the whole production is, but I'll just nod off by pointing out the whole package is quite a riot in that Boy-This-Sucks kind of way.<br /><br />Also noting that the film has been released here in the US as S.I.C.K. (SERIAL INSANE CLOWN KILLER). It's currently catalogued under its (original title) of GRIM WEEKEND.<br /><br />Score: 1 out of 10
This was, so far, the worst movie I have seen in my entire life, and I have seen some REALLY bad movies. I saw this movie at my local video store, and the cover looked like it could be a decent horror movie. Little did I know that the cover would be the best part of the movie. Where to start? The filming of the movie was scattered and boring. At one point, there is a one-minute scene of no one talking, just a car driving to a ranch on a normal sunny day. Nothing happened, they just drove in silence. The whole movie is boring, with annoying, unbelievable dialogue and basically no plot to speak of. If you rent this movie, watch it with some friends and it might make a good comedy. Otherwise, when you see this movie, run.
Me and a group of friends rent horrible videos to laugh at them, trust me it has lead to some horribly spent money but also some great laughs. S.I.C.K. is one of the better horror-but-funny movie we've rented. The plot is over-done, the whole take your friends into the woods and never return thing is very old. The goriest part of the movie looks like your visiting the local butcher shop except a little dirtier and with blood on the play dough looking meat. And if anyone has ever been scared of this movie at any time they should stick to Cartoon Network for the rest of their life, it's pathetic. The good aspects of the movie are that the two girls in it are reasonably hot, one better then the other and you see them both naked during the movie. The other good aspect is that this movie is so bad at times that you will laugh till you cry. I don't like watching horrible acting or renting these horrible videos, I don't find that fun but seeing the amount of effort these people put into it and still come out so bad is hilarious and worth renting.Unless you are too mature to laugh at someone's downfalls I would recommend it.<br /><br />If your renting/buying it to laugh at it I'd give it an 8.5.
S.I.C.K. really stands for So Incredibly Crappy i Killed myself. There was absolutely no acting to speak of. The best part of the whole production was the art work on the cover of the box.The budgeting of this movie was sufficient. The filming was sub sesame street. The production looks like that of the underground filming for mob hits. The props used in this movie were stolen from a clothing store. The ending was so predictable you should fast forward to the last 5 minutes and laugh. If there is a book out there for this movie I'm sure it's better. I would avoid this at all costs. I did enjoy the intimate scenes they made the whole movie worth it. just kidding.
OK i own this DVD i got it new at amazon... i mean i think its badass and a pretty cool flick and melissa bale the slutty/bitchy girl they pick up is hot as hell ..., the acting sucks and the whole polt just sucks the clown is some huge guy wearing a mask and its disgusting but its OK i wouldn't recommend it if like u wanted to rent a good entertaining flick after a hard days work but if u have nothing else to do and ur obbsessed with this stupid movies like i am, watch it sometime, and i do not know how artisan DVD has S.I.C.K. in its DVD collection , s.i.c.k. is not good enough to be owned by a half way decent movie company OK well thats all
What did I just watch? I spent 90 minutes of my precious life watching one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen. The concept of a serial killer clown is actually quite scary seeing is there are a lot of people who are afraid of clowns....but having it be a 300 pound nursery rhyme reciting killer clown makes a mockery of the genre. I still am wondering how the character Mark wasn't able to run away from the Clown...he's 300 pounds, he's gotta get tired eventually. The whole ending made me get up and literally say aloud "What did I just watch?" Apparently Brandon is Denise's cousin.... and they had got it on near the middle of the movie meaning he had sex with his cousin.....yeah that's something people want so see *shudders*.<br /><br />Another thing I found hilariously stupid was the opening scene where the clown stabs a woman and she says "What did you do?" Well bytch, what do you think he just did? The last thing that was stupidly funny was one second the main character was slapping the hitch-hiker and calling her a c*nt and then 5 minutes later saying violence isn't helping anything....did the writer of the script give the line to the wrong guy? None of this movie makes sense anyway.<br /><br />The movie was more or less a dumb low budget porno which I got sucked into buying (all 3.99)and got no entertainment out of it besides the sex scenes. I'm surprised the fat clown didn't join the orgy, would have fit right in. I hoped the movie would have some entertainment value like other B movies might have, but I was wrong. This is a moronic piece of garbage that's not even worth watching.<br /><br />1 out of 10
Please do not let the cover of this movie fool you. And if you're looking for a cheap horror movie to laugh at: this isn't it. Usually I will go for stupid if it's funny, but this stupid was so stupid it almost (or possibly did) make me stupid.<br /><br />The film quality is better than a handheld, but not by much, and it's quite possible the music was created by pressing the Samba 2 key on a Casio keyboard. These problems should never really be a deterent from seeing a horror movie but add this amazing (weep) cast, and you have a real humdinger.<br /><br />The story is about a guy who invites his friends up to his family cabin in Texas for the weekend. He also extends the invitation to his lady crush in his office. On the way there they meet a female in distress, who is then invited to come along by the other girls.<br /><br />The stay at the cabin includes sex and nudity and soon everyone's panties are in a bunch when one girl disappears and odd items turn up in the house.<br /><br />From there you (the audience) and the morons, um, actors, try to figure out what's going on and they soon begin to distrust one another. Overall I think I have made it sound better than it is. The main struggle with this movie is that the characters are very underdeveloped, the plot contrived, the acting bad and the motivations clueless. Once more this could be forgiveable it it was the least bit funny but alas, it is not.<br /><br />The twist ending is only a twist in that no one would guess it simply because if you really thought back through the movie it would not have made sense anyway. Please don't let this review stop you from seeing the shear wonderment of this movie. (Woah, my nose just grew eight inches.)
I rented this movie roughly 4-5 years ago and was instantly disappointed.<br /><br />I wanted to see a b-movie slasher flick, but ended up with a fecal matter for my eyes. The acting was similar to watching grass dry. I've seen better acting in a softcore film...<br /><br />The idea that a crazy killer comes out of nowhere baffled me. How was this a horror movie?<br /><br />this movie's production value, was laughable at best. There were no scares. It seemed like a high school student got a new video camera for Christmas. The plot was all over the place, if existent. If you are bored looking for a bad horror movie to rent, skip this one. There are much better b-movies out there.
If this film was a comedy, I would have given it a 10. Oh my, where do I begin? Put it this way -- I've seen lots of terrible horror films, but this one makes Troll 2 look like freakin' Saving Private Ryan. It's as if a group of porn filmmakers decided to make a horror film, changed their mind in midproduction and decided to do a comedy, then went back to horror, and then decided that they should have just stuck with porno (softcore at that). Everything about this film is simply terrible: the musical score (someone shoot the guy who invented the Yamaha keyboard), the script, the directing, the cinematography, the acting. There simply are no words to describe this. Oh wait, yes there are: Holy $*%!.
I don't know what you guys are talking about, the first time I watched this movie with two of my friends we couldn't stop crying. This is one of the funniest shits I've ever seen. That comment about the porn is so right though hahahaha.<br /><br />Yeah this movie actually is the worse, but it did bring tears to my eyes due to the phony characters, poor dialog and acting. Not to mention the expensive cameras they used to film it?! It looks like one of those movies out of my drivers ed. class. The props look like they came out of a high school drama show. The music sounds like it is from an original Nintendo system game. The only thing that even came close the scaring me about this movie was that it had a killer clown which, who isn't creeped out by fat, lurking clowns? hahaha if someone were to ever watch this though, they need to look out for the actors verbal errors like lisping on words and some of their facial expressions. hahahaha I died.<br /><br />SUSAN
This is quite possibly THE worst movie I have ever seen. Again I made the mistake of buying the movie because the synapse on the back sounded cool and the front cover looked pretty cool too (After buying this and the movie "Malevolence" which I reviewed on here as well, I have learned my lesson). I love horror movies that take place in the woods or in the desert or on a farm. This supposedly takes place in the woods of Texas but was probably filmed in the director's backyard. The production was probably the worst I ever seen. The actors were absolutely the WORST. The story didn't have anything to do with what the back cover said. I even tried to sell it to F.Y.E and some other "mom and pop" store that buys used DVDs and neither would take it. Thats how awful this poor miserable excuse for a movie was. I have seen some bad movies before (Troll 2 for example) but this definitely takes the cake. I didn't think there was a worse movie than "Troll 2". Boy was I wrong! Do not buy this movie unless someone hands it to you for free but even than your stuck with it unless you throw it out which is what I am about to do!!!!
I bought this from Blockbuster for 99p. The guy behind the counter said the reason it was so cheap was because the disc was scratched to sh*t, but failed to mention that the reason it was so cheap was because the film was a p*ss poor effort that sucked harder than Paris Hilton in a hotel room home video. Talking of home videos, since when has it been fair game to release them as films - I mean to say, films used to employ actors and technicians and scriptwriters and so on - not any more - just gather your friends and lame-o ideas together for the weekend, lavish the production with an £8.00 budget, and get someone to fall down the stairs with a Casio keyboard (the soundtrack) - then slap it on the shelves, for some poor sap (me), to take home in lonely desperation. But here's the clincher - I fast forwarded through most of this, and tossed it to one side, ready for the hammers... until the next night, while watching a Darren Day horror 'Hellbreed' (£1.99 to take home and keep from a different Blockbuster). Now this film made 'Grim Weekend' look like The Exorcist, so I slapped Grim Weekend back on, to catch up on some of the moments listed on the wonderful IMDb boards, that viewers claimed were hilarious. Sure enough, once I had got over the misery, the pain, and the horror, of realising Grim Weekend was utter chod on toast, I could enjoy, savour, and downright get down to the funny stuff. And there's a lot of it. Check the boards. Then check the flick. Hell, it might even be worth it. AWWWWW CRAP!
OK, so I rented this clown-like-Chainsaw-Massacre-esquire film, not expected much, but I did like the novel approach to a serial killer film. (from the back of the box is the following synopsis) "At first, it was just a joke - a myth around the campfire - for five friends staying at a remote cabin in the Texas woods. But when they began to disappear one-by-one, replaced by scattered, bloodied body parts and voodoo effigies, the remaining few scramble for their lives. But he's out there. And he's sick. And all he wants is blood..." So obviously from the get-go it doesn't make sense: why is this clown in the woods to begin with? Why a clown? Why are their dolls with the word "food" drawn on them? Why why why? Hardly anything gets answered in this 1 hour 30 min. bore fest except where this clown lives. The characters are dumb guys, dumb girls, and a hell of a lot of bitchiness. One in particular is a girl whom they brought from a restaurant up the road, whom they thought they should help because she was getting hassled by some guy she knew. What warrants that as an excuse to bring a girl into your circle of friends or their cabin? She, of course, begins planting seeds of jealousy, having the men have sex with her by feeding their dumb minds everything they want to hear.<br /><br />The music was an average affair (standard frantic keyboard music like in every horror film without differences). The actors seemed to be brought from some soap opera the way they complained and whined about everything. The idea that the main guy in the film takes this girl to the cabin as their first date makes for a horrible date, but of course, she unrealistically gives herself to him on the first night of getting to know him. There was hardly a budget spent of anything, it seems, but there was a clown outfit and plenty of cheap $1-store dolls lying around in the woods, which was a horribly bland place to shoot this whole movie (been done too many times). I was also waiting for the clown to jump into the house to kill the remaining 4 characters of the film (in through the glass maybe), but nothing exciting like that ever entered the film. I guess you were just supposed to like the clown being a killer or something.<br /><br />I had to give the film a 3. It was an interesting premise (clown as the Texas Chainsaw Massacre character, essentially) and I'll give them a star for acting serious all the way through when the movie could've totally been a B-movie-style video, but they opted for the more legitimate style of video. But ultimately, I probably would've felt like renting the Killer Klowns from Mars video again before going back to check this out. Ah, but that cover art...pretty awesome drawing.
This movie was so bad! It was terrible! It was awful! I cannot stress it enough! The acting, directing, story, characters and everything about it was bad! It was so corny and clichéd. Don't be fooled by the cover, or the tag line "The 'texas massacre' is nothing to laugh at." Are you frogging' kidding me! It was ridiculous.<br /><br />The first 2 minutes of the film is good until it gets to the main character Brendan, OK now turn it off. What I got from the film was, A bunch of ugly, annoying and immature people go to a cabin in the middle of the woods and a clown that sings nursery rhymes kills them in unoriginal and fake ways.<br /><br />This movie was a waste of my time and money, and it would be a waste of your money and time too! I fast forward through most of the movie because it was so terrible, I just wanted to see how each bad actor died, and it STILL wasn't worth it! Just looking at the cover is a waste of time. This IS seriously THE worst movie EVER! Rating: doesn't deserve one.
Well...overall, this movie was pretty much worthless, and it's basically a horror movie that ended up being more of a comedy. I just rented this movie last night when me and my friends went to blockbuster looking for a scary movie. This definitely wasn't what we were looking for, but it satisfied us for humor. The actors in this movie (especially Brandon) are so fake that it's funny. And especially that Tracy girl whenever she's in the boarded up room telling the clown to go away. They show almost no emotion and it's just so obvious that they're acting. And also when the clown is looking through that black box paper thing and grabs Mark, he doesn't even look like he's scared even though the clown like grabbed him and started attacking him. And seriously, would you just be JOGGING if you were being chased down? I'd be sprinting for my life! (Even though anyone could probably outrun that clown because he's like 300 lbs.) Not to mention that the effects aren't that great, like whenever the clown chops off Susan's head in the forest, then whenever he throws her head into the boarded up room with Denise and Tracy whenever Denise throws the head back over. Also like in the previous guy's comment, the beginning makes absolutely NO sense and I don't even see why it was even included in the movie. So what, was this movie made in 2003? The music made it sound like it was made in like the 1980's, and the camera-ing(?) doesn't even really look professional. Half of the time, it seems like the camera can't even stay steady when it's suppose to be. Overall, I'd have to say I enjoyed the movie. I wouldn't recommend it though if you're trying to find something to scare you, but if you're looking for something to maybe make fun of or get a laugh out of, I'd recommend it for sure.
This was by far the worst low budget horror movie i have ever seen. I am an open minded guy and i always love a good horror movie. In fact, when I'm renting movies i specifically look for some good underrated horror movies. They are always good for a laugh, believe i know, i have seen many. But this movie was just so terrible it wasn't worth a chuckle. I was considering turning it off in the first five minutes... which i probably should have. There is nothing good about it, first and foremost, the camera crew suck3d A$$. The intro was stupid just like the ending. Acting and special effects were terrible. Please I'm begging you, do NOT watch this movie, you will absolutely hate it.
Worst movie on earth. I don't even know where to begin but I hope I can save another person from punishing themselves with this movie. When it comes to acting and lighting, this movie is similar to a bad porno without the sex. The actors are some of the worst I've ever seen, and couldn't have been worse even if they were trying to make a complete mockery of this movie. The movie must have had a record breaking low budget which I'm sure was wasted almost solely on the movie's cover. This movie has now become a running joke with friends of mine and has become the standard for comparing other garbage movies. I would like to point of that no other movie even begins to compare. I feel personally responsible for suggesting a friend and me watch this movie and am surprised she still considers me a friend after the torment I put us through. Don't see this movie!
The cover on the DVD and disc is freaking awesome, you would think they made a movie about sweet tooth from twisted metal black which is still a really great idea, but this movie's actors are worst then Ben's performance in pearl harbor, porno's have better quality and better actors. i was gonna buy the DVD but luckily i rented it first, the plot and script are also horrible, nothing seems to go to together so the movie really never makes sense. The poor attempts to frighten you using flashback scenes are worse then ones used in 80's sitcom shows and in the end it'll leave you wanting to bang your head against the wall of your house.
OK - I ADORE this film...I will credit this movie - alone - for making me such a die-hard horror fanatic. I could never watch this movie alone. I've also heard many many stories of the effect it had in it's original release at the theatres , on its viewers. Incredible masterpiece.... Horrible , psychological stuff scares the pants off me .Oh bless their hearts, whoever made this awesome film. I love it. I thought the whole film was decent and interesting. This movie is SO scary - this is the scariest movie I have ever seen in my life! Not that what happens in the film and the idea of the film are not scary enough , but what always got me - was Brendan's fabulous acting. Best horror film EVER. Nothing can ever be this scary again. Halloween viewing at its evilest.
Hey everyone...<br /><br />There really isn't much to say for this movie at all. The basic plot is that a guy (Brandon) takes a few friends on a trip to his cabin in the woods for a weekend holiday away from work. After picking up a girl on the way there, things start going badly wrong for all of them.<br /><br />The storyline alone (written by the actor playing Brandon, I believe, although I could be wrong here) is unlikely and unconvincing, and is acted out accordingly. The "Clown Killer" himself is a rather a sad excuse for a psychotic killer. Far from being a dark, mysterious but most of all, intelligent predator, we are instead offered a rather clumsy, nursery rhyme-singing buffoon who appears to be going through a minor mid life crisis. The only thing that warranted the writing of this comment were the sex scenes and whatever gore there was in the film (the quality of the film led me to derive some enjoyment out of such things).<br /><br />In short, this film falls below every possible set standard. Admittedly, I was sharing a few beers with a close friend as I watched this, so we managed to scrape together some relative entertainment value out of this film and it is therefore only fair to mention that S.I.C.K did fall just shy of a two rating. However, in reality, (and with the benefit of hindsight) the one star rating is a more than legitimate score for this film.<br /><br />1 star out of ten.
this movie was definitely the worst movie i've seen in my entire life, and i've seen some pretty bad movies. i didn't like the way this movie was filmed. all of the actors are unknown, and it looks as though a bunch of friends got together and decided to film their own movie. but it's absolutely horrible. i've never seen a worse movie. the story is so fake, and i just found that it took a really long time to get to the end of the movie. there was no plot, it looked as though it wasn't planned out before they started filming. the story is too weird. i didn't like how slow it took to get to the point of the movie. there was no point in even filming this movie. if you're considering watching this movie, don't. you're just wasting your time.
I rented this film about a month ago when I had nothing else to do on a Friday night. All I can say to describe this worthless film is 'TRASH' The acting is so badly done I've seen kids in high school do a better job The whole cast seems like they're just reading their lines out, no feeling, no emotion, and no room to capture the viewer. On another note the special effects were insanely cheesy and the whole thing looked like it had been shot with a camera anyone can buy a radio shack.<br /><br />The clown himself looks nothing like the one on the video cover. Heck he doesn't even show up in the film until near the end and all he does it hum songs and go around stalking a few characters. There is no real murder shown either so this isn't a real slasher film either Since I've seen it I've questioned a few things 1. If is 'Serial Insane Clown Killer' Wouldn't that be a Serial Killer who kills clowns? 2. If your friend goes missing why would you go out into the woods to have sex rather than look for her? Sad really.<br /><br />3. Why is it that the only REAL acting sputtered vainly out at the end all of a sudden? Did the cast finally decide to show effort in their jobs? This film is as sad as they come. My advice is to avoid renting it lest you waste an hour or two of your time laughing more than screaming.
This film is the worst excuse for a motion picture I have EVER seen. To begin, I'd like to say the the front cover of this film is by all means misleading, if you think you are about to see a truly scary horror film with a monster clown, you are soooo wrong. In fact the killers face doesn't even slightly resemble the front cover, it's just an image they must have found on Google and thought it looked cool. Speaking of things they found and thought it looked cool, there is a scene in this film where some of the gang are searching for the friend in the old woods, then suddenly the screen chops to a scene where there is a mother deer nurturing it's young in a glisten of sunlight... I mean seriously WTF??? How is this relevant to the dark woods they are wandering through? I bought this film from a man at a market hoping it would be entertaining, if it wasn't horror then at least it would be funny right? WRONG! The next day I GAVE it to my work colleague ridding myself from the plague named S.I.C.K<br /><br />Bottom line is: Don't SEE THIS FILM!!!
Me and a friend rented this movie because it sounded really good. But we were wrong. First of the acting....wow...the acting was the worst, the effects were really bad as well, it seemed like a film a college kid made. The plot was pretty good, but it'd been done. The thing that ruined the movies the most were the actors. The main guy was the worst actor ever...it's a shame I'm even calling him an actor...The only good thing about this movie was it was so bad it was funny...so if you want a good laugh see it....but other than that...stay far away from this one. I usually love B list movies and such, but this one... I do not know how it was passed to even be put on video...this one is the worst I've seen..and I've seen some bad ones.
I have seen a lot of stupid movies in my life, a lot, but this is without a doubt the worst one ever! I usually like dumb movies, if they are somewhat entertaining, but I can't even think of one good thing about this movie. I like "Teen Witch" for Heaven's sake. But S.I.C.K. has horrible acting, lame porn music throughout the whole thing, and even the sex scenes sucked! I would have to compare the lameness of this movie to the likes of "Twin Dragons", "Puppet Master vs the Demonic Toys" or even "a Very Brady Sequel". Although, this is by far worse then any of those. I beg you, don't even waste your time. Believe me, its 2 hours you'll never get back.
I am writing this review having watched it several months ago....the trailer looked promising enough for me to buy this lame excuse for a movie. It is a complete joke....and literally a spit in the face of real classics of the early generation of horror like Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) which they even had the gall to compare itself to on the back of the cover art. The producer who played Brandon should go flip burgers and serve up greasy hamburgers....hell he might not even be good at that either! The lighting was bad bad bad and a big annoyance through out the film you couldn't even see the actor's faces sometimes. I don't even remember the rest of the cast members which is sad really, bad they never do anything to impress you to make them memorable. That's all the time I will waste on this review PLEASE stay as far away as you can from this pile of junk even if you get it for 25 cents don't do it buy s piece of gum at least IT would keep you entertained!<br /><br />If you want good quality low budget fun, far better than this... then check out a Jeff Hayes film....because it takes talent to make it in horror and the kid has it!<br /><br />I gave this 1 star just for the cover art....thats the only thing worth liking abut this so called "film"<br /><br />-Rick Blalock
This movie is just horrible. It's boring, it's low quality, the actors are just the worst actors I have ever seen and the scenario is so bad that it's hilarious.<br /><br />The "main" actor is supposed to be the hot guy who gets all the girls, but he's ugly, overweight and looks like he's from the early 90's.<br /><br />All the characters are away for the week-end for a get together amongst friends, but nobody are actually friends! The married couple hasn't seen the "main" guy in over 5 years and even back then they weren't really friends. The "date" of the main guy only knows him from work and than there's a girl they pick-up at a bar. Now tell me that you would risk losing your job to spend a week-end at your cabin with people that aren't even your real friends. Because that's what he does at the beginning of the movie!<br /><br />Do not waste even one minute of your time on this lemon. I've made home movies scarier than this!<br /><br />
Spoilers ahead if you want to call them that...<br /><br />I would almost recommend this film just so people can truly see a 1/10. Where to begin, we'll start from the top...<br /><br />THE STORY: Don't believe the premise - the movie has nothing to do with abandoned cars, and people finially understanding what the mysterious happenings are. It's a draub, basic, go to cabin movie with no intensity or "effort".<br /><br />THE SCREENPLAY: I usually give credit to indie screenwriters, it's hard work when you are starting out...but this is crap. The story is flat - it leaves you emotionless the entire movie. The dialogue is extremely weak and predictable boasting lines of "Woah, you totally freaked me out" and "I was wondering if you'd uh...if you'd like to..uh, would you come to the cabin with me?". It makes me want to rip out all my hair, one strand at a time and feed it to myself.<br /><br />THE CHARACTERS: HOLY CRAP!!!! Some have described the characters as flat, I want to take it one step further and say that they actually have a reverse character arch.. They actually start working on a parallel universe and almost start acting backwards...<br /><br />THE ACTORS: Worse than the characters are the actors. They take already poor written characters and add in terrible high school drama acting. The "Woah you totally freaked me out" was said so monotone and slow - like it was dumbed down. I could complain for hours on the actors alone.<br /><br />TECHNICAL: LIGHTING: An eight year old would be disappointed with lighting on this movie. Too shadowy in areas, too bleached in others. The director shouldn't use light as an emotion until he learns how to light a basic scene properly. Baby Steps! SOUND: How many sound guys does it take to make a really shotty sounding movie? 9. With that many sound guys this should sound amazing but quite the opposite has occured. There is one scene in particular that really sticks out, these guys are driving in a car and the sound of the car changes with every camera angle....WEAK! CAMERA: Learn to use it.<br /><br />Anyway, I'm running out of complaining space.....rent it - I dare you...Rent it and learn from it...give it a 1 rating..it deserves it.<br /><br />Signing off... Amanda Christmas
Spoiler Alert Well I think this movie is probably the worst film ever made. Probably in the style of Ed Wood(without the heart). The lightning is terrible. The music is very bad(piano and orgue... come on!). The acting is... well there is no acting!<br /><br />There's a guy who actually goes in the wood to search for his missing wife and take the time to have sex with a stranger.<br /><br />The killer is a fat, unscary clown who couldn't outrun a turtle!<br /><br />Every members of the cast is stupid and the director put every clichés of slashers movies in the film without effort.<br /><br />The end is so far the most stupid ever made. Think about it: The guy(ken hebert) who's acting skill is about the same as his writing(he's the brain behind this flop) invite a co-worker and two of his friends to his cabin for the week-end and kills them... On monday morning he goes back to is office like nothing happen.<br /><br />The tragedy is that Mr.Hebert try to make us beleive that it's a family affair that goes on for generation(his uncle is the clown killer)<br /><br />So of course NO cops are gonna question him after his co-worker goes missing...<br /><br />WHATEVER.<br /><br />
While I watched this movie, I tried to figure out why they bothered making it. Though the main plot of the movie is potentially good, there are all sorts of unrelated/unnecessary subplots. The marketing people in Hollywood must have dictated the multiple bad guys, perpetual double-crosses and the man and woman who get too close and have sex. It's odd that we see more of them having sex than we did of the President and his mistress. The many plots and subplots make the film too broad and none of the characters are properly developed - I really didn't feel like I knew any character, except that everyone is corrupt and evil. The ending is totally incomplete - it left me more than just wanting what might have been, but what was supposed to be. In the end, there is really no explanation of why anyone does what they do, except to serve as additional corrupt characters who commit a double-cross. I'm surprised that so many established (and good) actors agreed to make such a hollow movie. This seemed like a movie made by college students who are working on their 2nd or 3rd project.<br /><br />Don't waste your time unless you are in a film class and want an example of what not to do when making a movie.
The banner says it all, this is one really bad movie, which is sad because I normally like Sheffer, and I have been impressed with Andrea Roth in other roles. This, however, is terrible. I wont waste any more time...its just that bad.
I gave this a 1. There are so many plot twists that you can never be sure to root for. Total mayhem. Everyone gets killed or nearly so. I am tired of cross hairs and changing views. I cannot give the plot away. Convoluted and insane. If I had paid to see this I would demand my money back. I wish reviews were more honest.
Normally, I am a pretty generous critic, but in the case of this film I have to say it was incredibly bad. I am stunned by how positive most reviews seem to be.<br /><br />There were some gorgeous shots, but it's too bad they were wasted on this sinkhole of a movie. It might have worked if "Daggers" was purely an action flick and not a romance, but unfortunately the film is built around an empty love triangle. There is no chemistry between either of the couples, whatever exists between Mei and her men seems to be more lust than love, and for the most part the dialogue is just silly. This may be just a problem with translation, but the frequent usage of the word "flirt" in particular reminded me of 8th grade, not head-over-heels, together forever, worth-dying-for love; I also felt we were beat over the head with the wind metaphor. The audience is given very little about the characters to really care about, and therefore very little emotional investment in the movie as a whole. I was wishing for a remote control to fast forward, I was slumped in my seat ready to snore, but mostly I just cringed a lot.<br /><br />*******spoiler*****<br /><br />Now, the icing on the cake. Or rather, adding insult to injury. The ending was truly one of the most horrible, laughable ones I have ever seen. The boys are having their stag fight and screaming and yelling and hacking at each other. Oh, and then it starts to snow. Randomly. Oh, and then Mei (dagger embedded in heart) suddenly pops up out of the weeds. Then she throws a dagger that seems to take about 5 minutes to reach it's destination, even slowing conveniently midscreen to hit a tiny blood droplet. Wow, cool.<br /><br />Well, then Mei dies finally I guess because she threw the dagger that was lodged in her chest and bled to death. Jin sings, sobs, holds her body close, screen goes blank. I, and the people surrounding me, are chuckling. Not a good sign.<br /><br />Visually stunning, but ultimately a failure.
I was very surprised how bad this movie was. Nice cinematography and beautiful landscapes can only take the movie so far. I was hoping for a rerun of Hero, but this is much, much worse.<br /><br />This movie is why kung fu movies got a bad reputation in the first place. No believable characters (even within the cartoonish world of kung fu movies, these characters are ridiculous), virtually no plot, and ridiculous story twists.<br /><br />This movie is so boring and so frustrating because it reminds you of trying to play a make believe game with a child. Every time you think your silly battle makes some sense, they invent another ridiculous twist that makes no sense ("Ah ha, you only think you've got me with your super powers and 10,000 ray guns, but I ate my vitamins laced with plutonium and teflon, so your ray guns don't work and I'm invulnerable to your super powers....tap tap no trade backs infinity PLUS one.") Children can continue with this lunacy, because they don't really care whether anyone is listening because they are having a fun time. However, for the VIEWER, especially the adult viewer, this long movie is worse than a bout with bad gas.<br /><br />SPOILERS AHEAD Note to kung fu movie makers, (a) if you have a knife in your back it hurts unless you are on PCP, in which case your kung fu is not strong, (b) if you repeatedly fall on your back, which has a knife in it, it will hurt more and do more damage, unless it is a fake prop, (c) when you get stabbed in the heart with a knife, you die, especially in ancient china where there isn't a Kaiser Permanente around the corner, (d) kung fu fights don't last for hours while 3 feet of snow falls, and (e) sometimes it is worth while explaining your characters and their motivations.<br /><br />In any event, go watch Hero again, because at least within its own little world it is comprehensible.
As someone who was staggered at the incredible visuals of "Hero," I was anxious to see this film which was billed as being along the same lines, but better. It also featured an actress I like: Ziyi Zhang. Well, I was disappointed on both counts. I bought the DVD of this film sight-unseen, and that was a mistake. It was not better.<br /><br />I realize these flying-through-the-air martial arts films are pure fantasy but this story is stretched so far past anything remotely believable it just made me shake my head in disappointing disbelief. A blind woman defeating hundreds of opponents? Sorry, that's going a little far. Also, the major male character 'Jin" (Takeshi Kaneshiro) was so annoying with his dialog, stupid look on his face and stupid laugh, that he ruined the film, too.<br /><br />Despite the wonderful colors and amazing action scenes, this story - to me - just didn't have an appeal to make it a movie worth owning. This film is no "Hero" of mine!
After just 15 minutes into this film, I began to miss Zhang Yimou's earlier, more weighty films that looked at the politics and society of China from unique perspectives. His turn to martial arts films was a serious misstep in my humble opinion. Hero was his worst film since Operation Cougar, with a needlessly complex story and acting more wooden than that found in a John Agar film. Shi Mian Mai Fu is no different. As an American who has been studying Chinese films for a few years now (and understands and can speak some Mandarin), I'm sure my opinion is different from many others as I'm coming from a different background. SMMF, like Hero, is not really a traditional a kung fu film, and it's certainly not a wuxia pian film. There are no sword & sorcery or chivalry elements here. This is a completely different vehicle than infinitely more watchable films such as A Chinese Ghost Story (all 3), The Butterfly Murders, Green Snake, et al. While those all featured charismatic leads who looked like they were actually enjoying what they do, SMMF features bland, and sometimes laughable, dialogue combined with cardboard acting. Zhang Ziyi plays a blind person about as well as Ben Affleck. There's an air of superiority with this film that's really quite insulting. It takes itself so seriously, it just becomes a huge joke by the end. All the actors look as though this is the most important piece of celluloid in history, they destroy any chance of actually conveying emotions, and the complete humorlessness of it really makes you wonder if Zhang Yimou was making a film per se, or simply a showcase (i.e. an "ego booster") for Zhang Ziyi. The camera is literally making out with her face and she gets sexually assaulted not once but twice in the film. Her acting range really hasn't extended past her ability to play a naive "w"itch. She's so concentrated on her acting, she comes across as cold and lifeless, as though she's reading her lines from a notecard. It's so funny to hear American critics and film people (like the completely clueless Quentin Tarantino) call this film a masterpiece. I guess if they see a bunch of Asian actors on screen looking really important while flying through a bamboo forest, they're tricked into thinking it's brilliant film-making. Ching Siu Tung's choreography, while still retaining his trademark style, editing, and postures, lacks the vitality and originality of his earlier films like A Chinese Ghost Story, Dragon Inn, and Duel to the Death. Sadly to say, the wirework in this film is really subpar, and if there's subpar/obvious wirework, then you probably shouldn't have filmed it at high speed. The same goes for the special effects which have a distinct B-movie feel to them. Beans, daggers, bowls, arrows, swords, and other random objects fly through the air (after being thrown) with no regard for logic, turning, climbing, and banking as though there's a little pilot inside. I know that logic doesn't really hold a place in stylized Chinese martial arts films, but if you don't want to induce a mass amount of giggling from your audience, then you should probably work on your compositing a bit more. Mass melodrama, unintentionally funny dramatic moments, boring fight scenes, really uninspired plot twists are what await you with Shi Mian Mai Fu. It's obvious that Zhang Yimou is no longer making movies for Chinese audiences. This is meant to crack into the Western market just as CTHD did. After watching Hero and SMMF, I've come to the conclusion that if Zhang Yimou wants to make Hollywood films, he's definitely off to the right start. SMMF is basically The Phantom Menace of Chinese martial arts films. And I thought Hero was bad.
First of all, I too was expecting another Hero--a fantastic work of art for the action genre. I've only seen parts of Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, but I can imagine that it is better than HoFD.<br /><br />Basic elements from Hero are found in HoFD: Great landscapes, mesmerizing cinematography, and sincere acting (I mean, if you can't understand a word they are saying, without the subtitles, but you still care--that's good acting)<br /><br />What went wrong? What begins with political intrigue wanders into a love story. Worse, it's a soap opera-like love triangle. You have three characters who, I guess, fall in love with each other- for no good reasons. This movie basically falls apart after the escape from the jail (I fell asleep about forty minutes into it). It's almost as if they changed writers at that point. The remainder of the movie is about how a character is "like the wind." Ick. Also, you really have to stretch your suspension of disbelief to believe the action set pieces. This isn't unique to this genre, but since the story is weak, you can't wait for the action, and then, when the fighting does breaks out, it really wasn't that good. The beginning grabs you, but then this movie just runs out of gas.
i can't believe that NONE of the official reviews for this movie warn people that it contains two quite upsetting sexual assault scenes. It's as though our culture accepts this kind of behavior as simply sexual but not violent. My biggest problem with the movie is that it doesn't seem to condemn these assaults - as in, the woman who is repeatedly assaulted and pressured never holds the men accountable for their actions, and neither does anyone else. One man is stopped from completing the assault when someone throws a dagger at him, but he is reprimanded only with "you cannot force a woman to love you" rather than "you should never force a woman sexually, you jerk"... From a woman's point of view, the movie is a let down. It sort of "throws a bone" to women in letting them be both skilled fighters and leaders, but the movie is much more defined by the romance - which is characterized by the notion that human sexuality must involve an imbalance of power, with men dominating the woman they love. This amazing martial arts fighter doesn't use any of her fighting skills to try to fend off her attackers. She never even makes them apologize - rather, SHE seems apologetic. Overall, a depressing and upsetting movie, with some great cinematography and some cool fight scenes, but not as good as Hero by a long shot.
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />Long time inmate Twitch (Kurupt) gets himself transfered to a tougher prison than the re-opened Alcatraz. He claims it's to be closer to his lady but his real motives are a bit more grandiose. There he crosses paths with Burke (Bill Goldberg) a bulky prisoner who can take care of himself. Twitch, despite being less muscular, is just as mouthy and is pretty much the same. But there is a gang war brewing between the black and hispanic inmates that explodes into a hostile takeover of the prison when the black's gang leader is shot dead and the finger points at Burke. But the sh!t really hits the fan when the real killer and leader of the hispanics, Cortez (Robert Madrid) takes Twitch's girlfriend and Burke's daughter hostage.<br /><br />Steven Seagal doesn't do sequels (reportedly very opposed to the idea of Under Siege 2 and only agreeing to do it on the condition the film company he was with at the time let direct his own movie) so despite this being a DVD sequel, the lead role this time round goes to Bill Golberg (Steve doesn't even appear in some of the stock footage from the first film that appears towards the end.) But there's a reason he hasn't done much work since Universal Soldier 2 and that's because he's not much of an actor, and not much of an action star either, managing a character that begins as very dark and brooding but unsubtly turns into a standard action hero awkwardly quipping off dull one-liners. Support wise, veterans from the first film, Kurupt and Tony Plana, have merely jumped at the chance of extra work.<br /><br />This is a film that's tried to copy the style of the original quite well, with the dim lighting, dark shadows and rap music playing over a lot of it. It does this quite well, unfortunately it can't contend with an unengaging hero, an equally cardboard villain and an apathetic story that the makers do very much seem to have made up as they went along. **
for those of you who were desperate to find out what happened to Twitch in the original movie, heres your chance, and then get back to the real world.<br /><br />The guy who hid the gold in the first movie told Twitch, so he gets transferred to another prison, where wrestling champs hang around looking broody. Twitch plans to leave the jail in a month to get the gold to start a life with his woman.<br /><br />Then something happens and someone gets shot, and the film turns into Die Hard in another prison. But the wrestler's daughter is caught up in it all, so he and twitch go to find her and Twitch's woman.<br /><br />As you can imagine, the acting is below par, it features a lot of (really annoying) rap music, and poorly edited fight scenes. On the plus side, it's got that Hispanic bloke in it, who stars in every prison/action/thriller ever made, and he shuts a door in this.<br /><br />It's not very eventful, but at least it's harmless.<br /><br />If you were a massive fan of the original, it's okay-ish stuff.<br /><br />If not, you have been warned.
Half Past Dead, starring Steven Seagal in the main role was a major B-hit. Half Past Dead 2 is just a direct-to-video sequel, an action movie with nothing lose but with no capacity to win something. It's less entertaining than the first one: in all aspects. But it's although worthy a look. If you like action movies or just something to watch during a popcorn session; if you also like to watch former WWE stars on screen or even if you love to watch sequels, even if they are direct or not.<br /><br />Kurupt did a good job, Bill Goldberg was below the average, I think he isn't made to the job. Kurupt is a good comedian, I say. The rest did the job, but nothing amazing, nothing far from alright.<br /><br />Technical details, well, a production made by Sony can't be great. Cinematography was a disaster but overall direction was acceptable. Whatever, just watch it if you want. If you watch, you won't lose anything. But if you don't... well, you won't lose either.
WOW! Why would anybody make a sequel to an already rancid film? Half Past Dead was a bad movie but at least at had an idea of what it wanted to be. HPD2 has no clue of what it wants to be. It just exists on screen for reasons I cant explain. Spoiler: The whole movie is this: Twitch(played by Kurupt of Tha Dogg Pound) gets transferred to another jail where there might be a box filled with gold bricks buried. In the jail, a riot breaks out between rival inmates, one of them gets shot by a guy named Cortez and Cortez plans his escape. During a conjugal visit, Twitch's fiancée and Burke's(played by Bill Goldberg)daughter get kidnapped by Cortez and are held in an execution room. Burke reluctantly befriends Twitch and they end up getting into trouble with the idiotic inmates while finding out that Cortez has their loved ones.<br /><br />Opinion: This is the most unnecessary sequel since Universal Soldier: The Return. The script is terrible, the acting is horrendous, the dialog is a joke and everybody in this movie is a caricature. Look, I know it was low budget film but that is not an excuse for these guys to not put effort into what they do. Nobody in this "movie" believes in the characters they play. Nobody in this "movie can be taken seriously as an actor. Kurupt should be ashamed of himself. His character "Twitch" is pretty much a spineless minstrel puppet who spends most of his time posing while getting jacked up by Burke or the other inmates. Bill Goldberg spends most of his time sulking throughout the movie as if he had to take a PHD(pretty huge dump). The fight scenes are poorly choreographed and pathetic and for an action movie HPD2 is pretty boring even when action is happening! Don't let anybody tell you that this movie is somewhat decent. It stinks and is a prime reason why people despise Follywood.
OK first of all let me say that i'm still amazed of how the plot sucks,<br /><br />but than again its a movie that sequels a Steven segal movie only with no Steven segal omg!!!<br /><br />just random low budget action scenes really no point i 'm still amazed i burned 90 min on this crap really !!<br /><br />just rent a Jacky Chan movie or go see wwf more fun and has no and presume not to have and plot!!! plz plz plz avoid it!! btw the best actor playing there is bill goldberg and that says a lot!!<br /><br />and no he doesn't play very well like i said plz avoid it pfff i still cant believe i wasted 90 min and spent 10 min more writing this!! :)
Considering that I felt like picking up a new Jet Li film to see some but kicking and brainless hand to hand fighting, I grabbed this title.<br /><br />Unfortunatly, this movie contains more gun battles (ala Chow Yun Fat but nowhere near as good), than Jet Li and company's acrobatic fighting. Thus it was a let down.<br /><br />The faucet fighting was interesting and even funny, considering this was something totaly unexpected in a Jet Li film for me, more on the line of say Jackie Chan.<br /><br />But alas I'd recommend Fist of Legend, Tai Chi Master, or even the Enforcer over this dissapointment.<br /><br />Rating 4 for martial arts Rating 3 for overall movie score
Man, even Plan 9 From Outer Space is better than this movie. This flick doesn't have enough plot for half an hour, yet they managed to extend it for an eternity of more than an hour. Jet Li and Corey Yuen are pretty good, specially in those exaggerated fight scenes, but stuff like The Legend of Fong Sai Yuk is much better than this sorry thing that would be better left unmade.
I don't know how this movie received so many positive reviews on this site! I'm a big vonnegut fan and am very familiar with the story this Showtime original film bastardized beyond belief, but even if I wasn't, the poor acting, VERY poor casting (Sean Astin as the brilliant, athletic, and all around individual, Harrison?? The guy's completely generic!) and sub-standard writing rendered this tripe barely watchable. Someone pointed out how cute that Maculay Culkin line was. If you read that and thought that was pure comic brilliance (sadly, it probably was the most INTENTIONALLY funny part of the movie), maybe you'll like this movie. But if you're a Vonnegut fan or not completely insane, don't see it. Please.
This movie is unworthy of the Omen title. It is so bad that it has actually damaged the classic nature of the first three. It never should have been made, they ought to change the title.<br /><br />They don't even spell Damien Thorn's NAME correctly!!!! And there are no daggers, the most important element of all the Omen films. Pull it from the shelves and burn it.
Only the Antichrist could have been behind such a disaster. One only hopes that this irony was the motivating force behind the "film"! This movie was so bad, it forced me to register with IMDb, finally, just so I could trash it. What makes this movie all the more tragic is that it had such GREAT source material! I have never seen a movie where all the elements were so grotesquely mediocre as to render the result less than the sum of its parts.<br /><br />It may seem insignificant, but I'd like to start with the score. As the proud owner of a music degree, I must register my indignation! I was torn between laughter and dry heaves as I listened to what John Scheffer did to Goldsmith's brilliant score; it was far more gruesome than any of the burlesque death scenes, and almost as inadvertently comedic. It was by far the most inappropriate score I've heard since, well, I really can't think of a worse one. Maybe JAWS 4?<br /><br />As for the plot... I'm sorry. New Age mysticism??? What ever happened to the gritty realism of the original trilogy? In those films (more so in the first two than the third, but still!!) the supernatural was for the most part implied, and it was this subtlety that made the movies so eerily believable. Here we have crystals going black (calling all Skeksis and Mystics!!) and inverted crucifixes galore, even though in certain scenes the crucifux would be perfectly normal but for the camera angle. Gone is the refined psychlogical manipulation tapping the malaise inherent in our collective psyche: in its place a boorish "slap in the face" of recycled cliché and transparent incompetence. Add to that a lead "actress" so unbelievably ANNOYING that you fervently thank the director for those scenes from which she is absent. Never have I seen a little girl so fundamentally irritating since little Stephanie ruined ALL IN THE FAMILY.<br /><br />Other than that, I have no strong feelings on the subject ;-) Luckily the first three films are sufficiently adroit as to render this train-wreck of wasted celluloid inconsequential or, at the very most, a study in how NOT to make a film. Viewer beware! May induce vomiting if you're lucky.
honestly, i don't know what's funnier, this horrific remake, or the comments on this board. Masterpiece's review had me in tears, that's so funny. Anyway, this movie is the among the worst movies ever, and certainly the bottom of the barrel for sequels. The "Omen" name on the title made me stop and watch it this morning on HBO, but it's a slap in the face to the other three, especially the original. There are so many classically bad moments, but my favorite is the guy catching fire from the juggler at the psychic fair!! good times ! This movie is to the Omen series what "Scary Movie" is to the entire genre. Avoid unless you're looking for a good laugh.
As with many other pop-culture franchise series, this line just didn't know when to quit. Instead of leaving things as they were perfectly ended, they went on to generate this; the first installment of this franchise to fall sorely short of the mark.<br /><br />This movie should never have happened. It was not intended for there to have been a fourth movie in this line, and it sure shows. The premise is idiotic and the portrayals were the same.<br /><br />After the wonderful experience which was The Omen, this was a major disappointment which stank of 70's cheese and horrible acting. It was reminiscent of the Amityville Horror in those aspects, and left a terrible, lingering stench long after it was over. <br /><br />It rates a 1.4/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.
The fact that I watched this entire movie says something about it...or me. It is not a good movie. Terrible in fact. But terrible in the way that kept my attention in that perverse manner that is akin to watching a tragedy and not being able to look away. It would have made a great MST3K subject!<br /><br />Most of the things that make a terrible movie enjoyable are here: bad dialogue, inappropriate music, contrived plot sequences, ridiculous pseudoscience. You'll thrill to slo-mo death sequences, the poor victims with mouths agape and waaaaaaaay too much time to contemplate their impending doom, facing the outrageously contrived deliverer of their deaths. Your heart will be warmed by old action scene cliches like when two women struggle for a gun and it goes off, but WHO'S SHOT? Both look at themselves, then the other, then themselves, then (seemingly 15 minutes later), one finally goes down. You'll sing along (in latin of course) with the street carolers that turn into a ghastly death's-choir that, for a moment, threatened to turn the movie into a twisted musical.<br /><br />So if you believe like I do that as movies get worse they get better, then this might be a decent choice for you. It's not as funny as my current sci-fi schlock favorite, "They Live" featuring Rowdy Roddy Piper, but it's more fun to watch than luke-warm movies like Omen II or III.<br /><br />I give it 4 out of 10.
I saw the omen when i was 11 on tv. I enjoyed the Trilogy. So when the chance to finally see one at the cinema came around i didnt pass it up. I went in to the cinema knowing that what i was about to see wasnt a cinema release but a made for TV film. However being a fan i couldnt resist. But this Omen movie which i saw at a midnight screening didnt bring chills it brought laughter. Risible Dialogue such as "it is written that if a baby cries during baptism they reject there god". What nonsense.No decent set pieces. Faye Grant so Good in V is wasted with this script from hell. No suprises and no fun. However i did laugh out loud several times at our bad it was.Truly Pathetic.1 out of 10
This is a truly wretched little film. Admittedly the original (un)holy trinity was governed by the law of diminishing returns with the third, "The Final Conflict" degenerating into a ridiculous sub-plot about half-way through the film apparently merely to provide the requisite needlessly convoluted deaths that had by now become the whole raison d'etre for the "Omen" series. But then to foist this jumped-up TV movie (beware purchasers of the Omen box set on DVD - don't be fooled by the widescreen ratio of the transfer, this was and is strictly small-screen stuff) on the back of a series of generally fine demonic chillers was unforgivable, particularly, endorsed as it was, by the exec.producer and producer of the first three movies Mace Neufeld and Harvey Bernhard. I'd give-away the plot if there was any, besides the usual death scenes (hopelessly toned down for TV sensibilities) and some of the worst acting I've seen. All involved in this project down to the catering people should be ashamed this travesty ever made it to the screen, let alone masquerading under the Omen name. If one person is convinced by my review to avoid this mess, I'll feel better for it.
Omen IV (1991) was a bad made-for-T.V. movie. Since the 80's were over, I guess the executives were experimenting in meth (the drug of choice during the 90's) because there is no other reason to explain this travesty. Why did they even bother making this? A t.v. movie? What were they mulling over when this one came up on the idea board? Did they even think for a second that this movie would catch on as. Perhaps they thought it could make it as a series? We'll never know. But I know one thing. This movie was the major reason why I never bought the Omen trilogy. They should have knocked off a couple of bucks instead of putting out this "extra" disc.<br /><br />Omen IV is basically a average American family remake of the first film. Instead of a snot nosed punk kid, we get the spooky girl who's a total brat to everyone around her. If the family had stronger parenting skills, then none of the demonic events that have transpired in the past films would have never occurred. These parents need to put their foot down and do some real discipline! <br /><br />Not recommended, best to avoid at all cost!
This sequel is a total rehash of the first film. A completely pointless movie. It basically just took every single sceanrio of the first film and they redid it in Omen IV except with a female antichrist this time. It even ends the same way as the first one! The music is too busy and interfering, and because its pretty much a copy of Omen I, it's extremely predictable. It's not a horrible movie, it's not terribly made, there is much worse movies out there, this just had absolutely no point in being made. The Omen remake from 2006 is much worse, even more pointless than this, so I guess it has that. If you someone pointed a gun to your head and you had to choose to watch this sequel or the 2006 reamke, I guess I'd choose this.
The first question that springs to mind after watching this rubbish is who on earth gave these idiots the right to use the Omen name on this movie? It is a shambolic , embarrassing, pathetic atempt to carry on the Omen franchise. When the film starts the backing music sounds like it has been lifted straight from a Bugs Bunny Cartoon and from then on the film gets worse! I dont know who wrote the script but i bet they got a E - for it when they took it back to show their teacher! It is difficult after a while to tell if this is a comedy because what happens is so funny and so un true to the original Omen it beggers belief. The acting is laughable , especially from the leading lady Faye Grant. she keeps pulling silly faces or is she finding it difficult not to laugh? It's hard to tell. THE worst sequal i have ever had the misfortune to witness. 1 out of 10.
I recently decided to revisit The Omen trilogy only to discover that {insert demonic music here} there is a fourth. I didn't expect much from it, and in that respect it certainly lived up to my expectations. If you're into watching bad movies for a laugh, then this just may be the movie for you. Oh, where do we start?<br /><br />From the onset, the "made for TV" look and feel of the movie was obvious. The music was often inappropriately matched with what was happening in the movie and therefore (at best) distracting. The script had all the suspense of an 8 year-olds work of fiction. But one thing that must be said is that the lacking script was very well matched up with the appalling acting. Numerous scenes left me contemplating whether it was the script or the acting that was the source of ridiculousness.<br /><br />The story itself is quite thin, centering on all the crazy antics of the daughter of Damien Thorn, adopted out by wrong-doing and badly acted nuns. There is the usual lot of mysterious and convoluted deaths that personally made me yawn as the "drama" unfolded, and the usual third-party investigator into the whole affair. Later, via some medical phenomena, Damien Thorn Jnr is born. And that pretty much wraps up the plot. The whole thing is executed rather badly right from the beginning with the lack of suspense making the movie one monotonous and/or ridiculous scene after another. <br /><br />There were many WTF?!? moments too that provides the unintended comedy relief. For example, what's with the major over-reaction at the beginning of the movie when the baby scratches the mother's cheek?? Hardly a 360-degree-head-turning omen. I also laughed at the over-reaction at the baptism. The baby cries, and everyone looks very concerned. The distressed mother runs out of the church and the priest is left looking very alarmed while crossing himself. Huh? Then there is the new-age nanny that seems to have carte blanche on exposing an 8 year-old to all kind of alternative spiritualism. I laughed when the nanny suggested bringing the troubled Delia to a psychic fair to meet the nanny's hippie friends and the mother just shrugs her shoulders and allows it. "Yeah that's groovy, fill my troubled 8 year old daughter's head with all this mysticism stuff. That's cool. I don't need to be there." Of course this would be expected from a mother who allows her daughter to adopt a fully grown Rottweiler they encounter on the street that could bite the little girls head off as a snack. The entire scene at the psychic fair is quite comical in a slapstick kinda way, from the horrified reactionary stares of the psychics to Delia, to the ensuing inferno.<br /><br />I also laughed at how the nun's death is considered a "freak accident". Here we have a religious zealot, (who is described as being part of a cult), who is fanatically preaching in a pit full of rattlesnakes to prove how God's Glory will protect them. She antagonizes the snakes by handling them and SOMEHOW she is bitten several times. Hardly a freak accident. More like a successful suicide attempt. <br /><br />The snakes-vs-nun scene wasn't the only comical death. There is the slow-speed car accident resulting in decapitation in a school parking lot. Then there is the slow-motion demolition ball headed straight for the detective. I believe I may have gone and made a coffee when the slow-motion started only to come back to see the demolition ball still headed straight for the "concerned" detective. Then there is the quintessential who-shot-who cliché death, where a gun goes off and both act as if they have been shot for several seconds while exchanging horrified glances. Then someone goes tumbling down the stairs revealing who the real victim was. Additionally, the death of the priest at the beginning of the movie seemed a little strange and pointless to me. He runs around looking at the architecture of the church. Obviously finding this quite distressing, he eventually collapses, clutching his chest and dies. Apparently something demonic was happening, as this is what the music was suggesting. Ummm. OK. <br /><br />I am surprised that others have reviewed this film favorably and, in particularly, as a "worthy sequel". It is difficult not to notice the non-sensical script, the unrealistic acting, and the inappropriate musical score. The movie lacks any suspense, relying heavily on Delia's "demonic stare" to provide a sense of horror, which becomes rather annoying after a short time. <br /><br />Bottom line : This is a bad movie with the only redeeming feature being it's unintended potential for being a comedy.
To the small minority seen here praising this film GET SERIOUS. I know it's down to peoples personal opinion at the end of the day, but anyone with more than a couple of brain cells can surely see that this is total rubbish. So bad it does not deserve to be part of this franchise. I can only assume those saying how great this is are friends with somebody involved in the film and are trying to give their career a push. Poor in every way, don't con people by saying otherwise. Storyline is a weak rehash of the previous entries, script is likewise. Attempts to hide the lack of originality by using a girl instead (WOW!) don't disguise the film-makers lack of ideas,and there is sadly a complete lack of any scares. Absolutely no redeeming qualities, utter utter turd. I've awarded this pair of chancers one mark simply for having had the nous to get someone to fund this piece of crap. They must have put more effort into that than they did into actually making the film. Shame.
Omen IV: The Awakening starts at the 'St. Frances Orphanage' where husband & wife Karen (Faye Grant) & Gene York (Michael Woods) are given a baby girl by Sister Yvonne (Megan Leitch) who they have adopted, they name her Delia. At first things go well but as the years pass & Delia (Asia Vieria) grows up Karen becomes suspicious of her as death & disaster follows her, Karen is convinced that she is evil itself. Karen then finds out that she is pregnant but discovers a sinister plot to use her as a surrogate mother for th next Antichrist & gets a shock when she finds out who Delia's real father was...<br /><br />Originally to be directed by Dominique Othenin-Girard who either quit or was sacked & was replaced by Jorge Montesi who completed the film although why he bothered is anyone's guess as Omen IV: The Awakening is absolutely terrible & a disgrace when compared to it illustrious predecessors. The script by Brian Taggert is hilariously bad, I'm not sure whether this nonsense actually looked good as the written word on a piece of paper but there are so many things wrong with it that I find even that hard to believe. As a serious film Omen IV: The AWakening falls flat on it's face & it really does work better if you look at it as a comedy spoof, I mean the scene towards the end when the Detective comes face-to-face with a bunch of zombie carol singers who are singing an ominous Gothic song has to be seen to be believed & I thought it was absolutely hilarious & ridiculous in equal measure. Then there's the pointless difference between this & the other Omen films in that this time it's a young girl, the question I ask here is why? Seriously, why? There's no reason at all & isn't used to any effect at all anyway. Then of course there's the stupid twist at the end which claims Delia has been keeping her brother's embryo inside herself & that in a sinister conspiracy involving a group of Satan worshippers it has been implanted in Karen so she can give birth to the Antichrist is moronic & comes across as just plain daft. At first it has a certain entertainment value in how bad it is but the unintentional hilarity gives way to complete boredom sooner rather than later.<br /><br />It's obviously impossible to know how much of Omen IV: The Awakening was directed by Girard & Montesi but you can sort of tell all was not well behind the camera as it's a shabby, cheap looking poorly made film which was actually made-for-TV & it shows with the bland, flat & unimaginative cinematography & production design. Then there's the total lack of scares, atmosphere, tension & gore which are the main elements that made the previous Omen films so effective.<br /><br />The budget must have been pretty low & the film looks like it was. The best most stylish thing about Omen IV: The Awakening is the final shot in which the camera rises up in the air as Delia walks away into the distance to reveal a crucifix shaped cross made by two overlapping path's but this is the very last shot before the end credits roll which says just about everything. I have to mention the music which sounds awful, more suited to a comedy & is very inappropriate sounding. The acting is alright at best but as usual the kid annoys.<br /><br />Omen IV: The Awakening is rubbish, it's a totally ridiculous film that tries to be serious & just ends up coming across as stupid. The change of director's probably didn't help either, that's still not a excuse though. The last Omen film to date following the original The Omen (1976), Damien: Omen II (1978) & The Final Conflict (1981) all of which are far superior to this.
Well since seeing part's 1 through 3 I can honestly say that they should have NEVER made part 4. Everything from the tacky, and I DO mean tacky score to the really bad acting, I dare anyone to watch this and not be bored out of their minds.<br /><br />I mean parts 1 to 3 kept the vibe strong on the plot of Damion, but without him around in this one it's just not the same. Sure by the end of part 3 I was getting a little tired of the continued story line's, but it was a good closure at the end of the third one. Again there was no reason for a part 4. Even if there was they could have done a MUCH better job than this sh*t I had to sit through, lol. There goes an hour and a half of my life i'll never see again.
***SPOILERS*** Like some evil Tinkers-to-Evers-to-Chance double-play combination we have in "Omen IV" the evil seed of the deceased AntiChrist Damien Thorn come back. Terrorizing his parents his schoolmates his neighbors and finally the entire world as a she named Delia York, Asia Vieila. After being given to a "deserving" couple the Yorks Karen & Gene, Fay Grant & Michael Woods,by the Catholic Church's St. Francis orphanage.<br /><br />Little Delia didn't waste any time making her peasants felt by scratching her mom at a house party. Later Delia almost get killed by a runaway truck only to have herself saved by this "Devil Dog" named Ryder. Going to school Delia takes care of the local bully by getting the big guy to wet himself in front of all his classmates. Later when his father threatens the Yorks with a law suit she has his head sliced off in a self-induced traffic accident! Delia is someone that you never mess with if you know what's good for you.<br /><br />Meanwhile Dalia's dad Gene becomes a big man in town on his own, or so he thinks, by getting elected to the congress as a champion of the clean air and green trees crowd instead of letting the smog and concrete boys take over the neighborhood with his eye now on he White House itself! Did his bratty and strange daughter Delia have anything to do with Gene York's sudden good fortune?<br /><br />It's only later when Jo, Ann Hearen, is hired as Delia's nanny that the truth's comes out about her strange and evil powers. Jo a New Age type realizes that Delia is a bit weird, after turning all her white crystals black, and calls her New Age Guru Noah, Jim Byrnes, to come over and check her out. Noah is so upset by what he sees in Delia Kirilian color vibrations ,all black and blue with a little pinch of red, that it flips him out so bad that he almost crashed into Delia's moms car.<br /><br />Taken on a trip to a psychic festival by Jo Delia turns the entire event into an inferno setting the place, through mental telepathy, on fire and heaving everyone there run for cover including poor Noah who was at the festival and ended up with his leg broken. The and shaken and battered Guru was so shook up by the whole experience that he later checked out of the country to become a hermit in the Tibetan wilderness. <br /><br />Jo herself is later thrown out, with the help of the sweet and cuddly family pet Ryder, of a second floor window to her death because she knew and talked too much. It's when Karen is again pregnant that she decides, finally, to find out the truth about the real parents of Delia. That's when she,and we in the audience, come face to face with the truth. She's not only the feared AntiChrist of Revelations she's his twin sister! Her brother the AntiChrist himself is about to come on the scene as her kid brother the sill unborn Alexander York!<br /><br />Three times were more then enough for the AntiChrist coming back to earth to bring about Armageddon. The movie going public were already getting a little tired of of him and his evil adventures. With a fourth really not necessary since Daimen Thorn, the original AntiChrist, had been dead and buried for years. Were put through the usual ringer with no one believing that little Delia is "Thee" AntiChrist until it was almost too late to stop her in her deadly rounds of destroying the entire human race. The movie as bad as it is is also far too long, 97 minutes, for a horror flick that could well have told it's story is as little as 80 minutes.<br /><br />Having a private eye Earl Knight, Mchael Learner,and later a former Catholic nun sister Yvonne,Megan Lehch,and now faith healer Felichy in the film only to be killed off didn't help the plot either. It only prolonged the suffering of those of us watching the movie. You could see the surprise ending coming almost as soon as the film "Omen IV" began with the bases being cleared for Delia's eventual takeover of the civilized as well as uncivilized world. What was a bit of a surprise was Delia doing it with a little help from friends.
After the already disappointing "Final Conflict", the series hits rock-bottom with this very weak fourth entry. At least the third film tried (unsuccessfully) to continue the story of Damien, while this one simply rehashes and copies ideas from the "Omen" (animals are afraid of the Antichrist, the death of one man is very similar to the death of the photographer in the first film). But what looked exciting and creative there looks just dumb here. And the little girl looks simply like a spoiled kid.
and it did. It is through my experience that when a horror film reaches "franchise" status, and subsequent titles are released thereafter, they all, in turn, become stricken by one inevitable factor: irrelevance. Omen IV: The Awakening makes no exception to this rule, featuring another small child supposedly embracing their role as the Anti-Christ, foretold by a religious prophecy. Haven't we seen this before? Wasn't it enough that, over the span of three films prior to this release, we've experienced the rise and fall of Damien Thorn? If you're a horror enthusiast such as myself, you'll realize that it's common for a horror movie that has many sequels and prequels to its credit to fade away into redundancy - Children of the Corn, Hellraiser, Phantasm; the list goes on. At this point in the game, I'm sure you know what to expect when you're prepared to view the fourth title in a series. Regardless, there are times when you sit back and realize how shameless some filmmakers are. Omen IV: The Awakening is just that, too - a shameless money making exercise.<br /><br />This film does not offer anything new or intriguing to the Omen lineup. As unique and genuine as Omen IV tries to be compared to its siblings, the similarities and plot devices are embarrassingly alike. Elements like the guardian dog, the involvement of a priest, the skepticism of the people involved, the decapitation death scene (clearly a homage to the original film when the journalist is beheaded by the sheet of glass)...even right down to the father's involvement in politics and prestige within the community make it too predictable. <br /><br />Although it is common to star a B-Rated cast into a horror title this far into a series, the acting is off the charts, chock-full of ridiculousness and unintentional humor due to some of the poorly delivered lines throughout this film. The atmosphere has completely vanished in comparison to the first three titles. In addition, the epic score composed by Goldsmith in the previous movies has been replaced by an auditory debacle; an absolute joke, and made me wonder if it was actually intended to be used for this film or just pulled from a "bank" of stock audio...which really says something, because rarely do I comment on the lousy misuse of a musical score - until now.<br /><br />All in all, I'd call Omen IV: The Awakening a failure. In the world of horror movies that carry a long list of titles behind them, some manage to hit the mark and some don't. If you're interested in creating another notch on your weathered horror belt such as I am for completion purposes, perhaps you could carve this title into it as well - if not for entertainment value, then to appreciate when a film is executed properly, or poorly.
Having listened to and enjoyed Harvey Bernhard's Omen II commentary I was shocked to discover he was also behind this absolute piece of rubbish. It's like a really bad TV movie you might glimpse in the middle of the day when you have the flu and are too ill to reach the remote. I think at the bit where Michael Lerner is confronted by what I can only describe as a high school cast of Les Miserables my mouth hung open in disbelief. And then my mouth was going up and down because I was laughing so much. Dire. I don't know why I have to write a minimum of ten lines, I have made my point succinctly, there's nothing clever about all this modern verbiage.
This inferior sequel based by the characters created by David Selzer and Harvey Bernhard(also producer) concern on a matrimony named Gene(Michael Woods) and Karen York(Faye Grant). They adopt a little girl named Delia from a convent. Gene York about re-elect for congressman and he presides the financing committee. Meanwhile, Delia seems to be around when inexplicable deaths happen. She creates wreak havoc when goes a metaphysical fair, as stores of numerology, therapy, counselling heal,yoga, tarots, among others are destroyed. Karen York hires an eye private(Michael Lerner) to investigate the weird and bizarre events.<br /><br />This TV sequel displays thrills, chills, creepy events and gory killing. Delia such as Damien seems to dispatch new eerie murder every few minutes of film, happening horrible killings . The chief excitement lies in watching what new and innocent victim can be made by the middling special effects. Furthermore, mediocre protagonists, Faye Grant and Michael Woods, however nice cast secondary, such as Michael Lerner,Madison Mason, Duncan Fraser and the recently deceased Don S Davis, he was an Army captain turned into acting. As always , excellent musical score taken from Omen I and III by the great Jerry Goldsmith. The movie is exclusively for hardcore followers Omen saga. The motion picture is badly directed by Jorge Montesi and Dominique Othenin Girard. Previous and much better versions are the following : The immensely superior original 'Omen'(Gregory Peck, Lee Remick)by Richard Donner; 'Damien'(William Holden, Lee Grant) by Don Taylor; 'Final conflict'(Sam Neil and Tisa Harrow) by Grahame Baker. Rating : Below average.
What was the deal with the clothes? They were all dressed like something out of the late 70's early 80s. The cars were even were outdated. The school was outdated. The nuns attire was outdated, and the hospital looked like something from the 40's, with its wards and wooden staircases and things. Nothing in the whole movie implied it took place in 1991. My mother was laughing, saying "Geeeee-od! WHEN was this movie MADE?" When we pressed the "INFO BUTTON" on our remote, we were sure 1991 had to be typo! Did anybody else notice this? My FAVORITE part, though, was when the woman tells her uppity muck husband, on the telephone, about the inverted cross in the mirror, and he just says "Well, look, I've got a congress meeting. I'll talk to you about it later." That line was just classic. JUST LIKE A MAN! My mothers favorite part was when they gave the "Spawn of the Devil Child" her very own Rottweiler. My mother said "Just what the Spawn of the Devil needs... a Rottweiler" She also enjoyed all of the people collapsing in the churches, clutching their chests. Her OTHER favorite part was the guy at the school parking lot, driving 5 miles a hour, driving right into the garbage truck/dump truck/front end loader thingee. He had about 20 seconds to just stop the car...but he just kept going, with a real dumb vacant look on his face. I mean, how fast can you GO in a school parking lot?!?! Whatever!
On the surface the idea of Omen 4 was good. It's nice to see that the devil child could be a girl. In fact, sometimes, as in the Exorcist, when girls are possessed or are devilry it's very effective. But in Omen 4, it stunk.<br /><br />Delia does not make me think that she could be a devil child, rather she is a child with issues. Issues that maybe only a therapist, rather then a priest could help. She does not look scary or devilish. Rather, she looks sulky and moody.<br /><br />This film had potential and if it was made by the same people who had made the previous three films it could of worked. But it's rather insulting really to make a sequel to one of the most favoured horror trilogies, as a made for TV movie special.<br /><br />On so many levels it lets down. It's cheap looking, the acting is hammish and the effects are typical of a TV drama. The characters do not bring any sympathy, and you do not route for them. I recently re-watched it after someone brought it for me for Christmas, and it has dated appalling.<br /><br />If your thinking of watching this, then I would suggest that you don't. Watch one of the others, or watch the Exorcist, or watch The Good Son. Just don't waste your time on this drivel!
Since I'd seen the other three, I figured I might as well catch this made for TV fourth part of The Omen series. As a stand alone film, this movie is mediocre; but as a sequel to the 1976 masterpiece; it's a travesty. The film goes along the same route that many series' go down when they're running out of ideas; that being the idea of changing the male lead to a female. It's always obvious that this film was made for television as the acting is very standard, the plot lacks ideas and the gruesome murder scenes seen in the previous three are kept to a bloodless minimum. The film does keep a thread with the original, which I won't reveal as despite being obvious; that revelation is one of the most interesting aspects of the movie. The basics of the plot largely copy Richard Donner's original, and see a young couple adopt a child, which they name Delia (not Damiella or Damiana, fortunately). There's a big dog involved, and a child minder; and pretty soon, the wife starts to suspect that the child may not quite be normal; as she's menstruating at eight years old, and never suffered from any illnesses...<br /><br />The first two sequels to The Omen weren't bad at all, and the series really should have ended at number three. I guess there was money involved somewhere down the line, as there really is no artistic reason why this film should have been made. It brings nothing to the table in terms of originality, and the only thing it's likely to succeed in doing is annoying fans of the series. The film looks and feels like a TV movie all the way through and for the most part plays out like a film about the troubled upbringing of a young girl. Indeed, Asia Vieira does look like a little bitch; but she never convinces that she's the Antichrist, as her stares are redundant and most of the 'evil' she does is laughable. Faye Grant is given the meatiest role, and doesn't impress; while the rest of the cast regret agreeing to star in such an awful waste of time. The only good thing about this movie is the theme tune, which of course has been ripped off from the original; and is overused. On the whole, this film really isn't worth seeing; as it delivers nothing that the series is famous for, and doesn't even do justice to weaker second sequel.
The only connection this movie has to horror is that it is horribly unentertaining. I would rather prick my finger with a rusty nail than have to sit through it again. Even for a TV movie it is flat. The cast is boring. The screenplay is as exciting as a bowl of sand. How two directors conspired to create such a nothing movie will remain one of the great mysteries of the 20th Century. There is only one scene even vaguely worthy of inclusion in the Omen franchise, and it is shot in slo-mo and cut short at the anticipated pay-off. If you are tempted to see this, pop it in, set your alarm clock for 90 minutes and get comfy. With any luck you'll doze off quickly, and the alarm will wake you once the worst is over. Namely, this movie.
'The Omen 4: The Awakening' is a made-for-television sequel to the original 'The Omen' film. Instead of Satan possessing the body of a little boy, he possesses the body of a little girl adopted by rich parents, who is bullied at school and who ends up getting revenge against those who do her wrong. The film seems to struggle with any horror factor, and a lot of the events that happen are simply silly rather than particularly frightening, and it is difficult to believe that this little girl is Satan, even with all of the events that surround it. I just did not find this film very suspenseful or frightening, particularly when compared to the original.
Its unfortunate that someone decided to spin off on the best horror movies of all time in my book. This poor copy steals lots of material from the first three films going as far as even copying how persons die and what will happen in the future to the key characters and it basically tries to cram in three films into one and fails. It fails even to create a good scary atmosphere for one (except with the odd exception where the impressive choral music brings back memories of the old films).<br /><br />The only thing we can be thankful for is that there has not been an Omen V.
If you are hoping for ANYTHING new, you have chosen the wrong movie. Who can think that a movie that is a virtual replay of it's predeccesors can be good. Maybe the producer and maybe the director but hopefully they were not serious when they made this THING. This whole movie is like making a greatest hits DVD of the 1st 3 films, but changing the actors. BHHAAAAD.
Pointless short about a bunch of half naked men slapping and punching each other. That's it. For about 5 minutes we see this. It's shot in black and white with tons of half-naked men running around slapping each other to the tune of dreadful music. It LOOKS interesting but there's no plot and really--the violence inherent in this got disturbing. Also the homo eroticism in this is played up but mixing it with violence was not a good idea. Some people who like avant garde material might like this but I found it incomprehensible, boring, stupid and (ocassionally) disturbing. Really--what is the point in all this? I saw it as part of a festival of gay shorts and the audience sat there in stunned silence. I really wish I could go lower than 1.
First, I should mention that I really enjoyed ISHII Katsuhito's previous film "Samehada Otoko to Momojiri Onna" ("Shark Skin Man and Peach Hip Girl"). Although it owed a debt to Tarentino's "Pulp Fiction", Ishii's cast was up to the task of carrying the story, and the entire film crackled with energy. The scenes between ASANO Tadanobu and GASHUIN Tatsuya were particularly engaging. There was action, intrigue, bizarre characterizations, enough sex to keep things interesting, and an utterly unpredictable story line.<br /><br />So it was with a certain amount of anticipation and optimism that I began to watch "Party 7". And my enthusiasm was certainly piqued with the opening credits, which left my wife and I actually stunned by how dynamic and exciting they were; the mix of anime and live-action work was brilliant! Then, the actual movie started. Actually, it didn't so much "start" as sort of shuffle in the side door and stand there, fumbling through its pockets, looking uncomfortable.<br /><br />The entire film takes place in three rooms. One is a futuristic voyeur's paradise (borrowed a bit from "Shark Skin Man..."), another is a travel agent's office, and the third (and far the most used) is a seedy hotel room. In that room, a cast of seven characters meets and...does approximately nothing. Really. I'm no stranger to "talking" films. One of my all-time favorites is "My Dinner with Andre", the talkiest of all talking films. "My Dinner with Andre" is far more exciting, and it just has two middle-aged men discussing their lives over dinner. The key is that Andre Gregory and Wallace Shawn tell interesting stories. The cast of "Party 7" literally just whine at each other for the entire film. "No, you don't!" "Yes, I do!" "No, you really don't!" "Yes, I really do!" "No, you really, really don't!" Yes, I really..." you get the idea, I hope. I wish the directer had.<br /><br />"Party 7 is an unbelievably unengaging film. There is only the flimsiest of plots (money stolen from the Yakuza, just like in "Shark Skin Man..."), accompanied by almost no action. There is no interesting dialog. The characters are largely uninteresting. It was as if Ishii took the throwaway conversational moments from Tarentino's films and built an entire film around them. But Tarentino's conversations always have their own internal logic and wit ("They call it a 'Royale, with cheese'"). Not so with the dialog here, which is duller than you can imagine. If it weren't for the brief, hilarious cameo from Gashuin (who is always marvelous) and a low-key performance from the awesome ASANO Tadanobu, I would've given "Party 7" a single star. It really was chore to make it all the way through.
Resnais, wow! The genius who brought us Hiroshima Mon Amour takes on the challenge of making a 1930s French musical in vibrant colour. The opening voice-over with old, embellished inter-titles was a nice touch. Then the camera aperture opens (like the old hand crankers) on a black & white placard. The camera backs off (or rather, up), suddenly showing us the surprisingly brilliant colours of an elegant table set for a tea party. This is all in the first 60 seconds.<br /><br />Then the music starts. A rather banal and forgettable diddy featuring an unconvincing chorus of 3 girls blabbering some nonsense which has no relevance to the film (and yes, I speak French, so I can't blame it on the subtitles). Those characters whiz out the door and are replaced by more people who break into an even more forgettable song. Then they leave, and finally Audrey Tautou appears and we hear our first appreciable dialogue 15 minutes into the film.<br /><br />I'm not sure what Resnais intended by starting off with such a yawning waste of time & musical cacophony. But the effect on the viewer is to make you want to hurl skittles at the screen and storm out. I endured.<br /><br />It didn't get much better. I'll tell you why. There is absolutely no familiarity with any of the characters. We don't even see their faces half the time (as Resnais seems too intent on showing off the expensive scenery to care about the actual people in front of the camera). People flit on & off stage like moths around a lamp, and we the audience are unable to focus on any particular person or plot. It's as if you were to take every episode of the Brady Bunch and cram it into a 2 hour movie. With bad songs.<br /><br />The only thing that kept me watching as long as I did (1 hour) was that I was looking at the camera techniques, lighting and scenery which were all, I admit, excellent. But is that enough to hold your attention for 2 hours? Not me. Maybe tomorrow I'll try watching the end. Aw, who am I kidding. I have more important things to do. I'm sure you do, too. Skip this.
If I hadn't read his name on the DVD cover, I never would have suspected that this rather gushy and old fashioned musical was made by a man so closely associated with the French New Wave. In fact, the film is so far from that, that I wonder if back in the 50s and 60s, New Wave auteurs would have absolutely hated this type of film--it's so...so...unreal. And, it seems to have little to do with so many of his previous films. This isn't necessarily a bad thing--just a very surprising thing.<br /><br />What I also found a bit surprising was the amount of praise some of the reviewers gave this film--especially when there are so many better French musicals out there. The songs in this film were simply not particularly interesting and the characters all seemed so bland and stereotypical. If I had to see another rich person who fretted about how hard it is to be rich or get a good sale price on a designer outfit, I was going to puke.<br /><br />The bottom line is that like American musicals, not every French musical is gold. This film is not another "Les parapluies de Cherbourg" (UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG or "Huit Femmes" (EIGHT WOMEN) and despite the presence of Audrey Tautou, I can't see much reason to recommend it as anything other than a dull oddity.
...but the actress playing the daughter just doesn't come across as credible.<br /><br />It doesn't work for me when I see an actress of about 25 years playing the role of a 12-year-old... Other commentators have suggested that this is one of the messages of this film, that children may sometimes seem more adult-like than adults, but with the casting as it is in this film, it just doesn't work for me.<br /><br />you might want to check other comments to find out what this film is actually about, because i couldn't bear watching it to the end.<br /><br />i agree that the premise for this film is beautiful though - I wish another director would try to pick up this story again.
this movie is, despite its "independent" status, a stupid hollywood version of a nauseating mother-daughter relationship. it wasnt that bad at first, but somewhere during the course of the movie--around the time that the daughter goes out with that guy, i think--it turns into a cheesey mother-daughter bonding movie. im sorry, but i dont know of any mothers who have that kind of relationship with their daughter...its probably better that way, though.
Disappointing, predictable film in which a woman (Mc Teer) travels with her daughter from state to state because she can't maintain relationships and find happiness. In this genre 'Anywhere but here' starring Susan Sarandon and Natalie Portman gave a much better insight into a mother/daughter relationship. With Better acting as well.
While watching the film, I'm not sure what direstion it was to take. There's a reason a writer shouldn't direct his work and even act in it as well, you can't do it all. I felt the story really suffered in this film due to the director wearing so many hats. Ms. McTeer is the film. To add to her amazing talents, her portrayal of this woman was why I was engaged. Here is a British actress who can do anything. In my view, conflict is what makes drama and a great story. I felt this film didn't have that. Everything was somewhat easy for the characters, there were no real obstacles preventing the chahracters from getting what they wanted. Watch the film for the sweetness, but most of all for Ms. McTeer's brilliant performance.
We've all seen this story a hundred times. You can see each plot turn coming a mile away. The relationship between the mother and daughter is way too sweet and understanding to pass for realistic. Janet Mcteer's performance is stock southern hot- ticket mother in vintage clothes. Should have been made for the Lifetime Channel.
"The Bank" (1915, Chaplin) "The Bank" was one of Charlie's 1915 Essanay films. While these group of films are more watchable than their 1914 counterparts, this one seems a bit below average. The gag with the janitorial double combo-locked vault and the tough-luck ending that has Charlie waking up from a dream, in which he is stroking the lead lady's hair, only to be stroking the head of a mop he had used as a quasi pillow, are both classic Chaplin moments. They are both ironically the beginning and the end. The middle is filled in with fighting with the rival co-worker janitor and busting up a bank robbery to win the girl. The mop is probably the greatest physical prop of this movie and Charlie uses it to expert comedic effect whether while it is the intention of his character or not. The mop seems to be Charlie's alter-ego doing things he wishes he could do but wouldn't with his own two hands. Interesting stuff but there's better.
I refused to watch this when it originally aired, treasuring the memory of the late, lamented 1960s series with Mike Pratt and Kenneth Cope, but I can never resist a challenge. I should have known better. Not quite a remake, and more of a parody than a homage, this show didn't quite know how to play it, and plumped with infantile comedy and cartoon plots and characters. The three main characters were little more than caricatures of the actors, and only Emilia Fox could act (Bob Mortimer is painful in a straight role). The supporting cast were merely comedian-acquaintances of Vic and Bob's wanting to be part of the in-joke, and far too aware of the situation to be convincing. And the CGI, though the effects couldn't help be an improvement on those available 30 years earlier, merely dazzled the viewer with lights and camera work, and did little to mask the poor quality of the scripts and dialogue. All style and no substance. (And whereas the 1960s show is mocked for being very much of its time, this 'update' is now also very dated, with 'Matrix'-style fashions, obligatory 'girl power' scenes, and less than subtle tension between the two living leads.)
This video guide was the masterpiece of the year 1995. Beautifully done! Matthew Perry and Jennifer Aniston have major on-screen chemistry when they talk about what the Start button does. I'm waiting for Microsoft to release a Special Edition DVD complete with deleted scenes, Bill Gates commentary, a documentary of how Windows 95 compares to Windows XP, and more!<br /><br />Overall: 10/10 (Should have won at least a Golden Globe)
One can deal with historical inaccuracies, but this film was just too much. Practically nothing was even close to truth, and even for the era, it was seen as silly.<br /><br />In defense of ford, it was revealed on an old talk show, that he was operating on the story as told to him by the real Wyatt Earp, who was obviously old, senile, and replayed the scene his own way. Earp told the director about the stagecoach, and how it was planned to happen during the stagecoach arrival, so despite what other historians claim, Wyat himself asserts that it was premeditated.<br /><br />This movie portrays Earp as an honest man, and also his brothers. History doesn't exactly say they were or weren't. Most people like to interject a bit of deceit and lawlessness into their characters, but that is nothing new. The truth is probably closer to them being the law abiding sorts of GUNFIGHT AT THE OK CORRAL. Men who saw it as a career, and believe me, in the old West, you didn't have time to think about too much else.<br /><br />Characters that don't exist, characters depicted dying at the corral who really didn't, all make this a weaker film. It is further weakened by Mature, who really didn't make a convincing Doc. He may be the worst cast choice ever for Doc, but at the same time we must remember that older movies were closer to the era and closer to a feel for the truth. After all, ford did get information first hand from Wyatt Earp.<br /><br />It is also weakened by the all so predictable events involving the Mexican girl. Hollywood was very pro Nazi in those days, and ready to kill off brunette women in very predictable fashion to show their patronage to Hitler idealism. This occurs in most movies until the eighties. It is no excuse, and does cheapen the art, however.<br /><br />The actors who play the Earps do well, and Brennan is always a thrill. In fact, Mature may be the only acting downside of this flick. Still, it is the weakest of the old OK Corral movies.
To put it simply, I am not fond of westerns. And having never sat through one from beginning to end, I decided to watch "My Darling Clementine" and see it all the way through, no matter how painful it was for me. At first it was excruciating as expected. I found the acting to be laughable, the scenery (your standard dessert, horses and cowboys) boring and the music and its timing teetering on the edge of painful. However, after mentally pep talking myself to struggle on, after the first 20 minutes it began to be quite a bit easier for me to endure. Focusing in on the cinematography, and how John Ford managed to make even the dullest situations (dull according to me that is) look quite stunning at times, made it a lot more interesting. <br /><br />In conclusion, I can't go so far as to say that I enjoyed the movie by the end of it. However it was made well enough for me to sit all the way through to the very end, and that in itself impresses me.
What a fantastic premise: A movie about the Berlin Airlift. It should have it all. Tragedy. Suspense. Comradeship. Rivals. Berliner Frauleins and tough US pilots. love and Tears. What we've got, is a film with none of the above. Heino Ferch tries to impersonate John Wayne or so, but he fails miserably. He acts so wooden, that at any given moment he should crack. He tries to play the tough guy, instead of being a tough guy! Why would Bettina Zimmermann's character fall in love with him? Cause they were throwing stones in a lake? Cause he brings her coal bricks? The SFX are very, very well done. Too much though. The hundreds or so planes over Berlin, look like an attack-fighter-formation-squadron rather than an organised airlift – as it actually was. Interestingly enough, the White House, the Kremlin, and General Lucius D. Clays office seem all to be one and the same dark and dusty set. Notice the same drapes, hanging deep down the windows, as if a protective shield against nuclear fallout. Why is almost every scene INSIDE dark and dusty? By the way, GENERAL LUCIUS D. CLAY, comes across as a small time, insecure, looser General, who doest trust in his own noble idea the airlift. He was very much the opposite. So you combine all those individual blunders and the result is a film with that builds toward no passion, no suspense and no historic accuracy. Sad, it started out so promising…
A few weeks ago the German broadcaster "SAT1" advertised this movie as the "TV-Event of the year" - sorry, but I've seen better things on TV this year.<br /><br />I didn't thought much of the movie but I soon reminisced about two other horrible movies when I watched the commercial - namely Titanic and Pearl Harbor because the picture looked so familiar: The "heroine" (if I can really call her that) in the middle and her two "loved-ones" next to her - Pearl Harbor, anyone? In fact the love-story is a poor man's version of the one in Pearl Harbor and that one was already poor!<br /><br />But as I like watching movies and analyzing their patterns I eventually decided to watch that rubbish. The movie begins with a doctor leaving his family for the military strike against Russia near the end of the Third Reich promising his wife that he will return. Now fast forward to Spring 1948: Germany lost the war and the allies & Russia captured the country and they both try to eliminate each other for world power and their ideologies: capitalism versus communism. Well, I guess you already know the story because you have to know it - The movie doesn't really bother with it so much and literally takes a dump on historical facts. The movie tries to depict the US government as angels and completely ignores the contribution of other countries during the airlift especially Great Britain who was responsible for nearly a quarter of the rations despite having their country bombed from a country that they're trying to help.<br /><br />What was also pretty annoying were the historical remarks the people said in the movie like when the heroine's mother tells her daughter that Germany might be parted in two with a response like: "That's impossible!" Or when Stalin (where the director thought we just stick similarly looking mustache on the actor and he WILL look like him) says that Russia has to stop "Coca Cola" from spreading in Germany. Yeah right, if Stalin has ever said something like this. Or there is this one US pilot who tells his fellow of a bread with meat and everything possible in it - please! Burgers were invented WAY before that time.<br /><br />In the movie you once see a map showing the airlines, funnily enough the map looks like it came straight out of a laser printer - in '48. The US general Lucius Clay who's main idea was to stay in Berlin is portrayed as a guy who is mean and grumpy and all the ideas he historically had like for example the airlift and improving on that idea came from the fictive character Phillip Turner, the love interest of the main actress which leads me to other aspects: Not enough African-American soldiers in the movie, there were like two in the whole film! Also relationships between US soldiers and German civilians was not allowed and by a revealing of such a relationship the US soldier would've been sent home. I don't want to say that there were no relationships at all but in this movie there was a couple that almost got married, If it wasn't for the death of the pilot in his fake CGI plane which looked terribly unrealistic especially the CGI fire!<br /><br />If it wasn't enough all Americans in this movie spoke accent-free German although they only were in Germany for a couple of months - look I'm also American living in Germany for my whole life and even I have a little accent. Notably bad was also the child acting - the kids had like two expressions on their faces: "Normal-I-look-monotonous-like-a-robot" and grinning.<br /><br />All in all the movie was boring from beginning to end moving way too slow especially the love story which was the same as the one in Pearl Harbor just with half of the dialogue. The sad part is that the movie was very successful - 8.97 millions watched the first part and 7.83 millions the second part the day after thus SAT1 receiving two consecutive wins in the overall market share and a whopping win in the commercial relevant group. But like I always think: The biggest pile of bull-crap is where the most flies go to.
The idea of making a miniseries about the Berlin airlift seemed to me as one of the more interesting German (post)war movies. It is a theme that has not been explored much as yet. However, the makers of this series stuffed it with clichés. It starts already with the DVD cover of the movie, which is a direct copy of the cover of 'Pearl Harbor'.<br /><br />Luise Kielberg (Bettina Zimmermann) gets to hear that her husband, who is a doctor, (Ulrich Noethen) has died in Russia and after the war she's struggling to survive. She finds a job at the American base, gets to work for the coolest and highest ranking officer (Heino Ferch) in town, falls in love with 'm, gets pregnant, and all of a sudden her husband turns up again. Come on!!! We've seen this once too often. Heino Ferch and Ulrich Noethen play their role quite well; Bettina Zimmermann however never really seems to convince. For some reason it always seems she's somewhat too late in giving the right emotional reaction to the scenes. It just didn't work for me.<br /><br />The action scenes with the planes and the air lift, we're sometimes exciting, more often not. Nasty things always seemed to happen to the same pilot.<br /><br />Unless you're a big fan of WWII movies, I suggest you spend your money on something else: chocolate ice-cream brings a lot more satisfaction!<br /><br />4 out 10!
Heavenly Days commits a serious comedy faux pas: it's desperate to teach us a civics lesson, and it won't stop until we've passed the final exam. Fibber McGee and Molly take a trip to Washington, where they see the senate in action (or inaction, if you prefer), have a spat with their Senator (Eugene Palette in one of the worst roles of his career), get acquainted with a gaggle of annoying stereotypical refugee children, and meet a man on a train reading a book by Henry Wallace. Henry Wallace!! A year later, he was considered a near communist dupe, but in 1944, he was A-OK. Add in some truly awful musical moments, a whole lot of flagwaving hooey, and a boring subplot about newspaper reporters, and you've got a film that must have had Philip Wylie ready to pen Generation of Vipers 2: D.C. Boogaloo. Drastically unfun, Heavenly Days is another reminder that the Devil has all the best tunes.
One-note comedy that probably sets modern day feminists' teeth on edge. Department store clerk Betsy Drake is in love with the idea of babies and marriage, pinning her hopes on women's magazines until she spies super-bait in the form of sleek bachelor Cary Grant. The rest of the film plods from one ploy to the next as the relentless Drake pursues her quarry. I guess the word "perky" just about sum's up Drake's approach to the role. She does have a charming smile, but after 20 minutes of memorizing her dentures, I began to overdose. Grant's role is basically secondary and minus his usual flair. There is one scene, however, that almost salvages this slender exercise. Drake queries the hapless Grant following his lecture to a roomful of respectable ladies. Here her perky manner has an unforced freshness that is really quite remarkable, and had the production not rubbed our noses in that upbeat grin for 90 minutes, the film might have amounted to more than a girls' camp day-dream, circa 1948.
Stalker is right! Girl sees guy, girl wants guy, girl contrives mundane ways to keep bumping into him, girl won't leave him alone, girl pretends to be a patient, girl can't stop talking about him, girl pretends to love another guy (or two), he doesn't pay attention to her because she's annoying, girl STILL won't leave him alone. Played right, Drake's character could have been charming but she's completely, wholly, unrelenting in her pursuit of Cary Grant's character, her girlfriend-in-cahoots is dull, and sadly, Drake's attempt at playing, "charmingly screwball" comes off as, "disturbingly demented." Grant is himself, as usual, which is fine for Cary but it's as close to a phoned-in performance as I've ever seen from him. The direction is lackluster and the dialog is just plain dim.<br /><br />Screwball comedy is very difficult to do successfully and when it fails, like in this stubbed-out butt of an attempt, it just stinks. Worse still, Drake spends the entire film in need of a lot of Valium and a restraining order. She ruins any humor to be found in this drier than mummy dust relic.
I'm among millions who consider themselves Cary Grant fans, but I can't think of a single reason to recommend this movie.I don't understand the casting of Betsy Drake and it appears no one else did,if we're to judge from the small number of films in which she played afterwards.<br /><br />Most fans will agree that Katharine Hepburn was superb at chasing and catching Cary Grant in Bringing Up Baby.Here the director or writers try to rehash the idea,but it fails miserably.I've read comments about how "creepy" Drake was,but I thought that was far too mild a description. Franchot Tone walked through this one as if he were hungover.A casting disaster is one thing.This film is a total disaster.<br /><br />This one doesn't deserve 10 lines of comments and I don't know why that's a requirement.Too bad this one was preserved when so many worthwhile films lie rotting in vaults.<br /><br />Unless you want to torture someone,give this one a wide berth.
This woman never stops talking throughout the movie. She memorized every line, and delivered all without a bit of natural emotion. She also has a most uncharming lisp, and the pitch of her voice sounds like nails on a blackboard. This film has WAY too much Betsy Drake, and not enough Cary Grant, who carried what little was left of the film entirely on his own.
Remade today, this film would be a very creepy, very disturbing dark comedy. Stalking, obsession, and a web of lies and manipulations are given a 1948 gloss of aren't-they-cute harmlessness. Drake plays the stalker, an unabashed user of people, alternately pathetic and manipulative, Grant plays the stalking victim, alternately angry and oblivious.<br /><br />Vastly disturbing; I haven't been able to look at classic romances with the same suspension of disbelief since.<br /><br />
I always found Betsy Drake rather creepy, and this movie reinforces that. As another review said, this is a stalker movie that isn't very funny. I watched it because it has CG in it, but he hardly gets any screen time. It's no "North by Northwest"...
Maximally manipulative Anabel Sims (Betsy Drake) sets out to trap her ideal man, aided by her co-worker, Julie. Esteemed pediatrician Madison Brown (Cary Grant) goes from bemused to betrothed in the space of 90 minutes on film, but to the viewer it's all eternity. Can a movie receive less than one star? This one is a prime candidate.
I went in to this movie thinking it was going to be the next Clerks, but left feeling let down. The humor was weak and the characters fairly flat. That isn't to say it was all bad, the idea of the dating service in the grocery store seemed like pretty fertile material, but the director switched focus to the cliche'd "save the Mom-and-Pop store from the evil corporation guy". I felt like if he would have just stuck with the dating service plot, he would have come out with a much more memorable movie. Now, to do the film justice, I am from the Rochester area and loved the way he portrayed Webster. In fact, the best Kevin Smith (of Clerks) homage here was giving props to his hometown. Webster, NY is to Checkout what Red Bank, NJ is to Clerks. The director wisely threw in a date at Nick Tahou's. Trust me, as far as things to do in Rochester, a garbage plate is at the top of the list. I was lucky enough to see this film at the Little in Rochester so everybody knew when the odes to the town came up and appreciated them.
i should qualify that title, now that i think about it. Checkout is not entirely worthless. i've had the opportunity to see it twice, and on the second time i did get a great laugh at the movie's expense. so i guess it's worth something for that. and also it's worthwhile for the excruciating pain it caused me on my first viewing. as another reviewer pointed out, this film is hackneyed in every sense of the word. not a single original thought went into this movie (which makes the comment below about the originality of the premise entirely baffling to me). the film is nothing but a long line of cliches which are strung together and paraded around as a movie. it is definitely not the next Clerks, it is definitely not original, and it is absolutely not "good, clean fun." the film is absolute agony to the uninitiated (after seeing it a first time, the second time can be quite funny, in an insulting sort of way). as i looked around the theater, it was obvious that nearly everyone, barring perhaps the elderly, were completely bored or pained by this movie. during some of the particularly emotional scenes, like where Nick chews out his mother, the audience was actually cringing because it was so poorly done. i even heard someone *groan* in the theater, something i had heretofore never witnessed. i don't care where you have the chance to see this movie, be it at a film festival, or in a indie theater, or wherever. do yourself a favor, skip this movie with a vengeance. unless you're like me and just can't resist the opportunity to see what may truly be the worst movie ever made.
This is a movie about making a movie. Such movies may be entertaining, but they need some substance, to do so. It did not happen here, I am afraid. Mr Coppola did not inherit his father's skills, unfortunately (neither did his sister, who can however make movies which one might watch).<br /><br />I do wonder how this movie came to get such rave reviews. <br /><br />Let's see: the lead male actor, supposedly a director, is as expressive as a frozen squid and his voice has the same pitch whatever he says, the lead female actress has an expression on her face that never changes, the plot is totally segmented in bits with perhaps one single connecting element, the movie within the movie idea must be more stale than paleolithic rocks... Would that be enough?<br /><br />I regretted every single moment I watched this movie. A walk with the dog is far superior entertainment to this unbelievably lame movie. It's as if a François Truffaut plot were directed by Dick Cheney...<br /><br />Brazil, some other classic SF movies? You must be really joking...
CQ is incredibly slow, and I'm a David Mamet fan. The movie follows around a young filmmaker who is making a very Barbarella-esque film. After that the movie started to lose me. Deep and profound? Not really. The movie "Dragonfly" being made in CQ has the problem of having no ending. This greatly parallels CQ, which also lacks an ending (in my opinion).<br /><br />I was lucky enough to catch this movie at the SxSW film festival. I had fairly high expectations having just watched Y Tu Mama Tambien and several other great movies. I was also looking forward to Jason Schwartzman's performance. But it was not an easy film to get into. If you're not into 60's sci-fi or slow movies that go no where, skip it.<br /><br />CQ feels like a student film. If you want a recent sci-fi-esque indie film rent Donnie Darko, it won't put you to sleep.
CQ was the worst film I saw this year. Nearly every film I choose to see in the theater is at least entertaining or has something to say. This film looked like like it was directed by a film student for his Intro. to Filmmaking class. His father makes great films. His sister made a good one. But brother Roman? NO! One critic had the audacity to compare this film to Godard's Le Mépris (Contempt). While Coppola, Jr. did take the same idea, a film about film, he tried too hard to make himself seem European, artsy, and witty, when it's all really just kitsch. The lead actor carries the same expression through the whole film, like he's either in awe or in shock of this film being made around him. Schwartzman somehow manages to pull off his role as a flamboyant director. Depardieu is alright. The one scene that has any real film spoof humor at all is, surprisingly, not the B-movie scenes, but rather one which takes place in Italy; a montage of shots of several various characters inside a very small car, driving around picking up and dropping off random people. This was the only thing that reminded me of the cinema I am guessing he was trying to spoof. Or rip-off. Or both. The documentary with the lead talking into the camera and filming various objects has been played out, the ending was tagged on for the sake of a "twist" or artistic value... I suppose the funniest thing about this film was the film itself, and not in the way it intended. No wonder this film was sent back after a festival screening to be re-edited or re-shot or whatever, which makes me curious as to just how bad it was before. I can't believe it could have been worse than this. If you want to see a good parody of film check out the Austin Powers films. Any of them. The opening to the third is more entertaining and more genius than this entire film. Lil' Romy, for the sake of cinema, PLEASE go back to directing your cousin's music videos. Leave The Godfathers to daddy.
Okay, the film festival crowd probably loved it. But your average, popcorn munching movie goer who has scraped to-gether the ten or fifteen bucks it costs to see a movie these days will probably wonder why he or she made this choice. If it's stamped "Copolla" it's automatically great stuff, right? Wrong! It's a neat spoof of filmdom's pretensions. But it's terribly "in." I worry when film makers are more concerned about entertaining themselves rather than the public. It's interesting as a cinematic curio and it does have a chuckle or two in it. But once it's run its course in the movies and on TV, the dust will grow thick on the film cans and tape boxes holding it. Hardly either epochal or an epic!
CQ could have been good, campy fun. But it commits the only unforgivable sin: it is b-o-r-i-n-g! The pace is deadly slow and the plot is fairly confused and so artificial that it's next to impossible to care where it's going. The story would have been acceptable in a creative writing class from a thoughtful and sensitive eighth grader but this video should have carried a warning label: "CAUTION: Student film. Fit for viewing only by relatives of the film maker."
Style but no substance. Not as funny as it should be. Not as deep as it wants to be.<br /><br />This is another in the genre of films about the difficulties of filmmaking. A young filmaker is hired to finish a campy 60s sci-fi movie called Codename:Dragonfly. Think Barbarella, or Danger Diabolique.<br /><br />But Jeremy Davies is an angst-ridden filmmaker. He's no hack he's an artist. The movie he wants to make is a diary of his life. Hardly original.<br /><br />All the characters outside of Jeremy Davies filmmaker are as thin as rice-paper. Characters that might be interesting, such as his father, his doppelganger, or Jason Schwarzmann as a hack director are introduced and then shown the door without adding a thing.<br /><br />This movie is full of eye candy but when compared to other films about filmmakers such as Stardust Memories or 8 1/2 it pales in comparison. Those movies are funny, provocative with well-developed characters. Those movies have lessons that apply outside<br /><br />The movie wants to be comic and campy but its just derivative and there is not one funny scene. The filmmakers describe it as a send-up but what's the satirical target? The actors say it's an homage but I think I would rather a full-length version of Codename:Dragonfly.<br /><br />Coppola is clearly amused by the setting as is evident by the visual humor of the sci-fi movie within a movie. But he fails to share why we should be amused.<br /><br />Outside of the sci-fi movie its just a mess. There are continuity errors, the filmmaker chooses a sci-fi weapon after its already been chosen. What?<br /><br />Just because he has a scene were the filmmaker is confronted by the critics complaining about the lack of story, lack of a point, a scene where he admits empty cleverness does not mean that he has addressed those criticisms.<br /><br />I guess if your Roman Coppola you can get away with making a movie about an angst-ridden idealistic filmmaker who doesn't know what he wants to say and so ends up saying nothing. In that sense it may be considered autobiograhical.<br /><br />I would watch it at Circuit City on a wall full of TVs if I had a choice. Watch the 15-minute Codename:Dragonfly movies included on the DVD as extras and then send it back.
From the nepotism capitol of the world comes another junk flick in a fancy wrapper. "CQ" tells a lame, disjointed mess of a story which is little more than a bunch of silly caricatures, a babe, and straight man Davies running around trying to make a stupid sci-fi flick. I can't think of any reason anyone would want to spend time with this ridiculous attempt at film making. (D)
I really love the sexy action and sci-fi films of the sixties and its because of the actress's that appeared in them. They found the sexiest women to be in these films and it didn't matter if they could act (Remember "Candy"?). The reason I was disappointed by this film was because it wasn't nostalgic enough. The story here has a European sci-fi film called "Dragonfly" being made and the director is fired. So the producers decide to let a young aspiring filmmaker (Jeremy Davies) to complete the picture. They're is one real beautiful woman in the film who plays Dragonfly but she's barely in it. Film is written and directed by Roman Coppola who uses some of his fathers exploits from his early days and puts it into the script. I wish the film could have been an homage to those early films. They could have lots of cameos by actors who appeared in them. There is one actor in this film who was popular from the sixties and its John Phillip Law (Barbarella). Gerard Depardieu, Giancarlo Giannini and Dean Stockwell appear as well. I guess I'm going to have to continue waiting for a director to make a good homage to the films of the sixties. If any are reading this, "Make it as sexy as you can"! I'll be waiting!
All you need to know about this film happens in the first five minutes: it looks cool, it has a solid original soundtrack reflective of the late-60s period, and all but a couple of its characters are unlikeable. Once you get that message, you may as well switch to another film.<br /><br />Davies's protagonist ignores his beautiful girlfriend, one of the few people in his life who cares about him. Then by the time he takes her advice to join her in the real world--instead of living a fantasy film of which he's the imagined director--he does so by pushing her aside and pairing up with an actress he's idealized beyond reason. A couple laughs and some thoughtful art direction are the only things worth watching here.<br /><br />The film is also interesting as documentation of Jason Schwartzman's fall from Mount Rushmore. In Rushmore, Schwartzman's annoying brattiness was something to be overcome, but here it's his character's only quality. Schwartzman's family connection clearly landed him in this role; here's hoping his choices improve.
When the film started the first 4 minutes seemed like a travelogue of California, I was wondering if I got the tapes mixed up. Then I breathed a sigh of relief to see Paul Thomas in a scene with the lovely Joanna Storm and Laurie Smith. This is being spied on by Jimmy (a young Tom Byron). Jimmy's aunt (Honey Wilder) is concerned about his behavior so she hires him a private teacher (Kay Parker). I could do without the animal, robot role-playing, or the incest aspects.There's one good sex scene, between Byron and Parker, but it's not good enough to save this film.<br /><br />My Grade: D+
I didn't even know this was originally a made-for-tv movie when I saw it, but I guessed it through the running time. It has the same washed-out colors, bland characters, and horrible synthesized music that I remember from the 80's, plus a 'social platform' that practically screams "Afterschool special". Anyhoo.<br /><br />Rona Jaffe's (thank you) Mazes and Monsters was made in the heyday of Dungeons & Dragons, a pen-and-paper RPG that took the hearts of millions of geeks around America. I count myself one of said geeks, tho I have never played D&D specifically I have dabbled in one of its brethren. M&M was also made in the heyday of D&D's major controversy-that it was so engrossing that people could lose touch with reality, be worshiping Satan without knowing, blah blah. I suppose it was a legitimate concern at one point, if extremely rare-but it dates this movie horrendously.<br /><br />We meet 4 young college students, who play the aptly named Mazes and Monsters, to socialize and have a little time away from mundane life. Except that M&M as presented is more boring than their mundane lives. None of the allure of gaming is presented here-and Jay Jay's request to take M&M into 'the real world' comes out of nowhere. It's just an excuse to make one of the characters go crazy out of nowhere also-though at that point we don't really care. Jay Jay, Robbie, Kate and Daniel are supposed to be different-but they're all rich WASPy prigs who have problems no one really has.<br /><br />But things just continue, getting worse in more ways than one. The low budget comes dreadfully clear, (I love the 'Entrance' sign and cardboard cutout to the forbidden caverns) Robbie/Pardu shows why he's not a warrior in the oafiest stabbing scene ever, and the payoff atop the 'Two Towers' is unintentionally hilarious. Tom Hanks' blubbering "Jay Jay, what am I doing here?" made me laugh for minutes on end. Definitely the low point in his career.<br /><br />Don't look at it as a cogent satire, just a laughable piece of 80's TV trash, and you'll still have a good time. That is, if you can stay awake. The majority is mostly boring, but it's all worthwhile for Pardu's breakdown at the end. At least Tom Hanks has gotten better. Not that he could go much worse from here.
The psychology of this movie is really weird to try and figure out. Its often billed as an anti-RPG movie, but its really not that simple. Here are come apparent contradictions that make me wonder just what (if anything) they're trying to say about gaming.<br /><br />They laboriously introduce all the characters home lives by way of introduction, all of them having parents who are divorced, alcoholic, and totally out of touch with their lives except for the times they're harshly pressuring them to succeed. Tom Hanks is arguably the worst off, having just failed out of another school and still dealing with a brother who disappeared and may be dead. <br /><br />Its mentioned a couple of times that they play the game to work through problems in their real lives. And sure enough, at the end, when they go to see Robbie (Hanks), they're all happy and well-adjusted, embarking on their adult careers, problems solved, games put away (Daniel doesn't even want to design computer games any more), and even Robbie's mother, who's been constantly drunk and dissatisfied, is suddenly the Happy Homemaker, looking fresh and bright and arranging flowers. <br /><br />Sure, JJ suddenly (and quite cheerfully it seems) decides to commit suicide, but the reason seems to be entirely because he's a lonely boy genius who can't get a date, and not because his character dies, as in the famous Jack Chick tract (which happens afterward anyways, and it almost seems like he does it on purpose so he can end Daniels game and get everyone to come play his. In fact, the prospect of live-action role playing in the caverns seems to be the only thing that saves him from killing himself!) And in what may be the coolest tableau scene in the whole movie, Kate, looking very fetching in chain mail, looks right at the camera and says something like, "The scariest monsters are the ones in our own minds." <br /><br />The biggest fantasy element in this movie is the two muggers passing up the rich couple so they can rob the dirty, homeless-looking guy of his magic beans. The recurring theme (a "The Way We Were" for the 80s)might have been poignant at the end, but as a way to kick off a movie is downright depressing and seems out of place. And for one final mystery, our hero, wearing full Pardu regalia, has a psychotic break, becomes his character completely and embarks on his quest, so of course the first thing he does is change into 20-century street clothes. <br /><br />So maybe the movie's irrational, but I guess its dealing with an irrational topic. In those days a circle of kids with dice and pencils was regarded as tainted and possibly possessed, and you could go insane if they spoke their mumbo-jumbo at you. The anti-game paranoia is pretty much summed up in the first scene, where the reporter asks the cop whats going on, the cop says a kids lost in the tunnels and there's a chance Mazes and Monsters is somehow involved. The reporter admits to being vaguely familiar with the game (although he allows his own children to play it), then turns to the camera and reels off a polished spiel that blames the game for everything and admits no possibility of another explanation. In the end, its no masterpiece, but interesting as made-for-TV movies go.
Yes, about the only thing this film is memorable for is that it starred a youngish Tom Hanks who only a few short years later would be a relevant star in Hollywood. Here though is not a movie that is going to showcase his talents much at all and the only other thing that might be considered somewhat entertaining about this flick is the scene where he thinks he sees a monsters and runs a guy through. Yes, this movie is about the evils of playing a game that makes a group of people use their imaginations and try to come up with interesting scenarios. Basically, an after school type special about the evils of the game Dungeons and Dragons cleverly retitled here as Mazes and Monsters. Apparently, the makers of this film thought that nerds should not have fun of any sort unless they were going to go out and do underage drinking, drugs, having lots of unprotected sex and harass other weaker children like all the popular kids were doing. No, these bad people were playing a game that actually required one to use there brain, heaven's no! Not that, if they have a brain they actually may be able to think for themselves and not be brainwashed by certain groups out there. Yes, I think this movie is utterly stupid and a waste of time. Granted, it could be a movie against addiction, but there are a lot fewer people who died taking Dungeons and Dragons to far in its entire existence than than say what drunk driving claims in like a month.
Hoo boy, this was a real trial to get through. The DVD case has Tom Hanks' mug plastered on it and that is the only reason that anybody would buy it. He looks about forty on the box, however, the movie was made in 1982, so he still has his Bosom Buddies 'do and of course is about forty pounds lighter. The plot concerns a Dungeons and Dragons like game that Hanks and his three friends play and Hanks ends up thinking the whole thing is real. Chris Makepeace is a boy genius named Jay Jay and the best thing about the movie is that he wears a succession of funny hats. Ooh,look, he has a yellow hardhat on with a tuxedo! Now he's dressed like a WWI pilot! This was a truly awful movie but in a bad way. A bunch of vets pop up mostly as parents of the kids. There's Anne (I'm Honey West, dammit!) Francis and Louise Sorel, who actually looks kind of hot. Murray Hamilton, the Mayor from Jaws, has a thankless roll as a cop. Wendy Crewson, is the love interest for Hanks and some blonde guy I have never seen before or since. There is some syrupy music here and there and absolutely no tension or sense of danger or excitement. There is a monster that only Hanks can see because he's, you know, nuts. The monster is played by the late, great Kevin Peter Hall, he of Predator fame. A friend of mine got this out of the ol' discount bin at MallWart and advised me to chuck it in the trash without even looking at it, so naturally I had to see if it was as bad as all that. It was. The night before, I watched Apollo 13, so after that, this movie was a bit of a shock. Do yourself a favor and leave it in the bin. Oh yeah, after Hanks almost jumps from one of the World Trade Center towers because of his delusions, he goes home to recuperate and is visited by his friends. Hanks mother, a drunken Vera Miles, says he is coming along nicely now but when they walk down to the lake to visit him in his tennis outfit, he is crazier than ever. The End
Don't get me wrong, I assumed this movie would be stupid, I honestly did, I gave it an incredibly low standard to meet. The only reason I even saw it was because there were a bunch of girls going (different story for a different time). As I began watching I noticed something, this film was terrible. Now there are two types of terrible, there's Freddy vs. Jason terrible, where you and your friends sit back and laugh and joke about how terrible it is, and then there is a movie like this. The Cat in The Hat failed to create even a momentary interest in me. As I watched the first bit of it not only was I bored senseless, but I felt as though I had in some way been violated by the horrendousness of said movie. Mike Myers is usually brilliant, I love the majority of his work, but something in this movie didn't click. One of the things that the director/producers/writers/whatevers changed was that they refused to use any of the colors of the original book (red, black, white) on any character but the Cat. Coincidentally or not, they also refused to capture any of the original (and i hate to use this word, but it fits) zaniness of the original. The book was like an Ice Cream Sunday, colorful and delicious, and the movie was about as bland and hard to swallow as sawdust.<br /><br />Avoid this like a leprous prostitute.
Film critics of the world, I apologize. It is your job to give advice to the moviegoing public so that they can wisely choose what to spend money on. But I ignored your advice and I have been deeply hurt. However, my decision to see "The Cat in the Hat" wasn't made haphazardly. You see, three years ago all of you critics said that we should all avoid the "calamity" known as "How the Grinch Stole Christmas". Then some friends of mine took me to see it and it turned out to be a colorful, funny and almost hypnotic yuletide treat. So when the critics unleashed their fury against "The Cat in the Hat", another big budget Seuss update with a big name star in the title role, I thought that it must be the same old song. How wrong I was.<br /><br />For five whole minutes I thought I was in the clear. The opening credits are clever, the kids are charming and the production values are top notch. Then the cat showed up. There are many problems from this point on, but the biggest one was the woeful miscasting of Mike Myers. Where "The Grinch" was saved by the inspired casting of Jim Carrey, "The Cat" was destroyed by Myers. He can be very funny when his energies are applied where they belong, comic sketches. Every movie he's made that was truly funny was really just a feature length comedy sketch, from "Wayne's World" to "Austin Powers". So he tries to do the same thing here, it's just that these comedy sketches are more like the stuff that they stick at the end of SNL, not funny, just painful. Not that the writers helped him out any. After the charming prologue the movie turns into an hour of repulsive bodily humor gags, poorly timed pratfalls and insultingly stunted attempts at hip humor. This movie was the most disheartening cinematic experience I have ever had. Period. So much talent and work went into something so vile. I know that the adult stars of this movie will be relatively unscathed by this mess, I just hope that the wonderful Spencer Breslin and Dakota Fanning will get more chances to show their charms in far better movies. If you are a parent, please avoid this like the plague. With movies like "Elf" and "Brother Bear" currently in theaters, you have far better choices.
Audrey, I know you truly cherish your husband Ted's memory but PLEASE do his legacy justice and heed his wishes. Dr. Seuss refused to license his characters during his lifetime for a very good reason. We beg of you to please stop cashing in on his stories, images, fantasies and characters. They are getting disemboweled by the powers that be of Hollywood and Broadway. The children of tomorrow will be stuck with these histrionic and grotesque interpretations that will forever pollute the loving warmth and innocence of his books.<br /><br />It is indeed your property to do with as you wish. I just wish you would listen to the advice of others for a little while. Save what is left of Dr. Seuss. Thank you.
The only good thing about this unfunny dreck is that I didn't have to pay for it. I saw it for free at college. And if a college student can't find humor in something that was free, it's hopeless.<br /><br />Stale acting and poor jokes cannot be masked by an excellent, yet bewildering set design (that goes out of its way to market Volkswagon Beetles). I don't know what Michaels Myers was doing in this movie, but I have never seen anything more depressing. This was nothing more than a blatant effort to capitalize on the previous success of the Grinch (which has its opponents, but I enjoyed it very much). It's difficult not to sit through this failure and wonder what better projects were passed over to fund it.<br /><br />You want a funny Seuss adaptation? Go with the Grinch.
If you liked the Grinch movie... go watch that again, because this was no where near as good a Seussian movie translation. Mike Myers' Cat is probably the most annoying character to "grace" the screen in recent times. His voice/accent is terrible and he laughs at his own jokes with an awful weasing sound, which is about the only laughing I heard at the theater. Not even the kids liked this one folks, and kids laugh at anything now. Save your money and go see Looney Tunes: Back in Action if you're really looking for a fun holiday family movie.
This movie was physically painful to sit through, maybe because (like many people my age, and younger) I grew up with Dr. Seuss and loved his books - funny, clever, whimsical and subversive at the same time. "The Cat in the Hat" sucks all of the interest and spark out of the story, and Mike Myer's performance as the Cat is mostly bewildering. Why the Borscht Belt accent, the unfunny patter, the inappropriate jokes, the charmless costume? I had to go back and re-read the books to see the real problem: the books are SIMPLE. This movie is OVERBLOWN and way, way too long.<br /><br />You don't expect every kids' movie to be Toy Story or The Iron Giant, but this one set a new low. How could Mike Myers need the money?
From the acting, direction, scriptwriting and art direction this film is just entirely ill conceived and the money would have been better spent on shoes for land mine victims. When did we get so sad that they have to fill a a children's movie with sexual innuendo to keep the parents attention.<br /><br />Dr Suess is rolling in his grave right now, what with the "dirty ho" "S.H.I.T" and fake erection scenes etc etc etc. Its shameful how they trade on the name of Suess to get the parents to bring their kids, throw in the profanities to try for the teens and a few sad parents who won't watch a a film with their child if there is no T & A. Greed greed and more greed.<br /><br />Compare this to the classic children's films and we can get a disturbing view of world is turning into. These guys should stick to making MTV videos. How on earth this movie got >400 votes as a perfect 10 is beyond me. (unless its the directors family)
Well the previews looked funny and I usually don't go to movies on opening night especially with my kids because ......well you never know. Here is a movie that doesn't appeal either to children or adults as the jokes are too perverse for children and falls completely flat for entertainment purposes for adults. I was actually embarrassed to be with my 9 and 6 year old and having to explain to my 6 year old what S H * T spells. Essentially what happens here is a total twisting of Dr. Seuss's classic. It adds an evil and lazy neighbor who wants to marry the children's mother for her money. If that was a subplot, then maybe that would have been fine but it ends up being the major plot around the whole movie and "the cat" plays more of a subplot role in exposing the neighbor to the mom for who he really is. Take my advice and read the book and pass on the movie.
Mean spirited, and down right degrading adaptation to the classic children's tale not only lacks the charm of its forefather but lacks any talent what so ever. Mike Myers should not only be ashamed of himself for his horrible performance that is a clear rip off of what Jim Carrey did but he should give up acting all together. He is so annoying that you would want to beat the crap out of him if you were able to jump right in the film. The sets are ugly and the cinematography is very poor. I have seen a lot of bad film this year, but this not only takes the cake but it is with out a doubt one the worse films ever made.
Inappropriate. The PG rating that this movie gets is yet another huge misstep by the MPAA. Whale Rider gets a PG-13 but this movie gets a PG? Please. Parents don't be fooled, taking an elementary school child to this movie is a huge mistake. There were numerous times I found myself being uncomfortable not just because the humor was inappropriate for kids, but also because it was totally out of the blue and unnecessary.<br /><br />But all that aside, The Cat in the Hat is still a terrible movie. The casting and overall look of the movie are the only saving graces. The beautiful Kelly Preston and the always likeable (or hateable in this case) Alec Baldwin are both good in their roles even though Preston is almost too beautiful for a role like this. The kids are conditioned actors and it shows, especially with Dakota Fanning. Fanning is the only human aspect of the film that kept me watching and not throwing things at the screen.<br /><br />Did I mention there was an oversized talking cat in this movie? Mike Myers is absolutely deplorable. I didn't like him as the voice of Shrek, and I truly believe now that Myers should not be allowed near the realm of children's films ever again. His portrayal of The Cat is a slightly toned down version of Fat Bastard and Austin Powers.<br /><br />In the end, the cat should not have come, he should have stayed away, but he came, even if just for a day, he ruined 82 minutes of my life, 82 minutes of personal anger and strife.<br /><br />The Cat in the Hat may be the worst kids movie ever.
The Cat in the Hat is just a slap in the face film. Mike Myers as The Cat in the Hat is downright not funny and Mike Myers could not have been any worse. This is his worst film he has ever been in. The acting and the story was just terrible. I mean how could they make the most beloved stories by Dr. Seuss be made into film and being one of the worst films of all-time and such a disappointment. I couldn't have seen a more worst film than this besides, maybe Baby Geniuses. But this film is just so bad I can't even describe how badly they made this film. Bo Welch should be fired or the writer should. <br /><br />Hedeen's outlook: 0/10 No Stars F
This movie has made me upset! When I think of Cat in the hat. Im thinking of cat in the hat books. You know, the one from a few years back that parents read to thier children. Well, I though that this movie would be a lot like that! But much to my suprise was nothing like the books! Insted it is more like young adult humor movie. In one part cat is talking to a gardening tool (hoe) cat talks to it like it is his hoe (agin adult humor). the naming of his car I all so though was a little untastful for a kids movie. under the rating you'll find: mild cude humor and some double-entendres. I think in short this means adult humor. I wish I could return this movie! wal-mart said they wouldn't because the movie has been opened. If you are thinking about buying this I suggest that maybe rent before you buy.
Bad. Bad. Bad. Those three lines sum up this crappy little film that can only attract idiot children and their parents to the cinema. and its... #1 Movie in America! What is this country thinking? Mike Myers looking more like Micheal Jackson. Some Chineese lady that falls asleep within 3 minutes. A lame plot with dirty jokes. It's grotesuque and awful. When Green-Eggs and Ham comes out in 2005 I'll be so happy! (not) Eddie Murphy and Tracy Morgan will probably play two hipsters trying to find the lost Green-Eggs and Ham. They'll try to chase Sam-I-Am and that mean guy who are running away with it. (I hope they don't ruin the classic book.) Don't waste time and money by seeing this.
There are plenty of comments already posted saying exactly how I felt about this film so Ill keep it short.<br /><br />"The Grinch" I thought was marvellous - Jim Carrey is a truly talented, physical comedian as well as being a versatile clever actor (in my opinion). Mike Myers on the other hand gets his laughs by being annoying. I used to like him very much in his "Waynes World" and "So I Married an Axe Murderer" days - but Ive never been fond of Austin Powers and "the Cat In The Hat" has just finished me off. <br /><br />This film was horrible - the gags were horrible! inappropriate for children not only in adult content but in the fact that some of them were so dated they havent amused anyone for 50 years! The plot was messy, messy, messy! Its a shame really because the children were very likeable as was "Mom". They probably could have picked a better villain than Alec Baldwin - but he could have pulled it off if it weren't for Myers ugly, revolting over-acted portrayal of the Cat.<br /><br />I mean - did Myers even glance at a script? Was one written? The other actors seemed to have one - but the Cat just seemed to be winging it!<br /><br />On the other hand I would like to mention that the sets and props were marvellous!!! But unfortunately they cant save this film.<br /><br />Poor Dr Seuss - the man was a genius! Dont ruin his reputation by adapting his work in a such a lazy, messy way!!!<br /><br />1/10
Just about everything in this movie is wrong, wrong, wrong. Take Mike Myers, for example. He's reached the point where you realize that his shtick hasn't changed since his SNL days, over ten years ago. He's doing the same cutesy stream-of-consciousness jokes and the same voices. His Cat is painfully unfunny. He tries way to hard. He's some weird Type A comedian, not the cool cat he's supposed to be. The rest of the movie is just as bad. The sets are unbelievably ugly --- and clearly a waste of millions of dollars. (Cardboard cut-outs for the background buildings would have made more sense than constructing an entire neighborhood and main street.) Alec Balwin tries to do a funny Great Santini impression, but he ends up looking and sounding incoherent. There's even an innapropriate cheesecake moment with faux celebrity Paris Hilton --- that sticks in the mind simply because this is supposed to be a Dr. Seuss story. Avoid this movie at all costs, folks. It's not even an interesting train wreck. (I hope they'll make Horton Hears a Who with Robin Williams. Then we'll have the bad-Seuss movie-starring-spasitc- comedian trilogy.)
The sun was not shining, it was too wet to play, so I went to the movies, that cold, cold, wet date day.<br /><br />"The Cat in the Hat" was the name of the flick, and when it was over, my stomach was sick.<br /><br />Mike Myers played the Cat, his humor was lame, and kids needn't see this, the humor was not tame.<br /><br />the film was like drinking milk, from a rabid cow, so it IS fun to have fun, yet the filmmakers didn't know how.<br /><br />This film, in short is atrocious. The acting was bad, the plot was tweaked too much, and the humor was surprisingly very crude.<br /><br />It starts with Conrad and Sally, A rule breaker and a future sheriff. When their Mother has to go to work, she gets Mrs. Kwan to babysit. Possibly the lone funny part in the movie is when Mrs. Kwan is watching a Taiwanese court room, a `la C-SPAN. She soon falls asleep, and here comes the Cat.<br /><br />The film starts to spiral out of control. The Cat came to try to let the kids have some fun. He's got Thing 1 and Thing 2, Who suddenly start trashing the house. He improvises a TV Infomercial, and accidentally slices his tail off. And when the Cat goes full Carmen Miranda, it's not funny. Possibly his only funny disguise is as a hippie activist. And there's a fish who tries warning the kids about the Cat.<br /><br />Too bad he didn't warn us this film was as much fun as sour milk, or chopping your tail off.<br /><br />Soon the kids are outside looking for the family dog, who has the key to a crate on his collar. If the crate is not locked soon, their house will be home to the Cat's universe. Here it gets a little more interesting, but not enough to save the film.<br /><br />The acting, overall, is horrible. Mike Meyers brings his brand of irreverent Austin Powers humor to the Cat, Saying things like "You dirty ho" and imagining himself as a woman for the rest of his life after a whack in the testicles while posing as a pinata. Spencer Breslin is great as the trouble-making Conrad, and Dakota Fanning is cute as Sally, though they alone are not enough to save this horrendous Aortic Dissection waiting to kill John Ritter(accident waiting to happen). Alec Baldwin's slick and slimey Lawrence Quinn is disgusting, ever trying to woo the kids mom, who is played by Kelly Preston. And Sean Hayes is Mr. Humberfloob, Mom's boss, and is also the voice of the fish. The latter three are also bland.<br /><br />Overall, if I were a parent I would not take my kids who are into potty humor, cause there's plenty of it and more. Save your $7.00 and see something else. As the late great Dr. Seuss once said,<br /><br />It is fun to have fun, But you have to know how. Really, Universal, stop! Theodore's already turning over in his grave.<br /><br />Like my Mom always says, "Curiousity killed the Cat".- The Cat In The Hat * out of *****
Well I guess I know the answer to that question. For the MONEY! We have been so bombarded with Cat In The Hat advertising and merchandise that we almost believe there has to be something good about this movie. I admit, I thought the trailers looked bad, but I still had to give it a chance. Well I should have went with my instincts. It was a complete piece Hollywood trash. Once again proving that the average person can be programed into believing anything they say is good, must be good. Aside from the insulting fact that the film is only about 80 minutes long, it obviously started with a moth eaten script. It's chock full of failed attempts at senseless humor, and awful pastel sceneries. It jumps all over the universe with no destination nor direction. This is then compounded with, ............................yes I'll say it, BAD ACTING! I couldn't help but feel like I was watching "Coffee Talk" on SNL every time Mike Myers opened his mouth. Was the Cat intended to be a middle aged Jewish woman? Spencer Breslin and Dakota Fanning were no prize either, but Mr. Myers should disappear under a rock somewhere until he's ready to make another Austin Powers movie. F-, no stars, 0 on a scale of 1-10. Save your money!
When my own child is begging me to leave the opening show of this film, I know it is bad. I wanted to claw my eyes out. I wanted to reach through the screen and slap Mike Myers for sacrificing the last shred of dignity he had. This is one of the few films in my life I have watched and immediately wished to "unwatch", if only it were possible. The other films being 'Troll 2' and 'Fast and Furious', both which are better than this crap in the hat.<br /><br />I may drink myself to sleep tonight in a vain attempt to forget I ever witnessed this blasphemy on the good Seuss name.<br /><br />To Mike Myers, I say stick with Austin or even resurrect Waynes World. Just because it worked for Jim Carrey, doesn't mean Seuss is a success for all Canadians.<br /><br />
Holy cow, what a piece of sh*t this movie is. I didn't how these filmmakers could take a 250 word book and turn it into a movie. I guess they didn't know either! I don't remember any farting or belching in the book, do you?<br /><br />They took this all times childrens classic, added some farting, belching and sexual inuindo, and prostituted it into a KAKA joke. This should give you a good idea of what these hollywood producers think like. I have to say, visually it was interesting, but the brilliant visual story is ruined by toilet humor (if you even think that kind of thing is funny) I DON'T want the kids that I know to think it is.<br /><br />Don't take your kids to see, don't rent the DVD. I hope the ghost of Doctor Suess ghost comes and haunts the people that made this movie.
I was so looking forward to seeing this when it was in production.But it turned out to be the the biggest let down. A far cry from the whimsical world of Dr Seuss. It was vulgar and distasteful I don't think Dr Seuss would have approved.How the Grinch stole Christmas was much better. I understand it had some subtle adult jokes in it but my children have yet to catch on. Whereas The Cat in the Hat screamed vulgarity they caught a lot more than I would have liked.Growing up with Dr Seuss It really bothered me to see how this timeless classic got trashed on the big screen .Lets see what they do with Horton hears a who.I hope this one does Dr Seuss some justice.
I've seen some bad things in my time. A half dead cow trying to get out of waist high mud; a head on collision between two cars; a thousand plates smashing on a kitchen floor; human beings living like animals.<br /><br />But never in my life have I seen anything as bad as The Cat in the Hat.<br /><br />This film is worse than 911, worse than Hitler, worse than Vllad the Impaler, worse than people who put kittens in microwaves.<br /><br />It is the most disturbing film of all time, easy.<br /><br />I used to think it was a joke, some elaborate joke and that Mike Myers was maybe a high cocaine sniffing drug addled betting junkie who lost a bet or something.<br /><br />I shudder
Spend your time any other way, even housework is better than this movie. The jokes aren't funny, the fun rhymes that are Dr. Seus aren't there. A very lousy way to waste an evening. My kids 4-16 laughed a little at the beginning the younger ones got bored with it and left to play Barbies and the older ones left to play ps2 and surf the net. My wife left and did dishes. So I finished it alone. It was the worst "kids" movie I have seen. If you want to watch a fun kids movie watch Shrek 2, that movie is fun for kids and their parents. AVOID THIS MOVIE. It isn't funny, isn't cute, the cat's makeup is about the only good thing in it and you can see that on the disc label.
Dr. Seuss would sure be mad right now if he was alive. Cat in the Hat proves to show how movie productions can take a classic story and turn it into a mindless pile of goop. We have Mike Myers as the infamous Cat in the Hat, big mistake! Myers proves he can't act in this film. He acts like a prissy show girl with a thousand tricks up his sleeve. The kids in this movie are all right, somewhere in between the lines of dull and annoying. The story is just like the original with a couple of tweaks and like most movies based on other stories, never tweak with the original story! Bringing in the evil neighbor Quin was a bad idea. He is a stupid villain that would never get anywhere in life.This movie is like a rejected comic strip from the newspaper if you think about it. The film sure does look tacky! Sure there are a funny adult jokes like where the cat cuts of his tail and the censor goes off before he says a naughty word, mildly funny. At least the Grinch had spunk, and the film was actually good! This film is a cartoonish piece of snot with bright colors and bad mediocre acting. Was Mike Myers even in this movie actually? And another thing, the fish. What is with that stupid fish! First time you see him, he's an actual fish. Next time you see him, he's all animated and talking. But he looks like an animated piece of rubber play dough! This film is a total off target wreck. Good joke, bad joke, bad, bad, bad, good joke! I'm surprised it even had good jokes like the water park ride joke, that was good. So please if you have the choice, watch the Grinch instead of this mess.
No redeeming features, this film is rubbish. Its jokes don't begin to be funny. The humour for children is pathetic, and the attempts to appeal to adults just add a tacky smuttishness to the whole miserable package. Sitting through it with my children just made me uncomfortable about what might be coming next. I couldn't enjoy the film at all. Although my child for whom the DVD was bought enjoyed the fact that she owned a new DVD, neither she nor her sisters expressed much interest in seeing it again, unlike with Monsters inc, Finding Nemo, Jungle Book, Lion King, etc. which all get frequent requests for replays.
Most movies I can sit through easily, even if I do not particularly like the movie. I am the type of person who recognizes great films even if I do not like the genre. This is the first movie I could not stand to watch. Cat in the Hat is the worst movie I have ever seen--and I've seen a lot of movies. The acting is okay (Myers is good as the cat, it's just that he is REALLY annoying). The silly songs the cat sings were boring and monotonous, even for the children in the audience. The plot drags on and on, and viewers must suffer through poor dialogue. The "witty" parental remarks are disgusting, not funny (I remember some awful comment about a garden hoe being compared to, well, a type of person people call a "ho"). Even though the movie is really short, it seemed to last FOREVER. Do not waste your time. I know small kids who hated this movie. If children can't stand it, I do not know how any adults can. I would like to fume more about this film but I do not even feel like wasting anymore time writing this review about it. I HATED IT! So, in summary, do not spend 90 minutes of your life watching this! See a GOOD movie!<br /><br />1/10 stars--the lowest review I have ever given a movie.
An absolutely atrocious adaptation of the wonderful children's book. Crude and inappropriate humor, some scary parts, and a sickening side story about the mom's boyfriend wanting to send the boy away to military school to get him out of the way makes this totally inappropriate for the kids who will most likely want to see it because of the book (3-8) yr olds. Don't waste your money, your time, or your good judgement.
Shame Shame Shame on UA/DW for what you do! <br /><br />I was appalled. <br /><br />Do NOT take kids to see this movie. The humor is totally inappropriate for children - plus they'll be bored and disappointed. Certainly *we all* have read Theo's wonderful children book and certainly we have expectations...but this is pure trash. Dr. Seuss would be ashamed and certainly would've never given his "thumbs up" at such a dastardly attempt to capitalize on a classic.<br /><br />What a pity. <br /><br />Spend your money on the book. If you own a copy, then buy the book and donate it to a Toys for Tots program. This movie is NOT worth a "free" ticket viewing.<br /><br />Stick with the book. The tv cartoon version works well if you want a visual portrayal - save your money...seriously. SAVE your money - it will be on cable by saint patty's day.<br /><br />Shame shame shame on what they do!!
There's only one thing I'm going to say about cat in the hat...as a KIDS movie and a good comedy movie it sucks...I lost track of how many terrible jokes in the movie that not only sucked but weren't exactly kid appropriate. Oh and by the way the way the cat in the hat talked was annoying...as for the plot I completely forgot. Who cares it sucked anyway. i'm not sure why Mike Myers joined but I think the writers were trying to make it sound like him in Austin powers without the swinger talk and it overly succeeded- but so what it was annoying. don't see it-it belongs in the bottom 100.............................. the jokes are so unkiddy it's funny
If one sits down to watch Unhinged, it is probably because its advertisements, video boxes, whatever, scream that it was banned in the UK for over 20 years (as virtually every video nasty does). It's true; exploitation and taboo excites people and draws them in with their promise of controversy. Being an exploitation fan, however, none of this was new to me. The advertisements that scream that the film was banned in the UK don't necessarily make me want to watch it; in fact, the first thing that usually pops into my head is how disgustingly paranoid British censors are. How I came to viewing this then is simple: it promised gore and it was only $6.99. The price alone alerted me not to have any hopes of this being the next Halloween, but a cheap padding of your DVD collection never hurts. I did force myself, however, to watch it all in one sitting, because I find that deciding to save the rest for another day makes you even less inspired to finish it. So anyway, after 90 minutes of Unhinged, I found that I had come across the cheapest sleeping aid in existence. I think the distributors could make a fortune if they simply changed their marketing technique.<br /><br />The layout of Unhinged is of any common slasher from the 80s. There's unnecessary shower scenes and exploitative gore. That's about it. Anyway, it starts with a group of three attractive co-eds crashing their car on the way to a concert. Though two of them (Terry and Nancy) are okay, one (Gloria) is severely injured and is out of commission for the rest of the movie. They are rescued and receive shelter at a mansion (that happens to have no phone, of course) with rather strange occupants: Marion is a middle-aged woman with a man-hating mother who constantly accuses Marion of sneaking men into the house in order to sleep with them (echoes of Psycho?). She also happens to have a crazy brother Carl who lives in the woods, because her mother's hatred for men is so intense that she refuses to let him stay in the house. After hanging with Marion for awhile, Terry (our "hero") and Nancy decide they must contact their parents. Despite everyone's warnings, Nancy braves the dangerous woods to make it to a phone (her fate is not hard to predict). After that, we see Gloria again, who is then promptly butchered with an ax. When Terry discovers that Gloria has disappeared from her room, she decides something isn't right with this picture and sets out to find her missing friends. That may be easier said than done, however, with crazy Carl lurking around… <br /><br />After viewing Unhinged, I read an overwhelming number of reviews declaring that Unhinged worked perfectly because it took its time to build its subject matter that created real tension by the time the moment of truth comes at the end. Normally, I do not drag other people's opinions into my reviews (especially when they contradict my views), but in this case, I was so puzzled by their reactions that I thought it would be relevant to mention. This is because in actuality, the film crawls. Normally for the slow-building tactic to work, the audience must have a strong sense that the characters are in danger. Oh sure, we see two of them get murdered, but between that are endless scenes of conversation and boredom. We are aware that there's a killer on the loose, but this is only focused on three times in the film; that means there's no reason to fear for the victims. Instead, the film's events are explained not by the actions of the characters, but are drawn out for us by perpetual talking. If there's one thing I can assure you from watching this, it's that scenes of characters merely conversing with each other for 75 minutes are very tedious. None of this is helped by the atrocious acting. It seems that this was another case of the director needing actors and decided to gather his friends around instead of finding anyone with experience.<br /><br />Of course, I'd be a liar if I said there wasn't one part of the movie that I enjoyed. Specifically, the ending was one of the best I've ever seen in a slasher film; you just do not expect that to happen. Just knowing that the director had the balls to do something like that is spectacular. Ah, I won't spoil it for you, nor will I say that the ending completely makes up for the rest of the slow-moving film, but it definitely will get your attention. Other than that, the other two murder scenes bring at least some faster paced material, but it's not like you couldn't tell exactly who was going to die fifteen minutes into the film. Anyone looking for a bloodbath will be disappointed, however; those are the only scenes of gore present. That and, of course, no one scene can save an entire movie. I normally preach the doctrine that as long as there's action, the worse a movie is, the better it gets. Unhinged only grasps one part of this concept. The whole film just feels Luke-warm; there's potential alright, but the director either wasn't experienced enough to make it work or just didn't know what the hell he was doing.
I tried to like this slasher, like I try to enjoy all slasher films. I mean mindless slaying mixed with a little nudity and some suspense, how can you go wrong. But Unhinged I think is an example of that formula going wrong. The main issue is the horrible acting of the main three girls that landed up in the house. It was as if they were under sedation, and it stopped me from ever getting interested in their plight. The film aims for suspense and creepiness but the by the numbers direction saps it of those, and leaves the movie pretty dull. It's a shame, because if the movie was better executed, it would have have been ace. The story and characters are pretty creepy and there are some dark and bizarrely humorous moments of interaction between the mother, the girls, and the daughter in the old house. There's some good nudity, and occasional splashy bloodletting, just not enough to give the film the kick it needed. The finale is pretty twisted and fearsome, and does give the film a big lift but sadly, its too little too late. So, in my opinion, one to avoid, unless you really love obscure slasher films. There's a fair amount of potential, but the film delivers too little to be worthwhile.
this movie was banned in england? why? tom savini, george romero, dario argento, lucio fulci and others had done far worse before and have continued to so since...<br /><br />this movie has all the basic elements of a decent 70s or early 80's horror film. good looking girls (who can't act to save their lives, by the way), a terrible lightning storm with a torrential downpour, a scythe, a crazy brother wandering around the family estate, and actually a pretty damn good twist at the end. but banned? seriously. when the English parliament banned this movie, the italians probably laughed their collective asses off at how backwards and prudish the brits really were.<br /><br />there was maybe two minutes of total screen time devoted to the violence and gore (which was greatly underdone). there was nudity but no sex although allusions to sex were made, obviously. but absolutely nothing worthy of being banned.<br /><br />i would like to see what could have been done if the filmmakers had a decent budget to work with. as it stands, the film is entertaining, but the lack of picture and sound quality take away from the end result.<br /><br />banned... what a joke...
Unhinged was part of the Video Nasty censorship film selection that the UK built up in the 80's. Keeps the gory stuff out of the hands of children, don't you know! It must have left many wondering what the fuss was all about. By today's standard, Unhinged is a tame little fairy tale.<br /><br />3 girls are off to a jazz concert... and right away, you know the body count is going to be quite low. They get lost in the woods, & wind up getting in a car accident that looks so fake it's laughable. They are picked up by some nearby residents that live in the woods in a creepy house. One of the girls is seriously injured and has to stay upstairs. Then there's talking. Talking about why the girls are here, and how they must be to dinner on time because mother doesn't like it when someone is late. And more talking. Yakkity yak. Some suspense is built as a crazy guy is walking around and harassing the girls, and someone's eyeball is looking through holes in the walls at the pretty girls in something that looks like Hitchcock's Psycho. I digress because there is so much blah blah in this film, that you wonder when the killings are going to start. In fact, one of the girls gets so bored out of her mind that she walks in the woods, alone, looking for the town. Smart move. She probably knew about the lonely virgin walking alone in the woods part, but just didn't care. More talk continues after this as we wait, wait, and wait some more until the next girl may or may not be killed.<br /><br />And then there's the twist ending. The "expected" unexpected for some viewers, for others a real gotcha. Quite possibly the ONLY reason why someone would really want to watch this. I don't care how twisted it is, nothing in this movie makes up for the most boring time I had watching it. Even with the minor impact of the ending, the director just didn't have what it takes to really deliver a good story with it. It would have made a much better 30 minute - 1 hour TV episode on say, Tales from the Darkside.<br /><br />If you really must get this for any reason, perhaps just to say you've watched every slasher movie, do yourself a favor and have the fast-forward button ready. Since the movie has so many unimportant scenes, just zoom through them, and in no time, you'll get to the "WOW, that's what it was all this time" ending. Oh and halfway through the movie there's a shower scene with 2 girls showing boo-bees. Horray for boo-bees. Those beautiful buzzing honey-making boo-bees.
Twist endings can be really cool in a movie. It's especially interesting when the twist is right in front of our eyes, but we just don't pay attention. Those type of twist endings are the one's that make people think. Then we've got twists like this film has. Twists that, whether or not you pay attention, you have no clue what's going to happen. When they reveal this kind of random twist, instead of shock, it's somewhat a dumbfounded reaction. This film starts off like it's going to be an interesting take on horror, but after about 20 minutes, it's nothing but boring dialogue and a stupid twist.<br /><br />Three young women are going to a concert, so they get lost traveling through the woods, and hit a tree trunk. They end up at some old creepy lady's house, who hates men, and they are greeted by her homely daughter Marion (Laurel Munson). Strange goings on happen as these girls stay at this house for several days instead of trying to leave or get home, and the suspense progresses into a dumb slasher.<br /><br />This film is too caught up in it's dialogue, and it's always between only a few characters. We have the main three girls, the creepy spinster and the old lady, and conversation of any importance does not go beyond these five. To make matters worse, they never have anything interesting to say. It's actually quite maddening sitting through their conversations. We want to know what's going on, and instead they just talk and talk and talk (about nothing).<br /><br />Plot holes are abundant here. The house these girls stay at when they get in their car accident is apparently three miles from anywhere...wow, three miles! A two hour or less walk will kill them. Why didn't they get a ride with the worker for this household who was driving into town? Did he have a one seater? How come these girls never question leaving and just willingly stay, rarely even checking up on each other? Why did this have to have so many dumb twists? Maybe the answers are in the boring script.<br /><br />Having a slasher film with five characters is really a bad idea. It's not thrilling, it's not scary, and the ending is definitely out there, but undoubtedly dumb.<br /><br />My rating: * 1/2 out of ****. 79 mins. R for nudity and violence.
Ever watched a movie that lost the plot? Well, this didn't even really have one to begin with.<br /><br />Where to begin? The achingly tedious scenes of our heroine sitting around the house with actually no sense of menace or even foreboding created even during the apparently constant thunderstorms (that are strangely never actually heard in the house-great double glazing)? The house that is apparently only a few miles from a town yet is several hours walk away(?) or the third girl who serves no purpose to the plot except to provide a surprisingly quick gory murder just as the tedium becomes unbearable? Or even the beginning which suggests a spate of 20+ killings throughout the area even though it is apparent the killer never ventures far from the house? Or the bizarre ritual with the salt & pepper that pretty much sums up most of the films inherent lack of direction.<br /><br />Add a lead actress who can't act but at least is willing to do some completely irrelevant nude shower scenes and this video is truly nasty, but not in the way you hope.<br /><br />Given a following simply for being banned in the UK in the 80's (mostly because of a final surprisingly over extended murder) it offers nothing but curiosity value- and one classic 'daft' murder (don't worry-its telegraphed at least ten minutes before).<br /><br />After a walk in the woods our victim comes to a rather steep upward slope which they obviously struggle up. Halfway through they see a figure at the top dressed in black and brandishing a large scythe. What do they do? Slide down and run like the rest of us? No, of course not- they struggle to the top and stand conveniently nice and upright in front of the murder weapon.<br /><br />It really IS only a movie as they say..
I've never really considered myself much of "student" when it comes to watching films, I watch them, form an opinion and that's it. But Unhinged changed all this. This film is without a doubt the most inept attempt at film making I've ever seen. Every kid who rocks up at university thinking they're gonna be the next Spielberg or Tarantino needs to be handed this film with a handbook titled "How Not to Make A Film". Not only is there no story to be had, the film makers weren't even competent enough to make a film worth watching. It's been a while since I saw it, but all I can say is watch the overhead tracking shots in the opening scenes. They are never ending! It's almost like having your teeth pulled, only not as much fun.
Unhinged follows the typical plot of the early 80's slasher trend. Pretty Young Girls In Peril. I have to give it up for the filmmaker who used a helicopter for some of the early road-trip shots, you actually think for a second there's going to be quality in the production. Watching "Unhinged" was like seeing an amateur acting class go through it's warm-up. Some of the most awkward, badly lit, overlong scenes are played out with the gusto of a Valium overdose. I wondered why they didn't just put the cue-cards on camera so the actresses wouldn't have to constantly shift their gaze. The two main girls were obviously chosen for their T&A factor rather than talent. Laurel Munson as the main chick Terry is as exciting as watching paint dry. Two nude scenes make for an adolescent thrill. Janet Penner and Virginia Settle as the crazy/creepy daughter and mother the chicks find themselves stranded with compete for Worst Acting Ever. Long pauses, weird expressions, emphasis on the wrong word, it's all there and is a delight for those of us out there who love bad films. The scenes shift suddenly with long black-outs you could drive a Mack truck through. Cartoon lightning crashes across shots without even bothering to show the sky. Eighties eyeshadow assaults the viewer. But ya know, it grew on me. I felt sorry for it. I wanted to hug it, kiss it's boo-boos and make it better. The ending doesn't make up for the damage it's caused but I grinned anyway. I have my own theories regarding the whole "banned" hype and hope that anyone who chooses to view this film does so with substantial substance abuse and a sense of humor. Otherwise pass.
I had never heard of this one before the owner of my local DVD rental outlet mentioned it to me; being a 1980s horror flick with the notorious distinction of having been banned in the U.K., I decided to check it out. The film turned out be a dull, amateurish and ugly-looking ride; the sound recording is so poor that dialogue is unintelligible half of the time, whereas the acting gives new meaning to the word inept! <br /><br />What’s worse, the film follows the awfully tired formula of a trio of teenage girls being involved in an accident and finding themselves sheltered by a dysfunctional family living in remote surroundings. Soon, one of the girls goes to look for help and is never heard from again; another, still bed-ridden, is quickly disposed of (after being forgotten for most of the duration). The heroine is the one to interact the most with the three inhabitants of the house: a harridan of a bible-thumping mother (cue horrendous overacting), her repressed (and long-suffering) daughter, and the latter’s weirdo brother who occasionally appears on the scene to drool over the sleeping female guests.<br /><br />Often resorting to dinner-table reminiscences by the man-hating mother (as a means of filling in the dreary, to say nothing of unoriginal, backstory) and which invariably develop into mother-daughter sparring contests, the film does have one ace up its sleeve – the twist ending is as unexpected as it is ingenious, but it does little to remove the bad taste left in the mouth by the film (as much through the lameness of it all as the intermittent gore) or the inescapable feeling of having wasted 80 minutes of my time...
Banned as a 'Video Nasty' in the UK, Unhinged has naturally gained quite a bit of notoriety. However, the most shocking thing I found about the film was its amateurishness in all departments. The bloodletting I could handle: the terrible acting, shoddy editing, awful direction, lousy script and abysmal soundtrack were much harder to take.<br /><br />Three girls on their way to a music festival crash into a ravine during a storm. They are rescued by a friendly stranger who takes them to a nearby house. The owner of the house, a batty old lady, and her spinster daughter, welcome the girls in, allowing them to stay for a few days in order to recuperate. However, someone doesn't want the girls to leave—ever! One by one they fall victim to an unseen assailant.<br /><br />Taking a long time to get going and featuring some of the worst performances ever in a horror film (and that takes some doing), Unhinged is a truly awful film. The music is a total mess (it sounds like a three year old has been let loose on a synthesiser) and as such, it complements the movie perfectly. Only a couple of bloody scenes towards the end and a bit of gratuitous nudity save Unhinged from getting the lowest possible score.<br /><br />If you are a horror completist (and unfortunately, I am), you will want to see this in order to tick it off the Video Nasty watch-list. But be warned—it is really, really bad.
I bought Unhinged because I got suckered by the gory picture on the cover. If you want to see all the good parts of the movie just look on the back of the box. All the kills are shown and I can honestly tell you that they look much better in the still frames than they do in the movie.<br /><br />Having said that, let's look at the plot. A group of college girls driving to a rock concert (by way of the deep, dark woods in one of the longest driving sequences ever captured on celluloid) slide off the road. No visible damage is done to the car but apparently it was enough to put one of the characters in a comatose state for the rest of the film (or perhaps she read the script and was already in a coma before filming began).<br /><br />The two remaining girls wake up in a big, isolated house. The house, by the way, is fabulous and manages more drama just by its presence than any of the actors in the film. For some reason, though, this house has no roads going to it. The only way you can get to the main road is by hiking five miles through the woods. The girls spend the rest of Unhinged sitting around listening to weird conversations between an old rich bitch (who looks like George Washington in drag) and her equally homely, sexually repressed daughter. The girls apparently were in no hurry to get back from that concert anyway being that they packed more clothes than the cast of Gilligan's Island for that three hour tour.<br /><br />By the time we, the viewers, get to the kill scenes, we no longer care. We wish that someone would kill us just to end our suffering . Unhinged finally wraps up with a quite shocking ending that deserved to be in a much better film. It's almost as though the ending, the one good idea in the film, was written first and then the writers tried to make a movie leading up to it.<br /><br />Unhinged is ultimately a boring film with bad acting, inept directing, and a plot with more holes than a leper in a porno film (sorry. I'm not sure where that came from). You will get an idea of how bad this movie is during the opening credits when, for some reason that is never explained, the screen goes black for about two minutes while the characters talk about nothing worth remembering. Don't waste your time. You'll just feel Unhinged and want your time and money back.
"Unhinged" is one strange little film, a forgotten slasher from the golden age of the genre. It's hard to really write a satisfying review of this film simply because of the fact that the film is so unique. It's plot is fairly overdone--three young women on their way to a rock concert get in a car crash and end up stranded at the mansion of an eccentric old woman and her spinster daughter. Very quickly, the ladies realize something is not quite right when they hear strange breathing and noises from the attic. On top of that, the mother and daughter seem to have a very, very strange relationship, as they quarrel intensely in front of their houseguest at dinner. The old mother even goes as far as calling her daughter a whore and slut and accuses her of sneaking guys in at night to sleep with them. Halfway through the film, when one girl finally decides she better wander off to find help, the killing begins. <br /><br />As far as the acting goes, this film is at the bottom of the barrel. NONE of the three stranded girls can act, particularly the "lead" girl. It is almost unbelievable to hear them deliver their lines in the same, wooden tone throughout the film. The mother and daughter are better, but not much. The film is also quite dull in parts and really, really drags. The killings are gruesome, but nothing we haven't seen before. However, as mentioned on here, the film really gains points with it brilliantly disturbing and gory ending. It comes totally from left field and has the same shock value as the ending the the camp classic "Sleepaway Camp." Unfortunately, the rest of the film is a bore and suffers from horrendous acting and boring, boring pacing. The isolated, creepy looking mansion and the dark, foreboding lighting does give the film a grainy realism, but that is quickly shattered when one of the characters attempts to act. It may be worth it if you can stick it out until the end, but I say you are better off just fast forwarding to the last 10 minutes. 4 out 10
Basic slasher movie premise, 3 young ladies wreck their car and end up staying with a creepy family. YAWN.<br /><br />Watching 36 minutes of a premonition of OJ's car chase with a white sedan instead of a bronco. YAWN.<br /><br />Old lady with hot and cold dementia controlling her daughter... YAWN<br /><br />23 minutes of watching the actors eat - YAWN Trying to identify what the heck they are eating ... OK there might be a drinking game here ... nope - YAWN <br /><br />Complimentary shower scenes ... OK got my interest for a couple of seconds.<br /><br />Completely random and uninspired killings ... YAWN <br /><br />The ending ... dude! that psycho is deranged - why couldn't the rest of the movie be like the last 5 minutes... unfortunately that is it - My advice - fast forward to the last five minutes and watch that and then put something good in the player - for me I am going back to sleep.
I, too, was fooled by the packaging. I, too, fell for the gory packaging and the DVD casing that claims "grieved fans as every copy was pulled from shelves". Though it was inexpensive ($6.99), it wasn't really all that worth it - no scares, and very limited gore. The ending was very cheesy and didn't deliver the punch it should have. I really don't even know how it became a "Video Nasty" with how very tame it is. The story drags, the characters are obvious amateur actors...it doesn't live up to the promise. The DVD bonus feature (the "interview")is very strange as the director appears very incoherent and not all there. The lead actress talks like she's appearing in a Shakespearean production. It's a great laugh.
I bought this movie for $5 at a used CD store, and I kinda regret it. I'll start by saying I'm a huge fan of cheesy horror flicks. They provide a horribly tacky cheap entertainment. This movie entertained for the first half hour, because it was so bad it could be made fun of in an MST3K style manner quite easily. Then it got boring.<br /><br />The acting is the scariest part of the movie. While great acting is not to be expected, this was laughably bad and, honestly, provided all of the entertainment that was to be had. This is the plus side to the movie. Where the movie really falters in entertaining is the writing, lighting, and the editing.<br /><br />This movie provides way too many "What the %$@# is going on?" moments. There are many moments, such as the mother having strange fits at dinner, and then that having absolutely no consequence in the movie. Along the lines of dinner, someone in charge decided it was fun to watch people eat refined food for five minutes straight without dialogue every time a meal was served. During the meals and other inappropriate moments, the scene cuts away to pure darkness outside. Then cuts back in. And speaking of darkness outside, one of the funniest parts of the movie is the climate, where apparently it isn't nighttime unless it's raining. And speaking of darkness, a big problem with the movie is that it's so poorly lit you can't see what's going on half the time, which is more of a frustration than anything. In one of the climactic scenes, you can't even tell what you're supposed to be seeing that's so shocking.<br /><br />And when it comes to climactic scenes, Unhinged contains one of the worst. I've seen people say "Wow, that surprised me, and that's good." I can say that the big reveal did surprise me, because I didn't see it coming. The reason I didn't see it coming is because it made absolutely no sense. I won't ruin it for you, but I will tell you that my friend and I spent a good twenty minutes rewinding to various parts of the movie to find anything that would have validated that at all, and all we found were more things saying that it wasn't possible.<br /><br />All in all, this movie is actually better when you watch it with the commentary tracks that make fun of it. I love crap horror movies, but this was too much.
I normally do not take the time to make comments that few people will read, about movies few will see. However, in this case, I feel I must warn all those who might consider wasting time on it. I just finished watching it only five minutes ago. This is, quite simply, one of the worst movies that I have ever seen in my life. The acting is horrible, a plot is nonexistent, and production values are poverty level at best. I know that even a low budget movie can be great, but not this one. There is only thing that could have saved this movie for any horror fan's purposes--more on-screen gore and slashing! The grand total of three times that this occurs is off-screen. While it is effective and reasonably disturbing when it happens--especially the end scene--there is simply not enough of it. The movie is just too long for it's minimal content, too dialogue heavy, and consequently almost impossible to watch. What happens? To put it all in a nutshell with room to spare, three teenage girls irresponsibly and knowingly go out driving through an isolated area where over 20 girls have previously been abducted and murdered. Their car, of course, breaks down, and they are taken to an old boring house inhabited by three crazy people--one of whom is the psychotic killer. All three are eventually murdered, one by one, off-screen, after what seems like an eternity of boring, slow-paced nonsense. As I said, the only things worth watching even once are the murders. Please don't buy it or rent it just for that, and don't be fooled like I was by the misleading box art and movie description. Save your money and your time.
When I rented "Unhinged", I was expecting a gore movie. The box even claimed that the movie had extreme scenes of violence that were cut from the theatrical release (I now have serious doubts about this being released in the theater). After finishing the movie, I wondered how it could even receive a video release.<br /><br />The plot is as follows: A group of three young women on a car trip crash their car into a tree. These women somehow manage to make their way to a mansion, which contains an extremely sexist woman. Beyond this point, the movie is mainly composed of useless scenes that are intended to make the movie long enough for release.<br /><br />One of the things that makes this movie awful is the acting. Lisa Munson, who plays the main character, looks as though she is reading her lines off cue cards. The others acting is bad, but not nearly as bad as hers. Another thing that makes this movie bad is the camera technique. Many shots are taken by cameras attached to the ceiling. This gets very annoying as the movie progresses. On top of all that, there is very little gore, which makes the box very misleading. <br /><br />Don't waste your time on this one. My rating: 1 out of 10
After the opening credits, there's a black screen for about a minute. A minute of nothing, then a girl wakes up and takes a shower.Then her and two college friends are driving to a rock concert, after much padding, they hit something and skid off the road. They awaken in a cabin inhabited by a wheelchair-bound old lady and her offspring.The killings are sadly very tame for a supposed Video Nasty. The twist ending silly and predictable. No one involved in the mess would ever make anything of note again. So there are still happy endings sometimes.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Sara Ansley gets topless, and Laurel Munson has full frontal on display <br /><br />My Grade: D
Did anyone edit this film? Or was it only the DVD release that had huge thirty second gaps between scenes? It's OK though, I fell asleep watching it the first time. Then I fell asleep the second time and the third time. The plot is actually not the worst I've seen, but it's close. The acting is not the worst I've seen either...but it's close. The production .... well, I can honestly say that it was the worst I had ever seen in my life! Not trying to be spiteful, but Unhinged could have used some more production.<br /><br />Please don't think I'm a hater of horror films, or even that I didn't enjoy this film. I just felt I was laughing at the film much more than I felt I was laughing along with it. The gruesome moments were not too poorly done, but could have been done better even with a shoestring budget.<br /><br />Characters seemed awkwardly developed, or ignored all together, twist ending was pretty bad, and the exposition took forever without exposing much.<br /><br />I'd recommend avoiding this movie.<br /><br />1/10
This was not enjoyable to watch. Frank puts all his dreams on the back burner and gets a normal (boring!) job just so his stepson can go to film school, but his stepson decides that he'll make a humiliating documentary about the man instead. A documentary filmmaker should point the camera and simply shoot, not manipulate and comment with snide captions. The bitterness and resentment of the filmmaker towards his stepfather is obvious. And sad. The goal seems to be to make Frank appear dumb and pathetic, instead he comes across as the most human of the 3 people featured.<br /><br />Essentially a smear campaign all dressed up as something much smarter and edgier than it really is. It left me with an intense dislike for the filmmaker.
The BFG is one of Roald Dahl's most cherished books, but in this animated adaptation the magic just isn't there. This version remains pretty faithful to Dahl's original story so one can't lay the blame on John Hambley's script. If anything the fault lies with the colourless animation, the lethargic pace and the generally lacklustre voice-overs. One would be right to expect this story to make for a happy, vibrant, fun-filled movie..... instead, the film is a hopelessly dull affair that becomes quite tedious to watch. Children who are not familiar with the story should definitely read the book first! All the film will achieve is to put them off read what is actually a children's' classic.<br /><br />Young orphan Sophie (voice of Amanda Root) lives in a none-too-friendly orphanage under the cruel supervision of Mrs Clonkers. One evening she is peering through the window when she spots a massive figure walking stealthily down the village street. The figure realises it has been seen, so it reaches in through the window and scoops Sophie from her bed, placing her into its enormous pocket before fleeing into the night. Sophie soon discovers that she has been kidnapped by a giant from Giant Country, and fears that he will eat her. But to her relief he turns out to be a kind and sensitive member of his species who introduces himself as the BFG (voice of David Jason). The BFG refuses to eat people, instead restricting himself to foul-tasting vegetables known as snozzcumbers. However, Giant Country is populated by numerous other giants who DO feast - every night, as it happens - on poor unsuspecting humans. Sophie and the BFG become great friends, and soon they come up with a plan to thwart the other giants. Together they go to the Queen of England (voice of Angela Thorne) with their remarkable story and beg her to send the army and the air force to fight the man-eating giants. The Queen agrees and so begins a dangerous operation to capture the bad giants before they can harm anyone else.<br /><br />Jason voices the BFG quite well (one of the few pluses in the film) but his good work is almost ruined by somewhat poor sound quality. The rest of the voice work is decidedly uninspired, with very little to bring the characters to life. Similarly, the BFG is the only character that is imaginatively animated - Sophie lacks appeal, and the giants are boringly designed (and look almost indistinguishable from each other). Even the places are uninventive; Giant Country especially comes up short, being nothing more than a barren wasteland with occasional rocks and canyons. At 88 minutes the film is not exactly lengthy, yet it drags quite badly in parts due to the soporific handling of several sequences. Little of Dahl's mischievous humour is conveyed satisfactorily. One chapter in the book deals with the BFG's love of "whizzpopping" (farting) and is laugh-out-loud hilarious. In the film, the same section is totally killed by unfunny handling. I came to the The BFG expecting lots of zest, fun and enjoyment, but what I got was pretty much the opposite! This one is a failed misfire that simply doesn't match the calibre of the book in any department - unfortunately, therefore, it must go down as one to skip.
This film describes the experiences of a couple of hit men (one of them Burt Reynolds), a prostitute, and two drag queens over the interval of a few hours on one night in Miami. The convergent storylines eventually bring all the people together at one place and time. The movie was mildly entertaining, but the big problem was that everything happens at night and many scenes were literally under-exposed to the point that it was impossible to see what was happening. In a few scenes you can actually see where they tried to "stretch" the developing process to save the images. Somebody didn't know how to operate a movie camera. Amazing that this film was even released!
If you liked watching Mel Gibson in Million Dollar Hotel then you might enjoy watching Burt Reynolds in yet another film so bad it could never be distributed. I can only attest to the DVD version so maybe the VHS version is better quality wise but the movies night and dark scenes have been so poorly done that everythings seems red. I first thought my DVD players was messed up. It wasn't. If you insist on watching it I recommend you adjust the color on your TV until it is black and white. If you don't you will never be able to get through the film. If you do it will simply remind you of a poor film students attempt to revist the style of Pulp Fiction.
Follow-up to 1973's far better "Cleopatra Jones" has statuesque black actress Tamara Dobson returning to her signature role as chic, super-tough narcotics agent, here busting a heroin ring in Hong Kong. Cross-pollination of blaxploitation action-flick and kung-fu B-movie is fun at the outset but eventually flags. The shoot-out finale is right off the assembly-line, and Dobson herself seems less energetic than before (she's still sexy, and she puts a unique spin on her comically-stilted dialogue, but these surroundings may have been too much of one thing for her--she's jaded). Stella Stevens plays the villainess this time; she's good, but can't match Shelley Winters in the predecessor. ** from ****
I'd never heard of this, then found out it's the man with the deadly lens, which I'd heard of but not seen. Connery's presence drove me to buy it, and it's not good. It wants to be a sort of cross between Dr Strangelove and Mash, but it just isn't that funny, unless you find the name General Wombat (?) funny. It comes across as a flat 70s thriller until the last ten minutes, when it springs to life. There are many, many flat scenes in the Whitehouse between the president and his aides which don't work. It's almost as if the initial cut was too long, and the first half was edited down to get to the whole nuclear bomb ransom storyline and the suicide bomber attacks, which i think are meant to be played for laughs, but again, aren't that funny. The location filming is excellent but the studio stuff looks like cheap TV. I could not believe the man responsible for Key Largo, Crossfire and Elmer Gantry did this. Only laugh: Connery throws away his wig before putting on his helmet and jumping out of a plane. It makes Never say Never again look like genius.
This is a weak film with a troubled history of cuts and re-naming. It doesn't work at all. Firstly the dramaturgy is all wrong. It's very slow moving at first and then hastily and unsatisfactorily moves to an end. But there is also (and that may have to do with the cuts) an uneasy moving between genres. It starts off with being a thriller to be taken at face value and then degenerates into a farce rather than satire. the ending may be funny but it's also so blunt that I almost felt it insulted my intelligence (what little there is). So the film tries to be everything but does not really succeed on any level at all. You can also see that in the very unsteady character development.You almost get the impression Connery plays three roles rather than one.
When the remake of When A Stranger Calls was out, obviously I was interested in watching the original. Then when I read about the original (which I recall had my sisters totally freaked out back in the day) I saw that the real money is on Black Christmas, which apparently beat everyone to the "the caller is in the house" punch. So I Netflix that, and it sits at the top of my list for months due to its "very long wait." All this time I am getting more and more eager to see it! Then one day, out of the blue, it finally arrives! ...And it's a total snore.<br /><br />Sure, maybe I had elevated expectations, but I don't think it would have gained more had I seen it fresh. The thing is it's Christmas in some Canadian college town, and there's this sorority having a party. We see some killer-POV shots as he climbs this trellis and sneaks into the attic. So we KNOW he's in the house. Then we're introduced to our characters—-Olivia Hussey as the mousy, whiny, Canadian-accented Jess. Margot Kidder as the annoying, overtly aggressive alcoholic Barb. She's so annoying even her mother dis-invites her for her Christmas festivities. There's also this irritating Janis Ian clone ("Phil") and this alcoholic den mother Mrs. Mac, seen taking nips from the various bottles of booze she has stashed all over the house. We also meet Jess's highly-strung boyfriend Peter, played by Keir Dullea of 2001 and Bunny Lake is Missing fame, though halfway through the film I was still asking myself "Which one's Keir Dullea?"<br /><br />So it seems that the house has been receiving obscene phone calls, but this was before email, so they couldn't ask him to send a photo. Then—-well, you know how they say those plastic dry-cleaning bags are not a toy? One of the sisters finds that out the hard way. Don't worry if you don't catch the first 14 shots of the plastic-encased corpse face as it reposes in the attic—-there'll be 28 more interspersed throughout the film, obviously there to make you say "Oh my God! There's a corpse in the attic!" Though after the first hour that changes to: "How come the dumb police haven't found the rather prominently-placed plastic-encased corpse in the attic?" Especially as it is made abundantly clear that it is clearly visible from outside the house. Really, any time before CSI came on the air must have been such a golden age of crime; the cops are so dumb. Fortunately some of them look like John Saxon.<br /><br />Anyway, after a lot more darn boring human drama, the house mother fears that her precious kitty has ascended a vertical ladder and has pushed open a heavy-looking trap door that rests atop it (those wily cats!), for she sticks her head in there and ends up with a hook pulley in her neck for the trouble. Now we have two corpses up in the attic—-hey, why don't we have 75 more shots trying to chill us by the fact that there are now TWO corpses in the attic?<br /><br />So by now the police have begun to take the situation seriously, and tap the houses' phone and station a cop outside. They inform Jess and her pal Janis Ian that if the obscene caller calls back, they need to keep him on the phone. Jessica, who has grown even more whiny, mousy and annoying keeps asking the caller "Who is this? What do you want? Who are you?" after like the first 89 calls, when it is clear that he is not going to answer her. Isn't that like a sign a developmental disability? The inability to learn from unsuccessful attempts at something? And what's he going to do, suddenly say "Oh yeah, hi, it's Bob from the Laundromat?" Dumb Jess.<br /><br />Spoilers! Anyway, soon Janis Ian and Lois Lane (Kidder) are piled in bed with ketchup splashed on their faces (this film's idea of gore), and idiot Jess realizes that not a single door or window in the house is locked. Hello? Are you being stalked or what? Then the cops realize that the killer is in the house, and call Jess and tell her "don't ask questions, just do as I say… walk to the front door and get out." So what does moron Jess do? Starts screaming "Phil? Barb? Phil? Barb?" Hey, great idea sister. Now why don't you go right upstairs where you know a psychotic killer is lurking? Of course she does, and sees her former friends, all splashed with ketchup, prompting this viewer to scream at the screen: "Have a clue now?!"<br /><br />Now, obviously one needs to be understanding and realize that this movie was made before the classic slasher movie tropes were solidly in place, and that it doesn't move to the same pace we're used to, and seeing a plastic-covered corpse in the attic like 206 times probably WAS scary back in the day, and people weren't used to being stalked by psychopaths, so they wouldn't think to, you know, lock the doors or windows. And they might be tempted to wander upstairs when they have just been told that a rabid killer is up there. You see, people were stupid back in the 70s. We have to understand that. One of the big shocks is that we don't even see our proto-Final Girl kill the psycho. But believe me, that fact is more interesting being read in this review than sitting through the movie for. Spoilers end! <br /><br />------ Hey, check out Cinema de Merde, my website on bad and cheesy movies (with a few good movies thrown in). You can find the URL in my email address above.
Steve McQueen has certainly a lot of loyal fans out there. He certainly was a charismatic fellow, one of the most charismatic the big screen ever knew. But even McQueen can't save this turkey of a film, shot with what looks like a brownie camera in the actual locations in St. Louis.<br /><br />McQueen's a new kid with no criminal record brought into the planning of a bank heist by one of the other gang. There's more than a broad hint that there's a gay relationship going on between young Steve and David Clarke. He's not liked at all by the other heist members, mainly because of his lack of criminal resume. <br /><br />Steve also has a girl friend in Molly McCarthy and she suspects something afoot, especially when he starts hanging around with Crahan Denton and James Dukas as well as Clarke, all pretty rough characters. That would certainly get my suspicions aroused.<br /><br />The Great St. Louis Bank Robbery had two directors Charles Guggenheim and John Stix. Guggenheim did mostly documentaries and Stix didn't do much of anything. One of those two jokers decided Steve's performance was best served by doing a bad Marlon Brando imitation. <br /><br />This film may go down as the worst ever done by Steve McQueen. I'm willing to bet that Dick Powell and Four Star Productions had already signed him for Wanted Dead or Alive because I can't believe they would have if they saw this.<br /><br />Or they would have seen something the public would have overlooked except for the dressing for this turkey.
Heavily re-edited and often confusing, the original screen version of Man On Fire was at least ten years out of date when it was made and the passing years haven't made it any better. This is the kind of movie that producers with too much money and too little experience make to get attention and everyone else does just to pay off their outstanding alimony or their drug dealer, with Scott Glenn's bodyguard going out on a limb to rescue his 12-year-old charge, the kidnapped daughter of a wealthy Italian family. An interesting cast - Joe Pesci, Brooke Adams, Danny Aiello, Jonathan Pryce - have all done better, the action is sluggish and sparse and only John Scott's exceptionally fine score (part of which turned up in the last reel of Die Hard) makes a positive impression. One case where the remake (made by Tony Scott, the original choice of director for this version) is an improvement.
Despite the acclaim on the DVD cover of the version I borrowed, this film was a disappointment. Yes, it is far more realistic than other war films of the period for depicting the mud, boredom and frustration of the grunt, but unfortunately one comes away from it thinking that's ALL there is to this movie. There is no plot and the dialogue is monotonous. It's not that a good war film needs to have a battle scene every five minute. One of the best World War II films, "Twelve O'Clock High," has very little action. But it compensates with crackling dialogue and psychological tension. The exception to "The Story of G.I. Joe" is a brief battle segment (titled "city under siege" on the DVD) which takes place in Italy. Admittedly it is one of the most fast-paced and convincing combat scenes of any war movie. But alas, the rest of the film is not worth watching just for this highlight. Another turn-off is Pvt. Dondaro, played by Wally Cassell, who is meant to be a "romeo" but comes off a pervert. By contrast, Sgt. Warnicki is a sympathetic, if flawed, man. As he says to Capt. Walker (Mitchum) when volunteering for another patrol: "Every step forward is a step closer... to home." But that last step – one patrol too many – drives him over the mental brink. Too bad the rest of the movie doesn't do justice to some otherwise fine touches. As for Meredith's portrayal of Pyle... it is practically comatose.
I wholeheartedly disagree with the other viewers of this wretched film. The only reason why I didn't rate it 1 for awful was due to the great talent of Carmen Miranda. The beginning and end are the best parents due to her gifted singing and dancing.<br /><br />The problem is with the rest of the picture. Alice Faye comes off quite hollow. Don Ameche has a great singing voice but with the wretched writing material, he comes off so terribly corny.<br /><br />The plot is a real stiff here with Ameche assuming two parts as a song and dance man and a baron not happily married to Faye.<br /><br />It seems that by playing the song and dance man, Ameche's marriage gets a second change to reignite. Some silly nonsense about the baron having to clear up business and being away allows him to play both parts.<br /><br />S.Z. Sakal is given little to do here and so his comedic gifts are not given the opportunity to shine. Ditto for J. Carrol Naish who actually appears uncomfortable in his role.<br /><br />This is a chica chica boom bomb of a film.
This film was screen as part of the 2007 Sydney Mardi Gras Film Festival. I had no expectation of the film as someone else choose it for me.<br /><br />I actually like films that take time to develop, films that allow the characters to unfold and lets the story flow. Stillness is good. But this film though was just plain slow.<br /><br />Credit must go to the two main actors. There was a sense of tension between them as two totally different people, misfits really, come together in a very awkward way. There were tender moments and sadness as we learned more about them.<br /><br />I also liked the setting and the way it was shot. It was claustrophobic and monochrome and it added to the film's intimacy and reinforces the oddness of the characters.<br /><br />I just don't understand the ending. What was the point of it all?
It's interesting that all who (so far) seemed to like this film had no expectations--I guess that's the trick. In contrast with them, I had optimistic expectations, and that was a mistake. As soon as I saw how close to the faces the camera always was, I knew we were in the hands of an extremely amateur director--that's always a clear sign of them, they think it is arty or effective or intense to hold the camera about two inches away from the actors. The actors in this film, though, had only one facial expression each. <br /><br />If the close camera wasn't enough, the lack of light in the film killed it. The film seemed to be entirely filmed in the dark. So now we know that the cinematographer was a rank amateur, as well. "Ooh ooh, we're going to light the set with a flashlight! That will make it all seem intimate!" No, that made it all seem invisible.<br /><br />On top of the serious technical flaws, there was absolutely no story beyond the barest hint of an idea that was never developed, and nothing new about this kind of relationship was illuminated. (Perhaps this is a new kind of film for Germany, but in Los Angeles, forget about it.)<br /><br />The fact that this film won a couple of film festival awards doesn't indicate the quality of the film, but besmirches the quality of these particular festivals. I can assure you that this film won't win anything in the festival where I saw it. In fact, two times during the film it seemed that it was finally over and people started to get up to leave (this was one of the side effects of the cinematographer's "total darkness" technique). But when the film shuddered on, instead, there were moans coming from the audience. And once the movie finally DID end, it was clear that it hadn't mattered if it actually had ended at either of the two earlier points. An earlier ending would have saved the audience from yet more monotonous scenes of domesticity (folding sheets, cutting vegetables, spreading honey on bread). Yeah, we get it, the life of the lonely old man was boring-- but we figured that one out at the very beginning.<br /><br />I recommend that audiences miss this one, it has absolutely nothing to offer sophisticated movie-goers.
As long as you can suffer it! If you like watching people waking up, getting up, getting dressed, having a shower, preparing dinner, watching each other, having sex in the dark, then going back to bed to sleep... if you like tacky flats, narrow bedrooms and kitchens, long minutes of silence.... if you like getting bored for two hours, feeling the thrill of "real intimate false art", then you will like it. But if you don't, just try to see a good movie, there are thousands. "As long as you are here", but do we want to stay? This German movie got the award of the Torino gay film festival: Italian journalists still don't understand why the jury took such a bad decision, as the festival presented lot of talented movies. Maybe to be nice with a German, as they don't often get awards? Well, "The Lives of Others" did... but this one is excellent but not gay. So maybe it is a question of fashion. Germans are they "in" again? No matter what? Or maybe only for a hustler's glance of some directors?
I liked this show! I think it was nothing with wrong with it! Only that Spidey don't punch anyone but only for that the show doesn't suck! Some people only think this show is bad because of that. The story was great and it was fun when other heroes appeared like X-men, The Punisher, Daredevil and Iron Man! To bad Sandman never appear but i kinda like it! Best Spidey show ever!! My favorite episodes are: 1. Turning Point 2. Spider Wars 3. The Hobgoblin 4. The Alien Costume 5. Mutant Agenda<br /><br />But there are some episodes that was really really bad like: Rocket Racer and The Spot which was embarrassing to watch. And i don't like Morbius and Hydro Man. First of Morbius suck plasma instead of blood and i don't like vampires. And it irritates me that he was almost the main villain in Season 2. Of course i have to mentioned Hydro Man! He was terrible! I rather see Sandman! His last appearance was so terrible. And i don't like Spidey as the Man-spider!<br /><br />But i guess everything than this was bad!
Watching a videotaped replay of about 8 various 1994-1997 Spider-man cartoons made me realize why I couldn't stomach it when it first came out.<br /><br />I'm from the old school, where the 1967 Spider-man cartoon was the best and still remains the best. (I won't get into the psychedelic version which is terrible - give me traditional villains please.)<br /><br />The acting in the new stuff is lousy, read off a sheet with either no feeling or overacting. Paul Soles, where are you now? This guy was the best at voice acting for Spider-man. No one comes close. Watching Secret Wars, a great idea for a cartoon mini-series, made me wince. Dr. Doom sounds like a comedy version of Bela Lugosi. In a scene with Red Skull and Doc Ock, Red Skull has no German accent while Ock is heavy Russian! The old Marvel comic hero series from 1966 had much better voice acting. Iron Man sounded like he was wearing an iron mask, Captain America sounded authoritative not like some teenage kid. Paul Frees as the Thing in the 60s was the best Thing ever. The old voice actors were pioneers and there will never be anyone like them. Ever hear Mel Blanc's son? No way can he replicate his dad.<br /><br />The animation is clunky. Okay, so they have all the fancy character shadings and nicely painted backrounds. Sometimes you can say more with less movement if more movement looks bad. Sometimes when you let the computer take over the movements they become robotic. I really don't think any of these animators know what in betweeners are. <br /><br />The stories are badly written, and some of the lines they give the heroes are horrible. Why, for example, when heroes are teamed together for the first time they start fighting with each other? In Secret Wars, it was a lame excuse that got them in disagreement. I can see if the hero was dark, unknown and mysterious - like the Punisher, but why the Thing and Iron Man can't hold their tempers with each other is ridiculous, then the Torch joins in. This is just another of the later comic trends to get heroes to square off at each other for a few seconds because 'everyone' wants to see that stuff. Give them a better reason to fight and maybe it can be pulled off, but "Hey what are you doing here" and "You don't tell me what to do" are LAME reasons. Another badly written scene is in The Wedding where Harry Osborne unmasks himself to spoil Peter's wedding. That whole scenario was awful.<br /><br />Last, but certainly not least, is what another critic calls Juvenile Violence - meaning no punches at all. In Secret Wars, the Lizard carefully ducked the Thing's charge. But the Thing punches the bad guys across an entire block in the comics. He must simply revert to lifting heavy things and subduing a bad guy by grabbing hold of him in the cartoons. Sure, these cartoons were not made strictly for us adults but for kids under 12. That's why they can't have punching, because mommy and daddy don't believe in that type of violence. But you can blow things up, these cartoons will include that. As a kid before political correctness came in fashion I saw cartoons punching each other. What's wrong with a punch to the chops? Is there really less violence in the world today because those slick and crafty new cartoons took out the punch? I find this the most insulting of all when I watch the new stuff. They've written out "the punch' because we could all hurt ourselves.<br /><br />Kids, enjoy these cartoons all you want, I've seen enough.<br /><br />3/10 rating
"Houseboat Horror" is often regarded as the worst Australian film ever made and described as a typical slasher film,which carried the promotion 'See the movie that can't get an Academy Award'.An underground disco band members begins to die slashed to death by burned maniac as they are attempting to shoot a music video on a remote lake in the Australian outback.Badly acted and written slasher flick with zero suspense and annoying characters.It certainly delivers the gore:heads are split in half with a machete,throats are cut and a woman is killed with a horseshoe.If you like cheesy slasher movies you can give this one a try,but you have been warned.At least it's better than Swedish "The Bleeder".4 out of 10.
Houseboat Horror is a great title for this film. It's absolutely spot-on, and therefore the only aspect of the film for which I can give 10 out of 10. There are houseboats, there is horror, there's even horror that takes place on houseboats. But if there were ever a tagline for the film poster, it would surely be 'Something shonky this way comes...' for Houseboat Horror is easily the worst Australian horror film I've ever seen, not to mention one of the worst horror films I've ever seen, and a fairly atrocious attempt at film-making in general. The good news is, it's so bloody awful, it sails straight through the zone of viewer contempt into the wonderful world of unintentional hilarity. It's worth watching *because* it's bloody awful.<br /><br />The category of 'worst' comes not from the storyline, for the simple reason that there actually is one: a record producer, a film crew and a rock band drive up to the mystifyingly-named Lake Infinity, a picturesque rural retreat somewhere in Victoria (in reality Lake Eildon) to shoot a music video. Someone isn't especially happy to see them there and, possibly in an attempt to do the audience a favour, starts picking them off one by one with a very sharp knife. Even more mystifying is how long it takes the survivors to actually notice this, <br /><br />On the surface, it looks like a very bog-standard B-movie slasher. You've got highly-annoying youths, intolerant elders, creepy locals (one of whom, a petrol station attendant, would easily win a gurning competition), and let's face it, my description of the murderer could easily be Jason Voorhees. Ah, but if only the acting and production values were anywhere near as good as the comparative masterpiece that was Friday The 13th Part VII. Unfortunately, Houseboat Horror is completely devoid of both these things.<br /><br />But in the end, this only makes what you do get so ridiculous and amusing. Fans of one-time 'Late Show' and 'Get This' member Tony Martin will already be aware of some of the real dialogue gems ('Check out the view...you'll bar up!'), while the actual song to accompany the music video is so bad it has to be heard to be believed - I can't help wondering if writer/director Ollie Wood hoped it would actually become a hit. The horror element is comparable I think to B-slashers of the genre and particularly of the period, but there were times when I couldn't help imagining someone biting into a hamburger off-screen and seeing a volley of tomato sauce sprayed at the wall on-screen.<br /><br />Indeed, if you've been listening to Tony Martin recommending this film as hilarious rubbish like myself, I don't think you'll be disappointed. Any fans of 'so-bad-it's-good' horror should not pass up the opportunity. Whether you'll 'bar up' or not though is another matter. If, on the other hand, you are in search of genuine excellence in the Australian horror genre, get yourself a copy of the incomparable 'Long Weekend' and don't look back.
I just finished watching this on TV and what can I say but this is the worst film I have EVER seen! I'm embarrassed to be from Melbourne, where the film was made. Diabolical acting, amateurish makeup effects and a REALLY bad soundtrack. As for the plot, well, thats even MORE stupid! Some of the scenes just left me stunned as to how bad it was. There's a reason they put these types of films on late night TV - because they're utter rubbish! Avoid at all costs.
This absolute trash is based so closely on the Friday the 13th series that is practically a carbon copy, accept for it being an Australian film with people who can't act.<br /><br />Once upon a time a young boy got burnt up accidentally during the filming of a music video at Lake Eildon. Now, a number of years later, the boy is all grown up and taking revenge on anybody who comes to the lake to film a music video. It is cliche-ridden and a waste of time and money, see it only out of curiosity, or if you're an aspiring actor trying to learn how NOT to (not be able to) act. Lead role Alan Dale used to star in the television soap opera Neighbours, but ended up in The X Files - how did THAT happen?
This movie should not classify as cinema. Although it is over 10 years old now, it should never, ever have gotten funding, and is a blight on the Australian Film Industry, which is now producing such brilliant films as "The Dish"<br /><br />The Actors cannot act, The music is.. to be blunt, not music, the storyline is completely nonexistent and is a struggle to sit through.<br /><br />Do not watch this film. It is a complete waste of your time.
Why was this film made? Even keeping in mind the generous tax concessions that Australian film investors were given, there can be no reasonable explanation for this film being given the go-ahead. For goodness sakes, the actors cast in this film are Aussie b-grade celebs (not actors, people like John Michael 'Hollywood' Howson, the original drummer from the band in Hey Hey Its Saturday, and the voice-over guy in Countdown. But in saying that, this is still very watchable as long as you give it the brain attention it deserves : none. The script is bad (even for a self-confessed b-grade horror) and the acting and film quality is worse. It often looks as though it is a home movie, but even a home movie has 'realism'. Anyone interested in Australian cinema, please, for the love of God, pretend this film was NEVER made.
In this extremely low-budget ( I've seen home movies made with better production value) Australian utter rip-off of "the Burning" & "Friday the 13th", a band is planning to make a music video while on a houseboat. They're stalked by a serial killer who was burned years before. This movie is even proclaimed to be 'the worst Australian film ever made' in it's DVD promotional material. That's it's only selling point! Complete and utter rubbish in every considerable way. Perhaps a few chuckles here and there for bad movie lovers, but it still made me want to burn out my retinas.<br /><br />Eye Candy: a quick flash of barely existent itty bitty titties in a lame shower scene<br /><br />My Grade: F
It is very unfortunate when a movie such as this is made. A great deal of work and money has been put into a film that is amateur at best.<br /><br />The editing drags on, there are obvious mistakes that could have been corrected easily in a second take, and the soundtrack is unimaginative. So much more could have been done with this video movie. I guess they ran out of time, or videotape.<br /><br />Hand-held shots have a distinct amateur feel to them.
The threesome of Bill Boyd, Robert Armstrong, and James Gleason play Coney Island carnys vying for the hand of Ginger Rogers, a working gal who sells salt water taffy. With the outbreak of World War I, the threesome enlist and pursue Ginger from afar. The first half of this RKO Pathe production is hard going, with the three male leads chewing up the scenery with overcooked one-liners and 'snappy' dialogue that quickly grows tiresome. The second half concentrates on action sequences as the US Navy pursues both a German merchant cruiser and a U-boat. These sequences are lively and well-filmed, but overall this is an overlong and unsatisfying comedy-drama with a flat ending. For fans of the stars only.
...at least during its first half. If it had started out with the three buddies in the navy and concentrated on the naval action scenes, it would have been a much better and tighter film. The second half of the film is worth it, especially for the action sequences and close up shots of early 20th century ships, but it's like a dull toothache getting there. Also, don't watch this film just because Ginger Rogers is in it. She has an important role, but it's a small one.<br /><br />The film starts out showing three New York City buddies working the tourist trade and also in good-natured competition for the hand of Sally (Ginger Rogers), a singing candy salesgirl along the avenue. World War I breaks out, the three buddies seem completely indifferent to the struggle, yet enlist in the navy anyways. The one of the three with the least industry as a civilian (Bill Boyd as Baltimore) winds up the commanding officer to the other two (Robert Armstrong as Dutch and James Gleason as Skeets). To make matters more complex, Sally has fallen in love with one of the three, but doesn't have the chance to tell him before the three sail off to war.<br /><br />The film is a little more interesting on board ship, mainly because of the close shots we have of the ship itself, and also because the chemistry among the three buddies is believable. However, James Gleason at age 49 looks a bit long in the tooth to be a swabby, especially when the sign at the enlistment office said you had to be between 17 and 35 to be eligible.<br /><br />One real obvious flaw in the film that made me believe that everything outside the naval scenes was slapped together with minimum care is the costume design, or, I should say, the lack of it. In the scenes in New York just prior to WWI we have everyone dressed in the fashions of 1931 and everyone driving the cars of 1931 - no effort was taken to bring this film into period.<br /><br />In conclusion, if you watch the few scenes with Ginger Rogers in them and the last 45 minutes involving the naval suicide mission, you've seen everything here worth seeing. The rest is padding.
I saw most of the episodes of RMFTM as a teenager on "Cliffhanger Theater" running after midnight on a local station some years ago, and then again when Mystery Science Theatre riffed on it in the early 90's. Time has not been kind to it. <br /><br />I can certainly make allowances for the special effects, which were quite impressive for a low budget 50's serial (IMO Commando Cody's flying scenes were better than George Reeves/Superman's in his TV show). And I can also make allowances for the ahem, "acting", and fight choreography -. except for the guy who plays the ruler of the Moon Men. He is incredibly miscast. He looks and acts like the fellow who comes to fix your plumbing, not the despotic ruler of an alien race. Even the corny dialog works all right - everyone rattles off their lines like strings of firecrackers, with no wasted time or pauses for things like "thought" or "introspection". Since everyone does this, the viewer finds it immersive after awhile, and even to my modern sensibilities, it doesn't bother much. <br /><br />What really irritates me is the writing and the plotting. I'm not talking about the sunny weather on the moon, or baking soda powered rocket ships, or a flying suit that has controls labeled "up/down" and "fast/slow". I'm not even bothered by the cheesiness of the resolutions to the cliffhangers that end each chapter. I'm talking about the fact that our supposed heroes are dumber than fence posts and have no cumulative memory. And by the fact that although that the dialog clips along like an express train, the plot goes through the same motions again and again. <br /><br />Dig it: Commando Cody and his pal are the spearhead of a top secret hi tech science lab charged with protecting Earth (or at least the USA) against an insidious alien invasion. But his office has no guards or security checkpoints. They don't even have locks on the front doors. So the bad guys walk RIGHT IN and beat the crap out of the Cody and his staff ...not once (perhaps understandable) but SEVERAL times. They even kidnap his female assistant on the second try. And they never get any smarter. To further prove my point, allow me to point out the way that Cody jumps in his flying suit and flies around getting into trouble and never actually seems to succeed in catching anyone. He does this over and over and over. Cody also flies his ship to the Moon (the woman assistant comes along to cook), stays for about 30 seconds and immediately turns around and comes back. Cody captures one of the Atomic Ray guns...and immediately loses it again to the bad guys because he couldn't be bothered to lock it up. And so on.<br /><br />And you would think that if Cody's efforts were so vital to saving the USA from the Moon Men, that he might ask for a few soldiers with carbines, a few helicopters and a tank or two to back him up, instead of just working with the local police all the time. This was supposed to be a military operation, but they act like it's another episode of "Gangbusters". <br /><br />It's all rather hard to stomach. I appreciate that the creators were severely limited in the scope of their story by budget and time constraints...and I appreciate that Cody is actually a reasonably tough hombre (even though he loses half of his fistfights). But I just can't help yelling "DOOR! LOCK THE DOOOOR!!" when the gangsters simply walk into his lab, or try to blow up the ship and there are NO security measures at the landing site in place...not even a fence (!). <br /><br />Still, it's OK. Of the three Republic serials I've watched, "Phantom Creeps" had a better plot, and "Undersea Kingdom" had more atmosphere (hah!) and a better hero than "Radar Men", but it's an OK time-waster. <br /><br />BTW...why "Radar" men? They didn't use radar, they used Atomic Ray Guns. Shouldn't the title have been "Atomic Ray Gun Men From The Moon?"
The Radar Men from the Moon is a pretty typical fare of 1950's serials. The special effects are pretty cheap, the lunar rovers are obviously World War II surplus jeeps with painted plywood over them, and the like. The acting is only so-so. It does inspire the imagination of children, to whom I believe this was directed to. By today's standards, it's boring, cheap, and bad. There's also a hefty amount of stock footage in the first 9 episodes of natural disasters.
This serial is interesting to watch as an MST3K feature, but for todays audience that's all it is. I was really surprised to see the year it was made as 1952. Considering that fact alone makes this a solid (lowly?) 2 in my book. The cars used don't even look contemporary, they look like stuff from the 30's. It's basically Cody (the lone world's salvation? Sheesh talk about an insult to everyone else, like the military), anyway it's Cody in his nipple ring flying suit against Graber and Daley two dumb*ss henchman who sport handguns and an occasional ray gun thats pretty lame in its own right, enjoy. If you want to watch a really good serial see Flash Gordan, it's full of rockets that attack each other and a good evil nemesis and also good looking women, this has NONE of that. And Flash was made 15 or so years before this crap so you can give it some slack. Something made in 1952, this bad, deserves a 2. Nuff said. give it a 6 if your watching it as a MST3K episode, those guys have some good fun with it; a tweak of the nipples here, a tweak there and I'm flying! And now as an added bonus, I bring you the Commander Cody Theme song as originally sung by Joel and his two character bots Tom Servo and Crow aboard the satellite of love for episode eight The Enemy Planet:<br /><br />(Singing at the very beginning credits);<br /><br />(TOM SERVO SINGING) YOUR WATCHING COMMANDER CODY.... HE IS THE NEW CHARACTER FROM REPUBLIC,<br /><br />HE GETS IN TROUBLE EVERY WEEK... BUT HE'S SAVED BY EDITING,<br /><br />JUST A TWEAK OF HIS NIPPLES... SENDS HIM ON HIS WAY,<br /><br />A PUMPKIN HEAD AND A ROCKET PACK.... WILL SAVE THE DAY,<br /><br />(JOEL SINGING) HIS LABRATORY IS A BOXING RING... WHEN BAD GUYS COME TO MIX IT UP,<br /><br />SOMEBODY ALWAYS GETS KIDNAPPED... AND CODY HAS TO FIX IT UP,<br /><br />HE DRINKS HIS TEA AT AL'S CAFE... AND FLIES ALONG ON WIRES,<br /><br />HE BEATS THE CROOKS AND FLIES WITH HOOKS... AND PUTS OUT FOREST FIRES,<br /><br />(CROW SINGING)<br /><br />BAD GUYS BEWARE... CODY IS THERE,<br /><br />YOU'LL LIKE HIS HAIR IT'S UNDER HIS HELMUT... AND BECAUSE WE CAN'T THINK OF A GOOD RHYME,<br /><br />THAT'S THE END OF THE COMMANDER CODY THEME SONG... SO SIT RIGHT BACK WITH A WILL OF GRANITE,<br /><br />AND WATCH CHAPTER EIGHT, CAUSE THAT'S THE ENEMY PLANET
Oh, man, how low serials had fallen as by 1952! This dull thing is precisely the kind of serial that annoyed Annie Wilkes (from Misery). Not only the heroes escape the traps by adding scenes that weren't there in the previous chapter (and that COULDN'T possibly be there - tell me that when the baddies blow up the plain in episode 7 to 8 they wouldn't see the characters jump), but I think this serial has the World's Record of Stock Footage. I mean, most of it is stock footage! And not just from another serials (apparently all the flying sequences come from King of the Rocket Men, and the cool "molten rocks" scenes of episode 2 to 3 is from Adventures of Captain Marvel), but from itself! The whole "trip to the Moon" sequence (which is probably the shortest ever, it's 30 seconds long and the characters never seem to leave Earth's atmosphere) from episode 1 is repeated in episode 8! And episode 10 is ALL scenes from previous episodes! (Ever wondered why MST3K never did episodes 10, 11 and 12? Well, they had to stop after 9 so they didn't have to do the whole thing again!).<br /><br />Don't get me started on the science factor. Prepare to see the sunniest Moon ever! And Moon men that can not breathe on their own world? What were they smoking? <br /><br />And if this is not enough, it's too talky and the stunts (usually the best thing in serials) are few and far. Visually-wise, am I the only one who thinks that Commando Cody's bullet-shaped (or is it lemon-shaped) helmet is totally ridiculous-looking? The Rocketeer's was way cooler, no matter how bad that movie was (and man, was it awful). The tank-like vehicle isn't much better, it looks like a bunch of kids made it for Halloween. The only positive thing I can think of about it is that the actor who plays the hero is homely instead of the usual muscular hunk (hey, everybody has the right to be an hero!), but then he's so unappealing...<br /><br />Not even worth watching for nostalgia's sake. See Captain Marvel instead. 2/10.<br /><br />(BTW, check out the Memorable Quotes section for a real Women's Lib pearl).
Really, truly, abysmally, garishly, awful. But actor Clayton Moore (the movie Lone Ranger) acquits himself competently as an actor. He's the only one.<br /><br />A rare treat, for five minutes, if you want to plumb the depths of grotesquely transparent special effects, southern California as "the moon" (again and again and again), and acting so woodenly inept that it may be a spoof . . . except that it's clear that it isn't--no humor here, except unintentionally.<br /><br />The dialogue may be worse than any of these other aspects, and the costumes . . . well, enough said. Plot? What plot? Bad guy (well, head bad guy) and his henchmen, including his earthly agent called Krog (listen carefully or you'll suspect it's a spoof on the name of McDonald's founder Ray Kroc)and his unbelievably inept gunsels (who, however, have handguns that never need reloading; as does Commando Cody, so there are numerous firefight standoffs).<br /><br />Enjoy.
...and Ethel Merman buffs, too, will love her loud, bossy vocals as the wicked witch Mombi, but this cartoon sequel to "The Wizard Of Oz" is bereft of real imagination, substituting fantasy and excitement with noisy action (and cheaply repeating its footage like a bad music video). Little Dorothy is whisked back to Oz, which has gone to ruin, and meets old and new friends. The inelegant animation is stuck somewhere between the weakest Walt Disney and the less-inspired shows from Hanna-Barbera, however many of the songs are good, particularly Dorothy's sweet lament "It's a Far Away Land", superbly performed by Liza Minnelli. You can count on Minnelli for energy, which is why the movie perks up whenever Dorothy is around. Much of it is unmemorable, and I'm not even sure baby-boomers will get a charge from it since it has been out of circulation for so long. As a curiosity item, just fair. ** from ****
My kids picked this out at the video store...it's great to hear Liza as Dorothy cause she sounds just like her mom. But there are too many bad songs, and the animation is pretty crude compared to other cartoons of that time.
The number of goofs in this episode was higher than the first 9. They don't follow their own rules about spirits where destruction of the body makes the spirit dissolve. This one dropped a second body. That body, and Dean, drop about 20 feet from Sam but then they are right with Sam. Flashlights go out in an unlighted asylum, at night, and we can still see everything. It's night but light is streaming through the windows. A ghost that died in 1960's is making cell phones calls? Come on! There is no way Sam could get a psychiatrist to see him in the same day he makes an appointment and the doctor talks to Sam like it wasn't his first visit. Sam and Dean knew there were other bodies in the asylum and innocent spirits still lurking and didn't do anything to help them. That doesn't seem like a thing the Winchester boys would do. Oh and after crawling around on a dirt filled mattress and all around a nasty asylum the girls' makeup and hair is perfect and not a smudge on her white shirt. <br /><br />While the implementation of this episode had problems the premise was good and a few times I was not creeped out but nervous as Dean sat reading Elicots' journal. I just knew that an object so intensely personal to the ghost would draw it to the person violating it's sanctity. Elicot didn't appear. Maybe that is a fault for such an important object or place (like Elicot's office) should draw the spirit when a living being touches or enters. When they separate I want to scream... 'that's how you die! Always stay together and watch each others backs!' but they don't listen to me :o The Elicot spirit and his special ability was a very nice touch. It's prime-time show but I do wish the horror of Elicot strapping one of his victims down and using anticipation of torture to creep us out further.<br /><br />Especially because of the lighting goofs I gave this a 4. Sudden darkness or the flickering of the whole scene's lighting as the flashlight flickers is all that more terrifying. The lighter coming or the flashlight reviving and instantly a spirit is in their face is shocking. I understand the directors wants us to see his scene but then make a mention or obvious connection by Elicot touching an electric socket and the lights coming on. Have the characters respond to the fact an asylum with no power suddenly has lights in the one room. Blue white lights flickering as electric arcs just like Elicot's finger power. <br /><br />Seriously, MCG could have done better.
According to IMDb, as well as to every other website that holds a review; this "thing" doesn't have a director. Well, that would surely explain a lot! Just a bunch of people that gathered together to shoot some perverted porn sequences and throw in an ultra-thin storyline about devil-worshiping and women sacrifices inside the walls of a secluded sanitarium. "Hardgore" is a prime example of totally demented 70's smut, as it's really made with a minimum of production values and scripting inspiration. Horror movies about satanic cults were hugely popular during the early 70's and pornography as well, so why not combine the two? Here we have a simplistic story about a young nymphomaniac girl who's committed to a mental asylum, and from the first night already, she's drawn into a network of drugs, psychedelic orgies, rape, torture and dildo-action. Really, a LOT of dildo-action. The friendly lesbian nurse tries to warn her, but she has her throat slit even the same night. The horror aspects are truly poorly elaborated, going from laughably un-scary Satan masks to virulent severed penises attacks. The photography and acting performances are almost intolerably amateurish, but what do you expect from a film that features footage of sperm-firing dildos and talking amputated male reproduction organs? Leading lady Justina Lynn is a rather good looking girl with a ravishing body, but most of her co-stars (male & female) are hideous and excessively haired sleaze balls.
Former private eye-turned-security guard ditches his latest droning job and is immediately offered a chance to return to his previous profession. His assignment: to tail a mysterious French woman newly arrived in California...and apparently wanted by suit-and-tie racketeers. Unsuccessful attempt to update the film noir genre, without enough sting or wit (or involving plot dynamics) in the screenplay. Director and co-scenarist Paul Magwood (who later claimed the picture was edited without his involvement) doesn't give off the impression of having high regard for the '40s films his "Chandler" was borne from; his nostalgia is appropriately rumpled, but also bitter-tinged and somewhat indifferent. The handling is curiously, commendably low-keyed, and Warren Oates is well-cast as this '70s variant on the 'private dick' archetype, but the movie doesn't have any snap. Nice to see Leslie Caron and Gloria Grahame in the cast--though neither has much to do, and Caron's hot-and-cold running character is exasperating throughout. Vivid cinematography by Alan Stensvold, nice location shooting, but it fails to come to any kind of a boil. *1/2 from ****
I saw this film when it was first released. The memory of how bad it was has stayed with me almost forty years. I didn't want to trust my own sentiments about the movie when I saw it, so I consulted a movie review published in a major metropolitan newspaper the next day- sentiment confirmed, the reviewer wrote that the movie was incoherent, indecipherable, and uninspiring. A little research reveals that the producer was star Leslie Caron's husband, thus the whiff of nepotism suggests the beginning for this awful film. The film's roster of many capable actors - Caron, Warren Oates, Scatman Crothers, Gloria Grahame, and James Sikking among others - suggests that it holds some promise. But the death of this film is attributable to its terrible screenplay. The "mystery" implicated is so obscure and so little revealed throughout the film that the viewer is left perplexed from scene to scene. The movie seems torn between being a detective mystery and an espionage thriller, but never settles upon one or the other. The sense of suspense is entirely absent. The main characters settle on playing dry, emotionless types in a fashion that inspires no empathy whatsoever. The cinematography is pedestrian. The result is that the hapless viewer loses interest in the characters, the plot, and, in the end, the film itself. I am little surprised that there is no version of this pathetic film available to purchase. I hope that if TCM finds a print of this film and feels compelled to air it that it is safely relegated to the 4:00 am slot.
In the many films I have seen Warren Oates, I have come to a definite conclusion, here is one talented individual. I first saw Mr. Oates back in the 1960's television series called Stoney Burke. From then on, I followed his career closely and felt he was destined for great roles. That happened in 1974, when Sam Peckinpah gave him top billing in a film called 'Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia.' Of course, his biggest claim to fame was his magnificent role in 'The Wild Bunch'. I have always thought he was quite able to bring any character a certain magic, that is until I saw him in this flop. The movie is called " Chandler ", a tribute to the iron fisted detectives of the 1950's created by Raymond Chandler. Because, the synopsis said it was about a hard nose Private Eye, I was immediately interested. However, I sat patiently through the entire film and found it to be a dull, dis-interesting, slow pace, twisted, confusing saga which if it had a theme or plot must have been left on some dark back room self. Collectively and with some of Hollywood's best supporting stars, such as Alex Dreier, Mitch Ryan, Gordon Pinsent, Charles McGraw, Richard Loo and Scatman Crothers, this movie had enough power to reach Mach five, however, it fizzled on the launchpad and went no where. As a result, one of my favorite actor's got stuck in a poorly made vehicle which never got off the ground. **
The "Trivia" page on IMDb claims the filmmakers protested because this film was re-cut by the studio to "simplify the plot". If so, that effort was a total failure, as this is one of the most incoherent narratives I've ever seen in a film -- I'd hate to have seen it before the plot was "simplified."<br /><br />It's sad to see Warren with so little character to go on that even he can't do anything with the inept material. It's interesting to see Caron in '70s mode instead of her Hollywood-era glamour garb and persona, but it's sad to see her haplessly wander through this doing-a- favor-to-her-producer-husband dreck. She would actually later hook up with and marry the director, instead -- who, you'll note, never directed anything again, but did strictly 1st or 2nd A.D. work in TV from here on out. That oughta tell you enough right there.<br /><br />I call this "interesting" because I have an automatic fondness for American films of this period, and this role does add perspective to Oates' otherwise fantastic 1971 output (Two- Lane Blacktop, The Hired Hand). But the "1940s detective as fish-out-of-water in 1970s L.A." theme, which is the only thing the movie really has to say, is sold in way too heavy- handed a manner. A similar theme would be far more effectively handled two years later in Altman's The Long Goodbye. And as far as Oates playing a hard-bitten guy on a doomed errand, three years on, he would give his definitive performance in Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia. If you haven't seen those, don't waste your time with this!
Mae Clarke will always be remembered as the girl whose face James Cagney showed a grapefruit into in the same year's THE PUBLIC ENEMY. She will not be remembered for this weird little story about a a hood's girl who finds that her past will always be with her.<br /><br />In some ways, this looks a bit antique for 1931, almost as if you are looking at 1928's famously inert LIGHTS OF NEW YORK. But don't be fooled. Although Ted Tetzlaff's photography is still in the big scenes, there's lots of movement, indicating distraction to the moviegoers in the set-ups to them. But in competition with the fast-paced stuff that it seems that everyone was doing at Warner's, this attempt to bring the woman's viewpoint into the genre as a tearjerker doesn't work, nor is Mae Clarke the actress to carry the effort.
VERY BAD MOVIE........and I mean VERY BAD...THe plot is predictable, and it's EALLY cheesy, the creativeness of the battle and the dance scenes for the time are the only reason I didn't give the movie a one, other than that...this is def a movie one can def afford not to watch.....I feel while watching the movie, the idea behind the movie was an interesting one tho kind of cliché....bringing country bumpkins to the city blah blah blah, but I feel it might have been at least a little better if it just wasn't so cheesy, very poorly portrayed from idea to screen, i think. The Plot is somewhat predictable at times, tho the dancing I can say AT TIMES, is pretty good, The break dance battle twist was good.....IF u just pop the movie and watch the dance scenes and make up your own dialog maybe it can be a 5...lol
because you can put it on fast forward and watch the inane story, without having to listen to banal dialogue, and be finished in 10 minutes max. Come to think of it, even 10 minutes is too much to waste on Enid-Blyton-meets-struggling-wanna-be-artists. Vomit.
Mona the vagabond lives on the fringes of French society, in a life without meaning, purpose or direction.<br /><br />I watched this because of all the stellar reviews, but I'm afraid I must have missed something. The character of Mona has little or no personality while drifting through life being rude to people, getting high and contributing nothing to anyone's life. She's not interesting or exciting. She's just useless.<br /><br />I've seen and known enough people like that: there is no secret meaning to what they're doing. They are just lazy bums. I wouldn't want Mona anywhere near me, as she tends to steal anything that isn't nailed down and leave her friends in the lurch. Sure she's enigmatic - because there isn't anything to her. Lots of junkies, winos and bums I've seen are enigmatic; I wouldn't want to see a film about them either.<br /><br />Possibly there is something there that I totally missed. Otherwise I'm assuming that all the reviews are from people who assume anything done by a French female director is high art.
The last couple of weeks in the life of a dead vagabond woman is told in flashbacks. Like the vagabond, the film wanders aimlessly and rather pointlessly. Mona, the lazy, sullen, and drug-addicted title character, is not likable and Bonnaire does little to make her interesting. Although there is some pretentious dialog attempting to explain why Mona has chosen this miserable lifestyle, her motivations are never really clear. The episodic nature of the film, involving some random characters, becomes tiresome after a while, making it seem much longer than its running time. It is also hard to believe that an attractive young homeless woman would not draw more attention from men.
This movie . . . I don't know. Why they would take such an indellible character as Pippi Longstocking and cast the singularly charmless Tami Erin, I will never know. Why they would spend money on art direction and some not-all-that-bad special effects, then not bother to edit it properly, I will never know. Why the sets and costumes are sometimes in period, and sometimes bizarrely not, why they commissioned SUCH bad songs, why the script doesn't make any sense whatsoever (not even on a silly, children's film level) . . . . what were they thinking?? Nothing about this movie is quite as it should be. Every single part is dubbed (and always poorly,) every sound effect is slightly wrong, every edit is in the wrong place, every performance is bad in some way. It does manage to create an appropriate atmosphere, despite all the problems, but it NEVER captures the magic that is Astrid Lindgren's creation.
This is another North East Florida production, filmed mainly in and near by to Fernandina Beach and the Kingsley Plantation. I was rather surprised the company was able to take over the main street of Fernandina Beach as long as was necessary to achieve the street scenes. The film is pretty, and pretty bad. Tami Erin is cute, but overacts. Eileen Brennan overacts even more. Good for small kids, or for those who like fluff in large doses. A 4 from the Miller-Movies formula.
This appalling film somehow saw the light of day in 1988. It looks and sounds as if it had been produced 20 or 30 years earlier, and features some of the worst songs ever included in a major motion picture. I weep for the parents and children who paid top dollar to see this.
while watching this movie I got sick. I have been grewing up with Pippi and every time was a real pleasure. when my wife came to Sweden she was looking at the oldies and had a real good laugh. but this American version should be renamed and never be shown again. it is terrible from beginning to it's end. how can they manage to make it soo bad. well I guess someone blames the translation ha ha ha.. but they are never close to Pippi. may this movie never been seen again and never sent out on a broadcast. burn the movie and save the kids. if you want to look at Pippi then look at the original movie and have a good laugh. WE LOVE PIPPI INGER NILSSON, sorry Tami Erin you will never stand up to be Pippi.. Oh yes.. when read the "spoilers" explanation, "'spoiling' a surprise and robbing the viewer of the suspense and enjoyment of the film." well I guess the director stands for this... you are looking at this movie at your own risk.. it is really a waste of time...
It's about time we see a movie that stays unbiased towards these old Indian traditions. At times it is clear how most of the 'doctors' are charlatans, even lying about how they don't charge their clients. While they are wearing their gold watches, the 'donation' box is mandatory. Notice that there are only a couple of people who get 'cured' while we see quite a few cases.<br /><br />Keep in mind while watching that ingesting mercury is not toxic and that the smallest Indian bank note is 5 rupee, while the average salary in India is 1,700 ru/month.
This documentary is at its best when it is simply showing the ayurvedic healers' offices and treatment preparation. There is no denying the grinding poverty in India and desperation of even their wealthier clients. However, as an argument for ayurvedic medicine in general, this film fails miserably. Although Indian clients mention having seen "aleopathic" doctors, those doctors are not interviewed, and we have to take the vague statements of their patients at face value-- "the doctor said there was no cure," "the doctor said it was cancer" etc. Well, "no cure" doesn't mean "no treatment," and what type of cancer exactly does the patient have? The film is at its most feeble when showing ayurvedic practice in America. There it is reduced, apparently, to the stunning suggestion that having a high powered Wall Street job can make your stomach hurt.
The peculiar charisma of Martin Kosleck brings a certain believability to his character of the frustrated artist. He imbues his dialog with an odd sense of realism, making the sculptor Marcel a convincing individual. The character manages to come across as a real person and not so much a typical B movie villain.<br /><br />The story line is nothing to write home about, and many scenes are dull. What makes it work is the strange chemistry between Kosleck and Rondo Hatton as the Creeper. Kosleck's talkative, philosophical character is contrasted with Hatton's low key, monosyllabic approach. The character of the Creeper isn't developed much beyond a basic monster level, but Hatton suggests undeveloped possibilities and makes you wonder about his back story.<br /><br />This movie was on Shock Theater a lot when I was a kid, so I have a certain nostalgic fondness for it. It's worth seeing once, anyway, for those who enjoy Forties horror movies.
This is a typical late Universal Horror flick: its technically comptent, if by the numbers, with a cookie cutter plot and some serious overacting. The most interesting part of this film is its stunt casting of Rondo Hatton, a man with a bone disease as the film's "monster". Its sad to see this man exploited, but he probably made good use of the money they paid him. Hatton is less horrifying than the studio hoped, as I more often felt pity over fear or even loathing. Martin Koslack is on board as the film's mad artist, and he is very amusing in this part. I for one enjoy seeing Koslack in just about anything; for some reason the man amuses me. The only other part of the film that entertained me is the film's absurd take on the art world. Here we are shown evil art critics who revel in their ability to break artists; this is side by side with the film's male "hero" who is an "artist" who paints...get this...pin up girls. Somehow our hero's work is reviewed side by side with the villan's absurdist sculpture. Also amusing is the film's chief nasty critic, who at one point claims that he despises the hero's pin up art because "women like that don't exist" to which our heroine replies with an assurance that the critic just doesn't get out enough. Finally, there's a bit of a subplot about the heroine's (who is an art critic herself) domestication by the leading man....completely anti-feminist and ridiculous to witness. Overall this film is a rather mediocre picture with a few amusing elements.
This low-grade Universal chiller has just been announced as an upcoming DVD release but, intended as part of a collection of similar movies that I already had in my possession, I decided to acquire it from other channels rather than wait for that legitimate release. Which is just as well, since the end result was not anything particularly special (if decently atmospheric at that): for starters, the plot is pretty weak – even though in a way it anticipates the Vincent Price vehicle THEATRE OF BLOOD (1973)…albeit without any of that film's campy gusto. What we have here, in fact, is a penniless sculptor (Martin Kosleck) – whom we even see sharing his measly plate of cheese with his pet cat! – who, upon finding himself on the receiving end of art critic Alan Napier's vitriolic pen one time too many, decides to end it all by hurling himself into the nearby river. However, while contemplating just that action, he is anticipated by Rondo Hatton's escaped killer dubbed "The Creeper" and, naturally enough, saves the poor guy's life with the intention of having the latter do all the dirty work for him in gratitude! Although it is supposedly set in the art circles of New York, all we really see at work is Kosleck and commercial painter Robert Lowery (who keeps painting the same statuesque blonde girl Joan Shawlee over and over in banal poses – how is that for art?) who, conveniently enough, is engaged to a rival art critic (Virginia Grey) of Napier's! Before long, the latter is discovered with his spine broken and Lowery is suspected; but then investigating detective Bill Goodwin gets the bright idea of engaging another critic to publish a scathing review of Lowery's work (I did not know that publicity sketches got reviewed!!) so as to gauge how violent his reaction is going to be! In the meantime, Kosleck deludes himself into thinking that he is creating his masterpiece by sculpting Hatton's uniquely craggy – and recognizable – visage which, needless to say, attracts the attention of the constantly visiting Grey (we are led to believe that she lacks material for her weekly column)…much to the chagrin of both artist and model. Bafflingly, although The Creeper is fully aware of how Grey looks (thanks to her aforementioned haunting of Kosleck's flea-bitten pad), he bumps off Shawlee – who had by then become Goodwin's girl! – in Lowery's apartment and, overhearing Kosleck talking to (you guessed it) Grey about his intention to dump him as the fall guy for the police, sends the slow-witted giant off his deep end…even down to destroying his own now-completed stony image. Curiously enough, although this was Hatton's penultimate film, his name in the credits is preceded by the epithet "introducing"!
Although this isn't a "great film," there's something compelling and memorable about it. Like another commenter on the film, I saw this in childhood. It's been thirty three years since 1952, but I have never forgotten the story or its ridiculously cumbersome title. See it if you have the opportunity. You'll feel like a voyeur of small town life as it evolves through the decades. More than any other film, this one brings a human face to the historical drama of early twentieth century "progress." It's engaging enough for a young viewer and memorable enough for an older one. Furthermore, it's easy to like the characters and watch their passage through time.
Although i had heard this film was a little dry, I watch whatever Scott Bakula is in. At the start of this film I had high hopes for the classic cheesy but enjoyable Scott-gets-girl ending and until 20 minutes before the end it was going great. The plot twist was crazy and unexpected and very clever. I kept my fingers crossed that it would work out and it would all be some horrible misunderstanding, right up until when the credits rolled and I realised that there was not going to be a happy and contented ending. Unfortunately i was left regretting that i'd watched it and hurriedly putting on some quantum leap to restore my faith in the goodness of the Great Scott!
Oh a vaguely once famous actress in a film where she plays a mother to a child . It`s being shown on BBC 1 at half past midnight , I wonder if ... yup it`s a TVM <br /><br />You`ve got to hand it to TVM producers , not content on making one mediocre movie , they usually give us two mediocre movies where two themes are mixed together and NOWHERE TO HIDE is no different . The first theme is a woman in danger theme cross pollinated with a woman suffering from the pain of a divorce theme which means we have a scene of the heroine surviving a murder attempt followed by a scene having her son Sam ask why she divorced ? And being a TVM she answers that the reason is " That people change " rather than say something along the lines like " I`m a right slapper " or Your daddy cruises mens public toilets for sex " as does happen in real life divorce cases . And it`s young Sam I feel sorry for , not only are his parents divorced but he`s as thick as two short planks . Actually since he`s so stupid he deserves no sympathy because he`s unaware that a man flushing stuff down a toilet is a drug dealer , unaware that you might die if someone shoots at you , and unaware that I LOVE LUCY is painfully unfunny . If only our own childhoods were so innocent , ah well as Orwell said " Ignorance is strength " . Oh hold on Sam is suddenly an expert on marine life ! Is this character development or poor scripting ? I know what one my money`s on . And strange that Sam the boy genuis hasn`t noticed that if the story is set in 1994 then why do people often wear clothes , drive cars and ride trains from the 1950s ? But as it turns out during a plot twist it`s the mother who`s the dummy . Then there`s a final plot twist that left me feeling like an idiot for watching this
The plot sounds vaguely interesting ... a scientist (Bateman) discovers how to transplant animal eyes and optic nerves into other animals, like humans. A young man (Monteith) is blinded saving a coworker at work - the scientist gets a call from a doctor that the young man is a good candidate to be the first human recipient. The recipient starts becoming more and wolf-like, but the effect is nothing more than "weird eyes" and running at night with dogs! (for the whole movie) The budget is too low, the dialogue too stilted (I laughed out loud at some of the ridiculous talk), and the acting too inept. Long portions of the movie are nothing more than dreamy looks, eerie music and interspersed clips of wolves in the wild. Way too long even at 90 minutes, boring, and devoid of ideas.<br /><br />The military want to use the eye transplants to give wounded soldiers back their eyesight, and presumably want to militarize the technology. There's a silly subplot about a beautiful Indian girl (Korey) who thinks she can help, using Indian wisdom about the wolves. They make love while music heavy on drums and Indian chanting is heard - crazy, man! The love making takes place immediately after a gruesome murder - who edited this turkey?! A grouchy "medicine man" who spouts platitudes seems to do little, except for adding atmosphere.<br /><br />Here's two ridiculous scenes. A worker at the research lab goes into the animal room to discover the monkeys have been let out of their cages. She gets scared, looks left at the monkeys, turns right, turns left, turns right, turns left .. this goes on for a while (who edited this??). RUN OUT OF THE DAMN LAB! It was so stupid I started laughing. Another ridiculous scene - our hero is at home, escapes out a window as the heavily armed military arrive - he leaves the window open, the military guys go to the open window, look out the window, they say "looks like he was here", and LEAVE! He went out the open window, guys!! Crazy.<br /><br />Near the end of the movie, military guys are firing machine guns over and over at trees, when obviously nothing is there - easier to place the squibs I guess. They have 6 machine guns which have cut down trees, but decide to fight our hero with 1 knife!!! Shoot the guy!! Who wrote this trash?? There's a pointless confrontation at the end, and believe me I'm not spoiling anything for you - there's not enough plot to spoil.<br /><br />I figure the whole thing was a tax write-off or a rush job to make use of unused budget money left over from some better movie.
I hired out Hybrid on the weekend. What a disappointment! A stupid lame attempt at a tele-movie. The guy they got for the lead was totally weak and when running {he did a lot} looked like he was eating those minty sweets...with his backside! The wolf contacts he wore were great, though I feel the actor relied on them too much, as there was nothing menacing about his acting at all. The wise native American Indian chick has to be one of the most stony hard faced hags ever seen. Talk about a sour cow! She smiled about once for the entire film, and I think that is because she had sex. The sex scene was lame too. They may as well have shown blowing curtains, if you can dig that.<br /><br />Last of all, and this is a big pet hate of mine, on the cover and the DVD menu, the losers digitally drew in cool sharp teeth on the guy. They were nowhere to be seen in the film. :(
Hybrid starts as water treatment planet security guard Aaron Scates (Cory Monteith) is involved in an accident which leaves him blind. Luckily it just so happens that brilliant scientist Dr. Andrea Hewitt (Justine Bateman) who works for Olaris has developed an operation to transplant organs from one species to another, Hewitt decides Aaron would be perfect for her first human experiment. Hewitt & her team transplant the eyes of a Wolf into Aaron & he miraculously regains his sight. Brilliant, right? Well, no not really since Aaron starts to go mad as he sees random images of Wolves & starts to develop a lust for blood. Aaron escapes the Olaris building & goes on the run but he is too valuable to just let go & a full scale search is mounted to capture him...<br /><br />Directed by Yelena Lanskaya this is yet another Sci-Fi Channel offering that is quite simply put terrible in every possible way, I think it probably started out life as a straight 'Creature Feature' but ended up as one of the most boring & dull Sci-Fi Channel films I have seen that doesn't even feature any sort of monster or creature. Hybrid is awful, the script is terrible & I am not even sure who it was meant to appeal to. The initial set-up is OK with Aaron getting Wolf eyes but then Hybrid ditches the sci-fi elements & becomes some sort of horrible drama as it focuses entirely on Aaron's mental state as he wonders around doing nothing in particular with some Native American woman. Yep, you don't think the Sci-Fi Channel could make a film about Wolves & put loads of rubbish about Native American mythology in there as well do you? The dynamics of the character's is bizarre, Aaron is shown as the persecuted hero yet he is the only character to kill anyone in the film & is a fairly unlikable, ungrateful & annoying person while Dr. Hewitt is shown as the evil scientist yet she gives Aaron back his sight & does nothing but try to help him. I mean Aaron is given back the gift of sight yet Hewitt is the villain? Also the regular Sci-Fi Channel staple of US military intervention is present, the problem is why do they want Aaron so badly? He isn't a soldier & while he has Wolves eyes to help him see in the dark he's utterly unremarkable. The script can't make it's mind up whether it's all in Aaron's mind or it's real, the ending is hilariously bad with a half naked (rememeber this was made for telly) Aaron running through a forest with a pack of Wolves set to some horrible music that I think is supposed to be emotional but makes it even more funny. There are so many things wrong with Hybrid, it's slower than hell, there's virtually no action, there's no Werewolves & the film goes round in circles trying to get into Aaron's mind yet it's all so ridiculous, silly & boring you won't care one bit & there's never any explanation as to why despite just having Wolves eyes transplanted Aaron starts to develop other Wolf senses.<br /><br />As a diabetic I have problems with my eyes, hell I have had major surgery on my right eye & I can guarantee you that after an operation your eye would be puffed up, you wouldn't be able to open it & it would hurt like hell yet despite having eye transplants as soon as Aaron wakes up in bed his eyes are perfect with no swelling or even redness. There are no special effects, no blood or gore or violence & nothing to excite you. In fact now I think about it there's nothing even remotely horror or sci-fi feeling about this, it feels like a drab film of the week.<br /><br />Filmed in Manitoba in Canada the film looks OK but is bland & forgettable. The acting is poor from all involved none of whom I have seen before & hopefully never again.<br /><br />Hybrid is a terrible film that is obviously marketed as some Werewolve 'Creature Feature' but is far from that & most people will really struggle to get to the awful ending which will probably have you in stitches.
I couldn't believe that this movie dates from 2007, it had all the looks of a below-average seventies horror-flick. Didn't they have any knowledge of modern special effects or CGI?!? Didn't they know that in the post-millennium the violence in a supposed horror- and/or scifi-movie should at least be a little bit graphic? Or did I get the purpose wrong, was it supposed to be a deep and meaningful story of man and animal, bound together in the big cycle of life, or a warning to mankind not to mess with Nature, or something like that?? It doesn't really matter, either way it turned out wrong and to me this movie failed on all accounts.<br /><br />First of all: the premise is very improbable. If at a given time you're capable of replacing a total eye, no responsible medical scientist would start his very first human attempt with both eyes at the same time, that's totally unprofessional. And to do all this apparently without informed consent of the patient?! And why on earth choose for eyes that have a totally unusual color for humans, and make the victim look like a freak?! By the way, I noticed that all the real wolves in the movie had puppy-like normal dark eyes, couldn't they have waited for such a specimen? The story is lame, it's about this poor guy Aaron who gets these weird eye-transplants, which suddenly makes him feel like the donor-wolf (or at least, that's what I make of it) and then he's being chased by some military men. Especially this last bit is ridiculous. I mean, I can understand that the army is interested in the results of the experiment (imagine soldiers with night-vision eye-sight!) but as the operation fails on account of the apparent nervous breakdown of the patient, it's beyond me why they're out to kill him. Why not leave him alone and look for another usable recipient? (a volunteering soldier maybe??). And why try to kill everyone else that's involved with poor Aaron, isn't that a bit steep?! Who the hell are these militaries anyway, I hope not the US army or the government, they behave like psychopaths, walking around the hospital waving automatic weapons, raiding private apartments like they're after some public enemy # 1, and displaying during the ultimate show-down in the woods a total lack of discipline, like a bunch of frightened schoolchildren, panicking and shooting randomly around.<br /><br />Aaron, for some unfathomable medical reason, feels like a wolf after the transplantation of the eyes. Why would that be??? He suddenly sees visions of wandering wolves. What is this? Are we supposed to believe that the memories of the donor-wolf are situated in it's eye-balls?!? And that the recipient of these eye-balls also adopts the wolf's craving for red (life-) meat and can jump off of a 30 feet high balcony and land unharmed on his all-fours like a cat (can a wolf even DO that??!).<br /><br />The acting (or the lack thereof) didn't help the credibility of all this either: everyone stumbles through their lines like wooden dolls, especially this Indian girl, she may be pretty but she can only come up with one expression (vexed) and some disinterested mumblings about the force of Nature, and it beats me why Aaron all of a sudden is all over her (but hey, there probably had to be at least one love-scene!). I really sympathized with actor Cory Monteith, who seems like a nice guy with a handsome enough face, but they didn't give him much to go with. He has to run around bare-chested for more than half of the movie, which could have been fun to watch, but then they had better chosen someone with a more impressive physique, Monteith really should leave his shirt on. His (few) killings and attacks are hardly shown, we just hear some growling and cries of fear and then there's another victim lying down and Aaron with some more blood on his face and chest. Not much for a modern sci-fi horror! The only good acting came from Justine Bateman, and I really like to see how she has matured into a beautiful and classy forty-something lady. She did what she could with her silly lines and she even convinced me of being this doctor with good intentions, but they made her character a kind of a wimp, who gets totally bossed around by the leader of these militaries. What a pity that the script didn't make her stand up a bit more! <br /><br />In the end this sums up as being a silly and rather boring movie, hardly scary or thrilling, with unbelievable goings-on, a lot of overlong National Geographic-like visuals of wolves running around woods and slopes (who cares?!?), some pretentious Indian ramblings about Man and Nature and an uneven musical score with poppy songs at the most inappropriate moments. I guess the word "superfluous" covers it all.
This movie has some fatal flaws in it, how someone could walk through an open back door of a highly secure medical facility is unbelievable. Then this same person just walks around the facility and enters the Dr.'s office, is just bad writing or bad editing. <br /><br />Very very very predictable movie. <br /><br />I am not sure how this film got made, except it is was filmed in Canada, and probably received a government grant. <br /><br />I must say the person playing Aaron, Cory Monteith, did a good job.<br /><br />Unless you are really bored and there is nothing else to watch on television then I would say it will kill some time, but otherwise, it is a movie no actor would want on their resume.
The plot sounded like it had promise. To be honest I did not watch the entire movie. After about an hour into the movie I had to make a decision. Is this movie worth watching until it conclusion? The answer was clearly NO! It was not the fact that the human body could not receive a transplant from a different species without rejecting it. Nor the premise that he was being chased by secret government authorities for an human / wolf transplant. It was because the movie was badly written, acting lacked emotion and I did not understand the several dream sequences with the wolves and buffaloes. When he was running to the zoo with a dog pack and leaving them at the front of the zoo gate the saying "If you can't run with the big dogs don't leave the porch" kept running through my bored mind. Save yourself the time and skip this movie. I can guarantee if you do dare to watch it you will sit there slack jawed as I did wondering why anyone waste money, time, energy and effort to make this insulting outrage to American cinema.
When i saw the preview for this on TV i was thinking, "ok its gonna be a good werewolf movie" but it was not. it was not scary at all! acting was good, plot was horrible, the military bid was just plain stupid. I think the SCI-FI channel could of done better than this piece of crap. The movie made it sound like Arron was going to turn into a werewolf, instead he turned psycho and bit some doctor's throat out. If you have read some of my other reviews on other movies, there all positive, but this one is not simply because the story was terrible. One out of 10 max. Im sure you all were expecting some werewolf flick, but i bet you didn't expect this. Beyond Loch Nes was way better than this movie, heck, any movie thats on the sci-fi channel is better than this movie.
My Score for this crap: 1 / 10 1 for the technical only. Everything else is very bad. <br /><br />Another film that makes no sense. Clearly it seems that creating a good script for film or television is almost a impossible mission. <br /><br />While it's easy to understand why politicians never say the truth, they are among the biggest liars on the planet, it is difficult to understand how to make films so pathetic. <br /><br />We must believe that taking people for morons. Perhaps it was reason to believe, since 99% of the films are crap. Because they are stupid and ridiculous and very bad scenarios. <br /><br />When you look at the price we give Oscars, we understand better why we continue to make films any more ridiculous than others. <br /><br />And oddly enough it was always money for such nonsense. But it was not for education and health. <br /><br />If you still want to listen to this s**t, press super Fast Forward button (at least 20X).
This film is probably pro-Muslimization. <br /><br />Why do I write that? The main character has a Muslim father and a Christian mother. He lives his first 20 years in a Christian village. In the end of the film he seemingly is a Muslim because of his head-wear, that he has kept his amulet, and his general clothing. He has a six year old child, who wears the same head-wear and therefore is probably a Muslim, although the mother is a Christian. The main character thus chooses to, it seems, to be a Muslim and his child becomes a Muslim. No one of the other male main characters, which are Christians, seems to breed a child. There are more Muslims in the world of this movie at the end of it, it therefore seems.
From the moment the film begins, already there is a discrepancy. As this film takes place on the borders of Normandy and the middle East, and is also an international film, one would expect proper accents portrayed. This is not done as the majority of the cast sound American. Also, I find the acting to be rehearsed at best, the story line a little difficult to follow from the beginning. Who is who? Otherwise the film is very accurate in costume and scenery. If you want to see a movie to get a feel of what it was like in the past (albeit the lack of accents) then this movie is worth a rent. If you're looking for a movie as epic as Kingdom of Heaven, then look elsewhere.
Im still in doubt if this is just a horrible movie or the worse movie i ever saw. Actors are painful and its impossible to get into the text.<br /><br />Don't waist your time into this movie. By submitting this comment you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your comments will normally be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Comments that do not meet the guidelines will not be posted. Please write in English only. HTML or boards mark-up is not supported though paragraph breaks will be inserted if you leave a blank line between paragraph.By submitting this comment you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your comments will normally be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Comments that do not meet the guidelines will not be posted. Please write in English only. HTML or boards mark-up is not supported though paragraph breaks will be inserted if you leave a blank line between paragraph.
Marilyn Miller made only three films before her untimely death - the marvelous SALLY (1929), the comedy HER MAJESTY LOVE (1931) and this trifle - SUNNY (1930). It is quite poor both as an early talkie and as an attempt at a musical - although she has four dance numbers, she only sings two songs (WHO? and ONE MAN ALONE). The rest of the score including the spritely title tune are jettisoned, although we can hear the latter in the background scoring. Miller looks overweight and amateurish here - no star quality at all. Even her dancing is cloutish. The film is very badly written, stock full of stale and unfunny jokes and stupid situations. If you're interested in Miller as a performer, by all means, check it out, but for general entertainment, stay away.
I have only recently been able to catch up with the films of Marilyn Miller since they are not shown on TCM in the UK.I have been much intrigued over the years because this was one of the superstars of the 20s.What was she really like.To some stars of this era like Jolson some of the magic still shines through,but alas not for Miller.Her dancing seems awkward and poorly choreographed,her singing somewhat limited and as an actress she makes Ruby Keeler seem like Hepburn.Even worse in this film as the public had grown tired of musicals virtually all of the musical numbers have been deleted.So we are left with a comedy of that period with little real appeal.She was being paid $500000 for this!So i have only two conclusion.Either she was poorly served by the cinema or she had no talent at all.I think that the truth is nearer the later than the former.
There is a key aspect of film that Jobson seems to have forgotten - it has the ability to tell a story by showing it to you. You don't need to tell the audience what to think, because they'll see it. The action here is interspersed with some of the most ponderous narration unleashed on the unsuspecting public - the purple prose of the sensitive fifth former. And it should be unnecessary because their is a fine cast here and some beautifully composed and shot visuals. Maybe Jobbo felt that the basic story needed a lit bit of support. And he may have been right, it lacks a basic credibility: 70s Edinburgh wasn't exactly full of beautiful brainy girls with a penchant for the Velvet Underground and a soft spot for a passing sociopath. From the too neat and new looking clothes that character wears to the cod intellectualism that tries to link it all together, it's all too contrived for my taste.
I got lured by the title... I was expecting an insightful and intriguing journey into alcoholism, instead I got a rather boring and uninspiring story about a rowdy Scot.<br /><br />The leading character isn't given much psychological depth, unless you are willing to classify cheesy teen-like poetry as psychology.<br /><br />It was a shame, because the core of the story could have been good, with a better effort to depict the inner feelings of a man who had to live with alcohol and violence since his youth.<br /><br />Sadly, the general idea seems to be more like "I'm the way I am because that's the way I am". And the laughingly bad attempt at giving some sort of poetic edge to a lower-class man makes things even worse. Resorting to the overused cliché of the "poète maudit" reeks of a quick fix, a cheap way to make a dull movie seem smart, artsy and meaningful.<br /><br />But "16 years of alcohol" isn't much smart, artsy or meaningful... The leading character doesn't evolve at all, and the feeble attempt of changing fails without a good explanation. Just like the initial attempt happened rather out of the blue.<br /><br />The movie borrows heavily from classics such as A Clockwork Orange and Trainspotting, but it ultimately fails to recapture their greatness, not even for a few seconds.<br /><br />Jobson put too much emphasis on the artistic side of the story, and neglected the rest, giving us a movie which is pleasant to the eye but insipid to the brain.
You can often tell a movie didn't turn out like it should by the heavy use of a narrator. This film features this device throughout. Richard Jobson not entirely content to write direct and even fund some of this film adds to his credits by reading excerpts of his own semi- autobiographical writing which combined with some pretty editing manages to gloss over what is a dull depressing tale which he must be mistaking for genuine art-house. Kevin McKidd puts in a good performance. Everyone else is okay.<br /><br />Budget constraints meant that all scenes are shot in daylight though most are obviously meant to be at night, though if you know serious alcoholics they mainly operate in the day so for me it adds a touch of realism.<br /><br />The funniest part of this film is a waitress who fails to age a single day in the 20 odd years that elapse between her appearances - a more extreme version of the problem McKidd has who goes from 18 to 30 without changing more than his clothes. Bless.
This is only the second time I stopped a video/DVD part way through.<br /><br />I was willing to give this film the benefit of the doubt at first, even though it managed to be both shallow, clichéd and stupid.. AND joyless, plodding and pretentious.<br /><br />It was like an After School Special directed by that weird grade nine kid who thinks nobody understands him... creepy and sad, with voice-over narration that only the most deluded adolescent would consider poetry... and some singing, and... no, really, the poor child's suffering...<br /><br />Enough, already, especially when it morphed into a brazen, clumsy, and insulting Clockwork Orange ripoff. And did I mention the singing?<br /><br />This isn't the worst film I've ever seen, but certainly the one I've felt least compelled to sit through. I don't recommend it to anyone.
This movie was terrible. The first half hour is much like a... well, apologies for the lack of articulation, but it was simply a bad version of A Clockwork Orange. The first scene is almost photocopied from one of the first in Clockwork! Supposedly it was a tribute, as per the appearance of the Clockwork poster on the protagonist's wall, however "ripoff" is the more appropriate word. The movie felt as though it was torn right from the Kubrick classic, only filmed through a new director's eyes. A blind director. Unfortunately when it stops its massacre of Kubrick's work, the film gets even worse. As another commentator said, the deepness of this film is just shoved down your throat. Arrogant, self absorbed and ultimately meaningless drivel.<br /><br />Perhaps the protagonists ramblings would touch a nerve if there was any actual character development in this movie. I felt absolutely nothing for this guy. And I'm an alcoholic, so I figure that if anyone might be able to feel anything for him, it would be me. Awful character development, dialogue and plot.<br /><br />The worst part about this movie is the title. For a film called "16 Years of Alcohol", the alcoholism is hardly a factor in the flick. See first paragraph - it was such a butchering of A Clockwork Orange I can't get over it. A more suited title would have been "16 Years of Violence," or, even better, "A Clockwork Banana".<br /><br />Just do yourself a favor and avoid this movie. If you disregard my advice and take it out anyway, drink. Trust me.
This film was terrible. I have given it the high score of 2 as I have seen worse, but very few.<br /><br />From the clichéd start of having the end of the film at the start and going back to the start at the end this film used everything in the box of tricks used in film making just for the sake of it, like a kid with too many toys. There was the endless, boring repetitive narration, slow motion, freeze frame, flashbacks and merged images etc - none of which made a dull film any better.<br /><br />It is called "16 years of alcohol", but there was little drinking or drunkeness and no depiction of withdrawal with the film jumping about all over the place with no coherent sense. The story was badly written and extremely pretentious and the direction was equally poor and it is a shame that people have put up further money for more films by Mr Jobson, previously know for being in a rubbish group and on TV making as much sense as this film does.<br /><br />I found it a major struggle to see this to the end but in the hope of it getting better I carried on to the bitter but it really was a waste of time and I would have been better off not bothering.
I found this film embarrassing to watch. I felt like it was shoving the storyline down my throat as if I couldn't pick up the subtleties I needed a voice over to spell them all out for me constantly.<br /><br />Having a father who IS still an alcoholic, I didn't really feel it was a film about alcoholism as such. Alcoholics, true alcoholics are very lonely people inside, in my opinion of course. They find it hard to communicate, something that the main character had no problem with really, except he DID have a problem saying I love you at one point- which was a bit of a feeble effort at establishing his cold character. He was constantly surrounded with people too!? <br /><br />I felt cheated that at no point were we really alone with the character to really get a sense of his inner loneliness and turmoil. I couldn't connect with the character and felt no link at all considering my father. I felt nothing at all when it had finished, just relief it was over.<br /><br />Kevin McKidd is an okay actor but not a tough guy feature lead! The clockwork orange thing was as subtle as a brick. McKidd was too old for the teen, they should have got three different characters or avoided the teen stage and concentrated more on the adult McKidd.<br /><br />On a good note, I felt the little boy actor was really good at the start of the film!!
This film limps from self indulgent moment to self indulgent moment, promising to develop into something worth hanging on for. But it doesn't. It's flat, self conscious, unimaginative and tedious.<br /><br />A series of set images and backdrops don't make a film, they make a calendar. This kind of pitiful socialist pseudo drama documentary ("It's TRUE it REALLY happened") not only fails to entertain, it fails to convince, so it doesn't even function as social history. Clichés co-mingled with bad acting make this a film very difficult to finish, the amusement factor wearing off fairly quickly. The characters are one dimensional, never developing to the extent that one feels for them. The director's ego is the largest character in this film.
This film was a yawn from titles to credits, it's boring to the point of tedium and the acting is wooden and stilted! Admittedly this was director Richard Jobson directing debut, but who on earth green-lit a script as poorly developed as this one? Looks like another money down the drain government project (Scottish Screen are credited surprise, surprise). I nearly fell asleep three times and my review will unfortunately have to be more restrained than this one. Please, please mister Jobson what ever you've been doing prior to directing this sedative of a film, go back to it!
I feel like I've been had, the con is on, don't fall for it. After reading glowing reviews (the Director was a film reviewer with Sky for years so must have a lot of mates in the press ready to do him a favour by writing favorable reviews) I expected solid acting, atmosphere, suspense, strong characterization, an intriguing plot development and poetic moments. Sadly, 'Sixteen years of Alcohol', doesn't deliver on the critics promises, for the most part, sacrifices these qualities in lieu of cheesy low budget special effects (what was that clichéd cobweb scene in there for?), unrealistic fight choreography and mindless mind numbing narration, cliché edits and camera angles.<br /><br />'Sixteen years of Alcohol' starts off interestingly with some beautiful location shots in Scotland, but it's straight downhill from here. Unfortunately, instead of spending some time building atmosphere, creating characters we might care about, or building suspense - the director opts to begin driving you crazy with self indulgent heavy handed twaddle voice-over's. The lead characters are so unsympathetic and are so badly acted - the audience doesn't care what happens to them, desperate Actors do desperate things...like this movie!. To make matters worse, the 'homage's' (typical of a director trying to pay his dues to past masters) are either utterly cliché or unconvincing. The soundtrack is the only thing that lifted me and kept me in the cinema but even that failed to support the dramatic narrative other connecting a period of time to the action.<br /><br />For some reason the movie got increasingly flawed and to be quite honest annoying. I still watched the whole damn thing!<br /><br />I guess I liked the attempt at gritty realism in the film but even that was destroyed when they were often inter-cut with weird and abstract, sometimes pointless scenes. You don't need a huge budget to make truly moving film, so much has been said about how little money they had to make this film, half a million is not a little bit of money...SO NO EXCUSES! Sometimes I wonder what the actors...Or their agents were thinking!<br /><br />Pass on this turkey unless you're masochistic or mindless anyway....NOT MY THING<br /><br />1.5/10
As others have pointed out this movie is a load of pretentious drivel for the mindless or masochists.<br /><br />We all know after seeing trainspotting and acid house that Scotland is one of the most depressing places in the first world. But unlike trainspotting and acid house without a good dose of humour or gritty realism movies like this do not work. And even more importantly without a decent script a movie will not work and there is nothing new, inspiring or thought provoking about the script for this movie.<br /><br />The fact that this movie won a couple of Bafta's shows how bad the British film industry is at the moment. I thought the Aussie movie industry was pretty bad at the moment but unfortunately the British industry is even worse.<br /><br />This movie is so bad I wouldn't even bother renting it from the weeklies section.<br /><br />Do yourself a favour and give this movie a wide berth.
Boring, badly written Italian exploitation flick.Lots of nudity, gore and awful acting.The werewolf makeup was the only thing that would raise a laugh.Complete rubbish-even for fans of cheesy Italian horror.Please avoid.
Robert Colomb has two full-time jobs. He's known throughout the world as a globetrotting TV reporter. Less well-known but equally effortful are his exploits as a full-time philanderer.<br /><br />I saw `Vivre pour Vivre' dubbed in English with the title 'Live for Life.' Some life! Robert seems to always have at least three women in his life: one mistress on her way out, one on her way in, and the cheated wife at home. It helps that Robert is a glib liar. Among his most useful lies are `I'll call you tomorrow' and `My work took longer than planned.' He spends a lot of time and money on planes, trains and hotel rooms for his succession of liaisons. You wonder when this guy will get caught with his pants down.<br /><br />Some may find his life exciting, but I thought it to be tedious. His companions, including his wife, Catherine, are all attractive and desirable women. But his lifestyle is so hectic and he is so deceitful, you wonder if he's enjoying all this.<br /><br />Adding to the tedium is considerable footage that doesn't further the plot. There are extended sections with no dialogue or French-only dialogue. We see documentaries of wars, torture, and troop training interspersed with the live action. When Robert's flight returns from Africa, we wait and wait for the plane to land and taxi to the airport terminal.<br /><br />Annie Girardot is the standout performer in this film. Hers was the most interesting character and she played it to perfection. It was also nice to see Candice Bergen at the beginning of her career. I can't find fault with Yves Montand's performance of what was basically an amoral bum.<br /><br />I enjoyed some of Claude Lelouch's novel techniques. In a hotel room scene, the camera pans around the room as Robert and his mistress argue. We catch sight of them briefly during each pass around the room. In another scene set on a sleeping car of a train, Robert is lying on the upper bunk while his wife is on the lower. Robert is giving his wife some important but distressing news, but we hear only parts of it because of the clatter of the train. I sensed that his wife was also unable to absorb every word due to the shocking nature of the news. I also liked the exciting safari scenes in Africa. The cinematography of those scenes and of those in Amsterdam was superb.<br /><br />I reviewed this movie as part of a project at the Library of Congress. I've named the project FIFTY: 50 Notable Films Forgotten Within 50 Years. As best I can determine, this film, like the other forty-nine I've identified, has not been on video, telecast, or distributed in the U.S. since its original release. In my opinion, it is worthy of being made available again.<br /><br />
As much as I like Japanese movies this one didn't just cut it... A movie that is supposed to be about rebels and the survival of a royal blood line turned out to be a very slow paced movie with a doubtful plot.<br /><br />The photography is OK, though I've seen much better sword fight scenes in other Japanese movies, the fast cameras and the way they followed the characters didn't convince me at all. The soundtrack is so weak you don't even notice its presence.But worst of all was the way the plot evolved.I have to admit that, at some times, I had a hard time understanding who was who and what was going on...Anyway the platonic love between the main character and another one was completely unnecessary and seemed to come from a Hollywood influence.<br /><br />All in all, if your looking for an action Japanese movie this isn't it. Its very slow, with very few sword fight scenes and very sentimental... in a bad way...
There is simply no use in trying to glorify any part of this film.<br /><br />It was straight up trash. At the very beginning you might think that you are in for a visually stunning piece of cinematography... and then shortly thereafter you are hit with a large sack (burlap) of FAIL! The fighting is barely martial, the acting is teetering on the edge of par, and the music is not worth describing. There is only enough of a story to have created an excuse for this film to have been made. The decisions that the characters make and the way that they deal with the situations is weak, and did nothing but frustrate me. I think that the only reason this film came about was to act as a bit of fan service by using Yumiko Shaku.
In the recent movement to bring Asian films over to America, this is THE LAST movie that should be released here. Being a big fan of asian movies from all genres, I was browsing the net and came across this soong to be re-released into the US market so I decided to check it out ahead of time and rent this at a local video store.<br /><br />Trust me...the action scenes are incredibly disappointing, Crouching Tiger and Iron Monkey completely blew this movie out of the water. Jet Li would fall asleep watching the fighting sequences. If you're looking for martial arts entertainment, your time would be better off with a Jackie Chan flick!!!<br /><br />Moreover...you think you're going to watch a martial arts with about a girl engulfed in vengence for her parents death BUT SURPRISE!!! A good hour of this movie in the middle has is filled with dialogue, an absense of action, the lack of devloping a tangent plot, pretty much NOTHING to do with the premise we are exposed to. It has more to do with the relationship between her and the boy, and the boy with his conspiracy group in which the producer/director dedicated no time in elbaorating, and yet dedicated a portion of the film dragging the issue. Would of been much better off if they had just cut that whole hour and developed the story in itself through another film and focus on the martial arts aspect.<br /><br />Speaking of which, I really don't believe the choreographer of Iron Monkey, did the action sequence in Princess Blade. I was completely insulted in the frequent usage of slow motion and quick camera changes to portray the assassins physical swiftness. I just didn't buy it.<br /><br />Please...I'm warning you to PLEASE do not waste your time/money with this movie. The premise is intrigueing, and the trailer might even tempt you but I am positive that this movie is NOT suited for the public (maybe in Japan but not in the states) and will be the worst film brought over to the states from the Asian film industry.
I registered for IMDb just to comment on this movie. <br /><br />I just got done sitting through this movie, and the only thing that impressed me, was that I somehow had the will power to not stop it.<br /><br />I've seen a pretty decent number of action movies and what not, but Princess Blade has some of the worst fights I've ever seen in a movie. Most of the sword fighting involves mindlessly swinging the swords back and fourth and hoping the opponent isn't doing the same. I've seen a good many student films with better action and stronger plots.<br /><br />So now we have a "futuristic" action movie with poor action, and virtually no sign of the future. <br /><br />Most of the movie doesn't even have any action and shows the developing relationship with the Princess and the farmboy/terrorist and his disturbed sister. The movie has multiple plot lines, and none of them really pan out to be worth anything. <br /><br />Part of the problem may have been that I watched the dub, which was quite bad. The entire cast mumbled all their lines so it was hard to follow what was going on. But I got the general idea. (Knowing exactly what was said would not have saved the movie in my eyes)<br /><br />If you've heard about this being a futuristic action/ninja flick, then you've heard wrong. Thats what I thought it was when I heard about it, and now I've lost 90 minutes of my life. Don't let this happen to you. Steer well clear of it.
Judging by some of the comments in IMDB, I was expecting an action movie - perhaps a dramatic one or a stupid one or a simple one or a comicy one, but essentially an action movie.<br /><br />Whatever it is that I watched, it certainly didn't feel like a movie. The story is simple and straightforward (even though the prologue tries to make it seem complicated). Take three interest groups: 1) the government 2) the rebels 3) a group of assassins.<br /><br />Now subtract the first (they never appear in the movie). Then simply let one of the assassins, the princess, become a rogue on a revenge trip. Add in a rebel love-interest with a guilty conscience. And you've got the ingredients.<br /><br />But they still did not manage to turn it into a story or a movie. Between some random action sequences and some odd visuals trying to be Sci-Fi on a low budget, what you're left with is a feeling of emptiness. The movie just does not feel like a movie, but a weird, incoherent, boring dream.<br /><br />Avoid.<br /><br />2/10
I've seen the movie only recently, although it appeared in 2001. I hoped to see an entertaining movie, but let me tell you, Princess Blade is nothing compared to Azumi. The "princess" is not very talkative, as you may have noticed... She reminded me of Jean Claude Van Damme, who only stared to make his point, then beat the crap out of the opponents. During the entire movie, I waited to hear at least a confession about what she liked, why was she fighting, who did she love and trust. I waited in vain. Crappy movie. Crappy dialog. Don't watch it unless you want to be bored out of your minds! It's so bad, that in the end I was wondering how I managed not to scream in frustration 1 and a half hour. Approximately. I give a 4/10.
If you've read the original novel, as I did, you will probably hate this thing.<br /><br />The film version of _Absolute Beginners_ is a nightmarish conglomerate of 1980s anachronisms attempting to create a "period piece" set in the late 1950s and failing to re-create or even pay homage to that period -- the US monstrosity of _Dirty Dancing_ does similar to 1963, except that film proved financially successful despite having equally amateurish screen writing. In addition to suffering from "looking too 1980s", the characters have been changed, re-arranged, and downplayed to the point that the only characteristics they have in common with those of the novel are the slightest superficial looks and, of course, their names: Suze is transformed from the narrator's flighty ex-girlfriend and promiscuous negrophile who willingly plans to marry a closeted old queen for money (at her own admittance in the first few pages) into a hapless and naive "Eve"-archetype seduced by fame and glamour, exploited and somehow scammed into a sham marriage by her boss, who surprisingly wasn't given a Van Dyke and pointy hairstyle. She and the narrator, re-named "Colin" (after the book's author, Colin MacInnes) for the film, are also in a relationship.<br /><br />Big Jill's character, a lesbian seemingly butch yet "fop like" in her mid-20s who acts as pimp to a cadre of young and bubble-headed lesbians, and one of the narrator's closest friends, dispensing frank wisdom to the narrator, is reduced to a sort of "named extra" with only a few throw-away lines, and tonnes of comical outfits.<br /><br />The Fabulous Hoplite, a gay young man and another close friend of the narrator in the novel, is also reduced to the point of being pointless in the film, camped-up and all but ignored.<br /><br />The narrator's father in the novel is a sort of sad minor character but in the film, he's played to come off as optimistic and oddly spirited despite the squalid neighbourhood, and the disarray of his marriage to the narrator's mum seems, for all practical purposes, ignored.<br /><br />In its favour, the music (for what it is) is well-composed, and you have to give the production and writing crews credit for actually taking a line from the book ("...some days, they'll write musicals about the 1950s...") as their inspiration to write a musical, but in the world of bad camped-up musicals, this is among the most poorly executed in the bunch. Unlike _Shock Treatment_ or _Starstruck_ crucial plot elements are treated as afterthoughts. Unlike _The Apple_, there is a choppy and uneven flow between musical numbers and spoken dialogue.<br /><br />You really can't blame it's "too 1980s" feel on the fact that it was created in the 1980s. The film version of _Annie_ released in 1981, pays a wonderfully well-executed tribute to the look and feel of New York City in the 1930s, and _Napolean Dynamite_ manages to capture a gritty sort of look and feel of the 1980s despite being made on a low budget in 2003 (though it's not explicitly set in the 1980s, those who lived through the decade cannot deny that the film "feels very 1980s"). Obviously, it was _possible_ to make something good out of this, especially considering the iconic status that the source novel has in the UK, but it fails most apparently in the look and feel, and also in its treatment of the source material, which is downright disrespectful.<br /><br />Perhaps if you haven't read and have no intentions of reading the novel, you could enjoy this campy 1980s anachronism giving a shameful parody of late-1950s Soho London's modernist jazz set. I can definitely see what the writing team were attempting, but they definitely could have done better. With Boy George as a household name and mixed-race musicians and bands on the charts in 1986 UK, they definitely did _not_ need to bowdlerise the characters in the ways that they ended up doing. In fact, I'd go so far as saying that the writers wound up doing what both the book and film criticised harshly -- it ended up having a bunch of adults cranking out crap and treating its targeted teen-aged audience like two-bit idiots to make a quick buck off of.
The film is based on a genuine 1950s novel.<br /><br />Journalist Colin McInnes wrote a set of three "London novels": "Absolute Beginners", "City of Spades" and "Mr Love and Justice". I have read all three. The first two are excellent. The last, perhaps an experiment that did not come off. But McInnes's work is highly acclaimed; and rightly so. This musical is the novelist's ultimate nightmare - to see the fruits of one's mind being turned into a glitzy, badly-acted, soporific one-dimensional apology of a film that says it captures the spirit of 1950s London, and does nothing of the sort.<br /><br />Thank goodness Colin McInnes wasn't alive to witness it.
This movie is horrible if you pay attention to it. It's a perfect movie if you just watch the colorful images dance across the screen - each one with no apparent connection to the next. I rented this movie because I'm a David Bowie fan, and I really appreciate musicals. In finality, Bowie was in the film for a total of ten minutes and the songs and dance sequences were sparse and left something to be desired. The moral of the story was really befuddling. I couldn't tell if it was about racial issues in London in the 1950s or about not selling out. For the first half of the movie I was chuckling at how cheesy it was but I liked the campiness of the "no selling out" message. When blacks started being murdered I thought my tape had gotten messed up. Maybe I rented half of two different movies? Nope, there was a "Keep Britain White" song and dance sequence. I'm sorry, but WWII is not something you can write a musical about. At least not a musical that could conceivably be described as "campy" as I have several times in this review. Overall I'd say this movie could do a whole lot better if it made up its mind and cast better actors. (And put David Bowie in it for longer goddammit!) My grade: C-
"Absolute Beginners" was a film for the younger generation, a multi-time film that discussed the issues that teens were facing in Britain and how these troubled, constantly hitting each note, teen's problems can relate to the youth of tomorrow. It could have been dubbed the "Moulin Rouge" of the 80s, but it disappeared. It made its very shallow mark on the world, snuck under the radar, and can now be found collecting dust at either the musical section, the comedy section, or the politically obscure section of that seedy video store that doesn't need chain money to survive. Alas, that wasn't where I found it – but I found it, watched it, tried my hardest to sing along with it, stared into Bowie's eyes, but found myself faded by the end. Did it not survive the test of time? Is 1950s London too far removed from our current society? Is Bowie too creepy? I think "Absolute Beginners" falls somewhere into each of these questions as the perfect example of cinema that starts out with a bang, but withers to a mere sparkle by the end.<br /><br />"Absolute Beginners" opens with a huge number that takes us through the non-gritty streets of London which involve theft nightly, prostitutes on every corner, dance throughout, booze like rivers, and the swankiest ties on nearly every individual. Sounds like a place we would all hate to be … right? Director Julien Temple keeps the mood light and flashy throughout most of the songs as we attempt to learn something about a plethora of our main characters. The one we follow most is Colin played by Eddie O'Connell who follows his dreams of being a photographer while shooting his favorite girl, Suzette (played by Patsy Kensit). These two have chemistry, and while Suzette looks like a pre-rehab Lohan, to me they worked. There was a huge spark between them, the chemistry was like lava, and I believed that these two could take me down a road I had never traveled. I was ready – but then, something happened. Temple takes us out of the nightlife, takes us out of the city we grew up with at the beginning, and completely reverses the roles without any dedication to the first. Suzette runs away, Colin becomes a pervert, and Bowie … well … I am not quite sure what his role is but he sings amazingly well while climbing a mountain – I can tell you that much. Temple gives us this flashy city, this opportunity to see those that inhabit it, but leaves us hanging high and dry when it is time to pull the trigger. We learn about Colin, mainly, but nobody else. I could probably watch this film again and still be equally confused as to whom is angry at whom, and what importance fashion had to that era. Also, were they teens really – they all seemed like they were pushing their late 20s, but maybe it was my TV.<br /><br />Character development thrown right out the door, Temple tries to overcompensate by giving us bigger, more lavish songs using even more characters that we know nothing about. One of my favorite songs in the film uses this thought as a prime example. Temple uses a split house to show us the lives of Colin's parents (of which I didn't know it was them until after the film) and a song which screams apathy. Great song, too many characters, not enough time, suddenly dragged into another scene of missing coherency, and it just falls apart in your hands. Then, if that wasn't enough, we are rocking our heads to the beat of some great songs, rubbing our noggin' trying to understand where our characters are or are going, and Temple throws in hatred, anger, and politics into the final act. While I was hoping that this film would have a dedicated theme, I didn't think racism would be on the top of the bill. Suddenly, friends are missing, people are angry, and there is some random guy running around fighting Colin because he lives in poverty and has a friend of a different race? Somebody help me out here. It seemed completely rushed and overwhelming – nearly to the point of wanting to turn the film off. To me, the ending of "Absolute Beginners" was nowhere near the excitement from the opening number. That first part set the pace, and Temple could not keep up.<br /><br />Overall, I must say that Temple can direct a music video, but I don't think he was quite prepared for the feature film. I don't think this film will ever make it into full "cult" status, and will probably remain unremembered or in the dollar bin for years to come. It is a fun film to watch initially, but when we get to that final part, it just explodes from the inside. I wanted some cutting edge work, but instead what I found was a freaky Bowie coupled with characters I cared nothing for. I could see how this film could relate to the youth of the 80s, but by the end it just felt forced. I think everyone in this production should have taken a moment and listened to "Motivation" by the ever-freaky Bowie in this film, it may have helped solidify this feature into better cult status. I am glad that I watched this film once, but that is all that my small brain can take. I loved the way that Temple caught me from the beginning, but he couldn't control his characters (way too many), and the songs didn't seem to match the final moments of the film. It came out of nowhere, and it was unwelcomed. If this was a film about racism, it needed to be from the beginning. "Absolute Beginners" was a welcomed adventure, but I don't think I will be dusting this film off in the future.<br /><br />Grade: ** out of *****
Recreation of 1950's (London) Soho and the up-and-coming people. Based on a cult novel.<br /><br />Julian Temple is a video director. No more, no less. Give him 15 million dollars and he will make you a 15 million dollar pop video. Here he forgets that two minutes with people that can't really act is one thing - but two hours? What was he thinking of. Besides who are the audience? Who cares about a book that was well remembered way-back-when. The usual London story of the chancer taking his chance. <br /><br />What could really drag this film even further down? Oh I know, third rate songs that sound like they were made up on the spot. David Bowie crones the film title over and over a few times and that is the highlight. The soundtrack album is clay pigeon material.<br /><br />There is one good thing though. Good recreation of period Soho. Shame they couldn't think of anything to put in front of it.
Following the disasterous Revolution, this film was pretty much the final nail in the coffin of Goldcrest and thus the British Film Industry. The film is absolute pants, it's full of music from the attempted mid-80's jazz revival and based on a book & author that was briefly popular at that time and has deservedly sank back into obscurity. Temple searched for ages trying to find Suzette and came up with 8th Wonders Patsy Kensett another person who was briefly popular at the time. By the time the film came out of post production the Jazz revival was over, as was Kensett's career and the film met a totally uncaring film public.<br /><br />Mediocre would be an overstatement for some of the worst/campest/cheesiest acting to ever grace the British silver screen watching it almost 20 years on and the film is truely cringeworthy.
I remember watching this film back in 86' when it first came out & what an awful film. The acting was atrocious the plot was so flimsy it would or is that should have blew away in a breath of wind. I think it put me to sleep on more than one occasion & i was not tired that i remember. Please avoid at all costs better still have all your teeth taken out with no anaesthetic cos that would be more entertaining. It's just a pity i couldn't give it a zero or a negative score. I wish i had not wasted my money getting this one from the video shop all i can say was that the tape it was on was still brand new practically hardly surprising as the film was so poor. If i remember right i sat & watched it with a girl i really wanted to go out with & the fact she was sat next to me was still not enough to keep me awake thats how bad this film was.
An uptight voyeur who wants to commit suicide encounters a free spirited bad-seed who has 5 weeks to live and then they're off to discover America. Get the idea? There's not an original moment in this whole movie.
"Proximity" tells of a convict (Lowe) who thinks the prison staff is out to kill him. This very ordinary film is an action/drama with a weak plot; stereotypical, poorly developed characters; and a one dimensional performance by Lowe. A forgettable film not worthy of further commentary.
This thrown together piece of fecal matter adds together so many ludicrous scenarios that in the end it's a laugh riot of absolute hilarity. Too bad as the premise is promising (as it so often is in Duhllywood), but in the hands of this scriptwriter it segues off into la la land. <br /><br />Lowe is in Prison serving time for a DUI that killed off his mistress. We get to see him having nightmares just so that we know he feels real BAD about this. Then his cell mate neighbor hangs himself. Or does he? Lowe has some suspicions but drops them quickly. His suspicions are so weak that the bad guys have nothing to worry about. So why do they then set him up to be killed? Ah, that's where this story could get interesting. That's where it falls off the rails, and once off the rails it decides it can get away with insulting the viewers attention for the next numbing hour.<br /><br />****************SPOILERS****************************<br /><br />I won't bore with an endless recounting of the irrationality of what follows, but contemplate this ending. Lowe has been trapped by the bad guys on a train. They want a tape he has, because that tape will screw their boss, and them. So on to the train come 3 cops, guns drawn, ready to rescue Lowe. The bad guys kill the cops, in front of half the passengers and then....continue chasing Lowe to get the tape. HELLO!!!! killing 3 cops in public will get you into deep doodo, to hell with the tape. Yet off they go through a mall shooting up the place, as if the public did not exist as witnesses, and in the end Lowe is grabbed and the bad guy still wants the tape!!!
That is the only thing I can positive to say about this movie. Cleveland is the star, I've been there and never saw the city look this good. Beautiful river and cityscapes.<br /><br />This movie moves ahead at such a pace they hope you won't notice the lack of real world relevance. People running around and shooting guns without any consequence. For example, there is a shoot out at Rob Lowe's character's house- two cars are stolen, and yet the cops don't show up there till much later in the movie. Murder for hire never looked so implausible.<br /><br />Whoever wrote this movie should be on the receiving end of one the movies countless stray bullets. Many of the actors in this movie are so much better than this. I check the date of the movie just to make sure it wasn't written during the writers strike but alas this was not the case. This movie is currently in rotation on Universal's HD channel- unless you want to drool of over Lowe there is no reason to watch it.
Former brat pack actor and all round pretty boy Rob Lowe stars in a film set in a high security American prison . I had a gut feeling his character was going to be popular for all the wrong reasons like Tobias in the first series of OZ , but PROXIMITY isn`t that kind of film , it`s more like a " Man on the run " film like THE FUGITIVE . It also makes a nod to the themes of punishment and justice with James Coburn putting in a cameo as the spokesman for a justice for victims pressure group but any intelligent discussion on how society should treat criminals is completely ignored as the film degenerates into tired old cliches of shoot outs and car chases
Here's a horror version of PRISCILLA: QUEEN OF THE DESERT (they wish!) starring Melinda/Mindy (RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD 3) Clarke as Candy, a desert dweller who pulls off a bank heist with boyfriend Johnny (Jason Durr). He ends up in a South-of-the-border prison run by the sadistic Chief Screw (an overacting Robert Englund in a toupee). She and her beloved pet poodles end up in hiding at a gas station convent until they're transformed by a newly fallen meteor. The dogs turn into obnoxious drag queen "bitches" and Candy develops a VERY long, talking, killing forked tongue she can't control. Thugs looking for the stolen loot and other assorted numbskulls add extra complications.<br /><br />First off, Clarke is fantastic and makes what there is to make of this movie. You watch her and see someone very funny during the slapstick scenes, very convincing during the horror scenes and VERY sexy in various wigs and disguises, including an eye-popping, skin tight latex bodysuit...and wonder how come this actress isn't a huge star. It's too bad the rest of this cult attempt doesn't live up to her promise.<br /><br />Blame director/scripter Sciamma, who thinks the outlandish premise alone is enough to sustain laughs...but his vulgar gags, annoying supporting characters and stupid dialogue are no substitute for a real sense of humor. Another nail in the coffin; the film looks cheap, lots of garish colors and sets are strangely muted by muddy photography and the dusty desert locales. Luckily for Sciamma that Clarke is in his film, because she alone keeps you watching.
Can A-Pix ever, ever, ever do anything right? This movie was meant to be seen on TV in a letterbox format. Since A-Pix doesn't even believe in pan and scan, we see whole scenes where a shoulder on the left side of the screen talks to a shoulder on the right side. Of course, not that you are missing much. This movie is incredibly bad. It's very hard to enjoy a film where characters are screaming at the top of their lungs during 80% of the movie for no reason.
Impenetrable rubbish. This has to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The dialogue is ghastly, the horror effects are laughable. The only thing that kept me watching was the ever-splendid and totally underrated Michael Cule.
Really bad movie. Maybe the worst I've ever seen. Alien invasion, a la The Blob, without the acting. Meteorite turns beautiful woman into a host body for nasty tongue. Bad plot, bad fake tongue. Absurd comedy worth missing. Wash your hair or take out the trash.
first of all let's start out by saying that Robert Englund Doug Bradley and Melinda Clark should be commended for having to be associated with this piece of drivel. i had to give this a 1 it wouldn't let me give it a zero. wanna know how bad this movie is? my mom calls me from across town and tells me "son, i just watched the stupidest movie ever. i responded as saying "the killer tongue huh?" she was like how did you know that? that's how bad this movie is. i mean it looked like a good movie at first Freddy pinhead Melinda. okay i'll give it a chance. i sat through the rest of this movie only because i wrote a column for reviews of horror movies. i implore you, don't waste your time money or even brain cells on this ludicrous piece of crap. run away. far away. if you see it on the shelf at Hollywood video blockbuster or even your local video store, turn it around and walk away....and i still want my two hours back dang it
This has to be one of the most outrageously stupid movies I have ever seen in my entire life. Just when I think I have seen the stupidest scene in history, along comes an even dumber and more bizarre scene. I think the transvestite poodles did it for me, or better yet, her talking tongue...or perhaps the guy getting the virgin mother statue mounted to a jeep windshield caught in his throat. Decisions, decisions...
Not totally off the wall in a good way, but just totally stupid. "Killer Tongue" is an uneasy mixture of sci-fi, horror, and supposed comedy. What this equates to is a mindless and totally incoherent film. There is very little dialog, mainly due to the fact that the script, if there was one, is complete "pond scum". I wouldn't even call it strange, more like just "total nonsense". This movie is certain to disappoint, and you have been warned. There is absolutely no reason to waste time on this, and if you do, the pungent smell will linger like rotten fish............................................................... MERK
One of the worst films I have ever had the displeasure of sitting through, Killer Tongue is a horrible melange of the worst elements of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Brain Damage, and Pulp Fiction. Designed primarily to offend, apparently, but so inane that only the most hidebound conservatives would be taken in by it.
Someone, some day, should do a study of architecture as it figures in horror films; of all those explorations of weirdly laid out mansions, searches for secret passageways and crypts, trackings of monsters through air ducts, and so forth. Offhand I can recall only a few films in which architecture played a major role throughout--"Demon Seed," "Cube," the remake of "Thirteen Ghosts"--but it's at the heart of every story about a spooky house or church or crypt; it's all about the character and the affect of spaces, passages, and walls. So I was looking forward to this thriller where it promised to be central. The idea is this: An architect has built--actually, rebuilt--for himself a huge and rambling house; his wife has just left him, mainly because of his own self-centeredness, but also, it is intimated, because she can't get used to the place since he remodeled it. Living in unaccustomed solitude (real this time, rather than virtual), he comes to suspect that somebody else--a stranger who had come to the door one evening asking to use the phone and then suddenly disappeared--is living into the house with him; only the place is big enough so that he never sees him.<br /><br />This is a good start for a melodrama, whose development one would expect to follow some such lines as these: After searching the house for the intruder a few times without success, the architect resorts to his blueprints to undertake more systematic searches, trying in various ways to surprise, intercept, or ambush the intruder, maybe by means of some special features he built into the structure. Meanwhile the intruder has discovered hiding places and back ways between places that the architect didn't foresee or doesn't remember. The movie would turn into a cat-and-mouse game, a hunt, a battle; and finally, in trying to trap the intruder, the architect himself would end up trapped in his own creation, in some way he didn't expect. Then he would be forced to think himself out of it--and maybe at the same time out of his own self-imposed isolation--and in a final twist would nail, and maybe even kill, the ****er.<br /><br />Nothing like this happens in this movie; the house is just a house, the architect is just a guy, and his nemesis is of an unknown character, if he exists at all. Here is what does happen in the movie: Once the intruder is installed in the house--if he is--the architect begins hearing noises, but when he goes to investigate finds nothing. He calls the police, they think he's slightly nuts; he persuades his estranged wife to spend the night, she thinks he's more nuts. At last, more or less accidentally, he runs into the intruder (doesn't get a good look, but figures, who else could it be?--not a hard question, in a story with, to that point, fewer than three principal characters), whereupon he locks the doors, lowers the grills on the windows, throws away the key (I don't know why he thought this necessary), and leaves his victim to starve. I missed why this was a given: the doors and walls are made of steel? In any event, the architect takes to sleeping in his car. And since the idea of the movie has languished undeveloped and cannot now be developed further, something else must be devised to take its place. And this is it: The architect--are you ready?--moves into the house of the man who (presumably) moved into his, and lives there in the same way. How is this possible? It is not, but the movie takes this route to try and make it seem so: The architect has drawn a picture of the man who came to his door; and when he leaves the house he takes the picture with him; and while sitting in his car, he throws the picture into the street; and two kids pick it up and observe that it looks like Martin, their neighbor; whereupon the architect asks where his house is and the kids point the way.<br /><br />If this sequence seems to verge on the implausible, what ensues plunges right in. The architect takes up residence with Martin's wheelchair-ridden wife, unbeknownst to her; so stealthy in his moves and so cunning in his reading of his hostess that he's able always to leave a room just as she enters or to duck out of sight just as she turns around. Throughout this section the movie is clever in one way, making (or leaving it to the viewer to make) the point that his life with this stranger, who doesn't know he's there, is in essence the same life he lived with his wife, as a virtual recluse with her as a convenient buffer. But at the same time, his inability to live in the world makes his transformation into Raffles the cat-burglar entirely incredible. Not to go into the series of twists at the end--including another murder achieved by locking someone in behind another invincible door--this one in front of a landing so flimsy that it collapses under the weight of a wheelchair; two nice people who take murder in stride; and (before the story started) the unnoticed construction of a tunnel under several houses.... To the final, long-anticipated twist, the movie adds another, to make it even more offensive, and then...ends.<br /><br />Here is a story that depends on the development of two things--the idea of the stranger in the house, and the character of the man whose house it is--and fumbles both. The first fumble makes it boring; the second made me angry, as it pushed its main character farther and farther along a more and more zigzaggy path, and never offered any explanation for the character who most required one: Martin the tunnel-builder and sneak-tenant. The story should be redone by someone, some day.
For the first time in years, I've felt the need to log into IMDb today to cleanse myself of this movie by writing a review, because it was just such a let-down to watch. The plot sounded awesome when I read it, I expected a minimal mystery thriller, a claustrophobic phantom hunt. Unfortunately, it all gets watered down so bad by a mundane, tiring love story and too many contrived and teeth-gnashingly stupid "no-one-says-things-like-this-except-in-bad-movies"-dialogs that it's just agonizing.<br /><br />Here's a quick run down of the worst offenses of this piece of film: <br /><br />- The script relies so heavily on coincidences and the inexplicable and inexcusable stupidity of the main characters that it's just laughable. No, actually, it's angering. And lazy.<br /><br />- Related to that: Cheap thrills. A long parade "just in time" moments.<br /><br />- The main characters. Alright, it seems that the screenwriter has never experienced actual human beings in real life, but instead has gained all his knowledge from bad movies. Thus, his characters are boring, lifeless second generation clichés. They are mere plot-devices, place-holders without the slightest bit of personality. They are "man and woman in break-up who still love each other". Never seen that one before except in 100,000 movies and it's not getting any more realistic or enjoyable. Think of the blandest two-dimensional Hollywood fare and you've got it. There is not one character in this movie that is even remotely fresh, charming, or interesting.<br /><br />- The far-fetched, vague resolution that's swaying very bad and needs just one nudge to topple, though the word "resolution" might be ill-fitting here, because the movie is a swampy mess that isn't going anywhere anyway. By the time you're through, though, you don't care anymore. The last third of the movie I just fast-forwarded, because it was just so unbearable to watch.<br /><br />Okay, that's it. Whatever redeeming features this movie has, it all gets buried under incompetence. Don't watch this turd.
Certainly not horrible, but definitely not good.<br /><br />Cry, The Beloved Country (1995) was directed by Darrell Roodt and written for the screen by Ronald Harwood (Adapted from the 1946 novel by Alan Paton). Starring James Earl Jones and Richard Harris.<br /><br />The film is about pre-Apartheid South Africa, and the stories of a black man and a white man intertwining. The pious but naive preacher Stephen Kumalo (James Earl Jones) receives a letter from Johannesburg saying that he must come immediately; he later finds that his son has killed a man. The rich farmer/landowner James Jarvis (Richard Harris) finds that his son, a fighter for black rights, was the one killed by Kumalo's son. In this they connect.<br /><br />I cannot compare it to the 1951 film of the same name, for I have not seen it. Or the 1974 musical titled Lost in the Stars for I have also not seen it; both look better than this one. But Cry Freedom, on the other hand, I have seen; it has a much more urgent air to it, like it actually is trying to say something where the film Cry, The Beloved Country seems to have no idea where it is going. Very "Wishy-washy". I refuse to compare the film to the novel (except that I did enjoy the novel more than I enjoyed the film) because novels and films are two extremely different media and there is no point in trying to transfer directly one to the other or compare them via the same means.<br /><br />Frankly, this movie blew. Well, I guess it wasn't that bad, --Five-out-of-ten, -- but it wasn't that good either. Both of the leads, both very capable actors pull some of the most wooden performances I have seen with some of the most awkward dialogue in film history (but that can be blamed on he screenwriter, Ronald Harwood, who is also oddly off is game with this film, having also written the sublime The Pianist, and Being Julia). Among other things the point and themes of the novel are lost almost entirely in its transition to film for the third time; there is little, if any, tension with any moment of the film, racially or suspensefully. The music doesn't help. The painfully misplaced and boringly pastoral orchestra tracks really help with this dulling down of the film. One upside is the cinematography, with many rather good or great shots, but unfortunately, this does not help the film too much.<br /><br />The last, striking words of Alan Paton's novel are displayed in the last moments of the film. It is too bad that they seem to be so disconnected from the film that was just shown. I don't know what Nelson Mandela might have seen in this film.<br /><br />Thanks for your time.
wow...this has got to be the DUMBEST movie I've ever seen. We watched it in english class...and this movie made ABSOLUTELY no sense. I would never, EVER watch this movie again...and my sympathy to those who have ever PAID to see it.
It happened with Assault on Prescient 13 in 2005, it happened with The Lost Boys in 2008 and now it's happened with another classic from the 80's Wargames... :( Why, oh why, oh why won't Hollywood ever learn? Leave them alone...! They can't be remade...! They suck....! We all hate them....!.<br /><br />Those of you who haven't seen the original 1983 version with Matthew Broderick & Ally Sheedy, go rent/buy it now....!! The hardware may look dated, the special effects are not new millennium but it still beats this rubbish hands down....<br /><br />For those of us who lived through the 80's when hacking was sexy, the Internet was something mysterious and your disks came as a 8" floppy variety, well we now possess the wisdom to avoid this film like a Thermonuclear War! <br /><br />Never before has "a nice game of chess" seemed the better option....
I see a lot of movies. Saw the original wargames years ago and loved it. Computers where still "a big mystery" for the most of us and the movie was convincing, in it's own way.<br /><br />This one, however, looks like a low budget Wednesday night special. Total crap, from start to finish.<br /><br />The plot is so weak, you won't believe it until you see the movie (which I would not recommend in the first place). I can not point out one actor that actually did a good job in this movie. But hey, with that script I would've been surprised if ANYONE could do a good job acting. Lots of cliché scenes. CGI looks like it's taken out of the '86 version.<br /><br />Bah, no, I'm getting in a bad mood just writing about this. Do NOT watch this movie.<br /><br />Life's to short to waste it on watching crappy movies.
I can't say that Wargames: The Dead Code is the worst movie I've ever seen, as it had one or two decent moments, but I can easily say it's the most transparent movie I've ever seen. Not once did a plot device present itself without me guessing it 10+ minutes in advance. There was no subtlety to anything the movie did, no intelligence evident at all behind the scenes. Every spoken or typed line's intent was so glaringly obvious it was impossible to "get into" the movie.<br /><br />I found myself laughing at the horribly thought out plot line, and the bumbled attempts to reclaim the audience, far more often than I found myself enjoying the movie.
Some people seem to think this was the worst movie they have ever seen, and I understand where they're coming from, but I really have seen worse.<br /><br />That being said, the movies that I can recall (ie the ones I haven't blocked out) that were worse than this, were so bad that they physically pained every sense that was involved with watching the movie. The movies that are worse than War Games 2 are the ones that make you want to gouge out your eyes, or stab sharp objects in your ears to keep yourself from having another piece of your soul ripped away from you by the awfulness.<br /><br />War Games: The Dead Code isn't that bad, but it comes pretty close. Yes I was a fan of the original, but no I wasn't expecting miracles from this one. Let's face it the original wasn't really that great of a movie in the first place, it was basically just a campy 80s teen romance flick with some geek-appeal to it.<br /><br />That's all I was hoping for, something bad, but that might have tugged at my geek-strings. Was that too much to ask for? Is it really not possible to do better than the original War Games, even for a straight to video release? Well apparently that was too much to ask for. Stay away from this movie. At first it's just bad, like "Oh yeah, this is bad, but I'm kind of enjoying it, maybe the end will be good like in the original." And then it just gets worse and worse, and by the end, trust me, you will wish you had not seen this movie.
This is loosely based on the ideas of the original 80's hit . It's set in the modern day as we see a base in Afghanistan get destroyed by a UAV right at the start.<br /><br />And that's exactly where the movie jumps the shark. UAV's aren't armed. They could be but I don't think it's ever been tried for real. We get to see the computer that has masterminded this operation, called R.I.P.L.E.Y. We are introduced to "hacker" Will Farmer (he's good at chemistry & electronics which doesn't make him a computer hacker) & his love interest, Annie) & Will's 1st attempt at hacking is not only a complete failure his IP address is also logged and Annie guessed who it was. We also meet Wills mom who works for a chemical company.<br /><br />Wills taking money from his neighbours bank account (Mr Massude) isn't a hack (he helped him set up the account), we then get a nod back to the original movie where they decide against playing Global Thermonuclear War & they play The Dead Code. The trace the RIPLEY office are running is NOT on Will but on Massude's pc so all the evidence they were gathering was useless against Will.<br /><br />Exactly why RIPLEY shut Will's machine down isn't explained (he's only playing an online game?) & also why it felt the need to have to shut down all the electricity in the entire block he lived in as well. Why a counter terrorism agency would see this as a viable target is extremely questionable. As for RIPLEY activating his mobile phone? I think not, it wasn't connected to the pc and the message wouldn't play unless he actually answered the phone so there's more bad "hacking" science there too.<br /><br />RIPLEY agents arrive at Massude's home, take him away & Will is given a envelope which turns out to contain a lot of money. Will searching for the licence plate of the car that took Massude isn't a "hack" as you never see him break into the DMV computer. The RIPLEY agents who grab Dennis in the airport as he's looking for Will have no authority to arrest or detain him. Will's mother hadn't "been stealing chemicals & Bio agents" either. And even if she did they had no right to arrest or detain Dennis. Patriot Act or not.<br /><br />I don't know why Will was worried about being arrested for any crime in Canada as its a totally different country with different laws to the US.<br /><br />The computer has gone rogue and all the action its taken against Will, his mother & Dennis wasn't sanctioned by a Government agency. The phone phreak we see Will do is the 1st show of any hacking skill in the movie, we also get a hack into RIPLEY which seemed too easy for such a powerful system.<br /><br />The "guy" who ran into Annie at the airport & was also watching them in the street was nothing to do with RIPLEY & the laughable notion that RIPLEY could track a cellphone whilst underground was as stupid as the idea that a computer reads lips.<br /><br />Another reference to the original movie when they mention Stephen Falken as the designer of the system RIPLEY replaced, the Joshua Project. We discover that the "guy" who ran into Annie is Falken (not played by the original actor sadly) who faked his own death.<br /><br />We also get to see WOPR as "what's going to help" them beat RIPLEY and they kept the same voice used back then. Falken & WOPR are destroyed too quickly after being hardly used at all (the same explosion should kill Will, Annie & the Russian. It's also unlikely they'd create a self-contained computer system that has the ability to nuke or drop chemical weapons on the country it operates out of.<br /><br />The whole "Decontamination" plot & idea are totally unbelievable. Those kinds of orders would have to go through the President or Joint Chiefs Of Staff. So yet another laughable & unbelievable idea.<br /><br />The IP hacks against RIPLEY aren't done by Will, he just contacts one of his friends who suggests & implements the idea. It's excessively laughable that Will would get a login just from increasing RIPLEY's operating temperature. Having Joshua as a backdoor into RIPLEY (especially after it had been blown to bits) is an incredible cop-out and screams of a very desperate writer who had no ideas left and wanted to get this movie over and done with.<br /><br />There is an awful good where RIPLEY is playing Dead Code and we see a countdown (saying 17 minutes) then RIPLEY says "Decontamination in 30 minutes", how crap is that when they can't even keep up with their own timer? RIPLEY's attack mission against Philadelphia is halted (far too easily in my opinion) and it decides to attack Joshua in its internal circuits and reroutes the missile aimed a Philly to Washington where RIPLEY is stationed. The idea of the Nuclear exchange to make RIPLEY realise what she's doing won't work (surely she'd already know if she had Joshua insider her as he'd already learnt this lesson in the original movie?) is yet another nod back to the original movie.<br /><br />Their cop-out at having RIPLEY repeat Joshua's exact same words form the end of the original movie just goes to show how many original ideas they were unable to come up with.<br /><br />If you want to point fingers for bad & stolen ideas the men to blame are Randall Badat & Rob Kerchner. This is an awful movie and is best avoided.
I think this could've been a decent movie, and some of its parts are OK... but in whole it's a B movie. Same about the plot, parts are OK but it has several holes and oddities that doesn't quite add up. Acting is mostly OK, I've seen worse of this too. :)<br /><br />The beginning sets the level, with cars driving in the desert, making "cool" but totally unnecessary jumps through some small dunes (In slow motion! Cool!), like the drivers had never seen sand before... It gets slightly better from there, but not much.<br /><br />If you're gonna rent this, get another one too and use this one as a warm-up. Keep expectations low and it might work for you.
Like many others have commented before me here, I have to say that this movie is bad, but not the worst I've seen. There will be no direct references to movie plots or sequences in this comment, because I hate spoilers.<br /><br />I got a feeling I was watching an episode of a TV show or something, where they had gotten a hold of some extra $$$ to spend on CGI (I've seen worse of those)... All in all, it is quite an insult to the viewer, at least if you have ANY knowledge about computers and/or technology at all. There are just too many of these moments of insults to make me feel comfortable, and I found myself just begging for it all to end - fast - halfway through. In addition, there are countless "easy way out" scenarios, which also is an insult to your intelligence as a thinking human being...<br /><br />This movie absolutely fades in comparison to the old "Wargames", and I think it's a damn shame they even got to call it a sequel.<br /><br />Two stars from me, because of one thing and one thing only: the actors' performances aren't half-bad, considering the regurgitated crap of a script they had to work with. Still, they should never have signed on to this movie. Not really a career-move, but I guess we all have bills to pay.<br /><br />To those of you who gave this movie top score...you have to be on the studio's payroll or something, that's my only explanation.<br /><br />To all who haven't seen this one: by all means, watch it and make up your own mind. But lower your expectations to the floor (and then some).
Thank God I watched this at a friend's place and did not pay for it. The plot is horribly transparent and the whole movie felt like an episode of a TV show. If you have any knowledge of computers or electronics, watch out. You will feel feel like the movie is an insult to your intelligence. <br /><br />Also, actress turned Much Music VJ Amanda Walsh displays the worst acting I have ever seen, excluding porn. She's lucky that Matt Lanter is actually decent. He's the one that carries the movie. <br /><br />I hate that I wasted nearly two hours of my life watching this movie! It's a shame that they got to call it a sequel, because I was a fan of the original, which was actually pretty good.
I'll try to use words to describe this on.... <br /><br />I saw the original, which was good in its own way, but back then I should have feared a sequel.<br /><br />And I was 'afraid' when I picked this one up, but now that I've seen it, I have to say, it's even worse then I thought. Why these movies still get money still makes my mind spin. <br /><br />Let's start with the actors;they aren't all that good, but it has to be said, some make heads turn by being just plain awful. But what can an actor do with a script like this one. It's trying to be a copy of the original only this time the places have changed, any form of story is gone and any attempt of actually coming up with something that hasn't been done before, fails miserably. In a futile attempt to get it up-to-date, they try to make it exciting by making use of the whole 'big-brother' theme , but that has been worn out ages ago and offers nothing but a filler for between the beginning and the end. An attempt was made to try to save the movie by making a ton of references to the '83 original, but it just ended up being plain funny and sometimes a bit sad. In conclusion, if you have nothing , and I mean nothing , to do... go watch it, or play Frisbee... with the DVD.... by yourself. It'll offer you the same amount of fun.. I promise
I thought this was a sequel of some sorts, and it is meant to be to the original from 1983. But a sequel is not taking the original plot and destroying it.<br /><br />I actually had very little expectations to this movie, but I just wasted 95 minutes of life. No suspense - I actually feel clairvoyant, poor acting, and so filled with technical errors, so I as a computer geek just couldn't believe it. They have tried to make it a mix between a generic war movie and 24 hours. But this is not even worthy of a low budget TV movie.<br /><br />Do not see this movie, this is a complete waste of time. Instead get the original. The theme is still valid. Don't let to much power into a machine. And the acting and plot is far more exiting and compelling.
I really didn't have high expectations and I must admit that I wasn't disappointed. This movie is so terrible that I felt obligated to register an account here at IMDb just to warn others not to waste their time. The storyline is terrible and you keep asking yourself throughout the movie "can it get any worse?" YES, it can! somehow they manage to make it worst by every minute and you end up thinking "I want my 1 hour 35 minutes back!". Somebody got to pay for this! <br /><br />I dare you to find a movie which is worst that this...<br /><br />I really didn't have high expectations and I must admit that I wasn't disappointed. This movie is so terrible that I felt obligated to register an account here at IMDb just to warn others not to waste their time. The storyline is terrible and you keep asking yourself throughout the movie "can it get any worse?" YES, it can! somehow they manage to make it worst by every minute and you end up thinking "I want my 1 hour 35 minutes back!". Somebody got to pay for this! <br /><br />I dare you to find a movie which is worst that this...
This movie is mostly chase scenes and special effects. It is very weak on plot. Most of the computer talk was just mumbo-jumbo. I watched this because I was a big fan of the original War Games movie which was based mostly on computer fact and real computer terminology. This movie had none of that. Most of the computer scenes were not only impossible and highly unrealistic of real computers and networks, but just lame. It is like it was written by somebody who has no comprehension of real computers.<br /><br />The ripley game was lame and was essentially just an arcade game. No real hacking, so what was the point? Movie was boring. Lame sequel.
You have to understand, when Wargames was released in 1983, it created a generation of wannabe computer hackers. The idea that a teenager could do anything of far reaching proportions, let alone deter a world war was novel and thrilling. Real computers were beginning to show up in people's homes, and for the first time, society was becoming interconnected in a way that made the movie's premise excitingly prescient. Granted, a talking computer that balanced it's free time between chess and global thermonuclear war was a bit far fetched, but the brilliant commentary on nuclear proliferation and the cold war made up for it. I've probably even heard of the hackers that this movie was actually based on.<br /><br />Fast forward 25 years, and we have a horrible mutant of a thing that I loathe to call a "sequel", called Wargames: The Dead Code. I'll just dig right in. First of all, the plot hinges on a government operated gambling site where folks who win the games automatically become terror suspects. You're probably very confused right now. The idea is that eventually the terrorist will click on the sub-game within the web site called "The Dead Code" where they pilot a plane over a city, spraying it with bioweapons. At some point in the game, you have to choose between "sarin gas" and "anthrax", and if you choose "sarin", then you're automatically confirmed as a bioterrorism weapons expert and your family is taken into custody and interrogated. In the movie, this actually happens. However, since the payment for the game was made from a bank account that was suspicious, it obviously all makes sense.<br /><br />Second, the avatar of the AI in this straight-to-DVD bomb is an annoying flash animation that keeps repeating the pop-up-ad-esquire sound bite "play with me baby". Because apparently in the future, advanced AI loses interest in intellectual pursuits like chess, and gets into porn.<br /><br />Third, the motivation for these "hackers" is profit and women, as opposed to pure curiosity as in the original movie. For some reason, recent hacker movies feel the need to portray all young adults as average surfer dude kind of people who are just like everyone else. That may work for your average sitcom, but c'mon, you don't learn how to take over government computers by doing your hair, playing sports, and shopping at the mall, folks. The one novel thing I noticed was that at some point in the dialogue there is a reference to a Matt Damon movie, and then later there is the phrase, "Good Hunting, Will". I swear, they named the main character Will just for that phrase so they could send a high five to Mr. Damon. This Will kid isn't bad, but he was certainly wasn't like any obsessive hacker I've ever met. I can't fully state how annoyed I am that this movie shares the same name as the original, because it has absolutely nothing in common with it except… Professor Falken and Joshua (WOPR) make a reappearance in this movie, as a limp old man who apparently is dying of boredom, and a dilapidated old tic-tac-toe machine with a higher pitched voice. After some prodding, Joshua (the AI) has what appears to be sex with the new AI with the porn voice, a bunch of board games flash on the big screens, and the whole "The only way to win, is not to play" revelation is supposed to be the crowning moment. Except that those of us who saw the original, you know, those who would want to see this in the first place have already been there and done that. A recycled ending for a movie made from last month's compost.<br /><br />The new movie was directed by a guy who's done 90210, and written by guys who do B movies. The original was directed by a guy who's been keeping himself busy with "Heroes", so you see the quality difference there. There was talk of a real remake, but I hope they don't destroy this classic all over again. I swear, if I have to, I'll visit every gambling web site until I find the one that's run by a psychotic government computer. The saving grace is that I was able to stream this on Netflix, so at least the only energy I expended watching this disaster was for breathing, clicking, and indigestion.
This is the worst, and I mean THE worst computers based movie I have ever seen. The whole plot is totally unconvincing and full of stupidity. <br /><br />I mean...<br /><br />The guy in this movie can actually speak with computer as a real person. Now you probably think this must be some super cool high-tech computer, well , it is, but he does it also with other very poor and weak computer which does not even have graphic interface.<br /><br />and the main idea how to overload the "super" computer by connecting to it via computer game on the net is really stupid. My mobile phone will shut the lighting down to preserve the energy but apparently this genius computer cant decide whether to use its resources to deal with national security threats or to load computer games.<br /><br />there are also some other bad things about it but I just don't have time for this.<br /><br />I just cant believe someone could actually record movie stupid as this
No wonder this was released straight to DVD here in Australia, no redeeming features what so ever. The dialog was hokey, the acting, awful and the script sucked!! Whoever thought it would be a good idea to do a sequel or follow up to the far superior John Badham film, Wargames from the 80s, well they must of been on something cause it was a bad idea!! Amanda Walsh was good in it as the eye candy/love interest, while Matt Lanter was good as the other main lead- that is about it. I would not recommend Wargames: The Dead Code to anyone, check out Hackers or the original Wargames film- both are better than this piece of crap!!
Just plain good old stupid. <br /><br />I mean really stupid, not the good stupid like Killer Tomatoes, or Ed Wood movies, this is probably the most stupid movie I ever have seen. To give this movie an golden Turkey is an insult to turkeys. To call this movie dumb is offensive even to dumb people.<br /><br />If this is the future of American cinema and art we are better off to really start world war 3 and 4 at the same time and let the cockroaches run the show after. <br /><br />Now I have to get drunk to wash this insult to my single braincell off....<br /><br />This is a really good movie if you are suicidal.
This is one of the worse movies that I have ever seen in my entire life. I wish I could travel back in time and do the following:<br /><br />1) Find out where the "movie" "War Games- The Dead Code" was filmed 2) Watch the original WAR GAMES with my current computer knowledge AND the eyes of a 1983 preteen. 3) Break into the pentagon computer in the 80's with the knowledge and perspective learned and remembered. 4) Reprogram the WHOPPER to NUKE the location of THE DEAD CODE minutes prior to its first day of filming 5) Come back to the present, have a beer and get Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones to "flash" my memory blank of the whole event, especially my original viewing of "The Dead Code" 6) Have another beer and watch WARS GAMES 7) Be happy until the next bad remake of a GOOD 80's movie.<br /><br />8) Did I forget the have Jar Jar killed. I am not sure if I would have to travel into the future for that. Maybe I need access to a wormhole.
After Highlander 2 (which I am still in denial about), I thought is was impossible to make a sequel that could make me cry because it was so bad. I was wrong. I loved the original Wargames, however, this movie is inaccurate with computer details and details about the original movie. The original Wargames at least had some hacks that worked. Whoever wrote this movie knew NOTHING ABOUT COMPUTERS except how to use a word processor. I doubt he or she even watched the original movie. The acting isn't even convincing. Please save yourselves, under no circumstances watch this movie. I don't care if the channel is stuck on the TV and you can't turn the TV off. THIS MOVIE WILL RUIN YOUR LIFE.
I wondered why John Wood was not playing Dr. Falken until I watched the film. BAD plot, bad science, bad acting and overall a bad film. Please don't watch this film. Rent the original "War Games" if you are feeling nostalgic.<br /><br />I didn't like the bending of the plot to beat-the-terrorist-threat idea either. In the first film W.O.P.R was built because Russia had 1000s of warheads pointed at the U.S.A. In this film the idea behind the computer was to kill terrorist in training before they are a threat. Politics aside, one of the good thing about the first film was the highlighting that even a stupid computer could grasp the idea of the pointlessness of war in the end. No such insight is offered in this film.
I can't believe I watched this expecting more. It starts out OK. This movie pushes the limits of reality way to far!! At least the first one was somewhat realistic. It rips off the first movie and even mentions the Joshua Project. Anyone who knows anything about computers will hate this movie. It does have one good message in it though, WATCH OUT FOR BIG BROTHER!!! The movie just makes it seem like Big Brother is way bigger than he actually is in reality. That was very aggravating. Even the make-up on the actors was completely bad. Some of the acting is pretty good. Some of the acting is really bad though. The script was OK at some points and completely messed up at other parts. This movie plays on convenience about every five minutes. Like I said, I can't believe I watched it expecting more. I think I am gonna pop in the original to get back to earth...Q
A below average looking video game is turned into some sort of conspiracy to have the next terrorist discovered in the USA backyard. Welcome to the lunacy of cheaply made direct to video movies. Its full of no-name actors and actresses with little valuable plot.<br /><br />Anyway, this strange game goes on and our "hero" bets real money and does good at it. It is sort of like gambling, except the gambling part is gone and it sucks. Instead its an online game with little real value and you get authorities on your tail if you do good.<br /><br />What makes it even stranger is that two strange computer programs battle it out somehow and all is saved in the end. I will leave the viewer to see how it all comes to fruition.<br /><br />Overall, not even worth a $1 rental. Borrow it, please. "D-"
If you thought that the original from 83 was bad then try out this modern day masterpiece. How could it be worse more you ask? Well...at least in the first one you had Ally Sheedy jogging in a sports bra. Other than updated graphics, modern day themes (such as terrorists), modern weapons and a sexy new voice for Ripley unfortunately this is the same sad tired story. Anyone that saw the first one could see exactly where the next scene / line in the story was going. And for anyone that didn't see the first one...well consider yourself lucky that you only watched it once. Maybe in another 23 years Hollywood will try again.
Will Farmer (Lanter) plays a computer game that simulates a terrorist attack, and Ripley, the super government computer, designed to profile potential terrorists, tracks him because Will borrowed (by hacking) some money from his next door neighbor's bank account to pay for a class trip to play chess in Philadelphia. The next door neighbor whose computer Will was fixing, has relatives in the mid-east who thru their bank send money to the neighbor's bank , and Ripley sees a terrorist connection. Ripley has the power to call up missile strikes. Oh, oh!<br /><br />This version of War Games has a much faster pace and more aggressiveness than the War Games movie in the early 1980s. Well, the electronic industry has so much more to work with these days. Makes sense. So the movie dazzles us with fantastic CGI on computer screens, and once Joshua, the forerunner to Ripley, is found operational, we are left with watching computer against computer and the humans are cringing, hoping, praying….sort of, oh-oh-ing, OMG-ing, and more cringing hoping things will go their way. In other words we are now experiencing a made-for-TV type movie, and it's Oh Hum Time. Go back to the 1980s and watch the original War Games movie. It's much better. <br /><br />But, we really have to ask ourselves: are we making computers too intelligent where one day, in time, they will rule us? Hmmm………..<br /><br />Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: No.
I didn't enjoy this film. I thought the acting wasn't very good and the story was boring. A 20year old computer saving the day? I thought that this was just slightly far fetched, even for a film. I couldn't figure out why they couldn't just turn it off, why not take a sledgehammer to it.<br /><br />Its a shame, but after the original film from the 80s you expected so much more than what was actually delivered. This film could have been a 21st century version of the old film, it wasn't. If that is what you want to watch, do not watch this film! <br /><br />Even if the old computer hadn't have turned up to save day, this would still, in my opinion, be a very very cheesy flick..
Let's face it-- if you rented a STDVD sequel of a forgotten 80's gem, and expected it to be better than the aforementioned, then you are an idiot. Wargames: The Dead Code joins the long running list of unnecessary sequels that the DVD market has filled so easily. Movies like this don't need spoilers, because YOU already know them.<br /><br />The "plot" for this "film", is as follows: Nerd meets girl; girl likes nerd; nerd likes girl; nerd gets accidentally involved with Top Secret Government computer; nerd and girl go to another country; nerd and girl end up being persecuted by Government suits in the other country; nerd and girl meet some important old guy that dies at key point in the "film"; nerd and girl are captured; the Top Secret Government computer gets crazy; nerd is hired to beat Top Secret Government Computer; nerd beats Top Secret Computer by using the same old Top Secret Computer from the first Wargames "film"; nerd saves the day; nerd gets laid. <br /><br />The end.<br /><br />The acting, script, effects, score, and cinematography are what you would expect-- B-grade. Some familiar faces are in here, and unless you are a mega fan of Colm Feore, then you should avoid this one. Granted, the movie won't make you insane enough to eat your own toes by seeing it, so if you like cheap looking STDVD sequels, then you are right at home.<br /><br />Sadly, Mathew Broderick was too involved with some "masterpiece", that he couldn't even do a five second cameo in this one. But can you blame him?
I don't know what else to say about this horrible movie that hasn't already been said. Honestly I have only myself to be angry with. I should have know better when I saw the title of this movie that it would be a horrible piece of crap, but I loved War Games so I indulged my whim. I will live to regret that decision the rest of my life. From the very start when the government people explained that their super computer could determine who a terrorist was just by how well they played a video game I knew I was in for a ride though the land-that-good-writing-forgot. The list of very, very, very bad plot lines, dialog, and acting is so long I would crash IMDb if I tried to post it. To those people who said that they have seen worst movies than this one please tell me. I am actually curious to see something that could top this steaming pile of horse dung.
I suppose many people comment/review their first movie on IMDb because the movie was spectacular or horrible -- I'm writing due to the latter.<br /><br />I was excited for the sequel to "Wargames" .. I thought the original was quite good considering its time period and content, I felt it was worth watching more than once. This being 2008, I had high hopes for what they would do with this film. Computers, Gaming, Terror, Military over-zealousness have all grown so much since the time of the first film, and "Wargames: The Dead Code" had an opportunity to bring it all into a great flick.<br /><br />The movie failed on pretty much every level, but I particularly blame the writers and anyone who had any input regarding the realism of gaming aspects. "The Dead Code" was a 1990's air flight simulator with a few people on the ground waving their arms. Meanwhile, Will Farmer is button mashing about 7,000 commands -- none of which are impacting what is happening on the screen. Until finally he "wins" by clicking a box on the screen with his mouse that release gas that instantly kills 20,000 virtual people (nobody is near the gas). Because he beat 5 LEVELS in 15 minutes, this tells RIPLEY (the real life war machine) that he is a high level terror threat.<br /><br />Even though any 5-16 year old could complete this same task - The government believes he is a lethal threat to humanity. They say things like "He has expert knowledge of bio-terror" ... He displayed less knowledge than someone who read the first 3 paragraphs of the Wiki entry on Bio-Terror. So then a movie-long chase scene with about .01% of the budget and excitement of any of the Bourne titles ensues. They have about 1000 opportunities to catch him and clear up the entire matter.. sometimes they are mad they barely miss him.. but other times they masterfully create opportunities just let him go intentionally to follow him.<br /><br />Ugh... I would write more.. but I already wasted 1.5 hours watching this, I would rather watch the Broderick and Joshua play tic-tac-toe for 1.5 hours.
The only reason to see this movie is for a brilliant performance by Thom-Adcox Hernandez who is underused in the movie within the movie. As usual Tom Villard is good, too. Otherwise it's c**p. The possesor doesn't even exist how does he magically change the letters on the theatre marquee to spell out "The Possessor"? Lame.
A bunch of kids set up a theatre to have an all-night horror movie marathon. However, as the night goes on, there's somebody among them killing them off one by one. Who is it...and why? I saw this in a theatre way back in 1991. I was looking forward to it--but boy! It did not work at all. The premise is a good one, they have a very appealing young cast and some pros like Dee Wallace Stone on board...but it doesn't work. The story stops making sense halfway through (that could be because of some huge editing before the film was released), the killings are relatively bloodless (how this got an R rating is beyond me) and the unmasking of the killer at the end was boring and stupid.<br /><br />It's really too bad--this movie had potential. With a better script this could have become a great horror film. As it stands though it's mostly forgotten and the cast itself seems embarrassed by it (I heard Stone won't talk about this one). I give it a 3 and that's just for the cast.
When I saw the commercial for this, I was all about seeing it. Now, forgive me, but it's been so long since I've seen it that I don't recall how it went. Suffice it to say, the movie I saw bore no resemblance to the "movie" they sold me on.<br /><br />I was bored, annoyed, and incredibly disappointed by this movie. And if it wasn't bad enough, they had to sink it even further with that awful reggae music. Not exactly mood-setting music for a horror movie, eh mon? I guess if you never saw the commercial (or trailer, I suppose) you may think this is some hot stuff. For my money, the commercial was way better.
**SPOILERS** I rented "Tesis" (or "Thesis" in English) on the strength of director Alejandro Amenabar's later effort "The Others". Based on what a brilliantly measured and horrifyingly effective creepfest that film was, I assumed his earlier efforts would be of a similar quality and I was in the mood for some good horror. Instead I wound up with the most tedious, preposterous excuse for a lame-brained slasher movie I've seen since the German film "Anatomie" (which this one kinda reminded me of).<br /><br />The plot has potential but it's thrown away within the first 20 minutes. It revolves around innocent-n-pretty psychology student Angela's (Ana Torrent - a Jessica Harper deadringer) thesis on the subject of violence in films. Through some far-fetched circumstances too dumb to go into here, she winds up in possession of a 'snuff' tape on which two men torture, mutilate and kill a young girl for the camera. Angela, and her horror-buff friend Chema (Fele Martinez) are both shocked yet intrigued by the tape and decide to get to the bottom of who's responsible for it.<br /><br />This leads to... well, nothing.<br /><br />They never really give a reason for why they want to find the girl's killers (since they resolutely refuse to contact the police throughout any of the unfolding events, even when their own lives at risk) and the mystery itself is as limp as Graham Norton in a room full of bunny girls. There is only one proper 'clue' (the type of camera the killers used is discovered) and that's a) a really weak one and b) wheeled out in the first 20 minutes. The rest of the so-called 'unravelling' just occurs through blind luck, increasingly ridiculous plot twists and a SLEW of awful, transparent and thoroughly pointless red herrings that are chucked in merely to pad out the running time.<br /><br />Seriously - Amenabar might know his stuff about ghost stories but he's clearly never read a detective book in his life. The key to a good whodunnit is to have a large cluster of potential suspects and to eliminate them one by one with clever deduction and the gradual discovery of more and more evidence, before moving in for the final twist. In "Tesis", *POTENTIAL SPOILER AHEAD* the killer's identity is guessed correctly by the amateur 'detectives' almost instantly and then we get 100 minutes of the writer trying feebly to throw us off the scent until he runs out of ideas, throws his hands up and says "OK, ya got me, it was him after all"! As for any kind of logic or motive behind the crimes - no such luck. You're watching the wrong movie if that's what you're after.<br /><br />The only thing that drags "Tesis" down further from just being a dumb, badly written thriller is the way it actually tries to make some ludicrous, muddled-up 'point' about violence in films. I have no idea what stance it's attempting to take on the subject but it seems determined to cram in a ton of misguided, confused psychobabble, in between the rest of the gibberish, and say "look at me! I'm political!". The final scenes, in which the "point" of the movie is supposedly hammered home, are so utterly absurd and puerile, one can't help but wonder if Amenabar feels embarrassed now when he watches this. If he doesn't, he certainly should. This is total 'amateur night at the slasher house' stuff.<br /><br />Overall I can't believe I wasted two whole hours (it felt like at least six) on this, just hoping something might happen. The urban legend of 'snuff films' (and that is basically all they are, despite the way this film tries to suggest they're some kind of criminal phenomenon sweeping the world!) is an area that can be so tantalisingly exploited in good horror films ("Videodrome" anyone?) but it's so easy to step over the line into childlike 'wouldn't it be cool if!' territory with it (ie: "My Little Eye")... "Tesis" hits an all-time low for the 'snuff movie' genre. On every level, this one is better left dead and buried. I'll award it a 1 out of 10, for some nice lighting, but that's all it's getting.
Best of the Best 4, is better than 3, but just barely. Basically, I say this because part 4 doesn't contradict parts 1/2 (like 3 does), (ie. their is no reference to Tommy Lee having siblings).<br /><br />Anyway, I liked the Russian plot line of the story, and especially Sven Ole-Thorsen's bit part as Boris. Aside from that though and a few fighting scenes, the movie is nothing special. The limited budget is also very noticeable (especially in the airplane blow-up scene).<br /><br />Also, part 4 does not really have a moral or say anything like part 3 did, there are a couple of more better known actors (Hudson, Thorsen) in part 4, but alas nothing like the beginning of the series (and even these characters have very small roles).<br /><br />Alas, it seems Best of the Best is the Rhee show, and to be truthful, he cannot carry a movie.<br /><br />Saw on tape, Rating:4
believe it or not,this movie is worse than number three.it's slower,the acting is worse,and the story is very weak.there isn't a lot of good to say about this movie.even the fight scenes are more dull than number three,and i would have thought that impossible.this is a very slow 90 minutes.painful,in fact.i stuck it through,hoping it would get better.if you really want to see this movie,you should try to find a cheap rental of it.it is hard to find(for purchase,that is)and probably for good reason.like number three,this movie has nothing to do with the first two.it is the same in name only.anyway,the most i can give Best of the Best:Without Warning is 2/10
I am a fan of the previous Best of the Best films. But this one was awful. No wonder I had such a hard time finding it. I tried 4 video rental stores, until I found one with a copy of this movie. The acting was terrible, the plot was a joke, and the action was bad as well.<br /><br />I really miss Alex Grady, Travis Brigley, and the original kickboxing characters and theme that this film had with the first 2 movies.<br /><br />John
A text prologue warns us that we should not allow evil to enter our house, but I think the more apt word is "entropy." Good grief, what slobs these two babes are!<br /><br />George (Seymour Cassell) is alone in his San Francisco office and his monstrously expensive home in Tiburon while his wife and child are away in San Diego. Two girls (Sondra Locke as Jackson and Colleen Camp as Donna) knock on his door, asking directions. Well, it's raining, and they're shivering like two drenched pitiful kittens, and they're not sure of the address they're looking for, and, what with one thing and another, George invites them to come in and partake of his pizza by the fire. All three of them wind up in George's bath tub and there follows about five minutes of mostly undifferentiated nudity in double exposure, triple exposure, quadruple exposure, and dodekakuple exposure. They spend the night in a threesome and the next morning the girls fix him breakfast. But something has gotten slightly cockeyed because Georgie's guests gobble everything down with their fingers and pour ketchup and syrup all over the linen and -- "You eat like ANIMALS!", George exclaims and tells them to get out. In his dreams. <br /><br />Now, don't get me wrong. Sondra Locke is an extraordinary looking young blond with cobalt-blue eyes and Colleen Camp bounces around like a superball. You gotta say, they breed 'em mighty cute down there in Shelbyville, Tennessee, where Locke comes from, and they breed 'em with bodacious tushes too, as we can't help but note after the first five or ten minutes.<br /><br />But when the girls go berserk, so does the movie. The film is thereafter bathed in a garish green light. The pair put on ghoulish makeup and make gargoyle faces at themselves in the mirrors. They brain a delivery boy and then drown him to make sure. They cuss up a storm and smash windows and furniture. They have one of those scenes in which two people sit across the table from one another, licking food and then jumping each other's bones. <br /><br />And Georgie? They first render Georgie unconscious with mace (which contains nothing that you can't find in that little red bottle of McIlheny's Tabasco sauce in your kitchen cabinet), tie him up, pour flour and milk all over him, subject him to a psychotic trial, put him through one of those Tolstoy-type semi-executions, slap him around, dress up in outlandish costumes, then prance out on him and his virtually destroyed upper-middle-class home, and are dispatched by a delivery van ex machina.<br /><br />As for the acting, it's as if someone had told Georgie, "First act polite to these girls, then act panicked after you're tied up." And to the girls: "First act shy, unwilling to impose on anyone, then act crazy." And that's it. <br /><br />The photography and location work are straight out of a 1970s porn movie. I'm not sure that suggests a total lack of skill. It takes effort and talent to turn San Francisco ugly. The score gives us two Leitmotivs. Georgie's is some pop tune with lyrics about "being free" and "giving in." Jackson and Donna's is a catchy rinky-tink thing called "My Good Old Dad." <br /><br />I approve of the moral lesson behind the story, though. There are some things you should simply not give in to, even though they might look like a lot of fun at first. All very educational.
So this guy named George is sitting home alone on his birthday when two women show up. George's wife is at a hospital taking care of their son so when the wife is away George gets in the bubble bath and makes love to both of the girls. It isn't that great of a scene because it really doesn't show anything. After that the birthday boy wakes up the next morning and the girls are still at his house. They make him a nice breakfast but George isn't hungry. George isn't very happy and he tries to ditch them but when he gets home the girls are still at his house. The girls have had enough with old George and no longer want to cook for them. They both turn out to be major psychopaths and use George in their little crazy game. I liked that the girls just did what they wanted and messed up George's house. George wasn't really that great to his two guests. When George said he was a married man, he really didn't seem to mean it. George looked like Tom Tucker on Family Guy. I was for the two girls the whole time.
This is an atrocious movie. Two demented young women seduce and torture a middle aged man. There's not much to give away in regards to a plot or a "spoiler". I would only comment that the ending is nearly the most preposterous part of the flick. Much of the film involves Locke and Camp cackling obnoxiously, all the while grinning psychotically at the camera. Add to this a soundtrack that repeats again and again, including a vaudevillian song about "dear old dad" that suggests an incestuous quality the viewer never really sees. The music is annoying at first, then ends up subjecting the viewer to a torture worse than that depicted on the screen. The theme here is of youth run amok, understandable as a reaction to the '60s, but done with little imagination or style. Avoid it!
I guess that this movie is based on some kind of a true story.... It's about two young girls who molest a grown man for 48hrs.; I don't see where the terror comes into play here.... There are some "weird' and "surreal" sequences in the movie. And the two girls (Sandra Locke and...ah...oh well) play the roll of two psycho-man haters to the hilt...they do a pretty good job (although some of it is just a tad over the top). The movie's not good, and it's not horrible; it's just really really dated! I mean this thing is dripping with the 70's.... It's not really bad if you like that sort of thing...you know...that thang?
This 1977 cult movie has two crazed lesbians (Sandra Locke & Colleen Camp) appearing at the home of wealthy socialite Doctor George Manning (Seymour Cassel), in hope of help in locating a residence they can't seem to find. But these two have other plans in mind, when they find out George's wife is out of town, they end up taking control of the residence, tying up the George, killing a delivery boy while destroying the place all in one evening. Bizarre and disturbing movie, but the two get there just reward in the same bizarre way as the movie ends. Most will either dislike it right off or get caught up in this ludicrous movie after about 30 minutes into it. Either way some even consider this a cult classic.<br /><br />Larry Dodson
There is a lot of talk of torture these days. That's all this movie is. It's about a good person who makes a bad decision. Because of his kindness, he becomes vulnerable to two psychotic women. From then on its a just-for-kicks assault on him. I don't know at what point you do something about it. There is a wife and child out there somewhere; he has great feelings of guilt and fear. But there should have been some times when he could have acted. The movie seems to be somebody's joke. I suppose in the wake of the Manson murders, we had a bit of a fixation on the likes of these two. Nevertheless, why would someone make a film like this? What appeals does it have except for sadism. The conclusion is totally unsatisfying, but that could have been remedied with an obvious plot twist. Oh, well. Another hour and a half of my life.
I've been trying to track down this film just by googling bad phrases about "teenagers seduce and kill man in his house" and such. I think I first saw parts of this film when I was about 10 years old when it was running on cable. It made quite an impression! It's the kind of film that kids know they shouldn't be watching, and switch the channel when their parents come in. When I saw who the cast was, I couldn't believe that some of these good actors were in such a horrible movie. Then again, if you like to see men who cheat on their wives get murdered, then this is an interesting film. Also, if I recall, there's some pretty interesting pseudo-lesbian moments. Probably the dumbest ending of all time, but still...memorable.
Way back when I was renting videos for free I picked this one up. OOPS The things I wanted to mention outside the summary already given were these. 1: Someone who had a lot to do with making this movie had a strange and sick fascination for food, it was gross and unecessary. 2: There is some kind of a soundtrack in the background of the film that seems to be there the entire time and by the way I felt for days after viewing this trash I figure they had something subliminal going on in the track. Either that or it was just traumatisingly bad or both. Many times throughout the movie you can tell the writer and director did not have much experience or talent. And don't even ask about the acting.
This utterly dull, senseless, pointless, spiritless, and dumb movie isn't the final proof that the world can forget about Danny Boyle and his post-"Trainspotting" movies: "The Beach" already took care of that. What this low-budget oddity does is merely to secure his place among those who started very well but got completely lost in drugs, booze, ego, self-delusion, bad management or whatever it was that lead to this once-promising director's quick demise.<br /><br />The premise is absurd: two losers (Ecclestone and some bimbo Jenna G - a rapper, likely) meet by chance and spontaneously start singing with fervour more akin to lunatic asylum inhabitants than a potential hit-making duo - which they become. A friend of theirs - an even bigger illiterate loser - becomes their manager by smashing a store window and stealing a video-camera by which he films them in "action", and then shows the tape to some music people who actually show interest in this garbage. Now, I know that the UK in recent years has put out incredible junk, but this is ridiculous; the music makes Oasis seem like The Beatles. During the studio recordings, the duo - Strumpet - change lyrics in every take and Ecclestone quite arrogantly tells the music biz guys to take it or leave it, and quite absurdly they do take it. Not only is the music total and utter trash, but its "performers" are anti-social; these NEWCOMERS are supposed to be calling the shots. It's just too dumb. It's plain awful.<br /><br />The dialog is unfunny and goes nowhere, and this rags-to-bitches story has no point and makes no sense. It often feels improvised - under the influence of drugs. Danny Boyle is a complete idiot. This little piece of trash is so bad it's embarrassing to watch. Ecclestone's I.Q. also has to be questioned for agreeing to be part of this nonsense. Whoever financed this £1000 joke should leave the movie business before they end up selling their own underwear on street corners.
Story of a good-for-nothing poet and a sidekick singer who puts his words to music. Director Danny Boyle has lost none of his predilection for raking in the gutter of humanity for characters but he has lost, in this film, the edge for creating inspiring and funny films. Strumpet is painful to watch and barely justified by the fact that it was made for TV.
The plot of this film is not strong at all, lots of holes. If you approach it as a car movie its not bad, lots of great cars in this one. The reason I like it is because I am from the area where this was filmed. I get the most enjoyment looking at the recognizable places in St. Cloud MN and seeing how the town has changed since 89. Its an interesting historical piece for us locals. Seems like whenever a film is made here everyone wants some relationship to it. It is impossible to find a copy in any of the local video stores as they were all stolen once it came out on VHS. Had to get a copy from Japan on Ebay I find it interesting how the path of the drag race is all over town. I didn't know the director was from St.Cloud.
Wow! I remember so many awful films that loosely revolved around high school from the early 1980s. They usually had someincredibly strained plot and lots of 27 year old actors pretending to be students. As I watched this film I felt a little of the nostalgia of growing up in the 1980s. However, then I find out that this film was made in 1989? Say what! Well, the nostalgia factor ends right there, this is just bad. The plot has the city preparing to close a high school and threatening to bus all of the students to inner city high schools. Which is odd, in that the students at this school are both wealthy and abundant. In fact, the main character lives in a mansion. Makes you wonder how they cannot find money to keep this school alive, have they never heard of property taxes. Oh, but here is the kicker. The school board says that they will keep the school alive, if the students can raise $200,000. So the seniors go about doing this. Hmmm, you raise $200,000 but instead of saving that for college, you put it towards saving the high school that you are a Senior in? And why exactly would they close an overpopulated school before the year is out? And...ahh forget it, this film was stupid and made in 1989!?
This film has been receiving a lot of play lately during the day on either HBO or Cinemax. The reason is that they are assuming people would be interested in comparing it to the Leonardo DiCaprio/Tom Hanks caper of the same name. The only reason to see it is for the attractive Matt Lattanzi. Yum! Although I must say Matt was more than a little long in the tooth to be playing a high schooler. If he were a woman, they'd have had him playing the MOTHER of a high schooler! (Is is just me, or is his daughter starting to look like Shelley Duvall?) Oh yeah, the plot--who cares? Typical teen highjinx played by adults.
[***POSSIBLE SPOILERS***] This movie's reputation precedes it, so it was with anticipation that I sat down to watch it in letterbox on TCM. What a major disappointment.<br /><br />The cast is superb and the production values are first-rate, but the characters are without depth, the plot is thin, and the whole thing goes on too long. For a movie that deals with alcoholism, family divisions, unfaithfulness, gambling, and sexual repression, the movie is curiously flat, prosaic, lifeless, and cliche-ridden. One example is the portrayal of Frank Hirsch's unfaithfuness: his rather heavy-handed request to his wife to "go upstairs and relax a bit" followed by her predictable pleading of a headache, leads - even more predictably - to his evening liaison with his secretary ("hey Nancy, I've got the blues tonight. Let's go for a drive"), all according to well-worn formula. We don't feel these are real people, but cardboard cutouts acting in a marionette play. Also, the source of the obvious friction between Frank and Dave Hirsch is never really explored or explained. Dave's infatuation with the on-again/off-again Gwen is inexplicable in light of her fatuous inability to defecate or get off the pot. His subsequent marriage of desperation to the Shirley Maclaine/Ginny character is, from the moment of its being presented to this viewer, anyway, obviously doomed to fail, and it was clear - by the conventions of this type of soap opera - that it could only be resolved by someone being killed. The moment the jealous lover started running around with the gun I started a bet with myself as to who - Dave or Ginny - would get killed. The whole thing was phony with a capital 'P'. <br /><br />Having said that, Maclaine's performance and that of Dean Martin are the standouts here. But on the whole I find the movie's interest to be purely that of a period piece of Hollywood history.
But I doubt many were running to see this movie. Or "Some Came Running Out Of The Cinema". Okay, that's a bit harsh.<br /><br />The film starts in an unintentionally comical way: Frankie-boy comes back to his hometown after many years (this already smells of clichés) and the whole town is shaken by his arrival: he is talked about, everyone wants to talk to him, and every woman he meets flirts with him like there's no tomorrow - even his niece hints that she would gladly have dropped her date to chat with Frankie-boy a little longer! Even his pretty niece wants a piece of him! Sounds like one of those laughable "Mike Hammer" episodes where EVERY single female wants Stacey Keach. And, like Stacey Keach, Frankie-boy is anything but a good-looking woman's wet dream. In real life, someone like Sinatra (without the fame) wouldn't get within 100 m of someone as beautiful as MacLaine. But in this Hollywood movie it's the other way around: MacLaine is absolutely nuts about Frankie-boy, but HE couldn't care less! Sinatra plays his "cool" shtick much too often in his movies, and it is rarely credible. Dean Martin is kind of miscast; he isn't miscast as a card-player, but rather because of the accent which simply doesn't suit him. MacLaine is charming as ever, but she plays a caricature - and this reliance on caricatures is one of the basic problems with the film. The main characters are all some sort of stereotypes out of bad or seen-it-all-before movies and cheap novels; Frankie is the "cool cat" who comes back to town to get all the women, and he couldn't care less about his writing (which, predictably, eventually garners recognition); Martin is a sleazy but friendly card-player; MacLaine is the dumb, but very likable bimbo; Frankie's blond love-interest is a snotty literary expert; Frankie's brother is the successful guy who married into his wife's business and has a lousy marriage; and so on. Clichés.<br /><br />The story contains a couple of coincidences which are a little too far-fetched for my taste: Frankie just happens to bump into his niece in a locale; his niece just happens to be meters away from her daddy when the latter kisses his secretary for the FIRST time; and then there is the awful, stupid ending.<br /><br />In it, a drunk guy bent on killing Frankie-boy somehow manages to find him in a carnival of all places! The place is utterly crowded, with the typical noise and chaos - plus it's happening in the evening - and yet the guy somehow finds Frankie (in spite of being drunk as a doorknob) and shoots at him. But guess who he kills? MacLaine. She jumps in front of the bullet to save Frankie: a cliché which comic-book writers might cringe at. This utterly pathetic, over-dramatic, and annoying ending certainly cannot please any, even semi-intelligent, viewer. And this happens on the same day that MacLaine and Sinatra got married! The writer of this nonsense seems to have read crappy dime novels his whole life - how else is the writing of this movie to be explained? There is even a card game in which a brawl ensues with Frankie & Martin vs. some cliché caricatures out of the writer's "vivid" imagination. (It was like a damn Western suddenly.) Another dumb thing is the way Sinatra was crazy about the boring snotty-nosed bimbo and pretty much ignored MacLaine. As the movie progresses we find out that Sinatra finds MacLaine to be too dumb for him, just as the blond bimbo finds Sinatra to be too low-class for her. There is a certain snobbism and disdain to be detected in the script regarding MacLaine. MacLaine is treated as worthless by everyone, while the blond bimbo is treated as a princess and an intellectual; the ironic truth is that the latter's character comes off as rather dumb and not at all as intellectual; her behaviour, comments, and opinions are mostly clichéd, silly, confused, pretentious, and primitive. At least MacLaine's character KNOWS that she (MacLaine) is dumb. There is another irony that I didn't fail to notice: Sinatra had trouble finding an ending for his latest story - much like the writer of this movie, and that's why he came up with the corny, crappy finale.<br /><br />The film basically has a solid cast, and the photography is nice, but the script, though sometimes okay, relies to heavily on silly nonsense instead of on reality-based characters and events.<br /><br />If you're interested in reading my "biographies" of Shirley MacLaine and other Hollywood intellectuals, contact me by e-mail.
Poor performances by Sinatra, Martin and Hyer. Grossly underdeveloped supporting characters. Annoying talky with no real plot. Ending leaves you flatter than a pancake, with more loose ends than you could tie up in four sequels (that is, if you even cared about these wooden characters). MacLaine is the only real asset. That penultimate sequence in which the "Chicago hood" searches for the Sinatra character is laughable. The music in that sequence also is poor. And in the final scene when Martin's character removes his hat for the woman he called a "pig," almost made me go outside and find a stone to throw through my television screen.
Vincente Minelli movies are usually worth your time; Meet Me in St Louis, The Bad and the Beautiful. I awaited this movie with great interest. But what a disappointment. <br /><br />Some Came Running is scene after scene of go-nowhere fatalism. Sinatra is a sad sack, returned from the war to find disappointing family relationships, a disappointing floozy hanging on him, living in disappointing digs as a gal persuades him to finish his disappointing writing project. The movie has a big dramatic finish in which a disappointing villain catches up with Sinatra and MacClane and something disappointing happens. The sequence is intended to be tension-filled but Minelli is no Hitchcock; he gets so distracted by pretty colors, he doesn't notice the scene is a wheezing cliché and the characters are so thinly-drawn and poorly developed we don't particularly care that they get shot. (especially MacClane) But that's the only real cinematography in the project. Otherwise we look at constipated characters standing around bars & living rooms getting on each others nerves for two hours. Hell IS other people, apparently.<br /><br />There is nothing going on in this movie. The dilemma of soldiers returning to displacement and indifference after WW2 is handled more deftly in 'The Best Years of Our Lives.' And either of two Inge products, 'Splendor in the Grass' and 'Picnic' covers the desperation of being trapped in a dead-end town, with much more poignance.
Frank Sinatra plays a no-goodnik ex-soldier and frustrated writer, hard-living and hard-drinking, who returns to his Midwestern hometown and reunites with his estranged brother (Arthur Kennedy), now the town big-shot with a disinterested wife and headstrong daughter. Frank gets involved with gambler Dean Martin, uneducated flooze Shirley MacLaine, and has some run-ins with the law, but what he really wants to do is write and settle down with a good woman. Over-simplified drama verging on soap opera, with a role for MacLaine that is by turns overly 'colorful' and embarrassingly sentimental (her drunken belting on "After You've Gone" is however the film's highlight, and is expertly handled). Director Vincente Minnelli oversees it in straight-forward fashion, but he's in surprisingly glum spirits and most of the big scenes are flat or dense. The picture looks incredibly handsome in widescreen, with a nice eye for detail and composition, but the story and these characters are stuck in the dregs. ** from ****
OK, I have watched the original French version. But I can't imagine this being better with subtitles.<br /><br />All I have to say that this is the most boring movie I have seen in a long time. There are almost no redeeming qualities to this film. That's why I can't understand all the positive reviews. It might be realistic in a sense but some real stories are best left untold.<br /><br />I usually like slow paced movies as long as it serves the purpose of the movie. Tarkovsky's Solaris is extremely slow paced but it allows introspection and sets the mood of the film for example. But in this case, the movie is just filed with mindless dialog that manage to tell us little about the characters. None of which I could identify with or care for. In a lot of the scenes I found myself thinking: "When are they going to shut up"? The acting was pretty bad. Not in an overacting obvious kind of way. But It seems none of the actors cared about their characters and they all looked like they wanted to be elsewhere in most of the scenes. This might be due to the uninspired dialog they were given. Also the whole flow of the movie felt quite mechanical. Going from one scene to the next. It seems this movie was just written (badly) but never directed.<br /><br />This is one of the few films that I can say generated no emotional response from any of the scenes. No suspense, no fear, no anticipation, no sorrow, no introspection, no intellectual stimulation, no interest what so ever.<br /><br />A perfect example of what I call an anti-movie.
Please, spare me of these movies that teach us that crime is fun and justified. Couple that with a vacuous script with an intense desire to be a Farrelly or a Coen brother, plus the lives of yet ANOTHER group of supposedly high school age people acting out their Dawson Creek-brand teen angst complete with a GenXYZ soundtrack that woefully tries to make the movie "feel" cool and, we have intensely and painfully inept satire.<br /><br />This isn't even watered-down 'Ferris Bueller'...I'd rather watch a traffic light change.<br /><br />Only one scene stands out as anywhere near worth the price of admission: when the Betty Masked girls meet a Richard Nixon Masked friend. It's a surreal moment. Priceless even.<br /><br />But for the rest of it, I'd rather have a toothache. At least I can apply some Benzocaine(tm) to stop the pain.
I tried to watch this movie three separate times. The night I rented it. Got through about 20 minutes hoping it would be better if I had a night's rest. Watched 15 more the next day, almost vomited at how stupid it was... It wasn't even funny stupid which is sometimes a fun movie to watch but this movie was just crap with a capital S (if you know what I mean in the censored world we live in). And finally on the third day I watched over an hour of the dumb thing and I didn't enjoy one single moment! Not even one. How did this script get greenlighted. Oh boy!<br /><br />G<br /><br />1/10 - the one is for cheerleaders... they deserve at least something for all their hardwork.
I can't believe it that was the worst movie i have ever seen in my life. i laughed a couple of times. ( probably because of how stupid it was ) If someone paid me to see that movie again i wouldn't. the plot was so horrible , it made no sense , and the acting was so bad that i couldn't even tell if they were trying. that movie was terrible rating: F
I wanted to see this movie ever since it was first advertised on TV. I went to Tinsel Town to see it Last Night at 7:40. I regret the day that wasted my ticket on this trash when I could of saw something better. The beginning was all a bunch sex trash and cliches. They exaggerated the way love works in reality. All of the girls were stereo types. The boyfriend was too stupid for his own age. The passing gases that the pregnant girl kept having barely got any laughs. The bank robbery was completely boring with gags that have been used in other movies. Their getaway car was an old beat up Chevy van that they claimed that had no breaks. Hey why didn't they get nice girlish vehicle for the robbery instead? It might have boosted the audience opinion about the movie. This movie was very low low low low low budgeted since nothing in there was damaged or destroyed. This movie had a lot of stuff in it that would drive Christian people nuts. Hey I even expected a car chase scene because all bank robbing movies have car chases but I but there was never any. So I rate this movie b which stands for low budgeted and 1 out of ten stars.
Sugar &Spice is one of the worst movies of 2001. The film tries to cross Heathers and Bring It On and fails . When I saw last January I was so disgusted by the film that I walked and talked on my cell phone to my girlfriend for the last half hour of the movie. I've heard that the DVD has a director's cut maybe I'll check it out, but this PG-13 trash movie is s*** and the worst kind of s***. Maybe if the film had some T&A that would've have made it okay. But the gags are lame and the acting is horrible. Worse than a Troma film.
The storyplot was okay by itself, but the film felt very bubbly and fake. It also had the worst ending. They were probably going for a surprise ending, but all it did was leave me the question of what the whole point of the story was. All other teen movies are better than this one.
This movie looked like it was going to be really funny. I was very excited to see it but was very disappointed. It was very unrealistic. The plot was also pretty weak. I was expecting it to be really funny but the jokes weren't even that good. I was also really disappointed with the ending. I would not recommend this movie to anyone.
I always get frustrated by films that were obviously written by one gender. Especially when they obviously don't do enough research to find out when something not only doesn't ring true, but rings blatently false.<br /><br />The scene I am remembering is the one in the bathroom where Jack tells his football teammates that he got Diane pregnant. In no way, shape, or form would a guy ever cheer another guy getting a girl pregnant in high school. They might cheer about the guy having sex with the hot cheerleader, but I can also guarantee that the first the football team heard about it would not be at a urinal.<br /><br />It was obvious that this film didn't take itself so seriously, and it wasn't hideously bad, but come on!
Ah yes, the VS series, MVC2 being the pinnacle. It's been said before, this is what you get when half of the crew fell asleep on the job, unfortunately the gameplay half did. Don't get me wrong, this is fun, but you get tired of mashing buttons. As for the plot summary, AHAHAHAHAHAAAAA... There is no plot. Beat that guy at the end and win! Eh, who plays this by their self anyway?
I'm not going to criticize the movie. There isn't that much to talk about. It has good animal actions scenes which were probably pretty astonishing at the time. Clyde Beatty isn't exactly a matinée idol. He's a little slight and not particularly good looking. But that's OK. He's the man in that lion cage. We know that when he can't take the time away from his lions to tend to his girlfriend, he will end up on an island with her and have to save the day. Someone said earlier that it is a history lesson. The scenes at the circus are of another day, especially the kids who hang around. I didn't realize that even back in the thirties, they sailed on three masted schooners. It looked like something out of 1860. I guess that's the stock footage they had. No wonder the thing got wrecked. They're always talking about fixing her up. There's even a dirigible. It tells us a little about male female relationships at the time, a kind of giggly silliness. But if you don't take it too seriously, you can have fun watching it.
The only reason I watched this film was because I had recently read Robert Hough's less than perfect, but interesting, fictionalised account of the life of Big Cat trainer Mabel Stark. Beaty appears as a character in the book, in a less than flattering light.<br /><br />I hadn't realised until checking the movie out later on the IMDb that it was originally a serial. Whoever edited the original running time of 233 minutes down to the 68 minuted version available on DVD has done a hell of a good job. The shortened version plays just as well as any B movie of the period despite the many 'duh-what?' moments. For instance are we really expected to believe our hero dug that twenty foot deep tiger trap in a morning without even getting his jodhpurs dirty? Looking over the chapter titles I see that number five is titled "Gorilla Warfare" and number eleven is called "The Gorilla". There were no gorillas at all in the movie. I guess that's where some of the cuts were made.<br /><br />Historicaly interesting.
Also known in a different form as "House of Exorcism," this messy<br /><br />little film takes itself so seriously as to kill any entertainment value<br /><br />whatsoever.<br /><br />The spare plot involves European tourist Elke Sommer who has a<br /><br />chance run in with Telly Savalas, who looks just like the devil she<br /><br />saw on a fresco in the square. Sommer is given a ride to a<br /><br />mysterious house in the country, where Savalas happens to be<br /><br />butler. There, she is mistaken for a long dead woman, and the real<br /><br />soap opera theatrics begin. The house's blind matriarch's<br /><br />husband had an affair with the dead woman, who was the<br /><br />matriarch's son's fiancee. The couple who gave Sommer the ride?<br /><br />Well, the woman is giving the chauffeur, uh, "back seat driving<br /><br />lessons," and the husband knows and does not care. Eventually,<br /><br />most of the cast is killed, Sommer is drugged and raped,<br /><br />escapes, and the viewer is taken to a climax on board an empty<br /><br />airplane...which must have resembled the empty theaters this<br /><br />thing played in.<br /><br />The alternate version of this, "House of Exorcism," has scenes<br /><br />added involving a priest.<br /><br />The VHS copy of this, from Elite Entertainment, is crystal clear and<br /><br />letterboxed. There are "extras" after the end credits; deleted sex<br /><br />and gore scenes.<br /><br />Mario Bava's direction is fast and furious, but his screenplay is<br /><br />awful. There are half baked ideas, abandoned plotlines, and<br /><br />stunning conveniences that do nothing more than propel this thing<br /><br />in some sort of forward direction. You have life like dummies for<br /><br />practice funerals, the blind matriarch does not act all that blind,<br /><br />and Savalas is given the same lollipops he had in "Kojak," (who<br /><br />haunts ya, baby?).<br /><br />The project seems like they had two name stars, then wrote the<br /><br />script quickly, something that happens in Hollywood on a daily<br /><br />occurrence now. Savalas looks completely lost, delivering his<br /><br />lines haltingly, and wishing his character had not died in "The Dirty<br /><br />Dozen." Sommer runs around and screams and gasps a lot, but<br /><br />her character is a blank, I use the term "character" loosely. The<br /><br />only thing we know about her is her name.<br /><br />This is a real weird film, and your reaction to it might depend on<br /><br />how heavily you are into Eurohorror, and Kojak. I for one cannot<br /><br />recomment "Lisa and the Devil."<br /><br />This is unrated, and including all the extras at the end of the VHS<br /><br />copy, contains strong physical violence, sexual violence, strong<br /><br />gore, strong female nudity, male nudity, sexual content, and adult<br /><br />situations
This movie was bizarre, completely inexplicable, and hysterical to watch with friends while drinking in a big empty house. I really love the opening stuff with Lisa wandering about lost in a gorgeous city. I want to be a beautiful stranger lost in some exotic European locale, though maybe not in a low budget horror flick. Definitely get the ending where there are the strangely non-sexual sex scenes that were cut out (in my DVD copy anyway). Don't attempt to understand it, just go along and watch out for the weird bits...which is everything. Don't watch this if you actually want plot or characterization or anything at all to make sense. Pretty beautiful, though you may just give up on this and decide to watch an actual horror movie, like say, Dead Alive.
This is the page for "House of Exorcism", but most people have confused this film with the Mario Bava masterpiece, "Lisa & the Devil", which explains the ridiculously high rating for this, "House of exorcism." When "Lisa & the Devil" was shown at film festivals in the early 70's, it was a critical success. Audiences responded well to that gorgeous, Gothic horror film. Unfortunately it was a bit ahead of it's time, and was considered too unusual, and not commercial enough for mass consumption. No distributor would buy it. So producer Alfredo Leone decided to edit 'Lisa', seemingly with a chainsaw, by removing just about half of the original film, and adding new scenes, which he filmed two years after the original product! It is important to note that Bava had little to do with these new, hideous additions, so technically "House of Exorcism" is not a Bava film. The original product is a slow, dreamy, classy production. A few minutes into the film, the viewer is jarred out of this dream world, as suddenly we see Lisa, (two years older, and with a very different haircut), begin to writhe on the ground, making guttural sounds and croaking epitaphs like "suck my co@k", etc. Subtle, huh? And the film continues like this, jumping back and forth between a beautiful, visual film, and a grade Z "Exorcist" rip-off. Leone was trying to incorporate these shock scenes, while keeping some semblance of a story intact. He failed miserably. When the choice was made to basically destroy "Lisa and the devil", Bava himself refused, saying that his film was too beautiful to cut. He was right, and it must have been quite sad for this artist to see all his work destroyed and flushed down the toilet. It was many years before the original "Lisa and the Devil" was seen again, re-surfacing on late night television. I had seen "lisa" long before i saw this new version, and it was downright disturbing to witness one of my favorite films "vandalised" in this way. Worth seeing only for curiosity sake. Otherwise avoid this insidious disaster like the plague.
This movie is really bad. The acting is plain awful except Michael Ironside. I don't get the story. Richard Grieco is the only survivor after a fight between two Mc-gangs. He comes to a town and suddenly he is choosened to fight against the bad people who wants indian-land. At the cover it said he was a indian himself that returned too his home-town, I didn't hear that in the movie, if so it wasn't clear.<br /><br />Richard Grieco was one hell of a bad actor. Stiff and ugly. He said his lines like it too. And we wouldn't talk about Sean Young, she hasn' been any of my favourite actors but in this movie she plays a indian women who falls in love with Bolt (Grieco). She is awful.<br /><br />When I rented it I choosed between this and Subterfuge with Amanda Pays. I choosed this one because of Michael Ironside was in the cast. Maybe I should have taken Subterfuge.<br /><br />Don't see this unless you think Richard Grieco looks tough on a motorbike with sunglasses.<br /><br />I will soon uptade the cast-list because I have it at home. I wrote it down after I seen the movie.
I thought the movie was a poor documentary. Nothing of substance was discussed. It seemed to cheapen the ideas and did not provide anything new. The film lacked wonder or romance or anything that would really drive one to science. Most scientists appeared "stereotyped" and sometimes weird. A woman said that her awards didn't matter a whole lot, only children that were helped. She said that after a 10 minute scene where she explained all her awards. Playing "humble scientist", are we? "I have equations dancing in my head," another said. I don't see how that explains anything to us. It hasn't covered significant effects of science on our culture. Politics of science were barely touched.<br /><br />Not a bad flick for a 10-14 year-olds. Other than that, I felt it was boring and unrevealing.<br /><br />4/10
When I look for new cars, I expect not to be shown boats. When I drink fountain Coke, I should expect that the drink contains Coke. When I watch a movie that embellishes itself with the name of en excellent scientist, I expect that it is in some way relevant to that person or their work. This could have been people discussing my grannys' diary. The material covered is relevant only in that they vaguely tirade science. I fell asleep the first time I tried to watch it, & the second time I stopped watching it.<br /><br />I love science & documentaries. I would rather watch them over the latest blockbuster. However this falls far short of providing anything worth your time – Avoid at all costs.
you have a strong stomach. Holden was actually 55 years old at filming but looked near 70 and he only lived another 8 years. At one point Holden said, "I am over twice your age." Okay, try triple grandpa! The "old enough to be your father" theme they were shooting for didn't work. Granted senior citizens sometimes wind up with legal teens. More power to them, but that doesn't mean I want to watch it. It's not a matter of judgment but the digestive track. I like my food where it belongs. Lenz is fun to watch and the 70s cars, clothes, furniture, etc. make it worth it if it comes on cable late at night and you want to watch something to wind down for bed. It would have been nice to see the blonde friend of Lenz, the one who hocked her guitar, get more scenes. Pleasingly spacey... Who was this chick? I'm going to try and find out.
Trifling romantic drama directed by Clint Eastwood about the loving relationship which grows between a comely hippie (Kay Lenz) and a Los Angeles real estate agent in his golden years (William Holden, surprisingly affable within this highly-concocted arrangement). The script is slight but not without some thoughtful passages; still, the scenario is such a middle-aged cliché by now that most of the picture comes off as puerile. It may have worked much better with different leads: Holden and Lenz don't match up well (her stature is so slight he seems to tower over her), making their intimate scenes less stirring than simply uncomfortable. Dated, blurry-romantic, and mostly unmemorable. ** from ****
This is a terrible film, and not one scene has an ounce of truthful emotion. The characters are uninflected, obviously drawn, predictable and the story line is obvious and typical Hollywood wish fulfillment.<br /><br />William Holden (so sad to see him in this role) was 55 when this film was made, but he's playing someone in his early 40s and looks like he's in his 60s. Kay Lenz was 20 and was scripted to find him irresistibly attractive. I think the dog they found by the side of the road was sexier and had more life than their erotic connection.<br /><br />Holden's character--the same age as Clint Eastwood when he directed this film, (not) coincidentally--is placed with obvious trappings of 60s pre-hippie cool: the bachelor pad, the swinging hi-fi, the lunches at Yamashiro. But the film is ridiculously uncool, a clanging claptrap of old fogies desperately wishing that the free spirits they saw on Sunset and in Laurel Canyon would find them and their big honkin' cars sexy.<br /><br />Ugh. Youth culture was never that desperate. And I shudder to think that Bill Holden was so desperate for youth that he took this embarrassing part.
The only thing that surprises me more than the number of people who liked this movie is that it was directed by Clint Eastwood, whose work I admire immensely. The leads had absolutely no chemistry. Not for a second could I believe that there was anything deeper than lust between them. The story just didn't ring true. Add to that stilted conversation, tons of stereotypes, and an incredibly slow plot that basically leads nowhere, and you've got yourself a real stinker. Kay Lenz's nude scenes might be worthwhile for those seeking some salacious fare, but otherwise this is a colossal waste of time. My thoughts as I watched the movie was that itwould have been better titled "Cheesy."
This ludicrous film offers the standard 1970's "hippie mentality" in a nut shell and bores us in the process. Its an attempt to rationalize absurd marriages of young, innocent women with old age sex fiends and wash ups. A naive young hippy played by the waif-like ( Kay Lenz ) hitch hikes and sleeps with all the wrong guys, and then one day she meets the ridiculous (Holden), already in old age, hard liquor drinking and washed up as an actor, and she decides that she is in "love" with him. If you think that is superficial, the whole film encapsulates such scenes. She keeps saying how much she "loves" him and she only met him, it wears thin and really quick. I couldn't help but laugh throughout the film. Its obvious she's just using him as a meal ticket but the director is immature enough to think we are going to buy that there is actually any love taking place. A disgusting scene is where the two are naked and having sex, I had to fast forward it because it almost inspired me to vomit. A corny offering of music from the 70's is also spread through the film. Avoid this if you can. Grade D.
One star for the "plot". One star for the acting. One star for the dubbing into squeaky-voiced American. Five stars for Monica Broeke and Inge Maria Granzow, with their propensity for taking all their clothes off. And ten out of ten for the divine Emmanuelle Béart, two years before she made 'Manon des sources'. Béart also undresses a couple of times, but even fully-clothed her presence is enough to make this film eminently watchable. Watch out for the scene where she tells her friend about the three "first times" for a girl. It's corny, but still far more erotic than the rather laughably choreographed "love scenes" featuring Broeke, Granzow and Patrick Bauchau. Incidentally, the cinematography is not great; the stills for the closing credits are a better indication of what David Hamilton is capable of.
This film makes you really appreciate the invention of the fast forward button on your remote control. It's exquisite boredom in beautiful pictures. For once Hamilton goes relatively easy on soft focus shots. However, what I found hard to take about the film was that although Anja Schüte was about 19 when it was shot the girls are portrayed as much younger than they actually are. This whole Lolita thing especially as there is an older man involved leaves me rather uneasy. The heroine is actually shaved in the pubic area in order to make her look even younger than she is. Come on, sex is a nice past time- between consenting adults. Another thing I found odd was that neither Beart nor Schüte have a nude scene in the film, well, not a proper one at least.
This is complete and absolute garbage, a fine example of what a BAD movie is like, this can't be appealing to anyone, not even b-movie fans. Do not, I repeat, DO NOT waste precious time of your life on this piece of trash. Bad acting, bad directing, horrible (but I mean really horrible) script, and complete lack of an idea as to what entertainment (of any form) is. I bought the DVD for 3 dollars, I swear I could almost pay someone to take it. Burning it would not be enough for what this movie did to me. I like b-movies, the killer toys, the weird lagoon monsters, but this is nowhere near. You know those movies that are so bad they are funny? Not even. Just plain old pathetic.
In theory, films should be a form of entertainment. While this excludes documentaries and other experimental forms of film-making; most movies, specially genre films, must not only tell it's story or message, they must entertain their target audience in some way. All this just to say that in my opinion a bad movie is not a movie with low production values or low-budget, a bad movie is one that is boring.<br /><br />"Hellborn" or "Asylum of the Damned" as is known in the U.S., is a bad movie simply because it is just not involving, and irremediably boring and tiresome. While it has a very good premise, it is just poorly developed and the mediocre acting doesn't make things better. On another hands the film probably could had been a fine or even classic B-movie, but here it is just a bad attempt at film-making.<br /><br />Director Philip J. Jones tells the tale of James Bishop (Matt Stasi), a young psychiatry resident, who just got his dream job at St. Andrew Mental Hospital; but the old asylum seems to hide a secret. After the mysterious death of some patients and the constant rumors of satanic practices, James decides to find out what is going on; only to find the incredulity of his boss, Dr. McCort (Bruce Payne), who believes that Bishop is going as insane as his patients.<br /><br />While the premise is quite interesting, the execution of the film leaves a lot to be desired. In an attempt of making a supernatural psychological thriller, Jones goes for the easy way out and makes a movie filled with every cliché of the genre. Of course, there are lots of great movies that are also filled with clichés; but in "Hellborn" every single one is wasted and turned into a cheap jump scare to keep things moving, resulting in a boring and predictable storyline.<br /><br />The acting is quite mediocre for the most part, with one big exception: Bruce Payne gives a top-notch performance that makes the movie look unworthy of such good acting. Matt Stasi is very weak as the lead character and the rest of the cast make forgettable performances.<br /><br />Despite all this flaws, one thing has to be written about "Hellborn"; it has a visual look very good for the budget and very similar to modern day big-budget Hollywod "horror" productions. Also, the make-up and prosthetics are done very nicely and the designs for the main antagonist are quite good. Sadly, the rest of the Special Effects are awful and outdated, making a huge contrast with the make-up & prosthetics.<br /><br />"Hellborn" is a movie with a few good things outnumbered by its serious flaws with terrible results. Hardcore horror or b-movie fans may be interested by its premise but it is a boring and tiresome experience. 3/10
I've seen some very terrible horror movies in my time, and while this isn't the worst of the bunch, it's certainly in the lower half. The script starts off OK. A young doctor goes to a hospital as an intern, hoping it will vault him to a better job for him and his future wife. Cute huh? The movie then heads straight into the toilet when you realize that something is killing patients. Turns out that there's a demon on the basement that's harvesting people's souls. It's the job of the 1 doctor, 1 nurse, and 1 security guard in the entire hospital staff to drag this mental patient downstairs, do a ritual that pretty much just involves cutting the tongue out, and then allowing the haunted house prop of a demon to come out and steal his soul through the magic of cheesy special effects. At this point the movie gets so ridiculously stupid, I was begging for it to be over. There was still an hour to go. It looked like a half an hour "Tales From the Crypt" episode that somehow got stretched into an hour and a half crap-fest. From Tiny Lister doing his best John Coffey (The Green Mile) impersonation to Tracy Scoggins playing the stereotypical frigid Nurse Ratchet, this movie fails in every possible level. I gave this 2 stars for only TWO reason. 1) His fiancé is pretty hot, she eased the pain a little towards the end and 2) The movie actually looks OK, a lot better than the current trend of horror movies being made with wal-mart quality home cameras.<br /><br />In the end, avoid this turd even if you have the Blockbuster movie pass (which I do, and I still felt cheated). As a bonus drinking game, you and your buddies take a shot every time Matt Stasi (Dr. James Bishop) shakes his head while talking. You'll be drunk 15 minutes into the movie.
The cast although nothing special, all do an OK job, the story seems like a good idea, the script is bearable and the end has quite a good twist; so what's wrong with it?<br /><br />For a start the special effects are really bad (if this was made in the 60's) it might look OK but in 2003 there is just no excuse for visuals as poor as this. It makes me laugh that the DVD cover claims very proudly 'from the special effects creator of Jeepers Creepers'.<br /><br />Secondly the direction is weak, this film just does not capture the essence of the story, A doctor feeding the hospital inmates souls to the Devil (or demon type creature) should be tense or frightening; it simply isn't.<br /><br />All in all this is a pretty poor film, and although bearable and at times mildly entertaining, it is still probably best left alone.<br /><br />A rather sad 4/10
Hellborn starts as a young psychiatric doctor named James Bishop (Matt Stasi) takes up his residency at St. Andrews insane asylum, or 'mental illness facility' as they like to call it there. With nearly 600 patients Bishop meets his boss Dr. McCort (Bruce Payne) & is put to work, he gets ward 'A' where some seriously deranged & dangerous patients are held. If that wasn't bad enough during his first round of visits Bishop finds a dead body & has threatening sounding graffiti messages sprayed over his room. Bishop starts to hear stories from the patients about sinister goings-on at the asylum & soon finds out for himself the stories have more than a hint of truth about them...<br /><br />Known as Asylum of the Damned in the US this supernatural horror film was directed by Philip J. Jones & I sort of liked it but in the end there were too many unsatisfying elements for me to totally enjoy it. The script by Matt McCombs takes itself pretty seriously & I quite liked the basic idea behind & some of it's ideas but there are a few things which work against it. For a start the film is just too slow, the story is pretty good & doesn't give itself away too early but it takes an absolute age for it to get going & I was rapidly losing interest with each passing minute. I also thought the so-called twist ending was far too predictable & the ending itself far too bland & forgettable. It's a shame because I liked the story, the character's, the setting & some of the ideas but it's simply too slow & frankly dull to keep one entertained over it's 90 minute duration. It's one of those films which I would like to recommend but in all honesty I can't.<br /><br />Director Jones does a good job, this is actually a well lit & quite atmospheric film. I wouldn't say there's anything scary here. I'm not sure if Hellborn was shot in a real insane asylum but if it wasn't they did a great job on the sets & the film looks pretty good overall. Unfortunately there is a real lack of gore or action, there are two hand-print shaped wounds & a severed tongue & that's it, absolutely nothing else in terms of blood or gore which has to go down as a disappointment. Depending on who you believe & which review you read the special effects are either the worst ever or very good, well as a devoted watcher of low budget horror I was very impressed with the effects especially the demon thing which looks mightily impressive & is a man in a suit type effect rather than a terrible CGI computer graphic although it's an impressive suit. It all depends on your expectations I suppose.<br /><br />Technically the film is good, it looks nice enough & the lack of CGI computer effects is something I welcome. The acting isn't great though, it certainly could have been better.<br /><br />Hellborn is a film that disappointed me, there were some good stuff about it but at the same time some terrible stuff which unfortunately outweighs the good. I sort of liked parts of it but as a whole 90 minute viewing experience I'd find it totally impossible to recommend to anyone.
Because others have gone to the trouble of summarizing the plot, I'd like to mention a few points about this film. There may be spoilers here; I don't care enough to filter them out.<br /><br />- Given the film's low budget, the creature design was quite good. It's actually nice to see a direct-to-video horror film that's not slathered with awful CGI. Unfortunately the digital film quality's quite grainy in places, and it's most noticeable in the well-lit white halls of the asylum.<br /><br />- Ridiculous lighting design plagues parts of this film, to say nothing of the variations in the passage of time. I understand the director might have been trying to simulate dementia, but in order for this to be effective consistent time flow needed to be established. As-is, it merely seems amateurish.<br /><br />- Plot twists were numerous but consistently predictable. I neither had a doubt in my mind of the identity of the robed cultists, nor of the fact that some kind of lame evil-trumps-good development would surface at the end.<br /><br />- This may seem like quibbling, but characters in this film reliably fail to employ any kind of common sense. First of all, regulatory commissions would be all over a mental health center that unilaterally declared all patient and employee deaths cardiac arrest-induced. Why would the head psychiatrist also be capable of performing autopsies? Why wasn't a plot point made of these impressive qualifications, or of his introduction to his odd choice of religion? What's the background? What's supposed to make us care about anyone in this? And just as importantly, who in their right mind would go through the introduction to the place, see everything that was so frighteningly wrong with it, and then conclude that it was still a fine place to pursue a residency? This film didn't even respect its characters enough to give their intelligence the benefit of the doubt.<br /><br />Bottom line: See The Wicker Man instead.
If I have to give this movie a score on a linear scale, then I have to give it a low score 3/10.<br /><br />But it was entertaining, and there are several good things to say about the movie.<br /><br />The psychiatrist candidate James Bishop is assigned to St. Andrews Hospital for his resident, and is exited and eager to "change the world".<br /><br />From the beginning of the movie you know that the hospital is hiding an evil truth, but James thinks he can make a difference and doesn't recognise this evil. <br /><br />The story builds fairly well, you know all the time that there is a truth in what the patients are telling about some resident evil, and wonder when and how James will discover this. Also when the break comes, James is in a way hunted by the evil, and you feel some suspense until "the fight" is over.<br /><br />Add an innocent beautiful girlfriend that arrives at the worst possible time and other standard horror elements, and you get the picture.<br /><br />The character buildup is actually fairly good, you are introduced to most of the people that gets killed, some of them you "get to know".<br /><br />The film sets an unpleasant scene, this is also done fairly well. There are mysteries that are unveiled - in an acceptable way.<br /><br />The main character, James is very believable - the story about an eager student starting to work is good in this setting.<br /><br />What kills this movie is: * Stupid special effects - a modern version of "Plan 9 from outer space"-type bad (the evil monster looks like a red scarecrow) * Some bad acting (or probably very few takes when filming) - The main characters sometimes acts badly, and somtimes good. * The sound is at times very cheap.<br /><br />I kept thinking "I could make a movie like this with my home video camera" throughout the film.
I was fooled to rent this movie by its impressive cover. Alas. It is easily one of the worst movies ever made. Judging by the acting of the film characters, it's more a comedy than a horror film. No surprise why no one else has written comments on the imdb. Avoid it.
Don't even waste your time, let alone pay rental for this piece of dreck! How it got made is beyond me. (I don't know why there's a minimum of 10 lines... I've already summarized this trashy movie, but, oh well...) The acting was awful, like they all needed lessons. The plot was weak, the ending... Feh! I think the cinematography was the only thing that didn't totally suck... well, maybe the sound was minimalistically OK. The one good thing is, if they could make this movie, even make some money with it, there may be hope for any screenwriter with a REAL idea. So, you-all take heart! I guess the same holds true of actors... if these people actually got paid, then you can, too!
James Bishop (Matt Stasi) goes to a `mental illness facility' for a medical residence assignment with Dr. McCort (Bruce Paynes). There, he realizes that many interns are being killed by `The Ripper', who takes their souls to the devil, in a cult promoted by Dr. McCort. This story is so absurd and imbecile that it is impossible to write a summary. The dialogs are so ridiculous, specially when the character of Helen, the blonde fiancé of James Bishop arrives in the asylum, that it is almost unbelievable that a writer has had the courage to include them in a screenplay. And what about the return of James to the hospital to bring the files of the dead patients? And the cast, composed of ham actors and actresses? Honestly, I do not know what or who is the worst in this film: the screenplay, the director or the cast. The correct answer certainly is all of them. I saw this flick on cable television, and I am astonished how can a producer spend money in such a garbage. This horror movie becomes very funny considering the absurd of the plot. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): `Demônio' (`Devil')
I just watched this movie. In one word: sucky! The story is bad, the acting is, if possible, even worse. The movie has one or two nice moments, but thats it and having those two small good moments, doesn't make up for anything in between, before or after those moments. A montrocity of a movie, not even worth watching on tv...
This movie seemed like it was going to be better than it ended up being. The cinematography is good, the acting seemed solid, the dialogue wasn't too stiff... but then about twenty minutes in there's this long scene with a Doctor who you know is actually a patient at the asylum pretending to be a Doctor - and it just goes south from there.<br /><br />On top of that, the demon is about the silliest looking hellspawn since the Godzilla-looking thing in Curse of the Demon. There's also some odd demon worshippers who wear masks that look like the exploding teens from the beginning of Logan's Run.<br /><br />In the end, the cinematography couldn't save this movie. Despite some pretty solid performances by the actors, the story just doesn't go anywhere. I think "Hellbored" would have been a better title for this.
If there was some weird inversed Oscar Academy awards festival this flick would win it all. It has all the gods, excellent plot, extreme special effects coupled with extremely good acting skills and of course in every role there is a celebrity superstar. Well, this could be the scenario if the world was inversed, but it's not. Instead it's the worst horror flick ever made, not only bad actors that seem to read the scripts from a teleprinter with bad dyslexia, but also extremely low on special effects. For example the devil costume (which by the way is a must-see), is something of the most hilarious I've ever seen. Whenever I saw that red-black so called monster on screen I couldn't hold my laugh back. And to top of things it looked like the funny creature was transported by a conveyor-belt.<br /><br />Do not do the same mistake as I did. Checking IMDB seeing that the movie was released in 2003, had less than five votes and thinking: -"Well, it's worth a shot, can't be that bad".<br /><br />Yes it could.<br /><br />I'm not even going to waste more words on this movie.
This had to be one of the most god awful wrestlemanias ever and is only saved by 2 matches. The hardcore match between Edge and Mick Foley, also Vince Mcmahon against Shaun Michaels. The main event between Cena and Triple H was a complete washout and to be honest I nearly fell asleep it was so actionless, the casket match was not worthy of having the Undertaker appear in it and the match between the Boogie Man and Booker T was a complete joke. If you are really a big fan of the WWE and have missed the early days of the WWF and the Wrestlemanias 17 and 19 you'll probably love this. But I found that this Wrestlemania left a lot to be desired.
Pretty crazy whodunit featuring an all black cast trying to figure out who murdered the philandering trumpet player who was just about to go to Hollywood to Make It Big. Was it his wife? His Girlfriend? His Would-Be-Girlfriend? Her Father? His Butler? The newspaper guy? Who knows? And who cares? The result of this is just a little underwhelming, and the actors here don't really get me in a mood to care one way or another finding out. Why snake venom as a weapon? Who knows? Who cares? The music in this is alright, but there's little of it, and most of it is pretty "let's get this over with" This isn't worthy of your time. There are better all-black casted movies out there.
Beautifully photographed and ably acted, generally, but the writing is very slipshod. There are scenes of such unbelievability that there is no joy in the watching. The fact that the young lover has a twin brother, for instance, is so contrived that I groaned out loud. And the "emotion-light bulb connection" seems gimmicky, too.<br /><br />I don't know, though. If you have a few glasses of wine and feel like relaxing with something pretty to look at with a few flaccid comedic scenes, this is a pretty good movie. No major effort on the part of the viewer required. But Italian film, especially Italian comedy, is usually much, much better than this.
In modern day Eastern Europe life is hard and for young women prostitution is one of the only career options and one taken, reluctantly, by Melania. She attracts the attentions of an American, Seymour, who becomes obsessed with her, paying more and more money for time with her until he eventually wants to buy her outright. She has two pimps with differring emotional attachments to her and she is generally passed around like some piece of baggage with no feelings of her own. However, we are in "modern art-house cinema" territory, so conventions like narrative structure, lighting the subject so it can be seen, camera techniques that add to rather than distract from the action and a vaguely consistent plot can all be abandoned. Much of the time I had no idea what was supposed to be happening and very rarely did I care. People began leaving the screening almost before the last latecomers had arrived and I don't think I've ever seen so many people walk out.<br /><br />Images are important to the director - characters slowly emerge from or disappear into a dark screen, we get long lingering shots of nothing in particular and one sex scene takes place in infra-red. In fact for such an unconventional film the sex scenes were remarkably ordinary; missionary positions between naked people in bed abounded and there were no drugs or related weirdness. But perhaps these days being ordinary is unconventional.<br /><br />On the whole, almost entirely without merit.<br /><br />
As a veteran of many, many pretentious French films I thought I'd taken the worst the industry had to offer and was able to stomach anything. But not this. Pointless, relentless, violent, unpleasant, meaningless ... The film has nothing to offer and is random hatred and aggression dressed up as pretentious art. Avoid at all costs.
There is no way to avoid a comparison between The Cat in the Hat and The Grinch Who Stole Christmas, so let's get that part out of the way. First of all, let me start by saying that I think Grinch was an underrated and unappreciated film. Cat was... well, just awful.<br /><br />Jim Carey was cast because he is a brilliant physical comedian, and fearlessly commits to over the top, outrageous characters. Mike Myers fell back on his old bag of tricks.<br /><br />Why, why, why Mike Myers?? The kids could care less, and the Austin Powers demographic isn't going to spy this film. So, what was the studio thinking?<br /><br />The Cat was also apparently related to Linda Richmond. Can we talk? Why a New York Accent? Not entirely consistent with anything Dr. Seuss has ever written. Myers was even allowed to sneak in his Scottish shtick. I wonder how many different voices the director and the studio tried to edit out of before they just gave in and said "as long as you don't say fahklempt', you can keep the accents." Meyers never seemed to find any sort of comfort, either with the costume, make-up, or dialogue.<br /><br />The jokes, what few there were, were crude and age inappropriate. When Myers picks up a garden hoe and delivers to the camera: "dirty ho", everything but the rim shot was missing, and even that wouldn't have helped.<br /><br />The same folks who created 'Whoville', clearly had a hand in the creation of the town and the houses in 'Cat'. The sets and props were very appealing, giving the viewer a much needed distraction from the bad writing, direction, and Myers.<br /><br />There was some fun to be had with Alec Baldwin and Kelly Preston. Dakota Fanning was the only actor who seemed to be aware she was in a movie based on a Dr. Seuss classic, and stayed true to the genre.<br /><br />Call the SPCA. This Cat should be neutered and never be allowed to reproduce again. Please, please, no sequel.
Another of my delves into the bargain bin, this movie gave me exactly what I expected - a load of trashy horror complete with screaming ladies.<br /><br />It all started so well - I liked the little intro with the "newsreel" about the young couple being exposed to a nuclear blast, and was totally absorbed right up until the first person caught fire...<br /><br />From then onwards the film descended into outright silliness, and at times became almost embarrassing to watch. When the heroine turned out to have been afflicted with the same condition as the main character (the ability to light one's own farts without the aid of a match) it seemed almost as if someone had thrown the idea in at the last moment ("that'll be good!" you can almost hear them say...) As for the almost psychic link between the main character and the nuclear power plant, well...<br /><br />The movie came across as cheap tat - if you pay more than £1.50 for it you've been done.
This a fascinatingly awful movie. It make so little sense that it starts to make a kind of weird internal logic of its own. Well, it would if it didn't keep darting off up side-alleys until eventually floundering under the weight of its own indecisiveness. The movie can't make up its mind whether it is a straight forward 'Man Turns Into Monster' flick (like all those 1950s 'THE INCREDIBLE insert verb ING MAN' movies), or a ghastly big business conspiracy theory movie, or a mystical afterlife contact story, or... or what? Take your pick. It's just a mess. Grotesquely over the top and firing off in all directions, leaving loose ends flapping all over the place. It was as if Tobe Hooper had been taking David Lynch pills. Unfortunately he didn't take enough.
how can a director that makes such great films as poltergeist and the texas chainsaw massacre make such rubbish as this? i got this film off a friend and he didnt want it back its so bad. how this can be classed as horror i will never know.<br /><br />2/10
Poor Tobe Hopper. He directed an all time horror classic "Texas Chaimsaw Massacre". Since then everything he's done has been horrible. This is probably the worst...and that's saying a lot. It's about a man (Brad Dourif) who has the ability to make things (and people) catch fire...or something like that. Hardly an original idea (anyone remember "Firestarter"?) It's a real mess...literally EVERYTHING is done wrong! Pathetic acting (even Dourif!), asinine script, loust production values, crappy special effects...everything is BAD!!!!! A must miss...not even good for laughs.
Jeux d'enfants or how the film was wrongly translated into English Love me if You Dare is a film made by stupid people and about stupid people. I just don't know how I could expect something worth a look from a film with such plot: Two stupid ignorant kids make a bet that each of them will do something (certainly extremely idiotic) to prove to each other (wtf?) that they are "cool dudes". I know that i exaggerated some aspects but that is what the entire film is about. They grow older...and instead of realizing that they are just a couple of alienated weirdos continue to perform their crazy things, thinking that they are great people.<br /><br />One could expect such a film from Hollywood, but France? It is even more offensive to watch the film from the country which created Amelie a couple of years ago, which, btw, the film tries to look like but is far, extremely far away from.<br /><br />Avoid. Avoid. Avoid.
I really disliked this movie....mainly because of the main characters! They are both immature, selfish, and self-centered people. They hurt EVERYBODY around them playing their silly game. The visual effects were good but what good are they if there are no characters that you connect with or a story line that is interesting. Am I supposed to be happy when these two psycho people FINALLY consummate their love for each other? <br /><br />After watching this movie I was thinking "This is supposed be the #1 smash from France?"........<br /><br />*spoiler* <br /><br />As for the end: GOOD RIDDANCE! They both deserve each other! <br /><br />
Who could possibly sympathize with these two obnoxious protagonists? What's intended to be a light, frothy comedy about neighbor children who can't give up their childhood game of dare even as they age well into adulhood, comes off more as an exercise in cruelty and petulant self-indulgence. As children, the pair are unbearably precocious; as adults they're intolerably immature. It's a bad combination.
This movie is just boring.<br /><br />It tries to copy some effects borrowed to a creative director like Jeunet in "Amélie Poulain", but it is too much. The dialogs are pretty bad, some of the worst I have ever heard, Guillaume Canet is not convincing (I have almost never found him very convincing), his father in the movie plays very badly, the story is dumb, the ending is... stupid.<br /><br />I think I have not dislike a movie so much since "le pacte des loups" (brotherhood of the wolf) from Christophe Gans (and I watch / see about 80-100 movies a year), but at least that movie had some action and lots of good actors.<br /><br />I had never commented here (only rated), and when I saw the rating and the comments, I thought I had to write something down.<br /><br />I guess we won't have problems to sell the DVD we were offered : not such a bad movie in our (large) collection !!!<br /><br />I am open minded (I watch SF, westerns, drama, comedies, silents, horror, fantasy... movies !), but this movie was so boring that I felt like I had lost one hour and a half.
Ummm, please forgive me, but weren't more than half the characters missing? In the original novel, Valjean is a man imprisoned for 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread and then attempting several times to escape. He breaks parole and is pursued relentlessly by the police inspector Javert. Along the way there are MANY characters that weren't in this version. Some worth mentioning would be Fantine, Cosette, M & Mme. Thenardier, Eponine, Marius, Gavroche, and Enjolras. The only character with the same name is Javert. I was confused and frustrated throughout the whole movie, trying to see how it was in any way connected to Victor Hugo's epic novel.
An innocent man (Steve Guttenberg) has a one-night stand with his boss's wife (Isabelle Huppert). She spots a woman (Elizabeth McGovern) being attacked outside but she can't call the cops because it would blow her marriage to Gutenberg's boss (Paul Shenar). So Guttenberg, honest citizen that he is, when he discovers that another woman was attacked and killed nearby only half an hour later, comes forward and claims to have witnessed the first attack, merely intending to pass on the information given to him by Huppert. Well -- never bear false witness against thy neighbor, as they say.<br /><br />This simple attempt to help the police nab a murderer turns rapidly twisted. When he meets the first near-victim, McGovern, she immediately twigs to what happened, but agrees to keep quiet for the moment. But then Guttenberg finds himself in court, supposed to identify the heavy (Greenquist) and we discover through cross-examination that he is NEAR-SIGHTED and can't identify objects at a distance, let alone faces. (Not that it matters because, after all, he never saw the creep in the first place.) The plot gets practically labyrinthine. Guttenberg winds up the chief suspect when Huppert is murdered too.<br /><br />He barely escapes arrest and holes up with the now-sympathetic McGovern. Guttenberg and McGovern hatch a plan to trap the murderer. She will serve as bait. They'll follow the flagitious creep into one of his seedy haunt and McGovern will act like the doxy that the murderer is attracted to, just to get him to try to kill her. But everything will be okay, see, because not only will Guttenberg keep a close watch on her, and not only will he alert the police a few minutes after she enters this dive, but she will keep a can of mace handy -- just in case.<br /><br />I ask you, the alert viewer, does this scenario unfold as planned? Elizabeth McGovern has a quirkily interesting bone structure. She seems all mandible and tiny mouth at times, but she's vibrant. Steve Guttenberg has hair on his brawn and that's about it. Otherwise he's as helpless as the character he plays. If Isabelle Huppert can act, it isn't evident in this film. The killer is so formed and so groomed that he looks like he's wearing one of those masks of deformity in that Twilight Zone episode about greedy heirs.<br /><br />Didn't the director, Curtis Hanson, go on to make "L.A. Confidential"? That was a nicely done piece of work. Here, everything seems clumsy and contrived, down to the small bit parts. Just before the inevitable violent climax, a uniformed police officer is introduced to delay McGovern's rescue, and the scene is embarrassing to watch. Dick Olsen has a bit part as a late shopper. He's a neat guy and always reliable. Paul Shenar as the cuckolded hubby has a striking face that seems made for the stage and he does a fine job too.<br /><br />That louche joint where McGovern attracts the attention of the murderer, where she plays pool with a couple of hairy apes, was shot at a bar in Carolina Beach, in North Carolina, not far from where I lived. The way the interior is set up, it's clear that this is supposed to be a dangerous and dirty dive. Actually it appears rather more elegant on screen than it did in reality.<br /><br />Overall, this is Hitchcock territory and it brings tears to the eyes to imagine what he would have done with this story.
A pretty obvious thriller-by-numbers, in which the only possible twist turns out to be a hiding to nothing. I was watching principally for the English-language performance by Isabelle Huppert. It wasn't great, but then it was a strange role. I wouldn't be surprised if half her contribution turned out to have been left on the cutting-room floor along with several last minute script re-writes.<br /><br />The acting is the least appealing thing about this film. Steve Guttenburg looks like he's trying to flesh out his role with the charm that everyone's told him he has. There's a sensationally stupid sequence in which it's suggested that his sexual prowess will be able to help treat PTSD. It's an uninteresting performance. Elizabeth McGovern is more of a draw with genuine charm and character but it's small consolation. 3/10
This is, without doubt, one of the worst films I've ever seen...<br /><br />The plot is so full of holes, the story is like a bad remake of a bad suspense movie and the actors sound like were reading directly from the manuscript for the first time. Worst of all is Steve Guttenberg. He plays his character like he was in "Police Academy" - the same foolish womanizer - and that's not suited for a leading man in what should have been a thriller.<br /><br />It's really hard to believe that Hanson would make "L.A. Confidential" ten years later...<br /><br />Avoid this like the plague...
This program is really overrated. A detective like Danny Pino's hot-headed character would have been transferred to the "rubber gun squad" years ago. The whole squad is made up of sanctimonious egomaniacs who judge people whose actions go back decades by the standards of 2007. Every Vietnam veteran character they've ever had has turned out to be the killer, unless it was another Vietnam veteran. There has only been one black murderer, and he was put up to it by his white boss. The only Hispanic killer was a "race traitor" who killed another Hispanic to frame a Hispanic street kid for a crime that (naturally) two rich white kids committed. What a bunch of propaganda. Hey,screenwriters: minorities and poor people commit murder too. Only on this show are most murderers upper-class whites.<br /><br />What's more, the arrests of people in their 70s, 80s, and 90s for crimes they committed 50-60 years ago are a joke. No real-life DA will push for murder one because it means the state will be stuck with their humongous medical bills until they finally kick. The state would be doing their families and insurance companies a favor. The prosecutor will just plead them to involuntary manslaughter and they won't serve a day. The only really old criminals who go to prison are either organized crime figures or ex-Nazis, whose high-profile convictions boost DA's careers.
I hate this programme: not only is the very concept ludicrous, but it tries so hard to be feasible (something that was left out of similar "I confess" ending programmes like, Muder: She Wrote).<br /><br />Sigh. Why is it that the writers can't ever be intelligent enough in this programme to come up with evidence that would stick and win a decision in court?<br /><br />Come on: after X-amount of years of the cases being unsolved, why must EVERY SUSPECT, EVERY EPISODE *CONFESS* (damn it!) to a murder which would otherwise go unsolved?<br /><br />I bet all police wish that criminals were this good sportsmen: "Aw, shucks, officer, you're a bright one - I guess if you've uncovered enough to convince yourself I did it, I may as well admit to it and make it easier for you in court. What can I say? It's a fair cop."<br /><br />Absolute dog s**t and an insult to those of us with with enough brains to even have heard of I.Q.
The first time I watched Cold Case was after it had run for about a year on Danish television. At the time it came to the TV it nearly drowned in 4 or 5 other American crime shows aired roughly the same time.<br /><br />I saw it and I was bored to death. The substandard actors with the self righteous faces and morals were a pain in the behind. The entire premise that so much money was given a team of investigators to solve murders dating back 10-20-30 or even 60 years seems so unlikely.<br /><br />The time is also a factor as they only have 50-60 min to tell the story which means that they get a break through just in the nick of time to solve the case and bring justice to surviving family members, if they are still alive. This combined with the "personal" problems and relations of the investigators which there HAS to be time for leaves the show a complete lackluster.<br /><br />I give it a 2-star rating because of the music i the end which is really the only reason for watching it....which you then of course won't do as that is TOO lame a reason for watching this crap.
This movie is one of the most wildly distorted portrayals of history. Horribly inaccurate, this movie does nothing to honor the hundreds of thousands of Dutch, British, Chinese, American and indigenous enslaved laborers that the sadistic Japanese killed and tortured to death. The bridge was to be built "over the bodies of the white man" as stated by the head Japanese engineer. It is disgusting that such unspeakable horrors committed by the Japanese captors is the source of a movie, where the bridge itself, isn't even close to accurate to the actual bridge. The actual bridge was built of steel and concrete, not wood. What of the survivors who are still alive today? They hate the movie and all that it is supposed to represent. Their friends were starved, tortured, and murdered by cruel sadists. Those that didn't die of dysantry, starvation, or disease are deeply hurt by the movie that makes such light of their dark times.
A response to previous comments made by residents of the region where this motion picture was lensed: One person suggested that the closing and destruction of the Ocean View Amusement Park led to a downturn in the surrounding neighborhoods. This is simply not true. Prior to the construction of Interstate 64, which bypasses the Ocean View area, the primary route for traffic went through the heart of Ocean View. Once the interstate was completed, Ocean View rapidly became a ghost town with businesses closing up and an increase in crime. This led to a huge reduction in revenues for the park, which also faced new competition from nearby Busch Gardens in Williamsburg. Meanwhile, in the past few years, the City of Norfolk has done a remarkable job of fostering redevelopment so that the area has become a sought-after location for construction of high-end housing.<br /><br />It has also been said that the destruction footage of the roller coaster was used in the film "Rollercoaster". This is also untrue. Footage was shot of two coaster cars careening off the ride for that film, but the actual explosions and collapse are exclusive to "Death of Ocean View Park".<br /><br />As to the film itself, the storyline of a "supernatural" force in the water adjacent to the park was certainly silly, but somewhat typical for B-grade movies of the time. With the cast involved, there should be no surprise that the scenery was gnawed in almost every scene by the primary actors. I don't believe this film was intended to be another "Citizen Kane"; I believe Playboy was experimenting with a new non-nude format to determine if this was an area for the company to expand into (apparently not!). A strange force in the water causing strange events in an old amusement park probably sounded good at the conference table, but proved unmanageable in execution. The roller coaster and the rest of the park was destined for the wrecking ball anyway; "let's come up with a weird way to justify an explosive demise!".<br /><br />For the casual movie viewer, this would be a "see once and forget about it" film (except for Diana Canova fans); but for the thousands of people who live in the region and have fond memories of the park, this movie is like a "walk down memory lane" for footage of the park as well as old footage of downtown Norfolk, the first "Harborfest", and Old Dominion University. Even a limited release of this film on DVD would be welcome.
It's obvious that the people who made 'Dead At The Box Office' love B-movie horror. Overt references to the genre are peppered throughout, from stock characters (the authority figure who doesn't believe the monstrous invasion is really happening) to Kevin Smith style discussions to reenacting Duane Jones' last moments from 'Night of the Living Dead' not once but twice.<br /><br />Unfortunately it takes more than love to make a good movie.<br /><br />The staging and shot choice are unexciting and unimaginative. While a common admonition in film school is to avoid 'Mastershot Theatre,' telling the story completely in a wide master shot, here we find the obverse as in several sequences it's hard to figure out the spatial relationships between characters as the story is told in a series of medium shots with no establishing shot to tie it together. Editing is drab and basic and at times there are unmotivated cuts. The lighting is flat and sometimes muddy, making the scenes in the darkened theatre hard to make out (was there lighting, or was this shot with available light only?). Some shots are out of focus. The dialogue is trite, and the performances, for the most part, one-note (Isaiah Robinson shows some energy and screen presence as Curtis, and the fellow playing the projectionist has some pleasantly dickish line readings; Michael Allen Williams as the theater manager and Casey Kirkpatrick as enthusiastic film geek Eric have some nice moments). The premise is silly, even for a B horror flick (Also, it's too bad Dr Eisner was unaware of Project Paperclip - he could've saved himself a lot of trouble!). The 'zombies' are non-threatening, and their makeup is unconvincing (although the chunky zombie trying to get a gumball out of the machine raised a smile). For a zombie fan film, there is very little blood or violence, although what there is, is handled pretty well. The incidental music, while stylistically uneven, is kind of nice at times, and there are some good foley effects. The 'Time Warp' parody was a fun listen, although the images going along with it were less fun to watch. Unfortunately, the looped dialogue sounds flat. Was this shot non-sync (doubtful, it looks like video through and through)? I watched the special introduction by Troma Films' Lloyd Kaufman before the main feature - although it consisted essentially of Kaufman plugging his own stuff and admitting that he hadn't seen the movie while someone mugged in a Toxie mask, its production and entertainment values were higher than 'Dead...' itself (quick aside to whoever put the DVD together - the countdown on film leader beeps only on the flash-frame 2, not on every number plus one more after). For that matter, the vampire film theatregoers are seen watching early in 'Dead...' looked a lot more entertaining than this. Recommendation to avoid, unless you know someone involved in the production or are an ardent Lloyd Kaufman completist (he plays 'Kaufman the Minion' in the film-within-a-film).<br /><br />(Full disclosure: my girlfriend is an extra in this movie. I swear this did not color my review.)
30 seconds into the opening credits, I had this feeling that this was going to be a bad movie, but I didn't know just how bad. Then the actor playing the evil Nazi scientist opens his mouth and my friend and I decide that in order to survive this movie, we'll have to turn the volume down, make up our own dialogue and double the speed on the DVD. But that didn't help. About half way through we turned it off. Now, I've lived through some very bad movies before, both with and without the aide of "Mystery Science Theater 3000" and "Svengoolie," but there are just some movies which I doubt even the Bots can save. The biggest part of the movie that bothered me the most was that the people hypnotized into believing they're zombies had rotting green skin. I guess they were all hypnotized into death, then hypnotized into rotting themselves. Stick to the real B-movie cult classics like "Plan Nine From Outer Space."
When the employees of a theater find an old reel of film, they decide to show it at the midnight screening of Night of the Living Dead, assuming it's an old preview reel. Unfortunately, it's actually an old Nazi mind control experiment that turns the audience into a horde of mindless shuffling zombies.<br /><br />I can't understand the hate for this movie. It is a low budget independent production with a lot of camp, but it doesn't deserve a "1.1" here on IMDb. It is just so much fun. It is obvious that the filmmakers have a reasonable knowledge and love of old horror movies, and they have created an entertaining tribute to them sprinkled with references and homages to a variety of them. It has the feel of such things as Night of the Living Dead (in many ways, very similar), Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness, and various others.<br /><br />I liked the explanation of how the zombies, though really just hypnotized into thinking they are zombies, actually come to have the physical attributes of the living dead-unbelievable, perhaps, but I appreciate the effort by the writers to explain it. The gore effects were decent for the budget, the acting was all right, and the story was entertaining.<br /><br />I liked it.
This wasn't what i wanted to see. I bought this on DVD and under the movie i found myself irritated and turned off the movie for a moment.<br /><br />Heres what i didn't like:<br /><br />1 They were shooting at the father<br /><br />2 The tribes was really annoying<br /><br />3 the dinosaurs (mostly)looked to faked<br /><br />4 The bad scientist well he was annoying<br /><br />5 The picture quality on the DVD was really bad<br /><br />What i DID like: <br /><br />1 The music by Jerry Goldsmith. This music is really great. I have the bootleg soundtrack from this movie. Sadly the sound quality is not good, but its OK for its time.<br /><br />2 The first time we see the dinosaurs they inspire a sort of awe.<br /><br />3 Baby is kinda cute when he is in the water and is playing<br /><br />4 That funny scene with the tent. <br /><br />5 The children who sees this film would hopefully learn that evil always loses.
... and I actually gave it a ZERO on my personal 1-10 scale. I have been attending movies since 1952 and have seen well over 1000 in the theater (I don't rate movies that I see only on TV). This is the ONLY movie I have ever rated ZERO.<br /><br />My wife and I took our four children (then aged 15, 11, 8 and 6) and even the kids thought it was terrible. In fact, it was my daughter (now 26) who alerted me to this site (amazed that the movie was getting an overall rating of 4+).<br /><br />The animation of the dinosaurs looked amateurish at the time (and is even worse in retrospect), the acting (particularly by Sean Young) is atrocious and the story line is simply silly.<br /><br />
I saw the movie as a child when it was released in the theater and it was so bad that it became the makings of a family joke. If the ranking had a zero, this movie would get it. The dinosaurs were awful. The storyline was ridiculous. The acting really doesn't qualify to be called acting. The only reason I even remember the name of the movie so well is because my family still talks about how BAD it really was.
Okay, if you have a couple hours to waste, or if you just really hate your life, I would say watch this movie. If anything it's good for a few laughs. Not only do you have obese, topless natives, but also special effects so bad they are probably outlawed in most states. Seriuosly, the rating of 'PG' is pretty humorous too, once you see the Native Porn Extravaganza. I wouldn't give this movie to my retarded nephew. You couldn't even show this to Iraqi prisoners without violating the Geneva Convention. The plot is sketchy, and cliché, and dumb, and stupid. The acting is horrible, and the ending is so painful to watch I actually began pouring salt into my eye just to take my mind off of the idiocy filling my TV screen.
For those who are too young to know this or for those who have forgotten, the Disney company went almost down the tubes by the end of the 1980s. People were NOT seeing their movies anymore and the company was not producing the usual wholesome material....at least no what people expected. A major problem: profanity.<br /><br />Yes, the idiots running the Disney movies during that decade would produce films with swear words - including the Lord's name in vain, if you can believe that - interspersed in these "family films." In fact that happens twice here in the first 20 minutes! <br /><br />This movie, in addition to the language problems, has a nasty tone to it, too, which made it unlikeable almost right from the beginning. Thankfully, Disney woke up and has produced a lot of great material since these decadent '80s movies. ("Touchstone" is Disney, just under another name.)
I don't think this movie was rated correctly. I took my copy and blacked out the PG rating and wrote down R. I would NOT recommend this for anyone under 17 or 18, whatever the R limit is.<br /><br />Why? It contains a scene in the jungle with several topless Indian women. I don't know about you, but that's not something for little children to be watching. True, it might be the traditional "clothing style" of the African (?) Indians, but... I think partial nudity should give a movie an R rating.<br /><br />I haven't seen the movie recently, but I guess otherwise, it was alright.
A really bad sequel. Part 1 had a lot of funny moments - part 2 is just bad (in a boring way) and obviously made to squeeze money out of the fans.<br /><br />Shame on you, Otto Waalkes!<br /><br />The only slightly amusing moment in the film is Helge Schneider who apparently seems to be pis*ed about the other characters. It's quite easy to identify with him...<br /><br />The screenplay is sloppy/non-existent. The director should do everyone a favor and quit his job immediately. The acting is worse than a 2nd grade school play. <br /><br />Technically the movie is awful as well, but who can blame the cinematographer/sound guys who had to work with such an untalented director?
I agree with most of the other guys. A waste of photons and valuable time.<br /><br />Nearly no joke is worth the paper is was written on. The only highlight from my pov is Olli Dittrich as Pinocchio. ("Egal, ich muss eh Waldsterben") This reminds of old times with RTL Samstag Nacht. It is hard to describe the performances of the actors, since most of them don't even seem to have a good time during production and just "do their thing". Camera is OK, plot is laughable, I think you would be ashamed even if you discuss this with lots of beers.<br /><br />Apart from this I yawned all the time, wondered about how a script like this could even be considered for production and waited for the end.<br /><br />My 9 year old son was pleased, but then he is pleased by so little at this age :-)<br /><br />Anyway, a 1 point rating here nearly is 1 point too much...
Despite what a lot of other people thought about the first movie, I really liked it. This one however. How to sum it up in one word?: This movie is (and here comes the word): CRAP!<br /><br />But let's look at it part by part: Here is the plot: Finally the old queen has been removed from her castle, but her successor: Snow white has problems of another sort: The Court-Jester, Father of her son, has gone astray, as the super, Spliss, goes to the extreme, to battle his gray hair and sells the royal offspring for some blond and full hair. In her desperation Snow white seeks the help of Bubi (Otto Walkees),who must first find his other six dwarf companions and then try to find the royal offspring or at least try to find the name of Rumpelstiltskin.<br /><br />The whole plot seems to have been written on a weekend, where the writers were very drunk but were just under pressure from the studio to write the screenplay. <br /><br />Yes, there are some good jokes. Even for fans of the first part, or for fans of any of the other actors, it's really not worth buying the the DVD. Believe me. <br /><br />The only thing, that at least kind of saves the movie from complete oblivion, are the performances of some of the actors. That's why I gave the move 3/10. Sadly, the script is so bad that none of the actors or all of them combined can make up for the bad story.<br /><br />For example, at one point, they even cross over in our reality, and sadly.. they don't do anything funny while being here. <br /><br />Still, a lot of great actors in this movie: Otto Waalkes, Ralf Schmitz, Martin Schneider, Nina Hagen, Cosma Shiva Hagen, (Especially funny): Rüdiger Hoffmann as the mirror, Helge Schneider and many more but sadly all these comedians aren't able to bring this really bad script to life. <br /><br />Maybe it is a treat for some hardcore fans but for regular movie goers or by now DVD Renters or buyers it's not worth the money. <br /><br />I even regret renting the movie.
There are a lot of highly talented filmmakers/actors in Germany now. None of them are associated with this "movie".<br /><br />Why in the world do producers actually invest money in something like this this? You could have made 10 good films with the budget of this garbage! It's not entertaining to have seven grown men running around as dwarfs, pretending to be funny. What IS funny though is that the film's producer (who happens to be the oldest guy of the bunch) is playing the YOUNGEST dwarf.<br /><br />The film is filled with moments that scream for captions saying "You're supposed to laugh now!". It's hard to believe that this crap's supposed to be a comedy.<br /><br />Many people actually stood up and left the cinema 30 minutes into the movie. I should have done the same instead of wasting my time...<br /><br />Pain!
I've seen the first of the dwarf-Movies and sometimes I had little fun watching it. There are many famous TV/Comedyactors appearing in the first part and presented, in fantasy costumes, typical little episodes of their Stand-Up-Program and exactly that is the problem the second movie has to struggle with. Everything was already there....nothing new to obtain. You're familiar with most of the often boring and dumb "jokes" and you always feel like their goal was to put in every Comedylooser of the last decade who wants to get back on stage. There's nothing important about the story: typical fairy-tale story of Rumpelstiltskin, without any importance. I expected something like that but that's nothing I could complain about. I'm actually complaining about the lazy story writers who had an entire background story; their only business was to get many jokes and parodies inside but they didn't get it anyway. This crap is except the great appearance of Helge Schneider a total waste of time and money.(if you don't like him then remove 2 points of my evaluation) If you like to save your money and get bad jokes then watch the crap that's broad casted every Friday evening on SAT1 or RTL for free. I'm sure you will recognize some "laugthers" I saw last night in cinema.
I guess I have still enough brain left to NOT find this movie funny. -Great comedians - but a very poor movie! The "best" performance still did NINA HAGEN <br /><br />TRIVIA: Did you realize that it the "real world" scenes (in Hamburg) the cars are almost ONLY new BMWs ?? <br /><br />I guess I have still enough brain left to NOT find this movie funny. -Great comedians - but a very poor movie! The "best" performance still did NINA HAGEN <br /><br />TRIVIA: Did you realize that it the "real world" scenes (in Hamburg) the cars are almost ONLY new BMWs ??
WARNING! Don't even consider watching this film in any form. It's not even worth downloading from the internet. Every bit of porn has more substance than this wasted piece of celluloid. The so-called filmmakers apparently have absolutely no idea how to make a film. They couldn't tell a good joke to save their lives. It's an insult to any human being. If you're looking for a fun-filled movie - go look somewhere else.<br /><br />Let's hope this Mr. Unterwaldt (the "Jr." being a good indication for his obvious inexperience and intellectual infancy) dies a slow/painful death and NEVER makes a film again.<br /><br />In fact, it's even a waste of time to WRITE ANYTHING about this crap, that's why I'll stop right now and rather watch a good film.
Otto Preminger directs this light as a feather story. Bohemian Jean Seberg and her equally bohemian widower father David Niven holiday in the South of France with nutty Mylène Demongeot. Things are fine until family friend Deborah Kerr shows up. Nivens, a degenerate womanizer, finds the conquest of Kerr too hard to resist. That's fine with Seberg, as long as Niven loves her and leaves her (as he's done with all the women in his past...including Demongeot). When it appears as though she's becoming second banana in Niven's life, Seberg exact revenge on Kerr. Preminger tells the story in flashbacks from Seberg's perspective and cleverly combines black and white with sunnier color scenes. The cinematography by Georges Périnal is stunning. The film features some of Preminger's least heavy-handed direction, although he rarely allows any close-ups, which makes it difficult to make out what the actors are really feeling. Arthur Laurents wrote the script and it's full of acidic dialog and funny scenes (mostly involving bird-brained Demongeot). Seberg acquits herself fairly well, but Niven is at his least appealing...and he shows no chemistry with either Seberg or Kerr. Preminger really mis-steps with that casting. It's a role that seems tailor made for someone closer to Charles Boyer. With Geoffrey Horne as Seberg's would-be suitor and Martita Hunt as his daffy mother. Juliette Gréco, playing herself, sings the title song in a Paris nightclub. The great titles are by Preminger regular Saul Bass.
The over-heated plot of "Bonjour tristesse" is taken from a juvenile first novel by Francoise Sagan, which became a best-seller, though God knows why. For teenagers wanting to get rid of a potential step-parent it may have a certain appeal. Don't be taken in by the fact that David Niven plays the playboy father and Deborah Kerr the step-mother-in- prospect. Unfortunately, too much rests on the frail shoulders of Jean Seberg. She's beautiful and easily fulfills the image of a spoiled teenager. The problem is that she can strike poses but she can't act. Anyone who saw her as Joan of Arc in Otto Preminger's St. Joan -- Seberg's first film -- knows she was incapable at 19 of carrying a film. This movie, also by Preminger, fulfills the "promise" of the first. It was her second movie; she was now 20. What was Preminger thinking? That Niven and Kerr could compensate for Seberg's lack of acting capacity? Not a chance? Seberg's character is at the center of the story and, pretty though she is, convincing though she may be physically as a 17 year old, she can't meet the emotional demands of the role. I don't know if she ever became a successful actress in her short life because she did not have an impact on my consciousness in her later pictures. But anyone who thinks this film is better than mediocre needs a taste check. In spite of Niven and Kerr, this remains a juvenile story executed in juvenile fashion by a beautiful young girl who badly needed acting lessons.
Bonjour Tristesse covers similar ground as 'The Member of the Wedding.' to wit, a possessive daughter tries to prevent a relationship from forming between a beloved family member and an interloper. While critics love 'Member of the Wedding,' I find Julie Harris to be a jumbo-drag and an adenoidal, scenery-chomping thespian in everything she's been in. This portrays irritating, rich idiots as in Last Year at Marienbad, but this time it's a travelogue.<br /><br />In this Preminger movie sequences develop, but characters do not. For the first 30 minutes he's content to blur the father-daughter relationship between Seberg and Niven, making uncomfortable sexual readings possible. Once the conflict is introduced, Seberg can't deliver the depth the part requires. Kerr pulls rank and turns the film into 'Endless Love.' Seberg's vacuous narration, is like something out of Strange Interlude - it is not good. I really wish someone other than Niven was in his role. He spends so much time normalizing orthodox British behavior in all his movies, he never gets around to the character.<br /><br />In the most memorable sequence, an evening out dancing becomes a free-for-all in a harbor. Bertolucci steals the entire scene for his empty exercise, 'The Conformist.' Kerr is on board to clasp her hands and portray another major pain (as in Black Narcissus, Night of the Iguana, King and I, Heaven Knows Mr. Allyson, Tea and Sympathy, etc. etc.). Really, Kerr was a horrible actress. I wish every movie with her could end with a fatal car crash, or even better, start with one.<br /><br />People uncomfortable with ambiguity should avoid this.
This is shallow hedonism and/or social commentary wrapped in a tragic tale about a jealous young woman's scheme to drive apart her father and his fiancée. Is it incest or just a view through the eyes of a daughter with an Electra complex? Who cares? All of the characters, except for Anne (Deborah Kerr) are vacuous and vile. Seberg is poor (I agree with the "boys with breasts" comment of an earlier review). The plot plodded. This predictable material was sufficient for about 30 minutes of film that unfortunately was stretched over an hour and a half! If you want to see great gowns and jewels on the Riviera, I recommend "To Catch a Thief" - in which you will get the added bonuses of an entertaining story and likable characters. <br /><br />I like for films to entertain me. I personally don't really care where a film is set. Whatever the time or place, I want a good story - comedy or drama. I also want to see some enjoyable characters. It doesn't hurt if I can relate to them. Poor Deborah Kerr gives a typically good performance, and so does David Niven in a despicable role.<br /><br />The "2" rating is solely for Kerr and Niven, and for the cinematography - the rich color scenes and the murky, foreboding black and white scenes. Unfortunately, all the great cinematography in the world cannot salvage a poor story with un-enjoyable characters. A sow's ear is still a sow's ear. Consequently watching this mess was a serious waste of my time.
Jean Seberg had not one iota of acting talent. Like all her films, 'Bonjour tristesse' suffers not at all from her looks (though she is perhaps the first of those modern women whom Tom Wolfe gleefully, accurately describes as "boys with breasts": publicists, of course, use the word "gamine") but suffers grievously from Seberg's dull, monotonous, killing voice. In all her films when had to play anger, Seberg played it with grossly audible, distracting, gasping panting between her monotonously droned verbalizations. Oy.<br /><br />Preminger's adaptation of Françoise Sagan's breathlessly juvenile, fantasy soap opera plot is noteworthy only for his lush cinematography - but then that's difficult to funk on the photogenic French Riviera, and perhaps for his apt, but certainly not groundbreaking, employment of black & white for the present day scenes from which Seberg's monotone narration delivers us to the flashed-back-to color past.<br /><br />Juliette Gréco has a brief moment, as a nightclub chanteuse in the black & white spotlight, delivering in smoky Dietrichesque voice the bleak existentialist lyric of the title song. This moment is nowadays, in retrospect, more than a wee bit drôle. Except, of course, if you're French - particularly if you're a French "68-er" longing for the glorious days of the barricades roundabout the Sorbonne - and your kids riot to retain the lifelong sinecures which have blighted and emasculated France's economy: then you still believe in Sartre and Foucault and all such arcane, irrelevant theorists.<br /><br />David Niven has the hardest role, having to play with sufficient gusto an aging hedonist who's yet to grasp that life isn't all about Sagan's teenybopper notions of a hip, cool, swingin', "mon copain!" Papa. Deborah Kerr delivers her usual, consummately professional presence, convincingly playing the woman who suffers undeservedly Seberg's spiteful teenaged snot-nose jealousy (fulfilling Sagan's shallow teen fantasy of the Classical theme of "there can be only one Queen Bee in the hive"); in fact, to Kerr belongs this film's sole great and memorable on-screen moment.<br /><br />The dialogue is unnatural - I agree with an earlier reviewer who said that it sounds to be "badly translated" from French; combine the unnatural scripting with Seberg's incomparably dull, unendurable monotone and you can save that Valium for another night. Atop all that the ineptly synched post-production voice dubbing is, almost throughout, obvious and thus much more than irksome: this is especially true of the dubbing for Mylène Demongeot because it spoils her otherwise very pleasing dumb blonde performance.<br /><br />Hunky Geoffrey Horne gets the short end of the stick here - a very good looking young man who also suffered from a less-than-lovely, uncinematic voice which, when paired with Seberg's drone, yields unconvincing scenes of puppy love. (Horne was, shall we say, merely adequate in 'Bridge On the River Kwai,' perhaps because his end was held up by those great cinema pros William Holden and Jack Hawkins instead of being unsupported by the regrettably ungifted Seberg).<br /><br />In sum 'Bonjour tristesse' is pretty to look at but it's shallow, immature soap: thin gruel with suds.
In one respect, it's like 'The Wizard of Oz,' with Paris in black-and-white and the Riviera in color. But it's supposedly about possessive love, destructiveness and moral decadence, while actually being about designer gowns, shots of the Riveria, lots of big expensive cars, and music-and dancing interludes that suggest Vincente Minnelli on one of his off-days. Watchable, but a remarkable example of desperate, dark plot material and glitzy style heading in opposite directions. (Was this the model for 'The Talented Mister Ripley? Does anyone sense an affinity between Jean Seberg and Matt Damon?)
Greenaway's films pose as clever, erudite and innovative. Yet his style and grammar originate and remind viewers of films made in the World War 1 era of film-making: the frame composition, use of mid-shot, the static camera. It may be well to rub against mainstream movies with this style but it is not new. Perhaps like that other "innovator", TS Eliot, he draws more from the past than in looking forward as an authentic innovator would or could.<br /><br />Yet Greenaway's biggest failing is that he cannot write. His dialog and even plot structure is mechanical and logical but without the vitality of another dramatic logician, Brecht. Where this weakness is most apparent is in his humor, which is poised and logical, so the joke is dead before it's delivered. The result is tedium: if it's not funny, it has failed: ask a stand-up comedian to justify their act if the audience doesn't respond. Perhaps the well-read director could learn something from Freud on humor.<br /><br />Finally, like Woody Allen, Greenaway has manipulated his actors over the years to work like clones. They speak the lines with a bored, smug air like narcissistic adolescents.<br /><br />This film, despite its design and lighting, is meretricious.
This is a baffling film. <br /><br />The beauty in sexual relations between men and women is shown degraded by a set of men and women who can only be described as a collection of oddballs and misfits.<br /><br />Greenaway acknowledges his inspiration to Fellini's film "8 1/2" but whereas Fellini is a titan of world cinema, Greenaway is not.<br /><br />He has none of the maestro's lightness of touch nor his ability to convey feelings and emotions with a deftness of clarity.<br /><br />He is pretentious, the film being divided into chapters with a written introduction to each, as if the viewer has to be guided into the film except that the written notices only stay on screen for a few seconds, not long enough to be read by the audience with the result that they are mostly ignored.<br /><br />As for the women, only two can be described as lookers, Palmira, played by Polly Walker and Giaconda played by Natacha Amal. The rest ooze with ordinariness. Both the women and the men retreat from the harsh light of reality into the dim shades of fantasy.<br /><br />Greenaway obviously wants to make the point that sexual fantasy does not lead to happiness. The women themselves are depressing since they render their services in exchange for money. Relations between men and women are debased into a commercial transaction.<br /><br />There is no sense of joy or happiness or love in the film, indeed there are several scenes that are deeply unpleasant :<br /><br />The suggestion of an incestuous relationship between father and son, Philip and Storey Emmental played respectively by John Standing and Matthew Delamere. The callous disregard of both men that Giaconda is carrying their child, she in fact, gets pregnant twice, the first foetus being aborted and the second time, she is sent away to a destination chosen by the men from a flight book. Both men having sex with a woman who has no legs, (the half woman in the title). The beastiality that exists between Beryl, played by Amanda Plummer, with a pig named Hortense. Father and son sharing women between them. Women enjoying being beaten sexually. The father sleeping with the corpse of his dead wife.<br /><br />Mercifully, none of these scenes are shown sexually, only hinted at.<br /><br />The hinted degradation of women is such that there cannot be any wonder that the film was booed at when it was first premiered at Cannes. What is more extraordinary is that the actresses in the film lined up to defend it, showing yet again that there is no limit to the naivety of women and that women will fool themselves into being exploited by men.<br /><br />Greenaway's directorial style is pretentious, it is a triumph of style over substance, a depiction of Film as Art accompanied by the abandonment of common sense.<br /><br />Greenaway tries to attain the sublimity of surrealism but only succeeds in showing the banality of human relationships.
Writer/Director Peter Greenaway cements his title as the High Lord of Art House Pretension with his latest exercise in obnoxious self-indulgence, 8 ½ Women. The film follows a wealthy Englishman and his son on their mutual quest for sexual satisfaction, as they lure and blackmail women (guess how many) into joining their personal collection of concubines.<br /><br />Think of any possible way that this premise could be offensive, and chances are Greenaway's done it. The female characters are little more than a catalogue of fetishes for the two protagonists to partake of. There's the Kabuki-obsessed Mio, the ever-pregnant Giaconda and Beryl, who's got a thing for farm animals. Giulietta has no legs and uses a wheelchair, she's the "half woman," get it? Greenaway vehemently denies all accusations of misogyny, but if this isn't it, then what is?<br /><br />The film goes on to eroticize anything and everything having to do with Japan, a continuation of themes from his snore-worthy (but less sexist) 1996 film, The Pillow Book. But where the The Pillow Book was erotic and graceful, 8 ½ Women just gets horny and exploitative. Greenaway's work is tasteless and arrogant in its fetishism, and the only person likely to enjoy watching it is the auteur himself.
I dont know about you, but I've always felt drawn to 'ART' cinema. The first 'art' film I managed to get a hold of was Peter Greenaway's "The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover", which blew my mind and creative spiret into overdrive. The film was the ultimate paradox, both beautiful and grotesque...this is what 'art cinema' was about, exploring intellectual ideas and bringing the visceral to the screen with purpose. Life, real life, can be like living in a madhouse, and art expressed shows it for what it is. I love movies of all types, but especially those that both entertain and have something to say, whether I agree with it's stance or no...<br /><br />"8 1/2 WOMEN", is a dry, clinical 'comedy' where a father and son gather a harem to fufill their many sexual fantasies. There is only a very brief allusion to Fellini in the film, unlike what the previews have suggested. The main focus of the film falls on the 'close' relationship between father and son, brought together after the mothers' death. In the early scenes of the film the fathers' sadness is believable, you can feel his pain. What happens afterwards is plain by Greenaway standards, the gathering of the harem, observations on love and death, and flesh displayed for the sake of flesh...One could argue this, but I feel the movie to be shallow and pointless. And the idea that this could be a comedy is perplexing to me. The acting for the most part if fine,...especially good are Polly Walker and Amanda Plummer(though poor Mandy should put her clothes back on) What the film lacks is a compelling story, and the usual Greenaway touches of excess that made his other films so wonderful to watch. <br /><br />While filled with moments of insight, and the occasional taboo, "8 1/2 Women" is too cut and paste to be considered art, too bland to considered 'funny', and simply too dull to be considered worthwhile.<br /><br />Save your money...I can only recommend this film as a sleeping aid.<br /><br />4 out of 10
Stilted, stagy, strange and opaque, if visually striking ... a wannabe-erotic fantasy. Really boring, way too much male nudity (including father-son incest), and just a sort of shameless pointlessness. I will confess, however, that certain passages of dialogue, taken on their own terms, do have a lulling, haunting quality.
I am giving this pretentious piece of garbage a 1 simply because i don't believe there is a worse movie in the world.<br /><br />I hate this movie, i hate the acting, dialog, setting, writing and directing. I hope everyone that was involved in this movie burns and rots in the darkest circle of hell.<br /><br />Damn this disgusting waste of time.<br /><br />I pray every day that this movie is just a figment of my imagination. i pray that i dreamt the movie, and that i will never have to see it at <br /><br />my local video store again.<br /><br />BURN IN HELL
To overcome the death of his wife, an old man does what anyone in his position would naturally do (at least in a Peter Greenaway movie): he and his son populate their home with eight and a half (one has no legs) women and embark on a sexual odyssey. This being a Greenaway film, there is lots of pretentious and uninteresting blabbering and of course there is unnecessary male nudity. In fact the father and son share a bed sleeping in the nude. Gross. Besides, who wants to see an old guy full frontal? For those who are not into the homo-erotic scene, one of the women likes to do the nasty with horses. There is no story - just a random collection of dull scenes.
To borrow from Dorothy Parker: This is not a film to be tossed aside<br /><br />lightly. It should be thrown with great force.<br /><br />This is an excruciating mess. And I'm a Greenaway fan.<br /><br />MIND-NUMBINGLY AWFUL<br /><br />"The Mummy Returns" has much more artistic merit
Greenaway seems to have a habit of trying deliberately to disgust his viewers. This film opens with incest--and purposeless, meaningless, casual incest at that. That's Greenaway's big problem. He prefers parlor tricks to shock over actually doing anything meaningful. Technical skill isn't enough. He's just a bit perverse for the sake of perversity.
This movie was awful in the worst way: you just didn't care. You didn't care what happened in the plot; you didn't care about the characters. Everyone was devoid of heart. I ended up walking out about an 45 minutes into it because I simply didn't want to subject my mind to it any more. There is far too much sex in the film. Sex can be okay; it can even make the movie (hence Karma Sutra) but the intercourse here was not beautiful or sexy. It was just ugly. Don't see this film.
I am sorry to say that it was one of the worst films I've ever seen. Although visually fascinating (e.g. the use of colour was absolutely stunning), it was pretty boring and disturbing (see the father/son incest).<br /><br />What's more, music is totally absent, and if you think of those wonderful soundtracks by Michael Nyman (who wrote the soundtracks for most of Greenaway's films) then you can imagine what a difference it makes.<br /><br />
somewhere i'd read that this film is supposed to be a comedy. after seeing it, i'd call it anything but. the point of this movie eludes me. the dialogue is all extremely superficial and absurd, many of the sets seemed to be afterthoughts, and despite all the nudity and implied sexual content, there's nothing erotic about this film...all leaving me to wonder just what the heck this thing is about! the title premise could have been the basis for a fun (if politically incorrect) comedy. instead, we're treated to cheap, amateurish, unfinished sketches and depravity and weirdness for its own sake. if i want that, i'll go buy a grace jones cd.
Movies have put me to sleep before, but no movie has ever done that twice, so it took me three sittings actually to finish it. The dialog was bad. Women spoke stiltedly and the men were caricatures. And two of the supposedly Japanese women looked Chinese, had Chinese names and spoke with clearly Chinese accents. I'm still trying to figure out why the Emmenthal men were sexually wrapped up with each other. 10 minus 8 1/2 equals a tough choice: Do I give this movie a rating of one? or two?<br /><br />Movies have put me to sleep before, but no movie has ever done that twice, so it took me three sittings actually to finish it. The dialog was bad. Women spoke stiltedly and the men were caricatures. And two of the supposedly Japanese women looked Chinese, had Chinese names and spoke with clearly Chinese accents. I'm still trying to figure out why the Emmenthal men were sexually wrapped up with each other. 10 minus 8 1/2 equals a tough choice: Do I give this movie a rating of one? or two?
La Chute de la Maison Usher, or The Fall of the House of Usher as it's know amongst English audiences, starts with Allan (Charles Lamy) heading for the Castle of his good friend Sir Roderick Usher (Jean Debucourt) who sent him a letter saying that his wife Madeleine is ill. Once there Allan finds Madeleine very sick & her husband Roderick determined & almost obsessed to paint her portrait. As Roderick paints Madeleine becomes weaker & weaker almost as if the picture is draining the life out of her, Allan tries to help his friend but tragedy soon strikes...<br /><br />This French production was co-written, produced & directed by Jean Epstein & was the second of two filmed The Fall of the House of Usher adaptations during 1928, honestly I don't know the original novel was published in 1839, I mean you wait 89 years for a filmed adaptation & two come along at the same time! Anyway, I feel that I have a bit of a problem here as I have read plenty of positive comments about La Chute de la Maison Usher & maybe I'm not the right sort of person to write a comment on it but I have to say that it simply didn't do anything for me. I didn't like it, obviously the first thing to say is that this is a silent film & therefore it relies on imagery but even so I thought the story was weak, I thought as a whole the film was boring & dull even though it only lasts for about an hour & it really didn't do anything for me at all. La Chute de la Maison Usher was made almost 80 years ago & that is literally a lifetime, the world, cinema & tastes have moved on a lot since then & I found no enjoyment in this film. I feel this film has dated badly & probably wasn't that good to start with anyway. I never felt for any of the character's, I never cared about anything that was happening & I found it all rather tedious to sit through, I'm sorry if I've offended any silent film fans out there but that's the way I felt.<br /><br />Director Epstein does an OK job, a lot of people ramble on about the imagery in La Chute de la Maison Usher & I will freely admit it definitely has it's moments but I thought they were few & far between. Shots of people's mouths moving & not actually hearing what they say just seemed weird to me, I didn't like the music & the version I saw kept the original French language insert cards which were narrated by guy with the most awful sounding thick French accent which was also off putting. Based on the story by Edgar Allen Poe I doubt this has much resemblance to it apart from one or two basic elements, stick with the fantastic Roger Corman House of Usher starring Vincent Price.<br /><br />Technically the film was OK considering when it was made. You simply cannot tell about the acting as no one ever speaks although the film is full of unnatural exaggerated movements to try & suggest emotions or reflect what's happening which works to an extent but after a while just looks a bit daft.<br /><br />La Chute de la Maison Usher will appeal to those who crave a bygone era, who live in caves or who are stuck in the past, for me I like my films to have a story, not to bore me & to have sound & I'm sorry if that last statement makes me sound like an uneducated idiot but that's how I feel. The world has moved on since 1928 & for the better.
This flick reminds me some really bad science-fiction movies from 50's and 60's.It is not scary or interesting,but it's dull,cheesy and stupid.Special effects are laughable,all actors are ludicrous and the ending is simply awful.Don't waste your money,rent or buy something better.I give it 3.5 out of 10( I found this turkey quite amusing because of its stupidity).
"Plants are the most cunning and vicious of all life forms", informs one dopey would-be victim in "The Seedpeople", a silly, flaccid remake of "Invasion of the Bodysnatchers", "Day of the Triffids", and about a thousand udder moovies. And why are seeds moore dangerous than plants, one might ask? Because, according to the same dolt, "seeds can chase us". Yes, I can remember one horrifying incident when the MooCow was just a calf, being chased all the way home from school by ravenous dandylion seed... Yeah, right. Unfortunately, the "monsters" in this seedy little turkey kind of look like shaggy little muppets, some of which roll around like evil tumbleweeds, others which sail about on strings. There's not even the tiniest inkling of terror or suspense to be found here. For reasons left unexplained, the seed monsters are knocked out by 50 volt ultra-violet lights, even though they can walk about in the daylight, which has about 1,000,000,000,000 times more uv energy. As you can see, not much thought was put into this cow flop. The MooCow says go weed yer garden instead of wasting your photosynthesis here. :=8P
While most of the movie is very amateurish, the Kosher slaughter scene is played up, but not untrue. Kosher law says that an animal must be conscious when the blade touches it's skin. The Kosher slaughter scene is accurate as anyone knows who has seen one, or has seen the Peta film showing a Kosher slaughter, in which the animals throat is cut, and the esophagus cut out while it is still alive, conscious, and obviously suffering. We must remember that history is written by the victors. Is one even Allowed to even THINK that maybe the Nazis were right??<br /><br />Doesn't it say anything that the Nazis had outlawed this vicious religious slaughter, and the Jews are still practicing it even today?
I would perhaps give 6 or 7 to this propaganda film because it shows when and how a propaganda film becomes successful. If there are people who watch this piece and think that "well then Jews must have done something to be treated the way they were treated in WW2", then the movie is very cleverly made to conceal 'why's and 'how's as well as mix correct and false observations on how a people live. What more can a propaganda movie aim for? The part in which an American movie about the Rothschild family is included is re-used very shrewdly here, for instance. The question of why the Jew keeps his wealth away from the officer is never asked. No one mentions the system of taxation within that particular social strata.<br /><br />Besides, the level of excitement (or, the level of disgust) in the movie increases slowly and the solution-like end of the movie suits the aim and the musts of doing propaganda. The audience would leave in joy and gratefulness to the times that are coming up...well done.<br /><br />In the movie, there is a kind of simplicity that addresses the most basic emotional perception of the audience. The movie is kind of history today, so no need to fuss much about it actually. However, in this simplicity of words of ethnic degradation, a careful watcher can find relevance to today's cultural hatred, violence, decivilization as well as the problems of integration. Overall, fine trash.
The Eternal Jew (Der Ewige Jude) does not have what we today would call the markings of a scholarly document: rather than naming experts or sources to support what it says, it simply says, without opposition, what it wants us to believe (one will concede that American newsreels of that period were also much less regulated than would seem ethical to a modern audience, often inserting dramatized scenes and passing them off as actual news footage). Add to this directed propaganda the fact that filmmaker Hippler was "preaching to the converted," not so much asking gentile Europeans to hate the Jews as validating the feelings so many of them must have held already, in order to have allowed the holocaust that followed. The weakest link in the film's logic shows in its "rat" analogy, wherein it goes on to explain the behavior of rats, and then adds something to the effect of "Well, Jewish people are like that too." Similarly it characterizes Jewish people as ugly by showing ugly Jewish people in comparison to attractive gentiles; the accompanying leap of faith is that ugly is bad. The film appears to contradict itself a few times, for example by attacking Western painters who portrayed Old Testament characters as light-skinned Europeans; thereby the text admits that so-called "Hebrew" ethnicity is in fact an ingrained aspect of Christian culture. It also shows ghetto Jews willingly living in roach-infested filth, despite the supposed treasure they've hoarded, and then flip-flops by saying that these same undesirables live in wealth and luxury as soon as they leave the ghetto. Incidentally, who wouldn't? The use of scenes from a well-known American film, House of Rothschild, shows an equally blurry deployment of logic. First the film is denounced as having been made by Jews; then it is apparently used by Hippler to verify the deceptiveness of Jews (the aforementioned pretense of poverty by ghetto Jews, shown as a means of avoiding taxation, although the Rothschild character's "spin" is that Jews are taxed excessively); finally the Rothschild film is once again execrated for implying that the famed banking family invented the checking account. This apparent indecisiveness in whether the American footage is shown positively or negatively might become clearer with repeated viewings, but at first sight it makes for some murky moviewatching. For all of Eternal Jew's imperfections, I was at first surprised that the IMDb viewer rating for this film is as high as it is, just shy of a "5" to date. I'd say the reason is that EJ's documentary value has exceeded its original purpose, offering us, unintentionally, a look into the lives of European Jews as they would not be seen a few years hence. Needless to say the film's very badness also provides an historical insight into bad, or simply evil, filmmaking as a propagandist's tool. About this time I should expect director Hippler to flip-flop once again, springing forward to say "That's what I meant to do all along!" The scenes depicting animal slaughter are particularly gruesome, and show same as decidedly inhumane, contrary to the intent of Kosher law to prevent animal suffering. I would like for someone who has seen the film, and has some knowledge of these procedures, to comment on whether the portrayal is accurate.
That shall be a documentary? I saw it (which is forbidden in Germany) and I have to say, that it was the worst documentary I've ever seen. It is nothing but one big lie from the beginning to the end. Who can doubt after this trash that all Jews were supposed to be killed in the concentration camps?
1940. - A visit to the Lodz ghetto in Nazi-occupied Poland, recorded by a German cameramen with the naive co-operation of the Jewish community, is combined with archival footage, clips from international newsreels, and excerpts from related cultural films to portray the World's Jews as swindlers and parasites. This 'documentary' interprets Jewish life from the viewpoint of traditional anti-Semitism and Nazi ideology. A candid, cinematically-unique expression of racial hatred. I personally find this film frightening and highly offensive. One can only hope that such pictures as this will never reach the screen again.
This film is justly famous as one of the most horrible examples of propaganda ever produced. The insistent equation of Jews with disease is simply<br /><br />pathological, and even worse it almost becomes believable for brief seconds<br /><br />through its sheer repetition. The fact that something this crude works, even<br /><br />briefly, is an object lesson in itself. You have to have a strong stomach and a firm grip on yourself to sit through this, and I wouldn't recommend trying unless you have a good reason.
Having seen "Triumph of the Will," I can only say this movie is ghastly, even measured against the historically low "standards" of the time. Naturally it's all totally fabricated and prejudicial. This is what one would expect of 1930's German propaganda. Unfortunately, the quality of the presentation, itself, is hackneyed and cheap. It's also so blatantly ridiculous that even contemporary Germans must've left the theater holding their noses. In a genre renowned for its base appeal, lack of originality and unapologetic wrong-headedness, this film doesn't even qualify as "bad." It would have to improve significantly to attain that status!
Interesting? Hardly. The 'scientific evidence' the movie provides for its point (which is basicly that Jews are a cancer) is so stupid and lame, it's almost laughable (if we didn't know what happened in that era).<br /><br />Important? Nah. I can't imagine Germans (even at that horrid time) would like or believe this movie. Compare it to Riefenstahl's Triumf des Willens. Now that was I movie I was impressed with. This is just silly garbage.<br /><br />'Best' part is a scene from M (one of my all-time favorites) where (the jew, as the announcer so eloquently keeps reminding us) Lorre plays a child-molester and murderer. In the eyes of these film-makers, only a depraved mind can do so. Uh-huh. Didn't know M was Hitler's favorite movie, right?<br /><br />No, it's just plain STUPID. Even for it's nazi-propaganda genre. 2/10.
This Book-based movie is truly awful, and a big disappointment. We've been waiting for this move over a month. Many film reviewer were hopeful for it. Also in newspapers and TV, it made big sense. When 29th April comes, many people regretfully noticed that movie is really awful. Why? First of all story was so monotone. It has been many indefinite scenes, sometimes it's hard to realize what's going on. The actresses, out of Hulya Avsar, weren't harmonized with their roles, especially Vildan Atasever. She acts better in comedy films, In this movie, a kind of drama, she couldn't disposed of her previous role. And finally Movie is too short, just 66 minutes.
How cynical are the writers, to pander so. I may be an American citizen, but I don't need to see other Americans pat each other on the back for an hour and half in order to enjoy a film. I'm astonished that so few have commented on how utterly jingoistic, sentimental and trite the dialogue in this film really is. The historical inaccuracies of the film are not as gross and offensive as in "U-571" (which changes British submariners to American ones) but you still walk away feeling a little slimy. Really, the Germans in this film do nothing but admire the Americans between battle scenes! How sad, unnecessary! I'd just like to say to the writers: it's obvious to many of us that you can't capture real people, with real problems, under real pressure, and that you've taken some very well tested shortcuts. Lucky for you there will always be nationalist nutjobs to appreciate your sugar-coated tripe.
I usually read reviews before I watch a movie. Guess what, I didn't do that before watching TLB, and I have to say I was very surprised to see the above average rating at IMDb. I found it to have a total lack of story. You just get dropped into it (and, sadly, not in the way Saving Private Ryan dropped us into the movie), and it also has a sudden end, which was very unsatisfying for me.<br /><br />I have to admit, the wounded soldiers looked pretty realistic to me, especially with the low budget in mind. But prepare yourself to have a laugh... Some guys are being tossed through the air after an explosion as if they are Olympic gymnasts. A mid-air corkscrew or somersault during WW I is a bit too much for me, especially when it's performed countless times during the movie...<br /><br />But the parts that really got me laughing until I almost cried were the scenes containing close combat. The screaming and shouting German voices...unbelievably funny. It seems as if they are spoken by one single actor / voice performer, because they all sound exactly the same, and it just sounds like a 'typical' German voice.<br /><br />I would absolutely NOT recommend this movie to anyone, except to people who just want to have some laughs because of the sad and corny quality of it.
I want to say the acting is bad, but I think it was the directing that made it so. I never thought much of Highlander (same director) but that one could be blamed on the 80s.<br /><br />This one however, has no excuses. People get shot while exiting trenches with a man in front of him!? Those kind of mistakes, along with an unclear time line, weird battle tactics, sub-par cutting and poor visual effects, makes this one a sub-par film over all.<br /><br />Then like so many other have commented, all this American bullshit. The German general being practically scared of his captured American private. Be prepared to swallow a lot of it, although in small doses.<br /><br />To sum it up, a not horrible but still definitely sub-par war movie in all aspects.
When this movie was first shown on television I had high hopes that we would finally have a decent movie about World War I as experienced by American soldiers. Unfortunately this is not it.<br /><br />It should have been a good movie about WWI. Even though it was made for television it is obvious that a real effort was made to use appropriate equipment and props. But the writing and directing are badly lacking, even though the makers of this movie obviously borrowed freely from quite a few well made war movies. War movie clichés abound such as the arrogant general who apparently does not care a flip about the lives of his men. When will Hollywood realize that, even though there have been plenty of bad generals, most combat unit generals have seen plenty of combat themselves and are not naive about what the average grunt experiences? The first part of this movie appeared to be "Paths of Glory" with American uniforms. Except that "Paths of Glory" was emotionally gripping. Later on there was Chamberlain's charge (except uphill) from "Gettysburg" and even the capture of the American soldier by a ring of enemy soldiers from "The Thin Red Line". But in "The Thin Red Line" the soldier was alone when captured. In this movie a ring forms around the new prisoner in the middle of a battle.<br /><br />If this movie used a military adviser they ignored him. Even though the actors (and I never could forget they were actors while watching) mouthed military tactics I didn't see very much of it. The American soldiers would stand up to be shot while the Germans attacked. And the infamous Storm Troopers, who were apparently blind, appeared to use no tactics whatsoever in their attack. In the real war, the tactics were what made storm troopers so effective. But the silliest scene was the attack of the German Flamethrowers. In this scene the German flamethrower operators walked in a broad line towards the defending Americans. If that had been real they would never have gotten close enough to use their flamethrowers before they had all been dropped by the defender's bullets.<br /><br />Okay, so most war movies are unrealistic when it comes to the tactics shown. But it is still disappointing. But what really turned me off to this flick was the typical anti-war anti-military angle that movie makers seem to think is important. True, war is hell. But most American soldiers, even though they grumble and gripe, tend to believe in what they are doing and can be rather gung-ho about it. My Grandfather served in World War I. And even though he died four years before I was born I have been told how proud he was of his service.
After watching this movie I was honestly disappointed - not because of the actors, story or directing - I was disappointed by this film advertisements.<br /><br />The trailers were suggesting that the battalion "have chosen the third way out" other than surrender or die (Polish infos were even misguiding that they had the choice between being killed by own artillery or German guns, they even translated the title wrong as "misplaced battalion"). This have tickled the right spot and I bought the movie.<br /><br />The disappointment started when I realized that the third way is to just sit down and count dead bodies followed by sitting down and counting dead bodies... Then I began to think "hey, this story can't be that simple... I bet this clever officer will find some cunning way to save what left of his troops". Well, he didn't, they were just sitting and waiting for something to happen. And so was I.<br /><br />The story was based on real events of World War I, so the writers couldn't make much use of their imagination, but even thought I found this movie really unchallenging and even a little bit boring. And as I wrote in the first place - it isn't fault of actors, writers or director - their marketing people have raised my expectations high above the level that this movie could cope with.
My God, what an incredible movie it is! Reminded me so much of the similar scene in Mel Gibson's movie "We were Soldiers" when "the Company is not lost, they're just cut off" And the other scene in Pearl Harbour when the British officer says to Ben Affleck "If all Americans are like you, then God help the nation that goes to war with America!<br /><br />Put all 3 movies together and you would have enough BULLSHIT to fertilise the entire Sahara Desert.<br /><br />The story of the cut-off Battalion may be real enough but the movie could have done without all that American preachy jingoistic propaganda attached to it. There were audible groans in the cinema during the above-mentioned scene in Pearl Harbour (no kidding either) The Lost Battalion however is really in a class of its own ….<br /><br />"Americans think they are unbeatable…inspired bravery…. " I actually cringed and damn near puked at all the swill being spewed out throughout this diarrhoeic disaster (the movie that is) <br /><br />The fighting scenes were well made (3 stars for that) but if the script is manure, then wrapped even in brightly coloured ribbons, it is still manure. The writer, James Carabatsos, also wrote those other screamers…Hamburger Hill, No Mercy , Heartbreak Ridge. Someone, please shoot him before he writes any more such garbage.<br /><br />The Director, Russell Mulcahy is an Australian too. God, the shame!!!
1) I am not weapon expert, but even i can see difference between U.S. army riffles in WWI and WWII. In movie we can see privates, armed with "M1 Garand" (invented in year 1932!), not authentic "1903 Springfield" (aka "Silent Death"), who privates use until WWII. Difference - M1 can load 1,5 times more ammunition and 3 times more fire rate! M1 was semi - automatic, Springfield requires reloading after every shot. Little difference?! 2) German army uniforms has borrowed from 1940 Year too. Especially - helmets. German helmets until end of WWI have significant pike on top, we cannot see even one in movie. And if we make little additional search in archives - how much truthful is this "True Story"? I am surprised, how much "truthful" can be film directors in a pursuit of cheap propagation.
This movie has the made for TV stink all over it. Though, it started out with great intentions, featuring great looking sets and authentic props and costumes. The film quickly degenerated into horrible on the nose cheesy dialogue, and rushed TV sappy melodramatic acting. The characters were so sappy that at times I thought that they are about to degenerate into a bilious puddle of goo, and the action was so convoluted and poorly cut that it looked as it the soldiers were merely standing around and taking turns shooting at one another. The Germans were so unrealistically depicted that it was painful to watch. The only thing that the German officers talked about was how wonderful the Americans are. Please take my word for this. I am a huge fan of the war genre, and this movie is crap. Nevertheless, this DVD does have an excellent extra feature, covering letters from the WWI front lines, thus making this rental not a total waste of my time.
I ended up watching this movie before even going through any of the reviews, on the request of a female. Just out of curiosity, I thought, let me find out if there are people who actually recommend others to watch this movie. I am quite shocked to find such long and positive reviews on this website that makes me conclude that it's a scam.<br /><br />As far as my opinion goes, I have to ask,"are these filmmakers retarded or do they assume that the viewers are retarded?" The movie is atrocious on so many levels and I'm not even talking about the story or presentation.<br /><br />So, these bunch of guys plus one girl (the lead actress) form a Music band; guessing from the constant presence of guitars it is supposed to be a ROCK band. Hell, when did dancers started becoming the part of a Rock band??? Anyway, let me accept it as the-Bollywood-version-of-a- Rock-band, but amusingly enough all the scores which actually had these two guitarists doing all kinds of cool "ROCK GESTURES" and I am assuming they were playing the instruments, the sound of the guitar was completely missing!!! I simply can't comprehend the magnitude of stupidity here....<br /><br />I am just going to conclude here because it is absolutely not worth pointing out any further flaws in the movie. Bollywood directors seem to have no shame anymore!!!!!!!!
The movie is plain bad. Simply awful. The string of bad movies from Bollywood has no end! They must be running out of excuses for making such awful movies (or not).<br /><br />The problem seems to be with mainly the directors. This movie has 2 good actors who have proved in the past that the have the ability to deliver great performance...but they were directed so poorly. The poor script did not help either.<br /><br />This movie has plenty of ridiculous moments and very bad editing in the first half. For instance :<br /><br />After his 1st big concert, Ajay Devgan, meets up with Om Puri (from whom he ran away some 30 years ago and talked to again) and all Om Puri finds to say is to beware of his friendship with Salman!!! What a load of crap. Seriously. Not to mention the baaad soundtrack. Whatever happened to Shankar Ehsaan Loy?<br /><br />Ajay Devgun is total miscast for portraying a rockstar.<br /><br />Only saving grace are the good performances in the second half. Ajay shines as his character shows his dark side. So does Salman as the drug addict. <br /><br />Watch it maybe only for the last half hour.
I just wondering what is the purpose of making movies like this? the profit? and to whom they are referring what intelligence must use your brain to watch something like this crap? This movie is watchable by under 3 years old children if you are adults don't try to watch it. Thats the reason i think Hollywood started to use cartoons in movies with actors like this you must forget the art of cinema , be sure that you ll have tons of pop corn to consume for time to pass till this movie ends also get many cola's hamburgers your laptop your cellphone this movie can be used easily in a restaurant but for sure not in a theater , my dog who is always next to my family when watching a movie left the building.The sure thing is that this movie is referring to people with no demands from the cinema art.The only thing that this movie can be used is for watching it when making the supermarket shopping list.I am giving 2 stars for supporting the India's cinema efforts but for nothing more or less..
The film was written 10 years back and a different director was planning it with SRK and Aamir in lead roles<br /><br />The film finally was made now with Vipul Shah directing it And Ajay and Salman starring together after a decade HUM DIL DE CHUKE SANAM(1999)<br /><br />The movie however falls short due to it's 90's handling and worst it's loopholes<br /><br />The film tries to pack in too many commercial ingredients and we also hav the love triangle<br /><br />Everything is predictable and filmy and too clichéd<br /><br />There are loopholes like how Ajay runs away from London Airport and makes a place for himself with no one? even the way he starts his band is not convincing The second half gets better with the twist in the tale of Ajay destroying Salman but sadly the climax falls short and the film ends on a bad note<br /><br />Direction by Vipul Shah is ordinary to below average Music is the worst point, most songs are mediocre<br /><br />Amongst actors Ajay gives his best shot though he isn't convincing as a Rock singer yet he does superb as the negative role Salman however irritates with his punjabi and talking nonsense he only impresses when he gets drugged and thereon Asin is nothing great just a show piece Ranvijay should stick to MTV Om Puri is okay
The movie is a total crap. We have two good actors who are miscast and a meat-head of an actor Salman Khan just to attract the female audience. The story is a crap. The characters poorly sketched. Non existent story telling. No editing to speak of. Ajay Devgan as a Rock Star..that is a dream in itself. The movie drags along to the point of decadence. The whole charade about Arjun bringing his Manna to London, let him grope his girlfriend and let him not play at Wembley (Vimbley in the dubbing process) is absurd. Salman Khan's over the top acting or faking is too painful to watch. I remember seeing some good movies from this Producer Vipul Shah but this is not one of them. It seems all the good directors are falling prey to the Box Office mania..that the Mumbai Media Morons have created. This is yet another crap movie in the lines of "Wanted" with idiot actor like Salman Khan who has no place in a Good Hindi Cinema. He is good to the Indian Cinema as Titanic was to the Winter Cruise Business. On a positive note-I like Asin character dancing Bharatnatyam when she changes to the Western style dancing when the teacher is not looking.
Maaan, where do i start with this god awful movie. Bad bad bad story telling. I do not know what the director was thinking when he made this movie. Namaste London was quite an enjoyable movie to be honest..even the soundtrack was good. But in this one..oh my good..for a movie which is supposed to be a musical one..the songs are soooo bad. AR Rahman should have been the music director. <br /><br />Given two great actors a much better job should have been done by the director. Even though the first half sucks, the last 30 mins of the movie are OK. Performances from Salman and Ajay save the movie from being a total disaster.<br /><br />Watch it if you have nothing better to do. The last good movie from Bollywood i watched ( and i do watch a load of them) is Dev D and Wake Up Sid.
Who were they kidding with this? There was just too much in this film that was hard to digest. Right from when Arjun (Ajay Devgan) unknowingly wishes death on his father to when he arrives in London with his uncle(played by Om Puri) only to abandon him minutes later. The only problem with that theory is that anybody who has ever passed through London Heathrow knows that such a fête would be impossible to pull off and especially not by an Indian. But the film problems do not end there, there's the issue of the two main leads (Salman Khan and Ajay Devgan) passing as rock-stars on the verge of achieving their dreams. I mean yeah we saw success come to Susan Boyle (a woman in the UK achieving her dreams after age 50) but that was a rare case. It was really hard for me to suspend my disbelief because I felt that the casting of Salman and Ajay was just ill-conceived. They would never cast Madhuri Dixit and Sridevi to play the same roles so why should we be forced to watch Ajay Devgan and Salman Khan (men well into their 40s) prance around desperately trying to hang on to their 20s? Let's not even talk about the most self-conscious actress on screen today, Asin. This is her second film (that I have seen) and she is just hopeless as an actress, so conscious of her looks that she only concerns herself with looking good and voguing for the camera rather than giving in a good acting performance. It's just hard to believe that she turned down all those other movie roles to star in this fluff and then be so fluffy as an actress, nothing to write home about at all. And to top all of that, the film just boringly dragged on. There's nothing special about it at all, trust me you will predict every clichéd thing that is going to happen in it.
Vipul Shah has done some really impressive work as a filmmaker in the past. 'Waqt - The Race Against Time' and 'Namaste London' were entertaining and interesting to watch. 'Singh Is Kinng' was fun, which he produced. His latest outing as a filmmaker 'London Dreams' comes up as his careers weakest fare.<br /><br />'London Dreams' has a mediocre storyline, it's about how success turns friendship into hatred. Agreed, it has the potential but when you watch 'London Dreams' you wonder what's happening? This film has maybe the worst climax in recent times. Vipul Shah the writer puts Vipul Shah the director down. <br /><br />The first hour is boring, The second hour is better; but again the climax is horrendous. How can anyone forgive a person who decided to destroy you? I won't. Ajay Devgn suddenly decides to go to India and ask forgiveness to his diaper buddy, thanks to his uncle Om Puri. When he reaches India, rather than slapping or abusing him Salman welcomes him with band baja and says he was the reason behind the entire fiasco? Was Vipul Shah's intension to show Salman's character as a GOD? If yes, than you've failed completely. The only question I want to ask Vipul Shah is that, would you welcome a person who destroyed you with such a great reception? Write what you feel, don't fool us {the audience}, we are sensible enough to understand what's good or not. <br /><br />This is a musical but the music by Shankar-Eshaan-Loy is terrible. Not a single song stays in your mind. <br /><br />Salman is superb though. He carries the film on his shoulders and does really, really well in the emotional scenes. But again his character is shown as a GOD, which makes him look like a retard in the end. Ajay is equally good, but Salman has over-shadowed him completely. Asin is wasted, and what is a great talent like Om Puri doing in this film? Rannvijay hams, though Aditya Roy Kapoor excels. Brinda Parekh is alright as the vamp.<br /><br />On the whole, this dream remains a dream!
London Dreams, directed by Vipul Shah, is a frustratingly foolish film about foolish people. It's the kind of film whose central conflict could be instantly resolved if the characters concerned simply sat down and had a chat. Ajay Devgan plays Arjun, an aspiring pop-artiste obsessed with performing before a cheering crowd at London's Wembley Stadium. He becomes jealous of his devoted best friend and band-mate Manu, played by Salman Khan, who is evidently more talented than him, but nowhere near as focused or ambitious. Arjun decides to sabotage Manu when the latter's popularity threatens to outshine his own. Now here's where a heart-to-heart might have helped. Had Arjun explained what this Wembley fixation meant to him, Manu would have graciously backed off and let Arjun fulfill his childhood dream, and we'd have been spared the agony of watching the rest of this uninspiring drivel. But director Vipul Shah and his writers are in no mood to do us any favours. London Dreams is packed with unintentionally hilarious gems like that back-story involving Arjun's grandpa who committed suicide out of shame for getting stage-fright at a packed Wembley concert. Or the ridiculous incident at a show where Manu must take over vocal responsibilities after a blast of confetti practically chokes Arjun into silence. The idiocy, however, doesn't end there. In his attempts to shame Manu publicly, Arjun uses his connections to get Manu hooked onto drugs. A buxom groupie urges Manu to down a couple of tequila shots with her but replaces his salt with cocaine. Before you know it, Manu has acquired quite the appetite for the addictive white powder, practically chomping it down like dinner. If that isn't silly enough, there's a crude scene later in which Manu chases after the said girl to find out who she's been taking orders from. The pursuit ends in a dark London alley where the girl gets down on her knees pretending to do the unmentionable so as to mislead Manu's girlfriend who's been secretly following after them. Wait, there's more! Expect to howl hysterically when Arjun snaps off his belt and whips himself mercilessly to banish all thoughts of romance or lust towards the band's lead dancer Priya (played by Asin) because nothing and no one must distract him from his musical goals. Too generously inspired by Milos Forman's Amadeus for it to merit any comparison with last year's Rock On!, Vipul Shah's latest is a clunky melodrama that's as loosely directed as it is scripted. The film goes for broad humor, over-the-top emotions, and basically chooses loudness over subtlety. That works for Manu's character, with Salman Khan playing him all loutish and lovable, but in the case of Arjun, Ajay Devgan comes off too passive with a performance that is mostly internalised. When Arjun does reach boiling point however, it results in an awkward pre-climax scene in which he lectures a packed concert hall and is understandably pelted with plastic bottles as punishment. Of the remaining cast, there's not a kind word I can say for Asin, who practically lit up Ghajini with her ebullient charm, but disappoints here with unnecessary over-acting in a thankless role. Ranvijay Singh and Aditya Roy Kapur, reduced to mere sidekicks in the band, show up at regular intervals, usually to utter some inane dialogue like, "We'll rock it dude!" For its dim-witted writing and sloppy direction, London Dreams is ultimately a tiresome watch. If you must, watch it for Salman Khan who's turned buffoonery into a bonafide acting style. It's the only thing that'll make you smile in this sad, sad film.
The Lack of content in this movie amazed me the most. First i though that people was going to compare this to Rock On! but i'm really surprised myself to say that this was worst than Rock On! So-so story Horrible cast Ajay Devgan Jamming with Salman Khan and Asin you gotta be kidding me. The music was Okay Khanabadosh was the track of the movie the rest was bad! Vipul Shah hasn't still learn from Singh is King's critically bashed comedy. Now Asin.. where do she come from sorry for Asin's fan out there but she suck*d big time in this movie seriously bad acting she didn't look good at all overdose of make-up! My final verdict go watch Aladin with your family instead wasting your time here.
It's a bad season for Bollywood with all the big releases with a massive hype surrounding proving to be duds at the box office. London Dreams is no exception to that. Let's dissect it... It's all about chasing your dreams and how far will you go to achieve it. Sounds impressive right? But unfortunately the film is not.<br /><br />Arjun (Ajay Devgan) is an aspiring musician who wants to make it big someday. His dream is to perform in Wembley stadium in front of a cheering 90,000 audience calling out his name. He is joined by two brothers, Zoheb & Wasim (debutants Aditya Roy & Ranvijay) and a ravishing Priya (Asin). Together they form "London Dreams" their dream band. After impressing the chief of a record company, they become overnight sensations. Arjun is secretly in love with Priya which he doesn't want to reveal till he achieves his goal. Arjun then brings his childhood friend Manjit Khosla aka Mannu (Salman Khan), a carefree flirtatious guy who has got no ambitions in life, to join their band. Mannu is a trained musician and a real talent for whom later Arjun become envious for Mannu's superior skills and his affair with Priya. Arjun with the help of Zoheb plans to blight Mannu. What happens next forms the rest of the movies.<br /><br />Coming to the technical aspects, we feel only the shadow of Vipul Amritlal Sha whom we have admired in Namaste London. Felt like he simply visualized the screenplay. To cut it short, a glorified cameraman. Screenplay by Suresh Nair dulls even though it has its moments. Defined in a predictable fashion, the screenplay bore you to stiff. Camera work was awesome in capturing the beauty of London. It's the only entertaining part while watching songs.<br /><br />Few songs are hummable while others are passable noisy fare. Ajay was the one who stole the show with his negative character. Salman is monotonous and he irks you. Asin is forgettable and I don't that she will make it big in Bollywood. Aditya Roy is impressive while Ranvijay is strictly OK. Brinda as the bitch is what we have seen in innumerable movies. Ompuri is ongoing with the proceedings. I don't want to pen down about the flaws as it will be a herculean task.<br /><br />Finally let me put it simple and straight, London Dreams is a soulless movie which you may better enjoy on DVD.
First thing first . In this genre movie the first thing you need is a good music , and thats where Mr. shankar and his party fails.<br /><br />music is completely pale and uneffective. On other hand there is AJAY DEVGAN , WHO HAS REMOVED A LETTER 'A' from his spelling , done good job but was of no use to a bad casted movies like this.<br /><br />ASIN is like a doll which is used to amuse public, even though she is good to look at but her role in movie is to dance, actually she is dancing member of a rock band and i don't think any rock band have there dancer as a member of band.<br /><br />in nut shell this movie is a piece of crap a piece of ***t. watch it if you wanna get fooled.
Below average movie with poor music considering a movie based on music??? Ordinary Script & Direction with full of blunders. Salman Khan was at his usual acting. Ajay's performance deteriorating with time as his looks,especially his styles as a Rock Star were pathetic. Asin was just a showpiece only. Overall I felt like wasting my money in cinema. Salman Khan remains as immature as 10 years ago compared to Aamir Khan. There were many songs in the movie all boring except "Man Ko Ati". The Most Important Song to impress the UK Music Sponsor was most unimpressive. "Khanabadosh" can be very easily understood by an English Music Sponsor. The other movie I saw last week was "Wake Up Sid" which was simple slow love story with good direction & acting despite average music
I couldn't believe some of the horrible dialog coming out of people's mouths, and the end reel of bloopers attached to body of the film was a real hoot. And we get titty shots of Angelique Pettyjohn (sort of) and Loren Crabtree to boot.<br /><br />A teleportation device activated by psychic Angelique Pettyjohn brings an alien container to an underground lab out in the desert. According to director Fred Olen Ray, they were leftover sets from the Klaus Kinski film, ANDROID which gives the film an increased value beyond how cheap it looks.<br /><br />Inside the container is a midget alien (played by Ray's son) who starts clawing people to death. It was pretty funny watching this little 'creature' in a black reptile suit with what looks like large beetle shells attached to it, running around in the dark. We even get to see the little thing stamp and tear at a poster of ET, which I thought was hilarious.<br /><br />And then there's what looks like a snake that also comes out of the container that gets hammered to death by William Fair, after the mini creature chews into Frank McDonald's neck in the kitchen. A low budget take on ALIEN, I suppose...<br /><br />The whole thing ends abruptly, looking like they ran out of film at the end before the blooper reel comes in with the end credits. Talk about a lack of funding...<br /><br />Fred Olen Ray also mentions in the director's commentary that they also weren't sure if Aldo Ray would make through the shooting and remember his lines. He barely did.<br /><br />Low budget cheese sneeze. It's fun to watch, I'll grant ya that. <br /><br />4 out of 10
If you're watching this movie, you're either a Fred Olen Ray fan, you found it on the $4.99 shelf at Suncoast and thought "what do I have to lose?", or you spun around the video store with your eyes closed and rented the first movie your finger touched.<br /><br />This movie is hysterically bad. It's got everything a terrible movie needs: a screenplay featuring jaw-dropping dialogue and baffling detours in the plot, wacky science involving psychics and other dimensions, continuity that seems to travel through wormholes in time and space, actors that are not only wooden, but seems to border on befuddled, gratuitous nudity (not all of it is what you necessarily would ask for), and of course, a 5' monster played by what I assume is Fred Olen Ray's kid.<br /><br />Underneath it all, however, there is something resembling heart -- as if Mickey & Judy decided to get together all the kids in the neighborhood and make a monster movie (hey! my dad can direct it! yeah! We can use red paint from my johnny's dad's hardware store, and I know this ex-stripper who can act in it!).<br /><br />Watch for the blooper reel over the credits -- you get to find out why the final cut of the movie was so crappy.<br /><br />Incidentally, Biohazard II...the Alien Force is also worth a look, but doesn't have the same enjoyably crappy veneer this one does.
I was always curious about this film because it is so tough to find, so when I stumbled upon it on Ebay I forked over the $10 and bought it, now I understand why its so rare! This film is SO bad, so terribly written and hopelessly low budget that the ending credits, which show all of the cut scenes where they fumbled their lines, are literally the movie's highlight. The film is about a psychic (Pettyjohn, cast for one obvious reason, her topless scene) whom uses her powers with an experimental machine to pull objects from another dimension into this reality. When she pulls in some kind of box like object the military nonchalantly throws it into the open back of a truck with one soldier to guard it, and gee, what do you know? SURPRISE! A kid in a foam-rubber monster costume pops out, instantly kills the soldier with a scratch across his face, then escapes to a nearby city. But rather than deploy half the armed forces of the county to find it and protect the public those in charge just leave it up to Pettyjohn and Ray to find it on their own, but no matter, this movie blows all its credibility LONG before then. This barely escapes being voted a 1 by me only because of unintentional laughs, somebody needs to alert the producers of "Mystery Science Theater 3000" if they don't know about it already! 2 out 10, really, REALLY bad!
Occasionally one is served a new entrée from foreign films. That is their great attraction. They take from life and serve it up raw. American films, rarely dare to touch the forbidden subjects of society. Too many hang-ups and a morbid fear of financial failure. The Almighty dollar, determines their selections. Something which invites European directors. In addition, audiences world wide remain hungry for "different" films, especially those which offer a savory bite out of the wretched, suffering body of humanity. Despite the fear of directors or producers, many audiences yearn for beauty, poetry, and the pristine flavor of life. That is what the film "To the Left of the Father" offers to curious audiences. A family locked in the belief that unity of family stems from the unity of it's obedience to tradition. Yet when the patriarch of a family forgets it's members are flesh and blood humans, filled with raging, unbridled dreams and dark passions, then the two are set in motions against itself. Selton Mello plays André a son who seeks to control his inner passions with the stagnant philosophy of his father. Raul Cortez plays his Father. Simone Spoladore is Ana a young woman who seeks to quench a forbidden thirst from the family waters. Leonardo Medeiros is Pedro, the elder brother. The film offers much, but does takes an extremely inordinate amount of time to say it. ***
"Boom" has garnered itself a something of a reputation. With heavyweights Taylor, Burton, Noel Coward, Tennessee Williams and Joseph Losey, one might be tempted to think, how bad could it be? Well, it's a lot worse than you could possibly imagine.<br /><br />The sad and disturbing fact of "Boom" is that is seems to signal the decline and fall of the aforementioned heavyweights. It was only director Joseph Losey who having plummeted the depths with "Modesty Blaise" and "Boom" (some may wish to add "Secret Ceremony"), managed to recuperate and in 1970 create his best work, the wonderful "Go-Between".<br /><br />Saddest of all is the work of Tennesee Williams. From the mid forties until the early sixties, Williams penned a number of plays which have gained classic status, remaining in theater repertory throughout the world, many becoming much praised films. When William's muse deserted him, probably owing to his notorious substance abuse, it deserted him for good. Williams at his best is an actor's dream providing many unforgettable performances. (Were Ava Gardner or Deborah Kerr ever better than in "Night of the Iguana" ? ) Taylor in particular, shone in both "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" and "Suddenly Last Summer". There is an anecdote in which supposedly Taylor asks John Gielgud whether he would teach her to play Shakespeare, to which he replied "if you will teach me to play Tennessee Williams". Had Gielgud seen "Boom" he would have held his tongue. Taylor simply has never been worse, turning in a cringe inducing performance. Despite her face photographing well, she is decidedly podgy. Besides the physical decline, from this time onwards she would basically lose credibility as a serious actress with a string of completely forgettable (and worse) roles to her credit.<br /><br />Much the same could be said of Burton. Following his short lived theatrical stardom, he won fame and fortune in Hollywood. But the body of his work from this point onwards (1968) would be unremarkable to say the least.<br /><br />Noel Coward had long ceased being a force in the theater where his drawing room comedies had been replaced by the likes of Williams and the British "angry young men". He seems to be enjoying himself camping it up, but barely manages to amuses, that from the man who claimed such a talent.<br /><br />The only cast member who maintains her dignity is young Joanna Shimkus, who in a few years would forego a promising screen career to become Mrs. Sidney Poitier.<br /><br />"Boom" reeks of self indulgence; it's simply out of control. A rather sad pointer to careers gone wrong rather than a camp fun fest as some have suggested.
Boy, this was one lousy movie! While I haven't seen all of the Burton/Taylor collaborations, I can say with confidence that this is the worst. This rich but ill woman (Taylor, of course) owns this beautiful island in the Meditteranean, ruling over a put-upon staff when she's suddenly visited by this traveling poet, who mouths platitudes. In fact, the whole film is just a talk fest, with much of the talk making no sense. Even in 1968, no one could make heads or tails of this pretentious nonsense, and the passage of time makes that even more clear. If it weren't for the beautiful cinematography and scenery, it would deserve a negative rating. The only thing this film is good for is its unintentional laughs at the expense of the stars.
This astonishing waste of production money is filmic proof that the rich and famous can be just as stupid and wasteful as politicians. From a (silly) play by Tennessee Williams and directed (with a dead hand) by Joseph Losey and starring Taylor and Burton and Noel Coward - this project filmed in a spectacular cliff-top mountain island mansion in the Mediterranean must have seemed a sure fire winner when presented to Universal in 1967. The result is so absurd and tedious that it almost defies belief. Visually the film is spectacular but that is the force of nature that has allowed the setting and the fact that a real home is used instead of a set. The shrill antics of a screeching Taylor, Burton's half asleep wanderings, the loony dialog, Noel Coward laughing at himself, the ridiculous story and plot devices and the absurd costuming simply irritate the viewer. BOOM is a disgrace, a waste of money and talent and clear proof that lauded famous people can be idiots just like the rest of the planet's plebs. Not even fun. Just terrible and mad shocking waste.
WOW! Pretty terrible stuff. The Richard Burton/Elizabeth Taylor roadshow lands in Sardinia and hooks up with arty director Joseph Losey for this remarkably ill-conceived Tennessee Williams fiasco. Taylor plays a rich, dying widow holding fort over her minions on an island where she dictates, very loudly, her memoirs to an incredibly patient secretary. When scoundrel Burton shows up claiming to be a poet and old friend, Taylor realizes her time is up. Ludicrious in the extreme --- it's difficult to determine if Taylor and Burton are acting badly OR if it was Williams' intention to make their characters so unappealing. If that's the case, then the acting is brilliant! Burton mumbles his lines, including the word BOOM several times, while Taylor screeches her's. She's really awful. So is Noel Coward as Taylor's catty confidante, the "Witch of Capri." <br /><br />Presumably BOOM is about how fleeting time is and how fast life moves along --- two standard Williams themes, but it's so misdirected by Losey, that had Taylor and Burton not spelled it out for the audience during their mostly inane monologues, any substance the film has would have been completely diluted. <br /><br />BOOM does have stunning photography---the camera would have to have been out of focus to screw up the beauty of Sardinia! The supporting cast features Joanna Shimkus, the great Romolo Valli as Taylor's resourceful doctor and Michael Dunn as her nasty dwarf security guard...both he and his dogs do a number on Burton!
Whatever rating I give BOOM is only because of the superb location photography of Sardinia and Rome. Otherwise, this is only for hardcore addicts of ELIZABETH TAYLOR (her downward phase), and RICHARD BURTON (his miscasting phase). Tennessee Williams wrote "The Milk Train Doesn't Stop Here Anymore" and is supposed to be very fond of this adaptation of his play--but apparently, he was the only one. Taylor reportedly hated it and Burton needed the money.<br /><br />Whatever, it amounts to a hill of beans with Taylor posturing and fuming in her shrill manner, exploding at the servants and exchanging bad baby-talk with no less than NOEL COWARD who seems to be a visitor from another film when he finally appears.<br /><br />It's so campy that among Taylor fans it's probably considered a "must see" kind of thing. But if you can sit through this one without a drink in your hand, you're way ahead of me. Sadly, this is the film that signified the end of Taylor being taken seriously as a film actress, even after winning two Oscars. For Burton, it was equally disastrous and the critics called it a BOMB. Judge for yourself if you dare.
Is rich, ailing Elizabeth Taylor courting the Angel of Death on her island fortress in the Mediterranean, or is she just overreacting--or more precisely, overacting--as usual? Actually, both are applicable in director Joseph Losey's wandering, meandering mess called "Boom", appropriately titled since tempers in the lush, luxurious setting are nearly ready to explode. Richard Burton climbs Taylor's mountain uninvited; she dresses him in a samurai's robe complete with saber. Though great-looking in widescreen, the picture is otherwise quite deadly, a failure even Liz 'n Dick-philes should shun (the stars' collective "what the hell!" attitude to their late-'60s film careers reached an ego-mad nadir here). Pointless, confused, and maddening, "Boom" is a catastrophe--although screenwriter Tennessee Williams, who adapted his own unsuccessful play "The Milk Train Doesn't Stop Here Anymore", was said to be quite fond of it! * from ****
I have an awful pan-and-scan videotape of "Boom!", and I want to see it in all its widescreen glory. So I voted "1" and hope you will too. Together, we can pull this movie down into the pits of cinematic dross, and hope that someone will see an opportunity for BIG MONEY in releasing "Boom!" in its Director's Cut Extended Version. The movie is one of my howling favorites…you just look at the people involved, the director, the actors, the cameraman, and you say to yourself, "Yep, I guess you can fool some of the people for a lot of time." Producers considering the DVD release of "Boom!" should note that, everywhere it's been shown, there have been sellout crowds in the theaters. But it hasn't been up to Frostbite Falls yet.
The movie appeals to public due to charisma of Ben Stiller and notoriety of J. Aniston. It seems that we have here a recipe for a successful title, but there's nothing successful in this movie.<br /><br />Polly is very well played by Aniston, no doubt. This is the kind of character which suits her perfectly. <br /><br />Bem Stiller is the same troublesome guy like in " Meet the parents", but in this movie the comic scenes are few compared to the title mentioned above.<br /><br />The script is very poor with nothing special at all. With this two well payed actors the things could get a lot better - but what can they do when there is such a poor story and script.<br /><br />4 out of 10.
I realize several Ben Stiller movies are out or will be out this year, but perhaps he should insist on quality, not quantity.<br /><br />I was dumbfounded at what the filmmakers thought passed for comedy in "Along Came Polly." <br /><br />Stiller's Reuben is grating, charmless and ranks as one of the worst performances of the year. Stiller's schtick is getting tiresome. He undoubtedly has comic talent, but he needs to either find another schtick or take a break, find some material that is actually funny. Because his movies are going from painfully humorless to excruciatingly bad.<br /><br />There's absolutely no chemistry between Stiller and Jennifer Aniston, which is a shame because she's a good, smart actress with a promising career. As long as she keeps making more movies such as "The Good Girl" (in which she's terrific) and less like "Along Came Polly," she'll have a career of which she could be proud.<br /><br />Aniston tries desperately to overcome the limp material with which she's working, but it's a daunting task for any actress. With the exception of a few moments with Alec Baldwin, as Reuben's boss Stan, and Philip Seymour Hoffman, as Reuben's best friend Sandy, there's nothing funny in this awful film. Other supporting characters, including Debra Messing as Lisa and Hank Azaria as Claude, are annoying. Azaria's accent is not only stupid, it's terribly unfunny.<br /><br />The premise of "Along Came Polly" certainly showed promise. Unfortunately, it needed a writer who could actually turn it into a good comedy, instead of this lame, dull, boring excuse for a comedy.
I saw this for free, thankfully, and wish it was better than it was, but it's really the same old stuff that movie studios seem to foist on us in the last ten years.<br /><br />Ben Stiller and Jennifer Anniston play a couple who are opposites- and yet they are attracted to each other.<br /><br />If that plot line doesn't take you by surprise and thrill you, the movie won't either.<br /><br />Lots of sight gags and fart jokes. Halfway through the movie I began to realize that Ben Stiller really isn't that funny, but he tries VERY hard. And Jennifer Anniston really isn't that pretty, but her HAIR looks great. And Hank Azaria and Phillip Seymore Hoffman must have got paid a great deal of money to be in this kind of average ho-hum movie, I've come to expect more from them.<br /><br />What was interesting was that I saw this after I saw American Splendor, which is a truly funny and original movie- and I compared the two in my head, and found myself wishing that the movie executives would be forced to sit through those two movies back to back- perhaps that would knock some sense into them and<br /><br />they'd start making better movies with unknowns rather than this formulaic stuff that plays best on airplanes.
This has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen. The DVD was given to me free with an order I placed online for non DVD related items.<br /><br />No wonder they were given away, surely no one could part with money for this drivel.<br /><br />How some reviewers can say they found it hilarious beggars belief, the person who includes it in the worst five films ever has got it spot on.<br /><br />How on earth a talented actor like Philip Seymour Hoffman could get involved in this rubbish is unbelievable. Mostly toilet humour and badly done at that.<br /><br />Anyone wanting to be entertained should avoid this at all costs.
Okay, I absolutely LOVE Ben Stiller, although I am lukewarm about Jennifer Aniston. I do not think this girl can act in the least. Every movie or sitcom I've seen her in is very hard to get past her fake acting. It sounds like she is just standing there reading right off the script. This movie only had one good thing about it, and that's that Ben Stiller was in it. This plot is so used and abused it's ridiculous. How many movies have this same type of plot?? Can we say "Forces of Nature??" Not only is the plot so old, but the outcome is so predictable, it's boring. I knew everything that was going to happen before it did. It was a bore, but watching Stiller is always a delight!!!
Make no bones about it. There are a lot of things wrong with this movie. It's clichéd the whole way, not very funny, predictable, and illogical. Let's start at the beginning: characters. There's the boring, luckless guy - giving Stiller another notch in his boring, luckless guy belt - the allegedly wild, but in reality just fairly normal, love interest - whom Aniston plays well, but really needed no effort to do so - the fat, jovial friend, and then the assortment of clichés: an annoying daredevil Australian guy, a confident Spanish guy, etc. The storyline: the beginning is slightly unusual, but thereafter goes into the standard any-movie style, with every plot turn as predictable as your average knock-knock joke. The biggest problem was that Stiller's character's "development" really seemed to come from nothing - like your average school play, the writers knew where he started and where he ended, but didn't put enough stock into properly telling the middle bit. Finally, the alleged 'jokes' were nothing but highly watered down versions of standard gross-out humour; there was a regulation chunder scene, sweaty fat men, etc.<br /><br />In conclusion, the simple fact about this movie is that learning the meaning of the word 'shart' was the only good thing. Hamburg really dished up a dog's dinner here, and the sugar coating of Stiller and Aniston may have lured the viewers, but the taste left at the end was just as rancid.<br /><br />Final comment: This film may have been dreadful, but Aniston still picked a better between-Friends-seasons movie than Kudrow's odious 'Marci X.'
This film offers absolutely no imagination in it's premise nor in it's execution but these are just two things that come to mind after watching this so-called comedy that has no energy to speak of. Story is about nit-picky over analytical insurance risk manager Reuben Feffer (Ben Stiller) who finds his new wife Lisa (Debra Messing) cheating on him with a scuba instructor (Hank Azaria) after only one day on their honeymoon. Upon returning home Reuben and his best friend Sandy (Philip Seymour Hoffman) go to a party and run into Polly Prince (Jennifer Aniston) whom they went to school with years earlier.<br /><br />*****SPOILER ALERT***** Polly is forgetful and sloppy and lives carefree which is the opposite of who Reuben is as a person but they start to date and Reuben starts to change as a person as he starts to try out new things such as salsa dancing and eating spicy foods. But one day Lisa comes back and wants to remain married to Reuben but he really doesn't want to but Polly decides to leave as she doesn't believe in marriage to begin with.<br /><br />This film is the second directing effort by John Hamburg who wrote two generally unfunny screenplays in "Zoolander" and "Meet the Parents" but those two films seem like classics compared to this stale piece of drivel. It's very easy to say something is not funny but I think with this film it's even easier to figure out why. This film is totally and utterly predictable from start to finish with every scene looking as if it's only happening because of the ridiculousness of the script. Hamburg who also wrote the script seems to have written this without any thought of trying something different and at times he seems to be trying to generate the same energy as "There's Something About Mary" but instead the events seem incredibly forced. Did anyone really think the blind ferret was funny? If you do, your easy! A few times during the film characters would inexplicably have these emotional speeches that are supposed to summarize everything but all they achieve is overstating the obvious. Stiller works a lot but maybe he should work less and just wait for the better scripts to come his way because this film doesn't work as a comedy or as a romance.
Considering the potential this move had, the reality was disappointing. While it's always nice to see Jennifer Aniston in a movie, even that couldn't turn this around. Most of the action was predictable. The jokes were flat to mildly amusing. And the characters were not very interesting. I wanted to like this film, but it just never happened. Ben Stiller was hilarious in "There's Something about Mary". Here it looks like he's just going thru the motions. If they have to lift plot points from "Friends", they should have known something was wrong. The toilet humor should have stayed in the closet :-).<br /><br />Watch "50 First Dates" instead.
Ben Stiller doesn't so much act as react. And he does it very well. He is very dependent on the comedy going on around him. In There's Something About Mary, the stand-up hair scene only works because of Stiller trying to keep a straight face. When he confronts Mary's other two suitors, he is the unfunniest guy in the room but the scene is hilarious.<br /><br />In Along Came Polly, the formula breaks down for reasons that are difficult to fathom. Stiller is surrounded by an array of comic talent. Hank Azaria and Philip Seymour Hoffman get the best lines, of which there are too few. Having said that, Hoffman relies a little too much on bodily humour - you know we are in trouble when they go to the fart jokes to raise a laugh. A basketball scene where Hoffman hams it up is completely overplayed (though it throws up one predicament in the form of a shirtless opponent that does raise a smile - noticeably through Stiller's reaction). However, everyone seems to be acting in a bubble, there is very little reaction. Hoffman and Stiller's characters could have played off each other much, much more. Aniston again reprises her Rachael role, but Stiller is no Ross. It is more of a "Joey with a crush on Rachael" scenario.<br /><br />Polly is a by-the-numbers rom-com and that is its failing - it lacks heart. You don't root for the characters. With a little bit more work we could have had a deeper story, but in the end the film's failure comes down to poor writing. Worth watching if it pops up on TV on a slow night, but you'll regret forking out cash to see it.
When I saw that this movie was being shown on TV, I was really looking forward to it. I grew up in the 1980's and like everyone else who has grown up in that era, have seen every 80's teen and summer camp movie out there. So I couldn't wait to see this movie that totally spoofs that film genre. What a disappointment!! The movie was nothing but a bunch of really bad jokes and gags over and over, with hardly any plot and no substance. And the filmmakers attempts at dark humor totally failed-some of these so-called jokes didn't come across as anything but downright cruel and offensive. The only good things about this film were the wardrobe, music, and acting. It was nice to go on a nostalgia trip and see all of the summer clothing styles from the 80's, and the same goes for the music. And the acting was top-notch throughout: almost all of Hollywood's best comedians were present. Too bad they didn't have better material to work with.
I was dying to see this once I saw the ridiculous MEATBALLS poster and divined that it had to be the best satire ever. What a brilliant idea for a satire--the genre is rife. Unfortunately, the finished product (as I think all involved probably realize) is a catalogue of missed opportunities, not-quite-there performances and (thankfully!) a few extremely hilarious, inspired bits. Janeane Garafolo, who is very striking, looks really bad here, probably because she is uncomfortably struggling to make her flat role funny. David Hyde Pierce is just sad to watch, trying to hard to be funny and looking like a Castro nerd. Molly Shannon is so funny just SEEING her makes you laugh, but somehow her segment fails to snowball into something hysterical. Paul Rudd had great teen mannerisms and was sexy as hell, the other guys are also really funny (the nerdier ones). I think the problem is the director just doesn't move things along at the right pace. He starts out very deadpan, and that sets the monotone. But when he lets things get really outrageous (the drug sequence is the second funniest moment I've had all year in movies, the first also coming in a lame movie: Andrea Martin in ALL OVER THE GUY complaining about the movie IN & OUT), it's just plain funny. I wanted this movie to work so badly, but it just didn't. The clothes and styling for 1981 are 99.9% PERFECT, and the very few songs used are also perfect. This ends up as a medium-bad MAD TV episode, complete with frustratingly overlong sketches.
IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP! not funny at all. during the whole movie nothing ever happens. i almost fell asleep, which in my case happens only if a movie is rally bad. (that is why it didn't get 1 (awful) out of 10 but 2).don't be fooled, like i was, by first review. a waste of money and your time! spend it on other stuff. at this point i'm finished with my review but i have to fill in at least ten lines of text so i will go on.... (ctrl+c, ctrl+v) :))) IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP! not funny at all. during the whole movie nothing ever happens. i almost fell asleep, which in my case happens only if a movie is rally bad. (that is why it didn't get 1 (awful) out of 10 but 2).don't be fooled, like i was, by first review. a waste of money and your time! spend it on other stuff. IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP! not funny at all. during the whole movie nothing ever happens. i almost fell asleep, which in my case happens only if a movie is rally bad. (that is why it didn't get 1 (awful) out of 10 but 2).don't be fooled, like i was, by first review. a waste of money and your time! spend it on other stuff.
If you can believe it, *another* group of teens return to *another* lakeside cabin three years after *another* one of those fatal 'accidents' claimed one of their number. Low and behold, a psycho wearing a patterned hockey mask (a cheap papery one at that) turns up to waste them one by one. This mechanical 'Friday the 13th' knock off gained slight notoriety as one of the first digitally-shot features, but that's where the interesting facts end and all that remains is a predictable, amateur production with sub-par performances and a recurring boom-mic intrusion. A last-second twist does little to lift the spirits, and 'Memorial Day' is something best tossed in a lake and forgotten about. One for insane slasher collectors only.
I have to say although this movie was formulaic throughout with a plot stolen from films like Friday the 13th/I Know What You Did Last Summer, this movie wasn't that bad. In fact it wasn't as bad as most of the Horror films Hollywood has released recently. The killings although at times a little too imaginative were in most instances just that, original. The cast was mediocre which is to be expected from low-budget features but much better than what that much bigger studio Artisan/Lions Gate has been offering. My only real complaint that wasn't due to the film's budget, which must have been small, was the contrived "twist" ending. I'm sorry but this is what put this film in the bad category for me. The ending was just stupid and tacked on. Before that I was a little bored, but actually enjoying it. 4/10
Three years ago, Rachel(Therese Fretwell) was partying at the lake with her friends when her brother falls out of a boat and drowns. Rachel's friends think it is time for her to stop beating herself up and taking blame for something she had no control over. So grab the brew and something to chew and head back to the same lake that has been in Rachel's constant nightmares. As expected, a bloodbath has already started when two of the friends are splattered before even heading to the party. This flick has the feel of a high school play where everyone forgot their lines and 'winged it'...very badly! Writer Marcos Gabriel gave himself the meatier role as Rachel's boyfriend Leo. Outside of Fretwell and Gabriel there are some pretty lame acting and a few characters you would like to choke the crap out of before they get 'offed'. Giving attention to a few more players that had the nerve to appear: Erin Gallagher, Andrew Williams, Jasmine Trice and Derek Nieves. This is one MEMORIAL DAY you wouldn't mind missing.
First off, I had my doubts just looking at the DVD box and reading it saying that it was about of bunch of teens gathering at a lake where they will find do or something. Any movie that has a premise like this has failed miserably, even as a slasher movie, except for the first Friday the 13th.<br /><br />I wanted to get up and stop watching the movie at least 10 times, but I just kept thinking that it had to get a little better. It didn't. Usually, I think every movie has something that you can take from it. This has nothing.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor, and find something constructive to do for 80 minutes. Like, give yourself papercuts, or eat dirt.
It seems evident from this adaptation that he did not. Not only did he leave the plot behind, he made up his own! The things that he chose to leave in were so ridiculously unbelievable that I was happy he chose to leave out some of the most important parts of the novel. The plot was hazy, inconsistent and choppy to say the least. I don't want to say anything mean-spirited about the actors, but they can't act! Dickens is difficult, of course, but this is pathetic! Micawber was nothing more than a mid-nineteenth century Kramer, and the less said about Betsy Trotwood the better! If you want to see the real Copperfield, watch the wonderful 1999 BBC adaptation. As for the screenplay writer,I think he read the Cliff's Notes!
I wouldn't recommend this unless you're keen on David Copperfield and want to "complete the set". There are some good performances (e.g. Uriah Heep) and well directed moments (e.g. the beating), but on the whole it really pales in comparison with the 1999 BBC version, as well as earlier versions. <br /><br />There are inexplicable changes to the story that really serve no great purpose except, possibly, to dumb it down (the stolen jewels being a case in point). The American cast were poorly chosen: Sally Field is a good actress, but she is wrong as Betsy Trotwood, and her English accent is only slightly better than Dick Van Dyke's cockney. I can see why Michael Richards was chosen to play Mr Micawber; he hams it up rather too much, however, and becomes irritating. He also speaks his lines in an accent that goes beyond eccentric and becomes simply preposterous. Anthony Andrews is menacing as Mr Murdstone, but one almost expects him to don a black cape and tie David's mother to a railway line (though this is perhaps partly the fault of Dickens). <br /><br />I got this for free with a newspaper. It helped pass a Sunday afternoon, but I felt more disappointed than charmed at the end of it
I'm guessing the writers have never read a book of any kind, much less a Dickens novel, and certainly not David Copperfield, and that they based their screenplay on another poorly written screenplay, possibly an adaptation of Copperfield, though just as likely anything else, from which they randomly discarded about a third of the pages and then shuffled the rest, along with some random pages from a screenplay that someone's eighth grade nephew had written for an English class, and for which he had received a failing grade. <br /><br />If the casting was a bad joke - e.g., Richards as Kramer playing Micawber - which it was, then the direction and acting were the poorly- delivered punch lines. Getting beyond Kramer as Micawber, if possible, Ham was such a complete ogre, hunch-back and all, that I was half expecting at some point to see him being pursued by an angry pitch-fork and torch wielding mob of villagers. Uriah was almost as much of a clown figure as Micawber. Mr. Murdstone evoked about as much terror as that Muppet vampire from Sesame street. The actor playing older David was, I believe, actually a woman. In any case, looking perpetually as if he wished he could find a mirror to see how pretty he looked, and fancied that he looked quite pretty indeed, he could scarcely convince us that he was writing with a quill pen. And while we're on that subject, in one of the many gross inaccuracies perpetrated by the half-wit producers of this embarrassment, in the unnecessary shots of David writing his story he appears to be somewhere between 18 and 21 years old, when he should be in his forties. Perhaps the greatest transgression, although it's difficult to choose, was the invented showdown between David and Murdstone as he courted a third wife in Switzerland, preceded of course by the invented death of Murdstone's second wife. While they were at it it is a wonder they didn't send Heep to the guillotine, and have him deliver Sidney Carton's famous last words. It couldn't have made things much worse really. It might have been far far better.<br /><br />There are literally thousands of small and large sins against literature throughout this miscarriage of art, and anyone who watches it runs the risk of severe and permanent damage to all aspects of their sensibility.
Right up until the end the bad guys have the upper-hand - always - which kind of put into question the competence of the good guys. A couple of innocent-man-accused-of-a-crime plots are irritating. Some unnecessary dialogue in which various dull legal issues get debated. This is just a mediocre dumb old western, so what's this nonsense about trying to keep things "realistic"? Cagney's atypical presence in a western is one of the few - if not the only - entertaining thing about the movie. Somewhere around the middle there is a ridiculously-timed marriage proposal; sort of like "Where is the Kid hiding??!! Where is he?!... Oh, and by the way, will you marry me?"
There are so many goofy things about this movie that I can't possibly name but a few:<br /><br />BOGART's character: 1. His name – Whip McCord (too easy, so I'll leave it at that. Boy, it makes `Humphrey' sound good.) 2. His long, curly hair and silly sideburns. 3. His Black Bart get-up, complete with spurs! 4. Not sure what shade of lipgloss they've got him wearing, but it ain't none too flattering.<br /><br />CAGNEY's character (Jim Kincaid ): 1. His lipstick doesn't do him any favors, either. 2. The man is being swallowed by his hat during the entire film! Could they not find a hat to fit him? Even a LITTLE?!!?! 3. His pants are too tight in the rear. 4. He blows the smoke off his gun one too many times, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.<br /><br />If you are a casual Bogart or Cagney fan, and figure it might be a change of pace to see them in a western, do yourself a favor and forget that thought. EVEN THE HORSES LOOK EMBARRASSED! (That is, when they don't look bored.)<br /><br />In all fairness, I admit that westerns are my least favorite film genre, but I've still seen much, MUCH better than this.<br /><br />On a comedy level, or as high camp, The Oklahoma Kid works. Otherwise, it's viewer beware. Therefore, see this only if a) you must see every western out there b) you are a TRUE Cagney or Bogie completist c) any of the above comments appeal to you. Woah…..
In Hollywood in the 1930's and 1940's, I think that every studio can make a western, except Warner bros. The few times they try, it always ridiculous (except, perhaps, for They Died with their Boots on - which is a cavalery western.) I have read that Humphrey Bogart, seing James Cagney with this big cowboy hat on his head, said that he looks like a mushroom. True! Cagney and Bogart are too urban, too XXe century to be credible in a western movie. The story here had no suprise, and it did't help. Every 10 minutes, I figure I can see Bogart and Cagney drops their little guns and put hands in a machine gun to get away from the set in a 1930's black car.
I started watching this movie expecting some barely tolerable Hammer horror film wannabe... and I wasn't far off. There's a fair amount of glimpsed gore, and they threw in lots of nudity, but the latter half of the movie presents a few ironic twists. Holy cow, they actually put a little thought into the story, and didn't completely fall into the predictable stuff one expected at the outset. And dare I say it, some of the "gratuitous" nudity wasn't so gratuitous after all, because it fit in with the story and setting.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, it's still overall a bad movie, but as bad movies go, it's a shade more intelligent than the REALLY horrible tripe like Mesa of Lost Women and Robot Monster.
Man, what the hell were the people who made this film on? And more importantly where can I get some? The opening scene sets the tone for the film: a woman writhing naked in a circle of fire, transforming into a werewolf. And this is no Rick Baker 'American werewolf' transformation, folks. We're talking some of the worst makeup ever captured on film here. I can just imagine some stoned Italian spreading glue on naked Annik Borel (who plays Daniela, the film's protagoness (is that a word?)), and asking her to roll in fur. That's how bad it is.<br /><br />From here on in it doesn't get much better. Minutes are wasted as the scenery chewing male actors waffle on about Daniela and her condition or something (I can't remember, but the dialogue is so bad if you don't laugh at it you'll cry).<br /><br />The funny thing is Daniela isn't even a werewolf, she's a psycho who goes mental whenever there is a man around (understandable, as she was raped as a child) so she thinks she becomes a werewolf like her ancestor (the opening scene). She can't help but tear out the throat of every man she meets, and she only wants to be loved! Things start looking up for Daniela as she meets and falls in love with a buff stuntman who doesn't trigger her 'episodes'. Check out the montage here, one of the cheesiest you'll ever see (laughing and hugging after diving headfirst through a window).<br /><br />Daniela's luck doesn't hold out as the film takes a brutal turn, she is suddenly viciously beaten and raped by a group of thugs who kill the stuntman. Reminiscent of "I spit on your grave", Daniela extracts bloody vengeance on her rapists.<br /><br />This is 100 minutes of my life I will never get back. But hey, that's the game you play when you're a film geek.
Don't listen to the misleading title "Werewolf Woman". The Europeans are well known for putting an emphasis on sex and nudity over actual scares in their horror films, but this one here is just a bit too much. "Werewolf Woman" seems to have a sleazy sex scene copped off with the title character going crazy and brutally killing her partner. Fun the first few times, but a hundred minutes of this becomes very monotonous quickly. Shes not even a werewolf, but a schizo chick whose ancestor was hanged for lycanthropy. The film can't even decide its tone, with the first ten minutes (a flashback) being legitimate supernatural horror (I thought I was in for a trash classic after these) to a rather poor character study of the female being repeatedly abused and tortured to a revenge thriller. At the end, the director insists this is based on a true story. Yeah, all right.<br /><br />To be fair, there are a few entertaining aspects of the production. The title werewolf woman is a looker and there are a few nice gore effects and nude scenes. However, these become rather monotonous quickly. Also, the dubbed dialog is pretty hilarious in a camp fashion, especially the worlds most swinging doctor (he drinks on the job). Unfortunately, the film becomes pretty irritating fast. There's no actual plot or anything else really. Its a shame, because reading a description I felt the film had some real potential. "Werewolf Woman" is far overlong, slow moving, and a bit too pointless, even by the standards of the exploitation genre. (4/10)
"La Lupa Mannara" aka. "Werewolf Woman" of 1976 is a film with a highly promising title, but, sadly, the film itself is pretty far away from being a must-see for my fellow Italian Horror buffs. You won't hear me say that Rino Di Silvestri's film is entirely bad - it has its stylish moments, and the first half is actually great fun to watch (though the fun is unintentional). The film also profits from an exceptionally exhibitionist leading actress, Annik Borel. However, the film, which has no real plot (at least no linear one) often makes no sense at all, and it drags incredibly throughout the mostly superfluous second half.<br /><br />Daniella (Annik Borel) has strange dreams about a dancing around naked in the night before turning into a Werewolf Woman. Since she was a raped as a girl, Daniella is afraid of men. Then, when her sister (cult siren Dagmar Lassander) comes to visit with her husband, Daniella suddenly feels attracted to the husband and subsequently turns into a Werewolf Woman herself... or something. The storyline really doesn't make the slightest sense, which makes the film a lot of fun to watch throughout the first half. The leading character Daniella is some schizophrenic mixture of frigid hysteric and lusty nymphomaniac, who occasionally turns into a werewolf woman. Director Di Silvestri chose to make up for the plot-holes with a lot of of female nudity, which works fine for me. There are also some pretty well-done gore moments. The film is never even slightly suspenseful or creepy, but it is very entertaining in the beginning. Also, there are no attempts to hide that this is a slice of sleaze, the camera often does close-ups on the Miss Borel's private parts for the simple heck of it. I'm not complaining. Then, for some reason, Di Silvestri chose to make the film longer by completely changing the direction in which it was going. While Daniella is, at first, a typical werewolf, who cannot help but follow the urges of her curse, this suddenly changes when she meets a guy (Howard Ross, who was in Fernando Di Leo's "Il Boss" of 1973). Suddenly, she goes back to normal again, and the subsequent part of the film does not at all go in hand with the first half. It gets pretty damn boring after a while; all things considered, it probably would have been better for this 99 minute film to be only 70 minutes long. At the end, they even want to make us believe that the absurd story (if one can call it that) is based on true events. "Werewolf Woman" has some redeeming qualities; my fellow Italo-Horror fans can give it a try. However, if you wanna watch Italian Horror/Exploitation cinema from the 70s, there are hundreds of films that you should see before seeing this one.
This Italian film from the '70's is NOT even in the class with Dog Soldiers, The Howling, or even that awful American Werewolf in Paris, BUT...it is fun to watch. I'm talking about watching the lead actress, a stunning blonde, run amok in her birthday suit. We're talking about graphic, complete nudity...it's obvious that she is a real blonde...humma humma humma!! The story is a hoot, the SFX are childish, and the acting (for the most part) stinks. The only redeeming value of this movie is all (and there is a LOT) the nudity & sex scenes. Tame by HBO standards, but still fun to see when you find yourself without a date on Saturday night. OK...HERE'S THE SPOILER...There is NO werewolf (except in the opening scene of the heroine(??)'s ancestor. The girl just imagines that she's a werewolf...in other words, a clinical Lycanthrope.
First thing I noticed in this movie of course, was the unnecessary amount of nudity. It's not oozing nudity or anything, but a lot that was not needed. Annik Borel plays a disturbed woman believing her families ghost stories that her ancestor who eerily resembles her was a werewolf, and believes their fate are destined to be the same. Which actually I found quite interesting. The original Wolf Man was intended to be a completely psychological movie, but Universal threw in the actual Wolf man you were never supposed to see for n extra buck or two. I find this concept of someone not really being a werewolf interesting. Unfortunately this is not the film I was searching for.<br /><br />Instead we know shes not a werewolf from the beginning, so there's no thrill or twist, also they attempt to make the film seem like a this really happened scenario. They fail there too adding one or two parts of the film referring to this being reality. At first I was excited upon reading the description of the film. But I slowly realized it was a cover just so they could expose the main characters breasts as often as possible.<br /><br />Annik Borel is either a decent actor playing a great psychotic role, or a really bad actor playing a psychotic role. Since the character Danniele has no brains and is just a nut who runs around insane and snarling and snapping like a wolf, it takes little skill to play. She has moments were her performance breaks through for a creepy moment but is quickly ruined by the poor camera work and light. The idea is great, but hideously executed throughout the film. 3/10
"A young woman suffers from the delusion that she is a werewolf, based upon a family legend of an ancestor accused of and killed for allegedly being one. Due to her past treatment by men, she travels the countryside seducing and killing the men she meets. Falling in love with a kind man, her life appears to take a turn for the better when she is raped and her lover is killed by a band of thugs. Traumatized again by these latest events, the woman returns to her violent ways and seeks revenge on the thugs," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />Rino Di Silvestro's "La lupa mannara" begins with full frontal, writhing, moaning dance by shapely blonde Annik Borel, who (as Daniella Neseri) mistakenly believes she is a werewolf. The hottest part is when the camera catches background fire between her legs. The opening "flashback" reveals her hairy ancestor was (probably) a lycanthropic creature. Ms. Borel is, unfortunately, not a werewolf; she is merely a very strong lunatic.<br /><br />As a film, "Werewolf Woman" (in English) would have been better if Borel's character really was a female werewolf; with her sexual victimization a great bit of characterization. But, as far as 1970s skin and blood flicks go, this one is hard to beat. Bouncy Borel is either nude or sexily clad throughout the film, which features a fair amount of gratuitous gore. Dazzling Dagmar Lassander (as Elena) and hunky Howard Ross (as Luca) are good supporting players.
Daniella has some issues brewing under her attractive exterior. She starts to lose her mind when she finds out about a distant relative (who she resembles) that was burned for being a werewolf. She goes a bit feral when she beads horny men and slashes out their throats. She does eventually find a man that helps contain her inner beast but when others ruin their bliss she extracts her violent and furry revenge.<br /><br />'Werewolf Woman' isn't a very goof film but it does pose as a good crowd film. A fun time could be had by harping the bad acting / dubbing / translation and the just plain cheesiness of the production. But on it's own it moves slowly but does have ample nudity to keep you awake…barely.
This film ends with a speech in which the narrator tells us the fates of two of the lead characters and that the names of people and places have been changed...before telling us that relation to actual people and events are purely coincidental. This ending line actually sums up everything that has gone before it; as Rino Di Silvestro's messy film completely lacks vision, and if there is any point to the plot; it wasn't put there on purpose. Werewolf Woman is often seen as a guilty pleasure or a 'so bad it's good' film, but I completely disagree. Normally, I enjoy films like this; but Werewolf Woman is indeed a bad film, and despite all the sex and savagery on display; it doesn't even make for a fun watch, and that really is unforgivable. The film really doesn't have much plot, but the thin sliver we are given involves a young woman, who also happens to dream that she is a werewolf. She dreams of going out and finding men, having sex with them and eventually killing them. Back in the real world, she falls in love, but her lover is killed and she goes out for revenge...<br /><br />The film is made up of scenes of sex and gore, which are padded out with extremely dull talking sequences in which various characters mull over the recent events. These scenes are probably there to forward the plot and build characters; but they really don't do that, and succeed only in turning what could have been a passable exploitation romp into an extremely underwhelming film. It would seem that the director was more interested in style and atmosphere than the plot, and this is shown by the fact that the film looks and sounds nice. The sex scenes are often overlong and not very erotic, but the gore works well. The premise is ripe for giving way to a very sexy slice of exploitation, as there's plenty of naked women, and the fact that the central character has a werewolf origin means that there could be plenty of erotica; but this isn't capitalised on, and while I can stomach huge doses of bad acting and poorly done plot lines, I really can't stand watching films and being bored. Overall, I wouldn't even recommend this film to big exploitation fans. There's plenty of better stuff than this out there, and while the title may sound intriguing - the film isn't.
Very strange but occasionally elegant exploitation movie with no real story, but benefiting from its stunningly ravishing lead actress and a handful of nice, gruesome make-up effects. Daniella is a beautiful twenty-something girl, carrying with her the trauma of being raped at the age of 13. Nightmares and hallucinations lead her further into believing she's the reincarnation of a female ancestor who was said to be a werewolf. She kills her brother-in-law during a nightly encounter and gets submitted in a hospital. She escapes again, however, and randomly devours more men whilst on the run for police detectives, doctors and relatives. It's all pretty to look at and listen too (really great soundtrack), but the absence of plot and continuity become irritating quite fast. Luckily enough, leading lady Annik Borel rarely ever wears clothes and she fills up the boring moments by dancing naked around a fire. The film is too long, too weird and too forgettable. The biggest surprise comes at the end, when suddenly and out of the blue, director Rino Di Silvestro tries to make us believe that his movie was based on true facts. Yeah, right...
Let me begin by saying I am a big fantasy fan. However, this film is not for me. Many far-fetched arguments are trying to support this film's claim that dragons possibly ever existed. The film mentions connections in different stories from different countries, but fails to investigate them more thoroughly, which could have given the film some credibility. The film uses (nice!) CGI to tell us a narrated fantasy story on a young dragon's life. This is combined with popular-TV-show-CSI-style flash-forwards to make it look like something scientific, which it is definitely not. In many cases the arguments/clues are far-fetched. In some cases, clues used to show dragons possibly existed, or flew, or spit fire are simply invalid. To see this just makes me get cramp in my toes. Even a fantasy film needs some degree of reality in it, but this one just doesn't have it. Bottom line: it's a pretentious fantasy-CSI documentary, not worth watching.
This documentary (or I should say mockumentary) is the perfect example of how ridiculous can the people be, when they have full enthusiasm on something like that. Honestly, I hate Cryptozoology. It is unscience, it just destroy it. However, something positive in this was the visual effects (dragons were beautiful), but some of the information in this mockumentary was totally fake, and that is really disappointing because it was coming from scientists, so that is the reason why it deserves a 1 of 10 and not a 0. An example of false information would be the hydrogen idea: It is true that, according to Chemystry, the hydrogen is produced in the stomach but it is impossible to be produced in that proportions, so in that case, you need a good explanation of what really happens in a dragon stomach. There are a lot of substances whit hydrogen in the nature but not the necessary to aloud an animal like that to fly, and the hydrogen does not appear from nothing, so it is impossible. Anyway, there is actually something worse, the idea of the platinum: This element is more difficult to find than gold, and I cannot explain myself how dragons survive depending of that. It is ridiculous, they present dragons like creatures with low chances of conquering the planet Earth, but off course at least that explain why they got extincted. Probably cryptologist's call themselves scientists, but they are not. People like them say lies like in this mockumentary, and what is worst, some people buy them. But I do not think that a person who cares about Science would believe in dragons after watching this. Those fake scientists waste their time.
I think that most everyone wants to believe that extraordinary things exist and this film shows no restraint in trying to exploit that to the fullest. The presentation is very interesting, well presented and the graphics are state of the art, but from a scientific point of view it just doesn't work. Hydrogen filled flying bladders? They would need to be the size of a Mack truck to be useful. And then there's the ever-present possibility of a catastrophic explosion. I have no problem with fantasy, just don't try to pass it off as fact. Some folks will always misunderstand. All in all the film is entertaining, but I constantly found myself saying "oh brother, what a load of ....". If you want a FAKE documentary, watch This Is Spinal Tap instead. Or at the very least turn the sound off.
Discovery Channel/Animal Planet must be ashamed of themselves. This Fantasy is modeled after the "Walking with Dinosuars" series. Even though this is 100% fantasy it is presented in the same factual and archaeological way. Even mixing the fantasy dragons with T-rexs and the extinction of the dinos. Added to being shown on an educational channel instead of say Sci-Fi it gives an air of factual authenticity to this show.<br /><br />On its own the show is about an 7.5/10 far as entertainment goes. But the way in which it is presented I have to give it a 1/10. Don't get me wrong I have no problem with fantasy but they way they put this out is so wrong. I can really see young kids and slow adults believing that they did find a dragon and that this is real.<br /><br />I also think this weakens the great "Walking with Dinosuars" series because now you have to view that with a mind of how much is fantasy on that mini-series.
Even worse than the worst David Lynch "confusathon", "Brain Dead" makes no sense whatsoever. Shamefully wasted talent (Bill Pullman, Bill Paxton), bounce around like they are in a "Tom and Jerry" cartoon on acid. There is negligible character development. It simply starts climbing the "strange scale", until climaxing in total chaos. Do not get sucked into this because of the above fine actors. They are given nothing to work with, and you will be wondering what's going on throughout the entire, unbearable 85 minutes. I highly recommend avoiding "Brain Dead" at all costs, unless you are into scattering your brain into total nonsense. - MERK
I felt brain dead, I'll tell you. This is the worst film I have ever bought. (in my ignorance I thought this was the Peter Jackson film of the same name). The performances are so terrible they are laughable. The special effects have not stood the test of time and look dire. The script promotes that kind of TV movie, stare into the middle distance kind of acting. The cast look as if they have been taking lessons from Joey Tribbiani, they have one look each, and stick to it. Plus I have never been confused by a movie until I sat down to watch this. The is it a dream or no plot is so terrible that frustration sets in within a few minutes. Avoid like a plague.
This is one of the worst films I have *ever* seen! It is bad, even at TV Movie level standards. The plot is diabolically flawed, and the known names in this film are wasted on confused, uncertain characters. I don't know how the director managed to keep this excuse of a film together - it is that bad. Billed as a 'Psychological Horror Thriller' - it is certainly Horrific. There is nothing Thrilling about it. And it could do you Psychological damage! The initial opening scenes held such promise - a possible embarkation on whether the soul is just an aspect of the brain, but the utter shambles that followed the car-crash scene is beyond belief. No matter how hard you try, you couldn't care less about the characters. There are so many sprinkled ideas that the film is at best a collage of disconnected phrases from Chinese philosophers, and at worst the film would actually make you go Brain Dead!<br /><br />I have purchased over 300 films on DVD, and this is the FIRST one I'm going to get my money back on. STEER CLEAR.
This movie does have some great noirish/neorealist visuals, and it tells a story that is refreshingly free of Hollywood's sugar-coating, which was only possible because it was essentially an independent foreign film. But some of the scenes go on for much too long (the wedding, especially), and I found the exaggerated acting and unrealistic dialog to be more fit for the stage than for the silver screen.<br /><br />The dialog was particularly distracting, and it seemed to get worse as the movie went on. Most of the characters were either Italian-Americans or Italian immigrants living in New York in the twenties and thirties, but their dialog sounded like they were practicing lines for a Shakespeare play while they mixed cement and laid bricks. Toward the end I was laughing, and not because the filmmakers wanted me to. I guess the stilted poetry could be defended by saying that the characters would have been speaking Italian, and the dialog is a literal translation of how they would really talk. But it absolutely did not work for me.<br /><br />Another line of dialog made me laugh for a different reason: the main character's son, born and raised in New York in the 1920's, suddenly picks up a lovely lilting British accent. I'm only guessing this had something to do with the fact that the movie was made in England.<br /><br />I give this movie an 'A' for effort and intention, but a considerably lower grade for execution.
Peter Sellers plays Dick Scratcher (ha,ha), a cook for a pirate ship who takes over as captain after he murders the previous one. Although he's witnessed a treasure being buried, he begins losing his memory and the treasure map he obtains becomes blank. Thus, Dick is forced to find someone who can see and communicate with ghosts (do you place an ad for that?) and help lead a path to the treasure. It's mind boggling how anyone could have bankrolled this pointless film. Former Goon Spike Milligan replaced Medak as director, and given Medak's talents in the film The Ruling Class, you can probably guess which of the grainy, poorly lit scenes had Milligan in the director's chair. Peter Boyle makes a brief appearance in the film's first 10 minutes as the doomed pirate captain. He's probably quite thankful that Young Frankenstein was released the same year this was filmed and canned, so that he can keep this off his resume. Franciosa looks dashing as the handsome power-behind-Scratcher but he and Seller both look pretty desperate, with even Sellers' makeup and hair looking quite terrible. They had to know this movie was bombing even as they were filming it. With lines like these, I can understand any possible unease:<br /><br />PIERRE: (about to be hanged) You'll pay for this.<br /><br />SCRATCHER: No, I won't. I'll do it for free.<br /><br />And that's one of the GOOD jokes. It's amazing to me that much of Sellers prolific material is still in the vaults, but this was made available on VHS more than 15 years ago! How about someone stepping up to the plate and releasing in the US the well-received British TV program "A Show Called Fred" starring Sellers, Milligan, and directed by the great Richard Lester?
You might be tempted to rent this film because Peter Sellers appears in it. That would be a mistake. This is one of the most pointless films ever made. I kept waiting for something funny to happen, but nothing funny appears in this movie. Even the film industry recognized this was a very weak film and didn't even try to promote it. Its a wonder that it was ever put on video.<br /><br />I wonder what sort of contract caused Sellers to be in this film. I also wonder why the people responsible for this film were allowed to go on to make other bad films. Surely this film is a waste of the money used to create it, and a waste of anyone's time watching it. Surely there are high school students who would be able to write/produce a film which as a plot.
!!!! POSSIBLE MILD SPOILER !!!!!<br /><br />As I watched the first half of GUILTY AS SIN I couldn`t believe it was made in 1993 because it played like a JAGGED EDGE / Joe Eszterhas clone from the mid 80s . It starts with a murder and it`s left for the audience to muse " Is he guilty or innocent and will he go to bed with his attorney ? " , but halfway through the film shows its early 90s credentials by turning into a " Lawyer gets manipulated and stalked by her client " type film which ends in a ridiculous manner , and GUILTY AS SIN has an even more ridiculous ending in this respect .<br /><br />This is a very poor thriller but the most unforgivable thing about it is that it was directed by Sidney Lumet the same man who brought us the all time classic court room drama 12 ANGRY MEN
this was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I'm still not sure if it was serious, or just a satire. One of those movies that uses every stupid who dunnit cliché they can think of. Arrrrgh.<br /><br />Don Johnson was pretty good in it actually. But otherwise it sucked. It was over 10 years ago that I saw it, but it still hurts and won't stop lingering in my brain. <br /><br />The last line in the movie really sums up how stupid it is. I won't ruin it for you, should you want to tempt fate by viewing this movie. But I garantee you a *nghya* moment at the end, with a few in between. If you have nothing better to do, and you like to point and laugh, then maybe it might be worth your while. Additionally, if you're forced to go on a date with someone you really don't like, suggest watching this movie together, and they'll probably leave you alone after they see it. That's a fair price to pay, I guess.
It is only Robert De Niro film which I really hates. It is stupid film with horrible acting (of course not De Niro). For me, Brian De Palma must do his mafia films as always like Scarface (1983) or The Untouchables (1987). I also loved De Palma's Mission: Impossible (1996). De Niro worked with Palma two different times too, Greetings and The Wedding Party. I though that The Wedding Party was OK too (I didn't watch Greetings). <br /><br />Screenplay is really bad and unfunny. There are no any scene where I can smile for even one time. Film lost a chance to be a funny style even a little bit in a "Be Black baby" scene and also I don't like the scene where a guy's sexual organ appeared. So, it is one of the worst film I have ever seen! just worst. I hate that.
Seems everyone in this film is channeling Woody Allen. They stammer and pause and stammer some more. Only for REALLY die-hard DeNero fans! It tries to appear as edgy and artistic - but it comes off as looking like a very, very low budget film made by college students. The most often used word in the whole film is "hum". The film does peg the atmosphere of the late sixties/early seventies though. If you like films where people are CONSTANTLY talking over each other, horrible lighting (even if it is for "art's sake"), and makes you feel like you are sitting in on a lame political meeting, then you might like this - but you need to be really bored. I found this CD in the dollar bin and now I know why.
I really, really wanted to like Julian Po. I think that Slater is underrated as an actor, and that many of the supporting players here are better than they are given a chance to demonstrate in this film. I realize this is based on a short story which I have not read. So, I do not know if what I see as the film's faults originated with the story, or were imposed on it by the director/screenwriter. The premise is wonderful, and I loved the voiceover, confessional tone the opening narration strikes. But then...? Nothing! Several of the cliched local characters ask Julian pointblank to explain his intention to commit suicide. One could argue that he doesn't answer, because it's none of their business. But Julian is the one who, under only token pressure, blurted out his intentions in public. Then neither Julian nor the director/writer, despite the fact that the Julian character is keeping a tape recorded journal for God's sake, seem inclined to provide anything beyond the scant initial information on Julian's life. He says he was a bookkeeper. He says his family moved around when he was a child, due to his father's job. So what? There are several interactions with the locals which seem designed to illuminate Julian's purpose. But none of them go anywhere, because Julian seems to regard all these dopey locals as if they were aliens from another planet, as if he were the ultimate (and only) sane one among them. This might work as an allegory, if Julian Po had any defining characteristics or anything approaching wisdom to impart. The closest he comes to revealing anything about himself is in the scene in which he purposely humiliates the naive, religious wife of the mechanic. And what this scene reveals is not anything that would inspire empathy for Julian. I can only see the Julian character --as rendered--as selfish, petty, and totally condescending. Sort of matches the attitude of the director of this half-baked, contrived film. And poor Michael Parks, an actor who once had so much promise, is given nothing to work with here.
Quirky, independent, theatrical, Christian Slater--these are all teasers that made me look forward to spending an hour or so "discovering" a jewel of a film. Boy, was I disappointed. Julian Po never gets over itself. The film is relentlessly self-conscious. I found myself unable to suspend disbelief for even a moment. The overdone, obviously theatrical sets, the overdone, obviously theatrical acting, the overdone, obviously theatrical directing -- well, you get the idea. <br /><br />Allegories do not need to be delivered sledge hammer style. And it's hard to feel much of anything for Julian Po because we never know much about him. The ridiculous girlfriend, the annoying townsfolk, the idiotic clergyman, the bratty kids -- why would anyone, particularly anyone with a life long ambition to get to the seaside (Slater's character), decide to stay in such a dismal place?
The beginning of this movie was good. It started to get really dumb after he told the people he wanted to kill himself. I think if I came from a little town like that I would be offended after seeing this movie. They made a lot of these people look dumb and crazy. How could these people have so little to do that they follow him around all day. A lot of times these people were telling him ways to kill himself like they were urging him to do it. How can so many people have little respect for other people? I also think they could have made a much better ending for this movie. There were some good parts to this movie also. Some people might like it, but I wouldn't recommend this to anyone.
This movie is horrendous. Decent fight scenes or not, the acting is REALLY bad, like you can tell they're reading their lines from a card. With painful line delivery by everyone in the cast. Think watching a high school play and cringing at the obvious lack of smoothness in the actor's interactions (weird pauses between different character's lines, combined with hurried line delivery by others). If the movie were all action, this might be forgivable, but a lot of the movie includes plot set-up and Family Guy style, irreverent cut aways (Oh, wow, are they badly done). I'm assuming they were attempting to be funny with these, but it again came off as a bunch of high-schoolers/ college entry students goofing off for the afternoon trying to set up a funny Youtube clip. <br /><br />Now to the fight scenes. They're not too bad, considering the level of quality seen everywhere else in the film. Nothing great either, certainly not anywhere near the same level as other posters have stated (Nothing like Drunken Master). The fights have an overly staged feel, with LOTS of cuts to different angles with blatantly different positions by those involved. <br /><br />In sum, the only reason to watch this movie is if you were one of the guy's friends involved with this very, very cheap production. Which guy you may ask? Oh, the same guy who wrote, directed, produced AND stared in this Middle School masterpiece.
This early John Wayne Lone Star western has a bit more going for it than the run-of-the-mill oaters Wayne had been making for Lone Star up until that time. For one, it has his old friend Paul Fix in it; Fix, being a much better actor then the standard Lone Star villain, brings a much needed professionalism to the surroundings instead of the usual hesitant line-readings often delivered in these oaters. The plot, about mistaken identity, payroll robbery and murder, is as trite and perfunctory as you'd expect it to be in a 1930s low-budget western, but Wayne's strapping good looks, easygoing charm and way with a line go a long way to making this more enjoyable. Plump, balding Eddy Chandler isn't quite believable as Wayne's womanizing "partner", and there's a running gag about something that happens whenever Chandler and Wayne are about to get into a fistfight that grows tiresome. On the other hand, Wayne's love interest is played by none other than Mary Kornman, the little "Mary" of the early "Little Rascals" fame. She is a grown-up 20-year-old now, blonde and cute as a button. Most of Wayne's leading ladies in these Lone Star/Monogram "B's" were fairly bland and colorless, but Mary is perky, cute and, yes, sexy. There's a scene in the general store, where she works, in which Wayne asks her to get him a bottle of "nerve tonic", which happens to be on the top shelf, so she has to get a ladder and climb up to the top shelf. Wayne's ogling her pert little backside as she ascends the steps, then again as she comes down, then again a few minuter later when he asks her to climb up and get him another bottle is surprisingly racy for a film made in 1935. Wayne makes no attempt to hide the fact that he is definitely checking out her butt. Anyway, it's an interesting little "B", not great, but not as choppy and random as many of his LoneStar productions of the time. The final gunfight isn't handled all that well, and Chandler gets somewhat irritating after a while, but all in all, it's worth a look, if only to see a cute and sexy Mary Kornman.
John Scott (John Wayne) and partner Kansas Charlie (Eddy Chandler) are trail buddies who make their way to the Rattlesnake Gulch rodeo. Scott is a pretty fair contestant, but finds that unless he's willing to accept twenty five cents on the dollar in prize money from a crooked promoter, he'll have to collect his winnings at gunpoint. Quite coincidentally, bandits Pete (Al Ferguson) and Jim (Paul Fix) decide they'd like the rest of the rodeo take; they shoot promoter Farnsworth (Henry Hall), and make it look like Scott and Kansas Charlie are the killers. <br /><br />Wayne and Chandler use a running gag in the film where they're about to go at it with their fists over various trivialities. Each time Chandler takes a wild swing, Wayne foot stomps him and knocks him silly.<br /><br />If you're very attentive, there's a neat Lipton's Tea ad in one of the scenes in which Scott's love interest Anne (Mary Kornman) appears.<br /><br />Later on in the film, the buddies are framed once again over a stage robbery. Having a change of heart and seeing the error of his ways, bad guy Jim wants to come clean and confess to the sheriff, but Pete shoots him down. While being patched up, Jim tells his story to the doctor and his sister Anne. In an unbelievable scene, Anne marches right into the middle of a gunfight between the good guys and the villains to confront the sheriff.<br /><br />"The Desert Trail" is one of the blander John Wayne Westerns from Lone Star Productions during this era. Noticeably absent are George "Gabby" Hayes and Yakima Canutt, one or both are usually to be seen in these oaters. If you're a John Wayne fan though, you'll have to see it once, but that will probably be enough.
Before I explain the "Alias" comment let me say that "The Desert Trail" is bad even by the standards of westerns staring The Three Stooges. In fact it features Carmen Laroux as semi- bad girl Juanita, when you hear her Mexican accent you will immediately recognize her as Senorita Rita from the classic Stooge short "Saved by the Belle". <br /><br />In "The Desert Trail" John Wayne gets to play the Moe Howard character and Eddy Chandler gets to play Curly Howard. Like their Stooge counterparts a running gag throughout the 53- minute movie is Moe hitting Curly. Wayne's character, a skirt chasing bully, is not very endearing, but is supposed to be the good guy. <br /><br />Playing a traveling rodeo cowboy Wayne holds up the rodeo box office at gunpoint and takes the prize money he would have won if the attendance proceeds had been good-the other riders have to settle for 25 cents on the dollar (actually even less after Wayne robs the box office). No explanation is given for Wayne's ripping off the riders and still being considered the hero who gets the girl. <br /><br />Things get complicated at this point because the villain (Al Ferguson) and his sidekick Larry Fine (played by Paul Fix-who would go on to play Sheriff Micah on television's "The Rifleman") see Wayne rob the box office and then steal the remainder of the money and kill the rodeo manager. Moe and Curly get blamed. <br /><br />So Moe and Curly move to another town to get away from the law and they change their names to Smith and Jones. Who do they meet first but their old friend Larry, whose sister becomes the 2nd half love interest (Senorita Rita is left behind it the old town and makes no further appearances in the movie). <br /><br />Larry's sister is nicely played by a radiantly beautiful Mary Kornman (now grown up but in her younger days she was one of the original cast members of Hal Roach's "Our Gang" shorts). Kornman is the main reason to watch the mega-lame western and her scenes with Moe and Curly are much better than any others in the production, as if they used an entirely different crew to film them. <br /><br />Even for 1935 the action sequences in this thing are extremely weak and the technical film- making is staggeringly bad. The two main chase scenes end with stock footage wide shots of a rider falling from a horse. Both times the editor cuts to a shot of one of the characters rolling on the ground, but there is no horse in the frame, the film stock is completely different, and the character has on different clothes than the stunt rider. There is liberal use of stock footage in other places, none of it even remotely convincing. <br /><br />One thing to watch for is a scene midway into the movie where Moe and Curly get on their horses and ride away (to screen right) from a cabin as the posse is galloping toward the cabin from the left. The cameraman follows the two stooges with a slow pan right and then does a whip pan to the left to reveal the approaching posse. Outside of home movies I have never seen anything like this, not because it is looks stupid (which it does) but because a competent director would never stage a scene in this manner. They would film the two riders leaving and then reposition the camera and film the posse approaching as a separate action. Or if they were feeling creative they would stage the sequence so the camera shows the riders in the foreground and the posse approaching in the background. <br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
One of the more 'literate' Lone Stars, with time spent on character development and interaction, dialog and acting business. The opening scene sets the stage (literally) for the personalities of the gambler, Kansas Charlie (Eddy Chandler), and his buddy, John Scott (John Wayne) the rodeo (say Roh-Day-oh) star, both of whom are slightly randy. The film follows their adventures, as they try to best each other in the pursuit of the Mexican Juanita, and later in their pursuit of perky Mary Kornman, who has the inevitable evil brother (though he'd been led astray by the real villain, and wants to repent). And oh, of course, they're being wrongly accused of two crimes and have to serve jail time before escaping and being exonerated at the end.<br /><br />The high point is Scott continually and deliberately ogling Mary's butt in her grocery store, and knocking away the ladder she's standing on so he can catch her and grab her as she falls. It all seems a little contemporary for a 30s western, but it sounds better than it actually is. <br /><br />Sadly, the exciting action elements we find in many other Lone Stars are sorely missing here. No Yakima Canutt. Cheap and bad uses of stock footage of riders falling off horses. No George Hayes. Tedious Stooge-like bi-play between Scott and Charlie, with Charlie swinging at Scott, Scott stomping on his foot and then punching him (repeated two more times!). The skilled Paul Fix is underused. Eddy Chandler himself, here in his big star turn, is not really believable as a randy side kick. The villain looks too old and fat. So does Chandler, who spent his later career in 300 more movies as an uncredited meatloaf. Mary Kornman, of the twenties "Our Gang" (see 'Mary, Queen of Tots' 1925) is cute in her scenes with John Wayne, but that's about it for this one. Seeds of a better western lie buried here.<br /><br />P.S. The ultra-short colorized version, which looks good, moves along so fast, it's over if you blink more than once. Thankfully though, the embarrassing scenes with Eddy Chandler have been cut.
Falsely accused, skirt-chasing chums John Wayne (as John Scott) and Eddy Chandler (as Kansas Charlie) change identities to become "Alias Smith and Jones". Mr. Wayne becomes "John Jones". Mr. Chandler's is supposed to be "Rev. Smith", but Wayne calls him "Dr. Smith". At no time are either of them as entertaining as Roger Davis, Pete Duel, Jonathan Harris, or Ben Murphy; although, Wayne can be considered infinitely more successful than any of them, career wise. Pretty blonde Mary Kornman (as Anne), grown-up from her days in "Our Gang", is a lovely interest for Wayne. She and Chandler have a couple of cute scenes with Wayne. If you're not a fan of low budget John Wayne films of the 1930s, this movie won't make you one.
I picked up Time Changer because it looked like a nice low-budget scifi time travel movie and I was in the mood for something like that. The description said it had something to do with some biblical stuff and time travel but I didn't expect a fundamentalist Christian film!<br /><br />The movie had decent special effects and an interesting premise that could have gone places and been far more interesting than it ended up being. Our hero, who is a bible professor from the 1890s, eventually travels forward to the 2000s and finds that modern life is filled with the influences of evil - Jesus is nowhere to be found. This wonderful technological feat is accomplished with the assistance of a fellow bible teacher who somehow managed to invent a functional HG-Wells-style time machine. The movie starts to lose some credibility at this point, which is unfortunate because this happens very early in the film. Earlier (or perhaps immediately later, can't remember for certain), our hero professor was seen teaching what appeared to be a science class where he claimed that scientific findings could only be considered validated if it could be matched with what the bible says. What should be obvious to anyone is that this is clearly not what the scientific method is about, however it is presented such that the filmmakers appear to prefer the point of view that science is useful only if it supports their claims and otherwise is not useful.<br /><br />In any case, that belief is perfectly valid and sensible in the context of the character at the time. So, if we accept that as the fact of life for these bible professors, then obviously the professor who went and invented the time machine isn't a very strong believer as I don't think there's any evidence (and none was offered) for the physics of time travel in the bible. So immediately there's a problem with mixed messages and credibility there, but never mind...<br /><br />After the professor is convinced to take the leap into the future, the shock of modern technology was handled quite well in most cases. It was also fun to not have it pinned down to an exact year (as the character is reading the date off a newspaper to himself, a car honks a horn and it scares him into not finishing the date: it's just two thousand and... *honk*). Some of the shock went on a little too long, though. For instance, the car was one of the first things he encountered when he arrived and around two days later he's invited to a church movie night and takes a ride in a van. He sticks his head out the window like a dog might, is scared by the headlights and the starting engine, etc. That seemed a bit off since he'd been there a few days by this point and the city appeared to be quite busy with traffic. In any case, that's easy to ignore. The rest of the tech shock was well done - especially his first encounter with the TV which was delayed because he didn't even realize what it was until he saw a kid watching one and using a remote.<br /><br />Unfortunately, our hero predictably starts to preach to virtually everyone he meets as if he's an authority on all life and religion just because he's from the past and is an elder. Eventually he gets himself a brief moment in the spotlight at the church he had been visiting where he proceeds to explain his concept of Christianity to them in a long monologue that was supposed to be moving and insightful, but mostly was just more of the same. A couple of husbands in the church begin to get a funny feeling about this guy (go figure) and investigate his name. They eventually conclude that he either is a time traveler or is impersonating this long dead bible professor and decide to find out which it is. The movie frames these guys as non-believer bad guys for being skeptical.<br /><br />Just before the professor is to head back to his own time, he is confronted by those two men. In an effort to avoid being arrested or hauled away, he eventually breaks into an almost insane-like rant about how Jesus is coming soon and that he's a prophet so they should listen to him. Just in time, he's whisked away and one of the husbands wonders if perhaps this is the rapture he'd heard so much about.<br /><br />The irony is that this essentially means the professor became a self-proclaimed (and most likely false) prophet claiming to know that the rapture was near and he was sent by God when truthfully he was sent by his fellow bible professor and did not have any God-given knowledge (that was stated or even hinted at).<br /><br />As I understand it, Revelation claims that the time of the end is only for God to know and at the end of the film we see the inventor professor trying (and failing) to send a bible into the future. First 2080, then 2070, etc. as the scene fades out. Clearly he's trying to determine the exact date of the end times - which he shouldn't be able to know! Essentially, the entire premise of the movie cancels itself out because by being so insistent on their religious beliefs and how certain things are for God to know only, it means there couldn't ever BE a time machine in the first place because then mankind could find out something that only God should know! The entire movie's premise collapses and makes the whole thing basically worthless as it undermines it's own credibility in the end.
I attempted to watch this film without being able to really sit through it, for while it is suppose to have a "good" message; the problem is that it is obviously produced according to one particular interpretation of scripture. An interpretation, in my opinion, will mislead a lot of people. In addition, I am a movie maniac and the acting in this film was completely unacceptable. Never before had I wished for a negative score to rate a movie. So, if you wish to be preached to incessantly by those without authority, then by all means, get this film. This comment is also a warning to people who like or love scifi, because the title will deceive a lot of people as well. This was an unfortunate film, because the basic idea had possibilities and those possibilities were squandered. The film's only redeemable quality is that it did make me realize that the character in the "Time Machine" probably should have shown a little more moral outrage at the odd behavior by those in his future.
I'm afraid that you'll find that the huge majority of people who rate this movie as a 10 are highly Christian. I am not. If you are looking for a Christian movie, I recommend this film. If you are looking for a good general movie, I'm afraid you'll need to go elsewhere.<br /><br />I was annoyed by the characters, and their illogical behaviour. The premise of the movie is that the teaching of morality without teaching that it was Jesus who is the basis of morality is itself wrong. One scene shows the main character telling a boy that it is wrong to steal, and then the character goes on to say that it was Jesus who taught us this. I find that offensive: are we to believe that "thou shalt not steal" came from Jesus? I suppose he wrote the Ten Commandments? And stealing was acceptable before that? I rented the movie from Netflix. I should have realized the nature of the movie from the comments. Oh well.
The premise sucked me in, but it was clear about 30 seconds in that this was either David Lynch or something seriously terrible. Interesting to watch just to run through the fundamentalist laundry list. I can be a sucker for a stirring spiritual piece (Romero comes to mind), but there was nothing spiritual whatsoever about this one. The message seems to be that we must all pretend we have an iq of 80 (or simply get a lobotomy - Jennifer what happened to ya?) and blindly follow the Bible without any sort of self-examination whatsoever or we'll trigger the second coming. It's the kind of attitude that makes people fly jumbo jets into 110 story buildings (I work around the corner from the site of the former WTC). I like to think that God is a little greater than that.
I rented this by mistake. I thought, after a cursory examination of the box, that this was a time-travel/sci-fi story. Instead, it's a "Christian" story, and I suppose is fairly typical example. If you are sold on the message you probably will overlook the awkwardness of the plot/acting/etc., but I found it rather painful. <br /><br />I have to admit that I'm bothered by the rewriting of history in this story. It paints the 1890's as some sort of paradise of family values and morality (a character is aghast that 5% of marriages end in divorce!), but it overlooks very unsavory sides of this "highly moral" society (rigid racial, sexual, and social discrimination were widespread, for instance). And at one point the hero complains to a clothing store owner about things that sound not all that different than the complaints of some Iranian leaders about women's clothing styles (as reported in a recent WSJ).<br /><br />Overall, thought, I suppose that it's the sort of thing you'll like if you like this sort of thing, and it's certainly wholesome...
First of all, this movie reminded me of the old movies I used to have to watch in religion class in school. That's NOT a good thing. Basically, it's just a preachy and pretentious piece of filth, just like the terrible "Left Behind" series. I'm not offended by religious movies... but I am offended when these religious movies just happen to be extremely awful. I would just like to be able to say nice things about a christian movie but it doesn't look like that will happen any time soon. I bet if you gave the bible thumpers a decent budget, they still wouldn't be able to come up with anything good. Just avoid this one. Also, the fact that the "American Family Association" (basically, Reverend Wildmon's lackies) beam about this film on their website is another reason to make me hate it. In fact, after I viewed this, I went home and watched my copy of David Cronenberg's NC-17 rated "Crash". Forgive me father for I have sinned. Hahahahaha!
I guess this would be a great movie for a true believer in organized Christian Dogma, but for anyone with an open mind who believes in free will, rational thinking, the separation of Church & State and GOOD Science Fiction it is a terrible joke!<br /><br />There are some well known actors who were either badly in need of work or had a need to share their personal beliefs with the rest of us heathens.<br /><br />I WAS entertained by this movie in the same way I was entertained by "Reefer Madness." That movie attempted to teach drug education by scare tactics the same way this movie tries to teach "Christian" principles with the threat of hell and misery for otherwise good people who don't share their interpretations of our world.<br /><br />It had me howling with laughter and at the same time scared me to realize how many people actually believe that our society should revert to the good old days of the 19th century!
This movie seems to send the wrong message. There can be morality without using Christ. Poeple of other religions, I believe, can get into heaven. I am a Catholic who goes to church every week, but I do not agree with such Christian arrogance. This is the worst time travel movie I have ever seen and I've seen Timeline.
Not being familiar with US television stations, when I flicked onto this on my in-laws' cable, first I thought it was just a low-budget sci-fi film, then after a couple of minutes I started thinking it might be a clever satire on the worst excesses of Christian fundamentalist, and then it dawned on me - good grief, these people are serious! It's been a while since I saw anything so unintentionally hilarious. I hesitated about writing a review of this for fear of offending believers, but then I saw other reviews and thought, hey, they can take it. Tough philosophical conundrum: how do you make a movie criticizing movies without actually showing what it is you're criticizing? Answer: make it in such a way that the only people who'll appreciate it are people who hate the kind of movies you're criticizing. I suppose some liberals (ugh! spit when you say that!) might be offended at the filmmakers' contempt for those in the audience who aren't obsessed with the J**** C***** myth, but I didn't mind - it was so darn funny!
There is an interesting discussion in this movie. Is being a moral person good enough, or do you need something more?<br /><br />The movie preaches that without the guidance of God, being a morally good person is not enough. There is a line early in the movie, "You and I can look at a person who is morally good, but both know he is going to go to hell."<br /><br />While I am not a Christian, the discussions about this throughout the course of the movie were fascinating, but not in the way the movie intended. I left the movie with a stronger feeling that being morally good *is* enough. The arguments and discussions presented were heavily biased, so much so that they crush themselves in the weight of their own ignorance. Fanaticism can be a powerful thing, especially when inferenced in the minds of the ignorant and uneducated. As George Carlin's character in Dogma said: "hook em while they're young".<br /><br />The basic premise is a very interesting one also. A Bible Scholar from the 1890s is attempting to publish a book that says that morality without God is OK, as long as the morality is meaningful. Do you only tell a child not to steal? Or do you tell him not to steal because God tells you not to? (not bothering bringing up that telling the child not to steal because, well, how would he feel if it was his marbles that were stolen?)<br /><br />The author, Carlisle, wants the recommendation of his school to help sell the book (to spread the world). However, it needs unanimous consent, and one of the scholars opposes it. He brings up, in a very interesting discussion early in the film about the morality for morality's sake vs God's words argument. To prove his point, he produces a time machine (put in the movie solely to make the plot work, which I'm fine with), and sends Carlisle to the year 2002 to see where teaching morality without God will lead us.<br /><br />As should be obvious, he has his opinion, and is changed by what he sees, and has reversed himself by the time of his return (for he does return, that's not really a spoiler, this is a bible movie after all).<br /><br />As for the movie as a movie itself, it's pretty slow and pretty poorly acted. Something that was *not* needed in this movie, is that it produces two "bad guys" who want to try to figure out who Carlisle is, even tho he hasn't hurt anyone, committed a crime, or anything. What's wrong with the movie just showing Carlisle's opinion, showing his view of this "sinful world", and returning him with a new viewpoint? <br /><br />Also, there a few points in the movie which affirm to me that I'm happy I'm not a Christian, or at least someone who says "It's God or nothing". Three near the end of the movie rather disturbed me.. first, when the two "bad guys" corner Carlisle right before he jumps, Carlisle does his *only* truly despicable act.. he fakes like his time-jump is the coming of Jesus, and makes it so the "bad guys" (who are also Christians btw, oddly enough), think they just missed the rapture. <br /><br />Secondly, after Carlisle returns, he finds a boy in which he scolded at the beginning of the movie about not stealing (but not mentioning God, kid kept the marbles and ran away), and tells him this time that stealing is wrong because God commands it. Like the Carlin quote above, scaring kids into religion is a faux-pas in my book.<br /><br />And lastly, the epilogue. Another scare tactic. Carlisle asks the inventor how far into the future they could go, and he says he doesn't know.. the epilogue shows him trying to warp a bible into the distant future (starts at 2100), and it fails.. he keeps decrementing the years by 10, and trying again, and by the fade-out, he's at like 2030 or so. Throughout the movie, Carlise mentions that he felt the end of the world coming, because the world was rife with sin and the loss of the name of God.. scare tactics have been in use for thousands of years.. you would think in these enlightened times, the church would have enlightened as well.<br /><br />I'm glad I saw this movie. While I was fairly certain before that being morally good was enough, now I know it for a fact. Worth watching if you are not a Christian, to affirm how happy you are to not be as ignorant as the folks in this movie.
There were times during the movie I wish I had been beat to death. The only reason I endured the entirety of the movie was because I couldn't believe how bad it really was and thought it must get better. This truly was a horror film. I was horrified that I wasted what seemed like 4 hours of my life that I will never get back. The other two hours I spent mourning at the loss. Please recommend this movie to whomever you wish to torture and tell them the suspense will kill them.
It is not often I watch a film that is as dreadful as this one. I continued to watch, every minute hoping that this was intended as a joke only to find it was meant to be taken seriously. Well, as seriously as this genre requests.<br /><br />The acting was disgraceful and the situations horribly contrived and clichéd. If a film was made in 1920 (for example) and had the quality of Hide & Seek (Cord) in its direction we would think that cinema back then was naive. As it happens, this film was made in 2000 and I have yet to see a film from the silent era that has as little charm as this one.<br /><br />Definitely not for the serious movie-goer.<br /><br />[Not worth a rating]
I'm glad some people liked this, but I hated this film. It had a very good idea for a story line, but that's where it ended. It was badly written, badly acted and badly made.<br /><br /> It had some interesting plot points, but they were just skipped over too fast, the writers needed to realize what to keep in and expand on these bits, like lying about why she was kidnapped, and ditch the dross. Instead it was "what's going on?", 5 seconds later they tell you.<br /><br />This film had no suspense, and I was bored from start to end. I just wanted it to finish.<br /><br /> Go and rent misery, or best laid plans if you want suspense or twists that keep you guessing to the end.
I have read the other comment about this movie, and usually I try not to be harsh in my criticisms because I try to be a nice person. However, this movie is one of the worst movies that I have EVER seen (And thats topping a lot of bad USA Network plus Cinemax nights.) Whoever thought of this movie needs to be prevented from EVER making another one. This film disgusted me in a way that no other film ever. I REALLY think these people are insane. Just save your time and do not watch this fllm. Please - I wish that I had. The acting is horrible, the plot (what plot) is STUPID and degrading and insane. I really do not think this should have been made into a movie. But that is my opinion, and I am trying to save you from wasting your time.
This movie raises a number of pressing questions in my mind. Firstly, how has Jennifer Tilly managed to sustain a film acting career for all these years based on that ridiculous squeaky voice and the very limited range of hammy facial expressions she employs? Secondly... what on earth were the people responsible for making this offensive and deeply repulsive film thinking of? And thirdly... given that there were people perverted enough to decide to make dreck like this, shouldn't there have been someone in the system - the studio, the distributors, or somewhere - sane enough to prevent it actually getting completed and released. You really would have to search a very, very long way to turn up another movie as profoundly nasty as this... and it isn't even billed as a horror movie - which, inasmuch as it can be seen as belonging to any legitimate film genre, it certainly is. The movie wallows from beginning to end in the sickest kind of madness, violence and abuse, and has essentially no redeeming features at all. I'm not actually advocating censorship (which I don't believe in)... but I really can't see how anybody could conceivably draw anything positive from watching a film like this.
Wow...sheer brilliance.<br /><br />Turning a thriller/suspense/horror into comedy.<br /><br />After watching this, I never laughed so hard at a horror movie before...a ridiculous plot with 3 characters that were just insanely developed - either not written in depth or too much depth.<br /><br />If you want to watch an absolutely written horror movie with stupid dialog, messed up plot, useless scenes, wasted characters, bad sound and lousy development overall, then this is the one to watch.<br /><br />Be sure to keep focused for the classic "food processor" scene and the totally inept police investigation scenes.<br /><br />This is a remarkable new low in screen performance and writing and to sit through it for the entire duration makes you either stupid, daring or brave.
This movie was like a bad train wreck, as horrible as it was, you still had to continue to watch. My boyfriend and I rented it and wasted two hours of our day. Now don't get me wrong, the acting is good. Just the movie as a whole just enraged both of us. There wasn't anything positive or good about this scenario. After this movie, I had to go rent something else that was a little lighter. Jennifer Tilly is as usual a very dramatic actress. Her character seems manic and not all there. Darryl Hannah, though over played, she does a wonderful job playing out the situation she is in. More than once I found myself yelling at the TV telling her to fight back or to get violent. All in all, very violent movie...not for the faint of heart.
This movie starts presenting a somehow original idea but became a great frustration later on. What is the deal of having an original start if the rest of the movie did little to avoid a clichéd plot? The movie itself is very unbelievable. I would like to know how exactly someone enters a clinic, gets a nurse outfit, kills a doctor, takes out a patient in her bed, puts into his Chevy pickup and leaves? I guess no one could answer this question, so they just jumped to the other scene hiding these little details. The performances are just plain bad. The villain is just another "annoying crazy antagonist", no deepness, totally linear character. After 20 minutes of film, most scenes are unbelievable, seemed like they were put there just for the sake of the 90 minutes since they were totally unneeded. A doctor see a woman clearly under strong medication, is denied to examine her, gets kicked out of the house and simply leaves quiet? The ending scene made me burst into laugher, only Mickey Mouse could make it more out of reality. I'm giving it 2 out of 10 for the first lets say 10 minutes of movie.
This is the kind of movie you regret you put in your VCR. It is some weird bad rip off version of Stephen kings movie "Misery (1990)". I cannot understand how this movie got a 5.2 score, because it has no story what so ever, and when the movie finally ended, I was relieved.<br /><br />This movie should have been released as a short-movie instead.. to much time is spent on the same thing. And as in every bad movie, everything happens just at the end of the movie in a 10-15 minutes time span...<br /><br />So, before you decide to watch this movie, be sure to put some new batteries in your remote control, because you are going to do whole lot of fast-forwarding... don't worry, you wont miss anything important.
... and I have seen some bad ones.<br /><br />I have nothing good to say about this movie. The acting is poor by Jennifer Tilly - as to be expected. Daryl Hannah does an OK job, but nothing close to being able to save this movie.<br /><br />The biggest flaw in this film is that the plot is so weak - though based on a good premise - that the writer resorted to the "stupid heroine trick" to create a contrived suspense. When all Daryl Hannah would have to do is hide, she runs out in front of her pursuer. The hospital scene is absurd. Without exposing too much of what passes for a plot, I think it would be difficult for a bloody petite woman to carry a pregnant from a hospital without being noticed. Lame. Very lame.<br /><br />Save yourself some time and pick out another flick.
Not only was the plot of this film contrived with the ease in which the two psychos are able to kidnap a pregnant woman without breaking a sweat but it was a terrible rip-off of 'Misery'. However, the main reason I gave this film such a low rating was because it absolutely disgusted me.<br /><br />I'm not someone easily shocked by what film-makers dish out and have always had a love for horror flicks but this film went too far purely in terms of violence and torture just for the sake of getting points in the shock factor.<br /><br />I think most people, when watching just the first ten minutes of 'Hide and Seek', will find themselves reaching for the remote.
What can I say??? This movie was so Dumb & Stupid I thought it was a Psychotic DRAG Comedy - They should rename it "Bitching Pregnant Cat Fight!" What a stupid waste of time , if you want to see(DIE DIE!!! "I WANT YOUR BABY DRAG QUEEN) Jennifer Tilly being her Freaky self then just rent out one Of the "Chucky" movie, oh ya , "The Bride Of Chucky." It's more fun watching the Two Ugly Plastic dolls (one of them Jennifer Tilly turned into the UGLY Female version of Chucky) having Squeaky plastic rubber sex then watching Daryl Hannah being pregnant , Dumb & stupid; & Jennifer Tilly Grinding up her Husbang in a Food Processor reminded me of my Mother trying to do House Work! OK it's just BAD!!!
It's hard to criticize this movie, because I dislike the story itself, and no amount of good acting would have saved it. Think "Raising Arizona" with a mean streak. The acting is passable, but Jennifer Tilly is way over the top (yet not enough to make this a nice camp film) as usual, coming in somewhere between "Misery" and a sarcastic DMV employee. The rest of the cast have their brows perpetually knitted in consternation, either from the stress of their parts or the stress of the whole futile exercise. A real degrading few hours of film. Darryl Hannah spends most of the movie weeping too hard to be understood. I wish I could tell you how it ended but I walked out, sorry.
Some wonder why there weren't anymore Mrs. Murphy movies after this one. Will it's because this movie totally blew snot. Disney was not the right studio to run this film. MAYBE Touchstone (well, they're owned by Disney, but it'd be more adult). The film is too kid-ish, as the book series is not. The casting is all wrong for the characters. The characters don't even act the way they do in the books. And why was Tucker changed to a guy? He's a girl in the frigging books! Was this done to make the film appeal to boys? Sheesh. And where was Pewter, the gray cat? One of the funniest characters from the book is absent from this filth. Rita Mae Brown is a good writer, but letting Disney blow her work was wrong. An animated feature film, perhaps in the vane of Don Bluth's artwork would suit a better Mrs. Murphy film. Overall, I give this a 2, because at least Disney made a film from an under-appreciated book series. But, I wish they did better. Either way, I still have my books to entertain me.
Worst show I've ever seen. The story is about a group of teenagers who, for some inexplicable reason, have super powers, and when they use some special device, they morph into strange, poorly designed suits. The acting when they're not in the retarded-looking suits is decent. Definitely not good, but not the worst acting I've ever seen. However, when wearing their suits, the actors' acting goes from bad to worse; much, much worse. The hyper-animated idiots have a myriad of unnecessary motions they do. Even when they talk they look like they're having seizures. The villains are stupider than the Rangers. Every episode, some weak, idiotic villain comes up with some plan to destroy the Rangers. He/she then sends a force of hyper-animated aliens to attack the Rangers. The Rangers then initialize their 10-hour transforming animation, then they annihilate the aliens. Then, the poorly designed villain, which can either be an armored villain that actually looks and acts evil, to a humanoid ladybug-like creature with trumpets attached to its back that shows obvious signs of mental retardation. The Power Rangers fight the villain off, then the villain turns into Godzilla, whether it be by a rain cloud or a nuclear missile (yes, they fire nukes at the creatures and the creatures turn into giants). The Power Rangers spend 5 minutes acting hyper-animated and summon their Zords which are obviously toys that the producers of the show used special effects on to make them look real. The Power Rangers win, the villain gets mad, they all teach a "valuable" lesson, and the show ends. That's it. Twenty-five minutes of brain-washing, fake kung fu fighting.
Very rarely do I give less rave reviews on a show or film I dislike on IMDb, but Mighty Morphin Power Rangers is just so painstakingly dreadful, it's terrible.<br /><br />I wouldn't have minded if this had been an animated series- would've been better that way I guess, but as a live-action show, it typifies the terms 'cheesy' and 'campy'. Of which Power Rangers is. Five multi- coloured, spandex wearing teens battle evil by using their martial arts skills. The costumes are horrid- they look like something that is reminiscent of what track and field athletes and female gymnasts would wear. The acting is woeful, and the fight choreography is so shockingly bad and so lame to watch, it makes Jean- Claude Van Damme, look as equally as good as Bruce Lee, which is an understatement in itself. In fact, they look as if they are jumping and dancing about; like it was some version of the 'Nutcracker', or they were doing ballet, rather than fighting. Besides, there are some cartoons that heavily feature martial arts and yet it is done in a fun-yet not so cheesy way that makes it look silly.<br /><br />Kids show or not, this is just so lame and on the verge of absurdity. And even though this version is set in America, you could be forgiven into thinking that as you watch some of the fight sequences that they were not filmed in the US, but rather in Japan; thus the somewhat 'fake' fighting and footage was borrowed from the Japanese version-only to be juxtaposed onto the US version.<br /><br />If you like this type of thing, then stick with Sentai- the Japanese equivalent.
I cannot for the life of me explain what the popularity of the children's television show, power rangers is all about.<br /><br />I never understood why unsuspecting children liked this show in the first place, since the characters seem so idiotic and not worth caring about whatsoever.<br /><br />The costumes look completely atrocious, like multi colored spandex that people wear to go to the gym.<br /><br />What exactly is the purpose of this show anyways, but for kids to learn how to fight to solve their problems? What is up with the awful hair cuts, and clothing on this show anyway? Not to mention this show is still playing on cable television, just to make money to teach kids how to fight each other when they disagree on a certain problem.<br /><br />There's far better entertainment for today's children, hopefully they aren't as gullible as kids of the 1990s who watched this show.<br /><br />Oh, and what is up with the homo erotic tension between the red and green rangers anyway?
I never quite understood the popularity of Saban's Power Rangers show which was quite simply a second rate Americanized version of Japan's ultra popular super sentai series of the past three decades! What was cool about the Japanese version gets completely lost in the American version, characterization, special effects, etc.<br /><br />Of course many kids will say that power rangers are the greatest but they would be incorrect.<br /><br />I'm sure if they spoke Japanese, they would learn how much better super sentai is over the American version.<br /><br />Power Rangers is completely awful, try Super Sentai instead! Looking for a better show, try Voltron The Third Dimension instead!
Power rangers, the moronic merchandising television kids show from the 1990s, has got to be the most pointless and ridiculous television show ever created.<br /><br />What exactly is the point of this show anyway, other than to sell second rate plastic nonsense to children? There is nothing even remotely redeeming or interesting about this show in anyway.<br /><br />Look at the costumes, which look like spandex gone bad.<br /><br />The mullet style hair, earrings, and fashions of the early 1990s look completely ridiculous these days.<br /><br />Avoid this show at all costs!
The power rangers is definitely the worst television show and completely ridiculous plastic toy line in the history of the United States.<br /><br />There is absolutely nothing even remotely entertaining about this completely awful television show.<br /><br />This is simply the worst show ever made, with awful actors, dressing up in multi colored spandex outfits that look completely ridiculous.<br /><br />The owners of this show should be ashamed of themselves, since there is no redeeming value to this nonsense.<br /><br />Kids of today should try watching better shows like the Toy Story movies instead of this garbage.
Many people here say that this show is for kids only. Hm, when I was a kid (approximately 7-9 years old) I watched this show first. It was disgusting for me. I talked with other kids about this and, sure, other shows and know what? This was the measure of disguise, whenever we wanted to emphasize something's silliness (either on TV or anything else) we said "Uh, just like Power Rangers" and laughed. <br /><br />And before visiting this site I could not imagine that there actually are fans of MMPR. It was so strange for me that I decided to watch it again and try to understand why people like it. I did not enjoy that viewing. But it dawned upon me: maybe I have not enough imagination? It may be. However this argument is not sufficient for me to rate it more than 1 star.
I remember this show being on the television when I was a kid back in the early 1990s, and there was this rage about kids with goofy leotards doing kung fu on one another and riding around in plastic dinosaurs. It was called power rangers. I remember that little kids would go around hitting each other and then the shirts and the stuff from the show was banned in many school districts all over the country because this show taught kids how to fight each other in solving their differences.<br /><br />I never really thought of this as a show, especially when better shows like The Tick were playing on Fox Kids. Most older teens always looked at power rangers in a ridiculous and scornful manner, and it's not hard to wonder why. The footage is ridiculous at best. The colored rangers costumes look like stuff you would work out in and the dinosaurs look like plastic nonsense. Then you get into the acting, and of course those really laughable haircuts. All the guys run around with earrings on, half of them are wearing 90's mullets, and they always wear the same clothes everyday, and then change into leotard wearing power rangers.<br /><br />The toys are especially ridiculous as well, and was the joke of many late night talk show hosts. And of course two of the worst movies ever made, and I do mean two of the worst movies ever made were based on this show with nearly every critic trashing both the films, and the shows it was based on.<br /><br />Power rangers is nothing more than a bad television commericial for especially bad toy merchandising. As an adult, I don't look at it fondly, but rather as another embarrassment of 1990s kids shows, fashion and guys' earrings.
Mighty Morphin Power Rangers came out in 1993, supposedly based on the Japanese sentai television show that started back in the 1970s. Now as a fan of Japanese action films and series, you would think I would get a kick out of this show.<br /><br />You could not be more wrong. What worked in the Japanese version has become a complete abomination of television with mighty morphin power rangers.<br /><br />MMPR is based on five teenagers who get powers to becomes costumed superheroes with robotic dinosaurs who form an even bigger robot.<br /><br />Now this premise is more far fetched and more laughable than anything in either Transformers movie, yet, the ridiculousness of this show is often overlooked.<br /><br />It was followed by two really bad, and I do mean, really bad movie knock offs, and the actors starring in this series, completely disappeared from the scene.<br /><br />If you must choose, try watching Japan's Zyuranger series instead.<br /><br />Also, what's up with the awful long 1990s haircuts and all the earrings on the guys? It makes them all look feminine!
Power Rangers, the completely awful kid's show from the 1990s still continues to disturb young children with it's complete cheesiness, and awful settings.<br /><br />This show was not entertainment, it was an excuse to teach children violence in showing kids how to fight one another in order to solve their differences.<br /><br />The toys were further demonstration in how to promote a violent television show and such.<br /><br />I have never been able to figure out what the purpose of this completely ridiculous show ever was.<br /><br />As such, it remains one of the worst kids shows ever made.
15 years ago, Power Rangers was one of the shows that swept the nations, especially that of the youth. When I was a 3-year-old kid living in the Philippines, I would watch this show every Friday on ABS-CBN (Channel 2 over there). When the movie came out in 1995, it was all shock and awe to me when I watched it with my dad and 2 uncles. My grandparents even sent me a "Balikbayan" box full of Power Rangers stuff (including the easy-to-build Megazord figure and the stuffed toys of the Rangers). I even played the video games, and loved only one of them ("MMPR: Fighting Edition"), which was REALLY sad. Anyway, it was the show that set a stepping stone on my interest on robot series (especially anime mech series like "Gundam") Now that I'm 18, I'd like to think this show is pretty cheesy to me now. To prove this, I took a trip down memory lane by buying a 2-set DVD collection with "MMPR: The Movie" and "Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie" and watched both of them. I was like, "Ugh. How awful. Just another junk in the attic for me." For all of you people of my generation, this is NOT a show that you'd want to watch over and over again. I'm not saying to leave it behind for the rest of your life, but occasionally is not a bad thing now, is it? Instead of "Power Rangers", I'd recommend something like "Mobile Fighter G Gundam" (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED), "Ninja Senshi Tobikage" (aka Ninja Robots), or even the ORIGINAL Sentai shows that were the basis of "Power Rangers."
Nowadays it is sort of a trend to look upon all shows from begin 90's as classics (people are so easily blinded by nostalgia these days), and while some of those shows were/are undoubtedly good, this one is just pure crap. I watched this show a lot back in those days since it got A LOT of reruns on TV back then, and even as a child I didn't like it. Even a 8-year old can see how much the people in Power Rangers are overacting, and how much the special-FX sucked even back then. When the show doesn't resort to the painfully bad 'fighting'-scenes, it plagues the viewer with this unnecessary soap-opera about a group of teens and they'r little social problems every now and then. I don't know about you, but I didn't give a rats ass about any of that at all, and its basically filler until they have to 'fight' some dude again in a very cliché alien-costume with fireworks or some toy-robot. You never feel 'involved' in some kind of way with this show, and the fact that most of the actors act like there really have no interest at all besides they'r wallet just enhances the lack of feeling.<br /><br />There is really nothing memorable about this show, and its pretty surprising that it got so many spin-offs (Beetleborgs is a good example). All it is is just a quick way to make some money though. I challenge any 'fan' to tell me what exactly stands out in episodes that is supposed to be so good because I couldn't find anything that is even slightly appealing to children. My guess is that most 'fans' of Power Rangers will tell me that I "just don't get it" anyway, or something along that line. I really don't care though; this was crap back then and it still crap now.
Okay, I seriously CAN'T think of anything worse than the PR series. There are many bad things in life...traitors, liars, etc. But seriously, Power Rangers has GOT to be at the bottom of this list. Can you think of anything more stupid than five-six teenagers (who don't even act like a normal teen) dancing around in identical suits WITH DIFFERENT COLORS SO THAT YOU CAN TELL THEM APART? Fans, have you ever come across a real person who gets flung against a mental wall and gets up almost immediately and continues to fight without getting injured? Power Rangers are for five-year old boys, and believe me, I never liked this show even when I was five.<br /><br />I guess you can say Dino Thunder is an exception. The teens actually ACT like teens, and Tommy Oliver actually acts like a mentor, or no, a teacher. It's got teen-humor, though the fighting is lame, I don't hate Dino Thunder.<br /><br />Many people say Power Rangers are crap, but I wouldn't. It would be an insult to crap. So face it, five year old boys, Power Rangers is rubbish.
Come on, what is the deal with this show, Power Rangers anyways? I always felt that the show, which was originally brought over from Japan in a better form, took what was great in Japan, and turned into one of the most ridiculous and pointless excuses in toy merchandising history! There is absolutely no point with this show whatsoever.<br /><br />The bad haircuts, bad costumes, earrings, etc, all show what was ridiculous back in the 1990s From the two idiots, Bulk and Skull, to the "duhs", of the main cast, Jason, Trini, Tommy, Kimberly, Billy and Zack, I just want to say one thing: GIVE ME A BREAK!<br /><br />Saban brought this from Japan, and then Disney bought the rights to this show around five years ago.<br /><br />Now the public has to endure reruns of this show on the Disney channel and such.<br /><br />All I can say once again is give me a break!
I really do not have any clue as to why some people find the power rangers television show even remotely interesting at all. The costumes are completely ridiculous and the people playing in them also look completely foolish at the same time. There is absolutely anything remotely interesting about the power rangers. This is just a higher priced television commercial designed to sell extremely cheesy plastic garbage to the unsuspecting children around the world. From the notes, I can see that it's been banned in the country of New Zealand and from what I have seen, I can agree with their decision. Avoid this show at all costs, it's terrible and ridiculous.
Mighty Morphin Power Rangers has got to be the worst television show ever made. There is no plot, just a bunch of silly costumed kids using martial arts while dressed up in second class spandex outfits.<br /><br />The special effects look like they are from the '70's, the costumes look like something out of a bad comedy, and the show is just plain awful.<br /><br />The only thing worse than the television show are the toys, just second rate plastic garbage fed to our kids.<br /><br />There are far better shows for your kids to watch!<br /><br />Try giving your kids something like Nickelodean, those shows actually have some intelligence behind them, unlike power rangers.
IT SHOULD FIRST BE SAID THAT I HAVE READ THE MANGA AND THEREFORE MY ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THE DIFFERENCES.<br /><br />This anime greatly disappointed me because it removed the comedy and high quality action of the manga and OVA. What it left behind was merely a husk of what it could have been. Many of the characters lacked the depth that is seen in the manga. Alucard is not the sympathetic character that secretly wishes for death. Walter's story lacks the betrayal. And the Nazi villains that plot to engulf the world in war are completely absent. Instead, the anime provides the Gary Stu villain Incognito who is defeated against what appear to be all odds.<br /><br />My primary complaint is not that the anime diverges from the manga, but that it does such a poor job.
Basically this is about a couple who want to adopt a second child. At the adoption agency they meet a mouse (Stuart) and they decide to adopt him. If you think that this is stupid, hold it, because it's getting worse.<br /><br />Stuart arrives to his new home, where he is treated like a human child. (Spare me!) The rest is pretty much the usual cliché, about family problems, jealousy from the elder "brother", and at the end all issues are resolved and they are all a "happy family". Boring and worn out as this is, it is also shown in the most blunt and unsophisticated way.<br /><br />I don't know if the director believed that he was being creative by introducing a mouse to the cliché, or he was just trying to fill in minutes, but he only upgraded the cliché from boring to abhorrent.<br /><br />Then why I gave a 3 and not a ZERO? Because of the family cat, who loves Stuart as much as the "brother". And because of some funny gigs, where Stuart makes good use of his small size.<br /><br />On the overall I believe that the film would work reasonably well if: a. Stuart was a PET and not a "sibling". b. It had kept to the funny gigs, like Stuart trying to outwit the cat, and had left out boring clichés which don't even match with anything else.
At least the under ten year old set will stay interested. Eleanor(Geena Davis)and Fred(Hugh Laurie)Little, a nice well-to-do couple set out to bring home from the orphanage a new little brother for their son George(Johnathan Lipnicki). They come home with quite the odd new sibling...a sharp dressed little mouse named Stuart(voiced by Michael J. Fox). Yes, mouse. Stuart is happy to have found the sense of belonging even if it is in a super sized world that contains his new family's pet cat Snowbell(voiced by Nathan Lane). Stuart embarks on the experience of family loyalty and overall friendship. George will finally accept his tiny new brother when the dapper dressed Stuart saves embarrassment at a model boat race.<br /><br />Also in the cast: Julia Sweeney, Harold Gould, Estelle Getty and Jeffery Jones. And the voices of: Chaz Palminteri, Bruno Kirby and Jennifer Tilly.
They should have called this movie: "Adopted Mouse Brother That is Slightly Inspired by Someone's Vague Recollection of Stuart Little Who Just Kind of Skimmed the Book a Little, But Mostly Just Remembered the Cover" If it wasn't so misleading I'd give it a better review.<br /><br />But seriously people, do your kids a favor and have them read the book. They might actually learn something instead of having their mind numbed by what we all know as Hollywood film.<br /><br />The book Stuart little isn't about a mouse, it's about a person who happens to be very small and mouse-like. He's born to his parents, not adopted. The book is about his life and his eventual departure from home and the journey he embarks on. There is a cat named Snowball who thinks he's food and wants to eat him, but Snowball can't talk. <br /><br />In the movie they screw all of that up. I think the only things that they kept from the book were the boat race and the names.
Not that I dislike childrens movies, but this was a tearjerker with few redeeming qualities. M.J. Fox was the perfect voice for Stuart and the rest of the talent was wasted. Hugh Laurie can be amazingly funny, but is not given the chance in this movie. It´s sugar-coated sugar and would hardly appeal to anyone over 7 years of age. See Toy Story, Monsters Inc. or Shrek instead. 3/10
... but the trouble of this production is that it's very far from a good musical.<br /><br />Granted, one can't always expect the witty masters like Sondheim or Bernstein or Porter; yet the music of this piece makes even Andrew Lloyd Webber look witty. It's deadly dull and uninventive (with one or two exceptions) and just after I watched it I couldn't recall a single significant melody - which is rather tragic coming from someone who learned the whole Another Hundred People from three listenings.<br /><br />It is also strangely un-theatrical. It takes place on an incredibly large stage (one really has to feel sorry for those people in front rows who broke their necks in order to see something happening 50 meters on the right or 100 meters on the left) and does absolutely nothing with it. When there's supposed to be one person singing on-stage, that's just what you get - and the rest of the enormeous stage is empty. For me as an aspiring theatre director it was almost painful to watch.<br /><br />The fact remains, Cole Porter seems to have captured the French culture in his works better than these no-talents can ever come close to. And I'm puzzled by the popularity of this would-be-legendary musical.
OK, I bought this film from Woolworths for my friend for a joke present on his birthday, because the front cover had a sexual innuendo in it.<br /><br />But we decided it to watch it anyway. Just for hilarity purposes.<br /><br />And I'm sorry, but this has got to be, one of THE worst films in history.<br /><br />It began off alright, and we thought "Ok this might actually be OK". But after about 10 minutes, we were sadly mistaken.<br /><br />It began when the "mysterious paint baller" turned out to be the most obvious character, the Scouser/Australian (I say that because he had an accent which couldn't be identified), who's acting might I just say, was abysmal.<br /><br />Then it got to the end, and by that time, we had all lost the will to live. The paint ball finals.<br /><br />The only thing I did like about this plot is that they didn't actually win, but annoyingly enough they won by default.<br /><br />And I know this has nothing to do with it, but the name the team were given was just awful. Critical Damage. I mean they could of picked a more awesome name, like "The Destroyers of the Anti-Christ" or something. Or that's what the film should of been called anyway.
This film, for an after school special, isn't that bad, and that's the problem. Nothing happens. You feel as if you're still in class. A guy teaches a bunch of young underdogs how to be good paint ball players. We never get to see these underdogs doing badly as the good player is training them. They all of the sudden turn into good players by meditating. Also there are too many characters and no character development. Too much time is spend on the main character and his sexy sister and not enough on some of the other kids. This could have had a 'Bad News Bears' feel (the original) since there was a girl on an all boys team, but there wasn't any feel to this movie at all. It has no feeling and leaves a dull pain in your bones after watching it, is not fun to bag on, not fun to watch, and is just kind of... there. Plain. Boring. Something you'd watch after school before your pre-evening nap. As dull as the day is long and it's been a long, long day watching this movie.
Mind, my friends and I saw the movie based off it's title alone. It's cute, though obvious in it's plot and direction-- you know where the movie is going within the first five minutes. My main contention with the plot is that while it remains tolerably consistent, they never explain a lot of the things behind the characters. An alcoholic father, overworked mother, stressed-out sister... that's a bad family, but aside from the occasional mention from the sister, there's not any resolution. I was also confused as to the scene with the bottles... it seemed pretty random.<br /><br />The writing is a secondary concern... the kids weren't bad actors, but their script left a lot to be desired. Unfortunately, what could have been a cute niche movie was pushed aside for a single, blah special effect, lame scripting, and a glaringly obvious plot.
Not the worst movie I've seen but definitely not very good either. I myself am a paintball player, used to play airball a lot and going from woods to airball is quite a large change. The movie portrays similar qualitys First of all the movie starts off with this team that apparently is trying to shoot this "Phantom" guy or whatever, they appear to be a professional team and wear jerseys and shoot mags, autocockers. One guy sporting a bushy. Not much wrong with the movie but more how it's perceived it was very cheesy. A bunch of kids who are the good guys are woodsball players who don't appear to have much money and have dreams of getting "better guns". Another team constantly picks on them and insults them because they play woods and blah blah blah The phantom helps these woodsball kids out and trains them and all this crap, he gets them to play airball and basically defeats all the teams including the "professionals".<br /><br />So what exactly is wrong with the movie? Well the budget is a huge thing, a paintball movie WOULDN'T be bad but the budget is pretty low and the movie feels like it was done by an amateur. There are no big names in this film and the acting is very cheesy. The perception of paintball is pretty bad too. They seem to imply that everyone is going to speedball and all this other crap. It just was a lousy movie in my opinion and doesn't give a real perception what paintball is. To be honest real paintball isn't all buddy like, it's a lot of cussing and bonus balling not "respect" and playing by the rules. Don't watch this movie and then expect to go to a field screaming "4 is 1!!"
This film had such promise!! What a great idea, an underdog paintball team struggling for recognition and personal glory, only to lose it's speed due to bad dialoge, poor editing and a half-written story. The characters in the beginning were interesting, only to lose steam half way through to become one dimensional people sputtering out tired one-liners.<br /><br />Maybe if they spent some more time on the story and dialoge it would have been a great movie, instead of a almost afterthought effort.
I don't think I'm too far off base saying that this is possibly the worst movie I've ever seen. I've been working on a list of my favorite war movies: "The Longest Day," "To Hell and Back," "Bridge on the River Kwai," (all black and white) which all have good plots, rich characters and great acting. I've seen better dialog and acting in student-written high school one act plays. The plot, however isn't a bad premise - just poorly implemented. It's kind of like a traffic accident, though, I couldn't seem to turn it off! A movie doesn't need big money or great sets i.e. "Twelve Angry Men" and "Lifeboat" to be good... so budget is no excuse. What were they thinking?
Good lord, whoever made this turkey needs to be buried alive. I'm sorry, but the other reviewer must not have seen this movie, he must be watching something else, or have never seen a movie before... 9 out of ten stars? He's saying what, this is as good as Ben Hur or Gone With the Wind? Unintentionally funny, massively unbelievable characters, absurd situations, looks like it was shot in Griffith Park (which works out pretty well--MASH was shot in Griffith Park), crappy script, just about everything that could possibly be wrong with a movie all rolled into one package. Should be required viewing for all prospective film makers as an example of how a movie could be horribly wrong. It reminds me of something a USC student may make for a film class. <br /><br />Give this one a pass unless you do drugs and are into high camp.
Relentlessly stupid, no-budget "war picture" made mainly to show off the attributes of the spectacular Eve Meyer--not a bad idea in itself--but that should be an embarrassment to everyone connected with it. Laughable "script", performances that wouldn't pass muster in an elementary-school Christmas pageant, inept "action" scenes, confused direction by the normally competent documentary director Louis Clyde Stoumen--who is apparently not quite sure if he's making a comedy, a philosophical treatise on the futility of war or a leering T&A (by early 1960s standards, anyway) travelogue of Eve Meyer's magnificent body--and a general air of shoddiness and incompetence. Worth seeing in order to watch Eve Meyer strut her stuff, but that's pretty much it.
I'm sure that Operations Dames was a favorite at the drive-ins back in the day. There's absolutely nothing in the way of a plot that you might miss if you were otherwise preoccupied. And if you needed to get in the mood for other activities you did have some curvaceous cuties on screen to get you in the mood.<br /><br />Otherwise there ain't a whole lot that Operations Dames has going for it. It's set in the Korean War where a platoon of GIs together with a British tommy gets a little too far forward and has to get back to the UN lines. Bad enough already, but these guys also come across a stranded bunch of USO girls and their choreographer in the same predicament.<br /><br />You know what's sad about this film is that it took women generations to finally get accepted in the Army and in combat situations. These bimbos from the USO set women's liberation back light years. In fact not even the hard bitten professional soldier who is the sergeant in charge of these men can keep it in his pants.<br /><br />But that was probably the better to remind some what they were at the drive-in for. This no name cast is better off with me not recognizing any of them for any individual effort.<br /><br />Operations Dames is definitely a team flop.
I was drawn to this movie, curious to see how they have adapted Hubert Shelby's brutal novel. I thought that a literary piece of such depth, with a rich tapestry of characters, horrid situations, and social critique could not translate into a bad movie. I was wrong.<br /><br />This flick is a terrible movie experience, not for its content, but for its form. Director Ulrich Edel executes, in my sincere opinion, a terrible directorial job that does no justice to the original book. No wonder Edel is a TV director; this movie looks and feels like a bad "made for TV" flick. Some of my views on this bomb (**spoilers ahead**):<br /><br />- Lack of directorial creativity. The scenes are slow, feel slow, look poorly shot, and barely ever move from an anchored position. The only liberty they take is in the cinematography area, with a nice dark tone. Other than that, the movie has the same technical creativity as a TV soap-opera.<br /><br />- All the actors do a terrific job at portraying these miserable characters. The problem is that the adaptation does not tackle a basic element in the development of the plot: MOTIVATION. All these characters move around like robots, without a clear motivation for their action. They seem to do things out of the blue, like robots, for no reason at all. Edel misses every opportunity to enrich character development by not exploring the character's motivations, and by avoiding developing each character's personality to its full extent.<br /><br />This lack of character development is blatant on Tralala. Jennifer Jason Leight does a great job playing this trashy prostitute, but her alcohol-induced decision to let the sailors violate her is not explained. It looks extremely stupid, as we see this character doing this out of the blue. This is a clear example of poor character development.<br /><br />The movie also has many secondary, token characters that do nothing, feel nothing, and add nothing to the plot. I would have liked to learn more about Harry's wife, for instance, and the interaction between the two. That's another missed opportunity.<br /><br />Edel only approaches character development with Harry and his fixation with his gay lover, only to screw it up at the end, not clearly explaining -again- his motivations. The thugs are also a joke in their lack of development.<br /><br />- The soundtrack is one of the worst I've ever experienced. Terrible job by Mark Knopfler. I seriously expected more from the former leader of Dire Straits, but his job in this movie is seriously lacking. At times, like in the battle between the union workers and the police, the music seems totally disconnected from the movie. It also feels completely poor and anachronic; I could swear the whole soundtrack was made with a Casio toy keyboard. It distracts from the actual action.<br /><br />- The book adaptation by Desmond Nakano is so literal that eliminates the point of the story. It feels as if they tried so hard to keep the action-by-action storyline in the book, that they forgot to actually develop the characters and, once again, explain their actions and motivations.<br /><br />I seriously can not recommend this movie, not even to a Shelby fan, because it can ruin the original book. It's a very uninspired effort in adapting the novel, and shows very little creative input.
I don't know much about film-making, but good movies have to tell some sort of a story...your characters have to start and complete their journey. In Last Exit to Brooklyn they may, but its not in any satisfying way, and I'm not meaning a happy ending, just ANY ending.<br /><br />Last Exit to Brooklyn, set in 1952 Brooklyn during a very brutal labor strike, sets a number of story threads in motion. Most involve some of the most unlikeable characters to ever walk across a movie screen. But Last Exit to Brooklyn fails to bring these stories to any conclusion...it leaves some of them dangling with no ending, or blasts off into some bizarre stratosphere for an "artistic" ending.<br /><br />Two cases in point, and they contain spoilers.<br /><br />A sad transvestite character (an important character in the film), is struck by a car and killed. And that's it for him in the movie....he's gone for good, erased from everyone's memory..no reactions from his friends, enemies, lovers....nothing.<br /><br />In another thread the stupid, clueless, and secretly gay strike leader, having been rejected by labor, his gay lover, and found out by the neighborhood thugs, gets stomped by the thugs. The closing scene to the beating shows the streets of Brooklyn, and the streetlights are very, very similar to those of Nazi death camps...and the scene drags on and on and on...and the camera pans down to the body of the labor leader, and he's been crucified.....ppppuuuulllleeeeeez. And of course that's it for him too....brain erasure.....gone.<br /><br />Bottom line....no matter what the reviewers originally said in 1989 about this film....this movie is a depressing piece of sludge. Avoid it. And if you don't be forewarned, it really deserves an NC-17 rating for massive amounts of physical, emotional and sexual brutality...don't even let the teenagers watch.
Fine performances and art direction do not a good movie make. This movie is so grim and depressing, I could feel absolutely no joy at the "happy" ending involving the union strike. The attempts at humor involving Lake's pregnancy are absolutely disastrous, and any movie involving a Baldwin brother already has a strike against it. On a positive note, Lang is still one of America's great underrated actors, he alone almost makes this worth keeping in the VCR. I give this a 4.
Hubert Selby Jr. gave us the book "Requiem For A Dream" and co-wrote the screenplay to Aronofsky's movie of it. That movie succeeded on every level by delivering an intimate, and unbiased portrait of the horrors of the characters lives and the vices that destroyed them. "Last Exit To Brooklyn" still has the vice and the multiple characters living sad lives, but it hardly does them the same justice Aronofsky did.<br /><br />The film seems laughably anti-gay at times. Especially when in the film homosexuality equals death. One gay character gets stoned, is launched skyward by a speeding car, and lands dead on the pavement. Another is crucified and still more are simply beat up. Another exaggerated piece of shock value, that might actually have been compelling if it were done well, are scenes of the union workers literally doing battle with the strike-breakers. Who'd have thought a drama about Brooklyners would feature action sequences and truck explosions?<br /><br />The director, Uli Edel has a skill level like that of a TV director, but he is far below the cut for real movies. The film is clunky that can't even seem to settle on a genre. Lake is given a useless role that any mannequin could have filled and Baldwin only seems to know how to look stupid in his equally meager part. And then comes Jennifer Jason Leigh as our lead, a loathsome hooker named Tralala (believe it or not, I'm not joking). Her performance is nothing great and the fate of her character is dirty to say the least. Poor use of color and composition make it look cheaper than it is, and also takes the "real" edge off the more provocative bits. A failure.
When this was released, I thought this was one of the most profane films ever made. However, thanks to Martin Scorcese and a few other filmmakers like him, there have been mainline films worse, language-wise, than this....but this is a pretty brutal assault on one's ears. Hey, I can take a lot of it, but this got ridiculous. In the first six minutes alone, I heard a half-dozen usage's of the Lord's name in vain plus an untold number of f-words. I wonder how many people walked out of the theater watching this in 1990? I couldn't have been the only one.<br /><br />Not surprisingly, some of the feature actors included Jennifer Jason-Leigh, Burt Young, Jerry Orbach and Rikki Lake. Since this film, Stephen Lang seems to have improved his image, at least playing the Godly "Stonewall" Jackson in "Gods and Generals." Lang's role here is just the opposite: perhaps the worst trashy person in the film and a character who falls in love with a transvestite by the end of the film.<br /><br />Depressing, gloomy, semi-pornographic, repulsive: these are just a few of the adjectives people used - even some Liberal critics - in describing this story, which is painted even worse in the novel. Of course, some of the better-known critics, all extreme Libs, praised the movie. However, they were the only ones. Most critics were disgusted, as well almost all of the paying public. It's unbelievable that anyone could praise filth and garbage like this.<br /><br />Trust me on this: there are no good, likable characters in this entire movie. This is a mean, sick film: one of the worst of the "modern era." That is, unless you enjoy seeing child abuse, drug abuse, teen prostitutes, on and on - two straight hours of nothing but atrocities and just plain evil people. No thanks.
Just too many incidents of violence.<br /><br />The film goes from one scene to another, and in nearly every one violence erupts.<br /><br />Now I am not one who is shocked by violence, and to me a film without a fight in it has something missing. But, please, not one after another. My reaction was not shock or horror, it was: "Here we go again." There is some semblance of a story in between the scenes of violence, but two thirds of the way through the film I had switched off completely, and couldn't wait for the end.<br /><br />If this is the best the film makers can do, they should find something else to do with their miserable lives, like making shoes or delivering mail.
Welcome to Our Town, welcome to your town? As we are introduced into the worlds of its townsfolk of 1901 America, this three act play is opened before us with the help of "The Stage Manager", a visual narrator if you like. After his initial introductions, we are lead into the homes of two particular families; The Webb's and the Gibb's.<br /><br />This is most definitely middle America at the turn of the century, and the progressive way of life of the American Dream and its saccharine overtones that can seem a little biased in this dream town. Here we see the everyday lives of some of its 2642 populace of Grover's Corners, New Hampshire, even if there are, too, the migrant Polish workers that add another 500 to is numbers, they, never get a look-in.<br /><br />Once the daily lives of these families have been introduced; wives cooking, children home-working, fathers working, kids falling in love and the clean picket-fences painted white, the second act is started three years later, after young George (a young and unrecognisable William Holden, then aged 22) and Emily have fallen in love and intend to marry. Blossoming lovebirds reaching for the stars and reaching, too, a turning point in their own lives, from the nest they lived and now, into the anxieties and woes of young adulthood they nervously step. The third act is slightly more sour and foreboding, it is in this act that the movies intentions become apparent, here we see not life, not celebration but death, and it is in this predicament that the dead, as they return to revisit and reconcile their own life past, are here to remind us, to tell us, that life, and every last minute, every precious breath is not to be wasted and squandered.<br /><br />It is in this last third that the movies own political stance also seems more apparent too, feeling more of a propaganda stunt on the moral lecturing on, and by, middle America and how it should direct its home and how it should also put it in order. This isn't just about "Our" town, this is moral diction aimed at "Our" souls and how America can better itself if its peoples', (excluding the Poles, the Irish, the Native American and the freed ethnic minorities', and minorities' in general, plus the supporting backbone of the Americana's who, still, have not had a fair part in this narrative), such as the middle classes, can live up to the expectations of the American Dream through honest, decent living. The purveyors of the American Dream with special invitation only.<br /><br />I was entertained, slightly, by this movie too, but I felt that its narrative held a stronger impact than anything else that took part in it albeit the bland acting, the musical score or how well, or not, it was made. This was the movies intention to exclude other groups, and to only include the likes of the Webb's and the Gibb's, in the future of the developing country of the USA, a good movie, but also a slightly biased in its stance, I thought.<br /><br />Taken from the play by US' born Thornton Wilder (1897 - 1975) this Pulitzer Prize winning play, and six Academy Award nominated movie, was the focal point on the perpetual motion of life and its three main attributes; Life, love and death, the plays translation onto celluloid comes across as a slightly to the right blurb of social consciousness. Our Town starts off with what seems a lesson in pointlessness, like other towns, nothing too exciting ever happens here, if anything at all, this town only has the "right sort of people", you can still leave your back-door unlocked here, we are seeing the developing lives of these two families, but it is their moral and social stance that is more important than them themselves. Our Town may just have been "Any Town", just as long as you came from the right part of town that is.
This is the version that even the author hated, because it's so schmaltzy. They gave it a 'happy ending' and changed a lot of the dialogue, and it's just a big pile of saccharine. The 'stage manager' is quite good, I believe he originated the role, but everyone else falls into that acting style of the 40's that is really just posing. The one great feature- the music. This has one of the best scores ever recorded, and it's worth seeking out in a record shop. Overall I think the 1989 Spalding Grey/ Eric Stoltz/ Penelope Miller version is far superior.
I read this Thornton Wilder play last year in eighth grade. I was also forced to sit through this weak translation of it on screen. Let me tell you, it's not a terrific play, it is easily surpassed, but man it deserves a much better shot. The acting was really lacking, the scenery-honest to God-looked like it was designed out of cardboard by a group of three-year-olds. As if it couldn't get worse, the sound quality is lousy...there is this mind-numbing 'buzz' whenever an actor speaks...and I also couldn't help but notice that the chemistry between George and Emily, well, is non-existant. The actors all seem very uncomfortable to be there. There is no music. It is in black and white, which would be OK but it brings out the cheesiness of it all the more. In any case I think that if you're going to make a point of seeing this movie, which I don't really reccomend, then don't aim your hopes to high. The play, as stalwart as it is, is probably better.
When I first popped in Happy Birthday to Me, I checked the timer to see how long the film was. I was amazed at the length. Both animated and horror films share a common ground: attention span of the selected audience and that should be at or right around 90 minutes. Anything more, and you'll lose the bulk of your audience.<br /><br />This 110 minutes, or 20 minutes past its prime was a huge problem for me. I'd like to say half of this movie could've been edited out, but I would be too generous to say that. Go ahead and watch it and tell me how many scenes could've been edited, even without being a film major.<br /><br />Regardless of the overstayed visit, the movie was below mediocre. It spent all of its time trying to be this huge mystery on which of the "elite 10" is killing off the remaining friends. For the most part, they not only over-do it, but they zoom in on a face and pretty much say "It's this guy! No! It's this gal!" You'll spend more time with the camera misleading you than actually enjoying the movie. And don't get me started on the acting.<br /><br />Okay, that got me started. I had to laugh in the beginning trying to remember if Melissa Sue Anderson played the character that went blind on Little House on the Prairie (later, research proved my suspicions correct) because all the way through this movie, she genuinely looked blind. Strange, as an established actress, she should've been the best of the group, but turned out the worst. The rest of the staff, aside from Ann (Bregman) was pretty damn bad, too, but she, uh, took the cake.<br /><br />The movie begins with a group of ten friends, and one's immediately killed off. Barely anyone thinks twice of this "dear" friend's disappearance, so they continue on their merry way. Slowly, then more rapidly, there are revelations about Virginia's (Anderson), the main character, past and her psychologist, who's a tad bit more personal (AND ON CALL 24/7, apparently) than most shrinks. All the while, more and more deaths occur.<br /><br />What's funny is, just as the first "disappearance," the more "best buds" vanish, the less the rest care. Sure, they give a few seconds of air time to say "Wow, (that person) just wouldn't run off" etc, but then they're back to their sexual ways. And speaking of which, it's probably due to the horrid script, or maybe it was I who was losing interest at minute 30, but it was really hard to keep up with who liked who of the group as they all seemed to be sexual partners of the next or someone would either be freaked out to the MAX by another and best friends the next scene. SEE: the creepy guy that kept a mouse/rat in his pocket – literally – and was the most obvious suspect. I'm giving the film too much credit (and time,) but how he became part of the "elite 10" I'll never know.<br /><br />But, I digress, there's a mystery here. Why are these kids targets? Why is Virginia thinking she's killed someone, when it was never proved ('till the end) that any of them actually has been slaughtered? And why would the trailer and poster claim these killings to be "Six of the most bizarre murders you will ever see"? Hell, even for 1981, most of these had been shown in any of the first two Friday the 13th films – coincidentally enough, Friday the 13th Part 2 was released 2 weeks to the day of Happy Birthday to Me. Perhaps, they're speaking of when they filmed it months prior, but were late to the, well, party.<br /><br />When the "secrets" are revealed, trust me, you'll have to rewind 3-4x to actually get the laughable and incoherent motives, and even then, put the subtitles on to get all the mumbling victim/killer's words. Even if you get the first time, it's an unbelievably outrageous and hilarious finale. It's almost worth watching the whole movie again, but as a drinking game.<br /><br />This birthday gathering should be avoided. It's a horrible and illogical first draft script – please, please know it takes multiple rewrites before the cameras role, it contains either way under acting or extreme over acting and it's 100% unrealistic on how people react in extraordinary circumstances.<br /><br />Side Note: When I was a kid, or say 10-11 years old, I loved horror films. (Still do, oddly. Definite guilty pleasures, but they are getting harder and harder to watch as years pass.) We got our first VCR, and I taped as many horror films off network (or, EDITED VERSIONS) TV. All I remember of Happy Birthday to Me is getting the last 10 minutes on tape, which scared me to death – and obviously gave away the big mystery on who the killer was. Even though I have seen other clips of this movie, I think this is the first full-length viewing I've had. Thankfully, this awful movie didn't wound me as a child. I am older now, and I can take this trash. But never again.<br /><br />Side Note 2: That said, that crazy "Happy Birthday to Me" song played in the end credits (and as a score throughout) still creeps me out tremendously. I guess, this movie (or last few minutes,) did have an influence on my childhood. Shame on you, Melissa Sue Anderson!
I think if you are into the sixties kind of thing, as I am, you are obligated to waste about 80 minutes of your life watching this barely watchable trainwreck. The saving graces of this oddity include a surprisingly apt social commentary on sixties values along with a number of relatively well known actors caught in early (and embarrassing) footage. It's as if the producers of Laugh-In sat down and decided to write a full length film, covering all the high points (and more) of the issues between the flower children and the establishment, then put it in the hands of a couple of hippies and gave them about a $10,000 budget to complete it. Hardly a classic, but in its own way it does capture how truly strange that time was, the silliness, the over-idealism, and the uptightness of the establishment. Clearly not for everyone.
Roger Corman is undeniably one of the most versatile and unpredictable directors/producers in history. He was single-handedly responsible for some of my favorite horror films ever (like the Edgar Allen Poe adaptations "Masque of the Red Death" and "Pit and the Pendulum") as well as some insufferably cheap and tacky rubbish quickies (like "Creature from the Haunted Sea" and "She Gods of the Shark Reef"). Corman also made a couple of movies that are simply unclassifiable and – simply put – nearly impossible to judge properly. "The Trip", for example, as well as this imaginatively titled "Gas-s-s-s" can somewhat be labeled as psychedelic exploitation. In other words, they're incredibly strange hippie-culture influenced movies. Half of the time you haven't got the slightest idea what's going on, who these characters are that walk back and forth through the screen and where the hell this whole thing is going. The plot is simply and yet highly effective: a strange but deadly nerve gas is accidentally unleashed and promptly annihilates that the entire world population over the age of 25. This *could* be the basic premise of an atmospheric, gritty and nail-bitingly suspenseful post-apocalyptic Sci-Fi landmark, but writer George Armitage and Roger Corman decided to turn it into a "trippy" road-movie comedy. None of the characters is even trying to prevent their inevitable upcoming deaths; they just party out in the streets and found little juvenile crime syndicates. "Gas-s-s-s" is a disappointingly boring and tries overly hard to be bizarre. The entire script appears to be improvised at the spot and not at all funny. Definitely not my cup of tea, but the film does have a loyal fan base and many admirers, so who am I to say that it's not worth your time or money?
I don't hand out "ones" often, but if there was ever a film that deserved this sort of attention, it's "Gas!" This is self-indulgent crap that reaches for some of the ambiance of M*A*S*H and falls completely flat on its face in the attempt.<br /><br />I see what Corman was going for - Malcolm Marmorstein and Elliott Gould tried to reproduce Gould's deathless role in the original movie version of M*A*S*H with a similar plot (in the movie "Whiffs" - look it up here in IMDb, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073891/ for more information).<br /><br />Marmorstein and Gould got closer to the brass ring with "Whiffs" than Corman did with "Gas!" but didn't quite get there. Neither one of those films even got close to the success of M*A*S*H.<br /><br />What's wrong with "Gas!"? What isn't? No one comes close to really acting at a level above junior high school theatrics. The production values stink. Someone else here mentioned the magically regenerating headlights on a getaway car, and there's more of that lack of attention to detail. Nothing works the way it's supposed to in this film, and nobody cares.<br /><br />"Gas!" actually put me to sleep. It's not a sure cure for insomnia, but really close. On the Cinematic Sleep Induction scale, "Gas!" falls somewhere between "Last Year at Marienbad" and George Clooney's remake of "Solaris" (which itself was remarkable for being more boring than the Mosfilm original, despite that studio's seeming unfamiliarity with the idea of keeping the audience's attention by judicious editing).<br /><br />Judicious editing would have decimated "Gas!" to about twenty minutes. The result would be pointless, but no more so than the original film.<br /><br />Certain films are so bad that they have a compelling quality that makes them worth watching anyway. This isn't one of them. Don't waste your time. It's not even amusingly bad.
In one word... abysmal. I give it one star for the hippie sex scenes and eye candy women, otherwise forget it. Corman's worst effort, bar none. Ben Vereen should have had his name permanently stricken from the cast. I cannot believe that this is now going to be on DVD (as of 2/15/05) with "Wild In The Streets" - another retro stinker. I woke up sick in bed this morning with a cold, decided to watch a movie to cheer me up some, scanned the digital channels... the premise looked interesting enough because I like viewing B-movie sci-fi, hippie culture and rebellious teen flicks. It seemed familiar somehow and with Ben Vereen in the cast, I thought... why not? What a big mistake... it was a horrible start to my day.<br /><br />Only after viewing it, I now know why the familiarity crept into the recesses of my newly-awakened brain. I remembered seeing coming attractions for this film as a 14-year old (I'm 45), back in the early/mid-seventies at the Sombrero, a local art theater that no longer exists... the whole theater laughed hysterically and even groaned out loud at how bad this movie looked. Acting: dreadful, story: awful, cinematography: nearly-awful, music: terrible, sound: horrendous, directing: a joke. If you choose to watch this after my warning, remember... "I told you so."<br /><br />"Gass-s-s-s" is the perfect title for this film... you feel "gassed" after viewing this putrid movie - or maybe that you should be taken to a "gas" chamber for wasting your brain away. I have seen homemade Super 8 movies that put this film to shame. Definitely a new addition to my all-time Top Ten WORST films... it's up there (er, down there) with "Tentacles." <br /><br />Ted in Gilbert, AZ
Bestselling writer George Plimpton(Alan Alda)takes on an assignment for Sports Illustrated. He is to go incognito to the Detroit Lions training camp and try out for a position as third string Quarterback. He is quickly found out by the team members featuring Alex Karras and Mike Lucci. The entire team finds it amusing to cause stumbling blocks in the writer's determination to Quarterback for a series in a real game.<br /><br />This movie is Alda's debut and also helped Karras leave the gridiron for acting. Besides the 1968 Detroit Lions, the cast also includes "Sugar Ray" Robinson, Roy Schieder and Lauren Hutton.<br /><br />Alex March directs this story based on Plimton's book.
Alan Alda plays real-life "Sports Illustrated" writer George Plimpton, who was once invited to join the Detroit Lions football team as an honorary member. Rather wan, uncompelling drama curiously tempered with fantasy. Director Alex March takes an interesting tack on this material, shooting it in a quasi-documentary fashion (with macho commentary) and yet giving the tale a touch of Capraesque whimsy; still, by bringing out the cinematic flashiness in this set-up, he turns the main narrative into a jumble. Alda's smug, uncharismatic performance is another handicap, though the supporting cast is filled with real-life pro-athletes (and scintillating Lauren Hutton as Alda's girlfriend--how's that for a fantasy?). *1/2 from ****
It's pretty clear that the director and production crew set out to paint a less than flattering picture of the Palestinian girl and her family. The film and it's website tries to imply that Ayat has a secret reason for blowing herself and Rachel up- a boyfriend problem- perhaps pregnancy. Neatly glossed over is the fact that Ayat had herself just witnessed the death of a close friend at the hands of the Israelis'-just outside her home. Gosh,so why on earth would a young, pretty, intelligent girl with plans for college go and do such a thing? Could it be that the hormonal, emotional teenager was traumatized by seeing seeing someone she loved die before her very eyes? This detail merits all of 5 seconds in the movie. Another neatly sidestepped detail is that Avigail Levy, Rachels' mother, could have prevented the destruction of the building the Akhras family lived in(along with 22 other families). One distinctly gets the impression that she's offering this as a "concession" - should Mrs. Akhras agree to speak with her."why should I?" she says.(since the movie was made the home has been destroyed- apparently the interview didn't result in what she wanted- so bring on the bulldozers)Mrs Levy claimed that she "wanted the movie to be cathartic as well as a symbol of hope, a chance to transcend entrenched hatreds"- instead she uses it as an excuse to harangue Ayats mother, while dangling the house as a carrot.Moreover although the two women live only 4 miles apart, she is so out of touch with the realities of the occupation for her Palestinian neighbors, that she really thinks that Mrs. Akhras can just drop over for a cup of coffee?Please.And she forgoes the one chance she had to meet Mrs. Akhras in person and see what kind of life she lives.(the Akras family originally came from Jaffa, but now live crammed into a refugee camp only 4 miles from where the Levys live in comparative luxury.Any sympathy I would have had for the obviously well to do Mrs. Levy is dissolved by her air of self-righteous bitchiness.By contrast, Ayats mother comes off as kind,forthright and loving- in spite of the best efforts by the post production crew to paint her and her family as monsters. Heck even the music and sound design was one sided- I guess the muezzin sings ALL day every day 4 miles from the Levy family home, always in a sharply contrasting key from the sappy new-age music that scores this drab excuse for a documentary.Also there is the small matter of translations - Mrs. Levy DIRECTLY addresses the camera in English when she has something worked out to say ahead of time, Hebrew when she doesn't. Mrs.Akhras spoke only Arabic which received sometimes a TRANSLATION, sometimes TRANSLITERATION, always awkward, and very suspect for a supposedly objective movie.They also "sweated" her under the lights, while Mrs. Levy sat in (air conditioned) comfort.Rotten editing for Mrs. Akhras' segments too. I gave it a 2 because I liked Ayats mother and father, who seemed like good decent people. Shame on HBO, producers and director, for releasing such a stink-bomb.
The filming crew did not have good access to the occupied territories, so filming of the Israeli side dominated. I was struck by the nearly completely opposite points of view of the mothers. The Israeli mother lost a child who had the possibility of a life of tremendous happiness. The Palestinian mother lost a child who had only the possibility of a life of privation and despair. With such completely different viewpoints, any meeting had no real chance of any meeting of the minds. The word "peace" did not have the same meaning to each of them. Peace to the Palestinian was freedom. Peace to the Israeli was security. With such an abyss, is this sort of film really worth much? I finished with the feeling that I had watched pointless propaganda -- both sides were unconvincing.
It's rare that I feel a need to write a review on this site, but this film is very deserving because of how poorly it was created, and how bias its product was.<br /><br />I felt a distinct attempt on the part of the film-makers to display the Palestinian family as boorish and untrustworthy. We hear them discuss the sadness that they feel from oppression, yet the film is shot and arranged in a way that we feel the politically oppressed population is the Jewish Israeli population. We see no evidence that parallels the position of the Palestinian teenager. We only hear from other Palestinians in prison. I understand restrictions are in place, but the political nature of the restrictions are designed to prevent peace.<br /><br />I came out of the film feeling that the mother of the victim was selfish in her mourning and completely closed minded due to her side of the fence, so to speak. She continued to be unwilling to see the hurt of the bomber's parents, and her angry and closed-minded words caused the final meeting to spiral out of control. It is more realistic, in my mind, to see the Israeli mindset to be a root of the problem; ignored pleas for understanding and freedom, ignored requests for acknowledgment for the process by which the Jewish population acquired the land.<br /><br />I have given this a two because of these selfish weaknesses of the mother, which normally would be admirable in a documentary, however in the light of the lack of impartiality, it all seems exploitative. Also for the poor edits, lack of background in the actual instance, and finally the lack of proper representation of the Palestinian side. Ultimately, it is a poor documentary and a poor film. I acknowledge this is partially the result of the political situation, but am obliged to note the flaws in direction regardless of the heart-wrenching and sad subject matter.
I tend to love everything the great late Paul Naschy (R.I.P.) ever was in. While not all films starring Naschy are great, they all have a specific charm that can be found nowhere but in Naschy-flicks, and they are always entertaining. There is no rule without exception, however, as "El Mariscal Del Infierno" aka. "The Devil's Possessed" (1974) proves. While the film does have the specific Naschy-flick-charm, it sadly drags far too much and gets really, really dull in-between. Naschy stars as the evil Baron Gilles De Lancré, who oppresses the people and uses black magic and bloody rituals to stay in power. When Gaston de Malebranche (Guillermo Bredeston), who fought side by side with Gilles De Lancré against the British, learns about the Baron's evil behavior, he decides to turn against his former comrade in arms and help the people free themselves from the satanic Baron's tyranny...<br /><br />Directed by León Klimovsky, who is best known for directing Naschy in "La Noche De Walpurgis" ("The Werewolf Vs. The Vampire Woman", 1971), the film was scripted by Naschy himself. Naschy often scripted his own films, and one must say that he mostly did a better, more original job than it is the case here. "El Mariscal Del Infierno" is mostly built up as a historical adventure rather than a Horror film, and it gets quite boring throughout the middle. It often resembles the Sword and Sandal films from the 50s, only that this film is set in medieval times. The Satanic part was probably only added because the great Paul Naschy's name is linked to the Horror genre. The film has its good parts: Paul Naschy giving weird speeches, Paul Naschy looking weird, Paul Naschy doing Satanic stuff, Paul Naschy torturing innocent victims, etc. But sadly, most of the film concentrates on the boring hero and the good guys, and these moments are boring. The female cast members are nice to look at, but, unlike most Naschy films, this one features no nudity and sleaze. There is some gore, but it mostly looks clumsy and isn't as fun too look at as it is the case with most other Naschy films. Overall, "El Mariscal Del Infierno" is only worth a look for my fellow Naschy-enthusiasts. There are dozens of films starring the Spanish Horror deity which should be seen before this one, such as "El Jorobado De La Morgue" ("The Hunchback of the Morgue", 1973), "La Orgia De Los Muertos" ("The Hanging Woman", 1973), "El Espanto Surge De La Tumba" ("Horror Rises From The Tomb", 1973), "Latidos De Panico" ("Panic Beats", 1983), "Rojo Sangre" (2004), or any of the 'Waldemar Daninsky' werewolf films. R.I.P. Paul Naschy. Legends never die!
Not the greatest film to remember Paul Naschy by.<br /><br />Gaston (Guillermo Bredeston) is probably the worst swordsman I have ever seen. Zorro would be ashamed! His only salvation came as the competition was just as bad.<br /><br />This film is described as adventure and horror. Forget the horror - there is none. No nudity, no blood, no monsters; just a Robin Hood adventure against an evil Baron (Paul Naschy) who wants to be King.<br /><br />The main feature of the film was seeing Graciela Nilson, who only made four films in two years and disappeared to our regrettable loss. Where did she go?
Despite the (English) title, this seems to have little to do with Devils and much more to do with a power hungry ruler who seeks the Philospher's Stone & wants gold made from lead (& virgin's blood). Jacinto Molina plays Gilles de Lancre and seems to have little issue with having people put to death when he thinks they threaten his position or when he needs virgins for their blood. He's basically egged on by his lady love and an alchemist that he's employed and it's more greed and insanity that seems to be his problem than demonic possession (unfortunately). There are parts that are at least somewhat exciting like jousting and grown men trying to knock each other down with big sticks, and the film at least has a good look to it, but otherwise there's little about this to recommend. Little in the way of gore and nothing to be afraid of at all, and most unusual, for a Molina/Naschy film, not really any unintentional humor. Therefore, 4 out of 10.
This 1974 Naschy outing is directed by Leon Klimovsky, and a cursory glance at the publicity photos and packaging might lead you to believe that this medieval romp lies somewhere between "Inquisition" and "Sadomania". Sadly not.<br /><br />This is a strictly PG affair with tame torture sequences, no nudity and little edge at all. Naschy (of whom I am a fan) struts his stuff as Gilles de Lancre, "antiguo Mariscal de la nacion". Sadly he is more pantomime villain than anything else. One gets the feeling with this film that we have seen him (and it) done all before. Strictly therefore for Naschy completest only.
Posh Spice Victoria Beckham and her alleged new adventures after just moving to LA for work purposes (footballer hubby David is now a Galaxy LA player after his transfer from Real Madrid) was originally going to be a full series,but was thankfully abridged to just one hour or so.But even in this form,it is still numbingly interminable.<br /><br />Like virtually all 'reality' TV shows,most of the incident comes across as blatantly faked,with the programme itself even admitting that Posh's newly appointed personal assistant is an actress.An Ugly-Betty lookalike,we hear some lamely written and performed banter early on(with an obvious joke about Becks' apparent dalliance with a previous,and rather more glamorous PA Rebecca Loos,though her name is not mentioned) with further sequences involving a fake blow-up doll to trick the paparazzi and hopeless attempts to pitch a baseball.<br /><br />This could have been more entertaining if all had acknowledged it was a piece of fluff,and had an actress or impersonator in the lead role.Talented impressionist Ronni Ancona would've been perfect and is better at being Posh than Posh herself is,and if this more sensible decision had been taken,much more fun and amusement would've ensued.Sadly,we are left with the real thing here (Ms Ancona may have rejected the script as too weak anyway),and although there are odd scattered attempts at self-deprecation and irony,it never remotely works because of prior info of La Beckham's considerable wealth beforehand,and her non-ability at delivering would-be jokes;despite the intentions to send up her image,Mrs Beckham comes across as a shallow egotist,and her weak one-liners don't persuade us she has any humorous self-awareness.I suspect that if a more realistic fly-on-the-wall documentary approach had been taken,namely Posh walking down any street in LA and being totally ignored (instead of the frantic,staged scenes of mild hysteria on show here), and associates making unscripted jibes about the previously mentioned Ms Loos,this would've made marginally better TV,but being sycophantic PR material,the bony one herself would never allow such events to happen.<br /><br />Having said that,the later scenes where she made a special appearance at the baseball stadium where she was indifferently presented in front of an uninterested crowd show it will be tough times ahead if she wants to make it big in Hollywood.Her colleague Scary Spice (aka Mel Brown) also found it impossible to make it big residing in the movie capital despite her affair (which was not consummated) with big name Eddie Murphy.<br /><br />The Spice Girls were of course a massively successful bubblegum pop group in the mid 1990's,more so in their native Britain but still popular briefly in other countries,including the US.They were certainly good fun at their peak of glory (1997) when there seemed to be a glorious period of optimism in the UK with Cool Britannia and a New Labour government which The Spice Girls seemed to sum up better then anyone else at the time,even if it was somewhat manufactured.But they were never outstanding musical or singing talents,and UK optimism seemed to fade rapidly later that year (the starting point was arguably the tragic death of Princess Diana),as did The Spices' themselves.Their presence on the music and entertainment scene soon became repetitive and obvious,and if they had all quietly moved out of the public eye permanently with dignity to enjoy their fortunes, then we would have all had pleasant memories encrypted on our mind without any guilt.Unfortunately,the emergence of the hideous 'celebrity' culture in the UK towards the start of the millennium has put paid to those imaginings,and we have all suffered thousands,if not millions of stories about the Spices since,Posh being the worst offender,with the rest of her colleagues not too far behind.It was recently announced that there will be a reunion tour soon,which is baffling as they have never gone away and they certainly don't require any additions to their swelling bank accounts.Maybe it's because two of them are struggling single mothers,perhaps?<br /><br />Good,it's soon time for Becks' adventures on a revelatory documentary next,I can hardly wait.............<br /><br />Rating:2 out of 10.
I'm grateful for one thing and one thing only - that this woman will now be thousands of miles away on an entirely different continent!!! Yay!!! This programme summed up perfectly just how obsessed Victoria Beckham has become with whoring herself and her family out to the media in the name of self promotion and 'Brand f*cking Beckham'.<br /><br />A few years ago I used to really like 'Posh and Becks', I still very much admire David's talent, but I have no respect for him anymore. How can you respect someone who has his wife's hand shoved up his backside working him like a puppet.<br /><br />It was clear the hand of Victoria was all over Beckham's premature departure from Manchester United and now the same thing has happened at Real Madrid. I hope Beckham can live with the fact that although he may be earning squillions of pounds - he's sold his soul for the American Buck and will end his days playing for a team who would struggle to gain promotion from Division One in England (no offence America - but at Baseball and Basketball you rule - football you don't!) <br /><br />Anyway - I digress. It's been years since I've seen such an over-the-top, entirely false performance from 'Posh' - this being topped only during her cringe worthy red carpet performances following the Rebecca Loos 'debacle', when instead of throwing all the cr*p at David he deserved, she desperately clung onto his arm trying to save the million pound money-spinner her marriage has become.<br /><br />This whole PR stunt was pathetic. Why can't she just go over there quietly, support her husband through the biggest mistake of his professional career and keep her head down? When did she become so full of self importance that she feels the move to America should be shrouded by this huge fan fare? <br /><br />Incidentally, I saw the David Beckham documentary last night. At least he has retained a sliver of grace and humility. Two things his wife could do with learning.<br /><br />One more thing Victoria - you complain about constantly being hounded by the paps. Little hint - stop tipping them off about your whereabouts you stupid woman.<br /><br />Good Luck America!!
I honestly can't believe what passes for entertainment now. Death (and making fun of death), violence, sexual innuendo, adults threatening children, crudeness, alcohol abuse by minors, drug theft, dysfunctional parents, babysitter from hell, stereotypical jokes about African Americans, police and fat people, and kids sneaking out of the house in the middle of the night - yup, sure sounds like a kids movie to me - NOT!!! Add to that the dark and scary elements - a dead woman possessing and turning into a house and keeping her loving husband a prisoner inside for over 20 years, and also terrorizing an entire neighborhood - how sweet for kids. PARENTS - is this really what you want your kids to be watching - is this what you want to teach them about life?!<br /><br />This movie is too scary for young kids, and i'm afraid that teens today may be living some of this movie scenario - so why rub it in their faces? As for an adult audience - you won't find it scary or amusing - just boring, contrived and predictable. And the characters are just wrong - clueless parents, ignorant police, stupid and annoying friends, nasty and manipulative babysitters, and beer drinking/womanizing boyfriends. What great material for kids - does this really sound like a children's movie to anyone? Even the computer animation and good voice work aren't enough to redeem this terrible flick. Save your money, save your time, and save your children's minds - go rent Ice Age, Monsters Inc., the Incredibles, Shrek, A Bug's Life - ANY of them are way better than this horrid film. Spielberg and Zemeckis - shame on both of you for making such a disaster and then billing it as a children's/family movie!!
The only reason I don't give this movie fewer than 3 stars is because it isn't quite on par with a movie like Manos: The Hands of Fate. This movie's greatest crime is the fact that it is head-meltingly boring & terribly, unforgivably British. The premise of this movie sounds potentially promising, the whole teleporting concept, but the direction they went with it was completely uninteresting. It was more a movie about research funding and bowties than projecting lasers. The actors were wooden, unemotional, and aloof. As was the love affair between the two scientists-- which was anything but intriguing. I never was able to tell what the attraction was between them as the chemistry was non-existent. Nor did I really understand why the melty-faced main guy decided to slaughter everyone he met. At least now I know that I should always give someone a fair hearing before I cut off their research grants, else they go rampaging about, killing wantonly with goofy hand gestures.
The film, a Universal release of a Protelco-MLC production, is a boring retelling of the theory of breaking down the molecular structure of an object, capturing it in a cell as "pure energy," and then sending it back complete to a "target area." There is no explanation WHY this is necessary, but Professor Paul Steiner (played by pock-mocked actor Bryant Haliday, "Devil Doll") thinks it's something to dedicate his, and his assistants', Pat Hill (Mary Peach) and Chris Mitchell (Ronald Allen), lives to. <br /><br />During an experiment before noted Dutch scientist "Lembach" (Gordon Heinz), his machine fails due to sabotage, so he has himself "projected" by his secretary, Sheila (Tracey Crisp) to seek revenge. Of course, she screws up and he comes out looking like a "pork roast" with the power to electrocute people. <br /><br />With this new-found power, he manages to zap some Cockney idiots, a security guy named Latham (Derrick de Marney) and his lab boss, Dr. Blanchard (Norman Woodland). He also is able to break into a pharmacy and steal a pair of rubber gloves and a black coat, as well. <br /><br />In the end, though, despite Hill and Mitchell's attempt to help him, the clown destroys his equipment and himself. On the whole, a completely pointless movie with no message at all. <br /><br />Also one of the most depressing color films you will ever see.
Professor Paul Steiner is doing research in matter transference. He has developed a machine that he can use to make an object like a wrist watch or rodent disappear, only to have that object re-materialize in a different location. But there are those at his research facility that do not like or approve of his experiments and will do whatever it takes to see that he doesn't succeed. After a failed demonstration that might have saved his funding, Professor Steiner decides to test his machine on himself. As expected, things go horribly wrong and he is transformed into a heavily scared madman whose mere touch will kill.<br /><br />In hindsight, maybe it wasn't such a good idea to re-watch The Projected Man in the same week I watched The Fly, Return of the Fly, and Curse of the Fly. There seems to be only so many movies about matter transference and the potentially horrendous effects it can have on the human body that one person should be made to endure in a three or four day period. I'm not sure what those responsible for the movie list as their source material for The Projected Man, but much of it is so similar to the Fly movies that it cannot be mere coincidence. However, The Projected Man isn't even nearly as good as the worst of the Fly trilogy.<br /><br />Besides being terribly unoriginal, The Projected Man has several other problems that really hurt the enjoyment of the movie. A big issue I have is with Bryant Haliday in the lead. He's such a horse's ass that, not only do I not care about his suffering, I actually root for it. Supporting cast members Mary Peach and Ronald Allen are almost as bad. They're so bland and dull they hardly matter. In fact, there's very little to get excited about while watching The Projected Man. The soundtrack – not very memorable. The "look" – I would describe much of it as "muddy". The plot – predictable. The action – there isn't any. Overall, this is one to avoid.<br /><br />Fortunately, I watched The Projected Man via a copy of the Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode. Funny stuff! While not an absolute, very often, the poorer the movie – the better the MST3K riffs. The guys hit almost all of their marks with The Projected Man. I'll give it a very enthusiastic 4/5 on my MST3K rating scale.
The title alone (along with the poster) is enough to give away "The Projected Man" as an obvious rip-off of "The Fly". And Bryant Haliday, while much better than the typical IMDb review would have you think, is nobody's idea of an acceptable stand-in for Vincent Price. Although, come to think of it, who would be, unless Micheal Gough was available?? Still, if you are in the mood to watch a British "Hammer" style movie with a science fiction theme about a teleportation experiment gone horribly wrong...well, you still might want to give "The Projected Man" a pass and rummage around in the 'remaindered' bin at your local Wal-Mart for another teleporter-accident movie. Because this one just isn't all that good.<br /><br />Haliday caught a lot of good natured ribbing from the MST3K crew for his part in this movie and in "Devil Doll", but he is actually the best thing in TPM. Maybe he can't carry the movie, but he gets practically no help here from the screenplay. The script bogs down any forward momentum the plot may have in a mire of nonsense about funding and university politics and a guy named Lembach and some sinister cabal who want the teleportation machine to fail so they can steal its secrets...or something. So all the dramatic sequences in the first half of movie involve either phone calls or unconvincing special effects with transparent espresso machines and teleporting rats. Then when poor Haliday gets mutilated by his machine, he has to spend the last part of the film wearing a diaper over half his face and rubber cement over the rest while he electrocutes various Londoners who chance across his path. Tom Cruise and Eric Roberts using bullhorns couldn't have made this screenplay work. <br /><br />Meanwhile all the other actors diligently try to inject life and interest into their roles for this turgid little project, but the screenplay just swallows their efforts whole. The corrupt project administrator frets and fumes and hisses into the phone to his blackmailers, all the while failing to notice that he looks like a werewolf outfitted in a tweed suit and a Tattersall vest. Haliday's research assistant and ex-girlfriend have the least convincing romance in the history of British horror cinema. His secretary is forced to parade around in her "smalls". None of it really works or gels into a real movie. And it all just kind of stops dead, leaving the viewer going, "Eh? excuse me, wasn't there supposed to be an ENDING here??"<br /><br />Still, for all its problems, I can easily name a dozen horror movies from the same period that were as bad or worse, and so could anyone else who follows movies (or who has ever browsed the IMDb "Bottom 100"). I wouldn't actually pay money to own "Projected Man", but if it were included in some compilation along with a dozen other movies in a DVD collection, I'd probably feel OK about having it. It's a harmless diversion, perfect for a horror movie film festival, to watched with friends while consuming many beers and snacks on a Saturday evening.
Ok first of all, this movie sucks. But lets examine why. The proposition that a machine is capable of transforming matter into energy, storing it, and then transporting it and reasembling it is at the least intriguing. But that's as far as they take this premise. Instead of delving into what could happen if someone made this kind of machine, they break the damn thing. This could have been a good premise. Living with the responsibilty of this kind of power, and dealing with the constant temptation, ie.. the invisible man. But no.. they break the damn thing. And Lembach wants to leave. So then the doctor jerry-rigs the thing back together, and trys to transport himself. Only to have it goofed up by his beautiful but dumb secretary, (duh). Which wouldn't happened if Lembach hadn't decided to leave. So now he is roaming the country side killing people because his little experiment failed, and they wouldn't give him money. Wah. Then to make the movie worse, throw in a dry British relationship between the two semi-competent professors hired to assist him. Between their loving sessions, they make a couple of half-hearted attempts to find him while he kills off half of London. All of this could have been headed off by not breaking the damn machine, which would never have happened if Lembach hadn't left. This movie tried so I give it an honest 2 stars for effort, but it would have been better if they hadn't broke the damn machine, making Lembach leave, making him try it again. Damn you Lembach!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I remember this film, exhibit in Barcelona (Spain) in 1970, for the time of a week. Although it could seems incredible, and I can't offer any explanation for it, this movie was exhibit in a theater dedicated to... movies of art and big quality (that, is, Bergman, Resnais, Malle, Buñuel, and... The Projected Man). Few people saw it (luckly people, no doubt) and no reference about this very boring SF movie can be found in the Peter Nichols Science Fiction Encyclopidie, or about the author of the original novel. Very indicative. I remember of it, after all this years, a no-story, a lot of special effects that seems ridiculous effects in fact, and no more. It seems that in some countries the running time is 90 mm. and in anothers 77 min. Well, it means only a little more of pain.
This movie is spoofed in an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. I think MST3K was at its best when they ripped this movie.<br /><br />Terrible acting, bad makeup, poor effects, chick in skimpy (1960's)underwear. I give it a 2.<br /><br />The villain is hard to understand due to the makeup. The assistant says things like 'not you' that sound like NACHOO!! (think sneezing). It's just poor oration. The long eyebrows are hilarious on one of the characters. <br /><br />I still don't know what 'The Projected Man' means in terms of the plot. I missed some of the beginning though. <br /><br />What is up with this 10 line minimum on posting??
This is one of the worst things to ever come out of England, so that says a lot right there. The tension when we have to find out whether or not Lembach is staying is amazing though. The upside is seeing the nice secretary, Sheila, in her picnic table print underwear for awhile after being captured by Dr. Rat Face. This movie has several views of London too although none of them are good. There is also a point in which there is almost a car accident which gets your heart rate back to just below normal. There is also a watch that gets teleported away, and the fear of the woman not getting her watch back is parallel to the horror of "The Sixth Sense" only a lot more dull and British. Add on a furious gun fight between the British police and the Dr. Rat, which results in nothing, plus the electrocuting of a lot of people, plus a cat and you have yourself... ummm... A British movie. The MST3K version is pretty good although not one of there bests.
With that line starts one silly, boring British sci fi film. The Great Vorelli from the movie "Devil Doll" builds a teleportation machine only to have his funding cut off by Blanchard, a bearded man who has a thing for bow ties and men with large eye brows. When his experiment fails, the good doctor learns that Lembach, the man who controls all of the grants in the world, will be staying in London for a few days. He attempts to project himself into the house of Blanchard with the help of his comely lab assistant, Sheila. Needless to say something goes wrong and he winds up looking like a rat. The rest of the movie is devoted to the good orange haired doctor walking around London shocking people with his mutated hand and wearing a diaper on his face. There are some more killings, some modest paper work, and finally, the doctor vanishes to where ever rat faced doctors go. Thankfully no one decided to make a sequel.
This is a rather dull movie about a scientist that creates a teleporter device and gets horribly disfigured when he uses the machine to transport himself. Simple plot done before in the fly and others. Not only does he get disfigured, but he also can electrocute people with a touch. What is really dumb about this film is that we are expected to believe the place this guy works is against him. He could probably make millions for the institution that he is working at, but the head of the institution tries to sabotage his teleporter every step of the way. In the end the projected man electrocutes three people for no reason then goes after those that have wronged him.
(spoilers)The one truly memorable part of this otherwise rather dull and tepid bit of British cuisine is Steiner's henna rinse, one of the worst dye jobs ever. That, and the magnificent caterpillar eyebrows on the old evil dude who was trying to steal Steiner's invention. MST3K does an admirable job of making a wretchedly boring and grey film funny.I particularly like it when Crow kills Mike with his 'touch of death', and when he revives him in the theatre, Mike cries "Guys, I died, I saw eternal truth and beauty! oh, it's this movie..." That would be a letdown, having to come back from the afterlife to watch the rest of The Projected Man. The film could make a fortune being sold as a sleep aide. Some of the puns in the film were wicked: police inspector-"electrocution!" Crow-"Shocking, isn't it?" police inspector-"That's LOwe, all right" Tom Servo-"Very low, right down by the floor!" police inspector-"Can I get on?" Tom Servo-"He's dead, but knock yourself out" MST3K is definitely the only way to watch this snoozer.
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnn! :=8O<br /><br />ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........... <=8.<br /><br />Oh, um excuse me, sorry, fell asleep there for a mooment. Now where was I? Oh yes, "The Projected Man", yes... ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........... <=8.<br /><br />Ooops, sorry. Yes, "The Projected Man". Well, it's a British sci-fi yawnfest about nothing. Some orange-headed guy projects himself on a laser, gets the touch of death. At last he vanishes, the end. Actually, the film's not even that interesting. Dull, droning, starchy, stiff, and back-breakingly boring, "The Projected Man" is 77 solid minutes of nothing, starring nobody. Dull as dishwater. Dull as doorknob dust. Dull as Ethan Hawke - we're talking really DULL here, people! But wait, in respect to our dull cousins from across the puddle, the MooCow will now do a proper review for "The Projected Man":<br /><br />ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............. <=8.
It's not so much that SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION had little potential. Indeed the under-explored title phenomenon is quite intriguing and, for at least the opening half, this Tobe Hooper effort promises to entertain in a way only cheesy '90s horror can. But somewhere between Brad Dourif's on-again-off-again performance and the overly intricate plot, this would-be thriller loses its way.<br /><br />Dourif, featured here before his built-in horror fan base had accumulated, is average guy Sam. Of course average guys don't stay average for long in horror movies, so after a well-done origin outline, we see Sam's various body parts start to ignite. Soon he's igniting other people, too, much to the consternation of gal pal Lisa, played unmemorably by Cynthia Bain.<br /><br />While the title of the film implies a fire-happy monster on the loose, director Hooper opted to make Sam an unwilling killer. This approach gives the film an added human depth it would otherwise lack, but it also prevents us from truly fearing the human flamethrower. We're left wondering whether this would have worked better as a straight-up villain-versus-everyone effort ala NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET.<br /><br />SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION is a pretty nominal effort when all is said and done. It will carry added appeal for Dourif's fans and those who can't get enough 1990s horror, be it good, bad or in between, but only on a slow night.
Not as bad, as it's credited to being (Hooper's done far worse)… more so disappointing for me. Such an imaginative concept, which is never really tapped in to by Hooper with his economical direction and even less so in the smoky (excuse the pun) writing. It goes so sinister and over-the-top in a dead serious tone, becoming ridiculous and unfocused letting the whole pessimistic mystery / conspiracy-laced narrative being easily telegraphed to end on something completely abrupt. Because of that, the pacing goes on to be rather sluggish and Brad Dourif (cool to see him in a leading role) seems to struggle with an off-balanced performance, despite etching out a bemusedly quirky intensity to his off-colour character. Even though it's cheaply done, there's a competent technical attitude to it. However it doesn't seem to go anywhere out of the ordinary with its idea and wants to plaster in nasty jolts (which some do work) and strikingly steaming special effects (flames, flames everywhere) instead. Hooper does display some stylishly frenetic imagery (more so towards the latter end), and the camera-work is swiftly manoeuvred and the beaming score is titillating. The performances are bit all over the shop with the appearances of William Prince, Cynthia Bain, Dey Young, Jon Cypher and Melinda Dillon. Also Geroge Buck Flower and John Landis have small, but amusing cameos… especially Landis. Nothing surprises, but it's passably engaging.
Bizarre Tobe Hooper exercise regarding an unfortunate young man(Brad Dourif)with the ability to set people on fire. This ability stems from parents who partook in atomic experiments in the 50's. They die of Spontaneous Human Combustion and it seems that what Sam is beginning to suffer from derives by these pills his girlfriend, Lisa(Cynthia Bain)gives him to take for rough migraines. In actuality, Lisa was told to manipulate Sam into taking the pills by Lew Orlander(William Prince), pretty much the young man's father who raised him from a child. Lew has benevolent plans..he sees Sam as the first "Atomic Man", a pure killing machine in human form. Sam never wanted this and will do whatever it takes to silence those responsible for his condition. As the film goes, Sam's blood is slowly growing toxic, green in color instead of red. It seems that water and other substances which often put out fire react right the opposite when Sam's uncontrollable outbursts of flame ignite. Come to find out, Lisa has Sam's condition whose parents also dies from SHC. Dr. Marsh(Jon Cypher), someone who Sam has known for quite some time as his physician, is to insert toxic green fluid into their bodies, I'm guessing to increase their levels of flame. Nina(Melinda Dillon, sporting an accent that fades in and out)was Sam's parents' friend and associate on the experiments in the 50's who tries to talk things over with him regarding what is happening. And, Rachel(Dey Young)is Sam's ex-wife who may be working against her former husband with Lew and Marsh to harm him and Lisa.<br /><br />Quite a strange little horror flick, filled with some pretty awful flame-effects. Dourif tries to bring a tragic element and intensity to his character whose plight we continue to watch as his body slowly becomes toxic waste with fire often igniting from his orifices. There's this large hole in his arm that spits out flame like a volcano and a massive burn spot on his hand which increases in size over time. Best scene is probably when director John Landis, who portrays a rude electrical engineer trying to inform Sam to hang up because the radio program he's calling has sounded off for the night, becomes a victim of SHC. The flick never quite works because it's so wildly uneven with an abrupt, ridiculous finale where Sam offers to free Lisa of her fire by taking it from her.
It's often said that Tobe Hooper just struck lucky with his grisly 1974 horror film 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre' and every time I see another Hooper film - that view is only reinforced. It would seem that Hooper wanted to make his own version of films such as Scanners and Firestarter in 1990 and so we end up with Spontaneous Combustion; a film with a couple of good ideas and a whole load more that are borrowed from other films. Put it all together and you get a messy, boring film that most people would do well to miss! The film leads the audience to believe that it might be half decent initially with an intriguing back story that focuses on some experiments carried out on two young people in the fifties. The couple have a child and shortly thereafter burn to death as a result of the experiments done on them. Fast forward some years and the baby is now an adult named Sam; but naturally he's not a normal person and soon finds when it's discovered that he has the ability to set things on fire at will.<br /><br />The film stars Brad Dourif, who must have seemed like a good casting choice given his success with Child's Play two years earlier; but actually was an uninspired decision as the central performance is really terrible; and not helped by the terrible supporting performances. The turgid direction and dull script also don't do the film many favours and the trend of lacking in favours is continued by the special effects, which are very unrealistic and have nothing on the films that this one is ripping off; all of which were made some years earlier. The plot is really slow and it's almost an hour before anything of note happens, and I didn't care for it even then. It soon becomes obvious which direction the film will go in and it all boils down to the sort of tedious ending you would expect. The final confrontation is a big disappointment and nothing is really explained during the film. Not that any revelation would have been interesting anyway. Overall, this is a rubbish film and another reason why Tobe Hooper is a long way from being a great horror director. See Firestarter again instead.
I tried as hard as I could to sit all the way through this irritating mess, but I just couldn't do it. Brad Dourif absolutely sucked as the lead and all the supporting cast were only marginally worse. <br /><br />The whole thing is just ludicrous, from the awful acting to the laughable FX to the stupid plot.<br /><br />Complete waste of time; don't bother. Root Canal therapy would be more enjoyable. Bamboo slivers under the fingernails would be a lot more pleasant. <br /><br />Watching a Uwe Boll movie would be only a little worse than this. Get the idea?
A man discovers that his parents were part of a nuclear experiment in the 50's and that he now has the power to... burst into flames! <br /><br />I was really geared up for this film, what with being directed by the great Toby Hooper and staring wild card Brad Dourif. Unfortunately it didn't rise above the average individual-with-violent-powers movie. Spontaneous Combustion has an interesting premise behind it, unfortunately it never seems to live up to its potential and prolongs its plot too much. The special effects aren't bad though and help to carry the movie to the finale.<br /><br />The cast isn't bad, Dourif does steal the show.<br /><br />All around, no classic but it's not the worst of its kind either.<br /><br />** out of ****
Pretty poor Firestarter clone that seems more like a bad TV movie than a bad feature film. How disappointing for this to come from Hooper and Dourif!<br /><br />Government contractors do a human experiment with a Hydrogen bomb. The boy born to the couple from the experiment constantly runs a fever of 100 degrees, and when he's an adult, people in his life start spontaneously combusting. He tries to find out why.<br /><br />The people completely on fire are well done, but when they get to the point that they are well done in another sense, they're obviously changed to dummies. When jets of fire shoot out of characters' arms, it looks silly rather than alarming the way it should. Also ridiculous is fire that evidently travels through phone lines and erupts in huge jets from the receiver's earpiece. How is that supposed to happen, exactly?<br /><br />Something else that struck me as silly about the movie is when a character has visions of his late parents. We later see the exact same shots from those visions in home movies.
First off, the lead, Brad Dourif is a KOOK. If you're trying to take this movie seriously, then, I guarantee he's going to ruin it for you. If you don't take him too seriously, then he's actually kind of fun to watch. As with another reviewer, I loved the scene where Lisa (Cynthia Bain) and Dourif are declaring their love for each other - in between dodging the jets of flame shooting out of his arm in the car. Another great campy scene was watching John Landis as a snotty radio show producer getting toasted and flailing around the room. In fact, I found the last 15 minutes of the movie to be a non-stop laugh-riot - I'm just not sure if Tobe Hooper meant it to be that way.
Others have already commented on the "decline" of director Tobe Hooper, but what about Brad Dourif? He was perfectly capable of selecting good projects (as he proved by starring in the same year's "Exorcist III"), so why did he agree to appear in this? Sure, he gives a suitably demented performance, and the film is not outright bad; it's just uninvolving, uninteresting and unappealing. That's three "un-"s too many. (*1/2)
Now, i hired this movie because Brad Dourif was in it. He is an excellent actor, BRILLIANT in everything...except this movie. And i think that was only because he realized how stupid this movie was, and didn't bother with a good performance. This movie is a unintentional-comedy. Some of the lines just crack me up. And them there are some lines that make no sense, and it seems like Tobe Hooper just throw lines in without thinking about the plot. Oh! BTW the plot is BAD! But it one of those films that is TAHT BAD that its actually PAINFUL to watch. I recommend this only for BIG Brad Dourif fans, or fans of any of the other actors, because the plot is pathetic.
Seriously, what is THIS? Hooper has made such classic films like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, then he made this god awful film, what happened? did he dip into the crack a little too much? This film is about some dude named Sam who has the ability to set things on fire,(Firestarter, anyone?) the acting was godawful, the plot was rubbish, and the special effects were extremely rubbish, they looked like something from the 70's. Van Damme should be pleased that Derailed is no longer the worst film ever, and what was with the ending? he started glowing blue, turned into a glowing blue blob, sucked out his girlfriends fire, and the film ended. WHAT WAS THAT? HUH? when the film ended I hoped the DVD would Spontaniously Combust to save me from my pain.<br /><br />STAY AWAY FROM THIS FILM.<br /><br />DON'T THINK, OBEY, you'll thank me later.
Tobe Hooper has made great movies so I was certain this couldn't be BAD. I didn't read any reviews and tried to watch this unintentionally humorous film. At times this made me laugh, sometimes I almost fell asleep, sometimes made me almost CRY for Hooper.<br /><br />I rated this 3/10 because its 1990 "horror"-movie and many interesting or funny things happened there. Throughout the movie I was thinking something like "they simply CAN'T add more things in this movie..." .. but they did.<br /><br />Some tell this is some sort of Firestarter clone but truly isn't. It's based on that idea but thats all. This is combination of horror, comedy, weird religion/god things, funny gore, simple effects, drama, horrible acting, unbelievable script..and more.<br /><br />*spoilers* Story is: Government tries to create ultimate weapon using nuclear power or something and fails, during process child is born for 2 test persons. When mom sings to her child after the birth, both husband and wife burns and it is SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION. Government buries whole thing and leaves this child live amongst other people and ... then after x years this kid is grown up and realizes he has been born for a reason and whoa he can burn things with his brains. Then everything goes unbelievable messy nothing really explains anything and .. Well when The Government realizes "okay now he can set this fire thing to work" they take him to normal hospital where is some nuclear toxic what they are going to use on this man BECAUSE they could kill him, no they can't shoot him no! .. and argh, I guess thats enough to tell, I promise there is 100 more weird things in this movie.<br /><br />Well if you want good laughs watch this one. Gosh.
This film is a massive Yawn proving that Americans haven't got the hang of farce. Even when it has already been written for them! The original film "Hodet Over Vannet" is a witty comedy of errors that I would rate 8/10. It isn't just about a linguistic translation, but certain absurd chains of events are skipped entirely, robbing the film of its original clever farcical nature and turning it into a cheap "oops there go my trousers" style of farce.
Story starts slow and nothing funny happens for a while. All the action is in the end, but you won't have to laugh because the movie is funny, but because the story is pathetic.<br /><br />The funniest part is when Harvey 'I'm not Paranoia' Keitel really loses it and the judge starts a massacre. Oscars for this guy!
This movie was billed as a comedy and a mystery. It fails badly at both. The only mystery here is why would anybody make such a poorly constructed movie. The only comedy is the laugh I got when I saw how high the readers here ranked it. Could there be two movies with the same name? The movie I saw starred a girl with pretty blue eyes and a plot that wasn't there.<br /><br />
Don't waste 90 minutes of your time on "Fast Food, Fast Women." It's annoyingly episodic script with three story lines patched together is laughably bad due to predictable writing, horrific acting, and even bad music. I found the anorexic main character upsetting to watch every time she was on screen. SHE needs the fast food.<br /><br />Spend the 90 minutes you'd devote to this turkey doing something more exciting...like trimming your toenails. You'd have more entertainment value.<br /><br />The only redeeming thing about this film is Louise Lasser, but she deserves much better than this tired script. It's as impotent as the elder guy she courts in the movie.<br /><br />VIEWER BEWARE!
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen! I saw it at the Toronto film festival and totally regret wasting my time. Completely unwatchable with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.<br /><br />Steer clear.
My girlfriend and I were stunned by how bad this film was. After 15 minutes we would have called it quits except we were too curious to see if the film could possibly redeem itself. It didn't.<br /><br />I can't understand the praise given to this film. The writing was downright awful and delivered by some of the worst acting I have seen in a very long time.<br /><br />One thing that especially annoyed me about this film was that often when people were talking to each other there was an unnatural pause between lines. I understand using a pause to create a feeling of awkwardness (like in Happiness). This was not that type of pause -- it was just simply bad directing. This film might actually be much better with subtitles, and maybe the overseas market is the best one for this film, because then the innane dialogue and bad acting wouldn't be noticed as much.<br /><br />I generally like these types of small quirky films (The Real Blonde, Walking and Talking, Lovely and Amazing), but this one failed on so many levels that I consider it one of the very worst films I have sat through in the last few years.
This kid is rather bad, but in no way do they make him the type that outsmarts adults and can foil experienced thieves at every turn. No, he is not so much a brat, as he is a kid with severe emotional problems. A nice couple looking to adopt get rather suckered into adopting him and while the husband is a bit more willing to give this kid a chance the mother is not. Through in a bizarre Michael Richards character and the always annoying Gilbert Gottfried and you have yourself a rather bad movie with a few laughs in it here and there. I actually prefer the sequel to this film as I like the fact they brought Amy Yasbeck back as a different more likable character as there are one to many characters in this film that are thoroughly unlikable as it is. Even the kid is rather annoying at first in this one, and they kind of chill him out in the sequel too. The plot is simple enough though as the prospective parents go to adopt this kid that they think is great by the way the orphanage is throwing a party as they depart, they soon realize they have themselves a little hellion. Add to that this little hellion getting into contact with a convict of some sort. Not sure about this character, at first I thought it was supposed to be his real father or something. Not all that good, but I will pick this ahead of that Culkin kid any day of the week.
The first scene in 'Problem Child' has a baby peeing into a nun's face. For this movie, that's witty. A nasty, mean-spirited 'comedy', it's inept on so many levels it beggars belief. John Ritter is the kind father who adopts the child from Hell, and kudos to him for maintaining his dignity in the surrounding onslaught of one-note, annoying performances and puerile humour. And what the hell's Jack Warden doing in this mess? Slackly directed by Dennis Dugan and obnoxious in its attempts to turn on the sentimentality when it's done with the crudity, the movie is made so badly it's quite a bizarre experience. But never mind all that. The lowlight of the whole thing is Michael Oliver, the most repulsive and unlikeable kid actor ever to hit the screen – believe me, you will want to smack him right in the mouth.
I remember watching this movie several times as a very young kid, and there were parts of it (many in fact) that I did not understand. I think I have seen it once as an adult, and I then understood those parts. The only problem with viewing it as an adult was that it was not entertaining to me at all. So what kind of movie is this? Is it a "kids movie"? Not hardly. It contains language and subject matter not suitable for kids. Is it a hyperbole of what every parent feels like they are going through with their own children? Maybe, but then why wouldn't it focus more on John Ritter's character instead of Junior? When a film has a 7-year-old as its main character, in order to do well with it's audience, it should be a movie for the seven and under crowd, otherwise people older than that will have no way to relate (even 8-year-olds wouldn't want to see a movie about a kid who is whole year younger than them). I'm pretty sure this film did not do well in the box office, and the reason has to be because it was unable to find a niche in the market.
I have to admit I've caught this one a few times on the USA Network. There's just something about the, well, sheer stupidity of this flick which makes me want to watch it whenever it's on. Yes, you're right about the sub-par acting, the plot which only an seven year old could like, etc. But I can't help feeling sympathetic toward some of the actors. Then again, a few of these actors signed up for the even more atrocious sequel.
"Problem Child" is one of the goofiest movies ever made. It's not the worst (though some people will disagree with me on that), but it's not the best either. It's about a devilish 7-year-old boy who wrecks comic havoc on a childless couple (John Ritter, Amy Yasbeck) who foolishly adopts him. This film is too silly and unbelievable because I don't buy for one second that a child could act as unrurly as the kid does in this film. It's asinine and preposterous although I did laugh several times throughout (I really don't know why). But I can't recommend this film. I know I'm being too kind to it. If there is one positive thing about "Problem Child" is that it's better than the sequel which was just awful. <br /><br />** (out of four)
PROBLEM CHILD is one of the worst movies I have seen in the last decade! This is a bad movie about a savage boy adopted by two parents, but he gets into trouble later. That Junior can drive Grandpa's car. He can scare people with a bear. He can put a room on fire! It is a bad movie as much as BATTLEFIELD EARTH. A sequel is an even worse fate. Rent CHICKEN RUN instead.<br /><br />*1/2 out of **** I give it.
I can't for the life of me remember why--I must have had a free ticket or something--but I saw this movie in the theater when it was released. I don't remember who I went with, which theater I was in, or even which city. All I remember was how offended I was at this travesty someone dared to call a film, and how half the people in the theater walked out before the movie was over. Unfortunately I stuck it out to end, which I still consider to be one of the worst mistakes of my life thus far. My offense became pure horror when just before the closing credits the smarmy demon child sticks his head out from behind a sign and says "Look for Problem Child 2, coming soon!" That was hands-down THE most terrifying moment ever recorded on film.<br /><br />The plot, if I recall correctly, involved John Ritter and perhaps his wife (Lord, how I've tried without success to block this film out of my mind) adopting a "problem child." Maybe they think they can reform him, or something. I really don't know. If that was their intent, they fail miserably because from first frame to last this child remains the brattiest, rudest, most horrid demon-spawn ever to hit the big screen. Forget Damian, forget Rosemary's Baby. This kid takes the cake. The only difference is, we are supposed to feel sorry for him because he's a "problem child." However, this is impossible since this child is quite likely the most unsympathetic character ever portrayed. You want to kill him through the entire film, and when (SPOILER, like anyone cares) John Ritter decides to keep the vile hell-child you will be yelling "Send him back!" in shocked disgust (like several of the people at the theater where I saw it did).<br /><br />This is only the second movie I have given a "1" to on the IMDb. The other was Superman IV, and by God I couldn't tell you which was worse. John Ritter had a quote in TV Guide about the time that Problem Child 3, which he was not in, came out. He said something like "The only way I would do another [Problem Child] sequel is if they dragged my dead body back to perform." Amen to that!<br /><br />I would rather watch a 24-hour marathon of Police Academy sequels than see even twenty minutes of Problem Child again. 1/10, only because I can't give it a negative score, which is what it really deserves. Someone burn the original negatives of this film, please!
People who actually liked Problem Child (1990) need to have their heads examined. Who would take the idea of watching a malevolent little boy wreak havoc on others and deem it funny? The movie is not funny, ever, in any way, beginning to end. It wants to be a cartoon, but the writers don't realize that slapstick isn't funny when people get attacked by bears, or hit with baseball bats. It may be funny in cartoons, but not in a motion picture.<br /><br />The film's young hero is Junior (Michael Oliver) who, since he was a baby, has been placed at the front doors of foster parents for adoption. The families reject him, because Junior tends to give them a hard time.<br /><br />He is then thrown into an orphanage, where he terrorizes the nuns, and writes pen pal letters to the convicted Bow-Tie Killer (Michael Richards). He is soon adopted by Ben and Flo Healy (the late John Ritter and his wife, Amy Yasbeck), who are dying to have a child, in order to be just like every other parent in their neighborhood.<br /><br />Junior becomes a member of the Healy household, and "Little" Ben takes an interest in him, despite the fact that he destroys a camping trip by luring a bear onto the site, or throws a cat at his father "Big" Ben (Jack Warden), a bigoted politician.<br /><br />I think that we're supposed to care for Junior so that we can root for him when he gets his revenge on people. His new mother, Flo, is a bitch, his grandfather is completely selfish, and one little girl--who despises adopted kids--is such a spoiled brat.<br /><br />But what Junior does to get the last laughs isn't funny- -it's mean, cruel, and sometimes life-threatening.<br /><br />And what is the film's message? That kids should resolve problems with violence and vandalism? That they should seek friendship by writing to convicted killers? They definitely don't what it's like to be a bad kid. Junior isn't a one--he's just a sadistic, little twerp. There used to be a time when it was bad for kids to beat up others. Now, everybody's laughing when Junior beats up kids with a baseball bat.<br /><br />It's a shame that this movie has been marketed as a "family comedy." What's worse is that Problem Child is rated PG. What was the MPAA thinking when they saw this? There's a lot of profanity and mean-spirited pranks here, that one may wonder about the dividing between the PG and the PG-13.<br /><br />Kids will enjoy this, but parents will be shocked at what is being depicted on screen. And to most people, Problem Child will be considered a "guilty pleasure" classic; a film that someone will shamefacedly admit to liking, even though the prevailing opinion, as put forth by more serious viewers, is that the movie is a piece of crap.
I joined this site to see what comments people would make about this absolute disaster of a film. I wasn't drawn in for even a second. The characters were all one-dimensional. They threw every topic they could think of hoping something would stick. I would bet (and hope) that everyone involved in Teachers looks back with embarrassment. There are some great actors here but you would never know it. Thank God it didn't destroy Morgan Freeman's or Judd Hirsh's or Nick Nolte's or Laura Dern's careers. There was no vision, no labor of love here, only a horrible effort gone wrong. BTW I don't think the writer ever set foot in a real school.
As an ex-teacher(!) I must confess to cringing through many scenes - 'though I continued to watch to the end. I wonder why?! (Boredom, perhaps?) :-)<br /><br />The initial opening scenes struck me as incredibly mish-mashed and unfocussed. The plot, too, although there were some good ideas - the plight of a relief teacher, for example - were not concentrated enough in any one direction for 3-D development.<br /><br />Not one of Mr Nolte's finer moments. As to young Mr Macchio, does he speak that way in *every* movie?<br /><br />Plot and acting complaints aside, the hair-styles alone were a nostalgic (if nauseating) trip.<br /><br />
<br /><br />This movie sucks. Ridiculous "school" athmosphere, unbelievable students that are very bad and behave like criminals but then later after the "good teacher" Nick Nolte taught them they became as good and as quiet as kittens.<br /><br />If this works for you, it doesn't for me. 0 out of 10
Though I never like to be the sort of person who negates another's personal taste; if you like something, that's fine. But, this movie was horrible and there is no way around it. I don't like Ani Difranco too much, but she's a great guitarist and songwriter, that I can admit. But I can't admit to there being any redeeming qualities to this film. Many people way that it is an accurate portrayal of issues that high school students face. Maybe, but everything is portrayed too far-fetched. There seems to be an attempt at a "Naked Gun" - esque kind of comedy, but the timing is off; there is too much space between each actors line, as if they're holding for laughter (there wasn't any). Whoever wrote the script was all over the place. They tried to cram as many controversial issues together in one film, almost never fully developing any of them (especially the girl getting impregnated by a teacher). I did not laugh once throughout this entire movie. I was too insulted by this attempt at humor and satire to do anything but roll my eyes at the screen.
WARNING! SMALL PLOT DETAILS REVEALED!<br /><br />I can find virtually nothing positive to say about this film. It is written so badly that every character is a caricature, yet it seems to take itself seriously. It is poorly cast, especially Ralph Macchio (all baby-faced, 5-foot-nothing of him) as a streetwise tough. Plot elements are all drawn in black and white, with every situation almost immediately escalating to some extreme climax.<br /><br />Most egregious of all (PLOT ELEMENT ABOUT TO BE REVEALED) it has perhaps the most gratuitous and contrived nude scene in the history of semi-serious film. One can just imagine the filmmakers saying, "We need JoBeth to shed her top...hmmm...I've got it!...early in the film, let's give Nick some ridiculous dialogue about baring yourself in the hallways...then JoBeth can use that line on him later and REALLY bare herself in the hallway...yeah, that's the ticket!"<br /><br />I will give the producers credit for tackling a weighty subject in 1984, one that proved all too weighty in the late 90's with events like Columbine. However, the execution is dreadful. This film could have been a dark comedy in the vein of "Heathers", a campy political statement like "Network" or a serious examination like "Brubaker". Instead, it tries to be all of these things -- and ends up being none of these things. "Teachers" get an F.
In a recent biography of Alec Guinness I couldn't find too much about To Paris With Love. I'm sure Guinness did the film to get a free trip to Paris out of it. The film has no other reason for existence.<br /><br />Paris of course is nicely photographed with that wonderful opening of Guinness and his son driving down the Champs Elysee with the Arc De Triomphe in the background. Unfortunately it goes downhill from there.<br /><br />There is just no chemistry at all between Guinness and the young girl who he has a brief fling with in Paris. According to the recent biography of Guinness by Piers Paul Read, Guinness positively disliked the girl, found her conduct unprofessional. As to what Odile Vernois thought of her co-star, no record is available. They have as much chemistry as two neutered cats.<br /><br />Guinness does have a good moment in the film which was straight from one of his Ealing comedies as he climbs a tree trying to retrieve a badminton shuttlecock. But I wouldn't wait through the film for it.<br /><br />At least Alec got a trip to Paris out of the deal.
I love Alec Guinness. And that's saying a lot after this film. Actually, he is not bad in it. He just seems to stand aside, be urbane and his usual delightful self, but invest nada. It is obvious the girl he is matched with is a featherweight, even as an inexperienced young French girl. Sir Alec wouldn't have chosen her when he was young and very obviously isn't too happy about it now.<br /><br />The interesting character is the brooding brother of the odd "Suzanne", another twit. "Donald" aspires to be a French Heathcliffe and I waited in vain for the source of his mystery. What deep dark secret was he hiding behind that forehead? Was he in love with the father's mistress? Why did he jerk Suzanne's hair when she plotted to bring the disparate parts of this turkey together on the country estate? Or perhaps he had simply had enough of her obnoxious acting.<br /><br />The film would have been charming with Guiness and the "older woman" reminiscing and seeing Paris together. THAT would have been a great story! Two lovely experienced people in a beautiful city after the destruction of World War II. Why didn't somebody come up with that? I suggest watching Alec Guiness in "The Card", a little known but worthwhile film.
Uta Hagen's "Respect for Acting" is the standard textbook in many college theater courses. In the book, Hagen presents two fundamentally different approaches to developing a character as an actor: the Presentational approach, and the Representational approach. In the Presentational approach, the actor focuses on realizing the character as honestly as possible, by introducing emotional elements from the actor's own life. In the Representational approach, the actor tries to present the effect of an emotion, through a high degree of control of movement and sound.<br /><br />The Representational approach to acting was still partially in vogue when this Hamlet was made. British theater has a long history of this style of acting, and Olivier could be said to be the ultimate king of the Representational school.<br /><br />Time has not been kind to this school of acting, or to this movie. Nearly every working actor today uses a Presentational approach. To the modern eye, Olivier's highly enunciated, stylized delivery is stodgy, stiff and stilted. Instead of creating an internally conflicted Hamlet, Olivier made a declaiming, self-important bullhorn out of the melancholy Dane -- an acting style that would have carried well to the backs of the larger London theaters, but is far too starchy to carry off a modern Hamlet.<br /><br />And so the movie creaks along ungainfully today. Olivier's tendency to e-nun-ci-ate makes some of Hamlet's lines unintentionally funny: "In-stead, you must ac-quire and be-get a tem-purr-ance that may give it... Smooth-ness!" Instead of crying at meeting his father's ghost (as any proper actor could), bright fill lights in Olivier's pupils give us that impression.<br /><br />Eileen Herlie is the only other actor of note in this Hamlet, putting in a good essay at the Queen, despite the painfully obvious age differences (he was 41; she was 26). The other actors in this movie have no chance to get anything else of significance done, given Olivier's tendency to want to keep! the camera! on him! at all! times! <br /><br />Sixty years later, you feel the insecurity of the Shakespearean stage actor who lacked the confidence to portray a breakable, flawed Hamlet, and instead elected to portray a sort of Elizabethan bullhorn. Final analysis: "I would have such a fellow whipped for o'er-doing Termagant; it out-herods Herod: pray you, avoid it."
Amelia and Michael are a married couple that are cheating on each other. Amelia has a long-time lover in the hospital and Michael hires a prostitute that doesn't satisfy him. The two smolder with their infidelity but manage to connect to each other in the end.<br /><br />There's not a whole lot to this particular short. The direction is straight-forward and dramatic, which is good, the acting is sincere, but the story leaves a little bit to be desired. Why, exactly, do we care about these two people? It's a little hard to see how this story sticks out from any other infidelity story except that it's much more pared down and doesn't search for meaning in it (a welcoming change of pace if anything).<br /><br />I don't know, it's possible I don't connect to these stories because I've never experienced them. But I have noticed that the blocking in these narratives are typically the same, i.e., a couple talking together while avoiding eye-contact by pretending to be immersed in magazines, etc. The nice things about short films is that they provide a bit more room for trying something different, and I'd like to see a different take.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB
MY BROTHER TOM <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.85:1<br /><br />Sound format: Dolby Digital<br /><br />Following an episode of sexual abuse at the hands of a trusted neighbor, young Jessica (Jenna Harrison) forms a relationship with a strange boy (Ben Whishaw) she meets in the woods. Unfortunately, Whishaw has secrets of his own, no less troubling and far more dangerous...<br /><br />Dour drama, sparked by brave performances by Harrison and Whishaw, in which two kindred spirits immerse themselves in a mutual love of nature after being traumatized by their experiences in the 'real world'. Unfortunately, their friendship unravels as harsh reality begins to intrude, leading to an inevitable tragedy. Directed by Dom Rotheroe and photographed in digital video format, the movie looks ragged in places (too many awkward close-ups and sloppy hand-held camera moves) and takes a while to find its feet, but the dramatic pay-off is quietly rewarding.
Cheap and manipulative. This film has no heart.<br /><br />It's also got dire dialogue, unconvincing characters and a preposterous, or rather non-existent, story. It just lurches from bad to worse in a cynical effort to wrench some kind of emotion from an insincere and unengaging hysterion-afest!<br /><br />And the HEDGEHOG!!!!How many cheap shots can a film take? The hedgehog, by the way, gave the most convincing and watchable performance in this ninety-minute cringe-athon.<br /><br />If you have considered watching this film, don't. I'm sorry but I cannot find a single redeeming feature to this movie. It scores a big, fat ZERO with me. Strictly for sub-Dogma knicker-wetters. Yawneroony!<br /><br />Still, if you liked Dancing In The Dark...<br /><br />
If utterly facile, regressive, self-indulgent, anti-establishment, anti-civilisation juvenilia appeals to you, then this is the ideal film. Very poorly scripted, with often inaudible dialogue and infuriatingly tiresome hand-held camera throughout, this is a film that presents the world in appealingly simplistic, Manichean terms: all adults (especially teachers, parents, priests and doctors) are insensitive and bumbling at best, and predatory monsters at worst. The only escape from the horrors of civilisation as a whole is plenty of primal screaming (yawn) and infantile regression (literally) in a primitive cave-like space in the woods, with utopia taking the form of a rave party - again, in the woods (naturally...). Displays all the weaknesses of a first film, and plenty more besides.
One of the most peculiar oft-used romance movie plots is this one: A seriously messed-up man falls in love with a terminally ill woman, who turns his life around before dying. Occasionally this story is done well and realistically (as in "The Theory of Flight", an excellent weepie), but more frequently it's done like it is here, where as usual the heroine dies of "Old Movie Disease". You know, the terminal illness that has no symptoms but one fainting spell and a need to lie down as you're telling your lover goodbye forever; and your looks aren't affected one bit (and since this is the 70's, neither is your sex life). This is one of the worst versions made of that particular story, where a very silly script puts two incompatible and unbelievable characters together, and they're played by actors who are completely at sea.<br /><br />This has got to be the worst performance of Al Pacino's career, and I say that after having seen "The Devil's Advocate" only two days ago! He plays a control-freak, emotionally constipated race-car driver, and plays an unlikeable character lifelessly. He seems to constantly be asking himself why he's staying around the grating Marthe Keller (so does the audience), and spends most of the movie just... standing there, usually with his mouth hanging open. The only time he shows any sign of life is towards the end, where his character proves that he's changed from uptight to liberated by doing a hilariously bad Mae West imitation. Hey, it *was* the seventies!<br /><br />Marthe Keller is equally terrible as the dying love interest; her character was conceived as bold and free and touching and uninhibited and full of life even though dying, and was probably meant to be played with an actress with the sensitivity of, say, Vanessa Redgrave or Julie Christie. Instead, they got the expressionless face and heavy German accent of Ms. Keller, who comes across as more of a scary Teutonic stereotype ("You VILL eat ze omelet!") than anything like lovable. She's supposed to be reforming Pacino and filling him with courage and spirit and all that, but it doesn't work that way, it's more like she's harping on his faults in the most obnoxious possible fashion. This makes for one of the least convincing romances in movie history, where you can't believe she'd be with someone she finds so worthless, and you can't believe he's with someone who gets on his nerves that much.<br /><br />Some bad-movie fans call this a cult classic, mostly because of Pacino's silly "liberating" Mae West imitation. The scene is a scream, especially in context, but not worth sitting through the rest of the film for. No, only see the film if you're a serious bad-movie aficionado who is especially interested in studying Extreme Lack of Chemistry between leading actors, or Very Bad Casting (not only are the leads terrible, but Pacino's other girlfriend is played by an actress who looks and sounds just likes Keller with shorter hair, I got them totally confused). This isn't one of those laugh-a-minute bad movies like "The Conqueror", it's just a really, really bad movie.<br /><br />
I made a special effort to see this movie and was totally disappointed with the outcome. On paper, the script seems hopeful, and the choice of actors leaves one with hopes - I liked Pacino in Scent of a Woman and have seen Anny Duperrey and Marthe Keller in several French and other films of the 70s/80s. But I had forgotten how important a part dialogues can play in a film, and in this film they are absolute ..... trash ! The filming locations were also attractive but the hopeless, pretentious and forced dialogues pulled the whole thing down to sub zero level. In addition to that, I am pretty allergic to the world of motor racing and find no interest in this sport. Even the inelegant dialogues in "Love Story" were better than the ones in this film (and that's saying something !!). I was really expecting better from this film and was very disappointed to have been let down so much.
The entire thing is very beautiful to look at..the European location shooting was a good idea. The lead actors are attractive. The score is servicable.<br /><br />BUT THEN THEY SPOKE! And the non-plot developed! And it was all downhill from there. Pacino is sleepwalking and Keller keeps talking about how bored she is..hello, dear, you're not alone. When he does a Mae West imitation, you might have to hide your face, its that painful to watch.<br /><br />I can't imagine how either actor or director Sydney Pollack got involved with this, or a better question, why it ended up stinking so bad?<br /><br />Since death is represented in almost every scene, one way or another, maybe you're supposed to have low enjoyment here. Maybe its supposed to feel as empty and cold as death. But I still can't recommend it.
From beginning to end, this is the most emotionally overwrought movie about NOTHING I have ever seen. The characterizations and interactions between the title character and Marthe Kller's character are pure torture. The racetrack as metaphor gimmick is so overplayed that it borders on cliche, yet director Pollack treats every hairpin turn as if it were something profoundly important.<br /><br />Maybe there's some value for a MSFT3000 re-playing of some of the scenes, such as Pacino getting in touch with his inner female, for goof value. But, even such accidental humor is hard to find in this total turkey.
I really must watch a good movie soon, because it seems every other entry or so is something that I despise. However my history speaks, I must not tell a lie. Bobby Deerfield and everything about it sucks big green banana peels. I never thought that I would see a film thud as thunderously as this one did. Al Pacino isn't acting in this film: he's posing. There are many, many scenes of his character, who is a race car driver, just staring at the camera. He's perfectly awful. Marthe Keller is just as bad. These two are supposed to be in a love affair, and there is simply no chemistry whatsoever. Sydney Pollack directed this film? There's no trace of the genius behind Tootsie here. Is this the same man I cheered for in Eyes Wide Shut? I can hardly believe it. Save yourself a horrible movie experience. Run, don't walk, away from Bobby Deerfield.
Just emailed a friend who's in film school about this flick. Something to avoid when making a film - characters blabbering senseless, overwrought, convoluted monologues on screen that are ultimately trite and unconvincing. If the film is an attempt at social realism, these verbal barrages are so over-the-top that they actually draw attention to the film constructed as film and effectively neutralize that intent. Is it the acting, or the script that is bad, or both?<br /><br />The protagonist is also highly unbelievable for social realism - ravenously consuming canonical English literature and the bible while high or hungover and able to produce such profoundly sophomoric soliloquies while intoxicated? And how is such an unattractive, unwashed and verbally noxious character able to bed most of the women he meets within minutes of encountering them? (I had to applaud when one chick finally threw him out onto the street, despite his whining and self-pitying banter).<br /><br />The viewer encounters pretentious references to Ancient Greek literature, Nostradamus and the Book of Revelations. The impending doom of mankind, in the form of bar codes imprinted on our foreheads or right hands in spooky biblical fashion, is presented to a character who is oh-so-cleverly exposed in his role as a guardian of empty space. <br /><br />This flick is over-scripted and over the top - a melodrama clumsily infused with pedestrian "philosophy" about the meaning of mankind, life, etc. It is trite, overwrought and tedious.<br /><br />There are some very fine English films available with content similar to this film. "Nil by Mouth" is an excellent, far more interesting excursion into the lives of individuals in a similar social milieu. Ditto for "In the Warzone." And although the comparison is not even warranted, check out anything by Peter Greenaway, who far more deftly handles dialogue, wit and absurd characters and situations.
Johnny and Jeremy are vampires of sorts. Minus the fangs, of course. They're dark, bitter creatures with nothing better to do than to spread their own misery. Through their charms (namely a sharp tongue and a fat wallet, respectively) they seduce desperate souls, who they proceed to torment and victimize. That's more or less the basis of this black comedy, as I understand it.<br /><br />It's not a blend of black humor that I can easily subscribe to, partly because it bothers me to imagine the audience rooting for the sleazy, main character. I did enjoy, however, the sound and the melody of the rapid-fire (and supposedly very witty) remarks. I was very impressed by the cast's strong acting, particularly David Thelis's; only the character of Jeremy seemed too bi-dimensional. The photography and the music, both dramatic and somber, work very well together. <br /><br />What really turns me off about "Naked" (and the main reason I'd never recommend it to anyone) is the way it repeatedly seems to present misogyny as a valid way to vent one's angst. In other words, in a world that sucks so bad, what difference does it make if one inflicts some pain on girls, right? To suggest (as some have on this website) that Johnny is not so unkind a person because he's not as rough on girls as Jeremy, seems completely absurd to me. They're both terrible, nasty people. And they're particularly keen on hurting women every single time they get a chance. One could argue that Johnny eventually gets what he deserves, as if his bad karma suddenly swung straight back and bit him in the ass. But still, his and Jeremy's sadistic behavior are treated to a certain degree as a laughing matter. And I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that most people who absolutely love this movie also find that aspect of the film darkly comical.
Had the original casting idea been kept (hunting Rutger, not Ice-T), this movie might have worked. Sadly, racism had to come into the picture (literally) and mess it up. The predominantly black production staff couldn't allow the antagonist be black, so they swapped Rutger's and Ice-T's roles. This was only the start of the downward spiral of this film. Ernest Dickerson's news-room approach to 'directing' only verified that this was another affirmative-action job assignment. Master shot, close up, close up. Gads, 'Who's Line Is It Anyway' even uses more creative camera work. Eric's rewrite of 'The Most Dangerous Game' is at least an attempt at modernizing the classic tale, but fails to give us any motivations for why the characters are doing this. We are never given the reasons, other than "no one will miss these people", why the leader (re-written as Rutger) does these things. Aside from a heart-felt performance by John McGinley, and a fair job by Charles Dutton, do not bother with this one. One small bit of trivia, there was a real drunk-driving accident during filming that injured F.Murray Abraham, and resulted in the death of the intoxicated young driver that caused the accident.
This movie could have been so much better with a script rewrite. Not that I expect a great deal of plausibility in movies, but you'd think that even the homeless and urban-dwelling Jack Mason would question why a group of experienced hunters would want to hire him as a hunting guide. And upon reaching the hunting grounds, poor Ice-T plays his part as if he is actually going to lead these men through woods he's never seen before.<br /><br />And how does Jack Mason find Thomas Burns back in Seattle?<br /><br />I'm assuming this movie was based on Richard Connell's short story "The Most Dangerous Game." A few years ago I showed this movie to a class of 9th grade students after they read the story. I reedited the movie, cutting out all the pointless scenes and all the profanity. It ended up being 43 minutes long.
Ice-T stars as Mason a homeless African-American who finds himself hunted by wealthy hunters (Rutger Hauer,Gary Busey,Charles S. Dutton, F.Murray Abraham,William McNamara and John C. McGinley) however Mason proves to be much harder prey then the usual targets in this ridiculous and slow paced actioner which takes too long setting up actionscenes and then totally botching them.
This movie was horrible. I swear they didn't even write a script they just kinda winged it through out the whole movie. Ice-T was annoying as hell. *SPOILERS Phht more like reasons not to watch it* They sit down and eat breakfast for 20 minutes. he coulda been long gone. The ground was hard it would of been close to impossible to to track him with out dogs. And when ICE-T is on that Hill and uses that Spaz-15 Assault SHOTGUN like its a sniper rifle (and then cuts down a tree with eight shells?? It would take 1000's of shells to cut down a tree that size.) Shotguns and hand guns are considered to be inaccurate at 100yards. And they even saw the reflection. What reflected the light?? I didn't see a scope on that thing. Also when he got shot in the gut and kept going, that was retarded he would of bled to death right there. PlusThe ending where he stuffs a rock or a cigarette in the guys barrel. It wouldn't blow up and kill him. The bullet would still fire kill Ice T but mess up the barrel.
SPOILERS HEREIN<br /><br />My High School did all they could to try and motivate us for exams. But the most memorable method they used to get us into the right state of mind was a guest speaker, who was none other than Australian Kickboxing's favorite son, Stan "The Man" Longinidis. The first mistake they made was giving this guy a microphone, because he was screaming half the time despite us sitting no more than 3 or 4 feet away from him. Now, his speech was full of the usual "if you fail to prepare, then prepare to fail" stuff, but there were various instances where I got really worked up. The guy stood there in front of us preaching how throughout his life he did everything for himself and no-one else. He was offered many deals in the past to give up kick-boxing, but he never took his eye off the prize of becoming Australia's greatest kick-boxer. He said that he wasn't a sell-out, he was happy and a retiree, he wasn't ever involved in any other activity other than Kickboxing… then he plugged his film. Yes, you heard right, he PLUGGED his new FILM. As he talked about it, he got a woman to come in and hold up a poster advertising it, and then he showed this shitty 4 minute clip of this vile film called "Trojan Warrior". (This all being before he was defeated by Gurkan Ozkan in his final career fight (for now))<br /><br />Stan plays Ajax, a kick-boxing ex-special forces agent that is pulled into the seedy underworld of Melbourne. Ajax's cousin, Theo (Arthur Angel) recently sold out (well, at least Stan didn't stray too far away from EVERYTHING) to the feds, and as a result is on the run from all walks of organized crime. Ajax and Theo get into all sorts of ridiculous situations, from fighting in a Kebab shop to posing as playboys at a bondage party. It's all pretty ridiculous, but if Silverstein was actually aiming to make a credible film here, this man should never be handed a camera again. <br /><br />I'll admit, I was actually pumped to see this. I love action films, even if they're corny, and especially if it's set in my own backyard. But what I was introduced to was a film with acting that was appalling from the word "go", and continued to do so after the words "for the love of God please make it stop!", subplots were introduced and not even touched on again after they were out in the open, characters were just thrown in for absolutely NO reason whatsoever, and the most over-choreographed fight scenes that didn't even remotely reflect Stan's actual talent in Kickboxing. The cast consisted of useless cameo appearances by just about anyone REMOTELY famous (Dermot Brereton, Mark "Chopper" Read and Greg Matthews). The whole time you're sitting there and playing the guessing game of just who is standing there in the background. Too bad the movie relies heavily on split-second appearances by former celebrities. Remember those plot-holes I told you about? Ajax once upon a time was apparently locked up, wrongly accused for murdering his wife. Now, we hear that Ajax was in special forces via ONE single sentence in the WHOLE film, and then leave it for buggery. This is followed by another SINGLE sentence which persuades Ajax to help the same people who wrongly locked him up. Then, get this, at the end, it is revealed to Ajax that his wife isn't actually dead, but was sold into prostitution. Do we see her? No. Does Ajax go off to find her as soon as he hears this? No. Now THAT's a marriage! <br /><br />Amidst all this irritatingly puerile crap, some website described this film as "…a cross between Jackie Chan & Guy Ritchie…". Has this man ever sat down and watched a Jackie Chan film?! Chan shows more dexterity taking a dump than Stan did doing…, well, ANYTHING! And Guy Ritchie is the crime-film Messiah, and you're comparing him to Salik Silverstein!? This film is more like a mix between "Pizza" and "Enter The Ninja". <br /><br />Now, where do you thing the whole "Trojan Warrior" title comes from? Ajax's fierce fighting skills like that of an Ancient Greek Warrior? No. The gangsters' unification to find Theo, like that of the Trojan Empire? No. It's because… wait for it… Theo carries a condom around with him. Yes, that right, because THEO is ALWAYS PREPARED with a Trojan BRAND RUBBER in his pocket, he is a Trojan WARRIOR! <br /><br />I had the displeasure of seeing "Trojan Warrior" on DVD, as well as it's "special" features: <br /><br />• Video clip of "Chop Chop", a rap song by Mark "Chopper" Read: Chopper did this for the sole purpose of proving that ANYONE can rap. The funny thing was Chopper just rapped for 30 seconds and then threw it over to these two albino teens from Doncaster, using such words as "dis" and "dope" etc in their Australian accents. Face it people, rap was developed in the States, LEAVE IT THERE! The clip looked like something a Channel 31 cameraman on ecstasy put together. <br /><br />• Bloopers: There was no real difference between these and the actual film. <br /><br />• Stan "The Man" Longinidis Kickboxing Featurette: This wasn't too bad, considering it was just 6 or 7 different fights shown from different angles (I think I saw Dennis Alexio fall over about 15 times in that 3 minute montage).<br /><br />I don't want to say this film contributes to the reason this country is going to hell when it comes to film, but... oh wait, I just did. My advice to anyone reading this is for you to go out and buy 4 or 5 copies of "Trojan Warrior", tape them together, and use it for a paperweight, because this movie is just that damn bad.
After watching about half of this movie I noticed something peculiar ... I found myself constantly switching through tv-channels to see what else is on - not exactly a good movie trait.<br /><br />This movie is listed as being in a number of genres, and I must say it mostly failed misserably in every one of them. 80% through the movie I switched over to watch an old rerun instead. Bottom line - the whole movie felt as if the ones making it didn't exactly know what to make and ended up in a concoction with no discernable taste.
Well our standards have gone into the toilet. The direction was poor, the acting was mediocre and the writing was amateurish. And those are the good points. Hopefully there won't be a sequel. Otherwise, I might have to leave the country.
The cover art (which features a man holding a scary pellet gun) would make it seem as if it's a martial arts film. (Hardly.)<br /><br />I find it interesting that the film's real title is Trojan Warrior. (Trojan is a brand of condoms in the US) This movie is loaded with homoeroticism. If you like that stuff, then this film isn't that bad really. However, consider these points:<br /><br />There are numerous close-ups of actors' groins & butts, (One scene even features every actor with an erection bulging in his pants.) the film is also bathed in gaudy colors like lime, peach, and red. From a cinematographer's standpoint, this movie's a drag queen! Several scenes feature characters standing EXTREMELY close to one another, occasionally touching as they converse. Also, the cousin of the hero likes women, and every other guy in the movie is trying to kill him. Is there a message here the filmmakers want to convey? <br /><br />Shall I go into the fight scenes? (Yes, someone's private parts get grabbed in one fight.) The martial arts scenes are brief and unimaginative. No fancy stuff here, just your standard moves you'd see in an old Chuck Norris flick. There's also a car chase scene which may be the first ever LOW-speed chase put on film.
At least the seats in the theater were comfortable and I ate the pop corn as loud as possible to drown out the inferior dialogue. This is absolutely not a girls film. Any blokes who like it, are the ones us ladies can be sure to stay far away from. Dumb story, mediocre dialogue and an overall cheap looking film. I've seen many, many movies but this one is the new winner in the bad category. If you do happen to see it, the one thing you'll look forward to is the ending. So you can finally run out of the theater as fast as you can.
I mean really. This is not going to help the Australian film industry to make this kind of film with no values of any kind. Okay, if you're a stoner and have nothing better to do, then maybe. I think film-makers from here should try to show the rest of the world what great talented people we have, and this is not the vehicle for it. Come on now, this film is just tacky.
In the 60's, having as the background the rehearsal and recording of "Sympathy for the Devil" in the classic album "Beggar's Banquet" by the revolutionary bad boy Rolling Stones – Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Charlie Watts, Bill Wyman and Brian Jones – plus Marianne Faithful, Godard discloses other contemporary revolutionary and ideological movements – the Black Power through the Black Panthers, the feminism, the communism, the fascism - entwined with the reading of a cheap pulp political novel divided in the chapters: "The Stones Rolling; "Outside Black Novel"; "Sight and Sound"; "All About Eve"; "The Heart of Occident"; "Inside Black Syntax"; and, "Under the Stones the Beach".<br /><br />"Sympathy for the Devil" is another pretentious and boring mess of the uneven director Jean-Luc Godard. The narrative and the footages are awful, but fortunately I love the Stones and "Sympathy for the Devil" and it is nice to see them in the beginning of their careers; otherwise this documentary would be unbearable. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Sympathy for the Devil"
The film-school intellects can drool all they want about the important (imagined) meaning of this film, but it's just that: intellectual drool. This film is creatively bankrupt, and some mistake it's endless self-indulgent wanking as substance. Yeah. <br /><br />Obviously Godard wasn't a Stones fan. Too bad, because this could have been great. He's capturing the birth of this timeless song and he chooses instead to cover the music with some guy reading out of a True Detective mag or some such crap. <br /><br />Then there's the endless shots of what looks like 60's librarians spray-painting words on people's cars. And then there's the seemingly neverending "interview" where the actress was brilliantly instructed to answer only yes or no to all the really deep and intellectual questions. There's some dude in a purple suit is reading more crap from a book, which goes on for, oh, only about 20 minutes. And black panthers or something in a junkyard.<br /><br />It almost sounds intriguing? Well, it's not.<br /><br />But for unwashed film-school hipsters who don't care squat about the lost opportunities of having full access to the Stones bringing Sympathy for the Devil into the world and would rather hear some English guy reading instead whilst gazing at the covers of nudie mag's, this film's a real winner!<br /><br />More accurately...maybe Godard just blows.
Jean Luc Godard's Marxist polemic is as close to unwatchable a film as you're likely to see from an internationally respected filmmaker. Bits of political theater, mind-numbingly boring and interminable, are interspersed with the making of "Sympathy for the Devil", featuring the Rolling Stones in the studio.<br /><br />The process of the song's development, from Mick Jagger playing a demo on acoustic guitar, to the backing vocals being recorded towards the end, is fascinating, and it's worth renting this film just to see the bits with the Stones. Almost half the movie is devoted to this, so thanks to the miracle of chapter stops, you can skip all the bizarre political skits and just watch the Stones put a song together.<br /><br />When I had this on laserdisc, I valiantly attempted to watch it all, but I don't see how anyone could get through it. I finally gave up and just chapter-skipped my way to the Stones segments.
Firstly, this is a very dated film, non-focused in its exposition of the left wing political revolution. Honestly, when someone says that the only way to be truly revolutionary is to cease to be intellectual ( which in itself is quite nonsensical, since the answer was arrived at by precisely being intellectual) it reduces me to despair; as if we all should return to being apes in the name of equality - it is simply ridiculous. Our intellectuality is only one of many human qualities, but this does not mean we should not educate ourselves to the highest possible degree. But no doubt this non-educational message ties in with Godard's use of rock music; hence The Rolling Stones.<br /><br />The song 'Sympathy for the Devil', whose creation we witness, and from which the film takes its name, is in fact nothing special. The chord sequence, which is not especially original, was used to much better effect in Led Zeppelin's 'Thankyou'(Led Zeppelin II). Apart form that, 'Sir' Mick Jagger declaims in his usually nebulous manner (rather like Bob Dylan)- notice how the first melodic phrase is unimaginatively repeated over again to form the verse.<br /><br />Besides the fact that the Black Panthers depicted in this film, don't seem to know what they are fighting for, the most interesting scenes involve the equation of fascism with pornography; a message that in fact undermines the sexual 'liberation' of the 1960s and today ( indeed, a message that would belie the behaviour of The Rolling Stones around the time the film was made).<br /><br />No wonder, the DVD came free with The Sunday Times! For a truly profound historical exposition of left-wing sympathy, listen to Luigi Nono's masterpiece, 'Al Gran Sole carico'd'amore'.
Picked this up for 50 cents at the flea market, was pretty excited.<br /><br />I found it fascinating for about 15 min, then just repetitive and dull.<br /><br />It is neat seeing Mick and the gang in their prime, i wish there was not so much over dubbing of dialog so I could hear what there are saying and playing.<br /><br />The skits are politically dated and incredibly naive and simple, sort of poorly written Monty Python on acid. I spent more time looking at the late 60's England back drops rather then what was actually happening in the silly skits.<br /><br />This movie is a good reminder that times really change,and what was important quickly becomes just plain silly. Good song, but it has now been played to death by this DVD.
It utterly defeats me why Godard is taken so seriously - and One Plus One is a great example of his ineptitude as both a filmmaker and an 'intellectual' polemicist. It's hard to credit that Godard actually believed all that Marxist and Maoist kant. Anyone with half a brain could work out the bankruptcy of those 'isms' and how many people they had destroyed and were continuing to destroy even as Godard was making his films supporting them. As a filmmaker, ask yourself: would you have boring voice-overs reading tedious political diatribes at your audience, and then, when you couldn't think of anything else to do, layer another voice-over to the first voice-over, which had lost its listeners after the first 100 words in any case? Brilliant, Jean-Luc! As for Godard insisting on making a film with the Rolling Stones: of course he did; wouldn't you? It was the only guarantee of getting such mindless rubbish seen in the first place: the genius of the Stones eclipsing a talentless and babbling political idiot set loose with a camera. The bookshop scene wasn't worthy of even the worst fringe theatre, and was an insult to the intelligence of even the young children who were used to play in it - as could be readily seen. Copping-out by allowing friendly critics to claim that all this artless crap was a satire on mainstream film-making is no more than a safe get-out to offer those who clearly see Godard's poverty of intellect and arrogant contempt for his audience. Ironic that Godard's one-time great friend, Truffaut, with Nuit Americain, made the best film about film-making ever, and Godard made the worst with Le Mepris! Incidentally, Godard didn't choose the Stones' track of Sympathy With the Devil. It just happened to be the track they were working on when the 'film' started shooting at Barnes Olympic Studios.
As a casual listener of the Rolling Stones, I thought this might be interesting. Not so, as this film is very 'of its age', in the 1960's. To me (someone born in the 1980's) this just looks to me as hippy purist propaganda crap, but I am sure this film was not made for me, but people who were active during th '60's. I expected drugs galore with th Stones, I was disappointed, it actually showed real life, hard work in the studio, So much so I felt as if I was working with them to get to a conclusion of this god awful film. I have not seen any of the directors other films, but I suspect they follow a similar style of directing, sort of 'amatuerish' which gave a feeling like the TV show Eurotrash, badly directed, tackily put together and lacking in real entertainment value. My only good opinion of this is that I didn't waste money on it, it came free with a Sunday paper.
It was difficult to sit through this horrible heretical adaptation of Sherlock Holmes. Apparently Matt Frewer was cast because he is tall and skinny. His skull-like face made for a good zombie in the Dawn of the Dead remake, but as Sherlock Holmes he looks like a scarecrow. Not only does Frewer have a lanky lackadaisical walk that is hard to watch, but he looks uncomfortable in the stereotypical Holmes overcoats that he is wearing. Not only that, but while the coat is gray twill they apparently could not find a matching cap. So his cap is black and it looks shiny as if it were made of polyester. Whatever the cap was made of, it looked very new and artificial. Jeremy Brett occasionally wore those traditional outfits, but Brett did not have to dress-up like Sherlock Holmes in order to look the part. Frewer on the other hand is painful to watch. Even in the full "Holmes" outfit, he does not carry himself like Sherlock Holmes.<br /><br />Frewer's cadaverous face grinning all the time as he spouts on and on in a very bad "Upper-Crust" British accent is painful to see and listen to. To say that Frewer is overacting is an understatement. After he finishes each sentence with some kind of nasal hum, he then sneers as if that were some kind of British trait. When I started watching this I thought it might be a comedy featuring Wishbone, the Jack Russell Terrier. I thought Frewer had been cast as some kind of foil for Wishbone. But sadly, there is no dog in this movie except for Frewer. Wishbone would have made this movie a lot better.<br /><br />Not only does Frewer's version of Sherlock Holmes never stop talking (in that awfully artificial British nasal accent), but he is much to friendly and kind. Frewer is always smiling at the witnesses he talks to, and he is so polite and courteous that he could be teaching at a Charm School instead of being a Sleuth. Perhaps since this is a Hallmark Channel production, they are trying to make a children's version of Sherlock Holmes (Wishbone was better at that, too) that was kindler and gentler. Whatever the point of Frewer's interpretation of Sherlock Holmes, it is flatter than a pancake, and easily the worst version of Sherlock Holmes that I have ever seen (including the previous worst, by Charlton Heston).<br /><br />Overall, the tone of this film is awful. It reminded me of a typical episode of Barnaby Jones or Murder She Wrote or Diagnosis Murder. All the suspects over-acted suspiciously and glared at the victims before they were killed. Holmes and Watson are explaining every clue to each other during the entire movie. Even on Murder She Wrote there is less exposition.<br /><br />This Sherlock Holmes does not even compare very well to Jim Rockford of the Rockford Files and it is miles below Columbo. The awful dialog is probably the fault of the writer. It is obvious that who ever wrote this script has very little familiarity with Sherlock Holmes, especially the BBC version with Jeremy Brett. This movie has all of the atmosphere of an episode of Little House on the Prairie. The fact that the actors seem to be smirking when they enunciate their lines in their fake accents does not help.<br /><br />The only minor bright spot is Ken Walsh who plays Doctor Watson with some dignity. Walsh does not ham it up compared to Frewer, and when he is often interviewing witnesses, his demeanor and conversational style are much more natural and credible. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast is amateurish, and the visual clues they give by glaring and making faces at each other (to show they are suspicious) is something that I had not seen in any modern movie.
Dan Duryea, a perfectly decent B-movie actor who made lots of lookalike noirs in the 1940s, can't do much with this one: young man is accused of murdering an unhappily married singer; when he's sentenced to die, his wife decides to solve the case herself with help from the dead woman's husband. After a dazzling opening shot, flick quickly settles into B-movie formula. It certainly looks good, but the twist finish is colorlessly handled and the cast (including Peter Lorre and Broderick Crawford) is just a bit stiff. Based on a Cornell Woolrich novel, and passable for a single viewing. <br /><br />** from ****
"Black Angel" is minor whodunit, with June Vincent as a woman trying to save her husband from the electric chair after he is found guilty of killing an old acquaintance. Dan Duryea (the husband of the murdered woman) decides to help Vincent find the real culprit. Peter Lorre has one thankless role as a suspect. This film noir looks and plays like a cheap programmer, never achieving anything special. It is pleasant enough but then, at some point, it stops making sense and the solution to the mystery provokes one of those big "give me a break" reactions. That ending alone could have sank the film completely, but what precedes the conclusion is not very good either. Vincent is a wimpy heroine and Duryea was never very good at playing good guys. I love film noirs, but this one was a real disappointment.
A mercilessly corny and painfully unfunny attempt to transplant the character of Sheriff Bart from Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles into his own weekly sitcom, this is really as bad as some people say it is!<br /><br />The laugh-track only serves to remind the unamused viewer what all in this supposed comedy is intended to be a joke and just how desperate for laughs it really is!<br /><br />However, it is somewhat interesting to see Louis Gossett Jr. trying his best to impersonate Cleavon Little. His embarrassment shows through in every scene. He was much funnier in the HBO movie El Diablo than he was here in this slab of cheese!<br /><br />Truly the best and funniest thing about Black Bart is the name of his horse!
Watching this was like getting a large mackerel slapped in your face over and over again. Even when you thought, "That mackerel surely can't be coming around again," *slap* there it was. I'm not sure what they were thinking. This is the sort of pilot I watched and wondered, "Did the actors know they were on a doomed ship destined to never be made into a series?" Not only black stereotypes but Swedish and Indian ones as well. And while "Blazing Saddles" made these stereotypes into a mix of comedy and uncomfortableness, these stereotypes were just downright offensive. There was no plot line, the ending was slapped on, and the jokes aren't. Still, if you are a student of comedy, watch this pilot to see what you shouldn't do.
To review this movie, I without any doubt would have to quote that memorable scene in Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" (1994) when Jules and Vincent are talking about Mia Wallace and what she does for a living. Jules tells Vincent that the "Only thing she did worthwhile was pilot". Vincent asks "What the hell is a pilot?" and Jules goes into a very well description of what a TV pilot is: "Well, the way they make shows is, they make one show. That show's called a 'pilot'. Then they show that show to the people who make shows, and on the strength of that one show they decide if they're going to make more shows. Some pilots get picked and become television programs. Some don't, become nothing. She starred in one of the ones that became nothing." Now to stretch on what Jules was talking about, there are BILLIONS of television shows/pilots that were never aired because they simply were not...well, good. Probably the most notorious pilot that comes to mind is "W*A*L*T*E*R", a spin-off to "M*A*S*H" with Gary "Radar" Burghoff as the lead. Hmmm, would somebody really want to be watching Radar for a half-hour trying to solve crimes? Hence, the show was never picked up. What many people don't know (or what they thought they knew) is that pilots are hardly ever shown on the air, for they are made strictly for the Television networks for them to decide. Some have made they're way past and got onto the air (The pilot for the animated series "American Dad" comes to mind, as the show's serial itself didn't begin until nearly four months later. However, there are times were we should all be glad pilots never make it to air, and this here is why.<br /><br />"Black Bart", a supposed tie-in with the Mel Brooks comedy classic, "Blazing Saddles", is a stale and bland "sitcom" with little heart and no soul. "Saddles" was a controversial comedy, nevertheless, with it's racist humor and vulgar comedy, which comes to mind "what idiot decided this would make a great television show FOR PRIME TIME TV?!?" I say "supposed", because none of the memorable characters from the movie, aside from Bart, on in this mess of a TV show. Mel Brooks wasn't even involved with the production of the serial and this was the first mistake in a long line (In a related story, I recently found out about an unaired TV pilot for a series based on the movie "Clerks." that Kevin Smith was no involved in....you see what happens?!?).<br /><br />Set somewhere around the same time as the movie (or at all), the story circles around the only Black sheriff in the wild west, named appropriately 'Black' Bart, who is this time played by future Academy Award winner Louis Gossett Jr., obviously before his stint in "real" acting, whereas in this he is playing a "G-rated" Richard Pryor. Most of the other characters are carbon (if not, really bad) copies of the characters in the movie: Jim, The Waco Kid is replaced by a similar looking character named Reb Jordan, a former Confederate soldier who is quick with the gun. Lilian Von Schtupp is now Belle Buzzer, a more of a ripoff of the character being that she's a show dancer and a German with a Marlene Dietrich-type accent and personality. While that's pretty much the end in similarities, The lead "bad guy" in the story is Fern Malaga, played by Noble Willingham, who I assumed would've been Hedley Lamar if Warner Bros. secured the rights to the name (See trivia for "Blazing Saddles") and his son Curley...I dunno, Taggart I suppose? The story is a poor excuse for a sitcom, much less a pilot. Bart deals with the mayor's drunk son and he's out-of-control behavior which has caused the town to spin. Really, it's a story that tries to introduce all the characters in the "series" and doesn't focus on the variety and context that would make this an "alright" show. I can't really call it a sitcom (and even if I wanted to) and that's primarily the fact it was shot on the backlot at Warner Bros. Studios and later added a laugh track, so the show is set up almost exactly like "M*A*S*H" (complete with a bland and dull "laughing" that is identical to the series). The acting is so-so, but there's one part that always make me laugh, and that's when the actor playing Reb Jordan almost seems to forget his lines and tries really hard to remember them while trying to sputter out a piece of dialogue. HA! The script is rather dull and is attempts to make racism more humorous than it was in the movie (Surprisingly, they use the word "N***er" numerous amount of times through a 22-minute episode, rather touchy for it's time period and even for today) and it gets repetitive.<br /><br />If you ever get your hands on this unseen piece of sssss...surly interesting novelty item, watch it just for the sake of the feeling for watching pilots (It's on the collector's edition of "Blazing Saddles", God knows why). There, yourself get a first hand chance for the reason why many movie tie-in pilots never air.
This very unfunny failed TV Pilot can be found as an extra on the 30th Annivesery DVD Special Edition "Blazing Saddles". Imagine the movie without the satire, humor, or writing skills. But with all the trappings of a typical lame '70's sit-com show complete with obtrusive laugh track and you'll still have no clue how sheer putrid this failed show was. What the hell was Lou Gossett Jr. thinking when he signed onto this disaster?? This was possibly the worst thing he's been in (and yes I'm including the first "Punisher" movie and "Iron Eagles 3". Steve Landesberg, I understand as he can't say no to crap.<br /><br />My Grade: F
I just watched the 30th Anniversary edition of Blazing Saddles, one of my all time Favorites!! The TV Pilot for Black Bart stunk. The plot was non-existent and the acting was not good. It was obviously an attempt to profit off of the success of Blazing Saddles and there have been TV shows that have succeeded in doing take-offs of big movies, but this one would never have worked. Considering that for so many years TV would not even play the farting noises when they televised the movie, it is inconceivable that they thought they could put a show on TV with the "N" word thrown around. On the other hand, I enjoyed seeing a lot of familiar faces!!! There were quite a few actors/actresses that I recognized from other shows over the years. I had to write down all the names and do a few searches. That was fun. I was arguing with my mother if Steve Landesberg was from Barney Miller or Mash. I won! :)
This was on the 30th Anniversary DVD for Blazing Saddles, itself brilliant, but not this. Nowhere did I see Mel Brook's name on here and I can guess why, he's got a lot more sense to not be associated with this pilot. My gawd, who would find this funny. Sure there may be a race issue but for me it just wasn't funny, well cause it's simply not funny. It's like the writers didn't even try to be funny, just to cash in on being tied with Blazing Saddles. Did they expect this show to go for several seasons when they made this pilot? Flat out, they didn't care. It was a quick cash cow which thank god didn't cash out. I guess it's useful for historical purposes only, or only to demonstrate how stupid and unimaginative Hollywood writers can be.
"Dutch Schultz", AKA Arthur Fleggenheimer, was a real person and his rather nasty life is fairly well documented. This movie which purports to depict his life should have used a fictional character, because the overdramatized events are too strong a departure from the facts and the chronology. Not only that, it ignores some interesting details which other versions have included such as the public relations fiasco in upstate N.Y. and his religious conversion. It is true that he was executed by Luciano, Lansky, et. al. but that's as far as it goes. The exploding plate scene which represents Luciano carrying out the execution of Bo Weinberg in his own home, assisted by his own mother is rediculous. Also, there is the scene in which Dutch approaches his own mother to pay protection to Legs Diamond. It just doesn't work. The character of Mrs. Fleggenheimer doesn't work either. This movie does not need a doting Jewish mother for comic relief. The lame representation of Legs Diamond was humorous enough. I'm sure the man is turning in his grave. And, by the way, Dutch did in fact personally kill people, but, he was not Rambo or 007. The scene in which he wipes out the brewery is absurd. I don't know. Maybe it was supposed to be a comedy and I just didn't get it.
As I write this review in 2008, we are mired in a remake culture. Movie studios seem determined to ruin as many classic films as they can with thoroughly pointless updates including 'King Kong, 'The Wicker Man' and practically every film that ever starred Michael Caine. This lazy remake mentality is not a new phenomenon, however, as 'Dough for the Do-Do' proves. An entirely pointless colorized version of Bob Clampett's surreal masterpiece 'Porky in Wackyland', 'Dough for the Do-Do' sucks the life out of the original by splashing colour all over Clampett's original footage and adding some lame new footage overseen by Friz Freleng. Freleng was an entirely unsuitable director to be tampering with Clampett's source material, although in truth no director could hope to come close to Clampett's inspired insanity. Inevitably, then, 'Dough for the Do-Do' is nothing more than the raping of a classic with an appalling new title attached. For cartoon fans like myself, its equivalent to a colorization of 'Casablanca'.
Growing up, Joe Strummer was a hero of mine, but even I was left cold by this film. For better and worse, The Future Is Unwritten is not a straightforward "Behind the Music" style documentary. Rather it is a biographical art film, chock full of interviews, performance footage, home movies, and mostly pointless animation sketches lifted from "Animal Farm." The movie is coherent but overlong by about a half hour.<br /><br />The campfire format, while touching in thought, is actually pretty annoying in execution. First off, without titles, its hard to even know who half of these interviewees are. Secondly, who really needs to hear people like Bono, Johnny Depp, and John Cusack mouth butt licking hosannas about the man? They were not relevant to Strummer's life and their opinions add nothing to his story.<br /><br />This picture is at it's best when Strummer, through taped interviews and conversation, touches on facets of his life most people did not know about: the suicide of his older brother, coming to terms with the death of his parents, the joy of fatherhood. To me, these were most moving because it showed Joe Strummer not as the punk icon we all knew and loved, but as a regular human being who had to deal with the joys and sorrows of life we all must face.<br /><br />There have been better, more straightforward documentaries about Strummer and The Clash. (Westway, VH1 Legends, and Kurt Loder's narrated MTV Documentary from the early 90's come to mind.) Joe Strummer: The Future Is Unwritten is for diehards only.
Strummer's hippie past was a revelation, but overall this felt like crashing a wake. Campfire stories work best around the intimacy of a campfire. There were just too many semi-boring old friends anecdotes and too much filler stock footage. I love The Clash and Joe for not reuniting and selling their songs until now (FU Mick Jones), but this doc left me wanting..to relate more. Using campfire storytellers without proper explanation of who is telling the anecdote alienates the viewer to some extent. They should have been interviewed on their own. Even using Strummer's 'radio DJ voice' did little to glue the film together. And can someone explain all the flags flying behind the campfire scenes? After the awesome "Filth And The Fury" I hoped Temple could deliver. A Joe Strummer doc deserves better.
I love the music of the Clash and I love the music of Joe Strummer and The Mescaleros. I went to this movie hoping to learn about the man behind most of that. But I came out of the theatre not knowing much more about Joe than I already did after reading the entry on Wikipedia. The movie never really gets through to the person, his thoughts and feelings. What they did was to collect the little material that they had, shaky blurry videos and to interview some people about Joe Strummer at a camp fire. It turns out that most of these people knew him very little or not at all, and that the director just wanted them in the movie in order to have some more celebrities say, "Oh, he was such an inspiration to all of us". Like Bono or Johnny Depp (whom they seemingly asked to keep his pirate costume on to benefit from his current success in Pirates of the Caribbean). It seems that the director could not even wait until the body was cold before he jumped in to sell his version of "the greatest punk rocker and hippie at heart" that ever lived, sanctifying the person without really knowing enough about him.<br /><br />Sure, being a fan i enjoyed seeing the images of the band, hearing the anecdotes behind the songs and such, but in the end I felt like what remained as the portrait of Joe Strummer could have easily been told in 60-90 minutes.<br /><br />Go see the movie if you are a fan, otherwise better listen to some music of the Clash or even better the undeservedly unknown Mescaleros, where Joe Strummer reached the peak of his musical development before his death, melting all his rich influences together to one amazing sound.
In the opening scene of "Malta Story" Mr A.Guinness bore such a startling resemblance to Noel Coward that I fully expected his first words to be "Certain women need striking regularly - like gongs" or some such world - weary bon mot.Unfortunately his dialogue is hardly deathless prose and even the Master would have had trouble bringing it to life.Indeed Mr Guinness wanders through the picture as if looking for a focal point and failing to find one.And therein lies the fatal weakness of the whole movie.Mr J.Hawkins likewise gives up early on and ends up giving a "Jack Hawkins" performance without an ounce of individuality.It could have been spliced from any of a dozen British war movies.Many of the early fifties usual suspects turn up and do their schtick to very little purpose. The Luftwaffe failed to bomb Malta into submission in much the same way as it failed to bring London to its knees.The courage of the Maltese people in the face of incessant danger was recognised by the King and the island was awarded the George Cross.A worthy subject you might think for a movie,but "Malta Story" does not even qualify for the term "worthy" in its most patronising sense.It gives the appearance of being hastily cobbled together to meet a deadline,perhaps before the actors lost the will to live.
Another British cinema flag waver. Real garbage on offer here once again. I cannot understand (and I am British) why this over the top, patriotic nonsense was ever made. EIGHT years mark you, from when the second world war had actually ended! Other commenter's here have remarked on the editing and apparent seamless use of archive footage. This is extremely poorly observed. The archive footage is in abundance. Model aircraft swing from wires in the 'action scenes' like so many children's kites in the wind. The usual map room sequences tattoo the movie to make us supposedly drawn into the whole Malta event. Guinness must have his worst acting performance ever. The shocking back drop dog fight scenes are laughable. Hawkins bores us all to death in the map room area. Ealing made many great movies. This clearly is not one of them. They should have stayed away from such unconvincing rot!
When Stanwyck's husband-to-be is murdered on the eve of their wedding, she retreats to a mountain lodge, where she slips (sort of) off a cliff and is rescued by wealthy attorney Morgan. Morgan falls in love with her, leading to a definitely one-sided marriage, spent on a huge estate in Chicago (which appears to be surrounded by mountains!). Stanwyck is tempted by dashing Cortez, but eventually returns to Morgan, in a very subdued and unconvincing story resolution.<br /><br />This film has a great cast (Morgan in particular is one of my favorites) and a great director, but the script is meandering and seems pointless at times. I was so ready to enjoy this movie but I was ultimately disappointed. Still worth watching for the cast, and it's good for anyone who likes 1930s films.
Justin goes home to live with his strict, hard-nosed police detective father, but it seems daddy has turned the upstairs into three makeshift apartments each with bizarre tenants residing in them. Straight-laced idealist Justin is thrust into the world of the occult, murder, under-aged drinking and other dastardly things. Ho-hum <br /><br />Wow, have I seen the same film that nearly all the other reviewers on here saw??? Clever, compelling, original, intense, clever, genius????!!? I witnessed none of those things. What I DID see was an uninteresting, bland, trite, extremely clichéd low-budget thriller that was ripe with implausibilities and no tension in the least bit as the killer is telegraphed as soon into the film as he gives his monologue/debate/discussion. And where are these humorous laugh-out-loud moments? I never so much as chuckled, perhaps because i was too busy struggling not to be put to sleep by the film.<br /><br />My Grade: D <br /><br />DVD Extras: Audio commentary with director Dave Campfield; Second commentary with various contributers as well as isolated music tracks; 4 featurettes (Making of, on the set, turning 1 room into 4, & Inside the black circle); Interviews with Felissa Rose, Desiree Gould, & Raine Brown; Alternate scenes; bloopers; a music video for 'Addiction'; A trailer for this movie; And trailers for "Shock-o-rama", "Chainsaw Sally", "Skin Crawl", "Sinful", "Bacterium", "Creature from the Hillbilly Lagoon", & "Millennium Crises"
I just finished "Dark Chamber" aka "Under Surveillance" and I'm stunned. Stunned, not by the film, but by some of the rave reviews I perused which influenced my watching it. The story was so ravaged by plot-holes and the majority of the acting so flat, categorizing it as a comedy seems appropriate. Seriously, I found myself shaking my head and laughing in bewilderment as I endured this movie.<br /><br />Justin leaves the confines of living at home with a pain killer-addicted mom to go live with his cop father despite Mom's warnings that Dad is no good. When a young woman is found murdered, Justin becomes suspicious of the tenants who reside in the adjacent apartments. With the help of a couple pals, he installs covert cameras to keep tabs on these folks. As the truth begins to unravel, Justin uncovers an unexpected secret.<br /><br />One positive point is that Felissa Rose is HOT! I would have generously slapped an extra star or two on here had she peeled down a bit, but no such luck. It would have been the film's potential saving grace. Eric Conley played Justin very adeptly, I thought, and I wouldn't be surprised whatsoever to see more of him in the future. <br /><br />The general premise of the film, although plagued by clichés, might possibly have worked had it not been for the ridiculously hollow "performances" of key cast members, most notably Alexandra Eitel (Kayla) and David H. Rigg (Justin's father). The horror! (pardon the pun).<br /><br />I have nothing against low-budget films. Indeed, I believe independent film is our only hope for decent film making in the days to come. I'll cut low-budget films quite a bit of slack when it comes to special effects, lighting, even musical score and the overall picture quality. I don't give allowances, however, for stick figure acting and a swiss cheese lover's script. There are a vast number of competently-made low budget films out there. Sadly, this isn't one of them. I can't help but suspect that at least a few of the reviewers who have praised "Dark Chamber" here are in some way affiliated with its production.
This movie tackles child abduction from the point of view of a Mom (lisa Hartman Black) who acts like a man would in an action thriller. Unlike other movies where the focus is on the Police, here the Mom is tracking down her ex-husband who kidnapped their son. She gets help from her lawyer who eventually falls in love with her.<br /><br />Before finally catching up with her son, a lot of bizarre things happen. The Mom tries to take a child that looks like her son from a local Children's Play at a community theater. She gets caught, and then realizes it is not her child. That alone would have gotten most people put into the Mental Ward or a few months in jail waiting for trial. However, in this movie the Mom is release after a couple of hours because the victim's parents feel sorry for her. A little while later Mom breaks into her mother-in-law's house and then the Police arrive and they have their guns aimed at her but they let her run away because they recognize her (and feel sorry for her?).<br /><br />At another point in the story they have found the child, but when the Police arrive to search the house it turns out they left out the back door and got into the river on a dinghy that apparently the Dad kept around just for such an emergency escape! The Mom gets someone to lend her a raft, and even though it must have taken some time (in a real world), she and the lawyer-boyfriend, and the Police catch up to the other raft pretty fast and it is upside down in the water by landfall. Instead of getting out of the raft to search for the Dad on the land, Mom presumes he drowned the boy and she jumps into the water when she sees his life-jacket. Of course, she cannot swim and sinks like a rock. The lawyer saves her, but they miss a chance to run after the Dad. At one point the Mom is told her son died at a Clinic in Mexico. On and on it goes, and where it stops nobody knows! In some ways, this movie really exploits child abduction and it is not very positive. On the other hand, seeing a woman do all the crazy things that men do in these kind of movies was fun (or funny?).
This is one of those cheaply made TV Movies were the characters seem to lose all sense. The premise of the story, the kidnapping of a son by the boy's father,is very good. But the story just seems to beggar belief. Whenever the mother is advised not to do anything you know fine well she is going to do it. It is a bit far fetched and not worthy of a viewing.
I agree totally with another of the reviewers here who was pleased "For The Birds" won the Oscar in 2002 for "Best Animated Short," not this sick material, which is pretentious at best and appealing to anyone, of course, who has no belief in heaven or hell.<br /><br />The animation was good, but so are a lot of animated shorts. And, by the way, I love dark humor but this just was unappealing from the start.<br /><br />As for the story here: a guy walking around and surrounded by nothing but grey (symbolism here) is told by a TV set (which appears every few hundred yards away) that he is in either heaven, hell, or purgatory. Each time he puts a gun to his head and shoots himself after hearing the news. I guess that would be funny in two of the three instances.
If you have beloved actors, Peter Falk, Rip Torn, George Segal, and Bill Cobbs, you don't need Billy Burke, Coolio, or any other distractions. Massive talent is totally wasted in "Three Days to Vegas", with the blame falling squarely on the script. My neighbor's vacation films are about as interesting as this misguided road movie. If you want to see how to utilize a veteran cast with a good script, check out "The Crew". There really are no redeeming factors here, and watching these wonderful actors struggling with such weak material is a crime. I wanted to like it, but the shallow script cheats the audience, by essentially giving the actors nothing to work with. - MERK
One of the worst films ever. Not funny, poor TV style cinematography, bad acting. Sad to see so many famous old actors barely able to walk, let alone act. Lead female Nancy Young can't act. Terrible direction. Sub-par with bad TV movies. Occasional weak jokes fall flat. Even the basic premise of the movie makes no sense. Somehow they are supposed to stop a wedding from happening but there's no logic behind their actions. Slow pacing made my wife stop watching but I suffered through it. The old men are supposed to be acting like they are young and horny, but it comes off as pathetic instead of funny. How did they even get the money to make this?
This was not a well done western. You've got this nut riding around in the blazing sun in a buggy with a parasol over it, killing people for his own reasons. You've got this same person sitting in a snow cave during a blizzard, cutting off pieces of his anatomy which have been frostbitten. Then you've got some woman in a house out in the middle of somewhere shooting wolves that are not there. What is the point of this film? Couldn't Bruce Dern find something better to do? This was a waste of film.
I gave this 3 stars out of a possible 10 - because the stories are open-ended and left unexplained, and because of the nauseating scenes of someone eating in an extremely disgusting way, plus scenes of a decaying corpse. <br /><br />Neither of the above needed to be shown in such a graphic manner.<br /><br />The film's plot, such as it is, concerns three loosely interconnecting stories, none of which conclude satisfactorily.<br /><br />The bounty hunter, played by Bruce Dern, is the character that connects all three vignettes.<br /><br />First we have Dylan McDermott, looking darn fine, as a wanted criminal who is fleeing to Mexico to escape both the law and the bounty hunter, when he rides through a border town and spots a sad-faced saloon girl played by Helen Hunt.<br /><br />Then we have one of the Hemingway girls, not sure which one, playing a western wife out on the lonely frontier who goes over to see about a neighbor woman, an attractive redhead, whom we soon realize has been out in the badlands a little too long.<br /><br />The conclusion of the film returns to the bounty hunter and what happens to him, with the final scene in the film being completely beyond rational comprehension.
DVD has become the equivalent of the old late night double-bill circuit, the last chance to catch old movies on the verge of being completely forgotten like The Border. There were great expectations for this back in 1982 – a script co-written by The Wild Bunch's Walon Green, Jack Nicholson in the days when he could still act without semaphore and a great supporting cast (Harvey Keitel, Warren Oates, Valerie Perrine), Tony Richardson directing (although he was pretty much a spent force by then) – but now it doesn't even turn up on TV. The material certainly offers a rich seam of possibilities for comment on the 80s American Dreams of capitalism and conspicuous consumption, with Nicholson's border patrolman turning a blind eye to the odd drug deal or bit of people trafficking to finance his wife's relentless materialism, until he rediscovers his conscience when he finds out his partners are also in the baby selling business. Unfortunately, he never really gets his hands dirty, barely even turning a blind eye before his decency rises to the surface. The film feels always watered down as if too many rewrites and too many committees have left it neutered and, sadly, the recent DVD release is a missed opportunity to restore the original, nihilistic ending where Nicholson goes over the edge and firebombs the border patrol station that was cut after preview audiences found it too downbeat but which still featured prominently in the film's trailers.<br /><br />While that probably wasn't too convincing considering how low-key Nicholson's crisis of conscience is in the film, it had to be better than the crude reshot climax where the film abandons logic and even basic rules of continuity: at one point he's holding characters at gunpoint, then he's somewhere else and they're free trying to kill him, one character goes from injured at his house to hopping around like a gazelle on the banks of the Rio Grande while Valerie Perrine's character gets dumber on an exponential level. The villains of the piece are disposed of with absurd ease (and one impressive car stunt) in time for a clumsily edited happy ending and you start wondering if you somehow found yourself watching another film entirely. What makes it all the more clumsy is that the rest of the film is so flat and underwhelming that the sudden lurch into melodrama is all the more jarring. Unfortunately Ry Cooder's beautiful title song, Across the Borderline, says it all much more economically. But if you want to know the film's real crime, it's completely wasting the great Warren Oates in a nothing bit part. When even he can't make an impression, you know something's really wrong. All in all, all too easy to remember why I found this so forgettable at the time.
After reading the reviews, it became obvious that everyone intellectualized this work. How utterly boring. Oh how about the good ol' days and there was nothing like it. Of all the comments no one expressed any emotion to this work or any other.<br /><br />I grew up just after the end of the steam age and this cinematic gem along with Dan'l Boone graced the Saturday afternoon matinées. This was an annual movie that made the rounds and filled the seats with gabbing, yapping, farting, giggling, snot monsters like myself or was-self. And it was a movie theatre filler at the time. Almost as big as the Wizard of Oz.<br /><br />IMDb insists that every critique contains something about the plot. Problem is was that it was rather a template. Here goes. Randolph Scott (cowboy/hero)gathers friends and goes defeats those evil people. Hooray! <br /><br />All of us kids figured out that plot before we plunked our quarter down to watch it. That was just about the plot line of every Scott, John Wayne, Roy Rogers film ever made. If you take the time to go back and review each and every movie - just don't ask for surprises.<br /><br />One must remember the context of the times. There was no or little TV. None for kids. There was school. There was the great outdoors. There were toy guns. No Cyber time. And the steam age had just collapsed. But movies such as this provided the entertainment and filled the imaginations of young whippersnappers. Even the girls got into it.<br /><br />This movie was the entertainment. And it is just as mindless as anything produced today. It had a purpose originally of being propaganda. But quickly came to be kids movies.<br /><br />Our fathers had experienced the real thing. And it wouldn't be until Sam Peckinpah a decade later who finally lavished the red splashes of imitation blood in realistic and copious quantities. Not until his directorship did anyone die slowly, with great pain and miserably. Until Peckinpah war and gun fights were a rather bloodless affair. Thanks Sam.<br /><br />To see a movie had little or no blood, the adults didn't mind. They wouldn't have tolerated it I think. No guts spraying the shattering plant life. So this movie had all of the glory and none of the gory. Gung Ho was suitable for kids then.<br /><br />You will see that I assigned a four to this rating. Why would I do that? Well. It is a terrible movie. No matter how I love it. I do love this movie because it brought back one of the happier moments of my childhood. But it is not all that good of a movie in quality terms. Basically Gung Ho transitted to become a romance novel for children.<br /><br />Should people watch it. Of course. I am not saying to stay away. Realistically however. The plot is simple. The characters shallow? they are shoals. You can love a bad movie.
Should have been titled 'Balderdash!' Little in the film is true except the name of the island and the fact submarines were involved. Little more than training film quality with poor camera work, muddy stock footage and perhaps the low point of stereotyping 'Japs' with laughing Japanese infantry, laughing Japanese fighter pilots and one-dimensional square-jawed Americans dying left and right. Sixty years later it is unintentionally funny as an odd artifact and as an opportunity to see what is possible when the war fever is upon you. The plot and the dialogue remind me of playing guns on a summer's afternoon in my childhood, peering through the neighbor's hedge to gain a fatal advantage on my best friend Steve and my little brother. In actual fact, the Makin Island raid was a near total failure with Carlson and his men wandering around in the dark exchanging gunfire with shadows until finally, thirsty and completely disoriented, looking for someone to surrender to, before they happened upon some equally confused Japanese soldiers who promptly surrendered to them! In the withdrawal several of Carlson's Marines ended up on another island and were abandoned! The film, of course, couldn't tell that story, not in 1943, so this bit of whimsy was fabricated and rushed into release to the beating of drums. With Randolph Scott, and his jaw, as Colonel Thorwald (Carlson) leading a unit comprised almost entirely of stock caricatures, the green recruit (Harry Landon, Robert Mitchum), the grizzled veteran (J. Carroll Naish, Milburn Stone, Sam Levene), the country-bumpkin (Rod Cameron), the all-American boy (Alan Curtis), and scores of sneering (when they weren't laughing) 'Japs'. And yet the cast nearly overcomes the material. Almost. Randolph Scott's narrow range is well suited to his role of earnest commander and he is supported by a solid group of professionals who do their best with thin gruel. But in the end, the one-note object of the exercise wins. Any pretense is totally abandoned at the close when Randy Scott simply looks directly into the camera and delivers a stirring (well sorta stirring) call to arms. The cast was better than this material. So was the audience. Should be viewed with Reefer Madness and a bottle of moderately priced Merlot.
The movie 'Gung Ho!': The Story of Carlson's Makin Island Raiders was made in 1943 with a view to go up the moral of American people at the duration of second world war. It shows with the better way that the cinema can constitute body of propaganda. The value of this film is only collection and no artistic. In a film of propaganda it is useless to judge direction and actors. Watch that movie if you are interested to learn how propaganda functions in the movies or if you are a big fun of Robert Mitchum who has a small role in the film. If you want to see a film for the second world war, they exist much better and objective. I rated it 4/10.
This true story of Carlson's Raiders is more of a Army training film than anything else.Obviously thrown together quickly on a miniscule budget about the only thing it has to recommend it is an early performance by Robert Mitchum,who's the only decent actor in the cast,and actual footage of the wreckage at Pearl Harbor which gets your blood boiling,as it was obviously intended to do.
A very attractive and capable cast is lost in this deadly boring rehash of the slasher sub-genre. The plot a simply a collection of cliches and set-pieces that we've all seen a hundred times before. Has great potential as an insomnia treatment.
This really should have been a one star, but there was so many, clichés, predictable twists, seen it all before slasher flick parallels that I actually give it an extra star for the fact it made me laugh...although this was never the directors intention Im sure.<br /><br />I don't often write comments about films, they have to be either sensational, or in this ones case really bad.<br /><br />To be honest, as soon as I saw Jeff Fahey in it I knew it was going to be poor as he has a unique nose for picking out the worst films.<br /><br />Somehow the farce of it all made me watch it all the way through, possibly for the hilarious voice of MR T, (not relay Mr T, but you'll know what I mean if you bother to watch this), if you do watch it, make sure you don't pay to see it. This may have worked had they actually put intended comedy into it, but Im sure you'll find the odd laugh here and there at the farce of it all...
I suppose that any novel that's as much of a downer as Moby Dick would not find much favor with Depression era audiences who had enough of their own troubles. But any resemblance to the classic Herman Melville novel is a pure coincidence. <br /><br />In fact half of the film is a prequel to the main story as we know it, not that too much of it was kept for the film. We first meet Ahab Creely (he's got a last name and a brother) as one happy go lucky soul with two legs and intentions to marry Joan Bennett who is Father Mapple's daughter. That brother Derek, played by Lloyd Hughes, also wants to marry Bennett.<br /><br />John Barrymore is Ahab in an over the top performance. Barrymore had not quite mastered the sound cinema and he gave out with all the silent era histrionics plus a stage voice that would have shaken the rafters of any movie theater this film was playing in.<br /><br />We see Ahab lose his leg to the great whale Moby Dick and I have to say the amputation scene was pretty gruesome. Of course this was all before the Code. Still I'm sure 1930 audiences shuddered.<br /><br />After that the story of Ahab's hunt for the whale that he thinks made him unsightly in Joan Bennett's eyes. That is not exactly Melville's motivation, in fact there are no women characters in Moby Dick as he wrote it.<br /><br />One of the things Melville did was invest the crew of Ahab's ship the Pequod with personalities. Other than Queequeg the cannibal harpooner the names are there, but not the personalities. Starbuck and Stubbs might as well be Smith and Jones.<br /><br />I'd see this version of Moby Dick strictly for curiosity and nothing else.
Necessarily ridiculous film version the literary classic "Moby Dick". John Barrymore is Captain Ahab, who falls in love with the pastor's daughter, Joan Bennett. His brother Derek is a rival for Ms. Bennett's affections. When Mr. Barrymore loses his leg in a whaling accident, Bennett rejects him. He must slay the whale and win Bennett back...<br /><br />There are several scenes which may have thrilled 1930 theater audiences; particularly the scenes involving Barrymore losing his leg. The film hasn't aged well, however; there are much better films from the time, both 1920s silents and 1930s talkies. The two name attractions, John Barrymore and Joan Bennett aren't at their best. <br /><br />**** Moby Dick (8/14/30) Lloyd Bacon ~ John Barrymore, Joan Bennett, Lloyd Hughes
This version of "Moby Dick" insults the audience by claiming it is based on Melville's novel-even going so far as to show a phony first chapter sentence rather than the famous "Call me Ishmael". In addition to having atrocious acting, even from John Barrymore,this is perhaps the greatest example of how far Hollywood (especially early Hollywood) would go to revise and change a famous novel just to beef up its chances at the box office.All of the novel's beautiful,poetic language has been absolutely eradicated, and Ahab has been changed from a brooding,blasphemous,obsessive madman to a dashing,misunderstood hero who only wants to kill Moby Dick after his fiance(!) turns away from him after seeing his wooden leg. To this is added the standard evil brother who wants the fiance for himself, and a different ending!
I found this a good movie to pass your time, but not by any chance of any historical value. The portrayal of Cleopatra reminded me a cheap soap opera.<br /><br />The twist of the facts is... funny! She gave birth while feeding her people!?!? O please... A pregnant Queen of Egypt (especially this one) would not bother to go from one room to the other for that reason! They tried to make her appear a saint for God's sake! And the way they tried to justify her murdering her own sister... beyond description.<br /><br />Cleopatra was the greatest politician of her time. Her decisions were based anything but her feelings and morals. She did everything for only two reasons: Power and self-preservation! She was borne in a family where she had to straggle for survival, something she did very well. Anything that stood on her way was either murdered (her brothers and sister) or seduced (Ceasar and Mark Anthony).<br /><br />Unfortunately Octavian was too powerful to kill and too... gay to be seduced. So, he was her end...
The DVD version consists of 2 episodes, the parricide of Caesar being the juncture. In addition, the language was Spanish without subtitles. Hence, it's hard for me to review in depth this movie because because i didn't understand what was said.<br /><br />Cleopatra being an historic icon, the part is very difficult and i found that for a newcomer, Leonor Varela just plays fine. She is strong-willed but also a very supportive, tender soul mate. Thimothy Dalton as Caesar is perfect and their romance is the main thing of the first episode. So, it is not really a documentary, nor a peplum but a great love story.<br /><br />After the parricide, a new lover comes (Marc-Antoine) but the flavor is gone: we remember always our first love. So, i found the second episode dull and their tragic fate isn't told powerfully.<br /><br />Nonetheless, the production is luxurious: the sets are big, tastefully decorated; the Moroccan live location exotic and the wardrobes splendid. The producers have a lot of money for sure, but they spend nothing on the special effects. They are so poor (blue screens, ships, Sphinx) that it's funny.<br /><br />Finally, I would like very much to hear it in french or English to make a definitive opinion about this two movies.
If this book remained faithful to the book then we can only assume that the author was ignorant of history. Mark Anthony never died of injuries obtained in battle as depicted. He died a coward's death by committing suicide and even then, he asked his slave to do it for him. The slave chose to kill himself instead. In the real story Mark Anthony was ashamed by the slave's great valor and decided to copy him. But even in death Mark Anthony was a drunken failure and failed at his own suicide attempt. He cried out for Cleopatra and was taken to her, bleeding. She hauled his litter up on ropes and Mark Anthony died a while later. If you want history don't watch this movie. If you want romantic drivel then you will probably enjoy it!
I missed the beginning of this film, which might account for why I disliked it so much. On the other hand I've studied the fall of the Roman republic for years so I know the story. Then again, that might also be the reason why I disliked this film.<br /><br />The film has more historical inaccuracies than extras. Though it's so inaccurate that I don't think they made an attempt for it to be correct, in which case it can be forgiven. The odd thing is that they sometimes go to great lengths to be historically accurate that it ends up getting confusing. Like throwing in Antonius' marriage to Octavia, and then pushing it aside two scenes later. Why even bring it up if it serves no purpose for the plot and Octavia is never even seen? And like calling Antonius by his actual name (Marcus Antonius) in some scenes, and by his strange English name Mark Antony in other scenes.<br /><br />Though historical inaccuracies aside, the film could still have been an entertaining watch if it wasn't for the leading lady. There isn't an ounce of dignity in her. She's hysterical, dramatical, and completely lacking control of herself. Instead of being a clever and composed queen Cleopatra turns into a hysterical teenager with a bad case of PMS. 95% of that comes from the poor acting, but 5% is also from poor script writing. Far too many stupid dramatic scenes are written into the script. Sometimes you weren't watching Antonius and Cleopatra, you were watching immature versions of Dawson and Joey from "Dawson's Creek".<br /><br />If you want to watch something about this period, watch... anything but this.
I only hope that no classicists/ancient historians saw "Cleopatra", or, if they did, that they took it as a laugh. The movie is horrendously inaccurate, more laughably, even, than "Gladiator" (which is at least a well-written script whose historical errors are articulate and correspond well to the story). Most blatant is Octavius, Caesar's heir, in the Senate before Caesar's assassination: at the ripe old age of 19!<br /><br />Besides this, the acting is mediocre. Timothy Dalton has more than a hint of James Bond in him when he says, "Caesar. Julius Caesar." Billy Zane is a laughably dense Marc Antony. And Leonor Varela tries her best to be the seductive Pharaoh (who in real life was not good-looking at all) but comes off as unbelievable.<br /><br />So this is a warning for all historians--this movie is not true to life!
Why is it that any film about Cleopatra, the last phaoroh brings out the worst in movie making? Whatever attraction the woman had for the greatest Roman of them all, Julius Ceasar, and his successor, Mark Anthony, never seems to come across on the screen as other than the antics of over sexed high school seniors. Despite lavish sets and costumes, this movie is as bad as any Italian "sandals and toga" extravaganza of the 50's. Admittedly, this kind of spectacular belongs on the big screen, which is why "Gladiator" went over well, but "Gladiator" did not have all the romance novel sex.<br /><br />Miss Varela has as little acting talent as Elizabeth Taylor, but Timothy Dalton has talent to spare. Pity some of it didn't wash off on the others.
I think the biggest disappointment in this film was that, right until the end, I expected the acting instructors of the cast to break in and apologize for how poor the acting was. When you consider the powerful subject, the brilliant scenery and the effort made in creating a wonderful set and spectacular images, it is a shame that little attention was given to acting.<br /><br />
Another rape of History<br /><br />This movie is a catastrophe; it just uses a historic story and makes a sweet love story, with bad acting and low budget production.<br /><br />The movie should be 1/3 the time, they just dragged the time to make a mini series.<br /><br />The battle scenes are so stupid and illogical, the solders log stupid, the costumes a catastrophe. The Romans were good in fighting in opened areas, one of their armies was completely destroyed by the Germans when they tried to fight in a forest, in this movie the Romans choose to fight in side the city, I mean get real.<br /><br />And by the way Cleopatra was from a Macedonian origin, which means a light skinned person.
In A Woman Under the Influence Mabel goes crazy, but I can see why she does go crazy. If I lived the kind of life she lived with the family she has I would go crazy too. Everyone in her family is off their rocker and not completely with it. She is constantly surrounded by people yelling at her and telling her what is best for herself and people that aren't the sharpest knifes in the drawer.<br /><br />To start with the one person closest to her in her life, her husband, Nick, is a little off his rocker. He is always yelling at her when he is home telling her how to live her life and to stop acting like an imbecile. The rest of the time he is working long hours at his job and he isn't there to support her when she needs support. The one person in her life that should always be there for her is never there and if he is, he is just making her feel worse. She relies on him for support and always goes to him first when she feels she is acting wrong and he does nothing to support her. When she comes home from the hospital all he does is tell her how to act, instead of comforting her, he just yells at her and tells her what to do.<br /><br />The other major people in her life are her parents. Her parents do nothing in her life for her. Mabel basically runs their lives because they are afraid to stand up to her and stand up for her. In the end she even asks her father to stand up for her and he doesn't understand, and when he does get it he still does nothing. They do nothing to help Mabel recover or to keep her from going crazy because they do nothing for her period. The only person that tries to do something for her is Nick's mom. Nick's mom is adamant about having Mabel committed. She doesn't want to have Nick deal with it so she has the doctor commit her. It seems as though everyone is against Mabel and they feel that having her committed is a good idea because then they won't have to deal with it anymore. They all want to live their own lives and do nothing for Mabel except for yell at her and make her feel like she is doing something wrong when she really isn't. That is why she went crazy, and why she had to be committed, it was her family's entire fault.
From actor and independent writer/director John Cassavetes, A Woman Under the Influence gives the viewer a look at a working class family with a problem of mental instability. The husband, Nick (played by Peter Falk) is a blue collar worker who has trouble showing his wife, Mabel (played by Gena Rowlands) the amount of attention that she deserves. From the onset of the film, it is obvious that Mabel is very quirky and strange, but only a few minutes later it is clear that she is much more than that. Crazy. Bonkers. Out of her damn mind. Nick tries his hardest to hide this from his co-workers, and after she has a particularly strange incident at dinner, he asks her if she'll be okay, as if he's trying to deny Mabel's illness. Her problem only spirals from there.<br /><br />I did find some particular problems with this film. I guess these problems were mostly present in the story, and the way some of the character acted toward the end. Mabel has been committed, because, frankly, she's nuts. Then, six months later, she's ready to come out of the hospital, and her husband throws a party to welcome her back. He never acts stupid in the beginning of the movie. Why would he invite all these people, some of them strangers to Mabel, over to his house when his wife is in such a fragile state? It's simply idiotic. Later, after Mabel comes in the house, Mabel's father has a huge outburst at Nick, screaming at the top of his lungs about not wanting to eat spaghetti. His daughter has just gotten back from six months of rehabilitation, and the thing you want to do is keep her calm, and he goes nuts over spaghetti? A few minutes later in the film, Nick brings Mabel into the stairwell and forces her to do the things she did when she was mentally unstable; make her weird noises and gestures. Didn't he send her there to make her better and not do those things? There were various other parts that occurred after this, but it would just be redundant to look at them in more detail. I guess I just had a serious problem with the decision by Cassavetes to have his characters act in this way. It simply didn't make sense.<br /><br />However, although I had problems with the ending of the film, there was one aspect that really redeemed it; the acting. Gena Rowlands played an amazing crazy woman. There were times when I forgot she was acting, where I got so caught up in her wild gesticulations and crazy talk that I was actually scared of her. She was amazingly convincing and intense. However, I was also impressed by the rest of Mabel's family. Peter Falk played a very strange character, and I almost thought he was crazy himself, because of the awkward way he handled his children, his job, and especially the situation with his wife. I also usually don't appreciate child actors. But the young people who played Nick and Mabel's children in this film were phenomenal. It really felt like they were Mabel's children, because they seemed so attached to her and were so interesting in helping her with her problem. I think their performances are one of the things that kept this film together, and without them it would have made the film less realistic and less intense.<br /><br />In general I wasn't impressed by this film. The story was jumbled and unclear, and the characters acted in ways that made me wonder who wasn't insane in the movie. The only saving grace were brilliant lead acting roles of the Longhetti family. Their realistic dialogue and powerful acting kept the film together, and are probably the only reason the film has ever amounted to anything.
Cassavetes was clearly an intelligent, sensitive man with bold new ideas about making films. He wanted to be an auteur, to break away from the confines of the system and bring a new realism to the American cinema. For that, I applaud him.<br /><br />Unfortunately, as a member of his audience, I cannot applaud A Woman Under the Influence. Cassavetes took what could have been a fascinating topic (an insane woman) and somehow managed to craft a dull film, filled with lengthy, ad-libbed ranting and drawn-out scenes. He seems to have had a gift for capturing the dullest moments of a person's life on film, and it often appears as though he simply turned the camera on his family and let the motor run and run. This tactic would be acceptable if Cassavetes had captured something devastatingly REAL -- or even a kernel of something so real it touched the heart in ways a conventional film could not. Yet I found the performances, particularly Rowlands', to be artificial. I never believed for a moment that she was really insane. I have met people who are truly mentally disturbed, yet I've never seen any of them act quite like Gena Rowlands in A Woman Under the Influence. She played it like a very obnoxious, uninhibited woman who drinks a lot, and even that was confusing because we only see her drink once (at the beginning), but she acts drunk for the remainder of the film. There are some moments in which she taps into something real, but those moments are few and far between; she fails to sustain a seamless mentally disturbed character. Again, I applaud her efforts, but effort alone is not enough to make the performance ring true.<br /><br />Novice audiences who happen upon this film and see its high IMDb rating will no doubt feel compelled to love it and rate it highly, just to prove that they 'get it.' But don't be brainwashed by the hype -- judge for yourself. You don't have to pretend to like it.<br /><br />Like Woody Allen, John Cassavetes could be accused of solipsism in his film-making, seeming to find his own psyche and his own life experiences so endlessly fascinating that he couldn't imagine that to others they appeared presumptive and tortuously self-indulgent. But Woody Allen at least has demonstrated a gift for keeping an audience entertained -- he knows that a compelling story structure and a good dose of humor are essential to any movie. If Cassavetes had employed some self-discipline (and a sharp pair of editing shears!), A Woman Under the Influence could have stood a chance. But what's the point of making a 'realistic' film if the only people who can stand to sit through it are the art-house devotees and film students who worship Cassavetes as some sort of anti-establishment deity? Without dumbing anything down, I believe Cassavetes could have made A Woman slightly more accessible by keeping the pace moving with an actual plot, instead of presenting a string of 30 minute-long scenes of ad-libbed arguments. If you just make films for yourself and a few of your fans, you're just reaching the already converted. Watch this movie with your own set of eyes and make your own decisions about it. If you are truly moved and fascinated by it, good for you.
This is Peter Falk's film. Period.<br /><br />I was 10 years old when this film came out; I was already a film maven at the time. Of course neither my parents nor I saw this film when it came out, but I was in love with the typeface of its ads & the aura that this was An Important Film. Okay, 34 years later I've finally seen the film--having never seen any Cassavetes-directed film previously. He's a hack, overall. Zero sense of timing, editing. Gena's performance reminds me too much of Dustin Hoffman's stint in "Rain Man": technically on par but entirely one-note. As Tom Cruise stole "Rain Man," Falk takes the cake for this film.<br /><br />I was annoyed with Gena's performance, really throughout--it seemed better suited for "Awakenings" (blecch!). It's not all her fault: she's a basket case from first scene to last. We never find out why?? But Falk's character seems real & is performed WONDERFULLY by Falk as a seriously flawed man.<br /><br />Shave off at least an hour (an editor needed!), and this would have been an arresting portrait not of a woman under the influence but of a simple, Cro-Magnon, man coming to grips with a wife who doesn't work & yet cannot deal with her three kids & her husband's long hours of work.<br /><br />I'd rather remember Cassavetes for "The Dirty Dozen" or "Rosemary's Baby." He would have been a better director had he snipped his own tendency for excess--as he amply demonstrates with this film.<br /><br />Bob
He only gets third billing (behind Arthur Treacher & Virginia Field), but this was effectively David Niven's first starring role and he's charmingly silly as P. G. Wodehouse's dunderheaded Bertie Wooster, master (in name only) to Jeeves, that most unflappable of valets. As an adaptation, it's more like a watered-down THE 39 STEPS than a true Wodehousian outing. And that's too bad since the interplay between Treacher & Niven isn't too far off the mark. Alas, the 'B' movie mystery tropes & forced comedy grow wearisome even at a brief 57 minutes. Next year's follow-up (STEP LIVELY, JEEVES) was even more off the mark, with no Bertie in sight and Jeeves (of all people!) forced to play the goof.
I have been a fan of Without A Trace from the premier episode. I really cannot express my disappointment in the episode last week. This is a REAL problem that far too many Afican-American families have dealt with and continue to deal with. The lack of media coverage crucial in the first 48 hours has been documented by a recent study. Law enforcement including local , state, and federal are also complicit. What was the purpose of advertising this subject matter and then copping out on the ending? Seemingly, television can deal with almost ANY subject matter EXCEPT RACE. This is shameful.Get it together or don't explore it next time.
Reasons to watch the movie:<br /><br />1) Bo Derek at 16 looks good and occasionally gets naked. She does a pretty good job playing an immature, insecure 16 year old beauty, in fact<br /><br />2) Many shots of a pretty Greek island<br /><br />But:<br /><br />1) Peter Hooten turns in the worst performance by an actor since Brutus played Caeser's friend in "Roman Senate Proceedings of March 15." He delivers each and every line in a delightful baritone bellow. Turn down the volume whenever he speaks. Preferably all the way down<br /><br />2) Bo's fantasies are sadly tame, especially by today's standards. A few turns in the bath and as a fully clothed model<br /><br />3) The plot is skimpier than Bo's costumes
There are exactly 2 good things to be said about "Fantasies" (both mentioned by a previous reviewer as well): <br /><br />a) Bo Derek's extraordinary, poetry-inspiring beauty. She has shots in this movie where she gives even Catherine Zeta-Jones a run for her money, and that's a high compliment indeed. Her nudity is brief and discreet, but just looking at her face is enough.<br /><br />b) The Greek island setting, with its sun and crystal-clear blue waters.<br /><br />Other than that, there is no story, the dialogue is abysmal and at times unintentionally funny ("He touched you where you're a woman!"), and Peter Hooten's character is a slimy jerk. Bo overplays the naivete of her character, but then again when you have to work with dialogue this bad it's unfair to blame the actors (the fact that she kept saying the name "Damir" in almost every sentence is a major irritation). Oh, and although the film is set on a Greek island, there is hardly a Greek word to be heard - apparently everyone there, from kids to old people, speaks English the whole time. (*)
Bo Derek's debut film remained unseen for eight years – and that's how it should stayed! John Derek was a competent actor but, as a director, he's virtually the Ed Wood of erotic cinema – not that this is especially explicit, considering that Bo (atypically sporting dark hair) was only 16 when the film was made! John also wrote and photographed it; the latter results in some decent footage of the Greek island setting against which the narrative is set – but the plotting is puerile and the dialogue atrocious! <br /><br />The character played by male lead Peter Hooten has been brought up with Bo's family: they grew up as brother and sister but, now in their teens, the couple discover they're attracted to one another (but, as I said, don't expect any sexual fireworks!). Still, the worst thing about this is the fact that the protagonists each harbor an obsession all through the film which are not only silly in themselves but irritating in their relentlessness – Hooten wants to turn the remote fishing community into a modernized sea-side resort and keeps expecting a cruise-liner to appear into view (which, of course, it does at the finale); Derek's is even nuttier – she craves possession of a large antique bath-tub!! For the record, the couple are married by the end of the film.<br /><br />Also involved in the non-events are the female town mayor and a photographer lothario who wants to make a model out of Bo (and who, naturally, incurs the wrath of the jealous Hooten). Occasionally, for no very good reason, we're even treated to snippets from the screening of old Hollywood classics in an open-air movie house to which the whole town assembles (among the titles shown is THE PUBLIC ENEMY [1931])! At the end of the day, while Bo's naivete throughout is undeniably charming, it's not enough to offset the film's overwhelming dullness and amateurishness.
I saw this movie way back at the first theatrical release, in a justifiably empty theater. Believe it or not, after decades of watching movies, this one still sticks clearly in my mind as the worst movie of all time; or at least the worst that I would allow myself to watch.<br /><br />The acting is far beneath the standard set by any random group of drunken high-school students yanked off the street and forced to learn their lines in 5 minutes or less.<br /><br />After the first shock of disbelief, we laughed for a while as each scene hit new lows. But after a while, even that dubious pleasure wore off and it just got to be really sad.
After viewing the film, I was truly shocked to see such a high rating on IMDb.<br /><br />'The Fantastic Mr. Fox' is an adaption of a beloved children's classic, portraying the story of the smooth, slick protagonist Mr. Fox (or 'Foxy') as he attempts one 'last' heist to steal from the dreaded Boggins, Bunce and Bean. That's right, one short, one fat, one lean, or however it goes.<br /><br />I don't quite know where to start with my criticism.<br /><br />Well, I'm in my late teens and was never a fan of Roald Dahl, but I like his material well enough, having read a few of his books as a child and seen Matilda and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory over and over again. This film, however, struggles for an audience. Is it aimed at children? Adults? I'm still unsure! Many of the 'jokes' would bore a child, especially as Mr. Fox visits a lawyer for example, or complains about being poor. Also, an audience of (I'm assuming) children is expected to sympathise with a character who steals and kills chickens. I'm all for the food chain, but you practically see Mr. Fox biting down on their necks! Surely that's a bit much? And also, the plot... well, it's kind of boring. I stayed only with the hope of it getting better, but instead I just got more and more annoyed at Mr Fox and his son Ash for making stupid decisions.<br /><br />The humour, meanwhile, falls flat. I laughed only once or twice, even though I specifically recognised attempts at jokes. I think part of it is that the voice acting is so incredibly flat and monotoned. The voice actors have no sense of comic timing, instead aiming for the subtlety of humour that only works with certain mediums. George Clooney aims to portray Mr. Fox as charming and sleek, but his voice has no character. Meryl Streep shows no emotion, I didn't even realise Bill Murray had a role until the end credits, and Ash, twelve-years old in fox-years, sounds like he's about 30.<br /><br />I love animation, particularly stop motion, but the visual style actually creeped me out a little bit. Characters are tall, spindly and lacking any warmth of design. They move with very little fluidity and often the animation is jerky and strange. There is also a distinctive 'mixed medium' feel, as 2D components are added in sporadically and unsuccessfully. Characters look straight at the camera and talked; it was very awkward. There was one or two moments when Kylie looked straight at the camera, didn't move and had swirls on his eyeballs. It actually freaked me out.<br /><br />Fantastic Mr. Fox had so much potential. Lots of people still seem to like it - look at the reviews. Maybe it just wasn't for me.
There has been a lot of love that has been put into Wes Anderson's "Fantastic Mr Fox", unfortunately all the love is for himself. Granted, there has been a lot of time and effort been put into making this ever so self-consciously quirky universe but if only the same time and effort had been put into the script to try and make it funny. The worrying thing is that I think it was, and this is the best that Wes Anderson could come up with.<br /><br />The animation is good in the close-up shots of the animals, however when the camera is further away everything becomes really harsh on the eyes and to be perfectly honest looks like a bit of a mess. There wasn't really anything special about the acting either, with Wes opting to choose his buddies and big names over more specialised voice actors that could have probably made the film better. I'm pretty sure George Clooney's voice acting resume consists of two cameo appearances in South Park, one of them where he played a dog.<br /><br />The film is too smug and trying way too hard to be clever and different and is typically, despite the film being set in England, all the good animals are typical Americans playing baseball, whilst the bad guys are stereotypical English with the most insulting English accents. I cannot stress how much of a waste of time this film is. I didn't laugh once.
Fantastic Mr. Fox is a comedy based on the classic Roald Dahl book. Wes Anderson directs, and respectably takes the short book of the same name to the big screen in a full length film. While I respect what Anderson, an incredibly talented man did, the film seemed to have gotten lost in its own clever spirit. Anderson seems to have left the story behind knowing that he is a talented man, and if this happened to be a bad film, it would be his first bad film. Just like when you go to school and have your first bad day, this is Anderson's first bad day in film making, so I am going to let him off easy. I will admit it did have a cleverness and nice spirit to it, and the animation is nice, but the film gets progressively harder to get into, leaving the story behind and having random shots of random things happening. The characters are good, also. Jason Schwartzman voices Mr. Fox (George Clooney)'s smart ass son, Ash, and especially engaging. The film does not quite make it up to a level of terribleness, but it certainly gets closer and closer as it goes along. I'm sure Wes Anderson will get back on track with another amazing film when and where he decides to make another film, but for now, I'm sorry, Wes Anderson, this film of yours was a big disappointment.
I went in not knowing anything about this movie and I walked out in an half hour knowing everything about it. It was one of worst movies I've ever seen. I'm a generally a nice person but if somebody told me they liked this movie, I would probably never talk to them again. Anybody who likes it throughly is most likely to have an extremely dry, hermit type personality. I'm gonna also include that they think they are pretty intelligent too, just like the self-centered fart bags who do the voices for the movie. I know everyone has different types of humor, some people may not even like mine, but that's okay; I don't think this covers any range of humor though. This movie is as flat and dull as Wes Anderson's mind. Go in and get ready to walk out; it's best to get your money back too.
Brilliant technology. But what good does it do if the content is hollow and foolish. I have left after < than 30 minutes of watching, being bored and irritated. <br /><br />The theatre administration returned my money, but the time waisted and aggravation remained. I have been had and no thanks to the stars whose names were the main attraction. <br /><br />George, Meryl, Bill - I hope you were well paid. You might have even liked it. So I apologies for my limited mind. A lot of people seemed to like it too. Look at the comments. Oh well...<br /><br />Wish to know - what is remotely redeeming in a story about Mr Fox the husband, the father, the citizen, the ...whatever.
A fabulous book about a fox and his family who does what foxs do. that being stealing from farms and killing prey. until a trio of farmers decide they've had enough of this fox and try in various ways to have the problem "solved". They are of course "out foxed" at every turn and while the trio are camped out at the fox hole the family perform raids against the three farmers land.<br /><br />The"film" version ,and I use the term film very loosely, is more of a god awful pastiche of American heist movies particularly the Oceans movies. They they even have George clooney as Mr fox to to add to the insult and manage to miss the point of the story quite completely. So kudos to them .They'll make lots of money and destroy another classic Roald Dahl children book.
I watched it with my mom and we were like...<br /><br />What the hell? We didn't get it at all. I may have this wrong, but a chair had something to do with the death of this woman's father. That movie was terrible! This is not a movie for those who love a good suspense movie. Bad suspense movie! *shakes cane at movie* I'm never seeing it again. And I'm a big fan of lifetime movies, too! They kinda need to quit trying to make movies outta books. It's driving me crazy!!!<br /><br />And Whit was butt-ugly and yet, she loves him more than Hugh, who was a TINY bit nicer-looking.<br /><br />My rating: 1/10
Kind of hard to believe that the movie from this book could succeed in topping its awfulness! The plot is so contrived and unbelievable. . . starting with laying a ton of guilt on a small child to spare her pain! Then we have the collusive behavior of at least six and maybe more people(including clergy) involved in what is a crime everywhere. Next we have a wife who seemingly in the length of a ferry ride goes from being comparatively happy to very shortly kicking over the traces. A very unpleasant and coo coo mother, aided, abetted and supported by a politically correct group of friends! Moving the setting from an island off the coast of South Carolina, did not help the story although it may have helped the film makers budget. The very beautiful buildings supposedly housing the monastery did not seem to logically suit an island small enough to need golf carts and such a small ferry service. Kim Basinger whom I do really like is painfully thin in this movie and her hairdo certainly belongs in another decade. Also there is simply no chemistry at all between her and either of the male leads. I thoroughly disliked the book from which this was taken but did read it all. The movie I kept surfing back and forth to, had to leave whenever that saccharine music got too much. Unless you like an unbelievable story, wooden acting, a contorted mixture of religious/mythological/allegory my advice is to skip this one. Oh and maybe a small carping criticism, but wouldn't a caring father have a life jacket on a small child on a small boat? The best part of this movie is the scenery
and shot in Vancouver with the 'mountains' of the low country of South Carolina visible in the background. For heaven's sake, they should have reset the location. There are no coastal mountains in South Carolina. Period.<br /><br />Lame visuals. They should have been beautiful. And the story limped along.<br /><br />I really don't understand why it was such a hit as a book, although I have to admit it's one I haven't read as yet. Usually I read the book and give the film a miss. There was nothing in this movie that made me want to buy the book, or even borrow it from the library.<br /><br />Verdict: The Mermaid Chair seemed pretty shallow to moi.
I had several problems with the movie: <br /><br />(1) The screenplay -- specifically, Kim Basinger's voice over: Movies are not books; they should *show* the action rather than have a voice over *tell* us what's happening. Occasionally I find a movie with a voice over that works, but here it seemed more of a lazy way of writing the script. In fact, it sounded to me as if she was practically reading excerpts from the novel in her voice over.<br /><br />(2) I felt no emotion in the relationship between Jessie and Brother Thomas and also felt that Alex Carter's acting was pretty bad. That's a significant failure for me in defining Jessie's and Thomas' characters -- with no connection between them, it seemed to me as if she just wanted a stud and that for him it was a matter of being sex-deprived. If it had been properly done, the relationship between them would have given much more context to the story.<br /><br />(3) With the book, I understood Jessie's mid-life crisis. In the movie, it seemed more like just plain boredom.<br /><br />On the plus side, I didn't think the movie was so bad as for me to turn off the TV . . . though that thought did occur to me.
Didn't care for the movie, the book was better. Does anyone know where it was filmed? *** this was my first visit to your site...just found the answer to my question. so now I look like a dummy, but I think I'll still submit my comments. and yes, British Columbia is lovely ***Or why they took it from its South Carolina Coastal setting?(this question stands) The place was essential to the fabric of the book and its change was part of my disappointment with the movie. Oh, I just read where I need to write at least ten lines. Here's my other main issue with the film. Kim Bassinger was too vapid and not at all what I pictured from the book. I know, the book was the book and the movie; well not so good. I found the character in the book much more empathetic. Also the book evoked rustic, almost primitive images of the monastery. While the "castle" in the film was much more visually impressive, it distorted the feel of the story and seemed at odds with the characters.
I almost never comment on movies, but I saw the 5 glowing reviews of this "movie" and decided I had to weigh in with my own review. An instructor of mine received this film in the mail, mixed in with his Academy screeners (AMPAS, aka the guys who vote on the Oscars), and was so floored with how terribly constructed this movie was that he brought it in to our class to demonstrate to us how NOT to put together a movie.<br /><br />This film has no plot, the scenes are horribly, horribly edited (oftentimes using faux "24" style picture-in-picture techniques), and the performances (particularly the lead, who even fails at acting like a bad actress) are for the most part, obnoxious. Someone truly failed to understand the point of an introduction, namely, the setting up of the plot. There is no setup! Halfway through the movie neither myself nor the rest of the class knew what this movie was supposed to be about. The opening crane shot, which sets up some kind of murder, is never addressed, and now that I think about it, was possibly meant to be a flash-forward, with the rest of the film being a flashback, but it cuts from that scene directly to the next without any indication as such.<br /><br />Bah, I could really go on and on. At the very least, this movie gives me renewed confidence in my own film-making ability.
Saw a screener of this before last year's Award season, didn't really know why they gave them out after the voting had ended, but whatever, maybe for exposure, at the least, but the movie was a convoluted mess. Sure, some parts were funny in a black humor kind of way, but none of the characters felt very real to me at all. There was not one person that I could connect with, and I think that is where it failed for me. Sure, the plot is somewhat interesting and very subversive towards Scientology, WOW! What a grand idea...let's see if that already hasn't been mined to the point of futility. The whole ordeal feels fake, from the lighting, the casting, the screenplay to the horrible visual effects(which is supposed to be intentional, I can tell, and so can everyone else, no one is laughing with you though). Anyways, I hope it makes it out for sale on DVD at least, I wouldn't want a project that a lot of people obviously put a lot of effort into get completely unnoticed. But it's tripe either way. Boring tripe at that.
You want to see the movie "THE Gamers" by Dead Gentlemen Productions. This is not that movie. This movie is not funny. It is a waste of time.<br /><br />All of the good comments here seem to be written by (poorly disguised) false third parties. The people who made this movie seem to be attempting to synthesize fake interest.<br /><br />This movie is not a well done mockumentary. Comparisons to "Spinal Tap" or Christopher Guest are insulting.<br /><br />The movie is so mean-spirited that I cannot imagine anyone familiar with the subject matter finding it funny. Being able to laugh at yourself is an important quality, but if you are the ones being lampooned in this manner, you'd have to hate yourself to enjoy it.<br /><br />The movie is not offensive because of its grand satire of taboo topics but because of its constant pathetic banality.
I picked up this movie in the hope it would be similar to the hilarious "The Gamers" by Dead Gentlemen Productions (which is highly recommendable, by the way). Boy, what a disappointment! The movie is shot in this fake documentary style made famous by the office but it fails to deliver. The reason is partly the stiff acting but mostly the writing and directing. True, it can be funny to use every singe cliché there is about role playing games, but here it is done in such a way that it becomes extremely predictable. Already at the beginning of each scene you know what the "joke" will be about. But maybe the biggest problem is that everything is depicted way over the top. There is no subtlety in this movie, if there would be captions "LAUGH NOW" or a cheap 80s-style fake-laughter track it would not make much difference. With some scenes you can't help to think "Yea, I get why they thought this would be funny" but the way it is executed takes all momentum out of the possible joke.
As a gamer, I can't say I like this film. Fact is, I down right hate it. I tried to watch it as open minded as possible, but when it gets down to it, it feels rather insulting to my social group.<br /><br />To me, there are several reasons why.<br /><br />1. The characters seem unnatural. I've met lots of players, of all different walks of life. I don't know any who act like any of the characters in the film. It's like the producers of the film have taken the worst aspects of the worst stereotypes and put them all into 5 people. Most gamers are rather social people, some with rather active lives.<br /><br />2. The style doesn't work. The mockumentary style is ill suited to the subject matter of the film. An actual documentary on gamers would actually work better. While it is good looking (I.E. cleanly put together), it isn't very good.<br /><br />3. The dialogue feels forced, unnatural. It also seems to lack any real world context. Gamers swear, I'll admit that, but we don't have Tourette's Syndrome.<br /><br />4. The humor is lacking. While self-deprecating humor is a mainstay of my group and several other groups I've encountered, this is less self-deprecation, and more like toilet humor. Likewise, a large part of gamer humor is full of in-jokes and anecdotes, not toilet humor. Most gamers would balk at and shun anybody who made such jokes.<br /><br />5. The biggest problem to me is basically this: Accuracy. I don't mean rules, but instead dynamics. Invariably, this film is going to be compared to the even lower budget films The Gamers and The Gamers: Dorkness Rising, both of which portray the players as actual people playing an actual game. The difference is, Gamers: The Movie presents a situation where you want to beat the players senseless vs. The Gamers, where you can say something like: "Huh, I know a guy like that... Yep, that's definitely like Gary."
Christopher Guest need not worry, his supreme hold on the Mockumentary sub-genre is not in trouble of being upstaged in the least especially not by this extremely unfunny jab at RPG-gamers. The jokes are beyond lame. Not enough substance to last the typical length of a (particularly rancid) SNL skit, much less the 87 atrocious minutes I waisted watching this drivel. The great William Katt (Greatest American Hero, House) deserves much MUCH better. One thing and one thing alone makes the fact that I saw this worth it in my mind and that's posting about it on here so hopefully just hopefully I'll save someone such a bad experience.<br /><br />My Grade: D- <br /><br />DVD Extras: 2 Audio commentaries; 7 interviews with various cast members; 4 deleted scenes; & theatrical trailer <br /><br />DVD-Rom extras: 2 Wallpapers <br /><br />Easter egg: Highlight the eye in the picture on the main menu for a short scene
I couldn't believe it when I put this movie in my DVD player. I thought I'd have a good laugh, since I've played D&D for half my life. I had to turn it off as I had company and they were wondering what the crap I was watching.<br /><br />Finished it later, and I should have just left it off at the soft-core gay clown porn in the beginning. No, they run the gamut of fart jokes, cum jokes, incest, racism, dressing up as KKK... This movie is flat out mean to anyone who's ever played D&D.<br /><br />No wonder it looks like the Real D&D wouldn't let them use their game. Who'd want their name attached to this?
I sat through this at GenCon only because it was quiet and I could nap. What a waste of time. Beverly D'Angelo and William Katt? WTF? Were the lady who played Flo and Abe Vigoda busy or something?<br /><br />Truly, a piece of unfunny garbage. The characters were stereotypical without meaning to (I think...) and wooden, most of them seemed like they were on autopilot. The so-called "hilarious" situations described in some of the other so-called reviews were so hackneyed, I weeped for the writers.<br /><br />I'm confused as to how anyone can find this worth their time, seriously. I'm only giving it 3 out of 10 because in order to be a 2 or 1, it would need to be either five-hours long or feature more Kelly LeBrock.
I usually enjoy films like this. It's shot documentary style, but the acting and writing are just awful. The acting is wooden and stiff and the writing is just so cliché, but not at all in a good way. As of typing this, I'm surprised it's at a 5.2/10 on IMDb. I'm certain that most of these votes must have come from relatives of people in the movie. I suppose if that's the case, you might manage a couple of laughs, as it's always funny seeing your relatives/friends make a movie. Well, in a way, I guess this gives hope to all up and coming writers, directors, actors, etc., 'cause if they can do it, you can do it. Although, maybe you shouldn't.
This movie is just lame. A total waste of time and money. The jokes are predictable, the characters are so cliché and the way it talks about RPG gamers is not funny as well. The problem is that the writers seems not to know how a RPG game works and, most important, how to make jokes about this game. Of course there are a bunch of losers who play RPG like freaking retards and total losers. But for me this is not the funniest way to make jokes about this game. The story doesn't make any sense at all. Who cares about how long a game is being played? The greatest problem in this movie is that the writers and actors didn't even try to know what RPG is about to make jokes about it. I felt ashamed by watching this lame movie.
This movie is NOT funny. It just takes the D&D nerd stereotypes and amplifies them. All the main characters make less than 30k a year, they all live with their parents, they're all socially retarded, and they have no luck with women. The jokes are horrible and unimaginative, such as two of the gamers getting beat up by a black midget because one of them had a KKK looking hood on (it was his wizard costume) and the other guy had on a John Rocker warm up (oh how funny, he's a nerd so he doesn't know about sports). You may have to be a childish high-schooler to find any of this stuff funny. Poorly done mockmuntaries are so painful to watch, but obviously extremely cheap to make. I feel sorry for Kelly LeBrock and Beverly D'Angelo. I guess these are the only opportunities available for hotties way past their prime.
I just finished watching this movie and I found it was basically just not funny at all.<br /><br />I'm an RPG Gamer (computer type, none of the DnD tabletop stuff) but I found none of the jokes in this funny at all.<br /><br />Some of the scenes seemed to drag out a lot (tilt and zoom could've been cut down to 5seconds rather than over a minute) and it feels as though the director was just trying to fill in time.<br /><br />I think I laughed a total of 2-3 times in the entire movie.<br /><br />The acting itself wasn't all that bad, around the standard that a B Grade movie should have.<br /><br />I'd suggest not bothering with this movie unless you're a huge DnD fan and even then it would probably be best to steer clear of it.
In the autobiographical coming-of-age tale "Romulus, My Father," Eric Bana, of "Munich" fame, plays an impoverished German émigré struggling to raise his son, Raymond (Kodi Smit-McPhee), in rural 1960's Australia. The major obstacle to the family's stability and happiness is his wife, Christina (Franka Potente), who flagrantly violates her wedding vows by shamelessly shacking up with other men. Despite her highly unconventional behavior, Romulus refuses to grant her a divorce, masochistically torturing himself in the vain hope that she will one day return to him. It is, unfortunately, the good-hearted and good-natured Raimond who must bear witness to all this marital turmoil - and it is his memoir that serves as the basis for the movie (Raimond Gaita would later grow up to be an author).<br /><br />Even though I admire "Romulus, My Father" for what it is trying to do, I can't honestly say I enjoyed it, for while the film has some fine performances and serious intentions going for it, these simply aren't enough to counteract the dour storyline and funereal pacing, which leave the audience as despairing and depressed as the people on screen. A serious slice-of-life drama is one thing, but this unremittingly downbeat wallow in adultery, insanity and multiple suicides (let alone attempted suicides) is something else again.
Horrible acting, Bad story line, cheesy makeup, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. I have never seen a worse movie in my life, 5 minutes in I decided to fast forward to see if anything redeeming would happen... It didn't. (Aside from a nice breast shot) The movie apparently was filmed in some furniture warehouse, and the same warehouse was used for at least 90% of the sets. You even see this same red chair in several different "locations" If you are going to make a film at least rent an office building and an apartment, not some warehouse which will echo all your actor's dialog.. (Note to producers) Renting a small office space and an apartment for a month is much cheaper than an entire warehouse, and both are quite a bit more versatile and believable) If you spend your money to rent this people I hope you got it with a return guarantee... You will be demanding your money back... I only spent $2.99 to rent this tonight and I feel ripped off.
This movie was by far the worst movie that I have ever seen in my entire life. I'm not even kidding. It was poorly made and the actors couldn't act. It was a waste of my time and money. It looked like a movie that my friends and I could have put together on our own. The case the movie came in is definitely a disguise. Nothing in the movie looks like the zombie on the front of the case. It appears that the director or make-up artist has just put black eye liner under someones eyes an called them a zombie. The credits at the beginning of the movie take up almost 20 minutes of the movie. Which watching the credits was the best part of the movie. This was honestly an awful movie and I couldn't believe how badly it was put together. Scenes jumped from one thing to the other and sometimes u were like "whats going on?" The audio was awful and the action shots looked like a couple of teen's joking around making a fake fight scene.<br /><br />IF you are considering renting or buying this movie I would advise you to at least watch the trailer for it because it show's how awful it truly is. I wish i would have watched it before i rented it.
BTK Killer, Green River Killer, Zodiac Killer; the man keeps putting out absolute garbage and the ironic thing is, he loves his crap.<br /><br />I've never seen a Ulli Lommel film but I was so amazed on how everyone thinks his stuff is so awful. Like the movies I said in the beginning don't even equal a six when added together! After reading the comments I was curious to see how bad this guy really is. He is the worst out there.<br /><br />The credits wouldn't end as the pathetic movie started and quickly I noticed that the audio was incredibly badly dubbed in. The acting was incredibly awful and same to the camera shots. The editing is easily the worst. This movie made no sense and I unbearably couldn't take it anymore as it wouldn't end and I was only 45 minutes in the movie. I couldn't take it anymore. I wasted 45 minutes of my life.<br /><br />DO NOT WATCH THIS CRAP!
German filmmaker Ulli Lommel has managed a task many horror fans thought was impossible: he's unseated fellow Teuton Uwe Boll for the crown of director of the worst horror film ever made.<br /><br />Lommel is truly the Ed Wood of the new millennium. This film is as shoddy and laughable as the best-worst of EW. I am both proud and embarrassed to say that I watched it in toto, morbidly fascinated to see just low the bar could be set. The answer is: subterranean; Lommel dug a pit and buried it.<br /><br />The fun begins with the cast of international nobodies. Only someone who has lived in Los Angeles, where every auto mechanic, doctor and mailman is an actor or screenwriter waiting to be discovered, could easily understand how Lommel managed to find so many wannabe actors willing to spew his ridiculous dialog with a straight face.<br /><br />The main character, a villainous beat cop, is played by a German actor with a thick German accent. Aside from being a serial killer, he is also the oldest beat cop in LA. Despite the fact that he stops innocent women drivers and takes them into custody, then drags them into his home (which inexplicably is the top floor of a furniture warehouse), and does all this in plain sight of his rookie partners, the LAPD refuses to investigate, going so far as to physically attack one of his accusers in a ninja style raid on his apartment.<br /><br />The sets are excruciatingly bad. The production designer's budget apparently included just enough money for a can of paint; enough to paint "Precinct 707" on a cardboard wall.<br /><br />Since the actors were obviously unpaid non-professionals--a sad assortment of European emigres (possibly deportees if they acted in their native lands), bimbos, mimbos, and desperate middle-aged women--and since little if any money was spent on sets, special efx, locations or other production value, it is only fair to mention that they did spring for a few genuine-looking police uniforms. Sadly, they couldn't afford a police car; the uniformed cops cruise the streets in a shiny new Mercury rental.<br /><br />More than half of the story focuses on the dirty deeds of our deranged German LAPD officer and the futile efforts of two young rookies to stop him. One of these young actors is especially pitiable because he's the only actor in this whole mess with even a vague shot at a real career in the movies. The other fits right in, with a rockabilly hairdo and tortured Brando posing that needs to be seen to be appreciated.<br /><br />The latter part of the film is where the title gets its zombie, as the victims of our killer are resurrected after he murders a girl who had just visited some voodoo priestesses to have a protective spell put on her. Don't ask why a girl from Romania would resort to voodooism in anticipation of being murdered, just accept Lommel's logic and enjoy the absurd ride.<br /><br />After much prolonged hand-clawing out of straw-covered roadside graves, the zombie girls manage to make their appearance. They look exactly as they did before death, maybe even prettier, with black glamor make-up generously airbrushed around their eyes. Looking nothing like zombies, they look more like high fashion models ready for the runway.<br /><br />At this point in the movie Lommel borrows a creative note from his lauded countryman Boll, and injects large doses of cheesy Euro-trash techno into the soundtrack. We're talking prehistoric electronic bumblebee noise. Stuff they might have played in an Ibiza disco when Lommel was still young enough to shake his booty.<br /><br />Unlike other zombies, Lommel's girls speak and function as normal... er, I mean, as they did before becoming zombified. This gives our auteur ample opportunities to shower us with more of his golden dialog. Yes, a golden shower it is.<br /><br />I won't spoil anything by revealing the shock ending. All I can say is it's perfectly in tune with the rest of this masterpiece. The spirit of Ed Wood lives on... or should I say his geist.
Last weekend I bought this 'zombie movie' from the bargain bin and watched it with some friends thinking it was going to be a budget version of "Land of the Dead".<br /><br />Boy, was I wrong. <br /><br />It seems as if they spent a good portion of their budget on the cover-art, which is very misleading to fans of the zombie genre.<br /><br />We watched up to the point where the zombie chicks come alive and get in the car with some yuppie who is out in the middle of nowhere talking business on a cell-phone. They actually speak to the guy before one of the girls kills him; but once they started driving the car, I couldn't suspend my disbelief anymore.<br /><br />Some people actually consider this a "so bad, it's good" movie, they are liars. I didn't finish the movie, but one of the other reviews mention that they actually somehow become police officers at the end of the movie, which makes me glad to not have watched it all the way through.<br /><br />This is even worse than "Zombiez" DO NOT WATCH!
Yeah, I'm sure it really could be a nation . . . if four of them all stood at the four corners of the world and the other two cloned themselves a few billion times. Man, I am REALLY glad that I saw this movie on FEAR.net instead of renting it. I'm a big fan of the George Romero movies and I'm pretty sure that if he saw this movie, he'd probably throw up while laughing too hard. I mean, what was with the raccoon girls posing as zombies and walking around like Charlie's Devils? It really helped too that the music composer chose the crappy fashion show music for when the zombies walked up to their killer, especially the part where they go into the warehouse posing as the furniture shop/police station/apartment/flat/whatever room it was with the gong in the background, and the live woman was arguing about the closed furniture shop. I couldn't even tell what nationality the killer was, and the fact that his accent indicated some multiple nations didn't help either. Oh well, what can I expect from a movie where they throw in a random fight scene for no good reason in a warehouse where they apparently ship boxes of air around the world. So, for all of those who worship Mystery Science Theater 3000 or if you just like reaming on bad C movies (C for Craptastic), then this is the movie for you . . . or not.
Zombie Nation 2004 R<br /><br />Hey, I was bored. I looked in my Comcastic little box to find a movie to watch. Zombie Nation? Hey, I love zombie movies. Says the filmmaker has some sort of cult following in the description. Funny how it doesn't warn me not to watch this film. I could've used that advice.<br /><br />Zombie Nation is just like Troll 2 in that it's completely misnamed. It has little (if anything, depending on your point of view) to do with zombies, and takes place all within one city. This film revolves around a crooked cop, who acts as badly as possible (he has to be trying to suck this much), while he arrests women for trivial bullshit and then kills them. Yup, he's a serial killer cop. Not only is this film flawed in thinking that it's a zombie flick, it also gets its serial killer facts completely wrong. Serial killers enjoy killing, they live for it and they get down and personal with it. This guy knocks out the women, and injects them with some poison. He doesn't even have sex with the corpse or dismember it. Talk about boring! Eventually, one of the whopping five women he kills has Voodoo protection done to her and for no apparent reason, all five come back to life and head off to kill this guy. They were all buried or tossed into the ocean, but you wouldn't know it buy the sharp clean clothes they're all wearing. The women then act very poorly and take their revenge. Oh yay.<br /><br />This film was crap in every category. Crap acting, crap writing, crappier sets, and crappier make-up effects. The women don't look zombie-like, unless you count really dark make-up around the eyes to be the de facto definition of what makes a zombie. They can all talk, behave, think, and act perfectly human. The gore is weak compared to even many PG-13 films and the nudity is beyond brief. You see glimpse of breasts in the opening sequence... Then the exact same breasts later! Go figure. Guess only one actress was willing to go topless for this trite. The police station is so badly constructed that you can see where they stopped painting the walls of the warehouse they're obviously filming in. You can see the pipes and the bad lighting and the overly sparse set-up and even, unless you are blind, you can see the director failing. Steer clear, it's a waste of time.<br /><br />1/10
I only watched the first 30 minutes of this and what I saw was a total piece of crap. The scenes I saw were as bad as an Ed Wood movie. No, it was a hundred times WORSE. Ed Wood has the reputation of being the worst director ever but that's not true; the idiot who directed this junk is the WORST director ever.<br /><br />The American cop has a German accent! The "police station" was a desk in a warehouse with a sign "Police Station" hanging on the wall. There is a fist fight where the punches clearly miss by about TEN FEET.<br /><br />This cop pulls women over, cuffs them and leads them to a warehouse. He tells his cop partner to wait in the car. Then he comes out of the warehouse carrying a duffel bag. The cop partner thinks maybe something is not right, that his partner might be a bad cop who is murdering these women, but he isn't sure if that is what's happening because - he's a moron! The dialog is totally stupid, the acting is awful, and the characters act in the stupidest manner I have ever seen on screen. It is totally obvious to the cop's partner that he is illegally abducting these women and he is slapping them and taking them into a warehouse and returning to the car with a duffel bag with a body in it, and yet, the partner, who is there all along, doesn't know what is happening! <br /><br />The director of this film is a total hack. I stopped the movie at 30 minutes because I couldn't take it anymore. It has to be one of the WORST movies I have ever started to watch and I won't waste anymore time on it writing this review. <br /><br />Absolutely WORTHLESS.
This movie had me going. The title was perhaps the greatest idea that I heard. I thought it was an independent movie about a zombie outbreak and their quest to take over the US and a group of lone survivors, band together, and plan to take out the zombies. DEAD WRONG! It's about a psycho cop with a weakness for killing his female arrests gets what's coming to him when a pack of zombie women rise from their graves in order to get proper revenge. As you can see there is nothing about the nation nor a county involved. Where to begin with the severity this cinematic disaster caused our nation.<br /><br />First off, the zombie women look like Victoria Secret models with dark eyeliner and a pale face. What are zombies but mindless, debatable intelligent, cannibalistic killing machines that eat as a result of their primitive most basic needs? These zombie women walk like streetwalkers and runway models, they talk as if they are in a poor film noir movie and not do they act like real zombies. Sure the eating and killing is there, but where is the mindlessness and the horrible disfigurement? Although it is a very interesting concept and perhaps a great satire on the zombie genre, it makes fun of that genre and asks the question, "why can't zombies be beautiful vixen killing machines?" I would say that this movie would be considered a really bad indie movie that was produced and made by garage junkies. I would not recommend this movie to anybody that loves zombie genres too much, it's an insult and as for scary…not even.
If ever there was a film that deserved a big fat zero rating it's this pile of crap. I love zombie films and even bad ones usually have something going for them but not this atrocity. I actually began to feel angry watching this film because it's so insultingly poor, I can't believe the people responsible for it would actually think this was acceptable.<br /><br />There's no plot and the non-plot is cut with scenes of sadism and spanking. The people don't react, act or in any way resemble human beings. The entire movie is also shot in two rooms scantily decorated to vaguely resemble the places they are supposed to be. The whole thing is one pointless mess, it doesn't go anywhere and when the zombies finally turn up they look rubbish and don't do very much.<br /><br />I could make a better film than this, so could you and so could someone who had never seen a movie before. It's pitiful and without doubt the worst movie of all time.<br /><br />Honestly, the very worst movie of all time. You'll note by the way that the only positive reviews give this a 10/10 and urge you to BUY the DVD. I can't imagine anyone neutral genuinely thinking this is a good film, it's terrible.<br /><br />0/10 and that's generous.
Notice I have given this 1 star if the option been given I would have given this zero. As I put this DVD into my TV and sat down on my couch I was expecting some of the worst film making at its finest. I looked this movie up on IMDb and saw that it was the worst rated movie so I guess I came into it critical of every mistake. But it didn't prepare me for the crap that was about to spew from my television screen.<br /><br />The box makes this movie out to look …well OK at best. DO NOT LET THAT FOOL YOU. This movie needs to be banned from all shelves around the world.<br /><br />The best way I can describe this movie is like porn but without any sex scenes in it. The acting (if you can call it that), the "plot" (so many holes must look like Swiss cheese), and the special effects really are just terrible.<br /><br />Please do not be like me and rent this movie because you think it will be funny to watch.<br /><br />In the end I'm not saying I can make a better movie than this, but I am thinking it.
usually I support independent art and i try to be very comprehensive and tolerant...i tend to support everybody, because their efforts are worth...<br /><br />but this movie just moves away from all comprehension and tolerance limits!<br /><br />imagine the following situation:<br /><br />1. think about the REALLY WORST horror movie you have ever seen in your life so far.<br /><br />2. think about some great, attractive ART for that movie's DVD box...and a promising plot...<br /><br />3. voilà! you got ZOMBIE NATION.<br /><br />see it only if you really don't have anything else better to do. ANYTHING is better.
Thank God! I didn't waste my money renting it but i downloaded it! This happens to be the worst movie i have ever seen in my whole life, f*****g visual effects, unnecessary gore and nudity! Far apart from other Zombie movies like Night of the Living Dead and others. There are lots of loop holes and mistakes in the movie. OK if you get time after reading this comment, please check out the director's(Ulli Lommel) profile. After seeing that i got a self explanation why the movie is like this, i mean every movie directed by Ulli Lommel gets a rating between 1 and 2. And now am not willing to search what kinda movies these are directed by him, but i can finish all this by saying one strong sentence. Even for fun or time pass or even at an extreme bored situation please DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE.
Not worth the video rental or the time or the occasional efforts.<br /><br />*Makeup that a child can do. *Acting was over done...poor directing. *Editing was very choppy...many things made no sense or just seemed gratuitous. *Sound was badly dubbed. *Music was highly inappropriate. *Casting was extremely off...must have been on crack. *Zombies that talk let alone...drive, dance, work...just pisses me off. *And the bad guy...Holy Crap! As horribly casted as he was...he was the best looking zombie of all. Which doesn't say much.<br /><br />The Cover Art was good but very deceiving...as was the Main Menu of the DVD...great artwork and music.<br /><br />DON"T BOTHER!
I stopped by BB and picked up 4 zombie flicks to watch over the weekend. Now, I understand that the effects will be cheesy, the acting will be sub-par, and the sets will be suspect. So I'm not expecting much. But it should at least have a story. Stories don't cost a thing except time.....apparently, they didn't have any time either.<br /><br />"Zombie Nation" had 5 zombies that appeared near the end of the movie that all looked like new wave hookers. The picture of the zombie on the front cover NEVER appears in the movie. It was absolutely agonizing to watch and had nothing to offer the genre.<br /><br />The running time is only 81 minutes but it felt like 2 hours. According to my wife (who could only hear the movie since she was on the computer in another room), it sounded like zombie porn....which if you think about, sounds kinda gross.....but it wasn't even that good.<br /><br />The only suggestion I can make is that maybe the writer tried to do too many things and ended up with an incoherent mess.<br /><br />It ended up being a free rental and I still feel ripped off. I rated it a 1 out of 10 because IMDb won't allow me to use decimals.
This film has to be the worst I have ever seen. The title of the film deceives the audience into thinking there maybe hope. The story line of the film is laughable at best, with the acting so poor you just have to cringe. The title 'Zombie Nation' implies a hoard of zombies when in fact there are six in total. This cannot be categorised as a horror film due to the introduction of cheesy 80's music when the zombies 'attack'. The zombies actually talk and act like human beings in the film with the only difference being the make up which looks like something out a La Roux video. If you ever get the chance to buy this film then do so, then burn the copy.
Someone actually gave this movie 2 stars. There's a very high chance they need immediate professional help as anyone who doesn't spend 30 seconds to see if you can award no stars is quite literally scary.<br /><br />This film is ... well ... I guess it's pretty much some kind of attempt at a horrible porn / snuff movie with no porn or no real horrible bits (apart from the acting, plot, story, sets, dialogue and sound). I wrongly assumed it was about zombies. <br /><br />Watching it is actually quite scary in fairness; you're terrified someone will come over and you'll never be able to describe what it is and they'll go away thinking you're a freak that watches home-made amateur torture videos or something along those lines. <br /><br />I'm so taken aback I'm writing this review on my mobile so I don't forget to attempt to bring the rating down further than the current 1.6 to save others from the same horrible fate that I just suffered. <br /><br />I worst film I've ever seen and I can say (with hand on heart) it will never, never be topped.
Mt little sister and I are self-proclaimed horror movie buffs. We have seen just about EVERYTHING, especially zombie flicks. Now, we have seen a lot of good zombie movies, and a lot of bad ones. This BY FAR is the WORST movie I have ever seen in my entire life. Not only was the acting horrible, but the special effects, graphics and ever "zombie" make-up was the worst I have seen. If you can even call it make-up ( black eye shadow around the eyes) This is totally proof that you should never judge a book by it's cover. Cause the cover to the movie is the only sweet thing about. do your selves a favor and DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was so adamant about this movie I went as far as putting a sticky note on the inside of the movie before i returned it to movie saying "This movie sucks, don't waste your time, return NOW" hahahhaa I don't want anyone else to waste a good movie night on this POS movie! i don't even know how it got the ratings that it did, t should be in the negative
I cant believe blockbuster carries this movie. It was SO BAD. I was totally fooled by the box art. DON'T BE FOOLED!! Its not worth your time I promise you. I don't know if the positive reviews for this flick were a joke or what. I am so disappointed. :( <br /><br />The description on the back of the box doesn't even match! The girl that has the voodoo done on her is a stripper. The synopsis on the back says she is only 17. Did the people writing the description for the film even bother to watch it!? Those positive reviews had to be a joke they just had to be. If anyone actually liked this flick then I've lost all faith in humanity.<br /><br />And don't even get me started on the story compared to the title. Or the fact that the entire movie was done all in 2 locations. Or that the cops didn't even have close to real uniforms. Why would i even say that?? Who cares about the cops uniforms!? Compared to the rest of the movie the uniforms were spot on. <br /><br />This movie is an insult to the zombie genre and all of its fans.
Seriously crappy movie.<br /><br />First off, the movie starts with a cop and his partner parked outside of a warehouse/furniture store. The "bad" cop takes a girl, which they had pulled over, into the warehouse's attic, while the newbie cop sits outside and ponders what could be happening up there. The "bad" cop eventually returns with a heavy duffel bag, and the newbie cop doesn't think there are any problems, but he still wonders what was in the bag, so he asks, gets a bullshit response, and then he thinks everything is OK (for now).<br /><br />The "bad" cop repeats this process, and even once with a tit scene (made it slightly better). But eventually people start to catch on, which took awhile considering how f***ing obvious it was. One girl gets a voodoo curse placed on her just in case she dies, like ya do. Now, the "bad" cop eventually kills this magically protected bitch, and then he gets rid of the duffel-bagged body.<br /><br />Since she had the oogey-boogey magic put on her, she comes back with lots of eye-shadow on, which is supposed to indicate that she may be a zombie... also, the magic curse causes all of the other girls to become "eye-shadow monsters". Some of the girls meet up with a dude, who is apparently a currency specialist, and he offers them a ride (they look normal to him apparently). But when the girls see other people, such as the one girls husband, he freaks out because she is hideous (some people freak out, but others don't even notice).... massive plot hole.<br /><br />So, to wrap it up, the eye-shadow monsters kill the "bad" cop, who in turn ends up becoming a zombie in the last scene. It was as though they were trying to prep us for a sequel! Like anyone would want to see part 2 of this cow dropping.
I cannot believe that this movie was ever created. I think at points the director is trying to make it an artistic piece but this just makes it worse. The zombies look like they applied too much eye makeup. The zombies are only in the movie for a few minutes. Finally, there are maybe five or six zombies total, definitely not a nation. The best part of the movie, if there is one is definitely the credits because the painful experience was finally finished. Again to reiterate other user comments, the voodoo priestesses are strange and do not make much sense in the whole movie. Also, there is a scene with a snake and a romanian girl that just does not make sense at all. It is never explained.
This movie is a joke. I mean a "ha ha" funny joke. Why? Because the only redeeming thing about it was the good laugh I got at the sheer ridiculousness of nonsensical, inane plot and horrible acting. Wow!<br /><br />Within this movie there are so many unanswered questions... for example; why do these women become zombies and how? Why are there four black women who are zombie's "caretakers" and what is their purpose? Since when does 6 people make up a "nation" of Zombies? And is smeared black eye mascara "scary" to anyone, anywhere? Even a 2 year old?<br /><br />And lastly; Why was this movie made at all? Why? why? why? No answer? That's what I thought.<br /><br />On the demand channel they actually issued this comment after the synopsis of the movie: We apologize for this movie in advance" LOL. At least they had the decency to do this much!
German filmmaker Ulli Lommel has managed a task many horror fans thought was impossible: he's unseated fellow Teuton Uwe Boll for the crown of director of the worst horror film ever made.<br /><br />Lommel is truly the Ed Wood of the new millennium. This film is as shoddy and laughable as the best-worst of EW. I am both proud and embarrassed to say that I watched it in toto, morbidly fascinated to see just low the bar could be set. The answer is: subterranean; Lommel dug a pit and buried it.<br /><br />The fun begins with the cast of international nobodies. Only someone who has lived in Los Angeles, where every auto mechanic, doctor and mailman is an actor or screenwriter waiting to be discovered, could easily understand how Lommel managed to find so many wannabe actors willing to spew his ridiculous dialog with a straight face.<br /><br />The main character, a villainous beat cop, is played by a German actor with a thick German accent. Aside from being a serial killer, he is also the oldest beat cop in LA. Despite the fact that he stops innocent women drivers and takes them into custody, then drags them into his home (which inexplicably is the top floor of a furniture warehouse), and does all this in plain sight of his rookie partners, the LAPD refuses to investigate, going so far as to physically attack one of his accusers in a ninja style raid on his apartment.<br /><br />The sets are excruciatingly bad. The production designer's budget apparently included just enough money for a can of paint; enough to paint "Precinct 707" on a cardboard wall.<br /><br />Since the actors were obviously unpaid non-professionals--a sad assortment of European emigres (possibly deportees if they acted in their native lands), bimbos, mimbos, and desperate middle-aged women--and since little if any money was spent on sets, special efx, locations or other production value, it is only fair to mention that they did spring for a few genuine-looking police uniforms. Sadly, they couldn't afford a police car; the uniformed cops cruise the streets in a shiny new Mercury rental.<br /><br />More than half of the story focuses on the dirty deeds of our deranged German LAPD officer and the futile efforts of two young rookies to stop him. One of these young actors is especially pitiable because he's the only actor in this whole mess with even a vague shot at a real career in the movies. The other fits right in, with a rockabilly hairdo and tortured Brando posing that needs to be seen to be appreciated.<br /><br />The latter part of the film is where the title gets its zombie, as the victims of our killer are resurrected after he murders a girl who had just visited some voodoo priestesses to have a protective spell put on her. Don't ask why a girl from Romania would resort to voodooism in anticipation of being murdered, just accept Lommel's logic and enjoy the absurd ride.<br /><br />After much prolonged hand-clawing out of straw-covered roadside graves, the zombie girls manage to make their appearance. They look exactly as they did before death, maybe even prettier, with black glamor make-up generously airbrushed around their eyes. Looking nothing like zombies, they look more like high fashion models ready for the runway.<br /><br />At this point in the movie Lommel borrows a creative note from his lauded countryman Boll, and injects large doses of cheesy Euro-trash techno into the soundtrack. We're talking prehistoric electronic bumblebee noise. Stuff they might have played in an Ibiza disco when Lommel was still young enough to shake his booty.<br /><br />Unlike other zombies, Lommel's girls speak and function as normal... er, I mean, as they did before becoming zombified. This gives our auteur ample opportunities to shower us with more of his golden dialog. Yes, a golden shower it is.<br /><br />I won't spoil anything by revealing the shock ending. All I can say is it's perfectly in tune with the rest of this masterpiece. The spirit of Ed Wood lives on... or should I say his geist.
I am an actor,producer, director and what i am about to say are facts. This project was the worst film in movie making history. From producer to director and the edit of this so called film is a joke and i mean a BIG joke. Why would Blockbuster released such crap? I take my work very serious and this film is an insult to my profession. Was the director trying to make a bad movie? I don't think so. I seen bad Zombie movies, but this takes the cake the Coffie and everything on the damn table. THIS MOVIE SUCKS!!! I really hate to talk bad about other filmmakers because i am one myself, but please consider in taking up a different profession. I respect the fact that you completed a movie, but i have to ask you " WERE YOU SMOKING CRACK ", I mean the makeup on your girls, the scary Zombies, what were you thinking. To the whole nation, if i could have voted Zero i would have. WORST FILM IN MOVIE MAKING HISTORY!!!
This is probably the first entry in the "Lance O'Leary/Nurse Keat" detective series; in subsequent O'Leary films, he was played by much younger actors than Guy Kibbee.<br /><br />A group of relatives (all played by well-known character actors) gathers in an old house (on a rainy nite, of course!) to speak to a wealthy relative, who goes into a coma.<br /><br />While they wait for him to recover, all sorts of mysterious goings-on happen, including a couple of murders.<br /><br />A creepy film; worth seeing!
I remember watching this film in the eighties as a teenager. But i wanted to see it again, because Traci Lords is now earning a living as a "serious actor". What the hell was going on in the eighties? This is a really bad film with bad taste and bad actors. Definitely a waste of money.
Why do all movies on Lifetime have such anemic titles? "An Unexpected Love" - ooh, how provocative!! "This Much I know" would have been better. The film is nothing special. Real people don't really talk like these characters do and the situations are really hackneyed. The straight woman who "turns" lesbian seemed more butch than the lesbian character. If you wanna watch two hot women kiss in a very discreet fashion, you might enjoy this. Although it seems like it was written by someone who doesn't really get out in the world to observe people. Why am I wasting my time writing about it?
This movie was okay, but it certainly defeats the claim that homosexuals are "born that way," especially when a woman can exit out of an unhappy marriage and just fall into the arms of another woman. It almost seems as if Kate's gender preferences turned on and off like a switch, making this film seem a little simplistic.<br /><br />Also, as is common with films that are trying to push an agenda, it was unfortunate that those characters in the film who had questions or disapproval over the gay lifestyle were labeled as "bigots." And there was no happy medium. It was either Kate's friends and relatives totally embraced her or they totally shunned her. This is not typical of interactions between gay and non-gay relatives and friends. It is usually a mixture of emotions and values that come into play. It is possible to love people and treat them with respect while not necessarily condoning the choices they make. Sadly, the movie showed none of these types of interactions. For a movie trying to portray tolerance and acceptance, it struck me as very intolerant movie! Then at the end, Kate apparently decides after all these years she wants to be with Mac and everything is hunky dory - is that what being gay is really all about? Come on!
They changed the title of this atrocity to An Unexpected Love. The only thing worse is the film itself. The script contains dialogue that would be laughed out of a third grade play recital. At one point when the wife leaves the husband, a bad cover of All by Myself plays over the soundtrack! No kidding. The actors try but are defeated by the inept, unbelievably terrible script. Direction is staggeringly bad. No wonder Lifetime has such a bad reputation. How do things like this get made. I'm turning off the television before it's over!
I laughed all the way through this rotten movie. It's so unbelievable. A woman leaves her husband after many years of marriage, has a breakdown in front of a real estate office. What happens? The office manager comes outside and offers her a job!!! Hilarious! Next thing you know the two women are going at it. Yep, they're lesbians! Nothing rings true in this "Lifetime for Women with nothing better to do" movie. Clunky dialogue like "I don't want to spend the rest of my life feeling like I had a chance to be happy and didn't take it" doesn't help. There's a wealthy, distant mother who disapproves of her daughter's new relationship. A sassy black maid - unbelievable that in the year 2003, a film gets made in which there's a sassy black maid. Hattie McDaniel must be turning in her grave. The woman has a husband who freaks out and wants custody of the snotty teenage kids. Sheesh! No cliche is left unturned.
I've read some of the comments about this film and can only surmise that some people are easily entertained. This movie is nothing. It's so badly written, directed and acted that it barely makes an impression. The characters speak in cliche-ridden dialogue and the situations are completely implausible. While that might make this campy and fun, it doesn't because everything is so lifeless the film becomes dull. It's as if Lee Rose decided to write a drama about a woman struggling with her sexuality but then she either wasn't allowed by studio execs to give the story some true-to-life gusto or didn't have the cojones. This movie could go in the enyclopedia as the standard-issue bad Lifetime TV movie.
I had to do a search on the actresses to find the board of this film because the title is now An Unexpected Love. It's not really worth looking for but I was unfamiliar with both leads and wondered why they were headlining a lesbian flick on Lifetime. Everything's pretty restrained and you don't really get an idea of who these characters are so, as a viewer, I wasn't able to become emotionally invested in the storyline. I guess I'm not the target audience for this but I'm not sure who is. Everything's muted and soft focus and earth tones...nothing's very interesting. I had a prurient interest in seeing two women make out but it's handled so discreetly that I was disappointed. Rent Personal Best instead.
When I was 11, Grease 2 was like crack. It was a classless, shameful, euphoric, and powerfully addictive experience. My sister and I would watch it, rewind it, and watch it over again and again and again until we passed out or became too confused and hostile to stand one another. So, if you are an 11-year old girl, and you reviewed this film as "brilliant" or "fun" or "better than the original Grease," you have your fledgling adolescent hormones to blame and you can rest assured that this unyielding fixation with utter rubbish will pass.<br /><br />If, however, you are not a little girl, you have absolutely no excuse to suggest that Grease 2 was anything but an inane, artless, slipshod embarrassment for all who participated in its production, distribution, and/or consumption.<br /><br />For the sake of criticism, I will dignify the film now by explaining why it blows… <br /><br />1. In a well-executed musical, the songs should advance the narrative or develop the characters. In Grease 2, with a few debatable exceptions, to the music is obscenely pointless. Most of the songs appear to relate gimped innuendo about sex in an excessive and general way ("Score Tonight," "Reproduction," "Do It For Our Country," and "Prowlin'") without making one concrete statement about any of the film's characters or themes. Plus, all of the music is uncomfortably stupid and no one in the cast demonstrates even the crudest semblance of an ability to sing or dance.<br /><br />2. The T-birds should be badass, and if not at least somewhat likable, but instead each of them is an annoying wussy-dufus-loser. In the end, when Johnny Nogerelli offers Michael the sacred T-bird jacket and initiates him into the gang, Michael should kick it to the ground, spit on it, and duck away to fervently scrub any part of his body that was touched by it. But of course, he accepts it as if it is gold because despite the fact that they are a bunch of bumbling meatheads, there is no greater honor than to be one with the T-birds. <br /><br />3. Since Michael is beautiful, smart, kind, resourceful, and above average in everyway (his musical impotence notwithstanding), it is feasible that Stephanie would ultimately embrace him when he reveals himself to be the man behind the mask. Stephanie, on the other hand, is a slovenly, slack-jawed, bubble gum smacking, dirty sweatshirt wearing, gracelessly rude and trashy dingbat. So aside from being pretty (I guess), she harbors no likable characteristics, thus, audiences are given no justification whatsoever for the depth of Michael's attraction to her.<br /><br />I could go on and on, but I didn't want to mention the gross inferiority to its predecessor since there are apparently so many cranks out there who seem to feel that such a comparison is unfair. I will say this though, to those of you who think you want to revisit this mess for old time's sake: Grease 2 is an experience akin to re-living your first kiss. Only you are 32 now and kissing a snot-nosed 13-year old kid with acne and slobby braces. The magic is gone and you are left feeling dirty and disturbed. Trust me.
Boy-girl love affair/sequel with songs, only this time she's the punkette and he's the straight arrow. Movie-buffs out there actually like this movie? It has fans? I must say, the mind reels... "Grease 2" is a truly lame enterprise that doesn't even have the courage, moxy or sheer gall to take the memory of its predecessor down in flames (like "Jaws 2" or "Exorcist II"). No, it whimpers along in slow-motion and often just plays dead. It looks and feels cheap, with a large cast lost amidst messy direction and unfocused handling. This was the first time a substantial audience got a glimpse of Michelle Pfeiffer and, although she doesn't embarrass herself, it's a role worth forgetting. A misfire on the lowest of levels. NO STARS from ****
Well, at least my theater group did, lol. So of course I remember watching Grease since I was a little girl, while it was never my favorite musical or story, it does still hold a little special place in my heart since it's still a lot of fun to watch. I heard horrible things about Grease 2 and that's why I decided to never watch it, but my boyfriend said that it really wasn't all that bad and my friend agreed, so I decided to give it a shot, but I called them up and just laughed. First off the plot is totally stolen from the first one and it wasn't really clever, not to mention they just used the same characters, but with different names and actors. Tell me, how did the Pink Ladies and T-Birds continue years on after the former gangs left? Not to mention the creator face motor cycle enemy, gee, what a striking resemblance to the guys in the first film as well as these T-Birds were just stupid and ridiculous.<br /><br />Another year at Rydell and the music and dancing hasn't stopped. But when a new student who is Sandy's cousin comes into the scene, he is love struck by a pink lady, Stephanie. But she must stick to the code where only Pink Ladies must stick with the T-Birds, so the new student, decides to train as a T-Bird to win her heart. So he dresses up as a rebel motor cycle bandit who can ride well and defeat the evil bikers from easily kicking the T-Bird's butts. But will he tell Stephanie who he really is or will she find out on her own? Well, find out for yourself.<br /><br />Grease 2 is like a silly TV show of some sort that didn't work. The gang didn't click as well as the first Grease did, not to mention Frenchy coming back was a bit silly and unbelievable, because I thought that she graduated from Rydell, but apparently she didn't. The songs were not really that catchy; I'm glad that Michelle was able to bounce back so fast, but that's probably because she was the only one with talent in this silly little sequel, I wouldn't really recommend this film, other than if you are curious, but I warned you, this is just a pathetic attempt at more money from the famous musical.<br /><br />2/10
The tenuous connection between this film and the first Grease is established right at the beginning of the film when Didi Conn one of four cast members repeating their roles approaches young Maxwell Caulfield who is a British exchange student. Although in the previous film Olivia Newton St. John's foreign speech pattern is not explained, it's explained here Caulfield is her cousin. What's Conn still doing in school, I guess she just likes hanging around Rydell High even though now she's a beautician.<br /><br />Caulfield's a smart kid, so of course the hood types led by Adrian Zmed have him labeled as a nerd. And that's especially bad when Zmed's girl friend decides she likes Caulfield. But being a nerd just isn't going to cut it.<br /><br />That's when Caulfield decides to put on a modern day Zorro act. He gets a junked bicycle and puts it back together and teaches himself to ride. He gets himself a leather biker outfit with a set of goggles to hide his face. If getting Michelle Pheiffer is not in the cards, Caulfield won't have any trouble making friends at any gay male leather bar the way he's outfitted.<br /><br />Grease 2 introduced Michelle Pheiffer and Maxwell Caulfield and started them on the successful career paths both have enjoyed. If you saw the first Grease film, a much better film, than you definitely have an idea how this film will turn out.<br /><br />In addition to Conn, Eve Arden, Sid Caesar, and Dody Goodman, all faculty members from the original Grease return in their roles. The music score isn't remotely as good as the songs that come from the original.<br /><br />It's not that Grease 2 is bad, it's just not all that great.
I'm sorry, but even TJ Hooker's Adrian Zmed couldn't save this sequel. I went through half the movie thinking that this was a spoof of the original. Then came that wild and wacky motorcycle scene (notice that this is the only movie that Patricia Birch directs); and I sadly realized they were trying to be serious. I did get a kick out of the fact that the opposing gang, having lost their "wheels" due to their gambling habits in the original Grease, were forced to use motorcycles in the second movie. Being shamed by that putz character Carrington, I'd hate to see what they would resort to later: maybe Mopeds?<br /><br />I also never bought the hackneyed theme: hunky-Australian-boy-can't-fit-into-Outsiders-dominated-school-ergo-goes-for -tough-guy-with-stupid-biker-helmet-look. It was Disney story gone horribly awry.<br /><br />So, it looks like you CAN ruin a good thing by placing a bubble-gum smacking Michelle Pfeiffer in a musical. The only thing I took away from this movie was an idea of how many points out of ten to give it.
The first part of Grease with John Travolta and Olivia Newton John is one of the best movie for teens, This one is a very bad copy. The change is only in the sex. In the first one the good one was Sandy, here it's Michael. I prefer to watch the first Grease.
Hollywood's misguided obsession with sequels has resulted in more misfires than hits. For every "Godfather II," there are dozens of "More American Graffiti's," "Stayin' Alives," and "Grease 2's." While the original "Grease" is not a great film, the 1977 adaptation of the long-running Broadway hit does have songs evocative of the 1960's, energetic choreography, and an appealing cast. When Paramount began work on a follow-up, the producers came up nearly empty on every aspect that made the original a blockbuster.<br /><br />Fortunately for moviegoers, Michelle Pfeiffer survived this experience and evidently learned to read scripts before signing contracts. Her talent and beauty were already evident herein, and Pfeiffer does seem to express embarrassment at the humiliating dance routines and tuneless songs that she is forced to perform. Maxwell Caulfield, however, lacks even the skill to express embarrassment, and his emotions run the gamut from numb to catatonic. What romantic interest, beyond hormones, could the cool sassy Pfeiffer have in the deadpan Caulfield? That dull mystery will linger long after the ludicrous luau finale fades into a bad memory. Only cameos by veterans such as Eve Arden, Connie Stevens, and Sid Caesar have any wit, although Lorna Luft does rise slightly above the lame material.<br /><br />Reviewers have complained that, because "Grease 2" is always compared to the original, the movie comes up lacking. However, even taken on its own terms, the film is a clunker. After a frenetic opening number, which evidently exhausted the entire cast, the energy dissipates. With few exceptions, the original songs bear little resemblance to the early 1960's, and the only nostalgia evoked is for "Our Miss Brooks" and "Sid Caesar's Comedy Hour." The jokes fall flat, and the choreography in a film directed by choreographer Patricia Birch is clumsy to be polite. However, worse films have been inflicted on audiences, and inept sequels will be made as long as producers seek to milk a quick buck from rehashing blockbusters. Unfortunately, "Grease 2" is not even unintentionally funny. Instead, the film holds the viewer's attention like a bad train wreck. Just when all the bodies seem to have been recovered, the next scene plunges into even worse carnage.
Unfortunately I made a mistake and I paid 7 Euros at the movie theater to watch this shallow meaningless movie. My points;<br /><br />Film is based on 2 things;<br /><br />1) Ethnical point of View: As it happens on most of the American Films, the writer thinks itself as an expert after learning 2 or 3 things about the Asian culture. But unfortunately it is not enough. Knowing kunefe and 2 names of other foods doesn't make a person understand a culture. For example shaving is the sign of clean life in Asia but everyone was trying the girl to stop that. Lebanese people are Christian (Ok they got that) and their cultural forms and beliefs and approaches are completely different from other Arabic countries. The main difference between eastern and western culture is we don't make ethnocentrism. So we don't judge people after their first question about our life as the father figure did in all of the film. <br /><br />2) Sexual revolution of a girl: There is nothing much to say about this. Show me 10 girls which had these on their sexual awakening than I will say that I am wrong.<br /><br />I wrote this comment because the producers are promoting the film in the black humor genre. Please watch Dr.Strangelove and understand the meaning of black humor. A black humor has to reflect the truth and has to focus the audience to the funny parts of it. Where is the truth? Where is the meaning about the movie.
I saw this film at its premier at Sundance 09.<br /><br />Since American Beauty is a movie that had something to say, I had hopes for Towelhead. Unfortunately, it was a disappointment. In fact, of countless movies I've seen in almost a dozen Sundance festivals, Towelhead is the only Sundance movie I've ever wanted to walk out early from.<br /><br />The worst problem with Towelhead is that it so obviously originates with a collection of "provocative" concepts concerning cultural stereotypes, rather than with an organic human drama. The screenplay derives from the novel of the same name by Alicia Erian. The famous Edith Wharton quote comes to mind: I have never known a novel that was good enough to be good in spite of its being adapted to the author's political views. That observation is especially devastating for Towelhead because its political views are so stale and simplistic. If there ever was a time when Towelhead's white male villains, condescending portrayals of blacks, ironic treatments of foreign cultures, etc., were fresh, it's long past.<br /><br />For a more detailed review, please look up any of the many professional reviews available online. Almost all rate this movie poorly and expose the shallow and manipulative tissue it is based on.<br /><br />On the other hand, the amateur reviewers seem more easily bamboozled. As you read through the reviews in this and similar sites, you'll frequently come across superlatives: "stunning," "breathtaking," "profound," "shocking," ... It embarrasses me to read them, but it does not surprise me. Indeed, I've encountered many people who seem to regard any book or movie dealing with racial, cultural, gender, or sexual issues as deeply moving, thought provoking, full of profound insight. If you are such a person, by all means, rent Towelhead and be moved by it. On the other hand, if you set your standards higher, you can safely pass on this one.
Roy Rogers stars as Jesse James and his look-alike, gambler man Clint Burns. George "Gabby" Hayes is Mr. Rogers's ex-pal, Sheriff Gabby. Gale Storm (Jane Fillmore) and Sally Payne (Polly Morgan) are a noteworthy team, as two reporters on the lookout for stories about the elusive outlaw hero.<br /><br />Of course, mistaken identity / impersonation is a plot development, since Rogers essays a "dual role". Rogers is charming, as usual; but, there is nothing really elevating this his performance above the ordinary - any potential to deliver a memorable Jekyll/Hyde performance is done in by poor material. The better pair to watch are Ms. Storm and Ms. Paye as the St. Louis Journal reporters - they are the film's highlight. The songs are fine, though badly synched. <br /><br />*** Jesse James at Bay (1941) Joseph Kane ~ Roy Rogers, George 'Gabby' Hayes, Gale Storm
This is an awful film. Yea the girls are pretty but its not very good. The plot having a cowboy get involved with an Indian maiden would be interesting if the sex didn't get in the way. Well, okay it might be interesting, but its not, because its so badly paced and and only partly acted. I can only imagine what the close ups of the dancing tushes looked like on a big screen, probably more laughable then they do on TV. (I won't even mention the topless knife fight between two women who are tied together and spend the whole thing chest to chest. Never read about that in the old west) This is a film that requires liberal use of fast forward.<br /><br />I like schlock films but this is ridiculous. There is a reason that I don't go for this sort of films and that they tend not be very good, the plot taking a back seat to breasts. The original nudie cuties as they are called were originally nudist films or films where there was no touching but as the adult industry began to grow the film makers either tried to be clever or tried to exploit something else in order to put butts in seats. The clever ones were very few which only left hacks who were of limited talent. The comedies often came off best with the humor approaching the first grade level, infantile but harmlessly fun. Something that could rarely be said about any other genre cross dressed as a nudie.<br /><br />The Ramrodder looks good and has a couple of nice pieces but its done in by being neither western nor sex film.<br /><br />I need not watch this again.<br /><br />Of interest to probably no one, the rapist and killer in the film was played by Bobby Beausoleil, a member of the Manson family who was arrested for murdering a school teacher not long after filming wrapped.<br /><br />Obviously these sort of things will ruin some peoples lives.
A cowboy sympathetic to the plight of a nearby Indian tribe is wrongly accused in the rape and murder of the chief's daughter, leading to much hate and violence.<br /><br />This crackpot nudie feature is fun to look at, though thoroughly impossible to defend on any artistic level. The terrible costumes and the fact that all the Indians are obviously white, makes this look more like a live action cartoon than the serious production that it's press materials pretends it to be.<br /><br />In short, the plentiful nudity (the real reason for watching this) is good. Everything else is not. There's definitely better examples of both genres.<br /><br />More interesting is that The Ramrodder was filmed at the infamous Spahn Movie Ranch and features not one, but two members of the Manson family, Catherine Share and Bobby Beausoleil, who was probably already in the can for murder at the time this hit the soda-stained screens of the Pussycat Theater!
I figured that it's about time I let this one out. Pokémon fans are suffering in America these days. Why? Because we rely on Kids WB and 4Kids Entertainment to provide us with our beloved series and movies. As far as the series goes, they do a pretty good job in bringing the fun and magic of the Japanese versions to television. So what is their problem when it comes to the movies? Honestly now, I have seen all three Pokémon movies in Japanese and I will definitely be seeing the fourth one. They are excellent movies. They are all enjoyable and fun to watch. And, after seeing Pokémon 2000 in theaters, I can't help but wonder how these American producers read the Japanese scripts. The way it appears, it seems that they read and see something that says `Insert empty moral here' in big bold faced letters. It definitely appears that way as they used the same wonderful dubbing methods they used on MSB (extreme sarcasm there) and created this crap.<br /><br />*possible spoilers from here on*<br /><br />Well, I guess I should first talk about Pikachu's Rescue Adventure. My first gripe with this came with no narration. I guess they got enough bad comments on the Pokédex narration that plagued Pikachu's Vacation, and, instead of going with a caring, gentle woman's voice as appeared in Pikachu no Natsu Yasumi and Pikachu Tankentai, they just cut the narration all together. This wouldn't have been a problem, except for one thing. Did anyone really understand why the Exeggcute didn't let Togepi go until the end? Possibly the fans, but I'm sure not the parents. Then, there's the theme song. I couldn't help but roll my eyes at this one. The Japanese theme song was `Tankentai wo Tsukurou' and was sung by Japanese children. It was fun and enjoyable. This one: nauseating. Now, one of my favorite parts of the short was the dancing Kireihana. Nice music, fun to watch. That's changed with the Bellossom. The music sucked for one, but on top of that, they had all the Pokémon talk during the music, which turned out to be jumpy, annoying, and just unnecessary. Oh, and then there's the Poliwhirl who thinks he's a Poliwrath. You'd think that guys that work with these characters constantly would at least learn what they are. Basically, not much could save this little ill fated dub, which is very unfortunate considering its potential. But, I haven't touched on the worst of it yet.<br /><br />You'd think that the warning signs would've been apparent to me when I received my issue of Nintendo Power. For some unfathomable reason, I had been placing some faith in 4Kids and the WB. My thoughts were `well, they screwed up on the first movie, but the second is different as far as the theme goes, so they should do well.' That in mind, I just didn't pay attention to the warning signs I encountered in the theaters when the trailers said, `You will believe that one person can make all the difference.' With the way they said that at every turn, I was hoping that this would not turn into a moral fest like MSB did at the end of the English version. Then comes Nintendo Power, in which I see all my fears realized in the words `the main feature 'The Power of One.' At that point, I became a bit more uneasy. `The Power of One?!' Not a good sign. However, I still kept some of my false faith. Big mistake.<br /><br />Sitting in the theater, I was literally getting stomach cramps watching another movie which I loved in Japanese being turned into complete and utter junk. I hear comments that say it was better because the moral was more subtle. I can see a point in that since they didn't pander this thing, repeating it over and over like in MSB. However, it did more damage than anything else in this movie. First of all, the legend that was read throughout was changed a bit to read `the world turns to Ash.' Ah hah. So, Ash is the chosen one? Whatever. In the Japanese version, the inhabitants of Arshia needed a Pokémon trainer to carry out their traditional ceremony. This time, he's the chosen one. A greater way that this did damage was to Lugia. Lugia was one of the coolest characters in a Pokémon movie.... when the movie was ABOUT Lugia. In this one, Lugia is forced to take a back seat to Ash. In the scene where they're flying back to the main island, Lugia and Ash are discussing the conditions of Lugia's existence, not that Ash is going to make all the difference. Overall in this category, Ash wasn't really the `one person' that would make the difference, since he was helped by many along the way.<br /><br />A lot of the other stuff is kind of nit picking. Furura's flute song wasn't nearly as sweet and enjoyable as the Japanese one. Jirarudan's speech to them saying his collection `started with a Mew card?' Ugh. Even worse, Misty's outrage originally concerned the way Moltres and Zapdos were being held. `Why didn't you put them in Pokéballs when you caught them? This is like caging them to be displayed.' Much different from whining about him thinking Pokémon are things to be collected like stamps. If there were any real redeeming values in this, they came from Team Rocket. Some pretty funny lines. Not really to make me laugh out loud, but more to make me giggle and slightly ease the pains in my stomach. Well, that was officially the last American Pokémon movie I'm going to see. I've imported the third one and find it very enjoyable. I would rather not see another Japanese movie be ruined in the same fashion as the first two. I'll be importing the fourth one as well. Forget you, Kids WB and 4Kids. You have forsaken me for the last time.
I recently watched this again and there's another version which is shorter 1999. I get the feeling they are the same movie but I would like to know the difference.<br /><br />One is Japanese and no pikachu short is all I can come up with. Ohtherwise why vote for the same movie twice?? <br /><br />Prof Ivy was rather boring. She sounded as if she was almost asleep, no expression at all with the few lines she had.<br /><br />This was enjoyable enough but there wasn't much to it at all. <br /><br />A collector (whos after Lugia, he has no plan to destroy the world) and the usual characters who try to stop him because trying to capture Lugia causes a lot of destruction.<br /><br />The pokemon movies that follow are slightly better, deoxys (poke 7) is great, with no. 8 almost here.
Much worse than the original. It was actually *painful* to sit through, and it barely held my six year old's interest.<br /><br />Introduction of some new Pokemon is marginally interesting, but storyline is extra-thin, dialogue is still bad, and music is mediocre. Watch the television show instead - it's much better.
pokemon the movie was a terrible film. unlike the first one, this is not a good film at all. the graphics were decent but the story was flat and no real drama was built up in it. in the first one the interaction between the characters were decent. the subtraction of brock and addition of tracey was bad. tracey really doesn't have much to say or do, and unlike brock offers no comic relief. the only good points is you get to see misty actually get jelous over ash, and her early brooding over being called his girlfriend was entertaining. overall this film isn't worth renting and the short movie before didn't do anything for me or my wife. and we do consider ourselves pokemon fans.oh well, maybe the next one will be better.cant ge t much worse
Now i have never ever seen a bad movie in all my years but what is with songs in the movie what physiological meaning does it have. WOW some demented Pokémon shows up and they multiply i can get a seizure from this. Animie is pointless the makers of it are pointless its a big marketing scheme look just cut down on songs and they will get a good rating i reckon that this movie would have been fine if they put out a message you must see all the Pokémon episodes to understand whats going on and it is not a film. It is just an animation it should be on video.<br /><br />Ps: i'll give it a 1 because i just got 5 bucks i could not give it a half because there's no halves.
Nintendo!!! YOU #%$@ERS!!! How could you do this to me? I can't believe it...this movie is actually worse than the first one. I went to see this at the theatre with my brother because my mother forced me to tag along....oh God...where do I even begin? The plot SUCKED. The voice acting SUCKED. The animation SUCKED. The ending REALLY SUCKED. If you liked this movie, YOU SUCK TOO. And to Futuramafan1987, who said this was the greatest movie ever, you are a TOOL, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. This isn't a movie for anyone but crack-addled ten-year olds with Game Boys who think Pikachu is God. I'm still cry to this day thinking about that horrible turd of a movie....and then there was Pikachu's Adventure...don't even get me started on that horrible mess of a film. It is, in all truth, one of the most boring experiences of my entire life. Don't go watch this at any costs.<br /><br />Bottom Line: Go out, find every copy of this movie that you can, and burn it. Burn them all, and then proceed to rent a GOOD movie, like Aliens...or Bowling For Columbine...or even Back to the Future!
'The Curse of Frankenstein' sticks faithfully to Mary Shelley's story for one word of the title, which wouldn't be so bad if the changes were any good at all. The tragedy of the creature destroying Frankenstein's family has been completely excised and replaced with... nothing. The heart and moral centre of the story is gone. It doesn't help that this Frankenstein is a conniving, devious murderer; he deserves everything he gets. The plot is basically a shallow checklist of Frankenstein clichés. Even taken on its own terms, this is rubbish: a bland, rambling film featuring a shite-looking creature with a pudding bowl haircut. As it's the first of Hammer's horror films, directed by Terence Fisher and starring Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, its place in horror history is secure. But it's crap.
The author sets out on a "journey of discovery" of his "roots" in the southern tobacco industry because he believes that the (completely and deservedly forgotten) movie "Bright Leaf" is about an ancestor of his. Its not, and he in fact discovers nothing of even mild interest in this absolutely silly and self-indulgent glorified home movie, suitable for screening at (the director's) drunken family reunions but certainly not for commercial - or even non-commercial release. A good reminder of why most independent films are not picked up by major studios - because they are boring, irrelevant and of no interest to anyone but the director and his/her immediate circles. Avoid at all costs!
I was expecting a documentary that focused on the tobacco industry in North Carolina. Instead I watched a man who rues the fact that his great grandfather lost his tobacco empire to the Duke family. And this went on and on. If Mr. McElwee's family had prevailed over the Dukes I doubt that Mr. McElwee would have any problems with the death toll caused by tobacco-related diseases. I grew up near the area where Mr. McElwee's family began it tobacco business ; I expected more than McEwee's continual focus on his family. I learned very little about the history of tobacco in the NC economy and the ramifications to the state's economy by tighter regulation of tobacco. The countless references to the movie "Bright Leaves" are out of place - So what if Gary Cooper played Mr. McElwee's great grandfather? Does the viewer gain any understanding of the role of tobacco in the North Carolina economy by the showing of old film clips of a fictionalized film? I didn't.
I was fascinated as to how truly bad this movie was. Was the viewer supposed to learn something, or reflect on anything here? What was up with the pumpkins? Was I supposed to be impressed with the motel shots? Does it matter that there are some garbage bags on a rooftop across the street of a hotel? Why does the narrator unsuccessfully mock the people he interviews (it is so obvious that he edited out the really informative parts of his interviews to achieve mockery). The best part of the movie was the interview with the film professor who tells us how bad this movie will be even before it is finished.<br /><br />I am truly amazed. I believe that the creator is struggling to become an intellectual or is trying to impress the intellectual community.
Superman II - The Richard Donner Cut should be a fan's dream come true. At long last, footage only seen in photos and scenes that only existed on the printed page would finally come to life. A director that was unable to complete his vision would have the opportunity to have his vision restored. It seems like a winning situation. And then you start watching this assembly of footage and you realize this "esoteric dream" is a very real nightmare of sloppiness and incompetence. While it's entirely possible that no movie could compete with the finished perfect version each of us has imagined over the years it really should have been a thrill to finally see this project. And it is only a very few times.<br /><br />You know things are shaky when the very first bit of text on screen looks like home brew computer graphics. But then we start seeing new footage (alternates from Superman - The Movie for the trial) and that first bit of hesitation fades away. Hey, this is pretty neat! Things are alright for these few fleeting moments until we see footage from STM intermixed with new effects for this project, and it doesn't convince at all. And from this point on, it never ever lets up. It's probably not right to judge a movie because of bad visual effects, but when this is supposedly the direct follow up to a movie whose tag line was "You'll Believe A Man Can Fly" it's difficult to believe anything shown on screen here. The best effects in this are from the original productions.<br /><br />Another issue with this re-cut. A lot of it just doesn't make sense. The only reason any of it really works is because we've all seen the theatrical version of Superman II, a movie that does make sense. Lester's Superman II fills in the holes of this assembly. Part of this could be because Donner didn't get to complete shooting, the other part could be because the makers of this project were intent on using as little Lester material as possible. What we end up with is an assembly of footage that makes Superman IV look airtight and coherent.<br /><br />After viewing this, one gets the sense that while Lester was faithful and comfortable using Donner material, Michael Thau and his team were extremely disrespectful towards anything filmed by Lester. The best scenes in The Donner Cut are the ones lifted relatively intact from the released version of Superman II. That includes the moon sequence and the diner sequence, not ironically, both were filmed by Donner. But anything else from that movie filmed by Lester is re-edited in such a hasty fashion, that it now makes Lester seem like a ham fisted know nothing. While Lester honored the Donner material, Lester here is thrown under the bus.<br /><br />So is there anything good in this release? Well Marlon Brando is in it, and that's neat to see. In fact watching any of the material shot by Donner is neat since it was all filmed at the same time as Superman - The Movie. But that only highlights the problems of this release. Any of the major scenes (really just Lois jumping and scenes with Marlon Brando) would have been better served as completed scenes in a deleted scenes section. Instead they are shoe horned into a nonsensical narrative with inferior performances (many alternate takes from familiar scenes are used) sloppy edits and bad decisions.<br /><br />Watch the opening scene at the Daily Planet. Why are we looking at Jackie Cooper's back as he calls for Lois and Clark? At the end why do we have Lois walking into her dark apartment only to have that followed by Jackie Cooper walking into a dark bathroom turning the lights on? I was initially confused by this, because I expected to see Lois. The entire assembly is filled with questionable choices like this.<br /><br />Battle scenes are a mess too, with no geography between cuts. It's just random action. Of course, the major action scenes were shot by Lester and his material is only used as a bridge to the next set of Donner outtakes or alternates. They should have used more of Lester's footage, but probably had too much pride to admit that.<br /><br />The sloppiness extends to the military missile as well. As noted elsewhere, the missile shown in The Donner Cut bears the designation "XK 10" while we all know it's the "XK 101"! A blind man in STM knows that! The producers of this assembly, who tried so hard to honor the original film, dropped the ball less than five minutes in and that mistake is indicative of the quality of the entire production. For all the supposed care that was put into this, the final product has an air of shoddiness to it that is inescapable.<br /><br />The entire affair would probably be easier to digest if Warner's didn't make this a separate release here in the states. As it is, we're expected to pay for what is essentially a bonus disc of deleted scenes with a "Play All" option. It's really only worth one viewing so that we can finally see the legendary cut scenes, but after that initial viewing, I expect that this will be an excellent magnet for dust and little else. I know after my experience of watching this, I had new respect for Lester's version. It's by no means perfect, but Lester realized the deficiencies that were in the script that stand out here in bold relief. He managed to make a movie that has entertained for many years and will continue to do so, while this new re-cut will most likely only be remembered as a footnote in that films history.
So...we get so see added footage of Brando...interesting but not exactly Oscar worthy stuff. Susannah York was hardly a slouch. New scene where Lois finds out Clark is Superman is slightly unbelievable in that he doesn't notice that there are blanks coming out of the gun instead of real bullets. Real bullets would have penetrated his clothes and then bounced off him onto the floor but forget that...let's listen to Donner make fun of Lester's version that made more logical sense. The president talks of the Zod "defacing" the Washington monument when it was originally Mount Rushmore. Tweaking that scene made that line quite absurd. Superman's "freedom of the press" line sounded silly compared to "..Care to step outside" which was delivered better and had a fitting connection to Clark's earlier scene in the truck stop. Then there is the ending with the "turn back the world to go back in time" effect. It turned back everything in the whole movie and made you wonder where exactly the rocket aimed for Hackensack, N.J. ever went since it doesn't free Zod and company any more.
I grew up on the 'Superman II' theatrical version ("S2T") and as a kid, I loved it more than Part I since not only did it contain more Superman and three Superman-type villains, it started off with a bang – the best Clark Kent to Superman transformations and rescue scenes. Kids no longer had to impatiently wait for Superman to appear on screen, as in part I. Now as an adult, I can see how the mighty had fallen with S2T (See: my review.) I've always heard of the back-story on how they prematurely and unjustifiably fired the original's director, Richard Donner from part II. (It must have been a rarity back then to film two separate movies simultaneously, now it's common: 'Back to the Future' and 'Matrix' 2 & 3 for example.) Unfortunately, after finally seeing the Richard Donner Cut (or, "S2RD") I still can't fully recommend it. Gone, was the great Superman change scene, the entire Paris rescue, as was the wonderful recap of part I in S2T's opening. In fact, they all but wrote the words: "Previously on Superman…" in S2RD. The special effects weren't great in either Part I or S2T , but S2RD, they were mostly downright laughable – such as Lois falling from the Daily Planet window. I will admit, some new scenes worked and some they took out were welcomed departures, such as any scene in the "honeymoon suite." Overall, if you grew up on S2T as I did, and loved it as a child – not nitpicking as I do as an adult, you should absolutely see S2RD as it's almost a brand new childhood experience with dozens of new scenes. (Spoiler alert) Unfortunately, the worst change comes last: gone was also the weird amnesia kiss from S2T replaced with the exact same ending as 'I.' This is not only a lazy, unoriginal copout, it doesn't make sense on why Clark would go back to that diner, if those events never actually happened. And will he continue to "turn back time" for every confrontation?
I'm not alone in admiring the first Superman movie, a film that Richard Donner executed masterfully. I am also not alone in scorning Richard Lester's Superman 2... which brings us to the Richard Donner cut of the same movie, sadly it is still an absolute abomination.<br /><br />Superman's world is one where suspension of disbelief is required in strong doses, but Superman 2 stretches things too far. It doesn't matter who directed Superman 2 because the script insults the intelligence of a first grader. In a sense there is no plot because the characters have zero motivation to act the way they do, unlike the original superman. With or without his powers, Superman's strength (or lack thereof) is handled in the least believable manner. There is too much to criticize, so I will not bother. I condemn this movie... perhaps the slapstick in the Lester version is more appropriate to the moronic script this movie is based on. Super-Duper bad.
A little girl's dead body is found stripped of all possible means of identification. When it is discovered that one leg is longer than the other, it is assumed to be the body of a couple's missing daughter. After this trauma, the couple separates and the mother becomes addicted to tranquilizers and leads a miserable existence. All of this changes when one day, many years later, she receives a phone call from her daughter! With the help of an ex-cop and a reporter, she sets out on a journey to determine if her daughter is indeed alive. "Los Sin Nombre" is a mess plot-wise, moves at an achingly slow pace, and is completely unscary. The saving grace is Emma Vilarasau, who does an outstanding job as the desperate mother. The best part of the movie is the ending, but I'm not sure it is worth enduring the rest of the film. Beware of the English subtitles on the recent R1 release--they aren't very accurate.
Warner Bros. made many potboilers in the 1930s and most of them are fast paced, economical and very entertaining. I really love how the studio exploited the less glamorous elements of our daily life. This is one of Warner's few hard-edged melodramas that simply doesn't work. Edward G. Robinson plays a ruthless editor of newspaper who resurrects the 20-year old story of a murderess with tragic consequences. Robinson gives a lively performance but he is surrounded by actors that don't cut the mustard. H.B. Warner, Aline MacMahon and Boris Karloff are good, but the bad acting of Frances Starr and Anthony Bushell in the second leads really hurts the movie. Starr is particularly bad during her big dramatic scene near the end of the movie. In addition, the moralistic tone of the film seems ridiculous in the context of pre-code Hollywood. LeRoy's direction is full of innovative visual touches but he cannot overcome the bad acting and the unintentionally funny situations. Sol Polito's camera work is strong. Somehow, this piece of dreck got an Oscar nomination for Best Picture (in a year that gave us "M," "Dracula" and "Frankenstein").
I gave this 4 stars because it has a lot of interesting themes many here have already mentioned. From the domestic violence, to sexuality and many of the taboos therein. Outside of the gore I really would not call this horror so much as I would science fiction.<br /><br />It's bleak, depressing and hopeless. While I don't mind a less than cheery ending, I'm really very tired of the "humans suck" cliché that's central to every movie. I know you can't get a liberal arts degree today without bowing to the alter of self-hatred as a member of the human race, but how's 'bout as a writer/director we pretend we are different than everyone else in the pack and notice that the ALIENS KILLING THE HUMAN RACE are evil! Right now, if you are reading this and believe that humanity deserves to die, just go out, find a lake and swim 'til your arms are tired. This way you won't be around to direct the next film or write the next book telling me I deserve to die for being alive. It's silly, not thoughtful, and boring.
A huge disappointment from writer Hamm and director Dante. Their previous collaboration on the first season's "Homecoming" was twisted and darkly hilarious in all the right ways. This poor handling of an intriguing premise left me bewildered. The supposed "payoff" showing generic aliens extracting something from the brains of the infected psychopaths was completely unsatisfying and explained nothing. If the point of the story was an extraterrestrial "cleaning" of the planet of it's human infestation, why did they go about it in such a gratuitously sadistic and misogynistic fashion? Why not just unleash a completely lethal virus a la Stephen King's "The Stand" instead of having the male population butcher the females? I kept hoping the episode would improve as I kept watching but it just got more pretentious and preposterous. The religious subtext simply seemed forced but it was clear Sam Hamm must have thought it was profound by the weight he gave it. I like a lot of both Dante and Hamm's work but this was just unwatchable.
I love the frequently misnomered "Masters of Horror" series. Horror fans live in a constant lack of nourishment. Projects like this (and the similar "Greenlight Project" with gave us "Feast" - like it or lump it) are breeding grounds for wonderful thought bubbles in the minds of directors with a horror bent to develop and bring to maturation food for we who love to dine on horror.<br /><br />This one began with a kernel of really-kool-idea and ran ... right off the edge of "where in the world am I going with this?!!!".<br /><br />I don't know how to spoil the spoiled but "SPOILER AHEAD" All of a sudden ... no, there was that light drifting across the night sky earlier ... we have long haired luminescent aliens (huh? ... HUH?) brain drilling males and ... yeah, I get it but ... well ... the worst curse of storytelling - a rousing and promising set up without a rewarding denouement.<br /><br />Cue to storytellers ... your build up has to have a payoff that exceeds build up. Not the other way around. Storytelling math 101.<br /><br />End of Spoilers - Big Oops!
Masters of Horror: The Screwfly Solution starts as America is being infected by an airborne virus that affects the male population, when aroused men indiscriminately kill any woman in sight apparently in the name of God. Scientist Alan (Jasn Priestley) is brought in by the Government & knows more than most & senses the situation may have gone too far already so he tells his wife Anne (Kerry Norton) to take their teenage daughter Amy (Brenna O'Brien) & try to survive as the future of the human race may depend on them...<br /><br />This Canadian American co-production was episode 7 from season 2 of the Masters of Horrror TV series, directed by Joe Dante I thought The Screwfly Solution was pretty bad. I personally think the script by Sam Hamm sucks, it takes itself far too seriously & I don't really understand why it's part of the Masters of Horror series, the horror that the filmmakers are going for in The Screwfly Solution is in the actual story itself & themes & ideas it brings up rather than on screen visual horror particularly the tenuous ecological message it sees intent on ramming down our throats whenever it's gets the chance during it's short 60 odd minute running time which I felt itself was a problem as the thing just finishes out of what could easily be interpreted as necessity rather than any meaningful attempt to wrap things up. I wasn't happy with the inconsistencies with the story either, if men only kill when sexually aroused why does the flight attendant casually break that woman's neck on the plane? Was he sexually aroused, I think not. Why does every bloke then think he's killing in the name of God? I just can't see every single bloke on Earth suddenly knowing the Bible & starting to believe in God, I just found the notion ridiculous & the show also states clearly that there's nothing religious about what's going on so what's the deal with everyone thinking they have a divine to murder any woman they see? Then there's the fact people get turned on by different things, what about gays for instance? Will they kill guys instead of women? I know there's a brief scene which makes a joke out of the gay issue but it's conveniently brushed to one side & then there's the thing which annoyed me the most. The fact that presumably every bloke on earth has turned psycho & killed all the women they go about their everyday business like nothing ever happened, it just felt so stupid, the plotting is rubbish & to round things off there's a ending which looks like it was taken from a rejected episode of The X-Files (1993 - 2002) with a bright neon alien.<br /><br />Director Dante on this showing definitely doesn't qualify as a Master of Horror as far a I'm concerned, the story is badly paced, it's just so stupid considering it's played deadly straight & instead of trying to make a proper horror show he turns in more of a thriller with it's deadly virus on the loose situation & the subsequent mother & daughter on the run because of it, there's very little here in the way of what I would call effective horror & even less gore. There's a scene when a woman is stabbed with a broken bottle, a brief scene after when a guy stabs his own groin with said bottle & another woman is stabbed in the stomach but nothing else to write home about.<br /><br />Technically like the other episodes it's really good & it doesn't have the look of a cheap TV series, the special effects are great as usual & it's well made. The acting is alright but no-one really stood out.<br /><br />The Screwfly Solution is easily the worst Masters of Horror episode I've seen but bear in mind I haven't seen all of them... yet. As a stand alone piece of entertainment it did nothing for me & as a show made by a so-called Master of Horror it disappoints me even more.
I've now written reviews for several of the MoH episodes, and this is among the worst. An interesting premise at the beginning is completely abandoned by the time the credits roll. If watching people things they never would in real life amuses you ("let's check out the basement!"), then this is your show. Except, it's not amusing or entertaining - it's just annoying.<br /><br />The extent of the virus is never, ever showed. I can very much overlook the fact that it affects men only, as the resulting situation is very, very frightening. But then things deteriorate as daughter lets OBVIOUSLY deranged dad into the home, and ultimately dies at his hands. The woman flees north, and runs into a few tens situations. Then, some sort of spirit or alien or something appears and saves her (things that make you go HUH?). Or something. Then, she is huddling for warmth. The end.<br /><br />Awful. These directors are mailing this tripe in.
I wasn't terribly impressed with Dante's 1st season offering in "Homecoming", it wasn't much of a horror story, but rather a smart political statement with the undead. Screwfly situation is the story of a virus unleashed on the world that causes men's sexual drive to replaced with murderous tendencies toward women. The episode starts out all right with a short film explaining the way the screw fly was killed of by scientists. Then there is short scene where a man is arrested when females bodies are discovered in his home. I assume this is supposed to show the beginning of the outbreak, but is unclear because this is never revisited. The episode go ons for a while introducing characters blah blah blah.It seems cool and mysterious but the episode stars to get worse and worse as it lurches forward until its sad and unsatisfying end. The worst episode. Well, except for chocolate.
All the world said that the film Tashan would be a good movie with great pleasure, but this is not the case. Vijay Krishna Acharya made a serious mistake to take as an actress Kareena Kapoor. She was unbearable throughout the film. Her tom-boy look does not really goes well. Even the film the story of the film is not making sense at all. Everyone said that the Quetin Taratino of India is Vijay but its not at all Quetin. The talent Anil Kapoor was involved in this stupid movie. Anil is an actor of large caliber and this film is not. Akshay Kumar has also been a victim of this film as all is Saif. The Style and the Phoormola is not really good in this film i was disappointed
This is the biggest Flop of 2008. I don know what Director has is his mind of creating such a big disaster. The songs have been added without situations, the story have been stretched to fill the 3 hrs gap and most disgusting are the action stunts performed by the actors it's like everyone are having superpowers they can run in between the bullets are fire and nothing happens to them and one person fighting with 100 people. Only the best performance was by Anil Kapoor man he is all time at his best playing the role of villain with a comic act speaking Hinglish... Akki is also done a good job.... But the movieee just forget it.
I would have liked to write about the story, but there wasn't any. I would have liked to quote a couple of hard hitting dialogs from the movie but "hinglish" is only funny for like 5 minutes, after that its overkill. I would have liked to swoon over the 'keep-u-guessing suspense' but it was as predictable as... um mm, a Yash raj movie (?). I would have liked to talk of the edge-of-the-seat action, but I don't like cartoons much. <br /><br />*sigh*<br /><br />All in all, this movie is perfect for: 1. people attempting suicide - I promise it'll push you over the edge 2. Sado-masochists- this movie is way more effective than the barbed wire that Silas guy in the Da-Vinci code wore. 3. People researching alternative ways to spread terrorism - I swear the audience leaving the hall seemed to be in a mood to kill someone 4. Movie Piraters: More power to them. If any movies deserves to not have the audience spending money to watch - this is it. 5.Barnacles, most types of plankton & green algae - Because almost all other living things would require an IQ factor somewhat greater than what the movie offers. Afterthought: The director of the movie, obviously, is a species of his own. ( And i hope to god that he is the only one of his kind..one is enough)<br /><br />Things that could have made this a better movie: 1. A story 2. A choreographer 3. A Screenplay writer 4. A stunt coordinator 5. A story (Did I already say that?) 6. A director - preferably one who is not mentally challenged (although even one who was challenged could have done a better job) 7. Anil Kapoor=Bubonic plague - Avoid at all costs 8. A statutory warning - "Watching Yash Raj movies is Injurious to your mental health" ?<br /><br />Things I liked about the movie: 1. Kareena Kapoor - For obvious reasons 2. The English sub-titles - "Mera Dil Kho Gaya" becomes - "My heart is in a void" , "Chaliya Chaliya Chaliya" turns into "Im a flirt, Im a lover, Im a vagabond" ..priceless.<br /><br />In short, Tashan to me, is like the opposite of a Rubrics cube - The cube is supposed to increase the IQ of the player, Tashan promises to lower your IQ, and that.. in a mere 2.5 hours! Woot!<br /><br />*sigh*..But thats just me. I could be wrong You've been warned anyways.
Such a long awaited movie.. But it has disappointed me and my friends who had gone to see the movie on the first day.. From the trailers it looked like a action movie, but it turned out to be a out & out comedy(a bad comedy). But one thing that deserves appreciation is the acting by these professional actors, they've done their part of the movie very well. Good acting, but i don't think that can save the movie.. India has been shot beautifully. Kerala, Rajasthan, (Ladakh?) were all saturated with color, alright. Nevertheless the way the intrinsic beauty of these places was shot made me want to find out exactly where those places were and when I could go there ;-)<br /><br />Action sequences were shot very shabbily, no one could make out head & tail of the stunts, they've used Akki(akshay kumar) very well but could've been done much much better..<br /><br />Animation is the worst i've seen in recent movies(90's movies had better animation scenes i guess(initial scene where the car is falling off 'flying should be better word' the road into lake).<br /><br />And the movies name has been mentioned nearly every 20 to 30 mins, just to make sure audiences don't forget the movie name i guess..
The sight of Kareena Kapoor in a two-piece bikini is about the only thing that wakes you up from your sleep while watching Tashan — the mega-disappointing, mind-numbing new film at the cinemas this weekend. Bad films are bad films and we see some every week, but Tashan is not just a bad film, it's a terrible film. Terrible because it takes its audience for granted, terrible also because the filmmakers expect to get away without a plot or any common sense only because they've got big movie stars onboard.Written and directed by Vijay Krishna Acharya, Tashan is what you'd describe as a road movie, but one that's going in all the wrong directions. Saif Ali Khan stars as Jimmy Cliff, a call-centre executive who's hired to teach English to Bhaiyyaji - that's Anil Kapoor playing an ambitious UP gangster, desperate to go cool. Jimmy's got his eye on Pooja, the gangster's pretty young assistant (played by Kareena Kapoor), who uses Jimmy to swindle her boss of 25 crore rupees. Determined to recover his money and also to punish both Jimmy and Pooja, Bhaiyyaji recruits his most trusted henchman to do the job. So you have Akshay Kumar as Bachchan Pandey, the gangster's faithful aide from Kanpur, who tracks down the culprits and recovers the stolen money that's hidden across the length and breadth of the country.Much like those bad eighties potboilers, Tashan too is held together by a threadbare script centred on a vendetta plot. But the treatment's so over-the-top, so indulgent that it fails to establish any connect. Instead of a coherent screenplay or a traditional three-act structure, you get a handful of set pieces around which most of the scenes are loosely constructed. That garish item song in the desert, the bullet-dodging action scene at a Rajasthani fort, Kareeena's bikini moment, even that ridiculous climatic action scene complete with shaolin monks, a water scooter zipping through a dirty naala, and believe it or not, even a Dhanno-style horse-driven tonga. In all fairness, not all these set pieces are badly done - the item song in the desert is quite neat actually - but very little of it makes any sense in the larger picture, because you're just going from one piece to another without any help from the script really. Little do you expect in a seemingly fast-paced road movie, to find a sickeningly sentimental flashback track about childhood sweethearts.You see the problem with Tashan is nobody associated with this film knew what film they were making. What's more, I don't think they cared either - the film reeks of arrogance. Arbitrarily packing in elements of every genre without actually bothering to stop and see if the mix does work, Tashan is like an overcooked stew.There are films that kill you softly, and then there's Tashan, a film that kills you with excess. Packaged snazzily with glossy-finish camera-work, exotic locations and fancy costumes, every frame of the film probably cost lakhs to put together, but it still feels like a hollow piece in the end because the story doesn't hold. Borrowing narrative from Tarantino and style from Stephen Chow doesn't help either because they don't blend with the film's wafer-thin plot. One may have complained a little less if the characters were more engaging, but Anil Kapoor's grating Hinglish dialogue makes you want to slit your wrists, and Saif Ali Khan fumbles through the film foolishly, unable to find his feet. Kareena Kapoor, meanwhile, queen of over-the-top delivery, does a decent job. But of course, if Tashan is salvaged to some extent, it's thanks to Akshay Kumar's irresistible presence and his spontaneous approach to the character. You cringe when he's cupping his crotch repeatedly, and you scowl when he delivers those double-meaning dialogues, but not for a moment can you take your eyes off the screen when he's up there.Despite some good music from Vishal-Shekhar, the songs seem like they're only prolonging your misery. Well that's because Tashan is a test of your patience. In case you didn't know, Tashan means style. I'm sorry to say, this film has none.
...for this movie defines a new low in Bollywood and has set the standard against which all c**p must now be compared.<br /><br />First off, the beginning did have elements of style....and if handled well, could have become a cult classic, a-la pulp fiction or a Desi desperado...but the plot (was there one?) begins to meander and at one point completely loses it.<br /><br />Throw in a deranged don with an obsession for English, a call center smart Alec, a femme fa tale who can don a bikini and a Saree with the same aplomb, a levitating, gravity defying hit-man and a cop with a hundred (or was it a thousand) black cat commandos on their trail....good ingredients in competent hands. But this is where I would like to ask the director: Sir, what were you smoking?<br /><br />Im sure this movie would be remembered in the annals of Bollywood film making - for what must never be done - insult the intelligence of the most brain dead of movie goers. <br /><br />Possibly the only redeeming feature in this Desi matrix plus desperado plus grindhouse caper is the music...watch the videos...hear the airplay and you wont be disappointed. Vishal- Shekhar come up with some eminently hummable tunes. <br /><br />How I wish the director had spent the money in creating some more eye candy....<br /><br />As I sign off, I want to really, badly know how does Akshay's bullet wound vanish in a microsecond...what were you editors doing? Tashan, maybe...
This movie is horrible. THe acting is a waste basket. No crying, no action, hopeless songs. Though the scenery is great. I have always wanted to go to Greece.<br /><br />Anyway, as for Saif, you'd expect a great performance, but even he let down the people.<br /><br />Akshay Kumar, recognized as the pimp of Bollywood and the voice of Singhs. He was sensational in this movie. For only this performance, Filmfare should introduce another award. The toiletries award for the worst performance. By the way the trophy should be a toilet seat.<br /><br />Kareena Kapoor. She first of all is not comparable to her sister Karisma. In acting, in looks, or in body. She now wants to prove to herself that she surpasses her. She comes into this movie wearing bikini's and tank tops and short shorts. I really wonder why Saif Ali Khan is letting his wife-to-be dress like that. But, she must've impressed some people dressing like that. And if you ask how, then consider every man is having an erection watching this movie. They are dreaming of having Kareena Kapoor in bed naked with a condom. Including me. Personally I think that she dressed like a whore, but I really liked it.<br /><br />I am forced to give it a 1/10, but I'd really give this movie a 0/10. An unachieved film.
The film lacks style, i mean original style. everything looks copied including action, first appearances in the movie, songs, dialog delivery, etc etc. Yes, there the goof-ups were original, like in the beginning a car is shown with number UP**** number and few seconds later it starts falling down a hill with number MH**** . That was one in many goof-ups of the movie :) Anything good in the movie? yes, for kareena fans, if there are any, Kareena in bikini. For akshay fans, his dialogs and action stunts. Thats it. nothing else. So watch it on your own risk and don't blame the director or actors. Director is already insane and actors, i pity them.
I had never thought the standard of Yashraj films would ever degrade to such an extent! The film has a nonsense storyline which catches no interest.<br /><br />Saif has over acted. Kareena has improved her figure, but is not a good actress anyway. Akshay is good. Anil is also good. May I say the role wasn't good..<br /><br />Great deal of cheapness is filled in. Wondered if that was supposed to be the "comedy part" of the movie. Just because last few movies were flops does that mean Yashraj films should make this kind of rubbish? It has a history of so many good films. <br /><br />Overall, I was totally disappointed with the movie.
Sometime I fail to understand what do the directors think when they make a movie... I had had a trauma after watching Welcome (2007) and thought that they wont do it again. But after loads of amazing promos, Tashan finally ended as heart attack.<br /><br />Such amazing 3 songs in promo - Dil Haara, Chhaliya and Tashan Mein..... and what u get in the movie? Zero story, predictable plot, plenty of Akshay Kumar stunts and nothing interesting apart from watching Kareena after her major weight loss...!!!<br /><br />Music-wise another major disaster... in the music album, they have spent time on giving pathetic small dialogs of these 4 jokers and they haven't thought of giving the background song of the scenes when Akshay Kumar is doing stunts...! that song is such nice, quite comparable to Tashan Mein and that is not taken in the music album!!! :-( If you plan to watch this movie, i would say, watch it to listen to that background song which goes something like ...'Bachchan Bachchan Pandey...'<br /><br />Overall very disappointed even with the way Bhaiyyaji has made attempt to speak bad English!<br /><br />Go away man, i need to puke!
Absolutely awful movie. Utter waste of time.<br /><br />background music is so loud that you cannot understand speech. Well if you really listen closely, whatever they speak is actually unintelligible.<br /><br />Camera work is bad, editing is not present, background score gives a headache, action is shoddy, dialogs are unintelligible, Acting is abysmal and well Kareena used to look like a wrestler, now she looks like a starved wrestler. Hell you can slim down but you cannot gain grace.<br /><br />After spending three hours watching a movie I want to like it, but this movie would not even allow me that pleasure. <br /><br />Please if you want to torture yourself, go ahead watch this.
If there is one film which is the worst of this year- it's TASHAN The first promo gave an indication that the film will be a boring Dhoom 2 style film, and well i knew first only it would be a bad film whatever it maybe Because of it being a Yashraj film Or maybe seeing the cheesy promo But this film gave me a shock, it was even worst then Dhoom 2 and what i expected First Saif's introduction which is boring Then Saif- Kareena meet, Kareena is so artificial and then Anil Kapoor oh god, what he is doing in such a weird film? What kinda role it is? What acting is he doing? His first scene is alright but then his act gets repetitive and he overacts Then came Akshay who provided some nice scenes, but then the film became more boring and with all the outdated stuff Childhood romance, overdose of childish Rajnikant style action scenes and all boring scenes The ending is another joke<br /><br />Vijay Krishna Acharya would have got 3 films more to direct, if this film had worked, thats the strategy of yashraj, only money nothing else So Vijay is another addition to their list of crap filmmakers Music( Vishal Shekhar) is ordinary<br /><br />Performances Akshay Kumar comes in the film as a whiff of fresh air, he actually provides some engaging moments Saif Ali Khan is irritating, Kareena is equally bad Anil Kapoor hams outrageously and spoils the show even more Rest are okay
I was very displeased with this move. Everything was terrible from the start. The comedy was unhumorous, the action overdone, the songs unmelodious. Even the storyline was weightless. From a writer who has written successful scripts like Guru and Dhoom, I had high expectations. The actors worked way too hard and did not help the film at all. Of course, Kareena rocked the screen in a bikini but for two seconds. I think Hindi stunt directors should research how action movies are done. They tend to exaggerate way too much. In Chinese films, this style works because that is their signature piece. But, Hindi cinema's signature are the songs. A good action movie should last no more than two hours and cannot look unrealistic. But, in the future, I'm sure these action movies will get much sharper. Also to be noted: Comedy and action films do not mix unless done properly. Good Luck next time.
The storyline was okay. Akshay Kumar was good as always and that was the only good thing about the movie. Kareena Kapoor looked bad. There was so hue and cry over her size zero but she did not looked good leaner. I don't know why the hell did Anil Kapoor accepted such a bad role. There was nothing much to do for him in the movie. Just because it is a Yashraj film does not means that an actor should accept the role however bad it is. Said Ali khan was alright. I think that it is high time that Indian directors and producers start thinking of Indian customers as intelligent lot. What are we ? fools!!!! What do they think, they will show 2 men taking on a SWAT squad to teeters and we will believe them. Is the Indian police so stupid that they are trying to nab some criminals.... they take an entire squad of 100 + policemen and no one was there to surround the palace. The action was crap and I have never seen such bad action. Akshay Kumar was between a circle of 30-40 policemen all shooting at him..... and he shooting back at them. None of the policemen's bullet touched him but he killed all the policemen. Crap. CRAP.<br /><br />I think the fight director who thought of this scene should take retirement.<br /><br />I strongly recommend NOT TO SEE THIS MOVIE.
I just saw the movie in theater. The movie has very few good points to talk about. Kareena's beauty and a couple of songs may be. Thats it. The movie is a complete disappointment in all areas. Anyone associated with the movie will be disappointed, even Mumbai Indians too (just now Chennai has made it to semi-final). <br /><br />But the worst I feel about the movie is the action scenes. Now days Bollywood is trying to copy action scenes from Hollywood. But they forget that Hollywood directors takes a lot effect to make it look like real. But unfortunately Bollywood directors do not have that much of time. They spend their time on songs and publicity of the movie. Now such too stupid action scenes may work in South as the audience just pay to watch their favorite actor killing bunch of people. But in Bollywood this is certainly not going to work. All the action scenes I wish I could have forwarded. At the end even some Chinese people appear from nowhere to beat Akshay Kumar. This is height of stupidity. Audience is not paying to watch such stupidity. I think Bollywood now should forget about the action movies. They cant make it. The last good action I have seen was from "Ghatak" and "Khiladiyon ka Khialdi". The current scene in Bollywood is really sad for action movie fans like me. Does these people see their movie after completion? Can't they figure out that the slow motion action (which is done using ropes) is too unrealistic and childish? Better not to have action scenes if you cant handle it. I just want to go back to Amitabh's era where movie like Zanjeer and Deewar were having thrilling action scenes. The sound effect was not very effective in those days, but visually it is much better than current era scenes. <br /><br />This movie now should open the eyes of the Bollywood movie directors. Please don't make any more action movies, until you acquire the art of making it realistic.
Tashan - the title itself explains the nature of the movie.<br /><br />This type of movies are actually made for flop. What a shame that Yash Raj Films produces such movies those are worthless than C-grade movies. Or even some C-grade movies have better and pleasing story than Tashan. The much hyped and over-confidently promoted Tashan poorly bombed at the box-office which it certainly deserved.<br /><br />In my view, this is the worst movie ever made from honourable Yash Raj Films' banner. How come they handled such a heavy project to new Vijay Krishna Acharya who has no actual sense of making action flick? He tried to imitate Sanjay Gadhvi's ways of making like Dhoom but he suffered at last. The action scenes are more like than comics or cartoon movies made for exhausting the audiences.<br /><br />The story also loses in its meaning and substances to tenderly win the audiences' hearts. In most scenes Anil Kapoor reminds me of southern Tamil star Rajnikant in his body languages and wordly expressions. I am not a fan of neither Saif nor Akshay, but the award of Kareena should have finally gone to Saif''s hand instead of Akshay. Just from the starting point I expected of it, but at the end it displeased me with the climax truth. Saif is the main behind the whole adventure, while Akshay joins in the midst. In any movie, the final should be judged with the whole characters of the entire story and the award or say reward should be given to the one who deserves credit. And Tashan loses in this way, and unexpectedly failed to become a hit.<br /><br />Akshay's has nothing new to show off his comedian talent here but still reminds of his previous movies. He seriously need to form a new image to his fans that would impress them again and again. In between Saif did a great job in Race, and now he returned again in his hilarious nature through this movie. But he has fully developed himself in the acting field. And last but not the least about Kareena. She looks really hot with bikini dress of which some complain as she became too lean. But I myself don't think so, instead she became slim. Yes slim!!! it is a good factor for a female to attract the major people (or say, male). Beside them it is nice that Saif's son Ibrahim appears in the beginning & last as young Saif. I hope now he too will lean forward in target of making acting as his career.<br /><br />Those who like this Tashan they are either mentally immatured or still want to go back to childhood, or say want to be admitted in an asylum. Thumbs down to debutante director Vijay Krishna Acharya who mishandled the project offered by Yash Raj Films. In future he should experiment and study the script minimum of 5 years before going into practical directions.<br /><br />Sorry, I don't like to rate good stars to this type of junk movies.
I had no idea what the film is about before I saw it because Tashan only had teaser trailers while it was being promoted. So I asked my friends if they knew anything about it and they said that "It is the directorial debut of Vijay Krishna Acharya who wrote the screenplays for Dhoom 1 & 2 and Saif Ali Khan's son Ibrahim makes his debut in the film by playing him as a child in his flashback".<br /><br />After watching it, I understood that why their wasn't a proper trailer because there wasn't anything in the film to show. The story was extremely dum and even a 10 year old child can come up with a better story-line. There was hardly any action and the camera shook at every possible angle there is and it's difficult to figure out that who is killing who. Also the action was daft & unrealistic e.g. 1 man with a handgun managed to kill about 100 men with machine guns.<br /><br />While I was watching Tashan it reminded me of 3 films:<br /><br />Sin City: During the opening credits.<br /><br />Koyla: Anil Kapoor's terrible English like Amrish Puri in Koyla.<br /><br />Jhoom Barabar Jhoom: The outrageously ridiculous jokes that are not even a jot funny.<br /><br />I also heard the budget is 40 crores which is the same amount as Dhoom 2 and I don't know where all the money went to. Anyway if you did not like Dhoom 2 then there is absolutely no chance that you will like Tashan. Race was hot on heels and that is a million times better.<br /><br />The only 2 good songs are Dil Haara & Challiya and both songs are shot in Greece at good locations but what is the use of it in a rubbish film? Even Anil Kapoor's terrible English couldn't save this discomfiture.
I had a lot of expectations from this movie and more so since it was a Yashraj Film.<br /><br />Jimmy operates a call centre and one day he is invited by Pooja Singh to teach her boss, Lakhan Singh, English. The two fall in love and decide to run away but Pooja tells Jimmy that she can't do this as she owes a debt to Lakhan Singh, who is also known as Bhaiyyaji. But they decide and steal money from him and its only then that Jimmy finds out that Bhaiyyaji / Lakhan Singh is a Don. In the meantime, Bhaiyyaji hires a man, Bachchan Pandey, to track down Jimmy and Pooja.<br /><br />Starring Saif Ali Khan, Kareena Kapoor, Anil Kapoor and Akshaye Kumar, the movie is directed by first time director Viay Krishna Acharya and is produced by both Aditya Chopra and Yash Chopra.<br /><br />"Tashan" has to be one of the worse films that I have ever watched. Yes! The scenery is good and Kareena Kapoor (and her much publicised weight loss) looks good. But plot is extremely thin on story and at times makes no sense from one scene to the other - hence why I have said at the beginning that I had expected more from this film as it was a Yashraj Production. With reference to songs, unfortunately, there is not one song that I can remember now.<br /><br />There are moments where one can laugh and that is mainly thanks to Akshaye Kumar and Saif could have definitely done better while Kareena Kapoor played her part well. But this cannot be said for Anil Kapoor - it did not suit him at all as a villain. Lastly,never mind Aditya Chopra, who in the past has produced and directed good films such as "Mohabbatein," what was Yash Chopra doing by producing such a trash movie? <br /><br />Conclusion: Bad movie, not worth wasting your time and that is my first and last impression.
The action in this movie beats Sunny bhai in Gadar. Akshay Kumar possess the superpowers of Leonidus in 300, Neo in Matrix along with Spiderman and Superman. It is hilarious. Except for the typical Akshay Kumar and Anil Kapoor comedy I cannot see anything positive in this film. The story looks like the writer told his 10yr old son to write. The movie is so unreal that Anil Kapoors long range shooting with a shotgun is the least most mistake by the director. Except for the directors Tashan to make this movie there is no other Tashan. I regret wasting my money on this movie and I would not recommend it to anybody. 1/10 is the least I can give on IMDb or I would give it a zero.
I had some expectation for the movie, since it had a nice star cast and it is the return of the duo of Akshay and Saif. Well, I was hesitant to watch the movie because this was done by the same man who wrote the story for Dhoom franchise because I hated Dhoom 2; but if Dhoom 2 is compared to Tashan, I would say Dhoom 2 is very realistic. <br /><br />When I saw the credits at the beginning, I felt nice because it was put up in a nice way. Well, the very first scene itself pis*ed me off. Then, the major drawback of the movie is the action sequences. Me and my friends were laughing our guts off watching this crappy fights. It was like Akshay against some 30 thugs and all and the thugs even got machine guns! Phew...you got to see this to understand how bad the action sequences are.<br /><br />The other thing about the movie is the far too predictable story. It reminded me of some of the early 80's movies.<br /><br />Well, the only thing the movie is worth is of sexy Kareena, who looked really hot in this one.And for that, I give a rating of 2 out of 10.<br /><br />Guys, please..please...don't see this one thinking that it is a real gangster movie. Well, you can watch this to have some laughs at the terrible fight scenes.<br /><br />Thats all.
If this is a 2008 product from one of the biggest production houses of Indian Film Industry (Yash Raj) then I am afraid it is a very long ahead for us to reach the right standards.<br /><br />If you can go wrong to this length with such an enormous star cast of Anil, Akshay, Saif and Kareena, then movie making is still to be studied much harder by everyone associated with this film. The film lacks in almost all departments except cinematography and Akshay Kumar. He has a few good dialogues to render but that alone cannot make you enjoy a flick with huge expectations.<br /><br />The first scene of a car going down into a river from the mountain has very cheap graphics like that of a cartoon film. That itself was a clear indicator of the director's vision. Every actor who otherwise is an asset to a movie is simply wasted. Anil Kapoor's gimmick of attempting good English falls flat most of the times. And Saif will surely hit himself thinking why he signed this movie.<br /><br />In short IT'S THE BIGGEST WASTE OF RESOURSES AFTER "JHOOM BARABAR JHOOM". I would say that even "Aaja Nachle" was a better enjoyable movie than this.<br /><br />One cannot understand how and why this kind of script was written and approved. The most unwanted was the flashback sequence of Akshay's love story. After the faulty script the weakest point of the movie is its music. Vishal Shekhar have given just some filler tunes to each song. The songs start off very well and suddenly the tunes drop drastically. Only one song "Falak Tak Chal" is somehow good of all in the lot. An opportunity wasted by Vishal Shekhar.<br /><br />Regarding the continuity intelligence of the makers just sample this : Akshay and Saif are on the road in the hilly area of a foreign Location (probably Ladakh). In the next scene they are searching for Kareena in Haridwar and then back in the hills with Kareena in the dicky of their car. I am still thinking who wrote this.<br /><br />If you manage to sit till the last then the climax is too long with silly and unnecessary stunts. You can see all the heroes walking through the storm of bullets not hurt as if they are GOD. Are we still seeing a 2008 movie with all these technical heights achieved? So no more words on this pathetic and downgrade movie but a sincere request to senior actors from their fan.<br /><br />Dear Anil Kapoor & Akshay Kumar, If possible please ask for a preview of your movies after their first copy is out. As artists of such stature, you have certain responsibilities towards your fans and viewers. People still clap for you as you enter the screen in your first scenes respectively. I think this kind of movie should not see the daylight as it hampers the reputation of all associated with the movie, the actors and the production house both.
First lesson that some film makers (particularly those inspired by Hollywood) need to know - just 'style' does not sell. I guess Tashan when translated will mean style. Second, if you are hell bent on selling style, that does not spare you from having a decent story.<br /><br />Tashan has some story which could have sufficed with some better director. But it is not slick. For example, all three - Saif, Kareena and Akshay - are narrators at different points in the story. But this setup is not utilized to properly. There could have been a better mix and match of their narrations. Actions sequences are from the seventies.<br /><br />Cheoreography of the film is awful. I think Vaibhavi Merchant just sleep walked through this film. Vishal-Shekhar have put up a good score but it does not belong to this film. Why is there a sufi song (Dil Haara) in Tashan? Why is the cool Hinglish song (Dil Dance Maare) not on Anil Kapoor when he is the one who is English crazy? <br /><br />Akshay Kumar is the saving grace of the film. But he is in his stereotyped self. You won't mind missing this film.
Shame on Yash Raj films and Aditya Chopra who seems to have lost their intelligence over the years and providing steady fare of tripe in this piece of cinematic crap thats not even worth You Tube standards. I was gritting my teeth throughout the whole flick start to finish with the schizophrenic direction, plot line that never quite materialized and on the last scene I just felt ashamed that my country and its crorepati film makers can "THROW AWAY" crores on such stupidity. Shame on the actors for taking this work and even commenting on it as some piece of work they can own up to. Saif Ali Khan -completely disappointed in your choice of film. Kareen shows enough skin for the puberty stricken and Akshay comes up as the dim-wit. Anil another retard with a pubescent fascination for English. His cronies were commendable in their acting and with the bizarre cinematography scattered in the last 15 minutes, it was enough to pop a blood vessel. DON'T WASTe any brain cells, energy or your money to go see this- Go SEE / Rent AMU -with Konkana Sensharma instead- a beautiful piece of independent film thats ever come out of India.Intelligent, poignant and a wonderful story-tale that will touch everyone with intelligent actors and gave me hope that all is not lost in Indian cinema making.
Summer season is here when the choices in the cinemas are limited to what's the hottest movie of the week, given 99.9% of the screens dedicated to screening it. OK, so I may exaggerate on the percentage, but you get my drift. Besides stuff from Hollywood, Bollywood too have their own share of highly anticipated blockbusters, and from some of the trailers shown, I'm hyped to watch them too. Tashan was billed as one of THE most highly anticipated for 2008, but I was quite surprised at the lower than low turnout at the cinemas. When I watched Jodha Akbar, it was a full house, but it wasn't for Tashan.<br /><br />After watching it, I knew why. It was entertaining, but it was fundamentally weak. Just like it's literal English title, which means "Style", Tashan is all style, but little substance. Not that it doesn't have the usual star power, but scenes felt forced, and some bordered on a tad ridiculous, even for Bollywood standards I must say. Which is quite surprising given that Tashan is directed and written by Vijay Krishna Acharya, who wrote Dhoom and Dhoom 2, both of which I enjoyed tremendously. <br /><br />In his rookie directorial outing with Tashan, while you can't fault his direction, you'd probably scratch your head over the plot, which was clunky at best. It tried to force too many things into the story, though credit be given where it allowed you some avenue to question character motivation, but that came a little too late, and only toward the finale, which left you guessing for just a moment before it latched into full blown action mimicking many a Thai action movie, with Hong Kong's wirework and Hollywood's ludicrous firearms and gunplay with zero recoil. And in a bid to include everything including the kitchen sink, you have an assortment of vehicles appearing, and the one that took the cake, in a Dhoom 2 homage, was the jetski boat in the middle of nowhere.<br /><br />At best, Tashan can be enjoyed as unintentional comedy, and this is attributed to how the cast hammed up with their characters. Saif Ali Khan plays Jimmy Cliff, a call center executive who gives English tuition, only as a platform for fishing out new girlfriend material. His playboy ways gets junked aside when he meets with Pooja Singh (Kareena Kapoor), who's not exactly who she seems, the meek and sweet natured hottie. She engages Jimmy's services for her boss, mobster Bhaiyyaji (Anil Kapoor), who probably gets most of the laughs as he speaks broken English and phrases must like how an ah-beng does it. And to complete the quartet, Akshay Kumar plays Bachchan Pandey, an illiterate gangster for hire who got engaged by Bhaiyyaji to hunt down Jimmy and Pooja when they escape with money stolen from Bahiyyaji's business.<br /><br />So begins a road trip of sorts, with friends who turned enemies, and enemies whom you know will become friends as the road trip wears on. Jimmy Cliff is probably the most implausible of all, because he goes from zero to hero, executing moves that would shame Rambo, in absolutely no time, which is quite out of character. Kareena Kapoor amps up the sex factor as she uses her charms to guile both men, and has plenty of opportunity to do so given the much touted bikini scenes, and other costumes that boast of plunging necklines or hemlines way above the knee. Every character has a backstory created, and I thought Akshay Kumar's Bachchan Pandey was probably the best, the most touching and the most fun of the lot, even though his character seemed a lot like a non-green Incredible Hulk with his gravity-defying leaps and power packing punches. His wounds also heal automatically, which impressively puts Wolverine to shame. And the best part is his theme song, which is damn alpha-male and played in ra-ra mode each time he takes on adversaries.<br /><br />But sad to say, that's the only tune that is memorable, something that cheers "Bachchan- Pandey-Bachchan-Pandey". For most Bollywood movies I watch, I will usually be able to, despite the obvious language gaps, emerge from screenings humming a tune or two. I wasn't able to do that after Tashan, because the songs unfortunately just weren't catchy at all. Usually the song/dance routine works well into the storyline without any necessity to bring the characters out of the current scene or location. That I enjoy, versus plucking them out and plonking them into extreme settings high atop a mountain, or atop jagged rocks on the beach front.<br /><br />Tashan probably didn't take itself too seriously, but coming from Vijay Krishna Acharya's story, you probably wanted something a little more decent rather than the ridiculous, and for continuity to be a little more careful as well. Billed as a blockbuster, now I can start to understand why the crowds have already shunned this one. Despite Akshay Kumr stealing the show, Tashan could have been better on the whole.
The worst movie I have seen since Tera Jadoo Chal Gaya. There is no story, no humor, no nothing! The action sequences seem more like a series of haphazard Akshay Kumar Thumbs-Up advertisements stitched together. Heavily influenced from The Matrix and Kung-Fu Hustle but very poorly executed.<br /><br />I did not go a lot of expectations, but watching this movie is an exasperating experience which makes you wonder "What were these guys thinking??!!".<br /><br />The only thing you might remember after watching it is an anorexic Kareena in a bikini.<br /><br />The reason why I did not give a rating of '1' is that every time I think I have seen the worst, Bollywood proves me wrong.
Vijay Krishna Acharya's 'Tashan' is a over-hyped, stylized, product. Sure its a one of the most stylish films, but when it comes to content, even the masses will reject this one. Why? The films script is as amateur as a 2 year old baby. Script is king, without a good script even the greatest director of all-time cannot do anything. Tashan is produced by the most successful production banner 'Yash Raj Films' and Mega Stars appearing in it. But nothing on earth can save you if you script is bland. Thumbs down! <br /><br />Performances: Anil Kapoor, is a veteran actor. But how could he okay a role like this? Akshay Kumar is great actor, in fact he's the sole saving grace. Kareena Kapoor has never looked so hot. She looks stunning and leaves you, all stand up. Saif Ali Khan doesn't get his due in here. Sanjay Mishra, Manoj Phawa and Yashpal Sharma are wasted.<br /><br />'Tashan' is a boring film. The films failure at the box office, should you keep away.
Kareena Kapoor in a bikini hmmmmmmmm.<br /><br />Akshay Kumar...<br /><br />Anil Kapoor....<br /><br />Maybe Saif....<br /><br />Kareena Kapoor in a bikini.....<br /><br />Good Banner..<br /><br />Kareena Kapoor in a bikini.....<br /><br />Not one good reason not to see this movie....<br /><br />Or so i thought ........Didnt these people make JBJ...<br /><br />Why o Why did i forget that.<br /><br />For all the criticism the first half of the movie isn't that bad...<br /><br />There is some intrigue and YOU FEEL A SORT OF IRRITATION MIXED WITH EXCITEMENT THAT I FELT WHEN SEEING GUY RITCHIE MOVIES LIKE LOCK STOCK AND SNATCH.<br /><br />Kareena Kapoor is sizzling in a very skinny model sort of way.<br /><br />Akshay Kumar is Akshay Kumar as only he can be.<br /><br />Anil Kapoor is annoying but kind of funny, YOU ALMOST FORGET THAT MOST OF THE TIME YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND HIM.<br /><br />Saif is sidey ala Main Khiladi.. once again.<br /><br />There is the occasional laugh and a few chuckles, and a few goosebumps during the kareena-saif love story (kareena in the rain, behind me on my bike hmmmmmmm).<br /><br />BUT MOSTLY THIS HALF PROMISES MORE THAN IT DELIVERS.....<br /><br />WHICH MAKES THE SECOND HALF ALL THE MORE UNBEARABLE....<br /><br />There was almost a cheer when the interval came not only because because of the wet kareena because of what people thought were the things to come.<br /><br />INSTEAD WE WERE TREATED TO MIND NUMBING TORTURE WHICH IS DIFFICULT TO PUT IN WORDS.<br /><br />Saif suddenly seam like a comic sidekick...<br /><br />SUDDENLY THE SEXY KAREENA LOOKS ANOREXIC, YOU REALISE THAT THE SECOND LAST FLOOR IS NOW EMPTY AND HER FACE LOOKS TO BIG FOR HER BODY ( only girls can notice this and make other guys notice the second last floor was my observation).<br /><br />ANIL KAPOOR AND HIS SIDEKICKS GET ON YOUR NERVES.<br /><br />Akshay Kumar is the only one who carries off the madness to some extent but even he become intolerable after a while.<br /><br />ALL THE WHILE YOU ARE SUBJECTED TO ONE ABSURDITY AFTER THE OTHER.<br /><br />WHY??!! WHAT??!!! WHEN?!!! WHERE?!!! WHAT HAVE I DONE TO DESERVE THIS...<br /><br />A collective gasp went trough the audience before every song in the second half, which were ordinary even without the movie around it.<br /><br />Cannot relieve the trauma anymore....<br /><br />CONCLUSION.<br /><br />THIS MOVIE STARTS OF AS A BUZZ WHICH YOU FEEL COULD EVEN TURN OUT TO A HIGH BUT ENDS UP SLOWLY MOVING TOWARDS A HEADACHE AND THEN RAPIDLY TURNS INTO A FULL BLOWN MIGRAINE ATTACK.<br /><br />Please don't watch this movie for any reason other than academic interest.<br /><br />+s Cast, Akshay Kumar, first half.<br /><br />+/-s what, when, how, who to much confusion.(need a book to fill this).<br /><br />+s cast, the whole second half (need many pages to fill this).<br /><br />total 3/10 (im trying to avoid the 1s and 2s too not seem to extreme but make no mistake this movie is unwatchable no matter how decent the first half is).
The characters are unlikeable and the script is awful. It's a waste of the talents of Deneuve and Auteuil.
"Ghost of Dragstrip Hollow" appears to take place in a spotless netherworld, an era long gone by, where the biggest sin a kid could commit would be in defying the law and getting a traffic ticket. It opens with a young female auto fanatic getting the business from her arch rival, who pressures her into a car race. That's about it for the drag-racing--this B-flick is mostly concerned with rock 'n roll, man! The folks at American International were obviously fond of decent, square teens who liked to party and yet didn't mind an adult chaperone. There are a few amusing double entendres and fruity exchanges (Necking Kid: "We thought we'd come out for some fresh air"...Dad: "Where did you think you'd find it, down her throat?"), but the ghost is a little late in arriving. Brief at 65 minutes, the movie cheats us with a climactic car race that actually takes place off-screen and a pre-"Scooby Doo"-styled unmasking which makes no sense. However, for nostalgia buffs, some mindless fun. ** from ****
"Ghost of Dragstrip Hollow" was one of the many '50s movies about hot-rodding teens encountering the supernatural. In this case, the teens can't pay the rent for their hangout and get evicted. With nowhere else to go, they decide on an apparently haunted house. As you may have guessed, once they arrive, some weird things start happening. And there's a twist at the end.<br /><br />There's nothing in this movie that you haven't seen in other movies, but it's nice entertainment nonetheless. My favorite character was the foul-mouthed parrot. Well, let me rephrase that: he didn't talk like a character in a Quentin Tarantino movie, but he said things that we don't expect out of a bird. The movie's pure hokum, but harmless.
Ghost of Dragstrip Hollow is a typical 1950's teens in turmoil movie. It is not a horror or science fiction movie. Plot concerns a group of teens who are about to get kicked out of their "hot rod" club because they cannot meet the rent. Once kicked out, they decide to try an old Haunted House. The only saving grace for the film is that the "ghost" (Paul Blaisdell in the She Creature suit) turns out to be an out of work movie monster played by Blaisdell.
I saw this movie at a drive-in in 1959. Until "Howard the Duck" I considered this the worst movie I had ever seen. This movie tried to combine all the genera in one; comedy, horror, teenage angst, and the hot rod that must have sired "My Mother, The Car." Maybe it deserves a second viewing to see if it is an accurate reflection of it's time.
A worn-out plot of a man who takes the rap for a woman in a murder case + the equally worn-out plot of an outsider on the inside who eventually is shut out.<br /><br />With such an outstanding case, one would think the film would rise above its hackneyed origins. But scene after scene drones by with no change in intensity, no character arcs, and inexplicable behavior.<br /><br />The homosexuality theme was completely unnecessary -- or on the other hand, completely unexplored. It seemed to be included only to titillate the viewers. When will Hollywood learn that having gay characters does not automatically make a more compelling picture?<br /><br />A regrettably dreadful movie. When will Lauren Bacall pick a good one? I expected better of her and Kristin Scott Thomas. This one is definitely one to miss.
This movie must be in line for the most boring movie in years. Not even woody Harrison can save this movie from sinking to the bottom.<br /><br />The murder in this movie are supposed to be the point of interest in this movie but is not, nothing is of any interest. The cast are not to bad but the script are just plain awful , I just sat in utter amazement during this movie, thinking how on earth can anyone find this movie entertaining <br /><br />The producers of this movie were very clever. They made a boring movie but hid it well with the names of good actors and actresses on their cast. People will go to the blockbuster and probably see this movie and think, Woody Harrison ,Kristin Scott Thomas and Willem Dafoe this must be good and rent this movie.(boy are they in for a horrible time)<br /><br />If you like getting ripped off go and rent this movie, some people actually did enjoyed this movie but I like to watch a movie with meaning
This film is about a male escort getting involved in a murder investigation that happened in the circle of powerful men's wives.<br /><br />I thought "The Walker" would be thrilling and engaging, but I was so wrong. The pacing is painfully and excruciatingly slow, that even after 40 minutes of the film nothing happens much. Seriously, the first hour could be condensed into ten minutes. That's how slow it is.<br /><br />The fact that it lacks any thrills or action scenes aggravates the boredom. It's almost shocking that even argument scenes are so plain and devoid of emotion. Maybe it is because of the stiff upper lip of the higher social class? <br /><br />It's sad that "The Walker" becomes such a boring mess, despite such a strong cast. Blame it on the poor plot and even worse pacing.
Plot is not worth discussion even if it hints at corruption, murder, power and the rest of thriller related topics. Characters are interesting though sometimes. Not realistic but interesting nevertheless.<br /><br />Development is slow like tea drinking ceremony. Visuals not stunning, but good enough to ease the eye strain. Good movie to watch after dinner before going to bed - nothing shocking too much, nothing overexciting. Movie sitcom style.<br /><br />I liked Woody - excellent performance. Had to fight the plot inadequacy and did the job pretty good. The rest are bearable though very predictable. The whole is watchable and better than most TV shows.
This film is one giant pant load. Paul Schrader is utterly lost in his own bad screenplay. And his directing is about as comatose as it can be without his actually having been sleepwalking during the process. <br /><br />The worst though is Woody Harrelson, whom I ordinarily like when he's properly cast. He plays "the walker", a homosexual man in D.C. who plays social companion to the bored wives of the Washington elite. He couldn't have been more one dimensional if he had been cut out of a magazine and bounced around in front of the camera on a popsicle stick. His "southern accent" is that "off the rack" version that decrescendos from the beginning to the end of every line he delivers, as though the heat and humidity of the South is still draining him of every ounce of energy he has. It is monotonous. But, his is not the worst accent in the movie. His "boyfriend", played by Moritz Bleibtreau, attempts to affect some kind of a Mid East accent that is so clumsy he can barely deliver the bad lines written for him. He is incapable of rolling his r's in spite of the fact that in real life he is German, and speaks several languages - one of them being Italian! That's kind of a good reason to cast someone else don't ya think? <br /><br />From the story, to the screenplay, to the directing, to the camera work, to the performances by the leads, this movie is bad from beginning to end. The only tolerable moments in this film came from three supporting actresses: Lily Tomlin, Lauren Bacall, and Kristin Scott Thomas. Only these three managed to make it through this movie with their dignity in tact. In fact, all three are excellent, in spite of being trapped in a really bad film. Ufortunately, no one could ever be good enough to redeem this endless series of flaws. If you like these three actresses, watch them in something else. This movie is not worth your time.
The film is bad. There is no other way to say it. The story is weak and outdated, especially for this country. I don't think most people know what a "walker" is or will really care. I felt as if I was watching a movie from the 70's. The subject was just not believable for the year 2007, even being set in DC. I think this rang true for everyone else who watched it too as the applause were low and quick at the end. Most didn't stay for the Q&A either.<br /><br />I don't think Schrader really thought the film out ahead of time. Many of the scenes seemed to be cut short as if they were never finished or he just didn't know how to finish them. He jumped from one scene to the next and you had to try and figure out or guess what was going on. I really didn't get Woody's (Carter) private life or boyfriend either. What were all the "artistic" male bondage and torture pictures (from Iraq prisons) about? What was he thinking? I think it was his very poor attempt at trying to create this dark private subculture life for Woody's character (Car). It didn't work. It didn't even seem to make sense really.<br /><br />The only good thing about this film was Woody Harrelson. He played his character (Car) flawlessly. You really did get a great sense of what a "walker" may have been like (say twenty years ago). He was great and most likely will never get recognized for it. <br /><br />As for Lauren, Lily and Kristin... Boring.<br /><br />Don't see it! It is painful! Unless you are a true Harrelson fan.
This film is mediocre at best. Angie Harmon is as funny as a bag of hammers. Her bitchy demeanor from "Law and Order" carries over in a failed attempt at comedy. Charlie Sheen is the only one to come out unscathed in this horrible anti-comedy. The only positive thing to come out of this mess is Charlie and Denise's marriage. Hopefully that effort produces better results.
I don't know who to blame, the timid writers or the clueless director. It seemed to be one of those movies where so much was paid to the stars (Angie, Charlie, Denise, Rosanna and Jon) that there wasn't enough left to really make a movie. This could have been very entertaining, but there was a veil of timidity, even cowardice, that hung over each scene. Since it got an R rating anyway why was the ubiquitous bubble bath scene shot with a 70-year-old woman and not Angie Harmon? Why does Sheen sleepwalk through potentially hot relationships WITH TWO OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL AND SEXY ACTRESSES in the world? If they were only looking for laughs why not cast Whoopi Goldberg and Judy Tenuta instead? This was so predictable I was surprised to find that the director wasn't a five year old. What a waste, not just for the viewers but for the actors as well.
The second attempt by a New York intellectual in less than 10 years to make a "Swedish" film - the first being Susan Sontag's "Brother Carl" (which was made in Sweden, with Swedish actors, no less!) The results? Oscar Wilde said it best, in reference to Dickens' "The Old Curiosity Shop": "One would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh out loud at the death of Little Nell." Pretty much the same thing here. "Interiors" is chock full of solemnly intoned howlers. ("I'm afraid of my anger." Looking into the middle distance: "I don't like who I'm becoming.") The directorial quotations (to use a polite term) from Bergman are close to parody. The incredibly self-involved family keep reminding us of how brilliant and talented they are, to the point of strangulation. ("I read a poem of yours the other day. It was in - I don't know - The New Yorker." "Oh. That was an old poem. I reworked it.") Far from not caring about these people, however, I found them quite hilarious. Much of the dialog is exactly like the funny stuff from Allen's earlier films - only he's directed his actors to play the lines straight. Having not cast himself in the movie, he has poor Mary Beth Hurt copy all of his thespian tics, intonations, and neurotic habits, turning her into an embarrassing surrogate (much like Kenneth Branagh in "Celebrity").<br /><br />The basic plot - dysfunctional family with quietly domineering mother - seems to be lifted more or less from Bergman's "Winter Light," the basic family melodrama tricked up with a lot of existential angst. It all comes through in the shopworn visual/aural tricks: the deafening scratching of a pencil on paper, the towering surf that dwarfs the people walking on the beach. etc, etc.<br /><br />Allen's later "serious" films are less embarrassing, but also far less entertaining. I'll take "Interiors." Woody's rarely made a funnier movie.
"It appears that many critics find the idea of a Woody Allen drama unpalatable." And for good reason: they are unbearably wooden and pretentious imitations of Bergman. And let's not kid ourselves: critics were mostly supportive of Allen's Bergman pretensions, Allen's whining accusations to the contrary notwithstanding. What I don't get is this: why was Allen generally applauded for his originality in imitating Bergman, but the contemporaneous Brian DePalma was excoriated for "ripping off" Hitchcock in his suspense/horror films? In Robin Wood's view, it's a strange form of cultural snobbery. I would have to agree with that.
When I was little my parents took me along to the theater to see Interiors. It was one of many movies I watched with my parents, but this was the only one we walked out of. Since then I had never seen Interiors until just recently, and I could have lived out the rest of my life without it. What a pretentious, ponderous, and painfully boring piece of 70's wine and cheese tripe. Woody Allen is one of my favorite directors but Interiors is by far the worst piece of crap of his career. In the unmistakable style of Ingmar Berman, Allen gives us a dark, angular, muted, insight in to the lives of a family wrought by the psychological damage caused by divorce, estrangement, career, love, non-love, halitosis, whatever. The film, intentionally, has no comic relief, no music, and is drenched in shadowy pathos. This film style can be best defined as expressionist in nature, using an improvisational method of dialogue to illicit a "more pronounced depth of meaning and truth". But Woody Allen is no Ingmar Bergman. The film is painfully slow and dull. But beyond that, I simply had no connection with or sympathy for any of the characters. Instead I felt only contempt for this parade of shuffling, whining, nicotine stained, martyrs in a perpetual quest for identity. Amid a backdrop of cosmopolitan affluence and baked Brie intelligentsia the story looms like a fart in the room. Everyone speaks in affected platitudes and elevated language between cigarettes. Everyone is "lost" and "struggling", desperate to find direction or understanding or whatever and it just goes on and on to the point where you just want to slap all of them. It's never about resolution, it's only about interminable introspective babble. It is nothing more than a psychological drama taken to an extreme beyond the audience's ability to connect. Woody Allen chose to make characters so immersed in themselves we feel left out. And for that reason I found this movie painfully self indulgent and spiritually draining. I see what he was going for but his insistence on promoting his message through Prozac prose and distorted film techniques jettisons it past the point of relevance. I highly recommend this one if you're feeling a little too happy and need something to remind you of death. Otherwise, let's just pretend this film never happened.
Sorry everyone,,, I know this is supposed to be an "art" film,, but wow, they should have handed out guns at the screening so people could blow their brains out and not watch. Although the scene design and photographic direction was excellent, this story is too painful to watch. The absence of a sound track was brutal. The loooonnnnng shots were too long. How long can you watch two people just sitting there and talking? Especially when the dialogue is two people complaining. I really had a hard time just getting through this film. The performances were excellent, but how much of that dark, sombre, uninspired, stuff can you take? The only thing i liked was Maureen Stapleton and her red dress and dancing scene. Otherwise this was a ripoff of Bergman. And i'm no fan f his either. I think anyone who says they enjoyed 1 1/2 hours of this is,, well, lying.
This film lacked something I couldn't put my finger on at first: charisma on the part of the leading actress. This inevitably translated to lack of chemistry when she shared the screen with her leading man. Even the romantic scenes came across as being merely the actors at play. It could very well have been the director who miscalculated what he needed from the actors. I just don't know.<br /><br />But could it have been the screenplay? Just exactly who was the chef in love with? He seemed more enamored of his culinary skills and restaurant, and ultimately of himself and his youthful exploits, than of anybody or anything else. He never convinced me he was in love with the princess.<br /><br />I was disappointed in this movie. But, don't forget it was nominated for an Oscar, so judge for yourself.
Airport '77 starts as a brand new luxury 747 plane is loaded up with valuable paintings & such belonging to rich businessman Philip Stevens (James Stewart) who is flying them & a bunch of VIP's to his estate in preparation of it being opened to the public as a museum, also on board is Stevens daughter Julie (Kathleen Quinlan) & her son. The luxury jetliner takes off as planned but mid-air the plane is hi-jacked by the co-pilot Chambers (Robert Foxworth) & his two accomplice's Banker (Monte Markham) & Wilson (Michael Pataki) who knock the passengers & crew out with sleeping gas, they plan to steal the valuable cargo & land on a disused plane strip on an isolated island but while making his descent Chambers almost hits an oil rig in the Ocean & loses control of the plane sending it crashing into the sea where it sinks to the bottom right bang in the middle of the Bermuda Triangle. With air in short supply, water leaking in & having flown over 200 miles off course the problems mount for the survivor's as they await help with time fast running out...<br /><br />Also known under the slightly different tile Airport 1977 this second sequel to the smash-hit disaster thriller Airport (1970) was directed by Jerry Jameson & while once again like it's predecessors I can't say Airport '77 is any sort of forgotten classic it is entertaining although not necessarily for the right reasons. Out of the three Airport films I have seen so far I actually liked this one the best, just. It has my favourite plot of the three with a nice mid-air hi-jacking & then the crashing (didn't he see the oil rig?) & sinking of the 747 (maybe the makers were trying to cross the original Airport with another popular disaster flick of the period The Poseidon Adventure (1972)) & submerged is where it stays until the end with a stark dilemma facing those trapped inside, either suffocate when the air runs out or drown as the 747 floods or if any of the doors are opened & it's a decent idea that could have made for a great little disaster flick but bad unsympathetic character's, dull dialogue, lethargic set-pieces & a real lack of danger or suspense or tension means this is a missed opportunity. While the rather sluggish plot keeps one entertained for 108 odd minutes not that much happens after the plane sinks & there's not as much urgency as I thought there should have been. Even when the Navy become involved things don't pick up that much with a few shots of huge ships & helicopters flying about but there's just something lacking here. George Kennedy as the jinxed airline worker Joe Patroni is back but only gets a couple of scenes & barely even says anything preferring to just look worried in the background.<br /><br />The home video & theatrical version of Airport '77 run 108 minutes while the US TV versions add an extra hour of footage including a new opening credits sequence, many more scenes with George Kennedy as Patroni, flashbacks to flesh out character's, longer rescue scenes & the discovery or another couple of dead bodies including the navigator. While I would like to see this extra footage I am not sure I could sit through a near three hour cut of Airport '77. As expected the film has dated badly with horrible fashions & interior design choices, I will say no more other than the toy plane model effects aren't great either. Along with the other two Airport sequels this takes pride of place in the Razzie Award's Hall of Shame although I can think of lots of worse films than this so I reckon that's a little harsh. The action scenes are a little dull unfortunately, the pace is slow & not much excitement or tension is generated which is a shame as I reckon this could have been a pretty good film if made properly.<br /><br />The production values are alright if nothing spectacular. The acting isn't great, two time Oscar winner Jack Lemmon has said since it was a mistake to star in this, one time Oscar winner James Stewart looks old & frail, also one time Oscar winner Lee Grant looks drunk while Sir Christopher Lee is given little to do & there are plenty of other familiar faces to look out for too.<br /><br />Airport '77 is the most disaster orientated of the three Airport films so far & I liked the ideas behind it even if they were a bit silly, the production & bland direction doesn't help though & a film about a sunken plane just shouldn't be this boring or lethargic. Followed by The Concorde ... Airport '79 (1979).
This is the kind of movie that my enemies content I watch all the time, but it's not bloody true. I only watch it once in a while to make sure that it's as bad as I first thought it was.<br /><br />Some kind of mobsters hijack a Boeing 747. (That, at least, is an improvement over having Boeing hijack a good part of the Pentagon.) The airplane goes down in the Bermuda triangle and sinks pressurized to the bottoms, a kind of post-facto submarine.<br /><br />It has one of those all-star casts, the stars either falling or barely above the horizon.<br /><br />"We're on our own!", says pilot Jack Lemon. He is so right. Except for George Kennedy. He's in all these disaster movies.<br /><br />Watch another movie instead. Oh, not "Airport" the original. That's no good either. Instead, watch a decent flick about stuck airplanes like "Flight of the Phoenix."
Towards the end of the movie, I felt it was too technical. I felt like I was in a classroom watching how our Navy performs rescues at sea. I liked seeing that the engines have fire extinguishers. I guess I should have figured that out before, but I never thought about it. Using a 747 to transport valuable old paintings with very little security is odd and not realistic. The acting was pretty good, since they're mostly seasoned professionals, but if you're going to stretch so far from what would most likely happen, it should be more like a fantasy, comical, etc. Everything was taken too seriously. At least the movie had Felix Ungar as pilot, with Buck Rogers, the night stalker, and Dracula also on board. The movie was filled with well known faces. I understand that Hollywood has to exaggerate a bit for drama, but it does hurt the quality of a movie when a serious subject is made into a caricature. That's why I said it should have been more comical. My pet peeve with movies about airline travel is that everybody just casually moves about. They walk around with drinks, setting them down and picking them up 5 minutes later, just as if they're in a building or something, and acting as if turbulence just doesn't exist. Also, I know it's a disaster movie, but suspense doesn't have to include a 30 second crash after hitting something. Anyway, the skilled actors and actresses keep this weak script from having been made into a movie that got canned after it's first screening. I like Lee Grant, but it was fun to watch a psychotic person get decked...:)
Capt. Gallagher (Lemmon) and flight attendant Eve Clayton (Vaccaro) are a supposedly hot item in this death trip; a luxury 747 airliner decked out to look like a nightclub-slash-hotel… there's even a blind piano player who falls in love. Karen Wallace (Grant) is the hysterical b!$3& who'll do anything to get attention from henpecked husband Martin (Christopher Lee) and, later, the rest of the people on board.<br /><br />Memorable Moments: Boeing 747 doing a belly flop in the Atlantic Ocean, Karen getting her chops busted when she goes too far, and furniture (and screaming people) who become 'ball bearings' in a sinking 'pinball machine.'<br /><br />The action and rescue sequences here are relatively phenomenal, but not much goes on in between. Hitchcock was supposed to have directed this sequel, but I forget the reason why not… He would've done wonders for the 1970 original, on which this sequel is partly inspired ('77 also got inspiration from `The Flight of the Phoenix'). <br /><br />Actors Cotten and de Havilland reunite from their days on `Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte' (apparently here they are not playing heavies, just reunited ‘Autumn Years' lovers). And isn't the actress playing Emily's companion the same one who played the hammered-to-death maid on `Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?'<br /><br />TV actors include the girlfriend from `Mayberry RFD' (her character's daughter wins a drawing contest, or something lame like that), `Buck Rogers' Gil Gerard and `Dynasty's' Pamela Bellwood.<br /><br />
Although the production and Jerry Jameson's direction are definite improvements, "Airport '77" isn't much better than "Airport 1975": slick, commercial rubbish submerging (this time literally) a decent cast. Jack Lemmon is the pilot of a packed airliner which gets hijacked by art thieves and crashes into the sea (all the publicity claimed it was near the Bermuda Triangle, but there's no mention of it in the film itself). When the rescue ships come to raise the airplane out of the water, we see all their cranes dropping (rather blindly) into the ocean and it's hard not to laugh (imagining the cranes plugging the plane, the passengers and the waterlogged script). NBC used to air what appeared to be the "director's cut", with at least an hour of extra footage--mostly flashbacks--injected into the proceedings with all the subtlety of a "Gilligan's Island" episode. Most exciting moment is the plane crash, and some of the players have a little fun: Lee Grant is an obnoxious drunk, Brenda Vaccaro a no-nonsense stewardess, Joseph Cotten and Olivia de Havilland are flirting oldsters. Still, the personality conflicts and the excruciating military detail eventually tear at one's patience. ** from ****
I saw this piece of garbage on AMC last night, and wonder how it could be considered in any way an American Movie Classic. It was awful in every way. How badly did Jack Lemmon, James Stewart and the rest of the cast need cash that they would even consider doing this movie?
Hmmm, a sports team is in a plane crash, gets stranded on a snowy mountain, and is faced with the difficult decision to eat the flesh of their dead companions in order to survive. Sound familiar anyone? I refer to "Alive" from 1993. The only major difference here, of course, is that a big, white, drunken scare crow of a Yeti shows up a few times to drag off the dead. I guess humans taste better than yaks.<br /><br />Stupid: The man in the first scene does not have a reliable firearm when hunting the Yeti, nor does he have a backup.<br /><br />The plane crash is completely bogus. It would have either exploded in the air, exploded when it hit the ground, or become obliterated. The people would not have survived, but hey, it's sci-fi.<br /><br />Stupid: They survived, and they are cold. It might be a good idea to harness some of the burning debris nearby so as not to freeze to death. Fire being warm as it is...<br /><br />WTF: The pilot has frost formed all over his face while he's alive and talking, but oddly enough, no one else does.<br /><br />Stupid: One of the guys tells the others to look for matches and lighters, but there are scattered parts of the plane ON FIRE all around them.<br /><br />Stupid: They find coats and hoodies, and yet there in the cold of the Himalayas, they fail to use the hoods!<br /><br />Stupid: They're staring at a pile of sticks when, I reiterate, there are pieces of the plane ALREADY BURNING.<br /><br />Stupid: The Himalayas are notorious for its storms. It would be common sense for them to collect the debris in order to reinforce their structure rather than sitting outside bickering. There are a lot of pine trees around, the branches of which make excellent insulation.<br /><br />WTF: When in doubt, use a dead man's arm as a splint.<br /><br />WTF: If the one guy knows so much about the hibernation habits of squirrels, bears, and leopards in the Himalayas, then why doesn't he know enough to make shelter and set traps right from the start? <br /><br />Stupid: When attempting to trap wild animals, mindless conversation in the vicinity of said trap always helps.<br /><br />WTF: Do you know how hard it would be to cut a frozen corpse with a shard of glass?! <br /><br />WTF: The group was ready and armed to fight the Yeti while the other two were standing there defenseless. The Yeti ripped out the guy's heart and stomped the girl's head, and the gang did nothing. There's love.<br /><br />So two Yetis and a convenient avalanche to bury the evidence forever.... or so we think. Mwuhahahaa! The story continues into more idiocy but the most action occurs in the last 15 minutes, as usual. Nice thinking with the javelin and the chain, although this is some ingenuity (with the magically-appearing chain) that they lacked in the beginning of the movie when they couldn't even make fire despite the fact that it was all around them.<br /><br />As is typical for the Sci-Fi Originals, the loving couple kisses at the end like nothing horrible has just happened to them (not to mention they ate human flesh and haven't brushed their teeth in several days).<br /><br />The very end, however, is quote lame.
Yeti: Curse of the Snow Demon starts aboard a plane full of American high school teens who are on their way to play a football game in Japan, unfortunately during a fierce thunder storm their plane crashes in the Himalayas. Unlucky really. With some dead & some alive the survivors have to think about themselves & decide to wait it out until help comes. However just when they think their luck couldn't get any worse they soon discover that a huge, hairy Yeti type Abominable Snowman creature wants to kill & eat them all. Trapped, cold, starving & fighting for survival will help reach the stranded teens in time?<br /><br />Yeah, with a title like Yeti: Curse of the Snow Demon it can only mean one thing & that is that someone at the Sci-Fi Channel has made yet another 'Creature Feature' although to give these things a bit of variety the Sci-Fi Channel here in the UK are now dubbing them as a 'Beast Feast'! As if that will make any difference. Directed by Paul Ziller one has to say that Yeti: Curse of the Snow Deamon is a terrible film but a somewhat entertaining one at the same time, sure it's bad but it's sort of fun at times too. The basic premise is alright actually, it's a sort of cross between Alive (1993) with it's plane crash & the survivors having to turn cannibal to survive & the excellent gory killer Bigfoot (another legendary hairy monster) exploitation flick Night of the Demon (1980) which I would defend with my last breath & I have to say it's not exactly a marriage made in heaven but as I said it's fun at times if not exactly gripping or well written. The character's are mostly annoying American teens, there's the expected arguing, there's the macho hero, the strong female & the coward who thinks only of himself so there's no prizes for originality. There are some plot holes too, if a plane load of people crash why only send two rangers on foot to search for them? How are you going to dig a large hole & line it with sharpened sticks in the space of ten minutes? Why did the Yeti not kill that bird at the end? It had killed everyone else up to that point so why not her? The 'there are actually two Yeti's running around' twist isn't used to any effect at all either. At least there's a good pace about the film, it certainly moves along at a fair old pace & I never found myself becoming bored with it. There's some moderately gory action & the film does have some fascination in seeing whether the kids are going to survive or not & if they are going to eat their dead mates or not.<br /><br />The one thing you can always say about these Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Features' or 'Beast Feasts' is that the CGI computer effects will be laugh out loud hilarious & so that proves to be the case yet again. The plane crash at the start looks awful & the Yeti when it's CGI looks simply embarrassing jumping all over the place like it's on a pogo stick. There one or two nice gore scenes including a ripped off arm, a squashed head, a ripped out heart, some dead bodies, some blood splatter & the best bit when the Yeti rips a guy in half & beats him with his own ripped-off legs before biting a big chunk out of them. According to the IMDb the actor playing the Yeti took three & a half hours to get into the suit & the make-up which seems like a long time since it's actually a pretty tatty looking creation. Apparently the original title was Raksha: Curse of the Snow Demon with Raksha meaning demon in Tibetan Sanskrit, so now you know.<br /><br />This has reasonable production values considering the usual Sci-Fi Channel stuff they churn out although the mountain location looks nothing like the harsh, bleak Himalayas & was probably situated near some ski resort somewhere & during a lot of the daytime scenes it actually looks pleasantly warm. The acting isn't that good & I didn't think any of the girls looked that good either which didn't help.<br /><br />Yeti: Curse of the Snow Demon is another terrible Sc-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' if I am honest that any sane person will not like but if your looking for a bit of horror themed fun then this isn't too bad & there are one or two entertaining moments that make it somewhat watchable even if it's not very good.
Ah yez, the Sci Fi Channel produces Yeti another abominable movie. I was particularly taken by the scenes immediately following the crash where, as the survivors desperately searched for matches, at least a half dozen fires burned – with no apparent reason – at various points of the wreckage. Fire seemed to be a predominate theme throughout. They searched corpses for lighters and matches, and finally finding a box built a fire every day for, apparently, 12, but no one ever gathered wood. Then when the vegan (hah) burned the bodies, what did she use for an accelerant? I mean these guys were frozen – well maybe not. Despite the apparent low temperature everything the yeti ate, bled. Maybe it's just me, but even in a totally unbelievable tale (none of the survivors had ever heard of a yeti, or an abominable snowman, until the very end), if you take care of the little things the bigger deals become more acceptable. Oh, what did the prologue (1972) have to do with the remainder of the movie? And the revolver, warm enough to hold in his hand, froze up and wouldn't fire. Gimme a break. Well, at least we have Carly Pope, another eminently lovely Canadian lass. And, with little irony, Ed Marinaro as the coach.<br /><br />Well I might as well add, the rabbit they ate (despite it looking like chicken) is not a rodent, but a lagomorph. Now if it had been a squirrel (or a rat) it would have been a rodent, but it still looked like chicken. And the writers missed a real chance to have someone note "It tastes just like..."
First off, I'm not here to dog this movie. I find it totally enjoyable in spite of the poor production quality. The acting herein is about as abominable as the monster stalking them, although the monster itself is quite well done...impressively well done, at that. He actually looks kind of other-worldly, like an alien family on vacation landed in the Himalayas and while dad was out taking a ... attending to nature's call, Spot got loose and they just didn't have time to hunt him down. That, or he's the Caucasian brother of the Wishmaster. I haven't decided which.<br /><br />Actually, this seems to have been filmed somewhere in snow country, yes, but more likely Canada somewhere than China anywhere. The trees and vistas say Canada to me, and it's okay that the set area never takes on the look or feel of uber-coldness one might expect to find in the Himalayas of China. It's a Sci-Fi Channel movie, so we can forgive the lack of location.<br /><br />Further, apparently (as we have just established) Sci-Fi directors do not travel often, as they are not aware that commercial planes fly above weather like what is featured herein and the subsequent crash actually would not have happened. But as I said, it's a Sci-Fi Channel movie so we must forgive a few things.<br /><br />The movie is pretty graphic at times, and rotates between "Alive" about the Donner Party, "Predator" about the alien in the woods, and any bad wushu movie where they fly about on wires. The Yeti apparently can leap about like Spiderman...or Super Mario...remember? "Run faster! Jump higher! Live longer!" <br /><br />Also, the Yeti has missed his teddy bear. He's searched high and low for it, but cannot seem to make a cadaver work. Poor Yeti! You can't help but feel sorry for it. It has survived and evolved thousands of years only to succumb to severe teddy bear loss. He's missed his bear. Or maybe it wants to mate, but that thought is BANISHED! Do ya hear me? Well, it does seem to be an unmated male. REBANISHED! <br /><br />And it's superhuman. Well, it's not human...it's super-Yeti! But then again, what's normal-Yeti? I don't know, but he has a definite Michael Meyers quality that is completely unsettling. And he's got this fabulous way of cleaning his fur. FABulous Dahlink! It's spotlessly white at times when it SO shouldn't be. He's fastidiously superhu-...super-Yeti.<br /><br />All in all? This was a lot of fun to watch, has some great kills and a few honest plot elements. In spite of the horribly gravel-like production style, this is actually quite entertaining. I can't help wondering if they're planning on another one? <br /><br />It rates a 6.0/10 on the M4TV Scale.<br /><br />It rates a 4.4/10 on the Movie Scale from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.
Having watched this movie on the SciFi channel, I can only conclude that this film was made by a bunch of amateurs who have never seen a movie in their lives. The film is an endless sequence of bizarre occurrences, or "delights" as the friend reading over my shoulder is telling me. The plot isn't really worth commenting as, but basically a plane carrying football players crashes into Yeti territory. Before the movie is over, we are treated to yetis ripping hearts out, yetis waddling in an effort to run before jumping 50 meters, yetis ripping a man's legs off and beating him with them, a woman killing a rabbit at 30 meters with a javelin, a yeti surviving several bullets and being set on fire with no apparent harm, a yeti dangling off a cliff by holding to a man's shoe, yet then jumps off, and a whole collection of further, bizarre occurrences. Basically, if you aren't staying up on a Saturday for the expressed purpose of watching the worst of SciFi channel original movies, avoid this film like the plague. Or as my friend reading over my shoulder says: "It's the best movie I have ever seen." To which the friend on my right says: "Only battle techno music could have made it better."
I had the misfortune to watch this rubbish on Sky Cinema Max in a cold winter night. I am not a big fan of horror movies, because most of them are just trash. This one is even worse: it is one of the dumbest pieces of crap i've ever seen in my whole life. Horror movie? Yes, there are horrible things in this: the acting, the script and the special effects - Gosh, i laughed at this ludicrous attempt to make a flick for 90 minutes. Actually, had it been a comic movie i would've given it a 5. Don't you even think about renting this unless you want to mock at the producers.<br /><br />Vote: 2 out of 10 - didn't vote one because it made me laugh all the time ;-)
Cameron Diaz is a woman who is married to a judge, played by Harvey Keitel, whose life is fine until an ex shows up and things get a little complicated.. While I was watching this movie there were several times i asked myself why I was doing so..because the movie is so ridiculous and blah and poorly scripted without any believability. Nor does the audience really car what happens..Even the lovely Cameron can't save this one on a scale of one to ten..2
Turgid dialogue, feeble characterization - Harvey Keitel a judge? He plays more like an off-duty hitman - and a tension-free plot conspire to make one of the unfunniest films of all time. You feel sorry for the cast as they try to extract comedy from a dire and lifeless script. Avoid!
The next time you are at a party and someone asks, "The other day I heard the expression 'Author's will'. Does anyone know what it means?" Tell them to sit through 'Head Above Water'. The only way Diaz could possibly have survived this movie was by means of this literary device commonly used by bad writers. There are some comic scenes and you will have a few laughs. However the film does not stand up to the most minor logical analysis. Why does Keitel tie Diaz's hand in front of her instead of behind? Why so she can do the chainsaw gag of course. For me the best part of this movie was that I saw it on a cable channel instead of spending four bucks at the video shop.
Have I ever seen a film more shockingly inept? I can think of plenty that equal this one, but none which manage to outdo it. The cast are all horrible stereotypes lumbered with flat dialogue. I am ashamed for all of the people involved in making this. Each one wears an expression of fear not generated by the plot, but by the realisation that this project could easily nix their career. Even the many charms of Ms. Diaz don't provide an adequate reason to subject yourself to this. Avoid, it's obviously a style of film that Americans haven't really got a grasp of. Watch the final result if you must, and you'll see what I'm talking about, but DON'T say I didn't warn you...
It was a Sunday night and I was waiting for the advertised movie on TV. They said it was a comedy! The movie started, 10 minutes passed, after that 30 minutes and I didn't laugh not even once. The fact is that the movie ended and I didn't get even on echance to laugh. PLEASE, someone tickle me, I lost 90 minutes for nothing.
Jude Law gives his all in this beautifully filmed vampire flick which offers little else of value. Completely lacking in eroticism, excitement, or leading ladies with appeal. One decent fight, a few moments of mild suspense. And a one-note plot.<br /><br />The movie waxes philisophic in a series of conversations between Law's character and a dogged homicide detective, well played by Timothy Spall. But despite their best efforts, both actors are staked to the cross of the film's banality.<br /><br />With a lesser actor in the lead role -- and without the benefit of Oliver Curtis's cinematography -- Crocodiles would blend into the sea of low-budget vampire quickies.
This movie looked as if it might be good at the beginning, but never fleshed out to it's expectations. The director is talented and has some good camera angles and artistic ideas (typical of the Asian directors), but doesn't know how to create or tell a good story to go along with it. The story was fragmented and seemed to go off in all sorts of different directions throughout the film, never finding a solid, explainable, interesting angle. Basically, the movie never fit the explanation on the press releases. The acting was very good, however. All the actors gave good performances, and Jude Law was outstanding as he is always is. It is too bad he chose to do such a weak film.
The documentary revolves around Eva Mozes Kor, a holocaust survivor, part of Mengele's experiments on twins, consisting primarily her version of what happened at Auschwitz, and a comparison of the emotions of the other survivors of the twin experiments. The movie obviously had great reviews. It's one of those topics that no one dares to voice a contrary opinion about.<br /><br />I too, for a large part of the movie, got sucked into the emotion that the movie-maker so obviously wanted the viewer to concentrate on. One of the user reviews on IMDb by Eric Monder (obviously having nothing critical to say about the issue on a public forum) could only find the sweetest nectar. "In one of the many dramatic sequences, as a group of Jews argue with Kor at a Jewish center, the meaning of the word "forgive" is even debated, but the isolated and outnumbered Kor holds her own" But by this time, the sappy hold that the movie had on my dormant emotional repertoire had let loose enough that I could see clearly once more. After the "strong-willed" Eva Kor forgives her "Nazi captors" the movie begins to delve into what forgiving is all about, at least from the viewpoint of Kor. The movie goes about following her, past her public statement forgiving the Nazis and into new territory. To me, this was the meat of the movie, surrounded by inedible fat of her "act of forgiveness". Obviously, it was a very sick cow.<br /><br />On a mission to test her theory of forgiveness, in order to heal wounds of the past, she makes her way to the "promised land" to meet with some Arabs, to discuss with them the issues that they face and to see if dialogue cannot lead to a better understanding of the situation and heavily interspersed with debates and discussions with Jews in the US on her act of forgiving the Nazis, including one at a Jewish center in Chicago. From then on, anyone not so teary eyed that they can't see the screen will find it hard-pressed to miss the obvious contradiction in her statements.<br /><br />Firstly, you immediately notice her body language, defensive and unwilling to listen in a room full of Arab scholars and teachers. Her comments about how she feared that they might kidnap her shows how much of a waste of time, effort and money the entire act was. A rather annoyed Dr Sami Advan (Professor of education at Bethlehem University) gets it just right when he tells Kor off for a statement she makes about how she would rather be asleep in her apartment.<br /><br />Finally, the debate at the Jewish center in Chicago, where she is "grilled" on the meaning of forgiveness and her right to do so, in the wake of those that continue suffering through the trauma of the acts.<br /><br />I will cut to the chase. By the end of the movie, I was hoping I hadn't chosen to watch the movie. The movie was badly made, failing to delve deeper into anything about Auschwitz apart from the purely trivial, just sufficient to make sure the holocaust is refreshed in the viewers memory and to incite a barrage of tears. It showed that Kor, the subject of the documentary was unable to engage in fair discussion. Her discussion abilities were limited to parroting her stance on forgiveness (at best) to a complete unwillingness to listen or participate.<br /><br />Lastly, is everyone so retarded today that they can't notice the difference between making peace and forgiving? Quoting another IMDb user, "I don't see her forgiveness as being weak- quite the contrary, she just wanted to relieve its hold from her soul, she wanted the suffering to be over, so she let it go." That would be the perfect layman's definition of MAKING PEACE.<br /><br />I guess, in a world of propaganda, blind faith and political correctness, there is no room to question those that have "gone through more than the human mind can fathom".<br /><br />P.S. The dictionary certainly should go into all those Books-to-buy lists everyone keeps making.
Absolutely fantastic. <br /><br />Now, before a legion of cinema purists choke on their lattés, allow me to elaborate. Much as I enjoyed it, this is quite simply one of the worst films I have ever seen and is certainly the worst film I've seen at the cinema (an impressive claim, as I remember seeing Daredevil on the big screen). The two leads (Daniel Gillies and Elisha Cuthbert) were unconvincing at best and downright awful at worst. Of course, they weren't helped by a script that had as much emotional depth as a Daphne & Celeste single and characterisation that was about as convincing as the OJ defence. The plot (to stretch the term slightly) was thin to non-existent and the 'gore' scenes, whilst undoubtedly brutal, were irrelevant and laughably formulaic. What plot there is revolves around a twenty-something model (Cuthbert) who is abducted, imprisoned and subjected to various visceral tortures, both psychological and physical. The torture scenes feel like disconnected set pieces and the emphasis was laid squarely upon shocking rather than scaring the audience. Whilst there really are very, very few positives to draw from this film, its redeeming features are the very flaws that make it such a dreadful film. I have never heard a more vocal audience in a cinema. Within twenty minutes, the entire cinema was in stitches and remained that way throughout. For my part I came out flushed with laughter, buoyed by a film that had ascended to the pinnacle of appalling film-making. Whichever way you look at it, this is truly a cinematic achievement and a blueprint for future directorial wannabes detailing minutely how not to make a film.<br /><br />P.S. I omitted to mention that I managed to get in to the film free...so I can afford to laugh about it. I was still tempted to ask for my money back...it really was THAT bad.
The only reason I give it a 2 is that filmography is so stylized these days such that it has at least something to comment on.<br /><br />This film is asinine. It's like so many other 21st century grind house fodder. The gore is gratuitous and simply revolting. I didn't care about any of the characters, but I did care that some cretin bothered to pen this crap: I'd complain about the money I spent, but my date and I wisely left after 40 minutes and went to an adjoining theater to watch the adventurous and entertaining "Live Free or Die Hard," which probably got a much higher rating from me simply because I endured the utter poop of "Captivity" for 40 minutes.
I'll keep this short; thanks to Greg for helping me to put this succinctly: Captivity is about a guy who drugs a girl's drink, imprisons and tortures her, then poses as a captive to have sex with her. That is the single twist and punchline of the film. It's torture as slow motion date rape. And, it's not even a good movie. It's not so bad it's good; it's just bad.<br /><br />It should also be mentioned that among critics, there is a "spoiler code" that they dare not break, even though some were tempted to on this one because it is so vile. Why NO ONE had the cojones to step up and say, "this is garbage, and this is why," is beyond me.<br /><br />Don't give your money to these poop-peddlers.
When thinking about Captivity many words come to mind. Among them are: uninteresting, unentertaining, unsuspensful, unsexy, unfathomable, and unwatchable.<br /><br />I used to hate those movies from the mid to late nineties that were basically ripoffs of Scream but these new Saw knockoffs are beginning to make those films look like classics. They still pander to the same demographic that those other movies were so successful at doing, but now they add a new level of degeneracy that make the twelve to fourteen year old girls they're aimed at feel like they're hardcore AND hip.<br /><br />This movie is a load of boring crap! What the hell has happened to Larry Cohen? His name hasn't been attached to anything good since 1993! Even so, I was still surprised to see that he had anything to do with something THIS bad! Was anyone surprised when the movie's love interest turned out to be one of the psychopaths? Did anyone not know it when they first saw him? Only someone who has never before in his or her life, ever seen another movie!
It's one of those dramas that's so bad that it almost hits the point of being very funny, the script is absolutely dire, direction appalling, lighting purely armature, the only thing letting it down from a true so bad it's good feel is that the sound design is only quite bad; it adds no suspense to the story although trying hard, but doesn't at least destroy any speeches. There's continuity problems of seasons of out door shots throughout. And finally last but not least the acting is appalling. For a professional production it very much has the feel of a university media project you have to feel sorry for the sorry for anyone who had to put their names to this.
Frankly I'm rather incensed that on the basis of the dazzling reviews attributed to Steven Smith I wasted nearly two hours on his debut offering. Have they all been written by his pals? The action clunks along, the music is irritating and over used, the script is simply dire and the actors (with the exception of the gardener) mediocre at best. I do think we should support the efforts of a young filmmaker but saying it's brilliant when it's not will surely only encourage him to make the same mistakes again i.e. continuing to write his own scripts and using the same actors for another venture. Yes, it's his first film, low budget etc. - I get it, but it's also out there for members of the public to purchase and it's just not up to scratch.
Happened upon a copy of this. Not mine and if I had spent my own money on this I'd be finding those responsible and demanding it back! All I can say is this would be a terrible student film. Any understanding of the medium of film is absent. Acting is god awful, the story would have been rejected from the original Twilight Zone series as unoriginal and lame, and the change in tone of the lead character's reaction to the 'ghost' is laughable.<br /><br />I can only agree that the 'glowing' reviews of this film are from friends and family. I'm afraid it's not even entertainingly bad.<br /><br />Amateur in the extreme! <br /><br />Avoid! Avoid! Avoid!
I'm basing this on my observations of one episode I saw last night (9/27/06). I don't think I'll be watching again. The acting was totally wooden, the plot completely predictable, the ending totally unrealistic -- I mean who would believe a 30 million dollar judgment for the death of a recovering drug addict with terminal cancer? The lead actor (Victor Garber) seemed so uncomfortable, almost embarrassed in his role -- perhaps he realized how bad the writing was!! I fully realize that the drama offered this season is pretty poor, but they can surely find better writers. Maybe they are outsourcing the writing to India or China!! I'll bet we won't be seeing this one next season!
To be honest i had heard this was pretty bad before i decided to watch it, but i'm never one to let others influence my viewings, in fact i'm more likely to watch something out of defiance!. Bullwhip had one thing going for me before the viewing anyway, the fact that Rhonda Fleming and those gorgeous eyes was in it had me interested right away. The picture isn't very good, and is in fact very morally dubious, all the characters are corrupt and shifty in one way shape or form, all motivated by greed or egocentric victories, this is all well and good if the surrounding film can do justice to a bunch of despicable people and create a taut climax shuddering picture. Sadly it doesn't, and as the finale fills your eyes with sugar you can't help shouting out that you have been cheated into watching a pretty bad film, nobody in the cast come out with any credit, with lead man Guy Madison painfully wooden in the extreme.<br /><br />Not even the lovely Rhonda can make me recommend this to anyone, 3/10
This is a well-worn story about a man who marries to escape the hangman's noose, then sets about "taming" his reluctant bride. It manages to be sexist and racist at exactly the same time. We never find out, for example, why a woman who won the respect of an Indian warrior is completely unable to fight back against her erstwhile husband. Or why the members of her team are so eager to get a "real man" in the saddle when she seems to have been taking care of things just fine on her own. This only made sense in fifties Hollywood.<br /><br />There's a really stupid scene where she horsewhips him and he actually catches the whip--the second time--then yanks her off her horse. Never mind that the first time probably would have lost him an eye, which would make it pretty hard to grab that whip! Then, he prevails in a fight against her Indian bodyguard where he spends the first two thirds of it getting beaten to a pulp. That's some second wind. Later, he successfully negotiates with some bloodthirsty Indians (as they all are in these flicks) after they reject her now she's his "squaw". Never mind that he has zero diplomatic skills and she's been negotiating with them for years. And the way he keeps rejecting her attempts to seduce him just to keep her keen and keep her from getting a hold on him--yeah, right. Like the women are just throwing themselves at him all the way down the trail.<br /><br />Finally, neither of the leads is convincing in their roles. Madison is just a jerk who gets unrealistically lucky. Fleming flips her hair and scowls a lot, but is totally unconvincing as a fiery tomboy. The only reason you'd root for her is because you want to see Madison get tied to a runaway horse and dragged over a cliff before the film's end. The way that Madison tames Fleming is so predictable and has so few obstacles that it will irritate the heck out of you if you see women as anything but blow-up dolls. Even if you do see them as dolls, the total lack of suspense will bore you.<br /><br />Total waste of time. Even the scenery's kinda dull. Give this one a big miss.
"Don't bother to watch this film" would be better advice, if you like Marilyn Monroe in her other roles. This was a huge disappointment considering the great cast, not just Marilyn.<br /><br />The story was just nothing, certainly nothing like described on the VHS box, of course. There simply was no suspense, precious little excitement and too many dull spots, most of them trying to show why "Nellie" (Monroe) was so messed up. This was not a good role for Monroe, even though I didn't need to see this character to know she could act. "Some Like It Hot" alone was good enough evidence for me. But this role just didn't fit her and it's no surprise it wasn't one of her more popular films.<br /><br />It's also too bad a film had the waste of the talents of actors like Richard Widmark, Anne Bancroft, Elisha Cook Jr., Jeanne Cagney, Donna Cocoran and others. <br /><br />Summary: it's not entertaining and entertainment is the name of the game.
Now I'll be the first to admit it when I say something that may be blasphemous or unfair, so I would like to apologize in advance for my ranting about how much I disliked this movie.<br /><br />That about sums it up too. I disliked this movie. To be more specific, I disliked the concept of this movie. The cinematography was good. The mood was nice. And the acting was satisfactory.<br /><br /> However, the story is fatuous, unacurate and misleading. It is also offensive.<br /><br />I am a quarter Cree Indian, and for some reason I feel insulted, on a personal level, by the nature of Whitaker's character. First of all, he's a black guy. And this isn't a racist remark, I swear. The thought of a White, Hispanic or even Native American swinging a katana on a rooftop offends everything that the katana represents. The katana represents the soul of a Samurai, imbibed with the souls of his ancestors who guide and protect the Samurai. For Ghost Dog to use his guns instead of the Katana is also an insult to the blade and the souls inside, and where the heck did he get a Katana anyway? It must be one of those replicas, which insults the Samurai caste even more.<br /><br />Also, Ghost Dog showed no honor. Near the end of the movie, he shoots a bodyguard in the back through a window and then assassinates a man by shooting him in the face through a faucet drain. Not only is this a cowards way to kill an enemy, it's more like a ninjas way; silent assassins; a group that samurais deny exists, but hates none-the-less.<br /><br />Then he tries to kill his boss, when he finds out his boss is a baddie. You know what a true Samurai does when he learns his master is proven bad or dishonorable? He kills himself, to prove that he would rather die then lower himself to the level of his doggish master.<br /><br />Everything about the character was a giant contradiction to the real code that all Samurai adhere to: Bushido.<br /><br />So, we have great cinematography, good ambiance and so-so acting encompassing a satiricle plot and premise, (which unfortunately is the most important aspect of it) , making it an unsatisfactory overall film, and an insult to everything a honorable bushi(samurai) holds dear.<br /><br /> 2.5/10 Bleah
Spoilers <br /><br />Well, the one line summary says it all. Melville´s "Le samurai" is the original and there are elements of "Leon". And they are better - much better!<br /><br />In the "Samurai" Alain Delon is a lonely warrior / professional killer who keeps a bird in cage and is stealing cars for his jobs (with so much suspense in these scenes!). Even the end is exactly the same: the samurai seeks death in dignity and is getting shot with an empty gun in his hand. The world has changed he realizes and there is no place for the samurai in it.<br /><br />Delon is not killing so many people like the Ghost dog. But I guess Jarmusch liked "Leon" very much or even "Desperado" by Rodriguez. So he added this, too. And let me guess: the girl will become a professional like Ghost dog (like Natalie Portman in "Leon")?<br /><br />So what was Jarmusch thinking after all? Where is the unique, the original thought in this movie?<br /><br />I can´t see the point in making carbon (celluloid) copies.<br /><br />A 4/10 rating by Macaulay Connor
I remembered the title so well. To me, it was a Flora Robson movie with Olivier and Vivien Leigh in supporting roles. And it had Vincent Massey's voice from behind whiskers. Well Flora Robson was great. Her next signature, for me, would be "55 Days at Peking". The same role but with different sumptuous gowns. And the same voice. As for the Armada, it was a subtext. I like black-and-white films. Was everything done in Elizbethan times at night? It was talky and difficult to fathom, at times. I couldn't tell which was the love interest. Was it the Spaniard or was it Vivien Leigh? And I do not believe that Elizabeth I would have been the brilliant strategist to recommend that fire ships be sent against the Armada. Apparently it worked for the Empire, but not for the script. This might have been more accurate, historically, but Bette Davis had more engaging scripts. And I missed daylight!
Other than the great cinematography by the marvelous James Wong Howe in the battle scenes, this film is a true stinker.<br /><br />This is the second film that I've seen in recent days directed by Alexander Korda. The first was Charles Laughton's "Rembrandt." It was so lousy that I shut it off. This one I'm afraid is not very much better.<br /><br />Flora Robson is as ugly as ever as Queen Elizabeth. Perhaps, her performance as the virgin Queen was good for 1937 standards but when you compare it to that of a Helen Mirren, it is absolutely no match. In robotic fashion, Robson states her lines. Her battle message to the English troops is so lackluster in spirit.<br /><br />Even a dashing Laurence Olivier can't save this utter piece of boredom.<br /><br />Future wife Vivien Leigh is in a supporting role here and she doesn't really convey anything here. To think, that Scarlett was 2 years later!<br /><br />It's a shame that history with the Spanish Armada is made out to be so boring in this film.
When Sam Peckinpah's superlative THE WILD BUNCH (1969) opened the door to outrageous displays of graphic cinematic ultra-violence, it did so with a talented (if whisky-marinated) hand guiding the camera and had a compelling story with characters who had actual depth, but in no time flat there were scores of imitators that fell far from the benchmark set by Peckinpah's epic, and SOLDIER BLUE definitely falls into that category.<br /><br />SOLDIER BLEW, er, BLUE tells the story of foul-mouthed New Yorker Cresta Lee (Candice Bergen) a blonde proto-hippie chick who's been "rescued" from two years of "captivity" among the Cheyenne and is now being sent to a fort where she'll be reunited with the fiancée she only wants to marry for his money. Also on board the wagon she's traveling in is a shipment of government gold, cash the Cheyenne need to buy guns with, so in short order the soldiers are wiped out and Cresta flees to the hills, accompanied by Honus Gant (Peter Strauss), the lone surviving cavalryman. Calling Gant by the snarky nickname "Soldier Blue," Cresta demonstrates that her years among the "savages" was time well spent, outstripping Gant in survival skills, common sense, and sheer balls, and over their journey toward the fort they must persevere against the elements, a band of hostile Kiowa, an unscrupulous trader — played by Donald Pleasance, here giving one of his most ridiculous performances, and that's saying something — and, in the tradition of many previous western-set romantic comedies, each other.<br /><br />During the course of their misadventures the two opposites are inevitably — and predictably — attracted to each other and eventually end up getting it on — while Gant has a freshly- treated bullet wound that went clean through his leg, no less — in what was surely the only conveniently located cave for at least a twelve mile radius that wasn't filled with rattlesnakes, mountain lions, or who knows what, to say nothing of the Cheyenne, who could have done something really spiffy with such a primo apartment (there I go, thinking in NYC real estate terms again). <br /><br />Realizing that their love could never flourish outside of the cave, Cresta leaves Gant and makes it to the fort by herself only to discover that the moron in charge won't spare a couple of men so they can rescue Gant; the regiment needs all available personnel to launch an attack on the nearby Cheyenne village, and once Cresta gets wind of that she slips past her obnoxiously horny hubby-to-be and makes a beeline straight to the Cheyenne to warn them of what's coming. <br /><br />What happens next is what gained the film its infamy; it turns out that all the wacky misadventures and squabbling were all just a lead-in to a hideous reenactment of the 1864 Sand Creek Massacre, an orgy of rape, torture and general sadistic evil perpetrated in the name of "keeping the country clean," and almost forty years after its release this sequence still disturbs and nauseates for its sheer cruelty. Children are trampled beneath the hooves of charging horses or impaled on bayonets, unarmed people are beheaded — a nice effect, I have to admit — women are stripped and pawed by gangs of slavering brutes, then raped and mutilated — in one truly sickening instance a naked native woman puts up too much of a fight, so her rapist instead decides to cut off her breasts, which we thankfully only see the start of before the camera moves on to chronicle some other hideous act — and scores of innocent people are shot and dismembered, their compone nt parts impaled on pikes and waved about in victorious celebration or kept as the most ghoulish of souvenirs. No joke, this scene would instantly garner an NC-17 rating if released today, to say nothing of possibly spurring Native American interest groups to riot in the streets over the incredibly exploitative manner in which the atrocities are depicted.<br /><br />I'm all in favor of westerns that don't shy away from honest portrayals of how the west was won, or stolen if truth be told, but this film has no idea of what kind of movie it wants to be; one minute it's a heavy-handed pseudo-hippy lecture about how the treatment of the natives was totally effed up (well, DUH!), then it's a light-hearted battle of the sexes farce wherein Cresta proves herself five times the man Gant is and manages to look hot in her tasty red calico poncho (with no undies), but that all goes out the window when Donald Pleasance shows up with an unintentionally (?) hilarious pair of buck-toothed dentures and our heroes must figure out how to escape from his murderous clutches in a sub-plot that goes nowhere, all of which culminates in the aforementioned apocalyptic climax. Any one of those tacks would have been okay for a coherent film, but the end result is a slapdash mess that milked the horrors of its final ten minutes for all they were worth in the film's promotion and poster imagery. <br /><br />But by trying to be all things to all audiences, SOLDIER BLUE ends up as an incoherent, preachy Mulligan stew of presumably well-intentioned political correctness, but if they were going to tell the story of the Sand Creek Massacre, wouldn't it have been a good idea to have some Indian characters who were more than just walk-ons with Murphy Brown acting as their mouthpiece? We get to know absolutely nothing of the people who get wiped out solely for what appears to be a crass ploy to lure gorehound moviegoers into seeing "the most savage film in history." If you, like me, were intrigued by the provocative ads and reviews that shower almost endless praise upon it for its "daring to tell it like it was," take my word for it and let SOLDIER BLUE slowly fade into cinematic obscurity.
First of all, this film can be divided into three segments. A promising opening, with the ambushing of some cavalry by the Cheyenne. This is followed by what can only be described as a long boring middle section, with the totally miscast Candice Bergen and "Soldier Blue" traveling together to reach the safety of an Army garrison. Miss Bergen spews forth inappropriate four letter words every time she opens her mouth, and looks like she just walked out of a 1970s Jack Nicholson movie. I mean she maintains zero interest, with zero believability. The third and final section involves the totally gratuitous slaughter of an Indian village. This is so obviously overdone to lay on the anti-war propaganda, that it comes across as simply long, outrageous, and contrived. Not recommended. - MERK................................ Jacobe (comment above) Here's an idea. Why don't you actually watch the movie you are commenting on, instead of chirping your liberal nonsense. This is not a political site, it is for reviewing films. - MERK
Soldier Blue is a movie with pretensions: pretensions to be some sort of profound statement on man's inhumanity to man, on the white man's exploitation of and brutality towards indigenous peoples; a biting, unflinching and sardonic commentary on the horrors of Vietnam. Well, sorry, but it fails miserably to be any of those things. What Soldier Blue actually is is pernicious, trite, badly made, dishonest rubbish.<br /><br />Another reviewer here hit the nail on the head in saying that it appears to be a hybrid of two entirely different movies. What it is basically is a lame, clichéd, poorly acted "odd couple" romance - Strauss and Bergen overcoming their prejudices about the other's lifestyle and falling in love (ah, bless) - bookended by two sickening massacres which wouldn't have been out of place in a Lucio Fulci splatter flick.<br /><br />There is no excuse for the repulsive, prurient, gore-drenched climax, in which cute little native American children are variously shot, sliced, dismembered and impaled in loving and graphic close-up, and large-breasted native American women are molested, raped and strung up - no excuse, that is, except box office. (The massacre itself, whilst repulsive in its misplaced intention, is very badly staged and shot; a bunch of actors lying around with bright red paint smeared on them, intercut with a few special-effects sequences of beheading/dismemberment - dismemberments, incidentally, which utilised real amputees in their filming. Now that's what I call exploitation.)<br /><br />Forget all the pap you've heard (including the ludicrous commentaries that begin and end the movie) about this being a "protest", an indictment of American brutality towards the native peoples. This film doesn't give a stuff about the plight of the Cheyenne; had it done so it would have featured some involving native American characters, would have led us to get to know and to care about the nameless, faceless innocents who get slaughtered at the climax. Instead what we get is the silly white bread romance of Bergen and Strauss (lousy actors both, in this at least), with plenty of blood, guts and severed heads thrown in to attract the curious.<br /><br />Which is a terrible shame, because there is a movie to be made about the Sand Creek massacre, about all of the real life massacres the US (and Britain, and all so-called "civilised" nations) have participated in over the centuries (Iraq?). this just isn't that movie.
**Spoilers contained**<br /><br />I'd heard from various sources that this film was controversial and that the ending in particular was horrific. What I didn't expect was the complete change in tack with about twenty minutes to go. What starts off as a typical cowboy/indian western suddenly descends into a very dull romantic 'comedy' about Honus (Soldier Blue of the title played by Peter Strauss) and Cresta (Candice Bergen) who escape an onslaught of the cavalry by the Cheyenne. The majority of the film then focuses on these two mismatched people hence the romantic comedy bit. Donald Pleasance then turns up and abducts them both for no real apparent reason. They then escape and both turn up (separately) at the cavalry base on the eve of an attack on the Cheyenne base. As Cresta used to be married to one of the Cheyenne chiefs she escapes the cavalry base and joins up with them. So far so ordinary. Then comes the ending. After enduring well over an hour of poor acting involving a cliched will they/won't they get together storyline, the movie then transforms into over the top exploitation involving among other things a decapitation and a child being shot in the back of the head. Similarities can be drawn with the Wild Bunch at this point of the film but the Wild Bunch kept the same tone throughout and didn't resort to extreme gratuitous violence. In some ways, Soldier Blue reminds me of Frank Perry's Last Summer which also completely changed tack for a shock ending. I didn't hate Soldier Blue nor find the ending particularly disturbing but just found it to be pretty dull with an unnecessarily violent ending. If you want to see a film with a truly disturbing slaughter of the innocents, I would recommend Elem Klimov's Come and See.
A badly-acted two-character comedy-drama abruptly transmogrifies into a weren't-we-awful-to-the-Indians polemic, with lousy special effects, exploitative use of nudity, and ugly violence. It's as sincere as a politician's handshake, as obvious as a car salesman's pitch, one of the worst movies in the history of the universe. Absolute and utter dreck.
STRANGER THAN FICTION angered me so much, I signed up on IMDb just to write this review. STRANGER THAN FICTION is a surprisingly complex, touching and thought-provoking movie until the very end. Once you suspend multiple lapses of logic (why didn't Will Ferrell hear Emma Thompson's voice 10 years ago when she fist started writing her book? "The phone rang. The phone rang again." How could she not know it's him calling? etc.), the movie challenges one's thoughts about mortality, fate, and sacrifice.<br /><br />The brief history of literary themes provided by Dustin Hoffman should especially entertain former English majors. And Maggie Gyllenhaal is always a pleasure, even though Will Ferrell might just as easily be an ax murderer as a bumbling soul. Her quick trust of him is a mighty big leap of faith.<br /><br />Ah, but the ending. Until the very end, I would have given 9 out of 10 stars to this movie. The movie as a metaphor for life's journey, as a tribute to the notion of 'writing true,' as a reminder that great literature is either comedy or tragedy, but not both, is outstanding. The entire movie leads the viewer to understand and accept the moment of Will Ferrell's fate. And no matter how endearing a character he may have become, we know full well why we will accept the ending. The last act occurs, the screen goes white, the credits roll. A profound and powerful end to an almost perfect film. An end that would have been debated for weeks.<br /><br />NO!!!!!!!!!! No credits rolled. Say it isn't so. Say Hollywood didn't tack on another 10 minutes of crap that completely undermined the integrity and heart of the movie. Dustin Hoffman got it right when he said, "It's no longer a masterpiece; it's OK." An apt review of the movie. Except to me, it wasn't even OK. I was so offended about the betrayal of 'writing true,' about the decision to pander the film that I actually burst into angry tears explaining this on the ride home from the movie. I don't often cry. I could care less about most movies, but I am still angry about this one.<br /><br />My questions for Zack Helm, the writer, are this: did the original movie end when the screen went white? And were you forced by the vapid movie powers-that-be to tack on an ending unfaithful to the core of the movie? Or did you tack that maudlin ending on yourself? I've read you're brilliant. I hope your original script ended the movie the first time.<br /><br />I know Zack Helm will never see this review, and I've been unable to find a contact for him to ask myself. But, please, movie-goers, am I the only one who feels this way about STRANGER THAN FICTION? One good thing came from me seeing this movie: I doubly admire LOST IN TRANSLATION now.
A horribly pointless and, worse, boring film. Stranger Than Fiction has nothing new to say about anything, no characters beyond the most unimaginative stereotypes, and relies on a clunky central concept that is neither particularly original nor dealt with in a vaguely innovative way. <br /><br />Will Ferrell is totally wasted in what he presumably hoped to be his answer to Jim Carey's Truman Show, and substitutes his usual shouting routine (admittedly very funny if you discount Talledega Nights) for, well, pretty much nothing. <br /><br />Emma Thompson is no more than mildly irritating (that some reviews I've read here are talking her up for an Oscar nomination is laughable) whilst Maggie Gyllenhaal does a passable job with a very weak script that allows nothing beyond establishing her character as a former law student who dropped out of Harvard to become a baker because she liked making people happy. Please. That she ended up falling for Ferrell's 'character' is utterly ludicrous.<br /><br />Marc Forster's attempts to jazz up the film using computer graphics only serve to highlight the uninspired the material he has to work with.<br /><br />I had the choice of either going to watch The Prestige for the third time or seeing this. I wish I'd opted for The Prestige.
Dick Foran and Peggy Moran, who were so good together in THE MUMMY'S HAND, return for this very minor Universal Horror offering. But this time, instead of having Wallace Ford as the comedic sidekick "Babe," we get Fuzzy Knight substituting as a silly buddy named "Stuff". But the results are nowhere near as charming, and the scare level is virtually nil.<br /><br />Dick is a businessman who gets the idea of spearheading a treasure hunt on a remote island inside a spooky old castle. Peggy is one of the gang who comes along for the ride. But there is a tall and skinny John Carradine lookalike in a black cape and big hat known as "The Phantom" who crashes the party in pursuit of the buried fortune himself.<br /><br />This "phantom" is not very mysterious, and no effort is made to even try and keep his rather average guy face in the shadows to create any tension or spookiness. It's always nice to see perky Moran, but otherwise you can chalk this up as one of Universal's instantly forgettable misfires.
A lot of people seemed to have liked the film, so I feel somewhat bad giving it a bad review. But after sitting through 96 minutes of it, I feel I have to do so. Where the heck is the plot in this film?! I must have missed it, I was waiting for the storyline to unfold and nothing happened. Sure the ending was "somewhat shocking" but they didn't build up to it. I forgot who was who half of the time, so they didn't really develop the characters. The acting was so-so, most of the time it was believable, but I was able to see through it most of the time. So... without giving anything away, I must say that unless you like the actors in the film, there is no real reason to watch this movie. I could be mistaken, but I just didn't understand why there was so little, or too much of the film. I can't decide which one that would be, so I say judge for yourselves. I don't even know if renting it would be a good idea, the cost and all... <br /><br />Plot: 0/10 Characters: 1/10 Acting: 2/10 Overall: 3/10 I feel like that's too high really, I am staying with my vote up at the top.
They must issue this plot outline to all wannabe filmmakers arriving at the Hollywood bus station. They then fill in the blanks and set their story in whatever hick town or urban ghetto from which they just arrived. You know exactly what this movie is about from the opening shot, four young boys playing in grainy slow motion, accompanied by voice over narration. Next stop after the bus station must be to buy stock footage of four young boys playing in grainy slow motion. Once they're grown, it's easy to spot the writer/director among the four. He's the quiet, contemplative, long-haired one who is never seen without his composition book tucked in his pants. This means that his superb writing talent will be his ticket from Hickville to Hollywood. Only there's no writing, or directing talent on display here. And if you still can't figure out which one he is, here's a hint: The auteur and his character have the same middle name. It took over an hour to figure out that these twenty-something men were supposed to still be in high school. What looked like a prison was apparently a high school, the warden turned out to be the principal. Once more, the poor, misunderstood rebel can pound everyone in the movie into the pavement, murder and pillage, but is powerless to stand up to his alcoholic father. How about hitting back, kid, like you do everyone else? Numerous fist fight scenes for no apparent purpose. Howlingly bad dialogue. Many scenes badly out of focus. Cartoon characters keep popping up as bit players and extras, drawing unintentional laughs from the premiere audience. Overacting in the extreme. And if you don't quite get the self-important speeches, or the slow-motion scenes, just listen to the overbearing music. It will clue you in and what you're supposed to feel. Poor Marisa Ryan must be racking up lots of frequent flier mileage as she travels around the country working in these amateur regional films. The biggest sin is that the audience is supposed to feel sympathy for kids who gun down old ladies, run over puppies chained to a tree, rob and steal, all the while complaining about their sad, sorry lives. But if only we could get out of this hick town and go to college. Yeah, that's the ticket. Why is it that every twenty-something filmmaker believes that his life so far is so important, so interesting, that the world can't wait to see it onscreen? If this movie is as autobiographical as it seems, then the auteur better be looking over his shoulder for policemen bearing fugitive warrants.
Except for acknowledging some nice cinematography, I can hardly say anything positive about this movie. The single real issue is the protagonist's dilemma whether to remain with his childhood friends in the world of misery or to leave them and take up his own life. Abundant "emotionally powerful" scenes do not go with this plot and, because of bad acting, they also fail to create the intended atmosphere. The director only manages to introduce Anthony's dilemma and eventually brings an easy solution. The characters do not seem to evolve, although it is difficult to speak of any characters... perhaps except for Sonny. Beside him, actors do not get to play much and when some of them have to, they come off as self-indulging amateurs. I wonder what ruined the movie more: the superficial script, throwing away all the potential of the plot, or the bad acting, disturbing any appeal that might be left.
Hard to believe that director Barbet Schroeder once did the majestic and very funny Maitresse (1976), and now only seems to do "by the numbers" Hollywood thrillers.<br /><br />This is very lightweight John Grisham material, crossed with the plot of a TV movie. Bullock is Cass Mayweather, a feisty and independent crime investigator specialising in serial killers. Ben Chaplin is her reserved police partner Sam Kennedy, and together they make an uncomfortable duo. Not good, when two unbalanced college maladriots (Gosling and Pitt) decide to send them on a wild goose chase - by planting very clever and misleading forensic evidence at a crime scene.<br /><br />Fair enough, but while Bullock and Chaplin fail to create any sparks, we also have to endure a several dull overly-melodramatic flashbacks illustrating an important event in Cass's history. Then of course there are the frequent shots of a cliff-side log cabin where there's absolutely no doubt the OTT ending will be set. Oooh... the atmosphere.<br /><br />Watch any episode of CSI instead. It's to the point and far more exciting.
Having been pleasantly surprised by Sandra Bullock's performance in Miss Congeniality, I decided to give Murder By Numbers a shot. While decent in plucky, self-effacing roles, Ms. Bullock's performance in "serious" roles (see Hope Floats, Speed 2, 28 Days) leave much to be desired. Her character is at the same time omniscient, confused, and sexually maladjusted (the sub-plot of Sandra's past comes across as needless filler that does little to develop her already shallow character). The two teenage boys gave decent performances, although their forensics expertise and catch-me-if-can attitude is belied by stupid errors that scream "We did it!" Chris Penn as the all-too-obvious suspect is wasted here, as is Ben Chaplin's token partner/love interest character.<br /><br />***Spoilers Ahead*** Mediocre acting aside, the biggest flaws can be traced to a TV-of-the-week plot that never has you totally buying into the murder motives in the first place, and as mentioned, the stupid errors (vomiting up a rare food on the murder scene, an all too convenient and framing of the school janitor, the two boys hanging out together in public, a convenient love interest to cause friction, etc. etc) cause the view to go from being intrigues to being bored and disappointed by the murderers. The ending was strictly "By the Numbers" and was probably the most disappointing aspect of the movie. Using the now-cliched tactic of almost showing the climactic scene at the beginning of the film, and then filling the audience in how we arrived at that moment, the final scenes surprise no one and lacked any of the so-called intelligence the film purported to arrive at it's conclusion. A somewhat promising concept, but poorly executed and weak in nearly every way. * out of ****.
There's something frustrating about watching a movie like 'Murder By Numers' because somewhere inside that Hollywood formula is a good movie trying to pop out. However, by the time the credits roll, there's no saving it. The whole thing is pretty much blown by the "cop side" of the story, where Sandra Bullock and Ben Chaplin's homicide detective characters muddle through an awkward sexual affair that becomes more and more trivialized the longer the movie goes on. Although Bullock is strong in her role, it's not enough to save the lackluster script and lazy pacing. Ben Chaplin's talents are wasted in a forgettable role (he did much better earlier in the year in the underrated 'Birthday Girl') as well as Chris Penn, who has a role so thanklessly small you feel sorry for a talent like him. Anyway, the plot really isn't even a factor in this movie at all. The two teen killers played by Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt are the only real reasons to see this movie. Their talent and chemistry work pretty good and they play off of each other quite well. It's too bad they weren't in a much better all-around film. Barbet Schroeder is treading way too safe ground here for such a seasoned filmmaker. Bottom Line: it's worth a rent if you're a genre fan, but everyone else will live a fulfilled life without ever seeing it, except maybe on network TV with convenient commercial breaks.
Alfred Hitchcock invented any kind of thriller you could think of:he set the standards so high that any director who makes a suspense movie will be fatally compared to him.<br /><br />The main subject of this Bullock vehicle ,all the ideas,almost everything was already in Hitchcock's classic " Rope":the two students who commit a gratuitous crime, Nietsche's philosophy,and the clues that the boys disseminate ,the Master was the first to transfer them to the screen.And with an eighty-minute movie which was a technical riveting tour de force.<br /><br />"Murder by numbers " does not take place in a single room,like "the rope" ,mind you.And ,what a supreme originality,it pits two cops against the evil youngsters;and ,you would never guess it,these two cops are very different:actually,Bullock plays the part of woman living like a man ,and her partner (Chaplin) is as shy as a clueless girlie.The two boys' performances are not really mind-boggling ,not as good ,as ,say ,that of Edward Norton in "primal fear" .<br /><br />Well,you know ," Rope" was so good ....
From director Barbet Schroder (Reversal of Fortune), I think I saw a bit of this in my Media Studies class, and I recognised the leading actress, so I tried it, despite the rating by the critics. Basically cool kid Richard Haywood (Half Nelson's Ryan Gosling) and Justin Pendleton (Bully's Michael Pitt) team up to murder a random girl to challenge themselves and see if they can get away with it without the police finding them. Investigating the murder is homicide detective Cassie 'The Hyena' Mayweather (Sandra Bullock) with new partner Sam Kennedy (Ben Chaplin), who are pretty baffled by the evidence found on the scene, e.g. non-relating hairs. The plan doesn't seem to be completely going well because Cassie and Sam do quite quickly have Richard or Justin as suspects, it is just a question of if they can sway them away. Also starring Agnes Bruckner as Lisa Mills, Chris Penn as Ray Feathers, R.D. Call as Captain Rod Cody and Tom Verica as Asst. D.A. Al Swanson. I can see now the same concept as Sir Alfred Hitchcock's Rope with the murdering for a challenge thing, but this film does it in a very silly way, and not even a reasonably good Bullock can save it from being dull and predictable. Adequate!
So, I'm wondering while watching this film, did the producers of this movie get to save money on Sandra Bullock's wardrobe by dragging out her "before" clothes from Miss Congeniality? Did Ms. Bullock also get to sleepwalk through the role by channeling the "before" Gracie Hart? As many reviewers have noted before, the film is very formulaic. Add to that the deja vu viewer experiences with the character of Cassie Maywether as a somewhat darker Gracie Hart with more back story and it rapidly become a snooze fest.<br /><br />The two bad boy serial killers have been done before (and better) in other films. As has the "good guy partner trying to protect his partner despite the evidence" character been seen before. In fact none of the characters in the film ever get beyond two dimensions or try to be anything but trite stereotypes.<br /><br />One last peeve - using the term serial killer is false advertising. Murdering one person - even if it's a premeditated murder - does not make you a serial killer. You may have the potential to become a serial killer but you are not a serial killer or even a spree killer.
At first the movie seemed to be doing great, they had the characters profiles set...the plot seemed to be going in the right direction... however, as the movie progressed it seemed the director focused on the wrong kind of things...or just a lot was edited from the movie. The characters' identities changed for the worse within the movie. Also, there seemed to be a lot of implicit meaning -- in other words -- they had things within the movie that didn't seem to fit the movie itself. AND the title... no where in the movie does the title fit the movie...I suppose the title works for the previews.... Actors did well with what they had.....if they had a better director and writer, maybe this would have worked out better. But it didn't. So now there's a new terrible movie coming out this Friday.... My opinion!....don't waste your time or money.
well, the writing was very sloppy, the directing was sloppier, and the editing made it worse (at least i hope it was the editing). the acting wasn't bad, but it wasn't that good either. pretty much none of the characters were likable. at least 45 minutes of that movie was wasted time and the other hour or so was not used anywhere near its full potential. it was a great idea, but yet another wasted good idea goes by. it could have ended 3 different places but it just kept going on to a mostly predictable hollywood ending. and what wasn't predictable was done so badly that it didn't matter. the ending was not worth watching at all. sandra bullock was out of her element and should stay away from these types of movies. the movie looked rushed also. the movie just wasn't really worth seeing, and had i paid for it i would have been very mad. maybe i was more disappointed because i expected a really good movie and got a bad one. the movie over all was not horrifibly bad, but i wouldn't reccomend it. i gave it 2 out of 10 b/c i liked the idea so much and i did like one character (justin i believe, the super smart one). and it also had some very cheap ways to cover plot holes. it was like trying to cover a volcano with cheap masking tape, it was not pretty. anyway, if you see it, wait for the $1.50 theater or video, unless you like pretty much every movie you see, then i guess you'll like this one.
Murder By Numbers is one of those movies that you expect is made-for-TV but isn't. Considering the only actor of any note is Bullock (although Michael Pitt seems to be moving onto bigger and better things), it isn't a great surprise that this movie quickly fades away from memory to be replaced by more important things. Like... remembering to lock your front door when you go out. Or putting clothes back on when you come out of the shower.<br /><br />Bullock plays Cassie Mayweather, a cop with personal issues (don't they all). Together with her new partner (a wet-looking Ben Chaplin), she is called to investigate the murder of a young woman. Nothing unusual there except that the perps are a couple of teenage students who think they've planned and executed the perfect murder. As the investigation continues, a battle of wills emerges between Cassie and the main suspect Richie Haywood (Ryan Gosling).<br /><br />The crippling issue here is that the two leads are hopeless. Bullock, though she is very nice to look at, is about as believable in the role of a hardened cynical cop as Rodney Dangerfield (actually, he'd be better!). Chaplin, for his sins, is a complete non-entity and I feel sorry that he has to put this film on his CV in his attempt to break into Hollywood. At least Gosling and Pitt, as the conniving sneering suspects, acquit themselves adequately. As if dodgy leads weren't bad enough, a story that would send anybody to sleep and a highly predictable (but illogical) ending shoot this film in the head before it has a chance to run.<br /><br />"Murder By Numbers" has absolutely nothing going for it, even a pointless nude scene by Bullock wouldn't redeem it. Well, just a little but still not enough to save it. Forgettable, predictable and redundant - this is one film that isn't going to move the cop genre forward. As Cassie probably says on her next case, there's nothing to see here people. Move along, keep moving...
This is a typical "perfect crime" thriller. A perfect crime is executed and the investigating police officer, ignoring all the clues, immediately knows who guilty is. The audience has to wait around the whole movie for the guilty to be caught. The result is like every single episode of "Columbo" or "murder she wrote". The director himself refers to the hackney story by showing the police officer watching an episode of Matlock! This story barely fills up 90 minutes but the director insists on using all 120 minutes filling with every cliche in the book. Skip this one, you are not missing anything.
An updated version of a theme which has been done before. While that in and of itself is not bad, this movie doesn't reach the ring like the other "inherent and pure" evil ones do. <br /><br />Predictable, ambitious attempt that falls short of the mark. Not worth sitting through for the tired contrived ending.
People, please don't bother to watch this movie! This movie is bad! It's totally waste of time. I don't see any point here. It's a Stupid film with lousy plot and the acting is poor. I rather get myself beaten than watch this movie ever again.
When I first saw this film it was not an impressive one. Now that I have seen it again with some friends on DVD ( they had not viewed it on the silver screen ), my opinion remains the same. The subject matter is puerile and the performances are weak.
Totally ridiculous. If you know anything about poker, you will find it absolutely appalling but also entertaining because it is so clueless. The nerd who made this movie is obviously very religious and knows slightly about the game of poker, but I doubt he's ever played above 3-6. (I think he also knows nothing of golf.) Where to start. I've seen better productions in the Intro to Film class I took freshmen year of film school. The actors to watch in this movie are Queen Momma, Scotty Nguyen, and the loser who can never win at poker. Everyone else is as wooden as they come, like bad porn actors.<br /><br />*Spoiler* The man the movie starts with in the opening sequence is the only reason the film got made. He is a railbird who doesn't play poker and never has a line of dialogue, but the actor is the man who obviously paid for the movie. I can't think of a more useless waste of money than this man shelling out for this pointless production. It's fitting that he had such a useless role.<br /><br />There's very little poker in this movie. Most of the time is spent on useless side characters whose plots aren't resolved in the slightest. Queen Momma does have a show-stealing scene where she throws her loser boyfriend through a window and tries to shoot his brains out. Also the nameless Arabs in the convenience store also give brilliant performances when they debate whether to beat up or kill an older lady who robs them. Their subtle performances are easily among the film's highlights. It makes you wonder why they bothered getting all these white people to play the leads.<br /><br />In conclusion, complete nonsense. Plan 9 from Outer Space has slightly more coherency. If you play poker though you might want to have a laugh. Also if you're Christian you might enjoy some of the heavy-handed religious conversation that pepper the movie like pointless pepper. I hate movies made by religious people. Especially ones who think they know something about things they know nothing about. It's sad that Jennifer Harman and Scotty Nguyen got involved in this travesty as I can't help but think less of them. They must be envious of Johnny Chan for getting in Rounders.
As a poker enthusiast I was looking forward to seeing this movie - Especially as it had Scotty Nyugen in it.<br /><br />Basically, Scotty Nyugens short spots in this film are all it has going for it.<br /><br />The characters are unlikeable and annoying, the soundtrack is awful and the plot, well, there isn't one.<br /><br />I honestly got a headache and found myself reading the barcode number on the DVD box after twenty minutes I was THAT bored. Its actually ashame that Nyugen was in this movie as otherwise I wouldn't have wasted $16 buying it off Ebay.<br /><br />Take it from me - AVOID like 7 2 offsuit!!! Dire. :(
The writer/director of this film obviously doesn't know anything about film. I think the DP on this project was tied up and replaced with a monkey, because every seen was either too dark or had the hotter hot spots than the sun. <br /><br />The story was awful, the characters were very one dimensional. For someone to have said that this film was made for poker fans and not film fans, that someone is kidding their self (it was probably the writer/director). No poker fan in this world likes this movie. Even your money man hates this project. To go into a casino and play a few hands doesn't give you the experience to write about poker. Keep your day job. And if it's playing poker, then you must be hurt'n.
This 30 minute documentary Buñuel made in the early 1930's about one of Spain's poorest regions is, in my opinion, one of his weakest films. First, let's admit that 70 years later, Spain is much richer than it was then (and when I say this, I fully admit that wealth can bring problems of its own, like excessive individualism and consumerism, though all in all wealth it's a far better condition than the extreme poverty portrayed here). And if poverty receded in Spain it was not exactly with the sort of socialism that Buñuel favored, but with Western European style capitalism. But one of the most shocking things about the movie is this: in one scene, the narrator chides that in school, children are taught the value of Pi. Teaching math to poor people, the horror!. Buñuel shortsightedness is at its most glaring here, not realizing that it is access to the latest knowledge and technology what will help the poor overcome their situation. What is he proposing? That children are taught exactly what at school? Doesn't Buñuel understand that it is the lack of modern technology that has made them poor in comparison with other people?
With this film, Bunuel manipulates the viewer with all of film's might while stating clearly in the film that his work is one of 'objectivity'. Obviously, it is not. For one reason, many scenes 'shot by pure chance' are obvious set-ups (when that poor goat 'accidently' falls off the cliff, you can actually see the gun smoke on the right of the screen!). For another, his concealing of one important information: the Hurdes people were the way they were for a specific reason which is just hinted at in the film. That is, goitre, a sickness caused by lack of iodine (salt). This goitre is the cause of their cretinism and had Bunuel only took the time to make his research (heck, if he checked 'cretinism' in a medical dictionary he'd have found 'goitre') he MIGHT have ended up telling the truth about these people (still, doubtfully). Instead, with his film, he judges them constantly, talking about them as 'cretins', again and again, dramatizing the action, setting-up scenes to create the spectacle, all of this very unacceptable for a documentarist which claims to work for an all-mighty objectivity. Bunuel talks all the time in this film, not letting one word to the people he is filming. He talks FOR them and, even then, JUDGES them. This piece is flawed to it's roots, to it's ideology and it's a real shame it's considered a great film.
One of the lamer wedding movies you'll see. Smacks too too much of its time period so it was out of date before it hit the theaters. The ethnic stereotypes are like a Henny Youngman joke, except they just aint in the least bit funny here. Molly Ringwald, well what else needs to be said. Give you a clue to the silliness, she destroys a $10,000 wedding dress, because "It just won't be me" makes it into this rag, with straps and puts on a top hat, and everyone smiles cutely at her moxy, rather than ringwalding her neck. Its a helluva a cast too, check out how heavy Ally Sheedy is. Wheeeew!
Dull, flatly-directed "comedy" has zero laughs and wastes a great cast. Alan Alda wore too many hats on this one and it shows. Newcomer Anthony LaPaglia provides the only spark of life in this tedium but it's not enough.<br /><br />One of those scripts that, if you were a neophyte and submitted it to an agent or producer, would be ripped to shreds and rejected without discussion.
After watching this on the MST3K episode, I have to wonder how many movies this film borrows from. It seems to combine elements of Logans Run, Farenheight 451, Final Sacrifice and at least several others. At one point I was really expecting Cris Makepease to call Lee Majors ROWSDOWER. <br /><br />I wonder if the director has any clue how many holes there are in the plot. like the fact that, even though gas is unavailable, there is plenty of it in abandoned gas stations, and the stations are located close enough together to keep an F1 race car going all the way across the country.
I saw this movie years ago, and I was impressed... but then again I was only 12 years old. I recently re-watched it and want that time back. This film is pretty bad. While I like Lee Majors, Chris Makepeace (watch My Bodyguard (1980)if you would like to see a GOOD movie that he was in... of Meatballs (also starring Bill Murray) for some laughs), and Burgess Meredith, this role does/did nothing for their careers.<br /><br />Anyway, Lee Majors character, Franklyn Hart, is an ex- race car driver who plans on driving his race car (which he had in storage) across the country to California. One Problem: The government has outlawed all private transportation. I thought the concept was OK (not the worse I've heard of), but the execution failed horribly.
This juvenile, bland flick is strictly for teenagers in old mens' bodies, desperate to relive their hormonally challenged teenage years. How ? By burning up gas and equating a fast, reckless car (or plane) with freedom.<br /><br />The plot borrows heavily from Mister Rogers' neighborhood (if it were run my an oil conglomerate) and Logan's Run (if it were heavily sedated and lacked a clear sense of style).<br /><br />Starring Lee Majors and Burgess Meredith this film is set in a post-gas-crisis world in which an all-powerful government doesn't want you to (*ahem*) drive your car and burn gas. Sort of the opposite of today's Enron-and-Bush, oil-grabbing, SUV-pushing government.<br /><br />This juxtaposition alone makes the film laughable. But wait...there's more. Although the film is set in the future, we're not shown any signs of future technology, beyond a return to bicycles, golf carts and horses. You will believe that the future looks... exactly like today. Same clothing, same suburban houses, same green lawns as today and when the film was made. There are no solar panels, no windmills, no concessions to alternate energy.<br /><br />The acting is flat and flavorless. Even scenes which could have been gritty or moving, buddy-flick, honor, romance, horror... all fall flatter than a paper doll under a briefcase.<br /><br />Continuity is lacking-- the jet flown by Burgess Meredith's character changes colors and configuration from moment to moment as the filmmakers insult our intelligence with unmatched stock footage again and again.<br /><br />The plot is as moronic and only half as exciting as a Dukes of Hazzard episode.<br /><br />Even die-hard car-film and SF fans should avoid this film like month-old roadkill, unless you enjoy heckling Exxon executives trying to make a movie as empty as the hero's gas tank.
Stupid, mindless drivel about a jet assembled within hours by mechanics who have never worked on airplanes (piloted by Burgess Meredith) chasing a Porsche race car which runs on decades-old gasoline sludge, driven by Lee Majors, with Chris Makepeace as the runaway techno-wiz who can McGyver spare parts into a radio receiver which can pick up all frequencies simultaneously, and who somehow learned how to acquire and use chemicals to make high explosives in a perfectly peaceful society. As moronic as it sounds. Terrible waste of Burgess Meredith, but Chris Makepeace may at least be forgiven on the grounds that this was only his second film.
Where's Michael Caine when you need him? I've seen most of the many seasons of MST3K, but this rare pre-1st season flick (episdoe K-20) is easily one of the worst movies ever made. Three "stars", Lee Majors, Chris Makepeace and Burgess Meredith, struggle through the worst batch of cinematography ever, delivering lines which must have been written by a secret Dick Cheney-style workgroup composed of Exxon and GM lawyers trying to cut funding for mass transit and energy efficiency research. Looks like it was filmed in almost total darkness, possibly on Super 8. Makes Logan's Run look like the cinematic Sistine Chapel crossed with Shakespeare. I can't imagine watching it without the commentary of Crow and Servo since it's unwatchable even with it. Clearly what's needed in Hollywood is some sort of 401K which prevents the need for actors to take on bad movies like this in order to pay for their health care. With its "rights to pollute and drive" theme, by the end, I'm half expecting to see a Charlton Heston cameo where he delivers his "cold dead hands" speech. Lee, I could have forgiven you for this in 1989, but 1981?
Way back in 1967, a certain director had no idea about a galaxy, far away or near. He was trying to complete a movie with the title THX etc. this short is a remanufactured history of a certain George. i am sorry it has only cuteness to defend it. This is merely an advertising promo for the director, actors, et. al. It has little intrinsic artistic value. It is a brochure. The lead playing George, is very fine, as is the Leia character, and the ersatz Darth character. All else is plain commercial dross. What a waste. Still, it got the job done I guess. The rest of the movie is merely treading water to kill time I guess. a brochure only.
For months I've been hearing about this little movie and now I've seen it. I find it cute, cute how so many fledgling directors make movies where they combine other people's creative ideas in order to make their own one-joke premise of a movie. Troops, Swingblade, any of the million Blair Witch parodies come to mind. If all that these directors want is a foot inside Hollywood's door then they're doing the right thing and they should keep it up because combining plot outlines is how Hollywood makes films. How many times have you heard the phrase, "It's Animal House meets Back to the Future"; "It's Wall Street meets Dead Poet's Society"; or "Shakespeare in Love meets Star Wars"? I remember when independent films meant original and daring not safe and predictable.
This is one very dire production. The general consensus has always been that while Princess Margaret may have been spoilt and pampered and may have revelled in the excess of luxury at her disposal, she was a very beautiful young woman. Here was the production's weakest point, the actress failed to get that across. It also appeared that the production budget couldn't stretch to a hairdresser - from the outset, the hair on the Princess Margaret character had a permanent birds nest in disarray look and looked as if she had been dragged through a bush. The actor playing the Duke of Edinburgh appeared to have prepared for his role by watching Rory Bremner imitate Prince Charles and was farcical.<br /><br />The production was a flaw ridden, cliché ridden, embarrassing load of rubbish. I think all Daily Mail readers deserve a free DVD copy for Christmas!
Okay, just by reading the title you would think that it would be a good movie. Well, at least I did. It started out good but became so boring after the first half hour. *spoiler*<br /><br />It tells a story about a mother that is so desperate for her daughter to become a cheerleader that she will go to any lengths to get what she wants. The only problem is that her daughter's friend is the girl in the way. She always wins the competitions, therefore pushing the mother further towards "eliminating" her. After talking to a "hitman", the mother decides that the girl needs to be roughed up a bit. So actions are taken but she eventually gets caught.<br /><br />The cast is awful and the movie drags on too long with nothing happening. Don't waste your time watching this.<br /><br />
This movie is so bad it's funny. It stars Scott Backula as some coach, but that's not important, what is important is the large black fellow who plays 1st base. First off he has to be at least 75 years old, yet still plays minor league baseball, second he starts out the movie in the outfield despite not being able to walk, let alone run. Coach Backula brilliantly moves him to first citing the fact that when he attempts to run he stays in the same place for too long a period of time. Backula shows more brilliant coaching strategy in the end of the film, (SPOILER), he tells his star player "downtown" to hit a home run, clearly "downtown" viewed this as a good move. He hit the home run and won the game for his team, a minor league squad playing the Twins who were the class of the majors in the movie. Now if only Tony Muser, manager of the Royals, would be as smart a coach as Backula and tell his players to simply hit a home run in every at bat, the Royals would never end an inning let alone lose a game.
This movie is a disgrace to the Major League Franchise. I live in Minnesota and even I can't believe they dumped Cleveland. (Yes I realize at the time the real Indians were pretty good, and the Twins had taken over their spot at the bottom of the American League, but still be consistent.) Anyway I loved the first Major League, liked the second, and always looked forward to the third, when the Indians would finally go all the way to the series. You can't tell me this wasn't the plan after the second film was completed. What Happened? Anyways if your a true fan of the original Major League do yourself a favor and don't watch this junk.
This movie is a disgrace to the Major League Franchise. I live in Minnesota and even I can't believe they dumped Cleveland. (Yes I realize at the time the real Indians were pretty good, and the Twins had taken over their spot at the bottom of the American League, but still be consistent.) Anyway I loved the first Major League, liked the second, and always looked forward to the third, when the Indians would finally go all the way to the series. You can't tell me this wasn't the plan after the second film was completed. What Happened? Anyways if your a true fan of the original Major League do yourself a favor and don't watch this junk.
How did I ever appreciate this dud of a sequel? All it does is throw balls! Worst of all, it doesn't compare to even the first installment of the series! The comedy suffers from not being funny. Where did all the unintentional laughter go? Enough slapstick on-the-field action goes on too long. Bob Uecker literally saved this one from a complete nine-inning shutout. What's next, MAJOR LEAGUE 4: RETURN TO THE LITTLE LEAGUE? Ehh, could be! Leave this one on the shelf and plan a trip to the All-Star Game. This one's had three strikes too many.
This is by far one of the worst movies i have ever seen, the poor special effects along with the poor acting are just a few of the things wrong with this film. I am fan of the first two major leagues but this one is lame!
MAJOR LEAGUE: BACK TO THE MINORS (1998) ½* <br /><br />Starring: Scott Bakula, Eric Bruskotter, Corbin Bernsen, Dennis Haysbert, Jensen Daggett, Written and directed by John Warren 100 minutes Rated PG-13 (for language and some violence) <br /><br />By Blake French: <br /><br />	Believe it or not, in the new John Warren comedy "MAJOR LEAGUE: BACK TO THE MINORS" there is one funny scene. It consists of a sequence where an infuriated coach throws a baseball hard into the wall behind him only to have it hit the cement and bounce back and smash him in the face. It's not much, but with the exception of a few one-liners, it's all this film has to offer...enough said. <br /><br />This movie is not only structurally impaired, characteristically undeveloped, predictable and badly written, but also just plain bad. Even non-critical audience members will hate this movie with all that they got. It is so familiar it just isn't funny. <br /><br />How many times does the same movie about sports have to be made? Last years we saw this same material in "Air Bud: Golden Receiver," and as bad as that film was, this is even worse. At least "Air Bud" was family oriented. "Major League Back to the Minors" is too vulgar for a wholesome family to view together on a Sunday afternoon. It is too childish for adults. So who is this film for? Teenagers? Elderly? People who are so desperate for entertainment they would rent something like this?<br /><br />	The film, like many others like this, has one basic point it tries to make: teamwork conquers all. Yes it does, and what a great moral to try to prove. Too bad we have already seen and excepted it so many times over and over have such little talent and intelligence that their cheerleaders are men in a ballerina costumes. Where the silly announcers form their own "buddy comedy routine" muttering one liners to themselves like "They suck," "This kids fast ball is timed with an hour glass," "This guy dropped out of ball for a while to find something he lost--maybe it was his mind," "Somebody needs a nap," and "ever see a sunset as beautiful as that play." Where the characters have such little significance to each other that we never know them by name. And where the only heartfelt lecture scene about teamwork is so unknowledgeable that it is almost funny.<br /><br />	"Major League Back to the minors" is so bad; it stalls its trite ending right in the middle of a good closing sequence. The good baseball team is on a comeback, they are about to win and--the power goes out. I was thinking for a minute that this piece of trash had come to a conclusion, but in reality, its false final scene exists only to add minutes to the running time. The movie basically consists of a series of unrelated sketches that throw in so many putrid jokes it is are not funny. There is another kind-of-funny line of dialogue that has a coach and a player talking to each other about why a long time outfielder is not wanted in that position any longer. The coach's answer: "You're too old, too slow, and too fat." The player's reaction is to die for. But that scene certainly does not make this movie noteworthy of you time, and certainly is not worth a cent of your money. <br /><br />So here is another dreadful entrée into this genre of film, another that is doomed with its own script, which is failed before seen, and another which is so familiar it seems like deja vu all over again.<br /><br />
Couldn't go to sleep the other night. So I got up, flipped on the tube & this movie was on.<br /><br />Film makers bit off more than they could chew. Just as ambitious in scope as "Forrest Gump" was. But Gump read like an fairy-tale where an extraordinarily lucky man guides us through the era. TGMB just relies on tired clichés to tell the story. Almost like a Broadway musical where actors have to ham it up. Every character's purpose was to fill a silly 60's archetype.<br /><br />Take how we're introduced to Finnegan: Hugging his black maid & receiving a framed picture of MLK. Criminey, talk about heavy-handed. Why not just give him a t-shirt saying "I Heart Black People"?<br /><br />Sunshine: "Isn't free love groovay, man? Oh no, I didn't have my period." <br /><br />Mary Beth: "I want to go to Berkeley, not square UCLA." Uh, excuse me? There was nothing square about LA in the 60s. Rather than take the time to demonstrate what made Berkeley unique, we just hear this brat whine about not going there.<br /><br />Can't even remember the black kid's name. He was just a prop used to show how racially tolerant the other kids are.<br /><br />Thing is, period pieces don't have to be this cheesy. Take "Dazed & Confused." Look how we're introduced to the football hero, Randall Floyd. We don't first see him on the football field. In fact, we never see him play football. We're introduced to him in class, inviting his nerdish poker buddies to a party.<br /><br />In "Dazed" feminism isn't a casual by-product of some chick getting knocked up. It's much more organic, more serious than that. It's refined in the ladies' room over a flip discussion about Gilligan's Island. Serious ideas can grow in the most mundane settings. But real life is like that.<br /><br />Some of the warm comments here note that the themes in this movie are still relevant. I agree! Which is why I feel so disappointed by this piece of Baby-Boomer pornostalgia.
I saw this back in '94 when it was finally released. Apparently because Orion pictures was in bankruptcy, I think, the movie had not been released a couple of years earlier.<br /><br />I have problem remembering details partly because I haven't seen it in a long time, but I do remember it as a very dull movie. I kept debating whether to walk out of it. The store was not at all interesting or engaging. Was a 3rd rate America Graffiti imitation. <br /><br />None of the performances make it worth watching either. One of the biggest disappointments since a local newspaper reviewer gave it a high rating.
No wonder most of the cast wished they never made this movie. It's just plain ridiculous and embarrassing to watch. Bad actors reading cheesy lines while shiny classic showroom cars continuously circle a diner that looks more like a Disneyland attraction. Students fist-fight with the deranged principal as he tries to stop them from setting fire to a bronze civil war statue. The Watts riots with a cast of...ugh...10?? Dermot Mulroney tries not to gag while he makes out with a Mary Hartman look-alike with the most annoying smile since 'Mr. Sardonicus'. Noah Wyle reads Bob Dylan lyrics to the wicked teacher with a swinging pointer and very bad face lift. Drunken virgin Rick Schroder sits in a kiddie rocket on his last night before entering the service. Silly, giggling school girls dress up in leopard stretch pants and walk on the set of 'Shindig', sing horribly off key, and actually make it big in the music business. And who wrote this compelling dialog?: "I'm going to Burkley and wear flowers in my hair"...."I think I found someone to buy Stick's woody!"...."These people are 'animals'!" "These people are my 'family'! as the Shirelles sing "Mama Said". Oh brother, What a mess. This is like a 'Reefer Madness' of the 60's except it's not even funny.
When I spotted that Noah Wyle and Ricky Schroder were in the same movie, I was like, score! I admit, I was eager to see the movie. And I have to say, the first fifteen minutes or so were nostalgic in a way. Then it went all down hill. I didn't expect it to be a dump of politically correct civil rights mumbo jumbo. They took every possible controversial topic and threw it into one stupid story. I was appalled that Noah was involved in anything of the sort, especially his role. Nobody with a fully functional brain would actually accept all that crap about the Vietnam War. If anyone really wants to know how Communism was like, sit down and read a book on it. And not one that praises it or is against it, just the cold hard facts.<br /><br />I only watched a few scenes here and there only because I wanted to see Ricky's body, but that was all that interested me. Everything else about this movie irritated me.
Comparison with American Graffiti is inevitable so save your money and time by renting that timeless classic. Speaking of timeliness, there was an episode of Cheers where Norm and Cliff competed on who can find the most anachronism in a movie. They would have loved this movie everything from some of the songs and some of the clothing were wrong. There were sly reference such as 'they paved paradise to put up a parking lot'. The filmmakers hoped to elicit some smiles from us but basically made me groan.<br /><br />The characters in this movie are incredibly politically and socially astute for teenagers. Almost as smart as the people who were in their thirties and forties when they wrote the darn movie. Very little of what the characters said were believable. Combine the bad writing and bad acting this movie just totally fail. Although, there were two exceptions Kelli Williams liven things up as the future flower child and, despite what another reviewer said, Rick Shroeder was quite good. Showing that brooding characteristic that would come to full boil in his eventual appearance in "N.Y.P.D. Blues".
The championship game is only a couple of days away, but things in New Orleans aren't as they should be. From players with marital problems to drug overdoses to gambling problems to a killer on the loose, life is getting in the way of what should be a memorable, wonderful time. Can things be put back into order and a killer stopped before the big game is ruined? <br /><br />Despite what you might think when you first read about Superdome, this is not a football movie. In fact football is nothing more than a plot device and an after thought. Instead, Superdome is another of those lousy soap opera-ish 70s made-for-TV movies populated with Hollywood has beens and those that never will be. The cast sleepwalks its way through the thing with no one really looking good. The best (or worst) example is Van Johnson in a very small role looking generally lost as to why he's there. The plot is dull, uninteresting, and unbelievable. Donna Mills as a hit"man"? Yeah, right! It's about as believable as the affair she has with the liquor soaked David Jansen. The movie also lacks any pace. Trying to get all four or five story lines into the film zaps whatever flow Superdome might have had. With no drama or suspense in sight, Superdome ends up being a very poor example of a 70s made-for-TV movie. The lone highlight for me was the voice-over work from the late Charlie Jones - a sportscaster I miss listening to. The eloquent way he overstates the intrigue and over-hypes the atmosphere in New Orleans is pure cheese at its finest.<br /><br />Like most others who have seen Superdome, I also did so courtesy of Mystery Science Theater 3000. It may be one of the KTMA public access episodes, but it's one of the best examples of the shows early start. So even though I've only rated Superdome a 2/10, I'll give this episode a generous 3/5 on my MST3K rating scale.
It's 1978, and yes obviously there are too many black players on the teams as well! Fans will be upset and certainly the 75,000 seats will be full, only less happy there are so many black players on the field! This made for TV Super Bowl movie is watchable. It's not much more, but it's really surprising the cast of talented actors that make an appearance (for the time), probably most notably Tom Selleck. Unfortunately any goodness Selleck brings to the screen, is quickly trumped by "actors" like Dick Butkus.<br /><br />It's a silly story about super bowl betting. PJ Jackson is charged by "New York" (read mafia) for ensuring the game ends for their favor, in this case a $10,000,000 bet. PJ is innocent enough, and seems to have a loose grasp by buying off a few people here and there. But things seem to fall apart for him. Another person, the unsuspected Lainie, takes charge. For a while, the mystery of murders isn't known for certain, but is revealed rather plainly at the final murder that Lainie is the new antagonist.<br /><br />It's a bad movie, but is watchable. The acting is decent, and the filming is OK. At least there weren't any silly typical 70s car chases (they have their place just not here). Just keep an open mind about past stereotyping and the cocaine era and you'll survive.<br /><br />2/10 (maybe a 2.5)
Superdome is one of those movies that makes you wonder why it was made. The whole plot concerns someone trying to sabotage the superbowl, and all the attempts made to stop them. How Tom Selleck and Donna Mills' careers managed to survive this is beyond me. However, the most frustrating thing about it was THERE WAS NO FOOTBALL IN IT AT ALL! Avoid this one if possible.
This TV movie goes to show that bad films do exist. The only reason I saw this was it was covered on a KTMA MST3K. It's Super Bowl at the Superdome in New Orleans. However, no football is played whatsoever and we see the behind the scenes look at basically nothing. With the many stars in this film, it made no difference. I really don't know why I watched this.
If he wanted to be accurate, he should have chosen some Frisco natives and not a bunch of NY actors who know nothing about the Sucka Free (not Sucker Free). I've lived in SF my entire life, and folks here do not talk or act the way these actors did. Everything was over-dramatized, and the only cat I saw from the Bay was JT the Bigga Figga with his little cameo as a rapper. No shock that he was the only one in the film who really dressed like cats out here (ie his Warriors jersey). Not once did I notice anyone wearing any Giants or 9ers gear; instead he fitted them in some cheesy made-up SF or Oakland jerseys that aren't even sold around here. HP has no bowling alleys, black and Asian gangbangers do NOT wear head or wristbands with the colors of Africa or China's Olympic team, nor does every Chinese gangster wear a Yao Ming jersey and try and sound black while shooting hoops. Further, while there now is a significant yuppie community that has invaded the Mission, all that was shown was some white dude and a self-proclaimed "100% West Coast Boriqua." This is NOT New York! Puerto Ricans here are few and far between, and the Latinos in the Mission are very, very different from the ONE that was shown here, who was without a doubt from NY. Also, HP is not the only black neighborhood in the City. An accurate depiction would have shown the drama between HP sets in their own hood as well as vs. Fillmore, Sunnydale, Lakeview, etc. <br /><br />This film could've been much better if Lee had done some more homework and had a better storyline to work with.
San Francisco is a big city with great acting credits. In this one, the filmmakers made no attempt to use the city. They didn't even manage the most basic of realistic details. So I would not recommend it to anyone on the basis of being a San Francisco movie. You will not be thinking "oh, I've been there," you will be thinking "how did a two story firetrap/stinky armpit turn into a quiet hotel lobby?" Some of the leads used East Coast speech styles and affectations. It detracts, but the acting was always competent.<br /><br />The stories seemed to be shot in three distinct styles, at least in the beginning. The Chinatown story was the most effective and interesting. The plot is weak, ripped scene for scene from classy Hong Kong action movies. The originals had a lot more tension and emotional resonance, they were framed and paced better. But the acting is fun and we get to see James Hong and other luminaries.<br /><br />The white boy intro was pointless. I think the filmmakers didn't know what to do with it, so they left it loosely structured and cut it down. The father is an odd attempt at a Berkeley liberal - really, folks, everyone knows it's not "groovy" to live in the ghetto - but his segments are the most humorous. They threw away some good opportunities. Educated and embittered on the West Coast, a yuppie jerk here is a different kind of yuppie jerk than they make in New York. They are equally intolerable but always distinguishable. That would have been interesting; this was not.<br /><br />The Hunter's Point intro was the most disappointing. It was the most derivative of the three, and stylistically the most distant from San Francisco. You've seen it done before and you've seen it done better. Even the video game was better! <br /><br />Despite the generic non-locality and aimless script, these characters have potential, the actors have talent, and something interesting starts to force its way around the clumsy direction... about ten minutes before the ending. Good concept placed in the wrong hands.<br /><br />PS, there is a missing minority here, see if you can guess which one.
I just saw this at the Venice Film Festival, and can't quite decide about it. We were never allowed to get close enough to any of the characters to care about them. Maybe that was the point, that we are all in a "bubble" of our own, but these people didn't compel me to be concerned about them or shocked at their various fates. At a running time of just over an hour, the characters weren't very well developed. Lots of time was devoted to shots of factory equipment (forklifts, conveyor belts, shovels); and the slightly-creepy-looking baby dolls with surprisingly lifelike eyes, that most of the characters made for a living, were somehow more interesting than the live people. An interesting experiment, but somehow it never quite came together.
When thinking of the revelation that the main character in "Bubble" comes to at films end, I am reminded of last years "Machinist" with Christian Bale. The only difference between the two films is the literal physical weight of the characters.<br /><br />An understated, yet entirely realistic portrayal of small town life. The title is cause for contemplation. Perhaps, we, the audience are the ones in the "Bubble" as we are given no payoffs in the films slim 90 minute running time. Audience reactions were often smug and judgmental, clearly indicating how detached people can be from seeing any thread of humanity in characters so foreign to themselves. These characters are the ones people refer to as those that put George W. back in office for a second term.<br /><br />It's sobering to consider how reality television has spoiled our sense of reality when watching an audience jump to their feet for the exit as soon as the credits role. This film has it's merits, and is deserving of consideration for the things it doesn't say outright.
This film was recommended to me by a friend who lives in California. She thought it was wonderful because it was so real, "Just the way people in the Ohio Valley are!" I'm from the area and I experienced the film as "Just the way people in California think we are!" I've lived in Marietta and Parkersburg and worked minimum wage jobs there. We laughed a lot, we bonded with and took breaks with people our own age; the young people went out together at night. The older people had little free time after work because they were taking care of their families. The area is beautiful in the summer and no gloomier in the winter rain than anywhere else.<br /><br />Aside from the "if you live in a manufactured home you must be depressed" condescension, the story lacked any elements of charm, mystery or even a sense of dread.<br /><br />Martha's character was the worst drawn. It's doubtful that anyone so repressed would have belonged to a church, but if she had, she probably would have made friends there. I've read reviews that seem to assume Martha was jealous of Rose because Rose was "younger, prettier and thinner" but if this is the case it isn't shown. All we actually see is Martha learning to dislike Rose for reasons that would apply just as much if the three friends had been the same age and gender. We see Martha feeling left out during smoking sessions, left out of the loop when social plans are made, used but not appreciated, and finally disrespected and hurt.<br /><br />Just one more thing: Are we supposed to suspect Kyle of murder because he had once had a few panic attacks? Please. This takes stigma against mental illness to a new level.
I really didn't expect much from this film seeing as it has people from Parkersburg WV, which is were I live, acting in it. This town is dull and so is this film. There were a few decent scened in the movie but I was distracted by all the crappy landmarks they made a point to show. This movie may have been good if there was actual acting in it but there wasn't any. Unless you are from Parkersburg and are interested in seeing what you see everyday, then stay away from this movie. The dialog will put you to sleep, the acting will bore you to tears and Steven Soderberg should lose some credibility after shooting crap like this. Its a predictable movie with no surprises. What you see is what you get and that is a 73 minute tour of Parkersburg West Virginia and Belpre Ohio without a narrator.
A typical Lanza flick that had limited audience appeal with a weak story line that was put together simply to justify Lanza's MGM contract at the time.<br /><br />As reported by member Lastliberal (above) Grayson could not stand Lanza because of his obscene advances towards her off (and sometimes on) camera. In addition, his gutter mannerism and the continual smell of alcohol in her face during scenes they did together were intolerable. After doing their second (and last) film together, "Toast of New Orleans", the normally quiet Grayson stormed into Louie B. Mayer's office and told him in no uncertain words that she would never work with Lanza again – period. Mayer felt that Grayson was much more valuable to MGM then Lanza, so Grayson's statement stuck. Grayson went on to star in a number of widely received (and far more profitable) musicals with Howard Keel and others. Later in life when asked to compare Lanza and Keel her reply was that there was no comparison between them, and that Keel was great to work with and had much more appeal to the "real people" in the audiences.
More wide-eyed, hysterical 50s hyper-cheerfulness that gives new meaning to anti-social, pathological behaviour. Danza and Grayson will leave you begging for mercy.<br /><br />It's a shame that all the people involved in the making of this movie are now dead (or in nursing homes). I kinda thought about suing them for torture. As this movie started unleashing its shamelessly aggressive operatic assault onto my poor, defenseless ear-drums, I felt instant, strong pain envelop my entire being. That damn muscular vibrato can shatter Soviet tanks into tiny bits, nevermind glass.<br /><br />"Why didn't you switch the channel if you didn't like it?", you might ask angrily. Fair point, fair point... The answer is that I wanted to, but the pain was so sudden and excruciating that I fell to the floor, writhing in agony. With my last ounces of energy, I tried to reach the remote but couldn't.<br /><br />A silly little fisherman with the questionable talent of singing with an annoying opera voice is discovered by Niven, who then proceeds to "pigmalionize" him. Lanza is in love with asymmetrical Grayson, but she predictably treats him with contempt until they finally hook up. This may seem like a rather thin plot, but this noisy movie is so chock-full of singing and music that there is barely any dialogue at all. This movie is RELENTLESS. Forget about torturing hippies and war prisoners with Slayer's "Reign In Blood" (as in a South Park episode). Whatever little conversation there is amongst the silly adults that infest this strange 50s musical world, it's all infantile - as if they were all 6 year-olds impersonating grown-ups. I can only envy people who find movies like this funny. It must be great being easy-to-please: what a world of wonder would open up to me if only I could enjoy any silly old gag as hilarious, gut-busting comedy. <br /><br />But let's examine this phenomenon, the 50s musical. My best guess is that 50s musicals offered the more day-dreaming idealists among us a glimpse into Utopia or Heaven (depending on whether you're church-going or Lenin's-tomb-going), or at least very cheesy version of these fantasy-inspired places. TTONO is more akin to a representation of Hell, but that's just me. I don't seem to "get" musicals. People talk, there is a story - but then all-of-a-sudden everyone starts singing for about 4 minutes after which they abruptly calm down and then pretend as if nothing unusual happened! When you think about it, musicals are stranger than any science-fiction film.<br /><br />Worse yet, TTONO (my favourite type of pizza, btw) is not just a 50s musical, but one with opera squealing. Opera is proof that there is such a thing as over-training a voice - to the point where it becomes an ear-piercing weapon rather than a means of bringing the listener pleasure. The clearest example of this travesty is when Lanza and Grayson unite their Dark Side vocal powers for a truly unbearable duet. I tried lowering the volume. I lowered it from 18 to 14. Then from 14 to 10. Then 8. I ended up lowering it to a 1, which is usually so low that it's only heard by specially-trained dogs and certain types of marsupials, and yet I STILL could hear those two braying like donkeys!<br /><br />Take the scene in the small boat in the river. Danza starts off with one of his deafening, brain-killing tunes, and then... nothing. No animals anywhere to be seen. Even the crocodiles, who are mostly deaf, have all but left. If you look carefully, you might even see the trees change colour, from green to yellow, in a matter of minutes. No, this was not a continuity error, it was plain old torture of the flora. And those trees were just matte paintings! Imagine how real trees would have reacted.<br /><br />The reason glass breaks when a high C is belched out of the overweight belly of an operatic screamer is not due to any laws of physics relating to waves and frequency, but because glass is only human - hence can take only so much pain before committing suicide through spontaneous self-explosion. I can listen to the loudest, least friendly death metal band for hours, but give me just a minute of a soprano and I get a splitting headache.
i couldn't help but think of behind the mask: the rise of leslie vernon (a massively more amazing film) when watching this because of the realistic feel to it as well as the great innovative idea. this could have been a GREAT film. the acting is...from some of the actors alright. from others...it's downright horrible.<br /><br />that aside the idea is great and the format is great. the story is pretty good as well, though suffering often from big blows to the logical mind.<br /><br />nevermind that though right? it IS a horror movie after all.<br /><br />i really want to see this remade...i really want it to be the fantastic film that it wants to be.<br /><br />however (and you can't really fault the minds behind the movie for this) this is obviously built upon a shoe string budget. and the fx really hurt the film overall.<br /><br />great movie. ...if you were to swap out for some better acting and slightly better fx.<br /><br />whoever wrote it should keep going though, great idea here.
Slashers.....well if you like horrors its definitely one to see, otherwise don't even bother.It is completely obvious that this film has an extremely low budget, For instance it looks as if the entire film has been shot in a warehouse somewhere, and on numerous occasions you will see the mike boom shadow and the camera mans shadow, trust me you wont need to look for them.Also try to ignore the cheesy actors, if thats what you call them!!The basic outline is a few people decide to go on a game show where they have to survive a night in a big maze due to their being 3 killers on the loose and whoever live's at the end gets rich. Now there is something about this film that keeps you watching and rarely do you find that with a cheap budget horror these days,For example when i watched it i thought to my self i would'nt mind having a go at this game! especially for $12.000.000. so anyway i would recommend you watch it and make up your own mind.
Its spelled S-L-A-S-H-E-R-S. I was happy when the main character flashed her boobs. That was pretty tight. Before and after that the movie pretty much blows. The acting is like E-list and it's shown well in the movie. Not to mention it is so low budget that Preacherman and Chainsaw Charlie are played by the same person. The whole movie looks like it was shot with a camcorder instead of half way decent film. The only other reason I liked the movie was because Chainsaw Charlie and Doctor Ripper were funny. They said many stupid things that made me laugh. Other than that if you see this movie at Blockbuster do everyone a favor hide it behind Lawnmowerman 2. Anybody that thinks this movie is good should be mentally evaluated.
I have read several good reviews that have defended and critised the various aspects of this film. One thing I see, over and over, is annoyance with Megan, the idealistic political scientist, trying to change the world. I loved her character. Maybe, because I am a 23 year old political science student and I think I'm going to change the world too, so I relate to Megan. Besides, she's cute. She's no super model, but more of a cute girl next door.<br /><br />OK, so she cried and screamed a lot. It's very dramatic, and seems overdone, but doesn't it fit her character? She goes on that show with the intention of sacrificing her life to prove a point. She thinks people who enjoy such a show are sick. I think she made her argument very well. Of course, being a young naive girl, she is terrified of what she is about to face. I think her acting accurately portrays a young girl showing moral courage despite her overwhelming fear. Furthermore, I think she maintained a certain dignity throughout the film despite the desperate situation she was in.<br /><br />As for the movie in general, other than Megan, it was pretty much what I expected. It had excellent gore scenes, by micro-budget standards. The plot maybe took a quick thought, hardly any contemplation. It's basically just a dark humorist senseless slasher film, which the name implies. I love the sadism of the doctor. He kept ripping Megan's shirt off, not just for the cause of sleaze (though largely so), but also to torment her, before he kills her. The Chainsaw hick was hilarious. For slasher film lovers, he was probably the best character.<br /><br />I give this film 4 out of 10. It had a good setting, almost no plot, and a mix of good and terrible acting. I would recommend it for a cheap thrill, but hardly a diamond in the rough that is micro-budget horror.
how can this movie have a 5.5 this movie was a piece of skunk s**t. first the actors were really bad i mean chainsaw Charlie was so retarded. because in the very beginning when he pokes his head into the wooden hut (that happened to be about oh 1 quarter of an inch thick (that really cheap as* flimsy piece of wood) and he did not even think he could cut threw it)second the person who did the set sucks as* at supplying things for them to build with. the only good thing about this movie is the idea of this t.v. show. bottom line DO NOT waste your hard earned cash on this hunk of s**t they call a movie.<br /><br />rating:0.3
SLASHERS (2 outta 5 stars)<br /><br />Not really a very good movie... but I did like the idea behind it... and the the filmmakers did make it look pretty good considering the tiny budget they had to work with. The movie is ostensibly an "episode" of a live Japanese reality show that sends several contestants into a sealed off "danger zone" and has three costumed creeps sent after to them to kill them. The survivor, if there is one, wins fame and fortune... everyone else just winds up dead. The main drawback to this movie is that the acting is pretty bad. None of the "real" people seem real at all. The actors playing the killers are kind of fun... because they are portraying cheesy and over-the-top caricatures of popular modern horror movie types... and that's exactly how they would be done if this was an actual show. The movie pretends to be done all in one take... there is one cameraman who follows the contestants around the "danger zone" and everything is seen from the point of view of his camera... but the lights keep flickering on and off constantly (to hide the "cuts" from one take to another, I would imagine).
Being a fan of cheesy horror movies, I saw this in my video shop and thought I would give it a try. Now that I've seen it I wish it upon no living soul on the planet. I get my movie rentals for free, and I feel that I didn't get my moneys worth. I've seen some bad cheesy horror movies in my time, hell I'm a fan of them, but this was just an insult.
It has been said, "a city on hill cannot hide itself" and Virginia City, Nevada, perched on the side of Mt. Davidson at 6200 ft. west of Tahoe, is a prime example, or in the context of the movie, should be. Virginia City exploded in the American dream as a shower of gold and silver, suspiciously the same year the Civil War began. It was the birthplace of the dean of American letters; it was where a young reporter named Samuel Clemens began using the name "Mark Twain" and went on to become America's most famous writer. It was also the birthplace of the great Hearst fortune, and the launching pad of John Mackay, who became the wealthiest man in America, the third wealthiest man in the world. Hey, they should have made the movie about him! In the 1860's Virginia CIty was THE boomtown of all boomtowns, the home of the big bonanza, at one time the largest "metropolitan" area west of St. Louis and East of San Francisco. But Virginia City (the movie) misses all that and is more about a hogwash North/South duello between the characters played by Errol Flynn and Randolph Scott. Flynn is Capt. Kerry Bradford, a Union officer who is a POW in a concentration camp run by a mean Confederate commander named Capt. Vance Irby, played by Scott. These two are always getting in each other's way. Bradford escapes and then tries to stop a shipment of gold bullion being "snuck" out of VC by who else other than . . . Irby! "Hey, what's he doing here!?" Horrible. Bogart plays a laughable Mexican bandit who can't decide who's side he's on. Miriam Hopkins plays a murky character named "Julia Hayne", obviously a historical lunge at the town's first lady, Julia Bulette, who in real life a celebrated prostitute. She goes to Washington and talks Honest Abe about saving BRADFORD (not Irby) from hanging and blah blah blah. Go figure. They shoulda hung the writer. In "real life" Twain reports that on the last day of the War, the setting sun caused the American flag atop Mt. Davidson to appear to the puzzled residents to be weirdly on fire, kind of like the movie. Three days later they discovered that on that day the South capitulated. One interesting quirk in the film is how sidekicks Alan Hale and Guin Williams flick their pistols forward when they shoot, like they're fishing, or trying to make the bullets go faster. Not a bad idea for the movie. The same kind of goofiness is lathered over sap and corn throughout the movie. Gosh, how could they miss the gold madness, profligate wealth, gun battles in the silver mines, Mark Twain getting run out of town and beat up after a showdown, the crooked railroad, the Opera House fire, Artemis Ward, Bulette's huge funeral, the Chinese tongs, the black saloons, the Auction . . ? All this high on a mountain surrounded by desert? The truth was unreal. Did its fabulous wealth actually spark the great American holocaust? Well, if you count this movie, it wouldn't be the first debacle to come out of Virginia City. It's a disappointment for Virginia City fans because it misses what made the town a "city of illusions," where it is said evil seeps out of the ground . . . Okay, other than that it's a fun movie. Flynn and the gang are always great no matter what history they're destroying. If Flynn would just play his rotten self I'd double my rating.
Humphrey Bogart clearly did not want to be in this film, and be forced to play a part-Mexican or he would have been suspended. Believe me , he made the wrong choice! Presumably, after the success of "Dodge City", Warners tried a follow-up with Errol Flynn and his usual list of buddies, like Alan Hale, Guinn (Big Boy) Williams, Frank Mc Hugh and the ever-present John Litel, but they made the huge mistake of trying to present Miriam Hopkins as a love interest for Flynn v. Randolph Scott, and as a singer to really make things bad, because she proved one thing, and that is she cannot sing. The story was not too bad, but with Bogie clearly miscast also, it turned out to be a poor Western that was overlong, and on a low budget, but in fairness, color would not have helped.
I can't believe that Steven Segal's career has hit so low that he has been reduced to making 4th rate films with 5th rate secondary actors. I watched this moving expecting to see him beet the crap out of some people the way he usually does. When he is reduced to using a single judo chop between the shoulder blades to take out an opponent and the guy falls like a ton of bricks something is wrong.<br /><br />The plot is unbelievable as a movie, and even if you excuse the visuals, and had read this story as a novel, you'd be left wondering why you had even picked up the book.<br /><br />Steven Segal goes through the motions and seems as if he is only doing this because he is under obligation. He shows no effort and no enthusiasm, and in some scenes he doesn't show up at all.<br /><br />I hate to repeat other peoples comments, but the use of stock footage for cut scenes and for visuals of the aircrafts in flight is pathetic. The condition of those scenes chopped in, is shaky and scenes themselves seemed to have deteriorated over time. The zappruder film showing President John F Kennedy being assassinated is steadier and cleaner.<br /><br />My honest opinion is to tell you not to waste your time seeing this movie, it is not up to the standards of his work in the glimmer man or exit wounds. I read one review that said the movie had a 12 million dollar budget (Segal being paid 5 of that) and that the movie still came in under budget. I must concur.<br /><br />It is no wonder that this is a direct to DVD movie, as no conscientious theatre owner would play this movie .
Following the appalling Attack Force, chances were that Seagal could only have a step up with Flight Of Fury. To out-stink Attack Force would take some doing. Flight Of Fury is a marked improvement overall, but still in the grand scheme of thinks, mediocre. Mediocrity is seemingly an achievement for Seagal these days, a sad insight into his movie career's decline. Where Attack Force was a hodge-podge of plot lines altered drastically from conception, to filming, to post production, Flight Of Fury keeps the plot line more simple. Someone steals a high-tech stealth fighter, planning to use it to fire chemical weapons (which we later, bizarrely discover, will destroy the whole world in 48 hrs). Seagal has to get the plane back. It's that simple, no annoying sub-plots, and conspiracies weighing the film down like far too many of his recent works. That's not to suddenly say the storytelling is good though, it's pretty poor. The introduction to side characters is badly done for example.<br /><br />In filmic terms FOF is bad. It's badly acted by all involved, and Seagal looks bored to tears almost. He's just got the look of a toddler who's been forced to perform the school nativity against his will, and so performs with a constant grimace and air of half assedness. Can we blame Seagal though when the material is so un-ambitious and cruddy? Not really. This is the final film of his Castel Studio's, multi-picture deal. The producers can't be bothered to make anything remotely good, promising a 12 or so million dollar budget, and (after Seagal's obligatory 5 million) probably pocketing a nice hefty chunk of it themselves (If the film was made for the remaining 7 million, then I'm Elvis Pressley!). So in that respect why should Seagal put the effort into a film that's already got distribution sorted before it's made. Fan's though may argue, he at least owes them the effort. He's seriously looking jaded, and the continued use of stand ins and dub-overs is further indication of this. Michael Keusch directs with some efficiency, while the cinematography is quite good, but in all technical areas (and as usual with Castel, a bog standard stunt team) there's nothing more than mediocrity, and nothing to help the film rise above its material, and bored leading man. Again there's a few action scenes focusing on characters other than Seagal, which in all truth we don't want to see.<br /><br />Overall the action isn't too bad. It's nice and violent, and on occasion we're treated to a few vintage nasty Seagal beatings, but overall nothing special. Partly due to a poor stunt crew, and the lack of time to film anything too complex or exciting. For me, Shadow Man was a more enjoyable film, because while ignoring the incoherent, jumbled, plot line, there were more vintage Seagal moments, and more of him in centre stage. He never disappeared for long periods during the film. Seagal disappears bizarrely during one action scene here, and re-appears after, with little explanation. There's far too much stock footage used. Using stock shots isn't an entirely horrendous thing, but using it as a crutch is. We're treated to countless establishing shots of naval ships, all the time, which get annoying. Plus the continuity of the stock footage is all over the place (just check the backdrops, chopping and changing).<br /><br />The film is just middle of the road. It says it all that the films best scene is a completely needless, and gratuitous girl on girl scene, with two hot chicks. Seagal even perks up briefly then too! Overall this may be one of the better stock footage based actioners out there, but that's not saying much at all. This will please many fans, but they should bear in mind, Seagal himself would probably want to forget this one's existence. **
I usually don't comment anything (i read the others opinions)... but this, this one I _have_ to comment... I was convinced do watch this movie by worlds like action, F-117 and other hi-tech stuff, but by only few first minutes and I changed my mind... Lousy acting, lousy script and a big science fiction.<br /><br />It's one of the worst movies I have ever seen...<br /><br />Simply... don't bother...<br /><br />And one more thing, before any movie I usually check user comments and rating on this site... 3.7 points and I give this movie a try, now I'm wondering WHO rate this movie by giving it more than 2 points ??????????
'Flight Of Fury' is a shockingly dire but worst of all boring Action Film - I don't expect a lot from a Seagal Film, all I expect is to be moderately entertained for 90 or so minutes with some mindless action -unfortunately this doesn't even achieve that low expectation, The action scenes are few and far between, the plot (which is totally irrelevant in these Films) is needlessly complicated and confusing with huge plot holes throughout, The acting is truly abysmal - bordering on embarrassing with Seagal and his whispering One expression performance being the best among the sorry lot of 3rd raters - I find it hard to believe that anything close to $12M was spent on this dire mess unless $11M of that 12 was Seagal's Salary - I somehow doubt it! The one moment of any interest to Straight guys or gay girls is that out of seemingly nowhere two hot chicks end up in a lesbian sex scene of sorts complete with huge baps on display other than that - It's mediocre stuff which is no different to many of the Michael Dudikoff B-Movies I've endured<br /><br />1/10
Steven Seagal appears to be sleepwalking through a dreadful movie shot almost entirely in close-up to disguise the complete lack of budget and resources. To pick on the technical flaws - silver F/A-18s and F-14s take of from a carrier for an air-strike, and miraculously become camouflaged F-16s for the actual strike - would give this movie more credibility than it deserves. Suffice it to say that the most interesting thing in the movie is the credit titles which fade on and then disappear in a lightning wipe, which presumably is available to all users of Final Cut Pro. Putting all your creativity into your own credit puts Michael Keusch in the same category as Marcel Mandu.
As Steven Segal movies go this one is bottom of the barrel. His best was just fodder for bored teenagers. This one tips the scales, then falls off. The characters are all cardboard. The story is double lame. I can't spoil it by telling you the ending. You already know how all Steven Segal movies end if you have seen one. Here goes. He is a super-dooper government agent who know too much to turn loose so they decide, instead of killing him, to dope his brain until he don't remember squat. He escapes, of course, gets arrested and is located by his old general who needs his one man in a million experience to get back a stealth plane that has been handed over to a terrorist gang in Afghanastan by a rogue Air Force pilot who, surprise, surprise, Segal trained. All the heroes, except Segal's character and his dusky girlfriend, die heroically and Steve-Baby save the whole world in one swell foop, or fell swoop. Whatever. Made with some surplus Air Force and Navy flying film. And a lot of boom-booms. Get some Popeye cartoons instead.
FLIGHT OF FURY takes the mantle of being the very WORST Steven Seagal flick I've ever seen...Up to now.<br /><br />It's a dreadful bore with no action scenes of any interest, Seagal isn't really trying in this - he's fat and his voice is dubbed once more.<br /><br />The Co-stars fare no better, being a rather sorry load of 3rd raters.<br /><br />The Direction by Keusch is very poor and it comes as no surprise that he's also responsible for another couple of Seagal stinkers (SHADOW MAN & ATTACK FORCE) The screenplay Co-written by Seagal himself is laughably inept.<br /><br />According to IMDb $12M was spent on this boring load of old tosh - If these figures are correct I sense a big tax fiddle as nowhere near that amount was spent.<br /><br />FLIGHT OF FURY is actually a shot for shot remake of the Michael Dudikoff flick BLACK THUNDER - which has to be better than this tripe.<br /><br />This has NO redeeming qualities whatsoever,Give it a MISS! 1/2 * out of *****
Flight of Fury starts as General Tom Barnes (Angus MacInnes) organises an unofficial test flight of the X-77, a new stealth fighter jet with the ability to literally turn invisible. General Barnes gives his top pilot Colonel Ratcher (Steve Toussaint) the job & everything goes well until the X-77 disappears, even more literally than Barnes wanted as Ratcher flies it to Northern Afghanistan & delivers it to a terrorist group known as the Black Sunday lead by Peter Stone (Vincenzo Nicoli) who plans to use the X-77 to fly into US airspace undetected & drop some bombs which will kills lots of people. General Barnes is worried by the loss of his plane & sends in one man army John Sands (co-writer & executive producer Steven Seagal) to get it back & kill all the bad guy's in the process...<br /><br />This American, British & Romanian co-production was directed by Michael Keusch & was the third film in which he directed Seagal after the equally awful Shadow Man (2006) & Attack Force (2007), luckily someone decided the partnership wasn't working & an unsuspecting public have thankfully been spared any further collaboration's between the two. Apparently Flight of Fury is an almost scene-for-scene word-for-word remake of Black Thunder (1988) starring Michael Dudikoff with many of the same character's even sharing the same name so exactly the same dialogue could be used without the makers even having to change things like names although I must admit I have never seen Black Thunder & therefore cannot compare the two. Flight of Fury is a terrible film, the poorly made & written waste of time that Seagal specialises in these days. It's boring even though it's not that slow, the character's are poor, it's full of clichés, things happen at random, the plot is poor, the reasoning behind events are none existent & it's a very lazy production overall as it never once convinces the viewer that they are anywhere near Afghanistan or that proper military procedures are being followed. The action scenes are lame & there's no real excitement in it, the villains are boring as are the heroes & it's right down there with the worst Seagal has made.<br /><br />Flight of Fury seems to be made up largely of stock footage which isn't even matched up that well, the background can change, peoples clothes change, the area changes, the sky & the quality of film changes very abruptly as it's all too obvious we are watching clips from other (better) films spliced in. Hell, Seagal never even goes anywhere near a plane in this. The action scenes consist of shoot-outs so badly edited it's hard to tell who is who & of course Seagal breaking peoples arms. The whole production feels very cheap & shoddy.<br /><br />The IMDb reckons this had a budget of about $12,000,000 which I think is total rubbish, I mean if so where did all the money go? Although set in Afghanistan which is a war torn arid desert Flight of Fury looks like it was filmed down my local woods, it was actually shot in Romania & the Romanian countryside does not make a convincing Afghanistan. The acting is terrible as one would expect & Seagal looks dubbed again.<br /><br />Flight of Fury is a terrible action film that is boring, amateurish & is an almost scene-for-scene remake of another film anyway. Another really lazy & poorly produced action thriller from Seagal, why do I even bother any more?
Steven Seagal, Mr. Personality himself, this time is the United States' greatest Stealth pilot who is promised a pardon from the military(..who attempted to swipe his memory at the beginning of the movie for which he escaped base, later caught after interrupting a gang of robbers in a shootout at a gas station)if he is able to successfully infiltrate a Northern Afghanistan terrorist base operated by a group called Black Sunday, who have commandeered an Air Force stealth fighter thanks to an American traitor. Along with a fellow pilot who admired the traitor, Jannick(Mark Bazeley), John Sands(Seagal)will fly into enemy territory, receiving help from his Arab lover, Jessica(Ciera Payton)and a freedom fighter, Rojar(Alki David) once they are on ground. Jannick is kidnapped by Black Sunday leaders, Stone(Vincenzo Nicoli)and his female enforcer, Eliana(Katie Jones), and Sands must figure out how to not only re-take command of the kidnapped stealth fighter, but rescue him as well. And, maybe, Sands can get revenge on the traitor he trained, Rather(Steve Toussaint)in the process. Sands has 72 hours until a General's Navy pilots bomb the entire area. On board the stealth, Black Sunday equipped a biochemical bomb, hoping to detonate it on the United States.<br /><br />Seagal gets a chance to shoot Afghans when he isn't slicing their throats with knives. The film is mostly machine guns firing and bodies dropping dead. The setting of Afghanistan doesn't hold up to scrutiny(..nor does how easily Seagal and co. are able to move about the area undetected so easily) and the plot itself is nothing to write home about. The movie is edited fast, the camera a bit too jerky. Seagal isn't as active a hero as he once was and his action scenes are tightly edited where we have a hard time seeing him taking out his foes, unlike the good old days. One of Seagal's poorest efforts, and he's as understated as ever(..not a compliment). Even more disappointing is the fact that Seagal never fights in hand to hand combat with the film's chief villains, tis a shame. He doesn't even snap a wrist or crack a neck in any visible way(..sure we see a slight resemblance of some tool getting tossed around, but it's not as clear a picture as I enjoy because the filmmakers have such fast edits and dizzying close-ups).
This movie should have never been made.<br /><br />What a shame of the budget.<br /><br />Please hire convincing actors, and make a proper movie. Very thin plot, and unconvincing lines. Almost hilarious, and that is a shame for an action movie.... <br /><br />Definitely not worth watching.<br /><br />They keep replaying the same "shots" of an Stealth airplane flying away. You have seen it ones, and that was not worth re-running 3 or 4 times.<br /><br />It is time for Steven Seagal to retire from movie-making.<br /><br />His movies are getting worser every time.<br /><br />Black Dawn, and Submerged were already bad, but this movie is even worse.
You've gotta hand it to Steven Seagal: whatever his other faults may be, he does have good taste in women. If you pick a Seagal movie, chances are there will be one or more very beautiful women in it. And usually, they do not function as mere eye candy; they get involved in the action and fight, shoot guns, kill with knives, etc. "Flight of Fury" offers the duo of Ciera Payton (who has a very sexy face, with luscious lips to match Angelina Jolie's) and Katie Jones, and finds time to get them involved in both a catfight AND a little lesbian fondling! And if it seems like I'm spending a little too much time talking about them, it's because the rest of the movie, although passable, is so unexciting that it's hard to find much else to talk about. Ironically, the weakest aspect is probably Seagal himself, who looks as if he can't even be bothered to try to pretend to care. This being a military-type actioner, there is very little fighting in it, and he doesn't fit into his role (a stealth fighter pilot, "the best in the world", of course) very well, which may explain his almost offensive sleepwalking. (*1/2)
Over the years I've seen a bunch of these straight to video Segal movies, and every one holds the same amount of entertainment; unfortanetley, the entertainment level is at a low. Sure, the action sequences were amusing, but that was pretty much it. Seagal was really in his prime when he did movies like; Under Siege, Under Siege 2, and Executive Decision(at least on the action standpoint), but during the past ten years, these types of movies that star Segal really do not meet his past qualifications.<br /><br />On the more positive side, the movie did make good use of time, like some of the action sequences and use of wit. Just when the movie seemed to just drag on, a pretty cool action scene brought it up out of the gutter. I honestly believe that more of Segal's movies would do better if he wasn't the only one that fans recognize in the movie. Supporting actors and actresses are a very important thing, and if his current movies had this known supporting actors and actresses, maybe the movie will get more popular results.
First of all, f117 is not high tech any more and it is not a fighter aircraft.<br /><br />Secondly, the f14's and f18's cannot change their appearances; they are not transformers. <br /><br />Thirdly, the f16 has only one m61 cannon, not two. <br /><br />Last but not the least, at the end of the film, Seagle selected sidewinder missile. But somehow when he pulled the trigger, the actual missile fired turned out to be a maverick. As I have the experience of seeing f18's and f14's being mysteriously transformed into f16's, this small transformation of missiles is not a big surprise to me. However, there is still one question I have to ask: How did they manage to use an air to ground missile to shoot down a flying f16...<br /><br />When students hand in really bad work, teachers assign 0's. Now I think for the sake of properly marking this film, IMDb should seriously consider adding a '0/10' option. Otherwise, it is not fair for those who receive 1 out of 10...
Nobody could like this movie for its merit but, if you have a sense of humor and enjoy schlock movies for their MST3 quality, then this is for you. It ranks up there with "Road House" for its preposterous characters, sets and story line. The bad writing really cracked me up: "I want you to dust those guys off" instead of ". . . dust those guys." F-14s take off from the carrier but, when they get into formation, they're F-16s! Without a hint of anger or skepticism, Segal goes back to work for the general who, only minutes before, was overseeing a covert "mind wipe" on Seagal. Segal runs out of bullets and resorts to a knife to kill the guards. So naturally, the guards all drop their guns and fight with knives too! The hand grenade is a dud but explodes anyway. The little stealth fighter can fly all the way from California to Afganistan without refueling. Then Segal flies it back to California - the long way, i.e., by way of Europe - even though there's a carrier giving him air support 20 minutes away in the Arabian Sea. The CIC in the carrier consists of 3 black PCs, 2 flat screen TVs and pictures of gauges and maps on the walls. What a hoot!
I just watched this movie on Starz. Let me go through a few things i thought could have been improved; the acting, writing, directing, special effects, camera crew, sound, and lighting. It also seemed as though the writers had no idea anything that had to do with the movie. Apparently back in 2007, when the dollar was stronger you could buy a super advanced stealth bomber that could go completely invisible for $75 million. Now-a-days those things cost about $3 billion and they cant go invisible. Apparently you can fly from the US to the middle east in an hour. There was a completely random lesbian scene, which I didn't mind, but it seemed like a lame attempt to get more guys to see it. The camera would randomly zoom in on actors and skip to random scenes. Oh yeah, since its a Steven Segal movie, its predictable as hell. All in all I rank it right up there with Snakes on a Plane.
Steven Seagal movies have never been Oscar material but with each passing release they get worse and worse.<br /><br />This one starts with Seagal getting picked up by the FBI because he killed a few people 'in self defence' he's active military so is saved from jail to rescue a stolen Stealth plane that will be used by the cliché 'evil English villain' that Hollywood is so obsessed with including these days.<br /><br />Suffice to say the film has terrible dialog that is almost always delivered with a hefty topping of cheese and lack of acting talent. The story isn't interesting and there are segments of it which make absolutely no sense and do not add anything to the story, characters of movie as a whole such as the 'lesbian' interaction between the two main females in the cast which is there purely for titilation to get viewers and yet isn't even titilating just confusing as it makes no sense as to why it happened when it didn't need to.<br /><br />In short a terrible script with bad dialog, delivered by sub-par actors, boring and at times badly choreographed action scenes, and non-relevant parts that only serve to achieve the near-impossible and make the movie even worse.<br /><br />Save 98 minutes of your life and give this miss, even if you are Seagal's most ardent fan.
Unless you are mentally ill or the most die hard segal fan you will tire of this horrendous excuse for a film in under 5 minutes.<br /><br />The Plot - Even for a Seagal film, the plot is just stupid. I mean its not just bad, its barely coherent.<br /><br />The Acting - Unbelievably wooden. Literally seen better acting in porno's. Ironically this film tries to cash in on this audience which a 'lesbian love scene' which is utterly cringe-worthy.<br /><br />Special Effects - wouldn't look out of place in a 60's sword and sorcery flick.<br /><br />Unless you suffer from insomnia and have exhausted all other cures, don't make the same mistake as i did and buy this DVD, as you will be asking for that hour and a half of your life back.
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />The American military has just launched a major new stealth fighter plane that can evade detection unlike any other. A renegade pilot (Steve Touissant) steals it and plots to hold the US government to ransom with it. So they are forced to send in their best man John Sands (Seagal, who else?) to stop him, in exchange for his freedom from a detention centre where his mind was to be wiped of all the incriminating information he's learned over the years.<br /><br />I skipped Attack Force because I could tell from the cover and all the post production tampering that had occurred that it would be crap and when all the negative reviews and low user rating came pouring in it just confirmed what I thought. But I decided to give FOF a go because Shadow Man (by the same director) wasn't bad and, what the hell, Seagal was my favourite action star once and maybe, just maybe, he could make a great film again. Oh what a fool I was.<br /><br />Dubbing, horrendous stock footage of aerial stealth fighter jets, awful camera work, cheap production values, risible, unconvincing fight scenes that have become Seagal's trademark and a boring, sleep inducing plot that doesn't go anywhere.<br /><br />Thankfully his next film, Once Upon a Time in the Hood (which I'll be skipping), apparently marks the end of his contract with Sony, meaning no more of these awful European lensed action films and his next film Prince of Pistols might mark a return to theatres. Hell, he's done it before and Stallone will have managed to do it before him (Rocky Balboa.) <br /><br />This isn't a Flight of Fury. It isn't even a flight of fun. It's a flight that fails to even take off the ground. *
Well, I can once and for all put an end to the question: 'What is the worst movie ever made...ever?' It is Flight of Fury, starring and co-written by Steven Seagal. Sure there are lots of famously bad movies, but this one takes the cake in that it takes itself so seriously.<br /><br />It is a Romanian-made film that speaks to just how far Romania has to go to catch up with Bollywood. It also speaks to just how utterly devoid of intellect and talent Steven Seagal has become. This movie is so bad that you literally feel violated after watching it and need to crouch in the corner of the shower and cry, knowing that nothing will make you feel clean again.<br /><br />It was released only on video (I can't imagine why) and I suspect the workers that had to make the DVD's had to wear protective gear and receive regular counseling.
I own almost every Seagal movie (yes even ones like this that are low budget), and I must say, this may be the worst, not only of his movies, but of all movies ever made. The only highlight of this film, and only reason I gave it 2 stars instead of 1, is that A. it is Seagal, and B. Seagal does have some sweet action sequences, specifically in the store, and also when ever else he takes out an entire army with a knife. Next time give me 90 minutes of Seagal killing people, and don't even bother with a story line, because the storyline not only stunk, but so did the acting, the fact that F-18's and F-14's somehow changed into F-16s, and also the fact that the Stealth was as fast as an F-16. Also the Stealth never had to refuel??? And since when is Afghanistan considered hostile territory from an Air Force stand point. last I checked, Afghanistan has no Air Force, we (USA) control the skies. Also, this top secret mission was played through speakers to all the crew in the room, yet the Admiral still whispers to the other guy that it is secret. Also, how did Seagal go from the bottom of the truck, to the top? PLease tell us why they jailed him, Since when are Air Force pilots great commandos (unless they are Owen Wilson?) And since when are their drunks in Arab countries, considering Muslims don't drink alcohol? Also on top of that, since when do Arabs listen to orders from females like the #2 in charge? The highlight of the film was definitely Seagal killing people in the store, and the other 50 people he killed with a knife, as well as the very brief and totally random lesbian scene that came out of nowhere.
I can barely find the words to express how utterly utterly awful this film is. I was sold on the promise of action, with Segal and stealth aircraft, which normally make for an entertaining action movie. I can honestly say I'd rather gouge my eyes out with a cocktail stick than have to see this film again. The acting was so awful that it was almost funny. The story was insanely weak, with plot holes so cavernously wide you could fly an F117 through them. The script was so poor, if I found out that a 10 year old wrote it I shouldn't be in the least surprised. The direction and production is so amateur, I wouldn't even hire these people to shoot my worst enemies wedding video. Utter Utter drivel. Those responsible for making this movie have cheapened the art, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Steven Segal should never ever show his face in public again, I can't imagine what made him agree to star in this, the worst film I have seen in my entire life.
he was my hero for all time until he went along with {if you can call it a movie} I went to the show to watch it and come out and not just asking for me money back but asked for double the money thats how bad my hero's acting and the hole thing was.............I can't believe that Steven Segal's career has hit so low that he has been reduced to making 4th rate films with 5th rate secondary actors. I watched this moving expecting to see him beet the crap out of some people the way he usually does. When he is reduced to using a single judo chop between the shoulder blades to take out an opponent and the guy falls like a ton of bricks something is wrong.<br /><br />The plot is unbelievable as a movie, and even if you excuse the visuals, and had read this story as a novel, you'd be left wondering why you had even picked up the book.<br /><br />Steven Segal goes through the motions and seems as if he is only doing this because he is under obligation. He shows no effort and no enthusiasm, and in some scenes he doesn't show up at all.<br /><br />I hate to repeat other peoples comments, but the use of stock footage for cut scenes and for visuals of the aircrafts in flight is pathetic. The condition of those scenes chopped in, is shaky and scenes themselves seemed to have deteriorated over time. The zappruder film showing President John F Kennedy being assassinated is steadier and cleaner.<br /><br />My honest opinion is to tell you not to waste your time seeing this movie, it is not up to the standards of his work in the glimmer man or exit wounds. I read one review that said the movie had a 12 million dollar budget (Segal being paid 5 of that) and that the movie still came in under budget. I must concur.<br /><br />It is no wonder that this is a direct to DVD movie, as no conscientious theater owner would play this movie .
This show made me feel physically sick, and totally detached from British society as a whole. It was programmes such as this and Blue Peter that pretended that there were/are no class divisions in Britain. They'd always say things like; "Go into your loft and you may find this.." or "Go into your back garden tonight and..." - what about us 'scummy' working class kids who never never had a "loft", and a "back garden" which was nothing more than a 1 meter square of balcony on the 14th floor of a council block? Public service broadcasting - yeah right! And on top of that, it was awfully depressing to see those stupid, middle class, up-their-own-backside kids mess about with bits of old plastic having 'fun'... do me a favour, and "why don't you" go and slit your wrists or do a coke overdose on "Mama and Papa's" money... you make me sick
Granting the budget and time constraints of serial production, BATMAN AND ROBIN nonetheless earns a place near the bottom of any "cliffhanger" list, utterly lacking the style, imagination, and atmosphere of its 1943 predecessor, BATMAN.<br /><br />The producer, Sam Katzman, was known as "King of the Quickies" and, like his director, Spencer Bennett, seemed more concerned with speed and efficiency than with generating excitement. (Unfortunately, this team also produced the two Superman serials, starring Kirk Alyn, with their tacky flying animation, canned music, and dull supporting players.) The opening of each chapter offers a taste of things to come: thoroughly inane titles ("Robin Rescues Batman," "Batman vs Wizard"), mechanical music droning on, and our two heroes stumbling toward the camera looking all around, either confused or having trouble seeing through their cheap Halloween masks. Batman's cowl, with its devil's horns and eagle's beak, fits so poorly that the stuntman has to adjust it during the fight scenes. His "utility belt" is a crumpled strip of cloth with no compartments, from which he still manages to pull a blowtorch and an oxygen tube at critical moments!<br /><br />In any case, the lead players are miscast. Robert Lowery displays little charm or individual flair as Bruce Wayne, and does not cut a particularly dynamic figure as Batman. He creates the impression that he'd rather be somewhere, anywhere else! John Duncan, as Robin, has considerable difficulty handling his limited dialogue. He is too old for the part, with an even older stuntman filling in for him. Out of costume, Lowery and Duncan are as exciting as tired businessmen ambling out for a drink, without one ounce of the chemistry evident between Lewis Wilson and Douglas Croft in the 1943 serial.<br /><br />Although serials were not known for character development, the earlier BATMAN managed to present a more energetic cast. This one offers a group going through the motions, not that the filmmakers provide much support. Not one of the hoodlums stands out, and they are led by one of the most boring villains ever, "The Wizard." (Great name!) Actually, they are led by someone sporting a curtain, a shawl, and a sack over his head, with a dubbed voice that desperately tries to sound menacing. The "prime suspects" -- an eccentric professor, a radio broadcaster -- are simply annoying.<br /><br />Even the established comic book "regulars" are superfluous. It is hard to discern much romance between Vicki Vale and Bruce Wayne. Despite the perils she faces, Vicki displays virtually no emotion. Commissioner Gordon is none-too-bright. Unlike in the previous serial, Alfred the butler is a mere walk-on whose most important line is "Mr Wayne's residence." They are props for a drawn-out, gimmick-laden, incoherent plot, further saddled with uninspired, repetitive music and amateurish production design. The Wayne Manor exterior resembles a suburban middle-class home in any sitcom, the interiors those of a cheap roadside motel. The Batcave is an office desperately in need of refurbishing. (The costumes are kept rolled up in a filing cabinet!)<br /><br />Pity that the filmmakers couldn't invest more effort into creating a thrilling adventure. While the availability of the two serials on DVD is a plus for any serious "Batfan," one should not be fooled by the excellent illustrations on the box. They capture more of the authentic mood of the comic book than all 15 chapters of BATMAN AND ROBIN combined.<br /><br />Now for the good news -- this is not the 1997 version!
...this would have been what you got.<br /><br />Words alone cannot describe how bad this is. If you're having trouble sleeping pop this in and I guarantee you'll be out in fifteen minutes.<br /><br />Robert Lowery was a pretty good actor in the 40s-- but he's phoning it in here. In an interview, Johnny "Duncan" Robin said that in one scene he and Batman had to run from the car to the house and that Lowery was doubled over out of camera range because his girdle was too tight! Duncan himself looks more like a motorcycle hood than a boy wonder-- in fact he's more like a guy in his thirties waiting for Lowery to kick off so he can wear the big cape.<br /><br />Driving a Batmobile that looks like it rolled off Honest Al's Used Car lot at below sticker price-- the Dynamic Duo don't put a lot of effort into hiding the fact that it's Bruce Wayne's car they're driving-- in fact it's noted by several characters throughout the serial.<br /><br />The acting is wooden-- the sets are cheap-- the dialogue is horrendous and if there was even a script they were following I'm sure it read along the lines of "Batman says something here" because it certainly seems like they're making it up as it goes along.<br /><br />Batman's Utility belt is made out of thin fabric with no apparent pouches to hold his gadgets-- in one scene when Batman needs a full size blow torch the producers just tuck one in as the scene starts-- never to be seen again. His cowl is so bad he can't even see out of it and his ears look more like flopsy mopsy the disgruntled easter rabbit than they do anything batlike.<br /><br />In one scene (I am not making this up), Batman substitutes counterfiet radioactive money that will burst into flames the second it is exposed to air as a payoff to some hoods. It's radioactive so he can trace it-- the reason it's so highly flammable isn't explained. Well, unfortunately the thugs open the package in a cardboard warehouse-- we know it's a cardboard warehouse because Batman sneaks in and pushes these boxes that look to weigh about six ounces on the hoods to knock them out-- and soon the whole place burns to the ground. Thanks Batman!<br /><br />In another scene after the Batmobile is disabled, Batman flags down a passing motorist in the middle of nowhere and takes his car-- leaving the man to fend for himself and telling him not to worry because if Batman smashes up the car the police will surely buy him another one! Yes, you guessed it, said car careens off a cliff within a few short seconds. Not that it matters much to the motorist who has probably died from exposure trying to hoof his way back to Gotham City.<br /><br />There is a tired subplot with Lois Lane clone Vicki Vale who is convinced Bruce Wayne is Batman-- she must have noticed the Batmobile parked outside of Bruce's house-- or maybe she saw Batman and Robin running up the walk in the clearly densely populated suburban neighborhood.<br /><br />Everything about this serial is bad-- and all but the youngest in the audience will want to hurl toast at the screen. IF you're looking for bad cinema you could not hit a better mark-- if you want entertainment, try the Burton Batman films, the Adam West Batman TV Series or the earlier Lewis Wilson Batman serial.
there is no suspense in this serial! When one episode ends the acting is so shoddy, the effects are so poor and the script is so awful that the last thing on your mind is how Batman and Robin will save the day. No, in fact, the last thing on your mind is watching the next episode! This show is so boring that I can't see how it ever got made, let alone released on DVD! Obviously the effects are not up to par with contemporary Batman films, but even the script is awful. An incoherent babbling mess about some evil professor and a ray gun or something like that, I am not quite sure, because it is too awful to follow. Watch the 60s version, or the 90's versions, or even Batman Begins, just anything over this version!
I imagine when Hitchcock scholars and experts find themselves together, the talk is not of the Master's great films like "North By Northwest" or "Strangers On A Train", but a lesser-known effort like this one from 1931, obscure and seriously flawed, which showcases the great director in fledgling form.<br /><br />Emily and Fred Hill (Joan Barry and Harry Kendall) are a middle-class London couple scrimping to stay ahead. He begrudges their lot; she accepts it. Change comes in the form of a letter from an uncle, saying he will set them up so they can enjoy a life of globetrotting luxury. They make plans for a world cruise. But their problems have only begun.<br /><br />Just ask Richard Hannay, Roger O. Thornhill, or Marion Crane. Well, Marion's indisposed at the moment, but you get the idea. Travel and Hitchcock go together like moths and candlelight, setting one up for a perilous journey at best. This is perhaps Hitchcock's earliest foray into this theme, and not his most successful or memorable. Hitchcock tries to mix comedy with another element, in this case domestic drama rather than suspense, but the two do not cohere, at least not here.<br /><br />The Hills are a dull, flat couple, with no chemistry or personality. When they find themselves at the Folies Bergère, in the form of cross-cutting with footage that looks ten years older than the rest of this film, they are abashed at the outfits of the female performers. "The curtain's gone up too soon!" gasps Emily. "They aren't dressed."<br /><br />When the Hills drift away from each other on an ocean cruise, it seems a mercy killing more than a tragic thing, even if the people they partner off with are drips, too. Emily's man, Gordon (Percy Marmont) carries around photographs of himself sitting next to empty chairs, which he suggests be filled by Emily. Fred's girl "the Princess" (Betty Amann) has Clara Bow's eyes and Wallace Beery's five o'clock shadow. There's also an obnoxious fellow passenger, a dowdy spinster whom Hitchcock always introduces with a cartoonish horn cue. Subtlety was still to come.<br /><br />Everything is shot in an abrupt manner, with confusing blocking and strained dialogue. Hitchcock tries for some early comedy with Fred and his umbrella that doesn't come off, and Kendall seems to aim for laughs while Berry plays for tears. When Fred and Emily break off, they are seen being jostled on a pair of wedged-together rickshaws, one of many clunky attempts at symbolism.<br /><br />Emily's the only vaguely sympathetic character, in part because she really cares about her husband and agonizes over her affair with Gordon, but mostly because she's among the first of Hitchcock's many magnetic blondes, her platinum ringlets whipping around her face like a Botticelli aboard the open deck of a Chinese junk near the film's conclusion.<br /><br />Matters conclude with a dangerous situation as set-piece for the protagonists to come to grips with, and presumably repair their relationship. Only they aren't active participants in the resolution, and except for the fate of a friendly cat, nothing about the ending resonates.<br /><br />At least you get some enjoyable views of London in the early 1930s, and a chance to see Hitchcock when he was still working for food. "Rich And Strange" is Hitchcock paying his dues, and learning his trade, one for scholars but not casual film goers.
Yet another early film from Alfred Hitchcock which seems to have been done out of contractual obligation. As with Juno and the Paycock, you can tell that Hitchcock had little interest in this movie. There is almost no style or craft to it at all. The story revolves around Fred and Emily, a young married couple, who come into some money and go on a cruise which proves to be a test of their marriage. Emily is given a chance at a new life with a good hearted, wealthy man who falls in love with her, but chooses to take the high road and stay with her husband. This might seem more believable if Fred weren't made out to be a completely insensitive, pompous ass who jumps at the first opportunity he sees to leave his wife for another woman. The couple ends up staying together, but the movie lacks any real reconciliation scene. The third act goes in a completely different direction, with the couple stranded on an abandoned ship and rescued by an Asian fishing boat. Joan Barry does give a very stirring performance as the faithful wife of an unfaithful husband. That's about all you can say for this one.
Bored Londoners Henry Kendall and Joan Barry (as Fred and Emily Hill) receive an advance on an inheritance. They use the money go traveling. Their lives become more exciting as they begin relationships with exotic Betty Amann (for Mr. Kendall) and lonely Percy Marmont (for Ms. Barry). But, they remain as boring as they were before. Arguably bored director Alfred Hitchcock tries to liven up the well-titled (as quoted in the film, from Shakespeare's "The Tempest") "Rich and Strange" by ordering up some camera trickery. An opening homage to King Vidor's "The Crowd" is the highlight. The low point may be the couple dining on Chinese prepared cat.<br /><br />*** Rich and Strange (12/10/31) Alfred Hitchcock ~ Henry Kendall, Joan Barry, Percy Marmont, Elsie Randolph
This Hitchcock movie bears little similarity to his later suspense films and seems much more like a very old fashioned morality tale. A young couple receives an inheritance that they believe will make them happy. They spend the money traveling about the world and living a very hedonistic existence. However, after a while the excitement begins to wane and the couple become dissipated and pointless in their existence. However, out of no where, when they are on a luxury cruise, the ship sinks and they lose everything--and end up much happier in the end because they now appreciate life! What an odd, silly and preachy film! Personally, I'd like to inherit all that money and find out if it makes me miserable!<br /><br />The production values are relatively poor compared to later productions--a rough film with poor sound quality and rather amateurish acting.
The animation in this re-imagining of Peter & the Wolf is excellent, but at 29 minutes, the film is sleep inducing. They should have called it "Peter & the Snails", because everything moves at a snail's pace. I couldn't even watch the film in one sitting - I had to watch it 15 minutes at a time, and it was pure torture.<br /><br />Save yourself 30 minutes - do not watch this film - and you will thank me.<br /><br />I can only guess that the Oscar nominating committee only watched the first few minutes of the nominees. Unfortunately, to vote for the winner in the Best Animated Short (short!) category, the voters will have to sit through the whole thing. I already feel sorry for them - and must predict that there's no way this film will come close to winning.
Acclaimed director Mervyn LeRoy puts drama on film that competes with the best of soap operas. High drama is found in the loves and infidelities in New York's social set. Oh yes, don't forget jealousy can bring about tainted hearts and murder. The all star cast features: Barbara Stanwyck, Van Heflin, James Mason, Ava Gardner, Cyd Charisse and Nancy Davis.
Wow. I went to the video store tonight because I was in the mood for a bad B Horror movie and I found this Gem. I looked at the cover and I thought it looked like just the movie for my mood. I brought it home and put it on.<br /><br />This movie was not the B Horror movie that I had in mind. This was MUCH worse. I wanted a bad movie but what I got, I didn't know that crap like this existed amongst man. This movie seemed like a 5 year old wrote and directed it and that is being nice about it.<br /><br />I am an aspiring director and this movie made me so mad that someone out there is actually paying this guy to direct movies. He needs to work at a garbage dump shoveling crap where he belongs.<br /><br />If you are thinking about renting this or buying it. I will tell you the same thing that I would tell someone getting ready to commit suicide. "DON'T DO IT, IT'S NOT WORTH IT!" I really have nothing nice to say about this movie. DON'T DO IT!
I honestly want the last 30 minuets of my life back.<br /><br />The only person that is fit to watch this movie is Helen Keller I kept saying to myself this has to get better this has to get better.<br /><br />Then the zombies finally showed up and they had some raccoon paint on there eyes.<br /><br />They talked like regular people.<br /><br />One drove a car.<br /><br />Some voodoo woman asked what one of the "Zombies" wanted and the " zombie" said ( I want to Dance)<br /><br />( THAT WAS IT) Out came the movie I couldn't take it any longer Can I sue for a ½ hour of my life?????
I have made it my personal mission to go after those responsible for this film. I even got the rental company to give me my money back because I argued that they perpetrated false advertising.<br /><br />It's not enough that the movie itself is a p.o.s., but the cover art is what sold me. I've done better make-up effects on my children at Halloween than what the movie actually depicts versus the cover art. Can you say "raccoon eyes?"<br /><br />I'm not going to waste more of my time by going into the full details, but come on, the movie's main character is an L.A. cop who was born and raised in Alabama - but has a German accent!?! It's beyond insulting.
This is one of the worst films ever. I like cheesy movies but this is simply awful. Where are the images in the film that are on the box? I think more money was spent on the DVD box illustrations than on the entire film. <br /><br />Why would a company release a DVD that the cover is so misleading? I feel like such an idiot for renting this movie based strictly on the box. As much as I explore IMDb I should have done a little research and made a list prior to visiting my local video rental store. I have no one to blame except myself. I want my money and time back. <br /><br />DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE. <br /><br />Even if curiosity is motivating you, stick cocktail umbrellas in your eyes instead. It will be much more enjoyable. You have been warned!
i've discovered that this film gets rented based off of the packaging. the zombie on the front of the DVD looks cool and scary. then you get to the movie and it's women with raccoon masks on. zero special effects...and even the fight scenes you can see them miss punches by 2 feet. the funny thing is that Lommel acts in the movie briefly himself and is worse than the rest of the crap actors in the movie. the only thing i can think is that Lommel is just trying to make such a bad film that people dub it a "cult classic"...however, i can't possibly imagine anyone thinking this is anything but one of the worst movies ever made. the real horror in this film is how bad it is. i'm embarrassed i rented it and vow never to see another Lommel film again!
Every year I watch hundreds of films, including many low budget amateurish straight-to-DVD abominations that nobody in their right mind would ever want to see. I have seen thousands of films in my time, many excellent, many forgettable. Zombie Nation I will remember forever as one of the most hopelessly laughable 'horror' films I have ever seen – in fact I still haven't recovered from the experience of watching it.<br /><br />The day after, it seems like some kind of weird dream. Did I really see what I thought I saw? Why do the police work out of a warehouse? Did the voodoo priestesses really recommend that the 'zombies' eat cheeseburgers? Is it safe? Is it safe? Is it safe? <br /><br />I wouldn't recommend Zombie Nation if you want to see a 'good' film, and neither would I recommend it as 'so bad its good'. However, if you are entertained by the prospect of watching probably the most indefensibly abysmal film ever – this is for you. Now, whenever anyone asks me what the worst film I have ever seen is, I will say Zombie Nation.<br /><br />Seriously – I think it's a greater crime to make a boring film than a bad one, and Ulli Lommel deserves credit for producing a film that actually stuns you with its ineptitude. He really is the Ed Wood Jr. of the digital age, and I for one can't wait to see if he makes another film as consistently ridiculous as this one.
This movie was poorly written, poorly acted and very predictable. It was very low-budget and I can understand why it was never released and went straight to video. It wasn't even campy fun, it was just a complete disaster and I wish I could get the 1-1/2 hours back! The colors were horrible along with the plot which has holes so big in it you could drive a mac truck through them. <br /><br />The plot itself had the young bride doing things that she absolutely was not physically capable of doing -- what a stretch! Skip this movie and watch something better in the horror genre. Just about any movie comes to mind that is better than this.<br /><br />ejames6342
These were over 80 minutes of semi unexpected boredom. First, I was wondering how it is possible to produce something like that. Then, reaching 70th minute I was convincing myself that it's only a few more minutes, and I lasted to the very end which I'm kinda proud of as I consider watching this movie as a great test for human's patience and crap tolerance. Was it worth watching at all? Well, as I wrote above, if you want to test yourself, give it a try and if you're strong willed enough, you may even last to the end... The movie lacks coherence and characters seem to have no common sense at all. All happenings in the movie, you can be sure you saw somewhere before, and they seem to be put in this movie just to fill the film reel.
Awful. This thriller should have buried. What a piece of crap. Terrible writing, characters are less than believable. Horrible Schlock!! Stick some B- stars in a terribly written POS to try and give it a little credit, but it fails miserably. If I didn't have to write ten lines about this movie I would have given it a word word review, it starts with 'sh' and ends with 'it'.<br /><br />Horrible ending, retarded. Who writes this crap. The ending of this film is so contrived, weak it's as if they had no idea what to do with this story line, or they just ran out of money. Most likely due to the number of cameos in this movie. It's a good thing that these actors are on the way out, because this would be a career killer. Good thing for them that hardly anyone will see it. At least no one important, like future investors. It could have ended a thousand different ways, but as it is, I feel cheated out of my precious time.<br /><br />Don't bother with this one, you will feel like you wasted time you can never get back.
The book is so good that at least the opening of this made-for-tv movie will move you, but then, as it diverges more and more from the book, taking out all the religion and love and mathematics and putting in cotton candy cliches, it becomes boring. Still, from comments I've heard, people who have not read the book tend to like it, and if it leads even on child to read A Wrinkle in Time, it will have served its purpose. The most embarrassing change is to make the Happy Medium a clone of Mary Poppins' Uncle Albert (I love to Laugh). Nothing is quite so squirm inducing as characters on the screen laughing hilariously at things that are totally unfunny.
I have grown up pouring over the intertwined stories of the Wrinkle in Time Chronicles. My dream was that one day a screenwriter would come across their child sitting in a large sofa reading A Winkle in Time, and would think, what an amazing movie this would make. Sadly enough that screenwriter failed, changing characters, throwing in lame humor, and all out destroying the plot. I know that it is a hard task to change a well loved novel into a movie. But why can't you stay true to the book? Why must you change the way characters think and act? For those of you who have not read the book, pick it up, find a soft couch, and let your imagination run wild.
Disney? What happened? I really wish the movie had been set in the 60's ;like the book was. And I really could have dealt with cheap special effects in order to save the budget for a more accurate adaption..... I'm glad that, maybe, someone might be influenced to read the books..... but, The Man With Red Eyes interchangeable as IT? And what's up with the volcanic upheaval? Where was THAT in the book? Peter Jackson! Save us!!!! A long time ago (1978) I heard that there was European version of this film. I sure wish I could id it. I can only imagine it might be closer to the real story than this poor adaption. This movie needs to be X'd.
This ABC straight-to-TV failure does absolutely no justice to the brilliant fantasy novel that is A Wrinkle in Time. Ms. Madeleine L'Engle brought children and adults alike into a magical, fantastical and original world like no author before her. This novel, the first in her 'time quartet', is a beautiful take on life, the universe, and time itself. Yet it is easy for any child or adolescent to understand. Its unwavering morals are prevalent throughout the book. This film adaptation can be seen as nothing but a mockery of Ms. L'Engle's work of art. Honestly, what were they thinking? The effects look cheap and ridiculous, the plot is mushy and uneven, the dialogue is far-fetched and just about every magical characteristic of the novel has been lost. This was a horrible attempt at bringing this book to the screen. I sincerely hope that someday an intelligent, worthy director (Guillermo del Toro, David Yates, Alfonso Cuarón) makes another attempt at bringing this book to the screen and understands it for what it truly is: a masterpiece. This adaptation can only be compared to boring, fake and cheap motel-room art which holds no ground and makes absolutely no impact on its audience.
I got all excited when I saw the ads for this movie because I recently read the book and really enjoyed it. The movie, however, did not meet my expectations. Having read the book recently prepared me for big let down as often happens when stories are translated into movies. The characters didn't seem to fit very well with the book. The direction was weak. I had a hard time getting into the characters. There wasn't a real connection with the viewer about what was going on. The dialog didn't explain adequately what was happening. It just seemed slapped together and rushed through. All in all I was very disappointed with the movie. I suppose if you haven't read the book, it might be ok by itself. At the very least, it might entice you to read the book, which you'll probably enjoy more.<br /><br />
The "Wrinkle in Time" book series is my favorite series from childhood. I have read and re-read them more times than I can count over the last 35+ years. The characters, with all their virtues and flaws, are near and dear to my heart. This adaptation contained very little of the wonderful, magical, spiritual story that I love so much. To say I was disappointed with this film would be a great understatement.<br /><br />If you have never read the book(s) I imagine you will enjoy the movie. The acting is passable, the special effects are well done for a made for TV movie, and the story is interesting. However, if you love the books, avoid this movie at all costs.<br /><br />I found this statement at the Wikipedia page of the novel: "In an interview with Newsweek, L'Engle said of the film, 'I expected it to be bad, and it is.'"<br /><br />I, like another reviewer here, feel the need to read the book again to dispel this movie from my mind.
I have read the whole 'A wrinkle in time' book and then saw the movie. The movie contained all the elements in the book but since the book was 190 pages and the film was 2 hours it felt really crammed in with too many effects and bad acting.<br /><br />A wrinkle in time is about a girl named Meg, Charles Wallace, and Calvin must team together to find Meg's father and get off the island Camazotz. <br /><br />The beginning of the film is really a stinker. The acting is awful, the direction is laughable, and so far the situations aren't necessary. I really was crushed to see the same person Madeleine Engle that wrote the book and created the movie, made a great book, and a terrible film. The acting is worse than any straight-to-video acting. Yes, I got to admit there was cool effects. But seriously they were all done terribly and not serial in any way possible. If you read the book you will be crushed by the movie. I wish could give it a 0 but sadly I can only give it 1. A half could have been useful.
I really didn't like this movie because it didn't really bring across the messages and ideas L'Engle brought out in her novel. We had read the novel in our English class and i absolutely loved it, i'm afraid i can't say the same for the film. There were some serious differences between the novel and the adapted version and it just didn't do any credit to the imaginative genius that is Madeleine L'Engle! This is the reason i gave it such a poor rating. Don't see this movie if you are a big fan of L'Engle's texts because you will be sorely disappointed. However, if you are watching the movie for entertainment purposes (or educational as was my case) then it is an alright movie!
(this may be a bit on the spoilerish side) I would like to start by saying I did not watch the entire movie, nor could I because it was evident from the first hour that I was going to be incredibly disappointed. That of course is the problem with taking, what many believe to be an amazing book, and turning it into a Disney Made-for-TV movie.<br /><br />A Wrinkle in Time should have been made into an amazing movie a long time ago. It's got a great storyline that could hook children and adults. Plus it's got built in quality sequels. But Disney-fying was not the way to go. The problem with the movie is that all the things they changed to turn it into a visual story dumbed down what was so great about the book. It is a complicated and emotional story for kids. There was no reason to make Charles Wallace purely "psychic", because that was the easiest way of explaining it. There was no reason to write a fight between the three Mrs. W's as added tension, there is enough tension in the story without that. There was no reason to remove Meg's glasses... that deprived us of what could've been a very sweet scene between Calvin and Meg that happens in the book.<br /><br />I could nitpick for days about little things, but I also think larger things, like the art direction was a off. Take for instance the way they made Camazotz look, with its strangely darkened skies. The creepiness that comes across in the book is that Camazotz could be Earth. It looks like earth. It has people on it that look like humans. The skies are blue, the grass is green, and there are children playing. But something is a little bit off. The directors chose to make Camazotz a complete other instead of taking the lesson in the book and applying it to the overall direction of the movie. The lesson of course is that Camazotz could very well be Earth, that is if we forget how to love. It would've been much creepier to have a beautiful afternoon as they're walking down the street with the kids bouncing the balls in the same rhythm.<br /><br />I unfortunately did not watch the end. Maybe someone can tell me how Disney messed up the end as well.<br /><br />Overall an artistic disappointment.<br /><br />
I have loved this book since my 5th grade teacher read it to our class many years ago. And I have read it to every one of my 3rd and 5th grade classes over my past 18 years of teaching. Supposedly a movie had been made in the past, but I'd never been able to locate it. Well, my students and I were all so excited when we heard that Disney had brought Madeline L'Engle's excellent book to the screen. <br /><br />As I watched the movie, I had the highest of hopes. As the film went on, I became more and more despondent. They had botched it badly! Never had I been so let down by a favorite book-to-film adaption. I understand that films can't stick strictly to a book, but they don't need to change things for the sake of it! Most, if not all, of departures from the book were totally unnecessary! <br /><br />I kept my opinion to myself at first and just listened to my students discuss the movie. Well, it wasn't just me. Nearly every single one felt the same way--cheated out of the great story that Madeline L'Engle had so skillfully created! <br /><br />Why, they wondered, did Aunt Beast look like Chewbacca from the star wars movie? Why couldn't Calvin's hair have been red? Why did Mrs. Which not have the proper "witch-like" outfit that was such a clever play on her name? Basically, we all wondered--why did nearly every single detail have to be changed? <br /><br />I have always dreamed of how wonderful a movie this book would make. I am still waiting for that movie. This one was A Wrinkle in Time in only the broadest of senses. I'm going to write to Peter Jackson and try to convince him to take on the task!
I was browsing through Netflix and stumbled upon this movie. Having fond memories of the book as a child, I decided to check this out. This is a movie that you should really pass on.<br /><br />It is just not worth seeing. It is very boring and uninteresting. I feel that it would even be that way to small children. It has no magic that the book contains. This movie is not horrible, but you will just find yourself not caring ten minutes into it.<br /><br />There are moments that just come off as weird. The witch character is not very good. The family acts like it is no big deal that these odd things are happening. I know this is a kids movie, so as an older audience we must not look too deeply in things, but the whole movie just feels like it was written and produced by people who have never had any movie making experience before.<br /><br />The DVD that I had began skipping in the final moments of the film, and instead of trying to fix it I just turned it off and sent it back to Netflix. I really didn't care how it finished. Skip this film and read the book instead.
I have never read the book"A wrinkle in time". To be perfectly honesty, after seeing the movie, do I really want to? Well, I shouldn't be reviewing this movie i'll start off with that. Next i'll say that the TV movie is pretty forgettable. Do you know why I say that? Because I forgot what happens in it. I told you it was forgettable. To be perfectly honest, no TV movie will ever be better than "Merlin".<br /><br />How do I describe a TV movie? I have never written a review for one before. Well, i'll just say that they usually have some celebrities. A wrinkle in time includes only one. Alfre Woodard(Or Woodward, I am not sure), the Oscar winner. <br /><br />The film has cheesy special effects, a mildly interesting plot, scenes that make you go "WTF". The movie is incredibly bad and it makes you go"WTF". What did I expect? It's a TV movie. They usually aren't good. As is this one. A wrinkle in time is a waste of time and a big time waster. To top it off, you'll most likely forget about it the second it's over. Well, maybe not the second it's over. But within a few minutes.<br /><br />A wrinkle in time:*/****
I only recently found out that Madeleine L'Engle's novel had been turned into a TV movie by Disney and ordered the DVD. The book was a favorite of mine when I was a child and I read it several times.<br /><br />Despite some of the child actors not resembling the characters as described in the novel, the Murry family is well cast, with a likable (if too pretty) Meg at the center and a Charles Wallace who is convincing as a child prodigy without becoming irritating. <br /><br />The first half hour is promising enough, doing a good job in establishing the relationships between the lead characters and at setting the scene. Unfortunately as soon as the non-human characters appear the adaptation starts to unravel and once the children leave earth the whole thing falls apart. Alfre Woodward is too youthful looking and much too regal as the eccentric Mrs Whatsit (think Miriam Margolis or Joan Plowright instead) and Kate Nelligan face is so mask like and inexpressive, she must have visited Faye Dunaway's plastic surgeon in recent years. For some reason they make her Mrs Which look like Glinda from The Wizard of Oz when she should have resembled a benign Wicked Witch of the West.<br /><br />In the end what lets this down most badly are the terrible special effects and art direction. I understand that this is a TV movie, but the CGI looked like something that could have been done 15 years earlier. Mrs Whatsits' centaur incarnation is a disaster as is the Chewbacca like suit for Aunt Beast, who in the novel is a velvety, elegant creature instead of the ungainly Big Foot like thing shown here. I could go on and on, nearly every artistic choice is a disaster, presumably because there wasn't a large enough budget to do this justice, but also because the design work lacks imagination and good judgement.<br /><br />This really would have needed the sense of wonder Spielberg brought to his early films. What a shame that with the current popularity of adapting children's literary fantasy series nobody thought of adapting A Wrinkle in Time and it's sequels for the big screen, giving it the scope it deserves.
This movie barely followed the story line of the movie. All of the fascinating points in the book didn't even exist in the movie. They ended up turning it into a cheesy "tween" Disney movie "crush" story between Meg and Calvin. It was so bad it should have been Hillary Duff playing the part, or one of the likes. This movie was nothing more than an insult to the intelligence and mysticism of the book. I can't believe Disney could even get away with making such a cheap, basic rendition. If you've ever read the book, I think you would agree it could easily be made into a movie of "Lord of the Rings" equivalence. This movie should have never been able to use the title of A Wrinkle in Time. Poorly done.
We all know that some of the greatest movies of all time were based on books. While not particularly accurate adaptations, these movies were nonetheless excellent films. Some great examples are the Harry Potter series, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and, to a lesser extent, almost every Disney film ever made. However, I must regretfully announce that A Wrinkle in Time is not one of those movies. Not only does it fail to meet some of the most basic expectations of Madeleine L'Engle's fan base, it manages to defy the standards of scriptwriting, acting, special effects and, ultimately, respect for the audience. Mind you, I'm not trying to be mean; on the contrary, I went into this affair with an open mind. I figured that a made-for-T.V. movie would make up for its lack of razzle-dazzle in its script. After all, the Star Wars spin-off Ewoks was decent, if a little silly. Come to think of it, the original Star Wars was made on "a lunch money budget", and look where it took George Lucas! However, from the first scene onward, disappointment started enveloping me as if I'd gotten too close to the Black Thing while tessering. <br /><br />The same way Greedo shooting first became the symbol of the Star Wars Special Edition of 1997 (a disaster of monumental proportions involving a disgruntled director making several hideous changes to a beloved classic), Mrs. Whatsit has officially become my personal symbol for the confusion and stupidity that is A Wrinkle in Time. The reason for this is the fact that she has been mutated beyond belief. Aside from the slightly controversial decision of casting Alfre Woodard (Star Trek: First Contact and Radio) as our favorite star-turned-mentor, the filmmakers decided it appropriate to introduce her as a crow. That's right, a crow. Moreover, the heavenly centaurion form of this greatly beloved character has been hacked at by what looks to be a demented eight-year-old; the majestic half-man, half-horse with wings has become a huge human head with a creepy smile mounted awkwardly on the bowlegged body of a horse that happens to be sporting a pair of wings in the middle. Had I been five, this would have psychologically traumatized me for life. The worst part is the fact that when it spoke, it was shown from behind so as to avoid the responsibility to lip sync, resulting in a scene that was spent looking at the back of its head and seeing a single, unmoving cheek, thus rendering the piece of special effects less believable than E.T.<br /><br />Having gotten the most painful part out of the way, I must go on to the tear-inducing one: the characters, the acting, and the story. I, personally, had always imagined Meg to look somewhat similar to Moaning Myrtle from the Harry Potter films: plain hair, glasses, and a figure most supermodels would find laughable. She was always a slightly anxious, humorously pessimistic math genius who quite simply could not have cared less about the imports and exports of Nicaragua. In the film, she is an unpleasant know-it-all for whom I have no sympathy whatsoever. In fact, she makes me feel sorry for poor Mr. Jenkins, her school principal, who continuously has to deal with her. Calvin, the kind, intelligent kid who everyone thinks is a jock has become…a jock! The irony is horrible. As for the memorable Happy Medium, they took the pleasant old woman who liked to look at happy things and replaced her with a being who is "above gender" and likes to look at "funny" things, such as girls falling off of swings. The only three people I can think of who did a decent job are Charles Wallace, Mrs. Whatsit and the Man With Red Eyes (nicknamed "the Dude With Red Eyes" due to his complete reinvention as a character).<br /><br />The story is a mess. A good comparison to this aspect of the movie is Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, which didn't do a good job of retelling the story found in the book, yet kept the sole of the original work. Here, the sole of the book is having a pleasant chat with Hades down in the underworld, apparently unaware that its body is being destroyed. As the Dark Lord complements the sole on how well it showed that truth has to be felt and not seen, the flat-nosed wookies of Ixchel (who replace the wondrous beings who hold Aunt Beast among their ranks) tear the spine up. As the God of the Dead notes how subtle the terror of the Earth-like Camazotz was, the torn pages are scattered in the sandstorm and lost in the darkness of the land of evil. <br /><br />I am very sorry that this film exists. I do not believe that the actors were genuinely bad. It's the way the characters are written that ruins it. A Wrinkle in Time deserved to be adapted by Lawrence Kasdan, directed by George Lucas or Steven Spielberg, enhanced at Industrial Light and Magic, scored by John Williams, given its sound at Skywalker Sound, edited by THX and marketed by Twentieth Century Fox. In its current state, the film is unworthy to be shown to self-respecting people. Even Madeleine L'Engle thought it was bad. The book was Good, the film was Bad, and Mrs. Whatsit was Ugly.<br /><br />Score: 0.1/10 (If I could) <br /><br />Pros:<br /><br />They got the names right. <br /><br />Cons: <br /><br />It had horrible problems with the Cliffs Notes level of adaptation, script, acting and special effects, not to mention lack of evidence of ever having read the book. Oh, and the main cover/poster has a picture of the three main characters riding a flying horse over a castle. Some might say that this symbolizes high adventure. I say it symbolizes the irresponsibility of the cover artist who didn't even bother to Photoshop Meg's arm on properly.
First of all, I am a huge fan of Madeleine L'Engle and was so excited to see that a movie was made for one of my favorite books, A Wrinkle in Time. This movie, however, ruined that excitement for me. I am sorry, but Meg was described in the book as having fizzy curls and glasses and as being considered very uncool. In the movie, she has straight hair and no glasses and is the "sporty type" with a deep voice. This is not how Madeleine L'Engle pictured Meg to be at all. In fact, Meg was based on Madeleine's character and depicted the way she felt when she was young. This is just one major example how the book and movie are different. So I would say, if you want to watch it for entertainment purposes, watch it but if you are a devoted fan of Madeleine L'Engle and her Wrinkle in Time series, I would suggest skipping this movie.
I was very excited to see that they had made a movie out of my favorite book ever. I didn't realize it was Disney until it was too late. I was appalled by the many omissions of crucial parts of the story. It was as if someone made a movie out of a 4th grader's book report on the novel. Meg did well in school and neither her nor her father wore glasses. Mrs Murray (Meg's mother) was not portrayed as much of a scientist at all; they left out her kitchen laboratory and replaced it with the internet. And that's just the beginning. By halfway through the movie I found myself shouting at the screen, much to the dismay of the other people who were watching the movie who hadn't read the book. I wish I had more thumbs so I could give four thumbs down for this one. The only good thing I can say is that for a person who has not read the book, this movie is kinda alright.
I just saw Adam Had Four Sons for the first time and the thing that struck me was that I believe that the model used was Theodore Roosevelt and his four sons. They were approximately the same ages as the four boys in this film. Warner Baxter in his portrayal of Adam Stoddard talked about the same values and family tradition that you would have heard from our 26th president without some of the more boisterous aspects of TR's character. <br /><br />Like TR all of the Stoddard sons serve in World War I, in this case though the youngest only loses an eye instead of being killed. <br /><br />But what if a female minx gets into this all male household and disrupts things? That's Susan Hayward's job here. In one of her earliest prominent roles, Hayward is a flirtatious amoral girl who marries one son, has an affair with another, and starts making a play for the third. It's an early forerunner of the kind of a part that later brought her an Oscar in I Want to Live.<br /><br />I suppose that with as powerful a model of decorum as Theodore Roosevelt was and Warner Baxter portrays, everyone is afraid to tell Father what's going on. The sons and also their governess Ingrid Bergman. Here's where the plot gets a little silly. Bergman is introduced to us as a governess hired by Baxter and wife Fay Wray for their kids. Wray dies and Baxter suffers some financial reversals in business. Bergman has to be let go. She goes back to France and years later comes back to the family when the kids are grown up. <br /><br />I'm sorry, but I can't believe the kids need a governess now. Hayward is quite right when she confronts her that it wasn't the kids who brought her back. In the normal course of things, Bergman would have gotten on with her life. <br /><br />One of the previous reviewers said that a quarter to a third of the film I have was edited out. Possibly that could be the reason for the many plot holes we have.<br /><br />It's too bad that Ingrid and Susan could not have done another film together in the Fifties when Hayward was at her heights and Bergman had just made a comeback.<br /><br />Susan Hayward is the main reason to see Adam Had Four Sons. And I'm willing to believe that a good deal of Ingrid was left on the cutting room floor.
You'd think that with Ingrid Bergman and Warner Baxter that this film would have been a lot better. Sadly, the film suffers from difficult to believe characters as well as a major plot problem that makes some of the characters seem brain-addled.<br /><br />The film begins with Ingrid Bergman coming to work for the Stoddard family. Everything is so very peachy and swell--the family adores Bergman and things couldn't be more perfect. Well, that is until the mother (Fay Wray) dies, the stock market crashes in 1907 (wiping out the family's fortune) and Bergman is forced to go back home to France. This portion of the film is a bit sticky sweet, but not bad.<br /><br />Later, after the family's fortunes have improved, Bergman returns. The four boys are now all grown and there isn't really a conceivable reason why they'd hire her once again as a governess. But, briefly, everything is swell once again. But, when WWI occurs, the four all go to war--gosh! In the midst of this, one of the sons (David) brings home his new wife (Susan Hayward). Miss Hayward's character is as black and white as the others, though while they are all good and swell, she's obviously a horny she-devil. To make things worse, she comes to live in the family home while David is at war.<br /><br />Now here is where the movie gets really, really dumb--brain-achingly dumb. Hayward begins an affair with one of David's brothers but when the father sees a silhouette of the lovers, Bergman enters the room from another entrance and pretends that it was her, not Hayward with Jack! WHY?! Why would any sane person do this to save the butt of an obviously evil and conniving woman? This was exactly the sort of excuse Bergman needed to get rid of the gutter-snipe once and for all! This is just a case of lousy writing and made me mad...and most likely did the same to the audiences back in 1941.<br /><br />The rest of the movie consists of failed opportunity after failed opportunity for Hayward's evilness to be exposed. This just flies against common sense and made the film a silly melodramatic mess. As expected, however, the truth eventually comes out and everyone is swell once again---happy to be one big loving wonderful family minus the slut, Hayward.<br /><br />The film suffers because of poor writing. Hayward's affair made no sense--at least in how it was handled. And, having characters who are so gosh-darn good or evil (with nothing in between) sinks this movie to the level of a second-rate soap. The only thing that saves it at all is the acting---they tried as best they could with a turgid script. Suffice to say that the Columbia Pictures writers who did this film should have been slapped with a dead chicken!
By 1941 Columbia was a full-fledged major studio and could produce a movie with the same technical polish as MGM, Paramount or Warners. That's the best thing that could be said about "Adam Had Four Sons," a leaden soap opera with almost terminally bland performances by Ingrid Bergman (top-billed for the first time in an American film) and Warner Baxter. Bergman plays a Frenchwoman (this was the era in which Hollywood thought one foreign accent was as good as another) hired as governess to Baxter's four sons and staying on (with one interruption caused by the stock-market crash of 1907) until the boys are grown men serving in World War I. Just about everyone in the movie is so goody-good it's a relief when Susan Hayward as the villainess enters midway through — she's about the only watchable person in the movie even though she's clearly channeling Bette Davis and Vivien Leigh; it's also the first in her long succession of alcoholic roles — but the script remains saccharine and the ending is utterly preposterous. No wonder Bergman turned down the similarly plotted "The Valley of Decision" four years later.
Saw this film ran in the wee hours on TCM. Several problems with the film were apparent from what I saw. First, the adults did not age when the children did for 10 years. Several parts of the film had continuity problems & for some reason the actor who played the youngest son looked like the oldest when the 10 years passed. <br /><br />The copy I saw was missing about 20 minutes or so, at least a huge gap with black screen appeared. It is too bad, because even though the script left something to be desired, Bergman & Russell both did fine in the film in their roles. It is a shame the large chunk is missing, but what is here is watchable.<br /><br />I just wish it was all intact. The script makes little sense in that Bergman's character is sent away when the kids are small but then brought back to take care of them when they are adults? Some of the time lines don't make sense either. There is a stock market crash that resembles 1929 but the kids grow up to fight in World War 1. All the acting by the support folks in this film is fine. Just wonder what was in the 20 gap of film I could not see as it was missing.
The Golden Era of Disney cartoons was dying by the time the end of the 90s. This show Quack Pack shouldn't even be considered a DuckTales spin off because the show barely had anything to do with DuckTales. It's about a teen-aged Huey, Dewey and Louie as they make trouble for their uncle Donald and talk in hip-hop lingo and they are fully dressed unlike in DuckTales. I prefer the little adventurous nephews from DuckTales. There are humans in Duckburg and the ducks are the only animals living in Duckburg. There's no references of Scrooge McDuck. The stories are repetitive, the plot is boring but the animation is good. If you want lots of slapstick humor, I recommend this to you. If you want a better Disney show watch "Darkwing Duck" or "DuckTales".
Jameson Parker And Marilyn Hassett are the screen's most unbelievable couple since John Travolta and Lily Tomlin. Larry Peerce's direction wavers uncontrollably between black farce and Roman tragedy. Robert Klein certainly think it's the former and his self-centered performance in a minor role underscores the total lack of balance and chemistry between the players in the film. Normally, I don't like to let myself get so ascerbic, but The Bell Jar is one of my all-time favorite books, and to watch what they did with it makes me literally crazy.
I rented this movie from the library (it's hard to find for good reason) purely out of curiosity. I'm a huge Plath fan and this movie was a complete disappointment. The Bell Jar (1979) is by far one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The script is horrible, not because it strays from the original novel text, but because it strays without focus or intent. The scenes are ill-constructed and don't lead the viewer anywhere. What's with the hokey voice over of Plath's poetry? Lady Lazarus has little do with Greenwood's situation; Plath's poetry was completely misused. Marilyn Hassett is completely unbelievable as Esther Greenwood (or any 20 year old for that matter) partly due to casting (she was 32 during filming, the age Plath was when she DIED) and partly due to the fact that she can't act. Hassett is all emotion, no craft, no skill. The direction is mediocre; the director simply covers what's there, which isn't much. The only reason I'm giving the film a 1 is because 0 isn't an option. Sorry Sylvia, you'll have to wait for someone else to adapt your fine work into something more fitting.
This is one of the worst films I've ever seen. I looked into it mainly out of a morbid curiosity since I loved the novel, and I wish I hadn't. I turned it off after a little less than an hour, though I wanted to turn it off after five minutes. I wish I had. It disregards the novel a lot and changes all sorts of factors. Unless the film managed to redeem itself in the last 50 or so minutes (which would be impossible) I would in no way recommend this. Its an insult to one of the greatest writers of the 20th century. I don't think, as many people say that it is, that "The Bell Jar" is necessarily unfilmable, but this particular rendition could have been done without. I'd almost like to see this one day in the hands of a director and screenwriter who can do it justice.
How did Mike Hammer live - in a penthouse with a GOLF BAG stashed in the corner next to a big screen cathode ray tube TV and a snazzy fireplace? Nah, he'd knock back a bottle of rye and twenty unfiltered Camels on the couch or floor of his fly-specked office or in the stink of a lousy downtown LA flop house, wiping the dried red crust and oil smeared mud off his face, that's how. Spillane wrote trash paperbacks, for sure, but how do you make it worse? Give some desperate scheming producer a blank check because he thinks any Film Noir titled crap will sell at the box office, add some over-the-hill hot tomatoes and just generally screw-up the story-line by some retard, drugged out screen writer, that's how!
This movie is just plain dumb.<br /><br />From the casting of Ralph Meeker as Mike Hammer to the fatuous climax, the film is an exercise in wooden predictability.<br /><br />Mike Hammer is one of detective fiction's true sociopaths. Unlike Marlow and Spade, who put pieces together to solve the mystery, Hammer breaks things apart to get to the truth. This film turns Hammer into a boob by surrounding him with bad guys who are ... well, too dumb to get away with anything. One is so poorly drawn that he succumbs to a popcorn attack.<br /><br />Other parts of the movie are right out of the Three Stooges play book. Velda's dance at the barre, for instance, or the bad guy who accidentally stabs his boss in the back. And the continuity breaks are shameful: Frau Blucher is running down the centerline of the road when the camera is tight on her lower legs but she's way over the side when the camera pulls back for a wider shot. The worst break, however, precedes the popcorn attack. The bad guy stalking Hammer passes a clock seconds after our hero, except the clock shows he was seven minutes behind our guy.<br /><br />To be fair, there were some interesting camera angles and lighting, and the grand finale is so bad that it must been seen, which is the only reason that it gets two points out of 10.
Man the ending of this film is so terribly unwatchable and dated that my entire film aesthetics class laughed like crazy. Now most of the rest of the film was okay. It had a few unintentionally funny scenes but had a few real good camera shots and editing. Yes Alderich is a great director who made FLight Of The Phoenix and Whatever Happened TO Baby Jane among others. The problem isn't with direction, acting or anything technical. The movie is just destroyed in the third act. Why? The murders, twists, turns and characters have all been revolving around NUCLEAR MATERIAL? What the heck was the writer smoking when he came up with that? The way it just comes out of nowhere may have been the biggest Deus Ex Machina in history. For all the complaints about Burton's Planet of the Apes, THe life of David Gale or Notorious I think THIS is the worst ending ever. What a let down.
I was really disappointed in this movie. Those that voted this thing a 10 have a screw lose. The acting was ok, kinda wooden and cardboard. The ending was sorry. I just didn't care for this at all.<br /><br />No way could I recommend this mess.
Average (and surprisingly tame) Fulci giallo which means it's still quite bad by normal standards, but redeemed by its solid build-up and some nice touches such as a neat time twist on the issues of visions and clairvoyance.<br /><br />The genre's well-known weaknesses are in full gear: banal dialogue, wooden acting, illogical plot points. And the finale goes on much too long, while the denouement proves to be a rather lame or shall I say: limp affair.<br /><br />Fulci's ironic handling of giallo norms is amusing, though. Yellow clues wherever you look.<br /><br />3 out of 10 limping killers
A story of amazing disinterest kills "The Psychic" over and over again. The characters and plot are completely uninteresting (as is Fulci's mad camera work, which is usually a redeeming factor in his films), and any grasp of suspense is nowhere to be found. It's padded out to an insufferable degree--by the end, you won't be clamoring with excitement but stricken with boredom (and, like me, maybe an uncontrollable urge to fall asleep). Jennifer O'Neill's performance deserves occupancy in a better movie. Fulci gorehounds beware--there's just not much going on in "The Psychic."<br /><br />3/10
What was an exciting and fairly original series by Fox has degraded down to meandering tripe. During the first season, Dark Angel was on my weekly "must see" list, and not just because of Jessica Alba.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the powers-that-be over at Fox decided that they needed to "fine-tune" the plotline. Within 3 episodes of the season opener, they had totally lost me as a viewer (not even to see Jessica Alba!). I found the new characters that were added in the second season to be too ridiculous and amateurish. The new plotlines were stretching the continuity and credibility of the show too thin. On one of the second season episodes, they even had Max sleeping and dreaming - where the first season stated she biologically couldn't sleep.<br /><br />The moral of the story (the one that Hollywood never gets): If it works, don't screw with it!<br /><br />azjazz
Awful, simply awful. It proves my theory about "star power." This is supposed to be great TV because the guy who directed (battlestar) Titanica is the same guy who directed this shlop schtock schtick about a chick. B O R I N G.<br /><br />Find something a thousand times more interesting to do - like watch your TV with no picture and no sound. 1/10 (I rated it so high b/c there aren't any negative scores in the IMDb.com rating system.)<br /><br />-Zaphoid<br /><br />PS: My theory about "star power" is: the more "star power" used in a show, the weaker the show is. (It's called an indirect proportionality: quality 1/"star power", less "sp" makes for better quality, etc. Another way to look at it is: "more is less.")<br /><br />-Z
God, I was bored out of my head as I watched this pilot. I had been expecting a lot from it, as I'm a huge fan of James Cameron (and not just since "Titanic", I might add), and his name in the credits I thought would be a guarantee of quality (Then again, he also wrote the leaden Strange Days..). But the thing failed miserably at grabbing my attention at any point of its almost two hours of duration. In all that time, it barely went beyond its two line synopsis, and I would be very hard pressed to try to figure out any kind of coherent plot out of all the mess of strands that went nowhere. On top of that, I don't think the acrobatics outdid even those of any regular "A-Team" episode. As for Alba, yes, she is gorgeous, of course, but the fact that she only displays one single facial expression the entire movie (pouty and surly), makes me also get bored of her "gal wit an attitude" schtick pretty soon. You can count me out of this one, Mr. Cameron!
Wow, here it finally is; the action "movie" without action. In a real low-budget setting (don't miss the hilarious flying saucers flying by a few times) of a future Seattle we find a no-brain hardbody seeking to avenge her childhood.<br /><br />There is nothing even remotely original or interesting about the plot and the actors' performance is only rivalled in stupidity by the attempts to steal from other movies, mainly "Matrix" without having the money to do it right. Yes, we do get to see some running on walls and slow motion shoot-outs (45 secs approx.) but these scenes are about as cool as the stupid hardbody's attempts at making jokes about male incompetence now and then.<br /><br />And, yes, we are also served a number of leads that lead absolutely nowhere, as if the script was thought-out by the previously unseen cast while shooting the scenes.<br /><br />Believe me, it is as bad as it possibly can get. In fact, it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, but perhaps I can make some of you not rent it and save your money.
I'm trying to picture the pitch for Dark Angel. "I'm thinking Matrix, I'm thinking Bladerunner, I'm thinking that chick that plays Faith in Angel, wearing shiny black leather - or some chick just like her, leave that one with us. Only - get this! - we'll do it without any plot, dialogue, character, decent action or budget, just some loud bangs and a hot chick in shiny black leather straddling a big throbbing bike. Fanboys dig loud bangs and hot chicks in shiny black leather straddling big throbbing bikes, right?"<br /><br />Flashy, shallow, dreary, formulaic, passionless, tedious, dull, dumb, humourless, desultory, barely competent. Live action anime without any action, or indeed any life. SF just the way Joe Fanboy likes it, in fact. :(
I think the show had a pretty good concept to work with. But the execution was poor. The script is poor and acting is bad. There were many issues that could have been portrayed in a better way, like the protest against gay marriage or finding the graveyard. The show can't be properly termed as comedy show as it lacks humor miserably. I should say this show was barely successful in putting the life of Muslim community to some extent.<br /><br />Till now second season is worse than the first one. I had my hopes high regarding this show, but I was kind of disappointed. Still I appreciate CBC for putting up such concept in front of the viewers. Anyway I wish best of luck for the future.
This show is a perfect example of how the CBC should stick to either news, sports, or satirical sketch comedy. As a developer of situation comedy, CBC has shown it can combine the pizazz of "King of Kensington" with the belly laughs of "The Beachcombers". It is an embarrassment to great shows like "Kids in the Hall" and "Second City" that they have to share their comedic roots with this lame production.<br /><br />I have to admit, that I didn't give this show much of a chance right from when I first heard of its concept. To start, half of the concept is a direct attempt to rip-off one of the few sitcom successes in English-Canadian history, "Corner Gas". The rest of the concept--the cultural clash--is far from being original and is too often used as a crutch for screen writing laziness. The selection of the Muslim religion as the basis for the "fish out of water" characters seems to be a desperate attempt to be "edgy" and "topical", but comes off as forced. Some of the jokes that are based around the local's reaction to the newcomers are cringe inducing and thoroughly insulting to the intelligence of everyone involved, especially the audience.<br /><br />This show is a perfect example of how CBC just doesn't "get it" when it comes to creating Canadian content, especially when presenting Canada as a multicultural environment. Cultural diversity in Canada does not have to be presented in such a heavy-handed and forced way. It would be a refreshing change to see CBC introduce diversity into a television show without making the show all about said diversity. I doubt that CBC has sufficient sitcom talent to pull off something so subtle. A comparison could be made to the way diversity is depicted in Corner Gas--i.e. the aboriginal characters are not set apart by their ethnicity nor is their heritage used to generate story lines. More realistically, their lives and the other characters lives intertwine in a way that makes ethnicity no more significant than any of their other personal characteristics.<br /><br />That being said, even as a formulaic fish-out-of-water comedy this show fails. The acting is weak, the comic pacing all over the map, and the story premises that I saw were too far beyond the suspension of belief, even for a comedy. The only saving grace is the talented Derek McGrath, who is horribly wasted here. I doubt that even the addition of guest stars (Colin Mochrie, for example, as an Anglican archbishop) can save this dog. I decided to give the show a chance once the CBC's 'hype' had died down; but two episodes were all I could stand--I could almost feel my braincells shutting themselves down with each failed punchline. The time-slot would be better served by airing more Coronation Street, Air Farce re-runs, or Dr. Who. Even an infomercial would be an improvement.
Once again Canadian TV outdoes itself and creates another show that will go unwatched after its premiere episode. <br /><br />Last time I remember sitcoms were supposed to induce a reaction we in the business call laughter. How funny is it to beat the stereotype of all white people thinking that all Muslims are terrorists? OK maybe one joke just to stick it to the masses. But not 30 minutes. It's called beating a dead horse. Even SNL would know to give up after a commercial break.<br /><br />Also, let's have a little conflict in these scripts. Will she or won't she be able to serve cucumber sandwiches to break the fast on Ramadan? When will Ramadan start? Ohhhhh this is Emmy winning stuff here. <br /><br />And the characters! What characters?! They are all cardboard cut-outs without anything interesting to make us want to follow them from one situation to the next. That's the point of the situation comedy. We need to have strong, interesting, dynamic characters so that we are constantly drawn to the TV set each week. We have to care about these characters to worry about what trouble they're going to get into next week. If I never see these characters it'll be too soon. Thankfully I can't remember any of their names (note to CBC - that's not a good sign).<br /><br />And the acting is so bland. It's more so a problem in casting than in the actors. None of these people actually embody the characters they play. They just seem to act their part as though they were working on a movie of the week. Sitcoms require actors who live and breathe that character - make us fall in love with them - where they become inseparable from the character the portray. Watch any American sitcom and you'll see how easily identifiable characters are. Part of the problem is that the actors seem to treat this project as though it might be a platform to bigger and better things instead of being their one big character of a lifetime for whom they will spend the next 8 years portraying. That level of disinterest in the characters and the project shows. But to be honest, considering the lame concept and the horrible writing, there's not much for the actors to do but say their lines and try not to bump into any furniture. As another commenter mentions, this seems like a TV movie and not a sitcom.<br /><br />And the directing or lack there of! What can I say, Canada has so much talent, look at what the Comedy Channel is doing with Puppets Who Kill and Punched Up. Look at the Trailer Park Boys (not the movie cause it bit the big helium dog). Look at any American show to see the potentials our talent as that's where many of our stars go to find decent work.<br /><br />Give credit to the CBC, they really know how to build publicity for a non-event. Remember "The One"? No - well don't even try to learn any characters names in this show, as it's sure to go the way of the dodo.<br /><br />Let's all hope for a full blown ACTRA strike so that nothing like this emerges from the Ceeb for a good long while.
This series just gets worse and worse. Poorly written and just plain not funny! The premise is excellent, but the writer's inexperience shines through. By trying so hard to offend no one they end up insulting everyone. Now into the second season the desperate cast have stopped waving their arms about, and resorted to that patronizing, smug, "Oh, silly you" style acting that comes with a no laugh script. They roll their eyes and shake their heads at each other as if to say, aren't we zany? Isn't this funny? Well, no, it's not actually. Gum disease is less painful. No wonder, with the exception of Corner Gas, Canadians generally avoid Canadian TV. Come on CBC you're suppose to be our leading station showcasing the best of Canadian talent. Pull the plug on this amateurish mess.
Little Mosque is one of the most boring CBC comedies I have ever seen. They have a way of producing the easiest comedy programming they can for the oldest most-easily-offended viewers which for CBC means 85 year old farmers in Saskatchewan. The jokes are all predictable and so deathly lame I can't believe it. The performances are very hammy and over acted but I don't blame the actors since those kind of one dimensional stereotyped characters are probably exactly what the CBC asked for and demanded. Very lame show with bad jokes they tried to present as "controversial" well it is less controversial than the other boring CBC comedies like The Hour Has 22 Minutes, Royal Canadian Air Farce and Rick Mercer's Report.
I was excited to see a sitcom that would hopefully represent Indian Candians but i found this show to be not funny at all. The producers and cast are probably happy to get both bad and good feed back because as far as they are concerned it's getting talked about! I was ready for some stereotyping and have no problem with it because stereotypes exist for a reason, they are usually true. But there really wasn't anything funny about these stereotypical characters. The "fresh of the boat" dad, who doesn't understand his daughter. The radical feminist Muslim daughter (who by the way is a terrible actress), and the young modern Indian man trying to run his mosque as politically correct as he can (he's a pretty good actor, i only see him getting better).<br /><br />it is very contrived and the dialog doesn't flow that well. there was so much potential for something like this but sadly i think it failed, and don't really care to watch another episode.<br /><br />I did however enjoy watching a great Canadian actress Sheila McCarthy again, she's always a treat and a natural at everything she does, too bad her daughter in the show doesn't have the same acting abilities!
If you're looking to be either offended or amused or both, you'll probably have to look elsewhere. LMOTP really isn't even very thought provoking beyond rehashing the usual silly clichés. At the end of the second episode I felt a little embarrassed that I actually sat through the contrived mess.<br /><br />Beyond the thinly veiled gimmicky premise thats attracted all the initial attention to it in the first place it's just another lame, innocuous and anti-septic attempt at commentary and entertainment that the CBC typically excels at producing. And once the "ZOMG MUSLIMS IN RURAL CANADA ROFLMAO!!" hype wears out its welcome, the show is likely to follow into the ether of cancellation because it's so shallow when judged on its merits alone.<br /><br />Unless you're obsessed with Muslim culture in the west and/or are easily amused by the most minute idiosyncrasies on the subject I really don't see how LMOTP is enjoyable beyond satisfying the curiosity that stemmed from the hype. Other shows have better addressed the issue of cultural/ethnic dichotomy in western multi-ethnic societies. LMOTP will never rank among them in entertainment or insight.
This show is terrible, the jokes are all terrible and just getting worse and worse. I am one of those people who was never a big fan of Corner Gas but at least I liked it at first until it got into a rut around season two, all the jokes had been played out and the characters had nothing to them. Well at least Corner Gas was good at first, Little Mosque on the Prairie is typically awful bland CBC comedy that had nothing going for it from episode 1. Who are the people who are watching this show anyway, I am being honest is it old people or maybe just people who actually live on the prairies? Maybe the jokes are for them and they work there? I don't know a single person who likes this show and can't stand it myself, the jokes are totally predictable and the characters are even less developed than in Corner Gas. Hopefully it won't last much longer because all the success this show has had seems to me to be based entirely on the premise of this show being Muslim which is different and could/should have led to a great show.
I was really hoping that this would be a funny show, given all the hype and the clever preview clips. And talk about hype, I even heard an interview with the show's creator on the BBC World Today - a show that is broadcast all over the world.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this show doesn't even come close to delivering. All of the jokes are obvious - the kind that sound kind of funny the first time you hear them but after that seem lame - and they are not given any new treatment or twist. All of the characters are one-dimensional. The acting is - well - mediocre (I'm being nice). It's the classic CBC recipe - one that always fails.<br /><br />If you're Muslim I think you would have to be stupid to believe any of the white characters, and if you're white you'd probably be offended a little by the fact that almost all of the white characters are portrayed as either bigoted, ignorant, or both. Not that making fun of white people is a problem - most of the better comedies are rooted in that. It's only a problem when it isn't funny - as in this show.<br /><br />Canada is bursting with funny people - so many that we export them to Hollywood on a regular basis. So how come the producers of this show couldn't find any?
Unlike many, I don't find the premise or theme of this show the least bit offensive. Its execution, however, is another matter entirely. Like so many B-minus movies, all the decent gags appear to have been spliced into the trailers. For most of the 22-or-so minutes we sit in waning anticipation any morsel of real humor. Or at least something to keep one from fidgeting with the remote or counting carpet fibers. With a couple of exceptions the acting is awful; the comical over-emoting and gesticulating of some cast members might be well suited to a late-night infomercial, but not a primetime sitcom (even a Canadian one.) Notwithstanding the admittedly original cultural angle, I cannot help but think this is mainly a misfired shot by the CBC to replicate the success of Corner Gas. Unfortunately, they got the tone -- and the script -- completely wrong for the prairies. The final insult is that they apparently couldn't even afford to have the location work done in an actual small town (Why? are they so hard to find in Saskatchewan?) Did they think the audience would be fooled by the downtown Regina exteriors? As a proud Canadian I hope this thing goes away soon, and that the rest of the world, primed by the CBC's publicists, quickly forgets this colossal embarrassment of a sitcom.
Who likes awful "comedy" shows like Little Mosque on the Prairie? The only two kinds of people I can think of who watch this are: One, Muslims and self-proclaimed Liberal defenders of every ethnic group who are so thrilled there is a show about Muslims that it doesn't even matter if the show is good or funny at all (which it is not). Two, old people and people whose idea of comedy is incredibly predictable, badly written, stale jokes.<br /><br />CBC needs to really take a look at what they are doing and who their audience is. If they keep only writing comedy for really old people then guess what will happen, their audience will die off soon and they will have no audience left. I'd be curious who even writes for this show? Do you think it's actually Muslims, or hip, funny young people? No, I bet it is old white guys who have been writing the same jokes for the same kind of bad CBC shows since the 1960's.<br /><br />When you look at the CBC comedy shows there are, Air Farce was only finally just taken off the air (thank goodness!) but we still have lame ducks like This Hour Has 22 Minutes and Rick Mercer that we are paying for, not to mention this poor excuse for "comedy" Little Mosque on the Prairie. It is supposed to be offencive and funny? Only the CBC would think this lame show is at all offencive or funny. Shame on the CBC for squandering our tax dollars on shows only a few people would bother watching.
Up until this new season I have been a big 'Little Mosque' fan. However, the new season had absolutely RUINED it.<br /><br />The new Christian vicar has destroyed the entire intent of the show. It has always been about living together to overcome prejudice. The new vicar ruins that premise and shows Christians in a very bad light.<br /><br />I am neither Christian or Muslim, but loved watching the show and seeing the camaraderie between Amar and the Reverend. Not any more.<br /><br />Just cancel it and be done with it. It's not worth watching any more.<br /><br />It might still be saved, but a lot of change would need to be made.<br /><br />Bring back the old format.
To be honest at the time i first heard of this show i though it may be a bad idea to make a show that makes Muslims use racial jokes on themselves but it is the Exact opposite. I realized that the show doing that can help people understand that if a Muslim uses s a word like this in real life it doesn't mean it is a terrorist thing. It also show's how people give the Muslims a bad name because they play on their stereotype, by watching the show regular people will realize that all though there may be bad Muslims out it doesn't mean we are all bad we just try to live 1 day at a time, like how hard it was for Amair to get on a plane and how he used words like "Blow up" or Yaser saying we'll blow away the competition, and people took it the wrong way. Being a Muslim i know that stuff like this don't usually happen, but they do and many people think bad things about Muslims or Afghanistan or Iraq, its not right things are not like that. people will see how we are poorly treated by watching this show and it may make them think on how the act. I am glad a show like this came on the air. There are many shows that Piotr Muslim people as terrorists,many people do find them funny to my opioion it is OK to do it now and then because prety much everything is made fun of who are we to say you can not make fun of that is unfair, but it is done to often and really gives Muslin people a bad name.
I can't believe that people thought this stinking heap of trash was funny. Shifting the attempts at humor among cruelty, disgust and stupidity, 'There's Something About Mary' leaves little reason to stay until the end. Sure, Cameron Diaz is very pretty, but that is never going to be enough to save a movie. Ben Stiller tries hard to work within the plot, and is obviously very talented, but the movie is a loser.<br /><br />Not once were any of the scenes believable. The shots were badly timed and poorly framed. The Farreley brothers should be kept away from making films at all costs. I check IMDB to see what they are working on just so I know what to avoid.<br /><br />2/10; the bonus is from the one time I smiled. It's not like I'm immune to humor or alone in my opinion. My wife hated it, too. The next day we saw 'Rush Hour' and laughed ourselves silly. This movie just stunk.
As someone who likes chase scenes and was really intrigued by this fascinating true-life tale, I was optimistic heading into this film but too many obstacles got into the way of the good story it should have been.<br /><br />THE BAD - I'm a fan of Robert Duvall and many of the characters he has played, but his role here is a dull one as an insurance investigator.<br /><br />The dialog is insipid and the pretty Kathryn Harrold is real garbage-mouth. From what I read, there were several directors replacing each other on this film, and that's too bad. You can tell things aren't right with the story. I couldn't get "involved" with Treat Williams' portrayal of Cooper, either. He should have been fascinating, but he wasn't in this movie. It's also kind of a sad comment that a guy committing a crime is some sort of "folk hero," but I admit I wound up rooting for the guy, too.<br /><br />Not everything was disappointing. I can't complain about the scenery, from the lush, green forests of Oregon to the desert in Arizona.<br /><br />I'd like to see this movie re-made and done better, because it is a one-of-a-kind story.
This film was hard to get a hold of, and when I eventually saw it the disappointment was overwhelming. I mean, this is one of the great stories of the twentieth century: an unknown man takes advantage of the unsuspecting airline industry and GETS AWAY with millions in ransom without hurting anyone or bungling the attempt. With all of this built-in interest, how could anyone make such a lackluster, talk-laden flick of this true-life event. While Williams is always interesting, the screenwriters assumed that the D.B. Cooper persona was stereotypically heroic like a movie star, s what we get is a type-without any engaging details or insights into the mind of a person daring enough and clever enough to have pulled it off. Harrold practically steals the movie with her spunk and pure beauty, but the real letdown was in the handling of the plot and the lame direction. Shame on this film for even existing.
As an impressionable 10 year old, I liked the "love conquers all" philosophy of the 70s sitcom "Bridget Loves Bernie." I did understand the controversy, which was about the romantic complications between a Jewish cab driver (David Birney) and an Irish Catholic school teacher (Meredith Baxter) and both sets of parents (Harold J. Stone and Bibi Osterwald as Bernie's parents; Audra Lindley and David Doyle as Bridget's parents) who have issues with the young couple's interfaith marriage.<br /><br />Looking at the show now with years of personal life experiences, I am amazed that the show was even a success for one, albeit, highly-rated season. Created by veteran TV writer Bernard Slade, who a few years after the show's cancellation would write the successful play "Same Time, Next Year", "Bridget Loves Bernie" was a very light, superficial comedy that collapsed under its own airy weight.<br /><br />There was no denying the real-life chemistry between Birney and Baxter. But, in later years, both actors have shown that they are better actors in other projects (Birney in his short-lived role in "St. Elsewhere" and Baxter in "Family" and "Family Ties"). Here, they were trying to breathe life in a show that needed a much gritter comic edge, which might have given the complications more depth to a very controversial subject.<br /><br />The show aired Saturday nights between two CBS powerhouses: "All in the Family" and "Mary Tyler Moore". Both of those shows were smart, funny and had enough of an edge (more so on the former that the latter) that kept my interest in the situation and the characters. "Bridget Loves Bernie" was not very smart and only had some occasional chuckles.<br /><br />This was another example of a show that really was not as good as I remembered.
SPOILER ALERT In this generic and forgettable action movie, Lorenzo Lamas does his usual tough guy/pretty boy act, and his future real life ex Kathleen Kinmont is ass kicking hot chick Alexa. OJ Simpson is a detective, coasting by on his since vanished genial public persona. Translation: cable TV filler. There isn't enough skin to qualify this as a Guilty Pleasure.<br /><br />The script has some gaping holes. Best/Worst Moment: In one jarring scene, OJ's partner expresses his aversion to the morgue. OJ responds that some of the bodies are pretty hot, or words to that effect. This vague necrophilia reference is offensive enough; but in light of the murders committed shortly after this movie was released, it is truly appalling, and therefore entertaining in an unintentional, horrible way. I was so startled that I laughed until champagne came out of my nose. Now THAT'S a Guilty Pleasure. BC
Lorenzo Lamas stars as some type of CIA agent, who captures some exotic beauty named Alexa, kidnaps her daughter and forces her to fight her former employers. O.J Simpson is also on board to provide a dash of acting credibility for the not so talented ensemble. I must admit i'm not a fan of Lorenzo Lamas, or his movies. He stinks. However when compared to O.J Simpson and Lamas' comatose wife Kinmont, Lamas seems like ah, Jean-Claude Van Damme. I only saw CIA because of the renewed interest around the O.J Simpson trial, you see because if your parents had cable and the extra channels, you couldn't escape this movie. in 1994 you could go to an Amish community and some moron would have this playing in their portable TV. The movie itself is a collection of lame action sequences and would be intrigue although the shock value of O.J Simpson jumping after fireballs and exchanging would be one liners do provide some unintentional humor. Also where was Bobby Knight and Kobe Bryant to make this a complete camp classic? <br /><br />* out of 4-(Bad)
"CIA Codename:Alexa" is an absolute horrible rip off of Luc Besson's classic film "La Femme Nikita"(1990). The film is basically about a woman who is taken in and trained by the CIA and is forced to do a secret mission for them. (Pretty much the same story structure of La Femme Nikita) The acting combo of Lorenzo Lamas and O.J. Simpson is perhaps the worst in cinema history. Lamas' "acting" is simply a bad Steven Segal impersonation. Watching Orenthal act in this film is an excruciating experience.<br /><br />The writing and acting is so poor in this film at times it is laughable. There are so many action movie "conventions" in the film it is ridiculous: unnecessary car explosions, people flying thru glass windows, terrorists, bad ponytails, etc. The musical score resembles David Michael Frank's score for "Hard to Kill" (1990), which furthers the Steven Segal theme of this movie. There is plenty of martial arts in the film, and it is pretty well done for a low budget American production. The mindless action and over the top acting never lets up, and I have to admit I was mildly entertained. <br /><br />Lorenzo Lamas had the look of an action star back in the early 90's but he is certainly no action star, that is why he is doing soap operas and not action blockbusters. My recommendation is that you skip "CIA Codename:Alexa" and check out "La Femme Nikita" instead.
This is really really bad. Lamas shows just how a second rate actor does his job. But what makes it worth watching is the scene where OJ angrily grabs a fellow cop by the throat as if to kill them while the jukebox plays a song with the lyric "I got the evidence on you!". (Makes me want to hear the rest of the lyrics - attributed to David Gregoli and Leslie Oren but i couldn't find it on iTunes). Talk about seeing into the future...Too funny for words. The rest of the movie is forgettable. The score and songs are more interesting than the script. Ditto the sequel. Which begs the question of why they would do a sequel at all. My understanding was that foreign sales drives a lot of these B movies. Doesn't say much for the world's viewing habits.
The "math" aspect to this is merely a gimmick to try to set this TV show apart from the millions of other cop shows. The only redeeming aspect to this show is Rob Morrow, although his career must have been (undeservedly) waning after Northern Exposure if he signed up for this schlock.<br /><br />The lame-ness of the "math" aspect to the show is encapsulated in one episode co-starring Lou Diamond Phillips (which just confirms that this show is the last refuge of the damned.) In order to catch a fugitive, the "mathematician" uses some theory about "bubbles". So, he gives this long explanation that, if we have seen the suspect in places A, B and C, then we can use "bubble theory" to calculate where he might be. He does this all on a chalkboard, or maybe with a stick in the dirt (I cant remember).<br /><br />Anyway, when you look at the finished product, he basically took three spots, and picked a point right in the middle and said "Ok, mathematically, here's where we are most likely to find the fugitive." At which point, one other character points out "Oh, that point also happens to be the cabin where the guy used to live." Is that math? Its not even connect-the-f**k**g-dots!!! This show reminds me of the math major I used to work with in banking who had a mathematical analysis he could do to "support" points that every one else had already agreed on through either less-complex analysis or basic common sense.<br /><br />It just goes to show -- When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I can't wait til they stick the NUMB3RS team on OSAMA... They'll use calculus, call an airstrike in the middle of the mountains, and hit Osama and not even scratch the five children he uses as human shields... cuz hey... its all about the numbers.<br /><br />Totally ludicrous TV show.
After watching a dozen episodes, I decided to give up on this show since it depicts in an unrealistic manner what is mathematical modeling. In the episodes that Charlie would predict the future behavior of individuals using mathematical models, I thought that my profession was being joked about. I am not a mathematician, instead a chemical engineer, but I do work a lot with mathematical models. So I will try to explain to the layman why what is shown is close to "make-believe" of fairy tales.<br /><br />First, choosing the right model to predict a situation is a demanding task. Charlie Eppes is shown as a genius, but even him would have to spend considerable time researching for a suitable model, specifically for trying to guess what someone will do or where he will be in the near future. Individuals are erratic and haphazard, there is no modeling for them. Isaac Asimov even wrote about that in the 1950's. Even if there were a model for specific kind of individual, it would be a probabilistic (stoichastic) one, meaning it has good chance of making a wrong prediction.<br /><br />Second, supposing the right model for someone or a situation is found, the model parameters have to be known. These parameters are the constants of the equations, such as the gravity acceleration (9.8 m/s2), and often are not easy to determine. Again, Charlie Eppes would have to be someone beyond genius to know the right parameters for the model he chooses. And after the model and the parameters are chosen, they would have to be tested. Oddly, they are not, and by miracle, they fit exactly the situation that is being predicted.<br /><br />Third, a very important aspect of modeling is almost always neglected, not only by Numbers, but also by sci-fi movies: the computational effort required for solving these models. Try to make Excel solve a complex model with many equations and variables and one will find doing a Herculean job. Even if Charlie Eppes has the right software to solve his models, he might be stuck with hardware that will be dreadfully slow. And even with the right software/hardware combination, the model solution might well take days to be reached. He solves them immediately! I could use his computer in my research work, I would be very glad.<br /><br />As a drama, it is far from being the best show. The characters are somewhat stereotyped, but not even remotely funny as those in Big Bang Theory are. The crimes are dull and the way Charlie Eppes solves them sometimes make the FBI look pretty incompetent.<br /><br />For some layman, the show might work. For others, the way things are handled makes it difficult to swallow!
As an engineer, I must say this show's first season started out very promising. Most of the applied mathematics were somewhat plausible, and the relationships portrayed between the Eppes brothers and father gave the show an interesting edge.<br /><br />But after the first season, the show started degrading, heavily. Most of the mathematics and technology used in crime solving is now utter gibberish and very laughable to all people involved in science & technology for real.<br /><br />The involvement from the actors still feels okay and I can imagine a fair amount of money is still going into producing each episode, but in the end, this has degraded to a very unpleasantly tasting dish which is a mix of a grade C action thriller and CSI style cop show.<br /><br />If you are gonna watch it, go for only the first season and possibly parts of the second. Thereafter I would not waste my time. Myself, I gave the show up midway through season 3.<br /><br />Season 1 - 8 stars Season 2 - 5 stars Season 3 - 3 stars<br /><br />Let's sum that up to 4 stars. Since Charlie doesn't know his math anymore, I won't bother with the correctness of mine either.
here, let me wave my hands over the keyboard, i'll tell you what salad she's going to order. over and over, works like a charm: he's such a genius, omg how does he do it? my bullshit detector freaks if i even pass this show when i'm scanning channels, I have to be very careful (these days it's useful far too often, so I don't need it getting broken on idiotic crap like this...careful with that remote!). is this supposed to be some fascist propaganda to make people believe in some invisible realm of uberman control and mastery? or what? why does it exist??<br /><br />this is THE most inane show, completely unbelievable and contrived, and I cannot understand why it's still on the air. so may geeks give SO much better shows such a hard time (Sarah Connor Chronicles, True Blood), but give this nonsensical drivel a pass. shows like Firefly (if there were any like that) fall away after a season, but mindless stuff like this that makes zero logical sense just keeps marching on. yeccch.
***Comments contain spoilers*** I was barely holding on to this show as appointment TV when they started the annoying music under EVERY SCENE, when Don Epps was averaging almost a shooting per case, when the very nasally Diane Farr was obviously pregnant (but we weren't to notice) and when Colby was a f*****g TRIPLE agent. But now, in tonight's episode,David is trapped with a paranoid, nut job who is an OBVIOUS amateur with a gun, in an elevator and....HE CAN'T DISARM HIM. A trained, experienced field agent who has been 1st through the door many times and is experienced in hand-to-hand fighting, CAN'T TAKE OUT A NUT JOB. Not when said nut job blinks, looks away, drops his head, closes his eyes; not even when he looks up at the fiber optic wire wriggling around the ceiling like a stripper on a pole for 20 seconds.<br /><br />Then the scene came that let me know that as much as I enjoy learning from the chubby, frumpish but very charming Charles Epps and his sexy sidekick/love interest Amita, my Friday nights will be better spent otherwise engaged. Don gives David the "distress word" that is the code for "The s**t is about to go down"; David is ready, they kill the lights, drop the elevator, startle the nut job and......<br /><br />David CANNOT DISARM/KILL/BEAT INTO SUBMISSION THE NUT JOB. The bad guy ends up with BOTH GUNS, David ends up SHOT.<br /><br />I'm done. Hope the NUMB3RS are fun.
Since "Rugrats"' falling from the category of good and funny cartoon series to a mediocre and indeed outright horrible fare for two year olds in the past three or four years, obviously the tyrants at Klasky-Csupo should be out of ideas. After dumbing down all of the characters, adding even stupider new ones, replacing some voices (though I like Nancy Cartwright, she is NOT Chucky Finster!), and having no sense of continuity (ex.: in a Kimi episode I watched the other day, Tommy and Chucky each got a new puppy; but it subsequent episode, the aforementioned dogs never appear), you'd think the creators could kill the show for mercy. But noooo.<br /><br />All I will say concerning this special is that it sucks! While not as horrible as the Kimi episodes, everyone is even stupider than they were, including Grandpa (my God! He used to be the best character on the show, but now, he has no real purpose). The ending is needlessly fluffy, and the only thing different between this and other crappy new episodes ('98-'01) is that the kids can interact with adults. Whoa, what fun!<br /><br />No stars at all for "The Rugrats All Growed Up". Klasky-Csupo, please DESTROY this show before it gets any worse.
It a bit peculiar that a story that is placed in a part of Oslo where a very high percentage of the local residents is from an Asian background does NOT EVEN SHOW ONE ASIAN OR AFRICAN person, not even as an extra. That fact probably describes Norwegian race relations in general. - However.<br /><br />NO SPOILERS - ONLY A BRIEF INTRODUCTORY DESCRIPTION:<br /><br />Buddy portrays four young people living in a flat-share in Oslo. The protagonist are two young men that don't manage to direct their life in any serious fashion, and one might say that the film could be about being indecisive and avoiding responsibility - a sort of fear of growing up. The narrative plays on typical teenage dreams and fantasies and lifestyle role models. Quite the cliché. Although the story is mildly funny, the acting is good and as a 'young person' one can sort of identify with the characters `crazy' situations and complicated love affairs, I don't find the story or the characters very believable. To polished and lacking in depth. This film uses all the classic audience pleasing tricks to make an entertaining film that has as much intellectual depth as `Friends' (yes that show on TV).<br /><br />Has Norwegian film finally found its identity?: Audience pleasers in well known American style.<br /><br />How about watching Lukas Moodysson's Tillsammans (Together).
I'm a fan of arty movies, but regretfully I have to report this movie to be pretentious drivel. Agonisingly slow to develop a non-existent plot based on a promising premise, the experience is, shall we say, trying. Even after bad movies I feel that I learn something, or enjoyed some aspect, but there there was nothing to appreciate. The premise was not uninteresting, but the movie starts and ends there. The acting was OK, though the characters were utterly boring. For the protagonist to aim at such an audacious goal, she is mightily empty. Pity. I usually enjoy movies that are unformulaic, but lack of formula should not be confused with zero content.
I have to admit that I stuck this one out thinking something would have to happen, besides the dead body in the first scenes... and her disposal of him. I was wrong. It was a cinema verite of Betty hits the Beach encased for the first part by Mordant Morven. I really don't care what young lassies from Scotland do these days, who thy screw, what drugs they take. Visually, the stroll through the Cabo de Gata in Andalucia was pleasant and surely the high point for me. The nadir was the chop shop for her dead boyfriend. As the movie came to a close I had two thoughts... 1. That's all there is? 2. Now I see why her boyfriend killed himself. Rename it. "Bare Bitch Boredom, or What I did on my trip to Spain." I'm such a sucker for sticking these things out.
Lynne Ramsey makes arresting images, and Samantha Morton can summon feeling with a gesture. So what a drag to discover their talents wasted on this mannered, pretentious lark. <br /><br />Ramsey can't bring Callar to life. Her attempts are too arty and oblique. Repeatedly her camera lingers on long silent shots of the agonizing actress as if Morton's obliterated gaze alone could supply character. We are in a blank Warholian hell of self-indulgence: for a film that has minutes to spare on bugs crawling across the floor, you might think it could get round to fleshing out its protagonist. But how will it do so if she rarely speaks? Without the novel's interior monologue, the celluloid Morvern Callar is nobody. Small wonder Ramsey has Morton undress often.<br /><br />That said, the first ten minutes were so impressively acted, shot and edited that my hopes were soaring. Give the film that much: it knows how to make promises, if not how to keep any.
When a movie of a book seems pointless and incomprehensible, the cause can invariably be found in the book: either it was pointless to start with, or the point is one not easily conveyed to film, or the movie missed the point, which is the most frequent of these results, and the easiest to happen, especially when the point is one not easily defined. The book "Morvern Callar" has a point; every reader of the book must have felt this, and felt as if he had gotten it; but I suspect most of them could not state it in words. I'm not sure I can, myself, but perhaps it comes to this, or something like it: Things come, things go, such is life, but we carry on; or at any rate some of us--people like Morvern--do. No doubt a more erudite critic could construct a more adequate definition. But the important fact is that there is a point--possibly the sum of the entire story is the point--and that this would have been the main thing to keep in view, and to carry over, in adapting the story to film. The maker of this film evidently missed the point, and doesn't substitute one of her own; and so the film is about nothing.<br /><br />This is not the usual complaint of a book-lover that his favorite text has been violated. The merit of the book is something I conceded grudgingly: in reading it I found it a bloody nuisance, and an occasion for kicking the author in the pants and getting him in to finish the job properly. The narrative is supposed to be the work of the half-educated Morvern, but that illusion is constantly dispelled by a dozen different types of literary effect, as if the author were poking at her with his pen; there are inconsistencies of style and tone, as if different sections had been composed at different times; and any conclusions I could reach about Morvern had to remain tentative because it was uncertain which implications the author intended and which he did not: for instance, despite Morvern's own self-characterization as a raver, am I wrong that in the end she remains essentially a working-class Scots girl, and beneath her wrapping of music downloads not so different from those of generations past? In any case, despite my irritation at the author, I couldn't deny that his book stuck with me; and what I couldn't get out of my head was his character's attitude, her angle on the world, which was almost as vivid as a Goya portrait. Morvern is the kind of person who's always encountering situations at once rather comic and rather horrible; occasionally she invites them but more often they land on her, like flies, so that much of her life consists of a kind of gauche but graceful slogging-through, unconsciously practical and unconsciously philosophical--and that doesn't begin to describe it idiosyncratically enough. The complex of incidents and of Morvern's responses to them are the substance of the book, and its achievement, in exposing a cross-section of existence it would be difficult to illuminate otherwise; for all my dislike of the book, I can see this.<br /><br />The Morvern just described is not the Morvern of the movie; or if it is, most of her is kept offscreen. An actress who might have been a good fit for the character, had she been the right age at the right time, is Angharad Rees, from the old TV series "Poldark". Samantha Morton, then, would seem like good casting: she's rather the same sort of actress, and in one of her earlier movies, "Jesus' Son", she played a girl who with a few adjustments could have been turned into this one. Unfortunately, as the film turned out, she doesn't have the character from the book to play. For one thing, the book is one that, if it is to be dramatized, virtually cries out for monologues by the main character to the audience; without her comments, her perspective, her voice, the story loses most of its meaning. It has lost more of it in that the adaptor has expurgated it of its comic and horrible elements: the most memorable incidents from the book are curtailed before they turn grotty, and so Morvern's responses (whether of amusement or distaste, depending on her mood) are missing too, and the incidents no longer have a reason for being in the story. In short, the filmmaker chose for some reason to turn a brisk, edgy serio-comic novel into a genteel art TV film, and chose as her typical image one of Ms. Morton languishing in a artistically shaded melancholy; as if the outing Morvern signs up for were a tour of the Stations of the Cross. This isn't at all what the book, or the Morvern of the book, was about. For another thing, the Morvern of the movie isn't Scottish (the actress said in an interview she hadn't had time to study up the accent), and she ought to be: it's important that she, her family, and her mates are all from a single place. And finally the film is missing the end of the story: Morvern's spending all she has and coming home to icy darkness: it's winter, the dam has frozen, the power has gone out, and the pub is dark. Minus this, and minus all of the rest, what's left is a failed art film, a dead film, about a subject whose strength lay precisely in her refusal, or native inability, ever to give in to being dead.
It was probably just my DVD---but I would not recommend that anyone try to watch this picture on a DVD.<br /><br />I had to turn up the volume on my TV to the highest possible level, in order to hear about 80 percent of the dialog. Some of the talking still remained sub-audible. If you're from Scotland, you might have a chance, albeit a slim one.<br /><br />Peoples voices were drowned out by nearly all ambient sounds, including unwrapping a package, footsteps, even puffing on a cigarette. <br /><br />With the volume turned up to a level at which voices can be heard, I can guarantee that at least one of your neighbors will phone the police when the scene changes to a loud environment, such as a disco. And that you will injure yourself diving for the remote to turn it back down.<br /><br />There is art and there is art, even in the field of audio mixing. But this effort, in a time of war, would meet international criteria to be classified as an atrocity.<br /><br />After about a half hour, I gave up, having seen nothing else redeeming in the picture, either.
There are a lot of pretentious people out there who will pretend that this is endowed with some kind of beautiful meaning, and that ignorant fools like me don't 'get' it. Obviously this means that we should stick to Hollywood dross.<br /><br />It has every, a-hem, artistic cliché in the book - I guess it is good that the director is one of the chosen few. Almost a self parody drowning in its own pretense.<br /><br />The director of the (almost equally embarrassing) movie 'Ratcatcher' returns with another piece wallowing in artistic nonsense; it is difficult to understand and apparently is a study of alienation. The best way to describe this film is alienating for its viewers.
Nothing happens.<br /><br />Then characters with no personality don't develop.<br /><br />Then the end never comes because there's no beginning and no middle.<br /><br />There are beautiful shots that are made not beautiful because they aren't even allowed to be, because this movie isn't even THERE. There's no "is" in this movie because there's no plot or characters or themes or ideas or symbolism or discussion or dialog or point. There's nothing! <br /><br />There is a good point: it has a good soundtrack. But the sound editing is such and the movie proper is such that watching it isn't even worth your time, so if you're really interested, I'd suggest going and buying the soundtrack or something. You'll get everything you can from this movie without all the fatigue, headache, and impatience.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB
My wife and I watch a film every night with no distractions, and mostly artsy films that require thought. I have tons of patience for films that are slow to blossom. My wife has double the attention span that I do. All that being said-- this film is just plain empty and BORING! It went nowhere. Never blossomed. It started fairly strong with a promising plot...then she bakes cookies...goes to Spain....she sulks, she stares....the credits roll. Uneven, full of holes, false starts & dead ends. We FF'd through several extended sequences of her just staring off into space. Artificial depth was implied when she played with the mud and cried. Zzzz...... It's like a beautifully shot chick-flick that's pretending to be deep or artsy. You never get to know nor understand Morvern at all. About halfway through you just don't care anymore. We just wanted to see at least one of the plot lines develop. Don't waste your time on this. I'm shocked it scores so high.
It has its merit's; Morvern Callar is both the merits and the disappointments. She's so enigmatic, so original. Is it her method of dealing with the pain of a lost one that's making her so distant and un-relatable? Or is she as one reviewer called her a revolutionary? Personally I'd call her dysfunctional.<br /><br />Morvern is completely detaching herself. Disposing of her boyfriend, not thinking of informing family or using the money he gave her for a proper funeral, she selfishly splashes out on a trip to Spain. She's seems so devoid of anything relatively human bar greed. The only element that enables the audience see the human side of her is her close friend she takes on holiday with her. Although by the end her friend is dumped and Morvern has nothing that ties her down to humanity. She may as well have killed herself.<br /><br />Despite managing to make Spain look as gloomy and bland as the UK the director's shots were superb, the lighting and color made the film visually stunning.<br /><br />It's really a shame the movie has nothing in it that keeps interest. It's little over 90 minutes but feels a lot longer. They manage to make Morvern seem interesting to grab your attention but do nothing with her only alienate her from you more to the point where you don't care about the characters or the film.
80 minutes, and it felt twice that long! Brief Crossing is not brief enough. Indeed, the first 50 minutes or so consist almost entirely of a dialogue (more of a monologue, really) of a woman approaching middle age, tediously droning about "men," disappointment, sex, aging, and her recent breakup, to a French teenager she met in the ship's cafeteria.<br /><br />The tedious monologue continues as they go to duty-free shop, and to a bar, where finally her self-involved rant pushes him away. The "story" can't end there, of course, so she persuades him to listen to her drone on more as she brings him to her cabin.<br /><br />What little romance, sex, or for that matter, anything at all this film has besides bitter rantings is hardly enough to justify the price of a rental unless you are one of those who love dramas where nothing interesting happens at all. Yes, the ending is very nicely done, but it is scant reward to subject yourself to what amounts to a turning your living room into a virtual therapy session with a narcissistic whiner.<br /><br />Of course, some people like it. I could be wrong.
I bought Bloodsuckers on ebay a while ago. I watched parts and deemed it just too dumb to review again. The excessive amount of watery 'blood' at the beginning is just plain obsolete - not to mention the "whip-around" wind sounds. My friends and I made a super low budget movie, and the effects still exceeded this crap fest.<br /><br />As for the amount of mistakes in this movie, there are way too many to count. I knew one of the actors - believe it or not, he was my THEATRE teacher. HA! <br /><br />Final verdict: Don't bother with this "horror" flick. <br /><br />3 Stars (out of a possible 73)
This really should deserve a "O" rating, or even a negative ten. I watched this show for ages, and the show jumped the shark around series 7. This episode, however, is proof that the show has jumped the shark. It's writing is lazy, absurd, self-indulgent and not even worthy of rubbish like Beavis and Butthead.<br /><br />It is quite possible to be ridiculous and still be fun -- Pirates of the Caribbean, the Mummy, Count of Monte Cristo -- all "fun" movies that are not to be taken seriously. However, there is such thing as ridiculous as in "this is the worst thing I've ever seen." And indeed, this is the worst episode of Stargate I've ever seen. It's absolutely dreadful, and this coming from someone with a stargate in her basement.<br /><br />Makes me want to sell all of my stargate props, most seriously.
First of all I just want to say that I LOVE this show!!! But this episode...this episode makes a mockery of the entire show.<br /><br />I don't know what they tried to achieve with this episode but they successfully created the WORST episode in the entire series.<br /><br />There is no story line, everything is chaotic and the jokes.....are crap.<br /><br />The way they tried to answer some of the remaining questions in the game..... For example "how do the furlings look like" by creating that stupid "previously on..."......is simply embarrassing.<br /><br />Its clear that the writers are running out of ideas and that is really too bad.
This is available on a "Drive In Double Feature" from Dark Sky Films, and since I just had finished up "Barracuda", I watched this too. This is a film that proves to be incredibly ambitious and inept at the same time.<br /><br />We begin with two young ladies wandering the streets of some foreign town, but where exactly are they? They stop to look at necklaces from some Chinese vendor, and try on Chinese-style clothes at a shop, but then we see some Aztec dancers? And all the while, these girls are being followed by two guys, who eventually drop whatever stealth they didn't have to chase the girls on a wild run though the town, and they finally catch them.<br /><br />It seems that one of the girls has a coin on a string around her neck, and these guys want to find the loot, and where did she get it? So, in flashback, we go back to find out. And how did they know she had this coin? Hard to say, really.<br /><br />Now, back in the day, when these two women were 10 years old, they were out with their sisters and their sister's boyfriends on a boat, and after stopped to get air in their tanks, they tow this young boy back to his home dock, only to have his grandpa come out & invite the "young 'uns" up for herbal tea with granny. But not everyone has the tea, Todd has gone back to the boat to check on the young girls, and then when they're away from it, the boat blows up, and when they get back to the house their friends have mysteriously disappeared. Well, it seems as though these "kindly folk" raise their own vegetables but they wait for the meat to drop by for a spell, and serve it herbal tea.<br /><br />But the girls and Todd did leave the island, but now, they're returning, escorted by their captors, and they're there to find the treasure, despite the fact that no one ever showed the girls where it was BEFORE. There also seems to be someone else on the island, and the thugs mysteriously begin to die, one by one, and since there's only three, it doesn't take long. And there's even a sort of happy ending, which will leave the viewer every bit as baffled as they were throughout the rest of the film.<br /><br />The two thugs seem to be speed freaks with anger issues, and combined with no acting ability they're borderline hilarious. The hillbilly-type family is also devoid of acting ability, despite the fact that the grandpa is Hank Worden, who appeared in many films and TV shows. The action is confusing, the locales are even more confusing, and the island looks like Southern California.<br /><br />So what the hell IS this? I'm not sure, but it certainly is worth seeing once so you can think (or say), huh? 4 out of 10, very bizarre.
Roommates Sugar and Bobby Lee are abducted by menacing dudes while out shopping one day and taken back to a secluded island that the girls reluctantly tell the thugs that they last visited when they were ten years of age and that a fortune is located on. All that just pretty much bookends a movie that is pretty much one long flashback about the girls first visit to the island and subsequent fight with a cannibalistic family.<br /><br />This one is extremely horribly acted by everyone involved to the point that I started feeling bad for poor Hank Worden who truly deserved much MUCH better. As much as I didn't like "Barracuda" (that's on the same DVD) I have to admit that this film makes that one look like Citizen Kane.<br /><br />Eye Candy: one pair of tits (they might belong to Kirsten Baker) <br /><br />My Grade: F <br /><br />Dark Sky DVD Extras: Vintage ads for various drive-in food; and Trailers for "Bonnie's Kids" (features nudity), "the Centerfold Girls", "Part-time Wife" (features nudity), "Psychic Killer", & "Eaten Alive". The DVD also comes with 1978's "Barracuda"
Although, I had no earthly idea on what to expect from this movie, this sure as hell wasn't what I would have had in mind, had anything actually come to mind. Once I heard of its existence, all I knew was that I had to own a movie called Please Don't Eat The Babies. unfortunately, I could only find a copy under its alternate title, Island Fury. Looking back, I guess I could call it a lose-lose situation. On one hand, I still don't get to be known as the guy who owns a movie called Please Don't Eat The Babies, and on the other hand, Island Fury would ultimately reveal itself to be an awful, pointless, boring, unwatchable piece of garbage. Yeah, definitely lose-lose.<br /><br />I'm not even sure what genre they're going for here. Just early 80's badness, with a flashback that might actually be longer than the non-flashback. First up, two teenage girls are being chased by two bad guys, once caught, the bad guys bring to our attention that one of the girls have a coin on a string, around her neck, and somehow, these bad guys know of a lot more of these coins hidden on an island somewhere. And this is where things start to get weird, somehow these guys know of a trip the girls took to some island, years earlier, when they were only 10. I guess this is supposed to mean that the girls should know exactly where this alleged treasure is. So, now, we're in the past, while the girls try to retrace their steps, so these bad guys don't kill them, although, I wouldn't have minded if they had. In the flashback, the 10 year old counterparts are on a boat trip with their sisters and the sisters boyfriends, eventually stopping by an island for some air, they get mixed up with some kid and his killer grandparents. Any potential suspense or reasons to keep on watching never shows up, but the flashback was undeniably better than the present, which, still, isn't saying much.<br /><br />For a while there I had forgotten about the original story, At one point, I Ithought maybe the director had too, and when the flashback ended, that would be the end, which would have worked for me considering this disappointment would have been a half-hour shorter. This pointless movie within a pointless movie does eventually end, and real stuff does happen, but it's stupid. I guess I didn't exactly expect a movie filled with infants being devoured, or anything like that, but I did expect some form of outlandish B-entertainment, mostly just a confusing, inept storyline, unsure of its genre. My advice would be to seek out something worthwhile like Attack Of The Beast Creatures. If anyone, I would only recommend this one to serious B-movie collectors who must have them all, anyone else interested probably has brain damage. What really gets me is that I still have no idea why they called it Please Don't Eat The Babies. 3/10
Having seen men Behind the Sun I guess I hoped for an evolution in style & technique to match the larger scale of this movie. I was also quite interested to see someone make a hard-hitting fact-based fictionalised account of what happened during this most notorious of Japanese atrocities, but this is not it. This plays like a bottom-to-mid tier European Nazi exploitation movie from the 70s - e.g. SS Experiment Camp etc (perhaps more like Deported Women of the Special Section actually). Granted it has a greater scope and more people running around, but it resorts to the same cheap and cheerless device of lots of hapless non-actors limply falling over to the sound of ridiculously fake gunshots, spiced up with the occasional poorly executed 'shock' sequence. The admittedly horrible documentary footage is roughly spliced in between scenes so hackneyed that even these real images are robbed of much of their power. Watch channel 4's 'The Holocaust' (aired recently (still running?), as of 1 No 2006) for a genuinely disturbing documentary on the evils of war (featuring excellent in-context use of actual footage). This is the type of treatment the horror of Nanjing deserves, not this hackneyed exploitation garbage (a better executed exploitation movie minus the disrespectful use of stock footage would have been fine, but again this is not even a very good exploitation movie). Rating: 3 (5 as exploitation, 1 as a treatment of the subject).
I hate to sound like an 'old person', but frankly I haven't seen too many movies that I like that were made after 1960... generally, movies just seem to get worse and worse (although I quite enjoyed the Scott Baio vehicle "The Bread, My Sweet", except for the 'de rigeur' sex scene which added NOTHING of value to THAT movie). This movie makes the mother, a former Las Vegas chorus girl, seem to be incapable of surviving on her own, although she is clearly in her 50s (though hinted at being in her 40s). I didn't buy it. I'm 57 and like all the women I know in their 50s and 40s, more than capable of surviving on my own (as I have been doing since I graduated from high school at 13, got legally emancipated and set off on my own life's journey.) <br /><br />The daughter is not believable in her job role ... she gets a promotion she doesn't deserve (a great opportunity) and drops that ball too, but when another female employee steps up to the plate and is ready to deliver, the writers shoot her down as an 'opportunist', when she was just doing what any career-oriented person would do -- taking advantage of a wide-open opportunity created by the lack of self-discipline of her coworker, a girl who apparently doesn't understand the concept of honoring her promises (to her boss, in this case).<br /><br />The daughter grudgingly 'allows' her mother to stay with her, on a temporary basis, but then treats her mother (the woman who gave her Life and raised her to 'adulthood') like a pariah. Apparently the 'writers' of tripe like this do not understand that it is NOT 'the common thing' for PARENTS to act like children, and then be treated AS children by THEIR children. That is just more of the societal 'baloney' that Hollywood keeps trying to force down our throats as though we, their public, were stupid for desiring to be entertained by their creative offerings.<br /><br />This is a sad movie with a stupid ending. If the young male restauranteur had been real and not a two-dimensional 'tv character', he'd have stayed with the MOTHER, who was not that much older than him and quite attractive. But in the end he 'falls' for the daughter, a shallow, rather uninteresting girl who has that cuteness of youth, but in an ordinary, bland way. (The 'opportunist' young woman who worked with this nothing girl was far more attractive, physically.)<br /><br />There was no believable reason presented to the audience as to why the restauranteur preferred the daughter (who was an uptight, selfish, self-centered b*tch who treated her mother with unbelievable disrespect) to the mother -- a woman who was kindhearted, sweet-tempered, humorous, and had a joie de vivre the daughter could not even begin to comprehend. Of course the mother had her own flaws... she had reacted to her husband's demise by drinking herself into a stupor for a year or two afterwards which supposedly created the rift between her and her smarmy daughter.<br /><br />Regardless of the way the characters were or were not developed, this is a baloney movie and a waste of your valuable viewing time unless you actually LIKE baloney. (Where's the mustard?)
I wasn't expecting this to be a great movie, but neither was I expecting it to be so awful. I hated the mother character so much I had to turn the channel. I turned it back, hoping it was just one part of the movie, but no. And for the daughter to sit there take being embarrassed, or almost done out of a job, or driven to madness inside her own home? Are you kidding me? I was raised to respect (and even fear) my mother but I'd put her up fast in the nearest hotel if she proved that annoying in MY house. I was expected to follow a set of rules in my mother's house, after all.<br /><br />I didn't buy any of it. I tried giving it several chances, I really did. Sorry.
Carly Pope plays JJ, a newly promoted Food Critic whose flamboyant, overbearing mother moves in with her. JJ, aghast at this turn of events, then blackmails restaurant owner, Alex, to entertain her mother in exchange for "maybe" reviewing his dying restaurant. Alex predictably falls for the daughter while warming to the mother. There are numerous problems with this movie, the characters are universally 2-dimensional. JJ is a self-serving, hateful character, her mother superficial and shallow. JJ's colleagues at the magazine are bitchy and opportunistic. The underlying message of an over-50 woman unable to make it on her own, without male assistance is bad, bad, BAD. The acting is uniformly dull, the script uninspired. The films only saving grace is the setting of New York City. I would so NOT recommend this film.
Did HeidiJean really see this movie? A great Christmas movie? Not even close. Dull, bland and completely lacking in imagination and heart. I kept watching this movie wondering who the hell thought that Carly Pope could play the lead in this movie! The woman has no detectable personality and gives a completely lackluster performance. Baransky was great as usual and provided the only modicum of interesting the whole thing. Probably her involvement was the only reason this project was green lighted to begin with. Maybe I'm expecting too much for a Lifetime movie played 15 days from Christmas but I sat through this thing thinking that with a different director and a recasting JJ with an actress that at least could elicit sympathy this could have been quite a cute little movie.
This movie was so terrible it was almost good... almost. We love musicals, but not this one. Even with the terrible sound quality, poor cinematography, and many actors who can't sing or dance, Anthony Rapp actually managed to give a good performance (especially toward the end). The character Marjorie, a drunk lady, was enjoyable to watch, too. <br /><br />The plot is very unexpected and could have been funny without terrible singing and cheezy piano music. Admittadly, some of the songs (fantabulous) are pretty catchy (but not in a good way).<br /><br />Open House is a funny movie to watch simply because it is awful! We think it might be a good stage musical (with excellent actors).
the single worst film i've ever seen in a theater. i saw this film at the austin film festival in 2004, and it blew my mind that this film was accepted to a festival. it was an interesting premise, and seemed like it could go somewhere, but just fell apart every time it tried to do anything. first of all, if you're going to do a musical, find someone with musical talent. the music consisted of cheesy piano playing that sounded like they were playing it on a stereo in the room they were filming. the lyrics were terribly written, and when they weren't obvious rhymes, they were groan-inducing rhymes that showed how far they were stretching to try to make this movie work. and you'd think you'd find people who could sing when making a musical, right? not in this case. luckily they were half talking/half singing in rhyme most of the time, but when they did sing it made me cringe. especially when they attempted to sing in harmony. and that just addresses the music. some of the acting was pretty good, but a lot of the dialog was terrible, as well as most of the scenes. they obviously didn't have enough coverage on the scenes, or they just had a bad editor, because they consistently jumped the line and used terrible choices while cutting the film. at least the director was willing to admit that no one wanted the script until they added the hook of making it a musical. i hope the investors make sure someone can write music before making the same mistake again.
I feel totally ripped off. Someone needs to refund the $4.95 I spent at Blockbuster to rent this homemade mess. This is NOT a musical it is a complete waste of time and my evening. What I don't get is why did this get distributed in the first place???...somebody MUST have been doing some heavy drugs the night that deal was made. I've seen better films come out of film schools and I have been to film school so I can say that as a fact. The quality of this work is also just SO VERY bad to view...shot on DV??? Nuff said. The songs are not songs but just banter that sounds the same in every section. Want to see a good musical? THEN DON'T RENT THIS MOVIE.
So you might be reading some of the comments posted on this film, and you might be thinking to yourself, "Huh. There were sure a bunch of RAVE REVIEWS posted on December 30." Funny thing is, most of these rave reviews sound like they're coming from the same person, or at best a small, coordinated group of "Open House" groupies. The truth, my friends, is that this film is truly unwatchable. Just because it's "independent" doesn't mean it gets a free pass. If you're going to make a musical, whether on film or on stage, whether on Broadway or at the local community playhouse, you should probably make sure that (a.) your actors can sing, (b.) your actors can dance, (c.) you have decent sound equipment, (d.) you have a well-written score, and (e.) you have lyrics that are witty and charming. Even Anthony Rapp can't save this one. It's one of those unfortunate movie-going experiences where I actually felt deeply embarrassed for everyone involved.
The premise is amazing and the some of the acting, notably Sally Kellerman and Anthony Rapp, is charming... but this film is near unwatchable. The music sounds as if it comes from some sort of the royalty free online site and the lyrics as if they were written with a rhyming dictionary open on the lap. Most of the singing is off-key. I think they may have filmed with the singing accapella and put in the music under it... The dialogue is really stupid and trite. The movie works best when it is actually talking about the real estate but unfortunately it strays to often into stupid farcical sub-plots. I found myself checking my watch after ther first twenty minutes and after 40 wondering 'when is it ever going to end.'
In Texas, seven friends meet in a bar to celebrate the Halloween night before going to a party. Meanwhile, they call the American Nightmare pirate radio for fun and confess their innermost fears. A serial killer, who is listening to their confessions, makes their nightmares come true, killing each one of them in a sadistic way. "American Nightmare" is a weird low budget movie that has a horrible beginning: without any previous explanation, a woman kills two couples in an isolated camping area, as if it were Friday, 13th. Then, the story shifts to a bar, where seven friends are celebrating Halloween. From this moment on, the story has a great potential, and the unknown cast has a very reasonable performance, showing also some beautiful breasts and naked bodies, as usual in this type of C production. However, the end of the screenplay does not provide any explanation for the killing instinct and motives for the behavior of the nurse Jane Toppan, giving the sensation that the budget ended before the finalization of the shooting. With a better beginning and conclusion, this weird story would be a good low budget slasher movie. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Agonia" ("Agony")
When it comes to horror movies, I am more than willing to suspend disbelief, ignore sub-par production values, and overlook plot holes in the interest of a good scare. This movies simply has no good scares to offer. It can't even be enjoyed as camp. Bad dialogue, bad acting, bad direction, the kills were predictable and poorly staged, the music was annoying, the camera work was wretched, even the costumes were bad. I felt really bad for the actors, who were obviously trying, but who had to deal with terrible, contrived dialogue and an obvious lack of direction. I doubt they got any rehearsal, either. It's embarrassing to watch, and so boring than making it through to the contrived "surprise" ending requires tremendous endurance. It's quite easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen.<br /><br />I don't normally write reviews, but this one was so bad that I felt compelled to warn others. This movie is a complete waste of time. If you must watch this movie, don't miss the "Making of"-featurette. The writer/director seems to be under the impression that making the killer a woman was kind of bold, daring move. (Seen it.) He and the cast spend half an hour deconstructing this film as if it's a new-age "Citizen Kane." It's like listening to a group of third-graders take you behind the scenes of their Christmas pageant. They truly think they've created something of substance. It's sad, really… The only reason I gave this movie a "2" is because I think "1" should be reserved for true atrocities, like "Manos: Hands of Fate" and "Space Mutiny." So "American Nightmare" isn't the WORST movie I've ever seen, but I'd have to say that it's somewhere in the bottom fifty.
When I read the back of the DVD case, I thought that it sounded really interesting... so... I had my mom throw it into the pile of movies in the "4 for 20 dollars" section at Blockbuster. When we got home and popped in the movie... twenty minutes into it, we found ourselves turning to each other going "this sucks. Let's put in something else." I'll admit, a few of the lines from the friends at the café made us smile a little bit. But come ON, at least get some decent actors! Every once in a while in a movie, if the acting is bad and the movie isn't going at a painfully slow pace and actually seems interesting, I can gut it out and get a few laughs at how they're over(or under)doing their lines. But I can only take so much. Crying scenes looked like the actors were having hysterical fits of laughter, there was no delivery for their lines... amateur doesn't even come close to the acting in this film.<br /><br />Anyone who came on here saying that this film was good had to have been on some REALLY good drugs while they were watching the movie. It's the most pointless thing I've ever had the displeasure of watching. DO NOT WATCH OR BUY THIS MOVIE!!!!!
This movie had to be the worst horror movie I have ever seen. The acting was terrible, Horrible and cheesy and talk about a predictable plot! I will never watch this movie again nor will I recommend this movie to anyone. What a waste of time! First, as soon as the movie began I realized what I got myself into. All they did for this movie was copy scenes from many other horror movies out there and bunched them all into this one movie. The prank phone calls, halloween night, a psycho, and one knife! Its absolutely ridiculous. I was not scared at all during the movie, which I thought horror movies were supposed to do. As for the making of the movie, its pretty hilarious how they all talk about how this movie was so great and so scary. I mean how do you not realize that the movies is a cheap rip off of "Scary Movie" for example. At least get some good actors in there and then maybe it would have been pulled off as a good horror movie.
"American Nightmare" is officially tied, in my opinion, with "It's Pat!" for the WORST MOVIE OF ALL TIME.<br /><br />Seven friends (oddly resembling the K-Mart version of the cast of "Friends") gather in a coffee shop to listen to American Nightmare, a pirate radio show. It's hosted by a guy with a beard. That's the most exciting aspect of his show.<br /><br />Chandler, Monica, Joey, and... oh wait, I mean, Wayne, Jessie, and the rest of the bad one-liner spouting gang all take turns revealing their biggest fears to the bearded DJ. Unbeknownst to them, a crazed nurse/serial killer is listening...<br /><br />Crazy Nurse then proceeds to torture Ross and Rachel and... wait, sorry again... by making their fears come to life. These fears include such stunners as "voodoo" and being gone down on by old ladies with dentures.<br /><br />No. Really.<br /><br />This movie was, in a word, rotten. Crazy Nurse's killing spree lacks motivation, there's nothing to make the viewer "jump," the ending blows, and--again--voodoo?<br /><br />If you have absolutely no regard for your loved ones, rent "American Nightmare" with them.<br /><br />If you care for your loved ones--even a little bit--go to your local Blockbuster, rent all of the copies of "American Nightmare" and hide them in your freezer.
this movie is outrageous. by outrageous, i mean awful. i had more fun watching the paint dry at my local hardware store on an august day while suffering from a migraine and heat stroke. the acting got progressively worse as the "movie" advanced, and the directors use of euphoric drugs became apparent as the final scenes approached. when misty was shot to death she decided that it would be prudent to blink post mordem. that was not intelligent. truthfully, stevie wonder could have caught that with his eyes closed. if you are deciding between playing with a nail gun while intoxicated and watching this movie, bear in mind that the nail gun will probably give you a better story to tell your friends.
Without a doubt this is one of the worst films I've ever wasted money on! The plot is, erm sorry, did I say there was a plot? The scariest moment was when..., nope can't think of one! The best special effect that had me hiding under the bed covers was..., nope can't think of one for that either. You knew who the killer was right from the start. There was nothing scary about the whole movie, in fact the only two vaguely interesting bits were when you saw the kid sister, Misty, in the shower and when you saw Nurse Toppan take her top off. This film should only be watched to get an idea of how NOT to make a horror movie!!!
This piece ain't really worth a comment.. It's simply the worst "horror" movie i have ever seen. The actors are bad as bad can be and the whole plot is so silly it nearly made me cry. Shame on you I say!!
1st watched 11/07/2004 - 1 out of 10(Dir-Jon Keeyes): Over-the-top rehash of 70's supposed horror flicks like Friday the 13th(versions 1 thru whatever…). I can't think of much redeeming here except(or can I think of anything?)…The story revolves around a bunch of stupid people listening to a radio program one year after some kids were slayed in the woods as an 'homage' to this, supposedly. But, lo and behold, one of the stupid people, have connections to the actual event because her sister was one of the ones murdered(again, how stupid is this that she would even be a part of this). Guess what? The murderer is at it again and we're tipped off from the very beginning who it is(so there goes any mystery whatsoever). And besides all this, where are the 'cops' and why doesn't someone call them. I can't believe this movie was financed by someone and made. You would think that by now the American people would be judged a little higher, at least in their movie-going experience, but not so by this filmmaker.
Kirstie Alley, looking a bit slimmer, but only a bit, is in this mess along with a man who is a MacGuyver lookalike, bleached blond hair and all. The premise of the movie is about an older woman (50!!!) who cannot get her screenplay produced due to age discrimination so she sends in her younger nephew to pose as the writer. Not an original idea and not a very good movie with lousy acting, inane dialogue and a ridiculous plot. There is another plot concerning a writer with a crush or admiration for Kirstie's character and why this is included is a mystery. The actor who portrays Kirstie's brother is so wooden and miscast, it was torture to watch their scenes. What is there to say about this film. Avoid it.
The head of a common New York family, Jane Gail (as Mary Barton), works with her younger sister Ethel Grandin (as Loma Barton) at "Smyrner's Candy Store". After Ms. Grandin is abducted by dealers in the buying and selling of women as prostituted slaves, Ms. Gail and her policeman boyfriend Matt Moore (as Larry Burke) must rescue the virtue-threatened young woman.<br /><br />"Traffic in Souls" has a reputation that is difficult to support - it isn't remarkably well done, and it doesn't show anything very unique in having a young woman's "virtue" threatened by sex traders. Perhaps, it can be supported as a film which dealt with the topic in a greater than customary length (claimed to have been ten reels, originally). The New York City location scenes are the main attraction, after all these years. The panning of the prisoners behind bars is memorable, because nothing else seems able to make the cameras move. <br /><br />**** Traffic in Souls (11/24/13) George Loane Tucker ~ Jane Gail, Matt Moore, Ethel Grandin
Yes, The Southern Star features a pretty forgettable title tune sung by that heavy set crooner Matt Monro. It pretty much establishes the tone for this bloated and rather dull feature, stunningly miscast with George Segal and Ursula Andress as an adventurous couple in search of a large diamond. Add in Harry Andrews (with a strange accent, no less) chasing an ostrich, tons of stock footage of wildlife, and poorly composed and dull photography by Raoul Coutard, and you end up with a thoroughly unexciting romp through the jungles of Senegal.
Now, I flicked onto this just out of curiosity and had to keep watching - in the same way that you watch a car crash...<br /><br />I appreciate the fact it's a spoof, but that should not stop me from criticising the god-awful directing, acting and dialogue. Seriously, this rated as one of the poorest movies I have seen - it looked more like an episode of Tales from the Cryptkeeper, and a poor one at that...<br /><br />Okay - a few criticisms (1) when the doctor had his heart attack in front of the monster (we never see the monster attack him, so we assume its a heart attack), the army then launch shells, rockets, bullets at the monster - which was feet from the doctor - yet the doctor is not touched by any missile and is still alive (2) the army attack from about 100 yards away, and we see a flame-thrower being used - geez, those things have a range of no more than 30 metres! (3) when the monster tries to take the professor, the soldiers run into the classroom and fire into the ceiling; the monster drops the kid, and the soldiers don't try to shoot the monster??? come on! (4) the monster looks like it something out of Power Rangers! (5) there is one scene where the five "good guys" (the priest, the girl, the doctor, the reporter and the kid) all look shocked and we get reactions (along the lines of hand to mouth) one after the other - so natural! (6) the general just runs away, time after time (7) the general refuses to try electricity and wouldn't listen (8) the acting is awful (9) did I mention the rubber suit monster???? (10) that god-awful music, non-stop!
Wow, I just saw this on T.V. as one of the "scary" movies they show around Halloween. Was this rated G? There wasn't really anything to make this movie scary, or worth watching. Also, other people say this is a spoof, but I don't think so. For a spoof, you need something called "humor". This low-budget crap-fest didn't have a shred of humor, and it didn't make much sense, either. You basically have a goofy looking monster (man in rubber suit) coming out of closets, killing people, I guess, since you never see the monster doing violence to anyone or any bloody aftermath. The spinning newspaper tells you that people were killed by the monster, so I guess that's good enough.<br /><br />The military tries feebly to kill the monster, which isn't much larger than a man. They have very bad aim. Then the military FLEES! Wow, did this movie make the U.S. military look pathetic or what? The monster, while hard to kill, doesn't do much besides shuffle around and roar. Oh, and occasionally a second head pops out of its mouth and shrieks. It was a slightly interesting, yet a total Alien ripoff.<br /><br />What was the deal with the scientist playing the Xylophone to attract the monster? It was hard to understand a lot of the dialog due to the poor sound quality. Also, why did the monster carry around the main wimpy guy for so long? Why didn't the monster go into the closet when it had a chance? Why do I insist on trying to make sense out of the senseless?
This movie was terrible!I rented it not knowing what to expect.I watched the 1st 5 minutes and the movie and knew it was a bomb.The acting was bad and there was no plot.The monster is soooooo fake.It growls and its mouth doesnt move.Also why would they have a doctor playing a xylophone to kill the monster.Just plain bad don't even waste your time.(1 out of 10)
I saw this movie in the theater when I was a kid and always remember it as my first experience with getting ripped off by a horrible movie with a good commercial. The commercial was great, but it I found out later that it had every explosion or 'special effect' in the entire movie (about 4) and even some that weren't in the movie. There was some sort of plot relating to the aliens but the aliens were never actually shown in the movie as far as I remember. It was clearly a case of someone making a buck off a cheap movie designed to scam people. I guess my world of innocence ended that day, when I found out there were bad people out there who make bad bad movies.
The Earth is destined to be no more thanks to Father Pergado and a bunch of Nuns. Christopher Lee (who has since said that he was duped in to appearing in this by his producers who told him loads of great actors were involved) is Father Pergado and gets to do his usual serious and scary routine. The cast are not too bad, though most have now retired from acting. The film has terrible sound effects (mainly created from pressing keys on an old computer it seems) and it ridiculously pondering at times - showing a scene of the sky, for instance, for what feels like hours at a time. Despite this the story is pretty humorous in a world-is-doomed sort of way and the production is adequate. Interestingly one scene features Albert Band and wife Jackie; Meda Band; Writer Frank Ray Perilli and Charles Band's assistant Bennah Burton. Despite its plodding nature I genuinely wanted to see how it all worked out and thus quite liked it.
This film had a great cast going for it: Christopher Lee, Dean Jagger, Macdonald Carey, Lew Ayres -- solid b-movie actors all. But this downer of a movie didn't use any of them to any sort of advantage, with none of their characters even meeting on screen (though Christopher Lee does get to play opposite himself in several scenes).<br /><br />The motivations for the aliens in this movie seem to change at the drop of a hat. First, they just want to repair their ship and leave, then they turn on the main character by killing most of his friends and not releasing his wife after he gets them the crucial part they need. Then, out of nowhere, this "peaceful" race decides they have to destroy the planet because it causes too many "diseases" (though they do offer the main character and his wife a spot in their society).<br /><br />Most of the film is spent watching the man and wife drive or walk or stand around or sit at desks doing nothing. You almost wish they had gotten taken out with the rest of the planet at the end, just in vengeance for boring us to death.<br /><br />Unless you really like Chris Lee or seventies low-budget sci-fi, I'd give this one a miss. It falls into that narrow range of wasted celluloid between Star Odyssey and UFO: Target Earth.
Your mind will not be satisfied by this no—budget doomsday thriller; but, pray, who's will? A youngish couple spends the actual end of the world in the hidden laboratory of some aliens masquerading as Church people.<br /><br />Small _apocalyptically themed outing, END OF THE WORLD has the ingenuity and the lack of both brio and style of the purely '50s similar movies. And it's not only that, but EOTW plays like a hybrid—not only doomsday but convent creeps as well. The villain of the movie is a well—known character actor.<br /><br />This wholly shameless slapdash seems a piece of convent—exploitation, that significantly '70s genre which looks today so amusingly outdated. Anyway, the convent's secret laboratory is some nasty piece of futuristic deco! Christopher Lee is the pride of End of the World; but the End of the World is not at all his pride!
It's got Christopher Lee, it's got huge banks of 1970s computers that make Teletype noises as letters appear on the screen, it's got radioactive isotopes that not only glow in the dark but emit pulsing thrumming noises, it's got volcanoes! evil aliens disguised as nuns! tidal waves! earthquakes! exploding cars! exploding coffee machines! and as a climax the entire planet blows up. How on earth does this film managed to be so incredibly, mind-numbingly DULL? The answer, my friend is because 90% of this movie is made up of establishing shots, most of them involving long tracks, pans, or zooms in combinations, or occasionally all three, that do nothing except give the crew something to do. There are endless shots of our protagonists driving, getting in and out of cars, driving again, walking around looking at stuff, getting in cars and driving... I just sat there watching endless parade of nothingness in stupefaction muttering "Say something, please somebody, just say something... DO something... anything!..."<br /><br />The dialogue, when it does come, is terrible.<br /><br />"Maybe their minutes are measured on a different scale than ours." was a typically meaningless line. The script culminates in the destruction of the world by stock footage, justified in this speech from Lee as the head alien:<br /><br />"The planet Earth has emitted an over-abundance of diseases, they are contaminating the Universe. All the planets light years away from here will suffer unless it is destroyed!" <br /><br />This is is Neanderthal SF script writing. This is the sort of motivation you find in the sort of 1950's Japanese monster suit movies aimed at 7 year olds. It is, and I collect such things, the most god-awful line from an English language SF movie since Buster Crabbe retired. It beggars belief that this movie was released in the same year as Star Wars and Close Encounters.<br /><br />Lee, who always struck me as a smart, useful actor with a sure knowledge of his limits, delivers his lines as if he is going to kill his agent for getting him into this pile of drek. I don't blame him.
Spoilers<br /><br />Wow, END OF THE WORLD is a singularly underwhelming cinematic experience.<br /><br />Here is the full story: a scientist is getting messages from space (a la INDEPENDENCE DAY). The messages say stuff like a massive disaster is about to happen and then the scientist hears later on the radio that a huge earthquake just happened in China. He starts thinking that the messages have something to do with the disasters around the world so he's trying to figure out who's receiving the messages (and who's also sending out messages in space). He and his wife eventually figure out that the messages come from a convent. They visit it. Everything looks normal, including the priest played by a bored Christopher Lee. But the scientist is adamant and really believes that the messages are coming from and going to that convent. So he and his wife secretly go back to the convent where they are caught snooping around by the aliens, disguised as priests and nuns. They are held against their will and the alien played by Lee forces the scientist to get something they need in order for them to return to their planet. Once the alien get the special element, the aliens all depart one by one to their home planet in some sort of tacky looking transporter platform. Lee, being the last alien left, tells the couple that the earth will be destroyed because of some sort of hokey decision by the aliens. Lee walks in the transporter and he's gone. The couple, looking at the monitors that show stock footage of natural disasters occurring all over the world, decide to follow the aliens. Because earth is doomed, the couple doesn't see any point of staying behind so they walk in the transporter and disappear. The last shot of the movie is a papier mache planet earth exploding. The end.<br /><br />That's it. <br /><br />I've never seen such a dull movie in my life. It's the most underwhelming movie I've ever experienced. The scientist and his wife are two of worst heroes or protagonists ever put on screen. They don't care about anything. They see the earth disasters on the monitors and decide "what the heck, who needs earth anyway?" They don't even try to stop them or do something to make things better. This kind of story might have worked if the film had an overwhelming sense of doom to everything but the action and atmosphere are nonexistent. The actors and the folks behind this dull flick are going through their paces, so much so that you can almost feel when they punched their cards when they got off and returned to work. I wasn't expecting much with this movie because it IS a Charles Band production, but I didn't expect it to be this bad.<br /><br />Christopher Lee was once asked what was his worst film he ever made and he mentioned STARSHIP INVASIONS. Well, I'm sorry Chris but STARSHIP INVASIONS was actually goofy fun. STARSHIP INVASIONS is terrible but terribly entertaining. END OF THE WORLD is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH worst: it's beyond dull and inert, with NO entertainment value whatsoever.
Christopher Lee is one of my favorite actors! I'm trying to view all of his work. He has been known to single-handedly save movies with his presence. Unfortunately, this is not one of them. This movie suffers from a low budget and it's production values are disturbing. Please...for the love of Christopher....avoid this film!
"A scientist discovers signals from space that appear to carry information concerning a series of seemingly unrelated natural disasters, occurring across the globe. Hoping to discover the source of these signals and who's behind them, the scientist and his wife set out on a trek to locate the intended recipient of the signals. What the couple eventually discovers is a small remote convent with occupants who are not really who they appear to be," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />Kirk Scott (as Andrew Boran) is the scientist who intercepts alien messages on his computer. He suspects a series of "Large Earth Disruptions" may be connected to the weird space static. Mr. Scott and pretty blonde wife Sue Lyon (as Sylvia Boran) investigate the mysterious signals from outer space. They discover priestly, but creepy Christopher Lee (as "Father Pergado"), and other silliness. Given that, "End of the World" is remarkably dull. <br /><br />*** End of the World (1977) John Hayes ~ Kirk Scott, Sue Lyon, Christopher Lee
A good deal of running around. A badly conceived adversary with very little complexity. A scientist who works in communications sending off signals into space and receiving them, gets caught up with aliens. Along with his pretty wife, he invades their territory and is given secrets about them. He becomes rather traitorous in the process. Granted, he is given little choice anyway. There is a scene where he gives them everything they want. This is a dull movie with lots of long stretches where little happens. The plot isn't technically bad. It's just that we are usually following a car, a trip through a woods, investigating a building. This is what editing is all about. I suppose the story wouldn't technically support much more. Not much here.
Dull, cheap sci-fi thriller, made with an almost total lack of conviction (a control room full of computers and other devices used to receive and decipher messages from outer space is run by only ONE MAN, and is VERY poorly guarded at night), and full of campy sound effects. Christopher Lee is not only wasted, but he also gives one of his few "I'm here strictly for the money" performances. (*1/2)
What can I say about this film other than "don't see it". I waited and waited and WAITED for someting (or anything) to happen and it just didn't come. Watch amazingly as two people walk around while setting the record for most filler screen time in a single movie. What are they doing? Are they solving a mystery? Are they gathering clues? Possibly, it's just hard to tell. At the end of the movie, after a lot of radio signals are decoded (illegibly on some sort of PET monitor) and this guy gives some lectures, the plot is finally revealed and tossed aside as quickly as possible. Some aliens want to get back to their home world utopia and are so happy there that they want to blow up the earth (I guess they don't like sharing the wealth). My guess is they finished filming and saw their 35 minute work or art (garbage!) and decided that they'd let the editing crew turn it into an 88 minute feature film. Watch at your own peril, it's not even funny because it's so bad, it's just bad.
end of the world looks like a good movie on the box cover but be warned its bad.being a big fan of mega star actor Christopher lee i was fooled. like tentacles(77)a good cast does not mean it'll be a good film.the beginning looks promising then it turns to tedium,many parts of the movie are too dark to see whats going on.the rest of the cast is shown briefly like;Lew ayres,dean Jagger,and MacDonald Carey as a security guard.i would expect better from Charles band who made good fun movies like the re-animater and dolls.i heard Christopher lee was tricked into making this film.he was told his co stars were going to be Jose ferrer,john carridine,and dean Jagger.well dean Jagger is there but the other two never made it(lucky them)if you make a movie about the end of the world use a bigger budget and better storyline.dean Jagger went on to do two good movies afterwards;alligator(80)and game of death(79) sue Lyon(Lolita)is also in the movie minus her lollipop.if you are a glutton for punishment then watch end of the world i dare you to say awake during the whole movie.1 out of 10.
This is one of the most boring movies I have ever seen, its horrible. Christopher Lee is good but he is hardly in it, the only the good part is the opening scene.<br /><br />Don't be fooled by the title. "End of the World" is truly a bad movie, I stopped watching it close to the end it was so bad, only for die hard b-movie fans that have the brain to stand this vomit.
End of the World is an uneventful movie, which is odd since it is supposed to be about the total destruction of the earth. The main character is some kind of scientist, I'm not exactly sure what kind. He has two jobs at a government(?) facility guarded by four security men. His first job is monitoring transmissions to and from space (although this actually seems more like a hobby he does when not working on job #2). Job #2 requires him to put on a protective suit and go into a dark room...at least that's the best I can figure. Apparently the "plant" is not exactly top-secret, as the scientist brings his wife there. She hangs out (they're on their way to a dinner) while he discovers a message from space: Major Earth Disruption, repeated over and over. He says something about it being the first message from space he's ever been able to decipher; his wife tells him they're going to be late for the dinner party. So they leave and go to the party (!?!). Moments later he finds out that China has suffered a major earthquake. From there, the movie goes... nowhere! Yes, Christopher Lee is in it, but that really doesn't help much. Besides, Lee gives a lackluster performance along the lines of his appearance in Howling II. This movie is boring, but it has enough stupid elements that you might want to suffer through it once if you like Christopher Lee or Z-grade sci-fi. Plus, there's lots of stock footage of the earth being destroyed.
I expected alot from this movie. Kinda like Lee as a Naustradamous like caracter but instead all I got was a waste of time and a boring movie. I can't even explain this movie. It had wooden acting, terrible script from pieces from the Bible like hurricanes, tidal waves and earthquakes. But that was at the end! The rest of it I had to wait and hope that something meaningfull would happen but it didn't. This movie is about a couple that tries to find out the changes going on in the world like places in China where there was an earthquake and end up at a convent run by eight nuns and a priest. The convent end up being the key to the misshappenings. The whole movie is missleading and boring. One of Lees worst.
I work as a hotel concierge in Washington DC and take my word, there was nothing remotely accurate about the character played by Michael J. Fox- # 1 we simply do not walk around with our pockets bursting with theater tickets and $100 bills! #2 If I ever let anybody use a room for some 'afternoon delight' time I'd be fired on the spot! The organization to which I belong (Les Clefs d'Or) has very definite standards of ethics and conduct that we take seriously. #3 Similarly untrue was the concept, at the end of the movie, of Doug simply removing his gold key emblem and passing it on to some other employee- we earn those keys and it is a badge of honor and knowledge to be allowed to wear them. There is a whole application and vetting process to joining our organization.<br /><br />This film does nothing to dispel the unfortunate perception of a concierge as nothing but a money grubbing mercenary. In short it does a disservice to our organization. I welcome any comments.
This is the biggest pile of crap I have ever watched. DO NOT RENT! The makers of this movie should be band from ever making another movie. It starts with some what of a plot, then fades fast to nothing. I think I would rather watch paint dry then to as much as looking at the cover. The actors were awful, the plot faded fast, filming left to much work to be done. Not one good thing to say about this crap movie. If you rent this movie you will waste your money. I really enjoy National Lampoon movies, but this was a waste of time. Learn to write, learn to act, learn to produce, and learn to direct. I feel I should sue these a-holes that made this movie for money wasted on rental cost and time lost.
This movie was made by a bunch of white guys that went to school together. Well there's nothing wrong with that, except it looks like it was made by a bunch of white guys that went to school together. 90 percent of the cast are white males about same age. It's almost like watching a bunch of guys at boys camp who turned the camera on themselves. The movie has no plot. It simply repeats the same action of blood bath after blood bath. There are some funny scenes and comedic bits. But they don't redeem the flat monotony.<br /><br />The graphic cartoon scenes are used to cover the stuff that was obviously beyond their budget or resources to do, and not done very well at that. Anything that can't be done with white guys running around on the beach covered in blood is done with cheap animation.<br /><br />I went to see this film after seeing the trailer, which makes it look like a Tarrentino piece. Well, the trailer scenes are as good as they ever get. Ther rest of it just repeats the same kind of mundane, inane comedy. It works at times, but it gets boring after the same stuff comes at you over and over. It's more like a string of Satuday Night Live skits than a movie. It's a hit-you-over-the-head-with-it kind of comedy. I can see where the story idea is intriguing. But, in this film post apocalyptic America is much like Medevil England. In fact Wheatlry says the story ideas came from that era. He plans to make a Part 2. I guess he thinks he's Tarrentino or maybe doing a parody thing.<br /><br />At the opening in LA, Wheatley mentioned he will bring back pretty much the same cast in part 2. He was asked if he might consider a more diverse cast in the next one, to which he replied, well yea, sure.
This is an incomprehensible horribly low budget piece of awfulness.<br /><br />I don't even have the vocabulary to say how dire, turgid, boring, confusing, and just plain strange this effort is (Hey what d'ya know I do....) Set in a post-Apocalyptic America some guys meet on a beach and slaughter and chaos ensue - it was all so incomprehensible I couldn't make head or tail of any of it.<br /><br />Seriously how this got picked up by National Lampoon totally defeats me: it really is awful.<br /><br />And not in a its so bad it's good cult way.<br /><br />It is just awful, awful, awful, awful.<br /><br />Honestly. If you still don't believe me then watch it with every intention of loving it then come back here and tell me what you think. Even gerbils on acid couldn't hope to understand this.<br /><br />Avoid or even better destroy...
I love all types of films, especially horror. That being said, Survival does not live up to ANY of the hype surrounding it.<br /><br />I can't give it any points on originality. There is nothing wrong with exploring the same themes, or remaking what others have done. It has just become a cop out for indie films to take us on a slasher journey through the woods, a crazed killer, and as of lately, throw in some crazy family. On those lines I have to compare it with the likes of Texas Chainsaw, Wrong Turn (though the twist in that one is obvious), and others. Survival falls up way short against comparable films. The plot was just not original in ANY way. Some films can get by with a weak (and way over-done) plot with superb acting, special fx, or a slew of other factors. Survivial doesn't have any of that to bank on. If you will, note the following: The acting in the movie never took off. I don't knock or blame the actors for that, nor the director. The dialogue was at best mediocre, and the actors involved never showed (not saying didn't HAVE) the talent to pull it off. I mention 2 standouts. The leading man in this film certainly has the look, but I seriously thinks he needs to consider more training before he is ready to carry a film. The actor who portrayed Greg also had potential, but we never got to see any of it (watch the movie to see why, you won't believe it..).<br /><br />The grainy film look. Ah yes, that little tid-bit of film making magic designed to take us to the glory days of "Grindhouse" films. In today's film making, that has become a gimmick. It either works or it doesn't. In this case it just does not work. There are too many other flaws going on, so it winds up distracting from the film, not adding to it. That being said, I think they did a good job of adding that grain. That is some good, quality grain. I think with a different script, better direction, and possibly actors, they should try another "Grindhouse" attempt. They will probably pull it off.<br /><br />As far as the tech aspects, in my opinion, they never quite gelled for me either. Better care could have been taken with audio (sounds like it was fed directly into the camera, but there is nothing wrong with that) and for being shot on DV, it was too soft for my taste.<br /><br />That is all I have to say about that.....
I think the Croc Hunter is a pretty cool guy! I know I wouldn't have the nerve to go even 5 feet away from a croc.<br /><br />But, everything in this movie is bad. Farting jokes, people getting eaten, and the skit about the President all make the movie one of the worst of all time.<br /><br />It's a really bad film that you have to stay away from. All the "jokes" are so juvenile that you will find yourself laughing because they are so stupid. The plot is so bad that you wonder if the screenwriter is 4 years old.<br /><br />I'm surprised the Croc Hunter did not beg the crocodile to eat him after he saw this.
On Steve Irwin's show, he's hillarious. He doesn't even try to be funny and he just is but his movie wasn't even what I would call a movie-I mean when that guy on his car is trying to kill him he's just saying 'Oh, this is one nasty bloke!' and looking straight into the camera. He put his face in the camera too much! And then when the guy falls off the car wouldn't you expect him to be dead? And Terri had the worst acting I'd ever seen! Like when the crocodile almost ate Steve she just says 'Steve'. She didn't sound scared or anything, it was just 'Steve'. I mean I hate to sound mean but that was not worth seeing. I love Steve Irwin but his movie was just too stupid.
A difficult film to categorize. I was never giving it 110% concentration & consequently as simple as the plot appeared I couldn't say for certain exactly who was doing what amongst the American FBI characters & what their roles were. Nor could I take the Irwins seriously as film characters when their lines & scenes were all in the style of one of his shows, not acted out.<br /><br />This is nothing more than a glorified episode of a Discovery TV show, with a largely insignificant sub plot going on, which just seemed to get in the way. However as any Irwin show is always worth a watch, this film is well worth a look too, but not on Christmas Day. Talking of which, I've better things to do too than be on here.<br /><br />A high 4/10
I would love to have that two hours of my life back. It seemed to be several clips from Steve's Animal Planet series that was spliced into a loosely constructed script. Don't Go, If you must see it, wait for the video ...
If you like bad movies, this is the one to see. It's incredibly low-budget special effects (you'll see what I mean) and use of non-actors was what gave this film it's charm. If you're bored with a group of friends, I highly recommend renting this B movie gem. It's mulletrific!
I notice that the previous reviewer (who appears to be still at school) gave this movie a very good review and I can only assume that this is because the reviewer hasn't seen the far superior 1989 BBC adaptation of this classic novel. The major problem I had with this (1999) version was the casting of Anthony Way as Tom Long. Anthony Way was a talented boy treble who shot to fame after appearing in the TV mini-series "The Choir". I can only assume that he was cast for the role of Tom Long on the strength of his excellent acting in "The Choir". Unfortunately the small boy who appeared in "The Choir" had grown into a tall and gangly youth by the time "Tom's Midnight Garden" was filmed and as such Anthony fails to convince as schoolboy Tom. It is too far a stretch of the imagination to believe that Tom (as played by Anthony) would befriend the far younger Hatty. In the 1989 BBC version Tom and Hatty are much closer in age and the development of their friendship is so much more believable. For a 1999 movie even the special effects fail to convince and are not any noticeable improvement on the 1989 TV effects. The casting and acting of this version are inferior to the earlier adaptation and all in all the movie was a lack lustre version of a true classic. As a final observation I would point out that the VHS of the 1989 BBC version fetches well over £20.00 second hand whereas a new DVD of this version can be bought for under £5.00, need I say more?
I have absolutely no knowledge of author Phillipa Pearce or any of her novels and if TOM`S MIDNIGHT GARDEN is typical of her work I probably would have had little interest in her books as a child . When I was a child I wasn`t really interested in litreture unless it had soldiers fighting monsters complete with a high body count <br /><br />Judging by this film version of TOM`S MIDNIGHT GARDEN I guess Pearce writes for lower middle class kids since much of the story of revolves around protagonist Tom Long moving to a house with no garden then suddenly finding a metaphysical one . Having a garden of your own was no doubt something that working class people didn`t have in the 1950s so I guess there`s some political class ridden subtext there somewhere . There`s also a romance involving a young girl called Hattie but again are cynical kids amoured by love stories ? Perhaps the worst criticism is that very little in the way of excitement or adventure happens within the narrative <br /><br />This is a childrens film that seems dated by its source . It`s inoffensive but I`m surprised by its high rating by the IMDB voters . I wonder how many of them would have given it so many high marks if they were 10 year olds who`d just seen the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy ?
Elvis has left the building and he's lucky because he didn't have to watch this unfunny stinker. Scene after scene director Joel Zwick finds ways to make an unfunny script even less amusing. Filled with unfunny deaths, trite gay characteratures, and hack jokes, this film is more desperate than amusing. This is the sort of film that makes one hope Kim Basinger follows Doris Day into premature retirement. Let us remember her the way she was (talented) and not what she's become. David Leisure, the delicious Dennis Richards and the rest are all wasted talents here. Zwick finds a way to minimize their talents at every turn. The guy playing Elvis sounds more like Gomer than the King.The only really good bit of casting is the young girl who plays Basinger as a preteen. She really looks like her and is actually pretty good. The only other reason to watch this film at all is to look for the Tom Hanks cameo. The cameo isn't all that funny, but at least its not painful. One has to wonder if Zwick has incriminating pictures of Hanks or something that would make him do this movie.
OMG! The only reason I'm giving this movie a 2 instead of a 1 is because Tom Hanks is funny as an Elvis-in-the-box. Apart from that, how did this halfway decent cast sign on to do such a lame movie?? Maybe it seemed like a good idea at the time... There are no laughs to mention, the stereotypes are pathetic, the cast is wasted, the direction is amateurish. Now that I think about it, most of the blame probably lies with the director, Joel Zwick. He brings out nothing but flat performances from all involved. Don't waste your time like I did; but then, I enjoy a good train wreck. Geez, now the system is telling me I need more lines-- here ya go: This movie should be called Return to Sender. Okay, now THAT was funnier than anything in the movie...
My main comment on this movie is how Zwick was able to get credible actors to work on this movie? Impressive cast – even for the supporting characters, none of which helps this movie really. I have to admit though, Tom Hank's cameo almost made it worth it – what was that about Tom? Did you lose a bet? The best cameo of the movie was Joe Isuzu though - by far a classic! The premise is good. Basinger's character, struggling with existence as a Pink Lady, is making her way toward Vegas motel by motel pitching the glorious pyramid of cosmetic sales. This happens as Corbett's character is on his way to Vegas to deliver an Elvis suit to his soon to be ex-wife motivated by….what else….extortion. As they both make their way, they have numerous run-ins with Elvis impersonators who on their way to an Elvis impersonating convention in Vegas. Soon, the FBI gets involved and begins to track what they think is an Elvis impersonator serial killer. Unfortunately, premise doesn't mean the movie was good.<br /><br />When watching this movie, imagine you are back in the first grade – when story lines and continuity aren't really important. It is much more enjoyable to just watch Basinger look beautiful in her Pink Lady outfit rather than wondering why what she is doing doesn't really make sense. The movie tries hard, but ultimately falls way way way short. Ultimately, it is filled with ideas that could have theoretically been funny but in practice were not that funny.<br /><br />It isn't the worst, but you may find you yourself feel like leaving the building when watching this one…… Don't say I didn't warn you!
Darkly comic serendipity about a cosmetics saleswoman, with odd ties to Elvis Presley, running into a sea of Elvis impersonators while speaking at conventions in Nevada...and accidentally killing each one of them through little fault of her own. Kim Basinger, a still-attractive actress of considerable merit, likes to pick quirky movies to play in, but this dreadful screenplay (by Mitchell Ganem and Adam-Michael Garber) hasn't an iota of good humor. The stereotypes and low-ball gags are not meant to be the stuff of classic comedy, but even on a shambling, shameful level, the picture is crude and sloppy. If you do watch, see if you can count how much extraneous shots there are of Basinger behind the wheel of her pink Cadillac, hands always in the same position and a non-plussed look on her face. Hopefully both she and Elvis were well paid. NO STARS from ****
Being an Elvis fan, I can't understand how this proyect could be done. Is by far the worst Elvis related movie of all time, totally unfunny, silly and plenty of mistakes about The King. Come on, Elvis' grave in a public park? A mention about Suspicious Minds in 1958?...and these are just two examples. Some people in the cast tries to do their best, Mike Starr is funny (specially as an impersonator), the Tom Hanks cameo is a surprise, but the guy playing the young Elvis sucks.Overall the movie lacks fun and becomes more boring minute after minute. If you want to see an ultra cheap, insane but absolutely funny little film related to Elvis, I truly recommend you "Bubba Ho-Tep" instead of this mess.
I saw this movie on a westbound American Airlines flight. It was so bad it actually made the flight seem longer. The plot had potential (who wouldn't love a movie about a woman who accidentally kills every Elvis impersonator she meets?) but it got screwed up a million different times by really poor writing. Towards the end is an embarrassingly bad scene where a gang of Elvis impersonators is on the roof of a casino reshipping the sky thinking he's going to return, then a group of stars moves together to form an "Elvis" constellation, which promptly shoots a bolt of lightning at the impersonators, sending them crashing through the roof. Bad...REALLY bad. Which is the theme for the whole movie. I'd avoid this one at all costs.
One of the worst films I have ever seen. How to define "worst?" I would prefer having both eye balls yanked out and then be forced to tap dance on them than ever view this pitiful dreck again. Somehow, One-Hit Wonder Zwick manages a film that simultaneously offends Elvis fans, Mary Kay saleswomen, Las Vegas, gays, FBI agents and the rest of humanity with any intelligence with a shoddy, sloppy farce so forced it deserves to be forsaken ed. How Elvis Presley Enterprises could allow the rights of actual Elvis songs to be used in a film with a central premise that seems to be "The only good Elvis Presley Imitator is a dead one" is beyond me. The worst part of this mess - and that takes some work - is the mangled script: In 1958, Elvis' words and songs that he would speak/perform in the 1970's are quoted! Worst special effect? That Oscar would go to the moron who decided that Elvis' grave, potentially the most photographed/recognizable grave in the world, resembles a pyramid with a gold record glued atop and is situated in the middle of a park somewhere. Potentially, this film's biggest audience would be Elvis fans. However, the rampant stupidity (Nixon gave Elvis a DEA badge, not FBI credentials...and I could go on and on) actually undercuts THAT conventional wisdom. Ugh. I used the word "wisdom" to describe this stupid movie. This is truly a horrible, horrible film.
The film is poorly casted, except for some familiar old Hollywood names. Other performances by unknown names (i.e., Jennifer Gabrielle) are uninspiring. I have seen other films by this director, unfortunately this is one of his worst. Perhaps this is a reflection of the screenplay? <br /><br />In a positive note, Kim Bassinger's and Pat Morita's performance saved the movie from oblivion. I enjoyed Pat more in Karate Kid, though. There are many good movies to see, and in short, this one is not one of them. Save your money and the celluloid. <br /><br />Jason Vanness
It has a great name, but thats it and you wont get more than that for your money, in fact the first 30-40mins of the movie you might find it some kind of funny but after that the story goes from one side to another with no particular reason and you just cant understand whats happening until the action its gone.<br /><br />And yet the producers (Roberto Angel Salcedo) calls him an actor, but i don't think the way he does could be called nothing but overacting!!....period. The little kid who plays as his son has totally no sense of acting and i believe it was just a favor he did or something because he had no clue of what he was doing.<br /><br />For some reason while doing the casting they thought that by casting comedians they could made it, but they didn't!! and sometimes the tasteless cheap humor its so bad, i don't buy it.<br /><br />But hopefully this is as bad as it gets. To make people accept those DVD's to the good taste public they will have to offer some food with it, that might work out.<br /><br />Maka
I was very disappointed by this film for a few reasons. For the first half hour it's actually pretty decent. Although the acting isn't any better then that which you would find in a rap video, its kinda funny and the production value doesn't seem half bad. In fact I almost thought this would be almost as good as Perico Ripiao (another recent Dominican film) which turned out to be MUCH MUCH better than I expected. The plot for the movie revolves around not just cheating husbands but how women are viewed and treated in Dominican society as a whole, which makes for a good premise especially in The Dominican Republic. Unfortunately I don't think the makers of this film relies that a good movie is all about how you treat your subject matter, and they f'ing butchered the veal cutlet they had before them. About 30 minutes into the movie the roles of men and women are reversed after the main characters wife puts a kind of spell on him as a result of his cheating habits. Not only does this transition happen via what look to be cutting edge, space age, CGI effects dating to what I'm guessing would be the 70's, but the whole plot just goes down the drain. The rest of the movie is nothing but cheesy predictable situations, and clever one liners. To top it all off (and I guess I should warn you now **SPOILER ALERT**) it all turns out to be a dream. Oh my who didn't see that coming? Oh man I almost forgot the most ridiculous thing about the movie. Well after about an hour into it I start thinking "…hmmmm something just doesn't seem right about the sound track but what can it be??" …and then it hits me HALF OF THE MUSIC IN THE MOVIE WAS TAKEN FROM A VIDEO GAME CALLED KING OF FIGHTER 95.<br /><br />When oh when DR will you give us a film we can call a work of art?!?! Perhaps a comedy to match France's Amelie, or an action flick to match Thailand's Ong-Bak, an animation as Akira was to Japan, a witty crime thriller as Layer Cake was to England, or a socio-awakening journey as Waking Life had here in the states.<br /><br />...i would give it a 1 but i've seen much worse come out of DR, search Los Jodedores and you'll know what I'm talking about.
I sincerely consider this movie as another poor effort of Dominican Movie Industry. The first 30 minutes of the movie are a little funny but then when they switch their role in the society (men doing what women usually do and women doing what men usually do) the movie falls. Becoming boring and not funny at all. They let many things without explanation and the end of the movie is predictable. I didn't like the way as a Roberto Angel played his character and his little either. I went to the movies theater hoping to see a good work but I went out really disappointed.<br /><br />I don't recommend this movie.
<br /><br />I would highly recommend seeing this movie. After viewing it, you will be able to walk out of every other bad movie EVER saying "at least it wasn't The Omega Code."<br /><br />Forget my money, I want my TIME back!
I'm a Christian. I have always been skeptical about movies made by Christians, however. As a rule, they are "know-nothings" when it comes to movie production. I admire TBN for trying to present God and Jesus in a positive and honest way on the screen. However, they did a hideous job of it. The acting was horrible, and unless one is familiar with the Bible in some fashion, one COULD NOT have understood what the movie was trying to get across. Not only was the movie terribly made, but the people who made it even had some facts wrong. However, in this "critique", those facts are irrelevent and too deep to delve into. In short, the Omega Code is the absolute worst movie I have ever seen, and I would not recommend it to anyone, except for comic relief from the every day grind.
I am a youth pastor's wife and we took some youth to see this film. We then spent an hour trying to explain it to them. They didn't get it and I didn't enjoy it. It is based on a concept that has run through all three of the major religions of the world (the Bible Code, the Torah Code and the Code in the Koran) and is so questionable as to be laughable. This is not a step forward for Christians in the arts, it is a step forward for those who believe we check our brains at the door.
The Omega Code was a model of cinematographical inconsistency. There was a bit (but precious little) of good acting, primarily by the two prophets and Rostenberg, who only appeared once and had no lines. Otherwise the acting was decidedly bad. The plot line was rather weak, and only partially based on already questionable Biblical interpretation. Certainly not one of the year's best.
I went to see the Omega Code with a group of other Christians totaling about 15 people. We all expected a good piece of Christian film-making. What we got was an excruciatingly painful, drawn-out, and pretty boring attempt at a film. It has good looking production values but also has poor acting, a weak script with lousy dialogue, and no real sense of direction. From the first 15 minutes we all knew it would be a long night. We all hated it, and some people in our group placed this movie as reeking of more cheese than "Anaconda." None of us could believe that the movie lasted less than 2 hours. Flashy effects and crisp looking cinematography can't save this bad, bad movie. I'd give it a 3 out of 10, and the rating is only that high because I rented the abominable "movie" Werewolf (1996) the night before I saw this movie.
I should have known I was in trouble with Casper Van Diem as the lead character. Words cannot describe, nor do they do justice to just how terrible this movie was. But please allow me to try to describe it: Horrible acting, terrible dialog, corny situations and through it all you get the feeling that you are being force-fed the beliefs and propeganda from the Trinity Broadcasting Network. Its a weak attempt at trying to show Hollywood that a movie can be entertaining and have a deep, religious message attached to it. They failed miserably. It was clearly the worst movie I have seen in a long time.
Quite honestly, The Omega Code is the worst movie I have seen in a very long time. During the first 30 minutes I sat stunned in my seat, trying to decide if I should demand a refund. But since I hadn't paid to see it in the first place (passes), I figured I might as well stay. And I didn't think it could possibly get any worse.<br /><br />It did. I will quickly run through the low points (includes some spoilers): The horrible miscasting of Casper Van Dien as Gillen Lane, a motivational speaker with two PhDs. The characterization was inconsistent; for example, Lane, despite his credentials, is a complete nitwit. Then there's the lame-o depiction of the fulfillment of the Biblical prophecies; we see a bunch of sensational news soundbites accompanied by ridiculous computer print outs of the translated Biblical Code. Also, terrible "action" sequences: Lane escapes from tough situations without explanation, and the one time Lane actually does seem to be in danger, it turns out to be a dream sequence! That's cute for grammar school writing assignments, but it's an inexcusable plot device in a motion picture. The pacing was bad: after a long opener, the first third of the movie changes scenes every 90 seconds. Later, the pacing improves, but there is still far too much unnecessary jumping around. And as someone else mentioned, years pass yet no one (not even Lane's young daughter) ages. That was disconcerting.<br /><br />There are a few good things, though. The quality of the film (e.g. lack of graininess) is high and very attractive. The outdoor shots were well done and the location shooting added a touch of realism. Also, there are a few moments in the last part of the film when Lane calls on God (finally) to help him - this proved to be quite exhilarating - even to me, someone who does not accept Jesus as a personal savior. But I liked this because it struck me as being the only genuine scene in the movie. Unfortunately, it was followed by major incomprehensibility.<br /><br />The characters, dialogue, direction and acting were ALL poorly done. Michael Ironside had nothing to do, and Michael York was just weird. I think the producers wanted to do too much; if the plot had been tighter and more focused, and the characterization more fleshed out, the film would have been far better. <br /><br />In a nutshell, The Omega Code disappoints. Definitely do not pay to see this. I give it ** out of ten stars.<br /><br />
What else is left to say?<br /><br />I've read all the reviews here and most are right on. . However, one person even went so far as to call this movie evil and that Satan tainted it (or something along those lines). Evil?! Wow, what a shocker. . I mean, TBN basically made this film. Open your eyes please.<br /><br />Anway, this was the very lowest grade of propoghanda nonsense that has come along in years.<br /><br />The most terrifying thing about Omega Code is how much money they spent to make it. If this movie can be made, there are no limits, and therefore, we have no choice but to get ready for "Yentl 2", and "Ernest Loses the Omega Codes."<br /><br />For those of you who are into the biblical stories, the new movie Dogma will pickup where Omega Code never started.
Yes I admit I cried during this movie. It was so incredibly disappointing, that I couldn't help myself but cry. TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) has done it again. First with having the Million Dollar Man (ex-professional wrestler) on their program, and now this.<br /><br />The Omega Code follows a stream of sketchy religiously oriented movies. It was quite amusing, yet at the same time it was disturbing to find it so biblically inaccurate. The movie follows what is known as "the bible code" rather than following actual biblical scripture. This film is extremely poorly made; from its writing to its directing to its hilariously horrible acting. Its depressing that people actually put effort into this movie. It appeared more like a late night movie someone would watch on the USA channel or a straight to home video rather than a theatrical released movie.<br /><br />I highly recommend you do not watch this movie, even if your life depended on it.
I didn't know what to expect from the film. Well, now I know. This was a truly awful film. The screenplay, directing and acting were equally bad. The story was silly and stupid. The director could have made a smart and thought provoking film, but he didn't. I squirmed in my seat for the last half of the movie because it was so bad. Where was the focus to the film? Where was anything in this film? Christians should boycott this film instead of promoting it. It was shabbily done and a waste of my money. Do not see this film.
If there was ever a call to make a bad film that reflected how stupid humanity could become, this one would take the prize. The plot centers around bible prophecies that lie in hidden messages of the scriptures that prompt a group of power-seeking thugs to attempt total control of the world. Just how stupid does this writer believe people to actually be? <br /><br /> The acting was bad at best. Casper Van Dien wasted his talent doing this film. Michael York's work was a fair match for the role, since he was the center of the film, and did a good job. <br /><br /> This plot was sickening and very disturbing. No tender or immature minds should see this film. This is how a basic good vs. evil plot can go astray.<br /><br /> There must be a lot of mental disease floating around the film circles, who look for ways to market this type of junk. There must have been something censored out to get a PG-13 rating, but it was still awful.
The more I analyze this film, the worse it becomes. First of all, why a motivational speaker? That part was just stupid. I mean, why would a megalomaniac trying to control the world rely on a motivational speaker? Is Alexander Stone really that disorganized? First he can't decide what he wants to do to control the world, so he looks to the Bible for ideas. Many of these ideas, I might add, really have no reliability(For example, the part of the "The houses of Ishmael and Isaac shall scream out in terror" could have already happened. It could have been have been the synagogues burned during Krystalnacht and the mosques could very well have been the mosques blown up in Baghdad or something.) And Gillen Lane's family! They had no part except to provide a family values platfrom and dab their eyes with water! I might add that since Casper van Dien/Gillen Lane is only in his twenties(or that's the impression that I had)and has a ten year child, he had his child during high school. Yeah, there goes TBN's family values. Also, why did this film have to be so damn propaganda-like? I'll repeat what an earlier reviewer said. The Indiana Jones flicks use Christian mythology as a plot dvice and manipulate it well so that we are intoxicated. This film doesn't do that. The beginnig starts off well, with Michael Ironsides playing a priest who murders a scholar off some sort and steals the dead guy's Omega Code. Then when confronted by two men who he is obviously afraid of, the two prophets tell him "Tell your master that we are here!". Dominic(Ironsides) replies "He already knows" and points to a small surveillance camera. That part sent chills up my spine. Had only it gone on like that one scene I would have loved this film. I'll give Michael York credit: he does a fine job of acting out his character, as does Michael Ironsides. But the good guys are horrible. I've already went on about Lane's family<br /><br />. Now that I'm over the acting, I'll get on to plot. This is obviously a Baptist film, since our beloved Pope of the Vatican is portrayed as an oaf. The world domination plot I liked and found plausible and subtle, as were the action sequences were also thrilling and well-done. Also another diatribe against the Vatican, their leaders are seen as dogmatically minded, since Gillen explains to the Pope that it's not the end of the world, but the beginning of a new one Also, the Vatican (or Israelis)says their going to secede from the World Union aince they used the Omega Code to control the world. Whoever it was, they wouldn't just secede, they'd send over commandoes and kill them. This is the equivalent of America knowing about the KGB going to kill the President and simply saying "We're not going to talk to you any more!". Come on! I did enjoy the scenes where we see bombers headed towards Israel and see them again on the monitor. Mediocre in short.
I truly wish I was not writing this review. I'm a Christian, so I waited anxiously to see this movie. It seemed great -- a Christian movie with some fairly famous stars and a plot that seemed intriguing (not that I buy the Bible Code itself -- you can make it say anything you want. I do, however believe everything inside the Bible). So I'm sitting on the edge of my seat enjoying the previews, when the movie comes on and manages to destroy my mood in a matter of minutes. I had to bite my lip to stop from commenting on the terrible writing and acting while I was in the theater (I would have been torn to pieces by the people cheering at the rather clumsy but basically uplifting scenes and gasping at the insanely obvious and predictable Tension Scenes, I'm sure). Once the final credits began to roll, however, I could reflect. There were many parts of the movie I liked -- some mostly unexpected plot twists, some effects that were indeed special (I'm not counting the Visions. Those were poorly done), and some interesting technical work -- fades, sets, that type of thing. Unfortunately, I got the distinct impression that if I read the book of Revelation to a monkey and set the monkey in front of a typewriter for an hour, I could've gotten a better script. And the music was beyond cheesy (even for a Bond fan who likes kinda cheesy music in scenes of action and intrigue). So I wish I could be like everyone else in the theater -- like the people who came out crying and breathless because of how incredible it was -- but I'm not someone who can be appeased by a writer who throws some words over a Biblical shell and slaps a Christian stamp on it. I need a good plot and believable dialogue before I can enjoy most movies, and this just didn't have either. I'm sorry, but I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone. And that's the tragedy. When will we see some intelligent Christian fiction? It has to be out there somewhere...
This movie is not based on the bible. It completely leaves Christ out of the movie. They do not show the rapture or the second coming of Christ. Let alone talk about it. It does not quote from scriptures. The end times are called the great tribulation. The movie does not even show bad times. The seven bowls, seven viles and seven trumpets of judgements are boiled down to a 15 second news cast of the sea changing it's structure. The anti-Christ was killed 3 1/2 years into the tribulation and that is how the movie ended. The only part they got correct was there was two prophets. The did not use there names of course because that would be too close to the truth of scriptures. The worst part of it was I really wanted it to be a good movie. I wanted to take unsaved people to it. I feel that the movie is evil. It is a counterfeit just like everything the devil does. I just hope it does not take away from the upcoming movie based on the left behind books.<br /><br />The second problem with the movie is it was just bad. Bad acting, bad special effects, bad plot and poor character development. I have seen better episodes of Miami vice.
This film had so much promise. I was very excited about this film. In the end, it was laughable at best, painful at worst. The acting styles ran the gamut from really, really, flat (the angels, the wife and daughter) to over-animated (Casper's character). I felt that the dialogue was just an attempt to transfer information to the audience instead of real people trying to talk to each other. Pay special attention to the scene regarding "the bug". It's pretty much an insult to the audience's ability to figure things out. In defense of that scene, though, it got the biggest laugh of the whole movie. I had read that they spent alot of money traveling to various overseas locations. Too bad they didn't make use of it. I didn't feel like I was transported to exotic locations. Anybody could insert stock footage of the Coliseum in Rome. However, to end on a positive note, I thought the sets were pretty good. I really liked the graphics that were displayed on the decoding computers. It is my opinion(and that's all it is) that if the SCHMALTZ factor would have been much much lower and the ACTION factor would have been greatly increased, this film would have been good.
What was this about ?? Pre-destination, you can not change the future cause it has already been written ??<br /><br />I'll give it this much. I did want to see what happened next and therefore watched the whole movie. This movie took a concept and made it watchable.<br /><br />If you're looking for a recommendation, See it at matinee prices. No thrills but an interesting concept. They should have left the Y2K reference out....
Interesting to read comments by viewers regarding Omega Code... many of the overwhelmingly positive comments were lifted almost word for word from TBN broadcasts... the movie looks as if it were made to go directly to video, to be stocked besides the three-part rapture series that was done by some other religious group in the 70s.. dont remember it? You wont remember this one either in a year or two. This is the first movie I have ever seen where it was implied that it was your religious duty to go to it and buy as many tickets as possible to save souls... very shameful... this just goes to show that if you are a televangelist's son, you too can play high-roller Hollywood producer with lil ole ladies tithe money...
The idea had potential, but the movie was poorly scripted, poorly acted, poorly shot and poorly edited. There are lots of production flaws ... for example, Dr. Lane's daughter who never ages despite the passing years. Wait for video, but don't expect much.
Disjointed, unclear, bad screenplay, poor photography and direction...all in all very obviously an ill-conceived first effort at commercial film-making by the good people at TBN.<br /><br />TBN Pictures has had great success in the past by helping to bring "China Cry", the story of Nora Lam, to the big screen. But "The Omega Code" is an unfortunate miscue. As a Christian who supports TBN and a lot of its programming and who loved "China Cry", I still find it impossible to recommend this film to anyone. They do much good with their ministry, but this isn't an example of it. Don't waste your money...go rent "China Cry" instead.
I went into this film with expectations, from the hype, that it would be insightful and uplifting. Certainly something more than a cheap promotional for the band "Wilco."<br /><br />Instead we get a lot of moping and whining about "the process," a dishonorable and no doubt one-sided portrayal of one band members who was kicked out by the prima donna lead singer/songwriter, a gut-wrenching confession by the fallen member's friend -- for like 18 years -- saying the "friendship had run its course," and this whiny, uncompelling story about how one record label "hurt their feelings" by dumping them, only so that the band could immediately get 50 offers from other labels (oh, the tension...not!) They tried their best to make it look like it was a strain, but I suspect it was all smoke and mirrors to generate a tragedy that didn't exist. This doesn't even take into account the long stretches where we get many of their newest songs shoved at us in full without any storyline, insight or even a decent job at cinematography. The strained attempts at emotional sincerity or reasonable perspective on life made me sick to watch.<br /><br />From the film, this band sounds like a bunch of vile little babies who poke around to find a voice they don't have and think they're some kind of guardians for the art of music, which they most definitely are not. And I thought the music sucked, and I couldn't even understand the lyrics due to the mumbling style of the lead singer.<br /><br />I give it a 2/10.
What can I say? I'm a secret fan of 'over the top' action and horror films. Especially when it comes with a lot of lots of humour and innuendo, but I'm not a fan of Snake on a Plane.<br /><br />There are three potential draws to this film: • The comedy of the situation; • The horror; and • The novelty of hundreds of snakes being of a plane. <br /><br />Firstly, this film isn't written as a tongue-in-cheek horror or a comedy, and there are only 1 or 2 points in the film where you'll smile to yourself. If you want to get the feel of the film, the trailer genuinely represents the movie, a horror.<br /><br />Secondly, if you're expecting a film full of action and shocks, you won't be disappointed. It doesn't stand out above other movies, but it always keeps your attention.<br /><br />Thirdly, Although the novelty of Snakes of a Plane doesn't wear off, but you'll leave the cinema thinking "what was all the fuss about".<br /><br />I know this movie has a high rating, but it doesn't add up. A) Many of the reviews where written before the film was released and, B) The breakdown of user ratings has a lot less variation than normal 77% of people rating the movie 10/10, with only 7% of people giving it 9/10 - Why such an enormous gap?
I'd give this a negative rating if I could. I went into this movie not expecting much, but I had an open mind. The whole thing is stupid! The snakes are obviously fake and the first two things they bite are a boob and a guys johnson. Oh how original; if I were a 12 year old boy I might laugh at that. I have no idea how this movie became so popular. Seriously,the worst thing I've ever seen. I wasn't entertained, it wasn't funny,I wasn't even bored! I wasn't anything. It wasn't even so bad it was good, it's just bad. Ridiculous actually. Please do not waste your money on this movie. Don't even rent this movie. No clue how it's getting such a high rating.
$25,000 Pyramid Clues: Deep Blue Sea. Tremors. Slither. Eight Legged Freaks.<br /><br />Pyramid Category: Movies that were funnier and more thrilling than Snakes on a Plane.<br /><br />Hell, with that definition I'd have to include the relatively harrowing journey of Ted and Elaine in Airplane! as superior to Snakes in both laughs and thrills.<br /><br />The sad truth is that this isn't even close to the mother of all unintentionally intentional funny snake movies: Anaconda! Besides the never to be seen again casting of JLo-Cube-O.Wilson-Stoltz-Wuhrer in the same flick, you had Jon Voight pulling off the all-time cinematic heist. His final scene alone represents everything SOAP tried and failed to do as a "so-ludicrous-it's-fun" movie.<br /><br />In the end, Snakes on a Plane is definitive proof that studio execs and fanboys make the worst collaborators possible. Every big scene had been discussed and dissected so much the last year, all that was left to amuse by opening night was the amount of fanboy flop-sweat that had to be mopped up at my theater. I heard more forced laughs here than at a studio taping for "According to Jim".
when discussing a movie titled 'snakes on a plane', we should point out early that the snakes are pretty darn important to the plot.<br /><br />what we have here are very bad cgi snakes that neither look nor move like real snakes. snakes are scary because they appear to be slimy, they crawl they slither. these snakes do nothing of the sort. they glide along like they would in a video game. they are cartoon snakes. i would go as far to say that even someone that had a major phobia against real snakes would not find these ones scary<br /><br />why on earth then would you want to include extreme close ups of these cgi failures? why not rely on suspense.. the whole 'less is more' ethic. or better still, why not just make them look good in the first place? and then maybe still use them sparingly<br /><br />take one look at john carpenters 'the thing'. here we have real slime, and gore of eerie proportions. 20 years go by and we get this pile of stinking sfx crap 'snakes on a plane'. when are these people going to wake up and smell the coffee? special effects are going backwards!<br /><br />sure you could say.. but the movie is a joke, get it? sure i'm with that idea, but do it well! in addition to the above, this movie has crap dialogue. and the music and sound effects are not creepy or memorable in any way.<br /><br />i could handle every other actor being part of this movie, except for jackson. what was he doing there? the man who starred in pulp fiction 10 years ago. is this career progression? are you offering people value for money? no. i'd like to know what Tarantino thought when he was half way through this stinker of a movie<br /><br />the current generation seem to have very low expectations. and Hollywood seems to be offering them just what they want. on leaving the cinema i saw a number of advertisements for some truly horrendous looking future releases including... DOA: dead or alive, (another) cgi animal film called 'flushed away', and another crap looking comedy named 'click'. in addition to that i saw some awful trailers, including one for (another) crap British horror/comedy. i've truly not seen the movie industry in a mess like this for a long time<br /><br />expect to see this movie for sale in the DVD bargain section for £1 in 6 months time. and if you're expecting to see a black comedy with tonnes of great looking snakes, and some bad ass cool dialogue coming from samuel l jacksons lips. forget it.
This movie deserves more than a 1. But I'm giving it a one because so many fricken fan boys have given it a 10 resulting in it getting a rating that'll take it into the top 100 list. Seriously it's not that great its not that bad. Its a stupid cult classic with so many fricken fan boys it's ridiculous. These are the types who probably still laugh at Chuck Norris jokes and still say "I'm rick james b!tch" No matter how old or annoying it gets. I dread having to hear "I'm tired of MFn snakes on this MFn plane" months from now from idiots trying to be funny. Its crappy plot crap acting etc. Its Okay to love a bad movie, but you still gotta admit its a bad movie.<br /><br />Wait for the Marine starring John Cena if you wanna see a real movie
I saw the 10p.m. showing and I must say that this movie was nothing special. Although I did not leave the theater wanting my time back (as I don't actually pay for movies anymore) I didn't really find any redeeming qualities.<br /><br />There were a few lines and such that made me chuckle, but mostly the film seemed to consist of rampant fan service to the younger (in mind more than age as this film is rated R) male audience. The fan service seemed out of place and rather distracting as well. I know you all want to hear Samuel L. say his infamous line, but let's be honest, it's a whole lot of hype for very little pay off. The only truly horrible part of the film was the CG, which looked very digitized and did not mesh well with the live action on the screen.<br /><br />Now I am a reasonable man, I knew going into the theater that I wasn't going to be seeing "Casablanka," and I am at least thankful that this film is an original (albiet inane) idea and not some re-make or franchise spin off. However to be honest, if you are not a part of the cult following you are probably better off spending your money elsewhere and seeing the film either in a second run theater in a few weeks or renting it in a few months.
I am sick and tired of all these little weenies going on about how this movie "rocked". It is pure CG over-acted CRAP! Don't send an Assassin, it's much more sensible to smuggle hundreds of brightly colored, aggressive, venomous Snakes on a Plane! The only reason people like this movie because they feel they have to. It is not "so bad it's good" It's so bad I'd rather be poked in the eye with a sharp stick then be subjected to this again. I honestly thought was going to be a COMEDY like AIRPLANE! A spoof! Was I wrong. It's that whole "It sucks, get it!" Or Samuel A. Jackson yells "Snakes on the Plane! thing. Well I'm sorry, I don't get it. It looks like a bunch of wimps gave the movie industry more money to make more movies like Triple X and Die Hard. If you what spend money to watch a movie in the company of the same people who bought William Hung's CD, still live in their mommies basement, and stink of plastic chair sweat from days on the computer playing online games and looking at porn, then rush to the theater and ask for one (since I doubt you have a girlfriend) ticket for Snakes on a stupid-butt Plane. To hell with movies like Full metal Jacket, Pulp Fiction, True Romance, 12 Monkeys, Clerks, etc. There's no irony in watching good movies. The true decline of the western civilization. Calling this a cult film is an Insult to true Cult classics like Repo man, or even Orgazmo. I've said enough here.
This movie was the worst movie I have seen since "Date Movie." I was laughing through out the whole movie instead of being scared. It was funny how the snakes would search for particular section of the passengers body to attack for example, the eye, the tongue, the butt, the breast. If we have seen national geographic channel we know snakes wont stay clinched on the body once they bite. For each particular scene the snakes would bite the passengers and would stay on the body biting the person. I believe the producer did not study his information on snakes and their behavior. I cant believe I wasted my money on this movie.So I don't recommend this movie trust just wait until it is at the dollar theatre or rent it.
This is not a film you can really analyse separately from it's production. The audience became the film-makers to an extent unprecedented in the history of the American film industry; we felt so involved that viewing it becomes like watching the work of a friend. How is it possible to be objective? This is our movie, isn't it? Or is it? There may be nothing more disingenuous than a film-maker who promotes himself as the audience's friend, giving them all the naughty treats that the nannyish critics would deny them. Just look at that prime self-publicist Eli Roth, promising gore-hounds all the viscera missing from literally gutless mainstream horror films, only to churn out a watered down and technically incompetent piece of work like 'Hostel'.<br /><br />David R. Ellis may not have spawned the monster that was the internet response to his film, but he was, quite understandably, quick to engage with it. He took the carnival-huckster school of film-making to a new level, getting the fans to build what they would eventually buy. So many have enthused over this interactive, democratic approach to film-making that they seem to have missed the point - that this is the most cynical form of film-as-marketing. Nothing is included that the film-makers know the fans won't buy, and any old suggestion that will get bums on seats is incorporated. The fact that the pitch became the title tells you all you need to know.<br /><br />Isn't this just the evolution of the focus group approach? Individual creativity, talent, craft, ideas, all are sacrificed before the inane chatter of the masses. It's a critical commonplace that focus groups and test screenings don't make for good movies - why should the preemptive intervention of internet enthusiasts be any different? Because we happen to be film fans? Well, thank god for us, because otherwise I might not have seen a topless woman get her nipple bitten by a snake.<br /><br />So, yes, I had fun at the movie - a midnight showing, fresh from the pub and with a bucket of ice-cream - but it actually had relatively little to do with the film, and quite a lot to do with the atmosphere. Like Christmas, everyone seemed determined that they would have fun, no matter what. There was laughter, but I don't know if it was with the film, or at the film. With a film as calculated as this one, is that even a meaningful distinction? There are some genuinely good aspects to the film. Samuel L. Jackson gives a well-judged performance, pure self-parody but with a real sense of pleasure. Rachel Blanchard and Lin Shaye are decent in limited roles, and there are one or two inspired moments - the fate of the lap dog is genuinely funny black comedy that the rest of the film fails to emulate.<br /><br />The stock characters are to be expected, but the total lack of suspense isn't. What's the point of a film that combines two great phobias if there's no creeping menace? There are several snake-jumps-out moments, but they're incredibly badly staged. Only the annoying British man gets a decent pulpy death scene - the other killings are oddly flat. The demise of the honeymoon couple, for instance, is shamefully botched. Most of the actors fail to make an impression; it's a shame that a charismatic actress like Julianna Margulies should seem so tired (when she tells two kids to close their eyes and pretend the turbulent flight is a roller-coaster, she could be talking to the audience - the film falls far short).<br /><br />There are worse movies, but there are many, many better; another reviewer on this site compared this film with 'Lake Placid', and it's as apt a contrast as any I can think of. That film worked so magnificently because the performances were excellent, the jokes were funny, the suspense sequences were scary, and it wasn't devised by committee. That the characters had a little depth and shading was an unexpected bonus. I don't need a post-pub midnight showing to have a good time with that film.<br /><br />This film will, in time, fade to become a mere footnote in film history. If it sets a precedent, however, I'm genuinely worried about what might be crossing our screens in a couple of years time. In all probability, nothing much will come of it. Perennial popcorn favourites - 'Raiders of the Lost Ark', 'Alien', 'Halloween' and of course, 'Star Wars' - just aren't produced by group-think.<br /><br />In the mean time, I'll tell you what - I haven't half got a craving for some Ingmar Bergman.
Oh Dear Lord, How on Earth was any part of this film ever approved by anyone? It reeks of cheese from start to finish, but it's not even good cheese. It's the scummiest, moldiest, most tasteless cheese there is, and I cannot believe there is anyone out there who actually, truly enjoyed it. Yes, if you saw it with a load of drunk/stoned buddies then some bits might be funny in a sad kind of way, but for the rest of the audience the only entertaining parts are when said group of buddies are throwing popcorn and abusive insults at each other and the screen. I watched it with an up-for-a-few-laughs guy, having had a few beers in preparation to chuckle away at the film's expected crapness. We got the crapness (plenty of it), but not the chuckles. It doesn't even qualify as a so-bad-it's-good movie. It's just plain bad. Very, very bad. Here's why (look away if you're spoilerphobic): The movie starts out with a guy beating another guy to death. OK, I was a few minutes late in so not sure why this was, but I think I grasped the 'this guy is a bit of a badass who you don't want to mess with' message behind the ingenious scene. Oh, and a guy witnesses it. So, we already have our ultra-evil bad guy, and wussy but cute (apparently) good guy. Cue Hero. Big Sam steps on the scene in the usual fashion, saving good guy in the usual inane way that only poor action films can accomplish, i.e. Hero is immune to bullets, everyone else falls over rather clumsily. Cue first plot hole. How the bloody hell did Sammy know where this guy was, or that he'd watched the murder. Perhaps this, and the answers to all my plot-hole related questions, was explained in the 2 minutes before I got into the cinema, but I doubt it. In fact, I'm going to stop poking holes in the plot right here, lest I turn the movie into something resembling swiss cheese (which we all know is good cheese). So, the 'plot' (a very generous word to use). Good guy must get to LA, evil guy would rather he didn't, Hero Sam stands between the two. Cue scenery for the next vomit-inducing hour - the passenger plane. As I said, no more poking at plot holes, I'll just leave it there. Passenger plane. Next, the vital ingredient up until now missing from this gem of a movie, and what makes it everything it is - Snakes. Yay! Oh, pause. First we have the introduction to all the obligatory characters that a lame movie must have. Hot, horny couple (see if you can guess how they die), dead-before-any-snakes-even-appear British guy (those pesky Brits, eh?), cute kids, and Jo Brand. For all you Americans that's an English comic famous for her size and unattractiveness. Now that we've met the cast, let's watch all of them die (except of course the cute kids). Don't expect anything original, it's just snake bites on various and ever-increasingly hilarious (really not) parts of the body. Use your imagination, since the film-makers obviously didn't use theirs.<br /><br />So, that's most of the film wrapped up, so now for the best bit, the ending. As expected, everything is just so happy as the plane lands that everyone in sight starts sucking face. Yep, Ice-cool Sammy included. But wait, we're not all off the plane yet! The last guy to get off is good guy, but just as he does he gets bitten by a (you guessed it) snake (of all things). Clearly this one had been hiding in Mr. Jackson's hair the whole time, since it somehow managed to resist the air pressure trick that the good old hero had employed a few minutes earlier, despite the 200ft constrictor (the one that ate that pesky British bugger) being unable to. So, Sam shoots him and the snake in one fell swoop. At this point I prayed that the movie was about to make a much-needed U-turn and reveal that all along the hero was actually a traitor of some sort. But no. In a kind of icing on the cake way (but with stale cheese, remember), it is revealed that the climax of the film was involving a bullet proof vest. How anyone can think that an audience 10 years ago, let alone in 2006 would be impressed by their ingenuity is beyond me, but it did well in summing up the film.<br /><br />Actually, we're not quite done yet. After everyone has sucked face (Uncle Sam with leading actress, good guy with Tiffany, token Black guy with token White girl, and the hot couple in a heart warming bout of necrophilia), it's time for good guy and hero to get it on....In Bali!!! Nope, it wasn't at all exciting, the exclamation marks were just there to represent my utter joy at seeing the credits roll. Yes, the final shot of the film is a celebratory surfing trip to convey the message that a bit of male bonding has occurred, and a chance for any morons that actually enjoyed the movie to whoop a few times. That's it. This is the first time I've ever posted a movie review, but I felt so strongly that somebody must speak out against this scourge of cinematography. If you like planes, snakes, Samuel L.Jackson, air hostesses, bad guys, surfing, dogs in bags or English people, then please, please don't see this movie. It will pollute your opinion of all of the above so far that you'll never want to come into contact with any of them ever again. Go see United 93 instead. THAT was good.
I chose to see this movie because it got a good score here on IMDb. But a lot of people either have really poor taste or someone's been fixing the score.<br /><br />Either way it was a real disappointment. The movie is exactly as stupid and far fetched as the title would suggest. There really is no reason to give a summary of the plot - but here goes: it felt like someone had been thinking: "Wouldn't it be cool to make a movie where there were snakes on a plane? And then the snakes for some reason would go crazy and start biting and stuff?!?" And that's about it! The plot is thin and unoriginal. The snakes are bad CGI (but it makes sense to cut corners on a movie that no one in their right mind will recommend to anyone!). The acting is poor, and all people are unbelievable stereo types.<br /><br />To sum it up: It's one of the worst movies I've ever seen - stay away!
B movie at best. Sound effects are pretty good. Lame concept, decent execution. I suppose it's a rental.<br /><br />"You put some Olive Oil in your mouth to save you from de poison, den you cut de bite and suck out de poisen. You gonna be OK Tommy."<br /><br />"You stay by the airphone, when Agent Harris calls you get me!" "Give me a fire extinguisher."<br /><br />"Weapons - we need weapons. Where's the silverware? All we have is this. Sporks!?"<br /><br />Dr Price is the snake expert.<br /><br />Local ERs can handle the occasional snakebite. Alert every ER in the tri-city area.
This must be one of the worst movies I've ever seen, the graphics are ridiculous, and the script pathetic and the biggest question is how this rather low brow script got trough the selection process.<br /><br />I like all sorts of movies from deep dramas to the more male oriented kill everything you see type of movie, so I can't say I'm picky. I have been struggling to find something to compare it to, but I just can't think of anything that matches this, maybe starship troopers 2. Witch in my opinion makes the movie gods cry and me thinking about throwing out my DVD player, but compared to this its effects are great. The acting superb and the script should be awarded. You know when a movie is bad in a funny way, well folks this isn't one of those this kills your soul minute by minute.
the only thing great about the movie is its title. In this case, "Snake On a Plane" is example of not judging the book by its cover, the title says nothing about the movie. When I went to the theater, I wasn't expecting Citizen Kane, I was expecting Independence Day, a movie that's pure popcorn fun, but instead, I got that horrible Roy Liotta movie called " Turbulence" Yes, this is how bad SOAP is. The only thing make SOAP better is its title. And it's not even the apporiate title for the movie, the wasn't even a glimpse of "snake" or "plane" 40 minutes into the movie! What a false advertising! If it wasn't for its title, SOAP would be just another unforgettable cheap B-grade summer movie. And the R rating? It has to be the most undeserved R rated movie of all time! The makers of the movie only add a few f word to make this a R, All of the violence are kept pg-13 level. You know what's really R rated? The R rated superstar Edge! See him at Summerslam instead of waste your money on a snake!
I saw an early screening of this film in New York and I, along with my friends and pretty much the entire audience, were vastly disappointed. The movie wasn't even so bad it was good; it was as lifeless as a snake-bite victim. Samual L. Jackson looked surprisingly tired through most of it and the snake effects were lame. It reminded me of one of those cheesy SciFi movies, except the cheesiness of this movie was not funny or even campy. It all seemed worn, flat, and overtly formulaic. I'm shocked to say I actually think Anaconda was more fun. It's easy to understand that SOAP realizes it's a piece of s*it and plays along with it, but what the film fails to embark on is a script that has any scares of suspense. It's the worst kind of lame movie: it's joyless.
All internet buzz aside, this movie was god awful. I expected the movie to be more of a farce than anything. Instead the film makers tried to make a serious thriller/horror movie, and they completely missed. There were only a few good parts, and a couple good lines by Samuel Jackson. Other than that, it was a bunch of gore and some poorly animated snakes. All of the internet joking was miles better than the actual movie. Now that the movie has actually come out, hopefully this joke will die. Don't waste your time or money on this piece of over hyped trash. If you're looking for something that's funny and entertaining, then just go to Snakes on a Blog.
I stopped watching this POS as soon as the snakes started "taking over" the plane.<br /><br />At first I thought maybe it should get a "one" for the comic relief. But then I realized I could just watch the three stooges for free and laugh more! <br /><br />Whatever respect I might have had for Samuel Jackson has been irreversibly destroyed. And Hollywood demonstrates once again how removed from reality they really are. When I was a kid we used to catch snakes for fun. The only thing snakes would do is huddle at the bottom of the cargo bay. And no amount of Hollywood cartoon snakes can change that.<br /><br />This movie isn't worth a trip to Blockbuster. Be warned: if you pay for it, the only "victim" is your dumb ass.<br /><br />If you want to be really scared, I suggest the Descent. If you want humor, go to your local stand up comedy club. Their worst performer will be a million times better than this trash.
Unless you are between the ages of 10 and 14 (except for the R rating), there are very few things to like here. One or two lines from Kenan Thompson, David Koechner (we really should see him more) and Sam Jackson are humorous and Julianna Margulies is as good as she can be considering her surroundings, but sadly, that's it. Poor plot. Poor acting. Worse writing and delivery. The special effects are dismal. As much as the entire situation is an odd and awful joke, the significant individual embedded situations are all equally terrible. If we consider the action portions, well there are unbelievable action sequences in some films that make you giddy and there are some that make you groan. This movie only contains the latter kind. This leaves little left. I'm so glad I did not pay for this.<br /><br />Despite any hype, I can read and think, so as I sat down to watch, I did not expect anything good. I had no expectations, but was somewhat worried going in. Yet, like a train wreck, one cannot merely look away. And even with no expectations, I was let down. Bad. Not even 'so bad, it's good' material. I'm _very_ tolerant of bad movies, but this makes "Six String Samurai" (which I liked) Oscar worthy.<br /><br />No, this piece of over CGI'd rubbish is in the same company as Battlefield Earth, Little Man and Gigli. How this is currently rated a 7.2 completely mystifies me. Brainwashing or somehow stacking the voting system is all that I can think of as answers.<br /><br />I could go on and on but suffice to say that tonight, I witnessed a train wreck. I need to go wash my eyes. 1 of 10
I'd like to think myself as a fairly open minded guy and it takes a lot(!) for me to dislike a movie but this one is without a doubt one of the suckiest, crappiest movie I've ever seen!<br /><br />I have no idea what's wrong with the people who gave it such a good rating here (imdb is usually pretty reliable when it comes to ratings)... the only thing I can imagine is that people must've voted during one or more conditions:<br /><br />1. While being shitfaced / stoned out of their minds 2. They've received hard cash for the votes 3. Under gunpoint<br /><br />I can't believe I wasted a good 1 h 45 min of my life for this pathetic excuse for a movie.
the movie sucked, it wasn't funny, it wasn't exciting. they tried to make it so bad that it would be good, but failed. and thinking it's cool to like this movie, next to the hype, are the only reasons that this movie is a success...<br /><br />the fact that at this moment 50% voted a 10 out of 10 for this movie seems pretty concerning to me, either the movie going public is going insane or this vote is unrealistic which can have numerous causes, and should be dealt with. anyway it is a less than average movie which bloomed through mouth to mouth advertising. It's success can only be described as a marketing marvel.
Admirably odd, though mean-spirited comedy-drama about a strange young man who hopes to fly like a bird through the Houston Astrodome. Robert Altman-directed quasi-comedy with eccentric characters is so overloaded with weirdos that it starts to creak early on from the weight. Some of the cinematography is evocative, Shelley Duvall is a stitch in her debut as a tour guide, and Sally Kellerman looks every inch the glamourpuss as Bud Cort's vision of a "mother bird" (imagine Altman and producer Lou Adler explaining that role to her!). In the lead, Bud Cort is--once again, after "Harold & Maude"--a true original; not off-putting like, say, Michael J. Pollard, Cort manages to be geeky, wacky and inoffensive, a tough act to pull off. Unfortunately, this is one of Altman's misfires. He can put together a cast and a showpiece like no one else, but let him get fired up with some misguided inspiration and he spirals downward. ** from ****
The 1930s saw a vogue for documentary films about remote corners of the world, with an emphasis on wild animals, exotic terrain and primitive people with unusual cultures. Despite the logistics of transporting a film crew to a distant and dangerous place, and then bringing 'em back alive (with the film footage), such films were often much cheaper to make than were conventional Hollywood features ... because there were no expensive sets, costumes, or high-priced movie stars.<br /><br />The most successful makers of such films (artistically and financially) were the team of Martin E. Johnson and his wife Osa, who made several documentaries (sometimes with blatantly staged events) in Africa and Asia. The Johnsons' safari films were extremely popular, inspiring several parodies ... most notably Wheeler & Woolsey's "So This is Africa", in which the very sexy Esther Muir plays a character named Mrs. Johnson-Martini (instead of Martin E. Johnson, geddit?). Although several other filmmakers were producing safari documentaries at this time, the Johnsons' films were the most popular in this genre because they relied heavily on humour. Viewed from our own more enlightened (I hope) standpoint, this is a serious flaw in the Johnsons' documentaries: there are too many scenes in which the funny little brown or yellow people are made to look complete idiots who are easily outsmarted by the clever white bwana Johnson and his wife.<br /><br />One definite asset of these movies is the presence of Osa Johnson. Ten years younger than her husband, she manages to seem young enough to be his daughter. While certainly not as attractive as the shapely blond Esther Muir, Osa Johnson was a pert brunette who gave ingratiating performances in front of the camera in all the films she co-produced with her husband.<br /><br />'Congorilla' is probably the best of the Johnsons' films. The shots of the Congo are interesting and have some historical value as evidence of what this environment looked like in 1930. The shots of the Pygmies and other natives are also interesting, although these suffer from the Johnsons' penchant to stage events in a manner that makes the natives look 'wild' and alien.<br /><br />The best (and funniest) scene in 'Congorilla' is an improvised sequence in which Osa Johnson attempts to teach a jazz dance to some Pygmy women. (The dance is the Black Bottom, no less ... the same dance which Bob Hope famously taught to Daisy and Violet Hilton, the conjoined twins.) Wearing jodhpurs, riding boots, and a pith helmet, Osa Johnson starts scat-singing while she does high steps and slaps her knees in her attempt to teach this dance to the African women. Meanwhile, they just stand there staring at her, apparently wondering what this crazy white woman is trying to accomplish. It's a very funny scene, but it has unpleasant undertones. Osa Johnson is doing a dance that was invented by black Americans: the implication seems to be that black Africans should instinctively be able to perform this dance after a brief demonstration (using natural rhythm, I guess) because it's in their blood, or something.<br /><br />I'll rate 'Congorilla' 4 points out of 10. This film says a little bit about African life in the 1930s and rather more about American cultural perceptions in that same decade.
With these people faking so many shots, using old footage, and gassing animals to get them out, not to mention that some of the scenes were filmed on a created set with actors, what's to believe? Old film of countries is nice, but the animal abuse and degradation of natives is painful to watch in these films. I know, racism is OK in these old films, but there is more to that to make this couple lose credibility. Portrayed as fliers, they never flew their planes, Martin Johnson was an ex-vaudevillian, used friends like Jack London for financial gain while stiffing them of royalties, denying his wife's apparent depression, using her as a cute prop, all this makes these films unbearable. They were by no means the first to travel to these lands, or the first to write about them. He was OK as a filmmaker and photographer, but that's about it.
Did I step in something or is that bad smell coming from Daybreak 1 + 2? God was behind everything? What has God got to do with Sci-Fi? God is only the answer when you can't think up a sensible explanation for something. In fact, this is exactly the problem with the series finale - they obviously couldn't think up sensible explanations for the multitude of big questions that were raised throughout the series such as how Kara Thrace come back from the dead in a brand new viper, how her old viper and charred body ended up on Earth 2, why Baltar has an imaginary 6 in his head, why 6 has an imaginary Baltar in her head, etc. so they explain it with "angels" or just don't explain it at all.<br /><br />The plot of the last 2 episodes had holes big enough to fly a Basestar through. For example, why does Galactica and its crew go on a suicide mission to rescue one girl (Hera), particularly after Adama said there was no way he'd attempt a rescue? Because they found out the location of the Cylon base? That's not a good reason to sacrifice the crew's lives. And how did Anders know the location? And what was the point of the flashbacks to the major characters' lives before the war? It's like they forgot to do it earlier so they threw something in at the last moment.<br /><br />The people who wrote the last two episodes could not have been the same writers who created what has been so far a sensational series. Feels like the script writing was take over by evangelical Christians on a mission to spread 'The Word'. Forget trying to tie up the loose ends in the plot, the important message the writers wanted to get across is: don't put your faith in technology as it will lead to your destruction; God is your ultimate salvation (tough luck if you have an illness that needs medical treatment).<br /><br />Imagine in the final movie of the Star Wars series they tell you there is no "force"... instead, a Jedi actually gets his power from Jesus. Then they fly their spaceships into the nearest star and go live in the forest with the Ewoks. Would this be a good ending? No it frakken' wouldn't.
The fight scenes were great. Loved the old and newer cylons and how they painted the ones on their side. It was the ending that I hated. I was disappointed that it was earth but 150k years back. But to travel all that way just to start over? Are you kidding me? 38k people that fought for their very existence and once they get to paradise, they abandon technology? No way. Sure they were eating paper and rationing food, but that is over. They can live like humans again. They only have one good doctor. What are they going to do when someone has a tooth ache never mind giving birth... yea right. No one would have made that choice.
Horrible ending - and I can't believe Moore spent a year coming up with it. Smacks of L. Ron Hubbard and Dianetitcs, which Hubbard claimed to pen in just three weeks. This was actually disappointing enough for me to toss my discs from the first 3.5 years. Now, the first 1.5 hours were action packed, though absurd in the premise, and then it deteriorated into a slow, painful, sophomoric dissolution of the series. Unbelievable how slow and drawn out that last hour was. Were we to think more deeply? If I wanted a lesson in a-materialism, I would reread Daniel Quinn's Ishmael. Absurd to think 38K people would give up everything for a "fresh start". Absurd to throw in a disappearing Kara, and a reappearing Baltar and Six. Absurd to throw in the Mitochondrial Eve. Just absurd.
I loved the first season. The quality went down a little bit in the second season, which however had a great middle (Pegasus!). Third season was fairly novel and original and was OK. Fourth season started going downhill fast, because they never even began giving us any explanations, when by now we were really starting to need them. What the hell was the Cylon plan? Why were there two Cylon factions? What was the point of Angel-Kara leading the fleet to a devastated Earth-1? What kind of a past did the last five Cylons have, and how did they survive, or were they reincarnations? Questions everywhere, answers nowhere.<br /><br />And then comes the end. Earth-2 (our Earth) in the past. Well, okay. But destroying the fleet?! Giving up technology and giving up any kind of urban life, and spreading a few thousand people paper-thinly across the planet?! That's not only anti-science, it's anti-reason and anti-life. And the philosophy of the show then seems to be that humanity is forever trapped in a cycle going from nature romanticism to a decadent capitalist society inventing destructive A.I. that ruins everything. It is without vision, without hope for a grander future for humanity, and it is antithetical to proper science fiction. And don't even get me started on the angels! Religious claptrap of the worst kind! The ultimate disappointment!!<br /><br />The whole "all this has happened before and will happen again" thing should have related to the previous incarnation of the series, not just to Earth as we know it. Making the new show somehow consistent with the old would have been the definitive stroke of genius. Frakkin shame.<br /><br />1 out of 10.
There are many good things about the new BSG: There's the multiple Cylon roles for Model 8 and 6, for example, which the two actresses played superbly. There's the old school feel of industrial design aboard Galactica ("My ship will not be networked, over my dead body!") Also, all the space battles, the special effects (even though the seasoned sci-fi watcher will acknowledge the cartoonishness of it all) The darkness of the characters, their essentially flawed nature.<br /><br />That makes it all the more bitter that the ending was so childish.<br /><br />Yes, the first part, the scenes in space, the raid on the Cylons and all that was very good. But the mushy ending? I always watch films and shows these days with the timer hidden, so I never know how much time is left until the end. So for me it was a special kind of torture, to see the end happen over and over again. Every time I thought, oh this is the final scene, the final shot, I got one more. Every frakking character got its complete ending! That wasn't really necessary.<br /><br />What really highlighted the schoolboy amateurishness of it all: The young Roslin scenes. Why is important for us to know that: {a} she lost her sisters and father in a horrible accident and {b} that she has a one night stand with a former pupil/student? What does that bring to the story? Where was the linkage? Now, I'm all for a more European-ish style approach, and a random acts of whateverness in films and shows, and all that, but this was just ridiculous. This didn't bring anything meaningful to the story.<br /><br />Also, I've seen the "Last Frakkin special" and in it Ron revealed his own cluelessness about the plot: he couldn't come up with a good ending for the story, so .... he just didn't! It's never as much about the characters as they made the last episode to be. The whole "this was thousands of years in the past" idea, the mitochondrial Eve thing, was also used in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, and believe you me, there are a lot of BSG watchers who know that particular H2G2 storyline. And speaking of Hera, now there's a storyline that WAS NOT worked out well, AT ALL. Instead we get Roslin is doing her former pupil who's 20 years younger. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for older women with younger men. The more power to them. But this ... just made no sense.<br /><br />All in all, (the writing in) this series is as flawed as they intended its characters would be. That goes even moreso for the last episode. I hope Lost and 24 do better, with their series finales.
The first half was OK, but the last half really, really disappointed. It's funny the producers even admitted they didn't have a clue for the ending, and it really showed. Whats really sad is i have to write ten lines of comment minimum to be able to post this. I really didn't want to include spoilers to qualify my remarks since the show isn't really worth that effort. When Battlestar galatica first came out I was really excited with the prospect of a better remake, it didn't happen that first season border on being space porn. They eventually cleaned it up a bit and actually had some pretty fair drama, so I started watching again. But to end the series with kara being a cyclon god angel, same with baltar and six was pretty dumb.
Did anyone else feel as betrayed as I did? The first hour or so was pretty solid but the last. Oh my god. It seemed like it was predictable and cheesy. Not grandiose and epic like the entire run of the show has been. Most reviews have read have been glowing but I really can't understand why. I had seriously predicted that general ending WAY earlier on but then retracted it because I thought "No, they would never do that, that's FAR too lame." I can hardly stand it. I feel so unsatisfied. I think i'm about to walk out the door to go sell every season I own. Someone please. Change my mind. I want to love this. SO bad. Someone tell me why I'm wrong. Great show. Terrible ending.
Well, they say nymphomania leaves you unsatisfied. I don't know if Stella James (Sean Young) qualifies as a clinical nymphomaniac, but she certainly is in to sexual relations with men. She's still exploring, trying to find "more data" so she can see what she wants from life and the men in it, though it seems like at her age she should have a pretty good idea by now. (I can't agree, however, with anyone who says Young is too old for the role. If she is, we should all age so nicely.) For the most part this film left me cold, though it's by no means the worst of its type you'll ever see. And unlike the recent 'Eyes Wide Shut,' at least something happens in this one.
I hate this movie. It is a horrid movie. Sean Young's character is completely unsympathetic. Her performance is wooden at best. The storyline is completely predictable, and completely uninteresting. I would never recommend this film to anyone. It is one of the worst movies I have ever had the misfortune to see.
This movie is great, mind you - but only in the way it tells a very BAD story. Stella is so terribly crude, and never learns better. Her husband is incredibly snobby and small-minded. Neither ever learns better. Is this realistic? Somehow, Stella understands that her daughter is ashamed of her gaudy manners & dress, yet cannot understand that she just needs to tone it all down? I don't think so. Stella is a GOOD woman, and a VERY GOOD mother. Giving up herself, so her daughter can be associated with a bunch of bigoted snobs is disgusting. <br /><br />Much of what we see might have been normal for the times - people having a beer or two, enjoying a player piano, dancing - but it is made out to be some sort of moral inferiority. "I can't have our child living this way!" Spare me. <br /><br />This story tells me one thing: that the Unwashed Working Class cannot ever hope to aspire to the heights of the Upper Classes. And that is simply a load of hogwash.
i should love this movie . the acting is very good and Barbara Stanwyck is great but the the movie has always seemed very trite to me . the movie makes working class people look low and cheap .the fact that the daughter is ashamed of her mother and that the daughter does not rise above it has always made me a bit uneasy . Barbara Stanwyck as the mother worships the daughter but the daughter forgoes a mothers love to find happiness with her well to do fathers family . i wonder how many others who have seen this film feel this way about it.again the acting was very very good and worth watching . i really don't like the story line . just a personal preference .thank you
so... it's really sexist, and classist, and i thought that it might not be in the beginning stages of the movie, like when stella tells steven that she would really like to change herself and begin speaking in the right way and he tells her not to change. well, he certainly changed his tune, and it seems that the other reviewers followed suit. what at the beginning appears to be a love story is really about social placement and women as sacrificial mothers. the end of the movie does not make her a hero, it makes the whole thing sad. and its sad that people think it makes her a hero. perhaps that is the comment of the movie that people should take away. positive reception reflects continual patriarchal currents in the social conscience. yuck.
Firstly, I am not easily scared by... Anything except for my few phobias, but this movie is absolutely horrific. This is not appropriate for children at all! I had my mouth open the whole time it just shocked me I. Couldn't believe how gory it was for a children's movie, bunnies being brutally murdered! It's just unnecessary to be so horrifying and be rated G. I recommend being over 8 to see this. But don't get me wrong, it was probably a good movie if I wasn't scarred mentally as a child. I cannot believe a parent would allow a, let's say, 4 year old child to watch this. It's just to intense and complicated, not to forget gory, for young kids. I'm wayy over 4 and I was shocked by the violence. I don't recommend
I saw this movie as a very young girl (I'm 27 now) and it scared me witless for years. I had nightmares about every aspect of this film from the way it was drawn to the music to (obviously) the violence. My parents still argue about who allowed me to watch it and both of them say that they would never let me watch such a movie. I think they only say that knowing that I have such strong feelings about it ;0) I am currently reading the book (out of morbid curiosity and the fact that it's a classic) and it is really a great story. However I don't think that it should have been made into a cartoon. Ever. Well, maybe kids nowadays would find it quaint but it gave me nightmares for weeks and weeks and I still have a hard time seeing rabbits drawn in a similar way. Gives me a little heart palpitation every time. Yah I am a wuss but I strongly suggest that any parent looking to show this movie to their kids, read them the book instead or watch it first to make certain that they approve of the content. Not everyone finds it as disturbing as I did but we are out there ;0)
OK, I know that a lot of people will probably resent this review as Watership Down is a "classic" and a standard part of most people's childhood, but seeing this film for the first time at the tender age of 18, I must admit: I really hated it.<br /><br />We watched this film because my sister had read the book and really enjoyed it, and many people who whimpered at the very words "Watership Down"- their memories of seeing the film as children and having their emotions torn at the seams- recommended it. To be honest, I wish I hadn't bothered. I gave it the benefit of the doubt; generally I don't like to stop watching a film half way through. This was an exception. It was really, really, excruciatingly, sickeningly dull. This film was possibly the slowest thing I've ever watched (imagine a doped-up snail in space), and really didn't "do it" for me. The art was alright; the backgrounds were nicely made if not a little bland and twee, yet the rabbits themselves were not very endearing and the animation was quite jumpy and poorly produced.<br /><br />I'm not going to go into huge details about the storyline; basically it is the tale of a group of rabbits who leave their warren due to the infiltration of humans in the area. Generally a moralistic story about the perils of human interactions on the environment, it uses anthropomorphic rabbits to put the message across. For me, I kind of wished that they would get gassed, not because I'm a horrible sadistic person, but because the characters were uninspiring, annoying, dull and generally quite rude (oh I'm so terribly English). I found that I was constantly looking at the clock whilst watching the film, and it took a whole 20 minutes or so before anything actually happened, and even that was a terrible anticlimax.<br /><br />If I were to praise it in any way, I'd have to admit that the concept of showing children the perils of building on the countryside and hopefully unveiling the arrogance of humans etc etc is quite well-meaning. Maybe it is all in general sanctimonious and preachy, but the message it's trying to put forth is good in its nature. The musical score was not bad, too.<br /><br />So, to conclude, this film is pretty poor. I couldn't watch it the whole way through, or I'd probably be forced to eat my own legs in sheer boredom. Granted, it isn't "Torque" bad, but it still doesn't rate highly in my eyes, so I've given it a 2/10.<br /><br />Hope this helps.
Probable reasons why so many people on this site have enjoyed this:<br /><br />1. They might not have read the book. 2. They might enjoy gore and violence in a film. 3. They might be very young and therefore not understand the violence. 4. People might not understand how somehow more scary and more violent it is compared to the original book. 5. There are sure to be many other reasons not covered here.<br /><br />The only thing I liked about this film is the song "'Bright Eyes".<br /><br />If perchance, you happen to be one of those people who has read the book, enjoys calm and peaceful films without violence and are quite old and understand scariness and violence, you are sure not to like this. Otherwise you will almost definitely enjoy this.<br /><br />Like in the book, a rabbit called Fiver in an unsuspecting warren warns of terrible danger to come. Only a few rabbits - including his brother Hazel - believe him and they set out on a dangerous journey to find a new place to live...
THIS IS NOT A CHILDREN'S MOVIE!!!<br /><br />This movie is like a "bad acid trip" for kids under the age of 5. For a month my 4 year old from time-to-time would ask me "Why was that rabbit bleeding from its mouth" or "Why did the bulldozer bury all the rabbits?". (And that wasn't the worst of it). We stopped it about a 1/2 hour in but the damage had been done. Intensely morbid, oppressive, violent. Fortunately he's finally forgotten about the whole wretched thing. Whomever decided this movie should be marketed to children should be brought up on charges. ... (Go ahead censure me, my conscience is clear.).
This would've been a *great* silent film. The acting really is good, at least in a Look Ma, I'm Doing Really Big Acting! sort of way.<br /><br />Everything is HUGE. Every line is PROFOUND! Every scene is SHATTERED BY HUMAN TRAGEDY!<br /><br />Mostly, I felt like gagging. Yet, like any train wreck, I couldn't tear my eyes away. This dialogue might've worked on the stage, although I doubt it. On the screen, it was cluttered, haphazard, hackneyed and pretty much every other stereotypical negative adjective you can come up with to describe a really bad dramatic work.<br /><br />If you enjoy your melodrama in huge, heaping doses, you *might* enjoy the movie. Be prepared to wait, however. For all that melodrama, this thing sure plods along at its own pace.<br /><br />This script must've sounded a lot different when the actors involved were reading it to themselves. It simply doesn't work once they get around to delivering it in front of the camera.<br /><br />IMDB does us a great disservice, at times, when it uses its goofy computer-controlled "weighted score". Curse of the Starving Class deserves less than a 1.<br /><br />Character-driven fiction is great, but when you develop your characters by simply pushing them through hoops with no plausible explanation for their maturation or evolution, it isn't character development! Your characters must have a motivation. Being drunk for a while and waking up in a field is *not* character development. That's a plot contrivance.<br /><br />Stay away from this movie. Or at the very least, watch it muted. Perhaps you'll get some amusement from all the arm-waving the characters do.<br /><br />Oh, and word to the wise -- to prove that this is truly an artsy film, you see James Woods in all his dangly male "look-at-me, I'm-the-figurative-and-literal-representation-of-the-naked-vulnerability-of- man" glory.<br /><br />Don't say you weren't warned.
Before seeing this movie, I would've said that I loved everything Kathy Bates has done. Now it's everything-minus-one. James Woods is pathetic...not his character, his acting. Someone should've told him that "poor" is not synonymous with dirty, nor ignorant, nor cliche. Ditto for Randy Quaid's stereotyping. The only redeeming feature is Henry Thomas, who isn't a strong enough actor to carry this sodden mess. If you enjoy the country, you'll enjoy the scenery. That's the best I can give it.<br /><br />I'm a serious fan of both independent and quirky films, but this is simply terrible.
2 stars out of a possible 10 - and that is being overly generous.<br /><br />I thought with a cast of James Woods, Cathy Bates, Randy Quaid, Lou Gossett, Jr., and Henry Thomas - how could it miss. I was wrong.<br /><br />I can only wonder what drugs Sam Shepard was on the week-end he cranked out this piece of dribble. I'd long suspected Sam S. of being kind of nuts, this film, based on his play, confirms it.<br /><br />This is the kind of artsy b.s. that actors LOVE to sink their teeth into as it gives them a chance to endlessly emote. However, for the viewer who sits through this nonsensical trash, there is absolutely NOTHING to love about this movie.<br /><br />You haven't seen dysfunctional families until you've seen this bunch. Pa is crazy, Ma is crazy, the son is crazy and the daughter is, oh yeah, crazy. They also have mouths on them that utter words that would make a sailor blush, especially the teenage daughter.<br /><br />In addition to the above, as if that weren't enough, the plot--and it's so thin you could read thorough it--has a hole in it the size of Alaska.<br /><br />Ma is conspiring to sell their rundown farm. As it turns out so is Pa. Now I don't claim to be a real estate expert, but the last time I checked, property jointly owned must have both of the owners signatures in order to be sold. If only one of them owned the property, then the other could not legally sell it, so it would be pointless for that person to do so. Mr. Shepherd prefers to ignore this basic fact, and therefore, his plot does not work.<br /><br />Not that anything else was really working anyway.<br /><br />The only possible reason anyone could have for watching this film is if they are absolutely desperate to see James Woods in full frontal nudity, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to.
This is an extremely silly and little seen film about slavery in the West Indies and it stars Puddy from the "Seinfeld" show! Patrick Warburton made his film debut in this contrived movie and he's noticeably slimmer here. Oliver Reed got top billing but he's hardly in the film at all. Warburton plays a white slave and its funny to see all the young and horny wives of rich old men bidding on him because they all want to have sex with him. Eartha Kitt plays an owner of a bordello and they're is so much nudity in the film. If its not drunken orgies at the bordello then its the young wives having they're turn with him. Then of course towards the end the slaves revolt and there's the bloody standoff. No real political message like the film "Burn" but just another contrived plot device to move the story along. Incredibly they made a sequel and Warburton and all the rest of the cast came back! I hope they got paid a lot of dough because this first film is pretty bad. The nudity keeps it watchable and Warburton's lack of any accent make it at times laughable. Very bad film but I got to admit that I want to see the sequel.
There are no reasons to watch this movie. Should you have won and extreme amount of money and having spent your time discovering life's every pleasure and have come to a point where by chance you are at a loose end and have some time to kill (like that would ever happen) then get this movie from the video shop (if you can find it AND put up with the assistant laughing at you then ask for this movie. Be prepared however for you mind to be invaded by extremely wooden acting by absolutely everyone (in fact the best acting was by the people who said nothing). Oliver Reed tops off his grand career by playing a drunk - go figure. But wait I forgot there is one reason to watch this movie - Claudia Udy showing her chest! Sadly no other reason than that!
this film is in the MANDINGO & DRUM type<br /><br />they were both dreadful BUT they are 100% better than this tripe,<br /><br />Badly acted & made Oliver Reed is the main name & Eartha Kitt also is in it. Tis a pity. Rating is 1/2* about as low as yu can get<br /><br />as always<br /><br />jay harris
It's funny. I've seen a bunch of Fassbinder films and I have found some to be extremely creative and interesting, while others are repellent and self-indulgent messes--like this film. For me, it ranges from great to crap--without much in the middle. I know he has a lot of fans among the "sophisticated", but I can't help but think that a lot of his appeal is pure hype. From my point of view (and I know I will get a lot of negative ratings for this), he made too many movies too quickly and was too self-indulgent. His gay or gender-bending films (like this one) tend to be really bad--sloppily done, sometimes quite boring (such as QUERELLE and THE BITTER TEARS OF PETRA VON KANT) and sometimes just gross (like this film). Couldn't his message about acceptance of a person's gender-confusion be handled better than showing him get slapped around or watching cows being gruesomely slaughtered? Show some sensitivity for the subject matter and make your characters more human and sympathetic--then, maybe, I'd care about the films. <br /><br />I'm honestly at the point after watching this film that I might not bother with any more Fassbinder films--the bad seems to be out-weighing the good.
This is a confused and incoherent mess of interminable scenes of boring dialogues and monologues. That is no exaggeration: you have to make a tremendous effort to even try to become involved with it.<br /><br />I sincerely thought Fassbinder would make something interesting in order to tell why does Erwin/Elvira suicides at the end, but instead of this, in every scene somebody is trying to explain: "when he was young, this happened..." and "he just came back from Casablanca and ordered to cut everything down there...", etc.<br /><br />Soon in the movie, Erwin/Elvira is in a slaughter house talking with a friend prostitute (certainly a slaughter house is the best place for a pleasant little chat), and while telling her the story of Elvira's life, Fassbinder shows the killing of one cow after the other. It is difficult to choose between giving attention to the disturbing images or what the transvestite is saying. Of course we come to the very forced and coarse symbolism of "I have suffered much in my life, and am about to die".<br /><br />In one of the sparse moments where actually happens something, Erwin/Elvira encounters a former lover, that only after performing a extremely gay choreography with two other guys (as if going for the necessary level of homosexuality) is that he recognizes Elvira.<br /><br />There are some interesting shots and ideas, I must admit (such as when the nun tells the story of the young Erwin), but everything on the movie is wasted due to Fassbinder's self- indulgence.
As if the storyline wasn't depressing enough, this movie shows cows being butchered graphically in a slaughterhouse for all of five minutes while the protagonist is narrating her early life as a butcher. Weird stuff. Then there's the core premise of the hero/heroine who goes and cuts his dick off because a he's besot-ten with at work says he would have gone with him if he was a girl. Is this person a psycho, a masochist, just a doomed queen who takes things too far? And what sort of traumatic childhood did he have? Just that he didn't get adopted and had to live it out with nuns who at first loved him and then later hated him because he was unruly. He tries to explain to us the reasons he did what he did, but it's really really so hard to empathize. Such sad and unusual self destruction. Was it supposed to be funny? What was it all about really?
If Fassbinder has made a worse film, I sure don't want to see it! Anyone who complains that his films are too talky and claustrophobic should be forced to view this, to learn to appreciate the more spare style he opted for in excellent films like "The Bitter Tears Of Petra von Kant". This film bogs down with so much arty, quasi-symbolic images it looks like a parody of an "art-film". The scene in the slaughterhouse and the scene where Elvira's prostitute friend channel-surfs for what seems like ten minutes are just two of the most glaring examples of what makes this film a real test of the viewer's endurance. But what really angers me about it are the few scenes which feature just Elvira and her ex-wife and/or her daughter. These are the only moments that display any real human emotion, and prove that at the core of this horrible film, there was an excellent film struggling to free itself. What a waste.
I found Tremors 4:The Legend Begins, to be dull and boring.All the action scenes were stupid.The so called "GRABOIDS" are reduced to the size of a modern day house cat, if not smaller.The acting was horrendous, and this film was just an unnecessary movie in the Tremor saga, because even though it tells the story of how the graboids were formed, the story is so dumb and useless.Also, if you want to tell a story WAY back in time, make sure you use the SAME ACTOR(Michael Gross), to be someone in the past, when he's someone in the present in the other Tremor movies.Geez...If you haven't seen this film, don't waste your time.Stick to Tremors, 1, 2, and 3, for a good time.This film however, make sure you're remote is sitting right next to you with the STOP button working for a quick retreat away from this nonsense.
Warning: This review contains minor spoilers.<br /><br />Well the writers of the first Tremors are officially out of ideas. I'm a big fan of the first movie and the first two sequels are pretty good for straight to video fare. Tremors 4: The Legends Begins, however, is a very dull movie. Where the heck are the Graboids??? <br /><br />Due to the relative lack of Graboids through the first 90 minutes I'm convinced that this entry into the series is suppose to be a "character study". Unfortunately there isn't one interesting character in the movie except for Billy Drago's character who is given too few lines, too little to do and in the end too little screen time. What saved the 2nd and 3rd movies was the presence of Michael Gross as Burt Gummer. Whenever there wasn't any action on the screen you could rest assured that Burt Gummer was going to be interesting to listen too and/or watch. However in this movie Gross plays Hiram Gummer a very poor and boring substitute. <br /><br />On the plus side when the Graboids (Dirt Dragons in this movie) are on the screen they do look good but that is about as good as it gets.<br /><br />I was impressed when I saw that Tremors 4 was listed at 101 minutes long. Pretty good for straight to video. But after watching it I'm sure that this movie is a good 15 minutes too long. There are long stretches of dialogue that is boring and doesn't further the plot any. Was there a rush to get this movie made? I think not, more time could have and should have been spent on the script.<br /><br />I thought I had hit a gold mine when I saw Tremors 4 packaged for sale with....Tremors!!! What luck I thought, pay for #4 get #1 for free. Well after watching Tremors 4 I like to think I paid for the original and got this mess for free, I can't imagine paying a single dime for Tremors 4. For fans of the series it's best to forget that Tremors 4: The Legend Begins even exists.<br /><br />Tremors 4: The Legend Begins rates a 3 out of 10.
The fourth "Tremors" feature goes back in time, to the year 1889. "The Legend Begins" in the small city of "Perfection", which was then "Rejection, Nevada". As the story begins, seventeen miners are killed by the ghastly "Graboids". Some of the characters in the present-day "Tremors" films have ancestors, both figurative and literal, in the past. Most obvious is the ever-returning Michael Gross (as Hiram Gummer). Unlike his descendant, Mr. Gross is inept with firearms; so, he hires gunslinger Billy Drago (as "Black Hand" Kelly) to shoot 'em up some "Dirt Dragons".<br /><br />This one takes some getting used to - as it takes place in the distant past. It's like a western with miniature versions of the original film's monster "Graboids". These tamer "Dirt Dragons" are nowhere near as terrorizing as their "Tremors" (1990) counterparts. Consequently, in this film, the characters spend an awful lot of time on the ground, which would not have happened in the original movie. And, it was weird to have the citizens give up the fight so quickly, when Gross temporarily decides to leave town. Why so helpless? Why didn't Brent Roam (as Juan Pedilla) immediately rally the people to fight without Gross? Disappointing.<br /><br />**** Tremors 4: The Legend Begins (2004) S.S. Wilson ~ Michael Gross, Brent Roam, Billy Drago
This, the direct-to-video death rattle of the Tremors series, features sixty inspired seconds (sawblade: you'll know it when you see it) and more tedium and filler than you can shake a stick at. Tremors 4 was obviously shot on a cripplingly low budget. That means they only had enough special effects mojo for three or four minutes of precious worm-on-human violence, tops. The lackluster, cliche-spouting cast and hackneyed writing ensure that the remaining hour and a half of the Tremors 4 experience feels at least fifteen thousand years long. Only hardcore Tremors fans will be able to sit through, much less enjoy this film. If you aren't among them- don't bother.
Just a few words.... This movie really sucks. It's like those TV Movies with bad cast and plot. It's amazing how they could make this sequel worse than the III. Don't waste your time watching this crap, even if you like the tremors movies.
Well...tremors I, the original started off in 1990 and i found the movie quite enjoyable to watch. however, they proceeded to make tremors II and III. Trust me, those movies started going downhill right after they finished the first one, i mean, ass blasters??? Now, only God himself is capable of answering the question "why in Gods name would they create another one of these dumpster dives of a movie?" Tremors IV cannot be considered a bad movie, in fact it cannot be even considered an epitome of a bad movie, for it lives up to more than that. As i attempted to sit though it, i noticed that my eyes started to bleed, and i hoped profusely that the little girl from the ring would crawl through the TV and kill me. did they really think that dressing the people who had stared in the other movies up as though they we're from the wild west would make the movie (with the exact same occurrences) any better? honestly, i would never suggest buying this movie, i mean, there are cheaper ways to find things that burn well.
Dear dear dear dear dear...me! I had the strength to see it through... But why?!<br /><br />The first two films where fun and actually somewhat good. But this is so bad we had problems seeing the whole thing. This was some kind of Tremors for kids. I can't believe this movie was made at all..seems like the props where taken from some bad western series of some kind (for kids) and they just did whatever they could with it.<br /><br />What audience is this movie for? I can only think of 12-14 year olds. If you're older than 14 you'll have serious problems with this movie. It's not only slow, but it's so utterly boring. The characters are overacted (not just a little either) and so stereotyped it's fun for a while..but not long enough to not make you want to fling tomatoes at the screen. You know everything that is going to happen too, cause yes...you've seen it a BILLION times before in any hero series on TV for kids. I picked all the survivors and all the tremor fodder the second the characters got introduced. It's so bad..so wrong..so...crap.<br /><br />But OK, we did get a laugh now and then. Not just at the silly plot holes, but some scenes where worth a replay or two...or one scene that is, where two baby tremors fling themselves at one of the obvious tremor fodder guys..It's really a great scene which made us replay it over and over and laugh wholeheartedly. Still makes me grin when I think about it. But that only happened one more time sadly..and that's when the "badass" gunman shows up and overacts his part wonderfully...that and one comment "They spring from the ground like some DEMONIC TROUT!" At this point we where almost crying with laughter. But after that..nothing could ever top that..(?)..so it's pretty much downhill from there. <br /><br />So tops here are demonic trouts and overacting. If anybody ever tells you this is a good movie...he's either a "plant", vegetable or someone very evil. This movie has got to be the worst of the tremors by far. Looking forward to seeing Tremors 3, it's bound to be box office hit compared to this...this...*goosebumps* no..I'll leave it at that.
Enough is enough...sometimes they just need to stop making movies based on a concept that is long dead. The first Tremors movie was great. The second one was ridiculous. The third one was nauseating. The tv series was depressingly awful. And this movie just drives the stake deeper.<br /><br />Basically another excuse for cheap computer effects and puppetry, now we have the series set in the Wild West, in the 1800's, and they fight graboids. Like a rehash of the first one, they have to learn how to beat them all over again. Mildly entertaining I suppose. Otherwise this straight-to-video release, just like Tremors 2 and 3, is just going way too far. Oh and I continue to wonder how there is never any record of these events taking place...did they just simply forget to record this unprecedented event? I think something like this would be history-making, so our pals in the first film wouldn't be so unprepared. <br /><br />Movies like this that ruin the original just make me crazy. Avoid this garbage.
One of the major flaws in this film is that while the mocking of pretentious yuppies is satisfying, it fails to realize that the movie makers themselves are guilty of being one of those that deserve to be mocked. One of the characteristics of these yuppie types is the conceited misunderstanding that they (the yuppies) are the only ones sophisticated enough to understand art. While the movie ignores this characteristic and instead focuses on their misunderstandings of dinning, I find it ironic that only people who enjoy this movie boast the same conceited taste in films as the characters do in their choice of dinner. If these pompous characters that were in this movie have a video library at home, I would bet that American Psycho would be one of those movies.
There's nothing wrong with a popcorn movie to keep you off the streets. It's just that some are better than others. This is very poor. The acting is awful, the script dire; and the special effects overrated.<br /><br />Why does Hollywood treat it's audience with such contempt? And why have they made a sequel?
Simply not the quality I expected from Morris (love Brass Eye and Blue Jam). This is very much like a not so bad student film. What concerns me, in all this is WHY DID IT WIN A BAFTA??? Morris makes fun of 'enshrined mediocrity' (Ayn Rand) in much of his work (Nathan Barley) and yet with this piece is urinating down the backs of the talented and telling us its raining! <br /><br />I just hope as he has chosen a subject I would love to tackle (the humanity of terrorism - Four Lions) that he isn't going to cock that up, wasting the opportunity to make a statement about the farce of mainstream ignorance and opinion on this emotive and heavily spun phenomena.
Being a filmmaker myself, and possessing a somewhat dark and subversive sense of humour, I thought I was in for a treat when I took home "My Wrongs..." (not that the DVD cover gives anything away, instead opting for the ambiguous quote from controversialist director, Chris Morris, "a short film including scenes"). I should have known better really, and avoided this insipid (and often offensive) piece of twoddle.<br /><br />The scene in the church is repulsive to watch (especially since we are all too familiar with Morris's warped attitude towards paedophilia from his notorious TV series, Brass Eye) and serves no purpose other than to shock. How this film is labelled a comedy I will never understand.<br /><br />The runner's commentary sounds like a novel idea in principle (having been a runner myself, it's often an interesting and uninhibited perspective on the filmmaking process), however this is sadly not the case here. Instead, we are treated to some public schoolboy ranting about dogs on film, before concluding that there are no really great movies starring dogs. This is all very interesting, but not worth a single frame of celluloid.<br /><br />To say that this film goes nowhere would be an understatement. It relies far too heavily upon its heightened style, at the expense of plot, character and dialogue, leaving the viewer strangely perturbed and unfulfilled. Its over-simplified message - that man should take responsibility for his actions - is both glaringly obvious and poorly illustrated.<br /><br />The film does have its moments of pseudo-Kafkaesque surrealism, but ultimately, it fails to convince, to entertain, to enlighten and just ends up being irritating. If you want to see a really great piece of short filmmaking, I strongly recommend "Franz Kafka's It's A Wonderful Life", by Peter Capaldi.
Quite what the producers of this appalling adaptation were trying to do is impossible to fathom.<br /><br />A group of top quality actors, in the main well cast (with a couple of notable exceptions), who give pretty good performances. Penelope Keith is perfect as Aunt Louise and equally good is Joanna Lumley as Diana. All do well with the scripts they were given.<br /><br />So much for the good. The average would include the sets. Nancherrow is nothing like the house described in the book, although bizarrely the house they use for the Dower House looks remarkably like it. It is clear then that the Dower House is far too big. In the later parts, the writers decided to bring the entire story back to the UK, presumably to save money, although with a little imagination I have no doubt they could have recreated Ceylon.<br /><br />Now to the bad. The screenplay. This is such an appallingly bad adaptation is hard to find words to condemn it. Edward does not die in the battle of Britain but survives, blinded. He makes a brief appearance then commits suicide - why?? Loveday has changed from the young woman totally in love with Gus to a sensible farmer's wife who can give up the love her life with barely a tear (less emotional than Brief Encounter). Gus, a man besotted and passionately in love, is prepared to give up his love without complaint. Walter (Mudge in the book) turns from a shallow unfaithful husband to a devoted family man. Jess is made into a psychologically disturbed young woman who won't speak. Aunt Biddy still has a drink problem but now without any justification. The Dower House is occupied by the army for no obvious reason other than a very short scene with Jess who has a fear of armed soldiers. Whilst Miss Mortimer's breasts are utterly delightful, I could not see how their display on several occasions moved the plot forward. The delightfully named Nettlebed becomes the mundane Dobson. The word limit prevents me from continuing the list.<br /><br />There is a sequel (which I lost all interest in watching after this nonsense) and I wonder if the changes were made to create the follow on story. It is difficult to image that Rosamunde Pilcher would have approved this grotesque perversion of her book; presumably she lost her control when the rights were purchased.
With Knightly and O'Tool as the leads, this film had good possibilities, and with McCallum as the bad guy after Knightly, maybe some tension. But they threw it all away on silly evening frill and then later on with maudlin war remnants. It was of course totally superficial, beautiful English country and seaside or not.The number one mistake was dumping Knightly so early on in the film, when she could easily have played someone a couple of years older, instead of choosing someone ten years older to play the part. They missed all the chances to have great conflict among the cast, and instead stupidly pulled at the easy and low-cost heartstring elements.
Okay, you have:<br /><br />Penelope Keith as Miss Herringbone-Tweed, B.B.E. (Backbone of England.) She's killed off in the first scene - that's right, folks; this show has no backbone!<br /><br />Peter O'Toole as Ol' Colonel Cricket from The First War and now the emblazered Lord of the Manor.<br /><br />Joanna Lumley as the ensweatered Lady of the Manor, 20 years younger than the colonel and 20 years past her own prime but still glamourous (Brit spelling, not mine) enough to have a toy-boy on the side. It's alright, they have Col. Cricket's full knowledge and consent (they guy even comes 'round for Christmas!) Still, she's considerate of the colonel enough to have said toy-boy her own age (what a gal!)<br /><br />David McCallum as said toy-boy, equally as pointlessly glamourous as his squeeze. Pilcher couldn't come up with any cover for him within the story, so she gave him a hush-hush job at the Circus.<br /><br />and finally:<br /><br />Susan Hampshire as Miss Polonia Teacups, Venerable Headmistress of the Venerable Girls' Boarding-School, serving tea in her office with a dash of deep, poignant advice for life in the outside world just before graduation. Her best bit of advice: "I've only been to Nancherrow (the local Stately Home of England) once. I thought it was very beautiful but, somehow, not part of the real world." Well, we can't say they didn't warn us.<br /><br />Ah, Susan - time was, your character would have been running the whole show. They don't write 'em like that any more. Our loss, not yours.<br /><br />So - with a cast and setting like this, you have the re-makings of "Brideshead Revisited," right?<br /><br />Wrong! They took these 1-dimensional supporting roles because they paid so well. After all, acting is one of the oldest temp-jobs there is (YOU name another!)<br /><br />First warning sign: lots and lots of backlighting. They get around it by shooting outdoors - "hey, it's just the sunlight!"<br /><br />Second warning sign: Leading Lady cries a lot. When not crying, her eyes are moist. That's the law of romance novels: Leading Lady is "dewy-eyed."<br /><br />Henceforth, Leading Lady shall be known as L.L.<br /><br />Third warning sign: L.L. actually has stars in her eyes when she's in love. Still, I'll give Emily Mortimer an award just for having to act with that spotlight in her eyes (I wonder . did they use contacts?)<br /><br />And lastly, fourth warning sign: no on-screen female character is "Mrs." She's either "Miss" or "Lady."<br /><br />When all was said and done, I still couldn't tell you who was pursuing whom and why. I couldn't even tell you what was said and done.<br /><br />To sum up: they all live through World War II without anything happening to them at all.<br /><br />OK, at the end, L.L. finds she's lost her parents to the Japanese prison camps and baby sis comes home catatonic. Meanwhile (there's always a "meanwhile,") some young guy L.L. had a crush on (when, I don't know) comes home from some wartime tough spot and is found living on the street by Lady of the Manor (must be some street if SHE's going to find him there.) Both war casualties are whisked away to recover at Nancherrow (SOMEBODY has to be "whisked away" SOMEWHERE in these romance stories!)<br /><br />Great drama.
I'm not going to bother with a plot synopsis since you know what the movie is about and there's almost no plot, anyway. I've seen several reviewers call ISOYG an 'anti-rape' film or even a feminist statement, and I just have to chime in on the galling hypocrisy of these claims.<br /><br />First of all, what do we see on the cover of this movie? That's right: a shapely woman's behind. Whether it was Zarchi's attempt to make an anti-rape statement - and I absolutely don't believe it was - is entirely beside the point. The film is marketing sex and the titillation of sexual assault and the material is so graphic (everything but actual penetration is shown) that NO ONE but the hard core exploitation crowd will enjoy it.<br /><br />The rape(s) in the film is uncomfortable, brutal and hard to watch. There's something to be said for presenting a horrible crime in such a brutal light, but there was no reason for this scene to go on for seemingly 30 minutes, none. There was also little character development of the victim and only one of the rapists is slightly developed (mere moments before he's murdered) so the scene isn't at all engaging on an emotional level. Really, it's just presented for the sake of showing extreme sexual violence and you can tell by the movies ISOYG is associated with on IMDb (Caligula, Cannibal Ferox, etc.) that it attracts only the exploitation crowd.<br /><br />Finally, a few reviewers have commended Zarchi's so-called documentary style and lack of a soundtrack. But considering how inept everything else in the film is (acting, script, etc.) I suspect these were financial decisions and the film looks like a documentary because he literally stationed a camera and let his porn-caliber actors do their thing.<br /><br />I'm not going to get all up on my high horse talking about the content of ISOYG. I'm all for exploitation / horror and love video nasties. In fact, I'm giving this movie three stars only because it truly does push the envelope so much further than some other films. However, it's also poorly made and after the rape occurs, just downright boring for the rest of the film as we watch a bunch of ho-hum, mostly gore-less murders and wait for the credits to roll.<br /><br />This is probably worth watching once if you're a hardcore 70s exploitation fan but I'm telling you, the movie is overall pretty bad and not really worth its notorious reputation.
I've seen the Gator Bait films, and this is almost exactly the same thing as those. A woman is sexually assaulted by a group of degenerate men and systematically exacts her vicious revenge on each of them. The thing that sets this movie apart from those ones (although not very far) is that the sexual content is not glorified. There is full frontal nudity many times throughout the film, but not for a second is it ever sexy. Some of the rape scenes might seem a little extensive, but that's only because the movie is trying to strengthen the audience's need to see this woman seek revenge.<br /><br />This is a weak film, it has no other way to maintain interest other than manipulating our natural desire to see this woman get revenge on her attackers. I Spit On Your Grave is not the kind of movie that you expect to deliver a serious moral, but I was glad to see that, since it contained a significant amount of violence inflicted upon the female lead, it was not meant to pass off as a T&A film.<br /><br />B-movies are notorious for being driven by nudity and out of control adolescent sexuality, and while I Spit On You Grave is unmistakably a B-movie and contains more than its share of nudity, the nudity does not drive the plot. On the other hand, the only thing that drives the plot is an empty necessity for revenge against a group of rapists. These men are evolutionary drop-outs just like they were in the Gator Bait films, and the biggest challenge for the writers seems to have been to come up with new and exciting ways to kill them, but the reason the film can never be anything more than a meaningless B-movie is because it does not deliver a message of any kind, but instead it simply satisfies the audience's desire to see a bunch of rapists get exactly what they deserve. <br /><br />The one problem that this leaves is that we have to sit through the sexual attacks. Oddly, the first half of the film is the part that contains the most nudity (although not by much), but it is by far the most painful to watch. We are even let down a little as we watch the woman obtain revenge since a couple of the deaths were so elaborate that they were obviously impossible (it seems like pure luck that the guy in the lake at the end felt such an overwhelming desire to hug the motor on the boat and press his genitalia against the propeller, staying that way while the woman yells some final words at him and pulls the cord), but again, this movie satisfies only the desire for revenge that the first half filled us with.<br /><br />(spoilers) You know that this is all the movie means to do, since it literally ends the minute the last guy is killed. The woman does not live happily ever after, she doesn't write her book, she doesn't leave and never return to that nightmare place, she just gets in the boat and motors around the lake while the movie simply stops in its tracks. But hey, what more did you expect?<br /><br />Oh, and did you read the tagline? If you decide to waste your time watching this, try and find any man getting broken or burned. I was really looking forward to those…
I just rented and watched this movie just to see what's all the fuss about. So here's what my reactions to it are. It's easily seen that this is a low budget film with poor actors. The main plot of this movie is about a woman getting revenge on her rapists. This concept if done right could easily turn out to be a really provocative film. However, the movie doesn't shock or disturb me at all. It just bored me. This movie could be easily shortened to under 45 minutes. All lot of scenes are mainly there to fill in time, like those scenery scenes and some scenes I described below.<br /><br />************Contains spoiler************ I find the rape scenes quite tame. I don't know if I have watched the cut or uncut version, if there is actually such a version. I also found many plot holes within the already badly written plot. Here's a list on top of my mind.<br /><br />Why don't the rapists rape Jennifer during the night when she walked out her house to find out what those noise are. That would be an excellent time.<br /><br />Why don't they just gang rape her, instead of delaying some of the rapists the pleasure and lengthening Jennifer's ordeal by such a long time. It would probably be more shocking and disturbing that way.<br /><br />I found it really stupid that the rapists left her in the forest and head back to her house. Maybe to show that these rapists are really imbeciles.<br /><br />These rapists should at least know that if you want to do a dirty job right, they shouldn't send a coward imbecile to do the job.<br /><br />Why didn't Jennifer call the police when the rapists finally left? Which should be the first thing that pops up in most people's mind, especially for someone who is a writer. <br /><br />Why didn't these rapists smell danger miles away when they saw Jennifer is alive?<br /><br />I find it really amazing that a slender lady like Camille can pull a man up a tree and hang him. ************************Ends spoiler************<br /><br />But hey, this movie is not without its merits, Camille Keaton is gorgeous and I get to hear one of the funniest line I have recently heard when Matthew protest of going back into the house and kills Jennifer, `Why me? Why Me, I didn't even c^m!!!'
Director Kevin Connor and wannabe action-hero / romantic lead Doug McClure, re-team in this ghost story set in Japan. They had been moderately successful together in the 1970's, with the likes of 'The Land that Time Forgot' (1975), 'At the Earth's Core' (1976) etc. Without plastic monsters to carry the narrative along though, the results are shabby and derivative in the most corny way.<br /><br />The film begins with a prologue set in the 19th Century, with a samurai husband killing his wife and her lover before committing suicide. A move forward to the present introduces married couple Ted & Laura, visiting Japan and moving in to the house where the tragedy took place.<br /><br />No surprises as to what happens next, with the spirits of the dead starting to take over the new inhabitants with family friend Alex (McClure) assuming the role of the wife's lover.<br /><br />Everything rumbles clumsily along with the elegance and grace of a charging elephant, to an inevitable ( but surprisingly downbeat ) conclusion. Main points of interest are two feeble decapitations ( 'The Omen' has a lot to answer for in promoting this as a standard horror set-piece ), and the love-making scenes featuring the doe-eyed but extremely kinky Susan George. The first is a long 'Don't Look Now' inspired piece with her hubby, complete with piano music; the second a much shorter (probably at her insistence) entanglement with McClure, both looking pretty uncomfortable. Anyway, every cloud has a silver lining and both scenes show of her fantastic knockers so all is not lost.<br /><br />Overall I can't decide whether 'The House where Evil Dwells' is rubbish, watchable rubbish, or entertaining in a masochistic kind of way. If you're not into the genre there is nothing here at all, but for horror fans there is probably enough to provoke the odd rye smile and appreciative nod of respect for effort.<br /><br />BEST SCENE - in any other film the big, black, tree-climbing, Japanese-muttering mechanical crabs would have stolen the show. They are eclipsed though by the legendary family meal scene, where a ghostly head appears in the daughters soup. On seeing this apparition she asks what kind of soup it is (!!!!), to be told beef and vegetable, before uttering the immortal line "Ugh - there's an awful face in my soup". If this wasn't enough the reply is "C'mon, eat your soup for Daddy." Laurel & Hardy rest in piece.
From reading all of the comments posted here on IMDb, this movie seems to get ragged on a lot, but I didn't think it was THAT bad. I've seen much worse, actually.<br /><br />"The House Where Evil Dwells" is a ghost story about a husband and his wife, Ted and Laura Fletcher, and their daughter, Amy, who move into an old house in Japan. Little do they know, a Japanese ninja brutally murdered his wife and her lover, and then killed himself 100 years earlier with a samurai sword. As strange things happen in the house, the ghosts of the previous residents begin to possess the bodies of the living, and plan on re-enacting the bloody murder that took place 100 years back.<br /><br />I saw this movie and decided to give it a chance, from the cover it looked like a decent ghost story. It was routine, and it was corny, but I've seen worse in my day. The ghost sequences were a little over-done, we get to see the translucent blue-tinted figures randomly pop up randomly around the family, and take over their bodies. To be honest, the ghosts in this movie kind of reminded me of the ghosts in the Haunted Mansion ride at Disneyland. I may be mistaken, but after watching this, it seemed to me that the Japanese horror film "Ju-On: The Grudge" and the American remake of that film ripped this off a little. The old Japanese home where a brutal murder took place, ghostly activity, curses put on the home, etc. But I may be wrong.<br /><br />To sum it up, this is a pretty corny ghost story. Don't go out of your way to see it, but if you like this kind of thing and it happens to come on TV you can give it a shot. 4/10.
Giant crabs cursing in Japanese? What was in that drink? A terrible movie, but laughable. I love the invisible Samurai ghosties running around. Drink much beer before you see this movie.
This could have been interesting – a Japan-set haunted house story from the viewpoint of a newly-installed American family – but falls flat due to an over-simplified treatment and the unsuitability of both cast and director.<br /><br />The film suffers from the same problem I often encounter with the popular modern renaissance of such native fare, i.e. the fact that the spirits demonstrate themselves to be evil for no real reason other than that they're expected to! Besides, it doesn't deliver much in the scares department – a giant crab attack is merely silly – as, generally, the ghosts inhabit a specific character and cause him or her to act in a totally uncharacteristic way, such as Susan George seducing diplomat/friend-of-the-family Doug McClure and Edward Albert force-feeding his daughter a bowl of soup! <br /><br />At one point, an old monk turns up at the house to warn Albert of the danger if they remain there – eventually, he's called upon to exorcise the premises. However, history is bound to repeat itself and tragedy is the only outcome of the tense situation duly created – leading to a violent yet unintentionally funny climax in which Albert and McClure, possessed by the spirits of their Japanese predecessors, engage in an impromptu karate duel to the death! At the end of the day, this emerges an innocuous time-waster – tolerable at just 88 minutes but, in no way, essential viewing.
At the beginning of the film, you might double-check the DVD cover and re-read the synopsis a couple of times, but no worries. It's NOT "Memoirs of a Geisha" that you purchased; just a movie with an intro that is much more classy and stylish than it has any right to be. Still, the opening is by far the best thing about the entire movie, as it shows how in the year 1840 a Samurai sword master catches his wife committing adultery. He decapitates the two lovers before doing some hara-kiri (ritual suicide through disembowelment). Cut to present day, when the American Ambassador in Japan welcomes a befriended family and drives them up to the same house where the aforementioned slaughter took place nearly one and a half century ago. From then onwards, this becomes a seemingly routine haunted house flick yet the utterly retarded and implausible script still makes it somewhat exceptional. Let's start with the good aspects, namely the original Japanese setting and the presence of the delicious Susan George who is my all-time favorite British horror wench (well, together with Britt Eckland, Linda Hayden and Ingrid Pitt). The bad aspects simply include that the screenplay is incoherent, imbecilic beyond repair and full of supposedly unsettling twists that only evoke laughter. The restless spirits of the house soon begin to entertain themselves by perpetrating into the bodies of the new tenants and causing them to do and say all sorts of crazy stuff. The spirit of the massacred adulterous woman particularly enjoys squeezing into Susan's ravishing booty and transforming her into a lewd seductress! In this "possessed" state, she even lures the American ambassador outside to have sex in the garden of a high society diner party full of prominent guests. So, strictly spoken, it's not really "evil" that dwells in the house; just a trio of sleazy ghosts with dirty minds and far too much free time on their long-dead hands! Obviously these scenes are more comical than frightening, especially since the light-blue and transparent shapes remind you of the cute ghost effects that were later popularized in "Ghostbusters". "The House Where Evil Dwells" is probably the least scary ghost movie ever. Throughout most of the running time, you'll be wondering whether director Kevin Connor (who nevertheless made the excellent horror films "Motel Hell" and "From Beyond the Grave") intentionally wanted to make his movie funny and over-the-top, like "Motel Hell" maybe. But then again, everyone in the cast continues to speak his/her lines with a straight and sincere face, so I guess we are nevertheless supposed to take everything seriously and feel disturbed. "The House Where Evil Dwells" is never suspenseful or even remotely exciting and it doesn't even contain any grisly images apart from the massacre at the beginning. I am fully aware of how shallow it sounds, but the two scenes in which Susan George goes topless are the only true highlights. Well, those and maybe also the invasion of cheesy and ridiculously over-sized spiders (or are they crabs?) in the daughter's bedroom. How totally random and irrelevant was that? If you ever decide to give this movie a chance notwithstanding its bad reputation, make sure you leave your common sense and reasoning at the doorstep.<br /><br />Trivia note for horror buffs: keep an eye open for the demon-mask that was also a pivot piece of scenery in the brilliant Japanese horror classic Onibaba.
..IT'S THIS ONE! Very cool premise, right off the bat.<br /><br />Has an excellent first scene, gotta give credit where credit's due.<br /><br />Has solid characters and a decent enough script for a ghost story but here are the things that bothered me: Whenever the ghosts appeared, which I really liked by the way; how it was done, how it looked...the only thing was the ghost's relationship. Because of the way things went down in the first scene you'd think their dynamic would be different.<br /><br />Things slowed down a little too much in the middle I felt, and the crab/spider scene was just not good. BUT then the ending is actually very good! Sure, 'The Grudge' basically told the same story with a polished lens but no samurai's and that's what I liked about this movie comparatively.<br /><br />Please, someone one with a tempered style remake this movie.<br /><br />Fans of 'Silent Rage' would absolutely love this movie.
This can be one of the most enjoyable movies ever if you don't take it seriously. It is a bit dated and the effects are lame, but it is so enjoyable. There are giant crabs that attack a girl. oh, and the crabs sing Japanese. It is amazingly bad. And the ending, which has been telegraphed throughout the entire film is hideously awesome. Predictable, but seeing the final fight will leave you rolling in your seat. Don't even give this film a chance and you will love it. Susan George is fun to watch and yes, she does appear naked. Her daughter isn't quite worth putting up with, but she does get attacked by giant crabs. They are the size of large cats. This is a 2, but I love it. As a movie, my God, but for entertainment, I give it a 7. Did I mention there are giant crabs?
The film opens with a peaceful shot of a traditional Japanese house complete with thatched roof that sits on the side of a small hill and an on screen caption appears that reads 'KUSHIATA KYOTO, JAPAN 1840'. A young Japanese trainee Samurai named Masanori (Toshiya Maruyama) walks up the winding path to the house, inside waits Otami (Mako Hattori) with whom he is having an affair behind her husband, Shugoro's (Tsuiyuki Sasaki as Toshiyuki Sasaki) back who happens to be Masanori's teacher. Shugoro unexpectedly arrives home to find his wife and student having very intimate relations with each other. His honour destroyed the enraged Samurai brutally murders both Otami and Masanori before committing suicide. Over a century later and Ted Fletcher (Edward Albert) arrives in Japan on a working holiday with his wife Laura (Susan George) and their young daughter Amy (Amy Barrett). Their close friend Alex Curtis (Doug McClure) who works for the American consulate helps them out by finding them a place to stay, you don't need me to you where! He jokingly says it's going so cheap because it's haunted, to which both Ted and Laura laugh off as they obviously don't believe in ghosts, at least for the time being that is. Almost immediately the film goes into cliché mode. Lights turn on and off by themselves, Laura has an uneasy feeling about the place and a local Zen Monk (Henry Mitowa) gives them an ominous warning for them to leave before it's too late which they ignore, of course. The spirits of Otami, Masanori and Shugoro were doomed for eternity to remain within the walls of the house because of a Majyo witches (Tsuyako Olajima) curse put upon them. But there may be a way they can break the curse, unfortunately for the Fletcher family it could potentially cost them their marriage, daughter and possibly even their very lives. <br /><br />Directed by Kevin Connor I thought this was a pretty average film, OK to watch once if you've got nothing better to do but after a day or two you'll probably have completely forgotten it. Nothing sticks in the memory as being particularly bad but on the other hand there's nothing particularly good about the film either. The script by Robert Suhosky from the novel by James Hardiman is a little on the dull side and strictly by-the-numbers, a lot of ghostly goings on happen throughout the film but none of it is very interesting or exciting and the flat characters and direction doesn't help things. There are couple of silly sequences like the giant plastic crabs that try to get Amy and her babysitter, Noriko (Mayumi Umeda). And there is a scene where the Zen Monk exorcises the house and the ghosts are banished outside unable to get back in, however that is until Ted simply opens the door and they just walk right back in, some exorcism! One more thing, I think it was a bad idea to have Doug McClure who was 47 when he made this, try his hand at Kung-Fu and oriental sword fighting! George gets her ample breasts out a couple of times including a very unerotic sex scene with McClure, although great pains and a couple of bed sheets that stick to them like super glue were taken to ensure no below the waist nudity was present. Apart from a couple of mostly off screen decapitations there's no blood, gore or violence to speak about. The 'transparent' ghost effects are OK but they ain't going to impress many people these days. It's professionally enough made and looks quite nice but the potential in the Japanese setting and myths is squandered as this film could have been set in America, England or any Western country without having to change a thing. An OK time waster.
Dull haunted house thriller finds an American family moving into a 200 year old house in Japan where a violent murder suicide love triangle occurred. <br /><br />Novel setting is about the only element of interest in this very slow moving horror flick by the director of Motel Hell. The film generates zero suspense and is composed of somewhat choppy scenes that rarely seem to be leading anywhere overall. <br /><br />One obvious example is a fairly early scene where the male lead visits a temple after realizing that his house is haunted as the monk had earlier warned. The monk recounts the history of the house (which the viewer is already familiar with from the opening sequence) and then the film simply cuts away to something else. Earlier the monk had offered to help. Well, where is the help? The family continues to stay in the haunted house as things get worse and worse and no mention of the monk is made until nearly the very end when he turns up again to do what he should have done an hour earlier--try to drive the spirits out of the house, although by this time it's difficult for the viewers to care.<br /><br />There are some (probably) unintentional campy laughs in seeing the American actors at the end become possessed by the Japanese spirits and suddenly start doing bad martial arts, I say probably because the scene is more than a little reminiscent of the chainsaw duel from the same director's Motel Hell which was more obviously meant to be amusing, but on the whole this is a forgettable dud.
I don't think anyone sitting down to view this film would be expecting anything remotely appearing like a classic ghost story but you have to ask yourself when it's over if you were ever scared. This doesn't really work on that level but the cast does try hard and the film doesn't tack on one of those happy endings. Story is about an American couple who travel to Kyoto, Japan so that Ted Fletcher (Edward Albert) can write a book and he brings along his wife Laura (Susan George) and their daughter Amy (Amy Barrett). Their friend Alex Curtis (Doug McClure) who works at the American Consulate helps them find a house to live in and he finds one that is haunted. About 140 years earlier in the same house a Samurai found his wife cheating on him and he kills both of them and then commits suicide. Their ghosts still inhabit the house and when the Fletcher's arrive it doesn't take long before strange things start happening.<br /><br />*****SPOILER ALERT*****<br /><br />At times the ghosts inhabit the bodies of the Fletcher's and they start to act like the Japanese people that they were before and Laura starts to flirt with Alex which leads to an affair. Meanwhile, Ted starts behaving more strict and after he pours soup down the throat of Amy he goes to ask a Monk for help. Unfortunately the ghosts get Ted, Laura, and Alex to play out their death scene like it happened 140 years earlier.<br /><br />This film was directed by Kevin Connor who is known as a good television director but he has made horror and science fiction films before and has worked with McClure on some of them. While this never comes close to being scary or developing atmosphere it does have two things in it that I liked. First, it doesn't have one of those sappy endings where the couple embrace after defeating the demons. Instead, it ends in a very bloody fight where everyone succumbs to the evil of the ghosts. Secondly, it has Susan George in the cast! I've always been a fan of hers even though she has appeared in mostly schlock but her performances are always top notch. Also she usually appears nude which she does here in two separate scenes and while she doesn't have classic features she does have a unique tomboy like look about her and it's one of the reasons why she was so popular. But after appearing in silly films such as this I think it led to her getting out of the business or working only sporadically. This isn't a bad film but it's never convincing and watching the ghosts scurry around when the Monk gives an exorcism is practically worthy of a giggle or two. The bottom line is that this is silly and I hope George decides to resume her career.
Film starts in 1840 Japan in which a man slashes his wife and her lover to death and the commits suicide. It's a very gory, bloody sequence. Then it jumps to present day...well 1982 to be precise. Ted (Edward Albert), wife Laura (Susan George) and their annoying little kid move to Japan for hubby's work. They rent a house and--surprise! surprise--it just happens to be the house where the murders took place! The three dead people are around as ghosts (the makeup is hysterically bad) and make life hell for the family.<br /><br />Sounds OK--but it's really hopeless. There's a bloody opening and ending and NOTHING happens in between. There is an attack by giant crabs which is just uproarious! They look so fake--I swear I saw the strings pulling one along--and they're muttering!!!!! There's a pointless sex sequence in the first 20 minutes (probably just to show off George's body), another one about 40 minutes later (but that was necessary to the plot) and a really silly exorcism towards the end. The fight scene between Albert and Doug McClure must be seen to be believed.<br /><br />As for acting--Albert was OK as the husband and McClure was pretty good as a family friend. But George--as always--is terrific in a lousy film. She gives this film a much needed lift--but can't save it. I'm giving this a 2 just for her and the gory opening and closing. That aside, this is a very boring film.
While the premise behind The House Where Evil Dwells may be intriguing, the execution is downright pathetic. I'm not even sure where to begin as I've got so many problems with this movie. I suppose I'll just number a few of them: <br /><br />1. The Acting – When you see that Edward Albert, Doug McClure, and Susan George (and her teeth) are the stars of your movie, you know you're in trouble? Not that it matters much to me, but these are hardly A-List names. Susan George may have been in a couple of movies I enjoy, but I've never considered her the greatest actress I've ever seen. And in this movie, her acting is embarrassing. As for the other two, the less said the better.<br /><br />2. The Ghosts – The ghosts or spirits or whatever you want to call them reminded me quite a bit of the ghosts in the haunted mansion ride.at Disney World. And, they are about as frightening. And why did they have to be so obvious? Subtlety is not a characteristic of The House Where Evil Dwells.<br /><br />3. The Plot – How predictable can one movie be? The outcome of this movie is painfully obvious once you meet the three main characters. If you couldn't see where this movie was headed after about 15 minutes, you need to see more movies.<br /><br />4. The Convenient Priest – What are the chances that the haunted house you buy just happens to be across the street from a group of Japanese monks? Not to mention that one of them knows the history of your house and comes over, knocks on the door, and asks if you need help removing evil spirits. Absurd is a word that comes to mind.<br /><br />5. Everything Else – It's very difficult for me to think of any positives to write about. I suppose I'll give it a point for the opening scene and a point for the house's architecture. That's a sure sign of a winner – noting the architecture as a highlight of any film doesn't say much about the actual movie.<br /><br />I'll stop. You should be able to get the idea from what I've already mentioned. And, I haven't even mentioned the annoying little girl or the Invasion of the Crabs or a multitude of other problems. Be warned, this thing is horrible.
Aside for being classic in the aspect of its cheesy lines and terrible acting, this film should never be watched unless you are looking for a good cure for your insomnia. I can't imagine anyone actually thinking this was a "good movie."
I saw this film at a pre-release screening at the Writers Guild theater in Beverly Hills. As I recall, the film's producers and director were in attendance, presumably to gage our reaction.<br /><br />Many scenes evoked gales of laughter from the audience, which would have been fine if it had been a comedy, but it was supposed to be a horror film.<br /><br />If the audience wasn't scared, it seems the filmmakers were. They delayed release for over a year. Out of curiosity I saw it again to see if they'd re-cut it; as far as I can tell, they hadn't. It was the same lousy movie, just a year older.<br /><br />It almost qualifies as "so bad, it's good," but it's slow-paced and boring.
This is a rotten movie.The cast seem to know just how bad it was.it starts badly and by the end is truly bad.the acting is woeful.the script could of been written on the spot.and although the movie is a horror film it has no scary scenes.Crap 1 out of 10
A family moves into a old house in Japan. But there's a catch it's haunted (BOO!!!). Aw, didn't mean to make you jump. It's only a review. Settle back down. Ahem, now anyways it's haunted by an old samurai who killed his wife & her lover in slow motion. This naturally makes a 3 minutes scene stretch out to about 7 or 8. Horrid acting. Horrid story. But How bad can it be you ask? Well it was SO bad my brain started to melt & leak out through my nose in thoughtful drips. It was SO bad whenever Doug McClure came on-screen I prayed that i had flashbacks of Small Wonder (Yes, i know Doug was in "Out of this world" & not "small Wonder", but it's pretty much the same damn show, & i can hum the "small wonder" theme better) There are movies that are so bad they're good. this isn't one of those<br /><br />Where i saw it: Showtime Beyond<br /><br />My Grade: F-<br /><br />Eye Candy: Mako Hattori gets topless,Susan George gets 2 love scenes ( one nude, one just topless)<br /><br />
This is one of those films that I could only sit through once. Charlotte Henry is fine -- in fact, all the actors were fine. The problem was in the script, the dialog, the direction, the editing, the sets and the special effects. Granted, this was 1933, but it really creaked. Part of the problem is that actors like Richard Arlen, Gary Cooper, W.C. Fields and Cary Grant are not recognizable (there faces cried for a recognition that was not forthcoming). The movie just clumped along with no cohesion. Much of Lewis Carrols spirit, humor and continuity are missing. What a pity! It's such a great book. I would recommend Disney's 1951 version.
I enjoyed the first reviewer's comment far more than I did the film when I saw it at a second-run theatre in the early '80's. I was impressed then by the care taken to create costumes modelled so closely after the Tenniel drawings. But to me, the cast was largely squandered, their personalities muffled by the masks, while the direction I think of as being unusually static, and the photography murky. The rating jotted down at the time was a nought, which means "not worth sitting through even once".<br /><br />Still, I too would jump at a chance to have a second look.
Or "Marlowe At Sea". Yet another ridiculously overrated old film with Bogey. Quite talky, too. Bogey basically plays the same character as in the Marlow films; always in control of a situation, never nervous - no matter how dangerous a situation, calls women "slim" and "dames" and other such nonsense, is the only "real male" i.e. alpha male in the movie (the only other alpha male male being the head of Gestapo - but he is only a fat alpha male male), and - naturally - every attractive young woman who comes his way cannot resist his charms and wants his penis within hours of their initial introduction. The character clichés are all here. Bogey is supposed to be the same type of cynic-about-to-reform as in "Casablanca", and naturally he often refuses money or other valuables when being offered them - but how does that fit in with the tough cynic in him? It doesn't, so he can't be a cynic; Hawks wanted it both ways: a character who is both the "cool lone cynic" and yet a well-meaning humanitarian. I don't think so... Bacall does her non-chalant "cool babe" routine for the first time, and there are plenty of overrated, not all-too interesting so-called "sexual innuendo" exchanges between her and Bogey; these dialogues sound silly by today's standards. "Just purse your lips and whistle...". A load of crap... She was 19 when this was made but looks a lot older, and is far less attractive than the female stars of the day. Her bony face, with its sharp features, is nowhere even close to radiating the kind of feminine beauty of a de Havilland, the cuteness of a Myrna Loy, let alone the likability of an Irene Dunne. Bacall was more suited for playing vampires, not femme-fatales. (In real life she is very much like her face: a Hollywood bitch.) There is a scene in which Bacall breaks into tears; very unsuitable for her character. There are two or three bad musical numbers - but my fast-forward button was ready.<br /><br />If you're interested in reading my "biographies" of Bogart, Bacall, Huston, and other Hollywood personalities, contact me by e-mail.
I regret every single second of the time I lost while watching this movie, really. Unhappily, I always find it hard to switch off a movie once I started watching it. Especially, when it's such a classic or what people use to call a classic. I think that this is one of those movies every movie-lover should have watched at least one time, so that was why I watched it. Don't get me wrong, I like Humphrey Bogart and his wife Lauren Bacall both as a couple and as actors, but this movie was a big fraud in my opinion. No really good plot, neither an espionage flick nor a romantic love story. Well, not even a convincing mixture of both of these genres. Only thing which caused tension was that it was uncertain whether 'Bogey' and Bacall would stay together in the end or part from one another. I think "To Have and Have Not" is very overrated and Bogart was in many better films during the 1940s.
As a writer I find films this bad making it into production a complete slap in the face. Talk about insulting. I was writing better stories than this in 8th grade. Bad acting, bad writing, bad directing and when added all together the result is complete and total failure. <br /><br />The only thing this movie manages to accomplish is tricking the unsuspecting consumer into wasting their time. Who would green light something so poorly written? It's not artistic, clever, smart, suspenseful, mysterious, scary, dramatic-NOTHING.<br /><br />The characters are flat and boring with no development. The plot is as recycled as an aluminum can. They somehow managed to cast a few very familiar actors who all must be pretty desperate for work or hoping one of these low budget independent movies will turn out to be the next "Pulp Fiction". This script should have been used to line a bird cage, not a movie. <br /><br />Oh and last but not least, a 5'2 105 lb woman of course has the strength to kill men and women twice her size without a struggle and in a single blow. <br /><br />Avoid this bomb like it will infect you with an STD.
This "movie" is such a bad work! Nothing seems to even try and be realistic. Plot is weak, acting - miserable, actors wondering around like in a 1st year production, trying very hard to act with no chance at all from the beginning. What a flop! What a waste of time, money and effort to all concerned including the audience. Well, as in any thriller, here too are murders, corpses and blood. Just imagine someone who 5 minutes ago, committed a murder with a knife, and came out calm and smiling, not to mention clean as a whistle, as if slashing one's throat is done by a virtual agent. Also, this murder was supposed to be done by a tiny fragile woman on a high strong male, and she cut his throat!!! Did she ask him, politely, to bend down for her? Much more stupidity of that same kind is going on and on leaving the audience wondering if this meant to be a joke which just turned out to be a bad one. Continuity is another huge problem as for instance: The eager-hungry groom is lying in bed, waiting for his virgin-bride to get out of the bathroom and after a long while, falls asleep(!?!). Next scene opens with the young couple entering the reception-area, asking for guidance to scenery spots! NOT A WORD ABOUT LAST NIGHT??? Such a waste of time even to try and write about this low-low supposed-to-be "movie".
"Three Daring Daughters" is a sickly sweet, rose-colored look at divorce, remarriage, and single-parent living. Obviously, social issues and economic difficulty have no place in the picture perfect life of a single parent mother who feels exhausted, takes a cruise, and then dates and marries a band conductor. Even when the "its just a movie" phrase excuses the script from addressing real-life problems, 'Daughters' suffers from too many incoherent high-note songs, children whose personalities are not based on real children and band leader Hose Iturbi playing himself. Isn't it bizarre that any real person would star in a film in which their supposed real self gets married? <br /><br />Admittedly, this movie was released in the nineteen forties. Only a love for old style Hollywood romance and comedy could make 'Daughters' a tolerable film.
I actually have a fondness for Christopher Lee, but this just wasn't up to his other performances... and he was one of the better actors.<br /><br />The film does not live up to its premise. It's not that scary, it's overly melodramatic, and it draaaaaags. Every time I thought, "Oh, HERE comes the good part" the good part never quite arrived.<br /><br />The Evil Ones aren't at all convincing. Most of the other characters were also lacking in depth.<br /><br />Perhaps if I'd been in the proper frame of mind, I might have enjoyed some MSTie-fication at this film's expense, but.... Naaahhh... Didn't really seem to be worth the effort. It wasn't really very good, it wasn't really very bad, it was just mediocre.
I won't add to the plot reviews, it's not very good.<br /><br />Very improbable orphanage on Bala.<br /><br />Cushing and Lee at their height.<br /><br />Some nice scenery.<br /><br />Good for face spotting, and I quote, "look at the mouth, that is Cassie from Fools and Horses".<br /><br />Otherwise, a poor example of the British film industry.<br /><br />Fulton MacKay was far better in Fraggle Rock, Keith Barron was better in anything else and Diana Dors did what she did best.<br /><br />Redeeming feature? It was free to watch on the Horror channel prior to its going over to subscription. I won't be subscribing on this effort.
In spite of having some exciting (and daring) sequences, NBTN just never gets going. There are exploding boats, hat pin murders, mass suicides, pathologists with body parts, and all sorts of classic mystery/horror scenes, but they're interspersed with extended periods of pure exposition. Everybody in the movie looks bored. This is a shame because many of the sequences would be considered daring at the time this was filmed.<br /><br />Add to this the "too-proper" Brit characters and you feel like you've drifted into a Sherlock Holmes movie.<br /><br />Finally, the cinematography is very ordinary. There are lots of opportunities for beautiful shots of of the countryside, or complex shots of someone being pulled into a huge bonfire, but the whole thing is unimaginative and dull.<br /><br />Definitely only for Lee and Cushing fans.
...but a lousy film. As Maltin says this was Christopher Lee's attempt to make a serious horror film. Well, it is serious...TOO serious! The plot is silly and slow (something about old people inhabiting the bodies of young children to achieve immortality)...the film is all talk talk talk talk talk talk talk about the same things over and over again. I actually dozed off a few times! The film is sooooo dull! The cast sleepwalks through this with the sole exceptions of Peter Cushing and Lee...but this was probably a labor of love for both (they often complained about horror movies being too violent...well, this has NO violence!). Avoid at all costs...unless you have insomnia...this will put you to sleep!
The film is severely awful and is demeaning to rape victims. On the surface, it may be a daring film about rape but if you dig beneath the surface, what lies is a not-so-positive message about rape. Aishwarya the rape victim is shown to be a helpless victim who cannot cope all because she is a WOMAN. She needs a MAN to help her. When the society makes jibes about her and throws comments at her, she does not stand up for herself. It is all left to Anil Kapoor to do all the talking while Aishwarya does all the crying.<br /><br />The director (Satish Kaushik) went down the wrong path by portraying a rape victim as weak and submissive. What would have been more effective is portraying a strong woman who rebels against her enemies in a courageous way. The director is famous for being chauvinistic. His films are usually full of weak women but he tries to hide them in controversial roles. He needs to learn that just because the role is controversial, it does not mean that the character herself is strong.<br /><br />The most degrading scene in the film is when Aishwarya 'cleans' herself after just being raped. She does it to please her father who thinks that she is now dirty. Though it is commendable that Shah shows the stigma against rape victims in such a stark light, what he does not show us is whether Ash's father was wrong for making his daughter do such a thing. Thus we are left with a confusing message about rape.<br /><br />The comedy too is not needed in a strong subject film like this. Even more so, the comedy is simply not funny. Ash is wooden in her role while Anil Kapoor does nothing but shout. The music is mediocre except for the title track, which is beautifully picturised (the only bright point of this film). Sonali Bendre's role is disappointing and pointless. Overall, what could have been a great movie to remember ends up being an awful mish-mash that will give some viewers severe indigestion.
Probably encouraged by admirers of her much-better "Orlando", Potter here delivers a vehicle for herself in the worst way: she writes, directs, stars, and actually co-writes the music, including a mawkish love song. The film strongly resembles a high school or college project by a teenager convinced that her own intimate loves and melodramatic obsessions are as fascinating to us as to her. But Potter's character is as unsympathetic as the object of her romantic obsession is unlikable, and the whole film is an embarrassing display of narcissism masquerading as a celebration of the tango. Perhaps if she hadn't cast herself it might have worked. She just can't act, whether playing herself or not. Pretentious, over-ambitious, dull, and silly.
Dire. Just dire. The script is contrived, the acting painful, and the story just drags along. It is, without a doubt, a celebration of Sally Potter and little else. This wouldn't be so bad, but she's the director, writer and star of the film, and so is just self-glorification. I found myself not caring about the developing romance between the principal two characters, and the ending came not a moment too soon. It has two redeeming features. First is that a lot of the shots are really quite lovely, particularly in Paris, and look rather good in black and white. Secondly, whether you're a fan of tango or not, the music is by and large, excellent (except where Sally starts singing). Watch this film at your own risk, or if you need an unintentional laugh. I am sure it appeals to someone. Statistically, it has to.
Strange how less than 2 hours can seem like a lifetime when sitting through such flat, uninspiring drivel. If a story is as personal as this supposedly was to Sally Potter, wouldn't you expect a little passion to show through in her performance? Her acting was completely detached and I felt no chemistry between Sally and Pablo and the tango scenes, which should have been fiery given the nature of the dance, were instead awkward and painful to watch. Obviously, revealing such a personal story on film can be daunting, and as such Sally Potter would have been wise to let a better actor take on the task rather than let her passion fall victim to her own sheepishness.
This is the worst movie I have ever seen, and I have seen quite a few movies. It is passed off as an art film, but it is really a piece of trash. It's one redeeming quality is the beautiful tango dancing, but that cannot make up for Sally Potter's disgustingly obvious tribute to herself. The plot of this movie is nonexistent, and I guarantee you will start laughing by the end. Especially where she starts singing. It's absolutely unreal.
The dancing was probably the ONLY watchable thing about this film -- and even that was disappointing compared to some other films. My gawd!<br /><br />To me, this is the worst kind of film -- one that assumes it's a work of art because it has all the trappings of film-as-art. Yes, it's beautifully photographed, but ultimately lacks the depth and tension of the dance around which the film supposedly surrounds itself. Tango is a tease, it's hot, it has drama, it's audacious -- precisely what this film is not.
Wow what a great premise for a film : Set it around a film maker with writer`s block who decides to take up tango lessons . Hey and what an even better idea cast the central role to a film maker who`s interested in tango. Gosh I wish I had that knack for genius . Yes I`m being sarcastic.<br /><br />It amazes me that these type of zero potential for making money movies are made . Come on unless you`re a rabid tango fan ( I do concede they do exist judging by the comments ) or a die hard member of the Sally Potter fan club ( ? ) there`s nothing in this film that will make you rush off to the cinema to see it . Even if you`re into tango much of the film is taken up with meaningless scenes like a house getting renovated or a man in wheelchair going along a road <br /><br />Coming soon THE REVIEW LESSON where a failed screenwriter from Scotland sits in front of a computer writing very sarcastic but highly entertaining reviews of films he`s seen . Gasp in shock as Theo Robertson puts the boot into the latest Hollywood blockbusters , weep in sympathy as he gets yet another rejection letter from a film company , fall in lust as he takes a bath and rubs soap over his well toned body . THE REVIEW LESSON coming soon to a cinema near you if anyone is stupid enough to fund the movie<br /><br />PS Sally Potter is unrelated to Harry Potter
Terrible acting by Potter and a flat plot with no tension what so ever. And as for the feminist polemic, it's laughable. I saw this garbage when it was first released and though I found it tedious beyond belief I'm glad I did go to see it. That's because I now have an immediate answer to the question 'what's the worst film you've ever seen?' Plus, I have the comfort of knowing that every film I see for the rest of my life will be better than The Tango Lesson. But I have to admit I was impressed with the way Potter wrote a script that would garner the maximum number of arts council grants from around the world (as is revealed in the closing credits).<br /><br />I only very recently saw Orlando and I can see how Potter learnt the wrong lessons from making that film. All it took was a bunch of frilly costumes, a few hard stares to camera by the leading lady, and a loose plot to seduce the cinema going public. So why shouldn't she think she could get away with the self-indulgent nothingness that is The Tango Lesson?
The mind boggles at exactly what about Universal Soldier merited a sequel. Since the real star, Dolph Lundgren, would not be able to reprise his role from the original, there is already scant reason to indulge oneself in this obvious tax write-off. Bold attempts are made to fill the gap with professional wrestler Bill Goldberg and martial arts expert Michael Jai White. To their credit, they give their action sequences a good sense of excitement. Bill Goldberg looks like he is having the time of his life on this film, and he makes a fair stab at filling the requisite comedic villain role. For once, his role is the kind that involves repeating the same line a few times, and it does not get irritating. The problem from the audience's point of view is that neither of these gentlemen really have the sense of comic timing or minor humility that makes Lundgren such a pleasure to watch in almost all of his films. And therein lies the problem. You do not go to see a Van Damme film because you want serious action. You go because you want comedy, however unintentional.<br /><br />Unbeknownst to many people, Universal Soldier was followed by two direct-to-video sequels. I have only seen the first, which had production values so bad one can only wonder if it was meant to be some kind of elaborate joke. Matt Battaglia was so terrible in the role of Luc Deveraux that for once in his career, the sight of Jean-Claude Van Damme comes as a welcome relief. The film more or less completely disregards the stories of the aforementioned direct-to-video sequels, and instead begins a whole new story set an indeterminate time after the events of the original. After years of investigation and explanation, the Unisol project is still going ahead, with some minor modifications. For one, the new Unisols are stronger and more damage-resistant than their earlier cousins. For another, all of the Unisols are now under the direction of a supercomputer called SETH. In the early parts of the film, SETH exists primarily as a series of abstract graphics within a glass dome.<br /><br />Being that the film barely lasts more than eighty minutes, we are quickly told that funding to the military is being cut. The Unisol project is on the chopping block, which essentially means that SETH will be turned off. SETH, somehow overhearing this conversation through means that are never really explained, decides to mobilise the Unisols as an army against those seeking to shut him down. His only problem is that every so often, a code is required to be put into his system in order to prevent automatic shutdown. Two individuals possess the code in question. SETH kills the first in short order, and those who are familiar with the plot kit that Van Damme's films are constructed out of will guess within five seconds who the second happens to be. The rest of the film revolves around the Unisols' attempts to get the code out of Van Damme without injuring him too badly. A subplot with a daughter and a reporter is woven into the film, but it adds about as much to the story as Van Damme does to the profession of acting.<br /><br />The film is loaded to the brim with ridiculous lines and clichés. When SETH transplants his command module into the body of Michael Jai White, we get a speech about how the time of the humans is over. He goes on to tell his foot soldiers how fear and mortality will be humanity's weakness(es). Gee, SETH, you mean they will not be our strong points? All kidding aside, the short length of the film is both the film's weakness and its strength. It leaves the action without adequate setup. In the original, we are given a very thorough explanation of the Unisols, how they work, and how they are brought to the state that is seen in the majority of the film. Here, the writer seems to take it for granted that the viewer knows what a Unisol is and how they operate. At least in the original, a moment of curiosity and wonder was created by leaving the explanation for later in the film when the hero lies in a tub of ice. Here, one of the villains is shot with a gun that leaves massive holes in his uniform (and presumably his body), getting up every time without stopping for breath.<br /><br />I tend to reserve the score of one for films that are so bad that they become entertaining in a completely unintentional manner. If you can see it on the cheap, knock yourself out. This is the kind of film that makes me mourn the loss of Mystery Science Theatre.
OK I saw this movie to get a benchmark for bad but with this movie it's Unisol's best movie now plot Luc Devereux is now a technical expert who is working with the government with his partner Maggie, who's been through countless hours of training and combat with him, to refine and perfect the UniSol program in an effort to make a new, stronger breed of soldier that is more sophisticated, intelligent, and agile. All of the new Unisols, which are faster and stronger than their predecessors, are connected through an artificially intelligent computer system called SETH, a Self-Evolving Thought Helix. When SETH discovers that the Universal Soldier program is scheduled to be shut down because of budget cuts, he takes matters into his own "hands" to protect himself. Killing those who try to shut off his power, and unleashing his platoon of super-soldiers, led by the musclebound Romeo, SETH spares Deveraux, only because Deveraux has the secret code that is needed to deactivate a built-in program that will shut SETH down in a matter of hours. With the help of a hacker named Squid, SETH takes human form. Not only must Luc contend with ambitious reporter Erin, who won't leave his side, but Luc also must contend with General Radford, who wants to take extreme measures to stop SETH. SETH has also kidnapped Luc's injured 13-year-old daughter Hillary, and is now holding her hostage. Luc is the only person who can rescue Hillary, because Luc knows firsthand how a UniSol thinks, feels, and fights. now there are problems like in any movie like did anyone find it weird how a reporter just-so-happened to be there and The soldiers can take being flattened with a truck however when Vanne Damme shoots them with a gun with one bullet and they die and the final fight scene was unbelievable when Luc is now human and Seth is 5x stronger and faster than any other Unisol and Luc can take a hit from him. with the final fight when Luc smashes him to pieces I was really surprised that the pieces didn't melt and reform him (Terminator 2). another thing that bugs me is how the hell does Vanne Damme get good actors to play relatives I mean in the case of Vanne Damme it's completely off the grid of how Science Fiction this movie is. The Music Score now that must have a mention have you ever listened to a song where you'd rather cut a blackboard with a knife well Universal Soldier 2 is like that. The good points are there's no Dolph (HOORAY) and unlike the 1st one there is only one naked scene whereas in the 1st one there are many (I'm still haunted by the scenes in #1) also the actors in this have some talent whereas in the first one the casting guys were sadists (if you don't believe me look it up)
I don't think any movie of Van Damme's will ever beat Universal Soldier but u never know. This movie was good but not as good as 1st. VD returns a Luc & must do battle again. He tries 2 b funny here but its maybe worth a smirk of a chuckle. VD has a kid this time from Ally W., good it showed a pic of them 2. Goldberg was cool, he does his famous move-forgot what its called cause i don't watch wrestling-sucks. VD & Goldberg had some good fights. It was the ending like the 1st but just not that good. VD does his best move in his career, like always-the HELICOPTER KICK. Even though, the final ending should've been longer. Anyway, it is worth seeing but it will never top the original.
Jean Claude Van Damme tries to rescue his career by making the sequel of Universal Soldier. But, did that movie saved him? I think he goes to hell, after he dies. <br /><br />In the first minute, we see the inside of a facility, where you can see the bad guy of the film. Scary, huh? But not as scary as the acting (details are following). <br /><br />Then, we see Van Damme with a black girl (do not remember the name....well it doesn't matter anyway), trying to escape from some muscle-men. Of course they are the new Universal-Soldiers. More muscels, less brain (just like the movie). After a while, Van Damme fights Goldberg but then the "mission" gets aborted. It was just a test (Is this movie a test for our nerves?). It turns out that Van Damme works for the government on the new Universal Soldier project (Who has seen the first movie may think that this is the most unlogical thing, that yould Van Dammes character could do). But it is a sequel. And a "story" has to come up. Ah, I forgot. He has a daughter. Very important for the "story".<br /><br />Well, after about 20 minutes, a super computer hears a conversation about shutting it down and quitting he project. Of course the cube gets angry and activates all soldiers to kill everyone. Van Damme escapes from the facility BUT the computer sends some soldiers hunting him (It wants Van Damme as a soldier - because he is the best (really?)). And guess what, Goldberg is one of the hunters, who was always a silly sentence for the audience before he gets asskicked. Funny? Yes, just like the rest of the film. <br /><br />After some "story", Van Damme tries to rescue his daughter (of his wife - the reporter in the first movie). It comes to a final show down where Van Damme fights the Bad Guy and you can see the most expensive scene of the whole movie (please see for yourself. It is just too funny to tell).<br /><br />You'll see that this movie is a waste of time.<br /><br />So do not watch it. But if you do, keep a sixpack with you!
After seeing the low-budget shittier versions of the "Universal Soldier" franchise, I hoped and prayed that Van Damme reprised his role as Luc Devoreaux in a second Unisol movie. Well, it seemed this prayer was answered, but not the way I hoped. Universial Soldier 2 is just intense as poetry reading at your local library. No, even that would be more intriguing . The fight sequences are top-notch, Bruce Lee quality, which is the only redeeming factor in this entire pathetic excuse for a motion picture. That and having former WCW tough-guy legend "Goldberg" playing the villain. However, placing Goldberg as Seth's sidekick lieutenant would've been better.<br /><br />We offended me the most was the setting of the movie itself. It's like some film school students slapped it together. The plot holes are that bigger than Kanye West's ego is what really did this movie in. For example: Luc's daughter, Hillary looks like she's at least 11-13 years old and the first movie was filmed only seven years ago. How is that possible? Tell me that! The part in which Luc's partner was killed off and turned into a Unisol is just re-goddamn diculous! You mean to tell me that there was an experimental Unisol exposed naked in the basement of the research complex at the beginning of the movie. C'mon. The director could've spent more time with this movie like the first one and sewn all the plot holes shut. But oooh nooo! <br /><br />Speaking of the plot, IT SUCKS! Compared to the first movie, Universal Soldier 2's plot watered down and worthless. Where's the gritty thrills in which a Unisol goes berserk an re-enacts his last memories in a supermarket rampage thinking its Desert Storm or something ? This was the dawn of the Millennium, you would attracted more of an audience if this had taken place in a dystopia/Orwellian type of future cesspit. Corny is the correct adjective to describe this sad, sad, sad sequel. <br /><br />From what I seen: Double Impact, Under Siege 2, Robocop 3, and hell, even the cheap-ass/no class Terminator knock-off "Class of 1999" is more entertaining than this!
This was an atrocious waste of my time. No plot. The acting was so far below par, it should be used as an exemplar in acting classes of what NOT to do. It is merely a commercial rip-off of the earlier Universal Soldier, which also scrapes the bottom of the acting barrel. Its sad that VD needs to assert his ego every few years, and sadder still that people will pay good money to sit thru it. This kind of schlock gives Martial Arts movies a bad name. By comparison, it makes Segall, Norris, and Arnold look almost talented.<br /><br />Perhaps VD should take the Leslie Nielson track and do send-ups of his genre. At least then we could be laughing with him instead of at him.
This time the hero from the first film has become human and this time uses fist and foot combos against super universal soldiers and a computer which has gone awry and is prepared to take over the world. I'm pretty sure it was Double Team, which convinced everyone that Jean-Claude Van Damme was no longer credible in providing watchable action flicks. However it was this that tarnished his credibility forever. While Universal Soldier:The Return isn't as dull as Double Team or The Quest,it's still pretty awful indeed, with none of the style and flair of the original and no star pairing. This sequel is made simply for kids who enjoy professional wrestling. As I look back, not even the action sequences were all that exciting and therefore this movie is a worthless dud. In other words another clunker in Van Damme's assembly line.<br /><br />* out of 4(Bad)
I tried to watch this movie twice and both times I still couldn't make it to the end credits. First time I managed to sit through the first fight sequence then lost interest. Second time I managed to force myself to digest over an hours worth of shoddy acting, lame SFX and extremely poor direction. Pales in comparison to the original.<br /><br />Anyone ever hear about the old ET Atari 2600 fiasco? For those who haven't let me fill you in. It's 1982...ET is one of the biggest box office smashes of all time...Atari decides to release a movie tie-in game on their 2600 home console system. To cut a long and financially painful story short the game flopped big time and resulted in thousands upon thousands of Atari 2600 ET games to be dumped in landfills because they couldn't even give them away let alone sell them.<br /><br />What does Universal Soldier: The Return have to do with this story? Look at the 3.2 rating and figure it out for yourself.<br /><br />Awful film...IMDb forced me to give it a 1 out of 10 because their rating systems doesn't go as low as 0 let alone into the negatives.
This movie is mostly crap and the only reason this movie is worth watching is because Jean-Claud Vam Damme stars in this movie.There are some good action scenes in this movie and the best ones are at the end of the movie.<br /><br />The acting in this movie is so bad and its the worst acting i have ever seen and the 2 actors Bill Goldberg and Michael Jai White Can not act at ALL.And this movie by far has to be one of Jean-Claud Vam Dammes worst movies he has done and if u what to watch him in one of his great movies u should watch Blood sport,KickBoxer or Sudden Death.<br /><br />Over all this movie is crap/OK and my rating is 4 out of 10.
This is the official sequel to the '92 sci-fi action thriller. In the original, Van Damme was among several dead Vietnam War vets revived to be the perfect soldiers (Unisols). In this one, it's, I guess, about a dozen years later, since Van Damme has a daughter about that age. Now he's working with the government in a classified installation to train the latest Unisols - codenamed Unisol 2500, for some reason. As usual, something goes wrong: the on-site super-computer (named Seth - like the snake in "King Cobra" the same year) goes power-crazy, takes command of the Unisols, and even downloads its computer brain into a new super-Unisol body (Jai White). We're lookin' at the next step in evolution, folks! Most of Van Damme's fights are with one particularly mean Unisol (pro wrestler Goldberg) who just keeps on comin': drop him off a building - no good; run him down with a truck - no go! Shoot him, burn him - forgetaboutit! Much of the humor is traced to how Van Damme is now outmoded and out-classed(he's even going grey around the edges). But, though he takes a lickin', he keeps on kickin'! Most sequels of this sort are pretty lame - pale imitations of the originals, and while this one is certainly no stroke of genius, it manages to be consistently entertaining, especially if you're a pro-wrestling fan.
I'll be honest. The only reason I watched this one on TV is that it's in the IMDb bottom 100. And right now, I'm wondering if the hour and a half of my life really was worth another 'check' on that same list.<br /><br />Van Damme is Luc Deveraux, who finds himself on a huge fight with the Universal Soldiers after the main computer pulled a 'HAL' to defend itself. And yes, after all the obligate explosions, shoot-outs and chases he is the last one standing. Combined with terrible acting and a bit of a boring set-up it makes sure it's place in the infamous list is just.<br /><br />Only for the idiots like me who want to watch that full list. 2/10.
** HERE BE SPOILERS **<br /><br />The government has continued to develop the UniversalSoldier program, now called UniSol. The soldiers are now stronger and are able to take more damage than before. However the government is downsizing, the project endangered and the supercomputer that is in the middle of all feel threatened, so he takes steps to ensure his own safety. He activates and controls the UniSols and start to run mayhem. The only one who can stop them is Deveraux (Van Damme). <br /><br />This movie is about one thing. Choreographed fighting. The story is bad, and is soon drowned in all fights. Whatever happens, and wherever they go, they fight. Unfortunately for this movie, it is no fun watching a fight where you know one part of it is indestructible. Normally you're pretty sure the hero will win, but you still want to feel the fights are between two somewhat equal combatants. Not where one is indestructible and can't lose. Then the fights just become a tool to stretch time. You wait until the final fight when Deveraux miraculously finds a way to beat his unbeatable foes. To further lower my opinion, a desperate and sure sign of a bad movie is how much scantily clad women there are. Well, there aren't really that lot of them, because the characters are most men (there are at least one woman UniSol though), but almost every woman is needlessly shown with at least just a bra once. The female leads get by with this, but we also pass through a strip-club (to use a computer no less) with much more undressed women. These moments do not give anything to the story and is just there to try to please the adolescent-minded male audience.<br /><br />So, in conclusion, boring fights. No more, no less. Well, maybe less...<br /><br />2/10
this is a piece of s--t!! this looks worse than a made for t.v. movie. and i shutter to think that a sequel was even concieved and the results... war is prettier than this. jean claude van shame has done it again and he wonders why his career is where it is now. no script, no story and no time should be wasted on this. i mean that. 1 out of 10 is too high, way too high. goldberg should be jackhammered for this. van shame is no actor.
This movie was absolutly awful. I can't think of one thing good about it. The plot holes were so huge you could drive a Hummer through them. The acting was soo stuningly bad that even Jean Claude should be ashamed, and that is saying alot!!! And dialogue, What dialogue???To think that I was a fan of the first one (I use that comment loosely, its more like a guilty pleasure, than anything else). This movie had Goldberg in it for crying out loud!!!! Nothing good can come of this movie. What makes this film even worse is that it is soo bad you can't even watch it with a bunch of friends to make fun of!!! This has got to be in my top five worst movies of all time. 2/10 because it is soo hard for me to give a 1.
Van Damme. What else can I say? Bill Goldberg. THERE WE GO. NOW we know this movie is going to be really horrible.<br /><br />I saw the first five minutes of this movie on TBS, knowing it would be bad. But not even I thought it would be THIS bad. The plot is awful, Van Damme is getting old (finally), but unlike Arnold, his movies are as well.<br /><br />Forget this movie. Don't see it. Ever. I wouldn't even be paid to see this film.<br /><br />1/5 stars - at its heart lies a wonderful, action-packed thrill ride.<br /><br /> Well, maybe not, but the marketers would sure like us to think so, wouldn't they?<br /><br />John Ulmer
I'm sorry for Jean, after having such a good original movie to be followed up by perhaps his worst movie in is career. This movie was shot down terribly by horrible acting jobs by Goldbeg(Romeo) and whatever that computers name was. Also, some scenes may have been just a little unnesicary. Truly, bad movie.
I was very skeptical about sacrificing my precious time to watch this film. I didn't enjoy the first one at all, and the last Jean Claude Van Damme film I liked was Blood Sports! After managing to sit through it all? Avoid, avoid, avoid!!
The infamous Ed Wood "classic" Plan 9 From Outer Space features an indignant alien calling the human race, "...stupid! Stupid, stupid stupid!" I'd have to say exhibit A in that trial would probably this movie, a ridiculously silly sci-fi film.<br /><br />Falling action star Jean Claude Van Damme returns to a hit role for him from the original movie, Luke, a former Universal Soldier who now works making really good universal soldiers. While Van Damme was too big to reprise the role in the first two sequels, he was too small to do much of anything else by the time the fourth film in the Universal Soldier series came around. So, probably cursing under his breath the whole way, he kicks and grunts and scowls through ninety minutes of explosions and karate kicks. You'll find plenty of mindless violence, but I'd advise you get a coat check for your brain at the door when you start watching this thing. Otherwise, you are liable to forget where you left it by the time it's over.<br /><br />Luke is called into action against more Universal Soldiers after a really really REALLY evil computer named Seth (makes HAL look like Ghandi) turns all the other universal soldiers into evil, remorseless killers. Of course this is what these things are programmed to do, but in this case they are killing their creators, not "the enemy" so that's a problem.<br /><br />I love the dumb logic of this movie. Logic that believes that a supercomputer would create a body for itself that looks as ashamed as Michael Jai White does to be in this movie. Logic that dictates that the creator of Seth be a blue-haired cyber-stereotype geek who spouts cliches more regularly than Old Faithful does steam. Logic that has a climactic karate fight feature two characters kicking each other though ten separate panes of shattering glass in the span of three minutes of screen time.<br /><br />The film also features a daughter in peril character, wrestler Bill Goldberg as a wrestler disguised as a Universal Soldier, and a romance so tacked on, I have to think the writers thought tacked on romances were actually a GOOD thing. And when this movie ends, it ends. Not a minute after a gigantic towering finale-style explosion are the credits running. No epilogue, no where are they now, no final kiss, just explosion, hug, over. Even the creators want to get out of this thing as soon as possible.<br /><br />While it's no Plan 9, US:TR is a silly little trifle of an action movie that would be fun at parties full of rowdy Van Damme fans who enjoy seeing their hero really reaching new depths. Not to be seen on a serious stomach.
I first heard of Unisol 2 when I drove past a cinema when I was on holiday in America. I really did not take much notice of it until I bought the original on DVD which led me to find out about its three sequels. I subsequently started to read about The Return on the IMDB and asked friends what they thought of it. Despite their horrific criticisms of it, I still went out of my way to see it and was on the brink of buying it until I saw it for hire on DVD. I wasn't expecting much but thought that it must have been half decent to get a theatrical release in the US, after all, how often is it that you see Van Damme on the big screen? Well, nothing could have prepared me for this. It is so bad I almost cried. What a total waste of 80 minutes and £2.50. It is hard to explain how bad this move is. Honestly. This is idiotic film making. No, it's more than idiotic. I just cannot believe how this got made. I cannot believe that someone out there has not murdered Mic Rogers. How stupid can people possibly be - firstly, Van Damme actually thinking the script and finished film was good. Secondly, the fact that Xander Berkley, of Terminator 2 and Air Force One status, commited himself to this film. I simply cannot believe the stupidity of this movie. It takes itself so seriously but comes across to the audience like a spoof. Here is an example: JCVD's daughter (yes, Luc is now a human again)- "I want my Daddy", SETH- "So do I". Oh yeah, and some guy tries to shut down SETH by pulling three huge levers with - wait for it - ON and OFF written on them. The acting all round is like playschool acting. I'm sure Mr Director modelled Luc's reporter girlfriend on April O'Neil from the cartoon Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles - she refuses to go because she '...needs her story'. I mean come on - how many cliches can a film possibly use? Please listen to me fellow IMDB users - don't touch this with a barge pole. To conclude, Universal Soldier: The Return has no relation whatsoever to the first movie. In fact, if they weren't called UniSols then you would never know it was a sequel. Luc is now a human again - what the hell!?! The only place in which he can access the internet is in a stripclub. All the new Uni Sols look like they were dragged off the street, they are that unconvincing. This is pure torture to watch, so do yourself a favour - don't torture yourself. P.S - Best part of the movie: Romeo jumps off a building and shouts 'Oh sh*t'.
We open with Colonel Luc Deveraux (Van Damme), the original Universal Soldier and his buxom Asian friend being chased down a river by what appear to be Universal Soldiers. They almost kill the two, then oh wait, it was just a field test. Deveraux we come to find is now part of a government funded company that designs the new level of Universal Soldiers. Why he would want to be involved in this (if you know anything about the original) is never explained and well beyond me.<br /><br />It's after this flimsy set piece that the real story gets going. The United States government has cut the Universal Soldier's project budget and in the process angered SETH (the large artificial mainframe computer that controls the Universal Soldiers). Naturally he won't be shut down without a fight. So that means Van Damme has to go around and take all the new breed of Universal Soldiers out. Which sounds like a fun idea for an action movie and a take on a sequel, but that doesn't stop it from becoming stupid as hell. <br /><br />For instance, one of the new Universal Soldiers is played by Bill Goldberg. Seems you can't go wrong casting a wrestler in an action movie. He's big, he's tough, right? Wrong. Van Damme doesn't seem to have a problem wiping the floor with him... once ... twice ... three times. The point here lost on me. Then there's the breaking of glass. A rudimentary part of any action movie, but someone involved must have a glass fetish. You have to see the fight scenes in particular. Let's not talk about how nobody cuts themselves or at the very least slips. Then to put the cherry on top of this train wreck, they have SETH (the computer) secure a human body for himself and how appropriate it is when they make the villain black (Michael Jai White). Nothing works better than a white good guy fighting a black bad guy it would seem. Potentially offensive and just downright lame. He's no replacement for Dolph, either.<br /><br />Universal Soldier 2 is a lousy sequel. It's loud, it's dumb and it doesn't care. The original wasn't anything poetic, but it made a simple sort of sense with a science fiction element and it entertained on a basic level. The sequel doesn't. They do however keep the running time under ninety minutes and somehow found a way to squeeze in a strip club sequence. So give credit where credit is due.
This is a worthless sequel to a great action movie. Cheap looking, and worst of all, BORING ACTION SCENES! The only decent thing about the movie is the last fight sequence. Only 82 minutes, but it feels like it goes on forever! Even die-hard Van Damme fans(like myself) should avoid this one!
Universal Soldier: The Return is not the worst movie ever made. No, that honor would have to go to a film that attempted to make some sort of statement or accomplish some artistic feat but failed in a pathetic or offensive manner. However, perhaps no movie I have ever seen has tried for so little and succeeded so completely as did Universal Soldier: The Return. <br /><br />This film is a sci-fi/action travesty that has virtually nothing to recommend it. The acting is as bad as any movie I've ever seen. The plot is terrible and predictable. The special effects are pathetic. In short, anyone even remotely connected to this film should be ashamed of themselves. US: The Return makes previous Van Damme fare seem like groundbreaking cinematic masterpieces. Some movies are so bad, they're good. Believe me when I tell you that this is not one of them. I'm really not sure what else to say here. I doubt many people were considering seeing this movie if they hadn't already, but just in case: don't.
This movie was so bad that my i.q. went down about 40 points after seeing it. It made me wonder who could sit through the weeks it took to make it and think that it was worth it. It must of been some kind of personal favor to Van Damme.
There seems to be an overwhelming response to this movie yet no one with the insight to critique its methodology, which is extremely flawed. It simply continues to propogate journalistic style analysis, which is that it plays off of the audiences lack of knowledge and prejudice in order to evoke an emotional decry and outburst of negative diatribe.<br /><br />Journalism 101: tell the viewer some fact only in order to predispose them into drawing conclusions which are predictable. for instance, the idea of civil war, chaos, looting, etc were all supposedly unexpected responses to the collapse of governmental infrastructure following Hussein's demise: were these not all symptomatic of an already destitute culture? doctrinal infighting as symptomatic of these veins of Islam itself, rather than a failure in police force to restrain and secure? would they rather the US have declared marshall law? i'm sure the papers here would've exploded with accusations of a police state and fascist force.<br /><br />aside from the analytical idiocy of the film, it takes a few sideliners and leaves the rest out claiming "so-and-so refused to be interviewed..." yet the questions they would've asked are no doubt already answered by the hundred inquisitions those individuals have already received. would you, as vice president, deign to be interviewed by a first time writer/producer which was most certainly already amped to twist your words. they couldn't roll tape of Condi to actually show her opinion and answer some of the logistics of the questions, perhaps they never watched her hearing.<br /><br />this is far from a neutral glimpse of the situation on the ground there. this is another biased, asinine approach by journalists - which are, by and large, unthinking herds.<br /><br />anyone wanting to comment on war ought at least have based their ideas on things a little more reliable than NBC coverage and CNN commentary. these interpretations smack of the same vitriol which simply creates a further bipartisanism of those who want to think and those who want to be told by the media what to think.
This is a well made informative film in the vein of PBS Frontline. The problem is, Frontline already did this piece and managed to bring L. Paul Bremer in to tell his side of the story. More troubling is the fact that the director of the film, Charles Ferguson--a former think tank wonk, was a war supporter until the occupation went south. What did he think would happen? <br /><br />The invasion of Poland went really well too until it was messed up by those pesky Nazis.And that is what this film feels like--an apology for occupation rather than a deconstruction of the act of war itself. <br /><br />Ferguson seems to suggest that the war could have been run better--as if any war can be better.
Early, heavy, war-time propaganda short urging people to be careful with their spending practices, in effort to prevent any runaway inflation.<br /><br />Using scare, guilt and patriotic jingoistic rhetoric, which was normal for the time, the government was concern that the sudden war-time production and therefore wage increase and subsequent spending practices if not checked could cause serious problems during and after the war.<br /><br />It truly is a window into the past, historically and culturally.
The only redeeming quality of this movie is that it was bad enough to be comedic. Everyone in this movie looks like a porn industry drop out. I have actually seen better acting in low budget porn. I though I had actually rented some kind of gay porn after this classic scene: Jim: Watch your ass Nick: You watch yours (together): I wont leave you behind!<br /><br />The first action sequence shows how awful the production is, but its really kind of funny: Good guys have transformer weapons! In one scene, they all have fake HK MP5 sub-machine guns. Next scene, AK-47 replicas! And then, to top it all off, they do some weapon swapping between scenes with a couple of M-16s!! I think they had a budget shortage for guns, not enough to go around between the good guys and bad guys. Fight scenes are poorly coordinated and fake as all hell. You have to remove the pin/spoon from a grenade for it to explode on its own. You can't fire a shoulder launched missile of any kind while riding inside a helicopter. Weapons that you throw away don't suddenly re-appear. When a gun is out of bullets, throwing it away is still pretty stupid. Unless you have no idea how to reload them.. Big slow trucks driving around in first gear make for awkward action scenes. I really cant believe movies like this are actually produced. This movie would be hilarious on nitrous oxide or maybe just drunk.
I'm sorry to say this, but the acting in this film is horrible. The dialogue sounds as if they are reading their lines for the first time ever. Perhaps I got the "dress rehearsal" version by mistake. The director over-uses slow motion during special effects perhaps as an attempt to compensate for the poor performance of the actors themselves. The story is pretty well written, and the fight sequences are actually better than I have seen in many action films. The fights seem pretty real. But all of this happens while to two leading actors time and time again miraculously survive incredible amounts of point-blank automatic weapon fire, grenades, morter rounds, and bazookas. The enemy soldiers are definitely some of the worst shots I have ever seen, especially when they have the escaping truck in their sights from about 30 yards, and every bazooka shot is wide by at least 50 feet. Those bazookas need serious site calibration.
At first I was convinced that this was a made-for-TV movie that wasn't worthy of primetime. But after a few minutes of dumb-struck awe, I realized that there was at least comic value in the over-the-top stunts and c-movie acting. This movie would have gotten a 1 if my wife and I hadn't laughed so hard as we watched it in wonder that the actors could keep a straight face. It was like a less-funny spy version of The Big Hit (I laughed so much I actually bought the Big Hit DVD) with even-worse acting. We were disappointed that Nick chose to marry Elena, and not Jim, after all of the hugging and high-fives. A few rum and cokes will definitely help it go down easier.
There was not one original idea in this story. Themes were pulled from various sources; a few being The Ninth Gate, In the Mouth of Madness (another Carpenter film), and The Ring. It even went as far as featuring the same damn glowing circle from The Ring and using it as the film's namesake. The soundtrack by Cody Carpenter was all but lifted from Suspiria. Hopefully no one will oppose this comment by spewing the word HOMAGE around. Yes, I saw that the theater was playing Argento's Deep Red. Claiming an homage would be a bullshit cop-out. This was bottom-of-the-barrel. Throwing gore and "disturbing" imagery into the pot does not make a good horror film. Carpenter used to know that. He should fade into obscurity or acquire a time machine.
I saw this last week after picking up the DVD cheap. I had wanted to see it for ages, finding the plot outline very intriguing. So my disappointment was great, to say the least. I thought the lead actor was very flat. This kind of part required a performance like Johny Depp's in The Ninth Gate (of which this is almost a complete rip-off), but I guess TV budgets don't always stretch to this kind of acting ability.<br /><br />I also the thought the direction was confused and dull, serving only to remind me that Carpenter hasn't done a decent movie since In the Mouth of Madness. As for the story - well, I was disappointed there as well! There was no way it could meet my expectation I guess, but I thought the payoff and explanation was poor, and the way he finally got the film anti-climactic to say the least.<br /><br />This was written by one of the main contributors to AICN, and you can tell he does love his cinema, but I would have liked a better result from such a good initial premise.<br /><br />I took the DVD back to the store the same day!
According to IMDb Takashi Miike's Master of Horror-segment, Imprint, was banned in the US. So I figured I'd translate the Swedish review I just wrote for it...<br /><br />It was hard to NOT have any sort of expectations from Ichi The Killer-director Takashi Miike's episode in the Masters of Horror series. And the DVD-cover of Imprint did in deed look very promising.<br /><br />The story mostly takes place in a remote Japanese bordello, some time during the 19th century, and it tells the tale of a journalist searching for Komomo, the woman he left behind and whom he promised to return for. Tired and dejected he arrives at the bordello, hoping that this will be the end of his very long journey. It turns out that one of the prostitutes, a deformed and quiet girl, know about Komomo, and the desperate man makes her tell him where she is and what has happened to her since he left. The story she tells him is as deplorable as it is hard to swallow...<br /><br />The first thing that hit me about the episode was how unnatural it seemed that the Japanese cast for the most part spoke fluent American-English. But I will leave it at that, it's not that big a deal. What IS a big deal however is how miserable the rest of it was. Miike's tale moves at such a slow pace that I couldn't help looking at my watch several times during the 63 minutes. The extended torure-scene, that takes place somewhere in the middle of the movie, felt so unmotivated - and pornographically intrusive - that not even THAT scene became interesting. I felt like it was violent just for the sake of violence itself - with no sense of style or purpose. The only scenes that provoked any kind of emotion out of me were the images of bloody fetuses rolling along the bottom of the swiftly flowing water...and, in all honesty, the only emotions they provoked were feelings of disgust.<br /><br />The journalist seeking the love he left behind is played by Billy Drago, for me most memorable as Frank Nitti - Al Capones whiteclad assassin in Brian De Palmas The Untouchables (1987). I've always found Dragos portrayal of Nitti to be very icy (and I mean that in a good way), and that is probably why I was almost annoyed when I found him to be so terrible (NOT in a good way) in this one. His acting seems to flow between no feelings or empathy whatsoever to displays of some really bad overacting. When his character is supposed to react to the awful things Komomo has been subjected to I was sitting in the sofa, twisting and turning in an attempt to escape the horrible actingjob put forth by Drago. I'm grateful that most of the story is told by Yuoki Kudoh (Memoirs of a geisha, 2005), who plays the deformed prostitute.<br /><br />The finale is probably supposed to be chocking, maybe even revolting and horrid, but I just found it to be kind of...you know... "blah" (and I looked at my watch again, for the umptieth time, just wishing the crappy episode would end). Maybe the finale caused me to smile just a bit, but that's only because I couldn't help thinking of an episode of Red Dwarf, and the upside-down chins of Craig Charles and Danny John-Jules, with eyes glued on them to make them look like aliens... Lucky you, if you've seen that episode and now decide to see Imprint, I will forever have ruined the visuals of the ending for you.<br /><br />My first thought, when Imprint finally ended, was that the only thing that made the pain of watching it worth it, was hearing the main title theme by Edward Shearmur (the same music I believe is used in every episode of this series), and that - if anything - is a big friggin warning, don't you think?<br /><br />One might point to the costume design, by Michiko Kitamura, and say that there, at least, is something NOT lacking in style and refinement...but there are so many other films and TV-shows that is so much better at showing off the Japanese "geisha-fashion". This is nothing but inferior and I am disappointed. Takashi Miike's Masters of Horror-episode is boring, uninspiring and pointless. In other words; It's really, really BAD!
Horror fans (I'm speaking to the over 12's, although if you're under 12 I apologise for what you might deem an insult): In short, if you appreciate having your imagination disturbed by well written, original storytelling, punctuated by unpredictable well planted scares, and delivered via convincing performances, then I can heartily recommend - AVOIDING THESE STEAMERS - made by directors who have apparently long since past their sell by date. It's no accident that almost every episode feels as if it were made in the 1980's. Not to put blame squarely on the shoulders of some of these old boys (or indeed the 80's) because where would we be without certain movies from the likes of Argento, Carpenter, Landis, Dante and Barker (Actually Clive, WTF are you doing in there?! Glad to see Romero had the good sense to give it a miss as I'm sure he was asked to partake...). More perhaps we should point the finger at creator Mick Garris whose credentials include the logic defying and depressingly ill-advised TV remake of Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece 'The Shining'.<br /><br />Perhaps it is an indication of the state of television today. Are we so starved of good TV horror that we applaud any old sloppy schlock that the networks excrete onto our sets? Sadly, maybe so.<br /><br />Normally I wouldn't see the point of adding a comment that doesn't argue the faults and merits of a production, I'd just rate it accordingly. However, as this series is woefully lacking in any merit (with perhaps the sole exception of the theme tune) I write this as more of a warning than a review: DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME AND MONEY. If you disagree with me then it's more than likely that you haven't seen enough decent horror. Perhaps the earlier films of some of these directors would be a much better place to start, but if these 'Masters' of Horror were being assessed on these works alone, they'd never have been allowed to graduate with even their Bachelor's degree. Unless of course they were studying for a degree from the University Of S**t.
Some of the filmmakers who are participating in this series have made some really great films but they sure as heck are not showing much skill with this series. Particularly the writing. OK, the first season was somewhat better but these new episodes they are creating just stink. I'm a huge fan of horror and in my opinion the vast majority of these episodes are total garbage. Nothing new or genuinely interesting. Few of them are visually creative. It's just typical fabricated Hollywood crap, uninteresting, childish, poorly conceived and in some cases, flat out laughable. Much like Tales from the Crypt the only good thing this series has been offering is great nudity! Other then that this series blows hard. I get the impression sometimes that they hired a bunch of eighth-graders to write the episodes. Maybe they did.
I was very excited when this series premiered in 2005. The premise was very simple and appealing: each episode would be a one-hour mini movie directed by a famous, noteworthy horror director. Then, when I finally watched them it was a bit of a letdown. Some good episodes emerged from that first season, but all in all it was a mixed bag. I attributed it to the learning curve, and figured that season 2 would be a whole lot better.<br /><br />Boy, was I in for a shock. At least season one had a few good stories here and there. Season 2 (with the exception of "The Black Cat" starring the excellent Jeffrey Combs) was a complete and total loss to me. The episode "Sounds Like" may very well be the worst thing I have watched on TV in the last 10 years, and most of the other episodes aren't much better. I really hope that season 3 turns this around next year, but I'm not holding my breath.
Honestly,the concept behind "Masters of Horror" had something going for it. Big-time horror directors that are now left aside by the industry being given a chance to direct horror again, I was all for it from the start. That is, until I watched some episodes... Oh boy, it's really bad TV. Not only does it seem like the directors are being given very little budgets to direct their skits, but there seems to be guidelines as well, like shooting in HD for example. To make a long story short, it's bad both for artistic and reasons financial reasons. I cannot help but compare to the "Tales From The Crypt", and the M.o.H. episodes really don't stand the comparison. TFTC was good, MOH is bad; according to me here are a few keys to explain it: TFTC was shorter (around 25 minutes for each episode) than MOH (50 minutes per episode), I believe it allowed denser screenplays, with good ideas reoccurring more often, better overview of an episode, less chances to let the plot be confusing or boring. Duration might have been also the reason why the budget was better spent on TFTC: directors got to have REAL film music composers (composers on MOH are if inexistent, very bad), REAL actors (whereas on MOH it's nothing but unknown actor after unknown actor!), REAL directors of photography and, it can help sometimes, REAL film cameras (while MOH is shot on HD cameras with very wrongly chosen lens-pieces), the result of which being that the episodes of TFTC looked and felt "cinematographic" in the sense that there was real actors being casted, ranging from Michael J. Fox to Tim Roth to Kyle McLachlan to Kirk Douglas, but there were also film composers behind it, of the range of Alan Silvestri, great directors of photography like Dean Cundey, high-end screenplay writers, and in that sense each "Tale" was a little movie of its own true kind. Compared to TFTC, the "Masters of Horrors" is quite a lame approach to TV horror. It's very hard to stand looking at it if your standards regarding cinematography are just a little above average, because it looks the same as any ugly TV serial, if not worse. It gets boring and even annoying incredibly fast, within the first 10 minutes usually. The actors are never-heard before wannabes (except for Fairuza Balk, Robert Englund, Angela Bettis and a few, but even there, they are the only famous actors of their episodes). The director base for MoH was good in the beginning, but it's getting worst and worst with every episode: now if even the directors are unknown to the world, what remains? Nothing! And it's funny how they are starting to have complete unknown directors while they haven't even had, say, Stan Winston, Dick Maas, William Lustig, Sam Raimi, Eric Red, Robert Harmon, William Friedkin, Jim Muro, Stuart Gordon, Russell Mulcahy... If even "Masters of Horror" cannot bring dead directors back to life, who will? Maybe a rerun of Tales from the Crypt will.
With the exception of FAMILY, this new season is worse than Season One. I can't imagine what they are thinking. As a fan of horror, can tolerate a lot of gore and mindless mayhem, but this series gets worse with each outing. I can't imagine how disheartening it must be for the actors and crew to go to work each day, toiling to churn out such crap. STORY! Is that too much to ask for? CHARACTER! How can we give damn about the fate of ANYONE in these stories? If we are not engaged, who cares if they get carved up or whatever? Almost every episode ends with mindless blood letting, going for gross out shock without any sense of revelation or conclusion or REASON why we have been subjected to an hour of bloodletting. Even Dante's effort this season had some disturbing sexist violence and wandered off to a pointless conclusion. Ironically, the production values and performances tend to be up to speed, while the content is utter crap. I have great hopes for Exec Producer's Garris's VALARIE UNDER THE STAIRS, but we shall see.
I had been subjected to this movie for a relationship class in my school. As figured it was nothing captivating and nothing new. Though it tries to be original by focusing on the teen father instead of the mother showing the problems that the dad would go through. It had an interesting side to it but it just doesn't live up to its originality due to the fact nothing else in this movie was original. We have the main character who has the older sister who like in every other movie like this has a thing against him, we have the stay at home mother who expects too much and when he gives more she feels offended and leaves him in the dust, then we have the father who is always gone. Then the girls side we have the parents who want everything and expect her to be perfect at all she does. On to the story like I said it was interesting but the lack of good acting from the entire cast and the lack of any good writing or storytelling. Everything about this fell into cliché the little nerd kid in school starts studying with girl, they get together, have sex and then boom we have a little kid. Perhaps it could've been better had the writing been well better and had the acting been improved I've seriously gotten more emotion out of Leatherface and his chainsaw than I did out of any actor in this film and that's pretty bad seeing as the Leatherface movies are crap and horridly acted. So far the only interesting teen pregnancy movie I've seen was Juno. So far the comical side of this serious situation has proved more entertaining while still giving the same message. Like I said the idea was original most of these films focus on the teen mother but this one chose not to instead it focuses on the drama of the father but again the originality does not save this movie from mediocrity. I really hope someone decides to either re-make this movie with a better cast and a better writer or just make another similar film because this one was wasted potential.
***SLIGHT SPOILERS***<br /><br />A hunchback 15-year-old boy kisses a very cute 15-year-old girl and eventually he has sex for the first time. After the act, he lays in the bed with her not touching her. The next day he concludes that he does not like sex much and does not want to try it again for at least a few years.<br /><br />This is seemingly a fine opening for a teleplay about a boy discovering his homosexuality, or perhaps a medical drama about a post-pubescent teen with a severe hormone deficiency.<br /><br />However, as the plot develops what emerges is a story of a 15-year-old father who is supported and encouraged by his overbearing mother.<br /><br />At one point, his mother preaches to her co-workers who are not as understanding as they might be, "Every step of the way in this, my son has been amazing... I have never been more proud of him..."<br /><br />The young father's older sister, who otherwise is cold towards her brother, begins to show pride in her sibling, "You have been cool about this," as she gives him an encouraging warm hug.<br /><br />The 15-year-old father wants to be a father. He wants to be a parent.<br /><br />Why not? We see the "new" baby a few minutes after birth -- it appears to be a healthy, happy 4-month-old infant. Just as babies were born on TV in the 1960's and 1970's.<br /><br />Once the young father is a parent, he has found happiness. He insists he will be the one to change the dirty diaper. We see the 15-year-old father sincerely happy holding his baby while the teen's busy=body mother is peaking over his shoulder. Fade to black.
my wife is a fanatic as regards this show. That being the case I bought her seasons one through three and season four is on order. I personally think the show is one big farce the cast is equally bad. Alyssa Milano should have stuck to the other trash movies she made such as Poison Ivy, Embrace of the Vampire to name a few, the other female supporting cast members are equally inept in their portrayals. I've seen better special effects in the old Republic Pictures serials I saw as a child. I can understand why the male leads remained on the show for such short periods of time even though I don't know if it was their own choosing or not. Please. please don't renew for another season as enough is enough, Bob
Dont let the MPAA fool you with their "Rated R for extreme violence" there is definatly no extreme violence in this boring peice of s*t. I expected some cheap rambo 3 type action that the trailer promised, however its just boring boring nonsense with tons of lame slow mo flashbacks that make no sense. AVOID!
I tried to watch this movie in a military camp during an overseas mission, and let me tell you, you'll watch anything under those circumstances. Not this piece of sh*t though.<br /><br />The first five minutes set the tone by weak porn-movie quality acting, weird out-of-the-blue plot twists and unbelievable situations and behavior. It gets worse after that. This movie does not have one single saving grace, and yet it is not bad in a way that would make it funny to watch. It's just horrible. I've seen quite many movies in my life and I'm not one of those snobby know-all critics, I mean I'll enjoy most movies to some extent even if they're bad. This one... man.<br /><br />Steer _well_ clear of this one, my friend.
Wow. I have seen some really bad movies in my time, but this one truly takes the cake. It's the worst movie I've seen in the past decade - no exaggeration.<br /><br />As a US Army veteran of the war in Afghanistan, I found it nearly impossible to even finish watching this ridiculous film, not because it brought back memories - far from it - but because there was absolutely no attempt at "authenticity" to be found anywhere in the film. Not so much as the tiniest little shred. It seemed like it had been written by an 8 year-old child who got all his notions of war (and soldierly behavior) straight out of comic books. The film was made in Honduras, which should have been a clue, but even that can't fully explain the atrocious production values of this cliché-ridden piece of trash.<br /><br />I could try to list all the endless technical flaws, but it would take virtually forever. From the ancient unit shoulder patches which have not been seen or worn since WWII, and the character's name tags, like "ColCollins" (worn by the character "Colonel Collins"), which was actually spelled using the reversed, mirror-image "N" of the Russian alphabet (not the US alphabet) the list just goes on and on. The uniforms, the equipment, the plot, and most especially the behavior of the characters themselves -- every single scene was just chock-full of ridiculous flaws, inaccuracies and utterly mindless clichés.<br /><br />Neither the storyline itself nor the characters were the least bit credible or believable. It was all laughably childish, in the extreme. This was obviously a movie that was meant to appeal strictly to pre-pubescent boys, and I have little doubt that even they would find this film utterly absurd.<br /><br />In short, this film has absolutely NO redeeming qualities at all. It's a total waste of time. I'd strongly advise anybody reading this to pass this garbage by; it's truly not worth wasting a single moment of your time for.
I thought this movie seemed like a case study in how not to make a movie for the most part. Since I am a filmmaker, I give it a 2 for consistency.<br /><br />The problems remain from beginning to end with the plot being extremely predictable using bits and pieces of most, if not all, previous successful war stories. The computer generated graphics were too much like viewing a video game at points and there seemed to be no attempt by the director to add some realistic quality to the story. I was interested in the budget to get an idea of what he had to work with, but did not find that information.<br /><br />It seemed like this project pushed the limits of a low budget movie too far resulting in a production that drags the viewer along with the story without their imagination being engaged. The actors weren't bad, but the plot needs more innovation.
While I count myself as a fan of the Babylon 5 television series, the original movie that introduced the series was a weak start. Although many of the elements that would later mature and become much more compelling in the series are there, the pace of The Gathering is slow, the makeup somewhat inadequate, and the plot confusing. Worse, the characterization in the premiere episode is poor. Although the ratings chart shows that many fans are willing to overlook these problems, I remember The Gathering almost turned me off off what soon grew into a spectacular series.
You can give JMS and the boys a pass on this one because they were at the beginning of their series and on a small budget, but the movie is still sub-par. Dont get me wrong, B5 the series is by far the best TV series ever, but if i was an exec seeing this movie, i wouldnt have ordered the series. I dont like O'Hare as an actor, the costumes are silly, and there are tons of cliches. The same can be said for most of the first season (with the exception of Babylon Squared and Survivors); Bruce immediately put a fire into the series and it went on to be an amazing spectacle. If you are a B5 fan and havent seen this movie, see it. If you arent a B5 fan, dont...you wont want to watch the series.
The real shame of "The Gathering" is not in the bad acting, nor is it in the despicably shallow plot. The real shame is that it was far worse than the series it begun, even though it did have one main attraction: Takashima. I would love to see Laurel Takashima in a room with Susan Ivanova, even for just five minutes. She has that sarcasm, that wit, that double-edged personality that is at once volatile and lovable. Sadly, though, the "Babylon 5" pilot movie has an incredibly dull story involving assassination. Patricia Tallman-- who never seriously returned to the series until much later-- fortunately got much better with age as Lyta Alexander, who here is little more than a whiny, tiresome telepath. I shall leave you with one final thought-- why is it that Delenn looks like some sort of outer-space frog man (even though she is a woman)? Thank heavens for the way the Minbari looked later in the show.
Time spent watching this film was time wasted. I do not dislike science fiction. I do not reject any genre per se, since good work can be done in any genre. This film, however is not good work. I cannot fault the visuals (when not involving alien makeups), and the special effects are impressive. The story was not out-and-out BAD, for a trekkish comic book. But the fx visuals were obviously where all the makers' interest/attention/money went. The direction alternated between sluggish and confusing (one was not at all sure exactly who was doing what and with what and to whom at at least one crucial juncture). The "acting" was mostly very bad indeed. There was no basis to most of the line readings besides a hint of "It was that way on the page and the director told me I was supposed to be mad/sad/scared/whatever. Okay, so it was a SF series pilot. Since when is that an excuse for correctable shoddiness in areas when should be regarded as essential to a dramatic medium. I'm astonished the pilot sold the series. Or is the money also in the hands of technerds?
This very low budget comedy caper movie succeeds only in being low budget. Dialog is dumbfoundingly stupid, chase scenes are uniformly boring, and most of the on-screen money seems to have been saved for a series of crashes and explosions in a parking lot during the film's last five minutes (a briefly glimpsed port-a-potty early in that scene is certain to wrecked and spew crap on the film's chief villain--no prop is here without a purpose). The whole film is depressingly reminiscent of those that occasionally came out of Rodger Corman's studio when he'd give a first time director a few bucks and a camera--but without the discipline Corman would impose.
I saw this movie in its own time period, when having a baby out of wedlock not only ruined your life, but stamped your child as a bastard. In these days of 'single mothers' that may seem very far-fetched, but it was very true. And I'm not crazy about laughing at someone who is stammering, either. Between these two problems I had difficulty finding this movie funny. At that time I didn't know who had directed it or what a marvelous reputation he had. I did know who Betty Hutton was, and she just made me nervous because she was so frenetic. I loved "Bringing Up Baby", but I find this movie just embarrassing. I'm sure the punch at some church functions probably was spiked, but I was the one needing a drink after watching this again. The idea the girl would have to be drunk in order to 'get married' and get pregnant just added to the misery. An entire town could turn on you under these circumstances, so the outcome of this movie is really the funny part. Of course, shoot me, I don't like "It's a Wonderful Life" either.
A lot of other reviewers here, including many whose opinions I respect, hold this slice of European sleaze horror in high regard. Personally, I didn't like it at all. Its an incoherent attempt at a atmospheric period cross between sex and violence. Jess Franco at his best makes these kinds of films very well. Unfortunately, the infamous exploitation filmmaker Joe D'Amato does not. D'Amato's most well known films are infamous for their high gross-out quotient. This, an early film by him, doesn't have the constant disgusting scenes that his more notorious "Anthropophagous" and "Beyond the Darkness" did. Ultimately, its an incoherent film that doesn't manage to involve the viewer in any way. Without the sleaze factor either, it becomes very boring. As I said, others have enjoyed this film, but I just found it to be a perfect example of incredibly lazy writing.<br /><br />There are a few pluses for the film. Ewa Aulin (from "Candy") is in it, and she looks pretty hot and is often naked. However, cult film icon Klaus Kinski is completely wasted in a subplot with no connection to the main film. He seems bored with the role and doesn't have the manic intensity he does at his finest. The music score is nice and there are some brief moments of unintentionally funny gore. Still, this is a pretentious and pointless film that manages to be incredibly boring. (3/10)
'I don't understand. None of this makes any sense!', exclaims one exasperated character towards the end of Death Smiles at Murder. Having just sat through this thoroughly confusing mess of a movie, I know exactly how he feels. The story, by the film's director Aristide Massacessi (good old Joe D'amato using his real name for a change), is a clumsy mix of the supernatural, murder/mystery, and pretentious arty rubbish, the likes of which will probably appeal to those who admire trippy 70s garbage such as Jess Franco's more bizarre efforts, but which had me struggling to remain conscious.<br /><br />Opening with a hunchback mourning the death of his beautiful sister (with whom he had been having an incestuous affair, before eventually losing her to a dashing doctor), Death Smiles at Murder soon becomes very confusing when the very same woman (played by Ewa Aulin, who stars in the equally strange 'Death Laid an Egg') is seen alive and kicking, the sole survivor of a coach accident that occurs outside the estate of Walter and Eva von Ravensbrück. After being invited to stay and recuperate in their home, where she is tended to by creepy Dr. Sturges (Klaus Kinski in a throwaway role), the comely lass begins love affairs with both Mr. and Mrs. Ravensbrück (meaning that viewers are treated to some brief but welcome scenes of nookie and lesbian lovin').<br /><br />'So far, so good', I thought to myself at this point, 'we've had hunchbacks, incest, some blood and guts, and gratuitous female nudity'—all ingredients of a great trashy Euro-horror; what follows, however, is a lame attempt by Massacessi to combine giallo style killings, ghostly goings on, and even elements from Edgar Allan Poe's 'The Black Cat', to tell a very silly, utterly bewildering, and ultimately extremely boring tale of revenge from beyond the grave.<br /><br />This film seems to have quite few admirers here on IMDb, but given the choice, I would much rather watch one of the director's sleazier movies from later in his career; I guess incomprehensible, meandering, surreal 70s Gothic horror just ain't my thing! 2.5 out of 10 (purely for the cheesy gore and nekkidness), rounded up to 3 for IMDb.
I don't know why this has the fans it does and I don't know why I have even given it the score I have. This is preposterous. There are many a giallo where one has to suspend disbelief, let the picture roll and catch up with it somewhere before it becomes delirious and some poor police officer has to eventually explain what we have seen. But, this has very little going for it and has overlong sequences where nothing happens and have no relevance to anything while we have to listen to a most repetitive soundtrack, even by Italian standards. Not a giallo, this is a complete mish mash of horror ideas featuring Klaus Kinski in one his most blatant 'phoned in' performances. I reckon he turned up, did a day's work and cleared off leaving Mr D'Amato to get others to fill in. Ewa is of course pretty but no it is not enough, and in the end we have seen far too much of her popping up all over the place, long after we have completely lost interest in this mindless and pretentious twaddle. Maybe I just wasn't in the right mood!
It's a hideous little production, apt to give one nightmares as well as headaches. It's an unsightly blend of live action and ugly stop-motion animation. It's weird, but it's not the kind of fun, weird trip anyone optimistic might expect. It's the cold, inhuman, unfriendly, sickening, even creepy kind of weird. There is absolutely no reason to watch this movie. After all, Disney did a fantastic job with the same source material. And Cosgrove-Hall did far more attractive things with stop-motion.<br /><br />Interestingly, this is a French production. As such, it re-enforces the stereotype that the French have no concept of scary.
This is a good example of how NOT to make a film.<br /><br />There is very little meaningful dialog, no context for the events, and constant cuts between seemingly unrelated scenes. The result is a confused, clueless viewer; the plot is absolutely impossible to follow and the ideas presented are meaningless without listening to the director's commentary.<br /><br />This movie has a lot to do with human atrocity and tries to show how wrong it is, with an emphasis on child abuse. It includes some stock footage of real, horrible acts of violence, including war time executions. Although it works in the context of the movie, I feel that the ideas behind the movie could have been presented without resorting to such extreme content. This film is absolutely NOT for the weak stomached or the easily offended, and should not under any circumstances be shown to minors.<br /><br />The climax is anti-climactic compared to the content of the rest of the movie. If you're not listening to the commentary while it happens you will probably miss it.<br /><br />The director's commentary was a one-shot, "sit the guy down and let him talk, no cuts" type of commentary. While this isn't necessarily bad, the director ends up rambling a lot and often spends minutes at a time complaining about his college, filming conditions, co producers, bad film, and a dozen other things. The constant negativity detracts from what otherwise is an essential tool for understanding the movie.<br /><br />The movie was shot many years ago on 16mm and Super8 film over a period of four years on an extremely low budget. Because of this, the video and audio quality is poor. That alone does not make it a bad movie, but it does make a bad movie worse.
First of all: I love good Splattermovies and am not afraid to get in touch with art, but this zero-budget-flick is none of it! The picture-quality is so damned low, the soundtrack the most annoying one I ever (!!!!)heard, and as for the FX... well the super-low quality makes some of them look not as bad as they would in a real movie (what this junk here isn't). No concept, a wafer-thin storyline, primitive acting and rare dialog - I think I counted about 10 sentences in the whole movie, each one repeated about 20 times... same for a lot of film-sequences (may be an indication for which kind of audience this crap was made!!!) The story seems to be that a young boy had to watch his father rape and kill his mother, got psychological damaged and as an adult goes touring, performing a show of self-mutilation. So far, so good... But for these pseudo-art-idiot-directors, this plot is just a line to put cheap produced shock scenes in a row which neither have a message nor make any sense (freshly taken-out bowels are thrown on a naked, bound woman in an earth-hole... why?? and why is that the only time you see both woman and thrower in the whole bloody "movie")??? Disturbing? Yes!! Sick? Yes!! Necessary? No! Artistically? NO!!!!! Everyone mistaking this cheap gore-show for art should as soon as possible visit his psychiatrist or should watch Pink Floyd's "The Wall" to see how a similar topic can be worked out in an artful way... I hope this was your first and last (!!!!!!!!) movie, Andrew Cobb... !!!! And all you gore-heads out there, remember: Not everything that looks cheap and makes obviously no sense at all is automatically "Art"...
An Avent-garde nightmarish, extremely low-budget "film" that has delusions of grandeur. Hard to sit through. I get the message that child abuse is wrong. Wow big revelation. I had no clue it was wrong before viewing this. Yes that's sarcasm. DON'T watch this "film" if you're offended by nudity of either the male or female gender. DON'T watch it if you're the least bit squeamish. DON'T watch it if you care about acting. On second thought just DON'T watch it period.<br /><br />My grade: D-<br /><br />DVD Extras:making the movie , the premiere,interview with Kristie Bowersock, deleted scenes, movie stills, Director's commentary, 2 versions of the teaser trailer, music video by The Azoic, & a classroom video experiment
I bought this movie for 1 euro, not knowing what it was all about. I thought "hmmm, a movie named mutilation man must be if not very funny at least filled with gore". It wasn't funny alright. It was disturbing. Very disturbing. And I don't mind disturbing movies but this one just didn't mean anything, except that child abuse is not a good thing to do. hmmm... The quality of the images were terrible. The acting...there was no acting. Just some fcked-up fcker mutilating himself for over 90 minutes. This is probably material for sicko's jurking off on extreme gore.<br /><br />Don't watch this. It's not worth your time. Its just awful. I wish i never bought this.<br /><br />They should mutilate the guy who made this
This piece of filth is virtually impossible to follow. The sound is crap the picture quality goes from bad to worse to good to bad again! Things happen for no apparent reason characters appear and disappear. Was the director suffering from a massive brain injury during its production?<br /><br />Poor film making aside, the story is vile just sick evil sh*t If you like rape, murder and self harm this is right up your alley. And if simulated scenes of murder are not enough you can enjoy clips of actual people being executed. I watched almost all of it but had to turn off after I seen someones brains blown out. Never before have I seen a film that left me feeling so ashamed and dirty.
Apparently, The Mutilation Man is about a guy who wanders the land performing shows of self-mutilation as a way of coping with his abusive childhood. I use the word 'apparently' because without listening to a director Andy Copp's commentary (which I didn't have available to me) or reading up on the film prior to watching, viewers won't have a clue what it is about.<br /><br />Gorehounds and fans of extreme movies may be lured into watching The Mutilation Man with the promise of some harsh scenes of splatter and unsettling real-life footage, but unless they're also fond of pretentious, headache-inducing, experimental art-house cinema, they'll find this one a real chore to sit through.<br /><br />82 minutes of ugly imagery accompanied by dis-chordant sound, terrible music and incomprehensible dialogue, this mind-numbingly awful drivel is the perfect way to test one's sanity: if you've still got all your marbles, you'll switch this rubbish off and watch something decent instead (I watched the whole thing, but am well aware that I'm completely barking!).
After being a big fan of the ten minute T.V episodes of 'Stella Street', I awaited this film with excitement and anticipation. Unfortunately I was left feeling very disappointed.<br /><br />I was dismayed by the way that nearly all of the gags and one liners were directly lifted from the T.V Episodes, and delivered with much less enthusiasm and comic timing, as if the actors had said them once, and couldn't be bothered to say them again. I bought my copy on DVD and felt cheated that I had parted with my hard earned cash to watch the same jokes over again.<br /><br />*SPOILERS* The plot of the film starts with Stella Street (a normal English street in Surrey), gradually being populated by 'some of the most famous people from stage and screen of the last forty years', including Michael Caine, Al Pacino, Jack Nicholson and The Rolling Stones. All the celebrities in the street end up being conned out of their entire fortunes by a local fraudster, and are forced to live like tramps and common working class people. There are some nice moments, but on the whole, the writers manage to take an interesting idea and make it pretty boring. *END OF SPOILERS*<br /><br />In the T.V Episodes, all the characters are performed by John Sessions and Phil Cornwell (including females), but in the film Ronni Ancona is added to the cast. I think this was a mistake. Her impersonations weren't funny, and it felt like her characters were included in the story just to give her something to do.<br /><br />If you were not a fan of the episodes of Stella Street, you may find this film entertaining. But if you were a fan, I think you may walk away feeling a little bit cheated. 4/10
Movie industry is tricky business - because decisions have to be made and everyone involved has a private life, too. That's the very original thesis of this feeble attempt at making an 'insightful' film about film. And indeed, no better proof of the industry's trickiness than seeing Anouk Aimée and Maximilian Schell trapped in this inanity. The insight consists of talking heads rattle off bullshit like "should I make a studio movie that pays a lot or should I make an indie item and stay true to my artistic self?" "Do the latter, please." Or: "our relationship is not only professional, it's private as well. It's a rather complex situation to handle, isn't it?" "Yes, it is, my dear." Between the insipid dialogs one gets glimpses of palm trees, hotel lobbies and American movie posters (no sign of non-American film presence on the Croisette). Recurrent slumber sessions are inevitable, making the 100 minutes of the film feel like ages. Jenny Gabrielle is spectacularly unconvincing in justifying her own presence in the frame.
Awful! Awful! Awful! No, I didn't like it. It was obvious what the intent of the film was: to track the wheeling and dealing of the "movers and shakers" who produce a film. In some cases, these are people who represent themselves as other than what they are. I didn't need a film to tell me how shallow some of the people in the film industry are. I suppose I'm at fault really because I expected something like "Roman Holiday".<br /><br />I'm not a movie-maker nor do I take film classes but it appeared to me that the film consisted of a series of 'two-shots' (in the main) where the actors(!) had been supplied with a loose plot-line and they were to improvise the dialogue. Henry Jaglon makes the claim that he along with Victoria Foyt actually wrote the screenplay but the impression was that the actors, cognisant of the general direction of the film, extemporised the dialogue - and it was not always successful. Such a case in point was when Ron Silver made some remark which really didn't flow along the line of the conversation (and I'm not going back to look for it!) and Greta Scacchi broke into laughter even though they were supposed to be having a serious conversation, because Silver's remark was such a non sequitur. You get the impression too that one actor deliberately tries to 'wrong foot' the other actor and break his/her concentration. Another instance of this is when a producer tells Silver to "bring the &*%#@#^ documents" (3 times). Silver looked literally lost for words. I have seen one other film which looked like a series of drama workshops on improvisation and that was awful too!<br /><br />The fact that Jaglon was able to attract Greta Scacchi (no stranger to Australia), Ron Silver, Anouk Ami, and Maximilian Schell suggests it was a 'slow news week' for them. Peter Bogdanovich had a 'what-the-hell-am-I-doing-here' look on his face at all times and I expected to hear him say: "Look, I'm a director and screenwriter - not an actor" - which would have been unnecessary to state! Faye Dunaway seemed more interested in promoting her son, Liam. Apart from the jerky delivery of the dialogue, the hand-held camera became irritating even if it was for verisimilitude - as I suspect the "natural" dialogue was - and the interest in the principals became subsumed to the interest in the various youths walking along the strand trying to insinuate themselves into shot. That at least approached Cinema Verite. So that, along with the irritating French singing during which I used the mute button, made for a generally disappointing 90-odd minutes.<br /><br />I think we should avoid apotheosising films such as this. Trying to see value in the film where it has little credit in order to substantiate a perceived transcendental level to it is misguided. There was really nothing avant-garde about it. It didn't come across as a work of art and yet it wasn't a documentary either. I know, it was a mocumentary but the real test is whether it is entertaining. I was bored out of my skull! It did have one redeeming feature: it pronounced 'Cannes' correctly so I gave it 3/10.
I don't remember a movie where I have cared less about where the characters have come from, what happens to them or where they are going. I realize that Hollywood's greatest pastime is navel-gazing, but these people are either too despicable or too boring to take up time with. For what it's worth, though, the discussion that followed the showing, under the auspices of the Key Sunday Cinema series, did make allowance that possibly the three women did show some redeeming characteristics. I disagree.
<br /><br />I recently viewed this atrocity in my film program, and I thought it was awful, as I said in my tagline, it was pretentious, trite, petty and phenomenally self-important.<br /><br />I consider myself a fan of film, and all the things that film has to offer. If I want to watch a documentary on the Cannes Festival, I will watch A&E....and they would probably be alot more objective about it.<br /><br />I dont recommend it, period.<br /><br />
An annoying experience. Improvised dialogue, handheld cameras for no effect, directionless plot, contrived romance, ick! to the whole mess. Ron Silver was the only real actor. Gretta Sacchi was TERRIBLE! Henry Jaglom did better with Eating which suited his style much more.
When childhood memory tells you this was a scary movie; it's touch and go whether you should revisit it. Anyway, I remembered a scary scene involving a homeless person and a cool villain played by Jeff Kober.<br /><br />"The First Power" is not a very good movie, sad to say. It's chock full of those cop clichés and a very poor script with holes a truck could drive through (along with countless convenient "twists" that help the story run along). Lou Diamond Phillips is the over-confident bad ass cop who sends baddie serial killer Kober to the gas chamber only to find out he was a minion of Satan himself and now has the power of resurrection along with the power of possessing every weak minded person who he comes across. Through in the mix a very poorly realized psychic who helps with the case.<br /><br />Ahhh, this is trash. But enjoyable as such, especially if you have fond memories of it. It scared me as a kid and that scene with the homeless person is still pretty good. As for any kind of logic here; forget it, just about every scenario is thrown in for good measure and you end up with a cross between a Steven Segal action flick and a 70's demonic flick. And who on earth thought it was a good idea to cast Lou Diamond Phillips in the lead here? Needless to say he's not convincing at all but he tries his best and I've never had the problem with the guy so many reviewers here seem to have. As for Tracy Griffith as the psychic, the less said the better. But Kober is pretty good as the killer; always liked that actor.<br /><br />"The First Power" may be just what the doctor ordered after a hard day's work and a "brain switch-off" is needed. Beer will most likely enhance the viewing experience and I'll definitely have loads of it the next time I give this movie a spin. All in all; not a good flick but a somewhat guilty pleasure for nostalgic fans who were easily scared as kids. "See you around, buddy boy"!
The only thing that The First Power really has going for it is that it affords Jeff Kober an opportunity to play one of his lovely variety of psychotic villains that he's done so well in the last 25 years. Kober is a worthy successor to Lyle Bettger who specialized in those parts back in the Fifties.<br /><br />But it's not enough, The First Power is a souped up slasher flick that has Lou Diamond Phillips wasted as an LAPD detective who has a specialty in catching serial killers. Kober is his latest catch, but Kober's in league with a lower power and they're going to team up and make Lou's life miserable for him. Even after Kober is given the gas chamber, his spirit comes back in all kinds of guises.<br /><br />Mykelti Williamson is on hand as Lou's partner who meets a nasty end involving a demon possessed horse and Tracy Griffith as a psychic and Elizabeth Arlen as a nun with insights are around to help Lou. Will he succeed in battling forces from beyond?<br /><br />By the time the film ends, you no longer care. Lou really got trapped in a turkey. Maybe the devil made him do this film.
Detective Russell Logan(Lou Diamond Phillips)has a major problem on his hands. The serial killer, Patrick Channing(Jeff Kober), for whom psychic extraordinaire Tess(Tracy Griffith)helped him capture, has been resurrected with The First Power(..given to him by Satan after his execution in the gas chamber)and can possess the bodies of the weak. Somehow, Russell, who joins forces with Tess(..who has an understanding of what they are up against), will have to stop Channing or many women will continue to die at his bloody hands. They will seek help from Sister Marguerite(Elizabeth Arlen)who has tried to inform her superiors in the Catholic church of The First Power, but has been denied access to a weapon that can stop Channing..a cross with a blade that can penetrate the heart of Channing ridding the world of his evil. She'll take it anyway and lend a helping hand to Russell, who'll need all the help he can get when Channing kidnaps Tess preparing her for some sort of Satanic ritual/ceremony.<br /><br />In the film, Mykelti Williamson, always a reliable welcome supporting actor, gets the partner of Russell role..so you know what will happen to him. As in films of this type, everyone around Russell is dying, but when he attempts to kill Channing, he's merely murdering the weak host of some other poor soul he possesses.<br /><br />Pure occult rubbish..stupid from the gate to the finish line. Phillips and Griffith try, I'll give them that, but in a flick like this they don't stand a chance. Kober, who is normally often always effective as the heavy, is really handed nothing more than a goofy villain who leaps in the air and tosses rotten quips.
I jotted down a few notes here on THE FIRST POWER, Lou Lambada Diamond Phillips' 1990 satanic serial killer yuppie hell-fest ...<br /><br />1) Lou Diamond Phillips was recently indicted for beating up his wife and may serve time in prison. I only hope that he can find Armani prison wear to go off in style with: One of the guilty pleasures of this movie is seeing his police detective clad in $4500 designer overcoats, a $7300 designer silk suit, and seeing his $3500/month Los Angeles bachelor pad loft with interior design by Mies Van Der Roeh.<br /><br />2) Leading lady Tracey Phillips has gorgeous porcelain skin, flowing red hair that always seems styled even when mussed, and amazing breasts that are hi-lighted in the 2nd half of the film by a designer silk pullover that sadly remains in place over her torso even when she was being prepared to be sacrificed to Satan. At least back in the 1970's our demonic killers undressed their victims before doing away with them, though there is something to be said for leaving a bit to the imagination. By the final 10 minutes of the movie all I could think about is what her breasts probably would look like.<br /><br />3) Professional Psychics living in Los Angeles can afford $4 million dollar condos on Mullholland Drive overlooking Los Angeles with a view that would make Brad Pitt decide that he was roughing it. As a matter of fact the condominium used in this film looks exactly like the same one seen in David Lynch's MULLHOLLAND DR., which at least had the good sense to make it's condo resident a successful movie director. The only Professional Psychics I have encountered outside of this movie are all currently serving prison sentences for wire fraud.<br /><br />4) I forget his name but the villain in this movie is wonderful, and his "How's it going', Buddy Boy?" line could be the best overlooked movie phrase since "THANKS FOR THE RIDE, LADY!!" from CREEPSHOW 2.<br /><br />5) Underneath major metropolitan cities there are huge vats of simmering acid that will explode into huge fireballs if someone throws a lit Zippo lighter into them, which is why major public waterworks plants all have no smoking signs plastered all over them even though the idea of smoking around water being dangerous is of course preposterous. And since Zippo lighters need to be manually filled with lighter fluid that can often leak out and be absorbed by ones clothing, the idea of a carrying one in the pocket of your $7300 Gucci silk suit strikes me as being much more dangerous.<br /><br />6) The stunts in this movie are impressive to say the least, and one of the fun things about watching it is remaining yourself that you are not viewing computer aided special effects but actual stuntpeople risking life and limb to contribute to a movie that earned nearly universal BOMB ratings from critics when released.<br /><br />7) Movie satanists always amaze me: Here is a guy who has tapped into some Luciferian bid for power, and yet instead of using it to do something useful like making himself rich or causing fashion models to engage in free form sex with him, he instead possesses bag ladies and have them levitate outside of people's apartments. Speaking of which here is a guy who is indestructible, can fly, and is able to put his being inside of other people's bodies -- and yet he obliges star Lou Diamond Phillips with an ordinary fistfight in the film's conclusion, yet does not have the good sense to inhabit Arnold Schwartzeneggar or Apollo Creed to ensure that he wins.<br /><br />And on and on ... To be watched in the company of wise-cracking friends while consuming beer. You'll have fun so long as you steadfastly refuse to take it seriously.<br /><br />4/10
Patrick Channing (Jeff Kober) is a disciple of Satan / serial killer who possesses the "First Power": even after being captured by detective Russell Logan (Lou Diamond Phillips) and executed in the gas chamber, he is able to move his spirit from body to body and continue to murder at will. With the help of attractive psychic Tess Seaton (Tracy Griffith, Melanie G.'s half-sister) he attempts to stop Channing.<br /><br />This concept probably had some possibilities, I think, but ultimately "The First Power" suffers from routine scripting and film-making. This is nothing we haven't seen before, sometimes done better. There is nothing about this movie to distinguish it from other supernatural horror thrillers. More to the point, it's not very thrilling and it certainly isn't scary. Phillips is a hard sell as a tough-as-nails, cynical cop stereotype, and Griffith doesn't seem to be trying very hard; best cast member is probably the distinctively featured Kober, doing his best to be supremely creepy.<br /><br />The climax is rather silly and the ending very weak.<br /><br />Not really even acceptable enough to rate as an average film of its kind, therefore:<br /><br />4/10
People tried to make me believe that the premise of this rubbishy supernatural horror/thriller was inspired by the actual last words spoken by an authentic serial killer (whose name escapes me at the moment). Whilst awaiting his execution in the electric chair, he claimed that his soul would return to life and continue to go on a never-ending murder spree. It's not a highly original idea to revolve a horror film on, by the way. Other low-budget turkeys implemented the exact same basic premise, like "House 3", "Shocker" and "Ghost in the Machine". Anyway, "The First Power" (a.k.a "Pentagram") isn't a completely terrible effort, but the script overly reverts to clichés and lacks genuine thrills. The film starts off as an okay, albeit mundane serial killer flick in which obsessive cop-hero Lou Diamond Philips pursues a maniac who carves bloody pentagrams into the chests of his victims. He receives unexpected help from a spiritual medium, played by the gorgeous and underrated Tracy Griffith. She leads him to the killer but also begs not to execute him, as that would result in an even bigger catastrophe! Thanks to Tess' helpful hints, Detective Logan quickly captures the killer and celebrates his death penalty, but Patrick Channing made a pact with Satan Himself and returns to the rotten streets of California to do some more killing. "The First Power" gets pretty bad once the murderer reincarnates as a vengeful spirit. Instead of using his newly gained satanic powers to wipe out the entire world (that's what I would do in his position), Channing simply prefers to play cat and mouse games with his nemesis the copper. He annoyingly calls him "Buddy-Boy" all the time and possesses the bodies of Logan's friends and colleagues in order to trick him. Even though never really boring or poorly realized, it's a very weak film to endure, mostly because you constantly get the feeling of déjà-vu. Writer/director Robert Resnikoff shamelessly uses every dreadful cliché (the killer got sexually abused as a child) and even the players' lines can easily be predicted. As soon as Griffith explains she's able to predict the future, you just know that, somewhere at some point in the film, she's going to say the ridiculously overused line "I tell people who to live their lives, but my own life is a mess". Yawn. Lou Diamond Philips' performance is adequate enough, but it's rather difficult to take that youthful rebel of "La Bamba" and "Stand And Deliver" serious as a tough copper. There also are decent supportive roles for Mykelti Williamson ("Forrest Gump"), Carmen Argenziano ("When a Stranger Calls") and B-movie horror legend David Gale ("Re-Animator") appears in a minuscule cameo at the very beginning of the film.
The First Power (1990) was a terrible film that came out during the late 80's/ early 90's era of cheaply made horror films. I found this movie very boring but extremely hilarious in some parts. This movie lacks so much sense and credibility that it ain't even funny. The swift justice system in this film makes Texas look weak by comparison. Lou Diamond Phillips is in way over his head with this role (he plays a hard-boiled cop) and Tracey Griffith (Melanie's more attractive sister) plays a psychic. Don't waste your time with this one because it's bad. What a minute, I take it back. This movie makes a great party film. Check out the switchblade crucifix packing nun, she has the nicest legs I've ever seen on a Nun that wasn't in a Jesus Franco nunsploitation flick. Yeow!<br /><br />This marked an end of an era for L.D.P. His star was tarnished and he couldn't draw flies to a dung heap. It was D.T.V. for him until his "ressurection" a few years later.<br /><br />Not recommended unless you're desperate.
Well, what can you say about a Barbara Cartland adaptation?<br /><br />There are some amazing actors in this (Oliver Reed, Sarah Miles, Christopher Plummer) but they clearly are clocking up the money.<br /><br />Lysette Anthony and Marcus Gilbert have appeared in two other Cartland epics - Anthony with Hugh Grant (who looks suitably embarrassed) and Gilbert with Helena Bonham Carter.<br /><br />If you really want to see a "watchable" adaptation of Cartland, the Bonham Carter one is the one to go for ("A Hazard of Hearts" - what a title!!). Gilbert is the weak link in that, but Bonham Carter is suitably beautiful and of course can actually act, and the rest of the cast play it to the hilt with tongues firmly in cheek (Edward Fox & Diana Rigg)
William Cooke and Paul Talbot share director/writer credit for this entertaining low budget film about three boys camping out in the woods with their horror magazines. Feet propped up by the fire and schoolboy banter back and forth...and a scroungy town tramp named Ralph(Gunnar Hansen...of Leatherface fame)wanders over and trades four tales of gore in return for food and the warmth of the fire.<br /><br />One tale is the old retread of "The Hook", two teens on lover's lane attacked by a demented killer with a hook for a hand. Another story has a couple of tokers needing to score some weed. They stumble upon a guy that knows a guy that has some great s#@t. As they smoke a couple of bags full their skin begins to turn gray and green before it bubbles up and falls off. One of the better stories is about an unhappy man returning home for Christmas, who can't wait for his mother to drop dead and enjoys telling his nephew and niece about Satan Claus. The fourth campfire tale is of a greedy sailor that washes ashore upset about an empty treasure chest and ends up being chased out to sea by zombies.<br /><br />Without a big budget for special effects, CAMPFIRE TALES gets the point across and really could have been a lot worse. A bit corny, but fun to watch except for maybe the sailor tale. The acting is understandably not award worthy. Cast members include: Tres Holton, Courtney Ballard, H. Ray York, Johnny Tamblyn, Walter Kaufmann, Kevin Draine, David Avin and Paul Kaufmann.
<br /><br />According to reviewers, the year is 1955 and the players are 20 year-old college kids about to enter grad school. Jolly joke!<br /><br />1955? The synthesizer keyboard was not invented yet, but there it is on the bandstand. The Ford Pony Car was not invented yet, but there it is playing oldies music. The synthesizer appeared to be a model from the mid 1970's. The Pony Car at best is from the mid 1960's.<br /><br />20 year-old college kids? Josh Brolin had seen 32 birthdays when this made-for-TV movie was produced.<br /><br />The plot is so predictable that viewers have plenty of spare time to think of all the errors appearing upon their TV's.
Perhaps it's because I am so in love with the William Holden - Kim Novak version, or because I'm not a Gen-X'er, but this was absolutely the worst remake I have ever seen. Without the original's soundtrack, it just seemed like another typical TV movie...yes, about as bland as Kraft cheese.
This version moved a little slow for my taste and I suppose I have problems with this play to begin with. But first the movie, it's a typical TV movie version of a play which means it doesn't have the flair of the original film version with William Holden. What they couldn't afford to hire more than twelve people as extras? Why move the movie up to 1966? So you could give the little sister a line about the Vietnam war protests? Why not 1963 and give her a line about the civil rights movement?<br /><br />As for the casting, some hits some misses. Jay O. Sanders hit the right notes for his character especially with his scenes with Josh Brolin. Brolin on the other hand miss a lot of the notes. He's believable as an ex-BMOC jock but he doesn't have the raw sensuality of William Holden. I always thought Brolin looks a little bit like a gorilla to have all the women in town go ape over him (pardon the pun). Gretchen Moll was lovely but she seemed a little too wise for the character she played. She didn't project the innocence or ignorance that the character required. Maybe it's because she and Brolin were about 5 years older than the characters should be. But then again Holden was ten years too old. Bonnie Bedelia was rather forgettable as the mother and Mary Steenburgen can't seem to make up her mind whether she was playing Blanche duBois or Katharine from "The Taming of The Shrew".<br /><br />As for Mr. Inge's play, I always felt that stories like this of a young woman choosing passion over practicality always needed an epilogue. "The Twilight Zone" I believe offer a likely epilogue with the episode, "Spur of the Moment" where a young Diana Hyland was being chased by a bitter older Diana Hyland, because the younger Diana Hyland chose to run off with a guy similar to Hal Carter.
Madison is not too bad-—if you like simplistic, non-offensive, "family-friendly" fare and, more importantly, if you know absolutely nothing about unlimited hydroplane racing. If, like me, you grew up with the sport and your heroes had names like Musson, Muncey, Cantrell, Slovak, etc., prepare to be disappointed.<br /><br />Professional film critics have commented at length on the formulaic nature of the film and its penchant for utilizing every hackneyed sports cliché in the book. I needn't repeat what they've said. What I felt was sadly missing was any sense of the real excitement of unlimited hydro racing in the "glory years" (which many would argue were already past in 1971).<br /><br />Yes, it was wonderful to see the old classic boats roaring down the course six abreast, though it was clear that the restored versions (hats off to the volunteers at the Hydroplane and Race Boat Museum) were being nursed through the scenes at reduced speed. But where was the sound? Much of the thrill of the old hydros was the mind-numbing roar of six Allison or Rolls-Merlin aircraft engines, wound up to RPM's never imagined by their designers, hitting the starting line right in front of you. You didn't hear it, you FELT it. Real hydro buffs know exactly what I'm talking about. There's none of that in Madison. Instead, every racing scene is buried under what is supposed to be a "heroic" musical score.<br /><br />And then there are the close-up shots of the drivers, riding smoothly and comfortably in the cockpits as if they were relaxing in the latest luxury limousines, in some cases taking time to smile evilly as they contemplate how best to thwart the poor home-town hero. Or, in one particularly ridiculous shot, taking time to spot Jake Lloyd giving a "Rocky" salute from a bridge pier. In reality, some unlimited drivers wore flak vests to minimize the beating they took as the boats slammed across the rock-hard water at speeds above 150 mph.<br /><br />As one reviewer so aptly put it, "The sport deserves better than this."<br /><br />Finally, since another user brought up anachronisms, I'll add one: the establishing shot of Seattle shows the Kingdome and Safeco Field. Neither existed in 1971
This is a kind of genre thing, meaning you either like the 1950s musicals or you don't. If you do, you'll love this. Personally, I prefer the 1930s and most of the '40s musicals with the dancing talents of Astaire and Rogers, and Eleanor Powell, Bill Robinson, Ruby Keeler, James Cagney, Shirley Temple and so forth but the songs of the '50s, the slower dance numbers and the soapy melodramas of the decade all turn me off.<br /><br />This film is a case-in-point. The first song was okay but the next three did nothing for me. By then, the story didn't have much appeal, either. The presence of Deborah Kerr is another minus. I don't think I've seen a movie she starred in that I liked, including this one, where the goody two-shoes English teacher she portrays spends half the movie threatening to leave Siam. (I which she had!). <br /><br />However, divorcing myself from likes-and-dislikes, there is no denying this Rogers and Hammerstein production has a lot of appeal to many folks, particularly those who liked "The Sound Of Music" a decade later. There are similarities in the R&H musicals. Thus, if you liked the Julie Andrews flick, you should like this, too. <br /><br />This is a Lavish production with, yes, a capital "L." This is the kind of big-production musicals you rarely saw after that generation. You also get the dubbed singers, unlike today, where the actress isn't able to really sing so Marnie Nixon comes to rescue of Kerr, as she did with Natalie Wood in "West Side Story" and Audrey Hepburn in "My Fair Lady." <br /><br />Yul Brynner is "King Mongkut" and is the stereotypical traditionalist, the kind filmmakers always portray in a negative way. He isn't "progressive," as the left wingers like the say, but the education teacher (Kerr, as "Anna Leonowens") will set him straight. Secular-progressives of today always place teachers higher than people trying to cure cancer! However, Yul is good in this role and even employs some comedy along with his more-bark-than-bite character. Justifiably, he is the big star of this film. Brynner had magnetism. Even in "The Magnificent Seven," Yul was the one cowboy who mesmerized the audience.<br /><br />In summary, it's a fine movie for its day and millions of people enjoyed it. I'll leave it at that.
Disappointing musical version of Margaret Landon's "Anna and the King of Siam", itself filmed in 1946 with Irene Dunne and Rex Harrison, has Deborah Kerr cast as a widowed schoolteacher and mother who travels from England to Siam in 1862 to accept job as tutor to the King's many children--and perhaps teach the Royal One a thing or two in the process! Stagy picture begins well, but quickly loses energy and focus. Yul Brynner, reprising his stage triumph as the King, is a commanding presence, but is used--per the concocted story--as a buffoon. Kerr keeps her cool dignity and fares better, despite having to lip-synch to Marni Nixon's vocals. Perhaps having already played this part to death, Brynner looks like he had nothing leftover for the screen translation except bombast. Second-half, with Anna and the moppets staging a musical version of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is quite ridiculous, and the Rodgers and Hammerstein songs are mostly lumbering. Brynner won a Best Actor Oscar, but it is feisty Kerr who keeps this bauble above water. Overlong, heavy, and 'old-fashioned' in the worst sense of the term. ** from ****
1st watched 12/6/2009 - 4 out of 10 (Dir-Walter Lang): Disappointing musical from a character development standpoint, in my opinion, from this much-heralded Rodgers and Hammerstein piece. There a couple of good songs and a decent comical portrayal, at times, of the King of Siam by Yul Brynner -- but the movie doesn't really do a good job of presenting the situation and the settings. I can only blame the screenplay and possibly some of the acting as to why we don't fully understand the character's and their situations. I know it might be a little too much to ask of a musical meant for the enjoyment of the songs and the dancing, but even this part didn't stand out a lot for me. The basic storyline is about an English woman coming to Siam to teach the children about upscale European things. We find out later that the King is actually the biggest pupil. There is a side forbidden romance between the King's newest wife, played by Rita Moreno(a latino as an Arab--come on!!) and a former lover that causes some complications but nothing really mesmerizing added though. Deborah Kerr, as the main female character Annie -- is OK but not that convincing either. The King learns some things because of her presence and then the movie fades away as he does. This is really a miniscule story with some songs and dancing but not that great of an experience for a viewer really.
I picked this one up because the music was done by Hans Zimmer, a customer of Metasonix modular synths (made by someone dear to me). The jacket art says "the 2003 version".<br /><br />I give it one point for a strong female, one point for cheezy dialog and one last point for meg foster's light blue eyes, of which there are plenty of shots of.<br /><br />It was fun seeing David MacCullum casually swimming (the pool has a plexiglass viewing window!), while his lady love was being chased by a psycho in Greece. <br /><br />The sets were marginally impressive-that is, rich people's houses in L.A. and Mendanassos (sp?), where the castle was. I found myself wondering how they were able to keep up the cleaning with all the dust blowing around. The wind wasn't fierce enough to be believable to me. I kept thinking that the animal pelts on the furniture must be nasty...etc. and realized that the film must be pretty boring if i am wondering these things when the supposed plot was unfolding. I stumbled over things like why did she light a fire, blow out the match, then throw the match into the fire?! Dumb stuff like that. It was clunky at best. Oh well. Robert Morely got to have a bit of fun with his kooky geezer character and a nice vacation out of it.
I discovered this movie with a retailer selling OOP's. And this one surely is an OOP. One year after The Exorcist she's back in business with this movie but what we all new was that the career of Blair never broke out, she never became a mega star. That's one of the reason's many of her films are OOP. She gives a good performance in this movie. It's about a reject not recognized by her parents and doesn't have any friends. Played at an age of 15 playing a girl of 14, that's funny. The movie is also known for the rape scene in the showers were they stick a broomstick up her virginity. In most editions it's cut out, why, I don't know, no blood is involved, okay, Blair is butt naked but nothing is shown, no T&A so nothing to offend people. But the movie is slow, extremely slow. It doesn't happy normally to me but I almost felt asleep. It's just about that 14 year old becoming a rebel against society but no blood flows, no gore no nothing. Why this is categorized in horror is still a wonder to me. If you're a fan of Blair, buy it if you can find it otherwise leave it as it is.
Tedious girls-at-reform-school flick, which plays somewhat like a prison movie. Chris (Linda Blair) is stuck in there after running away from her abusive father. Once in the de facto jail, she is gang raped by her fellow female "inmates".<br /><br />Overlong (even at 98 minutes), with an utterly pointless ending which makes the entire film seem pointless.<br /><br />15 year old Linda Blair does her best to avoid showing her body when unclothed, but lets a nipple shot slip during a shower scene.<br /><br />*1/2 out of ****
The plot was predictable, and fighting with guns gets old, but this is a definate movie to look at if you have a low IQ and don't really care about real movies. I would endulge in true art movies, like 'Clerks', 'Something about Mary', 'El Mariachi', or 'La Taqueria'.
I actually intended to see this movie in the theatre. It was actually sold out. I actually went to see Solaris instead, which actually was the worst movie to be released in 2002.<br /><br />Victor Rosa (John Leguizamo), a tough, streetwise 'street pharmacist', freaks out when he sees a kid get shot, so he decides to go clean and invest all of his money with Jack (Peter Sarsgaard). Things seem to be going pretty well until Jack skips town with his girlfriend Trish (Denise Richards). This happened very late in the movie, so had they not revealed this in the preview, it might have been an interesting twist. But they did, so it's not.<br /><br />In fact, there's not a single interesting thing about this movie; everything is given away in the preview. If you saw even one preview, you saw the whole movie, so you might just want to think really hard to fill in the gaps. Go to the website, download the preview, save yourself $3.99. There is not a single surprise or twist in the entire film, other than how terrible the soundtrack is.<br /><br />I hope that whoever was in charge of writing the soundtrack was fired. Twice. Most of it is what music would be like if the only songs allowed to be released were Ricky Martin and Gloria Estefan duets, and (I may shatter the fabric of the space-time continuum with a concept as mind-numbing as this) they both had less talent and musical ability.<br /><br />The acting is at best poor, the script is at best a crime against humanity, and Denise Richards is at best 67% styrofoam and 33% ziploc bag. You know things are bad when John Leguizamo (he was in The Pest!) upstages the rest of the cast with his acting abilities.
For the first forty minutes, Empire really shapes itself up: it appears to be a strong, confident, and relatively unknown gangster flick. At the time I didn't know why, I thought it was good- but now I do. <br /><br />One of the main problems with this film is that it is purely and utterly distasteful. I don't mind films with psychos and things, to prove a point- take Jackie Brown, for example- but they're all so terribly shallow in this, but that is obviously thrown in for entertainment. You literally feel a knot pull in your stomach. Another major problem is the protagonist. He is smug, arrogant, yet- ironically enough- not that bad. He doesn't seem tight enough to be a drug-dealing woman killer. The fact is, at the end of the day, this film is completely pretentious. Not slick, not clever, just dull, and meaningless- this colossal mess should be avoided at all costs. <br /><br />* out of ***** (1 out of 5)
This film actually works from a fairly original idea - I've never seen nymphs that were thrown out of heaven in a horror movie before anyway. However, the way that it executes this idea isn't original in the slightest; we follow a bunch of kids that, for some reason decide to go on a trip into the forest. The fact that the forest is inhabited by these nymphs make it more interesting than merely another forest filled by rednecks/nutcases/zombies etc; but really, the monsters are just a variation on the common horror in the woods theme. Many films of this ilk don't have a single good idea - and it would seem that this one has worn its brain cells out with just that one. The only real asset that the monsters bring to the table is the fact that they're beautiful women that the characters lust for, rather than being hideous grotesques that they want to run away from. This is good up until a point; but it soon gets boring, and the almost complete lack of any back-story surrounding the central monsters ensures that the film is never going get itself out of the 'horror trash' category.<br /><br />It's been years since The Evil Dead made the woodlands a prime horror location, and in spite of films like The Blair Witch Project; it still makes for an excellent horror setting. This is one of the film's major assets, as the forest presents a good impression of the unknown - the only problem is that Forest of the Damned doesn't ever seem to have much up its sleeve. The death sequences show a distinct lack of imagination, and the fact that all the characters are clichéd in the extreme doesn't help, as you're more likely to be looking forward to seeing them get killed rather than hoping they can get away. The cast is made up of kids mainly, but there is a role here for Tom Savini; who unfortunately doesn't get to have fun in the special effects department. The only real highlight the film has where personnel are concerned comes from the nymphs themselves. The naked ladies tend to look great, and if it wasn't for them, this film would get very boring very quickly. There's nothing to recommend this film for really; but if you want a daft little horror film that harks back to the style of eighties woodland flicks, you might find some enjoyment here.
This movie is a terrible waste of time. Although it is only an hour and a half long it feels somewhere close to 4. I have never seen a movie move so slowly and so without a purpose. This is also a "horror" film that takes place a lot of the time during daylight. My friend and I laughed an insane amount of times when we were probably supposed to be scared.<br /><br />The only thing we want to know is why such a terrible movie was released in so many countries. It cannot be that high in demand. <br /><br />The supermodel Nicole Petty should stick to modeling because although she is beautiful she lost her accent so many times in this movie, half of the time she is British and half the time she is American.
Angels who got a little icky were banned from heaven and now reside in a British forest where they seduce and chop up teens. Talk about high concept. On the plus side this little mother gives us Tom Savini, but since his acting range is limited to two minutes screen-time, his five minute presence seems a tad long. The angels run around the forest naked for the most part of the movie, but though they might have the body of an angel, their faces sure look like Joan Rivers on a bad day. Mediocre acting and amateurish gore-effects don't help and the night scenes fatally recall Paris Hilton's most famous movie. So bad that it is REALLY bad.
I've seen a lot of movies and rarely would I ever rate a movie "1" but this movie was beyond terrible.<br /><br />The acting was terrible, the plot was ridiculous, the effects were unrealistic and the characters were annoying. Usually when I watch scary movies I think it's DUMB when the characters hears a noise in house/forest/school/etc and then yells out "hello is anyone there?" - but at least they're believable when they do it.. This movie couldn't even get that right.<br /><br />This is a movie that'll make other B-horror movies like Venom and The Fog look like academy award winning masterpieces.<br /><br />I always have an open mind while watching movies and I can only say that this movie was a complete waste of time and I write this comment so that anyone else who's thinking of watching this movie will think again. IT'S AWFUL!
Oh boy, where do I go with this one? Herendous acting, weak plot, stupid deaths, pointless nudity...<br /><br />This isn't entertainment...this is hell.<br /><br />Hell.<br /><br />Don't waste your money, time, or life on this pit of evil.<br /><br />It's just...god damn is this movie awful! Tom Savini, WHY?! Why would you waste your life on this crap? This movie not worth it. I'd rather snort crack and smash my head up against a wall than watch THIS...this sinful act again!<br /><br />Please take my advice and stay the f#@k away from this elephant turd of a film. No, you know what? I shouldn't even have to call this thing a film! Just stay AWAY!
From the start this film was awful! Why was it that bad?? If it isn't the naked women, not only in need of a decent plastic surgeon but also the expertise of a dentist followed by a free hand out of Colgate whitening!! Then it's the 'crazy' old guy at the gas station, who isn't so much crazy, but more "I'm not sure how to act a great deal so I will stare straight ahead and look as stupid as I can while pretending to shout in robotic tones about something in the woods"!! Then back to these naked nymphs in need of a cure for gingivitis.... apparently, without touching you...and this is according to the opening scene.... they can cause a nasty looking red rash on your neck, which I assumed to be a chunk of flesh missing but just looks as though it could do with some TCP to clear it right up. Then you have Sophie Holland who plays Ally, I have never seen such baaaaaad acting, she is more of a "me me me, if I'm not having fun no-one else is, and I don't wanna do this so I won't, and I'm the meanest cow on the planet, I'm sarcastic, petty and if I don't get things my way I will sulk!", kind of person.... reminds me more of a 6 yr old girl's attitude. I don't think it's even worth mentioning the dire camera angles that remind me of Blair Witch, or how low-budget the film actually was that when Judd was hacking at the 'locked' door it was in fact open before he reached to unlock it from the other side!! This film is completely laughable! If it were a spoof then it would have been successful...only just though, but, as a horror film is was just plain wrong!!! I can't even being to describe everything that went t!ts up in this movie I would run out of room! Although it was funny to watch Andrew drip raspberry juice in his ear every time he opened his mouth while Tom Savini's character was completely blind to the two hiding under the table directly in his line of vision!! It was even funnier when these two thought they could escape on a god damn tractor, which as we all know is thee number one hated vehicle to get stuck behind since its so god damn slow! So is it any wonder they don't get away with it?? And how many people do you know that can slice open their wrist and then run around for hours as if nothing ever happened! No pain, no weakening from blood loss, nothing!? But the silliest part is when all of a sudden (and i mean that literally) it's one YEAR later and Molly is still wandering the woods after having escaped the nymphs, and then lo and behold, Shaun Hutson picks her up...of course not without a line to promote his books!! (altho admittedly he is one of my fav authors) but suddenly, and with absolutely no hint of an xplanation as to how and why... she's evil herself and lures Hutson to his death, then we cut to the crazy dude from the beginning suddenly wandering round the woods with a petrol can, even after his 'dazzling' performance on why no-one should ever venture there for whatever reason...cue the nymphs stupidly slappin each other around a bit for fun while Crazy pours petrol everywhere....and here endeth the film....finally! My conclusion....if you hadn't already guessed by now....absolute rubbish! There was no proper thought went into it at all, whoever was aiming the camera needed firing...and come to think of it so did 99% of the cast! If the right director, actors, and budget got behind this it could have been decent. But, once again, low-budget English horror films but the rest of the genre, the country, and the English film-making industry to shame!! (And I'm English so I'm allowed to say that)! In fact the only decent and exciting part of the movie is in the first 15-20 mins when we watch it turn from night to day over a field type area. All I kept thinking throughout this was "Jesus Christ in heaven why oh why did you allow someone to make this, its absolute cow's testicles!!" But I can't turn a film off after I've started watching it unfortunately. I had to watch From Dusk Til Dawn afterwards just to remind myself that Tom Savini does have it in him to act well! If there was an option for 0/10 then believe me I woulda chose that, cuz this film isn't even worth the one point I did give it! <br /><br />But this is just my opinion, watch it and decide for yourself.
Forest of the Damned starts out as five young friends, brother & sister Emilio (Richard Cambridge) & Ally (Sophie Holland) along with Judd (Daniel Maclagan), Molly (Nicole Petty) & Andrew (David Hood), set off on a week long holiday 'in the middle of nowhere', their words not mine. Anyway, before they know it they're deep in a forest & Emilio clumsily runs over a woman (Frances Da Costa), along with a badly injured person to add to their problems the van they're travelling in won't start & they can't get any signals on their mobile phones. They need to find help quickly so Molly & Judd wander off in the hope of finding a house, as time goes by & darkness begins to fall it becomes clear that they are not alone & that there is something nasty lurking in the woods...<br /><br />This English production was written & directed by Johannes Roberts & having looked over several other comments & reviews both here on the IMDb & across the internet Forest of the Damned seems to divide opinion with some liking it & other's not, personally it didn't do much for at all. The script is credited on screen to Roberts but here on the IMDb it lists Joseph London with 'additional screenplay material' whatever that means, the film is your basic backwoods slasher type thing like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) with your basic stranded faceless teenage victims being bumped off but uses the interesting concept of fallen angels who roam the forest & kill people for reason that are never explained to any great deal of satisfaction. Then there's Stephen, played by the ever fantastic Tom Savini, who is never given any sort of justification for what he does. Is he there to get victims for the angels? If so why did he kill Andrew by bashing his head in? The story is very loose, it never felt like a proper film. The character's are poor, the dialogue not much better & the lack of any significant story makes it hard to get into it or care about anything that's going on. Having said that it moves along at a reasonable pace & there are a couple of decent scenes here.<br /><br />Director Johannes doesn't do anything special, it's not a particularly stylish or flash film to look at. There's a few decent horror scenes & the Tom Savini character is great whenever he's on screen (although why didn't he hear Judd breaking the door down with an axe while escaping with Molly?) & it's a shame when he gets killed off. There are a couple of decent gore scenes here, someone has their head bashed in, there's a decapitation, someone gets shotgun blasted, someone throat is bitten out, someones lips are bitten off & someone is ripped in half. There is also a fair amount of full frontal female nudity, not that it helps much.<br /><br />Technically Forest of the Damned is OK, it's reasonably well made but nothing overly special or eye-catching. This was shot in England & Wales & it's quite odd to see an English setting for a very American themed backwards horror. The acting is generally pretty poor save for Savini who deserves to be in better than this. Horror author Shaun Hutson has an embarrassing cameo at the end & proves he should stick to writing rather than acting.<br /><br />Forest of the Damned was a pretty poor horror film, it seems to have fans out there so maybe I'm missing something but it's not a film I have much fondness for. Apart from one or two decent moments there's not much here to recommend.
Well this is a typical "straight to the toilet" slasher film.<br /><br />Long story short, a bunch of teenagers/young adults becoming stranded in the middle of creepy woods and get hacked down by naked nymphomaniac demons.<br /><br />This movie has all the basics for this slasher fromage:<br /><br />-Naked women, -teens or young adults being marooned in someplace spooky, -gory death scenes, -the last survivor being a well built young woman who will always show off her midriff, but never bra less, -a creepy, crazy man who knows about the evil, -lesbian kiss scene, -sex being a killer, -no plot<br /><br />Even then for a cheesy slasher film, it was really terrible. The atmosphere is totally dead. Nothing, not even the sexually explicit scenes and nudity, was enough to keep the male and lesbian female audience interested. Watching it felt like it was being watched with a nasty head congestion or a nasty head cold.<br /><br />Give the demonic ..... 0/10.
The plot was very thin, although the idea of naked, sexy, man eating sirens is a good one.<br /><br />The film just seemed to meander from one meaningless scene to another with far too few nuddie/splatter/lesbian mouth licking shots in between.<br /><br />The characters were wooden and one dimensional.<br /><br />The ending made no sense.<br /><br />Considering it had Tom Savini and Shaun Hutson in it, you would have expected a decent plot and decent special effects. Some of the effects were quite good but there were just too few of them.<br /><br />Brownie points go for occasional flashes of tits and bush, naturally, and of course the lesbian moments. I also thought that the scene with the sirens bathing in the pool under the waterfall could be viewed as an innovative take on the 'shower scene'<br /><br />The film had many of the elements that go into making a first rate horror film but they were poorly executed or used too sparsely.<br /><br />If I had been watching this alone and aged 15, i would have really enjoyed it for about 10 minutes (with 1 hand of the remote control), then lost interest suddenly and needed a pizza...
This movie was pretty much a waste of an hour and a half of my time. I generally like the cheap horror monster type movies, but this movie was a disappointment. The main flaw being the lack of explaining the creatures. When they entered the house and found the man he could have at lease explained them. He doesn't really say anything about them other than that they killed his parents, and unless i missed something the didn't say how he managed to escape either... Not to mention the fact that it gives no clue or reason why the only survivor stays and essentially feeds the creatures after her own near death experience. It would have seemed that she would have had the opportunity to leave after the "cross incident".
I rented this flick for one reason Tom Savini, I respect his work but this was a real let down, I had horrible clichés, half of the film was naked women so called "fallen angels" running around trying to act scary, oh and then there was the occasional "Blair Witch" black and white motion sicken camera scenes. Tom's character was really awful, Horrible script. And you got to love these lines they use. "Is anyone there, who is out there, this isn't funny" No but your acting was. I wish I could give this flick a 0! Oh the names of the characters. Judd, Molly, Ally, Emilio, but they did leave out Anthony, The Breakfast Club reunite in the forest of unforgivable acting.
Note to Horror fans: The only horror here is when you realized you just wasted 95 minutes of your life on a movie that's so worthless it's insulting.<br /><br />I watched this because:<br /><br />The premise sounded slightly promising: It's not. It's just an excuse to use the same lame set pieces from other low-budget slasher films that weren't good either. <br /><br />The promise of naked forest nymphs sounded nice even if the movie turned out to be awful: It's not. It's SO not. The amateur cinematography makes sure the "fallen angels" are about as sexy as the average homeless person.<br /><br />The name Tom Savini has a long history in the horror genre: He's the king of low-budget special effects and lower-budget acting. Come to think of it, Savini should have been a reason not to watch this movie. It's not that he's bad, but he's almost always in bad movies. His only good role was in From Dusk Till Dawn, and he's been milking that at horror conventions ever since.<br /><br />But let's focus on the positive: Forest of the Damned is a great example of how NOT to make a movie. <br /><br />Everything else is a negative. Obviously the writer is allergic to originality. The script is terrible. That's all a given after the first 10 minutes. But the clueless pacing; the way the director treats "plot" and "characterization" as a nuisance he thinks no one cares about anyway; and the excruciatingly long and boring driving, walking, and nature sequences (no doubt added to increase the running time to make the film qualify for distribution) show a complete lack of aptitude for film and storytelling in general.<br /><br />This is another good example of the number-one way you can tell if a movie is going to be bad: If it's written and directed by the same person, expect garbage.
oh god where to begin......bad acting....characters you just don't care about... are they American or British... they seem to think they are in America, because where else is this enormous forest in the midlands...<br /><br />one big fault... they are driving all night through these woods... unless they are going around and around they'd have been in Scotland come the morning.. when the whiny one knocks the poor wandering woman over....<br /><br />and they're mobiles don't work.. so what do they do... split up of course, make it easier to be picked off... so three go looking for a house that might be there in the middle of nowhere and two stay behind to 'care' for the unconscious woman... so what do they do, rather than make her comfortable, cushion her head, cover her up or even move her off the blooming road they just leave her lying on the hard road while they go and make a fire 100 yrds away....and all the time they have a camper van they could put her in...<br /><br />and onto the horny angels that are supposed to have desired human kind so much that they were ejected from heaven to live amongst us...so what do they do? embark on sexual relations with any men they encounter?.........no they bite huge chunks out of them and rip their heads off... i think they are missing the point...<br /><br />these are not gorgeous sexually deprived former angels they are cannabalistic vampires... and as for tom savini saying how breath takingly beautiful they are....well those gals have good bodies but nothing special in the face dept. the lead role was far more pretty than these so called irresistible sirens...<br /><br />rubbish film waste of £2.30 from my local library...
Booted out of heaven, a gang of horny naked female angels (with big plastic fangs) have taken up residence in a spooky forest where they feed upon any hapless souls who should wander by. It's not long before a group of friends on a road trip are falling victim to the bloodthirsty babes… An independent low budget horror made in the UK, Forest of the Damned takes an interesting premise and flushes it down the pan with some of the worst acting, effects and direction I have seen in a long time.<br /><br />Director Johannes Roberts shows some occasional flair behind the camera – the scenes in the delapidated house are fairly tense and there are some deftly handled 'shock' moments - but for the most part the film is technically amateurish. Throw in some truly awful performances from horror icons Tom Savini and Shaun Hutson, and you have one real bad movie on your hands.<br /><br />Some fun may be derived from the film's sheer shoddiness, and there is loads of female nudity for the guys to savour, but most will find this a chore to sit through.
I thought that the nadir of horror film making had been reached with "Book of Shadows", I was wrong. This film makes that look like "The Magnficiant Ambersons" compared to this piece of shameless, unexpurgated fecal matter that has the audacity to call itself a movie. I'd write more but I'm still to angry that I was idiot enough to spend £3 renting it, bobbins.<br /><br />And were these people English? and where is the forest> I have lived in the UK two thirds of my life and as far as I know there are no dark uncharted woodlands in the midlands. The whole bally thing looked like a national trust conifer plantation. Those angels looked like anorexic pornstars (turned most of them were, did my research). I did however like the bit when Judd got ripped in pieces.<br /><br />P.S I love and admire Tom Savini but HE CANNOT ACT
OK me and a friend rented this a few days ago because we like to keep track of b-movies since we do them ourselves. Anyway, the cover contained blood and weird looking naked girls with fangs and stuff... and Tom Savini! There is just no way this movie can fail! Right? wrong!! It just seems like such a waste! There was really no story, the dialog was terrible (is anyone there? x 1000!!!), the characters were.. well, they really lacked any kind of personality... The effects were terrible.. and whats up with these long artsy shots of scared people running around doing nothing.. with extreme closeups of eyes and stuff? We were sitting the whole movie waiting for something... anything to happen... but no... "oh, here comes the nymphs! great! oh.. they're kissing... again... and now for the violence! OK... nothing really happens... again... oh, now they run around... and the closeups of eyes... again... oh, heres Tom Savini! Oh... he died... right... OK, maybe now something cool or even interesting will happen.. no.. oh! Cool! a severed head! the end... oh crap.." And finally, since i'm so full of myself.. i'll tell you this! Give me a van, six actors, a weird looking house, Tom Savini, a couple of naked girls with fangs and buckets of blood and i could make the coolest movie you've ever seen... I've made movies with zero budget in two days that has better effects, better acting and a better script than this... what is this Johannes guy doing?? Making cool movies is easy!It could have been so great... I'm really upset!!
When teenagers go on a trip in a camper van there are many clichés that you can guarantee will follow.<br /><br />1)The teenagers will be warned not to go where they are going by a crazy local. Dan Van Husen handles that with ridiculous exposition about deadly Sirens. What, who, how and why are handled in one almost unintelligible burst. 2)The van will break down. 3)Whilst looking for help the group will be split up and be picked off one by one by whatever monster they have been warned about.4)They will find a house inhabited by a madman, he will capture them. 5) The house will have a phone but it will not work, it will be disturbingly decorated, there will be flickering neon light, spiders and maggots. 6)The madman will catch them as they try to escape in a vehicle that won't start (here the high speed getaway was to be made on a tractor). 7)The madman will be seemingly killed only to come back from the dead for a cheap, weak scare and will then be killed properly. 8)Only a girl will be left alive from the group. 9)There will be an unnecessary twist at the end. <br /><br />Add to these elements naked Sirens (who the characters seem to react to in startling different ways despite the fact that everyone that sees them is supposed to fall into lust with them immediately) that seduce and kill the teens, throats being ripped out and bodies being pulled in half and you have something resembling a twelve year old boys dream movie.<br /><br />I think it is only fair to say that my opinion of the director and his previous work is as low as it is possible to be but I am happy to point out that there are a few elements that boarder on pleasurable and are a great improvement on his previous film, Darkhunters, which is one of the worst films I have ever seen. At times the cinematography is very good, the music and editing are a cut above his previous films and some other low budget horror movies. I was impressed to hear that it was achieved with a third of the money spent on the previous monstrosity. However, the worst things about this movie are not to be found in the body of the film, it is ultimately a mildly diverting if pointless movie that has been done time and time again, but amongst the DVD extras.<br /><br />If you do rent this film I implore you to listen to the director's commentary it is beyond belief. There is more to say about this than the film itself. One staggering part of the commentary is the director's claim that the film is cliché leaden because it was a preconceived idea. He says it is a deliberate attempt to use all of the clichés and openly he wonders if "people will get it". <br /><br />I'm afraid to say that if this is supposed to be a clever nod and a wink to films of the past and the genre clichés within them then it is not wittily scripted enough, acted in an appropriate tone nor directed with enough style to work. If this film was made to order it leads me to ask one question; "What was the point?" This is s afilm that just slips right into the canon of bad horror movies, any attempt to do something clever or different haven't worked.<br /><br />The next nugget of brilliance is a conversation about the snobbery towards digital film formats. They rightly point out that digital is often synonymous with cheapness and ease of use. However, the best moment of the conversation comes when they bemoan the fact that when Michael Mann makes a film in the format he is branded as a visionary. There is a simple distinction to be made here; Mann is a talented director who will use the format to fit his story and style, Roberts is a horror hack who uses it to produce bottom shelf genre pictures . I think the differences are obvious and the comparison is not only arrogant but redundant.<br /><br />The best moment is reserved for Robert's comments about people who have taken the time to review his previous film. Those who didn't like it are generalised as 'geeks' and he even goes as far as to single out specific people for having the nerve to voice their opinion in forums that encourage them to do just that. I must admit I was slightly disappointed that my review of his last film wasn't singled out for ridicule. The tirade goes further as the group joke about Norwegian reviewers, complete with 'hilarious' accents to imply that people from Norway wouldn't know a good film simply because of where they are born. As always these sorts of comments say more about those saying them than those they are targeting, they simply make the director and his friends look ignorant.<br /><br />The package in rounded out with a tasteful featurette about how the Sirens were cast. Robert's swears blind in voice over, 'I didn't want to make a film that was like Baywatch' as we see audition tapes of topless and naked girls writhing around on the ground. There is also a simpering, self-indulgent documentary about the making of Darkhunters during which Robert's says that a reviewer has claimed that Forest is "The best British film in years". I don't know who he is trying to convince. At one point in the commentary track Robert's says jokingly "I can see people sitting at home saying "this isn't amazing, its sh$t" he isn't wrong.
If you liked "Blair with" you'll like this one. It has the same lousy camera-work and soundtrack, and it has the same non-existent plot and suspenseful moments.<br /><br />It also has Tom Savini, so if you like Romero's "Dawn of the dead" or Tarantino and Rodriguez' "From Dusk Till Dawn" you're in for a treat. He is an icon and a very good actor as well.<br /><br />No, seriously. This movie is definitely the lousiest movie I've seen in a long time, and I've seen quite a few movies -- bad ones as well. I can tell you that I find most horror movies entertaining in some respect, but this was just a pure waste of time.<br /><br />The only reason why I gave this movie 2 instead of 1, was the naked chicks and the hot action with all the sharp-looking plastic teeth... No, I'm just kidding. I must have missed before I hit "submit" on the vote form.<br /><br />Stay away, even though it has sexy girls with teeth on the cover!
I couldn't watch more than 14 minutes of it. It's a GREAT combination of really bad acting and really bad directing. The shots used are disgusting, they broke the 180 degrees angle all the time. My head hurts try to watch that load of "you know what". Dirt on the "mystery machine" window make you see light from the lighting on the windows...annoying. What else... it's so badly framed all the time it's just make you want to scream at that lady directing there. I only directed short films, but I'm pretty sure I'd be way better than that directing a feature film.... the story is unbelievable, just the long french kissing scene at the beginning tell you that it's gonna be pretty awful. So pretty much, try to avoid this really bad movies at all cost, it'll save you the 5 bucks or so for the rental, and that 1h30 hour of your life you'll never get back...
I saw this film yesterday.. I rented the DVD from Blockbuster.. In fact, I know one of the actresses from the film.. I won't say who..! (That's kept under wraps..) But I must admit, it wasn't as good as I thought it would be.. Tom Savini? Hats down to this guy.. But it's a shame he wasn't in the film for long.. What lacks the film is the idea, the script, sound, etc.. It may look like a good movie.. but it wasn't that entertaining..<br /><br />Well, I'm glad my Sister paid £10 for renting 3 DVD's from Blockbuster.. I chose this one.. and I was disappointed. Anyway, thumbs down for me..! Not my cup of tea! 0 out of 10!
The movie has several story lines that follow several different characters. The different story lines don't feel like one whole complete piece which makes this comedy a very incoherent one and gets even annoying to watch at times.<br /><br />It may sound weak and cliché but it's true; You're way better of watching the Crocodile Hunter series on the Discovery channel with Steve and Terri Irwin. It's more fun and even more hilarious than this movie is. I'm sure both cast and crew had lots of fun making this movie but the movie doesn't give us the viewers much pleasure. For a comedy it simply isn't funny enough and Steve and Terri Irwin just aren't good actors, not even when they play themselves! Their antics are simply not good enough to make an entire movie around and their scene's feel long, distracting and unnecessary and even annoying at times.<br /><br />The movie had quite some potential, I mean Steve Irwin is one character that in a strange way is both intriguing and hilarious to watch, so when I first heard that they were making a movie about 'the crocodile hunter' my first reaction was; brilliant! The movie however heavily suffers from its weak story and the incoherent story lines with uninteresting and unfunny characters. The movie does has a certain entertainment value, at least enough to make this movie watchable for at least once but still, I must certainly wouldn't recommend this movie.<br /><br />Watching this movie felt like a waste of time. Still this movie might be watchable just once, when it gets on TV, on a rainy afternoon. It does has some good moments but the story lines really completely ruin the movie and its potential.<br /><br />4/10
Some people say Steve Irwin's larrikin antics and gregarious personality are only an act. Watch this film: it's obvious he can't act.<br /><br />Steve Irwin, dangerman star of the small screen in his *Crocodile Hunter Diaries*, *Croc Files* and eponymous *Crocodile Hunter* series (you see a naming trend here, or is it just me?), rockets his larger-than-strife persona to the big screen with *Crocodile Hunter: Collision Course* (yup – there's a definite trend of words beginning with 'C') - basically an episode of *Crocodile Hunter* mashed together with a B-Movie.<br /><br />On a mission to relocate a big croc to save it from being shot by an eccentric farmer (Magda Szubanski), Steve and wife Terri are unaware that the croc is being tracked by American spies (Lachy Hulme and Kenneth Ransom), out to recover a spy satellite beacon it has swallowed. Will it hurt my credibility to say "They're on a Collision Course with Wackiness"? (what credibility? - Ed note.)<br /><br />The plot is irrelevant, as it is Steve's animal magnetism that propels the film. If you find his persona trying, the film is a failure, but if you're a fan of either him (as a businessman, conservationist or just plain ass-klown) or his television shows, expect more of the same on a wide-screen budget.<br /><br />John Stainton, faithful liege, best mate and helmer of the Crocodile Hunter *oeuvre* (can it be called that with a straight face?), writes and directs with the same provincial swagger that made Steve a household wildlife jester.<br /><br />The most jarring aspect of this movie is that Steve (one of the few people for whom you can actually hear the exclamation points going by as he speaks) and Terri (Steve's spouse of 10 years, fiercest ally and closest friend) treat it like it IS one of their documentaries, breaking the "fourth wall" and speaking directly to the camera, whilst all the other characters behave as if they're in a bad movie (well…). It wouldn't be so incongruous if Steve and Terri were kept separated from the rest of the characters – but when the Bad Americans constantly threaten Steve's life, we Confused Viewers must ask ourselves why the indifferent camera crew doesn't at least call the cops if not try to poke the bad guys in the eye with the boom mics, or run screaming into the bush – anything but continue filming casually with great lighting, crisp audio and seven action angles. <br /><br />While Terri is unfairly painted as Steve's mildly incompetent sidekick (her acting consists of boldly inept line reads and gadding about in pear-shaped-buttock-hugging jeans - for the last, I'm not complaining), Steve goes about his business-as-usual of show-and-tell with creatures intent on killing him, doing all his stunts himself because, well, to him they're not really stunts, just a Day At The Office. <br /><br />Of course, watching this madman's koo-koo adventures after his tragic death in September 2006 casts a strange detachment over the proceedings. But to those of us who never met him, this kind of malarkey (as well as various incarnations of the *Crocodile Hunter* series in constant re-runs) keeps him as alive as ever in our crocodile burrows. The wrenching reality of his absence will only be apparent to those nearest him. And I truly wish them the best in following in his outsize footprints… <br /><br />So enjoy this diversion for what it is – a half-baked movie featuring a full-on legend. He died doing what he loved – interacting with wildlife - and he could never have asked for more of his first feature film in portraying him doing just that.<br /><br />(Movie Maniacs, visit: poffysmoviemania.com)
I never was an avid viewer of "Crocodile Hunter", but did occasionally see an episode, or a bit of an episode, and when the news spread about Steve Irwin's death from a stingray attack in 2006, it certainly caught my attention. This movie, with Steve and his wife, Terri, playing themselves, but in a fictional story, was released in 2002, but I didn't hear of it until several years later, and even after that, it took me a while to get around to seeing it. Well, now I have seen it, and after looking here first (more than once), and seeing its rating, I was not surprised at how unimpressive it turned out to be, though it could have been a BIT better. Apparently, it's supposed to be a comedy, so a major problem with it is that it isn't very funny at all.<br /><br />A U.S. satellite beacon falls down from space and lands in Australia, where it is swallowed by a crocodile! While Steve and Terri Irwin are on a mission to capture this crocodile from a place where it terrorizes the cattle on a ranch owned by the crazy Brozzie Drewitt, and are unaware of what's inside it, two CIA agents are sent to Australia to retrieve the beacon! The agents are assisted by Jo Buckley, and the ranch owner and her dogs might make the mission more difficult for them! On Steve and Terri's mission, they face other types of dangerous wildlife, not just the crocodile, and since they have no clue that the croc has anything unusual inside it, when Steve sees the CIA agents after them, he mistakes them for poachers! <br /><br />Not only did I not laugh once while watching this film, the only part that really made me smile was Steve Irwin using a big snake to scare off one of the CIA agents. Apart from that, I don't think I found anything even mildly amusing. It's also a bit of an incoherent mess, switching back and forth from the Australian Outback to the CIA headquarters, and it seems like clips from "Crocodile Hunter" and clips from an action thriller (or something like that) put together for some reason. Also added to that mix are the ranch scenes, which also seem to be from somewhere else, and as funny as Brozzie Drewitt, played by Magda Szubanski, is supposed to be, she's not. At one point, we see her farting, so we have a fart joke, a MAJOR cliché in modern comedy! Are they SO hard to resist?! I also found the typical "Crocodile Hunter" scenes, with Steve wrestling crocodiles and holding other dangerous creatures and talking about them to viewers, to be tedious, but I guess the fact that I was never a devout fan of the show didn't help.<br /><br />Steve Irwin was admired by many as a conservationist, and is sadly missed by them, while there are also those who say he messed with nature and had it coming to him. No matter which side you're on, "The Crocodile Hunter: Collision Course" is not a well crafted movie. I'm sure it does help if you're a big Steve Irwin fan, but even if you are, there's no guarantee that you would like this movie, as some fans clearly haven't been impressed. In fact, it seems that some of them have found this movie to be worse than I have, so maybe it WON'T help. Like I said, there's no guarantee. I would say whatever you may think of Steve Irwin and his show, this movie was unnecessary. The attempt to combine what is usually seen in "Crocodile Hunter" with a fictional story unfortunately failed, and a viewer may find that this film seems longer than ninety minutes!
OK, first of all, Steve Irwin, rest in peace. You were loved by many fans. Now...this movie wasn't a movie at all. It was "The Crocodile Hunter" TV program with bad acting, bad scripts, and bad directing in between Steve capturing or teaching us about animals. He was entertaining as an animal seeker/specialist. Millions will miss him. But the whole movie idea was a big mistake. The plot was so broken, it was almost non-existent. Casting was horrible. The acting wasn't even worth elementary school-level actors. The direction must be faulted as well. If you can't get a half-way decent performance out of your actors, no matter how bad the script is, you must not be that good in the first place. I could have written a better script. I wish I had never been to see this movie. Of course, I watched it for $3 ($1.50 for me, $1.50 for my son.) while out with friends who insisted upon seeing this instead of Scooby Doo Live Action. My son, who is not so discriminating, liked the movie alright, but he still has never asked to see it again. If you want fond memories of Steve Irwin, buy his series on DVD. Avoid this movie like the plague. If I were Steve, I know I wouldn't want to be remembered for this movie. Respect him: avoid this movie!
I caught this at a test screening. All I can say is: What...the...hell? This movie plays out about as smoothly as Mickey Mouse reading the script for "Scarface." It's bizarre beyond making the slightest bit of sense; and even if you do leave your brain in the car, the film is still so bizarre that it isn't even funny.<br /><br />The plot involves crocodile hunter Steve Irwin trying to "save" a crocodile which contains a CIA probe. The CIA comes after Irwin to get their probe back, Irwin mistakes them for poachers, and sets out to "stop" them.<br /><br />That's about all the story there is; the rest is over-the-top lampooning of Australian culture ("Didja see dat?" and "Crikey!") and strangely choreographed action sequences. At one point, Irwin mounts a speeding RV and knife fights with a CIA agent on top of it. Yes, that's right: Steve Irwin knife fights a guy on top of an RV. Let that be your guide for this ridiculously bad film.
So, Steve Irwin. You have to admire a man who is not only willing to throw himself into a river that clearly is filled with crocs, snakes, lizards, tons of poop from the aforementioned reptiles, and mud, not only daily, but with enthusiasm. He was never able to make ME want to do it, but he managed to make his wife come close.<br /><br />This movie does not fall into my parallel universe of film category - the films for people who just had their teeth drilled, have a migraine, or have no film experience and therefore like quiet mediocrity (currently well populated by Disney films). It's too noisy. Well, Steve is too noisy. He's just so happy all the time, and would cut right through the blasé' teenager (I can hear it now: "that movie was so STUPID") or the Tylenol with codeine. I'd say his enthusiasm is catching, but if it was, I would own a room full of snakes, and that hasn't happened yet. I agreed they're beauties, but I'm still not going to pet them.<br /><br />Plot was indeed predictable. Bad guys were so bad, for a minute there I thought I was shopping at a consumer electronic superstore. But the movie was filled with animals, and Steve and Terri, which is why I watched it. That plot (if you could call it that) was really more of a reason to throw yet another croc in a truck. My expectations were low and stayed that way.<br /><br />I was hoping, though, that there would be a bit of a sequel, where Steve and Terri (having worked on their acting skills) have a movie with a real plot and more animals with fur. I still can't believe we won't see Steve anymore. I hope that Terri and the children continue to be involved in the Australia Zoo and the discovery channel, at least. I can't imagine seeing a crocodile without having some member of the Irwin family telling me forcefully how wonderful that croc is. Crikey!
Gday Mates! just watched Croc Hunter the movie. it was alright but the show seems more real. this just seemed like a longer AnimalPlanet episode with funnier lines and more characters. A few things: Steve described snakes Fangs like hypodermic needles. yeeeowch! for reals you know that hurts. and cant they jump up high? hes all grabbin them by the tail and stuff. There was two MAJOR cleavage shots in this movie. when Terry find that baby joey she goes like "We have to nurture them, just like a baby". Woah! i thought she was gonna up & breast feed that kid. that woulda made it PG-13 though. While on Terry, did anyone notice on the movie and a lot of the show Terry's knowledge on ritual mating. she knows her sex stuffs. movie takes place in Queensland, Austrailia. I want a koala, dingo, and joey!<br /><br />Steve's dog Sui actually has a purpose in this movie. albeit a small one which proves useless against the dynamite-wielding hottie.<br /><br />Oh and if anyone else watches this, try and agree with me in saying that country bumpkin fat lady with the herd of dogs was RIGHT in shotgunning the croc. he was eating her sheep!! i would be mad too!
Why did I waste my money on this on the last day of Sundance? I want a refund... Can I have my $16 back? While I was watching this film I kept waiting for something to happen, nothing did happen. The only way I even knew what it was supposed to be about was by reading the plot, which was not really like the film. why did the director zoom in with their handy cam and then zoom out? It was not very artistic. Why did the director show Lulu filing her nails for fifteen minutes? Why is it when the actors tried to speak they sounded like they were reading? Or was that the point? I felt like Phantom Love had no story at all, and to be honest I felt like my friends vacation videos had a much higher entertainment value than this film.
After some internet surfing, I found the "Homefront" series on DVD at ioffer.com. Before anyone gets excited, the DVD set I received was burned by an amateur from home video tapes recorded off of their TV 15 years ago. The resolution and quality are poor. The images look like you would expect old re-recorded video to look. Although the commercials were edited out, the ending credits of each episode still have voice-over announcements for the segway into the ABC news program "Nightline", complete with the top news headlines from the early 1990's. Even with the poor image quality, the shows were watch-able and the sound quality was fine.<br /><br />To this show's credit, the casting was nearly perfect. Everyone was believable and really looked the part. Their acting was also above average. The role of Jeff Metcalf is played particularly well by Kyle Chandler (most recently seen in the 2005 remake of King Kong). The period costumes were very authentic as were the sets, especially the 1940s kitchens with vintage appliances and décor. The direction was also creative and different for a TV show at that time. For example, conversations between characters were sometimes inter-cut with conversations about the same subject between other characters in different scenes. The dialog of the different conversations was kept fluid despite cutting back and fourth between the different characters and locations. That takes good direction and editing and they made it work in this case.<br /><br />As I started watching this series again I suddenly remembered why I lost interest in it 15 years ago. Despite all the ingredients for a fine show, the plots and story lines are disappointing and confusing right from the start. For one thing, the name of the show itself is totally misleading. When WWII ended in 1945, there was no more fighting so obviously there was no longer a "homefront" either. Curiously, the first episode of the show "Homefront" begins in 1945 after the war had ended. That's like shooting the first episode of "Gilligan's Island" showing the castaways being rescued. The whole premise of the show's namesake is completely lost. I still held on to hope with the possibility of the rest of the series being a flashback but no, the entire show takes place from 1946 through 1948. Additionally, this series fails miserably in any attempt to accurately portray any historical events of the late 1940's. By the third episode, it becomes obvious that this series was nothing more than a thinly veiled vehicle for an ultra left-wing political agenda. The show is set in River Run Ohio, near Toledo. However, the show's ongoing racism theme makes it look more like Jackson Mississippi than Ohio. Part of the ensemble cast are Dick Williams, Hattie Winston and Sterling Macer Jr. who portray the Davis family. Much of the series shows the Davis family being discriminated against by the evil "whites" to the point of being ridiculous and totally absurd if not laughable. The racism card has been played and over played by Hollywood now for over 40 years. We get it. We're also tired of having our noses rubbed in it on a daily basis. The subject of racism is also unpopular with viewers and it is the kiss of death for any show, as it was for "Homefront". The acting talents of Williams, Winston and Macer were wasted in their roles as the stereotypical "frightened / angry black family". The wildly exaggerated racism in this series makes it look like everyone in Ohio was a KKK member or something. The racism issue could have been addressed in this show in a single episode with a simple punch in the nose or fist-fight in which a bigot gets a well deserved thrashing, and leave it at that. Devoting a major portion of the series to the racism thing gets really old really quick and its just plain stupid.<br /><br />In yet another ridiculous plot line, the big boss of a local factory (Ken Jenkins) is portrayed as an Ebenezer Scrooge like character who is against pensions and raises and is unconcerned about acid dripping on his employees. The workers revolt and take over the factory in a blatant pro-communist propaganda message to the viewer.<br /><br />Personally, I think this series had great potential. The writers could have easily placed the timeline in 1941 – 1945 as the title suggests and shown the hardships of food and gas rationing and working 14 hour days at war factories. Of course the loss of brothers, sons and husbands fighting overseas would have also added drama. The situation was also perfect for writing in special guest stars as military or USO personnel passing through their town during training or en-route to Europe or the Pacific. The possibilities for good story lines and plots are endless. But no, the writers of Homefront (David Assael and James Grissom) completely ignored any relevant or interesting plots. Instead, they totally missed the point and strayed into a bizarre and irrelevant obsession with racism and left-wing politics. It would be unfair to the actors to condemn the entire series but the plots and situations in which they were placed are total garbage.
This movie was probably the worst movie I have ever seen. Here are the things that immediately jump out at me: 1. The woods were more like hills in Los Angeles with a couple trees and brush. Not scary whatsoever. News flash, if you are filming in the Southern California area, big bear is only an hour away. They actually have trees there.<br /><br />2. The writing was absolutely without a doubt the worst dialogue I have ever experienced. Every possible line in the movie was unoriginal, cliché, or just plain stupid. For instance the name of the camp is "camp blood" (lame), the name of the clown is "the killer clown" (lame). What is a clown doing in a forest anyway? Was that the only mask they could find? 3. The last but certainly the least was the acting. Absolutely the worst group of actors and actresses ever assembled. A virtual cornucopia of shitty lines and poor acting. Worst part by far was when then randomly flash back to this fat foreign girl getting naked for a a photograph. It's a really long scene and I guess she was supposed to be sexy, but she was NOT. Also, and this was one of the few enjoyable parts of the movie for me, was this tool who is supposed to be "athletic." For instance when he is bored in the movie he grabs a couple rocks and starts doing curls with them. Then later on he is supposed to be running for the clown and it is immediately clear with his very "girl like" run, that he is quite far from athletic. Oh and to the girl who played Kat, good Lord stop singing. That song you sang for the credits makes me want to kill myself.<br /><br />If for some reason you do see this movie, I would at least recommend watching the special features. The group of jackasses who made this film talk about it as if it is this really original story. In fact one of the girls actually says that she let some of her friends read the screenplay and none of them could predict the ending. Apparently she hangs out with special kids.
Nothing to say but Wow! Has anyone actually had somebody sneak up on them in an open field? Well this happens about 25 times in this movie(clearly the directors' favorite scare tactic). In one of the opening scenes the smooth talking/hot shot producer has to ride in the back seat so the camera man could sit in the front to film. Shortly after he arrives to the field the 5 contestants show up and, although it is clearly at latest 2 in the afternoon they are all convinced that the sun will set any minute. After about 30 minutes of boobless trash we are privileged with a flashback of the clown's history in which we see some of his previous victims. If you watch this movie check out the ladies chest.. her ribs go all the way to her neck, it was flat out disgusting. Most horror movies action occurs during the night but without a night vision camera the chaos is forced to happen during the day. The few night shots that did make it in to the movie look like they were stolen from the Blair Witch Project or random shots from the directors backyard. The movie somewhat redeemed itself in the end when there was a matrix like shoot out with the clown that we rewound and watched over and over laughing hysterically.<br /><br />Definitely RENT THIS MOVIE IF YOU HAVE EVER BEEN SNUCK UP ON IN AN OPEN FIELD.<br /><br />SIGNED, THE ANSWER
Camp Blood III is a vast improvement on Camp Blood II as it has sound mostly in the right places and a rudimentary plot. This time they've ventured slightly further away from the car park the other two movies were filmed in which is a good move as you can no longer hear cars driving past what is supposed to be a remote wilderness.<br /><br />This time around there's a reality TV show and a fake clown to scare off the contestants. This is hardly a new idea, I've seen at least three other horror movies with exactly the same premise where the real killer turns up but at least this one has a plot instead of people just randomly being stabbed with a knife.<br /><br />Unlike the other two in the series this one is at least good for a few laughs. I liked how there's a gunshot sound effect when someone gets stabbed early on and the way the boom mike hovers behind people like a phantom.<br /><br />I don't know why anyone would want to make a third Camp Blood film, I would have thought it would be better to start from scratch but they have at least tried with this one. The half naked deformed woman was a bit much for me, it looks like they tried to keep continuity by hiring some freak who would get her clothes off for $5 just like they did in the second movie. They still haven't worked out that a machete is used for cutting not stabbing but oh well, it's a Camp Blood movie what do you expect? If you like crap films you'll get some fun out of this one.
Who could possibly have wished for a sequel to Bert I. Gordon's legendary bad trash-film "Food of the Gods"? Nobody, of course, but director Damien Lee thought it was a good idea, anyway, and he put together a belated sequel that stands as one of the most redundant movies in horror history. "Gnaw" is a sequel in name only, as the setting moved to a typical late 80's location (a university campus) and also the cheap & cheesy gore effects perfectly illustrates the 80's. This script hangs together by clichés, awfully written dialogs and plot situations that are not so subtly stolen from other (and more successful) horror classics. Neil Hamilton is a goody two shoes scientist who performs growing-experiments on ordinary rodents in order to do a fellow scientist a favor. Due to some incredibly stupid animal rights activists, the huge and ravenous rats escape and devour pretty much everyone on campus. Following the good old tradition that Spielberg's "Jaws" started, there's an obnoxious Dean who refuses to admit the problem even though severely mutilated corpses are turning up everywhere. During a hysterically grotesque climax, the rats invade the opening ceremony of the campus' new sport complex! "Gnaw: Food of the Gods 2" is terribly bad and therefore a lot of fun to watch! The characters do and say unimaginably stupid stuff (like descending into the sewers unarmed while they KNOW it's infested with rats), the acting is atrocious and there's a genuinely bizarre sequence involving the hero having sex under the influence of growth-serum! I wonder what Freud's theory would be on that! There's a satisfying amount of gore and sleaze and – it has to be said – the music is surprisingly atmospheric. In case you just can't get enough of this junk, there are quite a lot of creature-features revolving on mutated rats, like the Italian schlock film "Rats: Night of Terror", the modest 70's cult film "Willard" and its lame sequel "Ben", the 2003 "Willard" remake starring Crispin Glover and the surprisingly good recent rat-movies by once-famous directors Tibor Ticaks ("Rats") and John Lafia ("The Rats"). Go nuts!
Boring, predictable, by-the-numbers horror outing at least has pretty good special effects and plenty of (mindless) mayhem and gore to satisfy (mindless) genre fans. Mostly it's about giant rats chomping on a set of characters we don't care an iota about - if that's your thing, tune in. (*1/2)
In the first one it was mainly giant rats, but there were some wasps and a giant chicken too. This one, however, is just giant rats period, well giant rats and one really growing little boy. This one is about this growing boy and a scientist that is trying to help him so he accidentally creates giant killer rats...you know how it is. This movie has some kills and its moments, but I find it to be on par with the original, I just prefer some variety in my giant creature movies. Well, that is not true...I actually like "Empire of the Ants", maybe I just do not care for giant rodents. All in all a rather drab movie though it does have one rather odd turn of events in this one dream sequence that is truly bizarre. I just can't recommend this one.
This film is really bad, with a script full of 'memorable' lines and incredibly bad performances. The special effects are also bad (not the worst ones I have seen, either) and the music is so bad that you have to listen to it to believe it. Just two short themes (30 seconds long or so) are repeated constantly throughout the whole film.<br /><br />All in all, one of the worst films I have ever seen.
i tried to sit through this bomb not too long ago.what a disaster .the acting was atrocious.there were some absolutely pathetic action scenes that fell flat as a lead balloon.this was mainly due to the fact that the reactions of the actors just didn't ring true.supposedly a modern reworking of the Hitchcock original "Lifeboat".i think Hictcock would be spinning circles in his grave at the very thought of it.from what i was able to suffer through,there is nothing compelling in this movie.it boasts a few semi big names,but they put no effort into their characters.but,you know,to be fair,it was nobody's fault really.i mean,i'm pretty sure the script blew up in the first explosion. LOL.it is possible that this thing ends up improving as it goes along.but for me,i'm not willing to spend at least three days to find out.so unless you have at least a three day weekend on the horizon,avoid this stinker/ 1/10
MABEL AT THE WHEEL is one of those movies with a behind-the-scenes story that's more interesting than the movie itself. This was Chaplin's tenth comedy for Keystone during his year of apprenticeship, and his first two-reeler. Here he played one of his last out-and-out villain roles (although the feature-length TILLIE'S PUNCTURED ROMANCE was yet to come), and it also marked one of the last times he would work for a director other than himself. In fact, Chaplin's conflicts with director and co-star Mabel Normand almost got him fired from the studio.<br /><br />Chaplin hadn't gotten along with his earlier directors, Henry Lehrman and George Nichols, but according to his autobiography having to take direction from a mere "girl" was the last straw. Charlie and Mabel argued bitterly during the making of this film. Chaplin was still a newcomer at Keystone and his colleagues didn't know what to make of him, but everyone loved Mabel. Producer Mack Sennett was on the verge of firing Chaplin when he learned that the newcomer's films were catching on and exhibitors wanted more of them A.S.A.P., so Chaplin was promised the chance to direct himself in return for finishing this movie the way Mabel wanted it.<br /><br />Unfortunately, none of that drama is visible on screen in MABEL AT THE WHEEL, which looks like typical Keystone chaos. The story concerns an auto race in which Mabel's beau (Harry McCoy) is scheduled to compete, but wicked Charlie and his henchmen abduct the lad, and Mabel must take the wheel in his place. For all the racing around, brick hurling and finger-biting the film is frankly short on laughs, but there are a few points of interest. There's some good cinematography and editing in the race sequence, though there aren't really any gags, just lots of frantic activity. Chaplin himself looks odd, sporting a goat-like beard on his chin and wearing the top hat and frock coat he wore in his very first film appearance, MAKING A LIVING, but the outfit suits the old-fashioned villainy he displays throughout. At least it's novel to watch him play such an uncharacteristic role. Visible in the stands at the race track are such Keystone stalwarts as Chester Conklin, Edgar Kennedy in a strangely dandified get-up, and a more characteristic Mack Sennett, spitting tobacco and doing his usual mindless rube routine. As a performer, Sennett was about as subtle as the movies he produced, but you have to give the guy credit: he knew what people liked. These films were hugely popular in their day. Mack's performance doesn't add much to MABEL AT THE WHEEL, but he probably had to be on hand for the filming of this one to make sure his stars didn't kill each other.
This movie starts out with a certain amount of promise; but, in my view, begins to lose it when the protagonist kidnaps the good Samaritan who comes to his aid when his car breaks down. That this well-meaning stranger begins to fix his car while he is away making a phone call is implausible enough, but that she is one of the few people in the country who can help him put his family's life back on track is the type of coincidence beginning writers are warned against using in their stories.<br /><br />I found this movie average at best. Art direction could have been much better, as could have been cinematography. The acting was good, and so was Eva van der Gucht's singing.
'Iedereen Beroemd' has everything we can expect from a straight to video-movie. It's the story about a man who believes his daughter could be a star. The only thing he needs is to get her on stage, surrounded by cameras and reporters. A simple plan for which he has to kidnap and do some blackmail. The problem with the movie is not the basic plot, but how it is made. Everything is supposed to be funny, but it isn't. It is trivial and clumsy, the characters are shallow, and the end-sequence is totally without climax or emotion. The last sequence is probably the only scene where you feel like laughing, but only at how pathetic the whole set-up is.
This was a blind buy used DVD. It totally killed a nice buzz I had going when I hit play.<br /><br />It's bubble-headed comedy, but it's um. squalid. The plot is ZANY!, but the characters do things to each other that are so petty and disturbed and conveniently contrived I ultimately found it depressing to watch.<br /><br />Maybe the box lead me to expect something more than an uneven, goofy caper film. (I know, I know, the quotes on the box & the Academy Award nomination mean nothing.)
I saw the film at the Belgrade Film Festival last week, and I'm still working off the trauma. Essentially my view seems to match a number of others - the first half hour was fresh, sharp, deep, entertaining and promising. Well acted too. Natural. My problem, however, is not simply with the fact that the final hour and a half of the film have nothing to do with the likable beginning, nor the fact that I spent most of this time convulsing in agony at sharp, grating industrial sounds and squinting at drunken, toothless, bread-chewing hags. It's rather with the fact that THEY NEVER WARNED ME!!! The festival brochure synopsis described only the (utterly intriguing-sounding) first half hour - a whore, piano tuner and meat seller chat in a bar, pretending to be an advertising agent, genetic engineer, and petty government administration official, respectively - making no mention whatsoever of the never-ending gum-smacking to come. Serves me right for not reading the reviews, you might say - but to my defense, a number of reviews I looked at post-fact um didn't at all stress the immensity and utter unbearableness of the greater part of the film.<br /><br />The first hint should have been the introductory words by the director (a bashful, tousle-haired Russian youth) who stepped in front of the crammed auditorium (the film seems to be doing incredibly well critically, and tickets were sold out well in advance of the screening, though most of the audience seemed as unaware as I was of the pain to come, judging by the plethora of unearthly moans and groans that utterly permeated the theatre during the last half hour, and many exasperated comments on exit) to say the following: 'Well, I... um, thank you very much for coming to see this film, and I just wanted to say... well, it's a very long film... it took me four years to make it, and... it's.. I suggest that you see it and immediately try to forget about it. It is very long. Thank you for coming.' This is what he said. Alarm bells should have been ringing. 'What's he talking about?' I thought in happy confusion. 'This is gonna be fun!' Of course, by the time his strangely apologetic comments started making sense to me, it was far too late to get out. All I could do is writhe in increasing agony until the lights came on again. And in the end I can't say I feel in any way improved by the experience. Yes, I absolutely loved the first half hour. It was intelligent, new, and had a lot to say. And yes, Russia is probably in a bad state. Yes, every society has many hidden faces. Yes, toothless life in barren wastelands is probably unimaginably hard. Yes yes yes. I get all of this. Really I do. But I see no earthly reason why art and meaning should be so agonisingly drawn out, and so painful to bear. If you want to see a film land somewhere between the extremes of glitzy Hollywood plastic fantastic and hours of muddy vodka swigging, try the Korean-Chinese Bin Jip (3-Iron). It's artsy and surprising, but also to-the-point and fun.
The movie starts quite with an intriguing scene, three people are drinking and making small talk in a bar. All of them are making up a bit outrageous stories. As the movie unfolds, it turns out that the most outrageous story is true. However, beyond that the movie is not very interesting except for the scene in the bar and the scene where main secret is revealed. This revelation happens barely half time into the movie and frankly, not much is left to be seen. The rest of the time director is lingering in a god forsaken Russian village full of pitiful and creepy old ladies. Sure, these are fascinating and a bit shocking images, but admiring them goes on way too long, sacrificing any possible plot or character development. I found this movie as another example of either lousy or lazy movie-making, where instead of trying to make an interesting story, movie makers concentrate on weirdly fascinating imagery and through in a few almost unrelated stories (case in point - meat trader's story) to leave the spectator to figure out all odds and ends. On a surface it has artsy appearance, but in this particular case is nothing more than lack of talent.
Perhaps being a former Moscovite myself and having an elastic sense of humor prevents me from tossing this movie into the 'arthouse/festival crap' trashcan. It's not the greatest film of 2005, nor is it complete garbage. It just has a lot of problems. I also sincerely doubt this movie was banned due to any 'ideological fears', or 'conservative taboos' or any other reason this movie might conversely be called 'courageous' and 'uncompromising' abroad. It was banned because the censors knew 99% of the Russian film-goers would find it offensive because of the bad taste exercised during the shooting and editing of this otherwise dull film.<br /><br />So we have a strong opening shot. Wonderful sound design, excellent premise - laden with meaning and symbolism. The usage and placement of symbols will consistently be of the film's strongest aspects (not that the number 4 is a daunting visual challenge). Over the next 40 minutes we have an equally strong setup. An amusing and well-written bar conversation among the 3 (main?) characters, and we feel pathos for these people, the great country of Russia, the human condition and all that. Then the movie starts slowing down. We begin to wonder what -yawn- lies ahead.<br /><br />The rest is quite boring, simply put. Sure, the guy in the village tugs the heartstrings, and there are some slightly amusing moments. Nice sound, sure. But the enjoyment of this movie, not to mention the plot, are seriously compromised by the pacing problems. And this, this lack of a payoff for sitting through all the (nicely-shot) abject misery and bleakness, is what ultimately will make people angry at the 'offensive' stuff (personally, the main offensive scene bordered on being endearing, in that pathetic way harmless drunks can appear).<br /><br />If you want to watch an enjoyable movie where Russians get wasted for prolonged periods of time (the entire film), watch Particulars of the National Hunt. Much more rewarding post-Soviet stuff. So yeah, a 4 out of 10 for 4, nice and symbolic of my post-mediocre-film condition.
I have yet to read a negative professional review of this movie. I guess I must have missed something. The beginning is intriguing, the three main characters meet late at night in an otherwise empty bar and entertain each other with invented stories. That's the best part. After the three go their separate ways, the film splits into three threads. That's when boredom sets in. Certainly, the thread with the Felliniesque babushkas who make dolls out of chewed bread is at first an eye opening curiosity. Unfortunately, the director beat this one to death, even injecting a wild plot line that leads nowhere in particular. Bottom line: a two-hour plot-thin listlessness. If you suffer from insomnia, view it in bed and you will have a good night sleep.
I'm starting to think that there's a conspiracy, all right: one that involves a wallop of money paid to those who have access to published columns in newspapers and film and art magazines to ensure that this or that film, despite its obscurity, will reach a higher status via a ratings point which will tag it with a "universal acclaim" or something within that range, thus ensuring unsuspecting folk (like me) will wander into theatres or rent the bloody thing, expecting a surprise, only to find myself racing to the bathroom to upchuck.<br /><br />This movie is one of them. It has definitely make me bypass any and every posted article I come across because it's rather clear that two things might have happened: either I didn't get the message that is so hidden beneath this film's inner realms as to be impossible to access, or they and I watched two entirely different movies that happen to share the same name. 4 is a dirty trick on the audience. It's no wonder that it appeared and disappeared faster than you can say "smorsgabord" and that despite the rating it got on Metacritic, no one had heard of it. It's terrible with sugar on top.<br /><br />Firstly, there is the ever-present number four from start to finish. While having a little symbolism here and there is okay, and it's been done with various degrees of success in many well-known movies, this movie is panting with it. Four dogs at the start of the movie, looking at the camera in a heretofore empty street when suddenly, machinery drops onto the foreground and proceeds to rip open the asphalt. Four people in a bar, although one of them is a non-entity. Three of them go their separate ways but are linked nevertheless, not only to each other but to what their lives are not. While this concept may work, the movie meanders so much -- particularly with the story of the would-be model played by Marina Vovchenko which goes into the territory of the extremely bizarre, and not in a good way -- that the initial theme gets lost in translation. Or maybe, like I said before, I just "didn't get it." The problem also lies in that so much time is spent on Marina's story (which revolves on the death of her sister, from bread-chewing, no less, and the subsequent, shrill mourning which follows) that any interest in the inherent Surrealism dissipates without a trace. So what if the same horrifying tales that the three strangers interchanged in a bar seem to have a truth of their own? The director doesn't invest much time in truly tying them together, or weaving a tighter story that could, in a David Lynchian way, intersect either with the past-present, or within alternate dimensions, or even as a straightforward, mundane science-fiction story. This is an uphill battle against an insurmountable wall that only a saint (or someone into the weird for weird's sake) could endure.
The Russian movie, "4," follows the lives of three (not four) strangers who meet one night in a local bar. One is a musician, one a frozen meat seller and one a call girl.<br /><br />"4," I gather, is intended to showcase the dreariness and hopelessness of life in post-Soviet Russia (the characters have to make up stories to make their lives appear more interesting than they really are), but the movie is so incoherent and boring that I seriously doubt very many people will be able to sit all the way through it. There seems to be a suggestion running through the film that the shadowy Russian government is up to some shady doings behind the scenes - operating secret cloning facilities, selling decades-old frozen meat etc. - but the movie is so formless and incomprehensible that I doubt anyone could figure out what anybody's really up to here.<br /><br />Despite decent acting and a few incisively directed scenes, "4" is a two-hour long endurance contest that should be avoided at all costs.
The movie is basically the story of a Russian prostitute's return to her home village for the funeral of a sister/friend. There are a couple of other minor story lines that might actually be more interesting than the one taken, but they are not fully explored. The core of the movie is the funeral, wake, and later controversy over the future of a community of crones that make dolls and sell them to buy vodka but are now missing the artist who made their dolls marketable. Apparently, the movie is unedited. The prostitute's journey from the city to the village is an excruciatingly endless train ride and tramp through the mud. Maybe that's supposed to impress us with the immensity of the Russian landscape. The village itself, such as it is, is inhabited by a legion of widows and one male, the consort of the dead girl. Continuing the doll business is problematic for everyone involved and eventually seems impossible. Most of the film is shot with a hand-held camera that could induce nausea. Another problem for Western viewers is that subtitles don't include the songs and laments of the crones. Don't go to this movie unless you're fluent in Russian.
Film starts with 3 people meeting each other in the bar. OK. They're talking about their imaginary lives, lying all the time, with no reason. Still OK.From time to time, they even make you laugh. Interesting. First 30 minutes you actually enjoy it! But then...things become worse...Nothing's happening...for a long time...and then, when something happen, all you can see are naked old "ladies" touching each other! Not OK. Disgusting! By the way, this part should be the top of the movie, but it's everything except that! Movie has no point,it's boring, and sick! <br /><br />The strangest thing is that here(Belgrade, Serbia) on FEST (film festival), this movie was the most popular according to researches, of course, before people watched it! I even thought(before watching): "Hay, this might be interesting, although it's a Russian movie"! But, God, No!!!!
Let me start by saying that I consider myself to be one of the more (most!)open-minded movie-viewers...Movies are my passion, and I am a big regular at my local cult-movie-rental-place...I also feel the need to add that they often ask ME for advice about movies whenever I get there, and i never seem to be able to leave the place without having had an elaborate discussion or exchange of ideas about what is going on in the cult-movie-area...I love to rent strange stuff, and that is exactly why this movie was recommended by one of the guys at the cult-movie-video-place.He told me he thought I had to see this, and since the cover said something about it being a movie with a Jodorowsky(one of my favorites!)atmosphere, I rented it.<br /><br />The vote I gave here is not really fair, because I did not think it was awful, I just did not know how to rate it otherwise. A question mark would have been more appropriate...<br /><br />This is the first and only film that literally made me sick to my stomach: I actually felt physically ill! Am I the only one whose stomach literally turned? Still I did not want to turn it off, or maybe I just couldn't because I was fascinated in a nasty way...<br /><br />I do not ever wanna see this movie again.<br /><br />Not awful,a 1 as I said.Just not my cup of tea(or wodka for that matter)...
The worst movie I have seen in quite a while. Interesting first half with some engaging, terse dialogue among dubious characters in a late-night bar. The movie then degenerates into a shapeless succession of scenes aiming for visual shock (read disgust) without any redeeming observations or lessons in humanity or anything else.<br /><br />I wanted to walk out, but the director was present at this showing and my politeness preventing me from showing him disrespect. Still, time is precious (as the director himself observed in his intro) and I really begrudge the time I wasted on the second half of this one.<br /><br />Saving graces were the three main characters in the first half of the movie, especially the female lead.
The film is worth watching only if you stop it after half an hour. It starts of with funny conversations in a bar and makes one expect a good, funny story is to come. Well, I can tell you it will not come. It will deteriorate in minutes into a movie that challenges your patience as well as your feelings of shame for the actors to an extend you will probably not be pleased to witness. <br /><br />In an interview I heard that the director wanted to express in this film the feeling of a loss of identity that, according to him, the majority of the people in this globalizing world experience. I was amazed to hear that. Am I living in the same world he lives in? OK a lot of people do walk around in the same clothes as mine and listen to the same music and all, but that doesn't make me feel like I am losing my identity. What does Khrzhanosvky think, that we are not more than the clothes we wear and the movies we watch? Am I shortsighted or is he?<br /><br />Well my vote: the good start of the movie saves it from getting a 1, a decent 4 is my conclusion.
I agree with the previous comment, the beginning of the movie is quite good, and get's you wandering about what is to come....... Which is nothing. All open story lines remain open; two characters who at first seemed like they might be of some importance are completely left out of the picture, save for 1 or 2 very short scenes. I wander if Ilya wouldn't have done better to just completely leave them out.... As for the one remaining character, nothing is done with her either. She just visits some god-awful place, and suddenly the movie isn't about her anymore, but about some geriatric witches who spend their days making dolls out of bread, drinking homemade vodka, and apparently flashing each other. Some may say the movie does well in showing a society crumbling, like the judges of the IFFR, but for me it is just bad taste, bad camera-work, a lousy script and frightfully bad direction. Therefor I can not be as generous as my predecessor when it comes to grading: 1!
As much as I dislike saying 'me too' in response to other comments - it's completely true that the first 30 minutes of this film have nothing whatsoever to do with the endless dirge that comprises the following 90.<br /><br />Having been banned somewhere doesn't make a film watchable. Just because it doesn't resemble a Hollywood product does not make it credible.<br /><br />Worse yet, in addition to no discernible plot (other than there are lots of muddy places in Russia and many people, even very old women, drink lots of vodka) a number of visuals are so unnecessarily nauseating I'm in to my second package of Rolaids.<br /><br />As for spoilers - well, the film is so devoid of any narrative thread I couldn't write one if I tried.<br /><br />Don't waste your time or money, and don't confuse this with good Russian cinema.
this is the perfect example of something great going awfully bad... hence, can i advice anyone to watch it? well, i was kinda obliged by the fact that in was in the tiff competition (i still can't believe it won)..and i only remained until the end because the director was there for a q&a section..but that was also anything but interesting.. what's it about? well the first half (the worth watching one) presents three characters: a hooker, a musician and some kind of official..the first two lie about their professions..but the third is the actual liar.. the second half (do something else..don't ruin a good evening) includes some old breasts and heavy drinking.. but maybe you will see it completely different...the tiff jury did (were they drinking vodka ?)
The soul of an ancient mummy is transferred to one of his followers so that he might punish everyone involved in the desecration of his tomb. The soul transference makes the young man age at a tremendous pace until he himself resembles a mummy. One by one, the blood is drained from those involved in the dig.<br /><br />To be as brief as possible, Pharaoh's Curse is quite the lackluster affair. While the movie does present a few good, original ideas (blood sucking mummy's, soul transference, interesting make-up effects, the arm ripping scene, etc.) and a few atmospheric moments, the direction and pace are the very definition of plodding. To make matters even worse, the first 15 of the film's relatively short 66 minute runtime consist of nothing much more than padding. I usually go for these slow moving mummy movies, but Pharaoh's Curse tests even my patients. The cast helps very little. With only one exception (Ziva Rodann is the lone bright spot – wish the movie could have focused more on her mysterious character), the cast is as dull as the screenplay. Finally, I don't know whose idea it was to put the mummy-looking servant in what appears to be pajamas, but it's a laughable, ridiculous look for a creature that supposed to instill fear in the audience.<br /><br />Despite my mostly negative comments on the Pharaoh's Curse, I'm going to rate it a 4/10. Not a good rating to be sure, but generous given all the problems I have with the movie.
**SPOILERS*** Slow as molasses mummy movie involving this expiation in the Valley of the Kings in Egypt that has to be aborted in order to keep the native population, who are at the time revolting against British rule, from finding out about it.<br /><br />Given the task of getting to this archaeological dig by his superiors British Capt. Storm, Mark Dana, together with a couple of British soldiers and Mrs. Sylvia Quentin, Diane Brewster, the wife of the head man at the dig Robert Quentin, George N. Neise, make their way to the unearthed mummy's tomb. On the way there Capt. Storm Sylvia and his men run into this desert-like princess Simira, Ziva Rodann.<br /><br />Simira seems to be superhuman in her ability to withstand the rigors of desert life, she doesn't drink water or get tired, but also knows just what Capt. Storm & Co. are looking for and warns him and his group to stay as far away from the dig, Pharaoh's Ra Ha Tet tomb, as possible.<br /><br />At Ra Ha Tet's burial chamber Robert Quentin and his crew of archeologist's together with his Egyptin guide Simira's brother Numar, Alvaro Guillot,already opened his tomb before Capt. Storm can get there to stop them. Quentin violated Ra Ha Tet's body by having Dr. Farrady, Guy Prescott, cut his bandages. This action on Robert's and Dr. Farrady's part has Numar faint dead in his tracks. It later turns out that Numar somehow was possessed by Ra Ha Tet's spirit or soul who took over his body and caused him to age, at the rate of 500 years per hour, to become himself a 3,000 year-old mummy.<br /><br />The movie has Numar dressed in what looks like a pair of pajamas slinking around Ra Ha Tet's tomb and it's surroundings attacking and sucking out the blood in order to survive, like a vampire, of anyone man or animal that he comes in contact with. This blood-sucking adventure by Numar, with him later losing his right arm, goes on for some time until the by now crazed Quentin trying to find the entrance, you in fact thought that he already found it, to Ra Ha Tet's tomb get's himself killed is an indoor rock slide.<br /><br />We learn at the end of the movie that Numar, to absolutely no one's surprise, is actually Ra Ha Tet reincarnated into another, some 3,000 years later, person or life. Numar's sister the mysterious and sexy Simira is not only Ra Ha Tet's sister, since him and Numar are really one and the same person, but also the Egyptian Cat Goddess Babesti! Also not that hard to figure out.<br /><br />With Numar/Ra Ha Tet back in his tomb and all the deaths, due the the Pharaoh's Curse, now at an end Capt. Storm Sylvia and whatever is left of his men and the late Robert Quentin's archaeological expedition trek their way back to Cairo and modern, this in 1902, civilization. The survivors of Pharaoh Ra Ha Tet Curse keep what they found, and unearthed, only to themselves since no one would believe them anyway.
An expedition led by hunky Captain Storm (Mark Dana) travels to the Valley of the Kings in Cairo to find out what happened to an earlier expedition. They meet beautiful mysterious Simira (Ziva Rodann) who joins them. They soon find themselves faced with a blood drinking mummy...and only Simira seems to know what's going on.<br /><br />A real snoozer. I caught this on late night TV when I was about 10. It put me to sleep! Seeing it again all these years later I can see why. It's slow-moving, the mummy doesn't even show up until 40 minutes in (and this is only 66 minutes long!), the acting ranges from bad (Dana) to REAL bad (George N. Neise) and there's no violence or blood to be found. This movie concentrates more on second rate dramatics (involving a silly love triangle) than horror.<br /><br />This rates three stars because it actually looks pretty good, everyone plays it straight, there's some good acting from Diane Brewster, it's short and the mummy attack scenes (all three of them) aren't bad. They're not scary just mildly creepy. Still, this movie is pretty bad. A sure fire cure for insomnia.
I saw this movie last weekend and it is silly and mindless. An ancient curse turns a man into a mummy in his pajamas? The victims are scared senseless and can not run from a slow moving old man. They drop their torches and shiver instead of attempting to ward him off or,duh, burn him. Quentin alias Mr. Fabersham of the Honeymooners is married to Diane Brewster alias Miss Canfield of Leave it to Beaver fame, who is unhappy in marriage. Wow, love plot. The rest of the cast just follows each other in the tombs and wait for screams to react and run to their aid. The Egyptian girl is not bad looking but does not lend much to the film. Where is the mummy? Really just a curse unleashed. This does not hold a torch to Universal Mummy films in the least.Watch this movie if you need sleep, because you will dose off.
I wouldn't say this totally sucked, but if it wasn't for Netflix I wouldn't even have this in my house. Steve Martin's eccentric president of a chain of health food stores falls flat. He's just not funny. He's another in a LONG slew of SNL rejects that can only find work whoring themselves to the next SNL movie. The birthing coach with the Elmer Fudd lisp is about as funny as it is original. Amy Poehler simply goes through the same motions she would for a 7 minute SNL skit which is about as funny as SNL lately. The only thing going for this movie is that Tina Fey is easy on the eyes. The ending was predictable as soon as you heard her character couldn't get pregnant. The subject matter could have opened up to other comedic attempts, but it seems to simple simmer along, not really entertaining or creating laughs.
Come on Tina Fey you can do better then this. As soon as the movie started i knew how it would end. Sure it was funny at times. Even laugh out loud funny. But there isn't enough laughs to save this movie. I don't recommend buying this. At the most i recommend renting it but thats all. Baby Mama has some funny scenes but is predictable and fails to have the heartwarming ending it strives for.<br /><br />Tina Fey and Amy Poalher made a good team. Mean Girls is one of my favorite movies. Tina Fey and Amy Poalher both did great in that and they do good in this. But this isn't there best. Baby Mama had a great supporting cast. Dane Cook, Sigourney Weaver and Steve Martin add to the casts greatness.<br /><br />Another pregnancy movie has hit the cinema world. After the great Knocked Up and Juno, Baby Mama looks very average when compared. Knocked Up and Juno are Hilarious, Heartwarming and have endings that leave you with a smile on your face. Baby Mama's ending was unfunny and dull.<br /><br />Baby Mama wasn't the best comedy of the year and it doesn't try to be. I recommend it but don't expect it to be totally hilarious. Expect a average comedy that doesn't give the big emotional ending it tries to have. I give Baby Mama.....<br /><br />4/10
I give this a generous four out of ten stars, or dots or markers, or something.<br /><br />There were a grand total of two really really funny scenes in this movie. All the scenes with Amy P and Tina Fey and Greg Kinnear (Greg Kinnear!!) moved along agreeably enough.<br /><br />Otherwise, the usual trafficking in stereotypes, blazing speed, rudely pushed along by a stupid soundtrack, and "soundtrack" is generous. <br /><br />Anyway, the two really really funny scenes involved Amy P. She's just really hilarious in an animal kind of way. She's a mixture of that ape man skit that they do on SNL and Lucille Ball.<br /><br />I hope they (Amy P and Tina Fey) just flat out admitted they did this for the money, because if by doing it, it gave birth to the Sarah Palin parodies, then I guess we can say, yeah, it was worth it to put the black guy back into the servant man role, who's really there to help you be more human.<br /><br />Blah. 4 outta 10 like I said is generous.<br /><br />But no more, girls, OK? Oh, I almost forgot. The mom from "Two and a Half Men" is in this movie, and she's had some kind of plastic surgery, so that her mouth now looks like the mouth of a 30 year old, so every scene she's in, I'm like trying to rearrange her face, or put it together in my mind, or just answer the question, "No. Wait. Wait. HAS she had plastic surgery?" Because as a viewer, you really don't want her to have had plastic surgery.
Near the closing stages of Baby Mama, one of the central characters goes on to describe the basic outline of everything that came before and summarises that it 'was all just a mess'; I really couldn't say it any better than that. And while the feature does have its odd ray of hope every now and again, the vast majority of what is present is too neutered to be considered relevant and too unremarkable to be worth anyone's time. A lacklustre cast, mundane script and vague, caricature characters ensure that Baby Mama certainly isn't taxing on the ol' noggin, but it never makes up for this through its proposed sense of humour. Consisting mainly of very routine, cliché jokes based around an odd couple (rich and poor) trying to live with each other as they prepare to bring a baby into the world, the film is far too esoteric to deliver laughs outside its very thin demographic.<br /><br />As a story on finding love, it's not that bad, but playing this plot line as a side-story of sorts to work alongside the comedy-orientated odd couple tangent, characterisation is notably weak, resulting in a lukewarm romance that never bubbles. As characters themselves, both central figures are mildly amusing when put together in small spaces, but when left alone quickly unravel and bare their emptiness; so while we may eventually come to find the character's interactions with each other amusing at times, the comedy never branches beyond distant chuckles; we don't feel for the characters and don't find them inherently interesting, but rather their dynamic. Unfortunately however, although this dynamic works best, or at least better than the individual personas, as mentioned above, it rarely stems outside of the typical confines of the odd-couple formula.<br /><br />Kate (Tina Fey) is a successful business woman who has hired working class, dumb-blonde Angie (Amy Poehler) to be her unlikely surrogate, and after Angie decides to leave hopeless husband Carl (Dax Shepard), both eventually have to learn to live together despite their obvious differences. Yes, it's the typical odd-couple premise, and one that we have already seen in this year's What Happens in Vegas, yet what Baby Mama lacks that the aforementioned movie had is both chemistry between performers and semi-layered characters. Kate and Angie both fail to ever show much of a personality outside of their two dimensional outline and as such both performers are neglected to play out roles that demand chemistry to produce out of thin air. In fact, the movie's only real engaging performance and character comes from the underused talents of Romany Malco who gets lumbered with playing a door-man. Of the few times that I laughed during Baby Mama, most of those moments were because of this man, and the remainder usually fell to Shepard.<br /><br />It's a rare thing of course to find a movie which embodies its script's themes in the way which its world is shot and presented to us through the camera, and yet director Michael McCullers goes from page to screen effectively enough. Yet, for a film about babies, multi-million dollar business and cultural stereotyping, this isn't necessarily a good thing. Baby Mama is grade-A, hammy, plastic tinsel-town with capital bore topped with sugar. So not only did I feel emotionally distant to the characters because of their two-dimensional nature, but I simply didn't care for the world they inhabited. The dialogue, along with sets, costumes, and the script's general themes are painted in pastel blues and pinks so much that all shades of humanity are lost in the director's incessant need to make his movie feel like a neutered fantasy; these aren't characters and that isn't our world in any way… so why should I care? At the end of the day however, a romantic comedy's ultimate gauge of success or failure comes down purely to its chemistry between its love interests, and the frequency of its laughs; Baby Mama has little going on in any of these departments. Of course to say that the film is without any value at all would be unfair. I'm sure female audiences in a similar boat as lead character Kate may get a slight kick out of the proceedings, but anyone else will probably just feel numb and probably bored. In this respect Baby Mama avoids being unbearable, but never convinces in being anything remarkable or worthy of a look to anyone outside of its immediate audience; a comedic dud and a romantic mismatch, Baby Mama is too light-headed to be interesting and too shallow to be entertaining.<br /><br />- A review by Jamie Robert Ward (http://www.invocus.net)
What happened? What we have here is basically a solid and plausible premise and with a decent and talented cast, but somewhere the movie loses it. Actually, it never really got going. There was a little excitement when we find out that Angie is not really pregnant, then find out that she is after all, but that was it. Steve Martin, who is a very talented person and usually brings a lot to a movie, was dreadful and his entire character was not even close to being important to this movie, other than to make it longer. I really would have liked to see more interactions between the main characters, Kate and Angie, and maybe try not for a pure comedy, which unfortunately it was not, but maybe a drama with comedic elements. I think if the movie did this it could have been very funny since both actresses are quite funny in their own ways and sitting here I can think of numerous scenarios that would have been a riot.
For two of the funniest comedians, the movie was awful. Fast forwarded it and never got any better! Waste of time and waste of money! Tina Fey is such a great writer, I thought that she would be so great in the comedy. The previews were so great, but they only showed the best parts of the movie. My husband even thought that for a chick flick, it sucked. What is up with that. Movie was very slow ans boring. I will not recommend it to anyone at this time. I would like my money back for this one! BOO from us here in Arizona. Thanks but no thanks. Who does this kind of stupid stuff to make people think that you are pregnant. I thought that it was going to be so funny, I have had my own children and I have helped others have children. It could have been more along the lines of reality.
Come on, let's get real. The Knights of Christ, Ordo Templi, or the Knights Templar as they are more commonly called did not even exist until the early 12th century. The story is so laughable that it's pathetic. Dolph Lundgren just looked positively bored. And besides, if you wanted to have a real-life Templar, why not just use the Knights of Christ, who are still in existence in Portugal. At least they should have taken history into account. The only redeeming quality I could find in this movie was that the artifacts looked authentic enough to pass for medieval or Gothic period pieces. The acting was bad, the storyline appalling, the action horrible, and the props were okay.
This is without a doubt one of the worst movies EVER, I emphasize, EVER made. What´s worse, my old hero Dolph is in it and he´s starring it. Jesus... The story is actually quite good but the way it´s carried out made even my body hurt. The fighting scenes for starters are about as well choreographed as a fight between two drunks slugging it out in the gutter. The actors, except for Dolph who kinda sucks also, perform so badly you can´t help but wonder if their reason for being there is that they´re all friends of the director, who by the way must have been absent most, if not all, of the time. This is §12 million spent in an unimaginable way, because by the look of the effects and scenery, the cost can´t be a cent above §1000.
The Minion is about... well, a minion. A servant of Satan and whose goal is to get the key that will unlock the door where his master is trapped. He is some sort of demon who possess human beings and when the body dies will possess another. Anyone who happens to be possessed will go on some berserker rage. Dolph Lundgren plays Lukas, a member of a secret order of Templars, who is tasked to keep the key away from the minion. The movie begins a thousand years ago, in the Middle East where a couple of knight templars flee from the minion. Then flash forward to 1999, where the key winds up somewhere underground in New York. An archeologist is assigned to study/dig the place where the key was found. Needless to say, the minion is after the key, and the movie becomes a long winded chase scene between the minion and Lukas and archeologist.<br /><br />The movie, is just that, a low budget B-movie flick. The movie lacks energy, and just trods along. You'll follow the chase but you won't ever feel involved in the story which willfully takes ideas from previous movies (especially The Terminator films). The fight scenes with the minion is troublesome, in that you never get the sense of how good or how bad a warrior this demon is. It "skillfully" becomes a one-man army when fighting a squad of templars but sucks when it comes to one-on one. And it's supposed to be around for a long time. All this goes to show that any sense of logic is just thrown down the drain for convenience. The whole idea of a secret order of Templars, a door to hell, and the key isn't well explained. We are merely to accept that they just exist. The movie seems to have been made with the feeling there's not much potential to the story but only enough to make a few bucks. Dolph Lundgren sure looks like he wish he were somewhere else.<br /><br />The verdict: 2 of 5 stars.
Dolph Lundgren stars as a templar who comes to New York when a key that unlocks the anti-Christ is found by an archaeologist, of course the demon is only a couple miles behind Dolph and isn't killed so easily as he transfers from body to body. (Like Fallen without the suspense) Of course Lundgren is out of his element and the movie is completely unwatchable. I admit to being a fan of Dolph Lundgren, like Steven Seagal and Jean-Claude Van Damme, I try to watch his movies whenever they're on TV. I caught The Minion and boy was I ever disappointed. This movie is utterly terrible. With action sequences so poorly staged and badly edited you can barely make coherent sense in the fight arena. Worst of all is Lundgren's woefully unconvincing perf as a tough guy priest (!) all of this made worse that the movie is such a rip off of Fallen (Which was good) and End Of Days (Which was bad but better than this) overall this movie is the worst movie I've seen from Dolph Lundgren. It literally has nothing to recommend it. It's awful and it's the lowest point in Lundgren's career. And I saw Cover-Up, The Last Warrior and Masters Of The Universe.<br /><br />1/2* Out Of 4-(Awful)
I can't think of much to say about this film. <br /><br />This was an awful movie...I can't even tell you what made me decide to view it. It had SO few redeeming qualities that I don't even know where to begin.<br /><br />The plot moved from implausible to downright absurd. My entire body was tense throughout the duration of the movie because I could not wait for the awful thing to be over and done. By the end of the movie, I found myself feeling beyond relieved. <br /><br />The editing was poor, the acting was sub-par, and the storyline was weak. Francoise Robinson was cast as a Native American, even though she does not even closely resemble someone of Native American heritage. <br /><br />If a movie is going to be this idiotic, it should be laughably stupid -- at the very least. It wasn't. It was just pathetic.
This movie had the potential to be really good, considering some of the plot elements are borrowed from the sci-fi actioner THE HIDDEN. And Dolph always lends some cheesy appeal to his roles. But someone somewhere really dropped the ball on this one.<br /><br />Dolph plays a butt-kicking monk (!) who travels to New York to retrieve a key that unlocks a door beneath his monastery that has imprisoned the antichrist for 2000 years. He must battle the minion, who is a spirit that jumps from body to body much like THE HIDDEN and JASON GOES TO HELL. The minion, naturally, wants the key so it can let the antichrist out. Along for the ride is an annoying female archaeologist and together she and Dolph are chased by the minion-possessed bodies.<br /><br />If I'm making this sound entertaining, forget it. The pacing is very awkward and sluggish, the acting subpar at best, and the fight scenes staged poorly. Dolph sleepwalks through his role and spouts some of the worst dialogue of his career.<br /><br />The cheese factor really picks up at the end when the minion battles an army of machine-gun wielding monks at the monastery, but the rest of this flick is a snoozefest.<br /><br />Too bad, I really wanted to like this.
Where to start? This is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The editing is the worst ever, the sound effects were awful and the sound editing was whacked. Most of the movie all one could here is the crappy kicking effects, with muddled talking in the background. I had to turn my volume on full blast just to her what was going on....and what was I supposed to hear exactly? Probably one of the worst scripts ever made. I can't believe people actually put up some green for this film. It makes me think I could take a crap in a box, send it to producers, and then have them finance a movie for me.<br /><br />Dolph, was a usual, Dolph. Nothing else needs to be said. The villains were bad, the protagonists were bad, and the movie was a stinker. If you really want to know what NOT to do when either writing, directing or editing a movie, watch this!
Wow and I thought that any Steven Segal movie was bad. Every time I thought that the movie couldn't get worse it proved me wrong. The story was good but the actors couldn't carry it off. Also, they made a lot of mistakes on how proper archiological digs are done. For instance you don't handle artifacts untill they are catologed and accounted for. The biggest crime in casting was the archiologist girl. She is a weak actress and I felt that her acting really made the movie less realistic then it already was. The whole concept of the knights templar being underground all these years seemed pretty stupid to me. I like the idea of how they disappeared and stuff, so that almost seemed depressing. I thought that the characters wern't explained well enough. You didn't find out much background and that made it harder to relate to them.
Maverick cop with family problems and fondness of using his gun – Check! Isolated location with valuable object which is begging to be stolen – Check! Tasty looking love interest – Check! Assorted band of dumb cardboard cannon fodder villains with dodgy European accents – Check! German sounding bad guy played by an English actor with a piece of corny dialogue for every occasion – Check! Corny one liners – Check!<br /><br />Deary me, does this film take the wee wee or what? The clichés come as thick and fast as an avalanche and most of the cast just stand around gawping at just how bad the script is!<br /><br />In a blatantly cheap and cheerful straight to video rip off of Die Hard only set on a mountain (complete with some nicked lines from the aforesaid) we have all the usual action move cliché's ticked off progressively as we go along with some good old fashioned violence and nudity thrown in to wake up anyone in the audience who may just have nodded off.<br /><br />Jack Wild is the cop in full on John McClane mode here who even manages time for the ye ancient bad guy with gun has used all his bullets gag at one point.<br /><br />In amidst this mess, there are a few well known recognisable faces who I can only assume needed the cash and/or were simply playing it for laughs right from the pointless opening scene that had nothing to do with the plot whatsoever through to the final implausible conclusion complete with ropey dialogue and even ropier effects.<br /><br />Looking up this three quid from the Supermarket bargain bin effort on IMDb I am astonished to find that this dud spawned not one but two sequels, I have got to find these gems on DVD! It looks like the first sequel is a rip off of Under Siege 2 and the second sequel, well goodness knows! One thing that is always a bad sign is that the actor playing Jack changes with each film and even the character's name seems to change for the third instalment.<br /><br />Still, blind purchases of cheap DVD's just would not be the same if studios didn't keep trotting out material of this awful quality!!
It's Die Hard meets Cliffhanger when a ski resort is besieged by terrorists and it's up to one cop, Jack (Crackerjack) to stop this.<br /><br />A B-action movie that borrows from other films and is quite good with pretty good action, a ridiculous plot (as always in these movies) and three fine stars. Thomas Ian Griffith as the cop and Nastasja Kinski and Christopher Plummer as terrorists. If you don't like stupid B-action movies this is not for you.
but Thomas Ian Griffith just doesn't have the polish that a big bucks actor has, granted this was made 5+ years ago. Some of the humorous lines could have been timed to make this not only action, but comedy. And how do you get KC out of Katia Koslovska anyhow? Plummer's character was so corny, he would have fit better in a Bullwinkle toon. Personally, if action flicks are going to show skin -- I'd have liked to have seen equal time between female/male, otherwise don't show any.
Dialogue: stilted, clichéd; Acting: hammy, clichéd; Plot: predictable, clichéd.<br /><br />Just what are Christopher Plummer Nastassia Kinski doing in this "B" rubbish? Plummer was well established decades before this movie was made, Kinski had masterpieces like "Tess" and "Cat People" behind her... Must have been desperate.<br /><br />The bad guys all have bad-guy accents - *bad* bad-guy accents! (Plummer especially! Where *did* he learn to do "German"?) and most of them have bad-guy sneers as well. The innocent bystanders all overdo their panicking enough to make you laugh. The good guy survives, amongst other things: * a 5" throwing knife buried hilt-deep in his shoulder - just pulls it out and seconds later is using the arm with no difficulty at all; * marines' machine-gun fire (I think someone referred to a .50) in the leg which he sorts out by tying a bandage around his pants leg and thereafter he barely has a limp; * several fist-fights in which he sustains multiple punches to the face as well as being run cranium-first into a door frame; * a fall, backwards, from what looks like the third floor, onto paving, without the slightest sign of a twisted ankle or any other such trifling inconvenience. The script has exactly 3 clever lines, the rest of the time it's all so dull and boring.<br /><br />OK it's not all bad. Plummer does bring a certain class to his part, and is undoubtedly the best actor in this flick. Of course that doesn't say much, but he can do the callous villain without resorting to the ham techniques most of the villains use here. He delivers his "Ve haff vays and meance" type lines with some menace, but you are always aware you are watching Christopher Plummer acting the villain.<br /><br />This movie is truly an awful waste of time. The acting, such as it is, is sort of 70's 007 movies wooden line delivery meets Bruce Lee's very obviously faked fight scenes, but it's not even anywhere near as good as either a Roger Moore 007 or a Bruce Lee film. Don't bother.
Merry madcaps in London stage a treasure hunt, with one young woman inadvertently fixing up her married politician father with a strong, independent lady-flier who's never been in love. Intriguing early vehicle for Katharine Hepburn, playing an Amelia Earhart-like aviatrix who's been too self-involved to give herself over to any man. The director (Dorothy Arzner) and the screenwriter (Zoe Akins, who adapted Gilbert Frankau's book) were obviously assigned to this project to get the female point of view, but why are all the old clichés kept intact like frozen artifacts? Billie Burke plays the type of simpering, weepy wife who takes to her bed when thing go wrong, and Hepburn's final scene is another bummer. A curious artifact, but not a classic for Kate-watchers. ** from ****
The film is about Sir Christopher Strong (MP--member of Parliament--played by Colin Clive) and his affair with the Amelia Earhart-like character played by Katherine Hepburn. Up until they met, he had been a very devoted husband but when he met the odd but fascinating Hepburn, he "couldn't help himself" and they fell in love. You can tell, because they stare off into space a lot and talk ENDLESSLY about how painful their unrequited love is. Frankly, this is a terribly dated and practically impossible film to watch. Part of the problem is that in the Pre-Code days, films glamorizing adultery were very common. Plus, even if you accept this morally suspect subject, the utter sappiness of the dialog make it sound like a 19th century romance novel...and a really bad one at that. Sticky and with difficult to like characters (after all, Clive's wife is a nice lady and did no one any harm) make this one a big waste of time. About the only interesting aspect of this film is the costume Hepburn wears in an early scene where she is dressed in a moth costume! You've gotta see it to believe it--and she looks like one of the Bugaloos (an obscure, but fitting reference).
Yes, I sat through the whole thing, God knows why.<br /><br />It was a long afternoon, I had nothing to do, it was bitterly cold outside, okay, those are all lame excuses but they're the only ones I have.<br /><br />I gave The Darkling 4 stars out of a possible 10 - I have seen worse films, but this one definitely is right there in the old trash bin of bad filmdom--poor script, poor acting, bad lighting, and cheesy special effects.<br /><br />The storyline, which never completely makes sense, revolves around this simple little family, Daddy, Mommy, and little girl--that I assume the viewer is supposed to be "identifying" with, all three of them were tedious and annoying. You just want the dark side to get every one of them.<br /><br />Daddy is a cook whose hobby is cars. Daddy meets a rich man named Rubin who collects cars and who is also in possession of a being he purchased in the "mysterious" Orient. Rubin keeps it in a birdcage and refers to it as "The Darkling". <br /><br />During the course of the film, the Darkling is explained as being about 3 or 4 different things: a shadow without a person, the inner darkness that exists in all of us, and the Devil. So take your pick of whichever one of those explanations suits your fancy--because trust me, it doesn't really matter.<br /><br />The Darkling's main problem seems to be that it craves having a companion--it gets a human companion--and then eventually is dissatisfied with the human being. This, of course, leads to immense wealth, followed by disaster, for the human who hooks up with The Darkling.<br /><br />And for the rest of us -- it just leads to a very long, tedious movie.<br /><br />
The Darkling was a very interesting and entertaining film while F. Murray Abraham was in it. Spoilers: About halfway through, F.Murray gets zapped, because The Darkling is some kind of demon-like creature who enjoys living vicariously. He takes bums and losers and perverts them further while giving them all they want in terms of success. He feeds from their enjoyment of the Seven Deadly Sins. However, part of it is that he needs to get people who may be flawed but not completely evil. Otherwise he cannot "pervert" their natural goodness. That's what the little guy said in his Barry White voice, which I found both charming and amusing. Mostly amusing. Like imagine Barry White if he were a little dwarf and he was telling Aiden Gillen "Dee Plane, Dee Plane, Bos, Here eet come, Dee Plane!" All through the movie, Dee Dwarf (actually a robotronic cherub) talks to Aiden Gillen in the Barry White voice, saying things like "It's OK to be bad, you know you want it." "Now you've committed murder, you're really moving up in the world" and other remarks that sound like commercials for "Being Evil" Stores or something. It really is hilarious in a sick way.<br /><br />Anyhow, Aiden Gillen is no F. Murray Abraham, and the movie tanks as soon as Murray gets the axe (or knifed?). F. Murray brings a certain happy malevolence to his role in this film. He is a good actor. Aiden Gillen on the other hand has a permanent happy smirk on his face, and he looks like maybe his remedial English Comp. class had never hit the Mythological Characters and he could not imagine what the movie was about. The ENDING is really creepy and yet almost comical. If this movie were a parody, the ending was perfect. If it was not a parody, then it was creepy; but a cheap use of a little girl to deliver a gross-out that the movie itself could not deliver. The people who made this movie lost whatever it was that they wanted to do with it somewhere before the ending. It just ends like they just realized that they had run out of money and had to film a quickie ending.
First of all I thought it was naughty of them to say in the credits that the story and screenplay were by Preston Sturges. Sturges was one of the better Hollywood screenwriters until his talent faded and he retired. However, it wasn't the Preston Sturges, it was Preston Sturges, Jr. The story was essentially based on Robert Louis Stevenson's short story "The Bottle Imp". A good man comes into possession of an evil object that will grant him any wish but which will ultimately doom him to hell. That's fine. Nobody said screenwriters had to be original. The actors are generally pretty competent given the mediocre writing that they had to translate onto the screen. My biggest complaint comes with the ending. The hero thinks he has discovered a way out of his dilemma but tries to solve the problem in a somewhat different way in an attempt to save an innocent person. At first this seems to have worked but true to the code of the modern horror film, they feel they have to provide one last dollop of horror at the very end of the film. This is a stupid convention. The older horror films got along just fine with allowing the hero to win out at the end. There is nothing wrong with good triumphing over evil no matter what the current crop of film makers seems to think. You can give the audience a good healthy scare and still make them feel happy at the end. In fact, I think it's preferable.
On the surface, this movie would appear to deal with the psychological process called individuation, that is how to become a true self by embracing the so-called 'dark' side of human nature. Thus, we have the Darkling, a classic shadowy devilish creature desperately seeking the company (that is, recognition) of men, and the story revolves around the various ways in which this need is handled, more or less successfully. <br /><br />However, if we dig a little deeper, we find that what this movie is actually about is how you should relate to your car like you would to any other person: - in the opening scene, the main character (male car mechanic fallen from grace)is collecting bits and pieces from car wrecks with his daughter, when a car wreck nearly smashes the little girl. Lesson #1: Cars are persons embodied with immortal souls, and stealing from car wrecks is identical with grave robbery. The wicked have disturbed the dead and must be punished. - just after that, another character (Rubin) buys a car wreck intending to repair it and sell it as a once-lost-now-found famous race-car and is warned by the salesman. Lesson #2: Just like any other person, a car has a unique identity that cannot be altered nor replaced. In addition, there is the twist that Rubin actually sees a hidden quality in what most people would just think of as junk, but eventually that quality turns out to be a projection of Rubin's own personal greed for more profit. Lesson #3: Thou shalt never treat thy car as a means only, but always as an end in itself. - then we have the scene where the main character is introduced to Rubin and, more importantly, Rubin's car: The main character's assessment of the car's qualities is not just based on its outer appearance, but also by a thorough look inside the engine room. Lesson #4: A car is not just to be judged by its looks, it is what is inside that really counts. There is punishment in store for those who do not keep this lesson in mind, as we see in the scene where another man tries to sell Rubin a fake collector's car. This scene by the way also underlines the importance of lesson #3. <br /><br />There are numerous other examples in the movie of the 'car=person'-theme, and I am too tired now to bother citing all of them, but the point remains (and I guess this is what I'm really trying to say) that this movie is fun to watch if you have absolutely nothing else to do - or, if you're a car devotee.
...Ok I have read about this film somewhere in the internet, and many criticized on how bad and sucks this film was. And I couldn't have been more agree about it. Then after that I saw this film on DVD, I was thinking twice about this and then came commercial of this film on TV. Luckily I spared my money for this pieces of crap. I was sacrificed my sleeps for this film and soon it turned out that this film couldn't make me satisfy. So I can't be judging on how the film was made, but anyway... it still sucks. As for those who liked this film, I would apologize for flaming this film and telling on how sucks this film is. I don't know what do YOU think about this film?
I checked this movie out based on a favorable review on this page. It is slow moving and the payoff is a four star dud..The only mystery here is how Oscar® winner F. Murray Abraham got involved with such a lousy script!
Maybe it's the dubbing, or maybe it's the endless scenes of people crying, moaning or otherwise carrying on, but I found Europa '51 to be one of the most overwrought (and therefore annoying) films I've ever seen. The film starts out promisingly if familiarly, as mom Ingrid Bergman is too busy to spend time with her spoiled brat of a son (Sandro Franchina). Whilst mummy and daddy (bland Alexander Knox) entertain their guests at a dinner party, the youngster tries to kill himself, setting in motion a life changing series of events that find Bergman spending time showering compassion on the poor and needy. Spurred on by Communist newspaper editor Andrea (Ettore Giannini), she soon spends more time with the downtrodden than she does with her husband, who soon locks her up in an insane asylum for her troubles. Bergman plays the saint role to the hilt, echoing her 1948 role as Joan of Arc, and Rossellini does a fantastic job of lighting and filming her to best effect. Unfortunately, the script pounds its point home with ham-fisted subtlety, as Andrea and Mom take turns declaiming Marxist and Christian platitudes. By the final tear soaked scene, I had had more than my fill of these tiresome characters. A real step down for Rossellini as he stepped away from neo-realism and further embraced the mythical and mystical themes of 1950's Flowers of St. Francis.
Poor Ingrid suffered and suffered once she went off to Italy, tired of the Hollywood glamor treatment. First it was suffering the torments of a volcanic island in STROMBOLI, an arty failure that would have killed the career of a less resilient actress. And now it's EUROPA 51, another tedious exercise in soggy sentiment.<br /><br />Nor does the story do much for Alexander KNOX, in another thankless role as her long-suffering husband who tries to comfort her after the suicidal death of their young son. At least this one has better production values and a more coherent script than STROMBOLI.<br /><br />Bergman is still attractive here, but moving toward a more matronly appearance as a rich society woman. She's never able to cope over the sudden loss of her son, despite attempts by a kindly male friend. "Sometimes I think I'm going out of my mind," she tells her husband. A portentous statement in a film that is totally without humor or grace, but it does give us a sense of where the story is going.<br /><br />Bergman is soon motivated to help the poor in post-war Rome, but being a social worker with poor children doesn't improve her emotional health and from thereon the plot takes a turn for the worse.<br /><br />The film's overall effect is that it's not sufficiently interesting to make into a project for a major star like Bergman. The film loses pace midway through the story as Bergman becomes more and more distraught and her husband suspects that she's two-timing him. The story goes downhill from there after she nurses a street-walker through her terminal illness. The final thread of plot has her husband needing to place her for observation in a mental asylum.<br /><br />Ingrid suffers nobly through it all (over-compensating for the loss of her son) but it's no use. Not one of her best flicks, to put it mildly.<br /><br />Trivia note: If she wanted neo-realism with mental illness, she might have been better off accepting the lead in THE SNAKE PIT when it was offered to her by director Anatole Litvak!! It would have done more for her career than EUROPA 51.<br /><br />Summing up: Another bleak indiscretion of Rossellini and Bergman.
I argued with myself whether to rent this or not. I'm always afraid of renting something I've never heard of (don't remember this being in theaters). Great cast...that's what tipped the scales. 30 minutes in, I almost stopped watching it. The first few minutes are fun to watch, but unbelievable. It only gets worse after that. The writers of this movie could do a little research on future projects if they want to make their movies even a little better. Or they could just try writing something just a little bit believable. I give it a 3....a 1 for the writing (only because there are words)and a 2 for being able to get so many good actors to agree to do this movie despite having to read the script. Oh my god this movie sucks.
i guess its possible that I've seen worse movies, but this one is a real stinker! the plot is unremarkable but thats not the worst of it. the directing is no where close to what you would expect from andy ching. he's capable of good work but failed to pull this movie together.<br /><br />angie harmon, playing the female lead as a reporter dogging into who's behind the assassination of the president, truly butchered the role. there was no chemistry with gooding, her demeanor was flat and wooden, and the 5 inch spike heels she wore throughout the movie were absurd. this outing for harmon places her solidly at the bottom of the "b" list.<br /><br />and what was cuba gooding thinking??? he has to his credit a number of outstanding performances, but this was far beneath what we've come to expect from him.<br /><br />poor james woods and burt reynolds. poor poor poor poor poor.
Cuba Gooding Jr. is a secret service agent who blames himself over the assassination of the U.S. President, i'll point out straight away that this is not the type of role that this very talented actor is noted for, and this film shows us why. He teams up with a persistent news reporter (Angie Harmon) to uncover the conspiracy surrounding the president's death, and so on, blah, blah, blah.<br /><br />Even with a cast of James Woods, Cuba Gooding Jr, Anne Archer and Angie Harmon 'End Game' fails to grab your attention, plain and simple; some of the action is good, the acting isn't all bad and the story although clichéd and done before could have lead to an entertaining and enjoyable movie - WELL IT DOESN'T! The writing of the script and the direction makes absolutely sure of that, at no point does it suck you into the story or make you give the slightest thought to any of the characters.<br /><br />4/10 It's Boring, Predictable and Dull.
I spent almost two hours watching a movie that I thought, with all the good actors in it, would be worth watching. I couldn't believe it when the movie ended and I had absolutely no idea what had happened.....I was mad because I could have used that time doing something else....I tried to figure it all out, but really had no clue. Thanks to those who figured it out and have explained it....right or wrong, it's better than not knowing anything!! Who was the lady in the movie with dark hair that we saw a couple of times driving away? How did First Lady know that her husband was cheating on her? At the end of the movie Kate said she would eventually find out the truth. Does this mean that we're going to be subjected to End Game 2?
End Game started well, the least said about the end the better. it seemed like things we're happening just to keep the plot going, for example the reporter who at first is a very inquisitive, intelligent person, half way through does something really stupid and totally out of character, we are given no reason for this apart from, the next scene wouldn't make sense without it. The whole story could have been told in about 30 minutes, it would have made an average TV political drama The brilliant Cuba Gooding Jr. is very watchable however and James Woods does an admirable job considering.<br /><br />The end game was honestly one of the worst films I've ever seen......and that's saying something, I've seen Gigli.
Please, help the economy - spend your money elsewhere! The synopsis of the movie is: the First Lady has her husband assassinated because he was cheating on her. That's it. Undetected by anyone, except Cuba and Angie, she designs and implements a vast assassination conspiracy which no one knows about...and gets away completely free.<br /><br />Some specific points are particularly hilarious: While standing in front of the president, Cuba a deflects the assassin's bullet...which then enters the back of the president's head.<br /><br />Cuba and Angie watch film from a news camera, and they see...a clue. They go to great lengths to protect the film, believing that they are the only people that have a copy of this very public film.<br /><br />Cuba speaks with a presidential staff member. The PSM comments that there was no conspiracy. Cuba claims there was more than one person involved. The PSM then rants that the conspiracy includes the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA. Gosh, I wonder is the PSM is involved.<br /><br />Ms Archer, the First Lady, is a craptacular artist. Cuba can't make out a painting, and she says, "You're too close...stand back...look from a different perspective, look from my perspective." Can anyone miss THAT clue?
Predictable, hackneyed & poorly written. Foolishly I reasoned such a prominent cast would not be involved unless it had merit. I guess competition amongst actors is so intense these days (and will only get worse) that one cannot pick and choose much any more. Early on we were given an inkling who was was instrumental in the assassination and we had it rammed down our throats ever since. The movie lacked intrigue, giving us little insight into the victim and only one possible motive for the murder. Some of the discourse was, frankly, embarrassing! It's hard to believe anyone would even consider, let alone commit to, the spending of tens of millions of dollars to make this tripe.
This movie was craptacular. I was so emotionally uninvolved in every single character that the movies' biggest antagonist was, in fact, myself. I played it beautifully throughout; promising myself I would walk away, but only drinking another beer hoping it would auto-magically transform into something engrossing along the way. Even in this state, I couldn't help but notice that Cuba's acting was as flimsy as tracing paper. His obsessive dedication to his job was unconvincingly done as well as his one night binge after the failure of his own idiot standards. Burt came on the screen as a General, that's right, a General (who wears too much makeup). I fell into a frighteningly fast binge to rival Cuba's, except mine was real and I stubbed my toe. Recompense! Recompense my stubbed toe!
Some guy gets whacked. Right out in plain sight this other guy shoots him. He's got some bodyguards and they whack the killer, but a reporter gets interested. She goes to the hospital where they took the guy who got whacked. She walks in, and corners one bodyguard, but he doesn't feel like talking. I can't figure out why. It's not like anyone else is interested. She's the only reporter there. Anyway, her editor discourages her from working on this lame story. But hey, she does anyway. She goes to see the killer's sister & mom. A few minutes after she leaves they get whacked big time-- somebody blows up their trailer-- huge ball of fire. Then she searches out the bodyguard from the hospital. She finds him hungover on his boat, but a minute later they're both underwater sucking on a scuba tank 'cause three guys are trying to whack them (and have blown up the boat big time-- huge ball of fire). The reporter and the bodyguard whack two of the guys who are trying to whack them. <br /><br />In the course of the next hour another guy gets whacked crossing the street, there's a shootout with several stiffs in a warehouse, some car chases with wreckage & death, a fake suicide, etc. etc. Lotsa stiffs, all kindsa carnage. <br /><br />Great stuff, but what the reporter and the bodyguard can't figure is: why in hell the original guy got whacked. What's the motivation? Of course, it might help us to figure out why the reporter's even interested. Through almost all of this she's the only reporter on the story. Nobody else in the media cares. Not even with all the big fireballs and dead bodies. True, the original guy who got whacked wasn't exactly a celebrity. His job was a little bit dull. He was just the President. Yeah, the one who lives in the White House. Oh, and the bodyguard is a Secret Service agent.<br /><br />Is that the spoiler?<br /><br />It should be. After all there are no TV cameras, no other print reporters, no bloggers... just another one of those police blotter crimes...<br /><br />So what's the spoiler?<br /><br />Lemme think...<br /><br />No! Wait! The spoiler is that his wife did it! Yeah... the First Lady. She was p---ed because the President was fooling around. And she gets away with it. She's really sharp, huh? But how the hell could anybody ever figure that out? Why would anyone bother? After all, only one reporter is even interested. <br /><br />I give this move a "1". It was so dumb I just had to keep watching. And it only got dumber! That's the real spoiler! But even though I've told you, you've got to see it to believe it!
So I'm looking to rent a DVD and I come across this movie called 'End Game'. It stars James Woods and Cuba Gooding JR and has the synopsis of a taught political thriller. Well worth a look then. Or so I thought.<br /><br />Boy, was I wrong.<br /><br />End Game has just about the most ridiculous plot I have ever had the displeasure of enduring. Now being something of a whodunnit, I can't really tear into it as I would like without 'ruining' it for those who have yet to experience this monstrosity. But questions such as 'Why has he/she/they done this?', and 'Where on earth did they get the resources to pull this off?' are all too abundant following the film's unintentionally hilarious conclusion.<br /><br />As for the acting - you know those films where you can almost feel that an actor's realised that they've made a terrible mistake in signing on for a movie, and this then shows in their performance? This is one of those. Accompany this with a laughable script and seriously flawed, irritating direction and you have the recipe for cinematic poison.<br /><br />Of course, this didn't make it to the cinema, and for the same reason you should not allow it into your living room; it is appalling.
How unfortunate, to have so many of my "a" list, and good "b" list actors agree to do this movie, but they did, and that is what sucked me into watching it. I had never heard of this movie, but there was Cuba Gooding Jr. right on the DVD cover, and James Woods in the background how bad can it be? In a word Very! This movie starts o.k. has some twists and turns, then just lays an egg. The ending was so weak, it was as if the writer got called away and his 4 year old son sat down at the type writer and hacked out the ending. How ironic a for a movie titled "The end game" to have such a poor one. These are the types of movies that can move "a" list actors to the "b" list in hurry. I hope Cuba Gooding JR, and James Woods don't make a habit of this.
SPOILERS AHEAD<br /><br />This is one of the worst movies ever made - it's that simple. There is not one redeeming quality about this movie. The first 10 minutes are quite tricky - they actually lead you to believe that this film will be shocking and will have you on the edge of your seat. Instead, you will spend 83 minutes punching yourself while watching stolen and poorly made scenes run without any organization. The lake was ridiculous, looked like an aquarium, and had the same plant in different parts of the lake bed. Characters show their advanced teleportation powers, for example Alex Thomas who falls into the lake (drunk), and then ends up on his boat in an impossible position. Angie Harmon put up a pitiful performance as Kate, made worse by the space-time continuum rupturing dialog that appears to have been written at the last minute by a fifth grader. An example of this would be when she said, "Flashlight!" in such a stupid manner that it shows the threshold of how much a human body can cringe before it snaps in half. Finally, the editing of this movie was by far the most bizarre and horrific that I have ever seen. It was like the cameramen were a bunch of chimps who had been given camcorders by scientists. An example of this would be when we suddenly get a closeup of the headlight on Alex's car. I would bet that there was little to no time spent editing this movie. The ending was absolutely pathetic. The writers were obviously trying to create some sort of mysterious plot line that made the viewer say, "oh yeah!" Instead, we're left to view some dumb painting of a spider that somehow fits into the story line. Unfortunately, there is not one perspective in the millions out there that could save this movie from being a festering piece of crap.<br /><br />I give this a .5 out of 10, the .5 being from the fact that this movie was recorded on film instead of becoming a picture book.
I didn't expect a movie as good as "In The Line of Fire" or an episode of "24", but it looked like this movie was made for TV and did a mediocre job at best. The (good) cast couldn't disguise the fact that the plot was all too predictable and actors had to struggle (they really try their best I think) through their lines of bad script, giving their rather flat characters any extras. When I watched the movie I got the feeling that I had seen most of this in other (better) movies. In it you had car chases, big shootouts, romance, plot twists etc. etc; This movie has none.<br /><br />** Spoiler** As soon as you see another woman talking into the phone to Cuba's character, you know who's behind all this and all the hints you're being given ("you stand too close to the president, see it from my perspective.." ) sound silly. <br /><br />If it were up to me (and maybe it's a good thing that it isn't) I would rewrite the plot like this:<br /><br />First lady orders the murder of her husband because she is sick and tired of writing checks to Cuba all the time.
This movie looked good - good cast, evergreen topic and an explosive opening. It went downhill from there. Why was it filmed by hand held camera? It shakes, judders, part captures scenes and simply confuses the viewer. A poor choice indeed. As if this was not enough, the worst edit in memory assumes a drugged viewer - mandatory if you want to get any enjoyment from it at all. And then it commits the worst sin of all. After leading the viewer down all sorts of unlikely and implausible scenarios to the point of exhaustion, they roll credits without revealing the denouement - the ending - the payoff -like what the heck was the motive? How can you expect to succeed by making thrillers without an ending? Doh! This movie had great promise and ending up doing a face plant in the mud. What a waste of effort. Poor effort by writer and director.
I rented End Game, having never heard of it, but I'm fond of political thrillers so I thought I'd give it a shot. After doing some research on the movie, I found that it had initially been intended for theatrical release, but instead had gone strait to DVD. After seeing it, I'm thinking, "no wonder." The movie is shocking in its unoriginality. The plot and the characters are perfunctory. I figured out whodunnit by the half way mark but the ending was a curve ball. I have to say, I didn't expect it to end quite the way it did, but that's not a point in its favor. The more predictable ending would have been preferable to one that is so bad. Perhaps the film makers saw how predictable the film was and so they decided to throw in a twist--even one that made the movie even worse.<br /><br />Stay away. I want the $5.98 and my 107 minutes back.
Camera work - Why is the camera work in this movie so jumpy? This is annoying and distracting. Editing - the Flashes of the still pictures were way too short. Many of the other scenes were too short also. Just flashes. Sound - the background music was way too loud and covered up the voices. One should not have to rewind and replay to catch what was said. Doesn't anybody check these things and make them do it over again. Please reduce the volume of the background music in future. Is adjustment of the relative sound levels the job of the editor, Julia Wong? The plot had way too many loose ends. The basic story line had potential. I think the film needed more work. Was it rushed? Perhaps they ran out of money. Like a lot of movies, it started out great but just petered out toward the end. I really don't understand this, you know you have the story board before it goes into production so why doesn't all the loose ends get taken care of in the storyboard.<br /><br />Sorry to be so critical.
You have to figure that when the star's name is listed wrong in the opening credits, you are not in for a good time (the credit reads "Cuba Gooding, J.R."). Some nice car chase, shoot 'em up, blow 'em up action if ALL you want is action, because the relationship to what plot exists is tenuous at best, and completely unbelievable. The motivations of the characters, especially that of Gooding's at the end, are worse then unbelievable, they are irrational when they are not hopelessly muddled. All I can think is that Andy Cheng must be a really nice guy to get this many good actors into this foul a project (he can't have something on all of them, can he?).
This ranks as one of the worst movies I've seen in years. Besides Cuba and Angie, the acting is actually embarrassing. Wasn't Archer once a decent actress? What happened to her? The action is decent but completely implausible. The make up is so bad it's worth mentioning. I mean, who ever even thinks about the makeup in a contemporary feature film. Someone should tell the make up artist, and the DOP that you're not supposed to actually see it. The ending is a massive disappointment - along the lines of "and then they realized it was all a dream"<br /><br />Don't waste your time or your money. You're better off just staring into space for 2 hours.
This movie was like a bad indie with A-list talent. The plot was silly, all the way to the end. It reminded me very much of something churned out for the home video market in the 1980's. I would have given it a one, but there were brief moments when you could see the actors really really straining to make this worthwhile. I think the worst thing was the underwater scene's held off of the dock. The underwater lighting seemed to come from no were, and whenever someone we were supposed to care about was close to running out of air, this air tank would kind of appear. I would avoid this, unless there is nothing else on the shelf. Good Day.
It had all the clichés of movies of this type and no substance. The plot went nowhere and at the end of the movie I felt like a sucker for watching it. The production was good; however, the script and acting were B-movie quality. The casting was poor because there were good actors mixed in with crumby actors. The good actors didn't hold their own nor did they lift up the others. <br /><br />This movie is not worthy of more words, but I will say more to meet the minimum requirement of ten lines. James Wood and Cuba Gooding, Jr. play caricatures of themselves in other movies. <br /><br />If you are looking for mindless entertainment, I still wouldn't recommend this movie.
MST 3000 should do this movie. It is the worst acted movie I have ever seen. First of all, you find out that the shooter has no bank account and no history since leaving the army in 1993 and pays his rent in cash. There is no way in hell that a person like that would ever be allowed to be that close to a president not to mention a high profile job. Also, the head of security for the POTHUS would not be so emotional that he would start drinking into a haze if the president was shot. This movie sucked. I cannot express the extremite that this movie was. Every single actor was terrible. Even the chick at the trailer park. I crap on this garbage. What a waste of time.
Flat characters that you do not and never will care about. Cringe-inducing dialogue at places. No twists (they think they have one, but if you didn't figure it out after about 40mins you're not too bright). Lots of well know actors in roles and performances that, fortunately for everyone involved, will be forgotten as soon as the end credits roll.<br /><br />I don't mind 'slow' movies, but they've got to be going _somewhere_. This one doesn't.<br /><br />The plot wasn't what made this a direct-to-DVD movie, that's just a rather convenient excuse to try and drum up some fake controversy.<br /><br />The as-of-writing 37(!) ten (10) ratings must be from people involved with the production.
An ensemble of uninteresting and unlikeable characters twist and turn their way through a flimsy plot that might be interesting, if only you could bring yourself to care. This "twisting and turning" I speak of refers not to the story (which contains all the suspense of a recipe for tuna casserole) but to the director's inability to keep the characters' faces even remotely centered in the frame. On the other hand, Angie Harmon has very nice nostrils and left ear.<br /><br />The only real surprise in the movie is the big names they convinced to do it. When you consider this movie was never released in theaters despite having an all-star cast, you might be inclined to think something stinks.<br /><br />And indeed, it does.
This Movie had some great actors in it! Unfortunately they had forgotten how to act. I was hoping the movie would get better as it went along but the acting was so robotic it was doomed from the very start. It actually appeared that maybe the actors were reading from a script the whole time. Maybe it was the Musical score or the Director himself, but one thing is for sure the Make-up artist needs to get another job ! The Facial Powder was so thick you could see it caked on the actors faces ! Would not recommend this movie to anyone, no wonder it never hit the Theaters. Cuba Gooding Jr. / James Woods shame on you guys for not giving it your all. The Plot was great just needed a whole lot more.
Don't get fooled with all the big names like Burt Reynolds,James Woods and Anne Archer. They are just glorified extra's. Their scenes were probably filmed in one day or so. Whatever their motives for being in this movie, if you have an actor like James Woods you better make good use of him. To me this is a sign of bad direction through and through. The plot itself wasn't that bad. And the acting from most of the actors was above average. Cuba Gooding Jr. however was terrible. He was so unbelievable that I almost laughed at his dramatic scenes. And since this was meant as a serious movie that can't be a good thing. The action scenes were not bad,but they lacked that special punch to make it more exciting. Again better direction was needed. Also the pacing was wrong for a movie like this. It took the main character almost half an hour to get in action. For an action thriller of only 90 minutes that is far too slow. The only redeeming factor is Angie Harmon. She does her best to make it all work. Too bad the director left her hanging. Yes,this movie could have been much better with a great director. Andy Cheng is far too inexperienced as a director to pull it off. And for an action/stunt coordinator of his caliber you'd expect at least more exciting action scenes. Don't waste your time with this one. Avoid!
I am a big 1930's movie fan and will watch most anything that I see on Turner Classic Movies thats new for me. So I gave this a shot, after all it's the great Harold Lloyd who rivaled Chaplin as a great silent film comedian. I have watched much less of Lloyd's silent films then of Chaplins but I have to say I'm a much bigger Chaplin fan. Anyway this film fell so flat for me that I didn't finish it. I can understand why his sound career was so limited, he didn't get very good material to work with. After you've seen Chaplin, Abbott and Costello, The Three Stooges, Martin and Lewis, The Marx Brothers, and Laurel and Hardy do boxing spoofs (or violence in general), this one is very forgettable. I was also interested in watching Adolphe Menjou as I really enjoyed him in Paths Of Glory but his role here also did nothing special for me. Maybe they should have gotten into the boxing sooner because at least half the film (at least it seemed that way) is before he gets in a ring. I can tell there are a lot of Lloyd fans here and this wont be a popular review but I must rate this as compared to what else was out there at the time, 4 out of 10. Don't watch this with anyone your trying to get to like old movies as they may not watch another one with you again, very flat. For an alternative to anyone who really liked this or is looking for more little known comedies in general I recommend "Kelly The Second" made a few years earlier, another nobody becomes a boxer comedy with Patsy Kelly and in a supporting role Charles Chase. These have both been shown on the Turner Classic Movies channel.
About three minutes into this thing I started fast-forwarding, pausing only during the nudity (why is it that bad movies always include such good looking women?). In ten minutes I was done, and wishing I could get my money back from the rental store. The people who write these movies should be sanctioned by the MPAA. Come on writers - the bad guys ALWAYS get into the car with the bomb activated by the good guy's remote control! That's the way its been done since the days of the Ottoman Empire! Also, to add insult to injury, the "twist" at the end was so formulaic, that it could have come from any action movie written in the past 25 years. Burt Reynolds was fine, but he should concentrate on real movies.<br /><br />This movie is just a waste of time - Run away! Run away!
A very tired looking Burt Reynolds plays a mercenary battling his former employers for some gizmo these non-heroes plan to sell to "the Iranians." Low-rent video nonsense by the producers of "Silk Stalkings" offers some decent action footage and a lot of ineptly staged "drama"...a lack of logic and truly dreadful dialogue are the defining aspects, although the final twists and allegiance shifts could've been a nifty end to a better movie. Burt still has presence, although it also means you notice more when he mouths insultingly half-baked "one-liners".
The movie was not a waste except for some boring scenes in between.But the women cast gave a pretty good show than the males who were laughable. <br /><br />But Krista Allen really rocked in the movie .Her voice was so seducing and sexy.The scenes in the bed involving Krista should have shortened but she made it so watchable and sexier than any one could do.Krista really is one of the best in such roles.She also enacted quiet well as the baddie in the last 5 minutes,which is the interesting part of the movie.<br /><br />Burt Reynolds was not that good and this was not his best as an action star.He could have chosen a better script than this.Ireally think he did for money.
I am definitely a Burt Reynolds fan, but sorry, this one really stinks. Most of the dialogue is laughable and the only interesting plot twist is in the last five minutes of the movie. I can't believe he even made this one. Is he actually that hard up for money?
It's "The F.B.I." starring Reed Hadley, with an all-star guest cast! The film begins with an accidental (convenient?) kidnapping, which leads to one thing, and another - which doesn't really indicate the main story, which is a "Big House, U.S.A." prison break story. The story is very improbable, to say the least. It's like a TV show, only more "violent" (for the times).<br /><br />BUT - the cast is a trip! Picture this: Ralph Meeker is sent to prison; his cell-mates are the following criminals: Broderick Crawford, Lon Chaney Jr., Charles Bronson (reading a "Muscle" magazine!), and William Talman (reading a "Detective" magazine!). Honest! You should know that, an early scene reveals what happens to the "missing" boy, answering the ending "voiceover." If you don't want to have that hanging, don't miss the opening scenes between the "Iceman" and the boy (Peter Votrian doing well as a runaway asthmatic). <br /><br />*** Big House, U.S.A. (1955) Howard W. Koch ~ Broderick Crawford, Ralph Meeker, Reed Hadley
I pity people calling kamal hassan 'ulaganaayakan' maybe for them ulagam is tollywood ! comeon guys..this movie is a thriller without thrill..<br /><br />come out of your ulagam and just watch some high class thrillers like The Usual Suspects or even The Silence of the Lambs.<br /><br />technically good but style over substance kamal doesn't look like a police officer, there is no thrill whatsoever dragging and boring till end you might be saving 3 valuable hrs of your life if u skip watching this movie.<br /><br />kamal at his best is the best in tollywood
Filmatography: Excellent, nice camera angles (I don't remember seeing a movie of late, with good close-ups, until this one). Could have avoided gruesome scenes with a soft camera. NY is pictured good.I liked the upside down angles, in particular (a different touch).<br /><br />Music: Not impressive. Songs don't stick around in your mind even after watching the movie. May be, I expected same quality like "Anniyan". A disappointment. <br /><br />Actors: Kamal needs to slowly pull away from hard-core action sequences. His age and belly really show up. Also, he should avoid close romantic sequences going forward. It was a very awkward to see a mature/aged star still trying to play like a 20+ heroes scenes. Love can be expressed at any age; as we get older, you still can express love nicely from a distance (without touching a woman too much. For example, the love expressed by Rajinikanth in "chandrmukhi").<br /><br />Jyotika just appears for the namesake in the movie. Not sure why she accepted this. Well, that is not my problem, I guess.<br /><br />Others just have a small presence.<br /><br />Direction: I expected Gautham to excel (or measure-up) to his other movie "Kakka Kakka". He disappointmented me. It took a long time to release the movie due to various issues. He slips in few scenes. Even abvious things got slipped from a famous director.<br /><br />Overall: Just a okay movie. Too much graphics. DEFINITELY not for kids (and adults who expect some kind of "Entertainment").<br /><br />Thx
On the way back from IMC6 (San Jose, California), all five (mind you, three of us hardcore Kamal fans) of us had reached a unanimous verdict; VV was solid crap and thanks to the movie we were going to have a pretty screwed up Monday. Not to mention, we swore to stay off the theatres for the next year.<br /><br />I won't blame Kamal here because he sort of dropped a hint in a recent interview with cartoonist Madan (on Vijay TV). He said something like, "Tamizh Cinema'la Photography, Editing'la namba munnera'na maadri Screenplay, Direction, Acting'la innum namba munnera'la" (Tamil Cinema has grown in terms of Photography and Editing, but we have hardly improved, when it comes to Screenplay, Direction and Acting"). While you're watching VV, those words ring very true.<br /><br />Now, here are the 10 Reasons to hate this movie:<br /><br />1. Harris Jeyaraj<br /><br />2. Harris Jeyaraj<br /><br />3. Harris Jeyaraj I'm barely holding myself from using expletives here, but fact is HJ has mastered the fine knack of screwing up every recent movie of his (remember 'Anniyan', 'Ghajini') with the jarring cacophony, he bills as background music. The next time I have an eardrum transplant, he's paying for it. <br /><br />4. Songs Neither do the songs help move the movie's narration spatially/temporally nor do they make you sit up and take notice. The film feels like it's made of four VERY long songs with a few scenes thrown in between them.<br /><br />5. A Short gone too far. VV at best is fit to be a short story, not a 2 hour plus "thriller". To use a cliché here, like the Energizer bunny it goes on and on and on; only in this case you don't want it to. The later part of a movie feels like a big drag.<br /><br />6. Kamal-Jothika pairing Two ice cubes rubbed together could've produced more sparks than this lead pairing. There's no reason you would root for them to make it together. In fact every time they get together in the second half of the movie, they make a good irritant to the narration. Hate to say this, but Kamalini Mukerjhee's 10 minute romancing does more than what Kamal and Jothika achieve in this movie plus 'Thenali'.<br /><br />7. Kamal Haasan's accent Kamal has this pretentious accent that nobody speaks either in India or in the US; and it isn't new either. He's been doing it since 'Thoongadae Thambi Thoongadae'. It's simply gets on the nerve. Imagine what havoc it can cause when his flair for using this strange accent meets shooting on location in the US. He doesn't leave it at the Immigration either, he offers doses of advice to his men (bewildered TN Cops from Keeranor, Sathoor and beyond) in chaste Kamanglish ("Wha we hav here is plain bad police wok"), of course with nauseating effect.<br /><br />8. Logic There are a few directors whom you expect to stand up to a certain scale. Gautam fails us badly with some crappy performance in the Department of common sense. Which D.C.P in his senses would meet his love interest on the streets to discuss such matters as committing himself and life after! The scene inside the theatre was so bad, towards the climax; we could hear people behind us loudly challenge the Hero's IQ. "Is he stupid, can't he just use his Siren or Lights?" (On a busy Madras road, Kamal-the-cop-on-a-police-Jeep chases a guy on a bike just like any ordinary dude!). "Can't he just use his gun?" ("The guy on a bike" starts on foot and we have a fully geared Kamal in hot pursuit for a considerable amount of time). I'm not voting in favour of the later, but I'm just trying to explain the mood inside.<br /><br />9. Gore & Violence If I wanted to watch women being raped, their throats getting slashed, more women getting raped and thrown into the bushes with excruciating authenticity, I would sit at home and rather watch a "Police Report" or "Kuttram". The use of excessive violence should go in a way to extend the story, not overwhelm it! Somewhere down the line Gautum seems confused about what the extensions (rapes, murders) are and what the mainstay (story) is!<br /><br />10. Even a double shot Espresso couldn't get the pain out of the head.
I had a lot of hopes for this movie and so watched it with a lot of expectations; basically because of Kamal Hassan. He is an amazing actor who has marked his foot steps in the sands of time forever. But this movie proved to be one of the worst movies i have ever seen. After watching this the movie the brutality and violence in tenebra and clockwork orange looks far better. <br /><br />The Protagonist, Raghavan, is a very daring police officer. Who is assigned to a investigate brutal serial murders. Raghavan efficiently finds the connecting thread in this case and is close to solve the murders and put the psycho killers, two psychologically disturbed but brilliant medical students, behind bars but they escape and again get into a killing spree. Finally Raghavan kills them both after sparing many innocent lives.<br /><br />THese two psycho-killers are the ones who are going to keep the audiences from going to the theaters. The murders and sexual harassments and rapes are shown very explicitly, which the movie could have survived without. <br /><br />To even imagine that teenagers and kids are going to be watching this movie in the theater and kind of picture it is bound to paint in their minds are certainly not pretty. The director, Gautham, should realize that he also has some obligation to the society and his audience.Certainly i am never going to the movies looking like Gautham's name on the production list.
What can I say. A Kamal Hassan movie being horrible. He acts very well, but it is a horrible story, along with horrible direction. In my kind opinion, the director Gautham Menon must give up directing. There is a lot of tragedy throughout the movie. Apart from that, one can just not believe how true were those horrendous crimes. There was no practicality in the movie. Gautham is just running out of stories. But both Kamal Hassan and Jyothika act really well. The villains look too ugly, though their performance was not bad. I do not think this is a Sunday afternoon movie like Padayappa which you can see with the family. You will not get sleep seeing this movie!! However, Harris Jayaraj again did a great job, and that is why I have given this movie 4 out of 10. His song 'Partha Modail Nallae' is soulful and soothing. Apart from that, great cinematography. On the whole, this is just a bad, bad movie. Kamal Hassan, I think, should have rejected this movie.
This is quite possibly the most retarded 80's slasher ever realized, but how can you be harsh on a film that features non-stop images of dozens of gorgeous ladies with exhilarating bodies doing aerobic exercises, taking showers and wandering about in tight gym outfits? Prior to being a horror film, "Aerobicide" is a 90 minutes promo video to encourage the use of steroids, silicons and other body-stimulating fitness products. If you'd leave out all the footage of hunky boys lifting weights and yummy girls wiggling their butts and racks to insufferable 80's tunes, there probably only have about 15 minutes of story left. Plenty of time to improvise a plot about a sadist killer slaughtering young health-freaks with a big safety pin (yeah…). The film opens with an unintentionally hilarious scene of a girl getting fried between an electric sun-bathing device. Several years later people turn up dead in the same spa. You don't really need to be an experienced horror fanatic or a rocket scientist to figure out there's a link between the murders and the burning incident, now do you? Investigating the case are a seemingly braindead police officer (and Charles Napier look-alike!) and a beefcake private detective who gets lucky with the bustiest 80's beauty I've ever seen! Looking through the credits, her name's Dianne Copeland apparently, and she didn't do anything else apart from this turkey and an imbecile Troma-movie called "Surf Nazis Must Die". What a wasted opportunity! She may not have been a great actress, but she sure had two other BIG advantages that would help her move upwards in show business. The amount of gore and the quality of the make-up effects are nothing special, neither. We're treated to a couple of bizarre stabbings with a pin and some barbecued human flesh. The plot twists near the end are ridiculous and predictable, but by that time nobody is taking the film seriously anymore, anyway. "Aerobicide" (a.k.a. "Killer Workout") is recommended in case you want to switch of all your brain functions off for one night, but nevertheless feel like watching a film! It actually would make a terrific double-feature with "Death Spa". Both films have a lot of sexy and scarcely dressed babes … and both films are pretty dumb.
Big hair, big boobs, bad music and a giant safety pin.......these are the words to best describe this terrible movie. I love cheesy horror movies and i've seen hundreds..but this had got to be on of the worst ever made. The plot is paper thin and ridiculous, the acting is an abomination, the script is completely laughable(the best is the end showdown with the cop and how he worked out who the killer is-it's just so damn terribly written), the clothes are sickening and funny in equal measures, the hair is big, lots of boobs bounce, men wear those cut tee-shirts that show off their stomachs(sickening that men actually wore them!!) and the music is just synthesiser trash that plays over and over again...in almost every scene there is trashy music, boobs and paramedics taking away bodies....and the gym still doesn't close for bereavement!! All joking aside this is a truly bad film whose only charm is to look back on the disaster that was the 80's and have a good old laugh at how bad everything was back then.
One two three four five six seven eight and back, haha. This is a must see, first of all to see the work out. There are a lot of work out shown, see those close ups, man you will enjoy it. A few years ago a video clip was surely based on this movie. It's a slasher but without suspense. The ending is funny too, and the clothes she's wearing in the wood confronting the copper, Jesus, looks like a clown. The killings are mostly done off screen, the blood flows but never too gory. There are a lot of fight scene's too, and hey, no one got hurt. And what about the weapon to kill, never seen a big one like that, won't spoil it, you must see it. And being a slasher there's a lot of T&A too. To guess who's the killer you will be trapped a few times and that's the best part, but what about the story of the copper in the woods, huh! But still due his cheesiness this one is still one that many would like to have. I'm glad that I have my copy, one of those slasher failures. But man, those clothes and not to mention the hairstyles! If you are in your 40's then this is one is back to memory lane.
You know Jason, you know Freddy, and you know Leatherface. Now, get ready for: The Safety Pin Killer! That's right, in Killer Workout, a dumb slasher movie if I've ever seen one, the unseen murderer dispatches his (or her?) victims with an oversized, novelty safety pin. It is an odd choice to be sure, the kind of thing that deserves an explanation. Naturally, the movie never even attempts to clarify where the killer acquired such a thing.<br /><br />As the title suggests, an aerobics gym is under siege by a mad killer and everyone is a suspect. In fact, the movie gives so few clues as to the identity of the killer, just about everyone in the movie is a potential murderer until they get killed. And since just about everyone but the killer winds up dead, it's really just process of elimination. <br /><br />Oddly, while the entire name cast is killed off, the aerobics classes continue in earnest. In fact, nothing is capable of stopping the dancing. While three men are murdered in the next room, the workout goes on. Death isn't even a factor; one character dies, but is still seen prominently in the later workout sessions. Director David Prior knew what he was doing when named the movie Killer Workout and not Logical Workout.<br /><br />Cop chases, explosive tanning beds, and hundreds of shots of women's exposed flesh are thrown in for good measure. Much like the woman caught in the tanning bed, I felt very uncomfortable by the end of Killer Workout. Finally, thankfully, THE END flashed on the screen. What happened next? You got it, shots of the women working out. Not even the end of the movie can stop them!<br /><br />
Want to know the secret to making a slasher film set at a fitness center work? Just pad the film out with lovely ladies in super tight workout outfits and have them bump and grind the floor like they are at a gentleman's club. That's what the makers of this horrid slasher film did and that little gimmick kept me watching till the bitter end. This is the worst slasher film I have ever seen, but every time I was ready to switch the channel, they'd add another scene with the workout girls and I'd stay put. As a slasher film, Killer Workout fails in every category I can think of. As a showcase for beautiful girls working out, it is a success. Strong recommendation to avoid, unless the thought of half the film being a big T&A show appeals to you.
This movie is without a doubt the worst horror movie I've ever seen. And that's saying a lot, considering I've seen such stinkers like Demon of Paradise, Lovers' Lane, and Bloody Murder (which is a close second). However, I love bad horror movies, and as you can tell from my username, this one really sticks out. At times there's nothing more entertaining than a poorly made slasher flick. As for this film, the opening scene in which a woman gets fried in a tanning booth appears to have no bearing on the film whatsoever, especially since the movie fails to tell you that the event happened 2 years prior to the rest of the film. The acting is nonexistent, and most of the camera shot are of women's areas shrink wrapped in spandex. The policeman was the most stone-faced, monotone actor I've ever seen. The best/worst part of this movie, however, has to be the murder weapon. A giant safety pin?! What were they thinking? Who's the killer? A disgruntled "Huggies" employee? I'd have to give this movie an overall zero, but darned if I didn't have a blast watching it
Johnny Weissmuller's final film as 'King of the Jungle', after 16 years in the role, TARZAN AND THE MERMAIDS, is bound to disappoint all but the most ardent of his fans. At 44, the ex-Olympian, one of Hollywood's most active 'party animals', was long past the slim athleticism of his youth, and looked tired (although he was in marginally better condition than in his previous entry, TARZAN AND THE HUNTRESS).<br /><br />Not only had Weissmuller gotten too old for his role; Johnny Sheffield, the quintessential 'Boy', had grown to manhood (he was a strapping 17-year old), so he was written out of the script, under the pretext of being 'away at school'. Brenda Joyce, at 35, was appearing in her fourth of five films as 'Jane' (she would provide the transition when Lex Barker became the new Tarzan, in 1949's TARZAN'S MAGIC FOUNTAIN) and was still as wholesomely sexy as ever.<br /><br />Produced by Sol Lesser, at RKO, on a minuscule budget, the cast and crew took advantage of cheaper labor by filming in Mexico. While the location gave a decidedly Hispanic air to what was supposedly darkest Africa, veteran director Robert Florey utilized the country extensively, incorporating cliff diving and an Aztec temple into the story.<br /><br />When a young island girl (Tyrone Power's future bride, Linda Christian) is rescued in a jungle river by Tarzan, he learns that a local high priest (George Zucco, one of filmdom's most enduring villains) had virtually enslaved the local population, threatening retribution from a living 'God' if they don't do his bidding. The girl had been chosen to become the 'God's' bride, so she fled. Faster than you can say 'Is this a dumb plot or WHAT?', the girl is kidnapped by the priest's henchmen and returned to the island, and Tarzan, followed by Jane, colorful Spanish character 'Benjy' (charmingly played by John Laurenz, who sings several tunes), and a government commissioner are off to take on the Deity and his priest (poor Cheeta is left behind). After a series of discoveries (the 'God' is simply a con man in an Aztec mask, working with the priest in milking the island's rich pearl beds), a bit of brawling action, and comic relief and songs by Benjy, everything reaches the expected happy conclusion.<br /><br />Remarkably, TARZAN AND THE MERMAIDS features a musical score by the brilliant film composer, Dimitri Tiomkin, and is far better than what you'd expect from this 'B' movie! <br /><br />While the film would provide a less-than-auspicious end to Weissmuller's time in Tarzan's loincloth (he would immediately go on to play Jungle Jim, a more eloquent variation of the Ape Man, in khakis), the talent involved lifted the overall product at least a little above the total mess it could have been.<br /><br />Tarzan was about to get a make over, and become much sexier...
The finale of the Weissmuller Tarzan movies is a rather weak one. There are a few things that derail this film.<br /><br />First, Tarzan spends much of the film wearing floppy sandals. In my opinion, any footwear on Tarzan, whether it be sandals or boots as sometimes portrayed, takes away from the character, which is supposed to be anti-civilization and pro-jungle.<br /><br />Second, the character of Benji, as mentioned in a previous post, totally derails the movie as the comic foil. To me, his character is unnecessary to the film's plot.<br /><br />Also, while Weissmuller still cuts a commanding figure as Tarzan, it's apparent that he was not in his best shape. Although in his later Jungle Jim movies, his physique had improved somewhat from this film.<br /><br />The octopus battle is a terrific idea, but I think it should have been done in an earlier Weissmuller film when he was at his physical peak. Likewise, the battle, which takes only 30 seconds tops, would be much more thrilling if it was drawn out to 90 seconds to 2 minutes like the classic giant crocodile battle in Tarzan and His Mate.<br /><br />And while Brenda Joyce as Jane and Linda Christian as Mara are overwhelmingly pleasing to the eye, it doesn't manage to salvage this last Weissmuller film - a disappointing ending to a great character run.
The last Tarzan film starring Johnny Weissmuller (looking surprisingly aged a year after "Tarzan and the Huntress") is bad, in spite of all the trivia one can add to make it look better. It is obvious that RKO tried to make a great farewell for Weissmuller, shooting in beautiful scenery in México, with a top star of that country (Andrea Palma) and multiple award-winning cinematographer Gabriel Figueroa, and bringing in prestigious composer Dimitri Tiomkin to do the score. Although it may have cost less for filming abroad, it looks more expensive than any other RKO film in the series, taking advantage of Acapulco beaches and real pyramids as Aquatania, and with impressive décors for all the scenes related to the temple of god Balu (especially the exterior, built on steep rocks.) Kurt Neumann should have stayed as director, instead of Robert Florey, who gives it a very slow pace. Neumann had done a fine work with "Tarzan and the Amazons", "Tarzan and the Leopard Woman" and "Tarzan and the Huntress", and finished his career directing the classic "The Fly" the year before his death; while Florey became a television director, after a career of few remarkable films. If Weissmuller looks tired, the chimp playing Cheeta is not as good as the others, but the worst character is Benji, an obnoxious mailman who sings horrendous songs (that have a Caribbean air, in a location supposed to be Africa and shot in México!) Boring and decidedly of dubious taste, it was a sad farewell to Weissmuller's Tarzan.
Last of the Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan films and a good thing too, as this is easily the worst of the 12 films he made over a period of 16 years. No mermaids are featured here either as a beautiful island woman tries to escape the clutches of her people, who worship a god and try to force her to be its bride. She finds Tarzan and Jane, who try to protect her. George Zucco is present as a potentially villainous High Priest but isn't used to his full advantage. Also on hand and worthy of mention is a hugely annoying guitar player/singer who goes into song every so often. Even the "great" Robert Florey can't aid this one.<br /><br />*1/2 (of four)
I'd never seen a Tarzan movie before so when I saw it on the tele I thought I'd give it a shot. Unfortunately I have to say I was disappointed. Tarzan was over 40 years old and somewhat overweight. Not how I'd imagined Tarzan would look. And, unless I missed it while making myself a cup of tea, Tarzan never gave his traditional warbling yell. Also missing was Tarzan swinging through the trees - leaping from vine to vine.<br /><br />Oh well, so much for expectations. Anyway, Jane was there - The monkey Cheeta was there. There was some guy with a guitar there. There were villains and good guys and a romance... all very harmless and predictable. Nothing bad, you understand, but equally nothing good.<br /><br />Probably not the best movie to introduce Tarzan: 4/10
Well, here we have yet another role reversal movie. There were many worth watching, despite the tired plot of gender reversal. However, this one is not. In previous reviews, I think I've made my point about the general decline of enjoyment for Haim movies that followed the late 80s. This is one of them.<br /><br />'Just One of the Girls' is about a high school kid (Corey Haim) who tries to avoid his bullies by dressing up as a girl and attending another school. He joins the cheerleading squad and makes friends with fellow cheerleader, Marie (Nicole Eggert). Obviously, he can't keep up the charade for too much longer.<br /><br />I thought this movie was utter crap, and it wasn't even funny. But, judging by a majority of reviews, it looks like fans of Alanis Morrisette or teen sex queen, Nicole Eggert, are the only ones who'd want to watch this. If you're looking for a good Haim feature (or role switching comedy), look no further than 1989. This is about the point that Haim's career tanked.
Usually I'm a bit of a fan of the bad eighties & early nineties film featuring now has beens...but this film is so incredibly terrible that it was a real endurance test to sit through. Guys dressing up as girls has been done to death - but never so pathetically. Corey Haim's performance was abysmal as usual, Nicole Eggert was not much better. This has no redeeming qualities, even if you are a number #1 fan of an actor/actress in this piece of trash - stay away!
Geordies...salt of the earth characters...bricklayers...beer...Geordies...happy go lucky...adventures working abroad...salt of the earth characters...warm wonderful people...Tyne Bridge (tear in the eye)...brown ale...salt of the earth characters...cute little Red Indians children in Newcastle United tops...emetic...Geordies...salt of the earth characters...<br /><br />etc etc etc....<br /><br />Please. This is so poor. And you should know better Timothy Spall. They can't have paid you that much.<br /><br />As for Jimmy Nail. Well the kindest thing that can be said is that he is every bit as good an 'actor' as he is a singer and writer. Come on Jimmy, the joke's over. 'Crocodile Shoes' and 'Spender' were very funny, unfortunately I don't think they were supposed to be. With 'Auf Wiedersehen Pet' the opposite applies.
Excruciatingly slow-paced, over-scripted black comedy with a too-clever premise and bad acting.<br /><br />Maybe this would have worked as a Twilight Zone or Tales from the Crypt episode, but by the last half, you just want it to get to its predictable ending and be done with it already.
From it's uninspiring title to the flat acting performances, Curdled is very much an unremarkable film throughout. The film has gained some fans by way of the fact that Quentin Tarantino's name is attached to it, and the silly and out of place nod to the Rodriguez/Tarantino flick 'From Dusk till Dawn'. These things do not make a great movie, however, and this is more than evident all the way through 'Curdled'. The film suffers from an all too obvious lack of ideas, and it tries to mask this with murders that are meant to be stylish and events that are supposed to be disturbing. The Mexican music score that accompanies many of the sequences in the film is obviously meant to be cool, but it's becomes annoying very quickly; especially as aside from the fact that the lead character is Mexican, it doesn't fit with the tone of the movie. The film's plot is typically offbeat and it follows a gorehound who, because of her obsession with grisly murders, takes a job with a firm that cleans up murder scenes. It sounds boring and it is.<br /><br />William Baldwin is the only 'name' on the cast list, and even he doesn't make an impression. He hasn't been given anything to do in the movie and aside from talking to his victims and standing around trying to look menacing, he's pretty much wasted. Angela Jones, or rather; the taxi driver from Pulp Fiction, takes the lead role as the murder obsessed young woman, and it is always clear that it's her involvement with Pulp Fiction that won her this role, not her acting ability. She may have been good enough in her small role in Tarantino's masterpiece, but she doesn't have the talent to lead a film by herself. She looks lost and out of place for the majority of the film, and if it weren't for her Latino accent; she wouldn't convince the audience that she's a weirdo on any level. Curdled is a one hundred percent-proof piece of forgettable trash. Films like this often win themselves praise for invention or black comedic antics; but this one fails on all levels. Whether you're a Tarantino fan, William Baldwin fan, horror fan or just a movie buff; this is one to miss.
Thoughtless, ignorant, ill-conceived, career-killing (where is the talented Angela Jones now?), deeply unfunny garbage. It's no wonder Reb Braddock hasn't directed anything else since - anyone who has a chance to make his first film on his own rules, based on his own script, with the help of Quentin Tarantino himself, and creates something like THIS, anyone who feels that THIS was a story worth telling to the world, doesn't deserve a second break. Under the circumstances, the performances are good - the actors do what they're told to do, and they do it well. It's just that they shouldn't have done it in the first place. <br /><br />0 out of 4.
Proof that not everything Tarantino touches turns to gold. This is most definitely plastic, all the way. Its easy to see that without Quentin's involvement this would have probably sat on the shelf for years, that's assuming it would have ever got produced in the first place. It is about a woman with a fascination of death who gets a job cleaning up after crime scenes, Angela Jones is unconvincing in this role, William Baldwin is better as the Serial Killer who keeps Jones in employment!. All in all pretty poor.
I do regret that I have bought this series. I expected more action, more objective picture and more consistency. This is just a pure propaganda series, very dark, without any charm, or romanticism, it is just boredom itself. I find the actors work quite weak as well. O'Donnell might seem charming as Robin (with Batman), but in this picture he lacks any charm. Probably while he becomes older, he is loosing his childish charm but does not gain any charm of a grown up. It comes as no surprise, that it was not shown in a lot of countries and is being sold in the UK for 40% of the recommended price and was not even released in the Netherlands.
I was really looking forward to this show given the quality of the actors and the fact that The Scott brothers were involved. Unfortunately my hopes were dashed! Yet again we are led to believe that the KGB are a group of inept morons who don't have a clue what they are doing. At one point there is a laughable scene where 4 KGB agents couldn't handle one CIA agent. I grow weary of these biased, one sided and completely inaccurate portrayals of the Spy game that went on during the cold war. I find it laughable that the US is incapable of making objective movies about their involvement in WW2 and beyond. Just like the pathetic U-571, where we are led to believe that the US obtained the Enigma machine, again, utterly false.<br /><br />To its credit, "The Company" is very well filmed and acted. The locales are also exceptionally well realised. Alfred Molina puts in a great performance as does Keaton (The conflict between them is very well done). I really wanted to like this show and no doubt I will end up watching the other 2 episodes but I really wish that US productions would stop trying to portray their Spies, servicemen etc as supermen who are vastly intellectually and physically superior to anyone else on the planet. It gets old fast and seriously detracts from the plausibility of what could have been a 10/10.<br /><br />S
There is a remark that one of heroines was raped on "drunken rampage" by Russian soldiers, which is completely untrue. This movie should not be shown only because of this.<br /><br />Also there is a statement by someone, that KGB prosecuted "Jews, Gypsies etc", which is "worse than Nazis". KGB was looking for so called "zionist" agents, who were (KGB believed) imperialist agents. This is totally different from targeting Jewry as a whole nation, as Nazis did. Gypsies were never prosecuted. KGB was political tool and used politically, but from internationalist standpoint. Communists really did not distinguish between nationalities.<br /><br />Whole movie stinks like fake. Main hero does not speak Russian, signs in Berlin contains typographical errors, KGB general looks totally phony. Some so called "russian proverbs" are totally made up, and list goes on and on.<br /><br />Not recommended to watch - this movie is full of lies, and phony stuff. Go to "Good shepherd" instead.
Writer/Director Bart Sibrel bases his work here around a can of film that he says was mistakenly sent to him by NASA. He says it shows the astronauts faking the television footage of their trip to the moon by employing camera tricks. The astronauts were in low Earth orbit all the time, and editors on the ground composed this raw footage into just a few seconds of finished film.<br /><br />Unfortunately Sibrel's research is so slipshod that he doesn't realize his "backstage" footage is really taken in large part from the 30-minute live telecast (also on that reel) that was seen by millions, not hidden away in NASA vaults as he implies. And we have to wonder why Sibrel puts his own conspiratorial narration over the astronauts' audio in the footage, because hearing the astronauts in their own words clearly spells out that the astronauts were just testing the camera, not faking footage.<br /><br />Finally, anyone can see the raw footage for themselves without having to buy Sibrel's hacked-up version of it. (He shows you more of the Zapruder film of JFK's assassination than of his "smoking gun".) Sibrel thinks he's the only one who's seen it. What's more revealing is the clips from that raw footage that Sibrel chose NOT to use, such as those clearly showing the appropriately distant Earth being eclipsed by the window frames and so forth, destroying his claim that mattes and transparencies were placed in the spacecraft windows to create the illusion of a faraway Earth.<br /><br />As with most films of this type, Sibrel relies on innuendo, inexpert assumption, misleading commentary, and selective quotation to manipulate the viewer into accepting a conclusion for which there is not a shred of actual evidence.
I watched this video at a friend's house. I'm glad I did not waste money buying this one. The video cover has a scene from the 1975 movie Capricorn One. The movie starts out with several clips of rocket blow-ups, most not related to manned flight. Sibrel's smoking gun is a short video clip of the astronauts preparing a video broadcast. He edits in his own voice-over instead of letting us listen to what the crew had to say. The video curiously ends with a showing of the Zapruder film. His claims about radiation, shielding, star photography, and others lead me to believe is he extremely ignorant or has some sort of ax to grind against NASA, the astronauts, or American in general. His science is bad, and so is this video.
There are so many incorrect statements in this so-called "documentary" that I found myself shouting at the television.<br /><br />Bart Sibrel might be able to produce a flashy looking DVD, but he is sadly lacking at looking at the science behind his claims.<br /><br />He relies on either being inaccurate, not telling the full story, or the old favourite "government always lies to us" innuendos, and people believing what is told to them and not checking on the accuracy or details behind the claims.<br /><br />What's more, his "exclusive" or "unreleased" footage is freely available over the internet from various sites.<br /><br />Further reading about the circumstances regarding the filming of this production shows that he used false pretenses to gain interviews, and has used creative editing of the responses in order to promote his own opinions.<br /><br />All of the claims made by Mr Sibrel about "inaccuracies", "mistakes", or "whistleblowing" in the Apollo programme have been thoroughly disproven.<br /><br />How do I get that 40-odd minutes of my life back?
The views of Earth that are claimed in this film to have been faked by NASA have recently been compared with the historical weather data for the time of Apollo 11, and show a good match between the cloud patterns in the video sequence and the actual rainfall records on the day.<br /><br />This would seem to undermine the entire argument put forward in the film that the "whole Earth" picture is actually a small part of the planet framed by the spacecraft window.<br /><br />I am waiting for Bart Sibrel to now claim that the historical weather data has been faked by NASA, though that would no doubt involve them in also replacing every archived newspaper copy with a weather map, and the ones in private hands would still be a problem.<br /><br />Ah, a response: "Trying to discredit this movie by referring to NASA weather data I'd say is a charming, but weak and gullible argument. What about the rest of the footage and proofs in the movie? A certain wise man once said something about sifting mosquitoes and swallowing camels. Do you in any way feel that maybe this could apply to what you are trying to do here? :-) This movie is just packed with irrefutable evidence against the claim once made by U.S. government that the moon-missions were a success, and that man now are true masters of the universe. Things are nearly never quite what they seem.. Just watch the movie, and I dear say you'll see things a bit different than before."<br /><br />First off, weather data doesn't come from NASA, it comes for met agencies around the world. Second, the weather data undermines a major claim in the film. Third, far from being "packed with irrefutable evidence", the remaining claims in the film have been thoroughly debunked. Sibrel thought he had a previously secret piece of film, so he edited it and added his own interpretation. Unfortunately for him, his source film is public domain, and the bits Sibrel edited out contradict his claims.
When I was 16 I saw the documentary: "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon". I actually liked, and believed in it for a couple of years. But then I grew up, and began to think, and when I had sought more information. This is: more info from reel sources, and non-biased sources. When I started at university, not so long ago, i asked an assistant-professor in astronomy about these conspiracy theories. What he said shocked me: He said that all those theories where lies. That baffled me, I did not believe it first, but then he presented evidence for his claims. He quickly debunked most of the theories about the subject: "humans did not go to the moon". The most outrages claim was that the Apollo-craft could not travel through the Van-Allen-radiation-Belt, without the crew perishing from radiation. The truth is that the Americans use a secret aluminum-anti-radiation-alloy. It is not that well-known. And the exact specifications are a secret. And why is it a secret: Well, why should they reveal it back then?? If they where in a space race with the Russians, then it would be VERY dumb to reveal that they had new technology that could shield crew against radiation.<br /><br />And then there is the biggest evidence of all: The Moon Stones. When the Apollo-missions DID go to the moon, they brought back many rocks from the moon, to give to geologists and similar scientists, who are documenting all things about the moon. These rocks and stones are IN FACT FROM THE MOON. Because: the internal basic elements, which all matter consist of, are also made of special isotopes, that are different from quarry to quarry, land to land, and especially planet from planet. The isotopes of these rocks and stones have been Proved, that they do not come from earth. The astronauts brought home HUNDREDS of Kilogram's of these rocks, all of them have been proved to have come from outside earth, and from the same planet. Ergo: The moon-landings where not fake. NASA did go to another planet: the moon, though it is not a planet, but a satellite to a planet, a moon (duuh). These rocks have been distributed to laboratories and universities all around the world. It has been proved: Humans did go to the moon - it is a fact, pronto.<br /><br />But I do not worry: most conspiracy-theorists are generally unemployed and uneducated, that is mostly why they do not know or lie about these facts. The fact remains: Humans did walk on the moon.
The only reason I didn't score this a one is that Sibrel does show that he is adept at the technical aspects of making a film. It is a technically adept film.<br /><br />That having been said, this is a film based on lies and distortions that are quite easily disproven. Most of the documentary is spent using propaganda techniques to bash the space program, rather than actual fact. And Sibrel's "irrefutable proof" that the landings were faked is easily refuted if you know anything about orbital mechanics.<br /><br />I do not recommend watching this, but if you do, see it at google video for free. Don't let Bart Sibrel profit from your curiosity.
This so-called "documentary" tries to tell that USA faked the moon-landing. Year right.<br /><br />All those who have actually studied the case knows different.<br /><br />First of all: there is definitely proof. When the astronauts was on the moon, they brought back MANY pounds of rock from the moon - for geological studies. These where spread around the world to hundreds of labs, who tested them. And they all concluded that they came from the same planet, not earth: because the inner isotopes of the basic elements are different from those found on earth, but similar to those calculated to be on the moon. I.E. the conspiracy theorists never studies anything: they only take the thing that fit into their theory and ignores the rest.<br /><br />Another wrongful claim from them is that their was wind in the hangar where they shot the moon landing, I.E. the flag moves. There is a logical explanation: the astronaut moved it with his hand, so it moved. And what proves this: well, if the conspiracy theorists even studied the footage, they would see that the flag NEVER moves after the astronaut have let it be, I.E. the conspiracy theorists are bad-scientists, they cant study a subject properly, or only studies it until they have what they came for, so that they can make a lie from that, and make a profit (I.E. this so-called "documentary").<br /><br />A claim says that it cant possible have been filmed on the moon because all the shadows come from different places, because there are different light-sources, the artificial lighting from the studio. Once again the conspiracy theorists are wrong (as usual), the same would happen in an earth desert at night, with no light-sources. But i doubt that any Conspiracy theorists have ever been outside their grandmothers basement for more than how many days a Star Treck-convention is held over.<br /><br />The Conspiracy theorists are in denial, BIG TIME. They only see what they want to see. So they make up all these lies to seem important - that is a fact.
I notice that most of the people who think this film speaks the truth were either not born before the moon landings (1969-1972), or not old enough to appreciate them. I think it is much easier to question an historic event if you did not live through it.<br /><br />I was a youngster at the time of Apollo, but I was old enough to understand what was going on. The entire world followed the moon landings. Our families gathered around the TV to watch the launch. Newspaper headlines screamed the latest goings-on each day, from launch to landing, from moonwalks to moon liftoff, all the way to splashdown, in a multitude of languages. In school, some classes were cancelled so we could watch the main events on TV. During Apollo 13 the world prayed and held its collective breath as the men limped home to an uncertain fate. You couldn't go anywhere without someone asking what the latest was. The world was truly one community. <br /><br />Now with a buffer of 30-odd years after the fact, it is easy to claim fraud because worldwide enthusiasm and interest has died down. We are left with our history books, and anybody can claim that history is wrong and attempt to "prove" it with a bunch of lies and made-up facts while completely ignoring the preponderance of evidence showing otherwise--not to mention the proof that dwells in the souls and memories of those who lived through these wonderfully heady and fantastic days.
this documentary is founded on sponge cake as soon as you put any REAL evidence on it the integrity slowly sinks into a big pile of crap for example Bart Sibrel claims they must have had multiple lighting sources because the shadows appear to be crossing if this were the case wouldn't there be two or more shadows for each object when Apollo 11 went through the van Allan radiation belts they spent 30 Min's there not the 90 Min's claimed in the documentary and they received a dose of radiation more equivalent to that of an an x ray.<br /><br />seriously do some research learn what really happened don't let this pile of crap of a documentary mold your opinion of what really happened
I am a 11th grader at my high school. In my Current World Affairs class a kid in my class had this video and suggested we watch. So we did. I am firm believer that we went to the moon, being that my father works for NASA. Even though I think this movie is the biggest piece of crap I have ever watched, the guy who created it has some serious balls. First of all did he have to show JFK getting shot? And how dare he use all those biblical quotes. The only good thing about this movie is it sparks debates, which is good b/c in my class we have weekly debates. This movie did nothing to change my mind. I think he and Michael Moore should be working together and make another movie. Michael Moore next movie could be called "A Funny Thing Happened on Spetember 11th" or "A Funny thing happened on the way to the white house".
In an otherwise good review, loleralacartelort7890 says "The truth is that the Americans use a secret aluminum-anti-radiation-alloy. It is not that well-known. And the exact specifications are a secret. And why is it a secret: Well, why should they reveal it back then?? If they where in a space race with the Russians, then it would be VERY dumb to reveal that they had new technology that could shield crew against radiation." This is completely incorrect. There is (and was) no "secret" to radiation protection in Apollo. The design and construction of the Apollo Command Module has long been publicly available. It uses a lightweight "honeycomb" of aluminum and stainless steel. The entire outer surface (except the windows of course) is covered with a heat shield made of a phenolic resin, thicker on the bottom that faces forward during re-entry. These materials are actually *better* at stopping the kind of radiation we have in space (charged particles) than lead, which is better suited to stopping ionizing photons like X-rays and gamma rays.<br /><br />Space radiation is a definite problem for *long term* space flight because of the risk of big solar flares. But it simply wasn't a serious threat to the Apollo astronauts. The Command Module gave them pretty good protection during their brief (1/2 hour or so) passage through the Van Allen belts. They all carried dosimeters so we know exactly how much radiation they each received: no more than 1.5 rem, and usually much less. Of the 24 men who flew to the Moon (12 of whom landed), 18 are still alive. Only two have died from cancer: Alan Shepard (leukemia) and Jack Swigert (bone cancer). The rest died from heart attacks, pancreatitis (Roosa), and a motorcycle accident (Conrad). These are actually pretty good statistics for a group of men now in their late 70s (Shepard would be 86).
Lame, lame, lame!!! A 90-minute cringe-fest that's 89 minutes too long. A setting ripe with atmosphere and possibility (an abandoned convent) is squandered by a stinker of a script filled with clunky, witless dialogue that's straining oh-so-hard to be hip. Mostly it's just embarrassing, and the attempts at gonzo horror fall flat (a sample of this movie's dialogue: after demonstrating her artillery, fast dolly shot to a closeup of Barbeau's vigilante character…she: `any questions?' hyuck hyuck hyuck). Bad acting, idiotic, homophobic jokes and judging from the creature effects, it looks like the director's watched `The Evil Dead' way too many times. <br /><br />I owe my friends big time for renting this turkey and subjecting them to ninety wasted minutes they'll never get back. What a turd.
This film is so much of a rip-off of the masterpeice "demons" and thats the only thing that makes the movie worth watching. The acting is terrible,the action scenes are speeded up,the script is almost painful and budget non existent.<br /><br />If you think this film is good then you havn't seen a real horror film, skip this and get a copy of the movie demons.
This movie is BAD! It's basically an overdone copy of Michael Jackson's Thriller video, only worse! The special effects consist of lots of glow in the dark paint, freaky slapstick fastmoving camera shots and lots of growling. I think the dog was the best actor in the whole movie.
What the hell of a D-Movie was that? Bad acting, bad special effects and the worst dialogues/storyline i ever came across. The only cool thing here was Coolio, who had a nice cameo as a freaked out cop. However, the rest of the film is awful and boring. It's not even so bad, you can laugh about it. Just plain crap. And whoever compares this to the Evil Dead Series might as well compare Tomb Raider to Indiana Jones (well, ok, at least there was Angelina Jolie in Tomb Raider)! 1 out of 10
Saw this 'film' recently and have to say it was the worst attempt at film making I have ever had the misfortune to see. What the Hell was going on with Coolio? Totally unprovoked shooting at people in distress. Totally uninvolving, slow, tedious and detached. Worse than Spawn. long live "Evil dead II".
I just finished a marathon of this series, and it became agonising to watch as it progressed. From the fictionalising of the historical elements, to O'Herlihy's awful accent in later episodes, the show just slumps the further it goes. If you are looking for some low quality production generalised WW2 fluff, then I could recommend season 1, but avoid anything after that, it degenerates into being one step from a soap opera, with increasingly worse story lines and sensibility.<br /><br />The old B&W film is by far the best of any form of entertainment with the Colditz name attached to it, and even that is not what one could hope for.
Many people thought that this is a good movie but I don't agree with them. At the beginning of the movie, a spaceship crushed on earth and some of the aliens escaped from the spaceship, then hey killed some people on the earth, but for no reason. Also, it is in a dark forest, I can't see anything on the screen, I can only hardly hear the sound.<br /><br />After a few days, the predator came to the earth but no one had sent signals to him before that, he should not know what happened on the earth, so there is a contradiction. Finally, the predator found the headmaster of the aliens and killed it for no reason. He was not live on earth, t is none of his business about the things happened here. Lastly, the duration of the movie is only 90 minutes long, the summary is too short and it can't tell the reviewers about the story clearly.<br /><br />In conclusion, I don't think this is a good movie.
Here's an indie film I really wanted to like, but ultimately could not. The lack of script (boldly proclaimed in the main titles) really shows through and kills the picture. The story is a nonsensical mess that isn't worth trying to figure out. I quickly became bored within 10 minutes, then suffered through the remainder of the first 40 minutes--hoping for the best--before hitting the chapter stops to (mercifully) get to the end... even that wasn't worth the extra effort. OZARK SAVAGE clearly tries too hard to be clever, lifting its best sequences from EVIL DEAD 2 and THE MATRIX. As a result, there's very little in OZARK SAVAGE that hasn't been done before, and better. This film would have been much more fun as a 10-20 minute short, but as a feature, it just feels padded and forced. Of course, there's no money in shorts, so I completely understand the financial reasons that I assume motivated it being stretched out to 75+ minutes. Director Matt Steinauer shows great promise, and I wish him luck.
I had read many good things about this adaptation of my favorite novel...so invariably my expectations were crushed. But they were crushed more than should be expected. The movie would have been a decent movie if I had not read the novel beforehand, which perhaps ruined it for me.<br /><br />In any event, for some reason they changed the labor camp at Toulon to a ship full of galley slaves. The scene at Bishop Myriel's was fine. In fact, other than the galleys, things survived up until the dismissal of Fantine. Because we do not want to have bad things happen to a good woman, she does not cut her hair, sell her teeth, or become a prostitute. The worst she does is run into the mayor's office and spit on his face. Bamatabois is entirely eliminated. Because having children out of wedlock should also not be talked about, Tholomyes is Fantine's dead husband, rather than an irresponsible dandy. Valjean is able to fetch Cosette for Fantine before the Champmathieu affair, so they reunite happily, yet another change. Then comes the convent, which is a pretty difficult scene to screw up. Thankfully, it was saved. After this three minutes of accuracy, however, the movie again begins to hurtle towards Classic Novel Butchering.<br /><br />As Cosette and Valjean are riding through the park, they come across Marius giving a speech at a meeting. About prison reform. When he comes to hand out fliers to Valjean and Cosette, he says the one line in the movie that set me screaming at the TV set. "We aren't revolutionaries." I could hear Victor Hugo thrashing in his grave. OF COURSE THEY ARE REVOLUTIONARIES! They want to revolt against the pseudo-monarchy that is in place in favor of another republic, you dumb screenwriters! It's a historical FACT that there was an insurrection against the government in 1832. <br /><br />At one point Cosette goes to give Marius a donation from her father for the reform movement and meets Eponine. Except...not Eponine. Or at least not the Eponine of the book. This Eponine appears to be a well-to-do secretary girl working for the prison reformers (who are working out of the Cafe Universal as opposed to the Cafe Musain). Not to mention the audience is already made to dislike her thanks to her not-period, low-cut, tight-fitting dress and her snooty mannerisms.<br /><br />The prison reformers (Lead by the most poorly cast Enjolras that I have EVER seen) decide that handing out pamphlets isn't good enough anymore. So they're going to build barricades. I don't know about you, but I have never heard of reform movements tearing up the streets and building barricades and attacking government troops. About three hundred people (it was not supposed to be so many) start attacking the National Guard and building a bunch of barricades, etc. Eponine does die for Marius, thankfully. <br /><br />The rest of the movie is sort of accurate, except that Javert's suicide again seems hard to understand thanks to his minuscule screen time and odd character interpretation. The movie ends with Valjean watching Javert jump into the river. This is again inaccurate because Valjean would never have let Javert drown. He saved the man's life earlier, why let him die now? Then there's the whole skipping of Valjean's confession to Marius, his deterioration, and his redemption on his deathbed with Marius and Cosette by his side.<br /><br />Overall, I can blame the script mostly for the problems. While I am glad Enjolras and Eponine were at least present in the film, they were terribly misinterpreted, as was the entire barricade scene. The elimination of Fantine's suffering prevents us from feeling too much pity for her. That Cosette knows Valjean's past from the start messes with the plot a good deal. I did not even see Thenardier, and Mme. Thenardier only had a few seconds of screen time. The same with Gavroche. I did like Frederich March's interpretation of Valjean a lot, however, which was one of the redeeming features of the movie. On the other hand, Charles Laughton, for all his great acting in other movies, seems to have missed the mark with Javert. The lip tremble, the unnecessary shouting, and his acting in general all just felt very wrong. He also, like many Javerts I have seen, did not appear at all menacing, something required of the character.<br /><br />Again, this film would probably feel much better if I had not read the book. I would not recommend it to book purists, though. I would also say that the movie would have been a good adaptation for the time had not the infamously accurate French version come out the year before.
Bill (Buddy Rogers) is sent to New York by his uncle (Richard Tucker) to experience life before he inherits $25million. His uncle has paid 3 women Jacqui (Kathryn Crawford), Maxine (Josephine Dunn) and Pauline (Carole Lombard) to chaperone him and ensure that he does not fall foul of gold-diggers. One such lady Cleo (Geneva Mitchell) turns up on the scene to the disapprovement of the women. We follow the tale as the girls are offered more money to appear in a show instead of their escorting role that they have agreed to carry out for the 3 months that Bill is in New York, while Bill meets with Cleo and another woman. At the end, love is in the air for Bill and one other .............<br /><br />The picture quality and sound quality are poor in this film. The story is interspersed with musical numbers but the songs are bad and Kathryn Crawford has a terrible voice. Rogers isn't that good either. He's pleasant enough but only really comes to life when playing the drums or trombone. There is a very irritating character who plays a cab driver (Roscoe Karns) and the film is just dull.
A friend of mine lent this video to me and I was fairly excited to watch it, but after ten minutes of James Hetfield's slow pitched vocals and Lars banging on his drum set in what appeared to be slow motion I began to think, `Why am I watching this?' That question will be coursing through your minds in 5 – 10 minutes after you hit Play. I gave the tape back the same day, as you would suspect, not worth buying or watching!<br /><br />Just my opinion!<br /><br />
With a story and screenplay that seems to have been written by a high schooler, 'The Art of Seduction' fails to deliver the romantic, sophisticated experience it tries to bill itself as. The two main characters have the potential to be interesting - both male and female lead are "swinging singles (or in the female lead's case, engaged)", but 'The Art of Seduction' doesn't even try. Shirking from a frank examination of these two characters' personalities, 'The Art of Seduction' eschews anything of substance for a basis of thin, lean stereotype. <br /><br />'The Art of Seduction' is insulting - insulting to its characters, insulting to men and women, and insulting to its audiences' expectations. It takes the awful beautiful people we all know and plays out their painful interactions while expecting us to idolize them. Ji-wan is an immature, spoiled, manipulative bitch. The viewer is expected to like and forgive her flaws because she's pretty. Min-jun, well, he's exactly the same. Neither are nice people. The "humour" in this film primarily revolve around Ji-wan and Min-jun's outlandish attempts at outdoing each other in the honourable art of lying and manipulation. No character development occurs, and we never learn why Ji-wan and Min-jun are like this. We are simply expected to take them as they are, and not ask questions - they're cute!, and that's all that matters. The copious references to the celebrity of the main actors in azn cinema scenester's reviews may tip you off to 'Art of Seduction's shallowness. <br /><br />If you're still in high school, you liked Grease, or you are a yellow fever victim, you may like this movie.<br /><br />Despite its "Romance" tag, this is not a very good date movie.
This is a film that makes you say 2 things... 1) I can do much better than this( acting,writing and directing) 2) this is so bad I must leave a review and warn others...<br /><br />Looks as if it was shot with my flip video. I have too believe my friend who told me to watch this has a vendetta against me. I have noticed that there are some positive posts for this home video; Must have been left by crew members or people with something to do with this film. One of the worst 3 movies I have ever seen. hopefully the writers and director leave the business. not even talented enough to do commercials!!!!!
Let's see where to begin... bad acting; I'm not sure if I'd even call it that, as it more along the lines of a no-effort script read. The actors didn't even seem to be into their parts and seemed quite lifeless and listless. Sure there was a scene or two with nudity, but that couldn't save this movie from it's lifeless characters.<br /><br />To call the main character a rapper is an insult to the people who actually do. The lyrics had no rhythm or flow and seemed more along the lines of senseless rants.<br /><br />Budget? Did this movie even have a budget? It seemed like they used less money than I've seen in a home-shot YouTube video. Bad lighting, props, poor sound post production. Bad special effects, if you want to go so far as to call them that. Story could have been good if the people actually seemed interested in making it so, but there was no life to this flick; I don't care who directed it.<br /><br />I've seen some really bad flicks in the past year and this one is definitely at the very bottom. Don't waste your time or you'll be wishing you listened to this unbiased review. Check the ratings, you'll see the 1's are rapidly outpacing the fluffed 10's with hardly anything in between. Wish I would have looked a little closer before wasting my time. What a suck-fest!
I love the munna bhai MBBS but "Lagge raho..." SUX really SUX. I have never seen such a boring movie in my whole life. And these high ratings really astonished me that wat happened to the taste of Indian cinema viewers ?? <br /><br />**MAY BE SPOILER** <br /><br />An educated girl needs an advice from a Bhai, people discussing their personal prob. on phones come on man from which part of the world u r ??? I agree that films should be fictitious but these things are really indigestible.<br /><br />2 out of 10. (2 stars is for 15 mins good starting)
The reason I intended to give this movie a chance to take 2 hours of my life (actually it was only 35 minutes) was my wish to try to understand and hopefully appreciate Indian cinema. All I have ever seen were few older movies of S.Ray.<br /><br />Browsing through IMDb I came across this one and after seeing rating of 8.7 I concluded this must be the one which will open the doors of unknown and bring artistic enjoyment. Oh my how wrong I was! The only logical explanation for this rating of 8.7 is that most of 970 people who voted are Indian and their only venture outside Bolliwood production were Adam Sandler movies.<br /><br />With this rating this movie would be ranked on 9th place on IMDb List of 250 best movies above Citizen Cane, Goodfellas of Psycho! I am really not in a mood to review and criticize because there is simply nothing that I find worth remembering from this painful experience. My only hope is that there is a lot of Hindu who like me find this movie as is -- plain stupid, with abundance of kitsch and cheesy music.
LAGE RAHO MUNNABHAI is really a disappointing movie . I have seen the first part of MUNNABHAI and it was really good but this one really make u bore n disappoint u.......................................<br /><br />This movie really waste yours time and money . I went with my friend to this movie on the first day of its release and v both get bore in cinema-hall......................................................<br /><br />Role of CIRCUIT was very small n useless n this movie . I think SANJAY-DUTT cut down the role of ARSHAD VARSHI........................<br /><br />Character of the movie is also not well define like the previous one .this movie show u the result of OVER-CONFIDENCE .........<br /><br />The ideas of MAHATMA is also not define and confusing..................<br /><br />A REALLY VERY BIG DISAPPOINTMENT
I watched like 8 or 9 Herzog movies and none of them had any impact on me.<br /><br />I watched several documentaries about him. He is obviously an intelligent man, with great knowledge about films and passion for making them, but does this makes him a good director. Definitely NO! A complete anti-talent. He can make a good documentary because of previously mentioned traits, but a film with actors – never!<br /><br />He can't direct nor write. His screenplays are full of badly thought out situations, and many situations/dialogues in his movies are so childishly and badly done that they cannot be hidden behind the word "art" in any sense. No way. Not to mention the unskillful direction, so amateurish-like. To say that he wants to direct like that and write crap like that is a lie.<br /><br />Like the scene when Scheitz gets arrested and Storszek hides in the back of the store. WHO IS HE KIDDING?<br /><br />He is a cheater; he knows what fake intellectuals and critics want. He knows what elements he needs to put in the script to get your their attention and empty praising. Never mind the rest of the script and sloppy direction.<br /><br />Just look at Julio Medem. If Herzog can make a movie like Medem can, then I might re-check his old movies and try to find talent in them.
Maybe I'm missing something because I've read more positive things about The Man Who Cheated Himself than I have read bad reviews - and I just don't get it. I like my noirs to have a little style to them with characters that speak, look, and act like Humphrey Bogart in The Big Sleep or Gene Tierney in Laura. None of the characters in this movie have that style or presence or whatever you want to call it. Take the lead actor, Lee J. Cobb. His rumpled, rolled-out-of-bed look is about as far from the dashing, smooth-talking noir archetype as you'll find. Or, take Jane Wyatt as the femme fatale as another example. This is one of the worst cases of miscasting I've seen in a while. She's just not convincing in the role.<br /><br />As for the plot, it's tired and lacks any real surprises or anything new for the genre. I could have predicted the outcome of The Man Who Cheated Himself after about five minutes. And that final cat-and-mouse chase scene is plain old dull. Ten to fifteen minutes of nothing happening really ruined any pacing the movie may have had going for it.
This was a disappointing film for me. It came to me via a boxed set entitled, "Classic Film Noir," which was a gift from someone who knows I typically enjoy films done in that style (I insist that noir is a style, not a genre). I do not think it is a noir film at all. There seems to be a tendency these days to label and market every black and white B movie made from 1947 to 1955 as noir, and the label does not always fit. There is a persecuted male protagonist, Ed Cullen (Lee J. Cobb), and most of the film's action takes place indoors. Those are just about the only noir elements that I could see. There is no pervasive paranoia, or any real reason why one should sympathize with Ed Cullen. Jane Wyatt was overdressed and unconvincing as a femme fatale. I do not want to spoil this film for potential viewers. However, I would be interested in hearing what other connoisseurs of film noir have to say about it.
This is another of the many B minus movies tagged as film noir in the hope of generating some interest in something that is devoid of it. All aspects of the film - script, acting, direction - are mediocre. The acting by the three leads is wooden. I guess John Dall was expected to go places in the movie business but then someone realised he had little talent and therefore ended up doing TV work. Lee J Cobb who is usually terrific cannot rise above the poor script and poor direction. Jane Wyatt is supposed to be a femme fatale but comes nowhere near convincing the viewers. The movie does have two of the strangest looking cars that I have ever seen, the one in which John Dall goes after Lee J Cobb is particularly strange. The DVD transfer is typical Alpha.
I didn't know if i would laugh or cry seeing this. Only addicted fans of danni filth could have a taste for this. This is supposed to be a horror movie but there's only filth in this. The most cool scene is the car accident, with real special effects from the best of hollywood. Avoid this movie at all costs. See this only for studies of how bad can be a movie................
Check out the film's website, more time was put into making that than in the writing of the script for this movie. It couldn't be more off in it's boasting. Original story? Original? They must have found the script tucked away between the old testament, or face legal repercussion for that bit of horn-tooting. High-end special effects? Come on, I could do better with an Atari 7600 and a jug of earwax. Stylish cinematography? Oh yes, the America's funniest home video look is still a classic. I'm sure they had little money available for this title, so of course the sf aren't really that good, or a bit bad now and then, or just plain hilarious, but it's the story that makes this film a waste of time and money. 4 stories rolled into one and all of them brainless bits of seen-befores and done-already's.
Now look, I won't lie to you, but I only got this movie for $3.99 from a friend because it had Danni Filth, the lead singer of the ever popular death metal band "Cradle Of Filth" in it. I expected of course violence and gore at its finest, as that is what Mr Filth can be portrayed as, amongst a plot line.<br /><br />But dear god, I was oh so wrong. This movie seriously bites, big time. Being a low budget film (haha, wait, make that ZERO BUDGET), this obviously lacks the beautiful Howard Stern orchestra musical scores and the Spielberg special effects. Nope, it's all one camera, bad angles, and bad blood scenes.<br /><br />Take for example when our star and violent fiend, Mr Filth, violently kills a mugger. A grab at the throat, and blood spits out, but oh my, it looks like there's a juice packet filled with fake blood in the man's shirt.<br /><br />To you Cradle Of Filth fans: You'll hear two songs throughout the movie, but with the camera angles and shoddy filming, they drag the overall pleasure of the song DOWN.<br /><br />My final comment: Steer well away from it. It's blood, gore, breasts, and hey, even a shoddy story to go with it. So if you like appalling violence, near no voices (yes, there's hardly any words in this movie), then by all means, buy it. But if shoddy movies isn't your thing, then avoid it. Don't waste your money.
This sure is one comedy I'm not likely to forget for a while.<br /><br />Wouldn't normally bother to comment on this movie: it's so minor that no one would watch it anyway, but as it happens, it's kind of popular in p2p sharing networks such as Kazaa, and so this saaad production needs to be exposed for what it is.<br /><br />So what is it then? Well, of course it's not really a comedy; instead, it's intended as a horror flick -- "intended" very much being the key word here. The script is a totally incoherent and unbalanced mess, the special effects are only special in that they're especially pathetic, and as for the acting, well, let's just say that if this had been my graduating play at primary school, my teachers would have burst out crying at our talent.<br /><br />Of course I realise that this is a very low budget film and that in those cases one should lower one's expectations, certainly as far as things like special effects are concerned. Also, even though I'm a big fan of the horror genre, I'm aware that these movies are only rarely the places to look for interesting scripts and top notch acting.<br /><br />But still.<br /><br />B-movies often have some redeeming features to make up for the lack of funding, such as humour. The only laughs in Cradle to Fear lie in the ridiculous performances. If you can find the humour in that--and I could for the first 20 minutes or so, gradually dozing off after that--then that's going to be the only thing the movie has to offer. Oh, that and two or three pairs of breasts.<br /><br />Woohoo, how exciting.<br /><br />As for the story, it's not even that it doesn't try to convey anything: the victims either use drugs and/or are involved in serious crime. The lesson: Watch out, naughty boys and girls, because one day you'll be made to pay for what you've done.<br /><br />I rest my case.<br /><br />So, all in all, a little bit of sex, a fair amount of drugs, but absolutely zero rock 'n roll.<br /><br />I rate this one 1 out of 10, but would go to 0 if I could. Or perhaps I wouldn't: it deserves a 1 for spelling the actors' names correctly in the titles. I mean, that's something, innit?
Cradle of Fear<br /><br />This isn't a movie where intricate delicate little narrative nuances occupy our attention. This is not a film where the special effects are supposed to leave us slack-jacked uttering that sense of whoa. What it is though is a slice of lo-fi goth horror which leaves little to the imagination, created in the eyes of the director, Alex Chandon, as "a throwback to sleazy '70s and '80s horror".<br /><br />This is a very visceral experience for 2 hours, where four plot lines are connected through lots of watery blood, reams of dismembered body parts and innards, tied by an intestinal thread of revenge. <br /><br />The purveyor of such horrific violence is Dani Filth, lead-singer of the metal band Cradle of Filth, executing a role he was destined to play. <br /><br />As other's have said, there is nothing new about wanting to carryout occultist revenge. In this particular context a convicted sexual predator and murderer, Kemper, the father of our devilish avenging-angel, compels his son to exact retribution on those who are some how connected to convicting him to purgatory within an insane asylum.<br /><br />What this provides for the Chandon, who should be congratulated on also penning and editing this piece, is the opportunity to let his sick mind run free. He seems to take delight in the idea of splattering blood into the orifices of those on screen, and into every nook and cranny that can be reached. We are also treated to close-ups of skull's being crushed, demonic rape, and other assorted imagery to engage those who relish getting up close and personal to their horror. And for some of those who closely follow these type of films, there is the odd sequence which may have you thinking, "Did I just see what I thought I did", because of course Pretty Woman this 'aint. It reminds me of some of the gore-fests created out of Italian horror some 20 to 30 years ago, and a number of other works where disgusting images have left their mark but not the context in which they were viewed.<br /><br />Story 4 of the set is particularly intriguing where the idea of ones obsession can ultimately lead to death in the pursuit of internet violence through the "Sick Room", where the user is in control of how a life can be snuffed out. Further acknowledgements should also go out to a pounding soundtrack that allows Filth to exercise his daytime talent, and an effective use of drum and bass, often overlooked in film-making as a viable form of supporting visuals. Using the city of London as a backdrop with real people as opposed to movie stand-ins also adds support to the commando feel of the film. OK, classic it may not be, but blood, guts, intestines, occult and demons in a slightly perverse unproblematic way it is.
...and you can look at that statement in different ways, by the way. First of all, it's a mess because of all the gruesome and extremely violent scenes. Your wildest imagination doesn't even come close to some of the explicitly shown scenes here. Entire parts of this movie are just plain sick, disgusting, offensive, brutal and they bring you close to puking your guts out. Now, I love horror movies and I am very 'pro-violence', but I do think that it has to lead somewhere !! Is that too much to ask ? Cradle of Fear is just a series of utterly sick and twisted thoughts. The "movie" contains out of four separate chapters connected by a wraparound story. This results in endless showing of torture, murder and sickness only to find out that the victims have something in common. Not very informative, if you ask me. And yet - it has to be said - the basic plot idea surely HAS potential. It's about a cannibalistic hypnotist who made a deal with the devil himself to avenge himself and cause misery and death to everyone who was involved in his trial. Personally, I think that is an interesting topic, so they should have focused on that a little more instead of wanting to create the most disgusting movie ever.<br /><br />Secondly, the whole production of this movie was a mess. They didn't have much of a budget and they spent it all on fake blood and guts...Tons of it !! The acting performances are a joke and some of the worst I've ever seen. Any other special effects besides the make-up looks very amateurish ( Like that attempt to a realistic car crash, for example ). There's no tension or atmosphere to detect anywhere...not even an attempt to build up one.<br /><br />Cradle of Fear is a failure and a missed opportunity to say the least. With the presence of death-metal icon Danni Filth ( from the band Cradle of filth..get the link ? ) this movie is obviously only meant for the eyes of twisted teenagers who try to be controversial. Troubled girls and boys who take pleasure in worrying their parents by watching crap like this. And then people keep complaining that the amount of suicides and juvenile delinquency is increasing...Bah. I can imagine that this movie can cause a lot of damage when you're easily influenced or dispose of an unstable mind. For every self-respecting horror fan, this movie is an insult.
This film is a very funny film. The violence is bad, the acting is...Well Dani, stick to singing or screaming or whatever the hell it is you usually do. The random chicks wearing hardly anything is just to catch sexually-frustrated goth lads in. Personally, i think this movie really does suck. The story and characters COULD be very good, if say the directing, the actors and other little nibby things were made better. But the film is just bad, the only reason why people like this piece of crap is because it has Danni in it. This film is possibly the worst B-rate film ever. And, believe me that's hard to achieve, especially when you're competing with Def by Temptation and over crappy excuses for "serious" horror movies. I'm not a CoF fan, and so i just see this as another rubbish movie...A really bad one. If Dani made this as a comedy then, good going him. Very well done. Over than that though, i rate it low, for it's crappiness. Watch it when you're in a happy, happy, joy, joy mode so you can laugh at everything or if you're high on multiple different types of drugs.
This movie was made for fans of Dani (and Cradle of Filth). I am not one of them. I think he's just an imitator riding the black metal bandwagon (still, I'm generally not a fan of black metal). But as I was carrying this DVD case to pay for it, I convinced myself, that the less authentic something is the more it tries to be convincing. Thus I assumed I'm in for a roller-coaster ride of rubber gore and do-it-yourself splatter with a sinister background. Now, that is what I do like.<br /><br />I got home and popped it in. My patience lasted 15 minutes. AWFUL camera work and DISGUSTING quality. And that was then (2002), that it looked like it was shot using a Hi8 camcorder. I left it on the shelf. Maybe a nice evening with beer and Bmovies would create a nice setting for this... picture. <br /><br />After a couple of months I got back to it (in mentioned surroundings) and saw half. Then not only the mentioned aspects annoyed me. My disliking evolved. I noticed how funny Dani (1,65m; 5'5" height) looked in his platform shoes ripping a head of a mugger apart. (Yes, ripping. His head apparently had no skull.) I also found that this movie may have no sense. Still, I haven't finished it yet, so I wasn't positive.<br /><br />After a couple more tries I finally managed to finish this flick - a couple of months back... (Yes, it took me 5,5 years.) So - Dani in fact was funny as Satan/Manson/super-evil-man's HELPER and the movie DID NOT make sense. See our bad person employs Dani to do bad things. He delivers. Why? Well I guess he's just very, very bad. As a matter of fact they both are and that is pretty much it.<br /><br />We have a couple of short stories joined by Dani's character. My favourite was about a guy, who STEALS SOMEONE'S LEG, because he wants to use it as his own. Yeah, exactly. <br /><br />The acting's ROCK BOTTOM. The CGI is the worst ever. I mean Stinger beats it (and, boy, is Stinger's CGI baaaaad). The story has no sense. And the quality is... Let's just say it is not satisfying. The only thing that might keep you watching is the unmotivated violence and gore. Blood and guts are made pretty well. Why, you can actually see that the movie originated there and then moved on. (Example - Dani 'The Man' Filth takes a stuffed cat - fake as can be - and guts it... and then eats what fell out. Why? We never know. We do know, however, that this cat must have been on illegal substances, as his heart is almost half his size.)<br /><br />You might think, after my comment that this movie is so bad it's good, but it's just bad. Cradle of Filth fans can add 3 points. I added one for gore.
This movie has a few things going for it right off the bat. Having Dani Filth as a lead actor is automatically going to make some people like this movie. Admittedly, I love Cradle of Filth and listened to the soundtrack to this movie long before I watched it. Dani Filth is a very recognizable character and makes for a great lead. The independent filming style of the movie is great for the creepy factor. There are some GORGEOUS actresses in this movie. For being low budget, the special effects weren't bad either. The ways that people died were very creative and nightmarish.<br /><br />Now on to the cons. There is VERY little talking throughout this whole movie, thus making for very little as far as character development. It's hard to fear for the lives of limp, static characters. When there was a little talking, the F bomb was abundant, popping up in random places. Yes, I understand people swear but it seems like a preteen boy scripted this and thought himself cool for including all the language. The storyline, what I could make out of it, was pretty good although many parts are left dangling and the lack of conversation leaves one often wondering what's happening.<br /><br />In the end, Cradle of Fear is like a porno for people who love sex and violence, but like a porno trying to pull of a storyline, it just doesn't work too well. Rent it though, if you're a morbid person looking to sate your blood and flesh appetite.
Normally when I go on a raid of the local Hollywood Video I head towards the B-Horror movies. To me the basic principals behind a B-Horror movie is it's camp value, Heavy Gore, Lots of needless Nudity, and special effects that anyone can put together with a pack of corn syrup and latex. I rented Cradle of Fear strictly because I've been a fan of the band since they released they're first Demo in 1995. The movie started off on an interesting note and then when I saw Dani Filth stomp on an extremely obvious latex mask I LAUGHED. When I saw the Lesbian sex scene for the sake of a Lesbian sex scene I LAUGHED EVEN HARDER. I spent pretty much the entire movie laughing and when I wasn't laughing I was shaking my head thinking about how a multi-million dollar rock star would want to make a movie that seemed like it was on a budget of multi-hundreds of dollars. The whole point of this movie to me seemed to attract the "Hardcore Goth kids who think death, destruction, sex, blood, and Satan are the greatest things invented since Lava Lamps. That was really it. To me this movie seemed like 80.5% of the things that happened in this movie just happened for the sake of being Satanic. This movie had a lot of potential and really could have been a real good movie but in the end this "Movie" really is just an extended Cradle of Filth Video.
By all accounts, this could have been an interesting film. Featuring a score by the mighty Cradle Of Filth, starring their frontman Dani and being hyped up as "the future of British horror", I expected Alex Chandon's gore fest to live up to the hype.<br /><br />I was wrong.<br /><br />Everything about this film is either cliche or inept. The short story anthology setup was done to death (and much better) in the seventies and eighties. Admittedly, the idea of 'the sick room' did send a chill down my spine, but as with most of the film was let down by bad script writing and acting.<br /><br />Chandon cannot write dialogue. Every sentence with the main police investigator is brim full with swearing and insolence (the typical 'cop on the edge' formula. funny, i'm sure i've seen that somewhere else before...) No Chandon, you are not Tarantino. Or Scorsese. It sounds BAD. Add ludicrously OTT acting with very dodgy casting (don't get me wrong, Dani Filth is a great singer and musician, but actor he ain't) and the performances are beyond laughable to the vein burstingly cringing. Give me Bruce Campbell any day.<br /><br />The visual effects are on the whole poor, with some atrocious CGI, awful gore effects (for goodness sakes, Peter Jackson did better and that was over ten years ago with less budget) and editing filters that shriek OVER-USE! As for the often mistimed use of Cradle Of Filth's score... man, they should sue.<br /><br />The fundamental problem with Cradle Of Fear is that it takes itself seriously, trying to build atmosphere and incite terror and repulsion within its audience. too many good horror films made in the seventies and eighties do this so much better with far superior gore effects (eg: maniac, zombie flesh eaters, the beyond, suspiria etc), rendering Cradle of Fear, in my mind, second-rate and obsolete.<br /><br />I hope Chandon can learn from this hideous ghoul of a film and go on to make some quality horror that actually scares.<br /><br />Better luck next time.
The directors cut version, which was the one I saw, was very long for this type of movie. Almost two hours is way too long. If you have the choice, definitely go for the non-directors cut.<br /><br />The main plot is almost not taken up at all, the movie consists to the main part of several murder scenes, which are connected but the feeling is that they're only shown in order to fill the movie with splatterish violence. The connection is not revealed until the latter part and the lack of context bored me out long before I was there.<br /><br />As a horror movie it doesn't work. You never get the required feel for the characters due to mediocre acting and the general disposition (character is presented, 15 minutes later character is dead). This pictures strong side lies in the splatter part.
Not since Caligula have I considered turning off the movie half-way through....but then with this one, I was only 15 minutes in when I considered. Unfortunately, I did make it all the way through. Make sure that you do not.<br /><br />It's not that Cradle of Fear is shocking or gory or scary or frightening or sexual. It's that it's not any of those things, yet it so desperately wants to be all of them. Instead, it's boring, trite, ordinary, predictable, and unexceptionally poorly executed (shot on video, high school special effects, no sense of even basic visual storytelling, dialog barely audible...not that it's worth hearing, though).<br /><br />This movie is proof for the argument that even the straight-to-video distributors need to draw a line in the sand somewhere.
It SURPRISINGLY had a plot! ;) I've seen movies with less plot (I don't wanna mention Asian movies but...). I thought the camera wasn't bad at all for a cheap movie like this, and also the atmosphere wasn't too bad. There is no real reason for most things people do and the way they react to what happens. Although I do think that about a lot of movies, in this case it was horrible, of course.<br /><br />It ripped off some movies SO badly just for single scenes. The acting was bad but I've seen worse. The movie was bad but I've seen worse. Watching this film is an experience between boredom, laughing fits, death wish, sadism, horniness and entertainment on a low level.<br /><br />So if you like gory movies with stupid plots this one is the right film for you.<br /><br />I gave it 3/10, because it CAN be entertaining if you don't expect to see a good movie and you're in the right mood.
Sadly,this is not 'the best British gore film since hellraiser', though the DVD cover claims this, which is what tricked me into buying it. It is, however, an homage to many of the great horrors of old, films from most notably the Amicus stable.<br /><br />Cradle... is shot on mini dv, which though we all know has more of a TV feel than a movie, can be done so much better. Every scene, set and shot looks like it has been lit in exactly the same way (standard key, fill, rear setup), which only enhances the cheap look of the finished piece. The gore content is, quite frankly, laughable. From the opening shots where we see a man's obviously foam rubber head torn apart, through to tacky cheap prop hammers, the creature effects and the terrible cg, there was nothing in there that impressed me at all.<br /><br />The acting is abominable, from the near-comatose detective to the brummie dwarf, via Dani Filth, the least convincing horror movie bad guy I have ever witnessed. Each of the substories is more formulaic than the last, and the sets get worse and worse as the movie runs. Look out for the 'Mental Asylum' - a Georgian semi detached house with a bad cg sign outside, and the most bizarre (and not in a good way) padded cell I have seen.<br /><br />It took me four attempts to get to the end of the film without my attention wandering (nay, running) away at any available opportunity. I actually found myself dusting at one point while the film was running.<br /><br />It does, however, mark one of the last known appearances of Emily Booth's breasts, which I guess is one (um, two) things it has going for it. Once that's out of the way though, it is all downhill.<br /><br />I've heard people say good things about Alex Chandon, and I would love to believe them, but on this evidence I'm not likely to. If you want a decent homage to Amicus, avoid this and go for the League of Gentlemen Christmas special instead.<br /><br />Currently battling it out with Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows for the title of worst film I have ever seen.
This may have been made for the hell of it, but it was most probably the worst film i've seen in years, The best thing about the entire DVD would be the case!!! I'm surprised that people took the time to make something so rubbish and yet spend money on it too, I'm glad i only rented. I suppose the real fans of this film would probably have to be sadistic and Gothic to care about it without taking in any CGI or any other effects for that matter, I hope Alex Chandon learnt a lesson about lighting and SFX to make a better film in the future, that is, if he is still in work.<br /><br />Notes to buyers this is extremely disappointing, DON'T BUY IT!!!!!
Noting the cast, I recently watched this movie on TCM, hoping for an under-appreciated gem, as I regard many films from the 30's. This is no gem - not even semi-precious. The anachronistic clothing and 1930's Rolls Royce limo hit you immediately. The casting is strange, also. But mostly, there are too many dumb and unnecessary plot devices. This film has lots of good ingredients and a basic plot that holds promise, but the components aren't mixed according to the right recipe. It simply doesn't come together like it should. And that's a shame. WIth a few rather obvious, but minor alterations, this might have been a very good movie.<br /><br />The film is about an American showgirl (Jean Harlow) seeking a rich British husband - preferably from the nobility. She meets Franchot Tone and his buddy, who are on a lark in a Rolls Royce owned by his buddy's employer. Harlow mistakenly assumes Tone is the Lord who owns the Rolls, and she sets her sights on him. This early part of the film is a light comedy of no real distinction. <br /><br />However, Tone unwittingly uncovers the fact that his employer is actually a German 5th columnist on the eve of WWI, and that is when the movie changes tone altogether and begins to fall apart. Tone and Harlow are married, but just as the honeymoon begins, he is gunned down by a Mata Hari-type (Benita Hume), and Harlow flees the scene, with a bystander accusing her of Tone's murder. (In fact, Tone recovers from the wounds.)<br /><br />Harlow flees to France, where she falls in love again - this time with a wealthy French cad (Cary Grant). Tone, now in the army, and Harlow are unexpectedly brought back together in Grant's hospital room where he is in rehab from a plane crash. In the following scene, Tone accuses Harlow of abandoning him because she is essentially a gold-digger. Harlow never explains about the witness' accusing her of murder and her panic! That is one of those unreal, movie-plot-device break-downs in the story.<br /><br />Then Tone is also brought back into contact with the woman (Hume) who shot him. She is on hand to watch her paramour, Grant, test the new plane that Tone has delivered to him from England. Incredibly, both Hume and Tone dimly recognize each other, but simply can't place where from! Okay, so Tone was shot and almost died; perhaps his memory is a little out of whack. But how many men did Hume shoot that she would forget one of her marks? (She does not seem to be faking the memory lapse.)<br /><br />This is inexplicable and unnecessary. Hume should have absolutely recognized him, but played it coy when she realized that Tone wasn't able to place her. That would have been a much better treatment of that issue.<br /><br />The finale also is very unsatisfying. The movie, as made, has Tone and Harlow conspiring to preserve the good reputation of the cad, Grant, leading to his fraudulent burial as a hero. Then Harlow and Tone just walk away. It is noble to preserve the French public's perception of their national war hero, but very unsatisfying as a love story!<br /><br />What the film begs for is this: Harlow explains that she fled in a panic in the face of accusations of murder; Tone forgives her and quietly rekindles his love for her; he then carries a torch for her, even while helping her to rig the crash site to preserve Grant's reputation. Meanwhile, Harlow finally recognizes Grant for the cad he is. Then having seen Tone for the brave and noble man he is, Harlow rekindles feelings for him, too. At film's end, the two of them become reconciled even as they work together to rig the appearance of Grant's death. After Grant's hero's burial, we see them embrace and kiss at the fade-out. That would have made a nice little movie. For Cary Grant fans, it would have been even better had Tone played the French cad who is killed and Grant the long-suffering first husband, reunited with Harlow.<br /><br />It is incomprehensible that Franchot Tone is cast as the Irishman living in England, while Cary Grant is cast as the Frenchman. This movie would have been much better had they reversed roles. That also would have been more conducive to the film that should have been...
It was everything this isn't: it had pace, pop, and actors who weren't afraid to chew the scenery. It also had a decent script. This one had me scratching my head. If Farrah isn't really "serious" about a career, why does she have a manager (and why is he wasting his time)? If Kate and Barney are "artists," why do they sign up for The Mother of All Jiggle Shows (like the "Brady Bunch" movie where Robert Reed wants to do Shakespeare, only to find himself on BB)? They weren't industry names, but they weren't exactly starving, either. And while they got the history right (the poster was released before Farrah got the show), Silverman rejecting pitches for "Funniest Home Videos" and "American Idol" and Spelling promising his baby girl Tori someday he'll create a show for her obviously did not happen.<br /><br />What bothered me was how Spelling's role is distorted. He's shown as the show-runner and creator when he was neither. And how he "comes up" with the "idea" for CA was is laughable!<br /><br />How were Spelling and Goldberg allowed to enforce Farrah's oral contract when the others were signed? And why didn't Farrah or Bernstein tell them she was leaving not because she discovered her Inner Diva, but because Majors wanted her to? This is why, when it tries tries to created conflict and tension by setting Farrah up as the "bad girl" (like Suzanne Somers), it fails because the groundwork was never laid -- that was where the "Three's Company" pic delivered.
I happened to love the show growing up, along with millions of others. So I tuned in to this movie, thinking if not good it might be at least a bit dazzling and fun.<br /><br />WRONG! I just have to wonder, at the end of this, was Charlie's Angels really that boring? I don't seem to remember it as such. But this movie, as bad as movies of this type can be, bore little resemblance to the excitement of that time period and show. I did see it all, in spite of the negatives, it wasn't unwatchable. But it was very bland, which I do not fault the performers for at all, particularly the women who played the angels as they really did look like them. The movie just wasn't that interesting. It tried to make each angel a "character". (One angel is to feisty, one is the "good girl", one is to into her husband....),all characters were portrayed with one major characteristic defining them and little depth beyond stereotypes. The excitement of the show was missing and the dialog was....dialog. That's pretty much it.<br /><br />Not awful. Not the worst of TV movies. But missable.
This was shown on the biography channel and was about as informative as a children's comic! I gave it 2 out of 10 for it's attention to detail because for the most part it had a 70s feel to it and the three ladies that played the original three angels looked like them so the make-up was good.<br /><br />This was supposed to be a biography on the biography channel but it was void of everything that is normally / usually seen in one of their biographies. No interviews with surviving cast members, crew members, production team members etc., or their friends, families, and any biographers of those people. In fact I know just as much now about the programme as I did before I watched this film that was based on the (supposedly) biographical book. As for actually learning something that no-one knew about the program and wasn't common knowledge well that never happened.
The minute you give an 'art film' 1/10, you have people baying for your ignorant, half-ass-ed, artistically retarded blood. I won't try and justify how I am not an aesthetically challenged retard by listing out all the 'art house cinema' I have liked or mentioning how I gave some unknown 'cult classic' a 10/10. All I ask is that someone explain to me the point, purpose and message of this film.<br /><br />Here is how I would summarize the film: Opening montage of three unrelated urban legends depicting almost absurd levels of co-incidence. This followed by (in a nutshell, to save you 3 hours of pain) the following - A children's game show host dying of lung cancer tries to patch things up with his coke-addicted daughter, who he may or may not have raped when she was a child, and who is being courted by a bumbling police officer with relationship issues, while the game-show's star contestant decides that he doesn't want to be a failed child prodigy, a fate which has befallen another one of the game show contestants from the 60s, who we see is now a jobless homosexual in love with a bartender with braces and in need of money for 'corrective oral surgery', while the game show's producer, himself dying of lung cancer, asks his male nurse to help him patch up with the son he abandoned years ago, and who has subsequently become a womanizing self help guru, even as Mr. Producer's second wife suffers from guilt pangs over having cheated a dying man; and oh, eventually, it rains frogs (You read correctly). And I am sparing you the unbelievably long and pointless, literally rambling monologues each character seems to come up with on the fly for no rhyme or reason other than, possibly, to make sure the film crosses 3 hours and becomes classified as a 'modern epic'. <br /><br />You are probably thinking that I could have done a better job of summarizing the movie (and in turn of not confusing you) if I had written the damn thing a little more coherently, maybe in a few sentences instead of just one... Well, now you know how I feel.
I can't tell you how angry I was after seing this movie. The characters are not the slightest bit interesting, and the plot is non-existant. So after waiting to see how the lives of these characters affected each other, hoping that the past 2 and a half hours were leading up to some significant finish, what do we get??? A storm of frogs. Now yes, I understand the references to the bible (Exodus) and the underlying theme, but first of all, it was presented with absolutely no resolution, and second of all it would be lost to anyone who has not read the bible (a significant portion of the population) or Charles Fort (a still larger portion). As a somewhat well read person, I thought this movie was a self indulgent poor imitation of a seinfeld episode.<br /><br />Don't waste your time. It would be better spent reading...<br /><br />...well anything to be honest
"Magnolia" is a preposterous, bewildering acting showcase that adds up to very little. Like "Eyes Wide Shut," "Magnolia" is an aimless series of episodes without any concern for coherence. The camera swoops through hallways and corridors, catching glimpses of sad characters. Where is the reason to care for these people? The common theme seems to be people who yell a lot, who can't care for others (except for John C. Reilly's and Philip Seymour Hoffman's characters), and are self-destructive jerks who are either falling to pieces or dying. I was reminded of how much I disliked "Shine" because of the irredeemable monster of a father played by Armin Mueller-Stahl. There are so many unattractive, unappealing characters here, why would we want to spend time with them?<br /><br />Having said that, there is nothing held back about "Magnolia." Paul Thomas Anderson's ideas are splashed onto his canvas with abandon. There are two ideas in particular that bomb. Both happen in the last hour of this 188-minute film. One has the camera flipping from one character to another while each one sings one of Aimee Mann's coffeehouse folk songs. Sweet, but ineffectual since we can't see what strings them all together. The other idea I refer to cannot be revealed other than to say it is completely unexpected and completely ridiculous.<br /><br />"Magnolia" has a lot of great acting. Particularly Tom Cruise who unleashes a performance I didn't know he had in him. And John C. Reilly plays maybe the most decent and truly good cop in recent memory. But it all adds up to nothing. When the secret unexpected event happened, a girl behind me in the theatre couldn't hold it in any more and said, "This is stupid!" My feeling is the majority of moviegoers will agree.
Great cast. Great acting. Unpredictable story line for the first half<br /><br />hour or so. I was really wanting to know what was going to<br /><br />happen to each of these unredeeming characters, and how their<br /><br />seemingly disparate lives would become intertwined. But when<br /><br />the writers took out the glue to start connecting the players, they<br /><br />mistakenly used super glue and brought the movie to a standstill<br /><br />for the last two hours. I kept thinking it would get better, but it only<br /><br />got worse. Don't believe the reviews. This is a waste of time. <br /><br />Think about it -- Tom Cruise made ugly -- why? The gorgeous<br /><br />hunky bartender wearing braces -- why? I know it had to do with<br /><br />the plot, but without them, at least there would have been one<br /><br />attractive cast member to remember.
Sorry did i miss something? did i walk out early? The first ten minutes of unusual (and untrue!) stories had me thinking "This is going to be a classic" But it was all down hill from there! The acting was brilliant, for what it's worth William H Macy is fantastic and just gets better and better every film i watch him in. But it never seemed to connect. I was waiting for the big moment where all the stories inter connect and then suddenly..it rains frog?? it was if the writer said "i've gone to deep how can i pull all these stories together cleverely....Oh sod it i'll just have it raining frogs". I like clever movies, i like strange movies but this was just odd and boring. 4/10
I wanted to like Magnolia. The plot reminded me of Grand Canyon (which I liked). 4 different lives/stories that come together at the end but Magnolia took a wrong turn halfway through the movie and I was lost. I almost turned it off right then and there but I felt I should hang in there until the end, little did I know it would be another torturous 1 1/2 hours. Thank god I rented instead of seeing it in the theatre. I almost screamed out in frustration after 2 hours. The biggest kick in the pants was the ending frog scene. My DVD player still hasn't forgiven me and I don't blame it one bit. It was a unique movie, but a bad, boring, and pointless movie.
Normally I dont have a problem with gratuitous swearing in films, but this one really annoyed me. All they did was swear. For the whole film. (And, as someone else noted, get cancer) It was boring, rambling and pretentious. I wouldnt If I were you. <br /><br />Its also not that I dont like films which, as most people who like it will claim 'observe life'. I love Eat Drink Man Woman, and all that happens in that is that a load of Taiwanese people lead their lives. But I could relate to them. I have never met anyone who swore as much as the 'actors' in this film, and I used to work on a construction site. So go figure. Having said that William H. Macy made me grin. Once. <br /><br />2/10. Avoid, unless you enjoy tedium.
My guess is that this director/writer had something to say. Let's see, what it could have been... a. Frog storms would be creepy? b. can I get someone like Tom Cruise to say the "C" word many times and look like a bad Patrick Rafter? c. Cast my wife and get her to say the "F" word every 2 seconds. This aside I really liked the beginning and the frog storm. The rest was a relentless, over-long (under-edited), over-indulgent failure. Glad so many of you enjoyed it! <br /><br />
1999 will go down in history as the year the movie critic lead the general public astray. First they sent us to EYES WIDE SHUT. Then they hyped up THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and now MAGNOLIA which is by far the worst movie of the year. What is it about? Who the heck knows. Its full of self-indulgence and loaded with bad acting. I always like to stay and watch the credits, but when this thing was over I couldn't get out of the movie theatre fast enough. Most of the audience that attended the showing that I was at, felt pretty much the same way. Dates were arguing with each other as well as strangers. It's an ugly and hateful film that will make you feel ugly and hateful.
Magnolia presents itself as a wall to wall canvas of screaming, shrieking, overwrought, hysterical twits who are all bedeviled by regret, guilt and pain. PT Anderson is certainly a gifted filmmaker but perhaps he should leave the writing to someone else or at least find someone with the balls to tell him he needed to edit this overlong mess.<br /><br />A look at the cast will tell you that the performances were excellent, and they were. I just wish that every scene didn't involve an over the top shouting match or long digression into the sins that have been committed and the pain that they have caused.<br /><br />I also think that Anderson fails miserably to create a story that parallels the bizarre tableaus that open the film. The opening sequences are wonderful in showing how fate can bring together people and circumstances that even the most optimistic believer in a cosmic puppeteer pulling our strings would scoff at. But the story that then develops lacks any of the stuff that these opening fables display. I kept waiting for some form of cosmic convergence to display itself, but instead all we get is waves of regret from morally challenged characters who see their past spread out before them and now seek absolution. Throw in an out of left field biblical plague near the end and all you end up with is a cadre of Anderson devotees who will marvel at his genius when all it really proves is that he has actually read the Old Testament.<br /><br />I will say that the music by Aimee Mann was great and I'll be looking for the Soundtrack CD. In short, a good movie to look at and listen to (the music, that is) if the actors would have shut up or toned it down it may have been
That's not just my considered verdict on this film, but also on the bulk of what has been written about it. Now don't get me wrong here either, I'm not a total philistine, I didn't hate the movie because it wasn't enough like 'police academy 9' or whatever, I enjoy more than my fair share of high brow or arty stuff, I swear.<br /><br />'Magnolia' is poor, and I am honestly mystified as to why it is seemingly so acclaimed. Long winded, self indulgent, rambling nonsense from start to finish, there is just so little that could credibly be what people so love about the movie. There's some high calibre actors fair enough, and none turns in an average or worse performance. Furthermore, my wife (a self confessed Tom Cruise hater) tells me it's his career best performance by far. But the plot is so completely unengaging, meandering between the stories of several loosely connected characters at such a snail's pace that even when significant life changing events are depicted they seem so pointless and uninteresting you find yourself crying out for someone to get blown up or something.<br /><br />It doesn't help that none of the characters are very easy to identify or empathise with (well I didn't think so, but I don't like most people admittedly). They all play out their rather unentertaining life stories at great length, demonstrating their character flaws and emotions in ever-so intricate detail and playing out their deep and meaningful relationships to the nth degree with many a waffling soliloquy en route. Yadda yadda yadda. The soundtrack's dire as well, with that marrow-suckingly irritating quality that I had hitherto thought unique to the music of Alanis Morisette.<br /><br />All in all, it was about as enjoyable a three hours as being forced to repeatedly watch an episode of 'Friends' whilst being intermittently poked in the ribs by a disgruntled nanny goat. The bit with the frogs is good though.
This ambitious film suffers most from writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson's delusions of grandeur. Highly derivative of much better material (Altman's "Nashville," Lumet's "Network"), this lumbering elephant takes far too long to get nowhere. A couple of misguided detours along the way (an embarrassing musical interlude, a biblical plague) don't help matters. Neither does the uneven level of performances. Especially bad: William H. Macy, whose character and storyline could easily have been eliminated altogether; Julianne Moore, for her unconvincing angst. And how many times must we see John C. Reilly's Sad Sack shtick ("Chicago" and "The Hours" will suffice)? Tom Cruise comes off well by comparison – his misogynist, foul-mouthed Holy Roller was rather amusing. Speaking of foul mouths, the script was so loaded with "F" bombs, they lost their impact in no time. Don't even talk about that awful soundtrack, full of insipid and annoying vocals by Aimee Mann. Her extended rendition of "One," a maudlin number to begin with, drove me to distraction at the start of the film. I should have heeded the handwriting on the wall and saved myself three more hours, by which time I'd been pushed to the brink of hell. One redeeming feature, which I haven't seen mentioned in other reviews, is the best performance in the bunch, by unknown Melora Walters in the role of Claudia, the damaged coke fiend bent on self-destruction. Her credibility exceeded all others by far. This film took itself way too seriously and just didn't know when to end.
I can't say this is the worst film of all time, but only because there are still some movies I haven't seen, yet! This has to be the most pretentious attempt at making a movie of all time! The director suffers from the same issues he had with "There Will Be Blood" (though he wasn't quite as bad in that film. The whole movie it feels like you're watching a guy trying to hard to impress beyond his abilities. It's like he sits in his little director's chair and thinks "how would a great filmmaker handle this scene?" He just doesn't have it in him. I don't know if this film could be saved by a great filmmaker. There were certainly some nuggets of greatness that could have been polished, but nothing was brought to ripen. The scene where all the characters are singing was the worst moment in cinema history. One by one as we see the characters singing, and I squirmed in my seat, I kept saying "please, PLEASE, just don't have the guy on the brink of death singing, too!" Sure enough, MASSIVE FAILURE!
What made the idea of seeing this movie so attractive was the hope that it would live up to Charlotte Bronte's brilliance of the original classic story. I was deeply disappointed to find that this movie, which seemed to be either written or filmed in great haste, had not the qualities that made the original novel so powerful. Much of the witty back and forth between the main characters, Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester, seemed to be either missing from the screenplay or left on the cutting room floor. Also missing was Jane Eyre's charismatic sense of self, which enabled her to suffer through her turmoil and triumph over all. The original Jane Eyre was a hero. The woman in this movie did not seem to have much to triumph over, including one of the greatest parts of the story when Jane runs away from Thornfield and Mr. Rochester. Her struggle to find food and shelter, her shame at having to beg for bread, the threat of freezing to death in the cold, all to get away from a man she loved were, in my opinion, poignant parts of the story that were simply left out of this movie. The title character seemed dry and uninspired. The story was unappealing and for those who did not read the book, I cannot imagine that this story would be the least bit interesting. The screenplay and Direction did little if any credit to the classic story.
This version is pretty insipid, I'm afraid. Jane Eyre is one of my favorite books and has been since childhood, but William Hurt's weary, throwaway acting style is completely unsuitable to the bold passion of Edward Rochester and poor Charlotte Gainsbrough looks like a bored, petulant teenager whose dental braces hurt! I also can't believe that they eliminated Edward's great marriage proposal scene from the end of the book, one of the most moving moments in literature. I do appreciate that they finally used such a young, plain woman to play Jane, a character who is supposed to be a worldly 18, but if you want to see a version that closer approximates the personalities and passions of the novel, please see the 70's version with George C. Scott and Susannah York. York was too old, tall and pretty to play Jane, but no one has touched Rochester's character the way that Scott did.
I don't like using the word "awful" to describe any work of the cinema for which a great deal of time, effort, talent and money is spent in its creation but Zefferelli's attempt to adapt Charlotte Brontë's novel 'Jane Eyre' is a total waste of time.<br /><br />The script is lacking in finesse and power, everything explained to the viewer in no uncertain terms, leaving little to the imagination. The lead actors are woefully miscast, clearly hired for their star names, and the musical score drippy and dull. Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt have absolutely no chemistry with one another at all. She is like a wet noodle, worse even than Joan Fontaine, who at least was capable of some modicum of emotional involvement in what should be a story of frustrated passion. And William Hurt acts the entire film on one tone and that tone is flat and devoid of energy. Of course the limp and vapid script does not aid any of these otherwise fine actors in their efforts to bring any whiff of life to this flick.<br /><br />Joan Plowright's Mrs Fairfax is like some Disney creation who keeps popping up to sweeten scenes in which she would have been best left out. <br /><br />There is no mystery surrounding the story of Rochester's first wife. The role of the would-be second wife, played like a Barbie Doll by Elle MacPhearson, is an empty cipher.<br /><br />Fiona Shaw, a very great actress, is completely wasted as Jane's Aunt, Mrs Reed. She would have been better-cast as Mrs Fairfax. Only Amanda Root, as Jane's beloved school teacher, evokes any authentic sympathy or believability. <br /><br />I saw this version of 'Jane Eyre' after viewing Robert Young's for British television, made in 1997, starring Ciaran Hinds, Samantha Morgan and Gemma Jones. There is no comparison. Young's vital, romantic and deeply moving version is like an exploding nova compared to Zefferelli's wet squib.<br /><br />I will be interested now to see the 1970 version with Timothy Dalton, about which I've read some very good things on this web-site. I am amazed at how many people liked Zefferelli's Yorkshire picture book. <br /><br />About all I can say good about this film is that the house is beautiful and the cinematography vividly colored, beyond that it is a complete dud.
Jane Eyre_ is one of the greatest novels in the English language and this screenwriter should of read it. I hate it when writers use Spark notes for what a novel is all about. This movie is unbearable to watch if you have read the book.<br /><br />The whole 'red room' is so down played that I wonder why they even bother to put it in. In the book the 'red room' is foreshadowing for the WHOLE story and the rest of Jane's life. Helen Burns is treated so badly in the movie I'm sure she was happy to die and leave early. In the book she is one of the most compelling characters and she was not the red head. The whole Christian theme is missing from her life and the rest of the movie.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and miss this movie and read the story as Charlotte Bronte masterfully told it.
I read the novel 'Jane Eyre' for the first time back in 1986. It was round that time that I saw the BBC-version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. It was an excellent version and very much like the book. Years later, I laid eyes on this version and was horrified. William Hurt is totally miscast as Mr Rochester. Mr Rochester is a passionate character, where as William Hurt portrays him as a block of ice. The same goes for Charlotte Gainsborough. It was like watching two zombies together. This is story about love and passion, but I couldn't see it in this version. No, back to the BBC-version. A wonderful time is guaranteed.
What was Franco Zeffirelli thinking? Was Hollywood responsible for this travesty, or can I take comfort in the idea that someone who didn't speak English as a first language just completely missed the point of Charlotte Bronte's classic? I don't think I can improve on a comment I read below, so I'll just paraphrase it: "Jane Eyre is a great great book, the screenwriter should read it sometime." It's true that this movie's two leads were sadly miscast. But pity the actors, because the screenwriter left out all of the best scenes. The dialog that makes you understand the Jane and Rochester have a meeting of minds and a shared sense of fun...deleted from the script. The marriage proposal, the fortune teller...gone. The allusions, half joking, half sincerely felt, to Jane as a fairy sprite from olde England come to rescue Rochester in his despair...eliminated.<br /><br />It is unfortunate that Zeffirelli felt the need to completely rewrite the end of the novel and Jane's interactions with the Rivers family. But it is unforgivable that he has surgically removed the love from one of the best love stories ever written.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and go find the 1983 (?) mini series with Timothy Dalton.
I agree with one of the other comment writers about good story & good actors but mismatched, and I would also say rushed. It has been about 24years since I read the book as it was in school. But I felt that you would need to know the story of Jane Eyre when watching this one as bits are left out & therefore it doesn't fully make sense. For example Jane & Mr Rochester have hardly spoken & suddenly he is proposing marriage!!! The actors don't have time to let the audience know how their character feels about each thing happening in the story.The actors are good but aren't given enough time to do this story justice. I'm sorry to say it but I didn't really enjoy this version.The 1970 version with Susanna York & George C Scott would be the Jane Eyre movie of my preference BUT you should check out the 1983 BBC mini series version with Zelah Clarke & Timothy Dalton in the 2 main roles. I love it so much I watch it regularly.There is an abridged version which goes for 225mins or the full version for 330mins.
Having read the novel before seeing this film, I was enormously disappointed by the wooden acting and the arrogance of the producers in their blatant disregard of the plot. I feel this film in no way reflects the brilliance of Bronte's work, and rather gave the impression of a shallow love story. In the condensing of the film to a short 2hours, the film lost many of the key features which make the book comprehendable and progressional, thus resulting in a somewhat jumpy plot with little grounding. There is no build up to the romance between Rochester and Jane Eyre, so this appears rather abrupt and unfounded since the two characters have such infrequent interaction you cannot help but imagine their 'love' is superficial. This is such an injustice to Bronte's novel;you are given no impression of Jane's quirky cheek and boldness which attracts Rochester to her, and his arrogance which attracts Jane to him.<br /><br />Despite to poor scripting, I think that a few of the characters were portrayed very astutely, namely Mrs Fairfax and Grace Poole, however overall the production was poor. Given a better scripting, perhaps the film would have been more successful. See "Jane Eyre" (1970) with Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton for an outstanding production.
This 1996 movie was the first adaptation of Jane Eyre that I ever watched and when I did so I was appalled by it. So much of the novel had been left out and I considered William Hurt to be terribly miscast as Rochester. Since then I have watched all the other noteworthy adaptations of the novel, the three short versions of '44, '70 and '97 and the three mini series of '73, '83 and 2006, and I have noticed that there are worse adaptations and worse Rochesters.<br /><br />This is without doubt the most exquisite Jane Eyre adaptation as far as cinematography is concerned. Director Franco Zerifferelli revels in beautiful long shots of snow falling from a winter sky, of lonely Rochester standing on a rock, and of Jane looking out of the window - but he is less good at telling a story and bringing characters to life. In addition, his script merely scratches the surface of the novel by leaving out many important scenes. As a consequence the film does not show the depth and complexity of the relationship between Jane and Rochester, and sadly it does also not include the humorous side of their intercourse. There are a number of short conversations between Rochester and Jane, each of them beautifully staged, but the couple of sentences they exchange do not suffice to show the audience that they are drawn to each other. We know that they are supposed to fall in love, but we never see it actually happen. The scene in which Rochester wants to find out Jane's reaction to his dilemma by putting his case in hypothetical form before her after the wounded Mason has left the house is completely missing, and the farewell scene, the most important scene - the climax - of the novel is reduced to four sentences. Zerifferelli does not make the mistake other scriptwriters have made in substituting their own poor writing for Brontë's superb lines, neither are crucial scenes completely changed and rewritten, but he makes the less offensive but in the end similarly great mistake of simply leaving many important scenes out. What remains is just a glimpse of the novel, which does no justice to Charlotte Brontë's masterpiece.<br /><br />The cast is a mixed bag: While Fiona Shaw is an excellent Mrs Reed, Anna Paquin's young Jane is more an ill-mannered, pout Lolita than a lonely little girl, longing for love. The ever-reliable Joan Plowright makes a very likable, but far too shrewd Mrs Fairfaix, and one cannot help feeling that Billie Whitelaw is supposed to play the village witch instead of plain-looking, hard-working Grace Poole. Charlotte Gainsbourgh as the grown-up heroine, however, is physically a perfect choice for playing Jane Eyre. Looking every bit like 18, thin and frail, with irregular, strong features, she comes closest to my inner vision of Jane than any other actress in that role. And during the first 15 minutes of her screen time I was enchanted by her performance. Gainsbourgh manages well to let the audience guess at the inner fire and the strong will which are hidden behind the stoic mask. But unfortunately the script never allows her to expand the more passionate and lively side of Jane's character any further. As a result of leaving out so many scenes and shortening so much of the dialogues, Gainsbourgh's portrayal of Jane must necessarily remain incomplete and therefore ultimately unsatisfactory. This is a pity, as with a better script Charlotte Gainsbourgh might have been as good a Jane as Zelah Clarke in the '83 version.<br /><br />But while it is still obvious that Gainsbourgh is trying to play Jane, there is no trace whatsoever of Rochester in the character that William Hurt portrays. Hurt, who has proved himself to be a fine actor in many good movies, must have been aware that he was physically and type-wise so miscast that he did not even attempt at playing the Rochester of the novel. His Rochester, besides being blond and blue-eyed, is a soft-spoken, well-mannered nobleman, shy and quiet, slightly queer and eccentric, but basically good-natured and mild. He is so far from being irascible, moody and grim that lines referring to these traits of his character sound absolutely ridiculous. Additionally, during many moments of the movie, Hurt's facial expression leaves one wondering if he is fighting against acute attacks of the sleeping sickness. Particularly in the proposal scene he grimaces like a patient rallying from a general anaesthetic and is hardly able to keep his eyes open. If you compare his Rochester to the strong-willed and charming protagonist of the novel, simply bursting with energy and temperament, it is no wonder that many viewers are disappointed in Hurt's performance. Still, he offends me less than the Rochesters in the '70, '97 and 2006 versions and I would in general rank this Jane Eyre higher than these three other ones. Hurt obviously had the wits to recognise that he could not be the Rochester of the novel and therefore did not try to do so, whereas George C. Scott, Ciaràn Hinds and Toby Stephens thought they could, but failed miserably, and I'd rather watch a character other than Rochester than a Rochester who is badly played. And I'd rather watch a Jane Eyre movie which leaves out many lines of the novel but does not invent new ones than a version which uses modernised dialogues which sound as if they could be uttered by a today's couple in a Starbucks café. Of course this Jane Eyre is a failure, but at least it is an inoffensive one, which is more than one can say of the '97 and 2006 adaptations. I would therefore not desist anyone from watching this adaptation: You will not find Jane Eyre, but at least you will find a beautifully made movie.
Oh just what I needed,another movie about 19th century England. Which is pretty much like regular England,only nobody's vandalising football stadiums.In this picturesque setting of lords,dames and other randomly chosen titles,Charlotte Gainsbourg walks around aimlessly as Jane Eyre,from that novel nobody has ever read willingly.Jane usually hangs out in Mr.Rochester's crib,where she tries to teach a French girl to look at an empty chalkboard all the time.One day,Mr.Rochester(William Hurt on auto-pilot)comes back to fall in love with Jane and all that,but there's still the matter of his fruitcake wife that is locked in the attic.Oops,that wasn't in the brochure.After some people being thrown around and some carefully spread fire(they probably rented the set),the movie finally comes to an end.Everything looked really authentic,that's something I guess.But then again,nah.
I love the book, "Jane Eyre" and have seen many versions of it. All have their strong points and their faults. However, this was one of the worst I have seen. I didn't care about Jane or Mr. Rochester. Charlotte Gainsbourg (Jane) was almost tolerable and certainly looked the plain part, but she had no emotion in any of her lines. I couldn't imagine what Mr. Rochester saw in her. <br /><br />That brings us to Mr. Rochester. William Hurt had even less emotion than Jane, if that were possible. How two such insipid people could fall in love is a mystery, but it certainly didn't hold my attention. Perhaps the director (Zeffrelli) fell asleep during the production.<br /><br />The Timothy Dalton (too handsome for Mr. Rochester!) version is far more faithful to the book, but Ciaran Hinds plays the perfect Mr. Rochester in the 1997 A/E version (which is NOT all that true to the book).<br /><br />Trying to find something positive about this movie: Geraldine Chaplain was perfect in her role.
As a "Jane Eyre" fan I was excited when this movie came out. "At last," I thought, "someone will make this book into a movie following the story actually written by the author." Wrong!!! If the casting director was intending to cast a "Jane" who was plain he certainly succeeded. However, surely he could have found one who could also act. Where was the tension between Jane and Rochester? Where was the spooky suspense of the novel when the laughter floated into the night seemingly from nowhere? Where was the sparkle of the child who flirted and danced like her mother? Finally, why was the plot changed at the end? One wonders whether the screenwriters had actually read the book. What a disappointment
The first half of this version was the best I've seen (and I think I've seen every version of Jane Eyre ever made). The development of Jane's childhood and character were exceptional. Then, it was as though someone said "Uh oh, this is running too long," and hacked the rest of the story to shreds. The major scenes, when included at all, are glossed over, combined, and put out of order in such a way that they completely change the storyline. There was so little transition or even scene development that it would be difficult for anyone not familiar with the story even to follow. The big disappointment was that the beginning opened so much hope, and then the end dashed it.
What a pathetic movie.<br /><br />I won't waste much time commenting about it. I'm still trying to get back the couple hours I wasted on it.<br /><br />Let me leave it simply with - Shaq has NO BUSINESS being an actor or singer. He is utterly without talent at both discplines. It's a crying shame that substantially more talented people waste away in community theatres and karaoke bars while Shaq uses his name as a basketball player to undeservedly get cast in movies and cut CDs.<br /><br />Much of the failure of this movie was the pathetic no-talent that is Shaq.
This is one of the most god-awful movies ever. Shaq better just stick to basketball. This movie took away apart of my life I will never have back. I will make fun of this movie until I die, and then some. It is so horrible it is not even funny. MST3000 would have a blast with this one.
There's only one thing I need to say about this movie - the scene where Shaq is in a musical number with Francis Capra's character about wanting to be a genie; never see this movie. The story is horrible, the acting is terrible (c'mon, it's Shaq!) and I'd rather see Capra in Free Willy (equally horrible) twice before ever seeing this movie.
This is the worst film I have ever seen.I was watching this film with some friends and after 40 minutes we had enough. The plot was bad and there wasn't a single likeable character.I could get more entertainment watching static. I gave this movie a 1 only because the scale didn't go into negative numbers. Avoid this movie at all costs.
i was given the book version of Kazaam for my 8th birthday, and people always say the book versions are always better than the movie, but this time they were wrong. At least with the movie it's over soon.<br /><br />The acting in this is terrible, which i expected from a film with Shaq who plays a magical rapping genie that comes out of an old ghetto blaster (which there was probably a good reason he was trapped in there). The kid in the film that plays Max is whiny and a terrible actor. He's bullied by neighborhood kids, which i don't blame them because he's a little douche bag.<br /><br />The story is just plain stupid and extremely cliché. About a boy who's father is always working and never around who finds a new friend who makes his life better and eventually helps him reconnect with his father.<br /><br />Even at 8 years old i thought this was a stupid idea. It's a surprise any of the people whom worked on this film had careers after wards because it's an embarrassment and should have never been made. i could ramble on even more about how this movie sucks, but you should already know just by reading the plot.
This movie has successfully proved what we all already know, that professional basket-ball players suck at everything besides playing basket-ball. Especially rapping and acting. I can not even begin to describe how bad this movie truly is. First of all, is it just me, or is that the ugliest kid you have ever seen? I mean, his teeth could be used as a can-opener. Secondly, why would a genie want to pursue a career in the music industry when, even though he has magical powers, he sucks horribly at making music? Third, I have read the Bible. In no way shape or form did it say that Jesus made genies. Fourth, what was the deal with all the crappy special effects? I assure you that any acne-addled nerdy teenager with a computer could make better effects than that. Fifth, why did the ending suck so badly? And what the hell is a djin? And finally, whoever created the nightmare known as Kazaam needs to be thrown off of a plane and onto the Eiffel Tower, because this movie take the word "suck" to an entirely new level.
If you are a fan of really bad movies, and you think there funny, you will the great acting of Shaq. First off putting pro players in movies hardly ever works. Shaq had to of been the worst actor i have ever seen next to Dennis Rodman who also made a few bad movies. Well any way this movie is also bad due to the hideous kid. I would give this a zero but that is impossible.
The only reason I DVRd this movie was because 1. I live in Cleveland and Shaq plays basketball for us now and 2. I've always heard how awful it was. The movie did not disappoint. The best parts were Shaq's outfits. The worst parts were, well, just about everything else. My 12 year old son and I just squirmed and couldn't look at the screen when Shaq started rapping and we kept wondering why Max didn't wish for Kazzam to fix that front tooth of his! But for all it's terribleness we just couldn't stop watching it, the story sucked you in, like a black hole or quicksand or a tar pit, it was hypnotic. But it was worth it for the laughs and just to say that we actually watched "Kazzam".
Reviewing KAZAAM and saying it's a bad movie isn't hard at all--after all, critics at the time it came out fell all over themselves excoriating this film--saying it was among the worst films of the decade! So the fact that I say it's bad or anyone else says it's bad is certainly no surprise. It's like someone talking about WWII--practically no one says that was a GOOD thing, right?! The question I have and no place on IMDb can answer it is "why did they make this in the first place?!". After all, it's obvious to anyone who isn't severely brain injured that the film would be horrible. But, movies like ED (a baseball playing chimp), COOL AS ICE (starring the ever-popular Vanilla Ice), TROLL 2 (which doesn't even have any trolls in it), BABY GENIUSES (Einstain-like superhero babies) and PINOCCHIO IN OUTER SPACE (huh!?!) prove that any idea, no matter how dumb, can make it to the big screen! So, the idea of the best basketball player of the time starring as a genie to an obnoxious little brat seems downright 'normal'! <br /><br />The film starts with a kid who is pretty jerky keying the lockers in the hallway of the school. Like the punk from FREE WILLY, this kid is somehow 'misunderstood' (in other words, a total brat) and you know that no matter how selfish and horrible he is, by the end of the film he'll have learned something and grown. Just once, I want to see a punk kid like this end up in prison or or dead by the end of the film! Eventually, while the neighborhood bullies are in the middle of pummeling him, the genie Kazaam (Shaquille O'Neal)is accidentally released and insists on giving the brat three wishes. But, the kid doesn't believe him AND the genie's magic seems a tad rusty.<br /><br />Eventually the brat does realize that Kazaam is for real. However, unlike most kids, he withholds making his wishes so, in the meantime, Kazaam is forced to follow him around everywhere--like his own personal servant. And, according to the cliché, you know that by the end of the film, Max and Kazaam will have become lifelong buddies and a bunch of tears will be shed. Oh, and Max will have come to terms with his absent father and mom's fiancé (I'm gonna gag). Apparently this genie is a bit of a social worker in addition to being a granter of wishes.<br /><br />As for Kazaam, Shaquille speaks in rhyme through much of the movie and even takes a break to rap...very poorly. I'm a middle-aged white guy and I think I could probably rap at least as well! He's an amazing basketball player and I've heard he's a nice guy--but a rapper...no way! As far as his acting goes, he wasn't great but had such a nice personality in the film that it's hard to hate him--even if they made him do a lot of very stupid things.<br /><br />So is the movie as excruciatingly awful as you've probably heard? through the first two-thirds of the movie, I would have said no. Shaquille seemed to try his best with an unlikable kid and a bad script. However, later in the film, the bad becomes horrid--as Kazaam seems too concerned with himself to help the kid when he's really needed. And, out of nowhere, the plot gets really, really weird--as the guy who wants to make Kazaam a rap star(?!?!) turns out to be an evil mobster! And, oddly, this guy seems to accept that Kazaam is a genie with no hesitation! <br /><br />In addition, the last portion of the film consists of people trying to kill Max and his dad. I know that the kid was annoying, but this is supposed to be a kids' film!! What part of 'trying to kill the kid' didn't the writers not understand?!? Then, in an ending that makes this perhaps the worst kids film ending in history, Kazaam becomes god or something and it all was like a drug-induced hallucination! This ending was even dumber and weirder than the one in THE BLACK HOLE...and boy, did it make my brain hurt!! Uggghh--the horrible dialog was just too much to bear!!!<br /><br />Overall, it's a terrible film that is due mostly to writers who were certifiably insane. Yes, folks, with a messed up message, bizarre non-kid friendly material and horrible characters, this is one wretched film. Sadly, given the idea and actors, it's hard to imagine the final product turning out much worse!!<br /><br />By the way, if you want to see a Genie in a modern world film that is GOOD, try the British made for TV film "Bernard and the Genie"--a charming and exceptionally well-written film from start to finish.
OK so after watching this invigorating movie and wasting an hour and so many minutes off my life here is the basic summary: Genie comes out of ghetto boom box, gives this kid with shaggy hair 3 wishes, the kid wastes his wishes on i forget what, shaq sucks at rapping, and i guess thats it.<br /><br />So mainly I laughed, I cried......but mainly I laughed at the shear comedy that came from the wonderful acting skills of an nba player/rapper and boy with shaggy hair.<br /><br />I highly recommend this movie for college kids sitting around drinking some beers with their close friends and are in serious need of a good laugh.<br /><br />I'm going to give it a 3 out of 10 only b/c the movie is based off of 3 magical wishes.<br /><br />If I had 3 wishes one would be to erase this horrible movie and for everyone to pretend like Hollywood didn't waste money on making this.
Let me give a quick summery of the film: A rotten, rude kid named Max stumbles upon a radio that contains Kazaam: a rapping genie. Like all genies, he grants 3 wishes but, being good natured, also helps Max with his personal life, as he has to deal with bullies and a father mixed up in organized crime. During all this, Kazaam raps from time to time, (also showcasing Shaq's dismal rap skills).<br /><br />This movie proves what we all know: Athletes need to stick to sports. I admit that it never looked like an Oscar-worthy movie, but EVERYTHING about this waste of film is horrible. The characters are either unlikable or stupid, the plot is not even worth mentioning, the dialog is a joke, and Shaq is only a quarter of the problem. Hell, even if Denzel Washington played Kazaam this movie would still be a joke. I know that the movie only drew ANYBODY was because Shaq was so big (no pun intended) at the time. I honestly cannot think of a single positive thing to say about this waste of time. Shaq should have put the time had used to make this movie toward practicing free throws.
Now, I'm one to watch movies that got poor reviews, and say, "Hmm... this isn't so bad!" I loved The Cable Guy, and thought that My Big Fat Independent Movie was great. Keep in mind, I really didn't start watching this with high hopes, but I figured that maybe... just maybe... it would be bad in a kind of way I could laugh at it. I was wrong. At no point at all during my suffering through this "film" (And I use that term sparingly) was I even close to being mildly entertained. To start, Shaq makes Quentin Tarantino look like Marlon Brando when it comes to acting. I hate rap music, but as far as I could tell, an Amish priest would probably make a better rapper than him. The main character is simply annoying, and not a character that it's easy to like. Quite frankly, I would rather eat a greasy turd out of a Harlequin fetus' bloody sores than watch this again.
What was the point of this movie? What was the plot? I do not know. Shaq can't act, people don't know how to direct, and I am Kazaam! A genie who raps? Come on. Maybe Eminem or Linkin Park will be in a movie like this. I remember I watched this just to kill time. It didn't really interest me. I just remember thinking, "Who put Shaq in this movie???" The whole story seemed stupid too. It made no sense whatsoever. I guess an unrealized moral of this movie is that you can find anything in the ghetto and anything can happen. I can't comment much more because this movie is so terrible there's nothing worth commenting about. I "wish" this movie would go away.
This movie is so, so, so horrible, that it makes angels lose their wings. Shaq had tried to make other crossover efforts, like his work in Shaq-Fu for the NES and his plethora of unbearable rap albums, and later, the epic serving of horrible film-making that is Steel.<br /><br />There's not a single good thing to be said about this movie. I saw it a bunch of times when I was very young, but I must've been an idiot then, because this movie takes all that is enjoyable about films and tears it apart. It's fun to mock. I saw it on the Disney Channel a while back and spent a few minutes doing that. Although, once the thrill of mocking it is done, you still become overwhelmed by its terribleness.<br /><br />If you see it on TV, try this: consider, as your watching the film, removing from it all the scenes in which Shaq uses his magical genie powers. If you do that, it becomes like a film about a pedophile chasing a kid and rapping to seduce him. That's kinda funny, and disturbing.<br /><br />A horrible example of film. Do not, unless looking to mock it, see this movie.
Yes, Kazaam is one of those horribly bad movies that almost reminds one of everything that is wrong with not just kids movies, but with humanity. Here we have Shaq as a rapping genie- yes, a RAPPING genie- where he does everything from making bad puns to dressing in ridiculous outfits, all ending in him in a Christ-like pose with lots of light surrounding him. So, yeah, expect really cheesy bits, including the first wish being a lot of junk food falling down from the sky (and, regrettably, not knocking out the two main characters, particularly the kid). What might not be expected is that a film with a kid and Shaquille O'Neill would be so incredibly schmaltzy! The main plot of the film involves this kid, played in that all-too-typical and annoying-kid fashion by the great-grandson of Frank Capra (where in which the kid is yelling out his dialog angrily), who comes upon a genie who's been trapped in a boom-box. Then "hiarity ensues" as the kid makes the Shaq-genie his quasi-slave as he waits on his last two wishes as he tries to make amends with his shady-gang-type absentee father.<br /><br />This really sappy, contrived son and father story would be bad enough, as there are certain lines that have been uttered in a million other movies (i.e. the "two chances in life" speech from father to son). But it's Shaquille O'Neill who is both the reason to watch the film (ironically), and the obvious sinking crux of it all. His plot line involves him, when not getting the over-talky treatment from Capra, to rap within the dialog and also start off his blossoming recording career. On top of this, he also kicks ass and takes names with the main bad guys who want him back in the boom-box. So is there a camp factor to the movie? Up to a point, but this is even squashed by all of the mushy scenes and 'heart-felt' moments that have really no business with the rest of the material. One might ask if the people making the movie, who were obviously doing it at the behest of the popularity of a BASKETBALL player who wanted to go on the Michael Jordan acting bandwagon, if it would be anywhere near decently entertaining or convincing. I'd hope that they too knew they were just getting paid. But I'd hope even more that they felt at least a little guilty afterwords for feeding the Shaq-machine.<br /><br />So, if you want to have a fun night of Shaq as genie-turned-rapper-turned-wisecracker, all the more fun to you. Hell, it might even be interesting to have a Shaq movie night with this and his other critically acclaimed effort Steel. But if you're hoping to keep a few brain cells, stay away from what is very likely the worst flick of 1996, and a candidate among many others for worst of the 90's.
There was a genie played by Shaq His name was Kazaam, and he was whack His rhymes were corny, this lines were bad some stupid kid cryin over his stupid dad bad actin, bad casting, bad special effects whats next? this movie sucks Prolly didn't make 20 bucks he lives in a boombox not a lamp hurts like a cramp like a wet food stamp...<br /><br />Yeah, you get it, a stupid rhyming genie who can't act, in a stupid movie with horrible special effects. Oh, and its confusing as hell. I'm not even gonna go on. Let's just say, it belongs in the "its so bad, its funny" category. Watch it once with your buddies and get a good laugh. But don't expect anything spectacular.
This film proves that the "commercial" cinema ,or else,the Hollywood movies are in a serious crisis.There is absolutely no reason that this movie should have been produced apart from the fact that somebody expected success based on Shaquille's name.There is no worth referring to the plot :it is a bit more perplexed than a knot.What else?The screen is somewhat dim,O'Neal is a bad actor but Francis Capra is even worse.<br /><br />Rating: 1 / 10.
Would someone tell shaq to stick to what he is good at basketball. This movie was not even entertaining on a stupid level. In this movie shaq plays a genie who lives in a boom box is that not orginal a genie in a boom box instead of a lamp. He is supposed to help a little boy played by the equally annoying francais cappra. This movie had the most flimsy storyline since water world, the acting was awful and I think that anyone who likes this flim would be afraid to admit it.
This is quite possibly the worst movie of all time. It stars Shaquille O'Neil and is about a rapping genie. Apparently someone out there thought that this was a good idea and got suckered into dishing out cash to produce this wonderful masterpiece. The movie gets 1 out of 10.
I saw this film at the 2005 Toronto International Film Festival. Based on a novella by science- fiction author Brian Aldiss, this film attempts to tell the story of Tom and Barry Howe, conjoined twins who are plucked from their family by an impresario in order to form a rock band.<br /><br />Almost deliberately gimmicky, the film is also too clever by half (if you'll pardon the pun). By mixing genres, styles and moods, the directors (whose previous film was the excellent documentary Lost In La Mancha) lose their way pretty quickly. I was never sure whether I was meant to take it all seriously or not. Flashbacks, dream sequences, it was all just a bit much. Plus, the promised rock and roll just didn't move me. I was reminded a bit too much at times of Hedwig and the Angry Inch, a film I found original and moving. But in this case, the songs just weren't as good, nor were the main characters sympathetic. A more unfavourable comparison would be the similarly disappointing Velvet Goldmine.
this movie offers nothing but the dumbest conversations possible. as a matter of fact i most probably could not have imagined how meaningless a film, how synthetic the dialogs could be until an hour ago, but then again i saw this video. in a movie that does not depend on a powerful script, one expects to see at least good acting and tasty conversations and even some humor maybe, yet this movie lacks them all. you heard me it lacks them all. there is not a single point i like about this movie, none. i hate it. i'm sure anyone will do so too. the name is intended to give the target audience some thoughts of nudity and stuff, yet it fails even at the nudity. i don't know how but i beared to watch this thing for an hour or so, and i definitely recommend you don't do so. worst movie i've seen in my entire life. if someone offers you to watch it, ruuun awaaaaay saaaaaave your liiiiiiiiife
Terrible movie. If there is one Turkish film you should avoid seeing in 2006, that should be Banyo. What a waste of time. Other than couple of cheap laughs this movie achieves nothing, nada, zilch, nil. The dialog is cheap, and sexual clichés are all over it. The director needs to watch more films before attempting to direct his own. The red headed women displays examples of what an actress should not do. If you are interested in learning how not to act this is a perfect example of bad acting. The only good thing I can say about the movie is, wait, wait, there is nothing good I can say about it. I must have really disliked it to write about it this much. Jeez!
First of all, I am not a huge fan of contemporary Turkish cinema, which is because, the usual pattern of creating a box office success is by hitting below the waistline. This movie is nothing of an artistic masterpiece that deals with taboos, as the director and marketing ads imply. In my mere opinion, the sole purpose of this movie is make money by touching a sensitive morale(in fact it is mostly considered taboo in the native country) Cheap populism might provide with a brief definition of what I meant.<br /><br />However, the acting is near perfect. In fact, most of the cast has theatrical background and tried hard to compensate for what Altioklar lacked; talent! All members of the cast were perfectly fit in their roles and well qualified for the job, even the less experienced ones. (Like Janset) At least, Altioklar deserves a small word of appreciation , just because he knows well how to choose the cast. Other than that, he is just a media monkey, who presumes himself a director with an artistic talent. Come on, art is not something that solely consists of dealing with naked/half naked women. And just because media boasts off, no director becomes a milestone in the history of Turkish cinema. Just close your ears and o something real artistic, I am waiting eagerly to applause your next work. Hope, this time you manage to achieve an artistic approach.<br /><br />In short; Pros > Good acting, hot women (just kidding!) :) Cons> Each and every single thing, other than the cast
If you are expecting to see a lot in the bath of Alt&#305;oklar, as it is promised by the tag line, you will be very disappointed to see that the movie consists of nothing but the populist style of Alt&#305;oklar regarding most famous issues like sex, marriage and cheating. To much nudity, which seems to appear from nowhere and has no connection or whatsoever to the plot proves that Alt&#305;oklar was unsuccessfully to "try something new" as he has quoted. To much sex centered jokes seems to show that Alt&#305;oklar had fallen for the famous saying which is "sex sells." I was hoping to see a very good story told with a very good narration technique. However in the end I found myself sitting down for 90 minutes and watching Alt&#305;oklar's experimental yet still to much focused on popularism work.
And I mean ultra light. This film features four giant stars, about three and a half jokes and nothing beyond that.<br /><br />There really isn't too much to say about this stinker, other than that although it has a couple of really good bits, most of it isn't very funny. Nor does it work at all as a romance. How about as a romantic comedy? Not on your life. Most of the dialogue is way too flat to be sophisticated, much less amusing.<br /><br />What's really ashame is the premise is not bad at all. This movie could have been so much more, especially with all the recent focus on some of the bogus ways in which films are promoted, complete with phony quotes from critics. The film uncovers the un-mined territory of the press junket -- those all expense paid trips for journalists who almost always write nice reviews. But instead of exploring what should have been a motherlode of jokes, it devotes all of about three minutes to this territory and moves on in pursuit of the film's lame romance.<br /><br />The same with Catherine Zeta-Jones' character -- the whinny, self centered movie star. Zeta-Jones does a good job with what she's given, but she's given practically nothing. It's all homogenized junk that looks very pale in comparison with some of the things we've heard about stars over the years.<br /><br />In the end, it is hard to understand what made Zeta-Jones, Julia Roberts, John Cusack and Billy Crystal sign aboard this doomed ship, which sinks like a rerun of "The Love Boat." In fact, as the old joke goes, they should have forgotten the script and filmed the deal. It would probably make a better story. So, go ahead and tell us, filmmakers, what do you have on these stars that got them to appear in this?
Let me put it another way: balls. Or, how about bollo*ks. This is truly awful, more embarrassing than those it attempts to satirise. Julia Roberts is a skilled actress, and usually her work is of the highest standard. This movie is so lacking in direction even she struggles to look proficient. Normally she is the consummate professional, yet I swear that in her eyes, there were signs of bewilderment and despair.<br /><br />The one thing that might have rescued this move was the idea about the director (Chris Walken) turning the movie into a secret documentary about the actors. Unfortunately, that theme wasn't explored to it's full potential. Too little, too late.<br /><br />Zeta Jones was wooden, Cusack was Cusack, and Crystal should stick to acting. The two talented ex-Buffy stars had different experiences - Green hopelessly mis-cast, and Balfour under-used. Well done to Julia for just about preventing this from being the worst movie ever made.
How this film was made with so many big stars is beyond me. This is a terrible cliché' ridden film with the worst acting any of these actors have ever done. It really surprises me that so many of these A list stars would agree to this unfunny film. What's even worse is the fact that is made almost 100 million here in the states. It does go to show however that big stars can pull in the bucks, even if the film is terrible. I felt sorry for everyone involved in this snore-fest. Billy Crystal tried his best with the what he was given and the rest of the stars seemed to be walking through the motions. Whatever you do, don't fall for the excellent cast because no one could have saved this.
Wow, what a great cast! Julia Roberts, John Cusack, Christopher Walken, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Hank Azaria...what's that? A script, you say? Now you're just being greedy! Surely such a charismatic bunch of thespians will weave such fetching tapestries of cinematic wonder that a script will be unnecessary? You'd think so, but no. America's Sweethearts is one missed opportunity after another. It's like everyone involved woke up before each day's writing/shooting/editing and though "You know what? I've been working pretty hard lately, and this is guaranteed to be a hit with all these big names, right? I'm just gonna cruise along and let somebody else carry the can." So much potential, yet so painful to sit through. There isn't a single aspect of this thing that doesn't suck. Even Julia's fat suit is lame.
It was disgusting and painful. What a waste of a cast! I swear, the audience (1/2 full) laughed TWICE in 90 minutes. This is not a lie. Do not even rent it.<br /><br />Zeta Jones was just too mean to be believable.<br /><br />Cusack was OK. Just OK. I felt sorry for him (the actor) in case people remember this mess.<br /><br />Roberts was the same as she always is. Charming and sweet, but with no purpose. The "romance" with John was completely unbelievable.
I have seen a lot of bad movies with big actors in it. But this movie was terrible. I have yet to see why people thought it was funny. The idea behind it is stupid. Plus all the things that are supposed to be funny are just dumb. Why anyone would want to watch this more than once just baffles me!
the only scenes wich made me laugh where the ones with christopher walken in it(the crazy filmdirector)the rest of the movie was just boring.in the first hour or so nothing really happens.jokes which supposed to be funny aren't and zeta jones douglas is really overacting.julia roberts does a routine job of the former ugly duck (yeah right!) into the girl next door (where did i see this before?) who gets the guy.for short.i really didn't care what would happen with the main characters.if cusack really fell of the building in a suicide attempt the movie could have been more interresting to watch.
In fact, it never was. I'm not sure why Billy Crystal wanted to recreate a 1940s screwball comedy. What a vacuous shambles! None of these people come close to a Cary Grant, Spencer Tracy, Katherine Hepburn, etc, and anyway, today's audience isn't as receptive to this facile muck. Writing is trivial. The hackneyed plot is razor thin and obvious. The chemistry between the leading characters is non-existent. It's interesting that Julia Roberts seems to think she's a reincarnation of some big star from the "golden age of Hollywood", whenever that may be. It's an effect she tries and fails to attain yet again with Richard Gere in Runaway Bride.
Billy Crystal normally brings the crowd to laughter, but in this movie he and all the rest of them cannot bring any smile on my face.... or perhaps just one. They call it comedy, I say it's a waste of my time.
I found this film to be an utter dissapointment. The talent available to the director- notably Stanley Tucci, Chris Walken, Hank Azaria and Alan Arkin (without even mentioning the four main leads)- have been completely wasted on an unfunny, mediocre story, whose conclusion one couldn't really care about once introduced to the dire, stereo-typed characters. Julia Roberts is feeble, Zeta-Jones is just plain annoying (appearing to reprise her role from high fidelity, minus the humour), Crystal just plays his same old hyper-active, neurotic, annoying alter-ego and Cusack simply walks through his part, apparently bored with the whole project.<br /><br />For what is supposed to be a 'Romantic comedy', there is absolutely no romance between the central characters, let alone chemistry, and as for the comedy- (possible SPOILERS)well, the only moments of mild humour came off the back of Cusack's role in Grosse Pointe and his relationship with Alan Arkin- the scriptwriter obviously unable to show any originality whatsoever. (Spoilers) Azaria was reasonably amusing as the Mexican lover and Walken did quite an amusing turn as a parody of an arthouse-maverick-Dogme type director- but these parts constituted very little screen time and instead (Spoilers) we were treated to Billy Crystal having his groin sniffed by a dog. Pure genius.<br /><br />For a huge fan of the majority of John Cusack's work, not to mention the rest of the fantastic cast, I was completely let down by a film with plenty of good ideas, and at the same time completely unwilling to explore or elaborate on any of them, instead resorting to the same old genre cliches and even lowering itself to the depths of almost 'gross-out, teen-movie' humour at times.<br /><br />A very poor 4/10.
Characters you don't care about, relationships you don't care about and you sit through all that to see the ending you knew was coming from the start. Julia Roberts usually leaves no impression on me one way or the other. She was actually somewhat endearing in this role.
Shame on Julia Roberts and John Cusack. They are so talented and should not have had any part in this movie. The storyline was dumb and predictable. The jokes were not funny. The romance was not really romance. I was all too happy when this movie ended.
When my wife and I decided to watch this movie we thought it couldn't fail. I love Billy Crystal, my wife loves Julia Roberts and everyone we talked to said they loved it.<br /><br />We were misled, in spades.<br /><br />On my part, I felt Billy Crystal's character was extremely one-dimensional and did very little for the film. Sure, he cracked a couple of good jokes, but as a character he did nothing but take up space.<br /><br />And poor Julia Roberts. In past shows she plays well as a strong-willed, self-determined lady. In this flick, she seems completely repressed and had very little fire. This is not the Julia Roberts that my wife enjoys watching.<br /><br />OK, if I were to find one good thing, it would have to be Christopher Walken. Now that's entertainment. But, just like Billy Crystal, hardly anything is shown of his character.<br /><br />If you're looking for a night of mindless laughs with very little redeeming value, go see it. But if you're looking for a smart, romantic comedy, this is not your film. It's none of the above.
This movie is horrible! It rivals "Ishtar" in the number of embarrassingly bad moments. I would have rated it lower than a 3, save for a couple of funny lines; but, overall, this film was crap! It looked like they made it over a weekend at some bankrupt resort somewhere. Joe Roth should join Elaine May on the directing sidelines forever!
What a stinkeroo this turned out to be!!! At one time, much earlier in her career, Linda Darnell was one of my favorites - no great shakes as an Actress, but very beautiful and pleasant (particularly in films like "The Mark of Zorro" and "Blood and Sand") but when I saw this monstrosity, the memories of her golden days faded quickly. The story is unbelievable and farcical, the acting second-rate, the supporting cast insufferable. I cannot think of a more immature performance by anyone when compared to Tab Hunter, and Donald Gray had to be the most boring leading man they could have picked. Added to this, was the terrible photography (and I am not just referring to the color!) Everyone associated with this, must have shuddered whenever it was shown.
I just watched this horrid thing on TV. Needless to say it is one of those movies that you watch just to see how much worse it can get. Frankly, I don't know how much lower the bar can go. <br /><br />The characters are composed of one lame stereo-type after another, and the obvious attempt at creating another "Bad News Bears" is embarrassing to say the VERY least.<br /><br />I have seen some prized turkeys in my time, but there is no reason to list any of them since this is "Numero Uno".<br /><br />Let me put it to you this way, I watched the Vanilla Ice movie, because it was so bad it was funny. This...this...is NOT even that good.
The saddest part of this is the fact that these are 87 minutes I'll never get back. I knew this was terrible from the get-go, with the guy dressed as a lunatic Indian chief on top of the roof. (See if they could get away with that in 2008). My 10-year-old boy is really into baseball right now, so we decided to rent it on a rainy day. Even though he seemed to enjoy parts of it, I had to cringe when I heard all the needless foul language. Bad, bad movie. This was an awful ripoff of Bad News Bears. Completely shameless and completely predictable. I don't mind a predictable movie if it's done well, but this one absolutely was not.
Have not watched kids films for some years, so I missed "Here Come the Tigers" when it first came out. (Never even saw "Bad News Bears" even though in the '70s I worked for the guys who arranged financing for that movie, "Warriors," "Man Who Would Be King," and "Rocky Horror Picture Show," among others.) Now I like to check out old or small movies and find people who have gone on to great careers despite being in a less than great movie early on. Just minutes into this movie I could take no more and jumped to the end credits to see if there was a young actor in this movie who had gone on to bigger and better things--at least watching for his/her appearance would create some interest as the plot and acting weren't doing the job. Lo and behold, I spied Wes Craven's name in the credits as an electrical gaffer. He'd already made two or three of his early shockers but had not yet created Freddie Krueger or made the "Scream" movies. Maybe he owed a favor and helped out on this pic. More surprising was Fred J. Lincoln in the cast credits as "Aesop," a wacky character in the movie. F.J. Lincoln, from the '70s to just a few years ago, appeared in and produced adult films. He was associated with the adult spoof "The Ozporns," and just that title is funnier than all of "Tigers" attempts at humor combined. Let the fact that an adult actor was placed in a kids movie be an indication as to how the people making this movie must have been asleep at the wheel.
Might contain possible spoilers (Not that anything in this film is new or will even mildly surprise you for that matter)<br /><br />Why does Disney feel the need to recycle everything they ever made into oblivion? Sure it's cheaper for them, but after a while, wouldn't you think there overall quality and the way people think of them would drop off. House Of Villains is a despicable display of cartoon crossovers that make absolutely no sense at all. Some signs of the total disregard for previous films in this are: The voices don't even remotely match up and Iago is evil again (Since when?!) I know that these films are directly towards children but there was a time when all could enjoy Disney films. Even the movie's musical number (which had been Disney's specialty for years) stunk. I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone even the very young. All I can is that if more of these movies of the same caliber are released, it's only a matter of time before some small animation studio surpasses Disney in overall quality.
I found this on the shelf while housesitting and bored. How can people possibly give this a 10? It's not just that it's supposed to be a feel-good redemption film (I think), because it doesn't work on that level either. Weak plot, bad dialogue, terrible acting; there's just nothing there. Harvey Keitel is decent, but has nothing to work with, and Bridget Fonda and especially Johnathon Schaech are just terrible. The plot progression (especially the relationship between Byron and Ashley) makes no sense. It seems like the writers wanted the plot to go a certain way and made it, without actually writing in the necessary bits to make it flow. It's only an hour and a half, but that's 90 minutes of your life you'll never get back.
This movie makes Canadians and Brits out to be asinine, moronic idiots. The men get stoned/drunk, and then they yell/beat each other up in almost every scene. The women are superfluous to the story – I do not understand what they are there for – they spend every scene causing a ruckus, or worse, milling around like mesmerized cattle. Apparently, Canadian women are either quarrelsome vulgar tramps or hulking hippie chicks. It's the standard knocked-up girlfriend, her loser boyfriend and his wicked mother ludicrousness that we have seen in countless movies before.<br /><br />Every character here is a carping, infantile stereotype. Not to mention that they all looked like they need a shower! And the idea of any kind of scene implying sex with George Wendt – shudder – is enough to make anyone gag! I watched the movie because Samuel West was in it – but I cannot understand why he would have accepted a role like this. Maybe he needed the money. Ian Tracey is a superb actor - the only one with a vague redeeming moment, but his talent is wasted here.<br /><br />As for the rest of the plot – the three imbeciles trying to get their dope back – yawn - or Karl – who is dead, but who is actually a character very much alive in the minds of those left behind (almost like Rebecca in Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece – although I am ashamed to even have thought to compare these two films), why even bother? Karl is so galling that you find the circumstances of his death gratifying.<br /><br />By the end of this wretched movie, I thought they would all have been better off going down with him on that boat!
Not only was this the most expensive Canadian film ever shot in BC, but easily the worst, never seeing the light of day. The director is not even Canadian, but British, and boy does it show. We are all made out to be a bunch of over-sexed dope fiends and morons. The spirit of what it means to be Canadian is absent, and this is supposed to be the reason we fund this bunk. Of course the British character is normal. The rest are a crop of sitcom stereotype - can you say "Norm!!"? The cinematography ranges from pretty postcard images to murky indoor silhouettes. The actors always seem to be fidgetting. Are they as bored as the viewer, or is this the directors idea of cinema? Avoid this mess and check out some of Bruce Mcdonalds films. A true Canadian boy with something original to say cinematically. You won't be compelled to walk out on HIS films after 10 minutes.
Anyone that has see Tammuz's Child Eaters knows that this is a director that can do better. Let's hope it was not a case of too many hands in the pot (Telefilm anyone?)and that is was a case of second feature jitters. The characters are one dimensional and over used. The scenery is terrific however and showcases the Pacific Northwest beautifully.<br /><br />The cinematography is great. Shot almost entirely outside, the images are crisp and beautiful. You can almost smell the wind blowing through the leaves.<br /><br />Technically this movie is as sound as they come - it just lacks a heart.
A splendid example of how Hollywood could (and still can) take a masterpiece of literary fiction and stupidly foul it up.<br /><br />In the case of "the Big Sky," writer Dudley Nichols and company arrogantly assumed they could improve upon a classic pioneer novel by the Pulitzer prize-winning author, A.B. Guthrie. In so doing, they removed the soul of the story and any edge and impact it may have had as a film adaptation.<br /><br />The epic nature of Guthrie's book and the evolution of its main character, Boone Caudill, from a naive, Kentucky lad into a hardened and competent survivor/mountain man, has been replaced with a downscaled riverboat farce that bears little resemblance to the author's intent. In the movie version, Boone's presence is nothing except underwhelming.<br /><br />Intriguing and even shocking plot elements that give Guthrie's novel impact and excitement have been removed for no apparent reason whatsoever. Most puzzling of all is the emphasis placed upon the Zeb Calloway character, who was an incidental, minor character in the book, only occupying a handful of pages. On the other hand, a very important and fascinating character, Dick Summers, the veteran pioneer, is missing altogether!!! It is also apparent that director Hawks decided the Zeb character in the movie, played by actor Hunnicutt, wasn't irritating enough. So Zeb/Hunnicutt was given a significant amount of time doing that obnoxious, voice-over narration that is the Hollywood short cut for incompetent screen writing, editing, and direction.<br /><br />Some movies have actually improved upon the books upon which they were based (William Wyler's "Ben-Hur" is an excellent example). But this is horrible and depressing not only as an adaptation of a novel but as a film unto itself.<br /><br />The story is dull and clichéd, and the characters - at least the ones that have not been edited out of the script - are just shallow and boring shadows of Guthrie's literary vision. And unfortunately, Kirk Douglas' star appeal, which could have helped lift this film, was scuttled by the milktoast role he was given.<br /><br />If you can believe it, the film version of Guthrie's Pulitzer prize-winning sequel, "The Way West," also starring Kirk, is even worse.<br /><br />In my opinion, "The Big Sky" further solidifies Howard Hawks' place as one of the most overrated, tepid directors in the history of cinema.
I'll give writer/director William Gove credit for finding someone to finance this ill-conceived "thriller." A good argument for not wasting money subscribing to HBO, let alone buying DVDs based on cover art and blurbs. A pedestrian Dennis Hopper and a game Richard Grieco add nothing significant to their resumes, although the art direction is not half bad. The dialogue will leave you grimacing with wonder at its conceit; this is storytelling at its worst. No tension, no suspense, no dread, no fear, no empathy, no catharsis, no nothing. A few attractive and often nude females spice up the boredom, but this is definitely a film best seen as a trailer. I feel sorry for the guy who greenlighted this thing. Good for late-night, zoned-out viewing only. You have been warned.
First of all, what is good in the movie ? Some pretty actress ? the exotic background ? the fact that the actors don't laugh while acting (I would have if I had been in their situation) ? I don't know. The storyline is simple : a catholic priest who does abstract painting tries to find out who (another abstract painter) killed his little brother, a male prostitute (raped by another priest when he was young...). I'm afraid there is nothing here to learn or to let think a little about serial killers, art or religion. Dennis Hopper is not very good here. This is the worst episode of the worst season of "profiler" (the serie) with replacement actors and unbelievable coincidences (the uncle is the policeman who, the girl who lives at another victim's house could have a baby with the priest, etc., etc).
This was an impulse pick up for me from the local video store. Don't make the same mistake I did. This movie is tedious, unconvincingly acted, and generally boring. The dialogue between the young priest and his uncle is particularly poorly written and delivered; I cringed at every scene they shared. Dennis Hopper makes a few sparse appearances and is his usual disjointed self; his role was clearly not a stretch for him. And although the movie is supposedly set in Puerto Rico, it feels a lot more like a Hollywood movie lot; all of the main characters are Caucasian and several tend to speak English with pseudo-Irish accents. Odd. Anyway, when you see this one on the shelf of your local video store, keep walking.
This movie was a mess. It had the absolute worst editing I have ever seen. It was almost like at the end of a scene the writer wanted to go to commercial, and the filmmaker added a second of black screen to fulfill the writers dream.<br /><br />Under the messy direction and editing, there was a glimmer of something good. A good idea, a compelling spark. But somewhere it went wrong.<br /><br />The story is about a quasi-psychic priest who is trying to solve a string of murders. The first thing that is hard to bite into is Richard Grieco as a priest. Well the part doesn't call for him to be a good priest and he succeeds rather well. The second problem is Dennis Hopper as the crazy bad guy. He always plays the crazy bad guy. Very ho hum.<br /><br />Oh, a thought occured to me that maybe all the jumpy, horrible editing and disconnected plot was trying to add a sense of the confusion the character (Grieco) was experiencing. And just to prove that it was contrived they rolled the credits backwords. Not a good sign for any movie.<br /><br />
This "film" is the culmination of everything that is bad about modern film. unnecessary slow motion, unnecessary flipping/jumping/somersaults, unnecessary characters, unnecessary dialogue.... basically unnecessity. (is that a word? well, it's just been invented by I, Robot.)<br /><br />What happened to practicality? (i.e. the car garage, the skin spray) the only tool that shows a combination of futuristic and realistic function is the card swipe at the coffee shop.<br /><br />What happened to showing respect for women? (i.e. smith's character does nothing but degrade the doctor for the better part of the film, and yet she still "wants" him. WHERE IS THE TENSION? I'll tell you where, good looks and not admiration or common ground)<br /><br />What happened to a detective that detects? Smith did nothing but sit around and feel sorry for himself, complaining to other people, and when they said something that sparked a thought he was off. this is such a lame way to get the story from point b-c-d-etc... it was OK once, but not several times in a row. (speaking of several times in a row, what was the "I'm snoring and not listening to you joke? Twice In One Scene?)<br /><br />What happened to the small parts in a movie being somewhat meaningful and not just a tool to promote rescue scenes? Shia LaBeouf (the kid) is in the movie for a total of TWO SCENES, we know that A-he degrades women, and B-he knows Smith....... so of COURSE we should care about him and whether or not he comes to harm,<br /><br />What happened to Hero's? let's just forget that there are people, women and children everywhere getting attacked by robots and selfishly save the only person withing my view that I have an acquaintance with. and why did he have to ramp his bike through the air, showing off, while the doctor was somehow able to reach the same distance in a matter of seconds on foot.<br /><br />don't get me wrong, I'm all for spectacle. but I'm also all for a shred of realism and meaning.<br /><br />I have to say I've never laughed quite so hard at a film in a long time. so thanks Alex. <br /><br />I pray for the swing of the social pendulum back to simpler techniques, simpler stories and simpler everything else in films...... but mainly simpler techniques.<br /><br />Big Budget Action films: "you so have to die"
In spite of the great future-design touches, the clever Asimov premise, and Will Smith's dependable cool performance, this movie doesn't live up to expectations. The clichés come thick and fast; (waking from a recurring nightmare, maverick cop has his badge revoked by hardass lieutenant, to list more would be spoiling it - you can see the end a mile off). This movie is also stagebound - you never feel that you have travelled anywhere; what's supposed to be a global disaster never leaves an obviously CGI Chicago. The robots themselves are good in closeup, but the 'crowd' scenes look more like bad Disney -the CGI is overdone again and again. And if you can destroy the robots by smashing them, why do they need to inject 'nanites'? You know it's a duff movie when stupid questions like that start to bother you before the climax. It could have been great, but it's less than the sum of its parts, mainly due to the utterly predictable plot that could have come from any action film of the last forty years.
This is probably the most boring, worse and useless film I have seen last year. The plot that was meant to have some philosophical aspects emerged to me as a very bad hollow copy of the matrix, with plenty of clichés: the lone wolf cop, good looking, psychologically disturbed, sleeping with his gun... + nice hard worker and shy, but good looking she-scientist, you add a 2 cent plot and you have I, Robot! I was terribly disturbed by the obvious advertising of brands like FedEx,Audi,converse etc. This movie stinks the commercialization and tend to be more a poor ad spot that unfortunately will not end after 30 sec. I wouldn't recommend this to my worse enemy, if you have some spare time, watch a good TV program instead or better read a nice book.
I just saw this film on DVD last night, and decided to check out the reviews this morning. It seems that "I, Robot" has polarized the critical viewing community here on IMDb (and given rise to a lot of insults and name-calling, too).<br /><br />I find this somewhat surprising, as this film is not great (or even good), but neither is it terrible (or even really bad). What this film really is, is...depressing. Depressing that the US film-goer population is so ready to lap up insipid, clichéd re-heats, and acclaim them as spectacular new works. This film as "retread" written all over it, from the plot line (an uneasy mix of Asimov and modern-day uber-action) to Smith's character (a smart-mouthed cynic with a backbone of titanium), to the special effects (that borrowed from Matrix and a few others).<br /><br />"I, Robot" is, sadly, quite possibly the perfect action movie for today's audience: superficial plot, insipidly snappy dialog, and lots and lots of adrenaline. Smith is mediocre, but we already knew that (he seems to be Hollywood's latest unsuccessful attempt to create a black Bruce Willis). The story has lots of holes in it, of all sizes, but I don't think most people drawn to this film are critically-minded enough to notice. Perhaps a blockbuster by today's standards, but very B-movie compared to true winners.
After perusing the large amount of comments on this movie it is clear that there are two kinds of science fiction movie-goers. There are the ones who are well read, extremely literate, and intelligent. They know the history of the genre and more importantly they know to what heights it can reach in the hands of a gifted author. For many years science fiction languished in the basement of literature. Considered my most critic to be little more than stories of ray guns and aliens meant for pre-pubescent teenagers. Today's well read fan knows well this history, and knows the great authors Asimov, Heinlein, Bradbury, and Ellison, who helped bring science fiction out of that basement. In doing so they created thought provoking, intelligent stories that stretched the boundaries and redefined the human condition. This well informed fans are critical of anything Hollywood throws at them. They are not critical for it's own sake, but look upon each offering with a skeptical eye. (As they should as Hollywood's record has been less than stellar.) To these fans the story must take supreme importance. They cannot be fooled by flashy computer graphics, and non stop action sequences. When the emperor has no clothes they scream it the loudest.<br /><br />The second type of science fiction movie goer has little knowledge about the written aspect of the genre. (Look at many of the above comments that state "Well I haven't read the book or anything by this author...) Their total exposure to science fiction is from movies or the Scifi channel. They are extremely uncritical, willing to overlook huge plot holes, weak premises, and thin story lines if they are given a healthy dose of wiz bang action and awesome special effects. They are, in effect, willing to turn off their critical thinking skills (or maybe they never had them!) for the duration of the movie. Case in point, I Robot. While supposedly based on Asimov's short stories and named after one of his novels, it contains little of what Asimov wrote and even less of what he tried to tell us about humanity and our robotic creations. (Those of you that will run out and buy I, Robot will be very much surprised-this movie isn't even based on that story at all!) <br /><br />The film has enormous plot holes, that at some points are stretched to the limits of credulity. I won't point them out. I won't spoon feed you. You need to practice you thinking skills and discover them for yourself. The characters, which are named after many of Asimov's characters, do not possess the critical intelligence that was a hallmark of his stories. The plot itself with all it's action sequences goes against everything that the author stood for. His belief that humanity possesses the capacity to solve problems using their minds, not their fists, is vital to understanding his vision of the future. In short, other than the name, their is very little of Isaac in anything about this movie. There will always be those uncritical (i.e. unthinking) who will state: "The movie doesn't have to be like the book. Due to the medium, movies sometimes require that changes be made." But what about a case where the movie never even tried to stay close to the book (or books) from the start? What if all they took from the written work was the title? This begs the question: Why tarnish a great body of work by slapping it's title on your vacuous piece of crap? Save money and don't buy the rights to the works. Title it something else. Don't use the character's names. Believe me no one will accuse you of plagiarism. In fact it won't matter what you title it to the unread moviegoer who accepts everything you throw at him. But it will upset those who read, who think, who are unwilling to simply let you give them a pretty light show. <br /><br />I, Robot, like much of Hollywood's take on the genre, pushes Science fiction back down into that basement it lived in years ago. Hollywood could not do this alone. It takes an uncritical mindless audience that will accept puerile dredge like this.
I can't really think of any redeeming features of this utterly bad rendering on Asimov than the art direction. Forget the product placement disaster, the unconvincing performance from Will Smith and the gargantuan plot-holes. This wasn't only laughable and but painful to watch. Even the action was boring. A mixture of MTV inspired production values and utterly bad dialogue probably aimed at very small children.<br /><br />What a shame that sci-fi this bad can still be made after we've had Bladerunner, Minority Report or to a lesser extent Dark City (by the same director). This one really belongs in the bottom 100 list. Truly awful.
Waiting to go inside the theathre with tickets in my hand, I expected an interesting sci-fi fantasy movie which could finally feed my appetite of movies regarding robot-technology, instead I went disappointed by each aspect of it, once more proving that stunning special effects can't help a boring plot, which by my opinion was the worse in this year. Acting in this movie also dissatisfied me, Will Smith didn't show anything new in this movie, yet I never saw his acting to change since "Men In Black" which was his only success by my opinion. He had to retire since than, not spoiling his name with titles like "I,Robot" and "Men In Black 2". 4/10
Del - "You are the dumbest smart person I've ever met."<br /><br />Calvin- "Well,I had a brain, but they lost it in the re-writes."<br /><br />I think what I find most egregious about this bastardization of Asimov's work was how the character of Susan Calvin was portrayed. In the books, she was actually one of the first strong female protagonists, able to think her way through a problem. Here she's just a damsel in distress, waiting to be rescued by Wil Smith.<br /><br />There are passing references to Asimov's Laws of Robotics, but they are an afterthought to the CGI and action scenes.<br /><br />Smith is likable, as he is in most of his films, but honestly, the story isn't that good. YOu figure it out long before these genius characters do.
This film was so disappointing. From the blurb that made me decide to see Phantom Love (why is it called this?)I had expected something arty and thoughtful with beautiful imagery. It did have some interesting images but these often seemed random and made no sense. In fact they seemed like they were inserted to fill in time. In the end the effect was listless.<br /><br />I believe the film was meant to be atmospheric, but it just wasn't. The lack of a coherent plot did not help matters. You might say it was mysterious, but I think it was just incoherent with no atmosphere.<br /><br />The main character seemed to be disturbed but the plot did not draw me in enough to care about her situation. Without looking at the cast list I would not have known that you see the main character as a child. The film has very little context for the time, place or character. I am not a prude but the sex scenes (there were several) seemed pointless and confused me further, I recognised Lulu but I was not sure if it was the same man, different men, a lover, her husband or was she a prostitute. It was only when I saw the credits that I discovered the hairy back was meant to belong to her lover. This film did manage to make what should have been shocking (dream sequences involving Lulu's mother) seem a bit boring.<br /><br />The nail filing actually made more sense, as it did give some indication of Lulu's emotional state. I will not fault the actors as I don't they had a lot to work on.<br /><br />I do not know if the lack of context or flow in the film was because of ineptitude or because it was pretentious but the end result was dull.<br /><br />I can't be bothered talking about it anymore.
Lately they have been trying to hock this film late-night on cable TV commercials. Don't believe the hype. I was one of the unlucky people to see this stinker in theatres. This is, in my opinion, the 3rd Worst Movie of All Time, just behind Mac & Me (#1 Worst), and Jack Frost (#2 Worst), but I must admit, they are all close and all TERRIBLE! Really, nothing of this movie is funny, or disturbing, or anything else it claims to be so don't waste your money. The only thing it is good for is giving to your worst enemy. I'm not lying about that. Someone who you would love to kill or torture would be a prime candidate for this film. It is that awful. If you don't believe me then you deserve to suffer through the misery of watching this, which I doubt you can finish. Two Thumbs Enthusiastically Down.
This film stars, among others, "SlapChop" Vince Offer (who also wrote, edited and directed) and Joey Buttafuoco--not exactly names that scream out "quality". And with such uplifting skits as "Supermodels taking a dump" (it's exactly what it sounds like), a guy who robs a sperm bank (the "Rhymer"), necrophilia with a rotting corpse, black market fetuses (featuring a guy scooping what are supposed to be them out of a jar), lots and lots of gay jokes, a skit about a giant phallus who is a superhero and forced abortions. The skits are painfully unfunny (such as "Batman and Rhymer"), the acting not good enough to be considered amateurish and the film is crude just for the sake of being crude...and stupid. I truly believe a group of 8 year-olds could have EASILY made a funnier film with the same budget.<br /><br />Apparently this film resulted in a lawsuit by "Slap Shot" Vince against the Scientologists. Frankly, I wouldn't know who to root for in this case!!! Apparently, he alleged that somehow Scientologists destroyed his reputation and sank this film. No matter that the film is repellent junk from start to finish and 99% unfunny (by comparison, Ebola is funnier)...and these are the nicest things I can say about the movie.<br /><br />By the way, that IS Bobby Lee (from "Mad TV") wearing a diaper and participating in the dumb fake porno film. It's amazing his career could overcome this.
This movie shows a row of sketches, which partly pass over into one another. I realized the passing over late in the movie, at first it only irritated me. <br /><br />Many of the episodes in this movie come along without any recognizable punchlines and simply try to wangle around that fact, using absurdity and obscenity. The attempt of it to stay comedy without any funny bits fails.<br /><br />My personnel and maybe subjective result after watching this movie (My god, it hurts in my head every time I call it "movie"): A bold attempt to turn nothing into something great. But it failed. At least the director made something out of nothing. But it isn't something good.<br /><br />Many movies didn't turn out as funny as they were planned, but this one tops them all. It's the real life manifestation of the worst case scenario of film making. No. To correct myself, it's even worse than that. A movie with gags so bad, that they aren't funny at all. It's not even fun to watch the lead-actor, writer and director (all three the same guy by the way) perish by drowning in the sea of bad movies. The movie is too bad for that.
It really impresses me that it got made. The director/writer/actor must be really charismatic in reality. I can think of no other way itd pass script stage. What I want you to consider is this...while watching the films I was feeling sorry for the actors. It felt like being in a stand up comedy club where the guy is dying on his feet and your sitting there, not enjoying it, just feeling really bad for him coz hes of trying. Id really like to know what the budget is, guess it must have been low as the film quality is really poor. I want to write 'the jokes didn't appeal to me'. but the reality is for them to appeal to you, you'd have to be the man who wrote them. or a retard. So imagine that in script form...and this guy got THAT green lit. Thats impressive isn't it?
How do I begin? This movie is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen .It has no redeemable qualities .I just sat through this movie and it was a struggle.It failed to get even a single smile on my face.I find it hard to believe that anyone would distribute this horrible film. I felt that this movie was a failed attempt at distasteful humor. The only thing that was worth anything about this movie was the soundtrack, I'm pretty sure thats the reason I wanted to see this movie in the first place.I will wrap this up as I am going to try and forget the time I just wasted with this piece of crap. I will leave you with this warning. DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM ,IT SUCKS.
Hawked as THE MOST OFFENSIVE MOVIE EVER, GUARANTEED TO OFFEND EVERYONE- Guess what? It worked, I'm offended that we shelled out money to rent this. Two friends and I were bored and decided to see if all that bull about the movie that we saw on TV was true. Curse Comedy Central and all the other networks that pushed this garbage on us! It was by far the worst movie I've seen since Hollow Man. I generally avoid the crappy ones, but got sucked into this one. We have since beaten the prick who suggest we rent it, and his movie picking privileges have been revoked. There is nothing remotely funny about this movie...even the "adventures of dickman" scene was sophomoric at best.. Color me p***ed. Thought maybe the production value was crap for some important reason...no..it just sucked. NEVER WATCH THIS! for any reason whatsoever. Not even with copious amounts of illegal substance would this movie be funny. That's saying ALOT. Please for the love of all that is holy, if you cherish your sanity- never view this movie. It's many things- stupid, pointless, and worthless to name a few. But the main thing it was aiming for: offensively funny- it failed miserably. Crash and burn....
I have never seen a comedy that was this much of a chore to sit thru...not one laugh in it. Ok, maybe one little chuckle for the Michael Clarke Duncan bit as the big, black, bald gay virgin. But the rest of it was shockingly un-funny. On top of being void of any laughs the "skits" go on forever! Steer clear of this one if you value your time and money. DREADFUL!!! The worst!!!
Words cannot describe how utterly abysmal this movie is. It is a series of random, unfunny clips about everything from a stupid Batman spoof to a guy getting it on with an old dead lady (REALLY disturbing). The only remotely amusing thing about the Underground Comedy Movie is watching Joey Buttafuoco, the best actor in this movie. Also, it is rated NC-17, shunning away the only people that might tolerate it.
Imagine the worst skits from Saturday Night Live and Mad TV in one 90 minute movie. Now, imagine that all the humor in those bad skits is removed and replaced with stupidity. Now imagine something 50 times worse.<br /><br />Got that?<br /><br />Ok, now go see The Underground Comedy Movie. That vision you just had will seem like the funniest thing ever. UCM is the single worst movie I've ever seen. There were a few cheap laughs...very few. But it was lame. Even if the intent of the movie was to be lame, it was too lame to be funny.<br /><br />The only reason I'm not angry for wasting my time watching this was someone else I know bought it. He wasted his money. Vince Offer hasn't written or directed anything else and it's not surprise why.
This movie goes beyond just being bad, it is definitively the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life. Unless you yourself have a problem with necrophilia than you will not enjoy will not enjoy the scenes depicting it in this film, (if you can call it that).
First of all.....<br /><br />What the hell? Why in the world are they trying to sell a low budget piece of crap on late night TV with the promise of disturbing, offensive sick garbage that any normal real human being with a soul couldn't watch. <br /><br />What the crap is funny about a dog being injured, a grandma getting her head knocked off...a guy getting his hand blown to pieces and two girls going to the bathroom? what in the hell has this world come to that people find comedy in some thing so completely sick. Anyone who thinks this kind of material is funny, should not even be allowed to walk the earth. <br /><br />But from what I hear its not even offensive...so...they promise comedy through demented piles of sick garbage...and they cant even pull that off.
The Underground Comedy movie is perhaps one of the worst comedies I've ever seen. I should have known it was going to be bad when the box had the phrase "guaranteed to offend" written on it... meaning that the filmmakers were going to focus more on grossing you out than making you laugh.<br /><br />This movie is an amateurish jumble of childish skits, bad characters, and worse jokes... from the pathetic Bat-Man sketch to the painfully unfunny Arnold Shvollenpecker skit, they just aren't funny. The few skits that are a little funny are few and far between - watching Micheal Clark Duncan play a gay virgin, for example - but even they go on too long and get ruined from Vince Offer's ineptness at comedy.<br /><br />Keep The Underground Comedy Movie underground... bury it!
Anyone who has watched Comedy Central around midnight in the past few years has probably seen ads for this movie. I first saw ads for this movie back in 2001. It looked like it could be funny, but I wasn't about to call up the number on the television screen and order it without seeing the movie first. I figured I would wait until the movie was available to rent at Blockbuster.<br /><br />About a year and a half later, I was at Tower Records and in the "DVDS for less than $20" pile, there was a copy of this movie. Seeing that the DVD was only $6.99 I decided to buy it. I got home, put the disc in the DVD player, and waited for the laughs to start...and I waited some more. The laughs never came.<br /><br />I'd have to agree with almost every other comment on this page when I say that this movie was horrible. Sick, desperately tasteless, and poorly written and directed, THE UNDERGROUND COMEDY MOVIE is an atrocious piece of garbage and is in my opinion the worst movie of all time. No stars.
Sometimes you wonder how some people get funding to create a movie as bad as this one. You can only stand about 5 minutes of this utter piece of garbage before you stomp back into blockbuster and demand your money back. I will now look at Michael Clarke Duncan with apprehension...why....he lent his name to this vermin.
Sure, we all like bad movies at one time or another, and we in fact enjoy them, This however, wasn't even a guilty pleasure, it was just crap. Some guy, vince offer, who is conceited enough to make himself the main character while probably got drunk/high--probably both--and thought it was a great idea to make a movie. He then proceeded to show his script to equally high/drunk individuals. Overall, this movie was so bad, predictable, and unoriginal I couldn't get through 20 minutes of it before I turned it off. It makes You Got Served look like Citizen Kane. Bat Man? WTF...Some guy that walks around with a bat, real original. Almost as good as calling him Fat Man, and having a fat guy walk around in a superhero outfit.
The Underground Comedy Movie, is possibly the worst train wrecks I've ever seen. Luckily I didn't pay for this movie, and my friend reluctantly agreed to watch it again siting that it was so awful but he needed to prove to me how awful it was. I love off color comedy. I figured at the least it would have that and I would be entertained. No, instead the acting was so awful, the "jokes" were extremely cheesy, and the plot was no where to be found. Maybe there wasn't supposed to be a plot so I can't hold that against this movie. It's pretty sad where the funniest thing in a comedy is an old woman having her head hit off by a bat.....by Batman...A man dressed in a baseball uniform wielding a bat. Hilarious. Simply genius. I got the feeling watching this movie that its creators made it and laughed hysterically with their friends about it. Perhaps this was full of inside jokes we just didn't understand. Or perhaps it's the worst piece of trash ever made and it should be locked away in a vault and dumped in the Arctic Ocean.<br /><br />P.S. Don't buy this movie!
My brother is an avid DVD collector. He took one look at the cover (two models on toilets) and had to add it to his collection. I stayed up with him to watch what turned out to be likely the most cringeable movie (I use that term loosely) I've felt obligated to sit through. I dared not make eye contact with my brother, quite certain he must have been cursing the receipt in his clenched fist. The biggest name in the whole movie is Michael Clark Duncan who appears in one scene, which the "filmmaker" decided to show every take of (about four total) throughout the movie. In fact, the whole movie pretty much follows this suit. The fact that the DVD contained deleted footage was a shock. (I went to bed without viewing it, however). To no surprise at all, I found this disc without its case behind the TV about a week later.
I ended up watching this whole (very long) movie because I was fascinated by the sheer stupidity and naivity of it. It seems difficult to believe that so many famous people (Anthony Quinn, Lawrence Olivier, John Gielguld, Vittorio de Sica, etc.) would have willingly participated in this farce. But maybe in 1968 people really *were* so naive? The plot seems written by some confused Latin American Marxist priest with an agenda. There is a superpower conflict and the Russians are actually the good guys, with the Communist Party General Secretary being a nice and spiritual man, who, suddenly, after 20 years, sees the light and feels compelled to ease his bad conscience by releasing a prisoner priest from a Siberian gulag. The priest then promptly becomes the Pope by a series of coincidences. We are allowed to see the secret Vatican papal voting process which is portrayed in the most hillariously pious form you can possibly imagine.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the communists in China achieved the usual socialist economic miracle of starving half of their country to death. To solve this minor hiccup on the relentless shining path towards communism they want to start a nuclear war (in order to justly distribute the Western capitalist riches to the poor workers of China).<br /><br />Our good old comrade General Secretary gets a bit worried and calls the Pope just before his coronation to ask him to broker peace. They meet with the Chinese leader comrade Peng who looks and acts like a 15 year old boy. You will roll on the floor laughing about what people in 1968 thought the Chinese looked like. Comrade Peng demands that the Western capitalists must pay (which is quite logical after all, don't capitalists always have to pay for the madness of the socialists?), and that the Pope needs to sacrifice something, too, for the common altruistic cause of equality and social justice.<br /><br />So when the Pope gets crowned in Rome, he pledges the entire wealth of the Catholic church world-wide to feed our poor Chinese brethren in Christ. And thus he saves the world from nuclear holocaust.<br /><br />Apart from this, there are also some minor sub-plots, which, alas, provide little to redeem this incredibly bad movie. I'd give it three Oscars for stupidity.<br /><br />By the way, Anthony Quinn looks quite unlikely as a Pope. He is much more plausible as Zorba the Greek.
*Warning - no plot spoilers ahead, but movie spoilers nonetheless...* My significant other rented this for me thinking it would be a terrific romance with an all-star cast. Wow - very, very wrong. This movie is an overdone, overwrought, and overly sentimental excuse to theatrically release a student film 15 years after it was shot! The copyright date on the box said 2005, yet during the very first flashback sequence I was looking at the clothes and hairdos that were supposed to be the early 1960s, and noticed that the girls especially were wearing late 80s/early 90s dresses and hairdos. It looked as if it had been shot a good 15 or 20 years before the rest of the film! I tried to convenience myself that it was a flashback, and therefore supposed to look old, but it looked WWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY more 80s than 60s or even 21st century trying to be 60s... then an adult coworker of the lead character turns up, and he looks just like the boy featured in the flashback sequences (yet it's a different, much older character whose youth is featured in the flashbacks). I was completely confused until I saw in the special features the short film included - it was all the flashback sequences, shot in 1990 as a complete student film of the same title as this movie! It also features commentary that includes the little boy all grown up (and indeed acting the co-worker in the 2005 scenes). Thus, this movie is just a shell of story woven around an old, re-cut student film put together as an obvious excuse to get it up to theatrical running time. The shell story, shot in 2005, is mostly about a man who has lost his wife and finds healing and redemption at the dance class that he promises a dying man he will attend in his stead (something about a promise made by the dying man in the early 60's to his girl that they would meet on the "fifth day of the fifth month of the fifth year of the new millennium - an excuse to shoot the segments around the old film in 2005?) These new scenes and plot might have been OK except the awful, overly sentimental score that repeats ad nauseum over almost every single new scene and the clichéd action that permeates the new movie. Don't bother. There's a reason why you've never heard of this movie even though it has a well-known cast - it's terrible.
If I had never read the book, I would have said it was a good movie. BUT I did read the book. Who ever did the screen write ruined the storyline. There is so many changes, that it wasn't really worthy of the Title. Character changes, plot changes, time line changes...<br /><br />First off who was Henry and the investigator? They weren't in the story. Henry had Mitch's persona somewhat, but Mitch wasn't a cop. No you made it so Roz, helped 'sink ' his body and used that as Zenia's blackmail against Roz. The real so called blackmail was Roz thought Zenia was sleeping with her son and wanted her to get away from him. Her son was also being blackmailed because he was hiding being Gay from his mother. Her son wasn't even really mentioned in the story. Neither I don't believe was his lover, Roz's secretary.<br /><br />Tony and West were not together in the beginning. He was actually with Zenia first while in college. The black painted apartment was their Idea, Tony just went to visit. This is where Zenia and Tony meet, become fast friends. Tony hides her love for West. Then Zenia left west, with cash from Tony, then West and Tony get together. Eventually marry, at some point West leaves Tony for Zenia again for a short time. Only to be heart broken again. Then go back to Tony. Zenia's blackmail for Tony was that Tony had written a test paper for Zenia. Now being a Professor at College she didn't want to let it get out. I will say the character who played Tony did it wonderfully.<br /><br />Charis character was a blond, not that it really matters. Zenia didn't trick her about having cancer while Augusta was alive. No she was there when Charis had a lover named billy. Augusta's father, he was a draft dodger in the Vietnam war. Eventually after Charis takes care of Zenia for months for what was actually drug withdrawal. Zenia and Billy have an affair right under Charis's nose while taking care of them both. Then Zenia turns in Billy to the government, and leaves on the ferry with him. Not with Augusta, Charis was pregnant with her tho. Charis also had a split personality, Karen was her real name.<br /><br />Zenia did not die from being cut up into piece's.... she fell or was possibly pushed (we never really knew) off the balcony and landed in a fountain. She had almost pure grade heroin in her blood and it was likely she took some not knowing and fell off as she OD'd. She was also really dieing of Cancer this time around.<br /><br />It didn't show any of the childhood memories or anything that endeared the characters to the reader. The Book was striped down to its bare bones. Then re made in someone else's vision. Why couldn't you just write your own story along the lines of what you made the movie. It was different enough, and I'm sure could have been made more so.
I greatly enjoyed Margaret Atwood's novel 'The Robber Bride', and I was thrilled to see there was a movie version. A woman frames a cop boyfriend for her own murder, and his buddy, an ex-cop journalist, tries to clear his name by checking up on the dead woman's crazy female friends. It's fortunate that the movie script fixes Ms. Atwood's clumsy plotting by focusing on the story of these two men, victims of scheming women...<br /><br />Heh. Okay, you got me. If these guys are mentioned in the book, and I'm pretty sure they're entirely made up for the movie, I'll eat the dust cover of my hardback copy. Apparently, the three main female characters of the novel aren't enough to carry the movie. Zenia's manipulations aren't interesting unless we see them happen to a man, and a man's life is screwed up. Roz, Charis, and Toni tell their stories -- to a man. Because it's not important if a man doesn't hear them.<br /><br />I liked the characters in the book. It hurts to see them pushed off to the side for a man's story. I normally do not look for feminist angles on media, and I tried to enjoy the movie as is. If I hadn't read the book, I might have enjoyed the movie a lot more. So if you like the cop and the ex-cop, and you want to read more about them, you're out of luck. Read the novel, if you want to enjoy luscious prose and characterization subtly layered through a plot. It's the same plot: the movie excavated it, ironed it, and sprinkled it with male angst. It's like Zenia's revenge on Margaret Atwood.
When I saw that Mary Louise Parker was associated with this epic novel turned film, I was intrigued. Being a fan of the book, I assumed she'd be playing Tony, Roz, or Charis, but more so, I was intrigued to see how they would turn this very head-y, almost psychological (but not psychological thriller) novel in to a movie that would be accessible to those who hadn't read the novel, and that would be at least mildly satisfying for those who had. The book is a complex reflection of society, women, and modern life, and I was interested to see how they used the 3 different narratives that lead to the unfolding of the story in a film. What they actually did was a crime.<br /><br />The biggest error and confusing issue is: Why would Oxygen, a network that advertises as being for women, take an amazing book about how complex, wonderful, and terrible women are and can be, and change the protagonist from 3 women to some dumb former cop with no real motive to be involved in the story? It seems like whoever adapted it took an easy way out by using this guy to straight up ask Roz, Tony, and Charis about how they knew Zenia and in doing that, they rushed through bulk of the book. In doing this though they muddied the story and cut everything that is great about the characters in it, aside from making it so the audience had no one credible to associate with. In the film, these women aren't people, they are characters.<br /><br />In the book Zenia does fake her death, but the book mentions it to get this point across, while the film wastes 30-45 minutes focusing on this former cop running around and doing nothing of use. They tried to make this complex book an episode of Law and Order or CSI.<br /><br />It turns out that Mary Louise Parker played Zenia, which was SO wrong. Zenia is a Catherine Zeta-Jones, Angelina Jolie, or maybe even a Scarlett Johnasson type. She is a woman men can't not adore, and a woman that women are intrigued and threatened by, but in a "keep your enemies closer" kind of way. And once she gets closer, she seems totally genuine and trust worthy, despite your better judgment. She's the kind of woman who, even when she loses, she wins: she's always still beautiful, still rich, and there are always still people out there who don't know her game.<br /><br />In the film, Zenia didn't take Charis's man (the blonde American draft dodger who was using Charis in the first place...) but instead took August and tried to become her legal guardian (and apparently came back to be her Lesbian lover as a lingering kiss at the coffee shop implies). And Zenia did kill the chickens before leaving with August, but it made no sense since all of the build up to it was removed. It's was as if whoever wrote the screenplay was grasping at straws to satisfy those of us who read the book, but I think had I not read the book, I would have spent the whole movie confused, if I had bothered to stick with it at all.<br /><br />And Roz's husband was dead before Zenia came in to the picture (which was weird since Zenia took Roz's business AND home life in the book, which is why Roz hated her so much) and she and Zenia had conspired to kill Roz's husband years and years back. And according to the film Tony and West had been dating forever...even at the party where Zenia and West (in the book) had painted the whole place black and they made Tony seem like this totally with it (and evil, bitchy) person who was always respected by everyone for her intelligence and popular for it. Tony's character was SO wrong in this film...she seemed a little psycho and like the mastermind behind whatever conspiring was going down as opposed to the kind of gawky, mildly reclusive teacher that she was in the book. The film basically implied smart women are evil, beautiful women are evil, powerful women are evil, and women who teach yoga are off their rockers.<br /><br />They basically tried to make it so Zenia wasn't necessarily as awful as she was in the book, and then, in the end, the three women convince this former cop (who, of course in the process of researching this, meets Zenia and has an affair with her that is supposed to end with them moving to Barbados or something ridiculous, which of course Zenia bails on) to hide Zenia's body (which they found splat at the hotel she was staying at, but the film implies that one of the three women pushed her over the balcony, or they conspired together to do it...) and then Zenia also managed to take all of Roz's money in the process. By the end of the film I was only half paying attention between commercials b/c it had spiraled so far out in space from what it could and should have been.<br /><br />If you aren't confused by this breakdown of the film, then maybe you would like it, because I have read the book and seen the movie, and from the movie alone I am ridiculously confused. It was terrible. I get that making a film out of that book is quite a task, but if you are going to take on the task, you should start by determining what in the book is unnecessary, instead of creating some useless character to be our Alice in wonderland. <br /><br />Are there really no fluffier books that Oxygen could be making at least half decent TV movies of?
I don't know what Margaret Atwood was thinking to allow this movie to have the same name as her book. I've always been a big fan of The Robber Bride and was so excited to learn there was a movie in the works. I am aware that the translation of book to movie isn't perfect but this movie was the worst ever. The names of the women are correct and some of the back story is correct but that is about it. I feel like I lost a good portion of my time trying to make it through this movie. This really should have been a mini-series to tell the story the way it was written.<br /><br />The actors for Roz, Tony, Charis and Zenia were well-chosen even though I was skeptical at first about Mary-Louise Parker. I only wish they'd had a better script to work with because this really had nothing to do with the book at all.
I watched this movie for its two hours and have absolutely no idea what it's about. Somebody got murdered or maybe they didn't and maybe somebody did it or maybe they didn't. This brought back memories of the good old days (bad old days?) when all CBC Canadian movies were stinkers. Lately stinkers have been the exception but this confused hodge podge of trendy feminism, mind reeling flash backs and mumbled dialogue makes up for lost time. I've never found Margaret Atwood's books easy to read. This movie continues that fine Canadian tradition. It isn't easy to watch. Maybe the trendy folks at the chi chi Toronto cocktail parties will pretend they liked it. Us folks in the boonies are a little less pretentious.
When this play was first shown by the BBC over 30 years ago, it would have been something quite different for the time. So therefor some people would have found it quite scary, and may well have been impressed with the special effects?<br /><br />Looking at the play in this day and age, It doesn't seem to be all that scary anymore, even the special effects can leave a lot to be desired.<br /><br />Would a train really be allowed to pass a RED LIGHT into a dark tunnel? I don't think so......but if you watch this play again, you will observe that the first train that enters the tunnel, rushes straight through the RED LIGHT! (maybe that's how it was in dickens time)?<br /><br />You will also notice that the footpath that leads down to the Signal Box is very steep and in a poor state. Surely there would have been a series of proper steps with handrails for the Signalman to climb up or down into the cutting. (i can't help but notice things like that)<br /><br />I will not take anything away from the acting, both Denholm Elliott (signalman) and Bernard Lloyd (the traveller) gave wonderful performances.<br /><br />I am not at all sure what is going on......I mean was the ghost the traveller, or what??? Does anyone really fully understand this rather confusing story??? (well maybe i am the only one that don't)???<br /><br />To sum up.....<br /><br />The play has a wonderful atmosphere throughout, with great character. It suffers from not being that scary these days, and a little if not very confusing in places, and has some rather unusual signalling practises....<br /><br />Thanks for reading my review.
Movie had some good acting and good moments (though obviously pretty low budget), but bad rating due to basic premise being badly developed. The main point of conflict between the two leads doesn't play out in a realistic manner at all. There are a few scenes where they disagree because of it, but no discussions of any great depth that would explain how they can be together while seeing the world so differently, especially since the employment of Glenn is so wound up in this part of his life (and Adam is active enough with his that he supports it with time and money.) Also, several times Glenn is portrayed negatively for being the way he is (apologizing to Adam for his past) while Adam is shown to be upstanding and "traditional," which the film proclaims to be the "good" way in the end. I don't like being preached to like that. I attended a discussion session with the director after viewing LTR, and he said that he presented this conflict between them because, if he was in Glenn's shoes (and he said he does in real life relate to Glenn's view) that he could never date someone with Adam's views. Well, then, I think he should have done a much better job explaining how Glenn could do it in the film. Also, director said he directed this, his first movie, only after reading (Directing For Dummies.) Directing was not that bad, but far from a top notch effort. I've seen worse, but I rarely leave films feeling this frustrated.
Or listening to, for that matter. Even the soundtrack is a bore. <br /><br />Honestly, this isn't the worst gay movie I've seen (that would be Regarding Billy), but it's down there very close to the bottom of the barrel.<br /><br />This thing drags and drags and drags. It's not that the plot is inane--in the hands of a good writer it might have worked . . . it certainly could have been much more entertaining. There's not one plot point you can't see coming for ten miles down the road. The dialog is flat. The jokes are old. To add insult to injury, it's full of one-dimensional, stereotypical gays. <br /><br />Nothing in this movie convinced me that the situation or the relationship of the two leads was possible, much less real. There was no chemistry, no dynamic, in fact no evidence of why the leads love each other . . . we're just told they're in love. Hard to figure when they have nothing in common and aren't compatible sexually. They like the same book? Huh?<br /><br />The acting is not totally bad, but the pacing is excruciatingly slow. I mean, almost Jarmusch- slow, but without Jarmusch quality. In fact, that would be a good barometer for you. If you like Jarmusch films, avoid this one.
A truly frightening film. Feels as if it were made in the early '90s by a straight person who wanted to show that gays are good, normal, mainstream-aspiring people. Retrograde to the point of being offensive, LTR suggests that monogamy and marriage are the preferred path to salvation for sad, lonely, sex-crazed gays. Wow! Who knew? The supporting characters are caricatures of gay stereotypes (the effeminate buffoon, the bitter, lonely queen, the fag hag, etc.) and the main characters are milquetoast, middle-class, middlebrow clones, of little interest.<br /><br />As far as the romantic & ideological struggles of the main couple are concerned, there's not much to say: we've seen it all before, and done much better.
Words cannot begin to describe how blandly terrible this movie is. I wish it were "so bad it's good," but it's not. It's just dull, lifeless, and boring. It's so bad I couldn't even laugh at it.<br /><br />In response to other posters, Anne-Marie Frigon is not the highlight of the movie. The only person less charismatic is the director Brett Kelly, who as a true statement on vanity, cast himself as the male lead. They both look like inbreeds, sister and brother.<br /><br />The gal, Sherry Thurig, is a looker. The complete opposite of Anne-Marie - attractive. This girl is tall and willowy, and can act. Although you can tell she's holding back.<br /><br />All the actors seem to be holding back, especially the supporting male, Mark. I've seen less wood in a rain forest, but he's still better than Kelly. Why would Kelly keep his actors from acting? Is he really that bad a director? Everyone else has summed the story up perfectly - there isn't one. Kids are kidnapped and Kelly steps in poo to solve the crime. I know how he felt stepping in the poo, it's how I felt after watching his movie.<br /><br />Yes, I tried to get my money back from the rental store. This is a home movie best left to be seen by the friends of the director (and if you search them out, you'll see those same friends were the one who gave the movie positive marks).
Usually when a movie receives a vote of one it is because someone simply dislikes it and is annoyed it doesn't have a lower rating, and so decides to drag it down as much as they can instead of just giving it a low rating. This is not the case here.<br /><br />Bonesetter is a perfect example of a 0/10 film. It does nothing right and it doesn't have the chance to because it doesn't really attempt to do anything. There are strands of a bad D&D novel kind of plot which doesn't hold together and a complete lack of any kind of acting throughout. It is clear that nobody involved in this project gave it any kind of serious effort, because even a completely patently untalented persons' hard work would amount to more. A truly awful film.
I live in Ottawa where this film was made and I really wish it hadn't been. This is one God-awful flick. I really try and support independent films but there is this stigma attached to anything indie and that stigma is: Indie Films Blow. Well, this film does nothing to shed this curse. The actor, writer, director Brett Kelly does little to contribute to the genre, rather he re-hashes tired clichés from movies past. I am really tired of menacing evil looking characters that lurk in the shadows and prey on the unsuspecting, it's way too overdone. <br /><br />I can remember one scene in particular right near the end of the flick where the whole scene is lit with car headlights. Now some may say that this was an effect used to create mood and tension, but sadly it was to showcase the shoestring budget of this movie. As well for a movie that dares to call itself horror, a viewer will find themselves hard pressed to find any actual gore, other than a few scenes with corn syrup and red food colouring. <br /><br />The biggest thing that drags this film down is the pacing and the lack of character development, the basic plot is that children are being kidnapped and the parents must track down this Bonesetter fellow before a certain time in order to get their kids back. Not that this concept bugs me, but, I didn't really find it believable that when the two main characters, both who have lost children can find time to make out with each other. This is done in such a short time span that it's inconceivable, my first priority would be to get my daughter back and at least get to know the lady before making out with her. <br /><br />The last point that I have is.... and I won't hold this against Kelly, but the movie is shot entirely on boring, emotionless video and that really takes away from any tense moments that would have just oozed style on film. Although if this movie were given a million dollar makeover and redone the story and boring acting and lame everything could not keep this movie afloat. My only hope is that something happens to prevent Brett Kelly from making a sequel, which has been reported on his website, a sequel that was half written in one sitting. <br /><br />Lord help us all.
A terrible film which is supposed to be an independent one. It needed some dependence on something.<br /><br />This totally miserable film deals with the interactions among Irish people. Were they trying to imitate the wonderful film "Crash?" If so, this film crashed entirely.<br /><br />There is just too much going on here culminated by a little brat running around and throwing rocks into buses and cars which obviously cause mayhem.<br /><br />The film is just too choppy to work. One woman loses her husband after 14 years to another while her younger sister is ripped off by a suitor. This causes the former sister to become a bitter vetch and walk around in clothes not worth believing. The older sister also becomes embittered but soon finds romance.<br /><br />Then, we have 3 losers who purchase masks to rob a bank. Obviously, the robbery goes awry but there doesn't seem to be any punishment for the crooks. Perhaps, the punishment should have been on the writers for failure to create a cohesive film.
This movie blows - let's get that straight right now. There are a few scene gems nestled inside this pile of crap but none can redeem the limp plot. Colin Farrel looks like Brad Pitt in "12 Monkeys" and acts in a similar manner. I normally hate Colin because he is a fairy in general but he's OK in this movie. There were two plot lines in this movie-= one about a kid who throws rocks through windshields of moving vehicles and the other about a woman with a moustache. Let's face it- this movie has no freaking idea of what it wanted to say or where it wanted to go. THe characters story lines intertwine on some levels but are in no means worthy of being included in a script. The whole thing is weak and pointless and then there is an occasional OK scene. But overall- Don't bother unless you love irish accents so much that you can watch mediocrity and it is rescued by everyone sounding like the Lucky Charms elf -an American fetish that has catapulted some truly crappy movies to success.
I'm Irish and I've been living in Denmark for a while so I was looking forward to going home last week so I could see Intermission. And I will go on record as saying:<br /><br />THIS FILM IS AWFUL.<br /><br />It is not quite as bad a something like "The Most Fertile Man in Ireland" but it definitely does not stand up there with other Irish films such as The Commitments, I Went Down or Michael Collins.<br /><br />Some aspects of the film are actually quite funny, such as Colm Meaneys American-style garda. But the film itself is shot completely wrong. The bouncing around of the camera and the constant zoom-in, zoom-out tries to give the film an edgy look as if it were a gritty drama. But it isn't. This is an Irish Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and it should be shot like this. It should have smooth movement from one shot to the next. The film just looks sloppy and thrown together.<br /><br />The performances are okay, given the awful script. A friend of mine said to me like it was like they just followed Colin Farrell around Dublin for a week. He gives a decent display as a Dublin Dirtbag, but it no way compares to his performances in Minority Report, Tigerland or Phone Booth. The best performance was from Dierdre O'Kane who plays a sexually frustrated middle-aged woman who has just been dumped by her bank manager husband for a younger woman. I think she should leave her god-awful stand-up and focus more on her acting.<br /><br />All in all, its does in no way live up to the expectations put on it by the Irish press or deserve to be even considered as one of the best Irish films ever.<br /><br />I'm expecting a backlash from these comments because most people I have spoken to have said it was great. But before you reply, ask yourself: Would think so highly of this movie if it was set in England or America?
If you loved "Pulp Fiction" and like hand held cameras you should love this film. I liked the quirky story (even though I feel that "Pulp Fiction" was the most over-rated movie since "The English Patient") and found the characters unrealistic but interesting. It's not "On the Waterfront" or "Citizen Kane" and is burdened by European pretentiousness. But the worst part by far is the hand held camera. It is so distracting and annoying I found myself waiting desperately for the movie to end. I don't know why new directors think this method of filming is so great. If you are prone to motion sickness, stay away, the hand held camera will have you nauseous in about 10 minutes.
This was no Trainspotting or Guy Ritchie film. It was a big wannabee. It wanted to be an edgy, nervous-laughter, urban-life affirming film, but it's more of a camera jerky, mess. It's a lot easier to imitate something else, than to create a real story with real characters. From the beginning, I couldn't care less about the characters or what they were involved in. They were always always hitting, pissing, or crying on each other. Only, there wasn't any substance to what they were doing. The dialog between characters is meant to be hip, revealing, instead it comes out trite, and one scene after another is predictable. I know there are viewers out there that really liked this movie, so I could be wrong.
How Irish critics rave about this movie is beyond me. Overacted by the usual band of Irish actors dragged out for every Irish movie. Terrible script, with forced character quirks (the brown sauce). Romanticising all that is bad about Dublin. The attitude of 'ah, it's a dump but sure isnt it great all the same'. Plenty of tidbits purely for American audiences (the supermarket boss and his horribly forced catchphrase). And the nail in the coffin was Colm Meaney's character. A great actor forced to play this part that could've been written by a five year old. Cringeworthy stuff. The best thing about this movie is Farrell, and it's a bad when you have to say that. Well, at least he wasnt putting on his dreadful American accent. International Audiences be warned: stay at home and watch Snatch and Lock Stock. You'll have a better time. Intermission is a walk-outer
This is absurd - aside from the fellow Australian who has reviewed this flick, I can't help but think that everyone else who has submitted a review so far was some way involved in the production of Elektra, considering how generous they were with their praise.<br /><br />Admittedly I'm not really a fan of comic-book-to-movie conversions so I didn't go in with many expectations, yet still I found Elektra to be incredibly underwhelming. The thing that irked me the most was the fact that there was SO MUCH in this film which went by unexplained, that left you thinking "huh, what relevance does that have to the plot?" or "so how did that aspect of the character come about?" I can only hope that these are things which are perhaps explained somewhat in Daredevil, which I have no intention of seeing.<br /><br />Furthermore, the behaviour of the characters in this film appear to do an about-face at random moments to suit the storyline, and don't even get me started about the utterly pointless romantic sub-plot. I'm also (still) scratching my head over the fate of Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa's character, which seems to have gone by unexplained.<br /><br />If I can give kudos to this movie for anything it would have to be the fantastic locations in which it was shot, but otherwise I gained little enjoyment from Elektra. I know we're supposed to suspend our disbelief for fantasy/action films, but almost everything in this film was so improbable or confusing (even by action film standards) that it simply frustrated me.<br /><br />Well, hell, at least Jennifer Garner looks damn good.
Perhaps I'm out of date or just don't know what Electra is like in current publications... But the Electra that I read was far more manipulative and always seems to have a plan. She usually used others to do her dirty work and more often than not some sort of double cross was involved. Just when you think you have it all figured out she pull the wool over your eyes and gets her way.<br /><br />This movie was fairly weak on the dialog, the acting wasn't particularly convincing, and the action was spotty. I was really looking for something more along the lines of Frank Miller's book "Electra Assassin." Which is much darker than anything in this movie.<br /><br />Special effect where cool, action was interesting at times, but more often than not the story and plot was slow or illogical. Tha Hand was not menacing enough, and Electra was not..... bitchy enough. She's the girl you love to hate... but in this story, I just didn't care either way.
*** THIS CONTAINS MANY, MANY SPOILERS, NOT THAT IT MATTERS, SINCE EVERYTHING IS SO PATENTLY OBVIOUS ***<br /><br />Oh my God, where do I start? Well, here - this is the first time I have ever come home from a movie and said "I have to get on IMDb and write a review of this NOW. It is my civic duty." Such is the badness of this flick. <br /><br />*begin digression* But let me just state one thing before I start. I'm not some Harvard-art-major-film-noir-weenie (in fact, I went to the college at the other end of Mass. Ave in Cambridge, the one where the actual smart people without rich daddies and trust funds go, which should put me squarely in the nerd-who-would-obsessively-love-comic-book-films census group, and still I hated this film...). My viewing preference is for the highbrow cinematic oeuvre that includes the Die Hards, Bond flicks, Clerks, and The Grail. I wish the Titanic had never sunk, not so much for the lives lost, but so we wouldn't have been subjected to that dung-heap of a film. And the single and only reason I will watch a snooty French art film is if there is a young and frequently disrobed Emmanuelle Beart in it. I even gave Maximum Overdrive one of its precious few 10s here on IMDb, for God's sake. So I'm as shallow as they come, therefore I'm not criticizing this film because I'm looking for some standard of cinematic excellence - it's because Elektra stinks like a three-week-old dead goat. *end digression*<br /><br />OK, there's so much badness here that I have to try to categorize it. Here goes:<br /><br />MS. GARNER: One of the compelling reasons a male would want to see this flick is to see lots of hot JGar (I have no idea why my wife wanted to). I think that between this and "Finding Nemo", the latter was the sexier film. You know the red outfit she's advertised wearing in every freaking ad you see? You see her in it TWICE - once at the beginning, once at the end. Bummer. In the rest, she basically looks like what Morrissey would look like if he were a female - lots of pouting and black clothes. Which brings me to the incredible range of expression JGar shows in her acting - ranging from "pouting" all the way to "pouting and crying". Oh my God, you'd think she was being forced to date Ben Affleck or something horrible like that. Um, wait...<br /><br />THE BAD GUYS/GAL: They show about the same range of expression and acting ability that you'd expect from a slightly overripe grapefruit. At least next to JGar's performance, it doesn't stand out too badly. One guy's role is to stand there and be huge, another's is to stand there and have stuff come out of him, and the woman's role is to stand there and breathe on and/or kiss people. They manage to pull these incredible feats off. The main bad guy has the most difficult role of all - he has to SIMULTANEOUSLY a) appear angry and b) appear Asian. He does a fine job at this. I think there was a fifth bad guy/gal, but my brain is starting to block parts of this movie out in self-defense.<br /><br />PLOT TWISTS! This movie has about as many surprises as a speech at the Democratic National Convention. Let's just put it this way - my wife, who has only been in the U.S. for half a year and speaks only a small amount of English - whispered this to me when the girl first appears in JG's pad, and I swear to God I am not making this up: "She go to house to kill girl. And father too." And this is BEFORE THE FATHER HAS EVEN APPEARED ON THE SCREEN. Now my wife isn't stupid, but she isn't being courted by Mensa for her gifts, either, and she's had zero exposure to Daredevil or the comic book genre. And she figured this out in .00015 seconds with no prodding and no prior information. Such is the blatant obviousness of this film. <br /><br />RARELY-BEFORE-SEEN STUPIDITY! OK, so there's this big dude in the film. He can take a chestful of shotgun blast and brush off the shot like it's lint, and he can take a vicious Electra stab to the chest and just bend the metal (or melt it - or something - more defenses kicking in, thank God). But JG jumps on his head, and he explodes? An Achilles noggin? OK! Such is the mind-numbing stupidity of this film.<br /><br />Ack. I'm starting to feel a cerebral hemorrhage coming on, so I have to stop. But you have been warned. If you have to intentionally slash your own tires to prevent yourself from going to see this movie, DO IT. And if Armageddon is going to come, please let it be >before< this comes out on DVD.
Believe me, I like horror movies. I like science fiction movies. I like independent films. And, I like low-budget, B movies. <br /><br />Sometimes, I even like bad acting, plodding scripts, wooden lines, improbably situations, and the like. However, I did not like Christmas on Mars. <br /><br />It just doesn't work on so many levels. For all the reasons listed previously, and many more. That includes the nonsensical, blatant use of images of female genitalia. And the many allusions to male genitalia, in a very Freudian way.<br /><br />I am convinced this is purely from ineptitude. As opposed to some attempt at doing something really different. I mean any movie that takes years to film, just cannot keep up the level of congruity and focus demanded by modern audiences.<br /><br />I had hoped that the whole movie was just a dream or hallucination by the main character. However, sadly, it was meant to have happened, as we saw things unfold on screen. <br /><br />About the only kindness that I can express, is that the image at the end was stupendous. If this had been used at the beginning, instead of the end, it could have allowed the film to take off where 2001 ended... <br /><br />To bad they didn't try that instead. I just don't understand what was so important about this film that it even had to be made. Was it the plot? Surely, it couldn't be. Was it the characters? I doubt it; I mean, I could live without knowing about Ed 15. Was it the dialog? Emphatically, no. The music? Perhaps, but more-likely the unvarnished ego of the principals needing to be stroked. <br /><br />Much better efforts have died on the cutting room floor.
A friend once told me that an art-house independent film ran in a cinema when- upon the closing of the film - audiences were so enraged they preceded to tear up the cinema seats. Of course, my imagination ran amok, trying to conjure up the contents of such a piece of work. Well,now my imagination can be put to rest.<br /><br />I am a lifelong Andrei Tarkovky fan and an ardent admirer of his work. I have come across many people who thought Tarkovsky's films are slow-moving and inert. Opinions being what they are, I found this not to be true of the late director's wonderful works, which are wrought with meaning, beautiful compositions, and complex philosophical questions. Upon hearing Aleksandr Sokurov called the heir to Tarkovsky, I was excited to experience his films.<br /><br />With the exception of the open air ride through the fields (Stalker), this movie has no kinship to anything Tarkovsky has done. It does not seem to possess the slightest meaning, even on a completely mindless level. It's supposedly "gorgeously stark" cinematography is devoid of any compositional craft. There is a no balance, no proportion, and the exposure meter seems to be running low on batteries in the freezing snow. The main character is so inept and indecisive, it makes you wonder whether his father might have been alive if he made up his mind sooner.<br /><br />I am also not adverse to non-plots or story lines that progress on multiple non-linear fashion. But there isn't even a non-story here. One must surely enter the viewing of this film with a shaved head if one were to exit it with nothing gained and nothing lost, as hair-pulling would be the only possible answer to a pace that could make a Tarkosky time sculpture look as if Jerry Bruckheimer had filmed a Charlie Chaplin short.<br /><br />I won't rule out that this may be one of Sokurov's stinkers (Tarkovsky's Solaris), but to conclude that he is one of Tarkovsky's heir-based on this film- would be to call Paris Hilton the successor to Aristotle. C'mon guys, don't be afraid to say it. No amount of big impressive words is going to magically bring this corpse of celluloid back to life. I don't profess to fully understand Russian culture and I probably don't have Russian values, but I immediately picked up on Tarkovsky's work as something magical, a treasure and a gift to viewers.<br /><br />If it didn't have Sokurov's name on it, and it aired on say, Saturday Night Live, I'm pretty sure nobody would "read" all these magnificent analysis into this wet noodle of a flick.
I'm actually watching this film as I write this . . . If the following comments "prove my lack of development as a true, artistic film maker", then so be it . . .<br /><br />But . . . I thought (am still thinking as I'm presently viewing) that this film . . . to put it mildly, is very, very overrated. Again, very.<br /><br />It looks like a really, really bad student film done by a someone with beyond extremely limited resources . . . and who didn't pay that much attention to detail.<br /><br />I don't want to go on and on regarding all the different ways that I find this film lacking, but . . . well . . . I just don't get it (rememeber, I fully admit that maybe it's ME that's the idiot here - not the film maker - for not getting this "piece of imaginative genius") . . . I rented this on a whim because the reviews were very, very outstanding . . .<br /><br />Sheesh . . .
I was unlucky enough to have seen this at the Sidewalk Film Festival. Sidewalk as a whole was a disappointment and this movie was the final nail in the coffin. Being a devout fan of Lewis Carroll's 'Alice' books I was very excited about this movie's premier, which only made it that much more uncomfortable to watch. Normally I'm enthusiastic about modern re-tellings if they are treated well. Usually it's interesting to see the parallels between the past and present within a familiar story. Unfortunately this movie was less of a modern retelling and more of a pop culture perversion. The adaptation of the original's characters seemed juvenile and usually proved to be horribly annoying. It probably didn't help that the actors weren't very good either. Most performances were ridiculously over the top, which I assume was either due to bad direction or an effort to make up for a bad script. I did not laugh once through out the duration of the film. All of the jokes were outdated references to not so current events that are sure to lose their poignancy as time goes by. Really, the only highlight of the film was the opening sequence in which the white rabbit is on his way to meet Alice, but even then the score was a poor imitation of Danny Elfman's work. Also, I'd have to say that the conversion of the croquet game into a rave dance-off was awful. It was with out a doubt the low point of the film.<br /><br />What a joke. Don't see this movie. After its conclusion I was genuinely angry.
I went to see it in hopes of some good old fashioned Alice Entertainment.Once I realized I would not be getting that,I watched it for a pretty well made movie (in terms of filming,and yeah..that was it).But aside from it having a good film quality,considering I had been watching grainy movies all day long,there was nothing good about that movie.<br /><br />He killed 42.Why were Tweedle Dee and Dum played by Mudler and Scully?Serisouly,Who can answer that for me?Who can answer anything awful about this movie for me.<br /><br />I agree with whoever said it was just one big long inside joke for the staff.That's all it seemed to be.<br /><br />Poor Mr.Carroll.I'm so sorry somebody did that to his wonderful tales.
This movie is terrible but it has some good effects.
Though the movie may have been "true" to Lewis's book (in that the script was basically word-for-word, verbatim), it failed to capture any of the grandeur that would otherwise be associated with an epic story like this. The mythical creatures (unicorns, centaurs, griffins, ghouls, ghosts) are *drawn* in, and as in the previous review, the green-screen flying sequence was very hard to swallow. I nearly laughed to death when I saw the humanoid beavers with their giant stiff suits and buck teeth; I nearly cried when I heard the wolf's "howl--" a man in a grey fuzzy suit basically shrieking as loudly and as girlishly as he possibly could.<br /><br />All of the acting is tremendously forced, especially that of little Lucy Penvensie... I could only take so much indignation, desperation, and buck teeth in the (what felt like) fourteen hours of watching the movie. The actress who plays the White Witch, in all her histrionics, seems that she'd be more at home on stage, where a booming voice, spread arms, and a valiant effort at something Shakespearian would be more than welcome. <br /><br />The sets feel claustrophobic, whether the scenes are taking place indoors or outdoors. Indoors, it's as if BBC could only afford to spend $100 on constructing a set, and so it is very small, and all the characters are constantly huddled together. The White Witch's castle is a run-down, rotting countryside English castle filled with Styrofoam statues and bad lighting. When the Penvensie children are wandering through the woods-- actually, *any* scene in the woods-- feels like they are simply wandering around in circles. <br /><br />The only thing that looks decent in the film is Aslan, but you can bet that BBC probably blew the film's entire budget on building the mechanical feline. It looks great when it's standing still and before it starts speaking, but once it starts moving, you can't help but pity the poor man who has to be the rear-end in the lion suit. <br /><br />Yes, if you are a hardcore Narnia fan, you may want to see this version, simply because it preserves every word that Lewis ever wrote-- but Lewis was certainly no screenwriter, and a lot of the dialogue feels chunky and awkward when on screen. During the scene in which the children are at the Beavers' and getting ready to flee from the wolves, Mrs. Beaver's incessant, "oh, just ONE more thing, dearies, and then we will be ready to go," punctuated by the children's simultaneous cries and sighs and moans of "NO, Mrs. Beaver, PLEASE!" -- a scene of comic relief, so incongruous (they are supposed to be FLEEING from imminent danger, not wondering about whether to pack the sewing machine or not), detracts from the drama that the scene might otherwise have. In fact, the whole movie is peppered with directing faux pas such as these. <br /><br />I would recommend seeing the new Narnia (Disney 2005). The new movie, with updated effects, spectacular computer animation, great timing all around, and a gorgeous and scene- stealing White Witch (who plays her part with all the subtle evil of a seasoned politician, as opposed to a shrieking banshee) captures all of the grandeur and the magnificence of the world of Narnia without detracting the least bit from Lewis's original vision (I think). Lucy is a lot cuter (NO buck teeth, YAY!), as are the beavers (and realistically-sized), and bratty BBC Edmund has nothing on the divine, Desperately-Hungry-for-Acceptance-Insecure-and- Angsting-with-an-Inferiority-Complex Edmund that the new Disney version fronts. <br /><br />Unless you're the type who enjoys wasting time by making fun of campy movies, I would not recommend this film to anyone.
Ouch! They don't come much worse than this horrid adaptation of C. S. Lewis's beloved novel. While the adaptation is very true to the novel, the acting is simply awful and the sets and special effects are on a scale equivalent to a school play. I've read that the budget for this miniseries was the grandest that the BBC has ever given at the time, but surely they could have scraped together a bit more than the $2 that it looks like this was filmed for. The worst effect of all is Mr. Beaver. I know computer effects weren't at the level necessary or even cost effective at the time, but the costume store man in a suit look was horrid. Better to have just cut the character from the film than do that to the role! Avoid this at all costs.
I'm a fan of the series and have read all 7 books. I wanted to see this just to see how it was done. All i can say, is that the only people who should watch this are ones who have already read the series and are curious about it. Its pretty bad, and will turn you off reading them. Not to be mean, but Lucy is so ugly it detracts from the movie. Was she the directors daughter? Seriously, I'm sure the beavers in the movie were jealous of her teeth. She had an overbite that would put any beaver to shame. The movie just loses so much in translation. CS books don't translate as easily as the Tolkein LOTR books, or even Harry Potter.<br /><br />One thing they did right! Aslan! very well done. Although the other human actors with painted faces ( beavers, wolf) look silly, Aslan was really well done since it was not just a human actor walking around. ( i guess its like that old horse custume? 2 people inside? ) Also, i would be curious what kids think of this movie. Maybe they would enjoy it? But as for adults, safe bet they wont, even if a CS fan.
Having watched this after receiving the DVD for Christmas 2005, I came here to pan it -- but after reading the other comments, I haven't the heart. Clearly this is a film that has worked very well for children of a certain age. Well, let me not be a complete Grinch; it might still work for some children -- if they are not too media-saturated and have not become visually over-sophisticated, e.g. from watching all of LOTR and Harry Potter. But if you are an adult, stay miles away; you will not enjoy it.<br /><br />The good bits: Barbara Kellerman as the Witch, especially in her early scenes with Edmund, creates just the right blend of charismatic evil and restrained madness. (At the Stone Table she goes a bit over the top.) Michael Aldridge in the minor role of the Professor and Jeffrey S. Perry as Mr. Tumnus also have the kind of polished, skillful acting we'd expect from the very best BBC dramas. And the Aslan costume works very well, amazingly well considering. They got the eyes just right.<br /><br />The bad bits: almost everything else, but two areas in particular. One, the casting. England is crammed with good actors and contains tens of thousands of attractive British school kids. How could they possibly have ended up with these four stiffs? They move like wooden soldiers and speak about as well. Peter has no gravitas or charisma (and is visibly shorter than his supposedly younger siblings); Edmund is just whiny; and Lucy... Sophie Wilcox as Lucy is so dramatically, visibly, drastically wrong for this part that I can't imagine how she got the job.<br /><br />Two, the animal costumes. Again, it appears that they worked for some kids. If the kids are still at a level where Big Bird and Elmo are exciting, believable characters, they might be entranced by this film. But to a viewer with the sophistication of, say, a 12-year-old who's seen Prisoner Of Azkaban? When Mister Beaver comes out from behind that tree, there will be hoots of cruel, derisive laughter. The costumes just do not work -- I could not, and I think any adult or modern teen could not, suspend disbelief when looking at Mister Beaver. The drawn animation later (gryphons, etc.) works better, is easier to take.<br /><br />So: ten stars for the very young and tender of soul; everyone else read, or re-read the book and watch the far better film that unrolls in your imagination.
I am a student of film, and have been for several years. And the concept of a cyber, kung-fu, satirical chimpanzee had me wondering, "Is this the film that's going to break the mold?" Let's face it, America has never been let down by any piece of cinema that features a simian costar. After such great classics as "Monkey Trouble" and "Dunston Checks In", I thought that the best ideas were already taken. But then comes "Funky Monkey". I laughed, I cried, I contemplated suicide.<br /><br />Now I've read about demon possession in the Bible, but that still doesn't explain why someone would create such a product of evil. First off, having at least a shred of intelligence, I realized that a chimpanzee was in fact an ape, not a monkey at all. However, I was sure that the filmmakers would clear this problem up further into the film. They didn't. Let me sum up this work of art: A company by the name of Z.I.T. has decided to train chimpanzees as soldiers. Why? I think they mention something about the soldiers working for bananas, but when it would cost about an estimated 13 million dollars of government money to train one chimp, this doesn't seem cost-effective. Well anyways, Z.I.T. brings in a CIA specialist (Matthew Modine) to train Clemens (The Chimp). Clemens is everything Z.I.T. hoped for. He can take out an entire shift of guards, who all appear to have gotten their training skills at the local mall, and yet still manage to remind us that we're watching a kid's movie. As you may have guessed, Modine finds out that Z.I.T.'s intentions may be evil (Gasp!) and decides to break Clemens out. Being a CIA agent and all, Modine knows that best way to make himself disappear is to go to a large city, rent a guest room, regularly make appearances on television while fighting crime, and using checks to pay for everything.<br /><br />Z.I.T. finds out where Modine is staying, and sends two of their finest to retrieve him. These guards are possibly the greatest comedy team up since Martin and Lewis, or was it Turner and Hooch? It doesn't matter anyways, because in the end, for a heck of a twist ending, the good guys win!!! Yay! Hooray for predictability! Throw in a nerdy kid who learns to be himself, a lonely mom who needs a date, and music montages that feature songs that would even be blackballed by Radio Disney and you get "Funky Monkey". The climax to the movie? A football game! Played by thugs, bumblers, a chimp, and the nerd boy. No one seems to care about such substitutions at a high school football game.<br /><br />Funky Monkey never lets up! It's edge of your seat entertainment. Some might even call this the "American Beauty" of monkey-filled features. After finishing this epic, I recalled hearing a story about a railroad worker who lost much of his brain functions when a metal rod pierced his temporal lobe. Funky Monkey is a metal rod among movies.
I bought this movie from Gamestop's discount used movie bin and the cover caused me to laugh uncontrollably so I bought it for 99cents. The movie itself is retarded and they use like ten different monkeys throughout the whole film that hardly look alike. Not to mention they use a stunt double who is just a short guy in costume making a desperate attempt to impersonate a monkey.<br /><br />The director more than likely committed a murder-suicide with the chimpanzees after the movie debuted in a preview for some other low rent Warner Bros. film and he ended up owing money to the studio. It also doesn't help that he wasn't even infamous for the terrible job he did, he wasn't even known for producing a poop-chute film.<br /><br />Why was this movie ever made?
This is the story of two guys who found a copy of 'Funky Monkey.' Finding this seemed odd at the time figuring that there are still posters for the movie at the local Cineplex Odeon. After seeing such classics as 'Every Which Way But Loose' and 'Project X,' these two guys figured movies with monkeys are awesome.<br /><br />These guys were in for a long ride as they watched this movie. There was some monkey that was replaced by a Stunt MAN when action sequences were required. It was apparent that the monkey wasn't trained in the school of Shakespearean acting. Perhaps replacing the monkey with Ben Affleck might have helped the guys thought.<br /><br />Maybe a strong sidekick would help like a Jackie Chan or heck maybe even Hulk Hogan. Luckily this movie had amazing martial artist and Jet Li look-a-like Matthew Modine. While some might argue that Matthew Modine doesn't come close to Jet Li, camera tricks prove that he is every bit as good. When it becomes obvious that an untrained chimp can't handle the movie, the movie leans on Matthew Modine to be the real star.<br /><br />Did I mention that there is some dorky kid that develops a bond with Modine and the monkey? Is there a possibility that the kid learns confidence and even picks up a girl in this movie? Even Matthew Modine should get jealous with this one (because using the pick-up line 'I'm second fiddle to a monkey' doesn't seem to work with the ladies.)<br /><br />Shortly after watching this movie the two guys got a phone call from Matthew Modine telling them 'Seven days.'
If there was a 0 stars rating i would gladly hand it out to this absolutely horrid pile of waste. The fact that the actual summary is perfectly fine and that if it had been made different it could have been brilliant only makes it worse. The basic task of locking up a group of people in an experiment chamber is fine, but WHERES THE EXPERIMENT? All i see is a bunch of unintelligent surfers and blondes chatting about music and culture i don't know or want to know about... The challenges are pathetic and silly. The whole point of reality TV is to show REALITY. If you set a 'challenge' don't make them play with exaggerated props of food and stereotypical cultural elements in 'friday night games'. make them do an actual challenge. And as for 'earning' prize money, thats fine, if they actually earnt it! These people are nuts. If only they would make the show better, the actual idea would be glorious. But that ain't gonna happen!
This rubbish excuse for television is the single most god-awful piece of trash ever to hit Australian television. The house-mates are dull, uninteresting, ridiculously unintelligent and are picked on the basis that you would be likely to attempt to murder them if you had to live with them. As far as I am concerned Big Brother is the decline of western society, showing how us as a society are on a steep slope to becoming brain-dead morons. Whatever happened to television that didn't target the lowest common denominator of society as an audience? This cannot be classified as entertainment. I think that it true that Channel Ten can remove your soul. It happened to Rove McManus who was once a respectable comedian and, once moving to Channel 10, become horribly unfunny. With the exception of The Simpsons which is highly intelligently made.
I hate how this movie has absolutely no creative input. I know they're going for realism, but to be frank I just don't want realism. Realism is boring. If I want to see daily life, I'll uhm, live. Tell me an interesting story and we'll talk. I can deal with the low production values, hell I'm a sucker for low production values, but at least work in some good ideas. The direction only goes as far as grabbing a camcorder and walking around a bit, but obviously I'm supposed to dig that because it makes stuff so much more realistic. Hitchcock used to say drama was essentially life with the dull bits cut out. I can only conclude this is not drama, not by a long shot. We get to see Rosetta walking to someplace, Rosetta working in a bakery, Rosetta eating a waffle, Rosetta carrying around bags of far, Rosetta walking back home, Rosetta walking someplace...it's just not that entertaining. There isn't really a deeper meaning either. I got so bored I started looking for some reflections on life in this movie but it's just plain realism, the most overrated quality in the business. I guess I'm supposed to love this, but come on, there's nothing in there.
I have no idea what idiots gave this movie a Palm D'Or at the 1999 Cannes Film Festival because it was atrocious! I actually watched the entire thing simply because I couldn't believe that someone would make such a worthless film. There is nothing interesting about the plot, the characters are devoid of depth and there is no attempt at giving any sort of ambiance with music or sound effects. Also, if you do decide to waste 2 hours of your life by watching this film, be sure to bring something to throw up in because the cinematography is simply someone running around with a hand-held camcorder and half the time you can't even see the main subjects. This style has been used much more successfully in movies such as "Blair Witch" because it creates suspense. In Rosetta, there is no plot and no suspense to which that style would lend anything. I should have known better when it came on at 2 o'clock in the morning that it was going to be horrible.
If I had known this movie was filmed in the exasperating and quease-inducing Dogme 95 style, I would never have rented it. Nevertheless, I took a dramamine for the seasickness and gave it a shot. I lasted a very, very, very long forty minutes before giving up. It's just boring, pretentious twaddle.<br /><br />The last French movie I saw was "Romance" and it too was pretty dismal, but at least the camera was steady and not breathing down the necks of the characters all the time. I am baffled at the continuing popularity of Dogme 95 overseas -- it'll catch on in America about the same time as the next big outbreak of leprosy. (It's called Dogme 95 because that's the average number of times the actors are poked in the eye by the camera.)<br /><br />
I go to the cinema to be entertained. There is absolutely nothing entertaining about this film. From beginning to end, there is no respite from the gray, grinding reality of this woman's life. It is one-paced, with no change of mood. I remained until the end only because I was convinced that things must get better. They don't, and I don't think I was the only one, as evidenced by the many groans ringing around the cinema as the film drew mercifully to a close. Honestly depicting social depravation is no crime, but boring your audience to groans is not the way to win the sympathy of the public. A dreadful film.
What were they thinking at "Cannes"? One of the most irritating, films of all time. Every detail of this film, no matter how meaningless was shown. If I had to watch her put on those boots one more time I think I would have shouted. If the point of this film was to show how pathetic a life Rosetta had, then it was covered within the first fifteen minutes of the movie and then the credits should have been running. But no, we had to see countless redundant scenes over and over. The whole thing was filled with un-likeable and unsympathetic characters. They deserved the misery that was Rosetta. And to think I passed up "Tumbleweeds" to see this over-hyped film of boredom. It was like watching grass grow, only that is more exciting.
First of all, I became dissy after watching this movie for five minutes (cause of the bas screenplay). I don't think this movie has any purpose. It's boring from the first minute to the last. I don't understand why this movie scores so high. I gave it 1/10 but actually it's not more wurth then 0/10.
"That 'Malcom' show on FOX is really making a killing... can't we do our own version?" I speculate and paraphrase, of course, but in our hearts we all know it's true, and that the only thing NBC added to the 'Malcom' metric was sex. And, boy, did they add sex...<br /><br />Thirteen-year-old Tucker gets a boner and covers it up with his skateboard. Tucker accidentally walks in on his Aunt in the shower and she accuses him of watching her and beating off. He spies on the cute girl in the next house from his bedroom window, and she knows he wants to see her topless but she teases him by smiling and closing the window. And this is all in the pilot.<br /><br />Take it from a grown man- a boy's puberty is so sex-crazy and testicle-driven it is impossible to make it funny for a mainstream audience. The only times anyone has ever come close has been in movies, and you can count those on one hand. So it's no surprise that "Tucker" has the warmth and appeal of a strip-club bathroom. Did the network actually think we would like watching kids grapple with puberty? Isn't this the stuff people go to jail for? If you doubt the show's depravity consider this: 13 episodes were filmed but NBC canceled it after only 4 episodes aired; they then made the unprecedented move of "burning off" the remaining episodes by airing them AT MIDNIGHT so no children could see them. Ironic since kids were originally the target audience. <br /><br />Apart from its general scuzziness Tucker features a running voice-over from the lead character to flesh out the shoddy writing. Even in 2000 it was horribly dated, with it's ska incidental music and super-sarcasm. I couldn't like any of the characters enough to laugh at the jokes and the jokes didn't exactly come a mile-a-minute... Shame on NBC for this dirty rip-off... they're better than that.<br /><br />GRADE: C-
Words can't simply describe how awful this film is. I watched it on video last night, and I simply could not believe what I was seeing. Basically, "Snakeeater" is about an ex-military man (Lorenzo Lamas) and his search for his kidnapped sister who has been held captive by Deliverance-style Rednecks. The film's acting, writing, direction, photography, and editing are deplorable along with a song called "Soldier" that has to be one of the worst theme songs of all time!<br /><br />However, there is one treat. "Horshack" (Ron Pallio) from "Welcome Back Carter" is in the film playing a laughable bad guy. Otherwise, please avoid this mess at ALL COSTS.
Now, I've seen a lot of bad movies. I like bad movies. Especially bad action movies. I've seen (and enjoyed) all of Jean-Claude Van Damme's movies, including the one where he's his own clone, both of the ones where he plays twins, and all three where he's a cyborg. I actually own the one where he plays a fashion designer and has a fight in a truck full of durians. (Hey, if nothing else, he's got a great ass and you almost always get to see it. With DVD, you can even pause and zoom in!) That's why you can trust me when I say that this movie is so bad, it makes Plan 9 look like Citizen Kane.<br /><br />Everything about Snake Eater is bad. The plot is bad. The script is bad. The sets are bad. The fights are bad. The stunts are bad. The FX are bad. The acting is spectacularly, earth-time-bendingly bad, very probably showcasing the worst performance of every so-called actor in the cast, including Lorenzo Lamas, and that's really saying something. And I'd be willing to bet everyone involved with this movie is lousy in bed, to boot. ESPECIALLY Lorenzo Lamas. <br /><br />It does manage to be unintentionally funny, so it's not a total loss. However, I recommend that you watch this movie only if you are either a congenital idiot or very, very stoned. I was able to sit through it myself because I needed to watch something to distract me from rinsing cat urine out of my laundry.<br /><br />It didn't help much, but it was better than nothing. One point for Ron Palillo's cameo as a gay arsonist.
This is a really bad film, with bad acting and a very boring pace Lorenzo Lamas is really cool though!. All the characters are just annoying (except Lamas), and there is absolutely no one to root or to care for!, plus the action is very boring. The film gives us 3 villains who were supposed to find menacing and disturbing when in fact there boring, laughable and just a bunch of morons that i wanted to shut up!, plus it looks very cheap and amateurish!. Lorenzo Lamas has a lot of charisma but he can't save this piece of crap, and believe it or not the opening was really cool, as was the ending, however the middle is incredibly boring, and got me to have the urge to press the fast forward button!, plus The dialog is especially laughable!.There is a cool bar scene that i really liked, but once Lamas heads to the dock it all falls apart, plus the scene where The villains torture Jennifer's family, and kills them were supposed to find it disturbing when it in fact is laughable!. This is a really bad film, with bad acting and a very boring pace, Lorenzo Lamas is really cool though!, however it is not enough, not recommended. The Direction is very bad. George Erschbamer does a very bad job here, with mediocre camera work, bland location, and keeping the film at a boring pace. The Acting is pretty bad (except for Lamas). Lorenzo Lamas is awesome here, and while he isn't required to act, he is quite fun to watch, and has a really cool character, and had a lot of charisma, however even he can't save this one,and he had no chemistry with the cast either! (Lamas Rules!). Josie Bell is terrible here, and while she's decent looking, she isn't very convincing and had no chemistry with Lamas. Cheryl Jeans is hot, but does not have much to do but scream and scared, she did okay at that.Robert Scott is INCREDIBLY annoying as the main villain, and wasn't menacing at all, he was laughable as were the other 2. Rest of the cast are bad. Overall Avoid! Avoid!, even if you do like Lamas (like me). * out of 5
Lorenzo Lamas stars as Jack `Solider` Kelly an ex-vietnam vet and a renegade cop who goes on a search and destroy mission to save his sister from backwoods rednecks. Atrocious movie is so cheaply made and so bad that Ron Palillo is third billed, and yet has 3 minutes of screen time, and even those aren't any good. Overall a terrible movie, but the scenes with Lorenzo Lamas and Josie Bell hanging from a tree bagged and gagged are worth a few (unintentional) laughs. Followed by an improved sequel.
WOW what can i say. I like shity movies and i go out of my way to watch a corny action flick, but Snake Eater i would have rather had a nail driven into my pee hole while my grandma gave me a lap dance .Lorenzo Lamas, pfft more like Lorenzo Lameass this guy has as much acting ability as Bill Clinton has self control. It has all the goods to make a really bad movie even worse. Crazed Hillbilles YEP! needless tit shot (with a real weird scar) YEP! crappy soundtrack YEP! I wish i could give the movie -10 stars but 1 is as low as it goes. Seriously i think someone was playing a joke on me when i saw this it cant be real...... the worse thing THERE IS 2MORE SNAKE EATER MOVIES!...... guess its in demand.
First, let's all agree that Lorenzo Lamas could never be considered a skilled actor, barely even decent, sometimes just plain lousy. However, in this piece of @*!^ called SnakeEater, the film industry as a whole sank.<br /><br />First, let's start with the plot. A Vietnam vet named Jack Kelly, aka Soldier (who is supposed to be as tough as a strap of leather and then some, which you can believe when he shoves a palate of nails through 2 guys' feet and pins them to the floor), gets word that his family has been killed and his sister kidnapped. Therefore he goes on a solo mission to save his sister. Had some potential, but still pretty thin to begin with.<br /><br />Now, the acting. Being an actor myself, I am qualified to say that this was some of the WORST acting in the history of the art!!!!! Lamas is, well, himself. The jackasses playing the Clampets/Deliverance rejects should be strung up and shot for their so-called performances which are insulting to actors everywhere, especially talented ones who never get their big break!<br /><br />Finally, the action. The gunfighting is so-so at BEST, and the fist-fighting is deplorable. I've seen more real-looking fights at the Renaissance Festival (and those were pretty fake-looking)!<br /><br />Readers, listen to me: AVOID THIS PIECE OF CACA AT ALL COSTS! IF IT WERE THE ONLY FILM IN EXISTENCE, YOU STILL WOULD WANT TO AVOID IT! For the sake of your brain-cell count, do NOT watch this thing!
This movie has some of the worst acting that I have ever seen! Some scenes are original such as the nails coming through the floor. This nail trap catches these bad guys. The rest of the movie degrades as you go. I can't believe that this movie is not even in the bottom 100 movies of all time. I also can't believe that there are sequels! The next crap movie that I want to watch is R.O.T.O.R. Could R.O.T.O.R really be much worse than this?<br /><br />
I was not expecting much going in to this, but still came away disappointed. This was my least favorite Halestorm production I have seen. I thought it was supposed to be a comedy, but I only snickered at 3 or 4 jokes. Is it really a funny gag to see a fat guy eating donuts and falling down over and over? What was up with the janitor in Heaven scene? Fred Willard has been hilarious with some of his Christopher Guest collaborations, but this did not work. They must have spent all the budget on getting "known" actors to appear in this because there was no lighting budget. It looked like it was filmed with a video camera and most scenes were very dark. Does it really take that much film to show someone actually shoot and make a basket, as opposed to cutting away and editing a ball swishing through a basket? I try not to be too critical of low budget comedies, but if you want to see something funny go to a real Church basketball game instead of this movie.
Every once in a long while a movie will come along that will be so awful that I feel compelled to warn people. If I labor all my days and I can save but one soul from watching this movie, how great will be my joy.<br /><br />Where to begin my discussion of pain. For starters, there was a musical montage every five minutes. There was no character development. Every character was a stereotype. We had swearing guy, fat guy who eats donuts, goofy foreign guy, etc. The script felt as if it were being written as the movie was being shot. The production value was so incredibly low that it felt like I was watching a junior high video presentation. Have the directors, producers, etc. ever even seen a movie before? Halestorm is getting worse and worse with every new entry. The concept for this movie sounded so funny. How could you go wrong with Gary Coleman and a handful of somewhat legitimate actors. But trust me when I say this, things went wrong, VERY WRONG.
I wanted to like this film, I really did. It's got some good actors but ultimately it falls flat. It tries too hard to be funny in some places (the daughters over zealous cooking attempts), over reaches in others (the scene where they clean up someone's yard, so he agrees to join the team) and has some scenes that, while mildly interesting, are really just filler (all the work scene's). And I didn't find the "villians" intimidating, or worth hating, so much as I found them to be childishly annoying. <br /><br />I've met people like those in the film while playing church ball. And I will say the referee's are spot on, Still, in the end, I really didn't care all that much about the characters, or their quest for church ball glory. Maybe because they were all so one dimensional, which I might not have minded so much if the film were funnier or seemed to flow a little more smoothly overall. <br /><br />Kurt Hale, and Halestorm entertainment, has made some good films, but this is not one of them.
I've never been a huge fan of Mormon films. Being a Mormon, I've always felt that the humor was too exclusive to the LDS community and made us seem like a bunch of obsessive wackos. I was hoping this would be the breath of fresh air, the Halestorm movie I could finally discuss with my non-Mormon friends.<br /><br />Boy, was I wrong.<br /><br />I figured, since this had B-list talent like Clint Howard, Gary Coleman, Andrew Wilson, and Fred Willard (one of my favorites), this would have to be at least a little funny. And besides, church basketball is ripe with potential for plenty of hilarious gags and such. But I must say, throughout the entire movie, it seemed as though no one knew what they were doing. Every joke fell flat, and every opportunity for a genuinely funny gag went ignored. The dialogue was bland, and the film had some of the worst character development I have ever seen. Every single character but Wilson's was less than one-dimensional. It's hard to believe that after nine re-writes the film was still as mind-numbingly stale as the train wreck I witnessed. I can't put into words the rage I felt sitting through this. My friends and I were extras in the final game scene, so we went to the premiere in Washington City, UT. Kurt Hale, the director, was there, and I must say, I avoided all contact with him after the show. He waited at the door, seemingly ready for feedback. I couldn't bring myself to tell him that his film not only ripped away a good hour and a half of my life, but it left a nasty, painful scar that I will never forget.<br /><br />Here are a few specific problems I had: There was a minor love story subplot between the janitor and the chubby piano player, but these two characters came out of nowhere, and were impossible to care about, so my friends and I were left constantly wondering why we were supposed to care about these two lame, uninteresting characters. There were many subplots that popped up every now and then, each promising the audience the chance for laughs, but each one came and went in a puff of smoke, ending before you could even start caring. This was pretty much how the whole movie felt.<br /><br />This film was a major letdown, and I feel bad for everyone who's expecting the first REAL funny Mormon movie. True, the jokes in this one aren't too exclusive to Mormons. Then again, it's hard to tell what was a joke and what was a loud ringing sensation in my ears.<br /><br />Please, do NOT see this movie. Keep in your mind the fantasy that this movie is hilarious. Spare yourself the disappointment I went through
First of all, let me say the I am LDS or rather, I am a Mormon. So when I watched this film, I automatically gave it the benefit of the doubt. I can usually find something redeeming in every movie I watch. And this one was no exception. It does have its redeeming moments. But they are few and far between.<br /><br />One of the first things I noticed that bothered me very greatly was that it seemed as though Halestorm was ashamed of our Church! In the LDS Church, congregations are called "wards" and the basketball court is in the "cultural hall". NEVER ONCE are either of these two names mentioned. The Church is never referred to by name and "the standards" is as far as it goes in mentioning what our Church believes.<br /><br />It makes me wonder if the directors are really LDS or LDS wannabes? This film had so much potential! It could have really shown our Church in a positive light and helped the public to see not only what we have to offer, but also what we believe. Instead it was only mildly entertaining and left much to be desired. If I were not already LDS, I'd be left thinking Mormons are stupid, idiotic and ashamed of their beliefs.<br /><br />It is NOT a film I will recommend to my nonLDS friends.<br /><br />Sorry Halestorm. You can do better than this!
Trot out every stereotype and misrepresentation you've heard about semi-devout Mormons, and you'll see they've all starred in this ridiculous excuse for a film. Finally Kurt Hale's fortunes have changed (thank goodness) and hopefully it will be a long while before we see any of his features in theaters.<br /><br />The cinematography was amateurish (I think they used a camcorder for some of the basketball scenes). The plot was limp and very unfunny. You really didn't understand why anyone did anything. It was like I had sand in my eyes, and a 300-pound lady was sitting on my face, it was that painful.<br /><br />The only reason I didn't give this movie a negative rating was because the scale won't let me.
The really sad thing is that this was supposedly the highest budget "Halestorm Entertainment" has had to work with. All involved should be fined for littering since all the celluloid they wasted is good for nothing more than filling the trash. Not only is the writing atrocious and the jokes awful, but the camera work and film quality are amateur at best. The soundtrack sounds like it was created on some guys laptop PC. The worst part of all is that I actually sat through the whole thing. I think just because I couldn't believe that I had actually paid to buy a ticket and that the theater I was watching it in had actually agreed to show the "film".
I went to see this film with fairly low expectations, figuring it would be a nice piece of fluff. Sadly, it wasn't even that. I could barely sit through the film without wanting to walk out. I went with my two kids (ages 10 and 13) and even they kept asking, "How much longer?" After lasting until the end, I just kept wondering who would approve this script. Even the reliable Fred Willard couldn't save the trite dialogue, the state jokes, and the banal plot. I'd suggest that whoever wrote and directed this movie (I use the term loosely) should take an online screen writing class or drop by their local community college for a film class. At the least, there are many books on directing, screen writing, and producing movies that would teach them something about structure, plot, dialogue and pacing.
This movie is a total dog. I found myself straining to find anything to laugh at just so I wouldn't feel like I'd totally wasted my money--and my time. The writing in this film is absolutely terrible. It's a shame it's not up to the standards of other Hale Storm movies.<br /><br />They should have saved the money on getting D-list actors like Fred Willard and Gary Coleman and spent the money working the script until it was right. Even Gary Coleman wasn't properly utilized for his role.<br /><br />This movie leaves you wondering what the point of most of the plot was--including the subplots. After viewing this movie, I'm left with the impression that the producers were hoping to capture some kind of Napolean Dynamite-like humor, where it's not so much the lines as the character and the delivery. Unfortunately, this movie fails to deliver the lines, the characters, the delivery or the humor. I should have gone to the dentist instead!
This movie was the beatliest mormon movie made yet. It made the RM & Sons of Provo look like well done films! It was supposed to be funny from what I was told. The best part was the best actor in the movie-Travis Eberhard-if he wasn't in the movie it probably wouldn't have been made! He ruled!<br /><br />10. It wasn't funny 9. It was beat 8. It had Thurl Big T Bailey, who's character made no sense 7. It was made in Provo 6. It didn't make fun of Brokeback 5. It had Larry H. Miller in it 4. It was the 1st movie Clint Howard wasn't funny in 3. Gary Coleman chose the perfect movie 4 a comeback 2. They should have cast at Surreal Life auditions 1. It was made by Halestorm Entertainment!!
Just saw this movie, and what a waste of time. The movie was predictable and slow. It's basically the Mormon bad news bears that play church sanctioned basketball. Rather than watching this movie, I should have had a root canal. The cameo performances were obviously driven by sponsorship / funding. This movie had potential due to the outrageous behavior that is exhibited by Mormons when they play church sanctioned basketball, however because it's rated PG, the true nature of the spectacle could not be transfered to film. The acting is horrible with the exception of Clint Howard and Fred Willard. Thurl Bailey's appearance in the film was completely unnecessary.
Reviews for this film were lukewarm at best while expectations were sky high: a big budget, tons of popular faces, a rather funny idea and a main actress everyone loves. The end result is a disaster. Alice Tremblay's supposedly humorous journey in fantasy world fails in every way to entertain it's audience (I didn't hear a single laugh throughout the entire presentation), going through it's page-thin story line and one-dimensional characters without a single spark, not a sign of the magic it wished it had. The 90 minutes of film here are sterile with clumsy direction and some good actors doing their best to come of as professionals in a feature that certainly couldn't seem that great an idea on the set, let alone on paper. 'L'Odyssée d'Alice Tremblay' is a collage of comic sketches, linked together with a (very) thin layer of good ideas. Avoid or boredom will haunt you.
While the idea is more original than most Sci-Fi movies, the execution is, as usual lacking. While the practical mummy effects are not bad, and the "Gun Nut" character is over the top giggle inducing, the only real draw is to see Morena Baccarin and Adam Baldwin reunited on the small screen. I suspect that was the idea all along. They do the best they can with what they have but the "must see" moments for me were in the first 40 minutes or so when Morena's character sported some Tomb Raider style shorts. Not high brow cinema I know but you can't deny true beauty when you see it!!! And Adam Baldwin once again hams it up as the guy you love to hate. If you just want to watch a couple of your favorite Firefly characters have a good time with some sub par material then this might be for you. If you want good acting and character development then be advised to look elsewhere.
I'm at this very moment debating whether I should even finish watching this "poppycock" of a movie. They had a pretty interesting idea, with the buried movie set, and that was it. So far this incomprehensible mess has no real story. There is the buried set, some wolf headed monster running amok, an amulet, and a bunch of bad actors attacked by the wolf masked whatever it is. What I would have missed, had I had the good sense to eject this nonsense is a dune buggy chase, some really bad C.G.I., some incredibly stupid dialog, more bad C.G.I., and the hero fighting paper cut outs. Other than the original idea, this film has absolutely zero redeeming qualities. My mistake for continuing to watch. - MERK
Watching the first 30 minutes of Sands of Oblivion gave me high hopes. It seemed I was in for a cheaper version of the Mummy. The setup was promising, in the 1920's Cecil B. Demille makes his opus of the Ten Commandments. It seems in using real Egyptian artifacts for the movie set they unleashed an ancient and terrible evil (don't they always?). Aware of what had been unleashed DeMille orders the entire set buried instead of the usual practice of tearing it down. Hopefully the evil will be buried with it for all time. Then we switch to present day where a team is attempting to excavate the site (the movie's first mistake, but hey those period costumes are expensive and this is a Sci-Fi channel movie). The first sightings we get of the Anubis monster are well done and it's a costume that they put some effort into and not the usual cheesy CG effect. Then the body counts starts. This is were the movie went south for me. The reactions to the fact that people are dying in gruesome and strange ways gets a strangely subdued reaction. Once they realize that the ancient evil has again been unleashed and is on a killing spree what do the stock issue leading man and lady do? They make the usual stop to the "guy who knows the truth but never told anyone". After getting that vital information do they share it with the comrades at the dig site? No, they stop off at a hotel for a refreshing shower and some pleasant small talk. Really I'm not the most motivated person but if I knew a demon from ancient Egypt was on the loose and killing everyone in sight and would be coming after me I'd put a little hustle in my step to solve the problem. After this overlong and pointless middle section they get around to destroying the Anubis monster in the usual way, by racing around in dune buggies and shooting it with a rocket launcher while it's standing by a pile of phosphorous grenades. For a Sci-Fi movie it was above the usual crap they put out, which isn't saying much at all. What disappoints me is this could have been a lot more if someone had wrote a decent script for it.
TV movie about an ancient Egyptian curse brought to the US in the 20's during the filming of DeMille's first version of the 10 Commandments and which is reawakened when DeMille's sets are unearthed in the desert.<br /><br />One of the worst films I've seen in a long time.<br /><br />The question is were the filmmakers serious or kidding when they made this film? If this is serious its a laughably bad movie and a great film to pick on for its badness. If its a comedy its less good but funny for all of the wrong reasons.You will laugh long and hard AT this film, probably more than many other Hollywood "comedies".
Worse than the rating it has been given. This is a typical SciFi movie nowadays: bad to awful acting, a script that is poorly written, and shoddy direction. From the opening scene where DeMille is burying his set to the end, this movie is terrible. In the beginning scenes this movie has Moses (which was Charlton Heston in the DeMille film), Pharoah (Yul Brynner) and Nefretiri (Anne Baxtor) overlooking a boy burying a box in the sand. The characters that were to represent the three aforementioned icons were awful and had to resemblance to the people they were to "supposedly" be. The fact that this is in the desert away from civilization is hilarious when someone is hurt and they are all yelling for an ambulance. The screenwriter obviously is oblivious to the fact that there are no ambulances in the middle of the desert. I was sorely disappointed that Morena Baccarin decided to do a film of such low quality.
I make a point out of watching bad movies frequently, and the sci-fi channel original movies tend to be one of the best sources for these movies you can find. As such, I'm sure you can imagine my disappointment when I saw Sands of oblivion. The acting was uncharacteristically sub-par, as opposed to the woefully disgraceful display sci-fi usually has in store for us. There are a few cameos made by people you'd most likely recognize, although you may not know their names by heart. The CGI special effects are minimal, and as such, one of the largest sources of comedy in a sci-fi feature is lacking. Sure, there are some funny moments like when a guy gets beheaded by a bulldozer, or when the main character leaves his friend to die in order to save a girl he's known for a couple of days, but overall, it ends up just not having you rolling on the floor with laughter, and I consider that a major disappointment.<br /><br />If I was rating it on a 10 star scale made specifically to judge made-for TV movies, I'd probably give it a 4, maybe even a 5. A real shame that I may have to wait 'till the next sci-fi original movie to get a good laugh, and I really hope that this movie isn't part of some overall quality increase in sci-fi original movies.
This must have been one of the worst movies I have ever seen.<br /><br />I have to disagree with another commenter, who said the special effects were okay. I found them pretty bad: it just wasn't realistic and they were so fake that it just distracted from the actual story.<br /><br />Maybe that distraction is the reason that I did not fully understand the story. The archaeologists are looking for "the set". They do not bother to tell what set, or what is so special about it. That also makes it unclear why they search for it in California, while the intro of the movie takes place in ancient Egypt.<br /><br />If you're shooting a movie that takes place in the desert, take the effort to actually go to the desert. The beginning - the ancient ceremony - looks like it was shot inside a studio instead of a desert.<br /><br />The action-level was constant throughout the movie, no ups and downs, no climax. It made the movie look short, and that's certainly a pro for this particular movie.
Bollywood fans pretty much hold Amitabh Bachan's Mard in high regard but I think it is very overrated. Manmohan Desai collaborated before on movies like Suhaag,Parvarish,Amar Akbar Anthony,Naseeb,Desh Premee and Coolie and I have seen all of them I liked so I had very high expectations before I watched Mard and was bitterly disappointed. My main gripe about Mard is that it feels like Amar Akbar Anthony part 2,maybe Mr Desai ran out of ideas, after all he had been using that formula for years and years. 1. First of all some members of the cast is repeated from AAA, for instance the police inspector who brings up Amar, the Muslim who brings up Akbar, Nirupa Roy and a few more. 2. In AAA Nirupa Roy loses her eyesight, in Mard she loses her voice 3. In AAA there is the famous song (Shirdi wale sai baba)well in Mard we have Amitabh singing Maa Sherawali. Having seen AAA for over 1000 times I noticed that straight away.<br /><br />My other gripes are that some of the situations just seem ridiculous, true Manmohan Desai made leave your brain at the door kind of movies but with Mard I thought he went too far. My last gripe is that compared to songs in previous Manmohan Desai movies I found the songs rather disappointing. I know it has many fans that swear by it but I didn't like it one bit. It actually pains me to write this review because I am such a huge fan and have loved his movies since I was a child.
Manmohan Desai made some entertaining though illogical films like AAA, PARVARISH and NASEEB but he made some craps like COOLIE and MARD and then GJS<br /><br />This movie is one of the worst movies ever made by him the dial became famous Mard ko dard nahin hota but the film is so bad you cringe<br /><br />The British are made carricatures and the film looks so weird The scene in the British hotel is damn stupid <br /><br />The film has many stupidities like Amrita assaulting Amitabh and then the entire scene plus towards the climax the film becomes even worse There are more gems like the horse statue getting life, The masks of Amitabh haha and more<br /><br />Direction by Manmohan Desai is bad Music is okay<br /><br />Amitabh does his part with style, nothing different from COOLIE, LAAWARIS type roles Amrita Singh is okay Satyen Kapuu is okay Prem Chopra is as usual, Nirupa Roy is again her usual self Dara Singh is also as usual
I'm a fan of Columbo, especially on a rainy Saturday, and it was fun to see Oskar Werner after Fahrenheit 451, but this episode was very lacking. The original plot and plot twists were obvious and could be guessed way in advance, even years before the modern detective shows of today. But it was amusing to see the crazy couch patterns and "modern" electronics equipment and, of course, the mandatory suburbanite humor poking fun at modern art for sale. The high-tech home is a Jetson's or Disney version of Tomorrowland, and fun to think of writers inventing those "way-out gizmos".<br /><br />If its sunny outside, go play, as there are much better Columbo episodes. Still, we should be thankful for Cable TV that these episodes are being broadcast.
For domestic audiences I can see how they would applaud this movie. For outsiders, with no vested interests, it did not make much sense. The Germans were portrayed as incompetents and the Russians as heroes. The supposedly romantic angle was superfluous and a distraction. How a young woman could 'love' the lieutenant from just glimpsing him was nonsense. How she could, as mentioned at the end of the movie, never marry just because of this infatuation was beyond me. I mentioned the Germans were portrayed as idiots and that was exemplified in the chase into the marsh. Several hundred German troops advanced, pushing the Russians into the marsh. So the Russians hid and the Germans stopped at the edge of the marsh and just stood there listening. I suppose they did not want to get their boots wet, but I am sure an officer would have ordered 20 or 30 men into the water to search the marsh. But that would have ended the story. Also, the Germans entered the barn where the Russians were hiding in the loft and did not bother to fire into the roof. At the worst some soldier would have tossed a grenade into the loft and not climbed a ladder to peer in.<br /><br />I did see some reviewers who said they cried at the end. I wonder why? You knew this small band would perish and they was nothing heart-tugging in that.
I believe that war films should try to convey the terror of war, avoid idealism and respect some rudimentary military principles. Zvezda barely does the first. Zvezda being a Russian war film, I was expecting patriotism, sentimentality, beautiful poetic pictures, a lush score, Slavic cheekbones and cruel Germans. What I didn't need was the naive love non-affair, the unrealistically silly war scenes and the abuse of the syrupy soundtrack in a film which avoided carefully all historical or political references (Stalinism, Nazism, Holocaust) only to end on a passing but nonetheless insulting to our sense of history endnote about "liberating Poland". A missed opportunity as a film but not as propaganda apparently.
Ain't it hilarious when an average schmo leading a pathetic life suddenly has something outrageously magical happen to him, turning his life upside down and causing him to learn a few valuable lessons along the way? That formula never gets old, does it? It's such a sure fire way to make a classic film! Just look at major hits like Liar Liar and Big!... This must have been Rob Schneider's line of thinking when he made semi-successful Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo and followed it with The Animal. Since I've already traced the plot through sarcasm, allow me to color it in more: Schneider plays a loser cop who's suddenly involved in a tragic accident but is saved through surgery... by a loopy veterinarian who loads him up with animal parts, causing him to whinny like a horse at inappropriate times, run like a cheetah, etc. This movie is slightly more likable than other Schneider-starring flicks (such as another lame same-plot follow-up The Hot Chick), but it almost feels like they want audiences to hate it by casting a reality TV star as the romantic lead (Colleen Haskell from "Survivor") and inserting a cameo by Norm MacDonald. My favorite scene... just does not exist. Sorry - nothing memorably good except the production value. I just want to end this review by saying that slight references to other movies in a movie can be okay, but when it comes to lines being delivered the exact same way ("You can DO it!"), there's a word for that - "milking." Actually, here's another word - "cheap."
Marvin(Rob Schneider)does not have the ingredients to be a cop which is his lifelong dream. But his luck changes when he has a car crush(a very bad one)and is found by a doctor. The doctor has to use animal organs to rebuild him. After this moment, he starts to have wild behaviours unconsciously and becomes a best cop one could ever be. By the time, he realises the changes and his animal instincts starts to take over his human side. In the mean time, he finds a lovely girl and try to be a perfect gentleman that means he has to control himself and behave civilised. I am not a big fun of Rob Schneider. In fact, this is the his first film I have seen. However, I can easily say that he is the best person to play the loser.(See his part in Ally Mcbeal, quite funny actually).There are some good parts in the movie such as his flirting with the goat. In such movies, the biggest problem is that the script is seems to make the viewer feel less intelligent. I am sure this movie is okay to watch as long as it is not taken too seriously. But very sad to see such films doing very good in the box office. The Animal is not the worst film I have seen to date but fails to get more than *.
I didn't really like this movie that much at all. It wasn't really funny and in some cases it was just downright stupid. Rob Schneider is definitely one enormously talented individual and while his acting was fine in this, it just seemed like a real waste for him to star in. I mean there were some parts that were okay and somewhat humorous in a cute kind of way but that's about it. The only thing that actually caught my attention during this whole ordeal of over the top jokes was that there were some very good looking females present and I'm not one to watch a movie solely because of that but in this case it was the only nook where even the slightest case of redemption could be found. All in all it was a couple notches below an average movie!<br /><br />Final Query:<br /><br />Theaters: So glad I didn't squander too much money on this.<br /><br />DVD Purchase: Ummm, let me think....no!<br /><br />Rental: If you have a prehistoric sense of humor then why not.
I hated this movie so much I remember it vividly. It is not even funny. Any movie that relies on unfunny sex jokes and racism humor does not deserve the money it costs to make it. In the first half hour, Rob Schneider drinks a carton of rancid milk. All I could think was "he deserves it, for making such a bad movie". Don't waste your time or money on this one.
I saw an interview with Rob Schneider (who plays the lead character, Marvin Mange, in this film.) He said in it that he wanted to emphasize physical comedy here so much that even if you had the volume turned off you'd be laughing at this movie. Obviously that must be the secret. I had the volume turned up. I was actually listening to this thing and thought it was a disaster, and completely unfunny - a major disappointment after Schneider's hilarious performance in "Deuce Bigalow, Male Gigolo."<br /><br />The story is stupid: Mange is a major loser who dreams of being a cop who gets filled with a bunch of animal transplants after a car accident by a mad scientist type appropriately named Dr. Wilder (Michael Caton), and as a result starts to lose control of his "animal instincts." This makes him a "supercop." He can sniff out drugs hidden in body cavities and outrun horses. Of course, he also has a nasty habit of eating people's cows and trying to seduce their goats, but surely that's a small price to pay? It just didn't do anything for me. <br /><br />The cast left much to be desired. Is there a more irritating actor in all of Hollywood than John McGinley? Here, he plays Sgt. Sisk, Mange's commander on the police force, as a repugnantly cartoonish character (much the same as his doctor character in the inexplicably popular TV series "Scrubs.") I was anxious to get a look at Colleen Haskell's first "serious" acting job (can anything in this movie be called "serious?") She, of course, gained her fame as a contestant on the first "Survivor" and she proves here what we knew from that: she's cute as a button. What she doesn't prove here is that she has any discernible talent as an actress. And what's with Ed Asner as Police Chief Wilson. I mean, how old is this guy now? He's the size of some of the cows Mange tried to eat, and he seemed out of breath the whole way through. I'm surprised he made it through the filming. There's a brief cameo at the end by Adam Sandler (who also served as Executive Producer of this.)<br /><br />Anyway, I chuckled twice: Mange playing with his squeaky toys in the police car, and the scene Schneider has with Haskell and the orangutan - the orangutan has more acting talent! So, for two chuckles - 2/10.
This is a very bad movie. I laughed once or twice, and the storyline sucks! There is maybe one funny joke, it is stupid and it is boring. Through the whole short movie, I was falling asleep and wondering when it was going to end.<br /><br />No one acts human, and everyone acts stupid and ridiculous. Rob Schneider acting like an animal isn't something I would pay to see. It looked funny, but the bottom line: DON'T WASTE YOU'RE PRECIOUS TIME ON SUCH A RIDICULOUS AND STUPID MOVIE.<br /><br />I was wondering when it was going to end, even though it is a short movie. In the beginning we thought it would get better; but it gets worse. Stupid, all the way to the end. I walked out of the theater, and I would remember that movie as extremely bad forever.<br /><br />The writer and co-producer of this film is a Simpsons TV writer, but this is nothing like The Simpsons (this movie sucks!!!)
NOTHING in this movie is funny. I thought the premise, giving a human the libido of a randy ram, was interesting and should provide for some laughs. WRONG! There is simply nothing funny about the movie. For example, the main character making a pass at a goat in heat in the middle of a farmer's yard is not funny, it borders on obscenity. They are toying around with bestiality in this film on one level, and it just aint funny.<br /><br />We all know that dogs will eat anything, anywhere, anytime. The main character doing this with everything, everywhere, everytime is also not funny. It becomes a cliche.<br /><br />Rob Schneider is, I guess, acceptable in the role. By this, I mean that he's not a bad actor, but with rotten material it's difficult to comment on quality. However, Coleen Haskell, the other half of the HUMAN-romantic leads (does one count the number of animals that the main character has interest in as romantic leads too?), seems embarrassed by the whole thing, as well she should be. She seems to be acting in some kind of vacuum, detached from all the other actors in the movie. <br /><br />See this film only if you wish to be bored by tasteless, dull, repetitive material.
I was expecting a movie similar to Deuce Bigalow, which I enjoyed. However, this dud seemed to last forever. It's one of those flicks which enjoys the sad placement of PG-13 while not being kid appropriate. The jokes aren't just low-brow or f**t jokes, they're crude, lewd, and many acts cross the boundaries to not only bad taste but beyond legal and moral decency. Many scenes appear to have been chopped to get the PG-13 rating...too bad...it might have made a bigger splash as an R-rated film if the funny was left in. (Overstatement? Probably.) I do not recommend this movie. It is a full-on waste of time...and I'm a movie lover and ready to give just about anything a shot. At 45 minutes in, the movie felt like it should be winding down...and boy were we ready for it to. The ending is quaint but doesn't salvage the rest of this quagmire/tourist trap of a rental. 1/2 star (glad I saw it as a freebie...would have been sickened to pay hard-earned greenbacks for this tripe)
Redundant, but again the case. If you enjoy the former SNL comedian and his antics (in this case, Schneider), then you should go. Basic comedy….man's life is saved by having various animal organs transplanted into him. Unfortunately, he takes on each animal's characteristics. Former Survivor Colleen looks pretty good here, now that she doesn't have open sores on her legs, and a little makeup on her face! D
Guy is a loser. Can't get girls, needs to build up, is picked on by stronger more successful guys, etc. Seen it, saw it, moved on. I'd have to say that Rob needs to move past the Adam Sandler part of his life. And get out of the Adam Sandler plots. There are two funny parts in the whole movie. I couldn't even finish the last 5 minutes. I was getting bored. "The Animal" is an alright film. I do usually enjoy Adam Sandler films that have the same plot. But this was trying too hard to impress. The jokes are very old. So, trust me. This is not a film that most people could really get into. But some did, so I'll be nice.<br /><br />3/10
I hired this movie expecting a few laughs, hopefully enough to keep me amused but I was sorely mistaken. This movie showed very minimal moments of humour and the pathetic jokes had me cringing with shame for ever hiring it... Aimed at an age group of 10-15, this movie will certainly leave viewers outside of these boundaries feeling very unsatisfied. Worth no more than 3 votes highly unrecommended for anyone not wanting to waste 2 hours of their lives.
Rob Schneider is a famous comedian cause of his movements, facials and performances of "not humans". This time he is The Animal. Marvin is a loser who is trying to be a hero and one day, nobody takes a call from a man that gets attacked, so Marvin has to take this case and save the attacked man. But on his way to the crime scene, he crashes with his car and gets really damaged. He doesn't remember what happens and at the next ordinary day, his life is not same when he finds out that he has animal instincts. Of course, we got our female that our main character is trying to reach but his tryings, are useless. She is played by Collen Haskell. There are no negative characters. The negative character, is destiny if I could use this metaphor. Marvin should find out, how to become a normal human being again. By the way-his animal instincts, helps him in some situations. Schneider's performance is a so-so. The movie is so unreal that gets stupid at some moments but it is one of those movies, called mindless fun as I have written above. So watch it for the monkey style Rob Schneider but it is definitely not one of the best comedies ever or one of the best movies that Schneider appears in. He is a great comedian but this is not his best movie.
I have been reading the reviews for this movie and now I wanna kill my self. I don't wanna live in a world where people find this move or Rob Schneider funny. What is wrong with these people. I'm not angry at Rob Schneider because he has the intelligence of a dead cat. I watched this film in disbelief. Who would pay money to make this?? This film is so bad that its painful. Most bad films are funny because they are crap. The Animal is just DISGUSTING!!! Watch this film and if you like please for all of man kind kill your self. We don't need you. I want to raise money to get Rob Scheider off all movies. If someone killed Rob Schneider they should be given a Nobel peace prize.
And a few more "no"s on top of that. Voodoo Academy is, without a doubt, the least ambitious film of all time. What exactly is it trying to do? Tell a story? Obviously not; as has been pointed out, most of it's just barely-legal guys rubbing themselves. Could it, then, be an attempt at subversive homoeroticism? Well, maybe, if not for the fact it never ever ever goes beyond the most innocuous and nonthreatening forms of male contact. (Which is, to the delight of none, repeated about eighty thousand times.) Well, it is sort of a horror movie; is it trying to scare us? Not unless the director meant to do so through the utter tedium and vacuousness of his "work."<br /><br />Never in my life have I enjoyed a movie less. This is the most boring and unnecessary thing I've ever seen. It's like Voodoo Academy takes the genres of horror, zombie, and gay movies, puts them in a grinder, then runs them through a coffee filter--only instead of it being the kind of coffee filter that filters out coffee beans, it's the kind that takes out everything vital, edgy, or in any way interesting. The result is 74 minutes of film every bit as exciting as a glass of warm water--only without the ability to rehydrate you after the 10-day gin binge that will inevitably befall you if you watch this abomination of human effort.
You can't hold too much against this knowing that it was made in four days, and I had expected it to be campy anyway. (It's not all that campy in reality. With the exception of Kevin Kalisher and Huntley Ritter, who don't take themselves seriously, the rest of the cast plays it halfway straight; Riley Smith is exceptionally bad.) The ridiculous story is actually paid attention to, which kind of shocked me; I assumed the whole purpose with these ultra-low-budget horror movies was to cater to the basest sexual fantasies and not give a damn about the story, but they use lots of words like "technological" and "physicality" in the script to get their point across. (Although it's possible that the story is important only to explain why there's so few cast members.) Nobody cares about this stupid storyline, and the only things that are interesting in the film are the mocking of cults and the soft-core homoeroticisms (which aren't all that edgy). I would have enjoyed it more if there were just some random killings for no reason. The film is grainy, with a TV-quality look and acting level. There are a few "sexy" scenes that are alright -- the boys writhing in bed in their boxers, feeling themselves up; or being tied down and making orgasmic faces while wine is poured on them -- and some of them are kinda funny. And I liked the digs at L. Ron Hubbard and the intended irony of a story about religious cultists told with intense gay overtones, but it still isn't any good. 3/10
Cheap and mind-blisteringly dull story and acting. Not a single good line, not even a line bad enough to be good, and no memorable delivery. Even the blooper reel included with the DVD showed how inept the actors were and how little fun any of them were having. The esoteric and occult basis was apathetically inauthentic, and the antagonists failed to be creepy or believable. The 'homoerotic' overtones were pointlessly tame and dissatisfying, and were limited to young boys caressing their chests while flaccid in their boxers. I'm not gay enough to appreciate it, but a little action might have at least kept me and my girlfriend awake.
If you like to comment on films where the script arrive halfway the movie then this is the one. A setting and acting as in a Porn movie but nothing is happening only some groping and touching of the third kind. Which actually becomes very boring after 45 minutes of touchy feely but no action. A few of the actors I've seen in real x rated movies and there their acting then was a lot better. All the special effects are done by the great "Rondo" Whom performs all the magic whit his mind. A cult movie is written on the box. Does that mean that this film is not to be watched at all???<br /><br />Get drunk with some friends and watch this movie on new years eve ore thanks giving.
This was probably the worst movie i have ever seen in my life!! It was stupid there was no plot and the special affects were ridiculous!! And i have never seen such bad acting in my life! The only good part about the movie were all the hot guys(especially Drew Fuller). I don't know what these people were thinking when they made this movie!! I didn't even want to finish the whole thing because you get to this point in the movie where the guys are all in bed touching themselves. I mean it was like some kind of sick and twisted kiddy porn! I would advise anyone who has heard of this movie and was interested in seeing it to just forget about it and find another movie to watch! I was very disappointed!! The whole movie was a complete waste of time in my opinion.
i know you've read that before, on countless other films no doubt if you're reading the comments here, but voodoo academy still stands as the absolute worst film i've been able to track down. no doubt the really bad ones aren't even available to buy or watch on tv, but even so i feel it's fair to qualify that i'm not just some dumb renter who picked badly.<br /><br />i've seen two thirds of the bottom 100 ranked films here on the imdb, and i'm ticking of the remaining ones with every chance. most of those stand head and shoulders above this... excersize in absolute monotony.<br /><br />i like to rate truly bad films (as in ones with no humour even in how bad they are) by how many people you need to watch it with to make it all the way through. if you can watch it by yourself, it isn't that bad. if you can watch it with one single friend... it's bad but could be a lot worse.<br /><br />it took 5 of us to make it all the way through voodoo academy. and not even the usually fun moments of watching bad films (spotting the boom mic for example, 3 times in this one if i'm not mistaken) could take away the dry taste in my mouth. yes i'd watched it, but i'd also forced 4 of my friends to watch it with me to achieve that end.<br /><br />i hope and pray we saw the directors cut... to think that there could be a version with 20 more minutes of big eyebrowed lugs with baby oil glands rubbing their torsos just scares the hell out of me. so much of the film centers around this.<br /><br />i do applaud david decoteau for managing to lens this film in two days on a short budget, just as i applaud him for convincing people to pay him to make what is no doubt a celluloid version of some of his fetishes. but it isn't a good film. the original shop of horrors was shot in the same length of time for a comparitive amount of money (considering inflation) and was an utter gem. it's not an excuse for how bad this baby is.<br /><br />spoilers ahead...<br /><br />it's not even worth picking apart the plot holes or cliched know it all hero characters... the pacing of the film... is insane... nothing... is interesting for the length of time decoteau dedicates to the pectoral self massaging. no matter what your alignment or sex... rubbing just cannot sustain that kind of screen time.<br /><br />the acting is cheese... but not overly amatuer... i've seen a lot worse in better films... but somehow it's the semi competent delivery of some of the worst lines you'll ever hear in a film, that really grates.<br /><br />rent this if, like me, you have a fascination with the worst of the worst, and only if you're going to watch it with a group of people who are prepared to work to get through it. this is no ha ha ha the set wobbled affair. it's an endurance test you probably want to skip.<br /><br />i'm sure there is worse... but i wouldn't be surprised if it has decoteau's name on it.
I have seen a lot of bad films. Most of the time I can enjoy a crappy horror film for what it is. But this really takes badness to new extremes.<br /><br />It is bland, the plot for what it is never really goes anywhere and takes its time over it. There are no shocks, no horror, no suspense, just a load of guys rubbing themselves for an hour and a half and then a quick finish.<br /><br />A blight on the crappy horror genre, avoid at all costs.<br /><br />
"Voodoo Academy" features an "Academy" like no other, one that houses only six male students in one bedroom. These teenage guys are instructed in religion by a sinister young priest, who enjoys tormenting and comforting them simultaneously. The sole administrator of this "Academy" is a young and seductive headmistress, and she retains her handsome charges on a short leash, so to speak.<br /><br />Sexual overtones abound, and the director obviously has high regard for young male bodies. These young actors occasionally strip down to their designer underwear to sneak about the "Academy," and their sexuality is the entire focus of the movie. If you're not interested in the male form -- stay away!<br /><br />Burdened by weak and awkward dialogue, this low-budget exploitation piece just stumbles along with a few laughable special effects tossed in between the yawns. The mood is claustrophobic, with tediously long takes, a handful of cheap sets and few costume changes. These visual elements come interspersed with seemingly unending sequences of banal dialogue, intended as character and plot development. It gives one the feeling it was filmed in three days...
This is one of those movies that should have been way better than it turned out to be. I dread to think what the Blockbuster-approved edit must have looked like, because the director's cut on DVD was a bore of the epic proportions. Naturally, you don't expect it to be "The Godfather", but an acting class or two might have come in handy.<br /><br />Also, there were so many cute guys in this movie, but they were woefully under-exploited. I like watching a bevy of hotties writhe around in their BVDs as much as the next guy, but even I have a right to expect a little more. It wasn't a total loss, though; at least we got a peek a Drew Fuller's (covered) junk and truly upsetting haircut. And there's Huntley Ritter looking even cuter than he did in "Bring It On" (and acting about as well). There's always a silver lining, kids. You just have to look really hard for it. And occasionally, you have to make use of your pause button.
This movie is AWFUL! I don't even know where to begin, I'm speechless I can't even describe how awful this is. The blood is flourescent first of all, and the acting is AWFUL! The only good part was the biker chick that saves the day. This movie was rediculous, I don't see how it could even get a vote of 1 its so bad. It looks like it was made by highschool students.
I saw the trailer to this film and it looked great, so I went out and bought it. What a mistake, the acting is a shambles, the special effects (if you could call them that), look like something that wouldn't be out of place at a school play. Some of the characters are so stupid in this film you will cringe the minute they are on the screen, which unfortunately is all to often. As for a story, forget it. This is a warning, don't waste any money at all on this film it has to be one of the worst things I have ever seen. If, for some reason, you like this film watch Troll 2, you will probably enjoy that as well.
I thought that this movie was pretty lame. If you're looking for cheesey, you may like this. I, myself, don't mind a fair amount of cheese, but this was ridiculous. The progression of the movie bored me and the storyline was very weak.<br /><br />The only thing entertaining about this movie was the day-glo zombies, but even that isn't reason enough to see this flick.
Worst movie I have seen since Gingerale Afternoon. I suppose that this is a horror/comedy. I pretty much predicted every scene in this movie. The special-effects were not so special. I believe that I could come up with as good of effects from what I have lying around the house. I wish I could have something good to say about this movie, but I am afraid that I don't. Even Coolio should be ashamed of appearing in such a turkey. I do, after a little thought, have one thing good to say about this movie - it ended.
This film is absolutely horrific. One of the worst movies I've ever seen. The story does nearly not exist, the characters are full of stereotypes and the Special-FX only make you laugh. The only remarkable thing about this movie is the guest appearance of the Rapper Coolio as some kind of police officer.<br /><br />If this film was supposed to be a comedy I didn't quite get the point. If you want to watch this movie: please get yourself drunk first and then prepare for some good laughs...especially when the first Special-FX appear on the screen.<br /><br />But if you like trash movies made on the cheap: this film is a must-see for you.
......this film is pretty awful, the only thing stopping me from giving it a rating of 1 was the fact that I unfortunately have seen worse.<br /><br />The jungle music, juttering demons, and fluorescent UV style blood/teeth/eyes give it that "awful" look, and the script is dire.....this film is more like a test to see how long you can last before giving up on it. It's also predictable but not in a good way. Nothing this film does is in a good way. I watched it 10 minutes ago and thought I would rant a bit so there you are. (oh and the acting doesn't let the film down, it's also terrible)
I just watched The Convent for the second time. I had enjoyed it previously and figured it would make for a good drunken Friday night film, some gore, some style, bit of humour and suchlike. I was saddened to find that I could no longer appreciate it much. It seemed like someone had set out to revisit cheeseball epics like Night of the Demons for a modern audience but lost the things that made the original worthwhile. For the record I'm not even a huge fan of Night of the Demons, but there were some things I really dug about it. The Convent does the cheese but the not the goodness so much. Apart from the main girl (likeable performance from Joanna Canton), the goth girl and a sweet cameo from Adrienne Barbeau pretty much all the characters were excruciatingly unlikeable, festering at the absolute lowest levels of moronic, offensive jockhood. The film is then gravely hampered by the complete lack of gratuitous nudity which means that, given the awful dialogue, it is difficult to watch the characters and harder to appreciate the good points of the film. The evil nuns are original in design and get lots of good scenes, though not scary their certainly kinda cool, and the film also fields a fair amount of neat gore. Towards the end, when Adrienne Barbeau is on the scene the film becomes quite entertaining cause all the obnoxious people are dead and its an evil nun bashing frenzy. The stylised direction also occasionally yields good results, although sometimes the camera just moves too fast. All in all, this was a film where for me the shining good points just can't make up for the things I hated. Those more fond of this kind of film may well enjoy it a lot more, but for me it wasn't a good time.
When I tell people that I review movies as a hobby, the first thing they say is "What do you think of such-and-such movie?" There are a couple of problems here. Firstly, there is the probable chance that I've not seen it and thus, I ruin my reputation. Secondly, I could trash the movie in question without realising that it's actually their favourite. Lastly, I could be given DVDs to watch so they can judge my opinion. Thus, I find myself sat before "The Convent" which is the sort of film I would ignore completely given the choice but unable to avoid here. More's the pity because this frankly dreadful "horror" is about as scary as a box of kittens.<br /><br />Following well-worn clichés, "The Convent" focuses on a bunch of American high school students on a trip to an abandoned convent on a mission to get stoned, laid and mildly spooked. But you'll never guess what happens next? A group of cannibalistic demonic nuns emerge from the cobwebs who proceed to pick the kids off one by one in classic horror movie tradition. Will any of them survive and more importantly, haven't you got better things to worry about? <br /><br />The only thing that saves "The Convent" from being a total waste of time is the fact that nobody is really taking this tosh seriously with the exception of Coolio's bizarre cameo as a hyperactive cop with an itchy trigger finger. It's far too amusing to be properly frightening - the zombie cheerleader who makes chipmunk noises for no reason, the day-glo paint jobs that appears when you become a zombie - but what really kills it as a horror is the fact that you can instantly tell when someone is going to jump out and get messily murdered. But even if they were trying, I still doubt that it would work - demonic nuns wearing the sort of make-up you'd see in the "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" TV show aren't really that scary. The scariest thing about this movie really is that over 10% of voters gave this a maximum score. I mean, I know it's funny but I hardly split my sides. To be honest, I've had more fun in a dentist.<br /><br />"The Convent" isn't really a horror movie as such. It's more of a comedy horror like "Scary Movie" or "Shaun Of The Dead" but you're laughing at it instead of with it. I honestly can't recommend this to anybody except the family of the cast and crew but even then, I doubt very much they'd enjoy it. I don't enjoy the "so bad that it's good" genre - I personally feel that if the film-makers can't be bothered to salvage a turkey then I shouldn't bust a gut trying to watch it. Yes, it's a bad film and yes, they really should have gone home and done something more constructive. A Rubik's cube, for example. The DVD box has two price stickers - one for £4.99 and a reduced price of £3. But it was sold for £1 and that should tell you everything you need to know about this poxy, cheap, awesomely bad flick. Sorry if you do like it but "The Convent" really is a pile of unholy crap.
In fact, these young people were so distasteful that I couldn't wait for all of 'em to get slaughtered, and that includes Clarissa (Joanna Canton) since I considered her the most annoying of the bunch.<br /><br />But I knew it was gonna be a mess from the opening minutes when a teen Christine opened fired on the priest and the nuns with the Leslie Gore music playing in the background. It had nowhere to go but down.<br /><br />Even the prosthetics looked fake and the "blood" looked suspiciously like Hawaiian Punch, although later on it took on red day-glo look to match the silly halloween makeup they were all wearing. I'm sure all the GOTH morons out there will appreciate this bullsh-t since it'll appeal to that bunch. It sure didn't appeal to me. Blah...<br /><br />And not even my favorite horror babe Adrienne Barbeau can save this stupid teen horror flick from itself. She still looks hot, though. I'm glad she takes care of herself since we don't get to see too much of her nowadays.<br /><br />However, it is a step up from Dante Tomaselli's meandering HORROR (2002) in that it has a somewhat coherent plot, so I'll give it that much. That and the little Boston terrier named Boozer also brings it up a notch. I like what Boozer does to Clarissa in the end. It was the only good scene in an otherwise silly film.<br /><br />Lion's Gate Films sure must have been desperate when they picked this one up.<br /><br />2 out of 10
This film wasn't programmed in Italian cinemas,I have seen it at a manifestation called "fantafestival".I find it terrible because some scenes seems like music videos chaotic and dark, the use of fluorescent colors is ridicule and there's no suspence in the film. Music is completely out of the story and I don't have words to describe the visual effects.If you look at the first scene the film seems to be interesting, but a few minutes later it becomes busy.The story is interesting but the development needs a complete review.
This movie is one of the worst horror movies I have ever seen. From the very first scene, i knew it would be a smash crash. It starts with a seemingly bad girl killing a bunch of nuns in a mission. As it turns out, the people in it were possessed by some random zombies. Well, some years later, some college kids are pulling some pledge prank. Horrible acting goes from pledge to the head jock. Things like the jock yelling at him to do stuff in quite a non-chalonte manner, with pledge over reacting and over-doing the whole "eager to be popular role" What really took the cake with this one is the final battle. Absolutely HORRIBLE special effects with the guns. For example, guns making a noise with no muzzle flash, and vice-versa. this is accompanied by stop-animation zombies (why they move in stop motion is a mystery), cheesy music, and about 40 guns that come out of nowhere.<br /><br />Overall, this movie is crap. Just like so many others you can rent for 50 cents at your nearest low brow movie rental place.
My friend's mom used to work at a video store and got to preview movies before they came out, so when she brought home The Convent, a horror movie, i couldn't wait to watch it. Given that it's supposed to be scary but is actually downright hilarious, I can say that in some weird way, I like this movie. <br /><br />yes, the acting is bad, and yes, it's the cheapest movie i've ever seen, but it's so damn funny! "WHAT, ARE YOU SMOKING CA-RACK?!" i didn't know this movie even was ever released... i figured it was too bad... <br /><br />Yeah, so... overall the movie is pretty bad (you gotta admit that much at least) but I promise you, you will get a good laugh out of it.<br /><br />*this movie kinda sucks but it's good for a laugh... especially that guy that holds the 'dagger of despair'.. THE DAGGER OF DESPAAAAAAIR!
This is arguably the worst film I have ever seen, and I have quite an appetite for awful (and good) movies. It could (just) have managed a kind of adolescent humour if it had been consistently tongue-in-cheek --à la ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW, which was really very funny. Other movies, like PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE, manage to be funny while (apparently) trying to be serious. As to the acting, it looks like they rounded up brain-dead teenagers and asked them to ad-lib the whole production. Compared to them, Tom Cruise looks like Alec Guinness. There was one decent interpretation -- that of the older ghoul-busting broad on the motorcycle.
What more can I say? The acting was, almost without exception, amateurish. The directing and continuity were pitiful. The sceenplay was predictable down to the very last scene and the dialog tedious. One of the features on the DVD was labeled "Gag Reel" but that could have been a description of a viewer's reaction to most of the movie.<br /><br />One of the most amusing things was in the director's comments on the DVD. He said, with a straight face, that he had set out to make a movie with high production values and a name cast - and that he had succeeded. With delusions like that it's easy to understand how the movie turned out as it did.<br /><br />Perhaps the most disappointing aspect was the monster. The darkwolf suit was a modified ape suit (per the 'making of' feature on the DVD) and rather looked it. The mask and claws were little better than off the shelf jobs from any costume store. The cgi effects were painfully obvious and of quality similar to an inexpensive video game.
This is a very cheaply made werewolf flick. The video is dark and poorly lit. The audio is uneven and poorly recorded and mixed. The script is cliche ridden junk with the usual characters like the tough detective who shoots werewolves with his silver handgun! [filled of course with silver bullets]. The acting is as wooden as the characters. The FX are non-existent,lots of extreme close-ups of werewolf jaws and biting. the only thing that is shown is lots of soft-core T&A. Instead of dropping $30 for this tripe check out a really great recent werewolf pic: "Dog Soldiers" with Sean Pertwee.
Except for the better than average acting skills of the two leads, this movie is really, really bad. The cheap production values don't help. Of course, you wouldn't really notice that the production values are cheap if they didn't keep trying to convince you they HAD a production values to begin with. Even for a B-movie genre freak like myself, this movie really sucks.
A documentarist, like any filmmaker, must convey a compelling story. Will Pascoe fails utterly in this effort, cobbling together uninspired snippets of Chomsky's wisdom from a visit to McMaster University in Hamilton. The footage is shot amateurishly and in video. Pascoe's only effort at cohering the fragments into a whole is by periodically throwing a vague title on the screen: "9-11," "Activism," "Truth."<br /><br />Lame.<br /><br />Compare this with documentaries like "The Corporation" or "The Fog of War" which create a narrative drawing material from interviews, stock footage, and filmed footage. In the end each delivers a poignant and insightful message deftly and intelligently.<br /><br />The only saving graces of the film are Chomsky's nonchalantly delivered upendings of historical dogma, and the fact that the running time is only 74 minutes.<br /><br />One of the more interesting passages was Chomsky's recounting of his experience with National Public Radio. He describes the conservative media as more accommodating to dissenting views, while NPR's liberal dogma strait-jackets its interviewees and dramatically limits its permitted messages. Yet another media outlet to be skeptical of.<br /><br />This documentary is for Noam Chomsky completists only.
First off, I agree with quite a bit that escapes Mr. Chomsky's mouth. His matter-of-fact delivery of interesting counterpoint is what makes the man a hit on the university campus circus. He comes across likable, unassuming, pragmatic. He doesn't cater to the current political style (obnoxious bi-partisanship) and he sets his sights on the far left as well as the far right, chastising both, and for good reason.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the film itself is a dud. In fact, I would not even call this a documentary but rather just a collection of speeches. Watching "Rebel Without a Pause" is no different from watching a speaker on a 3am taped segment on CSPAN. There are no camera movements, no edits, no stylistic touches. There is no story, no narrative.<br /><br />Technically speaking, the production is strictly amateurish. Audio is terrible and inconsistent; sometimes we cannot hear Noam speak, other times we cannot hear the questions that are being posited by those in attendance. When Noam is speaking rarely are we allowed to see the reactions of the audience except when we are given a quick shot of his wife who apparently attends every one of his speeches and beams with pride every time we see her.<br /><br />I cannot recommend this film and would say that you're probably better off checking out his taped speeches on cassette or CD to listen to in the car.<br /><br />4 out of 10 stars...and I'm in a generous mood today.
Despite having known people who are either great fans of Noam Chomsky, or think he's a tired relic from the 1960s, I really had no opinion of the man, save that I knew he gained fame as a linguist, although I could not elucidate any of his theories, and that he was a liberal socialist with Marxist leanings. So, stumbling across the DVD of the 2003 documentary Noam Chomsky: Rebel Without A Pause, in a used video store, a film which followed him on a 2002 book tour for his book 9-11, I decided to get it, just so I could have a little bit of knowledge about the man the next time a person, pro or con, spoke of him. While glad I got the film, my initial reaction to this dull and ill edited hagiography was, so what's all the fuss about?<br /><br />For a man with so many degrees, lauded as 'the most important intellectual alive', by the New York Times, according to the DVD's case, there sure was not a lot there, intellectually speaking. I know I would chew him up and spit him out in a debate, and I wouldn't even want to watch what a William F. Buckley could do to him. Granted, the whole film was seemingly about Chomsky seeing conspiracies everywhere, and having glazed eyed coeds nod in bewildering approval of the most inane and outrageous things he'd say, rather than being on linguistics, so maybe that's the reason he came off so badly. But, again, if he is a linguist, and tops in his field, why in the world would anyone care what he has to say on anything outside his field of expertise?…. Even worse are his acolytes, who seem to further insulate the man from reality, by fostering delusions that Chomsky is a target for Zionist assassins. What little I knew of Chomsky before watching this film, this much I knew: he was generally considered a has been, and pretty much irrelevant intellectually, since the fall of the Soviet Empire. The film is so poorly structured, and without a narrative thread, that it's difficult to separate all of the jumble. His wife, Carol, as example, apparently gave one interview, which was chopped up and dropped wherever in the film. She seems a nice enough woman, but wholly out of her element answering anything but the most basic questions about their life. The lone interesting thing she says is that 9/11 was a great thing for the Chomskys, for he has reaped a great deal of money in speaking fees since then.<br /><br />Not surprisingly, this sort of film gives almost no biographical background. It's assumed that all viewers must know all the plaudits this 'great man' bears. Chomsky is rarely interviewed one on one. Stylistically, there are no camera movements, no interesting edits, nor any signature touches, and most of the film is disjunct rambles by Chomsky, videotaped huzzahs of Chomsky declaiming on this or that, and slack-jawed and awed students looking at him as if he were immaterial, that is when dimwitted coeds are not asking barely audible and ridiculously simplistic questions to him. This is really poor film-making by director and editor Will Pascoe, who in the DVD's Filmmaker Statement, shows he's yet another uncritical acolyte of Chomsky's. Other than that, one of the surest signs that this is not an objective documentary, but mere agitprop, and a vanity piece of agitprop, at that, is that not a single time is Chomsky shown struggling with an answer. He seems to be a font of knowledge that has no bounds.<br /><br />Given that much of this dreck was filmed during Chomsky's lectures at McMaster University, in Ontario, Canada, prior to the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, much of what Chomsky says seems as remote as things from the Vietnam War era. Yes, he makes some good points, here and there, on American media complicity before the war, but he follows them up with sheer lunacy, for he seems to not realize that most conspiracies are ad hoc, and not fully plotted out cabals. As example, he claims that the advertising industry is a cabal that mercilessly controls the populace, but says not a word about the zombied populace that lets itself be so controlled. Similarly, he claims Trilateralists run the world and that people's fear of crime is yet another cabal's result. Of course, that claim so fully explains away rape crisis centers, and all that wasted time and money district attorneys' offices consume. He also makes the absurd claim that Cuba has been the victim of terrorism for decades, when Castro and company were great sponsors of it, in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, until the Soviet Union fell. I can only guess that the UFO conspiracists are just waiting for Chomsky to proclaim that gray aliens have set up species-mixing impregnation centers up in Idaho.<br /><br />In his simpleminded world without grays, Chomsky is frighteningly as dense as the members of Bushco, whom he reviles, are; even more so since they lay no claim to being intellectuals. In short, Chomsky is a man living in the past, in over his head on most issues, and out of his depth intellectually. Near this film's end he warns, 'Be cautious when you hear about intellectuals being fighters for justice,' yet one can only laugh, as the man seemingly has never met a revolutionary person nor idea that he didn't like, no matter how barbarous their crimes, and anti-intellectual their posit. Please, pause before you waste your time and money on this silly, and already irrelevant, DVD.
Watch the 1936 version. As personally annoying I find Charles Boyer's voice, he's more of a match to pay cosmopolitan, depressed Rudolf--I mean Omar Sharif tries but, no--too cute and vibrant. Catherine Denueve (sp) besides being too old looks nothing like Marie--nothing! She looks too sophisticated to even think of dying for love of this man in such a fashion.<br /><br />The only actor in the entire movie who conveys the role they're playing is Ava Gardner whose appearance as Empress Elisabeth on the screen is fittingly brief (and look up pictures of the empress there's more than a passing resemblance) as historically, Empress Elisabeth wasn't involved that much in Rudolf's life.
As good an advert for republicanism as you're ever likely to see,"Mayerling"is an everyday story of royal folk in late nineteenth century Austria.Set during one of Europe's seemingly incessant internal turmoils it concerns itself with the Emperor Franz Joseph (Mr James Mason),his rebellious son,the Crown Prince Rudolf (Mr Omar Sharif)the Empress(Miss Ava Gardner) and various mistresses,secret policemen,spies,extravagantly-uniformed popinjays,gypsies,dancers,wives, soldiers,swans,horses and the bizarre inbred web of European royalty at the time of Franz Joseph's Austro-Hungarian Empire. Filmed in what the old movie posters used to call "A Riot of Color" it resembles nothing more than an expensively-dressed but intellectually-challenged production of "The Student Prince" .Mr James Mason,wearing a very natty little white number,utilises his all-purpose mittel-European accent whenever he remembers.I am a great admirer of his and I sincerely hope the remuneration was comensurate with the distaste he clearly felt for the character he was playing. Mr Omar Sharif,who built a career largely founded on looking directly at the camera with his big brown eyes and looking soulful,gives a stupefyingly monotonous performance as his son the Crown Prince.He is utterly unconvincing as a man who -in the movie at least-cut a swathe through the distaff side of the Austrian aristocracy.With his well-buttered locks firmly in place he preens and poses in ever more unlikely uniforms.As a rebel he talks the talk but conspicuously fails to walk the walk,leaving a bottom button undone on one of his tunics is about as far as his defiance goes.Unhappily married,he falls in love with a commoner."Forbidden Love" is one of the movie's come-ons.As she is played by the most uncommon Miss Catherine Deneuve he is scarcely pushing the envelope there.Miss Deneuve has a profile to die for and we see rather a lot of it,particularly in the sequence set at the ballet. Now I love ballet as much as the next man,but this sequence does seem to go on for an excessive amount of time,a more cynical critic might consider it to be "padding". Rudolf's mother,the Empress is played by Miss Ava Gardner.She gives the part some good old American oooomph,making her a bit like "Auntie Mame",but it's done with undeniable style.Rudolf is certainly very fond of his mother - I'll put it no more strongly than that. The only performance worth watching is that of Mr James Robertson Justice as Sir Lancelot Spratt - sorry,Edward,Prince of Wales.He is so wonderfully unconcerned about everything going on around him it's a joy to behold.I waited vainly for him to ask Rudolf the immortal question "What's the bleeding time?". I am not qualified to dispute "Mayerling" 's historical accuracy,but,in my opinion,everything else about it is risible. It is a Ruritanian Opera Buffa without the tunes to send you home from the theatre whistling.
I'm not sure what Diane Silver was thinking when she was making this movie, but it obviously had nothing to do with Richard Wright's novel, which the movie is based on.<br /><br />We read the novel this past summer for AP English 12, and just watched the film. During periodic note-taking and checking of the clock, I contemplated the chances of being struck by lightning. Of course, the sky was completely clear, and I was forced to watch the rest of the movie... and then write a 5-paragraph essay on it.<br /><br />Wright's novel discussed very real themes, of the mind of a killer and the psychology behind it. Silver's movie turned a murderer into a victim, which is NOT what Wright wanted (see: "How Bigger was Born" 454).<br /><br />I'm going to make this short and sweet: if you want to leave your consciousness, in Raphael Lambert's words, unsullied, skip the movie and read the book. The 1986 adaptation is not thought-provoking material.<br /><br />... ::sigh:: Now I have to write the essay.
Of all the movies I've seen, this one rates almost at the bottom (Haunted Mansion, Nothing but Trouble and a few others keep it from reaching rock bottom.) It is hasty, the story is shaky and the events depicted are poorly acted. Of course we have to lay some of this at the book writer's door. The book the movie was filmed after is outrageously ponderous, and illogical. Oprah gives a palatable appearance as "Bigger's" mom, but is not nearly at her potential. Other famous performers also seem to be at their worst. The plot which centers around an African American who decided to take a job as a chauffeur. In driving the family daughter to a communist dinner he becomes acquainted. One thing leads to another and the girl gets drunk. Now the family he's working for are not against blacks, but he thinks they are. So when he comes home he puts her to bed, but she begins caterwauling. The blind mother (yes) hears this, so Bigger tries to silence her, but instead smothers her. Now fearing he's really in trouble for killing a white girl he does what any logical thinking man would do--he shoves her into the coal furnace. So investigators are carrying out a missing person case and lo they check the furnace (the idiot didn't have the foresight to get rid of the ashes. He is then arrested and the last hour or so are obnoxious segments from the courtroom. If your desperate for a bad movie, this one could do the job, but if you seriously want to learn about culture issues in th 40's and 50's or see a good drama, there are a lot better options. Avoid this.
Hey look, deal with it, there are much better portrayals of the hardship of black America than this. Although I think this story is weak, my criticism is focused on the poor execution of the story, which I have mentioned, blows.<br /><br />This was made in the mid-80's and is horrible in the music/score department. It's funny to see Oprah as a latter-day crack-whore type.<br /><br />The scene where Bigger stuffs Elizabeth McGovern into the incinerator. Pure classic cinema. First off, I don't care how drunk you are, you will react to 1200F degree flame (no matter how bad your acting). But they really milked that scene...it was comical. I'll tell you what though, I had great satisfaction in seeing Elizabeth McGovern burn in a faux death; she annoys me.
I generally don't give worry much about violence in films, or a vast amount of philosophy, symbolism or psychology. All this is very well with me and the film brings a lot of the above to us. There is beautiful pictures especially of the lake and the nature, a good setting of characters, a good direction. This film could be voted for as a good film. However, it is spoiled for two reasons and both of these reasons in relation make this film simply disgusting.<br /><br />First of all there is violence used against living creatures to make this film. Not movie violence, I am talking about REAL violence. This violence alone maybe could be justified if not and thats reason number two; the message of the film was not mere introspection about the directors twisted relation towards women. Not that we all don't have some real twists with women.(respectively men). But the conclusion of the film ruins it all. <br /><br />*spoiler* Our "heroine" finally dies, (by here own hand if I remember correctly I saw this film years ago and it enraged me, now the guy is out with a new film witch I am certainly not going to watch)and is now even more clearly depicted as some kind of natural demon, nature growing over her, in particular her sex.. Of course it is the director who "kills" the women heroine. Women have to die, especially if men are attracted by their sexuality. That seems to be the final conclusion.**end spoiler*<br /><br />Well, well all that possibly would be fine with me if the director would have kept his view to himself. But to use big pictures, artsy directions cruelty to living creatures, just to say men can be frightened of women, and men are cruel to women. Thats just not enough. I knew when I saw this film it would achieve good critics for the "philosophical, eastern and artistic" and whatever approach. But to me this film is just totally marred.
Is this the same Kim Ki Duk who directed the poignant, life-spanning testimonial of "Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring"? The same Kim Ki Duk who directed the exquisite, nearly silent, heartbreaking longing of "3 Iron"? The same Kim Ki Duk who dazzled us with the staggering tragedy of "The Coast Guard" and made us squirm about the ugliness of nonchalant teenage prostitution before returning to his almost patented nature motif to allow us all (characters and viewers alike) to experience redemption in "Samaritan Girl"? I just cannot seem to find him in this film.<br /><br />Oh, sure, Kim's nature motif is still present. The film takes place entirely on a lake surrounded by mountains and on fishing floats resting placidly on the surface of calm waters. Yes, it's Kim Ki Duk, all right. Kim even describes the film as "beautiful" in an interview included in the DVD's special features. But I'm not sure anymore what that means after viewing this putrescent presentation.<br /><br />What is beautiful about angry, potty-mouthed prostitutes, lustful, violent and potty-mouthed fishermen, a covetous mute merchant, explicit animal torture, sequences of self-mutilation and a pace that swings nauseatingly between bestial carnality and mindless brutality? These are the only elements of humanity that present themselves in this utterly confounding and ultimately pointless film. If it is based on a fable or intended as a parable or is meant to be symbolic of something greater, this reviewer is unfamiliar with the source material. It has been favorably compared to "Audition" by Japanese director Takashi Miike (much to Kim's satisfaction), but aside from some astonishingly good performances, especially given what they had to work with, by lead actors Seo Jung and Kim Yoo Suk, I find little reason to recommend this film. I have not seen "Audition," but I doubt it would alter in any way my view of "The Isle." Its violence is pornographic and senselessly sadistic. Its sex is not pornographic, but passionless and masochistic. Characters behave on irritating impulse because there is no plot. Its point is either non-existent or, I will admit, lost amidst Korean cultural quirks that I fail to understand.<br /><br />The only beauty is in the cinematography, which is classic Kim: fog-shrouded boats lapping slowly across a serene lake, mountainous terrain dominating the background, and an imaginative and playful use of color. At times it seems as if viewers are locked in a big Kim Ki Duk romper room. Some touches, like the mysterious and seductive mute merchant played by Jung and the pleasantly odd use of motorbikes, are intriguing. But as a film, this effort is downright confusing and, in the end, offensive to the senses, not necessarily to sensibilities. One hopes that Kim will leave this kind of film-making in the trash heap of his past, for we know he is capable of so much more.
I'll say this much--This director is all about RAW images...things most of us are not ready to confront head-on. Images of sex, suicide, murder, and people "relieving themselves" are constantly bombarding the viewer, which makes me wonder if the director was trying to communicate the concept of relief or release. Although I don't think that I could ever see this movie again, I will say that the director does have a good eye. There were some really nice shots and "picture moments" in the film (the fans, the wire fish in their hair), but the story left me needing more (strictly in the since that we were left asking ourselves "what the heck did we just see?").<br /><br />Note: If you have a tendency to gag or vomit easily...don't see this film.
I really can't understand how could someone give this disgusting film more than 1 star... How can you like such a retarded film, where all the animal abuse scenes are real? I don't even want to imagine the excruciating pain those innocent and defenseless living beings felt in those horrific moments... Jesus... What kind of ''human'' would torture them like that for no reason, or just for money? I tell you, that director is either mentally retarded, or he's just a monster with a ''heart'' of stone. Or both. He truly deserves to get his hands cut off and burn alive.<br /><br />It contains various horribly barbaric scenes that may cause shock, especially to sensitive persons and children: a real frog is skinned alive, fish are sadistically mutilated and thrown back into the water, a dog is beaten, birds are thrown into the water...<br /><br />This movie is more than awful; it has to be the worst and most retarded film ever made, along with another one, called ''Cannibal Holocaust'' or something like that. I'll never watch or buy any film directed by this heartless monster. No one should waste their time watching it, especially when there are a lot of TRULY great movies out there, in which all the animal abuse scenes are staged.<br /><br />Fortunately, only a few people liked this - which is natural, since it's the worst film ever -, so it wasn't successful. I hope this will make the retarded director realize that such unjustified barbaric acts of extreme cruelty and violence to REAL animals will NEVER be praised, and that he will stage all the animal abuse scenes in his following films. I truly believe that everyone receives but what they give! There will be a day when all the retarded and cruel ''humans'' will feel the same pain they once inflicted to others.<br /><br />This, however, is probably my only ''negative'' review. I usually don't comment on a movie if I dislike it, but this time I just couldn't shut up. I had to speak the truth, because animal abuse must stop!
You know a movie is bad when the highlight of it is being able to see a brief moment of "Jeopardy!".<br /><br />The saddest thing about White Men Can't Jump is that it had tremendous potential. For several years, I lived in area quite like that portrayed in this film; racial tensions were high, and basketball meant everything to everyone. A film about the members of this "basketball culture" could have been very interesting, but the mediocre acting and poor script in White Men Can't Job left something to be desired.<br /><br />The movie's sequence of events is cyclical. First, Billy either wins or loses money by playing a game of basketball. He then returns to his home and lounges around with his girlfriend; and the process is repeated. Most stories build up to a climax of some kind, but the "climax" I saw was just another sequence in this repetition (this case being "Billy either wins or loses money by playing a game of basketball").<br /><br />In order for a plot to develop, some dilemma must be resolved; and this dilemma must be interesting if the film is going to be interesting as well. Apparently the writers of White Men Can't Jump forgot this rule, as the plot can be summarized as "Billy needs to pay the bills." I appreciated the change of pace from other formulaic sports movies, but -- I'm sorry -- this was just plain awful. I could have cared less if Billy got the money to pay the rent for his apartment.<br /><br />Despite all this, White Men Can't Jump is a successful film. Apparently some adamant sports fans will dismiss terrible writing for a few scenes with a basketball in them. Others, I'm sure, were lured by the big names playing the leading roles. This leaves me to wonder, if the cast was replaced entirely with previously unknown actors, and the basketball theme was replaced with lacrosse, would anyone have bothered watching this movie? I really don't think so.<br /><br />I'll give this movie two stars out of ten; the extra star is for the "Jeopardy!" scene, which kept me awake for a few minutes. Thanks, Trebek.
Woody Harrelson and Wesley Snipes team up as hustlers on the basketball court. Okay, that sounds all right there. It leaves lots of room for good comedy and a good story. But no such event took place in the many following boring minutes of this pathetic attempt of a film. This movie became redundant, retarded, and ridiculous after the first twenty seconds had gone by. Woody Harrelson played one of my favorite t.v. characters, Woody from Cheers, and I was looking forward to seeing him in this movie. But after seeing his " acting performance " I have come to the conclusion that he should stay playing dumb country hicks who bartend. His acting was as dull and poor as the movie. Another actor in this unreal film was Rosie Perez. I have liked movies with Perez before, but I have decided that the reason I have enjoyed other works in her career was that she was not a main character and didn't have that many speaking lines ( Do the Right Thing ). But now in White Men Can't Jump she was made a central character with many lines, thus meaning that the audience has to put up with her incredibly annoying and whining voice. So after seeing this film ( term used loosely ) and hearing Rosie Perez for much more than appreciated I can now say that I'm a white man and I'm getting ready to jump . . . off a twenty story apartment building.
This was a popular movie probably because of the humor in it, the fast-moving story, an underdog character who shuts up all the loudmouths, etc. Funny thing is, you probably couldn't make a movie with this title if you substituted anybody but "white" as anything else would be deemed racist by the PC police. <br /><br />Nonetheless, Woody Harrleson as the white guy who turns out to be as good if not better than any of the black basketball players, is interesting as is his main counterpart Wesley Snipes.<br /><br />Snipes had a lot of funny put-down lines, providing much of the humor. The bad part of the film - which doesn't bother a lot of people - is the extreme profanity in here and the sleaziness of all the characters. That includes Woody's girlfriend, played by Rosie Perez. There are no really clean, nice people in this movie. For that reason, I can't honestly recommend the film, at least not to friends or those who are offended by a lotof profanity
Spooks is enjoyable trash, featuring some well directed sequences, ridiculous plots and dialogue, and some third rate acting.<br /><br />Many have described this is a UK version of "24", and one can see the similarities. <br /><br />The American version shares the weak silly plots, but the execution is so much slicker, sexier and I suspect, expensive.<br /><br />Some people describe weak comedy as "gentle comedy". <br /><br />This is gentle spy story hour, the exact opposite of anything created by John Le Carre.<br /><br />Give me Smiley any day.
This woman who works as an intern for a photographer goes home and takes a bath where she discovers this hole in the ceiling. So she goes to find out that her neighbor above her is a photographer. This movie could have had a great plot but then the plot drains of any hope. The problem I had with this movie is that every ten seconds, someone is snorting heroin. If they took out the scenes where someone snorts heroin, then this would be a pretty good movie. Every time I thought that a scene was going somewhere, someone inhaled the white powder. It was really lame to have that much drug use in one movie. It pulled attention from the main plot and a great story about a photographer. The lesbian stuff didn't bother me. I was looking for a movie about art. I found a movie about drug use.
One previous reviewer called this film "pure visual joy" I am wondering if s/he saw the same film that I did. "High Art" had to have the most relentlessly depressing interiors since "Seven". One can almost forgive Sheedy and Mitchell for the cliché of going to a B&B for their First Time. Of course, before they do that, one has to watch opium-den parties inhabited by people who are not apparently gainfully employed but can somehow support a flourishing drug habit. Not to mention the icy stares from those familiar movie types, the Girlfriend/Boyfriend At Start, who are well aware they're going to be thrown over sometime in the next 100 minutes or so. The movie also states that the Sheedy character has retired from professional photography for ten years now. What did she do, retire at age twenty?
I was never so bored in my life. Hours of pretentious, self-obsessed heroin-addicted basket cases lounging around whining about their problems. It's like watching lizards molt. Even the sex scenes will induce a serious case of narcolepsy. If you have insomnia, rent this.
I often feel like Scrooge, slamming movies that others are raving about - or, I write the review to balance unwarranted raves. I found this movie almost unwatchable, and, unusual for me, was fast-forwarding not only through dull, clichéd dialog but even dull, clichéd musical numbers. Whatever originality exists in this film -- unusual domestic setting for a musical, lots of fantasy, some animation -- is more than offset by a script that has not an ounce of wit or thought-provoking plot development. Individually, June Haver and Dan Dailey appear to be nice people, but can't carry a movie as a team. Neither is really charismatic or has much sex appeal. They're both bland. I like Billy Gray, but his character is pretty one-note. The best part of the film, to me, are June Haver's beautiful costumes and great body.
Wow, how bad can it get. This was seriously bad. Not in terms of the gore - which was mainly laughable CGI - but in acting, atmosphere and direction.<br /><br />The story was dreadful - the character arc of the main lead was a total joke. Within a few nights of stalking Vinnie Jones, he starts to become 'haunted' to the point of crying when photographing his girlfriend. Um... are all New York photographers this childish, suggestible and weak? His character development had absolutely no justification or point whatsoever - and by the very end you'll be laughing out loud at the utterly predictable, and totally absurd twist his character takes.<br /><br />The gory moments were clearly just a weak, low-self-esteemed effort to jump onto the modern MTV style gore wagon - all cgi, blood yet no real emotion whatsoever. These parts were unintentionally funny - and distracting by their self-consciousness - wacky camera angles etc.<br /><br />Overall this film commits the crime of blowing another potential idea. What could have had atmosphere (until the stupid monsters at the end) is ruined in favour of 'look at me'style self-conscious directing. This film wasn't made for and audience - it was made for a CV - a deeply selfish motive.
Do not bother to waste your money on this movie. Do not even go into your car and think that you might see this movie if any others do not appeal to you. If you must see a movie this weekend, go see Batman again.<br /><br />The script was horrible. Perfectly written from the random horror movie format. Given: a place in confined spaces, a madman with various weapons, a curious man who manages to uncover all of the clues that honest police officers cannot put together, and an innocent and overly curious, yet beautiful and strong woman with whom many in the audience would love to be able to call their girlfriend. Mix together, add much poorly executed gore, and what the hell, let's put some freaks in there for a little "spin" to the plot.<br /><br />The acting was horrible, and the characters unbelievable - Borat was more believable than this.<br /><br />***Spoiler***and can someone please tell me how a butcher's vest can make a bullet ricochet from the person after being shot without even making the person who was shot flinch??? I'm in the army. We need that kind of stuff for ourselves.<br /><br />1 out of 10, and I would place it in the decimals of that rounded up to give it the lowest possible score I can.
I would just like it to be known, that I do not often rate movies below a 5. I was originally very excited to see this movie. Its numerous trailer bumps on TV for several months made me REAALLY want to see this movie. So, the other night when I saw that it was available on FearNet on Demand, I got some popcorn and sat down to watch the film.<br /><br />The storyline seemed intriguing enough - some dude is butchering unsuspecting people on the subway. There's a photographer obsessed with the missing people. Where are they going? What's happening to them? One day, the photographer sees a connection between some photos he has taken, and becomes obsessed with the butcher, following him around, yada yada. The film had a way of sucking you in, even though the plot was highly predictable. "Oh no, it's dark, look out behind you" I say, quite bored with the cheap thrills.<br /><br />The plot, even though predictable, was intriguing...that is, until the end. "This was good until the end.... Then it just got silly", says Jack_skellington_freke on the message boards. And I fully agree. And here come the spoilers...<br /><br />See, I was hoping it was some mad killer, some psychotic person obsessed with cannibalism. No. It was some secret society keeping creatures alive for centuries. Woo. How original. How unrealistic. How dull.<br /><br />3/10. Come on Lionsgate. You've had amazing films, but this one sunk.
I am really surprised that this movie get a ranking like this! I haven't seen such a bad movie for years.Omg this was a really bad movie. Splatter, is not enough to describe the unnecessary (nearly funny) blood scenes). If you didn't like hostel2 or Wolf Creek or Halloween (2007) ..well this is 10 time worse. The story remind me RL Stine goosebumps.!<br /><br />I can't tell about the acting since the script was so terrible.Cliché all the time. (why i must write 10lines? i never understood this.)<br /><br />==Here comes spoilers==<br /><br />The story is about a butcher killing people all the time in metro. We are talking about thousands of killings and no one gets notice. Actually those people are just missing. And There is the good guy that tries to solve the mystery (well there is no mystery for us because we know from the beginning the bad guy) and as usual no one believes him! what a surprise! In the end he puts butcher clothes and fights to death with the killer butcher!
Where to start. The film started out pretty well, but after the 30 min mark i caught myself watching the clock. The horror at the start of the film was good but then the story kicked in. It just got stupider and stupider as time ticked by.<br /><br />The actors gave an average performance in this movie however, i got a bit bored of Vinny Jones constant scowling in the film.<br /><br />As the film dragged on, and take my word for it, it dragged on, it just got more and more far fetched.<br /><br />*** SPOILER ALERT *** SPOILER ALERT *** SPOILER ALERT *** Just when i thought the film could not get any worse, towards the end loads if skeleton looking monsters turned up, just to eat the dead people which made no sense at all. It turned out to be some sort of flesh eating cult and the good guys die at the end. The ending in fact just made me laugh at how bad it was. Once the lead role disposes of Vinny Jones, he becomes the new killer.<br /><br />In closing, this film made Creep look like the best horror film ever made. I gave it 1 star because the female lead did a pretty good job but even she could not save this train wreck of a movie!!
This was a terrible film. There was no story line whatsoever. To top it all off, when they couldn't explain the blood and gore (the only good part) ... they threw in a few aliens! I hate when directors (or whatever) run out of ideas and then blame the aliens! Watch this film if you like. But don't say I didn't warn you. Two things: How could Vinny say "welcome" when he didn't have a tongue? Its a pity Mr Jones didn't have a bigger role. Second thing that bugged me, why were we shown Vinny Jones' boils and him cutting them off and putting them into blue liquid, then these have no further role. Why not? I don't like to be shown something and that has nothing to do with the story line whatsoever. In short. Bad story. I wouldn't waste my time - wish I'd have watched Mirrors instead.
I have heard a lot about this film, with people writing me telling me I should see it, as I am a fan of extremely bloody, gory movies. I got my hands on it almost right away, but one thing or another always kept me from watching it- until now. I would have been better off not remembering I even had it.<br /><br />This movie was atrocious. The worst thing though is that it could have been so much better than it actually was. I know it was a story by Clive Barker and all, and no I have not read that story- but it appears to me that if you haven't then you will be, as I was, completely clueless and utterly disappointed.<br /><br />The film begins good enough- the actors are convincing, the story interesting. The first scene is bloody- a great way to catch your attention. I thought the blood looked a bit bad, but seeing as it was the very first scene I did hope for improvement later on. I was wrong. <br /><br />The blood and effects are so horrible, it was almost an insult to my intelligence to be expected to believe that, for instance, someone could knock a person's head right off their shoulders using only a meat hammer. WTF? CGI blood (did they even use ANY "real" blood at all? My home made stuff looks better than any used in this film!), unbelievable acts of dismemberment (eyeballs popping out just from getting hit in the back of the head; arms cut neatly off- does no one remember there are BONES all throughout our bodies?!), too-dark scenes (every scene is either an odd yellow color, or in hidden in shadows)...it just gets worse and worse. I found myself pointing out mistake after mistake. There's just too much. Add that to the fact that what could have and should have been a great serial-killer movie turns into some demonic/supernatural/monster movie at the end...no thank you! It should have been kept as a creepy guy butchering people in the subway- OK, with a conspiracy theory thrown in- and an overzealous photographer. Maybe they murder people and sell the meat via the meat plant? Plausible, doable...and a lot better I think than the "real" story. That could have and should have worked. Instead it became a "creatures living at the end of the old tunnel and everyone knows about it but you, and unless you read the book, well...you just won't ever understand it" fiasco. Tragic, what an awful thing to do to a movie with such potential. If you like mindless fake blood and gore, you'll love this. But if you have half a brain in your head then you will completely hate it. Stay away- far, far away.
IT was no sense and it was so awful... i think Hollywood have a lot of film like that... you don't have do watch it. people cutter or eater what should i say... it made me sick! oh my god! film is about people that we don't know but feed themselves with Humans! they have teeths bla bla bla... isn't that familiar? i can bet on it you saw it in a another movie. the cast was so great but i think scenario was really awful. and i should say that Bradley Cooper was totally awesome... he's so talented... actually i said awful but i think it because of horrible scenes... let me explain it. did you ever eat tongue? but in the film one person did it! it was really awful... anyway i think film would so good without that awful human eater or cutter scenes...
I am not one of those people who just go online after I see a movie and decide to call it the worst movie ever made. If you doubt me, please look at my other reviews. However, for the first time ever, I have seen a movie so horrible that I wanted to write about how bad it was before it was even over.<br /><br />I LOVE bad movies. To me, Ed Wood is a genius, I thought Bloody Murder, Jeepers Creepers and most horrible horror movies were good. However, there is not a single good thing I can say about this film.<br /><br />The plot is basically non existent. If someone reading my review wastes their money to see it, they can discern for themselves what the plot might be, but I advise you that a nickel would be worth more than watching this movie.<br /><br />The special effects are bad.<br /><br />The acting is bad.<br /><br />The two leads are attractive, but that's all there is.<br /><br />I am not the type to spoil a movie for anyone, but I INVITE anyone to email me at foxbarking@yahoo.com to ask for my opinion on this movie before they waste a dime on it. I will tell you anything.<br /><br />I love bad movies, and I love horror and I love new inventive movies. I even love horror porn stuff like Hostel (Which some reviewers claimed this was like, but obviously they only thought so cause Roger Bart was in this and Hostel 2). But this may be the Number 1 most worthless and stupid and dumbass movie EVER made.<br /><br />And before you disregard this review, this is coming from someone who not only sat through the ENTIRE premiere of House of the Dead, but actually bought a copy of it.
OK, so I just saw the movie, although it appeared last year... I thought that it was generally a decent movie, except for the storyline, which was stupid and horrible... First of all, we never get to know anything about the creatures, why they appeared, wtf are they doing in our world, and really, have they been on Earth before we were or did they just come from space? Secondly, the role of the butcher to maintain order is just so obviously created... Really, how large could the underground for a sub station could have been? There were only so many of those creatures, so I think instead of killing innocent people in vain, they could have just planted some tactical bombs, or maybe clear the are and a Nuke would have done the job. I know it sounds funny and it is, but I do not see the killing of people as being NECESSARY... Thirdly, Leon acts like Superman jumping on the train and fighting Vinnie Jones, who was way taller and bigger in stature. Then again, when he faces the conductor he does nothing and acts as a wimp, watching all the abominations. I mean OK, the conductor had creepy help(lol), but if Leon was so brave he would have gone all the way... I mean he risks his life first, then does nothing exactly when he should have. He could have died as a hero but lives as a coward... this might be the case, but not after showing so much braveness earlier on... Then, the cop thing... come on! This was a city having a subway, I bet there must have been other cops except that lady, other police stations,this was really kind of silly... All in all, great acting by Vinnie Jones, interesting idea up to the reason behind it which is not really built at all... By the way, what did the signs on the chest mean? Vinnie Jones cannot make up for the rest...
I don't know why, but i thought i've seen this movie before. Maybe it was the name, maybe it was the way poster looked, i don't know. Anyway, it was quite promising in the beginning. And even throughout the whole feature there were some bright moments. Maybe its because i'm not a huge fan of the horrors, and i don't watch them a lot, but this one actually looked fresh sometimes. But the rest of it is not so good. Laughable at times. The movie is slow paced, sometimes you will get so bored you'd forget what was the story about. Characters are not great either. All of them. The butcher is OK, seems creepy and crazy enough. Although i didn't get what were those weird looking things on his chest (that whole scene just looked fake and kind of out-of-the-blue), and why he was collecting those in jars at home? The main lead is plain. His character is really hard to believe in, and very undeveloped. But i guess thats scenarists fault. Like why he cried when he was taking pictures of his girlfriend? Side cast is bad too. But the main thing i hated in this movie was the girl. My god, when will women in horror movies have any brains? Its ridiculous. The girl finds out that a maniac took her boyfriends camera, tries going to police, that fails, and then she thinks of the best idea ever. Why don't we just go and take it! I know where the maniac lives! Yup! Thats swell! And then look for the camera in the bathroom! Why not? And then walk in the room, see a bag that was not there before, and just have a look inside. Maybe camera is there? Not there. But loads of interesting stuff. Shiny. Mmmm. To realize that bag means that the butcher came back is too hard for her tiny tiny brain. Then of course the never ending "falling while running away" trick, that really made it look bad. Then, to put the final nail into the character, in the end of the movie, she walks into the wagon FULL with dead bodies hanging feet up, screams "Noooo" like she just ripped her Gucci bag, and walks further into the wagon... Jeez. Come on. No one else thinks its just, well, stupid? Just awful. If her character wasn't so bad, maybe the movie would get another star or two from me. And i would even forgive MMT characters that can take a hit in the head with a steel hammer (that dude in the train who the conductor killed), butcher vests that can protect from bullets, weird and cheap looking monsters in the end (i didn't read Clive Barkers novel, so i have no idea where those monsters came from), the fact that no one cared that hundreds (judging on the skeletons in the dungeon) disappeared in the city, and main character that didn't bleed to death when he got his tongue ripped out (he barely noticed it i guess). Oh, and the predictable ending. Damn, i knew the ending half way in, its just disappointing. The only reason i'm still giving some credit to the makers, is that the movie in general looks better than most of the horrors i've watched past few months. Visual style is nice, some shots were really nice and good CGI that made the killings look really brutal. (although blood didn't look real at all) I guess some people will enjoy it, some, like me, will watch it if there is nothing else to watch, some will absolutely hate it.
I heard and read many praising things about "Midnight Meat Train", which is based on a short story written by no less than Clive Barker and supposedly the best adaptation of his work since the original "Hellraiser" that he directed himself, but so far I can only express very mixed sentiments about my viewing experience. The most appropriate term to summarize the whole film in just word is: nauseating! The violence is sadistic and extreme, which undoubtedly attracts fanatic young horror enthusiasts, but it's also indescribably gratuitous and exploitative. Normally speaking, I'm very pro-violence but it has to at least serve some kind of purpose. The butchering – literally – depicted in "Midnight Meat Train" is exclusively meant to shock and to repulse the viewers with weak nerve systems and easily upset stomachs, and even that isn't fully effective due to the use of digital computer effects. There are more shortcomings, some even bigger than the pointless gore, but perhaps I should focus on the good elements first. The basic concept is definitely promising and multiple sequences (like the chase in the freezer room, for example) are literally oozing with nail-biting suspense and macabre atmosphere. Unfortunately the pacing is very uneven and the elaboration of the potentially fantastic plot is made unnecessarily convoluted. Presumably the processing of a short story into a long feature film scenario is responsible for the pacing irregularities, but I honestly feel they could have done more with the denouement as well as with the character played by Vinnie Jones. The plot introduces Leon, an aspiring photographer in New York whose agent advises to search for the truly menacing face of the city through sinister pictures. Leon then becomes obsessed with stalking an introvert and suspiciously behaving butcher who always awaits the midnight train. Leon's right, as the butcher turns out to be a relentless serial killer who literally crushes his victims with a big hammer, but the killer's motivations and behavior suggest there's something far more substantial going on the rails at night. "Midnight Meat Train" takes place in naturally unsettling locations like subway stations at night and animal abattoirs, plus the film also benefices of good acting performances and a truckload of downright disturbing images (like cadavers on meat hooks and train carriages smeared in blood), but director Ryûhei Kitamura ("Versus", "Godzilla Final Wars") doesn't take full advantage of it all. The ending leaves a whole lot questions unanswered and, even if Clive Barker meant to have like this, I still think we deserved a slightly more clarifying finale. "Midnight Meat Train" is a somewhat intriguing and definitely haunting film, but not without defaults. It's not intended for easily offended viewers, but maybe people looking for plot coherence and clarity should leave it alone as well.
Loved the original story, had very high expectations for the film (especially since Barker was raving about it in interviews), finally saw it and what can I say? It was a total MESS! The directing is all over the place, the acting was atrocious, the flashy visuals and choreography were just flat, empty and completely unnecessary (whats up with the generic music video techniques like the fast-forward-slow mo nonsense? It was stylish yes but not needed in this film and cheapened the vibe into some dumb MTV Marilyn Manson/Smashing Pumpkins/Placebo music video). Whilst some of the kills are pretty cool and brutal, some are just ridiculously laughable (the first kill on the Japanese girl was hilarious and Ted Raimi's death was just stupidly funny). It just rushes all over the place with zero tension and suspense, totally moving away from the original story and then going back to it in the finale which by that point just feels tacked on to mess it up even more. No explanations were given whatsoever, I mean I knew what was happening only as i'd read the story but for people who hadn't it's even more confusing as at times even i didn't know where it was going and what it was trying to do- it was going on an insane tangent the whole time.<br /><br />God, I really wanted to like this film as i'm a huge fan of Barker's work and loved the story as it has immense potential for a cracking movie, hell I even enjoyed some of Kitamura's movies as fun romps but this film just reeked of amateurism and silliness from start to finish- I didn't care about anyone or anything, the whole thing was rushed and severely cut down from the actual source, turning it into something else entirely. Granted it was gory and Vinnie Jones played a superb badass, but everything else was all over the place, more than disappointing. Gutted
The main problem with the documentary "Czech Dream" is that isn't really saying what it thinks it's saying.<br /><br />In an audacious - I hesitate to use the word "inspired" - act of street theater, Vit Klusak and Filip Remunda, two student filmmakers from the Czech Republic, pulled off a major corporate hoax to serve as the basis for their movie: they deliberately fabricated a phony "hypermarket" (the Eastern European equivalent of Costco or Wal Mart Super Store), built an entire ad campaign around it - replete with billboards, radio and TV spots, an official logo, a catchy theme song and photos of fake merchandise - and then waited around to see just how many "dopes" would show up to their creation on opening day. They even built a makeshift façade to convince people that the store itself actually existed.<br /><br />One might well ask, "Why do such a thing?" Well, that's a very good question, but the answer the filmmakers provide isn't all that satisfying a one. Essentially, we're told that the purpose of the stunt was to show how easily people can be manipulated into believing something - even something that's not true - simply through the power of advertising. And the movie makers run for moral cover by claiming that the "real" (i.e. higher) purpose for the charade is to convince the Czech people not to fall for all the advertisements encouraging them to join the European Union. Fair enough - especially when one considers that the actual advertisers who agree to go along with the stunt declaim against the unethical nature of lying to customers, all the while justifying their collaboration in the deception by claiming it to be a form of "research" into what does and does not work in advertising. In a way, by allowing themselves to be caught on camera making these comments, these ad men and women are as much dupes of the filmmakers as the poor unsuspecting people who are the primary target of the ruse.<br /><br />But, in many ways, the satirical arrow not only does not hit its intended target, it ironically zeroes right back around on the very filmmakers who launched it. For it is THEY THEMSELVES and NOT the good-hearted and naturally trusting people who ultimately come off as the unethical and classless ones here, as they proceed to make fools out of perfectly decent people, some of them old and handicapped and forced to travel long distances on foot to get to the spot. And what is all this supposed to prove anyway? That people are "greedy" because they go to the opening of a new supermarket looking for bargains? Or that they're stupid and gullible because they don't suspect that there might not be an actual market even though one has been advertised? Such vigilance would require a level of cynicism that would make it virtually impossible to function in the real world.<br /><br />No, I'm afraid this smart-alecky, nasty little "stunt" only proves what complete and utter jerks the filmmakers are for making some really nice people feel like idiots. And, indeed many of them, when they finally discover the trick that's been played on them, react with a graciousness and good humor I'm not sure I would be able to muster were I to find myself in their position.<br /><br />I'm not saying that the movie isn't gripping - something akin to witnessing a massive traffic accident in action - but, when the dust has finally settled and all the disappointed customers return red-faced and empty-handed to their homes, we can safely declare that they are not the ones who should be feeling ashamed.
Like most people I was intrigued when I heard the concept of this film, especially the "film makers were then attacked" aspect that the case seems to emphasize, what with the picture on the cover of the film makers being chased by an angry mob.<br /><br />Then, to watch the film and discover, oh, what they mean by "the film makers were attacked" was some kids threw rocks at a sign and a number of people complained loudly and said "Someone should beat those two kids up." The picture on the cover, "the chase" as it were? Total fabrication. Which I guess ties in with the theme of the film, lying and manipulation to satisfy vain, stupid children with more money and time then sense.<br /><br />I have no idea what great truth the viewer is supposed to take away from this film. It's like Michael Moore's "Roger & Me", but if "Roger & Me" was Moore mocking the people of Flint. It's completely misdirected and totally inane. Wow! Can you believe that people who suffered under the yoke of Communism would be really excited to have markets full of food? What jerks! And it's not so much, "Look at the effects of capitalism and western media blah blah blah", since it wasn't just that their fake market had comparable prices to the competitors, it was that, as many people in the film say, the prices were absurdly low, someone mentions that they should've known it was fake by how much they were charging for duck. That's not proving anything except that people who are poor, will go to a store that has low prices, bravo fellas, way to stick it to the people on the bottom.<br /><br />Way to play a stupid practical joke on elderly people. You should be very proud. How about for your next movie you make a documentary about Iraq and show how people there will get really excited for a house without bullet holes in the walls and then, say, "HAHA! NO SUCH HOUSE EXISTS! YOUR SO STUPID AND LOVED TO BE LIED TO BY THE MEDIA!".<br /><br />Morgan "Please Like Me" Spurlock unleashed this wet fart of a film and it's no surprise since Spurlock as One Hit Wonder prince of the documentary world seems to throw his weight behind any silly sounding concept to stay relevant in a world that really has no need of him.<br /><br />Avoid like the plague.
This is exactly the sort of Saturday matinee serial I loved during World War II. I was under ten years of age. And that's the audience this serial is designed for. Looking at it now, one must roar at its ineptitude and stupidity. The budget must have been next to nothing, given the shortcuts and repeats. The acting? Well, this is Republic pictures, 1944. They read the lines....and no doubt had one take to make them convincing.<br /><br />One and half stars.
I had high hopes for this film, because I thought CLEAN, SHAVEN (Kerrigan's first feature) was absolutely terrific, the most assuredly cinematic low budget film I'd ever seen.<br /><br />But much of CLAIRE DOLAN is utterly pointless and flat. Scene after scene seems randomly tossed into the mix, without much thought for narrative or character.<br /><br />Is Claire trying to escape being a prostitute or not? Hard to tell. Why does she pick up the trick at the airport if she wants to escape that life? Why does she then not pick up tricks when she needs money in Seattle? Why do we have to see her dye her hair to what is virtually the exact same color? Why does Claire accept some johns and not others? The filmmaker doesn't seem to know.<br /><br />It feels as if everything is improvised (though I understand this wasn't the case) and the filmmakers just held a camera on it as if they were making a verite documentary.<br /><br />After the screening I saw, Kerrigan defended his lack of narrative choices by condemning film narrative as politically conservative. It sounded like learned rhetoric. I think it was a cop-out.<br /><br />I am saddened that the maker of a film as exciting as CLEAN, SHAVEN would go on to make such a lame film as this one and then defend it with tired old "political" cliches.
Probably the worst film I've ever seen, the acting and story were terrible and I almost fell asleep. The only good actor was Colm Meaney. I had the impression to see the same scenes again and again until the end, no emotion, no charisma...nothing !
This movie is another one on my List of Movies Not To Bother With. Saw it 40 years ago as an adolescent, stayed up late to do so, was very annoyed to find that it was about 95% romance,4% everything else, 1% history if that. It's what I call a bait and switch movie, one with an interesting title, the actual movie is a scam. This is a subject which deserves a good cinematic treatment, this movie is almost an insult to those who served. The actual members of the Lafayette Escadrille were not on the run from the law nor were they the products of abusive homes, they were in reality idealists who wanted to do something to help France. And I suspect many of them came from a more upper class background than Tab Hunter's character. Flying school is not for the smart alecks and the know it alls, an individual such as the one portrayed here wouldn't have lasted two days, it would have either been the stockade or the infantry. Discipline in the French Army was often rather fierce. In short, another Hollywierd version of an historical episode that deserves proper treatment.
If this movie was about a fictional character, the movie could stand on its own and be judged objectively. Unfortunately for the viewer, the movie is based on "facts" that are shaded very unfairly toward Ruben Carter. Many of the smaller facts were disregarded (Carter was NOT number one contender at the time of the murders, there is no proof at all that he saved a friend from a child molester in his youth), but some of the larger facts, like apparently being robbed of a decision to Joey Giardello because of "racist" judges, is inexcusable to those of us who have seen the fight on tape, and completely disrespectful to Giardello. Why Hollywood feels the need to make a hero out of someone who, at best, was in trouble and around trouble much more than any normal person should be (was arrested multiple times for beating women) is strange to me. Ruben Carter was never, by viewing his actions in the 60's and even now, when he refuses to speak to his son, a person that people can look up to. Everyone knows that Jewison can direct, and Washington can act, but why they chose this story as their vehicle is beyond me. Is Hollywood so much in need of a black hero that they need to bend the truth in all of their bio pics to make them believable? (Heres a suggestion How about Denzel playing a movie about himself? Now thats inspirational) Based on all of the inaccuracies in the movie, I would suggest passing on this one.
When I saw this movie I heard all the hype, and I heard how people said that Denzel deserved the Oscar alongside his Golden Globe and I believed he must have done an outstanding job considering Kevin Spacey was excellent. I was wrong. I realize that people say this not to anger the African American community (if they are not African Americans themselves). I always hear complaints on how African Americans are never nominated and how they should have won. Sometimes this is true (not as much nowadays) because Whoppi Goldberg should have won best actress for The Color Purple and the movie should have won best picture. The only reason this movie was so blown up the way it was, is because people see a movie about the (*SEMI-SPOILER*) hardships of an African American during a very racist time period and they automatically label it as a masterpiece.<br /><br />Denzel Washington is an outstanding actor, but his role in this movie did not affect me whatsoever. I was bored with him in the movie, and his acting here was quite similar to his role in Malcolm X but not as good. The audience is supposed to leave believing this man, Rubin Carter, is a saint. People left the movies worshipping this man, this hero, and they went out and bought his book, making this hero of a man rich.<br /><br />*SPOILERS* This movie tells the tale of a man who spent the majority of his life in prison mainly for crimes he did not commit. Of course the crimes he did commit (stealing mostly) was only to survive, nothing more. People felt sorry for him, even though the drug dealers and thieves probably amounted to as much for the same reasons but are looked down upon in society. Everything in this movie tries to portray this man as a saint (except for the obvious infidelity he had towards his wife and the aggression he showed the other man when he met his wife) but why wouldn't it-after all, it is his point of view. I do not like movies (especially Hollywood interpretations) that are based on "true" stories because they usually distort the "true" parts into something else, something not so true. This was his point of view and a Hollywood construction, yet everyone believed it was the truth unquestionably. Well I researched his past a bit before making any assumptions, and he was a very violent man. Not only that, there is still a possibility that he did murder those people. If you do not believe me, search for him on the internet, and read the articles some people have of him. The boxing match he claimed to have won so easily, was actually won by his opponent Joey Giardello and there are tapes to prove it. Besides that, there are many twisted and purposely left out facts in this movie. The supporting cast were the nicest people I have ever seen on the face of the Earth and their "nice and perfect" persona looked difficult to keep up.<br /><br />This movie was a Hollywood version of yet another unfortunate true story that is still left to be told truthfully. Denzel's acting is stale, and the supporting cast's Mickey Mouse attitudes are annoying. The movie also begins very slow paced and is boring.
Denzel is about the only thing that is right in this movie.<br /><br />Maybe once in an early stage this was a better movie. Someone decided to cut some action and plot points into the beginning of the movie, giving away most of the story line in about the first 5 minutes. That and ruining whatever build up in pace and rhythm the movie might have had before.<br /><br />So first it confuses you and then it puts you off. The dramatization pushes beyond suspension of disbelieve.<br /><br />Of course there is that feeling of great injustice and anger that movies like this potentially manage to instill in viewers. Granted, it does that so if you are looking for that ... knock yourself out.
This movie looks like it was made for TV . For years I waited for some movie to be made about Rubin Carter, because I loved to see him box at the old MSG, and to see this movie was very disappointing.I have alot of respect for Mr Washington, but he was awful and boring.There is really nothing good to say about this movie except I did like the song.
Fairly good movie, but not a true story.<br /><br />Rubin "Hurricane" Carter was a notorius liar, a murder and was never found not guilty. New Jersey State just didn't go for it a third time as 20 years had gone. Carter got an offer in 1976: "Pass a lie test and go free". He didn't take it. This film should never have been made, but money talks. A lot of people have unjustly spend their lives in prison and undoubtedly more blacks than white. Why choose a fake story?<br /><br />Jens
This is an OK film but lacks any real depth either emotionally or in terms of story telling.<br /><br />The story is based on real events and this limits the amount of action to virtually none, also no real suspense.<br /><br />Washington is believable in the lead but he is sleep walking through it, there is no scope to flex any acting muscles for him or the supporting cast.<br /><br />The story simply falls a little flat, even having never heard of the title character the ending was obvious but unlike other films about such injustices this one has no emotional impact, you don't really care about him and the motivations of those on the outside helping seem more academic than concerned for his welfare.<br /><br />There is an attempt to inject some emotion using the boy outside who hero worships Carter but this seems forced.<br /><br />It's an OK film but instantly forgettable.
Second-tier American leading man Guy Madison plays a character whose notoriety precedes him in this Spaghetti Western – which, having very modest credentials emerges as essentially routine (though featuring a nice enough score). The plot offers some mild interest: the title, incidentally, refers to a wounded man involved in the murderous assault by gun-runners on a ranch – the property of the family of their pursuer, cavalry agent Madison. The latter's younger siblings are determined that the injured party, now in their charge, lead them to the gang boss responsible; ultimately, the identity of either mystery man proves a surprise – and both, ironically, become involved with one of Madison's sisters (another is raped during the raid). Euro-Cult starlet Rosalba Neri appears unremarkably as a saloon hostess, and Madison's ex-flame.
As far as Spaghetti Westerns go, I'd put This Man Can't Die on the dull side of the genre. It's not that the movie is particularly bad, but it lacks the brilliance and flash of some of the other SWs I've seen. Guy Madison does his best in the lead role, but lacks the on-screen charisma necessary to pull it off. With one notable exception, the rest of the cast isn't particularly good. The direction is uninspired and offers very few moments that I haven't seen before. There's just not much to get very excited about.<br /><br />The cast exception I mentioned is Rosalba Neri. She's the one bright spot in this otherwise mediocre film. Unfortunately, her screen time is limited to less than 15 minutes. (Note: The IMDb page for This Man Can't Die is wrong. Rosalba Neri does not play Jenny Benson. Instead, she is the character Melin. I'm not sure how anyone could mistake Rosalba Neri for some guy named John Bartha as listed in IMDb's credits for the movie.)
TYSON <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.33:1<br /><br />Sound format: Stereo<br /><br />Reverent - though scrupulously fair - account of the life and times of champion boxer Mike Tyson. Given his conviction on a rape charge, the film is careful not to portray him as hero or villain, but paints a warts-and-all portrait of his rise to fame, the pressures of success, and the people who shaped his destiny for good or bad. Constrained by time limits, the script gallops through a succession of relevant details, alighting briefly on significant events, culminating with Tyson's (temporary) downfall in 1995. Novices will be enlightened by the chronology, while boxing fans will be entertained by director Uli Edel's straight-arrow approach to the material. He portrays Tyson's life as a circus in which he was ultimately led astray by the circumstances of his own success. In fact, the script reserves most of its venom for Tyson's ex-wife Robin Givens, characterising her as an ungrateful gold-digger who took advantage of his naivety. Production values are uniformly solid and the cast is superb: Michael Jai White does a fair imitation of the title character; George C. Scott plays Tyson's mentor Cus D'Amato through acres of gritted teeth; and Paul Winfield was surely born to play Don King!
A very ordinary made-for-tv product, "Tyson" attempts to be a serious biopic while stretching the moments of angst for effect, fast forwarding through the esoterics of the corrupt sport of boxing, and muddling the sensationalistic stuff which is the only thing which makes Tyson even remotely interesting. A lukewarm watch at best which more likely to appeal to the general public than to boxing fans.
This film was on late at night when I saw it. It was interesting at start but it didn't convince me as a whole. I am no Tyson fan. In fact I don't like boxing at all. It's barbaric, obscene and double faced (by society) that some get money for beating each other up.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I felt the start of the film was OK. Actors alright, especially George C. Scott (as Cus D'Amato). I don't know how reliable the flick is. I haven't read books and books about boxing or Tyson. I don't know anything about the man, but it was quite entertaining.<br /><br />As the movie went on I felt it lost a little of it's charm and I also lost interest. I managed to stay awake though but the last hour was just not good enough.
I know it's a Power-Rangers gimmick and catered to 7 year olds but really why were they taking themselves seriously with this movie? If they are going to write a plot with crayons, at least have the decency to make it silly. It's kind of hilarious if you watch this. We have a typical family filled with cliched characters (father a war veteran who lost his wife and blames himself LOLOL), air-head children trying to hard to fill the stereotype but fails with horrendous acting, and a laughably horrid sidekick who serves no purpose to the movie but to fill camera space. Funny stuff!<br /><br />However, the real great moment comes near the end when war-dad and bad-acting-villain try to work a sword fight, but then they realize none of them know how to (probably because no room in budget for choreographers), so they come up with this American Gladiator type setting to run around in. LOL.<br /><br />1/10 rating because they try to treat this seriously.
While the overall idea of Escape from Atlantis was intriguing, I found the film to be far less than what I had hoped for upon reading the plot summery. Perhaps I am too much of a child in the technological age: the movie was made, as it is now 2002, an official five years ago --after viewing fantasy epics such as Lord of the Rings, and science fiction feats like Star Wars, as a whole it could not compare to other movies of similar line such as Dinotopia or Homer's The Odyssey.<br /><br />My beef, basically, is that I couldn't relate --I am just about the same age of the children (a young adult), and have no trouble putting myself in the place of a middle-aged man if that is the character available. But the picture did not take me to a different mental plain of existence. I didn't find myself saying 'ACK! I would have done the SAME thing!'. It did not open the doors to my imagination. Even without comparing it to high-budget films or other TV movies, standing alone, certain aspects of the feature I found to be cliche: The character development in the children occurred too rapidly for my liking, seeing too much of the stereotypical selfish-teenager-bitter-after-divorce image changing into the we're-a-big-happy-family-let's-never-separate-again feel that can ultimately make or break a picture in the long run. Even the characters themselves could have undergone improvement: a typical set of one or the other stereotypes. There was the ever-present selfish beauty looking to be rebellious, accompanied by Mr. Perfect image of combining athletics, good looks and intelligence yet a brooding attitude, and lastly the smart-aleck little brother we find to be so common these days. While I know the personalities pushed the story along, I think that adding more individuality as far as nuances and more unique differences would have made it a more enjoyable --and believable (as far as character)-- movie.<br /><br />I do have to raise my glass to the costume and set design --that made it worth finishing to the end for me. Don't get me wrong: all movies are worth seeing for yourself, and the opinion of one could never account for the opinion of many, but I think that with a little more depth to the script, and a little more (I cannot believe I am saying this) realness I dare say Escape from Atlantis could have been magical.
You gotta love the cheesy low budget movies. This one comes complete with bad effects, props and bad acting (really bad). Plus, every time I see Mercedes McNab (the sister) I keep thinking 'Watch out! She's a vamp!"- for those that know Buffy/Angel.<br /><br />A perfect example of what happens when someone with bad taste and wants to waste money making a flick, the little that was spent of course. I don't know if I feel more sorry for the writer of the movie or the producer who didn't make back any money.<br /><br />I'd say it's good for little kids in it's simplicity, but I don't know if I'd want to subject a kid to it...<br /><br />umm...1/10 because that's the lowest it will go.
Over several years of looking for half-decent films to rent for my kids, I've developed a sixth-sense for spotting the really cheesy, direct-to-video efforts that are really painful to sit through (for anyone over the age of eight). I dropped the ball on this one and the kids spent half the movie asking me "what did she say that for?" and "why did he do that?" and my eyes got sore from rolling them every minute or so as characters did a really bad job of introducing seemingly random plot changes. And the next time someone decides that having absolutely no skill with a sword is simply "bringing realism" to a film, please run them through with a dull butter knife. "Prehysteria!" was head and shoulders above this. Arrgh.
honestly, where can I begin! This was a low budget, HORRIBLY acted film, it was so cheesy it had us all bursting with laughter to how completely retarded it was! the sword fighting scenes weren't even sword fights, they were playing around with some plastic swords they bought at wal-mart and all they were doing was just moaning to try and make it look like they were struggling!! Me and my family was in the mood for a really good action movie one day, so we decided to go to the store and look for one, and there it was The Sawtooth Island movie. I mean it looked so great but when we watched it at home I practically died after the first scene.<br /><br />Oh and the plot of the film, the story board, the script, etc..was a bunch of garbage that I don't even know why the director and producer even wasted their time making it!! But if you happen to stumble upon this movie..do not get it!!!!!
The only reason I elected to give this flick a shot was due to the presence of Oscar winner Ernest Borgnine. All I can say is, it was the greatest waste of a good actor ever put to film. As far as I could tell, Borgnine was the ONLY actor in it. The other performances were so uniformly terrible, I am amazed a studio would actually pay the "performers" to appear. Couple this level of talent in the acting department with a story so plodding and insipid that I thought my eyes were going to start bleeding by the time the credits rolled, and you have a perfect cinematic disaster. Obviously the movie was made to appeal to an audience of children, and to its credit, it was better than most of the original programing on the Disney Channel and similar kid-focused networks. But honestly, that is not saying much.
Skullduggery is a strange, strange film based on the novel "Ye Shall Know Them" by Vercors. To unleash criticism at the film feels really unkind, since it is a movie that deals with earnest themes like humanity, and pleas for upright moral standards and tolerance. But in spite of its honourable intentions and its well-meaning tone, Skullduggery simply isn't a very good film. For me, the main problem is the terribly disjointed narrative which can't make its mind up how best to convey its message. The first half of the movie is like watching a standard jungle expedition flick of the Tarzan ilk; later it teeters into sci-fi fable; by the end it slips into courtroom melodramatics. The differences in tone between each section of the movie are too great, too jarring, to overlook. They stick out like a sore thumb and remind you constantly that you're watching a muddled, disorganised movie.<br /><br />An archaeological expedition into the jungles of New Guinea is led by adventurer Douglas Temple (Burt Reynolds). One of the main archaeologists involved in the excursion is attractive lady scientist Dr Sybil Greame (Susan Clark). After an arduous trek they stumble upon a tribe of strange ape-like creatures. These primitive, long-lost people are covered in hair and have survived for centuries without being in any way touched or influenced by the developments of modern man. There is some evidence that they may the ancestors of early man – the "missing link" in the evolution of apes into humans. Or perhaps a race of humans who simply look and behave differently from usual? Or even a race of animals that have begun to develop human characteristics? The archaeologists call the tribe "the Tropi" and are initially thrilled by the implications of their discovery. But things take a devastating turn when nasty opportunist Vancruysen (Paul Hubschmid) declares his intention to exploit the tribe and their idyll on behalf of developers. He questions whether the Tropi are truly "human" and takes his argument to the courts, where he hopes to be granted legal backing so that his own greedy ambitions can be continued.<br /><br />This was a very early film in Reynolds' career, and he actually unbalances this movie by acting like he's in a comedy while the rest of the cast take it all very seriously. Not that Reynolds can be blamed – he has an impossible role, asked to play a charming adventurer who really belongs in a Tarzan flick. His character and the film are not relevant to each other. Clark fares much better as the earnest lady archaeologist, and there are nice supporting roles for British actors Edward Fox, Alexander Knox and Wilfrid Hyde-White. A major shortcoming in Skullduggery is the lame and ineffective make-up used to give the Tropi their strange hairy appearance. Rather than making the actors look like believable hominoids, the stuck-on hair merely makes them look unintentionally comical…. and that's just not the right idea. We're meant to feel great sympathy for these creatures, but that's awfully hard when they look so unconvincing. Skullduggery is a failed attempt to tell a story that could have been poignant, philosophical and stimulating. The honourable intentions are there for all to see, but the end result doesn't do them justice. A worthy failure it might be but a failure nonetheless.
Once upon a time there was a science fiction author named H. Beam Piper who wrote a classic book named "Little Fuzzy" which was about a man discovering a race of adorable little fuzzy humanoids on another planet. Mr. Piper died in 1964, but Hollywood and many of today's authors starting looting his grave before his cadaver got cold. This is the book where they got the idea for Ewoks from.<br /><br />Skullduggery is such a blatant ripoff of "Little Fuzzy" I can wonder why I'm the only who's ever noticed?<br /><br />But don't take my word for it. Here's a link to Project Guntenberg where you can download a copy of "Little Fuzzy" for free: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18137
Taped this late night movie when I was in grade 11, watched it on fast forward. I sugest you do the same. I though it would be and action film, but went to a cort tv type movie. In the end it fits in with the early 70's social activest type films. Glad I missed that era. 2/10
This is awesomely bad and awesomely embarassing for a Canadian. We grow good wine. Our writers and poets are among the world's best. The National Ballet is rated among the top five companies in the world. BUT WE MAKE BLOODY AWFUL MOVIES! This one isn't especially bad. It's especially typical and typically bad, shot in two bit hotels and public parks with thin direction, high school level acting and "gee whiz...lets see what this button on the camera does??" photography. If Michael Moriarity was so intent on doing a Jack Nicholson impersonation, couldn't he at least have done a GOOD Jack Nicholson impersonation? And if the movie was shot in Vancouver, truly one of the loveliest cities on earth and also a centre of yacht building (part of the "plot") why in God's name do we let that endemic Canadian inferiority complex dictate that it be disguised as Seattle??? Not only am I mad about this film, I'm embarassed and more than a little ashamed. The Australians turn out some splendid stuff. We produce pretentious second rate piffle. Gawd!!!!!
Saw in on TV late last night. Yeah, I can hear what y'all say about this one. It IS likely to be categorized as one of those stereo- typical TV soap series. In all fairness, the story line does have a fine twist to it, and you might nod saying, "Well, that's not what I expected." But, as a film, well it is not easy to spot a redeeming element. Casting, acting, camera work, cars, costume, setting, script, no, there's nothing to congratulate. Rated R?? Oh, that scene. Did we need it? This is a film that you can watch it and then forget that you even watched. And what was the title again?
The various nudity scenes that other reviewers referred to are poorly done and a body double was obviously used. If Ms. Pacula was reluctant to do the scenes herself perhaps she should have turned down the role offer.<br /><br />Otherwise the movie was not any worse than other typical Canadian movies. As other reviewers have pointed out Canadian movies are generally poorly written and lack entertainment value, which is what most movies watchers are hoping to get. Perhaps Canadian movie producers are consciously trying to "de-commercialize" their movies but they have forgotten a very important thing - movies by definition are a commercial thing....
This was a truly bad film. The character "Cole" played by Michael Moriarty was the biggest reason this flopped, the actor felt that conjuring up an unbelievably awkward southern drawl would make this character more evil, it didn't. After about 20 minutes I had wished for a speech therapist to make an appearance, this would have added some sincerity.<br /><br />- 1) badly acted - 2) unsympathetic characters - 3) razor thin plot line<br /><br />Yuck!<br /><br />
I really felt cheated after seeing this picture. It felt like I sat watching this movie 101 minutes for nothing. I don't understand what they were thinking when they made this. It hardly gets into Jeffrey Dahmer murdering and it has no ending. It felt almost like they were leaving this movie open for a sequel. It was like watching a television episode of the Sopranos. It ends suddenly, and you know there's going to be another episode next week. It also felt like I just watched part 1 to a two part movie. There are many possibilities for what went wrong here; they got lazy, they ran out of money, they didn't know the rest of the story, they wanted to make a Dahmer 2. After seeing this movie they all sound very accurate. I was watching Jeffrey Dahmer walking through the woods. All of a sudden I hear this music playing, then writing comes on the screen and says how Dahmer served 2 years of his sentence and was attacked by a fellow inmate and killed at the age of 34. Wow, he goes from a walk in the woods to his death in jail. How about showing how he got there. How about showing Dahmer's trial. How about showing some more detail. I can't even explain what happened in this movie because it jumped all over the place. I actually found myself saying in disbelief, "That's it, that's the end?" I want to conclude this review by saying there is still a good Dahmer movie yet to be made. To the filmmakers I'd like to say, if you're going to do it, do it right.
Dahmer, a young confused man. Dahmer, a confusing movie. Granted, I had a few beers while watching the movie, but that doesn't explain why I got so bored by this flick.<br /><br />Its flashbacks are nothing but confusing and annoying, and there's no real storyline with a beginning and an end, the only thing that made sense in the movie was the explaining text in the beginning and at the very end of the movie. The inbetween stuff, which would be the movie, is just boring images and a waste of time. <br /><br />We never see actual murders, everything is just a bunch of insinuations. Sometimes you even just get a feeling that Dahmer's dreaming the entire thing, but you know he isn't, since it's<br /><br />based on a true story and this actually happened, at least most of it. But what happened? It's not easy to tell.<br /><br />I do not encourage people to waste time on this movie. I<br /><br />didn't like it one bit and I felt cheated when it suddenly ended. <br /><br />*/*****
I'm a big fan of the true crime genre, but I couldn't sit through this putrid piece. It was almost as if Dahmer was intended as erotica, down to the porn-flic soundtrack. There was no look at what made Dahmer tick, no exploration of who his victims were. Nothing but "Look at how creepy this guy is." And I have to give the filmmakers this much -- their Dahmer is the creepiest thing ever to disgrace the screen.
Prior to watching "Dahmer," I thought no movie could be worse than "Freddy Got Fingered." I was wrong. To sum "Dahmer" up, it's a story about a gay serial killer which features almost no killing and almost entirely consists of Dahmer's encounters with gay men before they were killed. There is no plot to be found, and it serves no purpose as far as telling us anything about "Dahmer." All you'll learn about Dahmer from watching this movie is that he liked to have sex with men. Horrible acting, horrible directing, horrible writing, horrible everything... If you have to choose between watching "Dahmer" and projectile vomiting for three hours, go with the vomiting .... it wll be less painful.....
This movie had so much potential. Anyone who followed the story of Jeffrey knows that there are so many details overlooked in this movie it's ridiculous. Too much time and effort was spent in the movie on Dahmer's homosexual tendencies and his alcohol consumption. Where was the character development? The origins of any villain are always interesting and Dahmer was no exception. Where in the movie does it address his adolescence when he began killing and mutilating small animals? Instead we are giving a dizzying array of flashbacks that seek to explain the origin of the killer, but fail to address the major point in Dahmer's development. Also, the reason why the country became so intrigued with this story was the details - how he stored the bodies in his apartment and the lengths and measures he went to to accomplish this; his cannibalism and his desire for flesh, etc. I could go on, but to sum up, too many lagging points in the film, focused on his sexuality and not enough of the gore - the good stuff you would expect to see when the title of the movie is "Dahmer."
Well, it is hard to add comment after reading what is already here but I feel I must say something. I wasn't exactly looking for 'a splatterfest' as someone puts it or even 'blood and guts/gore'. I have some respect for the victims relatives although I really felt the filmaker DIDN'T. -They were nameless, faceless and meaningless. Just a vessel for Dahmers sexual antics.<br /><br />I watched this film with the kind of morbid curiosity that makes me think 'What makes a guy be a serial killer?' as well as wondering the specifics about the Dahmer story, of which I know very little. People here seem to think that the movie didn't have to cover the events of the Dahmer story.. I.E. his history, what happened when he got caught, the aftermath, etc but IT IS IMPORTANT! You see, I assume if you are American you WILL KNOW all of this. We do not all live in America. To tell this story about such a man as he obviously was, REQUIRES that at least SOME of the history and actual events are told/shown. This doesn't mean blood and guts, there are ways of showing horrific things in a movie by implication or clever filming without resorting to gore. Without even touching upon some of what he did (I found out more about him reading the user comments on this site!), the movie felt like a void. A moment in time with very little substance. I would like to know if there is a film about the REAL Dahmer because with its lack of direction, VERY slow pace that NEVER changes, Strange portrayal of homosexuality and the VERY unfortunate lack of ANY attempt at an ending, this movie is POOR. I would not recommend to anyone that they waste the time it takes to watch it. A definite 1 out of 10 (for the acting!)
I do have the `guts' to inform you to please stay away from `Dahmer', the biographical film based on the real-life story of the grotesque serial killer. `Dahmer' strays more in relation to the mentality of its focused subject. Jeffrey Dahmer, who murdered over 15 young males and ate some of their body parts, was probably the most incongruous serial killer of our generation. However, the real sick individuals are the filmmakers of this awful spectacle who should have had their heads examined before deciding to greenlight this awful `dahm' project. This is not an easy film to digest, even though Jeffrey would have easily digested it with some fiery `brainsadillas' appetizers or even some real-life `Mr. Potato skins'. * Failure
Way to go ace! You just made a chilling, grossly intriguing story of a necrophiliac cannibal into a soft, mellow, drama. Obviously a movie called Dahmer would be one of two kinds: Horror, or documentary right? This was neither. It wasn't close to any detailed facts, (in fact it barely had any substance at all) It wasn't really morbid or scary or didn't even try to be very disturbing.(as if you would've had to try!!) What the hell was this writer/director thinking?? Here's one of the most REAL examples of sick serial killers ever and we get badly shot, poorly acted gay bar roofie rapes and lengthy droning flashbacks to alone time in his old parent's house. I think Jacobson was actually trying to present (or invent) 'the soft side' of j.Dahmer.
Curiosity led me to this "masterpiece". Unfortunately, I didn't rent it, I bought it! The most disturbing thing about this film is that it's not so disturbing. For reasons known only to them, the makers of this film set out to show the human side of Jeffry Dahmer. Are you kidding me? The man gave new meaning to the term "finger lickin' good"! And with all the flash-backs and flash-forwards I had trouble following the story. All in all Jeremy Renner's performance wasn't too bad. You can catch him in "S.W.A.T.", in which he plays a disgruntled ex-cop. Anyway, I would rate this as a 1/10. It only got a 1 because of Renner's so-so performance. There are plenty of books and tv documentaries out there that do a much better job of covering Dahmer's crimes. Avoid this one.
It could have been a morbidly fascinating look at the life of one of America's most notorious serial killers, but sadly it doesn't even come close. Terrible editing, direction, bad acting, you name it. This movie is literally about 10 minutes of plot stretched into 100. The only redeeming quality is Bruce Davidson as the father, but that's not nearly enough to save this stinker. A 1 out of 10.
"Dahmer" is an interesting film although I wouldn't use "horror" or "thriller" do describe it. It's more a minor character study that seems oddly sympathetic of the killer.<br /><br />Jeremy Renner portrays serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, who drugged, murdered and dismembered his male victims. The film centers on the relationship between Dahmer and "Rodney", well-played by Artel Kayàru. <br /><br />Rodney is almost the more interesting character: enamored of Dahmer and having once escaped an attack, he returns to Dahmer for sex and survives a second attack.<br /><br />I think the film is disjointed because it does little to portray Dahmer's formative years, how events may have created the human monster we see on screen and offers no insight into Dahmer's belief that he could create sexual zombies of his victims.<br /><br />The roles are well played but the story is thin.
Disappointing and undeniably dull true-crime movie that has poorly cast character actor Jeremy Renner languidly mumbling his way through the title role of Jeffrey Dahmer, who was easily one of the last century's most recognizable degenerates/serial killers. Released straight-to-video back in early 2003, "Dahmer" is an overtly talky, boring, badly acted and virtually bloodless snore-fest of a true-crime drama that never truly delves into the monstrous and demented psyche of the late mass murderer like it had the perfectly good potential to do! What it does, however, attempt to do for reasons unknown to me is evoke some sort of sympathy in the viewer for the man by portraying him out to be what is ultimately a lonely, nebbishy and severely socially inept homosexual loser who was simply lookin' for love in all the wrong places as opposed to the cold, calculating and depraved sicko and madman that he was! Overall, 2003's "Dahmer" is one that true-crime buffs everywhere might as well skip because I'm not kidding when I say that it's one of the worst serial-killer biopics ever done! It's even sorrier than other pathetic and exploitive straight-to-video trash like "Gacy", "Bundy", "Ed Gein" and "The Night Stalker"! (Turkey-Zero Stars)
What about Dahmer's childhood?- The double hernia operation which is believed to have sparked off his obsession with the inner workings of the human body? What about "infinity land"? - The game he invented as a child which involved stick men being annihilated when they came too close to one another, suggesting that intimacy was the ultimate danger. What about the relationship between his parents, and the emotional problems of his mother that were far more relevant than just his own relationship with his father? His feelings of neglect when his brother was born? What about his fascination with insects and animals? How he would dissect roadkill and hang it up in the woods behind his home?What about focusing more on his cannibalism? And what about his parent's divorce? These are all things that should have been included in the film. Instead the film maker chose to give us a watered down 'snapshot' from a night or two in his life, and combine it with series of confusing and at times unnecessary flashbacks, to events that weren't even particularly relevant to our understanding of Dahmer.<br /><br />Why didn't the film maker show how Dahmer was interested in people as objects rather than people? He could have made this point many times, particularly in the scenes in which he drugs his victims whilst he has sex with them (which actually took place in a health club, not a night club). Instead he just shows him ramming away at them from behind.<br /><br />Whilst I appreciate there is only so much information you can cram into 90 minutes (or however long), but why spend such a large part of the film examining his relationship with Luis Pinet? (known as Rodney in this film). My only guess is that the director was trying to build up Pinet's character, to try and make us fear for or empathise with him, but this film is supposed to be about Jeffrey Dahmer, so why couldn't he have spend those forty five minutes on something else? If the scene and their relationship was important enough to warrant such time then fair enough, but it wasn't. The scene in which he kills Steven Hicks, his first victim, is a vital part of the Jeffrey Dahmer story because it was the first killing, and because of the effect that killing had on the rest of his life. Unfortunately the film doesn't explain that it was his first killing, or that he didn't kill again for nine years. We assume, because his hair style is different, and he is wearing glasses that this is a flashback, but to when? And why? <br /><br />What about the shrine he made in his sitting room towards the end of his career?-one of the most important clues we have towards understanding Dahmer and his motivations..<br /><br />Some people may find my need for accuracy in fact and detail a bit anal, but having studied Jeffrey Dahmer in depth, it is plain to see that this film has very little in common with the person he was and the crimes he committed. Why bother to spend the time making a film loosely based on Jeffrey Dahmer rather than tackle the real issues behind his descent into madness and the carnage that ensued?<br /><br />Finally, a film with subject matter as repellent as this should carry an 18 certificate, not a 15. We needed to see his perversion in more depth, to understand just how detached he was from the rest of us. That doesn't mean showing the drill actually entering Konerak Sinthasomphone's head for instance, but at least an indication of the amount of people he killed, and what his Modus Operandi was when actually killing. Anyone watching this film who doesn't know the story of Dahmer might come away thinking he had only killed a few people. He actually killed seventeen men.<br /><br />Aside from the facts and lack of depth, the film isn't all bad. There is some nice cinematography, and good performances from the two main characters. I'd like to see this done again by a film maker who has more knowledge, more energy, and a better reason for making the film in the first place.
I was so disappointed in this movie. I don't know much about the true story, so I was eager to see it play out on film and educate myself about a little slice of history. With such a powerful true story and great actors it seemed like a surefire combination. Well, somewhere the screenplay failed them. It was so scattered - is this movie about his childhood? his love life? his own disability? his speaking ability? his passion for the disabled? I'm sure there is a way to incorporate all of those things into a good story, but this movie wasn't it. I was left cold watching characters that were unlikable not because of their disabilities, but because of their personalities. Other small gripes: 1. The heavy-handed soundtrack. It's the seventies - WE GET IT ALREADY! 2. If he's such a phenomenal public speaker, why weren't we treated to more than a snippet here and there - and even then mostly in montages?
I just watched this movie in high definition on television. I am in a wheelchair due to a neuromuscular disorder and like to watch the few films made about those with physical disabilities.<br /><br />At first I found the main character somewhat noble and captivating. His message about the disabled and the life time he spent fighting to have the disabled recognized and integrated into mainstream society's job market is great. And my problem isn't with the real person who did these things. HE was a great man. But this film is completely hypocritical and diametrically opposed to the very message it is preaching, that I found it insulting.<br /><br />First of all, they didn't cast anyone in a title role with an actual physical disability. Sure they were competent actors, but it seems completely dis genuine to preach about hiring the disabled and then not actually HIRING THE DISABLED for anything in the film. Further compounded by the fact that in one scene mid way through the film a man is seen walking to a podium on crutches, appearing to have only one leg. But the CGI in this scene is so apparent it is shameful. What? They couldn't find an actual amputee anywhere for the film? For a 5 second shot it was more financially sound to do CGI effects than to just HIRE an ACTUAL amputee? At that point in the film I found it so fraudulent and completely against the message it was trying to convey that I came here to bitch and whine about it like the pathetic cripple I am.<br /><br />Figure that out.
I find it heart-warming and inspiring that the writing team behind such hopelessly mainstream Hollywood movies like INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM, American Graffiti and HOWARD THE DUCK would begin their career with a low-budget exploitation horror film like this. Perhaps as a testament to the talent that would earn Willard Hyuck and Gloria Katz an Oscar nomination later in their respective careers, Messiah of Evil has potential, but sadly becomes frustrating exactly because it can't muster the film-making prowess to pull it off.<br /><br />The premise involves a young girl who travels to a small coastal town in search for her painter father who went missing a while back. It doesn't take long for the fragmented narrative to abandon all hope and dive headlong in disjointed absurdity - and for a while it works admirably well to the point where you begin thinking that maybe Messiah of Evil needs to be reclaimed from the schlocky gutter of 70's exploitation as an example of artful mystery horror.<br /><br />The surreal non-sequiturs keep piling on as the daughter stumbles upon a young couple in a seedy hotel room who are in town to conduct a research on the local legend of the 'blood moon', a scruffy and half-mad alcoholic (played by the great Elisha Cook Jr. in perhaps the best scene of the movie) who warns her about her father only to be reportedly found dead in an alley 'eaten by dogs' a little later, the blind old lady that owns the local art gallery and who has inexplicably removed all of her father's paintings from the shop and last but not least a retarded, murderous, squirrel-eating albino.<br /><br />Part of the movie's charm is precisely this brand of bargain-basement artsy surrealism that defies logic and genre conventions every step of the way. Whereas with Lynch it is obviously the mark of a talented creator, with Messiah of Evil the boundaries between the 'intentional', the 'unintentional' and the 'didn't really expect it to come out this way but it's good enough - WRAP SCENE' blur hopelessly.<br /><br />Take for example the double narration that flows in and out of the picture in a drug-addled, feverish, stream-of-consciousness way, one coming from the daughter as she wanders from place to place in search for her father, and the other narrated by her father's voice as she reads his diary. <br /><br />While we're still talking about a 'living dead' picture, Messiah of Evil is different and only loosely one - at least with current preconceptions of what a zombie movie is supposed to be. The origin of the living dead here is a 100 year old curse, bestowed upon the town by a mysterious 'Dark Stranger' who came from the woods one day. In the meantime Hyuck finds time for snippets of mass-consumption criticism in a flesh-eating supermarket scene that predates DAWN OF THE DEAD by a good number of years (you can hear the MST3K line already: 'man is dead, only his capitalist food tins remain') and a nicely thought but poorly executed similar scene in a movie theater.<br /><br />I generally think that the surreal works in careful, well measured doses - how is the absurd to work if it's not hidden within the perfectly normal? Hyuck seems to just smear it all over the picture and by doing so dangerously overplays his hand. When the albino for example picks up a girl hitching her way to town and eats a squirrel in front of her, you can almost imagine the director winking meaningfully at the audience, amused and satisfied with his own hijinks. <br /><br />The general film-making level is also pretty low - after the half-way mark, the pace becomes muddled and the story tiresome and evidently going nowhere and not particularly fast either. Add to that the choppy editing, average acting and Hyuck's general inability to capture true atmosphere - the empty streets of coastal town are criminally misused - and I'd file Messiah under 'missed opportunity' but still grindhouse afficionados will find enough to appreciate - even though it's not particularly gory, trashy or sleazy.
This is one of those "so bad it is good" films that you always hear about but never see! Unlike Troma films which are deliberately bad and campy (and I am not amused) this one is 100% pure serious.<br /><br />However with features such as a supposedly super-lethal killer robot that prances about like one of the Solid Gold Dancers on an acid trip and a magical first mate that calls down lightning and transforms into the Good Witch of the East the fact that it takes itself seriously pushes it so far over the edge of bad that makes it full circle around back to entertaining.<br /><br />Watcheable enough because of that.
The Deadly Wake is THE PERFECT MOVIE for film students... to learn how NOT to make a film!<br /><br />Let's see... what did the crew mess up in this flick? Worst music mix Worst editing Worst script WORST ALL-TIME DIRECTING Worst acting Worst choreography Worst cinematography Worst props Worst sets Worst lighting Etc. Let's face it, if this "film" had been in ultra-high contrast black-and-white, AND silent... it still would have been awful. All scenes are dark (lighting people call it "black"), often, the music score drowned out the meandering dialogs, which was OK because nobody ever spoke two whole sentences without long pauses for effect. The "evil" robot was hilarious... what was that? Jazz dancing? Oh... I guess it was supposed to be walking tactically or something. I'm sure it struck fear into the hearts... of the poor editors. And, how do you edit so much footage of garbage? Not possible. Garbage is garbage, no matter how you splice it. How did anyone ever get this thru the dailys???<br /><br />Bottom line is- I couldn't stand to watch more than 15-minute segments, it was so bad... but I did see the whole thing (with lotsa breaks) just to see if it had ANY good parts in it at all. NOPE! NONE!<br /><br />A perfect example of how not to make a flick... a must see for EVERY serious film student!!!
A terrible movie containing a bevy of D-list Canadian actors who seem so self-conscious about the fact they are on-camera that their performances are overly melodramatic and quite forgettable.<br /><br />This film is badly written, badly edited, and badly directed. It is disjointed, incomprehensible and bizarre - but not in a good way. McDowell does a great job with what he is given, but is the only one in this film to do so - he really has a bad story and script to work with. It's not even camp enough to be funny.<br /><br />I have yet to see Van Pelleske act in a credible manner, and even the sub-characters like Eisen (with his nasal, whiny voice) confirm that we are on a lot in Toronto rather than on a barge off Africa.<br /><br />Didn't the director see that the 'creature' looks like a jazz dancer in an alien suit? The fight between the blue bolts of lightning and Pelleske's orange wisps of 'magic' (!?! for lack of a better word), is obviously the result of bad actors, with no choreographer, overlaid with completely derivative special effects. Was there even a director on set or in the editing room for this disaster film (not the good kind)? <br /><br />Learn from the mistakes of others ... don't even waste your time with this one, you'll regret it like I did. I have nothing more to say about this waste of celluloid.
Terrible use of scene cuts. All continuity is lost, either by awful scripting or lethargic direction. That villainous robot... musta been a jazz dancer? Also, one of the worst sound tracks I've ever heard (monologues usually drowned out by music.) And... where'd they get their props? That ship looks like a milk carton... I did better special effects on 8mm at the age of 13!<br /><br />I'd recommend any film student should watch this flick (5 minutes at a time) so as to learn how NOT to produce a film. Or... was it the editors' fault?<br /><br />It's really too bad, because the scenario was actually a good concept... just poorly executed all the way around. (Sorry Malcom. You should have sent a "stunt double". You're too good an actor for such a stink-bomb.)
If Mr Cranky had rated this, I'd be tempted just to copy his review and paste it here. But as he hasn't, I'll have to give it a go myself.<br /><br />The only thing giving this movie a 1 instead of a 0 is that Malcolm McDowall's acting is excellent. However not even he can save this film from disaster. The director must have been really distracted when he worked on this one because it is just a conglomeration of scenes that were thrown together with very little continuity - reminiscent of bad '70's movies. Even worse, both the actors and director appeared to be making it up as they went along which probably showed how bad the original script was.<br /><br />It's not even worth discussing the story line although it revolves around a futuristic corporation called the Proxate Corporation who put together a crew of dispensable people to carry a dangerous cargo on an old container/slave ship to Nigeria. This ship's computer is a baby kept in a glass jar and wired into one of the crew via USB 12 or something. The company should have been called the Prostate Corporation as the entertainment value of this movie is on a par with an examination of the same name.<br /><br />I honestly can't find one scene that I could say was well made and made any real sense in the context of the movie. I only watched it to the end as I had a touch of the bird flu and this movie reminded me that there were people out there who were actually worse off than me - Malcolm McDowall in particular. I won't hold this against him as he's a great actor and every great actor is entitled to one bad movie in their career and this one is a doosie.<br /><br />So, unless this is the only movie your shop hires out or you're male and you're doctor isn't doing prostate examinations this week and you somehow feel this is a bad thing then give this one a really wide berth unless of course if you're really community minded, buy a copy to support Malcolm and then use it as a drink coaster.
Malcolm McDowell has not had too many good movies lately and this is no different. Especially designed for people who like Yellow filters on their movies.
There are two reasons why I did not give a 1 to this movie. One reason are some of the actors (like Malcolm McDowell and Gwynyth Walsh) work, who tried to play at their usually good level of acting. However at many scenes they were somehow blocked by the bad scripting.<br /><br />The other reason is the cool idea and looking of the Cyborg, which is quite different to most other such roles I've seen so far.<br /><br />Everything else in this movie is as bad as it can be. Boring scenes, useless and boring dialogs, bad script work. And it seemed as it was the first movie ever for many actors. It could have been an interesting story though, but they failed completely.
This is probably one of the worst movies ever made. Bad acting, bad special effects, bad plot, bad everything. In the last 15 minutes a cat suited-cyborg is introduced which muddles everything. Malcom MacDowell must have needed to make a house payment because otherwise he would have had to sell himself on Hollywood Blvd to pay the bill. I just don"t know how you can go from Clockwork Orange to this crap and be able to look yourself in the mirror each morning. I could have done better special effects in my bathtub. There's no continuity. The editor must have been asleep or on drugs its so bad. Acting. Do they have to smoke to be bad.? The gun either shoots blue flames or bullets, make up your mind. The bad girl and the other girl in the movie look so much alike that it is confusing. Whay is it called 2013 Seadly Wake. It has nothing to do with the movie
This movie is absolutely pointless, one of the good esamples how Malcom McDowall never got one decent role after Clockwork Orange. This one may be one of the worst though. No story, crappy special effects, shot in 4:3/or even worse cropped on DVD, just avoid it ....
Shown in Australia as 'Hydrosphere', this incredibly bad movie is SO bad that you become hypnotised and have to watch it to the end, just to see if it could get any worse... and it does! The storyline is so predictable it seems written by a high school dramatics class, the sets are pathetic but marginally better than the miniatures, and the acting is wooden.<br /><br />The infant 'muppet' seems to have been stolen from the props cupboard of 'Total Recall'. There didn't seem to be a single, original idea in the whole movie.<br /><br />I found this movie to be so bad that I laughed most of the way through.<br /><br />Malcolm McDowell should hang his head in shame. He obviously needed the money!
This is certainly the worst movie i ever saw? The beginning is somewhat good, but the end? I still don't even get it! Magical power, 300 years later, goddess, dancing what the f*** is that about??? The acting is somewhat not so bad.. but some place I could do better for sure!
I wish I could say that this show was unusual in it's banality,but it is usual in every way.It has the dumb husband,his smarter but boring and conventional wife, along with the idiotic sidekick for "comic" relief-it sorely needs it.Stale predictable jokes, with even more predictable reactions from the laughtrack, punctuate this noxious mental narcotic's nauseatingly unimaginative plot lines to leave me either physically ill, or in a deep sleep more resembling that of an induced coma. But it might be on for a while yet because it gives the average American a personage to which they can truly identify.A "regular" guy just like you and me.I live in the southern U.S, so to me this show is just the opposite of escapism.Down here, that obnoxious character is everywhere, in some form or another.Seeing him on television is brutal overkill.
The show is average. It doesn't make me laugh particularly. However, I think Courtney really brings it down. She doesn't look natural. She has these three ways to talk, all robotic. She talks quietly (with no intonation), she talks normally (with no intonation), or she does that thing where she starts talking normally, and starts yelling gradually. However, her yelling is like "let's pretend I'm yelling because I shouldn't be too loud on the set". <br /><br />She is constantly aware of herself being this cute actress doing this funny thing. It's annoying. You can't really get her personality, because she doesn't really produce emotion, and doesn't get upset. She has this husband, who's doing all these stupid things, and there is no reaction from her. Very dry and plain acting.
You need to watch this show once to have seen them all, the formula is exactly the same in each episode. Jim does something his way he means well but he upsets his wife, at the end she finds out that what he did was really for her, she caresses his cheek and gives a gummy smile while he looks on bashfully. In fact the story lines are so lame and formulaic that I'll take a stab at one now.<br /><br />Episode 'Valentines Pay'<br /><br />Jims wife notices that all of Jims weekly pay has disappeared, he then explains to her he lost it at the casino. She screams and leaves the house lamenting how awful he is. Then on Valentines day he turns up in a limo with tickets to a Ball (hence explaining the missing wages). She realizes 'Her' mistake and the usual 'Oh Jim, you're so lovely'. ..The end<br /><br />Another very obvious item is the fact that Jims character is based on Homer Simpson who as a cartoon character can get away with being belligerent and ignorant, when this is attempted with Human beings it does not work and Jim just comes over as an arrogant self centered jerk. <br /><br />IMO the only reason that this is successful is simply because we're so many now in terms of Human beings with TVs, these days you could make a show about a man who insulates walls and you'd get an audience.<br /><br />'Two and a half men' on the other hand is fantastic and hilarious.
All the funny things happening in this sitcom is based on the main character Jim being either a bad father, a bad husband or generally just enormously selfish. How can that be funny? Of course a character in a sitcom has to be flawed, but Jim's character is flawed in an extremely unsympathetic manner.<br /><br />And why it that? My guess is that it's because "he should now better". Jim's not a stupid guy, he can take care of things and he's got the opportunities to do so. But he chooses not to. It's a conscious choice he makes, when he chooses to not play with his kids, not go shopping because he doesn't want to buy "lady products" and it's a choice he makes, when he puts down his relatives.<br /><br />The other characters seems to only be in the series so Jim can have someone to be a jerk to. If the Cheryl character was a real person, she would have left him years ago, and not stay with the deadbeat for 8 years. But alas, she's just a catalyst for Jim's quirky middle-class extreme selfishness.
I always wrote this series off as being a complete stink-fest because Jim Belushi was involved in it, and heavily. But then one day a tragic happenstance occurred. After a White Sox game ended I realized that the remote was all the way on the other side of the room somehow. Now I could have just gotten up and walked across the room to get the remote, or even to the TV to turn the channel. But then why not just get up and walk across the country to watch TV in another state? "Nuts to that", I said. So I decided to just hang tight on the couch and take whatever Fate had in store for me. What Fate had in store was an episode of this show, an episode about which I remember very little except that I had once again made a very broad, general sweeping blanket judgment based on zero objective or experiential evidence with nothing whatsoever to back my opinions up with, and once again I was completely right! This show is a total crud-pie! Belushi has all the comedic delivery of a hairy lighthouse foghorn. The women are physically attractive but too Stepford-is to elicit any real feeling from the viewer. There is absolutely no reason to stop yourself from running down to the local TV station with a can of gasoline and a flamethrower and sending every copy of this mutt howling back to hell. <br /><br />Except.. <br /><br />Except for the wonderful comic sty lings of Larry Joe Campbell, America's Greatest Comic Character Actor. This guy plays Belushi's brother-in-law, Andy, and he is gold. How good is he really? Well, aside from being funny, his job is to make Belushi look good. That's like trying to make butt warts look good. But Campbell pulls it off with style. Someone should invent a Nobel Prize in Comic Buffoonery so he can win it every year. Without Larry Joe this show would consist of a slightly vacant looking Courtney Thorne-Smith smacking Belushi over the head with a frying pan while he alternately beats his chest and plays with the straw on the floor of his cage. 5 stars for Larry Joe Campbell designated Comedic Bacon because he improves the flavor of everything he's in!
I love the episode where Jim becomes the Greenman. It is great! When Jim tosses that little person through the window, the look on his face is priceless. Then when he starts to address the Priest in his wife's behalf only to find out that she has become the Pee-Woman? Great writing and great casting along with great acting makes this a must see. I am attempting to find a certain photo from that episode. I'd like to use it as my avatar on a message board because I think the Greenman is hilarious. Does anyone know where I can download a photo of Jim as the Greenman? Can anyone point me in the right direction to find such a photo?
It must be the most corniest TV show on the air. This is probably a escape for Jim Belushi and all of his bad movies. His brother sucked all the talent out he younger brother. I hope this show is canceled and never spoken of again except in a negative use. Jim has got to retire or something. Please let them go of the air. If i here a joke from that show i will throw up and and wash my eyes out with a toothbrush. Id rather be taken from the devil himself than watch a full half hour that piece of programing. I still do not understand why the show is still in the air and running. We all know deep down that we want to shoot our TV screens when we see Jim's face. In conclusion, no more please.
This is the most saccharine romance I ever sat through. The perfect film for an idle housewife in kerchief, housedress, and ostrich-trimmed high-heeled mules to watch in the afternoon, lying on the couch eating bonbons. In fact, bonbons play a prominent role in the movie.<br /><br />The only reason I was able to watch to the end, is that I finally was able to gaze at Keanu Reeves' dreamy face in almost every scene. In most of his films, he moves too fast to get a good look. The only rapid action in this show is Giancarlo Giannini waving his hands with Latin emotionality - more Italian than Mexican, really. <br /><br />The dialog is as stiff as wood. Unfortunately, no bodices are ripped - the hero is disgracefully perfect-mannered and mild. The aristocratic warm-blooded old-world family cliche is as old as the hills. What does it matter if they are Irish or Italian or Mexican? This is a fairy story.<br /><br />I knew before the titles finished running that this would not be the movie I hoped for. The glowing grapes looked like the paragon of all food ads in Women's Day Magazine. I didn't see his name listed, but the art director surely was Thomas Kinkade, who paints the million dollar canvases of Irish cottages snuggled in fuchsias. This film was literally seen through rose-colored glasses. If you like dreamy pink and blue sky, this film is for you! (The bonbons looked really good, too!)
i think that new york is a big fake, i mean her whole guidelines of this show is stupid. i enjoyed flavor fl av more better, she acts like a slut, and a hoe put together. her mother is out of this world, i think she is the devils daughter. i mean what does she think she is doing these men already have girls and i believe once you have been with her you will be to ashamed to go back to your girl. she is nasty, spoiled and a big fat fake.the show is very interesting to watch, how much money is she getting to do this awful show, and whats up with her mother,i thought her and new york did not get along, but now it seems as though she is just as fake as her crazy daughter.and where is the so called husband, he is no where to be found,i would not to be with them either.
The latest Rumor going around is that Vh1 is starting casting calls for I Love New York 3 mid 2008. So does this mean Budah or Tailor made dumped New York or does this mean New York dumped the winner?<br /><br />I know Flavor of Love is coming up to it's 3rd season, so now with a Flavor of Love 3 and a I love New York 3.....will there ever be a true winner???<br /><br />I've also heard a few rumors that Chance WILL be brought back for the 3rd Season of I Love New York!!!! I have also heard rumors that New York will be Specially featured on Flavor of Love 3. <br /><br />Hopefully this was not too much of a spoiler for the ending of I Love New York 2....I'm just stating the latest rumor.
"I Love New York" is another entry by VH-1 (MTV Networks) showing the entertaining side of dating a shrill, obnoxious, woman. It must have been an easy decision to take the most wildest, Ebonics speaking, craziest contestant - and her mother - and give them a show on this network. Many will argue, "this is a show". True, it's not as bad as it's previous show, "Flavor of Love" - but it's just as bad.<br /><br />It reminds me of a skit from the 90's show "In Living Color" where Keenan Ivory Wayans was imitating the boxer Mike Tyson on "The Love Connection" dating show and he picked "Robin Givens" for a date. Mike talked of how the date was okay, but how the obnoxious mother kept butting in. This show reminds me of that.<br /><br />The men are chosen and given names to degrade themselves and the woman that they are dating more - (I would think an intelligent man looking to date an intelligent woman would NOT allow her - and her mother - to give you a name that is so ghetto, you'll embarrass yourself every time you appear on TV.) but these are professional reality actors, so why bother.<br /><br />It escapes me to discover what is so entertaining about all of this. The fact that this is as fake as her newly implanted additions? 15 Minutes of fame and hundreds of thousands of dollars in ad time for the network? (Well, you can't hate them for trying to make a buck.) Maybe the wonder is - who would want to be with this woman past an hour? Or wonder if she and her mother's next show would be on the WWF! Any way you slice it, it's a train wreck you've seen countless times before so by now the shock value is down to nil.<br /><br />No twist or turn will make this a more interesting train wreck, or any different from any of the others. Appeals to the lowest common denominator and for those calling an "end" to reality shows, this is just another nail in the coffin as to why they should end, immediately.
It's interesting to see what the director tried to do with this film. But the problem is that it's not very good. There was nothing really original in the film and while the plot was well presented, the main characters were all a bit to shallow and you didn't bother for any of them.<br /><br />Rather bland (and sometimes downright bad) photo leaves a bit to be desired but I guess you can't expect to much from people who are just doing a low budget film for the heck of it. It's unfair to review the film and compare it to other high-budget films. But alas, that is what one must do. On its own, it's not very good. And compared to others, it's still not very good. But it is not without its good points! I liked the plot. It was built up rather nicely and tied together well at the end. Sometimes in the really dark scenes, it managed to build up a creepy feeling as well.<br /><br />However in the end the film fails to impress. The characters are pretty much non-existent and we don't care for any of them. Any of them might die, but it's possible to pinpoint the final "survivor" from very early on.
I recently watched this film at the 30'Th Gothenburg Film Festival, and to be honest it was on of the worst films I've ever had the misfortune to watch. Don't get me wrong, there are the funny and entertaining bad films (e.g "Manos – Hands of fate") and then there are the awful bad films. (This one falls into the latter category). The cinematography was unbelievable, and not in a good way. It felt like the cameraman deliberately kept everything out of focus (with the exception of a gratuitous nipple shot), the lighting was something between "one guy running around with a light bulb" and "non existing". The actors were as bad as soap actors but not as bad as porn actors, and gave the impression that every line came as a total surprise to them. The only redeeming feature was the look of the masked killer, a classic look a la Jason Vorhees from "Friday the 13'Th". The Plot was extremely poor, and the ending even worse. I would only recommend this movie to anyone needing an example of how a horror film is not supposed be look like, or maybe an insomniac needing sleep.
Anyone who visited drive-ins in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, must have seen a film or two by American International Pictures, a distributor that resembled 1980s giant Cannon Films. Wherever movie-goers ventured, AIP would be right there to supply the latest en vogue titles - in the 50s came horror movies like 'Voodoo Woman' and 'The Undead;' in the 60s were Frankie Avalon-Annette Funicello beach comedies and biker flicks like 'The Glory Stompers;' and into the 70s, AIP churned out grindhouse-level trash like 'Cannibal Girls' and 'Sugar Hill.'<br /><br />'Dillinger,' released in 1973, is one of the more 'highbrow' AIP efforts that capture the true spirit of drive-in film-making; it is one of those uneven, over-the-top flicks that satisfied the masses' thirst for entertainment, craftsmanship and common sense be damned. On the whole, 'Dillinger' is typical for its era: entertaining and worth a couple of hours, but certainly not memorable. Heavy on action and short on both acting and historical fact, 'Dillinger' was a fair effort by screenwriter-director John Milius ('Magnum Force') but certainly left room for improvement in his extensive career.<br /><br />The 109-minute 'Dillinger' - epic for AIP's scope - follows the quest of FBI Midwest chief Melvin Purvis, played by Academy Award winner Ben Johnson. Purvis was the investigator who sought revenge for four FBI agents killed in a 1933 Kansas City ambush that helped gangster Frank Nash to escape justice. At large were the men who supposedly plotted that breakout, including expert bankrobber John Dillinger (Warren Oates), Pretty Boy Floyd (Steve Kanaly), and psychopath Baby Face Nelson (Richard Dreyfuss). Dillinger eventually joined forces with Floyd and Nelson, taking along Homer Van Meter (Harry Dean Stanton) and Harry Pierpont (Geoffrey Lewis). He also hooked up with Billie Frechette (Michelle Phillips), a prostitute of French and Indian extraction. While taking place over several months in 1933-4, 'Dillinger' is basically a chase film, with Purvis's entourage looking to run down and kill off the men wanted by J. Edgar Hoover.<br /><br />'Dillinger' has a documentary feel, listing dates and places while Johnson supplies loose narrative as Purvis. Milius keeps an honest Depression look, using authentic fashion, cars, weapons, and buildings; he also sprinkles around black-and-white photography and stock footage of gangster shootouts. The film is never boring, moving at a quick, if haphazard, pace. The action scenes are Dillinger's strongpoint, edited competently by Fred Feitshans Jr in his last professional effort. Thousands of blank ammunition rounds must have been used to make this film, not to mention pounds of explosives. This film is certainly not for the squeamish, with people getting shot and dropping dead all over the place. The violence, while gratuitous, brings some understanding of the mayhem that organized crime dumped on American life.<br /><br />This film never transcends its exploitation status, however, because the needed writing just isn't there. John Milius, somewhat overrated as a filmmaker, places way too much emphasis on action. The action scenes (mostly blood-filled shootouts) are impressive and comparable with any major crime film of its era, including 1967's 'Bonnie and Clyde.' But we simply don't get to know much about Dillinger and his gang members as people; the vital relationship that develops between Dillinger and Frechette is barely touched upon, with the pair meeting in a bar during one scene and cavorting as lovers just ten minutes afterward. Melvin Purvis also seems to wander in and out of the storyline, becoming a prominent figure only when Milius needs to keep the film from unraveling. All too often, the film takes on a shoot-'em-up persona when its characters could have been explored in detail.<br /><br />Aside from this, the picture's main crime is ignorance of historical fact. While many say that 'Dillinger' is just a film, it's films such as this one that create fables and make them permanent. Those with knowledge of gangster history will point out that John Dillinger was not the last of his ring to die, as Milius's screenplay and the film's documentary style encourage us to believe. In fact, Dillinger died before Baby Face Nelson and Homer Van Meter; he also was said not to be carrying a gun on the night of his death, nor did he have Billie Frechette in tow. While these inaccuracies might make for high drama, there is no reason why Milius couldn't have stayed with the facts and written a great story around them.<br /><br />Warren Oates's performance as Dillinger is quite good, although he sometimes looks unconvincing. Oates is humorous and nicely portrays how Dillinger became consumed by his larger-than-life image in the American press; however, we never really feel the menace he invoked in his lifetime. Ben Johnson gives some life to Purvis, suave but rather flat. Michelle Phillips brings emotion to the Billie Frechette character and it's really too bad that Milius's screenplay didn't flesh out her relationship with Dillinger. We never learn what drew her to a cold-blooded killer, other than the stereotype of an easy-going girl who is attracted to men of danger. The supporting roles with Kanaly, Dreyfuss, Stanton, Lewis, and a briefly-appearing Cloris Leachman, are acceptable for such talent.<br /><br />As a piece of 1970s exploitation, 'Dillinger' appears doomed to retail bargain bins, which is exactly where I picked up MGM's DVD release for $4.99. The film is nicely presented in widescreen (a must for drive-in flicks) with subtitles in French and Spanish. Dillinger's theatrical trailer is supplied as a lone extra. Largely forgotten except by gangster movie fans and drive-in enthusiasts, the film doesn't really call for much else in way of supplementary material. For fans of the genre, it's certainly worth checking out.<br /><br />** out of 4<br /><br />Roving Reviewer - www.geocities.com/paul_johnr
Near the beginning, after it's been established that outlaw John Dillinger (Warren Oates), is an egomaniacal rapist, another bandit of the 1930s is cornered in a farm house and surrounded by the FBI. Second-in-command Melvin Purvis (Ben Johnson), surveys the situations, sticks a lighted cigar in his mouth, picks up two loaded .45-caliber automatics, and stalks off into the distant house alone. Bang, bang, bang. Purvis emerges alone from the house, carrying the female hostage, the miscreant dead. All in long shot.<br /><br />If you're enthralled by stories like Red Riding Hood, this should have considerable appeal.<br /><br />Oh, it's as exciting as it is mindless. Pretty Boy Floyd meets his demise dramatically. Multiple violations of the civic code. Plenty of shoot outs with Tommy guns and pistols. Blood all over.<br /><br />As history, it stinks. Few remember Melvin Purvis as an FBI hero, partly, I would guess, because of his name. Melvin PURVIS? We all remember J. Edgar Hoover, who fired Melvin Purvis because he was a rival in the quest for public attention though.<br /><br />The picture was written and directed by John Milius. He's the guy who had it written into his contract that, should any animals be shot and killed in the course of one of his productions, he should be the designated shooter. Milius is the guy, a compleat gun freak, who had Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders in the Spanish-American war shouting quotations from Henry V -- "Saint Crispin's Day" and all that.<br /><br />Exciting, yes, and complete garbage. "I knew I'd never take him alive, and I didn't try too hard neither." That is, kill 'em all and let God sort them out.<br /><br />You'll just love it.
Proof why Hollywood conventions are in place. Stale dialogue, underdeveloped and flat characters and a disjointed storyline are only part of the problems with this gangster classic wannabe. An attempt to be daring and different but this appears to be a slap-together attempt at recreating the magic of Arthur Penn 's Bonnie and Clyde (1967) and George Roy Hill 's Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)- truly innovative filmmakers and films - but falling well below the bar. Problems with storylines being self-explanatory result in the need for a voiceover to explain problem sections. The editing appears again to be an attempt to duplicate the previous classics but is occasionally disjointed and cause more problems for me technically. Unnecessary shots are thrown in to justify the filming of them but would have better served the viewer by sitting on the cutting room floor. Stills, black & white montages and period music are thrown in from time to time in attempts to either be different or to cover up for scenes that can't transition well or to replace scenes that just didn't work at all and again are reminiscent of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969).<br /><br />Overly dramatic pauses between sentences, random shots of surrounding scenery that wasn't needed for storytelling plus over-the-top acting of bit players and supporting actors was reminiscent of the backyard camcorder directors of the late 1980's - I was left wondering who was in charge of this film during production and during post-production. The playing of music in most two shots and close-ups and then suddenly stopping in wide shots overly emphasized a weak musical score. No sound editing was drastically apparent as the bulk of the film was gunshots, doors, footsteps and dialogue (a style used in the late 60's through the mid-70's by new directors) but lacking background noise causing it to seem artificial - particularly the tire squeaks on dirt roads. In my honest opinion the biggest problem of all is there are no 'likeable' characters for the audience to route for nor were we lead to see as the protagonists of the story. Neither the gangsters nor the lawmen were characters I wanted to see win and neither were focused on as the 'hero'- a necessity for any story to work for me. We know from Penn's and Hill's movies who the 'heroes' are. Even though they are criminals, we like them and want to see them get away. I could care less who was on the screen in this film. I got the impression that John Milius was trying to give off a non-historically accurate reenactment documentary of the events surrounding John Dillenger's life from June 1933 to July 1934 (his death).<br /><br />To be fair, there are some moments of good solid storytelling, which are moments that shine forth brightly from the dark and dismal canister in which this film sits. John Milius gets better thankfully in future films where he doesn't seem to try to 'copy' other filmmakers. Dillinger (1973) isn't a total waste as many stars and famous faces who were at the cusp of breaking out are involved with this directorial 'big budget' debut, but wait for it on a classic movie channel rather than spending money to rent or buy.<br /><br />
I just finished reading a book about Dillinger. This movie was horribly inaccurate. It's like they got a list of names and just made everything up. His robberies and getaways were well planned, down to the second - when the time was up, they left whether they had all of the money or not. They had notes of every road, where to turn, etc. Purvis never saw him at the restaurant, he was told that Dillinger paid for his meal after Dillinger left. Purvis never even SAW Dillinger before the night Dillinger was killed, only photos of him. The way his gang members died were fictitious. Dillinger never robbed a bank by himself, like he did in this movie. If I had never read the book, maybe I could have enjoyed the movie. The acting was a bit over the top in places. The action was overdone as well. On second thought, I doubt if I would have enjoyed it much even if I HADN'T read the book.
Once again I have seen a movie made by people that know nothing. I just recently reviewed Baby Face Nelson. Now I've seen Dillinger and I've had it.<br /><br />This movie is garbage. I don't know how anyone in their right mind could compare this to a classic like Bonnie and Clyde. This movie is far from a classic. Someone called it brilliant. That's an insane thing to say. This movie can't get any facts straight and it has the worst casting I've ever seen. I don't know whose dumb idea it was to cast Warren Oates as John Dillinger. First of all he looks nothing like him. Second of all, by the time John Dillinger was killed he was 31. When Oates made this he was 45! You could even tell that he's older than the real Dillinger just by looking at him. Not only was he too old, but so was Ben Johnson as Melvin Purvis.<br /><br />They show Baby Face Nelson die, then Homer Van Meter, and finally John Dillinger. John Dillinger was killed before both of them. The last one to die out of the three was Baby Face Nelson. Not only do the writers not know when they died, but they also don't know how they died. Baby Face Nelson was not killed after he escaped from Little Bohemia in a robe. Homer Van Meter was not killed by farmers with shot guns. Homer Van Meter was cornered by the police in St. Paul and gunned down with machine guns. Another member of Dillinger's gang, Harry Pierpont is shown being shot by police in this movie. Pierpont wasn't shot. Harry Pierpont was captured and sentenced to die in the electric chair. I go into what happened to Baby Face Nelson on my Baby Face Nelson review so I'm not going to go into it again here. Let me also add that Richard Dreyfuss' portrayal of Baby Face Nelson is pathetic. There's a scene where he attacks Dillinger and then gets a bad beating. While Dillinger was beating him he was crying like a baby and screaming, "Leave me alone!" Baby Face Nelson and John Dillinger never fought. Maybe Dillinger didn't agree with Nelson's bank robbing methods, but they never fought. Nelson also never cried like a little girl while getting beaten. They keep calling him Lester "Baby Face" Nelson. He was never in his life known by that name. Nelson's real name was Lester Gillis and he changed his name to George Nelson. The black guy that escaped from jail with Dillinger was Herbert Youngblood, but in this movie he is known as Reed Youngblood. John Milius doesn't know anything. Where the hell did John Milius get his information? I could probably make a better movie than him.<br /><br />Finally the way they showed John Dillinger die is outrageous and inexcusable. The movie shows Dillinger walk out of the Biograph with the Lady in Red and his girlfriend Billie Frechette. By the way, Billie Frechette wasn't even there that night. But a girl named Polly Hamilton was. Melvin Purvis yells, 'Johnny!' Dillinger pulls out his gun and is blown to hell. It is a proved fact that Dillinger did not have a gun that night. The FBI gave him no chance to surrender and as soon as he was in sight they blew him away. They didn't even have to shoot him. They were so close that powder burns were found on his face. It was murder. They also say that the man killed that night was not John Dillinger. After killing tons of civilians in the Little Bohemia incident can you imagine the FBI reporting that they had just killed another innocent unarmed man? The gun they had on display that was supposedly on Dillinger was also proved not to have been manufactured until after Dillinger's death. I could go on and on how the man they killed wasn't John Dillinger, but I'll stop here. If you would like to know more check it out here<br /><br />See the Dillinger version with Lawrence Tierney if you want, but don't waste your time with this inaccurate piece of garbage movie.
I saw this film first in the Soviet Union and many erotic scenes were simply edited out by the censorship committee. But then, in Poland in 2000, I watched it in a complete form. And so what? The plot is incredibly unwise - 2 men survive the genetic catastrophe and find themselves on the planet full of feminist strong, straight and fundamentally severe ladies. The men now try to fight it and then the whole bunch of extremely silly clichés follow - sex-drive, constant masculine desire for sex, feminists who are shown like complete idiots (you may agree with them or not, but idiots certainly they are not), and so on. The performance even of the stellar Jerzy Stuhr is here wooden and strangely bad - he just pulls unfunny faces and repeats on saying phrases like "I am in the elevator with a nude chick and I haven't done anything to her!". This was intended to be a comedy, instead, it turned out to be a vapid farce, full of predictable jokes and below-the-waist innuendos. Do not waste your time on it - this is just bad.
David Mackenzie's follow-up to the brilliant Young Adam wants to be a feel-good underdog story of a lonely voyeur who is trying to confront some psycho-sexual issues with his dead mother. It wants to be gritty, realistic, and mysterious. At the same time, it wants to be funny and nonjudgmental of its disturbed lead as he establishes himself as an adult.<br /><br />To meet this end, the film tries hard to be youthful. Its poster has hand-drawn letters looking like that of Juno. Its original soundtrack is comprised of fast-paced indie rock which tries to convince the audience that Hallam is OK; just a little misguided. But strangely the film is anything but youthful.<br /><br />Like Young Adam this film's central mystery concerns a drowned woman- in this case Hallam's mother. Young Adam keeps its mystery quiet, contemplative, and paced well enough to hit you with the truths as they come. Hallam Foe does the opposite. It foregrounds its character's psychosis so clearly and so early that he never really does anything outside his expected parameters. The opening scene is Hallam in his treehouse watching his sister fooling around with her boyfriend. Hallam swiftly interrupts, asserting his presence in the household. Here we see everything that Hallam will do for the rest of the movie.<br /><br />The mystery surrounding his mother's drowning is whether it was suicide or murder by his father's girlfriend. The audience can never really trust Hallam because, besides being creepy, we think his obsession has led him close to insanity. This hindered the mystery element for me because Hallam is too sporadic to be relatable. Right when he's found some clues that would support his claim he runs away from home, at first it appearing to be looking for the police. Then he gets extremely sidetracked by a girl who resembles his mother, which frustratingly leads the story away from the mystery element.<br /><br />While Jamie Bell does bring out some very endearing traits in his lost character, he was limited by the obviousness of his psychological needs. This movie is in no way mysterious, yet it is not blunt either. It tries to be realistic in dealing with such issues, but it adds a very self-conscious spunk which registers itself as quite the opposite. It goes for a soundtrack-heavy, Trainspotting attitude to help the audience root for a protagonist who scales buildings, picks locks, and camps out for the sake of voyeurism. These urban peeping tom adventures Hallam engages in are way too difficult for an inward-drawn country boy to engage in and they are not sexy, giddy, or pleasant. They are more neutral than anything; not propelling the character or story. Mackenzie makes you understand Hallam, yet he fails to build common ground.<br /><br />He expects you to enjoy Hallam's trials and tribulations without much ideological justification. The film hinges on its audience's perspective on voyeurism/the kind of person who engages in it. Obviously, most people would be disgusted by it. And Hallam Foe realizes that, but it does not let us see Hallam weigh the morality of his decisions. He goes from person to person, trying to fill his deep void. There is a particularly disturbing line from Hallam's love interest Kate where she drunkenly says "I love creepy boys," perhaps asking the audience to do the same. The line tries to foreshadow her understanding of him (her motivation remains vague throughout) and tries to further us from judging him. It's not hard to like Hallam, but it is very hard to participate in his adventure- if it is even an adventure at all. All the while, the film tries to use its flamboyant soundtrack to mask its indecisive mood.<br /><br />Great performances are weighed down by a film with a weak third act, muddy development, and needlessly ambiguous direction from Mackenzie. Recently this film was re-named for a US release, and for what reason? Not only is it more unappealing, but the hard truth is that the Hallam character never earns the title 'mister.'
In its way, Mister Foe (originally, and more appropriately, titled Hallam Foe – I can't see addressing its title character as "mister"), is a tribute to good acting. Both Jamie Bell, as Hallam, a physically attractive voyeur/creep, and Sophia Myles, as Kate, his kinky partner in sex and fantasy romance, are convincing. The problem comes when you try to connect their roles to anything that happens in real life. A young man who spies on the intimate details of people's lives the way Hallam does would be deservedly beaten to a pulp. And a woman in Kate's situation would be repulsed and frightened - she would probably call the police.<br /><br />These things are not, however, what happens in the movie. Poor Hallam's mother has died and his father married a woman with whom he's been having an affair. Hallam, of course, hates his stepmother and lets he know it. She has sex with him. Kate's some kind of an employment person who places Hallam in a dish washing job and plays sexual games. She looks like his birth mother. It all ends happily with Hallam "resolving" his "issues".<br /><br />Forty some years ago, the play and brilliantly acted movie, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, had a similarly optimistic ending, with characters becoming wiser and better after tearing each other apart. The trouble is, it doesn't always work that way, especially when nobody really cares. In Virginia Woolf, the ending's plausible because of the intensity of the emotional revelation. In Mister Foe, the emotional revelation never really happens.
Hallam Foe tells us the story about a boy who lost his mother and experiences some sort of Oedepus complex afterward.<br /><br />It is something like 95 minutes long but would be better in ten. There's like an hour in the middle where he is doing climbing practice on rooftops, and habits in a church tower like Quasimodo (only he is much less sympathetic).<br /><br />There's a strange love story involved which doesn't have anything to do with anything. She happens to look like his mother, yes so what? We know he misses his mother, that's what the first ten minutes were about. They should just have put the beginning and ending together and it would have been a O.K. short film. Now it's a portrait of a character who doesn't change. He is a guy that stuff happens to. The only active choice he has in the whole middle of the movie is to apply for a job.<br /><br />There's this whole Oedepus thing going on which is supposed to make us analyze his character. He paints his face, dresses in women's clothing and wears a dead Badger on his head. A Badger! You've got to see the ending! He returns to his home with the badger on his head (and it is shot like a tacky Horror film) to kill his dad's new wife (which he had sex with in the beginning). And somehow they thought this wouldn't be entertaining enough so they put some indie punk music in the background. I've got to admit though, I'm kind of allergic to films that want to write a psychological complex on your nose. It feels like this MacKenzie director/guy/whatever is trying to show us that he also has been studying psychology in school. You are so smart! Thank you for bringing all these forgotten theories back into our memories! You really dug! What a Wallraff! Okay so now I realized this film is based on some random book, but anyway..<br /><br />Photowise it is boring. A lot of talking heads. Plus the editor has changed the colors from scene to scene, you know cold and warm etc.. why? maybe "Hallam Foe" is both a feature and a test film for color blind people. Or maybe they just thought that the drama wouldn't be enough to tell us that he feels lonely, so they increased blue so that we really get it.<br /><br />I'm not even gonna comment on the cliché indie-oh-how-how-how-cute drawings they have made in the presentation. And all the "cute" sex stuff going on. This whole film is an independent cliché. But I do recommend it. I laughed more than a few times. Though it is really annoying to be a film student and to see how crap like this gets through the machine.
First off...with names like Fred Olen Ray, Brinke Stevens and Jan-Michael Vincent, plus distributors like "Rhino" and "Troma" on the video box, you know what you're getting into with this one. B movie mania! If you're actually expecting to see a thriller "based on Edgar Allan Poe," then forget it and head straight for the excellent series of Roger Corman 60s Poe films. This is pure, unadulterated sleaze (with just a pedestrian attempt at a plot similar to "The Premature Burial"), complete with lots of R-rated, ready-for-video sex and nudity. However, it's certainly entertaining and fun in a slipshod kind of way...<br /><br />Brinke (who has three nude scenes in the first 30 minutes) plays rich, traumatized, insomniac housewife Victoria Monroe, whose fear of being prematurely entombed stems from her belief that the same fate befell her father (Hoke Howell). Her worthless husband Terry (Jay Richardson) has racked up some serious gambling debt (owed to a gangster played by Robert Quarry) and, with help from his kinky, blonde, European-accented sexpot secretary Lisa (Delia Sheppard) plots to do away with Brinke for her money. Name-value actress Karen Black drops in briefly wearing a blonde wig as a hypnotist (she's way too talented to be playing an insignificant role like this), 50s sci-fi/horror star Robert Clarke plays a doctor and family friend and Michael Berryman shows up for a decent nightmare sequence performing an autopsy on a still-living Vicki. Jan-Michael Vincent mostly sits outside a house in his car making goo-goo eyes as Brinke enters and exits the home.<br /><br />The kill-a-spouse-for-the-inheritance plot has been done a million times before, the ending is an unintentional laugh riot (concluding with a direct rip-off of the Zuni Fetish Doll segment in TRILOGY OF TERROR) and whoever created the awful stabbed face and decapitated head FX for this release needs to sharpen up on their skills a bit. Brinke does a decent job making her character somewhat sympathetic, but the biggest surprise of all is how good former Penthouse Pet Delia Sheppard is in her role. She stole every scene she was in and easily gave the standout performance here.
Fred Olen Ray is a lousy director, even as far as B movie directors go, but 'Haunting Fear' is probably one of his better films. Yes, it does butcher the great Poe story 'Premature Burial' and yes, it is badly paced and uneven throughout, but it is also pretty entertaining. Scream Queen Brinke Stevens is better than usual as a pretty, fragile housewife whose worthless husband (Jay Richardson) is plotting to do away with her because he needs money to pay off a gangster (played by Robert Quarry). Delia Sheppard, a veteran of many early 90s soft-core movies, actually gives the best performance in the film as a slutty mistress. You will also enjoy small roles played by Karen Black as a psychic, Robert Clarke as a doctor and Michael Berryman in a nice cameo in one of the better scenes. The ending didn't make much sense!
I purchased this video quite cheaply ex-rental, thinking that the cover looked quite nice. And it was nice, but the movie is trash. I can handle B-grade, I sometimes even enjoy a good B romp (ie. 'Surf Nazis Must Die' is a classic example of how entertaining the genre can be), but this was just bland bland bland. Incredibly dull scenes were broken up too sparsely by good wholesome cheap porn and entertaining dream horror sequences. This movie has very little to offer.
A woman's nightmares fuel her fear of being buried alive.The cheating husband wants her dead and decides to make good use of her phobia by sticking her in a coffin and leaving her in the basement.Of course B-horror movie queen Brinke Stevens transforms into hideous ghostly creature.The only reason to see this amateurish junk flick is Michael Berryman in a really small cameo and two sex scenes with Delia Sheppard.And the last twenty minutes of Brinke's bloody rampage are quite fun to watch.The special effects for example laughable decapitated head are truly awful.Better watch "Scalps" or "Alien Dead" again.Of course I ain't expecting classy entertainment from Fred Olen Ray,but "Haunting Fear" is too dull to be enjoyable.
Imagine the worst skits from Saturday Night Live and Mad TV in one 90 minute movie. Now, imagine that all the humor in those bad skits is removed and replaced with stupidity. Now imagine something 50 times worse.<br /><br />Got that?<br /><br />OK, now go see The Underground Comedy Movie. That vision you just had will seem like the funniest thing ever. UCM is the single worst movie I've ever seen. There were a few cheap laughs...very few. But it was lame. Even if the intent of the movie was to be lame, it was too lame to be funny.<br /><br />The only reason I'm not angry for wasting my time watching this was someone else I know bought it. He wasted his money. Vince Offer hasn't written or directed anything else and it's no surprise why.
I foolishly read the back of the DVD cover of this movie in Best Buy about a year ago, and said to myself, "Seems funny, plus it has Michael Clarke Duncan, how can I lose!" I proceeded to pay $15.99 plus tax for it. I took it over to a friends house and we both stood aghast at how poorly it was written and acted. Wooden performances abound. All the "hilarious" and "outstanding" performances promised never seemed to arrive. After 90 minutes I hung my head in shame, knowing that I could never get that 90 minutes or $15.99 back. I literally almost cried as well, because if that was what could be considered "comedy" I didn't want to believe in movies anymore. My friend and I constantly informed a friend of ours of the horror of this movie to the point that he needed to see it just to understand how bad it was. Over the holiday season this year I watched it with him because he didn't want to watch it alone. This was my next horrible mistake, because as I watched I just became angry. I began to yell at the movie, and I'm not one to talk to movies period. Everyone I know that has even glimpsed this movie has agreed its the worst they've ever seen. My sense of humor is sick and twisted and often offends my friends, but that could not save this movie even. The fact that this movie is not on the bottom 100 list on IMDb is astounding. The fact that its rating (at the time of this writing) is 3.6 is a crime against humanity.
This is the worst movie I've ever seen in my life. This is saying quite a bit, considering some of the choices I've made in film rentals.<br /><br />I got this on netflix based entirely on the fact that someone I went to high school with is topless in it. The topless scene lasted all of about 5 seconds and the rest of the movie was about as much fun as having pungee sticks driven underneath my toenails whilst being forced to listen to Roseanne sing Big Spender.<br /><br />The "skits" are stupid and consist of the worst kind of juvenile bathroom humor and locker-room gags, and it's such a blatant (and poor) rip-off of The Kentucky Fried Movie that you'll be begging for Big Jim Slade to crash through the wall and save us from the stupidity of "Vince Offer" (whoever that is).<br /><br />Unless you are a masochist, avoid this pile of rubbish.
I'm into bad movies but this has NOTHING going for it. Despite what the morons above have said, it is NOT funny. I know comedy AND underground movies but this is so boring that the Director / Writer should be prohibited from EVER directing anything but local cable access EVER again! To love movies and comedy is to despise this film. I may never get over how unfunny and boring this work was. If you like this movie you ARE a pothead as sober there is NOTHING here. ZERO! If you need to compare underground movies, see "Kentucky Fried Movie" or early John Waters. The movie starts by defining satire and I defy anyone to show me the satire. The rule for comedy is THIS ... If it's FUNNY you can say or do ANYTHING but if it's NOT funny you are not satirical, you are not edgy, you are merely pathetic and this movie is simply not funny. ZERO!
And I repeat, please do not see this movie! This is more than a review. This is a warning. This sets the record for the worst, most effortless comedy ever made. At least with most of the recent comedies nowadays, the gags are crude and flat, but the writers and directors put in at least some sort of effort into making them funny. I never get tired of repeating one of my favorite mottos: Everyone thinks they can do comedy, and only 10 percent of them are right. Comedy is hard! This is not some genre any fool can play around with. I think it's atrocious that the filmmakers are comparing this piece of garbage to "Kentucky Fried Movie." Basically, these bozos are comparing their so-called comic talents to those of the brilliant Jim Abrahams and the Zucker Brothers. Come on, I've seen Pauly Shore movies that are 10 times funnier than "The Underground Comedy Movie." Here's a sample of the comedy for those curious about seeing this movie: One sketch involves a superhero dressed like a penis named D**kman. The whole joke is that he defeats his enemies by squirting them with semen. That's it. That's the whole joke. Wow. This is enough to make Carrot Top roll his eyes. Another sketch involves a man having sex with a dead person in a porn movie. And in another sketch, there's a bag lady beauty contest, in which we're exposed to the horrible sights of bikini-clad middle-aged women with beer guts and stretch marks. Plus, making fun of the homeless is more sad than funny. It's a step away from mocking the mentally handicapped. The whole movie is supposed to be a satire. I think the filmmakers forgot that a key element of satire...is TRUTH!!! For anybody who actually enjoyed this crap, explain to me what is truthful about ANY of these gags! Some of the sketches might've sounded funny on paper, but anybody who's taken any screen writing classes knows that if a sight gag sounds too funny on paper, it probably won't be funny on screen. If I tell someone about a big, black, muscular gay virgin, who's saving himself for the right man, he or she would probably laugh. But watching the premise played out on screen for about 10 minutes is a complete drag. I hate how whenever people criticize a low-brow comedy like this for not being funny, they're regarded as stuck-up squares. I just saw "White Chicks" recently. That's another low-brow, politically incorrect comedy, but I laughed my head off. The most offensive thing about "The Underground Comedy Movie" is it's not funny! What the writers and directors don't understand is that merely being filthy and tasteless doesn't work. There has to be more! Just think of the famous scene from "There's Something About Mary" (ironically, enough the bozo filmmakers put the Farrellys on their special thanks list). The joke about the semen wasn't just funny because it involved bodily fluids. There was a buildup. Ben Stiller was masturbating in the bathroom to make sure he didn't go out on a date with a "loaded gun." Then he looked around to see where all the semen went after it was released. A knock is on the door, and he has to answer it. His date, Mary, is at the door and that's when it's revealed that the semen is hanging off Ben's ear. In this movie, there are multiple gags involving characters squirting loads of semen at people, with no buildup whatsoever. As Jay Leno always says, "This comedy thing's not so easy, is it?" Keep that in mind, Vince Offer, 'cause you weren't cut out for this genre!! The only reason people might laugh at these gags is because they want to feel hip. Let's face it, nowadays it's hip to laugh at anything politically incorrect. I know comedy is subjective...but this movie shouldn't be funny to anybody, except maybe the filmmakers themselves. As a side note, the movie had to have been made before Michael Clarke Duncan's fame in movies like "Armageddon" and "The Green Mile." There can't be any other reason why an actor of his caliber would volunteer to be part of this amateurish freak show. All the others in the cast are either non-actors, has-been actors or B-movie stars. Karen Black made a good impression in "Five Easy Pieces," but I don't think she's done anything of value ever since. Slash was probably drugged into being in this film. Gina Lee Nolin is nothing without "Baywatch." Angelyne is the film's biggest star (keeping in mind Duncan wasn't famous at the time), and there are still probably a ton of people who haven't heard of her--for good reason. Usually, I'm in support of extremely low-budget flicks, but this one deserves to drift into obscurity. I hope to Lord this doesn't become a cult classic! Shouldn't there be a law against distributing crap like this?
A series of painfully unfunny skits that seem to go on forever and a day. Not as mind-numbingly awful as say "Freddy Got Fingered" or "Lost Reality", but that in NO way is an endorsement in ANY way, sense or form. Features the worst rhyming clown ever. Any most if it isn't offensive to anybody but the most prudish or politically correct. It also has the worst song parody EVER put on film, the WORST Arnold impersonation EVER (not just the worst put on film, literally the worst EVER). I have NO clue why Karen Black, Micheal Clarke Duncan, or Slash would star in this (the reasons I watched this in the first place) The only thing mildly amusing was Dickman. In conclusion I would't recommend this film to ANYONE, but the people who are making it their mission in life to get this in the Bottom 250 on this site are pathetic. Do something notable with you lives people. Plus if it's true the Church of Scientalogy hates him, he can't be ALL bad.<br /><br />My Grade: D
This movie doesn't even deserve a one. This was an utter waste of time. It was a waste of film and money. It was not offensive but everything was provocative and disgusting. My spoiler is one that I think should be read by everyone. There is full frontal nudity and disgusting language. But not only that, there is NO plot line, the actors are terrible, the accents are horrible, the actors are small time and I was even EXCITED to watch this movie! <br /><br />The only reason I rented it was for Brian van Holt (who got only a fifteen second part, by the way). I think this might have been a mistake on the directors and editors parts but they repeated the same segments two or three times, adding only a new sentence.<br /><br />A film similar to this is Eraser Head, possibly the most disturbing movie in existence. There is no plot line, and is not funny. Although it isn't trying to be funny. DO NOT WATCH EITHER MOVIE.
I rated this movie as AWFUL (1). After watching the trailer, I thought this movie could be pretty cool. "Guaranteed to offend...everyone!" the trailer said. Well...it did offend me, because this movie really sucks. It is hardly a comedy, as I laughed about two seconds during the entire movie. And what's with all the gays in this movie? I'm not gay and I don't have a problem with those who are, but what's the point of adding so many gay-scenes in a so called comedy movie, when these scenes are absolutely not funny? I guess the director is a gay man in denial, or something like that.<br /><br />So my advice to you is: if you want to waste good money, go rent a good comedy you've already seen a million times, you'll be better off than watching this Mother Of All Lousy Comedy's. It really is total crap.
I bought this at tower records after seeing the info-mercial about fifteen hundred times on comedy central. I was actually really looking forward to watching this. My god where did i go wrong? Now before i give my review let me just say that i am a person who can pretty much find the good in all movies, hell i own over 1,500 dvd's! With that said, the underground comedy movie ranks up there with the worst film i have EVER seen. I tried to give it a chance, but not only was it not funny. It had no point, did not offend what-so-ever and was all around stupid. God who in their right mind thought these pieces of crap were funny? this is going right to the bottom of the bin...
For shame, for shame that a fine actor such as Joseph Fiennes would allow himself to be cast in this piece of nauseating drivel. The movie was not only bad, but down right horrible and of no redeeming quality. The plot, (was there one?) seemed to go no where. The Russians played silly kill or be killed games and the rest of the cast should be declared null and void for their pathetic performances. I gave up about 3/4 of the way through and turned it off. A "1" for awful only because there is nothing lower. Don't waste your time on this one, you'll not miss anything.
Adrian has just gone out of the asylum, being rich and with no parents, his life seems empty. One day, he meets Gonzalo, a poor boy whom mother is prostitute. Desperate for earning some money, Gonzalo helps Adrian to search about his life and who where his parents. This is a movie from a new director, and it is perfectly clear in most of the film: scenes not correctly directed, dialogues a little forced, some incoherences in the script...Anyway, the ending is unexpectedly well done (well, just a little) and that saves a little the film. Actors are known and with great quality, nevertheless, they are not inspired enough to make the movie interesting; all of them have done better papers in other film. The film results boring and probably you will spend most of the time thinking how much time will pass until it ends. Of course there are lots of worse films, but, sure, there are many many better ones.
To start with, I have to point out the fact that you're gonna feel completely lost for more than half an hour. Yeah, some things happen, but you don't know why or what for. When you finally figure things out you just realize that it's nothing but a twisted soad opera, dealing with mature prostitutes, dead mothers, illegitimate sons... The characters are rather poor and the actors (specially the young ones) don't help that much to make'em look credible. Only Marisa Paredes stands out, but she's a superb actress, no matter if the movie is pure rubbish.<br /><br />The only positive things to say about "Frío Sol De Invierno" is that débutant Pablo Malo seems to have good intentions, and he's filmed a couple of scenes that are quite intense... Well, maybe the next time...<br /><br />*My rate: 4/10
This movie should be called "plan 9 from joseph smith." i think its weirdness is underappreciated. the playwright seems to have read paul ehrlich's "the population bomb (1968)," and crafted a musical response made especially for mormons. the whole point of the play is that having as many children as you can is part of "heavenly father's" (god's) plan. and anything that stands in the way of having more babies is very bad. get it?<br /><br />This version was filmed in 1989, which is confusing. it's utah, so it looks and feels like 1983, the play was actually written in 1973, and of course, the theology is part 1840's, part battlestar galactica. some of the action takes place on earth and some in the "pre-existence, an aimless romper-room where annoying kids wait to get their bodies so they can come down try not to slam the door on the missionaries, losing their shot at celestial glory.<br /><br />it is as stagey as they come, but don't let the poor theatrics spoil your appreciation for this demented mormon universe where the 'cool kids' are all into population control, (presumably) counseling their parents not to have any more children!! having big families was, at the time the play was written, the cultural norm in the lds community, and more importantly, considered part of God's plan. the church has since done a 180, and have made family planning a choice of the parents, and large families are much less the cultural norm now. making the entire doctrinal premise of the movie for a modern-day mormon moot!<br /><br />ahhh but it's really only as good as the music. there are some catchy tunes here that just won't let this movie die the 1970's death it was pre-destined for. the brother and sister sing some love songs to each other that make you wonder if maybe something else was going on there --wink. and the tough, cool kids make new kids on the block look like metallica. so cheers to all that! gather the family around, make some jell-o shooters and enjoy the show!<br /><br />
I gave 1 to this film. I can't understand how Ettore Scola,one of the greater directors of Italian cinema, made a film like this, so stupid and ridiculous! All the stories of the people involved in the movie are unsubstantial,boring and not interesting. Too long,too boring. The only things I save in this movie are Giancarlo Giannini and Vittorio Gasmann. Hope that Scola will change radically themes and style in his next film.
I've said this in other reviews, without a story, you can give the audience all the smoke and mirrors you want, still no one will give a damn.<br /><br />The director seems to have a great eye for 30s art deco (which I love), and I think the idea of using all digital backgrounds and such could indeed be the wave of the future in movie making. However, it's obvious the director got so interested in the digital rendering of his movie, he forgot to film many scenes which would have enormously helped this surprisingly thinned-plotted film. (SPOILER) For crying out loud, they forgot to have a villain in this thing! OK they have one, but he's been dead for 20 years by the time the movie takes place. Conran misses the point of HAVING a villain. As far as action goes, well let's see, Sky Captain (Law) shoots down ONE robot, two or three of the flapping wing airplanes (before Dex (Ribisi) tells him to stop shooting them down!!!), and a couple robots, but mostly spends his time looking dashing and getting others to fight his battles for him. Paltrow as Polly or Peggy or Punky or whatever is totally wasted in this movie (the reviewer who comments on hers and Law's lack of chemistry is so right) and I for one got a little sick of seeing repeated shots of the top of her camera, showing she ONLY HAS TWO SHOTS LEFT, both of which she wastes subsequently in the movie, one uncomically, one quite funny, although I saw it coming from 70 years away. No one except Law and Paltrow have any significant time on screen, and that's the movie's real flaw. An audience doesn't identify with robots, they need a hero to root for, and a visible, despicable villain to hate. Without that, plus a good engaging story, all the CG in the world won't help.
This movie feels so EMPTY. IN every scene in the movie the maximum number of actors on the screen is like 10. Because everything was shot in front of a blue screen there are never really any extras and the movie just feels weird.<br /><br />The ACTING was HORRIBLE! It's so obvious this was in front of a blue screen because all of the action scenes you can see the actor/actress wondering around half running when they should be running for their lives.. Looking at the floor for their marks...<br /><br />Spoilers: Also you'll find yourself banging your head watching the movie. At one point at Sky Captain's home base they have like 100 planes sitting on the airstrip. They have advanced warning an attack is coming... So what do they do? nothing. All of the planes get blown up and yet again the ONLY person fighting back is the Sky Captain...<br /><br />THE ENTIRE world is under attack and he's the ONLY person ever fighting back. At the very end of the movie you see hundreds of plains taking off finally... but what do they do? Nothing... the movie is over...
What a waste of time! I've tried to sit through 'Sky Captain.." about 6 times, and every time, within about 3 minutes, I start doing something else - anything else! It's a downright boring movie, the acting is terrible, the writing dull, and obviously a first-time director, because it's stiff. And I wanted to love it. I love sci-fi, the old cliffhangers, and I can appreciate the attempt at nods to Flash Gordon, and Metropolis, but my God, what a waste of money. I used to work for Paramount Pictures, and I had written Sherry Lansing in 1993 about using blue screen for screen tests. She told me they'd never have an interest or need to do it. 10 years later, Paramount releases this piece of crap. Sherry was right in 1993, but must have forgotten her own advice when she greenlighted this dog. Blue screen an effect shot, but not an entire movie. Let's not forget, neither Jude nor Jolie are terrific actors (but easy on the eyes). Paltrow's performance reminds me of a high school effort. Too bad - it could've worked, but only under a skilled director. the funny thing is, Sky Captain's director will keep getting work, even after this dreck. It's commerce, not art!
In a word, this film was boring. It lacked life and spark. A big problem is with the two leads. Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow had no chemistry whatsoever. He was boring, and she was annoying. <br /><br />The visuals were interesting, but they didn't enhance the scenes. If anything, the visuals tended to detach the audience from what was happening on screen. None of the action sequences felt real, and hence, the film failed to create any real drama or a sense of danger.<br /><br />The film had potential, but it needed a better script, better acting, and a better director. I kept thinking during the film, you know, this movie would've worked if Harrison Ford was Sky Captain, Karen Allen was Polly, and Steven Spielberg was the director. <br /><br />Ignore the critical acclaims for this film. The critics I think are praising the film because they *want* to like it and want it to succeed even though it fails on so many different levels.
"Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" (an amazingly incovenient title) is simply a bad movie; it has no heart, no deep ideas, nothing very special about it. Yes, the CGI backgrounds look interesting, but the result is that the whole thing is shot in an annoying soft focus. Additionally, the movie uses music the same way as, say, "Gilligan's Island" or the Scooby-Doo cartoons-- IT NEVER STOPS. Terribly, simply terrible. There are no fresh ideas, either, just gobs and gobs and gobs and... etc., of bits taken from older movies and serials. There is no gatekeeper here, the movie just seems to exist because it can. Save your money and your time. Not entertaining at all.
Visually interesting, but falls flat in the originality department. This tedious excercise in technique wears thin after the opening battle. Jude Law has the charisma of burnt toast, but in his defense this film contains some of the worst dialogue I have ever seen on the big screen. In fact the script is so poor that it keeps taking you out of the film, and had me thinking about work, bills, my dogs, etc. There are many moments that scream bluescreen. Paltrow is as wooden as they get. This could of been saved by snappy film noir dialogue or over the top camp. My only complaint on the technique is that Black & White film (sorry, computer) would of helped because it looks like Turner colorized black and white. Just a big dull cliché mess. I would rather break my femur than sit through this endurance test again.
"Sky Captain" may be considered an homage to comic books, pulp adventures and movie serials but it contains little of the magic of some of the best from those genres. One contributor says that enjoyment of the film depends on whether or not one recognizes the films influences. I don't think this is at all true. One's expectations of the films,fiction and serials that "Captain" pays tribute to were entirely different. Especially so for those who experienced those entertainments when they were children. This film is almost completely devoid of the charm and magnetic attraction of those. Of course we know the leads will get into and out of scrapes but there has to be some tension and drama. Toward the climax of "Captain" Law and Paltrow have ten minutes to prevent catastrophe and by the time they get down to five minutes they are walking not running toward their goal. They take time out for long looks and unnecessary conversation and the contemplation of a fallen foe with 30 seconds left to tragedy. Of course one expects certain conventions to be included but a good director would have kept up some sense of urgency.<br /><br />One doesn't expect films like this to necessarily "make sense". One does expect them to be fun, thrilling and to have some sense of interior logic. "Captain" has almost none. Remember when Law and Paltrow are being pursued by the winged creatures and they reach a huge chasm which they cross via a log bridge? Well how come they are perfectly safe from those creatures when they reach the other side? They can FLY!!! The chasm itself means nothing to them. The bridge is unnecessary for them so where is the escape? If the land across the chasm is 'forbidden' to the flying creatures the film made no effort to let us know how or why or even if.<br /><br />I know that Paltrow and Law (both of whom have given fine performances in the past) were playing "types" but both were pretty flat. Only Giovanni Ribisi (who showed himself capable of great nuance here) and Angelina Jolie seemed to give any "oomph" to their roles although Omid Djalili seemed like he could have handled a little more if he'd only been given the chance. He did a pretty good job anyway considering how he was basically wasted.<br /><br />The film had a great 'look' but there are so many ways in which CGI distracts. CGI works best when it is used for the fantastical, when it is used to create creatures who don't exist in nature or for scientific or magical spectacular. When it is used to substitute for natural locations it disappoints. There is no real sense of wonder. A CGI mountain doesn't have any of the stateliness or sense of awe and foreboding that a real mountain does. I know that the design of this film was quite deliberate and it wasn't necessarily supposed to LOOK real but shouldn't it FEEL that way? It just didn't. <br /><br />As for the weak and clichéd script...homage is no excuse. Even so, had the movie had some thrills and dramatic tension it might still have been enjoyable. "The Last Samurai" was as predictable as the days of the week and I am no fan of Tom Cruise but it had everything that "Captain" didn't most notably it drew the viewer into its world and made us accept its rules and way of being in a way that "Sky Captain" most definitely did not.<br /><br />I'd like to see a similar approach taken for films about comic book heroes of the 30's and 40's. The original (Jay Garrick) Flash or Green Lantern (Alan Scott) come to mind as being ripe for such treatment. Maybe the better, more well known and fully realized characters that those character are would make for a much better film. It would be hard to be worse.
Sky Captain is possibly the best awful movie I've seen in a long while. Rife with amazing CG and special effects, studded with an A-list cast (Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie and the infinitely likable Giovanni Ribisi) and racing along with an overused but Indiana Jones-esquire storyline, this should have been a great movie to watch.<br /><br />'Should have' being the key term here, of course.<br /><br />Jude Law plays Joe the Sky Captain with a dashing accent and plenty of over-the-shoulder, heart-melting smirks, but you can't make something out of nothing, and even his flippant deliveries and boyish good looks can't save the movie's stone dialogue. (If he had slapped Giovanni Ribisi on the back and said, "Good boy, Dex," just ONE more time, I might have barfed all over the guy in front of me.) Gwyneth Paltrow, as Polly Perkins, is nothing less than nerve grating. Her nasal whining and not-quite-sarcastic comments get old in the first ten minutes of the movie. Perhaps she put too much effort into playing the stereotypical 30's comic book heroine- who knows? I expected more from her. An example of how a similar character was played (and played well) is in the late 90's flick "The Phantom," starring Kristy Swanson and Billy Zane. Rent the movie and you'll know what I mean.<br /><br />Giovanni Ribisi and Angelina Jolie were the saving graces in the film. (Angelina Jolie was incredibly hot in that eyepatch. I'll admit it.) In just a few short scenes, both actors somehow managed to rise above the tired material and deliver a more riveting performance than their dry, two-dimensional castmates.<br /><br />The plot and steady story progression were old, boring, and basically just a monotonous combination of every good scene from an action movie in the past thirty years. The pace is rapid-fire in the first half of the movie, and a snail's pace in the second, giving the audience enough time not only to guess the eventual conclusion of the film, but to figure out who the key villain is as well. The pairing is rather clichéd, also- Polly Perkins and Sky Captain apparently reunite after several years of separation from a bitterly-ended romance, and their story isn't so much charming and eclectic as it is annoying and mismatched. When they finally come to terms with their mutual feelings towards the end of the film, nobody's surprised, and nobody really cares either.<br /><br />Props to the director for appreciating Bai Ling enough to dress her in skintight vinyl for the entirety of the film, and also for the intriguing sepia tones that served as coloration throughout. But Sky Captain, despite having all the essential elements of being a great movie, falls flat on its face. Not even worth the $2.75 I paid to get into the theater.
I like the time period, I like the attempt, but watching a movie that looks like I'm looking at it through a coke bottle gives me a headache. If I played computer games that were this blurry and out of focus, I would upgrade my computer. Could be that this was the look the director was after, but not so it hurts the eyes and you want to leave after 10 minutes. If I hadn't taken someone with me to this film, I was out of there. Even though it was a series and not a movie per say, Band of Brothers accomplished this. They made it look like WWII footage, with just a touch of graininess, but it was still a pleasure to watch. Movies need real people, with real sets, and real locations; Use CGI when it is appropriate, not for an entire film.
Visually stunning? Most definitely. I have seen few films look this good in some time. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow uses striking cinematography, computer graphics, and creative futuristic designs to create a world that is historically familiar yet something quite fresh. The time period seems to be the 1930s or early 40s. The movie tells of recent attacks on New York City by mechanized armies stealing generators and the like for some inexplicable reason. Also, mysterious disappearances of relevant scientific minds coincide. Who can stop them and save the world? Alright, it doesn't take a leap of faith to know it is the Sky Captain himself with his wisecracking reporter girlfriend always hot for a lead, and in the wings his trusty, thoroughly competent sidekick. What Sky Captain has in atmosphere and graphics it lacks in storytelling and characterization. The plot for this film is ridiculous. That being said, the film is going for a serial-like feeling of film serials of yesteryear. They had pretty far out stories and bad acting - but none of them, and I mean none of them, had the budget and big names this film had. Two academy award winning performers and Jude Law could keep a film afloat, one would think, but Sky Captain sinks miserably. Despite its fantastic dark look, I found myself wishing the film would just end and I could get on with my life. I had little interest in a story that generated little interest. I didn't care at all for any of the glib portrayals. Paltrow was just awful. Jolie was a joke with a role with virtually no substance. Law cannot carry the one-liner tradition all too squarely on his limited shoulders. I mean, let's face it, he's not Will Smith, Mel Gibson, or even Wesley Snipes. The sad thing about Sky Captain, at least for me, was that it held so much promise yet delivered so little. I was bored ten minutes into the film - waiting for something to hook my interest - and it never came.
A gave it a "2" instead of a "1" (awful) because there is no denying that many of the visuals were stunning, a lot of talent went into the special effects and artwork. But that wasn't enough to save it.<br /><br />The "sepia" toned, washed out colors sort of thing has been done before many times in other movies. Nothing new there. I can see there were some hat-tips to other old, classic movies. OK. No problem with that.<br /><br />But a movie has got to be entertaining and interesting, not something that would put you to sleep.<br /><br />The story line and the script of this movie WAS awful, the characters two dimensional. Slow moving. Some of the scenes were pretty to look at, but ultimately, as a whole, it was quite boring, I couldn't recommend it.
This movie was way over-hyped. A lot of the viewers, who thought this was "amazing" must have been into the old school movies, cause the whole movie is set in the past. At first I thought the movie was just showing something from the past, so I was expecting that faded dreamy like lighting on the characters to pass, but it just going. Basically this was a movie trying to mix the future with the past, and the 2 don't mix very well in this movie, even with special effects. You could actually see the blue screen the actors were working with. There are too many movies out there that do exactly what this movie did, so there is no reason for critics to hype this movie up saying "it's the greatest movie ever done". It's just crap on a stick. It also didn't help that the story line was sooo crappy. I don't understand why Hollywood agreed to have this movie produced, and I also don't understand how actors/actresses in this movie are willing to be in a movie like this. It's almost as though everybody read the script and forgot to read the fine print..."It will all be done on a computer". This was a movie that should have been on a movie network, because nothing about this movie was revolutionary. I'm very upset with myself for paying money to see this. Whatever you do, don't waste your time and money on this movie today or tomorrow.
The exploding zeppelins crashing down upon 'Sky Captain' Jude Law's base present an adequate metaphor to describe how truly terrible this movie is. First off, let me state right off the bat that I sincerely doubt that Paramount will ever recover any money from this film. A cult hit it might become, but only because it is so remarkable for what it failed to achieve. I can see the studio pitch now. "Let's combine 1920's German Expressionism and a 1940's globetrotting adventure with a modern action flick and use computer animation to dominate every scene! Wow, won't that be a success! " Skycaptain bludgeons the viewer with its sheer excess. There are too many fake explosions, too many unconvincing dogfight scenes, and too few real moments where the characters are anything but painfully two-dimensional. After all, why shock and awe with one floating airship when you can have three, or five, or one hundred?! Moreover, what could have been a groundbreaking film, seamlessly combining computer generated imagery and human actors in a stylized and intriguing setting, will instead become a flop in no small part because it fails to meet the most important requirement of any flick using CGI. Quite simply, the graphics are amazingly poor. From the movement of the cars to the physics of the aircraft in the dogfights, everything seems to be just a little off. I'm not being nit-picky here in any way. An infant could notice that a car doesn't glide along the road like a maglev train (unless its a Mercedes S500). And for those of you raising your voices in protest, crying out 'This is a stylized film, it's not supposed to be like reality', let me just say this. Lord of the Rings has set the standard for integrating real-life actors with CGI, Starship Troopers has set the standard for ironic science fiction films, the Rocketeer did a solid job reintroducing the decade of the 1920's back into the Hollywood film portfolio, and Tim Burton's Batman created a unique picture of New York City/Gotham that has yet to be repeated. Sky Captain falls so short of all these films, it is hard for me to mention them in the same sentence. Plus, the acting is so poor, it makes me positively ill. So there you have it. I spent $9 to see this film and you get my review. I hope it might dissuade you all from making the same mistake that I did.
I entered the theater to Sky Captain in 2004 expecting a good film. Nearly every review of this movie had been positive, the effects looked enticing, the previews convincing.<br /><br />Needless to say, disappointment actually doesn't describe the feeling I got from this film. It was rage.<br /><br />Beyond being boring and poorly written, the reason this film gets a 2 out of 10 stars is because everything in the film was stolen from another source. I understand the difference between an homage and stealing: this was stealing. More importantly, it seems that the filmmakers didn't steal to progress a point or move the plot along. They stole just to show that they could. There is literally no point to showing a clip of The Wizard of Oz in a theater at the beginning of the movie except to set up another scene (that I won't elaborate on) which steals from the same film. Needless to say, every concept in the film was neither original nor even a spin on an old concept: it was literally just a rehash of something I had already seen, from pulp-era robots reminiscent of the old Superman Cartoons and the recent film "The Iron Giant", to the silent martial artist minion of the villain that has been used in countless films, most recognizable in recent years as Darth Maul in "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace".<br /><br />On the subject of the actual film, most of the performances were completely wooden. Perhaps this is because the entire movie was done on a blue-screen, with computer imagery filling in everything save the actors. Frankly, this is no excuse for poor acting. If a person was ever a child, they understand that a lack of visual reference is no excuse for not trying.<br /><br />Finally, there is no humanity in this film. The protagonists are the only real human beings here. Nearly all the antagonists are robots, and the number of friendly characters that are shown during the film can be counted on one hand. If robots are attacking the entire planet, shouldn't we expect to see masses of humanity running from them? The sub-par performance of the main characters prevents us from connecting to, really, anything here.<br /><br />The film wasn't the worst movie out there, which is why I didn't give it a 1. Rather, the film was an example of all that is wrong with modern action films: the filmmakers tried to justify the movie with special effects, but without artistic vision or originality of any kind, it falls flat.
When robot hordes start attacking major cities, who will stop the madman behind the attacks? Sky Captain!!! Jude Law plays Joe Sullivan, the ace of the skyways, tackling insurmountable odds along with his pesky reporter ex-girlfriend Polly Perkins (Gwyneth Paltrow) and former flight partner, Captain Franky Cook (Angelina Jolie).<br /><br />Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow may look and feel like an exciting movie but it really is quite dull and underwhelming. The film's running time is 106 minutes yet it feels so much longer because there is no substance in this movie. The visuals were great and the film did a nice job on that. However, there is nothing to support these wonderful visuals. The film lacks a story and interesting characters making the while thing quite dull and unnecessary. I blame director and writer Kerry Conran. He focuses too much on the visuals and spent little time on the actual story. The movie is like a girl with no personality, after awhile it kind of gets bland and tiring. Sky Captain represents a beautiful girl with no personality. It's simply just another case of style over substance.<br /><br />The acting is surprisingly average and that's not really their fault since they had very little to work with. The main reason I watched this movie is because of Angelina Jolie. However, the advertising is quite misleading and she is only in the film for about 30 minutes. Her performance is surprisingly bland as well. Jude Law gives an okay performance though you would expect a lot more from him. Gwyneth Paltrow was just average, nothing special at all. Ling Bai's performance was the only one I really liked. She gives a pretty good performance as the mysterious woman and she was the only interesting character in the entire film.<br /><br />The movie is not a complete bust though. There were some "wow" and exciting scenes. There just weren't enough of them. The film just doesn't have that hook to really make it memorable. It was actually quite bland and it wasn't very engaging at all. It's too bad the film wasn't very good since it had such a promising premise. In the end, Sky Captain is surprisingly below average and not really worth watching. Rating 4/10
In short, this movie is completely worthless.<br /><br />The idea is to make movie from the point of view of what someone from the early 1900s might think of the future. An interesting idea, but the lack of compelling story or characters prevents us from ever suspending our disbelief, so the idea just flops.<br /><br />Apparently the whole movie was done with actors in front of green screens and we are supposed to be impressed. But as a graphics person, the over softening was an obvious crutch for hiding the difficult sharp edge problem with green screening. The color is majorly washed out to no relevant effect except reduce the visual quality. And I don't understand why anyone would consider anything rendered in this movie to be in any way ground breaking. If anything, the ridiculous retrograde graphics have lowered the bar for really bad graphics -- they don't measure up even to the ancient Jurassic Park graphics. The models for the robots were so simple, plain and very uncompelling. There were a bunch of weirdo prehistoric-like animals on that island, but they are not explained in any way.<br /><br />The story is horrible beyond belief. In fact I can't believe I didn't just walk out of this movie. The relationship between Polly and Joe is unmotivated, and throughout the movie is based on distrust and deception. Why is the Morris Paley character even there? We are not in any way convinced that Joe is heroic -- I mean he flies a plane, and saved one person (Polly) for personal reasons. Yeah there's a great hero for you. Dex has very little screen time, so why are we supposed to care about Joe wanting to save him? Who were the Nepalease that locked Joe and Polly in the mine vault, and why would they do it (remembering that the entire Totenkopf operation was robotic)?<br /><br />Plot holes: (1) Why did Bai Ling's character (a major fall from her excellent character in "The Crow") halt the robots who had captured Joe? They were looking for the vials, and had not found them. (2) Why in the hell would Dex be captured but not killed (he doesn't have or know about the vials, and the bad guys didn't know that Polly had the vials and was connected to Joe and therefore to Dex)? (3) Polly indicates that "they" don't know anything about Totenkopf, yet she has some secret source about him that contains what appears to be a fairly complete FBI-style file on him. (4) The blank spot on the map as described by the Nepalese -- if they know all about this mysterious area, then why the hell is their map blank in that spot? (5) At one point, Polly and Joe have to give up their clothes (they are burned) -- Joe is given new clothes that were identical to his old clothes, yet Polly is forced to wear some very odd looking bulky dress, then in the same line of continuity suddenly Polly has her original clothes back.<br /><br />*sigh*. How far off am I supposed to switch my brain to watch this crap?<br /><br />We are supposed to be exhilarated by the over produced music, even when nothing interesting or remotely exhilarating is happening on screen.<br /><br />And the acting? We're supposed to be impressed with a bunch of bad British accents? Which character isn't annoying? I think Ling Bai's dialogue was probably the best in the whole movie (she doesn't have a single line). The dialogue wasn't camp, and doesn't even rise to the level of cheese. Its just bad and annoying. These people aren't hero's or compelling; they are the kind of people you would try to ignore or disassociate with if you ever had the misfortune of meeting them in real life.<br /><br />I can't believe that this movie gets an above average rating here on IMDb. IMHO it should be competing with "Batman Forever" in the bottom 100 of all time.
I saw this movie last month at a free sneak preview and I walked out. It was pretty horrible. In the process of trying too hard, they over acted and made a horrible movie. I was disappointed since I felt all the actors had made respectable choices in the past so this one couldn't be that far off the mark--but, I was wrong. I was hoping they would give out a survey at the end of the movie so I could tell them not to release this movie. I was lured in by the free aspect of the preview, but it turned out to be a waste of my time--and, usually, I'm very easily amused. It tried to be innovative and creative with the shots, ideas and filming, but because they threw together so many ideas at once, it failed. I'm not usually picky about movies and I usually don't feel the need to display my opinions about movies, but I had to warn everyone not to watch it. I registered on IMDb just to tell all of you guys
If you are looking for eye candy, you may enjoy Sky Captain. Sky Captain is just a video game injected with live performers. The visials are nice and interesting to look at during the entire movie. Now, saying that, the visuals are the ONLY thing good in Sky Captain.<br /><br />After ten minutes, I knew I was watching one of the worse movies of all time. I was hoping this movie would get better, but it never achieved any degree of interest. After thirty minutes, the urge to walk out kept growing and growing. Now, I own over 2000 movies and have seen probably five times that number. Yet, this is only the second movie I felt like walking out of my entire life.<br /><br />Acting---there is none. The three main performers are pitiful. Jude Law (also in the other movie I wanted to walk out on) is just awful in the title role. I would rather sit through Ben Affleck in Gigli than watch Law again.<br /><br />Paltrow tries SO hard to be campy, that it backfires in her face. The last article I had read said that Paltrow is thinking of staying home and being a mother rather than acting. After this performance, I would applaud that decision.<br /><br />Story---Soap operas are better written. The story behind Sky Captain starts out bad and gets continually worse as it progresses.<br /><br />Directing---none. Everything was put into the special effects that story, acting and directing suffer greatly. Even "the Phantom Menace" had better acting and that is NOT saying a great deal.<br /><br />I would have to give this movie a "0" out of "10". Avoid paying theatre prices and wait until video release.
Unashamedly ambitious sci-fi from Kerry Conran, for whom this is clearly a labour of love. Unfortunately it's just not that good. It all starts well enough - with an epic but restrained score, a mixture of Lucas and Hitchcock style editing and the glossy cinematography of a Spielberg. The movie also references many pulp sci-fi novels, serials and films as diverse as The Day The Earth Stood Still, Superman, Metropolis, Planet Of The Apes, The Iron Giant, Star Wars and The Spy Who Loved Me. The film however, fails to be as good as any one of those for several reasons: the main being that it's such a labour of love, so concerned with throwing everything at the screen and creating a brave new world, Conran actually forgets about making a movie. There is little to no tension, atmosphere or magic on offer here despite aerial battles, dinosaurs and race-against-time set-pieces. Even the noir elements fall flat. This is a broad way of looking at things though - those elements mainly fail because nothing feels at all real and is so obviously fake - the green-screen just looks like a video game half the time and it's obvious the actors have been pasted on afterwards. The actors don't get to do much either - Jude Law is wooden, Gwyneth Paltrow is annoying and stupid, Angelina Jolie is wasted - and it's all because of an awful script - the sort that has to explain nearly everything. It is a decent experience and some might get a nostalgia feel but ultimately this is a pointless step into the world of yesterday. Nice ending though.
Pay no attention to the comments behind the curtain! The majority of people leaving positive comments about this film must be receiving royalties. This is a horrible film in every way. Imagine high school kids with no money and no sense of humor making a slasher/comedy video. They would receive a D for this. College kids would receive an F or asked to leave the school. Since this monstrosity was made by "Professionals" I believe there should be jail time or at least cinema probation. I enjoy watching bad movies Like "Plan 9 From Outer Space" but, this thing doesn't even fall into that category. The script, acting, sound, and directing are so bad that it is virtually unwatchable. If you enjoy watching bad films that are amusing stick with Ed Wood, blaxploitation, or 1970's horror films. After viewing this you get the feeling you've wasted an hour and a half of your life.
By reading the box at the video store this movie looks rather amusingly disturbing. You know the type....funny but supposed to frighten you.... this was not funny or horrific. the writing was lame...the jokes failed to make me laugh even at their extreme mundaneness....they were so expected. the actors didn't even do much with such a not so good script...at least I hope that wasn't their best..watch this movie at your own risk......I give it negative 3 stars outta 10
I went to see this film with low expectations, but hoping to be charmed by seeing my home town on film. Sadly, that's about all I got. The story covers familiar territory (the high school reunion), but the plot is convoluted and supernatural element adds little to this well-worn theme. Though the quality of the acting was good overall, the content of the film was appalling. The sexism of the film was blatant--women are apparently unfulfilled unless they are married, procreating or both (though this was couched as a post-feminist choice ). Worse still was the racism--the shrill Jewish mother, the black man who still lives at home-- and gratuitous cruelty (tormenting the class geek). We should be ashamed if these characters are thought to represent the inhabitants of the city of Kalamazoo, and the writers should be abashed at having brought such broad and cruel stereotypes to the screen.
As a former Kalamazoo resident with a fondness for the town I was looking forward to seeing this movie. But, what a disappointment! Although the acting and the production values aren't bad, the script is awful, the plot is unrealistic, and the theme is disturbing.<br /><br />The main message of this film is that Women are nothing without husbands and children. I can hardly believe how regressive it is in it's view of women. Has the writer been living under a rock? <br /><br />Although I enjoyed seeing my beloved city on the big screen, I wouldn't suggest this movie to anyone. It's terrible. It's an embarrassment to the city it's named after.
One of the serious potential environmental costs of most mining operations is pollution of downstream streams, rivers and lakes with excess sediments and toxins. One of the most serious examples in 19th century USA of excess river sedimentation was caused by hydraulic mining of gold-bearing gravely hills on the sides of the Sacramento Valley in the period from the 1850s to the early 1880s. This process involved directing a high pressure jet of water onto the hillside, causing the material to wash downhill, where the gold could be separated from the gravel and sediment. The sediment then collected in a ditch or stream and most found its way to the Sacramento River or its tributaries. The sediment that stayed in the river bed increased the likelihood of floods in the downstream agricultural fields and towns and created permanent marshes in some areas. Some of the sediment spilled over onto the agricultural fields, where it might cover a standing crop or cover more desirable soil or make plowing difficult. Thus, the conflicting interests of the companies that used hydraulic mining and of the downstream farmers adversely affected by these operations is the subject of this nearly forgotten 1938 color film by Warner.<br /><br />First, we might ask why Warner decided to shoot this film in a rather poor Technicolor, a very rare treatment in 1938. A story about wheat farmers and gold miners wouldn't seem to justify the expense and difficulties of color filming at this time. The answer seems to be the inordinate film time spent indoors, with fancy colorful clothes and ornamentations. Then, we might ask why colorless George Brent was chosen as the leading man and ultimate hero, to be paired with Olivia de Havilland. Among other things, this film really needed a charismatic leading man to carry it. Even the usually colorful Gabby Hayes, in his small role, seemed unusually subdued. Unfortunately, I fell asleep before the apparently more dramatic last part of the film. The portion I saw spent too much time establishing a complicated set of relationships between too many people at the expense of graphically portraying the plight of the chosen wheat baron and perhaps nearby town folk and their attempts to deal with their flood and sedimentation problems. It needed to be more like "The Good Earth", released just the year before. Just maybe it would then have been suitable for a charismatic leading man, such as Errol Flynn. Finally, there is the matter of the inane title. Surely, Warner could have come up with a catchy or more appropriate title. "Gold or Grain" is short and to the point. Incidentally, I understand there is still plenty of gold in 'them thar hills', waiting to be extracted by means other than hydraulic mining.
This movie is a bad to alright rip off of Friday the 13th. The movie is about a killer named Bernie who kills people around a camp councilor training camp. He kills people because the camp councilor training camp is on land that was owned by his father, and when the police came to forcefully take his fathers land they accidentally killed his mother (Another F13th take off). The intro is seeing Bernie killing his first victims. Then we are introduced to a family going camping in the same woods, soon after they arrive they are joined by a strange old man who likes talking about his son. Later we learn that his son is Bernie and that he has him locked up in the back of his caravan after having broken him out of a mental institute. He sets Bernie after the family so they can take their stuff and then the chase is on.<br /><br />This Movie is only recommended to those who enjoy B grade 80's Slashers.
As far as I can tell you, in spite of earlier comments posted by other commentors, this film IS currently available on DVD. I found it only a few weeks ago.<br /><br />It is on the Value DVD label and I paid the grand total of 98 cents plus tax for it. I found it at a 98 cent store among racks of plastic bowls and disposable chopsticks. Now don't you people who shelled out beau coup bucks for the super-duper Swedish import limited edition version feel like you were had??? I thought so.<br /><br />This film was indeed well worth 98 cents. 99 cents, I might start to argue with you. But clearly worth 98 cents. And remember that saying about getting what you pay for. For slasher film mavens only.
IT IS So Sad. Even though this was shot with film i think it stinks a little bit more than flicks like Blood Lake, There's Nothing Out There & . The music they play in this is the funniest stuff i've ever heard. i like the brother and sister in this movie. They both don't try very hard to sound sarcastic when they're saying stuff like "My friends are going to be so jealous!" Hey, whats with the killer only wearing his mask in the beginning? Thats retarded! I practically ignored the second half of this. My favorite part about this movie is the sound effect they use when the killer is using the axe. The same exact sound for every chop!
I love low budget independent films and had high hopes for this one. But this film is static. Never mind the production value, which is very noble for its budget, but the pacing is deadly. Admittedly these folks achieve much with little, but the film fails on the most fundamental level. It's boring. The editing is glacial and the pacing stalls. It should have been 65 minutes. The best thing about the Dr. Jekyll is Mr. Hyde who isn't seen nearly enough. He had the most dramatic potential. Instead we have to suffer through dithering Baltimorean-Brits stammer through endless and tiresome exposition. It feels like a backwater stage play committed to video.<br /><br />Noble efforts by everyone in the production, but a story this tired needed a kick in the pants and funky new low budget technology should have given it a fresh voice. Instead it's just a lame retread.
In sixth grade, every teacher I had decided it would be a great idea to make this movie the curriculum for an entire semester. Every class had something to do with this terrible show. We watched it in English and wrote in journals as if we were one of the characters. In math we talked about charts and other sea crap. In science we talked about whales (which was actually somewhat interesting, so this wasn't a 100% waste of time). All day everyday was torture. Not only that, but they would subject us to this horror twice a day by making us watch it in study hall as well. I could see if this was a new series or something, but it was, like, '93. I'm still trying to block this out.
They made me watch this in school and it was terrible. The movie is outdated. The episodes become confusing because fact is combined with fiction to make the story more interesting.The teachers talked about it as a treat but really it was a painfully boring experience.I have read that very few people who appear in this are actors, but most of them them do what they do in the movie in real life.This accounts for cheesy acting very often. Also, very often the story becomes mildly outrageous and far-fetched. I don't like the way some of the lines were written and wish they had more meaning to them. Though, it was written to be educational, funny, suspenseful, and hip, It ended up being boring, dry, far-fetched, and old. I hope no one takes time to watch this movie because you would be just fine not seeing it.
The major flaw with the film is its uninspired script. It plods back and forth between vignettes of Bettie's story and re-creations of the Klaw short films. While the Klaw re-creations are well done, it is unnecessary to recreate them in their near entirety. Page Richards, while not an amazing actress, does a decent job overall. And, at times, she does bear a remarkable resemblance to Bettie. Also of note is some faithful attention to detail. Costumes and clothing well done, as is some of the set direction. The sets are generally sparse and feel stage-y, but do feel of the era. It is sometimes surprisingly well lit, and the color palette was clearly thought-out to give the overall look a vibrant, retro feel.
This movie was bad beyond belief. I saw it during the 2004 San Francisco Film Festival. Before it started the owner of the theatre got up and told us how half the audience had left the theatre the night before, which happened to be its "world premiere." I don't think anyone in the theatre understood just how bad the movie was going to be at that point. We all understood by the end. <br /><br />Its not a documentary though it was sort of sold as one. Dark Angel was a bad biography and misguided homage to Bettie Paige, in which half the movie is actually just remakes of old Bettie Paige movies. The movie is only 90 minutes long and the content of those 90 minutes is sub par to say the least. A scene would start going then someone would say "wow you're so great Bettie, why don't we make another movie." this would be followed by a 5 minutes of a Bettie Paige remake which was almost as ridiculous as (and even more boring than) the normal part of the movie. by the end of the movie people were laughing every time another Bettie Paige movie remake came up. it was that ludicrous. I heard a lot of laughter in that theatre, but people were not laughing with the movie maker, they were laughing at the movie and its poor content and structure. This was easy to tell as the parts that would get the most laughs were the ones which were supposed to be serious or revelatory. <br /><br />I know movies are expensive. I have seen many cheaply made independent films but somehow the cinematography and quality of this movie set it apart from anything else I have ever seen. The movie looks like it was made for $12. The cuts, the graininess, and the lack of a sensual plot made this a memorable experience. This movie makes "Dude, Where's My Car?" look like Citizen Kane. <br /><br />My friends and I left the theatre feeling like we had just paid 8 dollars to be tortured. The only redeeming part of the experience was that we got to laugh about the fact that someone had actually made this movie and thought it was good. Apparently, the previous night, the night of the "world premiere" the director/writer/producer had been in the audience and had gotten to witness people laugh at and walk out on his movie. Bettie Paige's movies were destroyed. They should destroy this movie too.
I'm kinda torn on DARK ANGEL. The film appears to be a "loving" tribute to the greatest pin-up to ever live - but there is so little actual "content" that the film itself is virtually pointless. I can't really see what the motivation or "point" of this film is - as there is very little biographical information provided in the narrative - so those who don't know much about Bettie aren't gonna know much more after watching DARK ANGEL either...<br /><br />The film basically chronicles the last few years of Bettie's career in bondage modeling. Almost the entire film is comprised of "re-enactments" of some of Bettie's more "famous" photo-shoots and loops. These re-enactments take up literally 75% of the films run-time, and give virtually no insight into Bettie as a person. The film touches briefly on her short-lived legitimate acting pursuits, and her subsequent decision to leave the "business" and become religious - but all of this is pretty much glossed-over in favor of showing long and drawn-out re-enactment scenes...<br /><br />DARK ANGEL isn't a horrible film - there's just no substance to it. The other problem is that the actress that plays Bettie only really resembles her in farther away shots - up-close it's a no-go. The other thing that irritated me, is that although Bettie did several topless modeling shoots - the only nudity in the film was a short segment shot in a zoo during the end credits. The film itself is obviously extremely low-budget, but does what it can set and costume-wise within it's limitations - so no gripes from me there. The acting is pretty wooden and unmemorable from everyone involved. In fact - the most memorable thing about the whole film for me, was noticing during the end credits that the actor who played Irving Klaw's real name is Dukey Flyswatter. No joke - check the cast list. Can't say that I recommend this one too highly unless you are a true Bettiefile completist and must own anything relating to her. And if you are that bad off - then you need to seek treatment anyway...4/10
This documentary is a reenactment of the last few years of Betty Page's(Paige Richards) career. The Tennessee tease was the most recognizable pin-up queen in history. Her most memorable work came in the 1950's and was fetish photos, bondage and cat-fight "girly flicks". Irving Klaw(Dukey Flyswatter)at his Movie Star News instructed Betty on what to do in front of the camera. There was no nudity in the famous photos or "stag films", but nonetheless, Klaw was charged with distributing obscene materials and was ordered to destroy them to avoid prosecution. It is no surprise that Betty had a cult following at the height of her career. The girl-next-door with jet black hair, blue eyes and an hour glass figure dressed in fetish gear or not would mesmerize for decades. After all, it has been said that she was photographed more than Marilyn Monroe and second only to the most photographed image in the world, Elvis Presley. Betty Page would disappear and devote her last years to religion. This movie actually could have been a lot better; but good enough to hold interest.<br /><br />Miss Richards is stunning in her own right. Bra, panties, garter belt and hose do not hurt her image in the least. Also in the cast: Jaimie Henkin, Jana Strain, Emily Marilyn and Julie Simone. Be advised this movie can change your heart rate.
...and even then, even they can live without seeing it. To be honest, this film (if one deigns to call it that) is of real interest only to bondage freaks. Bettie Page fans will learn absolutely nothing new (and I do mean *nothing*), nor will they enjoy the warm fuzzies of experiencing anything familiar, loved, or cherished.<br /><br />Nevermind the abysmal screenplay, the wooden, less-than-community-theater acting, the utter absence of direction, the crappy lighting, or any of the rest of the bargain basement production values. This is definitely "Hey, kids, let's make a movie!" movie-making of the lowest order. I suppose one could be thankful that at least they knew how to run the camera. No, I'm sorry to say that none of that is germane to why this thing is so outright *wrong*.<br /><br />It's wrong because the young lady playing Bettie Page, a somewhat zaftig girl whose only resemblance to the Queen of Curves is dark hair and the trademark bangs, utterly fails to bring anything to the role beyond a willingness to be bound and gagged. This is apparently a good thing for her film career before and since this wretched excess, but not for the wretched excess itself, which consists primarily of a number of lovingly re-enacted B&D set-pieces sandwiched between horrendously awful faux-biographical scenes delineating Ms. Page's fall from grace (so to speak). There's actually probably more information, per se, about Page's life in the opening and closing credits than the rest of the movie.<br /><br />Do not be fooled. This is not a worthy companion film to "The Notorious Bettie Page." This is not a worthy film at all. This is a fetish piece that trades on the allure of one of the greatest pin-ups of all time, and does it without class, without style, and without any real sense of understanding the character of Bettie Page whatsoever. No true Bettie Page fan will find it to be anything but a disappointment, I guarantee that.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs. If free, remember that time is money, too. Yours may not be worth much, but I'm betting it's worth enough that you'll be sorry you wasted time with this one. That's it, I'm done, you've been warned.
I watched the movie, and was dismayed to say the least that the movie failed to communicate with me as an audience. The language would put to shame the street loafers.<br /><br />The plot; a father forcing none of his son to marry, seems far-fetched. <br /><br />The idea of a grandmother asking her grand kid to mess up with an enemy would only draw feeble minded's attention.<br /><br />...and I was waiting the whole movie for a laugh, and laugh I did on my stupidity to waste 3 hours to convince myself that the movie is not even worth a first look.<br /><br />Hope it saves YOUR time!
Cybil Richards directs another Full Moon/Surrender Cinema masterpiece of erotica. This time Jacqualine Lovell (dressed in rather fetching silver outfit) is tasked with destroying all evidence of sexual activity. However she can't resist watching the tapes and she kinda likes them. The sex scenes are well filmed and set to a superb soundtrack (at least for this sort of film). The cast are largely awful and mainly very average looking too. Jacqueline Lovell is her exceptionally attractive self and between viewing the sex files she manages to expose her chest and fumble a little down below. She also fits in a little lesbian activity. To be honest Lovell deserves so much better than this kind of fare. Here she looks great naked but actually is much more appealing in her silver attire narrating the 'drama'. Utterly rubbish movie with Lovell and soundtrack the only real redeeming features. Mediocre even for Surrender's output and clearly a new budget low for them also.
Lolita is a rebel and she's going to share to our wide open eyes some little sex stories, between sci-fi and fantasy... Well, this Surrender Cinema production is not very good: very bad acting, horrifying music and a story line without any story and any line. BUT, the sex scenes are pretty well done, lot of lesbian scenes, and Jacqueline Lovell, as beautiful as in The Exotic House Of Wax, offer to us a very good final and very hot strip show. For Lovell's fans only.
For a film with so much promise it was disappointing, thinly plotted and the acting ranging between horrendous and unbelievable.The plot had more holes in it than swiss cheese and it's the worst clichéd ending I've seen in a movie for some time. The final scene would have ripped my heart out, if the entire movie hadn't been so painful to begin with. I was numb! From the very first scene - one was left wondering, if the sister was trying to reach out to her twin for help, or simply scare her to death which would have been better for the audience and saved us from two hours of the worst acting I've seen to date. It was a horror in the true sense of the word.
This was a movie about infidelity and revenge. A twin with the "twin" connection senses that something is wrong with her sister. This movie took forever to establish the plot. A plot that has been done many times. The acting was lousy for the most part. Once the plot comes together, the movie ends. Laura and Ashley are twins that live with an abusive father. The father seems to favor Ashley, so Laura gets the blame for everything. There is a promise made that the girls would never be apart, but as they grow up, their lives go in different directions. Ashley gets a job in a diner where she meets Barry, a married man. Of course no good can come of this. The fact that Barry had tinnitus was a poor excuse for a way to track him down. I kept waiting for this movie to get better and for there to be some resolution somewhere, but it never happened.
This movie isn't worth the film it was photographed on. The dialog is flat, filled with cliché overused lines and delivered by amateur actors who sound like their reading a script for the first time. The choppy, shaky, film style is a cheap imitation of the "The Ring" style visual effects. The characters do not even act like a normal person would. For example, the character who is looking for her twin sister at her home forces her way through the front door, creeps around the house all frightened and sobbing and she doesn't even once call out her sister's name to see if she is home. What? You would think she had just buried her sister instead of searching for her. Way too many flashbacks to her childhood. Too many unnecessary flashbacks is a typical sign of an amateur director. It is actually funny watching the numerous shots of the woman driving her car down the street, up the driveway, around this corner, over here, over there, oh a side view, now a front view. Enough already. You would think you are watching a TV commercial for the Solaris! Terrible movie. 0 out of 100. I really pity anybody who spent money making this film or to watch it.
So the wife and I just finished it despite several threats from both of us to turn it off. For the most part boredom was the worst part of this movie, there was just very little excitement. The acting was atrocious, to the point where we actually chuckled several times during some of the worse scenes (the church lady for example). The dead sister was using paranormal means to contact her living twin, although rather then send useful information she focused on trying to scare the hell out of her instead which looked a lot like The Ring. Rather then get the police involved -- which I'm sure those earplugs she found would have DNA all over them -- she instead devises a horrible plan to 'get' the man who covered up the accidental death of her sister. I call it a horrible plan because in the end she allows him to kill her too, which the movie then fades to black. Bad dialog, bad acting, bad ending.
Just okay film about a woman who is a twin having disturbing visions of her sister in danger back at home. She then returns home to find all is not well and that she is going to have to find out what happened to her sister and why.<br /><br />This is the sort of thing that kind of almost works but doesn't quite. I can't really put my finger on why it didn't work but it was good enough that I kind of wished it was better, or at least had gotten the little things right- like having the girls who play the twins in the flashbacks be closer in size. I think perhaps thats whats wrong with it there are lots of little things that just are wrong.
Okay at first this movie seemed pretty good even though it was moving rather quick and even though they only had a $60,000 budget it was good but if you found your sister dead in a lake and found out who might have killed her why would you go chase him around and pull a gun on him with only one bullet and waste it and end up running from him all retarded and get yourself killed? Plus after you found your sister dead in the lake and found a clue and figured out who the killer was why wouldn't you hand that clue over to the police who think you killed her? And at the end of the movie when she acts like her sister who was a waitress and she is talking to the bad guy she should of met him somewhere and recorded him saying she was dead and what happened for her "proof". I don't know I was not happy with the ending. This movie could of been so much better if it lasted longer and the acting was better and if the ending did not suck so bad! Do not waste your money on this movie because if you do you will be writing a review on here too and will not be happy.
I also saw this movie at a local screening about a year ago. First, I'm going to say that it looks great. Cassella is incredibly talented and a fantastic cinematographer. I just wish the movie had been as good as it looks. I would not call this a horror movie. Putting in a few shots of a decaying ghost does not make it a horror movie. There's no mystery, there's no suspense, you know who did it the entire time. <br /><br />It's a drama. You know what's going on with both sides the entire movie. The acting was okay, I guess, but nothing special.<br /><br />And the tagline, "Revenge can be deadly"....really?...they should have check how many hundreds of horror/thriller movies have that exact same tagline?<br /><br />It pains me to say some of this, but I know a lot of the people who worked on this movie, and I know they don't want people blowing smoke up their ass, so I give my honest opinion.
OK ...I watch a lot of bad movies. I pride myself on that fact. many times there are some gems in the B rated bombs. But this movie is one of the worst I have watched. I like a good horror movie...but one with a plot of and sense of movement. The opening scenes seemed pretty good. Decent music and imagery. Then it goes down hill from there. One of the main characters has a disability (Ringing in the Ears called Tinnitus). Now this will in turn threaten to reveal his secret. They made that too much of a focus of the movie. So what he has ringing in his ears and accidentally left an ear plug somewhere where that he shouldn't have been. No need to keep bringing it up. So this guy is having an affair with this girl and in a motel she falls and hits her head on the end table. So instead of letting everyone know of his affair he decides to dump the body. Now her twin sister is trying to find out where she is and what happened to her. Well after seeing her sister over and over again (as a zombie like ghost) and even pointing directly to the location of the body she finally finds her. Now the body is recovered and she is set out to deal with the one and only suspect that killed her. Bad thing is that she didn't have much of a plan. Only to pretend to be her twin and met the guy where the body was dumped. The idiot didn't even believe he killed her. So all is revealed there and even though she had a gun....somehow she manages to get herself strangled. So the last scenes of the movie are of the "spirits" of her and her twin walking out of the water. So you mean to tell me in this movie the bad guy wins. And not one but two innocent people die.<br /><br />Good things about the movie: imagery <br /><br />Bad things about the movie: music sound effects long and drawn out misdirection of plot low grade acting from some not all actors
The premise of this movie was decent enough, but with sub par acting, it was just bland and dull.<br /><br />SPOILERS The film does not work because of the nature of the death, it was accidental, so although it was a murder it wasn't like the guy set out to do it. Also through some flashbacks there is a secret that is revealed that sort of makes the events like justice to a degree. There is no emotion in this film. The first 20 minutes or so is just this woman calling her sister, and hearing her message. It was dull and boring.<br /><br />With some polishing, and better acting it could have been pretty good.
There is so much that is wrong with this film, but to sum it up: Terrible acting- so bad it must have been on purpose. poor script - they may have had some good ideas but this was not the best way to present the story. ridiculously bad ending- in some cases the ending manages to save the film-not in this case. if you manage to sit through the entire film you will want to kick yourself at the end because the ending is not even worth waiting for. This is the worst film i have seen in a long time. It was complete torture sitting through this film, i would have appreciated someone warning me in advance. So do yourself a favor. Watch this film only if you have absolutely nothing better to do. Even then you will regret having put yourself through the unspeakable torture.
I read John Everingham's story years ago in Reader's Digest, and I remember thinking what a great movie it would make. And it probably would have been had Michael Landon never got his hands on it. As far as I'm concerned, Landon was one of the worst actors on earth, and his artistic license went way over the top, similar to his massacre of the "Little House" book series is proof. The acting, for lack of a better word, is atrocious, the screenplay sloppy, and there are more close-ups of Landon's puss than should be allowed.<br /><br />This movie reflects Everingham's story as much as "Little House On The Prairie" reflects the books is was "based" on. It's just another vehicle to show off Landons horrendous hair.
This insipid mini operetta featuring a Eddy-McDonald prototype in a Valentino scenario is so bad it becomes an endurance exercise after five minutes. It's silly from the get go as this brevity opens two military men discussing the lack of manliness in the son of one of the officers. In under a minute he is packed off to Morrocco where he lives a double life as the Red Shadow; the leader of an Arab tribe that would rather sing than fight.<br /><br />Alexander Gray and Bernice Clare possess fine light opera voices (with little acting ability) and there's a decent bass in there as well but the acting is so haphazard scenes so ill prepared you get the feeling they are making things up as they go along.<br /><br />This two reeler was part of a larger stage production that lists six writers. With more room to spoof and warble the show may have had some entertainment values but this rushed quickie is little more than an insult to an audience waiting for the feature presentation.
Raymond Burr stars as an attorney caught up in the murder of his best friend (Dick Foran) thanks to his affection for his friend's wife (Angela Lansbury). This was a full year before he started doing Perry Mason, so the movie might be of particular interest to his fans if it was the inspiration for his casting.<br /><br />There isn't all that much else here that's interesting though. Lansbury is always good, but her character here is very one dimensional and the motives for her crime in the mystery are totally obvious. There's an interesting performance by Lamont Johnson as a painter who's also in love with the "femme fatale", but the Burr character is pretty straightforward. It's frankly bizarre to see an actor like Burr doing these romantic scenes with Lansbury, and his halting delivery does not match his character here very well as it does in most films I've seen him in. There's no mystery at all really, and the whole suspense is supposed to be around the title of the film and the way that Burr's character is setting up the Lansbury character to implicate herself (double jeopardy prevents her being tried again for the original murder, presumably). He does so with a very large tape recorder which she doesn't notice when she comes into the room I guess.<br /><br />A few perhaps unintentionally fun moments and basically the rest of the thing could have been done for TV.
As an avid fan of the Flashman books by George McDonald Fraser, I looked forward immensely to seeing Flashy on the big screen when this film was first released. Sadly it was a huge disappointment then - so I left it alone for 20 years before going back to watch it again, but it was no better the second time. Mr Fraser is a tremendously skillful writer, but I am not a fan of his film screenplay work with Richard Lester. The penchant for slapstick spoilt 'The Three Musketeers' for me and the same applies here. To me, the whole tone and feel of the film is wrong. The Flashman books are uproariously funny in parts, but they are adventure novels. There is much seriousness in the way the adventures that Flashman has - after all, he is involved in dangerous situations. This is conveyed in the novels, but not conveyed at all on film due to the its comedic style. It is a tremendous shame as it could have a great film had it been a more faithful adaptation of the style of the book. When I first read that the book was to be filmed, the article said that the film was to star Oliver Reed. I rejoiced, as Reed to me was the epitome of Flashman. How I would have loved to see him in the role. Malcolm McDowell is a good actor, but does not fit the visual image of Flashman created by the books (too scrawny looking! Flashman is supposed to be a big strapping fellow). Neverheless Reed was excellent as Bismarck. What kills the film is that it is made as a comedy. The only scene in which it creates the true atmosphere of the book is the scene in which Flashman kills de Gautet (Tom Bell). A great shame, as the production values, costumes, sets etc are superb and the casting is generally excellent - just about everybody in the film is well cast apart from Malcolm McDowell. Possibly the directorship of Richard Lester was responsible for the way the film is, as a recent radio adaptation of 'Flash For Freedom', adapted by Mr Fraser, worked quite well. Perhaps one day we may see Flashman done justice on screen.
No one is a greater fan of Geroge Macdonald Fraser's Flashman papers than I am.<br /><br />I was surprised to see just now that Richard Lester directed Royal Flash, since I also see he had made the Three/Four Musketeers with Fraser which I though turned out rather well.<br /><br />Not so Royal Flash.<br /><br />I was 12 years old when the film was released and could not have been more enthusiastic since I had read all the Flashman papers published up to that time, and was intoxicated with A Clockwork Orange and Malcolm MacDowel (I still am, but he was never really given a chance after that).<br /><br />What a disappointment (I saw it once again when I was about 20 on television and it seemed even worse).<br /><br />None of the sharp dialogue in the books is transfered to the screen. The comedy of Flashman's character seemed to me to have been mishandled in about the same way one could imagine a group of high school students trying to parody it would do. The dueling and fencing was awful and undramatic.<br /><br />Looking back with more mature eyes, the film failed completer to exploit the possibilities of direct satire of earlier film versions of the Prisoner of Zenda.<br /><br />If you have read the book and not seen the film, I can only say that the film ends with Flashman and Rudi von Starnberg becoming fast friends and playing a game Rudi has just invented: Russian roulette.<br /><br />A pathetic betrayal of everything the books are about.<br /><br />My comments would be more direct if I had seen the film more recently, but I am glad I have not.<br /><br />If by any chance Fraser ever reads this, I can only say I think he is a genius--perhaps the greatest comic novelist of his generation, but, based on my appreciation of that corpus of work, it as hard to believe that he wrote the screenplay of this film, as that he did all those awful Roger Moore James Bond films.
Yeah, well, I definitely had regrets about giving up my Saturday night watching this strange little, yet very long, movie. Apparently neither did the main character for stealing two hours of my life. Here's the epitome of the antihero in 'No Regrets.' We have this jerk, so messed up, so wandering, so selfish, aimless and unlikable that it was extremely hard to get past the attraction a highly favored businessman's up-and-coming son, Jaemin, unless it was just that: physical attraction. He claims otherwise, that it's love. But after watching this, it's like loving Charles Manson because you dig the beard. (Alright, he's not that bad, but still no real redeemable characteristics.) I could never get past the reason Jaemin endless stalks Sumin. It was never shown, just told, that Jaemin loves Sumin. Perhaps it's a culture thing that flew over my head: crazy/stalking = mad love over in Seoul. It has to be, because a little more than half the movie is one stalking the other and the last part is stalking back and forth to the point I thought this was turning into a screwball comedy. I was waiting for a tiger named "baby" to make an appearance. Okay, so Sumin works two jobs while going to school, so far so good on someone trying to better themselves. But after his first taste of his stalker's attraction, he gives up his day job for some kind of prostitution ring. What? OK, well, as previously mentioned, the obsession doesn't stop due to the job/career change and if you throw in a bunch of other very angry characters you get one messed up movie where unbelievable occurrences just seem to happen without buildup. Basic movie, not 100% terrible, but you can do better with foreign gay-themed movies.
::POTENTIAL SPOILERS::<br /><br />Man, this movie was awful. A Catholic/superstitious/suspense thriller it goes over already well tread ground from previous movies.<br /><br />The doubting priest. Sex and the priesthood. Politics and religion. Church hypocrisy. Conspiracy involving the church. The dawn of a new evil age. All kinds of dark magic voodoo battles between good and evil.<br /><br />Pretty stupid and lame with a weak storyline to suffice. The story revolves around two concepts: Absolution, better known as the Sacrament of Anointing the Sick - the last rights a person can ask for to cleanse one's sins while on the brink of death; And Excommunication, the act of cutting a person off from the Church. Basically, an Excommunicated person can't receive Absolution. Thus comes in the Sin Eater, and I'll leave it at that. Throw in all the dopy things I already listed and you have "The Order".<br /><br />I found the sex scene with the priest interlaced with shots of a picture of the Virgin Mary rather insulting to Catholics. It also ends with Heath Ledger saying (I paraphrase) "I am the redeemer and damner of sins, I live on without love blah blah blah" /cue him walking in dark alley with long trench coat alla "The Matrix".<br /><br />I gave this movie a 1 for not only being crappy and unoriginal but also because it managed to insult an entire faith in the process. If you want to see something better I suggest "The Prophecy" with Christopher Walken.
The screenwriter poorly attempted to re-create the "Exorcist'. But put in some blah-blah love story that makes you sick instead of keeping you engaged. There is no substance whatsoever in this entire film. It had the potential of being something special but blows it by showing a bunch of people yack about things nobody cares about. Extremely boring, I wanted to leave the theater when I saw this but the dumb movie tickets were expensive so I had to withstand the dreary torture which felt like it lasted forever. Nothing on screen connected relevance back to whatever the characters were talking about.<br /><br />They use computer graphics in here that instead of wowing me (as it intended, I hate CGI) just ruined the movie even more. Some people say this movie did horrible in the movie theaters because of how "thought-provoking" and "slow-paced-without-action-because it's an intelligent film" it was. What is so intelligent or thought provoking when the story is basically about pretty boy Heath Ledger as a priest who has a love interest and disobeys his religion? Seems like an uninspired concept. Oh and there's some mumbo jumbo about the "sin-eater" (movie was originally going to be titled "sin-eater"). Lame concept but the movie took the "sin-eater" thing too seriously, making the movie become pathetic and delusional about how dark and intelligent it was. Yeah, I know there were really sin-eaters in the medieval times but this movie just makes it sound cheesy.<br /><br />Nothing in the movie was executed right and I forget why I even bothered to see this movie. If you want horror films that actually have depth, watch Rosemary's Baby, The Tenant, Naked Blood, Society, Cannibal Holocaust, Pin, Exorcist, Omen, or any of the Romero "Dead Trilogy" films. Nonsense dialogue does not equate to intelligence people, mainstream movie fans think that though (same kind of people that think a ridiculous movie like Hulk is a cinematic masterpiece). If you want mind-numbingly boring horror, watch the Order. This movie makes church seem like a roller coaster ride.
In the bygone days of the Catholic Church, a sin-eater was an individual that, through ritual, would take the sins of a dying person upon themselves. Often, these people were excommunicate or similar individuals who the church would not absolve, thereby denying them entrance into Heaven. The sin-eaters were seen as blasphemous, circumventing the chruch's monopoly on redemption. Sex this up a bit with some overt supernatural mojo, let the concept wander where it may, and you have "The Order", a movie that combines "Stigmata"'s religious anti-authoritarianism, "The X-Files"' paranormal investigation, and "The Thorn Birds"' sexual spirituality into an odd melange that sometimes works.<br /><br />Alex (Heath Ledger) is a rogue priest, one of the last members of the Order of the Carolingians, a semi-heretical order of knowledge-seeking, demon-fighting priests. When Alex's mentor is found dead under bizarre circumstances, Bishop Driscoll (Peter Weller) sends Alex to investigate. Tagging along are fellow Carolingian Thomas (Mark Addy) and Mara (Shannyn Sossman), who was subject to one of Alex's exorcisms a year prior. The three go to Rome to investigate and are drawn into a dark underworld of bizarre Catholic heresy, ominous prophecies, demonic intrusions, and a man claiming to be the last surviving Sin-Eater (Benno Furmann).<br /><br />Written and directed by Brian Helgeland (who worked with the same principals on the scattershot and half-hearted "A Knight's Tale"), the film is an odd one, and difficult to classify. It wants to be several things at once -- supernatural thriller, religious intrigue, dramatic television pilot -- and only sometimes succeeds at any of them. This isn't helped by the slow pace or the fact that most of the actors seem to be sleepwalking through their performances with occasional bursts of brilliance. Ledger, in particular, has a particularly stunning scene of despair in an otherwise monochromatic performance. Sossman, however, displayed the same disconnected performance that she's given in all of her films (most notably in "The Rules Of Attraction").<br /><br />The plot itself meanders back and forth between several different story arcs, leading you to wonder which is the main one with each arc containing its share of red herrings. Large gaps of narrative appear to be lost between scenes at times, which can be confusing for many, but this is also one of the film's saving graces. The structure of the film -- coupled by the fact that there is never a truly clear antagonist until the very end of the film -- forces the viewer to analyze and reason in a time when most films are blatantly obvious about everything (the exception to this is historical background on the Carolingians and the practice of sin-eating, both of which are explained in dry exposition). Even at the beginning of the film, character relationships and history are inferred instead of explained. Combine this with the on-location shooting and judicious use of special effects, and you have a very old-world supernatural thriller, with even the opening credits reminiscent of something from the late 70's/early 80's.<br /><br />A brief mention here, as well, for the subtle and organic score by David Torn, a combination of minimalist orchestration and Lisa Gerrard-style exotic vocals. A very nice score that is evocative without being bombastic and exists in a very deceptive simplicity.<br /><br />A confusing plot, a lack of purpose, and sometimes sleepy performances would often damn a movie, but for some reason, "The Order" remains watchable. Many people will be very turned off by the movie for its odd sensibilities, and some may even become angry that they are forced to engage the higher functions of their brain to understand it. Still, the film's sheer intangibility will prevent it from being either a critical or commercial success until the DVD, which I'm sure will be stocked with copious amounts of deleted scenes. A recommended film only for people who like to think while they watch. 6 out of 10.
Horrible waste of time - bad acting, plot, directing. This is the most boring movie EVER! There are bad movies that are fun (Freddy vs. Jason), and there are bad movies that are HORRIBLE. This one fits into the latter. Bottom Line - don't waste your time.
The good fellas at Webster's Dictionary define Logophobia as the ‘fear of words'. I may just be Logophobic. For no word combination scares me more than when at the beginning of a film, credits contain the words `Produced, Written and Directed by:', and are followed by a single individual's name. Think about it. There are carpenters, electricians and plumbers, but so few jack-of-all-trades. Even the most seasoned of directors like Speilberg and Scorsese rarely take such control of their films. But there I was, all nestled in my theatre seat, popcorn in hand and about to watch The Order when hurled at me like a Nolan Ryan fastball, were the words `Produced, Written and Directed by Brian Helgeland'. Whoa! <br /><br />Being a film buff, I knew of Brian Helgeland. As a writer his filmograpghy over the past 10 years would be graphed like a dotcom company's stock price in 1998. There were as many theatrical unpleasantries (Assassins, The Postman, Conspiracy Theory) as there were critical and award winning successes (L.A. Confidential, Mystic River). They seemed to alternate – one good, one bad, so knowing that his last film, BloodWork was one of the most wasted efforts in Clint Eastwood's career, I took a breath and hoped for the best. In retrospect, I should not have exhaled. <br /><br />The Order stars Heath Ledger (Helgeland's A Knights Tale), as Alex Bernier, a priest in an order known as the Carolingians, who is summoned to Rome when a fellow priest is killed under circumstances that the Arch Bishop deems ‘curious'. Meeting up with Father Thomas (also of the Order and played wonderfully by Still Standings' Mark Addy), they set out to piece together the riddle left behind in the wake of the priest's untimely death.<br /><br />Complicating matters is a sub plot involving Mara Sinclair (played by Shannyn Sossamon) who has escaped from an institution that was the result of her attempts to kill Alex during an exorcism. Alex has feelings towards Mara and for some reason unbeknownst to the audience, they travel to Rome together.<br /><br />Nary a good nights sleep goes by and Alex is confronted by William Eden (Benno Fürmann) who claims to be a centuries old Sin Eater. A Sin Eater, as we are told, are those that eat the sins of a dying individual when the church does not, thus allowing entrance into Heaven. William, as luck would have it, is tired of a life of healing and looks for Alex to take over his role and free him from his worldly duties. Alex is reluctant, but after the death of his new love Mara, Alex resorts to the ritual of the Sin Eater to save her and the transformation is complete. Alex then searches for answers to his many queries while Father Thomas unveils the Vatican plot behind the passing of authority to his fellow investigator. <br /><br />The Order is not a terrible film, but it is terribly boring. There were ridiculous special effects and no connection with any of the characters. Even in the most dramatic scene - that of Alex walking in on the dying Mara - is pale and bland and leaves us with no emotional response towards the couple's plight. Everybody seems to talk so quietly and unemotionally that the film flat lines and smelling salts could have been administered to keep me from trying to grab a quick nap in the middle of the film.<br /><br />So, Mr. Helgeland, I plead with you not to try this again. Share your vision with others and allow those more experienced to help direct you in directions that are not so narrow minded and self-serving. Until then, there is nothing emanating that shows you are capable of anything more than a failing grade. Two stars.<br /><br />
The turgid pace of this movie numbs us to any shocks that it might provide. There was no real suspense. Most of the characters were insipid. The chesty Irish priest was as lame as the love interest. Interest is misleading. The girl that they chose to provide the film's sensuality might be better. The central conflict of the main character was uninvolving. This film is entirely devoid of positives. It is like a tedious exercise by someone who didn't want to go to the gym that day but did anyway.
I shouldn't even review this movie, since it's not actually a horror movie -- and thus not worthy of Dr. Cheese's attention. At least, it's not horror in the usual sense. It's certainly a horrifying proposition to waste your time watching this crap. That's why I turned it off after the first four hours. Imagine my surprise, then, when the clock showed that only 45 minutes had passed. Yep, that's right; in plain terms, this movie is b-o-r-i-n-g.<br /><br />"The Order" had lots of flaws, not all of them unique. In particular, it seems to me the main problem with the "religious" subgenre of horror films is Hollywood's unwillingness to engage Christianity on its own terms. It is quite possible to make truly creepy films that are also orthodox. Just ask William Peter Blatty. In fact, without orthodoxy, films like this are just an anything-goes smorgasbord of the filmmakers' (usually dull and illogical) imaginations.<br /><br />Think about it. If someone made a movie ostensibly about, say, physics, but not only got the basic laws of physics wrong, but based the entire plot on its wrong portrayals, you would soon get tired of the resulting pointless plot. The same goes for these sorts of movies.<br /><br />In other words, "The Order"(and many similar movies before it) invent out of whole cloth stuff about the Catholic Church and about the Christian faith and attempt to build a plot out of these inventions. Unsurprisingly, the plot ends up being incoherent and stupid. This movie has the added charm of being as interesting to watch as your toenails growing.<br /><br />Avoid this steaming pile.
What was the worst movie of 2003? "Cat in the Hat?" "Gigli?" Mais non! I propose that it was this atrocious little film from earlier in the year. Badly written, badly edited, and (if I may be so bold) badly acted, "The Order" is the black hole of film - a movie so dense not even the slightest bit of entertainment could escape from its event horizon of suck. It isn't even accidentally funny, like (for example) "Showgirls."<br /><br />You know that the producers are assuming that their audience isn't going to be very smart. They renamed the movie, originally titled "The Sin Eaters," because they figured Americans were too stupid to understand what a sin eater was, even though they go to great lengths to explain what a sin eater is in the movie. Instead, they figure an utterly generic title and a picture of Heath Ledger looking sullen are more than enough to get you in there.<br /><br />And, hey, what do you know, they were right! My ex-girlfriend saw the picture of Heath and dragged me in. Congratulations, producers, you've met your target market. She also liked "Grease II," so you're in good company.<br /><br />Back on topic, Heath plays a Catholic monk from a specific (you guessed it) order that is trying to investigate the murder of his mentor. He has celibacy issues, possibly because nobody in their right mind would believe that he knew the slightest thing about religion, much less be a celibate monk. The only other member of this order is a funny alcoholic fat guy. As much as I've wanted to see the return of the funny alcoholic to the big screen, his attempts at humor reminded me of all the dorks in my high school who did imitations of Monty Python, thinking that if they just said the lines like the Pythons did they would automatically be funny. You know the sort of people I'm talking about.<br /><br />If I utter any more, I would be in danger of generating spoilers. Frankly, the thing that spoiled this movie for me was the fact that it was created.
My friends and I walked out after 15 minutes, and we weren't the first. Afterwards, we tried to get our money back. Movie theater management wouldn't allow this, but they did agree to let us see another film. The only time that worked for us was to see Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star. As you can tell, this wasn't a memorable night. Probably one of my worst movie nights. Close second has to be when I saw a double header of Domestic Disturbance and Heist. In conclusion, for the sake of humanity, please don't see The Order.
This sorry excuse for a film reminded me a great deal of what I heard about "Gigli", that Ben and Jen flop earlier this Summer. "The Order" was clearly edited to such an unconscionable degree that the scenes, rather than forming a cohesive and provoking film, appeared to be a collection of disconnected sequences that did little to forward any semblance of a unified plot. Now, I'm a Heath Ledger fan ("10 Things I hate About You", "A Knight's Tale" and particularly his supporting role in "Monster's Ball"), but my man needs to find himself a better agent. Keep accepting scripts like "The Order" and "Four Feathers" and he's going to be on the fast track to movie oblivion.<br /><br />Here are the problems I had with the film. Firstly, the Director tried to make up for the inadequacies of his essential plot by introducing two other plot lines that seemingly had little if anything to do with, well, much of anything. Plot skeins involving the American trying to take over the Vatican and the Dark Pope, while mildly interesting, did nothing to reveal to the viewer anything about the main characters. The attempts to tie these threads together were pathetic at best. Secondly, please don't insult the intelligence of the viewer by inserting into the film scenes that are clearly obligatory. We had manufactured angst, manufactured love and most idiotically manufactured sex that seemed like a page right out of "Matrix Reloaded" with skull-numbing techno music. Rather than developing character, these elements seemed like the cheap devices they clearly were, a half-hearted attempt at putting popcorn-chewing adolescents in the seats. Thirdly, and most importantly, this movie seemed to ha ve an intriguing concept. We have scandal, we have religion and we have supernatural forces at play. Why then do we learn almost nothing about anyone's background? We learn a little about Alex, but even he gives up the passion of the priesthood to sleep with a woman after two days, a woman who tried to kill him during an exorcism at some point in the past. And Alex is the most developed, if you can call it that, character in the entire film.<br /><br />As the cliche goes nowadays, if you're going to see one movie this year, make sure it's not this one. There's about ten interesting minutes out of the intolerable 101 minute affair. The only thing that saved me was going with a girl who I'm rather fond of.<br /><br />1 out of 10. I'm disappointed. File this one firmly under -had potential but blew it on over editing and bad directing-. Heath my man, go back to Monster's Ball-like cameos. They really suit you.
The coming attractions to "The Order" make it seem like a decent horror mystery/thriller, but what we get is a plot that has potential to be excellent all thrown together to form a pile of garbage.<br /><br />First off the whole movie consists of terrible dialogue and god awful special affects. The acting was also nothing to be proud of, but Keath Ledger (I think I spelled that right.) saved the movie in this category.<br /><br />For heaven's sake: DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE!
OK, I didn't have high expectations but this film descending into depths I could not imagine.<br /><br />The plot, as it were, involved a priest of an obscure 2 member order investigating the death of the founder of the order by a Sin Eater. The Sin Eater allows for Catholics to achive salvation outside the authority of the Church and is yet another immortal in film with loads of ennui. Nevermind that this makes no sense since then a Baptist could give you salvation....we'll move on.<br /><br />I'll layout the plot w/o giving much away: the priest goes to Rome with his buddy to investogate. He brings with him a mental patient (I'm not making this up) who shot him during an excorism and who loves him (not one lick of this BTW is explained), a drunk Irish priest and Peter Weller as a Cardinal. They get to Rome, find some creepy kids who do nothing in the film, meet with a bondage gear S&M anti-pope that the drunk Irish guy knows (not explained) and who gives information by killing people (oh, BTW, he's a bad guy so he has an industrial/techno soundtrack) and then...umm, seriously, I'm not sure. the plot meanders about. Heath chills with the Sin Eater, flies to New York with the Sin Eater for an overnighter and then some other stuff happens and then (all off camera) the anti-pope falls and the film ends.<br /><br />About 1 hour into the film one really wonder if anything has happened. By the end something has happened but you can't be at all certain that it matters and since most of the drama takes place either before the movei or off-scren you're really feeling cheated.
I was not entirely impressed by this film. It was originally named Sin Eater and should have stayed that way considering that is all that was talked about for the last half of the film. I'm not even sure what the first 20 minutes of the film had to do with any of the rest of it. It was very slow and what was with picking Robocop (Peter Weller) as one of the main actors. That was a sad point.<br /><br />All in all I would say check this out if you are into things dealing with the Catholic religion but don't expect an Exorcist or Stigmata from this film. It will surely flop after a few days and word gets out.
The Order starts in Rome where the head of a special order of priests who deal in ghosts & demons named Brother Dominic (Francesco Carnelutti) is found dead, cut to New York City where one of his order Alex Bernier (Heath Ledger) is contacted by top-brass Cardinal Driscoll (Peter Weller) who ask's him to investigate the mysterious circumstances surrounding Dominic's death. Along with his girlfriend Mara Willims (Shannyn Sossamon) & fellow priest Thomas Garrett (Mark Addy) Alex travels to Italy to delve into his mentor's death, as the truth begins to emerge it appears that Dominic was a 'Sin Eater' someone who absorbed other's sins & lived with the burden of them so they could die peacefully & that the Church wasn't happy about his activities. Alex must do what's right even if it goes against what he believes...<br /><br />Also know under the title The Sin Eater this American German co-production was written, produced & directed by Bian Helgeland & didn't really do that much for me if I'm honest & I usually am, honest that is. Anyway lets start with the mess of a script that has some OK ideas but it's throughly predictable, excruciatingly dull & boring, really silly at times & it takes itself far too seriously. The whole concept is daft & while it thinks it's clever with it's oh so neat twist ending that ties everything up & brings the story full circle I thought it was the most obvious & lazy way to end things. There's the usual religious themes here, morality, sin, forgiveness, faith, belief, prophecy's, blah, blah, blah you know the sort of thing. Then there's the twists which aren't hard to see coming, there's the abuse of power by high ranking clergymen, corruption, greed, evil, etc. you know the sort of clichéd Hollywood ideals & themes that get reused every time it deals with the Church. The Order has nothing new to say & as a serious piece of film-making it sucks, a lot. I'm not too sure who The Order is meant to appeal to, as a die-hard horror fan I didn't see much horror in this at all, as a thriller it's less than thrilling, as a mystery it's too predictable & there's nothing here to really grip or maintain ones interest & for some reason I cannot figure out the IMDb also lists The Order as an action film which is absurd as it's as exciting & action-packed as the average episode of Sesame Street (1969 - present), harsh maybe but it's what I think...<br /><br />Director Helgeland does an OK job, the film seems to have a very soft lighting scheme & it all looks a bit drab, grayish & dull. For a supposed horror film The Order is very light on scares or horror elements, in fact there aren't any of either apart from two evil kids who can turn into a flock of birds for no apparent reason, don't ask. Forget about any gore or violence as there isn't any which is fine but it would have helped at least make The Order somewhat watchable. According the IMDb's 'Trivia' section the release date of The Order was put back so some of the special effects could be improved because they looked unintentionally funny, all I can say is judging by the finished film the effects must have been really bad to start with because they aren't exactly brilliant as it stands now.<br /><br />I was amazed to see The Order had a budget of about $28,000,000 which is a hell of a lot of money & I just can't see where it all went apart from the sets & production design which are good. The whole film looks & feels very average & utterly forgettable. The acting is OK although the annoying fat guy who seems to be some sort of foul-mouthed comic relief irritates, a good actor such as Peter Weller deserves better than this.<br /><br />The Order, I prefer the title The Sin Eater actually not that it matters too much, misses all of it's intended targets by the proverbial mile as far as I'm concerned & is a pretty dull way to waste 100 odd minutes of your life so don't do it! Not recommended.
First of all, I have to say I have worked for blockbuster and have seen quite a few movies to the point its tough for me to find something I haven't seen. Taking this into account, I want everyone to know that this movie was by far the worst film ever made, it made me pine for Gigli, My Boss's Daughter, and any other piece of junk you've ever seen. BeLyt must be out of his mind, I've only found one person who liked it and even they couldn't tell me what the movie was about. If you are able to decipher this movie and are able to tell me what it was about you have to either be the writer or a fortune teller because there's any other way a person could figure this crap out.<br /><br />FOR THE LOVE OF G-D STAY AWAY!
Always enjoy great films which deal with the super-natural and the deep thoughts of the Spiritual world. However, this film just turned me off as far as its production and direction. There is nothing to go into deep discussion about what this story has to tell; all I can say is that it was a big waste of time and effort to put it on the big screen. The actors, namely: Mark Addy, Thomas Garrett, gave an outstanding performance in his native land England, and we have seen him in "Still Standing" a TV Series. Heath Ledger, played the real wicked dude and we have recently viewed him in "Brokeback Mountain",'05, gave a great supporting role. Shannyn Sossaman, (Mara Sinclair), did a good job of seducing a priest from a church not recognized by any faith. Don't waste your time, you will be sorry!
This really is the worst film I have ever seen. Ever. Period. I actually paid £3.50 to watch this steaming turd of a movie. Incredibly dull, poorly acted, dire script, often incoherent and too many scenes that don't seem to have any relevance to the overall film (like when Heath Ledger's priest partner get's nailed to a wall by a ghost...what was the point in that scene? answers on a postcard please...)<br /><br />I should have got a medal for sticking with this film for it's entire running time. I would rather take a strong kick to the groin than sit through this film again.<br /><br />This should be cast into IMDb's bottom 100. Hopefully my vote of 1/10 will help it on it's way.
The orders fatal flaw-besides an asinine plot-is that the character's simply don't resonate or even react.<br /><br />Two examples: A priest, walking through a graveyard late at night, is suddenly attacked by ghostly spirits. After fighting them off, he calmly resumes his walk when his buddy come up. "Anything wrong?" His buddy asks, having seen the attack. "Just some demonic spirits-nothing I couldn't handle." No reaction, no surprise, just like he'd changed a tire. His buddy is equally unconcerned... must be standard priest training... ["And then you put the wafer into their mouths. Any questions? Ok, moving on, Demon Spirit attacks..."]<br /><br />Example two: At one point the priests need an answer to a question, and only a demon (or something, who cared by now) could provide it. How? Why, you have to ask a dying man! So the demon has some random person hung in front of the two priests so they can ask their question to the thrashing, gasping man. "Hey, don't kill him!" or maybe "That's not nice!" would have been more realistic then their response. They never ask that they let the man go or stop-in fact, the closest to reacting they get is mild annoyance. They ask their question and go.<br /><br />I had to shut it off at that point-my brain was starting to atrophy.<br /><br />Avoid<br /><br />* / **** (one star out of four)<br /><br />
I wanted to watch this movie, but one bizarre ridiculous scene after another forced me to shut it off. Character's don't seem to react to anything. Consider this: Heath Ledger is walking a night (through a cemetery I believe) when he is attacked by spirits, which he drives away. Once past this ordeal he calmly walks away and meets up with a friend that saw it all. When asked what happen he says blandly "attacked by demons, nothing serious.", as if this is only a little more exciting than a flat tire.<br /><br />I shut it off when they go to ask something-a demon or something, I stopped caring-a ques ion. The answer can only be rented out of someone with the energy of their death, and the priest watch in what appears to be vague annoyance as a man is strung up and hung and they ask his thrashing, dying body question.<br /><br />0 out of **** stars.
Yes, MTV there really is a way to market Daria. What started as a clever teenage angst-"comment on everything that sucks and make the viewer feel better about their sucky teenage life" sitcom now mutated into a "how you should deal with your problems"-charade. I used to watch Daria all the time and loved it. Now, sitting here after watching the so called "movie" I can only wonder what the point of this all was. Daria tells us how to lead out life in college? Excuse me? didn't the point Daria made every episode that what you like to do is ok, as long as it is ok with yourself no matter what the rest of the sick sad world thinks of it? This entire thing reminded me of the scene in "Reality Bites" the movie channel shows the documentry for the first time.
This is a truly terrible film.<br /><br />I'm only writing this so that some people somewhere are put off watching it. If I have stopped one person from wasting some of their precious life watching this film I shall die happy.<br /><br />Unutterably dull, although since it stars Al Pacino I was fooled into thinking that at any moment something interesting was going to happen. Then the credits rolled, and I realised I had been completely fooled into watching this unbelievable drivel.<br /><br />I cannot believe that this film has achieved as high a score as it has at IMDb (over 5 stars when I last saw the voting). Are you people voting ironically?<br /><br />Please, please, please do not watch this film!
"People I Know" is a clunker with no one to root for and no one to care about -- despite the game efforts of a talented cast.<br /><br />Pacino delivers his usual tour de force as Eli Wurman, a past-his-prime publicity agent hollowed out by a lifetime of moral corruption. But unlike Michael Corleone, it's impossible to have an emotional investment in this character, his dilemma, or his fate.<br /><br />The film traces Eli's preparations for a benefit for a liberal political cause, while distracted by a client's (Ryan O'Neal, good in an underwritten part) latest "dirty laundry" -- in this case, a TV actress companion who's gotten involved with the wrong people. Tea Leoni brings her customary star power to this supporting role, although again, the script doesn't give her much to work with. As Eli's sister-in-law, Kim Basinger manages to evoke sympathy despite implausible plot mechanics.<br /><br />This movie is strictly for those who like watching Pacino strut his stuff, and enjoy the other principals. Unfortunately, between the script and direction, "People I Know" is strictly amateurish. Hence its limited theatrical release, and speedy journey to DVD. Consider yourself warned.
Very silly movie, filled with stupid one liners and Jewish references thru out. It was a serious movie but could not be taken seriously. A familiar movie plot...Being at the wrong place at the wrong time. An atrocious subplot, involving Kim Bassinger. Very robotic and too regimented. I have noticed that Al Pacinos acting abilities seem to be going downhill. A troubleshooter with troubles , but nothing more troubling than Pacinos horrible Atlanta accent. Damage control needs to fix this damage of a film. OK my one liners are bad, but not as bad as the ones in this film. This movie manages to not only be boring but revolting as well. Usually a revolting film is watchable for the wrong reasons. This movie is unwatchable. I did manage to sit through this. The plot ,if written a tad bit better, with , perhaps a little better acting and eliminating the horrendous subplot,and even dumber jokes, could have pulled this thriller out of the doldrums. What we are left with is a dull, silly movie that made sure it was drilled into our heads that Eli Wurman was Jewish. An embarrassment to all the good Jewish folk everywhere.
The movie is about two stories: one is a political murder of a call-girl, the other an upper-class political party. The crossing point is the public relation character played by Al Paccino, as he is the witness of the crime and the instigator of the evening.<br /><br />If the script is terrible without any decent dialogs and the directing void of any sense of drama, the performance of Al is memorable: how many fellows can be as much convincing as a powerful and feared man (as "The Godfather") as here as a little servant (see also "Donnie Brasco").<br /><br />Actually, the big young lion has become a tired old one. This passing of ages is very moving, because it makes the audience ponders about getting old too.<br /><br />But his slowness is only a make-up because he can get back his energy in Church scene.<br /><br />Maybe it is a good thing that the movie is so awful because it put the starlight on Al's talent!
The only good thing about "People I Know" is that it serves as a perfect example of movies that Al Pacino should avoid performing in. The first big turn-off I had was the way in which Pacino tried to portray a Georgia accent; at times it was weak and unattractive while in other segments it seemed too overdone. Dialogue and character interaction was terrible along with a weak plot. The supporting cast did an extremely perfunctory job in keeping the movie interesting, and within an hour I still saw no signs of a sturdy plot. The story overall is a real bore, and I had to slap myself in the face a few times to keep myself awake.<br /><br />This movie will surely bore you as well...avoid at all costs.
Much as we all love Al Pacino, it was painful to see him in this movie. A publicity hack at the grubby ending of what seems to have once been a distinguished and idealistic career Pacino plays his part looking like an unmade bed and assaulting everyone with a totally bogus and inconsistent southern accent.<br /><br />The plot spools out this way and that with so many loose ends and improbabilities that the mind reels (and then retreats).<br /><br />Kim Basinger is there, not doing much. Her scenes with Pacino are flat and unconvincing. Hard to believe they meant a lot to each other. There's no energy there.<br /><br />Tea Leone, on the other hand, lit up the screen. She was electric and her scenes with Pacino were by far the most interesting in the movie, but not enough to save Al from embarrassment.
Firstly,I must admit that it isn't a good movie. And,I would never watch this movie if Pacino wasn't in it.<br /><br />The movie is about a publicist's strange 24 hours.And he is overworked,dizzy,sick and sometimes regretful.I don't like the character at all.It's really boring,after 20 minutes you may fall asleep.And I don't understand why Pacino wanted to be a part of this horrible movie.Just because of money or what?<br /><br />Since I'm an avid Pacino fan,I bought this 2002 movie People I Know.If you haven't bought it yet,don't even think about it,it's just a waste of time.
In what seemed like the longest 1hour 35 I've had to endure in a long time, Al Pacino delivers an accurate performace to be sure. Not his usual typecasting, which was nice. But his character was just truely pathetic. Someone to pitty as he stumbles around forgetting appointments as we realise that the Hollywood social life has drained him of his life energy. But in this movie we needed someone to like. And for some reason, every character in the picture said "I don't know why I like you, Eli" to Al Pacino's chracter and I couldn't even come close to liking him.<br /><br />All the other actors played their usual styles. Tea Leoni, Richard Schiff, and Bill Nunn did nothing to change their established personas developed on TV or in earlier films. And Kim Basinger wasn't even in the film long enough to deliver a performance of any kind.<br /><br />The movie's story had no momentum. Most scenes never driving the story forward, but rather just collecting factoids about characters which later came into play in an anti-climactic ending. It had potential except for their unwillingness to build upon the story.<br /><br />Whats the point of the film? Daniel Algrant and Jon Robin Baitz would have you believe "Once Hollywood has you, you can't get out." Yeah right! And that's why so many people get fired in Hollywood.
Saw this movie in an early preview, and I cannot stress enough how bad I thought this film was. From the very beginning, the audience was groaning over Pacino's awful southern accent. Poor Al looked really, really haggard, and I can't decide whether this was purposely part of his role as a drug addicted publicist, or perhaps he just didn't get any sleep before coming to the set. Much worse than Pacino's close ups, however, is the wretched excuse for a plot. Early in the film we are given indications that Pacino's character is gay, and I suspect that is what the screenwriter had originally intended. Later, however, we are supposed to suspend our incredulity and believe that both Tea Leoni and Kim Basinger (both of whom are sleepwalking through lame roles) lust after this elderly, half dead looking, effeminate man with the ridiculous accent. The worst part overall was the main plot thread, which had to do with some corporate espionage that is never fully explained and we never, ever care about in the slightest. Because this was a preview I will reserve my final judgment, because of the possibility of re-shoots and editing, but you can bet I will not pay a cent to see this in theaters.
Unless somebody enlightens me, I really have no idea what this movie is about. It looks like a picture with a message but it´s far from it. This movie tells pointless story of a New York press agent and about his problems. And, that´s basically all. When that agent is played by Pacino, one must think that it must be something important. But it takes no hard thinking to figure out how meaningless and dull this movie is. To one of the best actors in the world, Al Pacino, this is the second movie of the year (the other is "Simone") that deserves the title "the most boring and the most pointless motion picture of the year". So, what´s going on, Al?
Al Pacino? Kim Basinger? Tea Leoni? Ryan O'Neal? Richard Schiff? My mouth was watering. I dropped everything to watch this movie on Cable. 30 minutes in I was having trouble staying awake. 60 minutes in and I hit the record button and fell asleep. Finished watching it the next morning. Shouldn't have bothered. What a waste of a great cast and an idea that could have been an interesting story of a "Day in the Life..." Cure your insomnia if you have it and watch this movie. I guarantee you at least an hour and a half of uninterrupted sleep. Dialogue horrible. Continuity non-existent. Camera work could have been done with a hand held Super 8 and looked better. <br /><br />This movie was a total disaster.
If it wasn't for the bad dialogues and script. I mean, the direction was really in touch with it's subject. The actors were doing good at bringing their characters to life. But in the end, the thing that was really missing was a solid script to hold all the pieces together. I would highly suggest not to watch this. Unless you're a Al Pacino enthusiast like I am and will watch everything he is playing in. Even if the result lately are rather poor. This is, after S1m0ne, a second very bad movie for this actor that once knew how to choose roles.
2002's undeservedly popular "I Love the 80's" is an inane, idiotic, offensive and downright disgusting pop-culture mess of a show that was the first in a long-line of horrid television programming that ultimately spelled out the end of VH1, which was at one time the only real music-oriented channel left on TV! I used to practically live on VH1 up until the spring or winter, I forget which one now, of 2002 when garbage like this started to appear for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Out of sheer morbid curiosity (I'd guess that's what you'd call it) I had decided that I would go ahead and give it a look-see anyhow the first night it came on even though the advertisements looked like complete crap. At least I can honestly say that I wasn't a bit disappointed by it because my expectations were obviously bottom basement-level to begin with. The emphasis of this show I found out within the first 5 minutes was less on each year of the 1980's and what was and wasn't culturally significant or popular (which is what I was expecting to see), but instead more of an impromptu platform for a whole slew of really god-awful no-name comedians to display what they more than likely think is their comedic skills *rolls eyes*...more like lack-thereof if you ask me! It's pretty easy now to see why no one had ever heard of any of these idiots before they appeared on this show because they are all so terribly unfunny and pathetic in their attempts at so-called "humor" that I swear I could feel my intestines knot up with each and every rancid one-liner they shot off one after another! Altogether, I have no problem in saying that "I Love the 80's" was/is trash of the lowest denominator, and one of the main reasons why I almost never watch VH1 anymore.
Very much a film from the times -- extremely long sequences with no dialogue, bad flashbacks, and an almost entirely male cast. The two women who appear have a total of under 10 lines and exist only as romantic interests for men.<br /><br />O'Toole is riveting whenever he speaks; unfortunately, he spends much of his time peering through shrubbery. Alastair Sims is always a joy to see but he, too, is terribly underused.<br /><br />The film has one additional positive aspect, in that it depicts many aspects of British fascism and fascist sympathies (such as the casual appearance of the Mosley graffiti) that many people today are unaware of. Too many of today's films about WWII paint the Allies as all-good and the Axis as all-evil, when history tells us people are far more complicated than that!<br /><br />This would be a good movie for when you're recovering from the flu and are bundled on the couch and not able to absorb anything too complex. If you just need something to pass the time while your electrolytes stabilize, this is the movie for you.
There is a reason why this made for British TV movie only appeared at the 1977 Toronto Film Festival. It is dull, plodding and lacking in suspense.<br /><br />Peter OÕTooleÕs diffident performance and the appearance of playwright Harold Pinter are the only elements of interest.<br /><br />Note : Some British film fans will enjoy seeing Philip Jackson, best known for his portrayal of Inspector Japp in the Poirot television series, in one of his earliest roles....
Are you kidding me?! A show highlighting someone who opens cans and envelopes for a meal? How talented do you have to be to do this? She MAY be able to cook but it is NOT portrayed in this half-hour stomach churning painful production. I know she has a Martha-Stewart-esquire empire. So does Warren Buffett but I don't see him with fake knockers opening cans of cream corn and Alpo.<br /><br />She has a nephew named...Brycer. Brycer? Stop talking about anyone a name that stupid.<br /><br />More time is spent on "table-scapes" than actual cooking. Who has that kind of time?! Silicon should be on your spatula, not on my TV. This show should be on Cartoon Network, NOT Food Network.
- A Mexican priest becomes a wrestler to save an orphanage or something -<br /><br />I went to see this movie because it was about non-WWF wrestling and so I thought it might be funny. It wasn't. It is excruciating to watch. Embarrassing. Any and every opportunity for comedy is mercilessly squandered. <br /><br />I admit I don't like Jack Black anyway. After this I have been racking my brain to think of one good role that he has performed. The only thing I can come up with where he was o.k. was as a necessary foil to the John Cusack character in 'High Fidelity'. Jack Black is one of those awful relentless flat-out ham-it-up knockabout guys (like the little fat one in Abbot & Costello or Jerry Lewis) who should be told that being overbearingly idiotic is not the same thing as being funny. <br /><br />It is not even slapstick. It's just irritating. It's not even stoopid, it's just stupid.<br /><br />I heard good things about Napoleon Dynamite too, but if this is anything to go by I wont be rushing out to find it on DVD.
Jack Black can usually make me snicker simply by breathing, but in this movie...<br /><br />Besides the direction, writing, lack of plot, constant mugging (aided and abetted by constant straight-on camera shots), and a .050 joke batting average, it was still an utter waste of time. The idea sounds promising, but what potential there was gets wasted with an utter lack of comedy and some of the worst direction I've seen this side of you-tube.<br /><br />I kept hearing that this film portrayed Mexicans very negatively. While that's no doubt true, I really don't think this movie is meant to be racist. I think that's it's more a result of a "creative" team desperately trying to find something funny in this mess. You can almost hear them crying out from behind the camera: "Hey look, it's an ugly Mexican! Laugh, people! Please, for the love of all things tenacious, LAUGH!"<br /><br />But put the racism charges aside. When you get down to it, it's anyone who plunked down good money and time to watch this pile of leftover refried beans that should be offended, IMO.
I'm sure deep in the recesses of Jack Blacks mind the character of Nacho Libre is absolutely hilarious but no it isn't. You can tell ol Jacks having a whale of a time hammin it up playing a smarmy, slimy Mexican friar with dreams of becoming a wrestler but this movie is a total misfire in just about every single department.<br /><br />I just sat there through most of the movie thinking "Is this supposed to be funny" and "This is the guy from Tenacious D right?". The truth is this film has NOTHING to offer. AT ALL! It's a lousy script with crappy characters and really naff acting and direction. You'll watch endless moments where you think something funny is surely about to happen but it just doesn't. I was bored stupid about 10 minutes in but though it would surely pick up. It didn't. 90 minutes later I'd barely managed to stave off an aneurism it was that painful.<br /><br />It's like, remember years ago when you'd see anything with your fave actor in it, even some of their really early pap from before they were famous, and you'd be really embarrassed that said actor was actually in such a load of plop. Yeah it's like that.<br /><br />I've enjoyed some of Jack Black's earlier movies like Shallow Hall and I'm really looking forward to seeing Pick of Destiny but come on man. If you do this to us again Jack I'm gonna have to come round there and hammer your kneecaps or something. At the least give you a serious talking to.<br /><br />I know it's a cliché but this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen and for so many reasons....
I mean, really... either i suddenly lost my sense of humor or this is just a really bad movie. It's stupid, ridiculous and just not funny AT ALL.<br /><br />Since i saw the preview i knew it wasn't going to be a great movie, i just didn't think it was gonna be that bad...<br /><br />What happened to the good old times when you could find clever funny lines at any movie? When the actors didn't have to play ridiculous roles in attempt to be funny?. Now we find ourselves with movies like this one, Borat, Little Men, Scary Movie 4 where i could not find the funny parts!!<br /><br />Just skip this piece of garbage<br /><br />P.S. (sorry for my English)
What a disappointment!<br /><br />This film seemed to be trying to copy 'cutting edge' comedy but the direction and the script was sloppy, sickly and sentimental in the worst film tradition. Jack Black's acting/role was self-indulgent and self-regarding... and the other characters were equally unmasking and uninteresting. The soundtrack was tedious. We are ( WERE) fans of Black but none of us did more than mange a forced titter for the duration. Why did he feel he needed to make this mistake?<br /><br />We will not watch another of his films without reading reviews more carefully first!!<br /><br />Was he drunk when he read the script before signing up for this drivel?
We loved School of Rock and Jack Black. We couldn't wait to go and see this movie. It was the only time in my life the movie was so bad I wanted to walk out. My husband hated it too. The only funny parts were in the trailers. My husband and I wanted to stand outside the movie theater and tell people to save their money. The writing was awful. It had every terrible stereotype of Hispanic people who should be utterly offended. The movie wasn't that long but to us it seemed like an eternity. The people in the theater were so restless and silent it was like watching paint dry. I made my husband stay because I was sure there would maybe be some redeeming parts, but there weren't. Save you money and your time.
Jack Black is an annoying character.This is an annoying indie movie for 14 year olds.Do I have to write eight more lines?Ana de la Reguera is dang fine to look at,as a Mexican nun who puts up with the rather forward and rude advances of Jack Black.This movie is a PG 13 version of an indie film.I really like a movie that has the courage to explore Mexican culture.This movie explores Mexican culture-deeply. I just choke on its cultural rudeness:Jack Black is just so rude. A white person like Jack Black is not my most valuable emissary into Mexican culture, as it were.Mexican Wrestling culture is not the most diaphanous venue a white guy, such as myself could seek.I suspect Mexico is more culturally opaque than Jack Black has presented here.<br /><br />I think IMDb changed my review.Has anyone else had his review changed as well?Just a question.
"Nacho Libre" (2006) <br /><br />Directed By: Jared Hess <br /><br />Starring: Jack Black, Ana de la Reguera, Héctor Jiménez, & Darius Rose <br /><br />MPAA Rating: "PG-13" (for some rough action, and crude humor including dialog) <br /><br />Say what you will about it (I know some people who despise it to no end), but I have always thought that "Napoleon Dynamite" was a funny movie--not the brightest brick on the wall, but a funny movie, nonetheless. Jack Black is also a very funny man--irritating at times, yes, and massively overrated by adolescent audiences who practically worship him, but funny. There has rarely been a Jack Black comedy that I did not enjoy to some degree. So, I was very happy to hear that Jared Hess, the writer and director of "Napoleon Dynamite", and Jack Black would be teaming up for a movie about a Spanish friar who becomes a wrestler to save an orphanage. My only reservation was that the plot seemed a little too thin. Unfortunately, my one reservation turned out to be downfall of the entire movie. This plot, had it been done as a skit on some such show as "Saturday Night Live" or possibly even "Mad TV", would have worked flawlessly. Unfortunately, the plot runs far too thin over the approximate one and a half hour runtime and this one-joke comedy falls flat.<br /><br />Nacho was raised in a Mexican monastery and became a devout man of the Lord. Feeling shunned by the entire monastery, Nacho (Black), now the monastery's cook, decides to follow his dreams to become a professional wrestler. As the monastery's finances hit an all-time low, Nacho decides to join a wresting tournament so that he can win the prize money and provide good food for the monastery's orphanage. This plot sounds so sweet and caring. It seems like the perfect movie for Jack Black. Look what he did with "School of Rock" after all. Well, to my displeasure, this plot is almost completely ruined by offensive and gross humor that just takes away from the heart of the movie. It is again Hollywood's way of showing that they feel that teen audiences will only understand fart jokes and stupid humor…of course, for all I know, maybe that is the general thought of teenagers, as many seemed to enjoy this movie. Watching an obese woman scurry like a mouse across the floor will certainly make people laugh, but don't expect to get an award for putting it in your movie. A seven-year-old could make up the same joke.<br /><br />The performances in "Nacho Libre" are actually good. Jack Black proves once again that he is absolutely hilarious and that he can make even the most idiotic, worthless lines in ever put on paper comical. Unfortunately, this movie just wasn't enough for him. It didn't give him anything to go on and the only reason any of his jokes worked was because of him. I had never seen or heard of Ana de la Reguera before, but now I can say that, not only is she quite talented, but she is also one of the most beautiful women to have ever graced my eyesight. She just clicked in the role and it worked wonderfully well. Héctor Jiménez, who plays Nacho's bumbling partner, Esqueleto, kept me laughing continuously. He did a very nice job and it was very effective when partnered with that of Jack Black's. Darius Rose, who plays an orphan named Chancho, didn't have many lines, but, what can I say, I just enjoyed him. He was adorable. The rest of the cast did their job. It is unfortunate that they were wasted on such a sub-par movie.<br /><br />"Nacho Libre" just does not work. Its plot is stretched far too thin. The heart of it all is soiled by moronic humor and sickening jokes that just don't work. I very rarely laughed and, if I did, it was because of Jack Black or another member of the cast. And that leads me to the bright side of "Nacho Libre": yes, the cast. This cast was just…well, for lack of a better word, they were on. They all clicked, had excellent chemistry together, and pumped as much life as possible into the flat script. After Jared Hess's "Napoleon Dynamite" kept me thoroughly entertained for the entirety of the movie, I was surprised to find myself so often bored with "Nacho Libre". Something was lost here and I have yet to understand what it was. All I know is that "Nacho Libre" is not a good movie and yet, because of its cast, it is completely worthless. There is a small reason to watch, if only to watch Jack Black work. But, if you are not a fan of Jack Black, then avoid this movie like the plague. I like Black, but I am done with this movie and with this review.<br /><br />Final Thought: Yikes! This is Jared Hess's surprisingly disappointing follow-up to his hysterical "Napoleon Dynamite".<br /><br />Overall Rating: 4/10 (C+)
This kind of "inspirational" saccharine is enough to make you sick. It telegraphs its sentiments like the biggest semaphore on earth. It removes from the audience its own interpretation and feeling by making the choices for it. The big finish is swimming in weeping orchestration that must supposed to work like jumper cables on a dead car; I guess you'd need such prompting to feel if you're stupid enough to watch a film as simple-minded and sappy as this. Streep glows and you wonder if she really has the depth of feeling on display or if it's just that---a display, switched on and off like a light. Because I can't for the life of me see how she could possibly find life in such a dud of film. Even though it's based on a true story, and an inspirational one at that I'm sure, the set-up, execution and performances play like a third-rate TV movie or half-witted high school drama.
I saw this movie at a 'sneak preview' and i must honestly confess that I do not like films with Meryl Streep that much. This picture was the worst. Half the theatre did not return after the break halfway the film. I couldnt blame them, if this wasn't a true story there had been absolutely no need for the second half of the picture. Just before the film goes forward in time about ten years I myself was expecting the credits to appear.
What a horrible, horrible film. The worst collection of cliches I have seen in a long time. Not that I saw much. I left the theatre screaming after about 40 minutes in search of a stiff drink to soothe my nerves. Meryl Streep was awful as usual. How many hurt and tortured expressions can 1 person have? Aidan Quinn's talents were - as so often - totally wasted. And who told Gloria Estefan she could act? Trying to be polically correct this movie still enforces racial stereotypes. (Brave inexperienced lonely music teacher teaches underprivilegded kids violin in poor neighbourhood school). The kids weren't even cute! Just written in to suit the appalling script. Aaargh! Wes Craven really made me cringe for once. real horror this one!
Hip. Erotic. Wickedly sexy ... whatever. It's "The Terminator" with werewolves.<br /><br />No, seriously. The cop saves the girl (waitress!) from the big monster and refers to himself as her 'protector'. The lead actor Ryan Alosio does a pretty good job of emulating Kyle Reese ... there's a massacre in a police precinct ... the bad guy is muscular with red eyes ... and it even contains dialogue along the lines of "You said it yourself, he won't ever stop. Never." The dire script comes from a first-time screenwriter who, thank God, hasn't sold anything since this, and it's all thrown together by famously bad director Richard Friedman.<br /><br />The movie opens in a strip bar (always a good sign), and a mean-looking biker guy bursts in for no apparent reason, pursued by three cops. One of them is black, and (shock horror!) he's the one who gets killed in the first five minutes. The film goes downhill for the next hour or so, then picks up a little with some decent action sequences, before rounding it all up with an abysmal ending.<br /><br />For the most part, the cast come across as competent actors doing what they can with a bad script and a director who's willing to settle for less. If nothing else they appear to be learning how to act in this movie and Alosio, along with some of the supporting cast, shows signs of talent. DarkWolf in his human form is played by gargantuan Kane Hodder -- famous for his numerous portrayals of Jason Vorhees in the 'Friday the 13th' movies. He's decent enough, especially considering he isn't used to speaking roles.<br /><br />It's become famous amongst groups of horny teenage boys for the lesbian rooftop scene between Andrea Bogart and Sasha Williams, who gets her kit off a couple of times in the grand tradition of former 'Power Rangers' actresses. And it's unnervingly clear that the editor spent WAY too much time on that scene ... anyway, the main redeeming feature is that the physical werewolf effects are rather good, and the design of the wolf isn't bad at all.But the CGI is bad. Just plain bad. I mean seriously, if you can't reach some level of realism - why bother? Just throw a little extra money into the make-up! Aside from the terrible script, this movie does have it's moments, many of which are unintentionally funny. It's good for a laugh if you don't have anything better to do, but just don't spend any money on it. Please.
Dark Wolf (Quick Review) Let's get right to it: This is a repugnant piece of rotting roadkill with cow sh*t on it. It's just an awful movie. It's an urban werewolf movie with some of the worst acting imaginable and a story as weak as any gangly nerd from an 80's high school drama film. What's worse is that poor Kane Hodder was duped into playing the gigantic evil werewolf. Kane f*cking Hodder. Someone's trying to ensure that playing Jason Voorhees is the height of his film career...<br /><br />Anyway, former Playmate Jaime Bergman is also in the movie and she eventually becomes a werewolf, too. It's kind of a crappy cop drama with the world's worst looking werewolf in it. But it does have moments of near-rampant nudity. But that's about all. Want to know more? Okay, the werewolf is generally an ugly-looking black blur zipping around the screen. And when we're privileged enough to actually see a transformation sequence, we're presented with something that resembles a full-motion video from a video game made during the early stages of the Playstation. The first Playstation. The CG animation is really that primitive. Only good for horror hardcore fanatics that want to see small moments of nudity surrounded by rampant visual vomit. 2/10<br /><br />www.ResidentHazard.com
The only reason I even watched this was because I found it at my local library (and will berate them mercilessly for having wasted public monies on it), and despite the plethora of tits and ass, it didn't take long to realize that the fast-forward button was my friend. Terrible direction, pedestrian camera work, sporadically bad-to-nearly-passable acting, chintzy effects, and one of the worst screenplays I've had the displeasure of seeing brought to life (such as it was, horribly crippled and mutilated) in a long, long time. Best laughs actually come from the "Making of..." featurette, in which the poor saps involved with this HDV mess attempt to justify their lame efforts as if they had been working on something special, instead of something that won't be utterly forgotten next week. Wait! Except for the fact that somehow someone lured Tippi "The Birds" Hedren, of all people, into doing a bit part, along with Kane "Friday the 13th" Hodder! How this came to pass, I'll never know, and to be honest, I don't really care. Watch at your own risk, and don't say you haven't been warned. This is film-making at its pretentious, craven worst. It only gets a 2 from me for having some good-looking naked women, and even then, just barely.
This move was on TV last night. I guess as a time filler, because it sucked bad! The movie is just an excuse to show some tits and ass at the start and somewhere about half way. (Not bad tits and ass though). But the story is too ridiculous for words. The "wolf", if that is what you can call it, is hardly shown fully save his teeth. When it is fully in view, you can clearly see they had some interns working on the CGI, because the wolf runs like he's running in a treadmill, and the CGI fur looks like it's been waxed, all shiny :)<br /><br />The movie is full of gore and blood, and you can easily spot who is going to get killed/slashed/eaten next. Even if you like these kind of splatter movies you will be disappointed, they didn't do a good job at it.<br /><br />Don't even get me started on the actors... Very corny lines and the girls scream at everything about every 5 seconds. But then again, if someone asked me to do bad acting just to give me a few bucks, then hey, where do I sign up?<br /><br />Overall boring and laughable horror.
Another in a long line of flicks made by people who think that knowing how to operate a camera is the same as telling a story. Within 15 minutes, the entire premise is laid out in just a few lines, so there is absolutely no mystery, which eliminates a whole facet of the suspense. The only half-way competent actor is killed 10 minutes into the film, so we're left with stupid characters running around doing stupid things. Low budget films can't afford expensive special effects, so the CGI portions are unsurprisingly unimpressive, but were at least a valid attempt. The creature suit is terrible, as seen when it falls to the sidewalk, and the director keeps emphasizing the eyes, which aren't even the red color shown in mirror shots. The dialogue is clumsy and uninspired, with some lines reminiscent of Aliens or Terminator. The last action sequence takes place in a police station, also a rip-off from Terminator, with everyone hiding in the one glass lined office that the Darkwolf doesn't smash into. In the end, the girl calls the hero "a good Protector", but he gets both his partners, the original Protector, and at least three other civilians, not to mention a dozen cops, all killed without getting a decent shot off, in spite of an arsenal of silver bullets and a submachine gun. But here's the real clincher for bad writing: They could have killed the beast right after the beginning credits when it was holding the stripper while flashing its red eyes. Instead, they took it into custody?!?
Why bother seeing this movie, if you have great movies to see. It is a total waste of time and money. The movie is so bad that I felt bad for wanting to watching it. Everything in it is BAD. Actors were bad. Script was REALLY bad. The story is stupid. And the worst CGI EVER. The only good moments were the first 60 seconds of the movie in the strip club. One interesting thing that, there is a characther that we wish that he dies because, he is so stupid that we get enough of him.(I don't remember the name but was the BOYFRIEND of the "Chosen One".)<br /><br />NOTE:If you want to see a good movie, this movie isn't the right choice. 0-Stars out of 10
DarkWolf tells the tale of a young waitress named Josie (Samaire Armstrong) who had been leading a pretty ordinary life until her friend Mary (Tippi Hedren) is killed by a Werewolf, you see Werewolves actually exist in modern day America & there is even a special organisation within the police force to fight the Werewolf threat headed up by Detective Steve Turley (Ryan Olosio) who has the difficult task of telling Josie that she is in fact a pure blooded Werewolf herself & that a so-called 'dark prince' Werewolf (Kane Hodder) wants to mate with her & create a new breed of pure blood Werewolves that will take over the entire world, or something like that. Understandably Josie has a hard time believing it, that is until she sees the evidence with her own eyes. It's up to Werewolf cop Steve to save Josie, the day & the world...<br /><br />Co-executive produced & directed Richard Friedman I thought DarkWolf was a pretty bad low budget shot on a digital camcorder horror film that didn't really do anything for me. The script by Geoffrey Alan Holliday starts out promisingly enough being set in a strip club with plenty of naked breasts on show & then there's a Werewolf attack which leaves someone splattered everywhere but after this decent opening sequence it's pretty much down hill all the way I'm afraid. For a start it's slow going, it's dull, it's predictable & it's populated with highly annoying character's who come out with lots of bad dialogue & do stupid things like when they have the opportunity to shoot the Werewolf they don't, I have no idea why but they prefer to just stand there instead. The script is dumb & doesn't explain itself, why has Josie never turned into a Werewolf before? Is she really the only one? Why can't this 'dark prince' find another female Werewolf? There are also lots of other things which make little or no sense like an ancient book which at fist seems quite important but is then totally forgotten about half-way through but you get the idea anyway, as a whole the film plods along in very linear fashion to a very predictable climatic showdown that is underwhelming to say the least.<br /><br />Director Friedman lights the film quite well with bright neon but this is noting new or original & doesn't really improve the film as a spectacle. Now let's talk special effects or rather the lack of them because the effects in DarkWolf are far from special, the Werewolf transformation is achieved using CGI & it's among the worst looking CGI I've ever seen, seriously a Playstation would be embarrassed about these computer graphics. It's easily the worst Werewolf transformation I've ever seen, An American Werewolf in London (1981) was made over 25 years ago yet the special effects in that are literally light-years ahead of the ones seen in DarkWolf, who says special effects have improved over the years? The animatronic puppet effects aren't much better either although at least there's something psychical on screen. The gore isn't up to much after a gory opening kill there's some blood splatter & plenty of dead bodies but not much else. Thre's a fair amount of female nudity if that's your thing but don't get too excited because you still have to sit through a terrible film to see it, is it really worth it?<br /><br />Technically DarkWolf is alright apart from possibly the worst CGI effect ever, it's reasonably well made & it at least seems to have production values. The acting is what you'd expect really.<br /><br />DarkWolf is yet another low budget piece of crap horror film that litter video shop shelves & clutter the schedules of obscure cable TV stations, I didn't think it was as bad as some but it's like saying going to the dentist is slightly more fun than going to a funeral although when all said & done they're both horrible still...
I watched this film alone, in the dark, and it was full moon outside! I didn't do it in purpose, it just happened in this way. So all the elements were there for this film to scare the hell out of me!! Well, it didn't, in fact i wanted to shut off the DVD player after only 8 minutes, but i thought come on give it a chance, unfortunately i did. The acting was awful, the only one with some decent acting was Samaire Armstrong. The plot is not original, if you are a horror fan then it is just the same stuff you have seen many times before. Some scenes didn't make sense at all, and you just get the feeling that the director wanted to make the movie longer! The monster was the biggest disappointment of the movie. The (scary) scenes looked like they belong to a horror movie from the 80s when there was not enough technology, yet some good movies were made back then! I was surprised to see the name of a major production company at the beginning of the movie, i thought couldn't they put some money in this and make it decent?!! I couldn't agree more with the ratings that the movie got, it is also my rating for it, 3 out of 10.
Recap: Full moon. A creature, a huge werewolf, is on the hunt. Not for flesh, not for blood (not that it seem to mind to take a bite on the way though), but for a mate. He is on the hunt for a girl. Not any girl though. The Girl. The girl that is pure (and also a werewolf, although she doesn't know it yet). Three, well check that, two cops (after the first scene) and an old bag lady is all that can stop it, or even knows that the thing killing and eating a lot of folks around full moon is a werewolf. This particular powerful werewolf, Darkwolf, is closing in on the girl. If he gets her, mankind is doomed. Now the cops has to find the girl, convince her not only that there is someone, a werewolf nonetheless, that wants to rape her, and perhaps kill her, but that she is a werewolf herself. And then they got to stop him...<br /><br />Comments: This is one for the boys, the teenage boys. A lot of scenes with semi-nude girls more or less important for the plot. Mostly less. Well I guess you need something to fill some time because the plot is (expectedly) thin. And unfortunately there is little besides the girls to help the plot from breaking. One usually turns to two main themes. Nudity. Check. And then special effects. Hmm... Well there are some things that you might call effects. They're not very special though. In fact, to be blunt, they are very bad. The movie seems to be suffering of a lack of funds. They couldn't afford clothes for some of the girls ;), and the effects are cheap. Some of the transformations between werewolf and human form, obviously done by computer, are really bad. You might overlook such things. But the Darkwolf in itself is very crude too, and you never get to see any killings. Just some mutilated corpses afterwards. And there is surprisingly little blood about, in a movie that honestly should be drenched in blood.<br /><br />I'm not sure what to say about actors and characters. Most of the times they do well, but unfortunately there are lapses were the characters (or actors) just looses it. A few of these lapses could be connected with the problems mentioned above. Like the poor effects, or the poor budget(?). That could explain why there is precious little shooting, even if the characters are armed like a small army and the target is in plain sight (and not moving). But hey, when you're in real danger, there nothing that will save your life like a good one-liner...<br /><br />Unfortunately that can't explain moments when the Cop, Steve, the only one who knows how to maybe deal with the problem, the werewolf that is, runs away, when the only things he can be sure of, is that the werewolf is coming for the girl, who is just beside him now, and that he cannot let it have her. But sure, it let the makers stretch the ending a little more...<br /><br />But I wouldn't mind seeing none of the lead actors/actresses get another try in another movie.<br /><br />Well. To give a small conclusion: Not a movie that I recommend.<br /><br />3/10
This is the prime example of low budget, winning over what would be a good story line. Let's bring back Samaire Armstrong (having seen her work on the O.C. I know she can do better), then find a better script and budget.<br /><br />The special effects were so bad, and mostly badly computer generated, that it almost lost me with the first time the wolf was seen on-screen. And Samaire Armstrong's (alert!)changing into a werewolf was done by reducing her at first to a bad GCIF figure before she even begins to change(Final Fantasy's humans, as well as Pixar's made these laughable, think of the figure as a nude Barbie Doll).<br /><br />The story of was interesting, though the idea of bloodline in werewolves is nothing new. As it also got into the balance between evil, (maybe) not so evil, and the possible end of human-kind should the two lines mate. The subplot of a "book of werewolf linage" which effected some of the other characters in a spell-like manner for a while was effective, but could have been expanded more in explaining what had happened in the past. <br /><br />Bring in a better script and direction, and I'd come back again.
I have nothing to comment on this movie It is so bad that I had to put my first comment on IMDb website to help some viewers save some time and do something more interesting, instead of watching this "movie" ... anything will do, even stare at the walls is better.<br /><br />And because I have to write minimum 10 lines of text, i tell you also is a low budget movie, bad acting, no name actors, a stupid mutt as the wolf, and so on... Also the story brings nothing new, the special effects are made in the 80's style.<br /><br />The movie is almost as bad as the movie "Megalodon".<br /><br />So have fun! ;) (not watching this movie)
Well, no, not really. Its not really a good movie, but its not as bad as I thought it was going to be. I really didn't feel ripped off of my rental money, and sometimes thats all you can ask for. The plot is OK, nothing brilliant or new, the acting is pretty bad, but the cast is pretty. The directing is passable, but the effects are horrible, especially the werewolf effects, which in a werewolf movie, is a pretty big problem. There was a fairly decent amount of nudity, which to me is a pretty good thing, but it wasn't all that hot. All in all, its a fairly average direct to video movie, not the worst film I've ever seen and if you're bored a genre fan, check it out sometime. I'd even watch it again.<br /><br />Bonus fact for horror geeks, Kane Hodder (Jason Vorhees in a few of them) plays the werewolf.
Where to start ?! . . . I feel ... violated! Thats right, violated! I just spent 1.5hrs of my life, 1.5hrs that I could have spent doing something more useful, like watching paint dry, on this so called horror flick.<br /><br />Its not scary, its not funny, its not dramatic, its no action, its nothing...<br /><br />Its predictable, its boring, its tragic...<br /><br />I might come of a bit harsh here, but watch this movie and you will feel the same way ... or ... no, don't watch it...unless you want to feel violated also.
This flick reminded me of those lame "erotic thrillers" I used to stay up late and watch on Cinemax when I was 13. I'd label this flick softer-core since there is just no simulated bump and grinder. There is, however, a ton of nudity- the opening scene is in a strip club, we see Kane Hodder's keester (or at least a stunt butt) and then an inexplicable 10 minute lesbian dance scene in the middle of the film and a nude female werewolf who looks like they mugged on of the Munster's for a costume. 13 year old boys rejoice.<br /><br />Other than that the werewolf transformation scenes have the worst CGI I've seen in years. The shots look like FMV's from the video game Resident Evil in terms of quality. The wolf is too bad to be explained and, despite the poor quality of the suit is shown way, way too many times.<br /><br />The plot and acting make no sense. There is some oddball back story about werewolves and hybrid-werewolves- the Darkwolf is the latter but from what I can tell hybrids do the same thing all werewolves do- look human, change to a wolf an kill people. The Darkwolf is trying to find a mate but oddly can't find the mate but can sniff out anyone she touches. Once more, this skills proves less than useful since the Darkwolf winds up killing several folks his target never touched, met or even saw as best I can tell. The mate doesn't know she's a werewolf and she's fighting the transformation or something.<br /><br />You'd think it'd be hard to mess up a simple monster movie s bad as this but, well they did. Want quality low-end werewolf-ism, go rent Dog soldiers want a ton of T&A this is your flick.
Hi, I'm a friend of werewolf movies, and when i saw the title of Darkwolf hitting the shelves i was like "hmm, simple and nice name to it at least. Althou... i wonder why i haven't heard of it before."<br /><br />First of all, the movie starts with tits. Lots of tits. Tits are pretty much all this movies budget went to. Who cares about a werewolf effect, just pay the actresses enough to get topless shots!<br /><br />So, about the mysterious darkwolf character (a little spoilers ahead, but who really cares...) He's your average everyday biker. Not even super-tough looking, but like the old wise woman says in the movie "he is far more powerful and dangerous than you've ever faced before." Just by describing her a tattooed biker-type of a guy. Pretty original. I even had look twice when they first used the "red glowing eyes" SPECIAL EFFECT! I mean my god, that "lets-plant-red-dots-on-eyes-with-computer" effect has been used since the seventies. It looks plain ugly here! And don't get me started with the werewolf 3D-CGI. As said before, like an bad and old video game.<br /><br />And finally, as i do like werewolf films, like i said. They prettymuch always build a werewolf-legend of their own. Darkwolf does build the werewolfworld as well, about some silly legends of hybrid-werewolves and the ancient bloodline. BUT. It almost instantly after creating the rules of engagement "the darkwolf kills anyone the girl has touched" starts random-slashing. Which just doesn't make any sense, why even bother telling us the rules of killing, when they aren't even gonna play by them... Aplus the wolf-point-of-view shots are made with a sony handycam or something, filming mostly the floor and walls. Just add growling noises and you've got a super werewolf effect. The gore is partially OK. But when the wolf slashes everyone with an open hand, just by basically laying the hand on top of the victims, it just doesn't do the trick for me...<br /><br />Truly, WHO gives money to make these heaps of junk straight-to-video horrortitles, they aren't even funny-kind of bad movies, just sad.
This is the absolutely worst piece of crap I've ever had to watch - actually it was so bad that I just HAD to watch it :-)<br /><br />The CGI is sooo bad it's fun! It's not even close to the shitty CGI animations in Spawn, that's how bad it is, har har har...<br /><br />I'm amazed over the fact that some distribution company actually has put money down to release this on DVD, but I guess they'll get more money out of it that way, 'cos the cost of making it can not have been more than a few hundred dollars.<br /><br />It's so awful that a kindergarten class could have made it.<br /><br />See it and laugh!
Man, this movie sucked big time! I didn't even manage to see the hole thing (my girlfriend did though). Really bad acting, computer animations so bad you just laugh (woman to werewolf), strange clips, the list goes on and on. Don't know if its just me or does this movie remind you of a porn movie? And I don't mean all the naked ladys... It's something about the light or something... This could maybee become a classic just because of the bad acting and all the naked women, but not because it's an original movie white a nice plot twist. My final words are: Don't see it! It's not worth the time. If you wanna see it because the nakedness there's lots of better ones to see!
I thought I was going to watch a scary movie.. and ended up laughing all the way throughout the movie. In the scene where the human transformed to a werewolf I thought they was kidding. Todays computer games have ten times better animations. Low budget, is a fitting comment. I would recommend Wolf (1994) with Jack Nicholson for a good werewolf movie. It has good special effects as they should be (human transforming to werewolf). Unless you wish to have good laugh I would not recommend you to watch this movie. This movie is a joke.
There isn't much to say about this film, it is horrible.<br /><br />The acting and dialog are way far away from even decent, the story of the hybrid werewolf's is not very well explained and the whole thing has plot holes here and there.<br /><br />CGI is something you wouldn't like to see. It so amateurish that it makes me vomit.<br /><br />The only good thing on the DVD was in the Extras. The gag reel. Everything else, just waste of time and money. I hope noone will buy this, this is not even worth renting.<br /><br />Just stay away of this.
Let me start by saying that I'd read a number of reviews before renting this film and kind of knew what to expect. Still, I was surprised by just how bad it was. <br /><br />I am a big werewolf fan, and have grown accustomed to forgiving a great deal when watching one. Most of them have sub-par effects, poor acting, and weak storylines (at best rehashed from earlier films). So far, with the possible exception of some of the later "Howling" series films, this is the worst of the lot.<br /><br />First, the story. It's been quoted several times in reviews on this site, so I won't go into specifics. However, it is very obvious that the writer(s) had absolutely no affinity for lycanthropic monsters. As so often happens when a horror film is given to a writer who considers themselves "above" such fare, they tried to come up with a new spin on the werewolf mythos. That's fine, but a non-horror fan trying to do this generally has disregard for the intelligence and sophistication of the horror audience and ends up writing down to them. The plot feels like a parody of werewolf films, and the events depicted just ring so false that I felt my intelligence was being seriously insulted. TV news footage, for example, never pans away from the reporter to close-up on someone in the crowd behind them. Give the characters and the viewers credit for being able to spot the bad guy in the scene without using a flashing neon sign. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.<br /><br />As for effects, I have NEVER seen a less believable werewolf. I'd have been happier with Lon Chaney Jr. in crepe hair. The beast they used look a great deal like... well, like a guy in a cheap rubber suit with some hair glued on and some truly awful animatronics. And, I know that many people have already criticized the CG, but my God it was awful. One scene features a woman changing, and starts with a completely CG version of the actress, nude but for some reason without nipples. My first thought was, "hey, why is one of the characters from 'ReBoot' turning into a silly looking werewolf?"<br /><br />Anyway, I like to look for positives in any film, and there were a few. The cinematography was passable (the film was shot all-digital, which is interesting) and some of the performances were not terrible. It was also interesting seeing Tippi Hedron as the world's most well made-up homeless woman, and Kane Hodder as the title bad guy. Also, the Yellow Power Ranger got all growed up and... well, damn. And if you're looking for skin, there's some pretty tasty examples. This ends the male-pig segment of the review.<br /><br />Overall, if you want a good werewolf film, try "An American Werewolf in London", the original "The Howling", "Dog Soldiers", or even "The Wolfen" (though that one's got more wolf than were). If you're a lycanthrope completest, then take a gander. Otherwise, give this one a miss.
All the bare chested women in the world couldn't keep me from hitting the stop button about a third of the way through this awful rubbish. With the derisory acting, equally terrible script plus the poor CGI FX to match; this movie is an insult to the Werewolf genre. It is supposed to be serious, which in itself would be funny if this film could even make it to the level of being a bad joke.<br /><br />This is one of those movies where the people behind the camera are obviously competent but are too lazy to make something even one quarter decent. Avoid at all costs and watch one of the classic Werewolf movies instead.<br /><br />0 out of 10!
This is only the second time I've felt compelled enough to comment at imdb about a film. The first time was for probably the best movie I've ever seen and that was for Memento.<br /><br />Seeing Darkwolf is at the other end of the scale compared to Memento, as in the worst film I've had the misfortune to see. Apart from the two scenes containing naked women there is nothing in this movie to raise it from the trash-pile that it is.<br /><br />Let's see, apalling effects, cliched script, bad acting and about 90 minutes too long. My wife and I laughed through most of it in disbelief at how bad. Amazingly I watched it to the end, how I did that I don't know! AVOID!!!
When I first started watching this movie I was looking for some kind of subtle metaphors but it soon dawned on me that this movie was indeed about people on a train. The interactions between people are like those you can see any day on the street and when in occasion there is a slightly more interesting situation the dialogue becomes stilted and boring. Its not that I don't get how this film is trying to portray the way people interact, it's just that in this film they are very boring. If you want to see and analyse these kinds of relationships you'd be best to actually go out and buy a train ticket and look at the people on the train with you. It is realistic but you wouldn't go to a movie to watch a film about you sitting there watching the movie.
This isn't a movie. It is a collection of unrelated, ill-conceived and poorly assembled scenes that look like the unedited results of a dim 10 year old with a mini-DV camera. In fact, I have a theory that the extremely abrasive girl in the train corridor - the one with the greasy hair, dead-pan stare, ipod and nervous tic - probably shot it herself in a creative phase.<br /><br />If you made it further than the ten minutes I did, don't bother trying to fit what you saw into the context of the European Artiste mentality praised above. This is a true and complete waste of time, money and film that would have made William One-Shot Beaudine cringe.<br /><br />The unfortunate part is that the endless series of vacuum-packed characters is representative of what now passes for much of humanity.<br /><br />What's next? Six directors shooting social intercourse at the Wal-Mart snack counter?
If you like films that ramble with little plot exposition spiced with kinky sex, this film is for you. On the plus side the lead actor/actress (newcomer transsexual) does have an interesting screen presence, but not enough to add up to much more than a mildly interesting movie - if that. Essentially this film is about 3 social outcasts (transexual prostitute, male hustler, and Russian,gay immigrant) who somehow have developed a bond. Why is not clear. We are expected to accept these misfits are at the core basic honest people who have the ability to love while they hustle their bodies on the street. Right!! And Anna Nicole Smith was truly in love with her ninety something sugar daddy! The filmmaker shows a gritty, unpleasant side of life while wanting us to believe underneath it all these seriously damaged people are really quite normal to the extent they have a menage a trois which helps them through life. Quite a fantasy, but unfortunately portrayed here as real look of life on the wild side. In sum, no plot, no truth and no real reason to spend much time here. Unless of course you just like to revel in the kink!!!
This story is about the romantic triangle between a nth. African male prostitute, a French transsexual prostitute (Stephanie) and a Russian waiter who speaks no French and never seems to shave.<br /><br />As a film it is dull, dreary and depressing, shot either on foggy, overcast winter days or in badly lit interiors, where everyone is bathed in a weird blue luminescence. And yes, I know, it's because the white balance was out. Everyone is pale and downcast and looks haggard, shabby and dirty. Bodies are bony and shot in such closeup that they look quite ugly and unappealing. Moles, greasy hair. Yuk. Bad news in a film where people spend a lot of time either naked or having sex.<br /><br />And the story? Well, Stephanie's mother is dying. All three characters go back to Stephanie's home village where, through a bunch of flashbacks to desolate countryside and predictably dingy interiors, we see a bit of Stephanie's childhood as a boy called Pierre. The mother dies. Well... and that's about it, really. Character development is kept to a minimum, as is the denouement of the story. <br /><br />I suppose the storyline is not linear (it would explain a lot of non sequiteurs) but really, after paying my seven euros I don't feel like having to construct the film myself: that's what the director takes my money for. To expect me to join the story telling process and get my hands dirty, so to speak, is asking way too much.<br /><br />This film is a heap of pretentious rubbish made, above all, from a desire to epater les bourgeois (ie shock the straights). I can see how it was a shoo-in for the Berlin Film Festival, and I can see why it got nowhere.
Medellin is a fabulous place to live, work, and study. I've been there twice, and never did I hear anything about guerrilla activities, paramilitaries taking tourists hostage, or anything of the sort. There are "invisible police," but it is *not* a Big Brother system. There are just enough police so that they are visible in everyday life, but they do not hassle someone without good reasons.<br /><br />La Sierra is an interesting documentary in that the youths it depicts in the movie essentially become its characters. The directors of the movie carefully carve out plot lines among the daily actions of the inhabitants of La Sierra, and when a "character" dies, there is genuine pathos. It is difficult to imagine, however, that the three youths are all members of the Bloque Metro, a gang that used to terrorize La Sierra before the Colombian government began to restructure the country.<br /><br />La Sierra is not an accurate depiction of life in Colombia; there are, of course, things to be wary of such as petty crime, but when one considers pickpocketing happens in "modern" cities such as London, New York, or Tokyo, Colombia doesn't seem that different after all. Colombians are eagerly awaiting their chance to show to the world that the once war-torn country is now prospering more than ever.
One of those Thank-God-I-don't-live-there documentaries. This one tells of two warring factions in Colombia, guerrillas and paramilitaries, and the surrounding peoples of Medellin.<br /><br />Guns, drugs and death run rampant. The guys, no older than 22, not in the middle of fighting a war are in jail. The girls – not women, girls – always react the same way when one of them is killed, with tears and screaming. You scratch your head; what did they expect, really? I don't know what's more disturbing: the nightly shoot-outs and civil unrest, or that everybody just seems to passively accept things as are. Or, seeing that boy drinking what is obviously not his first beer, being all of what, 10? If you were to take these any of these young men out of their situation and put them some place where they had the opportunity to do more, be more, how many would choose not to stay?<br /><br />Based on this documentary, all, I'm afraid.
Before I start, let me say that my experience of this movie might have been influenced by the dubbing, which I gather from other comments was the original one which is considered inferior by some. So, it is entirely possible that subtitles or the apparently new DVD version would make a difference. I have also not read the corresponding book; I'm only familiar with one other Japanese manga and might be lacking cultural context.<br /><br />Potential minor spoilers ahead.<br /><br />I usually like darkly tinged science fiction stories (the likes of Blade Runner, 12 Monkeys, etc.), but I did not enjoy this movie at all. While it started out mildly intriguing, it became tedious by the time it was only half-way finished. There are all sorts of problems; let's start with what is probably the most severe: the dialogue. The characters seem unable to formulate complete sentences; if they aren't shouting each other's names for the n-th time, they are usually grunting monosyllables ("Kanedaaa!", "Tetsuoooo!", "Huh?", "Grrr", etc.). This leaves most of the characters entirely underdeveloped and two-dimensional. It doesn't help in the least that a lot of them get only a few minutes of screen time without anything interesting to say that would develop them away from the stereotypes suggested by the visuals.<br /><br />The grunting is augmented by some random pseudo-philosophical technobabble that sounds vague and uninspired even by Star Trek standards. There is nothing deep and meaningful here - it all seems haphazard, thrown together at random from various bits and pieces of stock sci-fi ideas with no coherency whatsoever.<br /><br />What little there is of an intelligible plot is no more than an excuse to begin the overlong final sequence which consists of escalating scenes of mayhem and destruction. Not that there's anything wrong with a nice bit of mayhem and destruction, of course; but in this case you'll find yourself asking "what's the point of it all, and how long until it's over". Character development in the last 30 minutes or so consists of little more than Tetsuo turning into Pizza the Hutt for no readily apparent reason.<br /><br />The ending resembles the one in 2001 - a bizarre string of images that, far from resolving or explaining anything, leave the viewer feeling he's just been looking into a kaleidoscope for two hours. I'm sure some will claim that this sort of thing is art; but to me it was just a lot of admittedly imaginative use of colour and shapes. (Some of the music was also quite interesting). Unfortunately it's all style and no substance.<br /><br />Tired of Disney? Want to watch animated movies dealing intelligently with "adult" themes? I'm sad to say you're more likely to find that sort of thing in "South Park".
From around the time Europe began fighting World War II, until the war's end, Hollywood (with significant prodding from the government) made tons of movies which were designed to try and get young men to enlist in the Army, by making the life of a serviceman appear "cool." This is by far the sloppiest, implying that the life of a soldier is devoid of work, you get the best food, and you get to lie around all day listening to Ann Miller on the radio. I am far too young to have participated in WWII, but I think that there was more to it than that. There is the barest cat's whisker of a plot, and a bunch of musical numbers featuring some of the day's leading acts.<br /><br />I think that by 1943, even the most naive of civvies knew that there was more going on overseas than the wacky hijinks portrayed in this movie. While I am sure that it was meant to be viewed as escapist entertainment, I can't help but wonder if the family and loved ones of men fighting in the war, were amused or repulsed by this trivialization of their loved ones' sacrifice.
This is a truly awful "B" movie. It is witless and often embarrassing. The plot, the basic "making into show business" routine, is almost nonexistent. In fact, the film is merely an excuse to push the war effort and highlight some popular music groups of 1942, including the Mills Brothers, Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Bob Crosby, and Freddy Slack. Each group gets about the standard three minutes, the exception being the Mills Brothers, who for some reason warranted two numbers. Ann Miller doesn't get to dance until the last couple of minutes of the film, and she has little to do but strut her stuff amid a barrage of patriotic propaganda.<br /><br />The most interesting moment in the film, in my view, occurred in the Duke Ellington segment. The band appears to be playing in a train, standing in awkward positions. (In the deep South at the time, the band was segregated in railroad cars when traveling.) Johnny Hodges is seen next to Duke, and Harry Carney may also be identified. In the last moments of the film, trumpeter/violinist Ray Nance rushes down the aisle to the camera and does an "uncle Tom," bugging his eyes and wiggling his head the way Willy Best did in many films. For modern viewers, especially jazz fans, this homage to segregation is sad indeed. Some movies go best unseen.
Anyone notice that Tommy only has 3 facial expressions.<br /><br />1. The angry eyes look he gives every enemy. 2. The holding of the hands to face, mouth agape and frightened eyes. 3. The smiling Tommy Turnbull.<br /><br />I have to say that i pretty much hate this show, i don't watch it but it's like Code Lyoko, we've all watched at least one, i must say that this show is borderline racist, uninteresting and pointless.<br /><br />every episode ends with robotboy winning, except for one exception when robotboy basically let this overly geeky freakazoid fly away on a jetpack.<br /><br />The jokes are pretty crude too, i think it's mostly people saying the word "Suck" or farting, i think the bullies of the show are quite shocking too.<br /><br />Isn't there one that hides a bowling ball under his hate, and the other uses a chain, for god sake, what kind of school is he going to. Not to mention his older brother, who is borderline psychopathic and has no other character qualities.<br /><br />The whole show i feel is ripping off megas XLR and Fosters. Like you could say the trio of coop, jamie and Kiva, as well as Robotboy being similar to Megas where he beats everyone no matter what the odds and he's free spirited despite being a robot.<br /><br />There is simply no appeal to this show, i'm surprised that it's still running.
Now, I like sci-fi cartoons. However, when "Robotboy" appeared in Canada in late 2006, I watched the premiere and was inevitably appalled. The characters are generic and stereotypical (Do they REALLY need to make an African-American man wear tiger-stripe print clothing and speak in a Jamacian accent? WHY are all the Asian characters vibrant yellow and squinting? Does the mother HAVE to have big thighs and chest and constantly complain?) to the point where things become unrealistic, predictable, gross and sometimes disturbing. There are heavy similarities to, even stabs, at Astro Boy. Allow me to explain (dub names for the young): Robotboy/Astro, Kamikaze/Tenma, Constantine/Shadow, Gus/Abercrombie, Tommy/Alejo, Lola/Zoran+Kennedy, Moshimo/O'Shay, and it so on. Brief resemblances to "My Life As A Teenage Robot", "Star Wars", "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles", "Kamen Riders", "Sailor Moon" and co. are afoot. Not to mention the abundant racial/gender stereotyping. Don't even get me started on the innuendos. I'll just say they're hidden and quite dirty. But seriously. Don't even try watching this. Especially if you like Astro Boy.
When I first watched Robotboy, I found it fresh and interesting, but then I noticed, that with each episode this show is trying to teach you how to behave yourself, what is good/bad. Episodes became predictable. And main characters are not interesting. Again we see a hyper-smart boy, beaten by his older brother, parents who don't understand their kid, and his friends: girl and fat boy. Also this show has no logic. A super-modern robot who works on two AA-size batteries, and can use a lot of weapons. But the biggest problem is the difference between activated and super-activated modes. We see two different robots, and it declines main idea of the show: "Robot must learn how to behave himself in human society"
When I first saw a small scene of it in some announcements, I thought the show would be entertaining to watch. The little robot guy does look kinda cute. The style of animation does look sort of familiar to some classic shows. Before the show aired, I studied it through some sources. There, I did became slightly dismayed. The three children (Tommy, Gus and Lola) are voiced appropriately but Robotboy is an exception. It would have been a lot nicer if he were to be portrayed by a young lad. One good example is Robot Jones, a robot character from "Whatever Happened To Robot Jones?" The show isn't bad really. But the way Robotboy is inappropriately portrayed is my only criticism. Thus, I don't watch it much.
The dudes at MST3K should see this dog of a film. It's basically about a dopey hack actor in Hollywood who can't land any acting gigs. And he has this strange obsession with the movie Taxi Driver. So what does this dumb actor do? He dyes his hair blonde and starts acting like a L.A. surfer dude in the naive hope this will get him acting roles. You'll laugh yer head off at so many of this movie's inadvertently funny scenes. Like when the actor dude's girlfriend is heart broken and sobbing and saying lines like, "How could you do this to me?" And why is she crying? Cos he dyed his hair blonde and became a surfer dude to get acting gigs. This movie makes no sense at ALL! The actor who played the governor on Benson is in this too and he plays a stereotypical right wing politician with lotsa dumb funny dialog. This movie will crack you up, trust me. You talking' to me?!
ok. for starters, taxi driver is amazing. this, this is not taxi driver or amazing. what it is is bad. but i thought it was bad funny, which means that it did have some redeeming qualities. like the dialogue...wow. there was more or less no plot, the characters were all stupid, and the movie was preachy. there were some places were i thought the movie would dive into taxi driver type violence, which would have hit the message at the end of the movie on the head much harder. i can't even believe that there are like 20 other people who have seen this movie. yeah, it's worth watching if you are real bored and you want to reaffirm the fact that anyone can make a movie, or at least can try to.
Despite the gravity of the subject and probably the good intentions of the filmmakers to make a film addressing white supremacy, the inconsistencies of its main character, Bronson Green, aspiring New York actor easily turned L.A. phony, makes it hard to take the story seriously. Green, who is constantly rejected by Los Angeles casting agents for being obsolete (i.e. too New York when the 80s is looking for big, blonde, and dumb), he finds success comes easily when he's willing to succumb to falsifying his image. Unfortunately, the new hair dye and pacified "surfer" attitude lands him an acting opportunity with the Jericho Church, which subscribes white supremacist teaching of the Aryan nation. Green is willing to easily forget his past, and particularly turning his back on his young black friend of ten years, in order to be the Church's new spokesman. This makes no sense, seeing as how principled our character initially is. It is this sudden, and loose change in character, coupled with an abrupt reversion back to the hardened, DeNiro-obsessed (as his Taxi Driver character) form who is able to battle the villains. A noble attempt on the filmmakers, but one that ultimately reveals itself as anything but serious.<br /><br />The other characters, too, are quite annoying and what we are forced to recognize in them comes too easily -- the psychotic paranoia of the Church leader, the self-interested actress girlfriend (the first girlfriend Bronson has when he's in L.A.), and the new blonde girlfriend who's character lacks so much development, she is, for the most part, just a walking, talking void. We are just supposed to see them in fleeting moments in which something random forces us to draw assumptions about the characters. But there is really little development of any of them.<br /><br />The other problem with this film is the ungodly amount of time the characters are involved in very little important action. Much of the beginning concerns introducing the characters, obviously, and later we see Bronson's difficulties with breaking into the L.A. acting scene and the frustrations which stem from constant rejection. But after he does willingly change his looks and personality in order to become accepted, there is at least a good twenty minutes to thirty minutes of wasted film in which very little of anything happens.<br /><br />For films that seek to draw attention to the irrational fears behind racism, this was not one done with enough credibility.
You talking' to Me? (1987) is a pretty bad movie starring some dude who I have never seen before or since starring as a guy from the neighborhood who tries to become an actor. He has a heavy jones for Taxi Driver as tries to use that shtick to make it big. When he learns the hard facts of life, he does what everyone else does, changes his image! He goes from good fella to a surf's up dude over night. His friend can't believe the change (but he scores with Faith Ford and get's a cool paying gig). Can this young punk keep his street cred whilst making it big?<br /><br />This is a real lame movie that tries too hard to incorporate too many things at once. An interesting idea that falls apart due to poor execution. Who knows, maybe somebody will pick up the ball and run because the film makers fumbled the ball this time.<br /><br />Don't waste your time with this movie. Unless you want to see a hot Faith Ford and a young Bubba from Forest Gump.<br /><br />xx
I couldn't relate to this film. It failed to engage me either intellectually, emotionally or aesthetically. The dialogue was very dense and uninvolving. I couldn't connect with and hence care about any of the characters and I'm finding it hard to find much that's positive to say about it.<br /><br />I've read that to understand it properly one needs to be familiar with some of the more obscure aspects of Catholic theology. I'll admit that, as an atheist, I probably am unfamiliar with many of the finer details of Catholicism, but I have also seen many films dealing with religious issues that have touched me because their themes are still universal to the human condition and don't rely on specialised knowledge or beliefs.
It is not obvious from viewing this film (so I recommend viewers research the people who present their case in it) but this presentation on the realities of Islam, and its encouragement of violence and intolerance against all non-Muslims is lacking objectiveness, and also completely fails to factor in the human condition. It is one thing to document that the Koran says many things about how a devout Muslim is required to interact with non-Muslims, but any realist is able to realize that not every human who feels himself or herself to be a follower of Islam, will agree with and comply with all tenets of that faith and system. There is reason to call much about the presenters into question, such that viewers need to see the presentation with a healthy skepticism; don't swallow it all, hook, line, and sinker, without some thinking of your own.<br /><br />One specific, for instance, is researching the person Walid Shoebat; who claims to be a former Muslim who perpetrated an act of terrorism in Bethlehem. There are many wise people in the world who believe neither of these assertions. I am not nor have I ever been a Muslim. I have never read the Koran. I am not a Christian, nor a member of _any_ faith. But I am an intelligent and discerning human. While the film is quite disturbing, in its presentation of how SOME Muslims view their obligation to Islam; I remind you that there is more to Islam than the views of the fundamentalists. Just as their are fundamentalists and evangelical Christians, so, too, there are variations in the intensity of belief and obligation among Jews and Muslims.<br /><br />When you watch this film, you need to have the salt shaker on hand. One grain will not be enough, you'll need more. Please use your own mind and think for yourself, research what is presented, and evaluate the state of the world and how Islam fits within it based on more than what is said in 98 minutes of video. There is a common thread of political affiliation among those who put this film together, indicating a definite bias. Be your own brain.
I have been using IMDb for years and I never wanted to get involved in the commentary of movies…until now. This documentary has so many problems that I hardly know what to say. I am not a Muslim, nor am I an Islamic studies expert, but I know enough to shed some light on the obvious one-sided viewpoint that this documentary espouses. <br /><br />The problems with this movie begin with the fact that it is a documentary. Most of the documentaries that I have seen anchor themselves around a few valid points and then surround those points with debatable interpretations and misinformation. This is certainly the case with Islam: What the West Needs to Know. Yes, there are fundamentalists around the world, and some of them are Muslim, but to build a documentary about all of Islam around a small percentage of radicalized people is incredibly misleading. This is really a documentary about the fundamentalist aspects of Islam and nothing more.<br /><br />For those who would like to more objectively explore some of the issues raised in this documentary, here are several points that may help. <br /><br />There was nothing positive about Islam presented in the documentary.<br /><br />The documentary focuses on the Middle East, but more Muslims live outside of that region. More Muslims live in China, believe it or not, than in Saudi Arabia. About 40% of all Muslims live in Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Indonesia.<br /><br />The translation of the Qur'an used in the documentary is a questionable one. I watched the documentary while viewing another translation and the differences were striking. I had been warned about the translation that was used in the documentary and now I know why. Surrah 98:6 is a good example. The documentary suggests that the Surrah says that disbelievers will go to hell. But the translation I have reads instead: "Those who reject Truth among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists will be in hellfire." The difference is that those who reject Truth are those people who know about God and the Truth of God and decide to reject it anyways. <br /><br />The movie mentioned that there is no morality inherent in Islam, but this is not true. Although it is true that much comes from the Qur'an and Hadith, Islam also recognizes a concept called 'Urf or "normative behavior." Obviously what is normative can be interpreted many ways, but 'Urf is meant to be "good" behavior, what an average person would consider right or wrong.<br /><br />The documentary presents Shar'ia (Islamic Law) as being one unified body of knowledge that all Muslims follow. This is simply not true. There are many Islamic schools of law and they range from progressive and modernist to fundamentalist in the way they interpret law. <br /><br />The Hadith tradition is similar. There are thousands of Hadith and each school of law accepts some and rejects others. Using the Hadith without serious scholarship to determine which ones are accurate, real and applicable, is indiscriminately picking and choosing quotations from history that fit what you want to say… which is what the documentary did.<br /><br />What I hope people realize is that fundamentalism is the problem, not Islam or any other religion. Christianity has fundamentalists that shoot abortion clinic doctors and so on. I know this is not the same as suicide bombing, just understand that the righteousness of fundamentalism is arguably the problem. If you feel you have THE answer, then everyone else must be wrong. But if you feel you have AN answer you can work together with other people's views about politics, religion, God, or whatever.
The "documentary", and we use that term loosely apparently, summarizes that Muslims are trying to violently take over the world. Then states that any Muslim that doesn't admit this is either ignorant of their own faith or lying to your face! Also every person that is interviewed in the film has found a market for their ludicrous take on reality by selling claptrap to conservatives willing to let others do the thinking for them. What the West NEEDS to know is this is nothing more than propaganda aimed at mental midgets. If you are looking for an actual documentary on Islam and the current state of the Middle-East I would look elsewhere. Try something that provides multiple points of view from qualified sources.
This video contains an outsmart way to confuse and manipulate Americans about Islam. It's a pity that the people who did it really believe that American people is so dumb to believe in it, perhaps, as an American citizen, every person must protest against this kind of crap. If you want to know the truth about Islam, don't let nobody tell you... THE QURAN IS PUBLIC! you can read it by yourself and decide if what they say it's true or false...<br /><br />The video uses a lot of audiovisual strategies directed to manipulate and associate things that are not even related. The music used at some points prepare the public to hate what they see, even if they don't really understand what's going on in there. They use images that are misplaced from their original content.<br /><br />To end the comment I would like to make a reflexion... Don't you think you can do the same exact movie with every religion in the world?
That's pretty ridiculous, I hope many people are exposed to Muslims who live all over the U.S, U.k, and all over the world. The religion has over a billion followers. I Myself born and bread in America and through my religious classes and teachings I have been taught to cherish my country and work to contribute to the society. I am very dedicated to the followings and teachings of my religion have been stressed through out life to educate and prepare oneself for success through education in order to contribute back to the world. I have know many Muslims from all over and I have traveled to countries like Pakistan..I have yet to meet one person who believes that we should hurt anyone or not accept any other religion except from the people in the media...I wonder why... Also its sad that these extremists are the ones the media use to represent a whole religion. Its a religion of one billion people, and these are less than one percent, I am sure the other people of other religions would not like to be represented by the KKK, IRA and many more which are simple small percentage extremists who use outdated and not literal passages from the respected books in order to pursue their own revenge, personal, or business matters through their so called religion
This film was more effective in persuading me of a Zionist conspiracy than a Muslim one. And I'm Jewish.<br /><br />Anbody go to journalism school? Read an editorial? Freshman year rhetoric? These alarmist assertions, presented in a palatable way, might prove persuasive. But by offering no acknowledgment of possible opposing arguments, nor viable (or any at all) solutions, few sources and each of dubious origin, makes the argument an ineffectual diatribe.<br /><br />And thank goodness for that -- I wouldn't want anyone to leave the theatre BELIEVING any of this racist claptrap.<br /><br />A good lesson for me -- and hopefully a cautionary tale for you -- to actually read about a film before seeing it.
Greg Davis and Bryan Daly take some crazed statements by a terrorists, add some commentary by a bunch of uber-right reactionaries, ascribe the most extreme positions of the most fundamentalist Moslems on the planet to everyone who calls themselves a Moslem, and presents this as the theology of Islam. Maybe their next film will involve interviewing Fred Phelps and the congregation of the Westboro Baptist Church, adding commentary by some militant atheist "scholars, and call their film "What the World Needs to Know About Christianity." Ultimately, this film suffers from both poor production values and lack of attention to the most basic standards of journalism. Don't waste your time and money; just turn on your AM radio and listen to Rush Limbaugh for a couple of days for free and you'll get the same message with the same level of intellectual analysis.
The first (and only) time I saw "Shades" was during a Sneakpreview. It hadn't even been in premiere. I remember there was someone of the directors staff there, don't even remember who. It was a Belgian movie, we never heard of it, so we were quite neutral, not knowing what to expect. Mickey Rourke is a brilliant actor and he's stands miles ahead all the rest. He plays an actor who's star has long stopped rising. He's helping to realise a movie in Belgium entitled "Shades".<br /><br />As soon as the movie started, we noticed how much swearing there is. Nothing against the occasional swear word. However this was way beyond annoying. Whenever Rourke uses the F*** word to express something, it comes naturally. However, when someone from the cast, a non-English speaker uses the F**** or S*** word, it becomes arrogant and aggressive.<br /><br />We quickly lost count of how many times they used the F and S words. Everybody was just glad to be out of the theatre. And we had to give a vote, but it was hard for us because it was only from 0 to 10, and we were looking for the -10.
This is a very sad movie. Really. Nothing happens in this movie. The Script is bad!!! I guess they've just copy-paste the first 15 pages to 90 pages. The Producers must have thought let's create a Hollywood movie here in Belgium. They didn't succeed. Now in the third week it is only running in Antwerp and Brussels at 22h45 or something. In the past we have had really good movies in Belgium, like Daens. Shades is a waste of your time. Maybe you could sneak in the theater after you've seen a real movie. If you've seen 10 minutes of Shades, you've seen it all. It was advertised to death on local radio and TV. I hope it will disappear in the Shades soon.
The first ten minutes of this movie about making an international movie in Belgium, are fine: you see real chaos on the set, a producer on the edge of a nervous breakdown, the cool has been-director (Mickey Rourke), the bad tempered star, etc. You have seen everything before, but it's well done. BUT THEN! The rest of the time the film just repeats itself: the same ten minutes over and over again. No climax, no dramatic development, no good acting, not even bad acting, it just goes on and on and on. Mickey Rourke has two good minutes when his character talks about his f**ked up career in a scene where reality and fiction meet. Altogether, that makes 12 good minutes.<br /><br />
This movie was advertised on radio, television, magazines, etc. Almost every hour or every issue. So when we went to the Kinnepolis multiplex our expectations were very high. But oh boy, how sad this movie is! It is a movie in Hollywood style about a movie in a movie. Shades shows so clear we aren't ready to produce 'big Hollywood movies'. I am not a movie critic, but I think a good movie starts with a good script. And the script is a nightmare. Like my subject line says, it is nothing, and then looped. You could just stare to the television as well, without really seeing anything. That was the feeling we've got when we saw Shades. Shades is a BAD PRODUCTION!!!
"Fly Me To The Moon" has to be the worst animated film I've seen in a LONG TIME. That's saying something since I have taken my son to see every animated release for the last 4 years now. The story is to be generous...trite. The voice acting is atrocious, Too cute sounding. The humor is of the Romper Room variety. The animation is passable for a Nickolodeon type of cartoon but this is being released on the big screen not cable television.<br /><br />It gets a 2 only because of it's OK 3-D visuals. Some of the scenes had a mildly stimulating image but We've seen much better in the past. I also question the insistence of the filmmakers to have characters fly away from the screen rather than into it in most of the scenes. While that is interesting at first it became tiresome after the 3rd or 4th time. It seemed to smack of indifference to me on the part of the creators.<br /><br />I will say this though, It had a pretty cool soundtrack. And for the record my son wasn't too crazy about it either. Bad movie.
It is pretty surreal what these flies can do... eh well... this is a cartoon, so anything can happen in it.<br /><br />At first I must tell you that I love animated movies. Unfortunately this year's repertoire is very weak. This cartoon is nothing but a list of flaws:<br /><br />1) I quoted the tag line. It suggests that this movie has great 3D effects. Well, I did not see any, at least not something special I never saw before.<br /><br />2) The "flies" in this movie look nothing like real flies. At least they could've make them black. But cyan flies, seriously? With giant heads and slim torsos?<br /><br />3) The story. I guess it was written for 6 year old kids. I could tell it in two sentences it is so over simplified.<br /><br />4) Excessive patriotism. For example: "They are American files after all!" Oh, give me a break.
Okay, so, someone, somewhere, a few years ago, thought it would be a good idea to make a 3D IMAX movie about some flies stowing away aboard the Apollo 11 and going to the moon. So they did. Someone, somewhere, was an idiot.<br /><br />I want to give the artists props for doing their homework on the hardware. As far as I can tell, the rockets and the launch hardware were bang on. The graphics in general were pretty good - the rocket launch gave me chills, like a good rocket launch always does (my Popular Mechanics flying-car gearhead blood still runs strong) and the 3D was pretty effective. The CG wasn't Pixar-quality, but it was generally good. The flies were kinda mediocre anthropomorphics, with some half-assed late-60s characters thrown in for colour (hippie flies, African-American flies with giant afros and black shades, etc.) and the maggots looked more like grubs with human baby heads (although they made suitably gross squelching noises).<br /><br />The scriptwriters certainly did not do their homework, relying on offensive and outdated clichés (60s gender politics including mostly-useless female characters, racial stereotypes, evil Russians, a fat fly who only wants to eat, grade-two level gross-out humour). In a movie aimed for IMAX, they blew a wonderful opportunity to sneak in some educational content about physics and space travel - they didn't get their physics right (zero-g in the Lunar Module during landing burn? PLEASE.) They couldn't even be bothered to read the original radio transcripts between Houston and the astronauts, all of which is in the public domain; instead they wrote their own dialogue, which sounds like crap.<br /><br />But we liked the maggots.<br /><br />So they get a point and a half for rockets and maggots. Uh, yay. 1.5/5.
While the 3-D animation (the highlight of the show) did it's job well, most other elements fell flat. It was as though the filmmakers thought "well, it's gonna be 3-D so we don't have to work that hard on the plot or character development." And the fact that it's a children's movie is absolutely no excuse. The public is drawn to three dimensional characters (Shrek, Nemo's Dad) just as much as they are drawn to three dimensional graphics. The only dimension any of the main characters showed was two dimensional Scooter who twists the plot from time to time with his compulsion to eat everything in sight.<br /><br />And the absolute kicker? Buzz Aldrin's appearance at the very end (after watching a very robotic cartoon version of the same historical figure for an hour and half) comes on the screen and ruins everyone's good time by calling the film's main characters "contaminants" and announcing that the situation put forth on screen was actually an impossibility.<br /><br />???!!!??? Did you just wanna tell the kids the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus don't exist while you're at it?
When I saw this trailer on TV I was surprised. In May of 2008 I was at Six Flags in New Jersey and this was showing at a 4-D attraction (you know, the attraction that the seats move). I take it that the version I saw was a shortened version (15 min.) and also re-created to add the motion effects. It was a cute movie... but that was it. It was educational and told about the first mission but the ending of a CGI spacewalk seemed a bit...well...trite. I was not a big fan of the movie but i would recommend this movie for any parent wanting to inform their children in a fun way about the first moonwalk. I will say, the character actors were well selected and the characters themselves were cute. So all-in-all, I would say, if you want to bring the younger kids... go for it. But if you are wanting to take your older kids, take them to another movie... they will thank you.
1st the good news. The 3-D is spectacularly well done, and they don't go for the gotcha gimmicks. The film is based on the true story of the high point in human history, and even features one of the actual participants in that story: Buzz Aldrin.<br /><br />And now the meat of the matter: It's about FLIES, for krissakes! Flies with big, googy human eyes, true, but flies nonetheless. Remember when I likened the "Underworld" movies to rats vs. cockroaches? That wasn't intended as praise, and I never dreamed anyone would take it literally. This one's got even less empathy going for it. Baby maggots? Ugh. In one of those odd confluences of Hollywood groupthink, this flik was evidently on the drawing boards at the same time as "Space Chimps", also about critters in space.<br /><br />Go rent "Apollo 13" and see a 9-rated movie about the REAL space program (RIP).
This is not a good movie. Too preachy in parts and the story line was sub par. The 3D was OK, but not superb. I almost fell asleep in this movie.<br /><br />The story is about 3 young flies that want to have adventure and follow up on it. The characters are lacking, I truly do not care about these characters and feel that there was nothing to keep an adult interested. Pixar this is not.<br /><br />I would have liked to see more special 3D effects. Also I wold like to see more fly jokes than the mom constantly saying "Lord of the flies" Pretty sexist in showing the women as house wives and fainting.
"Nat" (voiced by Trevor Gagnon), along with his brainiac friend "IQ" (voiced by Philip Bolden) and the always hungry "Scooter" (David Gore) are kids with big dreams. They want to be the first flies in space. And what encourages their dreams is the first spacecraft to land on the moon, the Apollo 11, is waiting for its historic trip on the launch pad near where the three hang out.<br /><br />The first thing you notice is the animation of the film. I found it done very well done. The scenery had depth to it, as things in the distance actually looked like they were behind the focus of the scenes. I didn't see the movie in 3-D, as it was broadcast on HBO. However, I could see that there really wasn't any scenes which took advantage of the 3-D effects except a fight between characters near the end. I also wasn't really impressed with the design of the characters. To me, they didn't look like anything resembling a fly, especially in the coloring. The flies were an unusual blue-gray that was kind of distracting to me.<br /><br />The performances from the cast was not bad, but it wasn't good either. There were many times I focused more on my computer than the story. The writing was certainly written for a younger audience, with comedic moments that will make younger kids laugh. I saw nothing for adults, like jokes that they'll get the punchline for the adults to understand the meaning.<br /><br />History was not followed in this film. In fact, I think it was completely ignored, as the main focus was the flies. I also hated when a well known astronaut popped up on the screen and explained that the stories about the flies in the film was a work of fiction, and no flies were on Apollo 11. I did like how he thanked the men and women who sacrificed their lives for space exploration though.<br /><br />If you are an adult, this is not for you. It was not made for the entire family. This is certainly just for kids. But, save this one for a rainy day.
I, also having endured hundreds of children's movies in the past, consider this to be one of the worst I have ever seen.<br /><br />1) I resent in this day and age having to explain to my children that Russia is not "the bad guys". Also, that mocking Russian names like "Poopchev" is inappropriate.<br /><br />2) The grandfather fly's birthday party scene contained a quasi-sexist joke in which he implied that males drink beer and women talk on the phone. Two other flies also needlessly use the word "crap" twice.<br /><br />3) The whole movie largely smacks of 1950's stereotypes and propaganda that I thought we, as a nation, were proud to have risen above.<br /><br />In all it's just crude, badly animated, even more badly written and not worth wasting the time to view.
Today, I visited an Athenean Cinema with my two kids (6 & 8 years old), payed 3 x 12 euros (about 45 US $ total) not to mention gas, popcorn & soda, was asked to return my 3d special glasses after leaving the theater and was "forced" to watch what could have been a great 3d movie masterpiece but only proved to be a sick "cold war like" propaganda movie, like none I have seen during the last 20 years... AND THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A MOVIE FOR CHILDREN... IN HEAVEN'S NAME! <br /><br />PS 1: The average working Greek makes no more than 850 Euros a month (approxiamtely 1050 US $) <br /><br />PS 2 My kids liked it... but then again they are no more than babies >in Greek: mora, morons > like the one who wrote the script & the others who made this "3d disgrace" happen.<br /><br />PS 3 3D animation is fantastic but who gives a ....!
this is what you would get if you allowed a 10 year old (manic American) to write a story of a moon trip. Absolute garbage with no redeeming qualities Maybe it held some fascination in the 3D dept. but as a narrative and entertaining animation it held nothing to make wasting an hour and a half worth while. Save your time and money and watch BOLT instead<br /><br />Damn. Not enough lines, yet I feel that sums it up... well, I agree with an above review - this is like a cold-war propaganda story. Maybe it would have been more interesting if they had made it about the flies uncovering the hoax of the moon landing, or if the flies had died in the first minute. BTW - why were all the main character flies deformed? - not one had the full compliment of limbs!
With the MASSIVE advertising this is getting on Nickelodeon and Nick Jr. and that ilk, my son was bugging us to see it. Between DVD and the theaters, I've seen pretty much everything by now from the outstanding (Incredibles, Shrek) to the really bad (Wall-E, Brother Bear). But this was easily the worst movie I've ever seen, kids or no kids. It was a "when it this stupid thing going to end?" kind of experience? OK, it's aimed at toddlers (or it better be - it's insulting to the intelligence of anyone over 3), but I've never seen something so predictable, repetitive, and slow-moving. Then once you're finally fed up but relieved that the movie is over, there is this bizarre thing at the end that you think is the setup for a joke, but there isn't one - it's serious, though it's hard to tell what they're trying to accomplish. The 3-D effects... yeah, if you've never seen a Viewmaster they're a big deal, otherwise no (if you look at the screen without glasses, it appears to be the same process). Even my son was bored by the end. Both my wife and I looked at each other and said "wow" at the end. Bad in every respect.
As long as there's been 3d technology, (1950's I think) there's been animation made for it. I remember specifically, a Donald Duck cartoon with Chip and Dale in it. I don't remember the name at the moment, but the plot was that Donald worked at a circus, was feeding an elephant peanuts and Chip and Dale were stealing the peanuts. This was made to watch in 3d probably 1960's. If you happened to watch Meet the Robinsons in 3d in theaters, they showed this cartoon before the movie and explained the details of it's origin. There are probably somewhere around 100 cartoons made specifically to be viewed through 3d glasses. This claim was a bad move because it's not difficult to prove them wrong. On top of that, this just looks like a bad movie.
Actually, this is a lie, Shrek 3-D was actually the first 3d animated movie. I bought it on DVD about 3 years ago. Didn't Bug's Life also do that? I think it was at Disneyworld in that tree, so I'm saying before they go and use that as there logo. Also, Shrek 3d was a motion simulator at Universal Studios. They should still consider it as a movie, because it appeared in a "theater" and you could buy it for DVD. The movie was cute, at least the little flyes were. I liked IQ. I agree with animaster, they did a god job out of making a movie out of something that is just a out-and-back adventure. I recommend it to families and kids.
Six GIs, about to be send home and discharged, get drunk and sneak into a cult meeting in Asia. Surrounded by hooded figures, two male dancers pretend to have a fight. Behind them, on an altar, a woven basket opens and a figure painted emerges and begins imitating a snake, finally biting one of the dancers on the neck. The imitation snake is dressed in some scaley looking body tights. (This is definitely a female imitation snake.) The cult member who has sneaked them into the secret meeting has warned the six men repeatedly that the ceremonies must not be interrupted and, most definitely, no photos must be taken or else they will be hunted down and killed. Naturally, the GIs take a flash photo, send the cult members into an angry hysteria, steal the basket containing the "snake" and run off with it into the Asian night.<br /><br />One of the guys, the most offensive and snarky, dies from a cobra bite on the neck, though no one can explain how the snake got into his hospital room.<br /><br />Back in New York, it all seems rather old news as the discharged men settle down into their civilian lives, still maintaining their bond with one another. Their jobs range from manager of a bowling alley (David Janssen) to graduate research student (Richard Long). James Dobson, Jack Kelly, and Marshall Thompson are also part of the neighborhood. Richard Long has a nice blond girl friend. Kelly is a somewhat reckless womanizer. But they all get along well enough and all of them seem happy.<br /><br />Then a dark, shifty-looking, mysterious woman (Faith Domergue) shows up and Marshall Thompson takes a liking to her and insinuates her into the group.<br /><br />Guess what happens. First Janssen is terrified by a shadow in the back seat and dies in a car crash. Then Kelly gets a visit from Domergue. Something scares him so badly he tumbles through the window and dies in the fall to the sidewalk. Long and Dobson begin to suspect what the viewer already knows -- that Domergue has had something to do with the deaths. They also reckon that maybe she's turning into a cobra, which is the case. Dobson confronts her with his suspicions and she proves his point.<br /><br />By this time Long and Thompson are thoroughly frazzled, particularly Thompson, who is in love with Domergue and has discovered that she is attracted to him, too, although he must explain to her what "love" is. No matter. A final reckless attack by the cobra woman against Long's girl friend -- not one of the six original offenders -- and Thompson must throw the snake out the window. On the pavement below, the body changes to that of Domergue. The end.<br /><br />I think I'll skip over most of the questions that the plot raises. I'll just mention one of the more prosaic ones in passing. Who paid for Domergue's fare from somewhere in Asia to New York? Who's paying her utility bills in the hotel? Who paid for her spectacular wardrobe? How come she speaks American English so well? What the hell's going on? The writers and director have clearly seen some of Val Lewton's modest horror films and, though not much effort has gone into this production, they've unashamedly stolen some gimmicks from Lewton. In Lewton's "The Cat People", for instance, the woman is transformed into a black leopard but, with one tiny exception, the threat is always kept in the shadows and is all the more spooky for it. Most of the transformations here use shadows too, but unlike Lewton's, the shadows are clumsy and unambiguous.<br /><br />Lewton also made occasional use of what he called "buses". Lewton's first "bus" was a literal one. A potential victim is hurrying alone through the dark tunnels of Central Park with only the sound of footsteps. Something or someone is following her. She freezes with fright under a street lamp. Something rustles the branches of the shrubs above her. She looks upward. There is a loud, wheezing shriek that makes your hair stand on end. It's a bus using its air brakes to stop for her. The producers used at least two "buses" in this film and they amount to nothing. A guy is walking distractedly across an intersection, for instance, and there is the sudden rumble of a truck that almost hits him. There is no set up to the shot. It's jammed in with a shoe horn.<br /><br />I don't much care for movies that perpetuate the stereotype of serpents as slimy, ugly, venomous, and phallic. As a matter of fact, no snakes are slimy, most are harmless, and many are extraordinarily beautiful. Furthermore, they're more feminine than masculine in their sinuous movements and serpentine approach to goals. You want a reptilian symbol for masculinity? Try a six-lined racerunner. It's a really fast lizard. When it sees something to eat, it rushes up and gobbles it down.<br /><br />Anyway, if you want to see some fine, low-budget scary films, don't bother with this one. Find "The Cat People" or one of Lewton's other minor masterpieces, of which this is an obvious copy.
Cult of the Cobra is now available on DVD in a pristine print that does full justice to whatever merits it has as a movie. Unfortunately, that is not saying much.<br /><br />It has a competent cast of second-rankers that acquit themselves as well as could be expected under the circumstances. It is efficiently directed, entirely on sound stages and standing sets on the studio backlot. It looks OK, but is ponderously over-plotted and at a scant 80 minutes it is still heavily padded.<br /><br />For example, the double cobra attack on the first of the GIs was surely one attack too many.<br /><br />The business about Julia choosing to marry Pete rather than Tom never amounts to anything. Tom immediately falls in love with Lisa and she never has any reason to be jealous of Julia (nor is she).<br /><br />Julia's 'feminine intuition' is introduced as if it is going to lead to an important plot development, but it doesn't. Similarly, Pete's investigation into cobra cults and the suspicion that briefly falls on Tom serve no purpose other than to fill up screen time.<br /><br />These are just symptoms of the underlying problem. The movie is structured like a mystery but it isn't. As soon as the curse is pronounced we know exactly where the story is heading, so the characters are left painstakingly uncovering what we already know.<br /><br />The ending is particularly lame. Julia is menaced purely by accident. Lisa has no reason to want to kill her - she just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. When Tom turns up in the nick of time to save her, it is not even clear whether she was threatened at all. He then simply disposes of the cobra in the way any of the previous victims might have done.<br /><br />It is such an inconsequential little pipsqueak of a story that I found myself wondering how on earth it had been pitched to the studio heads. Then it occurred to me. Someone said: "Those Val Lewton movies were very successful over at RKO, so why don't we make one like that?"<br /><br />Cult of the Cobra is clearly modelled on Cat People: mysterious, troubled, shape-shifting woman falls in love with the hero, is apparently frigid, kills people, arouses the suspicions of the hero's woman friend and dies at the end. But 'modelled on' doesn't mean 'as good as' - by a wide margin. It copies, but doesn't understand what it is copying.<br /><br />It is obviously trying for the low-key, suggestive Lewton style, but this approach doesn't follow through into the story. Lisa is no Irene. She is meant to be strange and mysterious but there is no mystery about her. We get a glimpse of her after the first attack in Asia, so immediately recognise her when she turns up in New York. There is never any doubt about her purpose. Neither is there any ambiguity about whether of not she actually turns into a snake.<br /><br />Then again, during her nocturnal prowling we get, not one, but two attempts at 'buses'. Neither come off, because the director doesn't understand what makes a 'bus' work and, in any case, they happen to the stalker, not the person being stalked.<br /><br />These faint echoes of Cat People give Cult of the Cobra whatever small distinction it might have, but they only draw attention to the yawning gulf between the original and the imitation.<br /><br />Plagiarism may be the sincerest form of flattery, but I doubt if Lewton or Tourneur were particularly flattered when this tepid little time-passer came out.
Faith Domergue (better known as "Dr. Ruth" in THIS ISLAND EARTH) is the only reason to watch this film. The story is very thin, and once the Air Force buddies return to the States with a Cobra Curse upon them the action is just a waiting game. See Faith the Snake Woman and try to pretend the rest isn't happening.
I mean the word "pedestrian". Seems the producers of the film forgot to have anything interesting happen. Faith Domergue can do better than this. She is supposed to be the mysterious, vengeful Cobra goddess torn by love for Marshall Thompson (there's an idea, eh?). Instead she's a common would-be housewife of the fifties, and the single, flat expression she wears throughout the film makes me think they shot it all in the early morning before Faith had her coffee. As for the rest of the cast, they are all so earnestly "all-American" that the result is laughable. This is ground more productively covered in Val Lewton in "The Cat People". I think "Cult of the Cobra" should really be titled "Cult of the Contractual Obligation". Why else would so many otherwise talented people sleepwalk their way though a slow-moving, predictable, derivative failure like this?
I was very unimpressed with Cinderella 2 and Jungle Book 2, but this is possibly worse than both titles. First of all, I didn't like the animation, very Saturday-morning-cartoon, only worse in some scenes. I liked some of the characters, namely Thunderbolt and Patch, but the other characters, like Cruella were mediocre. Cruella was truly villainous in the original, but she lost her quality in the sequel. What she said was nothing at all to write home about and her animation was kind of ugly. Also her artist companion Lars was a joke to be honest with you, and Roger seemed to have quit smoking overnight. The voice talents were very good though especially Barry Bostwick as Thunderbolt, with the exception of Jodi Benson, the accent ruined it for me. There were some good moments, but the whole plot seemed bloated for me, and highly suggestive of an extended TV episode. All in all, a hugely disappointing sequel to the most memorable of the 60s Disney movies along with Jungle Book. Sorry, I can only give this a 3/10, it just wasn't my cup of tea. Bethany Cox
1st watched 2/2/2003 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Jim Kammerud & Brian Smith): Drab and un-spectacular supposed sequel to the original classic animated `101 Dalmatians.' Yes, the movie continues where it ended in the first one, but the problem is that it plays out much like the original. One of the great things about the original was the pacing of the story, which this one doesn't have. The animation is also very un-spectacular for Disney and all we get is the same characters going thru the same kind of story all over again. When is Disney going to stop boring us with sequels and re-do's etc.. etc. Probably when we stop renting or buying this mediocre fare that they have put out.
I should explain why i gave this..."piece of art" 1 star rating out of possible 10. Simply because it's hard or next to impossible to rate it unbiased. probably it would have been the same if i had given it 10/10 - explanations anyway would have followed.<br /><br />I am not fond of these pointless gore movies like HOSTEL or so - i think that's disgusting and pretty terrible (in all the possible contextual meanings), but as i found out after watching this movie - there is a genre called "historical drama" - and probably it would have been the case of 10/10 as it has plenty of it and Tarantino would have been more than happier with it (and made Kill Bill 3 to spill even more blood on screen than here to show that it is possible). but the thing about "historical drama" genre is that it's a sub-category of the "trash movies" where John Romero is the undead-gory-emperor-of-the-guts and so automatically it can't be rated as your default movie - as these are movies that are made bad on purpose and you can't really tell whether the comically bad moment was meant to be so, or it was simply bad. it's for the people who like to enjoy bad acting, bad screenplay and bad everything else. And by some turn of faith - i am one of them too. there are days when i have an urge of seeing a really bad movie and look up for some trash and here you go - the day is saved! but that's definitely an opinion of mine and doesn't have match with anyones' else.<br /><br />What i wanted to say is that if you want to watch some terrible movie - then Fellini's Casanova is definitely the choice, but heed my advice and don't rate it by default means.
In a way this is the disaster Fellini has been working towards all his life. The line between absurd masterpiece and free association bullshit is very small, and what category a film will ultimately fit in will often just depend on personal feelings. That said, "Casanova" left me in cold admiration for its sets and little more that cannot be summed up more adequately by Bukowski: <br /><br />"Casanova died too, just an old guy with a big cock and a long tongue and no guts at all. to say that he lived well is true; to say I could spit on his grave without feeling is also true. the ladies usually go for the biggest fool they can find; that is why the human race stands where it does today: we have bred the clever and lasting Casanovas, all hollow inside, like the Easter bunnies we foster upon our poor children." <br /><br />As far as I could make it out, this is the position Fellini takes regarding his subject; granted, with more empathy, but disgusted nonetheless.<br /><br />Casanova's environment is made from decay and incestuous behavior, themes Fellini dealt with more pointedly in "Satyricon". The succession of plot is characteristic of soft porn, just without the coherence; and Donald Sutherland is ugly and slimy to the point of distraction.<br /><br />Yet, there might just be a point in portraying Casanova as an unsightly fool. And I challenge anybody to formulate this point without being obvious; Fellini couldn't. More than ever he seems here like a dirty old man - a maestro, for sure, but one whose impulses satisfy himself more than anybody else. I find it hard imagine an audience who enjoys this film. It was a story not worth telling.
This is certainly one of the most bizarre films ever made - even for Fellini. About the only one more bizarre is his SATYRICON. This is a two and a half hour romp through a strange nightmarish world of decadence, opulence and sexual challenge. Sutherland makes a curiously unappealing Casanova and the odd goings on in a series of unrelated vignettes taken from the great lover's autobiography fail to engage the viewer. The art direction and costume design are however OUTSTANDING. The Academy missed on not even nominating the former but did itself justice by rewarding an OSCAR for the latter. Also nominated (oddly) was the disjointed, pointless and almost inacessible screenplay. Go figure!! The film on video is only 150 minutes, 16 minutes short of the original running time. This viewer was grateful.
There are two groups of people...those who love every Fellini movie they see and normal people. While I will admit that I have really enjoyed some of his films, I can also honestly say that I can't stand some of them. My opinion, by the way, is not just some knee-jerk reaction--I have seen most of Fellini's films and have also seen many films by the world's most famous directors. With this in mind, I feel that the most overrated and annoying directors can be both Godard and Fellini. They both have delighted in the bizarre and often unwatchable and yet have received gobs of accolades from reviewers and the "intelligensia", while the average person would never sit through some of their films. Heck, even a person who loves international cinema would generally be left out in the cold when seeing some of these films. So, since only a small clique actually watches their films and they are already predisposed to seeing the directors as geniuses, it's not surprising that their films are so often praised--it's like a cult! If you don't believe me, think about many of Godard's films such as FIRST NAME CARMEN or ALPHAVILLE,...or what about FELLINI SATYRICON or JULIET OF THE SPIRITS? These films abound with boredom, weirdness and incomprehensibility. Now I am NOT saying a film can't be weird (after all I love HAPPINESS OF THE KATAKURIS and SHAOLIN SOCCER), but it must be watchable!<br /><br />Now on to this movie. Somehow, Fellini has managed to make a story about a sexually compulsive man completely boring and unsexy. This is no small task--it took a lot of work to make this so unwatchable. Instead of cheap sexual thrills, the sex acts are choreographed in a silly and annoying way while the character of Casanova is buried under so much makeup and prosthetics that Donald Sutherland looks like a ghoul. I know some of this must have been Fellini's intention, but many viewers will be left completely bored by this sterile performance--especially since Sutherland's lines are all poorly dubbed into Italian and so he neither looks nor sounds like himself! Unfortunately, when the movie is not wrapped up in these boring sexual escapades, there really isn't anything else to watch.<br /><br />An interesting note about the first sexual conquest shown in this dull movie is that the actress looks amazingly like a younger version of Fellini's wife, Giulietta Masina. Considering that in addition to this, that in previous decades Fellini had Masina play characters such as a prostitute and a horribly abused woman, it seems like he may have truly hated his wife and was having this acted out on screen. I read a bit about them and their tempestuous relationship and it seems to bear this out as well. This is about the only aspect of this turgid film that I found at all interesting. Don't say I didn't warn you!
Things get dull early an often in this in this mawkish jazz bio fiction written and directed by Spike Lee.<br /><br />Bleek Gilliam (Denzell Washington) is a happenin' jazz trumpeter that fronts a quintet packing them in at Below the Underdog. His problems include an incompetent manager, a stage hogging sax player and two girlfriends that he's playing musical mattress with. The real love of his life though is his trumpet and his music. The band's manager, Giant, has a dangerous gambling problem and proves to be an ineffective negotiator with greedy club owners and would be best jettisoned but Bleek remains loyal for as long as possible. It will prove to his undoing as an artist but ironically contribute to his growth as a man.<br /><br />As Bleek, Denzell Washington is all wrong as the ambitious trumpeter with a babe on each arm. He's too sweet a guy to be so self centered about his art, dispensing patience and love to those close to him with a low key remoteness. He simply lacks the fire. Wesley Snipes who plays Henderson the sax player would have been far more suited for the role but even he would have to mouth the flaccid throw away scribblings of Lee's torpid dialogue. As Giant, Lee hits the trifecta with an abysmal performance to match his writing and direction. Loosely attempting to mirror the grubby but sympathetic Ratso Rizzo to Bleek's Joe Buck he adopts a limp and even the "I'm walkin' here" moment from Midnight Cowboy. In this case you wish the taxi would run him over and be done with it.<br /><br />Lee's script is all tepid argument, heavy handed ribbing and veiled insult with some requisite clumsy editorializing that Lee has to inject to remain down. The scenes between the band members backstage and in rehearsal lack spark and are only surpassed in dreariness by the Bleek, Giant conversations that have an ad lib look and go in circles. Completing this travesty is Lee's pretentious visual style. Tracking shots, zooms and pans are wasted and without significance to scenes. They just wander.<br /><br />Blues is Lee's love letter to jazz (made implicit by the mountains of memorabilia plastered all over the sets) and it's all sentimental clap trap that lacks passion and verve. Jazz on film is better served by Tavernier's "Round Midnight" and Eastwood's "Bird" which get below the surface, reveal more sides of the form, the pain behind it in addition to offering infinitely superior lead performances by Forrest Whitaker and the real deal Dexter Gordon. This Spike Lee Joint doesn't even offer a mild buzz. It's some pretty bad homegrown.
I am normally a Spike Lee fan. It takes some time to really get into his "mojo", but once you see the clear message and the ability to tell the story that is close to his heart, Lee is a genius. Unlike The 25th Hour or Bamboozled (two of my favorite films of his), there was no clear story in this film. I was able to understand the struggle between Washington and the choice to play well or be influenced by others, but for some odd reason Lee was never able to get the true feeling out. Washington did a decent job with what was handed to him, but you could tell that this was not Lee's favorite film. Not only did Lee direct this film, but he also wrote it. You could tell. The camera work was horrid and the writing only contributed to the decay of the film. This film was coming full circle and it wasn't going to be pretty. Lee was not 100% behind this film as he was with Do the Right Thing. Of all the films I have seen Lee direct, this was the brightest and more modest of his films. It was almost as if he created a Hollywood movie instead of one that was all his own. I don't know if he saw the money from Do the Right Thing and ran with it, or what … but this film did not demonstrate his true talent.<br /><br />For anyone out there that has seen this film, and perhaps stopped watching anything directed by Spike Lee afterwards due to this film, I suggest you give him a second chance. Don't get me wrong, I see exactly where you are coming from with this film and why you would want to put this behind you, but Lee does grow up. His work becomes more of his own, and you can see the transformation from a desire to make money to just wanting to make good films. It took me awhile to watch The 25th Hour, but when I did, it was sheer brilliance. Perhaps it was the actors, perhaps the story, but Lee crafted an amazing film out of one man's journey into the unknown. I guess that is what I was hoping Mo' Better Blues would turn out to be. This really dark journey into the life of a man that really never grew up, but instead all I got was Denzel being Denzel. He really is one of the most versatile actors of this generation, and I do consider him the Sydney Poitier of cinema, but this was not the film to showcase his talent.<br /><br />Another issue that I had with this film was the use of Spike's sister playing one of the love interests. I don't know about you, and your family, but I do not think that I could have filmed a sex scene with my sister. I don't care who the actor is or how much money I am getting paid, I would never do it. It is just something that I never wish to see, but apparently that is different for Spike. He went ahead and showed the full nude image of his sister without any remorse. It was sad and it even made me blush. Also, I need somebody to answer me this. What was Flavor Flav doing introducing this film? So, I am sitting there on my couch, ready to start the film, when suddenly there is a voice from the past spelling out the studio that made this film, then he acknowledges himself. That did not build for a strong remaining of the story. Again, I felt that Lee was going for money on this film instead of actual talent. Perhaps that is how he could afford both Denzel and Wesley in the same movie without any explosions.<br /><br />There were two great scenes in this film that made it worth watching through to the end. Don't get me wrong, this was a very bad movie, but there is always a diamond in every alleyway. The scene when Bleek accidentally forgets which woman he is with was mesmerizing. He continually went back and forth, weaving truth to confusion in a way that proved that Lee was actually behind the camera. It was a visionary scene that was probably lost in the shuffle due to the remaining poor scenes. The other scene that was worth watching was the way that Lee introduced and ended the film. By keeping the same pacing and direction, he was able to bring this tragic character around full circle and give him the chance to change his life. Other than these two moments, the rest of the film was pure rubbish, not worth viewing unless you are about to go blind.<br /><br />Grade: ** out of *****
An allegation of aggravated sexual assault along with some other unpleasant peccadilloes, including improper use of a broom, are made against half a dozen or so of the most popular high-school jocks in Glen Ridge, New Jersey, by a "mildly retarded" student (Heather Matarazzo). The investigation and building of the case are handed over to the DA's office, where Ally Sheedy and Eric Stoltz are put in charge.<br /><br />Rumors about the case spread through Glen Ridge, an upper-middle-class suburb where the jocks are adored by everyone in the community. (One of their fathers is a police lieutenant.) Nobody believes Matarazzo. "Our boys would never take a slut like that down to the basement, rape her, and subject her to such sexual humiliation." The question is whether Sheedy and Stoltz will ever be able to shape a sufficiently cogent case that they can bring the jocks to trial. Matarazzo is not an ideal plaintiff. She's desperate for love and friendship, and that makes it easy for faux friends to mislead her into making false statements. A slimy reporter says, "You can trust me," but it turns out the reporter can't be trusted at all. Another student, a very popular girl in school, pulls a Linda Tripp on Matarazzo, pretending to be her bosom buddy but all the while asking her leading questions about the incident -- and taping the results! As a consequence, watching this story unfold is like being on a roller coaster. At first it looks like a good case for Sheedy and Stoltz. But then, oops, the community organizes against the law. Then it looks good again. But then the reporter interferes. Then that obstacle is no sooner overcome, than Linda Tripp pokes her big nose into the investigation and makes public the tapes that seem to indicate Matarazzo was lying. (Well, actually, she WAS lying -- but she was lying to her interrogator in order to please her.) Then that's overcome, but Matarazzo objects to taking the stand because she doesn't want to be characterized as "retarded." Eric Stoltz is fine in the part of the prosecutor. I say that for the simple reason that he and I lived in Pago Pago around the same time. (I hope he wasn't the kid I had that altercation with at the bar of the Seaside Club. If he was, I take back my compliment.) Ally Sheedy is a strange actress and hard to characterize. She did a marvelous self-restrained job in "Fine Art" but I didn't sense any particular effort being put into this role, which was rather formulaic anyway. I mean, neither she nor Stoltz nor anyone else could give a bravura performance in what's essentially a comic book story.<br /><br />The producers and director had the good sense to choose Heather Matarazzo for the role of victim. The very worst thing they could have done is cast an ethereally lovely, neotenous blond. Instead, Matarazzo, without being at all ugly, looks rather plain and this ordinary quality is complemented by her grooming and make up. Nor have the writers turned her wistful and gentle. She has a temper and is sometimes irritating to listen to, which is all for the good.<br /><br />Matarazzo's character is the best drawn in the film. The jocks are stereotypes. Pure evil. They think themselves above the law, barge in on some nice girl's party in East Orange, trash the place during a party far worse than "La Dolce Vita's" climactic orgy, and leave without explanation or apology. They deserve to get it in the neck -- and they do.<br /><br />I referred to this as a comic book story and that's pretty much what it is. It challenges none of our prejudices. It reaffirms out belief that the world can be divided into Good and Evil. And we don't have a moment's doubt about who's who. What I'm waiting for -- not really, that's just rhetorical -- is a movie almost exactly like this one and a dozen others, but in which the victim is LYING in order to get her name and photo in the papers and garner all those sympathy chips from right-thinking folk like the rest of us.<br /><br />The film is based on a true story, as are so many others we've all seen, and even more fictional features. (Eg., "The Accused".) Some are good, some are strictly routine. Okay. Fair enough. Now when do we get to see a film about the Tawana Brawley case, in which the teen-aged girl disappeared on a whim for a few days, then had her friends strip her, tie her up, and smear her with dirt, so she could claim she'd been abducted and raped by the police? Now THAT would be a challenge in a way this one simply is not.
I recently watched Belle Epoque, thinking it might be wonderful as it did win an Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film. I was a bit underwhelmed by the predictability and simplicity of the film. Maybe the conflict I had was that from the time the movie was filmed to now, the plot of a man falling for beautiful women and eventually falling for the good girl has been done so many times. Aside from predictability of the plot, some scenes in the film felt really out of place with the storyline (ex. a certain event at the wedding). At times the film was a bit preachy in it's ideas and in relation to the Franco era the film was set in and the Church. The only thing the film had going for it was the cutesy moments, the scenery, and the character of Violeta being a strong, independent woman during times when women were not really associated with those characteristics.
Here's yet another blasphemous European story in which they blast the religion of their country. (These atheist filmmakers are relentless.) Here we see a brutal blasting of Catholics and/or the Catholic clergy (and I am not Catholic).<br /><br />This won actually won an Academy Award for bes foreign film. That's probably because the story made Catholics and religious belief in general look extremely weak. One of the main characters is a priest and he cares more about food than anything else. He's portrayed as nothing but an idiot. No wonder the secular- dominated Academy loved this movie.<br /><br />Also, there is some overacting fool who plays a guy who renounces his religion so he can marry one of the four daughters featured in the story. The daughters take turns seducing the "seminary" student (who states he studied for six years but says he's an agnostic!). I mean, how blasphemous IS this film??!!!<br /><br />This is a disgrace and another excellent example of the secular-progressive bigotry of the film business, worldwide (not just Hollywood).
This movie is just crap. Even though the directors claim to be part of that oi-culture, it's still a very, very bad directorial debut. The topic itself is very interesting and I accept the bad acting due to the fact, that they are all amateurs and never acted before, but the worst thing about this film are the dialogs and very unexperienced and naive directing. There's no timing at all in that movie. I felt like the directors were so exited to do that movie (it's their first feature), that they actually never really asked themselves, what story they wanna tell. I met Ben (one of the directors) on several occasions and he's a nice and thoughtful guy, but that doesn't make him a director. I think, that "American History X" is full of clichés, but somehow manages to transport a story. "Oi!Warning" is full of clichés, doesn't tell anything new or provocative and (-that's the sad thing about this movie) it's far from any Oi!-Reality.<br /><br />If you wanna see weird but great German films, watch the movies of Michael Haneke, Christoph Schlingensief, Oskar Roehler, Hans Weingartner or Oliver Hirschbiegel:<br /><br />Benny's Video Funny Games Die Unberührbare Mein Letzter Film Das Experiment Das Weisse Rauschen Muxmäuschenstill ...<br /><br />*** out of ten, because of the topic and the photography
As big as a Texas prairie and equally as boring. Even Liz Taylor, James Dean, Chill Wills, and Dennis Hopper can't float this overbloated boat. Taylor actually LOOKS bad--wrong wardrobe, wrong hair, and wrong makeup--a unique accomplishment in her remarkable career. Hopper gives the only believable performance, and Dean in the climactic scene displays remarkable talent as something we usually don't remember him for--a comic actor. Rock Hudson is his usual prototype of Barbie Doll Ken and makes one wonder what a, say, Redford could have done with the male lead. There is no discernible plot that provides any tension until the final twenty minutes, just a pastiche of milestones that have little relationship to each other. Except for Hopper, there is no character development, only a collection of cardboard cutouts that pop up periodically for no discernible reason like random targets in a shooting gallery. To its credit, the film does tackle racism and sexism at a time when they were taboo subjects, and it does have SIZE, making it an excellent choice for ridding yourself of unwelcome house guests. Those with the DVD version can spare themselves some of the tedium by starting with the second disk. You won't be missing anything of interest.
With all due disrespect for this George Stevens Sr. "epic" of miscastings and misreadings, I can only wonder that the James Dean "legend" could survive this outing, I submit that then-studio obeisances to bankable box office "giants" came a cropper of its own 'gigantismoses'. Nor were Rock and Liz that much better off. Let us just say that the televised "Dallas" was the authentic "heir," even if contemp(tuous) latterday "Texans" like Lay and DELay, not to mention our putative "president" of these here Yewbenighted States of Amurrika, perform a one-upsmanship of dastardly global dimensions. I never read Edna Ferber's original, but will lay odds it is head and shoulders superior to what got on screen herein. And all those well-paid, I would imagine, "supporting" actors of note and celebrity notwithstanding, "Giant" is, to me at least, a midget of scant merit, never mind the promo campaigns.
"Giant" is one of the most boring, overly-long Hollywood contraptions ever. Many scenes seem utterly fake and without energy. Rock Hudson, Elizabeth Taylor, and James Dean are wasted in this big Hollywood production. A central notion to this movie, that a rancher would ever resist drilling for oil on his land, is absurd, and I know this because I'm from Houston. A couple of scenes, especially Dean serving Taylor coffee, redeem this otherwise boring film. For a much more accurate and interesting depiction about how modernism changed the ranches in Texas, see "Hud" (one of Paul Newman's great performances) or "The Last Picture Show."
Elizabeth Taylor never could act at all and she was just her usual annoying, untalented self in this film. This was before she got so fat but she still looked very short and dumpy. Rock Hudson was OK as Bick Benedict but clearly an actor with more range like William Holden would have been better. James Dean certainly proved he knew how to mumble his way through a movie. The whole film is incredibly slow and goes on for far too long. The actors were all too young and lightweight and none of them aged convincingly due to the poor make-up. Hudson looked ridiculous just being padded out and Dean and Carroll Baker were obviously the same age.<br /><br />0/10.
Every once in a while I will rent an action/adventure film just as a way to relax and occupy my mind with nothing important. This is why I own a copy of Charlie's Angels (2000) - not a quality film, but it makes me laugh and allows me to unwind for a while. One of these days I will probably buy copies of The Princess Bride and a few Monty Python movies for much the same reason.<br /><br />In any case, I rented this film because I wanted to be entertained without being challenged. For the most part, I got what I wanted. The plot was something along the lines of a poorly written Xena episode, and the Kathy Long's acting was very community theater (not bad for a professional kick boxer and amateur actress). There were a few high points on the part of the cyborgs. Somehow they managed to get some pretty good actors to play the bad guys - unfortunately, most of them die pretty darned quick.<br /><br />Like most martial arts films, the further you get into the movie, the more emphasis there is on action, and the plot (which wasn't strong to begin with) deteriorates almost as quickly as the acting. However, the more Kathy Long fights, the more time the director devotes to her backside. By the end of the movie I was seriously considering watching it a second time just to count the number of times Kathy Long's tight red shorts were center screen.<br /><br />Unfortunately, there just wasn't enough meat to this film to make satisfying curiosity worth seeing the film a second time. If you are a hard core Xena fan in need of something to wile away a few hours - by all means, go to the grocery store and spend the .50 cents on the rental. There are some strong similarities between the show and this movie.<br /><br />Just don't expect anything more than to be mildly amused for a few hours.<br /><br />Unless, of course, you happen to like Kathy Long's derrière. THEN you might want to purchase a copy.
Set in a post-apocalyptic environment, cyborgs led by warlord Job rein over the human population. They basically keep them as livestock, as they need fresh human blood to live off. Nea and her brother managed to survive one of their attacks when she was a kid, and years have past when she came face-to-face with the cyborgs again, but this time she's saved by the cyborg Gabriel, who was created to destroy all cyborgs. Job and his men are on their way to capture a largely populated city, while Nea (with revenge on mind) pleads Gabriel to train her in the way of killing cyborgs and she'll get him to Gabriel.<br /><br />Cheap low-rent cyborg / post-apocalyptic foray by writer / director Albert Pyun (who made "Cyborg" prior to it and the blistering "Nemsis" the same year) is reasonably a misguided hunk of junk with some interesting novelties. Very little structure makes its way into the threadbare story, as the turgid script is weak, corny and overstated. The leaden banter tries to be witty, but it pretty much stinks and comes across being comical in the unintentional moments. Most of the occurring actions are pretty senseless and routine. The material could've used another polish up, as it was an inspired idea swallowed up by lazy inclusions, lack of a narrative and an almost jokey tone. The open-ended, cliffhanger conclusion is just too abrupt, especially since a sequel has yet to be made. Makes it feel like that that run out of money, and said "Time to pack up. Let's finish it off another day (or maybe in another decade). There's no rush." However it did find it rather diverting, thanks largely to its quick pace, some well-executed combat and George Mooradian's gliding cinematography that beautifully captured the visually arresting backdrop. Performances are fair. Kris Kristofferson's dry and steely persona works perfectly as Gabriel and a self-assured, psychically capable Kathy Long pulls off the stunts expertly and with aggression. However her acting is too wooden. A mugging Lance Henriksen gives a mouth-watering performance of pure ham, as the villainous cyborg leader Job who constantly having a saliva meltdown. Scott Paulin also drums up plenty of gleefulness as one of the cyborgs and Gary Daniels pouts about as one too. Pyun strikes up few exciting martial art set pieces, involving some flashy vigour and gratuitous slow-motion. Seeping into the background is a scorching, but mechanical sounding music score. The special effects and make-up FX stand up fine enough. Watchable, but not quite a success and it's minimal limitations can be a cause of that.
This is one of the two postapocalyptic fantasy movies that Albert Pyun made in 1993 - and it's the bad one. Apparently all his energy went into "Nemesis" which was an entertaining non-stop action movie, and had a much more expensive look. "Knights" is clunky and cheesy, a bottom-of-the-barrel sci-fi that too often resembles a video game (new opponents pop up all the time and must be exterminated as quickly as possible). The only thing that saves this movie from the trash can is Kathy Long; not a particularly attractive woman, but undeniably a brutally efficient fighting machine. As for Kris Kristofferson, considering his age at the time (58), I hope his stunt double was well paid. (*1/2)
In the ravaged wasteland of the future, mankind is terrorized by Cyborgs—robots with human features—that have discovered a new source of fuel: human blood. Commanded by their vicious leader Jōb (Lance Henriksen), the Cyborgs prepare to overtake Taos, a densely populated human outpost.<br /><br />Only one force can stop Jōb's death march—the Cyborg Gabriel (Kris Kristofferson), who is programmed to destroy Jōb and his army.<br /><br />In the ruins of a ransacked village, Gabriel finds Nea (Kathy Long), a beautiful young woman whose parents were killed by Cyborgs ten years earlier. Now she wants revenge. They strike a pact: Gabriel will train Nea how to fight the Cyborgs and Nea will lead Gabriel to Taos.<br /><br />Five-time kick-boxing champion Kathy Long has all the right moves in this high-speed adventure that delivers plenty of action. Also stars Gary Daniels (as David) and Scott Paulin (as Simon).
I tuned into this thing one night on a cable channel a few minutes after the credits ran, so I didn't know who had done it at first. The longer I saw it, the more I started thinking, "Jesus, this looks like an Albert Pyun flick." Wasn't quite sure, though, for two main reasons: the photography was quite good (and the Utah desert scenery was beautiful), and Scott Paulin gave an hilarious performance as Simon, a murderous cyborg, but with some style and a sense of humor. Paulin must have ad-libbed the many clever one-liners he shot out, because Albert Pyun hasn't written anything even remotely funny or coherent in his career. Unfortunately, Paulin doesn't have all that much screen time before he's gone, and the movie's the worse for it. Lance Henriksen, playing the evil head cyborg, growls his way through his part, as he's done in countless other movies like this. I don't know what the hell Kris Kristofferson is doing in this thing; maybe he wanted to see what the Utah desert looked like and get paid for it. He goes through the movie looking (and sounding) like he just woke up, and in fact spends most of the last half of the movie on his back in a tent. Kathy Long, the nominal hero, has a great body, is attractive, has a great body, fights extremely well, has a great body, and doesn't have an iota of acting talent, but that doesn't matter in a movie like this. This being an Albert Pyun film, it's full of the trademarks that we've all come to know and love: inane and idiotic dialog, choppy editing, and the impression that they lost a reel in the middle of the picture and figured, "Ah, nobody'll ever notice."<br /><br />As bad as this movie is, however, it's a shade above most of Pyun's other efforts--this is "Citizen Kane" compared to his brain-numbing "Adrenaline: Feel the Rush", for example. The fights are pretty well done, if repetitive (after she knocks down eight or nine guys one after the other, you find yourself saying, "Alright already, go to something else"), and Long is very athletic (and, as a previous poster has noted, has a great derrière). It's not a good movie by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not anywhere near as incoherent and incompetent as Pyun's usual extravaganzas. You could do worse than rent this movie--not much worse, granted, but worse nonetheless.
This movie will promote the improvement of the mind. Read a book! It's incredible anyone would think this movie deserved the time and investment to make. I've seen "B" movies before but the "C" movie has just been invented. I didn't think I would ever enjoy Power Rangers since my kids stopped watching but I found myself looking for the videos fifteen minutes into "Knights." High school productions are better than this and the actors involved should erase this from their resume. Embarrassment is one of many descriptions that come to mind. My roommate, who loves these types of movies even turned it off. Now that has to really tell you something. If you watch this movie, and like it, I will pray for you.
There is a word for this sort of film, and that word is "drivel." It was drivel when it was a VHS rental, and it's drivel on satellite re-runs now.<br /><br />It might fool you, because it has 2 moderately well-known names in Kistofferson and Henriksen, reasonable soundtrack music, and nice Monument Valley scenery.<br /><br />It also has some curly haired woman who fights a lot.<br /><br />If that's all you want from a movie, then maybe this will keep you happy.<br /><br />It's still drivel, though.
You can't really go far when the initial story isn't all that great. The premise of cyborg's needing blood is just dopey.<br /><br />The script is blasé'. The actors don't have much to work with. The sets were staged out in the desert to cut costs. It's a trademark that if the background is the desert, then the movie has no budget.<br /><br />Lack of budget is okay, if there's a story. "Solarbabies" and "Blood of Champions" are examples of decent work from no $. but this movie looks as if they had to scrape their change together just to buy the cameraman a sandwich. Again, forgivable if only the story didn't just plain suck.<br /><br />Finally, this movie commits the biggest crime of all: It doesn't finish! It simply ends as if it's a commercial break away from the rest of the movie. But the rest never comes. Just odd.<br /><br />Just bad.
someone needed to make a car payment... this is truly awful... makes jean Claude's cyborg look like gone with the wind... this is an hour I wish I could sue to get back... luckily it produced severe somnolence... from which I fell asleep. how can actors of this caliber create this dog? I would rather spend the time watching algae grow on the side of a fish tank than partake of this wholly awful concoction of several genre. I now use the DVD as a coaster on my coffee table. $5.99 at walmart is far too much to spend on this movie... if you really have to have it, wait till they throw them out after they have carried them on the inventory for several years and are frustrated that they would not sell.<br /><br />please for the love of god let this movie die of obscurity.
Vampire cyborgs rule the world and use the blood of humans as fuel, however there is going to be a shift of power thanks to a renegade android (Kris Kristofferson) and a warrior woman (Kathly Long) as they face off against Lance Henriksen and Gary Daniels (Who play the cyborgs in this ridiculous movie) Of all the questions left unanswered by this dreadful movie, the most poignant is Who's idea was it to cast country singer Kris Kristofferson as a cyborg warrior who is able to give as good as he gets. No, don't get me wrong I could see Kristofferson as a vigilante or something but not as a cyborg. Strangely one suspects that this was written for Dolph Lundgren, however Lundgren must have had the wisdom to not do it. However despite the disastrous casting, Kristofferson is easily the most enjoyable thing about the movie. He gives a performance far more human then the inexpressive Kathy Long. (And Kristofferson is playing a robot) despite the miscasting, Kristofferson provides the few moments of interest. Lance Henriksen is slumming and Gary Daniels is wasted but basically Knights is baffling failure. You stand back in horror wondering who the hell thought that this was even a good idea on paper. (This is a movie where a dismembered Kristofferson is fighting robots in a backpack) Worst of all it ends in a what if sequel, thankfully this has yet to materialize although I still have nightmares at the proposition of the likelihood of such an event.<br /><br />* out of 4-(Bad)
Once in a while you get amazed over how BAD a film can be, and how in the world anybody could raise money to make this kind of crap. There is absolutely No talent included in this film - from a crappy script, to a crappy story to crappy acting. Amazing...
This move is about as bad as they come. I was, however forced to give it a 2 for the scenery. There are many great shots of the southwest including many in Monument Valley, one of the most breathtaking places in the US. It is also, starting with John Ford, one of the most filmed. In fact one scene with Kris and the girl was filmed on a place called John Ford point.
Knights was just a beginning of a series, a pilot, one might say. The plot (I really shouldn't call it that, there wasn't any plot) wasn't logical at all and there were many mistakes, like [warning, I'm summarizing the plot]:<br /><br />In the beginning of the movie someone said that there was only a couple of those cyborgs (the bad guys) but after the climax, Nea found out that there were many many more left of them. And it was told that cyborgs were hard to kill, but after a month's training, Nea could kill them with a single blow.<br /><br />The movie was just pure kicking. I wasn't surprised at all, when I found out that the leading star was a kick boxer.<br /><br />There was ONE positive thing in the whole movie: it really gave a great deal of laughter when watching it and talking about it with my friends. I recommend watching it, if you are in need of laughter.
Still a sucker for Pyun's esthetic sense, I liked this movie, though the "unfinished" ending was a let-down. As usual, Pyun develops a warped sense of humour and Kathy Long's fights are extremely impressive. Beautifully photographed, this has the feel it was done for the big screen.
This movie is probably the worst I have seen. Bad acting, bad script, bad everything. Comparing it to mainly two other movies in the same genre and from approximately the same time is interesting. Both Cyborg (Van Damme, 1989) and Nemesis (Olivier Gruner, 1993) are much better and seems more robust in both story and directing and still it's Albert Pyun who has directed these two as well!<br /><br />The story is not original. The world has become a terrible place, possibly due to an environmental disaster or a nuclear war, and people live under medieval circumstances. A special breed of robots (cyborgs) live on human blood and there's the story... The cyborgs need to get a lot of humans to fulfill there "prophecy" and the humans need someone to stop them. One girl together with a robot (Kris Kristofferson) built by the creator of the cyborgs has been appointed by destiny to save mankind.<br /><br />In this movie the director tries some Hong-Kong stylish fighting scenes with the participants flying high and leaping far. The movie fails miserably in this attempt.<br /><br />I recommend this film with the only reason that most people will get a new "worst ever" movie to relate to. And to fans of the genre I recommend "Cyborg" since I think it's a very underestimated movie with quite a high entertaining factor. And if you can't stand Van Damme then check out "Nemesis".<br /><br />I rated this movie 1/10.
and it doesn't help rohmer's case that a few years later Syberberg came along and made a staggeringly great piece of work on the same subject (with a little help from Wagner).<br /><br />maybe this movie didn't look so paltry when it came out, without the syberberg film to compare it to, which was probably shot on an even smaller sound stage with fewer resources. I actually can't recall at the moment whether there are horses in the syberberg film. all I know is, the German version is pure magic, while this one looks like some college production documented on film for archival purposes.<br /><br />the music... la musique... isn't even credited here on IMDb... but someone based it on 'airs from the 12th-14th centuries" or something... well it isn't a great help to the film. it comes off as inauthentic and cheesy, comme le frommage mon cher!!!<br /><br />rohmer is one of those french auteurs who likes his leading men generally quite unattractive, too, and that doesn't help matters. syberberg's Parsifal was adorable, and can be seen on German television today selling some kind of special bicycle he invented. .. .<br /><br />I shudder to think what watching the syberberg on video is like. I remember that the last time I saw the film in a theater, the print was so bad that the experience was a whopping 5 hour travesty. But even then it would have to surpass what this version has to offer, I'm afraid.<br /><br />points for earnestness, for chutzpah, but... this film simply needed beau-coup more bucks. it doesn't look like a medieval manuscript it looks CHEAPO! BON MARCHE!! oh and yeah, it just ends very arbitrarily with Parsifal going to church and this cheesy passion play being interjected... blah!
This movie deserves credit for its original approach. It combines elements of theater, film, and epic storytelling. Unfortunately, it falls flat on all levels. The films biggest weakness is it's unwillingness to commit to anything; it has camp, moralistic, and epic elements without ever committing to any of them. As for the story itself, Chretien de Troyes is spinning in his grave at this horrible adaptation which turns the lovable, unbearably innocent Percival into a most ungallant and rude churl.<br /><br />Most likely two types of people will see this, francophiles or Arthuriophiles. Speaking as one of the latter, I found the movie unwatchable and an incredibly shabby, disrespectful treatment of a beautiful story.
I vaguely remember Ben from my Sci-Fi fandom days of the '60s, I was doing several interviews & bios of obscure actors/actresses, most notably Ben, actress Fay Spain, and Jody Fair, who played Angela in 1961's The Young Savages. Ben was one of the people at a low-key Sci-Fi con in Chicago, about 1970, when I had a nice chat with him and his "career" and life. All these were published in some now-long-forgotten fanzine of the day. Wish I still had copies of those interviews, but time marches on, and any of those people surely wouldn't' remember me at all so many years later. Ben was a really nice fellow, ekeing out a living (The cons of those days didn't even pay their guest, unless, of course they were big-name stars, and even then the pay was a couple hundred dollars, at most! Good to know Ben's still alive & kicking! How 'bout a remake of Creature, but 50 years older! Ugly then, uglier now!
First of all, yes, animals have emotions. If you didn't know that already, then I believe you are a moron. But let's assume that none of us are morons. We all know that animals have emotions, and we now want to see how these emotions are manifest in nature, correct?<br /><br />What we get instead is a tedious and ridiculously simplistic documentary that attempts to show how animals are "human". The filmmakers search high & low for footage of animals engaged in human-like behaviour, and when it happens they say, "That monkey is almost human!" (that's actually a direct quote).<br /><br />Everything is in human terms. They waste time theorizing about what makes dogs "smile", but not once do they mention what a wagging tail means. The arrogance of these researchers is disgusting. They even go so far as to show chimpanzees dressed in human clothing and wearing a cowboy hat.<br /><br />I had been expecting an insightful documentary of animals on their own terms. I wanted to learn how animals emote in their OWN languages. But instead, researchers keep falling back on pedantic, anthropomorphic observations and assumptions. Add a cheezy soundtrack and images of chimps "celebrating Christmas", and this was enough to turn my stomach.<br /><br />But it doesn't end there. Half of this documentary is filmed not in the wild but in laboratories and experimental facilities. All the camera shots of chimps are through steel bars, and we see how these monkeys are crowded together in their sterile concrete cages. One particularly sobering moment happens near the beginning (though you have to be quick to notice it) where a captive monkey says in sign language, "Want out. Hurry go."<br /><br />Obscure references are made to "stress tests" and psychological experiments which I shudder to imagine. Baby monkeys are separated from their mothers at birth and are given wireframe dolls in order to prove that baby monkeys crave a "mother figure". And after 40 years of experiments, the smug researchers pat themselves on the back for reaching their brilliant conclusion: monkeys have emotions.<br /><br />One chimp named "Washoe" has been in a concrete cage since 1966 for that purpose, and to this day she remains thus. We get a brief glimpse (again through bars) of her leaning against a concrete wall with a rather lackluster expression. Personally, I don't need to see any further experimental data. Washoe, I apologize for our entire species.
Bad plot (though good for a B-movie), good fast-paced fight scenes, at most a 5 out of 10. But something has always bothered me about this film: how come Mariska Hargitay never speaks? In the TV version, she shares several intimate moments with Jeff Speakman, even a kiss in a garden. Yet in the regular (video) version, most of her scenes are cut and she never speaks at all. This bothers me because it not only takes out a female (though cliched) point-of-view to the film, it also makes the final shot seem creepy. This film would have been better had they kept her scenes in, because in those scenes at least she has a personality, one that undercuts whatever Speakman says.
<br /><br />Get your brewskies out and enjoy this flawed action flick. Speakman's considerable kempo skill (nice spin kicks, decent with the sticks - poor couch!) is the only redeeming quality of a movie that just cries bad acting. The plot isn't half bad; just executed pretty poorly. But if you're seeing this movie for anything other than martial arts, you're missing the boat entirely. And for a movie that is supposed to take place in Koreatown, way way too few Korean actors (even extras).
The Perfectly Stupid Weapon. I think the guys dancing at the beginning of one of Steven Segal's movies was intented to mock Jeff doing his forms to dance music at the beginning of this stupid movie. The plot is predictable, the fights were fair and Jeff acts about as well as the sofa he beats with some sort of weapon in one scene.
Back (again) in Scotland, Lassie is (again) on trial for her life. Because the faithful dog sleeps on her master's grave, she must be put to death, according to law. Oddly, it is also explained that Lassie had no "legal" owner, which is, apparently, also against an old Scottish law. If, after three days, no owner is located, dogs must be destroyed. Edmund Gwenn (as John Traill) pleads Lassie's case, which leads to an extended flashback, showing Lassie's adoption by Donald Crisp (as John "Jock" Gray).<br /><br />Although it's based on an interesting, original story ("Greyfriars Bobby"), "Challenge to Lassie" revisits several earlier Lassie situations; and, it does not improve upon them. Comparatively speaking, this one is sloppy and unexciting; and, it's a disappointing follow-up to "The Sun Comes Up" (1949) *******. Geraldine Brooks (as Susan Brown) and several of the other performers may be charming, but can't elevate this one. Little Jimmy Hawkins (from "It's a Wonderful life") is among the notable children supporting Lassie; much later, he will grow up to marry "Dark Shadows"' bewitching "Angelique" (Lara Parker).
This is a very bad western mainly because it is historically inaccurate. It looks as if it were shot on a back lot in California instead of where Jack Slade lived and died, Idaho, Colorado Territories, and Montana. It fictionalizes everything that is known about this mysterious 'bad man,' 'good man.' The script is horrible; there is very little direction, and lousy acting. Dorothy Malone is completely wasted as his wife. Mark Steven never seems to know how to portray this mysterious Jack Slade. In real life, Jack Slade was a very good stage line superintendent. He was feared by his local townsmen for his hard drinking. When drunk he would start fights and cause other problems in Virginia City, Montana. To insure that he could never terrorize them again, vigilantes lynched Jack Slade after he ignored their warning to leave town immediately. This is a horrible movie. I can not recommend anyone to watch this movie other than to see how Hollywood butches history at will, even to this day.
William S. Hart (as Jim Treen), the most eligible bachelor in Canyon City, is finally getting hitched, to pretty blonde waitress Leona Hutton (as Molly Stewart). His fiancée doesn't know it, but Mr. Hart is secretly the western town's "Most Wanted" bandit. However, Hart is planning to go straight, due to his marriage plans. Unfortunately, Ms. Hutton discovers Hart's secret stash, whilst cleaning up his untidy cabin; so, she calls off the wedding. Next, Hutton succumbs to the charms of mining swindler Frank Borzage (as W. Sloane Carey).<br /><br />Serviceable entertainment from superstar Hart; he was ranked no less than #1 at the box office, by Quigley Publications, for the years 1915 and 1916 (ahead of Mary Pickford). The principles perform capably. Later on, Frank Borzage was quite a director; and Leona Hutton, a suicide... <br /><br />**** A Knight of the Trails (8/20/15) William S. Hart ~ William S. Hart, Leona Hutton, Frank Borzage
A resurrected wrapped monster goes on a murdering binge. A lunatic is seeking revenge against living members of a previous expedition. Universal seems to be running out of wrapping as well as new ideas. Most of the budget was probably spent on Lon Chaney Jr. to star as Kharis, the Mummy.<br /><br />Other players are George Zucco, Wallace Ford, Turhan Bey, Dick Foran and Elyse Knox.<br /><br />How much longer can this madness continue?
Cheap, mediocre sequel to the successful "The Mummy's Hand" has presumably dead evil Professor Andoheb(George Zucco)preparing his predecessor Mehemet Bey(Turhan Bey)for the quest of revenge overseas to America using mummy Kharis(Lon Chaney, Jr who has no reason being in the disguise..any stunt man could do the same credible work lumbering around and choking victims)in the goal of killing the surviving members of the Banning family whose patriarch Stephen(Dick Foran)and assistant Babe Hanson(Wallace Ford)retrieved the mummified corpse of Princess Ananka from her tomb in Egypt..Andoheb considers this an outlandish act of desecration and wants the family to suffer for doing such an awful deed towards an ancient Egyptian custom. Bey and the mummy Kharis find a nice hideaway in a cemetery where the High Priest of Karnak can work as a caretaker in disguise. Every Full Moon, Bey will feed Kharis a form of liquid derived of several Tana leaves which will keep him not only alive but subservient to his master's wishes. Bey commands Kharis to kill Stephen and his sister Jane(Mary Gordon), while also biding time for Babe to return so that he will become victim # 3. Dr. John Banning(John Hubbard)plans to wed Isobel(Elyse Knox), but doesn't know that Bey secretly covets his fiancé making plans to kidnap her with Kharis' help. John's life is in danger because of his father..he's also the last remaining member of the Banning line. If Bey has Isobel, there's no chance of any more Bannings being born. The police must find Kharis and the one responsible for his carnage..Bey.<br /><br />This film is a continuation from HAND set years later as members of that film, Foran, Ford & Zucco all appear in "aging" make-up providing wrinkles showing the gaps in time as Andoheb has been preparing for the deaths of the Bannings. The cornball romance of John and Isobel seems merely in this plot so that Bey will screw up endangering his perfect plan which was being carried out successfully before he loused it up. And, Bey merely sees her frolicking with John on the grass..the whole "love-at-first-sight" rubbish really didn't wash for me. Plus you have the mummy being able to kill people with one arm..is any mummy really THAT powerful? This film also uses a ton of footage from the previous film to save budget on this sequel to it. There really isn't that much story here and yes, typical of Universal monster pictures, even in America a mob of people will light..ho hum..torches going after Kharis. You know how it'll end..John and the super-powerful Kharis will square off in some huge mansion with fire burning all around them with the evil one being engulfed in flame.
Nothing will ruin a movie as much as the combination of a poor script and poor direction. This is the case with "The Mummy's Tomb."<br /><br />The script is leftover ideas from older, better Universal horror flicks like "Dracula" and "Frankenstein." The direction is trite and stale. The acting is mediocre. Even Chaney's Kharis is feeble compared to Tom Tyler's in "The Mummy's Hand," and the producers are foolish enough to add footage from Christy Cabanne's vastly better prequel and point up the weakness of their own film!<br /><br />Universal realized how bad this movie was, and essentially remade it from scratch two years later as "The Mummy's Ghost" with a much better script and better director. The result was likely the best film in their four film "Mummy" cycle, although not anywhere near as good as Karl Freund's 1932 original.<br /><br />Cabanne's footage raises this film to a 3. The "new" stuff is a 2 at best. Dick Foran and Wallace Ford were probably glad to see their characters bumped off so they wouldn't have to appear in dreck like this anymore!
1st watched 5/27/2009 - 4 out of 10 (Dir - Harold Young): The 3rd Universal mummy movie is about the same as the first two as far as the final result from the viewer's perspective. The story is similar and the results are ho-hum. This time the story's location is the U.S. as the Egyptian priest's new follower sends a mummy to our country in hopes he can revive him to kill descendants of those who opened the original tomb. This time the mummy is played by Lon Chaney(which doesn't make much of a difference because he's really not asked to do much acting for this character). The new priest becomes a morgue-keeper in the town and sends the mummy out to do his dirty deeds after feeding him the tanna leaf juice. Again, a girl gets in the way, as the priest falls for one of the descendent's fiancé and wants her, yes--- to be immortal with him(haven't we heard this before?). The plan is, of course, thwarted as the townsfolk hunt down the mummy with torches(similar to the Frankenstein monster) and the burning of the creature ends the story...how do they get a sequel?? I guess you'll find out with the next one in the series ?? or not.....
The Mummy's Tomb starts with a review of the events in The Mummy's Hand and then moves the story forward several years and across the ocean to the United States of America where the current high priest and the mummy Kharis set out to wreak havoc and take revenge on those who violated the tomb in the past.<br /><br />While I absolutely loved "The Mummy" with Boris Karloff as the mummy Imhotep, and quite liked "The Mummy's Hand" with Tom Tyler as Kharis (which is the direct prequel to this film), I was not as taken with "The Mummy's Tomb".<br /><br />It is made in a similar style as the previous film and has a somewhat similar plot albeit in a new setting. Lon Chaney Jr is okay as Kharis, but doesn't really stand out. And I guess that's my main criticism of this movie-that nothing really stands out. There's nothing really terrible here, but nothing really outstanding either, so the viewer is left with a rather bland mummy's tale.
This is a direct sequel to 'The Mummy's Hand' (1940), because the lead character, Stephen Banning (played by Dick Foran) is now thirty years older and is relating the story (with the help of archival footage) to his son's fiancé. There are only two unusual aspects to the film: the early death of Banning, and the presence of Turhan Bey.<br /><br />Lon Chaney as the mummy Kharis gets top billing, though given the nature of his role, he has little more to do than limp along or thrash his arms about. There's nothing scary about his presence, except for his attempt to carry off the fiancé, Isobel (Elyse Knox). Dick Foran gets second billing, but he's killed off within the first fifteen minutes! We'd have to wait until 'Psycho' (1960) when a lead character (Janet Leigh) dies way before the end of the movie! Banning's buddy from the first film, Babe Jenson (now Henson), shows up a little later looking much, much, older and not doing any of the comic shtick he did in the original. It's hard to believe it's the same actor! Unfortunately, this great acting job is wasted because he gets killed by Kharis after only two brief scenes. It's then left up to Banning's son John (played by bit player John Hubbard) to led the chase to the cemetery--NO! The sheriff leads a torch wielding mob to Banning's house to burn it down and kill the mummy. Sound Universally familiar? <br /><br />Turhan Bey is introduced to audiences as the new High Priest, Mehmet Bey, to care for and feed tana leaves to Kharis. With his 'exotic' voice and appearance, it's too bad he gets so easily killed. A better movie would have had 'Babe' take Von Helsing type charge of things in tracking down the mummy, with a final decisive battle with him and Mehmet Bay. But instead we have a pedestrian rehash of different set pieces from previous Universal horror films, put together by the hack Griffin Jay who wrote many of Universal's other clunkers, although he also did 'Don Winslow of the Navy' (1942) as well as 'Don Winslow of the Coast Guard' (1943) which also featured Elyse Knox.<br /><br />Elyse Knox played Anne Howe in six Joe Palooka movies (1946-1949), and of course, Turhan Bey, with 43 movie and TV credits, is great in the title role of 'The Amazing Dr. X' (1948).<br /><br />The cinematography is much darker and more atmospheric (with lots of noirish shadows in the sheriff's office) than the first 'Kharis' mummy film, but there's little else of interest or excitement.<br /><br />I'll give it a 3.
Jenny Neumann (from the sexploitation flick MISTRESS OF THE APES, the American slasher HELL NIGHT and others) is Helen Selleck, an American actress who gets a lead role in an Australian stage production. She's a virgin because as a little girl she saw her mom having sex and then accidentally caused the car accident that killed her. Meanwhile, a black-gloved killer prowls around the theater slashing up people with shards of glass.<br /><br />***MAJOR SPOILER***<br /><br />The killer is obviously Helen (she speaks in her dead mother's voice, washes blood off her hands after the murders and is seen killing a child molester with a broken bottle as a little girl!), but this has gratuitous heavy-breathing POV camera-work and conceals the identity of the murderer until the very end like it's supposed to be some big surprise.<br /><br />The entire cast seems obsessed with talking about, having or trying to have sex, and, in one case, even blackmailing their way into getting laid. There's quite a bit of nudity and blood, but there's no sense of continuity, the photography is murky and the editing (by Colin Eggleston, who also scripted and produced) is terrible. The theater setting for a slasher film predates Soavi's film of the same name and Argento's OPERA (both of which are better than this one ) by five years though, and Neumann is pretty hot.
This extremely weak Australian excuse for a motion picture is sort of like the Pavlov Dog Experiment amongst horror movies. You remember this famous "Conditioned Reflex" experiment from your school books, right? The Russian scientist Pavlov proved that dogs tended to salivate before the food actually came into their mouths and this through repetitive routines stimulating the animal's reflexes. Pavlov rung a bell a couple of instants before the food was delivered to the dog and, after a while, he became anxious and excited and already started salivating from hearing the sound of the bell. What the hell has this whole boring explanation in common with a sleazy and low-budgeted Aussie slasher flick, I hear you think? Well, the modus operandi of the maniacal killer in "Nightmares" is an exact variant on Pavlov's experiment. Each and every single murder sequence is preceded by the raw sound and image of the killer breaking a window, because he/she insists on using a sharp piece of glass to slice up the victims. So this means that, after a short while, inattentive and bored viewers can afford to doze off and simply look up again when they hear the sound of shattering glass. That way they still don't miss anything special! <br /><br />Regarding the quality of "Nightmares" as a film I can be very brief. This is a cheap, uninspired and largely imbecilic Aussie cash-in on the contemporary popular trend of American slasher movies. In the early 60's, a four-year-old witnesses the cruel death of her mother as her throat gets slit open in a nasty car accident. Twenty years later the same girl – Helen Selleck – is a successful stage actress, but she still has severe mental issues and regularly suffers from horrible flashbacks and traumatic nightmares. She auditions for a role in a black comedy play revolving on death and gets the part. Shortly after the big premiere, everyone who's even remotely involved with the production gets slaughtered. It is truly retarded how this movie attempts to uphold the mystery regarding the killer's identity and motivations even though even the most infantile viewer can figure it out after the first murder already. I don't think I've ever seen a more obvious whodunit than "Nightmares" and the creators should have just showed his/her face straight away and save themselves from embarrassment. The murders are explicit and very bloody and there's also an unhealthy large amount of gratuitous nudity to "enjoy". However, the production values are poor and thus the movie is never at one point shocking or provocative. The few clips we get to see of the actual play make it appear that it quite possible could be the worst thing ever performed on stage. The only positive elements in the film are the characters of the director and the gay newspaper critic, whom are both delightfully sarcastic and insult the rest of the cast members as much as we do. "Nightmares" is a dreadful piece of exploitative horror cinema, but hey, at least I gave you a golden tip to make it more digestible.
I understand that this movie is made for kids and as a parent I have sat through many movies that don't particularly hold my interest, but I can appreciate from a constructive point of view in how it is being received by my children. Parents are supposed to be encouraged after all to take part in their children's activities and to monitor the quality of the entertainment that they view so there should be something that appeals to an adult audience on some level even in children's movies. Disney has always understood this which is why it is so hard to fathom how it could allow such a complete piece of drek to bear their name.<br /><br />Technically, the sound editing is horrible and all dialog sounds over-dubbed and unnatural. Personally I hate that, but it was doubly awful considering the dialog itself seemed as though it was written by a 12 year old for a school project. The "acting" reminded me of a school play and none of the child actors had any range of emotion in their voices. Thankfully it was a very short movie.<br /><br />Now, before I come off like a video-geek measuring a kids movie with an adult yard stick, the one thing that can save even the worst children's movie is a positive message. Far be it from me to determine how a message has to be delivered so long as the right one is. Let us take a walk through this film to see what messages are given: <br /><br />If you are lost, don't worry, you will inevitably find your way home.<br /><br />Approach wild animals without any fear.<br /><br />You can win any competition just because you "know" you can.<br /><br />and my favorite, the final message left in the film: <br /><br />It's okay to disobey authority figures and do what you think is right.
OK, I have been a huge fan of the Black for a long time and was DISGUSTED after seeing this film. Let's name the problems...First this film has much of the same crew that the first two had. It has also been called the PREQUEL to the original Black Stallion. Why is it that they can't get Shetan's dam's name correct or her color?? In The Black Stallion Returns, we learn the Sagr was the Black's CHESTNUT mother and in this film she is a gray mare name Jenny?!?!?!?!? WTF? And it's set in Africa in 1946 and 1947...I could be wrong but the first one was set in the 1940's as well when the ship wrecks. Time line doesn't sound quite right to me. Also, as a goof, there is a friesian in the beginning of the movie that is supposed to be Shetan's father...upon further notice it appears to be a gelding. Ben Ishaak is the only character that remained to even make this film appear to be related to the previous two in any way. Might be a cute family film to some but it's my biggest movie disappointment of the year.
This movie was a real torture fest to sit through. Its first mistake is treating nuclear power as so self-evidently a 'bad thing' that it barely needs to convince the audience of it. When it does stoop to putting in its argument, it has the participants breathlessly deliver barely substantiated facts ; all that's missing is someone crying "when is someone going to think of the children!". While watching this movie, I kept thinking "where'd you hear that?" or "that can't possibly be true" - yet little of the info was backed up by any reliable sources. And bless 'em, the 'regular folks' in the movie came across more like Luddites than people with any understanding of the pros and cons of nuclear power; to be fair, that might be the fault of the film-makers, but equally fairly, it's a condition shared by the movie's rock stars.<br /><br />As for the performers........... Now some of these people are highly respected musicians whose music I've enjoyed, and I'm sure a few of them really did believe in this cause. But they all come across as wheezing old hippies desperately searching for something to get worked up over, now that the 60s have passed them by. Particularly embarrassing are Graham Nash and James Taylor. Nash seems to be trying too hard - he looks like he can't possibly believe the things he's being told (not that I blame him), but desperate to feel noticed and included. James Taylor performs what has to be the wimpiest protest "anthem" ever, "Stand and Fight", in the most sickeningly cheerful way you can imagine. In fact, most of the performances are pretty bland when they're not being patronizing. Nobody seems worked up by this event, as if it really doesn't mean much to them at all. It's worth noting that the driving force behind this whole event seems to be John Hall, of the band Orleans, and responsible for some of the wimpiest MOR pop of the 70s. (Remember, if you dare, "Dance With Me" and "Still the One".) It's worth noting because that's symbolic of how the cause here fails to inspire any real passion in the music. The cause is supposedly life-or-death, but everybody sleepwalks through their numbers like they're playing the Catskills. Except maybe Gil-Scott Heron - his protest number "We Almost Lost Detroit" is on topic at least, but delivered with all the smugness of a high-schooler impressed with how 'controversial' he's being.<br /><br />Only Bruce Springsteen's performance raises a pulse; I've never been a big fan of the Boss, but he absolutely smokes, no question. Part of me thinks he was taped separately, at another event, and edited into this movie to give wake the audience. Compared to the general blandness and air of self-satisfaction here, it's no wonder Bruce was hailed as the savior of rock'n'roll.<br /><br />But even his performance is hobbled by the lifeless concert shooting. I don't expect a lot of flashy camera movement from a '70s film, but the shots are unnecessarily static, broken up only by split-second cutaways to a back-up singer's tonsils. Now, some of this may be because the performers are lifeless to start with; and *maybe* the film-makers are more skilled at shooting documentaries than concert footage - but all you have to do is watch "Rust Never Sleeps" or "The Last Waltz" to see a movie like this done with more skill. And with more exciting musicians. <br /><br />So really, there's only two things to watch this movie for: Springsteen's stellar performance, and as a sad snapshot about a counter-culture in decline.
Cornel Wilde and three dumbbells search for sunken treasure in the south Atlantic.<br /><br />The treasure-hunters led by Wilde fight a group of territorial sharks with cute little sneers on their hungry faces. Wilde and his merry men must find a way to take themselves off the menu so they can begin excavating an old Spanish galleon filled with gold bullion.<br /><br />After the crew engages in a small eternity of pushing, shoving, arguing, and listening to Wilde's annoying health tips, 5 crazy convicts board the boat and complicate things. Now it is a battle of wits as to who gets the treasure and who gets to see what the inside of a shark's stomach looks like.<br /><br />At least Wilde is in shape wearing exactly the same thing he wore in 'The Naked Prey' 10 years earlier and he has remained in excellent condition.<br /><br />Made on a budget of 75 cents.
Sheesh! What a dreadful movie. Dodgy camera work, a script with more corn than Kellogg's, and acting so hammy you could open a pig farm with it. <br /><br />To cap it all, it doesn't know which audience to aim at - we have Cornel Wilde - or is that Corny Wilde? - getting on his soap box about the hazards of smoking any time someone lights a cigarette, dear oh dear, and in another awkward scene we have the baddie, Lobo, forcing his, ahem, if you will, 'male friend' to do a striptease dressed in a bikini. Try explaining that one to the kids...<br /><br />Throw in an overly contrived Treasure Island-cum-Jaws type storyline, and the result is a film so unintentionally funny, it's enjoyable - I shouldn't expect a Special Edition DVD any time soon, though.
By far the worst movie of all time. Even Yaphet Kotto could not save this turkey. I have heard that the movie was originally supposed to be titled "The Treasure" but was changed to "Sharks' Treasure" in order to take advantage of the excitement created by "Jaws". I think sharks were in one scene of this movie; the fact that they happened to be included in this "thriller" was supposed to sell tickets. Didn't work. Anytime something "good" happens in the movie, the ship's crew toasts each other with a certain brand of beer that had just been introduced at the time the movie was made. Gee, do ya think that beer might have been a sponsor? Could they have made it any more obvious? The only time anyone should break out the beer is if they make it through this thing. That's cause enough for celebration.
Elizabeth Ward Gracen, who will probably only be remembered as one of Bill Clinton's "bimbo eruptions" (they have pills for that now!) is probably the weakest element of this show. It really continues the tired formula of the Highlander Series- The hero immortal encounters another immortal with flashbacks about the last time they met, but there is some conflict, and there is a sword fight at the end where you have a cheap special effects sequence.<br /><br />Then you have the character of Nick Wolf. Basically, your typical unshaven 90's hero, with the typical "Sexual tension" storyline. (Seriously, why do you Hollywood types think sexual tension is more interesting than sex.) This was a joint Canadian/French production, so half the series takes place in Vancouver imitating New York, and the other half is in Paris... Just like Highlander did.
In recent times I have been subjected to both this movie and "King Arthur", on DVDs chosen by others for an evening's "entertainment" and together they achieve nothing more than bearing out a growing notion I have that the modern movie-watching public totally lacks discrimination, and is content as long as they get "action". Both movies were utter rubbish.<br /><br />Whatever happened to character development? Whatever happened to meaningful dialogue? Whatever happened to ACTING? And, when watching something that vaguely purports to be "historical", whatever happened to attempting to capture some measure of accuracy, some realistic idea of the "political map" of the time, even some slight flavour of the era, especially in its social attitudes. Why do they all have to display the value set of 21st century America? I have read on the message boards of disclaimers that "little was known" of the dark ages. Not so. Considerable amounts are known, with much learned scholarship on the era, but these jokers simply couldn't be bothered to do any homework.<br /><br />I only wish I could vote 0/10
This is a film that had a lot to live down to . on the year of its release legendary film critic Barry Norman considered it the worst film of the year and I'd heard nothing but bad things about it especially a plot that was criticised for being too complicated <br /><br />To be honest the plot is something of a red herring and the film suffers even more when the word " plot " is used because as far as I can see there is no plot as such . There's something involving Russian gangsters , a character called Pete Thompson who's trying to get his wife Sarah pregnant , and an Irish bloke called Sean . How they all fit into something called a " plot " I'm not sure . It's difficult to explain the plots of Guy Ritchie films but if you watch any of his films I'm sure we can all agree that they all posses one no matter how complicated they may seem on first viewing . Likewise a James Bond film though the plots are stretched out with action scenes . You will have a serious problem believing RANCID ALUMINIUM has any type of central plot that can be cogently explained <br /><br />Taking a look at the cast list will ring enough warning bells as to what sort of film you'll be watching . Sadie Frost has appeared in some of the worst British films made in the last 15 years and she's doing nothing to become inconsistent . Steven Berkoff gives acting a bad name ( and he plays a character called Kant which sums up the wit of this movie ) while one of the supporting characters is played by a TV presenter presumably because no serious actress would be seen dead in this <br /><br />The only good thing I can say about this movie is that it's utterly forgettable . I saw it a few days ago and immediately after watching I was going to write a very long a critical review warning people what they are letting themselves in for by watching , but by now I've mainly forgotten why . But this doesn't alter the fact that I remember disliking this piece of crap immensely
Where do you begin with a movie as bad as this?<br /><br />Do you mention the cast of unlikeable heroes? The over-the-top acting? The dreadful script?<br /><br />No. You just say that anyone who pays money to see a film as poor as this needs their head looking at. I know I do. I respect those poor guys who saw it with little or no advance word from mags like Empire (usually a bad sign if a preview copy isn't available to the quality movie mags). However, cinemas really should start thinking about giving out refunds if the customer isn't happy with the finished product.<br /><br />I went three days after it opened with two other mates. The only other person in the cinema was one bloke on his own.<br /><br />And that was on cheap night.<br /><br />Either the ad campaign had failed dismally or word had spread through most of the country of just what a stinker this is.<br /><br />Not since the days of The Avengers (1998) have I felt so short changed since watching a movie. If a mate comes round with this on video in a few months make sure he pays your electricity bill while watching it.<br /><br />Tara Fitzgerald deserves an award for not cracking up - or walking off the set; Keith Allen retains some dignity amid the cinematic carnage; Barry Foster should have been arrested on the set for his performance, Rhys Ifans does his career no favours after the success of Notting Hill and only Dani Behr is halfway likeable as a busty secretary.<br /><br />Mind you, considering she used to be in The Word, any viewers' expectations of her acting ability had to be pretty low to begin with.<br /><br />The production values aren't bad considering the obviously limited budget but that script is atrocious. If you want to hear a bunch of unlikeable characters say "Fak!" for a couple of hours then this should be right up your street.<br /><br />Otherwise, bargepoles required.<br /><br />
I read James Hawes book. It was pretty neat, not great, but entertaining enough. Without having read the book I wouldn't have had the slightest idea what was going on, and it was still a stretch with that knowledge.<br /><br />Literally every element of this film is abysmal in ways I do not have the capacity to describe. Half digested fish could have made a better film with matchsticks and dayglo lipstick.<br /><br />Never before or since as a film made me feel so angry. The Mattress sequels came closest, but even they never reached such depths of utterly putrid nauseating appallingness that this bilge did.<br /><br />Since wasting 90 minutes of my life witnessing this plague on human kind I am now unable to even look at any book by James Hawes without feeling angry. That is the depth of hatred I have for this piece of sh*t. No, that's unfair. Let me apologise to all fecal matter for comparing you to the otherworldly evil that is Rancid Aluminium.<br /><br />Plain and simply a cancer on the world of cinema.
I usually try to construct reasonably well-argued critiques of films, but I can not believe this got past the script stage. The dialogue is appalling, the acting very dodgy, the accents just awful, and the direction and pacing is scrappy at best.<br /><br />I don't remember the last time I saw a film quite this bad. Joseph Fiennes, pretty as he is, might just have killed his career as quickly as it started.<br /><br />The Island of Doctor Moreau was no worse than this garbage.
I felt Rancid Aluminium was a complete waste of two hours, the plot line was thin and confusing, the prestigious line up of players had some terrible dialogue and extremely questionable accents. The camera work was somewhat experimental in places and although it could be seen what the director was trying to convey, it just made it even more difficult to watch. One of the most annoying aspects of Rancid Aluminium is the over use of narration throughout the film almost like the entire plot is being dictated to the audience. The best performances weren't anything to do with acting. In fact probably the most convincing performance came from Dani Behr of all people, although admittedly does play the stereotypical office secretary. DO NOT under any circumstance go and see this movie unless you need a reason to catch up on some lost sleep, there are certainly better ways to spend your hard earned cash.
In the wake of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, the British film industry rapidly became swamped with bad gangster films in the late '90s-early '00s that seem even more desperate today than they did then. In one of the all-time great cases of pearls-from-swine, the producers of Rancid Aluminium brazenly plastered the quote 'The best film of the century' from one review all over the ads while omitting the rest of the sentence pointing out that that was only because, at the time of writing, it was the only film that had been released in 2000. Looking at it today it's hard to imagine how it ever got made, uniting a cast that was briefly considered the cream of Cool Britannia's Lads Mags Brigade – Rhys Ifans, Sadie Frost, Nick Moran and Joseph Fiennes – but now merely a guarantee of a turkey every time in a confused adaptation of a confused James Hawes novel. That the plot is never explained could be down to the possibility that no-one really knows what it is, or perhaps simply don't think it matters. Something to do with Ifans' businessman being set up with Steven Berkoff's homicidal Russian crime lord in a money-laundering or investment scheme (it's never clear which because no-one ever asks) by Fiennes' crooked Irish accountant, who expects the Russians to kill off Ifans so he can take over his failing company. Things get increasingly confused and underexplained from there on, Ifans alternates between shouting about how terrible his life is while juggling visits to the fertility clinic and sleeping with his secretary and Tara Fitzgerald's ludicrously accented Russian temptress, Berkoff keeps on saying "Bizniss" and "Francis Drake" and Fiennes does a decent Irish accent while proving that just because he played a great writer in Shakespeare in Love doesn't mean he's any judge of good writing when it comes to film scripts.<br /><br />When the most convincing performances come from Keith Allen and Dani Behr, you know a film is in deep trouble. With Poland standing in for a Russia filled with people with Polish accents and a strange score that veers from John Barry pastiche to lounge music to Ennio Morricone spaghetti Western on a stylophone budget, it fails completely in the cool stakes it's aiming for and ends up in a curious overplotted but almost plot less limbo all its own, sitting there like a joke shop dog turd.
I have given this film an elevated rating of 2 stars as I personally appear in minutes 42 and 43 of the film....the road side bar scene in Russia. In this scene the director of the movie offered me the immortal line - "50 Dollars..you Drink and Talk", but I felt that my Polish counterpart could speak in a more convincing Russian accent than I could, so I declined to take this speaking part on. I was slightly starstruck as this was my first Film experience....and who knows... these lines could have ended up there with lines such as "I'll be Back" and "Quite Frankly My Dear, I Don't Give a Damn". Had I spoken that one line then my name would appear in the credits of Rancid Aluminium as 'Heavy 1' instead of the name of Ryszard Janikowski. <br /><br />As time goes on, I am counting myself lucky that my name is in no way connected to this film.<br /><br />Even though I spent a whole day on the set, in South Wales hot-spot Barry Island, no one could tell me what the actual storyline was. The caterers and the wardrobe lady all concurred that it appeared to have a lot of swearing and nudity in it..... things could certainly have been worse if I'd ended up naked in this most dreadful of films....<br /><br />Still.....On the positive side....I got chatting to Rhys Ifans during one break. I had no idea who he was, as "Notting Hill" was yet to be released, and not an inkling that he might be Welsh. Made various inappropriate comments about what an awful pit Barry Island had become since my childhood visits there in the 70s and 80s. It was only when Keith Allen showed up that I realised I was in a quality production........
This film is about a man's life going wrong. His business is failing, and he cannot impregnate his wife despite multiple attempts.<br /><br />The plot is complete chaos. It simply does not make sense. In fact, nothing in the film makes sense. The story is so poorly told that I simply could not understand it. It is a shame, because the sets and costumes are done well, and are visually stimulating enough. The shots are well composed throughout the film. However, these redeeming features still cannot make up for the bad plot and poor story telling. I am amazed by the big names who agreed to star in this film. It is such a waste of their talents. This film is very bad. Avoid it!!
Words really can't describe how bad this film is. I thought Zandalee was bad, but at least that had some nice shots and the occasional good chin stroking moment here and there to stop you from nodding off. This is just laughable! Terrible script, poor direction, awful acting and you know what? I can't think of a single thing to recommend about it other than the fact that it isn't too long. If you want 100 minutes worth of entertainment, book yourself in at the dentist and have some root canal work - far more enjoyable and much better value for money (assuming that you need it!). Incidentally, I need to type 10 lines of text to complete this review - PLEASE DO NOT BUY THIS MOVIE. IT IS TERRIBLE!
this film is quite simply one of the worst films ever made and is a damning indictment on not only the British film industry but the talentless hacks at work today. Not only did the film get mainstream distribution it also features a good cast of British actors, so what went wrong? i don't know and simply i don't care enough to engage with the debate because the film was so terrible it deserves no thought at all. be warned and stay the hell away from this rubbish. but apparently i need to write ten lines of text in this review so i might as well detail the plot. A nob of a man is setup by his evil friend and co-worker out of his father's company and thus leads to an encounter with the Russian mafia and dodgy accents and stupid, very stupid plot twists/devices. i should have asked for my money back but was perhaps still in shock from the experience. if you want a good crime film watch the usual suspects or the godfather, what about lock, stock.... thats the peak of the contemporary British crime film.....
There is no doubt that this film has an impressive cast but unfortunately this doesn't help with the major downsides to the movie. I never understand why directors ask actors/actresses to use accents not their own when it is obvious to everyone they can't convince. Fiennes just can't do Irish and Fitzgerald isn't much better at Russian. When the voice is wrong then no matter how good the acting the character will never be convincing. As the for the major problem....the plot....was there one? I guess there was some sort of storyline involved but it was so full of holes that I just couldn't wait for the film to end...it was ridiculous. Save 90 minutes of your life and don't watch this movie!
I shall not waste my time writing anything much further about how every aspect of this film is indescribably bad. That has been done in great detail already, many times over. The 'plot' started out as a very uninspiring cockney wide-boy/gangster-by-numbers bore and very quickly descended into an utter shambles. Anybody who pretends that they can see some hidden masterpiece inside this awful mess is just kidding themselves. It is now 7 or 8 years since I watched it during its 1 week run at the cinema before it was pulled, yet it sticks in my mind for being easily the most terrible film I have ever seen.<br /><br />I am only making these comments, and indeed the only reason I went to see the film, is because of the amusing fact that my brother Eddie appeared in it as the second 'heavy' in the pub scene. It was his hands that thrust a zippo lighter towards Rhys Ifan's face in the bar in 'Russia' (it was actually filmed at the former Butlins holiday camp at Barry Island). My brother has absolutely no acting experience whatsoever - he had recently joined an extras' agency and this was his first part. Having seen the film, it appeared that nobody in it required any acting experience whatsoever.<br /><br />I remember there were about 8 people in the whole cinema - and this was just a couple of days after it had been released. I have never heard of an other film that was so unpopular and disappeared so fast - and rightly so. In case you were thinking of renting this film on DVD, I would advise you instead to put your two pound coins in a fire until they are red-hot, then jam them into your eye sockets. This will probably be a lot less painful than watching the film.
This is a truly abysmal `LOCK STOCK' clone with a stellar cast and a terrible script. I have no idea why so many top British actors signed up to this junk, they must have been bribed. A miss match of a storyline goes on forever and ever and ever and if I hadn't have paid good money for it I'd have turned it off after 10 minutes. Not the worst film ive ever seen, that honour goes to the truly pathetic used bogroll of a ‘movie' (I use the term loosely) `GUMMO' (I feel like suing that so called `director' for the lost hour and a half of my life) but this trash is nearly right down there with it. Definitely one of the worst 5 films I have ever seen. Stuff like this reminds Hollywood that they don't have a monopoly on truly awful films.
Just so that you fellow movie fans get the point about this film, I decided to write another review. I missed a few things out last time...<br /><br />First, the script. Second, the acting. Third, Jesus Christ what were they thinking making a piece of garbage like this and then expecting us to enjoy it when there are no redeeming features whatsoever from beginning to end except when Joseph Fiennes finally gets blown away in a very unexciting climax!!!<br /><br />I can't believe I wasted my money on this when I could have given it to a homeless person or a busker or SOMETHING!<br /><br />Are you getting the picture?
How can you gather this respectable cast of young British actors and come up with such a pile of filmic manure? Horrible script, annoyingly hectic camera, awfully edited, gruesomely badly acted. Only Rhys Ifans tries to fill his role with life. Another painful proof that "different" sometimes equals "dreck". Why do the money people fail to read the scripts beforehand? Do yourself a favour: spare yourself and do something else - like hitting a mallet onto your knees. It's less painful and more fun than this movie!
...the first film I had to walk out on. And it was the cast and crew pre-screening (Not that I was involved, I hasten to add). I made it through the first hour, so I reckon I'm just qualified to comment, but that was my limit.<br /><br />Like other comments here, how did this get through any kind of QA. An accumulation of the very worst in dialogue, the epitome of wooden acting, awful casting, all wrapped together without a plot.<br /><br />Tara Fitzgerald's casting was bizarre, almost comic. She possesses the worst Russian accent in movie history.<br /><br />As I left the screening, the director and producers were drinking in a bar outside the cinema. They obviously couldn't sit through it again either.<br /><br />
We know from other movies that the actors are good but they cannot save the movie. A waste of time. The premise was not too bad. But one workable idea (interaction between real bussinessmen and Russian mafia) is not followed by an intelligent script
I have seen bad films but this took the p***. Made no sense, and all the characters do is swear every couple of seconds, oh and i think one has a low sperm count. Its that good. A welshman plays a sweary cockney. A posh english bloke plays a foul mouthed unlovable rogue of a paddy, and some lesser lights play dim tarts.<br /><br />And there are some Russian gangsters. Oh yes some one has a gun and maybe talks rubbish whilst high on drugs.<br /><br />Avoid this film like the plague.
Must confess to having seen a few howlers in my time, but this one is up there with the worst of them. Plot troubling to follow. Sex and violence thrown in to disorient and distract from the really poorly put together film.<br /><br />I can only imagine that the cast will look back on the end product and wish it to gather dust on a shelf not to be disturbed for a generation or two. Sadly, in my case, I have the DVD. It will sit on the shelf and look at me from time to time.
I was hoping that this film was going to be at least watchable. The plot was weak to say the least. I was expecting a lot more considering the cast line up (I wonder if any of them will include this on their CVs?). At least I didn't pay to rent it. The best part of the film is definitely Dani Behr, but the rest of the film is complete and utter PANTS.
Okay. So there aren't really that many great movies around. Recent gems like American Dream, The Straight Story and even Toy Story 2 don't normally come so close together. But boy (!) does this film counter-balance the quality.<br /><br />I have NO idea what these people thought they were doing. Are the financiers in this world so easily convinced to fund such a crock of ****? I can just see it now...<br /><br />Producer - "So we've got Joe Fiennes. He's cute as a button and was pretty good in Shakespeare in Love. And we've got Rhys Ifans, who isn't cute but was cool in Notting Hill. We'll mix in a really mediocre score, a few forgettable post-Britpop tunes, hemlock root and lizard brains and hey presto you've got the worst film of the new millennium.And believe me, it's gonna be a hard job to make anything as bad as this in the next thousand years."<br /><br />The Bank - "I like it! Any unnecessary sex? Bad camera movements? And what about the worst accents this side of Devil's Own?"<br /><br />Producer - "Yeah, we got plenty of those."<br /><br />The Bank - "Sounds great, where do we sign?"<br /><br />Please.
Well, what to say...<br /><br />Having seen the film I still have to wonder what the hell the point of it all really was?? V.Dodgy camera moves in the courtyard at one point... I had to look away from the screen, I was feeling physically sick... Round and Round and Round.... You get the idea...<br /><br />VERY VERY Strange accents at many points.... "Those that should know, know"<br /><br />Unless your getting in for free, or being paid to watch it, or your partner is about to make you paint the house or something.. then forget it...
There have been some low moments in my life, when I have been bewildered and depressed. Sitting through Rancid Aluminium was one of these.<br /><br />The warning signs were there. No premiere (even the stars didn't want to attend) and no reviews in magazines. The only reason I sat through the film was in the hope that I might catch up on some sleep.<br /><br />Nothing in the film was explained. The narration was idiotic. I cheered at one point when the lead of the film appeared to have been shot, then to my growing despair, it was revealed that he hadn't really been shot dampening my joy. I sincerely hope all involved in the film are hanged for this atrocity. <br /><br />There were some positive aspects, mainly unintentional moments of humour. For example, the scene in which the main character, for some unknown reason feels the need to relieve himself manually in a toilet cubicle, while telling the person in the next cubicle to put his fingers in his ears.<br /><br />My words cannot explain the anger I feel, so I shall conclude thus.<br /><br />Rancid Aluminium: for sadists, wastrels, and regressives only who want to torture themselves.
I have not yet decided whether this will replace Anaconda as "The Worst Film I Have Ever Seen".<br /><br />Even if you ignore the dodgy accents, low production values and appalling camera work this film has absolutely nothing going for it. I only went to see it as I had read the book and wanted to see how they would work the complicated plot into a 2 hour film.<br /><br />The simple answer is - they didn't. Characters appear with little to no explanation as to who they are and then proceed to play no valuable part in the narrative. Even the main characters act without reason so that by the time the film reaches it's climax you don't care what happens to any of them.<br /><br />I can accept that books occasionally need to be rewritten to fit into films and that it is perhaps unfair to judge this film against the book it was adapted from. But after my friends and I came out of the cinema I had to spend most of the journey home explaining what was supposed to have happened.<br /><br />They even change the true meaning of the books title "Rancid Aluminium" by squeezing it into yet another piece of pointless voice over just so they can allow the film to have a cool title.<br /><br />A real mess of a film from start to finish.
This is absolutely the dumbest movie I've ever seen. What a waste of a splendid cast. That's James Cromwell as the ignoramus playing deputy. I could go on and on, but I would obviously be spending more time on this review than anybody ever did on the script. The only thing this movie is about is us vs. them and how to revel in profane slapstick beyond any reasonable human being's tolerance. This is one of the 10 worst movies I have ever seen -- and I LOVE James Garner.
I almost saw this at an actual movie theatre (an art-house theatre, no less!) but couldn't make it there in the one whole week it played, but yesterday I finally saw it on cable and...well...I wasn't disappointed, that's for sure! Madonna has done it again: YET ANOTHER BOMB! When will this woman learn? When will the studios learn? (Or perhaps they already have, since this film was largely dumped, with little fanfare and deadly word-of-mouth.) One would hope that being directed by her talented husband, who's created some interesting and/or terribly entertaining work, would bring out the same quality Madonna showed in "Desperately Seeking Susan"; alas, it just isn't meant to be, for here she is, at her very worst: singularly convinced of her own greatness, the smugness permeating every frame she's in, made all the more unbearable by her wavering faux-British accent, an accent that only underscores the fact that her speaking voice is immature in quality and not especially pleasant. This may sound unnecessarily cruel but LISTEN to the woman, and LOOK at her films of, say, the past decade: like a latter-day Bette Davis, there is an unmistakable brittleness to not only her carriage but to her very face and body, which here, despite the warm photography displayed throughout the film (perhaps its only saving grace), are done no favors. To her credit, the entire affair is so misbegotten that one wonders if the world's greatest actress on her best day could do anything with this mess. No one involved escapes unharmed: Bruce Greenwood actually seems pained to be on-screen, though poor Jeanne Tripplehorn seems to carry herself as if she's actually in something good, which had me thinking all the while, "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt!" Adriano Giannini, son of Giancarlo Giannini, star of the Italian original, "Swept Away...", is, like his father before him, immensely attractive, and isn't altogether bad (despite winning a Razzie nomination for "Worst Actor"), but, like almost everything else about this production, it all comes back to Madonna, on whose shoulders rest the blame. Why her? Why not her husband, director Guy Ritchie? Just who do YOU think was behind this remake? What actress wouldn't want nearly every shot of a movie to be centered on her, with only a relative nobody sharing the screen? Oh sure, Ritchie deserves some blame: surely he - or someone - ANYONE! - should have, and could have, taken his lead aside and insisted on something bordering on ACTUAL FEELING in her line readings (for her performance is so wooden it's a surprise the rest of the cast didn't get splinters), or at least display a semblance of warmth...but she seems resistant to be anything but a cinematic black hole. Above and beyond anything else, this is strictly a vanity project for its star so she is ultimately accountable for it. A film like this, an "Odd Couple"-ish, war of the classes, should be light and fun, with leads who can bounce off one another with witty, even romantic, dialogue, for what else can a film whose plot involves two disparate people stranded, really be? Honestly, I don't think anyone involved knew exactly the tone they were trying for; it succeeds neither as comedy (I defy you to laugh even once) or romance (Madonna's ice-princess routine precludes ANY chemistry). It's not even bad enough for us bad-movie lovers to enjoy. A real shame...
I really wanted to like this movie because the critics have been unkind<br /><br />to it (to say the least)... but it was terrible. Really terrible. Badly<br /><br />acted, a witless script, cack handed direction... Watching this film was<br /><br />like watching a car crash- you want to look away but you keep staring<br /><br />because you want to see how messy it's going to get. Well, the car is<br /><br />wrecked and there are no survivors. On the plus side, the cinematography<br /><br />was nice, made me want to go on holiday, if only to cleanse myself from<br /><br />this unholy
For years Madonna has tried to prove not only herself, but the public eye, that she can act. Unfortunately, trying too hard while failing to shed her own persona doesn't mix well.<br /><br />She seems to fare better when she's NOT the star of any movie: if you watch her in supporting performances in DESPERATELY SEEKING SUSAN (1985) or A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN (1992), she actually comes off looking good. Since the story revolves on other actors, the weight of the expectation is taken off her shoulders by default.<br /><br />The trouble starts when she is asked to be the star of a movie, regardless the genre. Being the focus of a plot that needs to be told in a visual way, whether it be good, mediocre or plain awful, she has to emote in ways that are akin to an actual movie performance as opposed to a video performance. This is the crucial difference between Madonna and, let's say, Bette Davis, or Meryl Streep. The latter two, even if the movie were to fail (because the visual storytelling lacked some effectiveness in having us relate to it, or because the script fell short, or because the actress per se was just not at her moment), there would be an extra something in their performances that would elevate the movie from being a complete bomb. Both Davis and Streep have had their share: Bette, having a longer career than Streep, in such fare as BUNNY O'HARE (1971) and WICKED STEPMOTHER (1989); Streep in SHE-DEVIL (1989). But at least there's been that naturalism in the way both attacked their roles that made us forget the banality of the movie and watch the performance.<br /><br />Madonna, on the other hand, not being an especially gifted actress capable of really letting us in on her ability to convey a persona other than herself, fares much worse, and even in the hands of someone as Woody Allen in SHADOWS AND FOG (1992), an inferior classic, she in her pat screen time seems stilted and a little stiff, maybe even nervous, as if she were aware of the cameras and crew and just couldn't let go.<br /><br />So here she tries yet once again to prove she can act in what is essentially a two-character movie. Guy Ritchie, more known for action movies filled in masculine energy, seems as adrift telling a story closer to someone of the likes of Michaelangelo Antonioni or Ingmar Bergman, who could tell a tale of two people with incredible ease. And at 89 minutes, the events which take place happen in such an unconvincing way that when the final half hour comes along and the story takes a dramatic turn, it doesn't feel sincere. From being an absolute witch with no redeeming values to suddenly being in love, this has to be the most unconvincing 180 degree turn since Fay Dunaway's Laura suddenly discovered her passion for Tommy Lee Jones in THE EYES OF LAURA MARS (1978). Equally unconvincing is Adriano Giannini's nasty turn around the middle of the movie -- it lacks any humor and feels genuinely psychopathic -- and when he gives in to Madonna's love, it's too quick to be believed. Filming this in slow music and a visual montage of lovemaking and beautiful scenery doesn't enhance or add upon this "transformation" from what would have been a story of survival between to unlikeable characters to a love story where both discover each other.<br /><br />Trying to have an unsatisfying ending works against the movie as well -- it only makes it drag, bog it down, and when Madonna has to be filmed going from hope to devastation in a tight close-up, it feels she's trying too hard. Many an actress have done better in conveying so much doing so little. Hers is a performance more suited to acting styles of the late 20s, early 30s where posturing compensated as acting a part or an emotion.<br /><br />Could the movie have been better? Of course. There are a myriad of ways to have filmed it in a way that would leave the viewer feeling that these people could at least hope to see each other again -- it's been done before, in OVERBOARD (1987), for example. It could have had an existential undertone in which two very different people have to rely on each other but not necessarily change (to ensure a moral tone). Much dialog and unnecessary erotic scenes could have been spared for a more "silent" film look -- as in PERSONA (1966). It could have even been something of a thriller, providing that the Giannini character have a mean streak as Billy Zane had in DEAD CALM (1989). Even if it would have been done as a sex farce it would have worked better for Madonna as the over the top, uber-control freak getting her comeuppance. But with its mean streaked humor, without at least a glimpse of her character having a softer side that hides behind a mask of bitchdom, and without really defining Giannini's own character, this becomes another misfire trying to look like a battle of the sexes.
and forget this. Completely. If you really need to see Madonna act, rent "Body of Evidence", at least Willem Defoe is in that one.<br /><br />In this film, while the sets are beautiful, you may want to mute the dialog. You won't miss anything. Bruce Greenwood is wasted, Jeanne Tripplehorn is a prop, and Madonna is so awful, it becomes amusing. Why they had to butcher the original film into this mess, I will never know; guess they thought it was "bankable". Madonna, as an actress, certainly is NOT.<br /><br />If you rent the original film from 1979, though, you will enjoy it, and the actors in it can actually act. 1/10.
No doubt, when Madonna and Guy Ritchie married, it was because they both thought it would help their movie careers. If you've been through the ordeal of watching "Swept Away," then you know at that level it was a match made in hell. After nearly 20 years of trying to become a respected actress (or "octress" as she might have pronounced it in "The Next Best Thing"), she still can't get out of herself long enough to turn in a performance that anyone with taste could even call decent. And that's the thing that makes people dislike her so much on the screen: that gut feeling that her ego is so inflated that it prevents her from being able to just let go and connect with her audience. If there's any justice in this universe, she just blew her last chance.
*May contain spoilers*<br /><br />I bent over backwards to be fair to this film. I knew it starred Madonna. I knew it lasted a whole week in theaters. I knew it got a lot of bad reviews. I wasn't expecting a deep and thoughtful examination of class, culture and sexuality like we got in the Italian original. The benefit of the doubt lasted a whole ten minutes.<br /><br />Madonna plays a rich, pretentious, nit-witted Gorgon who goes on vacation with her henpecked husband and flippant friends (the brunette woman is as bad as Madonna, exhibiting some really dumb facial expressions). Adriano Giannini plays the ship's first-mate who the Madonna character delights in humiliating and treating like dirt in every scene they have together. Why is she such a bitch to him? Simply because the plot requires it so that later when the two of them get marooned on a deserted Mediterranean island the tables will be turned and he will teach her a lesson. Just as inexplicable is how they fall in love despite having nothing in common and having abused each other for two-thirds of the movie.<br /><br />"Swept Away" is a silly, simplistic, superficial movie from beginning to end. Madonna gives a typically wooden performance. There are many dumb scenes: Madonna singing and dancing atrociously at the demand of Giannini, a fantasy scene with Madonna and a lot of scenes where he slaps her and kicks her in the butt. Guy Ritchie does his "stylish" editing which is laughable here. The film contains some of the worst dialog I've heard in a major movie in several years. The ending is sappy and implausible. It's basically "The Blue Lagoon" meets "Overboard" minus the nudity of the former and the sense of humor of the latter.<br /><br />Maybe Madonna's ego is so big that she insists on continuing to prove herself as a competent actress. Please give it up, Madge, for our sake as well as yours. This isn't her worst movie though. That distinction still belongs to "Shanghai Surprise". She hasn't made anything worse than that...yet.
*** WARNING! SPOILERS CONTAINED HEREIN! ***<br /><br /> This is a semi-autobiographical look at what might happen to Madonna if she were ever to be stranded on a deserted island. There's absolutely no challenge to Madonna in this role, and it shows. She's just Madonna playing Madonna, and she can't even get THAT right. I know what you're saying, you're saying, "How do you know this is what Madonna is really like, you've never met her!" Correct, I haven't, but we all remember "Truth or Dare", don't we? I know Kevin Costner does.<br /><br /> You would think, in the year 2002, that Madonna might have learned something, one way or the other, from the "crossover" ladies that have also made their way across the silver screen. For goodness' sake, hasn't Madonna seen "Glitter"? Mariah Carey showed the film world HOW IT IS DONE!!! Mariah kicks Madonna's trashy butt to the curb in beauty, talent, screen presence, charisma, characterization, you name it! All we see from this glimpse into Madonna's world is she's the only one in it. <br /><br /> If there's one thing to be said for Madonna, it is that she's consistent. When she was an MTV darling, she set the world of women's fashion back 20 years. Now, in film, she has set women's roles in film AND society back 20 years, by glamourizing all the most hated, horrible, reprehensible, odious qualities women have been reputed to have locked away inside them, qualities they have been so desperately trying to prove they really don't possess.<br /><br /> ***HERE'S THE SPOILERS!!! DON'T READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW...***<br /><br /> Here's the one good thing I will say about this film, and I really was impressed by it. They didn't go for the "Hollywood Ending" - Madonna's character lives. In the typical, happy Hollywood ending, Madonna's character would have died on the island, and her long-suffering, oppressed, whipped husband would have been free to finally settle down with a good, decent woman, a woman who would be the exact opposite of his deceased wife, and they both live happily ever after. But in this extremely depressing conclusion, she is rescued, and once more, this poor victim of a husband is once again saddled with his demon of a wife, and his life will once again become a living hell.<br /><br /> *** HERE ENDETH THE SPOILERS ***
I had the (mis)fortune to see this film at a showing in the US. Having reluctantly sat through the entire abysmal thing, I am shocked to have seen so many good reviews here on IMDB. <br /><br />The original film was a turkey, but an interesting one. It fitted into that early seventies, post 1969 revolution thing; this film just stinks of....... , well, nothing really. It's that bad.<br /><br />Imagine a badly done perfume commercial - see what I mean ?<br /><br />Madonna never could act, and has been an embarrassment on the big screen for years. She looks worse and worse with every one of those years, increasingly coming to resemble a skinned meerkat.<br /><br />Guy Ritchie, who has built his "reputation" on Lock Stock, could never direct either - his movies are shallow, badly cut, fashion shows. He doesn't disappoint here either; he wisely cast his wife as the star of this debacle.<br /><br />Please people, take little heed of the good reviews this movie has received from other posters below. They are quite obviously business plants.<br /><br />Don't encourage Ritchie to humiliate himself further by giving him money.<br /><br />
It's not my fault. My girlfriend made me watch it.<br /><br />There is nothing positive to say about this film. There has been for many years an idea that Madonna could act but she can't. There has been an idea for years that Guy Ritchie is a great director but he is only middling. An embarrassment all round. <br /><br />
I don't know what some of you are smoking, but i suspect it's potent.<br /><br />To call Swept Away awful would be an insult to the very concept of terribleness. The acting is hideous and i'm not picking on Madonna here, we all know she's useless, but someone should have warned everyone else that her ailment is contagious. My back literally hurts from cringing so much at poorly delivered lines. The editing is so sloppy, it beggars description. The photography and composition (which in this era, competence should be a GIVEN for any film with a budget) are astonishingly inept, even the lighting is horrid and unnatural looking. These are BASIC elements of filmmaking, if you can't get them right, you should seek another line of work. It's as contrived as a grade 3 production of Snow White, except nowhere near as well made or interesting.<br /><br />The original film by Lina Wertmueller is a wonderful satire and metaphor, superbly acted and written, featuring breathtaking visuals - you can practically taste the sea salt and feel the windswept sand in your hair. The sexual tension feels real and immediate...those of you who found Guy Ritchie's version deplorable, should see it, it really is one of the landmarks of world cinema.<br /><br />Those of you who thought the remake is some kind of masterpiece should have your heads examined.
Whatever possessed Guy Ritchie to remake Wertmuller's film is incomprehensible.<br /><br />This new film is a mess. There was one other person in the audience when I saw it, and she left about an hour into it. (I hope she demanded a refund.) The only reason I stayed through to the end was because I've never walked out of a movie.<br /><br />But I sat through this piece of junk thoroughly flabbergasted that Madonna and Ritchie could actually think they made a good film. The dialogue is laughable, the acting is atrocious and the only nice thing in this film is the scenery. Ritchie took Lina's movie and turned it into another "Blue Lagoon."<br /><br />This is a film that you wouldn't even waste time watching late night on Cinemax. Time is too precious to be wasted on crap like this.
Guy Ritchie's noble effort is beat up, knocked down, raped, kicked around, shot, stabbed, spit upon, punched, sodomized, and abused and left for dead by Madonna's dreadful performance. Her acting was very reminiscent of a graduate from the Al Gore School of Dramatics and Public Speaking. Guy Ritchie did do a somewhat noble attempt to remake this, and if you exclude ALL of the scenes that his wife was in, it's a fair movie at best. I think that the best acting job ever, had to be Guy comforting his wife that her performance was good enough not to re-shoot. If you have an opportunity of watching Swept Away or clipping your toenails for 89 minutes...go for the extended pedicure.
This film story is bad enough, which can happen in real life. I'm very can not understand when they show us this bad film. I say it was bad because there is some reason. 1. if Madonna was rich and can do everything she want, then why she falling in love with that bad man. 2. How can the story script is so weak? She was so rich, can do everything she want, but not dare to divorce her husband that is very impossible.<br /><br />The words I LOVE YOU, it doesn't meant anything in this film.
This picture reminds me of a Keneth More picture from 1957 called The Admirable Crighton" whilst on the boat he was a servant and on the island he became the master and upon being saved reverted back to servant. Madonna did OK in some movies however this one doesn't fire. If there is any picture that show Madonna can't act it is this one.<br /><br />I am not sure whether this was a subtle copy of "The Admirable Crighton" but it sure looks like it and if thats the case then Hollywood must be running out of ideas and that is sad. to provide a platform for actors to improve their career profile and just on that this fails in every corner and detail.<br /><br />The plot is loose and the acting is mediocre. The script should have been put thru the shredder before taking it on location. While many here have canned Madoona for all her acting I think that in films like "A League of Their own" was quite good and enjoyable and "Who's That Girl" showed a quirkiness of Madonna's style not shown before or afterwards. Other Madonna films are not as enjoyable and I would have liked a to see a Madonna Animation series with the character from "Who's That Girl" I like the music from these two films however "Swept away" remains at the bottom of the pile here and will remain so.<br /><br />everyone has a bomb right?
AKA: Mondays In The Sun<br /><br />I have no idea what I just watched. Three men wander aimlessly and drink, grousing about everything and at everyone in their path. This is supposed to be a drama, but what it is, is a total waste of film, without a single redeeming quality.<br /><br />I have read reviews touting the performances herein as "wonderful," "beautiful," and "heroic." I'm afraid I cannot agree, unless these men were supposed to come off as the dumbest most ignorant proto-humans who ever walked.<br /><br />All in all? This was not a movie. It wanders throughout and loses everyone but the audience. I've watched this three times, and cannot for the life of me see what anyone sees in this garbage. There is nothing profound here, whatsoever. It's crap.<br /><br />It rates a ZERO/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.
Quentin Crisp once stated that when things are shown too beautifully, one is a romantic. When things are show unbearably grim, they are realistic. And when something gets the ironic treatment, they're spot on. Unfortunately for Leon de Aranoa, he falls into the second catagory. This director has obviously tried too hard to make a Spanish "Ken Loach" type movie, without being able to capture the comedy, and warmth between the characters, that elevate Loach movies from merely being 'depressing'. Los Lunes al Sol, is just that, only depressing. Things are unrealistically grim. The characters ultimate moments of misery all reach a climax at the same point, and if the glum story isn't enough, Aranoa washes the tale over with a visually grey and grimy colour palette. The films was ridiculously over-rated at the Goyas. A movie that shows empathy for the weaker citizens in society, in this case unemployed harbour workers, does not automatically make for a good movie, even though I would be the first to sympathize with the fates of these people. This movie only manages to make me grow disinterested in their fate. In 21st century Spain, unemployed people do not live like beggars, and the public transport ferries have decent restrooms, and it's hard to come across a bar with so few punters and such little happiness to be encountered in it. Leon de Aranoa obviously doesn't have a clue about working class Spain, and does it no favours. Pretentious is the only conclusion I can draw. The scene where the men watch a football match for free, has been directly copied from a film which deals much more 'realistically' with the subject of the 'poverty' trap, namely "Purely Belter," which is afar more engaging, humorous, and yet sad.
This movie is painfully slow and has no plot. It conveys the lives of a group of laid off boatworkers. One of the older ones is sincere in his attempt to get a job. There may be some social commentary here, but, it is muddled as nobody is painted in a very sympathetic light.<br /><br />I do not understand why it had a 7.8 when I decided to watch it. I watched the whole tedious thing and built expectations for a huge redeeming payoff. No luck. The IMDb rating has always been such a good match for my tastes. Anything above 6.5 was worth watching.<br /><br />And my wife says Javier Barem does not even look good in this movie. He's not my type, so, my agreement does not mean much.<br /><br />Sigh. I give it a 1.
A romanticised and thoroughly false vision of unemployment from a middle class "artist" with a comfortable upbringing... It is clear that the writer-director never suffered unemployment directly and certainly has no personal experience of it. If you had to believe this absolutely ridiculous story, unemployed men of all ages behave like teenagers, have no anger, no fear, no frustration, etc. All the characters live trough the day by carrying pranks, boyish jokes. They do never look for work, the do almost never experience rejection or anguish, etc. Living on the dole is just about like a summer vacation from school... Ridiculous. Specially if you compare it with contemporary masterpieces from the likes of Ken Loach, etc.
This move is slow, plodding, cold, dark, and without a plot or hope. It follows that tried and true European formula that they love to subsidize, that is never seen, but that the critics think makes an "important point".<br /><br />The movie is valuable if nothing more than to show the huge difference in the thinking between Americans and Europeans regarding employment. In this movie the men are still nursing their wounds from years ago and feel it's the government's duty to provide them with work. Whereas in the U.S. we know we have to go out there and create value for someone.<br /><br />Spain never looked so backward!
Gadar is a really dumb movie because it tells a fake story.It's too unrealistic and is a typical sunny deol movie that is aimed to bash Pakistan.The movie's aim is to misguide the viewers so they can think that Pakistan and it's government is bad but trying to hide their own flaws won't work.And all the songs and music of the movie are all bad.Most likely the Sikhs will love th movie cause they are being misguided.The movie sucks and sucks with power. I think only Amisha Patel was good in the movie. If i can give 0 out of 10 I would but the lowest is 1.Please save 3 hours of your life and do not watch this stupid boring movie .Disaster.
Gadar is an example of one of Bollywood worst overrated movies ever. Directed by Anil Sharma, who prefers making period related movie gives a rubbish movie. The songs were boring and ain't the kind of song you want to listen to in your car, full volume. Sunny Deol is famous for making daft movies, where he beats up a 100 bad guys on his own. He even kicks a metal jail door (Indian) and kicks a moving car far away (Teesri Aankh). I can give another 50 examples of disgraceful action by Sunny Deol. But I'm sure most people know this already. Sunny gives a pathetic performance once again repeating the same type of role. A guy claiming to be fighting for his countries piece, by using violence. Amisha Patel is hands down dead sexy with an amazing body that i would love to bone. But even she couldn't save the film from being a disaster. Instead of wearing sexy clothes like she usually does, in this movie she doesn't. Maybe cos she was playing a Muslim, but she doesn't act like one in the movie. Overall, this is a poor show all the way, I'm sure it will appeal to some people, who love seeing the Bollywood actor beat up 100 guys. Give me a break.
This warning against anti-semitism is well-meant and may have had its purpose at the time, but it is made without the slightest notion of how to make a film. The director has no idea about mise-en-scene; the cast varies from bad till even worse.<br /><br />The great Austrian comic Hans Moser is wasted. In his part he ends in an asylum for the crazy, that is designed as a set from Das Kabinett des Dr. Caligari; one wonders whether the makers had all their mental capabilities.<br /><br />The restored copy I saw (Dutch Filmmuseum) gives the impression that some scenes were not put into the right place, but may be the original editing was bad as well.
an acted/manipulated documentary about one of the most darkest places of guatemala. portrayed as a fun, secure... but sad place, were a bunch of sex workers get to play in a soccer team, assembled in what seems like no more than a week! the documentary's main focus is to prove that society repels this kind of "workers", even though no solution to these poor women is ever achieved, except that the people who documented this,made them some sort of "stars" (just like the title says so) in exchange of being exploited for making this realityshowlike documentary. it does have, however, its own documented reality... but, that sadly has nothing to do with the main storyline. i would not accept to see it again; but i would recommend it for general cultural purposes only.
This was one of the lamest movies we watched in the last few months with a predictable plot line and pretty bad acting (mainly from the supporting characters). The interview with Hugh Laurie on the DVD was actually more rewarding than the film itself...<br /><br />Hugh Laurie obviously put a lot of effort into learning how to dance the Samba but the scope of his character only required that he immerse himself at the kiddie end of the pool. The movie is based on the appearance of a lovely girl and great music but these are not sufficient to make good entertainment.<br /><br />If you have never seen Rio, or the inside of a British bank, this film is for you. 2 out of 10.
Richard Dix is a big, not very nice industrialist, who has nearly worked himself to death. If he takes the vacation his doctors suggest for him, can he find happiness for the last months of his life? Well, he'll likely be better off if he disregards the VOICE OF THE WHISTLER.<br /><br />This William Castle directed entry has some great moments (the introduction and the depiction of Richard Dix's life through newsreel a la Citizen Kane), and some intriguing plotting in the final reels. Dix's performance is generally pretty good. But, unfortunately, the just does not quite work because one does not end up buying that the characters would behave the way that they do. Also, the movie veers from a dark (and fascinating beginning) to an almost cheerful 30s movie like midsection (full of nice urban ethnic types who don't mind that they aren't rich) and back again to a complex noir plot for the last 15 minutes or so.<br /><br />This is a decent movie -- worth seeing -- but it needed a little more running time to establish a couple of the characters and a female lead capable of meeting the demands of her role.
Störtebeker is truly one of the worst TV mini-series ever made on this planet.<br /><br />The acting is unbearable and the historic background is mostly nonsense: Just two examples: Visby was shown as a village of three houses. Instead, it was a major city at this time, it's best days already passed by. Secondly, Hamburg would have never been the city taking care of pirates in the Baltic Sea. Hamburg had no access to the Baltic Sea, the major town at that time was Lübeck.<br /><br />But worse than all that: The directing! How can a dilettante like this guy be allowed to direct a movie like this? Impossible! There was not a single believable scene it, the fights were ridiculous and I could not suppress laughter at most stern scenes.<br /><br />I can't understand at all how a major television station could be so incompetent.
How can a major German TV station broadcast a mess like this? It's amazing how the main actors avoid every acting talent - Even the well-known Gottfried John is acting very poor - especially in the double murder scene - how amateurish.......! The screen plan is very , very extended - perhaps to fill out 2 parts of the movie. Be careful not to fall asleep while watching! The set is obviously very often a blue screen, f.g. the scenes on the ship with unreal sea in background...! In the German version the sound and the dubbing is very poor - probably reason: different languages of actors - but: other international productions do handle this much more professional. Advice: Do NOT watch - it's a diabolic waste of time!
This is a fascinating film--especially to old movie buffs and historians (I am both). During the first half of the twentieth century, sadly, Black Americans were usually not allowed into White theaters. As a result, theaters catering to Black audiences wanted to show films reflecting the Black experience and showing Black actors. In many cases, the films were essentially similar plot-wise to standard Hollywood fare, but with a much, much lower budget--and usually horrid production values. You really can't fault the film makers--they just didn't have the money and resources available to the average film company. As a result, they had to make due with a lot less--including an over-reliance on stock actors that were seen again and again, no money for re-shooting scenes and a need to get the films done FAST! This film tried very hard to be a Black version of a Gene Autry film--starring Herb Jeffries instead. Jeffries was a light-skinned man from mixed ancestry and he starred in several similar cowboy films. In each, he sings a little, fights a little (though VERY poorly) and loves a little--everything you need in a cowboy. Believe it or not, Jeffries is STILL alive at age 96.<br /><br />The general plot was indiscernible from an Autry picture--complete with anachronistic items such as telephones out West! The problem is that despite its similarities, the low budget shines through. Stymie (from the Li'l Rascals) flubbed a few lines but they just left it in, the fight scenes were totally unchoreographed and were among the worst ever put on film, there were some odd plot holes, there was no background music (leaving the film strangely quiet) and the acting was pretty awful.<br /><br />Now this does NOT mean that the film isn't worth seeing--only that it abouts with technical problems that prevent it from being scored higher. One reviewer, oddly, scored this film a 10! How this can be with all the problems is beyond me. However, I can understand a person liking the film despite its many problems. The plot is generally pretty good, the characters likable, the musical numbers excellent and you know that the people making the film tried so darn hard AND it's a very important piece of American history. But a 10!? <br /><br />By the way, in an odd bit of casting, the very tall, lean and almost white-skinned Jefferies is paired with short, dumpy and exceptionally dark Mantan Moreland....as his brother!! Also, Spencer Williams may be familiar to you. He played Andy on TV's "Amos 'n Andy".
I have to agree with most everyone's opinion that this show was poorly produced as well as written.The acting was not much more above the lower production values however I feel an actor can only rely on the material provided to them and make the best of it. In keeping with this thought I feel it is important to point out that one actor has risen and persevered well beyond this campy to tasteless production to have become a respectable and quite talented performer.I am referring to Laura Harris a Canadian born actor who has etched her way through many poorly produced shows and movies to find a place on the HBO hit "Dead Like Me" where she plays the role of Daisy Adair and to her credit she handles this role in an efficient manner.I remember having a typical boyhood crush on the young actress during this series where she played Ashley a soft spoken yet intelligent 7th grader.I felt as though if anyone might "make it" from this series it surely would be Laura Harris and true to her nature she did excel in the acting field to win the respect of many producers who now recognize her for her talent as well as unique Nordic blond allure. If you ever do have the opportunity to view this series I recommend that you have something epic to watch after wards such as the 'Godfather' or perhaps 'Beaches' in order to remind yourself that there is after all a great deal of true production integrity and value out there and that this series is only a low-budget reminder of what Laura Harris can simply state about her time on the show and I bet she would quote many a young actors words of defense by saying "It's a start!"
In the U.S., very few films have been made about Rome that were not set in the time of Julius Caesar or shortly thereafter. Hollywood's sword and sandal epics mostly have a Christian theme, which makes it difficult to get into earlier Roman history (Spartacus was probably the first exception to this rule, and encountered some resistance in Hollywood because it did not have Jesus in it).<br /><br />It's interesting to see at least one picture that not only takes place before the time of Caesar and Christ, but is set when Rome was only one city among many on the Italian peninsula, and had just ousted the hated King Tarquin and formed the Republic.<br /><br />However, this is not a historical film; it's peplum, and while the production values aren't rock bottom, the acting and characterizations are cardboard. I can only imagine what the dialogue was like in Italian, but with wooden English dubbing it's very campy. I got a few good laughs out of it at first.<br /><br />I haven't seen many films of this genre, having missed most of the Hercules movies of the 60s. It's amusing up to a point, but as the film goes on, it gets somewhat boring.<br /><br />One thing's for sure: if I'd seen this movie when I was ten years old, I would have loved it. At that age, I went for anything with Romans and swordfights in it. So at least, this flick brought back some childhood memories.
It's hard to imagine that anyone could find this short their favorite if they have seen most of their shorts, but I know that humor is VERY subjective. I have seen all of their sound shorts (by far the best of their stuff IMO) and I found this one of their weaker efforts.<br /><br />In the year this was made (1930) Stan and Babe made 15 shorts and one feature. They were extremely popular and their boss Hal Roach took full advantage by keeping them working constantly. In addition, this was a time of experimentation for the writers and Stan. I would say this was an experiment that really did not work. As someone else said, it does not play to their strengths. Too much dialog and plot.<br /><br />The best part of this one for me is the largely improvised sequence with Stan as Agnes the maid and the great Thelma Todd talking about "girl" stuff.<br /><br />If you really want to see the boys at their most creative and funny check out Blotto, or Brats From the same year.<br /><br />They made so many shorts in such a short time that I think they can be forgiven for turning out a few less then par shorts. They made something like 108 films altogether. Very few (except for the ones made at FOX) were outright failures but there are some. County Hospital, Me And My Pal, The Live Ghost, The Fixer Uppers come to mind as essentially weak ones. But other then those I find something wonderful in just about all their shorts. Quite a record in my book.<br /><br />If you have seen and enjoyed all their other shorts then by all means check this one out, but I would be willing to bet that this one was less then memorable to Stan and Babe.
The best Laurel and Hardy shorts are filled to the brim with mishaps, accidents and destruction, mostly caused by Stan, but with Ollie receiving the bulk (!) of the punishment-- see the great 'The Music Box' (1933) or 'Towed in a Hole' (1932) as some some classic examples.<br /><br />Here, however, for some reason (is it because it was based on a sketch by Stan's father?) the boys play it 'straight' in a 'comedy' built around jokes and supposedly funny situations. It doesn't come off. It's merely another third-rate tedious 30s comedy, heightened only by the personalities of Stan and Ollie who never really display any of their trademarked gestures (Ollie's finger wiggling, Stan's blank stares, etc.) or comic abilities.<br /><br />The film begins with them running from the police. Since we never see or know why, it's hard to believe or accept their fear of being caught, and thus hiding in Colonel Buckshot's mansion. The premise for the 'humor', Ollie passing himself off as the Colonel and Stan passing himself off as both the butler and the maid are never very engaging. They are not playing 'Stan and Ollie' in this film. Their parts could have been played by any of the pedestrian studio actors and it would be just as poor.<br /><br />Stan could mime and make whatever he would do funny, but he doesn't get the chance to do any of that here. He's constrained by uttering too much dialog to 'move' the plot, but none of it rises much above the silly. We are treated to endless third rate comedy chestnuts such as the running gag of not correctly pronouncing Lord Plumtree's name, the "Call me a cab! Okay you're a cab!" joke, cops losing their clothes and being seen in long johns, and a non-sequiter ending of Stan and Ollie as the two parts in a painfully obvious horse costume as they make their escape on a bicycle for two, and James Finlayson is still doing his silent-era full body takes and Keystone Kop jumping jacks.<br /><br />Stan and Ollie do much better in a situation comedy in 'Sons of the Desert'(1933) where we get to see them do what we love about them -- be themselves. In fact, 1932-34 seem to be their best years.<br /><br />Since this film does not play to any of their strengths, why bother with it? I have to give it a 3.
Because some people, like me, like to know EVERYTHING about a movie even if they plan to see it, including the ending. Anyway, here's the ending as I remember it, because I couldn't have been more than 8 yrs old when I saw it for the first and only time on TV. But I'll tell ya, it sure scared the little kid that I was, and I thought about it for days afterward, and it still stands out in my mind to this day, even though some of the details are a little vague. Abe Vigoda was in this movie? I don't remember that! I didn't even remember that ol' Barnabus was in this movie, and I LOVED Dark Shadows. So, at the end, the lead character (Belinda Montgomery?) is lured by the Judge (Joseph Cotton, I'm guessing, even though I remember it as him being an old family physician or something instead of a judge; see how memory fades?) to the wedding place, which as I remember it is in a cavern of some kind? Maybe I've got that wrong; and Shelley Winters is there laughing, and the Judge has a cape on, and the camera angle is kind of looking up at him, and he throws back the cloak, and he has goat legs, and he announces he's actually her father, the Devil, and she's played right into their (the satanic cult's) hands, because the "mortal" guy she has fallen in love with (I guess that's Robert Foxworth) turns out also to be the guy Satan wants to marry her off to, The Demon with Yellow Eyes, and yep, sure enough, they show Robert Foxworth, and his eyes glow yellow. There are a lot of close-ups in the last few minutes of the film. Everyone is laughing and rejoicing, except for Belinda Montgomery, who is very unhappy, and cries or screams or something, and that's the end. The bad guys win.
Forbidden Siren is based upon the Siren 2 Playstation 2 (so many 2s) game. Like most video game turned movies, I would say the majority don't translate into a different medium really well. And that goes for this one too, painfully.<br /><br />There's a pretty long prologue which explains and sets the premise for the story, and the mysterious island on which a writer (Leo Morimoto) and his children, daughter Yuki (Yui Ichikawa) and son Hideo (Jun Nishiyama) come to move into. The villagers don't look all too friendly, and soon enough, sound advice is given about the siren on the island, to stay indoors once the siren starts wailing.<br /><br />Naturally and slowly, things start to go bump, and our siblings go on a mission beating around the bush to discover exactly what is happening on this unfriendly island with its strange inhabitants. But in truth, you will not bother with what's going on, as folklore and fairy tales get thrown in to convolute the plot even more. What was really pushing it into the realm of bad comedy are its unwittingly ill-placed-out-of-the-norm moments which just drew pitiful giggles at its sheer stupidity, until it's explained much later. It's one thing trying to come up and present something smart, but another thing doing it convincingly and with loopholes covered.<br /><br />Despite it clocking in under 90 minutes - I think it's a horror movie phenomenon to have that as a runtime benchmark - it gives that almost two hour feel with its slow buildup to tell what it wants to. Things begin to pick up toward the last 20 minutes, but it's a classic case of too little too late.<br /><br />What saves the movie is how it changes tack and its revelation at the end. Again this is a common device used to try and elevate a seemingly simple horror movie into something a little bit extra in the hope of wowing an audience. It turned out rather satisfactorily, but leaves a bad aftertaste as you'll feel cheated somewhat. There are two ways a twist will make you feel - it either elevates the movie to a memorable level, or provides you with that hokey feeling. Unfortunately Forbidden Siren belonged more to the latter.<br /><br />The saving grace will be its cinematography with its use of light, shadows and mirrors, but I will be that explicit - it's still not worth the time, so better to avoid this.
Is it just me or is that kid really annoying?<br /><br />Hideos sister, spends most of her time running around after the disobedient little so and so. As for him, well, I know he's a kid n all, but his acting ability is about as wooden as a dead tree. So far I'm only half way through, and am fascinated by the story, but the people in it, let it down, I just hope it gets better by the end, as I can't not know what it's all about. Although, some supposedly cryptic messages in the scribbles on the wall and a notebook, indicate everything is backwards, i.e. Dog is God, Live is Evil etc... just seems a little obvious at the moment, yet nobody mentions its obvious meaning, (As yet anyway) If my opinion changes at the end of the movie, I'll update this post, but if your reading this, then well...... See above statement.
I was fully amped up to see this film. I had been waiting a year for it to be cleared down here in New Zealand. I shouldn't have built myself up so much because it was so disappointing and is without a doubt Clark's worst film There is so much wrong with this film. First off, some of the acting is great, in particular Nick Stahl as 'The Bully', and the girl with the curly brown hair (I can't recall her name), but most of it was so out of touch and incredibly unbelievable, especially Leo Fitzpatrick. He's a veteran of Clark's films now and he was so brilliant in 'Kids', but in 'Bully' he invests his lines with such solemnity as to turn his scenes into a parody virtually. The screenplay felt like it had been written by a first year film student. No sorry, a high school student...one who has never seen a movie before. And I couldn't fathom Clark's intentions. Was he trying to point out the meaningless of these kids' existence? It sure as hell didn't stop him getting in a damn good perv. I'm no prude but I didn't need to see teenage breasts and buttocks every 5 minutes. I still maintain that Clark's best film is 'Another Day in Paradise'. It's fantastic and I don't think he'll ever top it.
It, at all, you have seen when harry met sally, then avoid this one. It will not only make you bang your head on the table as why can't bollywood even make a good remake; but also annoy you with the so called funny moments in it. The charm of the movie is missing. Ranee looks terrible. Saif tries to act like he is one hell of an actor. The plots that have been picked up from the original, don't look effective either. The part where both of them bring their friends along and they hit a note, it just doesn't look appealing. What can be more disastrous? you wanna waste some money, this is what you can get. Otherwise, put some more bucks, and watch the original. Its too good to miss..
If they could get Ed Asner why didn't they get other actors instead of people who go to the same church as the producers? And why did the protagonist throw the wise old sage character to the ground when he was never in danger. It forced the old guy to mask the injury out of pride and so the young guy would feel guilty leaving him with a life long disability. I guess thats why the main character refuses money though and why the old guy works him like a dog even when he volunteers for extra work. If the d-bag boyfriend is a bad guy because he is long-distance boyfriend then why is a soldier any better. He has good reason to be jealous, good reason to get her away from her hometown and over protective, controlling manipulative father. All the characters that are meant to be likable aren't and everyone else is the 'bad' boyfriend. How did they meet anyway, a wine broker and a saw mill worker?
Watched this with my girlfriend after stumbling over it while zaping channels.<br /><br />I guess we both hoped for some kind of happy family cute Christmas movie, but were extremely disappointed.<br /><br />the actor playing the soldier, seems to have 0 emotion whatsoever, his face looks the same, whether he's chopping down Christmas tree's, seeing the girl he loves being kissed by her boyfriend, or when he's happily surprised by the girl he loves, he's an awful actor, and at no pont did any of us do nothing but laugh at him.<br /><br />Then there's the cute blond girl, blessed with the ability to count dot's and cheat on her boyfriend, what a catch! and her ambition in life is to live with her parents and count more dots.<br /><br />So it's basically a story about a guy without any emotion or feelings who falls for a guy who count dots and cheats on her boyfriend, it's as predictable as it get's, and really a waste of time, you gain nothing by watching this, other than some weird laughs, because it's all so corny.<br /><br />I love it when her dad says that he only eats french fries and not french wine, and they all laugh, that's the hillbilly attitude this movie is about, furthermore, if my girlfriends dad were bossing me around like, i'd tell him a thing or to, but not our army veteran, no sir, he let's everyone boss him around.<br /><br />The movie is what First Blood would have been, if John Rambo were burn like the biggest wimp in the world.
This film deserves another bad review. Consider one reviewer extolling the film's virtues that include 'no sex, violence or gore.' Uh, excuse me. The very set-up of the film has us watching as Cody's young comrade, with love of life and who has everything to live for is blown to bits leaving Cody holding his lifeless, bloody body. And, given the nature of war we know that Cody has seen horror on almost a daily basis. So much for those viewing this film with such rose glasses that the violence which defines Cody's persona is erased from viewer memory.<br /><br />Sans any family of his own Cody, like John Rambo, roams the country on his bike making the long trek to hometown USA in the guise of some place called Nevada City. No mention, no realization of the clear fact that Cody is damaged goods. We know this since his CO practically declares him so as he order Cody to 'get some rest' away from the death and destruction of war. This explains, as none seem to notice or care, Cody's obvious 'flat' effect. It is not bad acting. It is the flat effect of post traumatic stress disorder. Not guessing here, remember his CO ordered him off the battle field.<br /><br />How about that 'accidental' kiss as noted by another review. The fall was an accident, the kiss was not. How exactly was Cody 'respecting' Faith by hitting on her knowing full well she was spoken for? Now that was a non-family value moment. A moment which is then announced to the immediate universe as if posted on YouTube. Of course faith's lapse of fidelity as well as Cody's 'coming on' to a woman who plans to marry another is received in the spirit of the Xmas season, all CHEERING their cheaten' hearts and lips.<br /><br />We know little about Faith's fiancé except that she professes her love for him, she takes no longer than a nano second to accept his proposal (could have waited if any second thoughts), he is generous, he loves her to death, the family has nothing really against him, he believes marriage is based on compromises and the two have never discussed post marriage plans. No evil doers here.<br /><br />Asner is a fine actor given over the hill dialogue like 'we love you son....' 'You are part of our family' literally days after they have met a stranger named Cody. And the 'band of brothers' speech where the phrase was above all never intended to apply to virtual strangers off the battle field.<br /><br />Bottom line: This film is cotton candy Xmas fluff that betrays itself in major ways. Most grossly when it applauds Cody's disrespect for Faith by physically hitting on her knowing full well she is spoken for. By re-defining family as we know it to wit: accepting a virtual stranger as a full fledged loving member of the family because we all 'love you.' How many of you have done that or know anyone who has done that. NOT.
I'm stunned that the reviewers @ IMDb gave this TV film as a high a rating as they did. It's an innocuous, sweet, uncomplicated cliché' of a film that had two big names from the past in it (both of whom did a decent job), but this film reeks of the low budget work we can see any day of week on the lesser cable channels. I like a good romance as well as anyone, but as my wife and I were watching this--and before we saw the rating-we said, "There are people who are going to rate this film too highly simply because there's nothing in it to challenge their brains, their faith, their comfort level or their cultural preferences. It's possible to make a good film like that (and Away from Her is an example), but this was amateur hour. There are some quite good films rated much lower than this one. Truly, another in a long line of woefully inadequate holiday films. Watch The Family Stone. It's miles ahead of this schlock.
Sorry my fellow Nevada City neighbors, but this one is bad.<br /><br />Brian must have had too much botox because he had very little facial expressions through out the entire movie.<br /><br />Alice looked like she had a board strapped to her backside. She was stiff throughout the movie.<br /><br />I looked up both Alice and Brian and was surprised to see the extensive bio of work. I would have guessed that they were first-year students.<br /><br />Ed Asner and Peter Jason carried the movie frankly with their banter and ease with every line. Ed certainly has not lost his charisma. I wish I'd taken the time to meet him while he was here.<br /><br />I love the snow scenes and scenes of stores and the church because I've been there. I make Nevada City my home and was anxiously awaiting the premiere. I was sadly disappointed.<br /><br />Sorry.
I watched this film on the Hallmark Channel recently. In my opinion, the film started out decent enough, but eventually got sour.<br /><br />The Story: A U.S. soldier in Afghanistan receives one of the Christmas cards that a woman back in the U.S. has sent out to troops for Christmas. He becomes so inspired by the Christmas card that he feels it has given him a ray of hope and happiness in his life, a motivation to continue on. When he is given leave, he goes to the very town that the woman lives in. He comes across and spunky young woman and eventually finds out that she is the one that sent the Christmas card. He meets the family and after saving her dad (a Vietnam War Veteran) from getting hit by a car whilst crossing the street, the family decides to take him in for a while. We learn that he doesn't have a family back home. The soldier agrees to help out the family during the Christmas season by working with them at their logging company. The family comes to love him and vice-versa. The soldier also becomes in love with the family's daughter - the woman that sent the Christmas card. There's only one problem. She already has a serious relationship with a man that she's in love with. It's also a long distance relationship. The boyfriend is very different from the soldier. He prefers wine and trips to France over hard labor and the great outdoors. The woman prefers the latter. Throughout the rest of the film, there is a "love triangle" as the woman's boyfriend is back in town visiting her for the season. Everyone in the family seems to want the daughter to be with the soldier and the mom basically wants what's best for her daughter. **(SPOILER ALERT)** The woman comes to like the soldier more and more, as they have a lot in common. They happen to spend a lot of time together. She gradually becomes attracted to his persona. Then one day he kisses her and and she kisses him back. Now she's so confused! She's in love with her boyfriend and wants to marry him someday, but she's become so fond of the soldier. Soon enough, the boyfriend (who doesn't know about the kiss, but is very protective of the woman and thinks the soldier has been trying to move in on her) decides to propose to the woman and she accepts. His plans for their marriage, however, are not plans that she wants. She wants to be at home, have kids and be close to her family. He wants to travel the world, go to exotic places and if they have kids he wants to take them along. This doesn't sound too thrilling for the woman. However, the soldier feels bad about what he's done and doesn't want to make things worse. So, he decides to leave town, despite the dad's urging him to stay and be with his daughter. It all comes to a head when, at the Christmas Eve service with Church, we find out that the soldier hasn't left yet. The boyfriend and the woman speak to each other outside and he, broken-hearted, basically decides to let her go and breaks up with her. The film ends with the woman and the soldier getting together.<br /><br />Things I like: I like the soldier throughout much of the film. He's basically nice and polite, with a strong sense of doing good for others; there are moments in which the family is going with Church and participating in charitable causes; the family hold hands and pray during an evening meal at the table; the dad and mom have a long-lasting and evidently healthy marriage; the soldier tries to do the right thing in a situation after he did something very wrong <br /><br />Things I don't like: There is a very typical "love triangle" story in this film; the soldier turns sour as he slowly and subtly moves in on the woman and then eventually kisses her when she already has a boyfriend; most of the family practically applauds this behavior - the family goes with Church and participates in services, yet this is how they act; there is some bad language <br /><br />Conclusion: I became disappointed as the film ran on, and it got worse and worse. I ended up fast forwarding the very end of the film because I had enough. So, the film started out decent with some few gem moments, but ended up ruining itself. Therefore, I don't recommend this film to anyone.
A movie that makes you want to throw yourself on a sword. I've seen schlock in my time but after viewing the wretched mess I don't think I can ever watch a another movie again. May God pity the souls who made this.<br /><br />Premise- Ex-Army quiet stud, underwear model type character (well acted actually) goes looking for the girl who sent him a Xmas card while serving in the military. Lands in with her cabin living-granola type family who are right-wing loggers. Family takes to him and it takes 2 hours of our time for the chick to see he's a better catch than her liberal looking ,french wine drinking, porsche driving, loud cell phone talking, lazy, city slicking, Jewish looking fiancé.<br /><br />The Bad- 1d characters, 1d themes. Being beat over the head with the Pro-Military theme. Ed Asner.<br /><br />The Good- commercial breaks were long. Peter Jason. It ended.
This relic of a short film starts with a teen going through the process of attempting to get a driver's license. It quickly becomes sidetracked with just about every imaginable topic relating to cars.<br /><br />Such things as dune buggies, drag racing, custom paint jobs and car shows are discussed. It often attempts to be humorous but instead the film is dull, drawn out and even sexist at times. None of the people in the film are actually heard. Instead, everything is done in narration and voiceovers. Sorry, but I can't stand that.<br /><br />There is nothing educational or interesting about "Dad, Can I Borrow The Car?". It's just another piece of mindless filler to take up time on their "Wonderful World Of Disney" TV show. 1/10
Definitely not worth the rental, but if you catch it on cable, you'll be pleasantly surprised by the cameos--Iman's appearance is especially self-deprecating. It's also an opportunity to watch all the male supporting cast members from The Sopranos typecast themselves.
Everything about this film was terrible. To start with this film had a pretty good cast and I find it impossible to make such a great cast into the biggest disaster to the gangster film genre ever. The sound track was like one of a very bad slap stick comedy. It had this music through the whole film and it started to get quite irritating.<br /><br />PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT INFLICT YOURSELF WITH THIS DISASTER YOU WILL ONLY BE HURT
Is it a coincidence that Orca was made two years after Jaws? Orca isn't exactly a "Jaws rip off" but it is obvious that it tried to profit from Jaws's success. First of all Orca in my opinion was a bad movie, not terrible but definitely not good, average at best.<br /><br />The plot is basically a male killer whale (orca) after seeing its mate and its unborn calf killed by a fisherman seeks revenge. I couldn't stand to watch this movie again. The direction of this film is poor and when compared to Jaws it looks like the director, producers, and writers were almost talentless.<br /><br />As for the acting, it was very average and believable, however the actual characters aren't the least bit likable. The effects were alright for its time and the footage of the killer whale looked pretty good.<br /><br />The violence is confusing, bloody, and not recommended for more sensitive people. The music is overdone and very loud, drowning out the sound effects and irritating at times. I hated the way they exaggerated the intelligence of the killer whale (killer whales don't mate with only one mate as depicted in Orca).<br /><br />Overall this movie was bad/poor in my opinion, because of the reasons listed above. Some people may appreciate this film more because of the concept of vengeance amongst animals and humans so I'm not going to bash this movie and I can understand why some people may like it.<br /><br />My Rating: 3.5/10 (but for its concept possibly a 5/10)
Orca starts as crusty Irish sea captain Nolan (Richard Harris) & his crew are trying to capture a Great White Shark so they can sell it for big bucks, unfortunately when a hapless marine biologist called Ken (Robert Carradine) comes under attack from it the Shark is killed by a Killer Whale, this raises Nolan's interest in Killer Whales & decides he want's to catch one of them instead. However while trying to do so he catches a pregnant female & injuries it to the extent she aborts her unborn foetus on deck which makes a mess & enrages her mate, Nolan orders the Whale be dumped back in the sea which is what happens. The male Killer Whale is annoyed to say the least & kills one of Nolan's crew before they reach the dry land of Newfoundland in Canada, once there the Killer Whale conducts a series of attacks on the town & it's people in an effort to lure Nolan back out to sea for a fight to the death...<br /><br />Directed by Michael Anderson I thought this blatant rip-off was terrible, I'm sorry but I thought it was just plain ridiculous & utterly dull even at a modest 90 odd minutes. The script by producer Luciano Vincenzoni & Sergio Donati is so stupid I'm lost for words, the fact that it seems to take itself very seriously doesn't help & if I have to listen to Charlotte Rampling go on about how intelligent Killer Whale's are just one more time I'll scream. I'm sorry but I simply don't believe a Killer Whale is intelligent enough to know who any particular boat belongs to & sink it, I don't believe a Killer Whale can cause a huge explosion including knocking an oil lantern from a wall on the opposite side it hits as there is no way on earth it could know it was there, I don't believe a Killer Whale can identify someone's house, know someone is in there & then wreck it on purpose, I don't believe a Killer Whale can move icebergs around in order to trap a boat, I don't believe Killer Whales can physically recognise people & I don't believe it has any revenge instincts or at least none that are as strong as this dumb film makes out. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh, I mean it's only a film after all but it's a film which is trying to be serious & things just got so ridiculous that I was half expecting the Killer Whale to write a letter to Nolan to tell him his plan & hand (or should that be fin?) deliver it, the thing seemed intelligent enough to do just about anything else. They should have asked it to come up with a cure for the common cold! Seriously, that's a statement that's no more far fetched than anything else in this film. I found the film very boring, totally dull & had awful character's with no on screen presence at all. It goes without saying this is a Jaws (1975) rip-off which doesn't even come close to Spielberg's classic.<br /><br />Director Anderson is no Spielberg that's for sure, this rubbishy film has absolutely no suspense, scares, tension or atmosphere at all. All the attack scenes are as dull as dishwater & totally forgettable, there's no build up to them & virtually no pay off either as Orca doesn't get to eat a single person. Then there's the scenes which literally had me laughing, the shots of the Killer Whale appearing to cry are pure comedy & the opening scenes of the two Killer Whales I suspect tried to show them as a 'loving' & 'caring' couple but I couldn't help but think that this is the closest we'll ever get to Killer Whale porn, hilarious stuff. The footage of the Killer Whales themselves is bland & boring, instead of footage which matches & enhances the scenes around it it just looks like dreary wildlife documentary footage that has little connection to anything else. Do you get the impression that I don't like this film? Good. Forget about any gore or decent deaths either, there's a brief scene when Bo Derek has her legs bitten off but blink and you'll miss it.<br /><br />This probably had quite a big budget & it still sucks, there's nothing outstanding about Orca, it's well made I suppose but flat, bland & totally forgettable. The cinematography is quite nice though. The acting is bad, Rampling is awful & the late Harris' Irish accent is embarrassing.<br /><br />Orca is a lame Jaws rip-off which completely ignores or messes up everything that made Spielberg's film so good, this is one for bad movie lovers everywhere. Definitely not recommended although not quite as bad as Jaws: The Revenge (1987).
ORCA is not exactly bad, but it's not really Richard Harris's finest hour either. As a demented, Ahab-like fisherman, Harris gets into a game of death with a vengeful killer whale after killing the whale's "wife" and unborn child. Charlotte Rampling plays a whale expert who gets involved with Harris. She yells at him a lot about how important it is to leave nature alone. He doesn't listen and somehow ends up in the arctic battling the revenge crazed whale. There are no special effects to speak of except for what looks like a round mirror for a whale's eye --- there are endless shots of Harris reflected in the eye so the audience understands that the whale knows who he is. Bo Derek, as one of Harris's crew has a particularly unpleasant run in with the Orca and most of the supporting cast, including Robert Carridine, Will Sampson and Keenan Wynn don't fare very well either.
I don't know who got the idea that orcas go around killing people and bashing and destroying things for revenge but my god is it absurd. Orcas are most definitely not the cold-blooded killer this movie makes them out to be...its silly. Orcas are extremely intelligent, don't get me wrong, but I highly doubt they know and understand a concept such as revenge. So I have to say all I got out of this movie was the entertainment of how preposterous it was. So I was at least somewhat amused by it. Personally, I'd recommend going and seeing Jaws if you're wanting to see an Animal-Killing-Humans type of movie. But if you're like me and want to laugh at something this far from realism then I'd say go ahead. :D
Many have stated that Orca – Killer Whale is a Jaws rip-off. This is not really true, though the enormous commercial success of Jaws undoubtedly made these man .vs. beast stories more attractive propositions for film-makers in the second half of the '70s. Orca – Killer Whale would be better described as a modern-day retread of Moby Dick. It's a story about obsession. On one hand a whale's obsessive quest to avenge the death of its mate; on the other a bounty hunter's obsessive quest to kill the whale before it can claim any more lives. Sadly, Orca- Killer Whale emerges a very disappointing film, its fundamentally interesting ideas somewhat ruined by hammy performances and preposterous plotting.<br /><br />Shark hunter Nolan (Richard Harris) encounters a marine-life researcher Rachel Bedford (Charlotte Rampling) diving off the Atlantic coast of Canada. Their meeting almost ends in disaster when Rachel's team are attacked by a Great White Shark, but a Killer Whale arrives in the nick of time to stop the shark. After this, Nolan becomes increasingly obsessed with capturing a Killer Whale and selling it to an aquarium. But his plans backfire when he accidentally kills a pregnant female of the species while the distraught male looks on. Rachel tells Nolan that a Killer Whale is an incredibly intelligent mammal with a strong memory and feelings just like a human. Worse still, native Umilak (Will Sampson) warns him that the whale will always remember its grief and do everything it can to have revenge. Nolan initially tries to forget about the whole regrettable incident, but the whale causes havoc in the fishing town and the disgruntled locals begin to demand that Nolan puts to sea to track it down and destroy it. Eventually Nolan is forced to pursue the Killer Whale… the hunt leads all the way to the desolate ice floes of the Arctic Ocean, where man and beast play out their final fatal battle against each other.<br /><br />Two things stand out in this film. One is the haunting score by Ennio Morricone (perhaps the greatest composer of film music of all-time, his talents wasted on various tenth-rate clunkers during the 70s and 80s). The other is the amazing widescreen photography of Ted Moore, which makes the film consistently pleasing to the eye. In every other department, Orca – Killer Whale is a shoddy film that does nothing to enhance the reputation of its talented cast and crew. Harris appears extremely ill throughout the film, his hair bedraggled, black rings around his eyes and skin deathly pale. His performance lacks the usual vitality. Rampling strikes a lot of sexy poses but fails to convince with her long-winded and ill-informed explanations about the ways of whales. The rest of the actors are wasted in brief and undeveloped roles, the most memorable of which sees Bo Derek getting her leg bitten off by the vengeful whale. The plot is total nonsense from start to finish, with such preposterous sequences as the whale deliberately starting a fire in the fishing village that engulfs and destroys the local refinery! Although it's credible to suppose that whales are intelligent creatures with genuine emotions, the idea that a whale could plot revenge against a single human adversary and carry it out so calculatedly is utterly absurd. Orca – Killer Whale is really one for completists of the man .vs. beast cycle from the late 70s. Most will come away from the film shaking their heads in disbelief and grinding their teeth with despair.
This film can't make up its mind whether its message is "humans are evil and bad and animals are sweet and blameless" or "don't ever go in the water again." A fisherman (Nolan) is out to nab a killer whale, a very bad thing, but when he accidentally (ACCIDENTALLY mark you) hits a pregnant cow instead of her mate, the cow -- and I use the word in all senses -- who is obviously a sick psycho-bitch and the canonical villain of the piece -- throws herself against the propellers trying to chew herself to bits in the most distressing and hideous not to mention ineffectual method of killing herself. (I doubt it was her first.) When her unborn fetus aborts from her hideous self-inflicted wounds, her mate goes mental with revenge and swears to hurt, kill and mutilate every human who even so much as talks to Nolan. Obviously as among humans, total psychos date other total psychos.<br /><br />The film reeks of half-thought out anti-human message, "the poor poor whale!! the evil men must suffer and die!" and yet, it does not succeed in demonizing Nolan at all. It's true that when he set out his motives were selfish and cruel, but at the first squeal of the first whale he grows a heart and, as the film progresses, he grows more and more compassionate to the whale's pain until it seems he will walk out on the ice and give himself to the whale, just to make it feel a little better.<br /><br />The films final journey, in which Nolan follows the whale on a bizarre journey to the north, reminds me of Melville's eerie man-whale connection, and for a moment hinted at a truly interesting conclusion, where these two husbands might connect, understand even respect each other in their own grief, for Nolan lost his wife and unborn child also to an accident. It's clear Nolan respects the whale and feels for its loss. However, it never goes there. The whale-character has no compassion or respect for anyone.<br /><br />The final scene loses this focus and becomes Jaws-like where the sea-monster finally kills everybody and Nolan and no-doubt through an oversight, fails to chomp up the whale-hugger (tho he made a good snap for her head a little earlier.) I love animals, and I detest whaling, and what is more I love orca whales, but if this film's goal was to make me feel that the whale was the victim and that people are evil and detestable it completely failed. Nolan shows compassion and growth, and feels for others, and all the whale thinks about is killing and maiming.<br /><br />The only message one can walk away with is "If you see an orca whale, ever, anywhere, run the other way cause if you step on his FIN the wrong way, he will hunt you to the ends of the earth destroying everything around you."
Without a doubt, this is one of the worst pictures I ever actually paid money to see - the kind of flick you choose out of desperation at the mall cinema during a Christmas holiday when you have missed the start times for anything good but still are dead set on seeing a movie! And that is exactly how I came to see this stink bomb...<br /><br />At the distance of the better part of three decades I can still smell the rotting fish that constitute this story line. Unbelievable plot - that a killer whale carries a grudge against an individual not of the sea - is laughable. And that's about all, except for a completely out-of-place "love theme" that plays over the finish of a film devoid of a love story. At least Charlotte Rampling is lovely (in a two dimensional role) but Richard Harris just chews up the scenery. He was no Captain Quint (Robert Shaw) and this is no "Jaws". Mercifully, I have put most of it out of mind and when I run across it on television air casts I move on immediately. "Danger, Will Robinson!" See the current t.v. commercial showing a husband and wife whale-watching ("Orca - I love Orca...") - at least it is over in sixty seconds. This flick represents 92 minutes of my life that I will never get back.
While I don't claim to be any sort of expert in marine life, I must say anyone with a modicum of intelligence could not possibly buy in to this notion of a whale (and not even the mother!) having a clue about revenge because it witnessed his dead mate having a forced abortion by humans! I mean, really! This is basically the whole plot. Richard Harris must have been extremely hard up for roles to have accepted this junk. This is the kind of movie that is so bad that if you paid 50 cents to see it, you would feel like demanding your money back.
This is only a response to the yahoo who says this movie is more realistic than the classic, genre defining MASTERPIECE, Jaws. Yes, brainiac, great whites(and other species of shark, bull, black-tip, oceanic white-tip, tiger)have been known to populate areas where easy prey is found. Humans don't often make it onto that menu, granted, but the shark in the film was repeatedly pointed out to be exhibiting abnormal behavior. It's not like it's never happened. The odds of a killer whale destroying nearly a whole town, singling out a human nemesis, sinking several dozen thick hulled North Atlantic fishing boats and knowing when certain people, all friends of the aforementioned "nemesis", are close enough to the water for it to reach, are so slim as to be laughable. Much like this turd of a Jaws knock-off. Laughable. Great white sharks are also known to frequently chew on boats, protective underwater cages and people on rafts and surfboards, as they look like seals from below. A shark the size of Bruce(if you don't know, look it up)would be more than capable of sinking a boat like The Orca(hey! that's the name of the blatant rip-off we're discussing!), as it would weigh upwards of 6,000 lbs. I could go on, but I don't need to. Jaws is amazing(better acting, better effects, better music, better writing), Orca is crap(BLATANT rip-off of Jaws, lousy writing, abominable effects, most ridiculous plot this side of an Olson Twins flick). It doesn't take a masters from Columbia University to see that. Watch better movies.
I like monster movies, generally. Even if they are implausible and silly. But its hard to like this movie when its so implausible and silly AND tries to take itself seriously all at the same time. Like in a really posh kind of way.<br /><br />While the idea is somewhat factual, like Orcas are known for killing Great White Sharks, its really hard to find it scary when I can't help but just see an angry Shamoo destroying stuff. Especially that one scene where some building exploded cause of the Orca's doing...and while it explodes, the thing jumps out of the water and it felt like I was watching a show at Sea World with fireworks. Plus they kill a lot of the scary moments before they even hint that they're going to happen. On top of that, it takes a few jabs at JAWS. Its like "hey look, we're being factual and we can come up with BETTER reasons why the Orca is attacking".<br /><br />Yes you are, ignoring your outrageous **** ups in logic of course. But JAWS had one thing your movie doesn't. Its scary. Yes its implausible. Yes its somewhat outrageous. But quite frankly, factual or not, a Killer Shark is not close to being as scary as a Great White. And the poor attempt at character development and writing just hurts it more. Even JAWS the Revenge is scarier than this.
Please do not waste +/- 2 hours of your life watching this movie - just don't. Especially if someone is fortunate to be snoozing at the side of you. Damn cheek if you ask me. I waited for something to happen - it never did. I am not one of those people to stop watching a movie part way through. I always have to see it through to the end. What a huge mistake. Do yourself a favour and go and paint a wall and watch it dry - far more entertaining. Please do not waste +/- 2 hours of your life watching this movie - just don't. Especially if someone is fortunate to be snoozing at the side of you. Damn cheek if you ask me. I waited for something to happen - it never did. I am not one of those people to stop watching a movie part way through. I always have to see it through to the end. What a huge mistake. Do yourself a favour and go and paint a wall and watch it dry - far more entertaining.
Fairly amusing piece that tries to show how smart Orcas are but in the meanwhile (and quite oblivious to them) makes the audience feel stupid by making the most ridiculous film. Richard Harris plays Quint.. I'm sorry, that's wrong, he plays Captain Nolan, a fisherman who catches sharks for a living, but is lured by the big catch, and tries to catch a killer whale. When the capture of a female killer whale goes awry (don't ask) it's mate (don't ask) goes on a rampage (don't ask) and starts STALKING Captain Nolan (Don't ask). Soon, Captain Nolan realizes that they have something in common (don't ask). Pretty amazing film-making here folks. I got to tell you though, the beginning (with the whale noises and nothing much else) is pretty haunting and the end credits (with the most godawful song) is pretty entertaining.
Whale-hunters pick on the wrong freaking whale.<br /><br />A group of yahoo whale exploitists capture a female and string her up by her tail-fin. The whale's mate sees the whole thing including the moment the female's unborn baby slips out and slops onto the deck. 'Captain Nolan' (Richard Harris) could tell that the big male is really mad by the way it stared him down as if to say, "Get out of town before high-tide." <br /><br />This story of revenge has Harris' presence and Bo's beauty, but not much else. This was Bo's first 'released' film, though her first acting job was four years previous in 'And Once Upon a Love' released in 1981 as 'Fantasies' (directed by John Derek).<br /><br />P.S. Today, the date of this review (November 20), is Bo Derek's birthday. I hope Bo has a 'whale' of a good time..... get it?..... whale?..... hee-hee.
I can fondly remember Bo Derek's heyday and the UK press attention (the mucky Sun & News of the World papers especially)- all following her small role in "10" with Dudley Moore. Understandably, much fuss was made of her photogenic face, crystal clear blue eyes and her perfectly formed bouncing breasts. <br /><br />Unfortunately, acting is, and never was, her forte! I think they should make one of the triple disc collections you always find in the bargain DVD bins- Orca, Tarzan the Ape-man and Bolero. All these films could be nominated for the "So Bad They Are Great".<br /><br />It would be a guilty "must buy" of mine! Should you ever read your press, or this comment Ms Derek, please do not be offended- ALways had a soft spot for you and there are more important things going on in the world to worry about than your acting ability. Much Love.x
OK. I know that the wanna-be John Hughes movies of the 80s were all unilaterally flat, so the expectations for this film ran pretty low.<br /><br />Still, after sitting through this crap there's one key thing I can't seem to get out of my head:<br /><br />I just sat through an 80s Rob Lowe movie that had no nudity and only hints of sex in them.<br /><br />The acting is awful, the characters boring and flat, the portrayal of Oxford an absolute insult, and the rowing scenes unexciting, uneventful, and inaccurate.<br /><br />Unless you've got some wierd Ally Sheedy or Amanda Pays (or I guess, Rob Lowe) fetish, there's really no reason to see this one.
This is one of those movies which makes you think: would Hulk " The real American " Hogan have done the same? Frankly I don't think so and he'd have been right. I'm Italian, I cannot go proud of my country for many reasons, but I wouldn't have rowed for another team (The French, for example), simply because I'm in love with Juliette Binoche. Besides the protagonist doesn't fall in love desire with a British girl at the end of the movie but with a fellow countrywoman, so why rowing against Yale. As far as acting is concerned, well, all the players act very poorly. And then , you know, I hated that "Dead poets society " atmosphere. In fact that's another movie I hate.
First off, to give you some idea of my taste in movies...<br /><br />2007 Comedies I enjoyed: Superbad, Knocked Up, Hot Fuzz, Blades Of Glory <br /><br />2007 Comedies I hated: Evan Almighty, The Brothers Solomon, Good Luck Chuck<br /><br />I should have followed my first instinct and turned off "Hot Rod" after I got to about the 20 minute mark. I knew by that point that this movie would not make me laugh once. The script is absolutely brutal - I have no idea how this monstrosity managed to crack 6 on IMDb. Any one older than 10 years old who enjoyed this must be some kind of mental defective.<br /><br />This doesn't come close to anything with Will Farrell and it's clear that Andy Samberg can't carry anything longer than a 5 to 10 minute sketch on YouTube or SNL. I don't know how they roped Ian McShane and Isla Fisher into doing this movie... they must have owed favors or something. I came in knowing that it would be a dumb movie, but I thought it would at least be funny. I didn't so much as smirk.<br /><br />I don't normally comment on movies at IMDb, but this was so awful, I just had to warn people. This is only the 4th movie I've seen that I've felt compelled to rate 1/10.
So i had low expectations for this movie to start with, but it failed to meet even those. while there were some funny parts, even one or two laugh out loud parts, this movie fell terribly short of what i would call good. the funniest jokes were unexpected and over very quickly, leaving us sitting there going "WTF just happened?" in addition, there were a few jokes that just dragged on and on and on. the part where he falls down the mountain had me yawning. also, the editing was really lacking. there were some poor scene transitions, but that seems to be the style nowadays. It made me laugh, but i wouldn't watch it again, and I'm very glad i waited for it to rent. give it a chance, you might enjoy it, but don't think you are in for anything along the lines of the 40 year old virgin, or Superbad.
This movie is one of the worst comedy movies i have ever seen. I hate these Napoleon Dynamite rip-offs. Just face it people the dumb humor has been mastered already. Make something new for once. All these new comedies are just horrible. And coming out of SNL Andy Samberg is not ready for a lead role yet. I hope he can bounce back from this awful movie. And Will Arnetts character is just plain bad. Hey Will, did you read the script. The plot is truly the worst ever written. Now you tell me if this is weird. (this is the movie) Rod Kimble's step dad Frank is dying and the family needs $50,000 to pay for the heart surgery so Rod is planning this huge jump to raise money for Frank. Only so that Rod can beat Frank in a fight and prove his manliness. Yes thats the movie, you tell me, would u spend $7.00 to see that piece of crap!<br /><br />3/10 just horrible<br /><br />-adam
If i could have rated this movie by 0 i would have ! I see some ppl at IMDb says that this is the funniest movie of the year , etc etc excuse me ? are you ppl snorting LSD or ........? There is absolutely NOTHING funny about this movie N O T H I N G ! I actually want my 27 minutes back of my life that i spent watching this piece of crap. <br /><br />I read someone sitting on an airplane watching this movie stopped watching after 30 minutes , i totally understand that , i actually would have watched snakes on a plane for 2 times over instead of watching this movie once ! <br /><br />DO NOT watch this movie , do something else useful with your life do the dishes , walk the dog , hell... anything is better than spending time in front of the TV watching hot rod.
Alright, friends, a serious movie buff is expected to watch all kinds of movie, the bad as well as the good, and this movie put me to the test. I won't mince words. This movie was bad. The story was bad. The acting was bad. The always wonderful Sissy Spacek did nothing to make this movie better. Indeed I asked myself why did I even bother to see this rotten trashy movie? Why did I waste my time and money on something that I suspected would be bad? The answer is, of course, that I am a movie buff and therefore cannot avoid what otherwise should be avoided. I will not waste your time explaining what exactly was wrong with this amateurish movie, except to say that the quality of the acting was, to put it politely, subpaar. A serious movie buff may want to take on the responsibility of watching this movie. Otherwise. stay home, don't waste your time, read a book, take take of chores or have yourself a good sandwich.
I got to see an early preview of this movie and I hope they have time to edit it in what ever way they can to improve on it before it comes out Aug 3rd. It stars Andy Samberg from Saturday Night Live as 'Hot' Rod Kimble. He's plays a teenager in a small town who wants to be a stunt man like his late father. When we meet him, he's jumping a mail truck on his mo-ped, yes, a mo-ped, and almost makes it. This would be worthy of a 'Jackass' movie if he wasn't honestly trying to do this. Isla Fisher plays the slightly older and much more mature girl-next-door, Denise. She seems to like Rod enough to join his 'crew'. Jorma Taccone (also SNL) plays his half brother, Kevin, who documents the stunts with a camcorder. Sissy Spacek plays Rod's mom, Marie. She remarried Frank Powell, played by Ian McShane. Frank's a real tough guy who enjoys beating Rod in some real drag out brawls. It's clear that Rod's not going to earn Frank's respect till he can beat him. We find out Frank needs a $50,000. heart transplant and Rod is determined to raise the money just so he 'can beat his ass' once he's healed, and prove himself a man. A long fall down a mountain side convinces Rod to 'go big' on one stunt. Rod sets out to get seed money by charging for doing stunts that would make you cringe if you saw them in real life. Like the human torch- at a children's birthday party. There were those at the showing who managed to laugh at most of the stunts. Just when all hope and money is lost, along comes a sponsor who saves the day by getting the 15 school buses Rod wants to jump. He gets exclusive broadcast rights and sets up phone lines to get donations. Rod gets a new outfit and a real motorcycle. The whole town turns out and the world tunes in. Does he make the jump? Does he get the girl? Do they raise the $50k? Does Frank get his ass beat by Rod? Wait till this 90 minute movie comes out on video to find out.
When viewing a movie as silly as 'Hot Rod,' one must sit back, relax, and alter one's intellectual capacity to a like state – which is, in this case, a state dimwitted enough to endure brainless drivel that has somehow been mistaken for comedy. With a brief runtime of 88 minutes, this film was long past drawn-out and buried itself beneath a bundle of repetitive jokes – jokes that came at a minority and weren't even funny in the first place. 'Hot Rod''s base material is as superficial and irrelevant as 2004's cult hit 'Napoleon Dynamite,' though it's much more contrived and comes without ANY of the laughter. In fact, the movie's blatant desperation to be compared to 'Napoleon Dynamite' is scornful and offensive, and left me ticked off, instead of just being annoyed.<br /><br />The movie, if one were compelled enough to call it such, poses a paltry story that puts self-proclaimed stuntman Rod Kimble before us, with the trifling intention of jumping fifteen buses (one more than his idol Evel Knievel jumped, so we're told by Rod) and raising $50,000 dollars for his stepfather's impending life-saving heart operation; all so that he can fight his stepfather, once recovered, and gain his respect… because in order to gain one's respect, one must first fight them. Huh? Whatever. Each character is no more interesting than Rod's stick-on mustache, and from the film's opening joke to its ridiculous conclusion, each scene played like a nonsensical, and terribly unfunny, SNL skit – which, with the addition of an extra 85 minutes, is, essentially, what 'Hot Rod' strives to be.<br /><br />The film's star, Andy Samberg, contributed an effort to the screen that observably exerted every last drip-drop of his comedic capabilities. Unfortunately – rather, realistically – his humorous talents are no more admirable than a five-year-old retelling his own exhausted joke that somewhere includes the innocently crude poop and pee-pee gags. And if that's disappointing, pull a chair, hide your face in your hands, and brace yourself for the real blow: he IS the film's humor! To rescue them of their mortification, I'll willingly omit the ghastliness of Samberg's co-stars' roles and leave the second third of The Lonely Island team, director Akiva Schaffer, to his non-existent talent as a director… or a comedian. Basically, every thing one could possibly do to further trample a crash-course comedy is perfectly portrayed here; and done so arrogantly, as though the film would be funnier that way. Trick yourself into believing that there's even a single laugh in this heap, or treat yourself to another movie – ANY other movie.
By no means is this movie as bad as 'Perfect Stranger', but it just wasn't funny. It couldn't stick to one type of comedy - it jumped from SNL, to Adam Sandler-esquire, to romantic, to little guy scores big, to slapstick, to 'Loser' (the movie) types of comedies. Although there were some pretty funny slapstick moments (the fall down the hill), no one was very particularly funny or outstanding in any way. 'Schindler's List' was funnier (and felt shorter). you never knew if Andy Samberg was supposed to be in high school, a college dropout, or just a loser living at home with his mother - Sissy Spacek, in her worst choice of roles. And poor Ian McShane, THE serious actor if I only had to name one, is given crap to read into the camera. The story drags and is completely predictable up to and including the end (no spoilers here in case Adam Samberg's mom wants to see it). Don't spend ANY money going to see this movie, and maybe Lorne Michaels will get the hint and start producing quality (Yes, Wayne's World and Tommy Boy are quality) movies.
Quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen; I was ready to walk out after the first ten minutes. The only people laughing in the theater were the tweeners. Don't get me wrong, I love silly, stupid movies just as much as the next gal, but the whole premise, writing and humor stunk. It seemed to me that they were going for a "Napoleon Dynamite" feel - strange and random scenes which would lead to a cult audience. Instead, it ended up being forced, awkward and weird.<br /><br />The only bright light was Isla Fisher and I just felt utterly awful that she (and Sissy Spacek) had signed up for this horrible thing.<br /><br />Thank gosh I didn't pay for it.
My family and I screened Underdog the night before. And as bad as Underdog is ( my four year old loved it), Hot Rod makes it look like Oscar worthy material. The only thing that could have saved this movie, was if Evel himself had come out of retirement to slap Samberg in the face for making this movie. I will admit however, that the soundtrack was good. I wasn't sure if the movie was set in the 80's, but with the majority of the music coming from Europe? Who knows. If I were you, I would take a pass. And just stay at home and watch the test pattern on your local TV station. Or if you are dead set on watching this, people under the influence might enjoy it.
I've seen a lot of crap in my day, but goodness, Hot Rod takes the cake. I saw a free screening in NY the other night. I can only hope they show the funny version to the paying customers. The big laughs were sparse, the plot was uninteresting, and the characters were one dimensional at best. One highlight is a hilarious dancing scene with Adam Samberg. It was priceless and was the only scene I truly had a hearty laugh at. Other than that, I can only recollect randomness and dead air. SNL & Samberg fans may be disappointed. I know I was expecting more from it. But it short, I definitely would not recommend attending a free screening or paying to watch this film.
SNL is pretty funny but people who say this is like watching a Short skit on SNL is a little dumb minded. It's NOTHING like SNL, it's just a stupid piece of crap.<br /><br />Andy Samberg tries to act like Jon Heder but fails. Although Jon Heder is only funny in Napoleon Dynamite Andy tries his hardest and people think he's funny.<br /><br />Only funny people in the movie were Danny McBride and Bill Hader. The only part that was decently funny with Andy was the pool part.<br /><br />They could have made the "Quiet place" a lot better if they didn't make the falling scene 3 freaking minutes.<br /><br />The part where he's pronouncing his H's more is retarded. They try going with it too long and half the time it looks like Andy is laughing while he acts...he's a horrible actor and doesn't deserve to be in a movie.<br /><br />This movie is a joke and is for the simple minded people with the brain of a 10 year old level of comedy. Which is about half the United States.
Here's one you can watch with a straight face, with a script so bad, even Will Ferrell wouldn't be in it.<br /><br />There are two laughs in HOT ROD.<br /><br />1. The Punch-Dance. Rod "needs to go to his quiet place" and before anyone can say Kevin Bacon, he is footloosing a passionate, overwrought bodyswerve to the strains of a band who wishes they had the big-hair faux-metal chops of Europe.<br /><br />2. John Farnham's You're The Voice. In one of those epic sequences where the star and his cohorts do The Slomo Walk down Main Street and the townfolk follow on their heels in support, the soundtrack is the gag. How did the film-makers even come across this Aussie recording artist? A major Australian vocalist (and a genuine talent) who shot to fame in the early '70s covering Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head, then disappeared until 1986 for The Big Comeback with You're The Voice, John Farnham's anthem is so bewitchingly cheesy, it leveled mountains in Switzerland.<br /><br />Besides these two high points in the film - both ruined anyway with the slipshod writing - the rest of the film is like choking on someone else's vomit.<br /><br />Andy Samberg is Rod, a failed stunt jumper who has never made a jump. Maybe it's got something to do with the fact he's driving a moped into the heart of darkness. Or his fake mustache. Yeh, someone actually thought that was funny.<br /><br />Without one jump under his starry belt, he plans for a 15-bus extravaganza - which would surely kill a lesser bad comedian, like Jason Biggs or Rob Schneider - to win the day and save his stepfather and simultaneously wipe out cancer and whatever... who watches these movies for plot anyway? Along the way (as usual for moronic leads in these comedies), he scores a salubrious chick (Isla Fisher), who must surely be retarded to consider swapping chromosomes with this loser.<br /><br />Sissy Spacek (CARRIE, 1976) has so little to do she almost phoned in her performance - then changed her mind and just hung up. Ian McShane must've lost a bet to be here.
This was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Horrible acting,Not funny at all, and well just boring.<br /><br />I can only assume all these 10 out of 10 fav. all time movie comments are actually the actors themselves in disguise.<br /><br />Idk what the runtime on this movie is I'm sure its listed on this page It certainly felt like an eternity <br /><br />If your looking for a tough challenge,attempt to sit through this awful movie.<br /><br />otherwise<br /><br />Don't waste your time as I did on this one
After a promising first 25 minutes that makes you feel all warm inside, you're pretty convinced that this will be a great romantic comedy. Then the movie takes a turn for the worse. <br /><br />The warm feeling might still be there, but as others has said: The plot becomes so unbelievable and artificial that it's almost unbearable to watch. <br /><br />The movie gets sped up, and you get the impression that you're either fast forwarding through it, or that the producers decided to fit it in less than 1h40m and had to cut a lot of scenes out.<br /><br />Realism isn't a goal onto itself, but as a viewer, I'm pretty convinced that this comedy isn't intentionally unrealistic, it just happens to be.<br /><br />On the plus side, this movie has a couple of nice interiors, and despite the bad script, I think that the actors performances are mainly good. If I could rate the first 25 minutes only, I'd probably give it an eight. As it is now, it gets a four. ...And that's being nice! <br /><br />If you're a sucker for romantic comedies you'll probably have a great time anyways. If not, I'd recommend that you watch something else.
Otherwise it is one of the worst movies I've ever seen - and I mean ever. My wife and I were both bored out of our minds within 10 minutes. Not to mention being boring, it is entirely unbelievable. Women (non-lesbian) don't bathe together - nor do they "accidentally" kiss. Brothers and sisters don't live together well into their 30s and run around swing dancing together and engaging in footraces in central park. Men don't find out their wife and sister romantically kissed the night before the wedding and then never discuss it with said wife. Absolutely ridiculous.<br /><br />Heather Graham is possibly the worst actress in films today. She smiles when she should be crying and vice versa. The only movie she has ever been good in is Boogie Nights - and that is because she wasn't acting.<br /><br />I cannot stress enough how bad this movie was.
It was obvious that this movie is designed to appeal to the Chick Flick audience, to which i have sat through quite a few and enjoyed most. However, this was a very irritating attempt by Heather Graham to become the next Meg Ryan ( who became annoying as hell in her own right ). Her acting was overdone and it appeared that she was overanxious compared to her colleagues who were relaxed in their roles. This film might have been more, as there was suitable budget for settings, actors and a decent story line. My wife and I both agreed that this was 'Muck' at the end, as the film ended on a painful embarrassing high! Better luck next time, hope Miss Graham sticks to the type of films that she belongs in like From Hell.
If there has ever been a worse comedy than 'Gray Matters' I am unaware of it. The New York Jewish comedy's 'funny' premise is that siblings Sam & Gray are mistaken for a couple and so decide to fix Sam up with a girlfriend, only to find that Gray is equally attracted to their target - Charlie. The revelation that Gray is secretly gay is apparently only a surprise to her. There is a deeply offensive wedding sequence, a deeply embarrassing 'drunk act' from Moynahan and Graham, and a performance that would embarrass forests everywhere for its woodenness from Tom Cavanagh. Sissy Spacek demonstrates a complete inability to do comedy and will want this excised from her resume. Molly Shannon plays the homely friend with lumpen insouciance. Only Alan Cumming emerges with any credit but is seriously under-employed and given nothing with which to work. The whole disaster is cemented by Graham's bizarre eye-rolling performance culminating with the penultimate scene where she wears a comedy hat and an overcoat despite the scene being set in a lesbian bar. It is astonishing that this film was ever released it has no redeeming feature and should be avoided at all costs.
Sam (Thomas Cavanagh) and Gray (Heather Graham) are devoted siblings who share an apartment and a love of many things -- ballroom dancing, 1940s movie musicals and, much to their surprise, an attractive woman named Charlie (Bridget Moynahan). Historically heterosexual, Gray is confused by her new feelings.<br /><br />Gray Matters proves to be one of the blandest films I have ever seen. It's dull, predictable, unfunny, poorly acted and poorly written. Nothing about it felt real and everything was very cheesy. Also, this isn't really a romantic comedy with a special twist but more of a "coming out" movie. Sue Kramer tried to make the first half cute with the romantic stuff and the second half serious with the actual acceptance and coming out part. Unfortunately, she failed miserably. The first half was largely unfunny and only Heather Graham was able to hold it up a little. Then, the film took an awkward tone and got all serious. The serious scenes were handled poorly and all of the emotions just felt phony.<br /><br />I guess I would have enjoyed the film a little more if the relationships between the characters felt more authentic. The brother and sister relationship was very weak and they didn't really appear to be that close. Their relationship just didn't feel very natural. Also, the relationship between Tom and Bridget felt very unnatural. If two people are going to get married after only knowing each other for less than a week, then you would expect to see a little more excitement but the characters talked about getting married in Vegas in the same manner of asking a waiter what the specials are. There was a lack of excitement in the film and it was hard to get involved with the movie with such unmotivated characters.<br /><br />The acting was mostly weak which was a bit surprising given the decent cast. Heather Graham gave the only good performance in the movie. She was funny and had a few charming scenes but it's too bad that all of her co-stars were complete duds. Bridget Moynahan was very weak and her performance ringed false on every level. Also, it seemed like she was reading her lines. Thomas Cavanagh was pretty wooden and he showed nearly no emotion. The chemistry between Thomas and Heather was non existent and that damaged the film because their relationship felt phony. I can usually rely on Molly Shannon to be funny in a supporting role but here she was just annoying. Sissy Spacek had about two scenes and she was annoying in both of them. Finally, Alan Cumming just had an embarrassing character and his performance wasn't very good. Overall, Gray Matters is a lame film and it isn't worth watching. Rating 3/10
I had to walk out on this film fifteen minutes from the end... having passed through the cringe stage and into pure boredom. What really horrifies me, I mean truly disturbs me, is that there are people referring to this aimless drivel as 'delightful' or a 'must see.' I would feel deep pity for those so afflicted were it not for the distinct impression that most of the positive comments about this shallow and humourless travesty were written by industry plants.<br /><br />The truth is this is a lame film that does nothing to entertain nor enlighten. It is decidedly unfunny, poorly scripted and has all the pace and energy of cold, canned rice pudding. To be kind to Ms Kramer, the best one can say is it was a missed opportunity, for having read the synopsis before I watched it, I had expected something more challenging. The possible misinterpretations of a close brother and sister co-dependence, the unexpected awakening of 'sisterly' sexuality, and the comic potential in such sibling rivalry (for the affections of the same girl) were all obvious subjects for refreshing comedic exploration, yet which at every turn the movie frustratingly shies away from.<br /><br />Instead, the audience is subjected to a meandering series of uninspired and insipidly drawn situations, with clichéd characterisations and dull performances from a cast struggling for belief and obviously in need of much tighter direction. The lack of directorial control seems astounding; on the one hand, Moynahan, Cavanagh and Spacek all give very pedestrian performances, while Heather Graham and Molly Shannon - the latter in particular - veer towards embarrassing over-compensation at times. One could lay the blame for this on the director - maybe Sue Kramer hopes that if her actors over-act, they will force a bigger laugh from the audience. But then again, the cast is a veteran one; one would expect them to do better.<br /><br />Sue Kramer really needs to think carefully what kind of movies she wants to make, and for whom. Given the possible issues Gray Matters alludes to, and given her inability or unwillingness to fully explore them in the context of a comedy, perhaps she should consider writing dramas instead. I know it is never easy to make films about women and women's issues, especially when one hopes to reach a wider audience than women alone, but whatever direction she takes, inconsequential and flimsy characters like Gray are not going to cut mustard.
I wish I'd known more about this movie when I rented it. I'd put it in my queue on the basis of Heather Graham and her strong cred as an actress (IMHO). While parts of the movie were charming, much of the movie felt contrived, undeveloped, or otherwise just boring or predictable. Not to mention the ICK factor of so many people thinking the sibs were a couple... I don't care how big a part of the story line that is, it still felt a bit, um, gross. And Charlie, for a zoologist, she certainly doesn't seem to be very attuned to signals from other Homo sapiens. What was it about her (besides her hotness and some common interests) that made Gray fall for her? The story could have been so much more interesting with a little more depth. High points - Molly Shannon (although I do agree with the reviewer who found her annoying on occasion), the cabbie in drag, and the dance sequences (if Sam & Gray were such great dancers, I wish we'd seen more of that, as the bits we were shown were indeed better than most of the rest of the movie). Could have been better.
This is one of the worst movies I have seen this year. You should not see this movie but if you insist on wasting your time you should stop here, there are SPOILERS. Gray Matters centers on Gray and Sam Baldwin (Heather Graham and Tom Cavanagh). Only Gray and Sam are Brother and Sister; living together in everyone else's eyes as man and wife. No sex but just about everything else. Early on, the movie starts with its theme: 'the most absurd thing at the most absurd moment with you guessed it the most absurd reactions'. Gray and Sam decided to check out the dog park with a borrowed pooch. Rather then push her brother to get the skinny on first woman they see for him, she does it and gets to the nitty-gritty questions too. When she signals her brother to come over they start a 3-way date. Charlie (Bridget Moynahan) is the girl of THEIR dreams, like all the right things etc… Sam final hits Gray over the head and the couple finishes the date with a marriage proposal! That Charlie accepts! In one week Charlie, Gray and Sam are to be in Vegas. In the next week Charlie and Gray are off shopping for wedding gowns (apparently Charlie has an off-the-rack figure). Gray is slurping an iced latte when Charlie suggests Gray tries on some gowns as well and picks out a $10,000 frock for her. While Charlie is zipping her in this 'down-payment-on-a-house' gown Gray continues to slurp on the latte (I swear it was like a feed bag). What should happen but 'woops!' latte all over the gown. It is never explained how they got out of Bloomingdale's bridal salon with out a $10,000 mocha colored gown. Back to 'reality' – Caesar's palace Las Vegas. They have the 'high roller room' (Sam is a resident surgeon and Charlie is an intern zoologist – were do they get all this money?) Gray kicks Sam out to the single room down the hall so she and Charlie can have a bachelorette drink-a-thon were, you guessed it - they kiss. Gray remembers everything; Charlie remembers nada. They make it to wedding chapel and right when the Reverend gets to his line "If there is anybody is here who has any objection whatsoever to the union of these two lovebirds" Gray gets the hiccups. Gray excuses herself, for some reason the Reverend must repeat his last line and right on queue again 'hiccups'. Gray gets back to NY and starts dating any man she meets, literally. And of course one is you guessed it again! Gay. The other is a jerk and the third is a taxi cab driver (Alan Cummings) named Gordy. He is smittened with Gray but the feelings are not returned. They become great friends. This is good because when she comes clean with Sam about the kiss. He blows up and kicks her out of their apartment. When Sam comes to his senses he goes to her office. Gray works at an ad agency. This office is smack in the middle of the twilight zone. It has cameras and microphones in all the conference rooms that broadcast to all computer monitors at the agency. Sam gets Gray in one of the conference rooms for a not-so-private conversation and ends up outing her to the entire office. This is where I doubt that there was a gay man or lesbian on the crew: Gordy comes to her rescue and convinces her to go to a lesbian bar. 'Sorry no men' says the bouncer. So Gray and Gordy return with Gordy in drag. Bad drag. He was in a sleeveless black satin-like blouse, a string of pearls, and a grandma's church hat. No lesbian would ever confuse this 'man in a dress' as a drag queen much less a woman. The bar was also the straight man's fantasy of what a lesbian bar is: full of Victoria's Secret models. Everything turns out peachy – she goes home with her firm's client. Gray happens to be on the woman's account and finally does more then kiss. For some reason no one tells Charlie anything and she is oblivious through the whole movie of this kiss with Gray, but that is for the sequel.
The first half of this movie is a pure delight. Novel. Funny. Wonderful performances. A close knit brother and sister living in Manhattan fall for the same woman! Adult. Bright. Witty. What more could you ask. As a romantic comedy this starts refreshing. It heads into unexplored territory. And then it falls apart.<br /><br />It goes from being a universal adult comedy to a coming-of-age coming-out-of-the-closet story that has been done many times before. What a disappointment. As a people film it begins with such promise. Why does it need to turn into such a pedestrian "I am who I am" film. The freeze-frame ending shot of Heather Graham's jumping in the air to celebrate "her happiness at finding herself" underlines the banality of the last part of the film.<br /><br />It could have been different. It could have been magical. It ended up being the same old same old.
I watched this movie yesterday and was highly disappointed.<br /><br />Heather Graham and Tom Cavanaugh basically had to carry this awkwardly unbelievable script for five hours (or however long it actually was). From the beginning, every single element of this movie is unbelievable. This movie made me chuckle several times, but they were mainly out of shock that the director/writer actually expected us to believe the many messy scattered elements that attempted to piece this movie together.<br /><br />The movie's focus is Gray (Graham) and her issues with intimacy. Things get interesting when she realizes that she and her brother have unexpectedly WAY too much in common.<br /><br />Interesting, intriguing. However, instead of unraveling this story into something believable and palatable, the director keeps taking Gray into these ludicrous twists that never actually make any sense at all. Being an LGBT individual, this movie seemed to echo what all heterosexuals think we go through in the coming-out process. (I'll be insulted if the writer's queer.) Had it not been for the cute chemistry between Cavanaugh and Graham (which, by the way, was understandably forced), I would give it a negative 3 stars.
It is important not to be insulted by lack of logic or common sense and those who have any "gray matters" will agree that this movie just doesn't work.<br /><br />The problems lay in the direction, cast selections and lack of depth in the character building. The word comedy was very hard thing to say when i expect to laugh when these words are used. Let's look at the problems in direction/script.<br /><br />Brother and sister both in their mid 30's seem to be well adjusted. They meet a complete stranger at a park and Heather Graham character walks up to her and asks the most intimate questions that even half sane person would be running the other way or at least scream for a police officer. He then awkwardly walks over and makes some stupid statements and she falls for him. Then after ONE date were they all go out together he falls in love with her and decides to get married in Vegas in a week's time???? Hello does anyone feel stupid yet? He goes out with thousands of women and he meets this one person who says about 10 words that WE see on the screen and he wants to marry her. Not only was there no chemistry it just doesn't make sense. Sure it's a romantic comedy and I want to believe it could, but the direction made it completely flat.<br /><br />Now Heather falls head over heels with her too and when Heather Graham and Bridget Moynahan (very shallow character) kiss or more to the point it was sloppiest kiss ever that chemistry MIGHT be there. I found it unromantic and unfunny and while many say Heather cannot act i think the reality is Heather was clearly the wrong person for this role. <br /><br />This was Sue Kramer debut as a director and to me it was just too much for her to chew. It would take a lot of craft to make this movie work and IMHO it could be done with better writers and casting and direction.
Okay, let me coin a new word here: polyphobia: The fear of polyamorous relationships. This is yet another in a long line of movies which start out by titillating audiences about some kind of threesome, only to turn on a dime and go all preachy about how it is oh so necessary and the only moral thing to find a monogamistic solution. Only one person in a thousand understands the delight of being able to love more than one person, and this director is not one of them. Bleh.<br /><br />Mark my words: a few decades from now, polyphobia is going to be just as big a faux-pas as homophobia, but guess who was too close-minded to realize this? Right the first time: the producers of this movie. And so many like it. Why even make a ridiculously conservative and old-fashioned type of movie like this? Priding itself on being limitlessly open-minded about gayness, it completely overlooks the fact that we live in an age where monogamy is turning into sequential monogamy, which in turn in turning into swinging and polyamory. Open your eyes, people, please!<br /><br />This is a disappointing, run-of-the-mill chick-flick. (But, damn, I gotta say, Heather Graham is the cutest thing alive.)<br /><br />3 out of 10.
Wow probable the worst movie i have ever seen!! This person should never make another movie!!I cant believe anyone would have produce this in good conscience.YOu have have wasted every cent. No concept of real life. I have wasted 2 hours of my life i will never get back. EVER!!! Everyone who worked on this show should be embarrassed!!!!!! I'm embarrassed for them! All of you should be ashamed. If i was gay i would want to tell the director that they have personally set back gay rights progress by 5 years. Please never watch this movie.I have never written a blogg about a film before but The distaste for this film has compelled me to do so.
OH MY GOD.. THE WORST SH*T I'VE EVER SEEN -this is the main thought which came into my mind right after watching the movie. And I really do not understand anybody with opposite myth. Though, maybe the idea was good but the effect miserable. I especially mean the role of H. Graham. What was that??? In my opinion it has destroyed all positive intentions of producers. The character was played in affected and annoying way. Every time she appears it reminds that you' re watching a movie and is destroying a spirit of the moment, then whole movie because the most time what you can see there are her stupid faces with more stupid attempts to create the emotion. TERRIBLE, don't waste your time.
I don't know who Sue Kramer, the director of this film is, but I have a strong suspicion that A) she is a lesbian and B) she somehow shamed everyone involved in this project to participate to prove they are not homophobic.<br /><br />I can imagine everyone thinking, "My God, this is horrible. Not funny. Pedestrian. Totally lame." But keeping their mouths shut for fear they will be labeled anti-gay or they "don't get" the gay lifestyle. (This is probably why Kramer did NOT cast gay people to play gay people too.) Anyway, it's not even worth reviewing. The actors are all directed to play every scene completely over the top so there is no sincerity or believability in anything they do. It's full of clichés and there is nothing about this movie that is the least bit amusing - much less funny.<br /><br />I hated it and I'm not afraid to say so. Too bad the gutless people who gave Kramer the money to make this bomb weren't as unbiased in their judgment.
Heather Graham couldn't play a convincing lesbian if her life depended on it. Who do the producers of the movie think they are? the ABSOLUTE WORST, most UNREALISTIC movie i've seen in as long as i can remember. This movie is so bad that i felt compelled to sign-up on IMDb and make sure the rating of this "film" drops.<br /><br />omg i'm Heather Graham, i just kissed a drunk chick, so while she's passed out i'm REALLY going to pace around my room for HOURS asking myself frantically "WHAT HAVE I DONE?!".. Jesus heather, get over it and grow up... and i'd like to forward that same sentiment to the idiot producers... and while i'm at it, instead of this movie being all about an pathetic excuse for a coming out story, perhaps it would have been more suitable to focus the plot onto a character who's mentally unstable... like your so-called "lesbian" character... after all, i know the first time i had gay sex, when i left the next morning i jumped to the sky in excitement in the middle of the street... honestly b*tch, get a grip... <br /><br />WHAT A JOKE! and please note there are many many many more flaws and appallingly stupid aspects to this lame flick, but i'm so sick of even thinking about it anymore. bottom line, if you're a smart person you'll hate this movie, and if you're not a smart person, then you'll love it... it's as simple as that.
I don't know what it was about this film that made me react so viscerally against it. Perhaps it was the characters who so unlikable and were not compelling enough to care about. Perhaps it was the disorganized storyline. Perhaps it was the fact that Rob Lowe wore a long dangly earring and eyeliner. Perhaps it was because at some point in the movie they all break out in song. Perhaps it was because the 1980s were never that 80s. Perhaps it was because everything was a garish hyperbole. Perhaps it was because a character pumps his fist while driving away from the camera during a fade out. I don't know what it was that made me hate it so, but if it means trying to watch it again I'm not willing to find out.
I noticed "Fire" was on cable the other night and I began watching it because I couldn't recall anything specific about it other than I remember it being a horrible film when I saw it back in '85. Twenty years later the film is still awful. Besides the synthesizer, the saxophone was the most abused instrument in pop music during the 1980s, as is evident in the title song. Hearing that song again made me want to jab a screwdriver in my ears to end the sonic misery inflicted upon them. And to compound this musical assault Rob Lowe's character played saxophone, and there was one scene where he played a solo that went on and on like he was Charlie Parker, only his shrill tone and playing were more reminiscent of a monkey playing a kazoo. All the characters were intensely unappealing, although I must say they did a great job of casting equally unappealing actors to portray them. Actually I thought Mare Winningham was appealing, and I initially felt sorry for her character because she wore funny underwear, but then near the end of the movie she decides to have sex with Rob Lowe's character who would probably be voted most likely to transfer a variety of sexual diseases if such thing were voted upon.
What happened in the making of this movie so that it ended up as the total mess it is? Just one year after "The Breakfast Club", a brilliant movie with many of the same actors as in "St. Elmo's Fire" (who by the way looked and acted in the latter more like they were still the high school misfits from the former but without the grip or discipline in portraying their roles.<br /><br />Was it the directing or the writing. Since it was the same person (Joel Schumacher) it must be both. But then Schumacher has since given us "The Phantom of the Opera", "Phone Booth", "A Time to Kill", and two Batman movies, "Batman and Robin" and "Batman Forever" which range from good to great directing. Something went wrong on "StEF" because it has no genius whatsoever, no comedy worth anything, and is very far off the mark on what is truly valuable in life. <br /><br />Example: The character Wendy (a rich little girl with a heart to do good and help the less fortunate played by Mare Winningham ) reveals to Billy (an unruly slob who cheats on his wife and on his girlfriends, drinks far too much and has no sense of order in his life appropriately played by Rob Lowe) that she is still a virgin. Billy truly see a challenge and possible conquest but Wendy "is not ready". Wendy, in fact is so not ready it is hard to believe she is in this clique of friends. Later in the story, when Billy whose wife has left him taken his child and married another has somehow drawn some of the strings of his life together. Billy is leaving for New York, deserting and abandoning all parental responsibility for his baby daughter, he convinces Wendy that her virginity would be the perfect "going away gift" from her to him. And Wendy, who works as a social worker helping broken families, seems not to be phased at all by this despot. Give me a break. The one thing she can only give once, she gives to a loser who is leaving his family and friends? Schumacher frames this scene as a wonderful and touching moment.<br /><br />Many more example exist where there is a complete disconnect between what is real and of value being tossed overboard and the acts are made to look like virtue.<br /><br />I suppose some may say that "that was the 80's" but I remember it was in the "80's" that men began to be held responsible for the children they fathered whether in a marriage or out.<br /><br />I think this movie is so bad because it is so out of sync with what it really valuable and right.<br /><br />As for the technique (not the story), it was terrible as well. It is disjointed and feels like a 3 hour movie that has been edited to 1 hour and 40 minutes. Transitions and jumps in time simply do not make sense. Pick up what is on the editing room floor, put it back in and the movie would probably flow much better...but it still is a horrible movie.<br /><br />Maybe Schumacher has become a better and stronger director since 1986 (he must have) or maybe he was over his head when it came to writing the screenplay for St Elmo's Fire or maybe this group of actors took over the set and went their own way - that is what I really think happened.
I saw this in the theater when it came out, and just yesterday I saw it again on cable. This I was able to reacquainted myself with the feeling of just how revolting this film is. The whole bunch of characters are self-absorbed narcisstic preeners. Worst of all, it reinforces every negative stereotype about 20-something dating, even as it purports to celebrate people "finding themselves". The nice guys finish last, the jerky guys make out great, the jerkiest guys do best. The girls are all boy toy pushovers. Only one character ("Wendy") is seen doing anything remotely useful to society, and she dispenses with her long-saved virginity in a throwaway one-night stand with a scumbag, in a lushly filmed scene that we're supposed to think is romantic. What this really is is Hollywood's concept of young America: permissive, detached, promiscuous, conceited.
I'll probably get a lot of flack for hating this movie- guess I didn't approach it with the proper dewy-eyed nostalgia of the generation before me. But suffice it to say- St Elmo's Fire was pretty crap-freaking- tastic, even as far as Brat Pack films go.<br /><br />Here is yet another lovely example of the smug, self-indulgent neurosis that is everything 80s (RENT, anyone?) The plot is virtually non- existent and the philosophies are kitchy at best, poorly delivered the rest of the time. The complete lack of anything resembling sympathetic characters doesn't help the situation. There really was no growth, no forward movement at all. Even the climactic suicide scene was effectually neutered by once again refusing to let death or anything resembling reality or adult life enter in. <br /><br />Each cookie cutter figure simply goes about making you hate them in the blandest, most predictable way possible. The Stalker is a creep for no discernible reason other than he is a Stalker and Andie MacDowell is gorgeous. The Jackass does everything in his power to constantly remind you he is, well, a jackass. The Gorgeous Slut hides really soulful, deep pain with a wild lifestyle. The Poet moods and mopes around for a full 3/4 of the film until he can reveal (!) he actually is full of teddy bears and sunshine and rainbows. The Virgin finally becomes a whole, happy human being after getting every Virgin's desire of one hot roll in the sack with a Jackass before he ditches her to really change (for real this time). The Cheating Bastard cheats until it is time for him to get caught. And finally The Feminist go around dousing holy water on any soul that utters "commitment".<br /><br />Which brings me to my final beef- what bond of super-cement was holding these people together as friends? I can't imagine being with just one of them- Now think of the vortex created by all that narcissism centered in one bar. And they were all so terrible to each other- heads in toilets, near rape, and sleeping around with everrrryone. The cherry was after two BFFs act like total baboons after screwing the Feminist, she's like, "umm, actually I don't want to be with either of you anymore. Let's be friends! And we can hang out in a totally unawkward way every day knowing that I may hook up with one or the other at any given point, but neither of you are satisfying enough for commitment (NOT THAT WORD!)." And they all smile as if to say, "Golly gee, I never thought of that! What a great idea!"<br /><br />Only it's not. Kinda in the way that watching this movie is not.
St. Elmo's Fire has no bearing on life after university at all (for the majority of us common folk anyway). Why was this garbage even made? Who can really relate to this? Who lives like these characters? I truly feel sorry for the actors having to deal with such a terrible script. There are some talented young actors in this "film" that have done a good job elsewhere. It must have just been one whole joke to them on set.<br /><br />I actually found this "film" insulting to my intelligence. The only joy I got from this is hoping that Sir John Hughes had a good ol' laugh when he saw a screening of this the same year his masterpiece of The Breakfast Club was released.<br /><br />Don't make the same mistake I did of watching this because you enjoy 80's films. It really is that offensive to the genre.
I think I've seen this sort of thing before: college graduates not realizing they have it pretty damn good, all the while, complaining that their lives suck.<br /><br />This movie is highly derivative of The Big Chill and Reality Bites from what I can make of it: they practically have the same plot.<br /><br />If anything good came out of this snore-fest, it was the music. That was it.<br /><br />As far as I'm concerned, I'm not impressed... but then again, I never expected anything less. This movie was directed by the same person that directed Batman and Robin; another movie that should only be viewed with a blindfold in tow.<br /><br />Now for the verdict: it's a 1 out of 10.
Joel Schumaker directs the script he co-wrote and has a group of Georgetown grads confronted with adult life situations. The story line is a scrambled mess, but some scenes are actually good. There is a lot of wasted talent and time here. The cast is more impressive than the movie. Featured are Demi Moore, Rob Lowe, Judd Nelson, Andrew McCarthy, Emilio Estevez, Ally Sheedy and Mare Winningham. The most notable being McCarthy and Moore. Lowe is quite obnoxious. Coming of age is not so damn easy.
The youthful group in "St. Elmo's Fire" who just graduated from college barely seem able to make it through high school much less four years at any prominent university. For the most part, these kids are irresponsible, selfish, greedy and stupid, yet co-writer and director Joel Schumacher appears to hold them up as touchstones for a generation. With a now-outdated cast of "up and comers", a background score that sounds awfully similar to that of "Terms Of Endearment", and writing which lords the smugness of this circle over us, "Fire" is a paltry blaze, one that gets even more embarrassing as the years pass on. *1/2 from ****
The fact that this movie has been entitled to the most successful movie in Switzerland's film history makes me shake my head! It's true, but pitiful at the same time. A flick about the Swiss army could be a good deal better.<br /><br />The story sounds interesting, at the beginning: Antonio Carrera (Michael Koch) gets forced to absolve his military training by the army while he is in the church, wedding his love Laura Moretti (Mia Aegerter).<br /><br />The Acting in some way doesn't really differ from just a few recruits getting drunk and stoned in the reality. Melanie Winiger plays her role as the strong Michelle Bluntschi mediocre, personally i found her rather annoying. <br /><br />The storyline contains a comedy combined with a romance, which does not work as expected. The romance-part is too trashy, and the comedy-part is not funny at all, it's just a cheap try and does not change throughout the whole movie whatsoever. It's funny for preadolescent 12-13 year olds, but not for such as those who search an entertaining comedy. The humor is weak except for some shots.<br /><br />Dope? Cool! Stealing? Cool! If you want a proper comedy about the Swiss RS, make sure you did not absolve your military training yet, and even then don't expect too much!<br /><br />I'll give it 4 out of 10 stars, because Marco Rima is quite funny during his screen time. Not a hell of a lot screen time though
Well, AWFUL is just the first name. This movie is a cliché-ridden piece of junk. A high school comedy setup in a military training camp. I'm sorry I had to give this 1 star which it did not deserve.<br /><br />THIS MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS:<br /><br />Just about everything is totally forced, unconvincing and unrealistic. The HEPO (military police) will not come to get you if you don't make your appearance, especially not on your wedding day. The actors were pretty embarrassed during this scene, because the scene didn't work as it was so highly unlikely. You can sense it in their voices. Even if they were not such bad actors, they wouldn't have been able to save the scene. <br /><br />Next the guy has to exercise in his wedding suit. No, there was no time to get him an uniform first. Man, this is great cinematography! I will remember this scene for the rest of my life.<br /><br />There are also GIRLS in the camp--exciting--one of'em even a model, though not looking that great--and the baddest actress I've ever seen. I doubt in Hollywood they would let her say a single line in a B movie. <br /><br />Okay girls in the military! Now this is getting fun. The girls are even placed on the same floor, so we can sneak to their room at night! In reality they would be placed in a different building a quarter mile away, separated by two fences with barbed wire. <br /><br />There are tanks available we can use for a fun ride in our spare time, of which we have plenty. No, the tanks are not locked, and the ignition keys are inserted. No one will notice the engine sounds, especially not at night.<br /><br />There is a bunch of sex scenes and references and all are below the waste line. We need those so the sexually obsessed Germans will like the movie as well. Switzerland is too small a market for any feature film. Well done!<br /><br />One sex scene takes place in the kitchen. Surely, none of those facilities are ever locked. The military routines are as sloppy as they can get.<br /><br />In the end of the brainless flick, the mafia hit men are about the take revenge on the poor guy trying to shoot him! Because he deserted his fiancée! Sure I buy that, the Italians are that way--a jealous bunch (not). <br /><br />The bad guys attempt to do this in open daylight with two dozen eyewitnesses. Not at night in a dark alley. Again, military training grounds (where there is shooting with live ammo) are open to the public, anyone can freely drive or walk in there. There are no such things as guards or fences. <br /><br />The deed however is prevented by the good captain timely launching a rocket into the Italians' car. The explosion knocks the hit men and the enraged fiancée off their feet. No one in 40 feet distance is hurt when the car is blown to smithereens. It's a COMEDY, remember.<br /><br />Okay. It's a comedy, I got that, and I can live with that. No realism needed. Filmmakers can easily get way with this if it is hilariously, side splitting funny, or entertaining, interesting, challenging. Unfortunately it is none of those. It's just embarrassing. A rip-off from brainless American comedies. The latter are at least done professionally, with no amateur actors.<br /><br />It is pretty boring and predictable, a waste of time and energy, especially to those sitting through the entire movie as I unfortunately did. Yawn.
This film makes "American Pie" a sophisticated movie! No further comment needed. Humor is cheap, dialogues are stupid and the cast is awkward. Every cliché is used several times without any original twist. And far the worst, the movie turns out to be more catholic than the Pope. It's so sad.
Seriously - avoid this movie at any cost. I just saw it in my first "sneak preview" ever and although I paid non-refundable money for it, I walked out of the cinema after a mere 15 minutes. Which already includes 2 minutes of discussion among my friends whether or not to leave. First time EVER I walked out of a movie. And I lived through some pretty bad ones.<br /><br />It's one of those films that is dubbed (and badly so) even though it is shown in its original language. It relies on the oldest, simplest and cheapest jokes in the book. On the military ("What do we do once we reach the fighting zone?" - "You get out of the car and die"; actually, it's much funnier to read here that the way it was delivered in the film), on drugs (a guy eats some "space cookies", behaves really silly and misses his wedding or has to live through it while high - all badly written and acted), on women in the army ("Why do we only get trumpets? We were promised guns!" - "That's the way it is, that's the way it'll stay")... Argh. Okay, you might actually find these genuinely funny, but in that case you seriously scare me.<br /><br />Additionally, I have seen better acting in the kind of soft porn films you get on European late night TV. So it had lame jokes (delivered badly), beyond lower average acting, lacked pace, was badly dubbed and edited – It just didn't work. At least not on any level used as a measure for films.<br /><br />I would even be so bold as to say that this flick proves that there are people who can be a lot less funny zan zee Germans. And that's saying something if you like stereotypes. (Which I don't, it's nice to play with them, though. Just in case somebody thinks I'm not being PC enough.)<br /><br />Instead of going to see this film, do something useful. Try to teach crocheting to prawns, paint your toenails in a really irritating colour, disassemble your bicycle, change some light bulbs, try to understand Einstein's theories, convert to a different religion and back - in fact, go and listen to "Last Christmas" by Wham! on endless repeat. Anything, but don't watch this awful flick.
This film is so bad, you can't imagine. The acting is terrible, even worse than in third class soap operas. An it is a shame that this movie was the most successful in the past 20 years in Switzerland. The interactions between the soldiers didn't make any sense at all. The story could have been taken out from a bravo photo-story, the dialogues were as wooden as Treebeard and the plot holes were bigger than the black hole in the middle of our galaxy. But nowadays it doesn't need much to satisfy the audience. The actors were handsome for example the former Miss Switzerland and the main character was even hung (woah!!) and there certainly was much abuse of drugs. That's real cool man! Particularly for 12 and 13 year old teens. But the media created an atmosphere in witch you was not allowed to reject the film because they manipulated the peer group dynamics by telling implicitly that you are a nerd if you don't go along with the other `sheep' and say.yes that is exactly what it was like when I was in the army/ that's exactly what I'm going to do when I must go to the army.. to every cheesy action that had to do with drugs and coolness. And don't think I like the army. I was there and I hated it but this film is worse than cleaning up the sticky toilet with a teeth brush (which I was forced to do because I offended an lieutenant) It is not necessary for every film to be sophisticated. Sometimes you only want to be entertained for a few hours and forget about problems and I think its not a bad thing. But this kind of films influence teenagers to much by showing them a cool lifestyle which in fact is only stupid and turns them into brainless ignorant and egocentric idiots. But since I now that my opinion isn't very popular I will be quiet now and recommend you to avoid this terrible flick at any costs and for that to save your wits!<br /><br />2/10<br /><br />(sorry for my bad English)
The story line has been rehashed a number of times; "a breath of life in the retirement home". Several plays, movies, novels, short stories, poems and news articles have beat the subject to no end, but it's still an excellent platform for character studies.<br /><br />If 'Gideon' was crafted more enthusiastically it could be brilliant, but the dialogue is painfully boring and the story is absolutely flooded with cliches (even the subtitle and summary of Gideon's "simple wisdom" almost made me laugh in its ineffectiveness). Mostly indifferent acting is the final straw for this weak film, but the rest of it is bland enough to make the actors' lack of focus almost irrelevant.
Christopher Lambert is annoying and disappointing in his portrayal as GIDEON. This movie could have been a classic had Lambert performed as well as Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump, or Dustin Hoffman as Raymond Babbitt in RAIN MAN, or Sean Penn as Sam Dawson in I AM SAM.<br /><br />Too bad because the story line is meaningful to us in life, the supporting performances by Charlton Heston, Carroll O'Connor, Shirley Jones, Mike Connors and Shelley Winters were excelent. 3 of 10.
Really started the 80s trend of disgusting violence masquerading as a "horror film". I was the target audience for this repellent piece of trash and I was disgusted then as now.<br /><br />Oh, where do we start. Let's see, the setup: You can bring people back to live IF they died a violent death. So that laughably weak premise is the excuse to butcher people in horrible ways, because, well, that's needed to bring them back to life! This might have worked if played over the top for black laughs a la Re-Animator or something. But no, it's played straight. There is a whole terrified family in a wagon that gets hunted down, one of the few scenes at least where their demise is off screen. However, just about everything else is on screen. There is actually a scene where a young girl walking along is beaten and killed by zombie townspeople, who are all filming it and grinning with several cameras. Then, there is a closeup of her face as the filmmakers lovingly--and time consumingly--reveal in time-lapse photography her beaten face being carved down to a skull and rebuilt to look "normal" again. This done, of course, by a slumming Jack Albertson as the mortician behind it all. He likes to drive around in a ambulance/hearse playing old Tommy Dorcey tunes, I guess that is supposed to be cute.<br /><br />In the end, of course, even the Sheriff is undead and the doctor offers kindly to fix his rotting hands. Not clear why the Sheriff is not out with the other townspeople killing children with glee and slicing their faces off, sticking needles in burn-victims eyes, etc.<br /><br />I wonder, really wonder, what people see in a geek show like this to give it any kind of rating at all. It's not scary, the twists are laughable, and overall it's kind of sick. It's not even well enough done to "see it on a dare" or enjoy on a level you might watch a bad HG Lewis film. It's just God-awful trash, made for people who get off on this type of pointless gore, and made by people slumming for a paycheck.<br /><br />Sad that Albertson was even involved.
This was just plain terrible. I read this book for school, i made As on all of the tests, and to see it like this! My teacher forced me and 20 other people to watch it, and it was worse than Leonard Part 6, Plan 9 from Outer Space, and Hudson Hawk put together. The thing that made this film so terrible was enough reasons to want to kill yourself over. First of all, it was made on Hallmark. Second, the acting was terrible. Third, it was like completely different from the book. Literally, it was so bad I asked myself to be excused. Basically, I would rather watch Basic Instinct 2 than watch this. Take my advice, don't watch this film. No one would want to watch this. It was horrible. HORRIBLE!
This movie is a perfect example of an excellent book getting ruined by a movie. Jacob Have I Loved is quite possibly the worst film that I have ever seen. There is no storyline, plots disappear, and the editing is awful. To top it all off, the music is straight from a synthesizer and sounds unbelievably terrible. Bridget Fonda's acting is decent, but everyone else's acting is totally amateur. I would suggest this movie to someone who is studying to be a producer as a study on how not to produce a movie as it is chock full of bad cut-scenes, bad transitions and acting that should have been re-shot! Read the book and don't waste your time with this film.
But I got over it. To me, it seemed that even the Author of the book favored Caroline. I felt so sorry for the character Louise, and she was constantly compared with Esau who was evil, I just felt the comparison was a bit harsh and un-realistic. Really though, the movie was bad. I wouldn't really see it unless you're ready for a big let down.
I had to watch this in school. And to sum it up...<br /><br />Talentless actors, talentless script, and a talentless director.<br /><br />This movie is such a waste of your time. Don't even watch the movie. Don't bother. You will be so disappointed. My teacher said it was supposed to be good. How wrong she was. She even slept through it a little. The movie's actors were just bad. The best actor in there was the old man and that's not saying much. It's has horrible plot with awful characters. So unrealistic and I can honestly said it had no point. The script was unemotional and confusing. There was points in the movie when I furrowed my brows and said, "What?". Also there were just too many loose ties and plot holes. It was just absolutely horrendous.
It's kind of fascinating to me that so many reviewers consider this a masterpiece. I am not a dullard as far as quality films go, and I will agree that from a technical filming standpoint, as well as for several of the characters portrayed, the film is in an award-worthy class. But there is no sense (for me) of this film actually going anywhere; I mean, taking the viewer anywhere. It is a series of mood scenes, perhaps remarkable as such, but I want more from a film. I look for story and movement and a fulfillment of arrival, none of which did I find in this film. Yes, it might be considered poetry on film . . . but there is much poetry that I cannot live with for the same reason: that it paints pictures without going anywhere.<br /><br />One thing further to be said is that it documents a mid-century English childhood, which is necessarily limited in its universality. I was personally appalled at what a young British boy had to live through, in that time and place. Having grown up in America just a decade earlier, I can authoritatively say that the contrast is immense. I cannot help wondering if this contrast has had some effect on those reviewing the film so favorably. In other words, could there be a tendency to judge the film entirely on its 'filmic magic' (which I acknowledge is there) and completely ignore its lack of relevance to the nature of one's actual recalled experience?
i love horror films, low budget, 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's.. but how can anyone think this is a very good horror film? let's compare it to titles in a similar vein- haunted house films. the haunting, the changeling, the shining. or for a similar technology based horror film that was FAAAR better, (though still FAR from great) Demon Seed. OK, i'll be fair.. let's compare it to made-for-TV horror films! don't go to sleep.. waaay creepier and better done. salem's lot, the night stalker, night gallery, even don't go in the basement or crowhaven farm were far better. *SPOILERS* first of all, for as good a scene as the bloody shower scene was, you have a scene like the opening scene.. oh boy! the garden hose comes alive to hose down some frisky teenagers! TERRIBLE. also, just what we understand about the house.. it apparently needs to use its video cameras to see what is going on, and it's a very emotional house. not a spirit, or demon, or entity, it's a house thats "possessed", but by what? we are led to believe an inanimate object learned to love suzie/margaret, our protagonist? now that I'm on the topic of suzie.. another scene that totally bothered me, this poor old crazy lady comes, tells you she was your nurse, pours her heart out, falls in the boiling pool, struggling in agony for 45 seconds, and what does margaret do? does she risk her hands being burnt to save this poor elderly woman that came there to warn her's life? no, she stands there and watches! the acting for the most part was better than average for a horror film, but that's where the positives end. for at least a more interesting, and fun horror film about an inanimate object that kills people watch death bed: the bed that eats. i have a feeling the people who rated this so highly either haven't watched it since it originally aired, or remembered it scaring them as children. this film was pretty much merit less.
Exactly what you would expect from a B-Movie. Deritive, gratuitous nudity, boring in parts, ridiculous gore and cheesy special-effects. Of course it could have been better, better acted (defintly) better written, directed, etc. But then I guess it wouldn't have been a B movie. The actors pretty much sucked, in fact this pretty much seemed like an episode of buffy the vampire slayer or something except with a lot of blood, profanity and nudity.<br /><br />Tiffany Shepis must be singled out. She absolutely is the scream queen of the new millennium. Not that acting really matters in these movies, but she was better than any of the other actors. She's also smokin hot, in that plastic jump suit thing she wore for the whole movie - wow! Her posterior is absolutely stunning in that outfit, I mean it every single time she turns around you can help but check her out. And near then end of the film the viewer is rewarded with seeing her completely nekked.<br /><br />So if your a looser b-movie horror buff (like myself), check this out. If not, you should probably avoid at all costs.
The script was VERY weak w/o enough character arcs to make you care one bit about the characters or what happens to them. The script is way too talky and not enough gore or action to even call it slow paced. The story gets to the point that you just want everyone to shut up and die as quickly as possible so you don't have to listen to them talk this very muted, stiff dialogue. On a technical note, the music mix is way to high and makes it hard to understand what is being said most times. Then again, this could be called a blessing. Overall, this same story could have better been told in a short film w/ a running time under 30 minutes. The obvious "in your face" homages to Sam Raimi and "Evil Dead" would have been good had they been more subtle, but here they seem more like a bald faced rip off. C'mon, this kind of 35mm budget and THIS is the best that could be done? Still, the cinematography, lighting design and shots were very well done indeed.
The Hazing is confused mumbo-jumbo that wants so hard to be The Evil Dead that it even references Bruce Campbell several times. The problem is, it is simply not in the same league as that terrific movie. This movie is nowhere near as original. The plot has been used before, by Kevin Tenney in Night of the Demons, and that was a lot more fun. This flick wastes too much time with complicated exposition before getting the kids into the spooky mansion and starting the demonic happenings.<br /><br />Brad Dourif is, as usual, not given much to do here, but when he is on screen he puts in another over-the-top performance that would make Christopher Walken jealous. As for the acting of the kids, it's passable but by no means good. The shaky camera work is more annoying than clever or atmospheric. There are a few good moments when the first guy gets possessed and throws around some deadly one liners while dispatching his victims, but it was never scary for a second. The gore level is mid-range to low, but the director tries to make up for it by showing the actresses topless a few times. All in all, just okay if you have 87 minutes to waste.
i cannot believe i wasted 80 minutes of my life watching this terrible film i kept hoping it was going to get better by the end but boy was I wrong. The plot was abysmal , the acting was extremely poor and the special effects were awful. Not even the 2 beautiful girls could revive my interest in this boring and bloody mess. However i cannot lie ,some of the lines in this film were quite memorable such as when the Asian boy says '' i lost my virginity to the babysitter so f**** stereotypes ''<br /><br />please do not waste your time with this crash unless u are prepared or want to have a good laugh .. maybe that way u can watch it to rip this movie with some mates
I saw this movie primarily to see Brooke Burke (as Jill), who I had meet briefly in LA at a modeling trade show, in her first feature film. I was hoping to see more of her, but thought she did very well acting her role. Since she is such a beautiful and poised TV host, and model, it was not surprising. I was left wondering why she was killed, and what happened as a result. Maybe I just missed it.<br /><br />I wasn't really sure about the genre of this movie, and although I liked the actors I felt like it was for a college audience. I tried to keep an open mind considering horror wasn't my favorite genre, but felt like I had outgrown the gags. It seemed to drag out in some places, leave you guessing in some places about what powers the evil professor had, and, like a lot of other films had an unsatisfying ending.<br /><br />Having written a couple of scripts, I know a lot of this is difficult and may come down to personal opinions, how many movies you have seen & studied, and those you relate with at a point in time.<br /><br />In a nutshell, I found it interesting, but not a satisfying plot and ending for me. If Jill (Brooke Burke) would have returned through the portal in the end and kicked everyone's ass that would be a satisfying ending and would earn a higher rating.
This was truly dreadful! It had a terrible storyline, was poorly acted, and was like an amateur remake of evil dead but not nearly as good.<br /><br />It took all my tenacity to make it through this one, it's a good job I didn't have to visit the toilet else I doubt I would have come back! This one makes Hammer House of Horror look like a big screen Hollywood epic. <br /><br />The only value to this movie was the never ending supply of beautiful women. Not a bad one among them! <br /><br />If you want to letch with your friends after a night on the beer then this one's for you ... else avoid it like the plague!
The master of cheap erotic horror, Rolfe Kanefsky, finally makes a movie that doesn't go straight to the Playboy Channel. "The Hazing" borrows heavily from everything that came before it from Nightmare on Elm Street to Evil Dead, but still manages to do it with enough humor to make it watchable... just barely. The characters are cardboard, the dialogue is wooden, the story is paper-thin and the actors couldn't act their way out of a grocery bag. Put that all together and you have a pulpy ball of mulch for a movie. Sometimes, when I'm bored, I like to eat paper. Watching this movie is a lot like that. Chew on it for 90 minutes and you're left with a weird taste in your mouth and no nutritional value.
Not exactly a new story line, but this romantic comedy makes the concept work. A young man(John Cusack) and a drop dead gorgeous woman(Kate Beckinsale)keep meeting by chance and wonder if they are meant for each other. Although both are promised to others...oddly enough they still feel that their soul mate is out there somewhere. A little sappy in some places, but viva la love. Being a romantic I am almost obligated to be riveted. My favorite scene is where Cusack is on the ground and snow starts falling. The finale is almost too sweet, but most deserving. This is not one of Cusack's deeper roles, but who in the hell could not be smitten by Beckinsale. Notable support is provided by Jeremy Piven and Molly Shannon. John Corbett plays the worst role I've ever seen him in. On the other hand Eugene Levy is quirky and funny. Watch this with your soul mate.
Oh, for crying out loud, this has got to be the LAMEST movie I've seen all year, and I'm sorry the normally awesome John Cusack was even involved in this brainless, twitty piece of Stupidity. Where Sleepless in Seattle delivered what amounts to be the same message, albeit on a more subtle, somewhat more mature level, Serendipity delivers it with a sledgehammer, and then proceeds to pound it into your psyche for the next tedious hour and a half or so (and that's an hour and a half of my life I'll never get back again, thank you very much!!). It's bad enough the main characters of this movie have the emotional maturity level of fourteen-year-olds (actually I've known better fourteen-year-olds...), except maybe for Jeremy Piven, who was enjoyable enough. Just the first 15 minutes or so of the movie where Kate Beckinsale's character plays that annoying silliness of a game about throwing all sensibility to the wind (literally) had my best friend and I irritated beyond belief. I told my husband Rockstar had more intelligence, and at least, the characters in Rockstar weren't half as dysfunctional as the idiots were in this "Serendipitous" mess. It's annoying to watch protagonists who seem to have no clue about choice in their lives, and feel they're nothing more than puppets to destiny and the whims of fate. How utterly tiresome. I'm sure this movie will be more likely enjoyed by those who'd rather not engage in the chaotic messiness of making more complex life choices and then responsibly living with the consequences. After all, here's a movie where our hero and heroine live happily ever after only after wreaking havoc and misery on two other people's lives (namely their respective fiancées), not to mention other relatives and friends, just to get there.<br /><br />
Wow, I can't believe people consider this a 'good' movie. Now, I have seen much worse, but there are much more romantic/funny comedies with John Cusack.<br /><br />This is a mediocre film at best. While the acting wasn't terrible, but not great, for a romantic comedy, there was little passion, little romance. There were many loose ends that don't show up or are not addressed. Unfortunately, the main characters do come off as complete cowards. They don't know themselves well enough to realize that they don't love the people they are engaged to. How do we know they aren't in love? By the utter lack of remorse both characters have for leaving their finances. I can think of few things more romantic than the continual escape from commitment that these two show.<br /><br />The movie doesn't even end with a wedding scene, more than likely both will get cold feet and drop each other like hot potatoes once a commitment is nearing. This movie is really about two people who can't commit to anything, unlike Cusack's previous characters, who were more than willing to make a deep commitment (Loyd in Say Anything, Martin in Grosse Pointe Blank, etc.).<br /><br />The greatest failure of this movie was the complete lack of any twists turns, or anything of interest. When the movie ended, I felt like they had failed to include a climax to the story, which basically fits the whole movie: boring. No suspense about whether the two will end up together, no joy when they do, no consequences to their actions.<br /><br />It is sad that people are so blind to the shoddiness of this movie, that they simply rebuke any criticism with 'Everyone is too Cynical!'. Criticism of this movie is not cynicism, simply unbiased examination. There are many other better romantic comedies, even ones with Grace Kelly, or Eva Marie Saint.<br /><br />If you think this movie is great, try these movies, you hearts will explode: The Princess Bride, Say Anything, Grosse Pointe Blank, High Fidelity, Keeping the Faith, Charade, Rear Window, North by Northwest, or There's Something About Mary (which is a good examination of idealized romance vs. today's society).
For years I remember reading about this show "Trouble With Tracy" in the TV Guide. CFTO-TV Toronto every Saturday morning at 6 am! I lived about a two-hour drive north of Toronto and we couldn't get CFTO, but you know how it is - we always want what we can't have.<br /><br />Well, I knew what I wanted and what I wanted was to see what this "Trouble With Tracy" was all about. Did it have a beautiful girl in the starring role? Was there nudity? Was there suspense? Was it a comedy? It would've been fine if there was some promotion of the show. At least I could've known what I was missing. But, NO! The mystery drove me bonkers, until CTV affiliate CKCO built a re-transmitter in Wiarton, Ontario and began to broadcast "Trouble With Tracy" at the same time as CFTO....Saturday mornings at 6 am!! One Saturday morning I got up and turned the TV on at 5:59 and at last I got to see what "The Trouble With Tracy" was. Yes, the "Trouble With Tracy" was that it was Canadian content and stuck in the harmless 6 am spot so no one would ever see how awful it was.<br /><br />Talented Canadian Actor Steve Weston died a few years afterward, but many would argue he effectively "died" the first time he appeared on this show. When I saw it for the first time that cold Saturday morning and fell despondent back into my bed, part of me died, too.
CRIME BOSS is directed by Alberto De Martino; an Italian crime drama partially filmed in Hamburg, Germany. An easily forgotten movie. Even in spite of a good car chase sequence, this flick seems to lumber on almost aimlessly. A new Don takes over a powerful Mafia family and finds himself fighting for his own life. Unwritten laws and ethics of the Mafia code make it hard to trust in anyone especially when millions of dollars are at stake. Brutality and violence breed the same in return. This can not be put on a shelf with the real gangster epics. Just the look of the film brings back memories of American drive-in fare. Even the popular American actor Telly Savalas can't boost the calibre of this crime drama. Antonio Sabato also stars with:Paola Tedesco, Guido Lollobrigida, Serio Tramonti and Piero Morgia.
Kojak meets the mafia. Telly Savales is one of those guys from the past that seems pretty forgettable. I never thought that his show was all that great. This is his one dimensional characterization of a crime boss, with very predictable results. If you take the car chases and the general rambling out, there isn't much plot development or action. I find mafia movies to be dull because I have no respect or interest in common criminals and their actions. Hollywood, and in this case, the Italian cinema, treat these guys as heroes. I saw the film and in a few days I won't remember much about it. Lots of shooting, innocent bystanders dying, betrayal, and that sick loyalty. The film is photographed pretty well and the acting is decent. But the dubbing is so bad (due to voices that just couldn't come out of those bodies), that I almost started looking for Godzilla approaching the bay.
This is a review of 'Freddy Mercury The Untold Story,' theatrical release, Chicago Int. Film Festival, 2007 One of the phoniest, uninspired and most tedious biographical documentaries I have seen. If the film I saw in a movie theater was originally released on TV, I would plead with its producers and distributors to not fool a paying audience with the false promise of a cinematically worthy documentary feature. Even as a made-for-TV documentary, the sentimental piano solos accompanying interviewees sitting in front of flower arrangements in hotel rooms and the pompous, pseudo-literary narration rang more true of a sleepapedic bed Infomercial. The only redeeming aspects of this "The Untold Story of Freddy Mercury" -- or, uhm, was it "The Untold Story of Princess Diana" are the original concert, video and TV footage -- unabridged Freddy Mercury and Queen. Testimonial interviews with irrelevant eye witnesses with insights, such as: "He was a free spirit," (really.. I thought Freddy Mercury was a company man...) belittle those Freddy testimonials, by Brian May or Montserrat Caballe that shed new and affectionate light into Mercury's complex life and character. And... what up with the Harry Potter-like boarding school segments? How did the interview with the first girl-crush ("...who now works in a travel agency") and members of Freddy's first school band contribute to what I really want to know about Mercury? Vital milestones of his personal life, his sexuality, his artistic style and growth, Queen, the band remain unexplored. These filmmakers don't ask a single, provocative question, nor do they engage in independent or visionary research of their subject, instead delivering a tedious montage of politely clean and vastly empty comments about an enigmatic and brilliant rock legend, who doesn't deserve to be remembered by this History Channel biography your grandparents can doze off to on a Sunday night.
Yeah, I "get" Pasolini and his milieu, but at the same time, I feel his "Decameron" is largely overrated, and more than a little disturbing. Overrated because the supposed "realism" he introduces (milling crowds, crumbling architecture, etc.) are mooted by the absurd and downright goofy way that the characters behave. In the pursuit of realism, Pasolini utilized many non-actors, but their deer-in-the-headlights stares and painfully awkward line delivery gives the whole a terribly off-kilter and inconsistent feel. And frankly -- many of the toothless, misshapenly-featured people are painful to look at.<br /><br />And Pasolini's "Decameron" is disturbing (to me at least) because of the casual and prevalent homosexual content. Not because I'm prudish or homophobic (I'm neither) but because the emphasis that Pasolini places upon homoerotic images and situations is contrary to the neo-realism he otherwise espouses, so it comes off as gratuitous and forced. One can almost hear him say "Ooh--I've got to stick a cute, naked boy in this scene!" At times it seems that Pasolini is trying to play up the homosexual angle to thumb his nose at critics, and at other times because he enjoys that aspect himself, regardless of what his audience might prefer.<br /><br />The disjointedness of the 9 or 10 different stories in Pasolini's "Decameron" struck me as being a failing of Pasolini as a storyteller, rather than being an aspect of neo-realism. He seems to get bored with each story and so he wraps them up rather unconvincingly and with little conviction. Even the Pasolini's final line of dialog in the film, which some people seem to find pithy ("Why create a work of art when dreaming about it is so much sweeter?") -- to me, it just makes me wonder why Pasolini would bother making a film if he felt this way? In my opinion, a far better-crafted film (and with MORE homosexual content) is Fellini's "Satyricon". It is also full of bizarre-looking people and absurd situations, but it succeeds because of its pacing, direction and strong storytelling whereas "Decameron" fails by those same elements.
Though the title may suggest examples of the 10 commandments, it is a definitely incorrect assumption. This is an adaptation of 9 SEEMINGLY unrelated stories from Giovanni Bocaccio's 14th century "Decameron" story collection.<br /><br />Set within a medieval Italian town's largely peasant population, it is a diatribe on the reality of sex (and its consequences) within that world and time. A realistic view of Life within this world, it sometimes feels like a journey back in time.<br /><br />Given the depicted human element of its time, one can also see the more adventurous side of morality in its protagonists - as well as the ironies of Life, at times. Or it may also be viewed as a general satire of the Catholic Church's rules.<br /><br />Nothing terribly special, but definitely interesting if one comes with no expectations or assumptions.
The tragedy is that this piece of rubbish was part of my curriculum while I was studying cinema. So imagine how I was forced to watch it in complete. Believe me going through hell is much much easier. Our professor told us that this is some film ???, but he never thought that we'd disagree or assume the apposite. I don't think that there is any gods on earth, we're only humans, so all the filmmakers, therefore they CAN make mistakes, bad movies.. Or very bad too. The main problem wasn't that art, by all means, is susceptible to endless points of view, but that a lot of people just don't get it, that every single human got his own genuine taste, his own opinion, hence what I suppose it the greatest movie ever made, can also be your worst one ever, and how that is right both ways, but how many people can understand this correctly?. So my professor believes in this movie, and simply I don't. However, the only way to evaluate this "thing" is by measuring it by its original intent to show us different kinds of old folk stories or whatever to catch on this society's mentality, imagination, and nature. To tell you the damn truth Mr. Pier Paolo Pasolini as the scriptwriter and the director made it too unbearable to watch in the first place. The movie is so UGLY. I can't stand this, so how about analyzing it, then discovering the potential beauty in it !! It's beyond your mind hideousness, and strangely not for the sake of the movie's case or anything, it's for the sake of the unstable vision of (Pasolini). His work is so primitive to underdeveloped extent. The deadly cinematic technique, the effective sense of silliness, and the incredible horribleness made everything obnoxious. Look at the atrocious acting, the unfruitful cinematography, the awfully poor sets, .. OH MY GOD I've got the nausea already. It can terminate your objectivity violently as watching this movie is one true pain like taking the wisdom tooth off by a blind doctor. There are dreadful nightmares which could be more merciful than this. So originally, how to continue THAT just to review it fairly ? Actually, you don't. As this very movie doesn't treat you fair at all. There is really memorable scene in here where some boys are peeing into the eye of the camera (!) I'm trying to connect some things like that with Pasolini's end as murdered.
Although I am generally a proponent of the well-made film, I do not limit myself to films which escape those boundaries, and more often than not I do enjoy and admire films that successfully "break the rules." And it is quite true that director Pasolini breaks the rules of established cinema. But it is also my opinion that he does not break them successfully or to any actual point.<br /><br />Pasolini's work is visually jarring, but this is less a matter of what is actually on the screen than how it is filmed, and the jumpiness of his films seem less a matter of artistic choice than the result of amateur cinematography. This is true of DECAMERON. Pasolini often preferred to use non-actors, and while many directors have done so with remarkable result, under Pasolini's direction his non-actors tend to remain non-actors. This is also true of DECAMERON. Pasolini quite often includes images designed to shock, offend, or otherwise disconcert the audience. Such elements can often be used with startling effect, but in Pasolini's hands such elements seldom seem to actually contribute anything to the film. This is also true of DECAMERON.<br /><br />I have been given to understand there are many people who like, even admire Pasolini's films. Even so, I have never actually met any of them, and I have never been able to read anything about Pasolini or his works that made the reason for such liking or admiration comprehensible to me. Judging him from his works alone, I am of the opinion that he was essentially an amateurish director who did not "break the rules" so much by choice as by lack of skill--and who was initially applauded by the intelligentsia of his day for " existential boldness," thereby simply confirming him in bad habits as a film maker. I find his work tedious, unimpressive, and pretentious. And this, too, is true of DECAMERON. It is also, sadly, true of virtually every Pasolini film it has been my misfortune to endure.
Pier Paolo Pasolini, or Pee-pee-pee as I prefer to call him (due to his love of showing male genitals), is perhaps THE most overrated European Marxist director - and they are thick on the ground. How anyone can see "art" in this messy, cheap sex-romp concoction is beyond me. Some of the "stories" here could have come straight out of a soft-core porn film, and I am not even so much referring to the nudity but the simplistic and banal, often pointless stories. Anyone who enjoyed this relatively watchable but dumb oddity should really sink his teeth into the "Der Schulmaedchenreport" soft-porn German 70s movie series, because that's what "Decameron" looks like to me.<br /><br />Besides, the movie is sloppy on nearly all levels, from start to finish: <br /><br />1. Editing. An example: at 1 hour:15 minutes:45 seconds there is a chasing scene that is put quite clearly in the wrong place. It was supposed to be placed about a minute later, but I guess that Pasolini must have hired boozed-up editors who have little time for the "fine details" of movie-making. Pee-pee-pee's fans would probably counter this by saying that it was placed there intentionally - which I very much doubt. Besides, even if that were true, that would be even worse, because that story gains absolutely nothing by making it harder to follow. (This isn't exactly "Eraserhead" or one of Tarantino's broken-form films...) <br /><br />2. Acting. Vey sloppy. Triple Pee's fans (all 8 of them) proudly declare how 3P-O uses "real people instead of actors". (Aren't actors people? Or are they Martians? Sure, many actors have sub-par IQs but does that mean we should treat them with contempt...?) Other directors have used amateurs and succeeded (such as Alan Parker or De Niro), so why are PPP's amateurs so utterly awful in his movies? The answer is once again appalling sloppiness. Pasolini is sloppy in everything, and that includes trying to get as much out of his toothless amateurs as he can. He is a lazy director, an IMperfectionist if you like. The anti-Kubrick, I suppose... Pee-pee-pee's principal goal when casting must have been to find as many toothless old people as possible (and young men that are to his liking). In Pasolini's world there is a simple formula: lack of teeth + strange face = realism. It's all well and fine to have them toothless, but at least try to eke out some at least semi-decent performances out of these inexperienced neo-thespians, otherwise you're an amateur yourself - an amateur director, in Pasolini's case. Whether 3P-0 wasn't capable of this feat or simply didn't care doesn't change anything. (Who knows... maybe he didn't even notice the awful acting?) <br /><br />3. Audio. The synchronization. If 3P-0 felt that microphones are too much of a hassle when filming a movie, then he ought to have at least made a concerted effort in post-production, i.e. getting all these bum actors to say their lines on cue in the studio, so that we the viewers wouldn't have to watch mouths move while the elusive dialogue floats elsewhere in the movie.<br /><br />4. Lack of concept. We have close to a dozen stories which aren't connected in any meaningful way. Some are anti-Church (more on that later), while some are merely sex yarns i.e. cheap male (sometimes gay) fantasies designed to titillate and nothing else. The stories and characters are not amusing (if at all) on an intelligent level, but on the basest level. 10 year-old kids can laugh here... And there is nothing wrong with that, but then don't call it exalted, intellectual art! <br /><br />5. As a result of point 4, there is also a lack of logic in the order of the stories. That goes without saying. Pee-pee-pee could have arranged the order in any other way, and we would have had the exact same movie. This also means that you can feel free to start from the middle then go back to the beginning, etc. "Decameron" is like a bowl of spaghetti that way: when you start eating it you can begin with any thread you want, it makes no difference at all.<br /><br />6. The pointlessness of the stories' resolutions. Most stories end with a cheap gag/joke, i.e. some damn dumb punchline straight out of a porn comic-book, whereas some stories don't even have a conclusion: they merely end. Finito. At best, the stories are watchable semi-anecdotes, barely any deeper meaning there - unless you find "deep" meanings in a porno. There is, of course, nothing easier than looking for and finding "meaning" where there is an absence of it. Hence even any hardcore porn film can be philosophized/mused over endlessly. It's easy and fun. Try it, oh ye 8 PPP fans! <br /><br />As for the Church-bashing... Some viewers get all excited about his attack on Catholicism and what-not. In principal, that's all well and fine - after all, I'm an atheist myself - but what those people ignore is the simple but essential fact that Pasolini was a Marxist. It's like the pot calling the kettle black. A Marxist criticizing the Church for hypocrisy and stupidity? Where does he get the nerve? Besides, Pasolini wasn't an atheist, hence his high-and-mighty and self-righteous stance isn't justified. After all, Marxists are believers: they merely substituted the accepted god with the idea of a Utopia, which is merely another supernatural wishful-thinking fantasy. Hence I cannot get excited about PPP's anti-religion antics.<br /><br />This sophomoric humpdorama anthology ends with Pasolini saying rather pretentiously: "I wonder... Why produce a work of art when it's nice just to dream about it?" He wasn't actually referring to this silly little movie as art, was he...? In case he was - the poor deluded man - then I have to wonder why he didn't just leave it at dreaming, and NOT make all those bad movies...<br /><br />Wanna read my altered subtitles of Bergman movies? E-mail me.
SPOILERS: I'm always surprised at how many people gave this game good reviews. It was awful. The script and voice acting alone ruined it. Gabriel and Grace are the most unlikeable characters in the game. You almost pray for their deaths. And worst of all, there are less vampires in this game than there were werewolves in The Beast Within.<br /><br />The lack of real vampires was incredibly disappointing. If you're expecting some kind of Anne Rice style vampire story, forget it. This game's story has very little to do with vampires. You won't even see any till about the very end and even then, you won't get to fight them.<br /><br />The story has radical, and pretty much blasphemous, views of Christianity. I'm amazed it got off the drawing board. I'm not even Christian and I found it offensive. Mostly, the story centers around a search for The Holy Grail and buried treasure. The kidnapping of a royal baby, which should have been the focus, really gets pushed aside. There is no sense of urgency for Gabriel to find the baby. In fact, he almost never asks anyone about the baby after the first few time blocks.<br /><br />The graphics are pretty bad. The characters move about at a snail's pace even on the best of systems. They are chunky and outdated. And it's hard to go from the FMV of The Beast Within to this horrible game engine for Blood of the Sacred.<br /><br />The relationship between Gabriel and Grace takes an awful turn, too. I really don't know why it was so horribly rushed, but they do sleep together. And it's not fun. Gabriel spends most of the game telling his best friend Mosely how he thinks of Grace as more of a sister and he doesn't think she's the one for him. And he seems really grossed out that they slept together. But he's so unlikeable throughout the game, that you almost don't even care at that point. His dialogue was the worst in the game. And he was constantly making stupid sexual innuendos at anything female the entire game. By the end of the game, Grace leaves him with what appears to be a Dear John letter. I guess she was as fed up with him as most of the players were.<br /><br />I found the story to be annoying and boring. I was expecting to play a story of a royal baby who was kidnapped by vampires. And I was expecting to get to see and fight vampires, maybe even have Gabriel or Grace turn into one. But no. Instead, the story focused on the author's warped vision of Christianity. What a shame. Here they had the elements for a great adventure, and instead we got this.<br /><br />For me, the only interesting parts of the game were actually at the very end. We do get a few action style puzzles at the end. But it wasn't worth suffering through the entire game to get to them.<br /><br />I can't really recommend this game. I had gotten it back when it came out, years ago, and I hated the game engine so much that I shelved it for years. I only recently dusted it off to see what I'd been missing. And now, I'm very sorry that I did. My favorite characters were ruined. I hope there will be a fourth game just to redeem the series. And I hope they get it right next time. It would be a terrible shame to end the series with this installment.
"Blood of the Sacred, Blood of the Damned" is the third installment of the Gabriel Knight games, a series of adventure games about the roguish writer/paranormal detective, Gabriel Knight. Gabriel and his companion, Grace, have been asked by Prince James of Albany to investigate a series of mysterious attacks by so-called "night visitors." When the son of Prince James is kidnapped, Gabriel pursues the night visitors to Rennes le Château, where he begins piecing together a mystery relating to the Holy Grail.<br /><br />Despite the marketing, this game is not about vampires. Vampires have a token appearance in the game, but never command center stage, as did the voodoo hounfor in "Sins of the Fathers" or the werewolves in "The Beast Within." Gabriel and Grace make no attempt to uncover the true nature of vampires, or to research lore on vampires. Although the vampires do murder three people during the course of the game, their victims are chosen at random and have nothing to do with the main plot.<br /><br />A large part of the charm of the first two Gabriel Knight installments was in the relationships which Gabriel formed with the villains. Through these relationships, the player could not help but sympathize with the villain, and thus the villain was transformed into more of a human and less of a monster. However, in "Blood of the Sacred," Gabriel's only interaction with the villain is through a single, cheesy interview, which does nothing to endear the villain to the player.<br /><br />The roles that Gabriel and Grace play in this mystery are fairly futile. Gabriel spends his time snooping into the identities of members of a treasure-hunter tour group staying at his hotel, but what he uncovers amounts to nothing more than a red herring. Grace spends her time researching the mystery of Rennes le Château, but all her research is rendered superfluous by the presence of a perplexing ally who has known the answer to this mystery for centuries.<br /><br />The actions of this perplexing ally and his polar opposite --- the vampire leader --- are insupportable. The ally leaves hints about the mystery of Rennes le Château in broad daylight and expects Grace (and not the other treasure hunters from the tour group) to find them. However, he could have revealed the mystery to Grace in its entirety on day 1, instead of putting the kidnapped child at risk for an additional 48 hours. And in the end, he simply tells Grace the mystery in its entirety anyway.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the vampire leader fails to achieve the goals of centuries of scheming, because he chooses to refrain from action for two days after the kidnapping of the child. The only reason given for his decision to delay action is that he wants to savor his victory.<br /><br />The game would have been much better had it been purely focused on the Holy Grail. The kidnapping and vampires should have been omitted, replaced with a race against the Vatican to uncover the mystery of Rennes le Château. Since Gabriel is portrayed more than once as reluctantly Catholic, this conflict would have had many opportunities for character development.<br /><br />All in all, the game was a disappointing installment in the series, despite an improved interface and the return of Tim Curry as the voice of Gabriel Knight.
Uwe Boll has done the impossible: create a game adaptation that stays at least somewhat true to the game; he has turned a game full of antisocial and offensive content into a movie full of antisocial and offensive content. So, as an adaptation, it's a success.<br /><br />Unfortunately, it's still Uwe Boll we are dealing with here, so don't expect the movie to be actually any good. while it does have it's moment, "Postal" wears out his welcome very fast and becomes a pain to sit through.<br /><br />At its core, Postal is a satire on the United States, as done by a twelve year old kid. Boll seems to think that offensiveness is linearly proportional to comedic value: the more offensive, the funnier, and the more exaggerated the funnier. This results in a movie that sets new levels of tastelessness while being extremely hit and miss. Yes, some gags do work but it seems to be pure luck. High points include the director satirizing himself, and people getting hit very violently by trucks and other vehicles. Low points include..well pretty much everything else.<br /><br />After the initial surprise wears off, Postal simply becomes a bore to watch. Yes there is a good joke every and good point ten minutes, but everything else consists of hordes of annoying characters shooting and chasing each other all over the place for what seems to be an eternity.<br /><br />This probably would have worked as a short movie, but it's just not enough content for something that lasts over 90 minutes (although it feels twice as long). There are nice ideas and nice tries, but they get hopelessly lost in endless and pointless action scenes and content that is offensive just for the sake of it 4/10
I'm not going to waste my time writing an essay and waste your time. I would like to say, however, that all those who are uptight about this movie even being made are being totally ridiculous. Johnnymacbest, you can't play that card, and I mean the nationalism patriotic card, to make people not watch this movie. this is a movie that expresses its free will in this country (oh yea i played that card)even though the director is German and deserves a slap on the wrist every time he reaches for a camera, but the world is full of controversy, and its the same thing you've heard before, like the GTA controversy. It's a comedy, laugh and be disgusted, not disgusted all together, its dark humor and obviously you don't have the heart to take it, the past is past, yes people remember those who were lost but its time to move on, that was !!!7!!! years ago. You can still watch this movie and have good moral values. <br /><br />Besides I'm insane, and who needs a soul?
Okay this is gona be short and sweet review...Something the movie should have taken a practice ina nd made its life shorter and sweeter than it was.<br /><br />This movie is $^@%. There's a good reason there was a petition with over 40,000 + signatures ALL demanding Uwe Boll stop making movies from franchises people liked. Blood Rayne being a biggie there.<br /><br />The jokes are good...if you've never heard them a THOUSAND times before. THe acting is descent but u can really only blame the script for that. I even a few moments wonder if they're even using a script.<br /><br />The movie has little to NOTHING to do with the original games. HELLO if you've played the games u know the main character has no real motivation outside homicidal urges like mass murder because he stubbed his toe or simular. There's way too much story for such a stupid movie. like I said. I WOULDN'T even steal this movie. ANd for the person who says this is ' Funniest movie of 2007'..........need to take a look around, the news is better than this.
I saw this movie at the Edmonton International Film Festival, with the great Dr. Uwe Boll in attendance.<br /><br />The film is, simply put, very, very bad. And no, not in the usual Uwe Boll "so bad it's actually entertaining" way, but just plain bad. The plot concerns a man who leads a terrible life (because of a past criminal record, apparently), can't get a job, and with an awful 900 pound cheating wife. This man turns to his cult-leader uncle in a plan to steal a truck load of toys that contain the bird flu virus. Al Qaeda also has designs on stealing the toys, and what follows is just under two hours of completely incomprehensible sex and violence.<br /><br />The acting is awful (except for Dave Foley, who really tries, despite it all), the jokes never rise above children being shot in the chest in slow motion, and people taking a poo. It's supposed to be satire, but I'm not sure of what.<br /><br />Think "Airplane!", but done by the creators of South Park, and without any jokes.
If I could i would give ZERO stars for this one, but unfortunately i have to give one...<br /><br />There is no single scene I could laugh about... but the game didn't make me laugh either. So if you're some ill retarded folk, go to your local cinema, watch this movie and give it 10 stars, like some people here already did.<br /><br />but for me... in a movie where children are shot dead to achieve humor... good taste goes over the edge... this was the third time i wasted my time to see a Boll movie and it was definitely my last!<br /><br />0/10... i'm ashamed of being from the same country as Uwe Boll!<br /><br />PLEASE PLEASE KEEP HIM FROM MAKING MORE MOVIES!!!!!
I watched this movie at a Sneak Preview screening and I'm glad I didn't pay for it. This movie is just disgusting. Its full of dick and fart jokes and takes no pride in the action sequences(such as the shootout in "Little Germany"). I made a little list of things I enjoyed in the movie.. and a lot of which I didn't agree of.<br /><br />1. Dave Foley's penis. 2. The fart jokes. 3. The Poop jokes. 4. The Dude was a pussy. 5. No Gary Coleman. 6. The Talibans 7. Again making fun of Bush.. WE GET IT HE'S AN IDIOT.. move on. 8. The Dude has blonde hair. 9. The Plot. 10. The killing of minors 11. Uwe Boll was in it. 12. Most of the cast were just outrages and out there.<br /><br />Now the (few) good ones<br /><br />1. The Dude uses a cat as a silencer like in the game. 2. Lots of action. 3. Crotchy made a return (and a cameo of the maker of Postal) 4. Uhm.. I didn't have to pay for it. 5. There are a few "what the ef" moments<br /><br />Boll did it again. He made another crappy game into movie adaption. Kudos to you, Mr Boll. 2/10
Today, I wrote this review in anger at Uwe Boll and Hollywood.<br /><br />Hollywood has produced movies based on one of the darkest days of our nation. 911 changed everything. It changed our perception of security. It changed our understanding of the evil of man and humanity. Most importantly and devastatingly , it changed our world.<br /><br />However, I can't not stress how utterly repulsed, disillusioned, and angry I am at the careless, blatant ignorance of Hollywood seeking to make a lucrative profit out of death and destruction. This film and those like it are bound to cause controversy amid word-of-mouth among moviegoers and critics alike; most surely to be echoed by the mainstream press. Hollywood has sunk to a new low. Even lower than the low-down bastards who perpetrated the most barbaric acts of savagery and unrelenting cruelty. Behind it all is Uwe Boll. I am very angry at this movie. How dare they disrespect the memories of families of those lost? How dare they mock the lives of the brave men and women who risked their lives to save those trapped in the doomed towers on that fateful day of infamy?!?!? How dare they try to satirize and at the same time capitalize on a national tragedy in the mist of a mourning and weary post-911 world?!?!?! How...dare...they? <br /><br />To those who have the gall to even think of seeing this morally appalling travesty, I say this with a heavy heart with all my strength: Remember. Think back to that day and ask yourself whether or not you are a sane and moral person. Think back to that day, ask yourself whether or not this film is a disgrace and dishonor to the lives lost on that day. Think back to that day of the outcry of families of loved ones. Think back to that day of the lives lost on those two planes. Think back to the further carnage it caused following the attacks.<br /><br />Ask yourself if you have a soul.<br /><br />Think. Remember. Respect the memories of the lives lost on 911 by not seeing this film at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> With their no holds bar cruel offensive humor, sure enough to offended anyone, you would sure think this would be a laugh riot! ............wrong. Worest movie since Open water. Don't be to surprised if you completely miss this movie upon release date as I'm sure it wont do very good at all at the box office. This movie had a lot of Potential but fell to little to short. No enough character development, awkward actors and The upside of this movie was nudity. Boobs. Amazing. If I had to see this movie again, I myself would go POSTAl. <<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<
**SPOILERS**KHAMOSH is totally unrealistic, lacks a plot, and was basically only made to see stars portray themselves. The most suspenseful scene in the movie was when Shabana Azmi is in the shower and then we see her TV playing the shower scene from PSYCHO. This movie actually expected users to believe that Naseeruddin Shah's character has a good enough memory to remember where certain shots were fired and how many!<br /><br />***SPOILER BEGINS***<br /><br />At the end, the killer spills his guts to Shabana Azmi long enough to allow Naseeruddin Shah's character to run up and shoot him!<br /><br />***SPOILER ENDS***<br /><br />It is a little humorous (only a little) in the beginning to hear the director and cast members throwing insults at each other and hearing Shabana Azmi exclaim, "Oh sh-t!"<br /><br />Overall, a baaaaaaaaaaad movie!<br /><br />Rating: ** out of ********** (2 out of 10)
Wow You guys are way too nice!!!Corny,Corny,Corny That is how I feel about that film.It started well with a good idea , A guy (Edward Asner) escape from Jail dressed as Santa,a bunch of kids find him and believes his the real Santa so the Fake Santa enlist the children to help him find a bag of stolen money.the film is like a Christmas version of "Whistle down the wind". The movie start well but gradually it becomes Cheesier and Cheesier to the point that at the end it becomes ridiculous and you just cant take this film seriously. For example you get the Scrooge type character called Sumner (Rene Auberjonois) who's a total Douchebag who treat his young son like a pile a rubbish ,he treat his son so bad that he don't even buy him decent clothes,the poor kid wears Jeans with Holes in it! but a 45 second scene with Fake Santa visiting Sumner and by the end of the film you get the guy all happy singing Christmas Carol and giving his neglected son a hug...yep that is how Corny it is... I'm all for feel good movie especially during Christmas and I am a big fan of seasonal TV movie but this one is way too over the top for me,it is a shame because it started well but the second half of the movie is trowing a supernatural element to the film that just don't match with the rest of it. It's not totally bad,there are some solid acting , especially from the children but there are plenty of better Christmas film around.
I wonder who was responsible for this mess. The jokes wouldn't have worked for gilligan's island. If this had gone to series, would there have been jokes about Auschwitz, or would Eva have to replace her oven, only to have Adolf suggest the kind that seats 50?? Another post compared this show to I love Lucy. The problem with this is that Lucille Ball was a genius at physical comedy and bizarre situations, and this mess was just plain badly done and an insult to my intelligence. <br /><br />After the damage the Nazi's did to England and the number of people they killed, I would think the very concept of a comedy about Hitler would seem repugnant and most normal people would have killed this concept before any episodes were produced.
This may be the worst show I've ever seen. Aside from the tastelessness of having a sitcom about Hitler, it just isn't funny or entertaining in any way. It is very similar to a 1950's sitcom in its cornball humor and contrived situations, but while it can be well done like in I Love Lucy, it's just not funny here. I think the show was based around the novelty "look, it's Hitler as a bumbling sitcom figure" but it just fell flat in every regard. The guy playing Hitler is so hammy that its hard to sit through that alone. I wonder what could have possibly made the network think this was a good idea to air. I thought America had some tasteless show, but the Brits had us beat this time. America would never air a sitcom about Hitler, although we did have that show about Lincoln's slave, The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer. Chances are you'll probably never see this show, since it only aired one episode and will probably never be released on DVD.
Except for the Brady Variety Hour, this was some of the hokiest television I've seen in a while. The video production qualities weren't too bad, but the overall look and feel were unmistakeably early 80's. And Marie Osmond looks like she did battle with the Avon Lady.. and lost big time. WAY too much eyeliner.<br /><br />It was kind of embarrassing to watch veterans Danny Kaye and Eric Severeid take part in this. Even more interesting was watching Alex Haley talk about the African Pavillion in World Showcase that would be opening 'in about a year.'<br /><br />As of this writing it is 17 years later and it hasn't opened yet (Unless you count Disney's Animal Kingdom.) All in all though, for all the shortcomings, this still an interesting visual piece of Disney history.
"A young woman unwittingly becomes part of a kidnapping plot involving the son of a movie producer she is babysitting. The kidnappers happen to be former business partners of the son's father and are looking to exact some revenge on him. Our babysitter must bide her time and wait to see what will become of the son and herself, while the kidnappers begin to argue amongst themselves, placing the kidnap victims in great peril," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />That acclaimed director René Clément could be responsible for this haphazard crime thriller is the real shocker. Despite beginning with the appearance of having been edited in a washing machine, the film develops a linear storyline. Once you've figured out what is going on, the engaging Maria Schneider (as Michelle) and endearing John Whittington (as Boots) can get you through the film. There are a couple of female nude scenes, which fit into the storyline well.<br /><br />**** Wanted: Babysitter (10/15/75) René Clément ~ Maria Schneider, John Whittington, Vic Morrow
From everything I'd read about the movie, I was excited to support a film with a Christian theme. Everything about the movie was very unprofessionally done. Especially the writing! Without good writing a movie doesn't have a chance. The writer/director said in an interview that he didn't want to give away how the title relates to the story. Believe me, it was NO big surprise. I kept waiting for the teenage/young adult back-story to unfold, but it never did. As someone who has gone through a divorce, I was very disappointed. This movie would have been NO comfort to me when I first went through the emotional turmoil that divorce can bring to your life as a Christian!
Dave is going through a divorce and his mind wanders back to his first love. "Wanders" is probably not the word. I should say he fixates on the past girlfriend. He recalls to the day when the relationship ended. The dream sequences only lack the hazy transitions. He fondly recalls their favorite songs and places they went. I'm not a counselor, but maybe this had something to do with the failed marriage???? Dave goes to a support group and meets up with a lady half his age (also divorced) who, instead of being "turned off" by his creepiness, starts to become interested in him. Did I mention how creepy Dave is? He sometimes refers to himself in the third person. He doesn't move his arms when he walks, either. It's just weird. Too make a long story short, Dave plots to hunt down Mary (the old gal friend) and kill her...err...I mean confront her. He does so. Which was really creepy. He believes her to be married, yet he STILL flies half-way across the country to meet her. He stakes out her house to make sure she is alone, before he "drops in" on her. He has an awkward conversation with her that ends with his sharing the gospel of Christ in about 10 words or less, and flies back to the new young girlfriend. We enjoyed the movie mostly for unintentional comedic value. I am still entertaining the wife with my Dave impressions...."I heard another Dave & Mary song!"
I was interested in seeing this movie because I knew it was Christian based. The director had a good idea/intentions when making this movie but it could have been better. I can understand why someone would still have feelings for who they believe is the greatest love of their life. However, I didn't understand why the director made his friends so insensitive, mean and rude. The main character kept apologizing to his friends when they were the ones mean to him. They weren't understanding at all and they used God as a reason to explain their behaviors. The main character, nor anyone else didn't know if the ex-girlfriend was divorced, still married etc but they were against him resolving old feelings that needed to be dealt with. His friends were suppose to be Christians and should have been portrayed as being supportive whether they agreed with his decision or not. So many times we do things in life where we don't apologize to those we have hurt in the past and when he was trying to do this they were all against him. The ironic part was his new female friend accused him of having stalking behavior for simply looking up an old friend, when she did a really odd thing to get a hold of his name, address and phone number...she seemed to be the stalker!. she didn't seem like a friend at all but was only looking out for herself. God is love...and I think God wants people to be with the person they were meant to be with and i feel the movie did a terrible injustice by making it seem like God doesn't care about true love...only that you stay with someone you made a bad choice with. We all make mistakes...it's all about what steps you take to make amends. Like I said the movie had potential but I was tired of the one-sided point of view being constantly repeated and jammed down the viewers throat by his so-called...well-meaning friends. This movie didn't hold true to the Christian belief of love but i give it a C for its effort.
I gave this more than a 1 because I did think there were some moral lessons in this story and it provoked some thought and comment from my wife and I. The acting and the dialogue were mediocre and I must confess I came out feeling like I had been beaten over the head with the God this , God that and Christ is our saviour stuff. The movie and the story line did not need it. If , as I am , you are a recovering Catholic or Christian avoid this one it will make you nauseous. The movie did a good job of demonstrating the thin line between being a good citizen and how someone could become a potential stalker focused on what might have been.
I watched the whole movie, waiting and waiting for something to actually happen. Maybe it's my fault for expecting evil and horror instead of psychology? Is it a weird re-telling of the Oedipal myth: I want to kill my father and mother and marry my uncle and compose musical theater with him? I didn't understand why certain plot elements were even present: why was the construction upstairs, why was there that big stairwell with a perfect spot for someone to fall to their doom if no one was actually going to do so, why have the scenes at all with the father at work, why have such a nice kitchen if you're only going to eat takeout, why would the boy want to be baptized and the parents be the ones to resist instead of the other way around. I see lots of good reviews for this movie...has my taste been corrupted by going up with 70s b-movies and old sci fi flicks?
The acting in the film is really well done honestly, but the movie is so slow and so boring, as soon as it gets interesting everything slows to a major halt. I am glad to see Sam Rockwell in this, he did a great job, so did the other actors as I mentioned but man... this is one of the worst dragged out films I have ever seen. Now maybe in a short film form this movie would be good, but other than that, avoid it. This film has so much filler it makes a Twinkie cake jealous. <br /><br />I never, ever, walk out on films, but watching this one at home with family, I walked out. Yeah, it was that boring. Apparently my comment doesn't have enough lines to post, so here's some more filler. I guess I was inspired by the movie I just watched.
This movie "Joshua" is extremely disturbing, and downright pointless. It actually makes me shudder to think there are people who would enjoy watching it. Without giving away the story it is about a young boy's reaction to his newborn sister, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. During the entirety of this movie the viewer is subjected to some of the most unsettling child behavior imaginable. Adding insult to injury, by the end of this movie there is absolutely no real outcome except the fruition of pure evil at the hands of a child no less, who outsmarted a whole group of dumb adults. There is no redemption, no justice served, and a whole group of adults who are not smart enough to see what is going on around them. Frankly, I did not enjoy watching this movie. It was extremely unsettling. Even for those who might enjoy horror movies, this movie could be too much. Despite the fact this movie was well acted, the story itself is so disturbing that watching it was equivalent to a 90 minute wait in a dentist's waiting room in anticipation of some painful dental procedure.
I did not enjoy the film, Joshua, at all. Perhaps it is because I saw another, much better similar film titled Orphan 2 days prior but perhaps it's really just because this film was not very good. I am going with the ladder. Sure, the plot of an evil child is not exactly original but that doesn't mean the film could not succeed. It could have been suspenseful and entertaining and chilling but instead it was slow building, boring, uneventful and really didn't leave me thinking anything more than 'that wasn't very good' when it was all over.<br /><br />At the end, Joshua's motivations are revealed. I won't give that away but the reality is that he didn't really accomplish his goals since despite Vera Farmiga as his mother, Abby, disappearing about 3/4th through the movie, all arrows point to her returning home soon. She was committed to a mental institution because she was losing her mind but then Joshua's Father/Her husband was accused of tampering with her medication which tells the audience that the institution realized that she was indeed not mentally ill but rather was being dosed medically. So.. shouldn't she be coming home soon? Won't Joshua have failed? Won't his Mother be living with him and his sister and possibly his Father soon? I question the Father since his future is left open ended.<br /><br />At the end of the day, I didn't care about the characters. The evil demon child Joshua wasn't really scary. The storyline moved slowly and when it picked up it was still boring. Suspense fell flat every single time. When it was over I couldn't believe I had sat through the whole thing. <br /><br />4/10 just because the acting was good from the parents especially Vera Farmiga as the Mother but if you want to see a movie about an evil 'child' go see Orphan. Now that's a movie that took an unoriginal concept and created a brilliant movie.
Though not a fan of Sam Rockwell, I was surprised when I saw his name in the credits in the opening of 'Joshua.' Heck, I wasn't even aware he was in 'Joshua' until I started the movie. So it goes without saying, I was watching the movie on the basis of the movie, not the leads. A sort of 'Rosemary's Baby,' 'The Omen' or any other demonic kid movie 'Joshua' was billed. Unfortunately, it fell flat. Slow, incredibly slow, and flat. Yet, I continued on to see how this would all resolve, hoping beyond belief, the ending climax would shed some light on the subject. Okay, I admit, it did (a wee bit) but what a stale closing. And what a low-low budget movie, or at least that's how they designed it. A person falls – you don't see the drop, you see someone lying down in what appears to be blood. A person gets hit by a cab – you don't see it, you see someone complaining, holding a bike up. I'm not sure if this is called "style" or laziness or simply, lack of funds for special effects. We have a "rich" family with a crazy mom, a workaholic father attempting to balance everything, a kid – Joshua, who may/may not be the antichrist and a new born baby girl who cries a lot. She cries as much as we see how many days she's alive – and what was that about? Are there rats above or is it Joshua? Is his mother nuts? Is Joshua crazy? Is he merely jealous of the newcomer to the family? Is he going to grow up to be Michael Myers? Or does he drive his family to the brink? I don't think so. They were nuts prior, and no "so-called" acting could make me believe otherwise. Unfortunately, barely any questions were answered, barely any open doors shut. I'm sure that might have been the idea, but for Pete's sake, give me something. Anything. There are plenty better kid-gone-wild movies to explore. Joshua's more like the Mini-Me of the antichrist.
The Lady in Cement is a veritable course on social anthropology of the late 60's. The writing, not the acting, is at center stage. Did I say - pure camp! Prepare to be offended if you are female or gay. Broad and dame are standard terms and gay baiting and bashing are represented for what they were in the day (camp- wise). Most of the lines are tossed off although there are wonderful performances by a very few outstanding character actors. The action scenes are mundane but it is fun to see Dan Blocker play a tough guy who likes bashing toughs. And Lanie Kazan and Racquel Welsh are at the voluptuous peak of their careers. Amazing to note they were both 28 years old and Mr. Sinatra was 53. The musical score, wait . . . was there a score? Well, you get the point. Watch it with friends who want a good laugh. it's full of them.
Terrible film with Frank Sinatra as Tony Rome. Here, he gets involved with a dead woman below the sea.<br /><br />Rome is soon hired to find out what happened to a woman. Naturally, it's the woman below the sea. Her room mate, Lainie Kazan, soon winds up dead on the floor.<br /><br />An aging Richard Conte plays a police officer and friend of Rome. When a local club owner gets killed, the blame falls on Rome and there becomes an interesting chase scene. That's how bad this picture is if you have to depend on a chase scene to supply the action.<br /><br />Raquel Welch plays the beauty up to her neck in intrigue. Her acting leads a lot to be desired. <br /><br />Martin Gabel is a retired hoodlum whose son is trying to outdo him.<br /><br />By the film's end, you don't know why the girl was murdered. Don't even bother to ask.
Detective Tony Rome (Frank Sinatra) returns to the screen after his self titled debut, this time it's a film that's played for erm…laughs. While on a diving trip, Rome finds the body of a blonde beauty at the bottom of the sea, her feet as you might expect, encased in cement. Rome immediately on the case after being hired by man mountain Waldo Gronsky. Rome finds himself immediately at risk as he has to investigate some mafia types, who turn the tables on him and he is himself found to be the main suspect, he must now go on the run and hope to solve the case alone. The portly Sinatra tries hard to sell us the lame jokes and make us believe he is a good detective, oh and not to mention being sexually attractive to the foxy Raquel Welch, but he fails miserably, in this ham fisted vanity project. The frankly laughable denouement that surrounds every female is quite astounding, every woman in the film is a dither head, who likes bending over is front of the camera, Director Douglas of course obliges in zooming in on the cracks of their asses each time as they flex their posterior muscles. There's even a ridiculously campy gay character that beggars belief, this was a film made by "real men" for "real men" to reaffirm their own flagging sexuality, it's a shameful shambles.
Lady in Cement - PI spoof with ole Blue Eyes.Frank Sinatra is a shamus on a houseboat in Miami in this rarely funny "comedy".Burdened by an annoying and repetitious Hugo Montenegro score and bunch of misfiring punchlines this 1968 flick just never rises above slightly too bawdy to be on TV made for television movie status.Dan Blocker is effective in the Mike Mazurski/Ted De Corsia big galoot role and Raquel Welch should thank her personal trainer.The only thing that makes the DVD worth keeping or seeing is the collection of cheesy trailers for Welch flicks like Bandolero,Fantastic Voyage , Mother ,Jugs & Speed and Myra Breckinridge.Even if you get the DVD-skip the predictable movie and go for the trailer library in the special features.Besides tons of mysoginistic asides-Sinatra lisps @ the homosexual owners of the local Go-Go bar.A relic that needs to be put back in the time capsule. D
No doubt Frank Sinatra was a talented actor as well as a talented singer. After all, very few actors nowadays can get a scene just right in one take, and that was pretty much Sinatra's modus operandi on set.<br /><br />I feel that as the 1960's wore on, the quality of the man's films really started to tank. The Tony Rome detective series was nothing short of trying to compete with Dean Martin's Matt Helm series which came out at the same time. Perhaps even a James Bond competition, but nothing really worked for Frank during these years. His personal life in shambles, his music fading out...Sinatra appeared more like a throwback to the 1950's. The last great Sinatra film of this period was probably Von Ryan's Express in 1965.
I am not from America and I know what 'Wife Swap' is. When a show came out of that name I was thrilled to see some cool glamorized sexual moments from the program. But what I got was a real sucking stupidity. I was misjudged by its title name, it has no adult contents, no nudity, not even vulgar dialogues (broad casted threw Hallmark channel and I think they edited/mute out such contents to make it neat).<br /><br />A show which gives a picture of current American/western family state, overweight chubby peoples, polluted teenagers, and their sucking family goings. In each episode two wives/two mothers (more correctly) were chosen to live in each others home and re-changes each others family routine with their new own rule. Sometimes its turns out to be good or more evenly bad. On the ending section each mothers are brought back with their husband and try to conclude what they did to each families past days. It's the sucking portion of the program were each contenders fights for their rights. I was sucked to see all of these instead of seeing some cool adult sex stuff. I mean who make this program, more than that who gave the name "Wife Swap"; its better to be called as "Mother Swap". All in all it corrupts all the great things the real Wife Swap stands for! <br /><br />Wife Swap = Average Sucking Reality Show.
If this guy can make a movie, then I sure as hell can make one too.<br /><br />In fact, if you hire me to make a movie for you, I promise to do the following:<br /><br />1) I will add more naked women. This movie had none. I think cheesy B-class horror movies are only rented because of their traditional exploitation of the female body. I wouldn't want to let my viewers down.<br /><br />2) I will refrain from making too many scenes where the hero wakes up to find out it's only a dream. I think HorrorVision had about 4 of these scenes. And, considering the movie was only like an hour long, the dream-to-movie-length ratio was quite high. And, if I do decide to do a dream sequence, I will make sure that the person wakes up without clothes on. I mean, who sleeps in leather pants??<br /><br />3) I will not rip off any movies like Star Wars or the Matrix because I will know that my budget is small and I will not want to mask my contempt for big-budget Hollywood movies by adding satirical references about them in mine. <br /><br />4) And finally, I will not mix modern technology with the undead. I mean, a palm pilot can only be so scary ... at least they turned it into an evil rolly-polly monster before the screen blew up or something.<br /><br />So, if you are looking for the above qualities in your next horror production, count on me: wanna-b-movie director extraordinaire.
I found Horrorvision almost unwatchable. While only 70 minutes in length I still found myself hitting the fast forward button again and again. The acting was of the `if I scream and say ***k a lot I'm intense' school. And the story was at best a scenario that had yet to be fleshed out.<br /><br />While I never go to Full Moon for great film making I have never seen them produce as bad a piece of junk as this.
Decent enough with some stylish imagery however the tiny budget hampers things.<br /><br />I also get the impression they were trying to shock you with some of the graphic weirdo perv website stuff.<br /><br />if you like anime in particular stuff like cyber city and the AD police then this might up your street.<br /><br />but basically its low budget matrix cash in however not totally devoid of its own style.<br /><br />Great soundtrack by some unheard of grunge/punk/post grunge bands. Worth checking out if only for the soundtrack.
At first look of the plot tagline I figured it could have been a decent film. Could I have ever been more wrong? The beginning of the film makes it look like a bunch of freaks got together and decided to make a low budget film. For the first 10 minutes you don't notice the cheesy acting, horrible sound and god-awful special effects, but then it gets worse. Just about 20 minutes into it I was asking myself, "What was the plot again?" I could only ask that question when I wasn't busted out laughing from the sheer lameness of this film. The main actor has one setting for emotions and he sticks to it throughout the entire film, even though he was supposed to go through love and hate and everything in-between. The flashback scene almost made me vomit because it made me re-live one extra minute of footage from earlier in the movie. Now we hit the middle of the film where they are obviously trying to rip off Morpheus from "The Matrix," although he is doing just a horrible job. The actor's talking about "Star Wars" and fortune cookie phrases is almost unbearable. Now at the end of the movie you don't realize that it's the end of the movie because you actually think the plot is finally developing. The "Morpheus" character dies, the ONLY good thing about the movie. He utters a couple words and the credits roll. What is this? No plot, bad acting, cheesy everything, it couldn't get any worse. Please, if you value human decency, DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!
save your money. i have been a fan of fullmoon productions for a long time and i have never seen them make a movie as bad as this. the casting is terrible, the story is even worse and the special affects are worse than any movie iv'e seen sence the 80's. this movie is so bad i cant even suggest renting it.
Before the Internet this movie could never have been made but the idea that the Web is full of evil is the idea behind it.Unfortunately thats all it was-the generally opinion that nowadays the Web in the wring hands can create as much chaos as anything in real life. Since the late 90s somebody found out that you could create a virus which would disable a computer.The point? Just to do something plain evil by remote control so its the cyber equivalent of robbery with violence.Which is basically what spam is without the violence-its conning you into parting with your money and has been going so long its a wonder anybody takes any notice of it nowadays so they get cleverer and use real names as doing something illegal isn't a priority, We see the Internet get worse by the week-the social networking sites or chat room which lead to evil and the child porn sites which ARE illegal. So the idea of a movie which invites people to click a name is just the same old thing-there actually IS a site called Horrorvision which is a porn site-but this one KILLS the people who enter its portals. The story though is so disjointed its boring with it and comes to no conclusion. The definitive movie on this theme of destroying an Internet Service Provider has yet to be made but clearly many DO need destroying as they won't be shut down when there's money to be made. Calling this a horror film is rather misleading as it bores not frightens
This is crap....utter crap. I cannot believe any company could even get people to work on a film like this. Full Moon has a number of awful films, but this has got to be the worst. First off, the plot doesn't exist. It's odd. It's like, they took an idea for the story, and kind of never really got around to developing it. They seemed to have just wasted a lot of time filming outside shots while the two "heroes" drove around in the desert, and Bradbury talks nonsense for about 10 minutes. There were two scenes in the movie (when Dez and Dazzy are driving, and when Dez and Bradbury are driving) where it just went on and on and on...it was almost like 2 music videos in the place where there should have been some dialog or action. They just drove for about 5 minutes, with nothing but music and shots of the surrounding landscape.<br /><br />Next, we come to the acting, which is simply horrible. First off, the girl who plays Dazzy is just a beast. She is so scary looking, I wanted to look away when she was on screen! Horrible casting. Then, you have the guy who played Dez, who couldn't act if his life depended on it. His "crying" is actually funny, and his madman antics are even funnier. The guy who plays the desk clerk at the hotel is just as bad, as is the guy who plays Bradbury. There was no acting that deserves any recognition in this movie whatsoever.<br /><br />The makeup effects...hmmm, can anyone say pathetic? The "effects" were so fake, they were laughable. The crazy little robot looking catepillar thing grabs onto someone, they cut away, and when they come back, the guy has a completely fake looking flesh wound. Nice. Did they run out of money on the makeup budget or what?! I must say the druggie chick who is in the one girl's apartment...nice makeup there too. I think they were going for a drugged look, and I think she was supposed to have a black guy, but it looked more like cheap zombie makeup for halloween.<br /><br />This movie is just horrible from the start. The story is stupid and very, very unoriginal, the direction looks as tho it was performed by a 10 year old, the acting is the lowest of the low, and so on. STAY AWAY from this movie at all costs. It's only 70 minutes long in the first place, and atleast 20 minutes of that is taken up by either music and no dialog or the character sitting around in the hotel. Do not waste your time on this piece of garbage.
A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child, the fifth installment in the Nightmare on Elm Street series and the worst sequel ever in the series, even worse than A Nightmare on Elm Street 2. I was lucky enough to get the Nightmare on Elm Street DVD box set for my birthday and I watched all the sequels. The dream child was the worst without a doubt, I was surprised too since they were doing so well with the last two sequels. But I guess they just lost the charm, the story was just ridicules and I wasn't happy with where it went. Alice just became more annoying, she's not Nancy or Kirsten, so her carrying this film on her own didn't work for me. Freddy is also loosing his scare, this was just getting a bit silly.<br /><br />Alice is back and she's carrying a child, she couldn't be happier with her life. But Freddy is also back and he's not going to be too light on her since she defeated him so easily in the fourth movie. But anyways, he wants her child and to be born into the world again. Did you ever wonder if Freddy had parents too? Well that's what A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child investigates and Alice soon finds out what Freddy's childhood was like and that maybe that's the one thing that can defeat him.<br /><br />A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child is just all in all a bad movie and an insult to the series. I don't think anyone could be happy with this sequel. Just the story was really silly, I mean it could have possibly worked, but once again, it was just executed the wrong way. I know that if you're looking to see the sequels for the Nightmare on Elm Street series, you should watch it, but I really wouldn't recommend it, it's not worth it, at least in my opinion.<br /><br />3/10
After the success of Part 4, another sequel was a natural move. However they should have stopped it before it began. Alice, having survived Part 4 finds herself pregnant and it seems Freddy is using her unborn child to get at his victims, which of course are Alice's friends. Strange Nightmare movie, very heavy on religious imagery and bad acting. The special effects are good, but the movie itself is not.
The only thing that prevented this flick from being a total disaster were a couple of interesting stylish touches. <br /><br />(Moderate Spoiler Alert) Death by comic is a bit derivative of a scene in Twilight Zone: The Movie, which delivers death by cartoon. Still this was handled nicely, especially watching the ink bleed and the color being sapped out.<br /><br />Additionally, there is one other good scene with a demon motorcycle.<br /><br />Having said that, I was glad I got the DVD cheap at a store going out of business sale, because this was pretty awful. I bought "Soul Survivors" at the same time and both movies were similarly annoying with the constant realizations that you have been watching a dream. However , where "Soul Survivors" has nothing to redeem it, or have it make any sense, this at least had a couple of stylish notes, referred to above.<br /><br />Interestingly, the DVD lets you go to the 8 'nightmares' where something actually happens, which is the only way to watch this. The scripting between the creative gore moments is rather unbearable.<br /><br />3 out of 10.
When you look back at another bad Nightmare sequel like Freddy's Revenge, you have to at least give it some credit for trying something new. And although The Dream Child is more enjoyable it offers absolutely nothing new to the series. Yes, there's the creative deaths as usual, like a kid becoming part of a comic book and facing "Super Freddy" but even scenes like that aren't used to their full potential and the parts without Freddy are just boring.<br /><br />This marked the official death of scariness to the series. Freddy seems to be the comedic relief now...but to what?<br /><br />My Rating: 4/10
I will stat of with the plot Alice, having survived the previous instalment of the Nightmare series, finds the deadly dreams of Freddy Krueger starting once again. This time, the taunting murderer is striking through the sleeping mind of Alice's unborn child. His intention is to be "born again" into the real world. The only one who can stop Freddy is his dead mother, but can Alice free her spirit in time to save her own son? This movie did start of really well as we see Alice dreaming of being Amanda Kruger who get stuck in room and get raped by 100 Manics then she being rushed to hospital but then she not longer the pregnant lady but then she Amanda giving birth to Freddy again.<br /><br />Alice and Dan are the only two people to return from the 4th movie and then have gotten some new Friends its' no long before Freddy start to kill again, I did like the first dead it okay, not as good as the other deaths or dreams.<br /><br />Freddy himself didn't seem to be Scary in this movie at all, the nightmare were just boring really they were not scary or creepy at all.<br /><br />Acting in movies was okay for a 5th movie in the series but overall I think this movie was really Dull. (Still not worst movie of the series, Freddy Dead is the worst)<br /><br />4/10
"The Dream Child" of 1989 is the fifth film in the (generally overrated) "Nightmare" series, and at the latest from this point on, the series became total garbage. The only good films in the series were Wes Craven's 1984 original, and the third part, "The Dream Warriors" of 1987. The second part was disappointing and boring, and it was the fourth part in which the formerly scary madman Freddy Krueger began to annoy with constant idiotic jokes. This fifth entry to the series has hardly anything to recommend except for (admittedly great) visuals, and one creepy scene, a flashback sequence to how Freddy Krueger came into existence. The rest of the film consists mainly of our razor-clawed maniac-turned-jokester yelling stupid one-liners, and the old formula of a bunch of teenage jackasses, who desperately try to avoid falling asleep, because good old Freddy awaits them in their dreams. Lisa Wilcox is back in the role of Alice Johnson, and a bunch of uninteresting crap, such as a super-dumb 'eerie' children's rhyme is added for no other reason than to have some sort of justification for making this superfluous and boring sequel... In Short: No originality, just a decline of the old formula, and an over-load of painfully annoying jokes. My (generous) rating of 3/10 is due to the great visuals, and especially to emphasize the difference to the terrible next sequel, "Freddy's Dead", which is awful beyond belief. In case you're not a hardcore Freddy Krueger enthusiast, "The Dream Child" should be avoided, and even if you are, this is more than likely to disappoint.
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />Alice, having defeated Freddy at the end of the last film, is now trying to re-adjust her life. But her unborn child is carrying a demonous presence- Freddy, trying to come out into their world again.<br /><br />It's interesting to note the directors who got their big breaks directing Freddy films- Charles Russell (Eraser, The Mask) Renny Harlin (The Long Kiss Goodnight, Cutthroat Island, Cliffhanger, Die Hard 2) and here Stephen Hopkins (Lost in Space, Predator 2.) But while Russell and Harlin made a good job of it, Hopkins IMO has made something of a podge with this entry, that should be quickly forgotten.<br /><br />The story is clearly being stretched as far as it can go here, with Freddy ludicrously a father himself and the ridiculous looking demon baby. Even at about an hour and a half, it all gets rather tiresome, and of course, not scary at all.<br /><br />The "bon appetit, bitch" catch-phrase is the only memorable point of this other wise very forgettable entry. *
Like Freddy's Revenge, this sequel takes a pretty weird idea and doesn't go to great lengths to squeeze a story out of it. Basically Alice from number 4 is pregnant and her baby is haunted by Freddy which gives him an outlet to haunt her friends. This has the least deaths out of the whole series and the wise-cracks are quite poor, so neither the horror fans or comedy fans are happy. <br /><br /> I've not alot to say about this. It's moderately interesting to see the characters of Alice and Dan returning from four, but not worth watching a movie over. Uninspriring and unenjoyable, possibly only the competant direction saves it from being the worst in the series.
I consider this film one of the worst in the Nightmare series. It was so boring that I couldn't remember a thing 20 minutes after the film was over, it even tires me to write a review on it.<br /><br />Okay, #4 was a joke and Freddy was the joker. #5 tried to return to the roots of the series. It was darker and more atmospheric than Nightmare 4, which is a good thing, basically. They tried to shoot a horror film instead of a comedy. Unfortunately they forgot to add suspense and scares. Because of that Nightmare 5: The Dream Child is neither funny nor is it scary. What we actually get is a boring film with the usual bad actors (maybe with the exception of Lisa Wilcox).<br /><br />The plot (Freddy killing Lisa's friends by using the dreams of Lisa's unborn child) has a good base but it just isn't enough for 90 minutes of film. Sometimes the story gets very confusing (maybe because there isn't any) and you can't stop wondering what the filmmakers were aiming at. The screenplay must have had more holes than Swiss Cheese and the film therefore was very cheesy itself (let me say that I don't like cheese though, even if I am from Switzerland). Not even the special effects were as good as for example in part 4.<br /><br />Don't bother to rent/buy this film if not for completeness, it's quite a mess.<br /><br />My rating: 4/10 (get used to it, #6 is also a messy one...)
I am still trying to determine whether the previous installment was worse than this one, or vice versa. Being that it is nearly fifteen years since I saw this film, the fact that I remember so little about it does not bode well. Perhaps it is simply because I only watched it once or twice, but I doubt it. If there was anything worth remembering about this film, you can rest assured I would remember it.<br /><br />At the time this film was released, the franchise was still entering its dying phase, so a lot of media coverage was allotted to it. It's never a good sign when teenie pop magazines contain explanations of the plot basics. One such article had to explain that Freddy was left too weak to infest the dreams of grown humans, so he decides to go after Alice's unborn son. So far, so good, but this is the job of the writer or the director to explain to the audience. It should not be left to some unrelated publication.<br /><br />Making use of the trivia given in part three about Freddy's conception, one could half expect scenes that would lift this joke out of the "horror for infants" category, but alas, that was not to be. It goes to show the sheer idiocy of the American ratings system that a piece of B'harni-esque garbage like this could get the same rating as a genuinely frightening piece like the original.<br /><br />By this time, the franchise could not attract anyone with an active career. Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, Lisa Wilcox was there to provide a quotient of competent acting. Or perhaps she just looks competent by comparison to the rest of the cast. Either way, given that her last role was in something called The All New Adventures of Chastity Blade, I doubt she really had anything else going for her. Even poor old Robert Englund has been in better productions than that in the past fifteen years.<br /><br />Given that box office returns were in a steady decline, and not just for this franchise, at the time, one would have thought that the studios would realize neutering their films does not make them more saleable. In fact, this particular film, like its immediate predecessor, was so neutered that not only did it fail to attract a new audience, both succeeded in alienating the core audience that originally supported the franchise. Despite this, part five must be given some credit for not having the bright, luminescent feeling that made part four so insulting to look at.<br /><br />I gave A Nightmare On Elm Street Part Five a one out of ten. By trying to appeal to everyone, or the MPAA's idea of everyone, it succeeds in appealing to noone. Like parts two and four, one could erase it from the continuity entirely, and nobody would notice the difference.
This film is so incredibly bad, that I almost felt sick watching it. Up until this point, the other installments had at least one good thing about it. Part 1 was suspenseful and gory. Part 2 was off beat and entertaining. Part 3 was interesting with great effects. Part 4 had great music, good special effects, and a new entertaining Freddy Krueger. Part 5 is more boring than anything I've ever seen before. Alice, a much prettier blond, from Part 4 is back with her boyfriend Dan. At parts, this supposed Elm Street installment turns into a daytime soap. The newer characters seem harsh, and even that sweet Alice has a chip on her shoulder. Freddy seems to be completely out of this one. He looks tired, and doesn't seem to be as gruesome. His one-liners seem out of place and different, where as in Part 4 they could be pretty funny. Leslie Bohem's story never gets off the ground and Stephen Hopkins' direction is so bad, that it makes my grandmother look good! The whole plot of this movie is ridiculous and unrealistic. It's also confusing and pretty stupid. Avoid Part 5 at all costs!
It's getting worse, the series is on a serious down fall. The first two sequel were acceptable and from then on we have seen a buch of really, really terrible movies. Robert Englund gives another great performance as Freddy but the rest of the cast can't act. The story is Alice, having survived the previous installment of the Nightmare series, finds the deadly dreams of Freddy Krueger starting once again. This time, the taunting murderer is striking through the sleeping mind of Alice's unborn child. His intention is to be "born again" into the real world. The only one who can stop Freddy is his dead mother, but can Alice free her spirit in time to save her own son? Check out the first three, miss the next three then watch the last one.
Bottom-of-the-Freddy barrel. This is the worst film in the series, beating "Freddy's Revenge" for that title. A cheap-looking (with mediocre special effects), incoherent mess, with Freddy turned into a punster. He has one or two cool lines, but that doesn't save this illogical and sloppy sequel.
Come on. The new twist is nearly ok, but from avenging the Elm Street children Freddy is just killing people now. More of the same: Special effects with no actual character development or anything. Simply bad and insulting. SCARY..? Nope. Not at all. Just bad.
This one is just like the 6th movie. The movie is really bad. It offers nothing in the death department. The one-liners are bad and are something that shouldn't be in a NOES movie. Freddy comes off as a happy child in the whole movie. Lisa Wilcox is still the only thing that makes this one worth while. The characters are extremely underdeveloped. All in all better than the 6th one, but still one the worst movies of the series. My rating 2/10
A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child<br /><br />This is a bad movie. There's no escaping it. I love the series and I think Freddy is probably the best character ever in horror movies. But even being a fan I can't help but see this movie is mediocre.<br /><br />There's not even an effort to build an interesting story and strong characters. By now they had just given up. They don't even try. They are the production of course, hoping for a few more easy dollars.<br /><br />The story doesn't grab your attention. Its so simple it's almost absent.<br /><br />Alice, a survivor from part 4 is now pregnant. Freddy is coming back through the baby's dreams. At the beginning we learn that to stop him Alice must find his mother. And that's it. <br /><br />The story advances slowly since there's so little plot meaning it turns pretty boring after a few minutes of bad dialogues and awful acting. In fact that's the only scary thing, the acting, since the deaths are not even slightly cool. <br /><br />The characters are so uninteresting we couldn't care less for them.<br /><br />The girls are as unattractive as possible. The whole cast reminded me of a bad amateur theatre group. I've seen better actors in school plays. It's embarrassing really.<br /><br />Lisa Wilcox still manages to bring some class to this. She is beautiful, sexy and has some talent. But the material just didn't let her shine. What a pity.<br /><br />Stephen Hopkins work is nowhere close to Renny Harlin´s brilliant direction in Dream Master. He tries some imaginative shots near the end but that tension Harlin and Craven created so well in the previous movies is no where to be found.<br /><br />The Dream Child is just another unimaginative sequel. It's the kind of movie that give horror series a bad name. <br /><br />The end for the once scary Freddy. It's too sad to see him now. A clown that's not funny. A bad joke. Goodbye Freddy.
What happened? Those were the first words to come to mind after this awful movie finished for the first and last time on my computer screen. Nightmare on Elm St. had gone noticeably downhill after it's cult-classic of a first film, but I doubt anybody expected this horrible aberration. Nobody expected this cosmic joke of a film, and nobody is more distraught about it than I am.<br /><br />This is by far the worst ANOES film of the lot. It doesn't seem too bad at the beginning, with a genuinely creepy intro and a rather elongated shower scene featuring Alice. But then we hit rock bottom right at the beginning with bad acting and a jumbled sequence of events. I mean, sure, Freddy movies are supposed to be dreamlike and creepy, but this one is like a train-wreck in it's poor sequencing of events and awful plot setup. It feels like you're coming down with a terrible headache, not like you're getting scared. So the directing totally fails. None of the suspense and well crafted horror from previous sequels is found here, and even the death scenes are mostly just crass and moronic (the death by food especially), except for that one cool scene that's crafted like a comic book battle. That's why this movie gets a point.<br /><br />The storyline...lame, lame, lame, LAME. It was an excuse to gross people out and to make the MPAA mad, and nothing more.<br /><br />The acting...should I mention how Freddy has been turned into a childish boogey-man-like clown figure? How his rebirth scene made him look like a monster out of a 7 year old's horror book instead of the foreboding and nightmarish dream killer we've all known and loathed since the first film? That arm waving and stupid chuckling as he appeared again...ugh. And his one liners, too. Throughout the whole movie, they suck. Badly. A grade-schooler could come up with funnier stuff then the vomit Freddy spews throughout the 90 minute duration of the film. Hell, a chimpanzee could come up with much funnier lines than what Freddy's been told to say here. Who wrote the script for this? This movie is really irritating, too. It seems so pointless. Like a gnat buzzing around your head, a gnat that just WON'T go away. Freddy is just an annoyance now. We've seen him so many times before. This one's nothing different, and a lot of the time you just want him to take his awful one-liners and get off your TV screen. Alice, instead of the thoughtful and quiet girl from the last movie, seems annoying and very shallow, and this is obviously due to the horrible, horrible script this movie was fitted with. Lisa Wilcox may be a great actor, and sometimes it shines through the cracks here, but she can't save this movie. The other actors just suck, mostly.<br /><br />The last 15 or 20 minutes of Freddy's existence in this film are awful and embarrassing. I hope Englund was ashamed of this. Who wants to see Freddy running around like a mutated gorilla with his limbs stretched out, laughing like a cartoon villain? This movie destroyed anything positive I felt for the Nightmare series. I can't ever watch them again without this image running through my head; of the mangled cartoon abomination that Krueger became. He was slowly becoming a jokey, retarded pop culture icon, but this is the lowest of the low. This is rock bottom. Nobody will ever take Freddy Krueger seriously again after seeing this film. He's naught but a joke, a clown that is long overdue for retirement. Pathetic.<br /><br />Of all the movies I could hate, why did it have to be Nightmare on Elm St, a series which I once adored and liked a lot? The Dream Child represents the death of a legend, and the shattering of any hope I had in the Nightmare on Elm St. series. Freddy would go on to continue his downward spiral into clown status in the next installment, Freddy's Dead (which was more entertaining than this was, actually), and then he would go on to bring down the mood in Freddy VS Jason, and finally he would putter out into nothing, which is for the best.<br /><br />I know this has mostly been a rant about why Freddy sucks now, but this movie is overall, horrible, and one of the worst movies ever made. Not recommended to anyone, and even ANOES completionists won't want to see this one again.
About twenty minutes into this movie, I was already bored. Quite simply, these characters were fairly dull. Occasionally, something enjoyable would happen, but then things would slow down again. Fortunately, my patience was eventually rewarded, and the ending to this movie wasn't bad at all. However, it was by no means good enough to justify sitting through the first ninety minutes. So, I would say that the movie was mediocre overall, and considering all of the talent in the cast, I'd call this a disappointment.
This movie introduces quite an array of characters and their relationships in the first half-hour or so. None of them generate any interest or positive response. I waited for the intrigue to begin, hoping things would get better and ended up sticking around until the bitter end, but there was no reward for doing that.<br /><br />If you want a synopsis, look elsewhere. To me the action isn't worth recounting. Not that the story was that bad, I guess you could say I had some problems with the script--i.e. I thought it stunk. A look at the credits will show you that there's a pretty strong cast here, used to no avail. Most of the old pros in this flick do good jobs; of the actors I hadn't seen much of before I especially liked Deborah Kara Unger. That's about all that I can find good to say about this picture.
I am glad to see most other people here don't think much of this movie, either. It has some big names in the cast, but that's it. There is nothing else to recommend, save ogling a few pretty women which you can do in a thousand films.<br /><br />The story involves nothing but unlikable, self-centered, chain-smoking, "hip" characters that national film critics all seem to like....and most of the public can't stand. <br /><br />The Oklahoma accents are so fake they are laughable, the southern racist stereotypes are right from Liberal Hollywood 101 and the story is depressing.
This is a genuinely horrible film. The plot (such as it is) is totally undecipherable. (I think it has something to do with blackmail, but I'm not entirely certain.)<br /><br />Half of the dialogue consists of useless cliches. The other half is spoken by the various actors in such unintelligible imitations of "southern" accents that (thankfully) the words cannot be recognized.<br /><br />But the one true tragedy of the movie is that such a historic talent as Mary Tyler Moore apparently was in such dire financial or personal circumstances that she appeared in it.<br /><br />
If you want to see a mystery, don't watch this. Though there are elements straight out of Elmore Leonard territory, this comes closer to an episode of "Dynasty", since the filmmaker focuses on "character development" - i.e. long, boring talks between stupid, un-involving characters. Some people can make fascinating movies without real action (see "Exotica"), but not this one. Avoid it, especially if you like the actors involved in this one.
I have to admit, I don't remember much about the characters or the story, though I'm not sure there was one, I was soooo irritated by this movie that I had a bit of a hard time focusing on it. How can you name a movie "Keys to Tulsa" and then film it in Texas? The flat desert country around Arlington ( I think that was the location) in no way resembles the green rolling hills around Tulsa, and a celebrity in Tulsa would have a much nicer neighborhood to live in. Obviously no one in the movie has EVER BEEN to Tulsa or else they would have realized how nothing in the movie even resembled it. Hadn't anyone at least seen Rumblefish or The Outsiders? I know this sounds picky but I can't help it. I watched this because I love James Spader and I usually find Eric Stotz interesting. But even these two intriguing actors could not liven up this meandering,and mean story of self-involved people who are NOT IN TULSA!! I'm sorry, it can't be more expensive to film in Oklahoma. What if "To Live and Die in LA" had been shot in Toronto? Would that suck? Well so does this.
Perhaps the biggest waste of production time, money and the space on the video store shelf. If someone suggests you see this movie, run screaming in the other direction. Unless, of course, you're into self-abuse.
The director tries to be Quentin Tarantino, the screenwriters try to be Tennessee Williams, Deborah Kara Unger tries to be Faye Dunaway, the late James Coburn tries to be Orson Welles, Michael Rooker tries to be Gene Hackman, Mary Tyler Moore tries to be Faye Dunaway (older version), Cameron Diaz tries to get out of the frame as quickly as she can (successfully), don't ask about Joanna Going. Eric Stoltz and James Spader try to conceal their embarrassment with this crappy stuff. It delivers endless, meaningless dialog and very little action.<br /><br />Tulsa is a town with beautiful elevator lobbies, an art deco church by Bruce Goff and a lovely, sprawling mansion by Frank Lloyd Wright. Visit Tulsa, don't watch this movie. It doesn't do the location justice.
Saw it at UCSB's reel loud festival and was *shocked* that it won the golden reel award. I wasn't the only one, considering the audience had mixed reactions to the piece. I thought there were many other better flicks out there, but then I learned that the judges were heavily rooted within the area of film theory and other artsy crap. While the cinematography and editing are on par with many other shorts out there, the storytelling is nothing more than your average student piece. Seems as though "serious" student films need to include one of these categories: sex, intrapersonal struggle, and eventual suicide -- Nick and Kate cops out and includes all three. Please, be more original!<br /><br />Oh, and it might be my outsider's opinion, but the guy from montecito sounds a little fake. Does anyone else thing so?
I have been familiar with the fantastic book of 'Goodnight Mister Tom' for absolutely ages and it was only recently when I got the chance to watch this adaption of it. I have heard lots of positive remarks about this, so I had high hopes. Once this film had finished, I was horrified.<br /><br />This film is not a good film at all. 'Goodnight Mister Tom' was an extremely poor adaption and practically 4.5/10 of the book was missed out. Particularly, I found that a lot of the characters and some great scenes in the book were not in this. There was not much dialogue, It was rushed and far too fast-moving, but I was mostly upset by the fact that you never got to see the bonding and love between William Beech and Tom in this film which was a true let down. The casting was not all that good,either. I thought this could have been really good, but it was so different to the book! Anextremely poor adaption, one of the worst I've seen. This deserves a decent remake that'd better be 1000 times better than this pile of garbage.
Goodnight, Mister Tom begins in an impossibly exquisite village in the south of England where the sun always seems to shine. Before we have much idea of the period we hear a radio announcement of the declaration of World War II. Soon a train blowing clouds of steam brings refugee children from London and when shy little William is billeted with reluctant, gruff old Tom (who you just know will turn out to have a heart of gold) our tale begins.<br /><br />And what a load of sentimental claptrap it is. In fact it's just the old odd-couple buddy formula. Aren't any new stories being written?<br /><br />As I suggested there's hardly any period feel in the village and not much more in London apart from the odd old ambulance rattling around. And certainly no hint of the horror of the Blitz as London's citizens file politely into air-raid shelters. Even when the local schoolteacher's husband is declared missing presumed killed, he is later restored to life.<br /><br />I found `Goodnight, Mister Tom' cliched and obvious and John Thaw's accent conjured up a picture of Ronnie Barker of the Two Ronnies with a straw in his mouth doing his `country bumpkin' accent.<br /><br />Incidentally my wife enjoyed this movie for all the reasons that I disliked it and looking at fellow-imdb reviewers I seem to be in a minority of one.<br /><br />
I came here for a review last night before deciding which TV movie to settle in front of, and those I found made this one look unmissable. How misled I feel!<br /><br />Firstly, it needs to be pointed out up front that this is very much a housewife's daytime movie. The performances are wooden, every sentence is an attempt at 'poignant' in the way that housewife's daytime movies and bad soap operas always are, and it is based in that predictable and well-trodden premise that men (particularly soldiers) are essentially violent and incompassionate. The whole movie is about the 'drama' apparent in the moments when the male characters threaten to develop a second dimension.<br /><br />If that sounds tolerable (or even enjoyable) to you, then be warned. Linda Hamilton's German accent, while quite good, is painfully distracting - as is her face, for some reason. The other performances are no doubt an enduring source of embarrassment to their perpetrators, with painfully thin and obvious characterizations being the order of the day. There are few surprises, but do watch for the 'Monty Pythonesque' endless supply of food and drink that miraculously appears from the hungry soldiers' knapsacks!<br /><br />I wasn't expecting action, but I had hoped for beautiful or textural or emotionally charged. What I got was a particularly bad Christmas 'feelgood' story that will have an intelligent audience cringing with the crapulence of it all.<br /><br />Watch it under the folowing circumstances: 1: There's nothing else on. 2: You are a fan of predictable 'housewife takes on men and wins' TV movies. 3: The only way you can appreciate a true story is when Hollywood turns it into a feature film. 4: You've imbibed enough nog that your emotions are easily stirred by unsophisticated storytelling.
Slow, boring, extremely repetitive. No wonder the Weinstein Company did not buy this. This Spurlock should eat more McDonalds while filming himself, and quit producing. There is no way you can watch this and enjoy. The preacher is a joke. The whole idea is not funny. You can make a 2 minute film with this idea not a feature. I am so sorry I rented this movie. I will never watch anything with the name Spurlock on it. It is completely garbage. Filmmakers like this should be on youtube and never be granted a distribution deal. The film states that the American Consumers and their shopping are at fault for the current depression when shopping and buying products, making money circulate in the system are the base of a healthy economy.
This film is just another distortion, among many distortions, on the so-called 'sins of consumerism'. Please note that 'Reverend Billy', an actor (Bill Talen), is nothing more than a bureaucrat against the 'sins of consumerism'. We might want to ask are questions, like: What does 'Reverend Billy' do for a living? How does he make his money? Does he make his living off his 'tax-deductible' organization? How does the Internal Revenue justify this as a 'tax-deductible' church or organization? <br /><br />Everyone knows that Christmas is commercialized, but it affords one day out of a whole year in which people have an opportunity to be charitable, and allows a significant number of people to spend time with their families, friends, or extended families. Everyone is not charitable. Everyone does not spend time with their families, friends, or extended families. But, holidays and vacation time give people that chance and opportunity. Yes, America does have more than its share of problems--but, with perseverance, Americans have and always make it through great difficulties. And, even in times of strife, America has proved itself to be the greatest country in the world. That happens when Americans pull together and unite, rather than to separate and divide. Yes, there are problems with corporations and monopolies, but it will take Americans to bring back the small businesses, along with the ethics to responsibly care for people living in our individual communities. Yes, globalization has brought us its share of problems, but it will take Americans to bring production back to America. Americans and the U.S. government need to learn how to stay on a budget, no matter how large or small it may be, and we must stop our dependence on credit. Our over-reliance on credit will make, and keep us poor, from the cradle to the grave. It is important to buy--but, if we buy less, we will rely less on credit. And, if we are able to save, even a small amount of money, we will have money for a rainy day. Not to say that, as Americans, we will gain an equal share of wealth. Wealth is not guaranteed, and has never been guaranteed. But, stratification teaches us that only a small percentage of Americans hold most of America's wealth. There is a good proximity that you or I can reach the level of the upper, middle class. And, who knows what can happen from there?!? Be positive, work hard--and, at the very least, you and I will be able to reach at least some (if not all) of our dreams. In life, nothing is guaranteed, but we always have that something to reach for. And, if you or I don't have dreams, we might as well be dead. In America, there is always room for plenty of hopes and dreams. As individuals, we are a part of the pack, but we always can become the leader of the pack.<br /><br />It has always been my experience that churches and religion do offer nothing more than additional distortions, but I pay dignity and give respect to people with other beliefs, values, and perspectives. But, as far as the distortions expressed, within this film, I do not have any faith in such beliefs, values, and perspectives. I rank this film with a 1 out of 10--but, in all honesty and truth, this film deserves a zero. This film has no integrity, and I cannot recommend it.
the intention the directors has for this films are quite honorable, but his history of his productions did get me aware that this might not get much to the core like other film makers would do it. keeping his great 30 days TV series in mind but also counting in his MTV production "i bet you will" that opposes his seriousness in any of the matters he documents and also counting in his rather disappointing production "supersize me" i did not had my hopes up high. sadly enough this movie disappointed me none the less. as with "supersize me" after a while i did ask myself what exactly the point of all this was. the main statement gets clear enough after half an hour but the rest of the playtime gets filled with rather pointless stuff and re-repeating stuff that were already shown in this way or another earlier in the movie, so it wears out and gets extremely boring towards the end.
Even if you subscribe to the knee-jerk anti-free-trade politics of this movie, it is still just the same tired note, played again and again and again. Clink clink clink. Even if you can accept a preacher with peroxide hair who advocates a return to first principles, the Reverend Billy is pretty hard to look at as a serious figure. The clownish reverend is the sort who wakes every morning with no aspiration more ethereal than to see his own face on TV before he climbs back into bed that night. He has a pretty wife, I have to admit, but it would take tons more than that to save this dreary mess of a movie. The interminable bus rides are the worst part--with progress shown--can you guess?--by a colored line moving across a map. Aww, you guessed. Oh well, it has the virtue of being short. Is that the only favorable thing I can say? Hmmmm. Yep, afraid so.
This British pot-boiler has one thing going for it: the young men are uniformly good looking. The older men are opinionated, right-wing Thatcherites whose behavior brings back all the acrimony of the Reagan/Thatcher years. Young or old, however, morals in this three-part mini-series are universally suspect and no one comes off particularly well.<br /><br />Nick is a handsome young gay man fresh out of Oxford. It is not pivotal to the story, but he has an extraordinarily beautiful head of hair which makes watching this drivel much easier. Nick comes to London with a friend, whose father Gerald is a rich conservative politician, and babysits his sister Cat while the family frolics in the south of France. They neglect to inform him that, when upset, Cat cuts herself with an assortment of knives and other kitchen implements. Nick mistakes their self-serving 'gratitude' for affection and moves in, finding out too late just how much they despise and patronize him. Inexplicably, Nick lives in this house for four years but, as the plot depends on this point, it's best not to question it.<br /><br />While Nick is most pleasing to look at, he is unbearably obsequious. His coy subjection to rich bigots soon had me climbing the walls. Deeply closeted except to Cat (she guesses his big secret on sight), he does like a little anonymous sex just so we know he is actually gay. Though it hardly seems possible, Nick takes a lover who is even more closeted than he.<br /><br />Supercilious Tories scorn and insult the two blacks in the film, so imagine the venom which spews forth when Nick's sexual orientation is reported in a tabloid. Gerald, in true Tory fashion, has become involved in several personal and financial scandals, so the revelations about Nick add to his embarrassment. This gives Gerald one final opportunity to roundly castigate the hapless boy.<br /><br />Except for one brief moment of indignation, Nick takes the abuse heaped upon him in silence and tacit agreement. Denial, self-loathing, naiveté, or ignorance? You decide, if you can manage to sit through this whole thing without throwing something at the set.
I decided to watch this serial after seeing the endless adverts for it on the BBC in the weeks prior to it starting. I watched it despite the fact that I don't like the pretentious kind of stuff that Alan Hollinghurst writes (sorry to his fans but I think we have a case of the emperor's new clothes with this author's work). I admit that the acting is excellent, it is beautifully shot and I was reasonably entertained by it - however- I found that the storyline was extremely thin and after watching all three episodes feel very unsatisfied with this rather empty production. The 'explicit' gay sex that the media droned on about has all been done before on TV - several times - so it was nothing very shocking I'm afraid. Full marks for production values but low ones for storyline/content I'm afraid.
Perhaps I couldn't find the DVD menu selection for PLOT: ON OFF. Clearly, the default is OFF. When the end credits began to roll, I couldn't believe that was it. Like our poor, but beautiful protagonist, I felt used, dirty, cheap....<br /><br />The characters were drawn in very broad strokes and the writer's disdain for wealthy Thatcherites was all to apparent. I consider myself a "Roosevelt Democrat", but would appreciate a bit more subtlety.<br /><br />Of course, the problem could be with me. I see that many others seem to find some meaning or message in this picture. Alas, not I. <br /><br />The only thing that kept me from giving this a "1" was the nice scenery, human and plant.
So far after week two of "The lone of Beauty" I am a little disappointed.<br /><br />Some of the acting is good, as long as we except that it is only drama.<br /><br />I am unsure how people can feel that this FICTIONAL DRAMA is "factual" coverage of the "Thatcher" years - it is okay as drama, but I feel the award winning book is still much better.<br /><br />I Wonder if the BBC will ever give us the follow up and the next part of the drama and the years that follow with "Things Can Only Get Better" finishing with 2006 and the Fact that we are still waiting! with that promise from a Government that is full of sleaze.
Italian horror/suspense film about a wealthy English lord who cruises pubs and taverns for girls with red hair just like his recently deceased wife Evelyn. You know he must have really loved his wife, because he brings them to his home - a huge, rotting castle - and makes them disrobe and then tortures them, whips them, and kills them. The most bizarre aspect of this film for me was that somehow by the film's end, we see this guy played by Antonio De Teffe as the HERO of the film. Anyway, soon, under the advice of his playboy uncle Roberto Maldera, De Teffe settles down with a girl he meets at his uncle's party. She moves in and strange things begin to happen to De Teffe's fragile state of mind. He begins to see and hear his dead wife and finally, well, just look at the title if you are still curious. Also, family members and friends begin to die in the most brutal fashions. Poor Aunt Agatha(she looks like she might even be younger than De Teffe and they have her in a wheelchair and trying to look old) meets her fate in a foxy fashion. Another man is injected and then buried alive. And of course, there is a whole explanation as to why/how Evelyn did what she did. Director Emilio Miraglia does do some things fairly well: the settings in the film are well-suited for this film though trying to make us believe it is England is ludicrous at best. None of the actors look English. Many having dark black hair and Mediterranean complexions and wearing clothes an Englishman wouldn't be caught dead in. The cars drive on their wrong side of the road. But all that notwithstanding, the crypt scene was effectively shot and I liked the cheesy resolution too. And of course any film with the sultry, red-headed Erika Blanc is always a plus. There is a streak of sexual perversion; however, which I found somewhat appalling with the idea that torturing women was quite alright and healthy in order to relieve one of his mental demons. C'mon.
This Italian semi-horror movie starts out very much like a soft core porn movie and turns into a mystery that has a few to many loose ends to be good, that and the fact it is rather dull just makes this film rather unwatchable for my tastes. The only thing really worth watching are the many boobs spread throughout the film. The story has a guy who at the beginning of the movie luring girls to his castle where he proceeds to take them to his dungeon, go berserk and seemingly kill them. They show the nudity, but they never really show the murders at this point in the film. Then the guy finds a nice red head at a party and proceeds to make out with her and marry her. He has a thing for red heads you see as his beloved former wife Evelyn was also one, she also died under circumstances that must have not been the viewing audience's business. After a lot of talky scenes murders start to take place involving snakes, foxes and such. At this point it is easy enough to figure out who is responsible for the murders and what the motive is then you have a nonsensical ending where everything wraps up not so nicely. This movie just did not work for me, it left me with to many questions and the last third of the film just did not have the boobs of the first two thirds of the film. Explaining Evelyn's death would have helped the film as would have some sort of ending where Evelyn did rise from the grave. Granted the title is not totally misleading as she did sort of leave the grave, just not under her own power. The gore is very light for the most part as there is a scene with the foxes and a scene at the end with quite a bit of blood too. I just thought for the most part this movie was a tad dull.
Wealthy widower Anthony Steffen (as Alan Cunningham) is a sadomasochistic lover, and British Lord. He brings sexy red-haired women to his castle, where he whips and murders them. Black-booted stripper Erika Blanc (as Susie) gets away, temporarily. Mr. Steffen is haunted by wife "Evelyn", who died in childbirth. As therapy, he decides to marry again, after meeting pretty blonde Marina Malfatti (as Gladys). By the end of the movie, they will have had to dig a few more graves. "The Night Evelyn Came Out of the Grave" is great title, at least.<br /><br />** La notte che Evelyn uscì dalla tomba (1971) Emilio Miraglia ~ Anthony Steffen, Marina Malfatti, Erika Blanc
Alan (Anthony Steffen), an English multi-millionaire with a few screws loose (thanks to his first wife's infidelity and untimely death during childbirth), entices sexy, red-headed women to his castle, offering them bundles of cash to stay the weekend. Once back at his ancestral pile, he gets them nekkid, proceeds to flog them with a bull-whip, and then kills them.<br /><br />But when he meets blonde hottie Gladys (Marina Malfatti) and falls for her ample charms, he decides to give up his murderous ways and get married. Their wedded bliss is short-lived, however, thanks to Alan's iffy mental state, which becomes increasingly fragile when his dead wife Evelyn starts to appear outside his window and a spate of gruesome murders occur within the castle grounds.<br /><br />So let's recap: a groovy 70s Euro-horror with loads of tasty women in various states of undress; spooky Gothic retreats and misty graveyards; a sadistic rich psycho with a penchant for drop-dead gorgeous babes with cracking bods; several vicious murders (including a great bit where one victim has her head bashed in with a rock and her entrails eaten by foxes). Normally, a checklist like that would guarantee me a good time—so why did I find 'The Night Evelyn Came Out Of Her Grave' so dull? Well, for starters, the plot is way too convoluted: there are red herrings, crazy plot developments, and suspects galore, and it all becomes a bit too much. By the ridiculous ending—in which we discover that, all along, several people have been plotting to get their greedy paws on Alan's wealth, and that our red-head killing nut-job is actually supposed to be the hero of the movie—my head was hurting too much to care! Secondly, Emilio Maraglia's direction is pretty torpid. Stylish, yes; but as slow as molasses at times.<br /><br />And then there's the bits that are just too damn silly, possibly even for a giallo: the death by poisonous snake bite (surely one of the most bizarre choices of weapon ever); Alan's Aunt Agatha, an old crippled relative who is played by a pretty young woman; the hiring of a group of identical curly headed blondes as maids; the poor attempt at convincing the audience that the film is set in England (mentioning 'pounds' and hiring a crap police uniform for one of the extras is not enough); and then, of course, there is the unlikelihood of finding a bag of sulphuric acid laying next to a swimming pool...<br /><br />'The Night Evelyn Came Out Of Her Grave' isn't a total waste of time (how could it be, with so much female flesh on show?), but there are much better giallo's out there. Watch this one if you're a fan of the genre and you've already seen the best—but don't expect too much.
Lord Alan Cunningham(Antonio De Teffè)is a nutjob{seen early on trying to escape an insane asylum}, with this castle slowly succumbing to ruin, likes to kill various hookers who resemble his deceased wife Evelyn, a woman who betrayed him for another man, with those red locks. This nutcase is quite wealthy and his bachelor status can be quite alluring. He, however, is overrun by his obsession with his late wife's memory(specifically her adultery..he saw her naked with the lover). While the memory of Evelyn is almost devouring his whole existence, Alan tries his best to find true love and believes he has with Gladys(Marina Malfatti, who spends most of the film naked..that's probably her lone attribute since she isn't a very good actress), who agrees to marry him after a very short courtship which should probably throw up flags right away{there's a key moment of dialogue where she knows exactly to the very amount what he is worth}.<br /><br />The only real person Alan can confide in is his doctor from the hospital, Dr. Richard Timberlane(Giacomo Rossi-Stuart). There are other key characters in this film that revolve around Alan. Alan's cousin, George(Rod Murdock), seems to be quite a good friend who often supplies him victims..I mean dates, while holding onto hope of getting his lord's estate some day. Albert(Roberto Maldera), Evelyn's brother, is a witness to Alan's slaughter and, instead of turning him into the police, squeezes him for cash. Aunt Agatha(Joan C Davis), wheelchair bound, lives at the castle estate and is often seen snooping around behind cracked doors. We later find that she is having a love affair with Albert.<br /><br />All that is described above services the rest of the story which shows what appears to be the ghost of Evelyn haunting Alan, someone is killing off members of the cast family that revolve around Alan, and the body of Evelyn is indeed missing.<br /><br />The ultimate question is who is committing the crimes after Alan and Gladys are married, where is Evelyn's body, and will Alan go over the edge? I have to be honest and say I just didn't really care much for this film. It's badly uneven and the pacing is all over the place. It looks great on the new DVD and the "rising from the grave sequence" is cool, but what really hurts the film in my mind is that the entire cast is unlikable. You really have a hard time caring for Alan because he is a psychotic who is skating on thin ice in regards to holding his sanity. He can be quite volatile. Who commits the crime really isn't that great a surprise for after several key characters are murdered off, there aren't but a choice few who could be doing it. What happens to Alan doesn't really make your throat gulp because you can make the argument he's just getting what he deserves. Those behind the whole scheme of the film in regards to Alan, as I pointed out before, aren't that shocking because if you are just slightly aware of certain circumstances(..or advantages they'd have)that would benefit them with the collapse of Alan's sanity, then everything just comes off less than stellar. I thought the editing was choppy and unexciting, but the acting from the entire cast is really below par. Some stylistics help and there is a sniff of Gothic atmosphere in the graveyard sequences to help it some.
THE NIGHT EVELYN CAME OUT OF THE GRAVE (Emilio Miraglia - Italy 1971).<br /><br />I only watched this delirious piece of Euro-tosh in the way of Alpha Video's dreadful DVD-release (looks like an extremely bad video-transfer), but from what I saw, not nearly interesting enough to purchase No Shame's recent DVD-release. Considering their excellent track record, it will undoubtedly be a major improvement over all previous releases. And don't pay attention to the ridiculous cover shown here, it's not taken from this film (some girl holding the head of a Jim Carrey look-a-like).<br /><br />Spaghetti Western star Anthony Steffen sports a hip hairdo and assumes the role of Lord Alan Cunningham, a man haunted by the memory of his dead wife Evelyn. This leads to a nervous breakdown which has him being retained in a psychiatric clinic. Once released, Cunningham channels this trauma by taking redheaded prostitutes to his countryside castle, subjecting them to vicious acts of torture. His doctor and friend, Richard Timberlane (what do you mean, Italian horror names sound "made up?"), advises him to forget the past and remarry but Cunningham is obsessed with Evelyn and even organizes a séance at the castle. Eventually, after killing some more girls, he meets Gladys, another redhead, and marries her almost immediately, but the arrival of his new wife spawns a series of sinister events. Bloodthirsty creatures strike at Sir Alan's family, killing them off one by one. Becoming more distraught, Cunningham visits Evelyn's tomb and discovers it to be empty. Soon, a number of "outsiders" begin to suspect something fishy is going on in the castle and Lord Cunningham's treatment might not have been that successful after all.<br /><br />Director Emilio Miraglia tries to blend Gothic horror with Giallo conventions with limited success. As usual, not the slightest effort was made to convince audiences the film is set in England. The cars drive on the right side of the road, everyone looks very Mediterranean and the castle (and the rest of the architecture) is patently Italian. This is common practice in Italian horror, but sometimes they just take this a little too far. The bad print made this even slightly bearable, since it's so dark, you couldn't see much of the surroundings anyway. But, then again, this is the kind of film where anything can happen in the name of exploitation and depicting reality isn't really the issue. A large part consists of sado-masochistic torture scenes in the castle torture chamber, but most of the time, Anthony Steffen hams his way through this and shows some horrible over-acting. I guess it all depends on your state of mind and this can be a fun piece of nonsense if you're in the right mood. I just couldn't take it, at least not with the print I watched. A pleasant score though by Bruno Nicolai which combines easy-listening tunes with some psychedelic rock numbers.<br /><br />Camera Obscura --- 4/10
Exceptionally horrible tale that I can barely put into words. The best part of the movie was when one of the murder victims turns up at the end, alive and well, only to be massacred again. There is the chance that I missed some crucial plot elements since I may have been in a slight coma during the time this baby was on. The box that the movie comes in shows scenes that are never even in the film. I was lured in by the crude images of bondage torture and promises of a 'Euro-trash, sexy horror flick.' I get the feeling this was the budget version and about one quarter of the film was left out. All the good stuff more than likely. I got the PG-13 addition that made about as much sense as the end to the new 'Planet of the Apes' movie. Watch this one with a friend and a bottle of the hard stuff. You'll need it.
*SOILER* It's fake! The whole thing is a fake! There is no ghosts or zombies, Alan is a Lord and his cousin or brother or half brother or something like that wants the castle and his title for himself. So he invests this overly complicated and needless pointless plan ala SCOOBY-DOO to drive Alan to commit suicide. Most of the movie is him picking up redheads and attacking them. He's not even killing them. He drops off to sleep and the girl vanishes and he thinks he buried them someplace. If he looked at the so-called ghost of Evelyn, he could tell she was wearing gloves! My God what a waste of time. Don't bother watching it, renting and if you bought it and haven't watched it yet, sell it. Quickly! Do yourself a favor and stay away from THE NIGHT EVELYN CAME OUT OF THE GRAVE. I give this stinker the CRAP-O-LANTERN.
Oh, those Italians! Assuming that movies about aristocrats with weird fetishes, castles drowned in gothic atmosphere, and back-stabbing relatives trying to get their hands on an inheritance are inherently interesting to all! If you've seen one film of this type, you've basically seen them all (the MST3K favorite "Screaming Skull" fits the mold, too)...and "The Night Evelyn Came Out of the Grave" is formulaic, by-the-numbers, and dull as hell. Even the luscious Erika Blanc is put to waste here.<br /><br />zero/10<br /><br />
A great slasher movie -- too bad it was the producers and not part of the script. Basic plot summary - man with redhead fetish goes invites such women to his flat only to go into some kind of freakish coma and proceeds in offing them to various degrees of success. Only the cutting crew behind the scenes must have thought the movie was as ad as I did and chopped the heck out of the movie. Nothing flows, you get lost on which redhead he is with at the time (didn't he off that one earlier??), and most of the time it looks like the camera man passed out and resumed filming when he awoke. Not that I can blame him I passed out 2-3 times and had to rewind and resume to try to regain what little plot that does exist. Warning when you see the ending DO NOT try to connect it with anything that happens before -- you will just get an aneurysm. Not worth the time, effort, or God forbid money. Only reason to get a 2 instead of a 1 - the slim chance that the hacking occurred between film release and the horrible version that I watched.
This movie is an embarrassment to film-making. I can't believe it was even listed as a comedy - not funny. Not only was the script atrocious, but the casting people should be shot. Gail O'Grady is just a great actress, but beyond that... %99 of the rest of the cast...ouch. Pretty much everyone else...wow it is hard to even...wow. Here is the number one rule about comedy "DON'T TRY TO BE FUNNY". There are a lot of very talented actors in Canada who can do drama and comedy - none of them were used in this film. Canadian nepotism and casting directors are helping to perpetuate bad film-making in Canada. I realize this is technically a "US" film, but look at the director, actors, location, etc. I just saw this on Bravo - they should be ashamed that they bought the rights to show this film. Again, there are a lot of great films out there that can't get airtime and they show this crap.
Did Francis Ford Coppola have a brain aneurysm some time after directing "Apocalypse Now" that made him absolutely incapable of making a good movie? <br /><br />You have to wonder what the director of "The Godfather" and "The Conversation" was thinking when he made this flabby film. It gives Kathleen Turner a starring vehicle, playing a woman who travels back in time and gets to redo her adolescence knowing all of the things that life as an adult has taught her, and Turner, the trooper that she is, does what she can with it, but this movie couldn't be saved by anyone.<br /><br />It doesn't even have any style to it, and, given its director, one would expect that even if it had nothing else, it would have that.<br /><br />Grade: C-
I wondered why I didn't like Peggy Sue Got Married more than I did, when it first came out in 1986, with all the hype. Somehow I found Nic Cage's character off-putting. Way off-putting. Then the plot didn't seem to make sense. Then by the end of the credits, the question came to mind: What point was this movie making? What was it saying? The answer, unfortunately, was not much, if anything. I really don't think this movie aimed at making a statement; unless it was "your life is your life, you're gonna make the same mistakes no matter what, so keep your eye upon the doughnut, and not the hole". Not a very profound statement, and I'm sorry, not profoundly made in this movie. The writing simply isn't that good. The direction is uneven, and is strangely overblown at times. Kathleen Turner was the best, and in my opinion, only worthwhile thing in this movie, and performed something of a miracle creating a whole character despite bizarre, unexplained circumstances, with a script that had no apparent statement to make. <br /><br />She also finally cleared up the mystery for me of the main reason I didn't enjoy this movie more. She states in her autobiography that Cage made a point of fighting his uncle Coppola's direction every step of the way, doing it "his own way" (not a good idea for a new actor), and putting on a goofy voice she called "stupid". His voice was annoying, abrasive and unnatural, and his character was obnoxious and overbearing as a young guy. I understand what he was attempting to do: play a young-guy "hot shot" who is not as hot as he thinks he is, setting up his own karma for future failure. But he goes overboard, the way he does it is abrasive, not effective, and if he had listened to his uncle instead of "fighting the Man", we would have had a more enjoyable film. Cage slips a little with his obnoxious voice stylings in the movie and occasionally sounds like a real person, and those scenes are more watchable than others. But if I had to watch the movie through in its entirety, I would find myself wanting to pay someone in L.A. to pour a bucket of water over his head during some of his more affected (put-on) scenes. <br /><br />The movie doesn't aim for a statement, doesn't make a point, is great to look at except when Cage is doing a demented Elvis impression (but without the voice), and is, ultimately, confusing and a waste of time. Given all this, Kathleen Turner surely deserved an Oscar in this flailing mess of a movie. I can't recommend anyone spending two hours watching this, unless you like Turner and have a remote to pick out all her scenes. Believe me, you will miss nothing plotwise by skipping the other scenes, and it will make just as much sense. <br /><br />Kathleen Turner is getting a lot of flak from critics regarding her Cage comments, which proves that she's strong enough to be honest, and to hell with other people's comments. You go, Turner! I'm not particularly a fan of this actress any more than I am of any other first-rate actor or actress, but her candor is refreshing. Cage's acting can be good to annoying, and here it doesn't work. At least, in this film, now we know why.
Seriously, there is absolutely NOTHING good about this crap fest at all. Randolph Scott, a closet homosexual who lived with his lover Cary Grant for twelve years, is at his most wooden and boring in the least role. At 57 he was clearly far too old for these romantic roles, although it doesn't matter so much here because Gail Russell looks so much older than her 31 years and she is so ugly due to her chronic alcoholism and chain smoking. Lee Marvin plays his usual villainous role but it isn't enough to save this garbage. Thank God they don't make westerns any more, they're just dated, racist old movies that glamorise guns and murder.<br /><br />0/10.
I knew I was going to see a low budget movie, but I expected much more from an Alex Cox film. The acting by the two leading men was terrible, especially the white guy. The girl should have won an Oscar compared to those two. This movie was filled with what I guess would be inside jokes for film industry people and a few other jokes that I actually understood and made me laugh out loud, which is rare. Without these laugh-out-loud moments I would have given this film 2/10. What happened to the Alex Cox who made all the 80s classics?<br /><br />SPOILER:<br /><br />There were a couple of questions I had after the movie was over. Why did the Mexican guy go to the other guy's house at the beginning? What did his daughter say he got 100 people fired from his last job? Why was she breaking her own stuff when she was mad at him? I guess I should have gone to the Q&A after the movie, but I didn't want to get up at 10am.
Although there were some amusing moments, I thought the movie was pretty lame. The longer it ran, the worse it got. Once the action entered Monument Valley, I found myself watching the magnificent outcroppings more than the increasingly silly and unconvincing interaction of the characters.<br /><br />The character of the daughter was particularly incoherent. First she's in on the deal, then discovers the truth and she bails. Then she's back again, then deserts them again. Then she's back again. There's no apparent motivation for any of her decisions. There were interesting characters, some interesting scenes, and many missed possibilities. I would have to say the pictures was much less than the sum of its parts. Apparently the people who liked Repo Man were inclined to like this one. Searchers 2.0 is no match for The Searchers.
Jeez, only in the 70's... Antonio Margheriti brings us this quirky hybrid of spaghetti western and kung fu flick evolving around a treasure-hunt. The spices of this trashy co-production between Shaw Brothers and an Italian one-off company include humorous storytelling, off-the-wall happenings and some very tame T&A. Extra campy moments are being served by Lee Van Cleef's obnoxious wig, leather-clad bible-thumping psycho gunman Yancey Hobbitt (loveably hammed up by Julian Ugarte, the man who should've done way more obscure European genre productions than he did), wanna-be-witty dialogue, hilarious background music and completely laughable sound effects accompanying various little events (especially every jump made by Lo Lieh).<br /><br />While this little piece of action falls fare and square into the Turkey Territory, it's great to see Van Cleef and Lo Lieh on the same screen, and you can't deny the charisma of this duo. Don't expect too much, and you'll get plenty out of it.<br /><br />This is my truth. What is yours?
what kind of sh*t is this? Power rangers vs Freddy? It was watchable and as good as the first film in the beginning but from the part where the protagonists get super powers in theirs dreams, it started to become childish. This sh*t should have been rated PG or PG-13 rather than R. I expected to see some very mature stuff but it was only for the 1/3 of the film. The rest are for little kids. Plus it's focused too much on Christianity. I know Freddy's a demon but there are many religions that have different ways to fight demons. Why does it always have to be Christianity? This is total Orientalism and filled with white men/westerner's superiority. Don't' watch this, show it to little kids who loves power rangers.
Unless I'm sadly mistaken, I rented A Nightmare on Elm Street 3 several years ago and there was a music video, I'm pretty sure which was called Dream Warriors, at the end of it, and I rented this one on DVD hoping that the video would be there because it was one of the funniest things I've ever seen. It's amazing how stuff from the 80s is so funny now, but nothing is funnier than 80s rap videos. There was this rap group singing that song Dream Warriors on the VHS version of this movie after the credits, and they're all wearing like denim jackets with no shirt underneath and form fitting jean shorts that are all frayed at the bottoms like Daisy Dukes. What could make a rap group look more foolish I can't imagine.<br /><br />(spoilers) At any rate, I was disappointed in looking for that video on the DVD version, so all I had was this mediocre installment in the Freddy Krueger series. The movie sort of starts off with the same idea as part 2, with the main character witnessing all kinds of gruesome murders and then sort of coming out of a trance and finding himself with the bloody hands. Kristen Parker (Patricia Arquette) has a nightmare about the infamous house that Nancy Thompson used to live in, then runs to the bathroom, the sink's handles turn into Freddy's hands and attack her, and then she wakes up standing in her bathroom having slit her own wrists. From there, the movie turns into the usual mental hospital installment. <br /><br />`Larry' Fishburne, tired of always playing the bad guy in his roles, was happy to take on the role in this film as a nice-guy orderly, stern but accommodating when the patients want to bend the rules a little. Not surprisingly, he turns in what is by leaps and bounds the best performance in the movie. Arquette later goes on to become an accomplished actor, but had not perfected her acting skills when she starred in this film. The characters in the movie are mostly all patients at the mental hospital that Kristen is placed into after cutting her wrists. All of them are cynical and uncooperative, almost none believing that they really belong there at all. Eventually, they realize and are able to convince the staff that they are all having dreams about the same man and it's not just some kind of group hysteria.<br /><br />Heather Langenkamp has returned in her famous role as Nancy Thompson, this time grown up into a dream researcher as a result of her childhood experiences involving Freddy Krueger. Not surprisingly, she is able to quickly relate to the hysterical Kristen and the rest of the patients, since she had experienced exactly what they're going through. There are some interesting murders in this installment, and the technology used for the special effects have taken a huge jump. There is a gigantic, worm-like Freddy that tries to swallow Kristen whole, there is a scene where a television turns into Freddy and with mechanical arms he picks up one of the patients there for some late night entertainment and punishes her for sitting too close to the TV, but there is also an unconvincing go-motion scene where a couple guys have a fight with Freddy Krueger's skeleton, which has been rotting in the trunk of some car in a car junkyard. And one of the more groan-inducing scenes was one where Freddy attacks one of the patients in his dream (the one famous for sleepwalking), tearing the muscles and tendons out of his arms and legs and leading him around like a puppet. Ouch.<br /><br />We get a peek into Freddy's past in this installment. Not only do we meet his mother, but we also find out the circumstances that led to Freddy being fathered by more than 100 maniacs. In fighting Freddy, the patients all band together and, in their dreams, use their special powers (most of which reflect their shortcomings in real life) to fight him. One student, bound to a wheelchair, is able to walk in his dreams, another has the hilarious powers of what he calls the `Wizard Master,' another is `beautiful and bad' (she has lots of makeup, her hair stands up in a foot-high Mohawk, and she has knives). Clever, but the movie falters when it has only one of the patients, the one who can't speak, not have any powers in his dreams until the climax of the movie, when he suddenly realizes that he can talk in his dreams (at just the right moment to save the day). His dream power was a little too obvious to have been left out for that long, but collectively, now you see why the movie was subtitled Dream Warriors.<br /><br />Altogether, this is not an entirely weak entry into the series. The acting is pretty shoddy, but it's actually pretty good for a horror movie. Larry Fishburne vastly overshadows the rest of the cast, displaying wonderful acting skills early on in his career, and the movie is not simply a rehash of either of the first two – a problem that plagues the Friday the 13th movies much more than the Elm Street films. The characters are never developed enough to allow for the later creation of much tension, which is why most of the deaths come across more as creative ways to kill off someone in a horror film than the tragic loss of the life of one of the characters that we've come to know and root for their triumph over evil. But then again, not a lot of horror movies take the time to really develop their characters to the point where you throw up your hands in defeat when they are killed, or are on the edge of your seat as they run for their lives. But it's important to note that the few horror films that actually do that are almost invariably the best ones…
This UK psychological thriller is known in the United States as CLOSURE. Exploitation of X-Files' Gillian Anderson, who plays an attractive middle aged businesswoman of substance named Alice. She must attend a business party and invites Adam(Danny Dyer), who just installed a security system for her, to be her escort. On the way home, speeding through the woods on a narrow lane, Alice's auto collides with a deer. After pulling the wounded animal off the road, the couple is savagely attacked by a drunken gang of thugs. Adam is beat to a pulp; Alice is gang raped and both are emotionally and physically devastated by the ruthless attack. When the identities of their attackers are discovered, Alice and Adam set out to exact revenge...brutal revenge. The couple at times find themselves at odds on how to deal with the ruthless attackers. Their final decision is to avenge with no mercy. Let there be no mistake, payback IS hell. Also in the cast: Anthony Calf, Ralph Brown, Francesca Fowler and Antony Byrne. Brutal violence, disturbing images, nudity and graphic rape.
I was really looking forward to watching this, being that I love Danny Dyer and I think Gillian Anderson is a gifted actress. The beginning was interesting. I liked the relationship between the two stars. It then quickly jumps to the main plot, which is they get attacked by a group of strangers and Dyer gets beaten extremely bad while Anderson gets raped. They then decide to go for some revenge. Sounds good, right? Well, it's not. The story gets boring and side-tracked, and certain things get really weird. I won't give out any details, but things happen that I, for one, have no desire to see. I like to give all movies the benefit of the doubt, and I really wanted to like this one. It just didn't work out. I give it a 3 out of 10, mainly for the acting.
Although I use this site quite frequently to see how other people rated what I think are challenging or just plain enjoyable films, after watching this "movie" on Film Four last night I felt compelled to write something down, even if it just helps cleanse me once again.<br /><br />The film was possibly the shallowest experience I've ever had - the main characters played by Danny Dyer (23? You sure?) and Gillian Anderson (who will always be Scully as Leonard Nimoy will always be Spock) had no real substance about them - I'm not sure if the first half-hour of the film didn't make the final cut but surely in a revenge movie you would like some empathy with the victims... here I couldn't care less. In fact, the only character I did seem to care about was the dog, with the stag coming a close second. And both animals out-acted Dire (sic) and Scully, who were quite frankly terrible. I guess though you're only as good as the script you are given, and I'd like to warmly thank the writers, the producers, the director and all of the cast for wasting 90 minutes of my life and some perfectly good electricity.
An unpleasant woman and an equally unpleasant man are violently and horribly assaulted by a group of two-dimensional psycho thugs during a night-time encounter on a forest road in Shropshire, England. The man and woman who were assaulted plan and carry out a revenge attack on their attackers...<br /><br />Utterly repellent piece of voyeuristic trash, somehow masquerading as 'thought-provoking' drama, whilst actually coming across as sub-Michael Winner cr*p (you just know that Oliver Reed and Susan George would have been cast had it so easily have been made in the 1970s). What happens to Alice (Gillian Anderson) and Adam (Danny Dyer) is appalling and devastating, yet Dan Reed somehow manages to rub the viewer's nose in every last glob of its sexual nastiness. His camera lingers hungrily on Anderson's naked body both during and after the assault, whilst the script leaves almost all the characters floundering in a turgid sea of two dimensional cliché. His script forces his characters to behave in such a way as to alienate the viewer further from the 'victims' by shoving more ghastly situations into their faces (Adams's attempted post-incident assaults on both Sophie and Alice; Alice's assault on Heffer AFTER his suicide-attempt confession).<br /><br />The quandary comes from the central protagonists' performances - Dyer is a horrible actor, incapable of light and shade as the young male victim of the initial assault (he'll end up in Eastenders, mark my words), but Anderson is extraordinary. Even as the atrocious script forces her character to behave in depraved and ludicrous ways, she somehow delivers an extraordinarily compelling and complicated characterisation as a self-indulgent, arrogant hedonist who encounters such horrors and needs to retaliate.<br /><br />A vile and pointless film then, almost but not quite rescued by a compelling central female performance.
This movie is the worst I've seen in the last 5 years. It is surprising how brilliant actors like two main characters in this movie has accepted to act in such worthless peace of trash. The film is rape/beating and revenge genre. Couple has gone to party and on the way back they hit a deer and he went out to finish it when a jeep full of bad guys comes. He didn't go to their car, instead he has been kicked and well beaten while she tries to run the car engine which betray her and she has been gang raped.Then somehow she is in her fathers house and one of bad guys is her neighbor so she took shotgun and wanted to kill him... So stupid scenario! Bellow Hollywood ! He was against that revenge but "She is raped" "They laugh to her" so she must kill them all... But once inside the house she was satisfied by pushing rifle's top in bad guys anus and went away while he has gone crazy and execute bad guy. Personally I think that director run out of money before finishing this because movie ends before they execute anyone else involved in this gang-rape and beating which is not big surprise because sponsor obviously has seen this and wanted to take back his money. LoL This movie is not even for people who enjoy watching rape because they won't see anything they are looking for... This director should be banned...It is for upsetting that this peace of trash has been made by British cinematography which I personally like and that is the reason I've watched this. Don't do it yourself you have better things to do that watching stupid scenario film ...
This reminded me SOO much of Michael Winner's crappy 'Dirty Weekend' with it's awful English low budget feel.<br /><br />Firstly I must say I am a fan of both exploitation and serious film. I appreciate, say, 'Demented' for it's ineptitude and 'Last House on the Left' for it's sheer unashamed brutality. And any number of inventive and increasingly brutal Italian spin offs.<br /><br />This was just pointless though. Kind of like a British budget director thought 'let's remake "I Spit on your Grave" without making it too harrowing now that horror is back in fashion with Hostel.<br /><br />The whole thing just doesn't hang together or have a point. What's with the rapists's daughter? Why bother having the man be an expert in security cameras? Crappy.
This is the biggest load of crap that I have seen in a long time. The last time I hated a movie so much was whilst watching "28 Days later" and "Magnolia". There is absolutely no point to this movie, except to see some really sick and twisted sex/rape scenes, Gillian Anderson relieving herself on the side of the road, and every single sentence of dialog having to use the "F" word at least a couple of times in it. It has extremely cheap acting and is very low budget. My friend and I eventually turned off the movie after about half an hour. We had tried to give it a chance, but nothing could save this crud. DO NOT WATCH IT!!!
A truly horrible film that left me feeling sullied by having watched the forty minutes or so I could stand. Not the actors' fault, but the writer/director, producers, financiers, etc., need a very stiff talking to. Maybe it thinks it is profound. It isn't. This rape and ultra-violence, unlike that central to Clockwork Orange, has nothing to say about or add to the sum of human understanding. It's no Straw Dogs, either, to which I have seen it compared. Rather it feels like something Pete Walker might have turned his hand to, yet even in saying that I'm probably being a bit unfair on Pete Walker.<br /><br />Revenge is a powerful human desire, but The Bedroom Window has more to say about that and male emasculation than this pitiful effort.<br /><br />I don't think it's particularly misogynistic, merely too gleeful in its depiction of certain details -- the blood running down GA's leg post rape, par example. It's neither challenging nor confrontational, though I'm sure the film-makers consider themselves very 'daring', just deeply unpleasant.<br /><br />Is this as high as we can aim? Is this why those involved wanted to make films? ( I did write in here the Latin phrase which translates as Oh the Times! Oh the customs! But the new spell-check on IMDb wouldn't let me post until I had removed it. Likewise I had to remove square parentheses. Get it sorted IMDb.)<br /><br />Where is the lofty aspiration? The noble impulse? When you look at British film - the joyful comedies of Ealing or the Boulting Brothers; Carol Reed's work with Graham Greene on Fallen Idol, Our Man in Havana or the sublime The Third Man (a film which has far more to say about evil than a thousand Straightheads); the work of Powell & Pressburger; or if you want to talk about sex, violence and male emasculation look at "The Offence' Dir. Sidney Lumet, from an original play by John Hopkins; check out "Tunes of Glory" for something worth making, that has something to say.<br /><br />Unlike the foregoing, Straightheads is, alas, an altogether hateful waste of celluloid.
I'd been following this films progress for quite some time so perhaps expected a little too much. I consider both Gillian Anderson and Danny Dyer to be good at what they do and was interested to see what Dan Reed could come up with but unfortunately it just didn't work for me.<br /><br />The problem lies in the fact that the film doesn't really seem to understand which genre it's falling into and as such it fails to impress on drama, horror and thriller elements because rather than focusing on one of them and doing it well it's a bit of a jack of all trades and master of none.<br /><br />The premise (as with most revenge films) is simple, couple meet and go out, something bad happens and they get their revenge it's a simple formula and one that many directors have handled expertly over the years. Unfotunately in this case it's as if Dan Reed thought, "It'd be great to do one of those revenge films that goes a little deeper by showing a more human side to all the characters and delving into their mental state in more detail...." Wrong! There are also a few key elements missing, in this type of movie there's generally some kind of warning. A don't do this or this might happen element which adds to the tension but there's nothing of the sort here. It just simply happens, then nothing happens for an hour, then something interesting happens and then it ends.<br /><br />There's a lot of really stiff competition in this genre and hats of to Dan Reed for trying, I have no issue with his directing abilities but in term of writing... I'd say next time he should stick to the formula for the type of film he's making instead of trying to be too clever and he'll have a quality movie on his hands.
Well where to start here? Straightheads presents me with a bit of a dilemma. Had this film come out of Italy in, say, 1975, been directed by Ruggero Deodatto and starred David Hess, then I'd be lapping it up faster than Labrador drinks water on a summer's day. Because whilst Tarantino and Rodriguez are busy elsewhere with their homage to grindhouse cinema, Dan Reed has produced a rape/revenge grindhouse picture of his very own in England, and on seemingly the same budget as it would have taken Rodriguez to turn Rose McGowan's leg into a machine gun. Because if you want to play grindhouse bingo, then let me call out the 'numbers': <br /><br />1. Rich, high flying career woman meets a bit of rough from the wrong side of the tracks in an implausible manner and, equally implausibly, gets the hots for him. Check.<br /><br />2. Gratuitous shots of said high-flying career woman in various states of nudity. Check.<br /><br />3. Convoluted and highly unlikely plot development that sets up characters that exist solely to do what they do and who cannot be imagined to have any existence outside the scenes they are in. Check.<br /><br />4. Unnecessarily graphic rape scene perpetrated by a gang of males with no discernible depth of personality or background other than they are there to rape. Check.<br /><br />5. Gritty and bloody scenes of murder and revenge to round it all off. Bingo! <br /><br />Plotwise, Straightheads is pretty basic stuff: Dyer meets Anderson and she invites him to a party at a country pile owned by her boss. On the way home, they upset three locals in a Landover who take their revenge by giving Dyer a good shoeing and gang raping Anderson. The couple then set about getting their revenge. So far, so "Straw Dogs", "Late Night Trains", "House on the Edge of the Park", "I Spit On Your Grave" etc etc. So why didn't I think much of this film? A number of reasons: I suppose first off, having the likes of Gillian Anderson in the cast prima facie lead me to expect better, but it's the complete lack of honesty here than rankles most.<br /><br />Because whenever anyone sits down to watch Hess and his ilk terrorising women and murdering their menfolk in those period pieces from the 70's, then they always know exactly what they are getting - low budget quickies designed solely to shock and appeal to the lowest common denominator. The baddies terrorise and murder the goodies, the goodies turn the tables on the baddies and kill them back, and everyone goes home satisfied, their desires to see a bit of nasty violence slaked and safe in the knowledge that the world order had been restored.<br /><br />As writer and director however, Dan Reed clearly believes Straightheads has far more to say on the state of the human psyche than that, and desperately tries to imbibe his film with a philosophical depth that is simply not there. For instance, when Anderson and Dyer are planning revenge on their attackers, they learn that one of the rapists has a fourteen-year-old daughter who is an object of lust for the two men he hangs around with. When Anderson finally meets him face to face, he confesses that he only raped her as a distraction so that his two mates would take their attention away from his daughter!!! The casual and audacious way that Reed drops this little revelation into the plot is simply jaw-dropping, it's almost as if he expects this simple reference to paedophilia to be enough to throw the audience's moral compass into overdrive and make them leave the cinema thinking they've just sat through something of significance. To make sure we 'get it', at this point we are shown a run through of the rape sequence for a second time, ostensibly from the view of the attacker and his concern for his daughter, but Reed ensures that we get plenty more shots of Anderson rough-handled and raped across the bonnet of her car. Gratuitous does not enter into it.<br /><br />After being told his reasons for raping her, Anderson ties him over a table, rams the business end of a sniper rifle (complete with bulky silencer, just in case anyone wasn't clear on the phallic imagery) up his jacksie but lacks the courage to pull the trigger, telling Dyer (who has no such moral qualms) that 'it's over'. Dyer argues otherwise and their moral dilemma is presented as something that Wittgenstein and Russell may have discussed in their rooms back at Cambridge over tea and cakes. It is almost unwatchable in its ludicrousness.<br /><br />In fairness, Ms Anderson acts her guts out throughout the film. It's obvious she wants to leave Scully far behind and, bless her, she certainly does that; one wonders what Mulder would have made of his erstwhile partner squatting down to take a leak at the side of the road and then sodomising a man with a gun? Dyer, on the other hand, does what he's done in virtually every film he's made to date - that is, plays a gor blimey guv cockney type chappie with a roguish grin, a cheeky line of patter and a face that most people would never get tired of punching. This is particularly true at the closing scene where, after murdering his assailants in cold blood, Dyer gazes at the camera in, what I'm sure is meant to be, a look of existential anguish that invites us to sympathise at the hand fate has dealt him and the moral quandaries he has had to overcome, but instead is far more reminiscent of Oliver Hardy looking exasperatedly at the camera after Stan has landed him in yet another fine mess. Which incidentally, sums up this film quite nicely.
Gillian Anderson is an arrogant, driven, career woman who picks up working class oik Danny Dyer for a night of fun. After a stupid accident in the countryside, they are brutally attacked. After recovering, and after a chance meeting with one of the attackers, their thoughts turn to that of revenge...<br /><br />I thought "Straightheads" was terrible. Violent, brutal, misogynistic and unpleasant. If I didn't dislike the phrase a great deal I would call "Straightheads" a video nasty. Certainly it was the kind of film that would have had a no budget release straight to video during the dark days of the 1980's. Frankly I don't know how "Straightheads" got a cinema release.<br /><br />I am not a prude. I don't mind sex and violence in the movies, but they have to be married to a movie with a) a good plot or b) good characterisation or c) preferably both. "Straightheads" had neither. No progression in the plot or the characters and too much left unexplained and unsaid. Luckily "Straightheads" went nowhere fast. It was only 80 minutes long.<br /><br />It was a shame, because there was the germ of an interesting film here, with an especially interesting turn in the plot in the last third. How often do I say this, but it could have been good if it had been done properly. What a shame. I really like Gillian Anderson and Danny Dyer, but they were on a hiding to nothing with this film. She, especially, is very underrated (and is still particularly fit).<br /><br />If you want to see a good British revenge movie, rent or buy Shane Meadows' "Dead Man's Shoes". It is a little masterpiece. Last weekend I should have seen his "This Is England" instead. Ce sera sera...
*WARNING* Contains MANY SPOILERS!<br /><br />Let me start by saying I have a huge respect for Gillian Anderson's incredible talent as a varied and versatile actress - which is why I cannot comprehend her reasons for agreeing to make this film once she saw the script (or lack thereof.) <br /><br />The premise of the film was, in my opinion, a great idea and there were some genuinely thought-provoking themes in there but it ended up like a collapsed soufflé. It exemplifies why I hate 99% of British cinema. It feels too long, it's tedious, for the most part, and not a lot happens after the first twenty minutes. Just when you think there's a chance of it picking up some speed it disappoints like Paula Radcliffe running a marathon. With little imaginative directing and a minimalist plot, there isn't much to keep the audience from nodding off into their popcorn. As for the script I can only surmise that the writer was trying to save a few trees, with the average scene reading something along the lines of "Alice: F*** OFF! (Adam stares. Adam runs off into woods)(Alice follows) Alice: ADAM! ADAM!" I suspect that, word for word, the actors probably got paid more than Kate Moss did for her Virgin Mobile adverts. What few lines there were didn't have a lot of variation with a frequent use of the f-word that would make Bridget Jones's friend, Shazza, proud. There is little establishment of the main characters before the main sordid event which leaves the audience lacking much sympathy for the characters beyond an automatic 'Oh that's terrible' reaction.<br /><br />Alice isn't the kind of woman who courts sympathy either. She's got a great job, an expensive London apartment with roof space to die for yet she comes across on screen as conceited, bitter and dissatisfied before her life takes a turn for the worst. After the attack a few layers are peeled back which sort-of explain why she is this way to start with; she grew up with a tough-as-old-boots soldier who thought that teaching her how to shoot his gun was the ultimate expression of love so, instead of following in his footsteps, she ran away to the big city in search of something to make her feel like her life is worth living. Instead she found a group of stereotypical middle-class Toffs who look down on anyone not rich enough to drive a Lexus and the luxuries that come with an integrated security/entertainment system (i.e. becoming Mrs Robinson to a wanna-be Cockney wide-boy electrician) Someone pass me a tissue. The one saving grace of this character is that she is played by Gillian Anderson. In the hands of a lesser actress she would've been intolerably one-dimensional but Ms Anderson actually manages to inject a few fleeting moments of humanity into this otherwise lifeless human being, most notably when she's sincerely apologising for her road rage in a vain attempt to stop her attackers from continuing their assault.<br /><br />I can't say that Adam fared much better either. Danny Dyer played him well as a fish-out-of-water Jack the Lad but a good performance couldn't save him from both the lack of a script and the total absence of any character background. <br /><br />This film relied mostly on shock value but the timing was off and it felt far too engineered from beginning to end. As for the shock, the most shocking thing about this film is the unashamed demonstration of how painfully thin Ms Anderson has become; it was almost as unsettling to see as the brutal attack scenes. On a side note, only in a British film would a gang of violent sex attackers take the time to offer each other contraception before continuing to cheer their mates on - talk about stiff-upper-lip taken to the extreme! If this is the kind of film that the National Lottery is donating money to make then I'm not surprised that fewer and fewer people are choosing to spend their pound each week. <br /><br />Saying that I hated this film is giving it too much credit, I didn't care enough about any of the characters to warrant that strong an emotion. I want that one-and-a-bit hours of my life back, please!
If derivative and predictable rape-revenge thrillers are your thing, then you're in for a rare treat... They don't really appeal to me, so I couldn't find any single thing to redeem this peculiar tale. It seems like something straight out of the 1980s, a different age when this would have gone straight to video. Gillian Anderson and Danny Dyer do OK work with a weak script and a tedious scenario. But what is Gillian Anderson doing getting involved with a film like this after the brilliance of her performance as Lady Deadlock in the BBC TV adaptation of Bleak House last year? The director is said to have been influenced by witnessing a near-rape and by his work on documentaries, but even that's not an excuse for the bizarre scene where a pack of rural hounds beat up Dyer. I don't think I was the only person in the cinema laughing. What I can't understand is the involvement of the companies behind this film - FilmFour and Verve Pictures. Both have been involved in some great independent British films in recent years. Verve distributed Bullet Boy, Code 46 and Red Road - Straightheads doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath. FilmFour and Verve take note: is this really the best you can do? What are independent British filmmakers going to make of your artistic judgement? It's a big blot on both of your reputations. Listen carefully: can you hear the thousands of fans of independent British films crying in despair?
I rented this movie the other night because neither my girlfriend or myself had ever seen it, even though we had heard from a mutual friend how "great it was".<br /><br />Now, I am pretty conservative in my views, but I knew going in it would be pretty liberal given who directed it. I figured before the movie started Michael Douglas would play a compassionate popular liberal beloved by the masses, and there would be a stodgy conservative opponent as his antagonist. But I thought thats where the political statement would begin and end.<br /><br />OK, the plot was solid: Single president falls for a lobbyist. OK, this has potential I thought to be pretty entertaining, since the plot was unique. But then the movie turned into a liberal infomercial. The movie became more about gun control and environmental issues than it did about the relationship between the President and Sydney(Annette Bening).<br /><br />There were several ridiculous premises in this movie: 1) The character Sydney playing this six figure lobbyist who is a "closer". Could she have been more flighty? She was constantly disorganized and seemed in awe of everything. Hardly a "closer". I am an sales, and she could not "close" selling a glass of water to a man dying of thirst.<br /><br />2) Secondly, is there anything more ridiculous than Richard Dreyfuss playing a right wing fanatic? This is the most liberal man in Hollywood and her is playing some right wing ideologue. Give me a break. I liked how he took his conservative character and made him as sinister as possible.<br /><br />3) The speech at the end was simply ludicrous. The line about "I am a proud card carrying member of the ACLU" was a joke. First, no president would ever admit something like that, being an active member of an ultra fringe group. Second, why even bring something like that up. You just alienated off over half the movie going audience who is moderate or conservative.<br /><br />I thought the plot was great and unique. I thought Michael Douglas was a good choice as president. But the movie went from being a "movie" to a left wing political statement, which is why the movie failed.<br /><br />Its a shame to see a great plot ruined by Hollywood having to force their political views on the audience
The plot is so manipulative, counting completely on the most uncredible and unthinkable decisions of the adults in each and every parenting decision. The children are super as far as charm and delivery of the lines but as I say, the whole plot depends on each and every adult being complete idiots, and therefore in THAT case, making more sense out of their actions (and at the same time being the only way to explain the boys actions of total mistrust). Why would sweey charming little boys take a baby from the shore? How did the baby get to the shore and at the same time account for it being the LAST place to be searched? Why would the 2 boys NEVER be informed an instead at the same time a baby is missing nobody gives a fig about them running around with food and diapers with all that commotion going on and literally every other place it searched? There is just no possible justification to ask the audience to believe this. Asking to believe it would then do to trial (even the informal setting) is too insulting to bare.
In the last 10 years I have worked in 3 different indie professional wrestling organizations, managed many pro wrestlers (including 2 Backyard Wrestling stars), worked on 2 different wrestling TV programs and did voice-overs and commentary for many wrestling DVD's. I have NEVER witnessed the level of outright amateurish stupidity, lack of talent and skill, and shoddy production quality found in Splatter Rampage Wrestling. To even list this as a wrestling video of ANY kind is an outright misuse of the term. Shot with low-dollar video cameras, it's essentially home videos of kids play-fighting in back yards. The sound quality is bad, the video quality is bad, and the acting is horrendous. The "wrestlers" wear makeshift costumes with hand-drawn tee shirts and ski masks and hit each other with a variety of items and halfway imitate wrestling moves. Sometimes the "matches" are on the grass. Sometimes on a back yard trampoline. ALL are poorly acted and executed with a shameless lack of any wrestling skill. In short, don't bother with this stinker. Whether your interest in this DVD is entertainment or academic (both in my case), you will be terribly disappointed.
Yeah, unfortunately I came across the DVD of this and found that it was incredibly awful.<br /><br />First of all, the characters suck. I mean, come on, if some dork in an orange hat who calls himself 'Orange Sherbert' is the best creative idea these guys could come up for a character, then they should definitely not be in the film-making scene. Poor "costumes", bad "interviews", and basically there is not one "wrestler" on this whole disc with any shred of charisma.<br /><br />The "wrestling" in Splatter Rampage Wrestling is nothing more than these idiots gently and playfully bouncing together on a trampoline. They make sure to giggle together all the while, too, making the experience seem more like a toddler's playtime than a "wrestling deathmatch".<br /><br />Basically, Splatter Rampage Wrestling is a pretty lackluster Backyard Wrestling clone. Only, instead of blood, weapons, mayhem, and WRESTLING, we get a trampoline, giggling kids, TERRIBLE audio, and some guy called Orange Sherbert.<br /><br />Wrestling fan or not, avoid this DVD. It's awful.
Whoever wrote the "nice" post about this must have been a friend of these guys. This is bad even for backyard wrestling. In fact this isn't even backyard wrestling really, it's a few guys hitting each other on a trampoline. Each guys is about 45 lbs wet and there is not one ounce of entertainment value in this. It is just a few bored kids that even give yard tards a bad name, if that is possible. If you want to see some entertaining backyard wrestling, pick up Backyard Wrestling A Pleasure for Pain. It stars the 2 biggest names in BYW, MDogg20 and Josh Prohibition. These guys are good. They have actually went since yarding it and gotten professionally trained as "real" pro wrestlers. They went legit and have gotten better. I recommend checking out those 2 guys. MDogg is insane and off the hook. So don't waste your time or your cash on this crappy DVD, there are "better" back yard videos out there.
<br /><br />The movie starts out as an ordinary comic-hero-movie. It´s about the boy who is picked on, has no parents and is madly in love with the schools #1 girl. Nothing surprises in the movie, there is nothing that you can´t guess coming in the movie. Toby Mcguire shows us that either he is no good actor or that no actor in the world can save a script like this one. Maybe kids around the age of ten can enjoy the film but it is a bit violent for the youngest. You can´t get away from thinking of movies like X-men, Batman and Spawn. All of those titles are better. I almost walked out the last 20 minutes! One thing that could have been good though was the computeranimation, BUT not even that is anything to put in the christmas-tree! So my recomendation: Don´t see this film even if you get paid for it!
I enjoyed the previous Ittenbach movie that I'd seen, "Burning Moon". But while that movie was rather grim and nasty, "Premutos" seems to mostly play it for laughs. While its admirable how Ittenbach made this movie with no money in his spare time (and the DVD documentary is worthwhile to see this), I found myself constantly battling not to fast-forward to the next gore scene. Sure, there's gore, and if that's all you want then go ahead and enjoy. But be warned: there's an inordinate amount of lame comedy and tedious story exposition. Many are comparing this to Peter Jackson's movies, especially "Braindead". But looking at what Jackson did on a similar budget in "Bad Taste", it's clear Ittenbach is lacking one thing that Jackson has - talent. 3/10 (for pretty good and plentiful gore effects, and for getting the most out of limited resources - but not worth the money I paid for it)
Simply terrible! Why wouldn't you use actual actors? Look, this has to stop! Stop using non-actors! If you want any credibility or any message sent via these low-budget films...please for the love of god use real actors! Most will work for free...take advantage of that! Now back to my comment...anyway, the humour was lower than that of the bathroom variety and wasn't funny on any level. As for the quality...in one scene filmed on a public transportation bus you could see the reflection of the crew...guess what? It was one guy with what looked like a Sony Camcorder and probably not even his. Well, I assume the only audience for this film are people with a gore fetish...and it wasn't even good gore.
Pretty incoherent movie about a man who belonged to and left a 1960s superficially hippie religious cult, who fights them sixteen years later. The man has a child with one of the other cultists, who during a raid by the police is hidden away, and taken by another man named Hawk who lives in a small cabin by the river. The cult kills some of its followers or some of the people in town. It's hard to keep track of who characters are, or what time period the scenes are supposed to be taking place. The leader gets paroled sixteen years later (I got that from the box - I missed the amount of time in the movie). Nobody is made to look any older, not noticeably, anyway.<br /><br />One murder is done with a large circular logging saw, others are done with knives or a crossbow. I never heard the title character's name mentioned in the movie, but he's the one who overacts the most, hooting and hollering.<br /><br />The movie is patched together pretty poorly, with voice-over helping (not much) to explain what is going on. Some of the sound effects were pretty bad. A man is getting punched, and we hear the sound of a whip cracking. A woman fires a gun, and we don't hear it fire, but hear a ricochet instead! It doesn't seem to have been done for comical effect.
"Igor and the Lunatics" is a totally inept and amateurish attempt at a crazy-hippie-cult-killing-spree horror movie. Apparently even nearly twenty years later, Charles Manson was still inspiring overenthusiastic but incompetent trash-filmmakers. This is a typical Troma production, meaning in other words, there's a lot of boring and totally irrelevant padding footage to accompany the nonsensical plot. There's a bit of random gore and gratuitous nudity on display – which isn't bad – but it's all so very pointless and ugly that it becomes frustrating to look at. "Igor and the Lunatics" is so desperate that it's even using a lot of the footage twice, like the circle saw killing for example. The incoherent plot tries to tell the story of a hippie cult run by the drug-addicted and Charlie Manson wannabe Paul. One of Paul's lower ranked disciples, named Igor, becomes a little bit too obsessed with the Bible stories and drug orgies and gradually causes the entire cult to descent further into criminal insanity. Just to illustrate through a little example exactly how crazy Igor is: he tears the heart straight out of the chest of a really sexy black hitch-hiker girl! There's an annoying synthesizer soundtrack and some truly embarrassingly lame pseudo-artistic camera tricks, like slow-motion footage and lurid dream sequences. Maybe there's one sequence that more or less qualifies as worthwhile for trash fanatics and that' is when a poor girl is cut in half with a machete. For no particular reason, the camera holds the shot of the blade in the bloodied stomach for fifteen whole seconds.
First off, the title character is not even the main character of the movie. He is the sidekick of the cult leader. The actor who portrays Igor believed that screaming loud, laughing hysterically, and having a crooked smile while bugging out your eyes would be an excellent way to scare people. Igor also had the annoying habit of yelling (because he never actually just spoke) in a high pitched voice. He would also say idiotic one-liners. For example when the cult leader murders one of his followers with a buzz saw, Igor upon seeing this, yells out "Paul! No Paul! Why'd you do it? I could have cut her clean! So clean!" In another scene Igor tells a victim that she would have to 'get her own tools for surgery because right now, it was his time to operate.' Aside from the bad acting, the ending did not make sense because while the story builds up what little steam it has towards the climax, which is Igor getting a crossbow arrow to the head and the rest of his lunatic buddies being killed, he shows up again two more times to kill the remaining 'good guys'. The movie offers no explanation of this, only telling the viewer that Igor escaped from the mental hospital. What??? Bottom line is do not waste your time watching this movie. I wish I could get back the moments I lost watching this.
This movie is truly one of the worst pieces of garbage ever. It really is surprising that something so completely terrible could be made. But, if you can stand the mind-numbing plot, character development, and direction, you may get a kick out of the soundtrack which is so appalling that it is funny. The movie begins terribly and quickly becomes unwatchable. Someone should give anyone involved with this movie some sort of consolation because their career was probably ruined because of involvement in this movie. If you do end up seeing this movie or have seen it already (I feel your pain) then these words have come too late. For anyone else, Stay away at all costs or realize that the movie is so bad that it will waste 2 hours of your life. Then at least you can clean up or something while viewing it.
i didn't enjoy this movie at all.for one,i just found it crude and vulgar,for no reason.i also felt it's misogynistic(against women.)also,the movie really doesn't appear to be about anything,and i didn't find any of the characters likable.really,the there doesn't seem to be any point to it all.maybe i'm missing something,but for me,this movie is pretty much a waste of time,when i could have been doing something more productive and enjoyable.like using my face as a pin cushion.James garner is in this thing,as are C.Thomas Howell and Shirley Jones,and James Cromwell.all are wasted here,and i'm sure this was a low point in each of their respective careers.Jennilee Harrison(from the later years of Three's Company)is also in the movie,and it is nice to see her in a non ditsy role.but other than that,she can't rise above the mediocre script.for me,Tank is a 3/10
Watching "Kroko" I would have liked to leave the cinema very much for the first time in my life. I would not recommend to watch this movie: flat main characters - absolutely no development e.g. Kroko the metaphoric German problem child remains a pure metaphor without any capability of positive involvement despite several plot-wise chances to do so. Uninspired actors, non-evolving plot. I guess the movie attempted an environmental survey but did not succeed: camera appeared shaky rather than motivated. Pictures were low - contrast, gray and dark - i am sure deliberately but the components did not add up to a convincing impression of the social milieu. The story had certain potential though, it could have made a good short story.
Made the unfortunate mistake of seeing this film in the Edinburgh film festival. It was well shot from the outset, but that's the last positive comment I have about the film. The acting was awful, I wonder if actual gogo girls were hired? But it was the plot that was truly laughable, in fact that it was laughable and not boring is the only reason I gave this 3/10.<br /><br />** Spoilers below **.<br /><br />I just want to mention a few of the scenes that really got the audience laughing:.<br /><br />Shoving the girl in the field: who would have thought that a kid shoving another kid could be acted so badly. A real eye-opener.<br /><br />The getting on the bus scene: the girl is getting on the bus. But, according to the music, the world is ending.<br /><br />The rolling under the clothes line: Wow, this one really demonstrates the plot writer's skills. In the room, followed by raw meat and skill selling. Why not just get her to perform all three 'sins' at once? At least then the film might have been slightly shorter.<br /><br />The running down the stairs of the mall: watch as one of the girls takes to flight down the stairs pursued by a flesh eating Dau, no wait .. she *is* just walking quickly trying not to break her nails.<br /><br />The running covered in blood: this is definitely my favourite scene, and a fitting end to the movie. A half marathon in red paint, completed by vaulting up stairs and over the bridge, only to be sent flying most unrealistically by a passing car. Not only this, but this suicide is undertaken by the most self obsessed girl in the film, now that's sticking to character for you.<br /><br />I'd like to think that this film was created by a 16 year old and their mates. Sadly, having met the director at the presentation, this is not the case.<br /><br />But, if you're in a sarcastic mood, and fancy a laugh with a few mates.. then still don't even think about it.
I have come out of several years of lurking on these boards due to the sheer lack of intelligence that is communicated through the reviews that periodically appear on this film's IMDb space. I saw this movie courtesy of subway cinema's new york Asian film festival (which had an otherwise excellent selection of movies this year, see vital, snake of june, CHA NO AJI, Survive Style)and have regretted every day that a scene from that movie disengorges itself from the back of my mind, and becomes a vivid memory.<br /><br />I'm sure that you can read a laudatory summary of the film off of Subway Cinema, which is probably why I made the mistake of dragging my friend to the film. The description built up the kind of horror film that I had longed for for a while, one that relies on sheer terror rather than cheap scares. P was in fact different. It relied on cheap laughs.<br /><br />The incredibly annoying announcer described this movie as "Lesbians team up to fight monsters." Completely untrue. There is a subplot built up in this film to make it seem like the relationship between the girl and Pookie is actually going somewhere. More lies. This film seems like a short made for "Are you afraid of the dark?" The story is ridiculous, and only succeeded in eliciting laughter and confusion from the audience after they finally rescinded their attempt to view this film with any semblance of seriousness and try to forget the $9 that they wasted at the door. I almost wish paul spurrier was in the audience so that I could laugh at him and ask him why he wasted 5 years in thailand to make a bad softcore horror-cum-porn that belongs on the spice channel, which only succeeded to get the actress excommunicated from her family, and caused a minor stir at the belgium film festival. The only stir that this caused was a gurgle in the lower intestine as it couldn't extract itself from the sh*te that it is. Anyway, I hope I can dissaude anyone from making the grave mistake of seeing this film, it was truly one of my top 3 worst movie experiences, knocking out soulplane for the number 2.
I will be short...This film is an embarrassment to everyone except its cinematographer. The very fact that it is a critique of the sex tourism industry seems valid until we are "treated" to a lingering dance scene. The plot is ridiculous no one except the most ardent fan of BAD horror will get anything out of it. And for the love of God please stop saying this film is a tale of innocence lost or even of female empowerment because it is quite clearly not (childish fumbling lesbians, what the hell?). this was by far the worst film at the Edinburgh festival (that i saw anyway), someone even collapsed halfway through the film probably because they couldn't take any more of it. this may seem like an overly critical rant but i genuinely cannot find a redeeming feature of this film except for perhaps if you take it as pure comedy. In short this film is best watched on a cocktail of class A drugs.
This was shown as part of the 59th Edinburgh International Festival, though for reasons best left to the powers that be. A lot seems to have been made of the fact that it's the first Thai language film, made with Thai actors & crew, but directed by a westerner. Needn't have bothered to be honest, as this film is dull, dull, dull. Why hint at something, why shroud an idea in mystery, why subtly invoke a feeling, when you can hammer the point home with terrible voice overs, obvious shots and over the top scenes> Nothing is left to the imagination as time and time again director Spurrier clumsily churns out endless clichés. No hinting, no guessing, it's all up on screen, no need to use our imaginations. Wonder when the 'scary' bit is coming? No you wont, 'cause the soundtrack will get more and more intimidating, rising to a crescendo of ominously. Hell, I'm making up words to describe how bad this is. Wonder whether the conjured demon is real or imaginary? Why tax yourself - it's really is a snake, and yes it's really is biting his crotch, and there's blood splattering everywhere. it's a strange, uneasy film for several reasons. It's supposed to be a horror film, but it's not scary - the jolts are signposted & obvious. It might be a scathing attack on the seedier side of Thailand, yet the director has a sleazy, lubricious style when it comes to showing barely pubescent teens. Maybe it was casting himself as the virginity-taking westerner that planted the seeds of doubt in my head. Or maybe the whole thing was just pants. Uninspired, insipid, repetitive, hackneyed - all candidates for best description, but dull seems most appropriate and honest. It's all been seen before, probably better, often with more thought, rarely with less imagination or flare. Sorry. Thumbs down on every count. Truly dire.
'P' (or Club-P) should really be called 'L' for lame. Every festival has a disappointment and this is the one that fails to live up to its much-hyped logline: "Thai lesbians fighting monsters." Rather, this is the tale of a Khmer country girl who's grandmother has taught her a little witchcraft along with a few odd (but specific) rules: "don't walk under a clothesline," "don't eat raw meat," and "don't accept money for your powers." Well, guess what folks, the girl moves to Bangkok to raise some money as a 'bar-girl' and manages to break all the rules granny taught her which subsequently releases an evil spirit that conveniently kills the 'foreign johns' who pay for her services.<br /><br />While this film can't even be released in Thailand due to it's controversial subject matter most American audiences will find this ho-hum horror pic a cross between "Showgirls" and "Interview with the Vampire" as directed by Walt Disney.<br /><br />If not for a few scenes with significant amounts of blood the MPAA could probably rate this for pre-teens only. There is literally broadcast TV adult fare, although you'd expect at least a sex scene considering the fact that the film is about a brothel and one of the actresses is a Thai porn star in real life.<br /><br />As for the 'lesbian' angle, there's one brief smooch and a couple of "I love you's" to prove that the two main stars really are a couple (on brother). And the P-bar has got to be the only exotic dance club on the planet where the girls keep their sarongs on and do carnival stunts (there's a swordsman who cuts cucumbers out of a girl's mouth ... ooh, phallic imagery).<br /><br />NO nudity, NO real monster (unless you count a five foot high Thai spirit with yellow eyes), and no way any ADULT should ever pay to see this kind of stupidity except on DVD. You've been warned!
Somebody owes Ang Lee an apology. Actually, a lot of people do. And I'll start. I was never interested in the Ang Lee film Hulk, because of the near unanimous bad reviews. Even the premium cable channels seemed to rarely show it. I finally decided to watch it yesterday on USA network and, wow....<br /><br />SPOILERS FOR ANG LEE'S HULK AND THE INCREDIBLE HULK <br /><br />Was it boring! I almost didn't make it through Ang Lee's Hulk. Eric Bana was expressionless, Nick Nolte was horrible, Sam Elliott was unlikeable (and that's no fun, he's usually a cool character). In fact, I honestly think they chose Eric Bana because his non-descript face was the easiest to mimic with computer graphics - and it was clear that the Ang Lee Hulk was meant to facially resemble Bruce Banner in his non-angry state. When Hulk fought a mutant poodle I was ready to concede Hulk as the worst superhero movie ever.<br /><br />But then something happened. About 3/4 of the way through this tedious movie, there was a genuinely exciting and - dare I say it - reasonably convincing - extended action scene that starts with Hulk breaking out of a containment chamber in a military base, fighting M1 tanks and Comanche helicopters in the desert, then riding an F22 Raptor into the stratosphere, only to be captured on the streets of San Francisco. This was one of the best action sequences ever made for a superhero movie. And I have to say, the CGI was quite good. That's not to say that the Hulk was totally convincing. But it didn't require much more suspension of disbelief than is required in a lot of non-superhero action movies. And that's quite a feat.<br /><br />Of course, the ending got really stupid with Bruce Banner's father turning into some sort of shape-shifting villain but the earlier long action sequence put any of Iron Man's brief heroics to shame. And overall, apart from the animated mutant dogs, it really did seem like the CGI in Hulk tried hard to convince you that he was real and really interacting with his environment. It was certainly better than I expected.<br /><br />OK, but what about The Incredible Hulk? Guess what... It's boring too! It has just a few appearances by the Hulk and here's the thing - the CGI in this movie is horrible. Maybe the Hulk in Ang Lee's version looked fake at times and cartoonish at others - but it had its convincing moments also. The Incredible Hulk looked positively ridiculous. It had skin tone and muscle tone that didn't even look like a living creature, just some sort of computer-generated texture. It was really preposterous. The lighting, environment and facial effects didn't look 5 years newer than Ang Lee's, they looked 10 years older. And there really is no excuse for that. We truly are living in an era where computer programmers can ruin a movie just as thoroughly as any director, actor or cinematographer ever could.<br /><br />Worse, the writer and director of this movie seemed to learn almost nothing from Ang Lee's "failure". All the same mistakes are made. Bruce Banner is practically emotionless. The general is so relentlessly, implausibly one-dimensional that he seems faker than the Hulk. The love interest is unconvincing (I have to give Liv Tyler credit for being more emotional than Jennifer Connelly, though both are quite easy on the eyes). Tim Blake Nelson overacts almost as much as Nick Nolte, even though he's only in the movie for a few minutes. The Hulk really doesn't do much in this movie, certainly not any more than in Ang Lee's version. The Incredible Hulk was slightly more fast-paced, but since nothing really happened anyway that's not worth much. Oh yeah, the villain is every bit as phony looking as the Hulk. He's actually much more interesting as a human than as a monster. <br /><br />This is how I can definitively say Ang Lee's version was better: if I ever have the chance to see Ang Lee's version again, I might be able to sit through it to see the good action sequences, or else to try to appreciate the dialogue a little more (more likely I'd just fast forward to the good parts). But there is absolutely not a single scene in The Incredible Hulk that is worth seeing once, let alone twice. It is truly at the bottom of the heap of superhero movies. The cartoonish CGI is an insult to the audience - at least in Ang Lee's version it seems like they were trying to make it realistic (except for the giant poodle, of course).<br /><br />It is absolutely mind-boggling how the filmmakers intended to erase the bad feelings associated with Ang Lee's Hulk by making almost exactly the same movie. <br /><br />It is to Edward Norton's credit that he seems to be distancing himself from this film.
This reboot is like a processed McDonald's meal compared to Ang Lee's very good but very underrated 2003 "The Incredible Hulk".<br /><br />Ang Lee's "The Hulk" is a comic book movie for the thinking person. The Hulk takes some time to appear (about 40 minutes), but when he does we see the conflict at our protagonist's core. He does his best to avoid losing control, but as he admits, when he does give in to his rage, he likes it.<br /><br />Now compare this to Edward Norton's turn, where there is no display of conflict in his personality, and he turns into the Hulk whenever he becomes excited and his pulse rate hits 200 beats per minute (not 183, not 197, but exactly 200). To this reviewer, this felt akin to the introduction of midi-chlorians in The Phantom Menace, which tell how strong the "force" is with one, as if mystical abilities can be gauged through a blood test. In the 2008 movie, all Ed Norton's Bruce Banner has to do is to keep his pulse rate under 200, as monitored by a device strapped onto his wrist. And for the record, it is extremely difficult to get one's pulse rate up to 200 even through a very exhilarating run, especially for a physically fit person.<br /><br />Emotions drive Eric Bana's Hulk. He has repressed memories of his mother's death and his father's role in his early life. On the surface he is calm, but there underneath there is significant anger, enough rage to fuel the Hulk when it is unleashed. But the Hulk never kills intentionally, even his attackers. Mostly, he just wants to get away or close to Betty Ross (Jennifer Connelly). He incapacitates his shooters and in one critical scene, saves a fighter jet pursuing him from a collision.<br /><br />In the 2003 movie, the visual effects are there, but as necessary. The action scenes (and there are plenty of them) are necessary to the plot, unlike the 2008 movie where action is inserted for the sake of action.<br /><br />In his quest to turn it into a "fugitive" story, Ed Norton loses focus on how Bruce Banner feels about the Hulk. To him, the Hulk is a dangerous side effect of an experiment went awry. And Louis Leterrier, the director picking up on Ed Norton's cue, fails to add any emotional dimension to the Banner-Hulk relationship. The story can be summed up as: Banner is pursued and Hulk kicks butt, Banner is pursed and Hulk kick butt. Repeat as necessary.<br /><br />The only thing that went against the 2003 movie is that it is perhaps not as true to the comic books as the 2008 version. However, even as I am a fan of the comics, I would prefer a movie that is not as true to the comics as a fanboy's dream but has heart over the comics-loyal but manufactured and soulless 2008 version any day.<br /><br />Perhaps Ang Lee should have read more comics. Iron Man, also released in 2008, is a perfect example of a movie that is true to its comic-book roots and has heart.
I had somewhat high hopes for this since I like Tim Roth. I was not pleased with this film. I liked the Ang Lee The Hulk a few years back so I figured this would have more of a bang to it. First I was very disappointed with John Hurt's performance here. He looks as if his eyebrows were re-shaped for this. His performance was not convincing. He was not as good as one would expect. Tim Roth is cool as always here. The Gama thing didn't really stick to the original story line I don't think. I guess the best part of the film was the end. It had some cool action. The only problem with the original was that it was too long. This one is not as long but it got a bit boring at times. I remember some time ago when Walmart had this movie really cheap for sale and I always wondered why?. Now I know. I was hoping to to get blown away, but I was not.
It's difficult to know where this adaptation starts going wrong, because I think the problem begins with the books themselves. Alexander McCall Smith has worked out that you read them not for the detective stories, but for his deeply condescending and completely spurious vision of an Africa that does not exist. He's done for Botswana what Borat did for Kazakhstan - not as successfully, but based in as much fact.<br /><br />Once I realised this, it ceased to gall me that Jill Scott, an American singer/actress, is cast as Mma Ramotswe. If she is to represent a land that is not Africa, how appropriate that she is a black woman who is not African? She's not the only American on the cast; Mma Makutsi is played by Anika Noni Rose. Both women are far, far too young for the roles they're playing, and far too glamorous. Both brutally murder the local accents, and both focus so entirely on this brutality that they fail to offer much in the way of acting. Scott's Mma Ramotswe is bouncy, cute and soft. Rose's Mma Makutsi is an annoying motor-mouthed bitch.<br /><br />The result is almost unwatchable. The principal cast is redeemed only by the presence of Lucian Msamati, who turns in a decent performance as Mr JLB Matekoni. Hes comes off smarter and more intense than in the books, but I find myself unable to blame Msamati for this - he's a shining light in an ocean of suckage. The contradictions between his performance and the books are clearly laid at the feet of whichever committee of butchers wrote the script.<br /><br />To me, McCall Smith's writing has always been highly entertaining yet notoriously bad. He refuses to be edited. As a result, his books contain experiments in grammar that border on the scientific, and characters that change name mid-sentence. It is therefore something of an achievement that the writing team on this project actually made it worse.<br /><br />The dialogue is now largely Anglicised. Characters speak of "opening up" and "sensitivity to needs". Mma Ramotswe and Mr JLB Matekoni flirt openly. Mma Makutsi moans about not having a computer, but given her constantly restyled hair, makeup and jewellery, I'm surprised she doesn't have a MacBook in her handbag along with her Visa card.<br /><br />So what are we left with here? It's difficult to be upset with this crappy adaptation because honestly, most of the things I like about the original books are apocryphal anyway. McCall Smith paints a fictional Botswana populated with cute, non-threatening black people who are full of amusing and palatable wisdom-nuggets. It reads well despite linguistic travesty, but it is a vision of how a certain type of white person wishes black people were. It just isn't true.<br /><br />Given that, it's hardly surprising that this show sucks as much as it does. It remains to be seen whether European and American audiences will even notice, however.
You know what you are getting when you purchase a Hallmark card. A sappy, trite verse and that will be $3.99, thank you very much. You get the same with a Hallmark movie. Here we get a ninety year old Ernie Borgnine coming out of retirement to let us know that as a matter of fact, he is not dead like we thought. Poor Ernie, he is the poor soul that married Ethel Merman several years ago and the marriage lasted a few weeks. In this flick, Ernie jumps in feet first and portrays the Grandpa that bonds with his long lost grandkid. We have seen it before. You might enjoy this movie but please don't say that you were not warned.
I have to say I was really looking forward on watching this film and finding some new life in it that would separate it from most dull and overly crafted mexican films. I have no idea why but I trusted Sexo, Pudor y Lagrimas to be the one to inject freshness and confidence to our non-existent industry. Maybe it was because the soundtrack(which I listened to before I saw the film) sounded different from others, maybe it was because it dared to include newer faces(apart from Demian Bichir who is always a favorite of mexican film directors) and supposedly dealed within it's script with modern social behaviour, maybe because it's photography I saw in the trailers was bright and realistic instead of theatrical. The film turned out to be a major crowd pleaser, and a major letdown. What Serrano actually deals here with is the very old fashioned "battle of the sexes" as in "all men are the same" and "why is it that all women...;" blah,blah,blah. Nothing new in it, not even that, it uses so much common ground and clichè that it eventually mocks itself without leaving any valuable reflexion on the female/male condition. Full of usual tramps on the audience like safe gags about the clichès I talked about before(those always work, always) and screaming performances(it is a well acted film in it's context)..and by screaming I mean, literally. The at first more compelling characters played by Monica Dionne and Demian Bichir turn out to be according to Serrano the more pathetic ones. I completely disagree with Serrano, they shouldn't have been treated that way only to serve as marionettes for his lesson to come through...he made sure we got HIS message and completely destroyed their roles that were the only solid ground in which this story could have stood. Anyway, it is after all, a very entertaining film at times and you will probably have a good time seeing it (if you accept to be manipulated by it).
Yes. I'll admit it. I believed all the hype surrounding this piece of work, about the trials and tribulations of 6 people, living in Mexico City concerning their sexual lives. And so, I was really expecting to finally see a Mexican movie (in ages) that was both popular and interesting to watch. Unfortunately the film was utterly disappointing. The story presents us with two couples, both with very obvious marital problems. When a third party comes into the life of each couple, their problems reach a pivotal point. Or absolute absurd. The plot then turns into a battle of the sexes. The stance taken by each group (yes, they literally group, girls with girls and boys with boys) is blatantly stupid and childish (I guess the humor was supposed to be there). And it all goes from bad to worse. The performances range from good (Miss Zavaleta) to mediocre (Mr Bichir), with Serrano doing an acceptable job on his opera prima. However, the flat circumstances that make up the plot, the one-dimensional characters, the very poor (if not stupid) perception of what sex represents in a mature relationship etc, make the movie fail. Miserably. SPyL has had an (impressive) good reception at the box-office. Believe the hype at your own risk.
As a South African, it's an insult to think that someone was actually paid to produce this nonsense!<br /><br />Despite the fact that the director was one of the writers for the original Shaka Zulu mini, this "addition" to the series is appalling! The original series was based on historical facts about a man who was a great strategist, leader and warrior. A man who played a large role in shaping the history of local tribes in South Africa.<br /><br />The plot of this film, however, is nothing but hogwash, scraped from the bottom of the barrel by a writer that has failed to impress since the mid-nineties.<br /><br />While Omar Sharif and Henry Cele are good actors, what is David Hasselhoff doing here, rescuing drowning slaves with his red buoy and bleached smile?<br /><br />I kept expecting blond, busty women to appear out of nowhere and run across the screen in their tiny red bathing suits, for no apparent reason. Not that this would've been any more bizarre than the fantastical plot line that was probably dreamed up after 10 pints of beer at a fancy dress party, where someone's caveman costume inspired the writer to return to an African theme for his next "blockbuster".
Complete drivel. An unfortunate manifestation of the hypocritical, toxic culture of a decade ago. In this movie, pedestrian regrets for slavery go hand in hand with colonialist subtexts (the annoying redhead feeding Shaka rice?). Forget historical reality too. Didn't most western slaves comes from West Africa? An American slaver easily capturing Shaka with a handful of men?. Finally, David Hasslehoff could not have been any more obnoxious. One can only ponder, how would he have fared in the miniseries? (Promptly impaled most likely). The miniseries was superb, and it is unfortunate that DH should have gotten his hands on something unique, and made it mundane. (I tend to think that he had hand in creating this fiasco).
Amen to Magsel. There was a lot of confusion going on. First off, how do you know which movie you are purchasing? Henry Cele stars in every one of them. I bought this movie thinking it was the miniseries...WHAT A LETDOWN!! It would have been a comedy but for the young girl being raped. David Hasselhoff (spelling?) is OK for popcorn TV but he was not believable in this film (where was his English accent?) AND WHAT'S WITH THE LOVE STORY??? The movie was supposed to be about a young man's rise to military power - not the slave ship captain getting jiggly with the English maiden looking for her daddy...<br /><br />If I had paid more than $7 for this movie, I would have to call the police - because that would be a crime!
For those looking for a sequel for the fine South African miniseries of the 1980s, this isn't it. Nor is it a historical drama. Rather, it is a dreary little fantasy which has nothing to do with the historical Shaka, but merely uses his name to give a certain cachet to Sinclair's idiotic story about an African superhero who is a combination of Jesus, Lincoln, Superman, and Nelson Mandela.<br /><br />On the other hand, there are a few laugh-out-loud moments, as when Shaka breaks the cross to which he is chained and kicks some serious slaver butt. You know, like Jesus would have done if he hadn't been such a wimp.<br /><br />True, I saw only the 98-minute version, but I can't imagine that twice as much of this crap would have been better.<br /><br />And what kind of a name is Mungo?!
I saw this movie with low expectations and was not disappointed. Its so bad that it is actually funny in a very cringe worthy way.<br /><br />Gael is absolutely terrible, I mean he just cannot act, period. He should give up now, as acting is clearly not his thing.. His co-stars are about the same caliber, i'm sure my 5 year old cousin could do a better job than all of them! The director should be ashamed to have put his name on something so ridiculous.. Somehow I don't think an Oscar is on the cards for this guy.<br /><br />I have never written a comment on IMDb, but this movie was so bad I felt compelled to do so.<br /><br />If you get the chance to see this film, don't 0/10 if there was a 0
Hey Arnold! is a slow-paced and slightly boring movie. The plot is not very creative. The Paul Sorvino character (Shenk) is buying all of the decrepit, low-priced buildings in order to build a gigantic mall, shopping complex and office buildings. This plot goes back to many 1960s kids movies. It is boring. Paul Sorvino is not very exciting either, so the idea of him as the bad guy is not very scary. Gramps remembers something about a historical document, and the rest of the movie is about the last 36 hours when Arnold and Jamal must find the document with the undercover aid of Helga, whose father is hoping to become rich thanks to Shenk's Mall. The kids must move around town on buses, and so the exciting chase scene involving a bus is not only silly, but underscores how this movie is written for very young kids. Hey Arnold, the TV cartoon is usually very entertaining, and it has enough humor to appeal to adults. The TV cartoon is usually faster paced and more imaginative than this movie. Hey Arnold the movie, is about five times more sedated, and a good way to put anyone, including kiddies to sleep. Hey Arnold was a tough one to stay awake all the way until the predictable and totally boring ending. If you want to send your kids to a totally non-offensive movie, this is it. I get the feeling that instead of trying to make a 90 minute movie, the producers started out with a 30 minute TV cartoon script and tried to expand it into 90 minutes. This Mall Story definitely could have been covered in the TV cartoon. Hopefully Arnold will bet a better writer if there is ever a sequel.
Only children below the age of 12 should be allowed to see this film. The rest of us should take a book, MP3 player, or just take a nice nap to endure the experience of this event. This can be best summed up as a "blown-up" TV movie being distributed into theaters. Children will want to see this film, and they will like and be amused by the movie.
this is a great movie. I love the series on tv and so I loved the movie. One of the best things in the movie is that Helga finally admits her deepest darkest secret to Arnold!!! that was great. i loved it it was pretty funny too. It's a great movie! Doy!!!
I have to admit that I'm a great fan of this show, so you must know how disappointed I got when I watched this movie. First of all, the plot was awful, I thought it was going to be something more interesting, like to see what happened to Arnold fathers, or something more interesting, but NOOOOOOO, a maniac wants to destroy Arnold's house, between many other places, so many people tries to stop this.<br /><br />I must admit that the plot wasn't so bad after all, but what really sucked were the steps that Arnold and his friends do to stop this maniac, they become friends of a spy,; they drive a bus (based on a video game, for God sake), and to worse everything, they make super-moves on the bus, things that many persons had already tried and died, but not Arnold, Gerald and Helga, 'cause they are experts on a video game.<br /><br />Honestly, my mom, my sister, even me got really disappointed after watching this movie, 'cause it was the worst way to finish a really good cartoon. I must admit that I used to enjoy "Hey Arnold!", it was one of my favorite cartoons on Nickelodeon, but after this crap of movie, I'm not quite sure if I'm going to watch "Hey Arnold!" as I used to watch it on the past.<br /><br />Other thing Nickelodeon, with that enormous number of dynamite I can assure you that not a simple street would explode, I think that the whole city could explode with that, oh, and please, if all of your future movies from good cartoons are going to be like that, don't do more movies, you give a bad critic to cartoons that used to be good.<br /><br />Honestly, I think this was the worst way to end this show, a good show transformed into this crap of movie.
tries to be funny and fails miserably. The animation is just terrible, looks like a 2 year old threw it together in his sleep. Plot is dull and cliched. IF you have a young child, maybe rent it. but don't waste hard earned money to pay to see it.<br /><br />1/10
I like animated shows. I enjoy the Nick fare pretty much, including Hey, Arnold. But moving a TV show to the Big Screen isn't easy and this just didn't feel big enough. It was more like a long episode of the show, and it just didn't move along that well. Judging by the behavior of the kids we had with us, it didn't score that well with them either.
When HEY ARNOLD! first came on the air in 1996, I watched it. It was one of my favorite shows. Then the same episodes started getting shown over and over again so I got tired of waiting for new episodes and stopped watching it. I was sort of surprised when I heard about HEY ARNOLD! THE MOVIE since it doesn't seem to be nearly as popular as some of the other Nickelodeon cartoons like SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS. Nevertheless, having nothing better to do, I went to see the movie anyway. Going into the theater, I wasn't expecting much. I was just expecting it to be a dumb movie version of a childrens' cartoon like the RECESS movie was. I guess I got what I expected. It was a dumb kiddie movie and nothing more. There were some good parts here and there, but for the most part, the movie was a stinker. Simply for kids.
the guy who wrote, directed and stared in this shocking piece of trash should really consider a carer change. Yes Rob Stefaniuk, i mean you! Seriously, who funded this crap? there are so many talented writers out there whom money could be better spent on. I think the idea is great but the acting, script and directing is just plain awful! The jokes are so not funny, I understand that they are supposed to be taking the mickey. BUT do it with style, this movie is screaming 1995 Saturday night live skits. Why, I say again why do studios give money to hacks like Rob Stefaniuk - NEVER GIVE A COMEDIAN THE Opportunity TO WRITE DIRECT AND STAR IN HIS OWN MOVIE. DUH!
Phil the Alien is one of those quirky films where the humour is based around the oddness of everything rather than actual punchlines.<br /><br />At first it was very odd and pretty funny but as the movie progressed I didn't find the jokes or oddness funny anymore.<br /><br />Its a low budget film (thats never a problem in itself), there were some pretty interesting characters, but eventually I just lost interest.<br /><br />I imagine this film would appeal to a stoner who is currently partaking.<br /><br />For something similar but better try "Brother from another planet"
This movie has got to be one of the worst I have ever seen make it to DVD!!! The story line might have clicked if the film had more funding and writers that would have cut the nonsense and sickly scenes that I highly caution parents on.... But the story line is like a loose cannon. If there was such a thing as a drive thru movie maker-this one would have sprung from that.It reminded me a lot of the quickie films that were put out in the 1960's, poor script writing and filming. <br /><br />The only sensible characters in the whole movie was the bartender and beaver. The rest of the film, could have easily been made by middle school children. I give this film a rating of 1 as it is truly awful and left my entire family with a sense of being cheated. My advice-Don't Watch It!!!
Although it got some favorable press after playing at the Toronto Intl. Film Festival, there were a number of reasons not to expect too much from this. One -- it's an ultra-low budget Canadian film. Two -- it's written, directed and starring the same person (usually a bad sign, unless it's Woody Allen, George Clooney or one or two other respected filmmakers). But despite my watching it with lowered expectations, it still turned out to a far bigger disappointment than I thought possible.<br /><br />In a nutshell -- bad script, bad acting, terrible directing! Don't waste your time or money on this turkey. It claims to be a comedy, but I only laughed twice. Plus, there is awful music blaring throughout. How this got any attention I'll never know.
Well this film has certainly had a fair amount of hype; From the buzz at the Toronto Film Festival to gushing reviews on CBC Radio. A refreshing, wacky, hilarious indie movie apparently. I'd been looking forward to it for months.<br /><br />How can I put it this simply? It sucked in a very big way. An exercise in cinematic lameness that makes Adam Sandler look like a comic genius.<br /><br />At best it was mildly amusing and at worst coma inducing. An amerterish script badly directed and shoddily edited into a ramshackle mess.<br /><br />And what was with the music being 500db louder than the rest of the sound track? That was about the only truly odd thing about it.<br /><br />If you want to see a genuinely funny, bizarre movie involving aliens then try Repoman. There is no comparison!
The fact that I did not like the music is a very personal opinion, the historical innacuracies are not. I do realize that it is an opera and not a documentary, but some important aspects are missing, especiallly if other people comment falsely because of it.<br /><br />Abbu Abas was the mastermind of this operation, which was staged and reorganized due to discovery on board the shiph, in order to free 50 terrorists from Israeli prisons, one of which was Samir Kuntar, a heinous terrorist whose story you can find by searching for "klinghoffer samir kuntar" on google. Abbu Abbas was responsible for many other terrorist operations, even if he never set foot on the Achile Lauro. Ben Laden never set foot on the planes that hit the WTC, did he?<br /><br />*** possible spoilers ***<br /><br />The movie almost excuses the terrorists' actions and reactions because of horrors they might have lived, always accentuating and exaggerating how much the Israeli's have done to hurt them. However, they never portray the hurt that the Palestinians have ever caused to the Israelis. The movie uses (quite horrid!!!) images from the Sabra and Chatila horror, and nothing is said, understating the general belief that it was Israel who was responsible, without ever mentioning that it was a Syrian-les Lebanese army who conducted the massacre.<br /><br />The acting was generally very bad, but I guess that's what can be expected from opera singers?<br /><br />On another note I am shocked at how a person can excuse terrorists killing a hostage because the hostage tried to stir the 400 innocent hostages against the armed terrorists, and add that the person should not be considered sympathetic because he is a supporter of zionism. Imagine how unsympathetic his wife was, spitting on the terrorists who shot her husband and threw his body into the sea. I hope no one in the world is as cruel as she is(wink wink)
After finally viewing this movie in its entirety, I am completely mystified by the adoration it has received by critics and online users alike. Is it the worst Western ever? No, I wouldn't say that. But "the last great American Western", a phrase I saw applied to it more than once? Not even close.<br /><br />A movie that tries to tell a story like this needs believable characters that speak believable dialogue, and the dialogue in this film is among the most hackneyed and clichéd that I've ever seen. The movie can be measured in groaners per minute; as in, how many times is an actor or actress forced by the script to say something that no human being would say in real life? There's so many instances of this that it's distracting. Cheesy lines come at you in waves; predictable, unoriginal, and often. <br /><br />If bad dialogue doesn't bother you, then how about bad gunfights? Few Westerns can show you gunfighting that's completely unbelievable while desperately trying to make you take the action seriously. It's okay if there's a comic edge to such gunfighting, such as in Silverado, but in Tombstone the very staged and very stiff choreography of the early gunplay is just another reason to leave this movie off the list of good Westerns. The final showdown somewhat redeems the director on this score, but by then, I was so disinterested in the movie that it was beyond saving.<br /><br />Other than those flaws, I can say the visuals are stunning - the movie's well shot and the settings all look great. The acting is passable, especially considering what the actors were given to work with. However, if you're looking for the last great American Western, do yourself a favor - go rent Unforgiven instead.<br /><br />3 out of 10
I really can't say anything bad *or* good about this thing. Its characters are likable enough, it's capably produced and designed, and professional-looking (except for that cheesy monster suit). However, it has no originality, no ideas, and nothing you haven't seen in ALIEN, PREDATOR, ARMAGEDDON and/or OUTLAND. It's just another formula, cookie-cutter, "grimy corporate drones in deep space versus unstoppable monster" flick. Pretty much a waste of time.
This crew-versus-monsta has been done a hundred times, sometimes better. This one was pretty slow-moving ; only the monster's resurrection was really worthwhile. Attempts at character developments gets botched by routine. Yeah, "routine" is the word. Went straight to video in France. No wonder
his costume drama is ill cast and without charm.<br /><br />George Sanders was a superb character actor. But he is thoroughly implausible here as the lead, an Eighteenth Century rogue known for his philosophy and great good looks. His costar is, of all people, Akim Tamiroff. Some Frenchman! Then there's Signe Hasso, in a dark wig, as the virginal daughter of a wealthy family. Carole Landis fares best. The movie opens with her in silhouette. She is a soubrette, and a naughty girl at that. She disappears for a while but turns up in an improbably situation. But she's good. She was always an appealing actress. Here she is cast closest to her usual type of role.<br /><br />It's meant to be a little naughty, kind of ooh-la-la. It ought to have had a light touch but it's a leaden affair from start to finish.
Positively awful George Sanders vehicle where he goes from being a thief to police czar.<br /><br />While Sanders was an excellent character actor, he was certainly no leading man and this film proves it.<br /><br />It is absolutely beyond stupidity. Gene Lockhart did provide some comic relief until a moment of anger led him to fire his gun with tragedy resulting.<br /><br />Sadly, George Sanders and co-star Carol Landis committed suicide in real life. After making a film as deplorable as this, it is not shocking.<br /><br />The usual appealing Signe Hasso is really nothing here.
The often-reliable Leonard Maltin says this is a "delightful romance" and that Sanders is "superb." Maltin must have confused this movie with something else. Sanders is snide and droll and superb, as usual, – you can imagine his delivery of the line regarding adultery, "Sometimes the chains of matrimony are so heavy they have to be carried by three," –but dull, wooden and dated describe this movie more accurately. The storyline itself, an autobiography with Sanders as a suave jewel thief, Francois Eugene Vidocq, who becomes chief of police but can hardly resist the lure of fine jewels, is entertaining enough, but it has the same kind of hollow historical Hollywood treatment that marred such period epics as *Marie Antoinette*, and certainly the deplorable *Forever Amber* (which screams for a classy remake). Though, in his defense, Sanders tries mightily to add some depth to his character, it is all for naught. I am an unabashed Douglas Sirk fan, but this is 1946, and it is one of Sirk's earliest American efforts, lacking many of the signature touches that would define his florid, breast-heaving potboilers. Sirk is just getting his feet wet here, and made a number of unmemorable films over the next ten years until he struck gold with *Magnificent Obsession*, and hit his stride, bombarding us with such estrogen-fests as *All That Heaven Allows*, *Written on the Wind*, and *Imitation of Life*. But *Scandal In Paris* is hardly his best work – a relatively low-budget affair with cheesy sets and ineffective costuming.
"Iowa" wants to be "Requiem for a Dream" for Midwest meth, but it comes across as a hard R rated "Reefer Madness". <br /><br />Yes, drugs are bad, and meth is horribly pernicious, as an addiction and how it destroys people, families and communities. But these characters who are either dumb or ridiculous and the eye-rolling plot won't teach that lesson to anyone. <br /><br />While writer/director/star Matt Farnsworth has some charisma on screen, his partner Diane Foster plays a wincibly silly wide-eyed innocent corrupted by drugsas was already satirized by Susan Sarandon in "The Rocky Horror Picture Show". I really felt sorry for her for all the totally unnecessary nudity she was put through. It wasn't until the end of the film that I realized I was supposed to think these two were recent high-school graduates to explain some of their naiveté, as we are bombarded by their school photos, but if so, they even looked older than the folks on "The O.C.". While they have good chemistry on screen, they are a pale imitation of a "Badlands"-type couple. <br /><br />The guest stars are badly used. Michael T. Weiss, who was so good in TV's "The Pretender", is completely ludicrous as a corrupt parole officer and his brutal violence is just plain crazy, as his character pretty much ruins any social significance for the film. Rosanna Arquette has to be even sleazier than she rolled around for David Cronenberg as a very low rent Livia Soprano. John Savage even has to mouth the old baby boomer excuses about I did pot but this is worse. A Goth chick shows up, with the odd explanation that she's a stripper from Des Moines. The obligatory Latino drug dealer appears - in Iowa? <br /><br />With a limited budget, the interior view of meth use is portrayed quite vividly, with quite scary hallucinations. We certainly see them go crazy. <br /><br />While the Iowa locations are used very well (including an amusing scene of a propane gas robbery), the accents and church references are confusingly Southern Baptist. Guns seem to be used by law abiding and law breaking citizens here more than in any inner-city drug-dealing movie.<br /><br />The songs of Iowa's best known bard Greg Brown are used throughout, but oddly are not listed in the credits. I hope they were used with permission.<br /><br />I caught this at its commercial run in NYC because I missed it at the Tribeca Film Festival where it got considerable-- and inexplicable-- buzz.
Well, I don't think the picture is as bad as most of the reviews make it out to be. . . but there's no denying that it's got problems.<br /><br />Mostly, the problems are in the script. There's a plot - but not much story, and certainly not one that anybody could call plausible; it trots out any number of self-consciously strange and/or stereotypical characters, lines, moments, what-have-you and, by the end, it just hasn't added up to much in this department.<br /><br />Sorry, but I couldn't care less about whatever "social ill" Farnsworth might be trying to address; there will always be a sector of the population willing to do just about anything to shred their brains, even if it requires running around corn fields trying to steal ammonia, or whatever it is those morons do. So, as a film, you won't find me calling "Iowa" "important." But, at a stylistic level, the picture is more than interesting and some of Farnsworth's choices in depicting a meth-head's wigged-out state are beautiful, hilarious, disturbing and - yes, I'm going to say it - inspired.<br /><br />The acting is uneven, but that just may be a casualty of the afore-praised stylistic reaching. Look, Rosanna Arquette is a fine actress - but she's not very good here, so a discriminating audience member does have to ask, "What happened?" It's weird that Diane Foster manages a simplicity and grace that so few of the other actors can come anywhere near. For example, I might seriously consider whatever explanation Farnsworth could provide for Michael T. Weiss's over-the-top turn as a probation officer, but I doubt I'd ever buy it; It Just Doesn't Work. <br /><br />Then again, it's the most alive and in the moment that I've seen John Savage appear in years. So go figure.<br /><br />This is the sort of work that tantalizes, but does not promise - and that's okay; neither Farnsworth nor anyone else is required to make movies. So, whether or not Farnsworth has another film in him remains to be seen, but if he does, it seems pretty likely that it won't be bland pap. In an age when people are planning their lives around the latest installment of "American Idol," perhaps we could allow, not scorn, Farnsworth's legitimate and undeniably flawed film. <br /><br />What is more, perhaps we could welcome, not berate, his energetic and sometimes blessedly idiosyncratic imagination.
The week before I saw Iowa, I saw Art School Confidential, in which a pretentious student makes a film and can't decide whether he wants it to be art or violent exploitation. Iowa could be the film that he made. I can see elements of much better movies in Iowa - Spun and Natural Born Killers. However, in addition to artiness, both those movies had good character development and coherent story lines. Iowa. This movie stumbles to a preposterous end. I have to admit that it had consistency. This movie is bad from beginning to end and not particularly worse or better in any part. The actors all did what they could. Roseanna Arquette deserves better. She demonstrates that she is very talented, very funny, and very sexy. But why does she have to demonstrate it in this turd ball.
This movie made me really mad because the main characters or all the characters have a southern accent. I've lived in Iowa for 29 years and I know that people don't have a southern accent here. This movie is about a guy who does meth and I don't know the real plot or what the movie is suppose to be about. It has some pretty graphic drug use in it and it's really insulting so see these people use meth like it was sugar. I lost my brother to meth and this movie makes me sick to my stomach because it glamorizes the drug. The movie makes it look cool to use the drug but I was happy at the end when the guy almost made it across the state line. I also know that most women who experience a traumatic rape don't want to make love to their boyfriend or husband the next day. The movie is just wrong in all directions. I would suggest "The Basketball Diaries" if I was going to suggest a movie about drugs.
Tasteless. I can't even write intelligently about the movie. I laughed the entire movie. It wasn't supposed to be funny. Matt Farnsworth has no clue what he is doing. His story is written, it seems, without any knowledge of Iowa culture and the meth problem. I know Farnsworth is from Iowa, which makes his movie even more puzzling to me. Why do the two main characters have accents? It doesn't make any sense. The acting was mediocre at best and at times hard to watch. Gratituous violence and sex filled the movie. I am guessing that the violence and sex were supposed to make the movie edgy, but it came across as unbelievable and offensive. The ending of the movie is so brilliantly bad that all I could do was laugh and look at the rolling credits with disbelief. As I walked out of the theatre everyone else who was leaving was laughing along with me. The ending of the movie was meant to evoke tears, but it did the exact opposite. Do not waste your time on this horrible movie, unless you want to see ignorant, sappy, overacted, clichéd drivel.
I'm shocked that there were people who liked this movie..I saw it at Tribeca and most of the audience laughed through it at scenes that were not meant to be funny. I felt bad because the lead actress was in the audience, but honestly the plot to this movie needed MAJOR revision..it didn't even make sense, one second the characters question what exactly it is that they're snorting..the next scene they're hopelessly addicted and figure out how to make it?? Also the ending just took the cake..I'm not going to spoil the magnificent conclusion..but it pretty much blended right in with the rest of the horrible plot/script...see this movie for comedy if you must..
the IMDb guidelines state that you have to declare if your comments contain 'spoilers'. <br /><br />well, this whole film is something of a spoiler... a cautionary tale that glorifies what it cautions against, a tale of lost youth that doesn't know where it itself is going.<br /><br />i just saw this at the tribeca film festival. this film wasn't just bad, it was really bad.<br /><br />the acting is inconsistent, the characters are the mostly cliché offerings with little depth, and farnsworth's acting was very bad in particular.<br /><br />from the patronizing accents to the pointless plot line to the out of place 'graphic' elements to the repetitious dialog and scenarios... it sucked the big one. <br /><br />i think he was looking for sort of a more edgy, updated 'drugstore cowboy' with a touch of 'natural born killers' but it is no where as sensitive to the characters as the former and no where as shocking (outside of some frat-level gore) as the ladder. <br /><br />more than anything, someone needed to really A) edit the screenplay <br /><br />(there are some things in there to build on and clearly <br /><br />deals with a worthy subject... if ham-handed in it's attempt.) B) edit the film. if it was cut down to a core, it might be passable. <br /><br />i would go lower than 1 if i could... like maybe zero kelvin.
As far as I am concerned this silent version of The Merry Widow is the worst version ever made. There is no tenderness or love or spirituality about this version, it is all macabre, Germanic, sinister nonsense. It reminded me of Nazis falling in love; who cares?<br /><br />This silent version by von Stroheim is not a faithful adaptation of the original story. In this one we have leering John Gilbert and his gross relative the Prince lusting after this silly American actress, played by Mae Murray, possessed with a modern permed hairstyle and implausible feminist manner that threw me off again and again. I like my romances light and beautiful, with slow build ups; not harsh and sadistic like this one. And come on, those bee stung lips, get rid of them, girl!<br /><br />Go see a live performance of the show if you would like to get a real idea of the sweetness of the original operetta by Franz Lehar. Failing that, wait till TCM shows the Jeanette MacDonald - Maurice Chevalier sound version. It's much better.
Investigative reporter Darren McGavin (as Carl Kolchak) is back; this time, he's after "The Night Strangler". Once again, police officials and fellow journalists either disbelieve, or want to cover-up, the supernatural angle. Producer-director Dan Curtis presents the same basic story as his preceding "Night", with understandably less success.<br /><br />Mr. Curtis assembles a fun supporting cast, included are "Dark Shadows" alumni George DiCenzo and Ivor Francis. Jo Ann Pflug (as Louise Harper) heads up a sexy collection of belly-dancers. And, although I've never seen it mentioned anywhere, that must be Roger Davis as Mr. McGavin's dining companion in an early scene, feigning disbelief in the existence of vampires! <br /><br />**** The Night Strangler (1/16/73) Dan Curtis ~ Darren McGavin, Jo Ann Pflug, Simon Oakland, Wally Cox
Virgin is selected to marry rich guy. Rich guy urinates. Woman on boat likes sailor. Sailor urinates. Virgin attends gross-out commune dinner. Man urinates on dinner table. Boatwoman does strip tease for little boys. Man pretending to be baby urinates. There is an underlying theme here. Makavejev is trying to say that he is pi$$ed off at the world. To say that this is a bizarre movie is an understatement. To justify the title, there is a scene where Laure, who hardly speaks ten lines the whole movie, bathes in chocolate syrup. It is a sweet scene indeed but the rest of the movie leaves a bad taste in one's mouth unless one happens to share the director's fetishes.
Have previously enjoyed Wesley Snipes in several action flicks and I had expected a lot more, even from a score of 5.8 IMDb, the movie fails to entertain and even though the story is thin and unoriginal, the acting is most unfortunately thinner and goes to mimic a "worst case scenario" of playing "strong" feelings accompanied by some bad acting... Don't waist your time this movie ísnt entertaining, if you wanna cry it might suffice though, even though your tears will be wept due to seeing Wesley Snipes in the tragic action film wannabe comedy...<br /><br />I give this 2/10 it really was awful, if you wanna see a decent movie go see shooter or rent it, its all the good things this movie isn't.
I wouldn't call it awful, but nothing at all shines in this movie, and it is encumbered with some seriously unbelievable basic plot development. It starts out well, but once the main hit is done, it devolves into a long subplot around a young girl which is not compelling, and some action scenes which are theatre of the absurd unrealistic. For example there is a prolonged shootout at the airport in which the lighting is all stroboscopic. No explanation for that. How credible is it that a airport storage area is going to have lights that flash on and off confusingly, and just enough to let Snipes do his incredible escape schtick? This is one of far too few action scenes punctuated by pointlessly drawn out set ups that just fails to draw one into suspending belief.<br /><br />In addition, the whole premise seems to be that the United States CIA team can shoot the place up but get away with it by saying "national security" to the Brits. This gimmick relies on a stereotype that is to far afield from reality to be satisfying.<br /><br />There are a lot better action movies out there. Better formulated, better executed. This one is entertaining at times but there is just not enough meat on the bone and after a while it becomes downright boring -- something that should never happen in a good action movie.
Wesley Snipes is James Dial, an assassin for hire, agent of the CIA and pure bad-ass special operative. During his free time Dial dons a cowboy hat and breeds horses with macho names such as Beauty.<br /><br />Enter agent Collins, his supervising officer. Enter a new assignment - kill a terrorist that is in UK custody. Of course the United Kingdom being an allied state is a great place for covert ops and head-shots outside of courtrooms.<br /><br />The assassination is a big success apart from the fact, that the escape plan blew. So Dial's partner and local liaison gets killed in action trying to escape the police, whilst Dial becomes hot property with the London coppers trying to get to him and CIA trying to dispose of him.<br /><br />Fortunately for Dial the safe-house is routinely visited by a teenager Emily Day (Eliza Bennett), who loves hanging out with cold-blooded killers with arrest warrants and help them escape from the evil UK law enforcement...<br /><br />With a script like that need I say more? On the plus side Wesley Snipes is Wesley Snipes (be that a pro or a con) and the movie is quite engaging. On the minus editing is very disjointing and has a hurl effect on the stomach.
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />James Dial (Wesley Snipes) is hiding out on his ranch in Montana after failing to capture a notorious terrorist. Then he's approached by the agency again to travel to London to have another go. His target has been apprehended there and is under heavy police protection- but they don't want him merely to capture their man- they want him taken out. All goes well but then the mission gets botched and when a senior police chief, Windsor (Charles Dance) is killed, the blame falls at Dial's feet. Hunted like an animal, he takes refuge in a nearby house and befriends a young girl named Emily (Eliza Bennett) who's dealing with issues of her own and becomes his unwitting sidekick as he goes about clearing his name and working out who betrayed him.<br /><br />This latest Snipes straight to DVD escapade came out of nowhere, with a minimal of publicity even for something so small time (I don't recall seeing any advertisements or trailers for it anywhere.) With this in mind and after Snipes's history of duff DVD efforts, this might have seemed like one which Snoop Dawg would tell you to drop like it's hot. But I felt compelled to give it a go anyway. It doesn't rank among his worst, but it doesn't reach any higher than the standards of some of his better ones (The Detonator, 7 Seconds, says it all, really), either.<br /><br />This is, at best, mildly suspenseful, with a minimal of action, naff all in the way of cool dialogue and Snipes not exactly at his best in the lead role. Likewise, in a main supporting role, it's quite clear Dance has only showed up for the pay cheque as well and this is generally one that none of the cast are going to shout for the hills about on any of their CVs.<br /><br />It says a lot that by the end the only 'contract' that's keeping you interested is when Snipes's will end with Sony and with it an end to any further sub par EL DVD action films. **
I once used Wesley Snipes' name as a clue to go ahead and watch a new, untried film in which he appears. So now, for the first time, my Snipes-Method of film recommendation has failed. Utterly. I should first have come here to see these reviews.<br /><br />Snipes ought to be ashamed to allow his otherwise earnest efforts to be so wasted in "The Contractor".<br /><br />One of my worst flick fears has come to bitter fruition. I feared that the shaky, blurry, pseudo-documentary, "unconsidered" directing and editing style (first brought to my attention by the Paul Greengrass-directed "Bloody Sunday") might propagate to other films. Greengass' sickening style was then brought to nauseatingly new heights in the last two of the Bourne trilogy films. My fear had come to pass. In my opinion, these films are made really bad by these motion-sickness-inducing methods, which mistake blurry swipes for "action-enhancement". But the "Bourne Franchise," as Greengrass so loving calls his cash cow, apparently convinced others in Hollywood to go unprofessional in the quest for fast, big bucks.<br /><br />Read my lips, you Hollywood types. Action needs to be clearly photographed and presented, not merely hinted at by poor, lazy cinematographic techniques.<br /><br />And "The Contractor" goes so far as to emulate "The Bourne Ultimatum" in inanely-repeated sound bites, in hopes their juvenile (apparently-evaluated) audiences can't sense them. For example, if I hear a cop radio crackling "Yankee-Romeo" one more time, I'll just scream. The chances are good I won't hear it again: I certainly won't ever view "The Contractor" again.<br /><br />I recommend to those of you who have yet to see "The Contractor": just be content with the tranquility this lack affords to your life.<br /><br />2 out of 10; I am tempted to lower that to a 1.
Don't really know where to start with one of the worst films I have had the displeasure to watch in a very long time. From the setting which was quite obviously and very clear to anyone who has visited London for even 1 day will agree...was not London. To the much unexplained way how Snipe's character managed to escape the country back to the US without a single problem. Then he convinces the girl and grandmother to visit him in America, how on earth did Grandma agree to that...he's an assassin! Well that's the ending how about during the film, well unfortunately that didn't fare much better. We have British cops driving an amazing range of cars, I'm sure it was an eighties Vauxhall Belmont which chased the taxi after the assignation, but a modern Subaru Imprezza escorting the prison van in a few scenes prior. SO19 or whoever the gun toting arm of the Met they were trying to portray was happily running around the streets with their guns out chasing after Snipe's along with the CIA. There were children walking around, but the police were still stating they had a clear shot to shoot him, does this happen in London? No it doesn't, I live there. We also have the very implausible travel from central London to the airport (let's say Heathrow for arguments sake) within 5 minutes of receiving a call. We also have terrible American accents, a young girl who's posher than the Queen, but lives in Elephant & Castle. What does it say for British police when helicopters and a number of officers at Snipe's location can't find Snipe's and he manages to evade capture by hiding behind some stairs? The train station was obviously not even on UK soil and the fight scene sound effects were terrible. The plot was also extremely poor, boring and been written and filmed a lot better a thousand times before. But there were a few notable actors cast in this film, what were they thinking and please don't let that sway you to watch this film! This film didn't seem to know what it wanted to be, if you are going to concentrate on the dramatic aspects from the aftermath of an assignation then you need a strong rigid plot with plausible scenery and setting, this is something the viewer has time to take in and appreciate and if you do it wrong then you notice it. If you want an all out action film (which this is not) then continuity and scenery can be put to the side.
The problem with THE CONTRACTER is summed up by the opening scene . The CIA want an international terrorist dead so contact black ops assassin James Dial . The terrorist is appearing at the Old Bailey court in London which begs the question why do they want to bump off a terrorist if he's going to spend the rest of his life in jail ? He's going to be out of circulation either way . Didn't the CIA have a chance before he was arrested ? If by some chance he gets a not guilty verdict then kill him . There's no logical reason to kill someone who is going to spend life in a maximum security prison <br /><br />Since the premise sets up the story an audience might be choose to ignore the plot hole but the assination itself pours fuel upon the fire . Dial's colleague is killed by a police bullet and the taxi they're driving in crashes but Dial manages to escape . So the police were close enough to shoot someone but too far away to apprehend someone from a car crash ? The film of this type of plot connivance . Later Dial finds a police inspector pointing a gun at him saying " this airport is surrounded by armed coppers " yet Dial manages to escape very easily without explanation . The whole film cheats its audience by relying on things that are never explained . This includes an important supporting character called Emily Day . Why does she help Dial even though he's a wanted fugitive ? Your guess is as good as mine <br /><br />This is a fairly poor thriller and don't be taken in by the " big name " cast . Wesley Snipes used to qualify as a film star but killed his career by starring in more and more inconsequental films . Charles Dance also appeared in big budget Hollywood productions such as LAST ACTION HERO and ALIEN 3 but again he's someone best known for appearing in straight to DVD fare these days , and he's basically playing a cameo role anyway . The likes of Lena Headey may go on to become big players in cinema but they'l certainly fail to put THE CONTRACTER on their resume
This film was horrible. The script is COMPLETELY unrealistic yet it is written to take place in the real-world, the editing and lighting effects are worse than most first projects in film school.<br /><br />I do not recommend this film to anyone who: A) knows any detail about the world of police or covert operations. B) knows any detail about film making or appreciation.<br /><br />I do recommend this film to the average or below-average mind, I think it would be enjoyable if I was a dumber. If you must watch this film on a full mind, I highly recommend some kind of inebriation<br /><br />It is a total waste of what little production value it has.
I read in the papers that W.Snipes was broke so no wonder he would take parts in low budget projects like The Contractor.He is just the next action star to join a growing club:the penniless action stars of the 90s (Van Damme,Segal,Lundgren,Snipes). Here he stars the lead in a cheap action flick which was shot in Bulgaria( we are supposed to believe that the location is London, like only a complete moron would buy that)The story is the one of 1000 other movies: retired special forces good guy gets hired by the government again to do a wet job- after that government wants to get rid of him- good guy gets away after killing bad guys (was that a spoiler? guess not!) The star of the movie: the little girl (Eliza Bennett) outperforms everybody else of the cast!!!One star is for her plus one star for eye candy Lena Headey, makes 2 stars. Only for die hard Snipes fans!Everybody else:avoid!
In the words of Charles Dance's character in this film, "Bollocks!" No plot, no character development, and utterly unbelievable.<br /><br />Full of stuff that just doesn't happen in the real world (since when were British police inspectors armed with handguns in shoulder holsters?). Full of mistakes (Bulgarian trains in London?). Full of dull and artificial dialogue. And the directing/editing is awful - wobbly hand-held camera shots that add nothing to the film except a vague feeling of seasickness; confusing jump-cuts; no structure.<br /><br />Wesley Snipes' character is totally unsympathetic - why should we care what happens to him? Direct to video? Direct to the dustbin!
It is incredible!! ..yes, someone before me wrote that it was a time wasting to seat and watch this film.. it is! Don't do so! I'm totally rankled! I liked Wesley Snipes, and I founded funny that he played his name's meaning in a movie. Anyway, I wanted to see this film (at home only of course) but now (just after) I am absolutely disappointed! It was his worst movie ever. Inwatchable!! Bad actor-play! Bad cameraman! Bad scenario! ..Only one good think: that wonderful girl! Must be a manikin surely! Eeeeh!! MB ..10 lines minimum?! I don't want to waste you're time anymore to read my opinion! I hope, i was clear and under-stable, because English is not my native method of speaking. So have grate time, and see good films, like i try too.. Peace!
A lot of themes or parts of the story is the same as in Leon, then other parts felt like some other movie, I don't know which, but there are an familiar feeling over the whole movie. It was kind of nice to watch, but it would have been fantastic! if the story would have been more original. The theme little girl, bad assassin from Leon, is just tweaked a little. The opening scenes are really good :-) It is strange that people like to fight in the kitchen, in the movies :-) My biggest problem was to remember which parts was from Leon, Nikita and if they where from the French or American version. If you have not seen Leon, then this is a good movie. If you liked this movie, then I can recommend Leon.<br /><br />Best Regards /Rick
After watching this I thought to myself, there are either too few good writers & directors or lots of producers.<br /><br />At any rate, this is a terrible movie. Terrible in a way that it's not fun, but rather makes you grit your teeth and quiver. Makes you shout "this is wrong" at the movie. Immersion is zero. By now most of you are probably used to the terrible errors/weirdness-es in movies that has computers hackers etc. in them. This movie is like that in every aspect. <br /><br />The only good thing about the movie is the little girl Emily, brilliantly played by Eliza Bennett. I hope she becomes big, and make this ..thing at least worth something.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor. Don't watch this. There is not even proper action in it. Total waste of time.
haha! you have to just smile and smile if you actually made it all the way through this movie. it like says something about myself i guess. the movie itself was created i think as some sort of psychological test, or like some sort of drug, to take you to a place you have never been before. When Wittgenstein wrote his famous first philosophical piece the tractacus (sp?) he said it was meaningless and useless, but if you read it, after you were done, it would take you to a new level, like a ladder, and then you could throw away the work and see things with clarity and true understanding. this movie is the same i think.<br /><br />As a movie it is without a doubt, the worst movie i have seen in a long long time in such a unique way. first of all, this is snipes. i loved watching this guy kick ass in various movies. and i have suffered through a few weak ones. however, although you know the movie might suck, you would never suspect that it could be as bad as it actually was. which is the fun of it. i mean this is snipes. you know it might be good, but it will be alright, right? smile.<br /><br />so this thing on every level is pure boredom, pure unoriginality. the reference to the professional is both dead on and obvious, yet so poorly done as to be comical. there is not one character in this movie that is interesting, in the least. and to make the whole thing more surreal, they have a soundtrack that sort of sounds like parts to various Bourne identity type movies, only isn't quite right. in fact, although it seems close to action movie background music, it just so happens it is done in a manner that will grate on you fantastically.<br /><br />then all the scenes in the total pitch black, where honestly since the characters are so flat, you don't really care whats going to happen, but regardless, after it happens and someone is killed, you just say to yourself, was i supposed to see that? what else? how about scenes with blinding, obnoxious flashing at a strobe lights pace, for a period of time that is too long to bear. sure let's throw that in. how bout this though. when you are straining and your eyes cant handle it any longer, do some more of these in the dark kills where you really don't see what happened. and on top of that, lets face it you don't care. you were past bored way from the beginning.<br /><br />so i drifted in and out a couple times, but i caught almost all of this movie. and it becomes something you can watch, without something that engages your mind on any level, therefore, it becomes something you can effectively zone out with, and begin to think about your life, where its going, where its been, what we are as people.<br /><br />and that... that is the true magic of this film.
The US appear to run the UK police who all run around armed to the teeth and did you know that CID officers change into uniform when they stop work and go down the pub! This has got to be one of the most unrealistic films with the worst portrayal of "real" UK police that has ever been foisted on the unsuspecting public. I can see that Mr Snipes might have needed the money to pay his back tax bill but what the heck a good actor like Charles Dance was doing in it is a mystery.<br /><br />Worse than the worse low budget "B" film of the 50's. An hour and a half of suicide and time I will never get back.<br /><br />Avoid it like the veritable plague.
Just a warning... This is the worst movie I have seen in years... I couldn't watch it to the end... It is a pure waste of time... I really feel sorry for Snipes that he ended up in such a movie. There really is not much to say about it. Horrible acting, incredibly bad lines, story, everything. The only reason I would advise you to watch this movie is if you really want to see how a movie shouldn't be. Just to tell you one scene: the police are searching for Snipes, and they are surrounding the building with helicopters and cars, they are shooting around inside the building, but still they are whispering so that Snipes doesn't suspect a thing.
The only reason I remember this movie is because it was (and still is) the biggest waste of time and money ever spent. I was 17 and my friend was 18. We were the age when action movies were our thing to enjoy most (ok 2nd most). We walked out feeling so insulted, we wanted our money back, but the time could never be regained.<br /><br />The editing is what killed this movie. As the truck gets attacked by more and more vehicles with rocket launchers attached the movie completely insults the intelligence of the audience by having these rogue bad guys in 4x4 VW Bugs shooting rockets at the truck. Please, rockets at a truck known to be carrying plutonium? What's worse is the these VW's manage to get 15-18 shots off of a 4 rocket launcher. You would see on VW with 4 rockets fire 2 of them, cut around the truck with the last one attached, come back a second later with two rockets attached, fire another, then go in front of the truck and now it's back to a full set of 4 rockets.<br /><br />We toughed it out hoping for a big finish that never happened. It looks like they just ran out of money and stopped.<br /><br />Just ridiculous.
An okay film, with a fine leading lady, but a terrible leading man. Stephan Jenkins, who plays the husband, is a truly bad actor. Joyce Hyser, on the other hand, is the movie's saving grace. She's the best actor of the bunch.<br /><br />NOTE* the first comment, by the fellow who heaped praise upon the movie (and, according to his IMDB.com account, has only written ONE review -- and guess for what movie?) is obviously a plant. While the movie is nicely shot, it's by no means subtle or great or whatever other hypobolic descriptions the reviewer used.<br /><br />"Art of Revenge" is a fair movie, but it's a big tease. It offers up all manner of sexual situations but never goes through with it. Like watching a Skin Flick on Cinemax, but with all the "naughty bits" edited out.<br /><br />The film, as a whole, is a bit unfocused and the ending, and much of the third act, is really a big mess. There's a twist ending, of course, since every movie nowadays finds it necessary to have a twist ending.<br /><br />A 4 out of 10.<br /><br />
There is only one reason to watch this movie if you are not related to one of the stars or a producer: actress Nichole Hiltz. She is the show in this slow moving and wildly unlikely story of revenge. Directed by Simon Gornick, the film stars Joyce Hyser as a betrayed wife who decides to seek revenge on her cheatin' spouse. Oh, but not by conventional means. She plans a total guerrilla war and recruits bad girl Nichole Hiltz as her weapon of choice. She wants Nichole (as Tuesday) to get close to her ex (the handsome but dull Stephan Jenkins, who should stick to music) to embarrass him and ruin his life. David DeLuise is good in his few brief moments, and former "Crime Story" star Anthony Dennison is given virtually nothing to do but scowl. Hiltz on the other hand comes off at various times as sexy and playful, then evil and devious. She also handles vulnerable and "maybe a bit psychotic" well. She's also quite hot (though there's no naughty bits show) so you can understand how she might be able to get to any guy she is aimed at. But the performance is kind of wasted in this movie, which is just not edgy or interesting enough to recommend.
You've heard it said to live every moment as if it's your last? Whether it's your last day or not, I beg you not to waste any part of it watching this! Nichole Hiltz provides some nice moments of eye candy (that alas, stays wrapped) and David DeLuise shows why he should stick to the small screen or dog food commercials. A shallow, unrealistic plot with dreadful dialogue means there is no "Art" in the "Art of Revenge".<br /><br />
blows my mind how this movie got made. i watched it while i worked at home writing emails and answering the phone -- i ONLY watched it because i hoped the "revenge" part would be good. needless to say, the revenge and the forced plot twists were not worth the emails during which they were watched. in fact, i'm not even sure what happened at the end any more. the acting was as bad as re-enactment scenarios on the "FBI Files" show -- by far, the worst re-enactments (really only "Arrest and Trial" can possibly be as bad at re-enactments). i didn't even know that the leading man was in Third Eye Blind until i looked the movie up here on IMDb, but its obvious why he hasn't made any movies since. i hope he is a good singer.
This 2003 made for TV movie was shown on a women's channel, naturally. As a man, why do I even attempt to watch this? I don't know, but I should have my head examined. And director and writer Simon Gornick should be ashamed of himself to give men an injustice as he does. He takes away any strength and conviction a man could have by having several boring women do him in. Number one bore is Joyce Hyser as the wife. I couldn't wait for him to drop her. Her revenge was silly and stupid and very confusing through most of the movie. The other femme fatale was Nichole Hiltz, about the coldest person you'd ever want to meet. Her looks didn't warrant our leading man to go that ape over her and her acting was so obvious, only a fool could miss. Definitely a loser. Tembi Locke was pretty good, but slow on the uptake as to the slut seducing her own husband, again played as a guy who is a loser, by David DeLuise. Rounding out our cast of losers is Anthony Denison as a boss who has little to do but scowl at our hero. Stephen Jenkins as our hero, or should I say victim, was not that good. At first I thought he just a bad actor, but later I believed it. He never got the part off the ground and was repetitive throughout. Although, as a man, I became enraged when the two women got away with it. Men, beware of this channel that puts men down and women get away even with murder. LMN is the channel. Beware. Note: Having watched this a second time by mistake, I am convinced on my initial thoughts. Especially on the writer/director, Simon Gornick. I still believe he has disgraced the male species and should be horse whipped. Only saving grace in this film is Tembi Locke who doesn't have a chance to show her talents with the awful acting of Jenkins, Hyser, Hiltz and DeLuise around her. Plus the stupid plot that only makes it worse. Down with Gornick's movie and his vacant stars in it. Please LMN don't show this trite again.
A novel by Remarque. A cast that looks great on paper. A left-wing refugee struggling to remain in Paris between the wars. A Gestapo officer undercover.<br /><br />It's a pity there's no synergy here. The bits and pieces never coalesce.<br /><br />Stories about left-wing refugees in France don't have to be this dull. Read Arthur Koestler's memoir "Scum of the Earth" (if you can find it). Or his chilling "Dialogue With Death" (ditto).<br /><br />To me, the only interest in this film lies in some of the incidental details.<br /><br />The leads spend a lot of time drinking calvados, the Norman apple brandy. I welcome any prompting to have a nip of calvados myself. It certainly made this film appear to pass more quickly. But, according to the film, it's only sold in cheap, low-class saloons. Vive le tabac parisien! That's what I say. References to intoxicating liquors do abound here; that would seem to be a preoccupation of the scenarists.<br /><br />I enjoy films set in France because it can be amusing waiting for the inevitable full-size alcohol ad to pop up on a wall in the background. I wasn't disappointed. This time it was for Byrrh, a very unusual choice. This film would rate a 10 if only we were judging it on the refinement of its booze murals.<br /><br />The film's indifferent score is by Louis Gruenberg. Gruenberg is best known -- if you can call it that -- for his opera "The Emperor Jones", based on the O'Neill play. It premièred at roughly the same time as the film version starring Paul Robeson. The opera survives today in a recording or two by Lawrence Tibbett. It should surface again soon though; they're running out of potentially marketable operas to revive.<br /><br />Opera seems an appropriate subject to mention here since Charles Boyer's character operates under his "Czech" aliases. Two of them are "Wozzeck" and "Gunther", both prominent roles in German opera. Is that just coincidence?<br /><br />Name-dropping just seems to be part of this film. Notice that they call up "Himmelstoss" on the phone. Himmelstoss happens to be one of the main characters in Remarque's earlier "All Quiet on the Western Front".<br /><br />Well, the in-jokes are all in place; guess there wasn't time to develop any drama.
This stuffy melodrama is quite easily the worst film starring Ingrid Bergman that I've seen. Even her luminous screen presence can't save this insufferably slow and meandering movie that's nearly impossible to sit through without fast-forwarding a lot of it.<br /><br />Only for die-hard Bergman fans; others are very likely to fall asleep. I suggest you to watch "For Whom the Bell Tolls" instead.
One of those, "Why was this made?" movies. The romance is very hard to swallow. It is one of those romances, that, suddenly, "click" - they are in love. The movie is filled with long pauses and uncomfortable moments - the drive-in restaurant being the most notable. Charles Grodin does a credible job but for most of the movie it's just him and Louise Lasser. Ask yourself, do you want to watch Grodin with his neurosis and Lasser with her neurosis together for a hour and half?
You'll notice that the chemist, who appears in two scenes and gets to speak, is played by Stephen King. "Don't give up your day job" is the standard thing to say, but that's not fair. King acquits himself reasonably well: he's no worse than any other member of the cast, and better than most. The story, on the other hand, is pure rubbish. Please, give up your day job.<br /><br />Never have I seen so many dreadful performances - of which the lead actor's (the LEAD ACTOR'S!) is probably the worst - gathered together in the one film. Everyone acts hammily, but not in any entertaining way; they all somehow manage to go over-the-top without expending, or manifesting, energy. I blame screenwriter/director Tom Holland. It can't be that ALL the actors are REALLY this bad. What are the odds against that? Admittedly, I've never heard of any of them before, but still, I don't think I could walk into a talent agency and walk out with this many bad performers if I tried: ONE actor, despite my best efforts, would turn out to have talent. So what's more likely - that Tom Holland rolled a dozen consecutive snake-eyes, or that he wrote a lousy script and then directed it poorly? That would also explain why actors are bad in direct proportion to their prominence in the script. The more direction an actor got, the worse he performed. ("You want me to bend over like a hunchback, talk from the back of my throat, show all my teeth, and look bored, all at the same time? Okay...")<br /><br />This theory is confirmed by the fact that Holland undeniably managed to co-write a lousy script. Several writers here have commented on the fact that Billy Halleck is not a likeable character, but that's a misleading way of putting it. He's not a knowable character. All we find out about him before the supernatural stuff starts happening is that he's fat, and that all he can think about is food. ("All I can think about is food," he tells us, helpfully.) And in the end...<br /><br />(Sigh) I suppose I ought insert a spoiler warning here...<br /><br />In the end he becomes evil. Why? I can only shrug. Perhaps he's under some kind of enchantment. Yeah, that's probably it. By "evil" perhaps I mean "inexplicable" - it's not so much badness as a socially undesirable suspension of ordinary means-end psychology. Anyway, his actions at the end make no sense, nobody's actions make much sense, and this is despite the fact that the characters do little but explain their motivation for the benefit of the audience.<br /><br />By the way, here's my nominee for hammiest line/delivery: "I don't think you'd like it. IN FACT..." [big dramatic pause] "...I don't think you'd like it at all."
No, I haven't read the Stephen King novel "Thinner," but I choked down the film version. Horror movies are an acquired taste. Regular movies give an audience a hero to applaud as he strives to achieve a goal. In horror movies, audiences are invited to savor the demise of characters. In director Tom Holland's low-fat but tasteless revenge chiller "Thinner," nobody wins and everybody deserves the bite that is put on them. Gluttonous New England attorney Billy Halleck (Robert John Burke of "Robocop 3") has a weight problem. Although he rocks the bathroom scales at 300 pounds, he appears happily married to a trim, delectable wife, Heidi (Lucinda Jenney of "G.I. Jane") with a yeasty teenage daughter.<br /><br />Fat doesn't mean stupid here. Halleck displays his sagacity in court when he wins an acquittal verdict for sleazy Mafia chieftain Richie Ginelli (Joe Mantegna of "House of Games"). Driving home from a victory feast, Billy hits an old gypsy woman crossing the street and kills her. A cover-up occurs, and Halleck's friends get him out of the soup. The disgruntled gypsy father Taduz Lemke (Michael Constantine of "Skidoo") retaliates with a curse on the corpulent lawyer and the two town officials that exonerated him. Suddenly, Halleck finds himself shedding pounds no matter how much chow he chomps. When he begs the vengeful Gypsy to lift the curse, the old man refuses. Desperately, Halleck resorts to Richie. While Halleck struggles with the gypsies to remove the hex, he learns that his loyal wife has turned his attentions to the town's hotshot doctor.<br /><br />"Thinner" qualifies as not only laughably inept horror flick, but the filmmakers also rely on stereotypes of men and women. Tom Holland, who directed "Child's Play" (1988), and scenarist Michael McDowell, have served up such a slipshod script that you cannot relish watching Billy get his just dessert and shrivel up. "Thinner" boasts few shocks and fewer surprises. The filmmakers may have regurgitated King's novel, but they have filleted whatever sense of horror and humor it contained. Holland and McDowell introduce characters, such as the Mafioso, then inexplicably let them off the hook. One minor character shows up long enough to die and have a chicken's head stuffed in his mouth.<br /><br />The stereotypical behavior of the characters may offend audiences, too. "Thinner" depicts women as oversexed vixens and men as swine. When Halleck sneaks home from a clinic, he finds his doctor's sports car parked at his house. His suspicions ripen into jealousy and he cooks up a scheme to get the curse transferred to this wife. Even the premature ending lacks any satirical flavor. Oscar-winning special effects wizard Greg Cannom of "Van Helsing" and make-up artist Bob Laden do a fabulous job beefing up actor Robert John Burke to look obese. They succeed, too, in making him shrivel.<br /><br />Only die-hard Stephen King fans will be able to stomach this misogynistic gooledyspook.
Just another example of why Stepehn King's books should not be made into movies. (Even Carrie, one of the best, is ruined in the adaptation from book to screen.) The premise of the story revolves around a fat lawyer, always on a diet, who "accidentally" kills an old gypsy woman. In court, with the help of the judge and the local police chief, he gets off, even though the accident was sort of his fault as he was not paying attention as he was driving. The father of the dead gypsy woman places a curse on the 3, with our main character, Billy (the lawyer) getting thinner and thinner by the day. Though the movie kept with the book, for the most part, and has your typical King ending, the acting was stilted and felt forced. We went from one scene to the next without much of anything in between, sort of like reading acts in a play. King himself made a cameo in the movie (sort of like Dave Barry), which reinforces my belief that authors should stay just that: authors. Leave the acting to actors. Not that anyone in this movie was that great. I've seen the major characters in movies where they were much better.
I was really looking forward to seeing this film, but after watching it I was really disappointed. The best bit was when Stephen King was in it. Rober John Berk cannot act to save his life and neither can any of the others. A few of the performances even made me laugh out loud! The film was was not as I imagined it, after reading the book which was awesome, I imagined it darker and a lot scarier. If i was Stephen, I would be really mad!<br /><br />I don't know why they changed the ending, I thought the ending of the book was very good. If you just found out the pie killed your daughter, you wouldn't feed it to anyone else would you?!<br /><br />Book was so much better!
The plot of The Thinner is decidedly thin. And gross. An obese lawyer drives over the Gypsy woman, and the Gypsy curse causes him to lose and lose weight... to the bone. OK, Gypsy curses should be entertaining, but the weight-losing gone bad? Nope. Except Stephen King thinks so. And Michael McDowell, other horror author and the screenwriter of this abysmal film, does so, too. The lawyer is not only criminally irresponsible, he is fat too, haha! The Thinner is like an immature piece of crap for a person who moans how he/she has never seen anything so disgusting than fatness. Hey, I can only say: Well, look at the mirror.
This move reminded my of Tales from the Crypt Keeper. It has the same sort of idea of people get what they deserve. I think that's always the them in a Crypt story. The same goes for the bad acting. Very bad acting. I enjoyed the movie knowing that most people didn't like it and I wasn't expecting much. Whenever I watch a stephen King movie I don't expect much because all his movies are awful compared to the genius of his novels. I have read The Shining and Carrie and they were great books. I love how Carrie played out like it was a true story and the whole book is a bunch of reports and theories and such. It was so good. But I noticed that both of the novels were nothing like the movies. The endings were very different then the movie versions. I assume from those two novels that all of his novels are changed greatly and the endings are always cheesy. I ending of Thinner is the worst. So Cheesy. I want to read the book to find out the real ending. I suggest everyone who intends to read stephen King's novels to watch his movies before hand so that you may compare. And that way you will be greatly satisfied in the book. I intend on doing so with all his novels that were made into movies. I'm sure if they were made into movies they were real good books... and the screenplay went terribly wrong.
I am not one of those who think King is a great writer, his books are fine distractions for a few hours, and often have interesting premises, however they, in my opinion, fall apart pretty rapidly if you give them any serious thought.<br /><br />This film suffers from being a pretty exact re-telling of King's story. If you have read the book, there are zero surprises, no changes, no altering of scenes or characters. This is a film made by King fans for King fans.<br /><br />For the rest of us, there is nothing terrible about the film, it is a 'gypsy curse' horror, with its twist being the curse being something many people wish for, to become thinner. The final third has some severe structural problems, and the slightly forced ending seems to break the rules of this genre a little.<br /><br />There are worse ways to spend 90 minutes of your life, but you might as well read the book, because there is nothing new here...<br /><br />
I began watching this movie with low expectations, as a matter of fact i only noticed it because it was an adaptation of a S.K. novel ( a novel i never read).<br /><br />I'm glad my expectations were low because the movie wasn't nothing close to good, but it manages to keep you interested. What really drags this story down is the work done by the director and the actors. The movie is overlong, hasn't no "nice" shots and no scares, the dialogs are dumb and the special effects are crap.<br /><br />The only things good are that, as i said, it keeps you interested ( i guess the book must be good) without using much horror cliches.<br /><br />My Vote 4/10.
To call a movie like "Thinner" bad is like calling the earth round or Pauly Shore un-talented. No news, but how they got that way is what people want to know.<br /><br />As far as this movie.... The book was good, even if it was a little derivative of other stories from the "be careful what you wish for" genre. Burke plays an overweight lawyer who kills the daughter of a gypsy and is cursed by her father (Constantine from TV's "Room 222") to several pounds a day. <br /><br />Like I said, it starts out good, but why involve the mobster (Mantegna)? Why fire automatic weapons so much? Why turn it into something so heavily dependent on FX? I thought it would have been much more effective if it focused more on the subtle ramifications of weight loss crazes, diseases, death, gypsy lore and such. <br /><br />But no, it's not to be. Remember, this is Stephen King we're talking about.<br /><br />And the ending... almost the same as the book, but a little too talky. In fact the whole movie talks too much, feeling it has to explain every plot turn to us. Not that I expected "The Dead Zone", but I could have done without another "Pet Sematary", thanks anyway.<br /><br />One star for at least trying to do a halfway decent makeup job. However, the rest of the movie is left to be... say it with me... "Thinner".
So 'Thinner'... Yep.. This Steven Bachman (read Steven King) yarn about a man who gets his just desserts from a Gypsy Elder who he just killed, The story itself is there, no doubt about it, but I don't know why I didn't enjoy it more than I could have. I guess what really distracted me was the actors. I mean, who's the lead? Robert John Burke? Who's he? And fer crying out loud, can someone please stop hiring Joseph Mantegna for every Italian Mafioso role there ever is? And while we're at it, does every Mafioso have to have a pasta cooking Italian mother? The only good acting job done here is under 10 pounds of makeup, Michael Constantine as the Gypsy elder. He's pretty good. But the rest, I make you all, "better actors..."
A fun concept, but poorly executed. Except for the fairly good makeup effects, there's really not much to it. There are obvious problems; for example, after taking what seems to be weeks and weeks to get from fat to normal size, the main character seems to go from normal size to deathly thin in days... and once he's deathly thin he stays pretty much equally deathly thin for what seems to be a long time.<br /><br />In any case, the movie has far worse problems than that--the cinematography is decidedly low-budget-TV-show quality and most of all the acting is pretty awful all around. Robert John Burke seems to always be trying for some kind of weird snarling Charlton Heston impersonation and is literally painful to watch... the only scary thing is that Lucinda Jenney and Kari Wuhrer are both even worse.<br /><br />The only reason why I'm giving this movie as high as I am is that once the movie enters its last 1/3 or so and Joe Mantegna's character takes over, the movie develops a fun, campy 'cheesefest slaughterhouse' feel, and the gangster's crazy schemes for tormenting the totally obnoxious gypsies are somewhat fun to watch. The ending, if predictable, is also nicely mean. Avoid unless you're a King-o-Phile or are REALLY psyched up at the idea of the voice of Fat Tony from the Simpsons terrorizing a gypsy camp.
This movie was absolutely terrible. I can't believe I paid to see it in the theatre. I wouldn't watch it on free cable t.v. I'm surprised that Joe Magtena even made it. Do not waste your time with this movie.
It seems to me that Stephen King's "Bachman" pen-name was a way for him to put out some of the grimmer, rawer, more mean-spirited stuff that he wanted to write without 'contaminating' his 'brand name'. If you look back at the "Bachman Books" (Running Man, The Long Walk, Roadwork, Thinner) you notice they have a sealed-in feeling of airlessness and hopelessness about them that is distinct from mainstream King. I realize that we are talking about the guy whose first novel featured a humiliated, blood-covered, emotionally crippled teenage girl slaughtering everyone at her high school prom...but mainstream King always at have characters and plot elements that leaven the grimness of the proceedings a bit, and mostly have endings that offer at least a glimpse of hope and human feeling. Bachman books are just plain mean and always end badly. (BTW, "Pet Semetary" could have easily been a Bachman book if King hadn't revealed the alias by then. And "The Dark Half" seems to be at least partially about his "Bachman" persona.)<br /><br />"Thinner" was the last Bachman book, and man, with its themes of class warfare, revenge, and death by starvation, it is nasty. So it should be no surprise that the movie follows suit. <br /><br />What is a surprise is that the adaptation seems to be filmed at a "TV Movie Of the Week" level of talent instead of something worthy of a theatrical release. (These days, something like this would probably go directly to DVD or cable). The makeup work and the striking motif (starving to death in the midst of plenty, a metaphor for the overfed, undernourished American middle class if there ever was one) is all that keeps you watching this misfire. <br /><br />What went wrong? My first thought is that the director was going for the nasty Bachman vibe, but he also somehow sucked all the interest out of the movie with poor casting choices - the actors here (with the exception of Joe Monetegna) simply can't carry the movie. And then he squished the warmth and life out of the rest of the movie with awkward pacing and scene structure. Plus he couldn't leave the plot alone, and his changes don't really help. The script and dialog ought to work, but mostly the movie just lies there. Everything is muffled, dull, airless, and no fun to watch...with the vivid exception of the spectacle of the main character getting....thinner, and thinner, and thinner. <br /><br />As other have pointed out, "Thinner" is by no means the worst King movie ever made (or even the second worst). And it does have a dreadful, compelling fascination owing to the theme and the careful makeup work. But first time viewers should approach this one with lowered expectations.
It's a waist to indulge such great actors in such a weak and boring movie. Besides all the unanswered questions posted in the other comments, what's so difficult about capturing the robbers? Just eliminate the bank workers, see who was at the bank-from all the cameras' footage angles-prior to the robbers entry and you have those extra 4 remaining robbers among the hostages. Where is the suspense every body is talking about? It was so obvious the moment the hostages were asked to change into this identical uniform that they were all going to walk out the front door... seen it many times. At least Mr. Spike Lee could have seasoned the movie with some good music score and artistic shooting. The Movie is not worth it. Pronto!
I have never seen any of Spike Lee's prior films, as their trailers never caught my interest. I have seen, and admire Denzel Washington, and Jodie Foster's work, and have several of their DVDs. I was, however, entirely disappointed with this movie. If this film is any indication of Spike Lee's ability as a director, my advice would be to "get a job", and stop wasting the time and talent of others. <br /><br />I wonder if some of the other IMDb commentators watched the same movie that I'd seen. I can only assume, from their sappy lovelorn reviews, that their adoration of Spike Lee has blinded them to the banality of this piece of work. I only paid $2.50, in a "Second Run" theater, and still felt I'd wasted my money.<br /><br />The IMDb "Trivia" page says it all.......<br /><br />* "Shot in 39 days" -- How can you expect to shoot a big budget "Blockbuster", (as the media hype promised), in such a short time? No wonder there was such a weak performance by all.<br /><br />* "Ron Howard was first going to direct the film..." -- He may have done this project some justice, given more time to do so, of course. Though the writing was atrocious, the premise had some merits. <br /><br />OK! maybe not. I'm sorry! This film was so rife with pitiful cliché's, implausible scenes, and lousy characterizations, that maybe even he couldn't have made much of it. (Hey Ron! Be sure to thank Russell...Good call!) <br /><br />* "Jodie Foster filmed her part in three weeks." -- And it showed! Her portrayal of a "Fixer", who makes people's problems go away, was as unbelievable as the script she was given. Did she even want to be there?<br /><br />Other Peeves: <br /><br />* How many bank robbers would bother to come to the door, and inform a uniformed police officer that they were inside robbing the bank, and he'd better keep away...or else? <br /><br />* When "Detective Frazier", (Denzel Washington), comes into the bank to verify there are no corpses yet, how many bank robbers, without a gun, would have "led" a cop, (much less "let" a cop) back out to the front door, allowing the police officer to walk behind him? <br /><br />* Det. Frazier later claimed, to have given the robber "every reason to shoot me." Why, then, in their brief struggle, didn't he even try to expose the robber's face? That may have gotten the response he was looking for...a robber would have shot him just to prevent later identification. And why did it take "Steve, Stevie, Steve-O", (the robber's accomplice), so long to come and help out? <br /><br />* I understand that these weren't your typical bank robbers. They had a different agenda, and didn't want anyone harmed. But the cops had no reason to think that they wouldn't. To them it was a desperate situation. Why then, when two of the bad guys stepped outside to "pick up the pizzas?", were they not taken down. (first of all, how many robbers would have came outside without using a hostage as a shield? Is this Spike Lee's version of NY City, or SNL's?). Taking them down would have reduced the bad guy's numbers, screwed up their plans, and the remaining robbers would more probably have given up. If not, there at least would be fewer bad guys inside. (Give SWAT something to do, or send them home!)<br /><br />* What police department in this country, would have allowed Madeline White, (Jodie Foster), to just waltz right into the bank, and discuss a matter with the robbers, that she would not disclose to them first? She had no authority, no governmental credentials; and besides, this was after all, "already" a hostage situation...add one more?<br /><br />* Why wouldn't the Bank CEO, (Christopher Plummer), just have destroyed the incriminating documents a long time ago? Screw sentimentality! The diamonds, he could have sold.<br /><br />* Who was that "schmuck", (the character, not the actor), with the Jersey accent, that, conveniently, volunteered, and said he knew the recording was "100% Albanian", but yet he himself couldn't speak it.....SIR! PUT YOUR HAND DOWN! And his Ex-wife! What a "schlump" she was!!! Both were totally unbelievable. <br /><br />* When interrogating suspects, why did Det. Frazier, continually harass the individuals who were obviously not a part of the heist?, (i.e. - telling the elderly woman she could go, and then she couldn't, then could; then couldn't?) Give me a break! <br /><br />* Who, after seeing the bank robbers demand that the hostages put on jump suites, couldn't deduce their escape plan included coming out of the bank pretending to be some of the hostages? <br /><br />* Near the end of the movie, a false wall was shown to have been built in the supply room, behind which Clive Owens hid out for "a week"....where did the materials come from? (the drywall & studs). It was also to be assumed that they cut into the sewer, so he could relieve himself. The bank employees hadn't complained about the smell, all week long? Hello!<br /><br />* After such a debacle; since the documents "had" fallen into the robber's hands, what kind of "references" was Ms. White expecting to get from the bank CEO, seeing that he was now to be a target for blackmail, due to her failure?<br /><br />* And last, but certainly not least, What's with the "Electric Glide" that Denzel did? HOW STUPID! Was that supposed to indicate his "resolve" to bring these guys to justice? He looked, rather, like a man who hopped a ride on a shopping cart, while trying to prevent a bowel movement! "Cheeee-Zheeee"!!!! <br /><br />Other than the mediocre plot; lousy script; bad acting; and overall pitiful directing......yada, yada, yada. <br /><br />Hopefully this will give enough insight into the movie to help others decide whether to waste their money or not!<br /><br />.
My wife and I found this film to be highly unsatisfying. While the plot keeps you interested and busy wondering just what is going on, when you leave the theater, there are just too many loose ends that make no sense at all. (SPOILERS AHEAD) Christopher Plummer, enormously wealthy head of a NY bank has a terrible hidden secret. Profiting from WW II deals with the Nazis and hiding loot stolen from Jews, he keeps the evidence (including diamonds and documents with the Nazi swastika) in a safety deposit box in his bank. Why? If he wants this never to be revealed, why did he not burn and destroy the documents years ago? And the diamonds? Obviously, he does not need them - why keep them rather than dispose of them? How did the bank robbers find out his secret? How did they know to zero in on this very safety deposit box #232? Ace detective Denzel Washington also discovers bank records show SD Boxes No's 231 and 233, but no #232. Curious. He meticulously found time somehow to do an exhausting search of bank records to unearth this one curious fact. All the while dealing with a red hot hostage situation and bank robbers threatening to start executing them momentarily. Wow! Talk about super powers for a detective.<br /><br />The bank robbers leave behind millions of dollars in loose currency in the vault they have opened. They take only the contents of SD Box #232, ostensibly for the purpose of blackmailing the bank president. This defies any rational attempt at a logical explanation for what the film depicts as a criminal mastermind, or for his henchmen with lesser brains.<br /><br />Jodie Foster, using her political connections with the Mayor of NYC, gains permission to enter the bank which is under the control of the bank robbers while holding many hostages. She offers the chief bank robber a deal to buy back the documents he now has in hand, but he ain't interested. So what's his point (if any?).<br /><br />My wife was offended by the arrogance of all the players, Christopher Plummer (Bank President), Denzel Washington (ace detective), and Jodie Foster, crack trouble shooter for high-powered problems.<br /><br />The last Jodie Foster movie I saw, "Flight Plan", was also riddled with holes that made no sense at all. I thought I liked Jodie Foster, but I will probably avoid her future films.<br /><br />Now my problem is that I can rarely persuade my wife to go to the movies. I cannot disagree with her on this one ... "A WASTE OF MONEY, AND A WASTE OF TIME." Be forewarned. A well crafted film, fine actors, lousy script writing.
A yawn-inducing, snail-paced disappointment, Inside Man tells the story of a detective (Denzel Washington) who is under investigation due to his possible involvement in a case of missing money. When a bank is robbed and hostages are held against their will by a mastermind thief (Clive Owen) and his team, the detective is assigned to coerce the thief to surrender – his one shot at proving he is innocent and worthy of his position. Enter a powerful woman (Jodie Foster) with secrets and intents of her own, sent to recover an item from the bank owner's safety deposit box that is stored within the bank, and you have quite the three-way dilemma. Unfortunately, all you get it set-up in the film, and nothing pays off in the end. Denzel Washington is at his most uninteresting in an ineffective and distastefully egocentric performance. The only saving grace for the film is its competent co-stars Jodie Foster and Clive Owen, who are much better than the film itself. In fact, Jodie Foster delivers the most surprising and high-caliber performance playing against type as a ruthless, cutthroat villain of sorts. Clive Owen isn't given much to do besides brood and pose, but the depth of his presence and his achieved acting ability more than make up for his underdeveloped role. It's strange that so much talent is wasted on this film of little impact or interest. You have to wonder what director Spike Lee was thinking while he was creating this film. The most perplexing aspect of Inside Man, however, is how much unwarranted praise it has received. For a film that seemed to have all the makings of a pre-summer blockbuster, this one falls horribly flat.
Movie: There are some very interesting comments on IMDb about this movie. Its truly awful. Not enough money is spent on the movie and the way Spike Lee has made it, it seems like a combination of an indie film and an action flick. Characters/Actors: Denzel has done "EXACTLY" what he does in every movie, so no surprise there. Here is a little mind game for the readers. Quickly think of 10 Denzel movies. Now count how many of them were in which he played a cop/detective/body guard, whatever. Clive Owen, hmmmmmm, this guy needs a better role on his plate soon. His best performance was I think in "Beyond Borders". Other than that he did pretty much the same thing as he does in every movie as well. His tone and way of talking was very similar to what he did in "Sin City". Surely this guy knows acting, what he doesn't know is better way of choosing roles. He is in desperate need of a better agent. Jodie Foster was brilliant in the movie, if you are watching her for the first time in your life. She has done better. She has had better roles. It so happens in Hollywood that even the biggest stars fall down on their knees and pick up low class roles as Jody Foster did in this movie. Plot: Plot was not confusing, in fact, I could think of such a plot, in fact the whole movie, while taking a dump after a nice big Chinese dinner. I mean come on, ****SPOILER ON THE WAY----> I am sick of the un-necessary Haulocast and the Racism token. The movie is about bank robbers, why put the Haulocast and the Racism in there, nice try playing with people's emotions, worked on anyone? NOT ME. Police let the bank robbers go thinking they were hostages? Riiiiiiight, please, we're talking about US police force and security here. Nobody could find out where Clive was, I mean they didn't find anything different with that room. Who're we kidding? Conclusion: Sure, go watch this movie, if nothing, you'll have a nice time talking to you friends how bad the movie was. At least people won't think you're stupid to go watch this movie because they'd think you went to watch it because it has a big star cast "MISTAKE".
This is a dumb movie. Maybe my judgment wouldn't be so harsh if the film didn't promise so much, but I just felt like this movie cheated and played me for a fool at every turn.<br /><br />I didn't have any beef with the acting, but I thought the characters were awful. The movie starts off with Clive Owen's character telling us what a criminal mastermind he is, and how he planned the perfect bank robbery, something he frequently reminds us of later. Oh yeah, he also tells us he's in a prison cell, although that turns out to be a dumb metaphor. Any idiot knows that the best bank robbery is one where a minimum number of things could potentially go wrong, and you're long gone before the police show up. But Clive Owen's scheme requires hanging around the bank for hours - for no reason but to stalk around and look scary as far as I can tell. He also has to control hostages, negotiate with cops, and most fantastically of all, perform a This-Old-House job on the bank's stockroom and hide out there for a week (I hope he brought enough food, and a bucket to pee in) and then sneak out again. Yeah, that sure sounds like the perfect crime to me, Clive! This plan has so many moving parts that the only reason it didn't fall apart was the screenwriter said so.<br /><br />And then there are the many unexplained details: Why were the cops so convinced that the crooks had accomplices among the hostages? Who the hell is Jodie Foster's character, and why is she so important that she has the mayor at her beck and call and she doesn't have to tell Denzel Washington her agenda because "it's above his pay scale?" How dumb are these cops that they can't figure out one guy speaking in a foreign language for hours is not the sound of a criminal gang planning a robbery? How did the robbers slip away, and why did Clive Owen stick around for a week? How did they find out about the bank chairman's past, and the number and contents of his safe deposit box? Why the hell would Clive Owen let in Jodie Foster or the cops? Since when do they make toy AK-47s that look real up close? How the hell do you bug a pizza box, anyway? How did Clive Owen manage to sneak out of a secure area of the bank during working hours, undetected? Did this dispassionate criminal really feel bonded enough to this cop Denzel to slip him a diamond?<br /><br />None of these questions are ever answered. There are films that achieve depth by leaving you to wonder about events that happen off-screen, but I never felt that way about Inside Man. It felt like the scenes that explained these things were cut from the movie, or these questions never had any answers in the first place, and that's weak. Particularly annoying is Jodie Foster's character, who won't disclose what she does, but never seems to tire of reminding us how important she is. We're just supposed to take her word for it, I guess.<br /><br />The only reason I gave this movie two stars is I laughed at Denzel's "taxi cab" and "pina colada" gags, and at the kid's outrageous video game. Other than that, this movie has no redeeming features.
This movie makes no sense at all, there are plot holes big enough to drive enormous NYPD vehicles through. The characters do not act in any plausible way whatsoever. I will put my comments in the chat board, but save your time and money, this is stupid. I can't stand when Hollywood spends millions of dollars on flash bang equipment and uses fancy editing and cool music, and does not bother to have a plot that hangs together at even the most basic level. But it is nice to see Denzel W. prevail over the Man, who comes in 3 flavors, Jodi Foster, Mayor Bloomberg and Capt. Von Trapp. There is even a sweet little kid with a video game who is nice.
Three story lines and not enough tying them together, "Inside Man" was very jumpy and an incomplete attempt to be artistic and realistic. Though having its moments, the movie started off looking like a fast thriller which quickly grounded to a slow crawl, jumped quickly between highs and lows, and only barely picked up steam again near the last 20 minutes. I will give credit to Denzel Washington, he played his part extremely well with a full grasp of his human side and not just the typical "super-detective" with all the answers. Clive Owen also did quite well with his duality part as "evil genius" and "criminal mastermind" (both not the same in retrospect). Overall though, each person individually created a great sub-section. Yet, when the parts finally came together and everything counted, there was no sudden "ah-ha!" or summation of everything. It all ended up with very little of the energy it began with, with a lot of plot-holes, tons of questions, and as I said earlier, no where near Spike Lee's normal level. I have to completely disagree with the so-called "professional critics"... this is not the movie they play it up to be.
Now isn't it? Considering all the good work done by danzel,Clive and Jodie, the movie never grew into something more than a horrible die-hard/heist movies copycat. Yes a couple of jokes, no absolutely no unpredictable twists, to be honest the only unpredictable moments are there because both director and editor made some stupid mistakes, it is a shame for them and a waste of time for us. IF someone can tell me why on earth were they digging a hole inside that safe, who the hell is the Rebe and how on earth did they know that the diamonds were in the particular cell, it could just make my day, but it seems that Spike asks us to take too much things in this one for granted, and do not raise our eyebrows when something looks stupid...its just another studio contract movie relax and enjoy...
The trailers for this film were better than the movie. What waste of talent and money. Wish I would've waited for this movie to come on DVD because at least I wouldn't be out $9. The movie totally misses the mark. What could have been a GREAT movie for all actors, turned out to be a B-movie at best. Movie moved VERY slow and just when I thought it was going somewhere, it almost did but then it didn't. In this day and age, we need unpredictable plot twists and closures in film, and this film offered neither. The whole thing about how everyone is a suspect is good, however, not sure if it was the way it was directed, the lighting, the delivery of lines, the writing or what, but nothing came from it. Lot of hype for nothing. I was VERY disappointed in this film, and I'm telling everyone NOT to see it. The cheesy saxophone music throughout made the film worse as well. And the ending had NOTHING to do with the rest of the film. What a disappointment.
This movie had so much potential - a strong cast, a reasonably strong idea and clearly a decent budget. I'm not sure where it all went wrong, but each of those elements was wasted. The story went nowhere, the characters were hollow to say the least and the result was a very boring, pointless, waste of a film. I hated it. Judging by the other votes, I'm in the minority here and must be some sort of freak. However, I thought this movie was dreadful. I had high hopes, but was very disappointed. A particular disappointment was Jody Foster's character. A very cocky "fixer" of sorts makes a nice idea. Jody was confident and sexy, but the character did nothing and went nowhere. Denzel Washington played the same character he always plays - enjoyable but nothing new.
First, this film is not a "thriller." Neither is it "gripping, taut." It might have been so based on the script, but the direction's slow pace makes it difficult to get into.<br /><br />The plot itself is very interesting and ingenious. Unfortunately, we only get a sense of *how* ingenious after the picture is over. That leaves us with over two hours of long sequences with music playing over them punctuated by some action scenes that don't grab the viewer, and "cunning vixen" scenes that inject a little more overt intelligence.<br /><br />I wish this had been the fast-paced thriller the box promised. It would've been an outstanding film. Instead, Spike Lee made it plod along through the end.
For me an unsatisfactory, unconvincing heist movie. With an A-List cast, particularly the three leads and an experienced maverick director like Spike Lee I was expecting far more and in the end felt that what was delivered added little to this movie sub-genre. For a start I didn't like the pacing of the film, starting off with mastermind Clive Owen's raison d'etre piece to camera, unnecessarily repeated at the conclusion, then finding the narrative peppered with confusing, not to say unreal-seeming witness interviews, then finding yourself jumped into scenes you sense had begun earlier. Of course the camera work is fluid throughout, constantly on the move and incorporating hand-camera shots a-plenty, but director Lee fails to deliver thrills or suspense, falling down fundamentally by not making anything of the key protagonists in the film. Denzel Washington is weighed down with the clothes and bad-ass jive talk of a "Shaft" movie thirty - five years earlier (he even has that "no-one understands him but his woman" thing going on, replete with his "hot" girlfriend, baiting her with some downright crude and inappropriate "dirty-talk") and his mild "In The Heat Of The Night" riff with Willem Defoe (in almost a bit-part) raises barely a ripple. Clive Owens plays his character with a resolutely English accent even as we're given to believe the gang is Arab-based, also hindered by having to play 90% of the film with a mask over his face. Jodie Foster delivers another of her patented tight-lipped, ice maiden, sub-Clarice Starling turns as a well connected financial bounty-hunter, if you will, to little effect. Overall it's a real mish-mash of a film, with a light but obvious twist at the end, in fact the title gives it away from the start, spoiler fans. Worst scene (of many) is undoubtedly Washington's witness-interview, unbelievably, with an 8 year old street-kid, although Owen's dialogue with the same child minutes earlier runs it close in the embarrassment stakes. During the film in-joke references are made by characters to classic heist films like "Serpico" and "Dog Day Afternoon" - but there's no honour in self-praise. More like "The Hot Rock" instead...and even that was good for a few laughs.
This was talked about to death by the critics when it honestly isn't that great. Sure, "CHAOS" and "INSIDE MAN" are literally the same movie, just with variations in suspense. But I found "CHAOS" more enjoyable because it was fast paced kinda like the silly film "Swordfish." The reason this film is more popular is because this got released in the States and "Chaos" was aired all around the world at film festivals and foreign theaters, but has yet to find a distributor in the U.K. and U.S.A. <br /><br />It's true that this film makes lots of tributes to classic films like DOG DAY AFTERNOON and other Spike Lee films, but that doesn't mean that it is a pleasant film to watch. <br /><br />Watch it if nothing else is on T.V., but you'll probably get bored with after awhile.
No movie with Madeleine Carroll in its cast could possibly be unwatchable. That said, I have to add that this British film comes close. The story takes place on board the `SS Atlantic' and it's loosely based on the `Titanic's' unfinished voyage. The word `unsinkable' is spoken, the liner strikes an iceberg, and we hear a heavenly choir sing `Nearer My God to Thee.' The doomed passengers eventually take over the anthem, in a clever bit of sound work. But the year of the film's release (1929) means that a modern viewer has to accept otherwise primitive sound and many of the acting conventions of silent films and the stage. These aren't problems. The film's major flaw is pacing, and pacing had been well developed in silents. However, if the dialog were delivered at a realistic speed, the movie's running time would be cut in half. The intended effect was drama (and clarity in a new medium), but the result unhappily is tiresome now. The film's structure is preposterously illogical and inept. Paradoxically, I found certain details of the editing quite modern in technique: fine, abrupt cuts from one area of the ship to another, sometimes even on sound effects. Although we're on board the `Atlantic' from the first shot, we were well over 4 minutes into the movie before I discovered that fact. There are long, intrusive musical passages by the ship's dance orchestra. (Entertaining, easy sound.) Personal stories are presented in an utterly uninvolving and unconvincing way. Don't even think of spectacle. The berg is a tiny thing and the exterior damage it does to the ship's hull is a minor dent. However, the scenes of passengers swarming into the lifeboats - clearly staged on a real liner, presumably tied up to a dock - generate great excitement. Other than the glorious Miss Carroll, these sequences are the film's only points of excellence. As the movie and the ship near their end, the screen goes totally black several times when the power generators begin to fail. Their last, eternal blackout is the end of the film, with a sunset/sunrise tacked on, a clumsy symbolic effect. `Atlantic' is a cinema curiosity. At best.<br /><br />
Yes I know "talkies" had just been invented for the cinema 2 years earlier when this was produced in 1929 but this film showed that much had to learnt about the art of producing films.It comes over as a filmed "hammy" stage play with the actors melodramatically enunciating their lines,rolling their eyes, using too many pregnant pauses and using gestures more appropriate to silent cinema, which I suppose was normal during the process of educating them to appear more naturalistic on screen.The gaps between lines spoken should have been tightened up during editing as it considerably slows the film.It is now only of interest for Titanic buffs who want to see an early example of this marine accident on film.In next chronological order they could see "Titanic" (1953) A Night to Remember (1958)"Titanic (1997), to see how the cinema's depiction of this tragedy as evolved over the years.There have been many documentaries and TV films made including the atrocious "SOS Titanic" (1979) On my version which is a DVD, David McCallum gives the introduction.It was he who played Harold Bride Marconi's junior wireless operator in "A Night to Remember"(still the best feature film - please read my "Tribute to Walter" comments on IMDb under Howard Morley.demon.co.uk)and gave the commentary on the series of 4 videos entitled "End of a Dream" so he was well qualified to give the narration.Of more interest I found was a recording accompanied by actual photos of the 1912 US Senate hearing which is also on the DVD.Actors speak the actual words spoken by Lightoller 2nd officer, J Bruce Ismay,Managing director of White Star, Harold Bride and others including Gloria Stewart (The "old Rose" in Titanic 1997) whose voice is used for one of the first class women survivors.
I am a Motion Picture Production major at Wright State University in Ohio, and yesterday I was sadly given the opportunity to watch this god-awful film in class. We were informed by our professor that it would be very funny to us, but the reason we were watching it was because it was one of the first sound films - a complete disaster.<br /><br />The problem with early sound films was that Hollywood actors only knew how to do silent movies and they weren't good at memorizing lines. So producers and directors would look to the stage to get actors. Sounds like a great idea, right? Well, the kind of acting one does on stage doesn't show up too well on film. Most of the actors in "Atlantic" look and sound like they're acting in a play, which results in lots of hearty laughs at the over-acting. Another limitation of early sound film was the technology of microphones. You couldn't move the mikes like you can today, you had to keep them static or it would pick up the sound of air moving through. There was usually one mike used in any given scene in this movie. In one particular scene, there is a man sitting at a table. Someone walks right up to him and delivers their line, then walks away. Another actor comes up from behind him, delivers their line, then walks away. It goes on like this for a couple more people. The microphone is obviously right by the man at the table, making for a laughable actor carousel.<br /><br />Those are only technical problems. If you get into the story and direction, then it gets even worse. The story is a fictionalized account of what happened on the Titanic. The characters are unbelievable and pointless. A "story" about a man cheating on his wife and their teenage daughter has no place in the movie. It is barely resolved and leaves you wondering why it was there in the first place. A lousy attempt at high drama, the actors take long, pregnant pauses between lines many times. It is tiresome, and you can't wait for this 90 minute (feels like 180 at least) movie to get over with. I'm not going to talk a whole lot about the issue of racism at this time in our country, but it really offended me that there were only two blacks in the whole movie, and they were portrayed as animals. They both pushed past the women and children to try and get in one of the lifeboats. They were ordered to stop or be shot, and of course they didn't so they were shot. I was appalled.<br /><br />I give this movie a 2/10. I would have given it a 1/10 (the lowest rating possible), but I gave it an extra point just because it was one of the first sound films, and I tried to put it into context. If you want to see a good early sound film, check out Alfred Hitchcock's "Blackmail" that also came out in the year 1929. You will find that the best directors were able to adapt to new technology immediately.
1st watched 5/17/2002 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Ewald Andre Dupont): Fairly lame account of the Titanic disaster is the first filmed version of this much-heralded event. The replication of the disaster is not bad, but the drama around it is at some times silly, badly acted and way-too soap opera-like. The story is very much the same as the most recent Oscar-winning one except that we are shown how the crew tried to hide the actual disaster that was occurring until almost too late. Good for nostalgia purposes only and to get a feel for what James Cameron was competing against(barely…) in his recreation.
Three writers made a valiant attempt to adapt Jane Stanton Hitchcock's novel for the tube, yet this television movie has ultimately been injected with too much melodrama and just doesn't know when to quit. Struggling artist Meg Tilly suddenly finds herself employed by wealthy, enigmatic Ellen Burstyn, who desires a mural painted on the walls of her unused ballroom. After learning about the last gathering held there--Ellen's daughter's coming-out party--Tilly decides on her artistic theme, never dreaming the daughter died mysteriously before the function even began, nor that she and the deceased bore a striking resemblance to one another! Two superb actresses lend their services to an incredible yarn which doesn't bear close scrutiny, one that fails to match either lady in emotional intensity. Burstyn's role teeters on camp, while Tilly gets stuck doing the dreamy-eyed-waif routine. Only one sequence late in the film (the morning after the mural is finished) is charged with honest feeling, anger and betrayal. The rest is piffle.
Need I say--its a stinker! (I gave it a rating of 2)<br /><br />Only watch it if you suffer from insomnia.<br /><br />There's plenty of scenery chewing and hamming it up, but not much else happens in this movie. There is no suspense, no deep, shocking secrets revealed, no real threat to the heroine's well being. A few disagreements, slight raising of voices--that's pretty much it. The secrets are nothing that couldn't happen to anybody - the last "secret" revealed in the film is totally predictable by that point.<br /><br />The plot, such as it is, revolves around a young woman named Faith (Meg Tilly), who is an artist, who is hired to paint a series of mural panels in a huge ballroom in a vast mansion by a very, very wealthy, older widowed woman, and a growing mother/daughter type relationship that the older woman craves with her.<br /><br />It turns out the older woman's daughter, Cassandra, is dead. You can pretty well fit the rest of the pieces together.<br /><br />Even the scene with the mysterious man menacing our heroine does not advance to the point where you really fear for her safety beyond maybe a second or two. Why he's still hanging around years after Cassandra's death is a good question.<br /><br />There's also the question of the fact that in this vast mansion there is only one servant, a faithful butler who seems to do everything--cooking, cleaning, serving the meal, answering the door, etc. Everything except apparently locking the door--since that would be the only explanation for how one of the characters just walks into a room where Faith is.<br /><br />There's nothing that will have you grasping your chair arms, and leaning forward on the edge of your seat, because there IS no "mounting" tension in this film--just bland, pathetic revelations that get tossed out from time to time.<br /><br />
I enjoy a good, slow-moving drama. Christmas In August, Chungking Express, Virgin Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors, The Way Home, Springtime in a Small Town, Hana bi, Eat Drink Man Woman, Dolls, In the Mood for Love, and Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring are all enjoyable films – just to name a few. <br /><br />Unfortunately, there is a subset of films within the drama genre that attempt to ride the coattails of good films while providing nothing of interest themselves. These are what I call IAN films – "Incomprehensible Artistic Nonsense." Tsai Ming-liang is the king of this subgenre, and Vive L'Amour is his "masterpiece." In fact, this is the crème de la crème of crap-infested garbage under the guise of "art." People walk around in their apartments, drink water, stroll back and forth waiting for pay phones to become vacant, hang posters, staple papers together, go to the bathroom, eat, do pushups, have sex, slap at mosquitoes, etc. I'm not joking when I say that is an accurate synopsis of the entire film, which is the quintessential posterchild for pointless art-house trash. There is no plot, no storyline, no interesting or noteworthy events, no emotion, no meaningful dialogue, and most importantly – no drama.<br /><br />The most eventful scene has two people "banging" on a bed with a person masturbating underneath the mattress – ironic that it's also totally tasteless and gratuitous. The relationship of the characters on the bed is practically non-existent. Tsai apparently didn't feel like communicating anything to the viewer regarding these people other than the obvious fact that they like to "bang." The person under the bed is just as one-dimensional and uninteresting. He likes to drink water, makeout with melons, and stroke himself. This is Tsai's idea of "character development." A truly misguided "entertainer" indeed.<br /><br />Tsai's true contribution in Vive L'Amour is perhaps the most atrocious scene in art-house film history. He first shows the lead actress walk all the way from one end of a park to the other for 285 consecutive seconds, only to then show her cry hysterically – for absolutely no reason whatsoever – for another 356 consecutive seconds. The film then abruptly ends. No point. No entertainment. Just pure, concentrated torture inflicted on the viewer. <br /><br />In an effort to beat a dead horse. The underlying theme of loneliness is mishandled so greatly that the only true feeling of this film is that of boredom. In fact, Kiyoshi Kurosawa provides a much better exposition on loneliness in his horror film Kairo. And guess what? It's actually INTERESTING! That film moved as slow as molasses in January, but there are better ways of addressing the concept of loneliness than the utter waste known as Vive L'Amour. Kairo is a perfect example of that.<br /><br />Fans of cinema may thank Tsai Ming-liang for directing this film, as he has provided irrefutable evidence that art-house cinema can be just as poorly made as B-grade, made-for-television horror flicks. Art-house snobs have now officially lost their pedestal of self-righteousness. The quality level of your precious genre now overlaps films like Army of Darkness and – gasp! – Showgirls. How do you like them apples?
I suppose it's nice and trendy to see wonderful things in the absolute emptiness of a film like this. With the sometimes pointless excesses of many Hollywood films, we can relax and enjoy a scene devoid of explosions, foul language, and corny one-liners. Minimalism has its place, and can be very effective when employed properly. However, this film is not one of those cases.<br /><br />Take the long scenes with no dialogue and dreary, sparse scenery. I'm sure that they must hold some great meaning and insight, because the implied message in shrouded in bafflement. The acting is poor... bland and pedestrian... and features one of the worst crying scenes in history (at the end of the film, if you can sit through it to the end). The scenery is drab, and the ridiculously long ending sequence of the girl walking through the barren park is as pleasurable as having a tooth pulled. I would call this anticlimatic, but as the film didn't build to any sort of climax whatsoever... not even in the "erotic" scenes... it would be untrue. I'm sure that there was a script employed during the filming, but with the amount of dialogue, I think it might have been written on a cocktail napkin. Basically, this film offers nothing to interest or amaze... no great story, no stunning insights, no visual drama, no excitement. Apart from two or three amusing moments, this film is a waste of two hours. A tragically boring and dreary film.
There are pretty landscape shots. Writers putting trite mouthings into actors mouths. With lesser actors this show would be silly. 'Art must uplift humanity or it's BS.' Not so because art of all those mentioned is also to stir humanity and express the dark side. The lead character even says those who don't drink hide the shadow side. Wrong , he lived in darkness and repressed his dark side by drinking and being one dimensional not expanding his horizons with something other than landscapes. There wasn't a breathing organism in his work nor expression of his pain. All the artist did was limit himself to dime a dozen landscapes. The discussions between the characters was grade school, trite stuff always giving the one character the upper hand the writer wanted. I tried to like it after reading all the first wow comments on here. I had to dig deep to see those i agreed with. I figure the great comments were from those connected to the movie. I was moved only once towards the end. The kid was way too passive. The scenery was nice and the music ridiculous. Just my opinion but nowhere show for me.
This movie was a major disappointment on direction, intellectual niveau, plot and in the way it dealt with its subject, painting. It is a slow moving film set like an episode of Wonder Years, with appalling lack of depth though. It also fails to deliver its message in a convincing manner.<br /><br />The approach to the subject of painting is very elite, limited to vague and subjective terms as "beauty". According to the makers of this movie, 'beauty' can be only experienced in Bob-Ross-style kitschy landscape paintings. Good art according to this film can be achieved by applying basic (like, primary school level) color theory and lots of sentiment. In parts the movie is offending, e.g. at a point it is stated (rather, celebrated by dancing on tables) that mentally handicapped people are not capable of having emotions or expressing them through painting, their works by definition being worthless 'bullshit' (quote).<br /><br />I do not understand how the movie could get such high rating, then again, so far not many people rated it, and they chose for only very high or very low grades.
As gently as I can, I sincerely believe this movie is a waste of time. I did not find it the 'warm, emotionally satisfying' film others did. I found it boring, with music that distracted from the film. The story was thin, the characters overdrawn, and the direction pedestrian.<br /><br />Fooey.<br /><br />Now I'm going to write some more about this movie, so I make the 10 line minimum. There really isn't more to be said and brevity is important, but IMDb has its minimums, so here goes.<br /><br />Young eager kid finds nascent talent, seeks time with aging, embittered mentor in spite of father's cartoonish homophobia. Aging, embittered mentor turns out to drink a lot and teach very little. conflict arises. While I don't think this is a spoiler, I've added the warning in case someone feels this much information is too much. <br /><br />Mostly, I just found the film boring and pretentious. A waste of my time. I honestly don't understand what little fuss there seems to be, mostly on this web site, about the transcendent quality of this movie. I think it's really worth avoiding. But, as Dennis Miller used to say, "Maybe I'm wrong."
I enjoyed the movie very much, emotionally, intellectually, and visually. It contains no violence or sex or drugs or special effects, and doesn't need them one bit, holding my attention the entire time with the visuals, story, and interspersed words of wisdom.<br /><br />However: [1] some of the foreign language accents made the dialog difficult to hear & understand; [2] there is unnecessary overuse of swearing (especially the F-word, which is the only reason this movie was rated R). [3] The movie is balanced with humor and emotion, but most of the emotion that holds you throughout the film, except the final resolution last minutes, is unpleasant due to the exaggerated long-lasting dysfunctional reaction of some of the characters to loss, living in the depths of bitterness and depression for too long. [4] I will not recommend this movie because of 5-seconds of background narration, which did not add one bit to the side-character it applied to, or the film -- it only turned me off to the movie and stuck in my brain through the whole movie and afterward: the main character's mother of German ancestry, when watching old WWII movies, "secretly roots for the Germans." There would be no "local color" or art if the Nazi's won the war. I don't know of any Germans today except radical skinheads who think the world would be a better place if the Nazi's won WWII.
I wanted so much to enjoy this movie. It moved very slowly and was just boring. If it had been on TV, it would have lasted 15 to 20 minutes, maybe. What happened to the story? A great cast and photographer were working on a faulty foundation. If this is loosely based on the life of the director, why didn't he get someone to see that the writing itself was "loose". Then he directed it at a snail's pace which may have been the source of a few people nodding off during the movie. The music soars, but for a different film, not this one....for soap opera saga possibly. There were times when the dialogue was not understandable when Armin Meuller Stahl was speaking. I was not alone, because I heard a few rumblings about who said what to whom. Why can't Hollywood make better movies? This one had the nugget of a great story, but was just poorly executed.
WHITE CHICKS Hold on, why couldn't they have dressed as Black Chicks, oh yeah, they wouldn't look different at all. Can anyone give me one Wayans movie where they haven't dressed up as ladies? Don't Be A Menace doesn't count, Jack White and Michael Costanza ghost wrote that (the other Norton Trio members acted as Directors).<br /><br />In White Chicks, there's never really any jokes. It's just the Wayans acting like girls for 2 hours. There's no setups, no punchlines and no laughs. There is a lot of "I think I'm gonna play some Time Crisis 3." At least for me there was (5 times to be exact).<br /><br />Somebody has to tell Kenan Ivory, Damon, Marlon, Shawn, Damien (the only talented one), Kim, Rakeesha, George W., and Osama Bin Wayans to stop making movies. Its only hurting the O-Zone layer.<br /><br />VERDICT 1/2* out of ****
I don't often go out of my way to write comments, but for this I had to, just to warn anyone that might think that by watching this they will see a comedy. This doesn't come close. While the premise (change in colour/gender/whatever) is bad enough (and has been done, better, many times before)the actual transformation of two black guys into two white girls is one of the least convincing transformations ever put on screen. It would be bad enough if all that was required by the script was a change to white chicks. However the Wayans brothers are required to disguise themselves as two specific white women. As you will have guessed by now, they fail completely. I have seen drag queens without makeup make more convincing women than these two do with the best special effects and make-up people that Hollywood can provide. Its appalling. Add to the mix a basketball player built like a building, terrible dialogue and more plot holes than a golf course and this film hits a new personal low. And I like bad movies! Avoid like the plague.
Basically this is an overlong, unfunny, action/comedy. First of all I'd like to say that I did enjoy the Wayans brother Scary Movie (1) and the sequel had it's moments. Unfortunately white chicks doesn't even deliver HALF the laughs. <br /><br />The humour in it is absolutely crude. If you like burping, farting, stupid catchphrases you should probably look at this. When it isn't crude it's idiotic. The first 10 minutes of the film gave everything away to me, totally unfunny, simply idiotic. <br /><br />However I watched the whole thing since I was with a friend (otherwise I wouldn't have bothered). The story is undeniably thin, it was in scary movie too but there at least the laughs were quick and constant. I think this is probably one of the main problems too with this film, the laughs don't come quick enough. Some jokes are dragged out too long when they're more disgusting than funny in the first place. If you prefer your comedy with a few brain cells then just avoid this. If you want a silly comedy with more laughs then look at scary movie, airplane, hotshots 1 + 2. <br /><br />1/10 Completely unfunny, Thin storyline, A film that seems to be based on one idea (i.e. what if we dressed up as white chicks for a film?) but simply didn't have enough material.
Keenan Ivory Wayans is probably one of the worst directors, i swear he has no real knowledge on how to make films. he has made one brilliant film and that is scary movie. scary movie 2 was OK too but everything else Keenan has made are real disasters. avoid such titles like don't be a menace to south central while drinking your juice in the hood..... i know, what a title !!! obviously this film too, just anything that has Keenans name in the credits.<br /><br />it was an hour and a half on stupid nonsense that never made me laugh. just trust me on this, maybe women might like this film a little because of some of things that happen but on a whole this film will never be liked by anyone with a good taste in films........ 1/10.......j.d Seaton
I *loved* the original Scary Movie. I'm a huge fan of parody- it is my favorite form of humor. It is sometimes regarded as the most intelligent form of humor. The Wayans boys seemed to grasp that concept perfectly in the original film, then temporarily forgot it when making the sequel. I think the Wayans' are a family of comical geniuses. Alas, even geniuses make mistakes.<br /><br />The movie begins with promise. I liked "The Exorcist" parody, especially the "come on out, ma" gag. Now, that's Wayans-quality material. But, other than that, I can only think of two other times I laughed: 1) when Tori Spelling is seduced in the middle of the night by a spirit, then becomes clingy and starts talking about marriage with him. Meanwhile, he's saying, "It was just a booty call!!" That was kinda funny. 2) The "Save the Last Dance" parody where the Cindy character inadvertently beats up a girl while practicing her new moves. But even the short-lived giggles are no match for the side-splitting laughs of the first Scary Movie.<br /><br />The rest of the movie is pure trash, filled with cheap gross-out gags. Jokes from the first movie which were subtle or implied are magnified and overdone. For example, in Scary Movie I, several innuendos are made to imply that the character Ray is gay. This was hilarious. But, in Scary Movie II, the whole penis-strangulation scene with Ray under the bed was mind-numbing and incredibly unfunny. This is the pattern of the whole film. Shock humor *alone* doesn't take a movie very far. This was a trend in 2000 and 2001, unfortunately. <br /><br />As much as it pains me to rate a Wayans movie so low, I have to give this one a 2 out of 10.
Scary Movie 2 is definitely the worst of the 4 films, for there is not much of a plot , bad acting, pretty tedious and some really cheesy jokes. But. And this is a big but, there is one good actor, one good recurring joke, and a good beginning. The good actor being Tim Curry, the one good recurring joke is the creepy,weird butler with the disgusting hand who always does cringey but laugh worthy things. And the good beginning is the spoof of the Excorsist.<br /><br />The plot to Scary Movie 2 is the main characters from the original and a host of new characters along the way are invited to stay the night at a creepy old mansion, but will they survive the night? This film is not very good but if your bored you might as well watch it!
"Scary Movie 2" is a let down to the Scary Movie Franchise. Scary Movie 1, 3 and 4 were all good but this one was kind of boring and not very funny. Luckily they picked their act up after this one and made two more great Scary Movies.<br /><br />This film is about a group of teens who get tricked by their Professor into going to a haunted mansion for a night. Things start to go wrong and then they realize they have to escape.<br /><br />This movie isn't horrible but they could have improved quite a few things. It is a bit of fun and if you liked the other movies in the Scary Movie franchise then give this a watch - but I don't think you will like it nearly as much.
Scary Movie 2 was a grave disappointment. Simply referencing movies, like Mission Impossible 2 does not lead to comedy. The movie opens well enough with a funny white people rapping scene and an excellent use of James Woods ands Andy Richter. The movie plummets from there unfortunately. The acting is awful. Tori Spelling looks and acts completely out of place. The movie looks hacked together and is surprisingly slow paced. Some of the longer gags in this snail paced movie, involving joints and a previously mentioned Tom Cruise movie, werent funny to anyone in my theater. The movie, thankfully, comes screeching to a halt at 83 minutes in a shockingly unfunny ending. (I say shocking because the ending does not even attempt to end with humor) I dont know what else to say except that is a sloppy rushed sequel done to make Miramax some more cash on the backs of dumb teenagers. Overall, a very poorly done movie.
I was very disappointed by this movie. I thought that "Scary Movie" although not a great movie was very good and funny. "Scary Movie 2" on the other hand was boring, not funny, and at times plain stupid.<br /><br />The Exorcist/Amityville spoof was probably the best part of the movie. James Woods was great.<br /><br />Now, I'll admit that I am at a disadvantage since I have not seen a few of the movies that this parodies unlike the first, where I had basically seen them all. But bad comedy is still bad comedy.<br /><br />Something that really hurt this movie was the timing, which ruined some of what might have been good jokes. Scenes and jokes drag out way to long.<br /><br />Also, the same jokes keep getting repeated again and again. For example, the talking bird. Ok it was funny the first and maybe even the second time. But it kept getting repeated to the point of annoying. The routine between the wheelchair guy and Hanson (Chris Elliott) was amusing at first but it kept getting repeated and ended up stupid and even tasteless.<br /><br />Some jokes even got repeated from the first movie. For example, the 'creaming' I guess you would call it of Cindy (Anna Faris) was funny in "Scary Movie" because Cindy had been holding out on giving her boyfriend sex for so long, that essentially he had blue balls from hell and it was funny when he 'creamed' her. But this time around it was out of place and not funny.<br /><br />The bathroom and sexual humor in general was more amusing and well timed the first time around. The scat humor was excessive though and rather unneccessary in the second film.<br /><br />Tori Spelling was annoying and really had no place in this movie.<br /><br />But I did enjoy Shorty (Marlon Wayans) who in my opinion was the funniest character in the first film. The scene with him and the pot plant was one of my favorites from the second film.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I love the Wayans family and their humor. That is why this film is so disappointing . . . they have a lot more comic ability than endless scat jokes.
I know a few things that are worst. A few. It had a couple of funny scenes. It is a movie not appropriate for kids but, only a child would find this movie hilarious. This is definetly a movie that you would like to use a free rental coupon for. Don't waste your money just to laugh a couple of times.
The first one was different and funny. This attempt should have never left the studio. This movie does not make you laugh. It is a weak attempt at gross out humor. The movie picks out current and old movies to rip-off. This time the jokes seem used and overdone. The audience that I saw it with only re-acted to Hannibal dinner scene and was otherwise asleep.
The script for "Scary Movie 2" just wasn't ready to go. This is a problem with the film that is blatantly evident, to the actors and the audience alike. Director Keenan Ivory Wayans, and many of the actors are funny people; and so the movie isn't completely humorless. To their credit, the film has several funny moments. But as a whole, "Scary Movie 2" is not even close to being as clever and amusing as the original.<br /><br />The first "Scary Movie" was a laugh a minute film. It turned the smallest subtleties of the slasher film genre into comedic gold. The humor in "Scary Movie 2" is as heavy handed as it is un-original. They even miss obvious opportunities for parody. Two of the movies stars are former cast members of "Beverly Hills 90210," and this was a show that was begging to be parodied! In the final analysis, "Scary Movie 2" is like a fine bottle of wine that was opened far too soon. The script needed a lot more time to age. 2 stars out of 5.
Given that this movie was put together in less than a year might explain its shortness (81 minutes - including end credits, so roughly 76 minutes of actual film). But what it cannot explain is its lack of humor that the previous film possessed.<br /><br />The gags are quick and sometimes not even funny. The only true funny parts are the quick spoofs on the Nike basketball spots, James Woods' portrayal of Max Van Sydow's character in the Exorcist, and bits and pieces scattered throughout the film. Very unfunny was the take off of Charlie's Angels, which like the first Scary Movie and the Matrix spin off scene, basically recreated the scene without much humor injected into it.<br /><br />Today's youth might not be able to relate to the spoof gags of the classic supernatural horror films of the 70's such as the Exorcist and maybe of the 80s' Poltergeist, et. al.<br /><br />Hopefully Scary Movie 3 will take some time to put together, making the spoofs more enjoyable.<br /><br />One thing though, the film features more than the last one of promising young actress Anna Faris (whom I will admit seemed exceptionally hot in the sequel). Just for her casting and acting ability, I give this movie a "3" out of "10".
After coming off the first one you think the wayans brothers could come up with some new jokes. Though i guess not. If the first one wasn't bad enough this one is just so bad it hurts to watch. With all the actors they had in this film you think they could come up with something a little more clever. Though they couldn't, they had to take all the same raunchy, not funny jokes from the first one and somehow put it into this film thinking people would laugh at it again. Though the thing is i didn't laugh at it the first time. They tried to make these movies into parodies though they failed at every level. Most of the time it's just randomly inserted jokes, that are so disgusting and raunchy that it's hard to watch it and enjoy it. Then when they do try to do scenes that are movie parodies they just end up making a 20 minute recreation of the scene with maybe one joke within the entire scene. Also for people saying that its not for the older and real young audience, well i fit into the age range that it's supposed to be funny for. While people say that different people have different ideas of what is funny or not, if you do find this funny then you probably aren't one of the more mature or intelligent people around. It doesn't take that much skill to write that kind of a script, though if you do want a more clever and funnier movie go see the movie Spaceballs. It's a movie parody that's actually good and well done and it didn't have to use disgusting and raunchy jokes to make it funny either.
Alright if you want to go see this movie just give me our money I'll<br /><br />kick you were it counts and you'll have the same amount of fun. I'll<br /><br />even guarantee more fun. This movie once again shows what happens when<br /><br />you can't get any one else to hire your family and your forced to make<br /><br />your own movies. Same, I'm going through puberty humor jokes, just<br /><br />dumber and grosser. This movie is really a disgrace to movie goers. They<br /><br />try to shock you into laughing because you can't believe the levels they<br /><br />have to stoop to make you laugh. So my offer above stands as
As if there weren't enough of those floating around at the time already, we have here another lame GODFATHER clone from the director of IL CONSIGLIORI (1973) which I had watched earlier this year. The marquee-value name roped in this time is Telly Savalas who belatedly enters the proceedings and is first seen from behind, rather campily tending to his flowers and wearing a beret in the style of French painters! Apart from not looking minimally Sicilian, he sports no accent of any kind other than his familiar drawl. Antonio Sabato, then, makes for an unlikely gangster - apart from being a resistible leading man; his relationship with Savalas, which becomes paternal at the flick of an eye, is also unconvincing (especially since he subsequently becomes romantically involved with the latter's spirited teenage niece)! Besides, for a gangster flick, there's precious little action to speak of and none of it is in any way memorable (though the finale set in a clinic is well enough handled); furthermore, the score by Francesco De Masi is serviceable but nothing else. Incidentally, the bargain-basement DVD I rented starts off midway through the credits so that none of the cast members - or even the film's title - is ever listed!
Wenders was great with Million $ Hotel.I don't know how he came up with this film! The idea of giving the situation after spt11 and the view of American Society is hopeful,that makes it 2 out of ten.But this is not a movie.Is that the best someone can do with a great idea(the west-east clash).There are important things going on in middle east and it is just issued on the screen of a MAC* with the fingers of an Amerian girl who is actually at the level of stupidity(because she is just ignorant about the facts).The characters are not well shaped.And the most important thing is the idea that is given with religion is somehow funny to me.At the ending scene Lana says lets just be quiet and try to listen.And the background music says "...I will pray".The thing is not about religion actually.But it ends up with this.How you are gonna see the truth if you just close your eyes and pray.The lights are already shining on the truth.Its just that nobody wants to see it. ps: "My home is not a place.It is people"The only thing that gets 10 out of 10 is that sentence.But it is wasted behind this film making. (by the way; as "someone" mentioned below ,Americas finest young man are not finest,they are just the "poor" and the "hopeless" ones who sign up for the army in need of good paychecks which is not provided by the government ! )
The hysterical thing about this movie is that, according to the director, it has difficulty finding a distributor in the U.S. because most of them that viewed it couldn't reconcile the seemingly conflicting messages of Christianity and American angst. The thought of anyone seeing this as a religious film in anyway is laughable.<br /><br />Because a minister at a mission prays with the homeless or wishes someone "Godspeed" this makes it a "Christian" movie? One could interpret that it is actually mocking religion for in the "Land of Plenty" with all of its material excess, the best an organized mission can do is hand out a bowl of soup and a bible verse. Plenty of unfortunate or downtrodden maybe? Plenty of useless homeless missions? How about plenty of psycho Vietnam vets? As a pill-popping delusional survivor of agent "pink" are we to think America is a "Land of Plenty" of paranoid patriots? Maybe we have plenty of psychiatric patients? Certainly we don't have plenty of people concerned about Palestine politics based on the main characters phone conversation in the film. Of course if you worked in a German homeless shelter the unfortunate there would be much more concerned about peace in a distant land than their own personal survival as the world knows how Europe is the "Continent of Plenty" when it comes to sophistication.<br /><br />Indeed I agreed with the title in the end as the United States is the "Land of Plenty" and in this particular case it refers to the abundance of poor scripts, amateur acting and dispassionately directed films. Life is too short and one, even an American, doesn't have "plenty" of time to waste watching this piece.
"Land of Plenty" is not a film. It is a tombstone for the directorial career of German Director Wim Wenders.<br /><br />Many felt it in "The Million Dollar Hotel" and now "Land of Plenty" makes it perfectly clear; not only has Wenders lost it, he's actually turned into a BAD director, creating horribly weak and superficial stories and scenes.<br /><br />One might argue that the "time you lose it" comes for every director, but Wenders' case is extreme. It's as if he completely forget everything he knew about cinema and started all over again - only to get sloppish results.<br /><br />In a few words, this film does not deserve your time.
How wonderful. Yet another movie about America by someone who has visited here probably a half dozen times, a day a piece, and believes himself to be an "expert" on the country. Sheesh. I should take a trip to Germany for a week and then come back and make a movie about Germany as the "land of Nazis" or some such. Wim IL boy, you should get together with Lars von Trier and make the ULTIMATE movie about the Americans. Of course we all know it takes a pretentious left-leaning "we are the world" European to make a "real" movie about America.<br /><br />Yeah, right. For a continent that started not one but TWO world wars, Europe sure has a lot of opinions about America's wrong "foreign policy".<br /><br />P.S. Don't worry, Wim IL boy, there's plenty of UC-Berkeley Americans that'll just love your movie. Of course, these are the same people who thinks George W. Bush is worst than Hitler, and that a painting of a can of soup is "sheer genius"!!
Robert Forster, normally a very strong character actor, is lost at sea here cast as a New York family man seeking revenge on the thugs who murdered his son and attacked his wife in a home invasion. Scary subject matter exploited for cheapjack thrills in the "Death Wish" vein. It isn't difficult to scoff at these smarmy proceedings: the dialogue is full of howlers, the crime statistics are irrevocably dated, and the supporting characters are ridiculously over-written (particularly a despicable judge who allows an accused murderer to walk right out of the courtroom). Low-rent production is contemptible in its self-righteousness, especially as the violence in our cities has only increased. * from ****
A police officer (Robert Forster) in a crime ridden city has his wife attacked and young son killed after she dares to stand up to a thug at a petrol station. After the murderers get off scot-free thanks to a corrupt judge and he himself is jailed for 30 days for contempt of court, he decides to take matters into his own hands by joining a group of vigilantes led by a grizzled looking Fred Williamson. These Robin Hood types sort out any criminal that the law is unwilling to prosecute, and with their help he attempts to track down those that wronged him..<br /><br />This film is nothing but a big bag o'clichés. The only thing out of the ordinary is the on-screen slaying of a two year old boy, which was pretty sick. Otherwise it's business as usual for this genre e.g involves lots of car chases, beatings and shootings mixed in with plenty of male posturing. I could have done without the prison fight in the shower involving all those bare-a**ed inmates, though. Also, did they run out of money before filming the last scenes? I mention this because it ends very abruptly with little closure. If anyone knows, give me a bell.. actually, don't bother.<br /><br />To conclude: File under "Forgettable Nonsense". Next..
William Lustig's followup to "Maniac" proves conclusively that, without Tom Savini's spectacular effects and Spinell's convincing performance, "Maniac" would never have become the cult hit that it did. "Vigilante" is badly directed, with a simple-minded script that spells everything out for you and is predictable at every turn, and also mediocre performances by all the actors. Judging from the sense of "deja vu" this film gave me, Lustig had watched "Death Wish" several times too many before making this! (*1/2)
Before I start, I _love_ Eddie Izzard. I think he's one of the funniest stand-ups around today. Possibly that means I'm going into this with too high expectations, but I just didn't find Eddie funny in this outing.<br /><br />I think the main problem is Eddie is trying too hard to be Eddie. Everyone knows him as a completely irrelevant comic, and we all love him for it. But in Circle, he appears to be going more for irrelevant than funny, and completely lost me in places. Many of the topics he covers he has covered before - I even think I recognised a few recycled jokes in there.<br /><br />If you buy the DVD you'll find a behind-the-scenes look at Eddie's tour (interesting in places, but not very funny), and a French language version of one of his shows. Die-hards will enjoy seeing Eddie in a different language, but subtitled comedy isn't very funny.<br /><br />If you're a fan of Eddie you've either got this already or you're going to buy it whatever I say. If you're just passing through, buy Glorious or Dressed to Kill - you won't be disappointed. With Circle, you probably will.
Oh my God what the hell happened here?!! I'm not going to say this again but what sort of backward movie is this? The dubbing in this is way worst than the dubbing in "King Kong vs Godzilla",Linda Miller had to be the worst actress in it and the suits are really cheesy.Its about some villain called Dr.Who who gets henchmen to build a robot gorilla that has the same strength as King Kong but when this robot breaks down he builds another one and then tries to kidnap Kong.When he does(thats when Linda Miller gets annoying)he makes Kong his slave but everything goes wrong and King Kong escapes.Then Dr.Who sends the robot after him.<br /><br />Later when I was watching the movie I got a headache when Linda Miller and the other clowns started moaning.As I sat through the misery of watching the DVD while it was playing I was hoping that the madness in the movie was going to end until the fight.The ending has to be a really bad one because they could've shown Kong back on his island fighting dinosaurs again.<br /><br />Don't watch the movie under any circumstances or if you do... beware of the disappointment you will receive.
KING KONG VS. GODZILLA (1963; which I recall having rated BOMB) had been my introduction to cult director Honda's work; this one isn't necessarily better – it's just that I've learned to be more tolerant towards such intrinsically lowbrow fare! <br /><br />Here, we actually get two Kongs for the price of one: an ugly and dopey-looking giant ape and a robot variation of it which looks even worse! The simian creature lives on the island of Mondo(!) – where it's shown fighting a couple of other monsters, and befriends a trio of humans. Naturally, it falls for the blonde (and bland) heroine; in fact, more intriguing is a femme fatale in cahoots with the film's villainous mad genius – called Dr. Who and sporting the anemic look and cape usually associated with a vampire!!<br /><br />He kidnaps King Kong and hypnotizes it in order to retrieve the Element X, which is embedded in the icy wastes of the North Pole; apparently, the giant ape is more impervious to radiation than its mechanical counterpart (and, to ensure its full co-operation, Who even captures its three 'companions')! The female agent then has a change of heart, helps the heroes (one of whom, typically, is a nondescript American) and is killed by Who. Kong eventually escapes and makes it to Tokyo, where it has a final showdown with the robot. The doctor flees the ensuing mayhem in his sub – which, on a request by Kong's dreamgirl, is summarily trashed by the giant ape.
**May Contain Spoilers**<br /><br />A dude in a dopey-looking Kong suit (the same one used in KING KONG VS. GODZILLA in 1962) provides much of the laffs in this much-mocked monster flick. Kong is resurrected on Mondo Island and helps out the lunkhead hero and other good guys this time around. The vampire-like villain is named Dr. Who–-funny, he doesn't look like Peter Cushing! Kong finally dukes it out with Who's pride and joy, a giant robot ape that looks like a bad metal sculpture of Magilla Gorilla. Like many of Honda's flicks this may have had some merit before American audiences diddled around with it and added new footage. The Rankin/Bass animation company had a hand in this mess. They should have stuck to superior children's programs like The Little Drummer Boy.
Sadly, the print of the film we were going to watch burned in the fire at Universal Studios last week, so we were stuck with video. That could even be a metaphor for this second-rate King Kong movie from Toho studios' stalwart director Ishiro Honda. Essentially it's a warm up for "King Kong versus Godzilla". It even uses the idea of a Mecha-Kong, like Mecha-Godzilla. Of course the movie climaxes with King Kong fighting Mecha-Kong on top of the expo tower in Tokyo, but if you didn't know that already then maybe you're in the age group that this movie was intended for.<br /><br />The cast is headed by a guy named Rhodes Reason who we had never heard of... glancing over his list I see mostly a lot of scattered American TV credits, so it's interesting that they dragged him all the way to Japan so that they could have a nominal American hero. The real hero of the movie is the more sensitive Japanese commander played by Akira Takarada, who I recognized from Hiroshi Inagaki's iconic version of "Chushingura" (47 Ronin) and also from the original Godzilla films by Honda. I'm sorry Rhodes Reason whoever you are, but this guy has way more screen presence and you can bet that everyone wants him to end up with the cute little blonde, played by Linda Miller. We laughed at the way Reason would always find a way to interject himself between Miller and Takarada, who it seemed like she kind of preferred. Of course like all Kong leading ladies her primary relationship is with the King himself. She discovers a nice trick: if you talk to a giant ape really..... really.... slowly..... he'll understand what you're saying. And if you're a blonde gal, that means that he'll do whatever you tell him to do. That fact is not lost on Dr. Who (Eisei Amamoto) and Madame Piranha (Mie Hama) -- representing a "nation which shall not be named" -- who plan on using her as bait to get Kong to dig up mineral deposits that are trapped at the North Pole.<br /><br />Yes, this is truly the plot of the whole movie -- apparently only a giant ape is going to be capable of digging out these minerals which can be used to make super powerful weapons. Dr. Who builds Mecha-Kong to get it but the circuitry gets in the way, so they decide to go for the real Kong. Kong himself seems momentarily infatuated with Mecha-Kong, a story element that might have made the film more interesting but wasn't followed up on.<br /><br />By the end of the movie, the cute blonde has shouted "Kong" or "King Kong" in her chirpy voice so many times that when the two heroes tell her to let him go at the end they're speaking for all of us. Basically this movie squanders whatever majesty was possible in the Kong character by making him a heroic and friendly figure much too early, just like the newest version of the story. Kong is just a guy in a suit in this movie, and they show quite a lot of him to the point where the goofy face becomes impossible to take seriously. It's a nice looking movie, I'm sure it satisfies the demands or desires of fans of this type of thing, which is really more of a wrestling film than a monster film in a lot of ways. The monsters don't ever really scare in these films, they just jump around and push each other around a lot. It's not a worthless movie, but it's extremely predictable and formulaic so for anyone under the age of 10 or so it probably will only be entertaining as comedy.
It's the worst movie I've ever seen. The action is so unclear, work of cameras is so poor, actors are so affected ... and this lamentable 5 minutes of Arnie on the screen. My advice from the bottom of my heart - don't watch it unless you like such a low class torture.
From the first time I saw the box cover of the movie and the stretched out photography I thought this guy, this friend of the 'Scwarz' must be like 6 foot or 6ft 2in. <br /><br />Not 5 feet tall. Not that, it's his fault. <br /><br />At any rating, I turned on the movie one cool night in Tucson, out on the second story-deck with a good cigar and let it roll. At that time my wife was having an affair and things were going down hill for me, so I needed a good diversion. But, as bad as the movie was...I totally enjoyed it, with a bottle of Merlot too, I might admit. <br /><br />Truly, I have watched this movie many times. It always makes me feel good!! It's not that it 'tries too hard' to be cool or that 'It's so close' to hitting the mark for an action film....It's frantic. And then truly clueless. Then frantic again. It's the best of the best when it comes to a slow speed chase scene. Wow!! I never felt safer in my life. Warm and happy too. I was thankful that they conserved on the gasoline during the chase, due to less production in the summer months...anywho <br /><br />The direction was 'uninspired' the action and fight sequences needed to be choreographed, or re-choreographed and tightened up, the sound was off the delivery didn't hit you, it just kept on going, the other way. The 'locals' of that village that they were in, the town rather, were 'Off cue' they also did not seem to follow what was happening very well, the would look and even 'stare' into the camera lens. Like a deer in the head lights kind of thing only some of them with a smile, a smiling deer. <br /><br />I feel bad because 'Columbu' I just bet has a good heart and a caring spirit for people in America as well as for his own countrymen. <br /><br />However "Baretta's Island" is very lethargic and unbelievable. Even still I like it a lot. My now x-wife hates it, but I love it! <br /><br />The funny thing is, I am pretty discriminating when it comes to movies I like or even 'love'. All in all, I like Franco. So there it is. <br /><br />As a movie adding addendum to this if you like killing a few hours with truly fun to watch, straight to video-B movies or 'bad' movies for your little library collection then, if you can find it, check out 'The Big Sweat' (1991) with Robert Z' Dar..you know the big guy from 'TANGO & CASH'. 'The Big Sweat', a bomb of a cop story with no real plot discovery and acting that is so lame, it might as well be 'on crutches' and at the end of 'The Big Sweat' I think they ran out of money, because they had a picture of the cast and just set it on fire and let it burn during the credits. -Good fun. <br /><br />But all in all, not as good as Baretta's Island', I gave it a '1' and an overall rating of 'awful' for awful-good B' movie. I'm waiting for the sequel, maybe like 'Baretta's revenge on Montazuma' (Franco takes a Mexican vacation and gets sick on the water then, declares war on the water co.) or 'Baretta's powder war' where as he would stake out a large drug lord in his country and chemically gene-splice and create a hybrid super bug (insect) that would be bred and dropped into the cocaine fields and eat the coke and upon passing it through the bug, it forms a chemical reaction that turns the coke to pure powdered sugar. Then another sequel he would have to get the young people rescued from excessive sugar addiction and so on. He could get a major tooth paste company to endorse and partially fund the project with careful product placement in the feature. Right?(*)
Very funny to watch "Beretta's Island" as kind of natural trash-film.It is like answer to Jess Franko's type of b-movie.Bodybuilders strikes back (!face to face!) to pushers.The very very very stupid strike!Action: unbelievably bad directed firing(shooting) scenes look even better than hand-to-hand fighting.Chasing scenes ridiculous.Saving beauties scenes incredibly stupid.Erotic scenes are very unerotic.The main luck of film is pretty landscapes and festival scenes.Don't miss:Arnold Schwarzenegger's joke at start of film and list of Franco Columbu's kin at the end. Special attraction: naked bosom.Almoust forgot - Franco can sing!
To make any film about the supposed end of the world, there should be some facts & realism 1. We are never told why these people believe this. 2.Location is New Years Eve In Toronto Canada . SO PLEASE SOME ONE TELL ME WHY WAS THEN STILL SHINING AT MIDNIGHT & WHY(based on the costumes) DID IT SEEM LIKE SEPTEMBER<br /><br />3. The acting was in that neo-au-natural style, that needed a director who knew how to do it.<br /><br />4. the individual story pieces were all dreary & without any purpose. I could go on, But I do not want to make this as boring as the film.<br /><br /> rating *1/2 (out of 4) 2 on IMDB scale<br /><br />thank you I am as always<br /><br /> JAY HARRIS (aka)SIRBOSSMAN
The world may have ended. Unfortunately this film survived as yet another testament to Canada's inability to make movies that go beyond the execrable. Maybe it's because all our really good people (Norman Jewison, Martin Short et al) go to Hollywood.) In fact it's too bad Short wasn't cast in this apallingly pretentious and banal film. He might have given it some credibility. The Canadian government should realize --- and this movie is a magnificent example --- that shovelling money into the trough does not result in good cinema. If the people lapping up these public funds had had to compete, they might have been forced to come up with something worthwhile. As it is they have produced yet another snickering embarassment.
Watching Josh Kornbluth 'act' in this movie reminds me of my freshman TV production class, where the 'not funny' had the chance to prove just how unfunny they really were!<br /><br />OBVIOUS is the word that comes to mind when I try to synopsize this wannabe comedy. The jokes are sophomoric and telegraphed. The delivery is painfully bad. OUCH!!!!!!! The writing is simply dorkish. It is akin to a Bob Saget show. <br /><br />Watching this movie is as painful as watching a one and a half hour long Saturday Night Live skit (post Belushi). <br /><br />I hated this movie and want my money back!!!
I'll dispense with the usual comparisons to a certain legendary filmmaker known for his neurotic New Yorker persona, because quite frankly, to draw comparisons with bumbling loser Josh Kornbluth, is just an insult to any such director. I will also avoid mentioning the spot-on satire `Office Space' in the same breath as this celluloid catastrophe. I can, however, compare it to waking up during your own surgery – it's painful to watch and you wonder whether the surgeons really know what they're doing. Haiku Tunnel is the kind of film you wish they'd pulled the plug on in its early stages of production. It was cruel to let it live and as a result, audiences around the world are being made to suffer.<br /><br />The film's premise – if indeed it has one – is not even worth discussing, but for the sake of caution I will. Josh Kornbluth, a temp worker with severe commitment-phobia, is offered a permanent job. His main duty is to mail out 17 high priority letters for his boss. But ludicrously, he is unable to perform this simple task. My reaction? Big deal! That's not a story… it's a passing thought at best - one that should've passed any self-respecting filmmaker by. <br /><br />The leading actor – if you can call him that – is a clumsy buffoon of a man, with chubby features, a receding, untamed hairline, and a series of facial expressions that range from cringe-making to plain disturbing. Where o where did the director find this schmuck? What's that you say…… he is the director? Oh, my mistake. Playing yourself in your own embarrassment of a screenplay is one thing, but I suspect that Mr Kornbluth isn't that convincing as a human being, let alone an actor. Rest assured, this is by no means an aimless character assassination, but never before have I been so riled up by an actor's on-screen presence! My frustration was further confounded by his incessant to-camera monologues in between scenes. I mean, as if the viewer needs an ounce of intelligence to comprehend this drivel, Kornbluth insults us further by `explaining' the action (first rule of filmmaking: `dramatize exposition'… show, don't tell). Who does this guy think he is? He has no charisma, no charm, and judging by his Hawaiian shirts, no sense of style. His casting agent should be shot point blank!<br /><br />The supporting actors do nothing to relieve the intense boredom I felt, with but one exception. Patricia Scanlon puts in a very funny appearance as Helen the ex-secretary, who has been driven insane by her old boss, and makes harassing phone calls from her basement, while holding a flashlight under her face. This did make me chuckle to myself, but the moment soon passed and I was back to checking my watch for the remainder of the film.<br /><br />The film's title is also a misnomer. Haiku Tunnel has nothing to do with the ancient form of Japanese poetry. Don't be fooled into thinking this is an art house film because of its pretentious-sounding title or the fact that it only played in a handful of cinemas and made no money at the box office……… there's a very good reason for that!<br /><br />
The worlds largest inside joke. The world's largest, most exclusive inside joke.<br /><br />Emulating the brash and 'everyman' humor of office space, this film drives the appeal of this film into the ground by making the humor such that it would only be properly appreciated by legal secretaries writing books. The audience is asked to assume the unfamiliar role of a legal secretary, and then empathize with the excruciatingly dumb protagonist.<br /><br />The entire film is centered on the legal secretary finding free time, listening to music and writing a novel while working. These are his goals. You can't imagine the slap in the face it is to the audience when (around halfway through) they find out he has had a job which fit all three of those criteria, but then gives it UP! The director and screenwriter (Jacob Kornbluth and Josh Kornbluth) completely remove the audience's motivation to empathize or even find entertaining a protagonist that has previously thrown away that which he is complaining about the lack thereof.<br /><br />Apart from that major stumbling block, the legal secretary insider humor fails because they must be explained explicitly to the audience each time they happen. Without these asides, the audience wouldn't have noticed anything particularly strange. Humor is only effective if it doesn't need to be thoroughly explained to the audience what is funny.
After waking up at 3:30 in the morning and not being able to go to sleep, I decided that I may as well be entertained while I suffered from sleep deprivation. This movie was on HBO and I decided to watch it. What a mistake!<br /><br />Here is the plot (potential spoilers, if you even care) : a neurotic man with an addiction to candy (Josh Kornbluth) works as a temp for some ridiculous company. Suddenly, he is offered the chance to "go perm," which seems to be the favorite catch-phrase of this movie. But with a secure job and a secure income within his grasp, Josh decides for whatever stupid reason that he doesn't want to do it. He hopelessly bungles several minor tasks and his laziness and lack of ambition fill me with contempt. His inability to send several "very important" letters within a given amount of time is supposed to be hilarious, but is merely stupid. Josh meets and deceives a lawyer woman and they wind up in bed together (obviously a fantasy of Josh's in real life, as such a thing would never happen). A bunch of other stuff happens, but it's too trite and inane to go into now.<br /><br />Despite the fact that this movie is billed as a comedy, I only laughed twice during it; the first time was the opening shot of Josh Kornbluth (my initial reaction was one of stifling fear) and the second was when he was in bed with the attractive woman (yeah, right). Josh Kornbluth is perhaps the most terrifying-looking person I have ever seen in my life. He is an unattractive, overweight, balding Jewish man who I am supposed to believe has sex with beautiful women. I do not at all sympathize with Josh's character. He is lazy and unmotivated and I just don't appreciate the failed attempts at humor. Skip it, even if your life depends upon it.
I passed this one on the shelf a few times, looking at the myriad of huge positive quotes (with tiny names) on the front and wondering if I was missing something. The other night it was on one of the movie channels, and I tuned in. I missed nothing.<br /><br />I must admit that I only watched the first 30 minutes. Perhaps the movie becomes comedy gold after that. Given the slow, plodding pace and complete lack of laughter in the first 30, I seriously doubt it.<br /><br />The lead character starts the movie in classic "I don't know how to start my movie" style, with a long, tiresome monologue about how he doesn't want to get sued. It's not funny. It's not even remotely funny. Others have commented on the "San Franclisco" bit; ok, a small chuckle the first time he says it. Then he grinds it into the ground, smiling at the camera like it's the funniest thing ever written. Get over yourself. In fact, I think the talking to the camera bit was the reason I instantly disliked the film. Don't assume familiarity with your audience. Familiarity is _earned_, much like respect.<br /><br />From there you basically have a fat whiny guy talking in a very effeminate way about his dull life as a temp. I didn't realize he's Jewish; it's a discredit to Jewish comedians to call this "Jewish humor". It's just unfunny humor. Just because you're Jewish doesn't mean you have a knack for the comedy. A WASP, Spalding Gray, does a better job of self-analytical humor than this guy, so obviously it's not about ethnicity.<br /><br />If one of the bits I had seen had worked, I might have stuck around. But some schlub going on about how much he loves the names of the women he works with, then listing them for five long minutes, doesn't make a great movie.<br /><br />This is an obvious attempt to capitalize on the popularity of "Office Space". Don't let yourself become a victim of target marketing. Just say no to "Haiku Tunnel".
This movie is nothing like "Office Space" except in the premise. Office Space was hilarious. I would not recommend this movie to anyone, as I laughed not once during the entire film. Mr. Cornbluth's self-indulgent tirades quickly become more annoying than 15 Jason Alexanders in the same room. If you decide to see this movie, use a free rental or watch it at someone else's house so you can leave if necessary.
Office work, especially in this era of computers, multi-functional copy machines, e-mail, voice mail, snail mail and `temps,' is territory ripe with satirical possibilities, a vein previously tapped in such films as `Clockwatchers' and `Office Space,' and very successfully. This latest addition to the temp/humor pool, however, `Haiku Tunnel,' directed by Josh Kornbluth and Jacob Kornbluth, fails to live up to it's predecessors, and leaves the laughs somewhere outside the door, waiting for a chance to sneak in. Unfortunately for the audience, that chance never comes; so what you get is a nice try, but as the man once said, no cigar.<br /><br />	As the narrator/star of the film, Josh Kornbluth (playing Josh Kornbluth), points out in the opening frames (in a monologue delivered directly into the camera), this story is pure fiction, and takes place in the fictional city of `San Franc'l'isco.' It's an innovative, if not very imaginatively presented disclaimer, and not all that funny. It is, however, a harbinger of what is to follow, all of which-- like the disclaimer-- just isn't all that funny.<br /><br />	Kornbluth plays Kornbluth, an aspiring novelist who supports himself working as a `temp.' It's a job that suits him, and it gives him time to slip in some work on his novel from time to time. But when he goes to work for a lawyer, Bob Shelby (Warren Keith), he does too good a job on the first day, and Shelby dispatches head secretary Marlina D'Amore (Helen Shumaker) to Kornbluth to persuade him to go `perm.' The thought of working full time for the same company, though, initially strikes fear in the heart of Kornbluth, but he caves in and signs on for the position. He's nervous about it, but at least now the other secretaries acknowledge his presence (which, of course, they would never do with a temp), and if things get too rough, he has seventeen important letters he's typed up-- that now just have to be mailed out-- to fall back on (he's been holding them back because the mailing is the easy part, and he needs that `something easy to do' in reserve, in case it all gets to be too much for him). These are `important' letters, however, and by the end of the week, Kornbluth still has them in reserve, on his desk. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out that when Shelby finds out about it, Kornbluth's days as the fair-haired boy are going to be over. And quick.<br /><br />	The Brothers Kornbluth, who not only directed, but along with John Bellucci also wrote the screenplay for this film, should have taken a page out of the Ben Stiller Book of Comedy, where it says `If you play it straight, they will laugh.' But, they didn't, and the audience won't. Because in comedy, even looking at it as objectively as possible, when the main character (as well as most of the supporting characters, in this case) `Plays' funny-- as in, he `knows' he's being funny-- he never is. And that's exactly what Kornbluth does here; so rather than being `funny,' he comes across as insincere and pretentious, a grievous error in judgment on the part of the Kornbluths, because by allowing it, they sabotaged their own movie. <br /><br />	In trying to discern exactly why this movie doesn't work, it comes down to two basic reasons: The directing, which-- if not necessarily `bad'-- is at least careless; and secondly, the performances, beginning with that of Josh Kornbluth. Quite simply, Kornbluth just seems too impressed with himself to be effective here. Unlike Stiller, or even Steve Martin-- both of whom use self-deprecating humor very effectively-- Kornbluth apparently has an ego that simply will not allow putting himself in that light; he seems to have a need to let his audience know that he, the real Kornbluth, is in reality much more clever than Kornbluth the character. And being unable to get past that does him in, as well as the film. Rather than give the millions of office workers who may see this film someone to whom they can relate or with whom they can identify, Kornbluth affects a condescending manner that only serves to alienate the very people he is attempting to reach. So what it all comes down to is a case of poor directing and unconvincing acting, and when you take into consideration that the screenplay itself was weak to begin with, with an inexplicably narrow focus (given the potential of the rich subject matter), it's easy to understand why this one just doesn't fly.<br /><br />	The one saving grace of the film is the performance by Warren Keith as Shelby, whose subtle delivery is convincing, and which-- in and of itself-- is fairly humorous. The effectiveness of it is diminished, however, inasmuch as Keith has to share his scenes with Kornbluth, which somewhat automatically cancels out his positive contributions to the project. <br /><br />	Shumaker and Sarah Overman (Julie Faustino) also manage to keep their heads above water with their respective performances, which are commendable, if not entirely memorable; they at least make their scenes watchable, and Overman even manages to elevate Kornbluth's performance, if only momentarily. But it's still not enough to save the day or the film.<br /><br />	The supporting cast includes Amy Resnick (Mindy), Brian Thorstenson (Clifford), June Lomena (DaVonne), Joe Bellan (Jimmy the Mail Clerk), with a cameo appearance by a disheveled looking Harry Shearer, as the Orientation Leader-- a role that begs for an answer to the question, `What was he thinking when he agreed to this?' In any work environment, there will forever be situations arising that one way or another will unavoidably become fodder for someone's comedic cannon, and the films depicting said situations will always be with us; the good ones (see paragraph one) may even become classics in their own right. `Haiku Tunnel,' however, will doubtfully remain very long amongst them, for it's destiny lies elsewhere-- in a realm known only as: `Obscurity.' I rate this one 1/10. <br /><br /> <br /><br />
My wife and I rented this movie because some people had drawn parallels between it and "Office Space". Blockbuster and IMDB even had it as an "also recommended" selection if you liked "Office Space".<br /><br />Now, I've seen Office Space probably 15 or 20 times. I love it. It's probably one of my 10 favorite movies. Witty, humorous, and featuring characters that remind me of people I've worked with over the years. "Haiku Tunnel" is similar to "office Space" in that they are both films. That's where the similarity ends. We sat through probably the first 50 minutes of HT, giving it the benefit of the doubt, hoping, nay, *praying* that it would get better. It didn't. We couldn't take it any more, and stopped the tape. Thank GOD it was a free rental. I'd have been p***ed if we'd actually paid for it. We should be reimbursed for having to sit through it. Now, since we didn't see the end, perhaps it miraculously comes together and redeems itself. I doubt it.<br /><br />Haiku Tunnel is so bad it's hard to believe it ever got produced. The movie is SO unfunny it's painful. Just mail the friggin letters already!!! The premise is asinine. The jokes are awful. We got as far as the "printer doesn't work" scene and had to stop. We couldn't take it anymore. This film is an EMBARRASMENT for Josh Kornbluth.<br /><br />If you are a fan of Office Space......don't waste your time with this turd. 0/10
Really, when it comes down to it, this movie is just not funny. Josh Kornbluth is the antithesis of funny, and yet he thinks he's hilarious. The plot about mailing the 17 letters was fine at first, until Josh's "look at me, I'm wacky" approach began infesting each and every scene. The Judas Priest joke may have been the least funny thing I have ever been privy to, and that is saying quite a bit, since it does have stiff competition from all the other jokes in the movie. And as for the incredible overuse of the Pixies' "Debaser," I have just one thing to say: What did the Pixies ever do to deserve a fate like this? What did anyone do to Josh Kornbluth to cause him to write/direct/produce/star in such a terrible movie?
I think this is almost all I need to say. I feel obliged to explain my actions though. I've basically never seen such an armature production, and I mean that in all senses of the word. Although he physical camera work, boom MIC operation and other technical aspects of this film are laughable, unfortunately its not the only areas. <br /><br />Unlike some classic independent films that have been saved by their scripts great characterization and plot, this unfortunately has an awful script, awful acting and worst of all, awful annoying characters. <br /><br />It's a crime that for the every independent film that gets, distribution like Haiku Tunnel, there's a 101 other indie films that died silent deaths. I don't know who the Kornbluth brothers know at Sony, but that can be my only explanation as to how this amateur family production ever got distribution. I'm quite bemused as to why they picked this up.<br /><br />The ONLY part of this film that holds out any intrigue is its title. However, the reason for that is even a let down. I hope this review will save a few people that may be intrigued by this films title from going to watch it. I've seen a lot of films in my time, and I'm very forgiving when in the cinema, but this was too much. I'll never forget 'tunnel', for marking an important point in my life experience of cinema. Shame it's such a low point.
I think this is almost all I need to say. I feel obliged to explain my actions though. I've basically never seen such an armateur production, and I mean that in all senses of the word. Although the physical camera work, boom MIC operation and other technical aspects of this film are laughable, unfortunately its not the only areas.<br /><br />Unlike some classic independent films that have been saved by their scripts great characterization and plot, this unfortunately has an awful script, awful acting and worst of all, awful annoying characters.<br /><br />It's a crime that for the every independent film that gets, distribution like Haiku Tunnel, there's a 101 other indie films that died silent deaths. I don't know who the Kornbluth brothers know at Sony, but that can be my only explanation as to how this amateur family production ever got distribution. I'm quite bemused as to why they picked this up.<br /><br />The ONLY part of this film that holds out any intrigue is its title. However, the reason for that is even a let down. I hope this review will save a few people that may be intrigued by this films title from going to watch it. I've seen a lot of films in my time, and I'm very forgiving when in the cinema, but this was too much. I'll never forget 'tunnel', for marking an important point in my life experience of cinema. Shame it's such a low point.<br /><br />
Mmm, doesn't a big stack of pancakes sound good? Maple syrup and fruit preserves on top. Take a bite. Mmmmmmm. Take another bite. Another. Another. EAT. EAT it, you!!! Keep shoveling it down your throat until your face turns green with nausea. You have just had the Ally McBeal experience.<br /><br />I stumbled on this show in the winter of '98 and was instantly hooked. Like that stack of pancakes, I gorged myself on it. But the enjoyment soon wore off, because the Ally McBeal character (whom we see to be cute & endearing at first sight) soon becomes the most annoying, insecure, whining complainer you've ever met. (Call me a feminist, but I prefer my female leads to have a spine.) The gags & gimmicks of the show also become hackneyed, the music of Vonda Shepherd (which is really shoved in your face) becomes grating, and the incessant character changes & rewrites make the show into a damn soap opera.<br /><br />My advice to you is to take this show in small doses, and quit as soon as it becomes bothersome (and it will). I made it through 2.5 seasons before my enjoyment had totally soured. It was good while it lasted, but like a crazy, neurotic ex-girlfriend it just turned ugly after it had overstayed its welcome.<br /><br />And next time you go to IHOP, skip the pancakes. Order something healthy like the fruit cup. It'll sit with you much better.
What the hell is this? "Kooky drama"? "Lawyers in Loony Tunes Land"? The world's thinnest, most duck-faced actress (even more duck-faced and anorexic than Michelle Pfeiffer) overacts her bony butt off, making cretinous grimaces that would shame Bugs Bunny, in one of the most animated non-animated TV series ever. This is also the most annoying one-hour-format TV show ever, hence the worst.<br /><br />All the men act like pansies, and I for one refuse to believe that even hip big-city shysters are all as delta-male-like as this sorry (short) bunch. Wuss Peter MacNicol manages to be even more irritating than Calista Flockofducks with his fake Hollywood "shshshs" speech impediment: it's the sort of pseudo-inability to pronounce the letter "S" by turning it into a moronic "SH" that the likes of Jon Shtewart and Christian Shlater also practice with zeal. Watching MacNicol talk, I always wonder how come his jaw doesn't dislocate... Human facial anatomy was never meant to support the pronouncing of the "SH" sound more than three times per second. He is a medical wonder.<br /><br />This badly conceived and written legal-drama/comedy hodgepodge also features some very 90s PC. It has POLITICAL CORRECTNESS written with huge, neon letters. Is there anything more unrealistic than a bunch of LAWYERS being full of ideals, high principles, and moral fiber? Laughable, but that's the way defense lawyers have been portrayed in Hollywood since its inception. After all, what is more noble than defending a murderer, a rapist, or a thief? When a TV series as retarded as "Ally McBeak" starts preaching to America about how it should run the country, then it must be time for Paris Hilton to become President. "Ally McQuack" is both a product of recent and large-scale Western dumbing-down and a perpetrator of it.<br /><br />Those supposed touches of "eccentricity", like the UNBELIEVABLY annoying musical numbers, are unconvincing and embarrassingly unfunny. This is no Monty Python. Whatever "new" the talent-free makers of this garbage were aiming for, they failed with honours. "Ally McBeak" is a highly commercialized TV venture aimed at indiscriminating yuppies, bored housewives, and bipolar lawyers. It's yet another dull "objection overruled sustained your Honour may I call the witness" legalistic baloney that the American audiences seem to eat up with relish for some strange reason...
"Ally McBeal" was a decent enough show, but it was very overrated. The characters become boring after a while and the jokes begin to fall short.<br /><br />I think it chose an appropriate point in time to leave - it was starting to outstay its welcome.
The only way this is a family drama is if parents explain everything wrong with its message.<br /><br />SPOILER: they feed a deer for a year and then kill it for eating their food after killing its mother and at first pontificating about taking responsibility for their actions. They blame bears and deer for "misbehaving" by eating while they take no responsibility to use adequate locks and fences or even learn to shoot instead of twice maiming animals and letting them linger.
Gregory Peck's acting was excellent, as one would expect, and the cinematography quite stunning even when playing directly into some melodramatic "moment." But, the rest of the film was overacted and hard to watch, for me anyway. I tried to like it, but had to fast-forward through the last thirty minutes or so. I feel I wasted a couple of good hours. Had it not been for Gregory Peck, I wouldn't have lasted fifteen minutes. 4/10.
This is the most depressing film I have ever seen. I first saw it as a child and even thinking about it now really upsets me. I know it was set in a time when life was hard and I know these people were poor and the crops were vital. Yes, I get all that. What I find hard to take is I can't remember one single light moment in the entire film. Maybe it was true to life, I don't know. I'm quite sure the acting was top notch and the direction and quality of filming etc etc was wonderful and I know that every film can't have a happy ending but as a family film it is dire in my opinion.<br /><br />I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who wants to be entertained by a film. I can't stress enough how this film affected me as a child. I was talking about it recently and all the sad memories came flooding back. I think it would have all but the heartless reaching for the Prozac.
I don't know if the problem I had with this movie is that I was not able to capture the way movies were done in the past but I believe that this one did not miss to make use of any of the the fashionable conventions available in the 40s to make a film. If you don't have anything better to do my advise is not to watch this movie but to read a book or to go out for a walk.
At first glance, this movie has got everything a psycho wants: a vampire story with a "not under 18" restriction, filled with hyper-violence, drugs, gore, sex (including lesbian sex), some fanatics zealots and even a gay necrophiliac cop! But then, this movie is a succession of bad story (so thin), bad acting -with a ridiculous english accent making you believe you're watching a bad Monty Python -, bad music ('80s hard rock), the videotaping is awful, the ending is a real shame... Plus the scenes of sex are ridiculous, the gore not very impressive. And those vampires reflect in a mirror, and don't even fear daylight! You get to be very disappointed, unless you see it as a "Space Mutiny" or "Troll 2". I hope Bloodlust will one day reach the bottom 100, because that's its real place.<br /><br />I'd say it can still be fun to watch, if you have friends and enough beer.<br /><br />3/10
I didnt think it was possible, but i have found film worse than 'Body Melt'. This film is really really bad! And what makes it worse is that its another Australian film...<br /><br />Shot on what looks like VHS, and with a terrible 80's rock soundtrack, it just keep getting worse and worse, which is hard to believe seeing how bad the beginning is (skinned male hanging up-side-down in a white tomato sauce sprayed room anyone?).<br /><br />And why do their accents keep changing? From bad New York drawl, to prissy english, then pure Aussie! And it happens to the whole cast!<br /><br />This film also claims to have won some film festival on the cover (i believe it was the Utah Film Festival). This has to be a lie because no-one in their right mind would nominate this for anything (perhaps the Golden Rasberries but i thinks its too bad for that aswell).<br /><br />Come on guys! This film has to be number 1 on the bottom 100!!! It has to be ten times a bad as those films already on there.<br /><br />Well done to the "film" makers of this trash, for proving there is a reason not to see films..... 0/10
First up this film, according to the slick said it won "best film" at "Worldfest" Film festival in Houston, Texas. Hmmm must have been a quiet year.<br /><br />Wouldn't call this the worst film ever but it certainly sucks, is pretty much just as terrible as other Aussie B grader "Body Melt", but at least that film didn't look like it was shot on HI 8 video.<br /><br />My guess is the film makers, watched a lot of Troma films, and really bad B grade gore films, thinking that they too could crack into the business releasing this film.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I love really low grade films, Just the fact that some of the characters put on fake American accents, almost as if doing so would give them more chance to sell it in the states or something. Really disappointing ending as well, the showdown could have been way more exciting, and some good fight scenes. You can completely see that the film makers are trying to copy "Bad Taste" with the whole, car explosion, rocket launcher, and endless amount of people being gunned down, yet the finale lacks any over the top humour, or style like "bad taste".<br /><br />If you like watching really bad gore films, or are interested in no-budget film making, watch it, otherwise stay away.
Big Bad Ralph is also on the not so squeazy truck commercials, and can be found at numerous brothels around Melbourne any given night.<br /><br />Terrible Film by the way, wasn't shocking just bad, uninteresting<br /><br />The main guy was in charge of the metal section on countdown , and was the lead bouncer at a gay night club in Melbourne.<br /><br />I dunno who the women where? probably pros's that Ralph knew?<br /><br />No story of interest, its one of those fast forward jobs<br /><br />Please look up Big Bad Ralph at brothels around Melbourne<br /><br />hes famous in them.<br /><br />i wish i could give 0/10 but ill give it 1. Only cos i cant give 0
the characters at depth-less rip offs. you've seen all the characters in other movies, i promise. the script tries to be edgy and obnoxious but fails miserably. it throws in some hangover meets superbad comedy but the jokes are way out of left field, completely forced, and are disreguarded almost completely after they are cracked. the hot chick is old and has no personality, shes just some early thirties blonde chick with a few wise ass non-underwear wearing jokes who is less than endearing. the attraction between Molly (the hot chick) and Kirk (the dorky love interest) is barely communicated. the attraction in no where to be found its a completely platonic relationship until they awkward and predictable seat belt- mishap kiss occurs. afer this they are in a full on relationship and its just incredibly lame. the main focus of this movie is not the relationship, but a failed attempt at making a raunchy super-bad-esquire movie with a semi appealing plot. I could compare this to the hangover, in its forced nature. i wont get into that. i could keep going but its just pointless. just don't pay to see this movie.
I thought that this movies was a letdown I expected it to be so much better than it was. I am so glad I didn't pay to see this movie and that I didn't sit in a movie theater for this one. Where to begin on this movie, the acting in this movie was average, the humor was terrible and just the overall storyline of this movie wasn't special. I thought that this movie was suppose to be great, but it wasn't more than a cheesy waste of time. I think that the acting in this movie was terrible no of the actors in this movie had chemistry, it just wasn't there. I think that if maybe we had a different actor play Kirk than Jay Baruchel it might have been better but the entire time I watched this movie he looked high and I didn't get the feeling that he wasn't acting in this movie. Now, Alice Eve did a great job as an actress but, there was no chemistry between her and Jay. All the actors in this movie were no names and had very little affect in this movie. The humor in this movie was not funny at all, there were a few one liners in this movie that were OK but nothing worth saying to your friends that they would understand. I think that Jim Field Smith had a hard time with this because he couldn't decide if he wanted a romance or a comedy. I honestly think he needs to stick with the Burger King commercials. I think that this movie could have been better if the writers would have gone to a different director. The storyline of this movie is just like every other hot girl just OK guy love story…boring I think that it would have been better if it had more originality, but what a letdown nothing. I honesty would not recommend anyone go see this movie. I think that you would have more entertainment at the dentist than at this movie. So save yourself the agony and just don't see it.
This movie probably had some potential for something; my bewilderment is how these utterly prosaic unfunny themes keep making it to theaters, it's as if ideas are being recycled just because generations are. Truly the decerebrate oafs behind most films are like dogs, they return to ingest their own vomit. Well, they're 19 bucks richer now because of me. This was not at all imaginative, there was no redeeming moment, anything remotely funny was shown in the trailer (and nothing amusing was in the trailer), performances were strained (especially Molly's, totally unconvincing). What was theoretically supposed to be some comic relief was the homoerotic friend with a penchant for Disney films; none of his analogies hit home, his little moral speeches were flat, I was literally waiting for them to go on to say something meaningful, only to find out he was done. The so-called "hard 10" is the most insipid plastic creature there is (apart from having a horse-like face with a weird smile); I honestly found her friend Patty (referred to as the Hamburglar) to be much better looking than her. But then again, gentlemen prefer brunettes ;) Well, anyway, the whole premise is that society is superficial and if love is true it transcends all social facades; the way they showed this, with a dude shaving another's scrotum and the million-times-mutilated-and-beaten-to-death-horse premature ejaculation routine (with obvious allusions to American Pie and Happiness - the latter in the disgusting scene denouement involving the family dog). I feel as if the movie was like adjoining ridiculous jokes into an unformed wretched ball of raw sewage. Goes to show marketing can push anything out there, shine whatever fetid mass and call it gold, people will come (worked for me). Done with tirade.
Just saw a pre-screening tonight. What can I say? It lived up to it's mediocre trailer run, though that's saying nothing at all. It did absolutely nothing that any movie before it hasn't done, and it played out in such a cliché fashion that eventually I got to the point where I stopped laughing only because I was laughing with the audience, and instead let the humorless movie play out.<br /><br />So let's see... we have the less-than-spectacular main character that is trying to get back with his ex-girlfriend but he's not good enough for her, check. We have the three buddies that all have their own "personality" with one being the best friend who tries to get with the main girl character's best friend but is constantly rejected, another friend being the super awkward one that can't live down seeing the positive in everything 24/7 and is thrown in for the one-liners (which in this case is just a bunch of movie references, specifically from Disney), and the third guy whose name you won't ever remember but is there to complete the square and throw in consoling messages to whomever will care to listen... check. We have the girl's ex-boyfriend and her parents ****-block the relationship at any possible means when things are looking up, not to mention the awkward family members from the main character's side... check. We have the downer period an hour into the movie where everyone is depressed, check. We have the movie's "funny" moments come from incessant swearing, people falling down or being hit, scenes from the trailer, and homosexual innuendos... check. And dare I call it a spoiler, but we have an ending that unfolds exactly as one thought that it would unfold before even seeing the movie... check.<br /><br />Honestly, this could have... no, wait... should have been a PG-13 movie. All that needed to be dropped were any F-bombs. Honestly, it would have gotten much more publicity from the crowd that enjoys this kind of humor, would have gotten less media exposure, and thusly would have not been disliked as much from people like myself who should try and hold it up higher to the recent R-rated comedies like Superbad and Knocked Up. The humor in this movie is just so awkward that it doesn't fit in with what general people look for. I bet even the actors were often times unsettled with some of the dialogue and action they had to deliver on camera. Let's put it this way... in the theater, it will help you laugh because it's on the big screen and others are laughing. When this movie hits Showtime and you're checking it out at 2:00 PM on an off-day, you may be inclined to change the channel. The only thing that will keep you watching is Alice Eve's hotness (who is not quite a 10, but still very good looking).<br /><br />Aside from the main resolution, this film kicked a lot of subplots to the side of the curb and seemed to forget to write more story that they tried to develop in the beginning of the movie, where everything else pretty much flies out the window. So there is a main resolution, but what comes of it? It's never really clear-cut, nor does it allow the ending to be "feel-good" with the abruptness.<br /><br />There was only one thing worth nothing in this movie, and that was the good soundtrack. Aside from the nice choice of 90's alternative rock songs, there was a nice upbeat score that would play in some parts of the movie (more so the beginning of it) that reminds me of something David Holmes would mix up/compose. I'll give them props for a great choice of sound.<br /><br />One last thing, this movie was probably filmed sometime late last summer, because the inadvertent yet proud Pepsi sponsorship showed the yellow bottle caps that they had during that Rock Band promotion. I just figured a lot of Rock Band gamers would catch onto that one if you saw it. But I say hold onto your money. If this was PG-13 and you were 15 years old on a Friday night with a group of friends, I'd say knock yourselves out. Otherwise, definitely pass. It doesn't try and compete with the R-rated movies of the past few years, and ideally it definitely isn't as good.
If you haven't figured out what is going to happen in this film in the first five minutes then give it a couple more minutes. Lilia is a widow. She has been left on the shelf for too long and she wants to burst out. She has a teenage daughter which only highlights that she is not getting any younger. While checking up on her daughter she discovers a world she never dared...the cabaret, where she can belly dance in skimpy sequined outfits while men throw money at her. The film is very misogamist. It's portrayal of men is dismal. Which is rather odd as Lilia stoops to jiggle around for them, not for money, but just for the hell of it. When she succeeds in arousing them it makes her feel like a woman again. She does not wish to connect with them but she is addicted to the attention. The other dancers all are mostly aging women who look like men in drag and realize their time in the spotlight is short-lived. Not short enough I say. She does find romance, however brief , with you guessed it....No surprises here we didn't see coming. Though the ending is good you realize that it could have ended no other way. Maybe this film just isn't targeting my demographic- 30 Male
Well, you'd better if you plan on sitting through this amateurish, bland, and pokey flick about a middle-aged widowed mom who has a little more in common with her young adult or old teen daughter than she would like. Set in Tunis, mom piddles around the flat, gets antsy, and decides, albeit reluctantly (she just can't help herself), to don the costume and dance in a local cabaret. Meanwhile her daughter is taking dancing lessons. The common denominator is a Tunisian band drummer. This film is so full of filler I watched the DVD at x2 and read the subtitles, fast forwarding through much of the very ordinary dancing and loooong shots of walking (they walk everywhere) and more walking and just plain dawdling at x4 just to get though this boring, uneventful, low budget flick which some how garnered some pretty good critical plaudits. Go figure. (C-)
I'm a fan of Matthew Modine, but this film--which I stumbled upon on cable--is absolutely witless. I see that the screenwriter and director were one and the same, so there was no one around to check her worst instincts. There are no surprises, no original lines, and no original characters. The goldfish was basically the most sympathetic character. What a waste of all this acting talent. Given how expensive it is to film in New York these days, I have to wonder how this got made in the first place. And if you're wondering why I watched it at all, it came on after a film that I like on cable and I left it on while I worked at the computer. It's not a very demanding picture!
Worst movie ever made!!! Please see the Real movie reviews from the pros on this movie.Check Rotten Tomatoes on the web for some good independent reviews on this film. The comments made on this site are apparently from folks with some financial interest in this film. I find the positive comments very misleading. I find it amazing how the negative comments are so bad against this movie and the positive comments sound like an Academy Awards Speech. Don't waste your hard earned money!!!!!! This Film is retarded!! I can't believe a film like this would ever be made. Why would Hollywood waste their time on such junk? This film is an attempt at nothing. I ask myself what looser would actually sink their money producing such trash. I went to blockbuster and the attendant even told us not to waste our time or money. I didn't listen and I did waste my time and cash. Please don't make the same mistake! It really is the "Worst movie ever made!"
I just saw this film last night in the 2006 Tribeca Film Festival and it seriously makes me wonder if the folks at the festival actually screen the films before selecting them. The film was simply awful - I say that without hyperbole or ulterior motives - it was awful. Matthew Modine's days as a leading man are way over. Gina Gershon sported an inexplicable and unnecessary English accent - she should be ashamed of her participation in this film. Gloria Reuben had a weird little cameo in it - she should also be ashamed. The script was terrible and the we were given absolutely no reason to care about the characters. I highly doubt this will be picked up, but then again, people in Hollywood are known to make mistakes sometimes. I really think "Kettle of Fish" is a serious contender for the worst movie I've ever seen.
This is one of those movies that appears on cable at like two in the afternoon to entertain bored housewives while they iron. The acting is second rate. Poor Mathew Modine seems to sleepwalk through the whole film. And god help Gina Gershon. Her accent is too over the top. It sounds nothing like an true English woman. It sounds forced and phony, much like her acting. She should stick to what she does best, lesbian showgirl con-artist who plays in a rock & roll band and has a drug problem. The other characters are no better. They are two dimensional. empty, vapid and silly. How are we to supposed to care about these people. At one point Christy Scott Cashman get's lost in Central Park. Really? It's not that hard to navigate Central Park. Just follow any path out. Not only did I not care about ANY of the characters,I downright hated them. The only reason I even stayed with this train-wreck of a film was Fisher Stevens. Even his brilliant humor couldn't save this dying Fish. Each scene is typical romantic comedy fare and nothing is left to surprise us. The script was awful as was the acting. If you catch this Fish throw it back!
For the life of me I can't understand the good reviews on this piece of crap. It was pointless. Matthew Modine was horribly miscast as a leading ladies man. Gina Gershon, well, others have said it, but I'll reiterate, why the stupid accent? Totally unnecessary. And her acting was just bad. I don't know if she was thrown by the accent, or what. There was no chemistry between these two. <br /><br />And the girl Modine was in love with, suddenly she's shoving half a head of lettuce in her mouth and acting in a goofy way? Where did that come from? I think we were supposed to feel sorry for her as we saw her marriage to a workaholic begin to crumble, but frankly, I couldn't care less about any of these people.
Let's face it, romantic comedies are considered lightweight when compared with dramatic movies (just look at the Academy Award nominations each year). But still, the good ones are truly an art form. Look at "When Harry Met Sally", "Sleepless In Seattle", and classics like "Roman Holiday" and "It Happened One Night". I like the good feeling of seeing two people destined to find happiness.<br /><br />This movie attempts to construct something that resembles a romantic comedy. But no one believes the romance between the main characters, and there is nothing funny to make up for that major shortcoming. Modine is way past being a leading man - especially a romantic lead. I'm sure as Executive Producer, he had the means - but not the good sense - to cast himself. And Gershon...I see possibilities of some comedic talent, but she had no script and a poorly developed character. And whose idea was the English accent? Pointless.<br /><br />Others have stated it, but I want to repeat: this story is poorly conceived, poorly executed; the actors are terribly miscast; and the characters, well, we just don't give a hoot about them.<br /><br />An art form this ain't. Go rent "Moonstruck" again.
This movie was supposed to have depicted a 'ladie's man' bachelor who was ready and willing to settle down once and for all. However, I did not care for his mission to settle down, because I didn't care for his character. I don't understand what all of these beautiful women saw in him. He had absolutely no class, or charisma. He should've at least had a way about himself that made ladies weak in the knees other than his saxophone playing, but to no avail. Just because he is a musician does not make him sexy. Not to mention, the things he did to get the attention of a married woman he fell in love in a span of five minutes of knowing her were absolutely outrageous and ridiculous. Does this man have any shame what-so-ever? Had he tidied up, and stopped doing and saying stupid things he would have been more attractive as a character, but alas, his character was bland and boring.<br /><br />Gina Gershon's character was unnecessarily British. She could've just as easily been an uptight out-of-towner with her regular speaking voice than do a poor British accent that sometimes would fade through out the movie.<br /><br />The only two characters I cared for were the fish and frog. Now those two had chemistry! Academy nominations for both… STAT! Plot holes, lack of character development, horrible acting, unnecessary drama, cliché moments... What a mess of a movie.
This was a disappointment - none of the nuance of the original. The Brits just seem to be able to make a truly unsettling film with none of the over-the-top histrionics of the American version. The original series combined both creepy stories and subtlety of performance with great attention to lighting and settings. I have watched the series many times and am still enthralled.<br /><br />Just another poor adaptation along the lines of the dreadful adaptation of "Cracker". Get hooked up with BBC America or BBC Canada and watch for such delights as Waking the Dead, Spooks, Silent Witness, and Judge John Deed. Watch the original Touching Evil, then look for "Wire in the Blood" for more of the truly understated, elegant performance of Robson Green. Hollywood needs to have a look at this actor!
"Rival reporters Pat Morgan (Ginger Rogers) and Ted Rand (Lyle Talbot) are always trying to out-scoop each other on stories. The latest involves the mysterious death of a philanthropist who fell to his death after a shriek was heard from his penthouse apartment. The two reporters start out as rivals but combine efforts to solve the crime and write the story when more residents of the apartment building turn up dead," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />This said-to-be follow-up to "The Thirteenth Guest" has little to do with the earlier movie; it is not a sequel, as has been inferred. Ms. Rogers continues to develop her skills. Mr. Talbot adds a little humor to his characterization. They are a pleasant team, the plot is interesting and mysterious; but, the resulting film is very dull. The opening and closing are startling. A long-winded wrap-up of plot development points follows the climax.<br /><br />*** A Shriek in the Night (1933) Albert Ray ~ Ginger Rogers, Lyle Talbot, Harvey Clark
A very young Ginger Rogers trades quick quips and one liners with rival newspaper reporter Lyle Talbot in this 1933 murder mystery from Poverty Row film maker Allied Productions. The movie opens with a wealthy businessman taking a header from the roof garden of a high rise apartment house, or was it from a lover's apartment? Rogers actually has two identities at the film's outset, that of Miss Terry, the dead victim's secretary, along with her newspaper byline of Pat Morgan. Mistakenly phoning her story directly to Ted Rand (Talbot) instead of her paper's rewrite desk, she gets fired for her efforts when her boss learns he's been out scooped.<br /><br />Here's a puzzle - it's revealed during Police Inspector Russell's (Purnell Pratt) investigation of Harker's death that Terry/Morgan had been employed as his secretary for three weeks. Why exactly was that? After the fact it would make sense that she was there for a newspaper story, but before? Clues are dropped regarding Harker's association with a known mobster conveniently living in the same apartment building, but again, that association isn't relevant until it's all linked up to janitor Peterson (Harvey Clark). And who's making up all the calling cards with the serpent effecting a HSSS, with the words "You will hear it" cut and pasted beneath? Apparently, the hissing sound of a snake was the sound made by the apartment house's radiator system, which Peterson used to transmit a poisonous gas into the rooms of potential victims, such as Mrs. Coby in the apartment below Harker. But in answer to a question posed to Inspector Russell about Mrs. Coby's death, he replied "apparently" to the cause of strangulation.<br /><br />It's these rather conflicting plot points that made the movie somewhat unsatisfying for me. The revelation of janitor Peterson as the bad guy of this piece comes under somewhat gruesome circumstances as we see him stuff the unconscious body of Miss Morgan in the building's incinerator furnace! However, and score another point against continuity, we see Miss Morgan in a huge basement room as Peterson ignites the furnace; she made her getaway, but how? And still pretty as a picture. And who gets to make the collar off screen if none other than milquetoast police assistant Wilfred (Arthur Hoyt), who in an opening scene fell over his own feet entering a room.<br /><br />Sorry, but for all those reviewers who found "A Shriek in the Night" to be a satisfying whodunit, I feel that any Charlie Chan film of the same era is a veritable "The Usual Suspects" by comparison. If you need a reason to see the film, it would be Ginger Rogers, but be advised, she doesn't dance.
What is supposed to be a simple generic mystery plot involving a dead philanthropist is, in fact, a head-ache inducing tale about a bunch of characters (the only big actor being Ginger Rogers, in a very early role) all trying to find the murderer among a small cast of residents in a posh apartment building. These characters range from utterly stupid to downright mean. As a cheap, low budget production, most of the action revolves around Rogers and her lead man (some guy, I don't care who he is 'cause he really sucked) talking about their various possibilities of solving the crime, while being constantly cut off by an absurd detective with his head in his butt. Honestly, I've never had a worse time watching an old b-rate movie of this type, and I've seen some real head-slappers.<br /><br />Oh, and the butler didn't do it, because there wasn't a butler. But pay attention to the guy who's closest to a butler. There ya go.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB
I am appalled at how bad this film is. As a pastiche of early 20th century Hollywood artistes it sets a new low - even past The Moderns or (gasp) Cradle Will Rock & I never thought I'd see a film worse than those 2. Granted they were about a slightly different milieu & period. Nevertheless the intents & results were distressingly similar.<br /><br />First off there's the horrible casting: Eddie Izzard as CHAPLIN? Excuse me? Peter, did you owe this guy something? Jennifer Tilly as Loulla Parsons?? Kirsten Dunst as Marion Davies??? Holy smoke, these people don't even begin to try to capture the look or sound of the period they are purportedly depicting.<br /><br />Well, Last Picture Show was a decent film, but this thing is a disaster & the rest of Bogdonovitch's pics haven't been much better. Guess rubbing up against Welles & Hitch & Ford wore off a long time ago. Still good for hosting TCM though.
After seeing this film I complained to my local cinema about the quality of the sound-track or whether the cinema sound system may be faulty. For at least the first half of the film it is extremely difficult to understand what anyone is saying because of the background 20's music and the scratchiness of the sound-track. I was ready to blame the cinema equipment but not so - it was the Director.<br /><br />I was told the subject of my complaint was an essential part of the making of the film. The music and the sound was supposed to be distorted to create a very disturbing effect within the film. These days, directors will go to many lengths to make their film unique. Unfortunately, no matter where or how you see that film the sound score will be the same.<br /><br />So apart from the historical inaccuracies of this film (which you can find out for yourself elsewhere) the sound-track distortions are in themselves a good reason to give this film a miss. You will only hear the distorted scratchiness of the sound-track and certainly not a cat's meow.
...is the only way to describe this movie about subjects that should be surefire: scandal, sex, celebrity, power. Kirsten Dunst grins her way through her role as silent movie star Marion Davies like she thinks she's in "Legally Blonde." The guy who plays William Randolph Hearst overacts to the point where you want to reach into the screen and slap him. Eddie Izzard is pretty good, except that he's playing Charlie Chaplin, and is about, oh, 125 lbs too heavy for the part? Hard to believe this hamfisted, uneven wreck was directed by Peter Bogdanovich, but then again, he hasn't made a watchable movie in, what? 30 years? Sometimes, there's just no coming back.
Anyone who is a sucker for 1920s jazz, 1920s dress, the Charleston, and ultra-swanky yachts (e.g. me, on all counts) will want to like this movie. But the sad fact is that that's all there is. The plot is banal and obvious, the acting mostly either awful or playing to the farcical side of the goings-on, and when the whole thing's over there is not much left but the impression of mirrors and smoke. This is a beautifully made bad movie.
Just because an event really happened doesn't mean that it will make a good screenplay/ movie. The Cat's Meow, by Peter Bogdanovich claims to be based on actual events which happened on a cruise hosted by William Randolph Hurst. The writer paid more attention to creating a bizarre cast of characters than taking time to create a story for the bizarre characters to inhabit. The key moments of the story seem implausible; for example, when Hurst accidentally shoots the producer, believing him to be Chaplin. Basing a key element of a story on someone wearing the wrong hat is trite and contrived. The story attempts to be a dark comedy, but The Cat's Meow misses an important piece of this equation, comedy. There is also a lack of empathy for any of the characters. It hardly matters who is shot, who is killed, who is guilty and who is innocent. There is not a strong character to cheer for. As a result the conflicts are difficult to care about and the eventual outcome is incidental.
Kirsten Dunst is terribly overrated as an actress. You can tell always she's just "acting". I like Izzard though. Plot is awfully boring. The viewer has no real connections to the characters, never knowing who to really sympathize with, or even care about. Slow, dull movie, with some laughs, but few and not very funny anyway. Plot is not engaging or suspenseful in the least. You can see each plot turn coming a mile away. What is this movie supposed to be? Comedy? Drama? Who cares? You won't by the end of this film.
What happened to Peter Bogdanovich? Once a brilliant director, a trail blazer... is now scraping the very bottom... Is this the same man who directed "The Last Picture Show"? Here, he takes a somewhat interesting (albeit farfetched) premise, and turns it into bubble gum that loses flavor the moment you take the first bite... Dunst is not bad, but Izzard is miscast as Chaplin, and all the other actors seem to have been cast for their "looks", and not because they were right for the part. Too bad. I'll go rent "Paper Moon" again.
Anything that might have been potentially interesting in this material is sunk in the first few seconds with a disclaimer that the events we're about to see can't ever be known and "This is the whisper [rumor] most often told" about one of Hollywood's most sensational "mysteries."<br /><br />Okay. So we're not getting anything new (and E!'s "Mysteries & Scandals" gives you a better foothold on the particular incident...and that's not much of an endorsement). What do we get?<br /><br />We learn that Hollywood is a nest of viper's and decadents. No big news there. More interesting we learn what a washed up director is willing to do to regain his position of power in the entertainment industry and/or political establishment. It raises the question of whether Peter Bogdanovich is speaking from his own experience through these characters. But what's told is so cynical and ugly and muddled, we're left feeling guilty for witnessing a bunch of hooey that passes itself off as history.<br /><br />The tone of the film has a curious madcap quality that I found more irritating than fun. We're not empathetic with anyone. And the great "Citizen Kane" polishes off the relationship between Davies and Hearts in a much more convincing way. In "The Cat's Meow" we're not ever sure of Davies motives for being with Hearst. As soon as we're told one thing, she's off doing the other.<br /><br />And are we to believe that Davies was the love of Chaplain's life? Or is he just trying to cockold one of America's most powerful--and apparently moronic--citizens. The film never makes it clear.<br /><br />What is convincing are the production values. There's a glorious recreation of the yacht and period costumes. I got more out of looking at the construction of some of the lapels on the men's jackets than following a story that libels many of the the most well-known personalities in Hollywood history. No one will remember that the screenplay is pure fiction. The disclaimers that frame the film only make it all the more tentative and unsatisfying.<br /><br />The performers can't be faulted, although Meg Tilly goes way past parody here. Kirsten Dunst never disappoints. She gives the most sincere performance in a sea of scenery chewing. Only Joanna Lumley rises above the material, but so much so that she seems to be distancing herself from the whole enterprise rather than narrating it. One of her first lines is, "I'm not here!" And I'm sure she wishes she wasn't.<br /><br />This isn't on par with Bogdanovich's trashy, so-bad-it's-good "At Long Last Love." It's perched on attempting something serious, but hesitates and stumbles chiefly because it's so full of bitterness towards "the beast" named Hollywood. This is "National Enquirer" filmmaking. And it not only soils the names of those who the film places on board the Oneida that weekend, but the audience gets pretty dirty as well.
"The Cat's Meow" contains a few scenes that boast intelligent dialogue, and some fine performances, a few of which surprised me. Eddie Izzard is more effective than I expected as Chaplin (partly thanks to an excellent hair and makeup job by some talented designer); Joanna Lumley is compelling as novelist Elinor Glyn; and Kirsten Dunst is winning as Marion Davies (though why movies never use her real-life stutter is difficult to explain). But these elements don't add up to a successful whole. The screenwriter seems to have worked very hard on certain scenes--the meetings between Davies and Chaplin are particularly well crafted--but not so hard on the big picture. Several minor characters don't need to be there, and don't behave consistently. The basic plot is full of illogic (e.g., why does Thomas Ince think it's a good idea to tell Hearst something he really doesn't want to hear?), and the party scenes are repetitive and tiresome. I'd like to think a trip on Hearst's yacht was more fun than the movie indicates. Davies is characterized as a standard bubbly Flapper type, which isn't really accurate, and the screenwriter's ideas about Chaplin and love are implausible. <br /><br />Strangely, Bogdanovich, who seemed so connected to the Thirties in "Paper Moon", lacks a similar affinity for the Twenties. He insisted the excellent costume designer use only black and cream, which gives the party guests a very artificial look, and plays only the most stereotypical songs of the period (e.g., "Yes, We Have No Bananas"). When Hearst insists everybody "Charleston, Charleston!" it looks as if the actors had a ten-minute dance lesson just before the scene was shot. <br /><br />The lives of silent film stars can make fascinating movies, I'm sure, but not this time.
If your idea of entertainment is watching graphic footage of people being run over by cars (you get to see a woman passing under the front wheel, being twisted as the car passes over her before she goes under the back wheel -- and they show it twice in case you missed it the first time) then this is the documentary for you. Admitedly I didn't watch any more of this very disturbing piece of voyeurism, but that was enough for me. Maybe the rest is even better.<br /><br />I wonder how long it's going to take for television networks to start showing slush movies. Perhaps game shows based on self-mutilation might be nice.<br /><br />I already know that there are disturbed people in the world and that horrible things happen. I don't need to see the proof on the TV masquerading as entertainment.
Can anybody do good CGI films besides Pixar? I mean really, animation looked antiquated by 2006 standards and even by 1995 Toy Story standards. Or maybe they spent all their budget on Hugh Jackman. Whatever their reasoning, the story truly did suck.<br /><br />Somehow, Hugh Jackman is a rat - a rat that is flushed down a toilet. Yeah I know, seems stereotypical. But then the sewer mimicked the ways of London - to an extent. Throw in a promise of jewels (????) and an evil(??) frog and you get a pathetic attempt at entertainment.<br /><br />I would like to say something entertained me. Maybe the hookup in the movie? Or maybe the happily-ever-after rat relationship. But nothing did. It had the talent, but it blew up. D-
Ultimately too silly and pointless. Yes there is the gilded cage metaphor but probably most kids would miss that. Forgettable. Instantly.<br /><br />Animation is, as we have come to expect, super-real. The plot-line could best be described as thin but tenacious. Although the ending seemed arbitrary to me.<br /><br />The sewer underworld is a suitably disgusting reflection of the world above and, somehow, wealth and money seem to count for a lot there too. Oh yes, and there's a romantic interest with the female being the smarter, more savvy and go-getting of the pair - this in itself is rapidly becoming a tiresome (anti) stereotype. Probably your kids will love it though.
Oh if only I could give this rubbish less than one star! There were two mildly amusing parts in the whole film and that is it! one was where a line or two from the song Don't Worry, Be Happy was sung by the slugs and the other was where Roddy fell of the toilet roll and landed with his feet and legs apart so that everything else he landed on on the way down hit him in the groin. That is it there was nothing more amusing than that, at least not for me anyway! Doctornappy2 is not right in saying 'Fans of the completely terrible "Shrek" might enjoy, but "Wallace & Gromit" fans will probably turn away in disgust.' As I loved Shrek 1 2 and 3 and I also love Wallace and Gromit. You see what it boils down to is that if an animation is done extremely well then it is definitely worth watching, this however was about as far from done well as you can possibly get! The continuity mistakes were too big in number. Some were pointed out by the makers of this site others were not. I won't point out all of the others, but here are a few more to see: When the young daughter leaves at the start of the film the catch to the cage door comes down and the hook part of it that is on the right clearly goes back around behind the round knob thus effectively making sure Roddy would not be able to get out and yet he does just by simply kicking at it. At one point the ruby falls down Roddy's back and gets pushed straight up into the the air by Rita all the while the ship is moving forwards. In the next scene Roddy has caught it again. This is impossible. Seeing as how the ship is moving forwards the only place when the ruby was ejected out from under the back of Roddy's shirt the only place it could have landed was in the water not in Roddy's hand. There was a third one I wanted to point out but for now I have forgotten it.<br /><br />Too many, for want of a better word, 'jokes' were repeated in one way or another, there was not enough time to establish any sort of connection with any of the characters, the characters were hollow, shallow and empty, and the whole film left you wanting....wanting to watch 85 minutes of anything else! Paint drying or grass growing are two superb options!
Let's just say it in simple words so that even the makers of this film might have a chance to understand: This is a very dumb film with an even dumber script, lame animation, and a story that's about as original as thumbtacks. Don't bother -- unless you need to find some way to entertain a group of mentally retarded adults or extremely slow children. They might laugh, especially if they're off their meds. There's a special kind of insult in a film this ridiculous -- not only do the filmmakers apparently think that children are brainless idiots who can be entertained with claptrap that cost approximately zero effort, but they don't even bother to break a sweat inserting a gag here and there that an adult might find amusing. This film, frankly, ticked me off royally. Shame on you for stooping so low.
So don't even think about renting this from the shops, because this is one hell of a bad movie. You'd think that JJ Abrahams had written this movie. Basically, a rat is flushed down the toilet and somehow has to get back out. Fans of the completely terrible "Shrek" might enjoy, but "Wallace & Gromit" fans will probably turn away in disgust. Also, why didn't they do it in plasticine or clay? I mean, CGI animation?? For an AARDMAN movie??!! Obviously, Aardman lazed around while they let Dreamworks do the whole thing. Wrong, wrong, WRONG!!! Nearly every single character is awful, apart from that freaky frog guy, who is just right for a movie villain. But everything else about the movie is DULL, DULL, DULL!!! I almost fell asleep with boredom watching this movie. No, wait, actually, I DID fall asleep with boredom watching this movie. It's just terrible. But thankfully, it's not as bad as "Shrek."
From the creators of Shrek………….. OK, that grabbed my attention.<br /><br />Well the creators of Shrek also made Madagascar. Madagascar was half as good as Shrek.<br /><br />And now Flushed Away is half as good as Madagascar.<br /><br />That means Flushed Away isn't good. The animation and all that special effects were extremely good but the movie wasn't.<br /><br />The story of this movie was only meant for kids. It's seriously not possible for adults to actually love this flick.<br /><br />But there were many jokes meant for adults. I bet kids dint understand the jokes.<br /><br />Despite that I dint like this flick.<br /><br />I am completely disappointed. 4/10
Don't understand how these animated movies keep coming out, and no matter how good (or bad) it is people love it.<br /><br />I saw this movie with my two kids (5,7). They like pretty much anything animated (like most people who rated this film). The theater was almost full, and I looked forward to seeing the movie with its superb cast. To tell the truth I was bored silly. It was unbelievably predictable and just plain unfunny. There were a couple chuckles throughout the film and that was it. Of course they tried time and time again to get the cheap laugh, but just didn't work. My son almost always says to me that he wants the DVD after we see an animated movie, but not on this one. My daughter fell asleep half way through. Also, the kids thought the character animation looked weird. I haven't heard that from them since seeing The Polar Express, which gave my daughter nightmares.<br /><br />Trust me, I'm not the type who looks for the negative in everything. But quality is quality, and like so many animated movies they throw out there, it has very little.
OK maybe a 13 year old like me was a little to old for this movie. Its about this pampered rat, who lives in a palace. Then a sewer rat flushes him down a toilet! He ends up in this rat city and meets this girl rat who has a gem a greedy frog wants. He will do anything for this gem he sends a whole army after these two rats.He plans to take the gem and to flood rat city! THe cool part about this movie is the slugs. They do all the sound effects. They sing, make noises, its awesome, its also pretty funny. OK bottom line, it is aimed at 7 year olds. Other wise, a great movie to take a younger family member to see. I didn't think the animation was real dreamworks art though, more like WAllace and Gromit. i thinkthey slacked a little on that. The movie was just decent, not worth spending $9.50 for though, sorry.
I wandered into this movie after watching the 82-minute "Borat" tonight, and left quite disappointed. I was a huge fan of Wallace and Gromit, and routinely go to see animated films. That being said, I found myself nodding off and at one point nearly walked out, but stayed waiting for this film to get better. Never happened.<br /><br />The visuals are stunning and the voice work is top notch, especially in my opinion, that of Kate Winslet and Ian McKellen (I had to remind myself a few times the bulbous headed lizard villain was Gandalf and Magneto). The problem with this movie for me is it's one of those animated features for the ADD-set. It registers after the fact as one zany slapstick routine after another, weighed down by a treacle filled plot that pulls out every stop in an attempt to convey an "Important Message." It looks a lot like busted Oscar bait for the animated category, and considering the way it's scoring with critics, I wouldn't be surprised if the Academy gets it wrong and offers up its hardware. But if you're looking for an enjoyable animated feature about rats, take my advice and wait for Ratatouille.
A few months ago, I was involved in a debate with another IMDb poster (Hey, Kmadden) about this film. The poster insisted that if I gave 'Flushed Away' a chance, I would like it. Based partially on that argument, I agreed to watch the film.<br /><br />'Flushed Away' has good intentions (At least on Aardman's part), but lacks the strength to pull it all together. Its best asset is sewer rat/boat captain, Rita (Played by Kate Winselt), who, IMO, should have been the movie's main character instead of Roddy (Hugh Jackman). Rita's cool, tough, and interesting, while Roddy spends much of his screen time sniveling.<br /><br />One of the things that bothered me most about 'FA' is the repetition of jokes that aren't funny to begin with. When Roddy gets hit in the crouch, the film makes sure he gets hit five more times immediately. "My name's Shocky," says one of Rita's brothers, who then electrocutes Roddy at least three times. My tolerance for cheap gags that involve pain is at an all time low.<br /><br />I won't waste time griping about Katzenberg's kleptomaniac tendencies toward Pixar (One similar film's a coincidence, five's a rip off.), but I will say I'm disappointed in Aardman. They can do (and have done) so much better. Try harder next time, guys.
Just got back from a free screening and I'm very glad I didn't pay to see this very sub-par film. The theater was full and the crowd was a mix of kids and adults. It seemed like it was just the kids who were laughing at all the slap-stick and fart jokes though (good god they loved to hit these poor mice in the crotch a lot!). The movie is pretty juvenile, unintelligent, predictable, and mostly annoying. The characters just seem to be thrown together to fill in empty space and the relationships between them all seemed very forced with no charm at all.<br /><br />Visually, the film is about average with nothing that really stands out. They did a decent job of mimicking the clay look from Wallace and Gromit, but other than that it's very forgettable imagery.<br /><br />Although I was really bored throughout the whole film, I chuckled a couple times. It's not an absolute failure, but I most definitely would not want to watch it again. If you're a parent with kids (and you don't care that your kids see mindless cheap-jokes) then feel free to take them to see it, but everyone else shouldn't waste their money.
There is something kind of sad about seeing someone who is so good at doing something try to do something very different ... and end up being mediocre. I was thinking about Jordan playing baseball, but the same applies to Steve Martin.<br /><br />This movie is reasonably well acted and directed, but the script is a stinker. Martin did a great job adapting a classic story into a comedy in "Roxanne", but this effort to bring a Victorian drama to the contemporary scene smacks straight into a wall of implausibility. If you want to see an old story updated with some style, best to rent "Great Expectations".
This film is a flagrant rip-off of one of the best novels of all time, Silas Marner by George Eliot.<br /><br />The details of the film shown on IMDb do give acknowledgement to the original authoress but I did not see this at the beginning of the film, only a credit at the end of it saying "suggested by the book Silas Marner". Suggested? It was nothing but a complete rip- off of all the essential elements of the story:<br /><br />A wronged and sad old man, an artisan, poor and lonely, has all his money stolen. One night a child wanders up to his door as her mother lies dying in the snow outside. The man takes her in and brings her up until one day the local squire (or rich politician here) demands to adopt the child. It is he who has fathered the child during an illicit affair years before. The battle then ensues as to who should have legal custody of the child.<br /><br />In this and every other aspect of the film, the story is exactly the same. In only one can I find a difference. Silas Marner had epilepsy - but perhaps that would have strained the acting abilities of Mr Martin too far. On top of that he has his hair dyed in some carrot juice concoction (presumably to make him look younger, but actually making him look more the clown that he is)! There is also the addition of meaningless jokes, that this offbeat comedian cannot resist bringing into the story which have no part in it and only detract from the profoundness of the story. Like when the child cries in the courthouse declaring she can only be happy with the man who has fathered her all these years. This is conveyed in the film by the girl applying nasal decongestant to the bridge of her nose to make her tearful!<br /><br />I am surprised that legalities and integrity within the film industry permit such a film to be made. If I was a trustee of George Eliot's I would insist on reparation. If I was Steve Martin I would send the profits to that estate, or to the poor. At the very least it should be entitled Silas Marner - adapted by S Martin. Or better still removed from the archives!<br /><br />If you are interested in this story - and I hope you are - dismiss this completely and watch Silas Marner. Or read the book! The BBC made an excellent adaptation of it in the 1980's.
This tear-teaser, written by Steve Martin himself, is so unbelievably bad, it makes you sick to your stomach!<br /><br />The plot is pathetic, the acting awful, and the dialogue is even more predictable than the ending.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs!
TOM BROWN'S SCHOOLDAYS <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.78:1<br /><br />Sound format: Stereo<br /><br />In late 19th century England, young Tom Brown (Alex Pettyfer) is sent to the public school at Rugby where he experiences the reforms of a radical new headmaster (Stephen Fry) and stands up to the school's resident bully, Flashman (Joseph Beattie).<br /><br />Already the subject of numerous screen adaptations - most notably Gordon Parry's superior 1951 version - Thomas Hughes' evergreen novel gets the early 21st century treatment, courtesy of screenwriter Ashley Pharoah (TV's "Where the Heart Is") and director David Moore (THE FORSYTE SAGA). It's pleasant enough, and watchable, but it's also rather staid and dull, distinguished only by Fry's sincere performance as the new principal determined to sweep away some of the school's most dubious 'traditions', and by the introduction of a possible new star in 14 year old Pettyfer, a talented kid with the kind of effortless charm and vivid good looks that should take him all the way to Hollywood and beyond. Otherwise, this is typical UK TV fodder, the kind of stuff favored by executives eager to fill the schedules with 'prestige' product, even one as thoroughly unremarkable as this. The UK publication 'Radio Times' described it as "daintily odd" and raised a querulous eyebrow over "all of that fagging and brutality and a handsome, rakish villain torturing the life out of sweet young boys". Quite.
I thought Harvey Keitel, a young, fresh from the Sex Pistols John Lydon, then as a bonus, the music by Ennio Morricone. I expected an old-school, edgy, Italian cop thriller that was made in America. Istead, I got a mishmash story that never made sense and a movie that left me saying: WTF!!! Too many unanswered questions, and not enough action. The result: a potential cult classic got flushed down the toilet. Keitel and Lydon work well together, so maybe Quentin Tarantino can reunite these guys with better script. Oh, and the Morricone score: OK, but not memorable.<br /><br />Overall, not a waste of time, but not a "must see", unless you are a hardcore Keitel fan.
Encouraged by the positive comments about this film on here I was looking forward to watching this film. Bad mistake. I've seen 950+ films and this is truly one of the worst of them - it's awful in almost every way: editing, pacing, storyline, 'acting,' soundtrack (the film's only song - a lame country tune - is played no less than four times). The film looks cheap and nasty and is boring in the extreme. Rarely have I been so happy to see the end credits of a film. <br /><br />The only thing that prevents me giving this a 1-score is Harvey Keitel - while this is far from his best performance he at least seems to be making a bit of an effort. One for Keitel obsessives only.
I saw this on DVD ( It`s known as CORRUPT in this format ) and the blurb on the casing really hyped up how Harvey Keitel`s character Frank is so much like the one he played BAD LIEUTENANT in " This gritty and powerful police thriller " . What the casing didn`t mention was that this is an old Italian movie . How old is it Theo ? Well when a character plays music he doesn`t put on the CD player , he pulls out a big plastic pancake thing , puts it on a sort of revolving hob where a sort of mechanical arm touches the pancake thingy causing music to be heard . You see my point about this being an old film ? The DVD case gave no clue this was a movie made 20 years ago . It`s also a film with poor production values like so many other Italian films masquerading as American ones . With the exception of Keitel the cast are awful though Johnny Rotten`s performance is bizarre rather than terrible , the cinematography is static with the picture and sound quality giving the impression that I was watching a fourth generation pirate copy ( I don`t know if it`s down to a dodgy DVD or if it`s a very bad film print ) and worst of all is Ennio Morricone`s score . It`s impossible to belive the man who did the irritating intrusive incidental music for CORRUPT is the same one who did the music for those Clint Eastwood westerns.<br /><br />All of this is a pity because CORRUPT does have its moments . It`s by no means the greatest psycho thriller ever devised but it did hold my interest and as always Keitel puts in a good performance as a violent nutcase cop . Just a pity the rest of the movie didn`t match up to his high standards
Despite unfortunately thinking itself to be (a) intelligent, (b) important and (c) interesting, fortunately this movie is over mercifully quickly. The script makes little sense, the whole idea of the sado-masochistic relationship between the two main characters is strangely trite, and John Lydon shows us all, in the space of one movie, why he should never have let himself out of music. His performance is one-note and irritating.<br /><br />The only positive thing to be said is that Harvey Keitel manages to deliver a good turn. His later Bad Lieutenant would show just how badly good actors can act, but mercifully his performance here is restrained.
On a distant planet a psychopath is saved from execution by a space monk. He releases a few fellow inmates and breaks out of the prison in a spaceship. They dock onto a ludicrously enormous spacecraft that is orbiting a supernova star. This massive craft is populated by only three people, presumably because the budget of the film did not extend to hiring many actors. Anyway, to cut a long story short, the three goodies end up in a game of cat and mouse with the baddies.<br /><br />The psychopath in this movie is curious in that he is annoying. 'Annoying' is generally not a term one would use to describe a lunatic - unhinged, frightening, dangerous maybe but not 'annoying' but he is. The three people manning the giant ship are seriously unconvincing as warranting such important roles - this ship is practically the size of a city! Considering that the film is set approximately 50 years in the future, it is somewhat optimistic that such a huge man-made craft could exist, never mind the fact that it is used for such a relatively mundane task. Despite the vast size of the spaceship, the crew all have appallingly kitted out, tiny rooms and the dining room consists of what appears to be a plastic table and chairs. But there are a lot of corridors.<br /><br />The film is fairly well acted and it works as an averagey sci-fi thriller. But nothing great.
A pretty average scifi film. The plot was more or less obvious from the start. Although the acting was reasonably good, the writing seemed very cliched, using ideas taken from numerous films.<br /><br />The basic plot: Scientists working on a deep space research platform rescue a fighter from crashing into the red dwarf that they have been orbitting. Onboard they find a stasis pod, which coincidently malfunctions at that very moment. After 2 or 3 minutes of the man in the pod waking up, you realise that he is a complete lunatic. Something which totally escapes the 3 person crew of the research ship...<br /><br />After that it becomes a rip off every other film involving a psychotic madman terrorising innocent victims, overall I think Speed 2 was a better exploration of the subject matter, which I didn't consider to be a good film either.<br /><br />Not a good film, get Aliens out and watch that again.<br /><br />
Getting lost in space frozen for 15 years, that's unlikely. Falling into a star... improbable. Falling into it the day it goes supernova and explodes... ludicrous. Getting rescued by a ship just then... priceless.<br /><br />No, it's not Zaphod Beeblebrox's Heart of Gold to the rescue. It's also not the Parent of the Year awardees. After sentencing her daughter to two years' solitary confinement on an abandoned spaceship, the mother encourages her to get drunk and wander off alone with the strange man they've picked up. This foreshadows their prowess in hand to hand combat, which makes up most of the film's action. Combat highlights include for example the psycho talking close up face to face with one woman while blindly pointing the gun behind him at the other about six inches away, who obligingly simpers in the line of fire.<br /><br />In the end, the family of three abandons the metropolis-sized ship they were planning to use to observe the supernova until the last instant because it is too slow to escape the blast wave, instead using the psycho's fighter ship which they've refueled in one minute with 1600 pounds of gas propellant from a 0.7-kiloton missile. You have to love those hard sci-fi statistics! <br /><br />As long as Hollywood treats writing as an irrelevant frill, they'll continue making movies not fit to run at 3 am on the Sci fi channel.
This insipid mini operetta featuring a Eddy-McDonald prototype in a Valentino scenario is so bad it becomes an endurance exercise after five minutes. It's silly from the get go as this brevity opens two military men discussing the lack of manliness in the son of one of the officers. In under a minute he is packed off to Morrocco where he lives a double life as the Red Shadow; the leader of an Arab tribe that would rather sing than fight.<br /><br />Alexander Gray and Bernice Clare possess fine light opera voices (with little acting ability) and there's a decent bass in there as well but the acting is so haphazard scenes so ill prepared you get the feeling they are making things up as they go along.<br /><br />This two reeler was part of a larger stage production that lists six writers. With more room to spoof and warble the show may have had some entertainment values but this rushed quickie is little more than an insult to an audience waiting for the feature presentation.
Back in the day, I remembered seeing dumb Nintendo Power comics that had the same artwork as this show... and then word came up that this show was a coming to a television near me! I was not estatic, but curious... I was curious about how bad this show was gonna suck. My friends all said that this show had no real meanings and was too silly for straight people like me to enjoy (i'm actually gay), so I decided to watch the show with low expectations.<br /><br />WHAT A HORRIBLE EXPERIENCE!!!!!!!!!!! First off, I hate the new characters. Tiff and Tuff are so dumb and I hate how so many fanboys drool over Tiff, it's sad. I also hate how they made Chef Kalasaki (or whatever his nonstraight name was) a good guy who owned a restaurant. Bad move, 4Kids TV! Escargoon is nothing but a loser adviser to the King Dedede (who sucks big time in this show) and I hate the face of that one company that keeps supplying Dedede with those awful weapons to destroy Kirby. So stupid, I hate this show.<br /><br />I then began to hate Kirby even more since it was obvious Nintendo was just aching to get Kirby some popularity. Kirby'll never beat Mario in the fight for coolness, and Kirby will always be nothing but a tiny little cream puff of gayness. NUF SAID!!!
Before Stan Laurel became the smaller half of the all-time greatest comedy team, he laboured under contract to Broncho Billy Anderson in a series of cheapies, many of which were parodies of major Hollywood features. Following a dispute with Anderson, Laurel continued the informal series of parodies at Joe Rock's smaller (and more indigent) production company.<br /><br />Most of Laurel's parody films were only mildly funny at the time, and even less funny for modern audiences who haven't seen the original movie which Laurel is parodying. 'West of Hot Dog' is a fairly generic parody of cowboy shoot-'em-ups. It's marginally a specific parody of 'West of the Pecos', an oater released two years earlier with no major actors. Since 'West of the Pecos' was never a huge success, it's difficult to see why Stan's film unit chose this particular movie as a target for their lampoonery, much less why they waited so long after its release to parody it. And where did they get that title 'West of Hot Dog'? Possibly it's down to the fact that 'Hot dog!' was a sexual interjection favoured by American lechers in the 1920s. (As in the opening scene of the stage play 'Machinal'.) <br /><br />'West of Hot Dog' was produced and co-directed by Joe Rock. Among his many other achievements, Rock introduced Laurel to Lois Neilson, and he was subsequently best man at their wedding. Full disclosure: In the last years of his life, I had the great privilege of befriending Joe Rock and interviewing him. Nearly ninety years old at the time, Rock's memory was impressively clear ... but he remembered nothing at all about 'West of Hot Dog', and I can't blame him. This movie is eminently forgettable.<br /><br />The leading lady's character is named Little Mustard: If that's meant to be a parody of something in 'West of the Pecos', I don't get it. There are a couple of 'impossible' gags here, including Laurel's method for mounting a horse. For just one moment in this movie, Stan Laurel reminded me of the great Buster Keaton when he suddenly broke into a run. 'West of Hot Dog' is vaguely similar in subject matter and tone to Keaton's short comedy 'The Frozen North', but Keaton's version is much funnier. The plot of this film somewhat anticipates a situation in Keaton's feature 'Our Hospitality' but (again) suffers by comparison: here, two tough varmint brothers expect to inherit the Last Chance Saloon, but the previous owner has bequeathed it to weakling tenderfoot Stan. However, the brothers will become the legal heirs if Stan dies. Hmmm...<br /><br />Seriously, though: is such a bequest legal? As soon as Stan takes possession of the property, surely any further questions of ownership or inheritance become his decision, not the previous owner's decision. I had plenty of time to consider such points of law while watching this dull comedy.<br /><br />At one point, a gag involves some crude animation drawn directly onto the film stock. It looks cheap and isn't funny.<br /><br />This 'Hot Dog' is no weiner, and no winner: it's just a whiner. My rating: one point out of 10. Hang on, Stan: in a few more years you'll be one-half of a comedy legend.
...however I am not one of them. Caro Diario at least was watchable for two thirds of the time, but the boring and self-centred third section of that movie gave us a taste of what was to come in this extraordinarily self-indulgent mess. Moretti says he feels a need to make this movie, but doesn't want to, whereas the viewer feels that he should stick with it, but really doesn't want to either. A film about Italian politics and elections could be fascinating, but this is not that film. At one point, Moretti and his friends are standing outside the Communist Party headquarters, discussing the interviews they are preparing to conduct with Party leaders inside, but it's characteristic of this film that we never get to see anything of them. Interposed with Moretti's political ravings are the events leading up to the birth of his son, and subsequent home movie shots of him with the baby and later the infant Pietro (the film drags us through several years and more than one election period). We keep expecting to see some definitive sequence or cogent argument, but they never come. I for one doubt that I could have the patience to ever sit through a Nanni Moretti movie again. He succeeds in making an hour and twenty minutes seem like an eternity.
You know when you're on the bus and someone decides to tell you their life-story, and you sit there with a pathetic smile on your face when all you really want to do is slap the fool and walk off? Well I had a similar sensation while watching this film. Okay, I did actually choose to go and see Aprile, and I knew about Nanni Moretti's taste for making himself the one and only star from Caro Diario, but after about half an hour of this latest installment from his memoirs I wanted to give Moretti the madre of all slaps. Caro Diario was funny, unusual, and at least a couple of other characters managed to get a word in edgeways. In Aprile, however, Moretti has exclusive rights to the dialogue, so that all you hear for an hour and a half is a high-pitched whine going on about how his politics are best, or what quirky piece of popular culture is tickling his fancy at the moment. He also finds time to slag off films that he doesn't like, something I thought was reserved for losers like me. Surely being in a position like his you'd think he'd try and make a point about cinema a little more intelligently than this. By making a proper film perhaps, one with some ideas and a decent structure, or maybe one that isn't completely dominated by his annoying voice. And when he started fawning over his newborn baby, I just wanted to go and be in the company of someone normal, preferably not a self-obsessed film director with a strange penchant for tacky music. The next time someone you don't know tries to tell you their life-story, give them a slap from me. Every blow will be a small victory in the fight against Morettiism.
I noticed with some amusement that in the end credits, the Detroit PD is thanked for their participation. The Chief of Police even has one speaking line playing himself (and boy, can you tell he can't act). The reason for the amusement is that in this movie the police shoot first and ask questions later. Not the kind of PR, I would think a police force would want. Other than that, this is your standard cops and robbers film dressed up for the '70's with a racial angle. Alex Rocco is given a thankless role of a lifer cop that can't get ahead and is saddled with a mentally ill wife. He makes up for this by hanging out at the local whorehouse. Hari Rhodes is his dashing partner that has a groovy wardrobe and likes to chase after suspects while wearing a trenchcoat. The movie moves along until the penultimate shootout that makes absolutely no sense (why do people that are only guilty of a robbery, take on a whole police force?). Not only do we see one shootout but since there are four bad guys, we get to see four. Then there is a twist ending that is supposed to leave one guessing what really would have happened but only left me thinking how stupid it was. Seeing that director Arthur Marks was also behind the braindead "Friday Foster" and "Bucktown", I shouldn't have wondered.
Bought this movie in the bargain bin at Rogers Video store for $2. I enjoy a good B movie now and then and figured this looked like a good one.<br /><br />The movie is quite cliche "1970's" and is quite groovy for that. Unfortunately the story line is hard to follow and not a lot happens in the movie. In fact, I turned it off after watching it for 45 minutes and figured a week later that I should watch the whole thing no matter how slow it was.<br /><br />The movie has good spots in it, but you have to wait and wait and wait.......for them.<br /><br />If you are into B movies, this might just be for you, just be warned that the movie is slow and not much really happens, and did I mention not much story line either...<br /><br />
This 1973 remake of the classic 1944 Billy Wilder film, "Double Indemnity," is a textbook example of how to destroy a great script. This grade-B TV fodder also illustrates the folly of remakes in general. While Hollywood has gone after greedy executives that colorize black-and-white films and sought disclaimers on wide-screen movies that are shown in pan-and-scan versions, the industry has ignored the hacks that insist on taking a classic film and diminishing it with a shoddy remake.<br /><br />The first step in producing a bowdlerized version of a classic is to edit the script. The Billy-Wilder-Raymond-Chandler work was cut by a half hour to fit the finished film into a specified time-slot with room for commercials. Then update the production with bland, color photography, smart, upscale sets, and TV-familiar actors. Thus, the brand-new "Double Indemnity" eliminates the atmospheric black-and-white film-noir cinematography that enhanced the mood and characterizations of the original. Gone are the dusty, shadowy, claustrophobic sets that explained the protagonists' desires to escape their situations at whatever cost. Gone are the close bond between Keyes and Neff and the erotic attraction between Neff and Phyllis.<br /><br />The look of Jack Smight's take on "Double Indemnity" is more "Dynasty" than film noir. Phyllis Dietrickson has a designer home to die for, and Neff's comfy pad would be hard to afford on an insurance salesman's salary, not to mention the sporty Mercedes convertible that he drives. Neither character has any apparent motive to murder for a paltry $200,000. If not money, then perhaps murder for love or lust? Not in this version. Richard Crenna shows little interest in Samantha Eggar, and their kisses are about as lusty as those between a brother and a sister. Crenna fails to capture the cynicism of Neff, and his attempts at double-entendre and sexual suggestiveness fall horribly flat. Eggar is little better and lacks sensuality and the depth to suggest the inner workings of a supposedly devious and manipulative mind. Only Lee J. Cobb manages a creditable performance as Keyes. Director Jack Smight and his three principals have all done much better work.<br /><br />There was no conceivable reason to produce this wretched remake except to fill time in a broadcast schedule. There was no conceivable reason to resurrect this dud on DVD and package it with the original film except to fill out a double-disc package. The only lesson that can be learned from this misfire is that even a great script and great dialog can be ruined with poor casting, lackluster direction, and TV grade production values. The 1973 "Double Indemnity" should be titled "10% Indemnity," because viewing it only underscores the 100% perfection of the original movie.
When Samantha Eggar (as Phyllis Dietrickson) answers the door of her house swathed in a towel, you realize that as competent an actress as Eggar may be, she doesn't have the hypnotic allure of Barbara Stanwyck. And it is not entirely Eggar's fault. In the original film, Wilder had Stanwyck not only appear in a towel, but she enters the scene on the second floor balcony of the house. And she doesn't "come out"; she appears, almost as if by magic. Walter Neff is staring up at her from below on the first floor. There is a reason for this. Stanwyck is much higher than Neff (Fred MacMurray) when they are first introduced. It is not just the towel. The towel adds to the seductive allure. Her pose is like a Greek Goddess overlooking her domain, and, in a strange way, you feel as if, from the start, she is actually controlling the entire situation. She has sexual, even magic, power. This person is no ordinary housewife. This person is a mystery with secrets hidden within.<br /><br />Back to 1973. The remake has Crenna knock on the front door. Stanwyck's stand-in, Eggar, answers the door with a towel around her. There is no "appearance". She simply opens the door. The alluring superiority that grabs the audience at the first appearance of Stanwyck in 1944 is entirely absent in 1973. She opens the door with a towel around her. It may be sexy in a Charlie's Angels sort of way, but it's not nearly as mysterious. The filmmakers of the remake seem to misunderstand Wilder's point. The script may have said "Phyllis appears in towel" so the filmmakers of the remake simply follow the instructions and include the required towel. The point is not the towel. The point is the enigmatic quality of Phyllis, and the potential power she wields. Wilder gave her a towel to add to her mystique. The filmmakers of the remake gave her a towel because that's what Wilder did. And in the choice of shot, lost all of Phyllis' mystique.<br /><br />Richard Crenna also seems miscast. He seems like he's "acting" and not really in the midst of the dilemma. Part of the problem is Crenna appears so much like a 70's actor. He can't get into the 1940's. When MacMurray first speaks into the microphone, sweat begins to drip from his face. No sweat on Crenna. And they also changed one of the crucial lines at the beginning. In the original, Neff says, "I didn't get the money, and I didn't get the woman." In the 1973 version, Crenna says, "I didn't get the money, and I didn't want the woman." Did the filmmakers completely misunderstand the entire point of the story? Or were they dumbing it down for a "television" audience?<br /><br />This made-for-TV movie is a by-the-numbers rendition. All the sharp edge of the original is lost. The only stand-out, maybe, is Lee J. Cobb in the role made famous by Edward G. Robinson. But he cannot save the loss of intensity of the original. This 1973 boring remake is a forgettable TV-movie made probably by the same people who did "Gilligan's Island". They might as well have tried to remake "Citizen Kane" or "Gone with the Wind". If mediocrity is the best one can hope for, what's the point? The 1944 classic is a Film with a capital "F". This made-for-TV remake deserves an "F" grade, or, maybe a "D" for dumb.
It was hard to watch this film and be totally fair and objective since I am a big fan the original 1944 movie. That, to me and many others, is one of the greatest film noirs ever made. Realizing this is simply a shortened made-for-TV film and that most people had trashed it, I didn't expect much, but you can't help but compare this with the '44 film. Scene after scene, I found myself comparing what I was looking at it, and remembering how it played out with Fred MacMurray, Barbara Stanwyck, Edward G. Robinson and others. Now I was seeing these famous actors playing their famous roles replaced by Richard Crenna, Samantha Eggar and Lee J. Cobb.<br /><br />When it was all over, I found it wasn't as bad as I had expected but it's no match for the 1944 original. The two main areas in which this made-for-TV film wasn't as good were (1) the electricity between the two leads was missing and (2) being only 90 minutes, they rushed the story with hardly time to develop the plot, characters and chemistry between those leads. Crenna and Eggar were flat, and simply no match for MacMurray and Stanwyck as "Walter Neff" and "Phyllis Dietrichson," respectively.<br /><br />Where this re-make held its own was in the other characters, such as "Barton Keyes" and "Edward Norton." Cobb was terrific as Keyes and Robert Webber as Norton, head of the insurance company. It also was somewhat interesting to see the time frame changed, so the houses, cars, telephones, dictating machines, etc., were all early '70s instead of mid '40s. Otherwise, the storyline was very similar, just rushed.<br /><br />However, one viewing was enough and I will happily go back to the original version for the rest of my viewings of this classic story and film.
Watch the Original with the same title from 1944! This made for TV movie, is just god-awful! Although it does use (as far as I can tell) almost the same dialog, it just doesn't work! Is it the acting, the poor directing? OK so it's made for TV, but why watch a bad copy, when you can get your hands on the superb original? Especially as you'll be spoiled to the plot and won't enjoy the original as much, as if you've watched it first! <br /><br />There are a few things that are different from the original (it's shorter for once), but all are for the worse! The actors playing the parts here, just don't fit the bill! You just don't believe them and who could top Edward G. Robinsons performance from the original? If you want, only watch it after you've seen the original and even then you'll be very brave, if you watch it through! It's almost sacrilege!
This 1973 TV remake of the Billy Wilder classic is inferior to the original. Surprise!<br /><br />First, the good things. Lee J. Cobb makes a terrific Barton Keyes. He's not as good as Edward G. Robinson, of course, but he's the only reason to watch this. This remake's only improvement over the original is that it cuts down the role of Lola Dietrichson, the step-daughter of the femme fatale, Phyllis Dietrichson.<br /><br />And that's it for the good things.<br /><br />The bad things are many. The director records everything in an indifferent manner: if you watched the film with the sound muted you'd hardly get the impression that anything especially interesting was happening. Because of modern bad taste, the film must be in color instead of black and white. Because of 1970s bad taste, all the sets are distractingly ugly. Walter Neff's expensive apartment, in particular, is hideous.<br /><br />The modern setting hurts in a lot of small ways. Train trips were a bit more unusual in the 70s than in the 40s, so Mr. Dietrichson's decision to take a train seems more of a contrivance. Men stopped wearing hats, which prevents Walter from covering up his brown hair while posing as the white-haired Mr. Dietrichson. Women in mourning stopped wearing veils, which robs Samantha Eggar of a prop Barbara Stanwyck made splendid use of in a key scene. (Oddly, Lola still has the line where she reveals that her stepmother was trying on a black hat and veil before she had need of them.)<br /><br />Stephen Bochco keeps much of the Billy Wilder-Raymond Chandler script the same. But he makes a lot of tiny, inexplicable changes to the dialogue which leave the script slightly flabby where once it was lean and muscular. Outrageously, the famous motorcycle-cop banter is gone, but look closely and you'll see what looks like a post-production cut where those lines should have been. Bochco may not be to blame.<br /><br />Richard Crenna is passable as Walter Neff. What might have made this version tolerable is a really splendid Phyllis Dietrichson. Instead we get Samantha Eggar, who comes off like a standard-issue villainess from "Barnaby Jones." But who can blame Eggar? With a director who barely seems interested in what's happening in front of the camera, how could Barbara Stanwyck herself have come off well?
When someone remakes a classic movie, the remake is always unfavorably compared to the original. Also, there's a chance that the remake is so radically different that it is just too unfamiliar to audiences.<br /><br />Well, the 1973 TV version of "Double Indemnity" has almost identical scenes and dialogue as the 1944 original. The main difference is that the remake just seems to have no energy at all. Fred MacMurray was great as the lecherous, leering insurance agent Walter Neff in the original; Richard Crenna just seems world-weary and tired. Edward G. Robinson brought great manic energy to his role as MacMurray's boss Barton Keys; Lee J. Cobb, a fine actor, appears almost bored with the proceedings. Samantha Eggar is all wrong as the conniving, back-stabbing Phyllis Dietrichson; while Barbara Stanwyck was just superb in this wicked role, Eggar is overly polite and mannered and just seems way out of place.<br /><br />Robert Webber, in the old Richard Gaines role as Robinson's boss Norton, and John Fiedler taking the Porter Hall role as the crucial witness, bring some life to the movie. In particular, Webber recreates the Norton role well in a 1970s context.<br /><br />However, after the movie starts, the whole thing just sort of lies there, without any life or electricity. This is one film that never should have been remade.
Utter dreck. I got to the 16 minute/27 second point, and gave up. I'd have given it a negative number review if that were possible (although 'pissible' is a more fitting word...). Unlike the sizzle you could see and practically feel between MacMurray and Stanwyck in the original, the chemistry between dumb ol' Dicky Crenna and whats-her-face here is just non-existent. The anklet becomes an unattractive chunky bracelet? There's no ciggy-lighting-by-fingertip? And I thought I'd be SICK when they have a mortified-looking (and rightly so, believe you me) Lee J. Cobb as Keyes practically burping/upchucking his way through the explanation of his "Little Man" to Mr. Garloupis. No offence to the non-sighted, but it looks as though a posse of blind men ran amuck with the set design of both the Dietrichson and Neff houses. The same goes for those horrid plaid pants that Phyllis wears. And crikey, how much $$ does Neff make, that he lives overlooking a huge marina? This, folks, again, all takes place in the first 16 and a half minutes. If you can get through more of it, you have a much stronger constitution than me, or you are a masochist. But please, take some Alka-Seltzer first, or you WILL develop a "little man" of your own that may never go away. Proceed with caution, obviously.
As a big fan of the original film, it's hard to watch this show. The garish set decor and harshly lighted sets rob any style from this remake. The mood is never there. Instead, it has the look and feel of so many television movies of the Seventies. Crenna is not a bad choice as Walter Neff, but his snappy wardrobe and "swank" apartment don't fit the mood of the original, or make him an interesting character.He does his best to make it work but Samantha Egger is a really bad choice. The English accent and California looks can't hold a candle to Barbara Stanwick's velvet voice and sex appeal. Lee J.Cobb tries mightily to fashion Barton Keyes,but even his performance is just gruff, without style.<br /><br />It feels like the TV movie it was and again reminds me of what a remarkable film the original still is.
Murder and insurance fraud take an adulterous couple to "the end of the line"...<br /><br />TV was visually vulgar back in the early 1970s and this truncated, made-for-TV knock-off hurt my eyes. It can't possibly compare to the 1944 Billy Wilder Film Noir classic as anyone in their right mind ought to know -sight unseen- but that doesn't mean this update should be seen as a separate entity, either. Although based on the original Paramount screenplay, there's over half an hour cut out and the director's bland indifference makes what's left imminently forgettable. With rare exception, the younger generation wasn't interested in watching old black and white movies on TV back in 1973 (still true today, alas) so this lurid, compelling tale was new to the overwhelming majority of viewers; then as now, ratings rule and cashing in was its only reel raison d'etre. Gus Van Zandt remade Alfred Hitchcock's PSYCHO for similar reasons and if these redux led to the seeking out of the original films or novels, so much the better. I loved the James M. Cain source novel enough to tune in back then and I enjoyed this time capsule curio the second time around for the longish hair, halter tops, turbans, ugly decor, and lush auburn locks of "guest star" Samantha Eggar, who didn't try too hard. In addition to recognizing a few of the incidental cast from a childhood spent in front of the boob tube, Lee J. Cobb was able to hold my interest as a world-weary, tired-looking Keyes but Richard Crenna's affable and inoffensive Walter Neff only reminded me of Bill Bixby on a bad day. Improvement upon the original was, of course, never intended in a rush to make a buck but, instead of a mindless retread, a new adaptation of the novel would have been a novel idea. Cain's book differs somewhat from its celluloid incarnations and the horrific shark fins in the moonlight ending is killer. The completist in me is thankful this speeded up "Me Decade" update was included as part of the DOUBLE INDEMNITY DVD extras but the experience not only made me long to see the original, it had me nostalgic for any episode of the better-made COLUMBO TV series. I also flashed back to a very good 1973 ABC TV Movie Of The Week that I haven't seen since its initial airing: John D. Macdonald's LINDA starring the beautiful Stella Stevens as a ruthless femme fatale who murders her lover's (sexy John Saxon) wife and then frames her mild-mannered husband for the crime and, if I remember correctly, there's also an open-ended ending. Like DOUBLE INDEMNITY, it was needlessly remade with TV movie queen Virginia Madsen as the titular vixen and Richard Thomas as the milquetoast husband.
This could have been a good episode but I simply had to turn it off. The British representation was horrible to watch. Have the makers ever set foot in Britain prior to filming? At least set foot in England?? I don't think any British person have had such an accent apart from a comedy skit of The Royal Family! Also with the 2 English boys... well I don't think any English boy has acted, spoke or dressed like any English kid in the history of the British nation since Prince William and Harry's preteen public appearances. To American film makers.. There is more than 1 country in the UK. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.. meaning more than 1 culture! I can handle some stereotyping but this was so bad I could not watch it. Fire looked cool though!
I watched Phat Beach on cable for a while and I sort of enjoyed it. The fat guy is the best character, as he seems to be a nice guy. The rest of the characters are just various stereotypes of young men and young black men. I like to watch these low budget movies that capture a period of time because they are almost like a documentary of the year's attitudes and fads. Phat Beach is also funny because the low-budget babes in this movie are strictly home-girls. Most low-budget movies have that "local babe" quality, and you can tell the babes in this movie were the local strippers and underwear models for JC Penneys. Some of them had so much cellulite hanging from their bikinis that it was funny to watch how the "youngsters" went wild over what was essentially some really over-used, high-mileage skank. There were some cuties too. That is the charm of these low-budget crappy movies. You will see a lot of doggies, and some real cuties! I checked up on some of them at IMDb and seven years later Phat Beach is their only credit. Too bad. It would be interesting if someone ever managed to do a "Where are they now" book on all of the cuties that have appeared in the history of movies and then were never again to return. What happened?? There are probably one or two young people in almost every movie who seem to have a lot going for them and yet years later when you see the movie again on TV you wonder "what ever happened to X?" Anyhow, this movie mostly blows, but it has some funny moments.
Watching this movie was the biggest waste of time and 2 bucks for rental in my life. If nothing catastrophic happens before I die, this will be the biggest regret of my life. Who ever even thought about this movie, or financed deserves a kick between the legs, because that's where they were thinking when they made this movie. It's about an overweight guy who is a hopeless romantic, and writes pretentious drivel that tries to pass off as poetry. He joins his amorous friend in a trip to the coast. Where they meet girls and such. Only the fat guy doesn't get a girl. Skin flicks don't annoy me, I take 'em for face value. But this movie tries to be more than a skin flick. It's about Fat guy looking for love in some girl, but then meets another bikini silicone girl that enjoys his poetry. He finds his talent for volleyball which gets money for his family and impresses the ladies, only he has his lady anyways. The dialogue is super-horrible for even a C movie. It supports a ton of black stereotypes, no character development, it's a glorified porno movie, without any porn in it. Never ever watch this movie.
Is nothing else on TV? Are you really bored? Well, then watch Phat Beach. However, don't rent it and definitely DO NOT buy it. That would be a big mistake.<br /><br />I watched this on TV and found myself laughing at certain points. I did not laugh long and I did not laugh hard. However, there were subtle jokes and comments I laughed at. If you are looking for an extremely funny "hood" movie then watch Friday. If you are looking for a powerful emotional movie (something that this movie tries at..kind of) watch something like hoop dreams or Jason's Lyric. If you are lookin for some good black "booty" go watch a Dominique Simone porn flick, because the nudity in this movie is nearly non-existent. However, if you have nothing better to do and this is on cable, go ahead and watch it. You will be slightly amused.<br /><br />***3 out of 10***
This is the worst movie ever made. The acting, the script, the location, everything! I would have given it a little chance if there were attractive women in the movie, but even they were bad. You would think that a movie with the word "beach" in it's title would have good-looking women in it. Wouldn't you?
A mediocre Sci-Fi Channel original picture. A little squirmish, but not much. The nuclear powered submarine U.S.S. Jimmy Carter is on a mission deep below thick frigid ice near the North Pole when it is attacked by giant super charged electric eels. A member of the crew (Simmone Jade Mackinnon)thinks she has devised a way to communicate with the monsters, but is not given much chance for vague reasons. Also among the crew are:David Keith, Mark Sheppard and Sean Whalen. This movie could have been somewhat better if the eels/monsters were not so cartoonish.
Deep Shock plays out like a TV movie: a whole cast of commercial-quality actors, a poorly designed creature to be the "bad guy," and a script that is more full of technical, political jargon and importances than it knows what to do with.<br /><br />I checked out the movie because of the creature (I love to see what filmmakers have in mind for their designs in these cheaply made videos), and right off the bat, I got disappointed because the creature on the box was not the one in the movie. The actors I expected because of the type of film it is (really quite generic and not thought out past a certain point). The music was typical, not-thought-out action symphonic music.<br /><br />I liked the design of the computers and technical equipment, along with the mini-sub design. The movie even flowed really well, with guiding screens letting you know which set you're watching the story unfold in. But there isn't much of a story here anyways.<br /><br />This movie gets a 3/10 stars IMO. The boring search and destroy mission to blow up the North Pole and these creatures protecting it...kinda lame. Even lamer is the tagged-on love relationship between two of the characters that you don't see coming. Chalk this one up to being a movie which tries to get actors' careers off the bench and into a video. Don't bother.
This has to be the cheapest film made in 21st century. It is all the way low quality, but at the end it falls below... everything. All the cheap tricks - like flashing and darkness - are used to hide those crappy computer effects.<br /><br />All the actors are below average, especially the main character Anne Fletcher (Simmone Mackinnon). There is a scene, where Anne is asked: "Why you seem so careless?" The correct answer is, because she can't act. No matter what happens (the world is about to be destroyed, her friend is dying, she is fired), she has the same stupid grin in her face.<br /><br />It is not only the movie, which is B -quality. It is also the back cover description (at least in Finland). The text mentions things like Lorica Gray -vessel, Capital -vessel and main character Garrison Harper and Anna (not Anne) Fletcher. The description sounds like a different movie, both featuring character called Fletcher and sea monsters
I don't get this. The movie obviously has a pretty good budget. It has very good cinematography. It has nice pacing, good editing and pretty good directing too. Then WHY OH WHY didn't they hire someone to do a final rewrite of the script so it would not be so damn cheesy and WHY OH WHY did they hire such lousy actors that can't act their way out of a paper bag? This movie could have been good. At most times it LOOKS good and FEELS good but in the end, you realize that the movie was no good at all.<br /><br />So I would say it's a good production but a bad movie. Too bad actually.<br /><br />And eels? Come one, really!
Deep SH.. is more like it! The eels are just cartooned in over the film. Think "The Incredible Mr. Limpet" meets "Leviathan". Very tacky.<br /><br />No character or relationship development. So called "romantic" scenes very corny and predictable. An interesting idea, but a poorly written script and LOUSY special effects make this a definite must-miss!
Actually had to stop it. Don't get me wrong, love bad monster movies. But this one was way too boring, regardless of the suspenseful music that never leads you anywhere. The actress had too many teeth and that moment when she makes contact with one of the beasts, was way too obvious a cliché. This film totally betrays the cover on the DVD which looks pretty interesting. From the cover one expects a giant monster, but you get these cute not as gigantic as expected electric eels. Moved on to watch another film called The Killer Rats but that's another review. Deep Shock was really crap, a big shame considering the fact that it looks pretty high budget.
This was one of the worst movies EVER!!!!!!!! It was so bad, I was laughing through the WHOLE movie! The plot was SO cheesy; especially the end. This movie turns from an end-of-the-world-disaster to save-the-eels! I mean, c'mon! And I swear...I think they use SOCK PUPPETS for the eels! And there was this horrible kiss scene in the middle with the two main characters who happened to be divorced. How predictable! It was SO terrible that my mom, my sister, and I couldn't finish it, and when we DID finish it, it was about a year later! The second time we watched it and we finished it this time, we did MST3K-like comments throughout the movie.<br /><br />Summary: Only watch this if you're a movie basher! Make hilarious comments, watch this at a sleepover for laughs, and I mean HUGE laughs. Also watch for mockery. The metaphor that explains this movie: This movie is a very shallow field full of cheese and sock puppets!
HORRID!!<br /><br />The special effects make the TV version of "Tremors" look real!<br /><br />No one in the cast can act.<br /><br />Kind of like the '62 "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" meets the cartoon ocean going electric eel cartoons.
The show had great episodes, this is not one of them. It's not a terrible episode, it's just hard to follow up "The man that was death.", "All through the house", and "Dig that cat, he's real gone."<br /><br />This episode is about a couple that has just been married Peggy (Ammanda Plummer) and Charles (Stephen Shellen). In the first five minutes you find out that Charles only married Peggy for her money. The two go on their honeymoon and their car breaks down on a dirt road and they have to seek refuge in an old abandon mansion. Charles soon finds out a secret of Peggy's family...<br /><br />In my opinion you should watch this episode, but just don't expect the same feeling as the rest of the episodes in the first season.
Slim Slam Slum is a sad and disappointing picture. There is absolutely no reason to this sorry excuse for a picture. Don`t go there, what ever you do, don`t. Watch TV-Shop for 10 hours straight instead. That way you will be slightly amused.
I have never seen a movie as bad as this. It is meant to be a "fun" movie, but the only joke is at the start, and it is NOT funny. If you like this sort of movie, then you may just be able to give it a vote of 2. If it had the necessary votes, it would truly belong on the bottom 100.<br /><br />
What a crappy movie! The worst of the worst! This movie is as entertaining as a dead slug. No-talent-what-so-ever-actors, stupid plot. Who wrote this script?! Was there ever a script for this goofy movie or did the director just accidentally press the record-button on his camera and then decided to make the film up as they went along? Is this meant to be a kids movie or a comedy or what? My friends younger brother is in the 6.th grade and him and his classmates just did an amateur-movie for their school-project which outdid this geeky movie.. This is by far the worst film I have seen in my life! There is just no excuse for this flick!
The danish movie "Slim Slam Slum" surprised me to be the worst movie i have seen to this date. I didn't think that it was possible to top my list of bad bad b-movies but this one deserves the gold. It's not funny. It's bad acting, It's bad filmed and the storyline is bad. The only positive thing i can say about this movie is it has three girls in it. I truly believe this flick has the potential to knock of the other danish movie "Stjerner uden hjerner" as the badest danish film ever made! And that's truly something. Congratulations in advance!
The Godfather Part I was a stunning look inside the fictional Corleone family and how an innocent young man was all but forced into circumstances he never wanted to have a part of. The Godfather Part II shows that young man's acceptance of his new role, his desensitization of character, as well as his complete loss of all innocence as he dives deeper and deeper into a life of crime. The first two parts of this saga of this transformation of Michael Corleone make for one of the greatest tragedies in cinematic history.<br /><br />Then, along came The Godfather Part III. Michael Corleone is now the aging Don of the Corleone family. He shows remorse for his previous actions not through subtle behaviors, but by trying to use his powers for good and admitting all his wrongdoings and regrets to others. Very cliche and uncharacteristic of the complex character that is Michael Corleone. Michael's plans to use his powers for good are derailed by an ambitious young disciple and his enemies. Michael's daughter is eventually a casualty of the ongoing mob wars and her death predictably leads to Michael realizing that his entire life as Don has been worthless for he has failed in the one thing that was the reason for putting himself into the position he was in: protecting his family.<br /><br />The Godfather Part II ends with Michael Corleone reaching the lowest of the lows: having his own brother killed. Before Part III was made, the Godfather saga was an emotionally riveting tale of an innocent young man's journey into darkness with the unbelievably tragic end of Michael forgetting his roots and abandoning the one thing that has always mattered most to him and those around him: family loyalty. Part III paints the picture of Michael as a man who is and always has been just a victim of circumstance. This greatly corrupts the meaning of the first two films.<br /><br />The Godfather Part III is a horrible mess of a film that never should have been made. The only solution to the problem that is this final installment of The Godfather movies is to pretend that it does not exist and that the saga actually ends with Michael's shockingly horrible act of having a member of his own family killed.
Near the beginning of "The Godfather: Part III," Michael Corleone's son wants to drop out of law school and become a musician. Michael Corleone does not want this. But his estranged ex-wife, Kay, manages to convince him to let Anthony Corleone pursue music as he wishes. So he does.<br /><br />That seems like an odd way to start a review, as it is a minor plot point and has nothing really to do with the major action. Just bear with me here; you'll see where I'm going with this eventually. Now let me tell you about the major plot. It is about Michael Corleone wanting to quit crime for good (he has largely abandoned all criminal elements in his family business). But then along comes Vincent Mancini, an illegitimate nephew, who is involved in a feud. So of course Michael must endure yet another brush with criminality and gun violence and all that good gangster stuff. Meanwhile, Vincent has a semi-incestuous affair with Michael's daughter Mary. Oh, and Michael and Kay are trying to patch up all the horrid things that happened at the end of Part II.<br /><br />It is like a soap opera. One horrid, awful, 169-minute soap opera. Gone is any sort of the sophistication, romance, and emotional relevance that made the first two movies hit home so hard. After a 16-year break in the franchise, Francis Ford Coppola delivered a mess of sop and pretentiousness entirely incongruous with the first two films, once again proving his last great work was "Apocalypse Now" back in the 1970's.<br /><br />What's worse, "The Godfather: Part III" isn't even a logical follow-up of "The Godfather: Part II." Michael is a completely different person. He hasn't just gone to seed (which might be legitimate, even if it'd be no fun to watch). He's become a goody-goody that's trying to fix all the tragedy that made Part II such a devastating masterpiece. His confession to the priest was bad enough, but that little diabetes attack in the middle pushed it over to nauseating. He also gets back together with Kay! For heaven's sakes, there is absolutely no way that should happen, as the 2nd movie made abundantly clear! She aborted his baby, and his Sicilian upbringing made him despise her for it. Didn't Francis Ford Coppola even think of these things?<br /><br />And don't even get me started on Mary and Vincent's affair! For a romance so forbidden, it was shockingly unengaging. Sofia Coppola's acting did nothing to help. She made the smartest move of her life when she switched from in front of the camera to behind it, because she was possibly THE worst actress I have ever seen in a Best Picture nominee. Every line she delivered was painfully memorized, and every time the drama rested on her acting abilities, all she elicited was inappropriate giggles. In the climactic scene--I won't go into detail, but you'll know which scene I'm talking about when/if you watch it--she looks at Michael and says, "......Daddy?" I think I was meant to cry, but the line was delivered so poorly I burst out into long, loud laughter!<br /><br />Now we get to the climax, and now you will also realize why I took time to start the review with a description of Anthony Corleone's musical ambitions. After 140 minutes of petty drama and irrelevant happenstances, Anthony Corleone returns... with an opera! So Michael, Kay, Mary, and Vincent go to see it, and for about 10-15 minutes a couple killers walk around trying to assassinate Michael. About this climactic sequence, I must say one thing: It was really good! But not because of the killers--they were pretty boring. I just really liked the opera. It had some great music and real great set pieces. And, from what little it showed us, it seemed that the story had echoes of the Corleone family's origin. I'll bet it was one swell opera, and I'll bet Michael Corleone was glad he let his son switch from law school to music.<br /><br />My biggest wish is this: that Francis Ford Coppola had merely filmed Anthony Corleone's opera for 169 minutes and ditched the rest of the soggy melodrama. Better yet, I wish he hadn't made "The Godfather: Part III" at all. Part II gave us the perfect ending. This spin off was self-indulgent and unnecessary.<br /><br />P.S. This is not a gut reaction to the film. I watched all 3 Godfather films over a month ago (though I was rewatching the first one). Not only does this mean that my expectations for Part III weren't screwed (in fact, I had set the bar rather low for it after what I heard), but it also means I've had a good time to think about all three films. While I was a bit disappointed with Part II at first, the more I thought about it, the better it seemed. But with Part III, it was bad to begin with, then got worse the more I thought about it. The sad thing is that many people will stop with Part I, but if they watch Part II as well, they will most likely go on to Part III. If you have the will, watch Parts I & II and pretend like Part III never existed.
I dislike this movie a lot. If you've read the Puzo's books, or at least have watched very closely the two first movies (specially the first one), you're going to agree with me.<br /><br />Compared with the Corleone's saga presented by Puzo's novel, the script of this film is, sometimes, even ridiculous. The characters and the relationships among them are distorted. The story ends up reaching nowhere, although it appears to go to some direction during the movie.<br /><br />It is understandable that different times should be expected for the Corleone's saga in the 90's, and that we would not gonna find things the way they were before. But, in the other hand, I don't know why they had to copy some dialogues from the other movies, in contexts when they didn't fit. Why this? It sounds like those poorly made sequels that just try to copy the original film's qualities.<br /><br />What will never be understandable is the fact that Mario Puzo, Coppola and Al Pacino joined together to make this. A man who directed pieces like Apocalypse Now and Godfather has to be forgiven for almost anything he does in cinema until he dies. So does Al Pacino, for being the actor he is. But Mario Puzo shouldn't have written this. How come? He damaged all his previous work. What a shame, my friend. The Puzo's novel "The Last Don" is a 90's story about the mob, and it is great. We can never tell the same about the plot for the Godfather III.
And, finally, old, old Michael Corleone falls over and goes 'THUMP!' Who REALLY did the writing for this last installment of the Godfather saga? Probably the same staff who does "As the World Turns." This flick doesn't deserve the title "Godfather" at all. Let's call this one "The Cosas of Our Nostras" or "All My Capos". As someone who's encountered a number of Mafia people in my business life, I can say without exception, that I've never met any mobster as inwardly-conflicted and contemplative as Michael Corleone. Let's face it, these guys are in the Mafia solely because they're greedy, nothing more. In this film, Don Corleone spends lots of time pondering his past deeds and his bleak future, perhaps even the Afterlife, then recovers remarkably fast in order to pull off some fantastic business deal or order the death of this one or that one like the big time operator he is, deep down. Then, there's his failed marriage. After the break-up scenes in G2, we may hope that Michael & Kay will reunite as man and wife, but here they seem to just become very good, platonic friends who can laugh & cry & share intimate thoughts about their lives. It's as if the screenwriters try to make Michael into a woman. It's bizarre behavior for two people who shared the passion of the marriage bed for 9 years. There's some miscasting here and there, or perhaps they're sins of authorship. Poor, old-country-beautiful Sophia Coppola is saddled with a hopeless role, with too many short lines in the film that don't fit what a young woman would say in casual conversations - was given "remarks" rather than "lines" to emote. Her 'passionate' lovemaking scene with Andy Garcia looks like something from a bad teen sex comedy as they chew their open-mouthed kisses and fondle each others backsides on the kitchen drainboard like marionettes...scullery sex was brought off wonderfully by Glenn Close and Michael Douglas, but it's just laughable here. Then, there's Andy's character, Vinnie Mancini, who's also given a difficult & thankless role to play. He's expected, I guess, to be the new, new Don Corleone, but he's almost handed the job on a silver platter and has to do little to strengthen his position, unlike Michael's simultaneous hits on all 5 Families in G1. This hand-me-down process may be an authentic way of transferring power in a Mafia Family, but why is so much made of this boring routine? Certainly, Don Vincent may earn the respect of his fellow gangsters someday, but there's little character revelations in the script to give us a portrait of this young man, sadly. Puzo did such a fine job of quickly & concisely developing Michael's character in G1. But, G3 has no economy in it's story-telling and we suffer through drawn out expositories until we just want to take a snooze. Thirdly, George Hamilton was also handed a thankless task, in taking over as family lawyer after Robt Duvall reportedly turned down a 3rd installment as Tom Hagen. George wisely underplayed his role, so it came off without damage to the actor. The development of Connie Corleone's character is interesting, but it goes too far when she takes murderous matters into her own hands (she could well end up sleeping with the Fredos, if this were the real world). But, it's not all bad. The assassination scene in the hotel penthouse is nifty! Also, "they keep pulling me back in" or words to that effect is a great line. And, we recover some old-country feel as we get to go back to Sicily, even if it's all done in 1989 and they've got modern cars & haircuts. The plot lines involving the corrupt hierarchy of the Catholic Church are pretty interesting, since it's based on some actual financial shenanigans at Banco Vaticani in the 1980's, but it's brought too far, again, with the too-spectacular death scenes, etc. The Grand Opera scenes are very dramatic and well photographed. But, the death scene of Mary toward the end is an unbalanced attempt of emotional-manipulation, at best. All screenwriters need to learn that we don't always need more and more death in order to bring a mafia movie to a successful conclusion. You feel sorry for Kay that her daughter is dead, she plays her grief so well, but Michael's reaction is hammy, hammy, hammy. Then, Michael dies sometime in the 21st Century, in Sicily, alone on a grand estate, of heart-failure...no grandson to play with before his demise, no wife to grieve for him. What SHOULD have happened in the last 1/2 of this movie is Michael being tracked down by someone like Rudy Guilliani, put on trial, all his dirty family's sleazy little enterprises and bloodthirsty indulgences brought into the light of day, Michael then convicted under RICO statutes and sent to Federal Prison for life...then he can keel over dead from heart-failure while mopping a floor IN LEAVENWORTH. That's how mafia dons were ending their careers in the late 80's and early 90's and they got much better treatment than what they deserved.
Years ago I saw The Godfather and it made a lasting impression on me, the atmosphere of the movie was first class, the acting memorable and the storyline a classic. Recently I bought the Trilogy and after watching Part 1 again I looked eagerly to viewing Part 2...... I was so pleased to realize early on into Part 2 that here was a fitting follow on to the great Godfather movie, again everything was just about perfect and I could not wait to see Godfather III ........ WRONG!, I wish I'd stopped at II. The storyline was not good, it seemed to me like a story made up just to have a story, the characters were weak especially the daughter. Pacino's protege was a weak character that would have been eaten alive in Godfather 1 or 2. Then scenes such as, Corleone being invested with all the trappings of the Catholic Church with full choir, the assassin on horseback riding away into the sunset, the unseen helicopter machine gunning of the meeting (where the 'goodies' get away and everyone else is shot),daughter and 1st cousin rolling bits of pasta across a board, the pathetic shooting on the steps ..... Corleone stuffing sweets down him with orange juice for diabetes (a man of his intelligence and guile isn't ready for an emergency?)... NO it was not good and with the best will in the world I wont be able to watch it again. But I'll watch 1 & 2 many times down the years.
Any person with fairly good knowledge of German cinema will surely tell that numerous films about a young girl having troubles with her mother as well as her boy friend have been made in the past.If such a film is shown to people again,it would surely click provided if it has something new,fresh and captivating for today's challenging audiences. This is also true for German film maker Sylke Enders as her film's principal protagonist Kroko has been mistreated by everybody around her including her mother and boyfriend.She is bold enough to face any punishment as she has tried her hand at all kinds of criminal activities including shoplifting.Kroko was originally shot on DV to be blown afterwards to 35 mm format.Its technical virtuosity does not hamper our joys when we learn that Kroko would like to become a policeman as she feels that she is averse to the idea of becoming a run of the mill hairdresser.If someone were to state a positive aspect of Sylke Enders' film,it may well be Kroko's involvement with handicapped people as a result of a punishment.It is with Kroko that we learn that punks are human too with their unique joys and sorrows.
First of all this movie is not a comedy; unless you really force yourself you can hardly laugh. Secondly, the movie is slow and boring. The acting is not bad but not special. There is a Lucky Luke comic about two families (one with big noses and one with big ears) fighting each other in a small town... you will laugh much more if you read this instead of wasting your time with this movie. Religions and dogmas are not the best source to make a good comedy and this movie does nothing more than confirm this rule. There is a similar subject comedy '' The home teachers'' ; this had some good moments. My final comment is: do not waste your time and money to watch this uninspired and boring film.
'Baptists at Our Barbecue' is the best film ever made. Now, that I got your attention with that horribly inaccurate statement that should be a hanging offense if spoken, let me begin my short overview of this tacky, offensive, pretentious and boring hunk of junk I guess you could consider a movie. First of all, the low budget of this stinker is totally obvious based on the very poor and inexperienced direction of Christian Vuissa, and the tacky, overly preachy, whiny and stilted screenplay by F. Mathew Smith. I really despise the fact that it sends a very pro-Mormon, and sort of anti-every other religion message. Yes, the story is about a small town half full with Mormons and half full with Baptists. It shows all the main and role-model characters being Mormon, and being so nice and perfect, yet they are being picked on by the evil, conniving and very judgmental Baptists. It shows how beautiful Mormons are and how cold-hearted and ignorant Baptists are, instead of showing a little solidarity like would be appropriate and realistic. I'm a part of neither religion (I'm actually an atheist), but this offended me, along with another countless amount of Baptists most likely. It shows the Baptists as being very unopened and unwelcoming to the Mormons, and the Mormons being very accepting, when again, in reality there is a mutual like/dislike between them. Sorry, I didn't mean to go off on a rant.<br /><br />Another aspect of 'Baptists at Our Barbecue' I didn't much care for, was the acting. The performances are very amateurish and unnatural, especially from the female lead Heather Beers. Miss Beers stumbles her way through her part without any passion or feeling for her role, and I wasn't too much impressed with Dan Merkley, who's the main character in this lackluster of a motion picture, but I have to say he's way more talented or shows more talent in this film then Heather Beers. Whoever played the town sheriff was awful also. Although there is maybe a tiny laugh deep within the film, it is full of clichés. For example, the main character, Tartan (Merkley), finds solace with a Native American who always gives him the best advice on things relating to a tribal way of life - how cliché is that? To make the situation even more of a pathetic cliché, Tartan buys the poor, lonely heathen a puppy dog. Ugghhh! <br /><br />If you want my advice, stay as far away from 'Baptists at Our Barbecue' as you can. I saw it on the shelf and thought it would be a cute and interesting little indie about religion. All I got was a, well, piece of crap. Grade: D-<br /><br />my ratings guide - A+ (absolutley flawless); A (a masterpiece, near-perfect); A- (excellent); B+ (great); B (very good); B- (good); C+ (a mixed bag); C (average); C- (disappointing); D+ (bad); D (very bad); D- (absolutley horrendous); F (not one redeeming quality in this hunk of Hollywood feces).
Generally, I've found that if you don't hear about a movie prior to seeing it on DVD, there's probably a good reason for it. I hadn't heard about this movie at all until I was in a Blockbuster the other day and saw it on a shelf. Since all the good movies had already been rented out (the ones I wanted to see, anyway), I figured I'd give this one a shot.<br /><br />It's really not much different than other movies in the genre, such as The Singles Ward or the R.M. If you're into those type movies, you'll probably enjoy this.<br /><br />However, if you're not a mormon, this movie probably won't appeal to you. There's no way to avoid the overtly religious (mormon) message contained within, and at times it comes across as sappy and cheesy. Ultimately, if you don't fall within the mormon demographic, you're probably better off watching something else.<br /><br />Admittedly, there were some very funny moments in the film, but I didn't think that it was enough to salvage the movie overall.
I concur with everyone above who said anything that will convince you to not waste even a briefest of moments watching this amazingly amateurish movie. Very poor acting, offhand production values, utterly pedestrian direction, and a script so inept and inane it should never have been written, let alone produced. Even Hollywood "professionals" apparently go to work just for a paycheck, although no one should have been paid for this bad work. Careers should instead have ENDED over this inconsequential drivel.<br /><br />OTH, there is something fascinating about watching something so jaw-droppingly bad. And Chad Lowe is terrifically and consistently bad.
I saw this movie in the middle of the night, when I was flipping through the channels and there was nothing else on to watch. It's one of those films where you stop to see what it is - just for a moment! - but realize after twenty minutes or so that you just can't turn it off, no matter how bad it is. One of those movies that is somewhere in between being so bad it's good and so bad it's, well, just plain BAD, it's worth seeing just to experience the confusion of realizing that it's both! Great middle-of-the-night fare, if only for the fabulous tennis drag. Don't even bother asking yourself why nobody can tell that Chad Lowe is so obviously male, because logic does not apply.
I really wish that when making a comedy, the people actually tried to make it funny. This is a film that you can sit through, but nothing is special about it. After watching it, you will say that it was alright. It was not boring to watch, but gave the audience no jokes to laugh at. Entertainment should mean that you actually get something more than an o.k. story. This movie wanted to be "Tootsie", but instead it failed.<br /><br />I gave it a 1 out of 10.
This movie was on the Romance channel, and I thought it might be a goofy 80's movie that would be enjoyable on some level, so my brother and I watched it. Boy did it suck. Boy gets crush on girl--correction, his *dream*-girl (apparently there is a difference; and I'm surprised he realized she was his dream girl--he was smitten with her from over 30 feet away. I guess that just goes to show the power of dream-girls), boy ends up masquerading as a female to be near dream-girl (creative in the sense that it's a far-out plan, but un-creative in the sense that there are probably better solutions one might think up), awkward situations ensue, a match is made (all of which takes seems to take place around late afternoon--either the location was somehow responsible for this odd lighting, or the actors had to wait until they got off of their day-jobs to come to the set; I suspect the latter). Very clumsily done, very pathetic. It's almost never even amusing *accidentally*, so there really is nothing to redeem it. Unless you're interested in seeing Chad Lowe's early days, before he finally got his piece of the pie with his role as the HIV-positive gay guy on the series "Life Goes On", or Gail O'Grady who was on NYPD Blue and probably got to stare at Dennis Franz's buttocks). But those are unlikely motives--I'd say "systematic derangement of the senses" would be a more justified purpose. I'm surprised I watched it all. I guess it's the kind of thing where, halfway through, you find yourself *still* watching due to some morbid, self-flagellistic inner-issue, and think you might as well finish it so you can tell your friends and family that you actually sat through such a horrible movie, on the off-chance that it'll garner you some sympathy for the questionable state of your mental health. Can *You* Take the Challenge?
Quite the most boring nonsense I have seen in a long time. The plot was full of irrelevance, and the acting was the worst I have seen in a long time.<br /><br />To make it worse, camera angles that made me feel sick were used , the incidental music was terrible and drowned out the dialogue (maybe not a bad thing then), and the shots of San Francisco looked as if they had been stolen straight out of the city tourist board's promotional video.<br /><br />Oh, and the obligatory sex scene was not even half well done. Better lighting next time, please.
Reed Diamond plays a man suffering from amnesia who's been in a mental asylum for over a decade after he was found wondering the back roads with blood on his hands. The doctors want to test out an experimental new drug that'll return his lost memories if it works. But when the drugs give him hallucinations of a demon, he chooses to escape instead. While outside he befriends a young boy whose stepfather (Greg Grunberg) mistreats his mother, won't let her near the darkroom in his basement & acts suspicious in general.<br /><br />While the general 'mystery' of the film is a tad easy to identify way before it's revealed, I found Mr. Diamond's acting to be enthralling enough to keep my attention throughout. (In the interest of full disclosure, I've been a huge fan of his since Homicide and his brief, but extremely pivotal, role in The Shield up through Journeyman & Dollhouse) Not a great film nor a good one, but serviceable enough. Although I did like it better than the previous films that I've seen from Director/writer Michael Hurst (Room 6, Pumkinhead 4, Mansquito)<br /><br />Eye Candy: one fleeting pair of boobs in a hallucination<br /><br />My Grade: C-
The story idea is excellent. Unfortunately, the execution lets it down.<br /><br />The movie lacks pace, for one thing. It should be an exciting ride, but it is slow and more than a little boring.<br /><br />I think the problem's mainly in the screenplay and editing. There aren't enough obstacles and reversals to ratchet up suspense, and there are scenes which don't really move the story along very effectively.<br /><br />The producers should have seen this in the screenplay and insisted upon a major rewrite. Unfortunately, when the producer is also the writer and the director, this evidently ain't gonna happen.<br /><br />Much of the acting seems kind of flat, and that is down to the director - all the actors have been quite competent in other projects.<br /><br />It's a shame, because with better writing, editing and direction, this could have been a really good thriller.
That might be a bit harsh for me saying that, but sadly so far in his directing career its true. Just have a look at what he as done so far. They barely make it past the 3 star mark.<br /><br />Why did I watch this movie? 2 reasons. Lucy Lawless and Heroes star Greg Grunberg. Lucy was outstanding in this movie, her performance carries the whole movie. I do hope she gets a "blockbuster" and breaks into the bigger league of actors, she clearly has the skills. Greg was not so impressive, typical TV acting style.<br /><br />The movie is oddly categorized as a horror. The only "horror" is short flashbacks, and they last a max of 2-5 seconds with a little blood in them. I personally would call this more a "drama/thriller".<br /><br />But no matter how interesting the story actually is, bad directing, editing and acting (appart from Lucy) destroys it. You get no real connection to the actors, something which is very important in a story like this one. You just sit there watching feeling nothing. Its like watching a bad TV soap....actually I think the TV soap would be more interesting.<br /><br />My advice: Stay away from this movie...or better yet just stay away from anything Michael Hurst is involved with.
This was such a waste of time. Danger: If you watch it you will be tempted to tear your DVD out of the wall and heave it thru the window.<br /><br />An amateur production: terrible, repetitive, vacuous dialog; paper-thin plot line; wooden performances; Lucy Lawless was pathetically hackneyed.<br /><br />Seriously flawed story, completely unbelievable characters. The two worst concepts in film and t.v. are: (1) the evil twin, (2) amnesia. There are no twins.<br /><br />The plot "twist"? Outrageously simplistic and obvious - like watching a train coming down the track in the middle of the day on the prairies. It doesn't even resolve properly. The evil is not punished for the original crime.<br /><br />Please, please, please - don't watch this even if its free and your only other choice is to go to a synagogue.
I read a couple of good reviews on this board for "Mr. Scarface", but for anyone uninitiated in the genre of Italian gangster films like myself, the picture will probably make very little sense. Indeed, after the initial setup involving the ten million lira scam, the picture devolved into a fairly routine revenge flick with a minor twist in the identity of Rick's (Al Cliver) character. The whole gang war plot got muddied up for me with the inclusion of Vinchenzo Napoli (Vittorio Caprioli), but as most other viewers commented, he's about the only one who gave this picture any life with his often ineffective attempts at violence. I found it somewhat unbelievable that Manzari's goons who chased Tony through the streets didn't actually stroke out before Tony even laid a hand on them. For all of his buildup as the title character, Jack Palance was wasted rather unceremoniously in an anticlimactic near finale, making the U.S. working title, "Mr. Scarface", rather moot. I've seen enough spaghetti Westerns to know that they don't all work; I guess in this case, my first look at a spaghetti gangster flick didn't quite make it either.
- A small time hood tricks the local mob boss out of a lot of money. Of course the mob boss wants his money back and doesn't care who he has to kill to get it. The punk enlists his friend and an old mobster to help him save his life.<br /><br />- If this sounds ridiculous, it is. The whole idea that this Izod-wearing, dune buggy-driving punk could hold off one of the most powerful mobs in Rome is just plain silly. His friend may be good with a gun, but he's up against a group of trained killers. The old mobster is little more than comic relief and no real help when it comes to the face off with the mob. There's also a sub-plot about how the friend's father was killed years ago by the mob boss, but there's little made of it and it doesn't help the movie any at all.<br /><br />- The mob boss, Mister Scarface, is played by Jack Palance. I suppose he got the name because he has what looks like a shaving nick on his cheek. Palance is as ineffective as the rest of the cast, doing what he must to get a paycheck.<br /><br />- I've seen some pretty good Italian crime/cop flicks recently, but Mister Scarface isn't one of them. Check out Syndicate Sadists or Revolver instead.
I am a big fan of Ludlum's work, and of the Covert-one books, and I had often thought how incredible they would be made into a film. Imagine my excitement, then, on learning that such a movie actually existed! The 'Hades Factor' being the first in the series seemed an obvious place to start.<br /><br />From the outset the film was disappointing. Simple elements from the film such as Griffin's first meeting with Smith are needlessly different from the book, and much less exhilarating. Several characters are poorly cast, too. For starters Dorff is woeful as Smith. Not a bad actor, just an incredibly bad choice as he is far too soft, and fails to exhibit many of the features that are definitive of John Smith.<br /><br />Re-naming, re-assignment and even omission of certain characters further degrades this film. For example the removal of Victor Tremont and the entire back-story of the virus, including the involvement of VAXHAM makes the entire point to the film somewhat hazy. Marty Zellerbach is a very large part of the book, and in the seat he takes vary much a back seat (not to mention that the film character shares nothing in common with the character in the book) is another big mistake.<br /><br />Rachel Russel is presumably supposed to be Randi Russel from the book. Not only is she supposed to be the sister of Sophie Amsden (should be called Sophia Russel) but she is also supposed to work from the CIA, NOT "Covert-one". Which brings me to my final point, and I think one of the most important. COVERT-ONE doesn't even exist at this point! Not until the second book of the series is Covert-One devised by the president as a preventative measure against further biological terrorism.<br /><br />To be honest I could go on all day. In short - if you like the books and want to see a good adaptation, I'm afraid you'll be bitterly disappointed. Even as an action movie it is thoroughly average, mainly due to very lack-luster editing and poor effects. The bumbled story line and dull-as-ditch-water script are the final nails in the very cheap coffin of this film.
If Bob Ludlum was to see this mini series, he would have cried. This was complete waste of time and money. I have read the book and even though movies are not exactly what the book may be, CBS wasted time and money on this and it is embarrassing to claim that this was Ludlum's work.<br /><br />May be the creator should check out the Bourne Identity with Richard Chamberlain and see how good that TV series was.<br /><br />Poor Mira, Blair, Anjelica and Colm, why did they sign to stoop this low?<br /><br />Horrible!!
Alfred Hitchcok is not my favorite director by any means but imagine what he could have done with this! The plot holds much potential for suspense. John Garfield is as almost always excellent and Raymond Massey is scarily cast against type. Nancy Coleman is not a very impressive leading lady but the supporting cast is large and very capable.<br /><br />Yes it starts to sag fairly early. There are too many coincidences. And an important subject is trivialized by its being made into little more, in the end, than a love story.<br /><br />It's fun to watch for Garfield, Massey, and the character performers. But it's not awfully good.
A somewhat awkward spy mystery with a predictable plot about World War Two dangers. The mystery is whether or not Jane Graystone (Nancy Coleman) has amnesia. The best acting is done by Raymond Massey as Dr. Ingersoll, a good doctor turned evil. He is head of a spy ring attempting to get information from amnesiac Jane, coded information related to allied activities. Will she tell? Can she remember? Moroni Olson (as Mr. Goodwin) is convincing as an accomplice to Massey. The role played by John Garfield (as Dr. Lewis) is nothing short of disastrous. He seems so badly miscast that the casting has to be ranked as one of the worst in film history. It is unfortunate that so talented an actor is stuffed into a role which not befitting his talents. The movie is worth one look, despite being a half spy and half gangster film, and despite containing a parade of stereotyped characters. It's easy to forget this one, amnesia is not necessary.
I should have figured that any movie with the Poltergeist lady in it isn't going to be good. It actually starts out okay, but during the first murder scene you find out that the movie you're watching is a movie inside of a movie. There's people sitting in a movie theatre watching that movie. One girl in the audience is so annoying that I would have turned around and strangled her. A bit strange, but far from good.
The dialogue was pretty dreadful. The plot not really all that inspired beyond the obvious twist it presents. Not visually stunning. Actually visually annoying at times. Most definitely one of those films you find easier to finish if you keep one finger on the fast forward button. If you could watch it for free, have absolutely no other options open at the moment and you really dig seeing the little poltergeist lady... well maybe I'd recommend it to you, but not anyone else I could think of at the moment.
John Pressman (Micheal 'I shoulda called Ditech' Lerner) works at a doctor's office as an orderly. His mother (Zelda 'Poltergeist' Rubenstein) hypnotizes him to off the people who see thinks wronged him. But this turns out to be a movie within a movie, but the lines soon blur as John goes a movie theater to kill. Prompting a guy who's watching the movie to do the same. Lerner is suitably over the top in this, but Zelda repeats lines of dialog over and over again. That gets annoying fast. But not as annoying as the two girls who are watching the movie within a movie.As a horror film this one fails, it's too busy trying to be clever, trying to impart a message and seems to forget a slasher film must evoke a sense of tension, or at least a jump or two. No, what we have here is the worst kind of slasher: An art-house one.<br /><br />My Grade: D+
The acronymic "F.P.1" stands for "Floating Platform #1". The film portends the building of an "F.P.1" in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, to be used as an "air station" for transatlantic plane flights. Based a contemporary Curt Siodmark novel; it was filmed in German as "F.P.1 antwortet nicht" (1932), in French as "I.F.1 ne répond plus" (1933), and in English as "F.P.1" (1933). Soon, technology made non-stop oceanic travel much more preferable.<br /><br />Stars Conrad Veidt (as Ellissen), Jill Esmond (as Droste), and Leslie Fenton (as Claire) find love and sabotage on and off the Atlantic platform. Karl Hartl directed. Mr. Veidt is most fun to watch; but, he is not convincing in the "love triangle" with Ms. Esmond and Mr. Fenton. The younger co-stars were the spouses of Laurence Olivier and Ann Dvorak, respectively. Both the concept and film have not aged well. <br /><br />**** F.P.1 (4/3/33) Karl Hartl ~ Conrad Veidt, Jill Esmond, Leslie Fenton
I had a video of the thing. And I think it was my fourth attempt that I managed to watch the whole film without drifting off to sleep. It's slow-moving, and the idea of a mid-Atlantic platform, which may have been revolutionary at the time, is now just a great big yawnaroony. Apart from Conrad Veidt, the rest of the cast are pretty forgettable, and it is only in the action towards the end that things get really interesting. When the water started to spill big-time it even, on one occasion, woke me up.<br /><br />But give the man his due. No one could hold a cigarette like Conrad Veidt. He doesn't wedge it between his index and middle fingers like the lesser mortals. He holds it in his fingers, while showing us the old pearly-browns. There are a few scenes in this film where the smoke drifts up to heaven against a dark background,and looks very artistically done. But it does not say much about this film if all that impresses you is the tobacco smoke.
The problems with Nikhil Advani's Salaam-e-Ishq are many. A one-line concept that looks good on paper (which also worked in an earlier English film - Love Actually) goes terribly wrong thanks to inept and shallow writing. A well-intentioned idea gets crushed to smithereens under the weight of its own gargantuan ambition. A director so completely besotted by his own much applauded first film goes overboard with the devices that worked in his earlier film (Kal Ho Na Ho) - try counting the number of times the device of split screens is used in this flick. The problem is - what worked fabulously in Kal Ho Na Ho were the emotional excesses of the Karan Johar school of film-making, but here, 'emotion' doesn't quite grace us with its appearance on the screen - no, not even cursorily. The writer/ director gives us 'six relationships with one common problem - love', but where is the intensity, where is the depth, where is the 'emotion'? A 'tribute to love' sans emotion? And one that goes on and on and on...... Nah, it just cannot work! <br /><br />In my opinion, the basic requirement for a portmanteau film like this to work is that not only should each individual story be 'complete', it should - in some way or the other - follow the graph of the traditional three-act structure (screen writing guru, Syd Field's Paradigm). That's the real reason why Salaam-e-Ishq didn't work for me. None of the stories had any depth or a roller-coaster ride of emotional ups and downs one expects in mainstream Hindi cinema. Also, the linkage between some of the stories seemed tenuous and very forced. It's not clear what Salman Khan is doing at Ayesha Takia's wedding. If he was required to be present at the wedding scene for a neat wrap-up, why not conjure a few more coincidences and bring the other two couples also to the wedding? That would be neater.<br /><br />But yes, some of the stories did have a lot of promise. For one, the Anil Kapoor-Juhee Chawla story tries to address a very real situation - mid-life crisis, but its journey is so linear that you're left wondering if it was really an issue. Similarly, the problem of commitment in the Akshaye Khanna-Ayesha Takia story is also true to life. If only it was developed a little better. I felt that the more promising stories in this mish-mash were told from the male point of view, which is fine, but it brings down the emotional quotient of these stories because the female characters - Juhee Chawla and Ayesh Takia in particular - have all the depth of a half-filled bath tub. Wasn't this film supposed to be about '12 different lives'? Now the actors. John Abraham still needs to learn acting, while Vidya Balan is dependable and endearing as ever. Anil Kapoor gets a role written just for him but sometimes overplay the boredom of his character. Since she didn't get a meaty character to portray, Juhee Chawla uses her charming smile and natural acting style to cover up for it. Akshaye Khanna is fine despite going a trifle over-the-top in a few scenes. Ayesha Takia has nothing much to do, but she does remind us that she's the same girl who surprised us with her bravura performance in Dor. Govinda tries to make up for that HUGE mistake called Bhagam Bhag, and succeeds to a large extent.<br /><br />That brings me the most irritating track of the film (which unpardonably ends up hogging the maximum screen time) - Salman Khan and Priyanka Chopra. The track is irritating mainly because of them. But I must credit them for their consistency. They're consistently BAD all through the film. Priyanka could well be the next queen of hamming - I don't buy the crap that her role (that of an 'item girl') required her to act over-the-top. Somebody should tell her the difference between being flamboyant because the character demands it and downright hamming. If you've seen Rakhi Sawant (who seems to be the inspiration behind this role) in her interviews and Bigg Boss you'll know what I mean. I strongly feel that if Nikhil Advani had taken Rakhi Sawant in this role rather than a bigger star like Priyanka, the story would have worked better. Salman Khan's phony accent is.....well, Shannon Esra's Hindi is less accented than Salman's.<br /><br />To be fair to the director, he does manage to add some good directorial touches to the film. I particularly liked the use of grey as the predominant color in the Anil Kapoor-Juhee Chawla story as a metaphor for their boring existence, and the bright colors that come into the story with the arrival of the other woman. But will anyone choose to paint their house in varying, depressing shades of grey? That's acceptable cinematic license I would say. But when the film runs almost for 4 hours, it almost feels like the director is trying too hard to give the audience a glimpse of his 'touch' in an endlessly meandering montage of uninspiring sequences.<br /><br />Maybe Nikhil Advani wants us to sit in the theatre for as long as is humanly possible- pata nahin, kal ho na ho.
It's amazing to see how Nikhil Advani manages to attract people to the theater till the very day of the release. I mean..... look at the cast here , the promotion is superb, good enough songs and the trailers are fine. This makes it a house full on the first day, but it's only when people go and see the film they realize that there is no way their money is refundable. House full the first day , the movie is out the next week. <br /><br />This film, inspired by 'Love Actually' is what they say, didn't manage to handle the whole cast well. They tried to put in big stars but ended up by not even managing to bring out even an average performance by any one. The stories are hollow and cheesy, so the audience can't connect with any single one of them. It's a big disappointment to all those who like big stars or for that matter Nikhil Advani after his big success of 'Kal Ho Na Ho'.
OK the director remakes LOVE ACTUALLY The director Nikhil Advani after debuting with KHNH does his second half and wait<br /><br />He makes a 3:30 hours + film which loses on patience, time.etc The viewer seems like a 3 hrs sleep watching this film<br /><br />OK they had 6 stories so it was necessary but why? 6 stories?<br /><br />We have the Anil- Juhi story convincing but boring don't TV serials show such stories?<br /><br />We have Govinda- Shannon story which is funny and works well <br /><br />We have Akshaye-Ayesha story again believable but gets boring soon and the focus is on comedy more and that too slapstick boring comedy<br /><br />We have Salman- Priyanka story which is the worst, not just acting terms, it makes no sense at all<br /><br />We have Sohail- Isha story to make you laugh and the trick works at times thanks to the boredom set by most of other stories<br /><br />We have John- Vidya story a good story in all respects<br /><br />But then by the time all stories come in bits n pieces the viewer gets bored and sleepy The climax isn't appealing though especially The climax of Salman- Priyanka story Nikhil Advani's handling is alright at places, some stories are well handled but weak at places Music(SEL)is good, but too many songs Cinematography is nice, every story is given a different look, texture and it works<br /><br />Actors Govinda rocks, after a dismissal comeback with BB he actually makes you laugh and love him in this film despite his age and weight Anil Kapoor acts his part well, though he looks out of shape and tired John excels in his part, Akshaye Khanna overacts for a change<br /><br />Sohail Khan is too over- the - top and Isha has nothing to do Anjana Suknani is dismissal<br /><br />Priyanka and Salman deserve an award for this film you are shocked?<br /><br />Salman Khan doesn't act only, just talks like he is in his sleep and that fake accent oh god Priyanka overacts to such a standard you feel like throwing something on her, she does get better towards the end Vidya Balan is good, Juhi Chawla is okay Shannon is okay
We all have seen some unending epics in our times, but this one really tops them all! The movie is so long and so slow, that, just to put things in perspective, i felt a lot older when i left movie hall, than I entered it. At almost 4 hours length, it could have rather been made into a tele-serial.<br /><br />What starts as a promising comedy slowly loses its pace. Nikhil advani has woven the plot around 6 love stories and he cant make justice to any one of them... There is no interconnection between them to start with, and links shown in last 20 minutes just seem to be forced to connect the story.<br /><br />Situation is made worse by Silly dialogues (most of them repeated in Hindi cinema over years)and stupid cinematography.<br /><br />Priyanka doesn't realise that she actually needs to play her role rather than just looking glam on screen... An utter waste of beauty without acting skills.<br /><br />And then there is loud-is-humorous Govinda & my-face-twists-better-than-jim-carrey Akshay Khanna who keep belching at the top of their lungs to irritate already tired viewers.<br /><br />Only good part in movie is John & Vidya's love story & nice acting/comedy by sohail & Isha. But they are so good at their roles that just these two couples could have justified the movie without jumbling it with other bunch of characters. Their brilliance gets lost in the midst of other substandard plot lines.<br /><br />My guess - Director was making two separate movies(may be more!) and some beginner assistant mixed up all the records, beyond a point of sorting them out, so director was left with no choice to show it all as a single movie...<br /><br />Watch it only if you want to test your patience!!!
Clocking in at an interminable three hours and twenty minutes, "Salaam-e-Ishq" is a pretty but superficial comic soap opera from India that regales us with six interwoven tales of romantic love (which is at least four tales too many in my estimation).<br /><br />Filmed like a cross between an MTV music video and a Super Bowl beer commercial, the movie is a sprawling mishmash of exotic settings, dazzling colors, sexy showgirls, high-stepping song-and-dance numbers, dream and fantasy sequences, winking character asides, corny dialogue and way-over-the-top comical performances - all pretty much standard-issue stuff when it comes to Bollywood happenings these days. It's an exhausting chore just trying to keep all the characters straight as they dance, prance and preen their way through the incomprehensible storyline.<br /><br />There's plenty for the viewer to feast his eyes on here - not least of all all the drop dead gorgeous women - but he'll need the patience of Job to get him all the way through it.
Six different couples. Six different love stories. Six different love angles. Eighty numbers of audience in the movie theater. Looking at the eighty different parts of the silver screen.<br /><br />I am sitting in somewhere between them looking at the center of the screen to find out what's going on in the movie. All stories have got no link with each other, but somewhere down the line Nikhil Advani trying to show some relation between them. I tried to find out a few lines I could write as review but at the end of 3 hours 15 minutes found nothing to write. The movie is a poor copy of Hollywood blockbuster LOVE ACTUALLY.<br /><br />My suggestion. Don't watch the movie if you really want to watch a nice movie.
This is a sad film made for sad people. I was sitting in theaters tearing my hair apart, wanting to break the chairs in front of me as the movie spitted out one cringe-inducing scenes after another. And there were people roaring with laughter behind me, which made me wonder what kind of films these people must be watching to actually enjoy this horse-s**t.<br /><br />Nikkhil Advani has six stories with no plot and no interesting characters. The screenplay is dull, probably he was drunk when he was writing this film. There is no strong hold on any of these stories. Nothing new , nothing to hold the audience and filled with dialogs which you would have heard a million times before. One of the stories is about this couple not being able to have sex because of series of disasters taking place every time they want to do it. I mean seriously is this story really required? Its not funny, not creative but only proves that Advani has no sense of comedy. Another of the stories (which was probably the only story I was interested in) is based on a man's infidelity and that too ends in a lame age-old sati-savitri pati-parmeshwar crap. I have no idea what the Salmaan-Priyanka plot was all about. There was no issue in the plot for it to be a plot. She can't take Karan Johar's film because she has to marry Salmaan ?? Why can't she marry him and still take the film ?? or does Advani and Priyanaka just want to prove the world that it is in fact true that female actors cant be successful if they are married or that they should not act in films once they are married?? With six actors in the film obviously Advani cant produce the film all by himself. So he makes full use of sponsors like the Times group, shamelessly promoting their Filmfare magazines. And also some jewelery brand which the women in the film absolutely seem to adore!! I come to IMDb to give it the worst rating and i am shocked to see posts praising the film. It just goes to show the sad state of bollywood and how star struck the fans are. With fans like these, movies like Salaam E Ishq will be continue to be made and worse probably be a hit.
My sincere advice to all: don't watch the movie.<br /><br />Don't even go near to the theater where this movie is being played!! even a glimpse of it is bad for health. serious. no jokes. it's 3.30 am in the morning. and i returned from this crappiest movie on this universe. FOUR HOURS DAMN!!! I am proud that i survived after all of it! If this is called survival.<br /><br />i am highly frustrated. annoyed. disappointed. it was sheer waste of time! money went in drain! no plot. Hope i wake up tomorrow sane and with no memories of this night!! RUBBISH MOVIE.<br /><br />Happy Republic day to one and all :)
The only possible way to enjoy this flick is to bang your head against the wall, allow some internal hemorrhaging of the brain, let a bunch of your brain cells die and once you are officially mentally retarded, perhaps then you *MIGHT* enjoy this film.<br /><br />The only saving grace was the story between Raju and Stephanie. Govinda was excellent in the role of the cab driver and so was the Brit girl. Perhaps if they would have created the whole movie on their escapades in India and how they eventually fall in love would have made it a much more enjoyable film.<br /><br />The only reason I gave it a 3 rating is because of Govida and his ability as an actor when it comes to comedy.<br /><br />Juhi Chawla and Anil Kapoor were wasted needlessly. Plus the scene at Heathrow of the re-union was just too much to digest. Being an international traveler in the post 9/11 world, Anil Kapoor would have got himself shot much before he even reached the sky bridge to profess his true love :) But then again the point of the movie was to defy logic, gravity, physics and throw an egg on the face of the *GENERAL* audience.<br /><br />Watch it at your own peril. At least I know I have been scarred for life :(
Six for the price of one! So it is a bonanza time for Cinegoers. Isn't it? Here it is not one, not two but all SIX-love stories, an ensemble cast of top stars of bollywood, plus all stories in the genre of your favorite top directors Johar, Bhansali, Chopra et al. You will get to see every damn type of love story that you enjoyed or rather tolerated for years now. So no big deal for you. Do you need anything more than this? No sir, thank you. Why sir? Enough is enough. Please spare us. They signed every top star that they manage to sign, whether required or not, so they end up making a circus of stars, believe it or not. Too crowded Every thing depicted here is exactly how it is prescribed in bollywood textbook of romances. Plus you have to justify the length given to each story, as each has stars. Therefore, it is too long-three hours plus. The gags are filmy. Characters are filmy. Problems, Barriers, situations, resolution … yes you guessed it right, again…. filmy-tried and tested. Same hundreds of dancers dancing in colorful costumes in background. Why they have no other work to do? All couples are sugary-sweet, fairy tale type, Picture perfect. All are good looking. Each story beginning in a perfect way and therefore should ends also in that impossible perfect manner? Too haphazard. You can't connect to a single story. Here you have everything that you already seen a million times. Bloody fake, unreal, escapist abnormal stories considered normal for more than hundred years since evolution of this Indian cinema. What a mockery of sensibilities of today's audience? Yes it could have worked as a parody if he just paid tribute to love-stories of yesteryear but alas even that thing is not explored. At least, Director Nikhil Advani should have attempted one unconventional, offbeat love story but then what will happen to the tradition of living up to the mark of commercial bollwood potboiler brigade? Oh! Somebody has to carry on, no. Imagine on one hand audience finds it difficult to sit through one such love story and here we have six times the pain. I mean six damn stories. I mean double the fun of chopra's Mohabbatein (Year 2000) In this age and time, get something real, guys. We are now desperate to see some not so colorful people and not so bright stories Oh, What have you said just now- come on, that is entertainment. My advice, please don't waste your time henceforth reading such reviews. Go instead, have some more such entertainment! Thank you.
this is a terrible, terrible film!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />first of all TOOO long. the longest movie i have ever seen.<br /><br />the stories are all too Damn Over the Top!!!!<br /><br />as a matter of fact there are too many stories that the Story line is Ruined.<br /><br />the comedy wasn't Comedy!!!!! it wasn't funny at all....<br /><br />the story is so repulsive and badly written that it doesnot matter if the characters live or die.......<br /><br />i had some expectations from this movie......... but my expectations were crashed completely in the first few minutes......<br /><br />the only thing good about this movie is the MUSIC...... and obviously Vidya Balan. she gives the best performance and stands out among all the senior actors...... she's just a new comer and yet she shines and makes the rest of the cast look so Pathetic!!!!! Govinda and the Blonde who playes his love interest also help saving this Disastrous movie. Govinda perfectly fits in the role of the Taxi driver. and the Blonde also gives a very subtle and consistent performance....<br /><br />another Talented actress Ayesha Takiya is completely wasted in this movie!!!! so is priyanka!!!!!!!!! Akshay does his role well but it seemed too over the top!!!!! Anil and Juhi are also totally wasted......<br /><br />the only one not wasted is Salman Because he has No Talent what so ever to be wasted!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />all in all this is a very Impossible movie with Mishmashed screenplay and TOOO Masladar that the storyline is shaped according to the stupid comedy scenes. imagine how stupid this movie is!!!!!!<br /><br />3/10 it is four hours long!!!! think and RETHINK before going to the cinemas!!!!! better Avoid it!!!!!
this movie has lot of downsides and thats all i could see. it is painfully long and awfully directed. i could see whole audience getting impatient and waiting for it to end. run time is way over 3 hrs which could have been edited to less then 2 hrs.<br /><br />transition between stories is average. most people confessed being on seating expecting something better to come out.<br /><br />its funny only in pockets. ambitious project and a below par execution. govinda does a fair job, anil kapoor disappointed me, rest we as expected. if u r expecting anything close to babel or love actually then its no where close.
I have been waiting for this movie a long time. Especially because Juhi Chawla is in this, she's a great actress.<br /><br />This movie contains six stories. It's a new concept flew over from Hollywood. So it's not a new item.<br /><br />1. Khamini (priyanka chopra) is a dancer. She wants to get famous and makes up a boyfriend to let news reporters be interested in her. But then Rahul (Salman Khan) appears and he claims to be her boyfriend.<br /><br />Priyanka Chopra is still not a good actress. When she yells, I get annoyed. Salman khan cannot play comic roles. But in his serious parts he is marvelous.<br /><br />2. Vinay (Anil Kapoor) is married to Seema (Juhi Chawla). He gets in a midlife crisis and gets attracted to a much younger woman, with forgetting what he really has in life; his wife and kids.<br /><br />Anil kapoor en Juhi are natural born actors / actresses. They are great. But this story is to thin for them.<br /><br />3. Shiven (Akshaye Khanna) is going to get married to Gia (Ayesha Takia), but he gets cold feet and blows the wedding off.<br /><br />4. Ashutosh (Joh Abraham) is married to Tehzeeb (Vidya Balan). She gets an accident and suffers a memory loss. Now she doesn't know that she loves her husband anymore.<br /><br />5. Raju (Govinda) is a cab driver. He meets Stephani (Shannon Esrechowitz) who is a white woman who is in love with an Indian male but he is about to get married with an Indian woman. Raju has to bring Staphani to that man, but falls in love with her.<br /><br />I never liked Govinda's movies. He is very annoying, not funny. But in this movie I liked him very much, like he has been growing up the last years.<br /><br />6. Oh yes! There is Sohail Khan! He plays Ram Dayal who is just married to Phoolwati (Isha Koppikar). He want to get some serious action with her, but every time her family comes in between.<br /><br />Sohail Khan is not a handsome actor, but he is funny! I like his movies.<br /><br />Now here's the problem. All these stories aren't interesting. To make one story from six not interesting stories does not make the whole movie interesting! Here and there the stories touch each other, but is not significant for the characters.<br /><br />My conclusion; Priyanka cannot act! Loose that woman in the bollywood industry. Sohail Khan should make more movies, this role for him was too small. Salman Khan cannot act comic roles, but real serious movies. That's written on his life as an actor. This movie sucks, and is a waste of a cast of good actors and actresses like Anil Kapoor, Juhi Chawla, Akshaya Khanna and John Abraham.<br /><br />It's just like you have the ability to make a movie with Amitabh Bachchan, and you only let him sing a lullaby.
I was so excited and hyped up about watching this film when the promos first came out in November! It looked awesome and the songs! I was quite disappointed when I went to watch it! This is a film which weaves 6 couples together. It has a multi cast of 12 people! A huge amount of stars have worked on this film. I think the director, Nikhil Advani, has not managed the situation well and should not have had many people in this movie as this would of made it easier for him. Compared to Nikhil's directorial Debut 'Kal Ho Naa Ho' , 'Salaam-e-Ishq' falls quite behind. I think Nikhil should have a smaller star cast. I think the best factors of this film is the songs! The songs are excellent and I think that all of the songs are awesome, Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy done an excellent job and have done an excellent jobs over the years. I think the ratings of this movie may go up because of the excellent songs! One thing I was disappointed with, is that the director should not have included nudity in this film which is done by Sohail Khan and Isha Koppikar. I found this extremely rude watching this with family! Although, some may find this nude as comedy, it is not something you would want to watch with parents! I think the best acting was performed by Salman and Priyanka Overall, I think its an alright movie!
Another big star cast, another glamour's set, another reputed director, another flick filled with songs that's topping the chart buster, but alas what's missing at the day end is a story that every moviegoer expects of from such a big budget motion picture. So much hype is what that was lurking around the movie before it's' red carpet premiere. A hype which went to an extent where Anil Kapoor envisages that the movie would be one of the finest love stories ever made after Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge. Well Anilji, which movie were you speaking of? Well the plot of the movie is about 6 different couples and 12 different people, who have a total different stance towards life, but despite their different approach towards life they all have one common problem, that's LOVE. Well indeed a luring theme. But little did we expect that the movie would be such boredom that it will let down the last expectation the audience would have from such a multistarrer movie. These are kinda movies which I totally abhor because after spending a hefty buck for a multiplex ticket I get locked in the theatre for 4 hours just waiting in agony for the climax.<br /><br />The trouble begins right from the start. The director gets so confused with the plot that somewhere even he gets baffled as to how to share the time slot to six different star casts. Some of the couples like Anil Kapoor-Juhi and Sohail Khan-(Whoever the female is opposite to him) just doesn't make any sense for their existence in the movie. Salman (Who calls himself rahul in a weird manner for the entire movie. Well something like Rahoooooool) again as usual tries to be extra cool with his Videsi kinda Hindi accent. Hey Sallu Bhai, now that Aish is getting married, at least go get some tip from Abhishek to improve your acting abilities. A simple striptease wouldn't make the movie a box office hit every time. And Anilji stop shaving your trade mark beard or you look totally like a eunuch. And smooching a girl of your daughters' age just looks as uncool as watching Jack Nicholson in a romantic movie. And please Nikhilji avoid putting such superfluous scenes in a movie that is totally not needed for the shot.<br /><br />The other bigger flaw in the movie was that there wasn't any perfect synchronization between the stories of different couples. Every story itself looks as if it is taken from different flicks, put together to form a sadistic plot of Salaam-E-Ishq. Bollywood still has to learn a lot from movies like Snatch, Memento where the director knows the perfect art of threading the different unrelated sequences to form a perfect blended storyline.<br /><br />Somewhere while I was evaluating the pre-release movie reviews someone predicted that the movie wouldn't do good because the title of this movie adds up to the number 28, and 28 is considered a bad number in Numerology. But I totally take my stand by saying the movie will fail not coz of its Numerology defects, but because of the myriads of flaw that persisted in the movie. And when director like Nikhil Advani can make such major blunders in the entire storyline of the movie, any wonder wouldn't have saved the movie from bombing at the Box Office.<br /><br />My suggestion for all you guys is, please avoid watching this movie at any cost. It isn't worth a pie that you pay for the ticket. There indeed are better movies on theater screens currently which are worth watching more than Salaam-E-Ishq.
After seeing only half of the film in school back in November, today, I saw that it was on Flix channel and decided to watch it to see the rest of it and to write a new review on it.<br /><br />The book that the film is based on, Hatchet, is OK. This is a terrible adaption of it though.<br /><br />Awful (and I mean awful) acting, bad dialogue, and average cinematography make up this terrible adaption of Hatchet.<br /><br />The film starts off Brian who is the cliché image of a late 80s teen (sporting a mullet, banging his head to cheap 80s rock music) and his mother driving in a car for him to get on a plane to fly up to see his estranged Dad (his parents are divorced...now cue the dramatic pause.) Now Brian has said goodbye to Mom and dog and is flying up to see his father. The pilot is a fat, ugly, rude man (wasn't like that in the book) who after 2 minutes in the air, has a heart attack and dies. In the book it goes into more detail with the pilot having more pains and it seemed to be that they were in the air much longer before the pilot had his heart attack.<br /><br />The plane (within another two minutes) has gone empty on fuel (leaving us, the viewers, to assume that he's been up there for hours even though the sun hasn't changed position and the scenery looks EXACTLY the same.) Now's he's crashed landed.<br /><br />This is the point in the movie where everything is a lot different then it was in the book. In the book it said his jacket was torn to shreds but in the movie it is perfectly fine with no tears or rips (looks like he just bought it), it never said he climbed a mountain, saw a wolf, and fell asleep up there on the mountain, it never said he was attacked by a bear (it said a moose but not a bear), it never said he eats the several bugs that he does, it never mentions the second tornado or that he learned to get those sparrows, skin them, and eat them or that little fish farm trap that he makes (that is destroyed by one of the tornadoes) nor does it mention him hurting his ribs from one of the tornadoes.<br /><br />I don't even think you can call what was depicted in the film a tornado. All it was was just a windstorm that knocked down several of his things.<br /><br />My favorite part of this camp fest was Brian's lame flashbacks (that are never mentioned in the book) especially the cliché scene of Brian waking up, walking over to the window and seeing his Dad (with all of his things packed that can all perfectly fit into just the back of his truck) leaving and screams "DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDD!!!!" (yet of course his father didn't hear him even though he was just right outside) and he punches his fist through the window (wtf?) <br /><br />The ending is the only thing that is close to what happened in the book (I said close.) In the book I think one of the key things that the rescue pilot said to Brian when he landed was "you're the kid who they've been looking for! They stopped months ago..." yet they left that line out in the movie.<br /><br />There's a pathetic epilogue with Brian (somehow without counseling or therapy) getting back to normal with his family. I think we were supposed to assume that they were getting together for Thanksgiving (because they had a turkey on the counter.) Then it shows his temporary home (for what, in the movie, seemed like three days, but in the book was for several months) and his hatchet, still in a tree where he left it (also didn't happen in the book) showing where he carved a message, so perfectly done: "HOME" (where we really supposed to believe that he carved that that perfectly with just that hatchet?) <br /><br />No quote can sum this movie up better then when Enid from Ghost World said "this is so bad it's gone past good and back to bad again." Perfect description of this movie.<br /><br />I wouldn't recommend it to somebody (who hasn't read the book) and are just looking to watch a movie nor would I to somebody who has read the book (because they'll be disappointed and bored to death.<br /><br />For those who have read the book, leave what your imagination created as the movie. This is awful and will bring down your thoughts on the book.<br /><br />1/10
I had never read Gary Paulsen's novel, Hatchet, for which 'A Cry in the Wild' is the adaptation of, so I can't make any comparisons to the book. I will, however, say that as a film on its own, adaptation or no adaptation, it was an underdeveloped adventure that provides no major explanation of its few characters.<br /><br />Think of 'A Cry in the Wild' as a less luxurious, teenage mountaineer (was Quincy, California the only place this was filmed?) version of 'Cast Away.' Jared Rushton is 13-year-old Brian Roebson, a kid headed on a small plane to visit his father, until the craft crashes over some deserted mountain terrain, leaving the kid stranded for quite a while and having to defend himself.<br /><br />There are basically three parts to the film. The obvious being the ten or fifteen minute introduction of the characters, namely Brian and his mom. <br /><br />The next third of the movie (which really consumes nearly all of the film) is that of Brian "roughing it." These scenes contain no particularly amazing action, nothing spectacular other than lots of beautiful cinematography of a beautiful Yukon landscape. Nothing to put you on edge, no real encounters (except a brisk confrontation with a cub), and no major dilemmas to initiate some sort of enjoyment or connection with the character on the screen. You might even feel briefly bored with the passage of time as we witness Brian dealing with his situation through first, primitive means, and then more improved ones (using tools, etc) for his survival. It is more like the ordinary time that passes if you were actually stuck in the situation, and that is pretty much about it. In other words, they put no meat on the Paulsen's words when they translated them into a visual media.<br /><br />And, of course, the third part of the movie is his rescue.<br /><br />There is a subplot that continuously seeks to make itself known during this time, however. Some conflict between Brian and his parents that created a rocky, awkward relationship between them. However, for the most part, it is only explained in brief, intermittent, minimal dialog flashbacks that look more like a back story for a music video. Any minute, the singer from Jefferson Starship, should chime in an start singing 'Sara.' Other than what the viewer can draw from the implications, or guess for his own need to fill the gaps in the narrative, we get a very underdeveloped back story which was probably necessary to enjoy at least part of this film and create a connection to the characters, whether or not it really had anything to do with Brian's survival adventure in the third part of the movie. These are the flaws in the narrative that through the viewer into a stupor as he struggles to find out what the heck those people there on the screen are doing and, for me, almost done to the point of screaming at the television to say something and tell me more! <br /><br />It certainly was not, for me, a good adventure tale. But, for fans of Jared Rushton, it was one of the last few movies he made. So, watch it purely for nostalgia, if nothing else.
- Bad Stuff: This movie is real crap. Bad stunts for one thing, they looked so fake I thought this was "The Twilight Zone". The flashbacks are pretty much useless. One part of the movie he thinks taking his anger out on a window will make his life better. I wanna know the casting director and if he was high because the acting, even from the adults was horrid. A kissing scene in this movie even sucked. This movie killed the book. The book was great. I highly do not recommend this movie. Not even for educational purposes. <br /><br />- Good Stuff: I don't know what I can say really. There is some suspense parts that get you going, but they are quickly shot down by the bad stunt work and acting. <br /><br />- My Verdict: Do not watch.
I wish I could give this movie a zero. Cheesy effects and acting. The only reason to see this movie is so you can see how bad it is. Lets start with the kid who plays Brian. What a geek! I couldn't believe the mullet! Then there was the talking to himself. I guess they couldn't just have the movie be silent, but still. Of course they had to have him skinny-dipping too, not something I wanted to see. But Jared gave a great performance, compared to the special effects department. Everything from the bear to the crash was something I could do myself, and better. I seriously doubt that Gary Paulsen had anything to do with the production, seeing as the movie was not even called Hatchet. Finally, I do not think the writer had ever read the book, seeing as nothing was the same. I think the book was great, but this movie stunk like a smelly goat!
This clunker of a film sets a new standard for bad filmmaking. Jared Rushton gives an adequate performance of a very poorly-created character in an ill-fated movie, thereby creating a net effect of a very bad movie. The film's main thrust is how a boy's temporary excursion into the Canadian wilderness after surviving a plane crash solo allows the disgruntled adolescent to deal with his anguish over discovering his mother's extramarital affair. Unfortunately it turns into a bizarre collage of random "survival events" (including two especially hokey scenes involving fighting a bear) and strange hallucinations that make you wonder if this kid isn't just sitting in an alley somewhere on pot dreaming up this whole movie (and what a nightmare it is!). Furthermore, despite the heralds of some reviewers of the family viewability of the film, there are several scenes not suitable for very young children or family viewing, including a graphic scene of the dead pilot underwater with one of his eyes apparently exploded.<br /><br />All in all, a terrible movie that nobody should be subjected to, much less innocent kids.
I came away from this movie with the feeling that it could have been so much better. Instead of what should be a gripping, tense story of a boy's fight for survival in the wilderness, it comes off as a National Geographic documentary meets Columbia sportswear ad.<br /><br />The film begins with Brian (Jared Rushton) preparing for a journey by plane to see his father. His mother fortuitously gives him the curious choice of a hatchet as a going-away gift (what's wrong with a Rubik's Cube?), little knowing how badly he will soon need it. Once in the air, the plane's pilot (a blink-and-you'll-miss-him cameo by Ned Beatty) suffers a fatal heart attack, leaving Brian helpless as the plane crashes into a lake. Extremely lucky to walk (or rather swim) away virtually unscathed, Brian must find shelter, food and hope for rescue.<br /><br />Here is where the main problem with the movie begins. By the very nature of Brian's solitude, Jared has very few lines to speak, and so the film ought to have compensated by ratcheting up the tension of each scene. Instead, he is shown walking around, sitting around, and so on, with only a minimal sense of danger. As a result, too much reliance is placed on flashbacks to the parents' troubled marriage as the source of tension. These scenes merely get in the way and don't particularly add much to the story. Even worse, occasionally Jared – his face covered with mud - lets out a primal scream or two, which conjures up unfortunate parallels to `Predator.' Speaking of unfortunate, we could have done with being spared the sight of his mullet, but it presumably helped keep him warm at night.<br /><br />Another disappointment is Pamela Sue Martin in a totally ineffectual performance as the mother. Both she and the father have very little impact in the movie. For instance, we are never shown how they react to news of Brian's disappearance, how they might be organizing rescue attempts, and so on. This is just one source of tension the film-makers would have done well to explore instead of spending so much time on events that happened before Brian embarked on his journey.
In my Lit. class we've just finished the book, Hatchet, and this movie is nothing like the book. (1) Brian never ate worms in the book. (2) He didn't know the pilot's name. (3) His mom was cheating on his father in a station wagon not in the woods where anyone could see. (4) The man the mother is cheating with doesn't have black hair, he has blonde. <br /><br />Now for the unrealistic parts of the movie: (1) A thirteen year old can't punch his fist through a window in one punch. <br /><br />And for the acting, the kid who played Brian was a horrible actor. <br /><br />However, I do believe that the scenery was impressive, though I highly doubt the director even read the book.<br /><br />This movie is good if you have not read the book Hatchet, by Gary Paulsen, but if you have, then begin a complaint letter to the director.
What horrible writing and acting. No personality. What, you can't make a good movie with a single character? Hmm, it was done in Castaway with self dialog.<br /><br />So this kid goes on a trip to see his father. The kid, Jason, takes a plane and the pilot has a heart attack and dies mid-flight. So the kid crashes in a lake and survives. Then he runs around, surviving in the wilderness until he gets rescued.<br /><br />During that time he fights a bear twice. The first time he fights it off in the lake. The second time he makes a spear out of a branch and spears the bear. Two shots of fake blood spurting out of the bear's chest reminded me of Monty Python's "The Holy Grail".<br /><br />Also the kid decides to kick a porcupine with predictable results.<br /><br />Gag.
Ever wanted to eat worms? Here's a 'documentary' to show you how! Yeah...The kid eats live worms! And that's about the most interesting part of the movie.<br /><br />This movie has been pretty well summed up by previous reviewers as rather boring. I'm totally in agreement here. The movie just doesn't go anywhere....unless you're fond of worm eating! This is one movie it's almost impossible to write a spoiler for....because nothing much happens.<br /><br />Now on the technical side: They should have given that kid a haircut. Who's he trying to look like anyway...Bozo the Clown. It was almost comical...I almost expected him to turn into the shaggy dog or something.<br /><br />And on top of that; the kid was way too chunky to ever look hungry! Should have kept him off the junk food for a couple of weeks before filming.<br /><br />All in all, this movie nearly put me to sleep. And my kids could only handle about 15 minutes before they left the scene for something more interesting.<br /><br />I will admit that the scenery was very impressive. And had there been a decent story to go with it, it might have made a hit.<br /><br />It did seem safe enough for kids to watch: The bear scenes and the 'oddball' eyeball were too weak to frighten most kids, and the brief 'skinny-dipping' scene didn't show anything.<br /><br />I gave this one a very generous 3.
Ugh! Another one of those "fooled by the cover" DVDs. I expected some kind of action at least with bears, cats, & such on the cover. I got NOTHING! Bad movie!.<br /><br />I forced myself to watch this all the way through thinking that eventually SOMETHING would happen...no luck.<br /><br />Now the reason I gave this a 2 is because of the scenery; otherwise it sucked.<br /><br />The kid was terrible, talking to himself (although I suppose they couldn't just run a movie with dumb music and no dialogue at all), doing his lame karate stances to a tree stump, threatening a raccoon, munching on worms, and (what a dumbass) kicking a porcupine. And he wouldn't be pulling those quills out that easily either...they stick like fishhooks. At least he fought the bear (weakly) a couple of times.<br /><br />What was up with the flashback thing? It made a bad movie even worse. I wanted to see a survival movie, not some dramatic bs about a kid suffering thru divorce.<br /><br />What else can I say? Well, maybe they should have had the bear eat the kid or something. At least that would have been more exciting.<br /><br />People, don't waste your time on this one.
Marie Dressler carries this Depression-era drama about a kindly bank owner, which recently aired on TCM during their April Fools comedy month. If you come with the expectation of big laughs courtesy the Dressler-Polly Moran team, you'll be disappointed, as this is really a very downbeat film. It's also very poorly made, surprisingly so considering it came from MGM. Leonard Smith's bare bones cinematography is strictly from the 'set up the camera and don't move it' school, frequently to the detriment of the cast, who find themselves delivering lines off screen (it's like a pan and scan print before such existed!) or having their heads cut off. The film doesn't even have a credited director, underlying the apparent fly by night nature of the production. Overall, it's an unsatisfying mess, with Dressler frequently over-emoting and only that bizarre, final reel dash to the bathroom to set it apart.
In 1925, childhood friends Marie Dressler (as Maggie Warren) and Polly Moran (as Lizzie Praskins) oversee the wedding of their children, Anita Page (as Helen) and Norman Foster (as John). Before the celebration, Ms. Dressler turns the reigns of her small town bank over to her son, Mr. Foster. Six years later, the Great Depression brings many bank closures, and financial insecurity. Banker Foster is able to survive, due to mother Dressler's wise planning. But, Ms. Moran is worried about her fortune, and loudly demands a complete withdrawal. Other "Warren Bank" customers hear Moran's rant, and start questioning their own solvency. Soon, the family is in financial crisis.<br /><br />Dressler's huge critical and financial film hit "Emma" had been released early in the year, and MGM had to have wanted to get a new Dressler film out as soon as possible. Dressler's 1931 hits, "Reducing" and "Politics" were still making a lot of money; and, Dressler had become 1932's US #1 Box Office Star, according to the industry standard list compiled by Quigley Publications. "Prosperity" certainly celebrated Dressler's status, but the production appears uncharacteristically sloppy, and rushed. The cast does well, considering. Some more care in direction and editing, and some retakes, would have helped… apparently, they needed it in theaters for the holidays.<br /><br />**** Prosperity (11/12/32) Sam Wood ~ Marie Dressler, Polly Moran, Anita Page, Norman Foster
Yes, Marie Dresler drinks prune juice that she thinks is poison and she exits running.<br /><br />Dresler is good. Never my cup of tea but she is a solid performer who surely holds the screen.<br /><br />I watched this for Polly Moran, whom I've seen elsewhere. Here, Moran is OK -- just OK -- as Dressler's shrewish friend/foe. Too bad she has sunk into nearly total oblivion.<br /><br />The plot is good hearted. Bad guys try to rob the townspeople. Dressler triumphs and all ends well.<br /><br />I do wonder about the central plot mechanism: bonds. This came out during the Depression so maybe everyone was familiar with bonds and what they can do if used well and if used wrongly. I, however, not of that era, am vaguely familiar with them. They're like stocks only different, right? It seems odd to build a story about The Little Man around a somewhat sophisticated monetary entity.
This one was marred by potentially great matches being cut very short.<br /><br />The opening match was a waste of the Legion of Doom, but I guess the only way they could have been eliminated by Demolition was a double-DQ. Otherwise, Mr. Perfect would have had to put in overtime. Kerry von Erich, the I-C champ, was wasted here. And this was the third ppv in a row where Perfect jobbed. Remember, before that he never lost a match.<br /><br />The second match was very good, possibly the best of the night. Ted DiBiase and the Undertaker were excellent, while the Jim Neidhart had one of his WWF highlights, pinning the Honky Tonk Man. Koko B. Ware continued his tradition of being the first to put over a new heel (remember the Big Bossman and Yokozuna?). This was a foreshadowing of Bret Hart's singles career, as he came back from two-on-one and almost survived the match. He and DiBiase put on a wrestling clinic, making us forget that the point of the match was DiBiase's boring feud with Dusty Rhodes.<br /><br />Even though the Visionaries were the first team to have all of its members survive (and only the second since '87 to have four survivors), this match was not a squash. This was the longest match of the night, and Jake did a repeat of his '88 performance when he was left alone against four men and dominated. I think he could have actually pulled off an upset. These days, the match would have ended the other way around.<br /><br />One of the shortest SS matches ever was also one of its most surprising. Possibly the most underrated wrestler ever, Tito Santana was the inspirational wrestler of the night, putting on war paint and pinning Boris Zukhov, Tanaka, and even the Warlord in the final survival match. It was so strange to see him put over so overwhelmingly, then go right back to his mediocre career. Sgt. Slaughter also did well, getting rid of Volkoff and the Bushwhackers, but that just wasn't a surprise. Tito was.<br /><br />I think the only point of the survival match was to have Hogan and the Warrior win together at the end.<br /><br />This show was boring and the matches were too short. The Undertaker's debut was cool, but Tito Santana is the reason I will remember this one.
Here are the matches . . . (adv. = advantage)<br /><br />The Warriors (Ultimate Warrior, Texas Tornado and Legion of Doom) v The Perfect Team (Mr Perfect, Ax, Smash and Crush of Demolition): Ax is the first to go in seconds when Warrior splashes him for the pin (4-3 adv. Warriors). I knew Ax wasn't a healthy man but if he was that unhealthy why bother have him on the card? This would be his last PPV. Eventually, both Legion of Doom and Demolition job out cheaply via double disqualification (2-1 adv. Warriors). Perfect applies the Perfect Plex on Texas Tornado for the pin. He then attempts the same on Warrior but Warrior no-sells it and kicks out. Warrior comes back with a splash to pin Perfect and become the sole survivor. 5/10<br /><br />The Dream Team (Dusty Rhodes, Koko B Ware and The Hart Foundation v Million Dollar Team (Ted Dibiase, Mystery Partner and Rhythm and Blues): The mystery partner is The Undertaker and, on his debut, makes an impact disposing of Koko straight away with The Tombstone(Monsoon still manages to say his correct height, weight and finishing move while pretending not to know who he is) making it 4-3 to Dibiase's Team. Niedhart power-slams Honky for the pin (3-3) and his career with the WWF is over. Shortly afterwards, it is Niedhart who falls victim to Dibiase with help from Virgil (3-2 adv. Dibiase's team). Rhodes next after an Undertaker double axe-handle off the top rope but doesn't leave quietly attacking Brother Love. Undertaker goes after Dusty and gets counted out despite not being the legal man (2-1 adv. Dibiase's Team). Almost straight after, Greg gets caught in a cradle by Hart trying to put the figure four leg-lock on him and gets pinned. It comes down to Hart v Dibiase and after a few minutes of nice wrestling, Bret gets his body-cross reversed by Dibiase for the pin. Dibiase is the sole survivor. At least Hart is put to good use. 6/10<br /><br />The Vipers (Jake 'The Snake' Roberts, 'Superfly' Jimmy Snuka and The Rockers) v Visionaries (Rick 'Model' Martel, Warlord and Power and Glory): After spending some time in the ring, Marty Jannetty gets power slammed by Warlord as he comes off the top rope for the pin (4-3 adv. Visionaries). Snuka gets pinned in seconds by Martel who reverses his body cross (4-2 adv. Visionaries). Michaels gets caught in the Power Plex and pinned by Roma (4-1 adv. Visionaries). It is now Roberts against four men resembling his Survivor Series effort two years before. Despite hitting Warlord with the DDT, Roberts gets counted out chasing after Martel. The Visionaries are the first team in Survivor Series history to completely survive as one. Not much here worth watching to be honest as the psychology is rushed. 3/10<br /><br />Hulkamaniacs (Hulk Hogan, 'Hacksaw' Jim Duggan, Bigbossman and Tugboat) v Natural Disasters (Earthquake, Dino Bravo, Barbarian and Haku): One Bossman slam eliminates Haku early in the bout (4-3 adv. Hulkamaniacs). Duggan gets his 2 by 4 out after whacking Earthquake with it to get disqualified (3-3). Bravo commits career suicide shortly afterwards by allowing Hogan to cradle him for the pin (3-2 adv. Hulkamaniacs). Earthquake manages to overcome Bossman with two elbow drops for the pin shortly afterwards (2-2). Hogan gets beat down and FINALLY Tugboat gets a tag (who knew he was there at this point?), he wrestles for about 30 seconds before getting counted out with Earthquake. Only Hogan and Barbarian left. Barbarian puts in some nice offence but inevitably gets caught in the big boot and leg drop for the pin. Hogan is the sole survivor. 4/10<br /><br />The Alliance (Nikolai Volkoff, Tito Santana and Bushwhackers) v Mercenaries (Sgt Slaughter, Boris Zhukov and Orient Express): All of the Mercanaries wore camouflage face paint. Lightning quick pins here with Santana pinning Zhukov in his last PPV in seconds (4-3 adv. Alliance). There wasn't even a Bolshevik showdown. Bushwhackers hit Sato with The Battering Ram even though Tanaka was the legal man (4-2 adv. Alliance) and would be his last appearance on WWF PPV as The Orient Express get repackaged. Tanaka follows Sato when Santana stuns him with the flying forearm (4-1 adv. Alliance). Despite Slaughter getting in the ring against four men, he eliminates Volkoff (who's career is over after this), Butch and Luke in that order with relative ease. Finally, Santana beats Slaughter by disqualification when General Adnan hits him with Iraqi flag. At last some interesting booking even though the match was awful. Santana takes the upset victory as the sole survivor and becomes his last finest hour. 3/10<br /><br />The egg hatches and it's Hector Guerrerro in a silly outfit. He dances with Gene Okerlund and gets booed by the crowd while Piper and Monsoon pretend they are enjoying it. <br /><br />Match of Survival: Ultimate Warrior, Hulk Hogan and Tito Santana v Warlord, Power and Glory, Rick 'Model' Martel and 'Million Dollar Man Ted Dibiase: Just merely another catalogue of eliminations as Santana pins Warlord in seconds with flying forearm at least avenging his previous Summerslam defeat (4-3 adv. Dibiase's team). Dibiase stun guns Santana afterwards for the pin (4-2 adv. Dibiase's team). Hogan kicks out of The Power Plex and proceeds to pin Roma after a clothesline, effectively killing off Power and Glory's push (3-2 adv. Dibiase's team). Hogan eliminates Martel by count-out and Dibiase with the leg drop for the pin (2-1 adv. Hogan's team). Hogan finally allows Warrior into the match who quickly disposes of former nemesis Hercules after a splash. A very predictable ending to the point of nauseous. 2/10<br /><br />Overall, too many matches and too little time obviously had a detrimental effect as the wrestlers were almost waiting on a conveyor belt to be pinned. Most of the heels were decimated by Warrior and Hogan which is a poor way to handle a great roster of wrestlers.
I'd have to say that this was a little embarrassing for the 'King of the Cowboys'; made in 1948, the picture came out a decade after Roy Rogers' earliest pictures in which he had a starring role. Roy's character comes off as a bit clueless in this one, along with his female co-star Jane Frazee, who alternates her allegiance between Roy and Robert Livingston, portraying chief bad guy Bill Regan. The whole story seems kind of muddled, with missed opportunities for what could have been an entertaining hour or so. Like the legend of the 'Hangman's Hotel' for example, which says the hanged man comes to life at midnight. With Andy Devine in the cast as Cookie Bullfincher, you would think the story would get a little mileage out of that set up. Instead, you have some convoluted proceedings that would have been better served if this had been a Bowery Boys flick. It was a sad attempt at a haunted hotel gimmick that relied on poor old Genevieve, who truth be told, wound up getting more screen time than Trigger, who's contract as 'Smartest Horse in the Movies' didn't have anything to say about getting upstaged by a mule. And then you have Foy Willing and his Riders of the Purple Sage replacing Bob Nolan and the Sons of the Pioneers for your musical interlude. I don't know about you, but it was already half way into the picture and I was still looking for Pat Brady - oh well! <br /><br />Yet there was still an interesting element to be found here if you were looking hard enough, and that turned out to be Roy's athletic dismount of Trigger while still on the run from the bad guys. OK, it was probably a stunt double, but I haven't seen that one before in a couple hundred Westerns.<br /><br />Jane Frazee does the honors as the female lead in this picture, as she would in four other films opposite Roy in the 1947/1948 time frame. In "Under California Stars", she appeared as Andy Devine's cousin, appropriately named Caroline Bullfincher. You're never quite convinced what side she'll come in on in this story though, since she starts out pretending to be someone she's not, and winds up on the good guy side almost by accident.<br /><br />Fans of the old Laurel and Hardy films might be as surprised as I was to see James Finlayson here as the Sheriff of Sintown. I would have liked a little more comedy relief written into his role, but he played it pretty straight after all. I had to wonder, when it was all over, why he and old Vanderpool (Charle Coleman) wound up in the mine shaft with Cookie when there was no reason for that to be. Just a way to close it out I guess, with about as much thought as went into the rest of the picture. I hate to be that harsh, but if you've seen enough Roy Rogers flicks, you've got to know that this was not one of his finer efforts.<br /><br />Say, Sintown - I wonder if that's the same place that grew up to be Sin City?
Roy Rogers and company try to bring "Sintown" back to life - it's a ghost town which may go boom if silver mining is successful. Andy Devine (as "Cookie") slapsticks around. Jane Frazee (as Carol) loses a piece of her bitches to Mr. Rogers' sharp leer. Foy Willing and the Riders of the Purple Sage stand-in (or, is that sing-in?) for the A.W.O.L. Bob Nolan and the Sons of the Pioneers. James Finlayson (from the Laurel and Hardy films) adds to the "slapstick" look of "Grand Canyon Trail". A loose floor board delivers the winning comedy performance. Mr. Devine's mule kicks its heels. There are energetic human performances, too - but, the material isn't Grand. <br /><br />** Grand Canyon Trail (1948) William Witney ~ Roy Rogers, Jane Frazee, Andy Devine
This show comes up with interesting locations as fast as the travel channel. It is billed as reality but in actuality it is pure prime time soap opera. It's tries to use exotic locales as a facade to bring people into a phony contest & then proceeds to hook viewers on the contestants soap opera style.<br /><br />It also borrows from an early CBS game show pioneer- Beat The Clock- by inventing situations for its contestants to try & overcome. Then it rewards the winner money. If they can spice it up with a little interaction between the characters, even better. While the game format is in slow motion versus Beat The Clock- the real accomplishment of this series is to escape reality. <br /><br />This show has elements of several types of successful past programs. Reality television, hardly, but if your hooked on the contestants, locale or contest, this is your cup of tea. If your not, this entire series is as I say, drivel dripping with gravy. It is another show hiding behind the reality label which is the trend it started in 2000.<br /><br />It is slick & well produced, so it might last a while yet. After all, so do re-runs of Gilligan's Island, Green Acres, The Beverly Hillbillies & The Brady Bunch. This just doesn't employ professional actors. The intelligence level is about the same.
How has this piece of crap stayed on TV this long? It's terrible. It makes me want to shoot someone. It's so fake that it is actually worse than a 1940s sci-fi movie. I'd rather have a stroke than watch this nonsense. I remember watching it when it first came out. I thought, hey this could be interesting, then I found out how absolutely, insanely, ridiculously stupid it really was. It was so bad that I actually took out my pocket knife and stuck my hand to the table.<br /><br />Please people, stop watching this and all other reality shows, they're the trash that is jamming the networks and canceling quality programming that requires some thought to create.
You do realize that you've been watching the EXACT SAME SHOW for eight years, right? I could understand the initial curiosity of seeing strangers co-exist on an Island, but you'd think that after watching unkempt, stink-ladened heroes run roughshod through the bush with an egg on a spoon for half a decade would be enough to get you to commit to something a little more original (and interesting).<br /><br />And I'm not even speaking of the shows validity which for the record I find questionable. It's just hard to suspend disbelief for "Bushy Bill" eating a rat when the entire crew of producers and camera people are housed in an air conditioned make-shift bio-dome sipping frosty mochcinno's with moxy.<br /><br />What's the appeal here? I don't care about these people or their meandering lives. I just don't get it. But if you DO find yourself being captivated by hairy, unwashed people, I suggest you turn off your TV and just take a trip to your local bus station where you can see people like this in their TRUE habitat. They call them HOMELESS PEOPLE, and free of charge, you can sit back and marvel in their uncanny ability to retrieve various cigarette debris from a plethora of garbage canisters, eventually striking "pay-dirt" and fashioning a homemade Dr. Frankenstein-styled cancer-stick, all the while begging people for change for food when the stink of "Aqua Velva" on their breath is enough to suggest otherwise. And the best part? Much like Survivor, every week one member of the tribe "Leaves" the "Island" when they are unceremoniously sent packing to the local Institution when the frightening unmedicated state of full-blown schizophrenia kicks into gear! Now THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT!
This is probably one of the worst French movies I have seen so far, among more than 100 french movies I have ever seen. Terrible screenplay and very medioacre/unprofessional acting causes the directing powerless. with all that it doesn't matter how nice western french scene and fancy music can add to the story.<br /><br />One of the key weakness of this movie is that these two characters do NOT attract people, as an audience I don't care what happens to them. <br /><br />It amazed me how this movie won jury prize in cannes, man, I love almost all the awarded movies in cannes, but not this one. A major disappointment for me.
The first ten minutes of "Just Looking" really dictates the direction most of this movie takes. Lenny (Ryan Merriman) is a 14 year old boy living in New York in the '50s. He has a burning desire to see two people have sex. Who are the best people he has in mind? Well, his own mom and stepfather of course! How pleasant. Unfortunately for Lenny, he is caught before he sees anything and is sent away for the summer to stay with his uncle and his uncle's wife.<br /><br />Lenny's next plan is to see his uncle and his wife have sex. However, the wife is quite pregnant and they aren't currently sleeping together. Then Lenny makes a new friend. Him and his buddy spend most of their free time hanging around a couple of girls. They have a little club where all they do is sit around and talk about sex. The problem is...it's not done in an innocent, charming 1950's sort of way. I am no prude by ANY means, but I found it rather disturbing listening to these kids talk about masturbation, blowjobs and anal sex. That kind of rawness may work in a movie like "Kids" (1995) but in this film it just seems perverted.<br /><br />Gretchen Mol is utterly wasted here as Hedy, a former bra model who becomes the object of Lenny's carnal desires. Jason Alexander needs to stay as far away from the director's chair as possible. "For Better Or Worse" (1996) was awful and now this. What a waste. 1/10
Although a film with Bruce Willis is always worth watching, you better skip this one. I watched this one on television, so I didn't have to plunk down cash for it. Lucky me.<br /><br />The plot develops slowly, very slowly. Although the first 30 minutes or so are quite believable, it gets more and more unbelievable towards the end. It is highly questionable, if a seasoned soldier like Lt. Waters would disobey direct orders. And even if he would, if the rest of his platoon would. They know he puts them in direct danger, and they know they will certainly die if they follow him, but what the heck, he is our Lt. so let's do what he says (despite the direct orders, remember).<br /><br />Still, there are some nice scenes in this movie. They somewhat save a village, where the total population is being massacred by the rebels. Well, they save a dozen villagers or so, the rest was already killed. The strange part of it, that they did take the trucks which the rebels left behind. They rather go on foot. Maybe because the roads are unsafe, but there was no explanation for it. Anyway. I think this was what earned the movie the one point I gave it.<br /><br />What made this movie an insult to the brain and hence completely unbelievable is that a group of 7 soldiers can kill of so many rebels without being hurt or killed themselves. Only near the end they loose a few comrades. And that is only because they have to fight of an army of nearly 500 or more. Can you believe that?<br /><br />They fight of an army of so many, kill hundreds of them, and only loose a few of themselves. And they have rounds and round of ammo. Never run out of it. Grenades and claymore mines, an M60 machine gun and even an RPG. Where do they get this stuff. Carrying it around or what? They even got a laptop which shows them the activity of enemy rebels. And this laptop has a battery which goes on for days. Really? Who think up this crap.<br /><br />I guess if you turn off your brain completely and accept that the rebels are a bunch of idiots, you give this movie a high rating. If not, skip this one. It saves you time.
...for the Lt to have chosen this one. First, the film wasn't horrible, it was just Hollywood. Worst case I-need-this-to-happen-or-we-have-no-movie scenario: if Willis' mission was to save the doctor, but she was adamant that her "people" make it out of the missionary, he would have put her on that first chopper and marched those refugees to the border without her. He would not have compromised his package for the refugees. That's not how it works. But, as I pointed out, this is Hollywood, we must have drama. This is why we make movies, because reality isn't quite so complicated. However, I did think that Willis and the good doctor had workable chemistry. That said, there are also some well done battle scenes in the film. It's not a waste of time, "Tears of the Sun" is worth the dvd rental fee. Check it out on a rainy day and you'll be satisfied.
If you like to be entertained, do not go see this movie. If you like to see heroics of war, do not go see this movie. If you like to see good acting and an excellent screenplay, do not go see this movie. If you like typical hollywood war films that end just in time to give a politically charged appeal to the public about the greatness and glory of war, GO SEE THIS MOVIE. Otherwise, don't waste your time. I am always interested in war movies because I think that if they are done well, they can TEACH us something about the paradoxical and worthless qualities of war. This film shows a bunch of guys running around the countryside, saying whorrible cliche lines, doing the most predictable things, and defending the oppressed with the same exact force and brutality that was being given to the oppressed. This film is a disgrace to filmmaking and to the United States of America! Can you imagine being a person from Europe or Africa, or any other country and watching this, being told that this is how Americans truly are? No wonder everyone hates us! Please, please, please, don't waste your time on this piece of junk; if you must, wait and rent it. 4/10
This is just typical Bruce Willis, action movie schtick. Watch it with some popcorn and your buddies. Rent it, to save money.<br /><br />None of it is realistic. The battles aren't realistic. The soldiers aren't realistic. The victims aren't realistic. And why was Tom Skerritt's character talking to Willis from the DECK OF THE CARRIER? What's up with that? He can't do that from inside the ship?<br /><br />Of course, Bruce W. gets a machete wound. There's a bunch of average explosions.<br /><br />If this movie accurately represents the Navy SEALS, then don't get stuck in Africa expecting them to come rescue you!<br /><br />The noble attack on the village bothered me the most. "Front row seats to an ethnic cleansing"...as Bruce looks at the slaughter going on in town. So what does he do? He crawls into town on his belly. Yep. How many died while they were putzing around? Oh well...a body count was needed, I guess.<br /><br />And if that one African guy was so important, why didn't he get on the chopper with the elderly and children? Can he say "Duh?" <br /><br />Finally, the movie was very dark. Not just in plot, but so much happens at night it was difficult to make out what was going on.<br /><br />Rent it.
Considering the risk of showing same-sex relationships before the late 1980's, Personal Best could have done better to play the same-sex relationship between Hemingway (Chris Cahill) and Donnelly (Tory Skinner) as a more than experimental phase of Cahill's life.<br /><br />It seems to me that the creators of this movie threw in the same-sex relationship between two fairly attractive women in order to attract viewers. Also consider the 90 seconds of exposing the crotches of several women jumping backwards over a high jump pole. This random scene had VERY LITTLE relevance to the movie and it appeared as though this was done merely to keep the audience interested in this bland movie. I suppose the producers were trying to counteract the boring plot and the even more boring setting of the movie (the 1980 Oregon Track and Field Competition).<br /><br />This review may seem harsh, but it is the truth. The exploitation of young Muriel Hemingway's body and the same-sex relationship ruined any credit that I would have given to this film.<br /><br />Pepper Thompson
Bob Clampett's 'Porky's Poor Fish' is a so-so cartoon populated by appalling puns and one or two nice moments. Set in Porky's Fish Shoppe, 'Porky's Poor Fish' occupies an uncomfortable area between a standard black 'n' white Porky cartoon and one of the books-come-to-life Merrie Melodies that were popular at that time. Typically of many of the early Porky cartoons, Porky is far from the star, appearing only in a rather stilted opening musical number and the climax of the film. For the rest of the time the star is a scraggly cat who sees the fish shop as an opportunity for a free meal but gets more than he bargained for. Unfortunately, the audience gets far less than they bargained for. As was sometimes the case in the books-come-to-life series, the spotlight is thrown on punning signs which could have worked just as well in a non-animated medium. Laughs are scarce and, while the cartoon is just about saved by Clampett's energetic direction, there is very little at all to recommend 'Porky's Poor Fish' over any of the other below-par early Porky cartoons.
As a history nut who is particularly interested in this particular historical event, I was very disappointed with the movie. Granted, the costumes and staging was quite authentic, but the Hollywood portrayal of this "British Little Big Horn" was truly boring.<br /><br />The amount of film footage dedicated to marching or parading troops has to have been unprecedented in film history. Eveytime I heard triumphant background music begin, I knew I had to prepare myself for another laborious scene of meaningless filler. Obviously, the producers had invested heavily into "staging" and were determined to get their money's worth.<br /><br />Despite the outstanding cast, their dialogue was, again, boring and their characters were never developed. Whenever Peter O'toole or Burt Lancaster finished a scene, I would cringe with disappointment. Their given lines were so weak and meaningless that I could hardly believe these were the same two great actors who portrayed Lawrence of Arabia and the Bird Man of Alcatraz respectively.<br /><br />There are worse epics, but this one is not much better.
Billy Crystal co-wrote, co-produced and stars in this extremely safe and comfy comedy-drama about fathers and sons, adult irresponsibility, and growing old. Billy plays a heart surgeon who has a heart attack (ha ha) which causes him to seek out his estranged father (Alan King), a movie-extra who fancies himself a big star. The script is sub-Neil Simon nonsense with one-liners galore, a flat, inexpressive direction by Henry Winkler (stuck in sitcom mode), and family-conflict at the ready. Crystal and King try their best, but King is over-eager and frequently over-the-top. JoBeth Williams has another one of her thankless roles, but manages to bring her innate, down-home class to the proverbial girlfriend character. It's a comedy, I guess, but one that blinks back the tears...shamefully. ** from ****
I like Billy Crystal, and I thought it would be fun to watch this film, since I know he admired Alan King and they would be funny together. I thought I had seen all Billy's movies but couldn't remember this one, and now I know why. It's so full of clichés and phony emotion; you can smell each scene coming (and going!). Billy doesn't even get to be funny very often. He's too busy trying to cry fake tears or show his angst at how badly his father let him down. Alan King himself is fairly likable, as is the subplot about being an extra in the movies. But what a coincidence that Billy just happens to visit his father just as a major health crisis takes place, etc. etc. Or that two busy doctors can just shut down their practices to moon around in LA. And when the end comes, boy, does it come quickly! Almost as though the writers realized they had painted themselves into a corner and the only way out was to do a death scene. Mostly disappointing with a few glimmers of good humor.
(BIG SPOILERS) I've seen one other Takashi Miike film, and that was the very disturbing and brutal 'Audition', which was an examination of the Japanese ideals of femininity! In 'Visitor Q'- which I think means 'Visitor Question'- he examines, in a very disturbingly gross way, the family unit. Miike's surreal vision of a dysfunctional family almost tries to be Lynchian in terms of confusion and film-making, but ultimately lacks the style and intrigue. We, the audience, are introduced to a bizarre array of scenarios from the opening scene with the father figure (Kenichi Endo- who was actually quite good) paying for sex with his displaced daughter (Fujiko). Then, as the father returns home, he is struck on the head by "the visitor" (Kazushi Watanabe) wielding a fairly sizeable rock, and for some reason, they both end up back at the family home. The mother (Shungiku Uchida) is beaten and bullied by her son (Jun Muto) who is also beaten and bullied by his school peers. When the visitor enters the home, he somewhat menacingly establishes himself as part of the unit. Eventually, the family begin to improve their relationship, with assistance from the visitor, through milking breasts, murder and retaining a sense of family pride.<br /><br />And there are other crazy scenes that somehow bring the family closer together. It's has uncomfortable humour, but is equally frustratingly silly, and over-the-top in its weirdness. There is a necrophiliac scene that is utterly disgusting, but ends up being ridiculously funny as the scene progresses. Partly because of the situation itself, and partly because you can't believe the filmmakers and the actors are actually doing this! The style of the film is poor to say the least, and the plot is stupid and unbelievably weak. The characters themselves are all over the place, and while I understand this is not meant to be realistic, there is hardly any interest in these confronting characters and situations as all of them border on the absurd! The camera-work is sloppy, and doesn't have that cinematic feel that Lynch's work entails. It's hard to take this film seriously on a surrealist level, or on an interpretation of examining the family unit in Japan. It just seems that Miike was out to shock, and the film seems self-aware that it's "trying" to be shocking, and it becomes almost comical to be taken seriously. All in all, I would say that this film is a bizarrely dark comedy, but it looks and feels amateurish, and seems to unnecessarily want to shock. Miike's previous film, Audition, was finely balanced between disgusting horror, character development and technique- which established more intrigue in the way the film was crafted to allow the viewer to become engrossed with the plot. 'Visitor Q' is a step down as it tries too hard to be outlandishly bizarre and intentionally confronting, without really having much to say in the process! <br /><br />** out of *****!
Anyone who could find redeeming value in this piece of crap ought to have their head examined. We have the submissive, heroin-addicted, part-time hooker wife with lacerations all over her body, lacerations received from repeated beatings by an abusive son. Now, she is squirting breast milk all over the kitchen floor, the release so gained somehow akin to Helen Keller placing her hands in running water. We have the husband who starts out by patronizing a prostitute who just happens to be his daughter (she's upset with him because he came too quickly)and ends by murdering his female colleague, having sex with her corpse, and then chopping her up. We have the kid who is relentlessly bullied by his classmates and who comes home and beats his mom. You see, it's all circular. Deep, huh? The only decent moment in this horrendous pile of tripe is when the dad murders his son's tormentors. It's a good thing this turkey was shot on video because otherwise what a waste of expensive film it would be. If that guy who thinks artists ought to be interested in this slop is really serious, no wonder most people think artists are insane. We saw this lousy movie, then put on "Zero Woman, The Accused." Oh my God, it was a tossup as to which one was worse. What is going on in Japan these days? Sick, sick, sick.
I actually retired from Asian horror films some time ago after becoming completely sick of seeing samey ghost story rubbish. However, I've been getting more and more into exploitation flicks recently, and so decided to give them another chance. My first port of call was highly rated director Takashi Miike's highly rated 'Visitor Q'. I'd already seen Audition, and while I didn't like it much, I do rate it as one of the better modern Asian horror films. So, I went into this with sensible expectations; and unfortunately, found only boredom. I suppose this movie is actually really clever and it just went over my head, but what it seemed like to me was simply a collection of violent and nasty scenes with little or no coherency between them. Any comparisons to the work of Luis Bunuel and David Lynch is blasphemous as far as I'm concerned; all Miike has done here is make a film; any intelligence surrounding it has been implemented by pretentious fans, desperate to find some kind of meaning. My headache set in about 10 minutes in (after a father had sex with his daughter for some reason), and it didn't subside until the movie finally ended; at least twenty four hours later, or so it would seem. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against violence in movies and in fact actively seek out the most notorious films around; but while this may be violent, it's also pointless and boring and I didn't get one ounce of enjoyment out of it. Takashi Miike may have a lot of fans, but I'm certainly not one of them; and I certainly hope this is the last time I'll come into contact with one of his films.
This film is a twisted nonsense of a movie, set in Japan about a dysfunctional family who end up with a strange violent guest who just sits back and watches the 4 members of the family at their worst. Nothing is sacred in this movie, with sex drugs and violence stretched to such a limit i'm surprised it got past the censors.<br /><br />Overall, i think it will appeal only to those whom we shouldn't be encouraging, rather than any supposed underlying message coming out for the rest of us to consider. A film that panders to the worst element in society and is in anyway utter gash... A disappointment from a man who made the sublime Dead or Alive and Audition movies.
Okay, so I get it. We're supposed to be horrified. The idea has been planted. A girl is doing her dad and taking photos of it. Call me over the shock-rock genre but I call for the explicit detailing of an act before I can fall for this. But don't expect me to watch a soft-porn and become horrified that she is 'doing her father'...I mean hasn't that convention become a bit abused in the adult film industry already infiltrated with 'rape, and molestation' porn...Horror isn't what your mind can fool you into believing. It is what actually exists in film. This is where Miike fails in Visitor Q. Extremism becomes mild when it becomes a choose your own adventure.
There is NOTHING cool, hip, or clever about this film-- liking it just reveals an ignorance of true art cinema. How can you so easily forget that the central fact of this entire film is that these mean & ugly people are . . . SERIAL KILLERS! If they have to dismember total strangers in order to "be a family again," then we don't WANT them to "be a family." What part of that did you have trouble grasping? Why applaud this filth?<br /><br />THIS silly filth is what you do if you can't do art! One's head & life must be deeply empty to mistake this shallow viciousness as "interesting." This is a camera without a brain. What really makes an artwork cool is profundity, questioning the status quo from a perspective informed by a knowledge of history (or, in this case, a knowledge of ANYTHING would be preferable!). Instead, this is just randomly piling up the ugliest images available in a world in meltdown, thanks to just the sort of empty meanness glorified as "cool cause it's so far OUT, man!"). These same violent events actually HAPPEN, every day. They are NOT "just in the film." They refer to actual soul-less people who would do those same things to YOU. Do you WANT those things done to you? A child could have thought this up, it required zero imagination, it is NOT surrealism. This lazy crap has no content, is saying nothing--it's just the worst of the evening news, & it is saying nothing new, nothing we don't already know. It's "the emperor's new clothes," the director hoping there are enough uneducated children, proud of their streak of inhumanity, for this sloppy filth to fly. I can see director Miike's demented fans now: chain-smoking teens-and- twenties drunks covered in tattoos, with metal hanging from holes punched in their faces, their knowledge-base inversely proportional to their intelligence estimate of themselves .<br /><br />There is NO PLOT to this--it is just sheer exploitation of shock-value violence. There is no "hidden meaning" anywhere in this poorly made film. It is fine to explore a film to see if you can find cinematic devices that are ingeniously artistic, BUT you cannot uncover a hidden meaning if one is not THERE! To DO that you need to view & review a REAL piece of cinema. There are PLENTY out there, directed by Fellini, Bergman, Fassbinder, Herzog, Altman, Bunuel, Kurosawa, Lynch, Tarkovsky, Peter Greenaway, Tarantino, Guillermo del Toro, Richard Linklater, Eisenstein, Aronofsky, Gus van Sant, Soderbergh, Shyamalan, Ordet. Why don't you view a REAL art film by the likes of these giants? This wannabe director, Miike, will NEVER make a film equal to one of the geniuses I just listed because he just doesn't have the talent! Anyone could slap together some chaotic crap like "Visitor Q." Teenagers could throw that together in one afternoon! There's no message, no meaning, no plot, nothing to it at all. There are long lists of ART Films to learn from--but THIS "Visitor Q" is NOT an art film in any respect. It has no content to it. It's just one banal horror piled onto another, and the point to remember about those hideous crimes is that those things HAPPEN, every single day, somewhere in the world. They are NOT okay because they are "just in the film." They refer to actual soul-less people who would do those same things to YOU. Do you WANT those things done to you? To others? Why? Because this world is already ugly enough, thanks to people who enjoy thinking about horrific events like this. <br /><br />There are sooooo many art films out there to use your mind to deconstruct, but you are wasting your talents with this piece of crap. There IS no deeper meaning. There is nothing to analyze; why keep trying? I've spent nearly 40 years watching practically every film ever made, and keeping up with all the new ones, but I've never seen anything as disgustingly pointless as this. It's not imaginative or even shocking, because these types of events happen daily all over the world. To make this film, or even to favorably review it, has caused over 50 young airheads who don't know any better to think it's "cool." They may grow up thinking that, convincing others, some of whom may end up DOING these things--convicted killers often reveal how they started out just this way, by being desensitized to the horror of this gruesome inhumanity. Trust me on this,--I know cool, and cool this piece of crap AIN'T. Visitor Q has the FEEL of a genuine SNUFF film, and I'm still not sure it isn't, actually. <br /><br />Your actions have consequences, son. The world is awful enough already. Some violence like this COULD happen to YOU, or to the socially irresponsible director who cranked out this FAKE Art film. Believe me, you won't be thinking it's "Cool" when someone is sawing YOUR skull in half!
This movie stinks. I don't think I have ever seen a movie so strung up on shock value. The plot was relatively interesting, but the dialog was super flat and the acting was bland. This could have been an a good movie. I think it just relied on it's grotesque visuals. I can usually handle graphic scenes and human taboos, but it felt like Miike shot it for the sake of shooting it. Just one poorly executed film. There just isn't anything to be entertained by watching this film unless you are fascinated by exhausting yourself with explicit scenes of incest, pedophilia, necrophilia, rape, self milking, parental and sibling abuse, and fecal dispersement. I think I just sold the film to many of you, but I meant it when i said this stinks. He has succeeded in other films, but I think you'd be better off watching someone pooping.
"Visitor Q" is a failed attempt at black comedy which focuses on what might be the world's most dysfunctional family including physical abuse from beatings to murder to incest to sodomy to necrophilia to a lactating mom who nurses her husband and adult daughter, etc. The film is so outrageous it garnered some critical praise and established a small cult following. However, with home video quality and a slapdash production, "Visitor Q" just doesn't hold up even as a curiosity. Genitals are blurred out and sanitary appliances clearly visible, make-up is awful, and everything else is amateurish at best. A waste of time. (C-)
This movie was terrible. Throughout the whole movie, I was puzzled and did not see any point to it. I had to go to this site and read the review to finally understand what it was about. This movie is not worth watching at all. Not only is it sick and revolting but totally STUPID! Please don't watch unless you are one of those that likes to watch bad movies. If this movie questions Japanese society and their values and roles, than this is a country that i would not like to visit or bother to know. This is a totally sick movie!!!!!!!! I did not enjoy it because it made no sense. My boyfriend and I sat there waiting to see if it was a horror because that is what it was listed under. It was total disappointment.
You know those films that have you trapped in the cinema? You're stuck there in the best seat in the house, centre of the row in your own special sweet spot that you swapped three times before you got just the right seat - and after about what feels like 13 hours you are still trapped there, uncomfortable and itchy, thinking "When the F*** is this film ever going to END???" (You know the feeling - think of A.I. and The Village).<br /><br />Well, Visitor Q delivers a weird variant of that feeling. I sat there for the first 30 minutes wondering when the thing was going to f***ing start! It is interminable! So "Arty" it hurts. This is the first Miike Takashi film I have watched. Apparently he makes films by the dozen and, if they are all pretentious w@nk like this, I suspect it will be the last.<br /><br />I'm not against Pretentious w@nk. David Lynch is up there amongst the top 10 directors for me but Visitor Q is cut-rate, cheap, and nasty pretentious w@nk. <br /><br />As you may have worked out by now - I hated it.
His first movie after longtime friend John Belushi's death, Aykroyd shows much fatigue trying to pull off a character that would have been a snap for Belushi.<br /><br />Instead, "Doctor Detroit" gives us bookish professor Aykroyd masquerading as a weird, violent pimp to ward off a rival known only as Mom. That's bad enough, but he also has classes to teach, a school dinner to host, four ladies of the evening to protect and a Pimp's Dinner (or something like that) to attend. No wonder Aykroyd seems stupefied most of the time. Why should the viewer be alone?<br /><br />It was on this film that Aykroyd met future wife Donna Dixon. At least some good came out of this chaotic mess.<br /><br />One and a half stars. You want good Aykroyd, see "The Blues Brothers". You want bad, see "Doctor Detroit".
This movie is so bad, it can only be compared to the all-time worst "comedy": Police Academy 7. No laughs throughout the movie. Do something worthwhile, anything really. Just don't waste your time on this garbage.
This is without a doubt the worst movie I have ever seen. It is not funny. It is not interesting and should not have been made.
This dumb comedy really does a good job of wasting comedic talent. In particular, Dan Aykroyd and Howard Hesseman are misused badly here. I might have chuckled once or twice during this film, but in general, it's a boring movie, with a little bit of stupidity thrown in for good measure. The premise, although routine, still wasn't bad, but once the plot was set, the film went nowhere. Don't waste your time with this misfire.
Horrendous pillaging of a classic.<br /><br />It wasn't written convincingly at all why Mary should develop such sympathy for Bates. He may be more stable until they start playing pranks with him, but he still doesn't help himself at all with his actions. (inviting a comparative stranger to stay alone with him in his until recently disused motel; telling the attractive young girl of his past mental issues; lying about the knives, etc... ) This, in addition to her previous knowledge should have kept Mary extremely wary of him, but this somehow doesn't happen just so they can play the 'mistaken-identity-murder-game later on. Which in itself is also ridiculous: 'So-and-so is the real killer - plus her as well - also him! There were too many contrived twists in order to slap a story on screen when the narrative didn't need extending.<br /><br />It was good to see Perkins reprising his famous role again, but that's about the only small pleasure to be had. It's definitely not a patch on Hitchcock, and if you have no intention of even trying to get close then you shouldn't be bothering at all.
An interesting change from the first one. there was more mystery to this movie then the first. Even when it ends your asking yourself what happened who was the killer. There are some good parts through the movie, the first half starts off slow and then in the last half the pace picks up. All up the movie is enjoyable. The story is 22 years after the events that occured in the first film, Norman Bates is out of an asylum and back to the Bates motel, but when a woman turns up claiming to be his real mother, things start going wrong. Perkins plays an aged Norman well again and the scene at the end was excellent, he swang that spade awfully hard.
"The Running Jumping & Standing Still Film" is not a film as such, but it is a short series of clips with a comical slapstick theme. This 'film' got Richard Lester recognised and paved the way for him to direct the first Beatles film: 'A Hard Day's Night".<br /><br />Richard Lester directed and wrote the music for his first film in 1959. This film was entitled The Running, Jumping, & Standing Still Film. It was intended to be viewed only by those who had aided in its production. Since the film was intended to be viewed by Lester and his partners alone, a small amount of money and time was invested. The sole purpose of this film is entertainment, but the main reason for its existence is the fact that it served as an experiment to work the camera. The film cost 70£ to make, and it was filmed in sepia-toned film stock in a field on a couple of Sundays. All of the shots that were filmed were included in the finished production; the finished production is eleven minutes in length.<br /><br />The Running, Jumping, & Standing Still Film is a comedy about English Sundays and the small hobbies that people do to pass the time. All of the events in this film take place in a field. A few of these comical events include a woman scrubbing a lawn, a man running around a tree stump with a needle to play a record, a photographer developing film in a pond, an artist aided in painting by the numbers on a model's face, a man building a tent, an athlete running over the tent, and a duel between a man with a knife and a man with a gun. Not only does the film poke fun at the hobbies that people do to pass the time away, but it also pokes fun at English culture when compared to American culture. Another one of several events in this film includes a group of men and a kite, which has been constructed out of the flag of the United Kingdom. One of the men jumps inside the kite while the other men attempt to fly it, and the kite breaks. According to Neil Sinyard, author of The Films of Richard Lester, this event symbolizes the United Kingdom as lesser in power and technology when compared to the United States during the space age. According to this scene, the British fly primitive kites while the Americans, the world-power after World War II, fly highly-advanced rockets and space shuttles.
People love the original story for its ending. The Hollywood style ending made this 99 version of 'A Dog of Flanders' just for kids movie. I didn't cry this time because the story was too Hollywood. Japanese TV series are much better.
I rented this film thinking it was the sobbingly sad 1959 version I saw as a kid. It was not. I was therefore very disappointed with what I felt was marginal acting, poor character development, and most of all, failure to highlight the relationship between the boy and his dog. In this version... the "Dog of Flanders" is just a cute "aside" to the movie. Get the 1959 version!
The scenery is pretty and the dog is cute. Other than that, this film has absolutely nothing to recommend it. Jack Warden is pleasantly genial as usual, but the script is so awful that even he comes off badly. The plot makes no sense, the dialogue is dumb, and there are numerous smaller faults. But the dog is cute...
Absolutely one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time! It starts off badly and just deteriorates. Katherine Heigl is woefully miscast in a Lolita role and Leo Grillo manfully struggles with what is essentially a cardboard cutout character. The only cast-member with any enthusiasm is Tom Sizemore, who hams it up as a villain and goes completely overboard with his role. The script is dire, the acting horrible and it has plot holes big enough to drive a double-decker bus through! It is also the most sexist movie I have ever seen! Katherine Heigl's character is completely unsympathetic. She's seen as an evil, wanton seductress who lures the poor, innocent married man to cheat on his wife. It is implied throughout the movie that she's underage, and the message that accompanies that plot-strand just beggars belief! At the end, she isn't even able to redeem herself by shooting the man who's obviously (ha!) become demented with rage and guilt, but the script allows him to kill himself, thereby redeeming himself in the eyes of males everywhere. Horrible. Don't waste your time.
While it does crack the odd good joke, the humour is generally quite dry with members of the panel frequently pulling faces or resorting to coarse language and waiting on the crowd to applaud lame enough jokes.<br /><br />Unlike what an other comment says I don't think this is the best RTE have ever made, its really dry and sarcastic. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, there are few truly funny intelligent gags that would make you genuinely laugh out loud. People seem to be convinced by the comedians well known names rather than by judging the quality of the gags which aren't really that good. Overall its mediocre with some good laughs to be had but often it can be fairly mediocre. Its not as good as Jasper Carrot or Dave Allens stuff. I find Benny Hill funnier.
Well, I'd be lying if I said that this could easily rival Spiderman or the Batman movies. Still, it was more appealing to me for it's moral value. I first bought the VHS when my son was about 2 years old and it immediately became his favorite. My wife and I are avid supporters of Robert Townsend and have been since he used credit cards to finance his first movie, "Hollywood Shuffle". True, he needs to take advantage of the talents and knowledge of technical advisors to make the films more believable, but his movies are still fun.<br /><br />Meteor Man provides a hero with an Urban Contemporary feel. I always felt that, if there were superheroes, they wouldn't provide the same scenarios as depicted in the comics. Meteor Man is realistic hero with real problems: Car broken into, bad neighborhood, local drug-dealing gangs using children for distribution, etc. The scope of his mission stayed pretty much within the community.<br /><br />What I found to be truly entertaining, outside of James Earl Jones' "young forever" performance, was how the neighborhood responded to his newly discovered powers. It wasn't long before they had a full agenda lined up for him, without his input, of course. It was hilarious to hear them offer to lend him out to other communities where their extended families lived.<br /><br />Yes, the plot was weak, the movie was predictable, there was bad acting and continuity was rotten, but it ranks #1 with my kids. Robert Townsend works to bring movies "home" so to speak. I doubt he'll ever truly be recognized as the talented actor/producer/director he truly is, but there are and will always be, those that love him for his efforts.<br /><br />One point to ponder about the film, which I find amusing: Throughout the entire battle with Simon, no one bothered to call the police???? Also, what mother and father do you know that will watch their son fight from a window? My mother would have been right there, scrapping by my side, toe-to-toe. Dad would be loading his pistol. lol<br /><br />Rent it and check it out. It's worth seeing at least once and good for those of you that are fans of Sinbad, Luther Vandross, Bill Cosby, Big Daddy Kane, etc. Great job with the cameos Robert!
Let me tell you something about this movie. I have seen it twice. The first time I was a kid and the movie was quite entertaining to me. I really liked it. I thought it was funny and interesting and the main character was kind of cool.<br /><br />I saw it again a few days ago. It was horrible. Really. I don't know why I thought it was funny before but now... I didn't laugh at all. There was nothing even slightly entertaining. It was just dumb. The story was weak. The acting was nothing special. There are great actors in this movie but still the acting is mediocre at best.<br /><br />What is the worst is the fact that this movie is racist. Really. Don't get me wrong, usually I don't complain about racism in movies. However I have seen people complaining about the lack of black men in movies like 'The Shaolin Temple' or about the fact that the only black man in 'The Street Fighter' is one of the bad guys or... Whatever, you get the point. There are people seeing racism everywhere. I wonder how would they react to a movie like 'The Meteor Man'. Why? I will tell you why. There are no Asians in this movie. There are no white people among the good guys. In fact there is only one white guy in the entire movie and he is the leader of the bad guys. All the good guys are African Americans. Don't get me wrong, I don't care is the good guy is black or white or yellow or pink or green... What I do care about is the fact that we can barely see a white person in this movie. This is the only movie like that that I have ever seen. It is just not realistic. If there is only one black man in a Japanese movie which is the case with 'The street Fighter' there is no problem - in Japan most of the people are Asians. But if there is only one white man in an American movie there is some sort of problem - in USA most of the people are white. It is like filming a Japanese movie with entirely white cast and only one Asian as a bad guy. Just not real.<br /><br />That is it. I am giving the movie the rate of 4/10. It would be 1/10 if I hadn't have fun with it as a kid.
The movie began well enough. It had a fellow get hit by a glowing green meteorite, getting superpowers (telekinesis, x-ray vision, invulnerability, flight, the ability to speak to dogs, superspeed, heat vision, and the ability to make plants grow large and quickly), and fighting crime. From there on it's all downhill.<br /><br />Meteor Man gets a costume from his mom, fights with the resident gangs, and has many aborted encounters with the gang leaders which serves to set you up for the disappointing, overlong, and stupefying ending.<br /><br />It wouldn't be so remarkably bad if it weren't like watching a boxing match where the two fighters pretend to hit each other while the audience stands looking onward while the fighters just continue to dance.<br /><br />Despite all of this nonsense the movie has good points. It states clearly that if you try to take on a gang alone then they'll come back to your home and hurt you. It states that gangs & communities need to see their real enemies (the big bosses that use them for their own ends to crush honest people into a ghetto existence). It also states that people do not need superheroes if they are willing to work as a community do destroy the predators that harm them. The only message it really lacks is that the voters should ensure their elected officials (Rudolph Giuliani, Marion Barry, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, & George H.W. Bush) aren't crooks too.<br /><br />
Superhero movies pretty much always suck, and this is no exception. Its only redeeming quality is the fact the movie COULD have been even worse. I would put 'Batman & Robin' and 'Steel' above this movie, so yes it is that bad...<br /><br />If your looking for a black superhero, check out 'Blankman' its not a "serious" superhero movie but at least its entertaining.
This movie is really wack. There is really nothing nice I can say about it, besides the moral truth expressed in the film's climax concerning people in the neighborhood participating in the fight against crime. Besides all that, the film had nothing: no good shots, no good acting, and no good script. I give this film a F and a 2 out 10.
Billy Chung Siu Hung's (the bloody swordplay film Assassin from 1993) film Love To Kill (Hong Kong, 1993) is among the strongest products of the Category III boom that inhabited the HK cinema in early nineties. It consisted of films with strong sex, nudity and violence, more or less gratuitous and shock valued only. Love To Kill definitely belongs to the "more" category with some unforgettable ideas and pieces of celluloid sickness.<br /><br />The HK psycho Anthony Wong (from the award winning The Untold Story by Herman Yau, from the same year) plays a business man and a husband who likes to torture, humiliate and rape his young wife (Elizabeth Lee Mei Fung) who for some reason doesn't leave him and save herself and their little son from the disturbed tormentor. A policeman (Danny Lee, the famous police character actor from films like Dr. Lamb (1992) by Billy Tang (and co-directed by Lee) and The Killer (1989) by John Woo to name just a few) however sees the problem and starts to protect the wife and the son but Anthony naturally doesn't like this at all, and leads it all into the typical ultra-mean spirited and graphic finale during a rain storm.<br /><br />The film is almost completely without any serious merits as it's just a piece of exploitation in order to cash in when these kind of films were so popular. The imagery and happenings are something never found in the Western cinema, at least in mainstream, and it all becomes even more mind-blowing when some/most taboos for Westerners, like violence and perversions witnessed by a child, are broken in these films so often that reading the plotlines alone would make most viewers feel sick, and that goes perfectly especially for this film too.<br /><br />The film still has a rather interesting and creepy soundtrack in the tradition of the mentioned Dr. Lamb which practically started the whole boom in 1992. Usually the music and soundtrack in HK films is interesting and adds to the imagery, especially in these terror films. Also the cinematography is worth mentioning as the film bathes, especially in the finale, in blue colors and camera lenses (as does Assassin, too), and the raging storm is captured nicely on the camera. Otherwise there's nothing that would rate the film any higher other than on the nastiness-meter.<br /><br />The actors and actresses are talented and professional and so don't make the film any worse with their acting. Still the film has the usual HK humor in it which makes the sick goings-on even sicker as some "humor" is thrown into the soup. That includes some jokes about Danny Lee's erection and so on..Something that could never be found in the Western "serious" films either. And that thing usually destroys mane otherwise noteworthy HK films as the humor is just so obvious way and attempt to entertain the audience and masses.<br /><br />The film has a very high outrageousness level as it has numerous scenes depicting the abuse of Wong's wife in various ways. She gets raped and molested, beaten and kicked by her husband. We also get to see some flashbacks from Wong's own childhood which turns out to be equally violent as his own father killed too and turned his young son into what he is now. These flashback scenes, mostly at the end of the film, include also some totally unexpected experiences as the imagery is speeded up (for example the hits of an axe) and that creates completely insane and mean spirited atmosphere to the scene. Again something that only HK exploitation makers seem to be able to come up with. The ending itself includes plenty of sudden and shocking gore as the madman wields his axe and meets also some nails, for example, on his furious way.<br /><br />The film is also genuinely pretty "suspicious" in my opinion as the violence and terror is realistically painful and deals with things that should NEVER be taken as entertainment, mostly I mean rape. The version I saw (I've seen two versions) includes a very long and completely nauseating rape scene that just tries to be as sadistic as possible. I'm not sure does the HK audience really like imagery like this but I think no one with some sense for morality in films/entertainment would never accept or make something like it. Women get brutalized and killed in the most sadistic and low ways so that the fates of the men seem almost tame when compared to the females.<br /><br />The other version I saw, the newly released DVD in HK (without subtitles) has this "table brutality" scene in a much longer form than the subtitled Taiwanese DVD which is otherwise identical to the HK version. I've also heard that the old HK Laserdisc is different from these two and since the end credits are filled with scenes and images not found in the actual film, it is impossible to say how "uncut" versions these that have been released or shown theatrically are. Obviously plenty of footage has been cut out, possibly even before the theatrical release.<br /><br />The film is written by Law Gam Fai and Lau Wing Kin, the former having written also films like Dr. Lamb, The Untold Story and Gunmen (Kirk Wong, 1988) but out of his other films that I've seen, Love to Kill is the most gratuitous. Dr. Lamb and The Untold Story both are very brutal and violent but have also some attempt to some criticism towards the authorities and men in general as how it is easy to turn into a beast when chasing or fighting one. The harrowing torture imagery of The Untold Story, the victim being the criminal, is very strong and definitely has its impact to change something that may be rotten in the society and among the police for example. But there's none of this in Love to Kill, it is just honest, calculated and fastly made exploitation which is, by the way, produced by a veteran director Kirk "Organized Crime & Triad Bureau (1993), Crime Story (1993)" Wong!<br /><br />Love to Kill earns no more than 2/10 from me as I don't have too high appreciation on films like this. (HK) Cinema is meant to be and can be more and films like Love to Kill are only commercial parasites living among the real pieces of the art.
I sat through almost one episode of this series and just couldn't take anymore. It felt as though I'd watched dozens of episodes already, and then it hit me.....There's nothing new here! I've heard that joke on Seinfeld, I saw someone fall like that on friends, an episode of Happy Days had almost the same storyline, ect. None of the actors are interesting here either! Some were good on other shows (not here), and others are new to a profession they should have never entered. Avoid this stinker!
My kid makes better videos than this! I feel ripped off of the $4.00 spent renting this thing! There is no date on the video case, apparently designed by Wellspring; and, what's even worse, there's no production date for the original film listed anywhere in the movie! The only date given is 2002, leading an unsuspecting renter to believe he's getting a recent film.<br /><br />This movie was so bad from a standpoint of being outdated and irrelevant for any time period but precisely when it was made, that I'm amazed that anyone would take the time and expense to market it as a video. It might be of interest to students studying the counter-culture of the 1960's, the anti-war, anti-establishment, tune-in, turn-on and drop out culture; but when you read the back of the video case, there's no hint that that is what you're getting. If you do make the mistake of renting it though, it is probably best viewed while on drugs, so that your mind will more closely match the wavelength of the minds of the directors, Fassbinder and Fengler. Regardless of your state of mind while watching it, I can tell you that it doesn't get any better after the first scene; so, knowing that, I'm sure you'll be fast asleep long before the end.
Oliver Gruner is totally unknown to me. My friend showed me this film because he had seen Gruner in, what he called a pretty good sci-fi film, Nemesis. So as we watched this, we found ourselves fastforwarding through the BS drama parts just to get to the unbelievable action sequences. Gruner loves to kick and kick and kick. And kick! haha<br /><br />Gruner character is a graduate student who is forced to stay in a ghetto close to the one that he grew up in. He finds himself watching after the boy who lives with him because he really wants to join in the Mexican gang that keeps tormenting his family. Instead of joining up, Gruner tells the boy to fight back (against a gang? too crazy). Gruner plays a typical Van Damme character who kills everyone (or maims them pretty bad) and works to rid his block of these gangmembers.<br /><br />The plot was very cheesy and easy to think of. Gruner is probably not very well known because of his script-choosing if this movie is anything to compare possible choices to. This ghetto is pure hell and I enjoyed seeing the motley crew of characters go through it as if they have a chance against Gruner's character. The music was typical action music (thumping pianos and timpani, swelling guitars) which actually wasn't as bad as I make it sound. The director really needed to keep the action going instead of taking a break every 5 minutes for a tense family moment.<br /><br />Ultimately, I gave it a 4/10 because it really tried to be an average action film for Oliver Gruner to star in, but the overall feel of the film leaves you wanting more closure on what you just saw.
Olivier Gruner stars as Jacques a foreign exchange college student who takes on and single handedly wipes out a Mexican street gang in this obnoxious and racist film which is so horrible that it's laughable. Bad acting, bad plot and bad fight choreography make Angel Town a Turkey.
Times are tough for Angel Town, gangs rule with an iron fist and for reasons mostly unknown (Mainly due to embarrassing writing) the gangs want a street kid, Martine to join the gangs, so they beat him up everyday. However due to the presence of an Olympic kick-boxer (Olivier "World's lamest actor" Gruner) named Jacques, hope is on the way. Angel Town is seriously one of the most inept message movies ever made (And I've seen my share) it seems to consist of the idea that all gang infested neighborhoods need, are French kick-boxers who can't act. Worst of all there are so many awkward moments it's just truly hilarious. Best of all comes from the exchange between Gruner and Aragon which basically sums up how ridiculous this thing is. To Wit: "You like the fighting? (Olivier grabs his Asian best friend in a headlock) I could kill him right? When I want him dead he dies! The reason why I don't want him dead is because i'm afraid of him, and I know that if I kill him his son and wife will kill me, that's why he doesn't die!" <br /><br />Of course the fact that it's wrong to kill someone, let alone your best friend is of course left out of the equation. Odd.<br /><br />However don't let me make this sound that I hated this movie, far from it, it's so terrible it's priceless. The biggest laughs come at the end in the disastrous finale which sees Grunner going one on one with gang-members who (the film's biggest logic gap)decline the use of pistols. Also a handicapped Vietnam vet helps out by shooting his machine gun at the gangs, while Gruner kick-boxes the rest. All of this set to the sound of horrible "Mexican" accents and surreal energy that make this one memorable for fans of cinematic trash such as this.<br /><br />The other treat about this movie, is that for some reason Olivier Gruner never attends college despite that's the main reason he's here in the states and not in France getting it on with his girlfriend (In a graveyard in the film's awkward beginning) Angel Town is without a doubt a failure on all conceivable levels but if you laugh at moronic martial arts movies with insane levels of action that make no sense on any level, this is the perfect movie for you. On the other hand make sure to down tequila, like the laughable opening song details "Ain't no mercy in Angel Town" <br /><br />* out of 4-(Bad)
I had watched "The Eye" before I watched this one. I really liked "The eye", it was one of the best movies of the recent Asian horror-cinema. So, I picked this "Bangkok haunted" because it was the same director, and it was kind of popular round here. But man, what a disappointment... "Bangkok haunted" are three stories about love, revenge, ghosts, etc. that are no scary at all, not even disturbing (as "The eye" was)... no nothing. I can't even fill the 10 lines required for the comment... <br /><br />100% boring.<br /><br />*My rate: 2/10
The Lives of the Saints starts off with an atmospheric vision of London as a bustling city of busy, quaint streets and sunshine. I was hoping it would maintain this atmosphere, but it gets bogged down in a story that goes pretty much nowhere.<br /><br />Othello works for big, fat Mr. Karva, his crime-boss step-dad (at least I think that is what he is supposed to be because it's never really defined, but he does drop kittens into deep fat friers, so trust me, he's a prick) doing scrappy little errands while his skanky girlfriend gives daddy hand-jobs. One of his colleagues is Runner, a black dude who is always dashing from A to B. Until the day he comes across almost mute homeless child who grants him his wish of being able to stop running. Runner dumps the lost boy in Othello's flat, where he promptly starts granting more wishes. Keen to have some of his own desires fulfilled, Karva has the boy kidnapped. But he isn't sure of what would really bring him happiness. Is it the innocence of being a child again or is it another hand-job? Either way, I don't want to see the little boy grant him the second.<br /><br />It just takes ages to get going and there are loads of repetitive scenes. The ending tries to be shocking but since there's hardly any back-story on investment in any of these characters it only serves as a release for the bored audience.<br /><br />Writer Tony Grisoni, a favourite of Terry Gilliam, tries to blend in some kind of religious allegory which ends up being pretentious as all hell, ironically. If he gave us something more accessible or at least had better explanations for the characters suddenly acting all weird then it would have been a more enjoyable film. As it is, we are introduced to a bunch of annoying loudmouths who then miraculously seem to develop intelligence when confronted by the mysterious boy. Who's origins are never revealed. That's just plain irritating! <br /><br />Aside from sporadic moments of atmosphere and a moody score, this film has little to recommend.
Without question, the worst film I've seen for a long while. I endured to the end because surely there must be something here, but no. The plot, when not dealing in clichés, rambles to the point of non-existence; dialogue that is supposed to be street is simply hackneyed; characters never develop beyond sketches; set-pieces are clichéd. Worse, considering its co-director, the photography is only so-so.<br /><br />Comments elsewhere that elevate this alongside Get Carter, Long Good Friday or Kaspar Hauser are way way off the mark; Lives of the Saints lacks their innovation let alone their depth and shading. In short, their craft. A ruthless editor could probably trim it down to a decent 30-minute short, but as it stands it's a 6th form film project realised on a million-pound scale; rambling and bloated with its own pretensions. That it received funding (surely only because of Rankin's name) while other small films struggle for cash is depressing for the British film industry.
i am rarely moved to make these kind of comments BUT after sitting through most of rankin's dreadful movie i feel like i have really earned the right to say what i feel about it! i couldn't actually make it right to the end, and became one of the half dozen or more walk outs (about 1/3rd of the audience) after the ragged plot, woeful dialogue and insulting characterisation became just too much to bear. this film is all pose and no art. all style and no substance. it is weighed down by dreadful acting, a genuinely dire script, indifferent cinematography and student-level production values. how it got funded, started, and finished is a mystery to me. i bet you a million quid it never goes on general release. the proper critics would tear it apart. a really bad film. shockingly bad. a really really really poor effort AND that is without even mentioning the gratuitous new-born-kitten-gets-dropped-into-a-deep-fat-fryer moment. totally meaningless, utterly lightweight, poorly put together; this movie is a dreadful embarrassment for uk cinema.
This is a very odd film ... I wasn't really sure what is was about, some N London lowlifes find a mute kid in the woods that they all believe is some kind of oracle and somehow makes them all, in their own way, change something about their lives that usually ends in disaster. The film ended after about 90 minutes leaving me feeling quite unsatisfied, almost annoyed at the pointlessness of it all. I didn't care about any of the characters - none of them get a chance to endear themselves to the viewer.<br /><br />What was the message? Am I being dim? It was just too odd. What happens to Runner? Why does Emilio shoot the kid? ... that made absolutely no sense, pointless. Can someone help me understand this mess of a film?
RUN...do not walk away from this movie!!!!! Aimed at the very young kids, this movie will bore you to tears. If the Gamera trilogy of the 90's raised the bar, this film just lowered it. It's slow paced and the monster fighting is good, but seldom seen. This movie had me dry heaving in the cat box. Just a very poor offering after a phenomenal 90's series.<br /><br />SPOILERS BEYOND THIS POINT!!!!!!!!!!! Here are the top 10 reasons Gamera fans of the 90's series will HATE this film.<br /><br />10. This movie is a drama that follows a kid trying to cope with the death of his mother and fears losing baby Gamera to a fight after knowing his father saw the adult Gamera die.<br /><br />9. You see the adult Gamera for maybe a minute at the beginning of the film. He gets his butt kicked by a few Gyaos and self destructs??? He looks old and lethargic. Plus he looks nothing like any gamera you've ever seen. His suit looked cheap and rushed.<br /><br />8. The young Gamera you see through the rest of the film looks like a Pokemon. Big-eyed and cute...it will remind you of the baby Godzilla from Godzilla vs MechaGodzilla 2. Gamera is now too cute.<br /><br />7. This movie has the pace of watching a NASCAR race during a 3 hour rain delay. I watched this movie with 2 other Gamera fans and nobody was happy with how slowly this film moved along. I've seen an SUV full of fat people going up a mountain road move faster.<br /><br />6. Like Godzilla:Final Wars, this movie had very little kaiju time on screen. Final Wars had much more, actually, and better fights although short.<br /><br />5. Kids take the title role. The friend of all children theme and poor writing killed the original Gamera series in the 1970's and history repeats itself in the 2000's. The most successful Gamera films abandoned the Sesame Street feel and went to a darker place. Why go back to a failed formula? This was to be a new trilogy and poor ticket sales killed any hope for this story to continue (thank god).<br /><br />4. Gamera lost his iconic roar. He now sounds like an Elephant with strep throat.<br /><br />3. This movie may produce a new Olympic event.....Imagine a relay race that involves sending very young children into harm's way. You have to see the ending to understand this point. Where were the parents? Oh yea..right there sending their kids into a kaiju battle zone.<br /><br />2. The special effects were good, but sub-par for a Gamera movie. Legion and Iris had better effects. The best effect was showing the apple sized baby Gamera fly. Not too impressive.<br /><br />1. This movie is just not what adult kaiju fans come to expect. The director was involved in Power Rangers and it shows. It comes off like a cross between ET, Always: Sunset on Third Street and TMNT. Kudos if you know all 3 references.<br /><br />Rental at best or watch once if you buy it to complete the DVD series.
An illegal immigrant resists the social support system causing dire consequences for many. Well filmed and acted even though the story is a bit forced, yet the slow pacing really sets off the conclusion. The feeling of being lost in the big city is effectively conveyed. The little person lost in the big society is something to which we can all relate, but I cannot endorse going out of your way to see this movie.
Some illegal so-called asylum seeker comes to Stuttgart and finds that Germans are "racist." <br /><br />This is just another already-forgotten steaming nugget in a long list of post-WWII anti-German propaganda films, aimed to make Germans feel "bad" for not welcoming each and every degenerate in their country so he can chase German blonds and sell drugs to German teenagers.<br /><br />If you're looking for good German films in General, see "Der Tunnel," "Der Untergang," "Europa Europa," and "Lola rennt."<br /><br />But not this.<br /><br />Also, "Das Experiment," with the same male actor from "Lola rennt."
I can sum this movie up using 20 words or less. Way too predictable of a story line with potential to be funny but instead falls flat on its face. See, 19 words, however, I didn't completely pan this flick with just one star but instead decided to bump it up to two stars due to the fact that Julie Bowen is smoking hot and provided just enough eye candy to keep me from ripping the DVD right out from the machine and blowing it up with an M80. My advice, take the $4.00 rental fee you would have paid to see this movie and just send it right to me as an advance thank you for saving you the time and frustration of having to sit through this train wreck, or you may want to send me the $50.00 replacement fee you would have been charged from taking out your twelve gage to use this piece of garbage as skeet shooting practice.
Oscar Wilde's comedy of manners, perhaps the wittiest play ever written, is all but wrecked at the hands of a second-rate cast. Sanders is, as one would expect, casually, indolently brilliant in the role of Lord Darlington, but the rest of the cast makes the entire procedure a waste of time. Jean Crain attempts a stage accent in alternate sentences and the other members of the cast seem to believe this is a melodrama and not a comedy; indeed, the entire production has bookends that reduce it to tragedy -- doubtless the Hays office insisted. Preminger's direction seems to lie mostly in making sure that there are plenty of servants about and even the music seems banal. Stick with the visually perfect silent farce as directed by Lubitsch or even the 2004 screen version with Helen Hunt as Mrs. Erlynne; or try reading the play for the pleasure of the words. But skip this version.
this has got to be one of those films where the trailer is 50 times better than the movie itself.I first saw the trailer in 1991, it looked great.Since then i have always wanted to see it but could never find it.....until today, yes, 14 years later.<br /><br />lets just say I was so disappointed its unreal, OK i knew it wouldn't be an Oscar winner but still had hopes that it would be a fun no-brain film in the bloodsport mold. Unfortunately it was not, it's Pooh<br /><br />whats with all the American rock and roll music and the acting was so bad it was quite frightening.<br /><br />The fight scenes were rubbish and look fake.<br /><br />this DVD only cost me £5 and I believe I was overcharged by £7<br /><br />Now I'm sad as I know that I will never get that hour and a half back.
This seemed to be a good movie, I thought it would be a good movie, and throughout the movie I was hoping it would be a meaningful use of my time, and yes, I have to admit that the acting talent of Dimple Kapadia and Deepti Naval where truly commendable, but despite the best effort this movie falls short of effectively conveying a meaningful message, which it seems is it seemed was what Somnath Sen is trying to do. The final point comes short and the ending seemed kind of unsatisfactory after all that happens; a bit like real life in that respect but movies unlike real life ends in about 2hrs and the ending should leave the audience satisfied, if indeed that was the director's intention. This falls short in that respect and that is what disappoints me the most.<br /><br />Another aspect that concerned me was the national stereo-typing of the American characters - they all seem to be carved out of the same block. Seems to me that most American characters in Indian English movies are based upon how common Indians themselves perceive Americans to be like and it is clear that no effort has been made to bring any sense of depth or complexity to any American in the movie.<br /><br />These two aspects put together they make for a disappointing story.
Genghis Cohn is a (very) mildly entertaining British movie about a German police commissioner in the late 1950's who is haunted by the ghost of a Jewish comedian that he killed 15 years earlier while serving under Hitler in the SS. The ghost comes back and wants his killer to live as a Jew to atone for the murders he committed.<br /><br />Otto, the German policeman actually knows this ghost's name because, the last thing he did before he died was said, in Yiddish, `Kiss my ass'. The policeman didn't speak Yiddish, so he asked around until he found the meaning. The `kiss my ass' left such an impression that everybody involved with that killing learned and remembered the comedian's name, Genghis Cohn.<br /><br />There are a bunch of men who are murdered in the jurisdiction of the police commissioner, and there are no helpful clues. The men are murdered with a set of knives that are missing from the local butcher. The butcher announces that his knives are missing while the commissioner is in the store to get a liver and onion sandwich, so the commissioner is a suspect. The first man is killed while making love to the butcher's wife, so the butcher is a suspect. But the butcher maintains that he would be very busy if he killed every man that slept with his wife. All the men are killed immediately after the climax of lovemaking.<br /><br />I think I might be a bit angrier than the ghost of Genghis Cohn if I was killed like he was. He seems to be very good-natured about it, as if he was just in a mild car accident. I can only guess that it is because it is a British movie and they are known for being a very polite people. He uses some of his material from his stand-up routing, and I just didn't find it very funny.<br /><br />I gave this movie a 4 because it was just kind of goofy. I thought it should have been a little more serious than it was. The movie turns out to be a murder mystery (where did this come from?), and it seemed that Genghis should have been more helpful than he was. The movie gave me a tiny look into Jewish culture, but was only skin-deep. Do all Jews love liver and onion sandwiches? Do they all say `shtoop' and `meshuganah' in their daily vocabulary? Isn't there more important stuff that we should know about the culture?<br /><br />I saw this movie at a Jewish community center in Berkeley, CA, and I was the only person in the room whose hair was not fully gray or white. (I have no gray or white hair.) There were 18 of us, and after the movie they stayed for about 20 minutes to discuss the movie. There were 2 main concerns expressed there: 1. The movie was way too light-hearted and future generations might not understand the gravity of what happened and 2. As the Holocaust survivors are dying off, future generations will not know what really happened. I thought that this second concern was ridiculous and I told them I thought they didn't need to worry because there is tons of literature out there and there will always be people who like to watch movies, like myself. The murder of 6,000,000 people by a very bad man will not ever be forgotten. I write this last paragraph because they charged me with telling others about my experience that day.
Yuck. I thought it odd that their ancient book on curses was made using a common script font instead of hand written. The acting is so apathetic at times and so over-dramatic at other times. Why would a "demonico" kill the two suspiciously quiet doctors who helped make him immortal? Just for the heck of it? And is it really necessary to show Lilith's motorcycle whenever she's out somewhere. We get it! You spent a little bit of money to rent some third rate crotch rocket. It doesn't mean you have to show it all the time! The "Faith's" lair looks like an old school Battlestar Galactica set with some last minute changes. There is a scene where we are introduced to a few people on a talk show for about 30 seconds before they are killed without apparent reason and without importance. Everyone is a throwaway character. Forgettable characters and an even more forgettable plot make this one of the most ill-conceived movies I've seen the SciFi channel come out with. Stay away unless you're into bad movies.
This obvious pilot for an unproduced TV series features young Canadian actress Shiri Appleby as an amnesiac with some pretty incredible powers that must be put to use when a man-turned-flying demon is let loose on the world. The CGI is par for a TV job, and Appleby is OK as an amnesiac but hard to swallow as a superheroine. Familiar TV face Richard Burgi is along for the ride as Appleby's mentor, but he can do nothing to elevate this dreck above the mediocre level. We see way too much of the cartoonish flying demon right from the start, a bad sign. Also, the scenes where Burgi is training Appleby for battle are actually laughable. They are a bad copy of similar scenes in several other movies, most notably REMO WILLIAMS.
Shiri Appleby is the cutest little embodiment of evil turned good girl demon-kicking Buffy clone, Elle. But I'm getting ahead of myself, you see Lilith was the first woman made by god as a companion to Adam. But she got all uppity evil feminist so god banished her from Eden. A clandestine order known as The Fath captures her but doesn't kill her, so now with amnesia (which is not really explained that well) Lilith (now Elle) is free to become the aforementioned Buffy-clone who has to battle with a mad scientist who got an injection of Lilith's blood. <br /><br />If the previous paragraph sounded hideously convoluted, that's because it is. The movie is also dull, generic, and for a film with a plot steeped in theology it doesn't seem to know a lick about it. This bargain basement lousy-CGIed movie was apparently a failed series pilot. All I can say to the fact that it didn't get picked up is a resounding Amen.<br /><br />My Grade: D-<br /><br />DVD Extras: Commentary by Writer/Director Bill Platt and Co-writer Chris Regina; and Stills gallery; video effects samples: before & after (it also has an "also available" selection that you would THINK would lead you to some trailers, but nope on DVD covers for other films, which is a stupid idea)<br /><br />DVD-ROM extras: Final shooting script and Deleted scenes transcript both in PDF format
A good idea, badly implemented. While that could summarize 99% of the SciFi channel's movies, it really applies here. I love movies where a good back story is slowly revealed, and I like action movies, and I like all of the main actors, so this could have been great. However, despite some good acting, this movie fails due to Bill Platt's bad writing and directing.<br /><br />Another review made the good point of needing to know where you're going so you can get there. This movie doesn't. It's put together in such a haphazard way that you know the words "second draft" are not in Bill Platt's vocabulary. There is one scene that is entirely unnecessary and could be removed without anyone noticing. This scene even begins and ends with them driving a car, so you could cut from one car scene to the other and never have missed the pointless scene in the middle.<br /><br />This movie also had a strange habit of under explaining some details while over explaining others, some to the point where you can guess the entire "plot" up front. It also had a habit of aborting a fight early, probably just because they couldn't afford it. There are also a few laughably bad scenes where the "plot" is revealed on a computer and the final battle involving conveniently placed "toxic adhesive" (seriously, what *is* that?).<br /><br />If you are a fan of Shiri Appleby, watch this movie because she's OK. She does manage to break out of her "Roswell" persona a few times and make for a good tough chick (but not always). John De Lancie plays the same character he plays in everything he's ever done since playing Q back in ST:TNG, so that's nothing new.<br /><br />In all, I gave this movie a 4/10 rating.
The story behind this movie is very interesting, and in general the plot is not so bad... but the details: writing, directing, continuity, pacing, action sequences, stunts, and use of CG all cheapen and spoil the film.<br /><br />First off, action sequences. They are all quite unexciting. Most consist of someone standing up and getting shot, making no attempt to run, fight, dodge, or whatever, even though they have all the time in the world. The sequences just seem bland for something made in 2004.<br /><br />The CG features very nicely rendered and animated effects, but they come off looking cheap because of how they are used.<br /><br />Pacing: everything happens too quickly. For example, "Elle" is trained to fight in a couple of hours, and from the start can do back-flips, etc. Why is she so acrobatic? None of this is explained in the movie. As Lilith, she wouldn't have needed to be able to do back flips - maybe she couldn't, since she had wings.<br /><br />Also, we have sequences like a woman getting run over by a car, and getting up and just wandering off into a deserted room with a sink and mirror, and then stabbing herself in the throat, all for no apparent reason, and without any of the spectators really caring that she just got hit by a car (and then felt the secondary effects of another, exploding car)... "Are you okay?" asks the driver "yes, I'm fine" she says, bloodied and disheveled.<br /><br />I watched it all, though, because the introduction promised me that it would be interesting... but in the end, the poor execution made me wish for anything else: Blade, Vampire Hunter D, even that movie with vampires where Jackie Chan was comic relief, because they managed to suspend my disbelief, but this just made me want to shake the director awake, and give the writer a good talking to.
I sat glued to the screen, riveted, yawning, yet keeping an attentive eye. I waited for the next awful special effect, or the next ridiculously clichéd plot item to show up full force, so I could learn how not to make a movie.<br /><br />It seems when they set out to make this movie, the crew watched every single other action/science-fiction/shoot-em-up/good vs. evil movie ever made, and saw cool things and said: "Hey, we can do that." For example, the only car parked within a mile on what seems like a one way road with a shoulder not meant for parking, is the one car the protagonist, an attractive brunette born of bile, is thrown on to. The car blows to pieces before she even lands on it. The special effects were quite obviously my biggest beef with this movie. But what really put it in my bad books was the implausibility, and lack of reason for so many elements! For example, the antagonist, a flying demon with the ability to inflict harm in bizarre ways, happens upon a lone army truck transporting an important VIP. Nameless security guys with guns get out of the truck, you know they are already dead. Then the guy protecting the VIP says "Under no circumstances do you leave this truck, do you understand me?" He gets out to find the beast that killed his 3 buddies, he gets whacked in an almost comically cliché fashion. Then for no apparent reason, defying logic, convention, and common sense, the dumb ass VIP GETS OUT OF THE TRUCK!!! A lot of what happened along the course of the movie didn't make sense. Transparent acting distanced me from the movie, as well as bad camera-work, and things that just make you go: "Wow, that's incredibly cheesy." Shiri Appleby saved the movie from a 1, because she gave the movie the one element that always makes viewers enjoy the experience, sex appeal.
What is interesting is that the acting; was not bad, just not enough. It was rather lame., special effects nor the lines were the single culprit for this failure. Standing alone they weren't horribly bad, but put together was a tragic move. The show seemed long winded and slow with special effects apparently designed to speed the movie along, but it failed totally.<br /><br />Much of the blame for this disaster was put on special effects.Don't believe it, they were kinda cool. Appleby was not the best choice for this endeavor. Though she may have been all they had to chose from with a bit of fan recogniton. An experienced actress would have brought something to the part, like Appleby never did. Scfi puts out some really good original movies, it's just too bad that this failed so drastically.
I think I found the most misogynistic film of all time: Darklight.<br /><br />The gist of the film- Lilith was Adam's first wife and she was considered imperfect and banished from the garden of Eden because she considered herself Adam's equal and refused to submit to him. See, I took those words straight from the script. Then the film keeps going on and though she is the heroine of the film, the only time that she becomes acceptable is when she does what the men tell her to do! She ends the film under the control of The Faith- an all male group!<br /><br />Other than that the script was predictable and the FX were awful. Apart from the obvious hatred of females that is usually a lot more subtle in modern film, there was nothing original about Darklight.
This is an interesting left turn for Reel 13 Indies. TWO HARBORS is a B&W 75 minute film from Minnesota that features non-actors and is about two people finding a connection through a search for alien life. I applaud the boldness of the Reel 13 programmers of thinking out-of-the-box when selecting this film. I just wish they had picked a stronger film to be bold with. As a matter of fact, I wonder if the choice had more to do with the uniqueness of the film than with the actual quality of the film itself (Not that TWO HARBORS is completely without merit, but I'll get to that a little later). <br /><br />As is common with independent films, TWO HARBORS is limited in terms of location. There are only two real locations – a large junk dealership market and a very teeny trailer, which is the home of the middle-aged main character, Vic, played by Alex Cole. Writer/director James Vculek uses the market setting to provide exposition about Vic, who is one of the dealers there. He has various people walk up to Vic and start very long conversations that provides us with just two pieces of information – Vic sells space toys (he prefers to call them "outer space action figures") and he is a caustic asshole. This is emblematic of one of the two key problems with TWO HARBORS - all the chatting. I've said it before and I'll say it again – we are dealing with a visual medium and filmmakers need to work harder to tell their stories visually. There are exceptions, of course, but generally, endless patter is not so engaging on film – particularly if the dialogue is being used as exposition. Pretty much all the conversations in the film are long and unnecessarily verbose. A notable example would be a few scenes which feature Vic trying to play himself off as a Boy Scout leader in order to get a discount at a store. He argues with the clerk back and forth and these scenes don't even advance the plot one iota. This is the kind of thing that makes even a 75 minute film feel long.<br /><br />The other problem with TWO HARBORS is the acting. I may be a bit of a curmudgeon when it comes to performance in film, but I really don't feel like there's a good excuse for not having good actors in your films. There are plenty of good actors out there, many of which willing to work on low-budget projects – even in Minnesota. Many filmmakers eschew the importance of acting ability as being secondary to their visuals, but that is naïve. In narrative film-making, next to the story, nothing is more important than the acting/performances. If you don't believe the people enacting your story, your audience is lost.<br /><br />Originally, I thought Vculek was using non-actors, but as the film went on, I decided that they were probably community theater-type actors. It wasn't that they were uncomfortable on camera. It's that they were overly theatrical (i.e. big). Granted, the best of the actors were the two leads – Cole and Catherine E. Johnson as Cassie, a lonely young girl that gets caught up in Vic's extra-terrestrial hunt. They seemed to have the most training, but they were still a little rough around the edges. The eccentricities they displayed seemed to be surface only - not coming from a real, organic place within. Ms. Johnson, in particular, is an interesting case. She definitely has a presence – a Midwestern charm about her, but that charisma belies the multitude of issues her character is supposed to have. She struggles to portray the idiosyncrasies that stem from a supposed life of solitude and (slave?) labor, relying on stock gestures like eye rolls, lip biting and stammering to suggest her discomfort with the outside world.<br /><br />I mentioned in the first paragraph that TWO HARBORS is not completely without merit and here's what I mean. Without giving too much away, there is a fade to white an hour into the film. After that, the story takes a stunning turn, which allows the last fifteen minutes to be evocative and downright powerful – it's like a sucker punch to the gut, but in a good way. It's almost a huge relief to feel something after so long with these characters. The last five minutes of the film don't have any dialogue at all and the result is the best part of the film – subtle, detailed (Cole does his best work of the film) and most importantly, cinematic. Then, with the closing credits comes the most staggering revelation of all – that it's based on a true story, which got me to thinking. With all the dialogue, the minimal locations and the lack of cinematic qualities, it occurred to me that with two kick ass actors and a tightening re-write, TWO HARBORS might make a really kick-ass stage play – maybe even a one-act. If there are any bold theater producers out there reading this, I definitely recommend seeing if you can get a hold of the film and contact the filmmaker, Reel 13 or whomever. There might be something to this story after all…<br /><br />(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)
I get it the Diehl character is s'posed to be a microcosm of America itself - seeing Arab terrorists under every rock, only to find out at the end that it's his own actions all along that got him into that siege state and truly if he practices good-will to all men everything will be rainbows and lollipops. Sorry Wim you have made amazing movies in the past that stay neutral of the politics and for good reason, polemics are your weak point and they weaken this a well-made, amazingly filmed movie with absurd characters, dialog and plotting. Better luck on your next flick. Another thing that yanked my crank was the belabored point of the homeless section of LA being there for reasons of hunger, these people don't get enough to eat. Truly these folks aren't eating regally but the real hunger these folks is a spiritual hunger, an emotional hunger, a mental hunger. They need self-respect, self-worth, dignity which you can't give a man. Yeah those folks are hungry and if they need it it is available. Less the center for hunger in America, I would say it's more the center for alcoholism, drug-abuse, mental suffering and economic devastation. Dealing with hunger although a noble endeavor is band-aiding a more profoundly systematic societal and age-old human problem of homelessness. Bill Diehl was good though and Michelle Williams was cute as the young yet (cliched) old soul.
Watching "Der himmel über Berlin" as a teen in the late 80's was a profound experience for me - "so this was what the movies could be". Along with "Paris, Texas" and "Until the End of the World" it still holds a special place in my heart and mind - a testament to the genius of Wim Wenders.<br /><br />Unfortunately later years has seen a steady decline in the quality of his work with "Million Dollar Hotel" and "Land of Plenty" hitting a terrible low point. Gone are the captivating pictures or music. No search for or display of great insight. All that is left are characters and thinly veiled political statements, that boils down to nothing but clichés, and quite frankly mock the intelligence of a mature audience.<br /><br />Has the well run dry? Whatever the reason, it's time for Mr. Wenders to either step it up or stop altogether.
With a tendency to repeat himself, Wenders has been a consistent disappointment ever since he hit it big with 'Paris Texas'.<br /><br />'Land of plenty' is no exception. Taking into the fact that I anticipated an average-mediocre film even before I went in, Wenders' ambitions seem to always get the better of him. It's taken for grated now his films are heavy-handed and bombastic.<br /><br />I weren't sure if I was watching a comedy that mocks Middle America or some thriller. The outcome of Diehl's character is wholly predicable. Wender's insistence on layering many many scenes with some rock song is also intensely annoying. He was covering up the holes in his script and direction by jazzing up the scenes.<br /><br />I am certain that many people will find this film important and resonant but in all honestly, this clumsy and didactic effort only speaks of poor direction.<br /><br />Interesting that Wenders professed that while making 'Paris Texas', he had great help from Sam Sheppard with the script. Yes, that was Wenders' best and he should understand now he needs a good scriptwriter. His films from the past 15 years+ were a total mess.
The End of Violence and certainly the Million Dollar hotel hinted at the idea the Wenders has lost his vision, his ability to tell compelling stories through a map of the moving picture. The Land of Plenty seals the coffin, I'm afraid, by being a vastly unimaginative, obviously sentimental and cliché'd film. The characters are entirely flat and stereotyped, the writing, plot and direction are amateurish, at best. For the first time in quite a while, I was impatient for the film to end so I could get on with my life. The war-torn delirium of the uncle, the patriotic abstract gazing at the sky at the conclusion...it all just struck me as being so simple and pathetic, hardly the work of a filmmaker who once made some compelling magic on screen. What happened? The days of experimentation, perceptive writing and interesting filming possibilities are long behind him, I'm afraid. Let's hope he finds his inspiration again... At the Toronto film festival, which is where I saw the film, Wenders was there to introduce it. Completely lacking in humility, he offered us the following: "I hope...no, wait...I KNOW you're going to enjoy the next two hours." I'm afraid he couldn't be more wrong...
i can't believe i actually watched this but i guess i just wanted to know if this movie would get unintentionally funnier and funnier towards the end. and it did. the climax was the poorest performance ever given by the defence lawyer - so out of real life that even for a fictional story it was far too weird. no way anyone on this planet can behave in front of a court like she did. and probably the worst prosecutor on earth. why was he in court anyway? he did nothing and absolutely nothing to prove her guilty. a simple search of her house would have resulted in the find of the rings. but no go. he preferred to say "objection" 2 or 3 times during the whole trial - that was it. the blonde lunatic was given a truth-drug to prove her innocent but not Brett. the lunatic almost had an altar of Brett in her home that could have proved her sick obsession. but again no go. during the court scene i felt the silent urge to take the needlepoint out of her hand and bang it several times against her head. even real weirdos do not look that silly fake "i am innocent" like she did. and what does this movie tell us? never marry a woman with a life insurance: as soon as she falls down the stairs her husband will be thrown into jail, guilty or not. evil, evil men.
.... may seem far fetched.... but there really was a real life story.. of a man who had an affair with a woman, who found out where he and his new wife were staying,, and she killed the wife,, making it look like a murder rape.......<br /><br />in her delusion she had told everyone that the man had asked her to marry him.. so she quit her job in Wisconsin... and moved to Minnesota..........<br /><br />last I heard she was in a mental institution, Security Prison....<br /><br />she was still wearing the "engagement ring." that she has purchased for herself... and had told everyone that he had bought it for her.<br /><br />The events took place in a small town in Wisconsin,,,,,,, and the murder happened in Minnesota......<br /><br />There even was a feature story in "People" magazine... Spring of 1988, I want to say on Page 39. I remember this as I was in college at the time,, and a colleague of mine had met the individual in the Security Hospital....
I couldn't believe this terrible movie was actually made at all. With the worst actors you could find, the worst script written (Mark Frost & Sollace Mitchell) and by far the worst waste of time in viewing. I won't belabor the story as it's really not worth it. But I will elaborate on some of the performances and definitely the story. As to the story, it is very hard to believe that this bitty crazy schemer could actually do what she did. That in reality the wife couldn't defend herself against a little bitty of a thing. That the husband could actually find the nut case attractive at all. That the defense attorney could break every court rule there was and keep on doing it after the judge ordered the blankety blank to shut up. And the final result of the film is an insult to justice, movie codes, and the male species. The theme of this mess is let women do as they wish, kill whom they want, defend the killer and get away with it, while the guy rots in jail the innocent victim. Hard to believe that Sollace Mitchell, the director and a man, would even want to make this dribble.<br /><br />As to the acting: Jordan Ladd, the killer, is awful. A loony toons, who does needlepoint during her murder trial (is this allowed in court?) She bored me to the hilt. One more look of her batting her eyes and indicating how innocent she was and I'd throw up. She's not even attractive enough for any guy to leave his wife. The husband, played on one level by Vincent Spano, just seems to look and act stupid most of the time. He was so predictable in his performance falling into the traps set for him by all the women surrounding him. The worst by far was Holland Taylor as the Defense Attourney. She over acted throughout the film and made a mockery of justice. If she would cross examine me anytime, I'd have told her to go take a hike. Everybody else in this sleazy film did their job as directed to do so.<br /><br />I wish I could give this film a zero rating. However we are forced to start with 1. Too bad. Let's not have anymore painful watching films like this. Lifetime can do better then this, I know it.<br /><br />This is a postscript: Made the mistake of turning this insipid movie on by mistake. As soon as I saw the bimbo Jordan Ladd I knew I'd seen it before and didn't like it or her. I not only turned the darn thing off but had to add my anger at people like Sollace Mitchell who wrote the screenplay but also directed this horrible flick. Doesen't anyone see that her/his message is that sickness pays. Being ill and going around killing people is okay with this director/writer. Totally making the male species idiots. Well, this male tells you to go stuff it somewhere painful. We're not all that stupid and will speak out to your so called movie, which in this person's mind deserves to be trashed.<br /><br />And again this loser is shown. Why???? Can't you read the comments on this stupid and despicable movie? Are we constantly subjected to see the bimbo Jordan Ladd again and again? Get her off TV, films and out of sight. She's just terrible in every sense of the word. Phew!!!!
Jesus Christ, I can't believe I've wasted my time watching this movie. I only watched because I have such a crush on Jordan Ladd. But watching this film almost put me off her. This is absolutely awful! I could have been watching Survivor Series 93 over this.<br /><br />The lead guy in this was so bland and generic. I would love it if the great Mistuharu Misawa Tiger Drove '91'd his ass through a glass window. I was enraging every time he was saying "lake" and "cabin". I'd kick his ass.<br /><br />Jordan Ladd, on the other hand, was absolutely wonderful. A true angel. But she couldn't even save this utter joke of a film. Sadly, she couldn't even act like she was off her nut when she took that truth drug. It looked hilarious.<br /><br />I also loved the bit where Jordan accidentally spilled yogurt on her. It reminded me of a time where...nevermind.<br /><br />Anayways, do watch this film because of it's awfulness.
If this movie was written directed and produced with the intention of creating a bad movie cult classic, it might (i say might) have been a hit. Have you ever sat and watched a movie that was so absolutely awful that it becomes fascinating in terms of its faults? Well this is it. Every one of the acting cast should be nominated for worst acting performance awards. It would be hard to find another film, with this kind of production budget, that contains so little of any value whatsoever. The whole thing, from the opening scenes defies logic. Dialogue is completely unbelievable and illogical. Ditto for the behaviour and general storyline of the film itself. What is really mind boggling, is that some buffoons in a boardroom actually made decisions to spend money on this piece of trash. Wow.
You know how everyone jokes about the acting in porno movies? Well if you've always found the plot line of a porn to captivate your interest, then this movie is for you. It truly was like a porn without the sex. Or if that analogy is not to your liking, imagine you and your drunk roommate found a movie camera abandoned on a park bench. This is the movie that you would make. -Horrible acting -bad camera work -Music done on a casio keyboard This movie has it all, and more. For those who are masochists in the crowd, this is a premiere piece for your collection. <br /><br />All I can figure is that the only people to submit reviews for this dripping pile of movie, were people who 'starred' in it. <br /><br />Their movie career is over before it started.
Feeding The Masses was just another movie trying to make a little money off of the zombie craze that is going around, mostly due to the popularity of movies such as Land Of The Dead and the Resident Evil series.<br /><br />It starts at a television station, which is guarded by the military, and are reporting that The Lazarus Virus (zombies) are close to containment and the city will soon be free to do their business again. The problem is, this is totally false. Zombies are running rampantly and only a small minority of people are aware. Among them are Torch (William Garberina), the camera man, Sherry (Rachael Morris), the lead anchor woman (who for some reason is listed as playing Shelly on this website) and Roger (Patrick Cohen), their military escort. Torch and Sherry are against lying to the people but the station is being run by secret service (or some other government agency) and they are heavily censored.<br /><br />This movie gives itself a pat on the back on the box-cover saying "We hold FEEDING THE MASSES on a higher level than any o the three 'of the Dead' films by George A. Rombero." The source of that quote has lost ALL credibility with me.<br /><br />Let me just say that this movie is BAD. I don't mean bad like I was expecting more (I obviously was, though) but I mean bad in that I could not find any redeeming qualities in the film, whatsoever. The acting in all parts are either over done or too wooden. Did anybody remember their lines or are they reading off of cue cards? I can't even think of what the best part of the movie was or the best actor/actress. There really was not one. If I had to give a nod to someone, I would say Roger, the military escort was probably the most interesting character but that is really not saying much.<br /><br />I would have to recommend to pass on this movie, despite the box-cover looking pretty good (It's what originally drew me to the movie). 3/10
Some news reporters and their military escorts try to tell the truth about a epidemic of zombies, despite the 'government controlling the media'. The makings of the film don't understand that the George Romero zombie films only worked because he kept his politics subtly in the background of most of his films ("Land of the Dead" withstanding). This satire is about as subtle as a brick to the face or a bullet to the head is more apropos for this scenario. What's subversive or subtle about seeing a military guy masturbating to death and destruction? Anything nuanced about the various commercials that are inter-cut with the film? Nope. Furthermore the acting is uniformly horrible, the characters thoroughly unlikable, and the plot inane. Add this all up and you have the worst, most incompetent zombie film since, "C.H.U.D. 2" reared it's hideous head.<br /><br />My Grade: D
this is quite possibly the worst acting i have ever seen in a movie... ever. and what is up with the casting. the leading lady in this movie has some kind of nose dis-figuration and is almost impossible to look at for any period of time without becoming fixated on her nose. you could go to your local grocery store on a Sunday afternoon and easily find 50 more qualified, better looking possible leading ladies. i made the unfortunate mistake of renting this movie because it had a "cool" DVD case. This movie looks like it is just some class project for a group of multimedia students at a local technical college. i would rather have spent the hour or so that this movie was on watching public access television... at least the special effects are better and the people on there are more attractive than anyone you will see in this film
Feeding the Masses is just one of many recent mediocre zombie movies to be after your hard-earned dollars. Suggestion? Keep your hard-earned dollars and let's just say that good old TheatreX took one for the team on this one. Guess what the plots about? Zombies taking over. This time though, for the sake of originality (?) this film takes place in Rhode Island, and to be honest I'm not sure I've ever seen a zombie flick based in Rhode Island. A TV station, controlled by the government, is supposedly keeping up "normal" broadcasts so that any remaining citizens won't think that there's any problem in the world, that is, those that never look or go outside, anyway. I will say though that a few of the commercials broadcast by this station were probably the most amusing part of this film. There is actually somewhat of a story to this but I'm not bothering with that because after a while you'll either not care or have fallen asleep. At any rate, this has plenty of terrible acting to throw on top off all the "seen it all before" stuff that gets trotted out before the camera. Trust me, you can find plenty of other things to do with your time than watch this. 3 out of 10.
Set in Providence, Rhode Island, Feeding the Masses tries to be a satiric look at the role of the media in government. At best, it could be applied to how the US try to control media during the Iraq War, but it ends up feeling hollow. There's never any really tension in the story and the acting never very good. Worst, the direction of the movie is atrocious, focus more on odd camera angles that fail to convey anything beyond "Isn't this an odd way to hold the camera." Special effects are pretty bad...at one point video of an explosion is green screened over the city, and it's laughable at best.<br /><br />The film does have a couple bright spots...namely the advertisements for post-zombie services (including a reclamation service and a party bus). But it's far too little to make the film worthwhile.<br /><br />For a better zombie film, try Hide and Creep. It has the same weak production value, but there's much more wit, humor and talent behind it.
Honestly, who in God's name gave this movie an 8.1 rating?? I guess the people who actually made or starred in the movie were the ones who voted. Otherwise this movie sucks! This movie is nothing more than an amateur, or possibly student, film. I'm a movie fanatic, and have seen terrible movies, but there was literally nothing redeeming here. The story and acting was the worst I've ever seen. The props, including the use of toy airsoft guns with terrible special effects, where just as bad as everything else. I'm all for bad language in movies, but the F-Bomb was dropped about every third word and I think we might have a winner for the most use of the F-Bomb in any movie EVER. The movie also appears to have been filmed using cheap video cameras and not actual film. I'd expect this to get awards for an amateur movie shown only on public access stations around the country, but it doesn't belong on a DVD.<br /><br />Do not buy this movie. Do not rent this movie. All I can say was that this was a terrible waste of a free movie rental coupon. This is valuable time that you will NEVER get back. Unfortunately for me, that time is lost, but it's not too late for you. If you decide to rent this movie, consider this my warning.
This is perhaps the worst attempt at a Zombie film I have ever had the misfortune to see. Terrible, terrible, terrible. Any review found on this site is obviously the work of either the filmmaker, the filmmakers family, or a friend of the filmmaker. How does this film suck? Let us count the ways...<br /><br />The plot? Incoherent. Dialogue? Atrocious. I will not slam the effects/gore, as I understand that this is low budget. But was there even one zombie that was not obese? C'mon! And for a film set in Rhode Island, why did that truck sport a Massachusetts plate? Continuity, find some.<br /><br />The Girl dancing while the soldier "Stands at attention". Please, don't put your ex-girlfriend or buddy's sister in your movie naked. This was an ugly movie filled with ugly people, and has no business even mentioning Romero on the cover. Next time you decide to make a movie, don't.
This apocalyptic zombie film tries to be vicious and shocking; but FEEDING THE MASSES comes off lame as some of the stiff-legged zombies stalking the streets. In Rhode Island, a zombie epidemic known as the Lazarus Virus is being played down by the government manipulated newspapers and television stations. A couple of brave, but dumb, souls at Channel 5 TV News feels its audience is being given false hope and no idea of the real danger at hand. An eager reporter(Racheal Morris)and her cameraman(William Garberina), with the aid of a military escort(Patrick Cohen), risk life and limb to present a 'live' broadcast to show the doom at hand. Do yourself a favor and don't watch. This thing is obviously very low budget and comes across with the feel of a high school play gone bad. Acting is atrocious and the flesh-hungry zombies are almost comical. Also appearing are: Michael Propster, William DeCoff and Brenda Hogan. FEEDING THE MASSES should be left to starve.
As you may have gathered from the title, I wholeheartedly believe this movie to be the worst zombie movie of all time. The acting, camera-work, writing, special effects and anything else remotely related to this movie sucked. People have argued that while this movie is terribly-acted and terribly-produced but it comes through with a witty intelligent script. Wow. The plot has more holes than I or anyone else could possibly count. For starters, why would the government tell everyone to go back to work when it's not safe? I know the government's supposed to be evil but they don't gain anything by killing the entire population of the country. There wouldn't be anyone to govern! Another thing that I was wondering about, even if the government told everyone to go to work, why would people go if the streets were swarming with zombies? Were the zombies going to hide in the bushes and ambush the unsuspecting people in order to aid the government in their plot to kill everyone on the planet? And how about the ending? That stupid Torch guy sacrifices his life in order to get a few close up shots of the zombies. He probably forgot that every camera made in the last 35 years has a zoom feature. And another thing, why does he say Hindenburg before he dies. The Hindenburg was a rare event seen by a very few people. The zombie menace will been seen by everyone in the country, possibly the world. He doesn't think anyone else will get a few snapshots? They also managed to ruin the only semi-interesting scene in the film when the soldier is watching the exotic dancer. Why did the zombie hide behind a curtain for five minutes before attacking the girl? Especially when the zombie could have come through the DOOR. It's probably just something an unintelligent zombie movie fan such as myself wouldn't understand. Every day I pray that God with increase my brain capacity long enough for me to figure out all the subtle nuances in Feeding the Masses.<br /><br />Anywho, I think it's interesting that this is the first movie that gave me the desire to physically hurt the people involved in the production. Hey Trent Haaga, I'm calling you out!
Although nothing can compare to Vampires Vs. Zombies...in any realm of film making i will attempt to judge this movie.<br /><br />Firstly, the special effects were breath-taking. When there was an explosion on the television screen i thought my entire house was going to explode, and when automatic machine guns were fired i thought the shells were landing on the floor right next to me. Simply stunning my friends.<br /><br />But the scene when the Jack Black sound-a-like is giving the worst monologue i have ever heard i nearly killed myself, but don't worry since he was getting blazed in the movie he can pass his awful acting off on "I must be high". Seriously, he must have watched himself mindlessly babbling about non-congruent thoughts that make absolutely no sense and just added that he must be "high" to justify his awful acting. Well if you can say that to excuse terrible acting then if you talked to the writers, directors, executive producers, sponsors you will probably get the same response...seriously.<br /><br />With a production team called "Shock-o-rama" i was shocked i didn't place a sawed-off shotgun in my mouth and ended my life after this shockingly terrible excuse for a movie was played.<br /><br />If you want to see this movie, then you should be murdered <br /><br />Yours Truly,<br /><br />The General
First, a little summary. This reporter named Torch is basically trying to get out the story of a zombie outbreak and finds the military & government censoring him. Nice message, government censorship and all that, but the way they DID the movie was, well let me explain.<br /><br />This movie is beyond description. The idea that somebody holds it in higher regard than anything by George Romero is justification enough for the reviewer to be committed to a mental institution. The script is atrocious on its own, like it was written by a sixth grader.As for special effects, I understand that independent films have low budgets, and some gore effects looked acceptable, but if you want a scene with fire, here's a tip: buy some nonflammable material, have an extinguisher ready, and get a fire going! Don't digitally add it in and make it look like an explosion from a Nintendo 64 game. The acting, well let's put it this way. In my summer theater program, a cold reading of the script is, compared to this, The Godfather. I won't even go into the inconsistencies. Find them yourself.<br /><br />What disturbed me the most, though, was when everything was finished after shooting and editing, somebody might have said, "Okay, this looks good. Let's release it." It sends a chill down my spine to even think about it, to think somebody felt that this was good enough for DVD release. This isn't DVD quality. This isn't Sci-Fi channel quality. Hell, this isn't even film school quality. If you were to submit this in for a project at a film school, you would get an F. No, not even an F, more like an F-. I wouldn't be surprised if he would try to get you expelled.<br /><br />I felt used after I saw this thing. Blockbuster and the makers of this movie have my money right now, and I'd prefer not to think of what they're doing with it. I have been the pawn of some elaborate, nefarious scheme at legalized theft, and it doesn't feel good to think that I walked right into it, looking at the back cover with pleasant memories of 28 Days Later only to find a film Ed Wood would watch and say afterwards, "I didn't much care for this." This film is the single most terrible movie I have seen. I have not seen anything by Ed Wood, but I have confidence this is worse. If you are looking for serious cinema, so much as being within ten feet of it will probably give you a bad headache. If not, I still recommend that you personally write the director and ask how he sleeps at night. However, if you are the kind of person who get a laugh out of really bad stuff then I recommend you check this out. You won't be disappointed.
Please, for the love of God, don't watch it. Now saying that, I know what you're thinking, it can't be that bad can it? If everyone says it as bad as they say, I have to watch it! Don't do it! It'll be like looking at a horrible accident involving little babies and a gasoline tanker! You'll be scarred for life...the image will never leave you! I could only watch a half hour of this before becoming violently sick. The acting is the worst I've ever seen, and I've seen Barbwire!!! If you do risk ripping your eyes out and rent this movie...don't say I haven't warned you! The cover and storyline are a trap!! Zombies? Satire? Shaun of the Dead was great! This movie must be the same....right? NO!! The writing = crap directing = garbage acting = there was no acting. Still not convinced? Then forever your soul will be tormented!!!
...because 99 out of 100 times, the producers lied through their teeth (or someone else's) to get you to rent or buy their *mercifully censored*.<br /><br />Shock-O-Rama Cinema proves the truth of this yet one more time with the release of "Feeding the Masses," a possibly well-intentioned but utterly inept and dismal entry into the zombie genre. Folks, this is not only low-budget film-making, this is VERY low-budget film-making by a bunch of people who--I'm sorry, I know they have families who love them--will never, ever be in Variety in any significant fashion. This is one baaaaaaaaaad mooin' pitcher, folks, and not just because it's cheap.<br /><br />The acting is mediocre, but I don't blame the actors; they had no direction. They had no direction because the script was a half-baked zombie fantasy with no sense of real cinematic storytelling. Characterization is thin at best, no thanks to weak dialogue and soporific direction. Have I mentioned yet that the script and the direction are pretty lame? They are. There's no drama, no tension, no great character moments, nothing. The whole premise of government suppression of the media is squandered on sophomoric "commercial breaks" and an undramatic storyline that defies rational analysis and awkwardly shambles to its ridiculous finish. Syd Fields would not be pleased.<br /><br />How could the government suppress the truth of a virulent zombie epidemic when the reality of it would be apparent everywhere? Why would they give it more than a cursory try? In this day and age of cellphone cameras with wireless access, what could they possibly hope to accomplish for more than a day or so at best? Now, if they were covering something up, like their own culpability....but "Feeding the Masses" never explores such possibilities. Instead, it dwells on absurdity and poorly staged events to dig for laughs and/or significance, praying its audience won't notice the near total lack of production value beyond basic film-making equipment. Did anyone in this film get paid? I hope the actors did, if only for their time wasted on career blind alleys like this one; at least the techies got to rack up some legitimate work experience.<br /><br />Even zombie fans will find little to gain from "Feeding the Masses." The gore is remarkably tame for no-budgeters of its rank, and there are no distinctive set pieces or memorable effects. They're all eminently forgettable, in fact. KNB has nothing to fear.<br /><br />Even junk like the Aussie stillbirth "Undead" was miles ahead of "Feeding the Masses." Sorry, guys, back to the drawing boards, and take your deceptive marketing with you.
Mimicking its long title the movie finds ways to come close to the 90' mark. The beautiful sets are here with all that made the Hamer production values a trademark, yet Paris drowned in the fog is a sign of indolent neglect. The story is obvious and can be summed up in a dozen words so there comes nothing unexpected and nothing worth more than 5% of your attention to be expected.<br /><br />The directing is heavy as a direct transfer from the stage play, actors are mostly stiff as wax figures (ok this is a Hamer feature, only it's sometimes better featured in the whole package). My conclusion: this movie is trash, not worth the time I spend that evening. Eternal life is a boring matter and I should have hoped the guys in charge of programming at the Cinemathèque would have known better.
I remember when this came out a lot of kids were nuts about it. I guess I was a bit too old to get all excited and I was a fan of real martial arts films and always found this a bit cheesy.<br /><br />In the early 90's we were swamped with programs such as this making kids feel like they could fight and be a power ranger or an equal to these kids on 3 Ninjas. I think eventually parents and film makers alike got sick of it because all we had in reality was abunch of kids going around punching and hitting everyone.<br /><br />Many kids movies have some big point they're trying to make and its nice for your kids to watch and get the message, this one doesn't have any message at all...it just exploits a million difference things in less than 90 minutes.<br /><br />The movie has no great visual qualities but would one expect it to? The acting is pretty bad. Victor Wong is a cool actor but it was embarrassing to see him here.. The short, fat, gimped eyed old fart as a powerful ninja that was just hilarious. The kids over acted way too much and the youngest ninja Tum Tum was maybe the worst kid actor I have ever seen.<br /><br />The movie has a plot that anyone knows before they even read the review. 3 ninjas...yea you know they're gonna fight a bunch of bad guys and win obviously... Need I say more. Sorry if I spoiled it for anyone.<br /><br />With all that said KIDS WILL LOVE IT. This movie is aimed at kids and only children could enjoy it. If you don't mind your kid seeing movies about kids fighting this is a good movie to let them see. If you don't mind allowing your children to see complete garbage that has nothing to do with real martial arts, real acting or reality period then you have found a movie for your kids... I say kids because I think even the girls will like it... I recall all the girls having a crush on Rocky.<br /><br />2 out of 10 stars because I think you can make a movie for kids and still make it enjoyable for adults..this movie failed big time at that.. It is beyond cheesy and nothing original or unique and I would not allow a child of mine to watch it... Kung Fu the TV series is on DVD and there's tons of great Shaw Brothers films out there...Why not show your children things that will really entertain them and not make them dumb along the way, perhaps even teach them some moves and not just how to kick a man between the legs as grandpa did on 3 Ninjas...no no no...never kick a man between the legs ...never .. thats so unninja like.
Serious HOME ALONE/KARATE KID knock off with enough bad character stereotypes to have the writer sued and then shot. You could see blatant stunt man usage in almost every scene. Oh, and the acting sucks too. Although I must say that the line: "Sorry, dude, I have to take a major dump big time" made me laugh my ass off.
Oh my god! This movie insults the intelligence of everybody. I mean really, who thinks three kids can fight 30 to 40 ninjas and win. Not to mention the brainless humor thrown in. This film is baaaaaaaaaaaaaad. The movie is an omen, the only thing it's good for is a time killer or unintentional laughs.
I saw this movie on t.v. this afternoon and I can't see how anyone can sit through this piece of trash. It's not funny at all and it takes your I.Q. down a few notches. I know this movie is for kids, but that doesn't mean the writers should take their intelligence for granted. I bet that writers were sitting around a large wooden table and figured that a) The word "poop" equals big laugh. b) A four foot tall kid can dunk on a ten foot tall basketball net. c) Kids should always fight kidnappers armed with guns because the kidnappers will fall for anything and d) 3 months of karate training is all you need to beat up so-called "ninjas" with swords. One good thing I can say about this movie is it contains the weakest suburban "gang" in the world that couldn't scare anybody. Maybe the guys at MST3K could use this movie for a good laugh. Don't bother with this lame-ass excuse for a movie.
Although it has been 2 years, I still remember the complete waste that comprises the entire plot of the movie. Unfortunately, I came across this movie after my friends and I selected it while browsing through the new releases at Blockbuster. We decided to pick the movie because it was the only one we all had not seen and it sounded like it may be enjoyable. Although it has been quite some time since I viewed the movie, I still remember the lack of plot (seriously, there is no true plot), and complete waste of time that was spent watching the movie. If you are in the video store and this film catches your eye, walk on and find a better movie. If you did end up seeing this movie, I understand your pain :)
On the face of it, this should be a great film, a great cast, a plot with many possibilities and one of Hollywood's finest behind the camera for the first time.<br /><br />However, its clear why it was another 8 years before spacey decided to try directing a movie again. This movie fails on so many levels. In a film where there is not much action and most of the scenes are shot in a couple of locations, it is imperative that suspense and continuity are provided by the director. Not so here, the great cast is horribly under-used, none more so than the great, late John Spencer, the plot is so run of the mill and nothing you haven't seen in a hundred other TV movies. There is so little character development you end up not caring for any of the protagonists. At least we know spacey has a lot of mates and clout in Hollywood studios to get away with a poor flick like this
by Dane Youssef<br /><br />A gang of crooks. The perfect plan. It all goes wrong. They're in trouble. The police are outside. They're cornered. What are they gonna do now?<br /><br />Sound familiar?<br /><br />The movie seems like it's trying to be a combination of the acting workshop, the "indie" film and the theater.<br /><br />It's the kind of things that actors love--it's kind of like a workshop or a play because it mostly consists of tight focusing on the actors acting... acting angry, tense, scared, conversing, scheming, planning--giving the performers a lot of free range to really ham it all up.<br /><br />A trio of crooks, one leader, one goon, one brother, come up with a big heist scheme... and a monkey wrench is thrown into the works. To top things off, there's a bit of a "fender-bender" and one of the crooks in flung through the back of the windshield.<br /><br />The cops are on their tail and they stumble into a bar named poetically (and leadenly) "Dino's Last Chance."<br /><br />Spacey, as a director, tries to keep the focus on the actors' performances and delivery of dialouge. He pans over to a bright passion-red cigarette ad of a smoking and smoldering Bogart. And he keeps all the violence off-screen, really.<br /><br />I think that was a mistake. Focusing on the intensity and gruesome violent scenes would have given the movie some edge.<br /><br />The problem with the movie is that it moves too slow and suffers from miscasting in almost every role. Matt Dillon ("Drugstore Cowboy" and "Wild Things") seems too young and too idealistic to be the leader of this gang.<br /><br />Gary Sinese seems to brooding and deep in thought to be a spineless tag-along with these guys and Joe Mantaga is effective as the traditional routine foul-swearing mad-dog police lieutenant who's all thumbs, but he isn't given anything to really do here.<br /><br />William Fischter is the only actor who is believable in his role as a brainless grunt who just wants to spill blood.<br /><br />And the crooks are in a tense situation where they either go to jail or they try to think of some way out of this.<br /><br />Spacey lacks the ability to create a lot of tension and keep it going. The characters are mostly chatting away, trying to think of a plan... and they're to calm and too articulate. There's even a scene where the crooks are playing pool with a whole swarm of armed cops right outside, ready to strike. At one point, one of the crooks even call the police who are right outside the bar. Oh brother. Oh bother.<br /><br />These cops are going to either blow them away or going to lock them up. Shouldn't the holed-up crooks be a little scared, a little uneasy? Meanwhile, all the real action is happening inside.<br /><br />Someone whips out a gun, a baseball bat, which leads to an ugly confrontation off-screen and there's one more casualty that happens that's... well, kinda sad. But...<br /><br />Faye Dunaway also should have spent more time with a dialect coach, improving on her New Orleans accent. Skeet Ullrich is fine in a smaller part.<br /><br />A cop listening in reaches for a pack of matches at the absolute worst time is a nice look. And so is a scene where someone goes right through the rear windshield. <br /><br />The dialouge is obviously trying to go for a David Mamet approach and it's as profane, but never as realistic or as insightful.<br /><br />The movie feels like too much of what it really is... a really low-budget movie with an actor behind the camera for the first time directing other actors from a script that's "not bad, but needs a few more re-writes." Spacey shows he's not a terrible director, but he lacks a sort of feel for "shaping a movie" and it feels like he's just filming actors act.<br /><br />These actors are all talented and could work with the material, but they all feel out of place. As I said before, the movie really suffers from miscasting. <br /><br />I don't mean that the wrong actors were cast. I think they found just the right cast, but placed them in all the wrong roles. I think switching some of the roles would've helped immensely.<br /><br />Having veteran mob actor Joe Mantagna play the leader of the pack, Gary Sinese as the angry police lieutenant outside on his bullhorn giving orders and barking at his troops, keeping Fischter in his "bloodthirsty goon" part and Matt Dillion as the sacrificial lamb. That would have been a big improvement.<br /><br />When some actors direct, it works. They can even win Oscars for it. But a lot of the time, when actors direct, they have a tendency to just focus on the performances. Just shoot the actors acting.<br /><br />Sometimes it works... but they need a good showcase for it. An excuse for it.<br /><br />Hostage situations are all pretty much the same in real life just like coming-of-age stories so it's only natural that movies about them will go from point A to point B as well.<br /><br />There are a few really great entries into this genre.' Spacey himself appeared in a similar movie about hostage situations: "The Negotiator."<br /><br />This certainly won't become a cult classic, let alone one of AFI's 100. Still, it does have a few nice moments and personal touches, but in the end, it's instantly forgettable and the kind of movie that would play best on regular TV. It's just not worth going out of your way to see.<br /><br />I give a 3 out of 10. <br /><br />Spacey's other directorial credit, "Beyond The Sea" was reportedly a better effort. Hmmm... maybe it's true. You need to fail before you succeed.<br /><br />by Dane Youssef
A trio of low-life criminals, led by Matt Dillon, botches a late-night burglary. They flee but quickly cross paths with the police who just happen to be in hot pursuit of a terrorist. Of course the police mistake the burglar gang for the terrorist, the real terrorist gets away, and the burglars are forced to take refuge in a small dive of a bar, taking hostages, unaware why the police are so intent on catching them. And guess who else has picked the bar as a sanctuary for the night?<br /><br />Unbelievable? Absolutely. And it goes down hill from there. Spacey did acquire a good bit of acting talent; Matt Dillon, Faye Dunaway, Gary Sinise, Viggo Mortensen, and M. Emmett Walsh, but they're all wasted. Mostly because after all the characters get stuck in the bar, all they do for the remainder of the film is argue. Endlessly and aimlessly. Long before the conclusion of the film you've stopped giving a damn about what happens to them.
Kevin Spacey is very talented, but unfortunately directing is not his forte. I had high expectations about the film before I rented it and maybe that is why I disliked it so much. I admire Spacey's attempt at making a film that takes place mostly in one small setting, but it's not the attempt that counts. I found the film dull, boring, and stretched out. The acting was nothing spectacular. Gary Sinise has done much better, especially since he is conscious in most of his other films. Skeet Ulrich was disappointing, but this was one of his first films (I did get a kick out of how young and chubby this Scream star looked). The only thing that impressed me about this film was the one shot of the car wreck from above. The center line of the road was perfectly centered and the camera moved on along the line and past the wreck. However, that shot was very "Usual Suspects"ish and my guess is Spacey got the idea from that earlier film of his (which is very good mind you). If you want to see a fabulous film that takes place in one small setting, watch Hitchcock's Lifeboat. Maybe Spacey should have watched it before filming this.
Massacre is a film directed by Andrea Bianchi (Burial Ground) and produced by legendary Italian horror director Lucio Fulci. Now with this mix of great talent you would think this movie would have been a true gore fest. This could not be further from that. Massacre falls right on its face as being one of the most boring slasher films I have seen come out of Italian cinema. I was actually struggling to stay awake during the film and I have never had that problem with Italian horror films.<br /><br />Massacre starts out with a hooker being slaughtered on the side of the road with an ax. This scene was used in Fulci's Nightmare Concert. This isn't a bad scene and it raises your expectations of the movie as being an ax wielding slaughter. Unfortuanitly, the next hour of the movie is SO boring. The movie goes on to a set of a horror film being filmed and there is a lot of character development during all these scenes but the characters in the movie are so dull and badly acted your interest starts to leak away. The last 30 minutes of the movie aren't so bad but still could have been much better. The gore in the movie was pathetic and since Fulci used most of the gore scenes in Nightmare Concert there was nothing new here. The end of the movie did leave a nice twist but there was still to much unanswered and the continuity falls right through the floor.<br /><br />This wasn't a very good film but for a true Italian horror freak (like myself) this movie is a must have since it is very rare. 4/10 stars
Prior to this film, I had only seen two films by director Andrea Bianchi: the trashy zombie flick Le Notti del Terrore (1981), famous amongst horror fans for its unforgettable performance from man-child Peter Bark, and the enjoyably sleazy giallo Strip Nude For Your Killer. Neither film was a particularly spectacular piece of cinema, but both were entertaining in their own special way (and the fact that they featured plenty of gore and nudity didn't hurt). Massacre, however, is dull, dull, dull, despite quite a bit of splatter and the odd spot of gratuitous bare flesh.<br /><br />The story, about a series of murders in a hotel where the cast and crew of a horror film are residing during their shoot, is confusing and oh-so boring: when the blood isn't flowing and the skin isn't on show, the film is a real struggle to sit through (it took me four attempts to finish), with endless scenes of unlikeable characters bickering among themselves and doing very little of note.<br /><br />The only point of interest about the film is that its producer, Lucio Fulci, used several of its death scenes to pad out his mega-gory movie Cat In The Brain (AKA Nightmare Concert). And if you've already seen that film, then there is very little reason to bother with Massacre.
In case half of this film's footage looks strangely familiar, it means you watch way too much of this gory Italian cult-crap! For you see, the notorious demigod Lucio Fulci did not only produce this movie, he also took the liberty of re-using the most sadistic killing sequences in his own (and more easily traceable) "Cat in the Brain". The opening scene already, in which a prostitute is brutally decapitated with an axe, features in Fulci's later film and so do another handful of killings and sleaze moments. Andrea Bianchi's "Masssacre" fails miserably as a giallo, since the search for the sadistic killer among a movie-crew shooting a horror movie is all but compelling and suspenseful, but it's still good entertainment if you're into cheap 'n shlocky horror trash. The incoherent script introduces a whole bunch of repugnant characters who're all potential maniacs, but none of the red herrings Biachi comes up with are plausible and you can point out the killer almost immediately. Whatever remains to enjoy are the truly misogynous make-up effects and the hilariously awful acting performances of the ensemble cast. Whenever there isn't any bloodshed on screen, like between the first and second murder, "Massacre" is a slow and almost intolerable with its inane dialogs and thoroughly unexciting photography. Thankfully in the second half, there are women getting impaled on fences and males being stabbed repeatedly with rusty spikes. The music is crap and the use of filming locations is very unimaginative. My advise would be to skip this puppy and go straight for the aforementioned "Cat in the Brain". That one features ALL the great moments of "Massacre", and then some.
Sorry Fulci fans, but I could not get through this one. The soundtrack was about as annoying as they come, the acting was puerile, the story has been done and done, and the direction was non-existent. <br /><br />Massacre honestly looked like a children's film project. But I've seen some of those, and they actually look better than this did! It appears to have been so underfunded they couldn't afford ... ANYTHING! Not a DoP, not a director, no one who even remotely had a clue what acting was. It was a very poor cinematic experience; one of my worst.<br /><br />This was about the worst suck-fest I've seen, next to Terror Toons which is second only to Killer Klowns from Outer Space. I've nothing else to say about it.<br /><br />It rates a 0.1/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.
Here again is yet another Diane Lane movie where she cheats on her husband. Is this the only role she knows how to play? This time it's set in 1969 and she cheats on her husband with the blouse man. I am so not surprised because that is so very predictable. Then her husband gets mad and throws the milk. I wouldn't be surprised if she slept with the milkman as well. I wouldn't be surprised if she slept with the ice cream man too because this is a very boring movie. Then after some milk throwing, she says sorry and sees the blouse man again. Duh. Then while she is making it with him, her son gets stung by wasps. My mom always told me not to throw rocks at a wasps nest. This kids mom didn't have time to tell him that, she was too busy with the blouse man.
Why do people who do not know what a particular time in the past was like feel the need to try to define that time for others? Replace Woodstock with the Civil War and the Apollo moon-landing with the Titanic sinking and you've got as realistic a flick as this formulaic soap opera populated entirely by low-life trash. Is this what kids who were too young to be allowed to go to Woodstock and who failed grade school composition do? "I'll show those old meanies, I'll put out my own movie and prove that you don't have to know nuttin about your topic to still make money!" Yeah, we already know that. The one thing watching this film did for me was to give me a little insight into underclass thinking. The next time I see a slut in a bar who looks like Diane Lane, I'm running the other way. It's child abuse to let parents that worthless raise kids. It's audience abuse to simply stick Woodstock and the moonlanding into a flick as if that ipso facto means the film portrays 1969.
Any movie that portrays the hard-working responsible husband as the person who has to change because of bored, cheating wife is an obvious result of 8 years of the Clinton era.<br /><br />It's little wonder that this movie was written by a woman.
Recently, I had opportunity to view a working print in Kansas City (Olathe, KS.) of this title. It is difficult for me, being a lover of the art as I am, to report the following, but, the truth sometimes hurts, and quite frankly after sitting through this tripe (I'm using the slang definition here - worthless statements or writing) for an hour and a half, I feel obligated to share (WARN) any interested parties. Let's begin at the beginning, a good place to start as always. The first 15 minutes are not really that bad, a couple of laughs, and decent development, but then it is downhill from there. This is the story of a woman, in her mid thirties, that (as the writer would like for you to believe) is dissatisfied with her life and unfulfilled. The first major difficulty occurs when if you don't know that fact going into the movie, you won't know it when she suddenly risks it all for, in my opinion, a very unkempt and unlikely fling with a local salesman. There is little development (drastically insufficient development) to justify her actions for the affair she has, and when it occurs, one feels, as I did, that she is just of low moral character. The word "slut" comes to mind, hopefully, they'll let that pass the review and post the comment. This, in my opinion, is the first fatal flaw of the film. If you're married or have ever been in love, irregardless of whether you are male or female, its going to turn you off. Quite frankly, I feel that it would have made a much better "blue movie" - that's the level in my opinion of which the screenplay is deserving. The second fatal flaw is the casting, Diane Lane just didn't work for me here, and Viggo Mortensen is not the right man for the job, believe me. The only saving grace to the entire film is Anna Paquin, the depth of her ability as a fine actress shines in places, conveying a subtle yet very blunt (I apologize for the dichotomy but it is accurate) portrayal of an emerging teen. Bravo, well done. I'm not going to give the ending away, but I was disappointed, being billed as a slice of life romance is one thing... but an ending like that.... Well, if that teased you enough to see this picture, don't say I didn't warn you, but you better look fast - if this celluloid is released, I doubt it goes four weeks before bursting into flames. I'd say wait for the video, but the free sex education tapes at most video rental outlets have more entertainment value. Hmmm, Dustin Hoffman produced this, you think he'd learn after Ishtar. This film once carried the working title "Blouse Man" and should have been left on the rack. If you've never in your life wanted to walk out on a film, give this one 35-40 minutes, the only thing worth staying for is Anna Paquin, if you can stomach the fact that you'll find your mind drifting to whether or not you took out the garbage before you left home, which is probably where you should have stayed in the first place if you're off to the movies to see this one. That's my two cents, for what it is worth.
Seeing as the world snooker championship final finished in a premature and disappointing manner with Ronnie O`Sullivan defeating Greame Dott by 18 frames to 8 BBC 2 found a gap in their schedule and so decided to broadcast A WALK ON THE MOON a movie I had absolutely no knowledge off<br /><br />I missed a few seconds of the title credits so had no idea Viggo Mortensen starred in it and thought possibly it might be a cheap TVM , certainly the opening with the mawkish Pearl and Marty taking their kids to a Summer camp has that sort of made for TV feel though the brightly lit ( Too brightly lit ) cinematography seemed to suggest this was a cinematic film and it wasn`t until the appearence of Viggo Mortensen as hippy guy Walker that I realised this was a cinema release , after all someone of Mortensen`s stature wouldn`t star in a TVM , I mean that`s like a legend like Robert DeNiro appearing in a straight to video film . Wait a minute , didn`t Bob .... ?<br /><br />Some people on this site have mentioned that Pearl and Marty are an unconvincing on-screen couple and I agree . I can understand why Pearl would be attracted to exciting hippy guy but have no idea why Walker would be attracted to plain house wife Pearl . The sixties was before my time but surely if you`ve got the choice between hippy chicks and bored house wives it`s not really a choice at all . Mind you a lot of people took LSD in those days so I guess that explains it<br /><br />I feel the major problem of A WALK ON THE MOON comes down to the fact it`s a romantic drama at heart ( Just like you`d expect in a TVM ) with several cloying coming of age scenes so why include a fairly explicit sex scene ? It jars with the rest of the movie and is possibly off putting to the menopuasal women who were 20 something in 1969 . I say possibly because the movie also seems to aim at a teeenage market with the coming of age scenes and those teenagers will probably be bored with the historical and social context of man walking on the moon and Woodstock . In other words A WALK ON THE MOON tries to attract many types of audience but will probably appeal to none of them
Tony Goldwyn is a good actor who evidently is trying his hand at directing. "A Walk on the Moon" appears to have borrowed from other, better made films. The present story takes place in the late sixties at a summer resort for working class Jews not far from Woodstock. The screen treatment by Pamela Gray doesn't have much going for it, so it's a puzzle why Mr. Goldwyn decided to tackle this film as his first attempt at direction.<br /><br />The Kantrowitz family is spending some time at the resort. We see them arrive at the small bungalow that is going to be their temporary home. Marty, the father, comes only for the week-end; he works in what appears to be a family small appliance business repairing television sets, mostly. In a few days the first man will walk in space, so the excitement is evident.<br /><br />The Kantrowitz women are left behind. Pearl, Marty's wife and her mother-in-law, Lilian, spend idle days in the place until the "blouse salesman" arrives. Pearl goes browsing and she finds much more than a shmatte; she gets the salesman as well. It appears that Pearl and Marty have no sexual life at all. After two children, Pearl, who appears to be sexy and with a high libido is ready for some extra marital fun.<br /><br />That is the basic premise for the film, which becomes a soap opera when the young daughter, Alison, decides to play hooky and go to the Woodstock festival nearby where, horror of horrors, she witnesses her own mom making out with the blouse salesman! What's a girl to do? Well, stay tuned for the grand finale when all the parties are happily reunited by the little son's bedside when he is stung by wasps and the salesman comes to apply some home remedy, and daddy is called from the city, after knowing about Pearl's betrayal with the younger stud.<br /><br />Poor Diane Lane, she went to make "Unfaithful" later on, which is the upscale version of this dud. Viggo Mortensen is the salesman who caters to his lonely female customers whispering little somethings in their ears! Liev Schreiber as Marty, the cuckolded husband, doesn't have much to do. Anna Paquin plays the rebellious Alison and Tovah Feldshuh is the unhappy Nana, who would like to have stayed in the city watching her soap operas instead of witnessing first hand one that is playing in her own backyard!<br /><br />Watch it at your risk, or pop the DVD in the telly when you have a fun crowd at home and you really want to have a laugh, or two dishing the film.
In what could have been an otherwise run of the mill, mediocre film about infidelity in the sixties (the subtle "free-love" period), the creators of this film pile on ridiculous scenario after ridiculous scenario and top it all off with a trite little cherry on top, happily ever after ending. At no time did I ever feel sympathy for Diane Lane or Anna Paquin in their troublesome middle-class care free life, nor did I feel for the emasculated Liev Shrieber. The story line plods along slowly to its predictable, pathetic conclusion and the only thing interesting and watchable about this film is the stunning Diane Lane topless. Here's a hint, it occurs about 30 minutes into the film. Fast forward to that part and skip the rest.
Previous commentator Steve Richmond stated that A Walk On The Moon is, in his words "not worth your $7". I ended up paying a bit more than that to import what is one of the worst-quality DVDs I have yet seen, of this film or any film in existence. Even when you ignore the fact that the DVD is clearly sourced from an interlaced master and just plain nasty to watch in motion, the film has no redeeming qualities (save Anna's presence) to make watching a top quality Blu-Ray transfer worthwhile. Not that this is any fault of the other actors. Liev Schreiber, Diane Lane, Tovah Feldshuh, and Viggo Mortensen all score high on the relative to Anna Paquin acting ability chart. Far more so than Holly Hunter or Sam Neill did in spite of an equally lousy script, anyway. Director Tony Goldwyn's resume is nothing to crow about, but Pamela Gray's resume includes Wes Craven's most dramatic excursions outside of the horror or slasher genre, so one could be forgiven for thinking this is a case of bad direction.<br /><br />As I have indicated already, the sole reason I watched this film is Anna Paquin. In her acting debut, she literally acted veterans of the industry with a minimum of twelve years' experience above hers under the table. While she is not as far ahead of her castmates here, her performance as a girl that starts the piece as a brat and grows into a woman whose world is crashing down around her proves her Oscar was no fluke. For some time I have been stating to friends that she would be the best choice to portray the heroine of my second complete novel, and a dialogue seventy-three minutes into this film is yet another demonstration of why. This woman could literally act the paint off walls. Anna aside, only Liev Schreiber comes close to eliciting any sympathy from an audience. Sure, his character spends the vast majority of the film neglecting a wife with an existential crisis, but he plays the angered reaction of a man who feels cheated brilliantly. I should know, even if it is not from the same circumstances here.<br /><br />Viggo Mortensen also deserves credit for his portrayal of a travelling salesman, although perhaps not to the same extent. In a manner of speaking, he is the villain of the piece, but he successfully gives the character a third dimension. Yes, his actions even after the whole thing explodes are underhanded, but not many men would act any differently in his situation. Nobody wants to be the other man in this kind of messed-up situation, so Viggo deserves a lot of credit for giving it a try here. Unfortunately, these are all participants in a story about a woman who feels trapped in a stagnant marriage where Tovah Feldshuh tells us that the Mills And Boon archetype of women being the only ones who feel life is passing by simply does not exist. Either writer Pamela Gray or director Tony Goldwyn thought they could just put this line into the film without thinking of how the audience might receive it. Anna even gets to speak the mind of the audience when she asks Diane who she is to be lecturing anyone about responsibility.<br /><br />That said, the film does have a couple of things besides Anna going for it. Mason Daring's original music, while not standing out in any way, gives the film a certain feeling of being keyed into the time depicted that helps where the other elements do not. Roger Ebert is right when he points out that while Liev is a great actor, putting him alongside Viggo in the story of a woman forced to choose between her marriage and her fantasy is a big mistake. He is also very correct in that when the film lingers over scenes of Lane and Mortensen skinny-dipping or mounting one another under a waterfall, it loses focus from being a story of a transgression and becomes soft porn. The film seems terminally confused about the position of its story. No matter how many times I rewatch Liev's scenes, I cannot help but feel he has been shortchanged in the direction or editing. One does not have to make their leads particularly handsome or beautiful, but taking steps to make them the most interesting or developed characters in the piece would have gone a long way.<br /><br />Ebert also hits the nail right on the head when he says that every time he saw Anna on the screen, he thought her character was where the real story lay. Stories about the wife feeling neglected and running into the arms of a man who seems interesting or even dangerous are a dime a dozen, to such an extent now that even setting the story in parallel with an event as Earth-shattering as the moon landing will not help. In spite of feeling revulsion at the manner in which her character's story is presented, Anna might as well be walking around with a neon sign above her head asking the audience if they would not prefer to see the whole thing through her eyes. While I am all too aware that it is difficult to control exactly which character your audience will find the most interesting from your cast, it is very much as if they did not bother to try with Lane and Schreiber. Fans of these two would be well advised to look elsewhere. Hopefully by now my ramblings about the respective performances will give some idea of where the whole thing went wrong.<br /><br />I gave A Walk On The Moon a three out of ten. Anna Paquin earns it a bonus point with one of her best performances (and that is saying something).
In 1972, after his wife left to go her own way, Elvis Presley began dating Linda Thompson. Miss Thompson, a good-humored, long haired, lovely, statuesque beauty queen, is charted to fill a void in Elvis' life. When Elvis' divorce became final, Linda was already in place as the legendary performer's live-in girlfriend and travel companion until 1976.<br /><br />This is a gaudy look at their love affair and companionship. Linda whole-heartedly tending to her lover's needs and desires. And even putting up with his swallowing medications by the handful and introducing her to her own love affair with valium. At times this movie is harsh and dark of heart; a very unattractive look at the 'King' and his queen.<br /><br />Don Johnson is absolutely awful as Elvis. Over acting to the hilt is not attractive. Stephanie Zimbalist lacks the classiness of Linda, but does the job pretty well. Supporting cast includes: John Crawford, Ruta Lee, and Rick Lenz. Watching this twice is more than enough for me, but don't let this review stop you from checking it out. For most Elvis fans that I have conferred with, this is not a favored presentation.
You may say to yourself, "Don Johnson as Elvis? Can that work? Is it possible? Seems like an terrible choice to me, but perhaps I should have an open mind. Maybe I'll be surprised. Maybe he can pull it off."<br /><br />NOT!<br /><br />Don Johnson is not a bad actor. But he is an awful Elvis. He's too short, too weak-voiced, too sharply featured ... well you've already imagined how bad he would be. Add to that a hokey black wig and heavy-handed eye-liner and mascara and it's a big fat embarrassing mess.<br /><br />The best I can say is that since Johnson's acting is decent and since his impersonation is so far off, after a while you don't even think of him as Elvis anymore. You see him as some other crazed pop star instead. Then, on that level, the movie becomes watchable.<br /><br />Stephanie Zimbalist is also not ideally cast as the tall, beauty queen, Linda Thompson. But she is attractive in her own right and plays the part with the honesty, elegance and intelligence we've come to expect from all her roles. There may be too much intelligence in her performance. You have to be kind of a dope to stick with a dope abusing dope.<br /><br />There's nothing new to this story; we've heard it many times before. If you've looking for new info or insight, you won't find it. It's told as a love story - an unrequited one: Linda for Elvis and Elvis for drugs.
I'm a Don Johnson fan, but this is undoubtedly the WORST movie, done by anybody, that I've ever seen. The acting was bad, as was the cinematography. Don should stick to doing action, because as The King, he just didn't cut it.
I've been working my way through a collection of Lugosi films recently, and having just been blown away a couple of days ago by the combination of Lugosi and Boris Karloff in "The Black Cat" I was really looking forward to seeing their collaboration in "The Raven." Alas, it just didn't work for me, and by the end of the film I was quite disappointed.<br /><br />For the first three quarters of this movie or so I thought the story lacked any real suspense. Lugosi was doing a pretty good job of holding things together as the somewhat mad Dr. Vollins, some sort of surgical genius who falls in love with a young woman (Irene Ware) he treats after a car accident but who can't have her - partly because she's already engaged, and partly because her father (Samuel S. Hinds) disapproves. To deal with that situation, he enlists the aid of Edmond Bateman (Boris Karloff) - a horribly ugly man who wants Vollins to make him look more acceptable. Aside from Lugosi's performance, though, I found little to hold my interest. Then, suddenly, in the last fifteen or twenty minutes, the movie shifts around completely. Suddenly it becomes quite suspenseful, but I thought Lugosi's performance fell apart, largely because the movie tried to shift him from mad to insane - and there's a difference. He plays the "mad" role very well - controlled and in control but evil. "Insane" is a more out of control evil, and I didn't think Lugosi pulled that off well. At one point, he offers some maniacal laughter which just comes across as fake. In the meantime, Karloff was a huge disappointment. He never grabbed me at all. As an aside, it must have grated on Lugosi that - in movies in which they co-star - Karloff gets the top billing, even though in "The Raven" it's clearly Lugosi who is the lead actor. This surely gives a hint as to how Universal ranked their two great horror stars - inexplicably, I would add, because I've always thought of Lugosi as the better actor of the two.<br /><br />In any event, there's no real connection here to Edgar Allen Poe's story "The Raven" - except that Vollins is a Poe fanatic, who tries to recreate some of the torture techniques from Poe's stories. Overall, a disappointment. 4/10.
The strange people living in a town go about their lives. There's the licker a guy who licks everything, a dumpster diver that finds a body which he takes home to live with him, a crazy girl with a doll dressed like her, a guy who wants to cleanse girls of their wicked ways...offbeat in the extreme, this shot in black and white movie is better with out the color. The monochrome takes the edge off the two steps up from home movie feel. Like a Troma movie, this movie is fun in fits and starts but mostly its weird for weirds sake and soon becomes a crashing bore since one you see the set ups you can kind of guess where its going a lot of the time-not always- but enough for it not to be fun.(Though I didn't see the cleansing coming). Worth a shot if you've nothing else to watch and you're waiting for the next set of Golden Girls to come from Netflix.
Townies is the laziest movie I have ever seen, and I saw the Blair Witch movies (parts one and two). It seems confused in what it wants to be. It's not funny enough for comedy, it's not tragic enough for drama, it's not bloody enough for horror, and it's not good enough for watching. It has scenes of a man doing "slapstick/bloody" karate so I think, oh this movie will be in the vein of Toxic Avenger and Street Trash. Then it leaps without warning into a drama about a missing girl, a retarded (mentally handicap) woman and a trusting mother. Then it slaps itself into the ONLY good part in the movie which seems to be set up like a sitcom without the laugh tracks. The part I'm speaking of is a lonely TOWNIE who is so lonely he finds comfort in a rotting corpse. That was the ONLY part of the movie that gave me ANY feeling. The rest was a waist of my life. Then, just to show how CRUEL Wayne is there is a kind of DOCUMENTARY at the end of the film of Wayne (the Director) making fun of Toby (the star) in public. It made me sick. Even though Killer Nerd and Bride of Killer Nerd (two other movies by Wayne) aren't the best, they at least are thought out enough were you can stay entertained until the ending credits. I even like Killer Nerd a bit, it had some great lines I still use to this day.<br /><br />If you like underground films, if you like overground films, and if you like to watch your feet, just resting were they are, you will not like TOWNIES!<br /><br />*1/2 (out of ****)<br /><br />
I can't believe I wasted my time with this movie. I couldn't even call it a movie. It was so bad with nothing to recommend it. <br /><br />I like low budget movies and weird flicks but this one had me bored to death. Badly made and bad acting ruined it from being curious. You have to wonder what these people were thinking when they spent money to produce this movie. I wonder what I was thinking watching it to the end. I recommend this movie to no one. How did they release this? Was there an audience who likes this kind of movie? There must be because you can find this at almost any video store. But why?<br /><br />Deserves to be forgotten.<br /><br />If you like bad movies then this is for you.
Written by a woman, and directed by another. Whoppie. Are we in for a feminist ride or what. Fasten your seat-belts, ladies, for we are about to enter a world of mean men and innocent, well-intentioned women.<br /><br />In this soaper Trish comes across a guy in the employment agency who behaves, looks, and dresses like a pimp(!) and gives her a job with the hope of nailing her some time later. In his office he even touches her chin the way a megalomaniacal heavy in a Bond movie would a touch a girl just after he's captured her and just before he is ready to kill her alongside with Bond. Some time later the pimp/employment guy stalks Trish in a ladies' dressing-room, harasses her, and even comes close to raping her. Oh, these evil, evil men. They are ALL bad, don't you know. You can't even look for a job nowadays without getting raped, right ladies? Well, we'll show 'em! In this film there is some kind of a divorced women's club or something, headed by a Janet Leigh who speaks for all women involved in this film when she says that "men are all s**t". She moans about how terrible men are; she has been divorced five times. Now, seriously: any woman who marries twenty times and then uses that statistic as an argument that men are all "bad" must have realized eventually that the explanation might lie elsewhere, or? It must occur to her that: a) she is a bad judge of male character, or - much more likely - b) SHE is the one impossible to live with - her ex-husbands were probably the victims, or if they were indeed a**holes then she probably got what she deserved. (Don't the likes of Zsa-Zsa Gabor and Liz Taylor prove this point? Show me a likable woman who got married this often and I'll show you a way to reach the planet Mars using only roller-skates and a ladder.) Trish eventually meets a computer guy who restores her faith in men - but hold your horses; this guy turns out to be married, therefore proving WITHOUT a doubt that men are indeed all "bad". Were it not, of course, for a kindly old vegetable seller around the corner who loves his wife even though she's still dead - proving that all men are "bad" except for kindly old men whose penises don't work and they "can't get none" anyway so they are forced to abandon a life of a**holocolism and finally give women the respect they deserve. Even the supporting male characters are all "bad"; the black guy in the employment agency is unfriendly, and the guy in the mortuary is out-right rude - and insensitive (the bastard, *sob*...*sniffle*…) And what's with this corny, corny ending?... Minutes before court-time Trish abandons the claim to any of her husband's money, realizing that she is now "free" and that she can finally do that jump into the swimming pool...?? What's all that about?? Her jump into the pool is then - very predictably - frame-frozen as the credits start to role in, while life-inspiring I-don't-need-revenge-nor-my-husband's-money music starts kicking in. Her girlfriends are shocked by her abandonment of money claims, but they don't stay shocked for long and soon start kidding each other about what a heart-attack Trish's lawyer will get when he hears about this. The shyster lawyer is naturally a man. An evil, evil, terrible "bad" man, whose only interest in this world is money... Ah, these men; all they care about is money; they know nothing of the higher values in life - like shopping. I am glad we have movies like this; they bring the sexes closer together, but most importantly, they teach girls and young women that men are all horny, selfish, skirt-chasing bastards who will dump you into a world of poverty and misery the first chance they get. So, girls, open your mouths an stick your tongues into your girlfriend's mouths. Lesbian power!
What is most striking about this semi-musical set in 1920s Berlin is the marvelous cinematography and editing. It's top of the line from First National in these departments. The story is mildly engaging and similar to the plots of Miller's other two films (SUNNY, SALLY) where working girl is romanced by rich boy with family disapproval, complications and final clinch. All the four musical numbers are bunched at the beginning of the film and we go for a long stretch without any further musical buoyancy. Miller sings parts of I THINK OF BABY and reprises BECAUSE OF YOU. There are also DON'T EVER BE BLUE and THOUGH YOU'RE NOT THE FIRST ONE.<br /><br />Miller here is very engaging and delightful, quite reminiscent of Irene Dunne in manner and delivery. Sad she does not dance as that is her forte. SALLY remains her finest film, with this trailing as second and the rather poor SUNNY a vastly inferior runner up. Her life was tragically cut short by a sinus infection before the days when hospitals and antibiotics made such tragedies preventable. It's worth visiting these films though to see Ziegfeld's top star of the twenties.
John Boorman's 1998 The General was hailed as a major comeback, though it's hard to see why on the evidence of the film itself. One of three films made that year about famed Northern Irish criminal Martin Cahill (alongside Ordinary Decent Criminal and Vicious Circles), it has an abundance of incident and style (the film was shot in colour but released in b&w Scope in some territories) but makes absolutely no impact and just goes on forever. With a main character who threatens witnesses, car bombs doctors, causes a hundred people to lose their jobs, tries to buy off the sexually abused daughter of one of his gang to keep out of jail and nails one of his own to a snooker table yet still remains a popular local legend an attractive enough personality for his wife to not only approve but actually suggest a ménage a trios with her sister, it needs a charismatic central performance to sell the character and the film. It doesn't get it. Instead, it's lumbered with what may well be Brendan Gleeson's worst and most disinterested performance: he delivers his lines and stands in the right place but there's nothing to suggest either a local hero or the inner workings of a complex character. On the plus side, this helps not to overglamorize a character who is nothing more than an egotistical thug, but it's at odds with a script that seems to be expecting us to love him and his antics.<br /><br />There's a minor section that picks up interest when the IRA whips up a local hate campaign against the 'General' and his men, painting them as 'anti-social' drug dealers purely because Cahill won't share his loot from a robbery with them, but its temporary resolution is so vaguely shot - something to do with Cahill donning a balaclava and joining the protesters which we're expected to find lovably cheeky - that it's just thrown away. Things are more successful in the last third as the pressure mounts and his army falls apart, but by then it's too late to really care. Adrian Dunbar, Maria Doyle Kennedy and the gorgeous Angeline Ball do good work in adoring supporting roles, but Jon Voight's hammy Garda beat cop seems to be there more for American sales than moral balance, overcompensating for Gleeson's comatose non-involvement in what feels like a total misfire. Come back Zardoz, all is forgiven.
Just had to write that one liner, but it really is. I love the gangster genre and this is the weakest entry I've seen in recent years . I have praises for everyone involved in most aspects except the most important one, the script . It is a weak story about a petty criminal. No amount of fine acting or black and white film styling can make up for a total lack of substance. I love Kevin Spacey and I hear he's gonna do another film about the general. My advice is don't waste your time.
Like with any movie genre, there are good gangster movies and there are bad gangster movies. If you asked me to name a good gangster movie, I'd have dozens to choose from. If you asked me to name a bad gangster movie, probably the first one to pop up in my mind is one that still has me in a sort of depression of disappointment about a week since I saw the film for the first and I promise you, the last time. That film is "The General", unrelated to the 1926 silent film of the same name. This is a very dry, very slow gangster epic that raises questions not about the story (it's more than easy to follow) but about why the filmmakers chose to make this rather flimsy endeavor.<br /><br />Like "Goodfellas" (1990) and "American Gangster" (2007)—two superior mob movies—"The General" is based on real people and true events. The film revolves around an Irish criminal named Martin Cahill (Brendan Gleeson) who started his long chain of crimes stealing food as a teenager and then moving up to robbing museums and houses as an adult. Meanwhile, the police led by an inspector named Kenny (Jon Voight) try desperately and vigorously to prove just one of his crimes and convict (or kill) him.<br /><br />Perhaps because it's a film in the same category as the marvelous "Goodfellas" (1990) and the first two "Godfather" films, I was expecting too much from "The General." But that may be going too easy on it. This would have been a bad film had I not seen the aforementioned masterpieces before being swamped by boredom in this oater and its far-too-stretched running time of screaming bad scenes. Let's start knocking the film by just looking at the style in which it is presented. For some reason, director John Boorman and cinematographer Seamus Deasy selected to film this movie in black-and-white while its style and presentation are clearly the elements that belong to a full-fledged color film. Now I have nothing against b/w pictures, not even ones made in modern-day times. "Schindler's List" (1993) was more than ninety percent filmed in black-and-white and it's a masterpiece. "The General", made just five years after "Schindler's List" is not. The cinematography is also far too blown out with high lighting keys that seem very distracting and give the movie a very video-game-like quality that I found simply annoying. The filmmakers were obviously going for a realist's documentary-like style, like "Schindler's List" did, but they fail by making it seem too much like a documentary and at the same time, too much like a classic-style motion picture. Performances in the film range from passable to poor. Brendan Gleeson and Jon Voight gave decent enthusiasm for their roles, but it seemed to me at times that even they were getting kind of run down by the awful screenplay from which they were quoting. The sound design is also very primitive, probably in an attempt to give it a 40s crime-noir appeal, but that also fails because again, it's made too much like a contemporary picture and seems vastly out of place.<br /><br />But the worst thing that occurs is that there's not one—not one—character in the film that I felt any emotions or opinions for. In fact, for every moment of every scene, the only thought going through my head was "okay…so what?" Moments that in a better film might come across as shocking or appalling are just dull and time-consuming here. I did not sympathize or hate the Brendan Gleeson character because the way the Cahill character is written is simply flat and dull. Gleeson just plays the common criminal and does not strike out with the impact the real Martin Cahill obviously did. If a character is killed off (as they always are in gangster films), we feel nothing. No remorse, no relief, no surprise, nothing. We just say "so what?" And that's all I did during the entire running time of this very flimsy, very poorly-made crime film.
A craven, cowardly film. Director Boorman shows Cahill burglarizing rich houses, but the male occupant is shown being unfaithful with the nanny, thats all right then. The forensic scientist investigating Cahill is blown up in his car, but he is rat faced sourpuss, and doesn't look like a nice man, so thats all right too. The Beits, owner of Russborrough House, made their money by exploiting 'darkies' digging up diamonds, so it's okay to rob priceless art from them and hide it in a bunker in the Wicklow mountains. The Garda kill his ferrets and are implicated in his murder. The moral equivalencing is sickening, Boorman looks for a hit film, but doesn't have the guts to stand against the criminality of the generals gang, who terrorized the neighbourhood, and unleashed another wave of scumbags upon Dublin. He even liaised with the Generals son while making it. Disgusting. Shame on him for his cowardice.
This was a disappointing film. The people seem to have no substance, the lead protagonist Martin Cahil has zero redemptive values, in fact everyone in it including Jon Voight epitomizes sleeze. I would not recommend this film to anyone. The violence is distasteful, though artfully done. The filming is to black, at least the print i saw fit this category. A disappointment.
Bill Maher's Religulous is not an attack on organized religion. It's an attack on Christianity and Islam. Apart from ridiculing a bunch of Rabbis inventing warped machines to get around Sabbath regulations, he really doesn't attack Judaism and seems enraged when a Rabbi actually challenges the existence of the State of Israel. If Bill Maher followed his hypothesis to its logical conclusion, he would realize that the very creation of Israel in the Palestinian Territories is based on the so called 'holy books' of organized religion. This is evidence of his complete and utter lack of objectivity or focus in the creation of this film.<br /><br />I find it really hard to believe that the man is atheist or even all that intelligent. Anyone can go up to a religious person and laugh at them and call them stupid for their beliefs but what do you have to offer them in return? Nowhere does he actually tell them why he thinks they're stupid. What makes him the "rational" person in the room? In a way it reflects how he really isn't and in the process ends up looking just as stupid as those people.<br /><br />If you want to watch a good movie/documentary about the actual evils of religion and how religion can actually be detrimental to the human civilization, watch Richard Dawkins' 'Root of All Evil?'. It is a brilliantly researched documentary, clearly outlining what it hopes to achieve and how.<br /><br />Bill Maher's Religulous is not funny, poses no interesting questions nor does it provide any insight on so controversial a topic. It seems to be the rantings and ravings of an old man disgruntled with his Catholic upbringing. I almost feel sorry for him.
Some funny bits, but come Bill! A film? Quoting Zeitgeist? Keep the TV Show and the interviews, but a film? I'm probably overreacting but what a unnecessary provoking film... I don't know. I laughed, disagreed, agreed... this film is very confusing and inconsistent.<br /><br />Bill's a funny guy... but also very cocky... Bill's rhetoric is similar to Bill Hicks, a brilliant comedian. But like many comedians, the borderline between comedy and preaching can be annoying. I think that the major problem in this film is his lack of sensibility. This might be just a personal taste, but comedy that constantly demeans somebody cannot be taken as truth. Bill is obviously emotionally reactive to religious fundamentalism. I agree with Bill that religious fanaticism is not sensible, but the response to it cannot be sensible. It will create unnecessary turmoil. We can do better than just react to fundamentalism. His conclusion is that "we don't know" and he fervently tries to convince the spectator that nobody knows anything, to the point that the agnostic community has been concerned with his lack of serious research in comparative religion. His humility that he only knows that he doesn't, is a contradiction as he tries to insist that all religious thought is non-sense.<br /><br />I had great trouble seeing bits of Zeitgeist, the movie in Bill's film. All the astrotheology-influenced non-sense that simplifies all religions as the same is simply disappointing. Zeitgeist has provoked a lot of controversy and has messed up the validity of so much of the valuable Religion Studies scholarship. It is very sad how wrong facts have been tossed around with no reliable scholarly sources. Astro-mystic sources that reduce everything to "the stars say it all" seem to be from the Middle Ages. This film is a confusing statement from a confused "agnostic". Agnosticism is far more complex and philosophically academic than defending every single issue as "we don't know".<br /><br />This film is an obvious proof of how postmodernism has been able to oversimplify and generalize major issues in human history.<br /><br />Watch the film (it has hilarious interviews and bits) but PLEASE do not behave like Bill. You cannot expect anybody to have a mature conversation if you are making sardonic comments in every other line. His arguing techniques are demeaning and insulting, provoking emotional reactions rather than rational and logical argumentation.. There needs to be a more mature way of dealing with these issues.
This film is really ONLY Bill Maher's interpretation of religion. There are several funny moments, and some interesting points, but don't go into this expecting an even-handed discussion of religion. This is what I consider to be the worst kind of documentary - Everything is arranged ahead of time and in editing to provide you with the opinion of the director, rather than letting you make your own decision.<br /><br />EDITING - It's very chopped up, inter-spliced with clips from pop culture and the media to reinforce the point. The interviewee barely has a chance to finish a sentence before he is interrupted by the editing. The only people given a fair chance to speak their mind are those who say what Bill Maher wants them to say. Once someone deviates from the gospel according to Maher, they get edited.<br /><br />INTERVIEWEES - They are meant to represent the absolute MOST extremist religions. From the TV evangelical to the ultimate Jewish stereotype, to a TRUCK STOP chapel (Seriously. A TRUCK STOP CHAPEL). He's picked the worst money-grabbers, the heavy extremists, and those who don't have the budget to say no to pick on. And when he does get a good person to interview, he edits the hell out of them.<br /><br />STEREOTYPING - All religions are portrayed as stereotypes. Especially hard hit are the Muslims. During the Muslim segment, he barely gives anyone the chance to speak before interrupting them either himself, or through editing in pieces with suicide bombers. ALL Muslims are portrayed as gun-toting extremists through the editing, and none of the people interviewed is edited fairly.<br /><br />ENDING - The message at the end is INCREDIBLY heavy-handed, and while it is an interesting idea, it's not presented with fairness to the countless people who are not religious extremists. Bill Maher explains himself while clips of destruction play in the foreground. This literally gives the message that religion is stupid and dangerous, and that it will destroy the world. He also states that everyone involved in religion is stupid.<br /><br />With the faults to the film, it has some good points, and the humor, while very unfair, is actually funny. But know going in, it is a very one-sided view, Bill Maher's view, of religion. He's not discovering anything. He's telling you what he thinks.<br /><br />4/10 - Some good moments, but heavy-handed with an extremely irresponsible documentary style.
I saw it, I agree with him 100%, but I didn't care for his delivery. He just came off as an asshole in a poorly edited, contrived juvenile smear campaign. Edit cuts galore, etc... The camera would be focused on him, and you'd see 2 or 3 edit cuts just over the course of a minute or two of dialog. Add in the constant boom mikes in the camera shot, which is a film no-no.<br /><br />This documentary hits a topic with so many angles, so many interesting stories, that the movie is just so easily done. Picking on religious fanatics is like picking on the retarded kid. It is so easy it is just wrong. I mean how hard is it to make these people look like nut bags? To make them contradict themselves, you just let them recite more then a verse or two. I do like when he jumped back in forth between people of the same religion and showed them completely contradicting themselves.<br /><br />I just think he could have done something a little more creative. The part with the neurologist talking about brain activity was never fleshed out. It could have been interesting to show brain scans of people during religious fits compared to drugs, or sex, or ???? He could have played more on the women all rejoicing over the Passion play that looked more like a snuff scene in a new Rob Zombie movie. More could have gone into the history of John Smith, the Mormon founder who had quite the colorful past. Delve into science v.s. religion. One is a very methodical, very strict process for increasing the confidence in theories. It builds on itself from a solid bottom up, a new layer on top of a more proved layer. An enormous burden of proof is required each step of the way. The other starts at the top and comes down with unchallengeable claims. It is so, because well… I said so.<br /><br />Done right… I'd say turn it into an HBO original series… hit a different religion every week.<br /><br />It was an eye opener about one thing. I must have been blind. Good ole G.W.Bush... no wonder he got elected. He had the religious majority. And well... now that is the blind leading the blind.<br /><br />Bill Moyer.. Well.. what can I expect from a guy who hands out at Sutra in Newport beach?
Now don't get me wrong. If you need an insightful summary of everything that been wrong with the history of human civilization as well as a flawless path to brighter future for mankind, who better to turn to than a comedian and practitioner of pop culture? If you need a healthy dose of all the solid, sound reasons why religion has outlived it's usefulness then turn to Sagan or Dawkins, not BILL MAHER for God's(?) sake! That's a good point in and of itself. Maher dismisses our religious past as a neurological disorder conveniently ignoring how his entire society, art and science is rooted in it.<br /><br />In this film, he relies heavily on his keenly-honed skill set of irony and cynicism to make his point while attempting to appear erudite and wise. Unfortunately, his intellect isn't up to the task.<br /><br />Maher makes us laugh but is clearly not the brightest bulb in the box. As an example, he responds to an interviewee's (and I use the term loosely as they were clearly all "ambushees") assertion that the existence of Jesus is historical fact with a deadpan "No, it's not" followed by a long stare meant to convey contempt at the subject's naivety (a device nauseatingly overused in this film). The problem is that the person was correct and Maher dead wrong in his assertion that Jesus is mentioned only in what he considers to be the historically- suspect gospels. I guess Mr. Maher has never read the contemporary historian Josephus.<br /><br />But the masses will flock to this pseudo-documentary as they do the fictional works of other intellectual giants like Michael Moore, and they will loudly bray and guffaw (they certainly did at my showing).<br /><br />It's doubly telling, however, that the loudest and most mule-like braying occurred during the approximately 70% of the running time that the film devoted to it's anti-Christian tirade while the audience was wholly mute during the token 10% devoted to criticizing the self-described Religion of Peace. Hmmm. Either criticism of Islam is off-limits to the hip and liberal target audience or they were just afraid to laugh. Very telling, either way..
I've been a fan of all things Bill Maher for 15 years but this film was disappointing and at times disgusting. Of course, I am Catholic, come from a well-educated family and go to church of my own volition, which probably puts me at ends with quite a few of Bill's opinions.<br /><br />Bill's problem is that he presumes that religion is uniformly negative. He's correct to document the sociological aspects of it i.e. one faith builds its holidays on top of another and that many wars have been started because of religion (or, more accurately, by the sinister appeals of men to the ultimate and unquestionable authority of God), but that said he never looks at its positive side. Quite frankly, I think that hell would freeze over before Bill would ever humble himself and travel to the slums of Calcutta where Mother Theresa spent her life working with the poorest of the poor. She's dead now of course, but he could easily visit the Jesuit priest in East LA who runs Homeboy Industries, which works with young men typically with gang and prison backgrounds to teach them career skills, get their tattoos removed, and to become responsible members of society, or he could visit USC's Institute for Advanced Catholic Studies, which has brought together some of the world's finest theologians, diplomats, and investment bankers to study ways in which to ethically integrate the world's poorest countries into global capital markets and thereby improve the standard of living for the half of the world's people who live on less than $1 a day. Of course he won't do that because that would require him to consider evidence that does not easily fit into his preconceived beliefs about religion, and it's so much easier to continue to make snide, superficial jokes.<br /><br />That fits into the other large problem with Bill's movie, which is that he never subjects himself to anyone either on his level or who is better than he is. In this movie, you have Maher the Cornell grad spend most of his time talking down to truck drivers at a nondenominational Christian truck stop service, in a night club with a Dutch guy who smokes pot all the time, with the minister of a storefront church in Miami who claims to be the reincarnation of Christ, and with an actor playing Jesus at a "Holy Land" theme park.<br /><br />What you won't see in Bill's film, beyond some superficial speculation alongside a Ph.D in Grand Central Station that religion chemically alters the brain like drugs do and that religion is the fallacy of tradition wrought on the masses, is any sort of serious and questioning interviews with philosophy and theology professors from schools like Notre Dame, BYU, or Wheaton College, who could easily rhetorically decapitate him in a debate on the matter. You won't see any serious discussion of any of the writings of C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, or any papal encyclicals, and of course you also won't find any discussion whatsoever of any of the non-Abrahamic (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) faiths whatsoever. All you get at the end of the day is a textbook example of a condescending, snobby elitist from the west side of LA who makes a movie for his own kind and who has absolutely no gut-level understanding whatsoever of how the other half of America that elected George W. Bush (twice) lives their lives or about the school of thought behind it.<br /><br />I get a lot of what Bill's saying, but for someone possessing his intellect and influence, this film was nothing less than pathetic. Anyone interested in the kind of intellectual ferment that indie documentaries typically bring could find more stimulation in an old rerun of the Teletubbies.
I rented this shortly after renting Ben Stein's "Expelled" and thought it would interesting to compare them. Before I go further, it seems only fair that I point out the following so a reader can see if I'm prejudiced or not. I'm trying to be objective, for the record.<br /><br />I tend to enjoy Maher's HBO show now and then, though I rarely think he's the source of the humor. I don't really care for his stand-up either. But he makes some good points on the show now and again, and I liked Politically Incorrect, though he was still fairly politically correct (which I deem a negative because the very term sounds Orwellian or at least fascist). As for my religious views, I'll say for simplicity's sake that I'm a non-denom. Christian with some views that are objectivist and some that are agnostic mixed in.<br /><br />That being said, this a bad "documentary" for reasons that haven't been touched on yet by many reviewers--though the ones mentioned are valid too. The reason it's not convincing isn't just that he argues the main point without letting others talk (and his point boils down to nothing logical either, it's just "come on, really?" which isn't a point, just a question. Try David Hume if you want a decent argument.). The reason this isn't convincing lies in his lack of experts on the subject matter. I saw this about 2 months ago and I only recall him talking to one person whose credentials as a professional were mentioned if he wasn't a clergyman. There are probably hundreds of scientists or at least professors with Masters or Doctorates willing to do a bit of verbal sparring, particularly in the fields of History, Anthropology or a host of others.<br /><br />If one compares this to Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" he'll find that Stein interviews about 30 credentialed professors, professionals, clergy, etc. He does this with a variety of sources with various backgrounds. He also makes a point in his film regarding freedom of thought and education. Maher could easily have pointed out wrongs committed by theocratic rules throughout centuries or persecutions from this. Instead he idiotically refers to the 20th century's secular totalitarian regimes as evidence of why secularism needs more socio-political power!!!! (it's in the bonus features where he's standing in front of the Anne Frank house I think.) This is a true Orwellian head-trip. He blames Christianity in particular on many pointless deaths--which has had its share, though far smaller than most!!--without even including a basic view of the evidence. Perhaps this is because that argument is dwarfed by secular humanism's miserable record of the 20th Century ALONE.<br /><br />Another glaring weakness is his unwillingness to talk to anyone that would be considered a moderate or "average" practitioner. He picks out the weakest gazelles of the herd. How difficult is that? How does proving the existence of exceptions move toward disproving the general rule? It does not. Wow, so people in cults think outside of the norm? How enlightening to know this. Great work Maher! Again, it would be fairly easy to interview someone like Laurence Vance and include his work on refuting the idea of "patriotic duty" that demands a person fight in any war his country is involved in.<br /><br />Beyond all that, he's just not that funny here. Some of the clips that are overlaid in "clever" out of context/irreverent ways might garner a laugh, but mostly work to illustrate how a real contextual argument from Maher will NOT be forthcoming, much less convincing. He spends most of his time bashing Christians, spouting inaccuracies, and interviewing fringe groups that he doesn't allow to really answer his questions.<br /><br />For the record, there are good questions to honestly ask of religious folks and many they should ask of themselves. He touches on almost none of these. I get the feeling that I could've responded much better to most of his questioning than the people he interviewed, but the whole thing reeks of deck-stacking in terms of what is included and what was edited out.
I wasn't really hoping for much when I went to see this. After Mst3king the heck out of JasonX with some friends though, I was hoping for a similar experience here.<br /><br />Unfortunately the movie took itself way too seriously. Do I care about Jason's problems? I'm sorry no. There are a legion Ft13th movies that cover that anyway. At at then end of the day, he's an undead serial killer, I'm just not going to get that sympathetic.<br /><br />Freddy was by far the most interesting aspect of the movie with the hallucinations and what not, but unfortunately they were few and far between and by the end of the movie, it had degenerated into a bad episode of celebrity deathmatch...only not funny.<br /><br />
A movie has rarely left me as cold as this one. There is not a bit of tension, not a second of fear, not a moment we jump, even a little bit. The girl is cute, yeah. That's it. Was that worth a movie ? I knew it wasn't supposed to be a great movie, but I was at least expecting one.
Elfriede Jelinek, not quite a household name yet, is a winner of the Nobel prize for literature. Her novel spawned a film that won second prize at Cannes and top prizes for the male and female leads. Am I a dinosaur in matters of aesthetic appreciation or has art become so debased that anything goes?<br /><br />'Gobble, gobble' is the favoured orthographic representation in Britain of the bubbling noise made by a turkey. In the film world a turkey is a monumental flop as measured by box office receipts or critical reception. 'Gobble, gobble' and The Piano Teacher are perfect partners.<br /><br />The embarrassing awfulness of this widely praised film cannot be overstated. It begins very badly, as if made to annoy the viewer. Credits interrupt inconsequential scenes for more than 11 minutes. We are introduced to Professor Erika Kohut, apparently the alter ego of the accoladed authoress, a stony professor of piano. She lives with her husky and domineering mum. Dad is an institutionalised madman who dies unseen during what passes for the action.<br /><br />Reviewing The Piano Teacher is difficult, beyond registering its unpleasantness. What we see in the film (and might read in the book, for all I know) is a tawdry, exploitative, nonsensical tale of an emotional pendulum that swings hither and thither without moving on.<br /><br />Erika, whose name is minimally used, is initially shown as a person with intense musical sensitivity but otherwise totally repressed. Not quite, because there's a handbags at two paces scene with her gravelly-voiced maman early on that ends with profuse apologies. If a reviewer has to (yawn) extract a leitmotif (why not use a pretentious word when a simpler one would do), Elrika's violently alternating moods would be it.<br /><br />A young hunk, Walter, studying to become a 'low voltage' engineer, whatever that is, and playing ice hockey in his few leisure moments, is also a talented pianist. He encounters Elrika at an old-fashioned recital in a luxury apartment in what may or may not be Paris. In the glib fashion of so much art, he immediately falls in love and starts to 'cherchez la femme'.<br /><br />Repressed Erika has a liking for hardcore pornography, shown briefly but graphically for a few seconds while she sniffs a tissue taken from the waste basket in the private booth where she watches.<br /><br />Walter performs a brilliant audition and is grudgingly accepted as a private student by Erika, whose teaching style is characterised by remoteness, hostility, discouragement and humiliation.<br /><br />He soon declares his love and before long pursues Erika into the Ladies where they engage in mild hanky panky and incomplete oral sex. Erika retains control over her lovesick swain. She promises to send him a letter of instruction for further pleasurable exchanges.<br /><br />In the meantime, chillingly jealous because of Walter's kindness to a nervous student who is literally having the shits before a rehearsal for some future concert, Erika fills the student's coat pocket with broken glass, causing severe lacerations to those delicate piano-playing hands.<br /><br />The next big scene (by-passing the genital self-mutilation, etc) has Walter turning up at the apartment Erika shares with her mother. Erika want to be humiliated, bound, slapped, etc. Sensible Walter is, for the moment, repulsed and marches off into the night.<br /><br />At this point there's still nearly an hour to go. The viewer can only fear the worst. Erika tracks down Walter to the skating rink where he does his ice hockey practice. They retire to a back room. Lusty Wally is unable to resist the hands tugging at his trousers. His 'baby gravy' is soon expelled with other stomach contents. Ho hum.<br /><br />Repulsed but hooked, perhaps desirous of revenge for the insult so recently barfed on the floor, Walter returns to Erika's apartment. Can you guess what happens now? It's not very deep or difficult. Yes, he becomes a brute while Erika becomes a victim. One moment he's locking maman in her room and slapping Erika, the next he's kicking her in the face, having sex with her and renewing his declarations of love. <br /><br />Am I being unfair in this summary? Watch the film if you want, but I'd advise you not to.<br /><br />Anyone can see eternity in a grain of sand if they're in the right mood. I could expatiate at the challenging depiction of human relationships conveyed by this film if I wanted. But I 'prefer not to', because this is a cheap and nasty film that appeals to base instincts and says nothing.<br /><br />I'm supposed to say that parentally repressed Erika longs for love, ineffectively seeks it in pornography, inappropriately rejects it when it literally appears, pink and throbbing, under her nose, belatedly realises that she doesn't like being hurt, blah, blah, blah.<br /><br />The world has, for reasons not explained, stunted her. She apparently makes a monster out of someone who appeared superficially loving - but surely we all know that any man is potentially a violent rapist, because that's his essential nature however much he tries to tell himself and the world otherwise.<br /><br />At the end, if you have the patience to be there, there's a small twist. Before going to the final scene, where she's due to perform as a substitute for the underwear-soiling student with the lacerated hands, Erika packs a knife in her handbag. For Walter?<br /><br />Yes, you're ahead of me. She stabs herself in a none life-threatening area and leaves. Roll credits.<br /><br />If this earned the second prize at Cannes, just how bad were the rest of the entries?
This movie purports to be a character study of perversion. Some reviewers have been gulled into assuming that because perversion is depicted, the film is psychologically deep; actually, considering the salacious material, it is surprisingly tedious and shallow, with no motivational substance. Why is the main character the way she is? You won't find out from the script. For a better treatment of the same theme (and a more entertaining movie), try Bunuel's Belle de Jour.
Isabelle Huppert is a wonderful actor. The director of "La Pianiste" understands this, providing the viewer with long takes of Huppert's face, and these are a pleasure to see. Huppert is not an animated actor--she registers emotion with the smallest lift of an eyebrow or flicker of a smile.<br /><br />Other than the enjoyment of watching an experienced actor excel in her profession, there is nothing in this movie that makes me want to recommend it. (Well, if you enjoy self-mutilation, sado-masochism, and bizarre behavior, "La Pianiste" might work for you. Other than these attributes, I could not find any redeeming value in it.)<br /><br />Buried in all this strange material there is a kernel of truth. People who compete at the very highest level--musically, athletically, whatever--begin as strange people, and are shaped into stranger people by the competitive environment.<br /><br />Not worth a trip to a movie theater to relearn this life lesson. <br /><br />
I do not fail to recognize Haneke's above-average film-making skills. For example, I appreciate his lingering on unremarkable-natural-day-lighted settings as a powerful way to force a strong sense of realism. However, regarding the content of this film, I am very sad to see that in the 21st century there is still an urge to pathologize domination-submission relations or feelings (and/or BDSM practices). The problem that the main character has with her mother is unbelievably topical as is the alienation and uncomprehension felt by Walter (I don't mean the frustration of a lover which is not loved back in the same way, which is understandable; I mean that he looks upon her as if she were crazy, or as if he was a monk, come on!). I mean D/s is not something new in the world and I think it is rather silly to treat the subject as if it were something "freakish" or pathological; it isn't. In general, films dealing with this subject are really lagging behind the times.<br /><br />So, for me, I feel that this film ends up being quite a programmatical film, worried with very outdated psicoanalitical theories (isn't it nearly embarrassing?), and that does not really relate with real-life lives and experiences of those engaged in D/s relationships (personal experience, forums, irc chatrooms even recent scholar studies will show this).
Well, the artyfartyrati of Cannes may have liked this film but not me I am afraid. If you like the type of film where shots linger for so long that you wonder whether the actor has fallen asleep or the cameraman gone for lunch then it may be for you. A large part of it is like this with short sojourns into the realm of unpleasantness. I did not find it shocking nor disturbing as some other reviewers have - simply a little distasteful and pointless. The only reason I did not give this one star is that the acting is commendable ans the film is fairly well shot. The plot, however, has little to recommend. A large part of the film just shows a grumpy woman teaching or listening to piano, which might appeal to some people. But lest you think this is harmless enough be prepared for some snatches of pornography and sexual violence just to wake you up with a bad taste in your mouth. Not recommended.
Although I can see the potentially redeeming qualities in this film by way of it's intrigue, I most certainly thought that the painfully long nature in the way the scene structure played out was too much to ask of most viewers. Enormous holes in the screenplay such as the never explained "your father died today" comment by the mother made it even harder to try to make sense of these characters.<br /><br />This won first place at Cannes in 2001 which is a shock considering. Perhaps the French had been starved for film noir that year and were desperate for something as sadistic as this film. I understood the long scenes as a device to keep the viewer as uncomfortable as possible but when matched with the inability to relate to the main character it went too far for me and kept me at arms distance from the story altogether.<br /><br />This is a film for only the most dedicated fan of film noir and one who expects no gratification from having watched a film once it's over. I LOVED movies such as "Trainspotting" or "Requiem for a Dream" - which were far more disturbing but at least gave the viewer something in the way of editing and pacing. To watch this teachers slow and painful silence scene after scene just became so redundant that I found it tedious - and I really wanted to like this film at every turn.
I rented the video of "The Piano Teacher" knowing nothing about it other than what was written on the video box. I did this with some trepidation because films that win awards at Cannes are usually very good or very bad. Unfortunately, this one falls in the latter category. About one quarter of the way into it I found myself saying out loud, "This movie is boring." About half way through I was saying to myself, "Where have I seen this before?" At the three quarters mark I had figured it out.<br /><br />In spite of its literary origins, this film is essentially a remake of Robert Altman's much earlier (1969), and better, "That Cold Day in the Park." Although the details obviously differ and Altman's work was more plot-driven and less of a character study, the two films are thematically identical. There is nothing "new" to be seen in this production. Every aspect of it has been done before: a character spiralling out of control with increasingly self-destructive behavior (Abel Ferrara's "Bad Lieutenant" 1992); a perverse and doomed 'love' culminating in an operatic (near) death scene (David Cronenberg's "M. Butterfly" 1993); uncommonly brutal sex scenes (David Lynch's "Blue Velvet" 1986); and so on. Hence, I am bemused by the fact that so many found the film to be "shocking," "shattering," etc. This highly derivative film seems to have been made for the sole purpose of making viewers feel uncomfortable, and clearly succeeded with some. However, I largely attribute such a reaction to a lack of film-viewing experience. See enough movies and you really will, eventually, have seen it all. And while it is true that I saw the expurgated 'R-rated' version, I doubt that the additional scenes would change my overall opinion of "The Piano Teacher."<br /><br />Technically, the film is not without merit. There is some very good camera work and the lighting is excellent. Isabelle Huppert's creditable performance also helps save it from being a waste of time. This is the first of Haneke's films that I've seen, and if I were to see more I expect I would have the same opinion of him that I have of Ferrara: an interesting director but not nearly the genius others make him out to be. Rating: 4/10.
I read the reviews of this movie, and they were generally pretty good so I thought I should see it. I'm a big Francophile and art film lover, but I believe this is yet another case in which the critics make something "arty" or "intellectual" into something it is not. I will be blunt: it contains scenes of sexual perverseness that I never, ever wanted to actually see. Obviously, the piano teacher has some major psychological issues, but I really did not want to see them displayed so graphically. The film is, in essence, disgusting. I mean, when I saw Requiem for a Dream, I was repulsed by the last sort of scene with Jennifer Connelly, but that was not anywhere near the sort of disgust and repulsion I felt during this film.
I've seen all kinds of "Hamlet"s. <br /><br />Kenneth Branagh's was most ambitious, Mel Gibson's was quick and to the point, Laurence Olivier's was the best - hands down. But now we come to Maximilian Schell's take on the Bard.<br /><br />For one, this is a dubbed version of a German TV production of William Shakespeare's venerable chestnut. But if there's a slower, more plodding, more lethargic and worse-staged version out there somewhere, it must have been acted at grade school-level. <br /><br />Having seen it on MST3K helps, with Mike and the robots taking jolly good jabs at the old boy, puncturing the profundity of black and white TV, Shakespeare and the wisdom (?) of Germans acting out an English play and making it look like an Ingmar Bergman reject.<br /><br />Of course, the best parts are the MST riffs. Best lines? "I'm gonna unleash the Great Dane", "I don't think so, 'breather'", "Meet the Beatles", "Hey, Dad, will you help me with my science project" and, my personal favorite, during a party - "Garrison Keillor's leaving Germany (YAAAY!!)".<br /><br />But then there's Schell, playing Shakespeare's greatest character much like a department store mannequin would, only not as expressive. No doubt he's a great actor, but here he comes off about as well as Paul Newman in "The Silver Chalice". Ever see that one? You GOTTA watch these two on a double-bill!<br /><br />In the end, this is one instance where it's true that you're much better off to just read the book. At least the book isn't dubbed by Ricardo Montalban.<br /><br />One star only for this "Hamlet"; ten stars, naturally, for the MST3K version.<br /><br />Good-night, not-so-sweet prince.
...this verson doesn't mangle the Bard that badly. It's still a horrible minimalist production, Hamlet's Dutch uncle is inexplicably dubbed by a Spaniard (whether it's Ricardo Montalban or not is subject to debate), and Maximilian Schell overacts like never before. Most of the dialogue makes it through unscathed, and the fact that the MST3K version feels obliged to point out repeatedly that the speeches are long *duh* doesn't strike me as incredibly humorous. Mostly it's just bad acting, though.
There's really not much need to begin this little review with a plot synopsis. I mean it's Shakespeare's Hamlet for goodness sake – probably one of the best known plays ever written. I'm not embarrassed to admit that I came to this version of Hamlet the way most people on IMDb have – through Mystery Science Theater 3000. While the show may not be the best venue to use to judge a movie, in this case I cannot imagine attempting to watch it without the comedic quips. In a word, this German, made-for-TV version of Hamlet is dreary. 152 minutes? No way! It's too dark and depressing to be anything I want to spend almost three hours on. I've said it any number of times, but entertainment is the thing for me. And this wrist-slitter is far from entertaining. I will, however, give it a couple of points for what I felt was some reasonably good acting. A 3/10 sounds about right to me.<br /><br />As much as I enjoy MST3K, their comments don't help to make Hamlet any more palatable. There are a few good riffs here and there, but overall, Hamlet is just the wrong movie for MST3K. Shakespeare is far too talky to allow the comedy to have any sort of rhythm or flow. As much as it pains me, I've got to give Hamlet a 1/5 on my MST3K rating scale.
Take:<br /><br />1. a famous play<br /><br />2. a director with now ideas of his own who is using<br /><br />3. a copy of the stage design of a popular theatre production of the play mentioned in 1.<br /><br />4. an actor for the lead - who has no feeling for the part he's playing And you'll get: "Hamlet, Prinz von Dänemark"<br /><br />I listened to the radio play of "Hamlet" with Maximilian Schell as Hamlet and I was so disappointed. I hoped that the filmed version would be better, that Schell would at least have a body language to underline what he's saying - nothing. Then the set... the minimalistic design is not everyone's taste, but usually I like it when there's just enough on the stage to make clear what's the setting and nothing more. Alas, that's on a stage, in a theatre. It won't work in a film based on a play that actually has believable settings. That the idea for the set was copied from the theatre production in which Schell played the Hamlet already... let's say if that was the only thing to complain about... I ask myself how Schell could get the part of Hamlet anywhere in first place and how anybody could allow him to play Hamlet a second time. If you've got the choice to view any of the about sixty films based on "Hamlet", don't watch this one, unless you're a masochist, or really hardcore, or like to poke fun on untalented actors.
Yay!... I think. It's hard to say. It's hard to have an emotion about a movie that has no emotion. This movie is as sterile as a surgeon's scalpel. For a setting, it has a few stone pillars, some stone seats, a couple stone crosses and some stone actors. They have no emotion! The only thing that saves this movie is the fact that it is Hamlet, and Hamlet is a terrificly written piece of literature. The dubbing really wasn't all that bad though. The voices stuck true to the dull, gloomy, dreary, life-sucking atmosphere the movie gave forth. I have seen this version of Hamlet on the fabulous Mystery Science Theater 3000 three times, and each of the three times, I was on the brink of turning off the TV, despite it being MST 3K.<br /><br />Not an uplifting production of a drama that deserves so much better.
Alas, poor Hamlet. I knew him, dear reader, and let me tell thee, THIS VERSION SUCKS! I don't know who of all people put up the money for this flotsam, but I hope that they're proud of themselves. They took THE classic play and turned it into the most boring melodrama imaginable. This version is quite literally so bad, that not even the presence of a great thespian like Maximilian Schell in the title role can save it. This movie's only redeeming quality is that it made great fodder for "MST3K"; Mike, Servo and Crow had a lot of fun with this one.<br /><br />But either way, I'm sure that Shakespeare, had he been alive when they made this, would not have wanted his name associated with it. This "Hamlet" is not even so bad that's it good; it's just plain bad. Absolutely dreadful.
note to George Litman, and others: the Mystery Science Theater 3000 riff is "I don't think so, *breeder*".<br /><br />my favorite riff is "Why were you looking at his 'like'?", simply for the complete absurdity. that, and "Right well did not!" over all, I would say we must give credit to the MST3K crew for trying to ridicule this TV movie. you really can't make much fun of the dialog; Bill S was a good playwright. on the other hand, this production is so bad that even he would disown it. a junior high school drama club could do better.<br /><br />I would recommend that you buy a book and read 'Hamlet'.
I'm a fan of both Shakespeare and MST3K, so I waited anxiously to see this episode. I'll comment on the movie first, then the MST3K episode. The recipe for this movie: take talented actors, rich and beautiful Shakespeare material, and a $1.25 budget. Mix well, then drain of all life and movement, until dull and lifeless. Serve cold in a big, plain stone cauldron. Movie, I give 3 out of 10, because the actors at least deserve a little bit of credit. Okay, now the MST3K episode. I'll admit it, the first time I saw it, I fell asleep halfway through. I understand that was the reaction of several other veiwers as well. However, when I watched it a second time, I realized that there was a whole host of intelligent references and good lines I missed the first time around. The trick with this episode is: listen carefully! It takes a couple of viewings to catch each line. Give it a second chance, and You'll see what I mean. MST3K Episode: 7 1/2 out of 10.
Poor Will would be rolling over in his grave if he could this this horiible German-TV adaptaion of his classic play. It's obvious that very little money was spent on it. A stage riser, a catwalk and some randomly placed columns pass off as a set. The movie was ineptly dubbed into English, with the English voice actors occasionally mumbling their lines. The whole production had an incredibly dark and dreary feel to it. And just where was Fonterbras in this movie anyway? MST3K gave this sorry production the treatment it justly deserved.<br /><br />To be or not to be? I wish this movie never was in the first place.
I literally fell asleep 3 times watching this movie. Granted, it's Shakespeare and that takes a certain mindset to be interested or not. But this movie exceeds any barrier of long soliloquies and what not, that may prevent many from just not caring about a Shakespeare based story.<br /><br />The largest roadblock to this production is the complete flatness of the characters. Often during character's interacting, it's nearly difficult to distinguish who's lines are who's. Granted, I believe this movie is dubbed in English. Certainly they could've obtained voice actors which could've added a bit more drama to these classic, literary lines.<br /><br />It would be difficult to rate this movie greater than 1, although perhaps that's based on prejudices of perhaps age and what would seem a very low budget. Still, it's absolutely painful and boring. If you insist on Hamlet, do yourself a favor and read the book again. 1/10
Ming The Merciless does a little Bardwork and a movie most foul!
You all know the story of "Hamlet". I do. <br /><br /> Well, the "To Be Or Not To Be" phrase (not the speech itself) has been beaten into the ground so many times that it's not very interesting (in fact, it wasn't that great to begin with). In FACT, I find "Hamlet" a good but vastly overrated play. It's not even Shakespeare's best: "Julius Caesar" and "Romeo & Juliet" are ten times better, with "A Midsummer Night's Dream" and "Othello" not too far behind. "Macbeth (knock your table, off his drawers, puck will make amends, OW!)" isn't that bad either. There are lots of others that are better than this by Shakespeare.<br /><br /> I won't really comment too much on the movie, rather I will dissect the utterly horrible MST3K episode.<br /><br /> Okay . . . Mike and the Bots win a card game, get to pick the movie . . . they ask for "Hamlet", Pearl sends them this, yadda yadda yadda . . . and prepare for the most boring Sci-Fi episode of MST3K ever (admittedly, I haven't seen any of the CC Ones).<br /><br /> While "Blood Waters of Dr. Z" makes the viewing of that episode horrible, since it is not really a movie, rather random, spliced-together scenes (I'm reminded of Mike's line from "Future War": "Maybe this is an anthology of short, plotless movies"), the SOL Crew a lot got off a good many good cracks. Can't say the same for here.<br /><br /> The riffs fall flat, the host segments (par usual) are at best mediocre, and when the movie itself (which isn't that bad) is actually BETTER (I mean, as a quality movie, not as camp, like "Prince of Space") than the MST3K version of it, you know the show must be bad. I laughed (the last time I saw it was several months ago), oh, maybe eight or nine times throughout. I tried and tried AND TRIED to be entertained - but I just couldn't. Only the occasional line, like "Hail Queen Dilbert's boss!" (and when that's the funniest line of the episode, well, ahem) - and by occasional, I mean every ten minutes or so - maybe me even chuckle. The second time I tried to watch it, I didn't even laugh at the few jokes I'd found funny before, and simply gave up forty minutes before.<br /><br /> The movie isn't horrible; it's just a German version of Hamlet. The actors are good enough, and though the dubbing isn't the greatest, that's not in itself a reason to hate this film. <br /><br /> Four stars for "Hamlet"; THREE, yes THREE for the MST3K version.<br /><br /> PS: WHY WHY WHY, MST3K!
This Hamlet made for one of the boringest MST3000 episodes ever. I am not a Shakespear fan, but I do not believe he ever intended his works to be this slow paced and drab. It is also one of the hardest movies to find because there are so many Hamlets listed. Like I said though this one is quite boring. It is in black and white, the pacing is slow, and there is minimal scenery. The actors are all dubbed too so that doesn't help. This is the one MST 3000 I can't watch in one sitting cause the way the guy playing Hamlet says his lines can put anyone to sleep.
Ridiculous horror film about a wealthy man (John Carradine) dying and leaving everything to his four children, and his servants to be divided up equally. One condition--they must spend one week in his estate to get the money. And if any of them die, the others get more. Guess what happens next.... <br /><br />I saw a brand new print of this film on cable. The colors were bright and vivid and the house itself looks beautiful. That's about all the good things I can say about it.<br /><br />Let's list just some of the problems this film has: the killer is screamingly obvious; the servants are called Igor and Elga--come on!; some of the sound recording was so bad I couldn't make out the dialogue (no great loss I'm sure); the gore was sparse and very poorly done; the other murders were simply boring, stupid or impossible and this movie contains some truly abominable acting--so bad you just stare at the screen in disbelief. Even pro Jeff Morrow was terrible! The only fairly good acting was from trouper Faith Domergue (who deserved better than this) and John Carradine (who looks painfully old and frail here). I do have to admit though--the closing line in this movie is a gem!<br /><br />Why this was renamed "Legacy of Blood" is beyond me--there's another 1978 horror film with that name!<br /><br />Whatever its name is, it's a bad movie. To be avoided at all costs.
***SPOILERS*** With a gathering of family members and servants of the late Christopher Dean, John Carradine, to hear his last will and testament they get somewhat of a surprise in that the Dean fortune, some 140 million dollars. The money is to be divided between them but only after they successfully spend a week at the Dean mansion. There seemed to have been a mix-up in the story when we later find out that it's really an overnight sleepover, not a weeks vacation, at the mansion for the guests to qualify for Dean's money since almost everyone ends up dead by sunrise.<br /><br />The first victim of the Dean Curse have nothing at all to do with getting and money from the departed Christopher Dean estate the local sheriff Dan Garcia, Rodolfo Acosta. Acosta has his head chopped off refrigerated and then served on a platter to a shocked group of guests. Later that evening cute little Chin Greg and Laura's,Jeff Morrow & Marry Anders,little pet pooch is found dead outside floating in the pond.<br /><br />The movie has all the people staying at the Dean Mansion being picked off one by one until it's revealed who the killer really is. We then have what seems to be a double-twist in the story where the original killer is suddenly killed together with two of the last remaining guest. The real killer ends up not only getting all the loot, 140 million dollars, but then ends up not having to split it with his accomplice by doing him, or her, in by giving him a poisonous cookie that kills him on the spot.<br /><br />Nonsensical who done it, and haunted house, movie with a cast of such immoral and unlikable characters that even a mother, much less the audience, would have trouble liking. There's everything you can possibly think of in the move involving the selective guests that includes incest S&M sadism and of course double-dealing and back-stabbing not even counting murder. You just couldn't care less who of the guests survives to collect the Dean fortune at the end of the movie hoping against all hope then none of them do.<br /><br />Even the big surprise at the end isn't really that much of a surprise since the killer's identity is divulged with the film-maker having forgotten to keep his face in the shadows so you actual see who he is even before he reveals himself! We then have a plot-twist that eliminates the killer together with a number of remaining guest just to make the movie a little more confusing then it already is. The final plot-twist, that you can see coming from as far as ten miles away, was just to show how smart the very obvious killer was which fooled almost nobody watching the movie.
Blood Legacy starts with the arrival of lawyer Tom Drake (Norman Bartold) to the Dean estate formerly owned by the now deceased Christopher Dean (John Carradine), upon his arrival he is greeted by Mr. Dean's four children, Gregory (Jeff Morrow) & his wife Laura (Merry Anders), Victoria (Faith Domergue), Johnny (Richard Davalos) plus Leslie (Brooke Mills) & her fella Carl Isenberg (John Smith). Drake plays a tape recording of they're late Father's wishes after his death, the estate worth 136 million dollars is to be split equally between his four children, if any should die then the money would be split equally between the rest & if all were to die the freaky servants Elga (Ivy Bethune), Igor (Buck Kartalian) & the more mundanely named Frank (John Russell) would pocket the lot. Well, not satisfied with a quarter share of $136 million (which is still almost $35 million back in 1971 which doesn't sound too bad to me) someone decides they want it all for themselves & it's not long before decapitated heads are turning up in the fridge...<br /><br />Co-written, produced & directed by Roy Monson Blood Legacy disappointed me on two accounts. For starters this film's alternate & much more common title is Legacy of Blood which is also the title of an obscure horror film directed by Andy Milliagn back in '78 which I've always wanted to see, both films are regularly mixed up as both have similar stories & when I checked my on screen cable TV guide for Legacy of Blood I was excited because it said it was the Milligan film & even listed him as director so when I actually sat down to watch it & I heard John Carradine's voice & I then knew it wasn't the Milligan film that I had wanted to see, my heart sank. Then, of course, there's the simple yet undeniably straight forward fact that Blood Legacy is a total utter piece of crap that is literally painful to watch at times. The script by Monson & Eric Norden is slow, boring & extremely predictable. The character's are absolutely bizarre in an annoying way, the freak of a servant who ask's his sister (?) to cane him, the strange set of Brother's & Sisters who are just downright unlikeable & so far removed from reality that any tension or mystery that the simplistic whodunit story could have achieved is sorely missing & then there's the awful twist ending that you can guess within the first 10 minutes. It's boring to watch, it's poorly paced & it's just a chore to even think about it. Please, someone save me as this is really bad stuff. I could go on all day about how bad Blood Legacy is, I really could.<br /><br />Director Monson was either working with a none existent budget or judging by this he shouldn't have even been directing traffic. The entire film looks ugly, it's poorly photographed & there is no atmosphere or scares. The blood & gore is tame, there's an axe in a head, a decapitated head, a scene when someone is stung to death by wasp's & the best murder when someone's face is eaten by piranha. However there are question marks over this scene, so there's the victim, right. There's the tank of piranha, right. Victims head is placed in piranha tank, right. Pirahna eat victims face, right. Water remains crystal clear despite said victim having his face eaten, erm where's the blood?<br /><br />Technically Blood Legacy is terrible, it looks awful, the sound was obviously shot live & it's muffled & hard to hear which considering the terrible dialogue is maybe a blessing in disguise. The acting was not going to win anyone any awards that's for sure, the least said about it the better.<br /><br />Blood Legacy is an awful film, there really isn't a single positive aspect to it or if there is I can't think of it. Do yourself a favour & don't bother with this one, there are much better films out there.
Terrible...just terrible. Probably the worst film I have ever seen. And I did see some pretty bad pictures, throughout the years. The sound sucks so does the quality of the picture, the direction, the acting...etc, etc. The only good shoots( meaning funny, because they're so bad ) are the special effects. Overall there are about 5 minutes worth of laughs. The rest of the flick gives you brain damage.
I happen to have bought one of those "Legacy of Horror" 50 movie pack collections and would you believe I'm still looking through them to find a good HORROR movie in it. Sometimes you find an enjoyable yet campy one like The Devil's Messenger or The Devil Bat, or one of the great Alfred Hitchcock's films (some aren't horror however and are only on there because Hitchcock directed some horrors and suspense) but other times it seems that they put movies like The Island Monster and this on because they can't accept the fact they would easily be forgotten and should be for that matter.<br /><br />So we open up to sort of a Westing game idea. The rich yet cruel and abusive father played by Carradine (the one standing feature of this) has died and left his inheritance to his children and servants who he still hates. Carradine gives a good enough performance as always, but he's left mainly in a voice recording and flashback sequences leaving us to sit through the mediocre/terrible performances. The rest of the cast either overacts or underacts in scenes. Given this was an independent film of the 70's the lighting and effects are pretty limited. It's hard to build a lot of tension when the viewer can't see what's happening that well in some scenes. Some actors like the servants Igor and Elga give an effort at least and I'm ashamed to admit kind of left me chuckling at the end mainly for the sheer stupidity but still with some very minor happiness that they pulled some version of a twist to an otherwise pretty obvious who-done-it but not enough to enhance the quality of the film. You aren't meant to like the characters as they are either selfish and cruel or psychotic, but it takes it to a whole new level and makes many unwatchable. The death scenes are pretty bad and the suspense is not really there. It proves that you would probably enjoy the 20 movie pack "Chilling" containing films like House on a Haunted Hill, Little Shop of horror's with Jack Nicholson, and Night of the Living Dead over it. This is best avoided.
A grade-Z horror filmmaker Carl Monson was one of the most prolific directors operating within the field of the low-budget gory mayhem.His movies are full of inept gore,laughable acting,boring sub-plots and woeful dialogue.A mysterious black clad figure is savagely murdering guests staying at the family mansion.Unfortunately this film is almost bloodless.You don't actually see the murders except with shadows and a few blood splatters.The pace is lethargic and the plot is rather uninteresting.The acting is merely competent,but the lack of gore and mutilation left me disappointed.A generous 4 out of 10.Just beware:do not mistake Monson's film with Andy Milligan's equally weak "Legacy of Blood".
A family of terrible people must remain in a house for a week or else they will lose their inheritance which will go to the servants who will only get their inheritance if they agree to stay on and keep the house in order. People die (and so will you if you try to sit through this) If you've ever had any desire to see bad actors- many with ill fitting dentures-act or attempt to act in a bad horror movie this is your chance. This is just awful. Its so bad I thought Al Adamson, one of the worst directors ever, directed it, but I was wrong.<br /><br />Its so bad I don't want to say anything more about it, not because it isn't polite but because once I start I may not be able to stop.<br /><br />avoid
You know a movie will not go well when John Carradine narrates (a.k.a. reads the script & plot synopsis) over his character's funeral procession, a mere 5 minutes into the movie. The narration is his character's last will & testament. It stipulates that his estate be divided amongst his 4 children and servants. The children shall split $136 million equally, but if any should die then that share is split amongst the remainders. If all the children should die then it is divided amongst the servants. To be eligible, they must live in the family estate for a week. It sounds like the typical plot of a reality show.<br /><br />There is little subtext as to the nature of the Deans. They are a powerful and severely dysfunctional family, but the real trouble starts with the drowning of that dog. From the opening voice-over by John Carradine you expect this movie will lead to a Machiavellian cat and mouse game with a twist ending. <br /><br />That journey is painfully slow and pointless. We trudge through minutes of watching people sitting around, playing pool, throwing darts, the misuse of the "through the fish bowl" shot, dramatic conversations between silk cravat wearing men, constant bickering, misplaced circus music, bizarre flashbacks reminiscent of faux-German expressionism, the horror aesthetic of the 4th grade and heaps of dramatic overacting. This all inevitably leads to the expected & ungratifying ending. You will be happy to still be alive, but the pain might be too great to bear alone. Share children, share.<br /><br />-Celluloid Rehab
OK, how's this for original- this mean, rich old geezer leaves his estate to his adult children, all of them ungrateful losers, and two creepy servants, provided they spend the week in his spooky old house. What happens that night will surprise only those who haven't seen a movie or television show before. After a string of murders in which the victims look like they're bleeding restaurant ketchup, we have a painfully obvious twist ending. The cast is lead by some once respectable actors must have been desperate for their paychecks. There are also a few second-tier actors who were rising at the time but long forgotten now. As a result, the film generates all the drama and mystery of an episode of "Matlock." I will give credit where it's due- the closing scene is clever and amusing, if you're still awake.
Back when I was a kid and I lived with my sister, she bought every horror movie she could find and this was one of them. VCR'S had just became a household item and we didn't have but about 150 movies and we watched the hell out of all of them.<br /><br />I was at a yard sale the other day and I saw this VHS copy of BLOOD LEGACY and I buy any horror movie I don't have and I knew this movie looked familiar. I thought for a second and realized it was one that my sister had bought. She had sold it years ago in a yard sale I am guessing - who knows.<br /><br />I didn't recall anything at all about it and I watched it the night I bought it and it refreshed my memory because of a few scenes. I am not sure how I felt about it as a kid but I am sure I enjoyed it because it was new to me and I'd watch and enjoy anything back then.<br /><br />I am a horror freak, but there are certain requirements in order for me to consider it "good" and this one fell very short. It was one of those talk talk talk and bore me to death types. What death scenes you see are done using the shadow on the wall followed by blood splatter and thats if you're lucky you get that much.<br /><br />The story is good and I have seen a few with similar plots, so I think this one should be buried and forgotten. Don't watch this people unless you're hard up.
This is one of the most boring horror films I have ever seen, as it's absolutely god awful, John Carradine has very limited screen time. All the characters are boring, and the story is terrible, plus I could see the two twists at the end coming miles away!. The great setting and the creepy house definitely would have helped if it wasn't so damn boring, and there isn't one character to root for either, plus I hope it makes it's way to the bottom 100, because it deserves to be there in my opinion. When John Carradine finally shows up at the end, it's a pretty good scene but it's already way too late, and the only other screen time he had was in flashbacks, plus the only really gory scene in the movie is when a character gets his face messed up by Bee's, as it was rather gory. I got this in a DVD Horror set called Back From The Grave and everyone really overacts in my opinion, plus it's lucky this was included in a set I bought otherwise I would have chucked this out the window!. This is one of the most boring Horror films I have ever seen, as It's absolutely god awful, John Carradine has very limited screen time, and I say avoid it like the plague!, you don't want to go through the torture. The Direction is absolutely terrible!. Carl Monson does an absolutely terrible! job here, making every thing look cheap, wasting his potential on making creepy atmosphere and just keeping the film at an incredibly dull pace. The Acting is just as bad. John Carradine is good in his scene, but other then that he's hardly in the film other then flashback scenes. (Carradine Ruled!!). Merry Anders overacts here terribly as Laura, as she didn't convince me at all. Ivy Bethune is OK, and somewhat creepy, but also overacted, she did have a creepy smile at the end though. Rest of the cast, I didn't pay enough attention too, as I had a lot of trouble getting through it, but they were all really bad. Overall please avoid this,It's not worth the agony!. BOMB out of 5
The husband-and-wife team of Bennie Fields and Blossom Seeley were huge stars in vaudeville, yet they made very few films. As is the case for some other performers of their era (George M. Cohan, Fanny Brice, Gertrude Lawrence) the most accessible piece of film footage for Fields and Seeley is the biopic ABOUT them, in which they're portrayed by other actors: 'Somebody Loves Me', starring Betty Hutton and that inimitable song-and-dance man Ralph Meeker.<br /><br />In their heyday, Fields and Seeley were so hugely popular that another husband-and-wife vaudeville act -- Jesse Block and Eve Sully -- achieved nearly as much stardom performing an almost identical act, effectively becoming the "second-team" Fields and Seeley. Offstage, though, there was a major difference in the couples' living arrangements. Fields and Seeley lived in hotel suites, paying room-service rates for every meal they ate, and eventually running out of money. Block and Sully lived modestly and invested their earnings wisely, ending in comfortable retirement.<br /><br />The first 30 seconds of this Vitaphone short are occupied by two spats-wearing pianists. Apparently these two men had some slight name value of their own in 1930, although I've never heard of them. Finally, Fields and Seely rush in and start performing. They both have plenty of pep, and she's fairly attractive.<br /><br />I was annoyed that both performers keep making movements as if they're about to break into a dance, but they never quite do so until the third of the three songs they perform in this short. When they finally start hoofing, the results are not impressive.<br /><br />I was delighted to have this opportunity to see these two major performers doing their vaude act. Now that I've seen it, I understand why they never became stars in movie musicals. My rating for this one: just 4 out of 10, and I'll stick with Block and Sully.
When great director/actor combinations are talked about the team of J. Lee Thompson and Charles Bronson is not usually mentioned. Probably because the output of nine joint ventures between the two of them runs the gamut from the really good action entertainment to the mediocre. Unfortunately Kinjite: Forbidden Subjects falls in the latter. <br /><br />That's sad because Kinjite could have been a whole lot better. But for the life of me I don't understand why it was necessary to make the father of the missing Japanese girl, a guy used to getting some cheap jollies because the romance in his marriage has run out. That might have been good for another film altogether, but it served no purpose here.<br /><br />A straightforward cop drama with Charles Bronson as a vice cop who's seen a bit too much in his line of work and has a strong prejudice against orientals. That part could also have used a little explaining as well. But he's going to have to overcome it if he and patient partner Perry Lopez are going to locate a captured Japanese school girl.<br /><br />Bronson's time in the vice squad have told him exactly where to look for the kidnapper. A stylish, murderous pimp played by Jaime Fernandez is the guy and he and Bronson have some history. In fact in the film's best scene, Bronson made him eat an expensive rolex watch and set his car on fire.<br /><br />At one point Fernandez happens to spot Bronson and Lopez in an all night delicatessen and this being after his rolex snack, he sprays the place with an Uzi killing everyone, but Bronson and Lopez. I really think that little incident would have had more than a couple vice cops from the LAPD after Fernandez. But that's another terribly big hole in the plot.<br /><br />Still there is a very rough justice in the end for Fernandez. I wish the whole film had been better though. This was the last film of the Bronson-Thompson team and J. Lee Thompson's last as a director. He should have gone out with something better.
Charles Bronson stars as Lt Crowe a police detective who declares war on a pimp named Duke (Juan Fernandez) who kidnaps the daughter of a Japanese businessman who is the man who sexually harassed Crowe's daughter (Amy Hathaway) in this sleazy yet stylishly helmed revenge thriller. Kinjite may not be for everyone with it's somewhat disturbing plot threads but it is well made and indeed entertaining.
Offering a killer combo of terrible writing, terrible acting and terrible direction, it's a tossup whether Kinjite: Forbidden Subjects is offensively bad or just hilariously bad. It's almost as if someone ran a competition to make the sleaziest, seediest Cannon film. As if a glance at a cast list including characters like 'Lesbian Pedophile,' 'Perverted Gentleman,' 'Porno Actress' weren't enough, it's your only chance to see Charles Bronson's cop throw a lowlife on a bed and grab a dildo - but don't worry, it's okay, as the offscreen screams make clear he's only torturing him for information. After all, even if he is a bit overprotective of his nice Catholic daughter, he's a nice Catholic cop who regularly brings local Catholic priest William O'Connell a packed lunch and who believes in poetic justice - or at least ensuring that the bad guys end up in the slammer with the horniest inmates maximum security can provide to give them a taste of their own medicine. But then that's what you get for telling him "Look, I think you're a little bit unstable." Still, when later offered a bribe, he may snarl "I'd like to shove this up your ass, but I don't want to get my hands dirty," he's clearly learned where to draw the line: instead, he just makes him eat a $25,000 watch and sets fire to his Cadillac. The anal obsession even follows through to the film's title: despite the poster featuring a naked Japanese girl on a porn film set, the film's only direct example of Kinjite/forbidden subjects, as Alex Hyde White's English teacher explains to a group of Japanese businessmen, is, er talking about your bowel movements in polite society.<br /><br />Bronson isn't just too old for this, as the opening fight makes only too clear, he's too old for love interest Peggy Lipton, and she looks old enough to have grown-up kids. A better actor than he ever got the credit for when given the right material, here's he's given less a properly thought out character than a series of outrageous reactionary quirks. When he's not widening the circles of suspects he's accidentally dropping them to their death off the sides of buildings. He's definitely not a P.C. copper, with a special loathing for the Japanese - as if it wasn't bad enough that they're buying up American businesses, what's worse, they double-park on a public thoroughfare! No racial minority goes unassaulted, be they black pimp or Pakistani hotel clerk, no cop cliché unrecycled, be it a boss who bangs his fist on the table or a dead meat partner (Perry Lopez and his spectacularly bad hair dye that's so prominent it deserves screen billing all its own). The twin plot strands - Bronson's L.A. cop trying to take down Juan Hernandez's pimp who deals in underage girls and James Pax's porn-obsessed Japanese businessman – take forever to intertwine, and then in the most unlikely of ways: after copping a feel of Bronson's daughter on a bus ("Some Oriental guy touched my holy of holies!"), in the film's idea of poetic justice Pax finds his own daughter kidnapped by Hernandez. You half expect the writer to pop his head round the corner of the screen and say, "How d'ya like them apples?"<br /><br />Somewhere underneath all the laziness is the germ of a good idea even if it is too muddily developed to ever be clear quite what that idea really is, but the execution is pure Rising Sun: the Archie Bunker Version, shot like out-takes from an R-rated 80s music video with an outrageous and rather lazy dockside shoot-'em-up-and-blow'em-up finale that sees a small army of machine-gunning sidekicks suddenly appear to up the gratuitous body count. The last of Bronson's mostly bad to in different collaborations with J. Lee Thompson – and sadly Thompson's last film as director - it's a poor signoff for two undervalued players who increasingly never seemed to be that discerning about what pictures they said yes to.
The '80's were not very kind to one-time major star Charles Bronson. Starting with 1982's "Death Wish II" and ending with this truly gruesome film from '89, Bronson's screenwriters seemed to be trying to top each other in progressive grossness. "D.W. II" left little to the imagination in its depiction of the rape and suicide of Bronson's character's daughter, (a rape and murder of his housekeeper was also shown in disgusting detail). "10 to Midnight" was the sort of loathsome film that made you want to take a bath afterwards. Nothing redeeming about it. Other films like "The Evil that Men Do" and the remaining "Death Wish" films from this period straddled the line between high camp and high barf with their earnest depictions of brutality and revenge. I'm not sure if the producers (usually Pancho Kohner) got a kick out of showing a weary looking, senior citizen-aged Bronson destroying punks young enough to be his grandchildren or what, but the shoddy craftsmanship (and terrible scripts) of these films usually destroyed what little energy they may have generated.<br /><br />"Kinjite" -- the last of these films -- is fairly well-made but truly takes the cake in cinematic wretchedness. In this film Bronson: sodomizes a perverse john; forces a pimp to eat his Rolex watch; allows a male prisoner to get raped by another prisoner; makes incredibly xenophobic remarks among other things I've thankfully forgotten. Also depicted is the gang-rape of a young Japanese girl (fortunately, this was off-screen, though well-implied).<br /><br />What were people thinking when they made this film? What was Bronson thinking when he decided to ruin his career with these horrible films? For anyone interested in his best movies, check out most of the films he made in the '60's and '70's like "The Mechanic", "Death Wish", "From Noon til 3", "Once Upon a Time in the West", "Red Sun", "The Great Escape", "The Magnificent Seven", "Rider on the Rain", etc., etc....
Repugnant Bronson thriller. Unfortunately, it's technically good and I gave it 4/10, but it's so utterly vile that it would be inconceivable to call it "entertainment". Far more disturbing than a typical slasher film.
Charles Bronson continued his 80's slump with what could possibly be his worst movie of the decade, if not ever. In it he plays a detective who goes to great lengths to track down a pimp who has abducted an Asian girl and is currently selling her to the highest bidder. It's a shameful attempt at action and is quite possibly the most depressing movie ever made. A lot of people consider the Death Wish sequels to be Bronson's worst movies. The Death Wish sequels weren't great movies but were in most cases competently made and very watchable. Kinjite however is an utterly dull thriller which is punctuated by mean spirited racism and child molestation. It really is a rephrensible film and all of it is made worse by the fact that it tries to preach a "Law and Justice" mentality that is too overwrought to really say anything. Indeed the movie begins with underage sex being interrupted with Bronson then anally raping the pedophile with a dildo. The Chicago theater I watched this in just gasped at the awkwardness of this scene, only to gasp at the awkwardness of the pimp raping the girl in this film. It has no point other than to exploit and really the movie wasn't well written enough to rise above the exploitation level and deliver something that would work. Bronson seems more into things but clearly this is far too repugnant to save. I want to point out that I think Charles Bronson is the coolest actor ever but this effort is ultimately his worst. The action sequences are poor also.<br /><br />1/2* out of 4-(Awful)
This film is a good example of how through media manipulation you can sell a film that is no more than a very unfunny TV sitcom. In Puerto Rico the daily newspaper with the widest circulation has continuously written about the marvels of this film, almost silencing all others. Coincidentally the newspaper with the second largest circulation belongs to the same owners. The weekly CLARIDAD is the only newspaper on the island that has analyzed the film's form and content, and pointed out all its flaws, clichés, and bad writing.<br /><br />Just because a film makes a portion of the audience laugh with easy and obvious jokes, and because one can recognize actors and scenery, does not make it an acceptable film.
Don't spend your money or your time on this pitiful piece of film in the guise of cinematography.When every third word is devoted to foul language and there is no real plot as well as having a cast of old actors who are still giving the same dated performances from the past and have not evolved in their careers, leaves a lot to be said. I was expecting something better from award winning actor Benicio del Toro. The vision that others may have of Puertorricans will be irreversibly distorted by such trash as Maldeamores. A foul word at a given moment in a film may be used to emphasize a given point of view and may even be funny or sad depending on its context (see the movie Elsa and Fred for example) but it should not permeate the plot. The movie is a total embarrassment and there was absolutely nothing funny or even cute about this film.
"What happens when you give a homeless man $100,000?" As if by asking that question they are somehow morally absolved of what is eventually going to happen. The creators of "Reversal of Fortune" try to get their voyeuristic giggles while disguising their antics as some kind of responsible social experiment.<br /><br />They take Ted, a homeless man in Pasadena, and give him $100,000 to see if he will turn his life around. Then, with only the most cursory guidance and counseling, they let him go on his merry way.<br /><br />What are they trying to say? "Money can't buy you happiness?" "The homeless are homeless because they deserve to be?" Or how about, "Lift a man up - it's more fun to watch him fall from a greater altitude." They took a man with nothing to lose, gave him something to lose, and then watched him dump it all down the drain. That's supposed to be entertainment? They dress this sow up with some gloomy music and dramatic camera shots, but in the end it has all the moral high ground of car crash videos - only this time they engineered the car crashes and asked, "What happens when you take down a stop sign?"
as always this is an inaccurate picture of the homeless. TV told a lot of lies about panhandlers in the early 1990s and made everyone look bad, and claimed we all made over $100 a day when $20-40 a day was much closer to reality. when someone drove by where i held up a sign offering to work, and offered me work, i actually went and took the work if i was physically able.and if i would been offered the $100,000 id damned sure invested in in apt prepaid for at least 2 years, and kept most in the bank and still left myself $10-20000 for NL $1-2 and $2-5 cash games at the casinos. i usually always win and could win decent if i just had a bankroll. instead i win about $1000 a month is all playing in always minimum buying in due to not wanting to risk losing it all. i was only homeless cause i didn't wanna risk spending all my money and going broke, sometimes i had over $1000-2000 in my sock while i slept outside. anyone wanting to talk contact sevencard2003 on yahoo messenger.i admit i was different than most homeless people though, due to the fact i never drank smoke or took drugs. im no longer homeless, am now in govt housing for $177 a month and getting SSI and spend most of my time winning at online poker. mom and sunflower diversified worked hard to get me SSI. glad my days of hiding in under the stage in the convention center of the casino at night sleeping, worrying about getting caught by security are finally over. had this TV crew picked me theyd been over a lot sooner. its a shame how they don't better select who they pick.
What happens when you give a free man just enough money to trap him into the rat race and watch him squirm? Homeless people answer to no one. They have no mortgages, rent payments or idiot bosses. Homeless people don't have to worry about the IRS or performance reviews or credit card payments. But, give them just enough money to rent an apartment and buy a car and, suddenly, they have to worry about entering the rat race, buying gas for transportation, paying insurance on their car, and working for someone else. They get a chance to be a "productive citizens." This film was about as exploitive as a film can be. It's a way for the rich and middle-class sheeple to say "see what happens when you try to help the poor?" and it vindicates capitalistic arrogance.<br /><br />Why not a film that asks, "What happens when you take away everything a rich man has?"
This film is "riveting" but in much the same way a car crash is riveting. It's hard to look away. Overall, this film is nothing more than an incredibly irresponsible social experiment--and a futile, biased experiment at that. The filmmakers are manipulative and seem to have no problems going for the lowest possible denominator. The manner in which the money is presented to Ted is pure exploitation. The intervening steps that the filmmakers force Ted to participate in (meeting with so-called experts) were empty and devoid of any substantive attempt to connect with Ted. Instead, it's painfully obvious that they serve to cover the filmmaker's posteriors and to further exploit Ted's situation. The worst part is that the filmmakers stop following Ted after 6 months; and seemingly are cut off entirely from the subject they had followed so closely months before. If they had cared, they would have found better "experts" to help Ted. If they truly wanted to see what Ted would do, then they should have let him spend the money without any intervention. This film is at best a high-brow Jackass stunt and not a documentary. It's sad to think how much $100,000 could have actually changed a homeless person's life had it been put in the right hands.
I had read a few positive reviews of this film, and was truly surprised at how dreadful the whole thing was. Positioned as some cross between an AIDS-related story and some kind of "Ghost"/"Blithe Spirit" tale, this film can't always make it's mind up what it wants to be. <br /><br />Simon and Mark are a gay couple who have an "open" relationship - Simon is able to have anonymous (though safe) sex on the side when he wants. Mark is HIV+ and he and Simon don't seem to have a sex life anymore. When Mark dies, Simon - who has made a habit of shutting off his emotions after being rejected years ago by his father - tries to erase his memory and just get on with being a bachelor. Not that his behavior before Mark's death was much different. But Mark returns in ghostly form and foils his various trysts, while getting Simon to open up and admit his true feelings.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Simon is such a selfish SOB, it's impossible to feel any empathy toward him for most of the film. By the time he is supposed to be more sympathetic, it's too late to care. Mark, on the other hand, follows in Demi Moore's footsteps from "Ghost," by crying profusely throughout the movie. <br /><br />There is a bizarre switch in tone after Mark returns. Suddenly we get some lame attempts at humor, a la the TV show "Bewitched." But that doesn't last long. Once Simon's emotional health is at stake, the whole thing becomes increasingly mawkish, with amateurish attempts to jerk at your heartstrings. The finale, with a gold-plated muscle-boy angel guiding a tearful Mark to heaven while a chastened, grief-stricken Simon waves goodbye is just stupefying, chiefly because it isn't intentionally funny.
The box for "To Die For" suckered me in -- a shirtless hunky guy and the promise of some laughs and sex. There was plenty of Thomas Arklie (Simon), who's easy on the eyes, but no laughs and little sexiness.<br /><br />The couple, Mark and Simon, have allegedly been together several years, but neither character is interesting enough to care about, so it's hard to imagine that they care about each other. The fault seems to lie in the script, not the performances; both actors do the best they can with what they're given. <br /><br />The ending is sappy and unaffecting (well, not totally unaffecting; I felt relief that it was over). <br /><br />If you're looking for a movie about gay relationships and AIDS that's funny, "Parting Glances" is far better.
I have walked out of about 6 movies my entire life. This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I don't know how I sat through an hour of it. I must have been in a coma that night. I saw it in the theatre when it came out 8 years ago. I couldn't even remember the name, but I knew that Penelope Ann Miller starred in it. It must have really affected me to be wasting my time commenting on it today. Yech! Vomit! Barf!
I had the greatest enthusiasm going in to the advance screening for this movie. After all, this is one of the oldest and most complex tales known to mankind, and it was one of the first epic tales I read as a kid (even before Tolkien). I must say that IT WAS A HUGE DISAPPOINTMENT. They completely made the plot into a joke and turned the thing into one long soap opera. The elements that WERE faithful to the plot were sprinkled throughout in such a haphazard manner that the audience was laughing at many times at the silly script that just paid lip service to this battle of all battles. It was a huge disappointment to see a complex character like Achilles (who has a strange combination of nearly Matrix-like powers, utter ruthlessness and male lovers in the original poem) turn to "Fabio on the beach" in the guise of Pitt (who with a good script and more effort could have turned this into the most complex and original warrior figure Hollywood has ever produced). The actors were actually decent, trying to make the best of a ridiculous script. It was actually a waste of so much talent (Peter O'Toole stole the show, and Orlando Bloom and Sean Bean were pathetic). Compare it to LOTR or Gladiator and it doesn't even hold a candle to them. Plenty of hunks for the ladies to goggle over but not enough battle scenes for a movie that is about one long battle and siege. I wouldn't recommend that anyone pay to see this story dragged through the dirt like one of the characters was (at least they got that part right).
I had high hopes for Troy and I am so bitterly disappointed. The film was directed so badly it made my stomach ache. The pacing was so slow, the dialogue laughable and the film - well apart from a nice fight scene between Achilles (Pitt) and Hector (Bana) - the rest was shallow.<br /><br />And why, oh why does Hollywood always insist on rewriting stories to fit 'consumer approval'. Agamemnon didn't die in Troy, the war lasted 10 years and Achilles was killed by Paris OUTSIDE the walls of Troy with an arrow to the ankle! It annoys me that such a classic story as this is turned into a soap.<br /><br />And don't even start me on the 'lack' of chemistry between Helen and Paris. She was the woman the war was fought over and it didn't even look as if the two of them cared a great deal about the other. No sparks, no emotion, no hope.<br /><br />I have to say in the films defence Brad Pitt, Eric Bana and Peter O' Toole acted very well with a bad script but that isn't enough to save this awful movie. <br /><br />Can anybody tell me where the £200 million budget went? Maybe in all the trees they used for the funeral pyres - where did they get all those trees?<br /><br />I am so disappointed it hurts.
Hello there,<br /><br />This is my first post in IMDb even though I use it as a reference for quite a while. I would therefore like to salute you all. The fact that I am a Greek is inevitably going to affect my judgement I hope not to your annoyance.<br /><br />I spent 2 years of my life, (all we Greeks did actually), analysing Omirus epos (and not Homers as you see everywhere), rhyme by rhyme. If I recall well it was Iliada (Iliad) on 8th grade and Odysseia (Odyssey) on 9th grade. Warner's Troy, was a big disappointment to me and my fellow Greeks around the campus (I study in the UK).<br /><br />Iliad epos is one of the very best literature works ever made. It was composed by a Greek poet Omirus a whole 400 years after the actual war. Historians put Trojan war around 1200 BC, and the actual reason of the war not being Helen's beauty but the strategically crucial position of Troy. That said one may now understand that Omirus epos is not presenting the actual events (as it's not accurate historically) but this was never the purpose of this work. <br /><br />Reading this huge poem, one can find himself wondering for the very definitions of honour, love, anger, hate, heroism, discipline, loyalty and so on. The best part and the most educational as well were these prolonged talks between the warriors before the battle. None of these though were revealed in 'Troy'<br /><br />Warner's Troy was really cheap to my eyes, and to other intellectual people English Finnish and German colleagues of me as well. It is a shame to spend millions of dollars in such a bad scenario. By the way perfect storm was a bad and stupid blockbuster (computers graphics did the whole work), and yet it is Wolfgang Petersen's best work. <br /><br />I conclude saying that you'd better watch something else instead. I would give Troy 2 out of 10. It is a really expensive B movie.<br /><br />Cheers <br /><br />Alex
Went to see the movie "Troy" this afternoon. Here's what I learned:<br /><br />Contrary to popular opinion and history in general, Greek men were not gay. EVER. This was clearly established immediately at the start of the film and reinforced every five minutes or so thereafter. So it is safe for American dudes to see this movie.<br /><br />Helen of Troy always had impeccable hair and makeup. She looked gorgeous in all of her brief cameo scenes which, though numerous, were probably all filmed on the same day, one after the other, with the director saying, "Alright, now look beautiful . . . good ... OK, now look frightened ... good... now look depressed ... good ... now look interested . . . good ... now look beautiful again ... good..."<br /><br />Most Greek and Trojan men had British accents. Those with American accents couldn't act.<br /><br />Trojans looked just like Greeks, but they tended to stay on the right side of the screen.<br /><br />Brad Pitt does not blink on camera.<br /><br />Helen of Troy's biggest line was, "They're coming for me."<br /><br />Trojan music sounded remarkably like modern Bulgarian music.<br /><br />Brad Pitt's thighs go all the way up.<br /><br />Achilles had a young male friend with whom he was very close, but it's OK. They were cousins. Never mind what history says.<br /><br />Peter O'Toole can tell an entire story with just an expression.<br /><br />Trojan gods apparently all had Greek names, but their statues either looked Egyptian or like Peter O'Toole in drag.<br /><br />Greek men never touched each other unless they were fighting, much like American men.<br /><br />All of the thousands of extras in the movie had exactly the same skin color... Light Egyptian, by Max Factor.<br /><br />Troy had only three women.<br /><br />There were lots of blond Greeks, which is good news for Brad Pitt, who would otherwise have really stuck out.<br /><br />Despite their coastal desert locale, Greeks had the uncanny ability to find unlimited amounts of timber to build fires, funeral pyres, Trojan horses and the like.<br /><br />British actors look silly with Greek hairdos.<br /><br />Brad Pitt changes expression only when the sun is shining directly in his eyes.<br /><br />Greek soldiers fought constantly, but their outfits always looked impeccable.<br /><br />Greek soldiers wore underwear under their skirts.<br /><br />Apparently Greek temples were always in ruins, even back when they were all new.
I like Brad Pitt enormously. He is an actor with brains and wit, not to mention face, pectorals and all the rest. Since I saw him in "Thelma and Louise" a thought has been bothering me, who does he remind me of? "Troy" did it for me. He is the new Brigitte Bardot. The differences are obvious of course. Male, American etc but Brigitte Bardot comes to mind nonetheless. He is so beautiful that he is at his most effective when he plays against it. "Kalifornia" "12 Monkeys" "Fight Club" "Snatch" His self deprecating humor makes him human, almost accessible. Fortunately "Troy" will soon be forgotten. Only still photographs with Pitt, semi naked in ravishing sprint positions will decorate the walls of legions of salivating fans. Strange, "Das Boot" is one of the great films of the second part of the 20th Century. What is Wolfgang Petersen doing directing this? Well, I suppose it would be very hard to say no at the chance of working with the new Brigitte Bardot.
To confess having fantasies about Brad Pitt is a pretty tough admission for an heterosexual to make. But what can I tell you? Maybe is that famous extra something that everybody talks about and makes a star a star. It crosses that barrier. It pulls you into unknown sensual and emotional territory. Brando had it in spades, Montgomery Clift, Gary Cooper, James Dean of course and in more recent times, Tom Cruise, Jude Law, Johnny Depp, Ewan McGregor and Billy Crudup. Women fell in love with Garbo, Dietrich, Katharine and Audrey Hepburn, Grace Kelly, Marilyn Monroe, Julie Christie, Charlotte Rampling, Meryl Streep, Vanessa Redgrave, Julia Roberts and very very recently Natalie Portman. But Brad Pitt has, singlehandedly, redefined the concept. He is the only reason to go out, get in the car, find parking, buy a ticket, popcorn and get into a theatre to see "Troy" If you liked epics in the "Jupiter's Darling" style you may enjoy this. But if you don't, go all the same, we want to keep Brad Pitt in business.
Well, were to start? This is by far one of the worst films I've ever paid good money to see. I won't comment on the story itself, it's a wonderful classic, but here it feels like a soap opera. To start with, the acting, except for Eric Bana, is soap opera quality. I've always been a fan of Brad Pitt, but here every actor on The Bold and the Beautiful puts him to shame. The camera action doesn't help, either. How it lingers on him when he's thinking, it just takes me back to Brooke Forrester's days in the lab! Peter O'Toole has either had a really bad plastic surgery, or he is desperately in need of one. Either way, he looks more like Linda Evans than Linda Evans! And to end my comments, Diane Kruger is a cute girl, but she sure is no Helen of Troy. Peterson should rather have chosen Saffron Burrows for the role, since Elizabeth Taylor would be rather miscast by now.
I know nothing of the Iliad so can not comment on it's accuracy to that story. However, as a stand alone film I found this very boring. The battle scenes tried to be large and spectacular but they were just obvious CGI.<br /><br />The acting is poor and no doubt Brad Pitt was cast just to attract the ladies. But he does not make a good warrior, too pretty i am afraid.<br /><br />Good points are is the design. This film does look good with the landscape and castle buildings/walls impressive. I do like a film that at least tries to get the characters accents true but this film just seems to ignore it completely. we hear American, Scottish English anything but what you might expect for a film about an ancient eastern civilisation.<br /><br />All in all, I do not recommend this film for a family sit down. It is too long and the young will get bored.<br /><br />For adults, it is OK if you don't care about the lack realism.
As was to be expected, A Mazursky film made in the 70s would be counter-culture, sympathetic towards the hippies - and have a lot of hippies in it - and, naturally, it is childishly anti-authoritarian (e.g. the scene on the Mexican border, when Sutherland provokes a custom's officer by showing little respect and then accuses the latter of making him open his luggage only because he (Sutherland) has long hair). The constant left-wing dribble could have gotten on my nerves had I not been prepared for it beforehand; Sutherland muses aloud to his family and friends about potential movie ideas for his next film, and most of these ideas are either about blacks or Indians (needless to say, he would be welcomed with open arms in today's Hollywood). One of his movie ideas is about a black uprising in Beverly Hills - a race-war, so-to-speak, in the middle of L.A.. This is the kind of nonsense that Mazursky thinks about when writing scripts for his movies. Fortunately, some of Sutherland's hippie friends make fun of this black-revolution premise, and the resulting dialogue isn't bad; a little later, the Jewish guy makes a crack about Sutherland making a movie about "masturbation and the black problem", when the latter starts talking about masturbation. Another funny moment is when Sutherland's older daughter performs some PC crap on stage with her white school-mates, and they all say: "We, the black people of the Republic of South Africa...".<br /><br />There is always a certain amount of self-indulgence when Hollywood makes a movie about Hollywood - especially when it's Hollywood making a movie about Hollywood discussing Hollywood doing movies. Now, that's very, very self-indulgent, indeed. The scene with Fellini (playing himself) is more amusing than annoying, though. Mazursky throws in the standard flower-children and anti-Vietnam bullshit into the soup, and also pokes fun at corporate Hollywood, but he was/is just as much a part of the "phony Hollywood" (lyrics from that song in the surreal war segment) as anyone else; I am pretty sure that he, too, makes phony small-talk in Beverly Hills parties and grins fakely while shaking the hands of people whom he either doesn't know or like, but whose money he wants badly for his next (left-wing) project. As for his hair: he has the worst hair I've seen in a very long time (on film or elsewhere); it's sort of like the kind of long hair that a middle-aged accountant would have if he grew it long. The film remains relatively interesting in spite of its aimlessness, but it bogs down somewhat into tedium in the last third. If you'd like to read my parody/biography of Donald Sutherland (and other Hollywood actors), contact me by e-mail.
Does anything at all happen in this movie. There are only the bizarre short scenes where I didn't know what the hell was going on so that doesn't count. This movie is sooo boring it hurts, and this is coming from a person who likes it when movies are about making movies. Confused?, well I was after watching this crap. What was Donald Sutherland on, because he missed it with this one completely. And what's with the "pedofile" scene at the beginning of the movie. Can put anyone to sleep! 4/10
This series is one of the worst shows I have ever seen. Terrible acting, terrible effects, terrible writing, you get my drift. The stories are so far from the legend of Robin Hood it's amazing. Looks like they just wanted to use the name Robin Hood to attract an audience. It might as well have been called New Adventures of Mr. Bland Acting.<br /><br />Someone commented before me that if you had imagination, you'd love this show. That is a horrible approach to a TV-series. A visual media like this should spark your imagination, you shouldn't have to force your imagination into something to make it good. That would be like the Simpsons episode where they try to brainwash Homer with a religious propaganda movie, and he starts talking about who killed who or whatever. "If a movie is boring, I just make up my own story."<br /><br />In conclusion: Absolute human waste.
i wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry. Porretta was good looking but resembled like a Mexican porn star not an English outlaw. costumes? what costumes? a t-shirt with strips of black leather on it. it was Marion's clothes--or lack of them--that really got me. do the 'fans' of this stinker really believe women dressed like that in medieval england. the Mongols and vikings were inaccurate and stupid, but the episode with an ALIEN was worst of all. Especially as his make up mainly consisted of oatmeal on his face--an old trick.The hedgehog monster was pretty funny, as was climbing up the side of a castle on a ladder of arrows--as if. the US accents grated as did the initial drawling voice over' RAW-bin Hood and LIDDLE John'.the second robin and Marion were really quite minging in looks and what was left of the show went totally down the pan...
I expected this to be a lot better. I love Tim Burton's work, so I was really excited to see these online short films. Well, they weren't at all what I had expected.<br /><br />I don't really know what exactly it is I don't like. I guess they're just sort of dull. The sound bothers me, and most of the characters, although I loved Roy the Toxic Boy, and Stainboy.<br /><br />The Match Girl episode probably bugged me the most, although it was pretty funny.<br /><br />I also don't like the way some of the characters die. Like how Match Girl basically set the gas station on fire, or how the Girl Who Stares died, in general. Roy's death was amusing, surprisingly. Death by a car freshener. Very original ;-) That made me laugh so hard...<br /><br />There are some things that aren't appropriate for kids. Just some language and gore. That's about all I have to say! 3/10
The story of the film was as simple minded as its morality: Go find a girl, marry her, live with her happily ever after. Though the film had some fine moments and turns, most of it stayed at the surface of what might have been shown in a film with the same storyline.<br /><br />The Baptist/Mormon struggle was only touched superficially and was mocked about, probably intentionally. A more interesting story would have been a mixed couple.<br /><br />If you wanna see a film which doesn't need too much concentration, which can be watched by the whole family and which teaches your children modest and conservative values (besides the modern tolerance stuff ;-) ), you will be fine with this film. Might be shown at a family-home-evening...
Movie about a small town with equal numbers of Mormons and Baptists. New family moves in, cue the overwritten dialog, mediocre acting, green jello salad with shredded carrots, and every other 'inside Mormon joke' known to man. Anyone outside the Mormon culture will have a hard time stomaching this movie. Anyone inside the Mormon culture will be slightly amused with a chuckle here and there. You'll be much better off watching Hess's other movies (Napoleon Dynamite, etc..) than trying to sit through this one. The acting is mediocre. Jared Hess has had his hands on much more quality films like "Saints and Soldiers", and "Napoleon Dynamite". I would recommend both movies over this groaner.
This movie was awful. I had a very difficult time watching this all the way through. I didn't get the point of the movie. What was the point of this movie? The soundtrack was bad, acting was bad and the story uninspiring. The two main characters in the movie were very boring and their dialog was uninteresting. There was no chemistry among any of the cast members. I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect that most of the actors were first timers. The movie could have easily been cut down to about an hour and half without losing the plot. That indicates how many useless scenes there were in the movie. I would have rather ha a root canal during the two hours of the movie. I want those two hours back! If you want to watch good, funny movie that is family friendly and made by a bunch of mormons, watch Napoleon Dynamite instead.
The late 80's saw an inexplicable rash of supernatural horror films set in gloomy penitentiary settings. Renny Harlin's superbly gritty and moody "Prison" got the whole haunted hoosegow ball rolling; it was immediately followed by the markedly inferior "The Chair," John Saxon's enjoyably trashy "Death House," the passable psycho picture "Destroyer," and this hideously limp'n'lethargic exercise in hopelessly comatose tedium. <br /><br />Your usual annoying collection of horribly unsympathetic college student chowderheads lead by insufferably spineless tormented twerp Alex (the hugely unappealing Nicholas Celozzi) go to Alcatraz Island to investigate the bizarre circumstances surrounding the sudden gruesome death of up-and-coming rock star Sammy Mitchell (blandly played by Toni Basil of "Hey Micky" fame). Alex's brother becomes possessed by the evil demonic spirit of a vicious cannibalistic US Civil War cavalry commandant and goes on the expected killing spree, thus forcing wimpy Alex to overcome his passivity and make a stand against this ghoulish specter.<br /><br />Although slickly photographed by Nicholas Von Sternberg, with a few decent gore set pieces and a fair amount of spooky atmosphere (the film was shot on location in the dismal, rusty, rundown ruins of Alcatraz Island), "Slaughterhouse rock" nonetheless just doesn't cut it as a solid, effective fright feature. This is largely due to the uniformly obnoxious and unlikeable collegiate smartaleck characters, a tiresomely smirky bunch whose inane comic antics prove to be grating rather than amusing. The flat acting from a noticeably disinterested cast hurts matters all the more, with onetime "Playboy" playmate and undeniable blonde cutie pie hottie supreme Hope Marie Carlton doing an especially irritating Linnea Quigley impersonation as the token oversexed nympho bimbo. Dimitri Logothetis' direction displays a modicum of flashy visual style, but the tone is unevenly pitched between grim seriousness and goofy, horrendously sophomoric silliness, and, most damagingly, Ted Landon's sloppy, inconsistent, overly complicated and finally quite confusing script miserably fails to develop the necessary internal logic to make the far-fetched story even remotely plausible. In other words, this stinker sadly succeeds in making a scant 90 minutes seem like an excruciatingly drawn-out cinematic jail sentence.
The summary provided by my cable TV guide made it sound a lot more interesting than it actually is. "Slaughterhouse Rock" is by far the worst horror film that I have ever seen, a title previously held by "Urban Legends: Final Cut". From its opening scene I could tell it's going to be really bad, but I was so bored that I couldn't care less. This film contains laughable acting, especially by the guy who's tormented in his dreams, incredible as in not credible plot twists, and some of the crappiest music I've heard, and I'm living in a period when the likes of Britney Spears and Nsync dominate the air waves. The biggest problem with "Slaughterhouse Rock" is that it's not funny. One would a film as dull and boring and so NOT scary as this would try to spice things up a bit with a few funny one-liners here and there, but no. We have Tormented Guy's self-centered friend trying to be funny, but came across as annoying instead. (spoiler) And please, do tell me, who in this crazy world is insane and self-loathing enough to visit a creepy jail in the middle of the night? No one! If you're going to make a horror movie, at least make it believable. This one is anything but.
The storyline is absurd and lame,also sucking are performances and the dialogue, is hard to keep your Eyes open. I advise you to have a caffeine-propelled friend handy to wake you in time for a couple Gore-effects.Why they bring Alcatraz in?In this case,becomes increasingly difficult to swallow. All the while ,i wondered who this film aimed for?Chock full of lame subplots (such as the Cannibalism US Army-captain)This is low-grade in every aspect.BTW this Movie is banned in Germany!!
Well after three times through I still have no idea what this movie is about because, quite honestly, it failed to generate any real interest or concern. But here it goes: A bunch of too old to be teen Teen Actors dressed in horrifying latter 1980's fashions (did WE look like that too??) decide it would be a really good idea to get in a motorboat and go visit the abandoned Alcatraz after one of them has nightmares of people being slaughtered in various horrifying ways that manage to rip off POLTERGEIST, THE EVIL DEAD, and Freddy Kreuger in one fell swoop. The dimwit even envisions himself being roasted over an open fire with some deformed freak slicing off strips of tenderloin. Good thing it was only a dream or it might have hurt, and good thing his dreams had a decent special effects budget. Mine are usually pretty lame: Girls, model space ships, blowing things up with a bazooka, etc.<br /><br />Once on the Alcatraz island they find themselves in a Slasher movie, and meet up with Tony Basil, who cannot help but break into a couple dance poses at times and had her own lighting crew (complete with a smoke machine for that 1980's smoky haze infused light look, which I kind of miss). And such reminded me that Ms. Basil helped choreograph David Byrne of the Talking Heads for some of his videos and performances. This of course has nothing at all to do with the film but kept popping into mind as the movie posed very little to actually think about. It sort of happens, and you can either watch or keep working on your page markup with it on the TV set off to the side. But since the film isn't really interesting, you'll keep deciding to finish one last thing instead of wasting time, the movie will keep ending, and you'll find yourself wondering what you missed every time you realize the end credits are starting to roll again, dammit ...<br /><br />*SOME* 1980's Teen Horror movies can survive such specialized viewing: Umberto Lenzi's GHOSTHOUSE, CHOPPING MALL & it's Killbots, the hard to ignore NIGHT OF THE CREEPS and the over-the-top SLEEPAWAY CAMP all come to mind. They are films that, like them or not, demand your attention and usually pay off with some good gore or T&A, and typos in your work as evidence that you were watching the TV instead of your keyboard. I am sure that HELL ISLAND (as the British version I glommed onto is titled) does indeed have some good stuff in there, but frankly I don't care. And nothing is more annoying that encountering art of any genre that doesn't inspire admiration, some decent dislike or even good old honest hatred for it. The film is content with simpering away 80-whatever minutes of time and never really accomplishing anything more than being a sometimes distraction in spite of my best efforts to try and give it a chance, but no dice.<br /><br />There is some offbeat production design going on, the use of lighting is striking at times, and the occasional outburst of mayhem will probably keep fans of 1980's Teen Horror interested. The rest of you be warned though: YOU WILL WONDER IF YOU DRESSED LIKE THAT IN 1987, and the answer is probably more hideous than anything which happens on screen. Try to watch it as a free rental if possible so that if disappointed you aren't stuck with the damn thing: Movies like this take up valuable shelf space that is often at a commodity these days, what with the world coming to an end & all ...
College student Alex Gardner (Nicholas Celozzi) is plagued by nightmares of a cellar-dwelling ghoul at Alcatraz. He dreams of cutting off his own hand, spitting up a worm, a ghoul ripping open his chest and being roasted over an open fire. After his friends see him levitating "6 feet" over his bed, a helpful, occult-obsessed teacher (Donna Denton) suggests that they sneak into Alcatraz to face his fears. Of course they go in the middle of the night when no one is around to help when things get out of hand!<br /><br />The group become stranded, Alex's brother Richard (Tom Reilly) becomes possessed and starts killing everyone. Toni Basil of "Mickey" fame shows up as the helpful ghost of Sammy Mitchell, lead singer of the group "Bodybag". She teaches Alex how to levitate out of his body and does a rock music dance intercut with repeat nightmare footage to pad out the running time. All of the victims show up as wisecracking ghosts a la the Griffin Dunne character in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON. The script is full of plot holes, cheesy dialogue and lame attempts at comedy. Good FX work and cool opening credits (both by Ernest D. Farino) are the only things gaining any merit. Basil and Devo ("Whip It") do some songs on the soundtrack.<br /><br />Score: 2 out of 10
This was one of the most boring "horror" movies that I have ever seen. A college kid has an epidemic of nightmares involving roaming spirits at Alcatraz. Trying to deliver a mix of "Nightmare on Elm Street" and standard vampire fare in the form of a bad 80s music video, this movie is jammed full of bad acting and an exhaustively slow moving story. Although, being such a bad, and often laughable movie (dig those mullets and the terrible dialog), it would be good material to spoof on for an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. Don't be fooled by the proud mention of the film being the 1987 winner of the Silver Scroll Award by the Academy of Sicence Fiction, Fanatasy, and Horror, or that Devo contributes to the soundtrack, or that Tony Basil has a part in the film. It is a giant disaster, though one with a small cult following (see the other IMDb comments for this film).
Hearing such praise about this play, I decided to watch it when I stumbled across it on cable. I don't see how this "elivates" women and their "struggles" by focusing on the topic at hand. I guess if you have an interest in stories about women's private parts and how it affects their lives, then this is for you. Otherwise, it's rather dull and boring. If anything, I found it a bit degrading.<br /><br />I inquired with a female friend who also watched this and she thought it was horrible as well. So, it's not just a guy "not getting it".
I saw one of the stage performances in Denver and have never been less impressed. The word "vagina" says it all. A body part. Nothing shocking here. I could say to my doctor, "My left arm has been hurting a bit after tennis" or "My vagina hurts after cycling" with equal or more social commentary. It could be the "Tricep Monologues" for all the entertainment or radical comment I heard. The monologues were dull but delivered with drama, the topics were outdated, and I was alternately bored and annoyed. Once I think I laughed but apparently it wasn't when I was supposed to. Surely this isn't really a hit. Oh, and spoilers: there was a LESBIAN! - oh, wait, maybe not, come to think of it. And Inappropriate Fondling! And a Crack Mama! That about covers it.
Although this seems to be quite an old show (2002), I watched my first ever episode last night and I have to say it has to be the worst show . . . ever.<br /><br />I am not one for placing comments but I was so shocked that a show could exist that blatantly tries to pander to, and I am only assuming that this was their target audience, children under 12 years old or people with a less than average IQ.<br /><br />The episode I was subjected to last night contained so many disjointed story lines, tried to include EVERY possible plot summary imaginable and all the while trying to preach about friendship, family, religion and politics !!!.<br /><br />Basic story that they covered in the episode: Frat House hazing gone wrong wrong with too much alcohol - Death Turns out to be Senators son who wants FBI to investigate. Death is actually murder by peanut allergy Senator thinks it could be his sworn enemy and childhood best friend who did this because Senator was taking money for his votes for legislation but eventually got a conscience and said 'no' to mean mulit millionaire. Everybody a suspect but all have the usual alibi (ex-girlfriend student shagging a married teacher so had to lie, disgruntled student who was reported by victim actually had life changing experience, Senators enemy did not pay desperate student to kill sworn enemies son, he gives money freely to lots of broke students). All the while the heroine of this dribble has her niece staying who is 'at that age' and has a crush on a boy, who she eventually gets the courage to talk to with the assistance of her aunty, but only to dump him because the 'in' girls says he is not good enough and so to keep in with them she dumps him. Don't worry, she gets back with boy after she learns the truth about life and the 'in' girls drop her, Aunty also explains that God is the only one who truly she can rely on (I was almost sick at this point).<br /><br />This 'drama' gets even better when Sue and her FBI team find out who the killer is . . . your gonna laugh at this, i sure did . . . <br /><br />It is one of the Frat boys who only a year ago found out he was adopted and that his real dad is an International terrorist and he is trying to impressive real daddy by killing boy and planting bomb at funeral . . . . . . . <br /><br />The characters are cardboard the acting is cardboard the continuity is cardboard the story is cardboard Anybody who says that they love this show has cardboard for a brain<br /><br />Why the writers of this show have tried to pack in EVERY eventuality into the one show means that they obviously have no faith in the character development or actors capability to carry off a simple plot line. Watching this show is like watching 'Last Action Hero' with Arnie killing 5'000 people with a tooth pick, except Arnie is a better actor (wow, never thought there would be a day that i would say that !!)<br /><br />In the words of the Simpsons beloved character 'comic book guy' . . . . <br /><br />WORST TV SHOW . . . . . EVER.
When watching this show you are not quite sure whether it is the story or the acting that is more annoying. First of all, the storyline of each episode is very predictable, the writers must have used every cliché possible, you can guess not only the general plot, but the arrangement of the scenes and also the lines of each character, making the show some sort of a collage of every police series out there. On the top of it all comes the "message" of the show, that the good are good and the bad are bad and that at the end of the day the good shall prevail and that we should all love each other, be better man and better citizens, all done in the most ostensible manner. The actors, as the vehicles of this message and nothing more than that, will use a limited set of acting skills: the "I am a good carrying person" smile, the concerned look and the "victory is ours" body posture, while the bad guys have the "I'm a bad one" frowning and the "you caught me" look, followed by the "I'm good for nothing and I should be removed from society" head banding (this kind of also sums up the general development of each show). True story or not, the show is garbage, yet another proof that producers don't give a s**t about viewers, that we are all thought to be idiots. Well this series makes every possible attempt to idiotize the living brains out of you.
I found "The Arab Conspiracy" in a bargain bin and thought I'd uncovered a lost treasure. Folks, there's a reason why you don't hear much about this film. The plot is muddy, the pacing is slow, Cornelia Sharpe is about as vivacious as plain, cold tofu, and the ending leaves you flat. Not even Sean Connery can save this one.
The movie had a lot of potential, unfortunately, it came apart because of a weak/implausible story line, miscasting, and general lack of content/substance. One of the very obvious flaws was that Sean Connery, who played an Arab man, didn't know how to pronounce his own Arab name! This may seem a small flaw but it points to the seeming lack of effort in paying attention to details. The quality of acting was uniformly well below average. <br /><br />Movie's solitary saving grace was the twist in the plot at the very end; and a french song (I don't recall the title). Overall, it was a pretty bad movie where Sean Connery was visibly miscast.
This is a case of a bunch of people thinking they are so clever they have a story that fits the time. Remember the all-around political conspiracies caught on camera in the years leading to the Watergate and a little later? Most movies trying to cash in on made-for-TV 'o so powerful, o so mind numbing' conspiracies were in fact caught in their own navel-gazing attitude.<br /><br />I was never a fan of The Conversation which I find as much dated as others conspiracy stints of the time but Coppola was true to his main character and Hackman was a pretty engaging actor to observe. I mean these conspiracy movies are mostly drowning in the character pool of noir heroes. Lots of questions unanswered, lots of dis-communication... Well this takes at least Bergman to build a movie about such un-visual bases.<br /><br />The Next Man is a perfect example of its time: one political soup served with an idealistic character and an horrendous conspiracy tightening its web around him. Neither part is interesting in itself and the whole doesn't get any better. In fact you can tell how much it will be bad from the very first sequences piling up 'watcha that' murders without ever advancing any storyline. Pedestrian directing at its worst as most of the movie is one pompous accumulation of scenes revolving around violence naively brought under the viewer's eyes.
I'm usually not one to say that a film is not worth watching, but this is certainly an extenuating circumstance. The only true upside to this film is Cornelia Sharpe, looking rather attractive, and the fact that this film is REALLY short.<br /><br />The plot in the film is unbelievably boring and goes virtually nowhere throughout the film. None of the characters are even remotely interesting and there is no reason to care about anyone. I'm not sure why on earth Sean Connery agreed to do this film, but he should have definitely passed on this one.<br /><br />The only reason I could see for seeing this film is if you are a die-hard Sean Connery fan and simply want to see everything he's done. Save this one for last though.<br /><br />Well, if you by some miracle end up seeing this despite my review (or any of the other reviews on this site), then I hope you enjoy it more than I did. Thanks for reading.
PLAN B has the appearance of a quickly made, unedited, sloppy script for a movie with the attempt for an outing for the actors involved - an outing that should have been nixed from the start. It is just another Mafia-based 'comedy' that has nothing new and lowers the standard for those participating.<br /><br />Joe Maloni (Paul Sorvino) is the crime boss more concerned about clothing and appearances than about his business of control. His personal assistant Mario (Anthony DeSando) is dumber than dirt and his ignorance is supposed to be funny. Maloni has whacked one of his debtors (who just happens to be married to bookish Fran - Diane Keaton) and Maloni takes Fran on as his assistant to work off her dead husband's debt by being Maloni's 'hit man'. Fran is afraid of her own shadow and is unable to carry out Maloni's assignments, electing instead to transport her 'whackees' to Florida to hide at her brother James' house until she can figure out what to do next. This alternative to killing the three candidates is called Plan B, Plan A being to kill them! The ending is wholly predictable just as is every line assigned in the script to the characters.<br /><br />Diane Keaton has made a lot of fine films and is one of our most talented actresses and comediennes, but here she screams and rants and twitches her way through a ridiculous part that quickly becomes annoying to watch. Paul Sorvino is, well, the Paul Sorvino type cast from other mobster films. The supporting cast is likewise allowed to play to the balcony in the broadest slapstick, pratfall fashion imaginable. What is supposed to be a comedy ends up being just silly and overdone. Director Greg Yaitanes needs to go back to TV sitcoms: had this flimsy story been compressed into a half-hour gig it might have had a chance. Grady Harp
Simply put, this is the worst movie since "Police Academy: Mission to Moscow" (if you liked that movie you will probably like this one).<br /><br />What were they thinking ? Some ideas should stay just that, an idea. The fact that this idea could itself to film should be a criminal offense.<br /><br />What was so bad about it I hear you ask. One word ... EVERYTHING.<br /><br />Cost to Hire: $4.50 Cost in Time to Watch: 89 Minutes<br /><br />I want a refund on both!
Screenwriter Lisa Lutz began writing the screenplay at the age of 21 in 1991 <br /><br />Is she even in business? If someone gave her another chance after this piece of crap, she's up for the most Fortunate Person Of Ever award.This movie sucks to no END...It never ceases to amaze me what the turn into movies...and the fact that they made this writer put it off for a bit? Seriously? I can write better crap than this in my sleep.<br /><br />OK, so how many lines to I have to type? I don't get this at all. I guess I"m a newbie. I guess I don't understand why there should ever be a limit to what anyone has to say...or a quota? Seriously, I don't care if you have a one word sentence...or even a one word response. I mean, c'mon? <br /><br />Thanks...is this enough, finally?<br /><br />This movie is worthless.
This Kiyoshi Kurosawa ghost movie is pretty wild, and it did have at least one jump scare that caught me off guard. But all in all, the movie is incredibly stupid, with a detective trying to track down a suspected serial killer, only to find out he may have committed one of the crimes. Then he finds himself haunted by a gorgeous Asian lady ghost, and has no idea why (and neither does the viewer). As other murders are committed, he becomes even more confused as the killers are easily found, and this ghost still haunts him for some reason. Not only is the plot completely stupid, the lady ghost is more funny than anything, especially when she suddenly flies across the city, like Wonder Woman. And the ending makes little sense, in fact, the whole movie makes little sense, and I can't recommend it at all. If it didn't take itself so serious, I would think it was supposed to be a black comedy. Outside of "Bright Future" this is the worst movie directed by Kiyoshi Kurosawa I have seen yet.
The Japenese sense of pacing, editing and musical score must be different than American tastes, but surely this movie could have been so much more with a little more post production work.<br /><br />Someone in Hollywood needs to re-make this movie and I think it would be a big hit. The story is interesting and creepy. There's something about the edges of the city, gritty policemen, earthquakes, sanitariums and mysterious saltwater killings that is enough to be captivating. However, this story has to make just a little bit of sense and maybe be about 40 minutes shorter.<br /><br />I do have to say that the "sixth-sense" effect was in full force in this movie, and that was evident from the very beginning.<br /><br />As it stands, only the die-hard Japanese film lovers should bother seeing this oh-so-boring movie.
I've seen about four other Japanese horror films and they weren't too impressive. However, I could sense that there was a sensible script guiding the way.<br /><br />Not here, no way. This is about a detective who is trying to tie together similar murders that have been happening. When he finds a suspect to question, the suspect freaks out because they keep seeing a ghost. Then, the ghost starts to follow the detective around FOR A REASON THAT IS NEVER EXPLAINED AND TAKES UP MORE THAN HALF OF THE MOVIE.<br /><br />Bad enough? Oh no. The film keeps switching perspectives to different characters who don't have much to do with the story. I've seen this before in other movies where it shows a different perspective. Not the case here.<br /><br />Also, whatever is happening on screen that is actually tolerable quickly ends. For example, there a few scenes with a slight instrumental score that builds up and...then it just cuts to another scene. I'm aware that this can be a dramatic effect. That's definitely not the intention here. It's just bad editing.<br /><br />Finally, there's the "ghost" who just screams in a way that's not scary or unintentionally funny. It's annoying and it happens a lot throughout the movie.<br /><br />All of the scares have been done before in better ways so you can see them all coming. Then after one of them, the movie is over. At that point, a wave of confusion swept over the audience as I could sense we all felt that we had wasted our time. Someone did a mock clap and laughter ensued. It was better than the whole film. Simply put, AVOID.
speaking solely as a movie, i didn't really liked it. not because there were no FX or because we had a single cabin as the scenario for the whole film, actually that was what kept me watching it.<br /><br />i didn't like it because the acting was shady, his "friends" are all happy and then they're mad, but you have no idea why; then they take distinct roles, one is the believer, other is the antagonist, but they never really make the point! also, the lighting was terrible and i'm just mentioning technical issues.<br /><br />in a few words, i thing the movie could have just had a "ok i'm outta here!" from some characters. like the lady who doesn't want to hear his version of the bible.<br /><br />about the story itself, everyone is free to write about what they want, and the story is proof of some good writing and imagination. i credit the book author for that, hence, my 4/10.<br /><br />so, in the end, hear the man's story believe it or not, just don't spend the whole time acting like you believe him and being shocked at what he says, and at the same time moving around and making jokes like you don't believe him.<br /><br />Coherence.<br /><br />thanks for reading ;)
Republic pictures comes late in the game to the "werewolf" er Werecat genre. The plot has a writer returning to Paris after a long trip abroad during which he developed jungle fear during which he had blackouts. He is arriving to great acclaim as his novel that parallels an infamous trial is a best seller. The French government wants to know if he had access to secret documents, something that seems more likely when an official is killed by a "catman". Suspicion really falls on the writer when his fiancé ends up dead. Complicating matters is the return of the blackouts so the writer doesn't know if he's the killer or not.<br /><br />Okay thriller is much too leisurely to be fully enjoyed. There are too many musical numbers early on and too much dead time when things are all talk in the middle and later sections. The acting is fine and the sets quite good but there is a reason why most people I know only remember the top hatted killer, he's the most interesting thing in this film. despite its short running time (just over an hour) I think the reason that this film was rarely seen on TV was that after 20 minutes you begin to lose patience with it. As good as the talk is, I just wished someone would do something. When it finally did happen, in the closing minutes, it was too little too late..<br /><br />Take a pass.
The special effects of this movie are, especially for its time, laughable and used in such an over-emphasized way that you can't deny their terrible existance.<br /><br />The acting redefines the term "terrible overacting" at the hands of Meg Foster and Richard Joseph Paul, where julie Newman and Andrew Divoff just redefine "bad".<br /><br />***spoilers***<br /><br />The charm in this movie can be found in two things: First is the excellent casting of Carel "Lurch" Struycken as the mysterious psychic Gaunt, who can sense where and when people will die and is always there.<br /><br />The second are original finds, the combination SF-Western is obviously original, if terrible, but other finds are more original, like the gunman Zack Stone being able to sense the pain of the people he shoots (though his acting falls short here).<br /><br />Overal...don't see this movie, except if you love that ol' hunk-o-brutal Carel Struycken, as any self-respecting Dutchman should.
You get 5 writers together, have each write a different story with a different genre, and then you try to make one movie out of it. It's action, it's adventure, it's sci-fi, it's western, it's a mess. Sorry, but this movie absolutely stinks. 4.5 is giving it an awefully high rating. That said, it's movies like this that make me think I could write movies, and I can barely write.
Seeing this movie, as I just did for the first time on Turner Classic (which lists it as "Dangerous Female"), can only multiply your appreciation for the 1941 Bogart-Astor version. Ricardo Cortez must have been getting paid by the smirk. I hope he remembered his dentist and his Brylcreem salesman in his will; they made him the actor he was. The women are all good, but no better than that. Well, Una Merkel is a little better. More interesting are the "original" Joel Cairo and Mr. Gutman, who competently deliver many of the individual tics but almost nothing of the set-changing atmospherics of their successors in the roles, Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet. Humphrey Bogart and Mary Astor somehow transcended the essential seediness of their characters in the remake; here, Sam Spade and Ruth Wonderley(!) can't. <br /><br />This movie doesn't exactly stink; it lies there like a big slice of ham. Its chief value today is as a reminder that great movies like the '41 "Falcon" don't just happen. On the 1-to-10 scale I rate it a 4, mainly for the camera work and the supporting players.
Fans of creature feature films have to endure a lot of awful movies lately. Blood Surf shamelessly joins the list of stupid, redundant pulp-horror titles about ridiculously big animals that want to turn the food chain upside down. Crocodiles are particularly successful as we already had to struggle our way through the abysmal 'Crocodile' (directed by a disappointing Tobe Hooper) and 'Lake Placid'. Blood Surf is every bit as bad as these other films and – on top of that – it likes to exaggerate tremendously. The saltwater-crocodile supposedly is 90 years old, over 30 ft long (!) and it kills for fun! During the film, he amuses himself by devouring a bunch of utterly stupid surfer-dudes & dudettes who came to seek new thrills by surfing in a shark-congested area. The only beautiful aspect about this film is the tropical location. Even though it's a completely inappropriate setting for a film like this, the lagoons and nature looks marvelous. Every other aspect is simply disastrous. There's a quite a bit of gore but it all looks fake and laughable. The dialogues are downright painful to listen to! You won't believe some of the lines these actors have to say! I know surfers are supposed to be a mentally underdeveloped group but I hope for their own sake they're not that stupid! Early in the film, one of the characters refers to Jaws as being a 'mechanical toy' but the croc here looks at least 10 times less real than Spielberg's great white shark. The visual effects in 'Blood Surf' are amateurish and the massacres fail to impress. I won't say too much about the acting since it's secondary in flicks like this. The girls look sexy in wet shirts and their boobs joyfully bounce while running away from the beast. You guessed right: Blood Surf is a very bad film. So bad it becomes fun again. But 'funny' for a whole other reason than James Hickox intended.
Standard "paint-by-numbers" monster fare, filled with a bunch of routine plot devices from big-creature movies. It's like somebody had a deck of cards with plot ideas from other movies written on them, which were shuffled, and dealt. Whatever plot lines and characters came up in the deal were then tossed into the script. <br /><br />Characters are so cliché-ridden, that you can play a game of "Guess who ends up as a monster meal" after less than ten minutes into the movie, and probably get every single one right--including the order that they will get devoured. Many of the characters are so obnoxious, that you root for the creature to shut them up. Some of the main characters include: a Billy Idol clone who surfs with sharks, a loudmouth brat who flashes bankrolls, a Capt. Ahab guy with a vendetta, and Ahab's girlfriend who does sleazy dances at a bar. Oh, and a big, big beast in need of anger management therapy.<br /><br />Along the way, people argue a lot, pretty girls run around with wet t-shirts, couples make out on exotic beaches, explosions occur, ruins of a shrine appear, and greasy-faced pirates drop by. <br /><br />Amusing, for the most part, but one thing bothered me: the callousness by characters when other people were killed. After one violent demise, they make one-liner jokes. I could almost hear rim shots.<br /><br />Overall, OK, if you have 90 minutes to waste, and you want to laugh at a so-bad-it's-good-movie. Otherwise, you may want to skip this one.
Sometimes I rest my head and think about the reasons why movies about killer sharks and/or crocodiles are still getting made these days. They've been making these lame "Jaws"-copies since the 70s, it's not like they're getting any more well-liked. The idea is still exactly the same. So we have an animal that starts murdering people. First it takes down some secondary characters, then it starts attacking the main characters, usually played by a couple of nobodies except for someone who used to be a bit more famous, who usually plays a specialist. One of the main characters usually dies before the others kill the animal somehow, usually with an explosion. Then, we usually get a last shot where we see that the animal is still alive, or has laid eggs, etc. etc. "Krocodylus" basically uses the same overused ideas, and does absolutely nothing to create even a tad bit of variation. Unless you count the fact that the "specialist" is a captain in this one variation, in that case your standards are pretty low. It's funny that he's played by Duncan Regehr though, he like totally used to be Zorro.Hell I'll give it a bonus point for that.
A Movie about a bunch of some kind of filmmakers, who want to make a documentary on a new kind of surfing in shark-infested waters. As an absolute fan of movies including some kind of vicious animals or monsters, I thought this might be my kind of movie... it wasn't!!! This should be more of a guideline of how not to do it! It has a lot of accidental humor in it and the evil beast is an incredible joke, in the final scene it goes after the main characters *rolling*, the feet are obviously waving in the air! It looks ridiculous! Good for a laugh though. If it were only for the lack of talent between the actors, the embarrassingly stupid dialogs and the hilariously stupid crocodile, it would be at least worth a laugh, but it gets worse: I'd guess, the people in charge of this movie noticed how weak it was, so they though up the old idea of "sex sells"... Totally, i mean TOTALLY without any reasons one of the main actresses shows her breasts to the beast. And somewhere towards the beginning there's some kind of meaningless "makeout". This is the last ingredient making the movie absolute trash to me. It's incredible how people actually spend time producing such rubbish! If you are seeking for a real waste of time: watch this movie!!!
An MTV-style film crew consisting of American T.V. programme producer Zack Zardine (Matt Borlenghi) his camerawoman, the Australian Cecily (Kate Fisher) and two surfer 'dudes' named Bog Hall (Dax Miller) and Jeremy (Joel West) arrive on some nice looking island somewhere, it's not actually revealed where. The crew plan to shoot an expose on 'bloodsurfing' which is apparently the latest craze in extreme sports. Surfers throw bait into the sea and cut themselves to attract sharks, just to see if they can out-surf them without being eaten. Once there they are greeted by Sonny Lofranco (Cris Vertido) and his wife Melba (Susan Africa). Their search for the perfect location leads them to the shark infested waters of Lilo-Cay. Sonny, Melba and their daughter Lemmya (Maureen Larrazabal) take them in their boat. Soon after arriving and having already shot some 'bloodsurfing' footage Sonny, Melba and Lemmya are all killed by a 30 foot saltwater crocodile that some say 'owns' the island. The boat is sunk. Zack, Cecily, Bog and Jeremy appear stuck on the island until such time a rescue party arrives. However, after a run in with some, erm well I don't really know what they are. Pirates? Drug smugglers? Revolutionairies? Fat ugly people who just don't like being with other people? Who knows? And more importantly who cares? Not me that's for sure. Anyway, after escaping from these guys who look like pirates, they are picked up just off the coast of the island by Captain John Dirks (Duncan Regehr) and his girl Arty (Taryn Reif as Tara Reif). The film crew believe they have been saved. Little do they know that the crocodile and Captain Dirks go way back and he has a score to settle and four members of a film crew aren't going to stop him. Captain Dirks heads back to Lilo-Cay for a final showdown with the giant man-eating crocodile.<br /><br />Directed by James D.R. Hickox this is one awful film, but it's still not as bad as Tobe Hoopers Crocodile (2000). Everything about this film sucks. The script by Sam Bernard and Robert L.Levy is terrible, extremely slow as the crocodile isn't even seen or mentioned before the 30 minute mark and by that time I was seriously bored and annoyed with the hideously unlikeable characters thought up by Bernard and Levy. The whole film is also frustratingly predictable as well, within the first 10 minutes anyone familiar with horror film stereotypes and stock characters will be able to guess who dies and who will survive. The crocodile effects are awful and seem to be repeated over and over, there is a small puppet head that obviously has someones arm stuck inside it controlling it's movements as the water splashes become huge! The CGI shots of the crocodile are just plain embarrassing to watch. There is no gore apart from when a character is bitten in half which is achieved using CGI to digitally remove the actors legs, again it looks terrible. There is also a brief scene when someone is impaled on wooden spikes when they set a trap off. There is a reasonable amount of nudity and sex, plus the female actresses are nice and easy on the eye. There are basic continuity and logical errors in the film too, in one sequence Cecily is filming Bog and Jeremy 'bloodsurfing' but from the angle and distance she is at it would be physically impossible to obtain footage of both the sharks and surfers at the same time, and surely that is the whole point of her shot? When Dirks manages to harpoon the crocodile the angle of the wire changes dramatically between shots, in one shot the angle of the line looks like it's coming from the sky, in the shot straight after the angle is completely different and it seems as if the line is coming from below the surface of the water when in actual fact the harpoon is attached to the back of the boat and the line should be almost level with the surface. I could carry on, like why does the crocodile jump off the edge of a cliff if it's so smart as this film tries to make out? But I would probably exceed the 1000 word limit if I listed everything that was wrong with this film, so I won't. I hated this film, but rather scarily it's still not as bad as Tobe Hoopers effort at a giant crocodile film. Definitely one to avoid.
"It's not like that big mechanical toy", says a character early on, commenting on "Jaws". Well, "Blood Surf" would only wish to have a beast as convincing as the shark of the "Jaws" series. In other words, the digital special effects of this movie are TERRIBLE. Acting and directing are not much better, either; they seem more suited to a deodorant or a bubble-gum commercial than to a horror movie. The attitude of the people who worked on this film shows contempt not only for the genre, but for the audience too. Saying you "liked" this film only encourages filmmakers to offer us more of this crap, further destroying the poor horror genre. (*1/2)
Oh God, I must have seen this when I was only 11 or twelve, (don't ask how) I may have been young, but I wasn't stupid. Anyone could see that this is a bad movie, nasty, gross, unscary and very silly. I've seen more impressive effects at Disneyland, I've seen better performances at a school play, And I've seen more convincing crocodiles at the zoo, where they do nothing but sit in the water, ignoring the children tapping on the glass.<br /><br />The story is set in northern Australia. A handful of ambitious young people, are trying out a new water sport, surfing in shark filled waters. It soon becomes evident that something more dangerous is in the water. After they learn what, they get the help of a grizzly middle aged fisherman, who wants to kill the animal to avenge the eating of his family.<br /><br />I think I have seen every crocodile film made in the last fifteen years, the best of which is Lake Placid, and the worse of which is its sequel. Blood Surf would have to be the second worst croc flick I think, with Primeval and Crocodile tailing closely behind.<br /><br />The Australian Saltwater Crododile is one of the most dangerous creatures out there, resulting in more than a hundred injuries or deaths every year. Movies like Blood Surf however ruin not only the ferocious image of such a creature, but a good hour and a half of the viewer's life. Unless you really want to see it, avoid Blood Surf.
...which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. Overall, "DinoCroc" was a much better movie. Sure, in that movie Matt Borlenghi played a complete wuss-bag who spent the entire movie crying about his little brother getting eaten by the DinoCroc. But the special effects in "DinoCroc" were better, the plot lines were better, and the acting was better. Here are the problems with "Blood Surf" -- 1) the killer crocodile looks like a kid's model with a retractable jaw. 2) the plot is ridiculous. Matt Borlenghi & Co. get shipwrecked on a deserted island, in which they encounter a rabid group of ugly Filipino natives who try to force themselves upon the women in the group. Which was a complete waste of 15 minutes of film. And 3) there's not enough croc time. There are a couple of redeeming qualities of "Blood Surf" -- the actresses are pretty attractive and Matt Borlenghi gets eaten by the croc towards the end of the movie. But if you're on your deathbed and only have enough time to watch one Matt Borlenghi/killer crocodile movie, skip this one and fire up "DinoCroc" instead.
Some might scoff, but there is actually a real art with making particularly bad films. This misses out on all fronts.<br /><br />A bunch of young people -- women with heaving breasts and continuously wet T-Shirts, naturally -- go to film "blood surfing" and end up running into a 31 foot crocodile.<br /><br />Not only was the croc obviously fake, but some of the props [notice the boat hitting the reef in particular] look like they've come out of thunderbirds!<br /><br />No good, from start to finish. Don't see it!
I never actually thought that a film could be so atrocious, but alas I was wrong. Terrible acting, terrible plot, terrible effects. The Crocodile was awful and as for the stupid sex/killing scene all in one, that was a bad move from the word go. It was truly shocking and that is not a compliment! How can someone make this film, watch it back and then actually say "Yeah, thats a good movie. People will watch that" If you haven't seen it I beg you DON'T BOTHER :-(
**SPOILERS**<br /><br />This is one BAD movie. Seriously. Acting in absolutely horrible, the FX are dreadfull and the plot is down right awful. But hey, its so bad that its fun watching! The script is SO bad that its enjoyable! You just have to cringe and laugh at lines such as "I guess thats what you call CROCTEASING." as the women flash their breasts at the crocodile. I mean COME ON thats funny cause its so bad! It has such horrible jokes that they're funny! But after a while it just becomes to much as the movie turns into crap. I really started to fall asleep. Trust me though, the plastic croc foot stamping on the leaves and the constant swishes of a crock tail well keep you laughing for a long time. Though I have to say it had one cool part when the croc ripped that dude in half and he just hung there for a while figuring out what to do. Heh heh mindless movie, which HAS to be nominated for the MST3K line!!
Oh, CGI. A blessing when used properly. A sin with it's used by people who have no idea what their doing. Sadly, that's not the only thing that's used poorly in this umpteen Jaws rip-off.<br /><br />Ok, anybody who has read any number of my posted reviews has probably noticed 2 things. 1: I like low-budget horror movies. And 2: If there is a cute guy in said low-budget movie, I'll usually point them out. So, let's just get this out of the way right now. This is one low-budget horror movie I didn't like. The acting, for the most part, is horrible, effects laughable, and the script rivals Battlefield Earth as the worst I've witnessed this year. As far as the resident cute boy...Dax Miller (Bog) wins that prize hands down. This boy is hot! And surprisingly, he's not just a toned body with nice eyes and a cute butt...he can actually act (well, as much as he can in this odious film). Now that we have the housekeeping chores out of the way, let's get on with it.<br /><br />In Cliff Notes version, here's the story (don't worry, I'll try not to give anything away)...<br /><br />A film crew travels to a remote island to film a documentary about two surfers (established cute boy and his buddy) who surf with sharks. Unknown to them is a rather large salt water crocodile lurking around the island. Croc shows up, mayhem ensues, and people are eaten. Roll end credits.<br /><br />As I said earlier, this film pretty much blows. It started pretty well, but soon devolved into being silly and stupid. A main character becomes lunch (in a rather humorous way), and our remaining heros utter one-liners at the victims expense. Also, if this croc is at the top of the food chain on both the land and in the water, what's with all the sharks around? If this thing can eat a 40 foot boat, I don't think a few skimpy sharks would stick around. The FX is some of the worst I have ever had the displeasure to see. The CGI is horrendous, and they've even managed to screw up the animatronic crocs. Attention, filmmakers. National Geographic. Discovery Store. The Croc Hunter. They know what crocodiles look like. You obviously didn't reference any of these judging by the monstrosity seen towards the end of the film. And what's with the pirate/drug pusher gang? Did you just need another reason to rip off a woman's top? <br /><br />It's funny how we get little sub-genres in the movie world. With Alligator and it's sequels, Lake Placid, Crocodile, and now Blood Surf, it now looks like "over-sized crocodile/alligator" movies should now get their own category at Blockbuster. Alligator was good. Lake Placid was good. I even thought Tobe Hooper's Crocodile was good. Blood Surf, sucked.<br /><br />My grade: D-
Upon viewing Tobe Hooper's gem, Crocodile, in 2000, I developed a great interest in the college/crocodile niche of the exploitation/monster genre. I look forward to a wayward producer to follow up with several sequels to these delightful bonbons of camp goodness. If only Ed Wood could bring his subtle sense of flair and dignity to these remarkable scripts. With Ed writing the scripts, and a room full of monkees creating crocodile special effects on a computer, all we'd need would be a cast of crocky fodder with Russ Meyer breasts and Ren Hoek pectoral implants.<br /><br />While Tobe Hooper's crocky opus referenced his own movies, Blood Surf chose to dish out a bunch of aging themes from the chum bucket of other movies. See if you can look past the Revenge of the Nerds sequel sets to find the allusions/homages?/rip-offs to Jaws, Temple of Doom, Indiana Jones' Last Crusade, The Convent, Godzilla 2000, and any James Bond movie. Also, try to find the ready-for-tv fade where the editor gave up on making sense of the stock.<br /><br />I was disappointed the crock didn't get to try out its sotto voce tenor with a soliloquy on environmentalism...or crocky appreciation, but the quasi-Captain Ahab of the story does get his tour de force speach. Perhaps, in the coming years, we'll see a crock galloping off after a shootout into a golden sunset. Or hopefully, a monkey will flush a crocky down the toilet of an international space station for midgets and enjoy the exploitative waltz of zero-G monkey/midget/crocodile bloodshed.<br /><br />All-in-all, the lack of a whammy bar in the surf music irked me.
You, know, I can take the blood and the sex, but that thong bikini shot pretty much did me in. Someone get that girl some pasta before it's too late!<br /><br />And you know, it's just not a good idea for a schlock movie to start off by mentioning the much better movie it's ripping off.<br /><br />I gave this one a 2, just because it's marginally better than Tobe Hooper's CROCODILE.
The only real highlight in the movie is the death of the sniveling guy and the reaction of the surviving characters to it.<br /><br />In every other way, this film is a very lame rip-off of Jaws, Lake Placid, and Alligator, with a little bit of Godzilla (1998) thrown in.<br /><br />As is standard for a 1990's-style horror movie, the two non-starring females each take their clothes off at least once. The female lead doesn't, since she obviously has a better agent. <br /><br />The whole movie surrounds the filming of a really dumb extreme sport called blood surfing, in which surfers cut themselves and surf in shark-infested waters. In this film, a giant salt-water crocodile also happens to be in the area. People get eaten. The movie ends.<br /><br />I don't mind a bad horror movie, but I really hate a dull bad horror movie, which this definitely is.
This film is really terrible. terrible as in it is a waste of 84 minutes of your life. Special effects are so terrible. The acting wasn't convincing.<br /><br />Its about a crocodile that attack a view tourists as they are filming a documentary about "blood surfing". Blood surfing is when they surf around sharks but it turns terrible wrong when a 31 foot crocodile interrupts there holiday. The sharks don't look real. The crocodile is even worse, and it gets even more pathetic when they are running away form the creature, but the crocodile gets stuck and 2 females flash it. The deaths are fake and the pirates are just to fill in time.<br /><br />A pointless, terrible film thats not worth seeing!!
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** If one were to review the film based on the premise alone, one might think that you were looking at an average animal orientated horror flick. The plot is as follows. A group of documentary filmmakers head off to an island in order to film a documentary about surfing with sharks or blood surfing. (I live in South Africa so it was released as "Blood Surf.") Admittedly, this seems to have a somewhat interesting idea behind it which, if it were explored further, could have improved the movie somewhat. However, this is not the case as the blood surfing part of the movie is minimal due to the fact that their documentary is interrupted by a rather large salt-water crocodile.<br /><br />The script is absolutely terrible. A good example of this is whenever someone gets eaten by the crocodile which is a frequent occurrence in this film, no one seems to give a damn. The most anyone person did in the film was to merely toast the victim in a scene which was meant to be poignant but just ended up being laughable due to the fact that the dialogue in this film was of a highly dubious nature. Another thing that really irritates about this film is the fact that they introduce characters who are totally superfluous to the film itself. They introduce a bunch of pirates who can only be seen to be adding another 10 minutes to a mercifully short film.<br /><br />The acting can be said to be mediocre. It probably would have been a lot more impressive if they did not have such a terrible script to work from. All in all there isn't one person who made a terrible impact on me. Every single person seemed to be a watered-down caricature and in this way, not one of these actors made any sort of impact on me.<br /><br />The crocodile itself is said to be huge, over 31 feet exactly and this sense of size is well portrayed by the obvious fake of a crocodile that they have provided for us in the film. The crocodile's death at the end of the film is so ridiculously fake and contrived that it makes one's stomach turn. With a huge cry of bravado, the hero of the film announces that he has a plan which turns out be falling down a hill and getting the crocodile to impale himself on a luckily-placed spike at the bottom of this said hill.<br /><br />All in all, I would say that this film is one which has to be seen for you to believe how bad it could be. What probably seemed like a good idea at the time suffered from a terrible script and an overwhelming sense of low-budgetness which all served to create a truly awful movie.
Why, o' WHY! ...did I pick this one up? Well... i needed a no-brainer in the summer heat, and the cover looked cool.<br /><br />Of course I should've known better. This is a really, really bad movie. And it gets embarasing when the makers know it's bad, and try cover it up by adding some sexy/beautiful women, and some sex-scenes to it. Well, folks... it does'nt cut it, does it!<br /><br />If you WOULD like a cool movie about a big reptile that is actually very, very good, well-played and funny: go rent Lake Placid! (that is an order)
This film is awful. The CGI is the very cheap gray blob CGI. The crocodile looks like a large gray smudge. The worst is that no effort at all is given to making it walk or look like it is alive. It is mostly a photo-shopped CGI that is placed into scenes and you almost expect to see the hand that is moving the CGI smudge across the screen. This is one of the worst examples of CGI effects that I have ever witnessed, and I have seen lots of the very bad Sci-Fi Channel movies.<br /><br />Aside from the terrible lack of special effects, the cast is composed of the typical low-cost actors who probably work as Waiters/Waitresses at local diners while they wait for their Big Breaks. Perhaps the most ridiculous scene in this movie is when one of the bad guys is attempting to sexually assault Kate and the giant crocodile jumps straight up out of the water to the second floor of the Villains Headquarters and through the balcony and pulls the bad guy off Kate and instead of crashing straight down through the building (and crushing Kate) the Croc just flies backwards at the same angle into the water. No laws of Physics can apply to this movie or the special effects. At least there is honor among crocodiles.
Blood Surf AKA Krocodylus is a fair film that has an okay cast which includes Dax Miller, Taryn Reif, Kate Fischer, Duncan Regehr, Joel West, Matt Borlenghi, Maureen Larrazabal, Cris Vertido, Susan Africa, Archie Adamos, Rolando Santo Domingo, and Malecio Amayao. The acting by the actors is fairly good. The thrills are fairly good and some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed fairly good as well. Same thing goes for the music The film is fairly interesting and the movie does keeps you going until the end. This is a fairly thrilling film. If you the the cast in the film, Monsters, Giant Animal films, Horror, Thrillers, Mystery, and interesting films then I recommend you to see this film today!
I expected a bad movie, and got a bad movie. But I couldn't really imagine in my worst fantasy how bad this movie was. I don't even want to try to explain what Blood Surf is about. Is not about blood surfing, but a big a$$ crocodile. They are complaining about the fake shark in Jaws, but Spielberg was wise and didn't show the shark until the end. Here the crocodile is shown a lot of times, and it's the worst fake crocodile I have ever seen, and they don't try to hide it. If you want to see a good fake crocodile watch Lake Placid. <br /><br />The director had an opportunity to make a decent surf/shark movie, but he had to make a bad b-monster movie. He had the chance to make an original surf movie, but he wanted to make a monster movie. So you have understand how bad this movie is, does it have some good parts? Not really, it got some nudity, and a sex scene that is taken straight out of a playboy movie. The acting isn't half bad either, and Kate Fischer looks good. Too bad she doesn't take her top off. The lead actors aren't bad either. They had some potential. The location was beautiful and the movie start good with some nice surf scenes. The blame is on the untalented writer and director. The dialogue is some of the worst I have ever seen, and the script is really badly written, and the director got no talent what so ever, and not much of a fantasy either.<br /><br />Don't watch it. Even if you want to watch the beautiful Kate Fischer. It isn't worth it. Watch Sirens to watch Kate nude, and watch Lake Placid if you want some good crocodile action.<br /><br />3/10 because I'm in a good mood, and Maureen Larrazabal looks good naked, and Kate looks good (but is bad actress,)and Dex Miller, Joel West and Matt Borlenghi did a good job with the piece of sh#t they had to work with.
This is one of the few episodes (if not the only one) with an indisputable error in its storytelling. While handling the Ralphie situation Christopher states that he has heard about Pie-O-My's death in the fire accident. This is an important detail because in this context it is quite obvious that Christopher knows from the beginning that Tony is the one who must have killed Ralphie. There is however no way Chris could have heard about the accident. Who should have told him and when? By the time he is torn out of his delirium by Tony's call nobody else was informed. Tony knows that - which makes it even worse! Hearing Christopher talk about Pie- O-My's death could therefore only lead Tony to the conclusion that Chris himself has set the fire. Given the impressively elaborate writing process as told by the writers themselves on the DVD I really wonder none of them realized the problem there. The story just doesn't work that way. Unnecessary to add that I'm a huge fan of the Sopranos. Otherwise, I certainly wouldn't care.
not to long after Jeff Jarrett left the WWF for good he spoke of that night . Owen Hart and him where good friends and both 2nd generation wrestlers. Jeff first remarks "I was literally pushed thru the curtain as my lifeless friends body was wheeled past me " . Debra McMichael( Steve Austin's Ex wife as well as Steve Mondo McMichael Ex wife".) <br /><br />As Owen Hart Fell, a video promo the ring was darkened, as a Blue Blazer (owen Hart Promo was played. The fall and video of owen in the ring was never showed on TV. There are a few news photos that got posted. When they came back from the video promo Jim ross was talking over a all we had was a crowd shot \., He stated that Owen Hart as The blue blazer has fallen and doesn't look good. Lawler then came back from the ring his face was ashen he told Jim that the situation was very critical paramedics where working hard to revive him. Rock And HHH where going there match in a private room when another Referee came in and told them Owen fell at first,knowing Owen Harts constantly being a prankster they thought it wasn't real. But both later stated that the look of the referee face said it all. In fact as he fell ,as mentioned in other post , he yelled for the referee and ring announcer to move. <br /><br />Brother Bret hart was a plane heading to LA to do a angle on the Tonight Show , he couldn't get any of the plane phones to work, One of the captains got a message to call home something had happened. When he landed in La Eric bishoff was there told him what had happened, and put him on a charter flight to Kansas City to the morgue, Bret even later with Owens widow Martha went up to the top of the arena where Owen was standing. Police found no foul play formerly closed as a accident .<br /><br />Most of the Information in Bret Harts book as well as the book by Martha Hart ,
Ever since I was eight years old I have been a big wrestling fan. It didn't matter what federation I watched. WWE,WCW,USWA. To me the action is all I watched it for.<br /><br />May 23rd 1999. That was my 19 birthday. I ordered Over the Edge and I was just expecting another pay per view. But this time. I was wrong. Instead that was the night one of the best wrestlers to come out of Canada a true human being fell to his death due to a stunt gone wrong. Not much you can do to change the situation. But what happened affter Owens death made me very mad.<br /><br />Rather then ending the pay per view and doing the right thing as human beings the WWE decided to protect what comes first and that was the money by keeping the pay per view going as if Owens death never happened.<br /><br />I gotta tell you. Vince Mchmaon has made some stupid decisions in his life but this was by far the stupidest decision he ever made.<br /><br />And this crap with saying Owen would have wanted the pay pew view to keep going. Give me a break. When someone dies on a pay pew view its comon sense to stop it. Thats like a police officer shooting a robber or a mugger with a run and then just leaving the man to die so he can go home and call it a day as if the mans life never mattered.<br /><br />But no matter what happens. Owen will be missed and thanks for the memories for all the times you gave us.
A concept with potential, and it was fun to see these two holiday icons together, but...<br /><br />Rudolph's glowing nose didn't require the "explanation" offered in this film - much like The Force in the Star Wars films didn't need the explanation of "medichlorians in the bloodstream." But mainly, the film left me cold because of Winterbolt's over-complicated plot to destroy Santa. He's got the power to put suggestions into people's minds, so why does he do things in such a roundabout way? Breaking the magic of Rudolph's nose, framing Rudolph, threatening to melt the Frosty family...The comedically exaggerated plots of Pinky and the Brain and "Phineas and Ferb's" Dr. Doofenshmirtz (which are done that way on purpose and played for laughs) seem simple and straightforward compared to Winterbolt's, which we're expected to take somewhat seriously.<br /><br />There is a particularly (and amusingly) strange moment when a character throws her two guns at the bad guy, like boomerangs. I understand if they don't want to have guns being shot in a family film, but then why have guns in the first place?
Original Claymation Rudolph: Pretty good. Original Frosty cartoon: Needs a little work, but could be worse. But Frosty and Rudolph together on the Fourth of July? C'mon! Give me a BREAK!!! This was one movie that shouldn't have been made. It was bad. It didn't really go for any holiday in particular, except July 4. That made it especially bad since Frosty and Rudolph are usually associated with the Christmas season. And any movie can be ruined by too much singing. The frequent songs made this movie seem a lot longer than it really was. The movie tried mixing two familiar Chirstmastime characters with an American traditional holiday (which almost seems to "limit" it to America), too many pointless songs, and a lousy plotline. The result? A bad movie that can't really be watched at any time of year. I would suggest you forgo this movie even if you like Frosty and Rudolph.
Quite simply this shouldn't have been made. It's predictable and clichéd. The on screen chemistry which made the first "My Girl" so captivating is nowhere to be found here, and the acting as a whole is stilted and forced. The writing also leaves much to be desired, some of the 'memorable' lines such as "earpeircing a barbaric custom" are just shocking. Where "My Girl" provoked a genuine feelings of sadness and some genuinely funny moments, like so many sequels "My Girl 2" tries to recreate these emotions generated by the audience, and fails miserably. Maybe i'm being hard on this film because of how great the first one was, but quite honestly it insults the quality of the original with the sort of drivel this installment serves up. Surely this has to come close to "Son of the mask" as being one of the worst sequels of all time. In both cases, the old saying rings true; "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
If you want to know what kind of music white people listened to in 1974, this is the movie for you. But you'll have to listen to a lot of flutes and violins, too (see my remarks on My Girl 1 for the reference).<br /><br />Indulgent admission: I approached My Girl 2 with cynicism and annoyance, having just viewed its predecessor. But as an adoptee preparing to finally set upon a search for my birthmother, My Girl 2 made me look, with its theme of searching for mother.<br /><br />Put another way, anything I liked about My Girl 2 had nothing whatsoever to do with My Girl 2, but relating to a protagonist who asks, like so many adoptees, "who's my mama"? And if there are home movies of my mom in an acting troupe, I'll be sure to make my own movie about it.<br /><br />People are listless. Movies should not be listless. My Girl 2 (like My Girl 1) is just...listless.<br /><br />Avoid unless you're a complete sap who's comforted by a series of small annoyances.
I think that it was just pointless to produce a second part of a movie like "My Girl". "My Girl" was a very good movie but it is ridiculous making a second part of a movie in which one of the main characters (Macaulay Culkin as Thomas J.) dies. The story was over after the first movie. I wonder why someone tried to find a way to make the story going on. That was senseless!
I just don't see how a Concorde-New Horizons film directed by Jim Wynorski and featuring the acting talents of Andrew Stevens and a puppet could be bad. It just boggles the mind, doesn't it?<br /><br />Well, let's make no mistake about it. "Munchie Strikes Back" is indeed a bad film. Munchie is a puppet who has been around for many centuries. For reasons not fully explained until the end of the film, he is sent to Earth to help a single mother and her son. The mom's problem (her main problem at least) is that she has a balloon payment due on her mortgage in two weeks...to the not-so-tiny tune of $20,000. Ouch. She can't come up with the money because she just got fired. OK...JUST is the key word in that sentence. What the...? Was she planning on paying it off with a single paycheck? Maybe it would've been a good idea to have spent the last several years saving up for it...ya think?<br /><br />Munchie has magical powers similar to those a genie would possess...but there isn't a limit on the number of wishes you can make! Munchie gets the boy a bunch of fancy stuff for one night but then the kid asks for it to be sent back to the mall Munchie was "borrowing" it from. The annoying furball also uses his otherworldly skills to help the boy win a baseball game by means of cheating. A baseball is hit so hard that it orbits the Earth several times. Sadly, those dumb parents watching the game don't think it's at all strange. Hmm.<br /><br />Anyway, I'd like to wrap this up because this has already drained away enough of my lifeforce as it is. You'll be truly moved by the scene where Leslie-Anne Down, playing the mother, kicks a dog which is yapping at her. Your heart will melt at her charm when she notices dollar bills fluttering down on her front yard and she wonders how it could be snowing during the summer. "Munchie Strikes Back"'s credits promised another film to follow entitled, I believe, "Munchie Hangs Ten". To date, the movie viewing public has been robbed of what would surely have been a cinematic tour de force. Heh. 1/10
Terrible story, poor acting and no humour at all (apart from the final joke at the end)<br /><br />Some sort of ugly angel is sent to earth to save a boy and his mum from being thrown out of their home. Supposed to be a kiddies movie, but even they will not be amused by this terrible film
I saw this movie, and at times, I was unnerved believing this movie 'saw me.' Munchie sullies the 'farce' for years to come. Re-watch Star Wars, Don't-watch Munchie.<br /><br />As a responsible parent (I'm speaking to those who are parents now), I (you) would not let my (your) child ever partake of this video festival of the pseudo-occult. To insinuate Munchie is satanic, to a co-viewer, is likely to illicit a chilled 'duh.' He is fiendish, alien, rodential, and wholly malevolent - like the Bogey man made flesh, invisible to adults, tempting children with lifestyles they could never afford (without the income made possible by years of self denial and prudent stewardship). He is a peddler of easy answers, and false ideals. He is everything the morally conscious viewer is not. He is the devil's own Ron Popeil.<br /><br />I pray (I mean this literally and figuratively, with an emphasis on the former) that this movie has not made the format jump to DVD. It is my hope that this type of 'yellow film making' died an un-mourned death in the cold nights of 1994.<br /><br />Munchie also loves pizza. I forgot to mention that. It comes up a lot.
Michael Williams, who works for BBC, finds a somehow impressive Italian picture which gets mixed in the material of his ongoing task titled DIABOLICAL ART: A DOCUMENTARY. But since his wife's mysterious death her daughter, Emily, has been emotionally disturbed, so he goes Spoleto, where the problematic picture is, with her and her nanny, Jill. And there is a Countess, who is also a psychic, and she informs him that the picture was somehow made at the night that a young witch named Emilia was executed. Michael doesn't believe her story, but after that Emily has hysterical spasm and Jill is killed... This Italian film is, of course, almost innocently influenced by THE EXORCIST, but this one is much cheaper, much simpler,and in a sense, much dirtier. First of all, it should be said this film is full of confusion. For instance, the story shows Emily is a reincarnation of Emilia. But when Emily sees her in the flashbacks, she perceives her exclusively from a third-person's point of view. But if she is the reincarnation of Emilia, she should and must see the past from nothing but Emilia's point of view. Confusions of this kind, which the film has many, are almost exclusively based upon a problematic fact that the film is too cowardly, rather than ambivalent, to specify its own quasi-Freudian theme, namely, pre-adolescent girl's one-way incestuous wish. To make matters worse, this film also has characteristic problem (if not confusion); every character is too naive and helpless to be realistic and/or believable living human. Regarding Emily (or Emilia), she is after all a child, and one can say it is difficult to blame her mainly for her naiveness and helplessness. (And according to the Freudian theory, every girl wants to have her father's child(ren) in her own way. In this sense, Emily is not exclusively pathological; only her way of excluding other women from her father's love is problematically pathological. But, as I already mentioned, this film per se is too cowardly to be Freudian.) The problem is that adult characters are as childish and naive and helpless as Emily is. And because of this characteristic weakness even the psychic who can see almost everything cannot do anything down-to-earth, and because of the same weakness the very story of the film is ended in a badly escapist way. In addition, special effects of this film are incredibly cheap and laughable. Although Stelvio Cipriani's music is noteworthily beautiful (indeed this one is so good that it seems to be worth having it alone), the film as a whole is nothing but a cheap B-film which can disappoint even the 1970s'-Italian- horror-film-lovers.
This movie started out good, i felt like i was watching an adult version of Seinfeld. Much to quickly i started questioning the situations and actions of the main characters, and found no answers to why they were doing what they were doing. All the acting was superb but only a few scenes had brief moments where they were actually funny. Dan Cortese was amazing. I loved him in this role. His agent should show this movie to casting agents. Watch the first few scenes and then find something better, or else you will find yourself totally lost in this mess. I found this in a bin at a video store. It cost me two dollars and due to the rareness of this movie i feel like it was a good price.
A seemingly endless movie that really deserves a zero rating. The premise seems simple enough: Yentl, a girl interested in studying the Talmud, wants to go to school. But only boys are allowed to study, so after her father's death she decides to disguise herself as a boy to get in. She does and becomes close friends with Avigdor, who is to be married to a beautiful woman named Hadass. Hadass' family learns Avigdor's brother committed suicide, and the wedding is called off. Yentl, now calling herself Anschel, is then selected to marry Hadass. She does but it is never consummated. Yentl/Anschel and Avigdor go away for a few days, and Yentl/Anschel reveals her secret to him. The movie ends with Avigdor returning to (and marrying?) Hadass, and Yentl going to America to continue her studies although she will have to continue to do so in disguise.<br /><br />The plot above seems interesting at first for a movie over 2 hours long, but there are several things that ruin it. For starters, there is the constant SINGING. (I can already hear the critics shouting.) Yes, I know this is a musical so there are supposed to be lots of songs and dance numbers. But the movie could have been improved if it were directed and played without them. The songs become tedious after a while, and there isn't as much dancing as one would expect. Many of the songs are forgettable, with no real memorable lyrics, and those with any significance could easily have been substituted by a voice-over. Only one song stands out from the rest, "Papa Can You Hear Me". It is obvious that most of the others were deliberately placed so Streisand could simply have a reason to show off her vocal abilities every five to ten minutes. Chances are anyone who will see this film will already know what a superb singer and actress she is, so the songs really aren't necessary. <br /><br />Second, Streisand's makeup, which can be seen during her scenes as a man (the lipstick, enhanced lashes, and traces of blush are all obvious) makes it hard for the audience to believe in the Yentl/Anschel character, that she is actually serious, and fooling her new friends, colleagues, and even Hadass, into believing she is a man. Yet we are asked and expected to believe that very thing. There seems to be a contradiction, as her character talks, or rather sings, of how she doesn't think she can pull it off, but is surprised that everyone seems to be fooled because she is wearing men's clothing. This means that we are then expected to believe the other characters are so naive they can't see the other differences, such as her actions, which are clear giveaways. The facial differences alone cannot be included, as other characters in the film mention that some of their male relatives or friends didn't have a beard or other facial hair. Nevertheless, in the 1900s, if a woman dressed as a man, but wore as much makeup as Streisand's character did, and still tried to pass herself off as a man solely because she wore men's clothing, it would have been deemed unacceptable and caused an outrage. Chances are she would probably be forced to leave the town, or even the country. Therefore the "feminine" makeup on Streisand does not lend to the character's credibility, and only weakens the plot. If it was only applied to make Streisand look more beautiful, it should have been scrapped. <br /><br />Thirdly, when Yentl/Anschel herself reveals who she truly is toward the end, we are then asked to believe that the other characters are not as smart as Streisand's and only when they learn the "truth" do they become a little wiser. By now it becomes more and more apparent that the whole plot is so far fetched that it is nothing more than a custom-made vehicle for Streisand to fuel.<br /><br />Lastly, there are those who are fans of Streisand who will find no fault with this film, its plot, or the songs. To those I must respectfully disagree. While she has excellent vocal and acting abilities, I am not a "fan" of her style of singing. However, I have enjoyed many of her other features including musicals. There are even some songs of hers that I like, so I am not a "hater" nor have set out to bash her. I have written this review from an honest perspective, from someone who has tried their best to watch this movie - several times even - and has noted the problems within. If Streisand was interested in creating a great or even believable film, she could have done so here by not injecting her need to show off and prove how talented, beautiful and smart she is at nearly every turn. This movie does nothing more than hurt her abilities, make her appear self-absorbed, and thus turn the film into a laugh-fest unworthy of her fans or audience.
This might be the worst film ever made, and is possibly worth seeing for that reason alone. Streisand is laughably unbelievable as a young woman posing as a man in order to study Judaism. The soundtrack is torturous, featuring Barbara belting out some of the weakest blather ever put to film. And don't even get me started on the plot. You will actually get more chuckles out of this film than many comedies because it is soooooooo terrible. The rampant ego of Streisand, thinking she could somehow raise this stinker to Oscar heights, led to this disaster. I'm pretty sure the novelist, Isaac Bashevis Singer, hated this film and never forgave Streisand. I can't blame him. This movie is like watching a car wreck in slow motion for two hours with the soundtrack of 'The Sound of Music' being played backwards on an old turntable. It's truly that bad. I'm amazed that anyone from Streisand enjoyed this movie on the level that it was intended.
I know, I know, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" is the worst movie, or maybe "Manos, the Hands of Fate." But I can't get worked up over those sock-monkey movies. Of *course* they're bad. How could they be any good? But if you're talking about movies with respectable production values and bankable talent, the T. rex of all turkeys has to be "Yentl." All the treacly phoniness, all the self-absorbed asininity, that stains everything Barbra Streisand has done since 1964, reaches its culmination in this movie. From its lonely summit of awfulness, "Yentl" looks back to "A Star is Born" and forward to "The Mirror Has Two Faces." There is nothing else quite like it. What emotional undertow dragged Streisand out to make this movie I would rather not speculate, and what audience she was playing to I cannot possibly imagine, although I'll bet there's a nine in ten chance you aren't a member of it.<br /><br />Nobel Prize-winner and saintly guardian of Yiddish literature Isaac Bashevis Singer was so outraged by what Streisand did to his story that he blasted her in public for it. It is a tribute to Streisand's impenetrable vulgarity that she not only didn't commit suicide, but went on to make more awful movies.
My personal vision of hell is being locked in a room without the ability to close my eyes or block my ears and have this movie play for eternity on every available surface in that room. The whole notion that Streisand plays a boy/man only begins to scratch the surface of how ridiculous a premise this movie is. The single most important thing about watching any movie is the concept of "willing suspension of disbelief" . . . it is impossible to do that in this movie.
Barbara Streisand directs and stars in this very Jewish story.<br /><br />To have a chance at obtaining an education, Babs enthusiastically disguises herself as a boy which isn't the most difficult thing to do since she already looks like a boy, anyway. At her new school she meets many male classmates who have no trouble at all in believing she's a guy.<br /><br />Don't miss the best of many moments of unintentional humor when Babs' male friend thinks she's a man, but pins 'him' to the ground, sits on top of 'him', and looks affectionately into 'his' eyes.... *snicker*.<br /><br />Mediocre film; splashy story about nothing particularly interesting.
I remember when this piece of trash came out, all the newspapers were squawking about how it had taken Barbra Streisand years to get the film made. Well it couldn't have taken that many years; the play only opened in 1975, eight years previously. It made a Broadway star of the great actress Tovah Feldshuh, who probably should have been cast in the film, but NOOOOO...the Great STAR BARBRA HAD TO DO IT HER WAY. AND WITH MUSIC NO LESS! This film is a total disaster from start to finish. For one thing, Barbra was FORTY YEARS OLD when she made it and she looked every minute of it. There was no way anyone could possibly swallow her as a young girl yearning to study Torah. And then when she dresses up as a boy it gets campy. I get the impression that Streisand could not bear to be unattractive so she played around with the make-up; she is prettier as a boy than she is as a girl. And as if that is not bad enough, she gets involved with both her schoolmate Avigdor (Mandy Patinkin, whose best moment is the shot of his naked rear end) AND his fiancée (Amy Irving, who does her usual sleepwalker routine, a bit of schtick the poor woman always resorts to when the director ignores her and she does not know what she is doing). Yentl even goes so far as to marry the girl; I won't even bother to mention the "wedding night" scene.<br /><br />Then there is the music. Nine totally forgettable songs, all sung by Streisand via voice-over (presumably as a look inside her mind), and each one as intrusive and irritating as fingernails on a blackboard.<br /><br />I won't say that Streisand does not show a glimmer of promise as a director here; some of the visuals are lovely (Patinkin's backside especially), and she has a good eye for balance. The problem with this movie is that she won't get out of her own way. I did not believe her for one second in the title role; she should NEVER have added the songs, and on top of that the whole mess goes on for two hours and fifteen minutes. I was sick of the whole sorry mess after forty-five minutes.<br /><br />Awful, awful, awful.
(Honestly, Barbra, I know it's you who's klicking all those "NO"s on my review. 22 times?? How many people did you have to instruct to help you out here? Don't you have anything better to do, like look at yourself in the mirror all day?)<br /><br />Steven Spielberg told Barbra that this was "the best movie I've seen since 'Citizen Kane'". That pretty much says it all - and serves as a dire warning!<br /><br />What are the ingredients for a sure-fire cinematic disaster, and one that will haunt you, never letting you forget the tears of both laughter and pain? The ingredients: Barbra Streisand's face, a musical, feminism, Barbra Streisand's voice, Barbra Streisand directing, and an ultra-corny/idiotic premise.<br /><br />Hollywood is full of egomaniacs, this much we know. In fact, nearly everyone – by definition – has to be an egomaniac in Hollywood. Why would anyone want to act? For the "art"?!? Well, if you're dumb enough to believe what they tell you in their carefully prepared interviews… And Streisand has the biggest ego of them all! This is quite an achievement. To be surrounded by narcissistic cretins, and yet to manage to top them all – remarkable.<br /><br />The movie, like all her "solo" endeavors, is an ego trip straight out of hell. Every scene Streisand is in is automatically ruined. Stillborn. But as it that weren't enough, she sings a whole bunch of Streisandy songs – you know, the kind that enabled the Mariah Careys, the Celine Dions, and the Whitney Hustons of this world to poison our precious air-waves for decades now. Just for that she deserves not one but 100 South Park episodes mocking her.<br /><br />The premise, Streisand dressing up as a man to study to become a rabbi, sounds like a zany ZAZ comedy. Apart from it being a cliché, the obvious problem is that Streisand doesn't look like a woman nor does she look like a man – in fact I'm not even sure she's human. The way she looks in this movie, well… it cannot be described in words. E.T. looks like a high-school jock by comparison. She looks more alien than Michael Jackson in the year 2015. She looks HORRIBLE.<br /><br />The songs. They made me shiver. Particularly "Papa Can You Hear Me Squeel Like A Demented Female Walrus In Heat?" and "Tomorrow Night I'll Prepare the Sequel, YENTL 2: THE RETURN OF THE BITCH".<br /><br />Did you know that Streisand considered having a nose-job early on in her career, but changed her mind when they told her her voice might change? Can you believe that? She should have done it! Killing two flies with one swipe, that's what it would have been.<br /><br />If you're interested in reading my biographies of Barbra Streisand and other Hollywood intellectuals, contact me by e-mail.<br /><br />SHOULD BARBRA STREISAND FINALLY GO INTO RETIREMENT? CLICK "YES" OR "NO".
With the exception of the sound none of the above are really criticisms for this type of no budget, (truly) independent horror film. Make up effects and gore are very good and the lead actor was effective, the lead actress although attractive needs some coaching as she was particularly poor.<br /><br />The major problem with Frightworld is it's length, at 108 minutes its half an hour too long to be effective as a slasher movie, plot wise only about ten minute of the first fifty are relevant.<br /><br />In places it is visually engaging and sometimes the lack of lighting works in the films favour. However when this is combined with the poor sound as is the case with most of the film large sections are difficult to watch.<br /><br />This could certainly be an entertaining if unoriginal "serial killer back from the dead" movie with some judicious and ruthless editing, in its current form it plays like an unfinished rough cut.
This movie is actually worse than most movies I've ever suffered through, and I've suffered through a lot. Absolute nonsense. It's got terrible, forced dialogue; pointless plot developments; really drawn out 'spooky imagery' scenes, which look more like a high school remedial art project than a horror movie; 5/10 at best attractive women; long, boring sex scenes involving said women (forget what you know about virgins! especially ones with lop- sided fake breasts); muttered, difficult to understand speech from some of the characters; and they actually used the masks from Killer Klowns from Outer Space during a masturbation scene, which should be a saving grace because that movie was pretty funny, but it isn't. Veden Fell is the lamest bad guy in the history of film. <br /><br />Absolutely give this one a miss.
This was a weird movie. It started out pretty good. A solid sound track behind flash images of gore and mayhem as our psychopath did his thing.<br /><br />Next comes his "down fall" Here i could tell I was in for a real cheesy "B" movie. Poor acting , I mean how hard is it to hold a gun and act like a cop? These guys could not. After the death scene of our psychopath we get the opening credit and the movie starts...<br /><br />From this point on it is bad acting big boobs, the occasional bucket of blood and poorly done death scenes.<br /><br />That said I gave the movie a four because in spite of its flaws it did maintain a sort of creepiness that I just could not quite shake off.<br /><br />I do not recommend this movie but I have to admit I have seem worse.
Very bad. Very, very bad. As a fellow who aspires to make, be in or - at least - sniff the catering table at a movie set, I find it hard to criticize independents who actually got a movie of any sort made. However, this movie ... oh dear.<br /><br />Realizing Frightworld doesn't aspire to anything more than crude exploitation (an honorable thing in itself) and to try to make it conform to more mainstream standards is a mistake. And to be fair, it is more entertaining than - say - Red Zone Cuba ... but not by much. So I won't try to critique, just let me ask throw out some observations.<br /><br />1) If gore is the point of the movie, shouldn't you be able to see it?<br /><br />2) If you have hire three sound men make sure at least one knows how to operate the equipment.<br /><br />3) In a horror movie your lead maniac must be scarier than a smurf doll. Difficult I know but really...<br /><br />4) There is a lot of talented videographers in the Buffalo/Rochester area, most you can hire really cheap. Get one who knows how to frame a scene.<br /><br />5) Just because you have someone who knows how to use After Effects and other cool programs doesn't mean he should do so every two seconds.<br /><br />6) Kudos for getting the girls to take off their tops but next time, get girls who's tops we want to see taken off.<br /><br />7) Editing should help tell the story or set a mood. At the least in this sort of movie editing should sell the gore gags. A chainsaw suddenly appearing in a characters stomach is not scary, it's sloppy.<br /><br />Some good things. Not all the acting was bad. Jack was pretty good and I liked Acid once she started fighting back. There was some neat imagery, unfortunately it was thrown up on the screen without rhyme or reason. "Acid Poptart" is a name that deserves a better movie. I like the moxie of Frightworld too. Next time, now that they have a movie of sorts under their belts, I hope all involve aspire to something better than Colman Francis. Upgrade at least Ed Wood.
As low budget indies go, you will usually find that you get what you pay for, and let me just say, I didn't pay much for "Frightworld"...<br /><br />Writer / Director: David R. Williams brings us the story of an abandoned amusement park, besieged by the vengeful spirit of a slain serial killer. Not a bad premise, but executed with a bevy of low budget mistakes. The camera work tries to be too cleaver for it's audience, by constantly using shaky quick-cuts to cover the fact that they really have nothing gory or scary to show us. This becomes evident right off the bat, as we are introduced to the would-be killer, and soon realize that the (acting) is the scariest thing happening... After a painfully long title sequence we are brought back to modern times, yet the acting remains the same. "Frightworld" does generate some rather unique cinematography when showing scenery from inside the fun-house, but with an extremely long running time, it can't save the film from it's below average indie hell.<br /><br />There is some mediocre nudity, but not much for gore, which is usually the saving grace for these types of movies.<br /><br />Fans of really bad B-Movies might find something of interest here, otherwise, don't spend a lot of cash.
Don't get me wrong - I love David Suchet as Poirot. I love the series as well as the movies but enough already re: Death On The Nile. Everyone has done this one! We know who dies. We know why they die. We know who the killer is. We know how it was done. So I say enough already! Mr. Suchet could have used that awesome talent in another one of Agatha Christie's novels. I will say that the acting by all the actors was superb. The sets were terrific and very realistic. I especially liked David Soul but I was surprised at how 'awful' he looked. I hope he doesn't look that way in 'real' life! I honestly can't remember from other movies whether the very end was the same. Somehow I don't think so. I thought that was a rather brilliant touch whether or not Ms. Christie wrote it that way. I would much rather have that ending then wasting away in prison!
In what I can say was a theft of my time I was taken to see this movie and I must say what a horrible experience. Fay Ann Lee is a terrible actress and is unconvincing in this movie. Larryjoe76 is obviously a shill reviewer. The plot is thin to say the least, the Cantonese dialog is not funny. See this movie at your peril.<br /><br />David Tang from Shanghai Tang should be after the movie for the little or no revenue this movie will generate. The banal plot attempts to compete with other rom-coms out there, and just blends into the scenery. It was like watching paint dry. <br /><br />In short this movie was a total waste of time and space. I've seen better movies on youtube.
Well what I can say about this movie is that it's great to see so many Asian faces. What I didn't like about the film was that it was full of stereotypes of what typical racial characters would do in their role. The Asian girl without confidence who has to play someone else to get ahead, the white guy infatuated with Asian culture and chooses to leave his white world behind for the land of yellow and the "keeping it real" black cab driver. Plus all the coke, shanghai tang and dunkin donuts product placement was a bit too obvious. The story plot itself was fun but pretty much how I thought the story would unravel. Then again when watching romantic comedies you can't expect much but then again I would have been wanted to just be surprised at least once. The parents are the best part of the flick.
Like 'First Blood', this attempts to make a point about the treatment of Vietnam vets, but there really isn't much time for that in between the monotonous gunfire, burnings, stabbings, torture and explosions as an impossibly indestructible Rambo takes out half of Asia, a ton of Vietnamese soldiers, most of the Russian army, various vehicles and anything else he can point a rocket launcher at. The only woman in the middle of all these boys toys is soon bumped off, allowing the testosterone to reach dangerous levels and the script to degenerate into a succession of loud noises. Helpfully supplying a few hackneyed musical cues is Jerry Goldsmith, who carefully checks off all the clichéd themes from Russian rat-a-tat to Chinese ching-chang-chong just in case we don't quite understand who we're looking at. Stallone has a brain in his head; this empty nonsense is beneath him.
An offensively over-the-top action adventure,FIRST BLOOD PART II seemed to catch the mood of the US at the time of it's release in the mid-80's,with right-wing Reaganism and virulent anti-red feelings still not finished yet,though the emergence of a certain Mikhail Gorbachev in the heart of the 'Evil Empire' in Moscow would soon render these types of films redundant;even Reagan himself eventually admitted this truism.<br /><br />In that sense,we can be most grateful to 'Gorby',not for his disarmament treaties with the US,nor his policies of 'glasnost',or even his support of democracy being restored to the Eastern European countries in the former Soviet Union's backyard.No,it's the final diminution of foolish,jingoistic,bloated cold-war adventures like this.The first RAMBO film was hardly perfect,though at least was a mildly literate and adequate action thriller with a not too bad storyline.In this sequel,any sense of even the remotest conviction is instantly jettisoned for silly,senseless plotting and incident in which Rambo single-handedly takes on scores of brainlessly stereotyped Vietnamese and Russian troops to rescue American POW's ten years after the conflict ended,with the Americans on the losing side.<br /><br />Perhaps the reason why the film was a huge box-office success was to let many Americans wallow in fantasy;they may have lost the war,but there was still unfinished business at hand,and ludicrous comic-strip heroics with a robot-like hero killing virtually every red on sight,with as much hardware as possible,fulfilled such whimsically far-fetched ideals.<br /><br />This could have been entertaining on a SUPERMAN/SPIDERMAN level,but sadly everything is played absolutely straight.But that is not to say that there is no humour in the film;sadly it is virtually all of the unintentional kind.The action scenes,though technically adequate,never once carry the slightest bit of conviction or persuasiveness,because they are always placed in the most spectacularly unbelievable of contexts;namely,our hero Rambo is always unscathed (aside from a few cuts and bruises here and there) despite the tons of explosives,grenades,gunshots,etc.going around him.<br /><br />In between the mayhem,what there is of a script consists of the dullest clichés and banalities.Stallone,who co-wrote the script with James Cameron (a long way from the exciting TERMINATOR made the previous year),deliberately seems to have given the Rambo character as little to say in understandable English,and merely comes out with moronic grunts,almost as though he has invented his own brand of patois only understandable to himself.Maybe his colleague Cameron was thinking of The Terminator again with so little communication involved for the lead character! In this sense Rambo seems even less of a human than the Terminator did! The rest of the cast do little better with good actors like Charles Napier and Richard Crenna doing their admirable best with the hackneyed dialogue they are given,and Steven Berkoff hamming it up outrageously yet again with another of his Russian KGB/Red Army villain roles.Berkoff's overplaying is mildly enjoyable but not remotely menacing.How come that Sly managed to survive Berkoff's electric shock torture to kill yet more of those Red Commie scumbags? Well,credibility is never this film's strong point.It is a work of fantasy comparable with THE WIZARD OF OZ.At least that WAS meant to be a fantasy,and an immortal classic it turned out to be.This is only a classic of the most dismal,and indeed offensive,kind.And as for Sly's climactic speech...,rather hypocritical after slaughtering all those people,eh? By the way,in the same year,he also made ROCKY IV..........<br /><br />RATING:3 out of 10.
George P. Cosmatos' "Rambo: First Blood Part II" is pure wish-fulfillment. The United States clearly didn't win the war in Vietnam. They caused damage to this country beyond the imaginable and this movie continues the fairy story of the oh-so innocent soldiers. The only bad guys were the leaders of the nation, who made this war happen. The character of Rambo is perfect to notice this. He is extremely patriotic, bemoans that US-Americans didn't appreciate and celebrate the achievements of the single soldier, but has nothing but distrust for leading officers and politicians. Like every film that defends the war (e.g. "We Were Soldiers") also this one avoids the need to give a comprehensible reason for the engagement in South Asia. And for that matter also the reason for every single US-American soldier that was there. Instead, Rambo gets to take revenge for the wounds of a whole nation. It would have been better to work on how to deal with the memories, rather than suppressing them. "Do we get to win this time?" Yes, you do.
This movie is a joke and must be one of the worst movies Stallone ever made. This is a typical 80s movie where you have one man destroying the whole army by himself. "First Blood Pt. 2" is very similar to Schwarzenegger's "Commando", but there you have Arnold killing the terrorist while here you have a specific nation showed as the bad guys. This movie is a typical American anti-Soviet propaganda. True, this was the peak of the Cold War, but I'm sick of having Communists or the Nazis always being shown as the enemy. There are so many American movies that have this one thing in common. Why can't there a movie that show Americans as the enemy? Who's going to believe that one lone soldier will destroy the whole army? Do you really think that something like this would have really happened? By the looks of it, an average, brain washed American viewer certainly would.
Years ago, when I was a poor teenager, my best friend and my brother both had a policy that the person picking the movie should pay. And, while I would never pay to see some of the crap they took me to, I couldn't resist a free trip to the movies! That's how I came to see crap like the second Conan movie and NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN! Now, despite this being a wretched movie, it is in places entertaining to watch--in a brain dead sort of way. And, technically the stunts and camera-work are good, so this elevates my rating all the way to a 2! So why is the movie so bad? Well, unlike the first Rambo movie, this one has virtually no plot, Rambo himself only says about 3 words (other than grunts and yells), there is a needless and completely irrelevant and undeveloped "romance" and the movie is one giant (and stupid) special effect. And what STUPIFYINGLY AWFUL special effects. While 12383499143743701 bullets and rockets are shot at Rambo, none have any effect on him and almost every bullet or arrow Rambo shoots hits its mark! And, while the bad guys are using AK-47s, helicopters and rockets, in some scenes all Rambo had is a bow and arrows with what seem like nuclear-powered tips!! The scene where the one bad guy is shooting at him as he slowly and calmly launches one of these exploding arrows is particularly made for dumb viewers! It was wonderfully parodied in UHF starring Weird Al. Plus, HOT SHOTS, PART DEUX also does a funny parody of the genre--not just this stupid scene.<br /><br />All-in-all, a movie so dumb and pointless, it's almost like self-parody!
As an Army veteran, I was deeply offended by this film. In my opinion, it is a disgrace to those who fought in the Vietnam war. To say that the real SF soldiers I knew were offended by this crap is an understatement. If the film were presented as satire or even as a cartoon (it was), it would have been better received. But it was taken seriously my many people, especially overseas. Silly as it sounds, wherever I went in Europe in the late 80's people seemed to judge me and Americans in general by this film. Unrealistic? Hmm, let's see. A monosyllabic, muscle-bound cretin is pulled off a prison work gang to go on a secret mission to SE Asia to free some American POW's. In a running battle he kills about 500 enemy soldiers with an M-60 machine gun that never runs out of ammo and never overheats. And he never misses, running with a 32lb gun held up with one arm. I could go on, but I'm getting a headache. I gave this a 2/10 only because it's slightly better than Rambo III.
I remember I loved this movie when it came out. I was 12 years old, had a Commodore 64 and loved to play Rambo on it. I was therefore really thrilled when I got to buy this movie really cheap. I put it in my VCR and started up: Man this movie is really bad! Sylvester Stallone says like 3 words in the entire movie (except for that awful sentimental speech at the end), and has the same expression on his face all the way. And that stupid love thing in the middle, it's just so amazingly predictable. I just ended up fast forwarding the entire thing and went to exchange the movie for something else.
I don't see much reason to get into this movie in much detail. Sylvester Stallone is once again John Rambo, author and survivor of "A Season in Hell", recruited from prison by his only friend, Major Richard Crenna, to secretly return to Vietnam, take photos of the American prisoners believed to be still held in horrible camps, and return without engaging the enemy.<br /><br />Fat chance. What if he actually DID nothing more than sneak in, take pics, and sneak out? Who would come to see the movie? <br /><br />It's essentially a celebration of Stallone's muscles. Preparing for his mission, we see his well-oiled muscles bulging. (They are oiled and bulging throughout.) There is the ritual strapping on of black leather, ugly guns, and even uglier knives. The black guns are cleaned, assembled with loud clacks, and almost as oiled as Stallone's muscles. The bow is tested and, yes, it has enough poundage to drive a bolt through an enemy's forehead. The knife is sharpened with slick snicks.<br /><br />Stallone and one of his POWs are betrayed by one or two of the suits from Washington, cynical politicians who, you can bet, were never even in a fist fight in grammar school. No guts, you know? Just sit around with their feet on the desk and drink foreign beer.<br /><br />The movie does what it set out to do, but what it set out to do is meretricious. It deliberately cashes in on the myth popular in the mid-1980s that there were uncountable numbers of MIAs quietly kept in wretched camps by the North Vietnamese. The bumper stickers were ubiquitous. (Free Our MIAs.) Why would they keep them? It was never quite reasoned out but perhaps to turn the POWs into a slave labor force -- in a country that has absolutely no resource other than labor. Or maybe for their propaganda value as an instrument to humiliate the United States -- a propaganda weapon that the Vietnamese kept secret from the world.<br /><br />As a captive, Rambo is treated in a Medieval fashion by the North Vietnamese. Dipped to his neck in pig excrement and then hauled out of it by his wrists, his muscles still on display. Then, not content with subhuman Vietnamese, a Russian officer is brought in to play the part of the Gestapo officer -- "Vee haff vays of MAKING you remember." A high-tech type, the Russian uses psychology and electricity, not just pig dump.<br /><br />Rambo returns and declares that he intends to drift aimlessly until "this country loves us as much as we love it," bringing up another myth that Vets returning from Vietnam were uniformly spat upon and cursed, which is why I guess we elected so many to the Congress and appointed others to high-echelon positions. The last three losing presidential candidates were among that despised group. At least Rambo's aimless drifting left room open for a sequel, which arrived apace.<br /><br />The action movies with Schwarzenegger and Willis and others were leavened by wisecracks but Rambo is humorless. It marches dully through it's phantasmal ideological swamp, killing without mercy, barely speaking, barely able to speak. To speak is a sign of weakness.
While the original First Blood had its far-fetched moments, it was at least exciting in parts. In Rambo: First Blood, Part II the emphasis is shifted very much onto comic-book action. Plausibility is totally rejected; logic nose-dives; Stallone becomes so impregnable that there can be no doubt he will succeed in his mission. Just like any other wish-fulfilment actioner of that time (e.g. Invasion USA, Commando, Red Scorpion), Rambo: First Blood, Part II cancels out its own opportunities for real excitement by presenting a hero too invulnerable to fear for. If you can tell from the word go that Rambo is going to wipe out hundreds of enemy soldiers, what is left to get excited about?<br /><br />Imprisoned after the events of the first movie, John J Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) is offered a pardon if he will join a covert operation in the Far East. The year is 1985, and a mission is being arranged to find out if there are any American PoWs still trapped in the jungles of Vietnam. Rambo is encouraged to take the job by his old mentor Colonel Trautman (Richard Crenna), but the assignment is actually the brainchild of a government outfit fronted by Marshall Murdock (Charles Napier). Rambo's job is merely to head for a prison camp in the jungle and check out if it contains any American PoWs – if it doesn't, he is to rendezvous with a chopper; if it does, he is to get photographic evidence of their existence so that they can be rescued at a later date. Aiding him in his quest is a lady soldier with local knowledge, the beautiful and resourceful Co Bao (Julia Nickson). Sure enough, Rambo discovers that there are PoWs in the camp, but he exceeds his orders by rescuing one of them… when he reaches the rendezvous point, the rescue chopper abandons him on the orders of Murdock who, it seems, doesn't really want to find any PoWs because of the political and military implications. Rambo is captured by the enemy and tortured, but following an explosive escape he sets out to free the PoWs and get his revenge on the treacherous Murdock.<br /><br />The few good points of the film come from Jack Cardiff's polished photography, Jerry Goldsmith's exhilarating score, and the sheer professionalism of the stunt team in performing various action antics. Beyond these scant pickings, the film is a failure. The actors are reduced to macho posturing, the plot rings false, the action sequences are soulless and suspenseless, the dialogue is absurd… even the violence becomes numbingly predictable. At the time of its release America was under the presidency of Ronald Reagan, a man with simplistic and near-hysterical anti-communist sentiments. For this reason, contemporary audiences lapped up this Commie-bashing shooting-fest as if it was the greatest movie of all-time, transforming it into an undeserved box office success. Thankfully times have changed – nowadays we can look upon it as a simple-minded action flick with a ludicrously high body count, ludicrously dumb politics, and a ludicrous hero.
The ghost of the Vietnam war has haunted the American psyche for thirty years now. If not because of the fact that tens of thousands of American soldiers went MIA in Vietnam, or the manner in which those who returned were treated, then because it was the first war that America could be said to have lost. Many men came home from the war a shadow of their former selves, and the original First Blood managed to provide a small insight into their problems as they attempted to rotate back into the world, as the saying goes. First Blood Part II, on the other hand, is little more than a fist-pumping mess that goes to illustrate how sore America can be, both in victory and defeat. Stallone puts in another sluggish performance as the titular Special Forces commando, while Richard Crenna attempts to hold up the serious actor quotient. Where it all comes undone is in the script, which didn't do any better when it was called Missing In Action and starred Chuck Norris. What little semblance of logic there was in the original is now gone, as the filmmakers decide to paint a big S on Rambo's massive chest.<br /><br />The film picks up a little while after the end of First Blood. The film, that is - the novel didn't allow for the possibility of sequels. In this mediocre follow-up, Rambo has been put to work at what appears to be some sort of open-air mine. As he is breaking rocks and working up a sweat, a prison guard pulls him away to go and have a chat with Colonel Trautman, who advises him that his government is willing to offer him an early release if he goes on a covert mission. Rambo, never one to back down from a hard day's violent work, accepts, and is promptly shipped off to a covert base in what appears to be Cambodia or Thailand (I forget which). From there, he is commissioned to seek out a camp where American MIAs are supposedly being held, and photograph them. His mission quite clearly specifies that he is not to make any attempt to secure their release. Rambo being Rambo, however, has other ideas in spite of their possible political implications.<br /><br />Of course, things go somewhat awry when it turns out that the people commissioning Rambo's work have more interest in making sure no American MIAs are found. It is the age-old conspiracy theory, and makes no apologies for exploiting the plight of many an American family that was left without a son during the ten years that the official Vietnam war had been raging for. Of course, with the Jingoism that was inherent in American society during the 1980s, they could not help but work in a plot tangent about the Vietnamese army being in bed with what appears to be a single battalion of Russians. Together, the two antagonists attempt to extract what information they can from Rambo, but it backfires upon them in an orgy of bullets, arrows, rockets, and destruction. About the only thing missing is the moment when Rambo drinks from a grail-like chalice and declares himself invincible.<br /><br />To be honest, First Blood Part II is a well-photographed, and well-choreographed, action spectacle. The hand-to-hand combat with the larger Russian commander is one of the few battles in the film that has any dramatic tension whatsoever. The rest is simply a case of the lead actor and the director building a fantasy for Americans to pump their fist to. Fortunately, this fad of America über alles action films soon died down when more introspective and intelligent war films such as Platoon began doing the rounds. Some of the kills shown here are quite creative, despite all the problems. The Vietnamese commander meets an end that many an action film villain would envy. The Russian commander bites it in a manner that is as spectacular as it is ridiculous. Only in a 1980s action film would one see a LAW being used from inside a helicopter. Sure, there have been action film clichés rooted in contradictions of fact, but never this ridiculous before.<br /><br />I gave Rambo: First Blood Part II a one out of ten. It is so bad it is ridiculous, and so ridiculous that it is often funny. One doesn't even need to have served in the military to know how stupid some of the action sequences are. The only risk it takes is in trying to make a stupid political statement with what is a heartbreaking subject for those directly involved. Keep the tongue firmly in the cheek, and it might be watchable.
I think it's time John Rambo move on with his life and try to put Vietnam behind him. This series is getting old and Rambo is no longer a solider but a cold blooded killer. Ever time he turns up on the screen someone dies. Vietnam was not a fun place to be and frankly I am tired of Hollywood making it seem like it was. This is not the worst of the films concerning Vietnam, that honor goes to John Waynes Green Berets. In any case John Rambo carrying around a 50 cal Machine Gun taking on what seems to be half of the Viet Cong army plus a good many Russians is an insult to watch. What is worse is Rambos cheesy speech at the end...Please!! Oh yeah I heard they are making another one...
By rights, there should never have been a "First Blood Part II". The original script for "First Blood" had John Rambo committing suicide at the end of the film, but this was changed to allow him to live, not because the producers wanted to make a sequel but because test audiences found the original ending too depressing. Nevertheless, someone obviously thought that the character was too good to waste, because he ended up as the hero of two more films in the eighties, plus the recently released fourth instalment.<br /><br />The official title of this film was "Rambo: First Blood Part II", but it is more commonly known simply as "Rambo". It starts with the title character in jail, where he is presumably expiating the crimes he committed in "First Blood", although this is never made too explicit. He is removed from prison by his former commanding officer, Colonel Trautman, for a secret mission. Rambo is to return to Vietnam to investigate reports that American POWs are still being held captive by the Communist regime. He is under strict instructions not to attempt to rescue any prisoners or to engage the enemy; his is to be simply a fact-finding mission.<br /><br />What Rambo does not realise is that he is being set up, not by Trautman, who is portrayed as brave, honourable and incorruptible, but by the organiser of the mission, a military bureaucrat named Murdock. Murdock intends that the mission will prove that there are no American prisoners in Vietnam, partly because that will improve relationships between the American and Vietnamese governments, partly because it will make his own life easier. Unfortunately for Murdock, Rambo discovers that not only are Americans still being held prisoner, they are also being kept in hellish conditions. Of course, he is far too much of a hero to leave them to their fate, and tries to rescue them. The rest of the film is more or less one long battle between Rambo and a few allies (including a beautiful Vietnamese girl) and the evil commie soldiers and their Russian allies. Most of the evil commies, of course, end up dead, although I was surprised to learn from your "trivia" section that the total death toll was as low as 67. At times it seemed as though Rambo was trying to wipe out the entire Vietnamese army.<br /><br />The tone of this film is very different from the first. In "First Blood" Rambo was unquestionably a criminal, even though his responsibility for his crimes was lessened by severe provocation and by his mental instability. In "Rambo" he is a bona fide all-American hero. A few years earlier the director, George Pan Cosmatos, had made "The Cassandra Crossing", a biased piece of left-wing anti-American propaganda. Cosmatos, however, was nothing if not versatile, and "Rambo" proves that he could also turn his hand to biased right-wing pro-American propaganda. The one thing the two films have in common is that both are laughably bad.<br /><br />"First Blood" had its faults, but it also had its virtues. Its stance, that the anti-war movement was partly to blame for the problems faced by Vietnam vets in readjusting to civilian life, was a controversial one, but at least the film was trying to make a statement about war, social attitudes to war, and the roots of violence in society. "Rambo", by contrast, has very few virtues, except that the action sequences are well enough done to please those who like that sort of thing. It is essentially a sort of jingoistic revenge fantasy for those Americans who were still sore about the Vietnam war. Rambo re-fights the war single-handed, and this time the right side wins. Take that, Charlie Cong! <br /><br />By this point, no doubt, the film's admirers (and there seem to be plenty- more than 2,000 voters have already given it ten stars) will have concluded that I am a liberal commie-loving pinko. Far from it- in fact, I have always despised Communism as a pernicious ideology. What I dislike about the film is not its politics but its lack of subtlety and its suggestion that the solution to all problems, including ideological disputes, is to go in with all guns blazing and to try and kill as many people as possible. It makes no attempt to understand the political complexities of South-East Asia or why not everyone in the region was pro-American. For all its anti-Communism, the film is the sort of moronic sledgehammer propaganda that the Communists were very good at churning out themselves- except that they attributed all the world's problems to Capitalism, or Imperialism, or Revisionism, or whatever other ism they had taken a dislike to. Compared to "Rambo", "The Green Berets" was a masterly piece of political analysis. 3/10
The summary pretty much sums it all up. This is nowhere near as good as the original. With a script co-written by both Stallone and James Cameron (at the same time he was also writing Aliens). Most of the action was written by Cameron and the political aspects were written by Stallone.<br /><br />Sly was in the best condition physically as he was making this and Rocky 4 and he does look in great shape or jacked up to the eyeballs on steroids, depending on your own viewpoint or opinion.<br /><br />Rambo starts off in prison and is visited by Colonel Trautman who asks him to go on a special mission that could earn him a Presidential pardon. He eventually agrees and goes off to the briefing camp run by Charles Napier playing a Washington suit trying to pass himself off as former ex-forces to placate Rambo.<br /><br />The mission is to find out if there are any missing POWs still alive in camps in Vietnam. Rambo was chosen as the camp he was checking was somewhere he had previously been a prisoner himself. He is told it's not a rescue mission and he is there to take recon photos only.<br /><br />After a bad attempt at parachuting from a plane he loses most of his kit, meets his contact (who turns out to be a cute woman) and travels down river with pirates to the camp.<br /><br />He finds there are still prisoners and rescues one. As the 3 flee from half the Vietnamese Army on their river boat they are betrayed by the pirates but Rambo kills them all and they are forced to carry on to the pick-up point on foot after their boat is rammed and blown up with Rambo almost on board.<br /><br />Rambo is betrayed again and abandoned as Napier orders the recall of the rescue helicopter. It is clear as Trautman returns to base to berate him that no survivors were expected to be found.<br /><br />Steven Berkoff turns up as a Russian Spetznatz Colonel and Rambo is tortured and eventually escapes only to be pursued by more Vietnamese troops and Spetznatz. Killing many of them, Rambo finally steals a chopper and rescues most of the prisoners to return to his base.<br /><br />He resists the urge to kill Napier for abandoning him but destroys the Ops Centre.<br /><br />A weak plot and very weak ending as Rambo walks off into the sunset as a free man.
Usually, any film with Sylvester Stallone is usually going to suck ass. Rambo: First Blood Part II was no exception to this. The only movies that Sylvester Stallone were in that were good were Rocky and First Blood. This film is extreamly unrealistic, and boring. It has action, but not very good action. I didn't enjoy watching it, and I would never ever watch this again. No wonder why it won the Razzie Award for Worst Picture. I would give this a 3/10, the only reason why it got the 3 was because it had somewhat good action, but not good enough.
-me and my sister have right now watch that movie. we have laugh to the deaf. can u imagine on covers there is nomination for Oscar?? --first, musician have mix about 4-5 different style of music... and the music is not synchronized with the scenes and the character moves...<br /><br />---main character Silvester do not fit in there. he look like Mexican Tarzan.<br /><br />----Russian soldiers are everything but not Russian faces :-) -----ok, the main points: 1. airplane called charter painted in black...<br /><br />2. what is an idea when Rambo go to jump from the airplane, but he stuck? rope mix 3. a Girl? the best scene is when she dies. She means a lot to him. he knows her for ages? he cries for her, ... o my god samurai 4. how many arrows is he got? his arrow bag is always full of the arrows? i didn't notice a scene where he collect them - but i have seen the scene where arrow stay in the Vietnam solder head - that is very important 5. how many rockets helicopter can hold??? (real one) i have seen 4. but Rambos have hit about 20 of them.<br /><br />6. the main part. what the Russian special army helicopters do in Vietnam????????? after the war? 7. first scene when he enter into Vietnam's camp... his first idea was to liberate the refuge who is standing on the tree on the open space' wow, what an idea than again: 1. with the knife u can cut the iron wire? maybe only made in Vietnam? 2. mortar - using for hit one running man? o my god, u Americans really need to learn about the weapons! do u know how much it takes to calibrate the mortar (i think writer have been watching to much movies from II world war)
Growing up with the Beast Wars transformers, I wasn't very familiar with the original Transformers, and now that I have seen the awesome movie, and now that I have seen the older cartoon on which it's based, I have to say I like the original cartoon and the live action movie more than Beast Wars.<br /><br />Not that I don't like the BW characters, I just think that characters like Optimus Prime are better than Optimus Primal.<br /><br />I mean, "AUTOBOTS TRANSFORM AND ROLL OUT!" sounds a lot better than "MAXIMALS MAXIMIZE!" The voice of the original Optimus Prime still makes me a strong believer that he's a real commander, more so than Optimus Primal.<br /><br />Besides, Powermaster Optimus Prime is a lot more powerful than Optimal Optimus. Just look on the web! <br /><br />Megatron in the BW character seemed more like a humorous version of the more evil version of him in the original series.<br /><br />Besides what's cooler, robots changing into animals or robots changing into vehicles and spaceships? Gimme the original Transformers any day over Beast Wars!
Beast Wars is a show that is over-hyped, overpraised and overrated. Let's meet the characters of this obnoxious show whose creators must have been on acid to try and make a show like this.<br /><br />Cheetor- Seriously, they need to have censor bars on this guy. How come he dosen't creep out the viewers having the same voice as baby Taz? (at least Razzoff from Rayman 3: Hoodlum Havoc is voiced by Slip & Slide) Action Blast- If you want a line of show that suck, get G4 Tranceformers Cybertron- A show that should go down in a toilet. Good Job Creators (Sarcasm) Show it self-Retarded & boring (at least the Super Mario games are better) This show had a lot of followers sayin' bring it back, but I believe that it was cancelled for its own good.
The actors did a really good job playing their roles--particularly the mom. However, as the movie progressed I found I was watching it more for their acting and not because I cared in the least for the people. And, at times, I felt irritated by the irresponsible and hands-off approach to parenting displayed again and again. The daughter is a 17 year-old shallow skank whose main ambition in life is bedding famous men and becoming a dancing nyphette (complete with lots of "booty shaking"). The son is a guy with low self-esteem that seems very desperate for a relationship and friends--so much that he throws a drug party late in the film. The husband and wife are both bored, but rather than put energy into their stale relationship would rather seek out new partners (though the wife picks poorly, as the man she "throws herself at" happens to be gay---OOPS!). I just felt that ALL the characters needed to grow up and had a hard time caring for such shallow jerks. I think the author's attempt was to demonstrate the utter banality and hollowness of the capitalist system. However, given that these characters are NOT typical of the average western family, it seems disingenuous.
The plot it's not so original. If someone saw "L'ultimo Bacio" there's nothing new. A wealthy family in Rome living everyday life that's is boring and false, with everyone asking to others what they think about them. Really boring after an half of hour because it's simple to understand where the story is going to finish. This because it's simple to see the moralistic view of Muccino in this movie, so even the hardest parts seem normal. To summarise in the first 2 minutes of the movie it would be enough and the aim of the movie were already said. the family saw from a 30 years old, i don't like to see movie that want to show the reality but for be coherent to his thoughts has to push more than the normal the situations. Really good how Muccino put the camera in the right place moving with the carathers and it's the only reason that bring me not sleeping in the cinema though always in the movie scream from the begining. Perhaps it could be good to see the family how they are in reality and not put the blame to something out of it. Morante was intense and great as usual but unfortunatly on a bad movie!
The film starts with a voice over telling the audience where they are, and who the characters are. And that is the moment i started to dislike the movie. With all the endless possibilities any film director have in hand, i really find it a very easy and cheap solution to express the situation with a voice over telling everything. I actually believe voice overs are betrayals to the film making concept.<br /><br />I hate to hear from a voice over saying where we are, which date we are at, and especially what the characters feel and think. I believe that a director has to find a visual way to transmit the feelings and the thoughts of the characters to the audience. <br /><br />But after the bad influencing intro, a very striking movie begins and keeps going for a fairly long enough time. The lives of a middle class family and all the members individually are depicted in a perfect realistic way. I think the director has a talent for capturing real life situations. For example, a father who has to make his private calls from the bathroom might seem abnormal at first, but life itself leads us some situations which might seem abnormal but also very normal as well. I think the director is a very good observer about real life.<br /><br />But that is it. After a while the realism in the movie begins to sacrifice the story-telling. I really felt like I'm having a big headache because of the non-stop talking characters. It was as if the actors and actresses were given the subject and were allowed to improvise the dialogs. It is realistic really, but characters always asking "really, is that so" etc. to each other, or characters saying "no" or "are you listening to me," ten times when saying it only once is just enough causes me to have a headache.<br /><br />I also think the play practicing and book reading scenes are more then they should be. I understand that the play and the book in the movie are very much related to the plot, but i think the director has missed the point where he should stop showing these scenes.
"Look, I know this may suck right now, but pain is temporary, film is forever. Whatever you do right now is burned into celluloid for all time and for thousands of years to come." – Robert De Niro<br /><br />This was initially a film for Steven Spielberg, the director hiring several screenwriters to adjust the screenplay so that it more suited his themes. And so we have a dysfunctional family that is threatened by a deranged monster in the form of a recently released from prison Robert De Niro. Like "Jurassic Park", "Poltergeist" and "War of the Worlds", the dysfunctional family bands together to defeat the beast, the beast being the creation of the father, a lawyer who failed to defend De Niro during his trial. <br /><br />In typical Spielberg fashion, the father kills the monster that undermines the family and is then promptly absolved of his sins. Like Oscar Schindler, Robin Williams, Sam Niel, Tom Cruise and virtually every "daddy" figure in Spielberg land, the father reclaims his paternal duty in the kind of bittersweet coda that Spielberg so enjoys.<br /><br />But Spielberg eventually abandoned the picture and the project was instead turned over to Martin Scorsese, who at the time was seeking to try his hand at more commercial fare. The result is arguably the worst film in Scorsese's filmography, and, ironically, his most illuminating.<br /><br />An artist's failures or misfires are often very revealing, exposing the inner workings of their art. When the story doesn't work, the characters don't connect or the images don't sear, we find ourselves left with a kind of inner core. This – the remaining carcass- is what the director's cinema is about.<br /><br />Now "Cape Fear" is an impersonal film, so we won't find any thematic connections to the rest of Scorsese's filmography ("You already sacrificed me!" De Niro yells, but the films themes of Catholic redemption are cookie cutter). What the film does, though, is expose the kind of language that his filmography hinges on. Watch how Scorsese's camera desperately whips back and forth, how he zooms frantically onto doorknobs and windows in an attempt to force tension and how his characters are all loud and screaming for attention. But more importantly, watch how the film makes no spatial sense. A showdown on a boat at the end of the film takes place on an obvious sound-stage, a street parade is claustrophobic and takes place within no larger context and the family's house doesn't seem to exist anywhere in particular. There is simply no geographical sense to anything in the picture, Scorsese unable to film space or create any kind of spatial environment. <br /><br />The reason for this is that Scorsese's camera always has to be bound, or intimately tethered, to his central character. For the world around the character to make sense, his camera has to be focused on the character. Resnais can take you around a French Hotel, Welles and Hitchcock can dance you down a street and up a building, Cameron can give you a tour of the Titanic, Scott can recreate an entire future cityscape, Lucas can give you an alien desert planet, and most other directors can create a sense of space by textbook "close up-mid shot-wide shot" combinations, but Scorsese can't do this. There's no poetry, no sense of tangible space in his films. He's all about the character. You break that tether, you leave that boxing ring, that taxi cab, you look away from De Niro, and everything collapses. He simply cannot break away from this very documentarian style of shooting, which, in a way, is a prerequisite for action film-making.<br /><br />Scorsese tried to rectify this problem with "Gangs of New York", where the space and the sets become the central character, but even this self consciously spatial experiment gets sabotaged by the magnetism of Daniel Day Lewis, the actor drawing Scorsese's camera inexorably toward him like a moth to a bulb.<br /><br />5/10 – Even as a generic B-movie, this is an ugly, vulgar looking film. Look at the matte paintings, the inept attempts at tension, the silly rotorscoped special effects and hokey fistfight showdown. Still, we have Robert De Niro to pick up the slack. De Niro, who gives his body over to Scorsese like a tattooed Christ, gives the film its only great scene. In an improvised romantic sequence with young a Juliette Lewis, he sticks his thumb into her mouth and kisses her. A kind of symbolic rape, the girl runs away, both aroused and repelled by this man's interest.<br /><br />But De Niro's performance, so deliciously over the top, simply can't be imitated by Scorsese. You'd need the operatic tone and the baroque visuals of someone like De Palma to make this work. But Scorsese? Nope.<br /><br />Worth one viewing.
I think we all begin a lot of reviews with, "This could've made a GREAT movie." A demented ex-con freshly sprung, a tidy suburban family his target. Revenge, retribution, manipulation. Marty's usual laying on of the Karo syrup. But unfortunately somewhere in Universal's high-rise a memorandum came down: everyone ham it up.<br /><br />Nolte only speaks with eyebrows raised, Lange bitches her way through cigarettes, Lewis "Ohmagod's!" her way though her scenes, and Bobby D...well, he's on a whole other magic carpet. Affecting some sort of Cajun/Huckleberry Hound accent hybrid, he chomps fat cigars and cackles at random atrocities such as "Problem Child". And I want you to imagine the accent mentioned above. Now imagine it spouting brain-clanging religious rhetoric at top volume like he swallowed six bibles, and you have De Niro's schtick here. Most distracting of all, though, is his most OVERDONE use of the "De Niro face" he's so lampooned for. Eyes squinting, forehead crinkled, lips curled. Crimany, Bob, you looked like Plastic Man.<br /><br />The story apparently began off-screen 14 years earlier, when Nolte was unable to spare De Niro time in the bighouse for various assaults. Upon release, he feels Nolte's misrep of him back then warrants the terrorizing of he and his kin. And we're supposed to give De Niro's character a slight pass because Nolte withheld information that might've shortened his sentence. De Niro being one of these criminals who, despite being guilty of unspeakable acts, feels his lack of freedom justifies continuing such acts on the outside. Mmm-kay.<br /><br />He goes after Notle's near-mistress (in a scene some may want to turn away from), his wife, his daughter, the family dog, ya know. Which is one of the shortcomings of Wesley Strick's screenplay: utter predictability. As each of De Niro's harassments becomes more gruesome, you can pretty much call the rest of the action before it happens. Strick isn't to be totally discredited, as he manages a few compelling dialogue-driven moments (De Niro and Lewis' seedy exchange in an empty theater is the film's best scene), but mostly it's all over-cranked. Scorsese's cartoonish photographic approach comes off as forced, not to mention the HORRIBLY outdated re-worked Bernard Hermann score (I kept waiting for the Wolf Man to show up with a genetically enlarged tarantula).<br /><br />Thus we arrive at the comedic portion of the flick. Unintentionally comedic, that is. You know those scenes where something graphically horrific is happening, but you can't help but snicker out of sight of others? You'll do it here. Nolte and Lange squawking about infidelity, De Niro's thumb-flirting, he cross-dressing, and a kitchen slip on a certain substance that has to be seen to believed. And Bob's infernal, incessant, CONSTANT, mind-damaging, no-end-in sight blowhard ramblings of all the "philosophy" he disovered in prison. I wanted him killed to shut him up more than to save this annoying family.<br /><br />I always hate to borrow thoughts from other reviewers, but here it's necessary. This really *is* Scorsese's version of Freddy Krueger. The manner in which De Niro relishes, speaks, stalks, withstands pain, right down to his one-liners, is vintage Freddy. Upon being scalded by a pot of thrown water: "You trying' to offer sumpin' hot?" Please. And that's just one example.<br /><br />Unless you were a fan of the original 1962 flick and want a thrill out of seeing Balsam, Peck, and Mitchum nearly 30 years later (or want a serious head-shaking film experience), avoid a trip to the Cape.
I really don't want to compare Martin Scorsese's Cape Fear to the classic 1962 Cape Fear film, but I can't help it. Not only am I a huge fan of the Robert Mitchum and Gregory Peck starred Cape Fear, but when Scorsese includes scenes right out of the previous film (Cady taking the keys out of the ignition, dog dying) and even using Bernard Herrmann's score throughout the entire film, he's not giving me a lot of opportunities to not make a comparison as I can't help but think of the classic Cape Fear nearly every scene. When comparing Scorsese's version of Cape Fear to the classic version, the remake comes out destroyed by the classic; but even when taking the film by itself, it's still bad.<br /><br />Now Scorsese and screenwriter Wesley Strick didn't just remake the 1962 Cape Fear scene for scene, they tried to do things differently. Unfortunately this is one of the film's problems. Gone is the original crazy and animal-like Max Cady who is out for personal revenge, the Max Cady in the 1991 version is a religious fanatic out to "save" Sam Bowden and who is in touch with his feminine side (his words, not mine). Also gone is the stand-up and strong Sam Bowden seen in the classic Cape Fear film, the Sam found in the 1991 remake is very goofy, Magoo, distrustful, and very unlikable. Even Mrs. Bowden is a completely different character - she's crazier than Max Cady is! The overall story has also been changed around - Sam didn't testify against Cady in court to put him in jail like in the classic version, Sam is now Cady's ex-lawyer who Cady suspects of not doing all he could to keep him out of jail and is out to "save" him.<br /><br />The overall story has been changed, and I don't hold too much against it, but the overall script is also weak all around. Other sub-plots have been thrown into the mix that not only distract from the bigger picture, they are also just poorly written. The film also includes a few frankly absurd scenes and is filled with apathetic and even ridiculous lines that you can't take the least bit seriously. These aspects take away from the dangerous and thrilling nature that the film is supposed to have, but they have some help in this department as well.<br /><br />Now the classic version of Cape Fear was extraordinarily filmed with brilliant lighting and a powerfully effective suggestive subtlety combined with a barefaced brutality that delivered thrills when the film called for it and a sense of danger throughout its entirety. However, Scorsese is unable to do any of this in his Cape Fear, giving the film a cookie-cutter early 1990s look, no sense of danger, no suspenseful scenes, and little style (unless you count animating fire and the skyline style). Yeah, there is some gruesome violence and some effort was put in to make this Cape Fear bigger than the original, but it ends up empty and all shock but no awe.<br /><br />If all that wasn't enough, the acting isn't great either. Robert De Niro (being somehow nominated for an Academy Award for his performance) starts off alright as Max Cady, but he gets progressively worse until he begins to get nothing but laughs instead of scares by the end of the film. The opposite thing happens for Jessica Lange and her performance of Mrs. Bowden, going from overacting for most of the film to giving a convincing display of fear and desperation towards the end. As Sam Bowden, Nick Nolte stays the same throughout the whole film: beige. Juliette Lewis (who also reeled in an Academy Award nomination) is decent enough in her role as Danielle Bowden, but she's called upon to play a real stupid character and it's hard to really like what we see on screen from her.<br /><br />This film seems to be often counted as one of the few good remakes, and I can't figure out why. I wanted to like it; I really did - I mean, if there's going to be a remake of Cape Fear I'd rather like that one too - but I just couldn't. Containing nothing to be great on its own and being crushed by the unavoidable comparison to the original Cape Fear, I found Martin Scorsese's Cape Fear to be a very bad film indeed. The best things about the film are Robert Mitchum and Gregory Peck in their supporting roles - go figure.
One of Scorsese's worst. An average thriller; the only thing to recommend it is De Niro playing the psycho. The finale is typically of this genre i.e. over-the-top, with yet another almost invincible, immune-to-pain villain. I didn't like the 60s original, and this version wasn't much of an improvement on it. I have no idea why Scorsese wasted his time on a remake. Then again, considering how bad his recent movies have been (I'm referring to his dull Buddhist movie and all the ones with his new favourite actress, the blond girl Di Caprio) this isn't even that bad by comparison. And considering Spielberg wanted to do the remake... could have been far worse.
I'm surprised this movie is rated so highly, although if I were to go with typical grade scale 71 is a c- or d so perhaps that's all right but this movie was just a typical thriller except boringly slow and unrealistic. Not that a typical thriller is realistic but this one seemed to be trying to, and yet the woman who got rapped didn't press charges because she didn't want to be cross examined in a court even though she would be putting the man who broke her arm beat the crap out of her and raped her away for life not but also protecting the lawyer whom she had feelings for and his family not just random people she didn't even know. There were other similar problems with the movie which would have been all right if there was some kind of moral to take away from the movie but the few moral questions like whether it was right to try to kill/beat Kady before he did anything illegal were presented a little one sided since Kady ended up being just a crazed bastard bent on revenge so sure the lawyer was justified in protecting his family since waiting for Kady to actually rape his daughter so he could do something legally about it would be a bit absurd. So now I've just waisted more of my life for this stupid movie so please don't see it so at least your life won't be waisted and that way my 2 1/2 hours or so has meant something.
While I can't deny that his movies are often entertaining, I have always personally felt that Martin Scorsese is just a little overrated in his abilities. His use of flashy stylistics in a good number of his movies seems to scream "Look at me, aren't I an imaginative director?". His best film that I have seen is the one with the least added flourishes, the superlative "Raging Bull".<br /><br />For this remake it appears it was business as usual, though. The dull film stock to convey a 1950's setting was so bland as to be a distraction in itself. The melodramatic close-ups combined with the sub-par imitation of the classic "Psycho" score are more likely to provoke smirks of derision than a sense of atmospheric terror. The score for "Psycho" was brilliantly unnerving, this 'homage' just sounds shrill and annoying. Even the cast, who can be decent at times, deliver histrionic performances that just scream 'caricature'; the notable exception to this being an intelligent turn by Lewis as the impressionable teenage daughter of the Bowden family.<br /><br />The worst acting offender here is surprisingly De Niro. Sure, he looks suitably menacing but as soon as he opens his mouth that aura just drains away. Now I'm no expert on American accents, me originally coming from near Manchester in England an' all, but surely he could've come up with a more convincing Southern drawl than that? Being the gifted physical actor he is, he almost overcomes this fatal flaw, but not quite. It was disconcerting for me, as a De Niro fan, to be wishing he was off screen, rather than rapt at his performance.<br /><br />(POSSIBLE SPOILERS.)<br /><br />The over-the-top style of the whole movie extends to the ridiculously overblown finale. When will Scorsese learn that underplaying the situation can sometimes build tension just as effectively as giving the viewer a visual and sonic bombardment? I also thought that he was too respected a reputation to resort to the 'killer-not-dead-yet' cheap trick that less talented individuals might employ.<br /><br />All in all, a thoroughly ridiculous 'thriller'. Scorsese and De Niro have done MUCH better work together.
Worst De Niro Scorsese collaboration in this horrible agonizing violent overlong mess. Scorsese is totally out of his element in this film with the horror cliched suddenly loud phone ringing and door slamming gimmicks that seem laughable and embarrassing coming from such a master craftsman. The cast is totally wasted here and the southern accents are very annoying and forced. Nick Noltie plays the wimpiest lawyer in history who would ever believe he can defend anyone ! De Niro's psychotic Bowden is nothing more than the typical 90's movie psycho killer. The scene with De Niro and Lewis early on is very awkward and the climax goes on and on and we should all be more than tired of the on psycho stalker that never dies. One of my most horrible movie experiences. Rent the original it's 100 times better. <br /><br />
This remake of the 1962 orginal film'o the book has some very good parts to commend it and some fine performances by some fine actors - however Scorsese opts toward the end for the most formulaic of plot twists and an embarrassingly overacted shakespearean demise that had me looking at my watch.<br /><br />DeNiro is a superb actor, dedicated to giving his all in the work he does, however he needs direction to focus his talent, and this is sorely lacking in the last five minutes of the film.<br /><br />Gregory Peck's cameo is serviceable but nothing more whilst Robert Michum is always fun to watch, even with as few lines as this.<br /><br />Nick Nolte turns in a better performance than Lorenzo's Oil but is not on the same form as "Weeds". Joe Don Baker has some great lines while Juliette Lewis proves yet again that talent sometimes skips a generation.<br /><br />Some good points? The start credits(!), the first view of Cody's back when doing dips in the prison, the scene where Cody is attacked with baseball bats, Sam Bowden's decent into full-fledged panic, Cody's outwardly calm but unnerving prescence.<br /><br />The worst? The "Cleaning woman - BUT NOT REALLY!!!" part. Clinging bare-handed to the underside of a car for a hundred miles at high speed. (Are there no speed bumps in the US?) The "He's dead - BUT NOT REALLY!!!" partS and the aforementioned rambling ending.<br /><br />I may watch the original again, but I've yet to be tempted to watch the remake in four years since seeing it.
What ever possessed Martin Scorcese to remake this film? And not only did he remake it, completely ruin it? The nonsensical decision to make the character played by Robert DeNiro (in his most overdone performance, and that's saying a lot) into a religious fanatic is ridiculous, and exemplary of attitudes harbored by Hollywood (and Mr. Scorcese especially)- attitudes that compel writers to think that the best way to make a character insane is to tattoo a crucifix on his back. In any case, this movie is awful. <br /><br />
Worst movie, (with the best reviews given it) I've ever seen. Over the top dialog, acting, and direction. more slasher flick than thriller.With all the great reviews this movie got I'm appalled that it turned out so silly. shame on you martin scorsese
Christ. A sequel to one of the most cloying films of all time, this at least has the decency to leave out the songs (bar a reprise of the unbearable "Tomorrow") but does continue the tradition of being nauseating and unfunny. This time, Annie and her friends head off to London and get caught up in Joan Collins's plot to blow up Buckingham Palace or some such shite. The movie has a bizarrely sycophantic attitude towards its eponymous character at odds with how irritating she is: every time the little bugger squeals "Leapin' lizards!" I could feel my teeth grinding themselves down into powder. Drearily photographed, slushy and plodding, the movie has only one memorable line ("Unhand me, you stupid genius!") and the fact that it's not the original to recommend it.
Well where do i start? i think it's very insulting to the original Annie with Aileen Quimnn. I love the film Annie, and i was expecting this to be a brilliant film, but i was so disappointed! the acting is awful, the original Annie came out a few years before i was born, I'm now 25 and Annie is still one of my favourite films, So i was really excited to see Annie 2. The acting was awful in the film, were any of the characters original? very badly written, directed and acted. This is not a film i wish to see again, and any Annie lover i recommend that you don't watch this film because it will only leave you very disappointed. The young girls singing isn't bad but still doesn't compare to the original
Unfortunately there was not a 0 for a rating or else I would've chosen it. This movie lacks the star power that the original movie had in such abundance. Carol Burnett, Albert Finney, Tim Curry, Bernadette Peters, Edward Hermann, the innocence of newcomer Aileen Quinn, and expert directing from seasoned pro John Huston (father of actress Angelica Huston)is what made this film so charming. Even the 1999 remake with Kathy Bates, Victor Garber, Alan Cumming, and Kristin Chenoweth had more to offer than this sorry excuse for a sequel. Before she did this movie all Ashley Johnson was known for was her role as little Chrissie Seaver on the prime time show Growing Pains. She had a few bit parts in movies but I don't know who thought she had talent enough to carry a movie on her own. And adding Joan Collins as Lady Edwina Hogbottom, ridiculous! They couldn't get good enough actors to play the major roles like Daddy Warbucks, Miss Hannigan, and Annie but they will sign Joan Collins to play some British lady? It doesn't surprise me that this movie was as bad as it was. The critics were right to have not agreed with this movie, even if it was only made for TV, it was a poor sequel to an otherwise lovable movie.
This film is absolutely awful, but nevertheless, it can be hilarious at times, although this humor is entirely unintentional.<br /><br />The plot was beyond ridiculous. I don't even think a 2 year-old would be convinced by the ludicrous idiocy that the film-makers tried to slap together into a story. However, on the positive side, some of the horrifically inane plot twists provide a great deal of humor. For example, "Wow, Lady Hogbottom has a giant missile hidden in her back yard!" It gets worse (and even funnier), but I'll spare you.<br /><br />The acting is generally laughable. Most of the kids' roles are sort of cute, but not very believable. On the other hand, Annie is pretty awful all-around. The adults don't take their roles seriously at all, but this is largely a good thing. If they'd tried to be believable, the film would've been even worse. Which is difficult to imagine.<br /><br />Once you get past the overall crappiness of the movie, there are actually a few standout moments of almost-not-crappiness. The scene where Lady Hogbottom's son runs away with the maid is surprisingly hilarious, though it's an annoying letdown when they get caught by the police. The butler character, while very minor, is a ray of sunlight that almost, but never quite pierces through the gloom.<br /><br />Watching this movie actually caused me physical pain. Nevertheless, there were a few redeeming parts that made it almost watchable without beginning to hemorrhage internally. Judged on its good parts alone, the movie would be about a 5; unfortunately, the rest of the movie hardly deserves a 1. Thus, I give it a 3.<br /><br />That's being pretty generous, I'd say.
Not even worth watching this tacky spoiler ruins everything about 'Annie'. The characters seem almost cheapened by the poorly written storyline and they low quality feeling to the production. It was very clearly made for TV, yet if I found it on my television, I would flick it straight over. The children in the film do an alright job, yet the adults acting is unbelievable and so the movie fails to really draw you in. This film lacked the music/dance numbers thats made the original brilliant and truly does take the shine of the Annie we all love. Johnson, as Annie is at times annoying and over acted..you cannot convince yourself that she truly is Annie. The differences in character appearance continued to irritate me throughout the duration of the film. Sad to say this sequel was a total flop.
Annie's wig does not look good. she is not cute and pretty enough to play Annie. Annie sticks out in the movie, as her outfits look like Halloween costumes. terrible acting and terrible plots. This movie is such a change from the 1982 version. I think that a younger and smaller girl should have had the lead role. Ashley Johnson portrays a very boyish Annie. Not appealing at all. At least the casting director got it right with Daddy Warbucks. Ms. Hannigan was also miscast. Camilla Belle played Molly alright. "Warning" this movie might insult your IQ so you might just want to only show it to very young children. 8 and younger. Some of the plots are too fictional and could hardly take place in the real world.
Since the 70s, writer/producer/director Charles Band has been responsible for literally hundreds of science-fiction, fantasy and horror B-movies. Some of them are wonderful examples of how to use a tiny budget to maximum effect; many of them are pretty bad. Trancers (1985) was one of those rare gems.<br /><br />A Terminator style tale of time-travel and action, Trancers saw Tim Thomerson playing Jack Deth, a future cop given the task of tracking down bad-guy Whistler, who travels into the past by inhabiting the body of an ancestor. Whistler is capable of controlling other humans with his psychic powers, converting them into obedient zombies (the 'trancers' of the title), and attempts to alter the course of history by killing off the ancestors of the leaders of the future. Jack follows him to 1985, determined to stop him.<br /><br />In this 1991 sequel, Jack is still living in 1985. Having destroyed Whistler, he has settled down and married Leena (Helen Hunt), the young woman who helped him succeed in the first movie. But, for Jack, things don't stay calm for long, and trouble appears in the form of Whistler's brother, E.D. Wardo, who is trying to build a trancer army.<br /><br />Trancers II lacks the charm and simplicity of the original and is a huge disappointment considering how good the original was. The story is difficult to pick up if you haven't seen the first film (or at least not for a long while), and there is loads of unimpressive action and a few poor special effects. Gone is the inventiveness and wit that made Trancers so much fun; instead we get some cheesy one-liners and a script that feels like it was written on-the-fly.<br /><br />About the only reason I can give for recommending this film to fans of the genre is the cast, which boasts many names that will be familiar to followers of sci-fi and horror movies: Jeffrey Combs, Barbara Crampton, Richard Lynch, Martine Beswicke. Unfortunately, most of them seemed to be having an 'off day' whilst filming Trancers II, and performances are mediocre at best.<br /><br />The Trancers series obviously has its fans; four further sequels have since been churned out. Unless the quality has taken up massive upward swing, I can't imagine them being any good.
The original Trancers is not by any means a great movie. It had massive plot holes and very little in the way of internal logic. However, it was entertaining, better done than most low-budget B-movies, and could be surprisingly witty. Unfortunately, Trancers II is none of these.<br /><br />Trancers II suffers from many of the same problems of most flop sequels. The plot is thin enough to see through and the writing is insipid. It seems that the people behind this movie felt that bringing the familiar faces of the first movie back would be enough, and didn't bother with anything else. Not even veteran B-grade actors like Tim Thomerson and Jeffery Combs were able to drag this film out of the muck.<br /><br />A brief plot overview: Jack Deth (Thomerson) is a cop from the future who was sent to 1985 to save the ancestors of members of his government. Trancers II takes place six years after the events of the first Trancers. Jack Deth is married to Lena (Helen Hunt), the woman he met in the first movie, and both live with Hap Ashby, the man Deth was sent into the past to protect. It is discovered that the brother of Whistler (the bad guy from the first movie) has traveled back in time to create an army of Trancers, people turned into mindless killing zombies, to kill Ashby. Complicating Jack's mission is the fact that his first wife, who had died long before Jack traveled to the past, was also sent back to stop Whistler's brother, and now Jack finds himself working with her.<br /><br />I have two real problems with this movie. One is that the method of creating Trancers in this movie is radically different from the methods used in the first movie. What makes it annoying is that, in a rather poor example of Soviet Revisionism, they act like it was always the technique.<br /><br />The other thing that annoys me is that the love triangle between Deth, Lena, and Alice Stilwell (Jack's first wife) is given very little screen time. This bothered me particularly because it was much more interesting than the actual plot of the movie. It felt like it was just something that was thrown in to fill space in the movie. Alice's character in particular seems very unconcerned with the fact that she is reunited with her husband only to find he's re-married, making her either very shallow or very poorly written.<br /><br />The only reason I can think of for watching this movie is if you're interested in watching the entire Trancers series (currently totaling six movies). Otherwise, even if you're a fan of the original Trancers, stay away from this tepid sequel.
Why review good movies when you can review "Trancers II?"<br /><br />Ooh, this film is soooo lame. I can just picture the cast and crew driving around L.A. with a camcorder, hurling extras in silly monster make-up at poor, long-suffering Tim Thomerson. The stars' families actually turn up to play cameos, probably because Full Moon couldn't afford "real" extras. Lame effects, lame sets, and a script so convoluted it would take eons to untie all the knots - this must be classic Trancers!<br /><br />And yet...and yet...it rules. Note this is the same thing I say about "Trancers IV." I say it because it's true. What can beat watching an old guy in a trench coat mow down zombies, then bust out with quips like, "Don't worry ladies, they're bio-degradable"? Well, lots of things could be better, but anyway this is still good stuff.<br /><br />My only significant reservation is Megan Ward, who really stinks up the joint. She's a lousy rival for Helen Hunt's character - they're both young pieces of eye candy, and it would've been more effective if they actually contrasted a bit more. Oh well, you can't have everything. At least the wonderful plot device of the "long second watch" is back in place, and we've got more of Hap Ashby, the least-convincing athlete in the history of cinema (oh, wait a minute - he's got a rival in the form of David Ogden Steirs in "Creator").<br /><br />I haven't seen this lately, but I do seem to remember that Martine Beswick runs away twice during the final battle. Hooray for lousy continuity! Just one of the many highlights in this fine film.
This is a big step down after the surprisingly enjoyable original. This sequel isn't nearly as fun as part one, and it instead spends too much time on plot development. Tim Thomerson is still the best thing about this series, but his wisecracking is toned down in this entry. The performances are all adequate, but this time the script lets us down. The action is merely routine and the plot is only mildly interesting, so I need lots of silly laughs in order to stay entertained during a "Trancers" movie. Unfortunately, the laughs are few and far between, and so, this film is watchable at best.
Me and my friend rented this movie for $2.50. And we both agree on one thing:<br /><br />THIS IS THE WORST MOVIE EVER MADE!<br /><br />Also me and my friend counted 475 face shots. (Which makes up 95% of the movie).<br /><br />So in other words: DO SEE THIS MOVIE UNLESS YOU LIKE WASTING MONEY! And I do!<br /><br />
After the debacle of the first Sleepaway Camp, who thought that a franchise could be born. SC II is superior in aspect. More inspired killings and just whole lot more fun. While that might not be saying much (compared to the first movie), Sleepaway Camp II is worth the rental.<br /><br />Pros: Entertaining, doesn't take itself too seriously like SC I. Inspired Killings. Cons: Crappy acting and mullets abound.<br /><br />Bottom Line: 5/10<br /><br />
Being a slasher film aficionado, I typically will settle in to watch every slash movie that passes over my retinas, which sometimes does more harm than good to my brain, I will say. While channel surfing the other night, Sleepaway Camp II happened to cross paths with me. Of course, I wanted to check it out, as I had heard of the Sleepaway Camp franchise, but have never actually seen any of them (for shame, I know). I will note that since I have not seen the original, my criticism should probably not be taken too seriously, because perhaps what I think is wrong with it is totally intentional by the franchise's own design.<br /><br />Now I'm assuming that the franchise of Sleepaway Camp is, in itself, a joke on itself. Hell, even the name comes off as an intentional joke. Sleep away camp? It's good fun. I can appreciate the film for wanting to just put together something for pure camp horror value, but that's about as far as I can go. The acting in this movie made the cast of the original Friday the 13th look like thespians doing a rendition of Macbeth. Campy requires bad acting, but come on. Pamela Springsteen as the evil out-of-touch-with-reality killer did a better job of killing off my interest than she did killing off the entire cast. As far as comedy goes, there were a few times where I chuckled, but it was few and far between.<br /><br />Ultimately, SAC II is pretty boring, and I really did want to sleep away the camp. The deaths are so obviously staged and fake that you can barely appreciate them. If you're looking for a slasher film comedy with good camp, I recommend Club Dread. If your channel surfing takes you across this one, check and see what else is on.
No wonder Pamela Springsteen gave up acting to become a full-time photographer; it's a much better idea to have her behind a camera than in front of one. While this movie is not without its interesting elements (mullets from hell, etc.), it is outweighed by flaws. For one thing, Angela, the murderous counselor, appears to be about the same age as the campers. Having an older, more threatening camp director would have done a lot for the film. And then you have the murder scenes. The budget was apparently too low to execute most of them properly (no pun intended), although drowning someone in an outhouse toilet is certainly original. But overall, there are a ton of movies out there that are scarier/more fun to spend an hour and a half of your life watching.
This is an immoral and reprehensible piece of garbage, that no doubt wants to be a Friday the 13th (1980) clone. The poster for this movie makes it look like there's going to be some sort of a cross between Jason and Freddy, which is likely to attract movie-goers. There is NOTHING good or entertaining about this movie about this movie. It just makes me sad, just thinking that some people are going to stumble upon Sleepaway Camp II: Unhappy Campers (1988) on video or DVD, and waste their time with this sad, cynical, depressing movie.<br /><br />Angela Baker (Pamela Springsteen) is a camp counselor at Camp Rolling Hills, who hopes that the other campers are as nice as she is, and that they stay out of trouble. Meanwhile, the other campers are realizing that people are disappearing one by one, with Angela making up the excuse that she had to send them home. Could Angela be the killer, who was once a man, who underwent a sex change operation years earlier? Who knows? Who cares?<br /><br />The 1980s was home to a lot of movies that made the cross between the Mad Slasher and Dead Teenager genres, in which a mad killer goes berserk. Some have a plot, some don't, but they're all about as bad as this one. Sleepaway Camp II: Unhappy Campers is 80 minutes of teenagers being introduced and then being stabbed, strangled, impaled, chopped up, burned alive, and mutilated. That's all this movie is. It is just mindless, bloody violence.<br /><br />Watching this movie, I was reminded of the Friday the 13th movies, in which the message for its viewers was that the primary function of teenagers is to be hacked to death. The filmmakers of Sleepaway Camp II have every right to be ashamed of themselves. Imagine the sick message that this movie offers for its teen viewers: "The world is a totally evil place," this movie tells you, " and it'll kill you. It doesn't matter what your dreams or your hopes are. It doesn't matter if you have a new boyfriend, or a new girlfriend. It doesn't matter what you think, what you do or what your plans for the future are. You can forget those plans, because you're just going to wind up dead." <br /><br />And the sickest thing is--and by not giving too much away--the movie simply sets up room for a sequel. Well, why not? They've probably and already taken the bucket to the cesspool by making three or four of these movies. I missed out on the original Sleepaway Camp (1983), and, after watching its first sequel, I will hopefully stay away from the other sequels, as well as the original. And for parents, if you know kids who actually LIKE this movie, do not let them date your children.
This movie was bad from the start. The only purpose of the movie was that Angela wanted to get a high body count. The acting was horrible. The killings were acted out very badly. Like when Ally got stuffed down that toilet I guess it was in the abandoned cabin. But when the end of the movie comes and Molly and the other guy are in the cabin you see Ally so Angela must have gone in to get her. The part that really got me was when the black girl and Angela were in the cabin and Angela took the guitar string and chocked her. One it was horrible acting and two why wouldn't you just turn around and punch the bitch?!?!? Then when Molly is getting chased by Angela if you have the neigh why not just turn around and stab her??? So stupid. This movie sucked...
Despite being a sequel to the more potent original, this is more of a comical remake of Friday THE 13TH concerning the further antics of psychopathic Angela, killing more nubile teens for their "immorality" at a camp.<br /><br />Pamela Springsteen (sister of Bruce) looks great. There are some pretty darn funny sex scenes with some pretty darn attractive girls, but the movie's so (unintentionally) comedic rather than suspenseful, it's a stinker.<br /><br />* out of ****.<br /><br />MPAA: Rated R for graphic violence and gore, nudity, and for some sexuality, language, and drug use.
Angela Johnson (Pamela Springsteen--yes she's related to Bruce), the killer from the first film, is up to her old tricks again. She's one of the counselors at Camp Rolling Hills. As long as the girls at camp are nice and stay away from sex, drugs and swearing things are fine. But a few step over the line and Angela kills them--cracking bad jokes all the way.<br /><br />The original "Sleepaway Camp" was a vicious and nasty splatter film but had some good points to it. This is vicious and nasty too but has NO good points to it. The plot has been done to death and this adds NOTHING new to the formula. There are plenty of gory killings in here (people are burnt alive, heads are cut off, throats slashed) but all the gore is so obviously fake it actually become comical. This also has the smallest amount of campers I've ever seen and virtually everyone is far too old for their roles (especially Higgins). As expected there's the gratuitous female nudity (here provided by the tremendously untalented Valerie Hartman) and the obligatory good girl/good boy team (Renne Estevez and Tony Higgins). With the sole exception of Springsteen and Higgins the acting is lousy--even by slasher movie standards. There's also a cruel edge to this movie in which one character is drowned in an outhouse! Boring and sick with a stupid plot, pointless nudity and bad gore. Skip it.
So Angela has grown up and gotten therapy and an operation to turn her into a real life daughter, rather than the son that she was born, and now holds a job as - wait for it - a camp counselor! How appropriate, right? I know, I love it. Anyway, the first sequel to the Sleepaway Camp franchise obeys all the rules of horror sequels - more blood, more imaginative killings (which aren't imaginative, but still more so than the original), more nudity, a more elaborate plot, and generally worse than the original. <br /><br />It is entertaining in the same way as the original was, in that the characters and wardrobes are so goofy and so authentically 80's that you can't help getting a good laugh. At one point, a guy asks Angela out, and she says "I'll call you," and then quickly walks away. The guy says to himself, "How is she gonna call me? I don't have a phone!" and then he sniffs his armpits, wondering what turned her off (it's the hair, dude!!).<br /><br />It is a well-known fact that in 80s slasher movies, the murdered teenagers were more often than not being punished by their killer for some kind of bad behavior, usually for being too promiscuous. When I first started getting into horror movies and saw the Friday the 13th movies for the first time in the mid 90s, I didn't realize this. I learned it in a film class a year or two later and was amazed that their was some method to the madness. I was pretty impressed, not only that the movies were passing on some kind of message, albeit a morbid one, but that there was actually some thought put into it.<br /><br />But not in this movie! At one point just before Angela kills one of her victims, she says "Let this be a lesson to you. Say no to drugs!" Real subtle screen writing there, guys. Then again, the dialogue is the most entertaining thing in the movie. Angela (who, by the way, went through all that therapy and those operations and all that trouble to clean up her past and reinvent herself as a normal and well-developed person and then changed her name from Angela to, umm, Angela), says at one point, "I don't like being the wicked witch of the west, but I know what happens when things get out of control." (People start getting killed...by me! HA!)<br /><br />Then later, she demands that one of the counselors, Mare, make an apology, to which the girl replies, "I'd rather die!" Sorry, Mare, but you really walked into that one...<br /><br />Two years ago I was a camp counselor at a sleepaway camp similar to the one portrayed in this movie (except the camp that I taught at had more than three kids to the 15 or 20 counselors and it also had rules, which the one in the movie doesn't). This made me notice the myriad of discrepancies in the movie from what camp life is really like. <br /><br />That's okay though, you can hardly make a movie like this with a lot of 9 year olds running around, although there were some 10 or 11 year old kids killed in this movie. I hadn't seen that kind of thing much before. <br /><br />Definitely bad taste, even for a cheesy 80s slasher movie....
this movie is not good.the first one almost sucked,but had that unreal ending to make it worth watching.this one has nothing.there's zero scare,zero tension or suspense.this isn't really a horror movie.most of the kills don't show anything.there's no gore to speak of.this could almost be a TV,except for a bit of nudity and a bit of violence.the acting is not very good,either.and don't get me started on the dialogue.as for the surprise ending,surprise,there isn't one.i suppose it could have been worse,although i don't see how.but then again,it is less than 80 minutes long,so i guess that's a good thing.although it felt a lot longer. apparently this is the cut version of the film.i found it for a very cheap price,but it still not worth it.if you want the uncut more graphic version,check out the Anchor Bay edition.anyway,this version of Sleepaway Camp II:Unhappy Campers gets a big fat 1/10 from me. p.s.if you watch this movie,you will probably be a bored and unhappy camper.if you are a real fan,you might want to pick up Anchor Bay's Sleepaway Camp(with survival kit) three disc collection containing the first three movies uncut and with special features
Absolutely putrid slasher film has not one redeeming quality. It has Camp Councellor Angela(Pamela Anderson..awful as the killer;her quips when she wastes people aren't even amusing)on the warpath slaying teenagers who act the least bit naughty or resist her pleadings for good behavior. We run the gamut of boring, clichéd killings such as the slashing to the throat to one kid looking for his Freddy clawed glove, a kid who gets a chainsaw, one girl who gets drilled, one who gets shoved into the crapper(filled with leeches), one who is roasted, etc.<br /><br />It doesn't have one original idea to offer and is merely a waste of time. That is unless you want to see Valerie Hartmen's(who plays the slut Ally)tits. Most of the violence occurs off-screen so even that will not satisfy.
This is not horror, as the first part was: This is ("campy") light and humorous entertainment. Like in so many sequels, the action starts right away with no explanations. But there's boobs, so I don't complain. And real boobs that is. If I understand correctly, those are quite rare today amongst the teenage girls in U.S. of A. Which brings to my mind the fact that the main actress here is Pamela "Bruce's sister" Springsteen.<br /><br />This cannot be thought without the first movie, so I compare this to it. Again there is too small clothing (mainly pants) and funny hair, it's not hard to tell what decade this film is made in. Again there is really strange characters, this time even more visibly "pathological" ones. Especially the personnel of the camp. It's like some mental rehabilitation summer camp. People are older: Most of the actors must be at least 25, but I think they're supposed to be 16 or something. Some "methods" used by the Evil Dyke are quite unpleasant. Actually this movie don't have much in common with the first part, and this is worse than it in every way.
"The Deadly Look of Love" is essentially "Fatal Attraction" with a couple of twists added onto the back half. The ending will not surprise anyone who has seen more than two or three Movies of the Week. It is yet another cautionary tale about succumbing to temptation, and it adds nothing fresh to the genre.<br /><br />Brett (Vincent Spano) is engaged to a beautiful woman who just happens to have a sizable trust fund. Even though he has it all, he risks losing everything by starting up a steamy side affair with Janet (Jordan Ladd). Janet, a doe-eyed blonde from Cedar Falls, falls hard for Brett, and she does not take it particularly well when he comes clean about his engagement. Shortly after the wedding, Mrs. Brett turns up dead in the master bedroom of the large, luxurious home she shared with her new husband. When the police question Brett, he promptly points the finger at Janet. Following her arrest, Janet seems to get loonier by the minute - not that she was the picture of stability before. Her defense attorney (Holland Taylor) is convinced that Janet is innocent and is hell bent on proving it.<br /><br />Did she do it or didn't she? How will it end? You can find out the answers to these questions the next time "The Deadly Look of Love" airs on your local station. And be sure not to miss the moral of this beautiful story: men are pigs, and women are crazy.
I happened upon this flick on a rainy Sunday, intending to tune-in to something else. Out of curiosity, I accessed the comments here, and found myself watching it to the end. I really didn't do so with intent -- this was one of those movies where you're "fascinated," and watch it for "another couple of minutes," until you finally just watch to the end. And the indictment of it in most of these comments made it more fascinating to view. The one comment where the person really liked it seems to be solely as a result of liking Ladd and Spano, and their earlier roles. But great isn't anywhere to be found anywhere here - story, performances, and particularly the absurd courtroom hi-jinks. We all know that Perry Mason (before Raymond Burr passed the 300-lb. mark), and Ben Matlock, are granted some leeway in cavorting around the courtroom, instead of being boringly confined to a lectern. And Matlock is especially granted the privilege of entering exhibits often by simply going to the jury and showing them, before the judge and prosecutor have even been informed of, or shown, them. No real-life judge or prosecutor would stand for this.<br /><br />Both Perry and Ben almost always ended the proceedings by wringing a confession of the real killer. Actually Perry nearly always did this, but often Matlock would simply present overwhelming evidence of the true culprit, pronounce it "reasonable doubt," and then leave it to the cops and prosecutors to proceed against the guilty party - sometimes on-camera, sometimes presumed at the end of the show.<br /><br />But that said, Holland Taylor's histrionics and the amount of leeway afforded her, in the courtroom portion of this story, made the actions of Matlock/Mason more-closely resemble the slow, often boring detail such as seen on Court TV and in real-life courtrooms.<br /><br />Every character in this presentation was either insipid, unsympathetic, obnoxious, boring, improbable - or some combination of two or more of these.<br /><br />The ending was the most banal, absurd, even silly conclusion possible - but again, fascinating because of this. Ladd and Spano are attractive individuals, and t.v. movies would appear their best forte - probably best in 2nd-lead (probably better if "3rd-") roles, even in this venue. Taylor could be cast as the aunt or mother of one of them. Give this one 1 star for the story/performances, and 3 additional for the fascination factor.
I don't remember "Barnaby Jones" being no more than a very bland, standard detective show in which, as per any Quinn Martin show, Act I was the murder, Act II was the lead character figuring out the murder, Act III was the plot twist (another character murdered), Act IV was the resolution and the Epilogue was Betty (Lee Meriwether) asking her father-in-law Barnaby Jones (Buddy Ebsen) how he figured out the crime and then someone saying something witty at the end of the show.<br /><br />One thing I do remember was the late, great composer Jerry Goldsmith's excellent theme song. Strangely, the opening credit sequence made me want to see the show off and on for the seven seasons the show was on the air. I will also admit that it was nice to see Ebsen in a role other than Jed Clampett despite Ebsen being badly miscast. I just wished the show was more entertaining than when I first remembered it.<br /><br />Update (1/11/2009): I watched an interview with composer Jerry Goldsmith on YouTube through their Archive of American Television channel. Let's just say that I was more kind than Goldsmith about the show "Barnaby Jones."
Jennifer Jason Leigh and Mare Winningham are a good match portraying vastly different siblings, but only Winningham is able to bring something convincing or substantial to her role. Leigh, playing bar-band singer and alcoholic Sadie Flood, constantly leans on older sis Georgia, an acclaimed folk singer in the Joni Mitchell mold. Perhaps due to her double duties as co-producer on the film, Leigh seems to have boxed herself into a corner: she isn't credible as a singer and, even if this is intentional, gives herself far too much screen-time at the microphone. Probably hoping for a tour-de-force, Leigh is wire-drawn and nervous and jagged; however, we simply do not see any talent within this character (Leigh is obviously a solid actress, but she makes decisions here that wall us off from her). If Sadie had even the slightest bit of charisma or appeal, we might be able to buy into the concept that she gets the (small) breaks that she does. As it is, the likelihood of her ever getting up on stage is slim. Director Ulu Grosbard crafts a few intense dramatic sequences, and the editing at the finale juxtaposes Sadie's bar performance with Georgia's sold-out arena show--both singing the same song--and it's a sadly nuanced moment...but really, what's the point? *1/2 from ****
I'm not going to say that this movie is horrible, because I have seen worse, but it's not even halfway decent. <br /><br />The plot is very confusing. I couldn't really figure out what was happening and where things were going. When the movie was over, I was left scratching my head. I watched through to the end of the credits to see if they had something after them that may clear things up, but once the credits were over, that was it. I felt like I was jarred from one weak plot point to another throughout the whole movie, with little or no transition between the two. <br /><br />Character development is very shallow. I couldn't figure out when somebody was angry or had a grudge against someone. I couldn't tell if half of the characters were just supposed to be drunk, stoned, mentally challenged or they just had a bad actor to portray them. This film seems to be based around stereotypes (to it's credit, they are hard to avoid using when you are making a film about a singer in a rock band), which SHOULD make character development easier, since so many other films have already illustrated the suffering of an abused child, or the trials of a heroin addict trying to come clean. Stereotypes are easy to depict, which would explain why so many bad films tend to overuse stereotypical characters. This film, on the other hand, uses stereotypical characters left and right, but then tries to keep them as incomprehensible as possible.<br /><br />Another problem with the characters is that they seemed to be dismissed with no explanation. I guess that's OK because so little time was spent developing the characters that I really didn't get a chance to know any of them, so I never really missed any of them.<br /><br />And last but not least was Sadie's singing. It's awful. The music backing her up is not prize winner, but it is usually drowned out by the screeches that are released from Sadie's vocal cords. I swear that there's one point in the movie where she sings a song for at least 10 minutes. I seriously thought I was going to have to turn it off during this howl-a-thon.<br /><br />As a whole, this movie is confusing. Characters are ill-developed, Georgia's acting is wooden and stiff, Sadie's character is yanked from one bad situation to another, with no back story or explanation. The music was unbearable, and I can think of no good reasons to see this film unless you have a thirst for cinematic pain.
A little girl lives with her father and brother in the middle of the countryside. This little girl Rosalie has some psychotic tendencies as the movie opens with her feeding kittens to some kind of creatures in the cemetery, and she has recently lost her mother who went crazy but whilst alive enjoyed staying in the woods all night. The premise of the film has a new young lady coming to Rosalie to take care of her. She is introduced to the evil of the woods while driving and, imagine the suspense here, experiences a huge blue barrel falling over the side of a cliff to somehow stop her car dead in its tracks. From there she walks to the nearest house and discovers Mrs. Whitfield who then goes into a whole lot of explanation about Rosalie and her family. The earnestness exuded by the Mrs. Whitfield character has to be seen to be believed. Well, the young lady meets up with the child and we soon learn that not only is she strange but everyone in the film is very bizarre as well. They all do share one thing in common which is none of them ever heard of an acting school. None of these people can act - as evidenced by the few vehicles any of them in the entire film appeared in before or since - and all of them look like they have little idea what is going on, pause to remember lines, and have all the conviction of a paper bag. The director plods through the material in a slow pace with this horrible piano music crescendoing here and there at things that are suppose to be scary. It takes us a bit before we get to a couple of murders by the creature friends, but by that time I didn't care. The murders are not convincing either, and truth be told the whole film looks like someone through it together on their friend's farm with the people and things on hand there. That all being said the ending does have some creepy aspects to it though we don't learn one darn thing about why Rosalie is like this or more importantly who the creature with the cheap masks are. Cheap doesn't even begin to describe the budget here with. It basically is a couple old farmhouses and some sheds at the end and of course the woods. Someone lent the director a couple old cars too. No special effects of any kind and only the most minimal make-up. There are so many guffaws/ridiculous moments to list, but I will just list a few here that at the very least made me chuckle from the lack of aptitude from the creative powers involved: 1)Watch the gardener's body well after he has been "slain". Len comes in and sees him butchered and you can see his fat belly heave with life. 2)the dying scene at the end where the actress playing Rosalie is killed. She looks like she is listening to directions and takes her sweet time dying considering the method. 3)How about the guy playing Roaslie's father giving us a cranky poor man's Andy Griffith. The scene where he is laughing about boy scouts dying was a weird hoot. The Child is indeed a very bad film and is very bad even for the standards of 70's cheese if you will. This isn't a B film but more like a Z film with producer Harry Novak making some money on virtually nothing.
There were a lot of truly great horror movies produced in the seventies - but this film certainly isn't one of them! It's a shame The Child isn't better as it works from a decent idea that takes in a couple of sometimes successful horror themes. We have the idea of a vengeful child, which worked so well in classic films such as The Bad Seed and then we have the central zombie theme, which of course has been the backbone of many a successful horror movie. The plot is basically this: young girl blames a load of people for the death of her mother, so she goes to the graveyard and raises the dead to get revenge (as you do). This is all well and good, except for the fact that it's boring! Nothing happens for most of the film, and although it does pick up at the end with some nice gore; it's not enough of a finale to justify sitting through the rest of it. The film was obviously shot on a budget as the locations look cheap and all the actors are rubbish. There's really not much I can say about the film overall as there isn't much to it. The Child is a dismal seventies horror flick and I certainly don't recommend it.
This movie was seriously awful. The acting was the worst! It was worse than a student film. Super cheesy, and I think the worst actor was the old lady. At first I thought to myself, well it's an old movie. Then I remembered that that is no excuse! I've seen older movies with way better acting and such.<br /><br />The music was terrible to. It was really choppy. The editing was poor (most of the dialog was out of sync.)<br /><br />Overall, this movie doesn't even deserve a 1. I only watched it because I was so bored, and the movie hardly entertained me. It was just laughable. My dead grandmother's left pinkie toe could make a better movie than this.
And that comes from someone that will withstand almost ANY viewing. The acting and sound is awful. This might qualify for a "so bad it's good" point of merit,,,for some. However I take my horror movies seriously and this is just crap-it's just soooo cheap, I think that's my major complaint. The dialogue is often hilarious-attention to how many times "you startled me" is used. The "child" actress is seriously god awful-I pray her acting career ended here..her line "DONUTS! I HATE DONUTS" is worth repeated viewing however.
If you're going to look after a child, make sure they don't live anywhere near a graveyard. Especially if said kid has a habit of drawing gory pictures and disappears at night among the tombstones to see her 'friends'. But, our long haired heroine, oblivious to all the signs, shacks up with her family the Nortons, which include a strict father and a dullard older brother who becomes a love interest for our budding babysitter. Even more spooky than the zombie gang outside is the cast's tendency to talk even when their lips aren't moving, and for the words to not match the movement of their mouths. But enough of that.. domestic animals are being sacrificed, old ladies are having eyeballs torn out and the orchestra won't shut up during any scene, even the quiet ones. Oh, and the editor is having a day off going by the way the film drones on.<br /><br />In fact, it would been better if everybody involved had taken a breather, smelt what they'd signed up for and gone AWOL. Yes, I know it's hard to get into movies these days, but this sort of starter point is not one on your CV you'd want. If would be like a trainee farm labourer having a conviction for chicken molesting. Featuring one of the worst lead performances ever by the shrill Laurel Barnett, and another almost equally as bad by the charisma-free child actress Rosalie Cole (The next Dakota Fanning she ain't) the film meanders on and on with nothing but padding until we get what passes for a climax.<br /><br />This involves five or six members of the undead barricading our utterly useless heroine in a shed, while her bit of rough fends off these ghouls with a plank of wood, a one shell shotgun and whatever he can lay his hands on. But back up a minute.. earlier on they were in the car, and they accidentally discovered that the creatures found the noise of the horn so repellent they shuffled off at the sound of it. So do they stay where they are safe? No of course not, they run off to this abandoned building in the middle of nowhere, so the bloke can prove what a hardnut he is the girl can act like she's having a nervous breakdown.<br /><br />Finally, the film closes. It doesn't end, it just goes to a grinding halt. The main character wanders back to her vehicle covered in fake blood, as if nothing horrible had happened. But, my dear viewer, something horrible has happened. You have just sat through one of the most lamebrained, boring horror films you're ever likely to see, and lost 82 minutes of your life you'll never get back. Just think.. years from now on your deathbed, what you'd trade an hour and 22 minutes for just to spend a bit of extra time with your family. Sadly, it's already too late for me. Don't you make the same mistake :( 2/10
Alicianne (Laurel Barnett) becomes a live in babysitter for young Rosalie Nordon (Rosalione Cole) who has recently lost her mother. But Rosalie misses her dead mother a lot and continuously visits her grave (conveniently located in a cemetery right behind the house) late at night...where she also meets her "friends"...<br /><br />This starts off good with a truly eerie sequence in the cemetery...then falls apart. The story is thin and there is TONS of padding to make the film 85 minutes long. The acting is terrible across the board (with Cole easily being the worst). Badly directed with some of the WORST editing I've ever seen in a motion picture. Scenes (and sound) are just cut off with no rhyme or reason. Also the film has terrible (and obvious) post-production sound.<br /><br />As for blood and violence--forget it! There's very little and what there is looks incredibly fake. I've NEVER seen such fake-looking blood--looks like ketchup! Boring, pointless--a rightfully forgotten drive-in movie. You can skip this one.
The Treasure Island DVD should be required viewing in any film production course! It's a textbook example of how NOT to make a movie. Watching the movie and then listening to the writer/director's commentary demonstrates graphically the vast chasm between what he knows about the characters and what he communicates to his audience about them. Call me old-fashioned, but I think of movies as a means of communication, and communication isn't complete if the audience doesn't know what the hell the director is talking about. The director's avowed purpose is to make a movie void of "Hollywood conventions". Among those conventions, alas, is consistency of character and clarity of concept. The director himself realizes that audiences often don't understand points where he has purposely avoided a "Hollywood cliché". However, he never seems to grasp the idea that clichés exist for a reason. They are shorthand for conveying complex ideas quickly and clearly. It's fine to avoid them, but they need to be replaced with some other way of communicating the same idea, not simply eliminated. The film is built on an intriguing premise, rich with potential. Two puppets are assigned to fabricate a personality and background for an unidentified corpse that is to be used in a disinformation mission in the closing days of WWII. Soon each begins to populate their personal fantasies with the character and their invention becomes increasingly real to them. Someone with less disdain for the "Hollywood convention" of traditional storytelling could create a wonderful film with this idea. This film certainly isn't it! The puppets do everything they can to bring consistency to these characters, but they are all too often defeated by the dazed and confused script. In particular, I'm becoming increasingly impressed by Gonzo, who plays the lively corpse. In a number of muppet films, he always stands out as a very charismatic puppet.
The shame of it! There I was, comfortable in the arm chair with a beer and a bag of popcorn, bouyant in the hope of another splendid Muppet night of entertainment. What did I get? Disappointed! How can the Muppets go from the sublime Christmas Carol to this? The humour was dreadful, the songs were worse than Country and Western (and that's saying something) and the plot was as confused and poor as Blind Pew. I think the main problem was that they bit off too much in attempting Treasure Island. A short tale, such as Christmas Carol, is perfect because you can weave the Muppet high jinks around it....here the need to drag the plot along stopped all the fun. Where do the Muppets go next? How about Muppets Wizard of Oz?
I must say this movie is a Mork and Mindy knock off, when watching it i got the chills, I even wet myself a little. When that Korean guy with the spiders in his neck started kicking people i was like oh my lord Asian people smell and suck cause they eat dogs all the time. Any way back on track Chuck had a somewhat terrible performance and lacked the intelligence of a regular non robotic human being. Some people would compare it to his earlier days when he was a car wash analyzer and believed in the holy ghost and the ghost of Christmas past. This movie is so bad I put my new born child in a box and left it in Mr. Norris mailbox. He can raise my kid I'm not letting him into a world where he thinks chuck Norris is a karate expert Ill let him see what that hack is like in real life for the rest of his life.
ANDY HARDY MEETS DEBUTANTE (1940) is the ninth (9th) film of the series and it shows the direction it was inevitably headed into. Characters ANDY HARDY (Mickey Rooney) and JUDGE HARDY (Lewis Stone) were going to be front and center. The rest of the cast was going too just punch the clock and collect their checks. The series would rise to the occasion again and have its moments but a fatal decline had set in.<br /><br />Lewis Stone throughout the series would continue too portray the character of JUDGE HARDY in a sympathetic manner. The rest of the cast would be professional even though given less and less to do. Mickey Rooney on the other hand would continue his character as if there was no learning curve. ANDYs' reaction to any situation was in a naive and unbelievable way. Even after he returned as a veteran of World War II service in LOVE LAUGHS AT ANDY HARDY (1946) his reaction to any 'teapot tempest' was the same, juvenile.<br /><br />In this film it is clearly illustrated. ANDY gets himself into several unbelievable situations that with a simple explanation would have been resolved. This screen writing device was known as the 'idiot plot'. A means of stretching a poorly written scenario. Maybe it was less Mickey Rooneys' fault then the Director and the Writers. Most likely George B. Seitz had directed one too many and a firmer hand was needed too control Rooneys' excesses. To see our overview of the entire series go to YOU'RE ONLY YOUNG ONCE (1937).
I always thought people were a little too cynical about these old Andy Hardy films. A couple of them weren't bad. Modern film critics are not ones who usually prefer nice to nasty, so goody-two shoes movies like these rarely get praise<br /><br />Nonetheless, I can't defend this movie either. You can still have an dated dialog but still laugh and cry over the story. Watching this, you just shake your head ask yourself, "how stupid can you get?" This is cornier than corny, if you know what I mean. It is so corny I cannot fathom too many people actually sitting through the entire hour-and-a-half.<br /><br />The story basically is "Andy" (Mickey Rooney) trying to get out of jam because he makes up some story about involved with some débutante from New York City as if that was the ultimate. People were a lot more social-conscious in the old days. You'd hear the term "social-climber" as if knowing rich or beautiful people was the highest achievement you could make it life. It's all utter nonsense, of course, and looks even more so today.<br /><br />However, it's about as innocent and clean a story and series (there were a half dozen of these Andy Hardy films made) as you could find. Also, if you like to hear Judy Garland sing, then this is your ticket, as she sings a couple of songs in here and she croons her way into Andy's heart. Oh man, I almost throw up even writing about this!
I am at a distinct disadvantage here. I have not seen the first two movies in this series, although I have seen a lot of Larry Cohen films. Fans of the series seem to think this is a good film. Judging it on it's own, it was pretty boring.<br /><br />You never get a real good look at the maniac cop's (Robert Z'Dar) face, but what I did see was pretty grim. The death scenes seem to be staged to eat up the most film, not to give any thrills. Maybe if I saw the NC-17 Director's Cut, I may be more impressed.<br /><br />The ending with the car chase with Z'Dar, Caitlin Dulany, and Robert Davi was pretty intense. best part of the movie.
Matt Cordell is back from the dead for a third go-round, although I'm not sure anyone cared at this point except for rabid MANICA COP fans. Cordell, who died in the last flick, is resurrected through voodoo, and is now hot on the trail of several miscreants involved in the shooting of a fellow officer Cordell is very fond of. I missed part of this early '90s low-budget quickie, but it was pleasing to see Cordell wracking up the body count in various, gruesome ways. Problem is, the overall film is pretty static, and Cordell simply ain't Jason or Freddy. The interest wanes pretty fast, even with that grand B-movie master Robert Forster as a doctor who ends up with his brains scrambled. Stick with the first film in the series, which is funny and scary and exciting, all at the same time.
The supernatural, vengeful police officer is back for a third installment, this time acting as guardian angel for a wrongfully accused female cop. Standard stalk and slash picture, yet well acted and directed, thus making it oddly interesting and watchable, though the violence isn't for the squeamish (especially the director's cut which was originally given an "NC-17" rating).<br /><br />*1/2 out of ****
Look, it's the third one, so you already know it's bad. And "Maniac Cop" wasn't good enough to warrant the second installment, so you know it's even worse. But how much worse? Awful, approaching God-awful.<br /><br />When Maniac Cop goes on a killing spree, a reporter exclaims, "What happened here can ONLY be described as a black rainbow of death."<br /><br />1-- Rainbows are not black, and can never be. 2-- Rainbows are harmless, and can never inflict pain or death. 3-- A news reporter, one valuable to his agency, might find another way to describe the aftermath of a killing spree. "A black rainbow of death" is not the ONLY way to describe the given situation.<br /><br />This is what you're in for.
I read somewhere where this film was supposed to be a remake of the 1949 film noir, "Criss Cross." I found the latter to be disappointing but it was still better than this film. <br /><br />This movie is a "neo-noir" since it's modern-day and it's in color, two things that purists would make it be disqualified for film noir status. <br /><br />The biggest negative to it, however, wasn't the cinematography (that was fine) but the muddled storyline. Hey, some of '40s Dashiell Hammett stories were similar but I didn't care for some of those either. The filmmakers here did not help the situation by placing flashbacks into the story what seemed like every three minutes. No wonder it was the keep up with this story. It was ridiculous! What happens is that by the 45-minute mark, their is so much confusion nobody cares anymore. I know I didn't.
There aren't many good things to say at all about Underneath, Soderbergh's untrue endeavor into neo-noir. Soderbergh remakes Robert Siodmak's decent noir Criss-Cross faithfully, not altering the plot very much at all, however the adaptation drains it of every ounce of its state-of-the-art film noir atmosphere, giving it the same story set in the very least appealing places, lifestyles and anachronisms. Soderbergh, who would later make wonderful crime films like Out of Sight and the Ocean's series with great style and atmosphere, takes the dangerously obvious route to modernization by renovating the story with the ugliest, dullest and flattest fashions of the early 1990s. Nightclubs have terrible, revoltingly dressed garage bands, Peter Gallagher's uninteresting version of Burt Lancaster's anti-hero is left by his femme fatale girlfriend for compulsively buying cinematically lifeless modern appliances like stereos, TVs, and other up to date pieces of equipment that suck the reaction out of the film.<br /><br />It could've been more entertaining and less boring had it a few saving graces like a good score, more flesh to its characters, more than just William Fichtner giving performances that aren't wooden, a crisper pace. Unfortunately, Underneath has none of these things. Soderbergh, a fine director, does not utilize his dry detachment to the benefit of his film this time. That disposition works wonderfully when he's helming a crime movie with more tongue in its cheek like the George Clooney pictures previously mentioned, or a social or character drama like Traffic or sex, lies and videotape. With a movie like Underneath, it intensifies the boredom experienced by the viewer.
When i got this movie free from my job, along with three other similar movies.. I watched then with very low expectations. Now this movie isn't bad per se. You get what you pay for. It is a tale of love, betrayal, lies, sex, scandal, everything you want in a movie. Definitely not a Hollywood blockbuster, but for cheap thrills it is not that bad. I would probably never watch this movie again. In a nutshell this is the kind of movie that you would see either very late at night on a local television station that is just wanting to take up some time, or you would see it on a Sunday afternoon on a local television station that is trying to take up some time. Despite the bad acting, cliché lines, and sub par camera work. I didn't have the desire to turn off the movie and pretend like it never popped into my DVD player. The story has been done many times in many movies. This one is no different, no better, no worse. <br /><br />Just your average movie.
When i got this movie free from my job, along with three other similar movies.. I watched then with very low expectations. Now this movie isn't bad per se. You get what you pay for. It is a tale of love, betrayal, lies, sex, scandal, everything you want in a movie. Definitely not a Hollywood blockbuster, but for cheap thrills it is not that bad. I would probably never watch this movie again. In a nutshell this is the kind of movie that you would see either very late at night on a local television station that is just wanting to take up some time, or you would see it on a Sunday afternoon on a local television station that is trying to take up some time. Despite the bad acting, cliché lines, and sub par camera work. I didn't have the desire to turn off the movie and pretend like it never popped into my DVD player. The story has been done many times in many movies. This one is no different, no better, no worse. <br /><br />Just your average movie.
When i got this movie free from my job, along with three other similar movies.. I watched then with very low expectations. Now this movie isn't bad per se. You get what you pay for. It is a tale of love, betrayal, lies, sex, scandal, everything you want in a movie. Definitely not a Hollywood blockbuster, but for cheap thrills it is not that bad. I would probably never watch this movie again. In a nutshell this is the kind of movie that you would see either very late at night on a local television station that is just wanting to take up some time, or you would see it on a Sunday afternoon on a local television station that is trying to take up some time. Despite the bad acting, cliché lines, and sub par camera work. I didn't have the desire to turn off the movie and pretend like it never popped into my DVD player. The story has been done many times in many movies. This one is no different, no better, no worse. <br /><br />Just your average movie.
Ben Masters,(Kyd Thomas),"Dream Lover",'86 plays a sort of Mike Hammer character, a private eye who does any old job for a buck and never misses out on all the sexy curves of good looking gals. Kyd makes one big mistake when he stops Morgan Fairchild,(Laura Cassidy/Eva Bomberg),"Arizona Summer",'73 from getting beaten up and raped. Kyd takes Laura home to his pad and when he wakes up, she is out on his patio eating his eggs and orange juice and making herself right at home. By the way, Kyd sleep in his bed and Laura slept on the couch for this particular scene. Laura is mixed up with all kinds of hoods and there are some hot scenes between Kyd and Laura. All said and done, this is a lousy picture and I purchased the DVD for only $1.50 and I really got ripped OFF !
Manipulative drama about a glamorous model (Margaux Hemingway) who is raped by a geeky but unbalanced musician (Chris Sarandon) – to whom she had been introduced by her younger sister (played by real-life sibling Mariel), whose music teacher he is. While the central courtroom action holds the attention – thanks largely to a commanding performance by Anne Bancroft as Hemingway’s lawyer – the film is too often merely glossy, but also dramatically unconvincing: the jury ostensibly takes the musician’s side because a) the girl invited assault due to the sensuous nature of her profession and b) she was offering no resistance to her presumed aggressor when her sister arrived at the apartment and inadvertently saw the couple in bed together. What the f***?!; she was clearly tied up – what resistance could she realistically offer? <br /><br />The second half of the film – involving Sarandon’s rape of the sister, which curiously anticipates IRREVERSIBLE (2002) by occurring in a tunnel – is rather contrived: Mariel’s character should have known better than to trust Sarandon after what he did to her sister, but Margaux herself foolishly reprises the line of work which had indirectly led to her humiliating experience almost immediately! The climax – in which Sarandon gets his just desserts, with Margaux turning suddenly into a fearless and resourceful vigilante – is, however, a crowd-pleaser in the style of DEATH WISH (1974); incidentally, ubiquitous Italian movie mogul Dino De Laurentiis was behind both films.<br /><br />It’s worth noting how the two Hemingway sisters’ lives took wildly different turns (this was the film debut of both): Margaux’s career never took off (despite her undeniable good looks and commendable participation here) – while Mariel would soon receive an Oscar nomination for Woody Allen’s MANHATTAN (1979) and, interestingly, would herself play a glamorous victim of raging violence when essaying the role of real-life “Playboy” centerfold Dorothy Stratten in Bob Fosse’s STAR 80 (1983). With the added pressure of a couple of failed marriages, Margaux took refuge in alcohol and would eventually die of a drug overdose in 1996; chillingly, the Hemingway family had a history of suicides – notably the sisters’ grandfather, celebrated author Ernest, who died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound in 1961.
After seeing a heavily censored version of this movie on television years ago, I was curious to see the unedited version. I was surprised that it was more believable and well acted than I remembered, but one thing really stood out. I think other reviewers have mentioned this also, namely, what exactly is the nature and motivation of the Chris Sarandon character? Has he raped other victims before? Is he completely psychotic or an "average" sociopath? How did he expect to get away with his attack on the younger sister? Is this character at all credible, or is it just a matter of more background being necessary? He seems almost simultaneously to be an uncomfortably believable character, and too crazy to actually be able to hold on to a teaching job that puts him in contact with young, vulnerable girls. This seems to to be the biggest complaint of viewers in general. It has nothing to do with his performance, which is terrifyingly convincing.The movie occupies an uneasy position between sheer exploitation and a half way serious treatment of the subject, without quite settling into either mode. Not the worst movie ever made, but not all that good, either.
Model Chris McCormack (Margaux Hemingway) is brutally raped by a teacher (Chris Sarandon) of her sister Kathy (Mariel Hemingway). He is brought to trial but goes totally free. He then rapes Kathy!<br /><br />Objectionable and sick rape film. This movie was advertised as an important drama dealing with rape. What it is is a badly written and (for the most part) badly acted drama. It purports to be sympathetic to the victim of the rape but shoves the scene in our face. To be totally honest however, Hemingway's acting is so bad in that sequence that it loses any real impact it might have had. The trial scenes were boring and predictable. And the movie just went too far when 15 year old Mariel is raped (thankfully that wasn't shown). I do admit though that it did lead to a great ending when Margaux grabs a gun and shoots Sarandon dead. But seriously--having a young girl raped is just revolting.<br /><br />Acting doesn't help. For instance, Margaux was no actress. She was certainly a beautiful woman (and an actual model I believe) but her acting left a lot to be desired. It lessens the film. Mariel was just OK but this was one of her first films. Sarandon does what he can as the rapist. He wasn't bad but the terrible script worked against him.<br /><br />I do remember hearing that at a screening of this back in 1976 some women stood up and cheered when Sarandon was killed so maybe this works for some people. I found this boring, simplistic and REALLY sick. A 1 all the way.
**WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILER**<br /><br />If you can get by the extremely unpleasant subject matter, this film does offer a heaping helping of outrageously campy melodrama. Surprisingly enough, this movie has been copied and ripped-off several times over the years, although it's hard to fathom ANY filmmaker being inspired by this trashy drama. Neither one of the Hemingway women can act here (although Mariel HAS improved over the years), Anne Bancroft offers the only touch of class as a prosecuting attorney, and Chris Sarandon is by turns pathetic and unintentionally hilarious as the smirking, smarmy bad guy of the piece.<br /><br />Veteran director Lamont Johnson can't make a silk purse out of this sow's ear of a script, which is stuffed to bursting with howlingly bad dialogue and outlandish situations. For example, the final sequence, where Margaux grabs her shotgun and chases Sarandon down after his latest shocking act is meant to be exciting but elicits hearty chuckles instead. Add a notoriously shrill and spacy musical score by Michel Polnareff and you have a true guilty pleasure, even though you're likely to feel grubby and needing a hot shower after viewing it. Don't say you weren't warned.
Lipstick is another glossy movie failure.I am trying to think of one good thing that I could say about the movie, and I am having trouble coming up with something.I guess the red dress that Margaux Hemingway was wearing in the end of the movie was the best part.The writing and the script was not the worst that I have ever encountered,but it could have been a lot better. Lipstick was very pleasing to the eye to view.The sets were very glossy and nice to look at.The cast was okay. I felt like Anne Bancroft's character was the only feasible character in the entire movie.It was sad to see Chris Sarandon waste his time on this one.
It is hard to make an unbiased judgment on a film like this that had such an impact on me at such a young age. This is with out a doubt the worst kind of exploitation film. I was unfortunate enough to see this film for the first time in my youth, Iwill never forget it. I thought it was the most horrible movie ever made. I then saw it again earlier this year and was once again horrified.<br /><br />I am not a zealot or one to say what others should and should not see but I did take great offense to the way in which something as horrible as rape was dealt with in this movie. I love lowbrow cinema but this is just plain nasty. Rent some Rus Myer instead.
This film is so ridiculously idiot that you may actually laugh at it. But no, even this is too much for this lost meters of celluloid. I found it as an offer in a magazine and that's why I've seen it. I regret the time I lost to see this. 1 out of 10 (because they don't have a lower grade).
If you haven't seen this, it's terrible. It is pure trash. I saw this about 17 years ago, and I'm still screwed up from it.
While some performances were good-Victoria Rowell, Adrienne Barbeau, and the two Italian girlfriends come to mind-the story was lame and derivative, the emphasis on the girlfriend's racial background was handled clumsily at best, and the relatives were mostly portrayed as stereotypes, not as real people. I found myself wincing uncomfortably at many moments that were supposed to be funny. I can hardly comprehend why the local paper here in SF said this was a good movie, and wonder WHO posted the glowing review here on IMDb. Very disappointed in this movie, and mad I actually went to a theatre to see it, based on the faulty connection to Garden State, which is a far funnier, more inventive, and touching movie than this one. I must especially mention the emotional climax in the church, which was so wooden and by-the-numbers that I nearly left, and some in the audience actually DID. THAT was followed by a silly climax at the graveyard, which I saw coming 10 minutes before it happened. I really don't like being misled to spend my money so uselessly.
Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn would roll over in their graves if they knew this Guess Who's Coming to Dinner Rip Off was actually in theaters. Along with Sidney Poitier and Katherine Houghton these four brilliant actors made a great cultural statement with Director Stanley Kramer's 1967 master piece. This present day rip off is a joke. So a white guy from an overly stereotyped Italian family in Rhode Island brings his African American girlfriend home (Insert GASP here) to his grand father's funeral. His family members reactions were of course....predictable. This movie was so painfully telegraphed from start to finish my girlfriend actually started fake snoring to signal to me that she wanted to leave. Do yourself a favor and rent the original. Take a pass on Wake.
This film is really vile. It plays on the urban paranoia of the 70s/80s and puts it into a school context. I'm not saying that urban crime wasn't a problem for a lot of people or that schools weren't/aren't problem areas but this vile piece of exploitation takes the biscuit. Violence is beyond anything realistically imaginable but in this case it's not a case of social issues but a white, upper-middle class student uses it to turn himself into the crime kingpin of his local high schoiol. And of course he knows how to play the system. Does that sound familiar. Yes. This turd is pure violent exploitation, a really nasty piece of work. It's disturbing brutality dressed up as a social comment. This belongs in the same category as trash like Exterminator, Death Wish 2-5 and so on and so on. The only remarkable thing is that Michael Fox was so broke at the time that he had to do stuff like this.
The creativeness of this movie was lost from the beginning when the writers and directors left out a good story line, only to substitute with horrible special affects. This movie seemed to be focused on amusing children, but couldn't even accomplish that. Many small low budget films have the potential to become great movies, but this movie is no where near that. Fortunately this will be another film easily made, and easily forgotten. This movie was probably a chance for the actors to make a little money on the side until their chance came along for a real role in a good movie. Anyone who has a shred of respect for films, should avoid seeing this movie at all costs.
Relying on the positive reviews above, we saw a free screening of this last night. Now I KNOW that filmmakers plant positive reviews, because there is no way an objective individual could have written these. "Destined to become a 'cult classic'"?? The theater was packed, apparently with friends and families of the production crew, because only a few of us walked out by the first hour.<br /><br />The songs were the most literal I've ever heard in a musical – "don't take the short cut, honey, there's a wolf in the woods..". Debi Mazar's eyes blinked furiously as she struggled to sing. Fortunately, most of the tunes lasted for only a few lines.<br /><br />Now, whoever plays the wolf in this tale should be charming and seductive. Instead, we get Joey Fatone, ex N'Syncer, living up to his last name as he's not aged well. He's not exactly lithe with his extra 50 pounds and junior high school-quality makeup and out-of-tune singing. Seriously, this guy was in vocal group? The rest of the actors are semi-adequate, but can't do much about the unimaginative script. You know, it is possible to write for adults and children at the same time – see under "Pixar".<br /><br />On the positive side, the virtual sets looked nice and were well-integrated with the actors. And it wasn't as offensive as "Crash".
Creepy & lascivious wolf. The young "Red" is wearing full make-up, and extremely short shorts & robe. Got about 20 minutes through and realized it could be a pedophile's dream come true. The "up-beat" music sounds a lot like something I'd hear at a strip club. I actually think this movie is a sick joke - it's not a family movie. Gross, glad I was watching this with my daughter, I don't want her to think it's normal for families to view quasi kiddie porn together. Very bad, Very sad it's sold as a family film, Joey Fatone will probably be embarrassed he was in it. And what's with advertising it as a "special effects spectacular"??? The effects do look low budget, gawd awful.
Just because someone is under the age of 10 does not mean they are stupid. If your child likes this film you'd better have him/her tested. I am continually amazed at how so many people can be involved in something that turns out so bad. This "film" is a showcase for digital wizardry AND NOTHING ELSE. The writing is horrid. I can't remember when I've heard such bad dialogue. The songs are beyond wretched. The acting is sub-par but then the actors were not given much. Who decided to employ Joey Fatone? He cannot sing and he is ugly as sin.<br /><br />The worst thing is the obviousness of it all. It is as if the writers went out of their way to make it all as stupid as possible. Great children's movies are wicked, smart and full of wit - films like Shrek and Toy Story in recent years, Willie Wonka and The Witches to mention two of the past. But in the continual dumbing-down of American more are flocking to dreck like Finding Nemo (yes, that's right), the recent Charlie & The Chocolate Factory and eye-crossing trash like Red Riding Hood.
This collection really sucks!<br /><br />I rented it, thinking I´d really would enjoy some good fighting. Man this sucked! Quick flashy cuts, an extremely annoying speaker, and the fights them selves were heavily edited and shortened (I´m thinking especially of Jet Li´s fight in Fists of legend and Jackie Chan´s fight from drunken master 2).<br /><br />And what´s the deal with those brawling streetfighters?! What´s so "cool" about that? I´ve seen more interesting fights on Martial Law!<br /><br />This a stupid collection of cuts for stupid people.<br /><br />Do not ever buy this film! Do not encourage the people who made this crap to make more of this crap!<br /><br />Instead, go buy the movies the fights were from and wath the fights in their uncut glory!
The good thing about this that's at least fresh: Almost no movies about dance music and the club scene (if even made) hit the cinemas. And it radiates lots of energy too, from the music to the portrayal of Ibiza.<br /><br />But the main problem is that it can't decide what it wants to be. Although it definitely likes to be a mockumentary in the line of This is Spinal Tap, the makers also realized they wouldn't want to play copycat. However, it fails grossly on the jokes because it's not very well written and most characters are underdeveloped. And it has no arc in its script and directing to make it to 90 minutes, so why not edit it down to 75? The production department and cinematography still try to save the day (e.g. Paul's home).<br /><br />In a strange way and unexpectedly so It's all gone Pete Tong works much better as a simple drama in the line of Almost Famous. Especially the scenes with Beatriz Batarda offer some acting power.<br /><br />Conclusion: it's a mess, it somewhat entertains at a basic level, but you better spend a night in your favorite club.
I don't remember seeing another murder/mystery movie as bad as this. This movie, about a medical examiner who investigates his friend's mysterious death in a car accident, has the complete receipt for a bad movie: bad acting, boring story, lack of suspense, poor humor and no drama. I remembered seeing this movie on PAX, a TV station notable for dishing out low-budgeted and campy made-for-TV movies such as this one. TV movies, of course, do not have the edge factor or the suspense as movies from the Big Screen. But, this movie sure hit all sour tastes. The makers of this movie have missed out on an opportunity to making "Receipe for Murder" a great TV movie; the title does offer some suspense.<br /><br />So, if you want a good recipe, don't watch this movie. This movie alone can kill your TV appetite.<br /><br />Grade F
The script is so so laughable... this in turn, makes the actors' lines sound stiff and unrealistic and not to be believed. There's repetition of phrases -- "my sweet little god daughter" and minor variations of that line which comes to mind... and it's just sloppy soap opera dialog.<br /><br />Worse yet, the music is so WRONG! Plus, the main bluesy "theme" is horribly quaint and entirely wrong for this. And it feels overused mostly because the instrumentation, texture and arrangement of this theme never changes, even when the scene's emotional context does.<br /><br />Subsequently, whenever it appears, it sticks out like a sore thumb as the main transition from one scene to another.<br /><br />The music's corny, and it's as if the writer were writing music for a soap or a sitcom -- a low budget 80's Canadian sitcom at that -- and this makes it feel as if we're always on the brink of throwing to a commercial.<br /><br />This is so miscast, there's a lot of overacting and it's a real stretch that so many of these characters are employing only ONE type of NY accent -- a thick Bronx accent. I don't know if it's a question of the actors' limited capacity in only knowing *one* NY accent -- or whether it's a question of the director's ability to notice such an glaring anomaly.<br /><br />In the end, it's the amateur script with it's leaden lines which makes this entire "movie"... blow. When any foundation is shaky and unstable, it's impossible to build upon it without it's flaws revealing themselves in exponentially more damaging and unflattering ways.
I had high expectations of this movie (the title, translated, is "How We Get Rid of the Others"). After all, the concept is great: a near future in which the ruling elite has taken the consequence of the right-wing government's constant verbal and legislative persecution of so-called freeloaders and the left wing in general, and decided to just kill off everyone who cannot prove that they're contributing something to the establishment (the establishment being called "the common good", but actually meaning the interests of the ruling capitalist ideology).<br /><br />Very cool idea! Ideal for biting satire! Only, this movie completely blows its chance. The satire comes out only in a few scenes and performances of absurdity, but this satire is not sustained; it is neither sharp nor witty. And for an alleged comedy, the movie has nearly no funny scenes. The comedy, I assume, is supposed to be in the absurdity of the situations, but the situations are largely uncomfortable and over-serious, rather than evoking either laughter or thought.<br /><br />The script is rife with grave errors in disposition. The action should have focused on the political aspects and how wrong it would be to do such a thing, but instead oodles of time are spent on a young woman who was the one that wrote the new laws for fun, and who's trying to save everybody, by organizing a resistance that ships people to Africa. All this is beside the point! A movie like this should not pretend to be so serious! It's a satire! A political statement. But it doesn't even begin to actually address the problem it's supposed to be about. Maybe it was afraid of going too far? How cowardly. That's not art. It's not even real satire.<br /><br />Søren Pilmark, a very serious and by now one of Denmark's absolutely senior actors, was very good. He largely carried what little entertainment value the movie had. Everybody else: nothing special (well, perhaps except for Lene Poulsen, who did supply a convincing performance).<br /><br />In fact, a problem with most Danish movies is that the language never sounds natural. Neither the formulation nor the delivery. Why is it so difficult to make it sound right? Why must it be so stilted and artificial? I hope, when people look at these movies fifty years from now, they don't think that this was how people talked in general Danish society.<br /><br />3 out of 10.
This movie could have been great(cause its got a somewhat fascinating premise) but it never rises above sheer caricature. The acting is severely flawed and there were moments where i cringed so severely that i thought i was going to fall of my seat in the theater. Never and I mean never Watch this godawfull piece of .... Danish cinema has been getting a lot of good pr the recent years but if this piece of .... crosses the border I'm afraid nobody sane will ever want to rent a danish movie. This movie is the reason why i chose to register here. I really felt i needed to steer people away from this piece of .... my sympathies go out to the people who already went to the cinema to watch this
They probably should have called this movie The Map because the majority of the whole stupid film is revolved around a map of a cemetery. Not to mention how many of the same boring shots of the map there are. The only thing they show more than the map itself is the little beads of sweat that is constantly building up on the forehead of our main character. This of course was the film makers way of showing us how incredibly tense things are getting up on the Immortal Hills Cemetery. Come on now , couldn't they have shown us just one of the death scenes? We hear a whole lot about how everyone who is listed on the map is dropping like flies but we don't get to see anything. Some how I Bury The Living manged to keep my attention so i was fairly generous with the rating i gave it but i will not recommend this movie to anyone. Unless you have a deep fascination with maps or sweat i recommend renting a better I movie , such as I Spit On Your Grave or I Drink Your Blood.
There will be a time where kids will have grown up without ever seeing the one and only Bugs Bunny kiss (technically) another man on the lips. There will be a time where it won't be Duck or Rabbit season. There will be a time where the Tazmanian Devil will be dubbed politically incorrect.<br /><br />But so help me now is not that time.<br /><br />Nobody really wants an 'EXTREME' version of our beloved Loony characters. Whoever it is in marketing who comes up with "Corn Nuts: Corn gone wrong" and "Extreme Doritos" and evidently this festering turd should know that just because they have a degree in business or advertising or whatever doesn't mean they know jack about kids.<br /><br />I think that they're doing a disservice to children, depriving them of one of the greatest and most iconic shows of all time. This show disgusts me, and it's not just the dated artwork or terrible dialogue. They misuse good voice talent, like Phil Lamarr, Michael Clarke Duncan, Candi Milo, and so many others. It lacks style, humor, character development, and most importantly, heart.<br /><br />The show, like it's repackaged characters (Slam Tasmanian, Rev Runner, Ace Bunny) is but a shadow of it's former, timeless and beautiful self.
"Well Chuck Jones is dead, lets soil his characters by adding cheap explosions, an American drawn anime knock off style, and give them superpowers". "but sir?, don't we all ready have several shows in the works that are already like this? much less don't dump all over their original creators dreams". "yes! and those shows make us a bunch of cash, and we need more!". "but won't every man women and child, who grew up with these time less characters, be annoyed?". "hay you're right! set it in the future, make them all descendent's of the original characters, and change all the names slightly...but not too much though, we still need to be able to milk the success of the classics".<br /><br />Well that's the only reason I can think of why this even exists. If you look past the horrible desecration of our beloved Looney Toons, then it looks like an OK show. But then there is already the teen titan's, which is the same bloody thing. All the characters are dressed like batman, they drive around in some sort of ship fighting super villains, they have superpowers, only difference is they sort of talk like the Looney tunes and have similar names and character traits.<br /><br />This kind of thing falls into the "it's so ridiculous it's good" kind of category. Think of the Super Mario brother's movie, and Batman and Robin. If you want to laugh for all the wrong reasons, check this out. If you are of the younger generation (what this thing is actually intended for), and can look pass the greedy executives shamelessness, then run with it and enjoy.<br /><br />If you enjoy this cartoon I don't have a problem with you, it's the people who calculated this thing together that I am mad at. You know how they say piracy is like stealing a car; this show is like grave robbing. They might as well of dug up all the people involved with the original cartoon, shoved them on a display, dressed them up in…err pirate costumes, and charged money. If this show wasn't using characters (ones that didn't resemble the Looney Toons in anyway whatsoever) that have already made the studios millions, then this would be fine. But no! For shame Warner brothers, for shame.<br /><br />If I saw this thing as a 30 second gag on an episode of the Simpson's or Family Guy, I would love it. As it is I just can't believe this was ever made. I would bet anyone that 80% of the people who work on this show hate it. But whatever it doesn't really matter, in 10 years this show will have been forgotten, while the originals will live on forever…or at least until the world ends.<br /><br />"Coming 2008, Snoopy and the peanut gang are back, and now they have freaking lasers and can turn invisible! Can Charley Brown defeat the evil alien warlord Zapar? Tune in and see."
Loony Tunes have ventured (at least) twice into the future. The first time was with the brilliantly funny "Duck Dodgers". The latter time was with this … um … effort. "Loonatics Unleashed" isn't without merit, and might be considered a good product were it not that it isn't up to Warner Brothers quality. WB cartoons are noted for their cheeky humor, appealing at least as much to adults as to children. These pedestrian superhero episodes, on the other hand, cannot fail to convince adults to pass them up.<br /><br />The premise of the series is that 6 ordinary individuals (2 bunnies, a Tasmanian devil, a duck, a roadrunner, and a coyote) live on the "city-planet" of Acmetropolis and acquire super powers when a meteor strikes the planet in 2772. What's confusing is that the titles section features these individuals with a count-up to 2772 from the 21st Century. Cute, but frelling stupid.<br /><br />In each episode, the super sextet – amid mildly amusing but essentially banal banter – fight various super villains. For the most part, these are types that appear in every mediocre superhero adventure series and even some of the better ones. Like many mediocre superhero series, this one takes its villains far too seriously for the context. And of course these guys are the only characters that laugh – the usual evil laugh, of course. Why is it that villains in predictable superhero adventures always – ALWAYS – laugh evilly at every opportunity? Animated material of this sort seems to leave laughter exclusively in the province of villains and (occasionally) their henchpeople and/or henchthings.<br /><br />In point of fact, the makers of this series missed their best bets right from the get-go. The superpowers of the characters are sometimes based on their previous normal abilities, but sometimes not. The problem here is that we don't see enough WB looniness. Lexi and Ace have fairly ordinary biologically generated energy weapons and have virtually no personality traits one could describe as "Bugs-like". What we have here is basically the silly and drekish "Teen Titans", including its overly "modern" animation "look", but with animals. Feh.<br /><br />The other misstep by the program's creators is (or are) the villains. As noted before, these are not terribly imaginative and do the evil-laugh bit excessively. Amazingly, the writers totally missed the obvious technique of making villains from stock WB characters as well as the protagonists. Adding to the fun could have been, say, Jupiter Sam – as well as The Fudd, still hunting wabbits – as well as Tech E. Coyote converted into a really neurotic villain – and so on. Ah, the sadness of missed opportunities….<br /><br />Sadly, this whole production has gone into too much overtime (that is, a 2nd season). Nevertheless, we can rejoice that there's something new out there for the 14-going-on-9 crowd. The rest of us can hope for a 3rd season of Duck Dodgers.
"Loonatics Unleashed " is the worst thing that could happen to the classic characters created by Chuck Jones . The "Loony Tunes" have many spin -offs and different versions , some were good ,others not very much .But "Loonatics " it's the worst .The concept is stupid and derivative of shows as "The Power Rangers " and "Teen Titans " . There wasn't any similarity with the original characters and the stories are boring and poorly made . The new designs are ugly and the animation is pathetic . This show just doesn't work .This horrible waste of animation is a complete failure and this shouldn't have be nothing more than a bad joke . Lame ! Zero stars
I think this piece of garbage is the best proof that good ideas can be destroyed, why all the American animators thinks that the kids this days wants stupid GI JOE versions of good stories??? the Looney Tunes are some of the most beloved characters in history, but they weren't created to be Xtreme, i mean come on!!! Tiny Toons was a great example of how an old idea can be updated without loosing it's original charm, but this piece of garbage is just an example of stupid corporate decisions that only wants to create a cheap idiotic show that kids will love because hey!!! kids loves superheroes right??? the whole show is only a waste of time in which we see the new versions of the Looney Tunes but this time in superhero form, this doesn't sound too bad but the problem is that this show tries too hard to copy series like batman the animated series, or the new justice league, the result??? bad copies of flash (the road runner) or superman (who else??? bugs bunny) the problem is that Looney Tunes weren't meant to be dramatic, the were supposed to be funny!!!! as i said before this series sucks, and many people wonders why anime is taking all over the world??? this show tries to be dramatic and action packed, but that's something that few series and anime are able to do, if you want to see a good upgrade of an old show watch Tiny Toons, that's an example that it's possible to bring back to life old characters, but with a good story and respecting the original roots. too bad that show is already dead, another corporate wise decision i suppose.
God, I am so sick of the crap that comes out of America called "Cartoons"!<br /><br />Since anime became popular, the USA animators either produce a cartoon with a 5-year-old-lazy-ass style of drawing (Kappa Mikey) or some cheep Japanese animation rip-off. (Usually messing up classic characters) No wonder anime is beating American cartoons! <br /><br />They are not even trying anymore! <br /><br />Oh, I just heard of this last night; I live in the UK and when I found out this show first came out in 2005,well, I never knew the UK was so up-to-date with current shows.
This is one of those movies that apparently was trying to ride the martial arts wave craze. Kind of like Billy Jack I guess. However, whereas Billy Jack did have one notable martial arts scene there are none in this one unless you consider some gentlemanly grappling and roughhousing as such. We are introduced to the star who is described as having learned Judo in the marines. I was in the marines and while they are pretty established in boxing, I really don't remember any emphasis on Judo. As a result the antagonist, James Macarthur, makes reference to the Judo when he offers an excuse for why he, a state champion wrestler was so easily defeated. Lame.
I saw this movie in NEW York city. I was waiting for a bus the next morning, so it was 2 or 3 in the morning. It was raining, and did not want to wait at the PORT AUTHORTY. So I went across the street and saw the worst film of my life. It was so bad, that I chose to stay and see the whole movie,I have yet to see anything else that bad since. The year was 69,so call me crazy. I stayed only because I could not belive it.........
I saw this recent Woody Allen film because I'm a fan of his work and I make it a point to try to see everything he does, though the reviews of this film led me to expect a disappointing effort. They were right. This is a confused movie that can't decide whether it wants to be a comedy, a romantic fantasy, or a drama about female mid-life crisis. It fails at all three.<br /><br />Alice (Mia Farrow) is a restless middle aged woman who has married into great wealth and leads a life of aimless luxury with her rather boring husband and their two small children. This rather mundane plot concept is livened up with such implausibilities as an old Chinese folk healer who makes her invisible with some magic herbs, and the ghost of a former lover (with whom she flies over Manhattan). If these additions sound too fantastic for you, how about something more prosaic, like an affair with a saxophone player?<br /><br />I was never quite sure of what this mixed up muddle was trying to say. There are only a handful of truly funny moments in the film, and the endingis a really preposterous touch of Pollyanna.<br /><br />Rent 'Crimes and Misdemeanors' instead, a superbly well-done film that suceeds in combining comedy with a serious consideration of ethics and morals. Or go back to "Annie Hall" or "Manhattan".
Why would a person go back to a person, who kicks them in the teeth, not once, not twice, but over and over again.<br /><br />This film teaches us that in order to find love we must accept abuse (not just forgive it, but fully accept it). Gosh! No wonder my first relationship only lasted ten years. I obviously wasn't embracing my inner masochist.<br /><br />As Bucatinsky's writing debut, there are many wonderful aspects to this film; however, in order to justify the reunion of Eli and Tom, more character development would have been helpful. We are never acquainted with Eli's masochism, in fact, we are led to believe that he is not a masochist, although Tom's psycho-emotional sadism is highly evident.
I thought this was a truly awful film--I found myself actually yelling at my tv a couple times. One or both of the gay male leads was miscast; there was absolutely no chemistry between them and Richard Ruccolo looked like he'd rather be kissing a dog. The movie covers their long and tortured courtship, highlighting each break-up and make-up, but not developing the reasons in-between in any detail. These reasons would make for some interesting characters, not the fight or the make-up scene in bed (lame even if you liked the movie).<br /><br />Andrea Martin and Adam Goldberg shine as their characters, but it doesn't make the film worth renting. Save your money.
Demi Moore's character in the movie was selected for the SEALs because of her looks. That was a bad start and the movie went down from there. The plot was totally unbelievable. The will to make it in a tough military unit is not enough. This movie did not convince me of a woman's physical ability to perform the types of tasks required.<br /><br />Trying to pretend that women and men are basically the same is an insult to everyone's intelligence. The differences between the sexes are what makes life interesting.
I'll be short and to the point. This movie was an insult to any one with a room temperature IQ. Sorry liberals, feminists, etc. No women will ever be a Seal. They can forget about the draft or being in combat too. Ain't going to happen. You see, hard as it is to understand or accept, men and women are physically different.Regardless of the fact it is 2007,reality cannot change things in order for people to avoid having their feelings hurt. Men can't give birth or breast feed babies( Oh-I forgot about San Franfreako ).<br /><br />Women lack the physical strength to be on par with men in a combat or other physically challenging situations. How many women play in the NFL or NHL? Lastly, I couldn't give a bloody hoot in hell if what I just wrote upsets you.Come to think of it - if this does upset you that only warms my heart more. I didn't write one thing that wasn't the truth. This imbecilic movie is nothing more than a comedy and a lousy one at that.
Watching this movie was a waste of time. I was tempted to leave in the middle of the movie, but I resisted. I don't know what Ridley Scott intended, but I learned that in the army, women get as stupid as men. They learn to spit, to insult and to fight in combat, and that's also a waste of time (in my opinion). And, anyway, what the hell was that final scene in Lybia? Are they still fighting Gadafi or is it that it's easy for everyone to believe islamic people are always a danger?
After reading through many of the reviews, I don't know what movie some people were watching, but clearly it wasn't the same one I saw.<br /><br />This movie is horrible. The acting, primarily Moore's, is just terrible. The woman cannot act. Nice tits, but she just can't act. At no point did she come across as the actual character. Instead, it was spoiled Hollywood actress goes to the beach to play make-believe with the boys.<br /><br />And that's what this movie ultimately is -- Hollywood make-believe. The training sequences are over the top. The politics -- over the top. The political correctness -- over the top. The combat scenes -- you guessed it, over the top. Your mission is to get in and get out without being detected. So what do you do? Why shoot off as many rounds and make as much noise as possible, of course. Oh G.I. Jane, you can be my wing man anytime.<br /><br />The premise is good, but as soon as Hollywood gets a hold of it, we end up with Top Gun with tits.<br /><br />What more is to be expected from commercial US films anymore? Not much I guess.
Naturally I didn't watch 'GI Jane' out of choice. I was more or less forced to watch this film round my ex-girlfriends house.<br /><br />GI Jane loses its credibility straight away by trying to convince the viewer that it is potentially a real scenario, which of course it isn't. The result of this is that the story becomes automatically bound by constraints, restricting the amount of humour (of which there is none) or entertaining action scenes, and soon becomes too serious. The film therefore becomes extremely boring and predictable.<br /><br />'GI Jane' fails where other action films succeed, mainly because films such as James Bond, Dirty Harry and various others are larger than life, yet never proclaim to be otherwise. They are escapism, and therefore entertaining. 'GI Jane' tries to be real and fails.<br /><br />This is a very disappointing film from Ridley Scott, with a very non-credible storyline, unremarkable acting, and the only reason I give it 2/10 instead of 1/10 is for some of the technical work.
I think that movie can`t be a Scott`s film. That is impossible. Do you remember Blade Runner? And Alien? Two greats movies versus a one. I hope didn´t see ever it. good bye!!
<br /><br />How this film ever got a 6 star average is beyond me. The script is so banal, and frankly an insult to whomevers life it is based upon. The cinematography comes straight from the slick world of advertising, and the talented Ridley Scott should be ashamed. Demi Moore however, shows none a surprise by participating in this film, if one looks at her tracklist. All in all, a "high concept" style film that even Don Simpson would be ashamed of.
A recent post here by a woman claiming a military background, contained the comment "A woman's life is no more valuable than a man's".<br /><br />This mantra of the politically correct is not true as history as well as biology show. Societies have managed to recover from heavy losses of their male population, sometimes with astonishing speed. Germany was ready to fight another war in 1939 despite the 1914- 1918 war in which over two million of her men were killed. In South America's War of the Triple Alliance (1865), Paraguay took on three neighboring countries until virtually her entire male population was wiped out but fought to a stalemate in the 1932 Chaco War against much larger Bolivia.<br /><br />No society, however has or ever could survive the loss of its female population. Only when the very life of the nation is at stake are women sent to fight. Israel faced that situation in 1948 but since then has never considered coed combat units for its Defense Forces despite the popular image of the Israeli girl soldier.<br /><br />"G.I. Jane" is Hollywood fluff.
Hmmm...where to start? How does a serious actress like Demi Moore got involved in such crap? "First blood" might be rated as bull***t but this type of nonsense is just Rambo with tits, point. Of course if you are interested in the crapstory (Demi Moore just wants to prove that a woman can be part of the NAVY Seals) that is the most stupid cliché one I can think of, you'll say "GI Jane" is a great movie. Just the performance from Viggo Mortensen made this movie bearable but hell, I can't think of Demi Moore being Rambo (especially not during the last, useless, 30 minutes). Ridley Scott doesn't deserve the credits to make this movie one that comes up for women with equal rights, it's just brainless propaganda for the American army and to make it more attractive they dropped Moore in it. Awful movie.
A real disappointment from the great visual master Ridley Scott. G.I. Jane tells the story of a first female ever to go through the hellish training at the Navy SEALs. The training is the most difficult and hard in existence as the instructor says in the film to the lead character O'Neil played by Demi Moore. There is no particular message or point in this film or then I couldn't reach it properly. It may be a some kind of a statement of female rights and abilities but it all sinks under the tired scenes and stupid gun fight at the end of the film.<br /><br />I really can't understand why Ridley uses so much zooms in that mentioned last gun battle at the desert?! It looks sooooo stupid and irritating and almost amateurish so I would really like to know what the director saw in that technique. When I look at his latest film, Black Hawk Dawn, there is absolutely nothing wrong in the battle scenes (which are plenty) and they are very intense and directed with skill. The whole finale in G.I. Jane looks ugly and is nothing more but stupid and brainless shooting and killing.<br /><br />This is Ridley Scott's worst movie in my opinion and there are no significant touches from which this great director is known. Still I'm glad I saw this in Widescreen format because there are still couple of great scenes and samples of Scott's abilities, but they are very few in this film.<br /><br />A disappointment and nothing compared to the classics (Blade Runner, Thelma & Louise, Alien and so on..) of this talented director. So I'm forced to give G.I. Jane 4/10.
This movie is very much like "Flashdance", you know that dance flick with Jennifer Beals. That film is probably the most boring film I have ever seen since it's not even bad enough to be funny. "G.I. Jane" is much better than that film, but that doesn't say much. Here Demi Moore sweats a lot and there's high music and we get to see her fight and everything, but it is certainly not very engaging. I really think the idea behind the film is kind of interesting, but the script is too clichéd and Ridley Scott can't do anything about that. Well, like I said... It's better than "Flashdance"... (4/10)
This is easily the worst Ridley Scott film. Ridley Scott is a wonderful director. But this film is a black mark on his career. Demi Moore and Viggo Mortensen, both totally miscast in an overaggressive film about a girl going to the army. Very stupid. And there is never one scene that is convincing in any way. It is really not difficult to make a film such as this. Everything the crew makes could have been an idea of just anybody. The writers didn't have much inspiration either; many foolish dialogs that made no sense at all; and some brainless action. I strongly recommend to stay away from this rubbish. I hope that the many talented persons involved in this project realize this type of film does not deserve their attention, and that in the future they will work on more honorable and more intelligent movies than this useless mess.
This film's basic premise is a political cartoon. I suppose for those who know nothing about the realities of the military this is probably a "feel-good" film on gender equality. Indeed a recent commentator stated: "it lets women know that they can do anything they want to do." What claptrap! No one, man or woman can do anything they want to do, and unfortunately Demi Moore "buffing" up for SEAL Hell Week in the early 27 week BUD/S program by a few sessions at the local gym and her desire alone to be a SEAL is simply not going to make it so. There is approximately an 80% dropout rate in what is arguably THE roughest military training program - those are the ones who voluntarily drop out, can't compete on a physical level, suffer frequent physical injury during the training or can't handle the psychological harassment. I never got beyond the shallowness of the contrived, purported message of this film. In the real world, Demi wouldn't last the first 24 hours in this harsh and sustained physical training. Wishing alone won't do it. Skip this film as wishful thinking, and better spend your time reading "The Warrior Elite" by Dick Couch (Crown, New York 2001)for the best description as to what really goes on in this training. Ring the bell, Demi!<br /><br />
This movie starred a totally forgotten star from the 1930s, Jack Pearl (radio's "Baron Munchausen") as well as Jimmy Durante. However, 7-1/2 decades later, it's being billed as a Three Stooges film because they are the only ones in the film who the average person would recognize today. Film fanatics will also recognize the wonderful Edna May Oliver as well as Zazu Pitts.<br /><br />As for the Stooges, this is a film from there very early days--before MGM had any idea what to do with the team. At this point, they were known as "Ted Healy and his Stooges" as Healy was the front man. Fortunately for the Stooges, they soon left this nasty and rather untalented man (read up on him--you'll see what I mean) and the rest is history. Within a year, they were making very successful shorts for Columbia and executives at MGM were soon kicking themselves for losing the team. This sort of thing was a common occurrence at MGM, a great studio which had no idea what to do with comedy (such as the films of Buster Keaton, Laurel and Hardy, Abbott and Costello and others). In fact, up until they left for Columbia, MGM put them in a wide variety of odd film roles--including acting with Clark Gable and Joan Crawford in DANCING LADY. And, oddly, in this film they didn't act as a team--they just did various supporting roles, such as Larry playing the piano!<br /><br />This particular film begins with Pearl and Durante lost in the African jungle. When they are rescued and brought home, all sense of structure to the film falls apart and the film becomes almost like a variety show--punctuated by scenes with the leads here and there. As for Pearl, I could really see why he never made a successful transition to films, as he has the personality of a slug (but slightly less welcome). As for Durante, I never knew what the public saw in him--as least as far as his films are concerned--he was loud and...loud! He apparently took time off from helping MGM to ruin Buster Keaton's career to make this film. Together, Pearl and Durante rely on lots of verbal humor(?) and Vaudeville-style routines that tend to fall rather flat.<br /><br />In this film, the Stooges they didn't yet have the right chemistry. Seeing Healy doing the job that Moe did in their later films is odd. What they did in the film was pretty good, but because all the segments were short, they came on and off camera too quickly to allow them to really get into their routines. Stooges fans might be very frustrated at this, though die-hard fans may want to see this so that they can complete their life-long goal of seeing everything Stooge--even the rotten Joe DeRita and Joe Besser films (oh, and did they got bad after the deaths of Shemp and Curly).<br /><br />Overall, the film is rather dull and disappointing. However, there are a couple interesting things to look for in the mess. At about the 13 minute mark, you will see a brief scene where a tour guide on a bus is singing. Look carefully, as this is Walter Brennan in a role you'd certainly never expect! Another unusual thing to look for in the film is the "Clean as a Whistle" song starting at about 22 minutes into the film. This song and dance number is clearly an example of a so-called "Pre-Code" scene that never would have been allowed in films after 1934 (when the Production Code was strengthened). Despite the word "Clean" in the title, it's a very titillating number with naked women showing lots of flesh--enough to stimulate but not enough to really show anything! It's quite shocking when seen today, though such excesses were pretty common in the early 1930s. Finally, at the 63 minute mark, see Jimmy Durante set race relations back a few decades. See the film, you'll see that I mean!
Strained comedy, a sketch-like revue which was initially a vehicle to showcase one-time radio star Jack Pearl but is now best remembered as America's introduction to The Three Stooges. Actually, Larry, Curly and Moe are billed alongside comic Ted Healy as Ted Healy and his Three Stooges. Although the supporting cast features Jimmy Durante (who is completely wasted on dim material) and ZaSu Pitts, the only audience for the film these days are Stooges-addicts, and even they won't find much to applaud here. Incredibly loud and overbearing, it shows how far Hollywood had to go to reach a certain level of slapstick sophistication. *1/2 from ****
Oh, brother. The only reason this very irritating film avoids getting the total "bomb" from me is because it's at least historically noteworthy as the first Three Stooges film (when they weren't yet on their own and were still saddled with that painfully unfunny Ted Healy). But even as a longtime Stooges fan I'd have to say that young Moe, Larry and Curly are badly used here as three zany assistant janitors to Mr. Healy's taller boss janitor. They're not featured steadily through the movie and their silly on-and-off-again stints paint them more like zany overactive cartoon characters trying too hard to be amusing.<br /><br />Most of this toothache deals with Jack Pearl seeking in vain to get some chuckles from the audience himself as a man who impersonates Baron Munchausen (here's a good example of the level of humor: "I object!" "On what grounds?" "Coffee grounds!"). His sidekick is none other than a young Jimmy Durante, but even the schnoz himself is a bore.
Anyone familiar with my reviews on the Internet Movie Database will know that I can be a grumpy bastard from time to time. There are a lot of films I don't like which, for some unfathomable reason, I've felt the urge to review. However, if anyone out there is curious to know the name of the worst film I've ever seen, look no further than Transylvania 6-5000. Without question, this takes the title of the all-time no. 1 awful film. I can't believe that I actually made it from the start of this clunker to the finish!<br /><br />It is clearly meant to capture the flavour of Mel Brooks's Young Frankenstein, but where that film was a funny take on horror movie traditions, this one is a desperately strained and misguided attempt to wring laughs from embarrassingly weak material. Jeff Goldblum and Ed Begley Jr look ashamed to be here as a pair of journalists in modern day Transylvania (perhaps they realised early on that they were doomed in this dud). During their research, they come up against all the chief monsters from past horror favourites, such as vampires, werewolves and mummies.<br /><br />Anyone who manages to brave this film right through to its end may pray that a stake be driven through their heart to relieve them from the agony of boredom. It marks a career nadir for everyone involved and proves that when comedy fails in a big way, it results in awesomely dire entertainment.
Horror spoofs are not just a thing of the 21st century. Way before the 'Scary Movie' series there were a few examples of this genre, mostly in the 80s. But like said franchise most of these films are hit or miss. Some like 'Elvira, Mistress of the Dark' mostly rise above that, but other like 'Saturday the 14th' and it's sequel fail to deliver the laughs. But out of all these types of films there is one particularly big offender and that's 'Transylvania 6-5000,' a major waste of time for many reasons.<br /><br />Pros: A great cast that does it's best. Some of the dopey humor is amusing. A corny, but catch theme song. Some good Transylvanian locations.<br /><br />Cons: Threadbare plot. Mostly tedious pacing. Most of the humor just doesn't cut it. The monsters are given little to do and little screen time. I thought this was supposed to be a spoof of monster movies? Lame ending that will likely make viewers angry.<br /><br />Final thoughts: This is a comedy? If it is then why are the really funny bits so few and far in between? Comedies are supposed to make us roll on the floor, not roll our eyes and yawn, aching for it to be over. I can't believe Anchor Bay released this tired junk. I'll admit it's not one of the worst films ever made, but it's not worth anyone's time or money even if you're a fan of any of the actors. See 'Transylvania Twist' instead.<br /><br />My rating: 2/5
"Transylvania 6-5000" is an insignificant but occasionally funny and charming mid 80's horror parody with some very familiar names in the cast and a handful of genuine opportunities to chuckle in the script. Two bozo journalist of a gossipy tabloid newspaper are sent, very much against their will, to Transylvania to do a story on the alleged return of mad scientist Frankenstein. There are some adorable little gimmicks and details to discover left and right in the film, like a little guillotine for hard-boiled eggs and laboratory test tubes that are being used to put in cream and sugar at the breakfast table. The wholesome of the film, however, is not as successful as it could and should have been, with jokes and parody situations that are way too overlong. The Roger Corman production "Transylvania Twist", which came out four years after this, is a lot funnier and much more recommended. The film is particularly parodying the classic Universal milestones of the early 30's, so you better make sure you've seen those if you want to grasp all the tiny gags and references. There's a pretty original twist indicating that the Frankenstein character only behaves like a mad-raving evil scientist when he enters his laboratory. It's also revealed that he's actually more of a Father Damien sort of messiah who's only concerned with the condition of exiled monsters. Michael Richards, the freaky guy who plays Kramer in Seinfeld, stars as a psychotic butler who appears and disappears at the most inappropriate moments. I'm pretty sure John Turturro's character in "Mr. Deeds" was inspired by Richards's role here.
This comedy has some tolerably funny stuff in it, surrounded by a lot of unfunny stuff. Just about every scene involving the servants of the castle and their silly antics is a waste of time. And the plotting is so sloppy that it makes you wonder if they actually had a script ready before they started filming this, or they were simply making it all up as they went along. (*1/2)
I saw this movie originally in the theater, when I was 10. Even at that age the 'humor' was mildly insulting to my adolescent intelligence.<br /><br />In the past, whenever I would see Ed Begley Jr. or jeff Goldblum I would cringe and start to feel very uncomfortable and even slightly sad. Until I was reminded of the existence of this movie today, I was unsure why I felt that way. Apparently I blocked my memory of this movie yet my negative feelings towards two of the perpetrators remained. Apparently I forgot that I saw this movie but subconsciously mourned the pieces of my soul that had been stolen, nay EATEN by the creators of this inhuman work.<br /><br />I haven't been brave enough to try watching it as an adult. I imagine that as part of the healing process that I should probably look at confronting this childhood fear so that I can *truly* put it behind me. Some regression therapy and / or hypnosis might not be a bad idea either.
Were I not with friends, and so cheap, I would have walked out. It failed miserably as satire and didn't even have the redemption of camp.
I give this five out of 10. All five marks are for Hendrix who delivers a very decent set of his latter day material. Unfortunately the quality of the camera work and editing is verging on the appalling! We have countless full-face shots of Hendrix where he could almost be doing anything, taking a pee perhaps? We don't see his hands on the guitar thats the point! Also we're given plenty shots of Hendrix from behind? There appears to be three cameras on Hendrix, but amateur fools operate all of them. The guy in front of Hendrix seems to be keen to wander his focus lazily about the stage as if Hendrix on the guitar is a mere distraction. While the guy behind is keener on zeroing in on a few chicks in the stalls than actually documenting the incredible guitar work thats bleeding out the amps (the sound recording is good thanks to Wally Heider) Interspersed on the tracks are clips of student losers protesting against Vietnam etc on tracks like Machine Gun, complete waste of film! If Hendrix had lived even another two years Berkeley is one of those things that would never have seen the light of day as far as a complete official release goes. The one gem it does contain is the incredible Johnny B Good but all in a pretty poor visual document of the great man and inferior to both Woodstock and Isle of Wight
Kevin Kline and Meg Ryan are among that class of actors which I am always interested in seeing, despite reviews. I have always found Ms. Ryan to be a charming and winsome actress in nearly all her roles, and Kevin Kline is almost always worth watching.<br /><br />I say "nearly" and "almost" in large part because of this movie.<br /><br />First off, Meg Ryan does not play a likeable character, she plays a weak-willed whiner who begins grating on your nerves shortly after the opening credits and doesn't give up until several days later. That said, Kevin Kline's character is even more annoying and less likeable. So, even if you normally like these two actors, I recommend your give this movie a pass.
The premise is ridiculous, the characters unbelievable, the dialogue trite, and the ending absurd. <br /><br />Believe me, I'm a fan of Kevin Kline, but watching him do a Pepe Le Pew accent for 2 hours as a supposed Frenchman is not nearly as amusing as it sounds.<br /><br />For her part, Meg Ryan is once again as perky and adorable as a (take your pick): kewpie doll, baby, puppy, kitten, whatever you happen to think is the cutest creature on earth. She also bears not the slightest resemblance to a real human being.<br /><br />This movie strikes me as an opportunity seized by buddies Lawrence Kasdan and Kline to vacation in Paris and the south of France while being well-paid for it. So I can't really blame them.
Un-bleeping-believable! Meg Ryan doesn't even look her usual pert lovable self in this, which normally makes me forgive her shallow ticky acting schtick. Hard to believe she was the producer on this dog. Plus Kevin Kline: what kind of suicide trip has his career been on? Whoosh... Banzai!!! Finally this was directed by the guy who did Big Chill? Must be a replay of Jonestown - hollywood style. Wooofff!
The film looks super on paper. A romantic comedy in which a frantic lover gets dragged into a smuggling thriller should be generic cross-breeding gold, especially with this excellent romcomic cast.<br /><br />I'm afraid Lawrence Kasdan simply gives his two stars too much rope though and they duly go and hang themselves. Adam Brooks' script may well be to blame but you'd expect better from the Kevin Kline of A Fish Called Wanda. Instead the two ping-pong off one another and the unlikely burgeoning romance is never reconciled satisfactorily with the reason either of them are in and dashing around France.<br /><br />Jean Reno co-stars amiably as the cop-with-a-heart and I guess wishes he was a star-with-a-part. Mind you he went on to do those Pink Panther remake(s!) so perhaps he was OK with this... 3/10
One of the those "coming of age" films that should have nostalgia for adults and promise for the kids. This movie has neither. It is a poor excuse to let Sylvia Kristel's body double frolic with a dorky Eric Brown. To make matters worse, the movie is either silly or stupid when it tries to be funny, sexy, or dramatic. Laugh awkwardly as we are supposed to believe that a teenager would go alone with burying a dead woman in his front yard. Ponder vigorously on why a woman famous for Emmanuelle needs a body double. As the movie went on and on, I started to imagine a hybrid of Private Lessons and Little Miss Millions that had Sylvia Kristel seduce Jennifer Love Hewitt as Howard Hesseman makes us nostalgic for WKRP. Watch this to laugh at other people's stupidity, or for Ed Begley Jr.'s committed performance, or to wonder what Sylvia Kristel would look like with Jennifer Love Hewitt. But I can give you an idea of your lesson, stay away from movies staring Sylvia Kristel that are not Emmanuelle.
Let's put political correctness aside and just look at this in terms of the numerous sex comedies that came out in the 1980's because I for one don't think this is any better or any worse than the others. Unless your some religious kook or an uptight female you can probably view a silly film such as this without getting all worked up about the content and I personally had a totally innocuous feeling towards this before and after watching it. Story is set in Albuquerque, New Mexico where a rich 15 year old boy named Phillip "Philly" Fillmore (Eric Brown) is naturally horny as hell and starts spying on the attractive maid that has just started working for his father.<br /><br />*****SPOILER ALERT***** Nicole Mallow (Sylvia Kristel) is friendly to Philly but things heat up when his father goes out of town on business and she starts to flirt with him to the point where she invites him into her bedroom to watch her undress. Philly is awkward and doesn't know how to react at first but soon he goes for it and has sex but than to his horror it seems that Nicole has died from a heart attack! With the help from the sleazy chauffeur Lester Lewis (Howard Hesseman) they seemingly have buried her body but a note from a blackmailer shows up and Philly must get $10,000 out of his father's safe. Philly is shocked when Nicole shows up and he learns that the whole thing was an extortion plan set up by Lester and that she only went along with it because she's an illegal alien and if she didn't do what she was told Lester would have called the immigration office. Together they try to get his father's money back before he returns home and they enlist the help from Jack (Ed Begley Jr.) who is a tennis instructor but pretends to be a cop to scare Lester.<br /><br />This little comedy was made for less than $3 million but it grossed over $50 million worldwide and made it one of the least likely films during that time to be so successful which prompts me to wonder why this was a hit and not any of the others in the genre. Director Alan Myerson can boast that he made a hit film but the truth is that he never really had a career in films although he did go on to be very successful in television. So...why did this become so successful? I have a thought that it just may be because of Kristel and before you decide that I'm crazy listen to my reasoning. Kristel was an international star because of her soft core films so that reason alone made many free thinking adults curious about viewing her in an American film that was getting a wide release. With that, the same adults would also be nostalgic about their own youth and the fantasy of being taught the ways of lovemaking by an attractive older woman which brings in the much younger audience members who are probably still very inexperienced and curious about the film. Anyway, that's my thought and if anyone has another reason I would love to hear it but back to the film itself it's apparent (and very sad) that a film like this could probably never get made again (except in Europe) because of the religious right and the other prudish freaks who just can't come to terms with the fact that a teenage boy getting laid will not do him any harm. In fact, it's a valuable service that ALL BOYS pray will happen to them! The film itself is clumsy and Kristel's body double is all too evident in certain scenes especially if you take careful note of the difference in their nipples. The story (although intriguing in it's basic form) is neither very funny or revealing so were left ogling the nude scenes that are really the norm for the genre.
Back in my days as an usher "Private Lessons" played at the 4-plex I was working. It was a sleeper hit selling out Friday and Saturday nights for several weeks. I never got around to seeing it but saw that it was on cable this last weekend, so I decided to give it a shot. What I witnessed for the next 90 minutes was one of the worst movies I have ever seen and one that made me terribly uncomfortable to watch.<br /><br />The basic story is a teenage boy lusts after his sexy maid (Sylvia Kristel). She, too, seems to feel an attraction towards the boy but for more sinister reasons. So we get scenes of the boy watching her undress and her inviting him in to watch. And it goes from there.<br /><br />Eric Brown, as the teenage boy, has to be one of the worst actors I have ever seen. His "scared" reactions to every time Sylvia takes off a piece of clothing or when she touches him are horrible. I didn't laugh a single time during this piece of junk.<br /><br />And let's not get started on the subplot of the maid and chauffeur planning to extort money from the kid. Let's just say it involves faking a death, burying a body.... I could go on and on but it gets more ridiculous.<br /><br />The sex scenes are the worst I have ever seen. Even though Eric Brown was older then he looked, the fact is he looks like a baby. It appears he has no idea how to kiss a woman (if THAT was acting then maybe I should re-think my criticisms of Brown) and it just came too close to bordering on child pornography to be erotic. I have never been so turned off by a sex scene even though Miss Kristel is quite beautiful with and without clothes.<br /><br />**SPOILER WARNING** I must make mention of the last scene. To me it's just plain sick but I can remember audiences cheering as the film freeze framed and dissolved into credits. Our hero returns to school and begins a flirtation with one of the female teachers. He asks her out for dinner and she gives him a look as if Tom Cruise has just asked her out. She nods affirmatively and he walks away, smiling at the camera in triumph. GIVE ME A BREAK! Yes I am sure teachers all over would just risk everything for a plain looking teenage kid.<br /><br />I will never understand the appeal this film had in 1982. Certainly it was more then the nudity because there were plenty of teen sex comedies with nudity that bombed at the box office. And to think that these same teenagers that cheered that movie 22 years ago are now working their way up corporate ladders and possibly helping to run this country. THAT is a scary thought.
It is obviously illegal. Pedophiles pray on stuff like this. How did they get away with making such a movie? This movie is all summed up in one word, SICK. Where do people get off making, and watching these kinds of films. As I was watching the movie I didn't actually think they would allow this kid that is say maybe 12 if that actually sleep with this woman. Sorry if this is a spoiler to you but I would have rater not seen this. Where has the sanity of these people gone? Maybe the makers of this movie are pedophiles? Our society today is filled with all types of sexual predators that pray upon children, yet film makers make these types of movies that do nothing but provoke this type of behavior. I noticed that on a previous comment someone asked if there was a version where it showed them naked. This is a kid here, and someone is asking something like this? What is wrong with this picture?
A previous reviewer said the movie is not all that bad. What?!?!?! The movie glorifies child molestation. Oh, but Sylvia Kristel was naked in it, so let's give it 5 out of 10 stars. Why not a full 10? Because the filmography was "agonizing," the child's looks of shock were "unrealistic," and the fat friend was "irritating." Nowhere in the review does the reviewer express any outrage that an American movie in 1981 featured scenes of a child having sex with a grown woman. I happened to catch this steaming loaf of a movie while staying at a hotel that had Showtime. To me, even if the fat friend had acted up a storm and was a deserving of an Oscar, I would still have to give the movie only 1 star. That TV's Howard Hessman starred in the movie at the same time as he was appearing in WKRP is particularly ridiculous. But don't take my word for it!
A woman (Sylvia Kristel) seduces a 15 year old boy (Eric Brown). They have sex...but it's all tied into some stupid plot or something.<br /><br />Easily one of the most disturbing sex comedies ever. Does anyone realize this movie is making light of child molestation? I suppose it's OK cause it's a teenage boy--if we had one with a man seducing a teenage girl there would (rightfully) be outrage. Sorry, but having it done to a boy doesn't excuse it. It's still sick. I realize Brown was of age (he was actually 18 when this was made) but he LOOKS 15. I just find it disturbing that some people find this OK.<br /><br />Plot aside the acting sucks (Kristel is beautiful--but can't act; Brown is easily one of the worst child actors I've ever seen) and the constant nudity gets boring and isn't even remotely erotic.<br /><br />I saw this drivel at a theatre back in 1981. I was 19 and with my 14 year old cousin (who could easily pass for 18). HE wanted to see it--I didn't but I decideD what the heck? We got in and I actually bought tickets for three teenage boys who were obviously underage. My cousin thought is was boring and the three other kids left halfway through! Let me make this clear--three TEENAGE BOYS left a movie with tons of female nudity! That should give you an idea of how bad this is. I'm surprised this was ever released. A 1 all the way.
I remember that show. I still remember that kick ass fun song "America's Funniest People." Frankly it should've been titled American's lame or unfunny or downright disgusting People. Dave couldn't save this show and neither could Bob Saget or the replacement hosts for AFV that came later. The Jackalope segments were hilarious and yes Dave could make some good voice overs that were better than Bob's. But this show went to hell because of the lame crappy videos people submitted. Also it developed as somewhat of a variety show with lame guest stars including the Olson Twins. Plus AFV was in it's prime before they started picking the drooling ugly as sin babies as the winner. Did I mentioned the videos were disgusting and lame? But still the theme song rocks!
This was a rip-off of the same garbage we had to watch Bob Saget host during the half-hour before this. Dave Coulier only thought he was funny and it was pretty much the same show as America's Funniest Home Videos except with a hosts who have a combined IQ of three. Tawny Kitaen must've really needed the money and Coulier had to go to the recycle bin for his jokes. It was torture enough having to see him imitate Popeye and other washed up cartoon starts on Full House. That one dude who played all of the practical jokes on everyone deserves to be on the receiving end of a Grade A wedgie. Coulier must've needed to money to please Alannis Morisette while they were dating.
As many agree, Origin is a beautiful anime artistically. The music, graphics, and the world created are gorgeous and it really stands above most other modern animated works. However, if you are looking for more than this, than I suggest looking else where. The beauty stops short of its appearance, and when it really comes down to plot and characters, there's nothing special. Action is slow and minimal and the people are flat, corny at times, and do not act realistically. Not to mention the plot hole here and the plot hole there... So, in summary, oh my goodness, I've never seen an anime as beautiful as this one; and oh my goodness, it's like... -poke- people don't act like that. It took a GIANT step forward in graphics and music in anime, but it also took a few step backs to times of bad characterization, and unfortunately, there's not even that much action to make up for that...
As seems to be the general gist of these comments, the film has some stunning animation (I watched it on blu-ray) but it really falls short of any real depth.<br /><br />Firstly the characters are all pretty dull. I got a hint of a kind of Laputa situation between Agito, Toola and the main antagonist Shunack. However maybe my mind wanderd and this was wishful thinking (Laputa being my favourite animé, original Engilsh dub). The characters are not really lovable either and as mentioned in another post they fall in love exceptionally quickly, leaving poor old Minka jealous and rejected (she loves Agito, who seems oblivious of this). However she promptly seems to forgive Toola at the end with no explanation for the change of heart other than it makes the ending a little bit more "happy". <br /><br />There is also a serious lack of explanation. Like who are the druids really? Are they people? and who are the weird women/girls who seem to hang out with them and run the forest? There is nothing explaining why they are there and how they can give regular humans superpowers. The plants coming from the moon still does not fill in the blanks about this. It is almost like a weird version of The Day of the Triffids.<br /><br />And who does call Toola? why bother with this if it wont be explained?<br /><br />I really wanted to like this film but I found the plot no where near as deep as a film like Ghost in the Shell or having any real character like those of Miyazaki. I do not resent watching it but I do sort of wish I hadn't bought it. My advice? Give it a go if you have a couple of hours to spare, but borrow it, or buy it cheap! Perhaps if your new to animé films and don't have much to go by you will enjoy it. It certainly is visually pleasing.
Seeing as I hate reading long essays hoping to find a point and being disappointed, I will first tell everyone that this movie was terrible. Downright terrible. And not, surprisingly for the reasons mentioned in the first review. I thought I might agree with him, seeing as he gave the movie the rank it deserved, but was sorrowfully rebuked upon reading what he said. I am quite ashamed to be taking the same side as someone who commented that the movie "definitely lacks good-looking females." Let me be the first to say, "Wow! that was definitely some serious in-depth reviewing there. My mind can hardly comprehend the philosophical musings about this movie." Seriously though, a lack of "good-looking females" shouldn't be considered an essential to a movie. If you're desperate enough for "good-looking females" you should really watch other types of movies, not necessarily falling into the sci-fi category.
No spoilers here but I have been a fan since Waking the Dead started but the last series, of which only 3 have been on so far is awful. The stories bear no resemblance to the original idea of the series. I found these 3 in the last series jaw droppingly ludicrous. As a BBC licence payer, after the show I rang BBC complaints to pass on my disappointment. I'm amazed that actors of the calibre of Trevor Eve and Sue Johnstone didn't object to the story lines. These actors have been with these characters for 8 seasons, surly they can see it's lost all direction. It's a good job it is the last series or the next series may start with the team investigating the death of Father Christmas!<br /><br />Paul Bentley, West Yorkshire, England.
I feel like I've just watched a snuff film....a beautifully acted, taut, engrossing and horrible thing! A two hour litany of perversion in the most basic and all inclusive sense of the word, sexual violence and torture, rape, decapitation, incest, corruption, live burial, and abuse, abuse, abuse. No redemption whatsoever. And I WAS entertained. I couldn't stop watching. What does this say about me, about the people who make and act in this sort of thing, and a world that has become so desensitized that eventually real snuff films will be the norm. And I'm neither puritanical nor humorless, I don't try to hide from the existence of darkness, and I definitely have not led a sheltered life, but I am ashamed of myself. AND I'm sorry to see my British cousins dragging the subject-matter sewers the way my own tribe does. It doesn't have to be cozy, but does it have to wallow in vicarious sadism?
I absolutely hate this programme, what kind of people sit and watch this garbage?? OK my dad and mum love it lol but i make sure I'm well out of the room before it comes on. Its so depressing and dreary but the worst thing about it is the acting i cant stand all detective programmes such as this because the detectives are so wooden and heartless. What happened to detective programmes with real mystery??? I mean who wants to know what happened to fictional characters we know nothing about that died over 20 years ago??? I wish the bbc would put more comedy on bbc1 cos now with the vicar of dibley finished there is more room for crap like this.
I am sorry to fans of this film but it is the worst thing i have ever seen. Slow,badly cast and badly acted it is a film trying to escape the deadbeat romcoms of the recent years and failing! McDonald and Parker seem unable to convey real emotion and are lifeless. They seem to be in this one for any pay checks they are getting for it and not because they thought it was a good idea. The plot is DULL!! i love great chick films as much as the next girl and this is not one!! If you avoid one film this year....let it be
Director Jonathan Lynn has made some underrated comedies in the past, like 'Greedy' and 'Clue'. This isn't one of them. More akin to a 'Police Academy' film than its inspiration, it stars Steve Martin in the old Phil Silvers role as an army sergeant forever pulling scams under the nose of his superiors. But the idyllic life of Bilko and his lazy platoon looks shaky when an old enemy visits the base determined to catch Bilko in the act. Nothing much happens, really. It's all quite dull. It's not very funny. Martin, Dan Aykroyd and Phil Hartman squeeze a couple of laughs out through sheer effort, but they're all better than this and it's quite painful watching them work with such thin material.
OK I'm not an American, but in my humble Scottish opinion Steve Martin is not, never has been, and never will be a funny man as long as our posteriors point in a southerly direction. Phil Silvers as Sergeant Bilko was a funny man, no doubt due to the skilled writers and directors and all the other talented team working characters in the series who contributed perfectly to one of the funniest and dateless situation comedies America has ever produced. How anyone could have the audacity to even attempt to replicate the Phil Silvers character is beyond me. To compound things the exercise was repeated in Martin's unfunny attempt to be Peter Seller's Inspector Clouseau, another abortive attempt, in my opinion, to rekindle a demonstrably unfunny career. Some of your contributers say 'Steve Martin puts his own stamp on the character', to that I would say 'balderdash' , his portrayals will be long forgotten when those of Silvers and Sellars will be treasured for generations to come
Maybe I'm really getting old, but this one just missed me and the old Funny Bone completely. Surely there must be something powerful wrong with this Irishman (that's me, Schultz!). Lordy, lordy what I would give to see the light! Firstly, that Phil Silvers manic energy, wit and drive was very much a part of the comedic upbringing and overall education in life, if you will. Although it is possible that the series, first titled: "YOU'LL NEVER GET RICH" (1955-59*) could have gotten on the CBS TV Network with someone else in the title role of Sgt. Bilko, it is very hard to picture any other Actor/Comedian in the business wearing those Master Sergeant's stripes.<br /><br />Such a strong identification is inescapable, though not the same sort of career-wrecking typecasting of a nightmare that it proved to be to some other guys, like Clayton More("THE LONE RANGER"), George Reeves ("THE ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN") and Charles Nelson Riley ("UNCLE CROC'S BLOCK").<br /><br />One major stumbling block to successfully adapting and updating such a work from the 1950's TV Screen to the 1990's Movie-going public is our collective memory. Without being sure about what percentage of the crowd remembered the Bilko character from seeing the original run and early syndication revivals, and their numbers were surely considerable; even a large segment of the young had seen Bilko reruns in recent times. It was obvious that the new film and the source were miles; or even light years apart.<br /><br />So as not to be thought of as a totally square, old grouch please let's consider some other points.<br /><br />Right here today, the 14th Day of November In The Year of Our Lord 2007, let me swear and affirm under Oath that I have been a Steve Martin fan for nearly 30 years, Furthermore, I've enjoyed the wit and talents of Bilko '96 Co-Stars Dan Akroyd and the Late Phil Hartman. After all, it was the talents of guys like this and so many others, Alumni of "NBC;s Saturday NIGHT" and "SECOND CITY TV" that kept the last quarter of the 20th Century laughing. But a BILKO re-make; it just didn't click.<br /><br />Perhaps if the film had been made as a Service Comedy (always liked 'em!) but without the Bilko Show names and gave it some identity of it self it would be more highly regarded by crabby, old guys like me.<br /><br />So, we've already had so many sitcom and cartoon series turned into movies lately, what's next? Howse about somebody doing Hal Roach's World War II Army Comedy Series of Sergeants DOUBLEDAY & AMES and TV's 1st Cartoon Series "CRUSADER RABBIT"? Remember where you heard it first! POODLE SCHNITZ!
This may or may not be the worst movie that Steve Martin has ever made, but it certainly was far from his best. Obviously, he did this crap for the pay check. Dreck like this certainly does nothing to enhance his reputation as a funny man. What he doesn't seem to grasp is that when people go to see a Steve Martin movie, they expect to be entertained, not bored to tears. It's sad that he dragged Dan Aykroyd and Phil Hartman down with him. I don't understand why talented people can't get a grip on the fact that people don't want to see them in lousy movies. If you're going to call a movie a comedy, then it should be funny. This wasn't. Shame on the US military for allowing itself to be associated with this pabulum, too. Full Metal Jacket had more laughs than this miserable excuse for a "service comedy." Surely, Phil Silvers is rolling over in his grave.
For 50 years after world war 2 the United States was in a state where key segments of the economy were dominated by military interests. At the same time, because of the draft and wars, everyone in society had served, or was connected to someone who had.<br /><br />This allowed for a minigenre based on the notion of American cleverness in the midst of an inflexible military machine. Sometimes that machine was non-US military, for example in prisoner of war situations. Once removed are stories in other machines: science fiction and corporate, but they always reference this military genre, and indeed the testosterone shots of action even reference their comic sibling.<br /><br />You can trace it, I think, perhaps starting in the comic, meaning Amrican, sections of "The Great Escape," which immediately spawned TeeVee offspring in "Gomer Pyle" and "Hogan's Heros." Then a second wave triggered by "Catch 22" and "MASH," both of which had been real life, then books, then movies, and in the MASH case, then TeeVee.<br /><br />But before all that, there was the "Phil Silvers Show," about a Sergeant Bilko and this followed from "Mister Roberts." A happy con man, who only committed harmless crimes, and then only as response to an overly crude system which attempted to limit his life. This was in the day when TeeVee shows mattered. You absorbed them instead of merely carrying them to work to chatter about. It wasn't particularly clever in any way, except in finding that crack between what we wanted in control and freedom. <br /><br />Its one large zone where Americans worked out how they think about forgivable, even endearing lies in a military context, a zone that has been appropriated by one of our political parties here.<br /><br />Because its big, it sometimes pays off in laughs. "Stripes" was pretty darn funny I thought. It had the twist of the misfits actually defeating serious foes, sort of folding in some "Dirty Dozen." And sexual adventure.<br /><br />Now this, well before the cultural wars escalated. It tries to touch that sweet spot, like other remakes that manhandled Steve Martin. It is so unfunny, you actually root for the Army to be the stronger player. Yet another way to track how societies work out the handles on military power.<br /><br />Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
I know I've already added a comment but I just wanted to clarify something...<br /><br />I'm not some old fogey from the Baby Boom generation that grew up glued to a flickering b/w picture of Phil Silvers, Jackie Gleason etc.<br /><br />Bilko was already 20 years old before I was born but I had the pleasure of discovering Phil Silver's Bilko courtesy of BBC2. I wonder if I would have enjoyed Steve Martin's travesty if I hadn't seen or heard of Phil Silvers - I don't know - maybe I would have.<br /><br />Some of the other reviewers who think this movie is worthy of a '10' admit that they haven't seen the original. I can only urge you to spend 21 minutes of your life watching a single episode. If after watching the original Ernie, Colonel Hall, Ritzig & Emma, Duane Doberman, Henshaw, Dino, Flashman, Zimmerman, Mullin et al you still think that Steve Martin's film is woth anything above a '2' - I'll stand you a pint....
Steve Martin should quit trying to do remakes of classic comedy. He absolutely does not fit this part. Like the woeful remake of the Out Of Towners, this movie falls flat on it's face. How anybody ever thought Steve Martin could even come close to Jack Lemmon's wonderful performance is beyond me and the same is true for this movie. Dan Ackroyd could have played the Bilko part better. Martin is great when doing his own original characters but fails miserably trying to recreate other people's classic work. It's a sad statement when the funniest part of a movie is contained in the first line of the credits when the movie is over. The line "The producers gratefully acknowledge the total lack of cooperation by the United States Army" was just about the only line that actually made me laugh. If you want to see the real Bilko, get hold of the original episodes of the Phil Silvers Show. Those are guaranteed to make you laugh, unlike this mistake that should never have happened. I put this movie in the same category as the aforementioned Lemmon classic and the remake of Psycho. None of them should ever have happened.
This was a disappointing movie. Considering the material---army life is always good for a laugh---and the stars, this movie should have been a fall down laughfest. It was worth a couple of chuckles, at best. Steve Martin has been much funnier than this and it appears that Dan Ackroyd should stick to dramatic roles, where he might follow Robin Williams' lead and someday win an Oscar.
Even Steve Martin and Dan Aykroyd couldn't save this movie from laying an emu-sized egg. Based on the classic Phil Silvers TV series, it bombed because: A) It was updated to the 1990s, and B) The simple premise of the TV series was turned into a confusing, feeble and silly screenplay.<br /><br />The original TV series used a small cast of talented actors to portray lovable characters acting out simple yet hilarious pranks. To expand this premise into a 1990s movie was asking for trouble, and it shows. No one could pay me enough to sit through this stinker a second time.
When I say " Doctor Who " you might conjure up an image of Tom Baker , or Jon Pertwee or maybe Peter Davison . When I say " James Bond " you`ll almost certainly conjure up an image of Sean Connery while a small handful of people may think of Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan . But when I say " Sgt Bilko " absolutely everyone will think of Phil Silvers . Unlike Doctor Who or James Bond the role belongs exclusively to one actor . And that`s the problem with this film version you`ll continually wish you were watching the old black and white show . In fact the whole idea of making a film version of BILKO without Silvers in the title role comes close to sacrilage
This film is a pure failure. I am a Steve Martin fan, but even he can't save the tired idea and swiss cheese script. Think "Police Academy 7" and apply it to a military parody. Yuck.<br /><br />I DO NOT feel the other user comments reflected the poor rating this film received (and rightfully deserved!). It is extremely misleading. I have often seen this film marked down to $3.00 in the grocery store and now I certainly know why.<br /><br />If only I could get my 90 minutes back...
I am watching this movie right now on WTN because that was the channel that the TV was turned to when I turned it on. It is a not very credible and fairly boring story about a minister's wife (Alexandra Paul) falling in lust with a young stud/drifter (with washboard abs) played by Corey Sevier. There may or may not be a plot. Corey whips his shirt off a lot and Alexandra swoons. I'm getting the feeling he's supposed to be up to no good, and that's why he's messing with skinny Alexandra Paul. It's not really important because as I said he takes his shirt off a lot and I just caught a glimpse of butt cleavage. There's a lot of sax on the soundtrack, which is just painful.
I watched this movie last week sometime and had the biggest laugh i've had in a long while. The plot of the film is pretty dumb and convoluted in a badly crafted way. The only plus to be found anywhere in the film are Corey Savier's impressive abs. Alexandra Paul (i think that's her name) is horrendous as the preacher's wife who has a history of depression. Ted McKenzie is gross and his character's a twit on top of it all. And as if the fact that you think she's having sex with her son isn't enough, they throw in needless sax solos at every opportunity! The end and climax of this film is absolutely abysmal and also laughable. I mean who the hell wants to carry the child of a con who tried to make you think he was your son and that you were having an incestuous relationship with him!
This movie is so bad it's good -- in an unintentionally funny way. I couldn't stop watching it, I was laughing so much! It's like a parody of a romantic thriller, except it's not a parody. <br /><br />Alexandra Paul plays Emily Wendell, an oppressed preacher's wife who falls hard for Luke (Corey Sevier), a hunky and mysterious drifter who we eventually learn was in prison; the only thing Sevier is guilty of, though, is bad acting! Mind you, he's no worse than the other actors. You get the sense that the actors have *no* idea they're in a really awful film; they're playing it straight. Everything about the film is bad: the acting, the script, the love scenes, the pacing, the plot twists, the choice of music. The climactic scenes are just so ludicrous -- first the shootout in the church, then Luke's final words to Emily -- I was howling with laughter. <br /><br />Evidently Luke did a lot of weight lifting and ab crunches in prison, and we get to see plenty of his naked torso. That's probably the highlight of the film.
An Italian/American co-production co-starring Linda Blair and David 'The Hoff' Hasselhoff: how could any fan of trashy horror resist such a treat?<br /><br />Well, based on the uneventful, extremely tedious, and utterly nonsensical first forty minutes or so, I would have said 'very easily'; thankfully, however, things do eventually get a tad more entertaining with the introduction of several inventive death scenes, and for those lucky enough to find an uncut copy, a smattering of nudity too (unfortunately, my copy was optically edited to remove such offensive material).<br /><br />The Hoff stars as Gary, a photographer who accompanies his beautiful girlfriend Leslie (Leslie Cumming) to a run-down hotel on a seemingly deserted island in order to take pictures for her latest project, a book about witches; whilst there, frustrated Gary also hopes to try and cure a bad case of blue balls by relieving Leslie of her virginity.<br /><br />His plans for nookie are scuppered, however, by the unexpected arrival of property developers Freddie and Rose Brooks (Robert Champagne and Annie Ross), their pregnant daughter Jane (Blair), son Tommy (Michael Manchester), pretty nymphomaniac architect Linda Sullivan (Catherine Hickland), and estate agent Jerry (Rick Farnsworth), who have come to inspect the island's hotel.<br /><br />After explaining their unexpected presence on the island, Gary and Leslie are welcomed by the property's new owners, and when a violent storm suddenly picks up, making it perilous to return to the mainland, everyone agrees to spend the night in the old building. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to the hotel's new guests, the place is also home to the spirit of an evil witch (Hildegard Knef), who requires human sacrifices in order to bring herself back to life. One by one, victims are pulled into a swirling red vortex (which is guaranteed to provide unintentional laughs), before meeting a terrible fate.<br /><br />None of this makes much sense, and the acting is atrocious (Manchester as Tommy is particularly bad, whilst Hasselhoff proves to be one of the better performers, which speaks volumes about the others), but those viewers who make it past the dreary first half are rewarded with some pretty decent moments of gore: Rose has her lips sewn together, before being roasted alive in a fireplace; Jerry is crucified and burnt alive; Linda is tortured by hags and impaled on a swordfish(!!); Freddie's veins pulsate and erupt in geysers of blood; and Gary gets stabbed in the back.<br /><br />Oh, and Leslie is raped by a guy with no lips and Blair gets possessed (again).
Oh my... bad clothing, worse synth music and the worst: David Hasselhoff. The 80's are back with vengeance in Witchery, an American-Italian co-production, helmed by infamous Joe 'D'Amato on the production side and short-careered director (thank heavens for small miracles) Fabrizio Laurenti directing . Marketed as a kind of sequel to Sam Raimi's Evil Dead series in Italy (that was dubbed "La Casa" in there), Witchery delivers some modest gore groceries and bad acting.<br /><br />A mix of ghost story, possessions and witchcraft, the film bounces clueless from scene to another without letting some seriously wooden actors and hilarious day and night mix-ups slow it's progress to expectable ending, topped with some serious WTF surprise climax. (I just love the look on her face...) Surprisingly Laurenti manages to gather some suspense and air of malice in few - very few - scenes; unluckily for him, these few glimpses of mild movie magic go down quickly and effectively.<br /><br />The plus sides are experienced, when the gore hits the fan. This department is quite effective and entertaining in that classic latex and red paint style of the 80's Italo-gore, when things were made 100% hand-made and as shockingly and vivid as modest budgets could allow. I could only watch with sadistic glee and few laughters all the over-the-top ways that obnoxious characters (and actors) got mangled and misused, one by one. I only felt sorry for Linda Blair, who apparently haven't been let to try any other than that good old possessed girl / woman role ever in his career, or so it looks like when checking out his filmography.<br /><br />Well, folks - not much more to tell, and even less to tell home about. Don't expect too much when spending some rainy afternoon with this, and probably you'll experience at least some mild fun. It also helps if your rotten little heart pounds in the beat of 80's euro gore horror. And speaking of hearts - every movie that has David Hasselhoff getting skewered by a sizeable metal object and bleeding heavily around the room and corridors, MUST have it's one on the right place.<br /><br />This is my truth - what is yours?
There are many different versions of this one floating around, so make sure you can locate one of the unrated copies, otherwise some gore and one scene of nudity might be missing. Some versions also omit most of the opening sequence and other bits here and there. The cut I saw has the on-screen title WITCHCRAFT: EVIL ENCOUNTERS and was released by Shriek Show, who maintain the original US release title WITCHERY for the DVD release. It's a nice-looking print and seems to have all of the footage, but has some cropping/aspect ratio issues. In Italy, it was released as LA CASA 4 (WITCHCRAFT). The first two LA CASA releases were actually the first two EVIL DEAD films (retitled) and the third LA CASA was another film by the same production company (Filmirage), which is best known here in America as GHOSTHOUSE. To make matters even more confusing, WITCHERY was also released elsewhere as GHOSTHOUSE 2. Except in Germany, where GHOSTHOUSE 2 is actually THE OGRE: DEMONS 3. OK, I better just shut up now. I'm starting to confuse myself!<br /><br />Regardless of the title, this is a very hit-or-miss horror effort. Some of it is good, some of it isn't. I actually was into this film for the first half or so, but toward the end it became a senseless mess. A large, vacant hotel located on an island about 50 miles from Boston is the setting, as various people get picked off one-by-one by a German- speaking witch (Hildegard Knef). Photographer Gary (David Hasselhoff), who wants to capture "Witch Light," and his virginal writer girlfriend (Leslie Cumming), who is studying witchcraft, are shacking up at the hotel without permission. Along comes real estate agent Jerry (Rick Farnsworth), who's showing off the property to potential buyers Rose (Annie Ross) and Freddie (Robert Champagne) Brooks. Also tagging along are their children; pregnant grown daughter Jane (Linda Blair) and very young son Tommy (Michael Manchester), as well as oversexed architect Linda Sullivan (Catherine Hickland - Hasselhoff's wife at the time). Once everyone is inside, their boat driver is killed (hung) and the boat disappears, so they find themselves trapped and basically at the mercy of the "Lady in Black."<br /><br />So what can you expect to find here? Plenty of unpleasantries! One of the characters has their lips sewn shut and is then hung upside down in the fireplace and accidentally slow-roasted by the rest of the cast. There's also a crucifixion, witches eating a dead baby, a swordfish through the head, someone set on fire, a possession, a Sesame Street tape recorder, the virgin getting raped by some demon, a guys veins bulging and exploding thanks to voodoo doll pokes and some other stuff. From a technical standpoint, it's a nice-looking film with pretty good cinematography, a decent score and good gore effects. The hotel/island setting is also pretty nice. Blair (particularly at the end) and Ross both seem like they're having fun and Knef is great as the evil witch. Even though people like to ridicule Hasselhoff these days, he's not bad in his role, either.<br /><br />On the down side, despite all the gore, the film seems somewhat dull and it gets monotonous after about an hour. The supernatural themes are muddled and confusing, too. When characters are being swept into the witches lair to be tortured and killed, the filmmakers unwisely decided to superimpose the screaming actors over some silly looking red spiral vortex effect that looks supremely cheesy. And the witch lair itself is vacant and cheaply designed with unfinished lumber. And while most of the cast is at least decent, a few of the performances (particularly the "actress" who plays Hasselhoff's girlfriend and the kid) are so bad they're constantly distracting.
Witchcraft/Witchery/La Casa 4/ and whatever else you wish to call it. How about..Crud.<br /><br />A gathering of people at a Massachusetts island resort are besieged by the black magic powers of an evil witch killing each individual using cruel, torturous methods. Photographer Gary(David Hasselhoff)is taking pictures for Linda(Catherine Hickland whose voice and demeanor resemble EE-YOR of the Winnie the Poo cartoon), a virgin studying witchcraft, on the island resort without permission. Rose Brooks(Annie Ross, portraying an incredibly rude bitch)is interested in perhaps purchasing the resort and, along with husband Freddie(Robert Champagne, who is always ogling other women much younger than him), pregnant daughter Jane(Linda Blair)and grandson Tommy(Michael Manchester, who just looks bored throughout, probably wanting to watch Sesame Street instead of starring in this rubbish), go by boat to the resort being treated to a look at the property by Realtor Tony Giordano's son Jerry(Rick Farnsworth), obviously a pup in the business getting his feet wet. Along with these folks is architect Leslie(Leslie Cumming, whose character is a nympho)who might help Rose re-design the resort. The boat's captain is killed by The Lady in Black(Hildegard Knef, wearing her make-up and lip-stick extra thick)and a storm is brewing. The boat drives off by itself(..guided by the invisible power of The Lady in Black, I guess)with everyone stuck in the decrepit resort, which is in dire need of repairs. Most of the victims, before meeting their grisly fates are carried through a type of red wormhole whose vortex leads to another dimension(..perhaps a type of hell or something)where they are tortured by these fiends dressed in raggedy clothes with a crummy visage. One victim has her mouth sown before being hung upside down in a chimney, roasted as the others light the fireplace. One poor soul is tortured by harsh twistings of rope wrapped tightly around her flesh before being found hanging from the snout of a swordfish penetrating through her neck. One fellow is slowly suffocating as his veins bulge(..and bleed) and neck's blood vessels burst squirting in Hasselhoff's face! One fellow is crucified with nails hammered into his hands before being hung upside down over an open flame. Blair's pregnant victim becomes possessed with her hair standing on end speaking in another woman's voice. One is raped by this demonic man with a "diseased" mouth as the hellish hobos stand nearby gleefully cheering. The film, despite it's excesses, is mostly dull fodder for those who really wish to see the lowest point in the careers of Hasselhoff and Blair, who deserve better than this. Almost unbearable at times, building little-to-no suspense. Clumsy execution of the death sequences which look cheap and laughable. Sure some gore is okay, but most of the film shows victims after they've been run through the ringer. We do get a chance to see pregnant women(..who look exactly like stuntmen in costume with bad wigs) jumping out three story windows. Oh, and The Lady in Black's reflected face often pops up on inanimate objects for characters to see. Tommy has a little Sesame Street recorder which tapes The Lady in Black's mumbo jumbo chants, obviously used for later. For some reason, The Lady in Black likes to visit little Tommy. He's not at all scared of her, for Tommy's just too bored to show any expression on his face, much less fear. Need I say more? This one's a real stinker. Ugh.
"Witchery" might just be the most incoherent and lamentably scripted horror movie of the 80's but, luckily enough, it has a few compensating qualities like fantastic gore effects, an exhilarating musical score and some terrific casting choices. Honestly the screenplay doesn't make one iota of sense, but who cares when Linda Blair (with an exploded hairstyle) portrays yet another girl possessed by evil powers and David Hasselhof depicts a hunky photographer (who can't seem to get laid) in a movie that constantly features bloody voodoo, sewn-shut lips, upside down crucifixions, vicious burnings and an overused but genuinely creepy tune. Eight random people are gathered together on an abandoned vacation resort island off the coast of Massachusetts. The young couple is there to investigate the place's dark history; the dysfunctional family (with a pregnant Linda Blair even though nobody seems to bother about who the father is and what his whereabouts are) considers re-opening the hotel and the yummy female architect simply tagged along for casual sex. They're forced to stay the night in the ramshackle hotel and then suddenly the previous landlady – an aging actress or something who always dresses in black – starts taking them out in various engrossing ways. Everything is somehow related to the intro sequence showing a woman accused of witchery jump out of a window. Anyway, the plot is definitely of minor importance in an Italian horror franchise that started as an unofficial spin-off of "The Evil Dead". The atmosphere is occasionally unsettling and the make-up effects are undoubtedly the most superior element of the entire film. There's something supremely morbid and unsettling about staring at a defenseless woman hanging upside down a chimney and waiting to get fried.
Witchy Hildegard Knef traps a group of people in an isolated hotel and picks them off one by one in twisted, disgusting ways. I thought I'd seen it all until one unfortunate man here is crucified and then has his head set on fire. Hildy is quite the prankster too: she takes a nagging harpy and sews her mouth shut...then hangs her upside down in the chimney just in time for a roaring fire! "Witchery" made me sick. It made my eyes hurt. I was ready to write it off as the worst movie ever-ever-ever made by otherwise competent people...until the finale. I have to admit I loved the ending. It involves a boy and his toy tape-recorder cornered by Linda Blair looking fantastically possessed. The scene only lasts for about a minute and the movie's over, but you know that old saying: "If you've got a great ending, people will forgive you for just about anything!"
A really very bad movie, with a very few good moments or qualities.<br /><br />It starts off with pregnant Linda Blair, who runs down a hallways to flee what might be monsters or people with pitchforks, I'm not sure. She jumps through a window and wakes up, and we see she is very pregnant. The degree to which she is pregnant varies widely throughout the movie.<br /><br />She and an annoying and possibly retarded little boy who I thought was her son travel to an abandoned hotel on an island. Italian horror directors find the most irritating little boys to put in their movies! On the island already are David Hasselhoff and his German-speaking virgin girlfriend (you know how Germans are said to love Hasselhoff...). He's taking photographs, and she's translating an esoteric German book about witches, I think.<br /><br />Also traveling to the island are an older couple who have purchased it, and a real estate agent, and a woman I thought was their daughter. Evidently she was an architect, and Linda Blair and the boy are the older couple's children. I guess they all traveled to the island together, but it really seemed like Linda and the boy were apart from the rest of them (maybe they were filmed separately).<br /><br />The hotel seems neat, certainly from the exteriors, but it isn't used to any great effect. An old woman in bad makeup and a black cloak keeps appearing to the boy and chants something in German sometimes, which he eventually records on his Sesame Street tape recorder.<br /><br />People start getting killed, either in their dreams, or sucked into hell or something. Some of these gore scenes are OK, but not enough to recommend the movie. Though the copy I watched stated it is uncut on the box cover, the death of one character whose veins explode really seems to have been cut. Much of the scene is showing another character's reaction shots, since we're not seeing anything ourselves. The creepiest scene is one in which a man or demon with a really messy-looking wound of a mouth rapes someone. He looked particularly nasty. There's a laughably and painfully bad scene in which Linda Blair is possessed. I wish if a horror movie is going to cast her, they would do something original with her role, and let her leave Exorcist behind her (except for the yearly horror conventions).<br /><br />In the weird, largely Italian, tradition of claiming to be a sequel to something it is unrelated to, this is also AKA La Casa 4 and Ghosthouse 2. That is, it is supposedly a sequel to Casa 3 - Ghosthouse, La (1988) - it's not (that's also a better movie than this one). La Casa 1 and two were The Evil Dead (1981) and Evil Dead II (1987) - again unrelated to Witchery and La Casa 3 (and much better than those). There's also a Casa 5, La (1990) AKA House 5, which seems to want to be a sequel to the fake La Casa series and the series House: House (1986) House II: The Second Story (1987), The Horror Show (1989) AKA House III, and House IV (1992). How's The Horror Show fit in there? It doesn't really, it claimed to be a sequel, thus requiring the real series entry to renumber itself to cause less (or more?) confusion. Oddly, The Horror Show is also AKA Horror House, and La Casa 5 is also AKA Horror House 2. Does your head hurt yet?
This film features two of my favorite guilty pleasures. Sure, the effects are laughable, the story confused, but just watching Hasselhoff in his Knight Rider days is always fun. I especially like the old hotel they used to shoot this in, it added to what little suspense was mustered. Give it a 3.
I watched this movie purely for the setting. It was filmed in an old hotel that a friend owns shares of. The plot was predictable, the acting was mediorcre at best, the scares were all gross-outs, not true scares.<br /><br />I don't remember much of the plot, and I think that's because there wasn't much of one to remember. They didn't even use the hotel to it's fullest potential...The beaches are fantastic and the hotel is situated on a peninsula. At low tide, you can walk almost 1/4 mile into the bay, which is actually an eerie sight first thing in the morning or late at night when the wind is howling through the cracks.<br /><br />The best way to see this movie is with the remote in your hand so you can fast forward through the action (and I'm using that term loosly)scenes and pause at the beauty of the surroundings!
This only gets bashed because it stars David Hasselhoff. Well, then let me bash it to. Compared to the garbage they call horror coming out nowadays, this film isn't too bad. It has the beautiful Leslie Cumming. She is super hot, but can't talk very well. There is a great scene with her when she is supernaturally raped. She shows off her nice body. Linda Blair does nothing here as well as Hasselhoff. 3/10
We brought this film as a joke for a friend, and could of been our worst joke to play. The film is barely watchable, and the acting is dire. The worst child actor ever used and Hasslehoff giving a substandard performance. The plot is disgraceful and at points we was so bored we was wondering what the hell was going on. It tries to be gruesome in places but is just laughable.<br /><br />Just terrible
Humm, an Italian movie starred by David hasselhoff and Linda Blair, I wasn´t expecting very much, to be honest and in fact, I took even less than I was expecting. It doesn´t mean this movie is the worst I have seen because I have watched worse things than this but the plot was most of the times confusing and uninteresting and some good gore scenes are the only thing saving this. Apart from that you are going to love some special effects, they are really cheesy and bad. Now I only want to watch "Troll 3" by this same director, sure it is not going to be worse than that.
I and a friend rented this movie. We both found the movie soundtrack and production techniques to be lagging. The movie's plot appeared to drag on throughout with little surprise in the ending. We both agreed that the movie could have been compressed into roughly an hour giving it more suspense and moving plot.
I'm gettin' sick of movies that sound entertaining in a one-line synopsis then end up being equal to what you'd find in the bottom center of a compost heap.<br /><br />Who knows: "Witchery" may have sounded interesting in a pitch to the studios, even with a "big name cast" (like Blair and Hasselhoff - wink-wink, nudge-nudge) and the effervescent likes of Hildegard Knef (I dunno, some woman...).<br /><br />But on film, it just falls apart faster than a papier-mache sculpture in a rainstorm. Seems these unfortunate folks are trapped in an island mansion off the Eastern seaboard, and one of them (a woman, I'd guess) is being targeted by a satanic cult to bear the child of hell while the others are offed in grotesque, tortuous ways. <br /><br />Okay, right there you have a cross-section of plots from "The Exorcist", "The Omen", "Ten Little Indians" and a few other lesser movies in the satanic-worshippers-run-amok line. None of it is very entertaining and for the most part, you'll cringe your way from scene to scene until it's over.<br /><br />No, not even Linda Blair and David Hasselhoff help matters much. They're just in it to pick up a paycheck and don't seem very intent on giving it their "all". <br /><br />From the looks of it, Hasselhoff probably wishes he were back on the beack with Pam Anderson (and who can blame him?) and Linda... well, who knows; a celebrity PETA benefit or pro-am golf tour or whatever it is she's in to nowadays.<br /><br />And the torture scenes! Ecchhhh. You'll see people get their mouths sewn shut, dangled up inside roaring fireplaces, strung up in trees during a violent storm, vessels bursting out of their necks, etc, etc. Sheesh, and I thought "Mark of the Devil" was the most sadistic movie I'd seen....<br /><br />Don't bother. It's not worth your time. I can't believe I told you as much as I did. If you do watch it, just see if you can count the cliches. And yes, Blair gets possessed, as if you didn't see THAT coming down Main Street followed by a marching band.<br /><br />No stars. "Witchery" - these witches will give you itches.
Making the film as dark and visually fuzzy as possible in order to cover up the budget deficiencies is an often-used strategy in low-budget horror films, but this one takes it too far. It is SO poorly lit and murky (and it takes place almost entirely at night, to boot) that you often end up virtually looking at a black screen (although perhaps the bad video transfer may also have had something to do with that). Alas, "murky" is also the best word to describe the movie's plot. The filmmakers throw in diverse (and unoriginal) horror ideas without any semblance of logic, and halfway through you get the feeling that they just about abandoned the effort to make a good horror film; you know it when you see characters who are supposed to be in mortal danger (or, in some occasions, even dead) making small talk....(*1/2)
I went to the movie as a Sneak Preview in Austria. So didn't have an idea what I am going to see. The story is very normal. The movie is very long , I believe it could have cut to 1/2 without causing any problems to the story. Its the type of movie you can see in a boring night which you want to get bored more ! Ashton Kutcher was very good . Kevin Costner is OK. The movie is speaking about the US Coast Guards, how they are trained , their life style and the problems they face. As there aren't much effects in the movie. So if you want to watch it , then no need to waste your money and time going to the Cinema. Would be more effective to watch it at home when it gets on DVDs.
This film has the kernel of a really good story. The work of the men and women of the Coast Guard, especially in the North Pacific, is the stuff of heroes and legends. This film mucks up a good story with three endings (none satisfying), a couple of unneeded and pointless bar fights and two alleged "romantic" relationships that have as much spark as dead campfire. The rescue scenes are great - even if the computer generation is hokey and the scenarios are pretty unreal - but the backstory is lame and disappointing. Costner is good - especially his hand acting (watch for it). Ashton Kutcher is flat but not terrible. The main female characters are one dimensional. The best female is one of the Coast Guard sailors in the rescue center and she's on camera for about two minutes in the whole film. It could have been an excellent film - and Costner needs one!
I'm sure that the folks on the Texas/Louisiana border must have had a a good laugh or two when Paramount's B picture unit inflicted this one on the war time public. Very simply the area along the Sabine River where the film opens is cotton country just like the rest of the Deep South or at least the Deep South was post Civl War. No big cattle empires there, they're much farther west in Texas, farther than Richard Dix and Preston Foster could ride to set up their empire.<br /><br />The film begins with the two of them partners in a riverboat and when Leo Carrillo tries a theft of their services by not paying them for hauling his cattle, they keep the cattle. And that's the beginning of the big Ponderosa like ranch they start.<br /><br />Along the way Foster marries Dix's sister played by Frances Gifford and feuds with his much smaller neighbors. They also have some further run ins with Leo Carrillo.<br /><br />Anyway, us easterners who like westerns usually don't bother with geographical trifles and it's still a good western from the production mill of Harry Sherman who produced all those Hopalong Cassidy westerns for Paramount. The climax is a blazing, and I mean that literally, gun battle that should have maybe been used on an A production.<br /><br />But I wouldn't have any but western fans look at it.
To be brutally honest... I LOVED watching Severed. That's why I<br /><br />gave it a 1/10 stars because of its starkly unimaginative<br /><br />story/filming/acting/everything. This film was a RIOT to watch. If<br /><br />you enjoy watching bad films in order to poke fun at them, you will<br /><br />really get a kick out of Severed.<br /><br />The story really doesn't matter, it involves some guy who's bald<br /><br />and has a sword and goes around beheading random people. <br /><br />But he has a supernatural twist... nobody ever sees him do it. <br /><br />Even when, in one very memorable scene, he walks into a<br /><br />jampacked night club and whacks off some girl's noodle and<br /><br />nobody sees it. <br /><br />Severed doesn't merely look like it was filmed on video- it WAS<br /><br />filmed on someone's home camcorder. The filmmakers had<br /><br />knowledge of lighting (very thin knowledge) and composition<br /><br />actually holds together in some scenes. But mostly you can't hear<br /><br />the actors... you can't understand what they're doing, and you laugh<br /><br />when the next vicitm gets his pumpkin detatched from his body.<br /><br />Go and rent this movie. Support films like this- they are a hoot and<br /><br />a hollar!
OK, I love bad horror. I especially love horror bad enough to make fun of. Demonicus, or House of the Dead - those were bad enough to make fun of. Severed was not.<br /><br />It was worse.<br /><br />(spoilers - who cares?)<br /><br />My friend and I sat through the entire film, and I have a number of comments, both in the "this sucks" style and in the realm of actual critiques.<br /><br />Plot (sort of) - There's a guy in this city (which is possibly Seattle, see comment below) who is running around and cutting off heads. He's been doing this for over a year (I'm not going back to get exact numbers - thank you VERY much), possibly two or three years. One head a week. And the police are JUST NOW calling in a "specialist" (who ONCE refers to himself as a psychic, but that never comes up again).<br /><br />Schya right! Feds take over after, what, THREE connected homicides? After NEARLY A HUNDRED SIMILAR KILLINGS we'd be under freaking martial law!!!!!<br /><br />Anyway, this "specialist" consults the voodoo chick who the police have been ignoring the entire time, and the two of them come to the conclusion that it's Baron Samedi, a voodoo spirit, who is cutting off heads to gain enough power to make himself a body (and then presumably take over the world - or possibly just go to Disneyland).<br /><br />Um.<br /><br />Setting - where IS this happening? Well, if you're not from Seattle, you might not realize that at the bar/rave (occupied by about ten of the movie staff and their family members), there's a poster for a local radio station, and that in the highly-entertaining, "Pulp Fiction"esqe dialog (as IF) between the two cops (yes, the ones who get their heads cut off about 15 minutes into the flick) they discuss "the new stadium" which may still have been an issue when this movie was made.<br /><br />Being from Seattle, I apologize on the movie's behalf and hang my head in shame.<br /><br />OK, here's where it gets really critical - being a horror movie writer (not published, don't go looking for my name in the IMDb), I do research. Lots of research. And unlike the writers of this movie, I know that Baron Samedi - while a Voudon Loa (spirit) who guards the graveyards and has traditionally been associated (by various Christian oppressors) with "Satan" - is actually a "Loki"-like trickster god. <br /><br />In other words, he doesn't cut off heads.<br /><br />Besides, a major part of the Voudoun religion is that Baron Samedi can have a body whenever he wants. Their religious ceremonies center around the possession of various members of the congregation by the loa.<br /><br />Not to mention, if he's already possessed someone, why make a NEW body?<br /><br />Also, if Baron Samedi GOT a body, he wouldn't go around cutting off heads, he'd get some good rum and cigars and par-TAY!!!<br /><br />In summary, the only thing they did get (surprisingly) right is that in the completely unnecessary Tarot card reading (used only to show that the voodoo chick is "spooky") they didn't screw up the interpretations of the cards the way most movies do. Again, I've done research. (Anyone remember the old late-night ad for phone-in tarot readings - "The lovers - you will soon fall madly in love..." and all that nonsense?)<br /><br />If you made it this far through my comments, I congratulate you. And I'm sorry again. I'll be more sorry if you feel the need to watch the film on account of me, so please don't.
There was nothing about this movie that I liked. It was so obviously low-budget with bad lighting and camera work (almost like Blair Witch Project, only it wasn't supposed to be that way). There wasn't really much to the plot, and the movie just drug on and on. I actually fast-forwarded through the last 1/3 of the movies, but that did not help matters much. It looked like it might be good from the box, but I must say again: nothing about this movie even resembled good. No good actors, the special effects were so fake, the camera work was horrible, and the dialogue was painfully terrible. On my own personal scale, I give this movie a 0 of 10. Yikes!
Bad acting, bad lighting, bad plot!! This had the quality of a porno movie. I have seen more interesting home video of a boring wedding than this movie...it sucked big time!! Don't waste your time or money on this crap! It's amazing that they allow this kind of smut to even be released on video, it should be a crime!!
This is one of them movies that has a awesome video box but has wired camra work and unknown actors that speak with bad dialogue.Its so dark when the killings happen you can hardly see it plus the movie is hard to understand.The only star in this is WCW`s Vanessa Sanchez (Tygres in WCW before it folded) and she is a good actress. I like low budget film especialy ones that has errors because they are fun to watch but Severed unfourtunatly isn`t one of them.This movie is ok to see if you like voodoo and severed heads but this is no blockbuster but if you need something new to watch then rent Severed.
Hm. While an enjoyable movie to poke plot holes, point out atrocious acting, primitive (at best) special effects (all of which have caused me to view this movie three times over the past six years), Severed ranks among the worst I've ever seen. I'm never sure who the protagonists are, all I know is that the killer uses a portable guillotine, as seen in the dance floor murder scene. All in all, I don't really like the movie, because only the first 30 minutes are enjoyable, the rest is a mishmash of confusing dialog and imagery that fail to progress the story to a logical conclusion (which I can't remember anyway).
I own this movie. I bought it for $3.99 at a fairly major video retailer in order to do some "indie"" type movie research since I had just finished my own feature and was editing it. Now when I feel down about my skills as a first time director I just sit down with a plate of cookies and Severed. Within minutes I feel great!!!<br /><br />I hate to down talk another filmmaker so I'll just use constructive criticism. 1. Find good actors. Take the time. It really helps. 2. When shooting video, over light your scenes and darken in the computer later on in post. 3. Closeups are better for Video. 4. When an actor enters a scene, wait a bit before<br /><br />having them speak so that we know what's going on and who's talking. 5. Never show the back of a door while we wait for someone to come open it. Damn well worth the $3.99<br /><br />The True Horror would be getting the reviews Severed has here on IMDb. And you have to give these guys credit... they did get distributed.
I was searching through Hollywood video last night with a friend trying to find a good-looking horror movie to watch over the New Year's weekend. As I was looking through the shelves, "Severed" spotted my eye, and I grabbed it off the shelf and it looked like it might be a decent B-grade horror movie. The cover looked fairly good. The plot sounded semi-interesting. So I rented it. What a mistake. Don't be fooled by the cover, which actually looks decent. I'm thinking that more money was spent on the cover artwork than the movie itself. The film follows two police detectives who are tracking down a voodoo-inspired, ritualistic serial killer called "The Head Hunter", who is decapitating victims left and right in some unnamed city (probably Los Angeles), and they become drawn into his world of ritualized murder.<br /><br />Story sound somewhat good? Well, it is, and this movie could've been halfway decent. But good God, it was bad! Almost everything about it was laughable. The opening scene features some redheaded actress in a car trying to talk on this huge, outdated cell phone, and for whatever reason, she goes outside and talks to some guy. Then, a shadow comes up behind them, hacks off his head, and the girl drops to the ground and starts crawling (for absolutely no reason) while trying to dial 911. Sound ridiculous? Yep, you bet it is. The entire movie looks like it was filmed on a VHS-quality camera, and I'm assuming it was. The acting was mostly awful, and the special effects were far from believable. And the scenes with the policemen on the phone were awful - the voice on the other line was echoing and it sounded like it was being recorded in someone's bathroom. Everything about this movie was simply amateurish and tedious, and it didn't hold my interest for very long, and I often found myself bored and tired, mostly because of the bad acting and the horrible cinematography. The pacing was bad. Everything was just bad.<br /><br />Overall, "Severed" is a failed attempt at what could have been a decent B-movie. The plot was good and I think if this film had been handled better and had a higher budget, it could've been alright. But this movie fell flat on it's face. If you're expecting something semi-decent, you'll be sorely disappointed. Only recommended if you can tolerate D-grade horror flicks. Otherwise, you'll probably want to stay away from this straight-to-video garbage. It had a little potential, but it was beyond a mess. 1/10.
0.5/10. This movie has absolutely nothing good about it. The acting is among the worst I have ever seen, what is really amazing is that EVERYONE is awful, not just a few here and there, everyone. The direction is a joke, the low budget is hopelessly evident, the score is awful, I wouldn't say the movie was edited, brutally chopped would be a more appropriate phrase. It combines serial killings, voodoo and tarot cards. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. It is not scary at all, the special effects are hopelessly lame. laughably bad throughout. The writing was appallingly bad. The cinematography is real cheap looking, and very grainy sometimes, and the camera-work is dreadful. Again, what really does the movie in is how badly all the actors are. Cheesy.
This film was a big disappointment.<br /><br />I take the opposite view of the critics. This is not a case of the material not being up to the level of the actors; here the actors (Bette Davis and James Cagney) are simply not up to the level of the material. Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert were every bit as big as Davis and Cagney, and look how It Happened One Night turned out - an all-time classic. With a very similar story, Davis proves that she has no talent for comedy (good thing for her that this is just about the only comedy she ever attempted!) Davis' one-note performance oozes petulance, but none of the nuances of Colbert's acting in It Happened One Night. Cagney, who was a great comedy actor, just seems out-of-sync with his costar, Davis. The script provides some decent lines and gags, but the delivery seems better suited to drama than comedy.<br /><br />Part of the problem is the soundtrack, which, like the delivery of Davis and Cagney, seems more suitable to a light drama than a comedy.<br /><br />Jack Carson, who played similar roles throughout his career, has more capably handled very similar material. In a fairly typical supporting role Eugene Palette delivers a respectable performance. In a slightly different role as an old west relic, Harry Davenport, is very good. But in one of his poorest performances, William Frawley is quite irritating. His character's constant references to fictional cops are a poor effort at irony. <br /><br />I really love every one of these performers, and it is a shame that, as an ensemble they achieve no more chemistry and no better result than The Bride Came C.O.D.
Rich ditzy Joan Winfield (a woefully miscast Bette Davis) is engaged to be married to stupid egotistical Allen Brice (Jack Carson looking lost). Her father (Eugene Palette) is determined to stop the marriage and has her kidnapped by pilot Steve Collins (James Cagney. Seriously). They crash land in the desert and hate each other but (sigh) start falling in love.<br /><br />This seems to be getting a high rating from reviewers here only because Cagney and Davis are in it. They were both brilliant actors but they were known for dramas NOT comedy and this movie shows why! The script is just horrible--there's not one genuine laugh in the entire movie. The running joke in this has Cagney and Davis falling rump first in a cactus (this is done THREE TIMES!). Only their considerable talents save them from being completely humiliated. As it is they both do their best with the lousy material. Cagney tries his best with his lines and Davis screeches every line full force but it doesn't work. Carson has this "what the hell" look on his face throughout the entire movie (probably because his characters emotions change in seconds). Only Palette with his distinctive voice and over the top readings manges to elicit a few smiles. But, all in all, this was dull and laughless--a real chore to sit through. This gets two stars only for Cagney and Davis' acting and some beautiful cinematography but really--it's not worth seeing. Cagney and Davis hated this film in later years and you can see why.
Bette Davis brings her full trunk of tics to this miserable flop which is another variation on the "hilariously mismatched" lovers theme. Sadly, Cagney and Davis are truly mismatched in acting styles and the mix is not simply unpalatable but distasteful. The only distinction in the film comes from Eugene Pallette who, literally, phones in his usual part as the deb's misunderstood dad. Jack Carson's performance can only be described as an act of mayhem on the audience
Woosh…! Man… What can I say...?<br /><br />The opening-scene, maybe? We see a bunch of mongoloid-barbarians with bad make-up jump off the walls of some ruins. They sneak around and attack some dude with a scantily clothed captive girl. The dude runs off, the mongoloids follow him and one of them stays behind seemingly to rape the girl, but instead he exposes one of her breasts and kidnaps her. Then, the dude (still on the run) sees a horse and tries to steal it. Suddenly… a blond god-like looking hero with a bad wig appears, saying "That's my horse!". The Mighty Deathstalker just made his appearance. The mongoloids arrive, Deathstalker kills all of them (including the dude) on the tunes of some rather inappropriate Mexicanos western score (this is supposed to be a Swords & Sorcery flick, so what's with the 'arriba-trompettos'?), and then goes up to Captive Girl and exposes both her breasts. He starts to rub them and Captive Girl seems to like it. She starts liking her lips and caressing Deathstalker. Just when they are about to get down to it, this old dude appears, interrupting what could have been the end of a perfect day for Deathstalker (and a possible perfect ending for a short-film).<br /><br />Now tell me… Isn't that the point where either a feminist would angrily switch off the movie, or any other male viewer would say "This is going to be one hell of a good movie!" The plot is as simple as throwing a kitten from the balcony: Deathstalker must obtain the Sword of Justice and use it to steal the Amulet of Life and the Chalice of Magic from the evil sorcerer Munkar.<br /><br />Aside from decapitations, dismemberment, random bloodshed, retarded fist fights and embarrassing sword fights, this film also contains a massive amount of t!ts & a$$ shots. I initially wanted to add one extra point to this movie for each gratuitous shot of naked boobies I could count. After 9 points (not even halfway into the movie), I had to give up counting. It was distracting me from the rest of the movie. And the rest of the movie was worth it. Totally crazy stuff. Check out this mutant cat/worm-like creature Munkar has as a pet and which he feeds eyeballs and fingers. And here's an interesting question: What would you do if a man in a woman's body would enter your bedroom and try to kill you with a knife? The answer is simple: You slap him around a bit, take away the knife and then try to rape him. Then you discover that he's actually not a woman, so you throw him out of your bed and tell him to leave your room. It works out well, I tell you. Deathstalker does it too, and the Deathstalker-way, is the right way!<br /><br />DEATHSTALKER is a wonderful movie, really, as pointed out in other comments. The villains are vile. The women are delicious. There's blood, sex, violence, rape and tasty chicken. There's a completely pointless tournament which just features a bunch of barbarians beating, slashing and hacking the crap out of each other. My favorite weapon used in that tournament was a giant wooden hammer, used to beat a poor contender to bloody pulp. And my favorite contender undoubtedly was that one brute with the Warthog-head (reminiscent of the Gamorrean Guards from RETURN OF THE JEDI). I won't reveal how the movie ends, but just prepare to ravish in delight when I tell you a 4-way dismemberment is thrown into the movie's climax.<br /><br />And of course, there's a wonderful display of ineptitude throughout the whole movie. See a guy being dragged behind a horse over a dirt road, and the next point-of-view shot shows him being dragged over grass (no road). See that awesome tattoo on the sorcerer's head magically change sides within the same scene (on shot has it on the left side of his head, the other on the right). Well, after all, Munkar is a magician. It's that, or this movie was shot in an alternate universe where things like "continuity" simply don't exist.<br /><br />As much as I enjoyed this and as much as I am looking forward to the other 3 installments in this series, I do have enough shreds of decency left in me to not let this movie pass. I am prepared, though, to give it the maximum amount of minimal points, just so I could be able to deduct a couple of more points for the possibly inferior sequels to follow. DEATHSTALKER might be a superbly fun, trashy & sleazy CONAN rip-off, it also is an abominable movie.
This film's kind of like Conan the Barabarian, but with more sex, rape and murder. There is a plot somewhere underneath all this debauchery but the filmmakers don't do a good job showing it, which is a shame because it 'could' be a decent story. Richard Hill gives a solid performance in the lead role, as does the villain - who sadly didn't appear in anything else of note. The fight scenes aren't too bad either - I love the way Deathstalker lets his sword 'drink' the blood of his victims - and there's plenty of nudity and sex to temper the general level of machismo throughout. <br /><br />All in all, not good - but not necessarily that bad either...
Deathstalker is directed by John Watson and it stars Rick Hill, who is some kind of body builder and famous of that, if I have understood right? The plot follows as Deathstalker (Hill) tries to get something back from the evil lord, and he has to travel to the lord's cave. He meets many dwarfs and monsters during his journey, and the settings are very close to Tolkien, and of course Conan the Barbarian. This is a rip off of huge success of Conan, and even though this is very stupid film, it has many nice trash merits and is recommended for trash fans and tolerating film junkies!<br /><br />There are no many cinematic merits in this film. Couple of scenes are almost atmospheric and fascinating, but what Deathstalker concentrates to show, are nude females and huge muscles of Hill. Females are usually helpless victims and very stupid, too, so this is very macho film and thus may not please many feminists! The fight scenes are nothing special and pretty dull, and the monsters are not either anything special. And all the other aspects of the film are also very amateurish and badly done, but what did you expect from low budget effort like this? This tries to be as great as Conan but fails pretty miserably. As I said, this can please fans of turkey cinema but no one else. This belongs to the category it's so bad it's great!<br /><br />Deathstalker is still not as near as bad as it could be, and as a turkey film, I appreciate this almost as much as other turkeys, enjoyable ones of course! If bad films are your cup of tea, then try this and have fun, but if you don't understand "enjoyably bad films" then stay away. And if somebody can't stand large amount of nudity, then stay away as well. There is more nudity here than violence, and due to these scenes, the film has an R rating. Otherwise this could be some safe PG family film!<br /><br />4/10
This sword-&-sorcery story of an appallingly brutal and callous "hero" vanquishing an evil king is worthless in almost every detail. The acting is horrible from the leads to the supporting roles. The leering, gloating glee with which the director shows the hero smearing blood around is absolutely disgusting; nor is it redeemed by any justice to his cause, since he is as bad as the people he's fighting. Z-movie editing is abundant, including a scene where a character "dies" from a sword thrust that very obviously missed completely!<br /><br />The movie is clearly banking on the charms of the female leads, Barbi Benton and Lana Clarkson, who are paraded around mostly naked throughout the movie. As a 20-something male, I will not pretend that female flesh on the screen doesn't attract me. But the treatment of their characters is so degrading and the sex scenes so casual and joyless, that I couldn't enjoy even this aspect of the movie.<br /><br />Most cheesy movies of this era are at least somewhat redeemed by a light-hearted, tongue-in-cheek feel (the sequel is better in this regard), but DEATHSTALKER seems to take itself completely seriously as heroic fantasy. No way! Avoid at all costs!<br /><br />Rating: 1/2 out of ****.
...Or, more precisely, so bad that you are going to have the time of your life laughing your ass off when you watch it! James Sbardellati's "Deathstalker" of 1983 is certainly one of the most awful productions the Sword & Sorcery sub-genre has brought along, but it is highly amusing. The acting is terrible, the plot is pure crap, and the effects and photography couldn't be more amateurish. But it is the bad acting, the cheesy effects, and the many errors, that makes this movie so hilarious.<br /><br />- SPOILERS AHEAD -<br /><br />Deathstalker (Rick Hill) is an extremely strong and skilled warrior. One day, a good witch tasks him to unite the three powers of chaos and creation, a sword, an amulet and a chalice, in order to free the country from its brutal ruler, the evil king and sorcerer Munkar. Obtaining the sword is quite easy, but the amulet and the chalice are in Munkar's possession. Fortunately, the evil king has arranged a tournament in which the county's most skilled warriors fight each other until death. The winner is then to take the king's place. Of course, the king doesn't want anybody to take his place, an therefore he has planned to kill the winner (instead of just not arranging the tournament in the first place). Deathstalker is not only to obtain the the three powers of creation, but also to save the old, good king's gorgeous daughter (Barbi Benton) from the claws of evil Munkar. Luckily, he doesn't get bored on his way to the tournament, since he is allowed hump the gorgeous female warrior Kaira (Lana Clarkson) in the meantime...<br /><br />The film has many great, incredibly stupid and funny scenes. Some of my favorite scenes include: <br /><br />- Deathstalker beheads a bad guy with his sword. The head that falls down, however, is not that guy's head. The falling head has a red goatee, while the guy beheaded by Deathstalker had dark hair and no beard.<br /><br />- When the character of female warrior Kaira (Lana Clarkson) is introduced, she is first seen in a black robe, hiding her face and body. Deathstalker's traveling companion Oghris (Richard Brooker) fights her, and during the sword fight her robe (under which she is, of course topless) opens, exposing her breasts. Her breasts are the first thing we see of Lana Clarkson, even before her face.<br /><br />- The last warrior Deathstalker has to fight in the tournament, is a giant guy with the body of a man and the head of a pig.<br /><br />- Evil Munkar has an ugly little creature locked in a chest. He feeds that little creature human eyeballs and fingers.<br /><br />... There are many other unintentionally funny, hilarious, and great scenes. The acting is terrible but Barbi Benton and the late Lana Clarkson are eye-candy, and although I described this movie as 'unintentionally funny', I sometimes had the impression that some of the actors were absolutely aware of how crappy the movie is. There is a fair amount of gore, and lots of female nudity to keep the viewer entertained. "Deathstalker" is an incredibly awful movie, but I still highly recommend it. People with a sense of humor will have the time of their lives!
DEATHSTALKER is perfect for B-fantasy movie fans; this barely 80-minute travesty of film-making features everything hecklers can ask for--non-existent plotting, terrible acting (save for at least a raspy-sounding old lady), laughable scripting and schlock editing, and bargain-basement style background settings. There are no characters that come across as likable or interesting (in particular, the lead doesn't have ANYTHING appealing about him), and the actors assembled barely do anything to rise above the F-grade material. If that's not enough, then how about the lack of a compelling plot (which this movie has nothing of the sort) to make DEATHSTALKER qualify as a major turkey? I was also offended that the women in this movie barely serve any purpose other than to 1) be topless and/or scantily clad; 2) get raped; 3) have sex with the hero; 4) all of the above. In addition, the background music is hideous; a bizarre mess of electronic noise, cheesy choral bursts, and blaring orchestral cacophony. Ear numbing and eye numbing all in one packed with nary a thing to keep one interested, DEATHSTALKER is probably best suited for folks looking for something to laugh at (and believe me, there's plenty of that in here). Otherwise, I do not recommend this 100th-grade CONAN wanna-be to anyone in the least.
I had to give this film a 1 because it's that bad, but don't make this think that I didn't enjoy watching, because I laughed and laughed, and I even had a few questions. So half of the time I was laughing, half of the time I was saying "what in the hell is going on?" or "why would someone do this?" et cetera. I mostly enjoyed the terrible fog effects, the 80's style nude scene/battle/dialogue/nude scene, and the way that the warrior's swords flap in the wind when they ride their horses. And there's some crappy model effects (those aren't supposed to be real trees, are they?) and I still don't understand this guy that they find in the cave, what in the hell is he? A friend of mine told me about these movies and I thought I would give em a try, and I basically liked the film as people like Ed Wood films, I have no real enjoyment of what the film was meant to be, I look at it in my own hilarious way. So don't let this distract you if you really thought this was an action movie, it is, I just liked it for other reasons. It's much, much worse than Evil Dead, so it can actually make you think as though you are wasting your life by watching it (which came into my mind a few times). I guess the best thing for most people would be to have a few drinks, have some friends around, and laugh at this film. Maybe this is a bit harsh, but I don't think so, rent it and you'll see. Yo.
This is one of those movies that you and a bunch of friends sit around drinking beers, eating pizza, and laugh at. Unfortunately for me I found myself watching this one alone. My friends and I rented a big block of movies and never got around to seeing this one. It was due back and I figured that it was a waste not to watch it. So I did, and I was impressed at how absolutely terrible this movie is.<br /><br />Now, I love bad movies quite a bit, and I probably would have liked this one if the "hero" wasn't so utterly loathsome. The entire movie I was hoping that he'd put that stupid sword down and let someone kill him! He does very little heroic things in the movie. He's a beefy, disgusting, stupid thing. He has less redeeming qualities than the villains do. And what was it with all the naked chicks? I mean, I love naked chicks just as much as the next guy, but this movie went a tad overboard in that department.<br /><br />Well, anyway, if you love bad movies and can stand a disgusting "hero" then I'm sure you'll like this schlock of a film.
Wha-BAM! Someone surely had fun devouring a whole truckload of acid-mushrooms and then subsequently scripting this crazy excuse for a motion picture! Writer Howard Cohen expands the "Sword & Sorcery" concept with a couple of extra S's, like Sex, Silliness, (more) Sex and Sheer Stupidity! This isn't just a movie, this is every juvenile pervert's dreams & fantasies come true! "Deathstalker" has it all: blood, violence, trolls, female mud-wrestling, attempted rape, successful rape, life-sized pigs (!), awful hairstyles, hideously oiled muscular bodies, multi-sexual orgies, gay warriors, tournaments-to-the-death, delirious witches, dismemberment, laughable villains and boobs, boobs, BOOOOOOOOOBIES!! "Deathstalker" literally wipes the floor with its obvious role-model "Conan: The Barbarian" when it comes to terms of cheesiness and sheer flamboyance. The story is, evidently, of minor importance. Lone and gay (only he doesn't know it yet) warrior Deathstalker goes on a mission, as commanded by an annoying witch, to gather the three notorious elements of creation… or something like that. On his journey he combines forces with a troll-turned-human, a fighter who's even gayer than he is and - last but not least - a luscious lady who doesn't really seem to be a big support of the concept of bras. Together they head for the kingdom of the ultimately evil Munkar where they'll participate in a warriors' tournament and conquer no less than two out of three elements. Munkar is bald guy with half a spider's web tattooed on his skull and an impressive harem that would even make the wealthiest oil sheik jealous. Okay, granted, "Deathstalker" is a pretty damn awful and at some times even unendurable movie. The fight sequences are lame and the costumes and make-up effects are downright pitiable. For a moment, when beholding the opening sequence, I actually feared I was watching "Troll; the Prequel". The monsters look incredibly cheesy and the complete opposite as menacing, but it's undeniable entertainment if you're in an undemanding mood. I presume this isn't a favorite amongst feminists, as the overall portrayal of women is somewhat …um…discriminating. Most of the gals exclusively serve as eye-candy in the harem. They're allowed crawl over the floor naked and play around in the mud, but strictly forbidden to open their mouths. The two "leading" ladies (Barbi Benton and Lana Clarkson) are ravishing but - in all honesty - if it wouldn't be for their continuously exposed racks, they would hardly be worth mentioning, either.
I don't recall walking out of a movie theater except this once. Not only that, but I was with 7 friends, and we all wanted to go. An uninteresting plot, characters made of clay, violence with no point. I didn't care when the good guys died; I didn't care when the bad guys got it. The fantasy and magic was laid on thick as liver pudding and there was no coherency. In short, fine entertainment if you happen to be spending an eternity in Hell.
I saw the MST3K version of "Deathstalker III" and loved the movie so much -- even "unmystied" -- that I decided to watch the entire series of "Deathstalker" films. I bought I and II and settled down for a laugh.<br /><br />Nothing about "Deathstalker I" was funny on any level and when the credits rolled I was embarrassed and regretful that I had bought it! Too much ugliness and nudity. I guess either "DS 3" was a much cleaner production or MST3K really edited a lot because I expected something similar, i.e. stupid and carefree and simple. I was wrong. Even at $6.99 it seemed a waste of money. I didn't even open "DS 2" as I will return it tomorrow. Now I'll probably just throw away this DVD as I can't return it and no one wants it -- including myself! So really, don't bother with this one. Even the nudity (lots of it, btw) is uninspiring and icky.
This is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen, everything about it is weak and incoherent. The acting is absurd, the costumes even crummier and the story is non-existent. This 'poverty row' sword and adventure film was meant to capture some of the success that "Beastmaster" and "Conan" enjoyed but it doesn't give us any reason to follow along. The lead character is tepid and dull, he can't even fight with a sword and the sword is from the 16th Century. All the action sequences are like that, slow and unrealistic, not to mention the castle and the horribly dated music playing whenever they are riding a horse. Don't even bother with this crap.
Imagine turning the American national anthem into a cartoon. Throw in a couple of cute animals, some terrible puns and a pair of roller skates and you'd find yourself with almost an exact replica of this film.<br /><br />I remember seeing this when I was younger; I made my Mother rent it from the video shop about 5 times. The story itself isn't too bad, it's just that any Marxists watching would certainly have something to complain about.<br /><br />If you don't like America you won't like this film.
Living in the Middle East (in Israel), I was excited when I bought my ticket for Syriana. Having seen the trailer, and being a thriller-lover, I expected to see first of all a fast moving, breath catching movie, which wisely dips in global policy-making and the relation between oil, power and corruption, from a fresh angle. Well, I almost left the movie in the middle. The pace was painfully slow, almost all characters were stereotyped, the intertwined editing made understanding the logic very difficult, but, as Steve Rhodes wrote in his review, in the end you don't care. Save your money, save your time, choose another movie.<br /><br />Robi Chernitsky
Syriana swept the critics upon release and everything seemed to be raving about it. I suppose it's one of those films that is intensely intelligent...so intelligent that I think you need to be well versed in the oil industry and a politically brilliant mind. I don't consider myself unintelligent, I've been studying politics since my early teens and I enjoy an intelligent film but for the most part unless it's a documentary films are meant to be primarily entertaining as well as have a message. Syriana tried to be strictly intelligent and it does turn some people away. I would even go so far as to say that those who rave about it and insist it's a 10/10 are lying because they think they look better. This film was the most confusing, senseless, mindless dribble I have seen in awhile...Especially considering the critical acclaim, the Oscar nods, and the cast. Screenplay writer Stephen Gaghan has disappointed me yet again. His horribly written Havoc preceded this film and I think he's just trying way too hard. I can't believe he was offered the opportunity to write the Da Vinci Code screenplay. On top of that Gaghan directed the film which made it an absolute mess. I had no idea who anyone was, why things were happening, who was who and what was what. It was a disaster.<br /><br />Because I don't really know who anyone was I can only mention the actors and what I thought of their performances because despite the horrendously complicated script the actors did alright. George Clooney plays C.I.A. field agent and assassin I think?? Bob Barnes. Clooney has never been a favorite of mine but lately he's managed to churn out some decent performances and this seemed to be a pretty good performance on his part. Barnes was a complex character with a sordid history and if I knew what was going on with him I would have really enjoyed his character. Matt Damon plays Bryan Woodman and he is rather bland and always looks like a deer in the headlights which I can understand his confusion after reading this script and then trying to perform it. Amanda Peet plays his wife and she does well in the few scenes she is given. Christopher Plummer makes a cameo appearance as someone doing something. I like Plummer and love seeing him show up even if he doesn't get top billing anymore.<br /><br />The cast is intense if only the story made sense. I'd like to exact quote the description of plot on IMDb. "A missile disappears in Iran, but the CIA has other problems: the heir to an Emirate gives an oil contract to China, cutting out a US company that promptly fires its immigrant workers and merges with a small firm that has landed a Kazakhstani oil contract. The Department of Justice suspects bribery, and the oil company's law firm finds a scapegoat. The CIA also needs one when its plot to kill the Emir-apparent fails. Agent Bob Barnes, the fall guy, sorts out the double cross. An American economist parlays the death of his son into a contract to advise the sheik the CIA wants dead. The jobless Pakistanis join a fundamentalist group. All roads start and end in the oil fields." WHAT!?!? Say who now?? Syriana might be the thinking man's movie but it bored me to tears and no matter how hard I tried to stay with it I eventually surrendered and turned it off after an hour and a half and you couldn't have bribed me enough to get me to finish it. I suppose if you want to form an opinion than by all means watch it but I promise you someone looking for entertainment or an enjoyable film will be asleep in the first half hour. 1/10
Seldom do I give up on a movie without seeing the entire show. This is particularly true when I have rented it on DVD. Syriana was one in which I did give up. Half way through I turned it off in bored disgust.<br /><br />This movie is disjointed, boring, confusing and lackluster. The acting was dry and without credible portrayals. The general plot was good but developed in such an insipid and boring fashion that it failed to grasp my attention or interest. The multiple sub plots often failed to connect to each other and seemed more like random stories than an actual connected plot. Too bad such a serious subject and such great actors could create such a flop. I cannot imagine this movie receiving any nominations much less an award.
Simply put: the movie is boring. Cliché upon cliché is confirmed and story lines never come together. It seems as if the director was unsure whether to make a movie or a documentary. The main plot is very thin (a CIA agent is ordered to kill an oil prince, gets caught and then warns the prince (why?)) and therefore some elements were added to make the movie more interesting. So, a kid dies, which results in the "natural" response of the father: freely advising the person indirectly responsible for his son's death. The lawyer has a drunk "friend" and keeps him around, why, no one knows. Some kids become suicide terrorists and blow up a ship.<br /><br />All in all, this is one of the worst movies I have seen in quite a while. I was neither entertained nor intellectually challenged. I neither laughed nor cried, I did not gain an understanding nor was I compelled to learn more or take up a cause. It meant nothing to me, which in my eyes is the worst one can say about a movie.
This movie was slower then Molasses in January... in Alaska. The man who put togeather the preview should get an award for managing to put every one of the 30 seconds that were interisting into the preview. I had to wake up the people I was watching it with, several times. After it was over, I felt bad for having woken them up. <br /><br />Most of the film is taken up with hoping something will actually happen, but nothing ever does. It was easy to loose track of people's motives, and the characters were flat and uninteristing. By the end of the movie, you just hoped everyone would died. Everyone runs around either being contemptible, petty, or pitiful, and usually all three. <br /><br />And worse, we watched a minute or two of the added features, just for kicks and giggles you understand, and all that we saw was people being smug about how socially aware they are. If they had spend the time on the movie that they did patting themselves on the back, it might have been worth watching. <br /><br />I was brought in expecting the excitement of '24.' I got a lecture on social awareness through the blery eyes of the sandman.
I couldn't wait to receive the DVD after hearing so much about the film. What a disappointment! This became one of the most confusing films I've ever viewed. There were so many characters introduced, some resembling others, that it became impossible to follow the story line. I could not understand how George Clooney received an acting award for the film since he was hardly involved, at least in the first half of the movie. My wife and I gave up after about an hour of misery and stopped the DVD. I might have considered fast forwarding to see if the ending was any better but after so much confusion decided that chances for improvement were slim. A co-worker told me that a lot of the movie "comes together" in the last minute or less. I was glad I didn't waste another hour, waiting. I gave the DVD away the following day.
Exceedingly complicated and drab. I'm a bright guy, but this was just too much for a tired brain. It would really benefit from a few early clues as to who these people are and what they are doing. Probably better for the US market. GC himself hinted that this alone did not supply his Oscar and you can see why.<br /><br />Still the sand dunes are pretty. The nail pulling is nasty. The attorneys drunk dad is a mystery. The cricket is good to see.<br /><br />Very difficult to write the required ten lines on this, despite it being over 2 hours long. Thank heavens they shortened it. Admittedly we don't get to the pictures much, but the last film we saw, Walk the Line, was 10 times better and I don't really like Johnny Cash. My wife says George still looks good with the beard and a few extra pounds so there's that.....am I nearly there yet ?<br /><br />How about now
This movie, supposedly a thriller, had about five sub-plots that developed simultaneously to climax at the end, but it ended up more as a yawn.<br /><br />The writing was trite, the pace was slow and disjointed and the characters were boring. George Clooney looks like he needs to get into a gym, Matt Damon hammed it up and the others seemed to read their lines from a teleprompter.<br /><br />The worst part of this movie was that it was carefully crafted to be politically correct and so it ended up saying nothing at all about big business, oil and the Middle-East. I have seen documentaries provide more excitement. Watch it only if there's absolutely nothing else to do.
OK Hollywood is not liberal.<br /><br />Obviously I'm lieing because it is. Im a conservative but the politics i will leave out of my opinion of the movie. This movie was anti bush, anti middle east , anti big oil propaganda but that is not why it was bad.<br /><br />Fist off i will give credit where credit is due. i saw this film opening night because i happen to like these kinds of films and am a political science major in collage. The cinematography was excellent and the acting was as far as i could tell very good.<br /><br />The plot was impossible for me to decode however. I have been tested and have an IQ of 138 but no matter how hard i tried there was no way i could piece together the story line of the movie and what characters where doing what.<br /><br />The story and scene sequence was totally incoherent and poorly organized.<br /><br />Unless this is one of those movies that is meant to be watch many times to get the full depth pf the story, which it very well may be, i have no idea exactly what was going on.<br /><br />Which makes sense because if you want to make a political argument and not receive any criticism then make your argument impossible to critique! If you cant dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with Bull S.
I saw this film last night following a lot of good reviews from many sources. I would like to point out that if your not ready to try and work out continuously who is who and what it all means you will hate this film.<br /><br />I am still struggling to understand the roles of the actors in this film, the film jumps from different stories and does not allow you to really empathise with any of the roles.<br /><br />For the political buff's and those interested in corruption in other world governments out there this film is probably quite good, but to the average movie watcher this film is awkward,very boring in places and you will leave the cinema confused and annoyed that you paid the entrance fee.<br /><br />see it if your ready to focus 100% on every minute detail or politics interest you. don't see it, if you actually like watching films.
Contrary to most other comments about "Syriana" on the IMDb web-site, I and my family found watching this film on DVD at home a complete waste of time and space.<br /><br />In short, this was a film based on a script whose writer was being too clever by far. Rather than trying to tell a complex story in an intelligent and clear manner, it was assumed that constantly throwing mostly vague and hard to connect with each other 30-second vignettes of different story-lines from a dozen or so "story-lines" at the audience made for great and clear viewing. No, sir, it does not. What does make for great viewing is total clarity, precision, plots and story-lines - and characterisations - which have a beginning, a middle, and an end.<br /><br />This kind of cinematic presentation - akin to the Dim Sum experience in a Chinese restaurant - is pretentious and unintelligent in the extreme.<br /><br />Thank goodness, then, for the TV and DVD presentations of the Hollywood and British film noirs of the 1940s and 1950s whose writers, director, and actors knew the value of clear story telling, diction, and acting that meant something.<br /><br />This is one DVD that this family will not be sitting through again.
We gave up at the point where George Clooney's character has his finger-nails extracted. We were not squeamish - having sat through an hour of this drivel we just knew what it felt like. To say this film was incomprehensible, boring, pretentious twaddle would be to over-praise it! How did people manage to sit through this confusing, slow, depressing pseud's corner of a film, let alone nominate it for an Oscar? Clooney looked as ill as we felt watching him. What was he thinking? Oh .. and what was with those subtitles? - did we just have a dud DVD or was the original film done like that - sentences left hanging in mid-air? The film was hard enough to follow without that as well. I pity the cast, who obviously did their best with the material available.
Considering how much money was budgeted for this film, you would expect more from the story as a whole. This could be quite possibly the most worthless movie I have ever watched. There was no real advancement of anything. Character development, minimal. Plot advancement, maybe. Enjoyment, none. I'm not sure what points were even trying to be made. If you want to see a movie where terrorists are kinda good guys, American CIA bombs everything that doesn't agree with our opinions, all capitalists are corrupt, and you like to see anything resembling a storyboard advancement accompanied by a death, have at. For those of us who realize that it doesn't take killing off a good guy to make a point, we'll stick to other movies. In summary, this was a horrible attempt at an 'Ocean's 11' style hide-the-plot-so-person-has-to- think movie because not only do you not know what's going on, nobody who made the movie did either. Home Alone 3 was a better cinematic piece.
This film's premise is so simple and obvious that only a Texas millionaire high on oil fumes and whiskey would have a problem understanding it if someone shouted it across the proverbial parking lot. In summary: the oil business is in cahoots with The Government (or Gummint if you prefer), the Gummint is in cahoots with Middle Eastern despots, and the CIA is a singular festering pool of double dealing sons-of-(insert word) willing to toe any line that comes their way. The only people that get done over are the good ones, like Mr Clooney ("Bob"). Oh, and terrorism is a result of the poverty which globalization creates when wicked multinationals stalk the world looking for a tasty takeover or three . That really fits to the profiles of the well-heeled 9/11 perpetrators.<br /><br />In Syriana this facile tissue of political half-truths and Hollywood holograms is stirred up in a repugnant vermicelli of story strands that twist, turn and whirl through the gloopy circumlocutions of their own insignificance until the poor viewer is left alone with the conclusion that: <br /><br />1. the "director" (good joke) should never be let near a camera again <br /><br />2. people like Clooney and Hurt might know how to act, but they sure don't know how to pick a script <br /><br />3. if you want to see a film that deals with corruption in big business and the state, go and see Claude Chabrol's "L'ivresse du pouvoir", which is insightful, funny and brilliantly acted. <br /><br />Empty, doom-laden sententious piffle spun out to evening-ruining length.
It seems that Salvatores couldn't decide what to do with this movie: some of it is a very weak thriller (and I say very, very weak), some of it is an attempt to explore the relationships between the main characters. Both things have been tried in psychological thrillers, but in this case the movie cannot hold things together, due to poor, superficial scripting, bad acting and a too dark, too dull cinematography. I'd say that Salvatores gave his best in other genres and in other settings, where he was free to look at the characters without having to think about the plot. On the whole, a B-movie, hardly worth your money... Vote: 4/10
Apparently Shakespeare equals high brow which equals in turn a bunch of folks not seeing something for what it really is. At one point in this film, someone (I believe Pacino's producer) warns him that film is getting off track, that it was once about how the masses think about Shakespeare through the vehicle of RICHARD III. Instead he decides to shoot a chopped up play with random comments sprinkled throughout. Some scenes seemed to be included as home movies for Al (was there really ANY reason for the quick visit to Shakespeare's birthplace, other than for a laugh about something unexpected which happens there?), and, before the film has really even begun, we are treated to seeing Al prance around and act cute and funny for the camera. I thought his silly act with Kay near the end of GODFATHER III with the knife to his throat was AN ACT - but apparently it's how Al really behaves in person.<br /><br />Enough rambling. Here's a shotgun smattering of why I didn't even make it 3/4 of the way through this: 1) pretentious - Al always knows when the camera is on him, whether he's acting as Richard or in a 'real' conversation with someone - you can see it in the corner of his eyes, also, some of the actors around the rehearsal table become untethered and wax hammy to the extreme. If anyone reading this has ever spent any time with an group of actors and has witnessed this kind of thing from the outside, it's unbearable. "Look at me, chewing all the scenery!" 2) Winona Ryder. When she appears as Lady Anne, this film comes to a screeching halt, which it never recovers from. She has nothing to add in the discussion scenes but the camera lingers on her to bring in the kiddoes. Her performance is dreadful, to boot. 3) the only things you really learn from this are told to you by the very scholars the filmmakers are trying to keep out of the picture. Of course, you also learn that Pacino shouldn't be directing films (or doing Richard in the first place). I'd rather watch BOBBY DEERFIELD than this.<br /><br />Lastly, read the play and learn it for yourself. Go out and see it performed. In 1997 I saw the play performed at the University of Washington Ethnic Cultural Theater, and it made what we see in this film seem like high school drama (except for the gratuitous throat slashing of Clarence! My God! Was that necessary?!)<br /><br />It's all just a bunch of sound and fury, signifying nada.
I remember watching this on prime time when I was about 7 years old. I was a huge comic book reader at the time, and anything relating to superheroes was anticipated heavily. The end result, however, was underwhelming.<br /><br />I was aware of the "Emma Peel" Diana Prince stories, as they had only recently come to an end and Diana was returned to her Amazonian form. However, there was so little action that I was bored throughout most of the movie. The final costume was an interesting idea, but looked more like a cheerleader than a superhero.<br /><br />I saw the movie again in my late teen years. It hadn't improved much. Cathy Lee Crosby was more familiar, thanks to That's Incredible, but her acting was no better. The script had a few good ideas, like the rogue Amazon, and a decent villain in Ricardo Montalban, but it just didn't come together and was still boring.<br /><br />I think they should have built the back story better, and built the show into a more epic climax. It was too much like a bland spy film, crossed with a superhero story written by someone who had never seen a comic book. The Amazon elements were intriguing, but needed to be expanded.<br /><br />The film did succeed in forcing producers to go back to the drawing board and come up with something more faithful, if a bit too camp and low budget. The budget was also pretty low here, and superheroes don't come cheap.<br /><br />It would be nice to have the movie available on DVD, if only as a comparison and historical document. Even Superman 4 is available, and it has nothing over this film (except Chris Reeve and Gene Hackman). It's worth seeing for curiosity sake and for a bit of inspiration and caution for future versions.
I've been reading posts here concerning Wonder Woman's costume for this TV movie. It should be pointed out at the time the movie was made, she wasn't wearing her traditional outfit. The producers were actually sticking to the comic book writer's conception of WW for the early seventies.<br /><br />As for the movie itself, I have to agree with many of the other posters here. Snoozefest! I was a kid when it appeared on ABC in 1974, so I was at the right age to have appreciated a movie about a comic book hero. Yet I was so "engrossed" with the plot, I stopped watching it three quarters into the movie.<br /><br />Of course, I wasn't at the right age to appreciate Cathy Lee! :-)
I had always been a big Lynda Carter-Wonder Woman fan so when the Sci-Fi Channel ran this movie,I had to see it.I was bitterly disappointed.This is a Wonder Woman movie in name only.She doesn't wear the right costume [she must have refused to or had ordered major changes] and the plot runs like a poor man's James Bond.There's none of the things that made the comic book heroine a success i.e. the superhuman strength or determined will.It's just one long bad dream.I don't even think Cathy is all that attractive anyway.I wouldn't waste your time on this.
This movie is so bad that I cannot even begin to describe it. What in the blazing pit is wrong with the writers, producers and director? How on earth did they get funding for this abomination? The plot is laughable, the acting is poor at best, the story... What story? The first fight in this movie is OK but then it keeps repeating itself until you want to turn it off.<br /><br />I guess I'm the biggest looser for not turning this stupid movie off after the first minute.<br /><br />*** SPOLER ALERT ***<br /><br />I only saw this movie because Scott Adkins was in it... and he is in it... for 30 seconds...<br /><br />I give it 1 out of 10 because it's the lowest grade IMDb has to offer.<br /><br />Do yourself a favour: See an Uwe Boll movie instead... twice... it's more worthy of your time.
This movie is hilarious, not in good way. The fights are awfully bad done, while sometimes they will try to shock you by breaking some bones, and even this happens only two or three times, definitely not enough to call it a shockmovie. A gunfight means a hero can walk into an open field with 10 people shooting at him with uzi's, pick up a gun, start shooting back and not get hurt. <br /><br />The story empty, guy waking up, lost his memory, starts fighting cos that's what he's good at. Five years later memories come back, takes revenge blablabla. <br /><br />Not worth your buck, not really worth your time unless you're drunk and bored.
Ten minutes worth of story stretched out into the better part of two hours. When nothing of any significance had happened at the halfway point I should have left. But, ever hopeful, I stayed. And left with a feeling of guilt for having wasted the time. Acting was OK, but the story line is so transparent and weak. The script is about as lame as it could get, but again, stretching out the ten minute plot doesn't leave a whole lot of room for good dialogue.
Sondra Locke stinks in this film, but then she was an awful 'actress' anyway. Unfortunately, she drags everyone else (including then =real life boyfriend Clint Eastwood down the drain with her. But what was Clint Eastwood thinking when he agreed to star in this one? One read of the script should have told him that this one was going to be a real snorer. It's an exceptionally weak story, basically no story or plot at all. Add in bored, poor acting, even from the normally good Eastwood. There's absolutely no action except a couple arguments and as far as I was concerned, this film ranks up at the top of the heap of natural sleep enhancers. Wow! Could a film BE any more boring? I think watching paint dry or the grass grow might be more fun. A real stinker. Don't bother with this one.
Clint Eastwood is Bronco Billy, the leader of a Wild West troupe, one of six regular misfits who comprise a struggling-to-break-even touring show. The seventh member of the bunch is a woman, Billy's assistant, but such women never last long, and the position is chronically open. Enter Antoinette Lilly (Sandra Locke – Eastwood's girlfriend at the time). It seems Miss Lilly, as Doc (Scatman Crothers) calls her, is a would-be heiress who will only receive her long-deceased father's estate if she's married by the time she turns 30, so on the eve of that birthday she gets hitched to the cartoonish Geoffrey Lewis.<br /><br />So, what's the plot of this film? It's hard to say. There's the romantic tension between Billy and Miss Lilly, but the problem is that for the first half of the movie she's so haughtily insipid and detestable that when she suddenly becomes 'one of the troupe' halfway through the film, it's not only unbelievable, but the audience is well past caring about her. There's the chronic lack of funds behind the Wild West show, but this topic isn't touched upon enough to really be the raison d'etre of the film. There's Miss Lilly's predicament of being stranded in the rural west, cut off from the funds that fuel her spoiled life of luxury (she's mistakenly believed to be dead by her family and the press). But are we really supposed to believe that she couldn't get back to New York and her waiting fortune if she gave it a bit of effort?<br /><br />No, the point of this film seems to be that Billy is the leader of a family, a lovable bunch of losers who hang together through thick and thin. This is a warm, fuzzy film – or at least tries to be. <br /><br />Along the way, Clint shows us his skills with a gun, even foiling a bank robbery in a shooting that is grotesquely out of place in an otherwise relatively non-violent film. One of the gang is arrested on an old draft evasion charge; Billy bribes the local sheriff. The show's tent burns down; an orphanage makes them a new one. But numerous mundane pitfalls do not a plot make.<br /><br />Compounding the problem is the acting, or lack thereof. Aside from Scatman Crothers, the supporting cast is quite amateurish. Eastwood isn't on top of his game either, though he looks better simply by virtue of being surrounded by such a lackluster bunch.<br /><br />And for all this, the film plods on for 116 minutes. To what point? Good question … <br /><br />4 out of 10
Sondra Locke stinks in this film, but then she was an awful 'actress' anyway. Unfortunately, she drags everyone else (including then =real life boyfriend Clint Eastwood down the drain with her. But what was Clint Eastwood thinking when he agreed to star in this one? One read of the script should have told him that this one was going to be a real snorer. It's an exceptionally weak story, basically no story or plot at all. Add in bored, poor acting, even from the normally good Eastwood. There's absolutely no action except a couple arguments and as far as I was concerned, this film ranks up at the top of the heap of natural sleep enhancers. Wow! Could a film BE any more boring? I think watching paint dry or the grass grow might be more fun. A real stinker. Don't bother with this one.
I appreciate a think positive feel good about yourself film, but this is too much. In the end they look like a bunch of loonies. This film is one of those finding yourself 70's plots, I know the film is made in 1980. A lot more of Clint and girl friend movie. This movie is a 3/10.
This was one of those films that got a ton of play on the airwaves in the early 1970's, usually on the "4am Movie" or one time, on the 7:30 PM "Channel 6 Big Movie" and still another on Creature Double Feature.WHen local channels used to run movies as part of their local programming(mostly gone today in favor of infomercial time) It was of the time. A couple of low-rent Abbott and Costello wannabees(Frankie Ray and Robert Ball) are in a platoon of soldiers(half a dozen guys in Army Surplus remainders) who are sent on field maneuvers to look into some strange radiation, and wind up encountering extraterrestrials. They first go into Bronson Canyon to what would be later the famous Batcave on BATMAN, and encounter the remains of a dead "carrot monster". Later, in the cave they're chased by a living carrot creature-basically a guy in black suit and paper mache head, with sparkly things on it and ping-pong ball eyes. Two of them-complete geeks,Ray and Ball-are captured and wake up tied to tables and are being "examined" by space amazons-Dr Poona(nooo kidding!) and Professor Tanga who are stunningly beautiful and even moreso in their skimpy bikini "uniforms". We were too young at the time,to realize what later bondage and fetish scenarios this "examination" scene would more than suggest. Turns out that the two gals and their carrot monster, are stranded on earth with a ship that's well hidden and are trying to return to their world.<br /><br />The film was made as a total comedy with varying degrees of taste but remember this was of the time when Eric Von Zipper and his crew from Frankie and Annette's films, were the height of B-film, drive-in comedy.So it only seemed a natural to jump on the bandwagon for some quick bucks.<br /><br />For some reason I only thought I'd imagined seeing this film to start with. No, I really saw it. And when it was released on "restored" DVD I was assured in my memory. The comedy goes from mildly funny to just plain stupid, but whatever.The budget is non-existent, which, is a minor miracle when you think about it, that it even got made and we can talk about a "restored" version here and now-over 40 years later. The payoff is the girls who want to learn about "love" and "kissing" and, the upshot is the geeks-which all of us were- get the girls and love wins out. It's just goofy and silly and for the locations, has nostalgic significance.
Gloria Victor and Dolores Reed in space girl costumes.<br /><br />I love 50 sci fi, I even love cheesy 50s sci fi, but this film is really, really bad. And not in a MST3K kinda way.<br /><br />Virtually unwatchable as a couple of bozos do their best "hip cat" impression of Abott & Costello.<br /><br />Chessecake can usually save cheesy sci fi, such as in "Cat Women On The Moon" but it can't in this case. This film requires a mute button and fast forward feature.<br /><br />That said, I could watch Gloria and Dolores walk around the space ship for about an hour or so.
- Let me start by saying that I understand that Invasion of the Star Creatures was meant to be a parody of the sci-fi films of the 50s. I understand that none of it is to be taken seriously. The problem I have is that none of it works. A parody should be funny and this one just isn't. Not once during the entire runtime did I so much as crack a smile. In general, I am easily entertained, but I couldn't find a sliver of entertainment anywhere in Invasion of the Star Creatures.<br /><br />- I knew I was in trouble right from the beginning. The two "stars" make their screen appearance with one of the lamest gags imaginable - a water hose they can't control that gets them both wet. These two come off as Bowery Boys wannabes. Why anyone would want to mime the act and persona of the Bowery Boys is beyond me. After the less than illustrious beginning, the movies goes on to feature comical chase sequences, dancing Indians, vegetable men, decoder rings, and other assorted unfunny bits. It's all just a complete waste of time.<br /><br />- I bought this on the double feature DVD with Invasion of the Bee Girls. That movie is Academy Award winning stuff in comparison with Invasion of the Star Creatures.
Invasion of the Star Creatures would definitely be in the "so bad it's good" category if the film wasn't quite so sexist or racist. That it is such just makes it plain bad.<br /><br />It has the same kind of hardline stereotypical sexism that you saw in Queen of Outer Space, and the kind of racist stereotypes (in this instance, Native Americans) that you would normally find in thirties & forties b-westerns. In terms of being non-funny, the same walking-through-the-cave gag is repeated well over ten times during the course of this fairly short movie. Ray does do one good impression of Jimmy Cagney (but can't make it work for two impressions of Cagney in a row, nor handle a Peter Lorre when he tries it). There really aren't any production values to speak of, as the "Star Creatures" make the Ro-Man from Robot Monster or Tor Johnson in Plan 9 from Outer Space look like creations of Industrial Light and Magic.<br /><br />This film was definitely one of a vanguard of what you would have to call early independent cinema...not artsy enough for those theaters and not good enough for anything but the last feature of an all-night drive-in.<br /><br />
Some things need to be clarified. The picture of Mark Ferris is not the Mark Ferris who starred in this movie. I know that because he was my dad. Please remove that picture. Also, Mark Ferris was the writer, at least one of them. I have been trying to find a copy or a way to see this movie again. It has been years and if someone can point me in the direction of obtaining a copy, that would be great. The movie wasn't all that bad, and trying to compare it to todays world of Star Wars and other high tech sci fi's it futile. If you watch it, just enjoy it for the rediculousness and humor it possesses. Lighten up on being movie snobs and enjoy some less creative and innovated films.
This is the worst brain damaged, ultra cheap, super stupid, silly, pointless piece of trash I've ever seen, an unbelievable garbage of instant cult status among fans of the bizarre. If you think that Ed Wood's "Plan 9" is bad, well... let me tell you, looks like "Citizen Kane" compared to that one. ¿Special effects?...again, "Plan 9" is "Star Wars". ¿Acting?...Thor Johnson is Al Pacino... so it's beyond bad, really. But if you are looking for that kind of incredible movies, it's for you! I'm a fan of American International for so many glorious horror movies, the Price-Corman-Poe saga and some great blaxploitation stuff, but with "Star Creatures" they descend right down to the Z level. Of course, my 1 out of 10 works in reverse if you like to watch bad movies for fun (the guy playing an Indian chief is great) so have fun and enjoy... if you can.
The first "Home Alone" was one of the funniest movies of the 90's. The second was just as funny with the same cast and jokes! Now comes "Home Alone 3". I was curious how they could continue with the same story considering Kevin would've been 17 by 1997. He could take care of himself, right? So, what does the director decide to do? He takes a child just as annoying and makes him sick. The kid is like 6 years old and the mother leaves him alone in the house? What kind of team of burgerlers are these idiots? I don't really want to get too into detail if you want to sadly see this movie. But please, I'd recommend that you'd stay away from it. It's not worth your precious time. Go fold a piece of paper, do chores, balance a pencil on your nose, or take a nap! It's better to do then to watch "Home Alone 3"!<br /><br />1/10
Beating the bad guys... Again is the tag line for this movie, it exposes so much truth about it.<br /><br />Home Alone one and two, film classics. Home Alone three and four, a good film if you're three! Like Sharkboy and Lavagirl, as hard as it tries to be funny, it's not. Culkin is replaced by Alex D'Linz or something else. He's a very bland actor with bland performances, but it's not entirely his fault, the writing called for bland vocabulary and bland expressions. The pranks are just copied from the first two with different crooks, and you'd have to be blind to think those chicken pox are real. A good choice if you are a preschool teacher in which is showing this film on a rainy day. And to make things worst, a totally different cast, go see if you don't believe me, but you'll regret it.
'Home Alone 3' is the first of the Home Alone movies not to feature Culkin in the main role and the same villains. However, the plot is very similar to the original 'Home Alone' film. Instead of two comical villains, we get three or four of them. This film involves some traps, but it also has a long scene with a remote-control car. The slapstick humour is consistent as well, but the young boy and the villains really fail to make an impact in this film. (No pun intended.) This film offers nothing new or different than the previous films did, and there really is not the warm, holiday feeling or subplots that the other two films had. It's more of a pure comedy, but it did not succeed in making me laugh as the characters really did not do it for me. I would not recommend this film; it's pretty boring. If you are seeking a good holiday family film with comedy, then watch the original 'Home Alone' movie.
The first Home Alone was a decent enough film... the sequel was pretty much the same, at a new setting. This one tries to be original, and succeeds to some degree... of course, the formula is basically the same, so it's like watching the same movie for a third time with slightly altered plot. The new score is quite bad(though the new "setting traps" piece was, if nothing else, interesting and different), especially compared to the grand score of the first, and the almost-but-not-quite-as-good score of the second. It (almost) makes up for it by using some pretty good non-original music, but it's just not the same. The plot is fair, and somewhat original to the franchise, but it's still basically the same movie as the first two, with worse acting and a less impressive example of the 'scary character turning out to be good'. The acting is mostly unimpressive. The characters are mostly caricatures. The new thieves are less entertaining than the old ones(and they make fun of spy-stuff, which is almost criminal, given the limited amount of good spy flicks there are, and how precious few of them are cool). The fact that there are more of them(and thereby more traps) is just a weak attempt at trying to go one higher than the first two films... and it doesn't work. The idea behind the thieves and their mission is a tad too... adult and serious for a children's film(and there was a sexual joke or two, though that isn't the first time in the series). It's also unnecessarily complex, as is the plot in general. I could follow it, but I doubt a kid could. Some of the exposition are delivered so obviously that even children may find it stupid. The animal stuff is generally not amusing. There are fewer siblings, which should mean that those there are get developed more, but they have less personality than the least featured of those of the first two films. All in all, just not particularly good, or worth watching, unless you *really* love watching criminals getting hurt in cartoon-y violence. I recommend this to huge fans of the series only. 3/10
Alex D. Linz replaces Macaulay Culkin as the central figure in the third movie in the Home Alone empire. Four industrial spies acquire a missile guidance system computer chip and smuggle it through an airport inside a remote controlled toy car. Because of baggage confusion, grouchy Mrs. Hess (Marian Seldes) gets the car. She gives it to her neighbor, Alex (Linz), just before the spies turn up. The spies rent a house in order to burglarize each house in the neighborhood until they locate the car. Home alone with the chicken pox, Alex calls 911 each time he spots a theft in progress, but the spies always manage to elude the police while Alex is accused of making prank calls. The spies finally turn their attentions toward Alex, unaware that he has rigged devices to cleverly booby-trap his entire house. Home Alone 3 wasn't horrible, but probably shouldn't have been made, you can't just replace Macauley Culkin, Joe Pesci, or Daniel Stern. Home Alone 3 had some funny parts, but I don't like when characters are changed in a movie series, view at own risk.
In 1987, John Hughes wrote and directed 'Planes, Trains and Automobiles', which was a hilarious and poignant comedy – the best thing he's ever done. Ten years on he's reduced to again recycling the plot of 'Home Alone' in this second sequel, which is not connected to the other films but is equally uninspired and sadistic. The four crooks – that's right, four! And one of them is a girl! Congratulations, Hughes, for introducing this revolutionary change to the series! – are electrocuted with metal chairs, brained with barbells and blinded with paint, ha ha ha haaaaaaaa ha, while the new kid is even less charming than Culkin. You'd think that the departure of almost all the key players from the first two films would stop Hughes from fossilising the same old routines, but the only surprise is that not even he turned up for 'Home Alone 4'.
I like to keep my reviews short and simple, but this pretty much sums it up. You can not beat the original two for a number of reasons one of which including the directing talent of Chris Columbous.<br /><br />This movie had terrible directing covered up by even more terrible acting. I cant even believe these people are considered actors.<br /><br />Painful to sit through and watch. The storyline was a complete joke about a secret chip and Russian terrorists on a painstaking quest to get it back. Horrible, rent one of the original tow and enjoy yourself! <br /><br />The movie wasn't even set during Christmas like the original. Home Alone was turned from an excellent Christmas time family comedy movie to a joke with no moral or plot!
This is the worst ripoff of Home Alone movies that I have EVER seen! Watch part 1 and two, but don't let anyone say that this is BETTER than the first two! I mean, really, you don't make a movie, then make a sequel with the same characters and actors, and then make another sequel with DIFFERENT characters and actors! I mean, it would have been OK if this wan't a "Home Alone" movie, but they DID make it a Home Alone movie. Culkin is too old now, so you're suppose to STOP making sequels! Goodness, this movie makes me SICK! Buy part 1 and 2.
I would like to say that curiosity got the best of me. If only I saw a trailer, I'd be able to tell you the whole plot of the movie; I could have saved myself the most pointless one hour and forty minutes in my entire life, and about twenty dollars. This movie was a disaster waiting to happen, and it is an embarrassment to Hollywood.<br /><br />The movie displays a vivid ignorance of reality. For example, this kid's remote control race car goes all over the neighborhood, and even enters this house. It's even covered with clothes. Is it not rational to believe that a remote can no longer transmit a signal under those circumstances? Hollywood obviously did not believe so. Common logic and any concept of electronics dictates the opposite; I doubt the race car could even have reached the street, let alone a house across the street. Another unrealistic trait is the lack of intelligence the criminals possess. Why is it in all these movies, these criminals are rocket scientists until they encounter an eight-year old? The kid is meant to be the most intelligent person in the movie instead of professional terrorists? Please, there's more reality in The Matrix. Also, the leader puts down his real pistol and "accidentally" picks up a plastic pistol; apparently, he could not tell the difference. Even with a glove on, one should be able to do that. Just because they look the same does not mean anything; there is other senses then sight. The traps are unrealistic as well; if any one of them actually worked, the criminals would be dead. But, Hollywood intends for us to "laugh" at the "funny" results of the traps. I did not laugh; I sighed and rolled my eyes.<br /><br />But, I recommend this movie to anyone who thinks they have seen a really bad movie; the movie they saw will seem like Citizen Kane compared to this one. Otherwise, skip this one for the sake of your pride. Home Alone 3 also raises a question. We all know Alex D. Linz stars in the movie, but did he write it as well?
Home Alone 3 is one of my least favourite movies. It's the cream of the crop, or s*** if you tend to be more cynical, as it ranks up (or down) there with stuff like Battlefield Earth and Flinstones: Viva Rock Vegas. In fact, it could even be worse than those two, since those two at least intermittently made me laugh at their stupidity. This just made me cringe in pain constantly and clap when the credits started rolling. No other movie has made me cringe in pain. Now I will point out exactly why this movie is so incredibly atrocious.<br /><br />First off, the plot is ridiculous. It revolves around a chip in a remote control car (?!) that is misplaced and how these terrorists want it. Dumb stuff.<br /><br />The action that ensues is similar to that of the other two Home Alones, with boobytraps and all, but watching these boobytraps being executed is, rather than being funny, incredibly unpleasant to watch. I didn't laugh (or even so much as smile) once, rather, I cringed constantly and hoped that the terrorists would nail the kid. The bird, rather than providing comic relief, was unfunny and annoying.<br /><br />The acting, as done by a bunch of no names, ranges from poor to atrocious. There is not a single good performance here. Alex D.Linz is absolutely unlikeable and unfunny as the kid, while the terrorists act (and judging by their movie credits, look) as they've been hastily picked off the street...and well, that's it.<br /><br />I can see some people saying: "Man, it's for the kids. Don't dis it, man." Well MAN, kids may like this, but they can get a hell of a lot better. See Monsters Inc. and Toy Story before even considering getting this out. Hell, even Scooby Doo and Garfield (which suck - see those reviews for more) are better than this! <br /><br />So in short, this is an irredeemably atrocious movie. This was clearly recycled for the money, as it almost completely rips off the first two; the only thing is, it completely insults the first two as well. No human, kid or otherwise, should find any reason to see Home Alone 3. Ever. It's THAT bad.<br /><br />0/5 stars
Remembering the dirty particulars of this insidiously vapid "movie" is akin to digging into your chest cavity with a rusty, salted spoon. Perhaps "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York" (1992) was a bit on the predictable side, but this pathetic excuse for a film is just one of the most shameless bids at commercialization I have ever heard of. A boy fighting off spies/terrorists when he's home alone in a Chicago suburb with the chickenpox? Ridiculous! Why did this film have to be made? I am the kind of person who believes even terrible movies are not wastes of time, but rather learning experiences. However, this is actually a waste of time. It should be avoided at all costs.
I loved the first two movies, but this movie was just a waste of time and money (for me and the studio). I'm still wondering why they made this horrible movie. The thing with the plastic gun and with the toy car, that can go into another house are ridiculous. Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern in the first two movies were so funny, but the terrorists in this one are so stupid and not funny. Believe me this movie is just a waste of time.
I hated this movie. It was absolutely horrible, poor,poor, PITIFUL acting, REAL REAL REAL stupid criminals that weren't even the LEAST BIT funny(unlike the first 2 home alone movies that were very good). all the boobie traps are weak, pathetic excuses for ideas poorly copied of of the first two which just meant that the people writing this movie were just lazy because their paycheck didn't go above 20 bucks a week. This movie is absolutely lousy, it's not worth even renting. In fact don't even watch it on t.v.! Go use your eyes in a more useful way by seeing the first two! I BARELY give this 1 star(out of 10). Just trust me when I say, if you liked the first two, and you are not a complete stupid person, you will not like this movie,do not watch this movie!!!
Whoever thought that ANOTHER Home Alone film would be a good idea should have their head examined... Same plot, different kid, more villains (which leads to MORE endless stupidity in the traps). The other two films were bad enough, and this is where it hits rock bottom. People may as well watch the other films for plot, as it's all identical.
I don't know what you guys are inhaling, but please stop. This movie was complete trash.<br /><br />Macaulay Culkin as Kevin McCallister was lovable, cute, sweet, loving, and extremely fun to watch. He had that innocence but at the same time, he was strong as well.<br /><br />This new kid, Alex? Annoying as all hell! Just a blatant ripoff at trying to match Culkin's charm and grace, failing miserably at that.<br /><br />The villains, complete crap. Harry and Marv, they were such an entertaining on screen team. They were comedic, they were humorous, and just made you really want to root for Culkin even more, which is what a good villain is suppose to do. These guys Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern, absolutely PERFECT for those roles. On the other hand, in 3, we have 4 new idiots that just bicker and again, try to capitalize on the charisma and duo charm of the first villains. Not saying they were horrible, but they were not memorable or even really that entertaining. More on the corny side actually.<br /><br />Then we got the actual movies. Part 1 and 2, classics. Memorable. Perfect to watch around Christmas and brings a wonderful Christmas feeling and brings out so many emotions. It makes you fall in love with the story, and care about the characters. Simply, memorable and close to being masterpieces. Part 3? Masterpiece of crap. Enough said.<br /><br />All and all, I don't know why people like this. I think people really don't know what a good movie is anymore. Its a crappy sequel rip-off with more unrealistic traps and a stupid new main character kid that I wish the robbers would of at least beat the crap out of.<br /><br />Run, run away from this garbage. And lets not even start with Part 4!
If you want to laugh like crazy, rent Cage. Cage is about two war heroes, Billy and Scott who are best friends. When Billy is shot in Vietnam, he is unable to fend for himself, so Scott takes him in.<br /><br />I have never seen a movie with more gay references to the two main characters. Billy and Scott love to "wrestle" and Scott tells Billy that he is "still sore from last night," among other things.<br /><br />Wonderful catch phrases like "Shut the sh!t up" and "Ping Pang Pong, cut the sh!t" will keep you laughing for hours. The native American guys that are supposed to be playing Mexican gang members are also top notch. As they say, it's "party time right now. Ba-ba-ba-ba ba-ba." I could go on forever, but just watch this movie and laugh your a$$ off. It was so funny I went out and bought the DVD for $5.99
Cage (1989) was another one of those low budget "buddy" action flicks that were produced during the 80's thanks in large part due to the films such as 48hrs. and Lethal Weapon. This one stars Reb Brown and Lou Ferrigno as to former Vietnam Vets who happen to run a local dive bar. Reb takes care of Lou because he saved his life in 'Nam. But Lou was shot in the head and is now pretty soft. Although he's huge, Lou has the brain of a child. One day some ruffians throw their wait around in the bar and Lou and Rebb beat the tar out of them. But payback's a mother. They crash the bar leaving Lou and Reb with nothing. That is until these two thugs come into the picture (one of them's a real nice guy) who have a plan in mind.<br /><br />The film's a waste of time. Maybe if they went all they way and made a hard core action flick instead of trying to tone down the gruesomeness of the situation perhaps it could have worked. Alas, it doesn't and the audience is left holding the bag. Oh well. It's too bad because you have all the elements for a great B-movie. Better luck next time, I guess.<br /><br />Not recommended.<br /><br />xxx
I rented this film to see what might be a bloody, non stop action movie and got this overly sentimental and super cheap low budget action-drama that makes Kickboxer look like Die Hard. Lou and Reb are in Vietnam and as Lou saves Reb from the gooks, he gets shot in the head in what is easily one of the worst effects ever. The Vietnam scenes are shot in someones backyard, I swear! Lou is now brain damaged and Reb and him live together and own a bar. Super homoerotic. Lou is convinced to fight in a cage for money and Reb goes on a killing spree to get him back. There is no good fight scenes at all, the punches are two inches away from a person. Characters personalities change in matter of seconds. One guy is a bad and in the next scene he's good. The acting is horrid and the music is some overly sentimental Frank Stallone sounding song that would make you sick. I hated this film.
Mark Pirro's "Deathrow Gameshow" of 1987 is a black comedy that is extremely cheesy in many parts, but occasionally very funny nevertheless. This movie could certainly have been a lot better, the acting is terrible, and some extremely cheesy scenes make it hard to watch at times, but the concept is funny, and it has some hilarious moments.<br /><br />In the near future (the year 1991), game shows have changed. Chuck Todean (John Mc Cafferty) hosts a game show called "Live Or Die", in which convicted death row inmates have the chance to play for their lives, and for money. Candidates who fail, get executed on the air using many different methods, such as guillotines, electric chairs, and other, more bizarre devices of execution, followed by applause from the cheering studio audience. The show is, of course, more than controversial, and Chuck has made lots of enemies...<br /><br />"Deathrow Gameshow" is incredibly cheesy and crappy in many aspects, and the acting is terrible, but it is without doubt fun in many parts, especially if you're a fan of dark humor. You haven't missed anything if you haven't seen it, but it is definitely funny and a good time waster. 4/10
There just isn't enough here. There a few funny spots, but not really enough. I was very disappointed because I love stupid movies. I was expecting this to be a hidden gem. IT WAS NOT. It was a hidden turd.<br /><br />The whole time I was watching it I was thinking, "Geez, I could do better than that and I'm a moron". Don't believe the few good reviews. I was suckered in by them. At no point did I laugh at loud. Maybe this was funny or cutting edge in 1987 but man, it fell flat today. This movie had promise, it just didn't deliver on it. Maybe if they rewrote it a few more times. I cant fault the actors. They weren't the best, but they just didn't have much with which to work. This movie failed because of threadbare writing. SORELY disappointed.
Tainted look at kibbutz life<br /><br />This film is less a cultural story about a boy's life in a kibbutz, but the deliberate demonization of kibbutz life in general. In the first two minutes of the movie, the milk man in charge of the cows rapes one of his calves. And it's all downhill from there in terms of the characters representing typical "kibbutznikim." Besides the two main characters, a clinically depressed woman and her young son, every one else in the kibbutz is a gross caricature of well…evil. <br /><br />The story centers on how the kibbutz, like some sort of cult, slowly drags the mother and son deeper into despair and what inevitably follows. There is no happiness, no joy, no laughter in this kibbutz. Every character/situation represents a different horrific human vice like misogyny, hypocrisy, violence, cultism, repression etc. For example, while the protagonist is a strikingly handsome European looking 12 year old boy – his older brother is a typical kibbutz youth complete with his "jewish" physical appearance and brutish personality. He cares more about screwing foreign volunteers than the health of his dying mother. He treats these volunteers like trash. After his little brother pleads of him to visit his dying mother whom he hasn't seen in a long time due to his military service, he orders, Quote – "Linda, go take shower and I cum in two minutes." <br /><br />There is one other "good" character in this movie – a European foreigner who plays the mother's boyfriend. When the animal rapist tries to hit the mother's son, the boyfriend defends him by breaking the rapist's arm. He is summarily kicked out of the kibbutz then for "violent" behavior against one of the kibbutz members. More hypocrisy: The indescribably annoying French woman who plays the school teacher preaches that sex cannot happen before age 18, or without love and gives an account of the actual act that's supposed to be humorous for the audience, but is really just stupid. She of course is screwing the head of the kibbutz in the fields who then in turn screws the little boy's mom when her mental health takes a turn for the worse. <br /><br />The film portrays the kibbutz like some sort of cult. Children get yanked out of their beds in the middle of the night and taken to some ritual where they swear allegiance in the fields overseen by the kibbutz elders. The mother apparently can't "escape" the kibbutz, although in reality, anyone was/is always free to come and go as they choose. It's a mystery how the boy's father died, but you can rest assured, the kibbutz "drove him to it" and his surviving parents are another pair of heartless, wretched characters that weigh down on the mother and her son. <br /><br />That's the gist of this movie. One dimensional characters, over dramatization, dry performances, and an insidious message that keeps trying to hammer itself into the audience's head – that kibbutz life was degrading, miserable and even deadly for those who didn't "fit in." I feel sorry for the guy who made this film – obviously he had a bad experience growing up in a kibbutz. But I feel as though he took a few kernels of truth regarding kibbutz life and turned them into huge atomic stereotyped bombs.
I saw this movie, just now, not when it was released and hailed as best picture of the year here in Israel. and to summarize everything right now, I will just say: this is not a good film.<br /><br />This is Dror Shaul's second feature film, and I have to admit that his first and the TV drama he made before this picture are much better. further more, this is his first attempt at directing a drama. the early works were comedies, and were funny and effective.<br /><br />The first thing you have to know if you'll ever see this film: Israel of the 21st century hates the kibbutz and the values it represented since the formation of the state of Israel. the real situation of the kibbutzim is very dire, and some of them disappear one by one. the kibbutz, Hebrew word for collective, was a sort of village for members only, where the values of equality and socialism were the dogma for everyday life. with the change in social values with time, it seems now that the kibbutz was a place where the human spirit was repressed, locked within the dogma rules, with no ticket out. the entrance of capitalist values and way of life in the 90's and so far made it very hard on the kibbutzim to survive. the crazy mother in the film is the central metaphor for that.<br /><br />But, I regard this film as having nothing to do with nostalgia for the good old days of the kibbutz. once, it was a dream of every young couple to live in a kibbutz and raise children in this quite and beautiful environment. but the film shows the opposite. that the kibbutz, with it's socialist dogma, was a place sort of like a cult of crazy people, with crazy ideas that undermine the freedom of each individual within the collective. this is the central philosophy of post modern capitalism: your individuality is the most important thing. you must place yourself in the center, and no one else but you is the matter. this is the philosophy the film stands for, and that's just it's first sin.<br /><br />If you disagree with me on the political side, I'm sure you will agree that the acting, the tone of the film, it's script and it's direction are the four sins that follow. the film has no real visual text and none of it's shots is something to remember. it is also very "delicate", a delicacy that is no more than artsy fartsy attempt to provoke emotions, which do not surface, not in the film and not with the viewer. it brings nothing but boredom.<br /><br />Can someone please explain: why this film won so many prizes? maybe because it shows that Israel is in line with the rest of the world, hating socialist and human values? or maybe it shows that Israel is a "delicate" place, not giving in to dogmas and fanaticism? that we are basically very human and good people, capable of emotions, especially when they are fake ones, just like capitalism expects us to be? or maybe because it tells one of the biggest lies of Israeli cinema in recent years, a lie that undermines the justification of the existence of the Jewish state? no matter what the answer is, it's not a good one. not for the world, not for human values and not for the Jews.
Any film which begins with a cowhand shagging a female calf can't promise much. As for the stereotyping of the kibbutz as it was 50 yrs ago, well I was there and it just wasn't like that. OK every kibbutz had just a small piece of something shown in the film (like youngsters raiding the kitchen at night) but you can't show the whole kibbutz as being full of all those - shall we say - naughty traits. Each kibbutz had its own problems, but hardly any kibbutz had all of them. The views of Israel were great. I still remember my youth in that Garden of Eden called the Emek (valley). Yes, and the acting was good too, so you see it wasn't all black - just a wrong portrayal - probably on purpose too.
Yes AWA wrestling how can anyone forget about this unreal show. First they had a very short interviewer named Marty O'Neil who made "Rock n Roll" Buck Zumhofe look like a nose tackle. Then it was Gene Okerland who when he got "mad as the wrestler" would say either "Were out of time" or "Well be right back" acting like he was mad but actually sounding forced. After he went to the WWF Ken Resneck took over even though his mustache looked like week old soup got stuck to it was a very fine interviewer who "Georgeous" Jimmy Garvin called mouse face which made me fall off my chair laughing. After he jumped ship then Larry Nelson came on board which he was so bad that Phyllis George would of been an improvement! Then there's Doug McLeod the best wrestling announcer ever who made every match exciting with his description of blows! Then he was offered more pay by the Minnesota North Stars hockey team. At ringside who can forget Roger Kent who's mispronouncing of words and sentences were historic Like when a wrestler was big "Hes a big-on!" punched or kicked in the guts "right in the gussets"or when kicked "He punted him" or "the "piledriver should be banned" after Nick Bockwinkle used it on a helpless opponent.(Right Roger like you care!) After he left to greener money(WWF) they had Rod Trongard who's announcing style was great but different. Like when a wrestler scraped the sole of his boot across another guys forehead he'd say"Right across the front-e-lobe" or when a wrestler is in trouble "Hes in a bad bad way". He also would say AWA the baddest,toughest,meanest, most scientific wrestlers are here right in the AWA!(No extra money Verne Gagne!) After he left(WWF) Larry(Wheres Phyllis?!) Nelson took over and I would talk to someone else or totally ignore him.(WWE wisely didn't take him!) Also Greg Gagne had the ugliest wrestling boots I ever saw a yellow color of something I don't want to say.Also when hes looking for the tag he looks like he wants to get it over with so that he can run to the nearest restroom! Jumpin Jim Brunzell was such a great dropkick artist that you wonder why Greg was ever his partner. Jerry Blackwell(RIP)was also a superstar wrestler but you wonder why Verne had himself win against him.(Puhleeeeze!) Then when Vince McMahon would hire Gagnes jobbers, he would make most of them wrestle squash matches. I like to see the Gagne family say wrestlings real now!
I love sci-fi and am willing to put up with a lot. Sci-fi movies/TV are usually underfunded, under-appreciated and misunderstood. I tried to like this, I really did, but it is to good TV sci-fi as Babylon 5 is to Star Trek (the original). Silly prosthetics, cheap cardboard sets, stilted dialogues, CG that doesn't match the background, and painfully one-dimensional characters cannot be overcome with a 'sci-fi' setting. (I'm sure there are those of you out there who think Babylon 5 is good sci-fi TV. It's not. It's clichéd and uninspiring.) While US viewers might like emotion and character development, sci-fi is a genre that does not take itself seriously (cf. Star Trek). It may treat important issues, yet not as a serious philosophy. It's really difficult to care about the characters here as they are not simply foolish, just missing a spark of life. Their actions and reactions are wooden and predictable, often painful to watch. The makers of Earth KNOW it's rubbish as they have to always say "Gene Roddenberry's Earth..." otherwise people would not continue watching. Roddenberry's ashes must be turning in their orbit as this dull, cheap, poorly edited (watching it without advert breaks really brings this home) trudging Trabant of a show lumbers into space. Spoiler. So, kill off a main character. And then bring him back as another actor. Jeeez! Dallas all over again.
Worth the entertainment value of a rental, especially if you like action movies. This one features the usual car chases, fights with the great Van Damme kick style, shooting battles with the 40 shell load shotgun, and even terrorist style bombs. All of this is entertaining and competently handled but there is nothing that really blows you away if you've seen your share before.<br /><br />The plot is made interesting by the inclusion of a rabbit, which is clever but hardly profound. Many of the characters are heavily stereotyped -- the angry veterans, the terrified illegal aliens, the crooked cops, the indifferent feds, the bitchy tough lady station head, the crooked politician, the fat federale who looks like he was typecast as the Mexican in a Hollywood movie from the 1940s. All passably acted but again nothing special.<br /><br />I thought the main villains were pretty well done and fairly well acted. By the end of the movie you certainly knew who the good guys were and weren't. There was an emotional lift as the really bad ones got their just deserts. Very simplistic, but then you weren't expecting Hamlet, right? The only thing I found really annoying was the constant cuts to VDs daughter during the last fight scene.<br /><br />Not bad. Not good. Passable 4.
its a totally average film with a few semi-alright action sequences that make the plot seem a little better and remind the viewer of the classic van dam films. parts of the plot don't make sense and seem to be added in to use up time. the end plot is that of a very basic type that doesn't leave the viewer guessing and any twists are obvious from the beginning. the end scene with the flask backs don't make sense as they are added in and seem to have little relevance to the history of van dam's character. not really worth watching again, bit disappointed in the end production, even though it is apparent it was shot on a low budget certain shots and sections in the film are of poor directed quality
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />Former New Orleans homicide cop Jack Robideaux (Jean Claude Van Damme) is re-assigned to Columbus, a small but violent town in Mexico to help the police there with their efforts to stop a major heroin smuggling operation into their town. The culprits turn out to be ex-military, lead by former commander Benjamin Meyers (Stephen Lord, otherwise known as Jase from East Enders) who is using a special method he learned in Afghanistan to fight off his opponents. But Jack has a more personal reason for taking him down, that draws the two men into an explosive final showdown where only one will walk away alive.<br /><br />After Until Death, Van Damme appeared to be on a high, showing he could make the best straight to video films in the action market. While that was a far more drama oriented film, with The Shepherd he has returned to the high-kicking, no brainer action that first made him famous and has sadly produced his worst film since Derailed. It's nowhere near as bad as that film, but what I said still stands.<br /><br />A dull, predictable film, with very little in the way of any exciting action. What little there is mainly consists of some limp fight scenes, trying to look cool and trendy with some cheap slo-mo/sped up effects added to them that sadly instead make them look more desperate. Being a Mexican set film, director Isaac Florentine has tried to give the film a Robert Rodriguez/Desperado sort of feel, but this only adds to the desperation.<br /><br />VD gives a particularly uninspired performance and given he's never been a Robert De Niro sort of actor, that can't be good. As the villain, Lord shouldn't expect to leave the beeb anytime soon. He gets little dialogue at the beginning as he struggles to muster an American accent but gets mysteriously better towards the end. All the supporting cast are equally bland, and do nothing to raise the films spirits at all.<br /><br />This is one shepherd that's strayed right from the flock. *
First off let me say, If you haven't enjoyed a Van Damme movie since bloodsport, you probably will not like this movie. Most of these movies may not have the best plots or best actors but I enjoy these kinds of movies for what they are. This movie is much better than any of the movies the other action guys (Segal and Dolph) have thought about putting out the past few years. Van Damme is good in the movie, the movie is only worth watching to Van Damme fans. It is not as good as Wake of Death (which i highly recommend to anyone of likes Van Damme) or In hell but, in my opinion it's worth watching. It has the same type of feel to it as Nowhere to Run. Good fun stuff!
I had high hopes for this one until they changed the name to 'The Shepherd : Border Patrol, the lamest movie name ever, what was wrong with just 'The Shepherd'. This is a by the numbers action flick that tips its hat at many classic Van Damme films. There is a nice bit of action in a bar which reminded me of hard target and universal soldier but directed with no intensity or flair which is a shame. There is one great line about 'being p*ss drunk and carrying a rabbit' and some OK action scenes let down by the cheapness of it all. A lot of the times the dialogue doesn't match the characters mouth and the stunt men fall down dead a split second before even being shot. The end fight is one of the better Van Damme fights except the Director tries to go a bit too John Woo and fails also introducing flashbacks which no one really cares about just gets in the way of the action which is the whole point of a van Damme film.<br /><br />Not good, not bad, just average generic action.
Isaac Florentine has made some of the best western Martial Arts action movies ever produced. In particular US Seals 2, Cold Harvest, Special Forces and Undisputed 2 are all action classics. You can tell Isaac has a real passion for the genre and his films are always eventful, creative and sharp affairs, with some of the best fight sequences an action fan could hope for. In particular he has found a muse with Scott Adkins, as talented an actor and action performer as you could hope for. This is borne out with Special Forces and Undisputed 2, but unfortunately The Shepherd just doesn't live up to their abilities.<br /><br />There is no doubt that JCVD looks better here fight-wise than he has done in years, especially in the fight he has (for pretty much no reason) in a prison cell, and in the final showdown with Scott, but look in his eyes. JCVD seems to be dead inside. There's nothing in his eyes at all. It's like he just doesn't care about anything throughout the whole film. And this is the leading man.<br /><br />There are other dodgy aspects to the film, script-wise and visually, but the main problem is that you are utterly unable to empathise with the hero of the film. A genuine shame as I know we all wanted this film to be as special as it genuinely could have been. There are some good bits, mostly the action scenes themselves. This film had a terrific director and action choreographer, and an awesome opponent for JCVD to face down. This could have been the one to bring the veteran action star back up to scratch in the balls-out action movie stakes.<br /><br />Sincerely a shame that this didn't happen.
It actually pains me to say it, but this movie was horrible on every level. The blame does not lie entirely with Van Damme as you can see he tried his best, but let's face it, he's almost fifty, how much more can you ask of him? I find it so hard to believe that the same people who put together Undisputed 2; arguably the best (western) martial arts movie in years, created this. Everything from the plot, to the dialog, to the editing, to the overall acting was just horribly put together and in many cases outright boring and nonsensical. Scott Adkins who's fight scenes seemed more like a demo reel, was also terribly underused and not even the main villain which is such a shame because 1) He is more than capable of playing that role and 2) The actual main villain was not only not intimidating at all but also quite annoying. Again, not blaming Van Damme. I will always be a fan, but avoid this one.
Technically I'am a Van Damme Fan, or I was. this movie is so bad that I hated myself for wasting those 90 minutes. Do not let the name Isaac Florentine (Undisputed II) fool you, I had big hopes for this one, depending on what I saw in (Undisputed II), man.. was I wrong ??! all action fans wanted a big comeback for the classic action hero, but i guess we wont be able to see that soon, as our hero keep coming with those (going -to-a-border - far-away-town-and -kill -the-bad-guys- than-comeback- home) movies I mean for God's sake, we are in 2008, and they insist on doing those disappointing movies on every level. Why ??!!! Do your self a favor, skip it.. seriously.
Honestly awful film, bad editing, awful lighting, dire dialog and scrappy screenplay.<br /><br />The lighting at is so bad there's moments you can't even see what's going on, I even tried to playing with the contrast and brightness so I could see something but that didn't help.<br /><br />They must have found the script in a bin, the character development is just as awful and while you hardly expect much from a Jean-Claude Van Damme film this one manages to hit an all time low. You can't even laugh at the cheesy'ness.<br /><br />The directing and editing are also terrible, the whole film follows an extremely tired routine and fails at every turn as it bumbles through the plot that is so weak it's just unreal.<br /><br />There's not a lot else to say other than it's really bad and nothing like Jean-Claude Van Damme's earlier work which you could enjoy.<br /><br />Avoid like the plaque, frankly words fail me in condemning this "film".
This flick is a waste of time.I expect from an action movie to have more than 2 explosions and some shooting.Van Damme's acting is awful. He never was much of an actor, but here it is worse.He was definitely better in his earlier movies. His screenplay part for the whole movie was probably not more than one page of stupid nonsense one liners.The whole dialog in the film is a disaster, same as the plot.The title "The Shepherd" makes no sense. Why didn't they just call it "Border patrol"? The fighting scenes could have been better, but either they weren't able to afford it, or the fighting choreographer was suffering from lack of ideas.This is a cheap low type of action cinema.
Blind Date (Columbia Pictures, 1934), was a decent film, but I have a few issues with this film. First of all, I don't fault the actors in this film at all, but more or less, I have a problem with the script. Also, I understand that this film was made in the 1930's and people were looking to escape reality, but the script made Ann Sothern's character look weak. She kept going back and forth between suitors and I felt as though she should have stayed with Paul Kelly's character in the end. He truly did care about her and her family and would have done anything for her and he did by giving her up in the end to fickle Neil Hamilton who in my opinion was only out for a good time. Paul Kelly's character, although a workaholic was a man of integrity and truly loved Kitty (Ann Sothern) as opposed to Neil Hamilton, while he did like her a lot, I didn't see the depth of love that he had for her character. The production values were great, but the script could have used a little work.
I first watched this movie back in the mid/late 80's, when I was a kid. We couldn't even get all the way through it. The dialog, the acting, everything about it was just beyond lame.<br /><br />Here are a few examples... imagine these spoken real dramatically, way over-acted: "Oreegon? You're going to Oreegon? Why would anyone want to go to Oreegon?"<br /><br />"Survivalists? Nobody ever told us about any survivalists!"<br /><br />This movie was SO bad, my sister and I rented it again for her 16th birthday party, just so our friends could sit around and laugh at how awful it was. I don't think we were able to finish it then either!
I saw the Mogul Video VHS of this. That's another one of those old 1980s distributors whose catalog I wish I had!<br /><br />This movie was pretty poor. Though retitled "Don't Look in the Attic," the main admonition that is repeated in this is "Don't go to the villa." Just getting on the grounds of the villa is a bad idea. A character doesn't go into the attic until an hour into the movie, and actually should have done it earlier because of what is learned there.<br /><br />The movie starts in Turin, Italy in the 1950s. Two men are fighting, and a woman is telling them the villa is making them do it. One man kills the other, then regrets it, and the woman pulls out the knife and stabs him with it. She flees the villa, and after she's left a chair moves by itself (what's the point of that?), but when in the garden a hand comes up through the ground and drags he into the earth.<br /><br />From there, it's the present day, thirty years later. There's a séance that appears suddenly and doesn't appear to have anything to do with the movie. The children of the woman from the prologue are inheriting the house. The main daughter is played by the same actress who played her mother. At least one of the two men from the prologue seems to reoccur as another character too. She's haunted by some warnings not to go to the villa, but they all do, since if they do not use it, they forfeit it. People die. A lawyer who has won all his cases tries to investigate a little. The ending is pretty poor. Why was the family cursed? An unfortunately boring movie.<br /><br />There's an amusing small-print disclaimer on the back of the video box that reads "The scenes depicted on this packaging may be an artist's impression and may not necessarily represent actual scenes from the film." In this case, the cover of the box is an illustration that does more or less accurately depict the aforementioned woman dragged underground scene, although there are two hands, and the woman is different. It's true, sometimes the cover art has nothing to do with the movie. I also recall seeing a reviewer who had a bad movie predictor scale, in which movies with illustrations on the cover instead of photos got at least one point for that.
A group of heirs to a mysterious old mansion find out that they have to live in it as part of a clause in the will or be disinherited, but they soon find out of its history of everybody whom had lived there before them having either died in weird accidents or having had killed each other.<br /><br />You've seen it all before, and this one is too low-budget and slow paced to be scary, and doesn't have any real surprises in the climax. No special effects or gore to speak of, in fact the only really amusing thing about the whole film is the quality of the English dubbing, which at times is as bad as a cheap martial arts movie.<br /><br />3 out of 10, pretty low in the pecking order of 80's haunted house movies.
Now, I LOVE Italian horror films. The cheesier they are, the better. However, this is not cheesy Italian. This is week-old spaghetti sauce with rotting meatballs. It is amateur hour on every level. There is no suspense, no horror, with just a few drops of blood scattered around to remind you that you are in fact watching a horror film. The "special effects" consist of the lights changing to red whenever the ghost (or whatever it was supposed to be) is around, and a string pulling bed sheets up and down. Oooh, can you feel the chills? The DVD quality is that of a VHS transfer (which actually helps the film more than hurts it). The dubbing is below even the lowest "bad Italian movie" standards and I gave it one star just because the dialogue is so hilarious! And what do we discover when she finally DOES look in the attic (in a scene that is daytime one minute and night the next)...well, I won't spoil it for anyone who really wants to see, but let's just say that it isn't very "novel"!
This cheap, grainy-filmed Italian flick is about a couple of inheritors of a manor in the Italian countryside who head up to the house to stay, and then find themselves getting killed off by ghosts of people killed in that house.<br /><br />I wasn't impressed by this. It wasn't really that scary, mostly just the way a cheap Italian film should be. A girl, her two cousins, and one cousin's girlfriend, head to this huge house for some reason (I couldn't figure out why) and are staying there, cleaning up and checking out the place. Characters come in and out of the film, and it's quite boring at points, and the majority of deaths are quite rushed. The girlfriend is hit by a car when fleeing the house after having a dream of her death, and the scene is quite good, but then things get slow again, until a confusing end, when the male cousins are killed together in some weird way, and this weirdo guy (I couldn't figure out who he was during the movie, or maybe I just don't remember) goes after this one girl, attacking her, until finally this other girl kills him off. Hate to give away the ending, but oh well. The female cousin decides to stay at the house and watch over it, and they show scenes of her living there years later. The end. You really aren't missing anything, and anyway, you probably won't find this anywhere, so lucky you.
I just finished watching this movie and am disappointed to say that I didn't enjoy it a bit. It is so slow Slow and uninteresting. This kid from Harry Potter plays a shy teenager with an rude mother, and then one day the rude mother tells the kid to find a job so that they could accommodate an old guy apparently having no place to live has started to live with his family and therefore the kid goes to work for a old lady. And this old lady who is living all alone teaches him about girls, driving car and life! I couldn't get how an 18 year old guy enjoy spending time with an awful lady in her 80s. Sorry if my comments on this movie has bothered people who might have enjoyed it, I could be wrong as I am not British and may not understand the social and their family structure and way of life. Mostly the movie is made for the British audience.
Ben, (Rupert Grint), is a deeply unhappy adolescent, the son of his unhappily married parents. His father, (Nicholas Farrell), is a vicar and his mother, (Laura Linney), is ... well, let's just say she's a somewhat hypocritical soldier in Jesus' army. It's only when he takes a summer job as an assistant to a foul-mouthed, eccentric, once-famous and now-forgotten actress Evie Walton, (Julie Walters), that he finally finds himself in true 'Harold and Maude' fashion. Of course, Evie is deeply unhappy herself and it's only when these two sad sacks find each other that they can put their mutual misery aside and hit the road to happiness.<br /><br />Of course it's corny and sentimental and very predictable but it has a hard side to it, too and Walters, who could sleep-walk her way through this sort of thing if she wanted, is excellent. It's when she puts the craziness to one side and finds the pathos in the character, (like hitting the bottle and throwing up in the sink), that she's at her best. The problem is she's the only interesting character in the film (and it's not because of the script which doesn't do anybody any favours). Grint, on the other hand, isn't just unhappy; he's a bit of a bore as well while Linney's starched bitch is completely one-dimensional. (Still, she's got the English accent off pat). The best that can be said for it is that it's mildly enjoyable - with the emphasis on the mildly.
Every movie I have PPV'd because Leonard Maltin praised it to the skies has blown chunks! Every single one! When will I ever learn?<br /><br />Evie is a raving Old Bag who thinks nothing of saying she's dying of breast cancer to get her way! Laura is an insufferable Medusa filled with The Holy Spirit (and her hubby's protégé)! Caught between these harpies is Medusa's dumb-as-a-rock boy who has been pressed into weed-pulling servitude by The Old Bag!<br /><br />As I said, when will I ever learn?<br /><br />I was temporarily lifted out of my malaise when The Old Bag stuck her head in a sink, but, unfortunately, she did not die. I was temporarily lifted out of my malaise again when Medusa got mowed down, but, unfortunately, she did not die. It should be a capital offense to torture audiences like this!<br /><br />Without Harry Potter to kick him around, Rupert Grint is just a pair of big blue eyes that practically bulge out of its sockets. Julie Walters's scenery-chewing (especially the scene when she "plays" God) is even more shameless than her character.<br /><br />At least this Harold bangs some bimbo instead of Maude. For that, I am truly grateful. And if you're reading this Mr. Maltin, you owe me $3.99!
Low budget horror movie. If you don't raise your expectations too high, you'll probably enjoy this little flick. Beginning and end are pretty good, middle drags at times and seems to go nowhere for long periods as we watch the goings on of the insane that add atmosphere but do not advance the plot. Quite a bit of gore. I enjoyed Bill McGhee's performance which he made quite believable for such a low budget picture, he managed to carry the movie at times when nothing much seemed to be happening. Nurse Charlotte Beale, played by Jesse Lee, played her character well so be prepared to want to slap her toward the end! She makes some really stupid mistakes but then, that's what makes these low budget movies so good! I would have been out of that place and five states away long before she even considered that it might be a good idea to leave! If you enjoy this movie, try Committed from 1988 which is basically a rip off of this movie.
Dr Stephens (Micheal Harvey) runs a mental asylum. He has a different approach to the insane. He conducts unorthodox methods of treatment. He treats everyone like family, there are no locks on the patients doors and he lets some of the inmates act out their twisted fantasies. He lets Sergeant Jaffee (Hugh Feagin) dress and act as a soldier and Harriet (Camilla Carr) be a mother to a doll, including letting her put it to bed in a cot. Dr. Stevens is outside letting Judge Oliver W. Cameron (Gene Ross) chop a log up with an axe, it turns out to be a bad move as once Dr. Stevens back is turned the Judge plants the axe in his shoulder. Soon after Nurse Charlotte Beale (Rosie Holotik) arrives at the Sanitarium having arranged an interview with Dr. Stevens about a possible job. She is met by the head Nurse, Geraldine Masters (Annabelle Weenick as Anne McAdams) and is offered a trail position. She gets to know and becomes well liked among the patients. However things eventually start to turn sour, the phone lines are cut, an old lady named Mrs. Callingham (Rhea MacAdams) has her tongue cut out and she starts to get a strange feeling that things just aren't right somehow. Then, one night all the Sanitariums dark secrets are violently revealed. Produced and directed by S.f. Brownrigg this film has a great central idea which builds into a cool twist ending, but ultimately is a bit of a chore to sit through because of it's low budget restrictions and a rather slow script by Tim Pope. There are just too many long boring stretches of dialogue by the inmates, not a lot really happens until the final twenty odd minutes. The film has no real visual quality as it's set entirely in the Sanitarium and it's grounds which is basically just a big bland house in the middle of nowhere. There's no graphic gore in it, a few splashes of blood here and there and thats yer lot. There's a bit of nudity, but like the gore not much. The acting is pretty strong, especially Holotik and Weenick. The photography is flat and unexciting and I can't even remember what the music was like. The twist ending is great, but it just takes far too long to get to it. A film that had a lot of potential that was probably held back by it's budget. OK I guess, but I think it would have worked a lot better if the story had been turned into a half an hour 'Tales form the Crypt' episode.
The Forgotten (AKA: Don't Look In The Basement) is a very cheaply made and very old looking horror movie.<br /><br />The story is very slow and never really reaches anything worth getting excited about.<br /><br />The patients at the asylum are embarrassingly funny especially Sam and the old woman who always quotes an old saying to everyone. (Look out for the bit when she gets close to the camera, tell me you can watch without laughing!).<br /><br />Now the gore is very poor looking, with the blood looking pink in many scenes so it doesn't really deserve its place on the video nasties list!.<br /><br />Overall if you aren't looking for a fantastic horror film and have some time to spare then it's worth a watch.
This movie had a very unique effect on me: it stalled my realization that this movie REALLY sucks! It is disguised as a "thinker's film" in the likes of Memento and other jewels like that, but at the end, and even after a few minutes, you come to realize that this is nothing but utter pretentious cr4p. Probably written by some collage student with friends to compassionate to tell him that his writing sucks. The whole idea is … I don't even know if it tried to scratch on the supernatural, or they want us to believe that because someone fills your mind (a very weak one, btw) with stupid "riddles", the kind you learn on elementary school recess, you suddenly come to the "one truth" about everything, then you have to kill someone and confess…. !!! What? How, what, why, WHY? Is just like saying that to make a cake, just throw a bunch of ingredients, and add water… forgot about cooking it? I guess these guys forgot to, not explain, but present the mechanism of WHY was this happening? You have to do that when you present a story which normal, everyday acts (lie solving riddle rhymes) start to have an abnormal effect on people. Acting was horrible, with that girl always trying to look cute at the camera, and the guy from Highlanders, the series, acting up like the though heavy metal record store (yeah, they're all real though s-o-b's). The "menacing" atmosphere, with the "oh-so-clever" riddles (enter the 60's series of Batman and Robin, with guest appearance of The Riddle) and the crazies who claim to have "the knowledge" behind that smirk on their faces… just horrible, HORRIBLE.<br /><br />I'm usually very partial about low budget movies, and tend to root for the underdog by giving them more praise than they may deserve, in lieu of their constrictions, you know, but this is just an ugly excuse for a movie that will keep you wanting to be good for an hour and a half, and at the end you will just lament that you fell for it.
too bad this movie isn't. While "Nemesis Game" is mildly entertaining, I found it hard to suspend my disbelief the whole length of the movie, especially the situations that Sara was putting herself into. Are we supposed to believe that:<br /><br />1) this hot chick is going to go slumming unarmed around abandoned buildings and dark subway tunnels in the middle of the night just to solve some riddles?<br /><br />2) the protagonists are supposedly such experts that they play riddle games for fun, but don't put the whole "I Never Sinned" riddle together until the very end...and then...and then...get this...she has to do the whole mirror thing to finally put the pieces together?? I know it was the filmmaker's device to show the audience what was going on, but do they really think we're that stupid?<br /><br />3) when Vern and Sara go to the Chez M to question the blonde, there is not ONE topless chick in the whole building. Nada. C'mon. I know it's Canada, but I would expect more from a country that gave us Shannon Tweed.<br /><br />And anyone else notice that when Vern was surfing the Web and found that riddlezone site, that when he moused over the link the cursor stayed an arrow, and didn't turn into a little hand (LIKE ALL CURSORS DO WHEN YOU CLICK ON A HYPERLINK)?!? I mean, if you're gonna have the internet play such a prominent role in your movie, at least get the little things right. Geez.
I of course saw the previews for this at the beginning of some other Lion's Gate extravaganza, so of course it was only the best parts and therefore looked intriguing. And it is, to a point. A young college student (Sarah)is finding riddles all over the place and is becoming obsessed with answering them, and in doing so she's unwittingly becoming involved in some game. Now that's fairly intriguing right there but unfortunately it all gets rather muddled and becomes so complicated that the viewer (like myself) will most likely become frustrated. Characters appear with little introduction and you're not really sure who they are or why Sarah knows them or is hanging out with them. All of this has something to do with this woman who tried to drown a young boy years ago and her reason for that was that it's "all part of the design". In reality, it's all part of the "very sketchy script" and when the film is over you'll find yourself feeling that you've lost about an hour and a half of your life that you want back for more productive uses of your time, like cleaning the bathroom, for instance. 4 out of 10.
I gave this a 3 out of a possible 10 stars.<br /><br />Unless you like wasting your time watching an anorexic actress, in this film it's Carly Pope, behaving like a ditz, don't bother.<br /><br />Carly Pope plays Sara Novak, a young college student, who becomes intrigued with a game of riddles, that leads her down into subway tunnels underneath the city - a dangerous thing for even a well-armed man to go in alone.<br /><br />There are various intrigues in the film -- a weirdo classmate who is apparently stalking Sara, a cynical shopkeeper who runs some kind of offbeat hole-in-the-wall establishment that appears to be located in the back alley of a ghetto, a nerdish dim-wit that hangs around the cynic's shop, and a woman named Emily Gray, who is back in prison.<br /><br />Sara's father is a lawyer who is handling Emily Gray's case. <br /><br />A few years back, Emily Gray attempted to drown a 12 year old boy. Emily was put in a mental hospital for 5 years, and for some cockeyed reason they let her out again, even though it is obvious she is still dangerously deranged.<br /><br />The only explanation Emily has ever given for her crime is: I never sinned.<br /><br />It's all part of the design.<br /><br />Well, my friend, don't expect to ever get any better explanation than that, because you won't.
I was looking forward to this movie. Trustworthy actors, interesting plot. Great atmosphere then ????? IF you are going to attempt something that is meant to encapsulate the meaning of life. First. Know it. OK I did not expect the directors or writers to actually know the meaning but I thought they may have offered crumbs to peck at and treats to add fuel to the fire-Which! they almost did. Things I didn't get. A woman wandering around in dark places and lonely car parks alone-oblivious to the consequences. Great riddles that fell by the wayside. The promise of the knowledge therein contained by the original so-called criminal. I had no problem with the budget and enjoyed the suspense. I understood and can wax lyrical about the fool and found Adrian Pauls role crucial and penetrating and then ????? Basically the story line and the script where good up to a point and that point was the last 10 minutes or so. What? Run out of ideas! Such a pity that this movie had to let us down so badly. It may not comprehend the meaning and I really did not expect the writers to understand it but I was hoping for an intellectual, if not spiritual ride and got a bump in the road
Four things intrigued me as to this film - firstly, it stars Carly Pope (of "Popular" fame), who is always a pleasure to watch. Secdonly, it features brilliant New Zealand actress Rena Owen. Thirdly, it is filmed in association with the New Zealand Film Commission. Fourthly, a friend recommended it to me. However, I was utterly disappointed. The whole storyline is absurd and complicated, with very little resolution. Pope's acting is fine, but Owen is unfortunately under-used. The other actors and actresses are all okay, but I am unfamiliar with them all. Aside from the nice riddles which are littered throughout the movie (and Pope and Owen), this film isn't very good. So the moral of the story is...don't watch it unless you really want to.
<br /><br />Never ever take a film just for its good looking title.<br /><br />Although it all starts well, the film suffers the same imperfections you see in B-films. Its like at a certain moment the writer does not any more how to end the film, so he ends it in a way nobody suspects it thinking this way he is ingenious.<br /><br />A film to be listed on top of the garbage list.<br /><br />
Lowe returns to the nest after, yet another, failed relationship, to find he's been assigned to jury duty. It's in the plans to, somehow, get out of it, when he realizes the defendant is the girl he's had a serious crush on since the first grade.<br /><br />Through living in the past by telling other people about his feelings towards this girl (played by Camp), Lowe remembers those feelings and does everything in his power to clear Camp of attempted murder, while staying away from the real bad guys at the same time, and succeeding in creating a successful film at the same time.<br /><br />I've heard that St Augustine is the oldest city in the US, and I also know it has some ties to Ponce de Leon, so the backdrop is a good place to start. Unfortunately, it's the only thing good about this movie. The local police are inept, the judge is an idiot, and the defense counsel does everything in her power to make herself look like Joanie Cunningham! I don't know whether to blame the director for poor direction, or for just letting the cast put in such a hapless effort.<br /><br />In short, this movie was so boring, I could not even sleep through it! 1 out of 10 stars!
Seriously, I can't imagine how anyone could find a single flattering thing to say about this movie, much less find it in themselves to write the glowing compliments contained in this comment section. How many methamphetamines was Bogdonovitch on during the filming of this movie? Was he giving a bonus to the actor that spat his lines out with the most speed and least inflection or thought? The dialogue is bad, the plot atrocious, even for a "screwball" comedy, and claims that the movie is an homage to classic film comedy is about the most inane thing I've ever heard. The cinematography is below the quality and innovation of that exhibited by the worst made-for-TV movies, the acting is awful (although I get the feeling that the fault for that lies squarely in the lap of the director), and speaking of which, did I mention the direction is so haphazard and inscrutable that it defies the definition of the word? The whole thing is a terribly unfunny (even in the much-beleaguered world of so-bad-it's-funny clunkers), soul-sucking, waste of two hours of your life that you'll never get back. Be afraid, be very afraid...
I'm the type of guy who loves hood movies from New Jack City to Baby Boy to Killa Season, from the b grade to the Hollywood. but this movie was something different. i am no hater and this movie was kinda enjoyable. but some bits were just weird. well the acting wasn't to good, compared to Silkk The Shockers performance in Hot Boyz (quite good) and Ice-T in new Jack and SVU (great). the scene where Corrupt (Ice-T) kills the wanna be Jamaican dude he says something and lights himself on fire burning both Ice-T and the other dude, this kills the Jamaican, however Ice-T is unharmed, very similar to Ice's other movie Urban Menace (which stars both of these actors) were Snoops character is supernatural, however after this there is nothing suggested that Corrupt is like a demon. When MJ (Silkk) gets stabbed at first he struggling but after that he fights normally and was stabbed in the thigh-WITH OUT BLOOD. and when MJ confesses killing a cop cos the cop was beating up his friend Benny was weird, Benny isn't introduced in this movie and the scene isn't in the film. it does hold weight to the fact why Corrupt wants to kill MJ but is still makes u scratch your head. wen Jody writes a letter to Miss Jones character explaining what happened to them afterwords doesn't mention what happen 2 other main characters MJ and Lisa. the film did show the horror and poverty of the ghetto-which plagues the lives of Latinos and Blacks word wide-was a good part of the film, even though the clip of the projects was re-used thousands of times. and the scene where Miles kills the Latino brother by crashing his bike at full speed (not wearing a helmet) and running into my Latino brothers car would of killed him. the movie was similar to the film Urban Menace and half the actors were in both of these movies as well as the production team. it was OK tho. but me being from poverty i love hood films, however if u don't love em like i do Don't WATCH IT. only thing saving me from walking out is it reminded me of the first movie i made which was made with 100 dollars, and my love of the genre.<br /><br />Nathaniel Purez
The most positive points in this film were the credits (text style) and some moments in Ice-T's acting. The story-line; two rival gangs having to fight it out, with the sub-plots of betrayal, power and change are well worn plots but in this case painful(very) to wade through. The decrepit scenery, which added slight believability in places, and questionable lighting, constantly distracted from any interest/identification with the characters (the shine off of the actress's forehead/nose was blinding, not to mention other scenes with the same problem.) Not even half way into the film I wanted to know more about how and why it came about as opposed to what was going on on screen. A disappointment if you have seen Ice-T in other roles. Kudos to other actors/actresses who seemed to get into their roles despite the weak direction; Corrupt's side kick and the other restaurant worker.
I quite enjoyed The Wrecking Crew (1999), which was the last of the three films in this series (the first being Urban Menace (1999) which I've yet to see). I know it was baaaaad, but the three leads did a pretty decent job, all things considered.<br /><br />This, however, was truly atrocious. Ice-T was dreadful, and he's the producer! Can't say I've ever heard of Silkk The Shocker (who apparently never learnt how to spell), but his performance was one of the worst I've ever seen in a movie.<br /><br />Miss Jones did pretty well in her small role, though she later went on to make some atrocious, racist "jokes" on her radio show after the SE Asian tsunami (plus other occasions sadly). Way to go, girl...<br /><br />No-one else comes out with any credit. Strangely, TJ Storm and Ernie Hudson (who are both pretty bad here) are far better in The Wrecking Crew, which was made, along with Urban Menace, at the same time as Corrupt. How that works, I don't know.<br /><br />I'm going to try the Ice-T commentary now, to see whether he apologises for the film, or tries to make us think it's a great piece of film-making.
this film has no plot, no good acting, to be honest it has nothing, the same songs play over and over awful acting and if you can actually sit there and watch the whole thing and enjoy it there is something wrong with you. I wish i could give this 0 out of 10 but i cant so it has to be a 1 which is generous! ice-t isn't even a good rapper and even worse at acting, every bit of the film is rubbish, i got this film on DVD without knowing what it was for the price of £1.99 and thought that i had picked up a bargain, i then looked at the IMDb rating and didn't take it into consideration but after watching it found out that the DVD i had bought was a complete waste of time, money and electricity. if you have this film there are two things you can do sell it to someone who doesn't know about it or burn it!
Beware, My Lovely (1952) Dir: Harry Horner <br /><br />Production: The Filmmakers/RKO Radio Pictures<br /><br />Credulity-straining thriller from the pioneering producer team of Collier Young and Ida Lupino, aka The Filmmakers (with Lupino pitching in with some uncredited direction). <br /><br />Robert Ryan is the 'peril' and Ida Lupino is the 'woman' in this entry in the 'woman in peril' style film. Ryan plays Howard Wilton, a tightly-wound psychotic handyman drifter (noooo, Ryan? I know, hard to believe). Lupino is the lonely war widow, Helen Gordon, who hires Howard to do some work around her house. Things go downhill from there as Howard makes Helen a prisoner in her own home. <br /><br />Howard has a nasty secret, not that he could reveal it. You see, consciousness is a real challenge for him. Maintaining it, that is. He has an unfortunate habit of coming to and finding his employers dead. This is part of the film's problem. The nature of Howard's psychosis is so extreme that it is nearly impossible to believe that he's been free to roam from town to town unobstructed, even in the year 1918 (when the film is set). He can't remember anything that happened ten minutes ago. His violent, threatening, anti-social tendencies are set off by the smallest and most common of things (a young girl flirting, inadequacies involving the war, due to his being rejected for service). I don't know how he even made it past the interview with Helen. There are other implausibilities. If you were locked in your house with a madman, but nonetheless left on your own for periods of time, couldn't you figure out a way to escape? <br /><br />Ryan, I think, is defeated by the material. It feels like he's overplaying his hand. His series of tics and spasms and the tightly coiled bursts of dementia all have a been-there, done-that robotic feel to them. At this point in his career he'd probably played this character, to some degree, ten times and it shows. We are encouraged to empathize with Howard (I didn't) through shown bits of humanity, like him being stopped in his tracks by a music box and his relating to a group of children who won't judge him. Lupino just has to act frazzled and in distress, which she is more than capable of and does. <br /><br />The picture had one thing going for it; what would be the eventual resolution of the conflict? So naturally there was a disappointing ending that was abrupt and ineffective. <br /><br />Of slight interest was a recurring motif where the camera would catch Howard's reflection (in mirrors, water, Christmas tree decorations). This indicated something going on, or about to go on, in his head. Horner (1953's Vicki), who made his reputation in production design, does a fine job of making the house feel like a prison. Credit too, the always reliable RKO art department for the work on the house. In the end, sub-standard work from the principals, who all have much better films to their credit. <br /><br />*½ out of 4
The only reason this movie is not given a 1 (awful) vote is that the acting of both Ida Lupino and Robert Ryan is superb. Ida Lupino who is lovely, as usual, becomes increasingly distraught as she tries various means to rid herself of a madman. Robert Ryan is terrifying as the menacing stranger whose character, guided only by his disturbed mind, changes from one minute to the next. Seemingly simple and docile, suddenly he becomes clever and threatening. Ms. Lupino's character was in more danger from that house she lived in and her own stupidity than by anyone who came along. She could not manage to get out of her of her own house: windows didn't open, both front and back doors locked and unlocked from the inside with a key. You could not have designed a worse fire-trap if you tried. She did not take the precaution of having even one extra key. Nor could she figure out how to summon help from nearby neighbors or get out of her own basement while she was locked in and out of sight of her captor. I don't know what war her husband was killed in, but if it was World War II, the furnishings in her house, the styles of the clothes, especially the children and the telephone company repairman's car are clearly anachronistic. I recommend watching this movie just to see what oddities you can find.
Artificial melodrama with a screenplay adapted by Mel Dinelli from his play "The Man" concerns a boarding-house proprietress taking in a troubled handyman who may be homicidal. Despite solid work from Ida Lupino and Robert Ryan (both trying their best), this tedious yarn isn't very inventive within its one primary set (which quickly becomes visually dull) and underpopulated cast of characters (there is however a smart pooch who senses the worst!). Hokey and humorless, with a stilted direction from Harry Horner (perhaps Lupino should have directed?). Where's all the suspense promised by the ads? Dinelli also served as a co-producer. *1/2 from ****
Wow, what an overrated movie this turned out to be! It was supposed to be "an extremely suspenseful tale of a crazed killer holding a woman hostage and in terror in her home." Well, I doubt it terrorized audiences in the early '50s and I know it would put today's audiences asleep.<br /><br />"Sends shivers down the spine," proclaims the New York Times. No, the only shivers I get is that anyone is left on the planet who believes anything the N.Y. Times prints about anything.<br /><br />Well, it was about a deranged man who held a woman hostage for a short time in her house but the man. "Howard Wilton" (Robert Ryan) was actually harmless and friendly. In fact, this was one of the nicest roles Ryan ever played! Yes, "Wilton" was nuts but he never harmed the woman and only wanted a friend to trust.<br /><br />The film even turned boring after awhile with very little going on except a lot of yakking. <br /><br />Beware, my reader.....this sucks.
I can't believe the high marks people have given this film on this site. The writing is incredibly bad with people coming in at just the right time and revealing exactly what the heroine is doing to try to escape. (Don't you just hate it when that happens?). And the acting is so very, very bad that you may get a splinter in your eye from all the scenery being chewed.<br /><br />A nut is holding her hostage, children are outside the open screen, so she whimpers for help instead of screaming when only a moment ago she was brave enough to be smashing windows to yell to these same children.<br /><br />She's finally free and alone in the house. Her chance to go for help, so what does she do? Wanders around the house and lies down. She's in the basement, locked away. So what does she do? Takes a little nap. Come on! Most of the movie is the nut wandering away and finding her sitting there snoozing when he wakes her up. Four times! What? If the writer is too bored to actually write a real plot why should we be paying attention? I think the key here is that it was originally a play for the radio, so they filled in with the heroine just sitting around rather than pretending to be screen writers and actually writing any action.<br /><br />And the ending is horrendous.<br /><br />The whole movie is completely implausible, horribly written and almost comically acted. Beware this movie at all costs!
Widow hires a psychopath as a handyman. Sloppy film noir thriller which doesn't make much of its tension promising set-up. (3/10)
I have no idea how anyone can give this movie high marks. I didn't rent it thinking it was the next great horror flick, the next great horror spoof, or the next great low-budget horror spoof. Obviously, this isn't meant to scare, but one fatal flaw with the production entirely sapped the joy out of the viewing experience. The sound editing was horrible. I had to work the volume control the entire movie. You can imagine how difficult it is to get into something - even a low-budget spoof - when you're either turning the volume up or down, or trying to anticipate the next time you have to do so. The regular dialogue is very low, and all screams, noises, etc., are VERY loud. We're not talking about toggling between 5 and 7 on the volume control, finding a happy medium at 6. We're talking toggling between 2 and 9 on the volume where it is virtually impossible to leave the volume alone. Again, this movie might be a decent example of what it is meant to be, but you're going to be spending so much time adjusting your volume control that you'll never have the chance to enjoy it.
Seeing the title of this movie "Stupid Teenagers Must Die" made me believe this was a spoof of some kind. I discovered later on the original title was "Blood and Guts". Both titles are misleading, though. This is not a spoof, neither a serious splatter movie. This is something in between, failing in both areas. A group of teenagers is attending a séance at a spooky house and then the killing starts. Sounds over familiar, doesn't it. Well, this movies adds nothing whatsoever to the endless stream of similar movies. And it is badly made. Because of the lack of light the entire film is grainy. Now this effect can be highly effective, but it isn't in this case. The young cast isn't acting too badly, but the director has no clue as what to do with actors. In numerous scenes the actors are clearly waiting for directions, but these are given too late. It could also be an editor's mistake, of course. The characters are unrealistic and the story line just stinks. The sound is terrible at times: conversations are undecipherable, but when talking loudly or screaming the actors are very loud indeed.<br /><br />This is not the worst horror movie I have ever seen, but it still is a bad one. For me a 3 out of 10.
Now I understand that this took two months to shoot. Really? I'm pretty certain my crew could do it in less than a week. This movie sucked so bad I couldn't even pay close attention. Just more proof that boob bearing women can't always save you from horrible writing, acting and direction. Now I understand it was a no budget endeavor, but there is also no continuity and no real reason to not to turn it off and watch infomercials or foreign news in a language you don't understand. Oh, there are a few decent looking females showing the goods. Still, there aren't enough sexy women alive to warrant watching this travesty perpetrated on the film industry. One of the longest 80 minutes of my life. I trooped it out though with the help of my old friend Jim Beam. Do yourself a favor and get your gun ready cuz you may want to use it after this hack job. Lastly, the individual (moron) who left a comment before mine thought this was a great movie and LOVED it. Just more proof that siblings shouldn't pro-create. Ow, BURN!!! - Captain J
STMD! is not a terrible movie, but it IS quite forgettable. The lighting is intentionally poor in many scenes and unintentionally poor in all the rest, so you are likely to come out of a viewing with a headache or eye-strain. Special effects are imaginative, but obvious. The gratuitous nudity essential for teen slasher flicks is there, of course, along with the archetypical teenagers, but the whole movie just doesn't gel. What was needed was some snappier dialogue and more tongue-in-cheek humor.<br /><br />I can't really recommend that you use your time watching this movie. I often give a nod to a movie based on just a scene or two that demonstrates imagination or humor, but these are sadly lacking in this film.
Okay, so it was never going to change the world, and it bombed at the box office, but Honky Tonk Freeway is one of those films I fell in love with as a child (the BBC showed it a few times during the 1980s and I happened to have a high quality VHS tape in the machine - lucky, that!) and watched endlessly. I watched the DVD last night and sadly, time has not been kind to this would-be blockbuster. Either that or I've just grown out of this kind of broad, dopey humour. Come on, when Schlesinger is so desperate for laughs he gives us close-ups of novelty underpants with 'amusing' slogans, what can you say about the cast or screenplay?<br /><br />Certainly, it's ambitious, interesting, unusual and sprawling, but it's never once laugh-out-loud funny. I'd describe it as a children's film with some 'adult' overtones - you can safely let your youngsters watch this, despite the 15 certificate. They won't get the drug references, so don't worry about it. I had a pleasant surprise when I realized I'd forgotten just how catchy both the title song and the song-writing truck driver's 'Everybody's Going Faster, Faster' song were, not to mention the town of Ticlaw's patriotic anthem. The whole cast give commendable performances, the photography is crisp and captures the mood of the various locations perfectly, and there's a real time capsule feeling about the fashions, the cars, the gadgets (especially the dashboard-mounted drum machine), the interiors and the pop-culture references - I was more than a little surprised to hear the nutty bum in the bank loudly telling everyone "I'm OJ Simpson!", particularly now Simpson's legal tangles have overshadowed his sporting achievements. The snag is, there's almost no plot to speak of, it's way too obvious to be witty and not funny enough to elicit many genuine laughs. I wish I'd left this one as a pleasant memory.
A sprawling, overambitious, plotless comedy that has no dramatic center. It was probably intended to have an epic vision and a surrealistic flair (at least in some episodes), but the separate stories are never elevated into a meaningful whole, and the laughs are few and far between. Amusing ending, though. (*1/2)
No, no, no, no, no, no, NO! This is not a film, this is an excuse to show people dancing. This is just not good. Even the dancing is slow and not half as entertaining as the mediocre 'Dirty Dancing', let alone any other good dance movie.<br /><br />Is it a love story? Is it a musical? Is it a drama? Is it a comedy? It's not that this movie is a bit of all, it's that this movie fails at everything it attempts to be. The film turns out to be even more meaningless as the film progresses.<br /><br />Acting is terrible from all sides, the screenplay is definitely trying to tell us something about relationship but fails miserably.<br /><br />WATCH FOR THE MOMENT - When Patrick Stewart enters the scene and you think the film might get better as he brightens up the dull atmosphere. For a second.
I found this movie really hard to sit through, my attention kept wandering off the tv. As far as romantic movies go..this one is the worst I've seen. Don't bother with it.
OK, so my summary line is a cheap trick. But the movie is full of them and it gets absurdly praised, so...<br /><br />I caught this one on TV (uncut, as TV here shows all movies, that's for you Americans who might say I didn't like it because I saw a cut TV version - fortunately that's only an US thing), and had no idea about what it was. I switched on, caught the last minutes of a show, and the movie began. Within a minute, I was begging it was a comedy, given the particularly ridiculous clichéd beginning (yes, it's a bad movie-within-the-movie, I know, but what a way to try to keep the viewer interested! I don't even know why I didn't switch channels). And, yes, in fact the movie turned out to be a comedy, albeit an unintentional one.<br /><br />Marina Zudina is pretty enough, but gosh, what a dreadful performance! While casting a foreigner in the role is smart enough (she doesn't talk so bye bye language barrier), yet, sorry, Marina baby, playing mute doesn't mean impersonating Harpo Marx. Her acting is unintentionally funny in many moments, just look at her when she draws an X in the air while stalked by the killer. He wants to kill you, it's no time to play Zorro. We get plenty of "running upstairs" stuff passing for tension, as in the worst slashers, and things like pulling a carpet and a bad guy shots the other. Ugh! Will Hollywood ever learn? Yet the best/worst pearl is having a guy electrocuted in a bathtub and... Well, I have never seen anyone being electrocuted to death in a bathtub, but I'm sure you can't see the blue cartoon rays in real life, do you? And how about immediately trusting a mean-looking guy because he SAYS he's a cop, and not asking him to show you his credentials? OK, so he turns out to be a real cop. But still, not asking for the badge makes no sense (plot-wise, we could always think the credentials might be phony or he might be a crooked cop. Screen writing 101). And how about the big twist? Don't tell me you didn't see that coming from 200 miles away...<br /><br />I feel sorry for poor old Alec Guinness and his useless stock footage cameo. Now I think about this, what's the point in giving him a "Mystery Guest Star" credit... in the END titles? The movie's over, there's no mystery anymore, and everybody and their brother have identified Guinness (even non-movie buffs will recognize "the old guy from 'Star Wars'"). Yet better off this way, so we can pretend it's not the late great actor.<br /><br />People keep comparing this to, of all people, Hitchcock. I suppose it has to be John Hitchcock the milkman, as the late Sir Alfred would feel embarrassed out of watching this, let alone making it. And this gets a 6.8/10???? It's Bottom 100 material! But then, we're talking a rating system that allows 'The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King' to appear as the third best movie ever made (check Top 100), so...<br /><br />2/10.
An obscure horror show filmed in the Everglades. Two couples stay overnight in a cabin after being made a little uneasy by the unfriendliness of the locals. Who, or what, are the Blood Stalkers? After awhile they find out. Watch for the character of the village idiot who clucks like a chicken, he certainly is weird.
This film is about a couple that decides to take a vacation to The Everglades along with another couple and the family dog. When they first get there, they are not welcomed by the neighboring gas attendant that warms them to stay away from the cabin in which they are to spend the night at for the week. After pestering with the old man, three hillbillys also do not take kindly to their arrival as they approach their car and threaten them to leave. After asking some of the local dummies that can't speak or just don't want to answer, they finaly find the cabin. After they settle in, strange things happen to the visitors including discovering crap on their car, the man thats the head of this trip thats an idiot shoots the family dog thinking it was a killer clawing at the door and a series of deaths later on in the end. Adding a church group did not make the story any better. Then at the end, the idiot that survives the whole ordeal goes around the town carrying a shot gun. Lame. thats what this movie is.
Talented screenwriter Alvin Sargent sadly cannot get any engaging ideas cooking in this artificial trifle about a wayward mother and her mature teenage daughter trying to make their lives work in Los Angeles despite mom's flighty behavior. Apart from several good sequences, I didn't quite buy Susan Sarandon as a flake (she's too intrinsically smart and focused to be passed off as this devil-may-care lady), and her naturally grounded personality is a bad fit for the role of an irresponsible parent. Natalie Portman fares much better as her kid, and yet there's a creepy aloofness to her work (and some of her scenes, such as the one where she asks a boy to strip, are misguided and uncomfortable to watch). Certainly not an incompetent piece, "Anywhere But Here" does have moments that work, but it isn't an embraceable film, nor has it proved to be an important one. ** from ****
An Italian/American co-production co-starring Linda Blair and David 'The Hoff' Hasselhoff: how could any fan of trashy horror resist such a treat?<br /><br />Well, based on the uneventful, extremely tedious, and utterly nonsensical first forty minutes or so, I would have said 'very easily'; thankfully, however, things do eventually get a tad more entertaining with the introduction of several inventive death scenes, and for those lucky enough to find an uncut copy, a smattering of nudity too (unfortunately, my copy was optically edited to remove such offensive material).<br /><br />The Hoff stars as Gary, a photographer who accompanies his beautiful girlfriend Leslie (Leslie Cumming) to a run-down hotel on a seemingly deserted island in order to take pictures for her latest project, a book about witches; whilst there, frustrated Gary also hopes to try and cure a bad case of blue balls by relieving Leslie of her virginity.<br /><br />His plans for nookie are scuppered, however, by the unexpected arrival of property developers Freddie and Rose Brooks (Robert Champagne and Annie Ross), their pregnant daughter Jane (Blair), son Tommy (Michael Manchester), pretty nymphomaniac architect Linda Sullivan (Catherine Hickland), and estate agent Jerry (Rick Farnsworth), who have come to inspect the island's hotel.<br /><br />After explaining their unexpected presence on the island, Gary and Leslie are welcomed by the property's new owners, and when a violent storm suddenly picks up, making it perilous to return to the mainland, everyone agrees to spend the night in the old building. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to the hotel's new guests, the place is also home to the spirit of an evil witch (Hildegard Knef), who requires human sacrifices in order to bring herself back to life. One by one, victims are pulled into a swirling red vortex (which is guaranteed to provide unintentional laughs), before meeting a terrible fate.<br /><br />None of this makes much sense, and the acting is atrocious (Manchester as Tommy is particularly bad, whilst Hasselhoff proves to be one of the better performers, which speaks volumes about the others), but those viewers who make it past the dreary first half are rewarded with some pretty decent moments of gore: Rose has her lips sewn together, before being roasted alive in a fireplace; Jerry is crucified and burnt alive; Linda is tortured by hags and impaled on a swordfish(!!); Freddie's veins pulsate and erupt in geysers of blood; and Gary gets stabbed in the back.<br /><br />Oh, and Leslie is raped by a guy with no lips and Blair gets possessed (again).
Oh my... bad clothing, worse synth music and the worst: David Hasselhoff. The 80's are back with vengeance in Witchery, an American-Italian co-production, helmed by infamous Joe 'D'Amato on the production side and short-careered director (thank heavens for small miracles) Fabrizio Laurenti directing . Marketed as a kind of sequel to Sam Raimi's Evil Dead series in Italy (that was dubbed "La Casa" in there), Witchery delivers some modest gore groceries and bad acting.<br /><br />A mix of ghost story, possessions and witchcraft, the film bounces clueless from scene to another without letting some seriously wooden actors and hilarious day and night mix-ups slow it's progress to expectable ending, topped with some serious WTF surprise climax. (I just love the look on her face...) Surprisingly Laurenti manages to gather some suspense and air of malice in few - very few - scenes; unluckily for him, these few glimpses of mild movie magic go down quickly and effectively.<br /><br />The plus sides are experienced, when the gore hits the fan. This department is quite effective and entertaining in that classic latex and red paint style of the 80's Italo-gore, when things were made 100% hand-made and as shockingly and vivid as modest budgets could allow. I could only watch with sadistic glee and few laughters all the over-the-top ways that obnoxious characters (and actors) got mangled and misused, one by one. I only felt sorry for Linda Blair, who apparently haven't been let to try any other than that good old possessed girl / woman role ever in his career, or so it looks like when checking out his filmography.<br /><br />Well, folks - not much more to tell, and even less to tell home about. Don't expect too much when spending some rainy afternoon with this, and probably you'll experience at least some mild fun. It also helps if your rotten little heart pounds in the beat of 80's euro gore horror. And speaking of hearts - every movie that has David Hasselhoff getting skewered by a sizeable metal object and bleeding heavily around the room and corridors, MUST have it's one on the right place.<br /><br />This is my truth - what is yours?
There are many different versions of this one floating around, so make sure you can locate one of the unrated copies, otherwise some gore and one scene of nudity might be missing. Some versions also omit most of the opening sequence and other bits here and there. The cut I saw has the on-screen title WITCHCRAFT: EVIL ENCOUNTERS and was released by Shriek Show, who maintain the original US release title WITCHERY for the DVD release. It's a nice-looking print and seems to have all of the footage, but has some cropping/aspect ratio issues. In Italy, it was released as LA CASA 4 (WITCHCRAFT). The first two LA CASA releases were actually the first two EVIL DEAD films (retitled) and the third LA CASA was another film by the same production company (Filmirage), which is best known here in America as GHOSTHOUSE. To make matters even more confusing, WITCHERY was also released elsewhere as GHOSTHOUSE 2. Except in Germany, where GHOSTHOUSE 2 is actually THE OGRE: DEMONS 3. OK, I better just shut up now. I'm starting to confuse myself!<br /><br />Regardless of the title, this is a very hit-or-miss horror effort. Some of it is good, some of it isn't. I actually was into this film for the first half or so, but toward the end it became a senseless mess. A large, vacant hotel located on an island about 50 miles from Boston is the setting, as various people get picked off one-by-one by a German- speaking witch (Hildegard Knef). Photographer Gary (David Hasselhoff), who wants to capture "Witch Light," and his virginal writer girlfriend (Leslie Cumming), who is studying witchcraft, are shacking up at the hotel without permission. Along comes real estate agent Jerry (Rick Farnsworth), who's showing off the property to potential buyers Rose (Annie Ross) and Freddie (Robert Champagne) Brooks. Also tagging along are their children; pregnant grown daughter Jane (Linda Blair) and very young son Tommy (Michael Manchester), as well as oversexed architect Linda Sullivan (Catherine Hickland - Hasselhoff's wife at the time). Once everyone is inside, their boat driver is killed (hung) and the boat disappears, so they find themselves trapped and basically at the mercy of the "Lady in Black."<br /><br />So what can you expect to find here? Plenty of unpleasantries! One of the characters has their lips sewn shut and is then hung upside down in the fireplace and accidentally slow-roasted by the rest of the cast. There's also a crucifixion, witches eating a dead baby, a swordfish through the head, someone set on fire, a possession, a Sesame Street tape recorder, the virgin getting raped by some demon, a guys veins bulging and exploding thanks to voodoo doll pokes and some other stuff. From a technical standpoint, it's a nice-looking film with pretty good cinematography, a decent score and good gore effects. The hotel/island setting is also pretty nice. Blair (particularly at the end) and Ross both seem like they're having fun and Knef is great as the evil witch. Even though people like to ridicule Hasselhoff these days, he's not bad in his role, either.<br /><br />On the down side, despite all the gore, the film seems somewhat dull and it gets monotonous after about an hour. The supernatural themes are muddled and confusing, too. When characters are being swept into the witches lair to be tortured and killed, the filmmakers unwisely decided to superimpose the screaming actors over some silly looking red spiral vortex effect that looks supremely cheesy. And the witch lair itself is vacant and cheaply designed with unfinished lumber. And while most of the cast is at least decent, a few of the performances (particularly the "actress" who plays Hasselhoff's girlfriend and the kid) are so bad they're constantly distracting.
Witchcraft/Witchery/La Casa 4/ and whatever else you wish to call it. How about..Crud.<br /><br />A gathering of people at a Massachusetts island resort are besieged by the black magic powers of an evil witch killing each individual using cruel, torturous methods. Photographer Gary(David Hasselhoff)is taking pictures for Linda(Catherine Hickland whose voice and demeanor resemble EE-YOR of the Winnie the Poo cartoon), a virgin studying witchcraft, on the island resort without permission. Rose Brooks(Annie Ross, portraying an incredibly rude bitch)is interested in perhaps purchasing the resort and, along with husband Freddie(Robert Champagne, who is always ogling other women much younger than him), pregnant daughter Jane(Linda Blair)and grandson Tommy(Michael Manchester, who just looks bored throughout, probably wanting to watch Sesame Street instead of starring in this rubbish), go by boat to the resort being treated to a look at the property by Realtor Tony Giordano's son Jerry(Rick Farnsworth), obviously a pup in the business getting his feet wet. Along with these folks is architect Leslie(Leslie Cumming, whose character is a nympho)who might help Rose re-design the resort. The boat's captain is killed by The Lady in Black(Hildegard Knef, wearing her make-up and lip-stick extra thick)and a storm is brewing. The boat drives off by itself(..guided by the invisible power of The Lady in Black, I guess)with everyone stuck in the decrepit resort, which is in dire need of repairs. Most of the victims, before meeting their grisly fates are carried through a type of red wormhole whose vortex leads to another dimension(..perhaps a type of hell or something)where they are tortured by these fiends dressed in raggedy clothes with a crummy visage. One victim has her mouth sown before being hung upside down in a chimney, roasted as the others light the fireplace. One poor soul is tortured by harsh twistings of rope wrapped tightly around her flesh before being found hanging from the snout of a swordfish penetrating through her neck. One fellow is slowly suffocating as his veins bulge(..and bleed) and neck's blood vessels burst squirting in Hasselhoff's face! One fellow is crucified with nails hammered into his hands before being hung upside down over an open flame. Blair's pregnant victim becomes possessed with her hair standing on end speaking in another woman's voice. One is raped by this demonic man with a "diseased" mouth as the hellish hobos stand nearby gleefully cheering. The film, despite it's excesses, is mostly dull fodder for those who really wish to see the lowest point in the careers of Hasselhoff and Blair, who deserve better than this. Almost unbearable at times, building little-to-no suspense. Clumsy execution of the death sequences which look cheap and laughable. Sure some gore is okay, but most of the film shows victims after they've been run through the ringer. We do get a chance to see pregnant women(..who look exactly like stuntmen in costume with bad wigs) jumping out three story windows. Oh, and The Lady in Black's reflected face often pops up on inanimate objects for characters to see. Tommy has a little Sesame Street recorder which tapes The Lady in Black's mumbo jumbo chants, obviously used for later. For some reason, The Lady in Black likes to visit little Tommy. He's not at all scared of her, for Tommy's just too bored to show any expression on his face, much less fear. Need I say more? This one's a real stinker. Ugh.
"Witchery" might just be the most incoherent and lamentably scripted horror movie of the 80's but, luckily enough, it has a few compensating qualities like fantastic gore effects, an exhilarating musical score and some terrific casting choices. Honestly the screenplay doesn't make one iota of sense, but who cares when Linda Blair (with an exploded hairstyle) portrays yet another girl possessed by evil powers and David Hasselhof depicts a hunky photographer (who can't seem to get laid) in a movie that constantly features bloody voodoo, sewn-shut lips, upside down crucifixions, vicious burnings and an overused but genuinely creepy tune. Eight random people are gathered together on an abandoned vacation resort island off the coast of Massachusetts. The young couple is there to investigate the place's dark history; the dysfunctional family (with a pregnant Linda Blair even though nobody seems to bother about who the father is and what his whereabouts are) considers re-opening the hotel and the yummy female architect simply tagged along for casual sex. They're forced to stay the night in the ramshackle hotel and then suddenly the previous landlady – an aging actress or something who always dresses in black – starts taking them out in various engrossing ways. Everything is somehow related to the intro sequence showing a woman accused of witchery jump out of a window. Anyway, the plot is definitely of minor importance in an Italian horror franchise that started as an unofficial spin-off of "The Evil Dead". The atmosphere is occasionally unsettling and the make-up effects are undoubtedly the most superior element of the entire film. There's something supremely morbid and unsettling about staring at a defenseless woman hanging upside down a chimney and waiting to get fried.
Witchy Hildegard Knef traps a group of people in an isolated hotel and picks them off one by one in twisted, disgusting ways. I thought I'd seen it all until one unfortunate man here is crucified and then has his head set on fire. Hildy is quite the prankster too: she takes a nagging harpy and sews her mouth shut...then hangs her upside down in the chimney just in time for a roaring fire! "Witchery" made me sick. It made my eyes hurt. I was ready to write it off as the worst movie ever-ever-ever made by otherwise competent people...until the finale. I have to admit I loved the ending. It involves a boy and his toy tape-recorder cornered by Linda Blair looking fantastically possessed. The scene only lasts for about a minute and the movie's over, but you know that old saying: "If you've got a great ending, people will forgive you for just about anything!"
A really very bad movie, with a very few good moments or qualities.<br /><br />It starts off with pregnant Linda Blair, who runs down a hallways to flee what might be monsters or people with pitchforks, I'm not sure. She jumps through a window and wakes up, and we see she is very pregnant. The degree to which she is pregnant varies widely throughout the movie.<br /><br />She and an annoying and possibly retarded little boy who I thought was her son travel to an abandoned hotel on an island. Italian horror directors find the most irritating little boys to put in their movies! On the island already are David Hasselhoff and his German-speaking virgin girlfriend (you know how Germans are said to love Hasselhoff...). He's taking photographs, and she's translating an esoteric German book about witches, I think.<br /><br />Also traveling to the island are an older couple who have purchased it, and a real estate agent, and a woman I thought was their daughter. Evidently she was an architect, and Linda Blair and the boy are the older couple's children. I guess they all traveled to the island together, but it really seemed like Linda and the boy were apart from the rest of them (maybe they were filmed separately).<br /><br />The hotel seems neat, certainly from the exteriors, but it isn't used to any great effect. An old woman in bad makeup and a black cloak keeps appearing to the boy and chants something in German sometimes, which he eventually records on his Sesame Street tape recorder.<br /><br />People start getting killed, either in their dreams, or sucked into hell or something. Some of these gore scenes are OK, but not enough to recommend the movie. Though the copy I watched stated it is uncut on the box cover, the death of one character whose veins explode really seems to have been cut. Much of the scene is showing another character's reaction shots, since we're not seeing anything ourselves. The creepiest scene is one in which a man or demon with a really messy-looking wound of a mouth rapes someone. He looked particularly nasty. There's a laughably and painfully bad scene in which Linda Blair is possessed. I wish if a horror movie is going to cast her, they would do something original with her role, and let her leave Exorcist behind her (except for the yearly horror conventions).<br /><br />In the weird, largely Italian, tradition of claiming to be a sequel to something it is unrelated to, this is also AKA La Casa 4 and Ghosthouse 2. That is, it is supposedly a sequel to Casa 3 - Ghosthouse, La (1988) - it's not (that's also a better movie than this one). La Casa 1 and two were The Evil Dead (1981) and Evil Dead II (1987) - again unrelated to Witchery and La Casa 3 (and much better than those). There's also a Casa 5, La (1990) AKA House 5, which seems to want to be a sequel to the fake La Casa series and the series House: House (1986) House II: The Second Story (1987), The Horror Show (1989) AKA House III, and House IV (1992). How's The Horror Show fit in there? It doesn't really, it claimed to be a sequel, thus requiring the real series entry to renumber itself to cause less (or more?) confusion. Oddly, The Horror Show is also AKA Horror House, and La Casa 5 is also AKA Horror House 2. Does your head hurt yet?
This film features two of my favorite guilty pleasures. Sure, the effects are laughable, the story confused, but just watching Hasselhoff in his Knight Rider days is always fun. I especially like the old hotel they used to shoot this in, it added to what little suspense was mustered. Give it a 3.
I watched this movie purely for the setting. It was filmed in an old hotel that a friend owns shares of. The plot was predictable, the acting was mediorcre at best, the scares were all gross-outs, not true scares.<br /><br />I don't remember much of the plot, and I think that's because there wasn't much of one to remember. They didn't even use the hotel to it's fullest potential...The beaches are fantastic and the hotel is situated on a peninsula. At low tide, you can walk almost 1/4 mile into the bay, which is actually an eerie sight first thing in the morning or late at night when the wind is howling through the cracks.<br /><br />The best way to see this movie is with the remote in your hand so you can fast forward through the action (and I'm using that term loosly)scenes and pause at the beauty of the surroundings!
This only gets bashed because it stars David Hasselhoff. Well, then let me bash it to. Compared to the garbage they call horror coming out nowadays, this film isn't too bad. It has the beautiful Leslie Cumming. She is super hot, but can't talk very well. There is a great scene with her when she is supernaturally raped. She shows off her nice body. Linda Blair does nothing here as well as Hasselhoff. 3/10
We brought this film as a joke for a friend, and could of been our worst joke to play. The film is barely watchable, and the acting is dire. The worst child actor ever used and Hasslehoff giving a substandard performance. The plot is disgraceful and at points we was so bored we was wondering what the hell was going on. It tries to be gruesome in places but is just laughable.<br /><br />Just terrible
Humm, an Italian movie starred by David hasselhoff and Linda Blair, I wasn´t expecting very much, to be honest and in fact, I took even less than I was expecting. It doesn´t mean this movie is the worst I have seen because I have watched worse things than this but the plot was most of the times confusing and uninteresting and some good gore scenes are the only thing saving this. Apart from that you are going to love some special effects, they are really cheesy and bad. Now I only want to watch "Troll 3" by this same director, sure it is not going to be worse than that.
I and a friend rented this movie. We both found the movie soundtrack and production techniques to be lagging. The movie's plot appeared to drag on throughout with little surprise in the ending. We both agreed that the movie could have been compressed into roughly an hour giving it more suspense and moving plot.
I'm gettin' sick of movies that sound entertaining in a one-line synopsis then end up being equal to what you'd find in the bottom center of a compost heap.<br /><br />Who knows: "Witchery" may have sounded interesting in a pitch to the studios, even with a "big name cast" (like Blair and Hasselhoff - wink-wink, nudge-nudge) and the effervescent likes of Hildegard Knef (I dunno, some woman...).<br /><br />But on film, it just falls apart faster than a papier-mache sculpture in a rainstorm. Seems these unfortunate folks are trapped in an island mansion off the Eastern seaboard, and one of them (a woman, I'd guess) is being targeted by a satanic cult to bear the child of hell while the others are offed in grotesque, tortuous ways. <br /><br />Okay, right there you have a cross-section of plots from "The Exorcist", "The Omen", "Ten Little Indians" and a few other lesser movies in the satanic-worshippers-run-amok line. None of it is very entertaining and for the most part, you'll cringe your way from scene to scene until it's over.<br /><br />No, not even Linda Blair and David Hasselhoff help matters much. They're just in it to pick up a paycheck and don't seem very intent on giving it their "all". <br /><br />From the looks of it, Hasselhoff probably wishes he were back on the beack with Pam Anderson (and who can blame him?) and Linda... well, who knows; a celebrity PETA benefit or pro-am golf tour or whatever it is she's in to nowadays.<br /><br />And the torture scenes! Ecchhhh. You'll see people get their mouths sewn shut, dangled up inside roaring fireplaces, strung up in trees during a violent storm, vessels bursting out of their necks, etc, etc. Sheesh, and I thought "Mark of the Devil" was the most sadistic movie I'd seen....<br /><br />Don't bother. It's not worth your time. I can't believe I told you as much as I did. If you do watch it, just see if you can count the cliches. And yes, Blair gets possessed, as if you didn't see THAT coming down Main Street followed by a marching band.<br /><br />No stars. "Witchery" - these witches will give you itches.
Not like I went in expecting a lot out of it, but I was at least hoping for a fun dumb big budget movie. This isn't even that. This item ranks in the bottom half of all the vampire movies I've ever seen (and believe me, I've seen a lot of them). Bad acting, zero characterization, little to no thought, almost non-existent plot (and that that's there you can drive semi-trucks through the holes in). Sure, it has action and is loud, and has more action, and more noise, and blood, and action... These things alone do not make a good (or even halfway decent) movie. Beats me how some people can say this is the best vampire movie ever made--all I can assume is they haven't seen many. I suggest seeing Near Dark instead.
That snarl...<br /><br />That scowl...<br /><br />The acts of random violence...<br /><br />The gutteral voice...<br /><br />The fetish wear...<br /><br />That shaven head...<br /><br />It can mean only one thing...<br /><br />GRACE JONES IS BACK!<br /><br />Actually my sources tell me that the title role in Blade wasn't played by the 1980s diva, but by Wesley Snipes.<br /><br />All in all this is not an improvement.<br /><br />Blade is an adaptation of a comic character; somehow in the transfer from the simplistic, two-dimensional world of the printed page it has become even more simplistic and lost a couple of dimensions.<br /><br />The plot is hackneyed almost beyond belief and adds nothing to the vampire genre, in fact, much like Nosferatu, it seems to suck the life out of the audience. In brief, upwardly mobile vampire wants to become more powerful but is opposed by Blade, half-human, half-vampire, all annoying. It all climaxes with Blade being put in a vampire juice press, some bad martial arts and the most pitiful CGI since 1968.<br /><br />Blade has to be the least empathic character since Dolph Lundgren's Punisher (also a comic adaptation, perhaps there is a trend here?). Surely the audience is meant to be on the same side as the 'hero'? And whilst a vampire can be a tragic character, this is not true of Blade, he is relentlessly cruel, scornful and not a whole lot better than the bad guys.<br /><br />I assume that Wesley Snipes has an 'acting' career purely so that everyone else can be compared favourably. As he snarls his way through his movie you find yourself looking for a stake - even a ballpoint pen - anything to put Blade in the grave. <br /><br />As a piece of narcissism, Blade is pretty much unbeatable - we are treated to endless lingering shots of a gym-fresh Snipes for no reason whatsoever. Likewise no other actor is allowed any chance to give a reasonable performance; the likes of Steven Dorff *CAN* act, but they have to play second fiddle to Snipes' tedious performance.<br /><br />Kris Kristofferson used to appear in good movies, here he is reduced to a sidekick that you just know isn't going to make it through to the final reel. And what happens when Blade finds out? Yes, you guessed it, he rushes to the scene to wreak his revenge in the villain's giant underground lair.<br /><br />Why can't world-domination take place in a quiet country house? They always go ahead in underground cathedrals that would have had Albert Speer wondering if they were a little grandiose. A lot of these plans could be stopped right now if local councils paid more attention to plans for extending sub-basements. <br /><br />The rest of the movie is just as dull and unimaginative with nothing new to add to the genre. Vampires have been done to undeath and perhaps they should be laid to rest for a while - at least until someone can think of some way to make them interesting again.<br /><br />To finish, there *IS* a Grace Jones vampire movie, it's called Vamp and it's about ten times better than this.
generally speaking I don't make negative comments on here. But since this is a festival piece, I don't want you to waste your time when you could see something else that might not be playing again.<br /><br />I thought the actors were pretty bad. For instance, they totally didn't play off each other, rather, they waited to RECITE their lines which were pretty poor to begin with. The dialogue sounded really forced. Norman or whatever his name tried, or so it would appear, to be witty and biting in the lines he chose but just fell really short.<br /><br />After words he asked if anyone saw the ending coming and some people were all "yea", and he all but called them liars. Look there were so many clues, the biggest being a briefcase full of cash for a $500 an hour whore. I mean the john gave her at least 20g's... tell tale sign. Now no you couldn't see exactly what was going to happen but by the time the twist actually occurred, I for one, didn't even care. I was just glad to get out of there. I asked him which draft he shot and he said 8.1, maybe next time he will wait to shoot 'til 15.3 cause this needed a lot of work.<br /><br />But he seemed like a fairly nice guy, he is making his own films, he'll probably get better and I hope he does, not in a snotty way either, I mean it, I wish him luck. Just remember, this is just my opinion.
This show should be titled, "When Bad Writing Happens To Good Actors" considering most of the players have demonstrated immense talent in other venues, e.g. Andre Braugher in Homicide: Life on the Street and David Morse in St. Elsewhere. I'm hoping that the frenetic pacing of the show is adjusted as the series develops along with the obvious cliches and dialogue so absurd I wondered just how stupid the writers imagined the core audience to be. We're beat over the head with the main points of this show instead of being left to gradually figure it out, almost as if the writers feel that they must spell out that the main character is some sort of avenging angel, sentenced to redeem himself from sins, both venial and mortal, via butting into his cab fares many affairs. Watching the premiere required much suspension of disbelief, that Mike Olshanskey's fares would so rapidly spill their guts and he would feel driven to intervene in the lives of utter strangers. That he possesses those "Super-Cop" abilities, to be all things to all people, weapons expert, martial arts master, psychologist, father-confessor, locksmith, and so on, ad infinitum. Pure drivelesque fantasy. What is it about recent televisions shows based in Philidelphia that they all seem to be imbued with a nasty ex-wife and a very disrepectfully bratty child? Overdone. I wanted to like this show, really I did, because it had the virtue of having a premise slightly different than many of the clones appearing in this season's fare and it stars some of my preferred actors. But I'm afraid this is just another possibly good idea ruined by careless execution.
I thought maybe... maybe this could be good. An early appearance by the Re-Animator (Jeffery Combs); many homage's to old horror movies; the Troma label on the front… this movie could be a gem! I thought wrong.<br /><br />Frightmare is a boring, overplayed, half assed homage to the fright films of yore. The story is an old one, young people breaking into a house, getting drunk, making love, and tampering with things that shouldn't be tampered with. The oft – recycled slasher film formula is used here, this time with a thought to be dead actor named Conrad Radzoff doing the killing. In fact, the performance by the Radzoff's actor Ferdy Mayne is the only redeeming quality of this film. He does the snooty Dracula style character very well. But as for the kids, its not so good, with Combs only having a minimal part.<br /><br />The film lacks entertainment value, and only features one cool character, and one or two scenes that can hold your attention. I do not recommend this film unless you are desperate for something to watch, and this is the only movie left at blockbuster.
1983's "Frightmare" is an odd little film. The director seems to be trying to combine the atmosphere of classic '30s/'40s style horror movies with the shock factor of the then-exploding '80s slasher genre. It isn't totally successful (mostly due to very obvious budgetary restraints, and the less-than-professional caliber of its cast of young actors) but it still has its moments, mostly due to the classy performance (classier than the movie deserves) by the late German actor Ferdinand Mayne, who plays an aging old time horror movie star (ala Vincent Price) named "Conrad Ratzoff." At the beginning of the movie we meet the has-been horror star as he's shooting a commercial for dentures and we quickly learn that ol' Conrad is a bit of a hoity-toity, prima donna jerk-off. Just when you think he couldn't be any more un-likable, the commercial director berates Conrad for blowing a take for the umpteenth time and the old goat pushes him off a balcony to his death. Nice, huh? Conrad then visits some fans at a college campus horror movie club, unfortunately he suffers a heart attack in the middle of his speech to them and eventually ends up back at his mansion waiting to die. Still feisty even at Death's door, he manages to do away with a despised business associate by smothering him with a pillow before he finally kicks the bucket himself. Conrad is then laid to rest in true Hollywood style in a high tech neon tomb with video screens above the casket, which will play personal video messages from Conrad himself for visitors who enter to pay their respects.<br /><br />It is at this point that the kids from the college Horror Movie Society decide to pay Conrad's grave an after hours visit, breaking into the tomb and taking his body back home with them for an all night party. (Not exactly my idea of fun, but hey, these are characters in an '80s horror film. Logic has no place here.) The college kids spend the evening having dinner with Conrad's body seated in a place of honor, posing for photos with it and even dancing around the room with it, before parking Conrad and his coffin in the attic, planning to return him to his crypt in the morning. In the meantime, Mrs. Ratzoff, distraught over the theft of her husband's body, has called in a psychic friend to try and "reach" Conrad through a seance. You can pretty much figure out the rest from here. Since Conrad wasn't a very nice guy in life, it's not much of a stretch to assume that he won't be any friendlier in death. Psychic Lady makes contact with Conrad and he re-awakens in predictably ticked off fashion, then spends the rest of the movie strolling around the corridors of the students' ridiculously huge house, picking off the young grave robbers one by one. This is where the movie falls apart. Endless scenes of teens wandering around empty hallways saying "Hello? Is anyone there?" are intercut with occasional bursts of violence (we do get a pretty gnarly decapitation scene, which is the highlight of the movie) before the last two survivors finally figure out (WAY later than any semi-intelligent people would have figured out the same thing...but again, we're in an '80s horror film!) that the only way to stop the mayhem is to get Conrad's body back to its crypt where it belongs. The sluggish pacing is padded out with a lot of weird lighting and dry ice fog effects backed by a soundtrack made up almost entirely of sound effects rather than music(thunder, moans and groans, howls, etc.) that becomes severely annoying after a while.<br /><br />I can't really recommend "Frightmare" to anyone who didn't grow up watching cheap movies like this on late night cable back in the '80s. "Modern Horror" fans will doubtlessly find "Frightmare" incredibly slow moving and goofy. If you came of age in that magical decade, however, you may get a blast of nostalgia from "Frightmare." Fans of Jeffrey ("Re-Animator") Combs may also want to check it out, as the future Dr. West appears in an early role here as one of the unlucky film students.<br /><br />I will advise the reader to avoid the version of this film on the EastWestDVD label (paired with Roy Ward's "Vault of Horror" and sold at dollar stores) because the print quality is terrible. I'm told the film has gotten a deluxe release via the fine folks at Troma, which seems appropriate. If you're a Troma kind of person then "Frightmare" will be right up your alley.
I don't get it! The teenage leads in "Horror Star" supposedly all are devoted horror fans, yet when their favorite idol (Conrad Radzoff) passes away, they dig up his corpse and do all sorts of disrespectful stuff with it, like disco-dancing it around the house and throw food leftovers at it. That doesn't sound like something real horror fans would do, now does it? I'm a big horror fan and I immensely idolize departed icons like Vincent Price, Peter Cushing and Boris Karloff, but it would never come to my mind to ridicule their memory. No wonder Conrad comes back from the dead – admittedly, after a séance – to wipe them all off the face of the earth! Mr. Radzoff already wasn't known for his friendliness in life, since he occasionally killed the directors that disagreed with his visions, and even after his death he suffers from a tremendous ego. Even inside his tomb there are video messages to petrify possible visitors and the group of teenagers will vividly experience that he also enjoys the murdering business outside his film sets. "Horror Star" (a.k.a. "Frightmare" and "Body Snatchers") is a pretty lame 80's horror flick, but there are a handful of cheesy & gory highlights to enjoy. The film mainly suffers from its own stupid plot, since no one – not even a film school student – is stupid enough to steal a recently buried corpse and actually think he'll get away with it, and there are too many tedious moments to struggle through. Conrad's video-speeches from beyond the grave are overly talkative and definitely undermine the tension, but on the other hand his killing methods are pleasingly inventive. One teenager enjoys the experience of getting cremated alive and another one (Jeffrey Combs in one of his first roles!) loses his head in a delightful decapitation sequence. In the absolute messiest sequence, a poor girl' head is crushed by a coffin. Writer/director Norman Thaddeus Vane wanted to bring homage to vintage horror cinema and he obviously how to make film look sinister. The locations and scenery are great, but Vane lacked the necessary funds to provide his film with a proper continuity and editing-job. The acting performances are overall decent, with Ferdy Mayne (imitating Christopher Lee) and Jeffrey Combs delivering the most memorable roles. "Horror Star" can hardly be called a must-see or even a good film, but it's worth tracking down in case you're an admirer of enthusiastically made B-horror.
Conrad Radzoff(Ferdy Mayne), a hammy cult icon, dies from a heart ailment(not before disposing of an ungrateful assistant and TV commercial director, both of whom disrespected him with showers of insults). His body is removed from his mausoleum by some film students(they wish to "invite him to dinner"..they are quite big fans). What these kids(..including a young Jeffrey Combs)don't expect is that Radzoff will be resurrected by a medium to wreak havoc on those who removed him from his place of rest.<br /><br />The list of violent acts include Radzoff pulling one guy's tongue out, setting a woman on fire, elevating a casket which crushes a woman's face, decapitates one fellow, and cremates another guy alive in a coffin. A really weird soundtrack and pesky fog wraps around Radzoff's ghoulish activities.<br /><br />Silly hokum from Troma is limited by a very, very low budget and slowwwwww pace. The film feels a lot longer than it is. The film isn't really that gory and we can hardly see much violence because the film is often too damn dark. At times, Radzoff is an ominous presence, yet at other times he just looks real silly.
One of the last surviving horror screen greats - Conrad Radzoff - dies and has his body placed in a mausoleum with televised-before-death snippets of the great Conrad greeting you as you visit. Unfortunately for him and his captors, Conrad's body is "borrowed" by a gang of four boys and three girls and taken to a huge manor where they drink with him, toast him, dance with him, laugh with and at him, and then put him to bed in a casket which just happens to by lying in a room upstairs. News of the missing body reaches Radzoff's widow and her friend(who happens to be proficient in the black arts) and she holds some kind of ceremony that brings Conrad back to life so he can, in his own words, get "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Well, Frightmare is an interesting "bad" film. Sure, it is cheap. The sets look like they were borrowed(which I am sure they were). The special effects and blood and guts are done liberally and with little credibility. The acting is average to below average with a few exceptions. Jeffrey Combs of Re-Animator fame is in tow, but really he does little in this rather thankless role as a horror obsessed teen that needs to steal a dead man's body for kicks. None of the "kids" except the pretty girl playing Meg is any good. Nita Talbot plays the "friend" of the Radzoffs with withering interest. Also, look for the big - I mean big - guy that plays the policeman. That is Porky himself of Porkys fame. But thankfully for all of us, one performance does rise above the material. Ferdy Mayne, an oft overlooked actor from Germany who had Christopher Lee features and did star as a vampire in The Fearless Vampire Killers, does a more than commendable job as the aging horror icon in public life and a real demon of a man in private life. Conrad Radzoff in a bad human being in life, living solely for his own pleasures and we see him kill twice before he is even dead(obviously none of the swinging teens at that point). Mayne is able to look very regal, speak very elegantly, and convey menace with ease. If for no other reason, one should see Frightmare for his performance. I do; however, believe that when they showed black and white clips of Radzoff that they used Christopher Lee footage(anyone have any thoughts?). Anyway, one can guess what happens and it does indeed: Radzoff goes out and goes after the kids that disturbed his peace. Again, the formula is trite and overused. The acting for the most part is anemic, and the direction oh so ridiculous. But Mayne gives a good performance in a sea of ineptitude. Definitely worth a little peek. Watching Mayne keep popping up on screens in his mausoleum brought a wry smile to my lips each time.
My parents used to rent a lot of horror movies when I was a child. We loved watching them even when they were bad they made for some enjoyment. This was one such movie, kind of hard to review as I have only seen it the one time as a child, but it is not anything I want to track down again so I can do a more in-depth review. The story has some old horror actor legend dying. I seem to remember he acted a bit like an over the top Vincent Price, without being likable and classy. He commits murders and dies, but what is this? Is the movie over already? No, as some kids for some reason snag the body and are prepared for a fun night of being killed by the ham from beyond the grave. I remember the murders were nothing all that special after the first couple and I remember this movie was rather disappointing. Seemed to have a good premise, but it just failed to deliver the goods as more cool kills were needed and that super horror actor needed to add a bit to his repertoire.
Frightmare begins with a horror movie icon killing a director and then his servant before he is laid to rest. This icon, who has some Christopher Lee qualities to him, then continues to haunt those around him when a group of horror film society students steal his corpse from the mausoleum he is in.<br /><br />The first ten minutes is well-filmed, good writing and lots of potential for murderous mayhem. But the film drags in the middle (although thankfully not as much as "House of Death") and never really gets that initial spurt of energy back.<br /><br />Lots of the deaths are confusing, as they seem to have people just falling over scared when they see a floating coffin or other odd things. Twice we see poisonous gas being used. But the box promises that this horror star will be the embodiment of all the monsters he has played. Boy, is that false advertising, unless he spent his career playing boring old men who take naps and watch "Matlock".<br /><br />The general principle of the film is decent: horror society kids stealing a corpse of a dead icon. A modern equivalent (digging up Vincent Price or Peter Cushing) would make a great film. Maybe a remake is in order if that wouldn't be too disrespectful. Sometimes theory doesn't come across as well in application, and this film offers that example.<br /><br />The only redeeming quality of this film (besides the beginning) is the brief appearance of a very young Jeffrey Combs. I saw him and thought "that's Jeffrey Combs" but felt I was mistaken as the box never mentioned him. But sure enough, Combs was present. (A note to this movie's film-makers: mention Combs on the cover of the DVD, you'll sell more copies if if you would be deceiving customers.) If you're a Jeffrey Combs die-hard, check out this early role. Otherwise, I cannot offer this as a great selection for a horror movie marathon. Let me suggest "Intruder" or "Popcorn", as those are both pretty decent and will stand the test of time.
It's Saturday, it's raining, and I think every movie should have at least one comment... so I just watched "The Crime Doctor's Courage" all the way through. It's a murder mystery with a typical cast of characters, and a couple of the usual suspects -- each with their own possible motive for the crime. The story starts abruptly and the viewer is thrown into the plot with no character development or storytelling whatsoever. I guess that's not too surprising for a B movie of this period. There are also some moments which look and feel like this is pre-WWII, but perhaps that is due to the writer's background in radio shows.<br /><br />The "Crime Doctor" is the sleuth who happens to be visiting California for some R&R from his psychiatry practice on the East coast. He hooks up with a mystery novelist friend with whom it is implied has been along for one or more previous mystery solving capers. The novelist occasionally fills the role of sidekick to our sleuth (AKA Dr. Watson), and also occasionally lightens things up with a bit of comic relief (sort of).<br /><br />There is also a somewhat simple, but not quite bumbling police captain who at times is annoyed by the meddling sleuth. And then there are the mysterious Braggas, a brother and sister who are dance artists at a night-club. The dance is sort of an interpretive dance that happens to be one of those moments which feels more like the 30's than the 40's. Though the story location is California, the Braggas appear to live in a castle!<br /><br />There was one plot element which managed to keep me somewhat amused, but I won't divulge any more than that because I always enjoy movies more when the story is discovered, rather than known in advance. (even though I can think of many, many, B films which would rate higher and it is difficult to say that watching this one is time well spent) I have not seen any other movies from the "Crime Doctor" series, so I can't make any comparisons.
I caught this on IFC last week and I thought it was typical of the indie short subject film: heavy on style, little on substance and originality. Does it comes as any surprise that a coming out film stars an unusually attractive (and blond to boot) boy with 70s shag hair and too-cool-for-school clothes? Plus, this film wallows in late 1970s chic, which works for some (Sofia Coppola's "The Virgin Suicides" comes to mind) but not for this director.<br /><br />Another reviewer compared this to Harmony Korine's work and I agree. Yet I don't view this as a positive thing (what has HE done lately, anyway?). "Bobbycrush" is really just a waste of time and energy for all involved. If you happen to see it late night on cable, turn the channel and watch something else instead.
Acolytes presents an interesting mix of original concepts in "screaming teen" cliché horror with a more thriller-like pacing. In some ways Acolytes is very successful, but in many other ways the film fails miserably.<br /><br />Overall Acolytes avoided the typical archetypes of the naivety and innocence of youth of endless horror films in the like of Cabin Fever, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and countless other films where unsuspecting and relatively naive and innocent teenagers, have sex, run around screaming and one-by-one are plucked off by some sort of monster. Instead this innocence is replaced with pride, retaliation, and arrogance. The characters had several opportunities to save themselves from immanent death and despair, but failed to do so due to their own personal demons. In the end you were left with the feeling that there were no (and perhaps are no) innocent victims.<br /><br />As the name implies, the film also touches greatly on following a leader or authority. This was used in a direct sense of if the main character would become like the serial killer and was also used less directly throughout the film. Following a central figure is a reoccurring theme throughout the film.<br /><br />Through all this, the film makers also incorporated a lot of cliché, which I suspect was intentional and gave the film a unique mixture of depth as well as shallowness which I found intriguing. This, perhaps inadvertently, plays well with the characters who are, at first appearance very shallow but as the story unfolds it becomes obvious that they are, at least the two main male characters, quite complex.<br /><br />Technically the film has a lot of problems however. The cinematography, which is typically regarded highly, I find rather sophomoric and over-stylized, utilizing formulaic 2/3 approaches far too rigidly. Many transitions I felt were also over-stylized. The use of symbolism was not only vague, but also greatly over used.<br /><br />The plot was poorly planned and relied exclusively on misinformation in order to achieve a rather hokey twist ending, which was poorly resolved and leaves viewers confused. Methods used to resolve the climax are cheap and ill-prepared, motivations are routinely unclear, and major plot points remain untied in the end.<br /><br />Overall, the film's relative originality, themes and thesis are lost in a maze of poor technical execution, over-stylized imagery, unclear motives, obtuse and unnecessary symbolism and cheap twists maintained only by a lack of or entirely incorrect information.<br /><br />If the film were better executed, it would have been excellent. However, Acolytes receives only two stars in my opinion.
This was a decent movie for the first half. Too many cheap BOO! moments but the tension builds, the bad guys are creepy and everything seems to be setting itself up nicely. The kids are not particularly deep but hey, that works for teens. <br /><br />Then it just gets ridiculous and tries way too hard- the "why in the world would he/they do that?" moments overwhelm anyone's capacity for suspension of disbelief, the twist involves too many ridiculous coincidences, and the title comes from a late attempt to philosophize some meaning into the film that goes nowhere and is quickly dropped. There was laughter in the theater at moments that were in no way supposed to be funny. <br /><br />Great premise but just badly written and doesn't hold together. Some very nice shots but they're hard to enjoy while you're rolling your eyes.
A rather lame teen slasher from Brisbane. While the plot hinges on a fairly decent idea, the writing is profoundly lame and two of the three main teens are absurdly wooden. The problem is that for the kids to go through with their plan they have to be far more reckless than shown, but if they were that devil-may-care, it would perhaps be hard for them to be likable, so they end up being neither really. In fact, I only started enjoying the film when I started wishing for their death. One of those movies where in about a thousand places the most sensible option would be to call the police. I realise we wouldn't have a movie if they did, but it would be nice if we could believe that they actually wouldn't. Avoid.
I was completely bored with this film, melodramatic for no apparent reason. Every thing just becomes so serious and people are swearing with really dumb expressions. Then there is a serial Killer who apparently can Kill one person to get the title of serial Killer. Well the serial Killer likes butterflies and is illustrated by sound effects you might hear in the dream sequence of most modern films;<br /><br />why oh why? I nave no idea. It really really wants to be scary, but I think in this universe scary equals talk a whole bunch and add dark ambient noises.Just for the record, this is in no way is a horror film, its most definitely a thriller (barely). Really movie makers nowadays need to do their homework before making "horror" films or at least calling a movie a "horror" film. it makes me say (in too may words ironically) "acolytes, you take forever to say nothing."
Art-house horror tries to use unconventional aesthetics to cover the fact that this is just another serial killer chiller which ultimately relies on pornographic combinations of teen sexuality and violent gore. The suburbs come across about as well as they do in every piece of Australian writing (book or film) since 1960 - surprise surprise, the suburbs have a dark underbelly - and the plot is as contrived as any you've seen. "The neighbours would never know about this guy," one of the filmmakers says about Joel Edgerton's character. "But he was completely plausible as to what he was. Serial killers don't all have patches over their eyes and scars down their cheeks. They look like the guy next door." Another trader in pornographic violence who sees a serial killer in every street. But the real insignificance of this film is in the fact that it's a genre film that nobody saw. Backed by substantial funds (including some from Film Finance - that's government), this got a run at the Underground Film Festival in Melbourne and had to rely on ACMI kindness for a *very* short release season. Q1: What is the FFC doing funding genre flicks, even if they are 'arty' and aesthetically unconventional? Q2: Why are these nasty movies (ACOLYTES; BEAUTIFUL; PUNISHMENT; NO THROUGH ROAD) being made in the first place? Richard Wolstencroft & co encourage their creators to believe they're giving the masses what they really want, as opposed to what the culture elite in government funding think they want. The truth is that these brutal and forgettable nasties earn far more critical acclaim - and win far more obscure awards - than they're due.
The film opens with a cult leader attempting to resurrect a dead member with his followers chanting for his rebirth as the sun strikes upon them in the desert. Reanhauer(Bill Roy)believes wholeheartedly in his power, and gets so worked up that he collapses with what appeared to be a heart attack. Unable to keep him alive, all those involved, doctors and nurses, are sentenced for attack with Reanhauer's demonic spirit invading the curvaceous body of nurse Sherri(..big-chested Jill Jacobson)targeting each one using her as a tool of vengeance. Forced against her will, with no memory of inflicting such harm, Sherri's host body murders selected victims. Fortunately, Sherri's fellow co-worker, nurse Tara(Marilyn Joi)begins a rather blossoming romance with a blinded patient, Marcus Washington(Prentiss Moulden), once a star football player, whose mother was a practitioner of voodoo. Through Marcus' knowledge, passed down from mom, Tara finds out about possession and how to possibly save Sherri before she murders everyone unknowingly. Meanwhile, Sherri's lover, Dr. Peter Desmond(Geoffrey Land)worries about her present condition and welfare.<br /><br />Well, this was my first Al Adamson film and I must agree with his detractors that, just from this film alone, it seems he holds them together with paper clips and Elmer's glue. The animation with which we see the spirit take control of Sherri is beyond awful and rather laughable. A little soft-core nonsense as filler, some demonic possession thrown in the mix(Sherri actually speaks in another voice when she's possessed), with naughty nurse behavior(..the three nurses focused on in the film all are quite sexually active and free-spirited)and a little bit violence/gore. The film is essentially shot in tiny rooms with dull dialogue from a rather mundane cast. The sexual situations aren't that hard-core and Al often shoots them without revealing all that much. The film looks embarrassingly cheap and there's an absence of thrills, although the chilling score(..which sounds like something from Dark Shadows)does help a little bit. Jacobson and Mary Kay Pass(..as nurse Beth who seems to be a nymphomaniac if she'll even screw a nutty patient, always complaining of illnesses he really doesn't have, with enough chest hair to declare him a Neanderthal)aren't bad looking, and Adamson's story-line, although frail, is somewhat coherent(..it seems he rarely directs films which are). Overall, the movie looks like it cost 5 bucks and Adamson just can not overcome the budgetary restrictions(..or, in my opinion, create an unpleasant enough atmosphere due to a sometimes plodding narrative and tedious scenes which do little for the story). John F Goff has the role of the hospital's psychiatrist who wants to commit Sherri, not believing the idea that she was possessed;he constantly bickers with Peter over her. I watched the unrated "lost" version which I guess is the real version to watch of Nurse Sherri.
I bought this on VHS as "Terror Hospital", and when I got home I checked IMDb and was like OMG it's the legendary "Nurse Sherri"!!! So here's another one from Al Adamson, who had clearly learned some minuscule amount about film-making since the "Blood of Dracula's Castle" days. Where that earlier effort is a more or less totally sclerotic lump, this one mixes it up a little, adding a definite element of variety and surprise amid the incompetence. Sure half of the movie is a blind post-op football player shooting the breeze with his stacked nurse, but at any moment we might be cutting away to the cackling disembodied head of the satanist mastermind, or Nurse Sherri running a farmer through with a pitchfork, or a wee bit of abstract student-film quick cutting to go with the pulsing-blob effects in the possession scene, or the most gratuitously half-hearted topless bit ever, or god knows what else (I forget, to be honest). As dumb-ass pieces of sh*t go, this one runs toward the high end. Congrats, Al.
This is a hard film to rate. While it truly deserves its 3 (or perhaps even a two), for an Al Adamson film, it's exceptional--and practically Adamson's very best. That's because unlike many Adamson films, there are times when NURSE SHERRI almost looks competent. But, being an Adamson film, you know that sooner or later that crappiness MUST rear its ugly head! <br /><br />The film begins with some bizarre cult leader of a huge congregation (six) trying to resurrect a dead guy who looks like he's made of blue cheese. However, in the process, the cult dude has a heart attack and it taken to the hospital. He apparently dies, but it also seems like many of these hospital scenes are missing and a few of them appear much later in the film. In other words, when you see the film, he appears to have possibly recovered--only to hear later that he'd died. Because the guy is the b.f.f. of Satan, however, his evil soul can't die and he comes back to both haunt one of his henchmen and to possess Nurse Sherri.<br /><br />Now, Sherri is obviously a very disturbed lady--demonic possession or not. At times she acts like a zombie and at others she's violently homicidal. So I ask..."why didn't her boyfriend (a doctor) think this was, perhaps, problematic?!". In other words, after trying to kill a patient, he neither gets an exorcist nor commits her to the booby hatch!!! Oh, and speaking of boobies...this movie is NOT the breast-filled sex romp its title and posters would indicate. While there are a few bare breasts here and there, they are irrelevant to the plot and only seen very briefly (1/2 second or so) in all but one scene. So, if you are a perv, this movie is not for you--though a few places in the film (such as the nurse undressing for a patient) make it look like the film MIGHT have, at one time, been designed as a porn flick.<br /><br />If you are a bad movie fan, however, there is enough to whet your appetite. Some examples of incompetence are the inability of many of the actors to deliver lines that aren't zombie-like--and I am not even talking about Sherri. Especially noticeable is one of the very final scenes--I have never seen and heard some stilted acting and dialog in my life--and this includes Ed Wood's films! There are also a few more cheap touches, such as the bad animation of the "green stuff", the doctor finding a murdered nurse yet continuing to investigate in a house where walls are covered in blood (I'd get a cop...better yet, an army of cops).<br /><br />So despite these problems, why do I think it's good for an Adamson film? Well, the story isn't all bad and he was able to build tension very well. Many false alarms early on made my heart race a bit. Also, the car crash, while irrelevant, came off pretty well and was practically big-budget for Adamson.<br /><br />Overall, not a good film and one most people would be bored watching. However, fans of Adamson or inept films will like it--it does deliver some entertainment in a cheesy manner that will provide a few laughs.
I only came here to check Terror Hospital for an alternate title so I'd know what not to pick up. Not only do I get the original title, but I come to find Terror Hospital is one of seven more aliases.This one is a real clunker. Movies like this can usually be forgiven for any number of reasons, mostly unintended consequences of the feature on every level of production that result in at least a mild form of entertainment, mostly amusement. This has none of that. Instead, the viewer is witness to redundantly unnecessary and way-too-convenient-for-the-situation exposition and drawn out scenes of characters warily moving from room to room, and all this is half of the film. Forget trying to figure out where anybody is (or who they are) during darkened or nighttime scenes, too; you probably won't care, anyway. There is also a random car chase sequence that seems quite dull when compared to some of the old driver's ed movies I slep... er, I mean sat through and watched way back in high school. Really, we're talking about mysticism, possession, and a killer on the loose here - not a bad recipe for trash cinema. Unfortunately, there's nothing here to make it even "good" trash; when joined to the aforementioned, the bad acting and not-so-special effects are just that - bad acting and not-so-special effects. This one's just trash, pure and simple. Leave it on the rack at the pawn shop or in that box at the yard sale. There's a reason its there...
The first 20 minutes were a little fun because I don't think I've seen a film this bad before {acting, script, effects (!), etc....} The rest of the running time seemed to drag forever with every cliche in dialog used to no effect. These people seemed to not really like horror movies or how to make them or any other movie. There's no adult language, a bit of brief nudity, and no gore except fake blood smeared over no open wounds, etc.. It would have been rated PG in the early eighties and PG-13 nowadays. I'm not sure how it got an R rating or if it really did. I saw the American International release titled Hospital Of Terror. I've seen 100 horror films in the past 12 months and this is probably the worst film I've ever seen. Here's an example of how bad it is: There's one scene where something green comes through the door. I'm not sure what it's supposed to be but what it is on screen is some kid's green crayon scribblings {I'm not exaggerating} super-imposed over the film, semi-moving inside the door, then its supposed to do something to Nurse Sherri to possess her I suppose. I could not believe they had the lack of pride to show this embarrassment.
This film, which I rented under the title "Black Voodoo" should be avoided. I was expecting a blaxploitation/horror flick; but what I got was a very dull, standard "ghost extracts vegence". In this case the ghost was that of a religious cult leader who tried to refuse treatment, but who's plea was ignored and he died in an operation. The result: his spirit posesses Nurse Sherry and forces her to commit acts of murder. The only voodoo connection was to one of the three black characters, in this case a blinded ex-football player, who's mom practiced voodoo. The film is very slow and very dull. There is a very standard ending that provides on excitement, followed by a horrificly stupid ending (warning: SPOILER)<br /><br />In which a woman actually manages to defend herself against murder charges by saying she was possessed. This movie is slow, and bad in a non-funny, just stupefying way. Avoid it at all costs.
Maniratnam, who in India, is often compared with prominent world film makers and is regarded a genius in film-making, has yet again proved that he can only make the frames look visually good, without offering much food for thought.Forget about pure cinematic pleasure that can be derived from cinema as a very old form of art.<br /><br />While I would not like to claim and portray myself as someone who has seen all the beautiful movies made around the world, still any thoughtful and a bit educated film goer can identify that his films do not contain innovative ingenuous plots, does not contain lingering effects afterward and MOSTLY contain ridiculous ending and a LOT of melodrama, seen profusely in Indian movies.<br /><br />Overall, Maniratnam has successfully confirmed my distaste for his films once again.<br /><br />Sorry for those who on this board were claiming otherwise. My suggestion to you: WATCH SOME BEAUTIFUL CINEMAS MADE AROUND THE GLOBE.
Jacqueline Hyde starts like any other normal day for telemarketing individual Jackie Hyde (co-producer Gabriella Hall) until her boss (Robert Donovan) fires her for taking personal calls at work, however it's not all bad news as the call she took was from a lawyer informing her that her Grandfather (Malcolm Bennett) has recently died & that he left her his mansion & fortune (why doesn't stuff like that ever happen to me? Sigh). Very excited Jackie heads on over there & makes herself right at home, while looking for the thermostat late one night Jackie stumbles upon a secret room where her Grandfather stashes the bright red formula that he invented that allows whoever drinks it to change their appearance. Being a bit on the porky side Jackie finally settles on the glamorous Jacqueline (Blythe Metz), however Jackie's better looking alter-ego starts to take control...<br /><br />Written, co-produced & directed by Rolfe Kanefsky I thought Jacqueline Hyde was complete total & utter crap from start to finish & it's as simple & straight forward as that. According to the opening credits Jacqueline Hyde was 'inspired' by the classic Robert Louis Stevenson novel 'The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde', frankly if Mr. Stevenson could see what was being done to his story here he'd turn in his grave. For a start I think Jacqueline Hyde was/is intended to be a horror film, the IMDb certainly lists it as such but there isn't any horror in it at all apart from just how bad it is. I would say that Jacqueline Hyde is more a soft-core porno than anything else & extremely tame with it, why sit down & watch this softer than soft porno crap when you can watch you proper hard-core stuff that actually delivers the goods? Why, that's the question I ask here. It's not even good porn either, besides being far too soft it's dull, boring & the not-worth-mentioning sex scenes are few & far between. The most intelligent aspect of this film is the title which would have been quite clever if not for the fact that another film used the Jacqueline Hyde (1998) title during the last century & judging by the IMDb's plot summary it sounds a hell of a lot better than this piece of rubbish. This is one of those films you have to watch yourself to see just how bad it is but just hope that you never get the opportunity.<br /><br />Director Kanefsky was obviously working on a low budget but that's not an excuse these days, shot on a digital camcorder the film looks cheap & the few instances of CGI look like they came from a Nintendo Gameboy, the final 'shocking' twist has probably the worst morph effect I've ever seen & is pretty good for a laugh as is the scene when Jackie's breasts grow via more terrible CGI. That's another thing, the film takes itself far too seriously. The subject matter sucks, is far too predictable & makes for a poor film but maybe if the dialogue had been intentionally funny with some dirty porn talk the film might have been more fun to watch, alas it isn't so it isn't. Forget about any decent horror, violence or gore as there isn't any apart from a surprisingly bloodless decapitation at the end.<br /><br />Technically Jacqueline Hyde is home made film type stuff, the photography is of the flat hand held point-&-shoot variety, the music, production design & special effects are of a suitably low standard to match the script. The acting was awful, seriously this is bad.<br /><br />Jacqueline Hyde in my opinion a load of crap, there is not one positive thing about this turgid film that I can think of. Any proper film lover will have an almost impossible time trying to find any redeeming value in this crap, definitely one to avoid.
Sorry, but Jacqueline Hyde (get it??? - Jack L and Hyde - Jekyll & Hyde) has some of the worst acting this side of hardcore porn, not to mention a script apparently written by a first-grader with undiagnosed learning disabilities.<br /><br />Jackie Hyde inherits an old mansion by a grandfather she never knew she had. Guess who? Yes, an inventor of the special formula that slowly takes over one's body and mind - yes, that Mr. Hyde! <br /><br />Despite some nice skin scenes, this film fails to register any feeling or emotion other than uncontrollable laughter.<br /><br />As much as poor Jackie tries she just can't stay away from granddaddy's special formula and the result is an hour and half of wasted time.
This film seems well made, and more efforts should be made to promote films by women. That aside, this film is also profoundly disturbing in that it justifies the manipulative and psychotic machinations of a character that is profoundly disturbed. If you've seen any of the promotional material, you might think this is a poignant film about a relationship that's reached its end, but none of that suggests how really disturbing the central premise is:<br /><br />A woman threatens suicide unless her soon to be ex agrees to relive here most treasured memories of their relationship. When told how unfair (to say the least) that such a threat is, Tessa (the purported protagonist) suggests that "life's not fair."<br /><br />Huh??? This character also uses tears to manipulate her former lover into staying, and coaxes him into sexually oriented behavior (which she initially denies as a motive) all the while assuring him "this isn't sex."<br /><br />Reverse the genders, have the leads played by Tracey Gold and Brian Austin-Green and this could air in feature length on Lifetime with a title like "Hostage to Obsession." There is no medically accepted definition of sound mental and emotional stability that would encompass Tessa's behavior in this film.<br /><br />Props to Kristen Thomson for playing a border-line psychotic, manipulative ex to a T, perhaps too well because there is no well-adjusted person, male or female, who could watch this and not have shivers run up their spine.
It hurt to watch this movie, it really did... I wanted to like it, even going in. Shot obviously for very little cash, I looked past and told myself to appreciate the inspiration. Unfortunately, although I did appreciate the film on that level, the acting and editing was terrible, and the last 25-30 minutes were severe thumb-twiddling territory. A 95 minute film should not drag. The ratings for this one are good so far, but I fear that the friends and family might have had a say in that one. What was with those transitions? Dear Mr. Editor, did you just purchase your first copy of Adobe Premiere and make it your main goal to use all the goofy transitions that come with that silly program? Anyway... some better actors, a little more passion, and some more appealing editing and this makes a decent movie.
Rita Hayworth is just stunning at times and, for me, the only reason to watch this silly film. Despite the overdone 1940s lipstick, Rita was one of the all-time glamor women of Hollywood. In fact, for a couple of years I can't imagine anyone that looked better, except maybe Elizabeth Taylor in her prime.<br /><br />Anyway, the co-star of the show, Gene Kelly, does not play his normal likable, at least the kind of guy we all know him from in "Singin' In The Rain." Here, Kelly's "Danny McGuire" pouts much of the time. Phil Silvers, who I loved on TV at "Sgt. Bilko," is so stupid in here as "Genius" you will just cringe listening to his dumb jokes....and they are stupid.<br /><br />The visuals are good with great Technicolor, which almost looks terrific. You get to see a lot of pretty women in here, too, not just Hayworth. Unfortunately, the story isn't all that much. It centers around Hayworth deciding about a career choice. Along the way, we get the normal shabby treatment of marriage and we get an insultingly-dumb ending. All in all, an unmemorable film, except as a showcase for Hayworth's beauty.
Like 'Singin' in the Rain', 'Cover Girl' has a trio of two guys and a girl. In 'Cover Girl', Phil Silvers (Genius) is the comic relief. He corresponds to Donald O'Connor's funny man part in 'Singin in the Rain'. In Cover Girl, Gene Kelly's love interest is Rita Hayworth and in 'Rain', it's Debbie Reynolds. That's where the comparison ends.<br /><br />Whereas "Singin' in the Rain' is a classic American movie musical, 'Cover Girl' is mediocrity incarnate. The story isn't very complicated. Rusty Parker (Rita Hayworth) is a dancer in Danny MacGuire's low-rent nightclub in Brooklyn. Rusty decides to enter a Cover Girl contest sponsored by a wealthy publisher, John Coudair, who made an unsuccessful play for Rusty's grandmother years ago. Coudair introduces Rusty to Broadway producer Noel Wheaton who makes her into a star. Danny feels slighted when Rusty starts showing up late for rehearsals at the nightclub and decides to close the club down and go on the road entertaining the troops along with his sidekick, Genius. At the last minute, with Rusty at the altar with Noel, she realizes the error of her ways and runs back to Danny. They live happily ever after.<br /><br />Gene Kelly has the least developed part in the movie. All we find out about him is that he owns a nightclub and is madly in love with Rusty. Coudair and Wheaton act like besotted teenagers toward Rusty and Phil Silvers delivers some thoroughly goofy but unfunny shtick. The most interesting aspect of Rita Hayworth's performance is the scene in which she gets drunk. This foreshadows what happened to her in real life. Anyone who has read her biography will learn that she disliked Hollywood, pined away for a normal home life which she could never attain but eventually began drinking and ended up with full-blown Alzheimer's during the last years of her life.<br /><br />Almost all of the songs in Cover Girl are old-fashioned and not very tuneful. Gene Kelly has only one really excellent dance number and that's the scene where he dances with his 'alter ego'. Earlier, the trio has another number which is a pale precursor of 'Make em Laugh' from 'Singin' in the Rain'.<br /><br />The most annoying thing about 'Cover Girl' is the way in which Rita Hayworth is put up on a pedestal. A couple of decades later, Raquel Welch had the same problem. Both actresses later in their careers would always try and find scripts that showcased their acting abilities. They wanted to be known as 'actresses' and not 'pinup girls'. Unfortunately, 'Cover Girl' is an example of how Hollywood used to exploit women for financial gain.
Rita Hayworth plays a Brooklyn nightclub dancer named Rusty who specializes in cheesecake chorus revues; she manages to get herself on the cover of a national fashion magazine, but her impending success as a solo (with romantic offers all around) has smitten boss Gene Kelly chomping at the bit. Terribly tired piece of Technicolor cotton candy, with unmemorable musical sketches (the two worst of which are irrelevant flashbacks to the 1890s, with Hayworth portraying her own grandmother). Kelly, as always, dances well but acts with false sincerity; when he's serious, he's insufferable, and the rest of the time he's flying on adrenaline. The script is a lead weight, not even giving supporting players Phil Silvers and Eve Arden any good lines. *1/2 from ****
"Cover Girl" is a lacklustre WWII musical with absolutely nothing memorable about it, save for its signature song, "Long Ago and Far Away." This film came out before Gene Kelly really hit his artistic stride, and while there are evidences of his burgeoning talent here, mostly he plays sidekick to Rita Hayworth. And there's the problem. Rita Hayworth is gorgeous, no doubt about that. But she's simply not a compelling screen presence. I've always found myself wanting to like her more than I actually do, and this movie is no exception. She's simply not a very good actress, and she's not even a very good dancer. Good looking as she is, there's something vapid about her, and this movie suffers because of it.<br /><br />Grade: C-
Formulaic slasher film, only this one stars three ten year olds (all born during a lunar eclipse) as the killers. Nice, huh? A little bit of gore and a nice nude scene may make this worthwhile for diehard fans of the genre, others beware.<br /><br />*1/2 out of ****
Is it a poorly acted, cliche-ridden pile of trash? Of course. Anyone who doesn't realize that when they pick up the box in the video store probably doesn't have any right judging movies in the first place. Thus, I will now rate the aspects of the film that we actually care about on a scale of 1 to 10:<br /><br />Violence and gore: 4 -- For this genre, there are very few deaths, and the gore is almost non-existent. Anyone looking for a little blood should probably look elsewhere. The only redeeming quality is the fact that kids are doing these awful things, which raises the bar a little.<br /><br />Suspense: 1 -- Okay, I feel bad for anyone who gets scared by this trio of dorky looking kids.<br /><br />Nudity/sex: 7 -- Lots of boobage from three different women, one of whom is the MTV vj Julie Brown. There are two sex scenes, but little is shown in them.<br /><br />Unintentional humor -- 4 -- There are a few good laughs with the kids trying to act scary, but all in all, it's just bad, not funny bad.<br /><br />Overall -- 4 -- It's not unwatchable. There are a few fun moments, and enough nudity to keep your attention for the entire movie. However, only watch this movie if you're a big fan of the 80's slasher flicks. This definitely falls on the lower end of the scale, but it's not all the way at the bottom. The real downside is the disappointing ending. It almost ruined the movie for me.
'Bloody Birthday' is an odd and, at times, humorous low-budget horror flick along the lines of 'Mikey' or a less intelligent version of 'The Good Son'.<br /><br />Set in a small Californian town, three babies are born at the height of an eclipse, where planetary alignment means they are somehow born without emotions. Ten years later, our three little psychopaths take themselves on a killing spree, doing away with parents, siblings, teachers and anyone else who irritates them. Only one teenage girl knows the truth to be able to stop them. There is no explanation for why babies across the world born at the same time aren't equally as twisted but there you go!<br /><br />For a slasher film, it's very tame in terms of violence and gore, which I suppose highlights the problem of casting child characters as the killers as there is only so much you can expose the young actors to. Instead, it's amusing and a little disturbing seeing three ten-year-olds plotting murders and carrying out their plans using guns, knives and crossbows. The main reason why it doesn't descend into being totally ridiculous is because the child actors are very convincing in their roles with the way they slyly play the little innocents in front of undiscerning adults while showing their dark side to the girl who knows the truth.<br /><br />'Bloody Birthday' is rather mediocre as a horror flick, with few scares and little blood, but because it has the shock factor of having kids as the killers, it is a bit unique in that way. One to watch if there's nothing else on.
When people say children are annoying u think ya my little cousins can be annoying and i said LITTLE. These children are turning 10 and they are without a doubt the most annoying bratty children you will ever encounter (in a film). Lets start with the blonde - Debbie - She's a slut of a girl, i mean come on she wears mini skirts, she has stupid frizzy blonde hair and a freckley red bunny like face. She acts so innocent. Next we have the second child - the Geek - who thinks he's so cool, with his long range shooting and his use of a silencer (a coat over the gun) and most of all his evil bratty smile. The next kid is the quiet one you don't care about so thats all on him. This film angered me at the children's intelligence and the only enjoyment i got was from my cousin who kept bitching about them.
When you make a film with a killer-kids premise, there are two effective ways to approach it; you can either make it as realistic as possible, creating believable characters and situations, or you can make it as fun as possible by playing it for laughs (something which the makers of "Silent Night, Deadly Night" did, for example, on an equally controversial subject: a killer Santa). The people who made "Bloody Birthday", however, do neither of those things; they simply rely on the shock value of the image of a kid with a gun (or a knife, or a noose, or an arrow) in his/her hand. The result is both offensive and stupid. The whole film looks like a bad idea that was rushed through production (and then kept from release for several years). It's redeemed a tiny bit by good performances from the kids, but it's VERY sloppily made. (*1/2)
Bloody Birthday is a totally rubbish slasher movie from beginning to end. <br /><br />I found the acting to be pretty good considering the genre of movie and its obvious low budget. I don't know what was going on with the cinematography but it looked ghastly. Way too over-saturated. Maybe this is a bad transfer to DVD or maybe it always looked like that, I don't know. <br /><br />There really are no redeeming qualities to speak of. There are a few deaths but not really gory. I wouldn't bother with it if I was you. The best thing about the DVD was the 15 minute interview with producer Max Rosenberg who was very amusing and honest. He didn't have anything good to say about director Ed Hunt and admits the movie was a failure, but he would like to re-make it as he believes it has a decent plot. However, he died in 2004 so I guess it will be up to someone else to take on that challenge. With the way things have been going in the last few years it wouldn't surprise me, there's at least one re-make per week at the cinema these day. It couldn't be any worse than the original I suppose but I couldn't care less whether it got re-made or not.
A mean spirited, repulsive horror film about 3 murderous children. Susan Strasberg is totally wasted in a 5-minute cameo, even though she receives star billing. If your a Julie Brown fan, you'll want to check it out, since she's naked in a couple of shots. All others,avoid.
This movie cannot be serious because it has a nerdy looking kid named Curtis killing people. The other two psycho kids are kind of cute but that Curtis kid is just so ugly because he wears these huge, brown, ugly glasses. The actor probably wandered on the wrong set and he was really supposed to go to Revenge of the Nerds.<br /><br />Another thing that I hate so much about this movie is that Curtis takes his sweet time shooting people. I kept my finger on the fast forward button because he took too long and what was up with his voice? He sounded like he was fourteen and not ten. Another thing I hated was that he kept smiling like an idiot and there was no point to that.<br /><br />Then they put that annoying kid in the freezer and somehow he found a flashlight in there. That didn't make any sense and neither did the music. The music didn't fit any of the scenes.<br /><br />This movie is slow, boring and a waste of time. Watch a different movie on your birthday.
Bloody Birthday opens to a shot of Meadowvale General Hospital. There three babies are being born at precisely the same time during a total eclipse. A caption informs us that it is now 'Meadowvale, California June 1, 1980'. Two teenage lovers, Duke Benson (Ben Marley) and Annie Smith (Erica Hope) are getting down to business in an open grave. They hear noises and Duke investigates. Both Duke and Annie are murdered. Sheriff Jim Brody (Bert Kramer) is baffled and only has the handle of a child's skipping rope that Annie was holding, as a clue. Unfortunately before Sheriff Brody can solve the case his youngest daughter Debbie (Elizabeth Hoy) and two of her friends Curtis Taylor (Billy Jayne as Billy Jacoby) and Steven Seton (Andy Freeman) murder him. Just as they are finishing Sheriff Brody off another young boy from their class named Timmy Russel (K.C. Martel) turns up, the three killers are unaware of how much he saw. Soon after the incident Timmy plays with Steven and Curtis in a junkyard. Curtis locks Timmy into an old locker. Timmy manages to escape and tell his sister Joyce (Lori Lethin), but she doesn't believe him at first. The three children carry on their murder spree. Their strict teacher Miss Davis (Susan Strasberg) a lovemaking couple (John Avery and Sylvia Wright) in a van and Debbie's older sister Beverly (Julie Brown) are among their victims. Joyce begins to have her suspicions about Debbie, Curtis and Steven which makes her and Timmy a target for the evil trio. Will they be able to convince the authorities that these three innocent looking 10 year olds are really soulless killers?<br /><br />Co-written and directed by Ed Hunt I have an intense dislike for this film. I think it's absolutely awful and doesn't have a single enjoyable aspect to it's 83 minute running time. The script by Hunt and Barry Pearson gives us no explanation for the child killers motives beyond the solar eclipse that blocks out Saturn and therefore for some bizarre astrological reason these three children don't have any conscience, so these are the only children ever born during a total eclipse? If that is true why do they wait until just before their tenth birthday's before starting their killing spree? I guess it just suddenly kicks in, right? To it's credit it is reasonably well paced but I still found it incredibly boring and tedious to sit through. The film as a whole is very unexciting and predictable, the children are revealed as the killers within the first 10 minutes and as I've mentioned next to no motive is given. It's very silly at times, too. Check out the scene where Debbie stops Steven by throwing a bowl of water over him! The Sheriff's death is put down to him falling down some steps, yeah right the injuries suffered from that type of accident aren't going to be the same as if your beaten to death with a baseball bat like he was in reality, any competent Doctor or Pathologist would have spotted that within 5 seconds. There isn't a single drop of blood spilt in the entire film and all of the lame killings are dull and unimaginative. There is some out-of-place looking nudity as Debbie charges 25c to let boys peek through a hole while her sister Beverly strips. There is an early scene just after the 5 minute mark when Joyce walks from the kitchen to the living room and the boom mike is clearly visible at the top of the screen, not even a little bit of it the whole damn thing. The general incompetence continues throughout the film. The whole production is bland and instantly forgettable. The acting is poor throughout, those three kids are very annoying and got on my nerves right from the start and made sitting through this film even more of a chore, especially Curtis in his geeky over-sized glasses. I just hate this film really, simple as that. I can't think of a single good thing to say about it. Definitely one to avoid.
Might end up being the biggest disappointment that I will see in 2009. I seem to be the rare person who disliked Park's Oldboy, but I think that his "Lady Vengeance" and "Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance" are among the best films I've seen in the 2000's decade. Therefore, I really was looking forward to see this, especially as it got such positive reviews. Instead, I found the film clichéd, and broke little, if any new ground to the vampire genre. And while I can appreciate a bit of gallows humor in movies like this, I felt Park did this at very inopportune times.<br /><br />Others have compared/contrasted this to "Let the Right One In," and I have to say that "Let the Right One In" was far superior to this one, and was a fresh take on the vampire genre. Sadly, Park's take was a tired one.
For years, I've been a big fan of Park's work and "Old boy" is one of my all-times favorite.<br /><br />With lots of expectation I rented this movie, only to find the worst movie I've watched in awhile. It's not a proper horror movie; there's no suspense in it and even the "light" part is so lame, that I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.<br /><br />I introduced my younger brother to Chan-Wook Park and what a disappointment he got from this. For me, an idol has fallen.<br /><br />If you loved movies like "Old boy", the Mr & Lady "Vengeance" or even his short films on "Three extremes", don't waste your time, the film's not worth it.
Few movies have dashed expectations and upset me as much as Fire has. The movie is pretentious garbage. It does not achieve anything at an artistic level. The only thing it managed to receive is a ban in India. If only it was because of the poor quality of film making rather than the topical controversy, the ban would have been more justifiable.<br /><br />Now that I've got my distress out of my system, I am more able to analyse the movie: <br /><br />* From the onset the movie feels unreal especially when the protagonists start conversing in English. The director, of course, did not make the movie for an Indian audience; however it underestimated its international audiences by over simplifying it. Watching the character of the domestic help conversing in perfect English is too unreal to be true.<br /><br />* Next we get regular glimpses into Radha's dreams. These scenes are not very effective. They coming up as jarring and obstruct the flow of the movie. I'm still wondering how that philosophical dialogue connected to the story. I felt that the surrealism was lost.<br /><br />* The love scenes felt voyeuristic and are probably meant for audience titillation rather than being a powerful statement. In any case, they do not achieve either of the two.<br /><br />* The names chosen for the women, Radha and Sita, are names of Hindu deities and hence been selected to shock the audiences. However, since the film wasn't meant for Indian audiences in the first place, the shock-through-name-selection is not meant to achieve its goal, which is absurd.<br /><br />* The quality of direction is very poor and some key and delicate scenes have been poorly handled. A better director could have made a powerful emotional drama out of the subject.<br /><br />* The acting felt wooden although Nandita Das brought some life into the role, the others were wasted. I always thought that Shabana Azmi was a good actress but her talent is not evident in this film. The male leads were outright rubbish.<br /><br />In case you are a fan of Earth and wish to see more of the director, stay away from this one. Please.
Some may go for a film like this but I most assuredly did not. A college professor, David Norwell, suddenly gets a yen for adoption. He pretty much takes the first child offered, a bad choice named Adam. As it turns out Adam doesn't have both oars in the water which, almost immediately, causes untold stress and turmoil for Dr. Norwell. This sob story drolly played out with one problem after another, all centered around Adam's inabilities and seizures. Why Norwell wanted to complicate his life with an unknown factor like an adoptive child was never explained. Along the way the good doctor managed to attract a wifey to share in all the hell the little one was dishing out. Personally, I think both of them were one beer short of a sixpack. Bypass this yawner.
An obvious vanity press for Julie in her first movie with Blake. Let's see. Where do we begin. She is a traitor during a world war; she redeems that by falling in love; her friends (who are presumably patriots because they are German citizens) are expendable and must die; and she winds up as a heroine. OK. The scenes with the drunken pilot and the buffoons who work for French intelligence can't even be described, and we won't even mention Rock's romantic scenes with a female. (By the way, when they visit a museum, look at his gaze - I reran it on video and it's priceless). Is it a farce or is it a romantic classic or is it a war movie? I don't know and you won't either.
Blake Edwards tried very hard to change Julie Andrews image in this film. He tried to make her sexy not realizing she already was. I think they were both still a bit irked that Julie had not been chosen to film her Broadway success of Camelot and was passed over as not being sexy enough. Unfortunately, they chose this vehicle to try and assuage this belief. It gets to the point where it is almost funny seeing Rock Hudson, who we all know now was gay, kissing Julie every 2 minutes throughout this movie. It seems now that they were not only trying to make you believe that Julie was a femme fatale but that Rock was straight. Sadly, they have absolutely no chemistry together and the unending kissing scenes start grossing one out. The other error they made with this picture was not knowing what kind of movie they were making. It is almost three separate movies. There is the drama of Julie as the German spy trying to get military secrets from Rock. There is an air war movie with lots of footage of WWI vintage planes swooping about and there is the stupid attempts at humor that Blake Edwards seems to think he has to insert in every one of his pictures whether it is appropriate or not, In this case, it was not. The only truly redeeming qualities in this film are looking at the always lovely Dame Julie and hearing her sing in that crystal clear bell-like soprano. Of course if you love her, you may overlook the weaknesses of this film just because of her. You can always tell yourself, afterward, that it was a hell of a lot better than sitting through STAR!
Julie Andrews satirically prods her own goody-two-shoes image in this overproduced musical comedy-drama, but if she approaches her role with aplomb, she's alone in doing so. Blake Edwards' film about a woman who is both music-hall entertainer and German spy during WWI doesn't know what tone to aim for, and Rock Hudson has the thankless task of playing romantic second-fiddle. Musicals had grown out of favor by 1970, and elephantine productions like "Star!" and this film really tarnished Andrews' reputation, leaving a lot of dead space in her catalogue until "The Tamarind Seed" came along. I've always thought Julie Andrews would've made a great villain or shady lady; her strong voice could really command attention, and she hits some low notes that can either be imposing or seductive. Husband/director Edwards seems to realize this, but neither he nor Julie can work up much energy within this scenario. Screenwriter William Peter Blatty isn't a good partner for Edwards, and neither man has his heart in this material. Beatty's script offers Andrews just one fabulous sequence--a striptease. *1/2 from ****
Years ago, when DARLING LILI played on TV, it was always the pan and scan version, which I hated and decided to wait and see the film in its proper widescreen format. So when I saw an inexpensive DVD of this Julie Andrews/Blake Edwards opus, I decided to purchase and watch it once and for all.<br /><br />Boy, what a terrible film. It's so bad and on so many levels that I really do not know where to start in describing where and when it goes so horribly wrong. Looking at it now, it's obvious to any fans of movies that Blake Edwards created this star vehicle for his wife simply because so many other directors had struck gold with Andrews in musicals (MARY POPPINS, SOUND OF MUSIC, THOROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE, etc) but also because Andrews was snubbed from starring in projects made famous on stage by Julie herself (CAMELOT, MY FAIR LADY, etc) because Hollywood thought she wasn't sexy or glamorous enough. So Blake created this stillborn effort, to showcase his wife in a bizarre concoction of spy story/war movie/romance/slapstick comedy/musical. DARLING LILI suffers from multiple personalities, never knowing who or what it is. Some specific scenes are good or effective but as a whole, it just doesn't work at all to a point of it being very embarrassing.<br /><br />Mind you, the version on the DVD is the "director's cut", or in this case, "let's salvage whatever we can" from this notorious box office flop. In releasing the DVD, Edwards cut 19 scenes (19!!!!!!!!) from the original bloated theatrical version into this more streamlined and yet remarkably ineffective version. The film moves along with no idea of what it is. We are 25 minutes into it and we still don't know what's going on or why we're watching what's going. What kind of spy is Lili? How powerful is she? Was she ever responsible for someone's death? Instead we watch a thoroughly bored looking Rock Hudson trying to woo a thoroughly bored looking Julie Andrews. Things aren't helped much with the inexplicable reason why the two fall in love. Why does Julie fall for Hudson? Why him and not other men she got involved with? There should have been one of her ex hanging around, trying to win her back or trying to decipher her secret. This would have given us some much needed contrast to the muddled action. It would also have given us some impetuous to the sluggish proceedings. There's no catalyst in this story.<br /><br />One only has to look at the cut scenes to clearly see that Edwards and the writer just came up with ideas inspired by Andrews' (and Edwards') previous successes. The best (or worst) example is the scene when Andrews and Hudson follows a group of children who sing in the middle of a forest. Edwards channeling SOUND OF MUSIC. It's no wonder he removed it from the DVD. Back in 1970, that scene might have worked on a certain level but today, that moment reeks of desperation. There are other plot elements directly inspired by Andrews/Edwards other films. The endless scenes of dogfights is inspired by the much better MODERN MILLIE. The musical moment "I'll give you three guesses" was created just to make fun of Julie's MARY POPPINS persona, which is turned "raunchy" with Julie doing a striptease in the act. The ending, bird's eye view of Julie running towards Hudson's plane, is another "wink" at SOUND OF MUSIC.<br /><br />The whole thing is confusing. Julie plays a singer, born from a German father and British mother, who lives in England but sings her (English) songs in Paris. You never know exactly where the story takes place. Some moments are just badly edited. Like when Julie and her "uncle" are on horseback. They talk and talk and then Julie suddenly sprints off in mid-sentence. I'm like "what happened here?"<br /><br />The comedy bits are unfunny and cringe-worthy. Every scene with the French police are pathetic. Where's Peter Sellers when you really need him. The action is stupid beyond belief. When Julie and her "uncle" are on their way to Germany on that train, Hudson's squadron shoots rounds of bullets at the train, almost killing Lili in the process. Brilliant. What's also funny about that scene is the two leave on the train in the middle of the night but Hudson and his squadron reach the train even though they fly off the next morning. That's one slow moving train there. <br /><br />The musical moments. The beginning is the best part of the entire film (and the reason I gave this film 3 stars) but it's effect is diminished considerably because it's repeated at the end. Speaking of redundant, did we really need to see a can-can dance, Crepe Suzette stripping scene and Julie stripping too? The "Girl in no man's land" is OK even if it's bleeding obvious, but that moment just doesn't make any sense whatsoever because Lili sings it to a group of injured soldiers at a French hospital, making me wonder: how many soldiers there were injured indirectly by the result of her spying?<br /><br />The whole project is listless and without energy. The romance is 100% unbelievable. Rock Hudson is way too old and tired looking (check out the museum scene). Julie looks dazed, like she's on Valium. But what really kills this ill-conceived project is Julie playing a German spy. Edwards desperately wanted to dispel the Mary Poppins syndrome afflicting his wife and believed that playing a traitor was a good career decision. As much as I like Julie, she's no Greta Garbo, who pulled it off so beautifully in MATA HARI. Funny enough, even if Julie plays a German spy, she still comes across as cloying and cute.<br /><br />How bad is DARLING LILI? Even after 37 years since its release, Blake Edwards felt he still needed to work on it for its DVD release.
David Bryce's comments nearby are exceptionally well written and informative as almost say everything I feel about DARLING LILI. This massive musical is so peculiar and over blown, over produced and must have caused ruptures at Paramount in 1970. It cost 22 million dollars! That is simply irresponsible. DARLING LILI must have been greenlit from a board meeting that said "hey we got that Pink Panther guy and that Sound Of Music gal... lets get this too" and handed over a blank cheque. The result is a hybrid of GIGI, ZEPPELIN, HALF A SIXPENCE, some MGM 40s song and dance numbers of a style (daisies and boaters!) so hopelessly old fashioned as to be like musical porridge, and MATA HARI dramatics. The production is colossal, lush, breathtaking to view, but the rest: the ridiculous romance, Julie looking befuddled, Hudson already dead, the mistimed comedy, and the astoundingly boring songs deaden this spectacular film into being irritating. LILI is like a twee 1940s mega musical with some vulgar bits to spice it up. STAR! released the year before sadly crashed and now is being finally appreciated for the excellent film is genuinely is... and Andrews looks sublime, mature, especially in the last half hour......but LILI is POPPINS and DOLLY frilly and I believe really killed off the mega musical binge of the 60s..... and made Andrews look like Poppins again... which I believe was not Edwards intention. Paramount must have collectively fainted when they saw this: and with another $20 million festering in CATCH 22, and $12 million in ON A CLEAR DAY and $25 million in PAINT YOUR WAGON....they had a financial abyss of CLEOPATRA proportions with $77 million tied into 4 films with very uncertain futures. Maybe they should have asked seer Daisy Gamble from ON A CLEAR DAY ......LILI was very popular on immediate first release in Australia and ran in 70mm cinemas for months but it failed once out in the subs and the sticks and only ever surfaced after that on one night stands with ON A CLEAR DAY as a Sunday night double. Thank god Paramount had their simple $1million (yes, ONE MILLION DOLLAR) film LOVE STORY and that $4 million dollar gangster pic THE GODFATHER also ready to recover all the $77 million in just the next two years....for just $5m.... incredible!
I'm not a big fan of musicals, although this technically might not qualify as a musical. But I thought I would give it a chance as I love war movies. It was mediocre at best.<br /><br />Hudson seems totally out of kilter in this role. It just didn't work for me. Julie Andrews probably played her part as best as she could, but I just find it hard to buy her as a conniving, deceptive spy. Sorry, I know that is classic stereotyping on my part. But I have to say I think this is Julie at her most beautiful and feminine looking. I always thought of her as more matronly, but then surely that's a result of her roles in Sound of Music and Mary Poppins. No doubt they were desperately trying to get her out of that typecasting in this role. She was quite beguiling in appearance here, but I still didn't buy her as a spy.<br /><br />I couldn't keep my focus through the whole movie and found myself tuning in and out - and having conversations with those in my room (which I usually never do - I'm always shushing everybody). So that tells you how little it held my attention. Don't waste your time!
Blake Edwards' legendary fiasco, begins to seem pointless after just 10 minutes. A combination of The Eagle Has Landed, Star!, Oh! What a Lovely War!, and Edwards' Pink Panther films, Darling Lili never engages the viewer; the aerial sequences, the musical numbers, the romance, the comedy, and the espionage are all ho hum. At what point is the viewer supposed to give a damn? This disaster wavers in tone, never decides what it wants to be, and apparently thinks it's a spoof, but it's pathetically and grindingly square. Old fashioned in the worst sense, audiences understandably stayed away in droves. It's awful. James Garner would have been a vast improvement over Hudson who is just cardboard, and he doesn't connect with Andrews and vice versa. And both Andrews and Hudson don't seem to have been let in on the joke and perform with a miscalculated earnestness. Blake Edwards' SOB isn't much more than OK, but it's the only good that ever came out of Darling Lili. The expensive and professional look of much of Darling Lili, only make what it's all lavished on even more difficult to bear. To quote Paramount chief Robert Evans, "24 million dollars worth of film and no picture".
A tough sell: British playwright Ronald Harwood adapts his autobiographical stage drama into loud, bellowing film about WWII Shakespearean theatrical troupe saddled with an aged, blustery, brilliant-but-unreliable star at the end of his tether. The actor's effete assistant works diligently to get his master coiffed and costumed for a production of "King Lear" (during an Air Raid!), yet both men are losing their grip on their unraveling situation. Based on the waning years of actor Donald Wolfit, whose dresser was Ronald Harwood, this acclaimed production would seem to be a welcome haven for scenery-chewing thespians. Unfortunately, Albert Finney (at this point in his career, not at all elderly) seems too robust and quick-thinking to play the actor; Finney (and Oscar-nominated director Peter Yates) cannot modulate Sir's moods and bouts of coherency in a way that makes sense to us, so that in one scene he's stopping a train with the commanding echo of his voice, and in the next he's curiously falling apart. With such a wreck of a human being in the midst of failing health and aptitude, one would assume a dedicated assistant would go to great lengths to protect his boss (and his future), yet servant Tom Courtenay prods and badgers and goads Finney to carry on rather than rest. Courtenay, who played this part on stage (and was nominated for an Oscar alongside Finney for Best Actor), is far more attuned to his role, and eventually his bleating commands and confusion achieve the only real feeling in the film. These two, thankfully, do not peck at each other's heads, and scenarist Harwood is careful not to fall into a love-hate pattern (which could possibly be perceived in the film's first act); but, without a juxtaposition of servant vs. celebrity, there's nothing much to behold in this portrait except for the deterioration of narcissism, the hint at what once was. *1/2 from ****
I wish I knew what to make of a movie like this. It seems to be divided into two parts -- action sequences and personal dramas ashore. It follows Ashton Kutsher through survival swimmer school, guided by Master Chief Kevin Costner, then to Alaska where a couple of spectacular rescues take place, the last resulting in death.<br /><br />I must say that the scenes on the beach struck me as so stereotypical in so many ways that they should be barnacle encrusted. A typical bar room fight between Navy guys and Coast Guardsmen ("puddle pirates"). The experienced old timer Costner who is, as an elderly bar tender tells him, "married to the Coast Guard." The older chief who "keeps trying to prove to himself that he's still nineteen." The neglected ex wife ashore to whom Kostner pays a farewell visit. The seemingly sadistic demands placed on the swimmers by the instructors, all in pursuit of a loftier goal. The gifted young man hobbled by a troubled past.<br /><br />The problem is that we've seen it all before. If it's Kevin Costner here, it's Clint Eastwood or John Wayne or Lou Gosset Jr. or Vigo Mortenson or Robert DeNiro elsewhere. And the climactic scene has elements drawn shamelessly from "The Perfect Storm" and "Dead Calm." None of it is fresh and none of the old stereotyped characters and situations are handled with any originality.<br /><br />It works best as a kind of documentary of what goes on in the swimmer's school and what could happen afterward and even that's a little weak because we don't get much in the way of instruction. It's mostly personal conflict, romance, and tension about washing out.<br /><br />It's a shame because the U. S. Coast Guard is rather a noble outfit, its official mission being "the safety of lives and property at sea." In war time it is transferred to the Navy Department and serves in combat roles. In World War II, the Coast Guard even managed to have a Medal of Honor winner in its ranks.<br /><br />But, again, we don't learn much about that. We don't really learn much about anything. The film devolves into a succession of visual displays and not too much else. A disappointment.
Alas, another Costner movie that was an hour too long. Credible performances, but the script had no where to go and was in no hurry to get there. First we are offered an unrelated string of events few of which further the story. Will the script center on Randall and his wife? Randall and Fischer? How about Fischer and Thomas? In the end, no real front story ever develops and the characters themselves are artificially propped up by monologues from third parties. The singer explains Randall, Randall explains Fischer, on and on. Finally, long after you don't care anymore, you will learn something about the script meetings. Three endings were no doubt proffered and no one could make a decision. The end result? All three were used, one, after another, after another. If you can hang in past the 100th yawn, you'll be able to pick them out. Despite the transparent attempt to gain points with a dedication to the Coast Guard, this one should have washed out the very first day.
Wow, another Kevin Costner hero movie. Postman, Tin Cup, Waterworld, Bodyguard, Wyatt Earp, Robin Hood, even that baseball movie. Seems like he makes movies specifically to be the center of attention. The characters are almost always the same ... the heroics, the flaws, the greatness, the fall, the redemption. Yup, within the 1st 5 minutes of the movie, we're all supposed to be in awe of his character, and it builds up more and more from there.<br /><br />And this time the story ... story? ... is just a collage of different movies. You don't need a spoiler; you've seen this movie several times, though it had different titles. You'll know what will happen way before it happens. This is like mixing An Officer and a Gentleman with Backdraft, but both are easily better movies. Watch Backdraft to see how this kind of movie should be made ... and also to see how an good but slightly underrated actor, Russell, plays the hero.
It seems ever since 1982, about every two or three years we get a movie that claims to be "The Next Officer and a Gentleman." There has yet to be one movie that has lived up to this claim and this movie is no different.<br /><br />We get the usual ripped off scenes from OAAG ("I want you DOR," the instructor gives the Richard Gere character his overdose of drills in hopes he'll quit, the Gere character comes back for the girl, the Gere character realizes the instructor is great, etc.) and this movie is as predictable as the sun rising in the East and is horribly miscast on top. Costner plays his usual "wise teacher" character, the only character he can play, and you really get a sense of his limited acting abilities here. Kutcher is terrible in the Richard Gere character, just miscast with acting skills barely a notch above Keanu Reeves.<br /><br />The main problem with this OAAG wannabe is the two main characters are so amazingly one-dimensional, you never care for either in the least and when Kutcher's character finally turns around (just like Gere did in OAAG) you just go "so what? The movie leaves no plot point unturned and seems to never end as if to say "oh wait, we forgot to close out the girlfriend story, or the what happens after he graduates story, or the other six plot points in the movie..." What's more baffling is the great "reviews" I see here. The general public's opinions never cease to amaze me.
This is a pale imitation of 'Officer and a Gentleman.' There is NO chemistry between Kutcher and the unknown woman who plays his love interest. The dialog is wooden, the situations hackneyed. It's too long and the climax is anti-climactic(!). I love the USCG, its men and women are fearless and tough. The action scenes are awesome, but this movie doesn't do much for recruiting, I fear. The script is formulaic, but confusing. Kutcher's character is trying to redeem himself for an accident that wasn't his fault? Costner's is raging against the dying of the light, but why? His 'conflict' with his wife is about as deep as a mud puddle. I saw this sneak preview for free and certainly felt I got my money's worth.
Once again Mr. Costner has dragged out a movie for far longer than necessary. Aside from the terrific sea rescue sequences, of which there are very few I just did not care about any of the characters. Most of us have ghosts in the closet, and Costner's character are realized early on, and then forgotten until much later, by which time I did not care. The character we should really care about is a very cocky, overconfident Ashton Kutcher. The problem is he comes off as kid who thinks he's better than anyone else around him and shows no signs of a cluttered closet. His only obstacle appears to be winning over Costner. Finally when we are well past the half way point of this stinker, Costner tells us all about Kutcher's ghosts. We are told why Kutcher is driven to be the best with no prior inkling or foreshadowing. No magic here, it was all I could do to keep from turning it off an hour in.
I`m in two minds about FOLLOWING , the film debut of Christopher Nolan . Part of me admires it for costing 6,000 dollars to make but part of me hates it for being too art house . In many ways it reminds me of the cult movie PI , a film I disliked , and I can`t get my head around the central plot of a man who wants to be writer following people around . Wouldn`t it be more logical for someone wanting to be a writer to sit in front of a keyboard and write ? <br /><br />Oh well I guess FOLLOWING gives indie film makers hope that just because they made a no budget movie costing $6,000 over two thousand IMDB members will vote for it and over five hundred members will comment on it , but you have to wonder if this movie would be so well regarded if it wasn`t made by the director of MEMENTO ?
the usual disclaimer - I do not give 1 star ratings to movies which are harmless, bad, low budget and silly, although they may deserve it. These films are often funny, and get rated 2-4 based sheerly on entertainment value - not as a representation of their exemplary film artistry. This film fits this model perfectly. It is a Mexican monster movie, riddled with voice-over narrative and extremely weak not-so-special effects. The makeup is not that bad, and the acting is sometimes quite entertaining, but this film is almost as silly as Aliens vs Predator and the script isn't half as slick (Aliens vs Predator might get a 1 from me, but I want to see it again before I commit).<br /><br />The plot is ridiculous, but deliciously convoluted. If you've read this far, you must really want to know... A group of remarkably unscientific scientists comprise the main characters. Most of them are heroes - sort of - but one is (of course) mad, and quite perverse. This mad scientist invents a laughable nuclear powered robot (who looks a bit like the tin man from Wizard of Oz, but has a human face inexplicably located inside its head). An Aztec mummy, discovered by the same 'scientist' whose wife just so happens to have been an Aztec princess in a past life (don't ask), is pitted against the robot for the big "climax" the fight scene alone is enough to put the most stoic movie watcher on the floor in belly laughs.<br /><br />For what its worth, given the budget and the utter silliness of the script, this is a very entertaining low budget goof ball monster movie. If you're into that sort of thing, go for it.
I have watched this movie twice in the past six months (what I go through so you don't have to).The first viewing left me half crazed and babbling.The second viewing at 5am on a rainy morn was a little better.I only screamed in agony once.<br /><br /> Seems Pocona (The Aztec Mummy)had the hots for a certain Aztec Princess who was"supposed to keep her maiden".Obviously they gave each other the business and were put to death for it.(Now that is severe!).But before they are the film tries to put us to death with a screeching Aztec ceremony.The singing will make your ears bleed.<br /><br /> Anyhow there is the usual reincarnation nonsense. Not to mention a treasure map on a breastplate & bracelet guarded by that swathed slob,Pocona.By this time Pocona looks like he's been on a 2000 year bender and is after the defilers of his tomb.His groans & moans sounds like he has a bad case of Montezuma's revenge(or he read the script for this movie).That will make your breath stink.<br /><br /> An evil Dr Von Krupp appears wanting the Aztec treasure(possibly to finance acting lessons & screenwriting classes for cast & crew).He is called The Bat because in The Curse Of The Aztec Mummy he wore a bat like cape, hat and something like a ski mask over his face.Guess it's better than the Laughing Fat Man.<br /><br /> The Bat in typical mad scientist fashion wants to rule the world. He stresses this by rolling his eyes,laughing maniacally and chewing the scenery.He has cobbled together an invincible robot.Looks like the 'bot was made from a garbage can, a chandelier and the grill of a 1957 Buick.This will make your eyes bleed.A company even takes credit for making this tin can!<br /><br /> Well the mighty showdown between Pocona and the Robot takes place in the Mummy's new crypt having been made homeless earlier.<br /><br /> About half of this movie is culled from "La Aztec Momia"never released in the US in its original form but in a chopped atrocity from Jerry Warren(see my review on "Attack Of The Mayan Mummy") and "Curse Of The Aztec Mummy".The robot is frankly stupid as are most of the characters.If that and the plot doesn't make you howl with laughter nothing will.<br /><br /> My first impression was so bad it would have gotten a one. But after seeing "Mayan Mummy"(which is a movie deserving of being burned) and watching "Robot" again, it garners a 3.You have to watch this with no expectations at all. Then it can be naively pleasant.
"RVAM"'s reputation preceded it. I first heard of it in one of those Medved style movie books, "The 50 Worst Movies Ever" or "The Golden Turkey Awards", or something like that. Every review of the film basically said that this movie was so bad that it would make you bleed from the eyes to watch it. So when the Exposed Film Society finally got around to showing it, I was anticipating the kind of cathartic experience that only a true cinematic stinker can provide. <br /><br />However, "Robot" wasn't really all that bad. <br /><br />Oh, this is definitely a "Z" film through and through. Some of the voice dubbing (as is usually the case for K. Gordon Murray imports) is awfully cheesy, and the movie itself seems to be structurally something of a Frankenstein, since a huge chunk of it seems to be footage from a previous "Aztec Mummy" movie, narrated with a voice-over by the leading man. A dead giveaway: anytime the question "Then what happened?" is asked more than twice in the dialog, you are looking at reassembled footage put together with little regard for plot coherence or momentum. In RVAM, "Then what happened?" or "What happened then?" is uttered at least four times in the 1st hour. <br /><br />Even without the structural problems, the plot and dialog don't translate well to an older American audience. For instance, as the hero explains (and explains and explains) the back-story. he includes a remark about Doctor Krupp, "a doctor who suddenly turned into an evil master criminal" and began his quest for the treasure that the Aztec mummy guards. No background, no explanation, he just "suddenly turned evil". Obviously, this was aimed at a pretty undiscriminating audience. <br /><br />The clincher, though, is the "Robot", the supposed "showcase" of this movie. This Robot is the worst robot special effect since "Undersea Kingdom" or even "Santa Claus Vs. The Martians". Compared to this hunk of junk, the Tin Man from the "Wizard Of Oz" looked like the Terminator chassis that chased Linda Connor through the foundry in T2. The Aztec Mummy himself is well designed and executed; he's recognizably undead, familiar enough to look like a mummy, and yet distinct from the "Boris Karloff" bandage collection familiar to most American audiences. But whoever designed the Robot in this followup had no feel for the concept...or no budget. They could at least have given him some knees, for heaven's sake. <br /><br />In addition, the titular battle is terribly executed and lasts less than 60 seconds. (I've seen shoving matches on junior high playgrounds that are more convincing.) Then the movie basically just stops. That seems a bit of a rip off considering the amount of time the movie spends building up to the battle itself.<br /><br />In spite of all these problems, the movie isn't horrible or incompetent the way a Coleman Francis film or a Larry Buchanan film was. Compared to "Monster A-Go-Go" or "Attack of The Eye Creatures", "RVTAM" is like a Coppola film. It's just kind of dull and boring and silly. The actors are competent (in a mannered B movie way) and reasonably photogenic; Dr. Krupp, in particular seems to be having a wonderful time as he leers and plots and capers about in his cape and "Phantom Of the Opera" suit. I often found myself rooting for him, in spite of his being the villain. <br /><br />Anyway, I've seen much, much worse. File this with "Samson Vs The Vampire Women", under "interesting Mexican juvenile oddities".
This movie should have been billed as three movie-summaries linked together to form a full-length feature film (including lots of shots of people slowly walking down dark corridors and streets). BE WARNED! The first hour of this movie is simply a re-hash of the first two Aztec movies as told by the main character. The actual movie doesn't start until the thing is almost over. I must say, the overacting on the part of the Bat is quite hilarious.<br /><br />As for the robot, I thought a robot was a mechanical device that may or may not resemble a human. The Bat's "robot" consists of a radioactive reanimated corpse encased in a lead robot-body. As Tom Servo put it, "He's not that impressive; he doesn't even have knees!" That, and it takes the robot about an hour just to lumber across the room. But once he catches you, WATCH OUT! He'll disintegrate you with a touch (powered by radium? Pluh-ease!).<br /><br />This is a great movie when accompanied by Joel and the Bots. Otherwise, you're just a glutton for abuse.
Despite having a very pretty leading lady (Rosita Arenas, one of my boy-crushes), the acting and the direction are examples of what NOT to do while making a movie.<br /><br />Placed in southern Mexico, Popoca, the Aztec Mummy (real Aztecs, by the way, DID not made mummies) has been waken up by the lead characters and starts making trouble in Mexico City suburbia, during the first movie (The Aztec Mummy). In this second part, the leading man and woman want to find th mummy and put it in its final resting place (a fireplace would have been my first choice...)<br /><br />Into this appears The Bat, a criminal master-mindless stereotype of a criminal genius who creates a "human robot" (some idiot inside a robot SUIT) to control Popoca and (get this) take over the world. The final match between the robot and the mummy is hilarious, some of the worst choreography ever witnessed. The funniest part is that this movie was made and released by a serious Mexican movie studio!<br /><br />The acting is just as awful hearing the movie in Spanish as it is in English (they dubbed the over-acting!). You should watch this movie through MST:3000. The comments are even funnier.
I am a big fan of bad horrors, cheap horrors, b movies, and all that bottom 100 movies, and I do not deny those are the worst stuff ever to enter the big screen, or even your home video for that matter. Some of them, e.g. the infamous Manos The Hands of Fate, are truly bad, and watching them, especially on your own without any friends and beer around, is a torture for a good cinema taste. <br /><br />La Momia Azteca Contra El Roboto Humano, however, was not that bad. Well, of course it's BAD - it's silly, dated, corny, cheap, etc., there's an Aztec mummy, a tin robot, a fat masked villain, a mad scientist, Mexican mobsters, etc. the montage is poor, the lines, well, let's say the lines are not theatrical, the FX and SFX are the best what the Mexican low budget production could've offered, etc. etc. Still, the movie is FUN. it's so bad it makes you laugh cheerfully for an hour time. Sure it depends on one's sense of humor, however I'm pretty sure La Momia should teach any newcomers to this kind of cinema how to enjoy it. Please note: the movie lasts for about an hour, and I think it's just enough time of silliness one is able to easily digest. <br /><br />There's also another thing - watching La Momia can give you a clue what was the whole SF/Horror genre concept back in the fifties, when you compare it to the present day Matrix era of cinema entertainment. I think it also shows how both the industry and the audience evolved, due to the fact the watches like La Momia still attract full house in the theaters for some special shows (movies like this are special alright), and very often receive a standing ovation.
I saw this on Mystery Science Theater 3000, and even that show couldn't really make this movie bearable. I could make a better movie with a broken camcorder and action figures. Of course, you expect terrible special effects with a movie this old, but I've seen silents that were better. The storyline has enormous gaps that leave you trying to figure out why they are even at certain scenes. The cameraman apparently doesn't know what a tripod is, and had too much coffee, or something harder maybe, because the camera is ALWAYS shaking around. I couldn't even follow the plot, but suffice it to say, this is the absolute worst movie I have ever seen in my life.<br /><br />UPDATE: I saw "Epic Movie" a while back and have decided to give this movie a 2. It's NOT the worst movie I've ever seen anymore!
Ah, such an original title for a very shoddy film. The dubbing is hilarious since the voices and mouths never seem to match. As a result, I had no idea what was going on as I watched this mess unfold. There are flashbacks within the flashbacks and no real time takes place until towards the very end. The Aztec ceremony had me laughing. I rewinded it twice and got the best ab workout ever. The singing Aztec lady is comic naturale and the dancing and costumes are a hoot. Some guy gets a face full of acid, there's a lot of fighting, you have no idea who any character is (not that I really cared), and it's a whole noir mess. Oh, and the actual fight doesn't happen for awhile, so during the movie feel free to get up, take a nap, take a trip. You won't miss anything exciting.
2/3 of this movie is recycled footage of the previous movies, a fact that's sadly obvious even to someone like myself who hasn't seen the original movies. And somehow it feels like a rip-off even though I haven't seen the stuff before. It's like that episode of every TV show where the characters sit around a photo album or something and you just see recycled footage of other episodes. I've seen some producers do extended montages of recycled footage, but never anything beyond 5 minutes or so. This movie is mostly stuff that had already been seen by audiences, so you could mount a case that it's one of the biggest rip-offs ever foisted on the motion picture public.<br /><br />I got to see it in the theater, in a 16mm print, which is good enough I suppose considering how rare this kind of material must be on film these days. I give the movie some credit for semi-convincing Gothic atmosphere and for unintentional humor, but that's about it. The Aztec mummy monster looks good, even has some mobility in his face which is better than most movie monsters of the period. But the robot is pitiful, although it's interesting that they made the human face totally visible. It's a "robot human" or something of the sort as they somewhat explain in the movie. I think that's considered an android. So technically in hard sci-fi terms this movie should be called "Android vs. the Aztec Mummy", but I doubt anyone was too worried about technicalities here anymore than they were worried about quality. In fact the movie is so sloppily put together that it makes television look good. Even the dubbing from Mexican into English is lazy and weak -- for example at one point the hero says "I might as well begin at the beginning...." what the heck kind of translation is that? Couldn't they at least have him say "start at the beginning" so that it doesn't sound repetitive? A high school newspaper editor could have fixed the screenplay of this movie. It's the epitome of utilitarian film-making, just absolutely nothing is in this movie that doesn't need to be there for the basic commercial purpose of the film. They put no more effort into making it than they had to, and considering the extensive recycled footage I would doubt that they actually spent more than a week making this movie.<br /><br />I will now cease posting about it on the principle that I don't want to expend more energy in the process of commenting than the creators of the movie actually expended while making it.
The first 2/3 of this film wasn't that dissimilar to the American mummy films of the 30s and 40s. Two lovers in ancient Mexico dared to defy the law and were doomed to die. One became an Aztec mummy whose job it was to guard the sacred treasure and his lady love. And the lady was reincarnated in the present day and the mummy was naturally attracted to her. So far, it's all the typical mummy film...though it's quite a bit slower and duller than the American versions. Oh, and of course the Aztec mummy looked really, really crappy.<br /><br />However, into this standard but boring film there is a super-villain. Why? I dunno--it sure didn't make any sense to have one. It seems this villain wants the treasure and he manages to hypnotize the lady and have her show them where the Aztec treasure is buried. Why does he need the treasure? Well, to buy the equipment needed to make an army of atomic robots, dummy! But first he has to construct a single mummy to defeat the mummy, as the mummy has so far been unstoppable.<br /><br />You've got to see these "human-robots" as they look like the enormous clunky robots from Flash Gordon and other serials BUT they have a rubber head of a supposed dead guy inside! They really look hilariously funny and seeing the conclusion when there is a huge battle between the lethargic mummy and the equally slow robot is worth sitting through the rest of the dull movie. Both battle in super-slow-motion like they are bathed in taffy... and it's done in such an artless and silly fashion that it is bound to elicit chuckles--certainly not thrills.<br /><br />Overall, the film is dreadfully dull and a muddled mess--especially at the end. However, for bad movie fans, it's a must-see--it's bad but unintentionally funny and great to watch and laugh at with friends.
Following the pleasingly atmospheric original and the amusingly silly second one, this incredibly dull, slow, and uneventful sequel comes across as a major letdown. Once again the nefarious criminal mastermind the Bat (hammy Luis Aceves Castaneda) is trying to steal valuable jewelry from the Aztec mummy Popoca. The Bat builds a hilariously clunky lumbering robot with a human brain in order to achieve this heinous goal. Flatly directed by Rafael Portillo, with a talky and tedious script by Alfredo Salazar and Guillermo Calderon, cruddy continuity (for example, the Bat was clearly killed at the end of the previous film, but is miraculously alive and well here!), an excruciatingly sluggish script, an excessive amount of stock footage from the first two flicks, a meandering narrative, a crippling lack of action and momentum, largely dreary going through the motions (non)acting from an understandably disinterested cast, and a poorly staged climactic battle between the mummy and the robot (the movie finally bursts to sidesplitting stupid life with said big bash, but alas it barely even lasts two lousy minutes and thus proves to be much too little far too late to alleviate the severity of the general overwhelming boredom), this numbingly dry, drippy, and draggy snorefest rates as a complete washout.
**SPOILERS** The third and mercifully last of the Aztec Mummy trilogy in the fact that the series major star-besides the Mummy- actor Ramon Gay, as Dr. Eduardo Almada, was gunned down by the outraged husband of a woman he was having an affair with on May 28, 1960! Still that didn't stop Gay, in him being edited into them from his previous films, from being in a number of future Mexican horror movies made over the next four years after his death.<br /><br />In "Robot vs the Aztec Mummy" we have the once again mad scientist Dr. Krupp trying to get his hands on the Mummy's golden breastplate and bracelet in order, by having them deciphered, to find the Aztez treasure that's been secretly buried somewhere in modern Mexico City over 500 years ago. "Robot vs the Aztec Mummy" is not much as a movie in itself in that its made up of stock footage of the previous Aztec Mummy films that take up over half of the films running time.<br /><br />After getting introduced to the movie's cast members, some who have been killed in the previous Aztec Mummy films, we get down to the real nitty gritty in it involving the evil as well as criminally insane Dr. Krupp also know as "The Bat". Dr. Krupp-who looks like a wild eyed and crazed Orson Wells-is a man with boundless visions of grandeur in him not only uncovering the long lost Aztec treasure but now, unlike in the two previous movies he was in, creating life and using it in making an army of human robots to take over the world. An idea he must have gotten from watching Ed Wood's 1955 "Atomic Superman" classic "Bride of the Monster".<br /><br />Unable to handle the Mummy in his two other encounters with it, where he ended up getting thrown by it into a snake pit filled with deadly rattlers, Dr. Krupp had created a robot, with a human cadaver stuffed in it, to the job, of doing in the Mummy, for him. With he Mummy sleeping in its tomb at a local Mexico City cemetery Dr. Krupp has his Robot-Man brake into the Mummy's crypt to do battle with it and destroy it with its bolts of deadly radiation. <br /><br />***SPOILERS*** The big built-up to the Aztec Mummy Robot-Man confrontation turns to be a big let-down with the Mummy having no trouble at all dispatching the "Tin-Man" in less then 30 seconds together with its creator Dr. Krupp. All this while both Dr. Almada and his friend and assistant Pinacate, who came to the Mummy's aid, have nothing at all to do but sit back and watch the action. Now without the mad and off-the-wall Dr. Krupp annoying it the Mummy can go back to its eternal resting place without ever worrying about the problems of the modern world at large, like Dr. Krupp, that it has really no interest in.
With the dialogue in the dubbed version of this film, I don't think that Shakespeare is in any great danger. This is the story of an ancient Aztec mummy who has been disenfranchised. His stuff has been taken and this really ticks him off. He seems to know who's doing this even though he's a gyrating, raving entity. I loved the two dull men who tell the story of how the mummy was found and the doctor who is determined to destroy the creature. There are all these scenes in this ridiculous graveyard, full of cheap crosses and other junk. There's a mausoleum where the mummy is kept. I can't begin to reproduce the idiocy of this, including a snake pit where the good doctor is thrown (there is a door next to it so he can crawl out) to the robot, a mass of metal cans with a guy inside. The dialogue is awful. There are long pauses between speeches as if someone offstage is feeding them their lines. I love the scene where the two little kids accuse their mother of going out at night (she goes into this zombie state or something). Nonetheless, if your looking for a film that you can laugh at and never takes itself seriously, watch this. Have a couple beers first. Like a direct line from the mummy's tomb, "Watch this and your eyes will bleed and your breath will stink." What more can I say?
Mexican 'classic' was the third entry in the Aztec Mummy series. As you will soon find out, this movie is anything but a classic, instead, it's more like a movie that deliberately tries to bore you.<br /><br />Some scientist wants to steal Aztec treasure from a tomb, but guarding that tomb is that walking toilet paper commercial: The Aztec Mummy. Knowing he can't beat the Mummy, he then builds a robot, and a very bad one at that. We only get to see Mr.Robot in the last reel, as he clunks around, and does battle with the Aztec Mummy.<br /><br />I have seen a lot of lousy Sci-Fi films, hell most Sci-Fi films I see are lousy, but this one, for it's entire duration of 64 Minuites, is the worst movie I've seen, with Fubar coming in a close second....<br /><br />In conclusion: Don't waste your time.
There must be an error. This movie belongs with "Plan 9", and a lot others as a quite entertaining, silly diversion. You'll never accept you like it, yet you will watch it whenever it comes out on TV. It's as simple as that.
Oh, man, they sure knew how to make them back then. Hollywood has forgotten the basic ingredients of bad movie making: cardboard steel and the god fearing scientist action hero! <br /><br />This film was so close to a masterpiece, alas it was not to be, as it failed to feature ray guns and invaders from the Moon. The MST3K version tried to fix this by adding a pilot of a show called Captain Cody, where a guy with a rocket propelled jacket fights bad make-up people from the Moon, but it didn't quite add up.<br /><br />Also, the comments of the guys in the theater were not nearly as funny as I expected them to be. All in all, a great disappointment.
Awful, confusing bit of crap from South of the Border. I've now watched it twice and I STILL don't really know what was going on. It had something to do with a stupid looking Aztec mummy, a 'human robot' that's the dumbest looking robot I've ever seen bar none, and a woman who is the reincarnation of some ancient Aztec chick. Most of the story is told in a painfully slow and droning manner by an incredibly dull scientist. This guy is a marvelous sleep aid. His nemesis is a fat slob called The Bat, which is a pretty unimaginative name for an evil scientist.<br /><br />I guess the boring scientist and his wormy assistant dug up the mummy, and what a shocker, the scientist's wife just HAPPENS to be the reincarnation of the mummy's girlfriend. They keep the mummy perpetually in a mausoleum for some reason, I guess so that the overacting bad guy can steal it. It takes him five years to do this, because he's inventing a 'human robot' to steal the mummy, or attack it, or whatever. He's after some treasure that the mummy has, so that he can be rich. But excuse me, if the guy had this huge an intellect and a strong drive to succeed, why didn't he just patent some of his ideas and get rich that way? <br /><br />Oh, well, I suppose that would make too much sense. Instead, there is ridiculous fight between the mummy and the robot, and it's really hard to tell which one is faker looking or more cheesy. To tell you the truth, I watched this because I thought a film with a name like The Robot Vs. the Aztec Mummy just HAD to be fabulously cheesy. Instead it was just dully awful and mind blowingly confusing.
The Robot vs. the Aztec Mummy was one of the silliest and least believable films I've ever seen. O.K, I can buy that the woman in the film is a reincarnation of a virgin that was sacrificed to an Aztec God. What I can't buy is that the incredibly phony looking mummy and the even worse looking robot. When you want to watch a film like this, you want to see lots of fighting action. But the robot and the mummy fight for about a minute total! Probably worst of all was the dia de los muertos art they had in the credits. It's the worst I've ever seen. Avoid this one if possible.
Like a lot of movies involving little kids, this starts off "real cute" and likable...and then, after about a half hour or so, becomes the reverse.<br /><br />That's certainly the case here in this time-travel story (which I usually love) where an adult meets a kid who his really him at the age of eight! Great premise and a great lead actor in Bruce Willis, but.....<br /><br />The kid "Rusty" is a smart-aleck and whiny brat and Willis Rusty grown up now as "Russell" gets abrasive with his constant yelling. That is entertainment? No, thanks.<br /><br />Young Breslin has gone on to become a very good child actor, being involved in a number of films including "The Cat In The Hat" opposite a more famous child actor: Dakota Fanning. <br /><br />Overall, a disappointing film, especially with all the good press this movie got when it was released.
First of all, I wasn't sure who this film was aimed at - it seemed like a story for kids but had stuff in it kids wouldn't understand and find boring. There wasn't really much to it, Bruce Willis wasn't stretched as an actor at all. He did a lot of glancing to the side with that half smile of his - unless you are a big fan of his I wouldn't bother. And if it's the story you're interested in (guy who seems to have it all but is lacking emotionally is taught lessons from a child), I would go to see About A Boy. It has everything this film lacked, humor, sadness and reality.
The Kid was born retarded. It pulls in a half-dozen directions, features dialog and action lifted from much older and better-known flops, and might be funny -- if only the writers knew what funny is.<br /><br />Disney stuff has gotten a lot better in the last couple of decades, but don't let that fool you. They should have given The Kid a wide berth, sang it a lullaby, then ran the train into a ravine. Mercy killing.
what was Bruce Willis thinking when he signed on for this one?? this one made no sense to me.. i was so confused by it, it wasnt funny at all.. I dont even know why Disney made this one.. Bruce is a Great actor whom ive liked for a Long time .. and this disappointed me a lot.. Pass this one by on the video shelf....
I can't emphasize it enough, do *NOT* get this movie for the kids.<br /><br />For that matter, you'd best spare the adults from it as well.<br /><br />All right, perhaps I'm overexaggerating a little. This isn't the worst kids' movie... no, let me rephrase that. This isn't the worst movie made by dissilusioned adults FOR dissilusioned adults and somehow marketed towards kids (that would be "Jack", which I've been meaning to review / gut like a fish).<br /><br />Adults won't learn anything surprising (well, if you must, fast-forward to just before the end credits for a Educational Bit about an Interesting Cosmic Phenominon). We don't usually end up doing as adults what we wanted to do as kids as reality tends to get in the way. Well, duh, I could have told you that (so can four years of college at an art school, but I degress).<br /><br />I have no idea what the heck kids could possibly get out of this movie. Most likely it will only upset them (we get to watch the moment when Russ was traumatized at eight years old). There's a better movie, "Kiki's Delivery Service", that has essentially the same message but handles it litely instead of drilling it into your head. And the adults will like it too!<br /><br />By the way, there is a moment in the movie made with amature MST3K-ers in mind, if they think of that OTHER Bruce Willis movie with a sad little kid in it.
After 15 minutes watching the movie I was asking myself what to do: leave the theater, sleep or try to keep watching the movie to see if there was anything worth. I finally watched the movie: what a waste of time. Maybe I am not a 5 years old kid anymore!
Bruce Willis, as usual, does an excellent job.<br /><br />[warning: may be considered a "spoiler"]<br /><br />While my friend thought it was good, I kept glancing at my watch during the entire movie wondering when it would end. After seeing such great flicks as "The Patriot" and "Chicken Run" I was really disappointed in Disney's "The Kid."<br /><br />Willis plays a middle-aged man with a harsh and realistic attitude on putting a positive spin on people's images (he's an Image Consultant). An unknown kid shows up. Yes, it's him but younger, and even Lily Tomlin can see him. At this point I'm reminded of a cross between a poor "Quantum Leap" episode and a bad time traveling flick.<br /><br />Kid and Willis go through trying to figure out why he's in that time period. They figure it out. They meet Willis when he's older. Nevermind that it never goes into detail how old Willis teleports them between time periods and gets them together to begin with, how he got that knowledge to begin with, how he came to the realization that he needed to do this, and so on.<br /><br />Basically, it's a very tired, unoriginal, uninspiring plot that has some great actors in it. The good news is that "the Kid" actor is nowhere near as annoying as he's presented in the trailers on television.
There are a few scripts like this one floating around Hollywood; this one is not even close to the best--just the first. This is all production value, no substance, but the Disney name probably will help it. A good idea, a wasted opportunity.
The first few minutes showing the cold and crusty the Willis character were pretty enjoyable, especially with Jean Smart, but it really tanked after that. This is just hackneyed big man and little irritating kid stuff from way back with no innovation at all. I know that the casting probably picked this kid to show that Willis was just as irritating in his younger self, but I found this kid ESPECIALLY irritating and whinney.
I saw this only because my 10-yr-old was bored. He and his friend hated it but of course liked being at the movies. This is the first time I've strongly disagreed with Ebert in many years. There is not a single thing to recommend this film. Willis is good, as always. But the story stinks, is unbelievable, there is no real story, no action, no interesting cinematic sequences, no surprises, and worst of all, the child star is A thoroughly repulsive slug guaranteed to turn off any parent who does not have a dweeby fat slob for a kid. By all means stay away and spare your child - unless you want to punish him or her. There is no excuse for such lousy directing or writing and one hopes these filmmakers will suffer accordingly.
"Fool for Love" is one of the several now forgotten films Robert Altman directed throughout the 1980s. This one, a screen adaptation of a Sam Shepard play that features Shepard in the lead role, just simply isn't very good. Altman made many not-very-good films over the course of his fascinating career, and many times the fault was his. But here I think the fault lies with Shepard for writing such a flimsy play. Altman's direction is assured, the performances are o.k. given what the actors have to work with, but this inconsequential screenplay goes nowhere, and takes its time getting there.<br /><br />Shepard is Eddie, a stuntman who has a love/hate relationship with May (Kim Basinger). The two fight endlessly over the course of an evening spent in some dusty motel in the middle of nowhere, while a mysterious man (Harry Dean Stanton) who may be either a figurative or literal father to both Eddie and May quietly observes. Randy Quaid rounds out the four-person cast as a gentleman caller.<br /><br />The only dramatic hook in the entire plot is the suggestion that Eddie's and May's relationship is incestuous. However, this hook feels more like a gimmick than anything. The screenplay doesn't explore their relationship in any detail, and it doesn't use their relationship to explore any more universal themes. Shepard and Basigner create eccentric, mannered characters who grow irritating within the first five minutes; Stanton and Quaid have little to do but provide reaction shots. <br /><br />The last half hour or so of the film is especially bad, when Eddie's and May's back stories begin to play out in flashback over monotone, somnolent voice over.<br /><br />Chalk this up to another of Altman's experiments gone awry.<br /><br />Grade: C-
After reading Fool For Love in a Drama class of mine, I was looking forward to seeing how Sam Shepard's wonderful play would be translated to the screen. Much to my dismay, it was nowhere near as entertaining as the play. The film seemed to drag, the music was inappropriate for the tone of the movie, and all the raw energy of the play seemed to have been sucked out of this film version. It's a shame to see this come out this way even with Shepard's involvement, playing the role of Eddie. Do yourselves a favor...see the play next time it's being performed in your area or simply read the book instead.
I had been amazed by director Antal's Kontroll back in 2003. His first American project, Vacancy, was less impressive but a decent start. Armored is his second feature and while the visual signature is recognizable, the film never rises above the level of a B movie. <br /><br />It's a shame because the main premise has all the ingredients for twists and turns and the ensemble cast featuring many quality actors should be able to deliver. Antal could have made a great heist film but instead goes for an action flick. Then again he could have shot a cool action flick but it doesn't really deliver in that department either. <br /><br />What you are left with is one implausible situation after another, a group of poorly sketched characters bicker and fight over a sum of money. If you look past the sharp cinematography, cast and the tight music score, you're left with what could have been a below average direct-to-video featuring Van Damme or Seagal. <br /><br />This was probably the most disappointing movie for me in quite some time.
At the heart of almost every truly great crime thriller is a carefully considered, methodically planned-out high stakes super-crime, which 9 times out of 10 is committed by a bunch of likable, grey-scale morality underdogs for who life isn't fair, for whom getting back at the man is, well, something worth cheering for. First-time screenwriter James V. Simpson's script for Armored gets this half right. He made extra-double-sure that we've got nothing but sympathy for the recently orphaned, Iraq war veteran Ty Hackett (Stomp the Yard's Columbus Short), who's about to have his house taken away by an evil bank (brother, I've been there). And he gave Ty a good family friend in Mike (Matt Dillon) who is super nice and gets him a job at the armored car company that he works at with Baines (Lawrence Fishbourne) and some weird French dude (Jean Reno). These guys like to have fun and play pranks, but they are also serious armored car guys too, so that means they carry guns and are tough.<br /><br />After a short while, as one theoretically watches Armored, one might start to think as I did, that maybe - just maybe - this is going to be some kind of awesome, tongue-in-cheek, cornball heist movie with some on-the-nose characterizations that move the story along its natural course, cranking up the personal stakes of all involved in hopes of unveiling a really, really clever plan with lots of potential 'holy sh*t' moments. I mean, the music alone is textbook heist-movie - gritty, edgy beats working overtime as we're treated to close-ups of characters who say things like "As a matter of fact I do," and "Are you crazy??" For 45 minutes or so, the movie had some serious genre-flick potential.<br /><br />Then things start to really stink. These dudes, these idiots, have no plan. There's no "Ok, here's what we're gonna do..." scene, no blueprints, no explosives, no black van or ski-masks (despite their 'test-run', as can be seen in a trailer). No, these guys are going to steal $42 million dollars from their own trucks (which are only being tracked by HOURLY contact over the radio, despite being equipped with some fancy, big-deal 'GPS technology'), and they aren't even going to sit down and discuss it. Hell, Mike only tells Ty about the plan the night before, which is completely ridiculous. But of course, Ty's got his house to think about so as long as Mike promises that 'no one will get hurt,' he's on board. Guess what, though. Somebody gets hurt. Why? Because, besides driving the trucks into an abandoned factory to hide the money, they have no plan. That was it. That was how far they thought things out. So, naturally, things start to unravel. These cats deserve everything they get for being so unprepared.<br /><br />This script, frankly, feels like it's like the product of some bad improv game: "Armored Car, robbed by its own guards...GO!" Despite some half-decent buildup that could have maybe taken the film in a few interesting directions, the story just completely falls apart, and pretty soon, NOTHING makes sense, or is even remotely plausible.<br /><br />When filmmakers don't have a cool "hook" for their heist, their characters seem stupid, and bungling. And when characters are stupid, and bungling, it's hard for an audience to invest in them, and their story. And when that happens, any suspense drains out the bottom of the movie, leaving a laughable, hollow husk.<br /><br />Skip it. 3/10
I went to see this movie today, with hopes that it would involve an at least half-intelligent story. I was extremely disappointed, as it did not. The plot, and the decisions by the main character, were so far-fetched. I was hoping for a "Dog Day Afternoon"-type movie, but instead got something totally unacceptable. I actually found myself totally hoping for the "hero" to be knocked off, and I nearly walked out of the theater on several occasions when this should have happened but didn't. Heist movies are notmeant to be feel-good flicks, and this one tried to be just that. Every couple of minutes during the second half of the movie, I found myself saying, "no way". Without giving the whole story away, it revolved around an armored car guard who was financially down and out, and whose house was going into foreclosure. He was invited in on a heist, and accepted, only to back down once the action began. Weak.
I am so angry to the point i normally down make reviews with spoilers but in this case I'll make an exception.The first scenes of this movies are weak and then when they get to the meat and potatoes of the movie it sucks. This is one movie were i rooted for the bad guys because the captain-save-the-day was unbelievable and there was no connection to him or nothing to make you like him. The lead actor gave the weakest performance and Laurence Fishburne or Matt Dillon couldn't even save this movie. Sometime there are eye openers or great moments in a film that may not be that great..this movie has none. If you are looking for a movie to see in the meantime while nothing peeked your interest...don't choose this one..save your money.
There is not much to add to what others have already commented, the movie fails hard where it shouldn't, it has no depth in the planning of the heist and the characters are so unbelievable.<br /><br />One thing that got me thinking, was that although the rest of the gang is trying hard to remove the pins from the doors of an armored truck, because there is supposed to be no other way of opening it, the guy inside the truck, with great ease manages to remove the floor of the truck which happens to have a hole in it so he can get out, and then get back in, without being noticed by anyone, because no one else could think that he could get out from there or even better, that they could have gotten into from there.<br /><br />Promising but not quite there.
This movie is one of the worst movies I have ever seen! The cast was fantastic, but the movie itself was horrible. It was so awful, I had to register just to say how bad it was.<br /><br />I watched this movie, and I wanted to break it every minute I watched. It could have been great. Had a great premise. If you're going to rob an armored car, and there's a homeless person which sees you, you have to do, what you have to do. For the main character to decide to get a cop killed, and kill his friends and co-workers after the homeless guy was already dead, it's just ridiculous. And yes, I'm sure there will be responses to this about how his conscious got to him, but come on.<br /><br />The main character crawled out the bottom of the armored truck, no one saw him. He blew up the stash of money and grabbed and dragged the cop right behind the other guards and no one saw him. He was able to get back in the armored car, and no one saw him... This movie had potential, but blew it.<br /><br />You couldn't pay me to watch this movie ever again! DON'T EVER watch it! Aggravating...
Unbelievably disappointed. The pace was slow. The characters unbelievable and throughout the film as a whole just let me feel bored and unfulfilled. There was no real plot that could keep you revolving around the film and keep you interested. The heist itself never offered any excitement and didn't seem very well though through.<br /><br />There was not enough depth or background to any character and Laurance Fishbourne's character was one I eagerly awaited for, unfortunately Laurance has no idea how to play the thuggish brut and is much preferred as a likable character. Columbus short one of my favourite actors (in stomp the yard) let me down with his performance, his character was dark and you could hardly see what drove his reasoning.<br /><br />The only character I think offered anything to the film was Milo Ventimiglia (Peter Petrelli in Heroes). Though his character quite small and insignificant I think his touch added to an all around dull film.<br /><br />In Conclusion buy the DVD if you want to find a new way to waste your time.
I have to admit that I am disappointed after seeing this movie. I had expected so much more from the trailers. The movie was absolutely horrible. It lacked a real story line and the acting was not exactly the best. Don't waste your time. The movie is not what the trailers lead you to think it is. I would have to say that I don't usually write anything about movies on IMDb (in fact this is my first one) but this movie was such a disappointment that I registered just to let people know not to waste their time or money. The story line is that of a heist that is to happen and it looks like it had potential to be good but the things that happen in the movie are a little far fetched to be believable. Watch another movie instead, maybe the inside man???
How do you take a cast of experienced, well-known actors, and put together such a stupid movie? Nimrod Antel has the answer: Armored. Six co-workers at an armored car business decide to steal a large shipment of cash themselves. But, just as they get to first base with their plans, everything unravels quickly. With a plot like this, you'd think it couldn't be too bad, at least for an action movie. However, in the first 40 minutes or more of this movie we see what appear to be 6 normal, everyday kind of guys. They joke, they laugh, have a few drinks together, etc. Then, we suddenly learn they're planning to rob their own business. The hero Ty, (Columbus Short), is sucked into the scheme because of the cold, cruel world, even though he's a decorated veteran, nice guy, and reliable employee. Oh my, oh my! Then in the last 40 minutes of the film, these former regular guys nearly all turn into money-crazed psychos, willing to butcher each other for cash. In the last scenes Mike, (Matt Dillon), goes on a suicidal rampage for no other reason than to kill his former friend. The viewer has no hint before this ending that these men are this ruthless and bloodthirsty. It's utterly unbelievable and "B movie" is almost too kind for this sort of cheesy plot. I would say don't waste your time--too bad no one gave Laurence Fishburne, Jean Reno or Fred Ward the same advice before making this picture.
A new guard in in the armored truck gig is recruited by his co-workers to steal 42 million from the truck. No bad guys, so no one will get hurt, right? Of course things go wrong and the new guard decides to have a conscience and make things right by saving the life of a dying man.<br /><br />I'll admit that I didn't really have any interest in this film, but I didn't have any interest in Fantastic Mr Fox either, and that film made my top ten of the year. Armored is even more of a disappointment then I thought it would be. As a heist film, it fails to deliver the goods, it's boring and full of plot holes and leaps in logic that one will hurt themselves thinking about it.<br /><br />Despite this the film somehow has a really great cast, but the film doesn't even use this to it's advantage. Everyone seems wasted in wooden characters that make stupid choices. Columbus Short is an uninteresting lead that is never charismatic and never makes the audience want to give a crap. Matt Dillon is the mastermind behind the heist and he plays Mr. Nice Guy at first, then when things don't go his way he quickly becomes the villain. The rest of the impressive cast include Lawrence Fisburn, Jean Reno, Skeet Ulrich, Fred Ward, Amaury Nolasco from Prison Break and Milo Ventimiglia from Heros. Non of them do much and when they actually do something, it's without much reasoning behind it.<br /><br />The film is relatively short, but even with it's running time under 90 minutes, it felt dragged out. How long can you make a movie about a guy trapped somewhere? Phonebooth did a decent job and it was even more restricted. The leaps of logic concerning the plot here are tragic. 42 million and all the security they have are check ins every hour or so? The entire plan from my understanding was to drive the trucks into an abandoned warehouse and hide the money. Pretend to get hit and burn the trucks. They would then walk away with the money. Of course something goes wrong, or there would be no movie right? Through a series of unfortunate events out so called hero has trapped himself inside the truck with an injured officer. The rest of the movie is Dillion and his crew banging on the doors to get in. How very exciting.<br /><br />The script calls for our hero to have financial problems, he might lose his house, which would in turn make him lose his brother. You see, both their parents died and it's just the two of them looking out for each other. So now he has a reason to join the heist. At first he didn't want in, but his money problems is just the right push to throw him in the thick of things. How convenient. <br /><br />Armored's whole spin on the heist genre is that it's from an armored truck, from the guys who drive it. After that basic premise, the film falls flat on it's face. I found myself wanting it to end sooner and sooner each time someone spoke. Speaking of the ending, it sucks. <br /><br />Skip it.
this movie is sooooo bad that it forced me to create an account with IMDb just to warn others about it.<br /><br />i have been using IMDb for a long time, and many movies have come close to making me want to register to either praise or bash them, however none have ever been that worthy. Until now! <br /><br />I am a huge Matt Dillon fan. all i could ask myself throughout this movie is "how did Dillon choose this script"? really. i mean there are holes in it larger than Vredefort. <br /><br />i mean it is a modern day heist movie, not one set in the seventies. For crying out loud, even a child knows that armored trucks have gps tracking and the sort. makes you wonder what it takes to get a script produced in Hollywood.<br /><br />i could go on for ages, but i wont. believe me when i say this. save yourself the time and give this a skip.<br /><br />Sorry Matt, I'm still a fan, but this movie sucked.
OK I for one thought the trailer was quite good so was hopeful for this film, plus with the cast line up I was sure it couldn't get less than a 6 in my books. However I got annoyed half hour into the story... just where normal films get good, this film hit rock bottom. <br /><br />SPOILER * The guy who everyone is trying to help is so caring of other people getting hurt in the middle of the hustle that he turns on his colleagues to save a tramp and then locks himself inside one of the armoured trucks. Not only that, he constantly tries to get other peoples attention by which he ends up endangering more people and long story short, the outcome is that he is responsible for not just the tramps death, but also a police officer getting shot and the kidnapping of his younger brother... oh and all 5 of his colleagues dying disgraced deaths. <br /><br />But in the end he is HAPPY because he came to his senses halfway through the endeavour, so what if all his colleagues are now dead rather than sticking to the plan and being a millionaire. This film tried to be so politically correct it makes me sick! Ruined a good story. Shame really.
Disappointing heist movie indeed, I was actually expecting a pretty cool cat and mouse stuff going on through out the movie and it does have few of those cat and mouse stuff going on, but it was just pretty stupid. And it basically showed all the good scenes in the trailer, as a matter of fact if you seen the trailer to this, you basically seen the whole film cause it is just that predictable. So basically the plot is about a few armored truck company workers that try to steal the 42 million dollars they are suppose to transport, until one of the members grows a conscience. I thought the movie would be better with it's cast of well known actors, but I was wrong. I mean this isn't necessarily a bad film but it just wasn't that good either or has any depth. This is most definitely a rental at best, just not really worth seeing it in theaters. heist <br /><br />4.8/10
After watching this for 15 minutes I knew how it would end. Its a cliché film with a stupid setup. I'm a big fan of thief films, but this one does not deliver anything new smart or special. It's about an insider heist gone bad because "hot head-bad guy" shots a bum, and of course "do goody-bad guy" goes on a moral trip. The reason why it's stupid and not believable is. When you've already gone so far to kill a bum, why not just kill the one guy that stands between you and 43 million. They got 45 minutes to stash the money and stage a robbery nobody in there right mind would hesitate to shoot Mr "do goody" and in this case he is a guy they known for a few days.... All and all I was leaning to fast forwarding from the middle of it, but I duked it out and boy do I regret it
One of those movies in which there are no big twists whatsoever and you can predict pretty much whats is going to happen. Matt dillon was awesome once again, but the rest didn't played a bigger part as they should have.<br /><br />It was exciting in the beginning but kinda slow paced and predictable in the end.Its one of those flicks in which the good guy wins no matter happens.If you have absolutely nothing to do, you can give it a try I personally found it not worth watching. The story could have been more interesting and the director could have made it less of a B-movie by engineering a happy ending.
Dillon, Fishbourne, Reno, should have teamed up for a much smarter effort, because this one slides in the B-Category and could have been done with no-name actors and a much smaller budget, since anyway, 2 armored trucks and a wasted warehouse could not have coasted too much. Since the writers did not manage to come with a smart heist plan, they targeted the dramatics of the situation, but there was not much to exploit there either. Fishbourne and Reno do not bring anything to this movie except the media interest, they're only expensive advertising. Dillon is OK, but this was a walk in the park. The choices of the main character, Ty Hackett, are quite uninspired and the final, with the "reward" is quite childish. Waste of time, money, actors and so on.
The film had it moments, but was disappointing in my eyes anyway. It was a reworking of Trespass (Walter Hill) and so The Treasure Of the Sierra Madre, with less tension, bite and human emotion. There was some nice acting but the story was limp and lacked any real depth. I watched the movie for Mr Reno and Mr Fishburn, neither were inspired and both had little to say or act out of their skin for. This movie has been done to death in the past and did not have to be made, eats up money which could be used on better movies. For an action movie it was sparse of action and as a thriller did not thrill. Better than watching snow fall, but not for me.
The sounds in the movie were so mundane and ridiculous, seriously banging on the door hinges for about 30 minutes really crunches your teeth and makes your head hurt.<br /><br />i love bad puns more than the next guy, but come on "no blood on our hands" being said about a million times by Matt Dillon' character, and when Matt Dillon's character shoots the bum the lead character which i fail to remember his name because i don't really think anyone cares gets blood on his hands literally.<br /><br />the background music with the heavy metal guitar ringing an A-chord for about 5 minutes isn't my idea of music, come on i was having the worst headache by the end of this garbage.
A heist film with Jean Reno, Matt Damon and Laurence Fishburne... sounds great on paper? I suspect it must have done when someone green lighted the production of this movie but the end product is terrible!<br /><br />The story is dull, the action boring, and, for a film that is only 88 minutes it seems to just drag on. I could feel my life slipping away and was sure there was something better I should have been doing... any paint to watch dry somewhere perhaps?<br /><br />Sigh. I'm a huge fan of Jean Reno, but what on earth was he thinking when he signed up to this? There are so many other great action movies around... go watch one of those and let this movie be best forgotten.
What a bad movie, the premise was all there, the actors were all there. And yet a believable plot, good dialogue, characters to relate to were somewhat missing.<br /><br />Typical heist gone wrong premise set against a backdrop of everyman being shafted by the system. The lead character Tye and his little brother have been having no luck and their house is going to be repossessed, along comes godfather Matt Dillon (Who does not look much older than Tye so not exactly sure how that happened)to the rescue with a plan to steal money from an armoured van which they work on as security guards. Tye has a brief flirtation with a conscience but decides to go along with it. And thus begins a truly awful hole ridden 30 minutes of unbelievable trash. I will not list all the ways in which this movie was unrealistic but let me point out the major ones:<br /><br />Because of Tye deciding to be a good guy because a homeless guy became collateral damage, all of his close friends including his godfather die. His godfather who is supposedly family and the man who brought him into the caper at the last minute to help him out dies because of Tye. Tye in the process of thwarting his friends and godfather destroys all the money. The money came from the same bank that was repossessing his house. And yet he chose it over the supposed family of Matt Dillon.<br /><br />There are many more, needless to say that this film was tripe and I earnestly hope nobody else goes to see it.
Well where do we start, there was a lot of potential for this film with such big stars playing a role. But the whole story was ruined by a horrific plot. This movie did not pan out to be what i would expect, the good guy makes it out alive, i mean co mon nobody wants the good guy to be successful. The ending was cringe worthy and very cliché no thought what so ever, YOU GOT THE PLOT ALL WRONG THE BAD GUYS ARE MEANT TO COME OUT SUCCESSFUL.<br /><br />If you want to waste 1 hour and 2 minutes of your time spend it doing something else this movie was the epitome of CRAP. I really think the actors did this movie for some quick Vegas cash no doubt about it. SAVE your money watch a better movie.
Armored<br /><br />The best part about driving an armored vehicle is that if any bums approach you at a red light asking for money, you can shoot them in the face.<br /><br />And while the armoured guards in this thriller aren't using their protective power to purge the drifter population, they are using their position to fleece their employer.<br /><br />When newcomer Ty (Columbus Short) lands a job with an armored trunk company, he feels like he has found his lot in life. Unfortunately, however, when he discovers that his co- workers (Matt Dillon, Jean Reno and Laurence Fishburne) are plotting to take the $42 M shipment for themselves, Ty must fortify himself – and the funds – inside the armored truck.<br /><br />A tedious caper with a plodding plot and phoned-in performances, Armored is an utterly forgettable film.<br /><br />Besides, if you really want to jack millions, it's a lot simpler to just disguise yourself as an ATM. (Red Light)
This looks so good on paper - Matt Damon, Lawrence Fishbourne, Jean Reno, nice right? And a heist with $42 million - sounds like a kick-ass crime movie.<br /><br />Big disappointment - I reckon the stars got all the money because the production values on this are lousy.<br /><br />But more than that it the pseudo reservoir Dogs atmosphere when the easy crime goes wrong. It's very much made for TV stuff.<br /><br />All in all hugely disappointing - it score points for being what it is - but loses them massively for being, bluntly, not very interesting at all...
This movie, despite its list of B, C, and D list celebs, is a complete waste of 90 minutes. The plot, with its few peaks, was very predictable. It was so silly that I cannot believe that I am taking the time to even write a review of it. Flex, to his credit, has grown in his ability to act since playing Michael Jackson in a made for TV movie a few years ago. Tangi, on the other hand, has regressed, as she was more talented in her role as Felicity's flunkie some years ago. As I sat watching this train wreck of a film, with its pitiful production and horrible sound quality, other four letter words came to my mind to qualify what I thought of this film. However, in an effort to keep my writings G Rated, I'll simply say this film is another four letter word starting with an L. LAME!!!
I was at Wrestlemania VI in Toronto as a 10 year old, and the event I saw then was pretty different from what I saw on the Wrestlemania Collection DVD I just watched. I don't understand how the wwE doesn't have the rights to some of the old music, since most of those songs were created by the WWF they shouldn't have to worry about the licensing and royalty fees that prevent shows like SNL from releasing season sets. Its pretty stupid to whine about, but for me hearing Demolition come out to their theme music at a Wrestlemania in person was a memory that I never forgot, and it didn't exist on this DVD. What is the point of them even owning the rights to this huge library of video if they have to edit it so drastically to use it?
Just watched on UbuWeb this early experimental short film directed by William Vance and Orson Welles. Yes, you read that right, Orson Welles! Years before he gained fame for radio's "The War of the Worlds" and his feature debut Citizen Kane, Welles was a 19-year-old just finding his muse. Besides Vance and Welles, another player here was one Virginia Nicholson, who would become Orson's first wife. She plays a woman who keeps sitting on something that rocks back and forth courtesy of an African-American servant (Paul Edgerton in blackface). During this time a man (Welles) keeps passing her by (courtesy of the scene constantly repeating). I won't reveal any more except to say how interesting the silent images were as they jump-cut constantly. That's not to say this was any good but it was fascinating to watch even with the guitar score (by Larry Morotta) added in the 2005 print I watched. Worth a look for Welles enthusiasts and anyone with a taste of the avant-garde.
When a friend once lambasted me for my first movie (a pretty bad videotaped affair), I argued that I could grow; Orson Welles' first movie, indeed, was even worse. He challenged me that it couldn't be, so I pulled out the Criterion laserdisc of (I think) CITIZEN KANE and played HEARTS OF AGE. My friend lasted just a few minutes before conceding the point.<br /><br />There is a little humor in this short, but it's basically as pretentious as (and perhaps a collegiate answer to) BLOOD OF A POET and other avant garde films of the time. It is what it is: a succession of images with a vague theme, and unless you really enjoy any footage of Welles (in heavy makeup, to boot), this isn't really even worth tracking down.
I was a hippie age 22 in 1965, have seen the play 5 times, have 2 versions of the music, and have read the script many times. Maybe taken as an separate thing, the movie is OK, but as an adoption of the play, it's terrible.<br /><br />First the good. The songs are sung well, and the production values are pretty good. The homosexual implications in Black Boys, White Boys is cute. The Claude/Berger switch was interesting. Hair is a fluid production, and constant changes in it are inherent provided the basic spirit of it is retained.<br /><br />But the basic spirit was very much distorted. It seemed like all the producer wanted was to sing certain songs, and fit the story-line to them regardless of what that did to the original intent of the play.<br /><br />Claude, Sheila, and Hud were presented as a selfish brats who could care less about anyone outside their tribe. Claude destroyed Sheila's parents party (it's hard to believe that she smiled while her parents were being hurt), and repeatedly stole cars. Sheila stole the soldier's clothes and car. Then she left him in the middle of the desert where he would certainly sunburn badly, probably be busted in rank, and could likely die on that lonely Nevada road. Good fun. And Hud found it fine to break his son's heart while yelling at his ex. This is not what hippies were like, not what the play described, and is directly opposite to a love generation.<br /><br />I've never seen a hippie beg for money. The point was to be self-sufficient outside the capitalist system, not beg from it.<br /><br />After Berger is thrown in jail for ruining Sheila's party and Claude offers to bail some out, Berger insists on being bailed instead, with no better plan for bailing the rest that hitting on Sheila's parents, and then hitting on his own mommy.<br /><br />"Be In" has always been a very spiritual point, but here it is wasted on silly brides floating around. Even if this is part of his trip, it ruins a beautiful song. I know they're contrasting "Floating In Space" with the Army. But again, it totally ruins a beautiful song.<br /><br />While Sheila and Claude are skinny dipping, Berger steals their clothes, laughing "it was fun man" even after he could see both were very annoyed. Then a little later, Berger does one thing that no hippie ever does. He hits Claude. Terrible.<br /><br />Then they have the perfect opportunity to sing "Starshine" at night in some beautiful SF spot with the stars twinkling down, maybe working into an inventive duet. Instead, the whole tribe sings it in the blazing sun speeding down the road in a convertible (stolen of course).<br /><br />I was vastly disappointed with the movie in 1979, and I like it even less now. I think it would have been possible to do a reasonably close adoption of the show, but this ain't it.
I've liked Milos Forman's movies since I saw "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and "Amadeus" (two big masterpieces), but when I saw "Hair", I kept wondering if this was the same Milos Forman. This movie is boring and uninteresting to say the least. OK, the music is pretty good, but on screen it only seems like a bunch of drugged people dancing around (wait a minute... that's what it really is!). In fact, the only interesting part, and the only part where Milos' talent shows up, are the last 15 minutes or so, (SPOILER!!) since when Berger takes Claude's place as a soldier set to the Vietnam war. That 15 minutes are moving and well-directed, but it's a shame that we have to endure so much awful material before that.<br /><br />Well, maybe this is one of those movies you need to be "on the subject" to enjoy (the subject being marijuana, acid and other drugs the film glorifies). I'm not, so...
I should start off by saying I have something of a love-hate relationship with musicals. Some of them are fantastic, some are downright crap. So I expected Hair to fall into one of those categories. However, it didn't, falling instead in the middle.<br /><br />The songs aren't brilliant, though the "Sodomy" song did make me smile a lot, and everything is rather dated looking. But the movie didn't draw me in as others have, such as Rocky Horror. Although that's a bad example, since for years I hated Rocky Horror, then all of a sudden I got it and have loved it ever since. Maybe Hair will be the same. Although I doubt it will get as much exposure as Rocky Horror due to the language and nudity content, so I doubt I will get the chance to have it grow on me. Gettit? Hair....grow...oh suit yourself.<br /><br />Anyhow, I didn't get to see the last fifteen minutes or so due to a technical glitch, which was a shame, since I would have liked to see how it ended, especially after reading some of the reviews here.<br /><br />Not a film for the casual cinema-goer, but definitely one for musical lovers. I really hope they don't re-make it, though, since I think any such re-make would end up a shallow, pale, PC version of the original.<br /><br />Worth a look for lovers of the genre.
This film is an insult to the play upon which it is based. The character of Claude has been warped beyond recognition leaving a painful performance that does not even vaguely resemble the original plot. Shame, shame, shame. They have also cut a fair number of the original score of change the context in which the songs are sung. This warps the air of the film and causes the viewer who is aware of how this should be to wince as the writer of this screen play gives Hud a wife,turns Sheila into a spoiled rich girl, characterizes Claude as a cowboy, and kills Burger by sending him to Vietnam instead. If one is not familiar with the original plot I assure you this is not a bad film for you to see, but if you ever wish to see the original or are, as I am, a die-hard fan of the classic play, you would do best to avoid the film altogether. One really must stick to one or the other.
hair, the movie based on the broadway hit,fails to achieve any redeemable cinematic qualities. you cant really take the play and make it a movie. whether one is so tempted by the rock music to see this movie, it really detracts from the quality of a broadway show. worse than seeing sitcom reruns. musical fiasco, and cant believe others rated it so high.
Sadness was the emotion I felt, after the screen went dark. Puzzled, was another. Why would two seasoned screen vets like Matthau and Lemmon sign on to this putrid project? I'm under the impression they didn't read the script, before the cameras started rolling. All the cast is wasted, in this unfunny, uninteresting and unimpressive movie. Sadly enough, this was one of elegant Edward Mulhare's last projects, here as the heavy. Dyan Cannon tries, Hal Linden looks bored, Donald O'connor reciting a few lines laden with profanity. (??!!). I'm not with the "Legion of Decency." My point is they were spouted purely for the strangeness of hearing him use off-color language. That is a desperate attempt to infuse "humor" into a picture. He actually did deliver the film's only morsel of entertainment, when he pattered about on the dancefloor, though. I save my harshest criticism for the leads. Walter Matthau should have known better. He still delivers great solo performances (IQ, Dennis The Menace, etc.). His character, although affable, is rather dull and one dimensional. Seen him once, seen him all. Jack Lemmon gives another one of his trademark, weepy, "just too darn sensitive" male portrayals. When he starts that mode, I vicariously want to hand him a box of tissues. OUT TO SEA is painfully unfunny, and whoever produced this mess should be made to walk the plank.
I never heard of this film when it first came out. It must have sunk immediately. :o) I saw it on cable while sick in hospital so I hardly had enough energy to watch it, let alone turn the channel. Better choice than the Style Channel. ;0(. Filmed on location, this travelogue should have been on the Travel Channel. The plot is recycled from ship board farces of the thirties and forties. The cast seems to have been recycled from the fifties. Donald O'Connor, star of musicals and Edward Mulhare as a card shark. As to the main cast, Walter Matthau is still playing the same part as he did in Guys and Dolls or was it the one about the orphan girl? Wiseacre irresponsible gambler and rounder. But it just doesn't take with a man of his age. As to Jack Lemmon, he plays his part so straight, he can hardly dip and glide when dancing. And as mentioned, Dyan Cannon is outstandingly attractive as another swindler sailing with her mother who thinks Walter is rich, while he thinks she is rich. Elaine Stritch plays Dyan's mother, another retread from the fifties. The most fun is the running feud between Brent Spiner as the domineering and snotty cruise director who immediately spots Walter as a poor dancer, and spends his time trying to get him dismissed so he will have to pay for his free passage. In the end, though he receives his comeuppances. Meanwhile Jack mopes about, meets an attractive woman, with mutual attraction, but their affair is broken up by Walter's lies that Jack is a doctor, when he was actually a retired department store buyer. But finally, the two men take to the sea in a rubber boat to intercept her seaplane and all is well. There does not seem to be any principal player under the age of fifty.
Let's not fool ourselves, okay? We all know that this film was made because of the success of the "Grumpy Old Men" movies. Unlike those, however, this travesty has zero humor and very little heart.<br /><br />Gloria DeHaven is the sole shining light to be seen. It breaks my heart that she was finally given the chance to show off her skills to a new generation of moviegoers, only to end up in a piece of dreck such as this. There was a touching scene which featured her being stood up by someone she was falling in love with. Her fine performance was the only quality acting going on in "Out To Sea". Everyone else is just going through the motions. 2/10
In 1904 Tangier, a wealthy American woman and her two children are kidnapped by Berbers, murderous desert pirates who scorn the Moroccan government and, by doing so, kidnap "American pestilence", which attracts the attention of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt. Fictitious historical epic is less a grand adventure than it is a peculiar, somewhat exhaustive throwback to the desert-sheik films of the 1940s (with a bit of "The King and I" interjected, besides). Portraying the cloaked, mustachioed, bloodthirsty leader and his snippy, haughty captive, Sean Connery and Candice Bergen could be acting in two entirely different movies (neither one seems to know how far to carry the camp-elements of their characters and dialogue, and both seem singularly without proper direction). The various (and anonymous) slashings and beheadings which occur are arbitrary: we don't know any of these victims, and the big action scenes become blurry, noisy montages of sand-swept violence on horseback. The pluses: a much-lauded music score by Jerry Goldsmith (Oscar-nominated, but a loser to John Williams' "Jaws"), fine location shooting and cinematography. *1/2 from ****
Luscious Candace Bergen as a prim Victorian beauty, kidnapped by Sean Connery as a devilish desert Sheikh! How can you go wrong? How? Oh, let me count the ways!!! Earthy, primitive Sean Connery, exactly the right man to tame a brittle, classy beauty like Candace, is . . . well, underwhelming in the role. That's because, instead of having dialog about the real issues ("you are a woman . . . I am a man!") he has to babble nonsense about "the will of Allah" and "the wind blows destiny across the desert sands." John Milius, a director known more for the worship of naked male bodies and brute military force than any insight (or interest) in conventional human relationships, has a maddening way of cutting away from his desert lovers every time it looks like Candace might get kissed. Instead of watching nature take its course with two fabulously attractive people in a picturesque landscape, we are treated to endless, (and I do mean ENDLESS) shots of Brian Keith flashing his walrus sized choppers and delivering gritty sermons on the joys of being Teddy Roosevelt. I have nothing against Teddy Roosevelt, but watching him test out his new rifle or make speeches about the heroic death of a big bear just doesn't excite me the way the love story between Candace Bergen and Sean Connery would have . . . if it had ever actually gotten underway! The weird thing is, Milius spends most of his time building up characters and story lines that have no resolution. Candace's two little children in the story both get more screen time than she does. There's no humor, no chemistry, no sizzle, in any of the things that happen to her in the desert. Unless you think it's funny that after weeks of galloping around on horseback her hair is still perfect.<br /><br />The only "real" moment in the story is when, late at night, Candace Bergen shakes her little daughter out of a sound sleep on soft cushions and says, "we must escape." The little girl turns over and, without missing a beat, replies, "but mother, I was sleeping!" That one line sums up what's really missing from the story. No danger, suspense, or sizzle in the basic story line, of a cultivated lady in captivity. She (and her children) are both so snug and well cared for that it's hard to believe anyone is worked up about their fate.<br /><br />Mind you, if Candace herself had said the line it might have worked better. If the tension came from her enjoyment of her captivity, (or her delight at being in the arms of Sean Connery) and her guilt about all the trouble being caused by her abduction, then the story would have had some tension. But Milius makes the odd assumption that the audience is just as worked up as he is over whether Teddy Roosevelt will get the chance to prove his manhood three thousand miles away. In the end the pretty lady and her children don't seem to matter worth a damn to him . . . and since they're at the center of the story the whole thing seems rather dry and endless . . . like the burning desert sands.
and I still don't know where the hell this movie is going? I mean really, what is this movie about? Is it about demonstrating Sean Connery's complete lack of Arabic? Is it about showing that if he could play the role of a Moroccan warlord then he was a natural to play the role of Ramirez in highlander? Why was Teddy Roosevelt even in this movie? Why was there so much sand that was put to so little use? Where was there so much table slapping? Why did Teddy ignore the Japanese guy who he was shooting archery with? Did he realize the man was Japanese? Why was no no credible excuse given for Connery's accent? At least Jean Claude Van Damme has an excuse for his French accent, whether it be being raised by French nuns in Hong Kong (Double Impact), being raised on the bayou in Louisiana (Universal Soldier), or having a French mother and being raised in Indochina (I cannot even remember the name of that movie)? Can anyone explain this?
I laughed so much when I saw this film I nearly soiled myself !. Awful acting, laughable effects (super imposed explosions), and dodgy slow motion fighting.<br /><br />One of the worst films I've ever seen !.
Don't get me wrong. I really love the "arena-martial arts genre", and I get more and more surprised over how many films like this there are out there. This one is one of those, and it's not even close to be one of the best. With Mathias Hues in it, I thought it would be good. He can't save this movie though, and to be honest, he wasn't very good either. Just don't pay attention to what other people say; The fighting scenes in this movie are NOT good at all. I really know what I'm talking about, since I have seen so many movies like this. There are also a bunch of scenes that have absolutely nothing to do with the plot whatsoever. I guess they added these only to make the movie last a little bit longer, in addition to manifest the bad guy as,uuuuuuh.......bad (like we didn't know that already).
This movie is not at all like City of God, you might get the same feeling but it isn't, there's no intense shooting nor intense drug scenes, you get the idea. If you ask me I think this film was a waste of time, there are a lot of other films which gives 100 times better meaning and teaching than "Wooden Camera". Yes I might be the only one to give a negative comment for this film but it's only in my opinion. It's one of those films where I can get the feeling that I'll be blown away but when the credits start to role my friends and I all gave mutual looks, and we all laughed at how ridiculous this movie was. So to conclude this matter, I advise not to watch it.<br /><br />Personal note - Making Africans talk English was a big mistake. In City of God they used their native language which gave the film much more power and reality.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.<br /><br />Yes, this is from Nietzsche's Aphorism 146 from "Beyond Good and Evil". And that's what you find at the start of this movie.<br /><br />If you watch the whole movie, you will doubt if it was the message that the Ram Gopal Varma Production wanted to pass on. As the scenes crop up one by one, quite violent and at times puke-raking, the viewer is expected to forget the Nietzsche quote and think otherwise. That to deal with few people you need dedicated people like Sadhu Agashe who will have the licence to kill anyone, not just writing FIRs (something unworthy of the police to do, as we are made to believe).<br /><br />When TADA was repealed and the government wanted to pass newer and even more draconian laws, RGV's "Satya" did the required brain surgery without blood transfusion for the multiplex growing thinking urban crowd whose views matters in a democratic country like India. Within a year MCOCA was passed.<br /><br />When real life encounter specialist Daya Nayak 'became a monster on the path of fighting them' and was himself booked by MCOCA, "Aab tak Chhappan" was made to heed out "false" impression among the people about this. With it's "you have to be a monster to save your nation" approach.<br /><br />And people consumed it. No questions raised. Only praises and hopes that they get a Sadhu Agashe in their local police station who will solve all problems and hence let only milk and butter flow all over. Blood? You can ignore.<br /><br />Every time Israel attacks Palestine or Lebanon, we hear voices like "India must also similarly attack Pakistan". This movie is made for such psychopaths. If you don't give them this, they will probably die out of boredom and LSD and what not.<br /><br />Hence this game of the passion of hatred.
Honest young insurance agent Ronald Reagan (as Eric Gregg) is optimistic, but poor. His wife, scheming Sheila Bromley (as Nona Gregg), longs for the finer things in life. Describing herself as "not weighted down with tons of righteousness," Ms. Bromley begins to spend more money than Mr. Reagan earns. Bromley obtains the finer things in life, but puts the couple in debt. Bromley is a fun shrew.<br /><br />Handsome Reagan attracts other women, like perky clerk Gloria Blondell (as Patricia Carmody); but, he doesn't indulge. To pay the bills, Bromley gets tangled up in the insurance fraud racket - which helps get her husband fired. An unemployed Reagan seems to be tempted into a life of crime - will he remain straight up, or get crooked? Clinton Rosemond has an uncomfortable "broken arm" scene.<br /><br />*** Accidents Will Happen (1938) William Clemens ~ Ronald Reagan, Sheila Bromley, Gloria Blondell
An interesting period picec showing us what was amazing in 1938. Gosh, Ma, a fake accident ring suing for $25,000!!! I guess projected into the 21st century it would amount to a lot of money. The acting would amount to pure 21st century ham. Nice to see the president as a hard-working newcomer.
This film appears to be an exposé of the current trend towards globalization and homogenization in the wine industry. Wineries around the world are more and more either joining large conglomerates (the American producer, Mondavi, in the case of this film) or paying high-priced experts to help them make "the perfect wine"--and as a result, wines are becoming very standard and predictable. To some, this is a good thing (especially since few can afford to pay $50 or more for an everyday wine) and to others this is horrible as the uniqueness of smaller wineries is disappearing. I truly can understand the concerns of both sides and don't think there is a villain or hero in this business. Sure, good and cheaper wine is a nice thing, but like what's happened with beers (with giants like Unibrew and Anheiser-Busch), food (McDonalds), shopping (European shopping malls are almost indistinguishable from American ones) and mega-stores (like Walmart/Asda) are taking away much of the uniqueness of "the little guys". So I definitely was ready and willing to listen to these film makers. However, with a product that is almost two and a half hours long AND a general lack of focus, the film simply became too big a chore to watch and I lost interest. An 80-90 minute focused film would have been MUCH more effective--especially since the average viewer is NOT an oenophile (that's the high-brow word for a "wine aficionado").<br /><br />On the very positive side, the film makers are smart not to do much talking at all--and simply let those on both sides of the issue do the talking. Plus, the topic is so relevant and timely. However, despite choosing a good style of documentary making, the film simply goes on way, way, way too long and ended up making a very dull film.
Did Beavis and Butthead make this movie? It is just that bad. Truly an uneven and unfair portrayal of "bad" vs. "good" in the wine world. Did you notice the filmmaker trying any of the wines from the featured protectors of individual wines and terroir. The camera work is dizzying at best while the content may put you to sleep before long. This is not insightful journalism. What I got from this movie was that the filmmaker was trying hard to make a point about the globalism of wine by showing, for example, that the Mondavi family owned wineries in all parts of the world. Okay, that is a good start. So, how do these wines compare? Does the Mondavi Napa cab taste like their Italian wines. We never find out because no one in the film comments on this. Instead, there is a lot of innuendo about Nazi's and fascism. Well, those things don't grow grapes. Hmmmm.
i do not understand at all why this movie received such good grades from critics - - i've seen tens of documentaries (on TV) about the wine world which were much much better when (if) you watch it, please think of two very annoying aspects of mondovino : first, the filming is just awful and terrible and upsetting : to me, it looked like the guy behind the camera just received the material and was playing with it : plenty of zooms (for no purpose other than pushing the button in/out) for instance - - i almost stopped to watch it because of that ! secondly, the interviewer (the director i think) is not really relevant : he looks like and ask questions like a boy scout, not like a journalist, even if the general idea and themes would have been interesting, too bad conclusion: overrated documentary, maybe only for guys who do not know nothing about wine => not recommended at all (2/10)
The film is annoying.<br /><br />Technically, there are too many times you see unfocused and very roughly edited scenes. One could easily get a cleaner film using a decent amateur camera and 100$ video editing software. Down to earth, man on the street doesn't mean sloppy editing. Unfocused scenes that don't contain important statement should have been deleted. The same goes for making sure that the object's head/hand/others stay in the frame. My 8 years old son knows that by now.<br /><br />The film is way too long. The main point (anti globalization) is understood after 30 minutes, why bother with all the rest. After the interview with James Suckling I pressed the "stop" button. What a waist of time.<br /><br />The main theme just doesn't work for me anymore. I've seen too many small wineries which produce mediocre, commercialized wines and many big wineries that produce great and unique wines. The movie identifies the small producers as the ones that are producing wines with more Identity, or terroir. The bigger ones are accused of producing "internationalized" or "commercialized" wines. The film is trying to make a black and white statement in a world full of gray tones. However, the movie hasn't proved this claim. They look at a couple of sporadic examples, "tie" some of the big producers (Frescobaldi) with fascism and provided "interviews" with key people. Well, did all the small producers spent WWII in the resistance? Is it relevant to see that Parker has a thing with Bulldogs? The movie is very manipulative and unconvincing.
The filmmakers try to paint the influence of the Mondovis and Robert Parker as a travesty on par with the German occupation of France and the reign of Fascism. But they never find a victim in this film. We hear wine makers, critics and distributors bemoan that while the wine industry grows it becomes increasingly homogeneous. But the film never makes a case that this has resulted in the loss of any good wine or exploitation of any person or culture other than naive Wine Spectator readers with lots of cash. If they want to pay hundreds of dollars for a dull wine, so be it.<br /><br />If this were a film about the diamond trade, where the DeBeers corporation's market domination results in human suffering, the muckraking style might have been appropriate. But as it is it just comes off as anti-American, anti-modernization and anti-capitalist. Had the filmmakers been around in the 1870s they most likely would have protested the grafting of American vines in the effort to save French wine.
i was looking forward to this, and to be honest there were some bright spots, but it would have worked better if it had concentrated on one story rather than shooting all over the world. The many dogs were a lot of fun but i got bored of the wine fascists pompously whining (;-)) on about their achievements.<br /><br />I felt it would have worked better as an hour long TV documentary, concentrating on one of the many different issues it explored. The most interesting being the french town near montpelier fighting off a an American wine company's campaign to get rid of the historic forests. A socialist mayor agreed to a deal, a nicely timed election arrived, and a communist mayor was elected, who turned it down, much to the exasperation of the American wine execs...<br /><br />hopefully the director's cut will be shorter than the original..
I've heard people compare this movie to Sideways. How this comparison was made, I'll never guess because this movie was in no way comparable to Sideways.<br /><br />These 2 films were as different as Star Wars and the Thornbirds. The only thing they had in common at all was they both had wine as a subject.<br /><br />Though the interviews in this documentary were semi-interesting, they were ruined by the absolute worst camera work ever...attempted. I've never seen worse camera work in my life and I'm comparing it to home videos accidentally taken by 5 year olds.<br /><br />I give this two stars, ONLY for the interesting interviews with French wine types and for showing how pushy and corrupt the American wine companies are (Aren't all companies pushy and corrupt?) I'd give it -10 stars (Yes, that's NEGATIVE 10) for the deplorable, terrible, horrible, awful, VERTIGO-INDUCING, 5-year-old-could-do-better camera mess.
Was it really necessary to include embarrassing footage of non-participants in a documentary. And why all the silly dog scenes, and then repetition of all the same silly dog scenes? This film starts with a great promise - to expose the international politics and the business of wine. It got off to a great start and included all the right characters. But the production is a mess. Points started and developed most of the way, then never finished or left with dangling ends. Very poor and disorienting camera work and editing. They should have used subtitles for the British mumbler from Christie's.<br /><br />Too much fluff and not enough fact for a documentary.<br /><br />Probably honored at Cannes because of the US bashing (although in my opinion there was too little of it).<br /><br />We left at the 2:00 hour mark - I have no idea how much longer it ran on.
As noted in other comments here, the camera-work is laughably bad. I am tempted to say that the director of photography is a 7-year-old, but that would be mean -- to 7-year-olds.<br /><br />Okay, but what about the subject? I was looking for some insight into the state of the wine industry worldwide, you know, Mondovino. What the film is about is a very narrow view of one intrigue in that world: the struggle between Mondavi and the French and Italian wineries that they would like to buy. There is no enlightening narration that would put the whole deal into context, so we are left with the selective process of the director and the interviews with the various characters in this little psychodrama. There's no shortage of despicable characters, or even despicable dogs, in sight. There is a shortage of evenhandedness, however. <br /><br />Is the director a Marxist? I wondered as I tried to maintain some semblance of focus as the camera dipped, swerved, zoomed in a chaotic flourish. Small grower in France: good. Huge grower in USA: very, very bad. Forget about the hundreds of small wineries throughout North America, Australia, and South America. There is a dead horse to beat here for over two hours.<br /><br />To learn about the intrigue more, you are better off reading about it elsewhere. And you will be able to sample your favorite wine without feeling sick while doing so.<br /><br />I suggest a new award at Cannes for Best America-bashing Diatribe.
Oh God! It could be a very interesting film and in fact it is. I would have like to give it a 5 but i give a 2 for my vote. Why? I saw it in a theatre! See this film on DVD or on TV! The shooting is really really POOR!!!!! It keeps shaking all the time, in a completely tasteless framing!<br /><br />Its really painful to see this very interesting film in a cinema. You got quickly seasick and you have to make some huge effort not to puke on your neighbor 's seat! <br /><br />It's really a shame 'cos, the story is edited in a non-linear way which is quite rare (and a very good idea!) for a documentary. <br /><br />Watch this at home!
There were so many classic movies that were made where the leading people were out-and- out liars and yet they are made to look good. I never bought into that stuff. The "screwball comedies" were full of that stuff and so were a lot of the Fred Astaire films.<br /><br />Here, Barbara Stanwyck plays a famous "country" magazine writer who has been lying to the public for years, and feels she has to keep lying to keep her persona (and her job). She even lies to a guy about getting married, another topic that was always trivialized in classic films.<br /><br />She's a New York City woman who pretends she's a great cook and someone who knows how to handle babies, etc. Obviously she knows nothing and the lies pile up so fast you lose track. I guess all of that is supposed to be funny because lessons are learned in the end and true love prevails, etc. etc. Please pass the barf bag.<br /><br />Most of this film is NOT funny. Stanwyck was far better in the film noir genre. As for Dennis Morgan, well, pass the bag again.
I think I watched a highly edited version because it wasn't nearly as graphic as I expected - based on the other reviews that I have heard.<br /><br />Other than 1. being written by the same person who wrote the original "Emmanuelle" (1974), Emmanuelle Arsan, 2. the lead character being a sexually free spirit, and 3. being set in the exotic locale of Asia, "Laure" doesn't have the same flair as its predecessor.<br /><br />I just found this film way too talky with philosophical topics that I'm really not that interested in, i.e. the voyeuristic, open relationship between Laure and Nick, "I'm just happy with whatever brings her pleasure"...something along those lines. I cannot relate to this mentality and the film/characters don't really shed any light.<br /><br />The second half about finding the Mara tribe just seemed as though it were a completely separate film. One that I didn't care for. By that time, I was just hoping that it would turn into a porn so that at least it would keep my interest.<br /><br />Maybe I just didn't get it.<br /><br />I'll leave it at that.
This is one of the most awful movies I've ever seen, probably only surpassed by the dreadful and utterly meaningless Blueberry. How can Harald Zwart even have put his name on this crap. I'm feeling every ounce of respect I had for him waning fast.<br /><br />So what is it about this film that makes it so poor? Is it the story? Yes. Is it the actors? Yes. It it the whole "look and feel" of the movie? Yes.<br /><br />To start off with the story, my god!It's about as cliché-ridden and predictable as what you would expect from a drunk 14-year old who is late writing his/her paper on "What I did this summer". The feel-good vibe the makers try to achieve just completely drown as we suffer through yet another embarrassing turn to the story.<br /><br />The actors are amateurs, I know, and thus we cannot expect them to be of the same quality as professional actors. But for this to work, the characters HAVE to be charming and/or funny (preferably both), so that the viewers don't mind the cheeky acting, or perhaps it even adds to the characters. In this case, not even close baby! You start off disliking the characters mildly, and by the end of the film (I think it's about 90 minutes long, although it feels like 4 hours) you have a strong desire to hurt somebody to get your mind of these annoying stupid guys! It should be impossible to find this movie's attempt at humor successful unless you're actually yourself like these stupid hickeys. Their before mentioned lack of talent and credibility as far as acting goes, only makes the foolish and overly simple scenes fall harder to the ground. Even the family of the people involved will have a hard time finding this anything but very, very embarrassing (I'd rather have my sister make a fool of herself on American Idol).<br /><br />Finally, why cram in a bunch of misplaced Norwegian celebrities? They look even more out of place than the actors, if this is possible. These celebrity cameos just add to the cheap feeling of the film and is in itself a pretty see-through shot in the dark at trying to improve something broken even before inception.<br /><br />I cannot even begin to stress how much I'd rather watch paint dry than ever watch this movie again...
This movie is actually so poor in its desperate attempts at being "feel good" and casual it really made me embarrassed watching it. I can't imagine how the inner circle of Norwegian celebs and press must have felt trying to pretend to like it at the star-packed premiere. Its great media reviews is a sickening example of how ridiculously small and inbred the Norwegian media scene is. Had a foreign film of this quality reached the silver screen it would have gotten the rain of rotten tomatoes it truly deserves.<br /><br />The combination of literally amateur actors, home-made style visual effects, awkward dialogue, painfully idle attempts at working class humour and the overly cozy and meaningless plot, really makes this a movie of rock bottom quality. Stay away.
An odd, willfully skewed biopic of Dyan Thomas in which we hear little more than a dozen lines of his poetry. Instead we have to endure a raw character exposée seen through the prism of his proto-bigamous relationship with wife (Sienna Miller) and childhood love (Keira Knightley). Matthew Rhys plays Thomas with sufficient charm to inoculate us against his otherwise repellent self-interest and Cillian Murphy makes up the persistently tense lovetet.<br /><br />The film never seems to decide on where it's going. There's no arc so much as a viaduct from one end of the war to the other. Maybury seems much more interested in his two female leads (who wouldn't!?) than in the man who brings them together and then divides them. Miller is the choice of the two (I found Knightley competent at best but then I have never found her sympathetic) but they both offer dreadfully inconsistent Welsh accents. Other funny decisions include too much for the inconsequential character of William (Murphy), arty production (eg double crossfades) that is neither impressionist nor symbolic and the old chestnut act of period footage which doesn't blend. 4/10
After I saw this I concluded that it was most likely a chick flick; afterward I found out that Keira's mother wrote the screenplay so that pretty much confirmed it. However, a chick flick can have some appeal to men; this one does not and really seems not to appeal that well either to women (looking at the dismal box office receipts). One item that I believe both genders agree upon is the stupidity of the the scene, in the movie, whereby an analogy is made between the pain of childbirth to the pain of a limb being amputated w/o anesthesia. Though men do not undergo the pain of childbirth we understand that it is a painful process; yet it is a natural pain whereas an amputation certainly is not! Women understand this even better. I suspect some woman was trying to make a feminist statement that is in poor taste. In fact, a lot of things in this movie are in very poor taste. Though movies nowadays are known for having poor taste this one really "excels" in that department. This could have been a good movie that shows the struggles of Dylan Thomas during WWII; and how strong the sentiment was against men who somehow managed to avoid serving in the military then. Keira's screen writing mother tries to show how this sentiment was used against Dylan but really muddles this. Instead we get a chick flick about how two young mothers bond together; sort of. In a way. Perhaps. Somehow. Of note is the fact that a soldier (the husband of the friend of Dylan's wife) is sent back home after serving in combat; yet it is unclear if the war has ended!! A lot of things about this movie are similarly unclear; and though I have stated that already I will do so again as it seems to be the central motif of this mess.
This movie is so dull I spent half of it on IMDb while it was open in another tab on Netflix trying to find out if anyone thought it was one of the more boring, ponderous, gimmicky films they've ever seen. A warning: I actually could not finish it, so these are my impressions up to minute 54.<br /><br />Keira Knightly gets loads of screen time. As others have mentioned, her mother penned the script (perhaps during some sort of drug-induced stupor wherein utter inanities and emotionless statements about emotions sounded like interesting dialogue) and it seems that the film is a showcase for Knightly. Oops! Although I agree she is lovely (with her teeth unexposed...her barred teeth cause me anxiety and fear) I found her reactions forced and poorly timed. As in, William or Dylan does something cute...pause...HAHAHA from K with dimples and a playful arm jab. Like a minute too late. What? And she cannot match Cillian Murphy's intensity. He somehow manages to really look at her and look as though he is fascinated by her and falling in love with her whereas she seems totally disconnected, almost like she is interacting with a mirror. That must be torture, acting opposite someone who isn't delivering the same level of energy as you. Know what else is torture? This movie.<br /><br />Knightly does look stunning during her cyclical "I've got 1940s pin curls and a hot dress. Watch me sing!" shots, but what's the point? Is she an altar or an actress? When she talks it's bizarre, "Ooow, Mehster Deelan. Whur eer ya going?" This makes me confused because the accent is so mixed up and unauthentic, yet so thick at times I have no idea what she's saying (or maybe fell asleep). If no one knows who Vera was or cares, or few do, was it so important to give her this supposed Welsh accent? It distracts from all the rest of the action (just kidding there).<br /><br />This movie seems like someone dreamed a movie, maybe after reading a little Dylan Thomas before bed. But instead of adapting to the waking world was like, "Man, that dream was so interesting" and tried to replicate it. Then someone else cautioned, "Your script needs work. Nothing that happens furthers a story or creates necessity" and the writer is all, "But that's the way I dreamed it!" It's like the rambling fantasy of a child, one of those wild and meandering yarns they spin to get your attention. And THEN William went to a war and then Vera had a baby and then some blond chick drank too much and there were so many airplanes and pin curls and everyone had ruby red lips and...<br /><br />As for the Dylan Thomas character (so bland that's all I can call him), why didn't he have any lines in this goofy biopic? All he does is drink beer and smoke cigarettes and roll around with Sienna Miller, who is so wild and artistic she'll do a cartwheel in public! Get outta here, you crazy poets! (I realize she is not a poet, but she and Thomas are like this one nauseating unit of crazy guys havin crazy times, like a lukewarm Sailor and Lula from Wild at Heart.) Someone asks in the message board if they should buy this film. I say do it. Leave it on your shelf and only utilize it as a weapon to narcotize children, the elderly, or lingering house guests.<br /><br />P.S. to Murphy's character...when someone asks if you were "in the sh**" you can say yes, because your war scenes appear to have been shot at a landfill.
i can't believe how dumb this movie truly is. the storyline (written by keira knightley's mother) is what ruins the movie to the extreme. it is straight out dull, absurd, and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever...<br /><br />this movie lagged so bad for most of it, especially at the beginning. the story just kept going on and on about their everyday flirts with each other, often times seeming like a threesome. in this movie, you have an annoying deadbeat couple (the poet and his wife) who are complete total drunks from the start. the wife sleeps around with other men to make ends meet, while the poet is a pervert who thrives on cheap boos and women. the wife, who waaayyyyyy too quickly becomes friends with his former childhood lover (played by keira) suddenly gets jealous, knowing full well that the two were lovers since they were kids. something doesn't seem right here....i mean, come on... get with the program lady! what'd you expect.<br /><br />bottom line is: former lovers meet again with new wife embracing it, then gets jealous, then former woman lover gets married and her husband gets jealous, bombards the crazy drunk couple's home, crazy husband calls police, and they end up going to court for the man's attempted murder charges. that's it summed up in a nutshell...<br /><br />this movie had it's moments such as the quality and good acting by cillian murphy, but other than that, i cannot believe i watched it... i complained about it during the movie and some family members watching it with me fell asleep. i decided to give it a chance and i should have stuck to my first instincts.
I just got done watching The Edge of Love (by the way, this is one of the worst titles so far this year) and it felt like a chore. Watching Keira Knightly's unlikable, skeleton-looking character made me cringe even more throughout the coarse of the film.<br /><br />It took me four nights to watch this it was so boring. The only good thing about it was Cillian Murphy. He's always good/believable and is severely under looked in many films. This, however, was just not good enough for him.<br /><br />Apart from the unlikable characters, boring storyline, the plot was also emotionally unsatisfying. I felt like I spent my time watching this for nothing (which I did). I should have done the smart thing and turned it off, but I kept it on out of respect for Cillian Murphy and the great cinematography.
This film is about the complicated friendship, romance and deceit between two men and two women during the World War II.<br /><br />A lot of effort has been put to make "The Edge of Love"look the right period. However, I find this effort too excessive, particularly in terms of the tone of the colours. Most of the first half of the film is processed so much to have a strong bluish tone. It's hard to make out who's who in this tone.<br /><br />Another detrimental point is the fancy use of image splitting lens. There are many scenes that have three or four images of the same thing, such as three Keira Knightley smiling face or four pairs of arms in embrace. That simply makes the film confusing and hard to follow, instead of being artistic.<br /><br />As for the plot, it is plain boring. The way the story unfolds is not engaging at all. Sienna Miller's unstable character is annoying. In fact all the main characters are annoying and unlikeable. Keira Knightley's accent is impossible to understand, making it a further impediment to understanding the plot.<br /><br />I strongly advise avoiding "The Edge of Love", unless you watch a film only to appreciate great costumes, nice sets and lighting.
My god...i have not seen such an awful movie in a long...long time...saw it last night and wanted to leave after 20 minutes...keira knightley tries really really hard in this one, but she cant handle it..dropped her accent every once in a while and didn't have the charisma to fill the role...sienna millers acting gets you to a point where you start to ask yourself: Has she ever had acting lessons? judging by the edge of love shes never been to acting class, but should consider to go in the near future...they both look really pretty..maybe thats what they should focus on in their future career..if they can be actresses everybody can!
This film fails on every count. For a start it is pretentious, striving to be "significant" and failing miserably. The script was banal in the extreme, nobody at any time said anything remotely interesting. It was impossible to care about any of the characters. Knightly was a self-regarding waste of time whilst Sienna Miller was just a waste of time. The bit about the soldier who went off to war was a cliché even before the film Atonement used it. The use of the Second World War as a backdrop was in itself a cliché...the bombs, the sheltering in tube stations etc...employed to import a bit of much-needed drama. Why anybody thought for a moment that this film was worth making is quite beyond my comprehension. It was yet another case of "let's get the costumes looking authentic, never mind about the story, the script or the acting!"
I tried to watch this adaptation, but it was just so awful I couldn't torture myself like that. The performances were quite sub-par, with the exception of Ariel. Fonda was way over the top in a role that should be handled with some subtlety. I have studied Shakespeare and seen many adaptations, and this is, by far, the worst one I have ever seen. I have to wonder why on Earth someone made this film. Shakespeare can, and has been, beautifully adapted in many cases. This is not one of them. If you must watch this film, may I suggest a drinking game? Take a drink every time they go off book from the original idea and two drinks every time Fonda overacts. You should be quite drunk in a very short time.
The (DVD)movie "The Tempest", directed by Jack Bender, was published in 2001. It didn't make its way to German cinemas and neither the director or an actor were able to receive an important award for this movie. The movie refers to the Shakespearean play "The Tempest" which was published at the end of the 16th century. The director tried to create an modern version of this play, but failed. At the beginning of the movie the plantation owner Prosper gets in a conflict with his brother Antonio about the treatment of their slaves. Antonio sets his brother a trip and tries to kill him but with the help of a witch, Prosper is able to escape and flees with his daughter and a slave called Ariel to a small island nearby the Mississippi river. For over twelve years he has lived isolated on this island, till a lucky chance enables him to take revenge on his brother....If Prosper will be lucky you have to find out by yourself.<br /><br />In my opinion this film is really a bad try to create a modern version of the original play by William Shakespeare. The story of the movie is confusing as well as the characters. Prosper doesn't have the same powers as in the tempest..... END OF PART I
Jack Bender's "The Tempest" is an adaption of Shakespeare's play "The Tempest". Bender transports the plot from medieval Italy to Mississippi during the time of the American civil war. He includes the slavery problem and the role of revenge in wartimes.<br /><br />Prospero, re-named Gideon Prosper is not the Duke of Milan but a landowner in Mississippi. He learns voodoo magic from the female slave Mambo Azaleigh. He saves her son Ariel, who thus accompanies him into his exile. The island is not situated on the sea but in a swamp near the banks of the Mississippi. There lives an Alligator hunter, a so-called "Gator-Man", who later tries to rape Prospero's daughter Miranda. During the time of the civil war, Ariel wants to join the Union troops to help fighting against slavery. Prospero does not care about the war. He is only interested in his personal revenge on his brother Antony. When Antony and his bookkeeper Willi Gonzo (Gonzalo) try to cross the river, Prospero raises a storm. The Union soldier Frederick gets lost in the swamp and finally comes to the island. He and Miranda fall in love with each other but Prospero won't accept that. Meanwhile, Ariel transformed into a raven by Prospero, finds out that Antony has feigned to ally with the Union but plans to betray them. Antony and Gonzo meet Gator Man in the swamp and conspire with him against Prospero. They kidnap Miranda and Ariel but Prospero freeze them and helps the Union defeat the Southern army. In the end Ariel is free, Frederick and Miranda are bound to marry, Prospero returns to the plantation and Gator Man gets back the island.<br /><br />Peter Fonda represents Gideon Prosper powerfully and convincingly while the character of Antony stays rather flat. It was no bad idea to perform the Tempest before the background of the civil war but perhaps the director has risked too much. In some parts the story seems constructed or comical. Gator Man for example does just appear without any explanation. That it needs a kidnapping to bring Prospero to his mind and that he loses confidence in his power shows that Bender tried to make Prospero more human but only made him a weak old man without his magic. Prospero's original authority and wisdom is not made clear.<br /><br />-------------End of Part 1----------------------------
I keep waiting for Peter Fonda to start acting. For someone who comes from such a talented family, it's a mystery to me why Peter Fonda can only play Peter Fonda trying to play someone else. And, that's the good news in this disappointing dog of an adaptation of The Tempest. A string of loosely connected ideas that only suggest a relationship with the Bard's great play is what we're served. The setting is the Civil War and Prospero's (here Guideon's) evil brother looks like an 1890's melodrama villain, complete with Snidely Whiplash moustache. I kept waiting for him to go "Uh ha hah!" which would have been a high point in this dreary presentation. None of the supporting cast was memoriable and Peter Fonda's lack of expression and wooden body movements made the lackadaisical story drag on and on. <br /><br />The Tempest is the Bard's statement about the rage of man's unjust treatment of man. The only believable character was the Gator man, the Caliban counterpart. The transferrence to the swamp had possibilities but the Civil War setting just didn't make it. All in all, a very disappointing production. I saw it on video and would advise, if you want a Willy Shakespeare fix, save your money on this one. Rent something else, like Branagh's Much Ado about Nothing, or Kevin Kline in Midsummer's Night Dream.
Shakespeare would have been outraged. The writers mutilated Shakespeare's amazing work. Ariel is the only believable acting performance. The African voodoo, secluded swamp, and "Gator Man" character make the movie a mockery of Shakespeare's true Tempest. <br /><br />Don't waste your eye-sight on this movie.
I suppose I can see why critics give this film two out five stars, it isn't fantastic, but I think it is worth a look, from director Shawn Levy (Cheaper by the Dozen, Night at the Museum). Basically 14-year-old Jason Shepherd (Malcolm in the Middle's Frankie Muniz) is often lying to his parents and teachers, and his teacher warns him that if he doesn't do his creative writing, he will fail his whole semester and have to repeat the grade during summer. So he completes his work, but getting a lift from Hollywood producer Marty Wolf (Paul Giamatti), who hit him on the way to school, he manages to leave his paper with the story "Big Fat Liar" in the car. He finds out from a movie trailer that Marty stole his paper and is turning it into a major movie, so he and his best friend Kaylee (She's the Man's Amanda Bynes) are on a mission to prove Jason is for once telling the truth. Marty of course is too nasty and smug to give Jason's father Harry (Michael Bryan French) a phone call, and he evens burns the "Big Fat Liar" paper. So now Jason and Kaylee are determined to make Marty's life as hellish as possible, until he agrees to call Jason's Dad. They put blue dye in his swimming pool, and orange hair dye in his shampoo, and much more naughty pranks creating chaos for Marty's career. There is the obvious point when Jason looks like he wants to give up, but don't worry, all characters that despise Marty help out in the final operation, and with Jason's parents coming, he wants to finally prove his truthfulness, and boy does he deliver, big style. Also starring Amanda Detmer as Monty Kirkham, Lee Majors as Vince, Donald Adeosun Faison as Frank Jackson, Sandra Oh as Mrs. Phyllis Caldwell, Russell Hornsby as Marcus Duncan, Christine Tucci as Carol Shepherd and American Pie's John Cho as Dustin 'Dusty' Wong. Muniz is likable, Byrnes proves a very surprisingly talented support, and even though he is wasting his time and talent a little, Giamatti is great at being nasty. It is a kids film, so if it seems corny, cheesy or predictable, just keep that in mind, and try to enjoy the performances and slapstick. Okay!
Frankie Muniz plays Jason who is a high school student. His biggest problem is his life is built on small or big lies that puts him into trouble most times. However, he cannot escape from his teacher and he finishes his creative writing homework just before its deadline. While he is biking fast to hand his homework to the teacher, he crushes into a car. As he explains the situation to grumpy man(Giamatti) in the car, he gives him a lift to his school. But the problem is Jason leaves his homework in the car, the other way of saying this is Marty Wolf(Giamatti) steals it.<br /><br />After a few months Jason goes to a movie and sees a trailer that takes him aback. Because the story of the movie is based on his homework. He tells that to his parents but of course they don't believe him. Especially his father uses words which insults him. Jason decides to go to LA and find Wolf to tell his father that Jason is not a liar. When Wolf refuses it, Jason takes action and ruins his life.<br /><br />This is the short story of the Big Fat Liar. Well, as a kids movie it might be a light hearted one but there are some errors that even could would ask if that is possible. Such as, having such a small amount of money and going to LA with a friend to sort the problem out, having access to this cinema producer's highly protected house and office, setting up a telecommunications system overnight.Does it seem believable? It does not. Well this is a kids movie but kids are not that gullible.<br /><br />Big Fat Liar offers some little pleasure to its target audience. Unfortunately, I am not a big fat liar to say that this is a good movie. ** out of *****
This movie just didn't do it for me. I like horror and splatter movies but this one has very little to do with horror. The effects are cheap and when they chop of one of her feet it looks so fake. The same goes for the other effects like the tongue torture and the gut sex. They could have spent of few extra bucks on the effects.<br /><br />With lots of sex (with pixelization as in all Japanese movies) this is just a sick fetish porn and there seems to be a market for sick stuff like this. While bloodier, for me it fits in with titles like Squirmfest / Purge and the Genki series. These movies feature girls eating and playing with every fluid that comes out of your body, eating bugs and fish in a gross way and having sex with all kinds of weird animals, like toads, eels and... One look at the covers will tell horror fans to look elsewhere. No horror here,just sick and degrading sex scenes.<br /><br />Horror fans should avoid this one and are better of checking out Guinea Pig2: Flowers of Flesh and Blood or even August Underground Mordum. While these are not great they at least offer a horror experience and Niku Daruma absolutely fails in that department.
Not near as well made as the "Guinea Pig" flicks it was inspired by ("Flowers of Flesh and Blood" or "Devil's Experiment") and not conveying any real philosophy, this video feature, which is barely feature length, adds hardcore sex (with mosaic censoring) to its inspiration. The special make-up effects, which include stomach slitting and disembowelment, are pretty good, if overlit. The amateur feel of the production is a distraction. It all looks cheap and lazy. The lighting is harsh and the sound and editing are sloppy. The simple story involves a porno actress who ends up starring in a real snuff movie. Just when she gets tired of being abused, the real abuse begins. In the film's hero scene, an actor cuts the woman's stomach open in graphic close-up, stuffs his member inside it, and proceeds to do his thing. I didn't find "Psycho - The Snuff Reels" shocking. On the contrary, I found it to be a desperate attempt by amateurs to one-up "Guinea Pig" and its bloody ilk. Interestingly, this was distributed by Aroma, a leading fetish producer.
just watched this "film" and it actually made me want to write my first comment on IMDb.com, even though i've been a user for more than 9 years. the reason that i watched this, is because i like splatter films and sometimes i like to test my limits and see what actually still shocks me. first of all, the gore in this film didn't shock me, not even the idea that someone came up with this and made it into a film - what really shocked me, is that there seems to be a market for this kind of crap. don't get me wrong - i'm all against censorship, but this film seems to me like it was made for some kind of fetish crowd that seems to get off on this type of sh*t.it didn't give you that same kind of disgust and guilt that one felt after watching films like "august underground". that film is terrible to watch, but at least you get the feeling that the filmmakers want to show you how disgusting violence is. in the case of "niku daruma", it seems like it was made strictly to arouse people. i prefer films that shock, because they are well done and thought through, like Gaspar Noe's films, or Takashi Miike's, or Funny Games or Man Bites Dog - those films will stick with you for a while. this film i will have forgotten by tomorrow, and the only thing that will stick with me, is the thought, that somewhere out there, there are people getting aroused by watching this sh*t. if you read this, please check yourself into the next hospital or shoot yourself - this of course does not apply to gore hounds, who just love splatter. you're cool! peace
i came across this film on the net by fluke and i was horrified by its content of vivid abuse violence and torture scenes. it was a relief to know it was not real after reading the comments. what dangerously sick animals of a person make something like this and for what purpose goes beyond belief. i was even more shocked to see people appraising the film in the comments section of this site. this is a extremely disturbing film indeed which could change your life forever. the people behind this should be bought to justice asap. today they shown a girl getting raped and butchered on screen tomorrow it could be a child. even its fake or not its very very deathly disturbing,nauseating indeed.
I usually enjoy watching Laurel and Hardy, but this is obviously one of the films they made while they were on their way to becoming a successful comedy team.<br /><br />The plot is all too simple, and is mainly based on one joke; how strange kilts and Scotsmen are. And that's all. Okay, there are some other jokes, but I didn't find them very funny at all; they are outdated and (I guess) were not very entertaining when the movie was first released.<br /><br />Still, the movie has got two of the most charming faces in history, and they make the best out of the awkward story (which I expect was filmed without a proper script) and the scenery is nice to look at. <br /><br />In my opinion, watching this is only worthwhile for Laurel and Hardy fans, other people should stay away from it.
Exceptionally silly actioner with braindead leads in a story which would have suited a fill-in issue of Spiderman. The action sequences never really flow as they should, leaving some cool bits orphaned in a sea of sound and fury, signifying nothing. I really wonder how they'll release this one in the West. Sam Lee overacts like crazy, newcomer Edison Chan doesn't display any acting talent yet. The robot is clunky and not very impressive, and the CGI effects (though done by US sfx-people) are ridiculous, totally destroying any remaining suspension of disbelief. I am NOT looking forward to Gen-Z Cops...
This film is really a big piece of trash trying to make itself look like a Hollywood production.Poor story outline(stupid robot story)...ultra bad acting by untalented pop idols...and they are trying to"FIGHT"!!!My goodness...those miserable actors uses wires to make them look like they are "good fighters"...:(and I hate that arrogant Edison Chen...the worst actor I have ever seen!!!I will never touch his movies again.AVOID this movie at all costs!!!I wanted to give it a negative value out of ten...not even worth a 0/10.
I somehow managed to make it all the way through this movie, but was dumbfounded by the complete lack of entertainment delivered. My friends and I are fans of HK film, but WOW. This movie has it all, and by all I mean everything a movie shouldn't have. Underdeveloped and stereotyped characters, way over-the-top overacting, cheesy special effects, talking robots, no less than 20 double-foot jumpkicks, impossible situations, unfunny "gags" and "jokes", elementary school premise, mindless killings, and too-long running time for the material. Throw in the fact that Gen-X Cops was a decent film and this movie becomes even harder to bear. Quite simply, if you're entertaining the idea of watching this film...don't.
I saw this movie on VHS some time ago (27 Jan 2003), just because of the name of Paul Rudd on the cover. I liked his performance in `The Object of My Affection' very much and I really expected a good work. However, I found this film a complete mess. The story has a very confused screenplay and the characters are not well developed. Further, the low-budget special effects do not help much. I do not know the previous generation of Gen-Y Cops, but this next generation is not good. I do not recall exactly why I gave this grade (and I do not intent to see this movie again), but my vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil) : `Gen-Y Cops A Nova Geração' (`Gen-Y Cops The Next Generation')
This movie is over hyped!! I am sad to say that I manage to watch the first 15 minutes of this movie and anything beyond that, I will have to force myself real hard to sit down and watch the rest of the movie. It's totally stupid and very fake. The robot in the movie looks like a man wearing those steel suit and the acting is really bad especially the one playing the character Alien.He is totally annoying!! Don't waste your money watching this sequel to the popular Gen-X Cops. I'd rather sleep or spend my money on some other things rather than watching this movie. 1 out of 10. If possible,I'd give 0.
Her bit-part as a masseuse, in the lurid sequel to the original 'Emmannuelle', evidently gave someone the bright idea of putting a spanner in the works of the French soft-core series' gambit by inverting the Caucasian carnality and casting Javan stunner Gemser in a leading role in this, the rather tame first of a series of sexploiters that became increasingly depraved as sleazier directors took on in-name-only sequels.<br /><br />Someone (and surely not the English-language over-haulers Warner?) was also anticipating an 'A Star Is Born' type meteoric rise out the results, judging by the way the actress is credited merely with the eponymous moniker of the on-screen heroine, albeit with a couple of consonants sacrificed as insurance against litigation.<br /><br />Gemser's tenure in the series saw her as an 'intrepid' photographer, allowing of course for all manner of subsequent globe-trotting adventures. But, whilst she may well have been one the very most beautiful actresses on the screen at that time, any thespian talent that may have been there to discern becomes mired in the same sort of unfeasibly facile cogitation ("I have to confess that since I've been in Africa, I find white skin less appealing...") that was to be found in the French films.<br /><br />And in this particular entry, much to the consternation of the raincoat brigade the essence of on-screen carnality is as much to be found in puerile symbolism (pumping engine pistons!) as it is in prosaic couplings - although naturally these include generous dollops of 'exploratory' lesbianism. Connoiseurs of kitsch are however guaranteed a continuous stream of aural delights, what with such epithets of ethnographic wisdom as "I do nothing to be a perfect black, she does everything to be a perfect white".
The success of the original French "Emmanuelle" series (I've only watched the first, which wasn't too bad considering) led to a spate of imitations; the Italian counterpart, which even changed the race of its heroine, was clearly less polished and more exploitative - descending more and more into vulgarity as the series went along. Incredibly, there were 16 "Black Emanuelle" films in total, with the heroine even having the spelling of her name changed to avoid copyright issues!! Still, Laura Gemser - the titular object of desire - became almost as much of an icon as the original Emmanuelle, Sylvia Kristel (although, personally, she's too skinny for my tastes)! Here she's even billed as "Emanuelle" rather than with her real name - with the director, likewise, becoming "Albert Thomas"! <br /><br />In itself, the film offers little of interest: as a matter of fact, one would do best to approach it as a travelogue with some decent footage of the African wildlife. With respect to the sex scenes, I don't know how complete the version I watched was but, while there was a lot of nudity, none of it was very explicit - or even titillating (the scene that came closest, perhaps, was when Gemser - who works as a photographer - and her companion Karin Schubert turn the camera on each other, naturally sans clothes, in the middle of the jungle)! The film also features an artist made up to look like Salvador Dali but, mercifully perhaps, his scenes do not take much of the running time. The score by Nico Fidenco is typically bland 70s pop and, really, nothing to write home about.
When I was young, I'd get up early every Saturday morning not to watch cartoons but to turn on the local channel for what was called 'Kung Fu Theatre.' It wasn't as if these films were works of art. It wasn't as if these films all came from China, Japan, Korea, or any country in particular; if the story had to do with fighting – be it swordplay or fisticuffs – and if the fighting didn't resemble much of anything going on in any American gym class, then that was good enough. It wasn't as if they were really even very good. They were just great action flicks with incredibly over-dramatic music where the hero reaped his vengeance over a whole host of bad guys, and then the credits would roll.<br /><br />"Sword in the Moon" is much like these films of my youth, arguably a bit of a thematic throwback given a welcome twist by muddying the characters up enough that it becomes increasingly difficult to tell the bad guys from the good.<br /><br />Yun (Cho Jae Hyun) is known throughout the kingdom as 'the human butcher.' He kills quickly and mercilessly on behalf of the Chun Dynasty, the chief bodyguard of an Emperor who spared his life and the life of his men in exchange for his service. However, an equally merciless rebel and his lovely sidekick appear in the countryside and start murdering imperial ministers, and Yun agrees to find these rebels and kill them. His task becomes one of personal discovery when he learns that the two rebels are Choi (a friend from his past) and his former love, Shi Yeong.<br /><br />Sadly, "Sword" doesn't have much to distinguish itself from other action films. Some stunning cinematography is nearly entirely wasted on shoddy editing with portions of the film put together so loosely its hard to believe that what inevitably made it to the film was what anyone intended. While the atmosphere and story tend to gravitate toward a dark mood, the tone is almost sacrificed to the never-ending parade of flashbacks as each of the main characters is given a healthy story arc. What should've been a quick and easy action film gets weighed down by far too much personal baggage, and the film suffers as a result.<br /><br />I've read that this film marks Korea's first real foray into the world of art-house action pieces along the likes of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." Next time, I'd strongly suggest that the producers stick with a little more 'martial' and a little less 'art.'
I'M BOUT IT(1997)<br /><br />Developed & published by No Limit Films<br /><br />>>Pros: Absolutely none<br /><br />>>Cons: I don't even know where to begin!<br /><br />Plot summary: Master P plays a drug dealer that looks, talks, and acts more like a live-action cartoon character. That's all the plot I got out of this movie.<br /><br />Review: I remember back when I was in the ninth grade during its release and everyone in my class praised this clown called Master P. This movie is so bad, it's not even funny. All the characters in this film are extremely tired stereotypes, the audio is only audible when music plays, and the movie looks like it was videotaped off a public access channel. Luckily, I didn't buy this film like all my other inner-city degenerate classmates.<br /><br />My rating:1 out of 10<br /><br />My verdict: Avoid this video like its a sexually-transmitted disease.
this is one of the more poorly made movies I've ever seen. One has to take anything by Truffaut seriously; it's not just some B-movie cranked out by hacks.<br /><br />evidently Truffaut couldn't decide whether he was making a noir or a sentimental chick flick. and neither could Deneuve, whose dozen (?) character flip-flops are simply unbelievable -- not even badly acted; just not acted at all. Among other things, how a woman as beautiful as Deneuve could be a person such as Julie/Marion is simply beyond anyone's ability to suspend disbelief; the role absolutely demands someone not so beautiful. Belmondo's acting also suffers although imho his character is not quite as unbelievable as Deneuve's. The cliché ending (which I won't describe) is unfortunately all too appropriate for this complete mistake.
I'm trying to find something of value here. The best I can muster is that Truffaut wanted to make a movie as tedious, painful, puerile, annoying, illogical, and brainless as the experience of being in love. If that was his goal, then he succeeded, but the solution to his exercise is really a drag to watch.<br /><br />There is one scene that screams for a spoof: Belmondo compares the features of Deneuve's face to the features in a landscape . All I could think the whole time was "glacier," "ice floe," "two lonely fishermen wearing Army surplus on a frozen lake in Minnesota."<br /><br />The only other point of interest was the resurrection of Buffoon's theory of climatic determinism. The tropics are presented as paradise, and things get progressively worse as they get colder, hell being Calvinist French Switzerland. That was kind of funny.
The first 1/3 of this movie I loved and thought it was going to be one of Truffaut's best films. I loved the plot where a pen pal marries a man from half way around the world--sight unseen. Especially when this woman turns out to be a fraud and was responsible for the death of the REAL pen pal so she could take her place! She then cleaned out the husband's huge bank account and disappeared! I was really hooked and wanted to see more,...<br /><br />And then, the movie fell apart and became just plain dumb! Despite her coming from New Caladonia (an island in the Pacific) and he from Reunion (an island in the Indian Ocean), when he goes on a trip to the South of France, he stumbles upon her almost immediately. Hmm,....odds are 187,000,000 to 1 but he finds her. Then, instead of either killing her or turning her over to the police, he forgives her--even when she acknowledges what she has done. Okay--this is tough to believe, but okay,...but then he helps to hide her from a private detective by murdering him!!!! No one is that stupid! Yes, the character Catherine Deneuve plays is quite beautiful but come on folks--this is just silly. Plus, if he only wanted her as a sex object, then why would he do this for a woman who is often frigid and completely selfish and evil.<br /><br />This movie, due to it's very ridiculous plot, does not deserve such high ratings! Unless you are a die-hard Truffaut fan, try another film--even one of Truffaut's--just NOT this one.
François Traffaut's "Mississippi Siren" had an unconvincing plot. The screenplay required too much elasticity in suspension of disbelief. The plot went at a glacial pace. It started off in an interesting setting but soon drifted onto the shoals of melodrama that lacked logic or intelligence. What were the critics thinking? This one is overrated even to be described as a loser. Even Catherine Deneuvue, who charmed in "The Umbrellas of Cherbourg" and "Belle Doe Jour," managed to be simply annoying. <br /><br />We rented this movie at the same time as we rented another Traffaut film. We watched this one first, and found it to be so bad that we sent the other one back unseen at the same time.
These days, writers, directors and producers are relying more and more on the "surprise" ending. The old art of bringing a movie to closure, taking all of the information we have learned through out the movie and bringing it to a nice complete ending, has been lost. Now what we have is a movie that, no matter how complex, detailed, or frivolous, can be wrapped up in 5 minutes. It was all in his/her head. That explanation is the director's safety net. If all else fails, or if the writing wasn't that good, or if we ran out of money to complete the movie, we can always say "it was all in his/her head" and end the movie that way. The audience will buy it because, well, none of us are psychologists, and none of us are suffering from schizophrenia (not that we know about) so we take the story and believe it. After all, the mind is a powerful thing. Some movies have pulled it off. But those movies are the reason why we are getting more and more of these crap endings. Every director/writer now thinks they can pull it off because, well, Fight Club did it and it made a lot of money. So we get movies like The Machinist, Secret Window, Identity, and this movie (just to name a few).
Let me first start out by saying 1 out of 10 is too good for this movie. It's unfortunate that IMDb doesn't have tenths of a star... I watched this abortion of a movie in the middle of the night due to insomnia, and it was absolute garbage. The plot was horrible. The acting was horrible. The movie was utterly boring. "malachi" looked like the Shadow with Alec Baldwin (The Shadow is infinitely better than this as well) The character Eve was so undeveloped and 2 dimensional she didn't even grab my attention. I didn't even know her name was Eve. Don was interesting when he kept his mouth shut. The "TWIST" (if you can call it that) was laughable and pathetic. When it came, the movie had done such a horrid job of building suspense or attachment to any character that I simply thought "Who gives a S***." The only thing that made me even lift an eyebrow about this movie was the fact the med. teacher was Dyson in Terminator 2 (Also a movie that was light years ahead of this motion picture massacre.) Anyone who was involved in this movie should be ashamed of themselves for wasting 90 minutes of countless people's time. It's no wonder no actor from this movie ever had a fruitful career. In summary.... This movie is so bad, I feel dirty and need a shower. Worst movie in history, Gigli was better, Prom Night (the remake) was better and dare I say it Saw IV was better...........
Breaking Dawn starts in a Californian college as Professor Simon (associate producer Joe Morton) tells his students that they have to perform an intensive six week study of a mental patient in Cape State Hospital as a crucial part of their education, fail & they will never become qualified Doctors. A bright, young, attractive & intelligent student named Eve (Kelly Overton) is given a particularly difficult patient to study. His name is Don Wake (James Haven) & is a convicted killer, he was found covered in blood besides the dead body of a woman (Diane Verona) & her young daughter (Jenette McCurdy). At first Don won't even look at Eve much less talk to her, but like the trooper she is Eve persists in trying to figure him out. Eventually Don begins to talk but what he says frightens Eve, he says that someone is watching her & mentions the name Malachay. Eve then begins to see a dark shadowy figure at her every turn, as Don churns out the conspiracy theories & bizarre statements Eve slowly begins to lose her mind as the line between fantasy & reality becomes more & more blurred. Is there something more to the supposed nonsense that Don talks other than being the insane ravings of a psychiatric patient...?<br /><br />Written & directed by Mark Edwin Robinson I have nothing but negative feelings towards Breaking Dawn. Now, we all like a good twist ending, the sort of ending which catches us unawares, surprises us, works well with the rest of the film & stays in our memory like the cool twist endings to The Sixth Sense (1999) & Fight Club (1999) to name just two good examples & to a lesser extent the endings to films such as Scream (1996) where the identity of the killer comes a nice surprise & isn't that obvious. Then, of course, there are films whose endings spoil everything that has gone before & as an example lets take, oh I don't know lets say Breaking Dawn because I have never seen such an awful ending to a film, never. Breaking Dawn starts out as a decent psychological horror thriller with spooky things starting to happen to Eve, it's not the most action packed film ever by any stretch of the imagination but it holds ones interest, it's not the most absorbing film ever either but it is more than watchable & it's not that bad a film until the twist ending, I have to keep mentioning it because everything else up to that point (which was OK to be fair to it) suddenly becomes irrelevant. I am sure there are people out there who think they have this muddled mess of an ending figured out down to the last detail, all I can say is that no one will be able to explain this thing in a satisfactory way to me & as far as I'm concerned it doesn't make a bit of sense & never will. Breaking Dawn is crap & it's a waste of time watching it to be rewarded with the lamest ending in film history, it's as simple & straight forward as that.<br /><br />Director Robinson doesn't half make a mess of what could have been a decent thriller, maybe he thought what he had shot would play out OK or maybe it was ruined in the editing room but I'd imagine it was more likely down to a rubbish script as he tries to tie all the absurdities together within the space of a few muddled minutes & give us all a happier than happy final shot. He builds the tension quite well during the first 80 odd minutes but it's all for nought at the end of the day.<br /><br />Technically Breaking Dawn is fine & it is generally well made throughout. The acting is pretty good, Overton is nice & easy on the eyes & puts in a decent performance. Was it just me or did the guy who played Don look like John Morghen star of such Italian sleaze classics as Cannibal Apocalypse (1980), City of the Living Dead (1980), The House on the Edge of the Park (1980), Cannibal Ferox (1981), Stagefright (1987) & The Church (1989)? OK, maybe it was just me...<br /><br />Breaking Dawn is rubbish, I hated it all because of the final few minutes. Don't get me wrong it wasn't exactly getting me excited up to that point but it was OK. Definitely one to avoid as far as I'm concerned although it seems to have it's fair share of positive comments on the IMDb...
From watching the trailer, the movie looked pretty interesting. The production of the movie is also pretty good--it looks like they had a good budget and doesn't look like a cheaply made movie. The acting ranges from good (Joe Morton as Professor Simon) to OK (Kelly Overton as Eve) to bad (James Haven as Don).<br /><br />The actual content and plot of the movie is weak. The movie starts out like it could become interesting and ends with a poorly executed, disappointingly boring, twist. Watching the first 10 minutes and last 5 minutes of the movie would have made this movie OK but everything in between makes this an absolutely boring movie to watch. It's as though they made a short movie then tried to force it to be over an hour long by stuffing the middle with an hour of filler material.<br /><br />If you want to waste a good hour and half of your life, watch this movie. Otherwise, stay away from this extremely boring movie.
I cant explain what a load of rubbish this film is. Like really i cant. its just that bad.<br /><br />plot=crap acting=crap budget=so low its laughable<br /><br />Jesus, its like the only good thing in this movie is the fact the main character was fairly hot.<br /><br />The only people i feel, that think this movie is good are the ones who took part in the film. I'm sure they are not the ones who funded it because there was no money put into this. (HAHAhaha to the bit where there heads get shaved)<br /><br />This movie has already wasted too much of my life so i am not going to waste anymore time writing my review for it.
The opening of "The Jungle" promises us a safari adventure with a science fiction element, but mostly what we get is a travelogue with lots of stock footage and padding (and the odd leopard attack). The movie is leisurely when you want it to be gripping, and tries to inject interest into the proceedings with badly staged matches between various wild animals (I had no idea that lions and wild boars were natural enemies in the wild, did you? I thought the big cats stuck to hunting herbivores, but apparently the producers knew better). <br /><br />As for the actors: Cesar does his usual great job of rocking the mustache, and Marie Windsor is reasonably believable as the progressively thinking rajah's daughter (nice eyebrows, btw!). However, Rod Cameron is barely watchable as the hunter returning as the sole survivor of his expedition. I'm sure he was in demand in his day, but here he comes off as a Rent-A-Center Bogart : rough looking, but with none of Bogey's range or timing. He spends the movie going back and forth from stoic anger to angry stoicism, and any time the screenplay attempts to crank up some romantic sparks between himself and Windsor, you just have to laugh. That crabbed, knobby face isn't a good vehicle for tenderness. <br /><br />The screenplay is not entirely without merit, although it does make some odd choices. Early in the first act, the screenplay makes a point of spending several moments where the heroes decide to bring along the obligatory clever young boy and monkey mascot, but then basically ignore them until ***SPOILER*** the monkey somehow gets hold of a live hand grenade during the mammoth scene and accidentally tosses near Windsor. This is so Cameron can prove his bravery by diving on it and saving her life at the cost of his own.***END SPOILER. It's possible that the Indian version of this movie (which I understand ran better than 2 1/2 hours), might have given the kid and the monkey more to do. <br /><br />Another thing that makes the film show its age **SPOILER**is the issue of the woolly mammoths (the plot device that sets the safari into motion in the first place). When they finally appear, the way the scene is filmed, it's obvious that the "mammoths" (obviously elephants draped in shag carpeting) aren't really "attacking" anyone, or even moving all that fast, and yet Cameron immediately sets to trying to wipe them out with hand grenades. These days, the idea of destroying the last known specimens of a species thought to be extinct would be unthinkable, especially when all they seem to do is roll through the jungle at a nice walking pace.***END OF SPOILER***<br /><br />So IMO, four stars, which is pretty good for a Robert Lippert production (normally Lippert hack jobs rate two or three stars at best). It's not a train wreck of a film, or anything; plus, it seems to mean well,with the rajah's daughter arguing for amelioration of the most repressive aspect of the "traditional ways" and the elements of "mixed race" romance that was pretty progressive in 1952. And there's some nice scenery and exotic spectacle. See it if someone offers to show it to you for free, but don't expect much except an interesting historical chapter of early fantasy cinema.
What do you do with all the material that does not make the final edit of a film? You might keep it aside in case a director's cut or extended version is released one day. You might sell some it as stock footage to be used in a part of another film. You might just bin it. Or you might collect it, accumulating more and more from each film you make and then use it to make another film, disregarding coherence or any sense. Throw a very primitive skeleton of a narrative into it and line up a number opportunities (nay, excuses) to slot in your celluloid cast-offs. Excuse the abjectly nonsensical nature of the plot by framing it all in the mind of a horror film director and you've got yourself an awful film. This can all be done with just a few days shooting. And idiots like me will waste two hours of their life watching it. And then come on here and try to warn others away. The whole chain of events is one big waste of time.
Starts off with Fulci playing a version of himself, writing down some ideas for how people could die. Followed by a fake-looking cat eating what is presumably a brain. The copy I watched was dubbed in English, which I always hate, but I was particularly disappointed not to get to hear Fulci in his own voice.<br /><br />Fulci is in a sort of feverish state working on his latest horror movie. His stomach turns when he sees things that resemble effects from his movie, and he starts to hallucinate that he is witnessing acts of horror. He visits a psychiatrist, who hypnotizes him and unfortunately he does not have his improved mental health in mind. I was reminded of the psychiatrist played by David Cronenberg in Clive Barker's Nightbreed (1990). The shrink in this one is played by David L. Thompson, who is pretty bad. Probably a real life friend of Fulci's, he has a big toothy grin when he kills people, though this may be Fulci's black humor at work which I thought was pretty poor too.<br /><br />The movie is composed of a lot of clips from Fulci's movies, either as if Fulci is on the set directing them, watching recordings on TVs, or witnessing the acts. I've never been too much of a fan of clip shows in TV series, and I also think things like Charles Band's Full Moon Entertainment cutting their old films down and putting three such cuts together as new anthologies are pretty lame. I guess they need to make money?<br /><br />The shrink in Cat in the Brain makes reference to the theory that violence in movies begets violence in real life. One of Fulci's co-workers talks about having a documentary crew follow Fulci to see what his life is like. Lots of self-referential stuff like this.<br /><br />In the end, some of the characters sail away on a boat named "Perversion."
Mr. Bean is just a bunch of unfunny slapstick humour. It is the most shallow humour TV series ever made in history. The scenes are often disgusting and the horrible canned laughter sends chills through the spine. Mr. bean is a selfish and rude character and one can only sympathies how pathetic he is. It is incredible that such a TV series of low quality can be sustained for 5 years. It is a complete waste of time to watch even 1 episode and one can't help but to express disgust and pity why Rowen had portrayed himself as such a 2-dimensional, unfunny and ridiculous character. Or pity yourself why you had even bother to watch an episode. Watching this is an aggravating experience.
This one kind of is like an earlier movie from 1987 "Masters of the Universe" based on the cartoon "He-man". Basically, you have a great old world and they for some reason have to have nearly all the action of the movie take place on modern earth. Well I guess it is not so modern earth now and that it is an ancient world now of strangeness and a den of good times gone by. Well I guess I can figure why they did in fact place nearly all the movie in modern times in this and that movie. To save money on costumes and sets. It is a lot easier to recreate what is going on in the present than a strange world like that of Eternia in He-man or an ancient world with cults and strange pyramids, sacrifices and strange creatures that hug you to death. This movie is forgettable and not very entertaining, your first clue that it is not going to be the best movie in the world is that Robert Z'Dar is in it. The only thing this one has going for it is the animals which are not as prevalent in this one as they were in the last. Marc Singer is back and it is sad to seem him in this state, the guy was a fairly good actor reduced to trying to make a sequel to a movie that really did not need one, and even if it did it came five years to late.
If you are ever in the mood for a truly terrible film, it would be hard to find something that could even compare to this. I have spent a lot of time watching a lot of terrible movies just for the sheer joy I get from it, and man, this is one of the worst. This movie was so bad, I had to buy the third Beastermaster online. That one wasn't as bad, which is amazing since it was straight to video. This is one of those films that is hard to comprehend how it was made in the first place. I mean, someone had to actually have read the script (or many scripts, I'm sure they made several drafts) and said "Yeah, that's it. Here's some money." Actually, they probably just wanted to make a Beastmaster 2 before they even had a script, then went with whatever they had. Ack, horrible. So, if you are a fan of really bad movies, watch this one. It is a true classic, and film doesn't get much worse than this. And if it does, please let me know.
I love the first and third Beastmasters, but this one was an abomination. It was almost as horrible as 'The Never Ending Story 3', for the same reasons. They took a fascinating fantasy world of Barbarian tribes, farming villages, witches, supernatural creatures, and a cult of religious fanatics using a pyramid; and thought it would be funny to mix in our materialistic pop-culture world of rock & roll, sushi (I think thats what it was), and flashy sports cars. These two worlds do not belong together. I do not want to see a bunch of ancient barbarian looking people dancing to some rock song on the car radio. I have a sense of humor, but this is just stupid. This is what Hollywood does to good fantasy movies when they run out of ideas. Don't give up though, the Eye of Braxus is much, much better. That one I gave a 10. This one, Portal of Time, I give a 1. Believe me, I don't always give such extremely high or low ratings. I just tend to comment only such movies.
Truly flatulent script, and I was very disappointed with Marc Singer for agreeing to be in it.<br /><br />I actually walked out of the theater about 15-20 minutes into it, and demanded my money back. I have actually walked out of a movie only 3 times in my life (I am 43 years old) and this is the only one that made me mad enough to demand my ticket price back. If I could have, I would have gotten a refund on the popcorn, too. This was a truly lousy movie, and there is no excuse.<br /><br />For one thing, how does someone who was raised as a pre-tech barbarian learn to DRIVE A CAR? IN California!!!? (Driving a car is a somewhat tricky skill, and in California, even tricker...I should know, I live there.)
This is the greatest example I can think of to prove the theory that when Hollywood runs out of good ideas, they make an awful sequel and ruin the first one. Now don't get me wrong, I absolutely love the first Beastmaster; I even liked the third one pretty good, but this movie is atrocious. I am a huge fantasy/sword & sorcery movie fan and I hated to see such a terrible sequel made to such a classic as the first Beastmaster. So why do I hate this movie so much? Well, where do I begin? First of all, the whole idea of the movie is ridiculous. Dar and his evil older brother Arklon(who was nowhere mentioned in the first movie..Huh?) cross over into our world via a handy dimensional time-portal gate. Ya see, Earth just happens to be on the same parallel interdimentional plane as Dar's world. Whereas with the first movie, you're led to think the movie just takes place in the past, but with this one you're shown it's a completely whole other world altogether...that's just one of the many things I hated about this sequel. It didn't work with "Masters of the Universe", and it sure doesn't work here either! Movies like this should take place and stay in their own time-line and their usual surroundings. For Christ's sake, what's next? Hercules in New York...er, uh..bad example! Moving on...<br /><br />Arklon's after a device called a neutron detonator to use as a threat against his enemies to rule his own kingdom. So, it's up to Dar, his ferrets,his eagle,and his tiger(not a spray-painted one this time) to go off and save the world...but along the way they have the help of a young, cool, and hip Senator's daughter who gets caught up in this whole mess and she show's Dar around L.A., takes him for a joyride in her BMW, and helps get him out of tight situations here and there. How convenient right? And speaking of convenient, I found it awfully convenient and easy for Arklon to sneak into a highly guarded military base and get away with a stolen, highly destructive nuclear weapon...even with half the U.S. Army and L.A.P.D. after him....waaaaay to easy, even for an evil barbarian sorcerer from another world. There are sooo many plot holes in this I don't know where to begin; like why did Arklon go to the L.A. zoo for at the end of the movie?!? He absolutely has no reason whatsoever to go there; and wouldn't that be like the last place you'd lure your greatest enemy who just so happens to have the handy ability TO CONTROL ANIMALS?<br /><br />And don't you just love these kinds of movies where the police are portrayed as total idiots and even with half a dozen cops firing at one guy, they still don't manage to hit him? The police in this movie belong in the "Police Academy" series! They are about as useful in this movie as reading glasses are for the blind! Even the title of the movie makes no sense: "Beastmaster 2 : Through the Portal of Time"...they never actually went through a "time" portal because the movie isn't set in the future of Dar's world, it's set in a parallel world along ours in the astral plane, so they NEVER actually go through time, only a dimensional world along theirs; so NO actual time-travel is involved at all! This movie tries to come off as funny and it does...not because of the humor, but because it's just so bad...and that's putting it mildly. The acting, dialogue, plot, characters, and ending are all so cheesy it's hilarious. What more can I expect from the guy that brought us "Return of the Swampthing"(another bad sequel)? Sorely missed here is Don Coscarelli's wonderful directing and serious feel of the first one!! Avoid this stinking piece of garbage like the bubonic plague and stick which the first one and maybe the third one if there's nothing better on T.V.
This time The Beastmaster(Marc Singer) returns only to face off a new enemy Arklon(Wings Hauser) however due to an annoying teenager(Kari Wuher) they are transported to the future where they then duke it out. Lots of (lame) fish out of water jokes ensue. You honestly don't get sequels this rotten to the core. Beastmaster 2 is a painful movie to behold. The references and "hipness" date the film badly (This was made in 1991) and really who wants to see The Beastmaster in the present times? Also of note is Wings Hauser who's embarrassing performance is easily the film's best asset. Singer looks awkward, Wuher is irritating and the whole 1991 slang just makes the movie downright unwatchable. This is easily one of the worst movies ever made.<br /><br />1/2* out of 4-(Awful)
Although the story is good and portrayals what I expected of Sam Elliot my DVD copy contained almost unbearable synchronization problems. The dialogue was almost 3 seconds behind the lip movement throughout the whole film.<br /><br />I would therefore be very careful in purchasing any DVD of the film without checking for the problem.<br /><br />I would also follow the recommended censors classifications particularly in relation to language and drug usage.<br /><br />This film could become a silent classic cop movie and with the above cautionary notes I can recommend it to prospective viewers
I just finished watching Dog Watch. I thought parts of the movie were hokey with more than a few implausibilities. The acting wasn't too bad and the plot wasn't bad. BUT, as the saying goes, the devil was in the details.<br /><br />Some examples:<br /><br />1) The bleed-through on Charlie Falon's (Sam Elliott) bandage was shown to be coming from the back of his hand while it was his knuckles that were bleeding.<br /><br />2) Would a detective dispose of his murder victim from a very well-lighted area? This seemed very silly to me.<br /><br />I am not unusually picky about a movie but, in my humble opinion, this one is definitely NOT recommended by me.
I made it about 8 minutes into "Steel Frontier" before I turned it off. Then, glutton for punishment that I am, I watched some more the next day. Today I had to iron a pile of clothes, so I decided to finish the movie, and that was its own punishment. Here's what I don't understand: Robert Rodriguez and Shane Carruth each spent $7,000 on their debut features and created two remarkable movies. Yet here we have two directors with arguably way more money, and they churn out a huge, steaming pile of crap. Let me see if I can figure out the logic: "It's 'Road Warrior' but it's like a future Western. We'll get the cheapest 'actors' we can find, we'll have my mentally challenged cousin write the script, and we'll spend the budget on a bunch of explosions. We can't lose!"<br /><br />Seriously. I don't think even the MST3K guys could improve this. But if you insist on watching it, I recommend getting very drunk first.
As other reviewers have noted, this movie is a cross between (i.e. stolen from) stories we have seen before. Specifically, this looks like Clint Eastwood in High Plains Drifter inserted into Mad Max. Remove Clint's cigar, and replace with a cigarette; remove his horse and give him a high-tech motorcycle, and voilà, an updated drifter. In this movie, the "hero" is even more blatantly a "Savior" than High Plains Drifter. Now our hero has long brown hair, suffers a wound to his left side, and his entry into town is preceded by a plea for "salvation" by the surviving townspeople--a pretty transparent reference to a "Second Coming." I watched the movie on a hot, humid morning. Sleep was impossible and upon arising at 4:30 am, there was nothing else on TV. So the movie served its purpose. While unoriginal, with characters that are almost comic caricatures, the movie is still somewhat entertaining...at least at 4:30 in the morning.
If you take the films, Mad Max, Beyond Thunderdome, and the movie Steel Dawn with Patrick Swayze, you will have a pretty good idea what the film is about. The only problems is, that the film lacks the production values of either, and represent mainly cheap copy of the former two. True, the film has plenty of action, but asks the viewer to suspend belief. No one can shoot a 50 Caliber Machine gun by holding it in his hand - and miss everything to boot, nor can you shoot at a group of people with an automatic weapon and miss the whole bunch. There is also a problem with poor editing, when the school bus flips over, it is easy enough to see the cannon used to do the job. And the lady driving the truck through it is superfluous, since she had more than enough time to stop the truck. If you are interested only in mindless action and violence then the movie is easy enough to watch. But don't expect anything on paar with Thunderdome, or even the somewhat cheap and tacky Steel Dawn.
I know that Trey Parker and Matt Stone really hate celebrities and spoof them in every single episode of South Park (if not showing them, then mentioning them) and they love to mock and joke and make fun of themselves too, but I felt this mockumentary went too far.<br /><br />For one thing, the most common running theme in the "documentary" is that they're episodes are meaningless pieces of crap they put out just for the money. Obviously, that's completely untrue if you even bother to watch any episode, and the constant "You know, I learned something today..."'s said at the end of almost every episode by the main characters. The creators are also depicted as pompous, arrogant asses who only care about money, including a supposed-to-be-funny-but-isn't scene involving Isaac Hayes delivering lines for Chef (over the phone) and Trey Parker yelling and screaming at him for sucking and hanging up. I guess it's supposed to be funny, but the pretension in it just really made it... cringe.<br /><br />The way they interview employees working for Trey and Matt shows the duo as tyrants who push their employees to the limit, all just for money, in the end. Completely untrue, obviously, and all a joke, but it's just not funny. It's disturbing, even though it's just a joke.
Some spoilers**** A Soap has some wonderful moments to recommend it. When Charlotte and Veronica get close to intimacy is a beautiful, low key, truly erotic scene. I also loved the music score and the soft, muted cinematography. I'm not clear if the curious stop and start structure of the film comes from it being digested originally in serialized form (the announcer describing the action in sections is quite annoying). My biggest problem with this film is its rather absurd depiction of a transwomen and her life. Of course, she has to be shown as a sexworker (what else), scatterbrained, impractical, absurdly frilly/girly, completely hopeless when it comes to dressing and incapable of making any interpersonal attachments in the world. Moreover, she's always shown with two days growth of beard (for some bizarre reason) as if to emphasize how tawdry her life is. And she's waiting to get gender reassignment surgery when she seemingly has done nothing else to forward her transitioning. In truth, the character resembles a drag queen, not someone in the midst of transitioning.<br /><br />These are typical fantasies of people from the outside who really aren't connected to transpeople. The film's fetishization of GRS surgery is a way of objectifying people who are going through transition. Not impressed with this aspect of the film in the least. At the very least, why not have the character played by someone who really is transgender... I thought the male actor portraying Veronica was okay but no better than that. Much better was the woman portraying Charlotte, a very complex character full of energy, self-loathing, desire and contradictions. If she was so fascinated by someone with female energy, a Charlotte could go out to a women's bar in two seconds and find it. Yes, she was drawn to Veronica but more as an abstract idea of someone with male/female characteristics (a gentle touch but with a good punch), not as a unique person. Yes, what A Soap says about love is often lovely and moving, but that doesn't mean an already stereotyped minority has to be stereotyped some more in the process.<br /><br />This film also proves that Danes are lousy dancers. For such a promising premise (better executed in a film like "Different For Girls") the final film is a letdown.
I am so disappointed. After waiting for 3 years for repeats/the DVD of the original masterpiece series "Darkplace" i couldn't wait for this series. The first episode just ended and I am appalled. Everything that was great about Darkplace has been erased here, pretty much. Worst introduction: canned laughter. this takes the original point of it away and just renders it nearly unwatchable. (one joke about Garth's eyes fertilizing the audience was good... the rest i can hardly remember...) it feels like a poor quality "Knowing Me, Knowing You." I hope this improves as the series goes on, otherwise i shall be seriously disappointed. back to "Darkplace..."<br /><br />"You are the most compassionate man I ever known. And i know God..."
Okay now this movie is a piece of work. It's full of stupid jesus refrences and dialougue that would render most human biengs to question whether or not they should be wattching movies at all. Big names like Roddy Piper, and David Carradine draw you in but, take it from me, this movie sucks. The story is incomprehensible, and lacking completley in intellegence. The sets, veihicles, and costumes come of as a cross beetween bablon five, and a bondage flick. I'm sure theres porn with better dialougue.
I say "flick" because this doesn't deserve the appellation "movie", and certainly not "film". I regret paying for the rental, and although I've never walked out on a movie before, this would have been it, had I seen it in a theatre. A society living underground in the future (oooh, THAT'S original), lots of burning barrel drums, unexplained ambient light shining through windows, an ungrateful woman and her shock-muted son...the list goes on and on. C. Thomas Howell affects the husky voice of the stereotypical loner; you know like Eastwood's been done to death. He needs special sunglasses to remember his wife and child, yet in the flashbacks, he's the same age! Talk about a poor memory! I stared incredulously when the little boy Abe randomly pushes a code into a door and it opens! No tension, pithy religious (what religion?) under/overtones...saddest of all: I expected better from Roddy Piper;<br /><br />Quite possibly the worst movie experience in my life.
First of all, let me start by saying that I have been a devoted follower of C Thomas Howell's career ever since "The Outsiders" and "The Hitcher". He was an up and coming star in the 1980s - with hits such as "Soul Man" also. The future was bright for this young actor and he had the potential to go on from there and really assert himself in Hollywood. Put it this way - Tom Cruise had a bit part in "The Outsiders" while Howell had the lead. Look at Cruise today !!! But picking material like this drivel will only denigrate Howell's career even more - if that was possible. Why does he pick stuff like this? A small part in a major movie would be of more benefit to him than this rubbish.<br /><br />Essentially the story here takes place in a post-apocalyptic world where everybody lives underground where chaos reigns. Howell is a Shepherd - protecting the flock of various religious leaders by killing off any undesirables. He's a hit-man in other words.<br /><br />The sets are so bad, they wouldn't look out of place on a Thunderbirds episode. The use of slow-motion needlessly repeats itself throughout the movie but is well backed up by bad acting (and bad is a kind word here), no continuity, scenes that are thrown in for no reason whatsoever, vehicles that looked like they were made from a Corn Flakes box and a directorial style that bordered on stupidity. Oh yeah, and the storyline was pathetic too.<br /><br />I hate writing bad reviews about films - especially those in which I really like the star - but this film is so bad I don't believe for one second that anyone could have been proud of it. I am not a filmmaker nor am I a director but I would hide my head in the sand if I'd spent whatever amount of money and time on this movie.<br /><br />In short - this was a monumental waste of time and energy and I would not recommend anyone to EVER see this film. It came free with a DVD player I bought but I still turned the thing off halfway through because I was embarrassed for Howell. Come on C - give yourself some credit and wrestle yourself away from these non-hit wonders and try to knuckle down and get a good part - however small.<br /><br />1/10 - and only because there is no setting for 0/10.
Planet Earth has suffered a terrible environmental disaster so humanity now survives underground split in to different religious cults . What caused the catastrophe ? I have no idea ? why is humanity split in to different ecclesiastical factions ? I have no idea . Since the surface of the Earth can no longer support human life how are the humans able to grow crops in order to feed the population ? I have no idea . What sort of producer thought this screenplay deserved to receive funding ? I have no idea <br /><br />SHEPHERD is one of these films that creeps up late at night on cable channels . The sort of film where you consult the IMBb to see if it has any merits . The number of people who've commentated on SHEPHERD on this page hasn't yet reached double figures and this is a film that was released nine years ago . Perhaps the people who have never seen it are the lucky ones ? <br /><br />As for the rest of the plot it's very routine . Grumpy former cop Boris Dakota whose wife and child died several years previously meets a woman and her child and it's up to him to save their lives , almost like a futuristic western . Throw in a former wrestler who now runs the God channel , a fascist Christian bloke who's trying to snuff out Boris , a ventriloquist , some T&A for the sake of it and you've got a mess of a film . I guess after seeing this Neil Marshall's DOOMSDAY is possibly a masterwork of cinema in comparison
If "B" movies, tired and corny scripts, and golf carts dressed up as some sort of futuristic mode of transport are your sort of entertainment, you'll probably enjoy this. Otherwise, forget it. The topless newsreader, though completely irrelevant, did give a few seconds of amusement.
I have NEVER fallen asleep whilst watching a movie before.<br /><br />I did with this one.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs, give your time and money to a worthy cause instead.
This is the story of a maniac cop who, for some reason, has it in for a young college stud and his mates. After they report him to his supervisor who in turns suspends him pending psychiatric evaluation, he finds an opportunity to psychology torture them when, on a bet, the kids hack into a department store's security and unlock the door. Only, they get locked in the store, along with the weirdo. Murder and mayhem are afoot, and the kids are running around trying to survive until morning when they may be able to escape.<br /><br />'Dangerous Game' would have been a successful cat-and-mouse psycho thriller probably if it was set in a different location. The thought of psychotic cop chasing around a bunch of innocent teenagers in a department store just didn't work. Especially when he comes face-to-face with his flinching prey quite frequently and yet, does nothing serious quite often. There was no real confrontation as would be sufficient for this kind of story, and may've worked better if say, for example, the teens were loose in the neighborhood and left to fend for themselves against this weirdo (especially if that took a few days while he makes them increasingly paranoid...although granted, even that is clichéd).<br /><br />What a shame, too, that it could not have been a better thriller, considering a funky cast of young Australian characters. Even a light hearted adventure despite the madness of the villain interspersed through the picture might have even made it a more satisfying picture. Instead, it started out fresh, and sure did have plenty of action sequences, but wound up verging on the ridiculous.
The Man with the Golden Arm (the movie) is a decent career vehicle for Frank Sinatra, but fails abysmally as a good adaptation of a fantastic book. You always hear about how books are "changed" when they are made into films- things are cut out, dumbed down, etc. Well, you can't even say they "changed" anything with the movie- they just told a completely different story. The characters and setting are the same sure- but not the ambiguous characterization, the depth of the men and women of Polish Chicago in the book. As for the setting, it's become merely a play stage, complete with the unnecessary "supporting role" players walking all too busilly down the claustrophobic, interior exterior streets. The movie is a dumbed-down, completely different take on Frankie Machine and drug addiction. When this happens, Zosh, Frankie, Sparrow, all lose their psychological edge. Frankie's drumming, a modest dream in the book, becomes his full passion in the movie (probably because Sinatra is a musician). And drug addiction is treated as shlock, exploitavely. The acting is decent, especially the snakelike Louie, who is more menacing in the movie than the book. But it's just a shame this kind of movie can be heralded as a classic alongside the book it is "based upon," the real story of Frankie Machine. The movie just goes to show Hollywood can' get anything right without dumbing it down and adding a happy ending. In this case, they just changed it completely, cheapening an important and realistic story into Hollywood fluff. I'm sure as hell biased because I read the book first, so I can't really treat the movie honestly by knowing how good the book is. I actually thought about turning the movie off (and I never do that), just so I wouldn't get its silly plot confused with the beauty of the book. But this is an overrated film, and while it's not so bad, the book should come first, as it was the first. And it should have remained the only story of Division Street and Frankie Machine.
Despite the fact that this was a Made-For-TV movie (and an obvious one at that: ie., cheap looking), CLASS WARFARE left me wishing I could get my money back, and considering this lame production was partially funded through Canadian dollars, I might just be entitled.<br /><br />What made me sit through it in the first place was seeing actress Lindsey McKeon, who I've watched for the last couple years in her role as "goody-goody" Mara Lewis on the soap-opera GUIDING LIGHT, taking a turn at playing "the bad girl" for a change. <br /><br />Surprisingly she does quite well, as Kristen, a spoiled rich-b*tch who suddenly finds herself dirt-poor, but with a conniving streak, and a twist of fate, that will possibly change her fortunes back around. The twist of fate is provided in the character of Richard (Robin Dunne), a socially-radical outcast who discovers that he has just gone from having nothing to winning $23 million on a lottery ticket. Now, put Richard, Kristen, her jock-boyfriend Jason (Wade Carpenter), and their camcorder-obsessed mutual buddy Graham (Dave McGowan) together for the weekend in a remote cabin, cut off from the world by storms, and just guess what unfolds.<br /><br />The film suffers from congesting both the story and characters'personas and motives too much. Everyone is pretty one-dimensional and it doesn't take a rocket-scientist to figure out that some things, and some people, are going to go very bad, very quickly. I don't think this is that original a plot and it doesn't go out of it's way to make itself anything more. The acting is OK, McKeon is spot-on as the manipulative female lead, and Dunne is very good, perhaps a little too good at times, but no one else is worth writing home about. The only other real credit I can give the film is the one twist I didn't see coming towards the end (not the very end though, that one is so obvious it hurts). Regardless, I sat through all of it and lived to tell the tale so I can't say it was a complete write-off. <br /><br />4/10. A "something-to-watch-when-nothing-else-is-on" type movie.
I just watched this movie on Bravo! and it was absolutely horrible. It has the plot of a Shannon Tweed movie without the nudity. The premise was interesting enough, a winning lottery ticket in a secluded area and people who have reasons why they want the money. The characters were trite as were the observations on human nature and greed.<br /><br />For a movie called Class Warfare it had very little to do with class differences other than the first 20 minutes and the predictable ending. This movie could have done a lot better if there had been more characters with motivations to get the ticket and was a "who done it?"<br /><br />The acting wasn't fantastic but it's hard to seem believable with such a terrible script. Lindsey McKeon is very cute and I'd like to see what she could do in a better production with a better script. She's probably the only reason why I sat through the whole movie.<br /><br />
Clifton Webb is one of my favorites. However, Mister Scoutmaster is not one of his best. His patented curmudgeon role seems forced and even unpleasant rather than funny. The film itself is overflowing with mawkish sentimentality. In addition, the viewer is presented with numerous ham-handed references to religious faith and U.S. patriotism that come off as over-reverent rather than genuine. Clifton Webb does his best with a poor script. Edmund Gwenn plays yet another jovial clergyman and is given nothing to do. The child actor lead is played by a talentless child who displays a flat affect throughout the entire film. His sole claim to fame as a performer evidently is a bullfrog-like low voice unusual for someone of his age. However, once you've heard it, you've heard it and you don't need to hear it again. Unfortunately, he is in the majority of the film's scenes. I find this child so irritating that I fast forward whenever he shows up. Since he has a lot of scenes in this film, this means that I fast forward through a lot of the film. There were and are so many talented child actors; it's a pity this film doesn't have any of them in it. Still, Clifton Webb in the traditional broad-brimmed hat and shorts is a sight worth seeing.
As a physicist, talk about blackholes and cosmology gets my heart racing. However I found this presentation too slow and not packed with enough information for the interested layman (who is most likely to see it). If you have more than a passing curiosity in this sort of stuff, go to the library and check out some books. You will find they explain current scientific cosmologies with far more detail while at the same time filling you with more of a sense of wonder than this movie does. Also to set the record straight: Hawking is NOT considered the "greatest mind" or the world's "smartest person" as commonly asserted even among the user reviews here at the IMDb. Hawking himself has commented that "It is rubbish. It is just media hype. They needed somebody to fill the role model of disabled genius. At least I'm disabled." To be fair, he is probably a genius but among history's greatest scientists, people like Einstein, Newton, Gauss, and many others easily are even more highly regarded. This is not to disrespect Hawking who is a undoubtedly a great scientist but rather not to disrespect others who have done even more than he has. Anyhow, see the movie if you are truly into science. But if not, I think it would be boring for you.
You'd hardly know that a year later MGM put Norma Shearer in THE DIVORCEE which glows with MGM technical know how. How far they came in one year. CHENEY is a very stagey early talkie. The camera hardly moves. Shearer is her usual charming self and Rathbone does well in a romantic leading role. They are all very careful to speak clearly and slowly into the microphone source which does mitigate against a naturally flowing dramatic scene, but the play is a sturdy and fun warhorse so one can enjoy oneself if one's expectations are not too high. Oh, by the way, the plot involves a ring of upper class jewel thieves who infiltrate themselves into society to prey on their victims. There are some clever twists in the script and true love conquers all. An Oscar nom for Best Screenplay Adaptation.
I found this early talkie difficult to watch and I'm a Norma Shearer fan! It's not her fault, but the primitive production values of this film would cause any viewer to become bored. 90% of the movie is filmed with "medium shots," and it's very similar to watching a dull play.
This version is very painful to watch. All of the acting is very stilted but especially that of Norma Shearer who is still acting as though she were in a silent movie instead of a talkie. Check out the 1937 version with Joan Crawford, Robert Montgomery and William Powell which is much more entertaining.
I saw this movie as part of a Billy Graham program. The church I attend was part of a community wide outreach to present God and Christianity to our community (Hartford, Ct. USA). I was one of the counselors who helped attendees (who were invited to come forward and make whatever kind of religious profession they wanted...and to follow up on them after the movie. As such, it did what it was supposed to do, and I personally found it to be a medium to strengthen my faith in God.I also found it to be very helpful to those I counseled. I especially like the work of Kim Darby in this movie. And the parents (the Wintons?) were , in a way, a little overdrawn....no one says to their child if they think that he or she may be the parent of an illegitimate child something like the Wintons did "oh, no, no, not thaaat." That isn't exactly what they said, but the sympaathetic audience I saw had a laugh at whatever it was they did say, and also at the son's emphatic "No, MOm, not me." Don Berghuis
It's exactly what the title tells you...an island inhabited by fishmen. Shipwrecked doctor Claudio Cassinelli and crew land on the island, they're either picked off by the fishmen or roped into working for treasure hunting lunatic Richard Johnson. Cassinelli discovers that Johnson, who believes he's found the lost city of Atlantis, has been keeping disgraced scientist Joseph Cotten and his daughter Barbara Bach hostage for 15 years so the fishmen can uncover a treasure trove beneath the sea. Cotten, of course, is a complete madman. Bach and Cassinelli have great chemistry. This insanity was directed by Sergio Martino and is not, surprisingly, without merit. It's fast paced, reasonably well acted and the fishmen look pretty convincing (though it's unlikely anyone could prove that these things DON'T look like actual fishmen). There's an excellent music score by Luciano Michelini.
Yes, the video cover of this movie made me want to watch this film as a child. It was called "Screamers" on this particular cover with the tagline "Men turned inside out!". It even featured this warped looking skeleton on the cover as well that made all sorts of cool gory images run through my mind. Perhaps some sort of movie about some strange virus that caused a person's flesh to burn off, maybe a movie about undead zombies that are more bloody looking than what you usually get, a science experiment gone incredibly wrong and now strange men with the flesh dripping off their bones go on the rampage. Yes, all these thoughts ran through my mind, one that did not was fish guys on some island with virtually no gore and all bore. This movie is really more like the Island of Dr. Moreau than anything else and quite frankly that movie bored me too, it is way to much scientist and not enough killing for my tastes. These films are to much figure stuff out and not enough blood for my tastes. Yes I know, I have strange tastes, but I can not help it, I like my horror movies either really bloody or fast moving and exciting this movie is really neither.
OK by the time you read this I MIGHT have stopped crying. This movie was so horrible as to be quite vexing. The creatures are kinda cute, but the only really good thing about the movie was the growing attachment among the prisoners and their guard after getting marooned on this daffy island. Even seeing Barbara Bach with her hair all riffled was no payoff for buying this sterling bit of poop. She goes about with a whispery I've-never-used-my-voice-before breathiness that just don't wash when one is screaming bloody murder. (Hey the leading man was cute too but I'm still not assuaged.) This is a cry-into-your-beer ripoff of the good ole Island of Dr. Moreau. Poor Richard Johnson, who was surely born for better things, is just unrelievedly bad as the bad guy. I mean, HOW bad can a BAD guy BE? (Ask Richard Johnson). Joseph Cotten tries hard not to look embarrassed as he staggers through his cameo appearance. In the name of all that's holy, don't rent this darned bomb.
I watched this movie only because I was under the impression that I was going to be treated to a cheesy horror flick. I mean, look at the tag line: "They're men turned inside out! And worse... they're still alive!" Does that not scream cheesy horror movie to you? And the then there's the title itself-- "Screamers." What a perfectly apt title for a horror movie, I thought! Unfortunately, I wasn't aware that the real title was, properly translated, "The Island of the Fishmen."<br /><br />So, about an hour into watching this I realized that this was not a cheesy horror movie at all-- it was a cheesy "adventure" story about slimy fish-men from Atlantis. "Men turned inside out"? No. There was nothing of the sort. I was grossly disappointed.<br /><br />Damn you, misleading taglines! I want those 81 minutes of my life back!
I think that you can not imagine how these people really work...!! Before I came to the studios to watch the guys work there, I actually thought quite the same as you do. But since I saw and did the work the guys on that TV-show have to do, I have to say that they really do deserve respect for what they are doing all day long. That really is no easy work. And also the actors, which in your eyes may be terribly bad, are really great people and a lot of them really can act! I don't think that the material given to them can really show that, as I think this material isn't very good. But THEY are truly good! So I don't think that you, before you haven't seen these guys doing there work, can judge over them! And I shouldn't have judged over them as well before I met them, but I did and am now terribly ashamed of it. So please, do not allow yourself to judge over these great people unless you haven't seen them doing there job.
I think its safe to say that if you only really watch box office standard films or any premium production don't bother with this film as you will hate it. If you are an overly critical film buff don't bother either. If you love science fiction films and don't care what capacity you get a glimpse of the future in then you'll be mildly entertained. It is very obvious that the budget for this was super super low but what they have done with the money is worth a pat on the back. Some of the burning fire scenes were pretty bad and the evacuation scenes were terrible but it is quite obvious that they had some good support from a computer perspective as the planet scenes and the alien images were quite inventive. The dialog is down right hilarious but acting not altogether poor. As for the story well, I'm not too sure what actually happened at all to tell you the truth.
This movie is proof you can't just go to a Redbox and read descriptions of films and pick one and give it a try.<br /><br />While I'll give 'em great credit for having produced a film with halfway-decent special effects on such a low budget, and at least a halfway decent script and story line... unfortunately, it was only just that: halfway decent.<br /><br />If you like movies where things aren't all neatly wrapped up, and don't mind low-budget effects, you might like this film. Honestly, it wasn't really my cup of tea. I should've just gone to bed rather than spend my time watching.<br /><br />For a better science-fiction movie produced on an even LOWER budget (!) have a look at "Primer."
It is OK movie if it would be done by high school kids for their friends. It is way below limits be called "professional". There isn't plot, no actors' play and visual looks like you see it through the plastic film. I was so glad that I have FF button on my remote, 32x worked really well. I understand that everyone need to start somewhere, but it shouldn't be reason to bring it to the public. If you have concerns about quality and budget - "Open water" was made on $60000 and more than half went to the guy who provided the security in the ocean and trained sharks. And that movie looks 100 times more professional and it was an event in the indy film-making.
I was excited about this movie after reading other reviews. What a disappointment! There are so many ways that this movie is bad. The computer graphics were lacking to say the least. I found the acting stiff and unbelievable. Watch the sand as the lost "e-pods" (what an original name!)are found. Where did all the tracks come from? I immediately recognized portions similar to other movies, ie Alien, Pitch Black. Come on,one huge ship to transport one prisoner? And what is with the prisoner? Does he speak, can he speak? I kept waiting for something to tie the bits of the story together, but it never came. If this movie was made on a low budget, it shows. The only part of the movie I liked was when it finally ended. I don't mean that I liked the ending, I didn't. I just liked the fact that it was over. A trip to the dentist would have been more enjoyable. In my opinion. don't waste your time on this one.
Going to need to take a deep breath for this one...<br /><br />Terrible special effects that tried to reach far beyond the limitations of the budget. Blatant and unashamed plagiarism of other sci-fi movies (like Pitch Black). Terrible acting. Endless slow motion scenes of characters walking aimlessly across sand dunes. Meandering dialogue that does nothing to further the story. Characters wearing turtle neck sweaters on a desert planet with two suns. A "cargo" ship staffed by a camouflage-wearing crew of gun-toting soldiers (why exactly would you need forest-camouflage in space anyway?). Some of the worst casting choices in the history of no-budget film-making - a steroid swollen "captain" who comes across more like a muscle-beach jock than a trustworthy commander, and a "convict" who looks and acts about as dangerous as a bunny rabbit. 70 minutes in length, 35 of which could have been trimmed out if the director had any concept of "compression of time through editing"...<br /><br />I won't go on. Suffice it to say that while some components of this awful movie can (and should) be forgiven due to it's low budget; the bad conception, laughable plot holes, and snore-inducing script are unforgivable on *any* budget. The end result is a tedious, dull, waste of time. Sorry guys, I hate to be so harsh on an amateur film, but you've no excuse for turning out this kind of work.
Even with it's low budget this movie could have been worth watching if there was a story to tell here. It started out pretty good, and fairly engaging and believable. The actors and characters were interesting although there wasn't much character development. My favorite scene was when they were all eating their rations. Some seemed to hate it, and some seemed to think it wasn't too bad. The story starts out very airtight. And then... <br /><br />And then it dipped into a little horror which is usually a death sentence for most sci fi. Suddenly no scientific basis for any of the goings on. No real believable end game for the villain? No real explanation of what's going on. Generally if a movie has to use the F word for every other word it usually spirals down from there too. I still get offended believe it or not. I often wonder what inspires people to make bad sci fi? Isn't there a universe of fantastically good stories out there? Don't people feel like they are wasting their time and everyone else's when they put out stuff like this. Why do we get so much mediocre sci fi like this? No female actors/characters either? None at all? This had the makings to be another "Predator" but alas fell far far short. <br /><br />My final comment - poor editing and finally too low a budget to build a real campfire? What gives? <br /><br />My advice for any low budget sci fi movie production companies out there. Make sure you got a good story before you start, and edit out bad special effects - it's better we see nothing than something that looks fake or ridiculously fuzzy.
I really didn't like this film~!!!! it was boring and didn't interest me that much at all.. i'm more of an action girl, and it had NONE. i went and rented this movie because of the other comment that was left.. but was totally mislead! don't get this movie unless you like the dessert and plenty of boredom. i just really didn't like the movie. it wasn't my style, but it could be yours.. you would just have to watch the previews or something but it's my recommendation if you're a girl.. don't get this movie! This Scandinavian production draws on some of the observational strategies of Godfrey Reggio's Koyaanisqatsi, allowing us to reflect on patterns and phenomena of human and natural existence from both intimate and sweeping viewpoints. this just isn't for me!
I've got 10 plus year old computer games with better special effects! Plot is choppy and very predictable. Most of the actors seem like extras with no experience! Everyone has Scottish accents. It's like watching a crew of 'Scotties' from Star Trek without the personality or charm. Needless scenes of people putting up tents! Tents with all of the supposedly high tech equipment! Actors looking like they were not sure the camera was on them. Nothing to make you care if these people survive or not! Looks like it was made in someone's backyard and garage using low end equipment! Nothing seems original or even slightly entertaining. Do not waste your time!
This movie was awful, plain and simple! The animation scenes had absolutely terrible graphics. It was VERY clear to see that this film had about the budget of my grocery bill!! The acting was just as bad.. I've seen better acting in pornographic films. I would seriously like the hour and twenty minutes of my life back. In fact, I registered on IMDb just so that other people don't get sucked into watching this like I did. Don't get me wrong though, I love sci-fi films! This one seemed more like the intro to a video game :( I'm glad I only spent a dollar to see this one! The story line reminded me of the movie pitch black, A prisoner on a ship in outer space escapes. Oh my goodness.. what are we gonna do??? I would not even let this play in the background of my house while I was cleaning! Bottom line here, you can do better.
I pride myself in being able to sit through everything. I think "if I've paid the rental fee, then I'm going to at least watch it". I have found the exception to this rule- The Planet. I don't know what the exchange rate is, but reading through the other comments I can only guess that £8000 must be around $150. I'll date myself but this movie reminds me of the old Steve Reeves movies of the 50's. He was a bodybuilder turned actor. He was in these really awful Italian, dubbed movies that starred Reeves as Hercules or some other muscle bound hero. As a kid watching them you couldn't quite articulate why these movies stunk- you just knew they did. Mike Mitchell IS the new Steve Reeves. That's it.. that's what this really was- a new telling of an old Italian "Spaghetti Sand and Sandals" movie. And, I kid you not- where was Reeves born? Glasgow, Montana. This movie isn't so bad that it's kind of fun to watch- it's just plain bad.
I went through great efforts to get this movie after reading the comments on this site. I really don't have time to write reviews but I felt this was my duty as a sci-fi horror buff. This is only the second review I have written. The other was for Dracula 3000. Now to the point. This movie sucked. Plain and simple. I kept wondering if I was watching the same movie as those who wrote all those "lovely" comments. I have seen movies with bad effects, bad acting, bad sound, you name it and I've seen it. But this really sucked. I don't care how much it costs or didn't cost to make, movies like this and Dracula 3000 should be banned and the whole cast and crew arrested and jailed for time murder. By the way, Did I mention that this movie sucked. I mean really sucked. The plot was non exist and the acting was weak. It seems like the writer saw Pitch Black and got upset because he didn't think of a plot like that first so he decided to make his own ripped off version. But instead, the suck factor took over and possessed him. DON'T WATCH THIS. You'll have more fun if you pull down your pants and sit on burning coals.
I really did not want to write a harsh review of this movie because I genuinely appreciate how hard it is to make any kind of movie on an incredibly low budget, let alone attempt something as ambitious as a sci-fi.<br /><br />However this movie is truly awful. The acting is among some of the worst I have ever had to endure and as a fan of low budget movies that is a pretty serious accusation to make. There are plenty of aspiring actors out there who would work on a deferred payment scheme if they believed in the movie and what the director was trying to achieve. I'm sure the actors did their best as did everybody else involved in this production, but it simply was not good enough to pull off something of this magnitude.<br /><br />Then there is the dialogue. Very poor indeed. There is no excuse for that. I got the impression the script was hastily written on the back of a beer mat after some epic boozing session. I hesitate to use the word 'laughable' but that's exactly what the script is. I had no empathy with any of the characters. Indeed they grated on me with the result that on more than one occasion I wanted to thump a couple of them Mr Stirton has overstretched himself by taking on too many roles. Clint Eastwood he is not. Again, there are talented people out there willing to work on deferment if they believe in the project.<br /><br />Much has been made of the special effects in this movie. For the money, they are exceptional, if somewhat overused. It is like someone said "I have after effects and boy am I gonna use it". Whoever did the CG work was among the most talented of this crew.<br /><br />Quite simply the money was not available to make as ambitious a movie as this attempts to be. Kudos for attempting it, but unfortunately it fails to reach its heady goals in far too many ways.<br /><br />I salute everyone involved with its production, I really do, but for their next effort they either need to get a better producer or lower their sights to something more manageable.<br /><br />In conclusion I cannot recommend this effort to anyone other than the most enthusiastic of film students or habitual insomniacs. If you want to watch a true masterpiece of low budget sci-fi films try the student made "Dark Star" by a certain Mr John Carpenter.
I felt compelled to write a review after seeing the only review which gave this film a suspiciously high 9/10 rating. I say suspicious because it looks less like a review but more like a publicity statement. Perhaps the filmmaker himself, or one of his mates, has written that "review"? Naughty, naughty.<br /><br />I watched this movie on the Propeller channel on Sky TV expecting it to be truly awful. The special effects used were to be honest very, very good for a low budget film, and some of the acting wasn't that bad either, but most of the acting was really awful, but well done for trying, as I expect most were pals of the filmmaker.<br /><br />I think the filmmaker has done really well by trying to punch above his weight. I did find some of the film funny because it was trying to be super cool when it just wasn't.<br /><br />If you don't take this film too seriously and watch it whilst drunk with some mates you might well have a good time but probably not in the way it was intended. This film is no way a 9/10 but worth watching for a laugh bearing in mind it was made on a very very low budget and in fairness due credit to those involved in it's production.
I had known Brad Linaweaver at Florida State U in the early 70's when he was an inspiring, inventive writer who I thought was headed for greater glory.<br /><br />And that is why I rented this video. Well, well, well, the time has not been kind to Mr Linaweaver. I suppose the pressures of making a living makes higher aspirations expendable. Another flower whose bloom has come and gone un-noticed in the summer breeze. Amen. There is nothing more to say. And nothing more to add. A sad epitaph to a once blossoming career as stated above. But it is the price one pays for chasing shadows without a firm foundation or goals for oneself in life. Because this movie has no goal, no purpose, and I kept telling myself, what happened to Brad's creativity, his once shining genius? Gone, gone, years of neglect has deteriorated his once shining mind.
I bought this out of curiosity. How did John Carradine (who died in 1988) and Cameron Mitchell (who died in 1994) make appearances in a film made in 1995? Thanks to the miracle of unused film can footage that's probably been sitting on a shelf somewhere for ten years, that's how! You can tell because the film stock used to shoot their scenes doesn't match the film used for shooting "Jack-O." The curse of Ed Wood lives on. The good thing for both Carradine and Mitchell is that this is exactly the kind of movie you'd expect to find on both of their filmographies. Same goes for Scream Queens Linnea Quigley, Brinke Stevens and Dawn Wildsmith.<br /><br />The setting is Oakmoor Crossing on Halloween, and some kind of curse is released when dumb, beer-guzzling teens disrupt a grave. The result: a hulking killer with a scythe and a big plastic pumpkin on his head! He (it?) goes after the wholesome Kelly family for revenge (and kills others who get in his way). The father opens a Haunted Garage for the neighborhood kiddies. The son (Ryan Latshaw, son of the director) has one continuous, perplexed facial expression for all his scenes and one hilariously badly acted dramatic scene lying in a grave. At least he's a kid. The mother's eyes about pop out of her head while she strains to read her dialogue. There is also an annoying woman who shows up to explain things who seems to be trying to phonetically pronounce all of her dialogue.<br /><br />So what about the name actors? You see Stevens, Wildsmith and Mitchell briefly on a TV screen (they're used to pad out the time). Linnea has a bigger role as a babysitter, and she does exactly what she can with it. Her enthusiastic performance helps a little bit. There's also one out-of-nowhere laugh when an ultra-conservative couple who watch a Rush Limbaugh clone on TV bite it. The woman slips on a rug and stabs a toaster with a knife. She's electrocuted and the end result looks like a flame-broiled Muppet.<br /><br />All and all, pretty entertaining stuff! I wasn't bored!
Man, this movies sucked. It appeared to have like seven different plots going on at once and they all made little to no sense. The special effects, costumes, and all that stuff were beyond awful. The acting was particullary bad. Everything seemed so forced, especially the lines from the woman with the huge eyes and the little kid (his "Noooooo" as he gets burried is so unenthusiastic it's laughable). A good portion of this movie is rather funny anyway. The one woman's death where she shoves a knife into a toaster, gets electrocuted, and magically turns into the crapiest skeleton dummy in the world had my friends and I laughing for a good ten minutes.<br /><br />Bottom line: If you're into watching really horrible movies, seek this one out. If not, run for your life.
I've always loved horror flicks. From some of the usual well-known like "The Exorcist" to some of the more underrated like "Black Christmas" or "Just Before Dawn". But who are people kidding,even calling this trash a b-movie. It's straight up bottom-of-the-barrel Z-grade. The acting is the worst ever on film. Really,I've seen better on an episode of the "Young and the Restless"...SPOILER...Lookout for when the woman comes to tell them about the legend of Jack-o. She pauses sometimes for a matter of seconds as if someone is flashing her cue cards and she's struggling to read her lines. A RIOT! <br /><br />Oh,and besides the bad acting,absolutely no gore or F/X. And Jack-o looked like a plastic lit pumpkin. Watch Linnea Quigley in "Night of the Demons",or "Silent Night,Deadly Night",far superior flicks.
I bought Jack-O a number of months ago at a Blockbuster video sale, and at the time I wasn't expecting anything outstanding from it. Upon watching it, I realized I not only got less than I could have ever bargained for, but a whole lot more as well. It seems, strange, I know. And it is. But it's perfectly fitting when you consider that the utter weirdness that is "Jack-O"<br /><br />The movie follows a young boy named Shawn Kelly. Somehow, thru ancestral ties, he is marked for death at the hands of a demented, scythe wielding Pumpkin man. This pumpkin man was killed by Shawn's Great-grandfather-uncle-cousin-etc, and now that the villain has been resurrected, Shawn's death is apparently crucial to his hell-bred mission of vengeance. Anyway, much "horror" ensues as Jack-O hacks his way thru various neighbors before battling Shawn to the finish.<br /><br />I'm not so much here to discuss the plot as I am to determine who may find any worth in this movie. I can honestly tell you that Jack-O is one of the most poorly made movies in the history of time. The acting is deadpan (except when it should be), the script is apparently a 1st grade group project, and the production budget must not have exceeded $150. Some of the most laughable death scenes are carried out in this anti-thriller, and they're all the more humorous when you realize director Steve Latshaw actually seems serious in his movie-making.<br /><br />And yet I heartily enjoyed the film. I can call it a terrible horror movie, yes. But I can also say I had a great time watching it with my friends, and have watched it several times since that fateful first viewing. Many people (including some of my friends) will find this movie intolerable and needlessly time-consuming, and that's understandable. If you're like me and enjoy ridiculously bad horror movies that take themselves seriously, you'll find Jack-O an instant classic, which is also understandable.<br /><br />That's why it's so hard to rate this movie. If I were rating Jack-O's quality as a film, I wouldn't give it anything. In fact, the studio would owe me stars. Yet if I were rating it's on the basis of pure enjoyment, I'd give it an 8 or a 9. I'll give it a 4, so to be somewhere in the middle. I recommend everyone go out, rent this, and form their own conclusion.
When you watch low budget horror movies as much as I do, you get to where you can tell who was involved in creating the movie, as each film-maker adds his own flavor to the cheese. Such is the case with Jack-O. When I watched this truly awful movie, I was left with the undeniable feeling that Fred Olen Ray was involved, maybe not as director but in some fashion, and as I researched, I found that I was correct. Only Fred and a handfull of others could write something this pathetic, and this movie just reeked of Fred Olen Ray. Unless you like Fred Olen Ray (and God only knows why anyone would)avoid this movie. If you're going to rent an Olen Ray pic, rent Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers, it's the only bright shining star in Olen Ray's dark cheesey universe of terrible movies.
This is, without a doubt, the most hilarious movie I've ever seen. Seriously, if the makers of this movie are ever discovered, they'll put guys like Jim Carrey out of a job. Rent "Jack-O" tonight! Believe me, you won't regret it!
This thing, it shouldn't be called a film, is almost worse than "Manos", but you just have to see it it's hilarious. If you see it at video store rent it, if you see the 10th anniversary edition, yes there is a special edition, for under $10 buy it, if your friend has it borrow it, you just have to see this. The acting is so bad, and the gore is is so fake. After viewing this you'll be asking yourself why did they make this insult of the art of film? That's assuming your face doesn't melt off like the Nazis's in "Raiders" . If you manage to see this, be sure to vote this movie as 1 (awful) so it can make the bottom 100, it really deserves a spot there. I'm surprised it's not number 1, right now.
In Halloween, three friends seek an ancient cemetery in the suburb for fun and remove a cross from a tomb, where Jack-O was buried many years ago by the farmer Arthur Kelly. The evil creature is unleashed, kills the trio and seeks the descendants of the Kelly family for revenge.<br /><br />The cheesy "Jack-O" is a combination of a terrible story with awful acting. I was curious with the name of John Carradine in the credits and I can not imagine how a relative authorizes the use of archive footage in such a bad movie, showing a total lack of respect with the name of this great actor. It is impressive how bad the acting is, shifting the film to a comedy instead of the proposed horror genre. This is the type of movie good to see with a group of friends, drinking beer, making comments and laughing a lot. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Jack-O – Demônio do Halloween" ("Jack-O – Demon of the Halloween")
Ugh. Pretty awful.<br /><br />Linnea Quigley gets top billing, but her character doesn't have a big part. Who is her character supposed to be anyway, the little boy's aunt? Another user commented on her getting nude in a shower scene. While there was a shower scene in the movie, it was a head and shoulders shot. Perhaps there are some alternate versions of this movie.<br /><br />Quigley does have a bigger part than John Carradine, Cameron Mitchell, and Brinke Stevens, though. Carradine shows up briefly in a monkish robe reciting vague dialog. No other characters are in the scene with him, though he's sort of composited in, or else there are over-the-shoulder shots unquestionably belonging to someone else. There's also a really bad photo of him in a cameo locket (it looks like a bad photocopy), and a decent picture of him in a family bible. He conjured up Jack-O originally, or something like that.<br /><br />Cameron Mitchell briefly shows up on a TV as a TV horror host. Brinke Stevens is in the movie he's showing "The Coven," in which she runs around a cemetery in a robe. Evidently there's more of the Brinke footage as a bonus feature on the Retromedia DVD double feature Mark of the Witch/The Brides Wore Blood.<br /><br />Jack-O: what's it about? Darn if I know. A little boy is told a story about a pumpkin-headed demon killer, and he and some other kids are scared by a woman they think is a witch for some reason. She follows him home and offers to help his family with their haunted garage for Halloween (put your hand through a hole and feel eyeballs that are actually grapes, etc.). The pumpkin-headed killer shows up several times to hold onto branches while he watches people, or hold his scythe in front of the camera and pose with it for a while. Sometimes he manages to do more than just stand around holding things, and actually kills people.<br /><br />There are also some flashbacks to a western or prairie family, with the little boy playing the little boy in that family too: ancestors of his, I think. I think they figure into Jack-O's backstory, but I'm not sure how.<br /><br />The little boy is ostensibly the main character, but we don't really learn anything about him except that he wears glasses, has nightmares, and will fight bullies even if he'll get beat up in the process. More time should have been spent establishing his character. I couldn't have cared less if he died.<br /><br />Not recommended, not even for Halloween.
Wow! What a movie if you want to blow your budget on the title and have it look real bad ask the guys that made this movie on how to do that. They could have spent the money on a good rewrite or something else. Or they could have spent it on beer when they made this movie at least it would have come out better.
I hope this group of film-makers never re-unites.
If you are looking for a cinematic masterpiece, this ain't it. If you are looking for one of those awful movies that are so horrible that they are actually good, then this may be for you. There are so many unintentional laughs in this film, that it could almost be considered a comedy. Let's start with the opening titles, that say "Jack-O", and then add the word "Lantern", as if the viewer wasn't able to figure out the movie was about a pumpkin by the giant pumpkin shown on both the cover and in the opening scene of the movie. After that, the movie goes in about 20 different directions, none of which make much sense. Jack-o is everywhere, he's in people's houses, in the woods, and yet he doesn't ever seem to do much of anything. He does make a few kills, but the long buildup to those killings is so poorly acted and constructed you almost wish Jack-o would take out his rage on you the viewer. Other than that, the plot consists of poor acting, gratuitous nudity, and a ridiculous plot line. The acting in this film is among the worst I've ever seen in my 35 plus years of movie-watching. The boy who is the lead in the film (the director's son) has about as much emotion as a corpse, and just about all of the other actors/actresses are just as bad for numerous reasons (especially the bug-eyed lady with eyes bigger than saucers). But, having said all this, if you take this for what it is, (that is a steaming pile of dung) then you will get a few laughs from this movie. What I also found amusing is that the makers of the DVD saw fit to release a "10th Anniversary Version" of this movie (as if the original wasn't good enough). And someone actually had the idea of making a "behind the scenes" mini film which is also included in the 10th anniversary edition (I'm not sure why).......I'll give this 3 smashed pumpkins out of 10...
If you are in search of a masochistic thrill, rent this movie, and show it to a group of your friends sober. This movie is just plane lame, but there not completely without value. The brief tits are nice, and there is one victim's death that is funny as hell. Other than that, this is straight garbage. But it is still better than "Grim" or "Spookies"
My mother and I rented this gem a few years ago while she was here visiting for Thanksgiving. I have rarely laughed so hard. This is a typical low-budget horror movie with dumb special effects, a worse plot, and even worse acting. But are you really expecting a classic when Linnea Quigley receives top billing? I thought not.<br /><br />Since this movie does have some entertainment value, I give it a 3 out of 10.
Three delinquents disturb the tomb of an ancient warlock who after summoning Jack-O (a less then menacing pumpkin-headed figure) to dispatch said hoodlums, continues on his sworn vengeance to kill every decedents of the family that offed him. That includes young Sean Kelly and his horror-loving family. Of course it's up to Sean to find a way to save the day.<br /><br />Such a stupid low-budget B-movie. The acting's atrocious and the plot isn't much better. Throw in a extremely lame killer, a possible pedophile who laughs way too much & a couple of stereotypical cardboard cutout 'conservative' couple and you have this film in a nutshell. Not really worth your time save to see how superbly well Linnea is aging. <br /><br />Eye Candy: Linnea Quigley is always good for some T&A and she doesn't disappoint here with a lengthy shower scene; Rachel Carter also gets topless (although it could be a body double)<br /><br />My Grade: D-
Warning Might contain spoilers<br /><br />i just sadly spent 5 bucks on this movie on amazon and i wish i never spent it. I have never seen suck horrible special affects, or acting. I mean Jack-0 is just a laughable monster and his costume looks like something u could buy at a Halloween store or make yourself. The acting is just horrible especially Sean Kelly i mean come on he is so pathetic with his little lines "COme get me PUmpkinman" low i laughed so hard on this its just stupid. I mean the movie is so awful they had to put a few minutes of nudity in it just for people not to shut it off low. I think the most laughable scene is when the woman sticks a butter knife in the toaster and gets electrocuted. I mean come on that looked so fake and the dummy i could buy that at any Halloween store or make it myself. Well I recommend not watching this cheesy movie cause it will be time you will never get back.
OK, I could only find three reasons to consider this film worthwhile considering the extremely low budget.<br /><br />First there was Linnea Quigley and Rachel Carter. Actually, the two of them gave me four good reasons to watch, and watch I did.<br /><br />The only other reason to watch is that a lot of was filmed right down the road. Now, I didn't know this beforehand, but I saw an Orange County car tag and said, wow! this was shot in Florida.<br /><br />I was impressed by the flashback to the past and the ancestors of the young kid, but that was really it. The killings by the pumpkin man were pretty lame, with the exception of the biker.<br /><br />If you want to see Quigley and Carter, OK, but Return of the Living Dead will give greater thrills.
Jack-O (1995) was a really bad movie, we are talking snoozefest x 100, no entertainment value whatsoever, no budget, no gore, Z-grade actors etc etc, this film was an awful addition to the horror movie industry and shouldn't have been made!!! The only reason i purchased this movie was because i knew Linnea Quigley was in it, and sure enough, she does her obligatory nude shower scene, which is lovely yes.<br /><br />But as for the film itself........ i fell asleep at the 40 minute stage and had NO desire at all to finish it, it's just bigtime lame OK.<br /><br />I love horror movies, i'm an avid fan, a MASSIVE fan, i love low budget horrors, i love it all, but i hated this rubbish, so i think that will tell you all you need to know about "JACK-O".<br /><br />I give this movie 2/10, the "2" is for the 2 minute Linnea shower scene, the movie itself is a total ZERO!!!!
I can not believe I even wasted a NetFlix rental on this complete piece of CRAP. How long did it take to make this film? 15 minutes? On a budget of what? Fifteen bucks? I can spend a few hours with my Sony Camcorder and come up with something better than this treacherous lump of bile, and it's even available on DVD!?!! A very sad thing to think classics like The Stepfather have not been released on DVD but this chunk of steaming dung makes it to the format. Here's hoping my rating of ONE ONE ONE ONE makes the overall (already) pathetic rating of 2.5 go DOWN.
On Halloween a town is terrorized by a lunatic with a big pumpkin for a head. Bad acting compromised mostly of local talent and laughable special effects makes this one baaaaad. B-Movie Queen Linnea Quigley looks embarrassed to be a part of this one and even her considerable charm which has helped so many of her other films can't help this one. Pass this cheesy flick if you are looking for a good Halloween horror film and rent "Night of the Demons" which also stars Ms. Quigley.
We were excited to rent this one after reading a few reviews and seeing that it scored so highly here. Well, we got it home and could not believe what we saw. Its basically comes off as if its written by some hard up perverted old guy who could not help inserting his sexual frustrations and fantasies into an anime film that really lacks in plot and humor. The main character is all over the place... one moment, he is like an immature little kid, the next moment he is mature and intelligent, then heroic, then a perverted stalker.<br /><br />The worst part is all of the out of place sexual content. I have no problem with sex and dig a movie that has some good sexual energy, but this is just presented in a way that is creepy. Nipple slips, close ups of a girls crotch (many times) in white panties, or a swimsuit. It was totally out of place and it seemed as if the person who wrote it was trying to live out some fantasies through his cartoon characters. <br /><br />We were expecting something of a mature nature, but we just kept looking at each other and asking what the heck the point of this was... besides jiggling cartoon boobs and poor dialogue. If you want to see some cartoon characters cleavage and crotch's... this is for you. If you are looking for something beyond that, this movie was empty. The characters and dialogue were just plain irritating.<br /><br />
The film made no sense to me whatsoever. Good actors(SergioCastellittoaparticular favourite; he was great in "Uomo DelleStelle"/"TheStarmaker"but that was made by Giuseppe Tornatore, a great Italian director as opposed to the mediocre one who made this effort),but awful, rambling script, terrible editing,and a director who seemed to have no idea of what he was trying to say, and ended up saying exactly nothing. Apretentious load of rubbish, but the sort of film that certain Italianpseudo-intellectuals whom it was my misfortune to have known in the dim and distant past would have loved it, and unfortunately Italy has no monopoly on these, they can be found everywhere and probably acclaim this as a great masterpiece. I never thought much of Bellochio as director. I remember seeing his first film "PugniNella Tasca"/"Fists in the Pocket" (or some such title) in Rome when it was first shown close on 50 years ago (I was living thereat the time). All the usual pseudos raved about it, but it left me pretty cold. I didn't think he was much of a director then, and still don't. Age has certainly not improved him, and this film must rank as one of his worst.
I agree that this film is too pretentious, and it is not easy to know where it is going. I have been teaching literature and film for many years, and I find this film to be one of the most over rated, according to some of the previous reviews here. <br /><br />However, let me remind you that this is the same director who has L'ora di religione (Il sorriso di mia madre- My Mother's Smile) to his credit -- a gem of a film! <br /><br />Was he trying to outdo Fellini's 81/2 here???? The scene with the dogs, which has also been pointed out, is absurd and excessive – just one example. Others would take too much space, and some reviewers have already noted them. <br /><br />Overall, a most frustrating and annoying experience!
This would have to rate as one of the worst films of all time. The film screened at the Italian Film Festival in Melbourne, Australia. After the screening, not only did I want my money refunded, I wanted the 1.5 wasted hours of my life back too. I have a very broad tolerance level when it comes to the indulgences of some European film-making, but this is one of those films that is selected for festivals based on the reputation of the filmmaker alone. This film is proof that while such selections may satisfy the egos of the film-maker and the selection panel, there is absolutely no joy for the audience. There is no character development whatsoever, the plot is a garbled mess, the style is nonsensical, the shot selection is appalling, and the editing is worse. By the end of the first reel, you'll wonder if you walked into the wrong cinema, and by the end of the third reel, you'll be begging to be put out of your misery. This film is an abomination.
I checked this out at the Vancouver International Film Festival and was not impressed.<br /><br />The only area of the film I enjoyed was the commentary on film-making. For the most part, this film seemed random and somewhat fantastical (I don't say that in a complimentary way, however) and just silly. It was as if he was mixing fantasy with everyday life, which may sounds intriguing in some films, but the fantasy merely seemed needlessly perverse.<br /><br />My criticism of this film is not upon the actors, rather the story itself. I found it boring and narcissistic. I wanted my money back, but considering it was a Film Festival, that wasn't about to happen.
"Fat Girls" is among the worst films within the indie gay genre.<br /><br />The premise is promising: an average-looking gay teen is trapped in a repressive small TX town. His only kindred spirits are the other village HS misfits: the class 'fat girl', a naïve immigrant from Cuba, and the sensitive drama teacher. So far, interesting. In theory, this plot line creates a decent setup for an appealing coming of age story with a built-in audience---the thousands of gay men who grew up in small towns across America and experienced this adolescent anxiety first hand, peppered with a dose of self-deprecating humor.<br /><br />Unfortunately, rather than a nuanced dramedy, Ash Christian approaches his autobiographical subject matter with a poorly executed attempt at irony and dark humor. The result is a cast of unlikeable, derivative, two-dimensional characters which the viewer cannot but help feel indifferent toward. Sabrina (Fink) is a quasi-Goth bitter navel-gazer. She is such a prickly, unsympathetic person; there is little doubt as to the reason for her friendless condition. The chemistry between her and Rodney (Christian) registers zero. This may have been bad casting, but is more likely due to a screenplay which is simply unsalvageable. Consequently, one is left wondering when there is such a non-existent bond, what could possibly warrant their near-constant companionship throughout the story.<br /><br />Sabrina's newfound boyfriend, Rudy (de Jesus), and Rodney's mother Judy (Theaker) are among the most exaggerated of the clichéd stock characters ripped off from dozens of other films. Rudy is the horny undersexed immigrant/nerd lifted directly from every raunchy adolescent "comedy" ever made within the realm of TV or film. Judy is the born-again obsessed with Jesus- talk and big hair. Just when you thought the Tammy Faye thing had been done to death, Christian inserts a scene where Judy's mascara is running with her tears! Is there anyone in the civilized world that can possibly think this tired old stereotype gag is still funny after seeing it ad nauseum for 20 years?<br /><br />In addition to the failed attempts at sardonic humor, there are many puzzling story inconsistencies. Rodney considers himself a "fat ugly" loser. However, he simultaneously manages to participate in casual and regular impromptu trysts with the ubiquitous school jock/hunk, Ted (Miller). Although these liaisons are devoid of emotional fulfillment, most gay teens (filled with raging testosterone, just like their hetero brethren) would find this to be a rather enviable arrangement given the more common alternative of involuntary celibacy.<br /><br />Rodney finds an object for his affection in Bobby (Bruening), an exotic transplant from England. Against all believable odds, the lad not only happens to land in this tiny TX hamlet, but is conveniently openly gay to boot. Like Sabrina, Bobby is an icy, angry smart aleck and the viewer is left head-scratching as to his magnetic appeal. <br /><br />Much to his delight, Rodney is invited by his new crush to the town gay bar, where Bobby claims to be the DJ. Upon arrival, the boyfriend-to-be promptly leaves Rodney solo and heads off to another area of the bar for a quick encounter with a rather handsome young man. This is yet one more of the ridiculously inexplicable plot elements since Rodney's feeling as an outcast are supposedly derived largely from his lonely existence in a parochial town. As tiny as the town is, they have openly gay students at the high school? A secretly bisexual football captain? Lesbian moms? A Gay teacher? and it has a gay bar downtown (patronized by attractive men, no less)? Apparently, the place is not so backwater after all.<br /><br />Ten years earlier, Todd Stephens' "Edge of Seventeen" covered nearly the same material with a much more creative, honest, touching, and humorous film.
The premise of the film was very promising - sort of a gay Napoleon Dynamite type of film. And to be fair, there were some funny moments and funny lines but it really wasn't very good overall. The script and dialog felt like a local sketch production, full of clichés and scenes that were predictable.<br /><br />However, there was enough that was amusing, that I stuck around to see how it finished, since there were hints that something special happens at the end. But it seems that either the film ran out of money or the writer ran out of ideas because the ending is extremely abrupt, almost skipping directly from what looked to be the key conflict in the film to the final credits.<br /><br />Overall, it was very disappointing but not completely unwatchable...
I wasted enough time actually WATCHING this chore of a movie, I don't want to waste more writing a big review. Not once did I so much as crack a smile. ALL the jokes were boring, forced and lacked any kind of wit. I kept saying, "wheres the punchline?" Almost every single character was an obnoxious stereotype and all the situations were clichéd and half the time there wasn't even any kind of solution. Things just happened to get to the next scene. For the life of me I can't understand how this got as many good reviews as it did. If you like clunky acting and poorly composed film making Fat Girls is the movie for you.
This movie has been done before. It is basically a unoriginal combo of "Napoleon Dynamite" and "Sordid Lives." There are some funny bits, but otherwise it is a cliché bore. It is a good first film attempt and the director (who also stars in and wrote the feature) shows a lot of promise. But the writing was kind of choppy and the story was not very original. I swear I had heard some of the lines in other films. However, the acting was very good and the film was shot in an interesting way. It is also refreshing to see gay-themed movies not be so bogged down with political correctness and tired stories of angst. The main character seemed fairly well adjusted for a gay teen in rural Texas so no saccharine, coming out drama here!
"The Secret Life" starts with the worst possible narrative intro: "The crimes committed by Jeffrey Dahmer are too horrible to make a film about...". Okay, so what are you suggesting? That we shouldn't bother to continue watching as the film won't be accurate or bloody, anyway? And they were right, too! The film isn't the least bit shocking and contains almost no blood or gore at all. Although I think that's mainly due to the low budget production values and not because of Dahmer's crimes being too horrific. Basically, "The Secret Life: Jeffrey Dahmer" is just one sequence repeated over and over again. Young, pitiful and mentally confused Jeffrey picks up victims (always males, as he was a homosexual), kills them and then talks about how it wasn't his intention to hurt them and about how lonely he is. This gets boring really quick and even the admirable performance by unknown actor Carl Crew can't save this movie from being a total dud. Still, this version is much better than the pretentious and hopelessly muddled "Dahmer" that got released in 2002.
***Possible spoilers***<br /><br />I've read up on Dahmer a little and saw the new Dahmer film (with the same name) at an earlier time. This movie here concentrates rather much on the victims and killings, too little on Dahmer himself. The film called "Dahmer" had the opposite problem, it was too little about his crimes and too much about himself.<br /><br />I did not find the acting to my satisfaction, it had a certain amateur feel too it, especially the probation officer. It also seemed as if the Dahmer acting got worse every time he played against the probation officer actor. But I might be wrong about that.<br /><br />What annoyed me a bit was that some of the scenes were quite disturbing but that the filmmakers seemed to try and show "the real deal" about what he did anyway. That is ok - but what I then don't understand is why the guy who ran away from his flat while Dahmer was out getting beer, was not depicted being naked, since that is also how it happened. It's not a big deal, but it just eats away further on the movies quality that such details are left out. What wasn't shown either or not even really hinted was Dahmers sexual obsession with the dead. Again, I don't mind they didn't SHOW it, but at least they could have mentioned it or built it in to the movie somehow.<br /><br />Conclusion: I think the really good Dahmer film is still to be made, a movie that incorporates not only Dahmers crimes but also who he was, and why he did what he did. I think that 1.5 or 2 hours are just not enough to grasp the complexity of it all. This movie was just a cutout (excuse the pun) of Dahmers life and personality and does not give you any 'close to good' insight into his life or personality.<br /><br />4/10
Jefferey dahmer was one sick guy. There's not much to say about him that hasn't already been said, except that the many documentaries, and films made about him are probably better than this one. It's Ridiculously cheesy. It's so cheesy, a guy who posted the whole film on youtube added some annotations to make the viewer laugh.<br /><br />Carl Crew (Who's he?) stars as Serial killer Jeffrey dahmer, Who's killing spree began in 1978 with a young guy dahmer just wanted to be friends with, a finally in 1991 with a man he wished to have sex with, and eat.<br /><br />I didn't bother to watch the whole film through. it's basically a documentary that shows all the attacks dahmer pulled off before he got caught. And since this film was made in 1993, one year before dahmer was bludgeoned to death by a fellow inmate, The death of dahmer isn't shown. but it Probably would've been as cheesy as this cheese-fest.<br /><br />1/10
"Hoods" doesn't deliver the goods. This half-baked mafia comedy boasts a stellar cast, including Joe Mantegna, Kevin Pollack, Joe Pantoliano, Jennifer Tilly, and Seymour Cassel, along with a number of faces familiar to those who watch crime movies, but it is truly a misfire if there ever was one. Writer & director Mark Malone, best known for writing "Dead of Winter" for "Bonnie & Clyde" director Arthur Penn, has penned up a pedestrian potboiler that has an ailing but vengeful mob boss Louie Martinelli (Seymour Cassel) dispatching his son Angelo (Joe Mantegna of "House of Games") to whack Carmine DellaRosa. It seems that a rival mob fire-bombed one of Pop's warehouses (in the opening scene) and Martinelli wants payback. Trouble is that nobody has a clue as to who Carmine DellaRosa is. In any other mob comedy, such a complication might be amusing, but here is just plain flat. Angelo and a carload of wiseguys, including his best pal Rudy (Kevin Pollack of "Deterrence") spend half of the time trying to find out who Carmine is. Neither Rudy nor Angelo want to perform the hit, so they track down a crazy mob hit-man Charlie (Joe Pantoliano of "Bad Boys") to do the dirty deed. Before they can convince Charlie to make the hit, they have to locate him, and Charlie's slutty wife Mary (Jennifer Tilly of "Bound") reveals that he is locked up in a mental hospital. Our misfit heroes cruise out to the mental hospital and break Charlie out. About half of the movie is over before they discover that Carmine is a kid in short pants (Vincent Berry) who is bland and harmless. Indeed, Carmine has the only decent line in the movie. As our brainless bunch of heroes wheel away from his house with him in the backseat to take care of business, Carmine warns them that they need to get him home in time or his father will kill him. Charlie tries to ice the urchin but he cannot. Instead, he reconnects with his feelings and wants to go back to the mental hospital so he can report the good news to his doctor. Meanwhile, after Charlie decides not to shoot Carmine, the kid gets his paws on the pistol and pops off several aimless rounds. Angelo and he struggle over the automatic. The pistol slips out of their collective hands and hits the ground, goes off, and blows a hole in Rudy's chest. Now, keep in mind that Rudy never wanted to shoot the kid in the first place, and Angelo and he argued over the wrong-headedness of the hit. So Rudy winds up on the ground with a fatal wound, while Angelo struggles to stop the bleeding. Talk about a dull death scene. Angelo is conflicted himself because his father ordered the hit and Angelo fears that dad will do him in if he doesn't execute orders. There is a flashback subplot about Angelo's father teaching him how to handle a gun that provides some insight into Angelo's reluctance to pack a gun.<br /><br />There is nothing remotely redeeming about this depressing comedy with a downer of an ending. Things gets worse, and if you last through this 90 minute nonsense, you'll see what I mean. The comedy is largely laugh-less. Good actors wallow in sketchy roles that aren't even funny. Perhaps director Malone was trying to do another comedy like "The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight." If he was, he missed by a mile. Big-breasted Jennifer Tilly shows cleavage and snarls through a couple of scenes with Mantegna, but she doesn't do much of anything else. She's the stereotypical slut who doesn't even get naked. A paycheck is the only way to explain the presence of such a talented cast, otherwise this picture is pathetic from start to finish. Initially, I had hoped that this might be a "Ransom of Red Chief" knockoff where the kid drives the wiseguys nuts, but no such luck here. Of course, the biggest surprise is that they have to kill a kid, but it's not the kind of a surprise that makes you want to watch it up to its resolution.<br /><br />I actually bought this movie on a Canadian DVD label—Seville—and it contains only the most basic special features. If you hate previews that give away the plot, don't watch the trailer. If you ever meet Joe Mantegna, one of your first questions should be why he helped to produce this yawner. It is neither hilarious nor dramatic. There are no quotable lines, and none of the characters stand out as either interesting or sympathetic. The Seville DVD presents the movie in full frame with no subtitles or closed captioning.
How can you make a joke about Mafia? It is not the kind of subject to laugh at! A near movie cannot make me laugh, because I am comparing it to Jane Austen's Mafia!. Mafia! wasn't a good movie but Hoods is really worse! In Mafia!, there were some good jokes but in this one there are maybe two or three...that make you smile. Not too bad actors but very bad scenario!! We sure prefer something serious like The Godfather. I give it * out of *****.
I've watched the first 15 minutes and I can tell that there was no consultation with any military type personnel. Judith Light's charactor (an officer) has her hair down past her shoulders! One of the first officers that greets her as she walks in to the medical facility she works at is so overweight that his pant pockets gap! No - there was no military advising them on this movie. Even an ex-military enlisted could have assisted here.
I've been hearing a lot of this new bird flu that has killed dozens of people in South East Asia over the last three years . Apparently it's on the thresh hold of mutating into something very contagious and millions upon millions of people are going to be wiped out in a global pandemic . Just thought I'd mention this in case you haven't got round to writing your will yet .<br /><br />I'd also thought I'd mention it since I was watching something called CARRIERS tonight which wasn't about naval warfare but opens with a scene that's a cross between OUTBREAK and an episode of THE X FILES I saw many years ago . I thought I'd be watching something with added resonance after hearing the stories about the danger posed by bird flu but after the not unimpressive opening CARRIERS descends into a cheap and cheerful TVM and like every other TVM you'll see the lead characters are female , one of which is a ballsy authority figure while the other lead female is a mother of young children . It goes without saying there's a sick child subplot too <br /><br />What is irritating about the TVM format is that it overwhelms the potential of what could have been quite a good film if it was made for cinema . There's a fairly gory scene of someone coughing blood all over a nurses face and a very impressive jay walker getting run down stunt but these bits are quickly forgotten as the mood descends into family sentiment since this - And just about every other TVM ever made - was made for an essentially female audience
OK, imagine that every state in the US, nay, every country has exactly the same trees growing and ground foliage. Imagine, also, that a monkey-trapper's camp so far off the beaten track you had to do the first half of the approach by river has a beautifully tarmac'd, perfectly straight road leading up to it. Imagine a world where you have to wear a full biohazard suit to collect a floppy disk, then you just drop it in a ziploc bag and transfer it to your pocket with no precautions as soon as you get back to the office. A world where two nine-year old girls are happy to give lots of blood without complaining. This is the world this movie is set in.<br /><br />On top of that, it's one of the most cliché-ridden pieces of excrement it's been my misfortune to witness in many a year.<br /><br />I liked it. :)
I'm not going to bother mentioning any of the plot - this is strictly a B movie on its way to obscurity. The shock to me, though, is seeing what has become of some of the actors in this film. Erika Eleniak, never anything you'd call a thespian anyway, seems to have morphed into Anna Nicole Smith (in her Big period). Daniel Bernhardt - I almost shed a tear. He's always been a favorite of mine because of his martial arts prowess, as seen in the Bloodsport series (also B movies but, if you like martial arts, eminently watchable). Here, he is a shell of his former self - sure, he's older, but doing the mercenary thing and not even looking interested ... I just don't get it. Don't these people invest? William Forsythe is another "heavy" that I've always liked, but his last several roles are what you would call "mailing it in". I'm not going to even mention Mr. Reynolds - his gig here amounts to a throwaway, nothing more. The only winner is Andrew Divoff, as usual a creepy, evil, pockmarked villain with a sandpaper voice that can curdle milk - the best kind! This is a movie you watch for laughs. There's nothing else to it.
Like a terrible cancer raining out of the sky, I wandered into this crock on some movie channel the other night. Being a fan of bad movies, and actively engaging in the purchasing and viewing of said bad film, i was intrigued by the idea of a genuinely terrible looking action movie coming from modern times. After that wore off though, I found my hands inexplicably turning against me, grabbing at anything in range and stabbing about my head and neck. Something sinister was in that tape...err...where was I...anyway this ranks among the more embarrassingly bad pieces of film I've run across. William Forsythe can't play more than one character, and that character is always a walking joke. Even when set into a comic background and given things to do and say that are supposed to be funny (ala Deuce Bigalo) he's laughable in the wrong way. Erika Eleniak is much the same, having starred in her fair share of terrible movies and done terrible jobs in all of them, she doesn't fail to help scum up this one. Classic b-movie villain guy Andrew Divoff does a respectable job but barely even has any scenery to chew on. Even reliable standby for b-movie action Daniel Bernhardt fails to deliver anything bordering on entertainment. As for the film's own merits, the plot is lame, the script, just like the action and the plot movement, is both dull and...well, stupid, for lack of a better adjective(lord knows they didn't put any effort into it, why should I?).<br /><br />Anyone who has seen enough movies has seen some bad ones, and anyone who has seen enough bad ones can learn to appreciate them, but there is simply nothing here to be enjoyed unless you are among the most bad movie tolerant and simply feel so inclined as to test your mettle. Before you do though, take it from me, this one isn't even terrible enough to be enjoyed (unlike say...some of the more ludicrous Italian zombie films). A fan of b-movie action would be much better off checking out most any of Bernhardt's other films, or pretty much anything else that has ever been put to film for that matter. America simply is not the place to go to for action it seems, especially not now. If you have a craving, check out anything from over the seas, films like Heroic Duo or the slightly less normal Hakaider(along with anything else in the awesome Keita Amemiya's cannon) will provide a lot more fun and way better action than your apt to find elsewhere, especially here.
Recap: Simon leads a little team of special agents that has specialized in finding and returning missing people, against all possible odds. Their latest mission is about the granddaughter of a friend of them. She seems to have been caught in the web of a particularly brutal criminal and everyone that has gone looking for her has gone missing. But now The Librarians are on the case.<br /><br />Comments: This is pure B-action, through and through. The key phrase for this is unlimited supply. There is unlimited supply of ammunition, they don't have to reload once. There is an unlimited supply of bad guys, so the heroes have something to shoot at. There is an unlimited supply of breasts, many of them bare, in an vain (and as always failed) attempt to distract from the plot holes. And there is an unlimited supply of bad acting (it is almost like Erika Eleniak's performance shines in this, what about that?), and actors that don't seem to care more than the paycheck (and why should they when no one else seem to?).<br /><br />And as in most B-action movies there are an unlimited supply of bad gunfights. But these almost seem to be of a ridiculously bad kind. I think I saw more realistic gunfights when I played cowboy as a kid.<br /><br />But then again I didn't really expect much either, how could I from a action movie named The Librarians? And it actually delivers about what could be expected. 90 minutes of more or less bad action with some scenes to connect the dots between. But I am unsure if I can call it entertaining, it didn't keep my interest very long.<br /><br />3/10
I heard the stories of the ravers in the movie and thats great but that is only 1/100 of the movie. The problem with this movie is the cheesiness. I never really got the plot or why the guy was stealing girls. That makes no sense but hey...why they were in a club randomly was curious also. Many parts of this movie make no sense but overall I was interested. It was confusing on many levels...maybe I am just not indie enough for this movie but judging from the B looking end scene they ran out of money, just cut some stuff in, and forgot about the plot. Its low budget and appears so. I like the fact that they used little special effects which were bad, but they used none that were quality. I would say this film is the quintessential bad script, with alright production. It is definitely not as random as many movies I have seen but the pieces of the puzzle just don't make sense together. In effects, I would give exception to the final battle when all the effects went 1950's on my ass. Sparks out of models and the like. Watch it if you like an unintentional comedy from an action movie. Mystery science theater has a candidate.
As stated by others, this is a ludicrously horrible movie (NOT A FILM!). It is not bad in a funny way, just painful to try to endure. Don't waste your time.<br /><br />Erika Eleniak is pretty hot, but there is one scene where she is in a bathtub, and you can see the wrap covering her breasts under the bubbles. Also, she's getting fat.<br /><br />The fight scenes are so bad as to be unwatchable, if you know or care anything about martial arts, or even decent choreography, and the editing/effects are abysmal.<br /><br />There is no payoff, it goes nowhere, and sucks getting there.
All things old are new again.Erika E. is on celebrity fitness (VH1);Florida State Rep. Mark Foley is the national buzz for allegedly sending sexually explicit Emails to a 16 yr. old male page.As I edit this Mr.Foley is resigning from his representative seat. Mr.Foley you see does his turn at acting as the father of the recovered girl seen during the opening sequence. My place in movie history will forever be solidified with my appearance in the graveyard scene.I should have looked at this as a omen.I hate to say it but be warned If you place this in your DVD be prepare to put your toe on the trigger of the shotgun you'll soon have between your teeth. Your level of depression has reached its zenith.I have seen better writing put to screen on an Etch a Sketch.Shot in 1999-00 under the working title "The Librarians" in and around Palm Beach Co.Why the Librarian's you ask,well you would need to be wrapped as tight as binding to be able to read anything into this frat party of over the hill stunt men plying their trade onto celluloid for one last time.Oh well enough with the accolades...Burt Reynolds as a Irish mobster, in Miami no less...possibly the worst forced accent impression since Linda Lovelace in "Deep Throat". .William Forsythe as a hip, slick and cool tough guy...doubtful,possibly 10 years ago.I'd say it's curtain time for Mike Kirton.You now have the Forsythe to pass up this sub par movie,more like a film school project, for anything on tape,disc or paper your local retailer has to offer.
QUESTION: How does a film merit two different titles like "The Librarians" and "Strike Force"? <br /><br />ANSWER: The film is sooooooooo bad that the filmmakers couldn't even decide on a title!!!! <br /><br />This film is a hodgepodge of martial arts, death wish-vendettas, melodrama, romance, and other cliché film techniques. The story focuses on a vigilante group called The Librarians led by Agent Simon (WIlliam Forsythe). The group is hot in pursuit of a nefarious, multi-lingual, pockmarked creature named Marcos (Andrew Divoff) who captures women and holds them hostage in the lawless urban world of south Florida. <br /><br />Burt Reynolds appears as a cameo in this film, and his scene is entirely extraneous to the action. Burt delivers a long monologue in one of the strangest drawls I have ever heard. This may have been Burt's attempt at an Irish dialect, but the overall effect is a kind of perverse imitation of Marlon Brando in "The Godfather." <br /><br />Also appearing in this film is Erika Eleniak, who has infiltrated the inner circle of Marcos' bizarre world. Erika's character kick-boxes her way into an alliance with Simon. The Librarians and Erika will become a powerful strike force against evil in a film that has been delivered directly from the editing room to your cable TV converter box.
I thought it was comedy!! What a hoot! I can't believe Forsythe or Reynolds would actually appear in this piece of trash..And then there's the beautiful Erika Eleniak or whatever this piece of eye candy is called..Appears she put on a few pounds since her Playboy centerfold..Like about 50!! The story line is ludicrous, the acting absolutely horrendous, and the tired old cliché's that are run over and over and over again, boy it took a lot of stamina to sit through this dog..The only thing worth it was the LAUGHS!! And there are PLENTY! If you really want to kill say, an hour and a half pick this baby up at the rental shop, but make sure you have a room full of brain dead people to watch it with you. I think that's who it was written for.. it plays like they were thinking of a real low rent, drug induced audience for this one..
I had very high hopes walking into this movie. After all, Ocean's 11 was a truly great Hollywood product. Its rapid-fire jokes, incredible star power and tight script made it one of the most fun caper films I have ever seen. Of course, with all the money it made, a sequel was on the way, and I, for one, was excited.<br /><br />Needless to say, I was absolutely blown away by this movie. Blown away by how horribly wrong things can go. This movie had everything going for it; the return of the entire original cast, the same director, news stories of crazy on- and off-set antics. How could it possibly have gone so wrong?<br /><br />It starts immediately with one of the most awkward and unnecessary opening sequences ever and goes downhill from there. After reasonably goofy short scenes between Pitt/Zeta-Jones and Clooney/Roberts, the film spends several minutes watching Andy Garcia waltz from scene to scene, telling each individual member of Danny Ocean's original eleven that he wants his money back. Believe me when I say that these scenes are only here to pad Andy Garcia's running time, because without these ridiculously awkward shots, his screen time would be WELL under five minutes.<br /><br />This leads me to another major qualm I had with this film. The pacing is so uneven that characters are dropped completely from the story, and only sometimes brought back later. Bernie Mac's character is dropped from the script early on, and never comes back except for 2 short scenes with no dialogue. Garcia appears for the first few minutes, and returns for an exceptionally brief scene at the end. Roberts shows up for about 5 minutes at the beginning, and isn't even mentioned again until there's about 20-25 minutes left. Even Clooney himself spends a large chunk of the film in prison.<br /><br />This would all be excusable if the film was funny. At all. 90% of the jokes fall completely flat and the ones that do work are worth a chuckle at best. The "plot" is undeniably worthless, and left me feeling cheated. At one point in the film, the team takes on a job worth $2.5 million of the nearly $100 million they need to raise before Garcia's two-week deadline. Several characters even acknowledge how absurd wasting the time to do this job is, but they do it anyway! Over 30 minutes of the film revolve around this job that they shouldn't even be doing, and one gets the feeling that this part of the plot was simply added to pad the running time. Furthermore, the equipment they use to pull this job off CLEARLY cost millions upon millions to fund. Just wait until you see what they do to pull this job and realize it would cost far more than $2.5 million to pull off. Obviously, because of this, they have to pull off several jobs to make the money. The beauty of the first film was the one big con and how ingeniously and intricately it was pulled off. Here, they pull so many jobs, in so many different ways, that they rush through all of them because to explain them would make the film several hours long.<br /><br />We all know walking into this film that there will be a big twist at the end. Thus is the nature of the caper film. The twist at the end of Ocean's Twelve made me laugh; not because it was funny, but because I couldn't believe how cheated I felt. I won't give it away, because I know most of you will be foolish enough to throw down the money to see this movie anyway.<br /><br />What I will say is that it makes most of the 2 hours you have sat through already completely irrelevant.<br /><br />I was excited to see this film, after absolutely adoring Ocean's 11. I left the theater feeling like I had been the victim of a truly great con pulled by the cast and crew of this movie in tricking me into thinking that this movie would actually be worth watching. I have never given a 1 to a movie on IMDb.com, but there's a first time for everything. Consider yourselves warned....1/10
Every James Bond movie has its own set of rules. Just like every Indiana Jones movie has ITS own set of rules. And the fact that screenwriters don't break these rules maintains the integrity of the characters. With a completely unnecessary plot twist, the integrity of both Ocean films plummets somewhere between Airplane 2 and a Roadrunner cartoon.<br /><br />Imagine what would happen, while teetering on the rope bridge outside of the Temple of Doom, if Indy told Shorty and Willie not to worry because throughout the entire first two movies he's secretly had super powers and can fly them both to safety.<br /><br />Entertaining? Sure, for a Roadrunner cartoon. But Spielberg would never have done that because it would have destroyed the integrity of the film. More importantly, it would have ANGERED the audience. They'd already sat on the edge of their seats through 3 hours worth of Indiana Jones movies and they were counting on Indiana to get them off that bridge in a believable way. If he were to fly off? People would have walked out of the theaters the same way people did during Ocean's 12.<br /><br />SPOILERS<br /><br />1. Julia Roberts'character, Tess, infiltrates a museum by disguising herself as...Julia Roberts?!? A clever twist? By breaking the fourth wall three hours after we've been introduced to these characters? Is this the Naked Gun 33 and 1/3? It's a textbook example of how a cheap laugh can ruin an entire film. But wait...just in case you haven't walked out yet...<br /><br />2. The suspense builds throughout the last hour of the movie -- how will they pull off the heist -- there are only 10...8...5...2 DAYS LEFT! And then in the last 12 minutes of the film, the ONLY entertaining part of this movie, we see that the heist was made days earlier and took Matt Damon all of 30 seconds to pull off. The past 10 days? A complete waste of your time.<br /><br />BACK TO INDIANA JONES ON THE ROPE BRIDGE..."Just relax, Willie! I stole the REAL stones back about a month ago! Besides, I convinced them you were Kate Capshaw!"<br /><br />If you haven't already seen it, cut your losses and go see the Polar Express. I don't want to ruin the ending for you, but there really is a Santa Claus. Most importantly, you won't feel cheated leaving the theater.
SPOILER!! Terrible camera work, horrible writing, non-existent plot, and numerous plot wholes. Wonderful acting! Except for Julia Roberts. Who poorly plays someone who is impersonating Julia Roberts, poorly. Catherine Zeta Jones is adorable in this movie.<br /><br />During the movie, we repeatedly zoom in, on each of the twelve (!) characters. Twelve is too many, even for a classic like 12 Angry Men. And the problem is, we tediously zoom in on the characters, when all of them are in the same room, doing the same thing.<br /><br />Yep, Clooney's eating. Yep, Pitt's eating. Yep, the "Jew" is eating. Yep, the geek is eating. Yep, the bodybuilder's eating. Yep, Mr. Sensitive is eating. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep--Yep. Yep. Phew! This happens at least three other times in the movie. Yep, they're all sitting in cars, bored. Yep, they're all getting arrested, frightened. Yep, they're all being led out of a jail, depressed.<br /><br />But it wasn't until I was home that I realized how badly they'd "got" me on this one. This is a heist movie, right? That's what I went to see, right? But when I walked in and set my car keys in the change jar, only then I realized: NOTHING WAS ACTUALLY STOLEN IN THIS MOVIE! That's right. It's a heist movie, where nothing gets stolen. Oh, they try. They go to try and steal some boring document or something, from some guy's house (whatever), and it turns out it's already been stolen. 20 minutes of my life, wasted. Then they try to steal some egg from some museum (YAWN!), and they screw that up and get arrested.<br /><br />Then we see how some fairy french guy stole the egg even before they did, and we get all the joy of "Entrapment", except this time the person inside the tight catsuit dancing around the fake lasers is... an ugly skinny french guy. Um.<br /><br />But it turns out he didn't actually steal the egg either. Actually, our heroes stole the egg, LOOOONG ago, in another movie entirely, which would have been a GREAT movie to watch, had they made that movie.<br /><br />Instead we see a 30 second clip in black-and-white about how they robbed some college student of his back-pack. You heard me... the daring caper, the ultimate heist-- the buildup of this 2 and a half hours of utter boring crap-- is them stealing a back-pack from a college student, by creatively getting into a fight over baseball teams and distracting him, and replacing his back-pack with an identical back-pack? What?? <br /><br />Ugh. I'm telling you, this was so bad, I didn't even realize just how bad it was-- just how badly I'd been robbed-- until I got home.
Unfortunately I think this is one of those films that if you or I took it to the studio and said, 'can I make this great movie with my friends Mary, Mungo and Midge from school?' the studio would have you kicked to death on the spot. However, if a bunch of massive Hollywood names say, 'look, I fancy a jaunt to Italy with my mates, how about it?' the studio writes a cheque.<br /><br />We kick off with the casino boss from Ocean's 11 tracking down the robbers who made off with his cash, and then Brad Pitt is shagging Catherine Zeta Jones, and then there's some monkeying about in Amsterdam and Italy and such and such and then it all ends somehow.<br /><br />The film does, however, include the most shameful moment of both Julia Roberts' and Bruce Willis' careers, which is a cinematic gem. I nearly vomited in my lap and tore my eyes out when Julia Roberts, playing Tess in the movie, pretends to be (you guessed it) Julia Roberts! Bruce Willis stands about clearly wondering when he can leave, and how much the cheque will be.<br /><br />Ah well, to be fair, I'd have done it for the cash, so I suppose I can't really criticize the poor loves, but I'm a penniless slob not a Hollywood legend. I guess what really annoys me about this film is not that it is boring and pointless and has a terrible story, but that I think the actors probably all had good fun doing it! I think the actor's entire job is to project emotion outwards...I feel like I paid to go to the party, but had to stand outside in the rain. Booo!<br /><br />Watch it if you like Como, or fancy CZJ or something, but otherwise go for a walk.
Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia) catches up with Danny Ocean and his team and demands that they repay the money that they stole from him (in Oceans 11) plus interest. He holds back from violent action however as he is under the instruction of the world's greatest thief, the Night Fox. The team then have to pull off a series of heists to pay Benedict back whilst testing their abilities against the Night Fox who wishes to maintain his position as the greatest thief ever. Put simply, this film is a complete mess. The masses may argue that it is "cool" and that Clooney and Pitt put in great performances but these are the same people who have a subscription to "Hello" magazine and think that David Beckham has the potential to be a great actor. The story is convoluted, it is not complex or clever and it does not have intelligent twists and turns, it is just a complete mess that spills out in multiple directions with the hope that the audience will think it is cool and intelligent (Hello magazine readers). Any respectable movie watcher will however see the film for the farce that it is. Whilst Oceans 11 wasn't a great film it had a decent pace, was stylish and had some decent twists and turns. This movie loses its way very quickly and then basically gives up. It is as if the director and cast said to themselves, hey this isn't really working out, lets just have a laugh! Indeed the cast looks like they are enjoying themselves but I was not. I will not delve into the plot as its confused evolution does not warrant any examination. The addition of Catherine Zeta Jones is largely annoying. The scenes where Julia Roberts impersonates herself (with Bruce Willis undertaking a cameo role) whilst mildly amusing appear to be a desperate move to keep the audience interested. The movie is so full of plot holes that it as if Arnie has emptied an Uzi 9mm into the film studio. Credit can only be given to some scenes where the Night Fox uses Caopeira to undertake a heist against the back drop of some funky music but this is hardly justification to watch the movie. The final scene features the team in a nonsensical drunken stupor; this accurately sums up the movie. Stick with the original.
I felt compelled to write about this movie after i joined IMDb because i thought it was the worst script writing i have seen in a while.<br /><br />The acting/direction/other-areas of the movie are fantastic. I love brad Pitt with George Clooney. It works. The witty banter was still there too from the first movie. My question is how in the world did they let this script out of the drafting process? I thought that not only did the plot develop like a slug racing to the end of the sidewalk, but that twist? (can i call it that) was so incredibly stupid that i wanted to go demand a refund from the ticket booth. I have never felt so played and used from a movie in my entire life. Here i was expecting something similar to the first movie (good chemistry, good acting, good direction, amazing plot) only to find that they had taking my 8 dollars and made a mockery out of it.<br /><br />The part that gets me still is that this movie has now grossed more than 125 million dollars.<br /><br />In summary, I felt that this movie insulted my intelligence. I still feel like the only part the writers concentrated on was that little bit with Julia Roberts acting like Julia Roberts. This movie made me sad and angry.
Ocean's 12 starts off on annoying and gets worse from there on. Like a celebrity awards presentation, each major actor/actress is introduced in short 60-second scenarios that seem to stop just short having a blinking "applaud now" sign. The first 60 minutes of the film are incredibly disjointed, poorly edited, and at times, utterly unrelated to the story and confusing. Speaking of the story,...there is one, kinda,...but its barely visible for all the "look at me" shots and cameos. Only Matt Damon seemed to actually "act" during this film...the rest of the cast appeared to only be there to participate in a rat-pack-wanna-be session. As for the heist, the action, the drama....it was put into the last 8-10 minutes of the movie and was pathetic and anticlimactic. Horrible! Horrible! Horrible!
I had read the newspaper reviews of this film and I must say my expectations were very low before watching Ocean's 12. I really enjoyed the first movie but this successor is one of the worst movies ever. I would rate it top 5 of the worst movie I have ever seen. Why do I say that? First of all there is a story so thin that Britney Spears Crossroads looks like the perfect action thriller. The fragments that could be assigned the term "story" is loosely held together at times but most of the time the movie just moves along with no purpose or drive. The entire story seems forced and the script surrounding the story is even more forced that it become farce at times.<br /><br />The actors show up but doesn't do anything to deserve any credit or appraise. Most embarrassing are leading ladies (Roberts and Zeta-Jones) that either overplay or are extremely plain. Damon, Clooney and Pitt aren't brilliant either. To be honest I really don't understand how they would want to be associated with something as bad as this movie.<br /><br />=== May contains spoilers ==== Camera and editing, sigh where should I begin. There are many unnecessary camera movements that just make the experience painful. Combine that with extremely untactful editing and you start looking for a wooden spoon to carve your heart out. Especially the scene where the entire gang is moved out of the prison to be transported away by car. The camera zoom to each person just get boring and when you are at number 3 of 12 you got the message: wow you are cool and can do simple zoom effects - NOT. I understand that the scene with Tess Ocean (Julia Roberts) playing Julia Roberts is supposed to be funny but it just gets extremely embarrassing and you turn away to avoid experiencing the mess. Bruce Willis. Why? Please explain it to me! WHY???<br /><br />To summarize ... if you have to choose between root canal work and watching Ocean's 12 I recommend the former. Make sure they do all the teeth while you are at it ...
This was the biggest disappointment of a movie...:( Sucks, cos I was really looking forward to it.<br /><br />All the twists were crap. They were ALL flashbacks!!! <br /><br />What makes a good heist movie is the BELIEVABILITY of the the job. Yes it has to be surprising so the audience is stunned, but if you walk away and go that's bulls#!t... what's the point? <br /><br />Plus the main heist was a bag snatch anyway! You didn't get to see the team operating at it's full deceptive and brilliant potential. There was not even ONE good heist in this movie! They were all rubbish.. including that french idiot's break dancing crap to get through the lasers... it's easy to do that when they are composited in afterwards! Plus that kind of stuff has already been done in at least one other movie.. and it was stupid then as well...<br /><br />Also, there's no reason to have even HALF of the 12 or 11 in this movie! What difference do half of the cast really make to the outcome of this movie??? Half the SCENES don't even need to be there! <br /><br />The first one was classy. This was CHEAP! And it makes the whole team loose credibility. Especially Ocean himself for bowing down the Bennett.
I was watching this movie and getting increasingly bored with the silly plot that was going nowhere, when suddenly, the story takes a surreal turn for the worse and has an actor playing herself. Oh how I guffawed. Because it's sooooo funny, isn't it? We know Julia Roberts is playing the character of Tess, and here they are, in the film, cracking the joke that the character of Tess looks a bit like Julia Roberts. So Julia plays someone impersonating Julia. How well she does this, we'll never know, because 99.999% of the audience don't actually know Julia Roberts personally (and reading about her in Hello magazine doesn't count). <br /><br />And then Bruce Willis turns up! Apparently, he's Julia Roberts' best friend. Well, he is in the film... how would I know whether or not Bruce Willis and Julia Roberts even know each other? I'm not in the least bit interested in the personal lives of actors - I just pay my money and expect them to do the job they're paid to do. Anyway they start cracking jokes about the plot twist in the film where Willis (rather unconvincingly) plays a psychiatrist... the one with the little kid in it... you know the one? I don't, I've forgotten what it's called. Willis even drops in a comment about how well that film did at the box office - how modest of you Mr Willis!<br /><br />The problem is that, not only are these scenes pointless and horribly horribly self-indulgent, it also remind us, the viewers, that we're simply watching a bunch of actors strutting around and getting paid vast sums of money for very little effort. You see, when I see a movie, I want to suspend disbelief and forget that I'm watching actors - I want to believe in the story I'm watching. When you start pulling the scenery down, mid- movie, you simply ruin the illusion for me.<br /><br />You know that a TV series has jumped the shark when it starts introducing celebrities, playing themselves (stand up and be counted The Simpsons, Friends, etc.), but this is the first time I've seen a movie jump the shark. I usually stay away from movies like that (e.g. Scary Movie, The Naked Gun, etc.). The trouble is, I honestly never thought the Ocean's 11 films would go in this direction. What a shame.<br /><br />So with suspension of disbelief thrown out the window, and the plot now languishing in the movie then cracks the most wicked joke of all on the audience - the heist actually happened way back in the story, and the final 90 minutes or so of the film was pointless posturing. Yes, that's right: Steven Soderwhatsit and his actor friends all get up, point at us the audience and say, "Ha haaa... you've all been had... thanks for your money!". Then they give us the single fingered salute.<br /><br />Well, right back at you. I didn't actually pay to see this movie... I downloaded the DVD for nothing. How d'ya like them apples? Now THAT'S a plot twist.
Man I loved Ocean's 11.<br /><br />Smart movie. All eleven characters were crucial to the heist as each had their own specialised skill that was necessary to pull of the grand finale.<br /><br />What on earth was Oceans 12? What was the purpose of the twelfth person? I assume it's supposed to be Zeta-Jones but she wasn't really a part of the 11 as she was trying to trip them up and working against them the whole film?? It was more like the story of Brad and Zeta-Jones' characters boring relationship with some bits from the original movie thrown in just to get some bums on seats to watch the movie.<br /><br />With O-11, the gang were always a step ahead of Benedict (Garcia). They were always able to outsmart him. What happened here? He catches up with them after a tip-off and suddenly they're all wusses? The whole movie is so that they can raise the money they stole plus interest to repay back Benedict for the heist they pulled on him 3 years earlier. So next movie they're going to develop courage and brains again and get him back for making them pay him back for the first heist? Puh-lease...<br /><br />This movie could have been achieved with just Brad Pitt, Zeta-Jones and 5 mins of Matt Damon for the switcheroo scene.<br /><br />Slow moving movie, not the energy of the first one. I tried hard to like it and I'm usually very easy to please but I'm really disappointed.<br /><br />SPOILER!!! The twist - the whole movie didn't need to have been made as the real heist was done before everything you just saw over the past 2 hours.<br /><br />END SPOILER.<br /><br />Wait until it comes on TV or if you're a fan of the original from 2001 please don't watch this.
What a ridiculous waste of time and money!!!! This movie was the biggest loser of the year. All the hype was a warning. I am disappointed for Julia Roberts, by far she is the most talented cast member. I think her ability to truly act carried the film. The buddy buddy boys club was a little too phony, and to add insult to injury why bother to cast Catherine Zeta Jones? She only has the ability to ruin a film. She lacks the ability to have on screen chemistry with anyone, not to mention she lacks the ability to act. She lacks chemistry with the other characters: kind of reminiscent of "America's Sweetheart's". She made "The Terminal" terminal. This movie is headed nowhere, what a shame, please please don't tell me "13" is on the way!
I hadn't planned on watching O12 because I didn't like O11 that much. I thought O11 was a nice but slightly boring little bank robbers movie with a sensational arsenal of stars. Anyway I was talked into watching O12 one night and I regretted it a lot. The plot is not only boring but also senseless. I honestly don't even know what it was all about. I left the movie after 3 quarters and got some coffee with another girl who didn't like it. Much more pleasure I can tell you that. But even the guys who stayed till the end later reported to me that the plot continued being awful and useless. My advice: Don't watch. Go watch Team America (hilarious btw;-)) and forget about Ocean's Twelve.<br /><br />In my opinion the most boring and senseless peace of crap to be on the screen in years.
I've seen "professional" reviews claiming Julia Roberts playing herself was "clever and very funny". I think NOT. An actress playing herself? And doing it with her same usual dizziness whenever she tries comedy? Talk about Hollyweird narcissism at it's utmost. Why doesn't she just stand there and go, "Me, me, me. Look at me!." The director and writer should be shot for not thinking of something better then this in what could have been a charming sequel. and by the way Steven, when the audience starts paying more attention to the weird camera angles then the story you have a problem. Capra, Hitchcock, all used some creative cameras but they were talented enough not to lose the audience in them or just show off with the camera. You seem to have forgotten a cardinal rule of film-making in the name of "style". The Pitt and Zeta Jones chemistry is quite good however, perhaps if they had made the film more focused around them and dispensed with the narcissism it might have worked. Once again Zeta Jones shows how she's got more talent and beauty then Roberts could dream of. Sadly, this film wastes talent and fails on many accounts. I want my money back.
Just like most people, I couldn't wait to see this Ocean's 11 sequel but it really stinks, I must say. It stinks because there's simply no good screenplay,it was just cheap. I hope the producers donate all the money this movie has made (or will make) to the tsunami-victims in Asia so this movie will have at least one good reason to exist. It is so bad I even can't write a decent comment about it but....i still advise the creators of this thing to make "Ocean's 13". Ocean's 13 will be about the same thieves who are trying to steal a screenplay well hidden somewhere in Hollywood. The 13th member will be a foreign (maybe,Russian) screenplay-writer who knows all tricks to write a copy of this well hidden screenplay, so they can replace the original they'll have to steal. Or they need to find at least 13 people to write a decent screenplay for a movie in which not only Julia Roberts plays herself but even all other star-members of the Ocean's-films. 13 People because it's the lucky number of Andy Garcia's character.
The people who bash this movie were looking for it to be as cool and slick as the first one, which this isn't. This movie was supposed to be the complete opposite as Ocean's 11. This has been said by a lot of the cast members and also the director, Steven Soderbergh. Ocean's 12, while it did lack a gripping plot, is being bashed because it was different then what people wanted. If it were released before Ocean's 11, it would be taken much differently, not as a failed sequel. The problem with sequels is people go into it with a preset idea of what it should be like it and have lots of expectations. They should go into this movie with an open mind and not expect it to be "Ocean's 11, again".
I didn't expect a lot when i went out to see this, but my god what a disappointment. The original was kind of fun within it's genre, but this is so bad, i felt abused when i left the theater. There's no plot, it's not funny, it's not enjoyable to watch, it's straight out embarrassing. After an hour i hoped my patience would be rewarded but now i regret not leaving the theater. Do yourself a favor and ignore this one, see it when it comes to the small screen. Or see it on budget DVD, whatever you do don't waste any money on it. Don't say i didn't warn you.
Comparing Oceans Twelve to the 2001 Oceans Eleven, did anyone else notice all the things that stayed the same?<br /><br />- All the stars returned for Twelve, and Zeta-Jones was added;<br /><br />- Twelve had the same director;<br /><br />- Twelve had the same producers;<br /><br />- Twelve had the same production designer;<br /><br />- Twelve had the same music director;<br /><br />- Twelve had the same film editor.<br /><br />Did anyone notice the things than changed once the "Oceans" franchise was established?<br /><br />- Twelve's budget was $25 million (30%) greater;<br /><br />- Eleven got great reviews, but Twelve largely got panned;<br /><br />- Eleven made $450 million but Twelve dropped to $362 million;<br /><br />- Domestic box office for Twelve dropped 32%;<br /><br />- Soderbergh teamed with a different screenwriter.<br /><br />Movies are a director's medium, of course. I almost forgot.
Watching this movie brings several words to mind: "sophomoric", "ridiculous", "improbable", "self-indulgent" and finally (and fatally), "boring". Badly directed, badly photographed and badly acted, the film is a confusing mess with plot lines (if one can call them that) veering in all directions. Someone may have used a five-year old's finger painting as a template. As punishment for this childish crime of a movie, this cast of "stars" should be spanked soundly and sent to their respective beds without dinner. . All in all, it seems like George needed an excuse to get together with his little buddies for a paid summer vacation and we're the suckers paying for it. Bad George! Bad!
What can I say about Ocean's Twelve? Who thought that it would ever come to this? A gigantic mess that loses itself halfway and can't retrace. I found myself amazed at how bad this really was. Really! I have never seen the ending properly because this film is just insufferable. I'm a huge fan of the first but this is a lame excuse for a sequel. <br /><br />What was the point of the heist if they were going to give the money back? The movie is just boring and so drag along that I can't ever sit through this. It really is bad. Just stay as far, repeat, far away as possible from this movie. It's worthless.
I enjoyed Oceans 11, I thought it was quite enjoyable, helped by the performances and the direction. However, I was disappointed with this film. Don't get me wrong, it is not a complete dud, thanks to the stellar performances from Brad Pitt, Catherine Zeta-Jones, George Clooney and Matt Damon especially and the efficient direction from Steven Soderbergh. However, the film really does suffer from truly lethargic pacing, some of the film was so slow I almost fell asleep between one key twist. Second, the plot is very convoluted and there are many twists and turns that makes it hard to keep up. The camera work wasn't as innovative as it was in the first movie either. Whereas in the first movie, it was smooth and professional, it was jerky and awkward here, and the music wasn't particularly memorable. The screenplay also wasn't as witty or as fun, and the film felt anti-climatic. At the end of the day it all felt a bit too lazy, despite the expert playing and direction. So much potential, but really a missed opportunity. 4/10 Bethany Cox
Ocean's Twelve: just plain stupid, bad and nothing compared to the other two.<br /><br />An art robbery. 10 known actors, at least. A weak script and very slow developing idea. That's why I characterize a movie I only saw at least 20 minutes of it. Don't get me wrong, you may like it. But I only like the Ocean's films because of the Heist theme. If Ocean's 12 it's not about Heist then what's the point to see it? Glad Soderberg saw his main error and redeemed himself by making a film far superior to the first one. Kudos for that.<br /><br />Steven Soderberg isn't really a good director. Apart from his hit "Sex lies and videotapes"... nothing else happened so much great to the career of this director. Shame on him. But his fault only.
Oh, how the critics fell all over themselves to praise their goldenboy Paul Schrader (author of Taxi Driver) when this movie came out. I never saw the qualities they were detecting when I watched this movie back in the day, so I re-viewed it, to see if I got it wrong. Mishima is extremely uninteresting. This is a chilly, unremarkable movie about an author living/working in a chilly abstruse culture. The flat reenactments don't hold your attention because they are emotionally adrift and stagy. And the rest of it just sits there being awful... with soldiers singing songs about the masculinity they pledge themselves to, hairsplitting about purity, the admiration of swords, etc.<br /><br />It must be a triumph when you learn you've landed Philip Glass; but then you have to get something out of him. Glasses score offers not a whit of distinction from his other work, nor does it provide the film any perceptible value. In 2010 it should be clear to anyone that Schrader squandered his career on work of no impact or importance (Cat People, AutoFocus, Light Sleeper, Patty Hearst, American Gigolo). He can bore you to pieces, and kill the momentum of a movie, quicker than anyone else. Schrader has made a resume full of lousy, amateurish films.
This is officially the terrible, boring, corny, and ridiculous movie ever created. The movie is all about a crazy kid and his friends, and they land a 747. His dreams are very corny and make no sense at all, and is very poorly done. Every special effect looks as if it was done without any modern technology, and might have been created by the kid that plays the "leading role" in the movie. If you watch this movie, it will definitely make you stupider. I advise you to never consider watching this movie, and if you do, good luck and don't miss the brain cells you killed off. My comment does not even fully grasp the awful creation from hell that has been made. The person that wrote the comment before me did not watch the same movie that I dreadfully watched, and wish I never watched. Peace.
There are no - NO redeeming qualities to this film. They didn't check a single fact - NOT ONE about... anything. I feel sorry for Larry Miller, and even more sorry for his agent for not being more capable for finding him a more suitable venue.<br /><br />The adults are all idiotic. The effects are cheesy and devoid of any sense of reality. The music is honestly cheesy. The plot is beyond belief.<br /><br />I you want to see something good with your family, see anything else. Take some time and check for mildew in your attic. My ten-year-old is mocking this film as we watch it. He's unfortunately learning that not every movie is worth watching.
When I read the reviews of Kahin Pyaar Na Ho Jaaye, I thought, "Huh?". It was THAT confusing. To be sure, I went to watch the film and what do you know? It's a remake of "The Wedding Singer". Several scenes have been changed to suit the whole essence of Indianness, but the rest of it is a direct lift from the 1998 Hollywood hit. Bollywood is no stranger to remakes, but this is one so poor that it pains me just to watch it. I groaned so much watching this and I realized I wasn't the only one doing so! One guy actually walked out of the theater and never came back! Salman Khan should seriously stop doing comedy roles. He shrieks and whines too much. Why can't he just take it easy? He doesn't do justice to the role originally acted out by Adam Sandler. He doesn't have Sandler's sense of comic timing. Rani is a wonderful actress and one of my favorites, but she's no Drew Barrymore either. The scene where she stands in front of a mirror practicing to say her new surname ("Hi, I'm Mrs Pugalia") doesn't match up to Barrymore's version ("Hi, I'm Mrs Julia Gulia"). I felt embarrassed watching that scene, even though I had loved the original. The music is not too bad. It's probably the only saving grace of this otherwise horrible film! Avoid this at all cost!
K Murli Mohan Rao made the much better BANDHAN in 1998 This film is an awful remake of THE WEDDING SINGER<br /><br />Basically in short, the film consists of: Salman Khan who in those days used to have the role of a dejected lover who looses his girl and also he had his comic scenes where he hammed badly even today he does well he does it all here too and also looses his shirt in scenes<br /><br />Jackie Shroff- wasted, bored and tired, his role is so stupid He is shown as a lover of Pooja Bhatra then in 1 scene he is shown as a womanizer?<br /><br />Inder Kumar- confusing characterization again<br /><br />Rani Mukherjee- boring, overweight and does nothing special Pooja Bhatra- tall, fair and actress worthy but lacks talent<br /><br />Kashmira Shah- says a dial as if a poetry<br /><br />Mohinish Behl- poor fellow the 2 kids were awful too<br /><br />The story is the same and has awful comic scenes, a sudden love story and boring drunken scenes plus a forced comic track of Shakti Kapoor<br /><br />Direction is poor Music is decent<br /><br />Salman khan just goes through the motions, Jackie is bad, Rani is as usual, Pooja is bad, Mohinish and Kashmira are nothing great Inder is awful
Where should I begin with this movie. All I know is that it is a mess. Be the script, story, or the actors. First of all, this movie is very disappointing from Salman Khan who gave us a fun Dulhan Hum Le Jayenge and Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega before this. Second Rani is getting really annoying, appearing in every stupid movie since Kuch Kuch Hota Hai (glad Saathiya stopped this nonsense). The story is stolen from The Wedding Singer, but ruins the funny movie. The dialogues are lacking. I may have laughed here and there, but entertained? NO!!! Salman Khan was tolerable in the above mentioned movies, but here he is insane. His character is poorly written. One minute he is poor and next minute you wonder how is he poor. Rani Mukherjee looks like a plain jain and wasn't putting any effort. She luckily redeemed her career with Saathiya because her career was going haywire around this time. Pooja Batra put a little charm here with her looks but it is still not enough. Jackie Shroff is wasted. Kashmira Shah's beauty and acting has ran away from her because she chose such a horrible script. Raveena Tandon looks beautiful, but puts little performance. Mohnish Behl gets the award for Worst (Supporting) Actor (they need Razzie's because there have been terrible movies in India). He says stupid dialogues, dances terribly, looks weird, and is not in his regular form. Just to tell you, there is more to the cast who are also terrible. If it weren't for Raveena's awesome beauty in Aa Meri Life Bana De, I wouldn't give the movie a point. Otherwise the dancing by Salman was terrible. Pooja Batra was dancing like a wind in Savariya, otherwise I wish the costumes were given a make-over and the rest of the cast (and their monkey dancing) had been blown away from the wind. The good song of the album was O Priya O Priya which doesn't have a good enough picturization. Same goes for the half way decent title song. Otherwise this movie (and the rest of the songs) are a no-no for everyone.
This is so embarrassing. It's a REMAKE of The Wedding Singer, which happens to be my favorite movie which gives me another reason to disapprove of this film. It has the same plot, same jokes, same characters. Jeez, people need to be more original.
In 1932, Humphrey Bogart was a relative unknown--an unproven actor who was starring in one of his first films. And, because he was an unknown, the movie they gave him was clearly a B-movie--a quick film with relatively low expectations. After seeing it, I could see why it would still take Bogart many more years AND another film studio before he became a household name. While the film isn't terrible, it certainly isn't good--making it more of a curiosity than anything else when seen today.<br /><br />Bogart is a pilot who has dreams of building his own aircraft engine company. However, when a vacuous rich playgirl comes his way, his dreams all seem to go on hold. As one of the characters in the film said, the combination of the two is like oil and water--they just don't mix.<br /><br />While Bogart is throwing away his promising career, his sister is going full speed on the Road to Skankville--having met a sleazy guy who convinces her to sleep with rich guys so they can shake them down for tons of cash! Bogey has no idea his sister ISN'T the actress she claims to be and doesn't realize later that the rich woman he loves leaves him for the same guy whose mistress is....Bogart's SISTER!!! All this leads up to a finale that is reasonably enjoyable. However, what follows is one of the dumbest scenes I have watched in a very long time! By now, the rich lady is not going to marry the guy sleeping with Bogey's sister (whew!) but because she's now poor and no good for Bogart, she's about to fly away and kill herself. Bogey finds out, chases the plane on foot, jumps on the plane as it's taking off and crawls up the fuselage to take control of the plane and save her!!! This is so utterly silly and ridiculous, I found myself laughing out loud. Up until then, I might have scored it a 4 or 5--this sunk the movie to a 3 (how one reviewer gave this an 8 is beyond me).<br /><br />The bottom line is that this was a talking and silly film. On top of that, it's all wrong for Bogart, as the action hero at the end and the simpering lover are horrible matches for his persona that was so wonderfully created in the early 40s. Manly and solid better suits the man--one of America's great actors but clearly out of his element here.<br /><br />By the way, those who love Pre-Code films and their very adult sensibilities may want to see this one. Practically everyone in the film believes in and practices pre-marital sex and Bogey curses in the film--things you never would have seen after the toughened and more moralistic Production Code was adopted in 1934.
On Humphrey Bogart's first trip to Hollywood, he got his first leading man role in this B picture Love Affair. The first thing you ought to realize is that this film has absolutely nothing to do with the classic Love Affair later in the decade with Charles Boyer and Irene Dunne or the two remakes that followed. It's not half as good any of those films.<br /><br />In fact Bogey is second billed to Dorothy Mackaill as a spoiled heiress who finds out she's been living her extravagant lifestyle courtesy of her late father's best friend and financial adviser Hale Hamilton. It comes as quite a shock to Mackaill. She considers a show business career as a way for an income.<br /><br />Bogart is a test pilot who is also an aeronautical engineer and he's designing an ultimate airplane motor and is looking for investors. Mackaill is willing to do it, besides she likes what she sees in Bogey.<br /><br />Considering the cynical roles that Bogart later made a specialty, it's a bit disconcerting to see him as this highly moral and self righteous character in Love Affair. The part doesn't wear well on him.<br /><br />Love Affair is your average B program second feature, nothing terribly special about it.
Attention, possible spoilers<br /><br />This film is so lousy that it actually becomes funny. The director has put in all the clichés that have ever plagued B-series movies. The stupid bimbo (nice rack) getting caught again and again by the bad guys, chief villain smirky and revealing his plots before they happen so they can be ruined and who, of course, bullied/killed the hero's father in an unclear past, a side-kick in the person of a policeman - small, bald and whose only preparation for the last battle (another cliché) is returning his baseball-cap rim-backwards etc. <br /><br />The film's end really tops it. After the chief villain dies when the hero Paralised Stoneface Jack or whatever throws him from the roof of a building ten stories high, they walk out of the building. Which, from the exteriors, looks three stories high only and very much like your regular city hall. <br /><br />When they exit the building, the side-kick can't walk, being that his right leg appears to be wounded. How, nobody can tell: ten minutes earlier he fell down shot in his shoulder and his feet were fine. There is no further explanation for the inquisitive mind of the viewer who would be curious to know such trivial things as "Where is the villain's body which should lay near the building?" and "Why is there no police or even curious folks gathered round the said body?". <br /><br />I could go on forever with the list. Why does another one of the bad guys claim to have invented martial arts when he gets his ass kicked in no time? Why do bad guys in general make silly movements when attacking? Why does the hero look so faggy? Is there anyone really thinking "yes, these characters and this plot makes this a film to remember"? And the actors suck. Our hero and saviour of the day wears the same expression on his face. The whole film. That disgusted-trying to be cocky smirk must be some copyrighted feat of him.<br /><br />Also, thinking that until now 12% of the people having rated this film gave it a 10 makes me full of fear inside. They might have been serious and then we're doomed.
It is unsettling seeing so many people giving outrageously high ratings to this film. Some of the praise uses such twisted reasoning (and transparent agendas that betray a simple love of anything that is in any way critical of the U.S.) that it approaches hysteria.<br /><br />Heaven's Gate is a bad movie, it is fundamentally awful. Endless scenes using elaborate shots that serve no purpose, muddy dialogue, murky narative, no sense of any theme aside from excess...<br /><br />The high rating of this disaster is a product of revisionist history and temporary shifts in perception.<br /><br />For some perspective watch Lawrence of Arabia before watching Heaven's Gate. You will see just how aimless and lost this film truly is. The "issues" it may have been trying to deal with are lost in a miasma.<br /><br />I have no problem with films that are critical of the U.S. per se, but when a terrible film gets such undeserved praise purely because of that element... that's worth challenging.<br /><br />The film is worth seeing for two reasons; curiosity, and as a cautionary tale for young filmmakers.<br /><br />I saw this at home for free, imagine the torture of being in a theater and sitting through it... for 4 meandering hours!
I watched the 219 minute version and have to say that dollar-for-dollar, it it probably one of the worst films ever. Now I am NOT saying it's THE worst film ever--but if you look at a ratio of cost over how much an average person would enjoy it, this is a very, very bad film.<br /><br />I would say that the single biggest factor making this a bad film is the writer/director, Michael Cimino. Rarely can so much blame be placed on a single person. Had he not been so self-indulgent, a film just as bad could have easily been made at about 90 minutes--saving the studio millions! <br /><br />The film begins with a completely unnecessary prologue that's supposed to be set at Harvard. The scene is HUGE but completely without context. You have no idea exactly what is occurring nor do you know why the students (in particular, John Hurt) are behaving so boorishly. I find it very hard to imagine a commencement going like this in 1870--and it looks a lot more like 1970. This is a half hour where you have no idea what is happening, who the characters are or their motivations. <br /><br />The next scene is 20 years later. Inexplicably, the two Harvard grads (Hurt and Kris Kristofferson) are in Wyoming. So, they went to the best school in America and now one is only a law man in the middle of no where and the other is....well, what IS John Hurt in the film?!?! He just appears here and there and seems to be either a jerk (the prologue) or a pathetic and pointless drunk who hangs out with murderers--even though he is apparently against them!? His entire character made no sense. They never explained why he was a Brit living in the middle of nowhere (it was impossible to hide his accent), why he bothered to come along with the hired army IF he was so against their wicked plan nor why he would risk his life for a cause he didn't believe in at all. As for Kristofferson, his excellent acting and better defined character made his character more believable, though having him move to Wyoming AND risk his life for a prostitute made no sense at all.<br /><br />This brings up the worst aspect of HEAVEN'S GATE. While the scenes are WAY TOO LONG and needed trimming, the worst part of the film is that the characters were like cardboard. John Hurt (a wonderful actor with nothing to do in the film), Jeff Bridges and many other big names are there but you have no idea why. In fact, other than Kristofferson, Isabelle Huppert (as a hooker with a heart of gold--quite the cliché) and perhaps Christopher Walken, EVERYONE is completely one-dimensional. It's hard to imagine a movie THIS long where you don't know or understand the characters. <br /><br />Much of the film also seems anachronistic. Who would have thought to have a giant roller rink constructed in the middle of no where in 1890? I am sure that just getting the basic supplies in this region in the West would have been very, very difficult--and yet we are expected to believe that trains filled with roller skates and lumber arrived instead of FOOD. Maybe if they hadn't spent a bazillion dollars building and frequenting the roller rink, the farmers could have afforded to BUY food and avoided this war over purloined cattle!!! And what's with the guy on roller skates with the fiddle? What did this have to do with a land war? <br /><br />The most obvious problem you are left with is that it's a film where very, very little actually happens until the big battle late in the film. There are lots of scenes of filth and flat nothingness. So much nothingness that by the time the battle occurs, many audience members would have left or are now so hostile to the film that it's inevitable that nothing could salvage the film.<br /><br />As for the final battle, it was done reasonably well but had problems. First, this minor skirmish on the prairie lasted longer than the D-Day invasion!! Second, while details of the actual events of the so-called "Johnson County War" are a tad sketchy, we do know that the characters played by Huppert and Kristofferson never actually were there, as they'd both been hung BEFORE the battle. Third, I can't believe that Cimino actually killed animals throughout the film--especially during the final battle. While I am far from a bleeding heart about animal rights, his need to use animal guts and actually kill some of the horses is a low point in cinematic history. Watching and knowing that some of the horses died to achieve Cimino's "vision" for the film is very sad.<br /><br />Finally, after the big battle, we have an epilogue. While it is blessedly short, it also seemed completely unnecessary and vague. We see Kristofferson on a fancy yacht, so we can assume that he's finally putting some of that Harvard education to work for himself. We also see a woman who appears to be one that Kris looked at a couple times during the prologue. Most importantly, nothing is said and you have no idea what the final outcome. I read up on it myself and found that the film often got the facts wrong.<br /><br />Overall, to say the film is long and needed tons more editing was like saying WWII was a "minor tiff". Well, I've certainly seen a lot worse, but if you factor in the cost of production, I truly think it might just be one of the worst films in history.<br /><br />Finally, when a film has this much explicit nudity I warn parents. However, as no child COULD sit through this film (even with a promise of sex), the warning is not necessary.
The recent death of Stephen Bach, one of the producers of HEAVEN'S GATE, has raised the specter of at least a partial resurrection of the reputation of the cursed film. Moreover the original release, the "long version" was recently shown on TCM exposing the film, in ail probability, to its largest audience ever. <br /><br />I saw the film when it first came out at a packed screening in a 3rd Avenue cinema across the street from Bloomingdales. I think it was released on a Friday and withdrawn on the following Wednesday. Maybe that wasn't a fair release but it was and is a terrible film. Seeing the full-length version recently confirmed that judgment and with some thirty years more experience watching and writing about films I am better able to articulate why.<br /><br />First there is the dreaded phrase "mise-en-scene" whose definition is at the same time so simple yet so amorphous that it puzzles even after being defined. Basically it's everything that happens in front of a camera. For example, a crowd extra will be given a piece of action, say just walking by on the sidewalk and a spot to start from. When the assistant director yells action the extra will go through their action. If there's another take the extra will return to the start spot and go again on "action". All of the extras do this. Then say a cab drives up to the sidewalk and the star gets out and embraces another principal while all the while the crowd extras are doing their thing. This is mise-en-scene. In the theatre they call it blocking but cinema is far more multi-dimensional.<br /><br />The importance of defining mise-en-scene is because when the French critics developed their theory of the auteur the opposite of an auteur was a métier-en-scene, even more derogatorily referred to as a "traffic cop". An auteur was intimately involved in the meaning of a film and through the director's body of work a theme or themes discerned. The metier-en-scene was basically a company man rendering in film what had been handed to him on paper. It is the difference between say John Ford and Sam Wood.<br /><br />The second point is how the director, Michael Cimino, got into the position of directing films. Cimino first gained prominence directing the first million-dollar TV commercial. This depicted a Chevrolet floating down the Grand Canal in Venice. This commercial never appears on any lists of greatest TV commercials of all time and is notable solely because of how expensive it was and how utterly exaggerated it was. The effect is like that of a three year old girl brought out to entertain company who gets her biggest response when she flings her dress over her head. Cute for a three year old, embarrassing for a thirty year old. So Cimino was praised early on for spending a huge amount of money for some over-the-top image and so he learned.<br /><br />His first film, THUNDERBOLT AND LIGHTFOOT (1974) has a scene where Clint Eastwood and Jeff Bridges are passengers in a lunatic's car that drives back and forth, back and forth, until it drives off the road and the driver opens the trunk full of rabbits which he proceeds to shoot one by one. I had the feeling that if the producer, Eastwood, hadn't stepped in, that the scene would have lasted until every rabbit had been killed.<br /><br />Which brings us to HEAVEN'S GATE. I guess if one watches the film on a DVD in snatches like a mini-series it can be impressive. This is because scenes are directed with such a dense mise-en-scene that each scene is like an encyclopedia it's just plain exhausting to sit through nearly four hours of this. Its like sex, at some point it just becomes a whipping. There is the opening 40 minutes, which takes place at Harvard. Brilliantly photographed at Oxford, it is something of a non-sequitur. I personally favor the artistic way of unfolding a story as opposed to the more commercial _"Now I'm gonna tell you what I'm gonna tell you" of most films. However the whole preface adds up to only one line- Kris Kristofferson and John Hurt went to Harvard together. Now twenty years later… All of that time, money and effort, not to mention all of the audiences' attention and energy just to deliver this almost useless piece of information.<br /><br />Then there's the scene in the street between Kristofferson and Masur which just goes on and on with a populated city of background extras and horse drawn vehicles in the background in continuous motion to deliver a tiny bit of expositional information. It's just so exhausting. There is just one scene after another like this. It's like trying to eat a thirty- pound pizza. Then there are these long conversations of inconsequential details and unintelligible, witless dialogue, which go on and on and are exhausting and boring. <br /><br />Of course any single scene excerpted looks brilliant. Overall it's a rich piece to spin praiseworthy articles about. Seen in snatches with the possibility of fast-forwarding through the boring bits or turning it off if feeling mise-en-scene whipped, it's basically painless. But don't let anybody tell you it's a good film. When I saw it in 1980 there was a guy sitting in front of me who commented on the scene where Kris Kristofferson is on his horse and he turns one way and then the other and does this about six times. "That's symbolic," he said, "of he doesn't know which way to go." That is basically, at its kernel, the basis of every pro- Heaven's Gate critique.<br /><br />Watch it, if you must, but be forewarned, this is not a film whose time has come, this is a stinker which will smell for all time. <br /><br />HEAVEN'S GATE is historically inaccurate in the extreme. I recommend the book BANDITTI OF THE PLAINS by Asa Mercer on the Johnson County War.
Let's see. What annoyed me most? The extra long dance scene in the beginning watching people twirling around so much I got dizzy... Without even showing where the music was coming from... All part of a college graduation that had nothing to do with the rest of the film. Or perhaps it was the fact that each scene lasted about fifteen minutes longer than they had to. What a drag this film is. And the most annoying aspect is the bad guys are so bad, so obviously horrible that it seems as if the director were making this film for second graders. "These people are bad... These people are good". Whenever a movie has its agenda-heart on its sleeve I am beside myself. There's a scene in a rollerskating rink that seems totally out of place. Long drawn-out love scenes with the main character and a Russian prostitute that seems more like a rock star and his sexy groupie. John Hurt's character, who is part of the overlong beginning scene, drinks and disagrees with the overdone villains. His death scene could very well be the stupidest in history. And I hear everyone, even the haters of this film, talk about how gorgeous the cinematography is. I think it looks washed-out. Watch "Days of Heaven" if you want to see gorgeous backyards. This movie is even worse than the anti- hype. It's pointless. The epilogue, showing the main character in a yacht, was almost as dumb as the prologue. The battle scenes are tedious and dizzying. This movie is really bad. Avoid it unless you love bad movies, because this is the king of them.
This is the movie that, pretty much, sounded the death knell for the auteur in Hollywood. At over 40 million bucks, Heaven's Gate is so poorly conceived and executed it would take a lifetime to break down every area of failure. What really galls me the most about it is that technically it's very bad, an unforgivable sin for the money that went into it. John Hurt's commencement speech at Harvard is inaudible, as is a conversation between Kris Kristofferson and Richard Masur at the train station. Some people seem to think Cimino intended this as a "style". He didn't. It's just bad sound recording. The characters are not particularly well-drawn, except for the four or five leads; in the climactic battle scene, it's difficult to tell who's the bad guys and who's the good guys. Even on that level, it's impossible to enjoy the movie. The casting of Isabelle Huppert as the town madam is a joke, her French accent renders the whole character a fraud. The acting is generally stiff, without any range or depth of feeling; even Christopher Walken is bad. John Hurt's character is the only one with any swagger or vitality (although Hurt, in his 40s, playing a fresh-faced Harvard grad with bags under his eyes is patently ridiculous). <br /><br /> I guess to say that it's overlong is overkill. The roller-skating sequence could have been easily cut, the cockfight scene is rapidly becoming a movie cliche, and the final scene on board the ocean liner is right out the Twilight Zone. Having Rod Serling appear before the camera at the end to explain what we just watched would have been the perfect finale. Actually, those scenes in and of themselves are not bad, but Cimino has not earned the right to include them, because what he's given us as the "meat" of the picture IS so incompetently bad. The editing is poor, especially in the grand battle climax. At one point, the same explosion with the same wagon wheel flying from the blast is used three different times. I wish could I say something- anything- nice about this movie: a great scene, a great performance, even one memorable line of dialogue, but I can't. It is all just one big unholy mess. About the only thing I did like was the cinematography and the Montana locations, which are stunning. Even Cimino couldn't screw that up. This is a long, boring, bad movie by all standards. And the people who say that it gets bashed only because of the cost overruns are just kidding themselves. 1/2 * out of 4
Now infamous Western that was (at its time) the biggest budgeted disaster in Hollywood history. I was "lucky" enough to see the full 220 minute version at a theatre in 1990. It was truly staggering how BAD the film was!<br /><br />They had a great cast, a story based on a true incident (a fight between foreigners and Americans in the 1800s), magnificent scenery...so what went wrong? Three words--director Michael Cimino. He was so full of himself after "The Deer Hunter" he went out and made this god awful Western. He's not totally to blame. His previous film "The Deer Hunter" was considered a masterpiece and United Artists gave him free reign to do anything. They let him all alone...and everything went wrong. The cost went barreling out of control and Cimino insisted on redoing sequences again and again until they were perfect.<br /><br />First off, the sound is horrible. Entire sequences go by and you can't make out a word the characters are saying. For instance, Jeff Bridges' character is introduced during a dance sequence, but I STILL have no idea who he was! The dialogue in his introductory scene is incomprehensible! That's the director's fault--he should have made sure the dialogue could be heard. Some scenes are shot with so much dust flying around you can barely make out what's going on. The story line doesn't make a whole lot of sense and Cimino took great liberties with the facts--in the real story only one person was killed--Cimino turns it into a massacre. There is some admittedly beautiful sequences here totally destroyed by lack of story and incomprehensible dialogue. Also the bad sound was not the fault of the theatre--all the prints sound that way.<br /><br />This garbage effectively closed down United Artists and was the end of Cimino's career. A textbook example of a director so full of himself he doesn't realize what he's doing. Jeff Bridges has said this is the worst movie he ever did. This is from a guy who made "Tron"! A definite must-miss.<br /><br />There is a pretty good book called "The Final Cut" which details the whole disaster. This gets a 1. I wish IMDb had negative numbers--this deserves it!
The director spent a lot of time making the scenes look real right down to the historical photos and all the sounds of the old west bustle. Too bad the Producers and Writer/Director, Michael Cimino, spent zero time on any of the historical facts of what the Johnson County war was really about. A lot of the war was over how public lands should be used for grazing. The cattlemen didn't want the poor sheep herders on the land to compete for forage on this cold, windswept plateau. The entire epic makes no mention of grazing sheep which was one of the most important reasons for the war.<br /><br />The worst scene is the battle between the peasants and the hired killers. The peasants are shown circling the gunmen like a bunch of Indians would do in much earlier Hollywood movies. The true fact is that Johnson County Sheriff William (Red) Angus, with a posse of 200 to 300 men, intercepted the gunmen and trapped them in a barn at the TA ranch. I doubt any women took part in the siege. <br /><br />Ellen (Ella also known as Cattle Kate) Watson and her second husband, James Averell, were hanged by a lynch mob about three years before the Johnson County invasion. Ella was never a prostitute. This was a canard spread by the Wyoming Stock Growers Association (WSGA) in order to discredit her. The fact that the plot makes her out to be a brothel madam only serves the interests of the WSGA.<br /><br />I object to the use of names of real people in a plot that is so obviously fiction. There is no fact in the events, time lines, or backgrounds of the characters. Why Michael Cimino would use real names of people who were loosely connected with the Johnson County war (and events leading up to it) is beyond me.<br /><br />The movie could have been much more interesting if it had dwelt on the political ramifications of the Federal Government intervention in a State Government's affairs and what happened after the WSGA gunmen were saved by the Calvary. Some effort was made to prosecute the Cattlemen who were responsible by the Johnson County attorney. But since Johnson county could not afford the court costs and the Governor of Wyoming, Amos W. Barber, backed the WSGA, the charges were eventually dropped.<br /><br />Overall I think the movie was just an excuse to show Isabelle Huppert naked for much of the three and 3/4 hours of running time on the DVD version.
The operative rule in the making of this film seems to have been "never make a 1 minute scene when you can make it a 10 minute scene." This was a principle set right from the start with an interminably long portrayal of the graduation of the Harvard class of 1870. The point of that scene, I suppose, was to introduce some of the primary figures in the story and give a bit of their background - which is somewhat effective when comparing the idealism of the Harvard graduation ceremony to the realism of life in Johnson County, Wyoming, but it just keeps going and going, and that sets the stage for a film that features repeated stretches of mind-numbing nothingness, made even worse by the fact that I found a significant amount of the dialogue to be almost incoherent. In the end, I couldn't even watch this in one sitting. I got through about half of it and had to set it aside for a couple of days before I could drag myself back to see how it turned out.<br /><br />My reaction to this movie in many ways is a shame, because there are positives here. The performances are generally of a high calibre, especially from Kris Kristofersson as Averill, Christopher Walken as Champion and Isabelle Huppert as Ella. The basic story - interspersed as it is around that ever-present mind-numbing nothingness - is potentially interesting, focusing on the efforts of immigrants to establish themselves in Johnson County and a local cattle company's efforts to stop them by killing a number of them in collaboration with the government and the military. There's also some absolutely breathtaking scenery shots. Having said that, the whole thing could frankly have been done in half the time - and should have been. In the end, all those potential positives are washed out by - again - the mind-numbing nothingness that the movie seems to revolve around. Seriously - 2/10.
The film, Heaven's Gate, was a good view, although still tedious at over 4 hours. But the film took great license - as usual with Hollywood. James Averill (Chris Christopherson), and "Elle" were actually married in real life. Their main contribution to the Johnson County war, was to start it by being hanged. Well, by starting it, I mean it came at the beginning, not the end. Here's the real scenario: James Averill and Ellen Watson were secretly married because one homestead could be given to each family. By filing as single individuals, they could get two homesteads. They chose homesites on Crazy Woman Creek actually controlling the water above the land held by a powerful member of the Cattleman's Association. He offered to buy them out repeatedly, which they refused.<br /><br />Although characterized in real life as the owner of a brothel (Cattle Kate), and a prostitute herself (and also in the film), there is no real evidence that was true. It is known that she bought many head of sick cattle, nursed them back to life, and was later accused by the Cattleman's Association of receiving the cattle in trade for "lewd acts'. In the end, she was accused of rustling - an act almost certainly untrue. So much for this part of the myth of the "American West", which is a gooble-de-gook of myths spanning a time period of about one hundred years.<br /><br />In real life, she and Jim Averill were surprised one day by several members of the Cattleman's Association, taken in hand, and promptly hanged. Those perpetrating the injustice were never brought to trial. But that was the first link that led to the murder of Nate Champion, and the start of the Johnson County war.<br /><br />Quite different from the Hollywood version which shows her shot at the end. <br /><br />Other than that, I think the main problem with the film was the editor, who could have made the action a faster pace by more skillful editing.
I have just recently seen Heaven's Gate. After i watched this 3 hr 40 min epic western that's not a western, i read the book by Steven Bach. After considering all events and the movie itself, i still think this movie is a complete waste of time. I believe that when someone tells you to watch it, they are, in fact, trying to bore you to death. If for some reason you can enjoy this self indulgent over thought truely bad movie, i have to ask why. Though this isn't a reason to hate it, it is historically way off. It pretends to be about a situation that happened in Wyoming called the Johnson County War. Simply, the cattle barrons of the time wanted to kill all cattle thieves and claimed they were all immagrants. You find that you simply do not care about these people and hope they all get killed because at least then, something would happen. Everybody in the movie talks about things that happen, and it is never shown. After you sit though this giant waste of time you wonder how someone could actually make a 4 hr epic in which nothing happens. Oh and by the way the Johnson County war was not a war, it never happened. The Johnson County war, in fact, was called that because it almost happened, in actual fact, 2 people died. I can't warn you enough off this movie. However, if you're like me the, the idea of watching a movie that ruined careers and put United Artists on the "for sale" lot, sounds like an interesting case to study, then by all means, watch this terrible, narsisistic, movie with no sub-text, and a lot of photography.(which is lovely sometimes)
I watched this last nite with an open mind. Sorry to say it is still bad. first, the movie is too noisey and you can't hear what people are saying. The accents are bad especially Richard Masur. What is the French chick doing in this film ??? Miscasting at its worst. Walken's makeup is strange. The Harvard scene is useless and not needed. Kristoferson's character is unlikeable and I wanted him to get killed and go away. Meanwhile, the Walken character gets killed too early and easily ( despite the makeup). The settlers are all stupid. GET ORGANIZED you bunch of hicks, people are coming to kill you !!!!! John Hurts character provides some humor buts thats all.<br /><br />I have nothing good to say about this excessive piece of crap. The only good thing is it ruined the director's career and killed United Artists.<br /><br />Still Crap after all these years.
You have to acknowledge Cimino's contribution to cinema. He gave us both the most over-rated film in history (The Deer Hunter) and the worst film in history (Heaven's Gate). And before you start with the 'It's bad but not the worst ever' let me explain. <br /><br />For 20+ years I listened to the critics and avoided "Heaven's Gate"-actually this was not hard because you are hardly bombarded with opportunities to view this film. Then a few days after seeing the 'Final Cut: The Making and Unmaking of Heaven's Gate' documentary I stumbled on a used $9.99 DVD of the long version. My advice after 229 minutes is to seek out the most negative review ever written about this film (you will find a wide selection), and imagine that the reviewer is Cimino's devoted mother and that she is doing everything she can to put a positive slant on her dear son's movie. Then you will have an idea of just how big a mess Cimino made.<br /><br />While pretty much everything is wrong with this film, what ultimately tips the scale to make it the worse ever (and a classic 'less than zero' example) is its shameless distortion of history. Although the cattlemen's association did send a group of regulators/gunmen to Johnson County and did have a list of targeted names, the actual facts of an interesting historical event are hopelessly exaggerated. On the morning of April 9, 1892, Nick Ray and Nate Champion were besieged and eventually killed by an army of about 50 cattlemen and Texas hired guns who had come to Johnson County to clean out "rustlers." The citizens of the county then besieged the regulators who finally were arrested (or rescued) by the Army. Women did not actively participate in the fighting and aside from Ray and Champion there were minimal casualties. After all, these were sieges not assaults-and there were not wagons of immigrants riding in circles around the encampment of regulations (early westerns to the contrary this was a film making device and not an actual tactic of the Indians). And weeks prior to the arrival of the regulators a number of Johnson County residents were hanged without trial including Jim Averell, the keeper of a modest road ranch, and his wife Ella Watson (who Cimino resurrects as his two leads and he even shows Averell living to a ripe old age). <br /><br />There is no movie-making sin greater than fictionalizing history, if you are going to play fast and loose with historical facts, then change the names and locations to protect the unsuspecting audience members who might go away from a film believing what they saw actually happened. Fortunately so few people saw this film that the damage was minimal. Perhaps it is harsh to blame Cimino for his distortion of history. He could probably escape blame anyway with an insanity defense-the film provides plenty of support. If Cimino was insane during the production of Heaven's Gate it would explain a lot of things. But my vote goes to 'lack of directing talent' instead of insanity.<br /><br />There are some good things about Heaven's Gate. You can actually see on the screen where some of the huge budget went; expensive sets-beautiful epic camera shots-artful dance sequences. Isabelle Huppert (a strange casting choice that actually worked) gives an agreeable and likable performance although most of her scenes are extremely boring (that tends to happen when the director forgets to give the viewer any reason to care about the characters). The dialogue is generally solid if rather ordinary.<br /><br />But don't fall for the crap that this film experiments with storytelling by intermixing carefully crafted moments of character interaction with textured pageant-like explosions of communal action. This implies that there was a method to Cimino madness. 'Experiments' is another word for when a filmmaker gets so lost in his project that a coherent story is no longer possible. The simple fact is that there is no evidence Cimino storyboarded a single scene or made any attempt at control or organization. What it looks like is that he just turned his DP loose to stage action and to get an endless selection of colorful shots-1.5 million feet of loosely staged scenes. Then he tried (without success) to pare this down and fit everything together in post-production. <br /><br />The final battle scene is genuinely hilarious as babushka wearing townswomen (perhaps borrowed from a 'Fiddler On The Roof' touring company) throw countless sticks of dynamite at the regulators. Unfortunately each explosive falls just short of the target and explodes harmlessly. After you see this happen 50-60 times you can relate to the woman (the one who looks like something out of 'The Grapes of Wrath') who puts a huge gun in her mouth and pulls the trigger. This is probably what Cimino's mother did after writing that review.<br /><br />So believe what you have been hearing about this film since 1980. It is a sloppy, disconnected, poorly paced, and historically distorted mess. Of value only as a 'how not to make a film' example for film historians and as a source of amusement to those knowledgeable about the actual history of the American west.
Critics love this movie. I personally found it senseless and tasteless. This is the millionth time I've fallen into the "critics love it" trap and came out wishing someone would throw boiling hot water on my testicles because it was less painful than watching the movie. There are many scenes that are completely unnecessary. A warning to Animal lovers: Don't see this movie if you don't want to see sheep killed and molested.<br /><br />If you want to see a good Asian film, see Afrika. If you want to see a film about escaped convicts, see the Gene Wilder/Richard Pryor classic Stir Crazy. Avoid 9 Souls like the plague.
The idea of nine stupid prisoners escaping and going on a road trip sounds pretty good for a movie. Especially because it's meant to be funny and I guess heart-warming in some weird way. The problem is, the movie was very rarely funny and often just seemed pointless and needlessly gross. It was as if jokes or interesting scenes were being set up again and again but no one bothered finishing any of them--there was just no payoff. Also, the movie was just brainless and had the crooks meandering across Japan even though they left so many crime victims alive that it's impossible to believe they wouldn't have been caught almost immediately--especially since they continued to keep using the same stolen camper for days on end. And as far as being gross goes, I just didn't need to see scene after scene after scene of guys peeing along the side of the road. Plus, believe it or not, there is a scene where four of the guys are out raping sheep!<br /><br />All in all, I really hated this movie. And it's a shame, as I almost always love Japanese films--just not poorly made and uninteresting ones like this one.
Here is another great film critics will love. The problem is that it is not a very good movie.<br /><br />The films premise is simple. Nine convicts escape a prison after the tenth one goes crazy and tells them where the treasure is.<br /><br />The first half has a lot of slapstick some of it very broad while the second half is a character driven descent into fantasy and melancholy.<br /><br />The two halves simply don't mix. Individual scenes do work very well (The guys crashing a friends house who has a new Filipino bride is hilarious While a later scene with the big guy working in the restaurant tugs at the heartstrings.) They simply don't mesh with each other.<br /><br />The movie as well is missing entire set-ups. One scene shows the guys desperately looking for change under a deserted vending machine to buy a snack. The very next scene has the whole crew in drag sitting down in a restaurant. Where did they get the dresses and wigs? (The crew includes both the big guy and a midget) How did they get all the clothes and money to buy the meal? And most puzzling is why are they in drag? They are clearly guys in drag and lets face it is there anything more memorable to witnesses than a big guy and a dwarf eating a meal dressed as women? I mention the big guy and the dwarf because besides the old guy everyone else seems to blend into each other. (In fact they wear matching white jumpsuits throughout most of the movie) The movie has very little character development in the first half and as a result the second half really lacks an emotional punch. As we are often trying to figure out who is who in their individual payoff scenes.<br /><br />Speaking of a drag the second half has all those wonderful sweeping camera shots and big emotional moments and great symbolism that makes a great film. It is also excruciatingly slow which makes for a boring movie.<br /><br />9 Souls is a big disappointment, the reviews gush about a great film and it's in there somewhere, good luck finding it yourself.
No emotion. Bad music (and I am a reformed eighties metal guy, so I would be vulnerable to some good stuff.) Everything is half done. The brother is a parody, there is nothing to hold us in except to see what horror from the eighties they'll pull up next. The tour manager tries to bring a humanity to the thing but isn't given enough time. Wahlberg is okay and Aniston is slumming. We know she didn't need the money. Is this the only role she could fit into her summer break? Surely she must slap her forehead every time it pops up on VH1--which is only slightly less often than Ozzy does. It barely qualifies as a TV movie. It's just hard to believe that it was actually released theatrically.
I don't know any idiotic rock'n'roll cliché not used in this movie. Ouffcourz , rock enroll life is only sex drugs and parties and tons of supermodels trying to ride with you. Say it to stupid young boys. The filmmakers seemed to have read too much Guns'n'Roses or Motley Crue stories. I have seen everyday life of usual rock band closely and there are nothing to do with reality in this movie. If you are successful enough your life is touring touring touring. Its means that you are mostly in a bus and trying to sleep. Just sleep. Because you must be fresh, sober and clean in evenings. After live you have a little time to discharge your stage excitement. Then you have a bit time to have fun. But its not any luxury or dream. Artistically this film was zero. Stupid characters and idiotic dialogs. The ending of movie was funny -- main character left heavy metal band and formed a grunge band! Yeah, what a moral. Real 90s.
This is the movie that is somewhat based on the exit of Rob Halford from British Metal Gods 'Judas Priest' and how the band replaced him with Ripper Owens, who used to front a Priest tribute band. Originally titled Metal God this movie could have been something great. Instead, someone in an office somewhere who knows little to nothing about metal music decided to water it down. From the title change of Metal God to the 'safe' middle of the road 'Rock Star' to the lame soundtrack this movie plays out badly. Having spent most of my life in a professional metal band I was really looking forward to seeing this, I was very let down by several points of the film. The soundtrack is very NOT metal for one, and the ending of the movie is lame as well. The movie does have a few bright spots in the writing and acting but as a whole, it fails in the end because...1)A movie based on a metal band should have a metal soundtrack. 2)There is NOTHING metal about Marky Mark or Jennifer Aniston. If Bon Jovi, Warrant, Def Leppard and Poison are your idea of 'heavy metal' go see this movie. If Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Dio & Black Sabbath are your idea of metal see this movie for a good laugh.
Well........how and where do I start to describe this utter nonsense? Imagine the morals of a cheesy Hollywood Western, throw in a lavish helping of the most trite soap opera storyline, and try to dupe the kids into thinking its cool by dressing it up to be about something 'contemporary'. This film is all package and absolutely no substance.<br /><br />It starts with promise......young men dreaming of becoming rockstars and engaging in the kind of excessive hero-worship everyone can laugh at. After that, it all goes downhill.....quicker than a bobsleigh with no brakes. The scene involving the first gig with Steel Dragon is one of the most pathetic pieces of 'cine kitsch' I have seen in a long time. The singer appears on stage for his debut and falls down some stairs.....will he get up and sing???......or will he stay there on the floor and not sing......who cares by now?? It gets worse, but I don't want to bore myself by having to remember it in all its excruciating detail. If you watch it after this review, its your own fault!
80's sleazy (glam)rock is like 90's house music or current boybands: it's boring and has no ideas or ideals. The only thing that makes it a bit 'cult' nowadays is that it's a long time ago, so we can laugh at its sillyness. Too bad 'Rock Star' has no laughs at all, as it must be one of the most boring movies of recent years.<br /><br />Chris (Mark Wahlberg) is singer of a Steel Dragon tribute band. When he's kicked of the band at the same time the real Steel Dragon singer is kicked of as well, he becomes the next lead singer. You already know how this is gonna end up at that time, with Chris losing it with sex, drugs and r&r and forgetting about his long-time girlfriend/manager, Emily (Jennifer Aniston).<br /><br />There's way too much (boring) music in this standard formula-packed excuse for a movie and should be avoided for it at all cost. Watch the (over-rated, but still more fun) Almost Famous instead, or even better, a movie about real people playing real music having real emotions, That Thing You Do.<br /><br />What a stinker. 2/10.
First of all, the genre of this movie isn't comedy, it's more of a drama.<br /><br />I had low expectations on the movie, and still they didn't come up them. As some of the other reviews point out, there are some nice music in the movie. But if you want to listen to good music I suggest spend the time looking at some concert recording with Bon Jovi, or Mötley Crue, it'll be more quality time.<br /><br />Last, if you want to watch a GOOD movie in this rock'n'roll genre, I recommend "Almost Famous".
Contains Spoilers<br /><br />But if you weren't dropped on the head as a child and then used as a football then you'll agree with me that this is one of the worst and yet hilarious series ever made. Centreing round a woman who as a young girl was beaten by her father who also killed her mother, she spends her time drawing, but wait for it, then she becomes her superhero drawings and goes on to fight crime, therefore being "drawn by pain", so clever. The story itself is actually OK, but it's just how it's done, Jesse the writer and director has no idea how to write a script, just listen to a monologue featuring the 8 year old version of the hero and it sounds like it was written by a 30 year old man, while her dad, who sports a great moustache, just walks around the house all day while looking angry, just showing how bad the characterisation is, especially the bit where he gets angry in the first episode and begins repeating the phrase "no more" while holding his wife's head before killing her using the marble work surface. The following bang sound effect and just his terrible acting as all he can convey is angry just is brilliant, including after where he goes to beat his daughter using his belt which is all done with him moaning and looking angry in slow motion. The episodes themselves could contain easily a good clean script ranging over 5 minutes, but oh no Jesse doesn't want this. Little Jesse, is shitting out post modernism as if he'd just eaten Donnie Darko and then douched himself to death. Pointless camera jerks, all at weird angles, overly repeated lines and even pointless sequences just muddled up every now and again to fill the overlong episodes. In conclusion the idea isn't bad it's just how it's done, also there is a great character of a fat guy on a bench who doesn't come up enough and is great, i just wanna hug his Lil chubby cheeks cause they look so soft. The character development is non existent as the main character just says the first philosophical sounding thing that comes to her head although they all contradict one another. But all in all, mainly s**t<br /><br />Indiana Jones 4 however is much better, Type "Jeeharv" into you-tube as well, the results may make you weep at the beauty of the world also you'll hear a lot of cheap sex jokes, mostly gay ones.
This short was director Del Lord's last and only Shemp short. The problem: It was quite weak and the cafe scene was pretty much a carbon copy of a Curly short "Busy Buddies" (1944). The interrogation scene was pretty funny, and the beginning part of the cafe part. But there are a lot of plotholes in this short. For example, why are the stooges hiding in the garbage can when the police come? In the remake, "Of Cash And Hash"(1955), director Jules White fixes this and the reason for the stooges hiding in the garbage can is because there is a gunfight between the police and the armored car robbers. The scene in which Moe is having trouble with the oyster was done before with Curly in "Dutiful But Dumb" (1941). The spooky house part wasn't all that great except for the hilarious scene on the outside of the spooky house. To top it off, the ending had no sting to it. Rating: C-
I was not expecting a classic, but at least a funny film. There were only a few scenes that makes you laugh but nothing more. You don't scare it is full of American teen-slasher cliches and you can guess what will happen easily.<br /><br />But it tells much about a senior student in a Turkish High-School. Pressure of Student Selection Exam (OSS) that 3-hour-exam determines which university you'll go and thinking about the exam when a ghost is after you is not exaggeration. The movie is bad. Don't waste your time to watch it.
Okul"The School" is a result of a new trend in Turkish cinema. Having used the same stories over and over again new generation directors finally come up with different ideas. Of course, it doesn't mean that they are all grand. I think Okul is one of them. It is supposed to be a scary movie but it is not. It is not successful on being scary either. So what is it? Actors are so average especially Deniz Akkaya is pretty annoying with the teacher role. I am sure it could have been better if it was tried on harder. Maybe concentrating on one topic such as making it scary or vice versa. But directors have missed the target this time. ** out of *****
This is better than the early Cronenberg horror films, but nothing more than your basic what-is-real story. The videogame theme has been told before too. Nothing original is left except the weird Cronenberg atmosphere (which is not that strong here) with the amusing sexual references and Shore's dark score. The story never grabs your full attention. It just flows forward event after event with boring pace. Rating 4/10.
I was subjected to this terrible excuse for a made for TV movie. I only watched it because I don't have cable and my only other choices were Golf, College Basketball, or local news. The plot is very generic and has no substance that I could see, not to mention it had a major flaw in my eyes. The main character, Dr. Sorensen, is a washed up astronomer who believes that an asteroid named "Nemesis" will strike Earth, causing all life to cease. He bases his belief on his discovery of cave paintings by an Aboriginee (I'm sure I spelled that one wrong). The paintings show an apparent timeline, showing significant events throughout history, such as the building of the Great Wall of China. All of the events are shown in perfect chronological order, and the very last picture on the timeline is Earth being destroyed. Now to me, if the painting showed things that had indeed happened, why would the great Doctor believe that he could somehow change what was going to happen? All that aside, the movie moved along with extreme formulaic precision. There was nothing in the movie that surprised me at all. The actors were not very good, and on a few occasions I just felt that they didn't even take the movie seriously to put forth enough effort to try to convince me that the characters were worth caring about. The whole movie was cliche ridden and a downright waste of time and money. I'd recommend Armageddon over this piece of crap any day. At least Armageddon has some good acting (compared to this), not to mention the eye candy that is Liv Tyler. Now that I think about it, Golf isn't that bad.......
"Dolemite" is the touching story of Dolemite (Gotta love blaxploitation film titles), an ex-con who probably should still be in jail. He gets in trouble with cops, friends, drug dealers, women, prostitutes, and society in general. He's just not that likable a guy. Neither is the movie, though it's still hilarious and worth watching.<br /><br />The flimsy premise is that Dolemite (played with as much enthusiasm as star Rudy Ray Moore can muster) is in jail for a crime he claims he didn't commit. When a drug hit or a drug bust or drug something is about to go down, the warden releases him to stop it, or help it, or just watch it. Not very clear. All I know is that I was unaware that the justice system frees convicts in order to allow them to prove their own innocence. My ignorance, I guess.<br /><br />The plot is convoluted and unimportant, basically Dolemite goes around killing people (Usually with very poorly choreographed karate), having sex, and cursing out people, sometimes even rhyming too. The joys of the movie are its total incompetence, and its total indifference in the matter.<br /><br />I stopped counting the number of times I saw the boom mike after it was in one scene for the entire duration (about two minutes of film). I stopped questioning why the warden was looking down at where Dolemite was sitting, even after he stood up and walked around, when they cut back to the establishing shot and Dolemite was inexplicably sitting down again. I stopped wondering why Dolemite dressed like that when he got naked on the street to change, because he didn't want to get in his car with the ugly (read: normal) clothes the jail gave him. And I stopped wondering where he learned karate when he jiggles his hand on a guy's stomach and somehow cuts him open. The only time I was ever remotely nervous and tense was when the disgusting, flabby white mayor is walking around totally naked with nothing but a towel hanging around his neck which just barely covers him up. You keep saying "Cut away...cut away...cut away" but by the time they do, you are already emotionally scarred.<br /><br />The movie is ridiculous in every way imaginable. Moore as Dolemite, is either funny, cool, or both. If you're on the lookout for a bad movie, you have found it with "Dolemite."
I love the so-called "blaxploitation" films and have seen dozens. Some, such as COTTON COMES TO HARLEM, SHAFT and HAMMER have excellent production values and are very entertaining, while many others are very cheap and silly, but still entertaining, such as BROTHERHOOD OF DEATH or COFFEY. However, DOLEMITE manages something rare for the genre--it's just cheap and silly and not the least bit entertaining! It's like blaxploitation made for very, very stupid people.<br /><br />Years ago, I saw a takeoff on the Dolemite films on "Mad TV" and unfortunately, the real DOLEMITE isn't any better. Like the parody, the acting is just atrocious. Rudy Ray Moore has all the charm and charisma of a piece of balsa wood. He can barely read his lines and his "karate" is a joke--with his kicks obviously missing the target again and again. As for the rest of the actors, many might be even worse. My favorite was the FBI guy who couldn't even remember his lines and really struggled to get them out--yet they didn't even bother to re-film these scenes! In fact, so much of it was inept that I had a hard time figuring out whether the film was intended as a joke.<br /><br />If you think that despite horrible acting and action that there is something worth seeing about this film, you're wrong. Even for the perverts out there hoping to see some skin, will be disappointed. The naked women in the film really do look like hard-luck prostitutes and there's nothing remotely sexy about their sagging bodies. I think looking at old people naked--REEEAALLY old people naked--is no worse than looking at these "ladies". And as for Rudy Ray, he has "man boobs". No Black super-hero or anti-hero should look that bad naked!! For goodness sakes, put on your clothes people and come up with a script that doesn't look like it was written by winos!!!<br /><br />FYI--Apparently, there are actually sequels to this film!! I can't imagine watching them, so you'll just have to find someone else to review them. I have watched PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, TEENAGERS FROM OUTER SPACE and ROBOT MONSTER, but I just don't think I can bring myself to see another Dolemite film--they are that bad!
It's so fake! The plot seems like a generic adaptation of the average blaxploitation film. The common themes of blaxploitation like racism, oppression and fighting for the integrity of your community are outlined so simplistically/shallowly. And the jokes aren't even funny! Dolemite does these stand up monologue comedy routines that are really painful. All the people around him deliver this canned laughter. Even the soundtrack sounds like it's fakin' the funk. For far better comedy in a blaxploitation try "Coffy" & "Friday Foster" with Pam Grier. For a more realistic blax experience try "Black Heat".
As a Bruce Campbell fan for nearly two decades, I was thrilled to have an opportunity to see his latest film on the big screen with the man himself in attendance. Unfortunately, "Man with the Screaming Brain" was itself a disappointment.<br /><br />Set in Bulgaria--where the Sci-Fi Channel makes its Saturday night original films--"Man with the Screaming Brain" is a curious mix of '50s B-movie horror, body-switching comedy, violent revenge flick, and overdone slapstick with a touch of romantic reconciliation. If that doesn't make sense, well, neither does "Man with the Screaming Brain." Campbell plays a pharmaceutical company CEO who visits Bulgaria with his estranged wife in an inexplicable attempt to invest in the former Communist country's half-finished subway system. The two fall in with a former KGB agent turned cab driver, and all three ultimately meet their demise at the hands of a vengeful gypsy woman.<br /><br />A local scientist (Stacy Keach) and his goofy assistant (Ted Raimi), who have developed a technique to allow tissue transplants without the possibility of rejection, steal the bodies and place a portion of the cab driver's brain into Campbell's damaged skull. Also, they put his wife's brain into a robotic body they just happen to have at hand.<br /><br />Campbell escapes, and with a hastily-restitched skull and the voice of the cab driver--whose transplanted brain tissue controls the left side of his body--echoing in his head, sets off to find and kill the gypsy. (His robot wife does the same.) <br /><br />But first, there's an attempt to emulate Steve Martin/Lily Tomlin's "All of Me" when Campbell's two personalities battle for dominance over a restaurant dinner. Just as he was playing his own evil hand in "Evil Dead II," Campbell is adept at making his body appear to be inhabited by more than one mind.<br /><br />At times, "Screaming" comes closest to another Steve Martin film, "The Man with Two Brains," as it also takes a silly approach to '50s sci-fi clichés. However, it tries too hard for too little result, and that goes double for Ted Raimi's semi-comprehensible Bulgarian oaf, who gets entirely too much screen time. (Nothing against Raimi, it's just that he's better in smaller doses.) <br /><br />In the end, it's neither outrageous (or funny) enough to satisfy as a spoof, nor is it serious enough to enjoy as a B-movie pastiche. I was glad that Campbell had already left the screening by the time it ground to a halt, as I feared having to say, "Gee, Bruce, that was really...something."<br /><br />Perhaps the best praise I can give it as a film is that at least the images stuck to the emulsion. And it was twice as good as "Alien Apocalypse."
Written by, directed by and starring the champ of camp Bruce Campbell. Easy on its easy to tell this is a budget on a shoestring affair; filmed independently in Bulgaria. All I can really say for sure is that silly is not always funny. Campbell plays an affluent American business man with a cheating wife(Antoinette Byron)and trying to close a business transaction before he is murdered. He hires a cabbie to drive him around a strange little town; not knowing that his wife is 'carrying on' with the taxi driver. Within moments of Campbell being bludgeoned; the cabbie is killed in the same location. A mad scientist(Stacy Keach)proceeds with an experiment putting the cabbie's brain inside the American's head. With massive stitches on his forehead, Campbell breaks free and roams the streets looking for his wife; all the while he is arguing with a strange voice inside his over-sized head. Campbell contorts his rubbery face making silly expressions as he argues with himself. Thus, Bruce is doing what he does best and no doubt his many fans will be pleased. I get the impression this must have been written as a straight comedy. Rounding out the cast are Ted Raimi, Tamara Gorski, and Vladmir Kolev. Watch for this on the Sci-Fi Channel.
I'm 35. Bruce was THE man in Evil Dead, and I still love to watch ED1 and ED2. It was cool also to see him as The King two or three years ago in Bubba Ho Tep in which he showed versatility and great acting talent. But this Screaming Brain adventure is certainly not for Bruce's early fans. Either I'm getting too old for this sh17, or I'm just not part of Bruce's target audience anymore. I'm positive kids age 9 to 13 will love this film. But this over extended matinée sci-fi comedy contains about 5 minutes total of interesting moments, and the rest is cheap kids slapstick humor. Campbell better talk seriously with Sam Raimi and get their brains screaming together for a last Evil Dead reunion picture to get back my interest. At least there would be a good director behind the camera... Sorry Bruce, this just doesn't cut it for me. Take care.
My brain was screaming "why do you keep watching! Turn it off and go to bed!" But couch potatoness won out, and I watched until the predictable ending. I guess when it's Bruce Campbell I need to give it a chance.<br /><br />I find it hard to complain about a low budget movie purely because of the low budget... time and time again we see low budget movies proving that a good story, good writing and good acting are enough to make a good movie. Ted and Bruce got their start on just such a movie, but they didn't seem to learn from Sam that it takes a bit more than slapping it on film to make a movie.<br /><br />It's sad, too, because Bruce has always been a favorite. After the 70's and 80's, I just can't believe movies this bad are still being made. Bruce, I'm really disappointed.
Guys, what can I tell you? I'm Bulgarian. I can't remember how many times I talk to Americans and let alone that they don't have a slightest clue where is Bulgaria, but they say things like: "There's a war going on there, right?" or "I've never imagined that in a place like Bulgaria people have Internet" Go watch Bruce Campbell's "The Man With The Screaming Brain". I was curious about this movie, cause 1) I'm Bruce Campbell fan - "Evil Dead" trilogy and "The Adventures of Brisco County Jr." 2) The movie was shot entirely on location in Bulgaria, the second after "Alien Apocalypse" which is also nearly unwatchable. 3) I enjoy nice B-movies<br /><br />Well... The movie presents our country like a never-ending Gypsy Town where they raid your car, wave around illegal guns, and you can get killed any moment. And Bruce's line "Bull$h1t Bulgaria" is more than offending.<br /><br />Ted Raimi and Stacy Ceach make a great team, Bruce does his special - beats himself up and that's all. Nothing more to see here.<br /><br />Peoeple give this movie 10 just because of Bruce's cult status, but it doesn't deserve more than 3. Waste of film.
I just saw this movie last night at a midnight sneak preview screening (I work for an independent theatre chain in Colorado - it's one of the perks)...I'm sorry, but this is one of THE WORST movies I've ever seen! I know that there are some Bruce Campbell fanatics out there who (like Star Wars die-hards) will string you up from the nearest tree if you DARE speak any ill of their beloved cinematic icon...nevertheless, Campbell-teers, this particular work from The Chin is a celluloid black hole.<br /><br />Before you make any assumptions that I'm some hoity-toity film buff who only watches "real" movies like "Ladies in Lavender" and "Sideways", think again - I'm a huge fan of B-movies, and Bruce Campbell in particular. His trademark character Ash is one of my favorites, and his portrayal of the aging Elvis in Bubba Ho-Tep was phenomenal.<br /><br />But hey, B-movies still have the potential to be reeeeally, reeeeally bad (and not in that "good" campy way we all love)...and that's what watching this particular one was like for me and my fellow co-workers. With the exception of that one tracking shot where Bruce runs through the square and scares the kids, there were no laughs to be had. Overall, we found the story to be mind-numbingly stoopid, the pacing mollasses-like, and the so-called humor dumber than a bag of hammers. (I'm sorry, but Ted Raimi's "Pavel" character was not comic relief...he was just plain retarded!) Believe me, we all went into this really wanting to like it, but left feeling incredibly disappointed and robbed of two hours.<br /><br />If you absolutely loved this movie, plan to see it multiple times, want to marry and have kids with it, etc., that's fantastic - we all like what we like, so you get no judgement from me. But don't go questioning the sense of humor or fan loyalty of those who aren't having multiple orgasms over Campbell's latest cinematic coupe. This flick was a steaming turd sandwich in my humble opinion...and as a true Campbell fan, I'm allowed to say that!
I enjoy B movies. I think Bruce Campbell is a very watchable actor. I love how he delivers his lines. 'Evil Dead 2 and 'Army of Darkness' were great movies. I liked 'Running Time'. However, I don't know if I'll ever watch this movie again...and I bought it. Now, after saying that, I bet the commentary tracks and special features will be worth watching! This movie just has far too many holes for me to actually enjoy, even as a cheapo movie. First off, Ted Raimi was annoying, just flat out annoying. There was nothing to his badly acted / written character that hasn't been done better a thousand times before. The directing sadly was sub par and the choice of some shots...yikes. I don't expect Woody Allen or James Cameron here, but Campbell did not deliver.<br /><br />I did not purchase this thinking it was going to be an Oscar movie like 'Annie Hall', but still I'm disappointed. I would have been happy with 'Mallrats' or 'The Rhino Brothers'. I got much less. By the end of the movie there were no scenes that popped out to me, no dialogue that resonated within me. Even 'Hostel' had a classic line for petes sake! I do not recommend this movie.
Lets get one thing out of the way. I am a HUGE Bruce Campbell fan, I have the Evil Dead series, have the action figures, and have seen Bubba Ho-Tep. I am a fan of cheesy, laughable horror flicks and know how to appreciate the whole "it's so bad it's good" deal. <br /><br />I wish I could say the same about this movie. I watched this movie with high expectations, I wanted it to be good, campy, something from the BC we have all come to know and love. It started out promising enough, but after the first 20 minutes I resided to watching the rest of this sorry excuse of a movie as if I had just been shot with tranquilizer darts. <br /><br />The idea itself isn't a bad one; two men, don't get along, both killed by the same psycho woman, half of one man's brain is transplanted into the other's head, they argue, disagree and the comedy ensues. <br /><br />What killed me is how extremely unorganized and boring it was! It had potential, even as a camp flick to be so much better than it was. The plot was boring, even Bruce's zany physical slap stick couldn't make it work. <br /><br />Word's cannot even properly express the ridiculous robot that Bruce's wife's brain ends up getting put into. Easily the worst looking robot I have ever seen anywhere (even for a B movie.) The whole idea is dumb. <br /><br />What the hell was going through Bruce's mind when he made this steaming pile is beyond me. Why Ted Raimi didn't go running to his big brother asking him to slap some sense into Bruce and not to mention some lessons about making an enjoyable movie on a budget is beyond me.<br /><br />Shame on you Bruce!!!
Man with the Screaming Brain is a story of greed, betrayal and revenge in the a small Bulgarian town. William Cole, wealthy industrialist, winds up with part of his brain replaced by that of a Russian cab driver Yegor. The two couldn't be more different, but they share one thing - both were killed by the same woman. Brought back to life by a mad scientist, William and Yegor form an unlikely partnership to track down their common nemesis.<br /><br />Bruce Campbell returns to the B horror movie genre that gave him his cult status, this time not only in front of the screen, but behind the lens. Unfortunately for this time around, the laughs don't deliver and Campbell has to resort to what he does best to try and fill the gap in this film.<br /><br />As a fan of Campbell, who has the movies, the books and the action figures, I was hoping for another hit to add to my collection. Although, after seeing this film before the purchase, I am glad that I don't have the "pleasure" of adding it.<br /><br />The film first goes wrong in the story, which at first sight, seems like harmless fun but turns out to be boring drawn out dribble. Which is a sad thing to say because it was written by Mr. Campbell himself. The comedy never really hits, it only makes us scratch our heads. It seems that Campbell ran out of things that are funny and resulted in giving the audience what we've already seen...him fighting himself.<br /><br />Ted Raimi, the brother of Evil Dead director Sam Raimi, is undoubtedly the highlight of the film. He brings a freshness to it and an entertaining time when the film really needs it. It helps if you are a fan and have been following these stooges from Evil Dead to Xena, which is why I felt compelled to like this film.<br /><br />Campbell's experience as a director, from directing episodes of the TV series Hercules is apparent. Campbell makes the film work well enough, even with the low-budget. In the end, there aren't as many things going for this as one would hope for, but the fans of Campbell will stick behind it no matter what, unfortunately for this fan...I won't.
This could have been a great movie with plenty of educational potential for teachers around the world about evolution, biology, the creative work in science, research and Darwin's life, but it is not.<br /><br />The screenplay is mostly historically inaccurate and transforms a true story into a Mexican soup-opera melodrama. While it is true that Darwin gradually lost his religious beliefs, this was in great part due to his findings during the voyage of the Beagle and not solely due to the loss of his daughter. He was certainly disturbed by his loss, but that did not made him literally insane, delusional and detached from his friends and family. The such portrayal of Darwin is an invention of the script writer. Thus it cannot be used in any way as place to learn a bit about Darwin's life and psyche. According to most historians, Darwin had the theory ready by the end of the Beagle voyage, and kept it from going public because he wanted to develop further the consequences of it and check against more data. In the movie, it is an imaginary conflict of Darwin with his religious beliefs and the mental illness that he developed after his daughter's death that kept him from going public.<br /><br />The movie brings a modern situation, the creationists vs scientists debate, into the life and times of Darwin, thus it is anachronistic. It depicts Thomas Huxley not as a man trying to develop further understanding of biology but as someone eager to "kill God", in his own words from the movie, and destroy the church, who would accept the theory of evolution for such purposes and not because it was a synthesis of plenty of disconnected data. Huxley is presented as a very arrogant and insensible person, a combination that I interpret was an attempt to ridicule active atheists who speak up against religion. In real life, Huxley accepted Darwin's ideas after publication only gradually, and before the work of Darwin he thought that there was not enough evidence to support evolution. His first support of evolution was published one month after the Origin of Species became public. He was agnostic but did not think it was necessary "to kill God", only thought that there was not enough evidence to believe in the supernatural. The debate creationists vs scientists appears throughout the movie, and creationists catch-phrases such as "It is only a theory" are part of the discussion. Of course, no such dispute or catch-phrases existed at that time. In fact, the Anglican Church published a positive review of the Origin's saying that they saw God's work in evolution, in some sense, quite in fact in contradiction to the way that the clergy is portrayed in the screenplay.<br /><br />Another awful aspect of this movie is that it gives the wrong impression to the general public that scientific research is done by a solitary crazy man who just writes a lot. Nothing could be further from the truth. The conception of the theory of evolution was the result of thorough observations of living forms by Darwin during five years in the HMS Beagle, and was developed gradually as it can be seen from Darwin's notes of the voyage. Even though the Beagle voyage was the sole most important part of Darwin's life to the conception of "Origin of Species", the voyage is briefly mentioned only once at the beginning, and no attempt is made to show that the book came as an elaborate analysis of observations. To make it worse, Darwin is shown performing a single experiment (pigeon breeding) to test his theory and, in the end, quits it. And I'm not really sure whether such experiment did actually occur.<br /><br />Great disappointment. It is not in any way a homage to Darwin and science.
I can remember reading that Darwin had a pivotal experience in the Galapagos islands, seeing the vast range of animal life there, and intern, penned his theory of evolution. Not according to this movie-it was inspired by the British countryside. OK, and as John Cleese would say-Right-. I also did not think that Darwin was a man suffering from deep personal conflict and someone who suffered dark reveries and flights of anguish. According to this film he was. It is sad that he apparently lost one of his daughters to illness, but I don't think him losing a family member would have impacted on the mans scientific abilities very much. Well, not according to...you get the picture. I think there is nothing worse than when science gets turned into fable, and to an extent this film comes off as trying to debunk evolutionary theory by saying it came from a man who was emotionally unstable, which to me, is just plain gross. I think Charles Darwin was the soul of scientific enquiry, cool and calm, and always thinking logically. This film seeks to dramatize the undramatic and sensationalize clear headed scientific exploration. It is like a Canterbury Tale. I would not recommend it.
How to take Charles Darwin's fantastic intellectual journey and turn it into a chick flick. His pivotal and seminal ideas and their radical influence on Western thought and capitalist society are untouched except for two brief scenes, in one of which it is claimed he is "killing God"; pure demagoguery to make the movie emotional. And the rest of the movie buckles to that purpose: it consists entirely of melodramatic and long family scenes with overloud music at which one is beholden to cry. Anyone who actually read "Origin Of Species" would be vividly aware that there was no breach with God in any of Darwin's work; to the contrary, there was an increased awe and respect, and a revolutionary new way of looking at things. A good movie about Darwin could be educational, thoughtful, and deeply inspiring, even in a religious sense - but that would contradict the soap-opera intentions of this flick. This is a flick that is designed to make people wail in contrived sympathy and then feel transformed although unable to understand why; it makes fast use of Darwin's great name only as marketing clout, as one would drop a famous name at a party to create an impression. Sad that the sets and costumes are so good: production values, except for the writing, were obviously high. See it if you want to weep, for the loss of intelligence in American literature.
what a waste of a film once again the film industry does not trust to make a film that could have been just about the man's ideas. there is virtually nothing on his theories or evolution, instead the most boring story of home life and relationship with one daughter, a ponderous script, great liberties taken with Darwin's life, dialogue given to his character that i find hard to believe he would have voiced. Darwin never gave up his believe in a higher power, he may not quite rightly have believed in the established Christian idea of God , but was not an atheist. which this film implies. what would have been a riveting and much better film, is if they had started with the publication of On the Origin of Species and constructed a story of the great revolution that entailed, and of an amazing cast of characters involved on all sides. instead we got a plodding, boring drama, mostly made up, a great injustice
I wish I could tell you that this film is as exciting as the theories it espouses. But I can't. Another species could have come and mutated while I waited for some action. For such a controversial man, Darwin lived the most conventional life. If you didn't know about the mad theories, you could almost mistake him for a stamp collector.<br /><br />The film-makers have cast Darwin as a dullard which does him a disservice. Even when he briefly loses his mind due to his tireless theorising, it wasn't interesting to watch. Maybe great thinkers are dull people? I don't know what I was expecting: a forehead-banging eccentric with wild hair and eyes espousing his love of all things simian, the glint of madness straining from a furrowed brow? A long-haired hermit who babbled to animals? A head-cradling lunatic with eyes lit up like beacons of truth? All of the above would have been great. This is the movies for Scorsese's sake.<br /><br />But there was none of that. No lightning, no thunder, no wonder, no awe. Just Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly fresh from the Subtle as Breath School of Method Acting. I imagine that someone with Darwin's ideas had a brain like a speeding train so why did this film just pootle along - chug chug chug - like a slow winter? The disappointment is immeasurable.
I had high hopes going to see this, as I always enjoy Paul Bettany's performances. I thought he was very good as Darwin, and did his best considering the terrible material he had to work with.<br /><br />Darwin's book On the Origin of Species was one of the most ground-breaking, controversial and innovative publications ever, yet you'd never think it based on this tedious movie. It's like a two-hour episode of a soap opera in a Victorian setting. There is virtually nothing about Darwin's five-year voyage on The Beagle to the Galapagos Islands, for example, surely of supreme significance to the story, as it was from his investigations of the wildlife thereon that he began to form his theory of evolution.<br /><br />This is just one long, dreary, domestic drama, with Darwin portrayed as a slightly loopy eccentric, seeing visions of his dead daughter everywhere and being given the cold shoulder by his emotionally-constipated wife. Jennifer Connelly's portrayal of Emma Darwin is nothing short of awful and bears little relation to historical descriptions of the real Emma. There could have been an opportunity here to present the creationist interpretation of life on earth, from either Emma or from the local priest, as played by Jeremy Northam (a blink-and-you'd-miss-it part which is a complete waste of a talented actor) to act as a counterbalance to Darwin's views, but it wasn't taken up. <br /><br />The story focused too much on endless mawkish sentiment about Darwin's grief for his daughter Annie, and too much time was also wasted in Darwin wondering whether or not to write his book. Eventually I was so bored it was difficult to care. <br /><br />All in all, this was a bit like making a movie about Picasso and spending two hours concentrating on him having a fight with his girlfriend and not bothering to mention that he was an artist.
I must say that I wasn't impressed at all, probably because I was expecting much more from this movie. Maybe an accent on religion vs science or on the meaning of life, not just a few lines. So, if you expect something to think about after you see this movie, don't. It's more psychological than philosophical. I vote 4 because of the end, it clears up a bit and because I have a great respect for BBC documentaries. There are a couple of very interesting scenes that actually gave some sense. It was a brilliant idea to add it in a movie related to theory of evolution, too bad that this wasn't the main subject. Ah, I just forgot to say that for more than 1 hour, the movie is quite boring and in a way, cruel.
the movie is precious, and cage is a babe. <br /><br />but will anyone agree with me in saying that the punk representation in this movie is ATROCIOUS?!?! <br /><br />where's the clash? the ramones?? misfits? social distortion? the cramps?? sex pistols?! ANYONE?!?!?!?! the music is this movie is incredibly disappointing! at LEAST they play the cure.<br /><br />plus, randy's feathered hair and pleated khakis...<br /><br />this definitely looks like a movie about "punks" the way that a bunch of movie industry squares see punks.<br /><br />although it's a 90's movie, SLC punk paints a much more accurate picture of the punk rock scene in the early 1980's. just sayin'.
How can anyone even begin to like this film is really beyond me.<br /><br />The idea? It has none. "A guy fell apart". That's the idea. Wow. An environment was slowly killing him... now THAT's original and worth watching.<br /><br />This is the first Fasbinder's film I've seen... I've heard that he's a genius of mise-en-scene, but I've seen student films with more attention, inspiration, idea, and craft than this... this.... this nothing. It has nothing!<br /><br />Each and every shot is too long. There's so much emptiness in them... The acting's horrible. You can see the actors had no preparation at all, no understanding of their roles, not even an attempt at showing emotions... it's so... superficial... The lines are so explicative that you could removed 90% of them and still have the same crappy film. Tempo? Who cares about it. Atmosphere, dynamics, that's for pussies! One shot per scene, 80% of the time people staring unrealistically, having no idea how to represent emotions and importance of the moment besides hollow staring at the camera or one another... EDiting? All rules of editing have been disregarded with no pa pay-off of any kind... Photography? Half of the shots have reflection in them, and crappy lighting with no stylization of any kind. Shadows, play of shadows... who needs that? We need a guy pissing, drinking, hitting his wife like he's... like he's acting. We need a bunch of close ups of a not-so-beautiful woman... we need an amateurish climax of his capture by an unconvincing arabian torturer... This film has so much wrongs that it isn't worth the no-budget it had.<br /><br />Frankly, I haven't seen a film this bad since American Pie 5. Yup. That bad.<br /><br />I've just started watching his "Veronica Foss" movie, which seems much better, based on the first 15 minutes (since it does have a hint of directing and artistic idea, unlike this crap), so I won't argue that Fasbinder's clueless.... but this.... this film SUCKS!
The filmmakers apparently had enough money to be able to afford decent makeup effects, but not enough for a creature that would move around and attack convincingly. We never get a chance to see the "monster" move from one place to another - whenever that happens (supposedly), the camera focuses on the "terrified" reactions of the humans that are nearby. And when a man is attacked by it, he simply seems to be holding an inanimate object against himself so that it won't fall to the ground. This is still not the worst "Alien" rip-off around (the two "Xtro" films are even worse, for example); it's actually sufficiently entertaining if you've got 68 (!!) minutes to spare. (*1/2)
I am the kind of person who can enjoy a good B Movie if it has some kind of redeeming value to it, but Dead Space has nothing to redeem it! This is the kind of film that will make you frustrated, restless and sick to your stomach. <br /><br />Bad acting. Lame story. Terrible effects. Horrible, excruciating dialogue. Dead Space has it all!
Alien was excellent. Many writers tried to copy it. They all did a bad job (or almost). But Dead Space is the worst Alien copy. Because of the bad actors, the bad special effects, the BAD scenario and other bad stuff (it would take about 3 pages to tell everything that is bad in this film. The movie wasn't very long and this is a very good thing (the only one). You cannot laugh because it is too serious...that is a bad thing because, in almost each B-series sci-fi film, you can laugh during the whole time. It can be terrific sometimes, but instead of watching this stupidity, just watch Alien or Event Horizon...these are much better!!! I give it 1 out of 5.
Less than two hundred and fifty years ago, the last of the great pirates wrote their names in blood and fire across the pages of maritime history. This is the story of a buccaneer Captain whose name for one short year struck terror in the hearts of seafarers and merchants from the ports of the Caribbean to the trading houses of London.....<br /><br />Hmm, that opening to the film sounds like we are in for one hell of a swashbuckling, pillaging, ripper of a movie doesn't it? Well it's not. Tho it's not totally without value as a curio piece. Out of 20th Century Fox, Anne Of The Indies is adapted by Philip Dunne & Arthur Caesar from a short story written by Herbert Ravenel Sass. Direction is by Jacques Tourneur, the score is by Franz Waxman and Harry Jackson is providing the Technicolor photography. Jean Peters is in the titular title role of Anne {AKA Captain Providence} and support comes from Louis Jourdan, Debra Paget, Herbert Marshall, Thomas Gomez & James Robertson Justice.<br /><br />Originally meant to be be based on true life pirate Anne Bonny, the film ultimately turns out to be a tale of a woman seeking identity, and finding herself, in the predominantly male led world of piracy and sea based shenanigans. Filled with clichés and over familiar set pieces, the film also suffers from a cast that is largely misfiring. Peters gives it a right good go, and Paget lights up the screen with effervescent beauty. While Robertson Justice, although underused, actually looks the part and doesn't overact like the rest of the male cast does. Some reviewers have desperately tried to dig deep into the film to find intelligence and hidden meanings, purely because it's Tourneur in the directing chair. But there is no depth here, this is merely a job for Tourneur, a professional one granted, but its thinly plotted and actually lacking swash to go with the buckle in the action stakes. <br /><br />Disposable at best. 4/10
After the turning point of NIGHT MUST FALL, Robert Montgomery (for the most time) came into his finest films and performances: HERE COMES MR. JORDAN, THEY WERE EXPENDABLE, THE LADY IN THE LAKE, RIDE THE PINK HORSE, THE SAXON CHARM, JUNE BRIDE. Even some of the failures he was in were interesting enough to be still watchable (RAGE IN HEAVEN, MR. AND MRS. SMITH). But Montgomery wanted to do more and more production and directing work. In 1949 he made what would be his last movie performance - he played Collier Lang, an egotistical movie star, who is dragged into helping the authorities do an investigation about a young girl's boyfriend.<br /><br />Apparently my view of this film is a minority view. Most of the views given are favorable about it. I thought it was a dull, witless script, with Ann Blyth's groupie heroine not very appealing as a character. She admires Montgomery as a star, and this "helps" when he is called in to assist the authorities, but after awhile I found there was no chemistry between them. The script was also devoid of much fun, although Montgomery and Roland Winters did try. The only thing I recall to this day as a joke point was that Taylor Holmes is the wealthy father of Blyth, and he is an admirer of Winston Churchill. So he always dresses up as Churchill, and we see him wearing a floppy broad brimmed hat, smoking a large cigar, and painting (Holmes' bald head helps in the disguise). That was the most memorable joke from this film - not much of a real memory.<br /><br />Montgomery went into early television, and finally won the attention and respect he always had deserved in motion pictures. His last contact with the movies was his direction of THE GALLANT HOURS about Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, starring his friend Jimmy Cagney. It is a far better film than this. For his overall film and television career, I will give this mediocre film a "4". That strikes me as generous.
Poor second-string feature from Universal Pictures about a mama's boy movie actor doing criminal investigation work for the military, fending off the advances of the brash young woman he's been assigned to romance. Robert Montgomery directed and stars in this adaptation of the short story "Come Be My Love", and his acting performances of this era are unrelievedly lazy. The plot is sappy, predictable stuff, and writer Robert Carson has given all the really funny lines (as usual for films of this period) to the feisty black maid. It's always nice to see Ann Blyth and Jane Cowl in support, but they can't do much with this hokey material. * from ****
The One is a very aptly name show, mostly because it comes close to being the only network shows on in prime time that barely more than one person is watching.<br /><br />When I first heard of The One, I thought to myself "Weee!! Another sing-song show! We don't have enough of those!" and then proceeded to strap on my helmet and run about my home hitting my head on blunt objects and sharp corners. Because in all honesty, the constant, year round pain and suffering inflicted by having only one or two "talent" based reality shows running just isn't enough. We needed another one. And not just any one - "THE" One. The one with slightly less attractive contestants with slightly less talent. The one with slightly less of a point, though it's hard to imagine a scenario in which that's possible. The one with pointless footage of the contestants when they're not performing included. Because I care what Johnny Sings-a-lot does in his off hours! I really do! Now, you may be thinking "Hey! On the entire continent of North America less than 4 million people watched the first episode. Doesn't that mean this show sucks?" Well, to that I say less than 4 million people in North America have syphilis, so sometimes low numbers bring good news now don't they?. Think about it.<br /><br />In the end, The One may be horribly unoriginal, a show that even the airing network couldn't be bothered to promote because they too realize how absolutely worthless it is, but it's still not syphilis! Yay!
No surprise except in how quickly ABC reacted to the dismal ratings. According to published reports (Variety) the show garnered the worst ratings in the history of the ABC television network.<br /><br />And I quote: ABC's music talent competition "The One" opened Tuesday night to cancel-me-now ratings.<br /><br />The article went on to say that the show received a "shockingly low 1.1 rating/3 share in adult 18-49 and 3.08 million viewers overall."<br /><br />That makes it the weakest premiere for any reality show on any network and also below all series bows in ABC history.<br /><br />From the first moment I saw the commercials for this I knew it would fail. We don't need another American Idol clone. But ABC should have given this show a fair chance to succeed.
From the weeks and weeks of promotion for this, ABC's "The One" was supposed to be "The Real World" meets "American Idol." We were to watch these singers perform, compete and see how they lived together in a house as well. The Drama! The Tension! <br /><br />Where does one begin with this atrocity? Let's start with the "judges" who were known as "Music Experts" on this program. "Experts" implies they have expertise. Andre Harrell at least had a pedigree. He was in charge of Motown Records for a time. The other two... eh. Kate Hudson's uncle, who could have been labeled Mr. Weird Beard. He dyed his facial hair three distinctly different florescent colors. I wonder how scary he would have been with a black light! And The Paula Abdul wannabe, who did something I didn't think could happen: she was even more gushing and cloying than Paula! She then over corrected and became harshly critical after the first episode. The farce of "critiques" that these three offered was a true joke and an insult, not only to the process of finding the best singer, but to the audience that is now quite savvy, already having done this numerous times on Fox.<br /><br />There was the host. George Stroumboulopoulos was no Ryan Seacrest. In fact, he was as lackluster as can be. He actually sucked what little energy there was in the program, dry. How he got that job was the second biggest mystery of the show.<br /><br />The first was how did they pick the 11 competitors for this program? This was literally a talent-free talent show. OK. Perhaps that's an exaggeration. And granted, the performers all have to be relatively close in ability, because if they were not, there wouldn't be a "contest." If only one person was "good," there would be no "suspense." So, I get that they all needed to be comparable. But they all should have had *some* chops! Additionally, the judges were running a "Singing Academy," so the program was part "Fame," as well. Clearly these performers desperately needed those lessons. But you need some extremely talented people to teach those with little talent to be talented. And that definitely wasn't what was happening here.<br /><br />It seemed in casting the show, the priority was on the "homelife" elements, as all of the players were very attractive to look at, in equal parts to how badly they vocalized. But the filmed segments in their house were so chopped and sliced, you couldn't get into the stories that were starting to happen, so the show didn't capture the events there, either.<br /><br />As badly devised as all of that was, "The One" had an incredible, unbelievable, fatal design flaw built into the results that made it completely laughable.<br /><br />The audience phoned in their votes for who they liked the best, just like on "AI." But then, after the audience vote was revealed, the bottom three contestants were forced to sing a final song. The "music experts," based on that performance, chose one person from the three to save for the following week. And THEN, the contestants who were safe got to vote for who they wanted to keep from the remaining two, sending the remaining contestant home.<br /><br />The "design flaw" was that the contestants had the final say. I mean, if you were in a music competition and you wanted to get as far along the path as you could, would you vote to KEEP the better singer, or would you try to get rid of your toughest rival? Any first season viewer of CBS's "Survivor" could answer that one! And that's exactly what happened on the program. The person who had the better potential was lost, and the contestants voted back "the one" who had no talent at all! On top of that, the contestant who was just saved from the bottom by the "experts" was also allowed to vote against the remaining two! It was a complete farce! <br /><br />Maybe if they let the contestants vote first, at least the "experts" would save the better of two evils to finish. But this just confirms how not ready this show was for broadcast, how unsatisfying the whole process was to view and how misguided the producers were in attempting it.
I a huge fan of when it comes to Doctor Who series and still am, But I was very disappointed when i began to watch this new series.<br /><br />Children under the age of 15, or even better under the age of 10 will probably will enjoy it the best, and possibly new fans who haven't seen any of the original series, But as far as fans of the original series, will find this series missing much of the charm the made the original series so great, It took David Tennant to get me to Appreciate how Much better Christoper Eccellestion was as a Doctor in the 1st season.<br /><br />I would only recommend this series for people who haven't seen much of the original series, people who are under 15, and EXTREMELY DIE HARD who fans, everyone else will just get a laugh and mumble curse words about Russel T. Davies screwed up one of our favorite TV shows.
Rose – Does anything actually happen in this episode? It introduces our two leads, a slow-witted grinning idiot of a Doctor and an utterly un-interesting companion. There's no plot to speak of, childish humour, mixed with some extremely bad pacing and incidental music. What else is there to say, really?<br /><br />The End of the World – A marginal improvement, in that we see our first outer-space scenario. Subsequently brought down by poor contemporary humour, paper-thin logic, very poor pacing, and tired SF clichés.<br /><br />The Unquiet Dead – Best episode to date showing what can happen when someone knows how to structure an episode, write interesting character dialogue, AND integrate an intriguing plot. Let down solely by the Doctor and Rose.<br /><br />Aliens of London/World War Three - Doctor who degenerates into farce. What more can be said. Penelope Wilton brings the proceedings a little gravity, trying her best in dire circumstances. Some poorly written, and out-of-place soap opera elements come to the fore in these two episodes, and a return to poor pacing, bad plotting and cringe worthy humour/satire.<br /><br />Dalek – Not great, however still far above the RTD fare to date. The pacing and script are all fine (though the Doctor and Rose still irritate). The effects and menace of the Dalek are introduced well. The finale, however, took an interesting premise that reduced the Doctor's most notorious foe, into a cuddly touchy-feely mess, and turning a previously un-seen menace, to a blue rubber squid that looked like a child's toy.<br /><br />The Long Game - The first RTD script to show any plot, even if it was in a clichéd 80s style. Still, it was marred somewhat by his usual over-reliance on juvenile jokes, placing it too far in the future to make logical sense, and again poor pacing. Not as bad as his previous efforts, but instantly forgettable.<br /><br />Father's Day – The initial premise could've been vaguely interesting, but common sense and logic abandon this episode from the very beginning. Also, we are treated to a whole episode of Soap Opera. Before you start thinking this is all about characterization, remember, there's a big difference between lame Soap Opera and characterization. On the plus side, it does prove RTD isn't the worst script writer so far.<br /><br />The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances - This started off in a mediocre way, with some cringe worthy moments, and some illogical mistakes that even a primary school pupil wouldn't make (Well lit windows in a blackout, anyone?). After this, the first part takes a more interesting and sinister turn. Florence Hoath truly steals these episodes, showing us what an interesting companion could've been like. She could also act. Instead we get the annoying and politically correct Captain Jack as the new companion. The conclusion was a little hasty, but sufficient. The pacing and script improved with a reasonably good storyline, making these two episodes quite atmospheric and intriguing. <br /><br />Boom Town - I have to be honest, except for a few examples, I had been so disillusioned by the current series, that upon seeing the trailer for another 'Slitheen' episode, I gave up and didn't subject myself to the torture.<br /><br />Bad Wolf - Reality TV, arguably the worst facet of the modern media, is basically used as the premise. There's no subtlety whatsoever. Do we get any interesting social commentary as in the likes of The Running Man or Truman Show? No, of course not. This in an RTD episode, so they're basically here to cynically try and pull in the audience of said shows. Once again, logic goes out the window, as we're placed 200,000-something years in the future. RTD tries pointlessly to shoe-horn in some 'over-arcing' story here, with no relevance other than it's own existence and when the villains are revealed at the end... They make empty threats, and the Doctor grins once more like an idiot for the climax! Faster paced for the most part, than RTD's other efforts, this has one or two interesting moments. Otherwise, another lacklustre instalment.<br /><br />The Parting of the Ways - The big finale. More of a damp squid, literally. All of the Dalek menace set up in 'Dalek' is brought crashing down, as they become rather pathetic. So many plot holes riddle this episode, with typically poor contrivances. Daleks want to harvest humans as Daleks, but then vaporize entire continents? Dalek's can vaporize said continents, but not destroy the Tardis in space? The Tardis is now indestructible and can land anywhere, even over people so they can be saved in it? This ability can't be used to easily destroy the Dalek 'god'? The Daleks can vaporize entire continents, but don't just nuke satellite 5 to destroy the doctor, and instead let him play around? The doctor is a pathetic coward without the conviction of his actions, after eradicating his whole species to try and eliminate the Daleks? These and many other holes aside, we are treated to the lamest dues ex machina solution ever conceived, joined with a near pointless story arc.<br /><br />So what can we say about the new series, all-in-all?<br /><br />Would this have gained a second series if it were anything other than Doctor Who, with RTD behind it? Would most of the episodes have been seen as anything other than un-original and forgettable, if they were anything other than Doctor Who, and had RTD's name attached? I think not.<br /><br />Some people would have us think we can't say anything against RTD, since we owe him for bringing Doctor Who back to our screens. However, this at the expense of good characters and stories. Personally, I'd rather not have a poorly planned, ill conceived product, churned out at that price. I'd rather wait till someone could come along and make a genuine effort. For the most part, this is the kind of puerile rubbish that gives SF a bad name, marring what is otherwise the most creative genre.
To be fair, I didn't see a lot of this show. Probably because it wasn't as good as the original M*A*S*H, but I seem to recall them moving it around on the weekly schedule. Some shows just aren't worth the trouble of following around every week. But I really did try at first, so it wasn't all bad. Maybe I just kept expecting it to improve, but I can't give this show a 1. In all honesty, I can't give it any more than a 2 either.<br /><br />It wasn't MASH (I'm not going to type those stupid *'s every time). And it was trying to be MASH without putting forth any effort, like it would just magically happen. Well guess what? No magic. The best I can do here is to compare it to other shows.<br /><br />Trapper John, M.D. was a much better show by far. However, they should have called it B.J. Hunnicut, M.D. because Pernell Roberts looked exactly like an older BJ, but nothing at all like Trapper John. Keep everything else the same, just change his name and the name of the show. Presto! After MASH wasn't the only sequel to completely bomb and dishonor the original. Archie Bunker's Place was a lame follow-up to All In The Family. It had no heart, no conflict, no depth – all of the things that made All In the Family so memorable. Likewise, MASH was funny because the doctors were reacting to the impossible absurdity of war. Remove the war and you remove the drive for 99% of the humor. Potter can't yell at Klinger for wearing a dress, because Klinger isn't wearing a dress, because he's not trying to get kicked out of the Army, because he's already out of the Army, because the war is over. (breathe) All of the jokes became forced because there was no motivation for anything. The least motivated was the viewer, to stay around and watch the show.<br /><br />And from what I remember, the whole show seemed to be Potter, Klinger, and Mulcahy just standing there unnaturally, facing the audience like a trio of Vaudeville performers. It was reminiscent of Good Times, where they spent 90% of the show standing behind that couch and talking to the audience, trying to make it look like they were having natural conversation. They weren't. And it felt even less natural on After MASH.<br /><br />Another random tidbit I recall is that the people who made MASH never got any royalties from the spin-off. The studio used the absurd excuse that After MASH was really a spin-off of the movie MASH (which they owned) and not the TV series. Nice try, but Mulcahy was the only one of the three in the movie, and he was never deaf. I guess studio execs will do anything for a buck. Anything other than make a worthwhile sequel, that is.
Every time I watch Larry King Live, he rolls out the most softball questions for his guests. He rarely gets any useful information because he doesn't ask the hard questions. This comes from his start on radio.<br /><br />King established himself on the radio and basically has not changed one bit of the format for television except for his talking head being visible. He becomes like a puppy for his guests & the only time he really gets useful information from them is whee they volunteer it or a caller to the show actually asks a hard question.<br /><br />Larry is a nice, fatherly type of interviewer. This means he should not have a prime time show on a major news network if you consider CNN one. I don't because of the history of CNN.<br /><br />Copying (ie. Cable) New Network was started by Ted Turner as an alternative to network news in that it could broadcast news 24/7. When it first started, the only TV competition was from NBC,ABC, & CBS. Because of this, CNN Copied the format of their competition & achieved respectable ratings. <br /><br />This worked fine for CNN until they got competing networks which were innovative & provided better/ fresher news coverage. In response to the heating up of competition, CNN went into denial & panned its competitors who were eating their lunch & ratings because CNN wanted to resist change. This didn't work very long & their ratings began to plummet.<br /><br />Now the Copying News Network is trying to re mold itself by re-inventing itself by copying the leading news network format. Unfortunately, this show represents a big piece of the problem. It is 21 years old & showing it's age very badly. <br /><br />Sorry to say, King needs to be moved out of Prime Time or scrapped altogether.
Larry is a perfect example of the Democratic Party in the United States, of which he is a staunch member. King used to be somewhat fair and unbiased and had a variety of guests on. The Party used to be centrist, too, but that was another era. Now, like, Larry, it's Far Left. <br /><br />At least 90 percent of all the guests on King's show in the past year or two are Liberals who sit there and bash President Bush and every Conservative they can think of.....night after night. Bill Mahar, one of the more viscous ones, is - and you can look this up - the most frequent guest in the history of King's TV show. You can count on other outspoken Left Wingers to be on King's show each week, but don't hold your breath waiting for a Conservative. They are few and far between.<br /><br />King was also one of the innovators of the media overkill. That all began with the O.J. Simpson trial. Night after night after night that's all you ever saw back in the mid '90s. Whatever latest gossip on Anna Nicole Smith, or the Petersen murder case, or Paris Hilton, Britney Spears or some other tabloid subject, you can bet Larry will beat it to death. Sadly, all the other networks do the same thing now. Larry was a leader in that regard.<br /><br />King also has the nerve to sometimes give advice, such as on marriage. I am not kidding; I 've heard him say it. The joke is that he has been married and divorced a half dozen times! This man has few scruples, believe me. When it comes to morality, he is clueless. Maybe that's why he has Dr. Phil on, to explain some facts of life to him regularly. Larry will nod, but he doesn't understand any more than when Billy Graham used to talk to him.<br /><br />King also is becoming famous for the "softball" interview, meaning he asks no hard questions. That is a lot due to the fact that most his guests are of his political persuasion. People know being on King's show is liking having an hour public relations gig.<br /><br />What all this has meant is a serious decline in ratings the past five years. People see through him and his Liberal-and-tabloid-TV mentality and switched over from King and CNN to Fox News.
Let's describe Larry as an interviewer: a complete suckhole, in every way possible. He laughs at all his guests jokes, he asks the most boring questions and he would never dare contradict them. He hits me as the type of person who wants to be liked by...everyone. Friendly, boring, ol'predictable Harry. He probably owes his success to being a dream interviewer for celebrities because they don't get bombarded with what we, the people, want to know and have a right to know. Let's put it this way: he interviews as if he's in a red country. 02/10, 2 for the guests that come on the show yet it all seems pointless when Larry starts asking his mind numbing questions such as "What's it like to be a mother?" followed by the usual answer along the lines of "Being a mother is the greatest thing that ever happened to me: it's wonderful, but tiring".
I can't honestly believe that this is a sequel or follow up of John Landis classic comedy horror movie from 1981 . I suppose you can't really describe it as an original werewolf movie either since the bare bones of the story steal elements from the one set in London: An American tourist visits a famous European capital , he narrowly survives a werewolf attack that kills a colleague , he embarks ( Pardon the pun ) on a sexual relationship with someone in the medical profession , he turns into a werewolf , he's visited by apparitions of his dead victims , etc etc . and reading the previous line I've just discovered how much the storyline has in common with the original that it seems very similar indeed . The difference lies in how enjoyable and entertaining the Landis movie is <br /><br />With this Paris based movie there's no scenes that really stand out . There's no naked man waking up in a zoo wondering how he's going to get back home with no money or clothes , there's no bizarre dream sequence of Naziwerewolves and there's no spectacular climax . AAWIP does try to be funny but is there anything more embarrassing than failed humour ? I'm thinking of the scene where Andy McDermott has to convince someone he's got chewing gum in his pocket and not condoms ! Perhaps the biggest difference between the two movies is that there's no poignancy involved with this dubious follow up . You really do feel sorry for the protagonist's fate and dilemma in the London movie , here you just feel Andy is nothing more than a cypher going through the literary motions of a script . There's also a large number of plot holes visible . Is this the first time The Lunar Club have carried out a massacre ? If not then aren't large numbers of corpses with their hearts torn out been reported in the world's press ? Why haven't the police got leads ?<br /><br />Everyone else has mentioned it and so will I - The visuals are poor . Look at the bungee jumping scene at The Eifell Tower , it's painfully obvious that it's achieved via some blue screen projection while the werewolf transformation is done by some very cartoonish CGI . I won't put Anthony Waller in the same bracket as Stephen Sommers as a director who totally ruins a movie because of an over reliance on CGI ( The major problem with AAWIP is the screenplay coupled with a high degree of expectation from those who saw the 1981 movie classic ) but I would have preferred the Rick Baker type special effects used for the transformation . To be fair it's reasonable to speculate that perhaps the budget didn't stretch that far . But at the end of the day this is a fairly poor horror movie that didn't need to be made and DOG SOLDIERS is much better entertainment
Woeful and unnecessary sequel to a bonafide classic. An American Werewolf in London was, indisputably, a gem of a movie: humorous, demented, with just a dash of romance and so very, very British it made me want to stand up and sing God Save the Queen every time the movie ended. Then came this abomination. You know you are in real trouble when the leads are so utterly unlikeable you are glad when they are slaughtered, and actually start cheering for the lycanthropes. Tell you the truth, folks, I only got about half way through this CGIed travesty before losing the will to live and turning it off. Absolutely pitiful and a putrid waste of anyone's time.
Once upon a time there was a great American film. Which combined horror and comedy with equal thrills. This film featured clever direction. Groundbreaking special effects and superb comedic and serious acting. It was entitled 'An American Werewolf in London.' Sixteen years later the long awaited sequel was finally pinned onto the poster board outside your local theater. Surely it would have at least some of the thrills of the original. Think again. 'An American Werewolf in Paris' is an incomprehensible mess from start to pitiful finish. The problems begin with the leading man. Tom Everett Scott's performance is stiff and tiresome. From the outset he seems intent on proving that all young people are simpletons. In his defense, not even a seasoned Shakespearean thespian could have extracted a good performance from the juvenile and witless dialogue. At one point, one of Scott's deceased friends, who's soul is doomed to walk the Earth after being carved up by one of the werewolves, Is finally able to leave for the afterlife. He then quips to Scott and his friends. 'Okay guys, see ya.' What a memorable goodbye. Julie Delphy soon shows up as Scott's mysterious European love interest. Basically, she's a French girl playing the French girl. It isn't much of a stretch. But all this stupidity isn't even the most disappointing thing about the film. The special effects, such an integral part of the superb original film, fall far short in this flop. The werewolves look like cartoons. And no matter how well you sculpt a cartoon with sinewy lycanthrope muscles. It's still hard to get scared of a cartoon. So instead the vacationing American gang, led by the ultra weak Scott, keep finding excuses to return to the werewolf's catacombs lair. Here it's much easier for this incompetent special effects crew to keep the computer enhanced creatures or absurd beast masks under the cover of darkness. Some have said that if you don't look on this film as a sequel it's not as bad by comparison. I disagree, this film can not stand on its own, and is even more of a disgrace when compared to the brilliant original. If it doesn't want to be looked on as a sequel it should not have borrowed most of the title from the 1981 film. I , don't care how much you love werewolves. Or how much you worshiped 'American Werewolf in London.' as I myself did. This one is simply not worth wasting your time. 'Okay guys, see ya.' Terrible. 3 out of a possible 10 T.H.
God, that sucked. You can't end a horror movie with a happily-ever-after family setting. Yeash. I was kind of ambivalent going in to the final act. But, my god. He didn't have to kill the girl, she didn't die, the ghost father appears with a cure (which makes no sense, because his spirit would have been liberated after the yank kid killed all the bad werewolves). What a hunk of junk. This is the worst horror movie I've seen in a long time, and I've watched a lot of horror movies. This is a slap in the face for Landis and everyone else involved in American Werewolf in London. Blegh. I hope that this ruined the career of every one in it bar Julie Delphy. And CGI: Kind of new and chic back in 1997, but today it just looks drab compared to the artful prosthetic/makeup work of London. Anyway, I'm done, I hope I've scared a few people of. Get the original instead, or failing that The Howling. Or failing that watch American Idol reruns. Just don't watch this mess.
Perhaps I'm being too generous when I give this film two and a half stars out of five, but there was an occasional moment. However, as "An American Werewolf" movie this one is a missed chance! There are no real plot connections to the superior original to speak of, but the story is similar in some ways to "London".<br /><br />*Possible Spoiler Warning* American kids go to foreign country, one falls in love with a beautiful girl. Another one of the kids gets slaughtered by a werewolf in the same night that one gets bitten, and despite his undead friend's warnings, by the light of the full moon he sprouts fur, fangs, and claws!<br /><br />But there are some differences in the story, for one; the girl is one of the werewolves. Second; there are three American Kids. And third; there's some weird-@$$ werewolf cult intent on taking over the world! As crazy as it sounds, that last one, WASN'T a joke! *Spoiler Ends*<br /><br />The films suffers from many things, first the weak acting drags it down immensely! Tom Everret Scott's performance is amatuerish at best, and he and Julie Delpy, who plays his love interest, don't seem to have any chemistry together at all. Second; A weak script that seems to be all over the place. Many elements of suspense and dark comedy, that made the original one great, are missing in this one. And whoever said that eating out the heart of the werewolf that bit you will change you back human? Last I heard this wasn't part of werewolf lore at all! Third; terrible special effects; The werewolf effects are done with computer animation, which works for things such as dinosaurs, ghosts, and space ships. But seems choppy, fake and artificial, when used for furry creatures like werewolves.<br /><br />However there were a few things that saved this one from total "turkeydom", there's one hilarious scene in a Paris cafe when Andy (Scott) is having coffee with Serafine (Delpy), he drops a bunch of condoms on the table, and tries to pass them off as chewing gum, by chewing and blowing a bubble! Also; the soundtrack, a very cool mix of alternative rock bands like Bush and Smashmouth. Although none of the songs have the word "moon" in their title, like the original movie, the soundtrack is great nontheless. And another funny scene when a rotting corpse, played by Julie Bowen, attempts to whistle and her eyeball pops out, had me laughing out loud.<br /><br />But as a whole this film seems to lack the wit and suspense of the original. And the overly contrived ending doesn't help it out much either.<br /><br />**1/2 Two and a half Out of Five Stars (Average.)
I was a fan of the AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON movie and so was curious whether a 16-year later sequel could be done with French language and local re-cast major, supporting, and minor characters. Tonight I watched the "edited for FOX Network" version that was some sort of curious hybrid of several hyperactive sequels. The screenwriters and directors pay homage to certain of the key plot concepts: Tourist gets wolf bite, full moon comes out, boy meets girl, boy becomes beast, boy dies heroic death after help from ghost victim. For me, the oddest aspect of this "formula" teen horror special effect-ride was the casting of the school teacher-love interest of the TV comedy "ED" as one of the werewolf's clueless victims who is more or less totally unsympathetic in the scripted lines they handed her. I haven't seen another horror-flick that this movie is "sequelling" (a vampire fighting flick titled BLADE), but I guess that parts of its plotline must explain how villain werewolves (they're spoofish) are threatening the "good" werewolf pair during a long part of the movie. There is also a final conflict in a Paris subway train, a la SPEED. This 1997 studio product is an odd hybrid of a film since considerable technical effects are shown for scary purposes but the authentic terrors of the original have been completely undermined, in my opinion. Such an odd re-write of the werewolf legend and "movie-mythology" !?! My suggestion to those considering this at the video store -- go for a classic "top of the line" Thriller instead : Alfred Hitchcock's PSYCHO!
The odd mixture of comedy and horror sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. Had the main male character been a little more interesting, the film would have been as well. A trio of young Americans visit Paris, run into a beautiful werewolf, and the problems confound from there.<br /><br />Numerous logic holes make the possibly intriguing story difficult to take.
This DVD is missing its calling as a Heineken coaster.... This is a great example of why no one should ever go see a sequel with a different director/writer than the original. Two hours of this turkey left me begging for Exorcist 2 reruns. <br /><br />NO legitimate laughs. NOT ONE decent scare. The script was just a mess and I felt bad for the actors who had to perform it (they must have had sick relatives at home or monster coke habits or something).<br /><br />The original was a makeup effects landmark. So naturally, the producers of the sequel thought it would be a great idea to to scrap makeup FX and do CG werewolves instead. These CG werewolves had me laughing a lot harder than any of the "comedy". It was just a total miss. If ya want a night's entertainment, go rent the original again. Or go take a film class and make your own horror film. You're bound to do better than these fools did.
Well, what can be said about a "horror comedy" that features neither horror nor comedy? There are no characters in the film, but much too many plot lines - all underdeveloped and mostly superfluous.<br /><br />The computer generated creatures look bad, a bit like Disney versions of oversized rats without a tail. The walking dead are the biggest rip-off apart from the title, the shall look like the dead in Landis' movie, but are far removed. They just look like bad actors with abit of plastic and bull's blood added.<br /><br />Two plot lines really showed some promise (the love story and the "company" story), but failed as miserably as the director, the writers, the SFX department, the production and the actors.
I had been wanting to see An American Werewolf in Paris for a long time because I loved its predecessor, but this film didn't impress me as much as An American Werewolf in London. Actually, to be quite honest, it didn't impress me at all.<br /><br />Tom Everett-Scott and his dude pals are wandering Paris and, in a preposterous bungee stunt off the Eifel Tower, rescuing wolf-babe Julie Delpy from death. Before you've time to work out if the constant mugging and lumpy dialogue is meant to be the stuff of comedy, a full-moon has hit and the brats are being chased by dreadful CGI werewolves down Parisian sewers.<br /><br />The script is disgustingly poor, the actors were made to make this film, they're horrible performances match the status of the movie. From start to end, this movie is never entertaining, engaging or even slightly watchable. I had trouble watching this whole film without throwing up my dinner, to be quite honest.<br /><br />The action scenes aren't exciting, the jokes aren't funny and the werewolves aren't scary. In short: Miss out or be haunted forever.<br /><br />I rate An American Werewolf in Paris 2 out of 10.
AWiP tries to be funny, scary, tense, and romantic ... and fails in every respect. The acting is average at best, but mostly stupid. The special effects are not enough to make up for the stupid plot devices, and the chemistry between *ANY* character is juvenile.<br /><br />If you don't want to be mad at yourself, don't pay money to see it.
Take an utterly stupid story. Couple it with unprofessional performances, 2 bit graphics, add ultra-lame comedy bits, and you get this film. I thought the original was bad, but at least that story was simple and straightforward, though idiotic. May nobody produce another in this series.
I just don't get it. Why call this a sequel to the film "American Werewolf" when it has absolutely NO connection with it whatsoever? The first film was funny *and* scary with ground breaking special effects. (If memory serves, the Oscar category for special make-up effects was *created* for this movie). "Paris" is none of these things. Awful effects, and not much else. Do not see this movie. Rent the original "Werewolf in London" instead. You'll be much happier.
One of two movies I have actually thought about asking for money to stay until the end. Most movies have at least one thing that is worth staying for, even if it just to laugh at how bad it is. I never found it for this movie. Nothing was good, from the script, to the very bad effects. The worst movie I have ever seen.
Hello people,<br /><br />I cannot believe that "Shades" from That Thing You Do took this role. I don't think Cory Feldman would have taken this role. This movie was a fuming pile of dung. Save your money and time, and see every one of the top 250. I swear I wanted to slap the lady at Blockbuster silly for permitting me to rent this. Stay away!!!!!!<br /><br />Mr. Hipp
you will likely be sorely disappointed by this sequel that's not a sequel.AWIL is a classic.but this movie is about as far from being a classic as you can get.what a joke.special effects that aren't very special,horrible dialogue,non acting.and a laughably ridiculous subplot quickly and unconvincingly,(not to mention fleeting)tacked on with about a third of the movie left.did i mention the story is less then lame.there's no way this was supposed to be serious horror movie,yet it's to stupid to be funny in any good way.the rating it currently has(4.8/10)is too generous if you ask me.my rating for An American Werewolf in Paris:a 3.5/10
This is a title in search of a movie. It's a pitch that sounded lucrative to some studio executive and the rest be damned. When this film was made there were still two things that CGI did not do at all well: people, and fur. Furry people were thus not destined to look good when rendered by computer. This is the only example I can think of where effects for a well-funded sequel took a giant leap back landing well behind those of the original movie. For the record, the design of the werewolves doesn't help a bit. The film-makers apparently couldn't decide between quadruped and biped, tried to do both, and wound up with a creature that looks equally awkward either way. The transformations are anatomically nonsensical and the end result with a relatively high forehead and short snout looks like a cross between Ron Perlman and a hyena. But back to the crass part. This is a movie which exists PURELY to cash in on its forebear. I am not a fan of Landis' original film but boy, does it look good in light of this. If you thought some of Landis' humor was forced try some of the excruciating attempts here. The bubble gum scene, the corpse humor, the dog that...you know, you'll just have to watch that bit yourselves. Thomas Everett Scott is on vacation in Europe with friends and decides to take a break from acting the "ugly American' and bungee jump off the Eifel Tower in the middle of the night. This leads to him rescuing a young woman (Delpy - Julie it's not worth this just to become a star in America. Ask Rutger Hauer) from jumping to her death. She turns out to be part of a cult of werewolves who are plotting to...I'm not sure, something bad. Ghastly French stereotypes, gaping plot-holes, a muddled ending. No matter, the studio cared only that the title would likely fool millions of "American Werewolf in London" fans into handing over their cash. For the most part, happy to say, they were wrong.
There is really but one thing to say about this sorry movie. It should never have been made. The first one, one of my favourites, An American Werewolf in London, is a great movie, with a good plot, good actors and good FX. But this one? It stinks to heaven with a cry of helplessness.<br /><br />
An American Werewolf in Paris wasn't really that good compared to the original.The original didn't use computer effects for the werewolf and they looked more realistic .The werewolf effects in this film looked too cartoonish.most of all,the movie did not have enough for me for a horror film to enjoy.
This film probably would have been good,if they didn't use CGI (computer generated imagery)for the werewolf scenes.It made the creatures look fake and the werewolves looked cartoonish.CGI is great for certain effects like the dinasours in Jurassic Park or Twister.But when we see a film where the creature must look completely real,CGI is not the way to go.Look at An American Werewolf in London.No CGI.Just makeup and a mechanical creature and what you come up with was more realistic than what was shown in the sequel.This film did offer a few gags that was fun to watch and the humor in this movie seemed to have drawn me in but it's nothing more than a film that I thought was O.K.And that's not good enough.In my opinion,An American Werewolf in Paris doesn't hold up to the original.
An American Werewolf in London had some funny parts, but this one isn't so good. The computer werewolves are just awful: the perspective is all off, it's like seeing them through a distorting mirror. The writers step on the throat of many of their gags. American boy says to Parisian girl, "Is there a cafe' around here?" Instead of just leaving it at that, they have to have the girl sigh and respond, "This is Paris."
Jeff Speakman never really made it beyond the lowest ranks of martial-artists-turned-actors (lower than Don "The Dragon" Wilson, for example), and with vehicles like "The Expert", you can see why. There are three major problems with this movie: 1) The plot - or should I say plots - are all over the place, there are some characters who get a lot of screen time but serve little purpose, 2) There are only 4 fight scenes in total, some of them completely unrelated to the main plot and some taking place in the dark, 3) The music score is overzealous and overbearing. Strange as it may seem, this is really the most annoying thing about this film: the score persistently tries to convince you that you're watching some sort of grand epic, instead of the low-budget limited-action film you are indeed watching. With all that said, at least there's James Brolin around to lend a touch of credibility. *1/2 out of 4.
Oh, well I thought it should be a good action, but it was not. Although Jeff Speakman stars there is nothing to watch.Only two fight for almost 1,5 hours, yak.A lot of talking and everything is so artificial that you could not believe it. The plot is clear from the beginning. If you want good action don't rent this movie.
THE EXPERT, starring Jeff Speakman, is the definition of DULL!!!<br /><br />Dull, characters, dull situations, dull direction, dull actors, dull cinematography, dull music.<br /><br />I don't really understand this movie. Is it supposed to be an action movie? It's almost as if Speakman wanted to be in a serious movie but the level of acting and writing found in THE EXPERT is below your average TV drama. And there are some typical "Speakman pummeling bad guys" scenes here and there but the main aspect of the movie relies on some sort of believable drama, which is totally wrong for Speakman or is so badly directed that it just doesn't work with the action star. In the end, this confused movie looks and feels very nondescript and bland. The worst aspect of THE EXPERT is the music. The composer is a Jerry Goldsmith wannabe, with his pompous and melodramatic score, which simply doesn't belong in this kind of (dull) movie. It's as if the producers knew they had a very dull product on their hands and they asked the composer to make the film feel more compelling and dramatic with his score, which makes the entire movie look even more confused, goofier and dull.<br /><br />Don't waste your time watching this, even if you're a Jeff Speakman fan.
I think I would probably not hate this movie if I spoke Polish. I selected the English version at the first menu, but it gave me Polish dialogue with English subtitles, just as the Polish version did. Maybe the dialogue was so disjointed because the person that did the subtitles could not translate it into English very well. To exacerbate the issue, some of the dialogue had no subtitles at all. The acting was pretty bad, especially the female lead, who was melodramatic about everything! One scene that bothered me was when a German woman was caught stealing and as the mob was jostling her around, her shirt opened and the director showed close-ups of her naked breast for the next 15-20 seconds. I couldn't see how her breast added to the drama of the scene or the film. Maybe the director was trying to increase the numbers of teenage boys in the audience. Much of the film takes place in an extermination camp liberated by the Americans. First, the "American" uniforms did not look anything like U.S. Army uniforms. Second, none of the extermination camps in Poland were liberated by the Americans. I would think that a Polish film director who turned 19 in 1945 would know better than an American born in 1966 that all six extermination camps were liberated by the Russians. All in all, it's just not a very good film if you don't speak Polish.
I'm not in favor of death penalties but in this movie, it couldn't happen fast enough. Just to end the movie. I don't understand why this movie is rated as high as it is. It fooled me into a bad night.
It is difficult to imagine how the engaging Dan Brown novel "Angels and Demons" could misfire as badly as this film version. Here are ten reasons why the film was a failure. Due to the spoilers, please do no read on unless you have already seen the film.<br /><br />(1) In the film, there was no love relationship between Robert Langdon and Vittoria Vetra. Worse still, there was not even any chemistry between the two leading actors. <br /><br />(2) The breathtaking locations in Rome, as described in the novel, were not realized visually in the film. I am aware that director Ron Howard encountered difficulties in filming on location. But there are superior photographed depictions of Rome on The History Channel than in this film where the Eternal City was presented in eternal stock film footage. The great art works described in the novel were only briefly depicted in the film. The magnificent Bernini sculpture of the "Ecstasy of St. Teresa" was only momentarily glimpsed, and the West Ponente relief in Vatican Square was not visible at all.<br /><br />(3) The most tasteless choice made by the film-maker was in the depiction of the deceased pope who actually resembled the beloved John Paul II. In the novel, the pope is clearly fictional with no resemblance to any real pope.<br /><br />(4) One of the most colorful (and important) characters of the novel, Maximilian Kohler, Director of CERN, was cut out of the screenplay.<br /><br />(5) There were numerous instances when the lines of dialog were inaudible due to extraneous background noise.<br /><br />(6) There were moments when the faces of characters were not visible due to the shadows and chiaroscuro film lighting. This technique worked in "The Godfather" films, but Ron Howard is no Gordon Willis.<br /><br />(7) The College of Cardinals was quite a motley crew with one of the electors speaking in a Southern drawl. This dude would have been more at home on a Texas ranch than in the Sistine Chapel.<br /><br />(8) The crucial relationship of the Camerlengo and the deceased Pope was not defined in the film. This relationship was central to the theme of science vs. religion and the relevance of the Illuminati to the plot against the church.<br /><br />(9) In the novel, the character of Hassassin was an unforgettable villain. In the film, that assassin character's role was a cardboard cutout villain. <br /><br />(10) As a whole, the filmmakers did not trust the workings of the successful novel.<br /><br />In the novel, Langdon makes an impossible fall out of the sky and into the Tiber River. In Ron Howard's film, it was the movie itself that landed in the Tiber.
Personally, the book was a very well written, amazing, thrilling piece that was not brought to justice to the movie. Watching the movie at 12.01 in the morning to see that major parts of the book were left out frustrated me, seeing that it affected the "different" outcome of the movie. There was something to be desired out of this movie, but all in all, it lacked in plot.<br /><br />For someone who has NOT read the book, I could see how this movie would be seen as inviting and entertaining with its controversy and suspense. However to a dedicated reader who has read it seven times, I did not see the strong connection between the two: both the movie and the novel.<br /><br />With major characters missing (such as Maximilian Kohler) and the abrupt turn in plot with the survival of the last cardinal in the preferiti, the plot of the movie was slightly strewn thus leading to a different take in the conclusion of the story. The Hassassin too was portrayed as a common white man, compared to that of in the novel where he was portrayed as a Muslim; his motives in the book are predominately based his ties with the Illuminati, however, in the movie, his motives are based on money and seemed more like work than some personal tie to the task at hand.
I went to see this movie tonight, trying to keep an open mind. I had hoped to enjoy a movie that I expected to be different from the book. There were considerable differences from the book, much like the changes made in the DiVinci Code. I went to see the DiVinci Code with the same thought process and managed to enjoy the film, in spite of, the changes from the book. It was still enjoyable, filled with action, and the process of deciphering the symbols was interesting and mentally stimulating. Unfortunately, Angels and Demons disappointed on almost every level. Throughout the movie, symbols are found and figured out quickly, without any interest for the viewer. They blow past the various Immuminati symbols so quickly that we had no chance to get a look at them and appreciate how they work. The final Illuminati symbol, which was the most interesting and creative one in the book, was replaced with the crossed keys symbol. In my opinion, that was a missed opportunity to focus on and spend a little more time on the symbols, which is what the Langdon character is all about. Overall, this movie is a very poor interpretation of the book, and fails at the attempt to be an action movie / thriller. 4 out of 10
Why did they not follow the book ... I am really sad and disappointed. I was so looking forward to seeing this movie, however, if you have read the book (maybe recently) it might be very difficult to remain objective. My wife had not read the book, and she loved the movie.<br /><br />Reasons for the disappointment are: 1) Cern's involvement ... gone with the wind, such a shame, there is a very small part at the start, where the antimatter is created, but even that does not stick to the facts (why not, the fact that Vittoria's father was burned with the first Illuminati brand, which is how Langdon got involved would have been a perfect start to the Movie_ 2) Story-line between the (deceased) pope and Camerlegno completely gone ... this completely screws up the motive for the stealing of the antimatter 3) Story-line between Langdon and Vittoria Vetra completely non-existent<br /><br />All-in-all, too flaky storyline, and cannot understand that Dan Brown allowed them to put his name against it. Maybe I should revisit this film in 10 years time, when I cannot remember the excellent book anymore (fat chance on forgetting the book I am afraid)<br /><br />Really sorry for the negative review, which was spoilt by expectations
The implausibility of the plot has been noted by several commentators, particularly the immense amount of trouble Fr McKenna would have had to have gone to, and the sheer impossibility of some of the calculations he would have had to have made, including that Langdon was going to decipher each clue in minutes. McKenna is branded; a few seconds later he is giving orders, and a few minutes later, he is running (literally) around in charge of operations -- in real life, he would be in shock. And, as usual in thrillers, the assassin doesn't kill the heroes, giving as his only lame explanation that they were not on the list of those to be killed, as though every other innocent bystander he shot was. I have always used Independence Day as the hallmark of a truly awful film (US President commandeers jet plane and beats off aliens, ha ha), and this effort runs it close. For such an implausible film, Angels and Demons contains a remarkable number of predictable incidents. Who didn't laugh knowingly when the assassin went to get his reward in the Volkswagen? I felt like shouting, "You are going to be blown up". Who didn't know that the heroine was going to find a body in the lab? Who didn't spot the baddie? Technically also, the film was awful. The dialogue was more often indecipherable than clear, while the races across Rome to the next church were accompanied by deafening music. Moreover, many scenes looked like mud. The one redeeming feature was the shots of Rome and what looked like the Vatican -- an achievement, because I am sure that the Vatican officials would not have wanted this dross shot in and around St Peter's -- and the interiors were convincing. Rome is a magic place, and I enjoyed seeing it fleetingly.
Ron Howard and his "editors" only had one job to do... Follow the guidelines of the book which was "rich", "mysterious", "moving" and highly cinematic in its approach! <br /><br />What they did? They changed EVERYTHING and I mean EVERYTHING! What is left is something that has no right being called "Angels & Daemons"! <br /><br />I really love the book and find it very hard to see it being treated this way!<br /><br />I wonder what was the opinion of Dan Brown himself for "this" film.<br /><br />I really have no patience to sit down and right the 1.000.000 changes they made, it is pointless.......
Firstly I loved the book, more so than the more popular Da Vinci Code and although the DVC film was not well received, I liked it and bought the DVD. However, there is no chance that I will ever want to watch Angles and Demons ever again.<br /><br />The film barely resembles the book, in fact only the general premise of the story is there.<br /><br />From the very start of the film I was disappointed, in the book Robert Langdon receives a call and fax from Maximilian Kohler, Director of CERN. Who finds the body of Father (can't remember the name) and then requests Langdon to come, using the super fast plane... In the book the only people who knew about this technology that the Father and Daughter team had created were themselves and the camerlingo... In the film however, there was a massive team involved... so the tension was never there... how did they find out etc.<br /><br />Leaving out or rather changing this whole part of the story was a massive mistake and was in my mind what made it a poor movie... it changed everything that happened from then on, when the Camerlingo was confronted in the pope's locked room, it should have been Maximilian Kohler who shot the video from his wheel chair, the commander rushed in to get the camerlingo but was shot by Olivetti, in the film it was the commander in the room and Olivetti was shot... (err I think I got this right, but I was bored and can't really remember the events in the film)...<br /><br />There was no love interest between Vittoria and Robert and in the book she wasn't at CERN when he arrived and was indeed was flown in from her research work. In the book all four of the preferratti were killed, but in the film the last one of the four survived the fountain. In the book Vittoria was kidnapped and Robert had to rescue her and it was they that killed the Assassin at the Church of the Illuminati, not blown up like he was in the film by the Camerlingo. The bit where Robert was confined under a stone coffin was not there, saved by his Mickey mouse watch alarm. OK in the book we are led to believe that Langdon bailed out of the helicopter, fair enough to say that this was a bit far stretched, but it was important in the film, because he had to race back with the film... There was no mention of how Vittoria and her adopted father became involved, this was also important in getting to know the character of Vittoria.<br /><br />In all one of the worse films I have seen, I would have left early, but my brain went numb and I lost the use of my legs temporarily. A really really reeeeeeaaaaaaalllly poor attempt and not one of Ron Howards finest, in fact, how he will get work again is beyond me!!! I want my money back!!!
I'm a historian. This movie is so wrong it hurts. Tried to watch with an open mind, but if you're going to delve into a movie or anything for that matter of this nature at least do some homework regarding history, locations, church protocol, et cetera. Stop playing to the dumb audience, please. There are those of us out there that actually put on our shoes and venture out to the theatre when something of this nature, worthy of a theatrical release comes to town. A little research, all I'm asking. But then again, the book it's based on is somewhat of a joke in itself. So basically, they took a novel with many errors and decided to make it into a screenplay, pour millions and millions and millions of dollars into it and make an incredibly promoted world distributed theatrical release and at no time have anyone take the time to do a little research on the lot of it. I know several of my colleagues who would have done it for just the credit alone or at least given it to a body of students as an assignment for several weeks to research various aspects… or just pay someone knowledgeable a couple of bucks just to run through it because trust me, there are plenty of starving historians out there who would have jumped on the opportunity if it had presented itself.
Recension: Angels & Demons<br /><br />The movie is directed by Ron Howard. He has had also made famous movies like The Da Vinci Code & Cinderella Men. He directed also the famous TV-series 24. The most famous actors are Tom Hanks(The Da Vinci Code,The Green Mile, Forrest Gump,…) & Ewan McGregor(Cassandra's Dream, Moulin Rouge, Star Wars: The Phantom Menace,…).<br /><br />In the begin I was shocked because they changed the beginning from the movie so big. Because they changed the father of Vittoria Vettra(Ayelet Zurer) in someone else, Silvano Bentivoglio(Camren Argenziano). Another Change is that Robert Langdon(Tom Hanks) never goes to the CERN. It was nice that they could film on location in the CERN.<br /><br />Then movie goes on, They are spectacular car races in Rome. An I also like the part in Chirstian Archives very much when they destroy the work of Galileo, it was funny. It was also funny that they where locked in the archives the second time they get in, Robert Langdon destroyed half of the archives and when they bust out, the electricity get on…<br /><br />I found It very stupid that Robert Langdon not went in the helicopter, but that the Camerlengo(Ewan McGregor) gets in alone, another detail is that in the movie the Camerlengo is an adopted son from the pope. In the book He is the real Son of the pope.<br /><br />When I should give the best acting performance then I should say Pierfrancesco Favino who plays inspector Olivetti. The worst acting was from the assassin, who was played by Nikolaj Lie Kaas, I think he was underachieving, because in Adams Apples he played Faboulous.<br /><br />I think the whole movie is underachieving because director Ron Howard made some many stupid changes. I would rate the movie by 4/10.
I went into the movie expecting a little action mixed with a strong story line. I understand that changes between written works and movies must be made...for many reasons.<br /><br />The changing of the relationship between the scientists ( they were father - daughter in the book) The Director of CERN was eliminated thus causing the scene between the Carmelengo and the Director to be changed to the Carmelengo and the head of the Swiss Guard in the Pope's office.<br /><br />Ron Howard made sure to get his dad inserted as a Cardinal with a hayseed accent but missed all the symbolism. Both Lagdon and the Carmelengo ascended to the heavens in the helicopter with Hanks character landing in the river and the priest landing upon the chapel in what was described as a Christ-like image.<br /><br />At some point this film needs to be remade by a director who is up to the job
An EXTREMELY fast paced,exhilarating, interesting, detail rich book. Its a huge shame that the film had none of these qualities. not only was Tom Hanks' mild mannered portrayal or Robert Langdon Laughable, but the name changes to key characters, huge deviances from the original story line, and poor Irish/Italian accent from Carmalengo Played by Ewan Mcgregor, made for the worst book to film EVER.<br /><br />As a huge fan of A&D the book, i had high hopes for a more lavish, true to book detailed movie, where it would start and finish just as the book did - leaving me wanting more.<br /><br />All the film really did was depress me within the 1st 10 minutes.<br /><br />what was impressive was how the... sorry! i couldn't even finish that sentence without laughing.<br /><br />in short - Vittoria was the token hottie, a very second to Audrey Tatou and there were some very nice Alfa Romeos.<br /><br />i would recommend reading the book to understand that, if Ron Howard must insist on making ANOTHER book to film, i would be happy saving my £6.40 for a KFC zinger meal and some chicken wings - far more entertaining and deeply more satisfying!
This critique tells the story of 4 little friends who went to watch Angels and Demons the movie on the first night it came out, even though it was a school night, because "Angels and Demons is worth it." Two of the four had read the book. Of those that didn't, a guy, was wearing pink skinny jeans. This was the least eventful part of the evening after watching the abhorrent Angels and Demons.<br /><br />The movie starts out in a lab where the antimatter is being created while another process is going on. And apparently someone knows about it or something. Notice how very confused I am.. I don't get what happened: they were just making the antimatter. Vittoria finds her own father dead... WHAT? The Illuminati symbol sent to Langdon is a PRINTOUT, not a burn on someone's chest. They take out the X-33 scene. They take out Maxmillian Kohler. They, pretty much, take out CERN and the symbology connected to it. They take out the Hassasin and replace him with some religious, British dude. They take out the Illuminati Diamond. They take out Vittoria's near-rape scene. They take out Langond's fight with the Hassasin (now British dude on crack). They take out the press dude following them around. They take out the death of the fourth cardinal. They take out the fact that the Camerlengo becomes pope. They take out the Camerlengo's grand scheme. They take out Langdon's being in the helicopter and landing on that island toward the end. They take out the fact that Vittoria's father was a scientific priest. They take out Langdon's fun and most unfortunately, they take out Vittoria's sexual appeal.<br /><br />Other than the movie COMPLETELY losing focus of the details, the movie is acted HORRIBLY. One must admit, though, there were some good things. For example, the Sistine Chapel recreation must have been extremely difficult and it was extremely well done. The explosion scene was MIND-BLOWING. Other than that, SCREW THIS MOVIE FOR RUINING THE BOOK FOR THE PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T READ IT.
I had neither read any of the books nor seen the first movie so after receiving passes to a preview show, I had no expectations.<br /><br />'Angels and Demons' was a muddled, convoluted film lacking direction or any believability. There was very little character development and I never found myself caring about the plight of the protagonists; the reverse was true, I was more interested in seeing how the antagonists would succeed as the first half of the film was almost exclusively focused on why the Illuminati are who they are.<br /><br />The film jumps from location to location with little explanation or reason and expects the viewer to believe that everybody in the movie is an ally when they first meet. Any analytical mind will realize this is highly improbable.<br /><br />The climax is extremely cliché and leaves you asking what happened and wondering why nobody considered some of these points, it feels very tacked on and unnecessary.<br /><br />The actors are not particularly believable in their roles, mostly because I found it difficult to believe that scientists, professors, and men of the church would act in the manner that they do without regard to the consequences of their actions. Events that happen are not plausible in the slightest and the pace of the movie is questionable with the characters jumping around while on a tight schedule and I had to question how the protagonists manage to get from location to location on time, every time.<br /><br />The most pleasing part of the film is the cinematography, I found it a beautiful film to watch but it was such a mess, that I found it would not be worth paying to view in theatres.
Angels and Demons: 3 out of 10: Clearly something bad has happened to Ron Howard. I don't know what exactly, but something has gone very wrong.<br /><br />Howard has always been a decent workman director. While he will never be mistaken for an artistic savant both Cinderella Man and Apollo 13 were excellent films, Parenthood was pretty good and even Angels and Demons prequel/sequel The Da Vinci Code was a fun romp. In addition none of his films have been downright awful. (Note I have seen neither How the Grinch Stole Christmas nor his newest film Heidi Montag Says No to Plastic.) Whats more Howard managed to hold this quality is such devise genres as star driven Oscar bait (A Beautiful Mind), star driven costume drama (Far and Away), star driven revenge fantasy (Ransom) and comedies about prostitution and mermaids (Night Shift, Splash).<br /><br />Angels and Demons is at its center a poorly directed and shot film. Scenes are too dark, camera angles are all wrong, the actors block each others shots and the whole affair is often out of focus. This makes the telling of an already confusing story even more muddled.<br /><br />Dan Brown gets picked on a lot but I found The Da Vinci Code a fun readable romp (so sue me). The movie version of the Da Vinci code kept the same where are they going to next vibe of the book and added an attractive cast and attractive location shooting.<br /><br />Angels and Demons however takes place in the claustrophobic confines of Vatican City and since Howard wasn't allowed to film in many of the real locations we end up with a lot of running around a CGI back lot. The entire film is as if Rick Steves did a Vatican City special and instead of actually visiting the Holy City and pointing his camera, Rick had to use Lego bricks and a second hand art book with all the tits erased.<br /><br />While the Da Vinci code had what I still think is an intriguing central mystery (again sue me), Demons and Angels story consists of a plot by the Illuminati (roll eyes now) to destroy the Vatican. Their idea was to take positions in schools for the deaf around the world and raping every student in the ass repeatedly. Oops my bad; apparently the Vatican doesn't need any help on that one.<br /><br />Anyway their plan is to infiltrate Europe's Large Hadron Collider, kill the head priest, and steal three vials of Anti-matter. This begs more than a few questions. Can the Hadron Collider create anti-matter? Can you capture the anti-matter once created? Why is the EU collecting it? (Perhaps they fear a Godzilla attack?). Why is the head of Anti-matter gathering a Vatican priest? Now once they get the anti-matter they are going to use its incredible destructive power to take over the world… no just kidding; unfortunately the Illuminati haven't quite grasped that Pinky and the Brain level of sophistication just yet. Instead the current pope has just died and it's conclave time. The top seeded cardinals for the final four pope tournament are all kidnapped and the Illuminati are killing them one by one Seven style. They being good sports however are leaving clues at every murder like some Latin themed Riddler. Oh and the last kidnapped Cardinal has the anti-matter and if he isn't found in time Rick Steves will have to go straight to Venice next year to see decent frescoes. If only there was some Latin themed Batman to save the day…? Okay the story is truly awful and it is poorly told, but maybe this is one of those films saved by great performances. A true character study… (Okay you know where this is going). Tom Hanks gives an incredibly wooden performance and simply looks awful (he is also to old to play the character by about twenty years. ) his love interest Israeli actress Ayelet Zurer has zero chemistry with either Hanks or the screen. Ewan Macgregor plays the Pope's personal assistant/cabana boy as an Irish man who looks like he is about to break into a musical number at any moment providing no one steals his Lucky Charms.<br /><br />On the plus side Stellan Skarsgård puts in a fine turn as head of Vatican Security and as far as we know no deaf children were raped during the making of this film which puts it ahead of its Vatican critics in at least one area.
In a way, you have to respect Arachnia. It's clearly meant as a tribute to the big bug movies of the fifties, and while the special effects look terrible; at least the film doesn't feature CGI. However, on the other hand; you can't respect the film too much because it's a load of rubbish. The acting is terrible, the special effects (as mentioned) are impossible to take seriously, and once you've seen one giant spider being blown up; you've seen them all, so it gets boring rather quickly. The plot follows a bunch of people who are unlucky enough to be in a plane crash after a meteor shower. They go to the only house in the area; which just happens to be a house where a man has a huge spider he used to use as a circus attraction. Coincidently around the same time, the meteor shower has caused more giant spiders to rise from underground. All the characters in this film are poor caricatures; none of them have anything even resembling a third dimension and they will soon begin to thoroughly bore you. You've got to feel for director Brett Piper as he clearly didn't have much to work with for this film; but that doesn't make Arachnia worth a damn, and overall there are better giant bug films than this, and therefore Arachnia doesn't get the seal of approval from me.
I picked this up because, having spent time in the Albany region of New York, I knew a couple of people in the movie and I happened upon it by chance. The attempts at comedy are lame, the compulsory girl-on-girl scene is sickening, the plot is nonexistent, the acting is among the worst I've ever seen, and don't even get me started on special effects. I realize this is a very low budget film made by a small independent company, but if you're going to do a sci-fi horror flick with giant bugs, don't make the giant bugs completely unbelievable. People want to see giant bugs. That's half the fun right there. And if you're going to make the giant bugs completely unbelievable, at least get the actors to make some sort of tongue-in-cheek allusion to that fact ("You idiots! These aren't them! You've captured their stunt doubles!"). Be prepared to waste two hours of your life that you'll never be able to get back.
36/100. This is not to be confused with the decent Arachnophobia, this film is a very low budget and cheap rip-off of that movie. This one is so bad, it actually does have some entertainment value on that level. There are numerous unintended (I think) laugh out loud scenes. I wasn't expecting much from the film, and it was actually worse than I had imagined it would be.<br /><br />It's a cliché ridden and predictable direct to video mess. Fortunately, it doesn't take itself too seriously. The acting, as expected, is not quite Oscar caliber. The special effects are poor, worse than I would have thought they would be. Poorly edited and the score is intrusive.
I watched this movie based on the comments of a few that said that is was bad but funny. But you need to be warned that this movie has the worst special effects ever produced. They make 1950s science fiction movies look like works of art. This is funny at times, but annoying for the most part. And to compound the problem with the seriously pathetic special effects is the total lack of logic that characterized a majority of the events depicted. One of my favorites is where three of the characters drop hundreds of feet into a tunnel created by the arachnia and arrive to find it fully lit. Apparantely the arachnia have also managed to hook into the power grid. Very impressive. But this is just one example. And for what its worth, the music sucks, the acting sucks, the two cute girls are annoying, the obnoxious guy is annoying, the so-called handsome lead man is a geek, and the black girl who fall for him is a fool. Her father is the worst actor I have ever seen. I am not sure the brief moments of humor can possibly make up for the experience.
This is one of those movies that you watch because it's bad. Such a movie that you watch just to see it's shitty craftsmanship. Supposedly a horror, I cannot imagine how anyone can be afraid of a claymation bug, especially one that is translucent in nature where you can see the actor's legs behind it.<br /><br />Even with no budget, a little bit of attention to detail and even an attempt at making this movie believable would have sucked the fun right out of it, as they would have had to replace all of the actors and the entire story with it. If I had nothing to make fun of while it was playing, I would have stopped it after 10 minutes, and put on some quality show like Spunge Bob Square Pants (HAR HAR HAR).<br /><br />I Strongly recommend that Brett Piper get with Quintin Terrantino and Really pump out some feces.<br /><br />:)
I usually love these movies. Give me a good old B movie any day but this one was simply awful. The acting(?) was terrible almost to the point of my turning the movie off completely. I thought I saw the all time worst but this one is right up there with Attack of the Killer Tomatoes! In all honesty - it was the acting that did this film in for me.<br /><br />I found the actor's to be clumsy and the lead male/female were extremely dull. This movie had absolutely nothing going for it. I may be asking a ridiculous question here but why the nudity and sex scene? Did the producers think nobody would watch if they left them out? I think they were probably right! Oh where is Price and The Tingler when you need them?
My wife and I watched this after DVR'ing it off of Encore action this past week. It has to be the worst horror flick either of us had ever seen. Predictable dialogue ( my wife and I were guessing the lines before they were spoken), hokey special effects, a screenplay that drifted all over the place. I think the part that was the most annoying was the stereotyping of the various characters in the plot, not to mention the gratuitous sex scene between two of the young heroines in the movie, neither of which had any real purpose other than to bare certain parts of their anatomy for the cameras. This movie should be categorized as comedy, not horror as the villains of the movie (spiders) were stop motion animated and not believable in the least. I can't say that I would have done a better job making a film myself, but it was very amateurish and wasn't even a "B" movie, somewhere closer to a "d" movie, or "f" if that is possible. I think even Science Fiction 3000 would have to pass on this one!
This...... Movie.... Is..... Horrible!!!!!! You won't believe this hunk of junk is even a movie!!!! Critters4 was better then this!!! And Critters4 was pretty frigging bad too!!! A bunch of stupid teens crash in a desert, find an old run down bungalow, and end up fending off horrifically badly stop motion animated spiders. Pardon my french, but the acting was bad as hell!!! The person who wrote this probably didn't even know what a spider is, because he had the spiders living in a colony serving an alien-queen-ripoff queen spider! SPIDERS DO NOT LIVE IN COLONIES!!!!!!!!! THIS "MOVIE" IS A PIECE OF CRUD!!! At the end, the marines suddenly pop out of no where and kill all the spider without even being called!!!! If you see a copy of this movie at a video store, douse it in gasoline and throw a match at it!!!!
I was entertained to see that some of the reviews here were topped with **SPOILERS** the joke in my family is that the only part of this movie that isn't given away on the back of the box, is given away in the title. Perhaps I am just a dense American 17-year-old who wouldn't know art if it bit me in the leg, but I prefer movies that have at least some words. This movie makes the second half of 2001: A Space Odyssey down right chatty. This movie is just so slow it isn't even art, it is merely boring. We follow this creepy guy who is following this boy around Venice. The end was incomprehensible until I read the end of book. A movie shouldn't make you refer back to the book, it should be able to stand alone. This movie has no way to stand. It doesn't even have the bones of a plot to lean on.
The opening of MORTE A VENEZIA resembles a Duran Duran music video with classical music and this is the highlight of the movie <br /><br />" In terms of what Theo ? " <br /><br />In terms of everything , but especially excitement . I doubt if there's ever been a more sluggish slower moving movie than this one . Yeah okay it's a European art house movie so I wasn't expecting Charles Bronson to massacre hordes of bad guys but even so I did expect some substance if not an actual plot <br /><br />The film revolves around Professor Gustav Von Aschenbach visiting Venice . Gustav visits Venice and goes on a gondola , Gustav eats in an expensive restaurant , Gustav looks out of his hotel window and if it's excitement you want Gustav has a flashback <br /><br />Bad enough if this was the entire movie but it gets worse because Gustav notices a pretty boy teenager . So you've got a middle aged academic lusting after some teenage boy he has seen , some old queen is becoming obsessed with a stranger . Great idea for a movie ? I don't think so either and thank gawd it remained a yawn fest instead of some sleazy precursor to gay porn <br /><br />I notice a lot of people who praise this movie have tried to intellectualise it . I can only be monosyllabic and unpretentious in my view and say that the only subtext I could relate to was the physical and emotional disintegration of Gustav but it wasn't caused by the effete beauty of the teenage boy - It was caused by watching such a boring and ostentatious movie
This program was shown in an early morning time slot on SPACE, a cable sci-fi station. I am amazed that anyone would pay for this or broadcast it; it is incredibly amateurish.<br /><br />The entire show is a sequence of short monologues or scenes performed on a set that looks like a closet with a bunch of circuit boards taped to the wall. There is very little continuity between scenes, and no plot. A typical scene revolves around some lame joke or special effect and is only a minute or so long. The dialog makes little sense and the special effects look like Photoshop filters. The actors are all adults, but I have literally seen high-school plays with better writing and sets. This program is an embarrassment.<br /><br />Perhaps each scene would work as an interstitial; a filler between shows instead of commercials. Stringing all the scenes together makes the limitations of the material extremely obvious.
Kazuo Komizu, who hasn't made one decent film, directed this "notorious" shocker and should be ashamed that it was a hit upon its Japanese release.<br /><br />Yes, it does feature scenes of rape, gore and dismemberment, but so what? It has the style of a bad American porn film shot and badly photographed by Ed Powers ("Dirty Debutantes") and is incredibly slow.<br /><br />It seems to have earned its notoriety based on its roster of anti-social acts.<br /><br />There is a huge difference between this and horror that is well produced.<br /><br />Just because someone likes their cinema a little wet does not mean they'll accept crap like this. On the contrary, that kind of fan (myself, for example) tolerates even less crap than the average punter out there because he's seen so much and has become overly discerning. It's a shame production companies don't realize that.<br /><br />One reviewer here (ZombieKilla81) commented that the film's "near obsession with gang rape" is one of the factors that killed it. I disagree. The subject matter is never the issue. The issue is how that subject matter is treated. In ENTRAILS OF A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN, it is treated so unimaginatively that it is boring.<br /><br />Personally, I like graphic depictions of psychopathic behavior (with an intriguing context) if the material is well directed, freshly photographed and aesthetically pleasing. This Nikkatsu horror/pink hybrid is woeful.
This is one of those movies I watched, and wondered, why did I watch it? What did I find so interesting about it? Being a truck driver myself, I didn't find it very realistic. No, I've never used a 'lot lizard', nor have I ever seen, nor heard about one traveling around the country in a brand new seventy thousand dollar RV, either.<br /><br />Same thing about a pimp whom has never sampled the lady in question (until the end of the movie, and well, he still really didn't...), and only getting 50 bucks 'a cut', when the prostitute gets $200.00 (well, $150.00 after his cut, yeah...).<br /><br />I still laugh at the lot lizard comment Ivey made (them's Lot Lizards, they'll screw anything with 20 bucks, and some are men dressed as woman... or something equally as weird), meaning, we're better then them, as we may still be prostitutes, but we get paid BETTER.<br /><br />Other then that, it's just a story of a young woman whom wanted something more from life then a dead end job while living at home (she's 18, remember?) and embarrassed by her mother basically doing the same thing (dead end job). At least she had a roof over her head and a job. She turned FIVE tricks on the road... I wonder if the $750.00 she made was worth it? I'd guess not.
Really, average is the only word that comes to my mind when you see this.<br /><br />The acting was average (maybe a bit above average), the camera usage was average (actually below average. The picture was so shaky and the colors were grainy and blurry.) The plot was a good one but moved at such a slow pace and wasn't put to good use.<br /><br />This could've been so much more if it didn't go at a snail pace and we saw more into the characters backgrounds.<br /><br />All we see are flashbacks here and there of Alice and how her home life is so "bad" (her mother is a working class woman trying to make end meet for her and her daughter.) We see a flashback of her of when she was in high school and her friend says to her "tell your Mom to make some better food" and "everybody says it's your mom." Yeah that's embarrassing but why would you run away from it. <br /><br />I could definitely see if her Mom was a drunk or somebody was abusing her but nothing was wrongwith her home except she was embarrassed by it. How immature! <br /><br />We're not even given a glimpse of what the couple's lives have been like (except that they've been prostituting for awhile and the woman, forgot her name, gave her baby up when it was 9 months old.) This really could've been so much more. It could've had Alice who was abused by her drunk mom go down to Florida with her friend but then becomes a prostitute. Or something along the lines of that other then the real plot of this movie (that is) Alice, a girl with a home life of probably 90% of America's population (WORKING CLASS) runaways to Florida but then gets sidetracked by turning into a prostitute.<br /><br />I don't see why it won an award at Sundance (it must've been up against some really weak competition to have won that one award.) <br /><br />Also to me, Alice's Boston/New England accent seemed forced. It didn't seem genuine. (I should know, I was born and raised in Boston, but now live in Georgia.) <br /><br />4/10 Not really worth your time in my opinion.
i have one word: focus.<br /><br />well.<br /><br />IMDb wants me to use at least ten lines of text. okay. let's discuss the fine points of focus. i don't know about the rest of you, but in my first year of film school they taught us a lot of useless crap, like 'you'll all be famous avant-garde filmmakers someday'--but they also taught us how to do this crazy thing called FOCUSING the lens! it was amazing! you give a little twist and wham! everything is clear as a bell. the person who shot what alice found needs to learn a few things about the finer points of focus. lighting, too. this movie is not only completely out of focus, it's also lit like the corner of someone's basement.<br /><br />don't even get me started on pacing or plot. they could have trimmed about ten seconds off the beginning and end of every single shot.<br /><br />but who cares about that anyhow? there is not enough lurid in this movie to make up for the utter lack of regard to film's best friends--FOCUS, and LIGHTING.<br /><br />words to the wise.
Now, I loved "Lethal Weapon" and "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang", but I cannot believe Shane Black wrote this pile...or that David Morse and John C. McGinley are in it. I screened it for a film festival. Awful. Everyone was laughing. It's preachy and heavy handed...not to mention stupid. Also, it's surprising how little L.A. looks like Cambodia. The entire idea of time traveling through post-traumatic stress disorder is kinda dumb. Imagine "Born on the Fourth of July" mixed with "The Butterfly Effect 2" (I used to sequel as the example to really show how bad this movie is) but directed by Michael Bay's 2nd unit director. That bad. The 2 stars are purely based on the production value.
It's been over 30 years now but I still remember that this movie was the worst I've ever seen. I would have thought that in this length of time something worse would have been filmed but I was mistaken. I just finished watching "STARSHIP TROOPERS" and it came mighty close but it was still more entertaining than " POOR COW ".
The best scene of "The People Across The Lake" is the genuinely creepy, nightly opening-scene featuring a house, a murder & a lake. After that, it's pretty much downhill from there on as far as the horror is concerned. A family (mom, dad, sister & younger brother) is fed up with the (mildly) dangerous environment of suburbia, and decides to go and live near the titular lake. From then on, the film features too much lame happy family-related doo-doo near the lake, with occasionally some corpses popping up here and there. The couple of scenes where they discover the bodies, are pretty convincing (in terms of creepiness), but they are in shrill contrast with the rest of the goings-on (featuring just every-day-life stuff of the family settling in). The truth to the matters (the mystery as to who's doing the killing) is learned too soon, leaving only the family unknowing and the viewer yawning during the unexciting finale (featuring a discovery in a basement and running around the house), like if this made-for-TV thing suddenly remembered it was supposed to be a horror film. It's not really badly made; the content & story is just not interesting enough. The only highlight in the cast is Barry Corbin, though his performance/character is just a bit too goofy to be taken serious. Blond cutie Tammy Lauren (the daughter) might be a recognisable face for avid horror junkies too, as she also starred in "Wishmaster" (1997), and made-for-TV outings like "I Saw What You Did" (1988) & "The Stepford Children" (1987). She hasn't got much to do in this film, though. Skippable, but watchable, if anything.
This movie includes 2 well known actors I have previously enjoyed watching. There actions are great and each action is heart felt. But it makes me think these 2 were thrown into a speech/drama class at college for the first time and told for one to act dominating and constricting to the other in a room without allowing her to leave and the woman to be truly innocent and treat her with enough mind-humping to drive the audience into tears for her release.<br /><br />The only good part IS the acting abilities, the plot has the same ruse as Hitlers influence and I started to hate the protagonist for that. But all of this could have been done within 15 minutes in my opinion, so to drag it out for over an hour was just pure punishment for all who watched it.<br /><br />
Closet Land is a nasty piece of work with superb actors. Nothing more (or less) happens in the movie besides the unending abuse of an attractive woman prisoner by a sadistic police official. The setting is minimalist. This might be considered soft core S&M porn because the drama is devoid of all reference points such as time, place, and political context. Since what happens is cut adrift in a fantasy futuristic environment, the abuse becomes purely personal. The pornographic aspects are justified by being a warning about the evils of totalitarian government, but because there is no real context for the torture of this young woman, we come away disturbed but having learned nothing.<br /><br />What is the point? That torture exists in the world? That abusing prisoners is bad? That dictatorships abuse innocent people? We know that already. Closet Land has echoes of such works as Darkness At Noon and Ionesco's Rhinoceros, but both those works were made by competent artists whose work had historical context and depth of meaning. This work is amateurish and the dialogue sophomoric. A definite thumbs down.
This is possibly the hands down worst movie every made, that actually took itself seriously. And not as a result of the acting, because being an actor, I have to say that Rickman and Stowe had to be at their best, just to escape needing electro convulsive therapy after the principle photography wrapped. Being one of the 57 people that actually saw this movie in theatrical release, I have to say I have never before or since experienced a movie where the movie ended, credits rolled, the house lights went on, and no one moved from their seats. About five minutes after the house lights went up people started coming out of their comas to look around, and I think most of us thought, okay we get it, that was a joke, right?, they are going to show the real movie now. Eventually, after the ushers handed out disguises, and we swore an oath of secrecy to never admit we were there, we felt that it was safe to leave, praying that we would not be seen leaving the auditorium. I have seen some pretty bad movies in my day, (I have Cinemax for goodness sakes), but I am still bitter that I will never, ever be able to recover those two or so hours of my life that I lost watching Closet Land.
I classify this as the worst movie of all time.<br /><br />If there ever was a movie I would wish upon my enemies, this would be it. The plot is ridiculous, there are only 2 characters, and the coincidences between these characters just completely strain belief.<br /><br />These factors combined to make this an extremely boring movie.<br /><br />My wife and mother walked out on the movie about 15 minutes in. I figured that a movie this boring and slow *must* have some cool interesting plot twist, and a was quite disappointed when nothing exciting materialized.<br /><br />I briefly considered sending the filmmakers a bill for my 2 hours of lost life.
Out of 15 people I loaned this movie too.. NO One finished it.. It was so Awfully.???????? Not good... Just awful. She sits in a chair the whole movie. She's in a Closet. The Chair she's sitting is nice. I can't think of anything more to say. But 10 lines of text. To print this up. My friend Nick thinks this is a great movie.,, because,,, he can give it to his friends,, and not have to worry about THOSE calling him back. He's passed it around as a gag movie for 10 years. Which is how I got it.. Then.. I tried to get my friends to finish this extremity's awful awful piece of crap... To no aval.. no one could finish it.. Takes boredom to a whole new level. They could use this in Iraq INSTEAD OF WATER BOARDING... PLEASE SEND COPIES Guantanamo BAY CUBA. Makes great Xmas gift.
Dr. Lucio Fulci (Lucio Fulci) is a director of gory horror movies who is starting to feel the effect of having filmed too many bloody scenes. He visits his local psychiatrist to see if he is losing his marbles; this proves to be a bad idea, since the shrink is actually a crazy murderer responsible for a spate of grisly killings. Seizing the opportunity to make Fulci his fall guy, the loopy nut doctor hypnotises the horror hack into thinking that he is responsible for the recent series of murders.<br /><br />On the surface, Cat in the Brain appears to be a fantastically gory treat from spaghetti-splatter god Lucio Fulci. Chock full of chainsaw dismemberment, axe attacks and various other bloody killings, the film certainly spills enough claret for even the most hardened gore-hounds. But when one looks closer, it turns out that many of the gruesome scenes are lifted from earlier movies (mostly Fulci's own 'masterpieces'); remove these from the equation and one is left with a nifty basic plot idea that is totally wasted, some welcome nudity, and dreadful performances from Fulci himself and David L. Thompson as the psycho shrink.<br /><br />As the film progresses, it develops into an incomprehensible mess, with the 'borrowed' gore footage inserted randomly, with no attempt at working it convincingly into the story. If you've seen Fulci's Touch of Death and Ghost's of Sodom, or Mario Bianchi's the Murder Secret, then you've already seen the best bits of Cat In The Brain before.<br /><br />After much bloodletting, the film wraps itself up rather quickly, leaving the viewer feeling bewildered and somewhat cheated. Watch the film if you're a Fulci completist, but I would suggest seeking out the films from which the 'good bits' were taken.
I am a big fan of sci-fi movies. So, when I saw this movie in the EPG, I thought I was in for a pleasant evening. What a disappointment ! Such a poor display of "special" effects I could not imagine in 1980, but in 2005 ? Come on, why would you do special effects of an helicopter flying in the desert when you can film a real one for a much lower price (I guess) ? And those killer "muppets"... well, I could do better than that in a couple of hours in the garage. You can expect to have a low budget on a movie, but I don't think it's reasonable to have a low movie for any budget. As for the "star" of the movie (I use a lot of quotes tonight...), Lou Diamond Philips, the guy is not even remotely an actor. Maybe he should have stayed to the martial arts movies. All in all, an awful movie. Maybe I am in a bad mood tonight. Then again, maybe not. A sincere 1 out of 10.
What do you get when you put Lou Diamond Philips, Todd Bridges, Barry Corbin with a bad toupee, and an alien all on a train? You get a very bad movie called "Alien Express" or "Dead Rail" that would be more entertaining on Comedy Central's old series "Mystery Science Theater 3000." You name it, this awful movie suffered in areas of acting, plot, storyline, and special effects. In fact, the exterior passenger train shots looked like the production staff used a common HO scale model in front of a painted background! The rest of the special effects goes downhill from there.<br /><br />The plot is very predictable and is similar to two 1970's movies called "Horror Express" and a disaster movie called "The Cassandra Crossing." At least "The Cassandra Crossing" had a better cast, an engaging storyline, and real train scenes.<br /><br />If you want a good laugh and a movie to mock at a "B movie" party then watch this; otherwise, "Alien Express" derailed long before departing from the station!
This is fairly typical for the Sci-Fi Channel: one-dimensional characters, a ridiculous plot, and terrible special effects. We've got some alien sock puppets loose on a train, and Lou Diamond Phillips does his best with what little he's given to eke out a performance. And save the day. Everyone else in this is utterly dispensable; the ex-wife who goes through the time-honored cliché of first disliking Lou, then of course comes to love him again at the end. The obnoxious State Senator who gets munched early on, and a gaggle of dull security guards who run around a lot. Then there's an eco-terrorist who is in this movie for absolutely no reason whatsoever, except to provide us with 3% more running around. He spends the whole middle part of the movie hiding in a box.<br /><br />The special effects really deserve their own paragraph. We start with a meteorite that flies through the air, trailing flames behind it, at about 100 miles per hour. According to the physics of this movie, if you exceed the posted speed limit in your car, atmospheric friction may cause you to burst into flames. Then it lands on the hood of a car, coming in horizontally. Sort of like a velcro ball landing on a velcro floor I guess. It really doesn't damage the car much, just bends up the hood a little bit. Later on Lou gets in a helicopter and goes chasing after the train. Even though the train only had a two minute head start, it takes a good half hour to catch it. The CGI is so bad that the helicopter looks like it's as big as the hills it's flying over. Then it flies into the side of a mountain - this effect must be seen to be believed. It looks like they took a jar of gasoline and threw it against a wall, then superimposed the flame effect over the helicopter. About 10 times too big. No wonder the helicopter couldn't pull up in time, it was carrying five tons of nitro glycerine. Then the eco-terrorist eventually blows himself up, but instead of exploding in all directions like most explosions do, he explodes upwards like a cannon aimed into the air. Then there's the whole deal with not being able to stop the train because that would allow the little aliens to get off, but it appears that the aliens can actually fly faster than the train is traveling, so why this would keep them on the train I have no idea.<br /><br />Overall, if you've got a couple of hours that absolutely need killing, and it's down to this movie or reruns on the Food Network, well, come to think of it, some of those chefs are kind of cute. Usually these movies have at least one or two things about them that make it possible to sit through them; maybe there's a sexy girl, some T&A, or a character that actually has some personality, or some suspense or, well, something. I really didn't see any of that here.
It is way beyond me how this script was ever sold much less produced and distributed. The dialogue was so bad it was sickening. The train and helicopter scenes appeared to have been done on flash cards by high school students. Lou Diamond Phillips must have hidden under his seat when this --- this "movie"? was shown at a private screening afterwhich he most likely left by the back door. The only emotion it aroused in me was pity for the cast, they had to "bite the bullet" to get through this one. I couldn't stand to watch all of it, it was so predictable that it was funny. Who knows maybe it will be picked up by one of the networks as a situation comedy.
Watching ALIEN EXPRESS inspired feelings of awe, shock, pity and, yes, sheer terror. To think that actors who have done good work in the past should come to something like this. The horror, the horror.<br /><br />Tell me if any of this sounds familiar.<br /><br />A train especially built for a political campaign is on it's way to Las Vegas for a big rally for the candidate, a Senator from Texas (Barry Corbin, the only actor with roles both ALIEN EXPRESS and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN in the same decade). At a railroad crossing in Utah a meteor incinerates a car waiting for the train to pass.<br /><br />The train stops. Local law enforcement is summoned. Oh, can it be? The Senator has a lovely young lady (Amy Locane from CRY-BABY and MELROSE PLACE) who just happened to have once been married to one of the officers answering the 911 call. Lou Diamond Phillips (STAND AND DELIVER, LA BAMBA) is the ex-husband.<br /><br />Meanwhile eeeeevil aliens have managed to stow away on the train.<br /><br />The train leaves. Lou gets his buddy to pilot a helicopter so that Lou can drop onto the moving train (about 70 miles per hour) so that he can save the day. As the buddy's reward, he crashes the helicopter into the mountain.<br /><br />Which is another example of how poorly written ALIEN EXPRESS is. The cop hero's sidekick must die, we all know that. But he's supposed to die near the end of the third act, usually while saving several lives.<br /><br />Once on the train, Lou manages to lose his shirt so that he can channel Bruce Willis in DIE HARD by wearing a wife beater t-shirt. Yeah, Lou is 46 years old but he hits the gym. The part he's playing isn't worth bothering with, but he's in good shape.<br /><br />The Senator is going to have an afternoon delight with Miss Utah, but aliens intercede and both he and the woman young enough to be his granddaughter pay the ultimate price.<br /><br />Soon we have bomb threats, multiplying aliens, and of course the train goes out of control and speeds toward its date with destiny while Lou and Todd Bridges (DIFF'RENT STROKES) try to save as many lives as they can.<br /><br />There is exactly one surprise in the entire movie. Early in the story a couple lift wine glasses to their thirty-fifth anniversary, with hopes for thirty-five more years together. The dude gets banged up, but he and the Mrs. both live. Maybe the writers just lost track of them.<br /><br />This is the kind of movie that you'd love to be a fly on the wall. These actors who have done better work (and, really, deserve much better than this) are probably just happy for the work. Did they actually think they were working on something worthwhile, or did they cry (and/or drink) themselves to sleep at night? At the end of the story the (fairly numerous, all things considered) survivors gather in the last car of the train, which is unhooked. The other cars go over a cliff but the one containing the protagonists stops just inches short of the cliff.<br /><br />Lou and his ex are reunited. Happiness reigns. I'd have thought that the first thing they'd do was get off the train so they'd have solid ground under their feet, but I digress.<br /><br />Someone looks out the window and sees a shooting star. Look, make a wish. Then another. Then more and more. The Earth is being bombarded with meteors that will crack open and creepy crawly hand puppets with big teeth will be everywhere.<br /><br />It's gotten to a point that seeing the words "The Sci-Fi Channel Presents" on an "original" movie tells us that we'll be glad we have Ti-Vo so that we can fast forward through the next two hours. Or, better yet, just go ahead and erase it two minutes into the story and spend that time more wisely.
*THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS... OR MAYBE NOT. THE WARNING IS THE SAME FOR ALL*<br /><br />Dang it. Just when I thought that SCIFI Channel had used all of its ridiculous ideas for movies, they give us THIS. Actually, the plot itself it's nothing we haven't seen in movies like Snakes On A Plane, Deep Blue Sea, etc... That means, a monster/animal/menace of some kind is lurking in a close environment threatening a bunch of people. In this case, an alien in a train. Wow.<br /><br />I must say that, when I first saw this thing on cable, I couldn't stop laughing. No SCIFI film had prepared me for this; it was so incredibly pathetic I couldn't believe it! The actors are all a bunch of stereotypical-genre characters. But since they're not so famous (to say the least), I wasn't expecting much of them. Except Diamond Phillips. No comments there, but I think the guy was desperate to find a job. The problem was something called 'special effects', horrible even for SCIFI Channel standards. That model/toy they made us believe it was a real train (not to mention the model/toy helicopter, bigger than a train's wagon), the meteor coming HORIZONTALLY from space, the 'baby' alien (a sock puppet, and I ain't kiddin'), the regular aliens who looked pretty ugly... while they were static; when they started "moving", it was awful, the explosions (the terrorist blew up LITERALLY! And what about the exploding helicopter! Just how many barrels of gas was that thing carrying?), the insane mathematics used (they couldn't even solve a school problem right!)... And I won't talk about that doomsday-like ending, by that time I didn't know if to keep laughing or to start crying. If I remember right, I did both.<br /><br />It's an ideal movie to have a good laugh, alone or with friends. But be warned; it's so ridiculous at SO MANY levels... and you need a heck of a lot of suspension of disbelief...
We all know that special effects cost money, but it seems as if they could have used the money they saved writing the script to get some better shots. The train is obviously a model in most moving shots, the helicopter is obviously computer generated, the alien looks like the one from the end of Spaceballs, except it's a decade later and Spaceballs had an excuse.<br /><br />The only smart thing they did was blur all of the special effects to make them harder to see.<br /><br />Not even the actors could compensate for such a poorly written script and it's pretty obvious they didn't really try either.<br /><br />Please, don't waste your time. Please.
I did my best to watch this two hour fiasco. It combined the awful special effects and plot of the original "Blob," with an execrable boosting of the (outstanding in the original) screenplay of "Runaway Train." The only explanation for this movie is that someone needed to take a huge tax deduction and figured they'd combine it with a shot at hosting a casting couch. What an incredible stinker! Lou Diamond Phillips is anxious to show us why he will take any part, no matter how bad. Barry Corbin continues his career as a typecast creep, a U.S. Senator from Texas and plays it well. He should next do the lead role in the story of Trent Lott or Jesse Helms. The women in this flick all seem to have gotten their roles as consolation prizes in the Fay Wray Memorial screaming contest. Special effects are unbelievably bad. H.S. kids in film class in North Dakota could have done a better job. The writers must have pulled a heist at the cliché bank to accumulate this many. I couldn't watch any more without being forced to sit in the Clockwork Orange chair. I have no idea how it ended, except obviously, 119 minutes too late. Ugh! Caveat emptor.
Not a terrible movie... But there are monster scenes where you will be rolling on the floor laughing - not a good thing for a action/thriller. The acting is generally pretty decent for a SciFi channel movie. Barry Corbin plays a credible US senator, and Lou Diamond Phillips again gives us a decent military/police/sheriff/agent/marshal figure. The special effects are well, "special" - for example, the external train shots are very obviously a model train.<br /><br />Goofs: A meteor strikes a stationary car in the opening scene. The car bursts into flames but does not budge an inch. After the impact, the meteor is lodged in the top of the car's hood - impossible from the low angle that the meteor came in at.<br /><br />Spoilers...<br /><br />A good portion of the movie's events are predictable, from the helicopter crash ("Pull up, pull up!"), to the fact that the annoying people get it in the end, to the classic blown bridge over a 1000 foot gorge awaiting the train, to the sequel set-up at the end.<br /><br />The scenes showing the aliens attacking are hilarious. They are vicious cute puppets and move at lightening speed - remember the Monty Python rabbit? Spoiler Goof: In one scene four people shooting clip after clip cannot hit a single creature because they move at lightning speed. Later in the movie Todd Bridges rigs up a mini flame thrower which he uses to dispatch a number of creatures at close range. On several occasions, Lou Diamond Phillips is able to easily grab creatures with his bare hands.
I was really looking forward to seeing this movie, having spent a few (fantastic) college weeks in Barcelona myself. The premise is right on cue--a confused & disordered young individual enters a world of equally confused & disordered young individuals. But the director's weak swats at symbolism, philosophy and social commentary were completely off the mark, and it leaves us, the audience, feeling confused & disordered. Bravo.<br /><br />Perhaps if this movie had been presented as a European "American Pie" flick, then I'd be able to turn off my brain and go along for the ride. But right off the bat, the director piques our deeper senses by introducing the symbolism of the twisted highways and the dichotomy of the "inner self" vs. the "public self" (one's "mother tongue" vs. one's "secondary language"). Furthermore, it dives boldly into the subject of racial/national stereotyping. Off to an interesting start, eh?<br /><br />WRONG. That's as far as it goes. These interesting topics are hardly mentioned again except at the contrived epilogue-type ending which seemed to be the director's way of floundering to get back on topic. It reminded me of a meandering speech which goes nowhere, but the speaker ends by saying, "So in conclusion, I hope you see how this relates to my original thought!"<br /><br />Furthermore, as other reviewers have pointed out, the cynical jab at stereotyping betrays itself. If the point is to ridicule the use of national stereotypes, then why did the director introduce a cockney-speaking, beer-swilling English brat as a caricature of prejudice? Why did the director portray the American as a neanderthal (literally banging his chest & making ape noises at one point) whilst the Europeans tolerate him superciliously? Why is the British girl the one who sinks to uttering slurs (calling French people "frogs" and butchering the French language) while everyone else is above all that? The answer is that this isn't a deep or well-thought out film. It's simply an Anglophobe's retort to the Anglophiles. But really it's no different from the prejudice it seeks to ridicule! Now there's a funny irony to consider.<br /><br />OK, philosophy, artistry & socio-political commentary aside, I was still very bored by this movie. There is one very funny gag which involves deceiving one of the girls' boyfriends, but aside from that I was hardly entertained at all. The only reason why I watched it through to the end is that I'd like to brush up on my French & Spanish. (You see, we monolingual Americans may be stupid, but we do try.)
I have seen previous movies from Cédric Klapisch, and therefore expected a quality movie with psychological depth. Having been an Erasmus student myself and having visited several friends studying abroad, I know very well what it means to spend some time abroad and mix with different cultures at the same time. Yes, it is great fun! Because of that I thought I should not miss this movie. Unfortunately I was disappointed to find that L'Auberge Espagnol fails to satisfy in many ways: the characters are stereotyped, the events are trite and the story is shallow. Although there are quite a few familiar situations, they are irritatingly cliché and do not go beyond the trivial events. This made the movie uninteresting to watch, and gave me a strong "been-there-done-that-don't-you-have-anything-to-add?" feeling. Apart from that, the movie lacks a firm story. It sometimes looks more like a documentary or 'real-life' show than a seriously made movie.<br /><br />However, I can imagine that if you haven't studied or travelled abroad, this might be fun to watch.
L'Auberge Espagnole is less funny and less interesting than any episode of Dobie Gillis. Where is their Bob Denver? Do they even have a Dwayne Hickman? A French man moves to Barcelona to attend classes. He moves in with some other students who are no more interesting than himself, and they do and say uninteresting things. This movie is unbelievably bland. The only bright spot was a pretty French girl who played a Belgian lesbian. She places her hands behind her head and reveals shaven underarms, not the usual tufts of dark, smelly hair. But bare armpits does not a good movie make. L'Emmerdeur was funny, so was La Cage aux Folles. L'Auberge Espagnole and Le Placard makes you wonder what is going wrong with French comedy.
Pretty, stereotyped, good looking cast, the story loops in a wide and confusing arc, leading you down a number of garden paths (without attendant fairies) before plummeting to an end that feels you leaving - hollow.<br /><br />If you are after a film that has climax or ends with a satisfying thump, this is going to be a disappointment. Inspite of the main character's notionally overt sexuality I felt that he was androgynous, lacking a clear male persona, rather like his lacking of a clear French persona. Even though he is notionally laid naked (or rather sat naked) at the end of the film, the viewer is as unaware as the character as to motivations - that little thing called plot. Probably a stereotypically English speaking point of view, at least if you take the side of the film.
Irwin Allen's first venture into all star spectacle was one all star disaster. The Story of Mankind contains some of the most incredible casting decisions of all time. Virginia Mayo as the blond Cleopatra, Dennis Hopper chewing the scenery with Napoleon, Peter Lorre dining on the scenery for weeks as Nero, Marie Wilson as Marie Antoinette as a roadshow Marilyn Monroe, that's just some of them.<br /><br />The film also is known for being the last film which featured all three of the Marx Brothers though they all have different roles. Chico plays a monk who is Christopher Columbus's confidante, Groucho euchres the Indians out of Manhattan island as Peter Minuit, and most astonishing of all, Harpo Marx as Sir Isaac Newton who discovers gravity when an apple conks him on the bean. <br /><br />Holding all these portrayals together is a story where mankind itself is being judged. A super H Bomb is about to be discovered and let loose will do in the world's population. It's Judgement Day a coming.<br /><br />But mankind has its advocates and detractors. Speaking for the prosecution is Old Scratch who's been bringing the worst out in man for centuries in the form of Vincent Price. But man has his good side as well and who better than Ronald Colman to demonstrate man at his most civilized best. Colman and Price plead their case before The Judge played by Cedric Hardwicke. <br /><br />In those three individuals you have some of the finest speaking voices the English language ever knew. When the film is on them as they each bring out the exhibits for their case it's a pleasure to listen to. Then when the focus is on the individual stories, you want to scream in agony.<br /><br />What was Irwin Allen driving at, I'm still trying to figure it out. Was he deliberately camping it up with some of these casting decisions? If it was satire, it just doesn't get off the ground.<br /><br />This was Ronald Colman's farewell film and while it's hardly something I'd like to go out on, I can't think of any man who could have stated the case for civilization any better. <br /><br />So when you see The Story of Mankind, fast forward through some of the exhibits and treasure every moment the advocates are before the judge.
When I was 8 years old, and going through my Marx Brothers phase, my father read in the TV Guide that they were showing the Marx Brothers film, "The Big Store" late on Friday night, and set the VCR to tape it for me. When I woke up on Saturday -- due no doubt to a misprint in the TV guide -- my father and I discovered "The Story of Mankind" had been recorded instead.<br /><br />"The Big Store" was probably one of the least funny of all the Marx Brothers movies and nevertheless it stands as one of the century's finest works of cinema when compared with "The Story of Mankind." I can almost justify TV Guide's error, in that the Marx Brothers -- Groucho, Chico, and Harpo -- appear in both movies. Although in "The Story of Mankind," they are divided up into a series of unrelated scenes: Groucho plays Peter Minuit, Chico plays some guy talking to Christopher Columbus, and Harpo plays Isaac Newton????? Harpo's scene lasts about half a minute; Chico only has two or three lines; Groucho's scene is at least funny, but horribly racially insensitive by today's standards. The rest of the movie doesn't bear mentioning. They trotted out some of the finest actors of the day, and made them recite total garbage. What a disappointment.<br /><br />TV Guide, I sent you a nice letter, I'm still waiting for an apology.<br /><br />For the record: "The Big Store" has a wonderful bit of physical comedy with the Marx Brothers on roller skates, and a couple of songs by Virginia O'Brien. I was really looking forward to seeing it.
I can't understand why many seem to hate this.<br /><br />This movie ties together many of the overlapping settings of the historical and Biblical epics of the fifties, using set pieces, props, and costumes similar to those seen in other movies. Here, however, the story attempts to run through all of human history, with a frame story about the human race being on trial, with a guilty verdict meaning h-bombs will go off all over the world. The prosecutor is the devil, played with fiendish glee by Vincent Price. OK, so it's a little hokey calling the defender "The Spirit of All Men," but I think that's one of the things that gives this movie a sense of period charm. The Spririt of Man is incidentally played quite well by Ronald Coleman, in his last film. It is also the last movie in which Groucho, Harpo, and Chico Marx all appear, but not together. Groucho plays Peiter Minuet buying Manhattan from the Indians, in a scene played purely for campy humor. Chico isn't funny at all as a monk who thinks the world is flat, and Harpo, we are told, is meant to be Isaac Newton, discovering gravity. Most of the other performances are well done, though.<br /><br />Other hokey things are that the trial is supposedly taking place in outer space, which is depicted as a region of clouds and blueness. There is something called "The Great Clock of Outer Space," which, when striking midnight, may signal the end of the world.<br /><br />But at its heart, the movie addresses the problems of WMDs and the eternal question of whether Man is basically good, or basically evil; and poses it in what I think is an interesting way. Also, anyone who likes the look of costume epics of the fifties should like the look of this movie.
I'm an atheist. To me history and truth mean a lot.<br /><br />This film is made after a novel published in 1921, which is still being updated up to this day as if it was a history book. Well it's not. The movie is about the novels 1950s version. Some actors were GREAT but that doesn't cover the plot.<br /><br />In short man invents a super-bomb so God and his friends hold a tribunal to see if they must intervene. The devil analogy persecutes man, and for defense we have the spirit of man. What is the spirit of man anyway? And why was the first defendant Adam? Eventually you just get US Christian propaganda in a 5th grade history book of the time. Though other religions are mentioned, only European Christianity is explored.<br /><br />First we get the caveman story. The women are scrawny stereotypes of damsels in distress. Real cave women were as strong as men and just as resistant. Hard times, hard life, adapt and survive. All this is watered down by mid-century stereotypes.<br /><br />Next we get Egypt's first pyramid construction. Today we see a different story and know that there were a lot less deaths and regular citizens at work as well. Loosing mentioned amount of many lives in the process would have been a national disaster and nobody after would try to beat it. As if there was only ONE pyramid build.<br /><br />The part about Moses and one true god was as if the Spanish inquisition was asking nicely. Inquisition itself was never even mentioned in the movie.<br /><br />Helen of Troy's evil grim was so vile that I didn't see why so many were even interested in her. In reality they were just soldiers, following commanders orders, who were "discussing" a political issue of power. She was just an excuse.<br /><br />The Cleopatra story was were I saw this film was to inaccurate and filled with propaganda. Here brother was a LOT younger. She was not obsessed with poison, was quite educated to restore library content, and was politically competitive to drag beaten down Egypt out of dirt.<br /><br />The part with Nero and praying Christians in a cave were disgusting. Yes, Rome burned down. Yes, there was persecuted Christianity. But the way they portray it was as if the Coliseum build itself and there was no Vespasian to rebuild Rome.<br /><br />Attila the Hun appears in a short seen and than we jump to King Arthur. The crusades are mentioned with minimal bloodshed. And there is no mention of the crusades east to Russia that ended in an ironic battle. The knights just went home and started jousting for fun of it. A LOT of stuff is put down like no indoor pluming, hygiene and plagues.<br /><br />Then they cover Joan of Ark, where she always has to much makeup and looks like a princes. Territorial politics were replaced with an unjust court. The sidesaddle alone on a stool makes me want to ask how someone could follow here. At here burning I wanted to yell "Hura! Now die already! Cheap special effects, where is the fire?".<br /><br />By the time they mentioned Leonardo I already got fed up with the movie. Columbus, Spanish slaughter of America, yelling Queen Elisabeth "kick the Spanish armada" and so on and so on.<br /><br />The ONLY reason I wanted to see this movie was the fact that it was the last one with all 3 Marks brothers. And all they got was the scene with Manhattan and Indians. Amusing, but no more than a smile.<br /><br />The witch-hunts are mentioned briefly, as well as plagues (after renascence). When they start portraying revolutions, things gut power-hungry and anarchistic. The US revolution was pursued by the French revolution. Oppression and incompetence are bad, but you can't just blow the old way up out of anger, you must replace it with something. So they replaced the French monarchy with new French monarchy. So we get Napoleon and his ambitions to go to India by land. But they replace his motives with unity and band him for only the title "Emperor". The conquests in Europe, defeat in Russia are sacked to Waterloo.<br /><br />The US civil war, the English rich inventors (Tesla not included). "Mister Watson, come here, I want you" almost made me laugh for teenage reasons. Technological hard work was watered down to the final discovery and comedic misuse.<br /><br />Eventually after 85 minutes we come to world wars and organized crime, but none of its horrors. Adolph's words "I invade Russia. This is my last territorial demand" were hilarious. It was his LAST territorial demand.<br /><br />To build suspense God puts a countdown clock to doomsday on the "wall" for the final words. All mighty cant pause the universe for a second? There was no need for the persecution speech but the defense made one last throw.<br /><br />Last we see the man of tomorrow as the final defense. Apparently a paradox man, because the bomb was to go of today. His toys are a music box in the shape of a gun and a pencil box sword. Now that is so wrong… Pens and pencils drew so many weapon blueprints that its kill count surpasses the atom bomb. And making music out of a weapon? Deluded egoistic generals make music out of weapon fire. So the man of tomorrow is already a monster.<br /><br />The way I see it, all the defense had to do was blame the devil as the true conspirator for mans demise and case closed. And honestly, compared to all barbaric stuff our ancestors did centuries ago we are pretty humane at painless backstabbing these days.<br /><br />To summarize all I will just quote "Firefly"s episode "Jaynestown": "It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of son of bitch or another. Ain't about you, Jayne. It's about what they need".
Leave Ed Wood alone. To call "Plan 9 from Outer Space" the worst film ever made would be to deny this abysmally vulgar heap of Hollywood guano its rightful title. This pretentious fusion of witless whimsy and bathetic sociopolitical "commentary" actually does seem to be formed along the lines of "Plan 9," with badly-staged scenes of down-on-their-luck actors on cheap sets interspersed with what appears to be footage of battle and crowd scenes cribbed from higher-budget epics. But whereas "Plan 9" occasionally manages to be funny when it means to be and reasonably entertaining overall, this tacky pageant is appallingly lacking in basic showmanship, with scenes ranging from offensively unfunny (the disgusting burlesque of Groucho Marx stealing Manhattan from the Indians) to low camp (Hedy Lamarr attempting to impersonate Joan of Arc hearing her "voices") to tedious (Dennis Hopper doing absolutely nothing with the role of Napoleon) to the unexpectedly poignant performance of Peter Lorre as the psychotic Nero. Give the worst director trophy to Irwin Allen, for turning so much into so little.
Making a film based on a true story, particularly one as incredible and horrifying as the 1972 Andean plane crash, is hard for even the best filmmakers. But the Mexicans behind this forgettable and cheap exploitation flick don't even try! The actual names of both the survivors and the casualties of the Uruguayan air force plane crash have ALL been altered, the crash itself is obviously staged in a very slip-shod manner, and the cannibalism aspect has been unnecessarily and gorily played up. Shockingly, it made a ton of money on both sides of the border. Thankfully, thought, it has mercifully been forgotten. But the same people behind this would later give us the equally revolting GUYANA: CULT OF THE DAMNED!<br /><br />This cheap horror exploitation flick necessitated the making of ALIVE some fifteen years later. That film was a masterpiece. SURVIVE!, to put it mildly, is not.
I couldn't. I was bored, not just because the acting was terrible and the tragic story was simply a b-movie whose plot was all about the cannibalism, but the fact I was watching a subtitle foreign film, which doesn't bother me at all, but was STILL dubbed.<br /><br />The "special effects" were awful. As the back of the plane splits off, you can see the model is hollow as it "breaks away" in the phony snow. Most of the movie takes place on a sound stage that clearly is not real and almost looks like a play, as the "sounds" of snow blowing all over are heard but not actually scene.<br /><br />"But how what will they eat? They have no food" one military person (It's never clear what this guy does or why he's in charge) says, which I'm sure no one ever said in reality or even thought about food, since they were concerned if the people were alive, not how they'd eat. It was simply a stupid line written to point out that, yes, they will have to eat the dead bodies to survive.<br /><br />When they finally decide to eat the bodies, one man finds one shirtless body, who despite being in the snow for however long, is not remotely frozen, in fact, his flesh is very flexible and fresh. He cuts the fresh meat off his back, that again, is not frozen or even cold it appears, and this scene goes on for five minutes. That's where I had to stop. The remake "Alive" was a far superior film about trying to survive in a horrible situation that I'm sure the real survivors praised whereas I can't imagine any of them had anything nice to say about this version. It was simply about eating dead bodies and everything else was secondary. Avoid.
One of the worst things a film studio can do is exploit the tragedies of others, commercializing a 'shock' or 'gore' factor in order to sell tickets to be able to buy their Birch a new diamond necklace. Another worst thing is to totally misrepresent the true facts of an incredible saga by fabricating events, dialog and images to the director's own liking. Lastly, one of the worst things a film studio can do is to use bottom-of-the-barrel actors and shoot it all on a sound stage that was rented for fifty cents a day. All three of these travesties the makers of this film are guilty of. This is, hands-down, the worst movie I have ever seen, and I've seen thousands. A score of '1' is too good for this waste of celluloid. Not only should the filmmakers be ashamed for making it, they should be ashamed for negatively exploiting the heroes of this story, which are the people who experienced this tragedy firsthand, both the living and the dead.
Lance Henriksen has a knack for being the top name in a B-movie, even in this case starring along side Charles Napier, Master Control Program, and Joe Don Baker. As always he does a great job of being the bad guy, but the plot is just bad (don't even get me started about the ending). And the editing is so horrible it might actually be a thing of beauty. Is it just me, or does it seem that Joe Don Baker was spliced into the movie at the last minute? Also, anytime glass is broken in this movie, the editing is so anti-phenomenal. Lastly, after watching this, I figure David Warner is dying for Tron 2.0 to finally get the green light.<br /><br />Unfortunately for Felony, this will be the third movie I give the rating of 1/10, joining Iron Eagle IV and No Mercy.
'Felony' is a B-movie. No doubt about it.<br /><br />Of course, if you take a look at the cast lineup you might have some high hopes for its entertainment potential. This film is stuffed with all of those wonderful character actors that you grew up with, the ones with the faces you immediately recognize even though you probably don't know their names. It's amazing that the filmmakers were able to get all of these people together on one project, almost like they decided to do a B-movie actor reunion. The cast even includes a couple of really first-rate actors: David Warner, who most people will recognize from 'Titanic' (although my favorite of his roles is Jack the Ripper in 'Time After Time') and Lance Henriksen, who many will remember as Bishop in 'Aliens'. These two actors have done some excellent work in their long careers and made some very fine films.<br /><br />However, as impressive as this collection of actors is, their talent is never fully manifested on the screen. The writers of 'Felony' spent a lot of money to assemble a dream-team cast and then missed their golden opportunity because of one important factor, the common denominator of all B-movies: a silly script.<br /><br />We start with a silly premise. The bad guys are caught on tape committing a gruesome murder and they relentlessly pursue the film crew in order to acquire the videotape and destroy the evidence. But honestly, why bother? In the time it takes them to track down the film crew, a thousand copies of that tape could be made and circulated to every law enforcement agency and media outlet. The criminals don't seem to realize how futile their effort is, and they talk as if stealing and destroying the one original videotape is going to solve the whole problem. Silly...but I suppose if the bad guys were so logical there would be no movie.<br /><br />Then there is the dialogue. It is at times silly, at times cliché, and at times unbelievable...everything you have come to expect from a B-movie. Of course, I have always believed that strong performances can overcome a lot of weaknesses in the material. This cast includes actors who are definitely capable of strong performances, and although a number of the cast members are not good actors at all and have achieved B-movie status quite deservedly, one still might be hopeful that the stronger part of the cast would be able to infuse some life into their parts. However, it's disappointing to see that few of the actors in this film really seem to take the movie seriously enough to give it their best shot. There's not much inspiration evident in these performances, but then again it's an uninspiring script. Now, I'll admit that some of the more colorful actors in the cast do manage to add a certain amount of pizazz into the delivery of their lines, but honestly, even the very fine actors I mentioned earlier seem mostly disinterested and uninvolved with the story.<br /><br />Speaking of the story...even if the acting had been of a high enough caliber that it made the dialogue seem a little less cheesy, it still would not redeem 'Felony' from the fact that its writer commits the ultimate faux pas of low budget action movie scripts: a plot with as many holes as a block of Swiss cheese. You can watch this movie a hundred times and you still won't figure out how everything adds up. In an effort to create suspense and always keep the viewer guessing, the writer throws in all kinds of surprises and unexpected twists into his script and ends up with a jigsaw puzzle, but when you get to the end you find there are a bunch of pieces that just don't fit anywhere and others that are missing. I admire a good thriller that keeps me guessing, but creating plot twists that exist just to confuse you and which are not consistent with the rest of the story is amateurish. There was so much that was never explained that I felt extremely frustrated at the end. If you decide to watch it, be prepared to be confused.<br /><br />I haven't even mentioned all kinds of other silly things about this movie, but I won't bother. The funny thing is that despite everything I've said, I have to admit that I can't give 'Felony' 1/10 stars. Although I can't exactly put my finger on why, I actually found this film to be somewhat likable. The silliness can actually be fun at times if you are in the mood for it. Plus, I really like some of these character actors, and even though their performances are somewhat lackluster considering their talents, I still got a kick out of seeing them.<br /><br />Now, I realize I have been rating this film from the standpoint of a serious moviegoer. It's entirely possible I have completely missed the point. It could be that the filmmakers' intention all along was to make a B-movie. Maybe the silliness is all completely intentional. If that's the case, and if I were to rate it on those terms, I would have to say that 'Felony' is a classic in the genre of tongue-in-cheek action flicks. B-movie fans will love seeing all of their favorite actors together in one film, will get some chuckles from the script, and will be entertained by the healthy dose of guns, explosions, and chases.
With several name actors (Lance Henrikson, David Warner, Joe Don Baker), why was Jeffery Combs given the lead? Henrikson would have been a perfect fit for the lead, as would Warner, Baker or even others in the movie such as Charles Napier. Combs was miscast in this, and did a poor job of it. Everything he did seemed fake or contrived.<br /><br />The script is poor. Meaning that if Lance Henrikson (or another) had the lead role, he might have saved the film (removed it from my "waste of time" category), but it still would have been a bad movie. The screen play was completely lacking. The director should have recognized this and helped the movie along.
This is a film that really makes me cringe. In 1951, MGM and Looney Toons were making some of their very best cartoons--with amazing animation, exceptional backgrounds and great stories. Then, in the late 40s, a new style of animation began to appear (such as the "Crusader Rabbit" series on TV)--animation with extremely simplistic artwork in order to save money. Unfortunately, Columbia Picture's cynical ploy worked!! Instead of the public hating the toons (as they should have), many accepted them and the Oscar people (AMPAS) actually gave this film the award for Best Animated Short--giving legitimacy for an inferior product. Unfortunately, in the dollars and sense world of Hollywood, this soon began to creep into the products of legitimate studios--resulting in rather crappy cartoons. Later, it got even worse as in addition to lousy animation and backgrounds, the stories themselves became almost unbearable for adults to watch. The cleverness and style of the classic cartoons were gone. And for this tragedy, I blame, in part, GERALD MCBOING-BOING--one of the granddaddies of cheap cartoons. The story isn't that bad but the animation is a horror and listening to the kid saying "boing-boing" incessantly is a pain.
hey ....i really do not know why this film has been appreciated so much,perhaps i missed the point.The way i see it , a lot of international film makers have made brilliant films that have dealt with 'schizophrenia' and have informed ,excited ,shocked,evoked emotion and compelled the audience to step aside from their own reality and think.........while it is true that aparna sen's endeavor was an ambitious one ,in light of all the other movies , this one falls short..... miserably......it was too slow, there were no details about anything and the ending .... was completely ...pointless......it was not open ended or anything ....just pointless.....so watch it if you want to see a good concept completely wasted.......
I've become a big fan of the Carpenters, and I didn't really enjoy this movie.<br /><br />I feel it focused far too much on her anorexia and didn't let her true personality shine through. I wasn't overly fond of Cynthia Gibb's portrayal; especially knowing she decided Karen's anorexia was suicide, which it clearly wasn't. Although her family was not big on hugs and kisses, I thought the movie portrayed Agnes (their mother) as being terrible.<br /><br />I did find a few scenes to be harrowing in a way, such as where she sees herself in a mirror that seems to distort her and make her look heavier; I thought the metaphor (so-to-speak) there was rather effective. When the family is playing pool and discussing her divorce and she breaks down and Richard is shocked when he comforts her and feels her frail body was pretty moving (which is probably the wrong word) as well.<br /><br />Overall, I feel they needed to bring out her more bubbly, quirky side--her genuine personality. Even as the focus of the film, there really wasn't a point that caused one to understand what would lead her to anorexia (though of course no one can really know), and almost made it seem baseless. The film was more poor-singer-with-anorexia than Karen Carpenter's story, in my opinion.<br /><br />I would assume that they changed her husband's name/profession and all because they couldn't get his permission to actually include him (there were some bad terms there), but that whole aspect was inaccurate with the changes. On this note, I can't recall the movie bringing out her longing for a family and kids, which greatly prevailed in her life and explains her whirlwind romance and quick marriage to her husband.<br /><br />On the whole, it ends up as a low-budget made-for-TV movie that just isn't very high quality and can be disappointing if you're a hardcore fan who is hoping to see beyond Karen's disease. I feel that such a legend deserves/deserved a better film as a tribute to an amazing person and an awesome voice.
I have been a fan of the Carpenters for a long time, read the biography, watched the specials, and saw the Karen Carpenter Story. This movie really didn't show the real Karen Carpenter. In the movie she seems to be a shy and a pretty much of loner (except for one girl friend). The real Karen Carpenter was much different. She was outgoing and friendly. She had lots of friends, especially Olive Newton-John. The movie doesn't even show Karen's attempts for a solo album and her meeting Phil Ramone and his wife Itchy "Karen". Itchy knew the real Karen Carpenter in New York. When Karen was in New York, she did see a psychologist, but it was voluntary and once a day and then she would leave to go to her hotel room. Also, Karen was taking pills to increase her thyroid, so she could loss weight, but stop taking them because the psychologist recommended her not too. Also, the Karen's husband in the movie is named Bob Knight, but in real life was named Tom Burris. Also, Karen wasn't divorced from Tom, but only separated. Karen was to sign the divorce papers on the day she died. Also, Agnes found Karen naked in the closet unciousness, unlike in the movie where she was dressed in white. The music was very good. That was the only thing I would recommend on seeing it.
I am very diplomatic in my reviews, and as an academic writer, try to give creative license to TV writers trying to explicate a true story. This story, about Karen Carpenter, could have helped so many, yet due to the directing and editing, does not.<br /><br />The story, in this case, is not fully addressed, unless one reads psychological journals. While Cynthia Gibb portrays a realistic Karen, it is sad that so much has been edited...Louise Fletcher portrays her mother, and does an excellent job, with limited material and dialogue. In this case, I give the actors credit for surviving this project.<br /><br />Why is the audience not permitted to see causation factors?....American audiences are quite savvy, and if they have cable, usually educated.<br /><br />I sincerely feel that I could have written a better story, would not have edited out the truth, and allowed the actors to project the reality.<br /><br />Richard Carpenter, as director, has seriously underestimated and insulted American audiences. Karen's story is important, and it is sad we will never hear it.
This show uses a rather tired sitcom formula of the fat idiot blue collar slob with the pretty (and sometimes shrewish-seeming) wife and crazy in-law(s). With this show, it's fat unfunny comedian Kevin James as Doug Hefferman who works as a delivery driver for a parcel service. He has a pretty wife, Carrie (Leah Remini), who works as legal assistant, and senile father-in-law, Arthur Spooner (Jerry Stiller), who lives in his daughter and son-in-law's basement. Kevin James' Doug is your typical beer drinking, sports loving, TV watching slob of a sitcom husband who would rather watch the tube than deal with his marital issues. He also has a couple of idiot friends who lend extra stupidity to the problems encountered by this show's couple. Beyond the few laughs supplied by Jerry Stiller's crazy old man character this show was generally unfunny. Kevin James' imbecilic behavior usually caused the show's problems that usually resolved by his wife. This show continued a run of sitcoms with the fat stupid father/husband and their pretty wives that all seemed to run on ABC for some reason.
A show about an incredibly dumb, man-child and his shrewish hot wife. 99% of the plots revolves around Doug doing something unbelievably stupid and then comes a variable: a) either he hides it from his wife or b) tell his wife, she emasculates him and then it's up to the father-in-law (Arthur: the typecast character from Seinfeld) to aggravate the situation.<br /><br />And the writers dare to say it was influenced by the "Honeymooners" (an absolute classic) and that the plots are drawn from real-life situations, unless you live in a cave, you know that's not true.<br /><br />Anyway, let's just put it this way. If Kevin James had been thin, the show would have got canceled fromm the pilot. If you're 12, or you're fond of fat jokes.. be my guest, watch this show (or any of Kevin James movies for that matter).<br /><br />I've noticed some posters compare this travesty to much superior shows like Friends, Seinfeld and Everybody Loves Raymond -- I'm still wondering how could anyone do that
This is a lame comedy.<br /><br />Here's why: A man and wife sitcom. Okay.<br /><br />The Husband is a douche bag. The Wife is the Einstein.<br /><br />How original is that? <br /><br />Jerry Stiller is just the same guy on Seinfeld.<br /><br />The gags are lame. No witty one-liners.<br /><br />I have had enough. Stop this now.<br /><br />The Last Word: Stupid. The destruction of the average white guy continues on ABC. The worst part? Kevin James is actually a funny comedian. He just isn't here. Leah Remini is great eye candy, but is unlikeable. Wasted talent is the word. Bad sitcom.
I can't help but be completely annoyed by this sitcom. It's like they didn't even bothered trying ro write good comedy, just rehash third rate jokes and hope it sticks. The worst of all this is that it's all so damm uninteresting and lacking in every way.<br /><br />To make things worse leading man Kevin James has a permanent "I'm so funny" smug grin on his face that would be tolerable if only he once delivered in the comedy department, which he doesn't, he just lies there doing nothing like a big unfunny baby. Which takes me to the relationship between the Heffernan's- easily the most insincere and poor representation of a married couple on any TV show, really headache inducingly obnoxious Remini spends the whole show as if it where a violent chore to even be around her own husband. Jerry Stiller yanking the few laughs on the show is doing a 100% repetition of his role as Frank Costanza in Seinfeld only this time his hints mostly tread on water due to the inability of the central duo in recognizing a joke even if it flew by them. The episodes just drift along in a stream of nothingness, their jobs add nothing and their interaction is even worse.<br /><br />This is not even a waste of talent, there is no talent here, this is a laughless creative desert.
There is not one character on this sitcom with any redeeming qualities. They are all self-centered, obnoxious or two dimensional. My husband watches it, claiming that there is nothing else on, but I would rather watch nothing.<br /><br />The only sitcom that I can think of that was worse was Yes, Dear. At least that one didn't get 9 seasons.<br /><br />Being overweight does not make a comic genius, and Kevin James does not have the talent of John Goodman, Jackie Gleason or John Belushi. Leah Remini may have talent, but if so, she is wasted on the shrewish wife. Jerry Stiller is convincing as an annoying old man. Maybe there is a reason for that.<br /><br />This is a perfect example of why sitcoms are derided.
"When a Killer Calls" is an unusually nasty slasher flick, with some very unpleasant and unsettling sequences. The decision was clearly made to try and cash in on the remake of "When a Stranger Calls" by pretty much putting in -- almost word for word -- the phone call sequences from that movie. They seem very forced.<br /><br />Additionally, the filmmaker commits the cardinal (but all too common) sin of having the heroine's friends being repulsive jerks. So for the beginning of the film, we really like and are rooting for the babysitter (a nice believable job by Rebekah Kochan), but then she's joined by standard slasher-flick teenage friends and the mood is ruined.<br /><br />The flick sort of works, but it probably a lot more unpleasant than you'll be expected, so be fore-warned.
To sum it up in a nutshell, this film was disappointing and could have been shortened by twenty minutes.<br /><br />The acting was sub-par, the only decent actors of the bunch being Trisha, the killer and Molly. The music was slightly lame but fitting and the special effects were much too overused. The story/scriptwriting was poor, the unnecessary torture/romantic scenes being dragged on for way too long and a disappointing ending.<br /><br />The start of the film was rather slow, the fake-looking gore not much of interest. Trisha arrived at the house, and there was some premise for a good storyline.<br /><br />Trisha started to receive the threatening phone calls, which heightened the suspense. This momentary suspense, the best feature of the movie began to build, but then the friends crashed the place, wrecking all potential suspense/horror in the film.<br /><br />The plot then becomes obtuse from here on. Chemistry sparks between the two couples, and then the killer picks off Frank and the other girl. This scene was dragged on and unnecessary.<br /><br />The killer then makes her way for Trisha and ties her up. There is an overdone torture scene which goes on for at least ten minutes too long. As the gore is done badly this is not entertaining at all, and it bores more than shocks.<br /><br />In summary, the first thirty minutes of this film sound promising but then poorly written dialogue and general lack of plot ruins this film.<br /><br />3/10.
i found this movie to be mostly a P.O.S.it was low budget,but that isn't the problem.the problem is,the movie is just lame.it doesn't really make a lot of sense.yes,it does explain why things happened,but that's not what i mean.there was just no reason for it all.the movie also moved very slow.the last ice age was quicker than this.also, i think they went overboard a bit in the kills.i don't mean they were too gross,but the killer just seemed to spend too much time smashing his victim over the head,or stabbing his victim. maybe i'm being petty,but i just didn't like the movie.the whole thing seemed like a lower rate version of "When a Stranger Calls" and maybe that was the whole point.but so what.for me "When A Stranger Kills" is a 4/10*
This movie had horrible lighting and terrible camera movements. This movie is a jumpy horror flick with no meaning at all. The slashes are totally fake looking. It looks like some 17 year-old idiot wrote this movie and a 10 year old kid shot it. With the worst acting you can ever find. People are tired of knives. At least move on to guns or fire. It has almost exact lines from "When A Stranger Calls". With gruesome killings, only crazy people would enjoy this movie. It is obvious the writer doesn't have kids or even care for them. I mean at show some mercy. Just to sum it up, this movie is a "B" movie and it sucked. Just for your own sake, don't even think about wasting your time watching this crappy movie.
When A Killer Calls has got to be the biggest ripoff released by Asylum so far. It's about a sexy babysitter on duty who receives spooky calls from a creepy voice who asks her repeatedly, "Have you checked the girl?" Naturally she has the calls traced by the cops (after having to perform some realistically unnecessary tasks -- hanging up when "he" calls, waiting ten seconds, and dialing *57). Sound familiar? Yeah, that's why I rented it, too.<br /><br />Well, it should. And I hate to say it, but this could've been more entertaining than the big-screen crapfest that was released around the same time if not for one fatal mistake -- Rather than revelling in B-movie ripoff glory, it tried to do something original. It tried to make the lead character sympathetic, rather than having clichéd, campy fun with her. Mind you, this could've worked with a talented actress. But she wasn't. Sure, she looked good, and she screamed, and cried, but . . . oh well, whatever.<br /><br />Then came the horrific ending. Not horrific in that it was horrifying, horrific in that it was BORING. The pacing up until that point (about an hour in) was campy, clichéd, and fun. Then it heads in another direction, and it veers away from just another dumb, fun slasher movie with a sexy "teenage" cast to a Hostel-esquire gore/borefest.<br /><br />I guess this falls into the "Oh well, whatever" category. The lead actress flubbed a line? Oh well, whatever, I don't feel like reshooting it. We forgot to give the killer motivation? Oh well, whatever, I don't feel like rewriting it. The pacing completely changes halfway through? Oh well, whatever, I don't feel like shaving fifteen minutes off. Continuity errors? Oh well, whatever.<br /><br />If you like this kind of movie (dumb, cheesy, predictable, campy splatter movie with sexy cast), then you'll be fine up until the ending. The ending is stupid, it's not fun, it's not scary, it's not campy or cheesy or quickly-paced. In fact, there was almost exactly five minutes of the character doing nothing but being tied up (and that's not a spoiler because it's on the back of the DVD) and looking around at the stuff in the room, then screaming, and . . . whatever.
this film is basically a poor take on the old urban legend of the babysitter who gets crank calls telling her to check the children, she calls the police who trace the calls and find there coming from inside the house. when a killer calls has a story so simplistic a little kid could have written it. not much suspense, it becomes clear who the killer is halfway through the film. at the beginning, when the first victim is killed it looks like a bondage fetish scene from a porn site or something. whats up with that? the film is oh so typical slasher fare with a plot about as original as a Beatles concert. even by low budget slasher standards its cheesy. don't waste your time with this. nuff said
I would have given this LESS than a 1 rating if it were possible. The entire film should have been left on the cutting-room floor. What a pathetic waste of time, money and effort! Let's see...assemble the prettiest cast you can find (which of course is in direct proportion to the amount of talent they lack)...throw together the thinnest plot you can dig up...and viola! An abominable piece of trash that the director and/or producer should be ashamed to put their name on. How much WORSE can the horror genre get? And don't use "low budget" as an excuse...I have seen many GREAT low-budget films....in fact some of the best horror classics of all time were low-budget. If you don't have the talent and ingenuity to make a GOOD horror film, then for God's sake don't make one at all!!!
This movie probably began with a good idea but that's as far as it went. When I read the cover at Blockbuster I thought it had promise but that was based on the overall idea for the movie. The movie began with a professor talking about how in the future we will be able to see creatures from other dimensions. There was no explanation of how that would happen but that's okay I thought it would be developed that in the movie. It wasn't. In the next scene we see two young men lying on tables with tubes taped to their heads. Beside each one are two attractive women. The men begin asking "Do you hear that" or "Do you see them". We conclude they think they are seeing ghosts or some other creature that seem invisible or they are hallucinating. The women do not see these creatures. This was fine for the first five minutes BUT THIS SCENE GOES ON FOR A FULL HOUR. It is briefly punctuated by flashbacks that have no correlation to the so called "plot" of the film. We are also introduced to a man in a lab coat and what appear to be Middle Eastern terrorists. What is this about? We never find out. The flash backs lead us to believe that the terrorists are forcing the man in the lab coat to perform diabolical experiments on these young people but we never understand why. At the end of the movie the terrorists finally do what terrorists do – they blow up the lab, but why? What is the point? We have no idea. This film contains so many disconnected thoughts and ideas that there are too many to enumerate but one more notable one is that fact that the man in the lab coats and the terrorist pop in and out of the room throughout the movie and not once do the young men attempt to escape or even leave the tables on which they are laying even though they are not strapped down! The makers of the movie also bring in cameo appearances by cockroaches on several occasions but again we never learn what that has to do with the storyline. Sorry but this movie was a waste of $4 and the time I spent driving to the rental store and then watching it. Take my advice. Don't rent it.
I gave this movie a four-star rating for a few reasons. First, I felt that this movie was definitely preaching and I hate that. Still, it's my own fault for watching a Christian movie in the first place.<br /><br />My friend and I rented this movie because it sounded interesting. The back of the case said something along the lines of a spiritual battle, someone opening some sort of boundary that let demons into our world and the like. Something I am very interested in, indeed. This movie almost hit the target. It was more like on the edge of the target, more on the tree than the target itself...<br /><br />The basic plot of this movie is two couples are abducted by a group of terrorists to be victim to experiments. However, because their experimental serum is derived from the research of a scientist who claimed to be able to bridge the gap between the physical and the spiritual realms, the men of the couples are now able to feel, smell, hear, and see the demons of the spiritual world. In that order. Apparently the sense of taste is not present in that realm.<br /><br />This movie is very clichéd. They took the title seriously as the men, while chained to the beds, demand their women look behind them because there is something there.<br /><br />Although a good effort for what it was, I think the special effects could have been done so much better. The demon scratching at the woman was, in a word, hilarious. The wife was obnoxious as hell and everyone in the room practically cheered when she died. We were all hoping she'd be beaten by the other woman with the chair, though.<br /><br />The message is one that I don't care to comment on, other than I think the Christian filmmakers should have found a better medium for it.<br /><br />And so I give it four stars because it is not the movie's fault I am not a Christian and don't like this type of message, and I got a kick out of making comments throughout. My friend and I watching this movie seemed to resemble an episode of MST3K.
Evil Behind You, was created for a specific purpose in mind, to shove the writer/directors personal views on who either gets to walk on water or who gets to dance with the devil. Sadly it would seem that the creators were so focused on making their point that they took it's power away completely by force feeding their point to the viewer.The way its message is presented Almost reminds me of the stories I've heard of the Spanish inquisition! From one real Christian to another, Avoid this like the plague, fear tactics never work when trying to send this kind of message!!<br /><br />The acting was horrible,the selection of Muslim terrorists was racist and unfair(they're terrorists so they must be Muslims). The premise of this was good, the story provided a great conduit for its message, however it was the execution of these ideas that fell short making it very difficult to even separate the message from the messenger so to speak.<br /><br />You'd be better off dusting off your old "Ghost" DVD with Mr Swayze to better receive this message. at least that movie didn't try to shove itself down your throat. Or if you like Good Christian movies with a powerful message, try "End of the Spear"
Let's see, cardboard characters like Muslim terrorists have forced a cardboard scientist to perform some exotic drug tests on some cardboard people who have been drugged and kidnapped. You'll be sure to laugh when these pathetic excuses for humanoids get their just deserts! Turns out the drug experiments have given them the ability to sense another world....the world of religious fantasy!--complete with cardboard demons who look like they are made of Papier Mache. Everybody gets dragged off to Hell except for one poor chap who goes to Heaven where he can presumably spend Eternity with the blockheads that created this Masterpiece of the Absurd. I think I'd opt for Hellfire myself. Go see something else, unless you are stoned, in which case, you might actually like it! Couldn't hurt!
Do not waste your money or time. Terrible movie. Bad acting, plot all over the place. Really, really bad acting. Man, this movie is just plain bad. I shut it off at 7 minutes. The script is bad, the directing is bad, it seems to me that a high school group got together to do a project for their drama class. Yes, it's that bad. The acting is not convincing at all, mind you I saw only 7 minutes of it. How this movie made it to DVD, is beyond me. <br /><br />It should have been left in the editing storage room. I saw the cover and thought it was pretty cool, I sure's heck won't do that next time :_)
I am completely into this type of story line but once the movie fired up, I honestly said out loud, " I just rented a two dollar budget Christian POS". The only thing I could find to like about this film was it has a descent story but it was awfully executed. Horrible actors, horrible direction and producing.<br /><br />The director and producer need to go watch the cube before trying to pull off a movie in a single room. There was absolutely nothing that kept you intrigued to the point that you didn't notice you were in the same room the entire movie. Horrible! The two main actresses were very easy on the eyes and you could tell that was the director counting on to hold your attention. But these two and their bios can speak to this, are horrible in front of the camera.<br /><br />Don't rent this. Unless you are blind, because it might go up a few stars if you only listen to it.
All those who are into the PC culture are aghast at the dogmatic Christian view of this film, claiming it contains racist ideation and/or religious intolerance.<br /><br />Those who don't care about this, but are oriented towards slick production values and competent acting are dismayed at the lack of such here.<br /><br />Those who decry both of these are apoplectic that this production was let loose on the general public, as evidenced in comments here.<br /><br />What is an interesting premise, which isn't original, but is a combination of GHOST and FROM BEYOND, is dealt with in a rather immature manner in this film, yet done with gusto. What the crew and actors lacked in sensibility, professional abilities and technical expertise is somewhat offset by the intensity they display.<br /><br />It isn't nearly as bad as many here think, and would have been fine in the hands of someone with maturity and common sense, and it is enough below mediocrity to elicit laughs and groans. However, it unfolds with enough intensity to keep interest throughout, and is close to on par with a Corman-produced entry of his earliest period of work, or the material of Arkoff or Sam Katzman. If you get it for $2 (or less) as did I, you won't feel disappointed, but will wish you could have had a say in how it was made.
I did and I lost two and a half hours of my life that I can never regain again.<br /><br />I honestly have no idea what the critics and fans see in this movie. And that's not because I can't appreciate "art". I love a good film with profound messages, brilliant cinematography, and great directing.<br /><br />This film just isn't one of them.<br /><br />My main complaint about this film is that it's so horribly slow-paced, to the point of boring its audience to death. On the other hand, sequences of dialog go by too quickly and there's not enough exposition to let people who haven't read the book know what's going on (My mother had mercy on me and explained everything before I watched it). Would it have killed them to hire a narrator? At least for the beginning and the end? <br /><br />Let me break it down for you: (Spoilers throughout) <br /><br />For the first two minutes you are treated to a black screen with no music, waiting for the actual movie to begin.<br /><br />For the following minute and a half, you see several pictures of sunrises and savanna landscapes. Like the audience couldn't figure out how to set the scene unless they saw the establishing shot three or four times.<br /><br />The next eleven minutes are occupied with the grunting monkeys. They fight, see the monolith, fight some more, pommel things with a bone. Supposedly they are prehistoric men whose evolution is being influenced by the monolith's singing. Not that you could tell if you hadn't read the book.<br /><br />*Finally* we get into space. Only to be subjected to twelve minutes of ships slowly spinning to the Blue Danube Waltz (A pretty quick-tempo-ed waltz as I understand, yet here it feels absolutely agonizing). At last we get some innocuous dialog and rather cryptic exposition about the government not letting people land on the moon. We are left to wonder about this for fourteen more minutes of Blue Danube and spinning ships and neat camera tricks with anti-gravity.<br /><br />Next comes four minutes of watching a ship travel over the surface of the moon and dock at a space station. We get a little more exposition in a board room scene that follows. Then we're back outside traveling at a snail's pace over the moon. A second monolith is revealed, again filling our ears with that horrible ringing (I had no idea that was an actual piece of music!). The monolith does its little light show and then the plot jumps forward.<br /><br />*Seven* minutes of watching the ship to Jupiter travel. By this point in time my brains had turned into mush. Could it be moving any slower? Maybe it's "realistic" to portray it as such, but we still don't need to see five or six different shots of the same thing to grasp the concept of its "realism". Let me tell you about this "realism" thing; I cheered when the secondary astronaut character died. Not because I'm a sadist and like watching people die, but because after five minutes I was just so annoyed at the sound of his darn breathing! I'm supposed to care about this character, feel when he dies! Instead I found myself waiting for blissful silence whatever way it came.<br /><br />Anyway, now we get to the most interesting part of the film-the part with HAL. Forget Dave the stick-of-wood protagonist. The real star of the show is that coldly impersonal, chillingly villainous, ruthlessly merciless bad guy of a computer. He's great. And the "Open the pod bay doors" sequence is wonderful. But it's too short. And it's not long before the director once again lapses into too-long goings on.<br /><br />Four minutes for HAL to die. And die he does. Slowly, painfully, losing intelligence with every minute, voice getting lower and slower, singing "Daisy, Daisy", all with a low and constant hissing that becomes just as annoying as the heavy breathing.<br /><br />Seven minutes of flying colors as Dave enters the monolith. Seven. I could FEEL my brains melting and dripping out of my ears! Seven full minutes of absolutely nothing but some guy's whacked out psychedelic version of space travel, again with that thrice-cursed chorus! We got the idea at the beginning of the sequence! Why drag it out so long? Unless he wanted to make LSD users go psychotic and have flashbacks.<br /><br />I'm not even going to try to explain the ending, mostly because I don't quite get it myself. Supposedly he's in an alien research laboratory and they're teaching him deep and profound things while he watches himself getting older and older and then they send him back to earth as some kind of cosmic celestial space baby. None of this comes across in the film. For all you know, it's just a sequence of images with no purpose or plot whatsoever. A lot of the movie felt that way.<br /><br />The first time I tried watching this movie I gave up halfway through. The second time I suffered through this sore excuse for a film, it was to help my sister time the sequences to see how long they lasted. It's that boring.<br /><br />Call this crummy film "art" if you wish. I wouldn't. I've seen more interesting "art" in the local museum. And I am never subjecting myself to this kind of suffering ever again.
2001 is one of those movies where, if you don't like it, you are told that you don't 'get it' and need to look at the deeper meaning and symbolism. You're told that you clearly have a slow attention span, and just want to see sex, explosions, and have the plot handed to you on a platter.<br /><br />Let's break down the movie shall we? Three minutes of blackness, with something that sounds like a dying hippo in the background. Then we get the opening credits. A minute of fascinating shots of the Savannah. Then a bunch of monkeys find a black rock and start killing things with bones. Cut to the first of many 20-minute shots of ships doing things while the 'Blue Danube' plays in the background. A bunch of pointless dialogue, and a group of moon scientists find another monolith.<br /><br />Cut to a spaceship that's too long for the crew complement--three sleeping people, two people named Dave and Frank, who have only slightly more personality than the stiffs in hibernation. And then there's HAL, the 'perfect' supercomputer who runs the ship. Predictably, he snaps and starts breaking the First Law of Robotics. Now this is something that has potential. An evil, coldly ruthless super-mind who controls the surrounding environment and can predict your every move. And what does he do? He lets one guy float into space and turns off the hibernation machines so the three sleeping guys die, leaving Dave floating in a pod. He simply uses the airlock, puts on a spacesuit, and turns HAL off--agonizingly slowly. Then, apparently, there's some psychedelic 'evolution' at Jupiter.<br /><br />Here's the movie with the pauses taken out: Apes see monolith, kill things. Scientists find moon monolith. HAL kills people. HAL dies; Dave gets a prerecorded message, and evolves at Jupiter.<br /><br />This is not me 'not getting it.' This is me being bored to tears by long stretches of absolutely nothing. Sure, it's realistic, but I find I have no reason to care. No matter the message, no movie can be good without being entertaining. Frankly, every character could be replaced with Keanu Reeves, and nothing would change.
I will never get back the three hours of life this film has stolen from me.<br /><br />The film is basically a psychedelic drug trip disguised as an important creative process. I'd love to know what they were on when this film was being made.<br /><br />Its also the most historically-inaccurate film in existence; 2001 has come and gone without any of the events or predictions taking place.<br /><br />Characters are unlikeable, design is simplistic and everything just rambles on without any sense or logic to it.<br /><br />And the ending is probably the worst of it: its supposed to be thought-provoking but the only thought that entered my mind is "What the F$*K is going on?!" <br /><br />I'd say for anyone looking for serious entertainment purposes, AVOID this film at all cost and choose a sci-fi movie that ISN'T stuck up its own @$$.
I didn't like this movie for many reasons - VERY BORING! It was interesting how they thought what the future would look like in this, but seriously I was very bored watching this. There was hardly any action. Although the Classical orchestra soundtrack was very nice. The visuals were very creative. Whenever this movie pops on TV, I feel like changing the station instantly. Not because it is a bad movie, just because I know what I am in for when watching this - complete and total boredom. It is a movie I saw when I was young, but I never got into the science fiction thing... because it simply wasn't real. Just like this movie - very unrealistic. I never understood half the movie anyway.
Wow, well, you know those shock things they use in hospitals to get your heart pumping again? I needed one for my brain after watching this movie. It literally took me almost 4 hrs in total to watch because I had to take a break and restart my brain to semi-normal functionality every so often. I mean this movie goes soooooo slooooow its ridiculous, to say that the script had about 10 pages of dialogue would be generous. They just don't talk!! And while talking isnt everything, and i admit there were some scenes where only the music was necessary, and the music is great, that was probably the best part, but then go listen to a symphony or something and forget about the movie. So many people give this awesome reviews, and for its time, i'd say the special effects and filmography is quite good, but as for the acting, or lack thereof, it just needed a little something more, no shootem ups or sex etc., profanity isnt even required, but a little more emotion, these guys were like stones, just sitting there with long faces. All in all, if you need something to calm yourself down, just play the movie, dont even start at the beginning if you've seen it before, just start anywhere, lay down, and relax, it'll put you right to sleep.
Very strange screenplay by Cameron Crowe (following on the heels of his "Fast Times at Ridgemont High") has little inspiration and flails away at dumb gags. At least "Fast Times" had a fair share of satire and sensitivity behind its slapstick (courtesy of a good director, Amy Heckerling, and Crowe's undeniable penchant for capturing letter-perfect teen-speak); here, Chris Penn (Sean's brother, natch) is the goof-off who makes life hell for straight arrow Eric Stoltz, and the filmmakers seem to think he's hilarious. Jenny Wright has some good moments as a mall-worker, but Illan Mitchell-Smith is lost in a head-scratching subplot about a teen who seems to be infatuated with a shell-shocked ex-soldier. Queasy, confused nonsense given a shiny sheen and a soundtrack full of pop-rock tunes, but characters one would hope to avoid. Supporting players Lea Thompson, Rick Moranis, Lee Ving, and Sherilyn Fenn are wasted in stupid roles. * from ****
Terrible. The only way I could even begin to consider it funny is if it made fun of itself. "Amazing. It's about an ass that fights crime. And he drinks/smokes! How very funny! It's funny because where most people put things in their mouth, he puts them in himself! And now he's getting sexual service from some lady! This show is so great!" That is what I would have to say if I liked the show, though I'm sure you can see the obvious sarcasm. I've noticed some people have been comparing this show to 12 oz. Mouse and Squid Billies. Why would you even try? There's nothing to compare. The other two shows actually have some decent character development. In conclusion, I hate Assy Mcgee. I twinge at the name of it.
Though the Our Gang comedies still have their followers, I've got to say that their attempt to graduate to feature films, courtesy of Hal Roach came up way short. Why did Roach have to pick the Civil War as is subject with all the attendant racism that would follow.<br /><br />Dashing southern cavalier Phillips Holmes takes in young orphan Spanky McFarland and his young black friend Buckwheat Thomas after Spanky inadvertently exposes a card cheat on a riverboat. All is placid and serene in the Old South and then the Civil War comes to ruin it for everybody.<br /><br />But even children can charm the worst in the world and there's none worse than those damn Yankees. They just come south and ruin it for everybody.<br /><br />Criticized though it was for its southern viewpoint, Gone With The Wind did make a good case for the southern cause and the blacks portrayed even though servile which they would be out of necessity are still three dimensional characters. Hattie McDaniel would not have won her Oscar if it were not so. Butterfly McQueen's character of Prissy as silly and vacuous as she was has some dimension.<br /><br />Here though is maybe some of the worst racial stereotyping ever brought forth in Hollywood. The companionship of Spanky and Buckwheat does show that kids get along, racial feelings are acquired not inbred. It's not the servility of the blacks that's objectionable, but there total acceptance of it. Right from that horrible watermelon song, sung over the title credits, the message of General Spanky is a bad one.<br /><br />Yet it did get an Oscar nomination for Sound recording, probably one of the very few Hal Roach ever got out of the short subject field.<br /><br />General Spanky is far from Gone With The Wind though.
OUR GANG got one chance at a feature film in its 22 year history, and this was the best that could be done? It's boring, forced and pointless, and I must respectfully disagree with the other poster on this film; the 1994 LITTLE RASCALS remake was better than this. Almost anything is. The kids are subordinate to the Civil War proceedings; it doesn't feel like an OUR GANG film at all, but like a humorless second-rate Shirley Temple clone.
Lou Costello (sans Abbott) plays a small town self-employed "rubbish collector" (and the inventor of a time-controlling machine!) who is secretly courting the niece of the town big-shot. After a spat, Lou's girl (Dorothy Provine) runs into a misty cave--why it's misty we never learn--and emerges as a 30 foot giant. Provine is certainly a good sport, and she doesn't bother trying not to look ridiculous (it would've been impossible anyway), yet the screenwriter is really cruel to this character, turning her not only into a giant but a nagging harpy as well. Provine bosses Costello around while creating havoc with the Army troops who get called in, but nothing funny is done with the transformation. Trumped by "Attack of the 50 Ft. Woman" the previous year, the film does feature Lou Costello in his final bow, but provides little else. The special effects are marginal, while the script needed funnier lines and the direction snappier pacing. *1/2 from ****
"May contain spoilers" Sadly Lou Costellos' last film has the distinction of being slightly better than Abbott & Costello's last movie together "Dance With Me Henry". This movie isn't all in all outright terrible it is an amusing career misfire. Dorothy Provine is nice to look at and makes the movie somewhat bearable. You can't blame Lou Costello for this because a major studio released it which meant somebody had to give it the "green" light. In my opinion Lou Costello was getting over problems of his own losing his son a few years earlier and the unwarranted attacks from the IRS. If you look at the last 3-4 Abbott & Costello movies you can notice the magic was gone. Check out "Dance With Me Henry" now that's a painful movie to watch.
Dorothy Provine does the opposite here: She keeps growing and growing. I didn't detect any subtext, though. "The Incredible Shrinking Man" and other movies of its ilk during the period were parables about radiation, nuclear war, and other horrors. Provine's growth is the result of an inept computer/robot.<br /><br />And who operates this computer but Lou Costello! I like some of his movies with Bud Abbott. But, though this is a pretty bad movie, he does fine without him. And Gale Green is an excellent foil.<br /><br />Green plays the pompous town big shot. He is Provine's father. He is intent on being elected Mayor. So when his beloved daughter starts having issues, he dumps her. He doesn't exactly dump her but gives up his battle against her longtime admirer Costello.<br /><br />This is pretty implausible: Costello is the local garbage collector.<br /><br />The special effects are minimal. And the subplot involving the military is lame in the extreme.
I am a huge Robert Taylor fan and I have been trying to find all of his films. This is one I did not have, but I watched it recently on Fox Movie Channel, and was very disappointed. I know he was a contract player with little control over his scripts, but the acting was as bad as the script. Victor McLaglen was even bad, and Brian DonLevy was almost unrecognizable. Considering the relations off screen between Taylor and Stanwyck, it was surprising how little chemistry there was on screen between the two of them. But the premise of the film was so ridiculous: that the President of the U.S. would order a Navy Lt to leave the service secretly to hunt down bank robbers, and report only to the President, that it made it hard to appreciate anything else about the film. The death row scenes were entirely unmoving. The only thing worse than Taylor's acting was Stanwyck's singing. She got better later in Ball of Fire-thank heavens.
Divorced single mom in picturesque seaside town finds an anonymous love letter and allows it to spur into action her dormant love life. Pet project for actress/co-producer Kate Capshaw, who gives a warm, nicely-modulated lead performance, yet this story is so slim and the direction and editing so erratic that a faint dissatisfaction creeps in. Initially, Capshaw's Helen envisions several of her friends reading the love letter to her (an interesting visual joke) but the first person they do this ploy with is Ellen DeGeneres, who doesn't play a lesbian but who comes off as one because of this gimmick. Different ideas are flayed about in the hopes that one would stick, and the continuity is extremely choppy. Supporting cast (including Tom Selleck and Tom Everett Scott, who mostly acts with his shirt off) is very good, but they can't save the final act, which is disappointing. Low-keyed, in a quirky, pleasant way, but it is blandly good-natured, nothing more. **1/2 from ****
I must be honest, I like romantic comedies, but this was not what I had hoped for. I thought Ellen Degeneres was having the biggest part, which should have been, because I didn't like the two struggling bed partners. It was awful. Poor Tom Selleck!! He had to act with someone who was that much in the picture while it should have been him and Ellen to be in most of the film. They were the only believable ones. And the only really funny parts starred them, not Kate Capshaw and that Everett guy.. Cool that mummy is coming out of the closet, I thought that was a nice surprise. <br /><br />I'm just glad I saw it on the cable and I didn't pay any money renting it..
This film is about a mysterious love letter that turned 4 people's love life upside down.<br /><br />The idea of the film is interesting, and the film could have been funny. However, this film is simply what a romantic comedy should not be. The characters are inadequately introduced at first, so it gets so confusing. The supporting characters come and go without adequate reasons, as if they exist just for one particular scene and then vanish into thin air. The pacing is awfully slow, that it makes 90 minutes seem more like 180 minutes.<br /><br />It could have been romantic and funny, but this film spectacularly failed to do either.
First of all, Blythe Danner doesn't look anywhere NEAR old enough to play Capshaw's daughter (and in fact she isn't -- only ten years apart).<br /><br />I understand this is supposed to be one of those magical, Moonstruck type supernatural romances but this is beyond the pale. Very, very weak in terms of acting, script and direction. <br /><br />The only one who really shines here is Ellen DeGeneres, who makes this film watchable -- if not really believable herself as she's cast as a bit of a heterosexual sex hound. But endearing nonetheless. Actually, DeGeneres and the skin shots of the young guy Capshaw dallies with together make this watchable. But no one can really tell if Capshaw is really in love with the young guy or not; neither the script nor her acting pull it together for us and we're left to wonder how she really feels.
"The Love Letter" is one of those movies that could have been really clever, but they wasted it. Focusing on a letter wreaking havoc in a small town, the movie has an all-star cast with nothing to do. Tom Selleck and Alice Drummond had so recently co-starred in the super-hilarious "In & Out" (also about an upset in a small town), in which they were both great, but here they look as though they're getting drug all over the place. I can't tell what the people behind the camera are trying to do here (if anything), but they sure didn't accomplish anything. How tragic, that a potential laugh riot got so sorrowfully wasted.
This is a movie about people receiving a love letter. Nobody knows who sent in and nobody knows who it is for. A good cast, headed up by Kate Capshaw, Tom Selleck and Ellen DeGeneres. This, however, is a completely dopey plot. As an example, the Capshaw character, one of the leading citizens of a small town in New England, takes up with an immature college student who works in her bookstore during the summer. She chooses him instead of Tom Selleck, the town firefighter who is crazy about her. If that isn't the epitome of stupidity, I don't know what is. Just an example of how dopey this movie is. Watching Kate Capshaw jog is a pleasure, but you immediately realize that she has never jogged a day in her life. Another obviously dopey part of a dopey movie.
A movie about a mysterious love letter that puts a small town on its ear should be fun, romantic and easy-going entertainment. Instead this movie is more about things not said and not expressed, so it gets to the point where you are grateful anything is said at all, even if the dialogue is not exactly quotable. <br /><br />SPOILER --<br /><br />When the relationship that says the most is the one least seen on the screen (Danner and McEwan), you know you're in trouble. But those two actresses are a very welcome sight in a movie screaming for some genuine people.<br /><br />END OF SPOILER<br /><br />Capshaw is given the task of creating a character from not much and she is not entirely successful. Like I said above, the theme seems to be repression and I understand that is an element of life and love but I don't want to see a movie about it either, at least not this one. <br /><br />I can't recommend this at all, despite the very talented cast who are left to fend for themselves.
**Possible Spoilers**	From Dreamworks and director Peter Chan, `The Love Letter' is a romantic comedy that takes place in a picturesque, New England coastal village where single mom Helen (Kate Capshaw) owns a quaint, little bookstore. One day at work, Helen happens across an anonymous letter (the `love letter' of the title) that has somehow become lodged beneath the cushions of a reading couch. Upon reading the amorous prose therein, she believes it has been written to her, purposely placed in the couch for her to find, and, for reasons of her own, thinks she knows the identity of her secret admirer. Inadvertently, however, Helen leaves the letter out where her employee, Janet (Ellen DeGeneres) finds it, believes it to be for her, and, of course, thinks she knows who wrote it. Circumstances then bring it into the possession of a young man named Johnny (Tom Everett Scott), who thinks Helen has written the letter to him. And before it all gets sorted out, you can only imagine the hilarious situations into which all of those involved have been cast; and I do mean imagine, because the way this movie plays out, the audience gets little more from it than what it brings along itself. There are two specific areas in which this romantic comedy fails miserably: It simply isn't very romantic, and it's not funny; and that is a potent combination that causes this film to misfire practically from the opening credits. Once the setting and main character (Helen) have been established, it basically goes nowhere for the next ninety minutes or so. By the time you finally find out who actually wrote the letter, and to whom, you could care less. Rounding out the cast is Tom Selleck, Blythe Danner, Julianne Nicholson, Gloria Stuart and Geraldine McEwan. It's a shame to see such talent wasted on such claptrap as this, and looking bad in the balance. Kate Capshaw, who usually brightens up the screen just by showing up, looks tired here, while Selleck appears to have just come in off a three day bender that's lasted a week. Ellen DeGeneres actually comes away looking the best of the bunch. It is said that the journey is often a more heady experience than the destination. In the case of `The Love Letter,' however, it would have been best for all concerned if everybody had just stayed home in the first place. I rate this one 1/10.
Don't waste your time. The plot drags, the characters are wooden and uninteresting, the motivations of their actions are completely indecipherable. Kept waiting for the "romantic" or "comedy" to occur, and nothing happened. Worse yet, the love letter isn't even romantic, but sounds like it was written by someone desperate to make a deadline. Did I mention that the "plot twist" which we saw coming from 15 mins into the movie was "Hollywood clever", meaning it is intended to shock, but given the Hollywood mentality- does nothing of the sort, and instead is vaguely offensive.<br /><br />It's not even worth the $2 to rent. Don't bother seeing it.
I liked most of the dialogue, I liked the cast, I thought it was well acted. I particularly enjoyed Ellen DeGeneres' perfect deadpan performance.<br /><br />What didn't work for me was: (1) the drawn-out affair with the younger man (too long, too seemingly out of character for Helen), (2) the seemingly endless cinematic cliches, mostly visual but including interminable voiced over re-readings of the love letter itself (its contents should have a mystery); (3) a young woman feminist-scholar and, ironically, a fireworks scene (no wonder this reminded me of that horrid How to Make an American Quilt movie); (4) the bumbling "gotcha" cop who smells "dope" everywhere (no cliche there either!); and (5) a nauseatingly romanticized small town setting.<br /><br />I would have preferred the film to more persuasively explore the source of (or even glorify) Helen's bitterness, to have included much more of DeGeneres' character, to have eliminated or reduced the various intergenerational artifices, and to be a little less uncritical of small town life.<br /><br />Had it been developed as a play first, those criticisms might have been addressed before committing the material to this film, which unfortunately is decidedly mediocre.
A really funny story idea with good actors but it misses somehow. The actors are older but none of them looked particularly good. They needed better make up,photography or something.It is supposed to be a love story and yet the film had more of the rough look of a street film. I liked the cast but I think the performances were rather bland. This is where the weakness of the director shows. Perhaps if Mrs. Spielberg had Mr. Spielberg directing it would have been a much better film.
The person making taffy in this movie was so realistic. That person must have been trained so well! If I were buying taffy from the store featured in this fine romantic comedy, I would demand to be served by the guy who trained the person who played the guy selling taffy.
I loved the first 15 minutes, and I loved some of the dialogue in the tribunal--which proved to be the best showcase for the director's ahead-of-its-time method acting technique--but this movie ultimately disappoints. Even when viewed purely as a metaphor of the oppressor/oppressed dynamics that were and are prevalent in the relationship between the US government and its more "disobedient" citizens, it still lacks punch and believability, and ultimately left me looking at my watch hoping the obvious ending would happen already.<br /><br />And for the record: despite rampant rumors to the contrary, this movie has never been banned in the US (I can't comment on the rumors of UK censorship, but I'm suspicious). Hollywood refused to distribute it after its initial film festival showing, and I am more than willing to believe the Nixon government had some influence on this decision; however, the fact that it never appeared on American television is merely a reflection of this medium's rather careful and advertising-driven fashion of doing business. As for the present, you can have your very own copy of the DVD delivered to your door via Amazon in a few days.
Committed doom and gloomer Peter Watkins goes slummin' across the pond to take on the American justice system circa 1971 with this priceless piece of zeitgeist paranoia that leans so far left it falls over constantly. Watkins is pure tourist as he assembles this our gang tragedy with cliché freaks, hippies and black revolutionaries pitted against trigger happy cops and military and a kangaroo court tribunal made up of disapproving calcified adults making poor fashion statements. Talk about a revolution.<br /><br />In Punishment Park we have radical youth versus corrupt system as dissenters convicted of crimes are given the choice of imprisonment or a three day trek across Punishment Park (Death Valley) and freedom. Of course the law enforcement officials monitoring their journey aren't about to play fair and combined with the stifling heat the fate of our protagonists looks sealed.<br /><br />Punishment Park has elements of Kafka in setting as well as theme. Trials are held under a large canvas tent where shackled prisoners shout defiance at a hardcore love it or leave it group of inquisitors (such as members of Silent Majority for a Peaceful America) who snarl back. Neither group spends much time listening to the other and the proceedings sometime takes on a teen parent battle over the keys to the car look. Mostly its just one side saying what's wrong with America the other saying what's right with no one offering solutions for change. Meanwhile the Punishment Park martyrs stumble endlessly about the dessert while cops with guns act like twelve year olds. It kind of has the look and feel of some of my 70's college film making class when we were younger and knew more then than we do now.<br /><br />Peter Watkins has always been on the side of the underdog and the common man against what he perceives as a corrupt powerful few. Culledon was a strong indictment of military atrocity in 18th century Scotland that still resonates. War Game is a raw sobering look at nuclear aftermath that should be required viewing for all. Punishment Park has its value as well but for other than intended reason. Watkins vision today is a textbook example of the left in full tilt counter culture 70s paranoia and given the times ( Vietnam, Kent State, The Chicago 7) such strident hysteria seemed not that great a distance from the truth. But 35 years later the fever has subsided and Punishment Park with it's unrestrained narrow viewpoint is a pretty silly ride.
Done in a mock-documentary style, late 60's subversives and supposed detractors of the mainstream government are arrested and given a choice. Upon sentencing for their wrong doings,there is a choice of going to prison for 7 years to life or spending three days and two nights in a southern California desert at Punishment Park. In the 100 degree heat, the prisoners are to trek fifty some odd miles to an American flag for their freedom. US and state law enforcers will follow two hours latter. If the dissidents are captured it means prison.<br /><br />Appearing in this pseudo-documentary: Carmen Argenziano, Katherine Quittner, Mary Ellen Kleinhall, Stan Armsted, Scott Turner, Patrick Boland and Kent Foreman.
This movie should have been called "The Eyes of Alexander", and they should have done away with the Bogart concept altogether. The film started out with a lighthearted approach to Bogart's legacy and some comical moments with his surgery oriented face, but after the first 15-30 minutes it morphs into a more serious thriller, where two palm size sapphires, purportedly laid as eyes into a marble headpiece of Alexander the Great, for him, and seen by him, right before his death. So the gems are of great value not only because of their quality and size, but also because of the tie to the Greatest conquerer the world has ever known. Being an expert on Alexander qualifies me to say that this is wholly and completely a fiction, but it makes for a good movie anyway. So the film winds around some early silliness and stumbles along with all sorts of Alexander allusions in both the foreground and background (which I really liked), ending with a dated shark attack (you couldn't go to a movie in '79-'80 without some shark showing up to menace the audience). There is a yacht named Euridice (Alexander's father's young wife), a man named Alexander, Philip, Cleitus?, (it's been about 5 years since I've seen the film, so can't remember all the details), Olympias, some street names, and many others. It was fun to watch the film just to try to catch all the background details that the director (obviously an Alexanderphile himself) put in. When all is said and done, the eyes are retrieved and the camera pans in on them on a bed as the credits roll by. Kind of a neat ending. What would have been more fun would be if they went the Indiana Jones way and had an action adventure. There were many, many real artifacts that could have been used to make this more interesting, or instance, the hand-annotated (by Aristotle) version of the Iliad that Alexander kept with him all his life, even on his many journeys across Asia (would be of incalculable value if found today). Olivia Hussey (my all time favorite b-movie actress)is killed off way too early, and should have been the main actress throughout, not the girl from the Momma's and the Poppa's...though she was herself easy on the eyes. If you can find this flick, it might be worth checking out for the historical stuff and to see Olivia Hussey in an extremely funny deadpan humor bit early on, but beyond that, I'd pass on it for something more entertaining.<br /><br />Yours, Nick
The Man with Bogart's Face sets it self up to mine the viewers nostalgia for the late 30's-late 40's film era. It fails miserably for several reasons. First, Sacchi, while looking reasonably like Bogart and even speaking like him on occassion and using his mannerisms, completely lacks any of Bogart's charisma or acting ability. This is really apparent whenever Sacchi is not clearly imitating a scene from one of Bogart's films. Second, the film does not have the first rate character actors Bogart was able to work with. There are no Peter Lorre's or Sydney Greenstreet's in this one, folks. Sure we are treated to performances by Victor Buaeno, Olivia Hussey and George Raft amongst others, but they just aren't of the same caliber (or aren't given enough screen time or are miscast). Third, the attempts at "modern" humor all fall through. All of the underwear jokes, having Marlowe almost *never* remove that damn hat and trench coat (even though Bogart would have), etc. just aren't funny and really pull down this film. Fourth, I've never heard a goofier theme song this side of Mitchell. Finally, the film's false reverence for Bogart (and other classic actors work) is truly irritating. Bogart almost *never* played a straight hero, on those occasions he was a hero. He played complicated characters. This movie makes Bogart out to be a trigger-happy, moralistic do-gooder. While this may have been true about some film characters, Bogart's characters rarely fit that bill. It's movies like this that make people unexposed to the cinema of the past think that all of it is hokey, "good guy beats the bad guys and gets the girl" crap with low production values.
The screenplay is the worst part of this film, as it lurches from one premise to the next, missing all the important bits that would have made a number of different stories possible. (This film is confusing, because the audience doesn't know what the story is.) I had no problem with the low-production values and the acting wasn't great, but this is telly, so it was fine. I don't mind if some scenes looked like they were done in one take. But having such a non-sensical screenplay is completely unnecessary. Did any executive actually read it before forking out the cash? Avoid this at all costs.<br /><br />The prologue in particular was so poorly written, it needed a voice-over to fill in all the details that had been left out. The prologue was rushed, it wasn't clear what was happening, ie. The Russian Revolution was reduced to "Some riots are happening in Petersburg", with the next scene being soldiers arresting them. I know the basic history of the Revolution, so I could fill in the details, "those pesky Communists". The prologue is best ignored.<br /><br />This could have been a thoughtful study of a person who is confused about who she is. It sets up this premise in the asylum. It could then have her struggling to identify herself for the rest of the film. No. Gone. The film assumes she is who she says she is (even though there is still no empirical evidence.) It sets up a melodramatic romance, a love so strong, it'll believe anything she says. Okay, a soppy romance. No, because it makes no sense. The love interest seems like a crazed (and incidentally, sleazy) lunatic, bursting out in wild gestures. This also doesn't work, because the film stupidly decides to tell the truth in the monologue at the end. They never got married and she returned to America. The love story collapses. Despite there being plenty of love scenes, I was never convinced of the reason that they were in love. I find rom-com romances more convincing, despite there only being one or two scenes which establish that they've even spent any time with each other.<br /><br />It could have been a thriller-type thing where the film assumes she is who she says she is, and she struggles to prove her identity. No, the court case is summed up rather than dealt with. The bizarre voice over comes back, again to fill in the details of a better film.<br /><br />The funniest thing to consider is what really happened. Anna Anderson was a loony who went to America and married another loony and they did crazy things together. Throughout her life, she had bouts of lunatic behaviour. None of this in the film either. There's a really annoying character in the asylum who crops up from nowhere and announces herself as a 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Next/'Twelve Monkeys'-type informant. Thankfully, she vanishes, having brought nothing to the story.
Young spinster, who doesn't associate with women her own age and is eyed by gentleman from the retirement set, invites an apparently mute young man into her apartment on a rainy day. Nervous and overly-polite to hide her own sexual insecurities, she is most pleased when the boy makes himself to home in her guest bedroom...but not so happy when he begins sneaking out the window at night. Sandy Dennis is not a hapless actress, but why she was attracted to these sad-sack roles I guess we'll never know. Based on a book by Richard Miles, and about as far removed from a commercial drama as one could get, this lurid material not only attracted Dennis but also director Robert Altman (whose work is static, at best). The narrative seems almost a sex-reversal of "The Collector", a tag which may have sold the film-rights but which doesn't turn out to be a good idea cinematically. Even the film's best sequence (Dennis shopping for a prostitute to satisfy her prisoner) doesn't quite come off, with Sandy acting both ill and indignant (whose idea was this plan?). Michael Burns is quite good as the kid who uses this frumpy, pasty-sick woman just for her comfy digs, but he's handled too bashfully by Altman, with lots of strategically-placed towels and flesh-colored undies (Altman clearly wasn't ready for a mature picture with adult themes at this point). Sandy Dennis has a handful of very good scenes; she doesn't chatter away mindlessly here, she thinks before she speaks and she's alarmingly careful in her actions. Unfortunately, the role itself is a bummer, with an apparent slide into mental deterioration which seems to happen off-screen. As such, the abrupt finale is maddening, and the overall results tepid. *1/2 from ****
I thought this movie was going to be a disgrace to the series. After all, part 3 didn't measure up to part 2, and this one doesn't have Daniel Sawn. Miyagi's humour wasn't quite as witty in this one as in part 3, but it was funny enough to make the movie worth watching.<br /><br />The girl's part was pretty good. She's a lost teenager who needs direction. I find the plot a little hard to believe. That the aunt would simply agree to leave her home and her niece under the care of Mr. Miyagi, a man she just met. Of course, he was a friend of her brother.<br /><br />I did appreciate the monastery. One might think from some of my other reviews that I wouldn't have liked the dancing monks, but I thought it was amusing. It showed that they know how to have some fun. Now if these were monks in ancient China dancing to pop-music, that would have been another matter.<br /><br />Probably the most intelligent part of the movie was when the girl thought it was stupid that the monks wouldn't kill a bug. Miyagi told her that street gangs killing each other is stupid, nations trying to destroy each other is stupid, but having respect for all life is not stupid. Miyagi has expressed such wisdom in the other films as well.<br /><br />I give this movie a 4 out of 10. Sure, there were some things I liked about it. It wasn't as funny as part three, and no character could ever live up to Sato in part 2. This movie has no re-watch value. I can't imagine watching it again, but it is worth seeing once.
I had been avoiding this movie for sometime...because I viewed it as an unneccesary installment to a series that should have only had 2 parts. But, after reading some fairly favorable reviews...from some IMDB watchers...I spent $1.50 and rented it at my local video store. Need I go further...when I say....this was a buck-50 lost. This movie is one of the 10 worst movies I have ever seen. First off....I realize that noone wanted to see a 33 year old Macchio in this film.....But, why could'nt they have had Miyagi read a letter or something from Daniel-san...maybe explaining what happened to Daniel...hell, they could have at least made a quick mention of daniel or something. But, no...and to compund the already bad script....they added those stupid monks...I thought monks take a vow of silence...guess these yapping monks don't take their vows seriously...hehehe. The training the girl went through in the movie was hurried and stupid...and the paramilitary group of young males....were a confusing concept to say the least....this was far from even being a martial arts movie...with the girl only fighting briefly in the final scene....and then she didn't even come close to getting hit even once...by the male fighting her....give me a break...she would have gotten hit at least once....I guess the writers and directors thought it would be to shocking to see a girl get punched by a male in this one. I could go on and on...but, basically...I'll end by saying that this movie was just so bad....even the girl they chose wasn't nice to even look at(she was sorta "butch" looking)....I can only think of a handful of movies that I have sit through...that compare to just how bad this flick was.....DON"T WASTE YOUR TIME ON THIS ONE..........
"The Next Karate Kid" is a thoroughly predictable movie, just like its predecessors. Its predictability often results in a feeling of impatience on the viewer's part, who often wishes the story could move a little faster. Despite its lulls and its extreme familiarity, however, this fourth entry in the series is painless, almost exclusively because of the presence of Morita. He doesn't seem tired of his role, and he does inject some life and humor into the film, becoming the best reason for you to see it. Not awful, but nothing much, either.
Hillary Swank is an unattractive piece of work in this unattractive piece of work of a film. Pat Morita, desperate for work, any kind of work, agreed to reprise his role as the "Karate teacher" and bring his brand of Karate to the silver screen once again, except this time, Hillary "skank" Swank is the student.<br /><br />I can just see the Hollywood writers getting excited about the idea of having a "tormented, spoiled brat" female take the role from Ralph. The film does not work on any level and it's boring on every level. There's nothing interesting here and not even a lesson for anyone to hold on to. The film was made without any thought of making money because it's just so bad.<br /><br />I would gladly spit on all the actors in this film for having been involved with it and have the writers black-listed for their miserable and insulting efforts.
I can accept the fact this was the NEXT karate kid so Ralph Macchio can be happily retired from the series, and while Hillary Swank is great for the role....the plot to the movie is just dreadful.<br /><br />Mr. Miyagi's old buddy from World War 2 dies, leaving his widow to take care of her rebellious grand-daughter when her parents die in an accident. The girl has no discipline yet is the hero because the local ROTC...which I'll explain in a minute, has it out to get her. You know the drill...Miyagi takes her under his wing and in the end they beat the bad guys and everyone lives happily ever after.<br /><br />Its hokey, its cheesy, its the 90's....but that's not even the long and the short of it. My first case of "huh?" is why is there a "military division" in high school? I thought that stuff went out in the 1960's, especially in a public school. As much as Michael Ironside kicks booty in his role as the main heel, since when is military involved in a high school? My next gripe is that during the prom scene, the militants bungee jump to scare the crap out of people....why? The thing I noticed throughout all 4 movies was at the very end the heels suddenly turn face after all the nonsense they put the main character through (Billy in part 1, Sato in part 2, Kreese in part 3). This movie is no different. After Ned and cronies basically sabotage the senior prom, blow up Eric's car and threaten Hillary Swank the whole movie.....Ironside tells them to beat her up and they're like "um...no" If you're gonna do pathetic face turns, at least make sure the characters haven't done anything too over the top such as blowing up a hot rod.<br /><br />As for the rest of the love plot between Eric and Hillary Swank....corny but nothing to melodramatic, which is a breath of fresh air from the garbage Ralph Macchio pulled in the first 3 movies.<br /><br />I will say for its own movie, after watching the first 3 movies, I can accept it being more or less a spin off...but I can't accept the whole military thing, way too uncommon for it to be taken seriously. Now if Ironside and crew was a wrestling/football team and he was the coach, THAT would have been more believable.<br /><br />Ironside and Morita deliver the goods, Swank is OK...the rest are the same as anything, the one highlight is when they blow up the hot rod, THAT was cool 4 out of 10
I am truly sad that this is the first bad review I've ever made for a movie...EVER.I could stand to watch this movie, and it is the second movie in all the movies I've seen that is just...a downgrade. The first is Open Water, that just had NO point whatsoever. The Next Karate Kid didn't have any mention of Daniel(correct me if I'm wrong, please.),and that ending line came as a shock. It was like, "If must fight...win." then it showed the bird flying around and the pan flute was playing, and I was like, oh. Okay, so it'll take a while for this next part. AND THEN THE CREDITS HIT THE SCREEN.<br /><br />GEEZ MAN!! Hopefully, I will never have to review a movie in a bad manner again, I apologize for those of you who like The Next Karate Kid, I really, really do...
This film is so bad. I mean, who commissions this stuff? And the costume designer deserves an award for making everyone look like they had just stepped out of 1983. A bloke puts a female wig on and fights....nuff said.
They missed up the film when the tried to use some one diffrent. They should of keeped Ralph Macchio as Danny instead of changing it. And made more Karate Kids with him in it.And also many people were woundering what happen to Danny when they jumped from 3 to 5 and no four.
In 1984, The Karate Kid had some charm to it, even if it was little more than a poor man's Rocky. Alas, producer Jerry Weintraub failed to realize it was best to leave the story at the point where it had ended, and convinced Ralph Macchio and Pat Morita to make an extra effort to turn the film into a trilogy. Part III was the definitive low in the franchise, yet someone must have thought the series still had some potential. What other explanation could there possibly be for the existence of The Next Karate Kid?<br /><br />Wait a minute. Next? Yep, Macchio's gone (at least he was smart enough to stop eventually), and his replacement is Hilary Swank (!), playing a troubled teenager (what else?) named Julie Pierce. Now, the girl has family issues. She also gets in trouble at school. Said school has a sadistic gym teacher (Michael Ironside). As it turns out, though, one of his students is actually a nice guy, and Julie falls for him. This gets her in bigger trouble than before, of course. Lucky for her, she is currently living with Mr. Miyagi (Morita), an old friend of her grandfather who happens to know how to get back at the bad guys.<br /><br />All those factors ad up to seven clichés, and that's just a generic plot summary - imagine what the detailed scenes must be like! From beginning to end, The Next Karate Kid is a tired, flat and dull marathon of idiotic lines and set-ups. Swank does, thankfully, have the likes of Boys Don't Cry and Million Dollar Baby to redeem this disaster, but why did Morita accept to come back? He may have received an Oscar nomination for the first movie, and was quite enjoyable in the sequels, but has nothing to speak for him here - even the revival of the "wax on, wax off" gag is stillborn. As for Ironside, he is slightly better than Martin Kove and Thomas Ian Griffith in Part III, but that's hardly a stretch.<br /><br />So, is this picture really that awful? Not exactly. There is one sequence that manages to achieve a weird beauty, but when the best bit in the whole film involves a group of Asian monks dancing as they hear pop music for the first time in their lives, it doesn't qualify as a recommendation to see the rest.
The final installment in the Karate Kid series is predictable, poorly acted, and so bad it borders on the enjoyable. But not quite, it's just bad. In this installment Ralph Macchio's Karate Kid is absent, already having been in one too many of the episodes. The new Kid, played by Hillary Swank, is the teenage granddaughter of one of Mr. Miyogi's WWII buddies. Her parents are recently deceased and her grandmother is unsuccessfully trying to raise this young hellion. In steps Mr. Miyogi to set things right. True to formula, there is a group of neo-Fascist bullies, called the Alpha Troopers that must be put in their place and a new karate move, called the Praying Mantis. As I said before this movie is a mess, and should be avoided.
I had been delighted to find that TCM was showing this, as I love the 1992 version with Josie Lawrence, Jim Broadbent, Joan Plowright...This film had a luminous Ann Harding, a wonderful performance by Frank Morgan, but others' acting made the film more of a farce then the wonderful unfolding that the later film. Reginald Owen's Arbuthnot is painful to watch and you can't understand why his wife adores him. I found out after watching the film that it was based on the stage play where the 1992 film is based on the book. The original film also felt like it was a snippet of a larger piece and felt incomplete. Too bad it was such a let-down.
Enchanted April was one of Harry Beaumont's last movies- he only directed a few more after this one. He had made the "Maisie" movies in the 1930s and 1940s. In the opening credits, it says "From the novel by Elizabeth", and completely leaves off the author's last name... rather odd, but since it was von Armin, they may not have wanted the German association at the time... Sad to hear it was a flop when it was released, with those fun names like Frank Morgan (the Wizard) and Jessie Ralph, who played W.C. Fields' disapproving mother- in- law in "Bank Dick". Two gals in London (Ann Harding & Katharine Alexander) decide to rent a castle to host two of their friends, but things don't go the way they planned. Reginald Owen plays the husband with multiple personalities. Aside from a few funny moments, it DOES move pretty slow. Ralph is the only bright spot here, as the overbearing take-charge type, and the picture is quite fuzzy and out of focus for much of the film. The views of Italy are all obvious backdrops. The only saving grace here is that the Turner Classic version is only 66 minutes long. Too bad they didn't give Frank Morgan a larger role. This was remade in 1992 by the BBC as a British Film.
I found this to be a tremendously disappointing version of a charming story. I thought the acting was on the whole quite good. Reginald Owen did chew the scenery, as mentioned by others, but I found him moderately amusing in his brief scenes. TCM has made an Ann Harding fan of me, and I thought she was fine as usual here. Jessie Ralph had a field day as the old battleaxe, ordering everybody around, and Frank Morgan, as always, played Frank Morgan with a twinkle.<br /><br />For me, the problem was the script and/or the editing--transitions were awkward, motivations were murky. The movie was just too darned short to convey the story properly! I felt completely let down, particularly since I had such fond memories of the later version.
The 1935 version of "Enchanted April" manages to be simultaneously tedious<br /><br />and perfunctory. It is difficult to show the transformative magic of Italy shooting in a studio with only stereotypical Italian behavior to belabor. The transformation of the four strangers fleeing London is instantaneous in the cut from the first day to a week later. Rather than develop, the screenplay flips a switch and the<br /><br />characters are different.<br /><br />The husbands are boring enough in flashbacks without turning up, even if their presence does not drive the four women back into their shells and/or hostilities.<br /><br />Jessie Ralph has the most fun (moving instead of entirely chewing up the<br /><br />scenery) and Katharine Alexander has some poignant charm out of her<br /><br />husband's shadow (and away from his hideous droning). Ann Harding is<br /><br />unremarkable here (with the Production Code being enforced). She had an<br /><br />appropriate line in an earlier (pre-Code) movie, "When Ladies Meet": "You're<br /><br />not worth a minute of one anxious hour that either one of us has given you," but in "Enchanted April" can only look hurt, rush out, and proclaim fealty to her errant husband.
The basic story idea of ENCHANTED APRIL is excellent--two very unhappy wives meet and decide to pool their funds to rent an Italian villa for a month. To further defray costs, they get two other strangers to come along. What makes it interesting are the relationships both before and during this vacation--in particular, showing how this beautiful setting actually changes their outlooks on life. Unfortunately, this good idea is totally spoiled by two key performances in the ensemble cast that are so bad that they ruin the film. Ann Harding plays the most important role in the film in a manner that makes her seem ridiculous. Her "doe-eyed" expression and vacant stares really make you wonder if this isn't a zombie movie or she's just meant to be an idiot! And to make it worse, Reginald Owen plays a character so obnoxious and bombastic that I was very close to turning off the film--he was that awful and unbelievable. I noticed that at least one reviewer gave this movie a 10--which is very, very difficult to understand. Sure, the film has great ambiance and a good plot, but these two glaringly silly performances cannot be overlooked as they undermine the rest of the picture. Sorry, but this film was aching for a re-make!
The Comic Strip featured actors from 'The Young One's' - a student based sitcom from the 80's. Comic Strip features included parodies of westerns, 'The famous 5', and The Professionals - all a lot funnier than this. Having said that Alexei Sayle puts in a good turn as a traffic cop with ambition and the soundtrack features great music from the era. 5/10
I struggle to see the point of this movie. It is supposed to be a comedy but I didn't laugh once. The storyline is one that could have been interesting in a well made movie, but since this is acted by comics, the result is totally unbelievable (as comedies should be). The Comic strip series was very hit and miss, even withing the episodes, and it is fair to say all of the people involved have gone on to do greater things. One to avoid. I have also just found out that comments have to be 10 lines long. The whole point of these comments is to give an indication of whether the movie is worth watching: not write an essay gushing about it or taking it apart. If you like: Seinfeld, Larry Sanders, the Young Ones, Alan Partridge, Arrested Development, Curb, Red Dwarf, then you might like to pass on this. On the other hand, if you like lame jokes such as can be found in Friends and Dodgeball, enjoy watching this!
First of all, I just wanna say that I'm a very big Naruto fan. I love the Anime and the Manga stories. Also, the first movie just confirmed that Naruto is all about great fun, great action, great story, ... But then came the 2nd movie. I was very hyped because the first movie turned out great. But it didn't satisfy me one bit... The story was lame, action wasn't all that great... especially compared to the Anime series... same goes for the quality of animation. I found it very poorly... Could the story get any lamer... ANY ??? Where's the kyuubi of Naruto ?? Not once does he turn demon... I mean ... COME ON !!! My advice is... see the series ( until episode 140 , then it's just fillers ) and then read the Manga because that's still great. Ignore this movie and hope for something better in the future...<br /><br />All and all I gave it a 4, just because it's Naruto...
This ultra-low budget kitchen-sink yawn is the kind of film that can only be made in the UK in that, anywhere else in the world the fact the a market would need to exist before a green-light would be given. Most probably self funded this is clearly an attempt to redress important issues but ultimately undermines its point of existence in that the question needs to be begged, who would ever put money into distributing this and secondly if a market audience doesn't exist to watch, buy or rent this film, why would anyone bother in the first place? My opinions may sound unfairly harsh on a first time director but, this is the kind of film that only goes to undermine the commercial viability and quality standards which have only just kept a British film industry in existence. Reviewed in Edinburgh. 2 out of 10.
Hard up, No proper jobs going down at the pit, why not rent your kids! DIY pimp story without the gratuitous sex scenes, either hard core or soft core, therefore reads like a public information film from the fifties, give this a wide miss, use a barge pole if you can.
Well OK, I've seen Wrath of the Ninja.<br /><br />It isn't something that I would recommend to people who aren't seriously into japanese fighting movies. This is a sort of japanese fighting ninja movie, with a complex plot. It's about these 3 old ninja schools that had these 3 "Swords of Sorcery". I saw the subtitled version (NOT recommended by the way, it's easy to miss something) and I didn't really keep up with it all. It had some good scenes tough, but in general, it wasn't much to my liking.
It's perfectly ok that people dies in an animation, but there are just way too many death in this one. Start from the very beginning, the story is all around battles, fights, death, and revenge. It goes on and on for entire one and a half hour. It was interesting at the beginning, but I grew very tire after before the show was half way through. Unlike other animations, this one is lack of humor. There are not many interactions between the characters either. The good thing about it is the sword fight scene looks pretty good and the characters look nice.
I'd have to agree with the previous reviewer: This film has awesome animation, but has problems throughout the rest of the movie.<br /><br />Plot holes are huge, dialog barely explains the concepts of the plot--the MAIN PLOT POINTS aren't even fully explained until the last five minutes of the film. The characters state the obvious, while failing to explain the more confusing points of the film. There are characters that pop up and have importance in the storyline that are never explained--most of them have names that are only mentioned *once*, and it is exceedingly confusing to a viewer.<br /><br />Don't waste your time with this movie. Unless you are in it for a good laugh and how DUMB it is.
This movie stinks majorly. The only reason I gave it a 3 was because the graphics were semi charming. It's total disregard for a plot and the lack of even insubstantial surface character development made it seem like just a bunch of nice drawings. This is by far THE worse anime that came out of Japan. I can't believe they actually put their names on this garbage. What a rip off selling this thing for $20. If you haven't seen this don't bother. If you have, I pity you.
I kind of had somewhat high expectations for this movie. I've always thought that Tom Selleck's lesser known movies (ie Runaway and Coma), where well above the ones he had more press for. Maybe the producers should have had a little more knowledge about former major league baseball players who became stars overseas. The majority were players too good for triple a baseball, but not exactly major league matériel. I admire the idea of putting Selle's's character in Japn, versus the cliché of having play in the minors. Sad to say, this movie, much like the title of the post, is stranded at third by a movie that seems to be running on autopilot. I wouldn't mind seeing a sequel, and hopefully, the producers would learn from the mistakes. The premise is just way too unique to be left alone with this uneven flick
It's a kinder, gentler Cyborg movie with a love story. Awww. It's not as bad as it sounds. The action, when it is there, is decent and Jack Palance, Elias Koteas, and Angelina Jolie are always dependable. It's the fact that this is a sequel to the terrible Jean Claude Van Damme film, or is that the capper to the Masters of the Universe trilogy? I'm still confused about that. Either way, there was really no need for this movie. What was there a need for? Angelina Jolie. She may play an assassin robot that can explodes mid-coitus, but, what a way to go and even though this is her first movie, she still has the presence that made her an award winner.
As a sci-fi and casual Angelina Jolie fan, I thought this obviously low-budget movie might be worth a look... maybe it had a few scenes or a storyline that would make up for all its other faults. Plus, it might be interesting to watch Angelina as she was embarking on her star-bound career.<br /><br />Oh how wrong I was. One thing I learned -- at 18, Angelina Jolie couldn't act. So, to make her comfortable, the producers cast this entire movie with people who couldn't act. Seeing this, Jack Palance (who can actually act) decided to overact. Watching 10 minutes of this happen is enough to burn your eyes out.<br /><br />To the horrible acting and overacting add a nonsensical script, insipid dialog, bottom-of-the-barrel cinematography... in fact add bottom-of-the-barrel everything.<br /><br />The story features Angelina as a cyborg programmed by her corporate overlords as an assassin. She escapes the corporate HQ with the help of her combat instructor. The corporation sends bounty hunters after them. Stupid stuff happens. The end. I would tell you more but I didn't want to waste my life watching this dreck.<br /><br />I implore you -- this is not worth watching. Its not even worth thinking about watching. Save yourself the pain and move on.
This movie is a cyborg in and of itself: half nonsense/half Lifetime Original Movie.<br /><br />As a cyborg, this movie has but one objective: to make you wish that you had spent the duration of the film in a dark room punching yourself in the testicles.<br /><br />Unlike many people, I did not rent this movie because of Angelina Jolie(I'll explain why I rented it shortly). I am not a big fan of Ms. Jolie's, though I will say that her performance was stellar! Her blank stare and robotic acting really did have me believing that she was an android hooker. If anyone has a clip of her on 'Inside the Actor's Studio' explaining how she prepared for this role, please send it my way. I'll make sure to use it when I try James Lipton for Crimes against Integrity.<br /><br />So what drove me to rent this movie? One would think that it was the hope of seeing Angelina Jolie's nipples, but it wasn't. No, the reason behind this rental rested solely on one of the images on the cover of the DVD; that of Jack Palance's face! HALF OF HIS FACE WAS ROBOTIC! When I saw that, I imagined legions of "Palances" slowly marching through a fiery wasteland, laying waste to any humans that were foolish enough to resist. In my mind's eye, every member of this Unholy Army of Palances had a red, glowing eye; a red, glowing eye that looked at humans and saw only "meat". They were to be the Architects of Oblivion...a cold, steely Apocalypse...a Nightmare from which Humanity would never awaken. It's a beautiful image that I will cherish till the end of my years.<br /><br />Like most things in my life, the actual movie did not live up to my expectations. No, there was only 'one' Jack Palance, and the only visible cybernetic enhancements that he had were located on his legs. Sadly, those enhancements didn't really "enhance" anything. That is unless, you count WALKING LIKE A POLIO VICTIM as a super power. At least their was a scene where Jack--grinning like a trigger-happy Alzheimer's patient--got to shoot the hell out of some people. I was waiting for him to yell, "I'm damn tired of paying too much for prescription medication!" Unfortunately, any outbursts of geriatric rage were few and far between.<br /><br />What the movie did have an abundance of was a poorly developed love story about a man(Elias Koteas, a.k.a. poor man's De Niro) and a cyborg(Angelina Jolie, a.k.a. Demon Spawn of John Voigt). Oh man, can the love between a Romeo of Flesh and a Juliet of Silicon ever be able to last?!?!?! It can if you follow Jack Palance's simple advice: "You have to TASTE each other's TIME".<br /><br />Yeah, I'm not sure what that means. However, I am sure that I do not want Jack Palance to be the one to explain it to me. I sure as heck don't want him to show me! As an experiment, I suggest that you ask your significant other if he/she "thinks that we have reached a level in our relationship where we can begin to TASTE each other's TIME?"
Cybrog 2:Glass Shadow stars Elias Koteas as Colton Hicks (Rhymes with kicks!) a karate instructor who helps a Cash (Jolie) escape from Pinwheel, her creators who look to detonate her and destroy a rival company. Along the way Billy Drago and Karen Shepherd show up to displace the duo, while Jack Palance is there to deliver guidance to the duo on the run. One of the things that is quite shocking about the Cyborg franchise, is how the series has managed to have quite prolific and off beat actors in the cast. The original had Jean-Claude Van Damme and Dayle Haddon (Don't know her? Well she was in a bunch of 70's pornos) this one has Jack Palance, Elias Koteas,Billy Drago and Angelina Jolie. The third one has William Katt, Zach Galligan and Malcom McDowell. (Okay so, Cyborg 3's cast isn't that impressive.) I've never seen Cyborg 3, but I did see this on Sci-Fi channel and must admit I wasn't impressed. Actually strike that, Cyborg 2 is an often lovely looking movie, it's shot with excellent style and the visual detail make this easy on the eye. However Cyborg 1 was the same way, indeed the movie was directed with a certain amount of style, slow motion and music that made it all easy on the eye. Unfortunately like the first, this one doesn't have any new ideas or anything resembling a plot or texture. Most of the ideas are taken from Blade Runner and Max Headroom, so for various reasons the movie doesn't have much to offer beyond it's look. Another aspect is the terrible acting. Karen Shepherd and Billy Drago are absolutely terrible and Angelina Jolie isn't much better. Elias Koteas and Jack Palance come off fine but seriously Palance is playing a cyborg warrior and Koteas is a karate instructor. I guess on the positive side you can't accuse Michael Schroeder of not being ambitious with casting. Still the movie is dull and I for one lost interest in the story fifteen minutes in. Also why did they tie it in with Cyborg anyway? It has nothing to do with it's predecessor, which this manages to be worse than.<br /><br />* out of 4-(Bad)
Two things are always signs that you`re going to be watching a bad movie :<br /><br />1 ) If you`re instantly reminded of other movies like THE TERMINATOR, HARDWARE or BLADE RUNNER during the title sequence <br /><br />2 ) If there`s a death during a sex scene straight after the title sequence<br /><br />There`s actually a third warning sign and that`s a caption indicating lazy exposition warning the poor ignorant naive audience of the dangers of corporate greed . Guess what ? CYBORG 2 starts with a caption warning us of corporate greed in the future , followed by a title sequence that reminded me of THE TERMINATOR , HARDWARE and BLADE RUNNER followed by a death during a sex scene ! Hey you don`t suppose I`ll be watching a bad movie by any chance ? <br /><br />As you can guess this is a bad movie . It`s basically a series of action scenes written around a thread bare plot of a cyborg on the run from a greedy corporate company . It`s badly written , directed and acted and most especially it`s badly lit which means it`s very difficult to see what`s happening on screen , though I`m not entirely sure this is actually a bad thing . The only interest to be had is that it`s the film debut of Angelina Jolie who plays the cyborg on the run and who says the prophetic line " They`re lovely , I wonder if they`re real ? " which is something I ask myself whenever I see one of her movies
Simply awful. I'm including a spoiler warning here only because of including a coupla jokes from the movie - there is nothing else to spoil, as it is already rotten. This dross was made during what must have been one of Sellers' "For A Few Dollars More" periods, when he'd participate in any crap for a few bucks. I'd seen this as a 15-year- old high school student in 1972, and loathed it then. No need to view it again; after 35 years I remember it now as one of the top five worst movies I'd seen as a kid. As I recall, Sellers had more of an ongoing cameo role than a lead here, but even his presence couldn't ameliorate the stale jokes, lame plot, and infantile repartee. One ongoing theme revolves around Sellers' use of his fingers: In one scene, he holds up his open hand to a group of medicos, and by folding down his fingers, enumerates the groups for which a hospital exists - the interns, the nurses, the administrators, etc. - until only his middle finger is left up, whereupon he says "...and the patients!" Har Har. In another scene, to avoid costly lab tests, he dips a finger into a urine sample and sticks it into his mouth to check for sugar, then exhorts the interns gathered around him to do the same, which they do. He then advises them that he'd placed his middle finger in the urine, but sucked on the index finger, and admonishes them to pay attention. Hee Hee. (The only reason that I remember this, and this movie, and am writing this review, is that a friend told me an even dumber version of this 'joke' today). If yu laik thiss, you gonna luv dis movey. If not, see 'Hospital', with George C. Scott (came out the same year, 1972) for some genuine, marvelous black medical humor. Better yet, read 'The House of God', by Samuel Shem, and if you can, see the movie version of it, which has never been released (please make a copy and send it to me - I'd love to finally see it).
I wasted 35 minutes of my life on this turkey before I gave up. The main character is completely clueless and astoundingly unsympathetic, but there is no humor in his blundering. As soon as he arrives in Germany, the screenwriter pulls the old "there's only one room in the hotel, you'll have to share a room with a pretty girl" stunt. Come on, at least you could let them develop their relationship a bit first. Watch "It Happened One Night" to see how to do it right--or any of a thousand movies since then.<br /><br />The acting is consistently third-rate, and the improvised dialogue should have been left on the cutting-room floor. It meanders with no plan at all, despite the fact that the film telegraphs the relationship's destination from the moment Greta is introduced.<br /><br />The first song, in the boardroom, is mildly funny but badly sung. The rest of the songs (well, to be fair, I only heard those in the first half-hour) are just pointless and awful. Most of the singers are painfully out of tune, but not in any intentionally humorous sort of way.
This movie moved much too slowly for my taste.The concept of the story is refreshingly different in that it explores the family dynamics of living with a mentally-retarded family member in a way that I have not previously seen on-screen.However,the execution of the concept was flawed.Each character was developed fully within the scene of her first appearance,then one had to endure the feeling that each character was treading water the rest of the way.That is,each character flailed about awkwardly in her interpersonal relationships with others in the movie,which I found to be a form of emotional and social retardation.I suppose this has artistic merit,given the irony that the story centers around an intellectually retarded individual surrounded by way above-average intelligence friends and family.The acting,however,was well-done without exception.I agree with other reviewers that the cinematography was beautiful.In summary,I think the film has strong artistic merit because of the fine acting and cinematography,but fails on an emotional level due to the shortcomings described.
I finally got hold of a DVD copy of this production and was agog with curiosity, since I had read so many people praising it to the skies, particularly Angela Lansbury's portrayal of Mrs. Lovett. I saw the Tim Burton movie a few months ago and thought it over the top and overly bloody; thankfully this version is not so horrifying gory but it suffers dramatically in too many other ways for it to be in the least satisfying to me.<br /><br />To begin with, the casting. George Hearn is adequate and at least shows some expression (as opposed to Johnny Depp's unending wooden face in the movie). Angela Lansbury is, quite simply, annoying. At least she has enough power in her voice to get the point across as opposed to Helena Bonham Carter's piping and expressionless little girl's voice, but subtlety seems to be only a word in the dictionary to Ms. Lansbury. One cannot be drawn into the story when one of the main characters spends her entire time mugging and winking in a "look, Ma, I'm acting!" fashion and being far too aware of the audience. This is not something that is typical of stage productions, heaven knows--I have been a regular attendee of many productions at the Stratford Festial for many years and stage actors do NOT behave in that fashion as a rule (at least those who want to continue to find regular employment do not!)...<br /><br />Betsy Joslyn. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Did anybody besides me notice that she can't sing this role even vaguely appropriately? And her playing George Hearn's daughter is just creepy, considering that she was married to him at the time. Isn't she supposed to be a sweet little sixteen-year-old? Yes, I realize that this is what acting is all about, but not once did she convince me that she was any younger than about thirty-five, and the phrase "mutton dressed as lamb" seems to have been coined just for her. Her butchering of "Green Finch And Linnet Bird" had me gnashing my teeth and ready to turn off the DVD player at once. That song was done so well in Tim Burton's movie, and this was a sad shock. The song requires the vocal range of Julie Andrews in the 1960's and a purity of voice that is only comparable to that of a boy soprano. Any vibrato at all kills it dead, and Ms. Joslyn spent the entire time warbling so hard that I thought she was about to fall off of her ladder because she was trembling so much from the effort at sustaining coloratura notes with a voice that is a mezzo at best. Let us pass over the spectacle of her vibrating at least a quarter tone flat on at least three of the higher notes... This is quite simply not a coloratura role and perhaps a discerning director should have told her that--but the fact that she was married to the star might possibly have tied the director's hands.<br /><br />Cris Groenendaal was adequate, but again obviously far too old for the role and there is zero chemistry between him and Ms. Joslyn, which makes the whole subplot fall completely flat. I am reminded a little of past stage productions of Wagner's Ring cycle where, due to the vocal power required for the singers to bellow over the sound of a full Wagnerian orchestra they would have to cast based upon ability to penetrate vocally as opposed to any appearance or acting ability or even a good voice, which is why you have the caricature of the massive mountainous Viking-horned Brunehilde with a triple chin and a beard, when the libretto calls for an ethereal beauty who is eternally young and bewitching. The casting of the "juvenile" leads is exactly like that--if you close your eyes you can almost believe in Mr. Groenendaal's Anthony, but as soon as you look at the screen the illusion is shattered. (And at NO time can you ever believe in Ms. Joslyn's Johanna...) For me, the rest of the production was completely lost because of three out of the four major characters were so obviously miscast. I cannot give a proper review of anything else because they were so distracting that they spoiled the rest of the production. I really can't understand why people rave about this badly-shot and self-conscious filming of a stage play. Surely there's more to camera work in the theatre than just plunking a camera down in the front row? If I want that, I'll go to a decent play, preferably at the Stratford Festival, where at least they work together for the production and aren't constantly mugging for the camera. I give it three stars only because the quality of the production apart from the antics of Lansbury and Joslyn seems adequate if not spectacular.<br /><br />Probably the best thing one can do is buy the soundtrack of the film and a cast recording of this play, and then combine the two to make a bearable whole. That's what I'm going to do, and try to forget that I ever bothered to rent this wholly unremarkable production.
Some aspects of this production are good, such as the performances of Angela Lansbury, George Hearn, Cris Groenendaal, and Sal Mistretta. But am I the only one who is distracted by the horrible performance by Betsy Joslyn as Johanna? She is terrible! She slauters the songs with her screechy voice and overacts in a role she clearly doesn't understand. I also think the chorus isn't up to snuff. They drag the tempo and make the worst facial expressions. Overall, I think this production is okay, but Sweeney Todd can be so much more if done correctly. This production doesn't come near the level this material demands. The concert version with George Hearn and Patti LuPone is much better.
Among the many accolades here for this production, there was one individual whose comments asked if he/she were the only one (who wasn't that enthralled by it) - i.e. giving this film 3 stars. However, the comment went on to indicate an overall liking of the story, and other production of same. Well, this person isn't the "only one," who didn't like this production (include me!) but there I part company even with him/her. If you put a gun to my head and asked me to make a choice between your shooting me or watching this flick again, I'd watch it, certainly - but I'd probably spend 10 seconds thinking about it. I'd much prefer being locked into solitary confinement, or having to watch paint dry on a wall, though. Further, I wouldn't want to see this story again, anytime, anywhere, or in any alternative presentation. Sometimes you feel like comedian George Gobel's "pair of brown shoes when the rest of the world is a tuxedo," and this is one of those for me. I liked Angela Lansbury in a favorite movie of mine, "Long Hot Summer," and while not a huge fan of the show, enjoyed "Murder, She Wrote." But HERE -- I not only didn't care for the story or other aspects, but I found Angela's squealing, squawking, singing, and everything else about her over-the-top performance, perhaps the MOST ANNOYING presence in any movie (or presentation in any other media) I've ever experienced. It was like an unending continuation of Audrey Hepburn's equally "over-the top" Cockney chortling at Rex Harrison - in the earlier portions of "My Fair Lady." But that was incident to the plot, presented for light, comedic effect, and (mercifully) brief. Unmercifully, this was anything but brief, and to me seemed as if it had gone-on for about 10 hours (Einstein's layman's explanation of "relativity" at work.) If I hadn't been with friends, with the necessity to remain, MY viewing would have been brief. I laughed, though, at the "Seinfeld" episode where Elaine pisses everyone off because she tells them how much she disliked "The English Patient." My friends somewhat regarded me the same way when I interrupted their waxing ecstatically over this movie. Give me some dragging fingernails loudly over a chalk board anytime instead.
This movie was one of the worst I have ever seen (not including anything by or with Pauly Shore). I couldn't believe that a film could actually be THIS bad!<br /><br />Coolio has to be the single worst actor (again, not including Pauly Shore) to ever "star" in a movie. The temptation to hit the STOP button during this movie was huge (in fact, if there was a THROW IN THE TRASH button on my VCR, I would have been inclined to press that).<br /><br />Do yourself a favor, and do something more interesting than watch this movie, like watching the grass grow, or watching golf on TV.
Okay, I just had to sound off on this one... Like a tremendous mental-gimp, I've just sat through this film in its entirety.<br /><br />You'll note that the trivia section of IMDB points out that portions of the raising of the 747 were "borrowed" from Airport 1977. This really doesn't scratch the surface... Virtually all exterior shots of the plane skimming the ocean, landing in, sinking, and even the at-rest shots are borrowed from Airport '77. All of the "raising" shots are pulled from '77, including most of the interior flooding clips, with the exception of Dennis Weaver's drowning. I couldn't help but wonder if Olivia Dehavilland might come floating by at any moment, or maybe a "dead" Tom Sullivan. Another eye-roller: Dennis Weaver's name in this film is Stevens, which is to compensate for the fact that Airport '77's plane is owned by the Stevens Corporation (headed by Jimmie Stewart of course).<br /><br />This is a veritable calvalcade of actors who don't work much, or at least haven't worked in a while, which might have been the first clue that it was going to be a real stinker.<br /><br />I've rated this film a 2 - It's quite worthy of a "1", but if this film can't offer any other redeeming quality, at least somebody helped Coolio, Max Caulfield, Nicolle Eggert, and Dennis Weaver make their car payments that month!
Boring, ridicules and stupid "Submerged" is a waste of time. The shootouts were a joke, real people do not just stand out in the open with out any cover, hoping to get shot first! So many things wrong or bad, not worth the effort to list, except one major flaw. At 500 mph for 20 minutes = about 166 miles west of L.A. and the water is 100ft deep??? Even at that, none of the people would have survived the decompression from being subjected to 100ft of water pressure for more then 20 hours when they were brought up. Just a awful.
This is a terrible movie that only gets worse and seems to never end. The acting was bad, the plot was worse, and the special effects seemed to have been created by a 5th grade science class. Dennis Weaver is such a great actor and should have never taken such a part. My advise, DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE!
This film has to rank down there with Ed Wood films. A terrible script and bad, bad acting.<br /><br />A machine gun fight in front of plate glass windows; minutes go by before anyone is hit and nobody has cover - not one window ever breaks. You'd think after a fire fight like that the big U-Haul truck might be riddled - not a scratch.<br /><br />Do CIA agents and government contractors =shout= Top Secret information at a stand-up cocktail party with hundreds of people around.<br /><br />There isn't one actor you care about; everyone is shallow and basically unlikable.<br /><br />A Hawaii bound 747 flies out of Los Angeles and crashes twenty minutes later in the Pacific "...in 100 feet of water...". A short time passes when the stewardess announces to the five other passengers they only have two hours of air left; on a 747?<br /><br />The next day the rescue teams show-up and amazingly the six passengers are still alive.<br /><br />A movie that starts out mediocre and goes from bad to worse.<br /><br />
"Submerged" is definitely NOT "the worst movie ever". It does have its flaws, such as borrowed footage, crazy script and non-existent special effects (these are the worst), but it also has some good points too. The acting is surprisingly good, there are LOTS of familiar faces whom you probably know if u're a b-movie fan like me.<br /><br />I was very glad to see Brent Huff playing one of the heroes, knowing him mostly for his 80's action films, and i must admit, he is not a bad actor at all. Fred Williamson, Maxwell Caulfield & Tim Thomerson get some limited screen time, but are believable in their parts. The "eye-candies" in this Fred Olen Ray movie are Yvette Nipar and Nicole Eggert, both looking very sexy and very mean. Michael Bailey Smith adds some muscle to the background as a Navy SEAL. Unfortunately the only cast member who (in my opinion) is completely out of place is Coolio. He doesn't act at all, talks like he didn't even read the script, and being a badass in the beginning of the movie, gets shot like a wimp a hour later. Not a good choice.<br /><br />To sum this movie up - this is not such a bad choice for late night entertainment. If you can get over the special effects thing (so many guns, so much fire, and not a single wound on anyone), Coolio's annoying performance, and the recycled footage from Airport 77, you might like this no-brainer after all.
There is part of one sequence where some water rushes into the sunken plane, everything else that happens in this movie is stock footage for Airport 77. You can even make out Jack Lemmon and Christopher Lee in some of the shots. A total rip off? Well almost by definition. There may be more stock footage in this film than in Plan 9 From Outer Space.<br /><br />All the new material, actors sitting around in an airplane set talking, is bland and terrible on every level. Dennis Weaver is totally wasted in a career low movie, though that's true for everyone other than this films director Fred Olen Ray, who uses one of this many necessary fake names in order to keep working.<br /><br />There is a level of scant professionalism that makes this film such a waste of time, it would actually be better if shot by someone with no technical knowledge at all, because Ray has just enough knowledge about how to put together a scene in the worst old school TV fashion that this film, like most of his films, is totally devoid of life. The worst kind of hack work. The worst kind of film. Boring.<br /><br />This type of film is a waste of money, an affair where the crew on all levels are ghosts hoping to get whatever scant pay check they can and that no one will see or know they appeared/ participated in this rip off. There are so many people who want to make movies it's disgusting to see Ray burn up the money given to do nothing more but fill time.<br /><br />His commentary track is interesting in that he has to start it by explaining that he is really Fred Ray as he isn't credited on the film itself. That tricked me into seeing it don't let it trick you.
You have to see this movie, it's a big footnote in the history of film. When this film was made, American film industry reached the bottom of sucking. See this movie, laugh, and feel sorry for yourself for wasting the last 2 hours of your life. It's the worst acting I've seen and even worse directing. The villains laugh like they're taken from a clown circus and if the guys who did "Scary Movie" want to do a parody on superhero movies they only have to take the script from this movie and do a remake, called Black Scorpion III: The threat of really really bad movies who in some way manages to lure the production companies into a sequel suicide.
This is really a terrible film by any of the regular yardsticks. Plot, storyline, acting, effects, direction - I could go on. Suffice to say it's poor. However, it has a certain appeal. Many totally out of context sex scenes appear, it's fun looking for the Batman references. Umm - that's it. Poor really, don't bother.
Pun intended. This low budget action/horror vehicle for Don Wilson's ability to kick things is the stuff direct-to-video fare is made of.<br /><br />The plot: Wilson is a humorless vampire hunter who comes under fire from local law enforcement after he is forced to slaughter creatures of the night in view of the public. Police chase him, vampires chase him, he responds by kicking...a lot.<br /><br />There is a little more to the story, but it is so inconsequential that I honestly can't remember it; I think people actually spoke in the movie, but that's up to debate. The plot is nothing more than a set-up for Wilson to kill as many vampires as possible in the running time, usually by kicking them.<br /><br />The technical specs are, in a word, anemic. Little color treating, amateurish use of lighting, simplistic use of camera and angle. Blood and gore is noticeably limited, odd for this type of film. The most hurtful of the filming foul-ups is the jarring shift to super-shaky cam during each and every fight scene. If the camera begins to bounce around like a reese monkey on speed, then you know Don is about to start kicking everything in sight.<br /><br />All in all, this is the kind of bad movie that can be made good with a few friends and a lot of cynical humor. Otherwise, do not watch, unless you really like to watch things get kicked.<br /><br />3/10
Don Wilson stars as Jack Cutter (Ooh real tough name!)a vampire slayer who goes up against a vampire army, you see the story is a little different because vampires can't be killed with silver, crosses or sunlight but rather through snapping their necks (How convenient as it cuts down on the budget) and it's here Cutter runs into a reporter (Melanie Smith of Trancers III fame) Night Hunter's action sequences shake for no reason during the fight sequences and although it's meant to emphasize the mood, it just makes the movie more jarring. What is worse is that these fight sequences are botched beyond belief as Wilson's martial artistry is disguised by disjointed editing. Of course the most interest comes from the fact that indeed this predates Blade, however the problem is that this was done on a small budget and that it had Don Wilson in it. It's from Roger Corman and basically this turkey is a movie most people would pay NOT to see. I unfortunately am a bottom feeder and I cater to the section of the store looking for gems, in this line of work you always run into turds. With Night Hunter, I just may have the world's stinkiest turd.<br /><br />1/2* out of 4-(Awful)
I think vampire movies (usually) are wicked. Even if the film itself isn't all that good, I still like it 'cos its got vampires in it. But this stinks. It really does give vampire movies a bad name.<br /><br />For a start, the cheapness really shows. I'm not usually that bothered about low budget films - one of my favourite all-time movies is El Mariachi which only cost $7000 - but I hate this. The actions a load of crap as well, resorting to a 'stylish' wobbling camera which gives you headache.<br /><br />Theres not much more to say other than don't watch this. I bought it for £1.50 as it was an ex-rental and I feel cheated out of my money, even for that low price.
While credited as a Tom and Jerry cartoon, this is not the cat-and-mouse team but an earlier Mutt-and-Jeff rip-off featuring them going to Africa and disguising themselves in the stereotypical burnt cork makeup to try to blend in. While the dialect humor is mostly lame, there is a brief musical sequence involving "black skeletons" that was entertaining. I have to ask however, how could Tom and Jerry still have their makeup stay on even after being dumped in the water a couple of times? One of many entries produced by the Van Beuren Corporation for distribution by RKO Radio Pictures before RKO made a deal with Disney. Only worth seeing if you're an animation buff or is interested in how certain ethnicities were stereotyped as entertainment way back when.
Tom and Jerry are transporting goods via airplane to Africa. But being white men, they're worried they won't be safe, so they put on blackface to fit in. Once they're wearing it, they adopt black dialect and fully inhabit their new characters. They crash into the ocean and use the wing of the plane as a raft. Before reaching land, they suffer the advances of an over-affectionate octopus and more serious danger from sharks, a swordfish and a whale. Once on land, they're frightened by fantastic creatures, and duck into a cave. Inside it's even worse when they encounter living skeletons in blackface. And upon exiting the cave, things are even worse than that when they are discovered by cannibals.<br /><br />"Plane Dumb" is an especially sloppy effort from Van Beuren Studios. One example: a lion, unknown to Tom and Jerry, enters the cave before they do. But the animators must have forgotten about it, because the lion never appears again. Another example is the ending that's not an ending: it's just an arbitrary stop.<br /><br />According to a YouTube poster, the cartoon "was originally intended to feature the voices AND caricatures of a popular 'Negro' comedy team known as Miller & Lyles. But Aubrey Lyles died of tuberculosis before the recording session was completed, and co-directors John Foster & George Rufle were forced to rework the animation into a 'Tom & Jerry' story."<br /><br />They shouldn't have bothered. The crude animation and poorly-executed gags make the film a loser from beginning to end.
I was under assumption that this was the cat and mouse duo but it wasn't instead it was something that shouldn't have been made not even for its time. They disguise themselves in the "blackface" fashion because they fly to Africa and they even act like Stepin Fetchit and all the others rolled into one. There are some cartoons that are racist but they are classics, being a mixed woman I have the right to say this, but if you are into the historical aspect of these cartoons try Merrie Melodies "Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs" or "Angel Puss" you won't find them on DVD because the distributors promised not to put them in the mainstream, but you can find them on a site as YouTube. I don't recommend little kids seeing this but if you want to see how early America was racist and ignorant these are better suggestions, not to mention this particular cartoon has poor animation, i know it was 1932, but I have seen better for its time.<br /><br />"Plane" unnecessary. -1 out of 10.
My God, the things that passed for entertainment in this country...<br /><br />This is *not* the "Tom and Jerry" you may have enjoyed on Saturday Mornings, featuring a hapless cat and a clever mouse. This is a much earlier animation series, featuring a pair of Mutt-and-Jeff clones who get themselves into various scrapes that result in any of the then-typical dancing-skeleton-type gags that made up so much of early animation.<br /><br />This particularly vile outing, apparently originally intended as a vehicle for a pair of actual black stage comedians of the time, has the pair crashing in the ocean while flying to Africa, necessitating black-face make-up, exaggerated "negro" dialect and "Feets, don't fail me now" situations.<br /><br />It only shows that in the 70 years between emancipation and this film, the American view of Africans hadn't progressed much. Then again, at least one of them apparently had a pilot's license.
For a scientifically-engineered super-dog that was supposed to be the answer to petit crime, CHOMPS was a chump.<br /><br />All I ever saw Chomps do was sit, or walk, or run. Or run, then walk, then sit... and then get back up again and stretch, and then walk, and then jog to K-Tel dance hits. And sometimes it had all the answers to the daily Jumbo. But mostly it just sat a lot.<br /><br />All I am saying is: In a Celebrity Death Match, Chomps couldn't take out Mr. Bigglesworth.
C.H.O.M.P.S. is very much like any number of cheesy late 70s Disney family comedys-The Cat from Outer Space or Unidentified Flying Oddball, for instance. Utterly devoid of anything creative, beating the same cliches to death, yet vaguely entertaining in a mindless sort of way. The actors won't win any awards, nor will the director, writer, or FX crew, but in its inoffensive ness and bland predicatability there is some vague entertainment to be had. The idea of the robot dog as security system is so full of holes you could use it as a colander. The incredibly repetative disco soundtrack will stick in your head, so beware.
i think south park is hilarious, and i have no problem w/them taking shots at people on the left, but you'd think that, after taking a whole movie to attack celebrities for risking their careers taking on an illegal war, and then being GASP right along, they would have the sense to start giving w. and the bastards ruining the country a shot or two. bush seems to get a pretty free run from these guys for as stupid and messed up as he is.<br /><br />gore is fair game, but please, what do the republicans have to do, how bad do they have to f^&k up the country before these guys finally act like maybe they aren't just trying to do the best they can, and that they have done some true screwing up...or maybe just go after rush limbaugh...hes a good target...or even just make fun of condoleeza rice's gap teeth.
An awful film; badly written, badly acted, cliched, hackneyed, dross. The premise is such a good one and a chance to educate about black cowboys but the film is truly dire. It is a curious mix of a bad 1950's Randolph Scott B movie and a bad 1970's spaghetti western. The villains are cardboard, the flashbacks laughable, the dialogue excruciating.<br /><br />The deliberate anachronisms (such as 'Victorian' rap singers and modern swear words like "motherf****er"), are irritating to the extreme.<br /><br />A Frankenstein monster that died on the lab table.
This move is bad on so many levels I don't even know where to start. OK - the good points - Peebles is beautiful as a dirty outlaw in black leather. Some of the landscape photography was stunning. That's about it. Oh, and it was a nice touch having the buffalo head above the bar door in Freemanville, I figure it was a nod to the Buffalo Soldiers. The movie starts sort of OK but the characters are so flat, so comic book, so 'much', the bad guys are just over the top bad, I choke trying to describe them further. The Spanish-Cuban-American war was 1895-1898 with America being involved only in April to August of '98. I think the movie said it took place in 1893 (I could be wrong but I don't want to look at it again to check). A big part of this movie hinged on the KKK killing Jessie's daddy. Well boys, the original KKK started in 1865 and was destroyed by President Andrew Johnson in 1871. The Klan wasn't even around during the time period of this movie. Of course the nasty bas**rds got busy again in 1915 and we know the rest of that. BUT for the purpose of the movie it is historically incorrect and that was a major part of the plot. I think I could make myself crazy going into it a lot more so here a few jabs and I'm done. I didn't know that Boyz2Men and other bands like that got their inspiration from New Orleans street singers from the 1890's. I also didn't know that fetish necklaces were all the rage for Sioux women in the 1890's...but then I was surprised to see a bar singer doing jazz while wearing acrylic 1" nails... We just about died laughing and I like a cheesy western more than most people do. Such a waste of talent and money - this really had the chance to show a part of American history that isn't well known. http://www.coax.net/people/lwf/bkcwboy2.htm for some more information. This could have been so good but it was just....bad from 1-10 this gets a 1 instead of a zero because Mario looks good in his hat and there was an Appaloosa horse in the film.
It's not just that the movie is lame. It's more than that. This movie is just unnecessary. Do we need another Western? How about a western with afro-Americans in the titles roles? Sound stupid, implausible and a lame attempt at modernizing the genre? It is. Incredibly lame and simple minded. It's like that lame Baz Luhrman film "Romeo and Juliet" where he set it in modern times to attract young folks and create some hype with his revamping of a classic tale. Well, Baz Luhrman failed miserably and so does this mess. The story is actually not bad however the whole idea of removing the racism out of a racist genre by casting an all afro-American cast is racist in itself. It's also puerile and simple minded (like Baz Luhrman-man he's a bad director). Hey (I hear you say) this was directed by Mario Van Peebles! He's also IN the film! How can it be racist? It's not. I said the idea of casting all afro-Americans instead of Caucasians was. The film isn't racist, it's just pointless, stupid and very very boring.
This is the worst movie of ALL TIME! It's one of those that is so ridiculous and the acting so bad that you turn off the video 1/3 into it so that you can use your time for better purposes like cleaning the toilet. If you actually watch the whole thing, GOD help you.
Wow, what a racist, profane piece of celluloid garbage, and what an insult to the great genre of Westerns.<br /><br />Exploitive? Sex scenes abound, profanity abounds, violence and gore abounds.....everything that gives modern movies such a good name, especially among those who prefer classic-era movies. This is the kind of sleaze that gives the old folks ammunition against today's films. <br /><br />Somehow I just can't picture nude male bathing scenes in Randolph Scott or Gene Autrey films. Nor can I picture hearing "motherf---er!" exclaimed here and there. I sincerely doubt that word was even around over 100 years ago. Yet, the f-word is so prevalent here you'd think you were watching a story centered in today's urban areas, not the old west of the 1800s.<br /><br />Prejudice? Well, what if all the white characters were good guys and every black person was the nasty, brutal villain? Do you think someone might complain about a racist movie? Home come we don't hear an outcry when the reverse - as demonstrated in this film - is shown in hundreds of theaters across the country?<br /><br />Mario Van Peeples wrote, directed and starred in this bomb. Remember that name. Apparently, he is the "Ed Wood" of today's filmmakers. Even Spike Lee wouldn't be this racist. You can't get much worse than this movie.
In my opinion, the movie was laughable--bad dialogue. Whoever wrote the script--please keep your day job. It's definitely NO Godfather or Goodfellas. It's good to be on the otherside of the table--poor choice of words. Some of the characters were clowns. But what do you expect from a low budget movie with no name actors.
Sometimes, changes to novels when they're made into films are not only necessary, but a good thing. However, in the case of Northanger Abbey, it's a very, very bad thing. Not only is the story itself ripped to shreds, but the satire is almost completely absent from the film, and it's mixture of romance and intrigue doesn't even touch upon the biting commentary that Austen put into her work. It fails to be amusing or satirical at all, and instead turns the character's fascination with her fantasy world into mostly a drama.<br /><br />This affects the romance as well. It's meandering and aimless. Chemistry and interest are never established. The reasons Tilney is attracted to Catherine are completely absent from the film, leaving the audience to wonder what it is he sees in her at all.<br /><br />Hopefully some day soon, we'll get a more faithful version if Austen's satire.
Poor Jane Austen ought to be glad she's not around to see this dreadful wreck of an adaptation. So many great Jane Austen movies have come out recently that this one deserves to be permanently buried along with two other movies I despise-The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit and the 1969 version of David Copperfield. My main beef with the movie is that it completely misses the point of the book. Jane Austen was poking fun at the Gothic mania in her society, and much of the novel is tongue in cheek. The movie, however, is serious and comes across terribly melodramatically. The lighthearted, fun-poking flavor of Austen's writing is completely and conspicuously absent from this ponderous foray iinto horror meets period drama. The scenes of Catherine's imagination are both gratuitous and uninteresting. Also, Henry Tilney is dreadfully unappealing. Why, I ask, would anyone fall for him? If you are looking for a fun-filled Jane Austen evening, watch Emma instead!
Normally BBC productions of Jane Austen are pretty good but Northanger Abbey is just odd. What were they thinking? This film has little of Austen's charm and ironically mimics the Gothic novels that Austen so wonderfully mocked. Not only that, the "gothic" sequences are tacky, over-the-top, and frankly silly. The actress playing Miss Morland is poorly cast with no obvious appeal to attract the attentions of an eligible bachelor, and though I rather liked the creepy Peter Firth as Mr. Tilney, he is not a bit like the novel, even when delivering dialog straight out of the book. Robert Hardy as General Tilney turned in one of his few terribly "ham" performances. This film was so bizarre and strange that I actually watched it again just to savor how freakishly wrong it was.
Is it possible to give a 0 out of 10 rating? Because this one deserves it. While I'm not a big fan of Jane Austen's books, I sat through this one with two women who are. Well, at least we had a big laugh about how bad this film is. Robert Hardy was the only actor with any charisma in the whole thing, though he overdid it as he usually does (nearly as bad as William Shatner). But that wasn't enough to save this stinker from total suckitude. It's often hard to separate the girl's dream sequences from what is "really" happening, and so many holes are left in the story that you can barely figure out what is going on. Too many loose ends and the ending feels like a "tune in again next week" climax. The lead actress is too ditsy and weird-looking to be a heroine, the leading man is too goofy-looking and effeminate to be a convincing hero and the music sounds like some kind of cheap new-agey pet project of the director's hippy daughter (I mean saxophone??? mixed in with some kind of spacey operatic female wailing?). So, in conclusion, I suggest you blow the budget and order a DVD of this one as soon as possible. Especially if you like disappointment.
My first hugely disappointing BBC/Jane Austen flick. The tone is off, the costumes are off, the hair is off, the music is from outer space, and Robert Hardy, bless him, looks like he's really annoyed to be in such a stinker. Even some of the casting is off. No, I take that back, a good director can make a silk purse out of a sows ear, so to speak. The performances in this thing are so over the top and melodramatic that it's almost a farce of a Jane Austen story, which is ironic since Northanger Abbey is a sort of homage/send up of the early Gothic novel. I wanted to slap the female lead after awhile; who made the decision that she should be such a ninny? I had to watch Pride & Prejudice ('95) immediately to get the bad taste out of my mouth. Phew!
My mom, my cousins, and I are pretty big Jane Austen fans. We know all the words to the 1995 Pride and Prejudice masterpiece, and have watched Gwyneth Paltrow's Emma an embarrassing number of times. I've read all the books, and I've even sat through Sense and Sensibility and Persuasion a few times. So my mom and I thought it would be nice to see Northanger Abbey on film.<br /><br />Bad idea! This is just about the worst movie I've ever seen. It's even worse than the 1998 version of Alice Through the Looking Glass, or the 1939 Nancy Drew movie I bought at Wal-Mart for $1 (my previous "worst movies.") The first thing wrong, which you notice in the opening scene, is that the "heroine," Catherine, has a gruesome and weird imagination, inspired by trashy novels that a Jane Austen heroine would never touch. Throughout the novel, she has dreams (day and night) in which she is carried off by some hideous man with a greasy wig, dragged across a field headed for God-knows-what-all, and suddenly rescued by a dashing guy on a white horse.<br /><br />The second thing any viewer of the movie will instantly notice is the high-pitched wailing and saxophone music that is supposed to be the soundtrack. No dainty classical music or English country dances here! It is also evident, almost at first glance, that the actress (for lack of a better word) chosen to play Catherine is completely off. First, she is rather unattractive, and is rendered even more so by her un-Austenlike behavior. Her looks and movements are just wacky! Plus, they're completely affected and unbelievable.<br /><br />This sad lack of acting skills affects pretty much all of the actors in the film. Not even Mr. Tilney, the supposed "dashing young suitor" is decent.<br /><br />As more and more characters are introduced, a strange taste in costumes on the part of the filmmakers becomes evident. Huge, Marie Antoinette-style headdresses clash with the (for the most part) correctly styled Empire gowns. A French woman, apparently a friend of General Tilney's, is made up all in black as some sort of ancient Goth nightmare--she bears a striking similarity to Michael Jackson in a black dress. Her appearance is made even sillier by a HUGE half-moon beauty mark on her cheek. I also had to wonder about the historical accuracy of the bright red lipstick that almost all of the women were wearing.<br /><br />Another anomaly that kept my mom and I howling with laughter for about ten minutes was the "bathing" scene. The first thing we noticed was that men and women were bathing in a big bathhouse together--probably not very likely in the early 1800s. Then we saw that all the women seemed to be wearing large china or plastic plates, worn around their necks with strings. The plates floated horizontally on the water, containing some mysterious pieces of...something. We guessed it was soap, then aromatic herbs, then finally, when the mystery substance began disappearing between shots, we deduced it was food. But I'm still not sure.<br /><br />And that's not even half of what's wrong with Northanger Abbey. My warning to anyone who is considering renting this movie: stay your hand. And if anyone is considering BUYING it--well, I don't even know what to say to that.<br /><br />You'd think that when the actors and others making this film got about 1/4 of the way through, they'd realize what a monster they were creating and stop. Unfortunately, they didn't, and Northanger Abbey was let out into the world.
This movie started off well enough, sticking to the mood of the book fairly well even if the acting was not top notch. The soundtrack was torturously bad. Saxaphone and electric guitars? It was gratingly incongruous. The female singer was positively dreary! In the second half of the film the story takes a decidedly darker turn. Too dark for Austen. Northanger Abbey is made a dark and scary place whereas in the book it was disappointingly tame and modernized to Catherine's eyes.<br /><br />Who in the heck is this Marchioness with the ghastly makeup and wig? A totally extraneous and unnecessary character.<br /><br />One of the key elements in the book is the General is not a Gothic monster like the characters in Catherine's books. His monstrosity is far more complicated in his oppression of his children's spirits and his treatment of Catherine based on money concerns alone. He does not lock up his wife or kill her but he does send Miss Morland on a 70 mile trip alone in a hired carriage with not enough money to pay her way home. Only her friend Miss Tilney's thoughtfulness in handing her some money on the way out the door saves her from being stranded. This whole point gets seriously muddled in the film. They make the General too dark from the outset.<br /><br />Peter Firth should have not sung! This part was painful to watch. His depiction of Tilney wasn't too bad but it was a shade dark in places. Henry Tilney of the book made sport of Miss Morland's imagination on trip to Northanger but he was never dark. Firth would have benefited from better direction. The young lady who played Isabella needed a better acting coach. John Thorpe was appropriately odious. The striped waistcoat and coattails combo he wore was ghastly! It certainly fit his character.<br /><br />I think the film would have fared much better with a completely different soundtrack. It cast an oppressive pall over the entire movie. If I watch it again it will be with the sound OFF and subtitles on. Perhaps I would give the film a 4 then.<br /><br />The sound quality of the DVD was quite poor. The picture quality was not much better. This is glaringly noticeable on a digital television.<br /><br />When I think of what this film could have been, I think of Persuasion with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds.
The BBC and the Arts & Entertainment Network should be ashamed of themselves for foisting this unfortunate production onto the world. The acting is, with the exception of Robert Hardy as General Tilney, amateurish at best and excruciatingly painful at worst. The costumes are over-the-top and feature some truly ghoulish excesses -- was the costume designer obsessed with feathers for women's hats? Surely EVERY woman in Bath didn't have feathers in her headpiece in the early 19th century. The production values are poor and the pacing of the film makes one feel it was hastily and clumsily edited at the last minute. Altogether an agonizing film that I had to force myself to watch to the end. It's a shame, as the producers obviously spent a lot of money on costumes and location shooting. Compared to Emma Thompson's sublime "Sense and Sensibility" or the extraordinary 1995 production of "Pride and Prejudice" or the subtle intensity of 1995's "Persuasion", this production of `Northanger Abbey' surely has Jane Austen turning in her grave.
Shaky hand held cameras (this piece was shot for television mind you, not film) not only keep you utterly conscious of how horrible the cinematography is in this film, but make you absolutely unable to become immersed in the story. Poor Miss Austen must be rolling in her grave. All I can say is, if you enjoyed the novel, stop there, until the BBC creates one of their smart & sensible period masterpieces (like Pride & Prejudice with Colin Firth, which, speaking for what I imagine in my opinion, Austen would have revered). The BBC would never dare overdub cheesy saxophone solos and Indigo Girl hollers over a shot of an historic castle and a loving embrace. Giles Foster seemed to be often confused that they were editing the music to The Specialist. If you want Austen as you love her, look for the BBC logo...
The filmmakers were clearly on drugs. That's the only explanation I have. How else do you explain this travesty of a Jane Austen adaptation? Northanger Abbey is a parody of a Gothic novel. But this film was made as if it WERE a Gothic novel. The bizarre music and dream sequences to me suggest drug-induced hallucinations rather than a naive, innocent girl with an overactive imagination, as Catherine of the novel is...<br /><br />The actress who played Catherine just stands around bug-eyed all the time. Peter Firth looks at least 10 years too old to play Henry and he actually seemed a bit on the gay side to me. I don't see the attraction between him and Catherine. John Thorpe's portrayal was rather odd but Isabella actually wasn't that bad. But nothing could save this PIECE OF CRAP movie! One more thing- This film invents a character not in the book, a French friend of General Tilney's, "The Marchioness." Why exactly they added her is beyond me. Must have been the drugs. She is scary-looking beyond belief, with white foundation, red lips and black lines randomly painted on her face (dimples?).<br /><br />You'd think this would at least be entertaining in a "so bad it's good" quality but unfortunately, it's not. It's just BAD.
Northanger Abbey is not my favorite Jane Austen novel, but it has its charms. This movie doesn't. It has some of the same character names as the book, but the story is drastically altered, and the sweetest man in the whole Austen canon (unless Emma's Mr. Knightley gets pride of place) is made out to be a heartless and mercenary creep. One or two totally extraneous characters are introduced, and a palpable air of corseted perversion hangs over it all. I was so disappointed when I first saw it on its release in 1986; even today it ranks high on the list of films that disgrace the books on which they're based. Even Robert Hardy fans should give this one a wide berth. It has nothing, and I mean N-O-T-H-I-N-G, to recommend it.
What an awful adaptation. The worst part was the music. Saxophone muzak and synthesizers playing in a story set in the early 1800's?????? The only character that didn't bore me to sleep was Robert Hardy. I had to fight to keep my eyes open on this one, and I love Jane Austen movies usually. I didn't even rent it, I borrowed it from the library. They should have paid me to take it. I don't quite understand how Catherine and Henry managed a passionate kiss at the end when throughout the movie they had no chemistry or indication whatsoever that they cared for one another. Isabella and her brother were way overdone; it was no secret to me immediately that she and her brother were the "bad guys" and part of the excitement of Jane Austen movies is the discovery that who you think is good, isn't. This is probably on my list of the ten worst movies I've seen.
I'm afraid I did not like this adaptation. When I started watching it I had a strange feeling of watching some 70s TV series, due to the filter and the musical score. I did not like the end scene. Mr Tilney appears dressed only in his waistcoat. Jane Austen would never have a gentleman ride out without a frock coat. Looks like the producers made a modern misinterpretation of a romantic girl's dream. I appreciate the more modern JA adaptations much more, that show an eye for these details, that makes the BBC series so worthwhile. Sorry, looking forward to the 2007 adaptation. I hope that will be better and will show the benefits of 20 years of Jane Austen adaptations.
Poor Jane Austen. This dog of a production does NOT do her wonderful tongue in cheek novel any justice. Starting at the top ... poorly adapted. The screenwriter deserves extra low marks for trying to -- come to think of it, I don't know WHAT she was trying for, but suffice it to say she missed the mark by light years!! Couple that with all the over-acting and awful production values, this is one adaptation that should never have happened. It would have been far better if they just gave all the money they poured into this flop and donated it to a worthy charity. Do yourself a favor, read the book. It is almost certain that you will enjoy it a thousand times more than trying to sit through this excruciating production!
(This might have a spoiler)<br /><br />When I first started watching this movie, I thought it was OK. The music was good and that bizarro dream sequence I was willing to forgive, but the lack of looks in the main character and all of the other characters for that matter made me uninterested in watching the rest of this film. (I know, totally vain.)The music at the beginning was spirited and fitting I thought for a mock Gothic novel. But, come on! Saxophone music for an early 19th century film? It totally didn't fit. This movie was totally boring and if you're looking to watch a good period film or an Austen don't rent Northanger Abbey! I give it a 30%. 30% = a failing grade!
This is a terrible movie, that is barely recognizable from the book, although they have sort of similar plots. The time it takes to watch this movie (which is only 1.5 hours) would be much better spent doing anything else, including watching grass grow. The addition of poorly done fantasy scenes make Catherine seem insufferably silly. The actress who plays Catherine also comes across ditzy as all goodness and looks constantly surprised, even when she's supposed to be looking lovingly into her Tilney's eyes. Honestly!! The movie ends with a Catherine fantasy-like scene where one can't help but wonder if it's happened or if she's merely delusional, and not in the good way that makes you think but in a perfectly horrible way that basically sums up the terrible movie. The only good thing about the movie is the title, which was written by Ms. Austen herself. I generally love the BBC's productions but this one is horrid.
It is hard for a lover of the novel Northanger Abbey to sit through this BBC adaptation and to keep from throwing objects at the TV screen-in fact, if Jane Austen herself were to see this, she would be somewhat amused and possibly put out. Maggie Wadey's adaptation has made Northanger Abbey into what it satirized, the Gothic novel (and the readers of Gothic novels).<br /><br />The role of Catherine Morland in the adaptation is portrayed fairly closely to Austen's Catherine, a open-hearted, generous girl whose imagination simply runs away with her. But the Henry Tilney of the novel is not a snuff-taking, cane-wielding, sappy-line-making hero of a Gothic novel-he is a tease, a nearly-handsome man with a messy room and a living (that's right, Henry Tilney is a clergyman, a charm that is completely dropped from the script). Some of the best scenes from novel, when Henry, completely deadpan, outrageously teases the literally-minded Catherine on diction, journals, Mrs. Radcliffe, etc., are not portrayed in the adaptation. A large section of Henry's personality is lost when those scenes are not adapted. Besides, Peter Firth's appearance is not accurate-Henry Tilney is supposed to be 24 or 25, dark hair and a brown skin, not 35 or 40 and blond.<br /><br />There are so many other absurdities within the adaptation that invoke surprise and disgust-who is the Marchioness, and what is she doing in the story?! Why is John Thorpe less of a dunce and more of a schemer? Why is Northanger Abbey a castle? Catherine of the novel, with her romantic visions, expects hidden passages and dark tapestries, but is very disappointed to discover that Northanger Abbey is actually a comfortable, modern house-another element of satire! Why portray General Tilney as a drunk? Why does Catherine have those strange visions of Mrs. Allen threading her finger, etc.? Catherine's imagination only runs away with her at Northanger, with Henry there to correct her gently. And lastly, why are so many facts concerning the Tilney family and Mrs. Tilney's death altered unnecessarily? To make the story more `horrible?' All of these oddities and more simply are too strange to be overlooked.<br /><br /> >
We really don't know where to begin when talking about this movie. But we'll start with the plot. We sincerely suspect that whomever wrote/produced/directed this movie never read the book. Because they missed the entire point. SATIRICAL, not horror. Just a hint. Second, the bath scene. Enough said. Third, the added characters. The sketchy Gothic french lady and her black page who enjoys holding hands and cartwheeling. We don't understand where this came from either. And then there was the casting. All of them were really unlikeable. We were very upset that Catherine and Mr. Tilney ended up together, because they were so unlikable that no one would ever wish to see them happy. And...the music. We think that the BBC producers ran out of money, so raided their grandmother's attic. And they found some old records. Saxophone, wailing female voices, and an occasional electric guitar. *shudder*<br /><br />Plus, the best line ever: "Since you left, the white rose bush has died of grief." If anybody has any explanation, we would love to hear it. Because it makes absolutely no sense.<br /><br />We are still wondering what on earth everyone involved was thinking when they cruelly released this pathetic excuse of a movie out on the public. We think it should be considered a federal offense. Torture is illegal.<br /><br />This movie is by far the worst we have seen to date. And I've seen a lot of movies.<br /><br />Our recommendation: Give this movie to whomever you hate. They will watch it, and want to kill themselves. And we agree with a previous post, we would give this 0 stars, if at all possible. DO NOT WATCH!! And we strongly suspect that everyone who commented so far in favor of this movie were involved in its production. Or were mentally insane. These are the only reasons we have been able to come up with that would instigate giving a favorable review.
I've seen some terrible book-to-film adaptations in my day, but this one tops them all! The bizarrely unattractive cast detracts from the story, which is, in itself, untrue to the book. Mr. Tilney is nothing like handsome; as for Catherine Morland, a rat-like appearance makes this heroine a difficult one to sell to a sympathetic audience. Isabella is nothing like the Aphrodite one reads about in the original text, and James Morland appears in the film far too little to leave the viewer with any understanding of his important role in the story. Also, as others have pointed out before, this novel was intended to satirize the Gothic craze prevalent in Austen's time, but it appears that this "soft horror" film was designed and meant to be taken seriously. I'm sure Jane Austen turns over in her grave each time one of her fans is disappointed by this awful interpretation of what was supposed to be a joke.
Awful, dreadful, terrible. The actors are bad, the music is ridiculous and the filming pathetic. I rented the DVD and had to force myself to watch it until the end.<br /><br />My advice: read the book, it is much better and you won't have to put up with all these silly images and ridiculous dreams Catherine has.<br /><br />I think I have never watched such a bad movie.
Now and again, a film comes around purely by accident that makes you doubt your sanity. We just finished studying the novel, "Northanger Abbey", at school and decided to refresh our memory of this unexciting piece of humourless garbage with the BBC adaptation.<br /><br />The funny thing about Northanger Abbey is that it actually makes you want to kill yourself. The film is NOTHING like the book, for example, the subtly evil characters seem to have been turned into transparent stereotypes. John Thorpe looks like a leprechaun on acid while Isabella plays the role of slut. Catherine, the main character, is the most depressingly stupid and irritating actress on god's earth (she looks like a coffee addict, her eyes are like basketballs) whilst Mr Tilney looks and acts like a retired porno stunt double. The plot goes completely off the rails at certain points of the film, I don't know what the hell the director was thinking when for no reason at all, a 7 year old black kid who we've never met before takes the main character out of the abbey and starts cartwheeling in front of her. Yes, that's right, cartwheeling. Nonsense of this kind is occasionally interrupted by Catherines "fantasies" in which she is being carried around a cathedral by an ogre.<br /><br />Northanger Abbey is basically visual euthanasia so if you want to murder your boss or something like that, BBC have basically discovered a new way to kill someone. Northanger is a barely laughably bad film. Don't watch it unless you're in a padded cell.
I watched "Fuckland" a long time ago. I lied if I'd tell that I remember it in detail; what I remember most vividly is the irritation it provoked me and the feeling of a total waste of precious money and time, not only my time and money invested in watching the movie but also the director's.<br /><br />Supposedly, "Fuckland" is a critic of Argentinians, presenting us (I'm an Argentinian too) as little people who take credit for and even boast about petty, ridiculous victories, and think we're the best thing that God (who is also an Argentinian) created. I'm not going to argue that. It's probably a true statement about a quite big part of the population (the part I despise, by the way). And even if this weren't true, that's not my point. The worst sin "Fuckland" committed was to express such a statement about its own director.<br /><br />The continuous impression I received was that the director was too busy trying to impress us for sneaking a camera inside the islands to worry about making a good (even a mediocre) movie. Many of the takes made with a hidden camera are pointless. The director chooses to show off with a silly edition of old war takes and his own ones. And there's no plot at all.<br /><br />Moreover, this movie proudly presents a Dogme certificate before the opening titles, only to disrespect its principles afterwards (for example, by including the director in the credits - another sign of his pride?).<br /><br />I found the movie offensive, not as an Argentinian, but as a watcher. I felt underestimated. "Fuckland" is simply one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
I will confess that once I started watching this movie, it had a hold on me that forced me to watch it through to its conclusion. Quite possibly this was some latent voyeuristic tendency in me that wanted to see our hero get it on with his victim, or maybe fascination that they got funding to make, distribute, and show this film that kept me searching it for merit, or possibly some bizarre wish-fulfillment fantasy that there might be a point at the end of all the pain. But no such luck.<br /><br />So you are warned to not start watching it in the first place, lest the same thing happen to you. There's nothing here worth wasting your hour and a half on.<br /><br />The first-person mockumentary and the schtick about Fabian's "quest" to impregnate women of the Falklands comes out even more like a sophomoric (maybe Freshman - high school Freshman, that is) film student project than you might imagine. The effect ends up being both sneering at the local inhabitants (who, other than the two professional leads, are in fact real people) as well as engaging in rather disgusting sexual politics (no matter whether you take it all literally or symbolically, it's pointless and sexist).<br /><br />The reason I ended up watching it all the way is the same reason that once one starts to pick at a scab, there's an irresistable fascination of continuing to do so until it's completely off, even when you know it's bad for you. You just want to see what happens.<br /><br />In the end, this is rather dishonest filmmaking, because it seems ultimately to have no moral center, no elucidation of the local political situation, nor any place in the type of political-sexual-personal film universe a la Goddard. In short it's got nothing to say and spends a long time pretending it does. Smug would be the one-word tagline.<br /><br />I'd suggest the filmmakers rent 'Waiting for Guffman' a few times, or hell, even 'Blair Witch Project' if they want to pursue the schtick with a little more style and a little more genuine emotion. Or at least entertainment value.
The preposterous premise of this flick has to do with Argentina reclaiming the Falkland Islands, having failed through force in 1982, by impregnating the European women inhabitants with Argentinean sperm thereby diluting the ethnic purity until it favored Argentina. Yeah, right. The reconnaissance is done by our hero/villan and cad, Fabian, who hauls his fish-eye camcorder from pillar to post secretly filming his encounters with the Falklanders including his courting and eventual conquest of one woman, Camilla. An unfortunate indie and fraudulent documentary, this flick favors us with lots of boring tourism shot from the hip....yada, yada, yada. The film has no plot potential and only begins to become interesting as Fabian and Camilla wend their way through the usual moments of awkwardness and uncertainty as they get from the handshake to the bed. "F*ckland" is only for those cinema purists who can appreciate the bleak, no frills, jigglecam austerity of Dogme indies.
This is an absolutely horrid excuse for a show. People say its witty and intelligence? I don't see how? Maybe because the characters use fancy words? Maybe because they are snooty, use dry humor, and have 2 dimensional personalities. I went to an Ivy league school and nobody acted anywhere near as obnoxious as these characters. In fact had I met someone like them I would have likely strangled them! The men act like little emotional pre-teen girls and all the minority characters are based off stereotypes... The characters are no AT ALL AUTHENTIC. Simply put they sound like a trailer park family trying to be rich and sophisticated. This show is just another cookie-cutter hit that brain-dead prime time viewers eat up on a regular basis.
Usually when I don't see a show on an original run, I find it later on cable and realize it's a gem. The "Gimore Girls" is one of those rare exceptions. I'm glad I missed it.<br /><br />I truly despise shows that fill every minute of the actors space with rambling, stupid, boring banter. This is one hour of just that. The mother, Lorelei, made me wonder if she is Bipolar and off her lithium. She never stopped talking; every minute, every second, talking to every person she interacted with. Worse yet, her speech is childish and soooo, like, Valley Girl. She talked about guys, her hair, her mother, her clothes. Like, what's the sitch?? (for situation). I've watched this show three times and still don't get the point of this series. It's not a comedy, it's not a drama, it has no point except to make three generations of females in one family look like the "Girls" from Planet Mars. The males by comparison are smart and make the show somewhat watchable. If Lorelei ever existed and attempted to latch onto me with conversation, I'd have to mace her to get rid of her. She obviously doesn't know how to take a subtle hint to stop talking and start listening to someone else. She also doesn't know how to really notice the existence of others.<br /><br />In one show Lorelei comes home from a date close to 10 pm. She got the date after pursuing a guy she met at an auction. She goes into her daughter's room where the daughter asks how it went. She dithers on about how boring the guy was. Her date somehow got a few words in edgewise. Lorelei complained about how the man didn't stop talking (choke). Hopefully the date learned how fortunate he was.<br /><br />One other person here commented on how the mother acts like a teen and the daughter is the adult personality. Lorelei even dresses like her kid. This obviously 40-something mom dresses and looks like she hit the mall with her high school pals in tow.<br /><br />I thought that this show should have been followed by "Just Shoot Me," because that's exactly how I felt.
I tired on several attempts to sit down and watch this program "Gilmore Girls". It baffled me for I just couldn't put my finger on what this was about. Was this about a young woman having a baby young in life and never growing up? Was this about the daughter being more responsible than the mother? Was this about a rebellious rich girl and her non-rebellious daughter? What the heck is this show about? Finally, I just didn't care. The cast makes me want to scream. The writing is neither "smart" or "intelligent" it's syrupy and tedious.<br /><br />So why did I watch? Because I heard SO many good things about this and I am not one to voice an opinion until I have watched. Knee-Jerk reactions are usually wrong, so I watched a few times. The first time I watched this, I saw the mother running around like she was 12 and the daughter acting like she was 40. Maybe that is what didn't attract me. I never liked any of the "Freaky Friday" films - not to say this is like that, but there are some similarities. <br /><br />Also I have a friend who watches this show every week. So I asked her, "What is this show about?" A very bright young lady, usually articulate she never could give me a straight answer. So I asked others who rave about it - they really don't know either.<br /><br />Gilmore Girls is turning out to be a TV program that's like an "art house movie". Many of us wont get it, but those that go try desperately to find a meaning where there really isn't one, just to be "hip." Yes, I find Lauren Graham's Lorelai annoying - whine, whine, nasally WHINE. A whole hour of that. Wow. And the rest of the cast is about as memorable as yesterday's cheese sandwich. The town is hokey, the men are wimps, the grand parents are boring, and sadly I find nothing redeeming about any of these characters or care about anything they do. It's like watching paint dry on the wall.
When I first watch this series, the impression I got was that the characters were charming and funny, Lorelai and Rory in particular were witty and intelligent conversationalist albeit a bit too talkative. After watching it for some time, however, my opinion changed.<br /><br />The main characters slowly revealed themselves to be self-centered self-obsessed narcissists, who treated tiny wounds to their pride as the worst insults in their existence. For example, Rory wouldn't speak to her mother for months when Lorelai didn't consult her on her impulsive marriage, while Lorelai dumped Luke for simply wanting a little time to adjust to his new life circumstances. These people are shallow, see themselves as the center of the universe where everyone else should behave exactly according to how their own rigid rules, and if they don't, they will hold grudges against them for an eternity. They don't want to see other people's problems and treat the smallest slight as the gravest offence. Most of the characters appear to lack the ability to behave in a grown-up way. They think they should do whatever that they wanted and everyone else be damned.<br /><br />The series is character-based, so when the main characters became so unlikeable the show also became impossible to watch. I still have the rest of the series, but I doubt if I will ever finish watching them. I will also hold anyone who think highly of the show and its awful characters with the greatest suspicion - they must just as horrid as Lorelai et al.
I decided to watch this show and give it a go but I found it to be boring, and more importantly dull.....Dull.<br /><br />There is far too much sarcasm and the characters are all dull, there is far too much talking and the character Lorelai...just keeps talking on and on and on.... During a second glance felt like suffocating the characters, the banter doesn't work and the whole love and romance thing just ruins what is already a crap show....I can't believe this show survived past the pilot.... This seems to be a show which forces the 'Listen to your parents' line....No actual drama exists....<br /><br />Should have stayed a pilot.....and a pilot alone...
It's been mentioned by others the inane dialogue in this series and I agree.<br /><br />If Mom and daughter were really that sharp-witted they should be Queen and Princess of the Universe, not kicking around in some little town.<br /><br />I've really tried to watch a few episodes but when the witty staccato mumbling pop culture drivel starts I flip the channel.<br /><br />I watched a bit of a new episode to see if anything had changed (for the better I'd hoped) but nope, same old "we're so clever with our references to pop culture" that I nearly barfed.<br /><br />Long time fans who aren't happy with the newer seasons might just be wising up and getting sick of the regurgitated pablum that never stops.
This is one of four 1970s movies by TV writer Lane Slate about sensationalistic murders in small towns. They feature likable TV personalities as police chiefs and quirky characters as town regulars, including light-touch love interests. The others are: They Only Kill Their Masters (James Garner, 1972); and The Girl In The Empty Grave and Deadly Game (both Andy Griffith, 1977).<br /><br />Alda's is set near Vermont ("Mount Angel" next to "Horse Creek"); the others in California, Garner's at seaside ("Eden Landing") and Griffith's in the mountains ("Jasper Lake"). All try to capture the feel of a small town, to move at a relaxed pace among comfortable characters, and to tell a mystery with at least some complicated twist or turn to it. On that level, they are somewhat entertaining (that they were often re-run itself suggests they have some appeal). But they suffer from overall thin stories and dialogue, slack pacing, bland settings, flat or exaggerated characters, and off-putting, forced attempts (often juvenile or crude) at color or humor.<br /><br />Alda's and Garner's are the most serious about story, characters, pacing, and tone. They have the best supporting casts, though Alda's is put to better use; the Griffith casts pale in comparison. Alda's has the best director.<br /><br />"Shocking" has some surprise and drama. The killer's method is inventive. The tone is more even, and the dialogue more natural, than in Griffith's. Alda's film does not suffer like the others from smug big-city transplants to the town or from hokey, exaggerated local characters, both of which come across as figments of a Hollywood scriptwriter, not as genuine (the worst offender is the Griffith movies' pipsqueak, mumbling moron "Whit," who, we are told, tried to hook a jeep up to and make off with a trailer serving as a temporary bank branch, dragged away the dock for the police boat, stole tomatoes from a farmer's truck only to get nothing for them, and filled out $11 on the withdrawal slip of "Spiro T. Babylis" only to be discovered by the teller). Mercifully absent is the clunky, heavy-handed repetitive-style dialogue from the Griffith movies ("You going to lunch?" "I'm going to take out the boat." "You going to take the boat to lunch?" "I'm not going to lunch." "You're not going to take the boat to lunch?"; "There aren't any fish in this lake. Why are you fishing here?" "It's illegal in Horse Mountain." "It's posted here too, you're breaking the law." "Some law. There aren't any fish in this lake." "Then why are you fishing here?" "I told you, it's illegal in Horse Mountain."; "Please call me Lloyd. My name is Lloyd." "Okay, Lloyd..." "Call me Lloyd. That's my name. My name is Lloyd.")<br /><br />But Alda is too low-key and unimpressive to be taken seriously as even a small-time police chief, certainly not a red-hot lawman in demand by a rival town. Slate has the character admit as much, when he comes late to the scene of a by then obvious clue, as a result of an accidental name recognition. Rather than detect or investigate, Barnes strikes out blindly in emotional denial. His secretary Lasser feeds him a key clue ("Why didn't I think of that," he says!). An embarrassing funeral scene, plus a plot contrivance, leads to another gift clue.<br /><br />Worse, Barnes is more interested in deriding the military-style helmets of the county police sent to help him (Deadly Game also suggests Slate has something against the military) than leading them or his own men effectively. He allows a late murder by incompetently guarding a known target. Barnes allows his car to be repeatedly rammed by the killer fleeing one crime scene, without drawing his gun or trying to take control. Again, he is ineffective, and nearly killed, in the climactic scene, which results from multiple errors on his part that are only partially corrected, by accident. The erratic Northeastern accent that Alda affects does not help believability.<br /><br />There are plot holes. Why would the killer strike after all these years? And committing the first two murders without a trace seems implausible. But they are nothing compared to later ones -- a couple together, a shopkeeper in his store during business hours, a fully clothed deputy seated in his office and, unbelievably, his dog!<br /><br />Alda's movie also suffers from some offensive elements that Slate injects into all the movies. Barnes first appears in a motel clerk's bed. He then treats her rudely at every turn and insults and tries to avoid her kids. This, and talk about the female doctor, smack of a crude, mean-spirited pattern (Garner's film has been described as "sleazy," including a scene where he and a deputy laugh about how a girl in the back seat of a car that hit a bump in the road had part of her anatomy bitten off by a guy in the car with her. Griffith's feature an ersatz Ropers routine, in which the woman embarrassingly tries to coax the man into "the supply closet"; a gratuitous locker-room-type exchange with a deputy in discussing a young woman's car accident death ("Did you take her out?" "I took her in once."); a reference to bank teller "Bernice" as "swollen-up in places" and to "sticking a pin in" her and to "hating" and firing secretary "Maude" because she was "too hairy"; a description of the female doctor's practice as "two stirrup tables and a flashlight"; a humiliating scene in which Fran Ryan propositions Griffith, offering "some home grown"; and an insulting subplot in which a woman, pursued by a deputy played as a drippy buffoon, seems to "sleep around").<br /><br />Finally, Alda's film has a grim, bleached-out, colorless, lifeless look and feel. Only Louise Lasser adds spark. At least the other films had some spirit, scenery, and pleasant music; Griffith's got out onto the mountainside, onto the lake, and even out into the big city. You feel more like re-watching Masters or Empty Grave than Shocking.
at first i thought 'nasaan ka man' might be one of those progressive new filipino films. as someone noted earlier, the movie does not look poorly made. it's clear that the directors used more expensive cameras to shoot, better angles, better sound equipment, good-looking actors, and nicer locations.<br /><br />however, the improvements are all purely superficial. if it weren't for all the polish and expensive filters, 'nasaan ka man' would feel just like your typical, second-rate local movie - - hyperactive drama, predictable plot twists, "yeah right!" moments, crying, screaming, and characters you could care less about, all shoved down your throat.<br /><br />a couple of things annoyed me about this movie. first of all, since when is it okay to have sex with adopted family? that not-blood-related argument does not make an ounce of difference. second, would a woman really not tell anyone for 40 years that she was raped, simply because the father told her to keep it secret? and, where the hell were the lights in this movie? i know the director tried to make things look super dramatic, but i was simply forced to turn up the brightness feature on my TV set.
Derek Jarman has shown us time and time again that dialog is not his strong suit. He is a painter, and paint he does. His films are almost always visually splendid, but about as exciting to watch as paint that is already dry. Watch his movies in fast forward, the really fast setting that you can only get on DVD. In The Tempest, Jarman does very little with the script or the characters, using them as simply a lattice to hang a very long and well-constructed cinematographic frame. He even goes so far as to contradict Shakespeare's original script to achieve these excrucriatingly slow and lifeless scenes. There is none of the romance, magic, trickery, or urgency the script calls for, little spontaneity, and the character of Caliban in particular is reduced to a quivering and insane idiot of sorts, similar to Gaveston in Jarman's Edward II. It is too bad that this is just about the only film version of The Tempest available.
I was loaned this DVD by the director of a film I am working with, in which I play an actor who is playing Prospero. Knowing his own style, I did not expect anything resembling a "classical" interpretation of the text.<br /><br />What I have found is sometimes striking, sometimes evocative, but often meandering and tedious. Like most experimental music, I find that in films such as this, the building blocks of powerful film-making are crafted, even if they have not found their most useful form in a more coherent format.<br /><br />Thus we have a Caliban who is more a clown than a threat, and who not even Miranda seems terribly afraid of (which is odd, since we know that he has attempted to rape her at least once). A Stefano and Trinculo who are more annoying than funny. An oddly young Prospero who looks like Amadeus. And a great loss of character development and plot through creative editing and highly stylized posturing.<br /><br />Interestingly enough, I do not have an issue with the way in which Ferdanand or Miranda are portrayed. His stunned rapture and her slightly freaky innocence are actually quite appropriate.<br /><br />I do not say that this is a bad film, but an experimental one. One that takes huge risks, but is meant more for students of art and film and not really for anyone with an interest in the Tempest for its own sake.
This was an interesting adaption of William Shakespeare's last known solo play but in my humble opinion, a terrible one. Jarman tries to change the personalities of the characters for a start. He makes Miranda seem insane after being stuck on the island for so long, Prospero is no different - a mix of madness and self-pity on his part. I could not imagine Shakespeare thinking his characters to be anything like the way Jarman portraits them.<br /><br />Caliban's appearance is maybe the only thing he got right, but then again, I was under the impression that Caliban was a tormented, deformed monster but turns out to be an insane rambling, northerner who is constantly cackling, not as I would have imagined him. Ferdinand makes a brief appearance, naked most the time and quiet.<br /><br />In fact, to the point I stopped watching this awful adaption, their had been so many lines cut from the play. If anything, I think Jarman was trying to re-write Shakespeare and include his own scenes most the time. So much text is cut out in the first part it makes it not a Shakespeare play, but a load of 70's melodramatic, preposterous rubbish.<br /><br />An attempt to interpret this play more realistically in the end, but this play was never a realistic one and it was made nothing like the text displays it to be.
I have read all of Shakespeare's plays, seen productions of a majority of them and even acted in and directed some. I do not necessarily believe that Shakespeare must be done in the "traditional" fashion, but I hated this movie.<br /><br />There is nudity that is gratuitous and unnecessary. There is grotesqueness that is far beyond what I believe Shakespeare intended. Some of the dialogue is incomprehensible, and there are those elements, like the singing and dancing that add no meaning to the movie, but replace Shakespeare with the director's self-indulgences.<br /><br />I am sorry to say that I wasted perfectly good money to buy the DVD of this movie.
This movie was recommended to me by some academics. From their comments, I had some pretty lofty expectations. But this movie was nothing but disappointing. The aim of the director is obvious--to use an interweaving of speeches/poems as a way to argue against the Bush doctrine. But the director fails miserably at this. Also I seriously question the director's choice of main character. It's a bum who is definitely not worthy of being heard. The rise of corporation power, so what? Most importantly, this movie gets a failing score in its persuasive power; it's clearly intended for those who've already formed their opinions. It's true that the movie's aesthetics are quite pleasing. But pretty much everything else in the movie simply sucks.
Despite the fact that the plot follows the well-known recipe of "who did it", which has characterised all the Perry Mason movies so far, the characters of the present film are not so well-developed and the selected cast fails to give them flesh and blood. Of course, in general, the Perry Mason movies are not significant, but, even for their low standards, this one is weak.
Of all of the post-1985 Perry Mason movies I have seen, this one is my least favorite.<br /><br />I confess I have never liked Diana Muldaur as an actress. She only seems to know how to play one type of character - a hard-bitten career woman with some undefined chip on her shoulder who for that reason is extremely difficult to in any way sympathize with. This one is no exception - it runs true to form.<br /><br />The only thing that saves this movie, in my opinion, is an earnest performance by Scott Baio as the prosecutor - I actually found myself rooting for him to win, and the movie is worth seeing for him alone.
"People stranded in a country house during a storm discover that the home was the sight of an unsolved murder years before. During a dinner discussion of the incident, the lights go out and, when they come back on, they discover that one of the guests has been killed. Fearing for their lives, the guests attempt to find out the secrets behind the death before others can occur," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />There are a couple of clever twists in this murder at the "Old Dark House" story, with the "Play within a Play" being its most interesting feature. However, the direction is rather ordinary, which serves to highlight a certain cheapness of production. Like most movies of this type, there is (or, should be) an ensemble of intriguing characters. Herein, only old-time Broadway producer Richard Carle (as Herman Wood) and his fey secretary Johnny Arthur (as Homer Erskine) maintain interest.<br /><br />**** The Ghost Walks (12/1/34) Frank R. Strayer ~ Richard Carle, Johnny Arthur, John Miljan
I find Herzog's documentary work to be very uneven. Fata Morgana, a companion piece of sorts to Lessons of Darkness, lacks not only the harrowing spectacle but mostly the discerning eye of an author. It is by comparison amateur looking, aimless pans left and right across the desert the kind of which you would expect from any German tourist equipped with a handycam, the camera left running from the window of a car picking up all kinds of meaningless images, wire fences, derelict buildings and patches of dirt going through the lens in haphazard order, intercut with shots of sand dunes. At one point Herzog encounters a group of starved cattle rotting away in the sand, yet the image is presented much like you and me would, perhaps worse, the camera peering hand-held from one cattle to the next. For a documentary that attempts to be a visual feast, a hypnotic, surreal excursion in uncharted landscapes, it lacks the visual orchestration and conviction of a disciplined author. It's all over the place, half-hearted and tedious, Mayan creation myths recited in voice-over, then some other text Herzog fancied for literature. It's not until near the end that Fata Morgana jumps alive through a series of bizarre encounters. First with a man and a woman playing music in a room, the man singing in a distorted voice through a mic, both of them apathetic in their task. A man holding up a turtle. A group of old people trying to get out of some holes in the ground. Other than that, this one seems to have very little of substance to offer or visual splendor to offer.
This is not a movie. This is a collection of random shots taken in a fascinating part of the world, dubbed over with some random text. The footage is not that great and the text is not that great either. The end product is excruciatingly dull.<br /><br />On the DVD, turning the commentary on can provide some entertainment value, as the director makes a rather deranged argument that this is a sci-fi movie. It's also fascinating to read about the extraordinary risks and hardship that the crew endured to collect this footage. Too bad it's rubbish. But I think "The Making of Fata Morgana" would be a fascinating film, sort-of like 'Ed Wood" was.
Released at a time when Duvivier was going again from strength to strength ."Black Jack" which was sandwiched between the overlooked extraordinary "Au Royaume des Cieux" and the dazzling stunning "Sous Le Ciel de Paris" , is a jumble,which Duvivier himself hated,which is not surprising.There's almost nothing to write about this dud.We can notice that: <br /><br />1.Orson Welles used to admire Duvivier .That may explain why Wellesian actors were featured in Duvivier's movies :Joseph Cotten in "Lydia" (1941) ,and here a totally wasted Agnes Moorehead .It's the first time<br /><br />I have not enjoyed Moorehead's performance!On the other hand,Welles borrowed his Desdemona (Suzanne Cloutier) from Duvivier's "Au Royaume des Cieux" for his "Othello".<br /><br />2.In any Duvivier's movie,there's one or two worthwhile sequences and this one is no exception: the search in the caves where Duvivier's sense of mystery works wonders (for a short while);then the chase when Dalio gets caught up in the fishnets.Duvivier's touch can be felt in the unhappy end too.<br /><br />As for the rest ,as my dear pen pal writer's reign writes,it's a black joke.
OK so it's not great either, but only because of how great Laurel and Hardy have been in the past. If this film received a total overhaul, with picture quality enhanced, add new dubbing to the badly dubbed voices and added a nice unobtrusive background music then this film would truly start to take shape. As it is, it does have it's problems. People do slate it for how old the boys look. Quel surprise! they were in their 60's and had led a 'life'. However, to me, they still came across as having bucketfulls of charm, and while this doesn't even come close to tickling the feet of their classics( I gave it a 4), it's worth a watch simply because it's them. To think otherwise would be impostorous!!
Oh, why did it have to end like this? Laurel and Hardy's last film, from the crudely cranked-up Cuckoo theme (with erroneous credit to Hal Roach) to the closing "Nice mess"/"I couldn't help it" schtick, this is the duo as a grotesque parody of themselves. In between, their relationship is now solely constructed of uncertain acting, asinine dialogue and half-hearted slapstick. People slate King of New York, but Chaplin's final bow-out was nowhere near as undignified as this.<br /><br />What really hurts to someone who loves Laurel and Hardy is the appearance of the two comedians. The video cover I'm holding shows them at their prime, all boyish smiles and glowing skin, with a blurb on the back that reads "The photograph on this sleeve is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect the content of the film." Necessarily? It doesn't even come close. The actual film sees them at least fifteen years older than the photographs that adorn the sleeve, with Ollie distressingly overweight. This is not humorously, or comically, fat, as he would normally appear, but ill looking and on the verge of obesity. He would be dead seven years after this film was made, after a series of strokes. Stan, meanwhile, suffering a prostrate problem and dysentery, looks ghoulish as his weight has plummeted drastically. Every time something bad happens to him, such as getting squashed between a lifeboat and a table, you fear for his life. Even Ollie giving him a traditional slap makes you terrified he could be killed. He would last for another fifteen years after the completion of this film, eventually passing away from a heart attack in 1965. It's upsetting to think of such cherished performers growing old and dying painful deaths. And it's distressing watching their deterioration, both in health, and in performance, on screen. When I, and, I'm sure, almost everyone else, likes to think of Laurel and Hardy, I think of Way Out West, Busy Bodies or Our Relations. Seeing them in such physical ill health and performing dire routines at the dog-end of their career is a blight on my happy memories of them.<br /><br />The warning signs are clear right from the opening credits, which list not only four writers, but also someone to come up with the concept, and a credit for "gags". So if Monty Collins was writing the "gags", then what were the other four writing? And in that case, why was Monty Collins paid a fee, given that there's no evidence of a single "gag" in the whole film? Over 40% of the movie is spent travelling to the eponymous island, during which we experience some of the most painfully unfunny scenes the boys were ever involved in. When I saw the bat scene I wanted to curl up and die, so great was its childish ineptitude. Yet what kills the film stone dead is that all of the support cast are dubbed, unable to speak English. Not only does this make the film disjointed, but also it severely depletes Stan and Ollie's reactions to their co-stars. Flatly directed with appalling film stock and absolutely atrocious editing, this totally belies the rumoured $2 million that was spent on it. Frankly, it looks terrible, and while a DVD release might clean up the picture, the sound and image quality is vastly inferior to any of their Hal Roach work.<br /><br />Stan and Ollie's "friends", Giovani and Antoine are charisma-free bores who stand out greatly against Laurel and Hardy's outdated repertoire. This is another major problem with the film, in that none of the supporting characters are funny, or keyed in to the boys' innocent mentality. The dubbed harshness shown to L & H ("you - the fat one") makes them stand out as isolated social misfits, rather than loveable sub-anarchists. There is evidence of some darker political satire - though Duck Soup this ain't - and the concept of an island with no rules is an interesting topic. Perhaps more relevant now than it ever was, a film that looks at the problems of immigration and the American constitution suddenly becomes most topical in 2003. Sadly, however, beyond an amusing scene where Stan is elected "the people", this doesn't really go anywhere. And this somewhat black humour does have its harsh edges - or is a Laurel and Hardy movie where rape is directly implied and Stan threatens a man with a bottle, only to accidentally glass someone in the face, your idea of a good time? After all the years of Stan and Ollie sharing a bed, we also get a definite reference, with Stan accidentally kissing him - Ollie wipes off the kiss in disgust. Also worrying is the implication that Stan and Ollie's illegal immigrant friend, Antoine, ends his life being eaten by a lion. Mind you, I never thought I'd see a Laurel and Hardy movie where they were due to be hanged, either. The need for the intrusive and unfunny narration is a further pointer to how messy the whole thing is, with the American release (the same version available on video) hacking out 16 minutes in a vain attempt to improve it.<br /><br />Almost completely unwatchable, this horrifically made, relentlessly unfunny movie serves only to tarnish the reputation of Stan and Ollie - avoid at all costs.
I just watched Atoll K-Laurel and Hardy's last movie together and known here in the states as Utopia-on Internet Archive expecting to see some extra footage since the IA version had a running time of 2 hours and 21 minutes. Turns out that it's basically the same version I previously watched on the bargain basement VHS tape from Goodtimes Home Video that ran an hour and 23 minutes (with the exception of no product placement of the Welch's Grape Juice label being inserted when a bottle was shown) with the rest of the running time devoted to dark blank space. While Stan does look like he might be dying anytime soon, he still performs fine physical comedy with Ollie during much of the first 45 minutes or so. Then the plot of taking a yacht with a stowaway and a man with no country aboard-not to mention a charming female French singer also coming to inhabit an uncharted island they all end up on-takes over with eventual complications that pretty much bogs the comedy down and never really recovers despite the familiar ending of Ollie saying for the last time to Stan, "Here's another nice mess you've gotten me into!" before Stan cries uncontrollably before the fade out. In other words, if you're a die-hard Laurel and Hardy fan, this movie is recommended for you to see at least once. Anyone else wanting to get familiar with this classic comedy team should seek their earlier work they did for Hal Roach from the '20s up through 1940 when they completed their final Roach film, Saps at Sea. Come to think of it, even some of the L & H Fox flicks (have yet to see the two they made for M-G-M) from the '40s are better than this one...Update-8/29/09: Just watched some missing scenes that appeared in the Italian version on YouTube. Cherie sings in one and has a conversation with the Captain. In another, that Captain's wife pulls a gun on Cherie. In one more, Giovanni explains why he left his country with a flashback scene. Stan is dubbed in high pitch here!
This movie was difficult for me to watch. Stan looked very old and ill compared to what I remembered, and Ollie was heavier than I ever recall in another film. Most difficult though were gaps in the script/production where I found myself wondering, "How did they get from here to there???" It took nearly half the film before I could deal with the dubbing of non-American actors -- that was also a distraction.<br /><br />Although I miss great actors such as Laurel and Hardy -- will there ever be great actors like those of the old studio era??? -- this film helps me understand why actors sometimes "bow out" in their prime.
When the movie begins, it's obvious just how old and sick the boys are. Although Oliver Hardy is enormous, it is Stanley that looks like death warmed over. Apparently, he was deathly ill during production and had obviously lost a lot of weight. Although he would eventually recover and live another decade and a half, here he looks like a dying man. Additionally, as I watched the film I was shocked how many pratfalls Stan took--I half expected his to drop dead from the exertion. I really can't understand WHY they came out of retirement considering their health--especially when the story and production values are as poor as they are with this film. <br /><br />Stanley inherits an island and a boat. He and Ollie are ready to leave when Antoine, a stateless man, is literally dropped into their boat and they begin their voyage to find the island. Along the way, they discover that Giovanni has stowed away, but despite this the four men become friends and land on a different island. It seems like paradise and they are all very happy. A bit later, a pretty young lady joins them and everything looks grand.<br /><br />Unfortunately, uranium is discovered on the island and the place becomes flooded with riffraff. Eventually, the mob decides to hang the four men and take over--at which point the island sinks back into the sea and the men are spared.<br /><br />I will give the film some credit for being original and for being interesting. However, one thing it is not is FUNNY--and that is unforgivable for a Laurel and Hardy flick. While not a bad film, it certainly isn't a good one. A sad end to their brilliant careers.<br /><br />All the actors, except for the duo, are dubbed into English, as the movie was made in France. While it may not be the very worst film they made (this would be THE BIG NOISE), it sure is close!! Watching this film is painful and like watching people clean up after a severe accident.
"Atoll K" aka "Utopia" is one of Hollywood's saddest swan songs. Filmed in France, "The Land That Loves Lewis (Jerry)" in 1950 and released the following year after a five-year layoff, the boys are in truly terrible shape physically. However, they aren't in nearly as bad a shape as the script.<br /><br />This movie is one of the un-funniest "comedies" ever filmed.<br /><br />It's painful to see this legendary team, the funniest duo in the history of motion pictures, the twosome that made "The Devil's Brother" (1933), "The Music Box," (1932),"Pack Up Your Troubles" (also 1932), "Babes In Toyland" (1934), "Bonnie Scotland" (1935), "Flying Deuces" (1939) and so many more gut-wrenching, laugh-til-you-choke classic comedies, in a film such as this.<br /><br />But fighters and ballplayers do it all the time. They stay in the game one season or one fight too many. In this case, while is morbidly fascinating to see Laurel & Hardy at this late stage in their legendary careers, they, too, stuck around for one too many.
First, let me start by saying that I am a Laurel and Hardy buff. I have read every book printed about them, and have seen all of their available films more than once. I even took a chance once, and called Stan on the telephone. He was very kind, and spoke with me for over ten minutes. I followed with a letter, and he wrote me a letter back. I still have that letter.<br /><br />This film has some fine comedy moments, but Stan and Ollie are not up to their usual form. Stan was gravely ill during the production and looked worse than he did ten years later. In my opinion, any Laurel and Hardy film is worth seeing.<br /><br />But the Ultimate opinion of this film comes from the great Stan Laurel himself. To quote him, "This film should never have been made."
I never want to see this movie again!<br /><br />Not only is it dreadfully bad, but I can't stand seeing my hero Stan Laurel looking so old and sick.<br /><br />Mostly I can't stand watching this terrible movie!<br /><br />Frankly, there is no reason to watch this awful film. The plot is just plain stupid. The actors that surround Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are really really bad and Laurel and Hardy have been funnier in any of their earlier films! <br /><br />I warn you don't watch it, the images will haunt you for a long while to come!
I could almost wish this movie had not been made. Stan Laurel was dying, and it shows in his face, even more angular and gaunt than usual. A poor script, and inept supporting cast.
This is one of the worst films i've ever seen, don't watch it even if your life depends on it.<br /><br />This Laurel and Hardy film is when they inherit an island, become shipwrecked and are set to be hung. An incredibly boring film that is no where near funny.<br /><br />This was the last Laurel and Hardy film and what a very low note to end such a superb career. The 40's films weren't great, this film was made in 1950. If you want to remember Laurel and Hardy, remember them in their prime, the 1930's. The short talking films are better than the feature length films, my favourite is "Me and My Pal". Another reason this film is awful is because it's dubbed. The actor opens there mouth and the words come out three days later. Absoulutley crap, but let's end on a high note, Laurel and Hardy have been, in my opinion, the best double act ever.
"Riders of Destiny" was the first of several westerns Wayne made for the Lone Star arm of Monogram Pictures between 1933 and 1935. In this entry, the producers try to make the Duke into a singing cowboy called "Singin' Sandy Saunders with hilarious results. Any Wayne fan knows that the Duke couldn't have carried a tune if his life had depended on it. His voice was apparently dubbed by Smith Ballew whose deep baritone sounds nothing like Wayne. Wayne looks awkward and uncomfortable in "performing" the musical numbers. Thank heavens the singing cowboy experiment soon ended.<br /><br />As for the movie itself, it contains a standard "B" western plot of the fight over water rights between the villain (Forrest Taylor) and the local ranchers. Duke, of course plays the hero. He had not yet developed his on screen character and still looked like a poverty row cowboy.<br /><br />Also cast in the film were George (pre-Gabby) Hayes as the heroine's father, Cecilia Parker as the heroine and Yakima Canutt as "one of the boys" who performs his "falling from the racing horses under the wagon" stunt while doubling Wayne. Both Canutt and Hayes would go on to appear with Wayne in most of the other entries in the series. Canutt, in particular would have a profound effect on Wayne's future development teaching him, among other things, how to move, fight and look comfortable on a horse.<br /><br />As "B" westerns go this one isn't too bad, however, I have to give it a failing grade because of the "singing".
Not the best of the Lone Star series, but it moves along quickly with good performances. <br /><br />Introduced as "Singin' Sandy" in the main title, John Wayne as a 'singing cowboy' isn't successful-- you never even see a front close-up of him while he's 'singing.' The actual singer is the director's son, Bill Bradley, who warbles away sounding like many popular singers of the day such as Hutch or Joseph Wagstaff. <br /><br />The film features: Cecilia Parker (also seen in "The Lost Jungle" serial, "Tombstone Canyon," and as older sister Marian in the Andy Hardy movies) doing her best Katherine Hepburn-- "Really they mustn't; really I'm not"; Al St. John, before he literally became "Fuzzy" filling all his available screen time with his characteristic business of hat flipping, head and chin scratching, grimacing, and gawky physical gestures and movements; George (pre-Gabby) Hayes as a gentle pipe smoking father; and Forrest Taylor, minor vet of 395 movies and TV shows, playing the oily villain with string bow tie and prop cigar. <br /><br />Fun or odd moments: Yakima Canutt's great 'under the stagecoach' trick; the 'gay' scene when Singin' Sandy ties Bert and Elmer together face to face, drags them roped to his horse, and dumps them at Kincaid's office, where Kincaid says, "You're a fine pair of lovebirds!"; Denton's rapturous comment after an atrocious song and guitar playing performance by 'Sandy,' -- "Ummm. I could listen to that all night!"; Kincaid's reply, We won't go into that," after being told by a rancher "You've got the soul of a snake!"; and, of course, he utters the immortal, "I've made Denton an offer he can't refuse." <br /><br />The plot of the movie is saved by Sandy's tricking Kincaid, and later saying the three magic words in many of these films: "I'm from Washington." FDR has saved us from the Depression! (Is that why the villains are always either bankers or in real estate?) <br /><br />The shootout sequence is taken from the earlier Bradbury film "Man from Hell's Edges" (1932). All of the Lone Star westerns are special because of their unique mixture of interesting characters, the troupe of actors and stunt people, and the spin on the clichés and repetitive back stories and situations. This one ranks a little low, marred by the inappropriate and mis-used "Singing Cowboy" gimmick. I'll give it a 4.
I'm in a film class and i know that i don't know everything about film but truthfully this is one of the worst, stupidest, retarded and waste time, movies that i have ever seen and i saw NAPOLEAN DINAMITE. they are both equally terrible. Conrack is boring and nothing interesting even happens in the film its not really a heart warming story and Pat Conroy overcomes nothing! I'm not saying there should be fighting and crap blowing up but it would liven up this more than bland film. the kids they fond to act in this film may have been the real kids from yammacraux island they sounded stupid and couldn't act as as far as i am concerned this was a stupid idea for a book and an even worse idEa fOr a movie I don't know why this movie was even made, deviantly top five worst movies of all time.
I really enjoy this genre but The Cell was one of the worst movies I've ever been unfortunate enough to watch. While about 25 percent of my audience wandered in and out of the theater during the viewing (or left entirely) I was dumb enough to stick it out. The main problems with this story (there were too many to list all) is that with this type of film you have to do two things... one, provide fear of the killer (being that they catch him twenty minutes into the film that's gone) and you must give the victim whose life is at stake (the girl in the tank) enough character development that you actually care whether they get to her in time or not. Not only did I lose track of the girl, I was given such little insight into her that she was only a blurry face and when I did remember she was part of the story I really didn't care what happened to her. While the visuals were interesting in an LSD flashback sort of way, they often times made no sense and this should be a lesson that visuals can't make up for lack of a good story (see Phantom Menace for another example) Finally, does anyone know or care what was up with the women kneeling in that field and staring at the sky? Ridiculous.
As I said the idea itself was great and it had plenty potential. I was truly sad of discovering that this was another typical American mass movie: "We are in this for the money..." If only the producers had had more time to actually MAKE the movie. This one was not finished when they let it out...
If you like to watch movies because they are pretty, you should be okay with this one. If you like to watch movies that start out with a good guy trying to catch a bad guy, then reveal clues to the motives of each throughout the movie, skip it. At the end of the movie i still didn't know why Stargher killed the women the way he did. When you set up such a ritualistic serial killer it would be nice to know where the rituals originated from. In Dreams was a similar pretty movie with a serial killer which also wasn't the best, but at least the whys of how he killed the girls was explained. They also hinted at a dark background for Vaughn's character but didn't explain, didn't really say why Lopez's child psychologist was so much better suited for this task than the rest of the people they interviewed, didn't give much of an explanation for the little kid's problem, etc. If the rest of the story is compelling, I don't care about details like how Stargher afforded all the fancy electronic equipment and underground chambers or why the FBI wasn't checking to see if he owned any other property or had access to out of the way places while they were waiting to see if the whole entering the killer's mind thing would work, but I do like to have a sense of what motivates the serial killer in a serial killer movie when he kills in such a complex manner.
I love exotic science fiction/fantasy movies but this one was very unpleasant to watch. Suggestions and images of child abuse, mutilated bodies (live or dead), other gruesome scenes, plot holes, boring acting made this a regretable experience, The basic idea of entering another person's mind is not even new to the movies or TV (An Outer Limits episode was better at exploring this idea). i gave it 4/10 since some special effects were nice.
Why do the powers that be continue to cast Jennifer Lopez in unbelievable roles? She was excellent in Selena, and pretty good in Money Train, which both cast her in roles where she could basically be herself. However, roles like this just draw the line. I could never see Lopez as an FBI agent (see Out of Sight for that unremarkable performance), but as a psychotherapist? Give me a break!<br /><br />Basically, Lopez plays the aforementioned psychotherapist, who is involved in virtual reality experiments in which she enters the minds of her patients in order to help them sort out their issues. When she enters the mind of a comatose serial killer to help save one of his victims, she breaks all the rules to try and crack the insanity of his inner mind.<br /><br />Lopez's acting here is typically below average. I can't get over that high-pitched squeak of a voice she has. She's no Julia Roberts, but yet she comes across on screen as though she believes herself to be on the same playing field. Well, she's not even in the same stadium. Sure, she is a very sexy lady; however, that isn't going to carry a film, and it certainly doesn't carry this one. With anybody else cast in her role for this film it would have been excellent, especially if it was cast with someone who could lend more credibility to the character.<br /><br />Having said all that, this film is visually stunning. The colors are fabulous, and the story line isn't half bad in a B-movie kind of way. The audio here is superb as well. This movie gains some points for the fairly original storyline, and major points for how it looks and sounds. Unfortunately, the acting and poor casting bring it down a few notches.<br /><br />My Rating: 6/10
Wrestlemania 2 is the only Wrestlemania|thank god| to be held at three different locations, and While it was an interesting idea, it didn't really work. There are only really two matches that really struck out, with the rest being decent, or most of them, pretty terrible. There are some entertaining celebrity's on hand, like Susan Saint James, Ray Charles and Cathy Crosby, but the experience was a waste of time for the most part. The British Bulldgos Vs The Dream Team match, is worth the price of admission itself, but you can honestly see that anywhere.<br /><br />Matches.<br /><br />Nassau Coliseum.<br /><br />Paul Orndorff Vs The Magnificent Muraco/W Mr.Fuji. For the time it had, and despite the crappy finish, this was surprisingly bearable stuff, with the crowd being really into it. Crowd chants "Bullsh*t" at the end. That being said it did nothing for either's career. Match ends in a double count out with them fighting outside the ring<br /><br />2/5<br /><br />Intercontinental Championship Match. Randy Savage|C| Vs George "The Animal" Steele. Not that great wrestling wise, but heavily entertaining due to the antics involved, and some great comedy from Steele, besides savage can wrestle a potato and make it look interesting. Savage wins when he puts his feet on the ropes, for leverage.<br /><br />2 1/2 /5<br /><br />Jake "The Snake" Roberts Vs George Wells. For a throwaway match, this was better than it should have been, but it's too short to make any impact what so ever. Roberts wins with the DDT, pulling out the snake afterwords, which disgusts Saint James.<br /><br />1 1/2 /5<br /><br />Boxing Match. Mr.T/W The Hati Kid&Joe Frazier Vs Roddy Piper/W Lou Duva&Bob Orton. A huge failure in my opinion. I was bored senseless throughout this, and while it may have been a marketing success, it certainly didn't succeed at entertaining me. Lot of Rowdy chants are noticeable as well. T wins by DQ, when Piper slams T.<br /><br />1/5<br /><br />Rosemont Horizon<br /><br />Women's Title match. Fabulous Moolah|C| Vs Velvet Mcintyre. Ends too quickly, before it even gets a chance to start, making a record for quick pin fall, as far as Woman's matches are concerned. Moolah wins when she takes advantage of Velvet's missed splash from the top rope<br /><br />0/5<br /><br />Corporal Kirchner Vs Nikolai Volkoff/W Classy Freddie Blassie. Big pop for the Corporal. Stupid match up, with boring offense from both involved, while being much too short to matter. Corporal wins when he whacks Volkoff with Blassie's cane.<br /><br />1/5<br /><br />Battle Royal. William Perry and Andre get the biggest pops. This is pretty entertaining stuff, despite all the NFL talent involved. It's also noteworthy for Bret Hart's 1st ever Wrestlemania appearance. Andre wins when he chucks The Hart Foundation out.<br /><br />2 1/2 /5<br /><br />Tag Team Titles. British Bulldogs/W Lou Albano&Ozzy Osbourne Vs The Dream Team/W Johnny Valiant|C|. Absolutely tremendous match, that is one of the best wrestlemania matches of all time. You won't have time to catch your breath, with all the maneuvers on hand, and the excellent in ring psychology. This is pure wrestling at it's finest, you cannot call yourself a Wrestling fan, if you dislike this match. Bulldogs win when Dynamite Kid collide's heads with Valentine<br /><br />4/5<br /><br />Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena<br /><br />Ricky Steamboat Vs Hercules Hernandez. Pretty decent match up here, with both men putting on solid performances. Hercules is a nasty brute, with above average skills, and it contrasted well with Steamboat's high-flying style. Steamboat wins with a high-flying cross body off the top rope.<br /><br />2 1/2 /5<br /><br />Adrian Adonis Vs Uncle Elmer. Terrible match, with annoying comedy involved. The fans love Uncle Elmer, but I do not. Adonis wins with a top rope maneuver.<br /><br />0/5<br /><br />The Funk Brothers Vs Tito Santana&JYD. Pretty solid match here, with a lot of memorable bumps taken from Terry Funk|the one through the table was something else for that time|. I would have to rate this as my 2nd favorite. Funks win with help from Jimmy Hart's megaphone.<br /><br />3/5<br /><br />WWF Championship. Hulk Hogan|C| Vs King Kong Bundy. Decent pop for Hogan. One of the most over-hyped matches in Wrestlemania history. Hogan can't wrestle worth a lick, and Bundy is not that great himself. The violence was brutal for the time, but Hogan's superhero act is kind of annoying, and there are too many boring moments. Hogan wins when he escapes before Bundy.<br /><br />1/5<br /><br />Bottom line. Wrestlemania 2 is a failure in most aspects. Die hard wrestling fans should see this once, but you really don't have too. There isn't enough here, to satisfy a true wrestling fan. Vince blew it on this one. Don't be fooled by the hype of the main event, it really is a boring affair, like most of the card. Not recommended, and ranks as one of the worst Wrestlemania's, outside of the brilliant tag title match.<br /><br />4/10
*POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD*<br /><br />I'll only say what hasn't already been said here (and I'll continue this for the rest of my WWF/WWE comments).<br /><br />If you're going to have a Women's title match, at least make it interesting, rather than just a squash to put over the current champion. I guess Moolah couldn't handle an intense match but they wanted to have the legend in a WrestleMania.<br /><br />I thought the Killer Bees were wasted in WrestleManias, especially here. I became a fan in 1989, about a year after the B. Brian Blair was gone and Jim Brunzell became a canvas back. So I didn't realize for a while that they were a top tag team, even top contenders.<br /><br />But I loved seeing Bill Fralic in the battle royal. He really came into his own here, creating a cocky heel character in a pre-match interview and even making an elimination in the battle royal. Besides Steve McMichael and Kevin Greene, he is the only professional athlete from my generation with any respect for wrestling (anyone remember Dennis Rodman?). And what was with the Hart Foundation's ridiculous green tights?
This was the worst Wrestlemania in history. The only good matches were Ricky Steamboat vs. Hercules Hernandez, and the tag title match between the British Bulldogs and the Dream Team (this one bordered on classic). Everything else was either poor or awful. The idea of having three host cities was unnecessary, confusing and messed up the fluidity of the show. The celebrity guests were terrible on commentary, especially Susan Saint James.<br /><br />If you're interested in the mid 80's WWF, you're better renting or buying Wrestlemania 3, or just about any other PPV for that matter.
Although Humphrey Bogart got star billing in King Of The Underworld, I'm willing to bet he didn't thank Jack Warner for it. In fact this film was one hollow crown.<br /><br />King of the Underworld was supposedly a remake of the Paul Muni film, Dr. Socrates, but given Humphrey Bogart was in the cast, the character is written more like Duke Mantee in The Petrified Forest. He even has an English writer along in the person of James Stephenson.<br /><br />Kay Francis and John Eldredge are a pair of married doctors and Eldredge pulls off a tricky bit of surgery on one of Bogart's henchmen. Bogey's a man who appreciates good work done on his behalf and gives Eldredge $500.00 and there's more where that came from if he plays his cards right. Eldredge who has a gambling problem sees a good way to get some undeclared income. <br /><br />But when he's killed in a raid on the gang's hideout, Francis is also thought to be involved by the law and the American Medical Association no matter how much she protests her innocence. It's no good and she and her aunt Jessie Busley move to a small town to get away from the notoriety.<br /><br />Of course the notoriety and Bogart and an itinerant Leslie Howard like writer in Stephenson all meet up with her again. But Kay is plucky and resourceful to say the least.<br /><br />Bogart's character was ridiculous, no wonder the poor guy was screaming for better parts. He's a gangster who both shoots down people without mercy and gives his henchmen hotfoots just for laughs. He's concerned about his image and therefore kidnaps writer Stephenson to ghost write his autobiography and of course confesses enough to burn him in all 48 states. And then let's Kay Francis completely outsmart him, hard to believe he was king of anything.<br /><br />Definitely one of the lesser works for either of the stars.
This movie is a cinematic collage of gangster clichés. The writing is grade z and the plot and story are constructed without care or logic. It a messy pastiche of stereotypical gangsters (think of Bugs Bunny cartoons) and silly supporting characters (the lady doctor and the writer). There are much better Bogart films out there. In fact, Bogart looks like he slept through this performance. He puts very little effort into this character. I think the directorial advice he received was something like "He's a bad guy. Act bad". This guy is the era's equivalent of Darth Vader; obvious, evil and the anti-hero. Don't waste your time with this one.
Following his role in the fine caper SEVEN THIEVES (1960) – which I’ve watched several years back – Edward G. Robinson seemed to be stuck playing elderly criminal mastermind types (apart from the odd juicy role as in THE CINCINNATI KID [1965]). I’d previously watched the pretty good “Euro-Cult” effort GRAND SLAM (1967) and, apart from this, I’ve yet two more similar titles from Italy to check – one of which was directed by future goremeister Lucio Fulci! Anyway, this is the kind of international production – featuring American and Italian actors and a British director – which was prevalent during the 1960s; it’s harmless and easy-going in itself but hardly memorable and definitely overlong – especially since to procure finance for the heavy-duty equipment required for the heist (such as an army tank and an airplane!), the gang involved have to pull a variety of minor thefts first.<br /><br />The gang, of course, is an incompetent lot led by an American (Robert Wagner) and his bimbo girlfriend (Raquel Welch) – the others are a ‘pacifist’ black man, a perennially hungry Italian and a diminutive Englishman. They try to induce an ex-gangster (Vittorio De Sica) to turn over his fortune to them, except he’s destitute…but, under the auspices of “Professor” Robinson, he proposes instead a caper of 5 million dollars’ worth of platinum! Needless to say, the gang members don’t trust one another (Wagner instructs Welch to seduce De Sica so as to get the name of their fence in Morocco – where they are to retreat after the robbery), or else bungle the job (commissioned to hold up a restaurant, the Italian can’t resist sitting at table and order a multi-course meal for himself!). Amusingly, in the face of similar failures, De Sica tries to show them how they used to do it in the old days – however, ostensibly holding up a petrol station, it transpires that the owner is a nephew of his and he merely asked to borrow some cash! <br /><br />The central heist sequence is typically elaborate: while the gang, including Welch, ‘take’ the train transporting the platinum, Wagner kidnaps pilot Victor Spinetti and his airplane. When the job is done, he fully intends to double-cross De Sica – but neither his partners nor Welch herself are willing to go along with this, so he’s forced to relent. Coming from the time when crime didn’t pay, the gang contrives to lose all their stash in mid-air when the plane’s bomb-bay doors are accidentally opened…
I've got as much testosterone as the next bloke, and Raquel Welch at her finest is certainly worth a look; but the fact is that a cardboard cut-out could act better, and an hour and half of Ms. W showing off her considerable assets does not a movie make.<br /><br />Considering the cast, it's surprising that it's as bad as it is. I've never been a big fan of Wagner, and his tough guy Harry is about as convincing as a 9-dollar bill. Godfrey Cambridge and Vittorio de Sica, both of whom I usually enjoy, seem to be sleeping through their lines; and as for Edward G...well, I can only assume he was there for the paycheck.<br /><br />This film is a mess: from non-existent plot, through stop-start action and unfunny script to puerile slapstick and annoying 60's 'caper' music. If it weren't for Miss Welch, I'd have given it a 0.<br /><br />That said, she is a treat to the eyes - even better than her delicious cameo in 'Bedazzled' - and for that reason alone I gave it a 3.
If this movie were in production today it would probably have the christian right-wingers screaming 'child porn'. It is far from a great film, in fact it is rather pedestrian. However, if you have an imagination and a fond remembrance of youth and first love I recommend it.
Last fall (of 2001), I took a film class that was taught by the director of this movie (Mark Hoeger). His vast knowledge of filmmaking, his ability to dissect any scene of a film, and his winning of an Academy Award in some obscure category seemed to give him more credibility than your average independent film director. When he mentioned during one of his classes that he had just finished directing a film called "Full Ride" and was in the post-production stages, my interest was piqued. However, that would be the last I would ever hear of that film project. Until last week...<br /><br />Last week, I saw in a TV listing that "Full Ride" was going to be showing on the WB network. This immediately raised a red flag, as I can't help but associate WB with teensploitation shows such as Dawson's Creek, Charmed, etc. PLUS, the fact that Full Ride was going to be released straight to TV wasn't too flattering in itself. But, nevertheless, I set aside that time and sat down to watch my former film teacher's creation.<br /><br />After two hours passed and the end credits began to roll, I thought long and hard about what I had just seen. What I had just seen was a typical WB-quality show stretched out to the length of two hours. In fact, it almost seemed as if this movie was made with the sole intent of only showing on the WB network. Critiquing this movie will basically be like critiquing a typical WB show.<br /><br />Where to begin? The characters are shallow, the story is cliche in every sense of the word, the scenes are completely contrived, and the character development is forced and unbelievable. This movie just screams `unoriginal.'<br /><br />The main character, Matt Sabo, is some hot shot from the wrong side of the tracks (literally) who plays solid high school football as a fullback, but then fizzles off into a life of crime. He is then offered a chance at a full ride scholarship instead of going to jail. Obviously, without much of a choice, he agrees to play football with an all-star football team, but is not excepted among his peers because of his poor team spirit and bad attitude.<br /><br />Then comes the love interest. Of course! Where would this predictable fanfare be without a love interest? She comes in the form of Amy Lear (played by the beautiful Meredith Monroe). She is actually a likable character, as opposed to the ever-so-abrasive Matt Sabo, so we almost applaud her when she rejects him at first. But, of course, the inevitable comes to pass. She falls for him, changes his attitude towards everything, and all seems good and happy. But now it's time for conflict!<br /><br />Earlier in the movie, Amy makes it clear to Matt that she doesn't want to score with him, because it would be `shameful' to her and her mother. This is much to Matt's dismay, and his football buddies (yes, they eventually warm up to him) who bet him he wouldn't get any. But, of course, Matt eventually comes to accept these terms and decides he's not all about the nookie. Here's where the exciting plot thickens. If you don't want me to ruin this surprise, then skip ahead.<br /><br />[BEGIN SPOILER]<br /><br />Matt finds out from some local guys that apparently Amy Lear always tries to score with a guy each year from the All-Star team so that she can try to use him to escape her small town life of working in a cafeteria (which is baffling in the first place) and make it to the big city. Suddenly realizing he's been used and that his love was a sham, Matt it tempted to turn back to a life of crime and leave the football camp before `the big game.' Amy tries to reassure him that she was really in love this time, but he's too hot-headed to buy it. So what will Matt do? Will he take her back? Or will he go back to robbing gas stations and being an all-round jerk? I won't ruin the super-ultra-surprising ending for you.<br /><br />[END SPOILER]<br /><br />So, if I somehow got you pumped up for this movie, please realize that that was my sarcasm and not genuine enthusiasm. This movie is an uninspired version of `Varsity Blues' or `Summer Catch.' And that's not saying much. There's hardly any comedy to save it and the characters are too shallow to care about. So what do you have left? Not a whole lot.<br /><br />What I most disliked about the movie was how much of an unflattering picture Hoeger painted of Nebraska through this film. It seems like he was trying to capture the essence of rural Nebraska and teenage life in the small towns, but his approach is all too stereotypical and shallow. The characters' high hopes for making in `the big city' and the actions they take to do so are greatly exaggerated, and it only further cements the stereotype of Nebraskans being a bunch of hicks living in farm communities. I am unsure of whether or not Hoeger's intentions were good in trying to put his home state in the spotlight, but I think he ended up with a very shameful product. If Hoeger wanted to portray Nebraska in a favorable light, he should have taken a note or two from Alexander Payne. While Payne simply chooses to use Nebraska as a backdrop for his films, Hoeger integrates it into the plot of Full Ride and becomes so entangled in his awareness of where he's shooting, that he ends up churning out superficial garbage that would seem to come from an outsider. If Hoeger actually lived here, you'd think he'd know better than that.<br /><br />All in all, I am completely disappointed in Hoeger's first big film, and I hope that next time he can combine his knowledge with a little bit of originality to create something different and thought-provoking.
This is movie is really bad. I like to flip on the TV while napping and this movie looked like it would be something good to sleep through, and boy was I wrong. My body literally woke me up from sleeping and said "Hey... this movie is awful... you gotta watch it". I love bad movies with bad actors and stupid plots. Something about unintentional comedy gets me going. This movie is impressively crappy. I really don't know how to properly express it aside from recommending you watch it just to see how bad it is. I mean, seriously, you should watch it with people. I was making the best jokes outloud during this movie and no one was there to hear them.<br /><br />Worse than Swimfan. It's that bad.
Excellent example of the disaster that happens when you combine a challenging script with two actors chosen for physical appeal. It is rare for me to be consciously aware of the acting during the first viewing of a movie because I try to just go with the story and save the analysis for the second viewing. In the case of "Full Ride", the acting was so weak that the movie was impossible to appreciate as a story; I was too busy (during first and only viewing) alternating between laughter and nausea.<br /><br />Fortunately for most individual members of the cast, pretty much everyone in the ensemble is weak, the individual talent limitations do not contrast with any actual competent acting. Riley Smith and Meredith Monroe are at least well matched physically, finding common ground in looking far too old for the credible age of their characters.<br /><br />Unfortunately the script requires especially intense and convincing performances to portray their characters which just exposes Smith and Monroe's staggering lack of talent. On the positive side, they know enough to not look directly into the camera and they do not stutter.<br /><br />Better to have used a less attractive pair who could physically pass for the proper age. The basic story is not particularly original, just another variation on "An Officer and a Gentleman", but it would have provided a nice showcase for a talented pair of "teenage" actors.<br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm just a child.
After seeing the movie, I feel the father and the mother are both reasonable person, although not perfect at all. On the contrary, I don't like the author, and his two sisters.<br /><br />Is a person's journal an accurate portrait of herself? No. Most of time people only write problems in her journal because she want to solve the problem. So a journal is always a more negative side of a person. In this movie, the author judge his mother's life by her journal. Not a wise choice.<br /><br />The author's elder sister is so ugly, external and internal. First, she said her father's second marriage is "not fair" for her mother. Then, she said she doesn't love her mother. So, she don't love both father and mother. I doubt she love anybody in the world. Her face is so ugly, just a reflection of her heart. Through out the movie, I feel the author and his sisters are lack of love and respect to their parents. However, I feel the father are mother are very loving to their children, even the author try to portrait them as cold, deceitful person.
This documentary is rife with problems.<br /><br />How arrogant is it to make a documentary about your own family? I understand you think the subject is interesting. I was bored with it. This isn't a fascinating story to me, and I don't know why you would think it was.<br /><br />I don't want to come off as mean, but I have to say: Most of the people in this film are just not attractive. And that's OK, not everyone is pretty. But your camera technique, to stick the lens in their face so you can't help but be overwhelmed by their unpleasant appearance because it is filling your 47" TV, is not enjoyable. I had to put my hand up half the time to shield myself from the warts, wrinkles, bags under eyes and yellow teeth. Really, I'm trying not to sound inhuman, but pull the camera back so its not like total strangers are breathing in my face.<br /><br />The camera work in this "film" is rank amateur level. It's the kind of camera work you see from everyone with a camcorder at a family picnic. Uninteresting framing, unsteady, even static shots are done carelessly. Put a little effort into it, if you're going to do this for a living.<br /><br />I honestly can't see what the big deal is about this thing.
The director seems like a good, solid man. His parents struggle with the same issues we all cope with. They strayed from each other. They loved each other. They misunderstood each other. And the poor audience has to sit through ninety minutes of what is possibly the trials and tribulations of one of the most boring families ever to come out of Long Island.<br /><br />There are few interesting choices in this documentary--the music is banal, the filming uninspired, and the story is the same story that has played out on every Birch Street in every town in America. I don't mean to sound too harsh--seldom has a sweeter, more well-intentioned documentary been made. The director is the kind of man with whom you'd want to be friends. You just wish he had struggled as much presenting the material as his parents did keeping their marriage alive.
Tamara Anderson and her family are moving once again, as her itinerant painter father chases his next landscape. Fifteen years old, she is in her rebellious stage. Already angry at her father for their frequent relocations, her anger is exacerbated when her mother is suddenly confined to a sanatorium for tuberculosis. Her mother's absence causes Tamara to lash out at her father and seek comfort in religion, the boy next door, Rusty, as well as the spirit of the dead teenager who used to live in her rented house.<br /><br />The story is modest to a fault. It's oddly paced, and even during its emotional scenes there isn't any tension. The actors portraying the parents are fine. Alberta Watson is incredibly charismatic as the sick mother, and Maria Ricossa is particularly effective as the guilt-ridden mother of the dead teenager. But Katie Boland, as Tamara, is too amateurish to carry the movie. The dialog is very natural and Boland can't quite pull it off. She has her moments and when she hits them she can be good but there were too many times when she came off awkward. One can see her thinking 'ok this is what my line is and this is the face i'm supposed to make' rather than actually reacting to the other actors. She's not the only one, Kevin Zegers as Rusty and Megan Park as his sister Brenda also suffer from stilted delivery but at least they're in fewer scenes.<br /><br />If done right, the screenplay could have made her an affecting movie. And it has it moments but much of it is bogged down with an amateurish lead performance and flat directing.
I was wondering what possessed the organizers of the Victoria Film Festival to include this film in their program. I guess they must have agreed with the others who have reviewed this film. I, on the other hand, consider it the worst film I have ever seen. It starts with a bad script, full of holes, and dialog so unlikely it's embarrassing. Ideas are introduced, then dropped with no development. The acting left me totally cold and uninvolved. The set decoration was appropriate for the time, but a decorator's nightmare. The only way the characters could love this house is if their previous homes had been ghastly. The attic looked as if the items had been thrown in for the scene with no attempt to create the look of a real attic that has been filling with junk over the years. The photography was leaden and lacking in variety. Save your money for something worthwhile.
This is by far the most vapid, idiotic, insanely stupid show that has EVER been on the air, and this is coming from someone who remembers "San Pedro Beach Bums".<br /><br />My wife loves watching reality shows--and there was one episode of this drivel where the wannabes had to develop a "walk". The end result was straight out of Monty Python's "Ministry of Silly Walks" sketch. I couldn't laugh hard enough.<br /><br />And then there's the ubiquitous Ms. Banks (as in laughing all the way to the...). She has to be the most annoying self-important woman on TV since Rosie O'Donnell left "The View". As if modeling was doing great things for mankind. Please. I've never found her attractive, and I don't find her intelligent now that she has the temerity to open her mouth.<br /><br />Someone needs to tell these human clothes hangers to eat a healthy diet and actually look like real women.
Tyra Banks needs to teach these girls that it's not all about being beautiful on the outside. The inside counts for something too. A lot of the past winners have looked semi decent but are horribly cruel and starting trouble for the other girls. I see Tyra less involved with the girls in every season. About the only thing worth watching Top Model for is Mr. Jay Manuel. Recently, Tyra had a contestant who was a pre-op transsexual. I felt that she should have done more to encourage her. It was obvious that she had insecurities about her original anatomy showing through her feminine look. Tyra should have given her tips or perhaps she could have sent resident Trannie Ms. Jay to help the girl out. Instead, the contestant was met with harsh criticism and not enough positive criticism. It's a shame because I truly enjoyed the first 3 seasons. There's a reason why Project Runway has all 4 seasons out on DVD and Top Model only has 1 season on DVD. It's called taste. Top Model seriously needs a lot of revamping an some more humanity.
In watching this off and on for a few seasons, two things come to mind: One - wondering what kind of girl wants to be a "model" and two - run to the nearest ice cream store and have a low fat sundae.<br /><br />I tried to be a fan because I liked the idea of this reality show competition. No other "famous" model thought of this, and it is very admirable for Tyra Banks to do so. But as the series goes on and on I've come to the conclusion that this is a sorry lot of folks trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Women shouldn't watch this, teens should stay clear of it unless they're doing book reports on the subject.<br /><br />Many women try out for slots to compete for "Americas Next Top Model". They live together, cat fight together, cry together, get put through pointless modeling shoots with pointless modeling people and fashionatas and get eliminated and almost all of them claim, "You will see me again". Heck, I'm trying to see what happened to the ones that DID win, actually.<br /><br />This is the dream of some girls, and good for them. In watching this I hope the other girls that see this and run like Hades the other way - like to college.<br /><br />I just happened to watch more of this recent season because of the "ploy" of full figured models joining the group. That even made me think more of this as a sorry lot of folks. The "full figured models" were no more than average sized ladies competing with what I think is the thinnest group of models they ever chose - so of course that would make them look even fatter - a "ploy" fashionatas use all the time. Bad, bad, Tyra and crew.<br /><br />But to be fair, "Americas Next Top Model" is not about "full figured" models, it's about projecting an imagined image a beauty that can be mass marketed and sold as the ultimate in beauty - and this show is just looking for the next fresh piece of meat to add to the mix. Hence the name of the show. Hence the sorry lot of judges, photographers, associations. Hence Tyra and her consistent "this was me" plugs every camera angle you can get. But then again, that IS the one thing I like about this show - the ex-model giving others who wouldn't have the chance -- a chance to enter the doors. But after that...everything else is status quo for that industry which is why there are no surprises or week to week interest in the program.
Tyra & the rest of the modeling world needs to know that real women like myself and my daughter don't care to see all the ridiculous modeling to sell something. Weird locations, too much makeup & too much skin is not necessary. Sex does not always sell when you are selling to women. The same goes for the horse stomping runway walk that looks unnatural. People come in all shapes & sizes & they need to have that on the show. My daughter has a 36" inseam, is tall & slender & a size 5, I am more average at a size 12. We would like to see both- I can not picture how something would look on me when a size 2 is wearing it, it will not fit the same way on me. I do not buy magazines anymore because they are one sided on this matter. We would really love the show to consider women of all sizes. Thank you.
I would like to comment on how the girls are chosen. why is that their are always more white women chosen then their are black women. every episode their is always more white women then black one's. as if to say white women are better looking then black women. I would like for once see more black women then white. and it not just your show it's like that in a lot of shows always more white's. but i would have thought since you as the head honcho of the show you would see this yourself and have more black women on your show. but you are just like the rest trying to act like you are so fair and nice. you are just a big fony hypocrite.
The CinemaScope color cinematography of Leon Shamroy is quite remarkable here,including his use of colored filters for<br /><br />various scenes. The Alfred Newmann Score has to be the most sensual and seductive score Hollywood ever produced. It's a shame it is no longer available on CD. The actors, however, never rise to the occasion. The accents are so varied, from the subdued British of Ustinov and Purdom to the Hollywood of Baxter and Mature that it seems a true hodgepodge with no central vision. Tommy Rettig is jarringly American. Acting styles span the range from zombie-like to stilted. Only Ustinov as a conniving one-eyed servant steals the show - what there is of it to steal. The premise - the story of a young Egyptian doctor, seduced and abandoned by the rich - and the parallel theme of the cult of the single God, Ra - persecuted by the authorities, has its interesting points. But when the film's plot fades, it is the haunting music and visuals that remain.
I am surprised that so many comments about this film are positive. Having read the book several times (and all the other historical novels by Mika Waltari) there is no way to say much good in this film. If I forget the origins of the story I might consider it a reasonably good epic. Of course to bring such a brick of a book to the big screen is a task not to be envied, but it could be done with class. I can't understand why even the name of Nefernefernefer had to be shortened to just Nefer. I love Peter Ustinov as Kaptah and Marlon Brando probably would have made a better Sinuhe but the overall attitude is too Hollywood to ever make justice to the book. Mind you Mika Waltari left the Premier of this film in the middle of the showing. That's how much he liked it.
In comparison to other "sand and sandal" fare, The Egyptian leaves much to be desired. The film is very LOOSELY based upon Mika Waltari's well researched novel, which centers around the Egyptian physician Sinhue's adventures at the court of Akhnaton as well as his travels throughout Canaan, Minoan Crete and Africa. Unfortunately, due to the moral strictures of the time, much of Sinhue's story (which is rife with romantic and sexual exploits) remains on the cutting room floor and instead, the audience is treated to reels and reels of Victor Mature's wooden acting. Even Gene Tierney – a leading lady "staple" of the time – can not manage to look nor act her best in this flick and gives a rather somnambulistic performance which can only be justified by the fact that the actress was having some serious psychiatric problems at the time. There is a great deal of rhetoric and theological machinations over the idea of monotheism vs. polytheism, but Michael Wilding is so tiring as the revolutionary Akhnaton, that one is surely cheering for someone to off him and restore the old religion before the second reel. My advice: buy the book from E-Bay, rent something more entertaining like Solomon and Sheba and then call it a night!
Ho humm - - - More of nothing. If you are a long-time Rush fan you know what this video contains: loathsome songs from the past, the "BIG 3" hits from the 80's and their "last-ditch" efforts to remain contemporary. They do succeed in making fun of themselves by beating the critics to the punch by portraying themselves as "dinosaurs." Unfortunately, they FAIL at protecting themselves from embarrassment. Close-ups of their faces only add to the fact that these guys HAVE BEEN.<br /><br />If you are have been following (as much as you can stomach) the band for a couple of decades from the 70's, then you know there is no new material here. Same old, same OLD: 1) Neil avoids the press, 2) no real behind-the-scenes (Geddy looses his SHOES?! Give me a break! Even HE thinks it's absurd!) 3) no new insights.<br /><br />A better video would have been to show the CREW setting up for 3 or 4 hours – just let the camera run. And stop changing camera angles every 2 seconds! I understand the director wants to try to do something artsy. But then offer a full concert version of 2 or 3 shots the VIEWER can choose. We know what the band looks like – let us see what WE REALLY want to see.<br /><br />Do yourself a BIG favor: RENT this movie first.
All right, let's be realistic about this. Nobody goes into a movie produced by WWE Films (whose owner has challenged God to a wrestling match), directed by a former porn director (the man gave the world the Between the Cheeks trilogy), starring a wrestler named Kane, and expects a little slice of art on a golden platter. If you do then you probably need to find something other than watching movies to occupy your time.<br /><br />So what exactly are we to expect from a movie like this? Well, here's what I was looking forward to:<br /><br />1) Bad acting. 2) A fairly non-existent, clichéd storyline. 3) Kane walking around with a scrunched, sour face that indicates his nostrils just found the potato salad he misplaced a month ago. 4) Tons and tons of gore. <br /><br />Well, if you're hungry for some "so bad it's funny" entertainment then this might satisfy your appetite because it delivers on all counts.<br /><br />Obviously, movies like this are best seen for free, but if you do choose to sacrifice box office bucks then have some fun and make a game out of it. The filmmakers are nice enough to introduce us to each of the annoying delinquents by flashing their names and legal offenses on the screen. This makes it easier for you to write down which ones you want to see killed and in what order. You and your friends can see whose predictions are most accurate.<br /><br />I also suggest that you and your pals write down every single moment of stupidity and inanity that you can find. Tally them up at the end and see who comes up with the most. I think my grand total was 107; can you beat that? I personally want to know how after 35 years and a fire does this abandoned hotel still have electricity, running water, and a working elevator?<br /><br />I know, I know, the filmmakers are assuming that if you pay to see this then you obviously don't put much thought into what you spend your money on and therefore likely won't put much thought into how silly the movie is, but that doesn't mean we can't point it out and laugh at it.<br /><br />I also like how the city wants to turn this huge hotel (which would be condemned and recommended for demolition by any sensible inspector) into a homeless shelter and they think the best way to get it cleaned up is to give eight punks a few mops and brooms. Uh-huh.<br /><br />I think you pretty much know what to expect, but I feel the need to provide you with a couple of warnings. First, if you hate crowd interaction no matter the movie then you might want to stay away. The people in the audience acted like they were at an actual wrestling show. Shouts of "Kill him, Kane!" and "I hope you die first!" and "Chokeslam!" echoed through the theater, showcasing what I hope is NOT the best of what America has to offer. I usually don't appreciate such audience interaction, but for a cheesefest like this I thought the commentary added to the entertainment value. However, I can see how others could be annoyed by it.<br /><br />Second, and this shouldn't even warrant explanation, the film doesn't shy away from the gore. If watching a big ugly dude rip eyeballs right out of their sockets doesn't scream "fun night at the movies!" for ya then you know good and well to save your dough.<br /><br />I must say that I was a little surprised by the extreme lack of dialogue on Kane's part. I wasn't expecting him to put on an acting clinic, but I was hoping he'd have some cute little catchphrase like "Say goodnight" (his character's last name is "Goodnight") right before he killed a victim. Instead he uttered four words in the entire film - "Nooooooo!" and "I see it." But hey, he delivered them flawlessly!<br /><br />If I were a bad guy in a movie then my catchphrase would be something like "Place your BETTS!" or "All BETTS are off!" <br /><br />It'd rule and you know it. We need a new genre term for bad horror films like See No Evil that induce so much unintentional laughter that you almost have to label them comedic. Feel free to send me your suggestions. For now we'll just call 'em HOR-larious!
Eight teen convicts are brought to the abandoned Blackwell Hotel to clean it out as community service. They soon discover that it's the residence of a hulking psychopath (Kane) who has a thing for pulling out and collecting eyeballs. It doesn't help that the guard watching over them (Steven Vidler) has had a previous run-in with the beast four years earlier. <br /><br />A guilty pleasure of mine are slasher films. Most of them are poorly directed and acted but they still hold some appeal and entertainment value. See No Evil is a good example of this. It features atrocious writing and acting but the death scenes are pretty good and the movie proves to be entertaining. The premise sounds like a mixture between Friday the 13th, Saw 2 and Halloween: Resurrection. I really liked the idea but it didn't work out too well. It was really just a bunch of clichés and everything was predictable. Screenwriter Dan Madigan just focused on the death scenes and nothing else apparently. The death scenes themselves are pretty good and gruesome. Director Gregory Dark did a good job with them and he came up with some creative kills. <br /><br />The acting is pretty bland and unremarkable. This is because all of the characters are one dimensional and we don't know much about them. It was hard to feel for these people because they were pretty unlikable. Kane is surprisingly mediocre. I was expecting his on screen presence to be scarier but he didn't do that good of a job. A second rate Jason Voorhees, if you will. The rest of the actors are relatively unknown and this film will probably neither help nor hurt their careers. <br /><br />While the death scenes are gory, they aren't necessary scary. There's really no suspense just some gory death scenes. Because of this, the movie doesn't hold much of a repeat value. Also, if you don't like slasher films then don't waste your time with this one. It will do little to change your opinion. In the end, See No Evil is a decent slasher film but it is generic and forgettable so it's not exactly worth watching. Rating 6/10
The first official release of World Wrestling Entertainment's film division is a pretty basic horror/slasher movie called "See No Evil" starring Kane, one of their big men wrestlers known for having an intimidating presence, hard-hitting moves, and one of the most convoluted backstories in wrestling. And let's not pull any punches here; while this movie is promoted as the greatest horror movie of all time (mostly by WWE), it goes without saying that after having seen this movie, I can confirm it as one of the greatest comedies of all time.<br /><br />"See No Evil" sees a bunch of juvenile delinquents sent to a hotel so they can clean up. Of course, a monstrous murderer (played by Kane) also happens to be living in this hotel and we all know where that goes. Without giving away too much of the movie plot, this film has all the semblance and structure of an early-1980s slasher flick with most of the clichés intact, but without any of the scares that those films accompany. And that's sort of the main problem with "See No Evil". It tries so many of the tricks implied by its predecessors in the genre that it comes off as predictable; veteran horror fans will easily recognize some of the gimmicks ahead of time and even those who have only seen a few flicks should tell what happens next. It's too generic to be scary.<br /><br />The movie's gory, no doubt, but it's only there for the effect. The dark atmosphere instilled in the movie gives off that feel of terror initially, but as you get towards the end, it somehow feels out of place and gets tiresome quickly. The death scenes don't come off as gory and horrific as much as they do laughable, although some of them are pretty inventive.<br /><br />And the acting in this movie is pretty bad too, as the main characters aren't developed enough for us to care when they eventually do get axed. Some can't even portray fear properly; they just scream and cry in a vain effort to emote. So when they die, it only adds to the comedy because you don't care enough about them that you simply consider them the equivalent of Starfleet Redshirts to the monster Kane.<br /><br />As for Kane, he simply portrayed his movie character the same way he portrays his wrestling character, only he uses axes and hooks instead of hellfire and brimstone. There's no doubt in my mind that Kane can be a great fixture in the horror genre. He has the look and presence for it; he just needs better material (specifically a script that isn't written by someone who writes wrestling shows) to work with.<br /><br />Now, despite what may seem like a harsh review, I actually enjoyed the film. It's one of those laughably bad movies that you can't help but sit down and enjoy. My main gripe with the film, again, is that it's simply an exercise in filming gory kills and doesn't have any frightening or shock moments. I enjoyed it, but I enjoyed because it was easy for me to laugh off some of what was supposed to be scary moments in the movie. If that happens because it was supposed to be that way, the movie would have been rated higher. But it didn't. It got laughs because it's a B-movie and it doesn't help that the director's previous experiences was porn flicks and music videos; not exactly overcomplicated things to direct anyway. Nonetheless, I enjoyed it tremendously.<br /><br />If you don't mind a fun B-movie or funny horror film, I'd highly recommend "See No Evil." If you are a true enthusiast of the genre, I'd wait until the DVD comes out before checking it out. Everyone else should probably go watch something else.
After watching this movie, I have nothing but contempt for any of those who were involved in the making of this abysmal film. For one, as a general comment, the storyline was literally unbelievable and filled with incredible clichés all around. The same obviously goes for the dialogue which panders to the lowest common denominator and manages to offer absolutely zero unpredictable original lines. The acting was terrible as well with Kane showing, throughout the entire movie, at the very most 3 separate and distinct emotions. Even the use of modern special effects failed, as each prop was easily distinguishable from its real life counterpart. Overall, I would not recommend for anyone to even think about viewing this feature, as it will most surely waste 83(not even 90!) minutes of your life.
Another movie with a star of a wrestling. So far I have noticed....wrestlers can't act on the movie screen. This movie is no exception.<br /><br />The action is dreadful. It makes you laugh at what they say, and they can't be serious, they try to act scared but they fail and look stupid. The acting is horrible, possibly from the bad director.<br /><br />The plot was stupid....Just some people get placed in a hotel because they're criminals, and they get randomly killed off. The movie is stupid all the way through, making it one of the worst I have ever seen.<br /><br />The only think and this is why I give it a 3 and not a 1 is because of the way Jacob Goodnight dies. The pole through the head and the stories of him plunging was awesome.<br /><br />Overall this is a really horrible movie, and you definitely shouldn't waste your time with it.
I got stuck in traffic (I live in Sicily) on the way to the theater (at a military base) to see Superman Returns, was 15 minutes late, and the only other movie playing was "See No Evil", there was no poster up for it, and just a short description of the movie on the schedule...but my girlfriend and I decided to check it out...As soon as I saw it was produced by WWE I just knew it was gonna be awful. The few people in the theater were laughing most of the time, and it was the first movie that I honestly considered walking out on, and I've seen "The Ringer"...okay, I would have walked out of that one, but I was too busy sleeping. The death of the bad guy at the end was pretty good, but other than that, it was just stupid.
I had no idea this movie was produced by "WWE". Wrestling is lame enough. Why did they have to soil their name further by making a movie as crappy as this one was?? I found it to be a complete disappointment. If i had of known this movie was going to be as stupid as it was, I would have stayed home and done something more entertaining. Sure, I'll give them the credit of the cool effects; but the killer didn't seem as scary as he could have been. He lacked a number of things. But I'll let you point them out for yourselves. The plot was a great idea, just could have been done in a much better way. Maybe in the future, WWE will stick to its moronic wrestling and stay out of the film industry..
OK, lets start with the best. the building. although hard to believe it had electricity and running water after 35 years and a fire, the gruesome walls and odd items found throughout were interesting. other than that, its not worth it.<br /><br />as far as the bad, its done by WWE films. WTF? is that supposed to make you want to see it? if anything, stay away. horrible, horrible idea for them to make movies and allow Gregory Dark to direct it. bad choice. the previews beforehand were more interesting and entertaining.<br /><br />i cant even begin to discuss how bad this film is. untalented actors & a disappointing, vague storyline. apparently many of the actors are from that show "all saints". its a wonder why i haven't ever heard of them or their show. other than that, the bus driver, which you never even see, just him closing the door, has had more action that just about everyone together. at least he handles stunts for some decent films.<br /><br />i like to see scary movies, i really do. but this one blew so much, the entire audience was laughing at it and cheering the characters on halfway through. very annoying. the child behind me was yelping more during the previews of other horror films.<br /><br />this is not a film to see, even less if you have to pay for it.
Porn legend Gregory Dark directs this cheesy horror flick that has Glen Jacobs (Kane from WWF/WWE/ whatever it calls itself nowadays) in his cinematic debut. He plays Jacob Goodknight, a blind serial killer who's forte is taking people's eyes out. The plot, be it as it may, has a group of troubled youths cleaning up the historical hotel that GoodKnight resides in and subsequently being offed by him. Hemmingway it's not. Starts of as fun dopey B-movie, but soon gets too tedious to be enjoyable. Glad I went in with pretty low expectations, but even those weren't met. How can you have a porn king directing and still suffer from a lack of nudity??? for shame.<br /><br />My Grade: D- <br /><br />Eye Candy: Samantha Noble bares her ass briefly
The Cheesiest movie I've ever seen, Not scary, just bad. 1st movie made by the WWE, and trust me,the only person this movie might appeal to is wrestling fans. It has terrible acting and The worst directing I've seen yet.I Found myself laughing at the storyline, and bad actors. I saw that the WWE people tried really hard to Put a lot of the wrestling moves in the kills, and Several camera effects. I think they copied a lot from silent Hill. This movie's not engaging either, so If you do see it, you're gonna find yourself tuning out because of it's lack of Suspense. The ending's the worst, No matter what, you'll come out wanting your money back
Compared to the recent gore flick HOSTEL, which this movie reminded me a lot of-- I would say that See No Evil is slightly better but not by much. The very complex plot involves a handful of delinquents who are sent to clean up a rundown hotel for a shorter jail sentence. The kids soon end up being killed off by a lumbering religious psychopath who is cleansing them of their sins (I guess). The one thing I dreaded most prior to seeing this was the fact that it stared a WWE wrestler, Kane. He ended up doing a decent job considering he only had 2 one-word lines in the movie. There are a couple fairly gory moments, mainly involving eye-gouging and a quite memorable scene in which a girl gets a cellphone shoved down her throat-- probably the most effective demise in the movie.<br /><br />I can't say that this movie really shows us anything new and is definitely far from great. Can't recommend it.
By the standards of Hollywood this movie was filmed and edited as Hollywood movies are and therefore looked like a movie you would get out of a big-time production studio within Hollywood. Thats where anything remotely close to having Hollywood standards ends. This was THE WORST MOVIE I have EVER seen in MY LIFE! I am not joking. The story was so unbelievably stupid and unrealistic that I could not contain my laughter in the movie theater through the course of watching this film. I know what you're saying, "its a horror film its not supposed to have a good story it's supposed to scare you." Well let me tell you something, the movie is not even scary in the least bit. Its too full of stupid bits that cancels out the little suspense there may have been. The acting was awful as well, along with the scariness of the murderer, who you constantly see through flashbacks locked in a cage jacking off. Throughout the movie I kept getting a sense I was watching something that was thought up, written, produced, and directed by a high-schooler who watches too much pornography. Please, don't see this movie, spend your $8.50 on other things, like a snow cone, which would be much more worth your while.
A wildly uneven film where the major problem is the uneasy mix of comedy and thriller. To me, the unusual premise is clearly a comedic one, and they should have gone for an all-out comedy. For example, Rock has some funny lines but occasionally he is too unlikable for a comedy. The scene where Betty's husband gets scalped is too nasty for what should have been a less violent comedy. An even better example is the Hollywood leftist writer preaching to us tritely through Freeman's character, early on, about the plight of the Indians; I mean - yawn! They should have given Freeman something funny to say in that segment, but that is of course much more difficult than to simply write him a boring PC speech.<br /><br />There is yet more New Age PC-ness in the form of the ending: the girl not only doesn't get the boy - she gets no boy at all; in fact, the message is that the girl needs no boy at all! Bit of a feminist statement there. The first half-hour is weak, but the movie gets better - ironically - once Zellweger gets to Kinnear. I say "ironically" because I'm not much of a fan of Kinnear's, though he's solid here. Zellweger is very cute, as usual; she has the sort of all-American cute looks which should appeal to almost every guy, and I have to wonder why more of such women aren't "represented" nowadays, instead of the dogs who inexplicably became stars, such as Diaz, Roberts, Aniston, Lopez, or Barrymore.<br /><br />Since the movie tries to be very serious at times, I have no choice but to criticize Freeman's character which is the gangster's equivalent of the movie world's hooker-with-the-heart-of-gold. There is also absolutely nothing in the relationship between Freeman and Rock to suggest even remotely that they were father and son.
I was pretty enthusiastic about seeing this movie when it came out. Commercials for it made it look quirky and I generally like Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock, and the combination of the two seemed like an interesting idea. Sadly, I was terribly disappointed with Nurse Betty.<br /><br />Personally, I've usually found that graphic violence and comedy don't go all that well together, and the only directors that have ever combined the two successfully, in my opinion, are Tarantino and the Coens. There isn't that much violence in Nurse Betty, but what violence is in it made me feel kind of weird when I was supposed to laugh. Of course, for me, part of the problem was also that there didn't seem to be many places where I was being asked to.<br /><br />The film doesn't much work as a drama, either. Renee Zellweger's Betty, the story's protagonist, is clinically insane and impossible to relate to in any real way. I will say Zellweger acts the role quite well, and Freeman, Rock, and Greg Kinnear all do good jobs too. The problem is in the writing; Freeman is the only person that gets to play an interesting character. It's really too bad. 3/10
Okay, this movie starts out and it *looks* like it's going to be a cute comedy about a completely obsessed soap opera fan. She has no touch with reality whatsoever outside of the soap (sort of the inverse of the main characters in "Pleasantville") and runs away to Los Angeles to meet a fictional character. Well it is a cute movie... but at the same time, it is ALSO a dark, very violent movie about two hitmen who are out to kill Betty for reasons way to complex to recount here. Either plotline would have been enough on it's own, but "Nurse Betty" contains both stories at once, and the effect is very jarring. I didn't much enjoy it.
Renee Zellweger is radiant, but the rest of this movie just does not work. It's like a hamburger-jello-mold salad--interesting idea, but who ever thought it would actually work on film? I like director LaBute's two previous films--they were mercilessly honest and chillingly funny. This film manages only to be merciless and chilling--with jumbo dollops of the cutes. (As high concept, think: the Doris Day-Rock Hudson movie Sam Peckinpah might have made--now reduce your expectations to match the present, mass-produced state of Hollywood.) That actors as talented as Freeman, Kinnear, Eckhart, Vince, and Janney ALMOST make their scenes come alive is a testament to the immensity of their talents to rise above material that just does not cohere. I would have found Freeman's corny, feel-good-about-yourself speech at the end of the movie funny (in a Lynchean way) if it weren't for the nagging suspicion that this unconvincingly tacked-on moral is meant to be accepted seriously.
To sum this movie up, it is LaBute carrying his sadism over into the realm of comedic farce. The predictable result is that he is constantly stepping on all the jokes by insisting on surrounding them with blood-curdling violence and extremely hateful characters. There is also evidence of his continuing efforts to insult and ridicule everything in sight but then to apologize for it with weak gestures to the PC. Basically the movie just doesn't work, its plot is beyond contrived, the characters are one-dimensional cliches, there is no consistency or development of anything, and the comedy (where it is not totally out of place) is the worst kind of High Concept drivel.<br /><br />Morgan Freeman and Renee Zellweger are completely wasted on characters that seem like parodies of studio-driven audience pandering--no matter what, make them likeable, neutral (and neutered), and full of moral platitudes. Crispin Glover is in here just long enough to convince you that he doesn't belong in movies anymore. Chris Rock actually has negative chemistry with fellow hitman Freeman--it's as if they are acting in different rooms even when they are two inches away from each other. In effect, Chris Rock seems like a digital insert. At least he isn't as annoying as Jar-Jar.<br /><br />LaBute's 15 minutes may well be up by now. It's already looking like he's overstayed his welcome.
Little did I know that when I signed up the the "all pay channel" package with Direct TV that I would face a movie like this. It came on right after another movie we had been watching... and I was a teenager in 1981 so am not sure where I was at the time... but I missed this movie.<br /><br />I also can't believe we left it on. It is kind-of funny as it takes you back in the time machine to the early 80s... but I think even then this would have been a painful movie. It was just... well... "too cute"! ET was "cute" in a way... but not obnoxiously cute... and stupid.<br /><br />When I see a movie like this... I come on onto IMDb to see what others say. I am blown away that this thing was nominated! Wow... the movie industry has come a long way since the 80s! Oh well... it did show some old actors... btw that is the other thing I was surprised about... the lineup... not a bunch of no-names... but some real actors/actresses. Must have been in their drug days! Anyways... odd, interesting, bizarre, and makes one happy they grew up!
I really wanted to like this movie, but the pacing was just way too slow.<br /><br />It was a nice story, but it was really like watching a slug race.<br /><br />The movie would have been better served, if it had some more action. I don't mean anything grand, but at least something in the background.<br /><br />It could have also been helped by songs that set the tone/mood of the more lengthy periods that were absent of dialogue.<br /><br />It's been about 10 years since I've seen it, so I may have to give it another chance.<br /><br />3/10 or *1/2(out of four)
If you like bad movies, this one's a real treat. Kaufman & Peters stagger around in robot costumes, escape slavery only to wander aimlessly, and find true robot love. I believe this is the first movie that ever made me consider walking out. I should note I was 12, and could be entertained by shiny objects.
"I presume you are here for damage to your mental circuitry." - VAL<br /><br />Mike Nelson made me watch this...he mentioned it in his book, "Movie Megacheese." I asked myself, "Why would Mike Nelson steer me wrong?" I now know why the bots never trusted Mike Nelson.<br /><br />The music is by John Williams, which is probably part of his payment to the Devil. In fact, I'm sure anyone who worked on this movie is probably in league with ol' Slewfoot, or is now cursed, from the Executive Director down to the guy who ran the catering truck outside the studio. Don't watch...for the love of God...don't watch!!! Not even making a copy and showing someone else will un-curse you...I'm doomed now, I understand this. I accept this. But save yourself...
My wife and I saw this in the theater when it first came out.<br /><br />There were only 3 couples there and we all walked out about the same time.<br /><br />This is the only movie I have ever walked out on.<br /><br />It was just painful to sit through.<br /><br />The theater actually stopped us on the way out and asked if we wanted a refund.<br /><br />Never had that happen before or since Pleae do not rent this You will really regret it I am really sureprised by the vote summary Perhaps personal tast has something to do with it
I thought of this movie when i watched pluto nash...why..because both movies have randy quaid playing a retarded robot, this movie made years earlier but probably written by a screenplay writer that drank the same biotoxic coffee or something like that...Whoa...AVOID AT ALL COSTS even to pay tribute to the late great Andy Kaufman is hard to do here...find another film or just watch taxi reruns on latenight tv...his latka gravas character is so much more loveable...TANK YOU BERRY MUCH
The first thing that struck me about this movie was the terrible acting. The whole cast was so uniformly inept at delivering their lines that I started laughing at the awful dialog midway through the film. An even bigger issue with this movie is that at no point do we ever find out what motivates the actions of each character. The one somewhat redeeming aspect of the movie is Halfdan Hussey's innovative visual effects. However, as eye-catching as they may be, they do little to make up for the gaping flaws mentioned above. A dreadful script mixed with community theater level acting does not make for a pleasant viewing. I was honestly shocked at how bad this movie was.
Some Plot Spoilers Ahead.<br /><br />The Nashville Network's so-called rebirth as "The First Network for Men" is a complete disappointment, as was its block of adult cartoons. The new Ren and Stimpy was just plain awful, "Gary the Rat" mediocre at best, and "Stripperella" pretty unwatchable. This cartoon is mostly boring; if "Ren and Stimpy" suffered from gross-out overkill, "Stripperella" lacked any decent shock gags, funny witless gags, clever gags, or gags, period. The concept is bad to begin with: Pamela Anderson, a stripper-cum-superheroine, saves "The City" from an assortment of goofy supervillains. This cartoon seems like an homage to superior wacky superhero spoofs, like "Darkwing Duck" and "The Tick," but without those cartoons' wit and good writing---or even good storyboarding. "Agent 0069" tries to vacillate between being goofy and sexy, but she is neither, and this cartoon's failure to make her one or the other brings this series down.<br /><br />Watch your taped episodes of "The Tick," and see what a real superhero spoof cartoon is like.
After watching this movie on tv, I looked it up in the IMDB and imagine to my surprise a user rating of 7.6! This is not a good film. Especially bad is the editing; the poor way the story jumps from one point to another was amateurish and a huge distraction. It's not very fluently done. I do agree that the acting was fairly decent, especially Kelly Kapowski, and that the story was intriguing enough.
Alien Express is one of the worst movies I've bothered to experience.<br /><br />The plot is predictable. The aliens look like rubber sock puppets. The effects would have been mediocre in the 70's, but are just atrocious by today's standards. Couldn't they take a shot of a real train instead of using an obvious model?<br /><br />The acting isn't great but, really, the dialogue is the worst part. It gouges its way into your mind. "Don't you die on me. Not now." If you ever manage to suspend disbelief long enough to be absorbed into the movie, you'll rapidly be jolted painfully back to reality by the aliens, the model train, or the clichéd dialogue.<br /><br />The only reason I didn't give this movie a "1" is that it doesn't deserve to be rated so badly that some poor suckers might watch it for the pleasure inherent in a truly bad film.
"Eh-heh eh-heh hey, dude - look at these aliens. They're like - biting the humans and stuff! Eh-heh eh-heh eh-heh" <br /><br />This must rank amongst the worst movies of all time. It's utter drivel for anyone with a modicum of a brain. Sure, you have the reviewers on the payroll who give glowing reviews and vote highly for this abomination but it's easy to tell who these sell-outs are. Their reviews are TOO good. To give a movie like this even a mediocre review claiming it had some B-movie remedial appeal would be a glowing review! Calling this a great movie tips the hands of the corporate shills.<br /><br />But enough of that.<br /><br />This movie had about all the bad characteristics a movie can have without being SO bad that it's enjoyable just to laugh at. The old Japanese 60's monster films had a quality that this movie lacked. At least in those 60's films you could laugh at just how bad the rubber monster suit looked. Or laugh at seeing the strings holding the space ships, how the models dangled on the strings and how the flames curved UPWARDS out of the back. Those movies made fun of how BAD they were. Alien Express (aka Dead Rail) seems to actually think of itself as a GOOD movie - which makes it incredibly absurd.<br /><br />The effects were awful by today's standards. Beyond awful. However not quite as bad as the 60's monster movies hence they lacked the comedic appeal. The plot and dialogue were about as sophomoric as I've ever seen, made even worse by being every bit as predictable as you might expect. I won't even point out the plot and logic holes in this one; it just wouldn't be fair to this pitiable plot (plus it would take to long to even get started). Most of the acting was awful; Lou Diamond Phillips must have been very desperate to agree to touch this one.<br /><br />SciFi Channel is rapidly becoming the "cheap thrills channel", producing movie after movie without an iota of concept or intelligence in the lot. I can only wonder - why bother?<br /><br />Don't bother with this tripe. It doesn't get any worse.
This is a truly awful film. Lou Diamond Phillips simply calls this one in. The use of miniature models of the train are laughable. The plot seems to develop on the run (there is an alien on board; oh, and an eco-terrorist is on board too; oh, and the conductor is dead and the train is out of control; oh, and the train is going to run into another train one hour ahead; oh, and that train has nuclear waste on it...). I mean, come on really! The alien monsters are not scary (although there are a lot of them), and the acting is abysmal. Check out the guy playing the "next President" - do you really think he could be President? For goodness sake, he has spent his whole acting career playing bad guys!
I know it sounds crazy but yes, I am a huge fan of House Party 1 and 2 (and proud of it!!). I hated part 3, and then here comes part 4. I was like are you kidding me with this? Kid 'n Play are nowhere to be found in this movie, and that would've been okay, had they not foolishly entitled the movie House Party 4, as if it was in any way, shape, form, or fashion related to its predecessors. Every time this movie comes on late at night on USA, I shoot my TV with a rifle. Quite frankly, it really is just that atrocious. *hurling*<br /><br />As the only remaining fan of Kid 'n Play that will actually admit to being a fan (tee hee hee), I was appalled. Remember that stupid little boy group Immature? They snuck their way into House Party 3. Okay, fine and well but how can part 4 be just about them and nothing else and it also seems like they're not even the same kids from part 3. *confused!!!!* House Party fans: do yourself a favor and stick to House Party 1 and 2 and Class Act. Beyond that, everything else is ridiculous.
(Spoilers Ahead!) This same exact plot from this movie has been done before. It has been done in Ferris Bueller's Day Off! Marques "Bat Man" Houston plays sick. His gullible parents believe him. His sister knows that he's faking, but she still must go to school! She is mad. He has a party with his friends while his parents are away. By the time his parents get home, he is sick again and his parents never found out about the party. I like Immature better when they were in House Party 3 and still immature!
I've never saw the first three, but I know they're all better than this...trash. It's about some kid who throws a party. Wow. Sounds amazing(sarcasm). Is it? NOOO! It starts off with a kid laying in bed and he's getting woke up by his mom. So, the kid pretends to be sick so he doesn't have to go to school. He goes to his uncle's house and rounds up some people and throws a party. I didn't laugh at all while watching this trash. I can't imagine someone sitting down and writing down this dialogue thinking "Man, dis !@#$ is gunna be big, yo!" Makes me wonder if they even had a script for this movie. I watched this knowing it would be bad, but usually watching a bad movie makes me feel good because it gives me something to make fun of. This just disgusted me. TWO THUMBS DOWN!
I saw House Party 1-3 and I loved them but this one wasn't funny at all.First it can't be a House Party movie without Kid n'Play right? This one sucks and it was more like a black version of Ferris Bueller's Day Off than a House Party movie.Second who the heck is John-John?These new character's can't even compare to the ones from the other three movies.Now i know why they put it straight to video.It has horrible music, weak plot, untalented actors,and no hilarious jokes at all.My advice,watch this movie at night only if you can't get to sleep.They should have ended the series after House Party 3 since Kid'n'Play separated after that one.I hate this one am glad my local video store doesn't have this film and never want to buy it or want to see it on Comedy Central either.Just because Chris Strokes has talent managing an up-and-coming R&B group doesn't mean he has talent directing and producing films am I right or what? Finally, the female characters were all dressed up like cheap two-dollar hookers throughout most of the flick.IMX separated a year after this flick got released probably due to the failure of this film and are all but forgotten nowadays. In simplier terms this movie just plain old sucks!!!!
I too am a House Party Fan...House Party I is my favorite movie of all times. House Party 4 is a disgrace to all of the HP's and to Kid n Play...This was supposed to be part of a series really..there was nothing about kid n play in this movie or any of the other veterans..yea kid n play was probably too old to be throwing a House Party movie b/c its kind of focused on teens..but kid n play could have at least made a cameo appearance ... you can tell how good it was b/c it didn't even make it to the movie theaters. Immature was in House Party 3 so it made sense for them to carry on the legacy...but they should have represented right...they should have left it at House Party 3. I am 27 years old and I have been watching House Party I since I was 11 when it came out in 1990(16 years ago) and I have been a fan ever since. When I first seen House Party 4 I was like what are they really thinking about...There was nothing familiar about this movie that would compare to the previous 3 movies.. I thought it was a black Ferris Bueller days off.
Watching this movie, you just have to ask: What were they thinking? There are so many noticeably bad parts of this movie, you might get the feel that its intentionally poor, as some sort of joke.<br /><br />I think the worst part about the film is the directing. There are so many bad uses of camera angles and other cinematic elements in this movie that are laughably bad. The funniest example of this would be in the beginning where the party guests are receiving their invitations by email - The same camera angle is used for each shot (which last an awkward 2 seconds a piece) and the same computer screen with the same desktop/window/program etc appear. It even looks like the thing is shot on the same set each time. The whole sequence was also completely silent, with no music, or sound effects. Overall, it was a poor way to convey the idea that an email was being sent all over town.<br /><br />If you listen closely, you may notice that the music sounds very similar to other movie sound tracks. This is no surprise- most songs, including the one that opens the movie, are in fact slight alterations of scores from other movies (See if you can guess which ones). Also, I noticed that the music is not played by a real orchestra. It sounds like its been written and played through a low end midi keyboard. If you are familiar with the LucasArts SCUM adventure games, the timbre of each instrument sounds like something from the IMUSE engine.<br /><br />Everything else about the movie just plain sucks. The acting is terrible. The script is derivative (Ferris Beuller?). There is no joke in the movie remotely funny, unless you see the whole film as one big joke, being played on a paying audience. Don't rent this. Don't even watch it when it's rerun on comedy central. Just forget this - it's terrible.
I'm not sure why the producers needed to trade on the name of a somewhat successful movie franchise because the title suggests that it is a sequel to the first three movies..which it is not. Even though Marques Houston did appear in "HP3", he played a totally different character (he was, eight years older) in this film. Okay...so Reid and Martin weren't the most talented and couldn't carry a film all by themselves..but to trade on the HP franchise seems to me that there could have made some sort of reference (albeit minor) to the earlier movies. I'm sure everyone who wanted to see it was "hoodwinked"--into thinking that they were seeing a sequel--not a totally different film with a familiar name. And I'm sorry...Kym Whitley is not funny, and could not hold a candle to the late Robin Harris, Ketty Lester, or DC Curry in the earlier films. Although Meagen Good and Mari Morrow are a substantial visual diversion...I have to give this a THUMBS DOWN!! Just naming the film "Down to the Last Minute" would have been OK. Furthermore, the Hudlin brothers (who produced the first three movies) were not involved in the making of this film.
I've seen a lot of bad movies in my life. Date Movie. That was bad. But this...this is just...it's not good. House Party 4 is the worst movie ever. It's as simple as that. It's basically Ferris Bueller with black people in it. Oh, and it's not funny. It's awful. So awful. Chris Stokes may be a superstar on BET, but he's an idiot. He can't write a comedy. Or a horror movie. I like to refer to him as a blacker, lesser-known Uwe Boll. Except Uwe Boll's films are funny awful, if you know what I mean. You can invite some buddies over, pop in Alone In The Dark, and have a great time laughing and eating snacks with your buddies. Chris Stokes is like that, except if you invite friends over to watch House Party 4 with you, no one will be laughing. Not even the biased token black guy or the illiterate jock. I'm serious, I didn't laugh once throughout this whole movie. The acting is terrible, and the movie looks like a bad indie film. What was the budget for this movie? 5 damn dollars? I mean, what the hell? This movie just sucks; don't waste your time with this crap. It's disgusting.
In all honesty, I haven't seen this film for many years, but the few times I have tend to make parts of it stick in my memory, as anyone who has seen it will understand. I first saw it as a child at a YMCA Halloween party in the early Sixties, and it scared the hell out of us kids, in a fun way. I remember feeling genuine anxiety about the unknown thing lurking in the maze. I can't risk giving away the ending, except to say that it was surprising, to say the least. I remember vaguely the entire audience of young boys letting out a big scared holler, followed by laughter when the terrible secret was revealed. The ending has been seen by most viewers as one of the greatest unintentionally funny climaxes to a movie in film history, and yet oddly moving, in a way. You have to see it for yourself, which is not easy these days. I don't know if it's available on home video or not, but it would still make a great Halloween feature for both kids and adults.
Wow. Not because of the 3-D imagery, which at times was used nicely to provide good deep imagery, but what a lame ending! The end of the movie just seems to implode on itself. This film has got to be one of the goofiest movie monsters ever and one of the most pathetic attempts to try to explain it. The misogyny of this film is painful as well. If you are looking for a bad 50s sci-fi film to laugh at (aka 'bot fodder), go for it. Otherwise, look for better films.
I like all different types of movies, so this is not a bash on romantic movies from a guy who only likes The Matrix etc etc.<br /><br />I just felt it was a lousy movie. I don't feel that there was enough buildup of the characters to fall in love. They were there for a few days and while dealing with a severe hurricane and major issues in each of their lives, Richard Gere and Diane Lane fall hopelessly and helplessly in love?? It isn't realistic. This movie didn't make me buy into it and feel it emotionally and that is something that you look for in a good plot. Some emotional connection. If someone can relate to them falling in love that quickly, without any true substance , than so be it. You are neither right or wrong. Different strokes for different folks.<br /><br />Another very unbelievable component to the movie was Diane Lane's very rude teenage daughter becoming nice and sympathetic at the end of the movie. Does a teenage girl who is that miserable and aggravated at her mother for not getting back with her cheating husband going to just have a switch turn on and be nice? This movie, in a nutshell, had some big names, but to me, was a major disappointment.
Let me get this straight:<br /><br />"Hotshot plastic surgeon loses a patient on the operating table while removing a cyst from her face and ends up falling in love with recently separated bed and breakfast hostess within about 24 hours of meeting her due to her solid advice on bedside manner."<br /><br />Wow. Move over "The Notebook", there's a new kid in town.<br /><br />Where to begin. Well, how about the depth of this "relationship"? I think we can safely sum up the foundation of this undying love in the following steps:<br /><br />1. Exchange polite pleasantries over a bite of salad. 2. Drink copious amounts of Jack Daniels; play basketball with old food 3. Provide glib, unsolicited advice to each other on your crappy lives. 4. Make love during a hurricane. 5. Devote your lives to each other via airmail.<br /><br />I noticed George C Wolfe has "The Hairball" and "United Kanye West Project" in his dossier. Would "stick to your genre" be too harsh? Enough said. I think most would agree that the best love stories make us cry, or laugh or even hope. But the reason they are able to do that is that, somewhere during the storyline, we really start to care about the characters we're watching on screen. To make us care, there must be time spent developing these characters...their lives, their history, why we're watching them now. Wolfe didn't seem to want to "waste our time" with such trivialities, and instead provided us with all of about 8 minutes of background information on each character before hurling us into an intense one-on-one interaction between two ACTORS we've all come to adore, but two CHARACTERS we could care less about.<br /><br />For one brief tender moment when Richard Gere exclaims that he doesn't expect her to listen to his problems, and she invites him for dinner, the viewer sees a glimmer - a beginning - of something special between these two characters. But instead of being allowed to enjoy the anticipation and playfulness of "what happens next" in the wonderful, unpredictable joy that is courtship, we are instead pushed headlong into a love affair between two people we hardly know.<br /><br />Let's face it. We have all heard cheesy one liners in Romantic films. But the reason we cut some slack to Bogart in "Casablanca" or Nicholson in "Something's Gotta Give" is because our hearts and minds have been lifted to the heavens and dragged through the mud and back again with these characters, and by the time they deliver the line, we're so deeply involved with their plight, we don't even notice the cheese factor. Since Wolfe doesn't allow us to love or even like our protagonists, all we're left with a fromage sandwich and a few snickers in the audience.<br /><br />Wolfe takes the old Hollywood director's phrase "cut to the chase" much too literally here. As each stilted one liner is delivered by our cast, the viewer is left wondering if director Wolfe is subliminally saying to the audience: "c'mon. it's a Richard Gere romance. just buy in."<br /><br />It is as a result of this stunning lack of character - or relationship - development that the film's climax fails miserably to tug at our hearts. When Gere's character dies, I felt like I was watching the news about someone I didn't know passing away. Or watching a ladies' eights rowing race during the beijing olympics. Just. Didn't. Care.<br /><br />Epic. Fail.
If you read the book before seeing the movie you may be disappointed like I was. The book was great and I was sure after seeing the movie preview that the movie would be great as well, however I felt like I was watching a movie where the director and cast did not even read what these characters where like. The movie is short and they do not really ever make us feel that these people were truly in love and felt like sole mates. Even if the movie did not go in the same direction as the book at least they could of made the romance between these two characters feel more intense. I think both Diane Lane and Richard Gere were perfect for these two characters and they have good chemistry however they just did not develop a long enough storyline for us to see how they longed for each other. The book was true love story and I think this movie could of been a lot better.
My husband brought this home from the video store, so I could watch something while stuck home sick. The sort of sick where you could never concentrate on a book, but a sorta silly, light, romantic flick sounds just right (that, and a bowl of chicken soup). Well, he meant well.<br /><br />My first thought (as some others post here also) was that the house MUST be fake...it's not only isolated alone on the beach, but set on moorings into the loose sand, and so close to the ocean that the surf waves go directly under the house! This looks so obviously dangerous (in hurricane country, in THE FALL), so potentially disastrous that I was sure filmmakers had simply CGI'd the whole thing (or used movie magic to plunk a cute B&B into the surf).<br /><br />But I have to tell you guys, thanks to "teh interwebs", I can say that the house, "Serendipity" is very real, is indeed near Rodanthe and except for some window dressing and shrubs, appears mostly as it does in the film. You can rent it yourself, off season, for $1710 a week (or about $3850 in summer)! Go for it! But...interestingly, the house has severe problems. The second thing that struck me after "would be washed away" was "what about the plumbing/electrical? in that surf?", and sure enough, "Serendipity" was condemned for a break in the sanitation, caused by overwash from the ocean. (They are rebuilding.)<br /><br />And the house isn't from the "Civil War". Not to mention that Viola Davis, playing "cliché black best friend" (thankless role for a fine actress, last seen in "Doubt"), is not remotely old enough that her GRANDMOTHER could have built anything in the Civil War! HELLO! that was 150 years ago! Try great-great-GREAT! (In reality, "Serendipity" was built in 1988, laughably recently.) <br /><br />The basic film is built on a typical Nicholas Sparks weeper, which means a lot of coincidence and trite predictable happenstance. It is also aimed in a very pandering way towards "women" -- you know, us women who love B&Bs, fusty antiques and knick-knacks...who dream of romance and guys who look like Richard Gere and dancing in the moonlight. Don't give us plot, or thoughtful character development; just set up some mechanisms and bring on the love scenes!<br /><br />Gere plays a plastic surgeon, who lost a female patient during a routine surgery for a benign cyst on her cheek. Of course, she died of an overdose of ANESTHESIA, so you wonder right away why the surgeon is guilted up and not the anesthesiologist! HELLO! where is that guy? Why is the wrong doctor feeling guilty?<br /><br />Gere has come to pout and confront the woman's husband, and is staying at the remote B&B...who should be there, why the ONLY OTHER PERSON IN THE INN...Diane Lane! She's a lonely divorcée, with rotten kids, and an ex-hubby who wants her back. While she's trying to decide about that, the cliché best black friend has her subbing as hostess at the B&B.<br /><br />Now, in the real world, if this set up ever even happened, the doctor would look like Ernest Borgnine...and the lonely divorcée, like Rosie O'Donnell. He'd spend his vacation horndogging 22 year old girls on the beach, while she sulked and thought about going on a diet. But this isn't the real world; I digress.<br /><br />The couple confess all, fall in love, a hurricane hits...they make love, fall in love, he has to go away, he dies and she cries a lot about that. The end.<br /><br />There, I've saved you from it; now you don't have to torture yourself or any male acquaintances (husbands, sons, boyfriends) from sitting through this tripe. Very wearying.<br /><br />Someone else asked why Diane Lane, a perfect tiny woman (whom filmmakers seem to love to cast, because she's just pretty and thin enough that most women would like to look like her, but she's 45ish and not over-the-top, so she isn't threatening) is constantly covered in big tarp-like shawls. This would make sense if she was chubby, but she isn't.<br /><br />Anyways, someone throw a pretty, paisley shawl over this film. So we don't have to watch it. Conclusion: read a book, unless you are too sick. If too sick, go to sleep.
Richard Gere and Diane Lane star in a chick flick romance with the sort of ending I get really angry about...lets just say its not my cup of tea, just like the dime store romances are not my cup of tea.<br /><br />The plot has a doctor stopping at an inn and meeting a woman that he has a deep but brief affair with. He goes off to meet his estranged son and she goes back to her life.<br /><br />Well acted and well made the filmmakers forgot to get a real plot line. This is the stuff of dime store romances that makes the women swoon and the men shake their head in disbelief. I wouldn't be so adverse to the film as a mindless romance, except that the film takes a turn in the final reel that is so out of left field as to be completely unbelievable. Why must certain types of movies do stupid things like this? It really ruined it for me.<br /><br />If you like romance give it a shot, though wait for cable.
Frankly, after Cotton club and Unfaithful, it was kind of embarrassing to watch Lane and Gere in this film, because it is BAD. The acting was bad, the dialogs were extremely shallow and insincere. It was well shot, but, then again, it is a big budget movie. It was too predictable, even for a chick flick. I even knew from the beginning that he was going to die in the end, the only thing I didn't know was how. Too politically correct. Very disappointing. The only thing really worth watching was the scenery and the house, because it is beautiful. But, if you want that, watch National geographic. I love Lane, but I've never seen her in a movie this lousy. As far as Gere goes, he's a good actor, but he had movies like this, so I'm not surprised. An hour and a half I wish I could bring back.
Here in Australia Nights in Rodanthe is being promoted in the same class as the Notebook. Quite frankly what a lot of rot.<br /><br />This film is a like a recipe. On paper we have all the right ingredients... Richard Gere normally perfect in this genre, Diane Lane an old favourite from "Under Tuscan Sun" and "Unfaithful", ocean side location, solitude and yet the movie sucks. At the session we went to yesterday afternoon a women next to my wife fell asleep and half way through the movie got up and left! The main problem is there is no build up or credibility to the relationship in the first place. And perhaps there are too many long faces and downbeat if you like histories that Gere and Lane's characters bring to the movie. There's hours of those balanced out with perhaps 5 minutes of what we can to see... romance! There's no warmth from Gere's character, Lane looks dreadful at the start of the movie and all washed out. So as the viewer we cannot really connect to the characters.<br /><br />Others here say the book is great. Well be it the screenplay, direction or production someone here has made a real mess of this movie. It's like the scenes and the buildup are a deck of cards except instead of being in the correct order they've just been thrown together all over the place.<br /><br />Very disappointing... save your money for when it hits the video shops and even then wait for a good deal when it goes to the weekly rate.
This is one of the more unromantic movies I have ever seen.<br /><br />Casting: Richard Gere is just too old looking for romantic lead roles anymore. Diane looks a bit eager to please and frowning as usual but she seems unconvinced by the romance herself. Supporting cast not too memorable.<br /><br />Story: The medical drama he has to deal with is unconvincing and is not interesting. The story is weak - not enough happens to make a movie about. There is nothing new to say or no new way to say it here. <br /><br />The setting is a little bleak and the house it is set in is unattractive. <br /><br />NOT destined to be a great one to remember.
While I am not a woman, I can enjoy a chick flick if its good. This one however is beyond bad. You have the by the book story, girl is getting divorced, boy with issues shows up. BOOM magic happens and his demons are banished as she realizes her life has a new purpose.<br /><br />Now while I can believe that kind of thing might happen, I am not an idiot. It wouldn't happen over a weekend of geriatric rumpy-pumpy, it would take time. Yet here the producers know they only have 1 hour and 30 minutes so they force the changes of the two to happen, I suppose a night of getting hammered and a night of gramps and granny going at it like dogs in heat might be enough if you believed romance novels were the gospel... but most people don't.<br /><br />Now, if that isn't enough... the producers remembered that a chick flick needs to make the viewer cry... well they tried to make you cry with the two senior citizens getting jiggy with it by failed... so how could they hit you again? Why I know, lets kill off one of the characters for no good reason at all except that a random death will surely bring a tear to the eye.... and now lets have the teen daughter magically bond with heart broken mom for no reason besides the fact that it would be nice (completely unreal, but who cares).<br /><br />So there you have it... girl find boy, boy find love, death finds boy and mom cries.... what a movie - NOT.
Lonely, disconnected, middle-class housewife in the midst of a divorce seeks solace to reflect on her immediate future. At some sort of bed and breakfast by (well, literally in the sea) the ocean that for some sort of odd reason she subs for the owner. Enter lonely, arrogant Richard Gere. He is a plastic surgeon. He is the only guest at the inn in the sea. Diane Lane is the lonely housewife. You'll never guess these two fall immediately in love. A tropical storm makes them true lovers.<br /><br />The subplots in this melodrama make little or no sense. The locations, photography are fine. Gere remains one of the most over-rated actors in cinema and does not disappoint. Ms. Lane must've needed the money, but phones in her part with grace.
I had high hopes for this film, even though I had not read the book. Richard Gere and Diane Lane together--should be good already. But the film does not deliver on the promise. I kept waiting for more depth to the characters and there wasn't. I have no problem with the fact that it only took a weekend for them to fall in love. That can happen. But we never really get to know the characters. I would have liked more focus on them. The film reminded me in places of Bridges of Madison County, and that film was far better. I really felt for the characters in that film, and there was a chemistry (much more passion) between Clint Eastwood and Meryl Streep that there wasn't between Gere and Lane. Each of them are very good actors in his or her own right. Simply not the right movie for them together.
Not quite a bomb? The only thing missing was the enriched uranium. Actually the script "may" have worked if the lead roles had been cast with younger actors, but the dramatics of an aging Diane Lane acting as if she was a teenager (or even a twenty-something) was too much to stomach. Every time she (Adrienne) would jump into the arms of Richard Gere and then pull both heels up behind her, you could almost see the grimace of pain on his face as he was probably thinking, "Oh, my aching back...this babe sure doesn't weight 125 lbs. anymore!" Anyway, both characters were distinctly unlikeable, especially Richard Gere's: a self absorbed plastic surgeon (Dr. Paul Flanner) that was on some kind of "soul quest" after a botched operation left him with a dead patient (an older woman from a small farm). Then there was her angry husband and son he had to deal with to explain what happened. Dr. Flanner is on his way to meet said angry husband (at the husband's request) when he meets up with Adrienne. She is recently split from her unfaithful husband (shock) and is helping out a friend by watching her beach-front cottage rental. Of course, that's where Dr. Flanner ends up staying and they both end up falling MADLY in love (especially after she finds out he is a rich doctor AND a plastic surgeon). In between romantic interludes and a nauseating song/dance routine that Lane (Adrienne) performs while listening to an old LP (no CD's?), they both try to figure how their lives got so totally screwed up. Dr. Flanner was also not much of a father and has a son (who is also a Dr.) who resents him for not being there for him while he was growing up. (Naturally Dr. Flanner was more interested in his medical career at the time rather than raising an impetuous, distracting boy.) To make a long (predictable) story short, Adrienne helps Dr. Flanner face his inner demons as well as confront said angry husband and son of the woman who died on his operating table (after going in for a "routine" cyst removal of the face). Dr. Flanner is FINALLY able to tell the husband (played excruciatingly sympathetic by Scott Glenn) that he is sorry for what happened - even though it was all the fault of that danged anesthesiologist. "I told him she was too old for that much juice!" Glenn's character,(Robert Torrelson) appears to accept Dr. Flanner's apology. It's hard to tell because his emotional response is so passive by this time that you wonder if if he is even hearing the good Dr. at all or thinking about some acreage that he needs to plow. Ever more circumspect, Dr. Flanner then decides he needs to visit his son (who is now practicing medicine pro-bono in a third world country) to mend their relationship. Unfortunately, that means he must temporarily bid adieu to Adrienne. Of course, while entertaining the natives in Timbuktu, he writes a love letter every hour on the hour to Adrienne (who nearly swoons like a school girl every time she gets one) and tells her that the hardest thing he ever had to do was to tell her goodbye. Evidently, apologizing to Robert Torrelson for his wife's death was the second hardest thing. In the end he gets killed in a freak mud slide (poetic justice as in mud pack?) and she is left with just the memories of what could have been...hopefully no more Gere/Lane sequels!
*Warning: 1 tiny inconsequential spoiler* You're right. This was no Bridges of Madison County. As soon as the lonely woman and Richard Gere checked into the big empty hotel, it was a foregone conclusion something kind of fun would happen. The question is: how will it come about? The answer is some stupid connect-the-dots story not worth sitting through. In one supposed bonding experience, they get drunk and clean out the cupboard of old cans.(That was my spoiler.) And the next day they put them back. LOL It wasn't compelling AT ALL. I'm an old married lady like the one in the movie and MY friendships are more interesting than HER romance with Richard Gere. LOL . . . It did have that advantage. You walk away and go, oh brother . . . even I could have written something more believable than that. I guess my life isn't quite as dull as I thought it was if I can scoff at a romance with Richard Gere. LOL! And that friend inherited that totally contemporary, probably computer-generated mansion, resting half in the ocean, from her GRANDMOTHER who built it AFTER THE CIVIL WAR??? Maybe her grandmother is Oprah and this was WAY after the Civil War? And yes, WHERE WAS THE EMAIL? What alternative universe do these people live in? I never want to see another movie that pretends we don't have email, and facebook,and texting. And OK, maybe these people have a horrible aversion to delivering news over the phone, but don't ask me to believe anyone in this age of instant communication that someone just drops into your life without calling first.
We thought this was one of the worst movies ever. I had to volunteer to watch the end. The romance was not believable; the characters were not developed; the love affair made hardly any sense; it was miscast; and scenery was absolutely stupid because it was either (my opinion) like the ADAMS FAMILY GOES ON VACATION...just creepy, gypsy and cheesy; and the OUTERBANKS does not look typically like those houses on the surf; and who would spend the night in one during a hurricane if it was not theirs. Also..it was not realistic. hurrricanes give you plenty of notice to batten down the hatches.<br /><br />Also the friend was superfluous; and did not match the story What did the civil war have to do with the outerbanks anyway? I also have to mention the wardrobe...did D. Lane have to have a scarf/pashmina/shawl on in every scene? It was overdone. She looked good enough to not have to hide things; without making them obvious like with light slacks.<br /><br />Lastly I am concerned with the impact on our landfills when everyone has to dispose of this stupid, and I mean STUPID movie!!!! Don't fall for the hype on this one!!!!!! We did. Not even watchable.
This movie is the final straw. As two dedicated fans of the romantic comedy, this movie has finally made us realise that nothing good has come out of this genre since Love Actually. There was nothing good about the film whatsoever. It was an affront to love, death and everything in between. Including horses and beaches. There was absolutely no chemistry between the characters. This movie took the spark out of Nicholas Sparks. Diane Lane cannot act to save her life. She was unconvincing in her laugh, cry, and dance. And she needs a better haircut. There is no reason to watch this movie. Save yourself. The romantic comedy is officially dead.
Every great romantic comedy needs conflict between the romantic leads to lend suspense, anticipation and allure to the plot. This story falls completely flat in this area. There is no conflict - at least none that would inhibit the eventual joining of the two lead characters, and so suspense is flat, there is no anticipation, and there really is no allure at all.<br /><br />The chemistry between Richard Gere and Diane Lane is representative of friendship at best, and with the talent of these two particular actors, I was quite surprised. During the movie, I expected them more to play a game of checkers and chat about the weather than see any moving passion.<br /><br />While I'm a fan of both actors, I do believe that the casting in this movie was off - or, perhaps the direction was off-base and it impacted their deliveries. The writing was very weak, which also might have impacted the performances; most certainly, the script could have used some help from some Harlequin writers who have real experience putting the heat in romance.<br /><br />This movie may be worth watching on a rainy Sunday afternoon, but only after it's on the cheap shelf.<br /><br />(Sorry Diane Ladd and Richard Gere).
This is probably the most uninvolving film I've ever seen. I watched it because I have a soft spot for Leon (everything else Besson has done has been just awful, in my opinion, with the exception of the script for Wasabi) and Jean Reno. It's a testament to just how bad this film is that Reno, one of the most charismatic and effortlessly affable actors (admittedly he's just starting out here) can't make this film, or the moments in which he is on screen, watchable.<br /><br />It's all very film-schooly: black and white, no dialogue, people doing things for no apparent reason, people chasing each other while in turn being chased by a shaky camera. And, predictably, none of it is entertaining.<br /><br />It's not a "French Mad Max" as some people have claimed (actually, I think they mean "Mad Max 2") - that is a superficial comparison based only on the fact that both films have a post-apocalyptic setting, and is just the kind of comment you'd expect from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. Mad Max 2 was pulsating, Mad Max 2 was exciting, Mad Max 2 was worth your time - Le Dernier Combat is none of these.<br /><br />I know it's supposed to be cool to like arty black-and-white French films and equally cool to say you saw something in them that other people did not (or you managed to sit through it without feeling drowsy), which is why I wouldn't trust anyone who claims to like Le Dernier Combat, because I see nothing of worth in it whatsoever; it asks for so much and gives nothing back. I found myself drifting from it after about five minutes and it never did anything to regain my full attention. Anyone who can sit through it undistracted isn't human, or, at the very most, is psychotic. (Actually, they're probably just trying to seem "cool").
Lame B-horror that takes itself too damn seriously considering its subject matter concerns an aging old dear who has been turned into a creature of the night by a lodger who has come to rent a room from her. When said lodger is killed off, Mom has to go out to feed on her own and that causes some family strain and also garners some attention from the authorities.<br /><br />My main complaint is that this film should have brought THE FUNNY. It failed to do so although it did have some mild gore and schlocky creature makeup effects to keep the B-movie crowd happy. I've seen worse but I wouldn't give this one a rec--4.5/10.
Mom begins at night in the middle of nowhere, at what looks like a wooden building in the desert. A pick-up truck pulls up & an angry Father chucks his slutty daughter Virginia Monroe (Claudia Christian) out & leaves her there, but she isn't alone as the shadowy figure of Nestor Duvalier (Brion James) watches her from a short distance. Virginia tries to make conversation but as she grinds a cigarette out under her Leopard print, thigh high, high heeled boots Nestor grabs her by her throat & drags her off into the darkness. Nestor then rips her top open, turns into a monster & starts to eat her innards. Virginia is the latest victim of a serial killer that have Lieutenant Carlo Hendrix (Art Evans) & the LAPD baffled, or at least that's the message a local TV news reporter named Clay Dwyer (Mark Thomas MIller) is telling his viewers. Clay is happily living with his pregnant girlfriend Alice (Mary Beth McDonough) & therefore his Mother Emily (Jeanne Bates) has a spare room going which she decides to rent out to the 'blind' dark sunglass wearing Nestor. Unfortunately for Emily she accidentally knocks Nestor's sunglasses off which reveal he has strange coloured eyes, Nestor then turns into a monster again & bites Emily turning her into a flesh-eating monster just like himself. Nestor takes Emily out to train her, they find a suitable homeless bum (Rory VanSaint), murder him & eat his guts but Emily's son Clay has witnessed the whole thing & he must choose between doing what is right & his love for his Mother who now just happens to be a grotesque bloodsucking & flesh-eating monster!<br /><br />Edited, written & directed by Patrick Rand I thought Mom was a pretty awful film. Looking at some of the other comments on the IMDb & the genre listing it has been given it appears many seem to think that Mom is a comedy horror. Well I can tell you now that I didn't see any comedic elements in Mom at all because there aren't any, unless they are very subtle. The only thing that I can assume is that people see comedy in the actual situation which Mom presents, that being an old lady turning into a flesh-eating monster & the predictable problems & emotional angst that it causes to her son who finds out. There are no jokes (apart from naming a prostitute Beverly Hills (Stella Stevens)), slapstick humour or anything even remotely funny in the film itself & as far as I could see it is played totally straight throughout it's 90 minute run time. So with there being no comedy in Mom that must mean there's lots of horror right? Wrong, Mom sucks & is painfully slow to watch especially after the first thirty odd minutes which consist of Nestor turning into a monster a couple of times, biting Emily, showing her how to hunt for food & Clay finding out. Until this point Mom was moving at a fairly decent pace, had some OK special make-up effects & had me interested, unfortunately Mom runs for another hour which is basically the emotional crap suffered by Emily's Son, the eventual breakdown of his marriage & him being torn between love for his Mother & the fact that she's a flesh-eating monster. This part of the film is incredibly slow, boring & as dull as dishwater even having the nerve to resort to a clichéd role-reversal scenario where Clay tells his Mom to go to her room & stay there locking the door behind her, telling her off & putting bars over her window so she can't escape her room. Mom's script totally ignores the monsters origins & ask's us to just accept that this thing exists without giving a single reason why we should, no matter how silly an explanation might have been I think some background to the monster would have helped. Technically Mom is bland & cheap looking, although I can't say it's badly made it's very average stuff all the way with nothing that particularly impresses or anything with which I could make fun of to pass the time. The special make-up effect's on the monster are OK but their used in very quick flashes, blink & you'll miss them. Don't be fooled by any fancy video box artwork like I was, the monster is only in it three times maximum & all of those are within the pacey first thirty minutes. There isn't much gore either, a severed arm, some brief intestine eating, a burnt body & a drill in someone's arm is all we get. The acting is OK but please Mr. Brion James what is that dodgy accent all about!? At least James had the good sense to know he was in crap & sensibly opted to be killed off early on in the proceedings, everyone else are nobodies expect the black Lieutenant who was also a black police officer in Fright Night (1985) but you may recognise him from Die Hard 2 (1990), he made Mom & Die Hard 2 in the same year?! Talk about opposite ends of the spectrum! Overall there is nothing by which I can really recommend Mom as a horror film & it certainly isn't a comedy as far as I'm concerned. Very poor, very disappointing & yet again I've been conned by fancy video-box artwork with lots of stills of cool looking monsters. Definitely one to avoid.
This movie has to be one of the most boring and stupid movies that Perrugorria have done. <br /><br />It looks like a commercial from beginning to end. The ¨director¨spent the whole time on a tripod, it doesn't have pace, rhythm. It's illogical. what a mess. You can tell what's gonna happen since the first 15 minutes, and the ending...Wow<br /><br />------spoiler-------<br /><br />Jesus Christ, how the hell Perrugorria got shot? Are you serious? Worst scene of someone getting shot ever!<br /><br />------end of spoiler-----<br /><br />Bad directing, bad script, bad acting...Really bad overall. I wouldn't recommend this movie at all. It's a waste of money and time.
I have just seen Caribe a couple of nights ago at the annual Vistas Film Festival held here in Dallas, and I must express my discontent. The opening caption tries to tell us that the film is a portrayal of the current invasion of South American countries (Costa Rica, in this particular case) by North American oil companies, and the negative effects, both economic and environmental, of this invasion. The main characters are a married couple who live a simple, pleasant life maintaining a banana farm. Right away, a woman arrives and announces that she is the wife's half-sister. I'm not going to go into specifics about this (and to be honest, I don't feel that I'm spoiling anything with this review), yet another key point is that the company to whom they distribute their bananas drops them due to budget demands in a poor economy. So, the main conflict that is supposed to be addressed in the movie is of the husband between the rock and the hard place, trying to preserve his livelihood. On one hand, the Reynolds oil company has basically offered him employment and financial compensation (basically a bribe) to use his public influence to encourage the town to allow the company to begin drilling in their town (compromising his standing with the community and the community itself). On the other hand, he is faced with being dead broke, but on the side of his community, protesting the drilling. Given the length of this film, it would have been ample time to explore the issues just described, but it just doesn't happen, and I'll tell you why. You will notice that this film has won a couple of awards so far, one for direction and an audience award. I'm not going to pick apart Esteban's direction, it wasn't bad or good enough for me to be all that passionate about writing anything. The audience award was at a film festival in Spain, and for it to gain an audience award, I'd have to imagine that Spanish people just dig soap operas. In fact, Central and South America dig soap operas as well, I know that much. I assume that Esteban was either aiming to take advantage of this or that he himself digs soap operas, because that is what unfolds over the course of this film, so much to the point that it kicks the whole oil company plot to the side, almost as if they imagined halfway through the making of this film that it had become tiresome, because it seems like at least three of the supporting characters have had their back story and character development severely compromised to make room for more sex and crying scenes. The only true villain in the movie is one of these three characters, and at no point do you actually get to find out who the hell he is. It's almost as if they cut his screen time just short of taking him out of the film entirely. From time to time, they toy with the oil against community plot, but these are digressions at best. What we see a lot more of are scenes of passion, jealousy, betrayal, adultery, etc. These themes saturate the story to such a degree that the oil company 'sub'plot becomes unnecessary. It's almost as if this was a stunt to legitimize a romantic drama (soap opera) by throwing in a little political relevance. Nevertheless, the film gets so caught up in the romance that it ultimately doesn't know what to do with itself, resulting in an ending so tacked on that you're left wondering what it is that you've been waiting around for, or if there was ever anything to begin with. Here are two things that I think could have saved this movie: either cut out the half-sister or cut out the oil company. It's obvious which one of the two they were more interested in. Or, perhaps if Caribe had been an hour longer, they could have worked this all out. Regardless, I'd have been fine with a straight-up soap opera and I think that the subject of oil companies exploiting foreign nations is in dire need of addressing by the film community. Caribe is both and neither. These two angles could have worked together had they been balanced accordingly, but with a romantic plot running around in circles and taking up almost twice as much time as necessary at the expense of an oil plot that's barely been established to begin with, both sides suffer. Best of all, the romance plot is never even resolved. I'd like to say I'd watch this movie again to see what I've missed, but I have a strong feeling that I already know what it is. As far as I'm concerned, it wouldn't matter if I saw Caribe ten more times. I've missed it because it is simply not there.
This movie was produced by the biggest producer in Costa Rica. Although their authors brag about it as a the biggest movie in Costa Rica ever made and their actors even dare to say that they didn't get an Oscar Nomination due to it's political relevance with oil (-he he, right) ...Well, this is all a lie. This movie was supposedly based on a book written by Carlos Salazar Herrera about a love triangle (super cliché soap opera-like subject) and it secondary story is about an oil problem on the Atlantic Coast of Costa Rica with an American oil company who wanted to explore oil deposits on the region, but at the end it never was approved by the government. Now, it may have some nice footage about the beaches, but that's it; nothing bigger than that... it is all in the camera. Most of the actors are lousy, except for two or three. The rest lack of sense of what acting means: they overact most of the time. The story is completely common and cliché, worthy of a cheap Mexican soap opera as I said.. because the crew advertised it as a protest movie about oil, but 80% of the movie is based on a stupid love triangle. The script is nothing impressing, it is very simple and the dialogs are not very thought. It has also got some editing problem on a couple of scene changes... but besides that is pretty decent. The director did an alright job, I mean, he is not like an Oliver Stone,but he did his job with the resources he had handy. I would like to question him why instead of using Costarican actor he spent most of the money on foreign ones.. I mean after all they bragged about being an 100% Costarican Production... that's what you at least expect. Final the end is is not well done, there are flaws and details that don't match or are useless. Besides being the most elaborated movie in all Costarican history, I think it's mediocre. You can make way more interesting and better pictures with less cash. Never heard of "Pi"? Anyway, if you are curious about Costa Rican or Central American movies, this one will do, but you are definitively not missing anything.
I happened to catch this movie on late night TV. I saw the opening credits and thought this looks good. Well I was very wrong. While not excruciatingly bad (it had some funny and tender moments)it lacked any sense of cohesion.<br /><br />It started off well enough with Kathy Bates'character having a midlife crisis of sorts when her husband leaves her and her singing idol is murdered. But Kathy has played these disaffected women so well before - think Fried Green Tomatoes. The problem wasn't Kathy, it was the clueless screenplay that wandered all over the place. It was as if the writers must have been thinking what will we do next. The script also felt very contrived.<br /><br />Some others who have posted comments on this movie have wondered why it didn't receive a cinematic release. The main reason I think would have been to avoid embarrassment and the critics would have murdered it.<br /><br />Having said all that I thought the small woman who played Maudie was fantastic and stole the movie, not to mention how beautiful she is.
Opening with some blatantly reused footage from 'Kit for Cat', 'Tweety's S.O.S' fails to live up to that classic cartoon. Instead, we get an example of Friz Freleng's Tweety and Sylvester series at its most generic. Unlike Chuck Jones's Road Runner series, which strived to introduce new jokes to the same setting, Freleng's series seemed happy enough to recycle jokes as long as the characters were in a different place. 'Tweety's S.O.S', then, basically amounts to "this time let's put 'em on a boat". It's not an entirely weak cartoon. There are a few good jokes, mostly involving Granny's glasses, but they are outweighed by gags you can see coming a mile off (the seasickness routine) and it all builds to another of those endings where someone else other than Tweety says "I tawt I taw a putty tat", a joke that worked well once but has diminishing returns. 'Tweety's S.O.S' will probably please children who enjoy virtually any cartoon but for big kids like me who are looking for more than the same tired gags it's definitely one to avoid.
Sylvester the cat stowaway upon a ship that Tweety bird happens to be on with his owner Granny. Oh I don't even have enough words to convey how much I disdain both the Tweety and Granny characters. They simply are not funny to me and made this short quite the chore to sit through indeed. Sylvester is a great character on his own, but there's only so much he can do when confronted by the sheer awfulness of that accursed bid and senile old witch of a Granny. This animated short can be found on disc 4 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 1 and features an optional commentary by Micheal Barrier.<br /><br />My Grade: D+
Nothing special to see here, the animation has being outdated and the plot is a typical futuristic era. This film has an original story, but if it doesn't have an original plot or characters, so in my opinion it's not worth seeing. I'm not saying that the movie was bad, it was just a typical anime story and I thought I watched this movie like a thousand times. So if you are looking for something original see another thing.
I had the misfortune of seeing this crapulous effort on television a few years ago. Suffice it to say Michael Gross phones in his performance, and Hasselhoff is the least convincing thief/psycho...EVER! If you have a couple of hours to kill, watch it and prepare to laugh.
"The Duke" is a film based in the heart of the British aristocracy where an old Duke (John Neville) dies and to avoid his large property and the vast riches to be taken from him after death by 2 devious aristocrats (Oliver Muirhead and Sophie Heyman); he passes his Dukeship down to his dog. The dog's "best friend", an American girl named Charlotte (played by Courtnee Draper) whose parents die becomes orphaned by the former Duke due to him being her great uncle. A young chef named Florian arrives, with him and Charlotte instantly connecting creating a romantic sub-plot which in its own way, acts as the under tone for the main plot line being the activities of Hubert, The 'Duke' and his many activities and love interests with other dogs. All this is watched over by James Doohan who plays a Butler who is determined to try and serve his old Duke by doing his best to serve his new master, Hubert. Doohan acts as the older character there to comfort and advise the younger ones whilst he over looks and performs various ridiculous tasks under his new master. A fine comedic performance mixed with elements of drama to end the career of a fine and influential actor.<br /><br />Though from the technical viewpoint, I dislike this film as I only watched upon discovering James Doohan's role. Though the plot is good, elements of the writing and directing have to be obscured. Ignoring the absurdity of a "Doggie Duke", I personally dislike the over use of comedic and outrageous jokes upon the 'bad' characters due to their ludicrousness. The dependence on hygiene related humour as you like is much too apparent and general silliness of many characters doesn't appeal to me. The director, Phillip Spink uses mid-long shots too often with either an overdubbed voice or affecting the overall sound quality. Plus, the acting of Muirhead and Heyman, whilst good at the dramatic and romantic sequences, fall drastically short fulfilling the wholesale requirements regarding the role.<br /><br />But, as a mature movie fan, I find it easy to be over critical of a simple family film designed to make you laugh. I can admit I found certain bits funny and other bits touching along with a plot that may be far-fetched, but has definite connections. I do not recommend this film to mature movie fans but I do highly recommend it to Dog lovers, families who wish to enjoy a funny film for their child and James Doohan fans who wish to see 'Scotty' in his final role.
Even those of us who like cute animal pictures --- and I abhor them ---would be hard pressed to find any merit in this abysmally bad travesty of a film. Perhaps inspired by "101 Dalmatians" with its smart and loyal dogs, its dumb and devious humans and its absurdly "happy" and predictable ending, the alternate title "101 Turkeys" springs to mind. That would just about cover everyone involved in its unfortunate production. I dismissed it as some inane Hollywood perversion of British customs before learning, to my horror, that it actually is a Canadian film, done in Victoria BC, that phony British theme park of a town, while sucking tax dollars out of Ottawa ON, that equally phony pit of Canadian mediocrity. Let me count the ways it is bad. The dizzy plot? The asinine script? The dismal performances and sophomoric direction? The cloyingly clever animals? The endless clichés and predictable slapstick? On second thought, neither I nor those browsing the IMDb have time for a complete catalogue of its failings. Yet were I to detail its merits, this space would remain blank. Trust me, it is bad; a signal monument in the vast pantheon of truly terrible (Canadian) cinema. If you have seen it already, my condolences. If you have not, stay away from it as you would SARS or bubonic plague. Or other movies with cute animals. Don't even let your children see it lest their tiny minds be warped by the even tinier minds of those who financed, fabricated and filmed this frightful folly. Perhaps tonight, when I retire, I will have a nightmare with ghastly fanged beasts springing from the bed table as I flee in frantic flight. I hope so. It will be a far far better thing I do than watch this beastly banal boondoggle. But then, I might dream that I had to watch it a second time and the sheer terror and cold sweat of that makes me want to stay up all night, trembling at the very possibility of seeing it again even as a bad dream. I might even find something worthwhile to watch in its stead. Maybe "Godzilla" or "Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes" Perhaps the instruction video for my built in vacuum cleaner.
Okay, now I am pretty sure that my summary got your attention and my commenting that Zazu Pitts is Satan is not without some basis. Let me explain. The film at first appears to be a dandy B-movie about an evil organization called "the Crooked Circle" and their vow of revenge in the form of murder on a rival organization dedicated to solving crimes. While this is very odd (especially the idea of a club of private citizens who solve crimes) and COULD have been interesting, this film falls apart despite a rather impressive list of familiar supporting actors. Why? Well because Zazu Pitts (never one of my favorite actresses) spends most of the movie whining just like Olive Oyl with a bad toothache!! While murders are being committed, people are being kidnapped or whatever, you can always count on Zazu whining at full volume--almost like someone's obnoxious 3 year-old who wants everyone at a party to pay attention to her! At the same time, she's NOT an integral part of the film but received top billing. Why she is even there is beyond me--I assume it's just to whine and yell. As a result, I found the movie practically unwatchable and it was completely ruined. Now you probably know why I referred to this actress of dubious talent as "Satan"! I'm sure that when the actors in this film saw the final product, they, too, felt pretty much the same way I did about her horrible overacting and amateurish performance.<br /><br />This film is in the public domain and can be found for free download on the internet. I can see why.
Spike Milligan was one of the funniest men I've ever seen, and a huge influence on my life.<br /><br />This movie is limp and awful, and does his memory no credit. The script is cluttered and preserves too many lines from the book intact (the leg jokes here are incomprehensible). The actors' performances are uniformly ineffective, a great cast wasted, and the lead, Sean Hughes, delivers Milligan's belligerent hostilities in a plaintive whine, which misses the point completely.<br /><br />The gentle pacing is a killer as well. Farce should accelerate towards the end. The Goon Shows often did, the novel "Puckoon" definitely did, but this film, if anything, slows down just when you want the various elements to smash together in a final climax.<br /><br />Milligan narrated an abridged audio recording of "Puckoon" in 1980, with T.P. McKenna, Dermot Kelly, Norma Ronald and Jack Hobbs. Now, that's funny. Ten minutes of that is funnier than this whole film. I believe the LP was transferred to CD, but don't know if it's still in print.<br /><br />There is a movie of "Adolf Hitler: My Part in his Downfall" with Jim Dale and Arthur Lowe. It too is a godawful mess, but it's funnier than this thing.<br /><br />It's possible that Milligan's spirit is too rambunctious for the screen. The other reviewers here are indulging in politeness and wishful thinking. This film fumbles virtually every opportunity and never misses a chance to disappoint.
technically, this movie would have had it all: decent actors, a nice landscape, no obvious sights of a lack of budget, a celebrity like richard attenborough. the plot summary also sounded promising, suggesting a satire on silly bureaucracy and common people outwitting it.<br /><br />however, it never delivers. the plot is simply too illogical. throughout the whole movie, not one person does a single sensible thing. mad politicians, ridiculous soldiers, brain-dead villagers - all just hustle from one incredible situation to the next. what they all do never makes sense in a context beyond the current scene.<br /><br />of course, this kind of movie has to be absurd and exaggerated. however, it's also supposed to have at least one instance to point out the madness behind splitting a city in the middle. actually, there are (at least) two attempts, which unfortunately fail: the main character, who doesn't seem to have a clue about what's happening to him, and the "writer", who occasionally cracks jokes from the off that might be considered funny by an audience consisting solely of 12 year olds.<br /><br />what i found most impressing is that the movie tries to be funny all the time, but didn't made me laugh once. i've seen several bad "funny" movies, but until yet every single one of them featured at least 2 or 3 good laughs. so in this sense, "puckoon" is really remarkable.<br /><br />if you want to see a great movie with a comparable plot, check out "brazil". don't waste your time on "puckoon".
When I first looked at the back of the cover of this film, it seemed like me and my friends could be looking forward to 82 memorable minutes. And it certainly was memorable. Puckoon was the kind of movie where you keep asking yourself how this was possible. How it was possible that it was released on DVD at all. Out of all of the movies available at the video rental store that night...we might just have picked the worst. And yes, they had Tomb Raider. Absolutely nothing in this movie amused me even slightly. Who came up with the idea that it would be funny if the narrator could change the story by suggestions from the main character? Out of all the stupid things you can totally ruin a movie with, this is now my favourite. The character Foggerty, the village idiot, played by Nickolas Grace is the most annoying character since they started making movies in color. If there is one single movie that you definately not should see this year, please let it be Puckoon, cause I don't think it can be any worse. I still wonder if this just might have been the worst way I have spent my money, and take my word for that I have made many lousy purchases over the years.
This was a mish mash of a film that started out going nowhere, got lost on the way then suddenly found a plot in the last 5 minutes when the title character is FINALLY introduced. There were so many ugly, mutton-chopped guys in this film, I lost track of who was the owner and who were the overseers. I have a theory about the casting though; all the bad guys were played by ugly actors (and one ugly actress) and all the good guys/victims were played by beautiful actors. Indeed the actors who played the ultimate victims, the slaves, were gorgeous as was the innocent priest's daughter, while the plantation owner, his minipulative mistress and his overseers were pretty hard on the eyes. On purpose? You make the call.<br /><br />I hung in there till the end and some others might be able to make it as well. If you just want to look at bare breasts, there are plenty of them here and if you have a slave/master fetish then you'll love this film. Otherwise, watch it once, vomit, shower and never speak of it to anyone.
The Italians are undeniable masters in the questionable "art" of ripping off and imitating movies. What they do is take an innovative, money-making and foreign concept, maintain the basic plot and just add a whole lot of action, sleaze and political incorrectness. But what to do when the non-Italian original is already a reputedly notorious film and quite difficult to surpass in terms of slop and controversy? Well then, I guess, you simply disregard everything in terms of story-building or stylishness and fully focus on making something that is practically a porno movie! This Italian turkey was inspired by Richard Fleischer's successful slavery-saga "Mandingo", released one year earlier, but since the makers were even too lazy to think up a different title, you shouldn't expect anything that even remotely resembles a narrative depth, character drawings, unsettling atmosphere or thought-provoking statements regarding cross cultural relationships. "MandingA" is pure and simply a sexploitation effort where the plot only develops itself throughout the last ten minutes, in other words when you stopped caring a long time ago already. The characters in this film are a gathering of despicable bastards, which is of course to expect when you're dealing with wealthy and obnoxious white folks running a plantation in South America. The elderly and supremely sleazy owner of the place is a widower (who probably also won a couple of "Moustache-of-the-Year" awards) who exploits and extendedly whips the slaves working for him. His mistress, who if I understood correctly is also his cousin (?), is a genuine bitch of a woman who enjoys provoking arguments and sneaks out of the house overnight to copulate with crucified slaves. When the plantation owner's son returns from Europe, after approximately 25 minutes of purely wasted running time, the plot slightly begin to develop itself at last. The handsome young man has sex with the bitchy woman a couple of times (even in front of the slaves, supposedly to "demonstrate" how their masters do it…) but eventually he falls in love with the cherubic preacher's daughter. His romantic preference obviously makes the bitchy woman mad with anger, and she plots a horribly cruel act of vengeance that will alter life on the plantation forever. Hey … I just realized this brief description of the plot actually makes "Mandinga" sound like an interesting film! Well, it's NOT and I apologize if I raised anyone's anticipations. It's an incredibly boring and hideous film to struggle through, but if the themes appeal to you, then definitely check out the aforementioned "Mandingo". Much rather than sick exploitation, that film is a truly insightful portrait of one of mankind darkest history pages and it was also a properly produced film, with real actors, great music and impressive filming locations. "Mandinga" has nothing, absolutely nothing to offer.
Trading on the success of the 1975 hit, this film is a cheaply made story of a plantation where Massa gets down with the slave women, and the Missus gets down with the big black stud, and with massa'a son also. In fact, there is so much getting down going on, that I really don't know why anyone bothered to get dressed.<br /><br />So, if you want to see white women rolling their naked bodies all over tied up slaves, or you just like a movie with tits on display every five minutes, then this one is for you.<br /><br />There is a funny/sad story in here, but it only comes at the very end so as to not interfere with all the hot sweaty sex going on on the plantation.
Italian rip off of Mandingo and The Drum is a badly dubbed Italian life on the plantation yarn. Lots of people who don't look like they belong in the American South wear badly tailored costumes and wander around locations that look nothing like the American south. The plot has something about the romance between a rich man and a certain young woman, the jealousy that ensues and the tragedy that follows. The film promises hot steamy sex and lots of twisted violence but nothing ever really comes of any of it, its all tease. Its all probably racially insensitive, I couldn't notice since its artistically bankrupt. The final twist is at best laughable. A major turkey.
1st watched 3/17/2002 - 2 out of 10(Dir-Mario Pinzauti): Silly, sex-filled master & slave having too many intimate relations movie. This movie seemed to care more about the sex than the story and kind of worked the story around the sex. Laughable dubbing of the original Italian language in the version I watched with ridiculous ending where the attempt is made to give an anti-slave statement(or should I say one line). What a waste of time for everyone who watches this trash.
I actually was looking forward to this movie. After reading a number of reviews before the release, it sounded like a genuinely nice film, one that was beautifully filmed and one with an interesting cast (Nicholas Cage, Penelope Cruz and John Hurt.)<br /><br />Well, it might have been all of those things BUT it is so boring that I defy almost anyone to sit through this in its entirety and keep attention. Also, Cage's attempt at speaking with an Italian accent is embarrassingly bad. He's such a good actor that I cringed every time he spoke in this film. <br /><br />'Disappointing" seems to be the most-often word used by reviewers here to describe this film, and I totally agree.<br /><br />I guess it didn't take long for word to get out about how bad this movie was because, like Cage's accent, it did not do well.
I give it a 2, because of the beautiful Mediterranean Greece, otherwise it would be 1. When Nicholas Cage came into with his first lines, I thought he was just kidding. Cage as an Italian ?? I'm sorry, but very wrong actor who's acting is also BAD, not to mention his Italiano accent. The story is very loose, it might have been good, but with other actors and obviously with other screenplay. The camera is great, photography also but why the hell did you cast Nicholas Cage and Penelope Cruz for the role. Please don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against Cage, he has some really great movies, but he obviously isn't for every role. It's really a pity that the cast wasn't better set, because the story has potential.
In 4 words, Captain Corelli's Mandolin was "completely out of tune" with the book. The novel provided sufficient character background to understand the relationships and personal challenges the characters needed to overcome; the script writer chose to ignore the details. In ignoring them (e.g. the priest's role initially as a buffoon, but later as a spiritual leader, the fiancee's inability to read until taught by a socialist rebel, the bomb experts advice to Corelli and his eventual ironic demise), the story and characters fall flat.<br /><br />This was the first movie that I've ever walked out of midway through. Interesting cinematography, great actors do not MAKE a film; the story does.
An awful travesty of the Greek resistance. Senorita Cruz badly miscast as a Cephalonian Greek girl (there are plenty of attractive good English –speaking Greek actresses so why pick a Spanish lady for one of the leading roles and with an English actor as her father, supposedly a Greek doctor!? Many of the supporting cast are well known actors and actresses from Greek theatre and TV series. The only foreign actor, to my knowledge, who has successfully portrayed a Greek was Anthony Quinn (as the Macedonian lignite miner Zorba in Zorba the Greek, as the plutocratic shipowner in the Greek Tycoon,and as a Greek colonel in the Guns of Navarone.<br /><br />There is some historical truth reflected in the film. People who remember the Italian occupation of the Ionian Islands agree that the Italians were not harsh, unlike the Germans who succeeded them. Also Mussolini's forces, as hinted in the movie, had been defeated by the Greek army in the Albanian campaign. After the Germans intervened in the Balkans they allowed the Italian military to occupy certain parts of Greece, so the refusal of the local government to surrender to Italian forces, rather than to the Germans. as portrayed in the film is quite plausible, although I am not certain this actually happened.
This is supposed to be based on Wilkie Collins' _The_Woman_In_White_, but the only resemblance it bore to that story were the characters' names, the time period, and the settings. If they were going to change the story so thoroughly, I don't understand why they needed to keep up the pretense that it came from Wilkie Collins. Go read the book. It's much better.
Having first read the novel, I don't mind,for the purposes of filming, how differently it is scripted, as long as it adheres to, or at least includes, the plot. For reasons known only to Hollywood, important parts of the story are completely ignored, and a different story line added. The reason this novel passed the test of time, is, no doubt, due to the interweaving of both the characters, and plot, as a whole. To interfere with this structure, is to destroy the intricate balance of the story line, and therefore the intension of the story teller. Although a matter of opinion, the casting of this film leaves a lot to be desired. Characters, described as very fat, should, at least, be made to look portly, to allow for the character to have credibility. The days of slavery can't be over, or surely, actors of this calibre would have been in revolt, at such a travesty of the story. The face of Marian Halcolme is described as being manly in appearance,... Tara Fitzgerald's very feminine appearance doesn't ring true. Again Laura Fairly is described as being 'fair', if not 'ethereal', so, with dark hair, she does not quite fit the impression gleaned from the novel. ....Badly done, Hollywood!<br /><br />J. Hunter
OK, so one night me and some friends decided to get really stoned and watch a movie. Unfortunately for us, we chose 'Ernest Goes to Africa.' I have never laughed so hard in my entire life. This movie is beyond bad. I have literally pooped out better films than 'Ernest Goes to Africa.' (I poop films) <br /><br />The highlight of this movie, for me at least, was the opening sequence, when Ernest is making silly faces. When they showed him with a head the size of a peanut, I lost it. Perhaps I found this so funny because at that point I was the most high. Perhaps you are right.<br /><br />If I had to guess what George W. Bush's favorite movie is, I would guess 'Ernest Goes to Africa.' Never before have I seen a movie rely more on 1950's stereotypes of people of color. There were times when words escaped me and I just stared in awe.<br /><br />As I was watching this, I couldn't help but wonder, is this movie meant for children? Do literate adults actually watch this? How could there possibly be a whole franchise of 'Ernest' movies? Is this really my life? Is this real? <br /><br />I hated this movie.
I honestly don't know where to begin when reviewing a movie as pathetic as Ernest Goes to Africa. Aside from two or three good laughs dispersed throughout the film, there is nothing positive about this hour-and-a-half waste of time and life. It is incredible that someone was able to round up a group of people willing to act, film, and edit this piece of trash, and even more incredible that this is the eighth installment in the Ernest series.<br /><br />During the opening credits of the movie, we see Ernest posing next to various African objects, such as wooden masks and the heads of African animals, making faces and gestures that would probably make most 3rd graders laugh. This opening scene gives the viewer a taste of Ernest's frequent attempts at humor, and demonstrates how his comedy falls flat 95% of the time.<br /><br />The first thing that really hit me about this movie is how bad the acting is. Everyone in the film is a typical C-movie actor, but Linda Kash stands out as especially terrible. She is the epitome of overacting; all of her lines are delivered with shockingly inhuman enthusiasm that you'd find only in a middle school play. Most high school theater students probably could have replaced these actors and delivered a more powerful performance. Jim Varney at least displays some comedic ability every now and then, but for the majority of the movie he just acts like a complete retard, trying to be humorous by making stupid faces and speaking in different voices.<br /><br />Ernest Goes to Africa begins in Africa, where an archaeologist has stolen two priceless gems from an African tribe. The gems then make their way back to the United States, where an unidentified man is seen running from several henchmen through a flea market. He hides them in a bucket of "two for a dollar" items, and then runs from the scene. Ernest is looking for a gift to buy for Rene, a waitress he likes, so he goes to the flea market and of course buys the priceless gems. He later takes them back to his house, paints them, and glues them together to make a yo-yo. He gives the yo-yo to Rene and she explains that they can never be together because he is just an average shmoe, and she wants a man of adventure. Rene and Ernest are tracked down by the henchmen, and are then brought to Africa to be kept as prisoners.<br /><br />Most of the movie really doesn't make sense. Once Ernest is in Africa, he falls out of the truck that they are carrying him in and lands in a river. In the next scene, we see him as a Hindu servant named "Hey You." His skin is dark and he is wearing a loin cloth. At first, I thought Jim Varney was playing another role in the film in addition to Ernest, but I immediately recognized Ernest's idiocy once Hey You began to speak.<br /><br />Another scene that sticks out in my mind as being completely ridiculous is the car chase scene in the African wilderness. Rene and Ernest have taken an ostrich farmer's truck and are being chased by the henchmen. Driving at about twenty miles per hour on a fairly straight road, both henchmen are shooting at Ernest, who is in the back of the ostrich farmer's truck. Ernest, on the other hand, is throwing ostrich eggs at the henchmen and their driver. The henchmen never hit Ernest once during the five minute chase, but Ernest is able to fend them off by hitting them and their driver in the face, making their car swerve off the road and explode in a giant column of smoke. I should also add that Ernest is slingshotting the eggs, two at a time, from a large bra.<br /><br />The set design is also incredibly poor in this movie. There is a large portion of the film in which Rene and Ernest are walking in Africa, trying to find civilization. During their hike, we see them walking through fields and jungles, which probably could have been shot anywhere in the United States. The fields are simply plain grassy fields, with no indication whatsoever of being anywhere near Africa (they could have at least digitally added some African trees in the background), and the jungles look like the woods of rural Connecticut with papier mâchè skulls, vines, and thorns hanging from trees. According to IMDb.com, the film was actually shot in South Africa, but I still wouldn't believe that at all.<br /><br />The movie goes on and on, Ernest joke after Ernest joke. The rest of the movie doesn't really make any sense either; the African tribesmen all speak English for some reason, and Ernest is later challenged to a "Battle of Truth" by the lead henchman, who is suddenly dressed in an outfit that resembles that of a ninja, yet also somewhat resembles that of a bondage submissive. The henchman has a table of axes, swords, knives, and maces before him, while Ernest has a table with a sandwich, a teddy bear, and a few other worthless items. However, Ernest wins the battle and somehow ends up saving the day.<br /><br />Overall, this movie is painful to watch. I couldn't handle it in one sitting; I had to stop halfway through and do something productive for a few hours to compensate for the brain cells lost while trying to appreciate Varney's humor. They should really put a Surgeon's General Warning on the box to let people know that they will in fact be slightly more retarded upon finishing this movie. I would have to say that out of all the movies I have ever seen, none comes close to being as pitiable as Ernest Goes to Africa.
There's considerable amount of money behind this production, so the look of it is very good. It includes some interesting appearances by Gilbert Roland, Eddie Burns, and a brief cameo at the beginning by Christopher Lee. There are a few exciting gunfights, and a humorous bit or two - the satire on Django, the Man with No Name, and Sabata is amusing, especially when they are given the names of failed presidents of the Mexico revolution.<br /><br />The trouble is, there isn't any purpose in satirizing the Spaghetti Western as is attempted here. The key element in the Spaghettis is IRONY, which easily blends into comedy; in fact the source of all Spaghetti's is Kurosawa's Yojimbo, which is universally recognized as one of the great black comedies of all time, and most Spaghettis easily slipped over the edge into real comedy of a very sophisticated variety. Perhaps the best evidence of this is found in the Trinity films, which are both openly Spaghettis and openly slap-stick comedy. So why bother satirizing a genre that - by its very nature - satirizes itself? Consequently, I found the whole enterprise essentially unconvincing. None of these characters were people I would ever care about, the story was generically cliché, and the production values only reflected the money involved, not the passion of the director. Over all, a banal and futile effort to cash in on the phenomenon it mocks.
Lately, I've been watching a lot of westerns from the 1930s to the present. There are some great low budget spaghetti westerns from the late 1960s and early 1970s. This movie had all the elements of a decent western: a good story with talented actors and everything else. Although, it's a spoof of this genre, and for me the way it was done just didn't work and made for a disappointing movie.<br /><br />This movie can easily be divided into two parts.<br /><br />The first part is great; it has a great opening scene and an interesting story develops of a bounty hunter (a.k.a. the stranger) going after a bandit who is going after a large bank shipment guarded, in part, by a banker. Over the course of the movie these three characters form shifting alliances in an attempt to get the money. There are subtle comic nods to the contrivances of earlier films from this genre, but the comedy doesn't disrupt the overall story.<br /><br />The second half of the film is where the comedy goes over-the-top and essentially ruins the movie. The turning point is right at the part where the barmaid causally scolds the dwarf to stop shooting the customers as she goes about waiting on other patrons seemingly oblivious to the four dead bodies laying about the place. From this point onward the movie shifts from a decent spaghetti western with comic undertones to a stupid-silly spoof.<br /><br />There are three horrible fist-fight scenes (one at the river, one in the market and one at the baths) that follow in rapid succession as if one wasn't bad enough. The fighting is so fake it's ridiculous, and since the sound is out-of-sync with the picture it makes it even worse. In the market fight scene the banker bounces about the place on hidden trampolines and twirls around on poles like he is in the circus; it's clownish. Although, the worst part of these fight scenes is the music; it's this light-hearted, sprightly mix more suited for a square dance or a cheesy episode of 'Hee-Haw'. These scenes practically derail the main story.<br /><br />Overall, this movie was disappointing because it had a lot of potential as a decent western, but the comic turns just mucked it up. If you want to see a good western spoof then see 'Blazing Saddles'. If you want to see a good spaghetti western, then avoid this movie.
The film begins with a dandy gunfight, where three bandits are quickly gunned down by a bounty hunter--a bounty hunter who bears more than just a superficial to the Man With No Name from the Clint Eastwood trilogy (FISTFUL OF DOLLARS, FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE and THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY).<br /><br />Immediately after, you see this man in a gold train filled with Union soldiers. Naturally, the shipment is attacked and the soldiers all fight like blind guys, so they are quickly neutralized. However, in a twist, one of the bandits cheats the gang leader (Gilbert Roland) and rides away with the gold. Soon, Roland catches up and is about to find out where the gold is hidden. But, just at that moment, the army turns up and kills the traitor....bummer. However, the Man With No Name wannabe thinks Roland knows about the treasure and perhaps a medallion given to Roland by the traitor holds the key. A strange banker, also is thrown into the mix. All three want the gold and all three seem pretty macho.<br /><br />Overall, this is not a particularly distinguished Western. Much of it is the plot, some of it is that George Hilton (a Uruguayan despite the American sounding name) isn't as interesting as Eastwood or some of the other premier Spaghetti Western stars but most of it is because the soundtrack simply sucks. So often the music doesn't even come close to matching the acting and it seems almost randomly added. Plus, it just isn't very good stuff as well. This clearly isn't the work of Ennio Morricone--music master of the Spaghetti genre.<br /><br />Overall, just a time passer--and not a particularly good one to boot.
Undoubtedly, the least among the Spaghetti Westerns I've been watching lately: basically a low-brow rip-off of Leone's THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY (1966) with three disparate characters outwitting one another (and occasionally forming shaky alliances) in their search for hidden gold. Leonard Maltin rated it a BOMB; while it's harmless enough, it's also totally routine and, fatally, the three main roles are stereotypes, that is to say, uninteresting: Eddie Byrnes is a bank employee with ideas regarding his consignment being transported by train; Gilbert Roland is the "legendary" but ageing Mexican bandit (his frequent lapses into Spanish when excited are quite corny!) who, apparently, is still irresistible to women; George Hilton as an enigmatic bounty hunter tries too hard to emulate Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name figure. Director Castellari - whom I saw at the Italian B-movie retrospective held during the 2004 Venice Film Festival, where he came off as the most pompous of the cult movie directors present! - shows little genuine feeling for the Western (on the strength of two above-average Franco Nero efforts in the genre, I ordered his collaboration with Castellari KEOMA [1976]...I'm keeping my fingers crossed now!) and the film's tongue-in-cheek approach is equally lamentable.
ANY GUN CAN PLAY (2 outta 5 stars) Totally routine "spaghetti western" starring that guy who used to play "Kookie" on "77 Sunset Strip". The plot is some convoluted nonsense about some stolen gold coins and various gunmen of dubious motivation trying to track it down. This is one of those "lighthearted" westerns... which means lots of labored attempts at "comedy"... and some really atrocious music during most of the action sequences (you can tell this isn't Ennio Morricone's work). George Hilton plays a bounty hunter called "Stranger"... but he doesn't leave much of an impression... he just doesn't have the style of Clint Eastwood or Franco Nero, who are able to do a lot with a sparsely-written character. The ending is a complete homage/parody of the ending of "The Good, The Bad and the Ugly"... though it's barely amusing enough to be considered a "parody". The highlight of the movie is the first 5 minutes... which features actors patterned after Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef and someone else (Is he supposed to be Eli Wallach? Franco Nero? It's not very clear...) who are confronted by Stranger. It's an amusing in-joke for fans of Sergio Leone fans and spaghetti western aficionados... but I imagine no one else would see the point.
Unlike the other spaghetti Westerns, this one has characters that almost make sense, and can be identified to some degree. It still has the goofy gunplay of other spaghettis Westerns. A spaghetti, by the way, is another word for a Western with no plot, no characters you can care about, and goofy gunplay that doesn't make a bit of sense for the era, and relying on great music to make audiences feel something. This one is more lighthearted, like the ones that Bud Spencer and Terence Hill made together. They, too, were superior to the junk made by Eastwood and others, which sado-masochists make their friends watch, if they get a chance. It looks like everyone had a lot of fun making the movie, too. It was good to see a giant actor like Gilbert Roland, who wasn't even mentioned on the movie rental box, yet who was clearly the biggest name. His character was very enjoyable. There is a three way standoff at the end, which is much superior to the one it spoofs (The Good the Bad and the Ugly), simply because the characters are at least a bit likable and a bit identifiable. Not a good movie, but has a bit of fun to it.
This is a classic example of what happens when a sit com is on TV for far far too long. Everything gets tired and the jokes start getting repeated over and over again. OK, from the start, the first couple of series were quite good. You had an Entertainment Manager (Simon Cadel) being pursued by his deputy played by Ruth Madoc, a cleaning lady wanting to become a yellow coat, an alcoholic child-hating Punch and Judy man, a bent Jockey, and a stand up comedian. As said earlier, it started well but went on way too long. Once Simon Cadel left it went downhill fast, you were getting dire story lines, and a new entertainments manager who Ruth Madoc (again) threw herself at. When a comedy is all filmed in one place there is a limit to the number of jokes that can be cracked. Unfortunately this went on so long every joke was cracked 3 or 4 times over. If this comedy had been stopped after 2 series it would have gone down as an all time classic. As it is, it will be largely remembered for the dreadful last few series.
OK, yes I know I'm a Philistine, and I have no knowledge of, nor love for opera. I readily admit that I might feel differently about this film if I did. But I don't. So, for those of you like me, skip this one unless you want to look at the pretty (sometimes unclothed) girls. For what it's worth, I thought the first segment with Theresa Russell (who I didn't recognize) was the best of the lot.
First off, let me say I wasted Halloween movie night by watching this garbage. Second, let me inform you that the current DVD available by Shriek Show is not uncut, so you gore hounds will be very upset. Third, that one scene is the highlight of the film and since it's been cut, well, you see where I'm going.<br /><br />I know a lot of horror fans dig this movie. It is atmospheric, shot in the woods with some very nice scenery, waterfalls and such. But after the opening kill, which has a very brutal shot of a machete being jammed through a hunter's crotch, you get no real brutal kills after that. And, with a slasher movie, you sort of want that. At least, I do. The director and co. do nothing new with the killer in the woods idea, several of this type of movie were all made right around the same time in the very early eighties. The only thing this has going for it is that you don't hate the actors as much as you might in other films. They are sort of likable. The kids have a reason for being there: one of them owns a deed to some property on the mountain. But what is not explained is why his family has property there. There is no cabin or house, so why buy property in East Jesus, especially if you aren't a hunter or whatnot? Well, I'm sure some people do buy land for camping purposes, but that just seems unusual. Anyway, two squealing backwoods inbreds show up and start stalking the campers and picking them off one by one. And, as I said before, you get pretty much nothing in the way of decent deaths after the machete kill in the beginning. The ending has a sort of off the wall kill by Connie, but even that isn't enough to save this from being almost equal with the completely forgettable film, The Forest, which is mind-numbing.<br /><br />If Shriek Show had been able to get a real uncut print, then this review might have been a little more forgiving, but this is the day and age of uncut/unrated DVD releases of old obscure films for cine-hounds like me. When you slight us, you get the crud review. Sadly, the presence of the great fatherly George Kennedy is the only highlight of this movie to set it apart from the other garden variety trash that was churned out back in the day.
Even before this film it is clear to see that Ali G has become the exact character he set out to parody. I am not a fan of Sacha Baron Cohen's character anyway but was curious to see how a man of so little talent was able to convince universal studios to fund a near 1 and a half hour feature film out of a 3 minute joke. <br /><br />A paper-thin plot is just a torrent of penis and marijuana jokes and I must admit I did cringe when I saw such respected thespians as Charles Dance and Michael Gambon stoop so low for employment. Saying that I must admit (even if I am quite ashamed to) that I did raise a titter on more than one occasion, and however bad this film was it was never boring, and never once did I consider switching it off (mainly due to the gorgeous Rhona Mitra). Saying that, only watch this film if you are a teenage lad aged between 14 to 17 and you find dick jokes hilarious.
When I went to see this film, let's not say that I had high expectations. But merely that I had a faint hope that this full length feature would have at least some of the hilarity and wit of TV's "Da Ali G Show".<br /><br />But as one might expect, this cannot translate from a half hour TV show to a 90 minute film. The movie had no appeal what so ever, and resorted entirely to toilet and juvenile sexual humour. Basicaly, I should have ditched it halfway through but was silly enough to think it might somehow improve by the end, how wrong I was. I loved the show but hated the movie. This movie is only for those who find fellatio by canines amusing...
MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS For about the last four years I've been a keen fan of Ali G. Sacha Baron Cohen is undoubtedly a very funny and intelligent guy and, in my view, his best creation is Borat who's as funny as Hell and quite shameless in what he does and says to people.<br /><br />Anyway, to the movie. I didn't bother paying money to see this in the cinema; I suppose because I didn't expect a lot but when I hired the DVD recently, I found the whole thing pretty sad. The best part of Ali's taking the mickey out of others was largely missing and the script an plot was pretty damned awful; hooking all the car batteries together to blow a safe - REALLY!!?? <br /><br />This movie goes to show I think that some things can run for too long and definitely don't translate to the big screen. The movie also had that syrupy sweet ending that I've come to expect from British films. Where have all the good British movie making ideals gone to? That said, there were the odd very funny moments such as the dog in Ali's bed and Ali's audience with HM the Q with the "Shaven haven - RESPECT" remark.<br /><br />So, in summary, I am an Ali G and Borat fan and I have enjoyed many of his interviews (notably the one with Anita Roddick of the Body Shop) but this movie fell really flat with me. If there's to be another movie, I hope it's a whole lot better than this lot of old tripe.<br /><br />Weasel100 <br /><br />Canberra, Australia
I have absolutely no idea why I watched Ali G Indahouse except for the fact that Salon seemed to think a crime was committed by not nominating Sacha Baron Cohen for a Emmy for his work on Da Ali G Show. It is a sure bet that I will never watch that show as there was absolutely nothing funny about the movie. Comedy? Torture was more like it. It was just about the stupidest thing I every watched. I will admit that I was captivated by Rhona Mitra. I had not seen her in anything. She wasn't on The Practice during the time I was watching, so I guess I will have to check out Boston Legal one of these evenings to see how she does in something that may be worth watching.
Ali G was funny at first. His interviews were fresh and original. The idea of a mock gangster wearing OTT clothes and using street wise lingo was appealing at first.<br /><br />But this film is just a rehash of old jokes, the humour was mainly childish and revolved around the male sex organ for the most part. The film claimed good actors like Charles Dance, but their talents were wasted as they played silly 2-d characters. It is not 'terrible' but isn't really funny at all a second time. It could be said that the movie was Ali G's last bastion of comedy. After that he ran out of steam.
My god how bad this is. Who is this impostor pretending to be Ali G? Avoid this at all costs. It replaces the smart multi-layered satire and humour of his show with down and out toilet humour.<br /><br />This was obviously an attempt to get him known in the States before he released his show there on HBO.<br /><br />One commentator here pleads that we not judge the movie on the merits of the show due to the difference in the mediums. While it is true that the standard format of the show could never have been transferred to the big screen Mr Sacha Baron Cohen could have ensured the smart use of his comic style in a more conventional movie storyline. Instead we have this mess, which in all honesty has nothing at all to do with Ali G except for the packaging.<br /><br />Terribly disappointing. Go seek out the DVD's of Innit, Aiiii, or Bling Bling for some real Ali G.
If I compare two films with Sacha Cohen, Borat and Ali G then Ali G is immeasurably better. I'ts no master piece, but it's a film at least. Borat is complete garbage and I do not understand how it rated better then Ali G.<br /><br />I cannot put my finger on it, there something wrong with the Ali G script: half of the jokes are as if written by a 15 years old, not by an adult scriptwriter. And a number of jokes including Mr Cohen's lower body are quite tasteless. <br /><br />But the film actually comes together as a comedy and there are some valid jokes too that are funny: such as how Ali G becomes a member of government for doing something scandalous and stupid in the public (sadly true in today's western society: people get careers for doing stupid things in public), also Ali's advice about immigrant policy and some others. <br /><br />Ali G overall remains a sympathetic character, even though a kind of mentally underdeveloped for his age. But it's OK to watch,it's quite funny.<br /><br />But never ever watch Borat, it's awful and makes every intelligent movielover sick.
Bean, Kevin & Perry, UK TV creations that have made successful transitions onto the BIG screen. Now its Ali G's turn and I m afraid to say this is not one of them!<br /><br />Ali has always been obscene but funny with it. This film was extremley sick and not funny at all. Scenes involving bestiality, gay sex and paedophilia should not be portrayed for entertainment's sake.<br /><br />Ali G In Da House is rubbish and deserves making very little money.<br /><br />1 out 10
Don't tell me this film was funny or a little funny. It was a complete disaster, and one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Ali G is only funny on Channel 4's Ali G Show. After watching his performance, all i can say is He is not made for Movies. With a Daft script, or more like no storyline, there's nothing to keep you entertained. Full of annoying, unrealistic character's this movie is a complete garbage all the way. At the end of the film, Ali G gives a speech. He mentions, if you hated this film, tell people it was good. Not even the speech could save the movie, He probably knew its gonna be a stinker. I would of given this a 0/10, but the minimum start is 1. Overall, Don't even waste your time on this rubbish.
I had already heard of Ali G in Madonna's music video "Music". I always think he's funny. (In fact, he really is.) Just last year I always thought of buying a VCD of "Ali G Indahouse". That's why some months later, I bought it cheap and I started watching it.<br /><br />But the movie surprised me. My older brother and I were expecting it to be a great laugh-out comedy. It turns out that "Indahouse" is just a stupid piece of garbage. It was really really bad. It also contains explicit sexuality content and very crude humor. It also didn't made me laugh, even just a big smile. We definitely hate that movie. Oh by the way, I have plans to sell it.<br /><br />Ali G was really different in his movie compared to his TV shows-- in such a negative way. Maybe he wasn't really well-focused and enough serious to make this flick. Just because there's some sex scenes in it doesn't mean it's freaking hilarious (because sometimes, too much isn't that laughable anymore). For the first time ever, I was disappointed at him. That really made me sad rather and happy.<br /><br />I gave this movie 1 over 10. Actually, I really want to give it a 0 rating. It's one of the worst movies I've seen in my entire life. I wouldn't recommend to anyone who wanna watch good comedies that aren't too explicit or horrible.
I like Ali G's show, I believe the guy has comedic instinct, but hasn't (yet) developed it to a talent.<br /><br />The movie is a little worse than I was expecting. I don't find Ali-G offensive, just stupid. Jokes for 5-year olds, some good, some terrible.<br /><br />If you want to watch a movie that seems "offensive", but is actually funny, see Tom Green's 'Freddy Got Fingered'.<br /><br />2/10
it really is terrible, from start to finish you'll sit and watch this ridiculous idiot, thinking hes cool when he's really not, rubbish plot line, terrible acting and complete waste of time and money, do NOT bother.
After seeing this piece of crap you will know why the limeys drive on the left side of the street...this movie is an absolute NO-BRAINER! The jokes (if this is the right word for it...) are mostly sub-standard (about 98%) and do miss any punch-line at all. Save the money and get drunk. You might enjoy this movie being totally wasted, perhaps!
I say this. If you want to see art, you go to an art gallery. If you want to see a movie, you go to a theater. Trying to intertwine art and film proves disastrous in "Where the Heart Is". An interesting cast is totally wasted in this embarrassment. You like Dabney Coleman, see "Short Time". You like Crispin Glover, see "Bartleby". You like Uma Thurman, see "Kill Bill". Above all, if you like Christopher Plummer, see "The Silent Partner", because his character here, is a terrible embarrassment. In fact this entire production is an embarrassment. Sure the human artwork is intriguing for a few minutes, so make a short, but do not subject an audience to pointless nonsense, masquerading as filmed entertainment. - MERK
I'm a Boorman fan, but this is arguably his least successful film. Comedy has never been his strong suit, and here his attempts at screwball farce are clumsily done. Still, it's almost worth seeing for Boorman's eye for talent: this is one of Uma Thurman's first starring roles, and as always she is ravishing to watch. (On a sad side note, Boorman wrote the script with his daughter, Telsche, who died a couple years ago.)
Hard to imagine what they were thinking of when they made this movie (i.e., the writers, directors, producers, actors, editors, etc.). Christopher Plummer, veteran of 129 movies, frolics along among scores of other actors with apparently no more motivation than to collect a paycheck. I guess there is nothing wrong with that, but once they are paid that doesn't mean anyone has to watch it.<br /><br />It bugs me that there are actually good reviews for this movie here at imdb. Art? If you want to see art go to an art gallery, don't watch this movie. Comedy? Watch a re-run of the Flintstones, about the same plot with less time wasted.<br /><br />Dabney Coleman gives his usual performance, for better or worse. And some of the young actors may have gotten some good experience from doing this movie. But Plummer???? It was embarrassing to watch his performance, in fact I was positively transfixed on him throughout the movie, knowing this was Plummer of Sound of Music fame! I see from his bio that he called Sound of Music "sound of mucus", so guess he didn't like it as much as the 100's of millions who liked him in it.<br /><br />I wonder if today he was asked, how do you rate Sound of Music compared to Where the Heart Is, what would he say.....?<br /><br />Probably something like "Where the Money Is"....
"Jaded" offers a premise with potential as it looks at the rape of a woman by two other women and ask the question "when is rape not rape?". Unfortunately the flick seems to suffer from bad direction as it slogs through legal minutia while trying to weave some kind of story with a handful of foul mouthed and poorly portrayed characters only to end abruptly. "Jaded" is lame stuff only for the bleary-eyed couch potato in the mood for some dark drama.
I had this movie given to me, and have to admit, I am glad that I did not pay money for it.<br /><br />The back of the box makes it seem like some kind of sex triangle, with 2 women trying to seduce her. But the reality in this movie is far from that.<br /><br />In reality, the main subject is the victim of a vicious and sadistic rape by the two other characters. There was absolutely nothing in this that I found interesting at all.<br /><br />Even movies like Silence Of The Lambs and Wild Things (which the box tries to compare this movie to) were riveting, because of the unexpected turns and suspense.<br /><br />But Jaded has none of this. It concentrates on the rapeists and the sick relationship with the boyfriend of one of them. And the persuit of a videotape that may prove the victims story is true.<br /><br />While it does show that same sex rape is possible, it is not a movie worth watching.<br /><br />If at all possible, pass this movie up at all costs.
Outside Sweden you are not expected have seen this movie. Happy you. The cast includes several actors that are important part of modern the Swedish movie history. And still.. <br /><br />Seems like Peter Dalle only had a an idea lasting for about 20 minutes. Robert Gustafson is totally misused in this movie, trying to copy a younger Gösta Ekman. Ekman, by the way, is the only actor fulfilling the expectations. <br /><br />Credit that can be given is for the photo, splendid idea using black and white. Music is OK.<br /><br />But over-all it's a waste of god actors and the time of the audience.
Set in 1945, Skenbart follows a failed Swedish book editor who decides to take a non-stop train to Berlin. Unfortunately for everyone around him, he's a walking disaster, causing mayhem everywhere he goes. The train also holds a man and his mistress scheming to murder the man's wife (who's also on the train), a soldier on his way home, two gay elderly gentlemen, an angry train conductor, two nuns, a bunch of refugees, and even more people.<br /><br />Meant as a mix of noir-ish thriller (which it does quite well - at least to begin with), and comedy, the film fails with both. It doesn't sit right as the film changes tone with every new scene. And as the train races towards its final destination, the film turns more and more bizarre, ending on a truly surreal note.<br /><br />The good bits are wasted in a myriad of pointless plots and characters. Skenbart is packed with famous Swedish actors, no matter how small the part is. It feels like the filmmakers rang everyone they've ever worked with and offered them a part in the film. Too bad that the performances are just as bad as the script (act your lines - don't read them!).<br /><br />The comedy is more or less slapstick, with the same jokes repeated over and over. The pace is incredibly slow at times (quite often, actually) with on scene in particular dragging on for about ten minutes for no good reason. The screenwriter also seems to think that swearing is a good way to replace decent dialogue. The film looks great though, in moody B&W, but it's wasted on such inept film-making in every other department. [1/10]
If I could give this movie a negative rating I would. The humor is the cruelest I have ever seen in a film. Horrible things happen to good people and people who have already suffered horribly through no fault of their own. There are 2 plots, neither of which supports half of a film. Where is the "depth" others see in this movie? That no good deed goes unpunished? That only the heartless can succeed? The film does start well and the black and white is very moody and well done. The acting is very good and convincing witch makes the cruel humor even more horrifying. If you think that the 3 Stooges are too nice to each other, if watching the beheading of a kidnap victim with a Bowie knife is a real thigh slapper, if you thought "Schindler's List" was hilarious, then this movie is for you.
Don't see this movie! It's... repulsive! The start is indeed very good, but in the middle everything falls and I really regret spending 80 crowns (about 11 dollars) on the ticket! Peter Dalle should consider this as his last chance to gain peoples interest. AWFUL picture! The only bright spot is the splendid work of Robert Gustavsson, Lena Nyman and Gösta Ekman.<br /><br />Hope you take my advise... The picture is rubbish.
As a South African, living in South Africa again after a 32 year stay in the UK, I am sorry to say that this movie is a huge disappointment. The three main problems I had with the movie was a) why Swank and Ejiofor - an American and a Nigerian - to play the leads. This country is bursting with talent and has no need of imports... b) Gillian Slovo has been trading off her Struggle credentials for years now. She's a very mediocre writer and even her novel doesn't stand up the flaccid direction of Mr Hooper... and c) Hilary Swank again, such a great actor, as proved in Million Dollar Baby (but that's Eastwood too), here dressed in the contemporary New York style whilst roaming freely around the poverty of the Karoo. Where was the consideration and sensitivity needed by the costumer and director? Yes, the film is ultimately moving - how could it not be? - but the overall mood at the conclusion is one of tremendous letdown. Heart's in the right place but needs a pace maker.
Arthur Hunnicutt plays a very stereotypical role as a mountain man (probably the Ozarks) who goes hunting with his favorite coon dog. However, the dog appears to be drowning when Hunnicutt jumps in after him. It becomes obvious pretty soon that despite Hunnicutt and his dog roaming about after leaving the water that they both died in the water--as no one responds when he talks to them and sees and hears people talking about his and the dog's death. Yet, oddly, Hunnicutt is REALLY slow on the uptake and it takes him a while to understand they are talking about him! I think this was actually done as padding, as there really wasn't enough material to fill the half hour time slot.<br /><br />Later, in the "surprise twist", he comes upon Heaven--or at least his concept of the place. He's invited in, but since they won't allow dogs, he has other ideas! Overall, reasonably well acted but of dubious spiritual value! With no twists or irony, this episode is a bit dull--not "Twilight Zone-y" enough for my tastes.
who's responsible for these "behind the scenes" things? who are these actors? did they crawl out from beneath rocks? 'yuks, lots of yuks!' no. no yuks for me. only loathing and shame that i am a human being. i have to avert my eyes from the set, it's so embarrassing. in fact, i changed the channel.<br /><br />i've always had a problem with robin williams' non-stop 'i forgot my lithium today' rantings, but at least he's funny once in a blue moon. watching someone who isn't funny at all impersonating robin williams is like having each tooth in your head pulled slowly and sadistically, without novocaine, for all eternity.<br /><br />please stop making these absolutely horrifying TV movies. please.
Drab, dreary and a total waste of my time. The plot is incomprehensible (so don't think about it too much). The acting is odd and wooden - I would have sworn that they were all professional body builders trying their luck at acting, but that might be an insult to body builders. There are no interesting special effects to redeem this disaster, but lots of fires, explosions, a gratuitous sex scene, etc. The only thing that caught my attention was that it takes place after a war between the US and Iraq that somehow goes nuclear...hmmm. Is Roger Corman psychic? Let's hope that "Iraq" was just a lucky choice for Corman and that the rest of his scenario doesn't come true. <br /><br />
Where do I begin? The story was so bad, it must have been written in a high school film club! The acting was so wooden I felt sorry for the actors! One actor even reminded me of what a deer must look like when staring into a car's headlights! Another actor has this constant look of being constipated! But it was the dialog that takes the cake! <br /><br />Our hero says to his captors - all holding submachine guns - if you lay a finger on a female prisoner you will be dead. Moments later, the strongest guard, built like a truck, and the only women prisoner go at it. When our fearless leader, who has this very annoying raspy gangster voice catches wind of this transgression, he calmly walks up to the guard, while machine guns are trained on him, and in a split-second snaps this giant guy's neck like he was breaking a tooth pick! He then gets back in line while all the villains with their machine guns do absolutely nothing, but essentially yell at him!<br /><br />I could go on and on! This movie is camp gem; and if you have any sense of humor, it's guaranteed to make you laugh so hard your eyes will tear!
Without being really the worst science fiction film ever made, or the worst I have seen, 'Time Under Fire' is still much under average. The premises and the first 10-15 minutes are not that bad, it starts as a X-Files story, combining Bermuda triangle mysteries with time travel. Pretty soon elements of other genres (too many) mix together, but the story never takes off beyond the level of interest of a TV series. Soon, 'Time Under Fire' quickly degenerates into a series of clichés, not only mixing altogether too many genres but also being unable to create anything memorable in suspense or special effects that would help viewers remember the movie until tomorrow. Acting is bad, and the rhetoric lines in the script do not help at all.
This must be the first movie I've rented and not seen to the end. Complete garbage! The acting, the plot, set and wardrobe looked like it came from a porno movie with a plot. Not even a B move.
Set in 1976 for no apparent reason other than to keep the set dressers busy, 'The Box' was directed by Richard Kelly ('Donnie Darko'), and stars Cameron Diaz and James Marsden as Norma and Arthur Lewis, a young couple who are supposedly struggling financially even though they both have successful careers--she as a high school teacher, he as an optical specialist at NASA's Langley, Virginia, Research Center. They have one child, Walter (Sam Oz Stone).<br /><br />One day the Lewises find a parcel on their doorstep, containing a black box with a big red button. There is a note from a 'Mr. Steward' indicating that he will return at 5:00 PM to explain about the box.<br /><br />The mysterious Arlington Steward, played by Frank Langella, shows up at the appointed time, nattily attired in an elegant Savile Row suit. He is polite but businesslike, however his most noticeable feature is his face, half of which appears to have been blown off and improperly attended to. Langella is the only thing worth watching in the movie, however he is unfortunately upstaged by his own makeup, which resembles that of Harvey 'Two Face' Dent (Aaron Eckhart) from Christopher Nolan's 'The Dark Knight.' It's like the elephant in the room: one can try to ignore it, but it's more than a little distracting.<br /><br />Steward explains that he will return in 24 hours to collect the button. If, during that time, they decide to unlock and push the button, he will give them $1 million cash. The only catch--and it's a big one--is that somewhere a stranger will die. It might be across town, it might be on another continent, however Steward assures them the victim will be someone unknown to them. As a show of good faith, he leaves them with a crisp $100 bill, theirs to keep whether they push the button or not.<br /><br />Arthur and Norma are skeptical, believing the whole thing to be a scam or an elaborate hoax, however it isn't long before they begin to wonder what would happen if they did push the button? Would they really get a million dollars? Would somebody really die? Weary of the speculation, Norma slaps the button. Nothing happens. However, their initial relief gives way to alarm when Steward shows up the next day with a briefcase full of cash. They decide to call the whole thing off, however Steward tells them it's too late. "You've already pushed the button," he explains. As Steward's limo pulls away, Arthur notes the license number, which he later discovers is registered to the NSA (National Security Agency).<br /><br />At this point the film begins to veer deeply into unfollowable territory as the secondary characters start springing nosebleeds and flashing peace signs. Meanwhile, the town becomes invaded by pudgy, slack-jawed geeks in bad shirts who start following Arthur around like an advance scouting party for a race of zombie alien nerds. Arthur eventually becomes trapped by the menacing bookworms in the library (?), where Steward's spinsterish wife shows up--whom we haven't seen till now--and informs Arthur that in order to get out of the library he must step into one of three vertical columns of cheesy-looking digital water effects. 'What happens if I choose the wrong one?', Arthur asks, seeming far less baffled than he ought to be under the circumstances, and certainly far less baffled than the audience is by this time. 'Eternal damnation,' the spinster says ominously.<br /><br />Arthur steps into the middle column of digital liquid effects, and after a brief absence suddenly appears, still in his water cocoon, hovering over Norma's bed. When she wakes up and sees him, the water bubble bursts and Arthur tumbles onto the bed in a shower of water which, oddly enough, continues to drip from the overhead water pipes just out of camera range while a sodden Marsden and Diaz flop around on the bed.<br /><br />It's confusing, I know.<br /><br />We eventually learn that Steward was once the public relations officer for the NSA, until he was struck by a lightning bolt that destroyed part of his face. He was pronounced dead, but later came back to life, having been transformed into a sort of superman who now serves 'the ones who make the lightning,' and whose powers have enabled him to take over the CIA, the NSA, and NASA all by himself.<br /><br />And what is the point of all this nattering rubbish? Apparently, Steward's mission is to subject humans to a kind of biblical character test (e.g., the 'Binding of Isaac'), to determine whether humanity is worth saving. If enough people pass the button test by refusing to push it, Steward's god-like overlords will spare the race. Unfortunately, those people who do push the button, such as Norma and Arthur, must be punished for their moral spinelessness, to which end they are subjected to a series of dreary 'Lady or the Tiger' ordeals that play out like one of those 'Saw movies,' except without the entertaining gore or the benefit of a coherent plot.<br /><br />'The Box' represents the sort of pointless mental masturbation that freshman philosophy students like to blather on about after a few beers. Richard Kelly's tedious exercise in existentialist pettifoggery eventually collapses under the weight of its own incomprehensibility; the tortured melange of insupportable ideas eventually congeals, as with the mixing together of too many colors, into a meandering gray goo of a film as insipid as one of those narcotizing in-flight movies the plot of which suffers no more or less from having been interrupted by a leisurely nap.<br /><br />There is a point in 'The Box' where Arthur, who is a technically-minded guy, becomes curious about how the button works. Opening up the unit, he is disappointed to find nothing inside.<br /><br />Having seen The Box, I know exactly how he feels.
A box with a button provides a couple with the opportunity to be financially free, but the cost is the life of someone they've never met. This is a very tedious film to watch. Richard Kelly, who wrote and directed it, decided to make a film without any payoff. You are taken on a ride of slow build ups, one after the other with minor revelations at best. At certain moments, I thought to myself, this will have major significance at the end, but nothing does. The film just leaves one thinking, "This story could have been told in 30 minutes, without all the stretched out nonsense." I will hope you avoid this god-awful film and maintain your sanity by doing so.
In 1976 a mother named Norma Lewis (Cameron Diaz) lives with her son Walter and her husband Arthur (James Marsden). One night a box is placed on the doorstep of their home and the following morning they cut open the box to reveal a button device that must be opened with a key. By the late afternoon, a man with terrible scarring on his face comes to their door and presents Norma with an offer. This man is Arlington Steward (Frank Langella) and he announces that if they push the button someone in the world that the family does not know will die and they will receive a million dollars in cash. If they don't press it, nothing will happen and the offer will move on to someone else. Norma and Arthur are not allowed to tell anyone including their son about this deal. The incentive for the family to push the button is heightened by their financial difficulties. Arthur, who is currently working for NASA, fails to be accepted into a new job he applies for and Norma, who is a teacher, learns that her faculty funding is being cut.<br /><br />One's enjoyment for this bizarre sci-fi thriller, based on the short story "Button Button" by Richard Matheson, will be determined by how far they are willing to take this ludicrous premise. The opening of the film is particularly problematic in grounding itself in a sense of realism with the household. Richard Kelly's previous film Donnie Darko cleverly used the condition of schizophrenia to justify its excursion into paranormal activity and parallel universes. Without the dream-like state of that far superior film, The Box and the very thought of a device that can kill anyone in the world, is entirely implausible. That Norma would also accept someone into her house that has almost the same scarring as Two-Face from The Dark Knight and believe this offer, seems equally contrived.<br /><br />If this sounds unlikely so far, what follows is even more absurd, involving a conspiracy about someone who was struck by lightning, the possibility of alien life or some other Godly being influencing these situations. Scenes involving gateways opening up in public libraries, random nose bleeds and mindless drones stalking the Lewis family, become almost unintentionally comical in their absurdity. To a point, the film could be called intriguing purely to see where it is going. Kelly is occasionally clever in his ability to hold our attention through many of the films contrivances. In one scene Norma is teaching a class and then is asked by a strange boy about her foot. He taunts her about it as she is missing four of her toes. Later, at a rehearsal dinner for a wedding that Norma and Arthur are attending, this same student appears as a waiter and seems to be stalking them. Yet the eventual justification for these all of these oddities is wrapped up in a highly contrived sci-fi revelation that many will find implausible and difficult to swallow.<br /><br />What is most disappointing about the film is that once the button is pressed surprisingly early on, many of the moral implications that were initially promised are diminished for much of pictures duration. The ending, which won't be spoilt here, resurfaces these moral questions again in the hope of echoing that of a Greek tragedy. While the resemblances can be seen, by this point, given the unlikelihood of so much of the film and the uneven performances, there is little reason to care. Cameron Diaz's Southern accent might be unnecessary but it is surprisingly Langella who is the most disappointing in the film, with a very unsubtly written role, as the mysterious scarred man, who seems to be hiding a military base that would make Dr. Evil proud. It really is just a shadow of his towering performance in Frost/Nixon. There is not a lot for many of the other actors in the film to do; in particular both Norma and Arthur could not be regarded as characters but mouthpieces for Kelly's pastiche of ideas. Underdeveloped and brief conversations, such as where Norma sympathises with Arlington over their deformities and also when Norma and Arthur question whether they really know each other in case the button kills either of them, highlights this.<br /><br />Since 2001, Richard Kelly has failed to make a film that has lived up to the quality and the imagination of Donnie Darko. Though this film might be intriguing for a little while, it is too absurd and implausible to be fully enjoyed and it would certainly not warrant multiple viewings given the film's rather illogical revelations. Science fiction fans might be able to appreciate it somewhat more and draw their own conclusions, but what Kelly is really trying to say beneath the surface remains cryptic. The Box is one film this year that should have been shelved.
I know that so many reviews on IMDb are extreme, with reviewers either praising a film to the hilt or inarticulately tearing it to pieces. I find neither of these kind of reviews helpful, and so I do not give this film the awful review I am about to, lightly. The film is art-house science-fiction of the worst kind dressed up as a Hollywood blockbuster. The trailers draw you in by showing you what appears to be a cohesive plot, but is actually just a tiny part of a wilfully baffling series of events which are never properly resolved. I like films which challenge the viewer and I do not need to be spoon-fed a plot, and so my complaint against this film is not that it is too highbrow. No - the film is just terrible. As the credits roll you will feel genuine anger at having wasted your time on Cameron Diaz's wooden acting and a faltering plot-line. Avoid.
Be warned, the next time you see "Richard Kelly" involved in any production, run away. Fast.<br /><br />Kelly proved to the world after his last movie, "Southland Tales", that he is one pretentious director. It was indulgent and convoluted. In "The Box", not much has changed.<br /><br />I can picture what his pitch to Warner Bros must have been, and I bet the executives at the studio ate it right up: a full-feature film based on one of Richard "Twilight Zone" Matheson's old short stories.<br /><br />Big mistake! Do not read any further unless you want this movie COMPLETELY spoiled for you: <br /><br />Norma (Cameron Diaz) pushes the button. <br /><br />Turns out that Arlington Steward (Frank Langella) has an Alien using his body as a vessel to conduct "experiments" in which the fate of mankind rests. His face is scarred because he was struck by Alien lightening, which killed him, but then brought him back to life to do all of this red button testing. Obviously since Norma pushes the button, knowing full well that someone may die, she must suffer the consequences for failing to consider someone else's life instead of her own. In the end she and her husband (James Marsden) choose to kill Norma instead of having their son grow up deaf and blind.<br /><br />Kelly dances around his film's "message", trying to make the audience figure out what the moral of the story is. Obviously, any person with a brain is saying at the beginning, "What if I was the person who dies?". Richard Kelly doesn't even let his character's have this normal, HUMAN conversation. In fact, they avoid it all together. They appear to both be educated, working at a prestigious school and also for NASA, so why wouldn't they both have a better ability to LOOK OUTSIDE OF THE BOX???<br /><br />If he had the main characters actually have this conversation, the entire movie could have ended right there! Instead, we have to watch weddings go on forever, NASA and the NSA be complacent to Arlington Stewart taking over these government programs, teleportation to show Marsden life beyond our world so it will be "easier" to kill his wife, and drone's controlled by Steward which can be anywhere and nowhere, at any time.<br /><br />The most painful part of this movie is the pacing. Nothing really happens. Its a muddled mish-mash of ideas that are laughable.<br /><br />It is insufferable how this film is being marketed. The commercials make it look like "Saw" and even use the music from those films to sell it. In reality what you get is a slow, dull, laughable (yes, half the theater was laughing at the acting and visual effects), and messy film which is neither imaginative, interesting, nor cohesive. At one point, Cameron Diaz and her son are abducted and then suddenly, she is back in the NSA's big black car with her husband on the way home. Where did she go? Why did they take her? Do we really care? Not anymore you won't.<br /><br />By the end you really won't care what happens to any of the characters. You will be rooting for all of them to die so the film will just end. Go see anything else that's playing. Don't waste your time, or money.
Ha ha. - oh no - what to say about this film? Yes - green eggs and ham makes more sense than this movie. Where does one start? A lot of the good stuff has already been said - so I won't divulge into the same territory. I believe you already have the movie summary - so I won't paraphrase the movie.<br /><br />First - let's start the with good.<br /><br />1). If you like psychological thrillers that make you think (as I do) the first 29 minutes of this film will be for you - this is one of those films that illustrates the question that you always talked about on long car drives when you were kids like (what if you had to chose one family member live, another to die, or, what if you had to die by drowning or fire) This movie is a great concept - bottom line.<br /><br />2) The wardrobe group did a fine job with bringing us back to the 70's. Realistically though, how difficult is that to accomplish? .....Okay, that's about all for the good. Let's talk about the bad.<br /><br />1). This movie feels like a 2 hour "Twilight Zone" episode. This could easily be 90 minutes. That might have made the movie tolerable.<br /><br />2). Do you remember in the movie "From Dusk til Dawn?". The movie started out interesting, then halfway through the movie it just took a degrading turn? Yep - same thing here. I would venture to say that the writers started with a concept, then had no idea what to do with it. I've gotten deeper thought provocation out of Transformers 2.<br /><br />3). Yes - we get the dilemma in the film. We understand the philosophical undertones and Utilitarian approach - but the story jumped around way too much, didn't elaborate on the current story arc, and took a(forgive me)completely insulting direction.<br /><br />4). The ending didn't make sense. Not at all. None.<br /><br />This movie would make a great term paper in college philosophy 101. If you're board out of your mind, in bed sick, or have ever enjoyed being hit in the face with a pie, and can view this free on-line - by all means, go for it.<br /><br />If you need to pay anything to view this movie, don't waste your time - you're better off watching old Howie Mandel stand-up on You Tube. You will get more philosophical stimulation reorganizing your sock drawer.
Before you dismiss my post as "not getting it", let me say...I'm one of the biggest Richard Kelly and "The Twilight Zone" fans out there. Donnie Darko is one my all-time favorites and I even thought Southland Tales had it's moments. I'm a HUGE sci-fi fan. I was very excited to see "The Box", couldn't wait for it to come out.<br /><br />Having said that..."The Box" is terrible. Behind "Drag Me To Hell", this was the worst movie I've seen in 2009. And it just simply WILL NOT end! Whenever you think you've reached the end, another change in the plot and you're off to more torture. I was actually groaning in the theater by the end of the film...I could hardly take it anymore.<br /><br />The biggest problem with "The Box", no matter how you slice it or try to justify it, is that it simply makes little sense. Trust me, I "got it", I understood what was going on. But that doesn't mean it makes a lot of sense looking back on it. Take the basics for example. The main couple...Cameron Diaz and James Marsden, playing Norma and Arthur Lewis. Diaz loses her finances at her job, then bemoans to her husband that they are "living paycheck to paycheck". Well, sell that f-ing Porsche your husband is driving then!!! They live in a beautiful 2-story house in a nice subdivision. Marsden is working what seems to be a high-paid job at NASA and Diaz is an accomplished teacher. And, yes, Marsden drives an overly expensive car. But they are somehow living paycheck to paycheck?!? No need to press the button, just cut down your high-priced lifestyle a bit! The movie would have worked better if they showed the couple jobless and in serious debt. Instead, they are seemingly desperate for money...all the while living what I would call a luxurious lifestyle. Like I said...you can understand what's going on, yet it still makes little sense! That's a rare combination.<br /><br />There was an awful scene in a library that I feel will go down as one of the worst segments in movie history (terribly acted too by the way). It was idiotic, illogical and out of place. I can't even begin to fully describe it actually, so I will move onto a subplot that involves nose-bleeds and body possession by aliens. (Yes, I'm being serious unfortunately). A kid is in Diaz's class with a wicked and smile on his face (a sinister smile that seemingly goes by completely unnoticed by everyone in authority at the school). He starts asking Diaz personal questions, literally embarrassing her in front of her class. No punishment is given to the kid whatsoever...he didn't even get asked to stay after class for a talk! Then Diaz is at a party...and the same kid is one of the hired help...ironed shirt, apron and all! I don't know many alien-possessed kids (who appear to be in Junior High) that also moonlight as a bus-boy at parties sponsored by teachers and school officials...but we found one here! (See what I mean...you can understand it completely, but it still makes no sense...a rare combo!) Like many things in the movie, the kid comes and goes...no real explanation about him, no ending to his character. Moving on... A lady then approaches Diaz in a grocery store, telling her that experiments are being ran secretly and her family is one of the test subjects. Well...hmmm...if aliens possess the powers where they can take over a body remotely...and the aliens don't want to help Diaz...then who was taking over this lady's body and giving Diaz advice?! Again...The lady was trying to help Diaz...and the aliens weren't interested in helping Diaz...so who the hell was controlling her body?! Never explained. Never talked about again. No nothing!! It goes on and on and on like this for, what seemed to me like, 2 weeks. It would not end! I wonder if this movie underwent a massive re-shoot at some point. It was poorly edited. Diaz's accent was there one minute, gone the next. Sub-plots began but never ended. The numerous push-backs of the release date obviously shows the problems the producers had with the finished product. It's truly a train-wreck.<br /><br />Pass on this one...there's no redeeming value in it whatsoever. 3 out of 10, just because I like Diaz and sci-fi! But it probably deserves a 1 out of 10.<br /><br />Thanks for reading! <br /><br />JD
THE BOX (2009) * Cameron Diaz, James Marsden, Frank Langella, James Rebhorn, Holmes Osborne, Sam Oz Stone, Celia Weston. Truly disappointing adaptation of genre legend Richard Matheson's sci-fi chiller "Button, Button" by on the wane wunderkind filmmaker Richard Kelly who truly stretches a small, well-crafted piece into a grab-bag 'WTF'-a-thon! Mysterious (and ridiculously maimed!) man, Langella, posits a million dollar offer to 'struggling' couple Diaz and Marsden (both surprisingly vanilla bland to the hilt!): a box with a red-button, that when pushed, will kill some stranger in the world (!) Sure strings are attached but does that really matter here? What does is why in the name of God does Kelly trowel on so much oddness (i.e. nose-bleeds; watery transport systems – that's right – Watery.Transport.Systems) when the tension should be strung as tautly as possible (oh the possibilities). If this sounds like a bad TWILIGHT ZONE episode you are half right (the '80s TV re-boot actually did a decent small-screen adaptation; in fact rent that instead!) One of the year's worst films.
First time I ever felt I needed to write a review.<br /><br />I have seen thousands of movies in my life and I like a wide range of movies. I am reasonably opened minded, and can easily say I enjoyed a movie while still saying "yeah it was not good but I enjoyed it". I can appreciate the mastery of great movies like The Shaw shank redemption, the godfather, and American history X. I can like good movies in a genre like horror, or comedy, even if the movie might not be that great. I can even enjoy a bad movie that just happens to entertain me (Bloodsport). I also will try to rate movie fairly even if I did not like it. City lights by Charlie Chapin was not a movie I enjoyed, but I can appreciate the acting and story lines for the time.<br /><br />I think some people when they go on this site instead of randomly click a rating, should take a few ideas into account. Try to rate the movie based on how good it actually was. Do not let your personal bias affect the rating. Also look at other moves you rated and compare the movie you are going to rate.<br /><br />This "movie" was the worst piece of trash I have ever seen. 2 hours of my life where just stolen. The acting was awful, across the board. The scenes where choppy at best. However the real disgrace was the story. The first 20 minutes we actually had a story that tried to make sense and take the viewer from point A to B. However after that it was a nightmare. They kept trying to add new elements but nothing was every explained. Nothing really ever made sense, was steward dead, is he alive, did he hit by lighting, was it really lighting, was it aliens, is he an alien, etc. The ending tied nothing together and really did not answer any questions. The only positive was nobody cared we where just happy to leave the theater.<br /><br />6.5/10??? What is wrong with some of you? I will admit that the 8 of us where so mad about seeing this, we did think "what would make it better?", and we decide to tell a few of our friends that this movie was good so they would have to suffer and see this movie. What can I say misery loves company. That is really the only reason I can see for a 6.5 rating.<br /><br />Do not waste your life!
i thought id check this film out as I'm currently making a film about a mysterious box, therefore it would be great to see how this film took and developed the idea of a mysterious and unexpected box.<br /><br />before going to the cinema i had a high expectation of this film. with actresses, like Cameron diaz you would expect the acting especially hers to be great. the acting was a sort of let down for the film, the characters accents changed throughout the film it made it unbelievable.<br /><br />the whole idea of a weird box that can make your dreams come true but destroy others is such a brilliant story but i feel the director let it down, this film had potential it could of been a lot lot better than it was.<br /><br />this film had no middle to it. it was too confusing and needed a steady storyline. nobody wants to go into the cinema and come out thinking what have i just watched 'i didn't get it at all,' sometimes it can be exciting and make people want to watch it again, but this film made people want to never ever want to hear of the film again. throughout watching i noticed that half the audience had left before the ending. i feel every single person had been let down watching this film because of the high expectations and how slow parts of the film was.<br /><br />lets put the bad points to one side... i did like however the scene where the son is in the bathroom at the end. it was unexpected, it reminded me of a horror movie and the way it was put together made me imagine it and how devastating and scary it would of been to be in that position. the lighting and the effects made it look excellent, this scene looked slightly more 1990's than the 1970's that this film is supposed to be.<br /><br />this film was confusing because it had so many different bits to it. parts that you would expect to be sumned up at the end where everything comes clear but it didn't, it totally went against an audiences expectations, even though leaving the film on a cliff hanger, not giving the audience a reason why things happen could work and do really well, but this one didn't, it was a creative, different unusual film i thought, it had potential could of been better, disappointed didn't enjoy it, wouldn't buy it on DVD to be honest.
Couple having financial trouble gets a box delivered to their door. If they push the button they get a million dollars but someone they don't know will die. Do they push the button? <br /><br />This is an odd film based on a Richard Matheson short story has a few chills but mostly is a messy affair. The trouble is that there is so much going on it feels as though writer director Richard Kelly didn't know what sort of movie he was making. Is this a straight out horror film with supernatural overtones? At times it seems like it with talk of moral choices, damnation and the afterlife. Is it a science fiction film? Possibly, there are lots of questions about that Mars project. And what are the strange looks that people seem to have as if in some grand conspiracy? Is this Invasion of the Body Snatchers or a demonic take over film? Don't know, maybe. And that's the problem there are lots of questions, most of them intriguing, but there are too many. Little seems to have been explained and when we get to the end of the film things seem more to stop then to conclude (even in an open ended way). I'm all for making a film rich with themes and points but writer Kelly fills his script with simply too many that director Kelly can't handle, or does so in such away that each theme or plot thread gets its ten minutes of screen time and for those minutes it hold court before its cast off the next bit. It made me crazy. (I won't get into the two leads, Cameron Diaz and James Marsden, who aren't very good or more likely don't know what to make of the material which is so ever shifting ) <br /><br />It's a heady mix that doesn't work (there are ultimately too many holes). I got to the end and suddenly realized I had no idea what I just saw. I really didn't like it, but its more in a this isn't good because it just misses sort of a way rather. I'd take a pass or wait for cable where its not going to cost you anything
Now, this movie is the worst i have ever seen!! It is simply a disaster. I think it's really a sick movie, i just wasted my time watching this cheap crap. I can't believe anyone would produce such a disaster. Such a waste of money and time. Nothing to learn from this movie, it's just a hollow sick evil flick. I don't think they could've make it worse, this movie just earned it's title as the king of lowest crap. The acting is a disaster, the meaning...oh well there is no meaning just a sick pain and sorrow introduced by the suffering child in the end of the movie, and the killing of the wife which again was another dumb blow to this movie. Do yourself a favor, if you actually have some self respect, keep away from this awfulness!!!
I like to like movies, but I found nothing to like about The Box. I was interested in the 'hook' of the plot, but unfortunately it never went anywhere and was impossible to follow. Anyone who states that they understand this movie is probably faking it so that they can feel like they are a part of something, well I have news for them, the emperor has no clothes.<br /><br />The only undertone in this movie is that women are to blame for original sin, and corrupting mankind. I've heard that story before, and it makes less and less sense every time. It's true that this movie is different than a lot of films currently showing in theatres, but that doesn't make it worth the ticket price.
quite possibly one of (if not the) worst film ever conceived, cast and acted in the history of cinema. Who on God's green earth would ever think to cast Cameron Diaz and James Mardsen as a couple? She looked like his mother. God forgive me but I am just being honest. And that was the least of the many problems plaguing this horrible excuse for a film. It was a horrible statement against women but at least if you're gonna blame women for the problems of the world, tell a decent story not one with so many annoying loop holes and pathetic excuses for suspense and thrills. Everybody should get their money back who went to see it in theaters or bought the DVD.
This is my first review on IMDb.com and probably first ever written review of a film I've done of my own accord - not for some class assignment. I think that fact alone says something about this movie... not a good thing! I am no seasoned journalist or critic (though I have seen my fair share of movies), but I found this particular film so terribly painful to watch, it was necessary for my own peace of mind to vent about the experience. Where better to do it than IMDb? As I forced myself to sit through the movie, physically writhing from the inability to connect-the-dots, I was sure there would be some "light at the end of the tunnel" - a revelation to explain what in samhe.-.ll was going on. The movie ended and I was as enlightened as dog****. After several rewinds to review certain scenes I still could conclude nothing sensible. I found myself wanting to yell "Does this make sense to anybody?" I would recommend to not waste your time, but then again if I were you I'd probably want to experience it myself. If that's the case, bring a crossword puzzle or something so you don't get bored.
Cameron Diaz, James Marsden, Frank Langella: that's an all-star power cast but "The Box" proves once again that it is not a guarantee for a solid movie. The premise sounds promising: a couple gets a visit from a mysterious person who offers them a million dollar. The downside is that someone will die, a person they probably will not know. So What Do You Do ? This gives us an interesting story for about 30 minutes. After that, the story derails completely. Vague an uninspired plot lines about an alien conspiracy involving the NASA, nothing really is explained here. <br /><br />"The Box" is a disappointment, could have been so much better. But since it is based on an ultra short story, that explains the continuity errors.
"Don't be greedy" sums up the depth of this movie. All the rest of the baloney is big budget window dressing. The movie rotates through hiding the ball annoyingly and revealing too much. None of the potentially interesting plot tangents are developed yet the trite ones are hashed and rehashed to excess.<br /><br />The charm of DD, as others have pointed out, was in the schizophrenia device,the humor woven into the fabric of the movie, and most importantly, the acting. There is enough wooden acting in The Box to attract a giant mound of martian termites.<br /><br />The biggest problem with suspending disbelief during this mess is the glaring question, "why would a technologically superior power capable of taking over the government need to do any testing at all?" Awful failure of a movie.
First of all. Should Cameron Diaz ever be allowed to act again? To call that a bad performance would be an insult to bad performances. That was a historically horrific performance. Any small chance that Diaz had at being a serious actress is now completely done after that. Laughably horrible.<br /><br />Two, the movie was extremely boring, and not very thought provoking at all. I can sit around and ponder human nature without having to watch terrible actors, play out a terrible story.<br /><br />Third, there was not a single likable character, and even worse, it seemed like that was done by design. You were not supposed to like, or feel sympathy for any character. It was quite effective. I wanted them all to just die to be honest. Aliens included. Kid included. Everyone was just one big mope in this movie. Everyone literally just moped around, and they called it a movie. You could barely distinguish the zombie "employees," with regular people, because they all seemed like zombies.<br /><br />Lastly, nothing really makes sense. From the characters reactions and emotions, to the literal story line, it all just seems random. This is just a really bad movie, disguised and couched as a "thinking mans movie," which is meant to be confusing. Give me a break. A bad movie is a bad movie. And this movie was bad.
How truly sad that this sprung from the same mind as Donnie Darko, possibly one of the best films in this genre. Where do I even begin? I think one of the must infuriating aspects of the film is that we are supposed to be critiquing humanity, and yet we see no humanity in the film. No more than 5 minutes of the film is spend agonizing about the possible death of another human. These are horrible one dimensional cardboard cutouts of human beings. Sadly, that's how they are played with what can only be described as dreadful acting. Is this truly how Kelly sees humanity? Judging from the reaction of viewers, this is a horrible encapsulation of humanity. Why don't the characters in the film ask the questions that all the viewers have? This is not an indictment of humanity. It's an indictment of the straw men that Kelly sets up who bare almost no resemblance to real humans in this situation.<br /><br />To those who say this was a wonderful thought-provoking film, to what are you comparing it? Armageddon? I even saw someone compare this to the works of Kurosawa. How truly deprived must you be to think that this would promote good existential discussion? For the love of all that's good in film! Even Indecent Proposal is ten times the indictment of humanity that this is. There we see people truly agonizing about greed and the human condition. Yes, even Indecent Proposal puts this film to shame for philosophical discussion and yet it gets 5.3 vs 6.0 for this mindless tripe.<br /><br />Rarely have I seen a more pretentious, pontificating, and self aggrandizing, film fall so flatly on its face. This has the depth of a high school film project, and a poor one at that. Truly, that's about the level of the discussion promoted by this film. If you want to see GOOD psychological film making, do yourself a favor and check out Das Experiment. If The Box had lived up even to this one goal, I would have been willing to forgive some of the atrocious acting, gaping plot holes, and sheer nonsensical storyline. Sadly, it can't even do that.<br /><br />The true indictment of humanity is that there are people out there who think this film is a deeply delving introspective look into the human condition. This is not Sartre! This is not even the Cliff Notes version of Sartre! This is a hastily conceived and hack-written 9th grade term paper on Sartre based on some internet message board ramblings. If Sartre were alive, he would sue Kelly for defamation.
The Box is a film with great potential, but the makers totally misused that potential. The film seemed to take for ever, because of the boring family dinners and scenes about school and job-dialogs between the action. Those scenes could and must be deleted in my opinion to keep up the tensity and thrill. The philosophy of human free will has potential and seems to referring to the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), but we find ourselves regretfully struck with magic and nosebleeds, were even Harry Potter would flunked his class with!<br /><br />Probably the best part was that moment when Norma Lewis (Cameron Diaz)has been shot to death, by her loving and caring husband as an act of human free will. I wonder how Hobbes would react if he could...
This is a flic that you can safely avoid. childish plot and poor acting from Cameron (she really shouldn't take on these serious roles - they don't suit her)Besides she looks most unglamorous, Lets face it, shes' great in Charlies Angels and She was superb in There's Something about Mary... The Pope wouldn't be a good President of the USA and vice versa, my point being that there are some actors/actresses who are suited to a particular type of character and Cameron is most unsuited for this serious housewife type - there are a dozen other actress' would have done a far better job. The movie itself is rather unbelievable and juvenile in its plot (did I spell Juvinile right??) I noticed a comment from another reviewer who has given The Box a 10 rating, who was derisive in his comments on other reviewers who gave the movie a 1 or 2 rating and couldn't spell. I mean whats spelling got to do with a movie review? Does he mean that persons who spell perfectly could appreciate this movie more that the ones who couldn't? C'mon 'professor.
Oddly, I have very little to say about "The Box" so this will be pretty brief. I have never read the Richard Matheson novella "Button, Button" from which the film is based, but considering what I saw in this "adaptation", there couldn't have been much semblance to such a legendary author's work. "The Box" is about a family who discover a strange contraption on their doorstep that has a button on it. Frank Langella shows up and explains how they will be given one million dollars if they push the button - the only 'catch' is that it will automatically kill someone, somewhere... ??SPOILER?? They push it ??END OF SPOILERS?? That whole concept was interesting on its own, but somehow they managed to extend the movie into some convoluted Stargate knock-off that pads it out until a pretty decent ending with a pretty profound message. While I'm trying to be as 'fair' as possible, I still must say that this was not my cup of tea and it bored me severely. I guess its from the same director as "Donnie Darko" which I remember liking when I saw it years ago. "The Box" would've worked well as a short film, but since it was so lifelessly adapted this way, I can't come close to recommending it...
Maybe if you smoked enough weed this would seem funny or would make you nostalgic for how completely unhinged people allowed themselves to be in the early 70's. There's an odd innocence to this movie and the sex is a lot more awkward and playful than the steely pros who do it for the cameras now.<br /><br />The real curio here - and really the only reason to watch this movie - is the appearance of Kristine Debell as Alice. She was a Ford model and it shows. She's got classic, WASP-ish good looks - like a really cute Ivy League sorority girl. So what the hell is she doing in this cheap, cheesy skin flick? From my vantage point she does not appear to be at all on drugs in this movie (which might explain it) and she actually seems incredibly committed to the part. When she sings her first song she really does act like she thinks she's flippin' Julie Andrews or something. I just get the feeling that this girl truly believed this was gonna be her big break or something, instead of the near career killer that it was. Anyway, she is damn cute and you kind of can't believe she would even get naked on screen, much less do a masturbation scene, a couple of oral sex scenes (with men and women) and then do the real deal as a climax to the film (snark). It is also definitely not a body double at all. That is our little Kristine taking one for the team, or for the greater glory of showbiz or something. It's pretty amazing to watch and it is definitely stimulating (ahem) but in a way I kinda wish she hadn't done it. That was a very pretty, talented young girl getting some really bad advice.<br /><br />Anyway, my guess is that Kristine Debell, wherever she is, has long, long since wished this movie would go away. She was very cute and appealing in "Meatballs." Almost impossible to believe this is the same girl - but it is.
I don't understand why so many of the comments here seem to indicate that this is acceptable entertainment. The eye-popping horror of this cinematic monstrosity cannot be overstated. Me and my girlfriend just watched it together, and I'm not sure we'll ever be able to have sex again. I'm not sure what was worse, the scrawny, unattractive cast, their supremely unphotogenic genitals, the rancid attempts at humor, the screeching noises that claimed to be songs...<br /><br />No, I know what was worst of all. The girls in the green leotards, with green facepaint, licking Alice to dry her off, then proposing, in broken childlike speech, that they suckle milk from her breasts. That was the worst.<br /><br />Also, what was with the nurses, and why do they seem to have so much trouble finding each other's vaginas? Why are all the male actors gay? Why does Humpty Dumpty waggle a dildo in the air and pretend that it's his penis? Why did my eyes have to see this? There are no words.
I was greatly disappointed by the quality of this documentary. The content is poorly produced, very poor quality video and, especially awful audio. There's extremely little about how Bruce Haack produced his music and virtually no examples of direct connection to later and contemporary electronic music. The interviews of people who knew Bruce Haack are ad-hoc mostly inarticulate mumbo-jumbo. Too much yak and not enough Haack. Although I have a serious personal interest in electronic music and have a higher than average attention span, even for slow and/or difficult subject matter, I fell asleep while watching this documentary and had to review it to see the parts I slept through. If you watch this, make sure that you are set up, before viewing, like Alex in A Clockwork Orange. Bruce Haack deserves much better than this. Shame on the producer and director.
I'm Mike Sedlak. I co-wrote the score for this movie. And proud of it. <br /><br />And I love all of the comments. Some have not gone far enough.<br /><br />The movie premiered in San Francisco in the summer of 1973. The theater was packed with friends and family. We all clapped.<br /><br />Five days latter, it was pulled from all of the screens in the Bay Area.<br /><br />If anyone is interested hearing some of scene by scene details, which might make the movie even more enjoyable, please let me know.<br /><br />We could start with the shot where Gideon Blake throws the toilet plunger to distract one of the evil henchmen guarding the radio transmitter on the deck of Bud's house. <br /><br />Or how Gideon diffused the bomb in the original version.<br /><br />Didn't help. It still bombed.<br /><br />Bring it on.
This is absolutely beyond question the worst movie I have ever seen. It is so bad in fact that I plan on renting it again as soon as I can find it. This movie makes 'Plan 9 From Outer Space' look like an Oscar contender. Just LOOKING at the actors makes me want to laugh out loud. I cannot say enough bad things about this movie. It's awfulness aproaches perfection.<br /><br />The plot is based on a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon in San Francisco (I think). That's as far as I can go ... I am laughing too hard. I know it shouldn't be funny but ..... *LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL*<br /><br />MOVE OVER ED WOOD !!!<br /><br />Regard's *DATo*
this could have been better,but it was alright...it helped me get away from my boredom.I didnt even wanna see it,the only reason i wanted to rent it is because Jamie Martz is in it..he is a unknown actor but he is shining and is the highlight of the movie...the ending was so horrible and the acting was good for a b movie...i give it a 4 out of 10
Stay away from this movie. Far away. Phil Fondacaro stars as the demented ringleader of a Freakshow. Every performance is flat and unfeeling, except Fondacaro's. The plot is a simple one, and follows almost every horror movie cliche possible. A group of high-school kids go to a carnival, see a side-show, and get in over their heads.<br /><br />Fans of Fred Olen Ray should be warned, this is not like any of his other films. This one is lacking in all departments (humor, sex, horror, etc.) other F.O. Ray movies excell in.<br /><br />The version I saw also contained a Making-Of documentry, in which the director makes comments like "We had a limited budget" and "with our limited timeline" which speaks volumes about how much Charles Band cared about this film. Go rent "Droid Runner" (Fred Olen Ray) or "The Dead Hate the Living" (Full Moon) instead. Full Moon should be ashamed of themselves (and that's saying a lot after seeing "Killer Eye")<br /><br />Grade: D-
Sideshow is a good example of a basically interesting idea gone very, very wrong. As far as horror movies go, and especially with the influx of teen movies at the moment, a film based around a bunch of teens attending a mysterious freak show is something you could have a lot of fun with.<br /><br />However, the writer decided to make a very straight, very boring, very plain tale about five teens who become part of the show when enraged midget Abbot Graves transforms them into freaks using some pathetic machine that mutates them into beasts.<br /><br />The five teens are picked off one by one until the last guy is left, his 'punishment' being that he is unable to join his friends and thus 'be alone'. What a load of rubbish! <br /><br />The 'actors' are really poor, this film has no comedy (and it could have been so funny!), no gore (and it could have been so gory!), no action and no horror (and it could have had so much of both!) <br /><br />The director has failed in his duty to even try to make this a little interesting to watch. His experience in soft-core has obviously disabled any creativity he may ever have had, as all the shots are the same, with very few edits and little movement. The quality overall is poor.<br /><br />I'm not usually swayed by nudity in movies, but believe me the only high point in this film was a pair of breasts.
Someone else called this film a "fable-horror" movie, and I think that fits pretty well. That's the concept at least. A group of teenagers, each with their own vice, catch the eye of a twisted sideshow barker. He decides to teach the teens a lesson by making them part of the freak show. A cool idea, but could have been executed better. The fate for some of the teens is shoved in your face too obviously, while other characters could have been fleshed out more. Also, the ending was a serious let down. No resolution or big twist or anything. <br /><br />But as a low budget horror movie, it's pretty fun to watch. If you're into cheesy spookfests, you should have a laugh watching this one. I think one of it's faults though... that it takes itself too seriously. It's a silly movie, and if it was a little more self-aware when it comes to that, I think it would have been better. But at least there's enough neat carnival themes and b-movie monster makeup to keep you watching.
This was not a very good movie, the acting pretty much stunk and the effects were bad most of the time. But there were some funny moments but most of those were not meant to be funny. The most hilarious part of the movie to me was the part were a little kid in wheelchair falls out (thats not the funny part What kind of person do you think I am)anyway the kid falls out and starts screaming for his big brother, well the brother comes running and the way the kid runs is so funny he's all stumbling and really over acting I had to rewind it several times so I could laugh some more. so if your looking for something to rent but just can't seem to find anything check this one out and watch for the running part.
Dumb is right: Tom and Jerry reach their goal of a non-stop air flight to Africa but then worry about mixing in with the natives. They put on "blackface," crash the plane, try to survive on an airplane wing floating in the ocean, and then survive the wild animals once they get on land<br /><br />Having read a few reviews before seeing this, I knew what to expect. It was simply these two guys doing their Amos and Andy/Stepin' Fetchit impressions. Offensive to blacks? Of course, but that's the 1930s for you. Some of their lines were funny, some were stupid. The main fault I had with this cartoon was the audio, as it was often not easy to understand what these two guys were saying.<br /><br />In all, a curiosity piece, but don't let the racism stop you from checking it out. At least it gives you an idea of how times have changed....for the better.
Tom & Jerry are visiting Africa and disguise themselves in an "Amos-n-Andy" fashion. They even act and talk differently, with the standard degrading usage of extremely poor grammar associated with the stereotypical image of blacks portrayed in many cartoons of the era. Aside from the offensive images, this cartoon just isn't very good. Why were they going to Africa in the first place? Apparently just to provide the audience with another Amos-n-Andy and the additionally overused cannibalistic portrayal of native Africans. The only reason this got a 2 instead of a 1 was there is a decent few seconds involving an octopus.<br /><br />Worth one view, which will still leave you shaking your head wondering how ignorance could prevail...<br /><br />(Note. I consider some cartoons containing such racially stereotypical images very good. It all depends on if there is good content surrounding the cartoon, or if the only reason for the existence of the cartoon is to make fun of those incorrectly portrayed. In other words, if you get rid of "Mammy," shuffling feet, the poor grammar, and black-face with giant lips images is there anything left? In the case of "Plane Dumb" there is not.)
Terrific production and a good comedic performance by George Clooney can't save curiously detached, occasionally clumsy quasi-comedy from Joel and Ethan Coen. Depression-era road tale hearkens back to yesterday with three escaped chain-gang prisoners seeking a hidden fortune, and inadvertently becoming country music stars in the process! The film meanders along but never builds any momentum. It does get a big boost from Clooney's charismatic, Gableesque mugging, and also from the art direction and T-Bone Burnett's lively music. Otherwise, the screenplay (by the Coens) is seriously lacking in humor and interest, supporting cameos by John Goodman and Holly Hunter fail to add any lift, and the second-half of the movie slides precariously into self-indulgence. ** from ****
Formula movie about the illegitimate son of a rich Chilenian who stands to inherit a fortune and gets mixed up in the affairs of bad guys and falls in love with a beautiful female lawyer (Vargas). It looks very much like a TV movie, not really exciting. The only reason I bothered to see it was because Valentina Vargas was in it. No real surprises here, though it is nice to see Vargas. Great looking Chilenian landscapes on display but Malcolm McDowell's part is very small and doesn't add much to the movie. Michael Ironside plays as usual a bad guy but this is not one of his most memorable parts. The chase scenes are standard fare.
Southern Cross, written and directed by James Becket is a waste of good celluloid and actor's efforts. A formula film is not necessarily bad if it pays off on it's promise, which this film does not. It is a tiresome concoction of movie cliches that can be traced to a thousand different films from the past. It is full of random and empty plot twists that add nothing but aimless action, such as a trip by the protagonists to a ghost town where the villains (unexplainedly) follow them. This was obviously concocted as an excuse for a shoot out and escape scene bordering on the preposterous, with people popping in and out of doorways and running past windows while firing pistols at each other. It makes one believe that somebody told Becket there was a ghost town in the Chilean foothills and he said, "Oh great, lets do a shoot out scene there."<br /><br />Don't even waste your rental money on this. It is a bunch of random bits and pieces from a hundred different films thrown together to call an action drama.
He's the only reason to see this film. He gives a very good performance--much better than this crap deserves. He's very handsome and very talented--he deserves better than this. Also depressing is to see Malcolm McDowell in this. He's another talented actor who deserves better but, like Esai, he gives a very good performance. So, if you're fans of either of them you might want to watch. Otherwise, stay away. One more complaint--couldn't we have had more scenes of Esai shirtless?
This movie is really BAD, there is nothing appealing or worth of commentary in it except for the beautiful settings: Chilean landscape. I know I must supply four lines as a commentary for this movie, but the thing is that it is such a bad movie, that I can only say that is actually BAD. Michael Ironside is the only one who saves the money in the film.
The DVD for this film is by Alpha Video--a company that almost always releases the poorest quality prints. In Alpha's defense, often that is the only print available, but the specialize in public domain and cheap-o films. If you can find another print by a different company, try it first as the print for this film is scratchy and faded. Still, compared to most Alpha DVDs, this one is excellent--especially since the sound is pretty clear (and Alpha never seems to include closed captionings--even with films with horrid sound).<br /><br />A man has been dating a lady for a very long time. One night, he's a bad boy and spends the night with another woman. Soon afterwords, he comes clean to his fiancée about this, she forgives him and they marry.<br /><br />Very soon after the wedding, he gets a frantic call from the other woman--she NEEDS to see him and has just tried to kill herself. When they meet, he learns that she has an STD and she wanted him to know that he, too, might now have it. Then, although there is a nurse there and they are treating her for the suicide attempt, she somehow finds a gun and kills herself! The makes a HUGE mistake. He does not tell his doctor and he doesn't tell his new wife. Some time passes and now she and the baby are infected! At this point, the doctor meets with the guy and tells him about the importance of getting treatment and they shows him rooms filled with horribly infected people (actually, these were just films of people with STDs that they spliced into the film--most of whom have syphilis).<br /><br />In some ways the film is very progressive. It addresses a serious issue and it's interesting how the film encourages couples NOT to wait to get married but to marry fast and give in to those sexual urges--but only with each other (not bad advice at all). On the other hand, the film never exactly says what it's talking about. They never use the terms STD, VD or the like, nor does it even name the diseases. Often it is referring to syphilis but at other times it's talking about herpes or other STDs--the information just isn't very clear or specific--a VERY common problem with such films from this era. Audiences at the time must have felt quite confused about what they were seeing and many of the more naive probably needed to have some of their 'faster' friends explain it all to them! <br /><br />Speaking of "such films", in the 1930s-50s, lots of small and often sleazy production companies made films decrying the dangers of drugs and sex (though often they really just wanted to promise a bit of cheesecake for audiences who usually could not see such racy fare in Hollywood films). Many of these are hysterically funny since they are so over-done and the information so inaccurate. The most famous examples are REEFER MADNESS and SEX MADNESS (both by the same two-bit production company) and compared to how salacious and stupid those two films are, this cheap film seems like it should be in the Criterion Collection!! <br /><br />Interestingly, there are weirdos out there (I would definitely be included among them) that enjoy seeing the films because they are often so bad and so horribly made that they are great fun. This one, however, isn't THAT bad nor is the message that convoluted and the film of the victims isn't as grotesque as some similar films. While the message really should have been more explicit and useful, for a 1933 film it's pretty good--despite the occasionally poor acting and the ludicrous suicide scene. Remember kids--just say 'NO' to suicide!<br /><br />Oh, by the way, the "two years of treatment" they talk about in the film was actually the norm for syphilis back in 1933. Nowadays, it's a lot more treatable--as are the rest of the STDs.
Director Fabio Barreto got a strange Academy Nominea for his last movie O Quatrilho. Quatrilho is a bad movie, but in Bella Donna, Barreto did one of the Worst movies of All Time. His adaptation of the novel Riacho Doce is ridiculous. Think with me how poor brazilians fishermen speak a perfect english? In the film they do. There isn't a Screenplay, It's only a very long videoclip with a beautiful places and many sex scenes with Moscovis and Henstridge.
The movie is a happy lullaby, was made to make us sleep. And that´s what we do, as we dream about the top beautiful Natasha Henstridge. No screenplay, no deep characters, nothing special. So, let´s sleep.
Since Paul Kersey was running short of actual relatives to avenge, the third installment in the "Death Wish" saga revolves on him returning to New York to visit an old war buddy. He arrives only to find out that Brooklyn entirely changed into a pauperized gangland and that youthful thugs killed his friend and continuously terrorize all the other tenants of a ramshackle apartment building. Kersey strikes a deal with the local police commissioner, conquers the heart of his blond attorney, blows away numerous villains with an impressive Wildey Magnum gun and gradually trains & inspires the petrified New Yorkers to stand up for themselves. Okay, there's no more point in defending the "Death Wish" series after seeing part three. The 1974 original was a masterpiece that revolved on the social drama as much as it did on the retribution and, even though it was pure exploitation, part two still had quite a few redeeming qualities and at least the events were a logically linked to those occurring in the first. Number three frequently feels like a totally separate franchise. Apparently, Kersey isn't an architect anymore, he's ten times more social and talkative than he used to be and suddenly nobody, not even the police, is against vigilante actions anymore? All these changes and several other aspects make it more than obvious that Michael Winner and Charles Bronson reduced their "Death Wish" success to being a purely brainless and exploitative action series, with a death toll that gigantically increases with each episode, armory that becomes more and more explosive and criminals that get nastier, sleazier, meaner and a lot harder to kill. However, the gentlemen didn't seem to realize that the non-stop spitfire of violence actually creates an opposite effect, namely this extremely monotonous and much more boring than the previous two. I once read a brilliant review that referred to "Death Wish 3" as the pure definition of cinematic masturbation. This description couldn't be more spot-on, as the script tiredly moves itself from one repugnant execution sequence to the next. Particularly the final twenty minutes are a complete "orgy" of gunfire, explosions and executions realized through improvised homemade measures. Yi-Haaa! This entry in the series has quite an interesting supportive cast, including Martin Balsam ("Psycho", "12 Angry Men") as the fatigue neighbor who keeps machine guns in his closet, Ed Lauter ("Family Plot", "The Longest Yard") as the slightly unorthodox copper and even Alex Winter (from "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure!) in his debut role as one of the thugs.
The 3rd in the series finds Paul Kersey (Bronson) turning vigilante to get revenge on the thugs that murdered his old buddy. I don't know why this movie shoved me into it, but somehow it did. I found myself rooting for Bronson to wipe the floor with those punks. Every time he blew one of them away I felt good. This movie does not take itself seriously, but what if it did? There is a good build-up to the fireworks finale in which Bronson goes on a rampage. But as far as acting and plot go, it just doesn't measure up. If I lived in that neighborhood, I would get out as fast as I could, but it seems like the people are asking for trouble. I know there is that mentality that we need to save our streets, but there is a limit here folks. I had to give it a 4. Sure there are good "blow 'em away" scenes but that's about it. At that time, Bronson was 64. I'm sure if those thugs really wanted to they could have their way with Bronson. Bronson takes the place of a Schwarzanegger or Stallone in this movie. This movie gives you a sense of rejoice. The common man can save the neighborhood, save the day. To sum it up, this is far from being the original Death Wish, but it is rather good if you are just looking for an hour and a half of shoot 'em up.
Naked Deanna Troi! <br /><br />Richie's brother Chuck (from "Happy Days") with a reverse mohawk!<br /><br />Death Wish 3 has all this and more, including one clever scene where Chuck Bronson's character sets up a mousetrap like device that brains a punk when he opens the window.<br /><br />Chuck also places a board with a bunch of nails on the floor near another window and smiles when he returns and sees bloody footprints leading away.<br /><br />All I can say about Death Wish 3 is that it is one of most incomprehensible "serious" movies that I have ever seen--loaded to the hilt with mayhem, and nearly zero police response, despite the use of military weapons to mow punks down by the score.<br /><br />As I understand it, Bronson disowned this film, but happily cashed the check from Golan Globus.<br /><br />If you enjoy quality movies, avoid this one, but if you're in for a cheap "Jackass" kind of thrill, check it out.
OK, I just flipped channels and caught DW3. I watched it knowing it would be trash..BUT..as a person who has seen tons of films, this one stands up there as one of the most purely bad films I have ever seen...I'm not kidding. It is so bad you have to watch it, like a bad accident you can't turn away from. Sometimes these kinds of films work, IE, Troma movies...but watching Martin Balsam and Charles Bronson slum it up like this is painful....What's even funnier is I pulled up IMDb to see what other people said and it actually scores a 4.1/10??? I can't believe it made it past 1.5! Equally as funny is this is not even the pinnacle of this series...somehow this garbage warranted part 4 and 5? And to top it all off, some dude's comments on here referenced this as the best of the series and his favorite film of all time??? Statements like that scare me about this world!
"Death Wish 3" is the movie equivalent of a shooting gallery. All the characters (apart from Bronson's Paul Kersey, of course) exist merely to be killed, either as "provocation" (the good guys) or as "retribution" (the villains). The director simply pours on the mindless violence (people even get burned alive and blown up), turning this into an urban version of "Commando" (and Charlie, like Arnold, rarely bothers to protect himself from the enemy gunfire). Fans of this short of thing (and, apparently, there are many) will enjoy it, others....beware. (*1/2)
This is slightly less sickening than the first two films, but otherwise it's business as usual: a scuzzy, sleazy and unbalanced slice of diseased cinema. Charles Bronson is back, blasting into action when his friend is killed by yobs terrorising the neighbourhood. Crime, you see, is up 11% in the South Belmont area... so what's to be done? A stronger police presence? Tougher jails? Harsher sentences? Nope, the only solution is to send in a loose cannon like Bronson to mete out bloodthirsty revenge – or, as the writers would have it, justice: this time he's the personal killing machine of police chief Ed Lauter.<br /><br />The writers bend over backwards to make Kersey the hero, sending the useless cops into the area only to confiscate a weapon from an elderly resident who keeps it for protection, and supplying a scene in which Kersey has his camera stolen and shoots the thief right in the back, to applause from the watching crowd. Capital punishment for theft? Well, okay. The attitude of everyone in the film is that this is a solution, and the dishonest twisting of the characters into ciphers who exist only to cheer Kersey on or back him up is appalling.<br /><br />Sure, these villains are scum, but shouldn't the film leave the audience to make up its mind, rather than slanting the entire thing towards Kersey and his mindless answer? Funnily enough the beleaguered residents don't fear gang reprisals or blame Kersey for any of the violence, which is odd as one character is killed precisely because of Kersey's involvement. At the end of the film they all take guns from their sock drawers and gleefully join in with the massacre, never stopping to think things through or struggle with the thought of having to kill another human being.<br /><br />The atrociously shallow performances don't help – Bronson has literally one facial expression throughout and can't even put inflection on the right words. New heights of stupidity are reached here – a machine gun? A rocket launcher?! – and new lows of misogyny: the movie contrives to desecrate every female character in sight, whether by rape, explosion or throat-slashing; and it sets them up in supremely stupid fashion, like one victim who ventures into the crime-ridden, gang-controlled neighbourhood to ask out a stranger, or another who goes shopping alone at night. This is dreck, pure and simple, mindless garbage put together without style or sense.
This movie lacked credibility for two reasons. One, no mayor of a major city, and New York is certainly as major as it gets. Would allow a borough in his city to degenerate into such a violent place to live; especially for voters who could have much to say about his or her future job security. All of the victims in the movie were mostly elderly, Jewish or defenseless. At 62-years of age, I have never seen a movie that depicted such utter lack of respect for authority as this movie did. Even "Escape from New York," which was fictional, up front, i.e. they told you that this was science fiction, didn't resort to such deep-seated violence. In this movie, most of the elderly victims were victimized and yet had guns but were unwilling to use them. Also, in this movie and I have not seen the prior two, is more lawless than the "Escape" movie. Secondly, gangs as far as my research shows have never been as cooperative as this movie makes them out to be. On the one hand they catch a gang member from another gang working in their area and he's killed. Yet when the heroes start shooting at the local gang bangers, the next gang over is welcomed with open arms. Outside gang members are always viewed as outsiders and are stopped. We are supposed to believe that when automatic weapons are used against our gang, the other gangs want to be all into it. Why did the outside gangs come to help? I believe that more than one gang from outside came to help. What did they come for? Another question, why was the gang leader in jail and why do fellow jail inmates ask his permission to attack Bronson's character? This was not a great movie and I could go on, but I won't.
This movie could very well have been a propaganda movie for the North americian falangist party - or some similar group... The strong man (Kersey) places himself above the law (but not outside the law) and liberates upstanding citizens by killing worthless trash. The only thing that made me think it wasn't made by the KKK was the fact that a jew starred as a good guy... Try watching it again while thinking of it as a propaganda movie for an extreme right wing group - and you'll see what I mean...<br /><br />It's a tragedy that Jimmy Page actually made music for this movie... :(
I was disappointed with the third film in the "Death Wish" series and wouldn't recommend this unless you are really into Bronson. He is his usual self in this one, maybe a bit lighter hearted than in the others; the rest of the cast is good if your watching a movie of the week on T.V. - the whole film has the production value of a bad episode of the A-Team and I like the escapism fun of a show like the A-Team but not on the big screen, even if it is an action movie that doesn't claim to be anything to sophisticated. The film takes a while to get going and then when it finally does, it gets out of control to the point of ridiculousness. The plot is something out of an episode of "Highway to Heaven" and Bronson seems like a fish out of water with the majority senior citizen cast and the gun play is so out of control you don't even get any satisfaction from Bronson's revenge against the bad guys. Skip this and go on to the 4th installment which I highly recommend.
I would put Death Wish 3 in the same box as Stallone's Cobra and Commando. The box that I would sell for $2 at a garage sale with all the videos inside. The story is about the main character coming back from the previous movies' success to ruin it all with this load of trash. Why did the makers want to destroy the reputation of the past 2 films with this cheap junk. The story is so lame that had to be a outrageous sequel. I mentioned Cobra earlier because it has the same mood, that one man can kill 20 or 30 gang members without a scratch. Both this movie and Cobra were bent on showing the hero firing his guns at hip level and the enemy falling in large numbers. Police officers spend hours at the shooting range so why did they get gunned down by gang members firing aimlessly from their hips? This movie was so bad I thought for a minute it was Death Wish 4.
Three businessmen are involved in a bar fight with three mysterious men. The three businessmen take revenge, which escalates to a murder after another. Supposedly the story is about the violence that could happen to ordinary people.<br /><br />The plot has too many holes. The details were ignored in order to move the story forward. The acting was uneven. The color balance was awful even though I watched this movie in DVD. The small budget and tight schedule were apparent. The whole thing seems to be an excuse to shoot the final gun fight, and the ending was just unbelievable.
Seeing this film for the first time twenty years after its release I don't quite get it. Why has this been such a huge hit in 1986? Its amateurishness drips from every scene. The jokes are lame and predictable. The sex scenes are exploitative and over the top (that is not to say that Miss Rudnik does not have nice boobs!). The singing is "schrecklich". The only genuinely funny scene is the big shoot out when the gangsters die break dancing, a trait that dates the movie firmly to the mid-eighties. It's really quite puzzling to me how incapable I am to grasp what evoked the enthusiasm of the cheering audiences in 1986 (and apparently still today, reading my fellow IMDBers comments).
This tale of the upper-classes getting their come-uppance and wallowing in their high-class misery is like a contemporary Mid-Sommerish version of an old Joan Crawford movie in which she suffered in mink. Here, people behave in a frightfully civilized manner in the face of adversity. A well-heeled London solicitor, (Tom Wilkinson), discovers that not only is his wife having an affair with the local gentry but that she has also killed their housekeeper's husband in a hit-and-run accident. He throws up, but otherwise his stiff-upper-lip hardly quavers.<br /><br />Written and directed by Julian Fellowes, who won an Oscar for writing "Gosford Park", (this is his directorial debut), from a novel by Nigel Balchin, it's quite comical although I am not sure how much of the comedy is intended. It's like a throw-back to British films of the forties where characters all behaved like characters in books or plays rather than like people might in real life. However, it's not all bad. Wilkinson is terrific, even if you never believe in him as a person while Emily Watson, (the adulterous wife), and Rupert Everett, (the highly amoral high-class totty), are both very good at covering the cracks in the material. Tony Pierce-Roberts' cinematography ensures that no matter how hard it is on the ear it's always good on the eye.
I was pulled into this movie early on, much to my surprise, because I hadn't intended to watch it at all. Now I wish I hadn't. The suspense starts out well, with the hit-and-run resulting in death and the question of whether the guilty character will confess, or be found out, or (doable now, though a no-no in the old days of movie-making) get away with it. The plot's been done before--what plot hasn't--but the tensions inherent in it, with the additional complications and motivations arising out of the illicit love affair, make for an absorbing first half. Then the film abandons the hit-and-run to embark upon a misty exposition of two unrequited, all-suffering loves. The two tracks of plot--hit-and-run and unreasoning love--just don't have enough to do with each other, and that they involve the same characters doesn't bind them enough to justify the departure from the original story line. The screenwriter should have chosen one plot or the other. At the end of the film, in the midst of the movie's second funeral, I found myself thinking, "Now, what does any of this have to do with that hit-and-run?" The filmmakers may think the answer obvious, but I think the movie was plotted and executed flabbily.
I'm a huge fan of both Emily Watson (Breaking The Waves) and Tom Wilkinson (Normal) and was amused to see them upstaged by Rupert Everett (Dellamorte Dellamore) in this shockingly rather minor movie that had all the ingredients to be so much more. The too brief scenes in which he portrays a languid, infinitely entitled, worthless son of a rich Lord are spot-on and entertaining. But for a love triangle there was remarkably little chemistry to speak of between anyone. The music was annoyingly movie-of-the-week quality, and the voice-over jarring and totally unnecessary. Clearly the work of a first-time director with a small budget who either lacked or didn't sufficiently heed good advice. Too bad.<br /><br />I can appreciate how the people you kind of hate at the beginning are the ones you kind of like at the end, and vice-versa, so there is some sort of character arc, at least in terms of perception. For example, Watson's character, while refreshingly honest to her husband about her feelings for another man, began to grate on me near the end, particularly when she announced to her husband that she simply had absolutely no control over her actions, and later when she simply declared that she would be moving back into their marital flat, with no asking of permission, no apologies offered. And I went from disliking Wilkinson's control freak / moral relativist character to sort of understanding him and not really wanting him to change (unlike his wife).<br /><br />This movie awkwardly morphed from a whodunit to a "Love Story" or "Steel Magnolias" illness drama without sufficiently informing me of the fact, so I was left distractedly guessing what the next plot twist might be long after they had all been revealed (Was it the Lord driving the car? The Lord's dog?). The scene where the Lord visits Wilkinson and relates how brave Watson is, the bestest nurse any dying boyfriend could ever ask for, Florence Nightingale incarnate, etc. was OK until he started over-the-top sobbing like a baby. Good God! If you ask me she's just another flitty rich person with way too much time on her hands, and so she drives her hard working, well providing spouse crazy with unnecessary drama. Her screwing around was just another way to occupy her empty life; the dying guy thing was an added bonus for her as it somehow made her previous actions completely above reproach.<br /><br />Look, everyone would have been better off if Wilkinson had just left her for his secretary, who seemed to appreciate him for who he was. Instead he acted like an abused dog, his open craving for his wife's affection increasing with every kick she gives him. I'm not anti PC or anything, it just didn't ring true, even after taking into account all of the harsh realities of middle age we all tend to face. The ending for me was (and not the director's intention I am certain) depressing. The movie spent the last 80 minutes convincing me that these two people just don't belong together, so I found no joy in the promise of their relationship continuing. I'm not above wanting my emotions manipulated by a story, it just has to be somewhat plausible and not hackneyed. Is that asking too much?<br /><br />My score: 4/10
First of all, I would like to say that I am a fan of all of the actors that appear in this film and at the time that I rented it, I wanted to like it.<br /><br />I think that the main reason that I was so disappointed was that the outside box promised me a suspense thriller. In my eyes, a suspense thriller for British movies is like something out of a Ruth Rendell novel, something that has a lot of dark twist and turns and leaves the viewer with an ending that is unlikely to be forgotten anytime soon.<br /><br />This movie started out with the promising note of being such a film. We have our main character, that suspects a man that he does not like, of being involved in a hit and run that killed the husband of one of his servants.His notions prove to be right, but the idea that his wife might be involved, does not occur to him until that she confesses to him that she was a part of the crime.<br /><br />The elements of a good suspense thriller were in place, at this point, but from there, I felt that the film took a different direction and became almost some sort of a mild soap opera about who wants to be with who and what the love of a real relationship is. The film might have been enjoyable to me, if the outside box had talked of a twisted lover's triangle and had not been labeled as suspense thriller.This seemed to be more of a soap opera story and the beginning setting seemed to be a mild distraction to the true content of the film. I felt like this film could have done a whole lot better than it did. I felt like it kept leading the viewer up to a big event that never materialized. So, I have to give it a lower rating than I would have liked to and say that it fell short of my expectations.
The basic genre is a thriller intercut with an uncomfortable menage-a-trois. Fellowes has tried to make a lot more out of this, using the lies of the title in order to bring about all manner of small twists, invariably designed to surprise the characters more than the audience.<br /><br />It's really rather messy though. Fellowes doesn't seem interested presenting the thriller elements in a fashion that will keep us seat-edged. Rather his focus is on the moral predicaments themselves.<br /><br />The dialogue is inconsistent, stagey here, vernacular there and with the constant surprise of realism undone by the occasional cliché-landmine. Though there is no fussing over the locations so that the actors can get on with existing in their space the dreadful score can't create a further dimension and often works against the emotional momentum of given set pieces. There's also a very prosaic, dare I say it British feel to the filming. I didn't want to see a document of two successful middle class people caught in an extraordinary situation, I wanted to see some sort of artful recounting of the story.<br /><br />Finally it is, in fact, the story which lets the rest down. Just as the elements of suspense are rather flat so the story is an asymmetric sum of subplots of different shapes and sizes, woven as a vehicle for character examination. Wilkinson and Watson support this meta-essay with good performances and John Warnaby's ebullient colleague Simon to Wilkinson is a welcome foil for much of the brow-furrowing.<br /><br />I'm disappointed; not that it's bad, but that it could have been much better. 3/10
Starting with a tearjerking poem and images of american missiles, starving children and mutilated palestinians I quickly realised that this was not going to be a objective documentary. 5 youths convicted after the gothenburg riots are interviewed and give a very confused explaination why they had to trash the citycenter and then (oh my god) actually have pay for what they have done. I kept watching and many questions are raised, were the trial properly done and did the cops have the right to do what they did? Lots of questions asked... and then dropped. No interviews with judges or going through documents about the trial.. nothing.<br /><br />In short: Nothing new from what every Swede has seen on tv a hundred times - just poor propaganda.
Writer & director Robert Downey, Sr., a pioneer of the underground film movement in the 1960s, satirized the New York Madison Avenue advertising world with his avant-garde comedy "Putney Swope." Downey doesn't confine his ridicule to advertising, but tackles black militant culture, the dynamics in Hollywood's portrayal of race, the elite white power structure, and character of corruption in any power struggle. As audacious and ambitious as "Putney Swope" strives to be, it qualifies as a terrible film, amateurishly made on a shoe-string budget with a no-name cast and humor that lacks hilarity. Everything about this movie reeks with improvisation. "Putney Swope" stirred up controversy during its initial release with its politically incorrect handling of race issues and consumer culture. Like most Marx Brothers movies, the plot is thin, providing an excuse for Downey's anecdotal gags, most of which are terrible.<br /><br />The chairman of a prestigious Madison Avenue ad agency dies during a board meeting. Before the body has been removed, the board holds a secret ballot vote to determine who will replace him. Each member understands that they are forbidden to vote for himself. Sheer accident occurs when everyone votes for the token black member, Putney Swope (Arnold Johnson), since none thought anybody would cast a ballot for him. Swope pink slips all but one of the white executives, surrounds himself with black, pistol packing employees, and renames the firm "Truth and Soul Advertising." Swope decides to alter the face of American advertising. He refuses to accept clients whose products are alcohol, tobacco, or war toys. Swope's clients stage an exodus after he becomes the CEO, and grandstanding attracts a new line-up of clients that show up at his office lugging bags of money and prepared to suffer abuse from Swope's militant employees. Swope exploits his African-American staff, too, ruthlessly appropriating their ideas after he fires them and conjures up a number of offensive advertising campaigns, all of which are hailed as a 'new wave' of marketing genius. Incredibly, Swope's conservatism proves successful but the agency becomes the target of government operatives who argue Swope's advertising tactics constitute "a threat to the national security." The high point of this black & white, 85-minute comedy are the television commercials shot in color. Unfortunately, Downey doesn't know when to cut off these ads that consistently start out cleverly but wear out their welcome. The funniest part of "Putney Swope" involves our eponymous protagonist's dealings with U.S. President Mimeo in Washington D.C. (Pepi Hermine), a marihuana-toking midget with a Kissinger-like Teutonic adviser (Larry Wolf) spouting tasteless jokes while trying to convince Swope to come up with an advertising campaign for his new car, the Borman 6.
Black and white satire of a Madison Avenue ad agency being taken over by blacks. They're headed by Putney Swope (Arnold Johnson) who is determined to change things. However he turns out to be even WORSE than his white predecessors. That's about as original as this gets.<br /><br />I'm sure this was considered daring and shocking in 1969 but it just seems silly today. The jokes are either unfunny (the president is a midget. HOW is this funny?), cruel or obvious and the film is full of unlikable characters. It's done in a very experimental way which makes it even harder to take...or understand. The movie just gets more bizarre and surreal as it goes along. The ending comes out of nowhere. To make it worse, with the sole exception of Johnson, ALL the acting is bad. Antonio Fargas (a regular in these types of films) is especially annoying as the Arab. This gets three stars because the commercial parodies (done in bright color) ARE amusing and there's a rare good line here and there. I heard this was a cult classic but this is more interesting than good. Skip it...unless you're in experimental 1960s films.
I think Downey was perhaps inspired by French new-wave.<br /><br />Who wasn't?<br /><br />Unfortunately, what he ended up creating here was more along the lines of crackhead new-wave.<br /><br />A synapse is obviously a terrible thing to lose and Downey appears to have lost plenty. <br /><br />Just say no, indeed. In more ways than one. Including to watching this film.<br /><br />I couldn't bear it after a while and began fast forwarding through it. It would have been wiser to have just skipped it altogether.
This is a poor excuse for a movie. A film noir done by Busbee Berkeley? Please! First, let's forget about the plot, a truly simple-minded version of a cynical tough guy turned into a saint by the love of a pretty blonde. Yechh. So what turns her from despising him to loving him? Along with a group of other guys, he helps keep a kid from drowning as they all swim in a water tower and try to survive as the water is siphoned off, stranding them. It isn't exactly heroics, but she's suddenly smitten. It's truly painful to watch Claude Rains trying to portray a hard-bitten, tough-talking, noir-type cop. A crooked grimace is his main and rather pathetic acting tool, along with a growling voice. Most of his energy seems to go into trying to hide the intelligence that shines in all his other roles. How he ever got talked into taking this job I'll never understand. Enjoy it, if you can, for a few period details, the old cars and gas pumps, but don't expect a decent film experience. It wasted 1-1/12 hours of my life.
The Monkees "Head" is one of those peculiar phenomenons I've noticed- that when something doesn't make sense, people will try to read things into it and give it great deep meanings, which its creator never intended. Such is the case here.<br /><br />The movie is a stream-of-consciousness spectacle of The Monkees floating in and out of various sketches, blackouts, set pieces, etc. similar to the ones on their TV show. But while the TV show was played for laughs, this doesn't seem to be played for anything except a sort of deep, trippy, pseudo-intellectual state that this brand of psychedelia imposes. All in all, it's The Monkees doing the same schtick, but now it's "consciousness-raising" because the laugh track is removed. There is not a stitch of humor or meaning to the whole thing; it just drones on with colored lights.<br /><br />The music in "Head" should prove to anyone, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the Monkees had not a scrap of songwriting ability. The tunes are mostly garbage; the only one that's even listenable is "Porpoise Song", which opens and closes the film. But the thing is, that was a Gerry Goffin-Carole King song, and, while it's above-average for the Monkees, it's below-average by Goffin and King standards. It's like hearing one of the old Peter And Gordon songs that Paul McCartney wrote for them: you might think it's a pretty good song, but then you find out who composed it, and you realize it's a throwaway. Mike Nesmith's song is maybe passable, the rest is worthless. Davy Jones has, I guess, what the filmmakers imagined to be "the big number" in the picture, since it's the only song presented As Show Biz and not cut into a film montage or dream sequence, but it falls flat, too, just because the song isn't any good.<br /><br />I have to admit I always liked the Monkees, so the movie is a real disappointment. Sure, they were cheesy, but they were so cheerful about it.<br /><br />They knew they were cheesy and they were cool with it. But then they got ambitious. In "Head", they actually joke about being a manufactured pop product, but the truth is, they wanted something more. They wanted to be Great Musicians and taken seriously as artists. Maybe not like the Beatles, but something approaching that. "Head" proves that they failed on all counts. 1* out of 4
at a Saturday matinee in my home town. I went with an older friend (he was about 12) and my mom let me go because she thought the film would be OK (it's rated G). I was assaulted by loud music, STRANGE images, no plot and a stubborn refusal to make ANY sense. We left halfway through because we were bored, frustrated and our ears hurt. <br /><br />I saw it 22 years later in a revival theatre. My opinion had changed--it's even WORSE! Basically everything I hated about it was still there and the film was VERY 60s...and has dated badly. I got all the little in-jokes...too bad they weren't funny. The constant shifts in tone got quickly annoying and there's absolutely nothing to get a firm grip on. Some people will love this. I found it frustrating...by the end of the film I felt like throwing something heavy at the screen.<br /><br />Also, all the Monkees songs in this movie SUCK (and I DO like them).<br /><br />For ex-hippies only...or if you're stoned. I give this a 1.
As their entire career was a pale impersonation of The Beatles, it is no surprise that, shortly after the great fiasco of the Beatles "Magical Mystery Tour," the Monkees would follow up with their own insipid and creative morass of a movie, called "Head." Both movies are not so much a true story with a plot (though MMT attempted to define a plot) as they are a hodge-podge of skits and snippets, interspersed with music and songs and out-takes.<br /><br />"Head" has no plot, other than the pre-fab-four trying to break free of "the box" they are in (i.e. the type-casting of being "Monkees" and the surrounding commercialism) and yet, always finding themselves back in the box. Most skits involve breaks in the "fourth wall" and crossing over into other, seemingly unrelated scenes. Filled with anti-Vietnam war messages and attempts by the group to show their other talents, the film bounces around haphazardly- also to be blamed on the multiple directors.<br /><br />The film, like Magical Mystery Tour, is now excused by some fans as "wonderful symbolism and misunderstood artistic statements." Phooey. Like MMT, it is too many guys with access to too many drugs all trying to make something artsy and making crap.<br /><br />Like MMT, "Head" has some clever moments and offers some relatively unknown Monkees songs that are quite decent. It does develop a bit more charm than MMT and is a bit easier to sit through, but it is not ironic at all that, like everything else the Monkees did, this was just a mimicry of something the Beatles did first... even when it comes to laying an egg.
This is possibly the worst movie i've ever seen, it was horribly done it didn't flow it was very choppy, because of that many people didn't understand the movie at all. I had to watch this movie several times before I got an idea about what was happening, OK its like this a kid stole someones car and while running from the police he totals it, for some reason the cops let him off and he has to face his parents who sent him to live with his uncle out in the wilderness, there he meets a girl who loves to rock climb and he gets into the sport and has to beg his uncle to let him enter a contest for climbing, and yeah thats about it like i said horrible movie.
Talk about being boring!<br /><br />I got this expecting a fascinating insight into the life of the man who wrote the mythical Night on the Galactic Railroad. I expected to see crazy stories and hijinks of an eccentric man and to discover his inspirations for such bizarre material. Boy, was I wrong.<br /><br />Spring and Chaos is mostly boring with only sporadic moments of innovative animation. It's certainly nothing to write home about and nowhere near as good as NOTGR which is something that I suggest you watch instead. Leave this bore alone. If you absolutely MUST see then either rent it or find it somewhere cheap. Do not pay top dollar.
Being a history buff, I rented this movie because of the subject matter. The idea of the Ellis Island experience at the turn of the century focusing on one small group is intriguing. Unfortunately, the movie falls flat. Much of the story is simply boring; nothing much happens for long stretches. The director uses goofy imagery (offered up in the form of daydream sequences) in an apparent attempt to break up the glacial pacing, but instead, it clashes with the authentic look and feel of the movie. The characters are also poorly drawn. In the end, we don't really care as much about them as we should. It's a shame that this wasn't what it could have been. I would still like to see a good movie about the American immigrant experience, but this one isn't it.
***POSSIBLE SPOILERS BELOW*** <br /><br />What a long and mostly uninteresting movie! Who were these characters? Why didn't I care about them? If I'm going to watch a movie for two hours, I'd like to care about somebody or something. <br /><br />We know that Salvatore dreamed of the riches to be found in the new world. Beyond that, though, we learned little about most of his family's hopes, fears, etc., as they embarked on an adventure into the unknown.<br /><br />And why was Lucy even in this movie? She said little; we knew little about her or what she was doing (was she forced to service men in exchange for being allowed to board the ship?) or what her plans were upon reaching New York. To those who might suggest that she was needed to underscore the point that a single woman, however cultured, could not get into this country alone, I say that that fact is not enough justification to give her so much screen time. That point could have been made in five minutes, with Lucy as a momentary character.<br /><br />More questions: Why wasn't the twin brother at the boat to meet the family? We heard about the brother, and some closure on that point would have been helpful in giving the movie some cohesiveness. Also, how long was the journey from Italy to New York? Given the conditions on the ship, it makes a difference to the viewer if the voyage took five or 10 or 50 days. (Someone said something about seeing land a "week" at one point, but I think that was when they were already en route.) I needed these types of details to better appreciate what they were going through.<br /><br />The only scene I really liked was when the boat, filled with passengers, left the dock. <br /><br />If you choose to rent this movie, do so with remote in hand; you may want the Fast Forward button handy.<br /><br />Finally, may I suggest that, with the right voice-over providing helpful information about the times and the circumstances for immigrants--particularly during the slow stretches of endless shots of the countryside, people walking, etc.--this movie might have made an interesting public TV documentary.
The best part in this movie is the first one, located in Sicily, I suppose. Crialese shows a good talent for photography and the movie start is delightfully surprising. The rest of the story is quite boring. Crialese uselessly insists on stereotypical situations and characters, trying to melt neorealistic suggestions and video-music technique, Fellinian surrealistic remembrances and a very annoying and completely off-topic soundtrack, leading the whole thing towards an end which gives you the sensation of an exaggeratedly long story cut abruptly short. Frankly, this is a real overrated movie and Crialese is a real overrated director.
The most generic, surface-level biography you could hope for. Busey's impersonation of Holly is accurate -- but who wants to hear Gary Busey sing "Maybe Baby"? Typically, the members of the Hollies are used for comic relief and melodrama (Smith and Stroud, respectively) instead of as people or even characters. When Holly uses a string section, the old jewish-looking guys who come in tell him he's using the same techniques as Mozart. It's just this kind of cheeky statement that makes film biographies like this (and "Amadeus", about the aforementioned Mozart) so worthless. Some entertainment can be derived from Holly's excellent styles and songs done in a B-variation.
I always think it would be nice if you could somehow have a 'sneak preview' at some of the old movies that are re-released on DVD, before you purchase them. That way you could save yourself some time, money and a certain degree of aggro when you feel so utterly let down.<br /><br />"The Buddy Holly Story" is such a movie.<br /><br />I do not wish to go into the characterizations, or the holes in the plot, or the messing around with historical facts that this movie encompasses, for I had already come to terms with them twenty years ago, when I first began watching it.<br /><br />I had recorded it on the old (Monaural) Beta machine back in the early 1980s, and liked it so much, that it became a regularly-played favourite. The best part, to my mind, was Gary Busey's performance as the young Buddy, and his near-perfect vocals and guitar playing.<br /><br />I looked forward to the day when I could have it in ...STEREO..., and that is where the disappointment comes in.<br /><br />This DVD version is (supposedly) re-mastered in both audio and video, according to the shell information, but I'm afraid it left me sadly let-down and glancing at my watch, wishing for it to end.<br /><br />The sound is murky, bordering on the unintelligible, and so unprofessionally mixed that it had me yearning for the crystal-clarity vocals of my old Beta tape! <br /><br />Despite what you think of the images, or the plot, or the characters, the real draw card here is the MUSIC......and if you can't hear the lead vocals because they are drowned out by the cymbals, or the backing harmonies, or other ambients, then there's not much left, is there? <br /><br />I'm going to convert my old Beta version to (Mono) DVD for subsequent viewings, and put this one where it belongs, out with the rubbish! <br /><br />"Extinction is the Rule, Survival is the Exception..."
This movie would have been alright, indeed probably excellent, if the directors would have left the interviews and the concert footage separate. "Into the Void" is a great song, and I hate how it is cut off at the best part to go to an mumbling interview with Ozzy Osbourne. That should have been at the end of the film, or located in a special feature. The best part of concert DVDs is to put them on and let the music play, but "Black Sabbath: The Last Supper" is hard to put and and simply let play because the music is continually interrupted. Nevertheless, there are a few strengths to this film; the concert footage, when it does play, it excellent. Black Sabbath returns to the stage after a long hiatus without Osbourne and this film captures that well: Sabbath basically rocks the fans. The fans, of course, have a sweet advantage in the film because they are seeing the band live, of course, but also they do not have to put up with the incessant interviews that the DVD viewers are burdened with. Shame on Jeb Brien and Monica Hardiman (the directors) for doing this to the film! Also, shame on Wyatt Smith for editing the film in such a way.
To remake "Lost Horizon", as a musical, the need for a Rodgers & Hammerstein or Lerner & Lowe type musical composition was needed. Burt Bacharach and Hal David were the wrong choice. Having said that, my favorite thing about "Lost Horizon", is its score. It's just that the score doesn't fit the piece. The cast, is made-up of mostly non-musical talents (Ullman, Finch and Hussey, were all dubbed, and still don't sound all that great).<br /><br />Frankly, the novella, on which this, and the earlier non-musical film versions were based, is mediocre, at best. While the possibilities for a truly good, cinematic musical version exist, they are not realized here. The film succeeds at being a good, rainy-day vehicle, to pass the time. Otherwise, you are better off, buying the CD of its soundtrack. Only recommended as a curiosity piece, due to the film's awful reputation. I've seen much better; but I've seen MUCH worse.
I was an extra on this film, in the part shot at the airport in the first 15 minutes or so; I was one of the fleeing (mostly Mexican) Bangladeshi refugees running across the runways at Ryan Field in Tucson. At one point, standing around in our turbans as we waited for another shot, one of my fellow extras turned to me asked me what the move was going to be about. I told him it was going to be a remake of Lost Horizons, only as a musical. There was a long pause, then he replied: "Man, this movie is gonna suck". Pretty perceptive of him, I thought. I had a good time and made a bit of money, but even with some interesting personal memories attached to this movie I can't sit through the whole thing. <br /><br />If you ever saw the movie "The Swarm", you can pretty much get the idea. You get to see a lot of famous and talented people wasted on an an idea that on the face of it is just BAD. The idea seemed to be that if you throw enough money at a movie and hire enough big names, then a good story and good writing aren't necessary. Just turn the big crank, and out comes the product. It's just not worth watching.
..but unfortunately no one thought about having Van killed in order to save this doomed production. The only positive thing about him in the film is his nice singing voice...too bad the songs are mostly insipid and sappy. Why did I hate Van so much? Well, throughout the film he seemed like he was doing a third-rate Soupy Sales imitation--with lots of mugging, bad jokes and way too much energy spent trying to make everyone laugh. The worst of these moments was when he was "teaching" the class--these kids laughed at EVERYTHING he did. Heck, Van could have read the phone book or showed them autopsy photos and they probably would have laughed! Now Van was not the only bad casting decision in the film--he was just the most obvious. Of course, having John Gielgud (a lovely actor) play an Asian was ridiculous as well as having Michael York play Peter Finch's brother!! The bottom line is that because of these insane casting choices, the film was doomed from the start....and the worst of them was the god-awful Bobby Van. Now in real life, he might have been a lovely person and it's sad that in real life he died so young, but with the material they gave him here I just wanted to rip out his tongue to get him to be quiet.<br /><br />Now I also mentioned the songs--egad, those terrible songs!! The original LOST HORIZON by Frank Capra was a subtle delight throughout--and not a single song and dance number in the film. So why did they decide to add a bazillion songs that did nothing to help the film? They only served to make it seem like a gooey mess--like the original DOCTOR DOOLITTLE combined with LOST HORIZON. The end result is a sickly sweet children's movie--not one that can be enjoyed by anyone over 8.<br /><br />Now if you can remove these problems, you have the basis of a decent film. After all, the plot is lovely and is still hidden beneath all the goo. Peter Finch is particularly good (though certainly not the equal of Ronald Colman in the original). But, considering that the original was a near-perfect classic, why bother with this sticky confection. Who wants to wade through the treacle?! <br /><br />By the way, this film was included in "The 50 Worst Films" book by Harry Medved. While I, too, disliked the film, it wasn't bad enough to merit inclusion in the book. I think it was included mostly because it was such a huge box office failure and because it was released just a few years before the book appeared. An excellent book--just not one of the best selections to the "hallowed hall" of dreck.
I can imagine what happened for this film to come into being: a bunch of studio guys are sitting around, drinking gin-and-tonic, maybe a joint, and one of them comes up with the idea that it would be great if they could find a film that would bridge the generation gap, which at that time was about as far apart as Archie Bunker and Mick Jagger. Something that both college-age rebels and their parents would find equally interesting-- for different reasons, perhaps, but still, a ticket is a ticket. What interested hippies? Asia, philosophy, pacifism, and wild sets and costumes. What interested their parents? Musicals, eye candy, a feel-good script, and nostalgia. Very well, then, "Lost Horizon", the old classic, as a musical, in color. Can't miss, right? It was a bomb. Lost Horizon, by James Hilton, is perhaps less than a classic, but not a bad novel. In broad terms, he sketches out a utopian society in Shangri-la, "The Valley of the Blue Moon", near Tibet, inhabited by peacefully contented villagers who serve an abbey of <i>very</i> long-lived monks. Intruding into paradise is a Gilligan's Island-like planeful of outsiders (a veteran of WWI, a missionary, etc.) each with their own spin on the situation -- what plot there is concerns the reaction of each of them to being presented with a choice to live in paradise, or try to return to the tumult of the Twentieth Century. Taken on its own terms, it's gentle, pop-lit fluff, presenting Hilton's own conservative British views in "Oriental" dress, as exotic and as familiar as a fortune cookie. As captive honored guests of the monks, the castaways are forbidden to leave the valley, but never pressed into work or prayer (not that the monks do too much of that themselves), treated royally, and given simple, yet luxurious accomodations --who'd want to escape? In this Middle American Heaven-on-Earth, the monks are both cultured and wise, the climate is warm, the food is plentiful and tasty, the villagers are picturesque nonentities and nothing ever changes. The nuns are chaste, but encouraged to look pretty, and even flirt a bit ( the reason given is one of the most hilariously inaccurate explanations of Tantric Sex I've ever read). Even their religion is nonthreatening: revealed as a best-of-both worlds blend of Christianity and Buddhism, there's little to offend any but the staunchest fundamentalist or the oddballs out there who actually knew something about Tibet (which in the early Thirties was a very small number).<br /><br />As a Capra film focussing on the adventure/character interplay angles it was enchanting; and perhaps Steven Spielburg could have made it fly, if he'd been around. As an early-Seventies Hollywood product, the adventure was over too quickly, and the updated roster of characters too bland, to make much of an impression. Deprived of the sketchy, suggestive qualities of classic B&W, the monastery resembles a de luxe beauty spa in white and pale blue, and while at least some of the monks' robes tried for historical accuracy, most of the rest of the inmates looked as if on their way to a morning massage and fango bath, with a couple of holes of golf in the afternoon. Maybe Stephan Sondheim could have restored some grit to the story, playing up the very real conflict inside each character's reaction; just five years afterwards, Brian Eno would have captured the tranquil atmosphere to a T; instead, Bert Bacherach and Hal David were given the job of writing the songs, which marry Muzak-like melodies with some of the clunkiest New Agey lyrics ever penned. Quite naturally for the time, every song calls for a dance number, which range from the merely forgettable to the completely boring, and so is the script, which has not one line worth quoting.<br /><br />Tie-ins with this movie were legion -- there were everything from cookbooks to posters planned to promote this film, and such was the hype that I actually went out and bought the sountrack album. Just about the only thing good I can say about it is that it made enough of an impression on me to write this review completely from memory nearly thirty years after -- the next month I read Aldous Huxley, bought a copy of the Bardo Thadol, and hence learned about real Tibetan culture. Moan.<br /><br />
I watched "Deadly Voyage" because David Suchet was in it, after enjoying him in the "Poirot" series. And Joss Ackland is always worth watching, so I went into the film with an expectation of it being a potentially worthwhile film. Alas, it was not to be.<br /><br />I won't bother critiquing the performances, the pacing, the cinematography or any other structural aspect of the film; others here have already given their opinions on those elements. The only thing I want to address is the film's message, since it proclaims in the intro that it's based upon a true story, and therein hangs the film's supposed importance.<br /><br />"Deadly Voyage" primarily focuses upon an impoverished black African man named Kingsley who wants to move to the US, because he believes that he can make money there. Nothing more, nothing less -- his motivation is utterly selfish. (Of course some people will prevaricate by saying that he was doing it for his family, but in fact he decided to have children on the income he could make in Ghana, so he really just created his own problem.) To that end, Kingsley decides to stow-away aboard a Russian freighter bound for New York. In the process of doing this, he faces harsh conditions, racist crew members and other challenges.<br /><br />But this is precisely where the film leaves me unsympathetic. Why should the audience be expected to care about Kingsley? Simply because he has a goal? Goals aren't such a rare commodity that his should be privileged above say, the goal of the ship's captain or the woman he left at home with his newborn child. Kingsley's goal is illegal in the eyes of the US Government. It is also illegal in that it steals from the Russian shipping company. If he makes it to the US, it would involve taking out of a system that he has not put into. And if he gets caught, the shipping company will be fined $45,000. I doubt very much that any of the stowaways care about what their chosen course of action is costing anyone else; they're clearly just out for their own gain. He could've spent the $1,000 he won in the lottery at the beginning of the film, for legal passage to the US, and applied for residency and a work permit. Instead, he takes the illegal (and dangerous) route.<br /><br />So since Kingsley's voyage is illegal, selfish and cannot be ethically justified, why should we care about him or his ordeal? Simply because he faces challenges? Why should his challenges be privileged above the challenge of the Russian shipping company getting to New York without stowaways? Because he's black and the shipping company is white? The reason seems to be because Danny Glover (the film's executive producer) and others involved want us to root for Kingsley, as if he's a hero on some sort of noble voyage. But once you accept that illegal immigration, theft and a fool's mission aren't noble at all, you can't really care about him.<br /><br />Before anyone plays the race card, I assure you that I would've felt the same no matter what ethnicity/nationality the involved parties were. Imagine if a British person decided to stow-away in a train headed for Bhutan, sneak across the border, and collect "unwanted" Buddhist antiquities, to bring back to Britain to sell. How much sympathy could the challenges he faced generate? Very little, I'd bet. So why should we feel different for Kingley? Because he's black? Because he's poor by American standards? The filmmakers are banking on us sharing their views that the ends justify the means, and that a shipping company being fined $45,000 is inconsequential compared to the remote possibility of an unskilled laborer earning slightly more in the US than he could've if he had just stayed in his own home country. I didn't buy it for a minute.
I put down this vehicle from Robert De Niro and Eddie Murphy, and Murphy in particular the first time but having seen it again, recently, I can see that it does have some very funny bits.<br /><br />This is by no means to say that this is the greatest buddy comedy of all time, but really what can you do to the already exhausted subgenre? What director, Tom Dey, has tried to do is make it a satire of the clichés of buddy comedy and the media. Early in the movie the executive of a cable network asks: "How is this different from Cops?", when Chase Renzi is pitching the idea of a reality show dealing with De Niro's character, Mitch Preston (hilariously boring name by the way). That's when I saw it in a new light that I hadn't previously noticed.<br /><br />The idea is to show all the elements of the buddy comedy and put a twist on them. De Niro's reluctance to star in the show and to partner up with Murphy is right out of every cop film you can think of. You can say that De Niro is actually playing himself asking: "Why would I do another movie playing a cop?" Chase Renzi is portrayed to be a Hollywood phony but if you look at her opening scene again, she is merely doing it to save her job. She somehow sees the ridiculousness of what she is doing but she wants to succeed despite that. One line says it all: "Who doesn't want to be on TV?" Maybe this is reading too much into what is essentially a lightweight film, merely set to entertain, but it does give it a little spin that I hadn't noticed before.<br /><br />As for Murphy. You got to applaud him for looking this ridiculous. Trey wants to be a star so bad that he is willing to sell out everything he comes in contact with. Murphy was a big star and maybe it struck a nerve that it is all so fleeting.<br /><br />The plot with the gun is of course pretty boring. The action sequences are nothing special, except the end which required a lot of effort both from cast and crew. One thing that I noticed about the villain is that he is dressed like an 80's pop star. George Michael comes to mind and that adds to the whole media spin.<br /><br />So, I trashed it the first time around but what the heck; if you are gonna do this, why not point out how ridiculous it really is and De Niro and Murphy took a big chance doing this.
Watching Showtime I got the impression that the producers got the idea to put Robert DeNiro and Eddie Murphy just for the sake of having a film that co-starred the two of them. Other than that I can't think of a reason to justify the film's existence. Not that it isn't amusing in spots, it certainly is, but the concept is so completely ludicrous that the laughs are somewhat muted.<br /><br />The thing that really got me was Eddie Murphy's character. I can't seem to wrap my mind around the concept of someone being a police officer as strictly a day job. When I was working person at New York State Crime Victims Board I had to deal with all kinds of cops and they ran the gamut between the really dedicated and some real slugs, but I can't think of one who thought that this was just something I do until I get my career going in an area far afield. I mean, can you really see Eddie Murphy or anyone else going through the rigors of the real Police Academy, not the screen version, just to get a day job?<br /><br />Anyway DeNiro is your basic hard working detective who's on the trail of a major gun dealer. He's undercover and Murphy is part of his backup. So what does the showboating Murphy do, he calls a reality based TV series like COPS to film the action. <br /><br />So DeNiro's bust gets blown sky high, but the producer of the show gets some good footage of Murphy and DeNiro and decides on a new reality based television series. So these unwilling partners get joined and try to continue working DeNiro's case with all the TV cameras around.<br /><br />Eddie Murphy's a funny guy, I loved him in Beverly Hills Cop and in the Doctor Doolittle movies, but he's done better things than Showtime and Robert DeNiro certainly has. <br /><br />I guess Murphy wanted a chance to work with DeNiro and DeNiro must have gotten one hefty paycheck to do this film.
Two popular actors are paired in showtime like De Niro and Murphy playing a police and an actor. Although they share the most screen time together, they do not reach their expected performances such films like Analyse This, Meet the Parents, Dr Doolittle and Nutty Professor. The film starts interestingly but becomes a thin, ordinary comedy which is quite disappointing.It feels like especially De Niro doesn't enjoy being in Showtime. Thats a shame because he really shows his feelings thats what I think. Unfortunately, if the idea had been used cleverly this could have been a more interesting piece of work and could be followed with a sequel like any other popular Hollywood movie. Well, I don't think there would be a sequel to this at least casting De Niro and Murpy again. ** out of *****
With all the hype surrounding the stars of the movie, this movie left me wanting. I expected a much better movie considering the inclusion of the talents of Murphy, De Niro and Russo but found that the movie fell flat on it's face. Comedy sequences were overdone and the superior performances of the stars especially De Niro and Russo couldn't save this one!<br /><br />** out of *****
The movie is not as funny as the director's preceding (and only other) movie, Shanghai Noon. Showtime did have its moments, but it did not satisfy me. Why it needed to be so foulmouthed, I don't know, but I give Showtime **/****
There comes a time in every big name actor's career when they get sloppy and accept projects that they wouldn't have touched with a 1000 ft. pole in their golden days. Remember "Taxi Driver"? That was a fine film. I can hardly believe that the De Niro of "Showtime" is the same actor.<br /><br />I would rather watch "Time Chasers" twice than see this film again. If anyone offers to take you to see "Showtime" or gives you free passes, or whatever, run away as fast and far as you can.
MINOR PLOT SPOILERS AHEAD!!!<br /><br />How did such talented actors get involved in such mindless retreaded<br /><br />drivel? Robert DeNiro plays a Dumb Hollywood version of the standard<br /><br />violence prone tough cop (i.e., he beats up the bad guys and rolls his<br /><br />eyes at cops who prefer to stick by the book), and Eddie Murphy plays a<br /><br />not so tough cop who would rather be an actor (i.e., he screams out,<br /><br />"Freeze, police!" and has his "tough look" down pat). Naturally, they<br /><br />are partnered when Bobby's loose cannon tactics get him in hot water<br /><br />with the media and he is essentially blackmailed into starring in a<br /><br />"Cops"-like reality show. Take a breath, cuz that's as funny as it<br /><br />gets.<br /><br />No energy was put into the script - it feels like a pale retread of<br /><br />every copy buddy movie tossed into a blender with "15 Minutes" starring,<br /><br />yes, DeNiro himself as, pretty much the character he is playing here. <br /><br />The jokes fall flat, the action feels listless, and no one seems to be<br /><br />having a good time. It's dead on the screen.<br /><br />Please don't waste your time. Even if you have an overwheming affinity<br /><br />for one of the actors - avoid it and do them a favor. Becauze if this<br /><br />makes money, these kinda of scripts will be deeemed perfectly acceptable<br /><br />for actors of their quality.<br /><br />And to Mr. DeNiro. You used to make serious films. I remember them -<br /><br />they were good. You were nominated for awards for them - remember how<br /><br />much fun that was? Now after "Analyze This" (which was good), "Meet the<br /><br />Parents" (which was also good), and "The Adventures of Rocky and<br /><br />Bullwinkle" (which was NOT good), I think we need to see you parodying<br /><br />yourself less, and BEING yourself more. "Casino" feels like a long time<br /><br />ago. And no, I don't count "15 Minutes" as serious Bobby. Anyone who<br /><br />took that media satire seriously must get their weekly world news
Eddy Murphy and Robert De Niro should be a combination that results in a great comedy. Great expectationa often lead to dissapointment, and this proves to be the case.<br /><br />When Eddy as a police officer spoils a drug deal being done by Detective Robert, they botch it so badly that they end up doing a live action reality TV cop show. Logic is not a great component of this movie. The super-gun that they spend the second half of the movie chasing down confirms it. A twelve guage machine gun that leaves large holes in sheetmetal and three will destroy a house in about a minute (without reloading) is as more a fantasy than science fiction. A five pound gun, firing hundreds of shots per minute without any recoil, is certainly the weapon of the future using the technology of the past.<br /><br />It is clear this movie was designed for neither adults nor children, so if you are somewhere in between, this is the movie for you.
Bubbling just beneath the surface of Showtime is a good idea. Actually, it's more like two or three ideas that constantly fight for screentime. This film doesn't just have its cake and eat it too; it has the whole bakery.<br /><br />Detective Mitch Preston (Robert De Niro) has a drug bust interrupted by the media and a brash, cop-slash-actor named Trey Sellars (Eddie Murphy). When Preston's partner is shot, he angrily shoots the camera out of the hands of a pestering newsman, and the tiff lands him in a new reality cop show produced by Chase Renzi (Rene Russo). In the first of many errors and oddities in the movie, that injured partner is never heard from again or alluded to for the remainder of the film.<br /><br />De Niro's best gag is his speech to a classroom of small children to open the picture about how TV cops don't act like real cops. Funny thing is, as the movie progresses, his character and Murphy's begin to act more and more like the clichés they supposedly clash so strongly with. In a smarter movie, De Niro's diatribe could have played as ironic comment; here, it only shows to point out how truly lame the movie is. While a spoof of a reality based cop show could be funny, the team of writers and director Tom Dey (Who made the far superior Shanghai Noon a few years ago; see that movie instead) seem to be on unsure footing, and instead of slamming the TV industry, they really let them off light (The harshest thing they seem to be able to say about network execs is they like to play ping pong at work). Russo's character has a glint of fiendish delight in her eye, but her dialogue and actions rarely match the actress' enthusiasm. <br /><br />With little on screen to keep my attention, my mind began to wander, and that's dangerous in a movie with this many plot holes. For instance; if Showtime (the name given to the cop show) is such a popular smash, why doesn't anyone seem to recognize De Niro and Murphy when they are on the job? For that matter, if their investigation of smuggler and all around mean guy Vargas is being televised, why the heck hasn't someone mentioned to him that they are on his trail? Then again, given this villain's actions maybe I shouldn't be surprised; this is the same joker who is very angry at an associate for using his new supergun without approval, jeopardizing a deal, and then dispatches him how? By using about ten of the superguns to level his entire house, of course! That's like putting out a fire with a bigger fire. <br /><br />Occasionally, Showtime gets laughs, but there simply aren't enough for the film's nearly two hour running time. Even worse, the really smart gags suggest that this movie really could have been on to something, if only they had put in a few more drafts of the script. Murphy mugs and talks as fast as he can with minimal results, and De Niro looks flat out bored through most of this. After a completely unnecessary fistfight between cops and gangsters (That remarkably results in no injuries and no arrests) Russo's character shouts `That's great television!' Perhaps it's great television, but it's far from a great movie.
I don't understand jokes. I do believe this is my problem with modern cinema, or those films that are made with millions of dollars in hopes that it will become the next greatest sensation. Isn't it odd – people just don't laugh as much anymore, and I do believe one of the diseases to that problem is the film "Showtime". There was absolutely nothing, from the beginning to the end of the credits, with all of the bantering between Murphy and De Niro, with Russo as eye candy, with even standard clichés which make the general population swoon with pre-programmed laughter, there was nothing in this film that made me laugh. There weren't the overbearing physical jokes or the calculated mental vocal jokes at all throughout this debacle of a film. From the beginning, I didn't buy the match-up of De Niro and Murphy as anything more than Hollywood excitement, throughout the commentary the director vividly talks about the hijinks and laughter going on during the shoot – where was it in the film? This falls to either two problems – the director really doesn't have a sense of comedy or the editor didn't understand the value of the film. Either way, they both doomed the entire hour and a half spent on the Hollywood nightmare "Showtime".<br /><br />Outside of finding no reason to laugh, there was no reason to follow these characters through any moment of the film. There was a glimpse of humor with De Niro's desire to pick up pottery as a hobby (but the director had to write KILN on the machine so audiences would understand – WHO DOES THAT?), but that was dropped and never developed. There was the idea that Murphy was an actor, but outside of that one opening monologue, nobody would have understood that. He rents a room in a producer's house in which he can afford on a police officer's salary? This just didn't compute even for Hollywood standards. There was a bad guy who wanted a big gun, but the gun was never developed, nor was there any true test of the weapons capability … even at the end. It became a bigger joke to laugh at an accent than remember the guns. Where was the television show in this? Russo had to get permission from this random guy at the beginning, but there were no consequences. There was nothing in the middle of this film outside of further questions and meaningless dribble. Random characters were introduced, forgotten, re-introduced, and forgotten all over again. The director and producer laughed at this, while we, the meager viewer, must suffer through inside jokes and cliché stereotypes.<br /><br />Was there a love interest in this film? Was there a truly sinister bad guy that went apart from the comic duo to bring true evil to the screen? Were there any pop culture references that didn't come back to Robert De Niro? Was there random chaos throughout this film? If you need the answers to these, obviously, you won't find them in "Showtime". The fact that I am riddling this review with question upon question, only means that this sub-par (actually, well below sub-sub-sub par) filled no quota or resembled anything of value to the cinematic world. Sure, it had big names and one really neat explosion, but there was nothing of substance to this at all. It was almost as if the director said prior to the shoot that he wanted clichés, but not regular clichés – go with the bad ones. The plot had no linear structure. The jokes were boring. The characters were drab and underdeveloped. This ranks below even the best of "buddy-cop" films. I like to give films the benefit of the doubt, but nothing worked in this film. Not even Shatner could save this film, and he even tried hard.<br /><br />Overall, I cannot, nor will I, suggest this film to anyone with a pulse. The commentary only confirms the pathetic nature of the film with obvious flaws, horrid jokes, and creators questioning the validity of their work. If creators can't stand behind "Showtime", why should we? I didn't want a "Lethal Weapon" when I watched this, but I did want something like that. I understand there was some form of criticism of "reality television" and the corrupt nature of the media, but that message didn't make it off the page. In fact, I believe I saw "media" leave the theater first when I watched this. Shame carries its heavy hand with this film and I cannot blame it. Murphy used to be a big star, comedy was his middle name (see "Coming to America"), but lately he seems to have lost his edge. De Niro obviously wants to get away from an image that haunts him, but making these sort of films is only going to set him back further. One of these films is equal to one Scorsese picture.<br /><br />Skip this one. I promise, it will make your final cinematic days worthwhile. Oh, and if you laughed at any of the jokes in this film – I am truly sorry! <br /><br />Grade: * out of *****
For all intents and purposes, Showtime was the worst movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />Why? Because having Deniro in the cast adds immediate credibility and makes you want to watch the movie. I had also made the mistake of watching 48 Hours and Beverly Hills Cop recently before seeing Showtime and for some strange reason thought Eddie Murphy was still funny. Well he's not. In fact it almost seems like he has been neutered. As I watched this movie I was in amazement that Deniro decided this was a good enough script to lend his name too. No chemistry between him and Murphy whatsoever. Horrible writing, horrible jokes, a movie that you THINK is supposed to be good can't get much worse than this. Not too long after sitting through the wretch that was Showtime I happened to watch National Security starring Martin Lawrence. The movie had its funny parts but wasn't that great. But still it was 20 times better than Showtime. Please if your a Deniro fan DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!
This 3-hour made-for-TV miniseries came home with us from Blockbuster's this weekend. The production company clearly spent a lot of money on sets, costuming (Bridget Fonda, especially), and special effects (including a great Jim Henson talking polar bear & reindeer). They should have spent a bit more money getting a coherent script. The story line was so loose that it really never came together. One can overlook Irish-accented Germans, but not herky-jerky storytelling. With senseless loose ends which included a special guest appearance by the Devil, this one is certainly not destined to be a Christmas Classic. A shame that they wasted good performances by the two female leads.
Sometimes Hallmark can get it right - like The 10th Kingdom - but many of their fantasy films plod, and this falls into the latter category. The version I saw may have been cut (a demon [?] shown in the trailer and publicity stills didn't appear), but anything that made the movie shorter can only be a blessing.<br /><br />POSSIBLE SPOILERS IF YOU ARE UNFAMILIAR WITH THE ORIGINAL FAIRY TALE:<br /><br />Anyway, the film updates the story to the early part of the 20th Century (?), and makes Gerda and Kay (here called Kai - being a Lexx fan, I kept expecting him to say, `The Dead do not solve puzzles') 18 year olds. Hans Christian Andersen's basic story is followed: the boy gets a shard of ice in his eye, goes bad, is taken off by the Snow Queen to solve a puzzle in her palace and Gerda goes to find him, having various adventures on the way.<br /><br />As the two main characters are older than in the original, a lot of time is spent getting them together and `in love'. Unfortunately, I was never convinced that they were particularly in love, and certainly not enough in love to make sense of Gerda's quest. By the time the main plot kicks in, the movie's pace has slowed to a crawl. Alas, when Gerda begins her search for Kai, it only manages to pick up the pace to a leisurely stroll.<br /><br />There are a few odd additions to the story that seem to go nowhere. At the start of the film the Snow Queen kills Gerda's mother, but no explanation for this is given. A polar bear living in the Snow Queen's palace is more than he seems (though this is possibly because the producers realised that the bear's feelings towards the Snow Queen would be OK in a Fairy Tale, but not in a modern film). Again, this is never explained. Also, hints that the Snow Queen has an erotic desire for Kai are dropped, but never followed through. The script is also full of anachronisms that really jar you out of the `fairy tale' mood.<br /><br />The production looks good, though there is evidence of penny-pinching: the Snow Queen's palace is the hotel where Gerda and Kai lived covered in ice. The three main characters are played with varying degrees of success: Kai comes across as bland as does Gerda initially, but once she sets off to find Kai you warm to her. Bridget Fonda looks great as the Snow Queen, but seems to be in a different movie to everyone else.<br /><br />Ultimately, the film is unsatisfying. It looks good, but drags and lacks magic.
"The Snow Queen" is based on the famous and very beautiful fairytale by Hans Christian Andersen, about a girl, Gerda, who goes on a dangerous journey to rescue her friend Kai from the clutches of the Snow Queen. This adaption attempts to capture that story's sense of adventure and luminously intricate imagery through lavish sets and production design, but fails on a number of counts.<br /><br />Like so many Hallmark productions, the potential of the story is completely undercut by heavy-handed scripting and direction. The two actors playing Gerda and Kai are blandly pleasant but forgettable; Bridget Fonda as the Snow Queen looks the part but is otherwise miscast for the role. There's a notable lack of dramatic tension to this meandering three-hour miniseries. At least some of the pacing problems can be attributed to the addition of filler scenes that add very little to the original story, particularly in the opening hour that introduces the main characters.<br /><br />That said, "The Snow Queen" would be just about ideal for pre-teens with a liking for fantasy and a bit of patience. It's great eye-candy without being scary, and the acting is pitched at the sort of pantomime over-the-top level that spells out the storyline in very, very bold text. Just make sure you read them Andersen's story too.
DANGER: Watch for falling spoilers...<br /><br />Boy, was this a bad movie. I know that they were going for a "true love conquers all" kind of thing, but about all this film conquered was about 3(which felt more like 9) hours of my afternoon which I will never get back. The movie is about two young lovers named Kai and Gerta who live in a remote town in a fantasy world. Kai is the much-abused bellboy at a hotel owned by Gerta's father. At first Gerta ignores Kai's advances but she eventually warms up to him much to the disgust of (You Guessed It!) Gerta's father. As if this obstacle wasn't enough to overcome, an evil snow queen shoots a shard of glass in Kai's eye and he becomes a mean person treats Gerta poorly. Kai is eventually taken to the Snow Queen's fortress (Which is the same set as the hotel just covered in ice, because the good people at Hallmark like to go all out) and Gerta sets out on a mission to get Kai back. Along the way she runs into the 3 other seasons that are evil in their own special way, but Gerta escapes them with the help of some dull and forgettable characters she meets along the way. (All the while you will want to turn it off, but can't force yourself to do it. It's probably the most evil and most effective spells cast by the Snow Queen) Anyways, I will spare you from the ending because anything you can think up in your head right now is probably better then how they ended it. So, in conclusion, the Snow Queen is an incredibly boring movie, which takes the fan out of fantasy.
Rudolph Maté's film from 1950 is given a revamp for the 80's, Dexter Cornell(Dennis Quaid) is a university lecturer who used to have a successful writing career, but thats now gone down the tubes along with his marriage. The initial exposition plants the notion in the viewers mind that everybody has something against him, so when the revelation comes that he has been poisoned, we are not that surprised, unless of course you are familiar with the original. Dexter after being told he has less than 48hrs to live, decides to trace back his steps with the help of one of his students Sydney Fuller(Meg Ryan), but they find they have many obstacles in their way.<br /><br />The film begins promisingly in black and white, as Dexter staggers in the rain towards the local police station where he wishes to report a murder...his own, but the Huey lewis style 80's beat that accompanies this scene only serves to remove any sense of tension and tells the viewer that this is going to be pretty bad, its only a question of how bad? Sure enough we are soon using the old flashback medium, but now the film resorts to full Technicolor. There are some brief homages to Noir, as the embracing couple stand in front of a venetian blind, but there's really nothing here to recommend it, the performances are awful, Ryan in particular doing her usual dizzy blonde with a cutesy pie smile routine. The film is a lazy attempt to put some unneeded ooomph into an already fine movie premise, obviously trying to cash in one the Body Heat audience, the seeming results are undoubtedly aimed at a teen audience and to be sure, they are welcome to it. 4/10
Great story and great lead actors (Quaid and Ryan) but the movie suffers from bad directing,bad screenplay and bad script.The lead actors do their part but could not save the movie at all.Too bad because this could have been a good 80's style Hitchcock suspense/mystery/thriller.Ryan looked so young and fresh in this one though.An ok look for big Ryan fans.....
I'm a fan of the 1950's original and about 20 minutes into this remake I started to think this was going to be as good as the original but it wasn't. The motive for the murders was incredibly stupid. Two of the lovers in the movie turn out to be brother and sister-excuse me while I barf. The main character stops in the middle of the movie to have sex which doesn't make sense considering the situation he's in. If the film makers wanted a sex scene they should have put it earlier in the movie before the main character (Dexter played by Dennis Quaid found he's about to die and that he's accused of a crime. There is a reason for where the sex scene is at. Early in the movie Dexter isn't living life to the fullest so he's not interested in sleeping with Meg Ryan. I still feel it would make more sense for the sex scene to have either been cut or earlier in the film and the two siblings not to have been lovers.<br /><br />One of the dumbest parts of the movie involves a gun fight, a couple people getting killed and one person being run over all within 15 yards of a crowded carnival and yet NOBODY AT THE CARNIVAL NOTICES!!! Also in the scene is the tar pits the university where the movie takes place is built on. If you fall into the tar you sink to the bottom and in a matter of seconds. Not only is it hard to believe stuff would sink that fast in tar, but more importantly who builds a university on tar pits. I would say more about how stupid the end of the movie is but I don't want to put a spoiler in my post.
Interesting plot but painfully dull. The script lacks... lacks acting. To me this film compares with "Made for TV" type movies. I was lucky to survive the film without falling asleep in my popcorn. I watched this film with my family. It is fairly safe to watch with your kids. (only 1 semi sex scene)If you wish to see a young Meg Ryan...check out this movie. Very 80-ish. You will like this movie if you like the combination of depressed people at Christmas, booze, super glue and tar. Or maybe you are like me... and have have a higher standard for acting in films. However I did like the way the movie began and ended! Mark.
This review contains a partial spoiler.<br /><br />Shallow from the outset, 'D.O.A.' at least starts as if it might be a slick, entertaining piece of nonsense like Fincher's 'The Game'. It's central character(Dennis Quaid) suffers from a nightmarish sequence of events that appear to be setting up a twisted and cunning thriller. But the plot rattles along at too great a pace, leading to a dramatic twist not half way through, when the character learns that he has been poisoned and has only 1-2 days to live. And this, simply, is too big a twist to add casually to a story. Once this has happened, the film's only chance of success is if it treats the psychology of someone in this situation as its principal, indeed, its only subject matter: but 'D.O.A.' continues as if this was just a normal revelation like any other you might usually encounter in a thriller. The problem is two-fold: firstly, Quaid's actions don't convince as what someone is his situation would be likely to do; and secondly, even if they did convince, it's hard to care about what happens next when the most significant point of plot has already been prematurely resolved. The rest of the film is pretty standard fare for a film of this sort, but made more tedious than usual by the character's slightly-treated predicament, which logically dwarfs the events the film is interested in. Dennis Quaid, in the lead role, doesn't convince either as a burnt out professor or as a man who is destined to die: Meg Ryan is, as often, ditzy and annoying. Another negative feature is the ugly 80s soundtrack. Watch 'The Game' instead, which from similar roots remains tight and character-driven, whereas 'D.O.A.' drifts into developments that only undermine its own premise. As the premise is itself quite intriguing, it's a shame to see it drowned in a surplus of over-cooked plot.
POSSIBLE SPOILERS --<br /><br />I love Dennis Quaid and I like Meg Ryan. I was looking forward to seeing them together, being married and all, I wanted to see their on-screen chemistry. Okay, that being said, I guess the fact that they are actors, their off-screen relationship didn't have to permeate their performances, especially with this script.<br /><br />How stupid can a professor be to glue himself to anyone. I don't remember the original, but I can only assume that O'Brien probably was handcuffed to his leading lady, probably in a more inevitable way. If I were "bonded" to someone I'd be pretty angry. The crush I would have would definitely have dissipated quickly. Meg showed not even a little annoyance only slight surprise. Dennis would have to take me kicking and screaming. That whole section of the movie was so horrible -- especially Meg having to go to the bathroom (#2) between dumpsters in the dark at night. Ewww. No f****ing way! <br /><br />What's with Dennis socking every single suspect in the movie. Sock first ask questions later. Not once, not twice but too many times -- I could have kept count if I were so inclined. <br /><br />The most interesting part of the movie was Nick and his family drama. Too bad that couldn't have become more of the plot. The assumed off-screen drama leading up to this tragedy. I think it could have been written in without distracting from Dex' quest. <br /><br />My blame lies with the writer of this screenplay. Unless the director and others doctored it up so much that it's unrecognizable.<br /><br />I won't even get into the real reason poor Dex was murdered. How ludicrous is that. Even when Dex confronted the real killer and the reason was explained, (a true "film noir" moment) everyone on screen seemed bored. Oh, _____ happened. Oh. (yawn) "Dex even says this is a silly reason for a triple murder. Oh the tension, you could cut it with a spoon.<br /><br />If anyone but Dennis had been in this movie, I'd have to give it 1/2 star (only because I really have seen worse), but in this case 1 1/2 stars.<br /><br />For Dennis and Meg stars, see ANYTHING ELSE.
"D.O.A." is a non-thrilling thriller from directors Rocky Morton and Annabel<br /><br />Jankel. The acting is okay and the screenplay is pretty bad. This movie also has some moments which will make you laugh at how stupid the scenes of violence<br /><br />are. For example, someone is shot near a window. We then see from outside<br /><br />the building what looks like that person jumped. I laughed my head off when this happened. This movie tries hard, but ultimately fails. Only watch this movie<br /><br />when you have no other choice.<br /><br />My Critique: **<br /><br />Rating: [R]<br /><br />Rating Reasons: Violence and language.*<br /><br />*There was no rating reason available due to its age.
I rented this movie primarily because it had Meg Ryan in it, and I was disappointed to see that her role is really a mere supporting one. Not only is she not on screen much, but nothing her character does is essential to the plot. Her character could be written out of the story without changing it much.
This meandering tale of mob revenge is simply not very interesting, even with Ed McMahon in a ripe role as the chief heavy. Jim Brown kicks ass effectively, Gloria Hendry proves again that she can bring life to even the poorest roles, and Brock Peters is decent as The Cop Who Plays By the Book. It's still dull and badly constructed, and even the print shown on cable is now emasculated of its original James Brown score.
As a flagship show, Attack of the Show (AOTS) is endemic of the larger fall of G4 TV; it is a show (and a station) that has fallen so far that it parades sex to try and cover its glaring faults. Its predecessor, The Screen Savers, was a venue for troubleshooting technology problems and scouting out the latest and greatest in technology. It was a nice show with a likable staff and it was fun to see some of the modding and other experiments the crew could put to together.<br /><br />The acquisition of TechTV by G4 bothered some longtime fans of the station, but early returns were actually promising. The emphasis on gaming was a nice addition and I really enjoyed a lot of the coverage of E3 and other big entertainment events.<br /><br />Unfortunately, AOTS now stands as but a shell of its former self. Those overseeing the channel have shifted the focus of the channel away from technology and gaming and toward anything that might elicit drool from young adult men. The result is that AOTS spends as much time parading Olivia Munn or touting the adult film industry as it does covering games. It is so bad it is practically unwatchable.<br /><br />While some may get puerile joy out of this sort of thing, those who genuinely enjoy gaming may wonder where the good coverage went. Equally troubling, young gamers who might tune into G4 thinking their getting gaming - that active gaming group between 10-15 - are instead being fed things aimed toward a more mature audience. On a channel like HBO or Cinemax, things like that are expected. On G4, it's tragic.<br /><br />At least SpikeTV, another male-aimed channel, has good programming like CSI. AOTS, and G4, has very little good left to offer.<br /><br />Too bad, really.
This show is what happened to The Screen Savers after G4 got its hands on it, taking it from a useful source of computer-related information to a show that had as its high point the shoving of a miniature web server up someone's posterior.<br /><br />As G4's ratings plummeted, they moved away from their original target audience, gamers, to generic hormone-driven young men, adding eye candy to the staff and a sex advice segment. Now even the gamers who applauded the show initially are turning away in disgust. I look forward to the show's, and the network's, overwhelmingly overdue and well-deserved demise.
Since this show was changed from TSS (the screen savers) to AOTS (attack of the show)it has gone down hill. TSS with Yoshi and Kevin Rose Alex... etc. Made the show awesome, then they got fired from TSS for an unknown reason. When the show switched to AOTS, it became less about computers, and more about gaming and magazines. It also promoted bands that nobody had heard of, or cared about. Finally I couldn't watch it anymore once Kevin Rose left. He kept it interesting, but he went off to do his own thing, which is good. Kevin Rose now has several online pod casts, and shows, etc on the REV 3 network. Check it out. REV3.com I think, you can get to it by going to www.systm.org. If you want a real tech show rather than aots, then go watch Kevin Roses shows or listen to the tWit podcast.<br /><br />J<
I saw this movie a while ago and I was looking forward to it. My biggest problem was having seen the trailer I was expecting a very stylish marshal arts movie with plenty of action and maybe a bit of plot to think about along the way. I was sorely disappointed as it would seem that once you have seen the trailer there is nothing else worth watching (if what you are expecting is as described above). My girlfriend at the time gave up half way through and whilst I continued to watch in the hope that something interesting might happen... nothing did. I found no attachment or real interest in any of the characters. I would say just don't bother unless you have a few hours of your life that you don't really care about losing.
I'm still laughing- Not! I'm still asking my myself what the point was. I barely got a chuckle, this movie sucks. It tries to be charming and touching, but it turns out stupid. I do not recommend it.
This is one of the most predictable movies I have ever seen. And this supposed to be funny..... Boring, boring, boring. Find the fast forward button at your remote and use it... I can`t say I laughed once, and the only good feeling this movie gave me was relief when it ended.
The most accurate description of how Billy Crystal fairs in "My Giant" is to say that this movie is to his career as "Ishtar" was to Warren Beaty's - it didn't ruin it, but it slowed it down.......a lot. Crystal should know the three golden rules of Hollywood: 1) never play opposite a kid 2) never play opposite an animal 3) never play opposite someone that is almost 3 feet taller than you, is as innocent as a kid and "acts" like an animal.<br /><br />What is this story? A comedy? I guess, but I didn't laugh, except at the scenes where Crystal is on his own and not burdened with his (what-is-her-role-in-this-movie) ex-wife or the afore-mentioned Giant. Did I mention there's also a kid in this film? Well, forget about him. The son is brought in to make us feel sorry for Crystal, and we do, but for the actor, not the character. Billy Crystal is a funny man. If you don't believe me, watch him in old episodes of "Soap" or "Saturday Night Live." Go rent "City Slicker" or "Running Scared" or "When Harry Met Sally."<br /><br />"Giant" is more ho-hum than fee-fi-fo-fum.<br /><br />
Synopsis: Kid is not accepted into any colleges. He creates a "college" where he and his friends can party by using their parent's tuition money. <br /><br />Wow. A Paean to ignorance. <br /><br />If you believe that we're all OK, man, then this movie is for you. Furthermore, you must understand that:<br /><br />1. Kids have it all inside them--they just need to let it out.<br /><br />2. Teaching really stifles the innate creativity that everyone is born with. <br /><br />3. Someone else should pay for you to follow your passion. <br /><br />4. 300 teenagers can live together in harmony, as long as you take away those restrictive rules. <br /><br />5. Extemporaneous speeches are often much more convincing than a prepared presentation. <br /><br />6. If the Board of Education allows you to open a "charter school" with "nontraditional teaching techniques," it's because they have your best interests at heart. (Not that they are willing to let go of low-functioning students who will end up working fast food anyways.) <br /><br />This movie is one in the college comedy genre, i.e. Animal House. It follows the pattern pretty closely. What's new here though, is a complete attack on higher education, not a parody of the bad elements. It's missing the sympathetic insider, a professor who embodies the worthwhile part of university life. <br /><br />This lack of balance will doom this film to the back rows of Blockbuster. It is so one sided, that I wondered if it was an ironic self-referential take on the whole genre--for about one minute. The movie has no deep meaning, no layers, no introspection. It's as if they let some kids who never went to class do what comes naturally. And what is natural is what the name of the school is: S***. <br /><br />(Never thought I'd say this: Go see something with Will Farrell instead. His comedies can be surprisingly sophisticated.)
this movie was downright awful. most of the comedic scenes seem stale and trite, and possibly the funniest scene in the movie had already been given away in previews. the entire premise of the movie is so unbelievable and ridiculous its hard to really get into it. the actors themselves portray the most unrealistic characters. its not just the fact that the movies so hard to swallow, but its how they keep forcing it down your throat expecting you to dumb down and accept it. the plot itself is so shallow and easy to predict. boy somehow gets rejected from every school he applied to(i suppose he completely forgot about attending community college) and decides to create his own school for fellow rejects. all goes well for awhile until the validity of his school comes into question. all the while the dorky character manages to woo his beautiful neighbor into falling for him with his witty sarcasm, which apparently is a skill only he possesses. then comes the final struggle with the students somehow all bonding together and fighting for the survival of the school. of course the main character then persuades the state board of education to allow his school to stay alive with some "inspirational" speech. this movie would have been more fun to watch if i was under the age of 16 and still ignorant of all college matters and issues.
Seriously, I don't understand how Justin Long is becoming increasingly popular. He either has the best agent in Hollywood, or recently sold his soul to Satan. He is almost unbearable to watch on screen, he has little to no charisma, and terrible comedic timing. The only film that he has attempted to anchor that I've remotely enjoyed was Waiting... and that is almost solely because I've worked in a restaurant. But I digress. Aside from it's terrible lead, this film has loads of other debits. I understand that it's supposed to be a cheap popcorn comedy, but that doesn't mean that it has to completely insult our intelligence, and have writing so incredibly hackneyed that it borders on offensive. Lewis Black's considerable talent is wasted here too, as he is at his most incendiary when he is unrestrained, which the PG-13 rating certainly won't allow. The film's sole bright spot was Jonah Hill (who will look almost unrecognizable to fans of the recent Superbad due to the amount of weight he lost in the interim). His one liners were funny on occasion, but were certainly not enough to make this anywhere close to bearable. If you just want to completely turn your brain off (or better yet, don't have one) then maybe you'd enjoy this, but I can't recommend it at all.
Let me start by saying that there's really no reason to watch this movie. I only sat through it because I was trying to kill some time before going to work.<br /><br />Basically, it's your typical sophomoric "comedy" aimed at the teenage set. There's nothing remarkable about it other than the complete ridiculousness of the story, not to mention that there are plot holes big enough to sail a Carnival cruise-liner through. Obviously this isn't supposed to be a realistic movie, it's supposed to be funny. Sadly, it mostly fails on that count as well. I must admit that I laughed a few times, but mainly in a "holy sh*t, I can't believe how stupid this is" kind of way.<br /><br />If you never see this movie you're not missing a thing.
I see absolutely nothing funny---even remotely funny---in this stupid movie. An unrealistic, silly, ridiculous idea--just completely ridiculous. Hard to believe that the main character, who seems so articulate, intelligent and imaginative, would not be accepted to any college. Even more difficult to believe is that no one shut the place down. The actors portrayed characters straight out of Characterville. We have seen their lot many a time over in many films. Nothing new here. I found it on late night TV, and since there was really nothing else on, I watched the whole boring, stupid film. What a total waste. Maybe if you are a teenager, you may find it amusing. Films are made for an immature mind, so teens, go for it. The rest, no way.
Inane, awful farce basically about a young man who refuses to conform or better uses non-conformity to attain his objectives-fool his parents into thinking that he is attending a college. Truth is that this jerk has been rejected by every school he has applied to. After viewing this junk, you will see why.<br /><br />What a ridiculous name- South Hampton Institute of Technology. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out the initials of this school of nonsense. Problem with these type of films is that in the end, the non-conformist becomes the accepted mode.<br /><br />Let's step back to the world of reality and call this film what it really is- excessive manipulative junk!
I wasn't so impressed with this film, finding it quite tiresome and plain. The plot line was interesting, a kid creating his own college and enrolling hundreds of kids, but the laughs were few and far between. The jokes weren't really funny and i didn't bust a gut at any of the scenes. The characters weren't intriguing and I didn't feel for any of them, even the dawky, fat kid with glasses who tried to enter the frat group. It was a good first watch, but it didn't blow me away and its not one that I would recommend. Comparing it to other films in the same genre, ie, American Pie is just cruel, because there is a film which was laugh-a-plenty. This ACCEPTED failed to raise a smile!
A quick, funny coming-of-age matinée romp appealing to the underdog aldolescent in us all. It functions, in effect, as a vehicle for Justin Long who has subsequently erupted onto our screens in the fourth Die Hard via PC vs Mac ads, Dodgeball and The Break Up. He's funny, earnest and young - a big career ahead.<br /><br />A town's worth of college wannabes find a fake website Bartelby (Long) has set up to delude his judgemental parents and descend on the 'college' like it were a short notice Facebook party. Lewis Black summises the anarchic philosophy as a stand-in Dean - Long's delinquent friends provide support for the subterfuge and consequent appeal to grander traditions of education and friendship (Adam Herschman deserves special mention for his never-flagging slapstick contribution). Well executed, feelgood and instantly forgettable. 4/10
Saw this as part of the DC Reel Affirmations Film Festival. I hope they got better movies than this, because this film failed to deliver on any of the hopes that audience may have entertained, from the fantasy of seeing James Franco without his shirt, down to more simple wishes, such as decent acting, coherent direction, character development, or actual production values. Plagued by film school effects such as freeze frames to show moments of emotional distress, and obvious influences ranging from My Own Private Idaho to Terminator 2, this film failed on almost every level to engage the audience. After the first twenty minutes of valiantly trying to take it seriously, the audience collectively threw up it's hands and just started to enjoy the inherent crappiness of the film. I could be upset that I paid nine bucks to see it, and it was two hours I'll never get back, but on the other hand, it was an entertaining two hours I'll never get back. This would have been a classic Mystery Science 3000 episode.
The Lifetime channel aired this in October but I only got around to watching it now. It's the old eternal triangle again — small-town Connecticut boy Dave Ford (Matt Long) has a quick fling with his best friend's girlfriend, Emily Darrow (Emmanuelle Chriqui), on the eve of his departure for law school in New York, thinks about her for the next five years while he isn't doing contracts and briefs, runs into her again when he returns home after the death of his father on the eve of a big exam five years later, and gets involved with her romantically again. But director and co-writer Matthew Cole Weiss goes way over the top, framing the whole thing in flashback as Dave confesses to murdering Emily, her husband and another one of her lovers in front of (here comes the spoiler) a Lesbian cop who's also a flame of Emily's. Weiss overdoes the "flanging" effect by which Dave gets to see chunks of his previous life flash before his eyes even before he's actually dead, cutting those in even while Dave and Emily are having sex and thereby ruining the soft-core porn shots that give even some otherwise pretty lame Lifetime movies at least a bit of audience appeal. I couldn't help but flash back myself to James M. Cain and how much better he wrote women like this in his classic thrillers (all adapted into hit movies) "The Postman Always Rings Twice," "Double Indemnity" and "Mildred Pierce." It also doesn't help that the film ends with the bad guys (the bad girls, actually) triumphant and the decent, if naïve and stupid, hero seemingly on his way to the lethal injection table — or that the actors playing the people Dave and Emily are cheating on are both better looking than they are. Incidentally, though this film went straight to cable in the U.S. there were some blank spots on the soundtrack indicating where swear words were blipped, so I presume this got a theatrical release somewhere in the world.
All I can say is, this movie is made for the Lifetime Channel on TV, which means no solid characters, no particular style, weak acting all kinds of suggested sex but no-breasts and tushs (because boy, that would just catapult the film into the depths of sleaze wouldn't it?) but the heavily simulated sex, well, that's OK. <br /><br />When watching these films I have to ask myself, when will these types of TV channels and their advertisers ever grow up? I think these companies are actually way behind the times. They really have no clue what the younger generation is in tune with and if they knew they would demand we change. The whole point of many American TV channels like these seems mostly to regurgitate the same sanitized, diluded garbage over and over like a generic movie assembly line. I guess it works for them... or at least it has. Not sure about the future though. <br /><br />Don't bore yourself to death like I did. Seek out some real TV movies on HBO, Showtime, IFC, Starz, etc. Any channel that puts effort into their work and doesn't have to ask a priest what they can or cannot show.
I saw this movie considering this as a normal Hollywood movie but then came to know that its a Movie made for TV channel.On my DVD cover out of 2 critics comments one of the critic stephen farber from moviline reveiwed it as A best movie of the Year..<br /><br />All the character were simple and decent performances except the Brain's character which never gets scope which director wanted to keeps mystery till end.. there was suspense till end but when you see the end that lady Police Officer and main culprit had a Lesbian affair seems to be totally stupid idea.God knows what happens to DAVE the male lead character..<br /><br />The other Critic from Mr. Brown's Movies said that Shocking and Effective but doesn't quite live up to all the Hype... which i saw after watching the Movie .for which i was partially aggree...i should have read this first before taking the movie..
I do not know what some of these filmmakers are thinking, by making the same type of clichéd film over and over, where the bad guys (bad girls in this case) win. Weak acting and very predictable. Nothing original about it. This same movie has been made over and over again- not different from GOODBYE LOVER (1989), SLOW BURN (2005), or at least ten other movies with the exact same storyline and ending. There are a lot of holes in the movie too. It is as if they ran out of money and just stopped filming. Or perhaps they ran out of ideas. But do not waste your time with this one. It will only leave you upset by having wasted your time watching it.
I was watching the beginning of this on a Friday, mid-day, while working at computer at home, relaxing a bit after a hectic week, and cleaning-up some files and answering some communications. Got interrupted a couple of times, so had trouble getting all the details straight (although it's hardly a work of Hitchcock proportions, where missing a detail can through the whole story off-kilter), and besides it was not exactly an "engrossing" piece of work.<br /><br />So during a commercial, read the only prior comment here (by "mgconlan-1"), and pretty much can agree with its details.<br /><br />Not quite in the category of a film so awful it is fascinatingly "good," but I'd like to catch on tape when run again (rather than seeing it as aired), so I can fast forward as needed and see the parts which I missed this first time.<br /><br />Give it a "3*" because of the attractiveness of the four primary characters.
It's like someone took a fantasy-type video game and put it in a blender, and the resulting scene mishmash is what we have to sit through.<br /><br />Now let me go on record by saying how much I love Chinese fantasy films. From the fun and silly, to those focusing on martial arts, to the more dramatic and romantic types—it's a genre I very much enjoy. Films like "A Chinese Odyssey: Pandora's Box" and "A Chinese Odyssey: Cinderella" (both of which were written and/or directed by Jeffrey Lau); "The Bride with White Hair"; "Butterfly & Sword"; "Green Snake"; "A Chinese Ghost Story"; "Swordman II"; "Zu: Warriors from the Magic Mountain"; "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"; and others. Which is why I was looking forward to "A Chinese Tall Story." One of the film's characters is the "Monkey King" (aka Sun Wukong), an extremely well-known character in Chinese mythology, first told in the stories of the "Journey to the West," the epic adventure written about 500 years ago. (The story of the Monkey King and his disciples is also the focus of the "Chinese Odyssey" films, amongst many others). Other familiar characters that appear in the film are Zhu Wuneng (the pig character) and Sha Wujing.<br /><br />So how does it all go wrong? Well, let's take an example familiar to Western audiences. How about the Robin Hood mythology? A well known story from ye olden days. Let's say that our Robin Hood film starred Wesley Snipes as Robin Hood, and Haley Joel Osment as Friar Tuck. Maid Marian is none other than Rosie Perez. Let's give Sir Robin an Uzi as well, because you never know when you might have to waste the Sheriff of Nottingham. They might need rocket packs also, and while we're at it, give them a tactical nuclear weapon because that sure could come in handy. If you think this sounds like a really neat retelling of the Robin Hood tale, then "A Chinese Tall Story" is the movie for you! As I indicated above, this movie is a jumbled mess. In the first 30 minutes, we are introduced not only to Sun Wukong, Zhu Wuneng, and Sha Wujing, but also to the monk Tripitaka (who is actually the main protagonist), kidnapped children, a "millennium bug demon" (which shoots laser beams), an underground Tree God, a lizard imp tribe, an angelic girl in an intergalactic egg, the Lord Chancellor Tortoise, a Sea Dragon King, a ever-morphing magic golden staff, a chatterbox imp girl, wormholes in space, and the Four Heavenly Knights. All this wouldn't be too bad--the tales and myths passed down over the years certainly do have all sorts of fantastical elements. But I guarantee you the Chinese mythology does not include much of the stuff we get subjected to in the last half of the film. (Helpful advice to the filmmakers: Just because your computer effects guys CAN come up with cool looking spaceships and depictions of intergalactic war, does not mean they SHOULD).<br /><br />You know your Chinese mythology movie is on the wrong track when the director asks (and I am not making this up—it's a direct quote from the commentary) "I asked the composer whether or not we can have a more rock-and-roll type music when she transforms into some kind of android-like thing." Is there a story hidden in here somewhere? Yes. Yes, there is. Most of the adventure follows Tripitaka (played by Nicholas Tse—"Gen-X Cops," "Time and Tide," "My Schoolmate the Barbarian") and Meiyan, the lizard imp girl (played by Charlene Choi and a computer). Choi is the best thing going in this film. You may know her as half of the Canto-pop group "Twins" and from other films such as "The Twins Effect" (a fun flick) and "Just One Look" (a surprisingly good drama/romance/comedy). Poor Choi, being a lizard imp and all, is hardly recognizable with her warts, snagged out teeth, doughy nose, and hunched back. That is until the computers get a hold of and beautify her, which somehow makes it worse. Tse is passable, but all of the supporting actors were abysmal. A couple of recognizable faces in bit parts are wasted.<br /><br />At one point I was debating with myself if "A Chinese Tall Story" was a spoof. I was almost able to convince myself that it was when the intergalactic egg girl (played by a very pretty Fan Bing-Bing) got out and lit up a Marlboro (!) while talking with Tripitaka who was practicing martial arts dressed in a Spider-Man costume (!!). But it is not a spoof. Of course there is the typical Hong Kong silliness, but the movie takes itself seriously enough, with enough scenes of romance and pathos (scored with a sledghammering of violins and evocative cellos) and rousing action and adventure.<br /><br />You might think that you could watch this on a Netflix rental and it wouldn't cost you anything. (Oh, but it'll cost you, all right).<br /><br />Is there anything good to say? Sure. The colors are vibrant (they are the best thing about this movie). And the filmmakers certainly were trying very hard. Too bad all that effort went into a movie that is not much more than a bad video game.
First there was Tsui Hark's Zu Warriors (2001), which is visually ground-breaking, but much lacking in the acting and writing departments, now this movie, which is visually almost as good as Zu (though no longer ground-breaking), but is even worse in the acting and writing departments. It's really sad that there seems to be an almost complete lack of acting and writing talents in the HK movie industry. I guess you need to understand Cantonese to understand how bad and vulgar the dialogs in the movie really are. It's like some delinquent kids talking in the street, it's that bad. To make it worse, the actors and actresses themselves look like delinquent kids, and can't act even if their life depend on it. I understand that this movie is supposed to be a comedy aimed at the younger generation in HK, but has HK youths really become so brain-dead that they can't appreciate anything but such juvenile and vulgar acting/writing? If that's the case, it makes me ashamed to be from HK.<br /><br />I wish HK movie makers will learn some lessons from directors like Zhang Yi-Mou or Ang Lee, and finally make a movie that's both visually stunning as well as competent and mature in the acting and writing departments. And stop using young singers/idols/heartthrobs as actors because they can't act however many fans they may have in HK!
It borrowed scenes from LOTR, Matrix, Star Wars, etc. The humor is so dry, contrived, and corny, that you can't help but laugh occasionally at its inanity and the fact that you are watching it. Exactly what you'd expect from an HK comedy. The average person would enter with an IQ of 100 and leave with less than 80. Stephen Chow is an obvious omission from this movie. The humor would have worked better with Stephen. The Mandarin version of this movie is not as good as the Cantonese original. The graphics are poor compared to its Hollywood counterparts. There is overdependence on low quality CG. My biggest complaint is its ending. The origin of the white horse is so clearly described in the "Journey to the West" (JW), that this alternate explanation does not work well with story line. Despite its many flaws this movie has far more entertainment value than the other movie Nicholas Tse starred in--The Promise.
Is this a game FMV or a movie? In all honesty, I watched this one out of "choice-less-ness". It is a very big waste of time and money.<br /><br />It seems HK movies are heading in the opposite direction of the rest of the world.<br /><br />Try to put more effort and money into a production and make us want to watch, rather than something you want us to watch.<br /><br />The graphics are so horrible than they looked like something out of the early to mid-90s low resolution games (in comparison to today's).<br /><br />The way they made this movie is almost exactly what they did in the 90s' Wing Commander game, namely the third installment of the series. Stop regressing and make us Asian look so bad at this compared to the big guns in Hollywood.<br /><br />Sure! They have big budgets and better actors. But we have some of the oldest histories, the myths and the legends, the best technophiles and possibly the largest computer graphic talent base in the world! So what went so very very wrong? Did you start using the same old companies that have been working with you for so many films?! Please stop wasting our time and money. This is the reason why HK movies are heading downhill so rapidly. Didn't you claim to be the Hollywood of the Orient? Guess not.
A horrible, horrible, horrible film. I saw the original when I was a kid and it gave me nightmares into my teens. When I found out a remake was on the way, I groaned. WHY OH WHY remake a good film? Well, we can thank Dark Castle for buggering yet another classic horror film. This time they've replaced a somewhat interesting story with gore, slower than slow pacing, and yawn-inspired characters. Someone previously said that s/he was surprised that Paris Hilton can act. Uh, were you watching the film? She plays a prissy little tramp. Sounds like typecasting to me. Half of the people in the audience actually CHEERED when she died! That tells you why people are seeing this film. If that's your only reason, then find a better one, because like a black hole this thing will suck out more of your life than you'll want. Had I been alone, I would have left 10 minutes into the boring exposition. This thing is like a moron's guide to crap film-making: In bred Southern git, stupid but attractive leads, knives a plenty, gore a plenty, stock menacing truck, I could go on. After watching this film, I began to really appreciate Jeepers Creepers, and I thought that film sucked. Save yourself and avoid this crapfest at every cost.
The third film based on Charles Belden's play entitled "Mystery of the Wax Museum" (1933) targets generation X-tasy. Twin screenwriters, Chad Hayes and Carey W. Hayes, spend more time developing the main characters than other slasher movies--a promising start. Their condition guarantees an authentic point of view. The role of Paige (Paris Hilton) was not much of a stretch for the world's favorite heiress. She peruses "In Style," stripteases boys, chats on a cell, and frets over an ill-conceived pregnancy. Her regular routine has been altered beyond repair. Hilton reached the peak of her performance--not so hot--during the "1 Night in Paris" (2004) parody. While the pimp-my-ride is in motion, she zealously "looks for lip balm" in her boyfriend's (Robert Ri'chard) lap. Finally, the "actress" atones for using the "N" word on the sex tape. Director Jaume Collet-Serra molds his take on the twin thing contrary to the theme of the past. Each exhibited opposite characteristics back then, whereas a pair of either good or bad can come out the womb today. However, the latter does not rule out the former. Childbirth constitutes the luck of the draw. Spectators can hardly consider Vincent (Brian Van Holt) a contemporary Quasimodo. Granted, the recluses share some similarities such as artistry, disfigurement, submissiveness, and murder. Yet, one small variable between the two makes all the difference. Vincent is even uglier on the inside than he is on the out. Collet-Serra's "House of Wax" pays homage to actor Vincent Price from the first remake in 1953. The film leaves obvious van Gogh puns to the imagination of the audience. Still, the choice to split the antagonist in two eliminates a vibrant twist at the end. Professor Henry (Vincent Price) Jarrod's unmasking receives runner-up, but the most terrifying one in horror movie history belongs to Lon Chaney in "Phantom of the Opera" (1925). As far as the new contender is concerned, the aftermath of separation surgery downplays the effect. A surgeon should know operating on Siamese twins scars them--physically and psychologically. Their father needs to call a couple colleagues--Dr. Phil to consult and Dr. McNamara to nip/tuck. Despite what the trailers said, "Wax" is not forever. In fact, you can rid yourself of it by burning it.
Ignore the extreme votes about "House of Wax", in no way is it either a "1" or a "10". I will try to be of help to anyone thinking about seeing "House of Wax" or for those who saw it based on the trailer and feel cheated. The trailer makes this movie look very promising, which is what trailers are supposed to do. There is only one thing for sure with trailers, if the producers can't cobble together a minute of interesting elements to make a trailer, it is a pretty much a sure thing that the movie is a major suck-fest. But a good trailer only tells you that a few things about the movie are good, it does not give you much idea about the total package. Here a little research can be valuable. <br /><br />"House of Wax" stars Elisha Cuthbert (whose acting skills are closer to Kathy Ireland than to either her fellow Canadian Sarah Polley or her lookalike Rose McGowen), and was directed by a music video artist formerly known as Jaume, in his feature debut. These are not good signs but if you are like me you ignore them and go to see the work of Production Designer Grace Walken, who was responsible for the look of "Ghost Ship". Once again Walken's work is worth seeing, so much so that it looks like 90% of the movie's $30 million budget went to production design. The rest went to Cuthbert to compensate her for the abuse she has to take throughout the film (finger cut off, lips glued shut, tied up, and lots of wading around in assorted gooey stuff). By-the-bye, Cuthbert looks considerably heavier than she did in "The Girl Next Door", about one big pig-out away from having a major weight problem.<br /><br />Which means they had little left over to pay the rest of the cast and crew. And judging from the what was on the screen, this might actually be true. It looks like everyone else donated their time to get their first acting or crew credit. Unfortunately, whether it was inexperience or jealousy over the pay disparity, the contributions of all these inexperienced/incompetent volunteers amount to less than zero.<br /><br />Inexperienced Steven Window's DP work was about as awful as you are likely to see and working in league with an incompetent editor like Joel Negran (insert "Pearl Harbor" here) they manage to take away most of the value added by the production design group. Rather than linger over and showcase the sets, Window filmed this stuff with bad lighting and jerky-zooming-bobbing camera work. Negran compounded the problem with an insane number of disorienting cuts. Poor lighting, an ADD-like camera, and flurry cutting are what you use to hide cheap and crappy production design; not what is needed when the movie's only strength is its expensive and detailed sets.<br /><br />Chan Hayes did the screenplay and Charles Belden (who wrote the original story) is credited as the writer although except for the title and the use of wax figures there is absolutely no similarity. One saving grace is that the movie does not take itself seriously as a horror film and is mostly parody (insert "Van Helsing" here). The murders are played for laughs, too extreme to be scary or even creepy to anyone over age six. The audience particularly cracked up when a certain high profile hotel heiress got her homely face run through by an steel bar, although her earlier half-baked striptease was the only genuinely creepy thing in the film. Another comedy highlight was when Cuthbert sticks her finger through a grate and has it clipped off by the bad guy.<br /><br />The good scenes take place in Trudy's House of Wax, a waxworks that has something to do with a closed sugar mill, conjoined twins, and a lot of roadkill (which Cuthbert gets to bathe in). All this is supposed to be happening somewhere in rural Florida although from the many hills it sure looks like Paul Hogan's country (attention location scouts-the gulf coast is not noted for it's rolling terrain). The screenplay apparently intended to play up the connection (bad pun) between the two sets of twins, but somewhere during production or post-production most of the dialogue concerning this was trimmed. Since what is left about the twin connection makes no sense and goes nowhere, you wonder why it wasn't also cut to reduce the boredom factor.<br /><br />What is particularly sad is that the producers did not have the brains to recognize in mid-production that they had the ingredients for a first rate horror classic-even with the existing cast. What was staring them in the face was a chance to go somewhere with the illusion of a town of wax. Because it is a photographic medium, modern film is intrinsically naturalistic, almost without exception prone to creating an illusion of reality. Here they had a ready-made opportunity to give the photographic medium a theatrical element of extreme stylization. Like an impressionist painting, the town creates the illusion of reality from a distance but reveals itself as a highly stylized wax fabrication up close. Of course they would have had to find a visionary Director and DP to bring the thing off successfully, but everything else was already in place for this to happen.
this film is an undisguised attempt to appeal to a younger demographic of fourteen to 24 yr olds', and an insult to all of them. i refuse to believe that that age group is that vapid as to be entertained by this unnecessary "remake". early in the film one of the characters proclaims, "i am surrounded by idiots". this is the defining moment in the film, which goes steadily down from there. full of clichés, red-herring "scares" and unexplained events, the film is also full of characters who are not exactly brainiacs, a formula all too familiar in dumb horror movies. and that crappy "it's so dark i cant see" scenes stolen from Chainsaw Massacre but merely annoying, not building any tension, nor horror. it's difficult to film in the dark, and sometimes darkness is a great vehicle in a film that's suppose to have tension. but my own feeling was that the less you see in this case, the better. maybe he didn't want to wait until morning because he didn't care, other than it might cost him more money to do night scenes well, or he doesn't know how. who knows? unless you have never seen a horror film in your life, or you are two or three years old, every aspect of this film is predictable and done before. warning: Paris Hilton is in this movie. enough said. all in all a blasé slasher film which begs the question, where the h*ll is the wax?it was treated like a lost leader. if you're bored as possible and all other rentals are out or you're just in the mood for a bad horror film, which isn't really scary,or you'd like to see Paris have a pole smash through her head, go ahead and take a chance. it's not the worst movie i've ever seen, but if this is what the producers of this film thinks a younger audience wants, i pray that they are deluded. a profit-driven film with no attempt to achieve any kind of art nor respect for the genre. you know, smart characters make for a scarier movie. i believe this is Collet-Serra's debut as a director, besides commercials and music videos. he has another one coming out in 2006 called Goal 2. hopefully his goal is to make a better film.
When they announced this movie for TNT I was excited. A Travesty from Donald Westlake's "Enough" was one of my all time favorite stories. After I watched it I was not all that thrilled. Recently I had the chance to watch it a second time with my aunt, and once again I was disappointed (she didn't like it much either, and she'd never read the book). In this movie they managed to sap all the charm from the book and turn it into dull mush. A big part of the problem was William H. Macy. I like him fine in other films, but he played (Terry/Carey) Thorpe as a stammering, incompetent yutz. In the book Thorpe takes a lot of valium for his nerves, but remains outwardly collected at almost all times which is part of the fun. SPOILERS follow: They also left out a big part of the story (other than a 2 second glimpse at the embassy), where Thorpe solves not 1 but 4 homicides for the police. This is important not just because it's funny, but because it helps set up the relationship between Fred and Thorpe. In the movie Fred's betrayal in the end is not nearly as affecting, because they don't seem all that close. In the book they become pretty good friends especially on Fred's side, which makes it all the more ironic that he is he one that arranges Thorpe's downfall. Fred also suffered a bit from casting, I love Adam Arkin but he was not a cheerful, happy to be alive upbeat sort of Detective, character traits which book Fred possesses which makes it more obviously out of character for him to mess with evidence and thus more shocking. Patricia and Edgarson were pretty close to the book, and James Cromwell was great despite not looking much like Martin Balsam. The whole boring boat house scene which was entirely added for the film was much less interesting than the police finding Edgarson's body after Thorpe ships it to Seattle and blaming the death on the mob. Kit was okay although she was mostly rewritten, and it would have been nice to see her die as she did get slightly annoying. I don't mind changes to books to make movies, I know they are necessary because of length and difficulty, but it would have been nice if some of the changes in this movie had been funnier or smarter instead of duller.
As a recent convert to Curb Your Enthusiasm, which prompted my viewing of all season's episodes, I expected more, much more from Jeff's efforts.<br /><br />When I view a film offering a slice of an average 'Joe's' life I need reasons to be interested, to care, to feel and believe. And with Jeff Garlin at the helm I also expected a bevy of shining comedic moments. This film failed me time and again.<br /><br />Jeff plays a living with mom, plump sad sack who is a social disaster. He has not had a relationships, real or even casual, for many years. He appears to be mostly unemployed and, as noted, shacks with his mommy dearest. Can things get worse? Sure. In short order he gets sacked by everyone around him including Silverman, Second City (his comedy workshop) and his agent. All reinforce his 'loser' status. Silverman's 'fatty' experiment was as cruel as it was absurd. His obsession with the role of "Marty," as the means of his career's salvation, also hits a big dead end.<br /><br />While the film's final moments offer a glimpse of better things to come the cinematic 'journey,' albeit with occasional golden glimmers, was sadly lacking.
Great ensemble cast but unfortunately a bunch of undeveloped ideas make the film drag. One feels not fulfilled at the end after waiting for some kind of conclusion, closure, or at least an ironic twist.<br /><br />It had that familiar "Curb" feel without dare I say it, Larry as the annoying polar opposite. The music was there, the 'show about nothing' scenes pop up, but without any common thread or suspense - it falters as a solo project that ran out of budget.<br /><br />Spoilers: The movie title speaks about cheese but she prefers the rice pudding. Is cheese a better selling title than rice pudding? He prefers just any junk food, regardless of the sell by date. Maybe I want someone to eat 'cheese-dogs' or ice cream in a pirate suit would have at least tied some scenes together.<br /><br />Marty: this is just not funny and overdone. People just don't care about a 'show' within a show. A coffee book table about coffee books was funnier.<br /><br />Unless you are big fans of the cast, save your time and eat some cheese. It doesn't even have to be with anyone.
How i deserved to watch this crap??? Worst ever. The acting was awful, when i read that this was a comedy i expected at least to smile, once - or twice, but.... If you are wiling to loose hour and a half of your lives, this is the right movie. I recommend just look in a wall or something, anything else but watch this "film". Yoy can even watch a documentary (if you are a guy) about pregnant women, i guarantee it will be more entertaining :)The actor in this one (i forgot his name) is not that bad, and i am surprised how hi accepted the role. Anyway "I want someone to eat cheese with" is the right film if you want to punish someone.
This is absolutely awful. It's everywhere & nowhere & doesn't have any sort of point. I have never understood what is good about Jeff Garlin or Sarah Silverman. Bonnie Hunt is so above this drivel she must have been personal friends w/people involved because there is no way she would have read any part of this so-called "script" & thought, "Yeah I wanna do that!" Most movies I can find at least one or two things that are redeemable or funny. There is ZERO of that in this. It's extremely dumb. There really isn't any other word to describe this. This is quite possibly the biggest waste of money on making of film that I have seen in a long time. Skip this at all cost, you'll be glad you did.
This film is about a struggling actor trying to find satisfaction in life, especially love which he has not had a taste of for 5 years.<br /><br />It basically is a film featuring a man with very poor social skills, and he says wrong things all the time. The plot is hollow and contrived. The main character, James, is lonely, but this theme of loneliness is not adequately explored. It is more like an empty statement which other subplots stem from. Sadness and disappointment after being dumped are superficial. There is a serious lack of emotions in the film.<br /><br />It is not funny as a comedy either. There are some funny one liners but that is it. It lacks the happy and uplifting atmosphere to infect people with happy mood. I don't find "I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With" funny.
This experimental silent film, made in Switzerland by an independent British film company, is chiefly remembered as Paul Robeson's first film. It's very artistic, with shots often seeming meaningless to the story, which is difficult to understand anyway because of the lack of enough inter-titles. From what I gathered, Robeson's wife, Adah, is in an inter-racial love affair with a white man called Thorne. It doesn't bother the cigar-chomping owner of the bar/hotel where Thorne lives (and she seems to be having a lesbian relationship with a barmaid), but an old lady expresses the town's point of view in an inter-title: "If I had my way, we wouldn't allow negroes in here." Thorne is also called "nigger lover" by someone in the bar. Adah tries a reconciliation with Pete (Robeson), but eventually leaves him. Thorne's wife, Astrid, goes off the deep end, brandishes a knife, cuts Thorne's arm and cheek, and somehow dies. Thorne must have been accused of murder because we learn he was acquitted. As for Pete, he gets a letter from the mayor telling him it is best for everyone that he leave town. So the film is more about racism than anything, but in an up note, the owner tells Pete "The sad thing is, they think they're right. That's the way we are." The meaning of the title is a mystery. It may refer to Adah being light-skinned (a borderline negro) or to the borderline behavior of of the main characters.
I'm usually a fan of "art" and "foreign" films, but when I saw this one my reaction was "it must be called experimental because it makes no sense." The "action" is static, while at the same time it bounces from one location to another. There aren't enough titles to make it clear who is who and what their relationships are. Apparently the main point was to show that in the face of murder, adultery and generally weird and dissolute behavior, the cure offered by the powers that be is to banish a totally innocent black man.
Why did I buy this movie on DVD?, Well the short answer would be: I really don't know. As for the longer version, it pretty much comes down to the fact that I genuinely like Tatyana Ali and she plays Alicia in this.<br /><br />Now does Tatyana Ali give a genuinely good effort in this movie? I must say that it is one of the better, and she is shaping up to be a rather decent actress. I am very much looking forward to see her in action, when better material will be available.<br /><br />This being said, this movie was terrible - and my score is given based on this: 1 star for not being the worst movie I've seen, 1 star for the performance of Tatyana Ali, and 1 star for not thinking that it only deserves 2 stars, there are worse movies for that.<br /><br />Ja Rule should stick to rapping, not my favourite rapper to say the least, but some seem to like him - and if he is contained there, I would be delighted not to see him contaminate the acting scene.<br /><br />Ving Rhames: Ah man, Marcellus Wallace what are you doing here - you used to be cool man. Just because Michael Caine is a fiercely brilliant actor, who has been in so many terrible flicks as well as good, you don't have to copy him Ving.<br /><br />The rest of the semi big names in the cast: It's OK, there are bills to be paid, and we all have to do things we're not proud of time to time.<br /><br />The movie itself. It so massively flawed, it's pretty difficult to know where to start. It's more like a bunch of scenes thrown in together, as were the director to say "we need to tell this, and we need to tell that". There is a story, unfortunately there is nothing surprising about or within it. To say the least, the plot changes in the story were overly obvious and it was therefore predictable what was going to happen all the time.<br /><br />To sum up in one word: Reallynotgood
It is difficult to rate a writer/director's first effort. After all, it is one more movie than I have written or directed. James Hunter wrote a story that was interesting, but suffered from an uneven flow.<br /><br />After all, the idea that a man (Ja Rule) has to choose between the thug life and going straight is common, and even falling in love with the daughter (Tatyana Ali) of the man you killed has been done. Doing it again demands something that is original, and originality is lacking in this film.<br /><br />I was drawn by the inclusion of so many favorites: Tia Carrere (Trues Lies, Wayne's World), Pam Grier (Jackie Brown), Frank Langella (Dracula, Good Night and Good Luck), and Ving Rhames (Rosewood, Dawn of the Dead). They did not disappoint in their performances, but they had little to work with.<br /><br />Direct to video is becoming more and more common, but that doesn't mean it has to be a waste of time. Maybe the sophomore effort of Hunter will be more enjoyable.
o dear god i suffered having to watch this film FOUR times in my sisters house and was it dreadful a story of sex and guns and very cheap unexplained acting unless you are at gunpoint being told to watch this avoid it Ja Rule just proved he cannot act Ving Rhames also gave the most dreadful acting ever in any of his films there was not one part of this film made me laugh or make me jump or feel any emotion i would be surprised people actually enjoyed this i have seem some dreadful films in my life but this would be in my five worst films ever the music in it wasn't good and the storyline i think was made up by a couple of guys who ordered a pizza and just sat down wrote ten bullet points and then made it into a film absolutely dreadful
people, get a clue! I mean, the writers dont have one, so I would expect you to...this show is SUCH a pale imitation of the '60 show that you can laugh at it! and the sixties show is the one with the cheap special effects, and is in B&W fer Chrissakes! Yet the mood and the writing on the old show is MILES ahead of this drivel. Get HiP kids! if 98 Degrees or Brittany told you to watch it, you would! You know it! Just bypass them and tell all your friends you were 'IN' with the 'scene' BEFORE it became too cool!
The first 4 episodes of season 6 are just to throw up, to predictable and the worst scenario i've seen. Won't and hopefully i din't buy it. Also seen in seasons back that episodes about space they did, suck even more. All i want to say to the people who make this is: don't do whole episode about space, because they suck. The point is that season 6 sucks even more than the seasons before. Gets worse from season to season. I got so disappointed and frustrated watching first 4 episodes of season 6 that i just had to write this. Only people who are brain washed can watch this crap. Seems that people writing the scenario are getting out of ideas for a long time. Think that my 2 year old nephew had a better idea for the episode than these people do.
Rob Lowe must have eaten up the entire budget, but I can't fault him for running with the money. Even he would have to agree, there was nothing good about this movie. Filming, editing, direction, dialogue, sets, makeup, writing, casting (especially the young girl and imposter child psychiatrist), and the story all were just the worst. I have never seen such a horrible movie. Pass this one up for any other rental selection, or find yourself shouting out vile comments at the TV. Dead Silent should be silenced for all time.
"Julia Kerbridge (Catherine Mary Stewart) is working hard to become a doctor. Suddenly, Julia finds herself the guardian of her young niece, Amanda, after her parents are found murdered. Julia has a new neighbor, the mysterious Kevin Finney (Rob Lowe). Her hectic life comes crashing down when it becomes apparent that the young Amanda holds the key to a terrible secret. For she too is now the target of the killers. Julia must discover whether Kevin is friend or foe, and unlock the sinister mystery before the murderer strikes again," according to the DVD sleeve synopsis.<br /><br />This thriller quietly falls apart at the seams, but it is interesting some of the time. Stalker Sean Devine's background telephone scene (outside the police station) and Mr. Lowe's violin (restaurant) are tensely played. But, early on, it's difficult not to miss the fact that one of the supposedly sophisticated killers purposely twists his foot in some red paint at the murder scene. Unfortunately, this is not an intricate plot point; and, there are worse story stumbles afoot. Overall "Dead Silent" is not a bad way to spend some time, if there is nothing better on, or you're into Lowe and his co-stars.<br /><br />**** Dead Silent (1999) Roger Cardinal ~ Catherine Mary Stewart, Rob Lowe, Arlen Aguayo-Stewart, Larry Day
The story starts off in the home of a little girl who is going to have a Birthday Party and both the mother and father seemed to act rather quiet and reserved with each other. They proceed to give their daughter her present which is from both of them and it stuck me funny the expressions on the two parents faces as they gave their child this gift, it was almost like, 'I hope she likes it'! There is a killing in the film and Catherine Mary Stewart,(Julia Kerbridge),"Reaper",2000, gets involved with the case because of family ties. Julia is working hard to become a doctor and this particular murder disrupts her entire life. Rob Lowe, (Kevin Finney),"View From The Top",03 is a next door neighbor in the same apartment dwelling as Julia and he eventually goes to bed with her and tries to help her in other ways. This is not a bad film, but it is certainly nothing to go crazy about, unless you like a film location in Canada and a good looking Catherine Mary Stewart, a native from Canada.
The movie uses motifs that could be plagiarized from "Wait Until Dark" (1967), a much better movie by Terence Young, starring Audrey Hepburn. "Dead Silent" is a pale paraphrase. There is nothing new here -- the hidden object in the doll, the bad men wanting it, the bad guy posing as a good guy. The disability, though, has shifted : Audrey Hepburn couldn't see, the child in DS cannot speak. But both stories hinge on the handicap. Where "Wait Until Dark" built up unbearable suspense, "Dead Silent" lets you guess the outcome, the story being such a stereotype.
Sigh. I'm baffled when I see a short like this get attention and assignments and whatnot. I saw this film at a festival before the filmmaker got any attention and forgot about it immediately afterwards. It was mildly annoying to see it swiping the Grinch Who Stole Christmas heart gag along with the narration, the set design seen many times before, the whole weak Tim Burton-ish style, and the story that goes nowhere. And we got the "joke" about shooting the crows with the 45 the first time, alright?<br /><br />But I guess what's really unacceptable is that it even swipes its basic concept from a comic book circa 1999 called LENORE, THE CUTE LITTLE DEAD GIRL by Roman Dirge! As any quick internet search will reveal. I mean, what is this? This is what they base a Hollywood contract on and opens doors in Canada for a filmmaker? "Give your head a shake" as Don Cherry might say.
You may like Tim Burton's fantasies, but not in a commercial-like show off lasting 8 minutes. It demonstrates good technical points without real creativity or some established narrative pace.
Sigh. I'm baffled when I see a short like this get attention and assignments and whatnot. I saw this film at a festival before the filmmaker got any attention and forgot about it immediately afterwards. It was mildly annoying to see it swiping the Grinch Who Stole Christmas heart gag along with the narration, the set design seen many times before, the whole weak Tim Burton-ish style, and the story that goes nowhere. And we got the "joke" about shooting the crows with the 45 the first time, alright?<br /><br />But I guess what's really unacceptable is that it even swipes its basic concept from a comic book circa 1999 called LENORE, THE CUTE LITTLE DEAD GIRL by Roman Dirge! As any quick internet search will reveal. I mean, what is this? This is what they base a Hollywood contract on and opens doors in Canada for a filmmaker? "Give your head a shake" as Don Cherry might say.
A 10 year old kid fed up with his parents arguing decides to hot wire a car and go on a surreal journey across America to find Motorama cards, which is a gas station card game, that if he can find to spell out "Motorama" he has a chance to win 500 million dollars. He meets many bizarre characters along the way. No one can make an 'instant cult classic', Joe Minion's previous "After Hours" achieved that by sheer merit & an amazing director, but it wasn't instant. This movie, on the other hand, is just bizarre just to be bizarre. No rhyme or reason to any of it. The plot is incidental at best and seems to exist just to showcase various cameos. It's just not a fun film nor a thoughtful one. It's way too slapped together. I've heard many comparisons between this and David Lynch films. That's damn near heresy as even Lynch's 'worst' film (worst in quotes, as he doesn't have an bad films really) is still miles above this dreck. <br /><br />Eye Candy: Cynthia King is topless very briefly <br /><br />DVD Extras: Trailer for "Joe Dirt'
This oddity contains Bunuel-like touches, but doesn't sustain one's interest. A 10 year old roams a bizarro America in a stolen Mustang, while the usual cult movie suspects (Dick Miller, Mary Woronov, Susie Tyrell) commit malicious acts in the name of comedy. Like his AFTER HOURS and VAMPIRE'S KISS, the screenwriter delights in making you squirm. I remained unaffected, due to the broad acting. You know you're in for it when Meat Loaf and Flea give the most appealing perfs. (And what did this kid's screen test look like? He's insufferable.) Recommended to the dozen or so fans of SONNY BOY ('87).
Some movies are off-beat, but enjoyable, but many movies are just mind-numbingly weird. "Motorama" fits not-so-nicely in the latter category. Many seem to like it because of endless guest appearances and a total lack of sense, but those two things can only take a movie so far, and "Motorama" simply doesn't have any other merits to its credit.<br /><br />"Motorama" delights itself on plot improbabilities. Its main character, Gus, is a cussing 10-year old on a roadtrip across an imaginary country trying to collect game pieces to win $500 million. When interacting with adult figures, none of them seem to notice or be concerned with the fact that he's 10 years old. At first it's incredibly funny, but it quickly becomes just too unbelievable, especially considering the people he runs into and the fact that he seems so unfazed by a lot of the disturbing (to someone that age) imagery going on around him. Gus has no depth, and, as an anti-hero who has no problem causing misery for others to get his game pieces, it's hard to feel sorry for him when he encounters trouble.<br /><br />That trouble is provided by a slew of guest appearances, each mistreating Gus in more and more strange ways. Besides making the already worn-out plot even more unbelievable and less enjoyable, the characters share Gus' lack of depth and are equally unmemorable. The character's actions can get a little interesting, but the actors themselves don't add anything to them, thus negating the whole point of getting big names (they could've been played by anyone and the character would've been the same). These guest appearances seem to have been signed more for marquee value than anything else.<br /><br />"Motorama" should be interesting - it's a unique idea, but there's too little semblance of sense in the script for it to work. Incidents that should have a lasting effect on the anti-hero and the viewer don't, as the movie quickly moves from incident to incident, in the hope that something will eventually make the audience feel sorry or understanding for Gus. That never happens, as by doing so nothing is allowed to connect, it just jerks back and forth as if on a conveyor belt, one incident after another. With a story so nonsensical it ceases to be enjoyable, and a main character who never evolves to care for himself or anyone else on a higher level, "Motorama" has little to offer except a brat sneaking around and trying to get rich. Why should we care about that?
I'm not going to say too much as this movie isn't worth the effort. To put it simply the movie absolutely sucked! This is the worst movie I have ever seen. The storyline was stupid, you couldn't follow what was happening, the characters were so annoying especially the main guy. I wanted someone to kill that kid and put him and the movie out of it's misery.<br /><br />Very, very bad.
I don't know what the makers of this film were trying to either accomplish or say, but they badly failed at whatever it was. Unless of course the object was to totally confuse the viewer. I watched this movie simply because Drew Barrymore was in it, and it turned out that she had a smaller than small cameo in it. The whole idea of having this kid go on some wild car trip to win a big money prize from a gas station game and meet up with all sorts of wackos is utterly ridiculous.
I didn't really care for this. Had they gotten rid of the comedy/slapstick and focused on the dramatic/philosophical aspects of the script, this might have been worthwhile.<br /><br />The more the film went on, the less I liked the protagonist/mailman. He does have interesting things to say, but he's also a hypocritical, insecure jerk.<br /><br />3/10
I did not quite get Barnens O – it is one of the weirdest ones I have watched. The soundtrack was quite unusual as well – written and performed by Jean Michel Jarre - it makes the movie weirder than it was. I have to admit that I was almost going to change it and watch another one instead –at times the movie seemed plain dumb to me, or boring – or confusing. There are quite a few sexual references in that movie – trough they too are kind of messed up . Probably the only phrase that I will remember out of it is going to be "When you are alone, you can control things "– and "I will show them "- or something like that .The boy in that movie was obsessed with the idea of not growing up – "the last summer as a child "he thought once – and he sure lived it to the max. So if you have few hours to spare you can watch this movie – but you won't miss much if you don't.
A long time ago, way back in the early '80s, a late-night TV show "Fridays" came to ABC, trying to steal the limelight away from NBC's badly-listing "Saturday Night Live". It didn't but it did introduce some repugnant sketches and semi-talented "comedians" to the world. Like Mark Blankenfield, for example.<br /><br />Which, in a roundabout way, brings us to "Jekyll and Hyde... Together Again". Which is repugnant in ways all its own.<br /><br />Blankenfield is about as subtle as a pew full of whoopee cushions going off after Communion. And about as tasteful, too. This is just his drugged-out druggist character he played on the ill-fated "Fridays" show stretched out to feature length. And if you didn't like him there, why are you reading this review?<br /><br />Any time it takes more than one or two writers to write a movie, that's a bad sign. Then when it goes for dunder-headed jokes that would get you thrown off every improv stage in the Western hemisphere and replaces gags with gross-out, things can only get worse.<br /><br />A comic take on a Robert Louis Stevenson story? About as good an idea as making a sitcom out of Poe's "Fall of the House of Usher".<br /><br />Aside from a few (VERY few) gags that give a slight grin, this whole film is an exercise in waste - wasted actors, wasted film, wasted opportunities.<br /><br />No wonder they showed original author Stevenson turning in his grave. What more observant a review could they give themselves?<br /><br />No stars. No, not even for Armstrong, who should have known better. <br /><br />"Hyde" from this one.
Sometimes it is funny to watch films implode from your couch, but other times it is just horribly painful to both your eyes and your mind. House Party 4: Down to the Last Minute is one of those rare examples of when both your eyes and your mind are pleading with you to turn the film off. This final installment to the House Party series is by far the worst, not just sequel, but film released by Hollywood. It becomes very apparent early on in this "feature" that director Chris Stokes loved Ferris Bueller's Day Off with a passion. I say this because it becomes very clear that Stokes had no trouble lifting the originality of Bueller off John Hughes' hands and choosing to create a film completely void of humor. You would think that by "stealing" themes and images from a funnier film, your own film would at least be able to generate a giggle or two. With House Party 4, Stokes proved that he does not have what it takes to direct a sequel, much less a Hollywood film. From his confusing and choppy story, the inability to make sense of his characters, and recycled old/tired cliché moments, all Stokes is doing is hitting a bigger nail into the coffin that holds the House Party films. It reminds me of that student that forgets about his project due in an hour and quickly slops together super glue, macaroni, cat hair, chewing gum, and straws and presents it as "Hannibal Crossing the Alps". It just looks horrible and you feel embarrassed for the creator.<br /><br />So, where did this film first take the plunge into the realm of comic stupidity? Honestly, I do not think that most places will allow me to speak that long, so instead I would like to hit upon some of the larger topics that hit me the hardest. To begin, I still cannot shake the Ferris Beuller rip-off. It was as if director Stokes was ashamed of having to direct another sequel to House Party and decided to bring in a completely random formula (from a funnier film) and see if he could cut and paste elements from the original series into that formula. That was a huge mistake. When a director tries to do this, what eventually happens is confusion within the audience. We think that we are going in one direction, but instead we head in another one. That is exactly what you can witness in House Party 4. In one instance we have John-John trying to have the "biggest party of the decade" while also trying to score a record deal (ok, kinda reminds me of the original House Party), but then we whisk away to this random island where Uncle Charles is afraid of flying, Grandma gets drunk, and some idiotic mind-dulling moments with a supposed killer. Again, we begin somewhat strong, and end chaotic. This is the confusion in which I speak. Director Stokes did not have the ability to keep his hand on either the pulse of humor or the ability to tell a sequential story. He would rather cut corners, keep the jokes cheap, and think that the audiences are idiots than attempt to revive a stone-dead series. One would think that when a director was handed that task of filming another House Party film he would walk into it thinking that he/she would be the one to revive it or bring it back to life, instead Stokes just wanted to get paid.<br /><br />I realize that I am slowly growing older as the days go quickly by, but I do believe I still keep my hand in the younger generation's culture. I listened to rap and R&B growing up, but the group "Immature" never made it to either my cassette deck or my CD player. Why? I don't think they ever quite had a following, but apparently to director Chris Stokes, it would be beneficial to cast them as leads in his new House Party film. Didn't anyone at any studio realize that this was going to be in the red rather quickly? Or how about the option to have Stokes himself play the comedic car repairman, nothing like a director with no sense of comic timing casting himself as the only source of possible humor. It was one of those few instances when I actually missed Robin Harris, and I never thought I would find myself saying that to any film. Outside of a go-nowhere band playing the lead role, I also thought that the remainder of the cast only continued to suck the life out of this film. Uncle Charles was annoying when he attempted humor. Kim Whitely was completely wasted for her scenes (both literally and figuratively) while … well … everyone else pretty much falls into that category.<br /><br />Where did Chris Stokes spend most of the budget for this film? Not for special guest stars because while this film may have boasted some, there were definitely none present at the "unforgettable" House Party, nor the possible dream that perhaps Kid or Play would make one final appearance. House Party 4 followed no preset design, which ultimately ruined this feature from the foundation down. Can anyone explain to me why there was any need to use the "escaped murderer who happened to be a licensed taxicab driver" routine for humor? Stokes was reaching deep within the bottom of the barrel and only produced more muck instead of substance. For once I can admit to there being no redeeming value to this film. House Party 4 buried the series, and while I do hear that there may be more in the pipeline, I only hope Hollywood realizes that this series has died. Hollywood needs to let this series end, forget about the past and move forward in the future. I think a sequel to Who's the Man? would get them started in the right direction.<br /><br />Grade: * out of *****
Let me first start with the obvious: antisemitism has been a serious problem throughout history, present in many societies and causing the deaths of million of Jews. That said, the problem with this movie is that it views the United States - probably the most welcoming society ever to Jews outside of Israel - as a not very different place from Nazi Germany. Set in 1943, the movie is about a man (William H. Macy) who gets confused with a Jew after he starts wearing glasses!. A number of very nasty things happen to him after that (he loses his job and he is unable to find a new one, his neighbors shunned him, all ending up in a violent confrontation). From one of Arthur Miller's self pitying, patronizing novels, the sort that gave liberalism a bad name.
I had the unlucky experience of stumbling upon a preview for this movie and thought it might be interesting. I am a fan of the two main actors, and I even find Meatloaf to be oddly appealing, but that couldn't compensate for the droning plot of this movie. This movie attempts to make social comments and be artfully intelligent. I am sure the audience gets the sociological message clearly, but has to suffer in the process. Personally, no matter how bad the movie is, I can't stop it in the middle. Something drives me to finish the worst of movies, but I often regret it. This is one of those...
Did the other reviewers watch the same movie I did? This was poorly written, poorly acted, and just overall boring. I made it well past the halfway point in the movie and then just gave up. I can't possibly imagine an ending that would have made the rest of the movie worthwhile. Don't waste your time with this dog. Seriously.
Arthur Miller has always been known as one of America's great playwrights for works such as "Death of a Salesman" and "The Crucible". "Focus" is one of his lesser known plays brought to the silver screen. However, knowing what a great playwright Arthur Miller is, I doubt that his original play was very much like the movie. The movie comes across as empty and formulaic, with William H. Macy as a non-Jew mistaken for a Jew by anti-Semitic neighbors in WWII Brooklyn. Don't get me wrong: the acting is OK, and I presume that the people behind this movie were probably trying to make a point about racism, but the movie just doesn't work. Macy, Laura Dern and David Paymer just can't create an effective story with the material here.
Why oh why did they have to try and make a sequel to one of the greatest Christmas movies of all time. The movie is a train wreck on every level and should have never been made. Randy Quaid's portrayal of cousin Eddie is an over the top caricature of his previous outings as cousin Eddie. Also, the Eddie character is not interesting enough to carry an entire movie. Even "eye candy" Sung Hi Lee could not redeem this hunk of holiday crap. Please do not waste your time on this move, just watch the original again.
I just watched National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation 2 on DVD, hoping to see something at least close to the original, great holiday comedy, 'Christmas Vacation'. I saw nothing of the kind. You can tell right from the start that this movie just wasn't going to measure up. It's too bad it has a title that links it to the original Christmas Vacation. It's really kind of sad. The film can't stand on it's own merits. I think too many people will view this film on the strength of the title and it does not come close to that level of comedy. Other than the title, there is very little connecting the movie to the original 'Christmas Vacation' and even less of a connection to Christmas at all. The comedy is very simplistic and the plot poor. Children might find some humor here but most adults would only get a chuckle here and there. This movie is a flop. Don't waste your time with it.
I am a fan of a few of the Vacation films, but when a movie franchise goes from the big screen to the TV screen, you know it's out of steam. Made for TV National Lampoon films do not do well on TV. This movie is another reason.<br /><br />I think a lot of us were excited when this was coming out, but we also had to face the reality...it's a TV movie. Randy Quaid is fine as Cousin Eddie, but is better in a supporting role than the lead. Dana Barron sets history as the first actor to reprise her role as one of the Griswold kids. She is just as pretty, but it doesn't help a thin script. <br /><br />Why was this movie even made? It was probably because NBC recently picked up another few years of presenting X-mas Vacation. There is nothing wrong with the acting. It's all in the script. It's just not that funny. People need to think before they write stuff like this. It is one Christmas movie I do not recommend.
I sat through all 2 hours. I do not know what was worse, the awful plot, the lame characters or the hawaiian hottie that Eddie's 11 yearold kid and 80 year old grandpa made sexual advances toward. The money spent on this was just flushed down the throne. Matty Simmons should be ashamed. The original idea for this movie was "A Swiss Family Griswold" and it somehow turned into this mess. The only bright spot is that it's ratings were so bad we will never see this on TV again. AVOID AT ALL COSTS...RENT ERNEST SAVES XMAS or something else.
I loved the original, I watch it every year. but the second is a piece of garbage and it never should have been made. The second could have worked if there was a different location. The son was not an original or didn't even act like one of Eddie's kids. Third was too smart for Eddie which downplayed his father role. None of the other kids where in it. It just could of been a lot better. I don't know why they even tried to make this movie. There was no continuncy from the first movie. I will pretend that this one doesn't even exist. It is sad that the actors didn't even see that they where made fools of. A really bad movie. I just think that i wasted an hour or more on a bad movie and i really love all of the national lampoon films.
I knew this would be one of the worst movies I could have imagined...but in just 20 short minutes it actually exceeded my low expections by being possibly THE worst movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />I have already wasted too much time typing about it...trust me, it sucks.
I'm a big fan of the "Vacation" franchise, and I love Randy Quaid as Cousin Eddie, and at least a couple of the behind-the-scenes names were involved in this project (most notably Matty Simmons, who produced or executive-produced all 4 of the theatrical releases, as well as "Animal House"). For those reasons I figured this made-for-TV spin off might be worth checking out, even without Chevy Chase.<br /><br />For the record, I did not expect it to be very good; I just thought it might be a slightly amusing diversion. Therefore, my high level of disappointment goes to prove just how bad this utter turd of a movie really was. It was mind-numbingly, jaw-droppingly, heart-stoppingly, head-explodingly terrible. Yet, somehow, I could not stop watching it. It's a sickness I have; I can't seem to walk out on a film or give up on a TV show before it ends. Nothing has ever made me want two hours of my life back more than this movie.
I watched about the first 30 - 40 minutes of this movie on television the other night and can agree that this is by far the worst of the series. Not any of it is funny, even Randy Quaid can't save this mess. Eric Idle wasn't funny in N.L. Euro. Vacation, and he's even worse here. The only funny scene is where they're at the airport and some guy dressed as Santa walks by the camera yelling "Did anybody lose this?" as he holds up a prosthetic leg...<br /><br />1/2 a star out of ****
Absolutely the worst experience I have ever been through. I think my eyes started bleeding. I actually got sick the night after watching this. I don't even consider this a movie. Movies are supposed to be worthwhile and entertaining. This fails horribly. I could not make it through the entire film, so because the ending could be greatest phenomenon in motion picture history, this gets a 1 for that small chance. Otherwise It would be a flat 0.<br /><br />I can't see how National Lampoon, or let alone any organization, would sponsor this atrocity. Renting this DVD is currently one of the worst mistakes of my life. Only watch this if you want to make ever other movie you will ever watch seem great. <br /><br />Without question this is the worst movie I have ever seen.
I can't believe I bought this movie on DVD. I don't even remember it being shown on TV last year. Why in the world couldn't they have just done a real sequel to one of the best Christmas movies ever made? Damn and Randy Quaid looks like he's been on the same drugs as Jerry Lewis. I didn't know about this movie until I bought it tonight and thought I would check it out on IMDb and see how it was rated. Boy did I make a mistake. If your reading this review be warned stay away from it and just stick to the first Christmas Vacation. Well at least I didn't pay more then 10 bucks for it. Maybe I can trade it in and get half of that back at Tower Records. Then again maybe not. PS I still haven't watched it yet, my DVD player went on the fritz tonight watching another wonderful movie, The Chronicles of Riddick (Unrated Director's Cut) woo freaking hoo.
I was shocked at how bad it was and unable to turn away from the disaster. This made 'Major League II' and 'Blues Brothers 2000' Oscar-worthy in comparison.<br /><br />I have tried to remember watching anything as bad as this in my life and was unable to come up with anything even close.
God bless Randy Quaid...his leachorous Cousin Eddie in Vacation and Christmas Vacation hilariously stole the show. He even made the awful Vegas Vacation at least worth a look.<br /><br />I will say that he tries hard in this made for TV sequel, but that the script is so NON funny that the movie never really gets anywhere. Quaid and the rest of the returning Vacation vets (including the orginal Audrey, Dana Barron) are wasted here. Even European Vacation's Eric Idle cannot save the show in a brief cameo....<br /><br />Pathetic and sad...actually painful to watch....Christmas Vacation 2 is the worst of the Vacation franchise.
This movie was awful. It centered too much around Eddie, Clark Griswald's brother-in-law. Eddie works much better when changing good quips such as in "Christmas Vacation" and "Vacation".<br /><br />I really don't understand how a movie like this would be given the thumbs up. Now, don't get me wrong, I like Randy Quaid, but just felt this movie was totally wrong for him and for the character in general. This movie leaves much to be desired and really needed some bigger name actors.
Note, I only saw approximately the last half of this movie, so feel free to take my review with whatever grain of salt you deem appropriate, that being said, seeing what I saw was more than enough to make me quite convinced that a one-star rating for this is enough.<br /><br />In short, it's a dismal-plot slaughter of the wonderful precursor (NL Christmas Vacation) with Chevy Chase, only it doesn't have Chevy Chase in it, and it takes place in a generic tropical island, essentially with no connection to Christmas at all.<br /><br />Ol' Chevy probably didn't want in because the plot is that devoid of actual fun, instead they got the screwy Cousin Eddie, who, again, was great in the original, but in this he is just over the top, and an extremely poor basis for any movie considering the plot and acting. The attempts at humor are generic to a degree where even contemporary television comedy trumps it, and considering that this is supposed to be comedy, I doubt I need to say more.<br /><br />This is not to be seen for its qualities, for it has none, but for it's failings and again, how Hollywood is spilling it's life's blood of the past in the pursuit of a quick buck.<br /><br />I think I'll watch the original before the upcoming Christmas season just to try to regain my childhood innocence, from a lost time when motion pictures were more than just high-budget, but mindless, garbage.
I was out-of-town, visiting an old friend. After dinner, talking, he expressed some reservations about his daughter's boy friend. She's 15, beautiful, smart, athletic, and the young man is also from an excellent family, nice, also athletic (if not as smart). I told him he might just be feeling the normal fatherly concerns; however, a few minutes later the young man arrived, with his DVD of this flick, which he had apparently been anxious for some time to share with the others. <br /><br />These folks have a bona fide home theater set-up, with a screen something in excess of 4 feet, and the two young folks preceded to view it, while the young swain proceeded to extol its virtues almost frame-by-frame.<br /><br />I saw enough in a few moments (and with some fascination in its awfulness) to endorse all of the most critical comments I've seen in scanning some here.<br /><br />I told my friend I wouldn't go so far as to disqualify the young suitor solely on the basis of his liking this opus -- but it certainly seems to warrant his bearing close watch.<br /><br />Some flicks are so-bad-they're-good: the classic "Plan 9 from Outer Space;" and, in my opinion, the wonderfully awful Bruce Jenner/Village People work, "Can't Stop the Music."<br /><br />However, this one remains firmly simply in the awful category.<br /><br />Second/third/fourth "bananas" -- even the best of these (e.g. Tim Conway, Don Knotts, everybody with Seinfeld) have great difficulty in carrying a later starring series (or, as here, film). And these were great supporting characters in their original situations.<br /><br />The "Eddie" character, really at about the 5th- or 6th-banana level in the prior Griswald movies, and never added a whole lot to these, in my opinion. Randy Quaid is a capable actor who has delivered some good performances. His contribution to the prior "Vacation" pic's was average, at best. Both he and the other cast members, many of whom have done some good work in the past, accomplished nothing for their efforts here, except to derive a few years' house payments or some IRA contributions.<br /><br />This whole presentation --- story, performances (from lead to support) couldn't be worse.
Who gave these people money to make a movie? There was nothing funny about it. The fact that the farting dog was the funniest thing about this piece of sickness says it all. First of all, it has nothing to do with Christmas, it just took the name and counted on all those people who liked the Chevy Chase original. They took Randy 'I have no talent, I m just a fat and sweaty pig' Quaid (the only wrong thing about part 1) and made a 'movie' about him...There are only morons in his family, but not the 'aren't they cute' kinda moronic, but the 'don t touch me' kinda moronic. Watching this pile of dirt helps you hope that everyone who takes part in it DIES! They didn't even bother to get the effects in order...when they re on the boat, the only thing that moves is the fake background...when pigface Quaid is in the water you can tell by the lighting that it's in a studio. This movie was sexist (uncle Nick), racist (uncle Nick) and should never have been made..never...throwing the money into a volcano would have had so much more use.<br /><br />Well I hope I reached some of you...Nobody warned me and now I m scarred for life Merry F*cking Christmas
It'll be a blue Christmas indeed if you subject you're family to this. I loved the original movie, and this one was not worthy of being its sequel. Actually, for all intents and purposes, it is not its sequel. Only one character from the original cast returns. Granted, that character happened to be the hilarious cousin Eddie, but he simply is not hilarious being the protagonist of a movie. His niche is that of the wacky relative who performs zany antics--alongside Chevy Chase. Chevy Chase was needed in this film for it to be a success, and he definitely was not there. As far as I am concerned, a movie is not a "Vacation" movie unless good ole' Clark Griswold is at the helm.
I watched this movie last night, and let me say, it's the absolute worst thing I have ever seen. The entire film is a train wreck, and it's not the actors. It is the horrible script.<br /><br />** Spoilers ** Alright, Eddie loses his job to a monkey. His nerdy son is disappointed. The bathroom goes crazy.<br /><br />He gets a free vacation. He goes along with Uncle Nick and the original Audry. Their boats crashes. They stay on an island. They are stupid and don't even bother to look at the nearby hotel.<br /><br />OK, so that's that. What makes this movie pathetic is the humor. It is so horrid, hillybillyish, and stupid, you can't even laugh. ANd it's not stupid funny humor either. I couldn't laugh the entire thing.
Obviously with this film going straight to DVD I wasn't expecting a lot but this film is so unfunny it is unbelievable. The only part of the film that you actually may find remotely funny is before they even get to the island, where Eddie's son is blasted out of the bathroom by a jet of water and then that's it! Why do they bother at all? The first Christmas Vacation with Chevy Chase was brilliant and hilarious. This is not. They rely on jokes concerning a dog with flatulence, and a character called Uncle Nick who is about 80 and keeps trying to get his way with beautiful women. When they approach the island on the boat, the island in the background just looks so fake and Randy Quaid although funny in the previous film, just overacts and seems like he's trying too hard to be funny. You have been warned!
This has got to be the worst piece of crap I have ever seen. Randy Quaid funny as a supporting actor in the original, but not as the leading. Too much Eddie. The original is a classic. Like the original, the supporting actor carried the show. Ed Asner was very funny. He is the Eddie of Christmas Vaction 2! How come Snots still looks the same after all those years and everyone else in the original looks 14 years older. After 15 minutes of watching this movie I don't believe I had even laughed yet. The island thing just didn't work. If it wasn't for the good looking South Pacific female guide on the island the movie would have been a total loss. I sat on this review for a week and yes, I still think the movie should never have been made. Lets hope there is not a THIRD!<br /><br />Shawn Gearin
To quote Clark Griswold (in the original Christmas Vacation): "WORSE? How could things get any worse? Take a look around here, Ellen. We're at the threshold of hell." Little did Chevy Chase know that he was describing the "sequel" to one of his best films. Christmas Vacation II sets a new high (or maybe it should be LOW) in bad movies. My wife bought this DVD thinking it would actually be a sequel to the original, but we were severely disappointed. This film is LAME. It bears no resemblance to the original, is an absolute waste of film, and an embarrassment to the otherwise good actors who had the misfortune to be part of it. It must have set a record on IMDb for the most bad reviews. I really think we have a good case to win a class action lawsuit to recover the money we consumers wasted on this movie.
OK...this MAY contain Spoilers...but who really cares? Do not, if you value the seconds in your life, waste your time on this pile of garbage. There is not one redeeming quality in this movie...and I say that as a full fan of the Vacation Series of movies. I LOVED the Cousin Eddie character from the other Vacation movies...but he only works well as a supporting character. Do I blame Randy Quaid for the failure of this movie? Not at all. I think he's a great actor...but this film lacks any cohesion...the pacing is off...it's just plain unfunny. And the actor who plays the "Third"...Jake Thomas...was just awful, more than likely due to a real lack of direction. I don't know why...but his whole character creeped me out.<br /><br />Some people say that this is a horrible movie because Chevy Chase and Beverly D'Angelo aren't in it...that has nothing to do with it. The script, directing, acting...special effects...everything is a train wreck. With Orphans. And kittens. Oh...and the Train ran over some old people too.<br /><br />Please, whatever you do...stay away from this filth! I call it filth because it dirties the name of the Vacation Franchise.
I cannot believe that the actors agreed to do this "film". I could not stand to even watch it for very long for fear of losing I.Q. points for each passing second. I guess that nobody at the network that aired this dribble watched it before putting it on. IMDB ratings only go as low 1 for awful, it's time to get some negative numbers in there for cases such as these.
**WARNING** MISERABLE MOVIE **WARNING** The day before Christmas eve, some nut case decided he'd entertain us by sending this movie as "entertainement" on TV. What in Gods name was he thinking?<br /><br />This movie is filled with awful humor, despicable acting, lousy jokes and a disaster of a plot line. Randy Quaid plays the idiotic role as Cousin Eddie Johnson. Eddie is a brain dead person, who's incapable of even the simplest tasks. He was fired because he was dumb as a brick, but the company he worked for was sorry for it so they sent him and his family on a vacation. But being as stupid as he is, he managed to make the vacation into a disaster.<br /><br />All-in-all it's the worst movie I've seen, and I have nightmares still over the miserable acting and the even more miserable jokes in this movie. It's so sad you ALMOST have to see it... But don't. The nightmares I have are far worse than any other nightmares you will ever have. Trust me... I hate this movie so bad because of it's acting, the humor, the "jokes" and the story. The only good thing was the nice scenery. <br /><br />Well It's my opinion, and I surely hope everyone agrees with me...
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation 2: Cousin Eddie's Island Adventure (2003) Randy Quaid, Miriam Flynn, Dana Barron, Jake Thomas, Sung Hi Lee, Eric Idle, Fred Willard, Ed Asner, D: Nick Marck. Embarrassing direct-to-video flop has oafish Cousin Eddie and family on an expenses-paid vacation to the South Pacific by his boss, hoping the dunce won't sue his company after being bitten by a smarter lab monkey! Idiotic spin off can't measure up to any of the Vacation films (even European Vacation!), with a question of whether or not the filmmakers thought the script was actually funny. Not even Quaid, Willard, or Asner can make it remotely watchable. 83 min., Not rated. *
When i found out there was a Christmas Vacation 2, I couldn't wait to buy the DVD. I sent off my money and watched it as soon as it came through the letter box. I love all the national lampoons films with Chevy chase in it, and I bet he was glad he wasn't in this one!. I couldn't believe how bad this was, you would think it was impossible not to laugh at a national lampoons film, but believe me it is! . This film probably looked like a good idea on paper having cousin Eddie as the main character, he started to get on my nerves from early on in the film, and became totally unfunny by the middle of the film, and by the end of the film i had gone brain dead and couldn't remember what had happened! .
Makes the fourth theatrical release (the one National Lampoon took its name OFF of) look like a comedy classic. A complete mistake and a sad attempt to capitalize on a once-proud franchise. Painfully unfunny and unwatchable...even for a TV movie! The Cousin Eddie character has become progressively less amusing, from the original Vacation when it was fresh and unique, through Christmas Vacation when it was starting to wear a bit thin, to Vegas Vacation where it was actually annoying to see come on-screen (but, in fairness, there were a LOT of things that were annoying to see come on-screen in that movie!). But this attempt to move the character up to lead status is unfortunate to say the least. The Vacation movies themselves met an ugly death in Las Vegas, and this hope at reviving even the thinnest thread of the series for television was thoroughly misguided. Chevy Chase and company put together a great trilogy back when he was in his prime; now let's just pull the plug and let the title rest in peace. (One tiny note of interest: The original Audrey Griswold--Dana Barron, the first of four actresses to play the part, including Juliette Lewis--returns to the role 20 years later! One is left only to wonder...WHY?)
Sorry Randy. I love your comedy but in this case you really laid a 'Golden Turkey' egg.<br /><br />The plot was thinner than a single layer of my skin, the acting more wooden than a Giant Redwood and I think the direction was non existent.<br /><br />There certainly appeared to be pathetic attempts at take-offs of other films, Jaws and European Vacation to name but two.<br /><br />If memory serves me right Eric Idle played the same type of character in Nat Lamp European Vacation, but much better.<br /><br />I am wondering if Chevy Chase and Beverley D'Angelo were approached to make this sequel. If so, they certainly knew what they were doing when they turned their parts down.<br /><br />In my opinion no one can better Chevy and Beverley in their roles as the Griswolds and Randy Quaid complemented them admirably in the earlier movies.<br /><br />Randy Quaid should have quit National Lampoon whilst he was ahead.
The only reason to see this film is Sung Hi Lee, the stunning model/actress from Korea who plays "Muka Laka Miki" (give me a break) in this otherwise crappy movie. <br /><br />She is given a fairly substantial part in this film and seems to handle it well, though none of the parts is really interesting or well written. Even for a National Lampoon's movie, it's really stupid. Stupid humor is one thing, but just stupid is another. I may have laughed once, and that was probably just me being polite.<br /><br />Warning: Watching this movie may be bad for your health on two counts: 1) It, like, totally sucks. 2) Sung Hi Lee is so freaking gorgeous she just might blow your brains out of the back of your head upon first sight.<br /><br />So don't say I didn't warn you...
I am speechless. Matty Simmons has managed to do something I thought impossible. He has made "The Harlem Globetrotters on Gilligan's Island" look like "Citizen Kane." Painful cannot even begin to describe this piece of... I don't know. Mind you, the premise sounded funny, but now that I've seen it, it's funny in the way that dropping an anvil on your scrotum is funny.<br /><br />I won't bother to describe the premise, as the title says it all, if only to say I don't think there was literally one funny thing in this film, not one, not even the monkey bite. How could one of the funniest characters in the "Vacation" franchise, the sleazy white trash Eddie (Randy Quaid), be made so horrifically unfunny ? I never felt so much sympathy for an actor in my life. I equally pitied the other actors participating in this "comedic" atrocity, Miriam Flynn (Catherine, Eddie's long suffering, but sunny-dispositioned wife), Dana Barron (the original Audrey Griswold), Fred Willard, and the stunning Sung Hi Lee (perhaps the only reason to watch the film, if only with the sound off), save for that old Commie, Ed Asner (Uncle Nick), he had it coming. Alas, the audience didn't. I only say "thank heavens" that Chevy Chase, who has been in a slump for years, steered clear of this diarrhea splatter, it's the smartest career move he ever made.<br /><br />I don't know if you folks are religious like I am, but I know I'll be praying to the Lord tonight to add 2 hours (if not 2 years) to my life to make up for the time I spent in front of the television that I'll never get back otherwise.<br /><br />Hot Water Burn Baby says ZERO out of 10 Stars (If you take a few hits off the bong AND drink the water, maybe 1/10th of a star out of 10)
I'm guessing that the folks talking up this drivel are cronies of the director or something. This is bad, and not in the Michael Jackson song kind of way. To compare the pacing of this movie to the progress of a snail would be to insult the snail. This movie limps along for what seems like an eternity, all to introduce us to some un-scary zombie kids with silly makeup and some sort of vendetta, or thirst for blood, or whatever. Believe me, you won't care. The thought alone that Mom would move her two daughters into this dilapidated and FILTHY home is absurd. And worse, I found myself simply not caring. Backstory about the zombie kids? Snore. Endangerment of Mom and/or daughters? Don't care.<br /><br />In short, WOW was this dull. Don't bother.
Even with the low standards of a dedicated horror fan, I found this film to be beyond awful. It was a huge disappointment since it was featured as one of the eight Horrorfest films. I can only hope the other seven were better. I was actually embarrassed for the friends I was able to convince to see this, and these are the same friends I made watch the remake of The Wicker Man. It has every cliché in the book. In fact, it went out of its way to include them. Let's start with the characters. Instead of one young damsel in distress, we get three: the single, hot mom with two daughters– a blossoming yet brainless teenager and a cute yet simultaneously creepy little girl that you just know is going to have 'special' skills including supernatural knowledge and the ability to communicate with the dead. The little girl is the same one that was in the remake of The Amityville Horror. She was a little annoying but not nearly as irritating Dakota Fanning.<br /><br />Overall, these characters seemed like escapees from a LifeTime movie. I thought perhaps horror movies had moved on from scenes where the female characters go to bed in full makeup and run around in the dark announcing their presence to anyone with ears, but not this one. I also find it inconceivable that none of them could be bothered to secure the front door from arbitrarily opening day and night. To give you an idea about how uninvolved I was with these characters, I spent most of my time thinking about how cold it must have been on the set because everyone was in a coat even in their houses and how white their teeth were.<br /><br />Despite all the formulaic plot machinations, the film does not build any suspense at all except to wonder when it will be over. There is more atmosphere at the local Giant in the middle of the most mundane of weekday afternoons. As for the dialogue, I could have sampled quotes from ten other films and cobbled together better, more believable discourse. The gore level, the eye candy for a horror fan, was minimal at best. Without their tiny weapons, the 'zombies' were not menacing at all. You could probably drop kick a couple of them across the room.<br /><br />What really kills it is its banality. Horror films, more than any other genre, cannot survive uninspired mediocrity. Give me a horror movie that is comically inept or outrageously over the top with gore. I can even take the new ones with their cringe inducing torture. Every once in a while I'd appreciate a truly frightening one, anything but this.
I saw Wicked Little Things as part of the "8 Films To Die For" Horrorfest, and this was the only film that disappointed me. To wit, a mom, her little girl and her teenage daughter settle down in an abandoned house in the Pennsylvania mountains. Every night, however, the vengeful spirits of children killed in a coal mine run about and slaughter anyone they find.<br /><br />I guess the director was banking on his viewers being repulsed that children would be capable of pickaxe murders and eating human flesh (of which there are lavish close-ups, as a nice homage to George Romero) because the film just isn't scary otherwise. Simply put, there are far too many establishing shots of the evil kids jogging to their next murder site. If someone's gonna get it in the barn, there will be a shot of the kids ARRIVING at the barn (oh the suspense) and then moving in for the kill.<br /><br />Come to think of it, why do the kids suddenly walk SO SLOWLY when they corner their prey? And not that I have any experience in this, but I think a shotgun blast will throw a child A LOT FARTHER than this film implies...? Nor does it help that the mom is one of the worst parents I've ever seen in any film. "The lock on the front door is busted"? You have an EIGHT-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER in the WOODS with BEARS and MOUNTAIN LIONS! FIX IT, you MORON!!! Plus, Mom and her oldest daughter look waaaay too close together in age- even for a teen pregnancy, and there's a pretty unbelievable death which involves sneaking up on somebody trying to push a car out of the mud with their butt.<br /><br />I'm giving this a 3 because it tried. As a splatter film it's not bad. But for good scares, go elsewhere.
In 1913, in Carlton Mine, Addytown, Pennsylvania, the cruel owner of a mine uses poor children in the exploration and after an explosion, a group of children is buried alive. On the present days, Karen Tunny (Lori Heuring) has just lost her husband after a long period of terminal disease when the family savings have been spent in the treatment. Without any money, she moves with her daughters Sarah (Scout Taylor-Compton) and Emma (Chloe Moretz) to an old house in the mountains that belonged to her husband. Karen is advised by her neighbors to stay at home in the night, and Sarah hears that there are zombies in the area. When Emma becomes friend of Mary, he mother believes she is an imaginary friend. However, when Sarah's friends are attacked and eaten alive by zombie children and Emma vanishes, Karen and Sarah chase her nearby the mine.<br /><br />"Wicked Little Things" is not a totally bad movie: the acting is good; the make-up is creepy; and the cinematography and the music score are excellent. However, the story, and consequently the screenplay, are very weak, indeed a bad collection of clichés. The beginning is reasonable, with a widow moving to a house in a remote location because the family spent all their resources with the illness of the patriarch. But when she arrives, coincidently the little zombies attack people without any consequences, for example, families do not search the missing persons. Then the wicked Mr. Carlton comes to the place with the most disgusting attitudes, a typical clichés that he will die in the end. There is no explanation why the children attacked innocent people and why they should stop after killing Mr. Carlton. When Sarah is running away with her mother and says that she is tired and cannot run anymore, it is one the most stupid lines that I have ever seen in a horror movie. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Zombies"
If you described any of the scenes; nightmares of children murdering you in your sleep, your infant daughter talking to ghosts, searching for your lost child in an abandoned mine at night, so petrified with fear that you can't move even though the blood from a murder victim is dripping onto you from the floor above – then I'd say you had a horror movie. But some how 'Wicked Little Things' just wasn't scary. I am a horror fan and I loved the location, the plot in principal and I liked the three leading ladies. I didn't want to see them come to harm, I wanted the 'bad guy' to get his just desserts, the rest of the cast are always simply cannon fodder so I was indifferent either way with them and it played out every cliché in the book - even down to the torch battery running out in the pitch dark just as you start to here whispering voices closing in on you.<br /><br />I would still recommend that you watch it, but unless you are new to horror movies or under 12 years, you will have seen it all before.
Wicked Little Things has an excellent synopsis: empty house beside abandoned mine in woods with tragic past; family moves into house and strange things begin to happen; little creepy children begin to pop up here and there doing creepy-little-children-things. But that is where the cleverness and potential fun ends. This group of kids was sealed in the mine many decades earlier, and now appear roving the woods (poor make-up) with weapons looking for flesh to eat. Oh I get it, this is a ghost-zombie movie. Hmmm....while I can appreciate someone trying something new with this genre, this just didn't work. What was the children's motivation in seeking to devour flesh? Why did they need weapons? Did anyone else imagine the filmmakers all gathered around the daily footage giggling because they felt this was going to be a cool/scary movie? I found that after thirty minutes I felt the familiar resignation that I had just wasted my time on another modern crap-fest. While the acting was good, and the setting/cinematography of good quality as well, the script itself suffered from what seems to be a lack of knowledge about the supernatural horror genre altogether. A bunch of kids walking down the mall is scarier than this pack of poorly disguised rodents.<br /><br />This movie is not scary, and while I can appreciate the story, perhaps have even enjoyed it if I had read it instead of watched it, I still have to say that Wicked Little Things is more accurately called Wicked Little Turd.
The concept of this movie is pretty compelling: zombie children climbing out of an abandoned mine to seek revenge for their deaths in the backwoods of Pennsylvania. Cool. The problem I had with the movie is the lack of creativity when dealing with the zombies. The makers could have really spiced this film up with some terror-like imagery a la "The Ring" such as stop action, reverse camera walking or stuff like that. When the zombie children are strolling through the woods they look like a bunch of 9 year-olds walking to a playground in West Philadelphia. Instead of pick axes and shovels they could have easily been carrying baseball bats and gloves. Why would I fear these little kids? Anyone could just run away in a straight line to safety. Also, who in their right mind would have stayed one night with their children in that creepy, run-down house? The moment I opened that front door and looked around I would have said, "Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Son, go start the car. I'm going around back to pee on a bush and then we're out of here." Totally unbelievable movie. Don't waste your time.
First off, I'am a horror fan. But this "Tobe Hooper" production (come on, the man from the original Texas Chainsaw and Poltergeist !!) was below standards, even for a fan. The acting was not bad at all, some characters were unbelievable, but the leading ladies were OK. The story was something we've seen a hundred times already, without any surprising twist or whatever. Never exciting or intense, and do not count on any special effects besides blood splashing up. The scary zombie kids are white paled faces with dark eyes and that is it.. That might have worked in the early 70's but not now. Director J.S. Cardone didn't do a good job in keeping the suspense, half way thru there is a risk you will fall asleep. My vote is based primarily on the leading acting, but this could have easily have been called Children Of The Corn 8: From The Corn Fields to the Mines... Enough said..
All I could think while watching this movie was: "Will it ever end?!" It was unbearably boring to watch. I was wishing I could just turn it off, but I wanted to do this review justice so I fought the good fight and withstood the torture of watching this movie all the way through so that you, the good reader, need not bear that pain also.<br /><br />This movie sounds like it has a great premise if you read the premise on paper. However, the actual movie does not deliver on this premise at all.<br /><br />The opening scene features a mineshaft in the early 1900's, where they are forcing kids to carry dynamite into the tunnels that aren't big enough for the adults to fit into. This seems to be setting up the premise for an interesting movie. But after 4 minutes, it becomes clear that is not the case. The adults who committed these crimes are never punished; there is no consequences shown in the movie for their actions. The opening scene is way better than, and completely irrelevant to, the rest of the movie. The last time an opening scene misrepresented a movie so grievously was the opening scene of 28 Days Later which was the only good scene in *that* whole movie. Wicked Little Things/Zombies (a movie so crappy they changed the title to try to disguise it's crappiness and sell it again) is exactly the same in this regard. The opening scene is the only watchable scene in the whole movie.<br /><br />Instead, the movie flashes forward to present-day. A single mother and her two bratty, foul-mouthed kids. Right here is when it would have been wise to press the STOP button and never go near the movie again.<br /><br />In the first hour, the zombie kids are barely even seen. They get maybe 3 minutes of screen-time, total. All they do is kill a pig, that's it. The rest of the hour is spent showing the dumb mother and her dumb kids buy things at the local store, wander around the forest, and have inane conversations with each other. The dumb teenage daughter goes and hangs out with some other idiot teenagers and smokes weed with them.<br /><br />There would be no reason to care at all if the zombie kids dispatched anyone in this movie. Every single character is both dumb & annoying, with no redeeming qualities at all. Not to mention one-dimensional and clichéd.<br /><br />This movie would have been *vastly improved* if the mother and her dumb kids were dispatched in the first 10 minutes by the zombie kids, as they were driving up to their new house, then the end credits rolled. That right there would instantly change the score from 1/10, to 10/10. Honestly! When the dumb mother takes her eyes off the road and almost crashes into a pedestrian on the road, her daughter scolds her: "You almost killed us, mom!" Of course, anyone with common sense knows that if the mom had hit the pedestrian, it would be the pedestrian who would be dead --- not the people safely encased *inside* the car. I guess this line was put into the movie to show firsthand that the utter stupidity of the main characters knows no bounds, and runs in the family.<br /><br />Wicked Little Things/Zombies runs for 1 hour and 34 minutes, but it definitely felt like 5 hours or more to me. Trying to not fall asleep was a tremendous challenge. It's not until over an hour has passed into the 1 hour and 34 minutes that the zombie children actually bother to kill any person. Then the scene shows the dumb teenagers drinking beer and making out in a car and saying lines like, "If you ever wanna get in my pants again, you better start the car and get my ass out of here right now." Seriously, that's verbatim from the movie. The teenagers are so clichéd, one-dimensional, badly-acted, dumb & annoying that when the zombie kids finally get around to hacking 3 of them up 1 hour and 5 minutes into the movie, it feels like a cause for celebration. Of course the "Princess" dumb weed-smoking foul-mouthed beer-drinking loser daughter of the main mother character gets away scott-free. What a buzzkill that was! She was on the screen longer than the others and hence the most annoying of the 4 of them, and most deserving of a pickaxe to the head. All the more reason why she should have been dispatched within the first 10 minutes, as aforementioned. To still keep her around past 1 hour and 5 minutes though, is totally inexcusable.<br /><br />The reason for this of course is that feature length movies need to be padded to at least 1 hour and 30 minutes. So by keeping her alive long-past when she should be, they have an extra 27 minutes to pad the movie with her and her mother running through the woods. By 1 hour and 22 minutes in, it's the *second* time in the movie where the annoying daughter is trapped in a vehicle where the engine won't start whilst the zombie kids are coming to get her.<br /><br />The zombie kids are completely generic. Never say anything. No character development at all for any of them.<br /><br />In the end, all 3 of the annoying, idiotic main characters live. Which in my opinion, is the filmmakers' way of giving a final flipping the bird gesture to the viewing audience. In my opinion, the filmmakers surely know that they have bamboozled anyone who has had the great misfortune to watch the whole movie. Why not rub their faces in it by not even giving them the satisfaction of seeing any of the 3 main characters who should have been dispatched within the first 10 minutes, die.<br /><br />Avoid Wicked Little Things/Zombies like the Bubonic Plague.
As someone already said the Living Dead Dolls were cute and if they came out as a new series of Wicked little things I would buy one, or two. Well basically this film was dark, not in the scary sense but in that I cant see kinda way. And it was boring. Three females in a house, the youngest told not to go into the woods under any circumstances (well that didn't sink in) and it would have been better if that advice had involved their death. And doesn't anyone do any cleaning or whitewashing or something, you would think a lot of coughing would ensue. A sexy young mum where you waste your time trying to figure her age (by my calculations 34 or 36.) And it looked like it had been longer than 20 years since someone had lived there so what was with the fathers young adult photos on much older album? I am so tired of clichés that is just lazy writing, and here they come in thick and fast. Teens getting stoned and drunk in car and well you know where that leads....death and apparent deafness too as Tim seems oblivious to his friends scream. I mean I have pushed many a car where the instructing driver did not scream and I heard them. Cliché weird man in the woods who no one believes. Plumber who has lived in them there parts for years and this is his first experience with said children, so that driving along he avoids pickaxe wielding youngster in dead of night... run him over you idiot! Cliché... roaming about in woods without a clue about where you are going, armed with knowledge that pick-axe wielding kids (yes them again) are out and about. Senseless scene the brutalising of pig... why do so many directors see no problem with animal mutilation and slaughter? I would have much rather seen the kiddies run up and bit people on the thighs than this. Zombies don't appear to have that much energy in other films.The villain well how ineffectual was he? His big part was in the shop.. tramping in and demanding to be served first. What a none eventful man he was. Why not kill him earlier, before the family got there and avoid the movie being made, or remake it differently. I give my marks to the house, the woods and the little Goth dollies I want one!
One of the few reasons to make these pointlss films is to give some actors a chance to hopefully star in better films if they're acting is any good. The only good thing in this movie is the acting, the three female leads are better than most horror films like this. There's 2 scenes that may cause an unexpected jump.<br /><br />Young small children are use to crawl through holes and lay dynamite to explode mines. When one does collapse causing a cave in all the children die, becoming zombies. The adults in the mine stay dead, no reasons are given as why the children become flesh eaters. When still alive they looked terrified before the cave in, innocent, so they must become enraged at any adult which exploited them int he mines (only reason that come to mind).<br /><br />A mother and her 2 daughters move into a house near the mine, along with a land devoloper who wants to build a resort and another of those creepy people who seem to know exactly what's going on yet no one believes him.<br /><br />Nothing new here, you're usual clichés, predictable, a lot of negatives for this film, very few positives.
I generally love this type of movie. However, this time I found myself wanting to kick the screen. Since I can't do that, I will just complain about it. This was absolutely idiotic. The things that happen with the dead kids are very cool, but the alive people are absolute idiots. I am a grown man, pretty big, and I can defend myself well. However, I would not do half the stuff the little girl does in this movie. Also, the mother in this movie is reckless with her children, to the point of neglect. I wish I wasn't so angry about her and her actions because I would have otherwise enjoyed the flick. What a number she was, take my advise and fast forward through everything you see her do until the end. Also, is anyone else getting sick of watching movies that are filmed so dark. Anymore, one can hardly see what is being filmed. As an audience, we are impossibly involved with the actions on the screen. So then, why the hell can't we have night vision?
I really wanted to like this movie. A film with zombie children getting out of a mine to kill people at night really seemed like a great idea for a horror film. Unfortunately, the film was in the bottom 3 of films played at horror fest.<br /><br />A mother and her two daughters attempt to move on after her husband/father had passed away from an illness that cost their family a lot of money. They have to adapt to their new environment. They end up struggling due to all the surroundings for different reasons.(Crazy Zombie kids go into this category) The film never gives any sentimental attachment for anyone that lives or dies, the film produces no scares or jump worthy moments, the film barely shows the children doing what they're supposed to do...Kill! With a bigger budget and a better cast this film could have hope. Until then, pass on it.<br /><br />3.5/10 actually.
J.S. Cardone directed a little known 'Video Nasty' in 1982 called "The Slayer" and since then has gone on to have a hand in a handful of feature films; including the rubbish 2001 vampire movie The Forsaken. His latest feature film, Wicked Little Things, boasts a plot that sounds decent as well as a creepy looking poster that I seem to remember surfacing a couple of years ago in relation to a film that Tobe Hooper was meant to direct. Well I guess he felt that this one was too similar to his silly zombie fungus movie 'Mortuary' and so turned this one down. I don't blame him for it either. The plot focuses on a mother and her two daughters that move to an old house in the mountains that once belonged to her late husband. However, what they don't realise is that around a hundred years earlier; a group of children that were being used as miners were trapped down a mineshaft. Naturally, that's not the end of them and they managed to survive their ordeal and now prowl the area in search of revenge… <br /><br />The film is essentially a collection of clichés; from the youngest kid with an "imaginary friend", the mother who dismisses it and all the usual zombie rubbish. J.S. Cardone attempts to get the horror fans back on side with shocks and gory scenes (mostly involving kids) but its not enough. The story doesn't play out very well at all either and really did remind me too much of the earlier Mortuary, and that's not a good thing (although Mortuary is actually a better film than this one). The acting is nothing to write home about either; Lori Heuring is decent looking, as is eldest daughter Scout Taylor-Compton; but neither manages to provide an interesting performance. Chloe Moretz is slightly better than the usual child actor. The plot is given hardly any credibility and indeed the screenplay can't even be bothered to explain the reasons why the kids attack the locals. It all boils down to a typical and rather dull ending and overall I have to say that if you know your horror movies, then you can feel free to skip this one!
Child death and horror movies will always remain a sensitive & controversial combination and therefore it is my personal opinion that every movie that shows the courage to revolve on this topic should receive some extra attention from horror fans. Of course, like in the case of "Wicked Little Things", controversial themes don't always guarantee a good film. Despite the potentially interesting plot, the atmospheric setting and the involvement of video-nasty director J.S. Cardone ("The Slayer"), this is an uninspired and cliché-ridden film that couldn't offer a single fright or shock. After losing their husband and father, the remaining Tunny women (mother Karen and her daughters Sarah and Emma) move to a small and remote Pennsylvanian mountain town where they inherited an old, ramshackle mansion. Their new home is dangerously close to the old mine ruins where dozens of innocent children tragically lost their lives in 1913. Strange things start to happen, like young Emma befriending an (imaginary?) girl who used to live in their house, and the eerie locals seem to keep secrets from Karen and her daughters. Quickly turns out that the undead children still leave their mine-graves at night to seek vengeance on the descendants of the mine's owner Mr. Carlton, who was responsible for their deaths. "Wicked Little Things" is rather tame and extremely predictable. The script shamelessly serves one dreadful cliché after the other, like car wheels stuck in the mud at crucial times, malfunctioning flashlights and horridly broken dolls. There's very little suspense, even less gore and the make-up effects are disappointingly weak. The zombified children don't look menacing at all. Actually, they all look like miniature versions of Marilyn Manson, with their black outfits, pale faces and dark eyes. The excitement-free finale is stupid and just as derivative as the rest of this pointless production. Lori Heuring is thoroughly unimpressive in her leading role as the mother, but Scout Taylor-Compton (currently a big star thanks to the "Halloween" remake) and young Chloe Moretz are adequate as the daughters.
I can't believe that I let myself into this movie to accomplish a favor my friends ask me early this April 14, 2007. This movie certainly a pain in your ass in theater and sickly boring, I haven't even felt the gory impact of its "daunting scenes" which I deem to be complete failure to attract its audience. The worst even trampled me, cause my friend failed to come on time at the theater because she was busy assisting her boyfriend in looking for an appropriate lodge to stay in for one night. I wasn't really disappointed with that matter, but this movie is a matter indeed for me, poor plot, useless storyline, naively created and I don't know what to say anymore.<br /><br />The title doesn't suggest anyway the creeps and horror it failed to overture us viewers, maybe the beating of the animals could get more the creeps if they show it in theaters the real situational play. Good luck to anyone who attempts to watch it anyway.
Having spent all of her money caring for her terminally ill spouse, recently widowed Karen Tunny (Lori Heuring) moves with her two daughters Sarah (Scout Taylor-Compton) and Emma (Chloe Moretz) to her late husband's run-down family home in rural Pennsylvania, where local legends speak of zombies who roam the woods at night.<br /><br />Just seeing the names of this film's writer and director in the opening credits was enough to send shivers up my spine: Boaz Davidson is the 'genius' responsible for penning the scripts for such STV titles as Octopus 1 & 2, Spiders and Crocodile, whilst J.S. Cardone gave us the godawful 'video nasty' The Slayer and dull vampire flick The Forsaken. With such dubious talent responsible, I didn't expect much from Wicked Little things.<br /><br />And having just finished the film, I'm glad I kept my expectations low.<br /><br />Although the movie looks good at times, with lovely use of the eerie woodland locale, and the cast give reasonable performances given the clichéd drivel that they are working with, the plot is so laboured, poorly written, and derivative that it's impossible to be enthusiastic about. Most importantly, perhaps, the film's killers, undead children who rise each night from the mine in which they died, aren't in the least bit scary, a smudge of makeup, black contacts and some crappy joke shop scars doing very little to add to the sense of menace. Scout Taylor-Compton and company do their best to look afraid of the tiny terrors, screaming convincingly with every confrontation, but their admirable attempts to instill a sense of fear in the audience is to little avail: the little blighters just ain't got what it takes to chill the blood.<br /><br />There are a few lacklustre zombie chow scenes in a futile bid to win over gore-hounds, and the final kill, which sees the victim's blood drench both Compton and Heuring, is suitably tasteless, but on the whole, Wicked Little Things (AKA Zombies in the UK) is instantly forgettable trash—just another clunker in the filmographies of Cardone and Davidson.
Wicked Little Things (known in Australia as "Zombies") is a rare find – a film that promises one thing but delivers another. It is one of the few genre films to be made by Millennium Pictures, a European film studio known for making various B-grade action films & thrillers, some featuring action star Jean-Claude Van Damme.<br /><br />Karen Tunny & her two daughters Sarah & Emma arrive in the Pennsylvanian town of Addytown in order to move into a large house that Karen's late husband owned after finding a miner's deed in his effects. Once arriving, they find that the house is very old & in need of repair. But the house's condition is the least of their problems, as they discover that the area is prone to disappearances & Karen is confronted by the area's owner & ordered to move out. Once night falls, the Tunnys find out the reason behind the vanishings: a group of zombie children, killed in a mine collapse in the area more than 85 years ago, come out to kill anything that goes in the woods. With the help of a grizzled neighbour, Karen attempts to end the curse before her & her children become the next victims.<br /><br />I bought the DVD expecting a film with flesh-eating zombies, but was let down by one thing: the film is more akin to a ghost story than your usual zombie flick, with the dead children being the embodiment of a curse that haunts the woods, taking their revenge on anything that moves around at night (although the internal logic is somewhat flawed – the children can only be appeased by the sacrifice of animals & are repelled by blood wards on doors in the same manner that vampires are repelled by garlic & mirrors – aren't these kids supposed to be zombies?). The plot as such would not be a problem & would actually be entertaining, but the main problem is that the producers adapted a script with the intention of making a zombie film, only to fall flat on their faces with this effort.<br /><br />As such, a film like this would be okay as a ghost story but, due to a poor script, becomes nothing more than an entirely routine effort. The film's greatest strength is the acting, with the cast giving better performances than the film deserves. Of particular note is Scout Taylor-Compton, who does her role quite well – it's a shame she ruins her genre cred with a very poor performance in the HALLOWEEN remake (or maybe it's just Rob Zombie's script).
This starts off in Pennsylvania in 1913. A bunch of kids are killed in a mine explosion purposely set off by the mine's owner. Cut to 2006. Recently widowed Karen (Lori Heuring), her teenage daughter Sarah (Scout Taylor-Compton) and little girl Emma (Chloe Moretz) move to a remote house located near that mine. What they don't know is the ghosts of the little kids haunt the woods and kill anyone who's around after dark.<br /><br />Slow and boring "horror" movie. The premise is obvious and has been done to death already. Also there are huge gaps in logic in the story. It's never made clear why these kids just kill anybody or why they EAT the bodies afterwards (Yes--it's shown). They're dead already--why do they need food? And why haven't they gotten the main villain in the story long before? He was around the area. Why pick this time to attack him? Also the characters aren't the least bit likable. Sarah comes across the worst. It has a few saving graces. The location is beautiful and eerie at the same time, some of the killings were VERY bloody and brutal and the kids themselves looked spooky silently walking through the woods at night. But, all in all, I was bored and fighting to stay awake. You can skip this one.
This movie is very much like every other modern horror movie. It's predictable in the way it gets build up and progresses and just never succeeds in bringing anything original or shocking to the screen. That's really the biggest disappointment of the movie, that overall still had a promising main concept for a movie of its sort.<br /><br />You can call this movie a big walking modern horror movie cliché. It has all of the elements in it that make modern horror movies often not so very great ones to watch. One of these aspects is a moaning and very naive little kid. Why do they keep putting this sort of stuff in movies? Same goes for the sort of drama aspects, that involves the family. It just doesn't work out for the movie and is far from interesting or effective. It often instead causes the movie to drag in parts and become an annoying one to watch. <br /><br />So it has all of the clichés present but it also doesn't succeed at bringing any of these clichés well to the screen. As an horror movie this simply is a very poor one. It doesn't handle its horror or tension very well. For the fans of the genre there is very little to enjoy. The movie its story isn't too well connected and build up within the movie. Too often the movie sleeps in at parts and it doesn't ever allow its horror to fully kick in.<br /><br />The movie is also often way too dark (no doubt as an attempt to hide its fairly low budget) and it shows very little gore as well, mostly due to the fact that you simply can not always see things so very well.<br /><br />You can just tell by looking at this movie that director J.S. Cardone doesn't has much talent for the genre and doesn't know how to handle its present ingredients properly. He did some attempts in the past but all of his movies have failed so far. he just keeps trying unfortunately. Who knows, perhaps with the right people behind the camera's (like Tobe Hooper, who was initially attached to direct) this movie still could had been something decent.<br /><br />It's a poorly cast movie, with mostly big unknowns in it. Biggest name of the movie is Ben Cross but his role is just way too small and in a way also not really relevant enough for the movie and its story. It didn't even seemed like he had much fun playing.<br /><br />Just skip it.<br /><br />4/10
Director J.S. Cardone presents something a little scary and a little creepy, but nothing more. A widowed mother Karen Tunny(Lori Heuring)inherits a home in the Pennsylvania mountains; so she takes her two daughters and moves into the sprawling estate in what seems the middle of nowhere. But it is somewhere, somewhere ninety some odd years ago a tragic mining accident claimed the lives of numerous children who were forced to labor in the dark and dank. The area and especially the Tunny estate seems to be haunted by the spirits of the tiny little wicked souls. The legend is the screaming children come out in the moonlight to seek their revenge; and you better believe it. Also in the cast: Ben Cross, Scout Taylor-Compton, Chloe Moretz, Julie Rogers and Geoffrey Lewis.
... And boy is it soft <br /><br />I saw this on cable channel Bravo one Saturday night and here in Britain we often have these dire " Erotic " soft core movies turning up late at night on Bravo . This one follows a WEIRD SCIENCE type plot of a couple of college geeks building a virtual reality headset that makes you have sexual fantasies . <br /><br />When you`ve seen one of these movies you`ve seen them all with a bunch of bimbos looking like they`re advertising silicone implants . Come on I`ve actually seen breasts in real life ( I`m sure some other of us have too ) and they wobble around unlike here where they defy the laws of , if not physics than at least gravity . The sex scenes are these tedious affairs where a well buffed geezer rubs himself against his co-star without any dialogue or sound apart from some muzak and when they climax it looks like they`re both having a bad attack of constipation . The girls themselves are very pretty especially Brandy Davis and Nikki Fritz but they`re wasted in these type of soft core movies <br /><br />And if it`s fantasy you`re after I recommend the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy
The main character of this sex-filled drivel, Mel (Ethan Hunt), notes on several occasions, "She deserves better than this!" The "she" he refers to is Ginger, played by beautiful Brandy Davis, who indeed DOES deserve better than this. Brandy deserves better than this film, its lame script, and perverted Mel. A guy who gets off at watching his dream girl have sex with another man, even in virtual world, seriously does not deserve her AT ALL. An A- for the simulated sex scenes, an F for the script.
With Hong Kong heart-throb Andy Lau and veteran star Ching Wan Lau, "Aau Chin" has everything going for it for the beginning part of the movie, unfortunately, the movie falls apart at the end.<br /><br />Andy Lau plays a sophisticated thief who only has 4 weeks to live, but still has one thing unfinished... He pulls an elaborated scheme tricking the police into helping him... However, the police is hot on his tail.... Can he pull it off before being caught?<br /><br />The build up of the movie is good. Bits of pieces of clues are left behind for the audiences to try to guess at the real intention. Unfortunately, the build up leads to a disappointed final showdown. It feels as if in the middle of the script, the writer has changed and that all the build-up becomes disconnected.<br /><br />A 3/10 ....
I don't know if this exceptionally dull movie was intended as an unofficial sequel to 'The French Connection", but it does have many of the same drawbacks: the script is so confusing that the viewer remains uninvolved and feels left out of the picture, and the direction is so cold, so lacking in energy, that even the great chase sequence can't liven things up. (*1/2)
My mom would not let me watch this film when I was in grade 2, because she said it was too violent. Well, years later, and the only reason I remember this film is because of my mom, I stayed up and watch it on PBS. Well, maybe the build up after all these year lead to the big disapointment of this film, but I found it lame. It did not age well, and this made the acting choppy, huge unbelievable holes in the script, but there is a few cool scenes like car chases, and a big gun fight. I will not stay up for this film again.
Well, I notice IMDB has not offered any plot info...that's because it's not possible to do that without sounding vile and disgusting...because that's what this movie is...VILE AND DISGUSTING !! I watched it because I am a humongous Fan of Chris Noth, whom I have met in person and he is a great guy...but if I ever meet him again, I will have no qualms about asking him whatever posessed him to star in something so awful. He plays a former child prodigy who is now a brilliant doctor, who spends his spare time running over small children with his car, with the intent of maiming and crippling them...this is not a "spoiler", because all this is made very clear from the begining...sickening enough?? Oh, it gets better...he is manipulated into doing this, by his incestuous sister, who threatens to with-hold sexual favors from him if their latest victim fails to die...even Clive Barker couldn't write anything so hideous. Please, if you want to see Chris Noth in something worthy of his talent, rent "Teddy Roosevelt and The Roughriders"
Awful in a bad/good way...this movie has officially become the worst "made for TV movie" in my book...except for the camp value it offers, I give it a 1 in quality and a 10 for the camp value. Suggestion: Watch with friends, champagne and plenty of popcorn...you'll want to throw some at the screen! Preferably friends who like Chris Noth from his 'Sex in the City days'...this movie is dreadfully funny. This is definitely the lowest point in the careers of all cast members...honestly, I don't know how they controlled the laughter as the lines were delivered! Daniel J. Travanti is absolutely pathetic. EVERYONE participated in the school of over acting; and poor Joan Van Ark, I believe she was the only one taking this theater of the absurd seriously...she is credited as a producer though. Her "Mom" jeans and bad plastic surgery are scene stealer's. This movie also crosses the oh so delicate line of social incorrectness when they introduce a mentally challenged character into the plot. This is an obscure movie showing on Lifetime listed as {With Harmful Intent}....has anyone else had the pleasure?
We have given this film one star for awful, however, it really depends on how you look at it. We are currently watching this on Channel 5 at 3.30am, and we haven't stopped laughing, so perhaps we could give it a 10, just for the entertainment value. Right from the outset, with the 'manic' thoughts of the stalker being relayed in comic fashion, we were laughing. Is it me or does that chick from Knott's Landing look like one of the characters from the Dark Crystal.<br /><br />I'm not going to spoil it for you, however, you would have to be pretty stupid not to see it coming, i don't think its clever enough for double bluffs.<br /><br />This has to be the worst/best film we have ever seen, if we'd been playing the 'spot the cliché' drinking game, then we be wasted by now.
American Tourist on package tour in Asia suffering recent bereavement decides to break law by: 1 Ignoring curfew; 2 Joining revolutionary army; 3 Possessing and using illegal firearm...... etc etc What is meant to be a political and educational statement about the so called atrocities of a military dictatorship in Asia ends up as a "How To" travel guide for disillusioned Americans....especially those who wish to protest that the water in the hotel does not work.... Regrettably the authors of this silly yarn have no clue about Asia...nor it seems in writing sensible dialogue... example:...our human-rights heroine searching desperately for medicine in the furthest outreaches of the Asian jungle miles from anywhere comes across a peasant and asks: "Excuse me-does this town have a pharmacy?"...Well....those who know something about the Asian jungle will appreciate how ludicrous that scenario really is.... Mind you I was recently in the Thai jungle and an American asked me.... "excuse me....do you know where is MacDonalds?" This movie is meant to be a serious drama but ends up as a parody and rip-off of all those "killing fields" type of films designed to confirm tha Asian stereotype held by much of western "civilization" and re-inforced by Hollywood Fantasies such as this..... The basic message of this picture is: "we Americans...coming from the worlds only true democracy have a divine right to go to all other nations...and put right their wrongs.....screw-up their environment....and teach them about freedom....." (see for example The Beach......at least Leo did it with a bit more style)....of course Vietnam is another story.... And.....the educated Asian may well ask why the Yankie Gungh-Ho attitude about Asia should come from a nation whose main contribution to humanity has been helping to spread Cancer... Aids.. Gun carrying kiddies and Jerry Springer......et al.. At the end of this picture the cynical viewer may well be cheering for the Burmese Military..... 3 out of 10.<br /><br />
This hokey movie left me groaning after just about any exchange of dialogue or plot complication. Patricia Arquette, though pleasing to look at, gives a below par performance from her usual mediocrity. My friends and I have coined the phrase "Beyond Rangoon" to mean anything really bad. A lowpoint for Boorman.
I am very surprised to see the good ratings for this movie.<br /><br />I watched the film 9 years ago and I still remember how angry I felt to sit in the movie theatre and to look at this mess. I am a big fan of John Boorman's work. I really like his movies. So I went to "Beyond Rangoon" with big expectations. But I felt like watching a dumb, cheap Chuck Norris jungle movie with all action scenes cut out. Even the soundtrack was very annoying.<br /><br />I can't believe that John Boorman was the director because this movie was so badly done. I think the Burmese people deserve better films to illustrate their struggle.
This film was sheer boredom from beginning to end. Ok, so i salute Boorman for raising the worldwide recognition of events in Burma, but that is all he achieves. About 10 minutes into the film i thought "oh no, here we go again", and i could have told you exactly what was going to occur in the next 80 minutes or so. Patricia Arquette was out of her depth in such a role, and her acting was wooden and unconvincing. Mind you, being saddled with such an awfully conventional script, maybe boredom set in, and was such reflected on the screen. A lot of the film was just plain laughable. At one stage, Arquette's elderly companion is shot, and he is prostrate on the ground. In the next scene, he is sprinting through the forest, obviously attempting to break the world 100 meters record! - or maybe he's just trying to run away from Boorman!!. If you find it hard to sleep one night then play Beyond Rangoon on your VCR and you'll be snoring in no time. I very rarely critisize a film as heavily as this, but in this case it is completely justified.
I'll say it again... one of the worst films ever made and it was made by the director that made one of my most, favorite films - "Excalibur". I was floored to see it got a grade of over six. This movie sucks. It looked terrible. It looked like it was shot in 18 days and Boorman must've been sleeping when he directed this. Arquette didn't do anything. Just plain terrible, rotten, unbearable and probably the only blemish in Boorman's celebrated career.<br /><br />1/10!!!!!
This series takes a classic story and makes rubbish of it. Robin is somehow mystified by an elk-man in the forest and is embroiled in all sorts of druidism and outright satanic episodes. The story is more about him avoiding the evil sheriff than helping the poor. This is barely watchable. And to top all the ridiculousness they kill Robin at the end of series 2 and replace him with another actor. Some people may like this show as a fantasy show but it is NOT a Robin Hood show. If you want Robin fighting in king Richards name against Prince John and the sheriff and if you want Robin feeding the poor and oppressed, watch the classic series or the newest from the BBC.
Well, how to start? I saw The Italian Job for the first time some years ago and visiting a rental shop I couldn't quite remember why I had a bad feeling about it. Now I do.<br /><br />After voting for the ratings for this film I saw the statistics. Apparently this film appeals most to under 18 girls. No wonder. They didn't pay enough to Charlize to flash and I guess some girls magazine has rated Mark Wahlbergs abs "AWESOME".<br /><br />Other than that this film is completely predictable, the actors are mainly forever B-stars and even the good ones are being misused horribly, the film is filled with obvious product placement and imagine this: it even manages to repeat itself without doing a sequel! The first 15 minutes are the best part of the film and it's all downhill from there and once they figured this out they decided to use the finest hour again in the end repeating-to-detail their gold heist. All in all, lots of noise about nothing.<br /><br />I think Charlize Theron is good and Ed Norton could be more as he's been before. Apart from Donald Sutherland's "look, I'm here too" appearing in the beginning I'd say this movie ought to have a "pass if you're above 18" all over it.
A ridiculous, badly acted Mini Cooper infomercial. Includes cameos from Pepsi, Dell, etc. <br /><br />Absolutely nothing worth rescuing here. Particularly bad are Donald Sutherland, the music score, scene transitions, etc. An embarrassing production.<br /><br />Hey, THEY should pay YOU for watching this one.
This is a woeful Hollywood remake of a classic British film. Everything that made the original "Italian Job" entertaining has been bled out of this festering sore of a movie "scripted" by Donna and Wayne Powers and listlessly "directed" by F Gary Gray. I am amazed that Troy Kennedy Martin (the screenwriter of the original film) allowed his name to be used in the credits for this pig's ear. Martin has worked on some of the finest film and TV projects of the last 40-odd years. Even being vaguely associated with this stinker is NOT A GOOD THING.<br /><br />The humour is forced, the drama is laboured, all the characters are cookie-cutter likable crims (with the exception of Charlize Theron's implausible, beautiful safe cracker/rally driver)and the plot only matches the original on the following points:<br /><br />(1) Three Minis (the modern BMW-made versions, but Minis nonetheless)<br /><br />(2) Use of the names Croker and Bridger for 2 of the main characters<br /><br />(3) Disrupting a city's traffic control system to provide a safe route through it.<br /><br />(4) Er, that's it.<br /><br />Otherwise, what you get is a bland and implausible American by-the-numbers heist movie in which a gang of jolly pirate chums eventually get the better of their evil associate. Believe me, it feels like an awful long time before they do. The cast do their best with what they're given but it seems that they all accepted it as a turd-polishing exercise after reading the script. None of the original film's quirky nature and distinctly British flavour has survived being fed into the Hollywood hamburger machine. <br /><br />Do yourself a favour and watch the original 1969 movie instead of this sucking chest wound. It's a wonder that Noel Coward hasn't done an Aunt Nelly, jumped out of his grave and kicked the teeth of everyone involved in this tepid remake halfway down their throats.<br /><br />Italian Job? More like Italian Jobbie.
I must admit, I was against this movie from the outset but I tried my hardest to be impartial, I really did, but the very idea of remaking a sophisticated, witty, entertaining, quirky British classic full of character has to be dubious from the outset.<br /><br />People in my house were watching this so I swallowed my pride and told myself to be professional about films (I have studied them at Uni after all).<br /><br />As expected for an American film of this sort, the movie began with a chase which wasn't bad. Indeed, many of the action sequences are credible and this alone lifts the mark.<br /><br />Yet the characterisation was abysmal, the set-pieces could very easily have been spliced from any American schlock blockbuster you might have had the misfortune to watch and it lacked all character.<br /><br />Seeming to take a skewed angle on the original film with a failed initial robbery, the US version does the predictable thing and introduces an emotional factor with the death of Donald Sutherland's character. This allows our US cousins plenty of opportunity for sycophantic, dewy-eyed vengeance-seeking against the 'evil-doers' which it milks to predictable excesses. This is never more so evident as in the scenes featuring Charlize Theron (oh pretty! oh so pretty! Look at her pretty, wounded Bambi eyes, everyone!) which were thoroughly nauseating. Her entrance scene, particularly, was like something out of Resident Evil or Tomb Raider which were both a) more entertaining and b) had better beginnings because they couldn't mess up a game like they could with British cinema which was already chock-full of spark, people you genuinely feel something for and moments of inspiration. But I digress, the whole inclusion of a pretty girl for the sake of it just seems like the most ham-fisted manoeuvre I've seen in some time and exposes cynical Hollywood blockbuster-lust for what it is.<br /><br />If you like any of these actors, by the way, and you agree with any of the above comments, DO NOT GO TO SEE THIS FILM! If I had the opportunity of watching 'Fight Club' or 'American History X' after seeing Ed Norton in this, I would have declined. Likewise Jason Statham with 'Lock Stock' (and I suppose 'The Transporter' is okay if you like that sort of thing).<br /><br />Sadly, all the set-pieces are designed in the most transparent possible way to get you thinking, 'Wow! He's smart!', 'Coo! He's cool!', 'Hey! What a tough guy!'. Then there's the 'funny PC guy' who has 'comic relief' splattered across his forehead but whose humour content can be anticipated two minutes in advance. To be honest, if you've seen one or two films like it, you might easily confuse the two as clones from the Jerry Bruckheimer stable. Not that Jerry is irredeemably awful, by the way, but he just uses the clichés to excess as everyone knows (or should).<br /><br />This is where I have to come clean. I didn't manage to make it to the end, so I couldn't even say whether the brilliant ending in the Michael Caine version made it but, I'm sorry, it's just one of those extremely rare films that, if I'd seen it at a cinema, I would have walked out and staged a small protest outside. It's not just that it is another identical by-the-numbers Ocean's 14 or something (Ocean's Eleven was fine but don't bother with the rest!) with all the glitz, glamour, fake sass and pantomime heroics of such a film but I couldn't recognise anything from the original at all.<br /><br />So, if you are expecting 'THE Italian JOB' and not 'OCEAN'S 14' albeit badly written with a less established cast and characters, some disingenuous elements and cardboard cut-out script-writing then DO NOT WATCH! I don't mind people liking a bit of mindless fun but this is a criminal hatchet-job that does not deserve in any way to parade itself under the title of a classic. Seriously, show some pride! I felt thoroughly justified in my outraged and sickened reaction when I first heard that the film would be made. Avoid at all costs!<br /><br />P.S. Some of the action sequences aren't bad at all so add an extra '1' to the mark if you like this sort of thing.
I was really disappointed by this movie. Great actors in it, and potentially a great plot, but it just seemed to limp along.<br /><br />Charlize Theron was masterful in her role and beautiful, but it seemed like 90% of her on-screen work was in car chases done with Austin Minis. Product placement gone wrong, so very wrong.<br /><br />The direction seemed off, too. Edward Norton is the bad guy, and it was so obvious right from the start. Every time the camera would pass over him, it would linger too long and Norton would grimace or something. C'mon, Hollywood, give us a little credit! It's okay to surprise us with a plot twist without having to telegraph it.<br /><br />Sorry, but this movie was just below average. I have always been one to appreciate the work and talent that goes into a movie, but this one just didn't have it.
"The Italian Job" is a caper movie done by the numbers. Riding on the back of every caper cliche, it rises to no particular heights and will be a movie footnote by about the end of the month.<br /><br />The biggest problem is that "The Italian Job" possesses no imagination at all. I've seen it all before and done better then. The acting is fine the cinematography is completely acceptable, but this film breaks absolutely no new ground.<br /><br />Let's tick off the cliches:<br /><br /> - "old-school" criminal father figure and his protege<br /><br /> - another gang member jealous of protege<br /><br /> - a double-cross<br /><br /> - only bad guys use guns while good-guy criminals don't have to<br /><br /> - good criminals always outwit the bad guys<br /><br />And that's about the first fifteen minutes. Everything is so predictable. Even the heist and car chase scenes, supposedly the highlight of the movie, seem pretty ordinary. This is especially true since they appeared in the trailers for the film so I already knew what to look for.<br /><br />For me, a caper film works only if it has an element of realism - that maybe, just maybe, it could be pulled off without relying on a deux ex machina or "just because" moments. Parts of "The Italian Job" just throws that out the window, with computers doing things that computers can't do, the good guys not hitting anyone with their driving (especially going down the stairs) and not one single police car responding to street explosions, recklessly driven minis or even a low flying helicopter. Must be a heck of a city for these things not to rate a response.<br /><br />The acting is passable, with the crew (Seth Green, Jason Stratham and Mos Def) being at least fun to watch. Mark Wahlberg is just too smarmy as the "nice guy" hero while Charlize Theron is about the only actor called on to display some kind of range. Donald Sutherland is a class act as always and shows up Wahlberg's deficiencies every moment they are together.<br /><br />Overall this is a pretty uninteresting film. Given the IMDb ratings, it's the girls that really love this film, which I can understand to some extent, but there are such better caper films out there - even the vapidness of the recent "Ocean's Eleven" outshines the non-event that is "The Italian Job".<br /><br />***SPOILER***<br /><br />At the conclusion, take a moment to think about what is going to happen to Norton's character. Are we meant to be cheering the good guys for causing his demise, especially since it would appear to be long and painful? He didn't deserve that, simpering creep that he was.<br /><br />***END SPOILER***
The characters was as unoriginal it hurts. The little skinny dorky computer geek, the funny African-American with stupid clisché punchlines, cool white guy with a compassion for cars and the handsome leader who ends up with the pretty girl. The actors is at best mediocre. Ecsept from Norton who does a pretty good job as the bad guy. <br /><br />The rest of the movie is also stupid and a total waste of time. Its all in all about a group of spoiled boys using the world as their playground where every safe in a big house is what keeps them with food on the table. I mean, why work for a living when you can rob people?<br /><br />AND,.. Who the f**** messes with the traffic lights in a major European city?!? And in the middle of the FRIGGIN day!? Think of all the damages and not to say deaths among innocent civilians. What about all the ambulances and firetrucks? <br /><br />I created NO compassion for the main characters, and weather Mr Wahlberg gets his bloody gold or not, i could not give less of a fart.
This film did well at the box office, and the producers of this mess thought the stars had such good chemistry in this that they cast them in the much darker screwball farce, The Gazebo. Frankly, I am shocked to see all the positive comments on this ludicrously plotted unfunny comedy. Both lead characters have the maturity of seven-year-olds and are much less interesting to spend time with. A veteran supporting cast including Fred Clark, Harry Morgan, and Eva Gabor lend excellent support. And, the beautiful cinematography certainly makes the rich countryside of Spain seem lush. And, there are four or five truly funny scenes to go with two wise scenes and a whole bunch of recycled and unfunny clutter.<br /><br />I cannot recommend It Started With A Kiss.
I caught 2:37 at the AFI Fest in Los Angeles. It's a very well shot first film (though the DV format begins to show itself in outside scenes), and I'm sure it has good intentions of showing us the "dark side" of high school - in other words every side of high school. But the filmmaker doesn't have the talent to write or direct up to the premise's promise. There are several characters, but none of them are any more than what the plot requires them to be. There's no depth to these caricatures beyond the machinations of "I am troubled teen X, I have Y problem." The perceived roles of men and women in this story are phenomenally troublesome.<br /><br />Let's start with the men. You have the stoner kid who's gay, the jock who's also gay, the boy who rapes his sister, and Mr. Peepants. As the stereotype requires, all gay men must be sexually unfulfilled and violent toward women and themselves. Naturally (or unnaturally as the stereotype assumes), the two gay male characters beat up women, Peepants, and themselves. I'd be perfectly fine with these characterizations if the stereotypes were turned on their heads, or if the characters somehow transcended them. Yet neither took place, and that's all there is to these characters' stories.<br /><br />Next, the ladies. One young woman wants to be a bulimic housewife, another is the pregnant rapee of the sister-raping brother, and there's the girl who kills herself (I'll get to that later). Again, I don't think there's a requirement of political correctness for filmmakers (I'd be out of a job were that the case), but I do think that it's only justified if there's more to that character or story. If that archetype were being used to reveal something about character other than "I'm a teenager and life sucks," I'd be happy as a clam. But nothing new is revealed! Nothing is subverted, or changed, or sublimated.<br /><br />Finally, the girl who kills herself. This is blunt and HIGHLY sloppy storytelling. We're supposed to sit through 5 minutes of a girl violently killing herself who we've seen for maybe 30 seconds through the whole film? We've followed all these other stories for an hour and a half, and now we're invited to torture ourselves for a character that isn't part of the story? It's cheap, exploitative, and sloppy. Despite the millions of crappy indie films that came before this, you have to EARN something like that. You can't simply purchase it on credit. So this suicide happens, we get wrap-ups from the characters that go similarly nowhere but down, and the film ends. What have I learned? I already knew high school sucked - been there, done that. I already knew people have stereotypical views of gay men and young women. I already knew that kids with disabilities are mocked.<br /><br />What else is there, then? Smoke, mirrors, and some really nice views of leaves. Oh, and the nastiest deus ex machina I've seen in a while.
I couldn't relate to this film. I'm surprised that people are lauding it for being so 'realistic'. How many people at your school were victim to incest? How many closet homosexual jocks were there? How many quiet people that you never noticed committed suicide? Hmmm. OK you wouldn't know even if their were. But really these are explosive problems which many us never deal with. And yet there are so many teenagers with subtle problems which could have been explored. But hey, where's the 'entertainment' in that?<br /><br />With regards to the girl who committed suicide - I found this to be exploitative. I actually think MANY people in High School at some stage feel invisible, ignored and unwanted. But what possesses someone to violently commit suicide on just another day of being ignored and unnoticed? The filmmaker decided this girl would suicide to make the film more provocative. And the graphic nature of the suicide to make it even more provocative. I didn't buy it as a real life scenario.<br /><br />And the problems of the other students I didn't fully relate to. Bullying is explored but that's been done to death, we all know it goes on and it truly is a matter of resolve within that person. Closet homosexuality? Pfft, another cliché gets rolled out. Thats the thing really, too many clichés. I guessed the ending at the start. There was a predictable unpredictability if that makes sense. You've got all these characters with explosive problems, and one with apparently none. And I thought, what is the point of this character unless she's the unsuspecting suicide victim? And surely enough..<br /><br />One thing I will say, and it is the saving grace of the film, is that it does NOT glamourise suicide. The suicide is very graphic and heart-breaking to watch. It is a powerful scene (regardless of how contrived it is)and one that dismisses suicide as the easy option. But the film is really not very imaginative and used stereotypes.<br /><br />Not bad but certainly not groundbreaking OR worthy of a 17-minute standing ovation at Cannes???
Honestly, Mr. Thalluri.... if you do a drama movie in a high-school setting following a bunch of teenagers through a school day and if you mess up the time-frame and jump back and forth... if you do that, you can't use the exact same visual story telling device of "Elephant" which is using a camera that is passing of from one character to the next and having scenes shown 3 times from different angles. You just can't do that because this is such a blunt rip off its hard to believe anyone gave this more than a 5 rating.<br /><br />Where "Elephant" (which was released 3 years prior to this movie) uses school shootings (or to be exact the Columbine shooting) as the focal point for its script 2:37 uses teen suicide and seeing the reviews the shock value of that subject worked. Its the same slow story telling, a lot of dramatic piano music all leading to a finale you know from the beginning. At least the characters look like they tried hard to be somewhat different in that department. So you got a untypical gay guy who looks acts like a stoner/skater, a hunky lover-boy who can't deal with his gay side, brother and sister from a rich family who both got their very own problems and here comes the nose dive. <br /><br />You also get a spoiled bulimic chick and one of the most ridiculous characters ever... a guy with medical conditions who wets his pants because of "2 urethra syndrome" who actually never heard of the invention of diapers but rather pisses his pants in the classroom and then change into new clothes and does so EVERY DAY! WOW, as hard as this movie tries to be realistic this is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. He gets beaten up on the toilet and is obviously ashamed of it but doesn't wipe the blood of his nose when going through the whole school with wet pants and a bleeding nose. Thats new-age realism directly leading to "the twist" and final character who turns out to be the suicide victim...<br /><br />After watching the "very realistic" life of teenagers (one day including, incest-rape, teen pregnancy, bulimia, parental pressure for grades and appearance and the gay subject mentioned before, kind of like your "very realistic" daily soap... trying hard to be) we watch a girl die we met once in the beginning of this movie and who has no reason but that the guy she had a crush on left the room when she was talking to him (in a thoughtful piano playing sequence BTW, seen that somewhere before??). And it gets even better... before slitting her wrist in a painful long scene of "Yes" and "No" she asks 2-urethra-guy if he is OK, constantly smiling and then she cuts her wrist with scissors in a school toilet. <br /><br />Now you got a movie that is a total rip-off of Elephant, fails with some really sloppy story telling (the whole rape-incest thing was pretty unbelievable too by the way) and people call this a shocker.<br /><br />What the heck is going on?? Is all it takes to take some pseudo-dramatic music, boring story telling and adding a shock subject on top and people think there is a major deep message here?? I think Elephant is way overrated already but that movie was the original while this here is an obvious rip-off failing on many more levels. I have never ever seen a more brazen stealing of a whole movie concept in my life... and believe me I watched a hundred of horror movies so I know how low you can go there. This is a total let down in all departments... its nor realistic, its stolen, its damn slow and by all means I wonder whats more useless... another romantic suicide (many give this point to the movie which makes me wonder if they only watch Romeo+Juliet all day long because there is dozens of movies which deal with the subject in a clear non-romantic and MORE REALISTIC way) or this ridiculous set up... Come on! I am still trying to work out if 2-urethra-guy or the suicide itself is more unrealistic and ridiculous.
I don't understand what is hard hitting about this movie! I don't understand why high school kids should watch this! I don't understand why this should have made me think about anything in the slightest!<br /><br />*Spoiler*<br /><br />When the un-noticed girl is on her way to commit suicide, was I the only person cheering her on? The cliché'd classical music, long tracking shots, melancholy emotion of the film by that stage had me in reversal to what was intended. I would have only been happy if she walked into the room and the entire cast was in there with her holding scissors to slit their wrists up. <br /><br />Why?<br /><br />Cause I went to high school.... and frankly im sick to death of seeing movie after movie in Australia with teenagers in it being solely based on terrible clichés. I've been waiting ages for a younger person to write a movie that im able to relate to and this stereotype driven piece of emo garbage is what I got instead. It was like a dark version of heartbreak high that needed a predictable ending. <br /><br />Why are all teenagers in Aussie dramas depressed or have really weird problems that just aren't plausibly told? <br /><br />On the plus side, this was funnier then 'Blurred'. And I needed a good laugh.
It is fascinating how this title manages to slip by the average viewer as something new and groundbreaking (quoting some of the comments). Murali K. Thalluri must have thought by himself: "Oh, great! Elephant ... What a fantastic movie! I'll try hard to do exactly the same movie and see if anyone notices!", sadly enough, he even failed with his outrageous idea. The movie turns out a complete failure. Considering that it tries hard to catch the brilliance of Gus Van Sants "Elephant", it makes it look even more ridiculous - a most embarrassing faux pas for a film director.<br /><br />The movie starts off with the suicide of a student in the schools bathroom. This scene, already, shows the awkward acting skills of each one involved in this scene. You don't buy a single word they say. In carries on, interrupted by short interview-styled bits of the kids who "live on their marry lives" with each bit rather distressing in its plain stupidity on the basis of each worthless monologue. Thalluri means to introduce the characters this way, to give a kind of fast-as-junk-food insight look into their hearts ... and fails once again. Not five minutes later, Thalluri ultimately screams at the audience "Yes, people! I stole this movie and for some curious reason, I am proud of it!" by taking Gus Van Sants most unmistakable narrative style from "Elephant": He shot scenes twice to let the viewer follow each character involved in a scene on his particular way and role in a school situation. Hm, doesn't this seem awfully familiar? To me, this certain level of very forgiving tolerance had been infringed right there to a point at which I couldn't stand this dreadful movie any more. Shame on you, Murali K. Thalluri, I say! I am especially surprised that "2:37" has reached the official selections in Cannes as of 2006, whereas everyone must have certainly remembered "Elephant" (2003) at the very same Film Festival just a few years ago! So, how in the name of the lord did this most disgraceful rip-off end up being shown there? I find myself absolutely puzzled by this mistake.<br /><br />Directors like Thalluri use the ignorance of audiences who aren't (and cannot completely be) aware of every independent film out there. As Elephant has little to do with mainstream cinema (although it is without a doubt a masterpiece), few people notice that the story as told in "2:37" had been told before! How that is possible at a Film Festival of such importance as attributed to Cannes, I cannot say. It is sad and shameful that such things are passed on and hardly anyone sees the true fraud in it.<br /><br />2:37 is by all means solely commercial, worthless as an independent film and (on a certain level) rather a phoney parody of its obvious idol, "Elephant".
I'm sure some people will enjoy it, and find it powerful, or have some sort of personal connection with the characters and story, but from an unbiased stand point, it's not very well done. The film revolves around atypical angst-ridden teenagers, each one playing out a different stereotype making us believe this is what it's like to be a teenager. We get to see a bit of each teenager's lifestyle, but the entire project just came off as pretentious to me, whether it be the constant low angle shots of tree branches in the wind, or the black and white "interviews" with the students, there was nothing new or original showcased in this movie, and nothing I needed to see. Yes, it deals with some strong subject material, and the dramatic scenes are played and acted well, but the entire project seems unnecessary, especially when it seems almost an exact replica to Van Sant's "Elephant" (one dealing with suicide, the other with a school shooting). As I said, some people will probably enjoy this, and the director/writer clearly had some sort of inspiration to make this movie based on the death of a close one, so it's nice the movie was made with some heart in it, but I feel it's incredibly ineffective, and when dealing with material that can be so easily clichéd to do something original with it. I would not recommend this movie.
This movie made me think....of how I could write something about it without personally dissing the director and all the actors, who, as an Australian, I am proud of for actually getting out there and making a film.<br /><br />But the movie itself? Let me tell you a story....<br /><br />Found this DVD in my local rental shop yesterday and had vague recollections of the reviews at the time of cinema release here, so I thought I would give it a go.<br /><br />For some reason, I decided to watch the 'special features' before I watched the actual movie, not something that I usually do. Turned the 'making of' off halfway through, as I'd had enough cringing at the 'aren't we so wonderful for putting together such a hard hitting film with such a raw script' attitude.<br /><br />The movie? Ugh. Full of clichés and pathetic character development. The actors? Well done guys, you are Aussies and I applaud you. And, just like a footy team is only as good as the coach that directs them, you unfortunately did NOT have a great script to work with.<br /><br />I felt that the movie actually trivialised so many of the subjects that it seemed to want to cover. I have seen many reviews here that refer to it as nothing more than a soap. Agreed.<br /><br />Finally (and forgive me if I don't phrase this correctly), I was extremely disappointed that there were no optimistic overtones at all. Yes, we all know that life is full of hard stuff, and yes we know that things such as incest DO occur, but I really find it hard to applaud a movie that has not one piece of joy in it. I believe that a director has a responsibility to put it in there SOMEWHERE. Otherwise, the movie is all about THEM and THEIR feelings, they have created it for themselves, not for an audience.<br /><br />Which I think is the basis of why this movie isn't so great. The special features mention that the director wrote the screenplay in a 36 hour sitting, the day after he himself tried to end his own life. Well, it may have been cathartic for him to do this, however the movie reeks of self-indulgence when you know the story behind why it was written. "I feel horrid, I'm going to write a movie about feeling horrid". (Note: I have read the interview with Andrew Urban, and understand WHY Thalluri needed to write something to help him through his own issues, but I believe there is a line in film that cannot be crossed - the line of making a movie purely for your own emotional needs, and I feel that this is what has unintentionally happened here)<br /><br />By his own admission, the director had no technical experience at all, and sadly, this makes the movie come off looking like nothing more than a year twelve media project.<br /><br />As for any recommendations that this movie should be studied at school, or that all teenagers should watch it - not sure there either. Because there is a VERY dangerous line at the end. I too have been in a place where I have thought that someone who no longer has to 'face life' is 'lucky', but as an adult, I do worry that this line could be influential on a young viewer that was in a vulnerable frame of mind. Might be in there to promote discussion, but again, it reflects no possibility of redemption or joy in this story as a whole. In fact, it almost indicates that there is more sadness to come.<br /><br />I haven't seen Elephant, but I just might go find it, given all the comparisons here.<br /><br />Nothing personal here guys, I do hope you can make another movie someday, and we all have to start out somewhere, so forgive me if I've been too harsh. I am glad that you are proud of what you created, which in the end is what life is all about. It's not a movie I would recommend though.<br /><br />Oh, I DID like the way the time-frames often collided, thought that was an interesting way to film. <br /><br />But the whole "Its the quiet ones you have to watch" - we already know that.
The time I wasted seeing this movie, I demand back! I felt sick afterward, but not because it touched me in any way. It's pretentious, trying to get the audience to feel bad for the people involved, but I couldn't care less. The characters are soulless and stupid. You don't get an explanation for some of the scenes and it doesn't leave any thoughts afterward to come up with your own explanation. All of the students in the movie has issues, but since you don't feel for them you don't believe their problems.<br /><br />If I could write better in English I'd never stop. But I can't, so, I'll stop now.<br /><br />Don't watch this.
I truly hate and despise this film and the filmmakers behind it.<br /><br />Sure, I'm all for making a hard hitting and honest film about youth and youth culture.1987's "River's Edge" is an excellent example of a well-made teen drama. However, what I take exception to is the infantile, grubby and sensationalist approach that the makers of "2:37" took.<br /><br />A prime example is how it raises so many issues and yet fails in any significant way to comment or reach a resolution on even one of them.<br /><br />My other major problem with this film, apart from its complete plagiarism of Gus Van Sant's "Elephant" (surprised Van Sant didn't sue) is its 'bull loose in a china shop' attitude to quite delicate issues such as incest and particularly suicide.<br /><br />In short, avoid this film like the plague and anything that this filmmaker ever is involved with subsequently. I've heard that his motivation for making "2:37" may or may not be based on lies. Having seen the substandard result, this doesn't surprise me in the slightest. This is a glorified student film exercise that has no place whatsoever being in a cinema or on DVD. Pure and simple.
This film is so copy-cat, cliché-ridden, clumsy, and laboured, I find it astounding that anyone could not feel cheated by the experience of sitting through it. <br /><br />Here is the range of idiotic clichés, ridiculous psychologising, and simply unfeasible storytelling in this "hard hitting" representation of high school: The tough guy jock is really a homosexual. The A-student is unhappy because his father pushes him and somehow this causes him to commit incest. A teacher is mean to a student who wets his pants in class. A girl who is going out with the above-mentioned jock is really in love with him and "just wants a family".<br /><br />Maybe the only saving grace is the student counsellor scenes which are vaguely interesting, but most of the devices in this film are so leaden that it beggars belief. <br /><br />This film shows me no insight into teenagers and I will not be surprised when it bombs, especially with teenagers. The people who like this film seem to be parents worried about their teenagers, and boy are they barking up the wrong tree if they think this film will help with "understanding" teen issues. I mean, what is the moral of this film? "Hey guys, let's all look out for each other and hug each other" GIVE ME A BREAK. Anyone who thinks you can get through to a 14 year old with that kind of message needs to think back. In the 1980s we were watching Kentucky Fried Movie, Xtro, Porky's, Evil Dead, Terminator, etc. This film will fall on deaf ears. <br /><br />2:37 is right up there with another Australian "indepedent" film, 'One Perfect Day,' which was as bad as this utter turkey of a film. Thank god no taxpayers money was spent on this boloney.<br /><br />AVOID!!!!
There is nothing original,humane or insightful in this film. The acting is average, images are amateurish, the writing lacks subtlety and the scenes are very basic...something close to a soap.<br /><br />In 2:37,a suicide is used to turn the film into a suspense drama. We watch, partly, because we want to know who dies. The various characters each have a problem, and the film shows how bad each problem is for them, but only as a way to get them each to a place where you think they might kill themselves. Despite the different points of view offered by the camera on the key events, there is NEVER another way of seeing the events themselves. So in 2:37, the arseholes are arseholes, the angels are angels. This is simple stuff.<br /><br />Without this complexity, the film emerges as a voyeuristic tale of youth sex and violence. You hardly get to know the kids as much as the breasts, bodies and limps that the filmmaker passes off as characterisation.<br /><br />In the end, if you know ANYTHING about film in the last 5 years, 2:37 is just an immature rip off of Elephant - not a meditation, not a progression. Yet while the filmmaker and distributor use the alleged suicide of a friend at every chance to give the film some legitimacy, they never talk about Gus Van Sant or Elephant. The positive posts on IMDb curiously avoid any mention of this, or simply don't value originality. If you do want something with heart and voice - avoid this piece of youth exploitation. I was surprised by the filmmakers age when I found out after seeing this film - I had assumed a 13 year old had made it. The Twenty Somethings I've always known are too busy trying to express something real in them to lift the work of an old man.
... Said the continuity announcer as TACTICAL ASSAULT was about to be broadcast . After seeing the first two minutes I started thinking Rutger might want to get a new agent . After seeing the next ten minutes I started thinking Rutger might want to retire thereby saving a potential audience from any more of his performances <br /><br />Yup this is a truly terrible movie . I wasn't expecting much and why should I if the name Rutget Hauer appeared in the credits , but within seconds of the opening title credits that featured NATO warplanes with USSR markings bombing Bosnia I realised I was going to be force fed inedible turkey three months after Christmas .<br /><br />The attention to detail is non existent . NATO planes carry USSR markings then were told Hauer's character spent six years in an Iraqi prison which would make the setting 1997 . What NATO were bombing the Serbs in 1997 ! I guess the producers didn't think the audience would have noticed this ridiculous inaccuracy but I know I did . The producers also probably hoped the audience wouldn't notice the lack of continuity such as dogfights with Iraqi jets that suddenly turned from Migs to F-4 Phantoms then back again but I did . Even stranger characters would take off in F-16s then when they arrive back at base there jet has changed into a Soviet built Mig <br /><br />Oh and if you're expecting a dumb action movie you're only half right because it's dumb but most of the plot centres around a BASIC INSTINCT revenge plot . I'll give the producers some credit ( Maybe credit is too strong a word ) because after seeing plots featuring nannies from hell , policemen from hell , flat mates from hell we now have a fighter pilot from hell which means every single occupation of the 20th century has featured in a from hell type plot with perhaps TATICAL ASSUALT being the worst movie of the lot
It's as if the Stay-Puffed Marshmallow Man from Ghostbusters had been reincarnated in Rutger Hauer's body and is taking revenge upon a rival's pregnant wife! If seeing an obese Hauer chase a very pregnant Isabel Glaser (imagine the spine-tingling thrills in that contest) sounds good to you, see this film! Seriously, if Hauer is what an Iraqi POW looks like after six years in prison, then hungry people everywhere should make a bee line to a jail in Baghdad. Overall "Tactical Assault" rates 2 stars instead of 1 because Mike Mitchell as Hawk is terrific. Mitchell burns up the screen as a NATO pilot until his plane is burned up itself (by an enemy missle), whereupon the film loses what little verve it had to begin with.
This movie is astonishingly poor. It was on television when I tuned in during an action scene and was chuckling away at the cheesy macho dialogue, waiting for Leslie Nielsen to appear. It took me a couple of minutes to realise that it wasn't actually a comedy, it was meant to be taken seriously. What has to be remembered is that somebody actually sat down and wrote this movie, and worse still - other people funded it and gave it the green light.<br /><br />Rutger Hauer obviously doesn't read movie scripts before he signs up, either that or he has some seriously bad debts to pay.<br /><br />Strangely, this film is so poor, that you find yourself staring at it, wondering how it actually got funded, and how a TV channel must have paid money for the rights to air it. The dialogue between hero and baddie whilst trying to shoot each other out of the sky is particularly painful, with dialogue sounding like it was generated by a Texas Intruments "Speak & Spell".<br /><br />The Hollywood money machine at it's worst. Funny though.
My Caddy Limo was destroyed!!! Well, I had one just like it - Drove the hoi polloi and many of the Chosen Ones around Manhattan for a few years. <br /><br />That was a whole lot more entertaining than this movie I can tell you. Lordy, what a bomb - as in RPG go boom. I also drove a lot more stars in my white Caddy than appeared in this dud of a flick. <br /><br />Robert Patrick is a very serious actor and did a credible job with the nonsense he had to work with. Unfortunately, Rutger Hauer played his part like a red-nosed circus clown. If he couldn't take it serious why should his audience? The director should have kicked his butt off the set in the first hour of filming.<br /><br />The dialog was written by 10 yr old's for 8 yrs old's. Surprised there wasn't a whole lot more cracking up on the sets. Oh well, I am a movie fanatic - ergo - you must take the bad to get to the good.
Well, this movie shows us that Mark Griffiths and producers think we all are idiots. If not how should we understand this:<br /><br />American pilots take off on Mig-29s. Suddenly all aircrafts turn to F-16s. Ha, a magic! After an action... Migs land. The magic again!<br /><br />Oh, did I mention that F-16s had Israel markings? <br /><br />Another magic: obviously unarmed L-39 trainers are bombing enemies.<br /><br />And more magic: while all movie is situated in Europe, we can see a desert in almost any flying scene.<br /><br />Maybe the director wasted all his magic on things above, because action scenes are incredibly chaotic and also explosions look awfully as if pilots bombarded with molotovs.<br /><br />OK, OK, this is a movie. I should write about its story... wait. A story? Yes there is SOME story in this film. And its horrible as well.
Well, you know... Rutger Hauer and Robert Patrick both are really good actors. But WTF with this movie? The story was lame and the script was just terrible. The poor actors didn't have material to work with!<br /><br />The DVD cover invited you to a flight action flick. You would expect something like Top Gun... Huge disappointment! The flight action in this movie is so cheap that makes you puke. The aerial scenes are clearly taken from documentaries and some other footage sources, not made for this movie. And they didn't even care about the marks or the fighters models, taking for granted the audience will not notice it.<br /><br />As I said the story was lame. With a little effort from the writer and director it could have been very interesting. In short, it seems a B-movie made in the 70's.<br /><br />I feel very sorry for these actors who put their names here. They sure must be ashamed.
(Warning: Some spoilers ahead.)<br /><br />What an incredibly crappy movie. It makes Iron Eagle 2 seem good.<br /><br />The story is as follows: Captain Holiday (Rutger Hauer) gets shot down by his friend Banning (Robert Patrick) to stop him from shooting down a iraqi airliner filled with innocent civilians. Six years later Holiday returns to take his revenge. Among other things he, sitting in a tank, chases Banning (now a colonel) and his pregnant wife over a field. He manages to fire shells and drive the tank at the same time. After getting the tank blown up by a bazooka, he miraculously survives and steals a fighter jet. With it he shoots down a number of allied fighters before attacking the NATO headquarters in an attempt to kill Banning's wife.<br /><br />An extra bonus is that major Baxter (who Holiday hangs in her office) has put the rank insignia on her right shoulder on backwards. Elegant.
Sorry to disagree with you, but I found the DKC series to be quite engaging. So much so that I invested in the SNES system and my own copies of the games. This is, mind you, almost ten years after the initial release of DKC 1. The graphics were ground-breaking for their time, the first vector graphics games for home systems. The music and characters are all memorable, and the games brought myself and my girlfriend dozens of hours of entertainment. True, the second game was better than the first, and the third was perhaps lacking the 'edge' of the second installment. But all three offered different play, and I enjoy them to this day. By the way, I'm old enough to remember when there were NO video games whatsoever (and TVs were black and white!).
*** Possable spoiler but probably not ***<br /><br />The game is called donkey kong but donkey kong is not even in it<br /><br />anymore! Diddy is gone aswell!<br /><br />The 1st Donkey Kong Country was one of my two all time favorite<br /><br />Super Nintendo games. (The other being Super Mario World)<br /><br />The 2nd Donkey Kong at least had diddy kong and good levels,<br /><br />although it felt more like a game based on pirates at times.<br /><br />However this one is the worst of the lot! It does not have the feel of<br /><br />the original or 2nd, The enemy's look stupid and the levels are<br /><br />even worse. It does not look realistic anymore! I did not enjoy his game unlike the last two, the first had great<br /><br />background music and the 2nd was not bad but the music in this<br /><br />game is horrible!<br /><br />It happens a lot these days that movies, shows and sometimes<br /><br />video games that start out fantastic, end up with it being ruined by<br /><br />a stupid sequel! I am sad to say I feel that donkey kong as a saga is not as good<br /><br />now that it has Donkey Kong 3!<br /><br />They should have left it at the original or MAYBE the 2nd one.
This is your typical junk comedy.<br /><br />There are almost no laughs. No genuine moments. No memorable lines. No scenes where you think to yourself, "that was clever". Nothing. The plot is embarrassingly bad. <br /><br />It's ugly to look at and boring as hell! There is no substance here. This movie has nothing. It doesn't matter if Farely was in this or not. A crap movie is a crap movie no matter who's involved. <br /><br />Also, David Spade is a terribly unfunny comedian who plays the same lousy character in ever movie/TV show that he's in.<br /><br />This movie was dead on arrival. There is no life here. No fun. No intelligence. There are plenty of other "dumb" comedies more enjoyable that this one. This film is just pathetic. <br /><br />2/10
Most Lorne Michaels films seem to fail because they're essentially just extended versions of skits that barely managed to make people laugh in five-minute segments. "Tommy Boy" is a character right from "SNL" - a big fat lovable (in their opinion) goof who doesn't know anything.<br /><br />David Spade gets the Thankless Overwhelmed Everyman role. He's paired with the Annoying Overweight Slob and they endure Miserable Misfortunes as they travel cross country to Save Daddy's Business.<br /><br />The plot, for starters, is really faulty. The whole premise - daddy dies and rich stupid son has to save the family biz - can be traced back to just about any movie you want. Like any SNL style film it is reduced to a simple motivation - empty, shallow; just a reason to see a fat guy and a thin guy be "funny" together.<br /><br />The movie's biggest "influence" is the 1987 comedy classic "Planes, Trains & Automobiles." That movie is great because the plot isn't stale and recycled. It's basic, yeah - a guy traveling home for Thanksgiving gets stuck with a slob. But it's real, dammit. It makes all the difference. The characters are real, the situations are far more real. "Tommy Boy" is pure slapstick and its ridiculous situations undermine the characters - we feel nothing for them, and we don't care about what's happening on-screen. "PTA" walked the careful line between outrageous and utterly believable and relate-able - "Tommy Boy" is simply absurd, with jokes like a simple deer-in-the-headlights turning into a crash turning into a struggle with a dead deer that really isn't dead, then awakens and wrecks their car.<br /><br />The whole wrecked car thing is stolen completely from "PTA" and it's eerie how much stuff in this film actually does resemble the Steve Martin/John Candy movie.<br /><br />Farley is simply way too obnoxious to find likable - I've never enjoyed watching him in any movies and this hasn't changed my mind. Spade's given very little to do, serving as the movie's most thankless character.<br /><br />Dan Aykroyd is wasted as the Evil Baddie who plans to destroy Daddy's Business. The ending is a joke, and not in a "har-har funny" way. More like a "oh god are they serious?!" way.<br /><br />Some people dig it, that's cool. But I just can't get into it, nor do I appreciate all the stuff it "borrows" from - not just counting "PT&A" - without any credit whatsoever.
Physical Evidence is one of those films that you want to like but really should be a lot better than it actually is. Developed as a sequel to Jagged Edge for Glenn Close and Robert Loggia, it gives the impression that all involved only made it while they were waiting for something better to come along. The premise is perfectly serviceable, it's mostly technically efficient if horribly uninspired with even Henry Mancini's musacky score surprisingly pleasant, but you can't help feeling that things would have turned out better if one of the leads had turned out to be the killer (as is rumoured was originally the case). As the opening scene of his little-seen, personally disastrous Heat (1986) showed, Reynolds has all the makings of a great screen villain. As is, there are few surprises and a feeling of half-hearted filming by numbers as it builds up a head of intertia as it ambles disinterestedly towards a less than grand will-this-do? finale.<br /><br />Reynolds is fine, sailing through on charisma in what is clearly a star vehicle. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Theresa Russell. An impressive and fearless actress in husband Nic Roeg's films which allow her to delve into the darker side of human nature, she's trapped in a part that requires star quality rather than depth, and she ain't got it in spades. She doesn't fluff her lines or bump into the other actors, but that's about all that can be said in favour of her astonishingly stilted and often amateurish performance that lets the film down badly. Aside from Ned Beatty's prosecutor the supporting cast add only a slightly surreal presence in a Boston where everyone seems to have a badly disguised Canadian accent and the streets bear a startling resemblance to Toronto and Montreal.<br /><br />Likewise, director Michael Crichton, who in Westworld, Coma and The First Great Train Robbery showed that he knew how to lean an audience to the edge of their seats, seems to handle the action in a purely perfunctory fashion - indeed, in one brief chase the shots don't even match and seem thrown together almost arbitrarily. The climax itself has no flair and is completely bereft of threat or danger, and many scenes are played for far less than they are worth. It's no great surprise that, aside from uncredited reshoots on The 13th Warrior, Crichton hasn't directed since.<br /><br />Its watchable enough in an 80s TV movie sort of way, even if it never lives up to the promise of its opening. Whether that's enough of a reason to see it is down to individual taste.
I got a kick out of Reynolds saying to his attorney, "look,I've done a lot of shi%ty thing in my life, but I never killed anyone." Obviously he forgot about his career which slid down hill after he started making stupid movies like 'Cannonball Run.' Physical Evidence was originally supposed to be a sequel to 'The Jagged Edge' that Glen Close sanely rejected. The verdict is in, avoid Physical Evidence.
This really is a film of two halves. The first detailing the lives and friendship of two boys (one a privileged Pashtun and the other a down-trodden Hazara) in late 70s Afghanistan before the invasion by the USSR works extremely well. The young actors turn in convincing performances and seeing Afghanistan as it once was throws the present situation there into stark relief.<br /><br />The real problem comes when we move into the later phase of the story where we join the Pashtun as a man living in America. Ancient debts to his young friend lead him to return to his homeland and it is really at this point that things break down. The central adult character is clearly supposed to be sympathetic, but in fact comes across as wimpish and wallowing in self pity. It is hard to really care for him and one cannot help but feel that the really interesting story is the one we do not get to see - that of his boyhood friend.<br /><br />Once he returns to Afghanistan the narrative becomes bogged down in a series of highly contrived coincidences. Most remarkably he manages to come across his childhood enemy after all these years almost immediately (even though he is not looking for him), despite the chaos that has since consumed the country. This enables him to confront past demons in a way that is simply too convenient to be credible. The resolution of the narrative is also run through with an awful, mawkish sentimentality which undermines any really serious points the film may be trying to make.<br /><br />Although it is possible to start seeing characters and the abuses of their lives as symbols of a state which has been torn apart by world politics it is hard to really see this as a film which engages with any wider political discussion. Instead the narrative becomes reduced to one character's emotional journey of self discovery and healing. Unfortunately this character is so dull and wrapped up in himself that it is hard to really become engaged in his story, while opportunities to make a really interesting film about Afghanistan itself are wasted.
The Kite Runner began as one of those "important" films that most people fawn over because they are told that they should if they want to be among the elite and quickly descended into an idiotic film of absurdly outlandish proportions.<br /><br />I've never read the book, and never felt the need because I honestly don't care. Sure I'm called uninformed for saying it but I truly have no interest whatsoever in just another "pull at your heartstrings, copy off of all other story lines to get emotion from the readers" novel, even if it is set in Afghanistan.<br /><br />That said, I watched the movie. I heard good things about its beauty, and how touching it was and decided why not? As it turns out, there was a very good reason why not. Not only was the so called main character completely unsympathetic (I get it, he was young and this is a film about redemption but honestly he was horrible. I hated him and not in that good 'Anti-hero' way, he was just a dull, idiotic, self-absorbed character that I felt nothing towards) but the rest of the story was so completely absurd that I couldn't believe how everyone else was fawning over how beautiful it was, and how they cried and it moved them. I'm sorry, but I only feel moved by something that feels realistic, Sci-Fi has been known to move me, fantasy as well...but this? Please. This surpassed many other movies for pure absurdity! My biggest peeve, Hassan was Amir's brother...really? You sure you didn't just rip that off from a thousand other stories? Positive that that particular tidbit wasn't just added in to try to pull more tears out of your audiences (y'know the type of people who look for reasons to cry during a movie)? I was rolling my eyes when that "twist" was revealed knowing that it could only go downhill from there (not to mention flashing back to Star Wars "Amir, Hassan is your brother" "NOOOoo, that's not true, that's IMPOSSIBLE!") Oh, and it certainly did. Filled to the brim with cliché's and just plan dumb storytelling. Like "good guy miraculously escapes bad guy against all odds with help from spunky kid who despite being viciously sodomized and having no clue who you are is willing to help out with a conveniently placed weapon that holds special meaning to you". Ooh and don't forget the oh so idiotic "finally getting vengeance on the kid who teased you when you were little who, surprise surprise, has turned into a psychopathic adult" (trust me guys, I understand you like to live vicariously through movies but that'll never happen. You know that kid who teased you in high school...he's no terrorist, he's probably an accountant.) <br /><br />Oh, and I must mention the CGI-tastic kites! I think those were on par with the "Matrix" movies and "Transformers" bravo you guys! BRAVO!<br /><br />It seems this movie was just made for western audiences who need to a reason to care about the Middle East (hey an overly emotional friendship story will work!) This is one of the most shallow movies I've had the misfortune of seeing, it poses as deep well...but when you get right down to it, it's nothing special.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the core of America's audience will do what they're told and follow the "It's about controversial material so it must be good!" way of thinking.
Honestly I am not THAT impressed by it, it's not a bad movie, but it's not great one either. There's a story to tell, but it's told in a very incoherent way which kinds of makes it loose it's full meaning and ability to intrigue. This movie could of been made in another way with an outstanding result, the story is just so interesting yet somehow I'm not intrigued when watching it. <br /><br />It definitely isn't an amateur movie, rather the opposite and some of the scenes are really emotional. The actors and actresses does quite a good job and so does the director but there's just something so unfinished by the whole movie that I cant quite put my finger on. Perhaps if you had gotten to know the characters abit more, all the 'messiness' of the movie could of been better clarified and put more 'action' throughout it cause as it was, it became abit slow from time to time.
I watched this episode with high hopes after seeing it on so many people's "Favourite episodes" list. I'm not boasting in any way, but from the start, I realised they were in some sort of toybox/can, with the huge eye looking down on them, to the type of characters in there. Even though throughout the episode, the questions of "Who are we?", "Where are we?", "What's outside?" carry the suspense of the episode (which I unfortunately already figured out), I must say that different types of characters and the interaction between them did make the episode interesting enough. Although the twist of the story may have been harder to guess if ALL of them were (toy) soldiers.
"Five Characters in Search of an Exit" has to be one of the most boring "Zones" ever made. It was on Sci-Fi this morning, and, as usual, I changed the channel. I put it in my Top Five list of the worst "Zones" ever produced. Dull and predictable, and not worth watching. Serling worked this theme to death (earthlings in the hands of aliens, who often were giants), and in this particular version, it just doesn't work. Anyone who hasn't seen it before, will quickly figure it out. This is another Serling philosophical mood piece, perhaps paralleling the plight of those in prisoner of war or concentration camps, where the imprisoned may lose interest in finding out where they are or fighting their captors. William Windom, as the soldier who is the last to "drop in" is the only one curious to make the effort, and it doesn't take long to figure the outcome.
The Twilight Zone has achieved a certain mythology about it--much like Star Trek. That's because there are many devoted lovers of the show that no matter what think every episode was a winner. They are the ones who score each individual show a 10 and cannot objectively evaluate the show. Because of this, a while back I reviewed all the original Star Trek episodes (the good and the bad) because the overall ratings and reviews were just too positive. Now, it's time to do the same for The Twilight Zone.<br /><br />Now I was very surprised when I saw reviews for this bland episode that described it as being "among the best" and gave it scores of 10. If this is the case, then why is it that everyone I know who has seen this episode hates it as much as I do? It's possible that me and my family and friends are all cranks but it's also possible this is yet another case of rabid fans rabidly inflating the rating on an average or below average episode.<br /><br />The episode itself stars William Windom and others as various archetypes--a soldier, a dancer, etc. They are all stuck in a cylindrical room with no escape and only at the end do you realize the "shocking truth"--which isn't at all shocking and is in fact majorly lame. No, this is a badly written and unengaging episode. Yes, there were plenty of episodes of the series that deserved a 10, but few as undeserving as this one due to a shallow script and an unappealing resolution.
I saw this movie previewed before something else I rented a while back...and it looked decent. I've seen some good stuff from Full Moon video, and thought it was worth a shot... Unfortunately, this was not good stuff.<br /><br />The story is about a possessed bed. A couple moves into a new apartment, discovers the bed, and odd things start happening. Odd things like the woman discovers kinky sex. And the man discovers kinky sex. And the woman draws pictures of kinky sex. And the man photographs kinky sex. And they both start having dreams about dead people having kinky sex. You'd think a movie with so much kinky sex would be good, right?<br /><br />Well.... No. The problem is that this is supposed to be a scary movie, or at least a thriller, and it just doesn't deliver. There is little tension, no suspense, and no fear. Aside from some troubling dreams and visions, there really isn't anything for this couple to be worried about. The whole movie is basically the two of them having these visions and playing around in bed. Sure, you get a monster fight at the end...and some bloodshed...but nothing spectacular... There's only one murder, and one good scare, and that's it.<br /><br />And the kinky sex? Don't get your hopes up (or anything else for that matter). Their idea of kinky sex is woman on top, fully clothed, trying to strangle her mate with a necktie. Not exactly my idea of a good time.
Karen and her boyfriend Jerry move into their new Los Angeles apartment.They discover an old brass bed that Karen takes a liking to,unfortunately it has a really sinister history involving kinky sex murders."Deathbed" tries to be a creepy supernatural tale,but fails miserably.The action is slow,the acting is nothing special and there is no suspense whatsoever.Even the sex scenes are lame.The climax is pretty gory and violent,so fans of splatter should be pleased.However the first hour of "Deathbed" is deadly dull and offers some tired horror movie conventions and cheap scares.Definitely one to avoid.My rating: 4 out of 10 and that's being generous.Watch "Re-Animator" or "Castle Freak" instead.
Rented this one by mistake thinking it was another film with the same title, and realizing that I had rented it some time before.<br /><br />Quick plot line. A couple consisting of an artist and photographer rent a studio apartment in Los Angeles from Joe Estevez, still cursing the fact his brother Martin Sheen could actually ACT! They find a bed in a forgotten room, but the bed is haunted by a nasty looking serial killer from the 1930's and his last victim. Their ghosts inhabit the couple, first enhancing their sex life, but eventually becoming more menacing.<br /><br />What ensues is cheap R-rated sex scenes, cheaper thrills and kind of a waste of time.
I mistakenly thought this was the 70's art film about the bed that eats people, which sounded interesting. It isn't. Interesting, I mean, let alone about a man-eating bed.<br /><br />I assume Stuart Gordon put his name on this in the same spirit that Lloyd Kaufman puts "Troma" on just about anything that's been shot with a video camera, in the interest of building up a franchise library. Little more can be said about this opus other than the running time is less than 90 minutes. It is, of course, about a bed that is haunted by the spirit of a man, or something, that once killed a woman with a wig and long false eyelashes. Along the way we get **a five minute opening credit sequence (is the one for "Lawrence Of Arabia" even as long?) **a murderer with Marylin Manson contacts who kills using the same technique as the troll in "Cat's Eye" **demonstrations of a sexual practice Michael Hutchence may have employed **a preview of what Emilio Estevez will soon look and act like **soft core porn even Cinemax would pass on **manbutt and one topless scene **a wacky (or is it "whack"-ee?) ending involving unintentionally hilarious hammer hits and leftover strawberry pie (well, it looked that way to me) **and a rudimentary surprise ending apros pos of nothing much. It's like the screenwriter even fell asleep on the "Deathbed" before finishing the last draft.<br /><br />It's not scary, it's not sexy, it's shot on hi-def video and doesn't look bad but doesn't look good either, the acting is just good enough to not be bad enough to be fun and so is everything else. No one would probably have even seen or heard of it unless it was on a disc with another movie, the modern day "double feature." I wasn't paying attention for parts of it so I may have missed something. But for some reason I doubt it. Rating: PASS
Where do I begin, its one of the most frustrating movies I've seen because it makes a lot of sense in terms of the point but it comes off as seriously stupid. A movie about a ghost inhabited bed?? The first 2 minutes of the movie shows a black and white flashback of a weird looking fat dude going dominatrix on a Fabienne from Pulp Fiction lookalike contest winner and strangles her with his tie. This is supposed to set up how the bed factors into the story. Still though, if you wanted an opening to keep people interested or send them away early, having a strangulation is the way to do it. Fast forward to the present day, a married couple moves into an apartment with a friendly landlord and begins unpacking their things, so far everything's normal. Then one night while doing the hippity dippity on a single mattress, they realize they need a bed frame. This is where things get fishy, why didn't they bring or buy a g*d damn bed frame before they got there? We learn that the door leading to the attic where the first 2 minutes took place doesn't open but then once the couple realizes they need a bed frame, the door magically opens. They go up to the attic and discover the old bed frame and decide to bring it downstairs and their lovemaking days are saved...or so they thought. The rest of the movie centers around the both of them being haunted by the bedframe. The female is an artist so she starts drawing up the ghoulish images she dreams about and the male is a photographer so he starts having his models act as if they're bring tortured or tied up.(one of which has gray hair and appears over 50 years old, yuck) The female grows increasingly scared and she discovers the house she lives in was once a haven for serial killings and murders which bring about the end to the movie. They find the friendly landlord murdered (which makes no sense since ghosts need to take a human form to kill) and decide to get the hell out of dodge. While packing up, the husband moronically goes up into the attic where he is possessed by the crazy fat dude and the female bashes his skull in before the cops show up and take her to a mental ward where she kills some dude trying to hit on her.<br /><br />Well if you've read this far you have to be thinking one thing.......WHY THE HELL DIDN'T THEY JUST THROW THE BEDFRAME OUT THE WINDOW???? Seriously, they never said anything about the actual house being haunted, just the bed....so why not get rid of the damn thing and move on? That's why the movie is so frustrating because it actually is a good plot and the actors follow suit accordingly but there are more holes in it than Sonny Corleone at a toll booth. The couple did try to leave town as upposed to every other movie that has the ol "oh lets give this place a chance honey" scheme going, so props to that. Still though, me and my buddy who watched the movie kept saying every 5 minutes....why didn't they just throw the bed out? Especially once they learned it was haunted would have been a good time to set it on fire or something.<br /><br />All in all its a near-watchable movie with plenty of porno like bed scenes and a believable plot (to an extent) but the solution is so simple you're scratching your head by the end of the movie wondering how stupid can the married couple be? The highlight of the movie is when the husband tells the 50 year old model to spread her legs and his assistant tells him that he can't shoot her like that.<br /><br />4 out of 10 (a low budget porno The Man Show would love)
Made it through the first half an hour and deserved a medal for getting that far. Lots of excuses for scantily clad women but no real plot to speak of emerged in that time. What sounded like a good idea for a movie was badly executed.
The plot seemed to be interesting, but this film is a great dissapointment. Bad actors, a camera moving like in the hands of an amateur. If there was C-movies, this would be a perfect example. A plus for a nice DVD cover though and a great looking female actor.
Unless you're interested in seeing 2 hours worth of scenic mountain footage featuring hysterical characters, lots of histrionics and cheap 70s gore (not much of it either), I would advise to avoid this movie. It is long winded, overlong and has a rather annoying amateurish feel to it. Masterpiece? No, an average thriller, shot in an average fashion, in a gorgeous Italian landscape. <br /><br />I'm a huge fan of slow paced 1970 movies, when there is a plot to delight and entertain you. In this case, it didn't work out for me. The plot is trite, interlaced with superficial and stereotypical characters, backed by hilarious angry mobs and your typical Italian widow dressed all in black, sobbing.<br /><br />If you are not acquainted and familiar with the Italy country side, the movie might be worth seeing as the scenery itself is spectacular and rather breathtaking. This movie isn't however, nothing out of the ordinary, there are much better Italian horror flicks than this. Not much else than a yawn fest. 5/10
Try as I might, I just simply couldn't get into this one. Perhaps it was the washed out tones; perhaps it was the drawn-out approach--I'm not really sure, but though this was by no means a "bad" movie, I didn't really find it to be very much of an "effective" movie (words that I understand are so much more arbitrary than their common uses).<br /><br />So, basically, the deal here is that a series of adolescent boys' deaths sets off an investigation and anxiety in a small provincial town, triggering a witch hunt. What do the boys' death have to do with the mysterious, sexy woman who has appeared in town? Is the crazy hermit woman involved? Is it voodoo? The story is a mixture of crime drama and horror as the various townspeople are all suspect and corpses keep appearing while bloody violence ensues.<br /><br />Good enough, but to me, most of it fell a little flat. Oh, it had it's moments... the one boy walking in on a beautiful naked seductress was pretty good, and the scene where the fathers beat the hermit was a bitter commentary (even if the effects themselves failed, considering her skin seemed to peel off as if they were whipping her with red-hot irons).<br /><br />My biggest issue was the ending. I've already put spoiler tags on this review, but BE WARNED, HERE'S THE BIG SPOILER: I don't believe it. I don't believe that a priest could convince himself to kill young boys for becoming sexually aware without some hint of that psychosis appearing earlier, with other boys, with a history, or some other personal affect. The movie didn't really earn its ending. END SPOILERS.<br /><br />Nonetheless, Fulci is a big name and I'm more than certain there's an audience out there for this. I definitely need to check out more that he's done, because this may have been a poor introduction. Most Italian giallo is hit-or-miss anyway, so I'm waiting to see what else this guy can do before writing him off.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB
A frustrating documentary. Louis Kahn's son, who saw his father only minimally during his childhood because he was a member of just one of the three separate families his father had created, takes on the task of trying to learn more about his father through an exploration of his architecture and his life. It sounds like a great idea for a documentary, but it ends up flat and uninteresting.<br /><br />Sadly, the basic problem is that Kahn's son, Nathaniel, is not just one of the film's protagonists --- he is also director, writer, producer, interviewer and narrator. Nathaniel seems both too inexperienced and possibly too close to the material to function well in any of these roles. Further, while he seems like a nice enough guy, he doesn't have much screen presence, so the fact that he is the only constant in the film becomes wearing. <br /><br />Nathaniel also comes across as an unprepared and amateurish interviewer --- there are several points where an interviewee makes an interesting or provocative statement and the camera cuts to a shot of Nathaniel offering little more than a blank stare and a sort of timid "uh-huh," as if he's a little panicked that he's going to have to come up with something to say in response. At times, I felt embarrassed watching people who might have had truly interesting things to say about Kahn (or at least better things to do with their time) seeming to realize that they were in the hands of an interviewer who was going to rely on them to direct the conversation. <br /><br />Nathaniel's dual role as both documentarian and lost son seem to do more to hurt the film than help. One senses that some of the interviewees are a little reluctant to really open up about negative aspects of Kahn's personality and career, presumably because it's not clear from Nathaniel whether he's looking to dig into the truth or simply wants to hear nice stories about his Dad -- preferably ones that will confirm his hope that his Dad really did care more for Nathaniel and his mother than seems likely. His passive approach as an interviewer may stem directly from this conflict. The only person Nathaniel does push is his own mother, but those conversations tend to feel a little like bad teen drama (Aren't you ANGRY, Mom?") and don't offer much in terms of helping us (or Nathaniel) understand Kahn or the loyalty he evoked from those around him. <br /><br />What the film desperately lacks is shaping by an experienced and independent hand, not to exclude Nathaniel, but to balance his subjectivity and inexperience. An independent director could have stood away from the material, given more thought to what the interviewees could contribute and, one hopes, cut out those portions of the documentary process that just don't work, such as the weird segment with the guy who claims to have see Kahn die (which made it look as if Nathaniel was just being taken in by some loony) or the entire bit about hooking up with Kahn's first cousin, who had nothing to add about Kahn or Nathaniel. Too many times Nathaniel makes us watch him standing in or near a Kahn building buttonholing strangers to tell them that his father was the designer. (Ahhh… huh. Thaaat's nice, sir. Umm…I gotta go now.) I understand why these things might be important to Nathaniel and that showing the documentary process is sometimes interesting, but this is one of those examples of when a documentary can be TOO personal.<br /><br />As an aside, I thought the score written for the film was great! (But, one of the oddest moments in the entire thing for me was when, during the tour of the Kimball Art Museum, the voice-over quotes Kahn as making a comparison between architecture and Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. The music being played at the same time? Beethoven's NINTH Symphony. A mistake? A miscue? Who knows? It did make me laugh.) <br /><br />Kahn was a great architect and it's clear that he was an unusual human being and had an intriguing life story. There's definitely a good documentary to be made about him. One is sympathetic to Nathaniel's search for the father he didn't know, but I'm not sure whether THAT is an interesting story. Neither works so well in this film.
Some ugly weirdo who had three families, cheated on and neglected all of them, built ugly useless buildings all over which are now unappreciated and crumbling. His bastard half-Jew son runs around interviewing random Jewish senile people who we care nothing about and shows his dreadful narrating and writing skills while tragic piano music plays. This goes on for almost two boring hours and amounts to nothing.<br /><br />All you shallow hippie people who watch these stupid documentaries, eating salads and yogurt, think all this crap is so important. It's not. Save the whales. No one cares.
I love documentaries. The Andy Goldsworthy doc was great.I looked forward to this one - but was very disappointed. I knew of Kahn and was intrigued by the idea of his lonely death in a Penn Station men's room. There must be a story here, I mistakenly believed.The only story here is of sadly deluded women who had affairs with an ugly little famous married man. In the absence of anything like an explanation for this guy's horrible behavior, we're given endlessly repeated clips of Kahn walking around and painfully long - supposedly contemplative - shots of his soulless buildings.Actually, some of the buildings are interesting but the thrust of the film asks us to think about the guy himself. The overwrought soundtrack references an emotional tug that is entirely absent from the film. Kahn's apparent gifts do not excuse his behavior or martyr his mistresses. This film seems to want to give Kahn the great artiste's free pass and thus make the director and his mother sympathetic figures - I don't buy it.
Although the figures are higher in proportion to other areas of society, I don't object to the extremely high salaries for many of today's entertainers and athletes.<br /><br />A-Rod, LeBron or Brady all have deals either well with 8 figures, or the low-9 area. Ray Romano and Jerry Seinfeld could actually become billionaires from their shows, huge residuals and fees they currently demand. Even their cast members, and all of the "Friends" group reached near or over 7 figures per episode. Letterman's earnings for one show could solve most people's financial problems, and a week or two's take care of many for life.<br /><br />But all of these are based upon sound supply/demand principals, and the financial benefits they bring to their employers. And all perform their crafts ably.<br /><br />But then comes along someone like Rachel Ray, who reaches a level of earnings far beyond any apparent level of talent or skill. I find her shrill, annoying, and with a forced "perkiness" that's as phony as the proverbial "3-dollar bill."<br /><br />A friend of mine is responsible for special meetings, events and convention plans for her firm and its affiliates. One of the major talent sources has hundreds of clients available from the $5-10K level, to a handful who get $200K and up per appearance. (This area includes Trump, Seinfeld, Lance Armstrong, Robin Williams, and, no kidding, Larry the Cable Guy.)<br /><br />There are a greater number in the $100,001 - 200,000 range; list included the likes of Bill Cosby, Steve Martin and even cable guy Larry's benefactor, Jeff Foxworthy. <br /><br />This category includes Rachael Ray. I suppose I have to admit there may be sufficient demand for her "talent" and offerings to justify her talk show and there may be some out there who'll pay more than $100K, + first class air, hotel suite, all expenses and limos door-to-door, for just a couple of hours of her whiny prattle at their organization's event. <br /><br />I just can't figure how-in-the-hell this could be possible.
Here is a rundown of a typical Rachael Ray Show:<br /><br />1. The awful theme song begins to play, and Rachael descends wearing her Snapcrotch outfit in this bizarre cargo elevator. 2. She begins running around screaming and/or insulting the audience, then yells at them sit down. 3. An awkward monologue.<br /><br />(The next are in any order) 4. A segment tooting Rachael's own horn (i.e. "I Lost 500 Pounds with Rach's Recipes, "Rachael Ray Saved my Life," "Rachael's Fashion Tips.") 5. A totally useless D.I.Y. tip (i.e. how to engrave words into casserole dishes, how to use your washing machine as a salad spinner, how to build a tube of lipstick with a light on it.) 6. The unleashing of horrible recipe on the unsuspecting audience (reaction shots of first bites are never shown). 7. A celebrity guest with an awkward interview, followed by some obviously scripted questions from the audience. 8. A person who gets help from one of Rachael's cronies (i.e. the I say yes to everything woman, the I own nothing but overalls lady, and the I can't find time to put on makeup housewife). What would they do without you Rachael. *gasp*<br /><br />Reasons that this show should be avoided like the plague: 1. Fakeness: Rachael Ray claims that entire show is unscripted. Many people who have attended tapings of the show have claimed that the entire show is scripted. Many of these same people have also mentioned that there is even a very strict dress code for the show. <br /><br />2. Her show jumps around too much: Where as Oprah, who is the highest rated talk show host of all time has a definite theme for her show, Rachael's jumps around like an ADHD soda child on crack. Her show averages perhaps 10, short, worthless segments a show. On second you will be getting fashion tips from Kojo, and the next Rachael will be making gross stuffed "Spanish" peppers with manchego cheese, and the next their will be a giant anaconda up on stage, and the next, well you get the picture.<br /><br />3. Rachael is a poor host with bad ideas: Aside from her grating personality, Rachael's hosting ability is terrible, at best. Her questions for her celebrity guests are poor, and often times not even relevant to the interview, and her segments are unappealing and offer little educational, or humorous value.<br /><br />In conclusion, you need not waste your time with this schlock. It will be canceled soon anyways.
it seems like if you are going to post here it going to be a 10 star rating ,nobody ever seems to dislike anything ,well i am honest, some don't like that but here we go, rachel ray show is just plain awful.!!!!!!, this show reminds me of the snl character linda whatever if she had a cooking -whatever show.i must say i liked rachel on the food network on $35-$40 a day but i am sorry she does not have enough life experience to make her interesting day in and day out,give me ham on the street, anthony bourdain , interesting folks,but most of all i find her annoying, she actually told a member of the studio audience to "shut up" yes in a kidding way but shut up is shut up, and who cares about her pet stories, sorry rachel you been cancelled!!!!
It's hard to believe that oprah winfrey produced this piece of junk, the show couldn't even hold a candle to cooking shows of the past, including emeril lagasse, rachael ray is the most annoying talk show and cooking show host in TV history, not since ainsley harriott has had a terrible cooking show host I've watched, at least ainsley harriott has some good moments and some style, this one has no style at all, she's terrible as host, the kitchen looks atrocious, the writing is horrible, the teleplay is over the top and the opening credits are so bad, it makes me sick. Now I Enjoy cooking shows that had a cool sense of style, but this has absolutely none of that<br /><br />This is one of the worst TV of the year.
I guess only a selected number of audience members really had any interest in watching how a male hustler in New York operates but I'd be willing to bet that even these brave souls were turned off by the irritating patchwork technique and deliberately muffled sound recording on display here; the fact that these inherent 'defects' were a direct result of the film's low-budget/underground/experimental nature is, I'd say, beside the point. Anyway, for those so inclined, the film features extensive male nudity and Joe Dallesandro, understandably, became an underground – and gay – icon! <br /><br />The episodic structure showing the day-to-day routine of the hustler protagonist offers a couple of mildly interesting scenes: his meeting with (and eventually posing for) an eccentric elderly artist; the one where Dallesandro expresses his views on his unusual line of work and delineates his particular modus operandi to a couple of prospective 'colleagues' including perhaps the unlikeliest of hustlers – a bespectacled nerd! Perhaps mercifully, the film ran for only 89 minutes against the IMDb's claim that its complete length is 105 (but the latter could well be a mistake)! <br /><br />I had watched a few other of Warhol's 'movies' and this one is decidedly not as satisfying as the most tolerable example I've run into yet, BAD (1977), and only slightly better than the likes of MY HUSTLER (1965) which were mostly a strain to sit through. The fact that this was only the first part of a trilogy did not augur well but, as the saying goes, you gotta to do what you gotta do and the other two 'chapters' had to follow in quick succession... <br /><br />Despite my generally negative reaction to it, FLESH is nevertheless still valuable as a 1960s time capsule and as a prototype of the Underground scene of that era, both cinematically and in real life. For the record, an image of Dallesandro from this film adorns the sleeve of The Smiths' self-titled 1984 debut album and transsexual Candy Darling (who appears here rather unremarkably) was immortalized in "Candy Says", the opening track of The Velvet Underground's eponymous 1969 album. Although the latter band is my all-time favorite, and one of the reasons for this is that, through their sheerly unique and ground-breaking music, they described a lifestyle so utterly different from my own, this is truly a case where I'd much rather experience something aurally instead of visually!
Technically abominable (with audible "pops" between scenes)and awesomely amateurish, "Flesh" requires a lot of patience to sit through and will probably turn off most viewers; but the dialogue rings amazingly true and Joe Dallesandro, who exposes his body in almost every scene, also gives an utterly convincing performance. A curio, to be sure, but the more polished "Trash", made two years later, is a definite step forward. I suggest you watch that instead. (*1/2)
Although there is very little plot and whatever exists is just all improvisational, still it was a good start from a new director with no previous financial back up and also a smart move from Andy Warhol to make his cimematic productions more marketable and viewer-friendly. In any case this story of a street hustler relies too much on showing Joe buck naked (almost all the time!). And the creative use of a flashy editing really wears off after the hundredth time and the cutting off the dialog thing gets really annoying half-way. This would have been a much more entertaining or even dramatic if they made a documentary of the daily of an actual male prostitute or hustler, instead of letting the actors make up some nonesensical plot and dialog of their own.
Although not a big Coen brothers fan, I am an admirer of their dark humor films like 'Fargo' and 'Miller's Crossing.' I have been much less impressed by their other comic mode, goofy-camp (or is that Camp Goofy?) Unfortunately, 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?' falls into the latter category and isn't even as good as 'The Big Lebowski' or 'The Hudsucker Proxy.'<br /><br />'O Brother' is basically an episodic series of in-jokes without much point, and not all that much humor or cleverness either. As most reviewers have noted, the film's plot is very loosely – and, as far as I could tell, quite arbitrarily – based on The Odyssey. Its main character, Ulysses Everett McGill (George Clooney), is an 'adventurer' like his Homeric namesake and has as his 'real' goal the return home to prevent the marriage of his wife Penny to a suitor. Of course, we don't discover that this is what the Clooney/Ulysses character really wants until long after we've stopped caring. And what does Homer have to do with "Cool Hand Luke" chain gangs, Ku Klux Klan meetings a la "Indiana Jones" cult gatherings, a disbarred lawyer's vocabulary, a talent for blue-grass country music singing, an association with Baby Face Nelson, a Clark Gable lookalike hairdo, and other random and sundry character traits and encounters? I leave that for others to discern.<br /><br />The allusion to Preston Sturges' 'Sullivan's Travels' in 'O Brother's' title is equally pointless. Yes, viewers familiar with the Sturges minor screwball comedy classic might find it mildly rewarding to recognize the title of the socially conscious Depression movie Sullivan abandons Hollywood and comedy hoping to make. And they might even be mildly amused by a couple of shot/scene riffs (e.g. hopping freight cars, and the chain gang shuffle into view a movie). But so what? The Coen brothers don't seem to have anything to add to the art-for-art's-sake versus moral high seriousness critical debate about the function of art. They obviously fall into the former school, but that doesn't seem to motivate the reference in the slightest. Is it an homage? If so, why make it? I like post-modern pop culture reference and textual play as much as the next person, but it's a lot nicer when it amounts to something at least tonally, if not thematically, consistent – and not just an arbitrary concoction.<br /><br />This screenplay is simply a silly mess. The only consistent, and consistently pleasing, element is the folk/country music soundtrack. It doesn't have much to do with Homer or Preston Sturges, but, considering the rest of the film, that's probably a good thing. On the other hand, I'd recommend using the price of admission on the soundtrack CD.
Earnest effort which achieves some success to adapt the classic Odyssey story to a '30's nostalgia period piece. The adventurers this time are escaped convicts, wandering about the Depression afflicted South bungling their way into trouble.<br /><br />The greatest strength of the film is the wonderful music soundtrack, effectively evoking not only the era that this is set in, but the spiritual references that run rampant in the film. Besides its value to the tone of the movie, the music is just plain fun to listen to.<br /><br />What cripples the film is that the characters really aren't that likable. In a comedy, you need that element in order to have fun along with them in their misadventures. Instead, we have a bunch of selfish, arrogant, soulless, mean spirited nobodies who really have no positive points at all. They're not imposing enough to make you hate them either, so it's hard to relate to them at all. They're offered up as clowns, but like people who put clown makeup on and march in parades, they just aren't funny.<br /><br />Like the story that inspired it, the movie takes these guys on an "odyssey," encountering a variety of symbolic (some even mystical) characters. Everybody is stamped with offensive stereotypes, the operative word being "stupid." People are mocked right and left, and consequently, no one is left being particularly interesting or appealing. The movie doesn't like its own characters, and it doesn't let you like them, either.<br /><br />Riverside baptisms, beautiful sirens, stolen cars, fistfights, radio preachers, people being whipped with sticks; all are thrown at you in disjointed fashion. Some evoke a few laughs, others confuse or bore you. I did laugh when a nerdy guy beat the snot out of an especially obnoxious lead character. But there were a lot more pointlessly gratuitous scenes; an example: some '30's Dillinger-type guy strafes cows with a tommy-gun. Comedy? Symbolism? No; just mindless violence, which detracts from the intellectual nature of the original source material this story draws upon.<br /><br />Other adaptations of the Odyssey are much better. Unless you're a George Clooney fan, rent something else. But buy the soundtrack CD; the music is great.
Some people think of Sweden in a negative way: too neat, too clean, too serious, too organized and too Northern. A people tortured by their own religious fate and history, sometimes leading to depression and compulsive heavy-handedness. This need not be a problem for a filmmaker, as for example the late Bergman has shown us what can be cinematic possible under these conditions. Bergman used his identity as a starting point and did not explicitly comment on this identity as such.<br /><br />Andersson however does the reverse: He comments only on this identity hereby dissecting his people to the bone: In his world Sweden is equivalent for hell on earth. But he does not take this any further and for me this is just not art but merely annotation. Despite the exceptional amount of time it took to make this filmmaker has serious limitations he clearly cannot step out of.<br /><br />Compared to his previous movie Sånger från andra våningen / Songs from the Second Floor, there is also not much progress to be observed. The intention was that this was more accessible, but the difference is minimal and the few scenes that try to please a larger audience aren't the best in the movie. The same absurdism and minimalism also still apply, there is the one-shot camera position and the (lack of) action in front of this shot. Yes, the stills are well done, some of the scenes actually work and the coloring and positioning is amazing. But does that make an interesting movie? Thinking in a negative way, this is cinema taken a step backwards.<br /><br />Andersson's background as a maker of commercials shines through in the elaborate setup, but I find his movies about as empty as those commercials. There is a message about mankind, but it is trivial and without much depth.
You the living? OK I think I am an intelligent, educated, liberal and really into films. I really like and have a great sense of humour. I was under the impression this was a bleakly painful comedy. They got paid for making this, petrol was used, electricity burnt, food was consumed, sets built........why? I blame the current state of the world on this film and all those people associated with it, I will even include us the viewing public. We are all to blame and deserve whatever coming. Its not funny, not much happens, everyone it seems is bored or boring. There are no conversations, communication is minimal. There is no plot as far as I am aware. I have in fact just lost 89 point something minutes of my life. I will never ever get that time back. The only message I have come away with is perhaps life is too short to sit around watching movies of people doing not much......and then you die!
i stopped this movie at 48 minutes and change... i don't know...maybe it's because i'm not Swedish...or french(the cannes commenter)...or any of those OTHER sleepy places from which the previous reviewers held forth... born and raised in NY. lived near san francisco for a quarter of a century. and now Holland. i love a good independent film as much as the next movie enthusiast... but this, in a word, isn't funny. see? now THAT's funny...that you're thinking that i made a mistake. i said, 'in a word' but then said, 'isn't funny'... nope. no mistake. if this is your type of humor, i'd say you haven't really had much of a life... consider your appreciation of this film a symptom... and PLEASE don't EVER write another review...i have a tendency to believe them when they're unanimous. even if there only were about 3 reviews before mine...i figured i might ACtually be able to save someone ELSE the boredom...the anticipation of laughter that never materializes... i DID smile once or twice, though... when i started the movie...and when i stopped it. that should be 10 lines.
If you're a kid liking fairy tale "real life" adventures, see it. If you're a youth liking kids movies, why not see it? :) If you're a parent going to see a movie with your kids, you're WAY better of opting for the squirrel!<br /><br />The start of this film was a bit funny, and set some good premises for the happenings to take place. But after the kind of funny introduction of characters, settings and potential conflicts, the story turned out kinda dull. When more or less the same things happen for the third and fourth time, the word "predictable" repeatedly comes to mind just like parts of a dented LP or those commercials you really hate. And the culmination of the plot... *oh sigh*... poor, poor, poor!
May be I don't get it right. I mean the movie. It does not make me happy or whatever has to do . Maybe because of my mood. Anyhow this one is a simple family movie with kids for actors. Just admit that - all movies of that kind cannot pass the barrier of 4 out of 10 never mind who is playing in the movie(example Antonio Banderas was playing in that kind of movies... two or three of them cant remember the exact count). I got bored. I almost fall asleep just because the topic is so cliché and the actor play was so predictable. But I am sure that my kid will love this movie when he grows up... Hey Im not a monster I found some hilarious or good moments in the movie. The owls in the movie were sooooo cute. The trick with the painted police car windows and the hits that the kid received in the head by a golf ball...
I will give it this: it tried. It did try to make it good and even got Luke Wilson involved. Luke Wilson is good, but he can only do so much. He can't make up for the fact that the story was very flawed and the characters were underdeveloped.<br /><br />The running "gag" with the bully was asinine. He was never funny and I got tired of the gag really fast. And the barefooted kid bit was kind of weak too. He hitchhiked to Florida? Yeah OK.<br /><br />The movie felt like an average kiddie film at times with this underlining mantra: adults stupid, kids smart. And that bit gets tiresome.<br /><br />But the only moments that were funny was the police cart Wilson drove around when he lost his squad car. I loved that little cart, especially when Wilson turned on the sirens. But, other than that, nothing else was worth my time. "D-"
Yes, I had the misfortune of watching this film when I was younger at a friends house as his mother was a teacher and she wanted to screen the movie and see if there were any inappropriate scenes that a parent might object to. Well other than the unfunny jokes I think this one was in the clear, well the unfunny jokes and the strange scene where the look a like Ernest hits on a girl. So yes, Ernest gets thrown in jail thanks to a look a like and proceeds to try to escape and there is other stuff to it like him becoming magnetized at one point, shooting electricity, and in a very painful to watch finale flying. There are a couple of jokes, but nothing to much to mention except for the gun carved from soap...I think that is the only scene me or my friend's mother laughed out loud at. This and camp are the only two Ernest movies I have ever seen and from what I have seen in them I am not going to track down the other films. Ernest was good in small doses, but a movie is just to much even when it is as short as this one. I figure though the films made money, mainly because all you need is Varney and a location and a theme and you have your movie.
And again, I find myself in the minority.<br /><br />I didn't like this one. This is the ONLY Varney work I haven't embraced, including Knowhutimean. Slam Dunk Ernest rates the credit for being the worst of the line, but this is a clear competitor for that dubious title.<br /><br />This work is too rough, and too base to be lovable. Lovability was one of Ernest's key components, and this element was completely lost herein. Unfortunately, most think this is the best of the line, but if you loved the essence of what made Ernest, Ernest, you will realize to what I refer about fifteen minutes into this work. It was too blatantly base to be fun.<br /><br />It rates a 3.5/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.
Opulent sets and sumptuous costumes well photographed by Theodor Sparkuhl, and a good (not great) performance by Jannings as Henry cannot overcome poor writing and static camera-work. Henny Porten chews the scenery as Anne.<br /><br />It's all very beautiful; but it's all surface and no depth. The melodramatic tale of a woman wronged made it a hit in America where the expressionistic "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" flopped in the same year (1920), proving that what is popular is not what endures. Lubitsch would be remembered for his lively comedies, not sterile spectacles like this.
Spiderman was one of the first comic books to initiate a change in the genre: in spite of being a very well made superhero comic book this is the first series ever that added a real psychological depth to the main character, had complex moral issue, round characters and also highlighted social and political issues. in other words: Spiderman was the comic book's coming of age. This TV series lacks all of those components. It's just a straightforward good buy / bad guy TV series suffering from obvious budgetary rerstraints that make the action scene moderately exciting. Spiderman nylon webbing is about as convincing as the cardboard rocks in Star trek. Nicholas Hammond is way too old for the role at that point in time. I think he was well into his thirties wheras Spider,man was really teenager at the time. For some unfathomable reason the writers also changed names and deleted important characters from the comic book which again just resulted in the tension between characters basically disappearing.
I was excited at the concept of my favorite comic book hero being on television... and sorely disappointed at the end result.<br /><br />The only "amazing" thing was the wall crawling (despite the visibility of the cable). I didn't think Nick Hammond was Peter Parker... and he was visibly of a different build than the guy who did the stunts in the spider suit. You could tell they were two different actors.<br /><br />Granted, I can also spot in the modern Spider-Man movies when I am looking at Tobey Macguire and when I am looking at CGI. But that is from a trained eye and experience working with CGI. Still, the 70's version could have been better despite lack of Special FX.<br /><br />The webs were hokey and looked like ropes that seemed to wrap around things rather than stick to them. And what was up with giving him a spider mobile to ride around in. Hello? He's the web slinger people.<br /><br />Sorry... didn't mean to get so worked up, but our beloved wall crawler deserved better.
There are many so-called anti-war/anti-govt. policy films around now which start off as a mea culpa and end with 'our poor boys are getting hell out there so let the world sympathise with them, it's not their fault' - kind of stuff. I was half afraid that this would be another in that style even if it treated another subject/aspect of the same subject. I nearly didn't go and see it; for that matter, I almost did not write this review. What did we get here? An Egyptian gets taken off to a secret off-shore torture centre, on U.S. orders, but it is another Egyptian who has to do the torturing, not an American: 'see, we Americans have clean hands,' and the Egyptians are a bad lot anyway so let them harm their own. Oh, and the goody had to be an American with a conscience: indeed many Americans have them, but here the concept was misplaced. Yes, we all know it is called Extraordinary Rendition and it began in Clinton's time and it is now used for reasons well beyond control. Otherwise it was very hackneyed and nervous about really condemning the U.S. for being party to torture; as if the makers were afraid to go the whole way for fear of being slanged as unpatriotic or whatever (take a look at the message board! Anyone apologising gets a faceful of heavy verbal artillery). Torture is a terrible thing, whether one is guilty or not; in the 18th Century, FrederickII, King of Prussia, abolished it for convicted murderers - though I must say, a life sentence for a child molester is far less than what I want to see. All right, what about torture? This film did not really bring out its horror and hopelessness enough. When you are under torture,(now come the capitals for emphasis, I am not shouting) YOU WILL SAY ANYTHING, EVEN IF IT IS NOT TRUE, EVEN IF YOU HAVE NOT DONE THE THING YOU ARE ACCUSED OF, IN THE VAIN HOPE THAT IF YOU SAY AMEN TO WHATEVER THEY ARE PEDDLING, IT WILL STOP. IT DOES NOT, BUT YOU NEVER LEARN AND YOU KEEP ON SAYING THAT YOU DID WHATEVER IT IS THEY SAY YOU DID, THO' YOU DID'NT. Another thing the film did not bring out enough was that TORTURE IS EXCEEDINGLY, INDESCRIBABLY HUMILIATING, AND THAT FEELING STAYS WITH YOU YOUR WHOLE LIFE. It somehow changes people inside. How do I know all that? Don't ask.<br /><br />Re-edit: two things: the Arabic that was used in the film was not the Egyptian dialect. It's sort of worse than setting a film in New Zealand with locals as the characters and everyone has American accents. Also, the dreadful little preacher who was inciting his ignorant audience to violence was telling them things unknown to that religion, which should have been brought out. Nor was it anywhere explained that any nincompoop can become a mullah/imam; he doesn't need any special qualifications, and that is a hiatus which needs to be put right: many are acceptable because of their fundamentalist views and tne U.S.A.'s great ally, Saudi Arabia, finances so many of them. Many thanks for this space.
The movie is powerful as a political statement about extraordinary rendition, torture and the politics of the war on terror. Others have already commented on these and other aspects of the movie. My review may contain spoilers, so if you haven't seen the movie, you may not want to read beyond this point.<br /><br />Several questions are raised by this movie. First of all, was the protagonist guilty or not? There is no satisfying explanation for why the NSA decided to have him picked up and rendered in the first place. Is there an innocent explanation for why he got phone calls from what the NSA thinks is a terrorist? If there is, the movie does not seem to give one and that made the whole movie quite unsatisfying to me. It is all well and good to make statements about whether torture is right or wrong, but first prove to me that they tortured the wrong person, then we will take it to the next step.<br /><br />If the protagonist was guilty, then what was achieved by releasing him? Perhaps, we was well-trained to resist up to a certain point and then pretend to break down and give answers that can be proved wrong with a little research, thus tending to lead the torturers to believe that they had tortured an innocent man into confessing without actually being guilty. However, there is nothing in the movie that proves he is guilty either.<br /><br />The various other loose ends out there are: 1. So, a rogue CIA agent has him released and flown back home. What prevents the NSA from picking him up again? A little publicity in the Washington Post? Please give me a break here... If a senator is not willing to put his neck on the line to intervene on his behalf, what does Corinne Whitman have to fear? 2. If the NSA has been tracking what phone numbers are being called by whom, why couldn't they listen in on some of the calls to figure out whether anything underhanded is being discussed? 3. The plot is even more stupid anyways. Any criminal with more than a dozen brain cells would transact his criminal business on an anonymous prepaid cell phone line, not on one that can be traced back to him and his house.<br /><br />The whole movie revolves around tugging at the viewers' heart strings by showing graphic and gratuitous scenes of torture. But when you think about it with any more depth, there is nothing of substance in this movie, only plenty of unanswered questions and the feeling of "what, that is it?!!!" at the end of the movie.
I was very willing to give Rendition the benefit of the doubt when it came to all the negative press I had read concerning it. Even about three-quarters of the way through, I still thought it was jumbled and a bit incoherent, but otherwise a solid tale reaching its conclusion. And then the bottom fell out. Not wanting to necessarily ruin the film for anyone, but the conclusion flips everything you held to be fact about what and when things have been happening on its head—for no particular reason whatsoever except to maybe tell the world, yeah I'm cool, and I know it. I love a good twist, I love a good ah-ha moment, but only when it is relevant to the story at hand. The complete misguidance on the part of the filmmakers serves no purpose on the overall tale, timelines didn't need to be parallel and they didn't need to be separated by a week. All the revelation did was destroy any merit I was about to give director Gavin Hood and screenwriter Kelley Sane, which may be a good thing, because looking back, it wasn't really as solid a movie as I initially was going to blindly give it credit for.<br /><br />It is an admirable thing to try and get the term rendition out into the film-going public's consciousness, but it needed a story that delved deeper into the connotations and politics involved, rather than gloss over those issues for a tale of a woman in distress over her husband's disappearance and the angst-filled rebellion of a daughter against her "interrogator" father. I understand that the bottom-line film attendee needs a human quality to grasp onto and for that reason I don't fault it for going that route. My only qualm is that we don't get enough of what the title says we should be getting. Instead we are shown numerous plot lines, all confusingly brought to the forefront before being sent back into the nether regions of our consciousness, never to be returned to. So much is going on that you forget what you are supposed to be caring for, the wife? the interrogator? the CIA agent? the victim? the senator? the Middle Eastern daughter and her zealot boyfriend? At the end I really just gave up and let the film take me where it would, which ended up being someone totally different than what it first laid out.<br /><br />Everything that occurs happens as the result of a bomb explosion. This bomb is at the center of every story thread and finally ends up being so innocuous that you can't believe how huge the waves it spread were. The old butterfly wings flapping quote is in full effect, because one boy's mission for revenge ends up destroying the lives of so many. Whether by death, destruction, physical and emotional abuse, or career suicide; no one really escapes unscathed. However, at the end of the day, only the story about the man who has been excised to Egypt for torture is really interesting. We are led to believe he is unequivocally innocent from the start, yet he is waterboarded, electrocuted, etc. in order to extract any information he might have. When those in power include a man with no compassion or reason to stop until something is spilled, (whether true or not), and an observer without the guts to partake or stop it, the situation lends itself some intrigue as to how it could possibly end. The three actors involved all are the best parts of the film and prove once more that the movie should have concerned itself with them for the entirety.<br /><br />I don't want to belittle people like Reese Witherspoon, (the victim's wife), or her Senate employed ex, played by Peter Sarsgaard, because they actual do a good job with what they are given. Even Meryl Streep, her kooky accent, and Alan Arkin don't detract too much. However, it is the trio of Jake Gyllenhaal's CIA agent, Yigal Naor's interrogator, and Omar Metwally's victim that truly shine. Naor is brilliant as the Egyptian trying to stay sharp as a razor during working hours yet compassionate and worry-filled as a father attempting to locate his daughter. This man is brutal, but he is because that is what his occupation calls for and why he is relied upon to find answers. Metwally never gives a false second during the pain and suffering inflicted upon him. Whether he is lying or truly knows nothing about the terrorist who has been calling his cell phone, we totally buy into his plight and desperately wait to see how the situation turns out. As for Gyllenhaal, someone who seems to have one performance recycled throughout his career with varying degrees of success, he finds a part that suits him. The demons entering his soul throughout the ordeal he is forced to be a part of wear on his body and mind, causing both ambivalence and a need to intervene. The two feelings wrestle with each other until he makes a final decision, and his stoic, boyish demeanor suit that battle perfectly.<br /><br />It is just too bad that the one plot line working never finds itself as the main focal point, despite being the namesake of the film. With all the clutter around the edges, we as an audience get bounced around too much, lulled into a sense of time and sequence, and then slapped in the face as it all unravels in more of a laugh on us then a, "bet you didn't see that coming." I felt cheated and unfortunately that is the lasting effect I have taken from the movie. Had it been more straightforward I might have enjoyed myself more, but as is, one can still take some positives from the severely flawed whole.
I happened upon a rare copy of this early Almodovar film with high expectations - Almodovar is a prolific contemporary director, I enjoyed his 1988 film "Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown", and I had read one or two very positive reviews of the film. Well, I must have missed completely the humor that the reviewers saw in this film. I just found it incoherent, tasteless, and boring. Yes, there are plenty of innuendos, people in drag, and crude sexual situations, and yes, these elements may have shocked audiences in 1982 (which was almost certainly Almodovar's intention), but much of the shock value has probably eroded over the years, leaving a limp storyline. Beyond that, the whole movie seemed very chaotic, none of the characters were particularly sympathetic, and for a "comedy" - even a dark one - I just didn't find this film funny. I suppose it is possible there is a VERY select audience for a film like this, but I'm just not part of that audience, and not sure that I want to be.
Czech movie goers may have enjoyed and rated this film highly because it was Czech, but I found it to be trite, tedious, moronic, boring, and insipid. Again, I suspect "ramping" in order to increase sales of this dog of a film. Amazon describes this film as being about a couple of fellows that refuse to grow up, but I will go one further--I think it is about two fellows that have entered a state of dementia and perform actions that make no sense to anyone. I have been told that one of the actors in the film committed suicide after the film, and I would believe it. When he saw his performance he probably realized what a gosh awful job he had done and realized that the only way to avoid terminal embarrassment was to make the "big exit", which I am sure was much more dramatic and a much better performance that he had done in "Autumn Spring." Don't waste your time or money on this pathetic performance. It's nothing but a dog in a manger.
I wanted to like this movie, but there is very little to like about it. It starts out with Jean Stapleton and a Randy Newman song in Iowa (Northwest Iowa, I guess), reminiscent of Norman Lear's Cold Turkey, which was one of the best movies ever made, according to people on IMDb. So far, so good. And the idea of the archangel Michael living at Pansy Milbank's motel on earth? Well, give it a chance, it's supposed to be a comedy. Okay, so far, so good. But Michael does things that an angel not fallen would never do, and that completely blows any credibility the movie might have had. The other characters in the movie don't have much appeal, either. Michael brings a dog back to life, and we're supposed to be in awe of that. The people make up corny country songs. In the end, Stapleton dances with Travolta. Big deal. If she was smart, she wouldn't even be in this movie. When it was over, I thought, "Gee, what a stupid, tasteless, boring, corny, sacrilegious movie!" It's not fit to be seen by children or anyone else.
Do you ever wonder what is the worst movie ever made? Stop wondering. I'm telling you, Michael is it!<br /><br />It is not "heartwarming," "entertaining," or "Travolta at his best." It just sucks. If I had kids, I would let them watch Deep Throat before Michael!<br /><br />A sold-out John Travolta, a washed-up and balding William Hurt, and an about to die any time now Jean Stapleton highlight this turd of a film.<br /><br />But wait...you'll get to hear Andie McDowell sing! Yeah. Hollywood really s**t all over us with this one!
This movie makes you wish imdb would let you vote a zero. One of the two movies I've ever walked out of. It's very hard to think of a worse movie with such big name actors. Well...Armageddon almost takes it, but not quite.
This was more of a love story than one about an angel who comes down here to earth, although both angles of that story are given a good share of the movie.<br /><br />If I took this movie to heart, as someone who knows and believes the Bible, I would have canned it pretty quick, but I don't think the general atmosphere was either mean-spirited or blasphemous. It was just ludicrous or just plain stupid.<br /><br />I mean, John Travolta as a grubby angel? Smoking? Scratching his groin? Quoting the Beatles? A "warring angel" who knows nothing about Heaven? An angel who flirts with all the women? Yes, it's all absurd and certainly Biblically- incorrect. <br /><br />I could tolerate all that but I don't know how many people, whatever beliefs they hold, who could stand a boring film which this turned out to be during the second half of it. It begins to drag when the romance begins between William Hurt and Andie MacDowell. Some of the dialog during that romance is so stupid it's insulting to any discriminating viewer.<br /><br />This is another Nora Ephron-directed film. Man, I can't believe how many incredibly stupid movies this woman has either written or directed. At least she's consistent.
My website (theflickguy.org) lists "Michael" as one of the worst films of the modern era. The following is an excerpt: <br /><br />"Everyone slums some time in their lives, this was Travolta's turn. I still don't know what the point of this terrible film was. Nora Efron has proved to be a competent writer and director, so what the hell happened here? The Archangel Michael takes a new spin here and is portrayed as a ham-fisted, chain-smoking sugar addicted fornicating slob whose biggest contribution to humanity (after sending Lucifer to hell) was that he invented "standing in line". Yes, how funny and charming. I don't find this offensive, I find it stupid. In its defense, I can say that the ending was ever bit unsatisfying as the rest of this painful attempt at story telling."
For the most part, "Michael" is a disaster – ten minutes of charm and ninety's worth of missteps.<br /><br />Travolta and MacDowell do their best, frequently rising above Nora Ephron's numbingly banal script. But the film moves like a snail. And even within its fantasy context, the characters behave implausibly on a regular basis. (Reporters who routinely let the story of a lifetime – an apparent angel living on Earth – out of their sight?) <br /><br />Someone forgot to tell romantic comedy maestro Ephron that William Hurt, brilliant in so many other films, is no Tom Hanks. The movie's "climax" redefines the word contrived. Ephron may be shooting for Heaven here, but unfortunately "Michael" is a long, long ride through cinema heck.
An insult to both poker and cinema, this movie manages to make the most dynamic, brilliant, and fascinating figure in poker history into an utter bore. Still a fun film to make jokes about, from the lame gangster movie clichés of the first half to the incomprehensible nonsense of that second hour. Hilariously, Stu Ungar wins all three of his World Series titles without playing a single hand on screen. His infamous dealer abuse? 1 scene. His coke habit? 1 scene. His incredible memory? 0 scenes. They couldn't even get any real poker players. What did they cover? A lot of high angle shots from inside a house in the suburbs. Oh, and a montage of Stu waking up every day and shopping for meat which doesn't come anywhere close to making sense. Why do I care so much about this little Sopranos summer camp trying to cash in on the poker craze? Because I think there's still a great film to be made about Stu Ungar waiting for someone willing to do it right.
Well, the movie was no terrible, but whomever created the screen play did not do a good job of even creating the essence of unger. This movie was slightly below average and did not tell the story correctly on one of the most interesting persons ever born. I suggest reading the book "one of a Kind" the real unger story. They left out huge parts of his life. They also at times did not understand the real caractor that he was. The actual facts of his life were at times out of order. And in the end they really did not portray the actual personality that he did have. So please don't watch the movie; read the book. By the way I'm not just some prick who feels you have to stay 100% to the real story, but they did not even come close!!!
Wow, i just witnessed one of the greatest poker tragedies and I'm not talking about the premature death of the great stu ungar. This film I'm sorry to say was terrible. Absolutely terrible. A true tragedy in filmaking history. Well maybe I'm being a little harsh but unless you have some interest in the life of stu ungar then don't even consider coming near this one. And those that do have an interest in his life will find that most parts were trivialised and made out to be great novelty scenes. I watched it because of Stu UNgar but nearly wanted to end myself like he did while watching this movie 4 stars for effort but unpleasantly painful
Having just finished reading the book "One of a Kind" a week ago, I was thinking "This would make a great movie, especially now, when people know a little about poker and poker players". I was totally shocked to find it while browsing at the video store last night. I had no idea someone had actually turned this into a film. I grabbed it immediately and watched with much anticipation. What a major letdown!<br /><br />All of the intriguing things about Stu Ungar were skimmed over quickly, and instead I was left with a biopic that could have been about anybody. Ungar may have been a burnt-out jerk, but he was also a brilliant thinker that could read people instinctively. That is what made him so fascinating. Why not focus on that?<br /><br />And talk about watering down the real truth. This guy was excessive about absolutely everything: drugs, women, gambling, starvation, sleep-deprivation. He gambled on sporting events from dusk to dawn, he would go missing for days while hanging out in crack dens, his body was perpetually emaciated, and yet, if he ever needed money, he could always beat just about anyone at will playing cards. Now that's a story!<br /><br />Too much time spent on his childhood and personal relationships (although his ties with "Vincent" and his daughter were hardly touched on) and hardly anything about his drugs use (which was exorbitant), his insane gambling and his incredible card-playing abilities.<br /><br />Probably too late now, but I hope someone remakes this film properly. I had no problem with Imperioli. He is excellent. The script just left him with nothing interesting to say.
This movie is a shameful result of what happens when:<br /><br />A) It is written, directed and produced by an idiot. and/or B) It was rushed in production to satiate the poker/Stu Ungar craze. <br /><br />The story from beginning is uneven. Vidmer spends too much time on Ungar's childhood and not enough on some of the legendary tales -- such as counting cards, his blackjack escapades, the roll of money as id. He also leaves out mentions of other poker greats such as chip reese, brunson etc. The movie is a complete mess from beginning to end. <br /><br />If you want a more complete and accurate account, read the book One of a Kind. If you thought the movie was good, read the book and change your mind.
This movie attempted to make Stu Ungar's life interesting by being creative. What they forgot is that his life was plenty entertaining enough on it's own without having to make things up.<br /><br />A short list of the inaccuracies: <br /><br />1) Stuey was not sent straight to Las Vegas for a Gin Tournament to pay off old debts, he spent a good deal of time in Florida first, and only went to Las Vegas when he ran out of Gin games on the east coast.<br /><br />2) Stuey never associated (or played Gin) with a casino executive (like the one played by Pat Morita in the movie.) <br /><br />3) There was no magical turnaround in the buildup to the 1997 WSOP. In fact Stuey barely made it into the tournament as it was. He snorted Cocaine the week before even.<br /><br />Either tell the story right, or don't tell it at all. 4 out of 10 stars for Michael Imperolli's credible performance (the only redeeming quality of this movie.)
Stu Ungar is considered by many to be the greatest poker / gin player of all time - an extraordinary self-destructive force of nature - tiny in stature, but a huge heart for the game.<br /><br />What we have here is a kind of Hallmark film about the dangers of gambling. Sure, he wins, he loses, he blows it all on sex, drugs, and more gambling we get it, but where is the real play - where is what made him the greatest card player of all time.<br /><br />Much too flat, and frankly boring in places, this gets a four because we get to learn something about Stu the man, but Stu the card player, nada.<br /><br />Nicely shot and presented up to a point this is the perfect example of how not to make a film about cards: honestly, ESPN's coverage of the World Series is more watchable than this.<br /><br />A waste of a great chance.
How does this movie suck? As a fan of Michael Imperioli's work on The Sopranos I picked this up at Blockbuster based on his name and a story that sounded like it had promise. It still does, but this movie doesn't fulfill it.<br /><br />Every turn of the story is entirely predictable; I kept looking for the Lifetime bug on the bottom right corner of the screen. It's all there: the noble woman coming out of hard times, the guy failing to live up to his potential despite her best efforts, the kid who gets stuck in the middle, etc., etc., etc. The mysterious stranger's identity is what really made me want to throw stuff at the TV -- I would have been more satisfied with little Stuey waking up and realizing it was all a dream.<br /><br />The filmmakers may as well have had a "The moral of the story is..." bit before the credits, since as another reviewer pointed out this thing really does roll like an afterschool special. Don't gamble, don't drink, don't do drugs, stay with your wife, spend time with your kids...come on, how about a little nuance? How about some interesting bad guys? Writer/director A.W. Vidmer should be singled out for special notice: not only is the dialogue leaden, the pacing (within dialogue and at either end of many scenes) makes this movie at least 45 minutes longer than it needs to be (and believe me, it feels like longer). The talents of Imperioli, Renee Faia and some of the supporting cast (Steve Schirripa, natch) are the only things that keep this from a "1" rating. All of their good work is nearly offset, though, by the atrocious job of portraying the boy Stuey. Not sure if it was a casting mistake (hey -- it's a mob movie, so let's cast someone from Blue's Clues who can't do anything but over-overact with a big fake grin...next let's cast the sullen, brooding kid in the Disney flick) or just awful directing but those scenes are really painful to watch.<br /><br />I'd be interested in another filmmaker's take on this character and his story; it's a shame Imperioli has already been used up by this flick. Awful, awful, awful.
This is possibly the worst film I have ever seen. What a weak waste of Michael Imperioli's obvious talent. Disgusting film from start to finish. All I can say is, this director is no 'auteur'. You never once get inside the game, the character's head, the amazing talent with numbers the real Stuey had. The coke scene is bad enough to throw your shoe at the set, it might have been a great scene had it been shot for movies and not the stage, with the camera half way across the house hovering over a mirror with drugs on it while the drama is going on far in the background. The scene where he wins the big championship is just laugh out loud ridiculous. This should be screened in Film-making 101 - What Not To Do In Making Pictures.
20 people rated this a 10! That ballot box was stuffed better than a Christmas turkey! Speaking of turkey's, here's a traditional story hoping to piggy-back on the current poker craze - without success. Told entirely in linear flashback, and when I say "told" I mean TALKED TO DEATH, this film never let's a picture suffice when words can be used to exposit.<br /><br />Stu Unger's childhood fascination with cards and his associations with hoodlums might sound like interesting movie material, but the director manages to suck the life out of them. At no point did I feel the least bit of sympathy for Unger, a genius at cards who threw it all away on other forms of gambling at which he was not so proficient. Of course, this leads, as we wade through THREE musical montages, to the inevitable downward spiral of drugs, loss of family, and finally his redemption (sort of). Big yawn!
I rented this movie hoping that it would provide some good entertainment and some cool poker knowledge or stories. What I got was a documentary type look at an average guys life who happened to be really good at cards. Do I want to see the romance with his wife? NO Do I want to see about everything that went on in this guy's life except poker? NO. Well thats what you get with this film. The acting is good for such a low budget piece of crap. The film never tries to break the mold or do anything original. It simply sleep walks its way through the script. The ending is disappointing and never really looks deep into Ungar's mind. Instead it focuses on what was already obvious. He was a drugged out card player with an average life not unlike any other average joe in vegas. The movie focuses on the aspects of his life that were UN extraordinary rather than the Extraordinary. The poker scenes in the entire film add up to about 4 minutes of footage. Ungar's achievements of winning the WSOP 3 times seem life after thoughts. A 10 year old could do a better job directing this movie.. or maybe it was the script being a piece of crap from the beginning that doomed this joke of a movie.<br /><br />If you want to see a film about gambling watch Rounders. It at least has style.
This is probably the worst movie I've seen in a long time. Independent or not, solid writing is a must. Ditto for directing and acting. I know these actors can act (I've seen them in Sporanos and more...) but this movie is very bad, very bad. Maybe it's the script, maybe it's the director. Probably a little of both.....Probably a LOT of both! Technically OK, Just bad, bad, bad... I have a theory that the backers for this movie also own the Poker magazines, because I saw a very favorable review in one of the magazines. " Hey' we made it, so it's gotta be good, right?" Not so fast Bucky. I know it takes a lot of hard work and money to even get a movie made, much less sold and distributed, and for that I commend these folks. But the final product, leave a bad taste in my mouth.<br /><br />P.S. I won a free rental and chose this movie from Blockbuster. Tomorrow I'm going to get my money back.
What could've been a great film about the late poker pro (pre-poker craze) Stu "The Kid" Unger turned into a disappointment.<br /><br />You can tell the filmmakers were working on a short-string budget. Everything look filmed on the cheap. Timelines seemed a bit off to me.<br /><br />Casting Michael Imperoli from the Sopranos was also a bad casting choice. He looked too old to play the baby-faced Stu, he looked way too healthy for a coke addict (if you look at footage from the 1997 WSOP main event, the real Stu was so skinny and he practically had no nose from too much cocaine so he wore those sunglasses to hide them), and I kept expecting Adriana to pop up and yell "Chris-tu-phur!!!" <br /><br />Also they skipped over the fact that he had a son from Angie's previous relationship that committed suicide in the late '80s.<br /><br />Every time I saw Vincent Van Patten appear, I kept thinking he was going to announce "Show tunes going off in Stu's head." like he does on the WPT.<br /><br />If you're looking for real Stuey footage, check ESPN Classic because they rerun the 1997 WSOP Main Event every so often. Or try YouTube. Avoid this move like a bad beat.
What in the world! This piece of gambling cinema would have been suitable for the Lifetime Network. Michael Imperoli is a good actor but I think his portrayal as "Stu" fell short. The montages were unbearable and too many. The supporting cast, where are you? Whoever did the casting should be partially at fault. The cinematography was useless. A gambling story with an after school feel to it. Stories of this sort should be left for the Oliver Stone's of the world. It would still suck ass but at least it would be fun to watch. It was an attempt that lost it's wheels before the race ever begun. Mario Andretti in the 1982 Indy 500 came to mind.
First of all..I've seen better acting and more realistic makeup in porno flicks. How bad was "Chris Moltisante" as Stewie Ungar? On The Sopranos, Chris is not taken too seriously and can be considered comic relief. And then throw in "Bobby Baccala" as one of his Vegas cronies. It's just too much to take in a dramatic movie. Neither actor can handle a serious role and is better suited as a second banana for Tony,Paulie, or Uncle Junior. And I want to know who did the makeup for this disaster? I want that person to be MY make-up person over the next 25 years so I'll never age a day either. So that's all I'll write on this movie since it's not worth wasting too much more of my time. <br /><br />Yes I DO know that Michael Imperioli and Steve Schirippa are their REAL names.
Maybe I'm alone here, but this is a crap show. I'm sorry but I was lured in when I found out about Lil' Bill O'Reilly (which I had no idea came from this show until months later, and has honestly since lost its appeal) but I gave the show a fair shot. Spike tries to hard to make himself into something he's not, which is to say, he tries to be human. Fox didn't even bother to hide the strings when they took him out of the box he came in. His sketches try to hard, he himself isn't funny, and the writers are struggling to write material for a no-talent host. There is too much good TV out there to waste your time with this show, and Fox.....Fox we had some good times, but you need to get your f$%*ing act together and come up with something original instead of trying to be just another "Me-too" network.
This show is like watching someone who is in training to someday host a show. There are some good comedy ideas and tons of mediocre ones. It doesn't look like the writers know the difference between what's funny and what's just weird or gross.<br /><br />It has its moments. When Spike hosed down a neighbor who had been letting her dog soil his lawn repeatedly, it hit it's peak. But the hilarious moments are too few, and there's too many experimental comedy bits that miss the mark.<br /><br />The show's better than, say, watching a test pattern or the QVC network, but it needs some better writers.<br /><br />Reading the glowingly positive IMDb comments on this show, I am convinced that most of them were written by show staffers and by relatives and personal friends of Spike.<br /><br />It just isn't very good most of the time.
Did the writers pay people to come up here and write positive reviews? I mean, really, it's a bit hackneyed, and Spike isn't that funny. He seems more like the serious guy trying too hard to be funny. There are so many mediocre gigs in this show; like once, the opening sketch was "Talk show, apply directly to the forehead," over and over. And another that featured Spike and another dude getting high, and it wasn't even funny. They didn't even do anything but sit around and laugh, over and over. Ha Ha! And another that featured Spike talking to a Korean guy who ate duck and told him that he had a pet duck. Ha ha! I mean, really, Spike just gets funny guests on his show, that's why people like this show
I viewed the first two nights before coming to IMDb looking for some actor info. I saw the 9+ rating which surprised me since I was not that impressed by what I'd seen. (As reference, I happen to believe Lonesome Dove was the best TV western ever. I grew up next to the MGM back lots in Culver City in the 50s and have a certain sense of reverence about the Western genre.) <br /><br />So I saw the glowing first review and decided to read "more". There I found several reviews with 1 or 2 stars that summed up my feelings well about the lack of character development, poor editing, feeling that it was shot on the Universal back lot (MGM's is long gone), and overall impression that it was not going to come close to changing my feelings about LD. My impression is that the overwhelming vote of those who chose to write was "less than a 4.0".<br /><br />This got me to wondering about the process that yields a 9+ rating. If the people giving the 10s and 9s do not take the time to justify their vote, is the ballot box being stuffed by people with a monetary motivation? I have long used IMDb as one tool to screen movies and thought it the best available. Now I am not so sure.
I'm not sure this review contains spoilers, but I'm playing it safe by indicating there might be. Regardless, it's unlikely anyone will watch this film who isn't familiar with the book.<br /><br />There's an old wisecrack about laboring mightily and bringing forth a mouse. "Comanche Moon" is such a mouse.<br /><br />The novel focuses more on the Indians than the Americans. In adapting it for TV, McMurtry and Osanna rightly reasoned that the audience would be more interested in the whites than the reds. Unfortunately, there's little in the novel that we don't already know about Gus, Woodrow, and their friends. So the movie gives us mostly a portentous prehash of what will occur in "Lonesome Dove". The Indians -- who have their own story to tell -- are largely relegated to the background -- so much so that someone who hasn't read the novel will rightly wonder why it's titled "Comanche Moon".<br /><br />The novel has no overall story line, or much of a "point". This could have been fixed in the movie, by more strongly drawing the contrast between the Indians losing their lands and way of life to the encroaching Americans, who bring "civilzation". This opportunity was missed.<br /><br />Unlike "Lonesome Dove", "Comanche Moon" has few extended scenes that develop character or relationships -- at least among the Americans. The extended scenes with the Indians have been largely removed or shortened. And for a (net) four-hour film, it is remarkably episodic and choppy. One gets the feeling the script was originally longer, and cut to reduce the production costs.<br /><br />The screenplay comprises mostly clichéd dialog, aphorisms, and platitudes. Coming from the author of "The Last Picture Show", it's a startlingly bad script. McMurtry and Osanna had the opportunity to fix problems with the story and characterizations, but did not.<br /><br />Some of the best dialog from the novel is missing or altered, for no obvious reason. For example, Clara (Cassie) shows her intense hatred of Woodrow (Jack) by condemning Gus (Ennis) for always running off to be with his "pard". That tart little revelation of Clara's sexual jealously is gone. Then there's the scene where the ur-dense Woodrow warns Maggie not to let Jake Spoon "compromise" her. The exchange in the novel is shorter and harsher; the film tones it down, and doesn't portray Woodrow as quite the socially stupid, emotionally frozen stone he is. (When I read that scene in the novel, I wanted to punch Woodrow in the stomach -- or worse.) There are other changes, some of them understandable. Inish Scull's eyelids are not cut off; to do so would like have required expensive CGI. But Buffalo Hump has no hump! (Perhaps it was felt unreasonable to ask Wes Studi to schlep around such a huge prosthesis.) And Buffalo Hump's character is "kindler and gentler". He is nowhere nearly as grotesquely violent as he was in the novels.<br /><br />The only good thing about this near-turkey is Steve Zahn's remarkable performance -- not so much as Gus McCrae, but as Robert Duvall playing Gus McCrae. It is uncanny. He perfectly duplicates Duvall's mannerisms and manner of speech, without ever appearing "deliberate" or self-conscious. As was Duvall, he is wholly "within" the character. And he actually shows us Gus becoming "more Gus" in the third part.<br /><br />The best thing about "Comanche Moon" is that it won't spoil our affection for "Lonesome Dove", not just a great Western, but a great American film.<br /><br />PS: For those who think Rachel Griffiths was over the top -- that's the way she was in the book.
I must have missed a part of this movie... I found myself asking who is this? And, when did that happen? It seemed to jump around but I kept watching for fear I was missing something and it would all be explained to me. I loved Lonesome Dove but this movie made no sense to me at all. I did love all the actors but what happened to the rest of the movie? It made me go "what"? at the beginning of each part..As far as the scenery - I thought it was fine..It made me feel though like I was leafing through a book and leaving pages out.. The ending had me a little confused too although I imagine the boy was waiting for his father and was meant to leave you wondering if his father would finally come home to his son and be a father since his mother was now gone..I would like to read the book just to see what I missed in the movie..I don't expect this one to win any awards.
Agustus and Call really did Nothing? Why are they Hero's they did nothing other then get to places after the bad guys where dead. What was the point of this show? I was very very Disappointed. I expected more action, more story, and to see the birth of Heros and Great Deeds. Instead I saw very little, it seemed like Agustus and Call where just side story's for the great Indian Chief. <br /><br />I'm not even sure that the history is even very close. They did very little to show why the Texans and Comanche fought against each other.<br /><br />The only good part about this movie was Zhan who played Gus very very well and is a great actor. A lot of good story that could have been gone to waste. It was sad and I wish that I had not watched it.
I will give it a second chance but was very disappointed in the first one. It wouldn't hold a candle to the other series. It has a lot of meaningless dialog that doesn't add to the storyline at all. I agree with the others that it doesn't seem to develop a story that is interesting. It is slow and plodding and I only know what the Comanches are planning to do. Maybe it will all tie together in the second installment but I am going to have to force myself to watch it and find out. I am of apache heritage from the Texas/New Mexico area but I don't recognize much of what is happening. Maybe I am just ignorant of the facts but this isn't doing much to educate me.
the photography is good, the costumes are good, but the editing is bad. The various scenes are cut, or stopped at the wrong times, and the conversations are s-l-o-w and tedious. This slowness continues the entire show. It is a very tedious show to watch. . . . I believe that more scenes SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDED, but that would make it a longer show. It is very slow-moving. The writers should have made it JUST a 1-night show, and not prolong our agony night after night. There is nothing else on, otherwise I'd change the channel (the first night). I feel bad for the Indians of the time, and am angry at the white-men for what they did to the Indians, but thats our history.
I just watched Lonesome Dove, Return To Lonesome Dove, Streets Of Laredo and Dead Man's Walk. All excellent. This sorry hunk of junk is cheaply done and poorly acted.<br /><br />In the previous series, Captain Call and Gus McCrae come off as tough respectable cowboys. Despite the fact that Caption Call is played by a different actor every time each one quickly won me over. In Dead Man's Walk the boys are believable as the younger versions of the experienced Texas rangers. In Comanche Moon they are just a couple of chubby rednecks. I had to stop watching.<br /><br />I suspect many of the glowing reviews for this show were written by the people who made this stinking pile. It's a sorry end to an otherwise great franchise.
Please do not waste six hours of your life watching this as I did. The fact that I did is not a very good reflection on me. The only redeeming acting job in this clunker was by Wes Studi. How a 'prequel' with similar roots can not even be in the same universe as Lonesome Dove is beyond me!! It was a disjointed, rambling, incoherent story. Plot lines were not developed, action scenes were almost laughable and the big ending (disappointment) was a fitting ending to this mini-series. Val Kilmer who I have thought as a reputable actor played one of the strangest roles that I have ever seen him in. His final scene in the show had to have been a filler by the director. I have been reading these reviews for years and this show prompted me to sign up!!!
Okay, so I forgot to watch and only caught the last episode, thinking it was the first or second. Honestly, I thought CM would have at least one more installment to resolve plot points. The Rangers are left stranded on the plains ("We'll have to eat the horses"), for one thing. Little Newt is bereft, for another. What a downer ending! But my biggest complaint, esp. if this was the finale, is that the episode had no suspense, no big climax, no dramatic confrontations. Even the last fight between Blue Duck and Buffalo Hump was badly staged. The whole episode had terrible pacing, which is what drives a Western. Steve Zahn was watchable, Karl Urban (a ringer for Johnny Knoxville) played Call like a man with a terminal case of lockjaw. All glowering looks and jingling spurs and jutting chin. And what's with the Rangers? They talked big, about cleaning up Texas, then milled around aimlessly in the middle of town, getting drunk. And how nice of Hal Holbrook to loan Val Kilmer his Mark Twain wig and stache! The set of Austin was like the fake Rock Ridge from Blazing Saddles, all facade. I admit I was drawn into the plot, but that's mainly cause there were many things I didn't quite get, thanks to coming in late in story. If I'd watched from the beginning, I might not have gotten to episode three. Now I have to go watch Silverado to cleanse my palette.
Having grown up on westerns and considering the present dearth of westerns on TV and at the theater, I was really looking forward to Commanche moon.<br /><br />After watching two nights, and not another, it appears to be have been shot on a tight budget. Robert Duvall and Tommy Lee Jones level stars are conspicuously absent. There is Val Kilmer, but what the heck is going on with him? Four or five buildings on either side of the street plus the Scull mansion make up the entire town of Austin. The capitol is never seen, only the inside of the governor's office.<br /><br />The dialog is often times hokey, meaningless rambling. The plot line disjointed. Altogether, completely forgettable.
This is a poor caricature of "Lonesome Dove" - and Larry McMurtry.<br /><br />I love your books, with "Lonesome Dove" among the top three. I have admired the way you view yourself, through your characters, with such unflinching honesty, balanced by never taking it all too seriously. I am, therefore, spoiled.<br /><br />Why have you come to this?<br /><br />"Comanche Moon" is not up to your standards. I see that you are credited with the screen-writing, but this is so unlike you, I prefer to think it is written by someone else.<br /><br />The dialogue makes me claustrophobic, wishing someone would break out with a naturally stated sentence. The part about 'genius' was agonizing. McCrae was unrecognizable - chiefly because of the inane words coming out of his mouth.<br /><br />Well, I miss Call, too.<br /><br />The most important missing factors are Gus and Call and the men they are: their matter-of-fact courage; the underlying vein comprised of ethics and honesty; their lack of self delusion. Hard men leading hard lives with a certain undeniable grace.<br /><br />Some blame has to attach to the labored direction here and throughout. All of the cast needed dialect AND dialogue coaching.<br /><br />While I try to imagine Robert Duvall as McCrae, speaking this same dialogue, it comes off better - but not much. It tries to sound cowboy-of-few-words shy, sly-grin witty, but doesn't half succeed...<br /><br />How can it be so different from "Lonesome Dove"? Can the writer have forgotten his characters? You have fooled some of the people, Mr. McMurtry - but not this one.
I, like many folks, believe the 1989 epic Lonesome Dove was one of the best westerns ever produced, maybe THE best. And, realizing that most sequels (in this case a prequel) are certain to disappoint, my expectations were low. Comanche Moon met that expectation with its marginal directing and acting, poor casting and frankly, a lousy script. <br /><br />Lonesome Dove created western heroes of Captains McCrae and Call due to incredibly strong performances by Robert Duvall and Tommy Lee Jones. Prior to living in Lonesome Dove, we believed they bravely fought to rid Texas of bandits and savage Indians during their rangering years. <br /><br />If I had only seen Comanche Moon, I would think these two boneheads were a couple of incompetent, cowardly idiots. In Lonesome Dove, Call and McCrae supposedly chased Blue Duck all over Texas and never managed to capture or kill him. In Comanche Moon, a shot to Call's boot heel convinced him to settle down and raise cattle. There wasn't a decent fistfight or gun fight in the entire miniseries. The best punch was McCrea sucker punching Inez Scull, a funny scene but out of character for McCrae.<br /><br />Where was McCrae's wit and charm? Clara's love for McCrae, a drunken, unshaven slob and philanderer was completely implausible. And Maggie's love for Call, a dispassionate and sullen loner, defies logic. <br /><br />The cinematography was excellent, superior to the original. Credit goes not only to HD technology, but the cinematographer. The Comanche Moon miniseries was better than anything else on TV for three nights, but sadly that's not saying much.
I am seldom motivated to write a review unless inspired by the quality of the movie. In the case of Comanche Moon I was so uninspired I felt the need to warn others how bad this TV mini series is. Here are a few thoughts.<br /><br />The Indians: They came across like they were in a Saturday Night Live Skit, making fun of how Indians talk. When McMurtry writes dialogue in his novels it reads so interesting; I am not sure how they ended up with what they got.<br /><br />Gus McCrae: Looks like Festus from the old Gunsmoke Series. Acting is OK and the mannerisms from Robert Duvall's McCrae are right on, but the look is pure comedy cowboy.<br /><br />Clara: Maybe you could use a little dirt or sweat on her next time. Ever been in Austin in the summer before Air conditioning? I promise you women did not look like that. Do you think they never saw any episodes of Dearwood?<br /><br />Gov. Elisha Pease: Again whenever they are in the Governor's office it feels like a Saturday Night Live Skit, and the skit is bombing.<br /><br />Woodrow Call: Call is the most reasonable character, of course He talks so little how can you screw up that? But hey, what about that hat?<br /><br />Blue Duck: See above and include the fact that he isn't even a tiny bit scary. They should have gotten Javier Bardem to play the part.<br /><br />The Rangers: Right out of "O Brother, Where Art Thou" I expected George Cloony to come riding up and them to break into a song.<br /><br />Perhaps I am premature because the miniseries isn't completed but I doubt I will watch any more of it any way.<br /><br />I would not expect anyone to be able to duplicate the enthralling feel of Lonesome Dove, but I watch this and it seems like they have no feel for the old west at all.
Was really looking forward to seeing a continuation of Lonesome Dove but this was total garbage. Cinematography was terrible. Shot way too tight. Was almost viewing the Grand Canyon through a stationary telescope. Editing was cut, cut, cut. Not even smooth. More like a bad student editor. Don't know if McMurtry did the screen play but the dialog was terrible. Really like Val Kilmer's portrayal of Doc Holiday in Wyatt Earp but what in heck was he doing with this character in Comanche Moon??? I have no idea. Even looked like it was shot on a sound stage using the old Bonanza sets. How can the director of the original Lonesome Dove gone so wrong with this? Where was his head.............. Can't say much for the acting either. It's a shame to have messed up such a beautiful western that could have been but more like they rushed this one just to get it in the can. Have read other reviews and see that others felt the same way. Not even curious to watch the next few nights cause it would be just a waste of time like the first night was.<br /><br />(2nd post)..................OK, since nothing else was on TV I must be honest and admit that I watched the last 2 nights of Comanche Moon. And I will be honest to tell you that I didn't make it to the end of either of the last 2 episodes because I fell asleep! I can only admit that I was watching the two main characters very closely and I could pick out some mannerisms that Steve Zahn did while portraying the character that Duval did such an excellent job with. So I must give Zahn credit for that. As for Karl Urban's portrayal....simple dead meat. Can only say again that I was very disappointed only because I cared so much for the original LD and like others .......have defended my feelings for a truly great western.
Wow...as a big fan of Larry McMurtry western tales and the Lonesome Dove series in particular, I was s-o-o-o looking forward to Comanche Moon. What a tremendous letdown. Maybe my expectations were set too high because of the all around excellence of Lonesome Dove...the story, the characters, the cinematography, the music...it all worked.<br /><br />Comanche Moon by comparison comes across like a bad Saturday Night Live skit. The characters are completely colorless, the dialogue is babble and the plot meanders mindlessly all over the place. It seems like the actors are all reading from TelePrompTers. I couldn't relate to any of the characters, good guys, bad guys, not even the incidental characters. David Midthunder's performance stands out in particular. It looks like it was plucked out of an eighth grade middle school performance. I'm sorry, I'd like to find something positive to say about Comanche Moon, but I just can't do it. There's nothing there.
Lonesome Dove is my favorite western second only to The Searchers with John Wayne. I watch Lonesome Dove about every 6 months and never get tired of it. I have read all the LD books, although I cannot remember much of Comanche Moon. I too looked forward to this mini-series and decided to tape it on our DVR so we could fast forward through commercials. Unfortunately, I messed up and didn't record the first part, but decided to watch the other parts and try to pick up.<br /><br />There is nobody that can ever compete with Robert Duvall or Tommy Lee Jones, and I was expecting to be disappointed and I was.<br /><br />Although there were so many things that didn't ring true, the most apparent to me was when Nellie died the day before and Gus was out on the range, it switched over to Clara writing him a letter from Nebraska telling him how sorry she was to hear of her death. How in the world could she have known the next day way out in Nebraska? Additionally, it was supposed to be 7 years later after her leaving and her children looked to be about 6-7 years old, maybe a little younger, yet more time went on before they actually moved to Lonesome Dove, and in Lonesome Dove they had been there about 10 years or longer before leaving to Montana. When they stopped at Clara's in Nebraska, which probably took another 6 months on the trail, the girls looked to be about 10-13, since they were playing in the yard like little children. The math just does not add up.<br /><br />I agree that the man who played Gus had a lot of his mannerisms and looked a little like Gus may have looked as a young man.<br /><br />I am also a little confused about one thing. The captive white girl that they brought back - was she the one they captured when they raided Austin? They said she had been captured 25 years ago, but if she was the one captured in Austin, it was only 7 years later when this took place in the movie. Was she captured earlier? I remember seeing a captive girl after they raided the town and don't know if this is the same one. If someone can explain since I missed Part 1. If it had been 25 years, she would probably be over 40 years old when they found her since she looked to be grown lying on the ground. Also, the way they were ravaging her when they captured her, it is hard to believe she would have lived to go on to be married and having Indian children.<br /><br />I have to admit though, nothing is worse than John Voight playing Call in the sequel to Lonesome Dove or the unbelievable marriage of Lorena to Pea Eye in the McMurty sequel to Lonesome Dove, which was never explained either. Also, the way he killed Newt off was I hear from spite for them doing the sequel with John Voight without his approval.<br /><br />If anyone can clear up these discrepancies, I would appreciate.
I watched all three segments and am so disappointed in the story line. Zahn spends so much time mimicking Duvall he does nothing else in the show. And Tommy Lee Jones would never be so weak as a young man, unlikeable yes but weak never. We never see how or why they go to back to Lonesome Dove...which is a dirt hole in the original...why would they ever leave Austin where they are hero's...for doing nothing during the whole movie...I was rooting for Blue Duck by the end of the movie and he was totally miscast. There is no warning about how many segments there are...it just ends. This mini-series could have been "somebody"...tragic. It looked like it was directed by the Parrot and the Jag
It would be a shame if Tommy Lee Jones and Robert Duval ever see this movie as they will probably be associated with it in years to come. "Oh yeah", the public will say, "'Comanche Moon', that's the mini series about the Texas Rangers and the Comanche Indians that starred Tommy Lee Jones and Robert Duval. It was a real stinker and probably the worst movie they were ever in. I think it was a comedy but a not very funny comedy. I really don't understand why they agreed to be in it". That would be such an injustice as the original "Lonesome Dove" was a true western classic and this turkey is a real bomb and Jones and Duval will be remembered for it.
Parrots? PARROTS? I have been around this old earth longer than most and have seen nearly all the westerns that have have produced. Old West history is my passion. Comanche Moon is one of the most poorly produced, directed and acted stories I have ever seen. There was very little historical accuracy but then, it is obvious you were operating on a shoestring budget which<br /><br />played a distinct roll in this insult to intelligence. I am happy that I TIVO'd this show. It was bad enough having to sit and watch the movie plus put up with the inane commercials. Once again, there was not one actor that came anywhere near convincing. I kept hoping it would improve as the three days progressed. WRONG! I'm ashamed to say I wasted 4 1/2 hours of what precious little time I have left.
The Jaws rip off is the trashiest of the all the Italian 'genres', and director Joe D'Amato is second only to the great Jess Franco in the trash film production stakes. Put the two together and what do you get? A gigantic piece of trash, of course. Unfortunately it's not trash in the good sense of the word either, as Deep Blood delivers more in boredom than it does in hilarity. To the film's credit, it does actually attempt something bordering on a plot; but to take said credit away from the film - the plot is rubbish. It has something to do with a group of friends taking of an oath (of friendship) and then some Indian curse that manifests itself into a shark. Or at least I think that's what was going on. Anyway, the majority of the film is padded out with boring dialogue and 'drama', and the shark itself - which lets not forget, is the only thing we really want to see - finds itself in merely a cameo role. Or not even that since most the shark is actually stock footage! Despite being a trash genre, there are actually a lot of fun Jaws rip-offs; but with this one, Joe D'Amato makes it clear that he couldn't be bothered to even try, and the result is what must be the worst Italian shark movie of all time. Avoid this dross.
This movie is crappy beyond any limits. It's incredible - a very bad ripoff from Jaws and other (better) shark movies. A really bad one - everything is really pathetic. The story is purest crap, actors are bad, effects very cheap, no creativity whatsoever. It looks like some really debilitated children took Jaws script and arranged it randomly, then its parents took their 8 mm camera and shot the movie with their neighbors. The music is really inappropriate, just some "elevator" music, bland and overly optimistic when nothing happens, then slightly less optimistic when shark is around or when children gets depressed (again listens to VERY LOUD elevator music). Carlo Maria (the author) should be so ashamed he should ask for his name to be erased from the titles!! The movie acts as perfect demonstration how crappy music will destroy ***ANY*** scene which is supposed to be thrilling. There is one major difference to Jaws though: In the beginning of Jaws there are comments about stupid people who try to kill shark with dynamite. Well, there is an attempt to kill a shark with dynamite. When this does not work, guys take an ***BIG LOAD*** of dynamite and spent like 1/4 of movie by placing explosives in some sunken ship. This IS really original way to catch the fish I have to admit! They use so much dynamite like they would try to kill a battleship (I would guess Bismarck class of battleship) or to dig another Panama channel. This is just incredible. I'm glad they did not try to use napalm-flamethrower or tactical nuclear strike to eliminate this bad, bad approximately 2 m shark. Well, there is mystic disappearing native Indian (who looks like German pensioner) too in this mess. This is not a movie, this is a warning example how bad the movies may be! As a warning it is useful. But the public should be protected from this crap. Most of Italian movies is bad, but this... this is really exceptional in the worst sense of the word.
This is the worst italian movie ever, quite possibly the worst movie of all time! Joe D'Amato is of course no cinematic genius but many of his movies are interesting and watchable. Unfortunatly this is not one of them. Its cheesy and boring....waaaaay boring. If you want a movie to MST3k, get Troll 2, if you want a movie to put someone into a coma, get deep blood!
Zzzzzzzzzzzz. This one came directly from the "Jaws" cookie-cutter mold, with some other bizarre cliches thrown in for good measure. I was interested in seeing this after finding a still from it in a book about Italian horror films, and wow...I guess I got what I deserved!<br /><br />Very slow-moving and talky, much of this killer shark movie takes place on land, which isn't really that surprising. It seems like the only method they had of showing a shark is through shots of a shark in an aquarium. The shark is never in the same frame as any of the actors, and that's too bad...most of the characters are so annoying that you actually wish they would get eaten.<br /><br />The "plot" concerns a group of four kids who meet up with a mysterious Indian on the beach one day while roasting weenies. The Indian, for some reason, gives them an ancient artifact that will allow them to track an ancient evil that assumed the form of a monster shark to attack their tribe...supposedly because they were too good at fishing the ocean and the ocean god was worried they would take all the fish. Or something like that.<br /><br />It's a good thing too, because wouldn't ya know it...years later, a monster shark appears and starts gobbling up people in the sleepy seaside community. When one of the four guys are eaten by the shark, the remaining three are determined to kill the thing...especially since (big shocker here) the authorities have killed a shark and they think the threat is over. Yawn.<br /><br />The obligatory death scenes are unbelievably tedious, and you can see them coming a mile away (my favorite was the girl who has a fight with her boyfriend while they're sitting in a van, then jumps out and says "I'm going for a swim," immediately to be gobbled up by the waiting shark). They had a lot of nerve calling this film "Deep Blood" since you hardly see any, just cloudy water. The actors handle their cliched roles like they're all thumbs, and there is even a hilarious subplot involving a greasy rocker-type bad boy who threatens our goody-goody heroes, then turns good in the end to help kill the shark.<br /><br />It took me a really long time to find this film, it is rather obscure, so I don't think there's any danger of too many people wasting their time on this. However, if you should be lured into it...don't say you weren't warned!
I like to think of myself as a bad movie connoisseur. I like to think that the films most people label as the worst of all time I can easily withstand.<br /><br />But...there are exceptions. I can only recall three movies I have had the misfortune to see that I have repeatedly used the fast-forward button for large chunks of the story. Those movies are The Mighty Gorga, Night of the Seagulls, and this little crap, Deep Blood.<br /><br />In the world of Jaws ripoffs, this falls off the scale. Deep Blood doesn't have the realistic storyline of the original Crocodile, nor the incredible effects of The Sea Serpent, nor the commentary of Tintorera. No, instead we are treated to a handful of teens from any random failed '80s public access sitcom battling bullies and the local sheriff.<br /><br />Shark attacks are realized by quick cuts of documentary footage with actors thrashing about in the water, occasionally with a bit of what appears to be orange-ish paint thrown into the water. Not a minute of original shark footage exists in this celluloid waste dump.<br /><br />Normally, I, or somebody like me, would read a dismal review like this one and say "cool, I gotta find a copy of this!" That's the same thought I had when I read another viewer's review on this very site. How wrong I was.<br /><br />So...from one bad movie fan to another...let this collect dust on the shelf...grab Up From the Depths or The Great Alligator instead to satisfy your need for something evil lurking in the water.
It's amazing that such a cliche-ridden yuppie angst film actually got made in the first place. The characters are so weak, and the acting so uninspired, that it's impossible to care about any of them-- especially Brooke Shields. The temptation to fast forward through the slow parts is almost irresistible. If you like this genre, you'd be better off renting "Singles," or "Bodies, Rest & Motion."
Brooke Shields -- in a departure from her "Suddenly Susan" duties -- plays a bitter divorcee who embroils three girlfriends in a "girls only" weekend in Palm Springs. The problem: Brooke is "unattached" and on the prowl, while her friends are all involved. Hence the title implications and emotional backlash their "amoral" weekend causes.<br /><br />Despite a few laughs generated by Dan Cortese ("Victoria's Closet") and MTV "relationship authorities" Adam Corolla and Dr. Drew Pinsky, this is somber stuff for women only. D.B. Sweeney, Virginia Madsen and Jon Polito co-star.
I was pleasantly surprised with this one. It's actually quite interesting and engaging. The cast is strong, even Dan Cortese. Brooke Shields has come into her own as an actress. Black and White must have really set her free, 'cause I have never seen her in this much command playing a conventional character. If marketed right, could be a medium-size hit.
I loved this movie 10 years ago when I was about 16 years old. My biggest mistake was to watch it again, 10 years later. It's not the worst "I-wanna-be-a-pilot" movies ever, but it has so many flaws in it that you can hardly overlook them.<br /><br />Queen's "One Vision" (along with the rest of the soundtrack) makes this film better than the average patriotic nonsense you usually get to see ;)<br /><br />[****------]
I wrote spoiler alert, but there's not really much that can be spoiled. It's like spoiling rotten meat. This movie is probably the worst I've ever seen. Not because of the actors or the special effects, but because of the sheer number of mistakes, both factual and physical. First of all, the MIGs aren't actually MIGs at all. They're Mirages, and they're French. And how the heck can Doug's dad withstand the maneuvers his son makes to fight off the "MIGs" without a g-suit? And why would Chappy try to board his plane without a g-suit? And how could Doug defeat the enemy pilot ace with such ease? Anyway, I did not like this movie. And the worst part is that it has 3 sequels, the latest one from as late as 1995. Now that's scary.
as a retired USAF MSG (aircraft maint. spec), this has got to be one of the worst movies i have ever seen. the fact that a teenager could ever get on the flight-line, much less get into an f-16 is ludicrous. the military spends millions on each pilot to make them the best in the world and this movie makes the air force and all its members seem stupid at best. yes, i know it is only a movie but it conveys a message to the younger folks that we are all idiots, and believe me, we are not. the logistics involved in setting up any type of mission are highly involved, even in the eighties, military computers were too secure to hack by any teenager, and the other flaws in this movie make peter pan more believable. sorry, to me, this movie has no entertainment value at all.
It's hard to believe that a movie this bad wasn't produced once, but four times! Most movies require a certain `suspension of reality' to enjoy, but this one takes it just too far. The basic scenario is an Air Force pilot who is shot down over a `Middle Eastern' country. The US government drags its feet in recovering him, leading the Pilot's son (Doug Masters) to attempt a rescue mission.<br /><br />The problem I have with the movie is that it depicts the US Air Force as one colossal joke. In the movie you'll find that Doug and his friends on the air base manage to secure two F-16's, all the munitions, the fuel, the Intel for the mission, and so on. Security on this base seems to be a joke. Nobody seems to have a problem that a sixteen-year-old kid is fully qualified to pilot an F-16!<br /><br />If that wasn't enough, you would think the producers would at least attempt to get the munitions right, since people like to see things `blow up'. Not so! Several times in the movie, Doug fires off AIM-9 Missiles on ground targets. AIM stands for `Air Intercept Missile', meaning a weapon used to strike targets in the AIR. He also fires off 15-20 missiles, where the maximum an F-16 can hold is 6 AIM-9's. The movie also lacks continuity. You'll see the aircraft configured with one set of munitions, and in the next scene, it has a totally different munitions package. Also, 20MM doesn't just completely destroy anything it touches! An F-16 will hold 500 rounds of 20MM, and it's mostly used for self-defense.<br /><br />I could go on forever with plot holes, flaws, and outright wrong information from the movie, but I won't bore you. If you're in the mood to see a good Air Force movie, your choices are rather slim. Most military movies deal either with the Army, Navy or Marines. Until Hollywood can come up with an Air Force movie on the lines of `Saving Private Ryan' or `A Few Good Men', we'll be forced to watch movies like the `Iron Eagle' series.<br /><br />
This movie is the proverbial 80s flick that shows the viewer that as long as he or she tries at something, they can be better than the pros. The main character, Doug, showed off his skills in flying a Cessna aircraft, which somehow equated to being fully capable of flying a jet aircraft and being able to kill people. We all would like to have a few million dollars to play with... maybe make a good investment, donate, buy a few things, but the directors of this movie decided to make Iron Eagle... not once... not twice... not even three times; yes, four times. The thing to look most forward to are the multitude 'hollywood endings' in this movie. Just when you think the movie is going to end after a cheesy end sequence, there's another cheesy end sequence. Then another. Definitely a movie one must watch to believe... and maybe own just to remind oneself of how awesome the 80s must have been.
I have rarely laughed so hard at a movie. Notice that I laughed AT Iron Eagle, not WITH it, because this is probably the stupidest film I have ever seen (with the obvious exception of sci-fi monstrosity CyberTracker). You should also remember that this film is not a comedy!<br /><br />Even overlooking the preposterous plot (the idea that a 16-year-old could walk into a US Air Force base, steal an F-16, fly to the Middle East and kill about a thousand people without anyone noticing is beyond belief), the film is full of ridiculous action scenes that make little or no sense. For example, at various points, Doug Masters uses a machine-gun on his plane to shoot a steel girder, a control tower, and a tent. All of these things explode in a massive fireball. Why? The enemy aircraft also explode in a strange way reminiscent of a paper aeroplane being blown up with a firework.<br /><br />On the plus side, I did actually enjoy this film. Admittedly not in the way the makers probably wanted it to be enjoyed, but all the same I laughed at it and later bought the DVD. It's also improved by the awesome presence of David Suchet as the evil terrorist leader (maybe you'll recall him as mustachioed Belgian detective Poirot?) Overall, then, the film is a laugh and a light-hearted alternative to more serious fighter-plane movies like Top Gun. Even if it is just as subtly homo-erotic (check out the man-hug between Doug and Chappy. Something's going on between 'em!)
Don't bother to check for logic. There is none. But on the other hand, there are MANY really great movies that totally lack logic, so why bother?<br /><br />I both like and dislike this film. I like it because the action sequences in the air are really great, you get to see a lot of dogfighting. I also like the F-16, which is a very cool plane.<br /><br />But there are just too many goofs to make me really enjoy it. I guess it's not fair to wish for SOME sort of continuity, as it is hard to make a really good fighter film - but I also think there should be some sense of reason.<br /><br />And I have a question: do they fly from California to the Middle East in F-16s without air refueling? I'd like to see that happening.
I Liked this move when I was a kid, but now that I'm older I can see how absurd the plot really is. In case you didn't read the earlier reviews it's about a teenager and an Air Force Colonel who steal two fully loaded F-16s to rescue said teenager's dad.<br /><br />It does have some nice aerial stunts, even if the dialog accompanying then is basically teckno babel.<br /><br />Some unintentional humor in the edited for TV version. When the hero's dad is being held by Iran, err I mean an unnamed country, and his captors ask him for a confession (relating to why he's being held, don't worry about exactly why, or what they want him to confuse to.) he says "Tell him he can take my confession and shove it down his throat.". However his lips and, more importunely, his gesture make it clear what motion, and part of the anatomy, he was really thinking of.
A teen-age boy, who is not in the military and has not trained to be a jet pilot, takes off for a foreign country to rescue his dad. If this is not ridiculous enough, he talks a Colonel in the Air Force into helping him get his hands on a jet [wow!]. To make the picture even more absurd, the Colonel risks his career and life by giving the spunky lad some hands on aid. They not only don't make Colonels like this anymore, but they never did. This sappy, corny film should be tossed into the air and blown away by a MIG.
I remember watching this for the first time in the 80's as a teen. Man, I've read the reviews on this trash and I find myself astonished by the voting. This movie does not deserve four stars!!! This movie is NOT better than Topgun. Topgun has its own problems; don't get me wrong. This movie should be banned just for its own stupidity. So many stereotypes, so many loop holes, so MUCH poor dialog. I cannot think of one redeeming quality of this vomit. This is not action/adventure. This is a bad joke on film. Kinda like watching Plan 9 with stock F-16 footage. This movie not only defies logic and common sense within the context of a military setting, it sends a disturbing message. The military is not going to save your dad from the imminent evil of the middle east b*****ds. So go out there and hijack a multi-million dollar weapon and blast him out of the sinister clutches of the backwards, Anti-American Arabs. Cuz you can't reason with those animals. This is a Bruckheimer flick without a budget. Bland direction, weak acting, lame music, idiotic plot, equals...Iron Eagle.
...But it definitely still only deserves 4/10 stars and no more. A moronic dumb kid's father is a fighter pilot who gets shot down by some Arab country. They never name the country in the movie, its really ridiculous, they just vaguely refer to some Arab nation, this movie is really ignorant like that. But Lamar from Revenge of the Nerds is in here, he is friends with the main character Doug Masters. Well, Doug Masters, who lives on an Air Force base, his father is an air force pilot, yet he fails to get into the air force academy, conceives of a plot (with help from his retarded friends) to steal two jets and go rescue his father. Yea, exactly - this is One of the Greatest Films Ever Made!!! Louis Gossett Jr is fantastic in his role. You can tell he basically wanted to smack the hell out of Doug Masters the whole movie. Well anyway, you can probably guess how the plot ends, I can't believe they made 3 sequels to this movie.
Without actually giving away my age, I saw this for the first time over 20 years ago when it first came out on video (maybe it was a beta tape??) and I was old enough to drink (barely) and perhaps I had had a few because I remember thinking how great this movie was! I have since seen it sober and have to admit it is a pretty bad film. As mentioned in other posts the plot is absolutely ridiculous and the poor acting just makes it worse. It's a poor attempt to fantasize that teenagers too, can be "Mavericks" (although I am surprised to find out it actually was to be released the same time (aprox) as "Top Gun", and not actually meant to be a poor imitation.) But for all it's worth - I do find myself watching it if it's on and I have the time. It's one of those movies you watch because it's just so ridiculous and tries so desperately to take itself seriously. Like that other "great' film - "Moment by Moment" with John Travolta and Lily Tomlin....don't get me started on that one!
<br /><br />I still can't belive Louis Gossett Jr. agreed to appear in this film. Everything about this move feels artificial, forced, and contrived. The air sequences are flat. The enemy characters seem like puppets. This is just a poor excuse of a movie. At least Top Gun had air sequences that looked good (the external shots anyway). The songs by Queen are cool, though. Rent Midway instead.
OK, the very idea is ludicrous.<br /><br />1. Kids don't own planes 2. Kids don't race planes with dirtbikes 3. It made the Air Force look like total idiots 4. The kids father would not jeopardize his entire career to allow his boy to joyride with him 5. Neither would a reserve colonel<br /><br />The sequels, I am sure were worse than this tripe. The soundtrack is about the only redeeming quality of this waste of celluloid. I am sorry but I just don't understand why in the world anyone would write direct and produce such unbelevable junk. The Iranian Air Force is lucky to filtch a couple parts for an ageing F-14, and this kid wrangles not 1 but 2 fully loaded and fueled F-16s? Gimme a break.
Jean-Hugh Anglade is excellent as the teenaged boy who wants to be a whore to please the man he loves, but the rest of this film is so bad--acting, writing, cinematography, and everything else--that Anglade's performance is wasted. Sad to see so fine an actor in such a garbage flick.
According to the blurb on the back of the DVD case; Jonothan Ross 'laughed until a little bit of wee came out'. I suspect that that has more to do with his being full of it.<br /><br />I never watched the series for one reason or another, so maybe I'm missing some essential cues. As to this movie; I watched the first 45 minutes or so. I laughed once, smiled once, then reached for the newspaper whilst waiting for something else entertaining to happen. Nothing did.<br /><br />Evidently intended to be a surreal spoof upon life in the post-Python, gross-humour style, this one falls absolutely flat. There's been a host of comedy series on television in the last few years, not the least of which were 'Bottom', 'The Fast Show' 'The Vicar Of Dibley' and 'Father Ted', each one engaging a group of bizarre but hilarious characters and sketches. Any one of these could knock this crap into a cocked hat.<br /><br />If the series was anything like this movie; I'm surprised they got the funding. Happily it was one of those £2 Tesco bran-tub purchases and is now in the local charity shop.<br /><br />The moral of the story is; don't believe the pundits, never pay top dollar.
This film was okay, but like most TV series it would of been better if it just made for television. The best and most loved characters only had five minute roles, whilst the three mediocre characters were all the way through the film.<br /><br />Unlike most British movies that are based on television series, this film does kick off and it seems to be on to a winner, but the pace suddenly stops when the three mediocre characters are in the real world waiting to capture the three comedians.<br /><br />The film then doesn't go anywhere when Hillary in a room with the captured Steve, Lipp masquerading as Steve, and Geoff somehow writing himself in to the Medieval times. Which made me think 'hang on? How come he doesn't need a key to enter in to that world unlike the Royston Vasey characters? The medieval scene was okay but Monty Python did it a lot better and of course funnier, with cameos from Peter Kay and Simon Pegg, both didn't say anything funny, Kay had a line and Pegg just sat up on wall looking bored.<br /><br />What also grated me was that they seem to forget what happened in the previous episodes such as Hillary escaped to the Caribbean in the television in series 2, but in the film he's escaped from prison, and also Lipp is a paedophile vampire which wasn't mentioned at all in the movie, which was also quite disturbing when he's left alone looking after the children.<br /><br />There were lots of plot holes and unexplained situations such as how did Geoff and the Dark One escape from the Medieval times back in to Royston Vasey? Like Series 3 it started of good but as the film progressed, it slowly went downhill and had a very weak predictable ending.<br /><br />They would of been better off doing what Monty Python did and remade all their best and classic sketches from Series 1-3 and the Christmas special, and turned that in to a film which would of re-introduced the characters to a whole new audience, who can't be asked to watch the series or to tight to buy the DVDs.<br /><br />Best advice is save your money and wait till it's on television..... Where it belongs.
Had the League been unknowns pitching this script, the backers would simply have turned around and said "no - you're not having the money - this is dreadful". As a fan of the League of Gentlemen, this is their poorest outing to date. Not particularly funny, not particularly entertaining, there are few laugh out loud moments. They do exist, but they are few and far between. I felt the format was tired and really dragging. The film refers to the writers being bored of the characters and it shows. As for being a film. I felt the Xmas special had better production value; the FX are generally pretty poor and it is clearly obvious that they didn't film in the original Royston Vasey (they filmed this on the cheap in Ireland). The musical score is weak and the dialogue is terrible. Also, the accents of the characters were largely off from their TV equivalents. Tubs and Edward, much underused (again), just didn't sound like themselves. Disappointing really, because I was hoping for something far more entertaining. This really was the League's equivalent of the 1970s comedies where the cast go to Spain...
I watched this film in the theater in Edinbourgh along with 3 other Americans and our friend from Manchester and we all thought this was a waste of time. We would have much rather spent an extra hour to watch vapid dialog of Star wars III that was playing down the hall than all of this. <br /><br />Opening with one of the worst jokes I've ever seen committed to celluloid on the big screen, it did not take off with a bang. throughout the movie we got the feeling that the jokes were just trying too hard, the writers thought about the setup so much that you could see the joke coming 2 minutes beforehand, then when it came it was so lackluster that you couldn't even smile; I cite the giraffe cum-ming as a prime example. <br /><br />The plot itself makes for some interesting thoughts in my mind, which entertained me much more than what was going on on the screen. I think a lot more could have been done with that angle (the two different worlds, the fish-out-of-water experience of the characters, the confusion and surprise as people try to comprehend and distinguish the characters and writers from each other.) But too much time is wasted with pushing this painful plot to the end with as much 'bizarre' and 'goof' as is humanly possible. <br /><br />And to say the 16th century characters show any extra talent from the writers is an insult to intelligent writers and editors who possibly could have made this film a worthy 40 minute afterthought; but no, its a full length torture film of unfunniness. <br /><br />As we were leaving the theater, which had VERY little laughing inside it, I overheard the young hip electro-clash British couple behind me saying "That was rather good wasn't it. You never really knew what was coming next." And the girl responding "yeah, quite surprising." and that was it. If this is what is meant to get out of British people from watching a comedy: no laughing for 90 minutes but a teeny bit of communication between two lovers at the end, then this film succeeded. But i have more belief in British life than that.<br /><br />I've not not-laughed so hard at a comedy film since American Pie II.
I am a massive fan of the LoG. I thought the first two series provided some of the best comedy this country has ever seen and the third series, though different, was wonderfully dark and imaginative. The thought of seeing Tubbs, Edward and Briss on the big screen made July 3 something to wait for. Yet, somewhere, it all went horribly wrong. The writers had no story and no real ideas. The part set in old England showed the glimmers of genius that we know the League are capable of but these scenes did not fit well with the film. Geoff provided the best of too few, largely poor jokes and Lipp and Briss's performances were big let-downs. If you love the League, save yourself the time and money and watch episodes from the TV series again. And again. A massive disappointment.
Don't get me wrong, I love the TV series of League Of Gentlemen. It was funny, twisted and completely inspired. I was looking forward to the movie, the premise was interesting and I looked forward to see what they had done with the characters and where the bizarre storyline would take them.<br /><br />It was a total disappointment, for starters the three weakest characters in the series were the leads and it only contained bit parts for the other characters (why not pick mickey & Pauline, papa Lazaro or tubs and Edward for the main parts!?). It was unfunny throughout, half baked gags and poor slapstick humour.<br /><br />The real clincher was the plain ridiculous period drama / comedy (and i will use the word comedy loosely). It distracted from the main storyline and felt awkward, not to mention painfully unfunny. The direction of the movie is appalling, and often feels that the lines were delivered by the characters within one take. Very rushed.<br /><br />Then - the three headed Plasticine-esquire monster. What the hell was all that about? plain ridiculous, it felt like the League of gentlemen tagged it on at the end.<br /><br />All in all I found myself looking at my watch and sighing with disappointment throughout my experience of the film. What was once an amazing Television series has been tainted by a terribly unfunny film. <br /><br />If i could give it 0 out of 10 i would. Do not waste your money seeing this.
Am i right in thinking i went to see the same film as everyone else .. this film was terrible. I'm a fan of all 3 series of the league of gentelmen and have always respected the originality of the writers, even when the format changed in series 3. This film however was a blatant half effort, the plot was extremely poor having the characters going into the real world made this film see more like the last action hero. There was about 5 moments in the film that got a mild chuckle but the rest of the time i was wishing it would end. This would have been better as a 10 minute short on the DVD .. it was more of an explanation of what they planned to do, and looked like some of the writers disagreed on the fate of the characters and they made a joke of this by killing him off in the first 30 minutes.<br /><br />If your a true fan of the league of gentlemens ability to stay fresh then you'll hate this film. If you only watch it cause there was nothing better on TV then u'll love it.<br /><br />someone back me up !!
It became apparent in the first 25 mins of watching this that the writers really wanted to make a feature length film and they probably certainly enjoyed the whole process, but then seemed to forget the fact that it needed a decent plot! If the best they could do was have 3 of the dullest characters enter the real world and have 'all sorts of amusing capers' then they should have left well alone! I didn't laugh once, and that whole "Adventures of Baron Munchausen/Time Bandits" thing going on in the middle was very, very poor! Convaluted, contrived and very loose. It just seemed like a whistle stop tour of anything they thought 'might' work just to drag it out to a feature.<br /><br />Full of holes eg - the Royston Vasey characters needed the writers to carry on writing in order to save them, yet Jeff managed to write himself into the sub-story/time-filling William and Mary and era. If he could do this then why didn't they just carry on writing Royston themselves - duh?? And Herr Lipp's audition? What was that for? I mean what was the point? He did it, and we heard nothing else whatsoever about it? <br /><br />My main point is, that while I loved the series, this was an ill thought out, seemingly rushed project. Put it this way, the plot was so poor that if we didn't already know the characters (and as a fan I had a certain loyalty to carry on watching), and we relied solely on the the story itself, this would have fallen flat on its face! At best it would have gone straight to video, and at worst would never have been made in the first place! Or maybe that should be the other way round?? Truly dreadful....
If you watched the series and love the league as I do then prepare to be disappointed. I went to the cinema with a group of die-hard league fans and we were all in agreement that this film wasn't as funny or dark as the three series before. In my personal opinion it was a money spinner. The writing was contrived and the plot confused - no not confusing just confused with what it was trying to do. It was self indulgence of the worst kind from writers who are far more talented than my pitiful criticisms. I hope the league at least can be honest enough with themselves and acknowledge this film as being inferior to the superb three series. I will not be buying it despite owning most of the league memorabilia.
As a massive fan of the three TV series, I was very interested to learn that LoG were moving onto the big screen. In my more honest moments though, I had my doubts about the likely success of the concept, and whether the writers would be able to sustain the high level of wit, comedy and horror that infuse the original series.<br /><br />Unfortunately my fears were not unfounded, and the film was a huge disappointment. I struggle to understand the other comments on this site. Obviously people are entitled to their opinions, but the guys I watched it with, all agree with me, and they are just as big fans as I am.<br /><br />The acting lacked conviction, but they are so good that even when not at their best, they are still highly watchable. The main problem was the plot - and the script. There were a few laughs, but not enough, a few moments of disgust, but not enough. Worst of all was the feeling of emptiness after walking out of the cinema. So rarely have I felt so utterly uninspired by a film and so unmotivated to discuss it with others.<br /><br />I write this comment as a warning to other League fans - get a wide range of opinion on this film before going to see it. If you love League, you might be able to convince yourself that they didn't totally mess up their move to cinema. If you can't convince yourself of this, then you will have tarnished in your mind the otherwise spotless genius that exemplifies the TV series.<br /><br />LoG at the cinema? More like log. (or little brown fish).
This review took longer to write than I took to watch this film. It's just plain bad. The plot is terrible in comparison to the TV shows. It is flat, unfunny and boring.<br /><br />It is clear that the LoG ran out of ideas long before this film was green lit. Viewers should read this as an example of not knowing when to stop.<br /><br />Bad editing, bad music, bad acting. Zero dynamism, zilch chemistry.<br /><br />A film that doesn't know what it is, made without any love to some mysterious end that leaves you depressed and feeling kind of angry that so much money was wasted.<br /><br />The LoG obviously were made an offer they couldn't refuse, or perhaps their egos have simply got the better of them. It's a bleak marketing push that perhaps would have been better when the LoG were fresher and more inspired.<br /><br />I however, did know when to stop, and did.<br /><br />Please! Someone try to convince me of this film's finer points!
very disappointing and incoherent - every now and then a germ of an idea would develop and be discarded in the next line - it had the feel of a film that had been cut and re-cut to try and make it work - I was bored and distracted all the way through, and I'm speaking as a huge fan of the series. Many of the jokes were unoriginal and tired, The medieval section went on far too long and the quality of acting was very poor - some on the tiny guest spots, like Simon Peg and Liam Cunningham did more in their alloted 30 secs than the main cast did in 90 Min's.<br /><br />It's a shame, really.<br /><br />The only really interesting thing was getting a look inside the little shed on Soho Square - which is something everyone who is ever in that part of London wonders about.
please re-watch all 3 series and do not go see this movie, the trailer is completely misleading and the 3 weakest characters in the series stretch a badly thought out 25min TV episode into the most painful 2hrs of my life, truly an awful film. tubbs and edward are in it for a few mins, micky has 1 line, and her lipp just reels out the same tired old puns, also mr briss's accent just changes about 5 times in the film tons of badly acted extras, and really a few laughs that they seem to recycle for 2 hrs i honestly feel this series has been completely ruined by this god-awful piece of crap..........batman and robin all is forgiven
I just don't get these reviews! I can't help thinking they are written by the sort of L.O.G fan who would worship anything they ever do without questioning whether it is actually any good.<br /><br />I'm a massive fan of the programme but thought this film was a pointless project. I could forgive the ridiculous plot if I had come out of the cinema having laughed more than twice. At one point, I thought it might just me before I realised hardly any laughs were minting from the rest of audience.<br /><br />I wasn't expecting much of a plot (very few TV comedies stand up to being stretched over 90 minutes) but thought the odd bit of classic L.O.G dialogue or visual joke (like at the start of each programme) would carry a film. After 5 minutes of the 17th Century plot, I was begging for it to end (little did I know it would carry on for the rest of the film). It just wasn't funny.<br /><br />I was just massively disappointed and can't see history being too kind to it, even if a few die-hard fans write enthusiastic reviews.
***May contain spoilers***<br /><br />I had very high expectations for this film, based on the trailer. I knew a bit about the real Ed Gein, so I figured this was a medium-budget Hollywood version of the real events. Man was I wrong.<br /><br />First, the writing apparently came from an eight-grader who barely knew anything about Ed's history and cranked out the script in about 20 minutes. The movie completely passes over the most interesting facets of Ed and his relationship with his mother (not to mention what the real police found in his house) and decides to focus primarily on the young deputy who looks like he just wandered onto the set. Likewise, all of the male characters seem to be ad-libbing their dialog throughout the entire movie. I'm not exaggerating.<br /><br />Don't even get me started with the historical goofs in this movie. Seriously, who the hell directed this? This movie is supposed to take place around 1957, but the cops are carrying modern side-handled batons, some of the stuff in the hardware store look like they came from Lowes, and when the cop gets to a payphone he dials 9-1-1 (didn't exist back then). Also, Ed was a small guy, scary like Anthony Perkins' character in Psycho (who was supposedly based on real-life Ed), not this burly dude who ended up looking way too much like the bad guy in Men In Black.<br /><br />Another thing that really bugged me was the appearance that the makers of this film shot the whole thing in an abandoned, 3 building set. Because of the "clever" camera angles, you never see any actual town, and the interior of the sets looked like old, long-abandoned shacks. Pop a cash register on a saw-horse and bam!--instant hardware store.<br /><br />I'm usually pretty forgiving of low-budget horror films, but this one just begs for it. All you had to do was include most of the real events (even embellish them!), pay five good actors instead of 15 crappy ones, and for Pete's sake take 5 minutes and think about the time period once in a while. My advice: Google Ed Gein, you'll be far more entertained.
I stopped watching this film half way through. It was just terrible! Boring, contrived subplots. A complete lack of the pathos seen in Norman Bates, Buffalo Bill, or Steve Railsback's portrayal of Ed Gein. A movie doesn't have to be historically accurate, but the true story of Ed Gein is so much more interesting than this third-rate melodrama that was completely made up for no good reason! Ed Gein as portrayed by Kane Hodder is a cartoon sadist. The attempts to show the trauma inflicted on him by his mother are just weak exercises in recycled style. And this movie wanted to be stylish, but it even screwed that up. Fortunately, there is a better film of this story. 2001's Ed Gein told the story efficiently, and offered a few real chills as we watched a sick man not in control of himself. Steve Railsback, who played Ed Gein that time, was already famous for memorably portraying another famous serial killer: Charles Manson. His Ed had pathos. His film is the one to see. Avoid this mess.
This was, without a doubt, the worse horror movie I have ever seen.... Forget the fact that the story had little to do with the facts of Ed Gein... Ed Gein's story is horrific & this movie ignored the facts and strayed way off course. Acting, on all levels, was pathetic. Story, again, for some unknown reason didn't go into the horrific facts. Could have been so scary if it would have stuck to the facts. WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? TERRIBLE MOVIE! Steve Railsback version was much, much better. Don't waste a penny on this terribly made flick... And, why ignore the reality of the horrific events? That alone would make for a great story. Man, makes you wonder why this would ever be approved for release. Why spend so much money on a movie that will never make a penny (except for my wasted $5...
What a waste of time to watch this movie. Poor picture quality, poor sound, poor acting and definitely not based on actual facts. The deputy's "girlfriend" did so much overacting, as did the sheriff, that it was more comedy than horror. The deputy tries to make an emergency phone call by dialing 911...PROBLEM...in 1957 that emergency number was not in existence. That is just one example of glaring inconsistencies.<br /><br />The "scary" aspect was way underdone. Just did not come across as horrific.<br /><br />I did think that the actor playing Gein did the most admirable acting job in the whole movie. I could well see mental disturbances in his character portrayal.<br /><br />Sorry...this one just does NOT get it!!
This movie was really bad. First they didn't even follow the facts for it. Half of the movie was made up and it was more about the deputy whose mother was one of Ed Gein's victims. The acting was horrible, except for the guy playing Ed Gein, but its not hard to mess up playing a weird guy. though i think it was horrible i gave it a three because they started it off with actual crime photos. that was the best part of the movie. As soon as the introduction of the movie was finished the movie went downhill. The writer of this movie tried to spice it up, but it didn't need to be. The story of Ed Gein is interesting enough without falsifying information.
There are many reasons I'm not a fan of fact based films, but more than any other is how the filmmakers give themselves creative license over the story. If they have such great imaginations then why not use that talent to make something original? Otherwise stick to the facts. This could have been an okay movie if only they had done just that. Ed Gein was an insanely frightening human being. It's been said if you were to take Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees and Leatherface, wrap them into one person, Ed Gein would still be sicker/scarier. So why can't someone make a movie about him that can convey this? When will they figure out that reality is ultimately scarier than fiction? <br /><br />I've read books and watched news programs about him and, now I'm not a screenwriter or anything, but I believe there's enough documentation on Gein that it shouldn't take a whole lot to write a story about all these atrocities he committed without creating murders that had never even been documented. I'm aware that he was only found guilty of 2 murders but with all the evidence found in his home and barn there should have been plenty of other ways to put this film together rather than using the deputy's relationship with his Mother, and girlfriend as filler, and far too much of it.<br /><br />I guess what I'm wondering is this... why at the end of the movie did I know more about the supporting characters than I did about Ed Gein? Why didn't we get to know his Mother, Father and brother and the relationships between them... what made him the psychopath he was... what abuse he endured as a child that may have contributed to the man he became? Instead, the only thing we got of his childhood were flashes of him as a little boy... running.<br /><br />In the end I give it 4/10 stars. Thats 2 for the gore and 2 for Kane Hodder. Even though it was kind of bad casting in my opinion, considering Gein was a smallish man, and possibly effeminate and Hodder is anything but small and nowhere near what I would consider feminine. Maybe I was just excited because he was Jason Voorhees.
With a catchy title like the Butcher of Plainfield this Ed Gein variation and Kane Hodder playing him will no doubt fly off the shelves for a couple of weeks.Most viewers will be bored silly with this latest take on the life of Ed Gien.<br /><br />The movie focuses on Ed's rampage and gives us a(few)glimpses into his Psycosis and dwelling in Plainfeild.Its these scenes that give the movie a much needed jolt.<br /><br />What ruins this is the constant focus on other characters lives and focuses less on Eds.Big mistake here.<br /><br />Kane Hodder is a strange choice to play Gein,but He does pull it off quite well,and deserves more acting credits than he gets these days.Prascilla Barnes and Micahel Barryman also show up.<br /><br />3/10
I have watched this movie quite bemused. I am not sure whether it was attempting to be a horror gore fest in a Rob Zombie type affair or an exploration of real events.<br /><br />In either case it missed its mark. It's not particularly historically accurate with characters being chopped and changed for the sake of the story. <br /><br />The performances were neither compelling nor bad.<br /><br />For me, I would have preferred a more psychological approach and this film could easily have gone down this route without spoiling the overall effect.
Ed Gein: The Butcher of Plainfield is set in the small American town of Plainfield in Wisconsin during 1957 where loner Ed Gein (Kane Hodder) lives by himself on a farm after the death if his mother & brother. The local police have had a spate of grave robberies to deal with & when local barmaid Sue Layton (Ceia Coley) suspicions grow that something nasty is going on. Ed is a violent sexually deviant man who kidnaps girls & murders them, will the police figure the truth out in time to save Erica (Adrienne Frantz) the Sheriff's (Timothy Oman) daughter...<br /><br />Written, produced & directed by Michael Feifer this was an attempt to base a horror film around the true events surrounding notorious serial killer Ed Gein & turns out to be pretty crap. The real life Ed Gein was only ever convicted of two murders & died in 1984 but several films have been inspired by him including The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), Deranged (1974) & Ed Gein (2000) with this fairly recent addition possibly being the worst Gein film ever. Even though Ed Gein was real next to nothing in this film is based on fact, Gein never had an accomplice, none of his victims were related to any of the investigating officers, there was no car crash victim, although Gein keeps his name other people have had name changes, the kidnapping & murder of the two women depicted here actually happened four years apart in reality but in this film it happens over the course of a couple of days & while here Gein is shown as a large hulking muscular man in reality he was a scrawny, thin, old & quite short. As a factual drama Ed Gein: The Butcher of Plainfield is worthless & as pure entertainment it's no better with a deadly dull pace & feel to it, the character's are all boring & when he isn't killing someone Gein is shown working or just walking around & it's very dull. There's no suspense because we know who the killer is & it's just a tedious wait until he gets caught at the end. There is no real attempt to get into Gein's mind with the makers giving him no more motivation than him occasionally having hallucinations of his domineering mother.<br /><br />There isn't much gore here, there's a scene with a woman hanging on a meat-hook, there's a really badly edited scene of Gein cutting a leg off, there's the usual jars of bodily organs & skulls lying around as well as a bit of blood but there's really not much here to get excited about. The film was obviously processed to bleach a lot of the colour out of the picture as it's not far off black and white at times, I personally think the lack of colour makes it even duller to sit through.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $1,500,000 I can't really see where the money went in a very forgettable production. Although set in Wisconsin this was filmed in California. Kane Hodder is all wrong for the role of Ed Gein, just from a physical point of view Hodder doesn't look even remotely like Gein & he gives a pretty poor performance to as he just stares at the camera a lot making silly faces.<br /><br />Ed Gein: The BUtcher of Plainfield is crap & it's as simple & straightforward as that. As either a factual drama or pure exploitation entertainment this is total tripe from start to finish with nothing to recommend it.
I would hate to have anyone watch this "inspired by a true story" movie and draw any conclusions about the true event. Few things they did get right were overshadowed by the things that were just not true. Ed Gein never dragged anyone behind a car, never met up with anyone at the graveyard and killed them, no proof he returned body parts to the graveyard. The things he did were awful enough, why try to make it worse? <br /><br />This movie ranks among my 10 worst wastes of eye strain. "In the Light of the Moon" is a much better film on the subject, it is more factual and the acting is superior in contrast to this one.
I did a review for this director's fictional recreation about BTK. I had also seen this movie and it was terrible. Please save your money and time. This movie was terrible and this director is untalented. I do not understand how he is funding these movies. They are horrible. I have decided to make sure that I check who the writer, director, and producer are, and if this director's name pops up I will not waste my money. There is nothing worse than renting a movie on a Friday night, making the popcorn, and then realizing you have been duped by creative art on the front of the movie box. Stay away. So I guess I should make up some stuff to fill in the lines? I have always checked IMDb for reviews before, but I think I will not anymore. This is ridiculous. I have been corrected in my reviews far too many times. Not enough lines? You may cancel my account. Your site is a pain.
The story of Ed Gein is a disturbing and terrifying story. Ed was truly a messed up character and his legacy went on to inspire such 'greats' as The Tooth Fairy, Norman Bates, and Leatherface. How is it then that such a fascinating man has inspired such a boring melodramatic piece of drivel?? Ed Gein made belts out of nipples, bowls out of skulls, lamps out of skin, danced around under the moon in suits of human skin. None of this made it into the movie because they needed to give us a fictitious story of a ridiculously awful deputy and his rather homely, sex-starved girlfriend. This movie seemed to go out of its way to falsify history. What baffles me is that most movies stray from the path of truth to exaggerate history; this one seems to do it to minimize it. I just don't get it.
Old Ed was active back in the late 1950's He was apprehended 16 November 1957. The PR-24 Police Baton was invented in 1974. Yet the cops in the movie are all carrying the PR 24. Back then it would have been a standard "billy club" not the side handled PR 24. Sheeze, if you are gonna make movies do your research and get it right. Also it makes no mention of Ed's usage of the bodies. He tanned most of the skins and made various articles including a lampshade, a belt and several masks. He also had a large selection of "shrunken heads" that several local children knew about as he often babysat for them. He was found incompetent and committed to the Central State Hospital for the criminally insane.
The title tells it all -- Ed Gein, the butcher of Plainfield.<br /><br />It's not a zappy action-filled slasher movie made for teens high on energy drinks. That would fit it into a well-established genre, the kind that some people find entertaining, something along the lines of "Halloween" or "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre".<br /><br />This is dark, slow, filled with chopped-up corpses, and quietly evil. There are few shock cuts, no monster's point-of-view shots, no loud electronic score. I don't know who it's aimed at -- ghouls, maybe.<br /><br />Beneath the credits we already see still photos of skulls, carcasses hung up, skins draped across the backs of chairs, that sort of thing. And they're sufficiently revolting that I couldn't help thinking this movie had better be pretty good to make up for this Grand Guignol opening.<br /><br />Alas, it's not. The acting is uniformly terrible, as in a high school play. The script does its best to sink below vulgarity. Ed Gein, who killed only two middle-aged women and maybe his brother, chases a screaming, bloody young woman through the Woodland of Weir, and she's wearing only a modern bra and bikini, rather than period underwear. Gein also decapitates a night watchman, which he never did in any historical sense.<br /><br />The direction? You could do a better job. In the first few minutes, law officers discover an abandoned car with blood spattered all over the windshield. There is no body. The handsome young deputy sheriff turns to his boss and suggests they search for the victim, who may still be in the vicinity and living. The sheriff, lacking any motivation, shouts at him, "Now you just FORGET that! I don't want you going off HALF COCKED on anything!" It should be no more than a business-like exchange of views. Why does the director have the sheriff so angry? Characters of diverse sorts listen to radio programs or records that play old jazzy pop songs -- Louis Armstrong's "Ain't Misbehaving," for instance. This is -- what -- rural WISCONSIN in the 1950s? And the characters insist on music that would appeal to customers of the Cotton Club in Harlem in the 30s, or New York intellectuals like Woody Allen. Nope. The radio would be playing Kitty Kallen's "Wheel of Fortune" or Theresa Brewer or, equally likely, Lefty Frizell. Not that the dysfunction between the music and the events adds anything to our understanding of what's going on beneath the images. Someone involved in the production just liked old jazzy pop songs, that's all.<br /><br />Of course there's only so much you can do with a low budget, but it can be light years ahead of this butchery. See "Ed Gein," with Steven Railsback for an example of a much more sophisticated way of dealing with this lunatic and his penchant for dead bodies, and on a budget that couldn't have exceeded this one by much.<br /><br />These comments are all based on the first twenty minutes of the movie. That's about as far as I could get. If anyone finds this tale to be well-executed and fascinating in any way, he should try to find some insight into his tastes. It's beneath mine -- and I consider myself pretty warped.
I own a vacation lake home not far from Plainfield, WI. Ten minutes from the Gein property to be exact. I've seen his land, the cemetery where he is buried and where he did his digging, and I've shopped at the hardware store that was formerly owned by the Worden family. While visiting relatives in California, we decided to rent this movie. It was disgusting. The true story of Ed Gein is so disturbing and creepy, why the creators of this piece of trash decided to make up their own story is beyond me. The actor playing Ed is a very large man, Ed was a very small, meek, and shy man. That is part of what makes his story so frightening. He did not have a helper to dig up the graves and anyone who owns land in the area knows that it is mostly sand with a little dirt in it. You won't break much of a sweat digging a hole. They didn't have to hire an actor with the physique of a wrestler, just do your research. And if the writing wasn't bad enough - there are NO mountains in Wisconsin, and I'm pretty certain that 911 was not available in 1957.
My reasoning behind viewing this film (despite the fact that it was free), was more or less out of curiosity... slight, slight curiosity... I wasn't all that familiar with this straight-to-video "biographical" account of Mr. Gein and discovered during the opening credits that it featured horror icon Kane Hodder in the starring role. My emotions turned from not just curiosity, but now a glimmer of mild anticipation as to how his portrayal of Gein would turn out. Also in the credits (among some grim photos of Ed's crimes) was Michael Berryman and Priscilla Barns. "Okay", I thought to myself... "This may be mildly amusing". As the movie started and progressed (slowly), my microscopic confidence (or as I call it, "micro-hope") for this movie faded entirely and I was stuck with an overwhelming feeling of humiliation as I died a little inside from watching this dung heap. Hodder, who is widely known and respected for his past work as an unstoppable serial killer, inaccurately puts that into play here - turning Eddie Gein from a mild-mannered recluse, to a hulking, full-blown killing machine. He lurks by night, killing cemetery caretakers, his grave robbing buddy and teenage girls, leaving Plainfield in a panic as the local Sheriff's department seems to do nothing to adjust the dangerous situation in the least. The deputy and his mom have a warm little relationship that gave me a fuzzy feeling inside (or that could have just been the cyanide pill I ingested halfway through this turkey). I'm not sure what the point of this movie was and obviously the director knew nothing about the subject he was working with. There is already such an abundance of films pertaining to Gein's story that, unless the "Ed Gein Snuff Footage" is discovered, I don't want to see anymore of these on the shelves. If you want a more authentic film of this nature than check out 2001's "Ed Gein (aka In the Light of the Moon)".
Ever since he played a goon in Lone Wolf McQuade, actor/stuntman Kane Hodder has been busy. His film, Hatchet, got all the publicity last year, but he still makes a couple of more films every year. He should have skipped this one.<br /><br />Hodder seems to be the king of the slashers. he has played Jason Voorhees from 1988's Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood (1988) to Jason X (2001). He is working on a new film that appears to be a Halloween remake. He is very much what I would call the serial killer type with his methodical, expressionless thirst for blood.<br /><br />However, there wasn't much blood in this movie and very little action occurred on camera. It felt as if I was watching an episode of real law enforcement on A&E.<br /><br />I won't put the blame entirely on Hodder's shoulders, as the rest of the actors didn't contribute much either.<br /><br />Michael Berryman (The Hills Have Eyes, The Devil's Rejects) just ran his mouth until Gein shut him up. Adrienne Frantz ("The Bold and the Beautiful") was cute. Veteran actress ("Three's Company") and Penthouse Pet, Priscilla Barnes did a credible job. I am sure there are other horror favorites, but they all just seemed to run through their roles.
When "Deranged" was made the film-makers saw fit to turn Ed Gein into Ezra Cobb even though the resultant film was actually quite close to the facts of the notorious case. I presume that enough was fictionalised that they thought they should change names and such.<br /><br />"Ed Gein - The Butcher Of Plainfield" masquerades as a true story retelling of the Gein case, but actually bears very little resemblance to the history. As a biopic type film it is a travesty. If ever a film needed names changing it is this one, far more so than "Deranged". It is as close to the true crime story as "Dirty Harry" was to the true story of the Zodiac killings.<br /><br />OK, so, that annoyance aside, how is it as a horror film? Well, as a horror film, well, as a film generally, it is quite appalling. One of the worst films I have sat through in months. Issues run thus: 1) Kane Hodder is quite astonishingly miscast as Ed Gein. Utterly unsuitable in the part, Hodder just lumbers through glowering menacingly. Very bad.<br /><br />2) Kane Hodder is the best actor in the film! The rest of the cast are rather "amateur dramatics" and utterly unengaging. It is painful to witness some lines being delivered.<br /><br />3) The occasional efforts of stylish film-making seem to come from "The Big Book Of Moody Cinematography Cliché". You've seen it all before, better executed. Aside from the efforts at style, the rest of the film-making is largely inept: cameras shake, framing is bad, there are overlong pointless shots holding back the pace...which leads me to...<br /><br />4) It seems to go on forever. It is under 90 minutes in length, but sitting through it is an ordeal. You'd swear it ran two and a half hours.<br /><br />5) Ed Gein almost seems secondary. Mostly the film is concerned with the family affairs of a newly promoted Deputy Sheriff. Said Deputy is played by an abysmal actor upon whose shoulders no film should rest.<br /><br />Is anything good about it? Well, the gore FX are very good. Some convincing wounds are in display and the make-up is generally excellent. None of this, however, makes up for the massive failings of the film.<br /><br />It doesn't even have any kitsch value, it's just bad; not enjoyably bad, not "so bad it's good", just genuinely bad. A film to avoid and despise.
I just saw this movie and it turns out to be pretty lame just as mentioned by other user reviews and the one thing that bothered me the most was the southern accent some of the characters had, it took place in Wisconsin, not the south. As mentioned from other reviews, Ed Geine wasn't a big dude, so why did the guy that plays Jason and Leatherface portray him?<br /><br />I fast forwarded through most of it being that there are many slow parts. <br /><br />Hopefully someone will do their homework on Ed Geine and the town and make a more accurate movie
This is the worst movie I have ever seen and believe me I've sen a lot of bad movies. I love cheeesy horror but this was just terrible. There was not one scene in this film where I felt scared. All the actors must have been people that they found at a bus stop 20 minutes prior to shooting. I wish that Blockbutser would have given me my 99 cents back. The acting was terrible. The writing was incredibly bad. Someone had to screen this movie before it was released and had to know that it was terrible. I'd be embarrassed to have my name associated with this monstrosity. Don't rent this movie. If you do, don't return it so no other poor souls will ever make the mistake of renting it.
All of the great horror movies of the 70's, 80's, and even the early 90's from Psycho, to Texas Chainsaw Masacre (The original not that warmed over WB crap), to Silence of the Lambs. The characters in these movies were based upon the crimes of Ed Gein. The writers and directors tapped into the true story for the inspiration for creating some of the greatest *fictional* movie killers of all time.<br /><br />The old horror films were great because even though the crimes were loosely based upon the facts of the case of Ed Gein, they were truly fictional and far removed from the true story.<br /><br />In the case of this movie, they've created a fictional horror film in which they tried to capitalize on the true story in order to sell a cheap, poorly acted, love story between two characters that nobody really cares about. In fact, in a *good* horror film these two characters would have been excellent victims.<br /><br />End of Lecture...<br /><br />In short, this film was like wearing clammy underwear on a cold afternoon sipping on a nice cup of chilled vomit.
I got this movie for fifty cents at a going out of business sale. I want my fifty cents back. Bad acting, poor script writing, lousy direction, historically inaccurate, even the sound of the film is awful. It's not the subject matter that offends. I'm one of the many who find suspense films and true crime films very interesting. The subject matter could have been treated more seriously, with much more attention to detail and accuracy, and the lack of respect shown for the victims and their devastated friends and family is enough to puzzle anyone. Also, there is little to no attention paid to what could have caused someone to begin the bizarre behavior that Ed Gein was displaying in acting out these horrible crimes. <br /><br />Save your time and sanity. Don't watch this awful film. If you bought it, you have my sympathy. It's not a total waste though...you can throw away the disc and make use of the plastic case!
I have done some research on Ed Gien, and I have found a few interesting things. Like the fact that Ed Gien, was quiet and a loner, not some buff over bearing jerk as in this movie. I will say that I didn't finish this movie but I will. I will cringe through the fact that all of us, Wisconsinites, talk like we are from Kentucy. You know the funny, but oh so sad factor in this movie, is Wisconsin isn't as hot as they made it look.<br /><br />This movie is not only an insult to Wisconsin people, being a Wisconsite myself, but it is a complete insult to a man that was proved to be an insane, lonely man. He killed two people and the movie couldn't even get that right. Ed didn't get that close and personal and scare people, he shot the two and only people, he killed. So, why do these movies lie and say "BASED ON A TRUE STORY"? This is not based on nothing but the lies the director came up with in his foul head.<br /><br />A joke and nothing more!<br /><br />OK, I would like to add on to this. I did finish this oh so sad movie, and I personal would like to laugh at the director. Do your homework when making a movie. I would like to inform you that there are no Mountains (for those who have never been in Wisconsin) and oh THERE IS NO DESERT! What the hell, there was more pine trees and snow in Ravenous and that was suppose to be shot in Californa. <br /><br />OK, for those who know nothing about Ed Gein, I would like to give you, your history lesson. Ed Gein was thought to have killed his family, but it was never proved. He killed a bartender, she was shot at bar close when no one was around. He took the DEAD bartender back to his house. 10 years later he SHOT and killed the store clerk, he stoled the cash register and the store truck. He was caught because of this murder, he came in the day before when her son was there and asked about antifreeze. The day he killed her, he was in there buying the antifreeze, and the reciept that only had antif..... was the only evidence they had to start a world wide man hunt. He robbed graves, in fact in robbed 56 graves. He hate the people he dug up and he made furinture; lamp shades, couches, chairs, and other things. <br /><br />He had a family that he had dinner with once and awhile and they threw all the meat he ever gave them out when he was caught, considering he was caught at their house. He was arrested and hid in the back of a cop car, in fear of what may happen to him. How do I know all of this? I read the book the judge that tried him wrote. <br /><br />After this movie was over, after watching the whole horrific thing, not only am I offended by the directors horriable view on what Wisconsin women look like. I mean it was hard to tell who this guy had on the slab half the time, you know cause Wisconsin women are all BLONDES. Please! I am overly offended by the lack of homework this guy did and the poor job he did making this movie. I have no idea who this Kane guy is and I think he may be OK in something else, but he did a horrible job playing Ed Gein. <br /><br />After all of this I am so sad I wasted the 3.99 on the movie. <br /><br />Movie after finished was completely untrue, this movie is like me saying that the world is flat and George Washington wasn't our first president. Come on people, that is your history, and this is Wisconsin's history. To end this rant, how would all of you feel if I made a movie and George Washington looked like Brad Pitt (some of you may think that is fine, but it would be not true) and he lived and wasn't the president and whatever. You can't rewrite history.
PLEASE people! DO NOT bother with this poorly directed joke. The direction was totally wrong from the outset. Where is the history of his mothers' emotional interference and the general madness in the original family? Why is ED portrayed as this large, overbearing imposing figure full of anger and hate? What IS this crap? The writer and director obviously did no research into the history and just wanted to cash in on the infamous Gein name. The fools who made this movie took so many liberties with the truth, it's ridiculous. If you want t see a brilliant Gein film. go back to the minor classic "Deranged" to see how Ed really was. There is humor in that film, and Ed is portrayed as more of the sad, lonely slight man he was, according-to HISTORY. Where is the background story here? There is just poorly set-up shocks (that are not shocking) that we've seen before, and more accomplished as well. Take the worst Texas Chainsaw massacre ripoff, and add this one to that list. Had to give it ONE out of ten because rating wouldn't accept ZERO. I want my money BACK. If anyone regards this film as 'stunning' is possibly getting a financial kickback to do so.
Ed Gein, one of the most famous serial killers of all time, he was the inspiration for famous movie killers like Norman Bates, Leatherface, and Buffalo Bill. He is also one of the most sick and disturbing killers of all time, I watched a documentary on him, so I know his story pretty well. When I saw this, I was curious because I thought it was supposed to be like a documentary re-enactment, but I have to say that this was just a pathetic waste of time. First off, the facts are completely wrong, with a few minor exceptions, and secondly, this was just a stupid Hollywood story when these horrific murders really happened and they just made it into a cheap buck. Not to mention that if they were going to make it into a horror movie, this was poorly acted! <br /><br />Ed Gein, he lives in a small town in Wisconsin called Plainfield, but he has a little secret that the whole town is being effected by, he digs up dead bodies, as well as brutally murdering people. Bobby, a deputy, is on the case to get Ed Gein, only, no one knows who the killer is at first, just finding crime scene after crime scene. But things get "personal" when Ed starts messing with the policemen's family and friends.<br /><br />Of course this movie was just ridicules and completely insulting to the true story. I always thought that bad acting is a necessary tool to a horror flick, but for this story, it should have been a better acted film, not to mention, it should have been more of a documentary than a stupid cliché'd horror film. Please, stay away from this film, it's completely pathetic and untrue to the story of Ed Gein.<br /><br />1/10
Michael Feifer writes and directs this fictitious story based on the arrest of Edward Gein in Plainfield, Wisconsin. Gein was responsible for a rash of gruesome murders that sent a shock wave of terror through his rural hometown in the late 1950's. His evil mind and twisted world is suspected to be caused by his domineering zealous Lutheran mother. Ed was given the nickname "The Butcher of Plainfield". He would rob corpses from fresh graves of women who resembled his mother and he would have sex with them before 'dressing them like a deer' in his garage. Severed heads with bodies hanging upside down being his personal trademark. After his arrest there would be many articles made from human skin found in his home. In this movie, a young deputy Bobby Mason(Shawn Hoffman)makes the search for Gein(Kane Hodder)a personal one, when his storekeeper mother(Priscilla Barnes)goes missing. The acting is a whole lot better than the ridiculously liberal telling of the documented events concerning Gein. Also in the cast: Adrienne Frantz, Timothy Oman, John Burke, Michael Berryman and Amy Lyndon.
The story of Ed Gein is interesting, VERY interesting. This movie, however, interesting only in the fact that it was actually made. Kane Hodder's portrayal of Ed Gein is so far off, it's not even the slightest bit funny. Ed Gein did not behave psychotic in public, he was very calm and collected and always extremely polite to everybody and talked to anybody who would listen, this is one of the major things this movie failed to show the audience. But the biggest mistake of this movie, side from even one frame ever being shot, was that Ed never killed anyone without having been told to do so by his dead mother, whom he thought was speaking to him from beyond the grave. He killed only the people who his dead mother said he had to because it was God's will, and he was very remorseful about it, though that didn't stop him from experimenting with cannibalism and wearing people's flesh. I officially gave this movie a rating of "1" simply because "0" wasn't given to me as an option.<br /><br />I highly advise all to stay clear of this movie. If you want to see a movie that accurately depicts Ed Gein and doesn't try to put in a sub-plot love story between a cop and a fictional woman who never existed, i HIGHLY advise you see the original movie, which unfortunately seems to not be on IMDb.com though i could be wrong, but i have yet to find it here. The original doesn't stray from the actual events and doesn't try to twist the story. I can understand telling the story from a different perspective, but this movie just tried to straight change the true story itself, something that i find as horrible as if someone made a movie based on 9/11, but gave it a twist that Canada was behind it. Or a WWII movie saying Hitler was a good guy and helped fight the Nazi's.
I am a big fan of horror movies, and know a lot of info on serial killers. Obviously the director of this one refused to research the film he was creating, because half of the movie was fictional. More than that, the character of Ed Gein was portrayed in the wrong light. I did not rent the movie to worry about the Deputy and his girlfriend Erica. I rented it to watch Ed Gein and his legendary story. This movie was awful, the only reason I gave it a 2 out of 10 is because the gore wasn't too bad. Acting= horrible Actors= sub par Movie= waste of time.<br /><br />A big upset all around, but i wont give up my search for a good horror movie.
Just saw this at the Madison Horror Film Festival and was disappointed. A few shocking, funny moments (fisting the hollow Carla, a urinating harpy in the Dreamland) and two competing interesting premises (similar to New Nightmare with belief bringing a mythical character to life and also Lost Highway with a man living out a fantasy in his head) but had long stretches of no movement and incoherent plot development. Just because you use the framework of dreams or a mental fugue state doesn't make it Lynchian. You need the compelling visuals and creepy performances.<br /><br />Positive things: Dr. Maitland had real comic timing and all the girls were very cute. Carla's Father, Chalmers, and Ingrid Pitt looked like they were having some fun. And Tom Savini at least looked like he had his lines memorized and we couldn't see if he was just reading cue cards.<br /><br />I get the Hammer references, but it looks like the director realized the script was a snoozer and just added some shocks to try and get some laughs out of whatever footage he could put together. But they don't work because they're too few and far between and create an inconsistent tone. Condense this to 30 minutes of all the fun parts and you could have a surreal goofy short, but at feature length, skip it. It's not "so bad it's good" it's just "so bad it's boring".
Most likely "Cleopatra 2525" will be of little interest if you did not watch the series when it was broadcast; and I don't think that many people did. But if you are still somewhat intrigued it is a "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century" premise without space ships and with no budget for wardrobe or production design. <br /><br />In this case the Buck Rogers part (Cleopatra) is played by Jennifer Sky. Which one might expect to be a good thing as Jennifer is very beautiful and quite talented; and has a nice comedic touch. But a quick glance at the promotional material will show that she is somewhat the worse for having a bad haircut and a Salvation Army Thrift Store wardrobe. If you remember how fetching Jennifer was during her time on "Xena" her dowdy Cleopatra look will be a huge disappointment. With a target audience of "teenage boys looking to burn their eyeballs looking at "hot fetish-attired girls" it is not a good idea to skimp on the exploitation value of your heroine or her costume. And they wonder why some series don't attract much of an audience. Love it or hate it, "Buck Rogers" had hotter costumes and much better looking guest stars. <br /><br />The other two exploitation elements are Cleopatra's two female associates; Hel (Gina Torres basically playing her stock "Firefly" character) and Sarge (Victoria Pratt-another "Xena" connection-an extremely wooden version of Natasha Henstridge). Torres does a good job playing off the Cleopatra character, providing most of the show's comic relief. <br /><br />Torres sings the theme song, a somewhat lame parody of Rick Evans' "In the Year 2525 (Exordium and Terminus)" (1969). You remember the one that opens with the words "In the year 2525, If man is still alive, If woman can survive, They may find..."I suspect that they gave the series its title so that they could butcher this catchy little song although who knows, perhaps the title is a homage to "Buck Rogers" and they thought of using the song later. <br /><br />So, the premise of the show is that the Earth's surface has been taken over by aliens called Bailies (not the WKRP one) and the humans have been driven underground. Our three heroines fight against the Bailies under the direction of a disembodied (presumably) female voice (appropriately referred to as "Voice"). Unlike Buck Rogers, Cleopatra is kind of a wimpy third stooge, still dazed and confused from her cryogenic sleep or maybe just disoriented from the creepy haircut. There are a lot of nice close-ups of Sky wide-eyed and bewildered. Like "Buck Rogers" the running gag is Cleopatra using a common 21st century expression and everyone finding it either totally profound or completely baffling. <br /><br />Unlike "Firefly" the action is more of that hyper edited "Xena" garbage which is neither realistic nor particularly entertaining. One good gimmick is that the girls travel around "Spiderman" fashion, a sort of web slinging through tunnels and shafts in the labyrinth of their underground world. <br /><br />Strangely (or maybe not considering the budget) these are only half hour episodes and except for one two-part show there is not enough time for any subtlety and nuance. <br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
If good intentions were enough to produce a good film, I would have rated the turgid, ponderous, obvious "Focus" a bit higher than 4. Macy does his best, but as an earlier poster commented, Miller's little parable asks us to suspend disbelief too often. Perhaps the novel gives us a bit more background on Newman, so we can understand how someone who is obviously not without intelligence could be so dense in perceiving the attitudes of those around him. I agree with another reviewer that if one is unaware of how bigoted average citizens were in America during this time period, then this movie might be an eye-opener. I grew up in the fifties, and the "good" pastors of my Lutheran church found nothing wrong with having the church picnic at a commercial beach, whose sign prominently indicated that no Jews or blacks would be admitted. It is difficult for young people today to understand that this was the norm, and not just in the South. As late as 1964, when I graduated from a somewhat racially integrated (but sexually segregated) public high school in Baltimore, my black classmates could not attend the traditional "father and son banquet," as it was held at a facility which did not admit blacks. Sadly, it was an establishment owned by a Jewish family. The subject matter of "Focus" is important, and we should never forget, despite the lingering signs of racism in modern America, how truly repulsive the attitudes of that previous generation were.(The "greatest generation," indeed). So, perhaps this film is somewhat valuable in countering the recent wave of sentimental crap about the forties from the likes of Steven Spielberg and Tom Brokow. But in the end, as in "Far From Heaven," the filmmakers' good intentions are undermined by having a protagonist so ridiculously oblivious to the social conventions of their time.
I had never heard of this film until it came to DVD. I was immediately intrigued by everything about it: the actors, the title, the cover, and especially the author. Arthur Miller, you can't go wrong with him, can you? Yep. I haven't read the novel, but I'm going to guess it was a lot better than the film. I had high hopes for this movie. I love Macy and Dern, and it looked interesting. Unfortunately, this film never really rises above cookie-cutter messages about racism and bigotry. If you've never seen any other films that deal with this subject, or if you never knew that America was founded on bigotry, then maybe this film will wow you. Others will probably find it predictable, stale, and overall bland.
The somewhat-belligerent brother of a suicide finds that he and his mother grieve in much the same way (by acting out) but that Dad is morose and blaming himself. Writer-director Dan Harris gives us a dysfunctional family torn at the seams, characters with question marks hanging over them, and then lays all the story-points out in the most obvious terms: Suicide! Secrets! Gay shame! Family sickness! Ultimately aiming to wrap things up with a tidy bow, Harris wants to make sure we don't miss a trick, initially giving us thoughtful material to ponder but then spelling everything out in an elementary, sentimental fashion. Sigourney Weaver's bemused performance as the family matriarch is dryly disengaged and she's a joy--that is, until Harris gives her a make-over (complete with sensible new hairstyle). It's the cinematic equivalent of a condescending pat on the head. ** from ****
Viewers of independent films know that once or twice a year they are going to see stories about dysfunctional families and they have come to expect them and it's becoming more of a challenge to keep them fresh but here despite the good cast it just seems more of the same. Story is about the Travis family who is trying to recover from the suicide of Matt (Kip Pardue) who was a very promising high school swimmer. Ben (Jeff Daniels) is the father who withdraws from everyone and has never treated his other son Tim (Emile Hirsch) as well as Matt but he does communicate (of some sort) to his mother Sandy (Sigourney Weaver) who finds his stash of pot and starts to smoke it.<br /><br />*****SPOILER ALERT***** Sandy also starts to flirt with much younger men like the check-out cashier at the grocery store but when she attempts to buy more marijuana she gets busted and hauled off to jail. She doesn't tell anyone what happened but she does discover bruises on Tim's body and also that Ben has taken a leave of absence from work. After all this happens Sandy falls ill and lands in the hospital where her life is in danger which forces Ben to realize that he may have to come to terms with losing another part of his family.<br /><br />This film is written and directed by Dan Harris who has worked with Bryan Singer on "X2" and also the upcoming Superman film and while his script allows these characters to have genuine moments of expressing their pain and confusion the story (for me) just has too many things thrown in. The script touches on so many different areas that you need a scorecard to keep track of them all including drugs, sex, love, infidelity, abuse, neglect, experimentation with homosexuality, and a life threatening illness. If all those scenarios weren't enough for you Harris then tacks on a plot twist at the end that's supposed to sum up and explain most of everyone's feelings towards Tim. While I did roll my eyes at least 2 or 3 times with the way the script kept unrolling one thing after another I must admit that I didn't hate this film and I have to credit the actors for that. Everyone has at least one good scene somewhere in the film but I wish the story would have concentrated more on Weaver and her character than Hirsch. Weaver is exceptional and with a sharper script she could have had a role that maybe would have led to an Oscar nomination but instead we get endless scenes of Hirsch at parties or his shenanigans with the neighbor next door. Harris shows he can be a good writer/director but with this effort he just throws so many different things at the audience that the material just becomes labored and contrived.
===========BIG SPOILER================================== This is a terrible movie with no likable characters. So many clichés and senseless scenes. It needs a good editor but then there might not be any movie left. Please save your two hours. The only decent and unpredictable scene in the movie was when the younger brother refuses to stop his brother from killing himself. The description read "moments of dark comedy". Perhaps I missed those when I blinked. The horrible characters start right with the funeral. The funeral goers are laughing and complaining about the food while at the funeral of a very young man who has committed suicide? Then the father makes digs at the only son left? Right at the funeral? How is it that the next door neighbor whose husband cheated on her with Sigourney Weaver's character is the bad guy for telling the husband? The father doesn't even know his son can play the piano though everyone else around him seems to know he is a great pianist. The movie tries to shove every dramatic cliché possible into one movie: father over-driving athletic son to succeed, dysfunctional family losing a chosen son to suicide, the son left feeling lost and alone, drugs, marital affairs, child conceived via affair but raised as husband's son, incest, homosexual tendencies, bullies, possible terminal illness, etc, etc, etc. DO NOT WASTE YOUR 2 HOURS.
This was a character's movie. The plot wasn't that hot when it was there, but the characters were interesting and very well-acted. The story focuses on the Travis family in the wake of the eldest son's suicide. I say that loosely, because the story is mostly about the surviving son and the mother, because if the father WAS supposed to have the story focus on him too, they edited the movie pretty poorly. The acting on all parts was very good, particularly Emile Hirsch as the surviving, confused son. The characters were all very interesting and I didn't mind watching them until late in the film, when it just seemed to drag. <br /><br />My big complaint, however, was the story. The son killing himself was supposed to be the center of the plot. However, it really wasn't. It was something that happened at the start of the story, but then everything went every which way. Then they'd mention that the son killed himself to remind you that that was the central thread. The other thing was that the big plot twists, of which there were plenty, were never really explained or built up to, but just thrown in there randomly and often from far left field. In fairness, the ending was very, very cool. But it was also clear where the inspiration for the story came from: about half of it (the half that wasn't padding) was pretty much lifted from the story in the Pearl Jam song Alive. Which reminds me... <br /><br />There was a "poem" in the movie that was supposedly written by someone who killed themself. I could not have been the only one who recognized that said poem was lifted, word for word, from that very same song. I dunno, this was a movie I had hope for, and they really, really dropped the ball.
This wretched psychodrama uses every shabby device in the book to wheedle attention and sympathy from us for its characters, who, with one exception, are not worthy of any notice at all, let alone two precious hours of filmgoers' time.<br /><br />As in Robert Redford's "Ordinary People" (a superb film that, in comparison, clearly shows up the vacuity of "Heroes"), a late teenage boy has died, leaving his family in the throes of bereavement. In this case, the death was a suicide, an event that nearly always poisons the emotional well of the survivors in a particularly corrosive way. We follow these people over the next 8 or 9 months.<br /><br />The father (Jeff Daniels) becomes a withdrawn, virtually mute, usually drunken stiff who secretly takes leave from his job for months, sits instead on a park bench all day, and insists on setting a full plate of food at the deceased son's place for every meal. He treats everyone else in the family with unerring nastiness. He sees his doctor regularly but the issue of therapeutic intervention in his obviously dysfunctional state never comes up.<br /><br />The mother (Sigourney Weaver) yells at the neighbor woman, among others, gets busted when she stupidly tries to buy "marijuana" (her term) at a head shop (what adult in reality would ever try such a dumb stunt?), and, near the end, swoons into coma with a lung condition that everyone in the theater assumes is cancer (she's a heavy smoker). Ms. Weaver has a few flip lines but generally behaves too unintelligently to merit much empathy. <br /><br />It's not that there aren't people out there who behave in these silly ways when severely stressful circumstances arise. But why make a film of such drivel? What can anyone learn from this pair's conduct? <br /><br />The deceased's older sister (Michelle Williams) is away at college and all too happy to distance herself from the family zoo. The younger brother (played by Emile Hirsch) is the only credible member of the family. His suffering is genuine, its causes multifold, and his conduct is coherent within the circumstances. But Hirsch's character is too soft spoken, too morose and beaten down, to carry the movie. The other bit players, subtexts and cutesy, unreal dialogue don't help.<br /><br />The suicide theme is echoed in an almost nonchalant manner in the case of two other minor characters. So what is the writer-director, Dan Harris, trying to say about this subject? That it isn't a serious matter? Why Jeff Daniels agreed to play the sap of a father as written in this screenplay is something only his therapist might possibly be able to answer. Avoid this dog. Instead rent Redford's classic. My rating: 4/10 (C-). (Seen on 2/17/05). If you'd like to read more of my reviews, send me a message for directions to my websites.
I just finished watching this horribly depressing drama and realized that, in light of recent dramas such as these, the only ones who could be considered abnormal are those who are least aware that life is nothing more than tragic. I would suggest how nauseatingly defeatist and counter-productive this conclusion is, even if relationships and outlooks like those presented in this movie are grounded in fact to some degree. But, instead, I realized that these films have made the very determination of the great "tragedy" trivial when the same boring situations, the same suffocating dysfunctional families and friendships continue to play out just have they been over and over again in some sort of attempt to knock out previous distortions of family life (much of it existing in the 1950s and earlier with personality and character aberrations being made ever so subtle), supplanting it instead with the "reality" of how things actually are. That in fact, what we are watching is no longer the dysfunctional, but in fact, a normal existence and set of circumstances that has actually existed all along, but of which we may have been previously been unaware and thus, have ignored or at least denied.<br /><br />Only problem is, that too many films have been trying to make this point. And by doing so in nearly identical form. When I had read the synopsis for the film, I immediately thought of 'Ice Storm.' While watching the depressing lifelessness of the Travis family, which seemed to endure repeated emotional berating, I immediately recalled 'American Beauty.' And, in some regards, the interactions between the parents and the middle child, Tim, I drew similarities from 'Igby Goes Down.' 'Imaginary Heroes' may be a novel experience, maybe a refreshing one deemed so for an honest portrayal of character that, as said before, is often not permitted to exist in the films of family (which is idiotic to think anyways, considering we were already seeing these kinds of relationships displayed in films like 'Ordinary People' as early as 1980 and which go back even further than that). But, to the well-versed viewer, these films may offer nothing new. They have in fact, become a rather tired testimony of too many filmmakers who may try to out-do the other with the amount of trauma and apathy they can pack into one family (and here, it extends to neighbors and friends). In fact, 'Imaginary Heroes,' the latest in this genre (I do think there have been enough films to accurately declare it a 'genre'), crams so many disasters and surprises into one family, that they would make prize finds for a daytime talk show host. It is the story of a family who is tested by the suicide of the eldest son, a talented and decorated swimmer who hated the sport with a passion. The youngest son knew this, the father was in a daze and blinded by the push for competitiveness in his all-star son. And it's not clear that the mother and sister had much of a relationship with the young man.<br /><br />Granted, it is no less entertaining (to some extent, for those who find this material exhaustively depressing after a while), and the performances are quite good, especially by Sigourney Weaver and Jeff Daniels. But, I sure hope that filmmakers in the future wishing to add to the commentary of struggling familial relationships (which coincidentally or not always seem to be upper-middle class white suburban families) intend to offer something new by way of material and insight. I should see no distinction (and consequently, no purpose) otherwise.
Kinda funny how comments for this film went consistently downhill, now add mine. I think the script could have been saved by better acting, and the acting by a better script. Together, it was difficult to watch, and I don't flinch from such subject matter.<br /><br />Sigourney was the best part (I thought the relationship between her and her surviving son was pretty much the only new thing this film offered to its genre) but even she lagged. Can't blame her, who knows what takes were left on the cutting room floor by the director and/or editor. The whole movie had an "okay, that's good enough, let's move on" feel to it, when I KNOW there was more to be mined from the actors and the script, which did have some good lines and some interesting themes.<br /><br />I don't think this counts as a spoiler, but a perfect example is the scene where Sigourney marches up to her son's supposed tormentor's house and has this look on her face and I thought "that's the face of someone who is overacting what it's like to see someone living in a mobile home" and sure enough, next shot, meant to shock us I'm sure, bully lives in a trailer as opposed to a nice house, like hers.<br /><br />As many other posters have pointed out, there are SO MANY better movies with similarly airy scripts about similarly messed up families that hit the notes better -- "Celebration" probably being the ultimate example that I've seen.
Stylized Hollywood Westerns, full of familiar conventions, seem to have eternal life and this is an avatar. Everything in it seems to have been scraped out of the back of a drawer from 1939, a larger budget applied, and this production its issue.<br /><br />Gary Cooper has played this sort of role dozens of times -- the displaced Southerner, fast on the draw and firm with honor, though kinda easy going whenever possible. He plays Blayde Hollister who travels to Texas looking for the gang who destroyed his cotton plantation. He wears a buckskin-fringed shirt and packs two ivory-handled six shooters. He speaks with a countrified accent -- "A feller could get hurt doin' this." (Cf., "Sergeant York.") The gang is led by sneering Raymond Massey, who buys and sells land, usually by underhanded means whenever possible. The gang includes Steve Cochran, who cannot play a Westerner though he's very good at scum bags in general. The requisite woman is Ruth Roman, daughter of the Mexican plantation owner, who looks and speaks about as Mexican as a Boston brown betty.<br /><br />I don't think I'll bother too much with the plot. No doubt someone has gone into it in some detail and it's not worth much more mention. As in any 1939 Western, it's labyrinthine. Everyone except Cooper and his friends are underhanded and there are multiple double crosses and switched identities and hidden secrets.<br /><br />Everything is retro. The plot, the dialog, the wardrobe, even the music. The score is by Warner's stalwart Max Steiner. He's the guy that scored "King Kong." That was 1932. This movie was released in 1950.<br /><br />Cooper's name, by the way -- "Blayde Hollister" -- prompted me to look through the records of the RACA -- the Real American Cowboy Associaton -- to see if that name cropped up in their archives, which date from the beginning of time to February 4th, 1911, when the last Real Cowboy passed away due to an unfortunate encounter with a deranged peccary. There has never been a Real Cowboy with the name Blayde. Hollister, yes, but not Blayde. As a matter of fact, there is no record of any Real Cowboy named Wade, Luke, Cole, or Matt either. The most popular names for genuine cowboys, in descending order of frequency, were Clarence, Mortimer, Noble, Nebukadnezzar, Plautus, Pinchbeck, and Hortense.<br /><br />If this movie had been released in 1939, it would have been routine. In 1950, it is a calamitous monument in the history of human recycling.
This is one of the most ridiculous westerns that Hollywood ever made. Gary Cooper plays 'Reb Hollister', a former confederate officer wanted by the law. He meets up with a moron named Weatherby, played by Leif Erickson, who is a U.S. Marshal with no knowledge of firearms. Weatherby is on his way to Dallas to see his fiancee, Tonia Robles, played by Ruth Roman. Senor Robles, Tonia's father, has plenty of men, but they can't seem to be able to keep an eye on his cattle, which are regularly rustled by the Marlow brothers. Will Marlow, played by Raymond Massey, has financed the loan on the Robles estate, making things completely absurd. He even has the power to call for mortgage payments before they're due, simply because he feels like it.<br /><br />Since Weatherby is a Boston boy who can't fight, since he only became a Marshal so he could visit his fiancee, Tonia, (Just another instance of more plot nonsense. Are we to assume that you only have to pass a written test to get this job? Wait a minute, this guy couldn't pass the written test either.) he switches identities with Reb Hollister, who of course is an expert gunman. Reb takes the liberty of greeting Weatherby's girl with a passionate kiss, while Weatherby looks on like an idiot. Gary Cooper, Hollywood's number one stud, is in fine form here as Reb. Before the movie's done, not only does he take Weatherby's job, he steals his fiancee also, and Ruth Roman as Tonia, falls for him so hard and so fast that she gives chump Leif Erickson the brush-off before the films little more than half over.<br /><br />There isn't a shred of plot credibility in the whole film, so despite the good cast and lush photography, the film is a dud. And Cooper's character is a complete heel to boot. The film also stars Barbara Payton as Brant Marlow's girl, a beautiful and talented actress who squandered away her chances, unfortunately, by making too many headlines for the wrong reasons. I strongly suggest you pass this one up.
This is the most pitiful excuse for a comedy show I've ever seen. I'm confounded that this guy was given his own show. It smells of complete and utter desperation on the part of comedy central, trying to fill the void left by the talented and incomparable Dave Chapelle. He's a tip from Ned's bag of comedy gold: Is a punchline not funny? Need to give it that extra push into hilarity? F***ING YELL IT AT THE TOP OF YOUR LUNGS. Simple, no? And as an added bonus....finish half your jokes with...THEN YOU'RE RE-TAH-DED!! or DUH-DU-DUUUUHHHH! Oh man. So....funny. Beaner...hilarious. Wetback....does the laughter ever stop?<br /><br />To illustrate my point in a more cerebral way, i'll cite an example. Mencia jokes about how "retarded" it is to rebuild new orleans, because it's so close to the water. Genius. The line of distinction between a great comedian and a hack has never been drawn so clearly. While a good comedian would find hidden humor in the tragedy, finding subtle ways of weaving a joke into something that we can all laugh at and take solace in, Ned goes for the obvious. Move the city. Great. Wait, is that funny? Ned doesn't have the intellectual capacity to find the deepest meaning of things. The hurricane didn't flood the city, ned. The levee project was underfunded and in serious need of federal dollars...and behold! They broke. I guess that's God's way of telling us we shouldn't be there. After all, he's got a seat in congress. What a fool.<br /><br />Chapelle was a master of turning a tired racial comedic spin on its head. He was effortless at it, and at all points, we were laughing with him. While mencia talks about black people not being able to swim *yawn,* Chapelle took it 300 yards further with the black and blind white supremesist. You don't have to be scathing to be edgy. You have to be original. <br /><br />Mencia and his legions of fans are like that closeted gay dude who laughs all too emphatically at gay jokes, thinking it somehow masks his own insecurities. Except of course, with Ned, he's laughing all too emphatically at the "retards." Du-du-duuuuh.
I thought "puppets making crank phone calls" was pretty low, but I don't believe that Carlos Mencia's show even qualifies as comedy. His main objective is to make the audience incredibly uncomfortable while using the word "beaner" as many times as he possible can. I have never felt compelled to write a review declaring the awfulness of anything on IMDb before, but I really do hope this show is never renewed or rerun.<br /><br />Mencia is trying to be the next Dave Chapelle, and perhaps he was only hired by the network because they hoped he would fill those shoes. It is obvious right down to the rip of Chapelle's intro (blues guys vs. mariachi band). However, Mencia has absolutely *no* attitude, and does not delve into popular views of the hispanic culture enough to come up with a creative poke at it each time. Instead he sticks to a small number of hardly-shocking nicknames for his fellow latinos and makes "jokes" about immigration. Every once in a while, he'll take advantage of the slight darkness of his skin to make fun of someone else, like middle eastern cultures. These jokes mainly consist of reiterating every joke or stereotype made against the culture, and perhaps some incredibly old topics (such as 9/11), in a watered down, stand-up style, while he laughs at himself to cover up the audience's style. I think he's too afraid of really offending anyone, so it just makes the viewer feel awkward. He also beats jokes to death. If you've ever seen "Why the f*** is this news?" you'll know what I'm talking about. It's funny at first, but he just rambles on and on and becomes Captain Obvious at some point. <br /><br />It's a trainwreck that is purely painful to watch.
I haven't watched this show in months, but for a while I was forced to watch it every day because I had a roommate that liked it. So maybe it's undergone some vast improvement in all that time, although the commercials and the 4.2 rating on IMDb aren't a good sign.<br /><br />It was clearly just a quick replacement for Chappelle's Show. Even Mencia says so. And while I wasn't even that big a fan of Chappelle's Show, his jokes were at least original and clever (and far edgier than Mencia has ever been). Mencia's jokes are completely unoriginal and stale. If you can't see that, I guess there's just no hope for you. But to be fair, here are some examples: <br /><br />--Mencia blatantly rips off Chapelle's Lil Jon skit. Just takes it.<br /><br />--"South Park" makes an episode about scientology. One week later, Mencia has a joke on his show about how offensive he is to scientologists. Bear in mind the joke isn't ABOUT scientologists, but about how much he's offended them on his show. When up to this point, he has never made a single scientology joke, ever.<br /><br />--After Hurricane Katrina, two AP photos go around the Internet showing a black man "looting" groceries and a white woman "finding" them. WEEKS later, after millions of people have already seen this, Mencia presents it on his show as if he discovered it and it's being shown for the first time (the Daily Show would have been on something like that in a day). Pathetic.<br /><br />Even more annoying than the joke-stealing is the way Carlos has promoted himself and his show, claiming he's breaking down some sort of PC barrier (whatever) and that if you aren't laughing, you must be a weak prude who can't handle any jokes about race. Yes, Carlos, it's not because you're not funny, it's because we're all too offended to laugh (if that was really true, then why was Chappelle's Show so popular?). He constantly berates his audience for "not getting it" if he doesn't get enough laughs, and often repeats and EXPLAINS his jokes, a technique most comedians stop using by age 14.<br /><br />The worst part is that Mencia does not seem to be very intelligent. It's sort of tragic that there are dozens of funnier, more insightful comedians out there trying to make it while this guy is rolling in money. His show is supposedly the third highest rated on Comedy Central, which is baffling (again, it has a 4.2 rating on this site). Where the hell are they getting these numbers?? Comedy Central tries to bill itself as an "edgy" station, but as long as it tries to appeal to the dumbest audience possible, that will never be the case.
...so where's my friggin trophy? I seriously expected a banner and confetti to drop from my ceiling for watching a full 30 minutes of that crap. Comedy Central is truly dropping the ball lately, trying to fill the void left by Chappelle with multiple seasons of a retarded man impersonating retarded men. Dah duh nah!! If you pay attention to the show, you'll notice that when Mencia isn't stuttering over punchlines and laughing at his own skits, he only makes exaggerated observations which seem to lack any sense of humor. You ever notice how people in Buick's drive really slow? It's like Dah duh nah! Not even the midgets and half naked hot chicks manage to distract from Mencia's distinct lack of talent. Furthermore, Mencia isn't even a "wetback" as he constantly and adamantly proclaims he is, which makes him a fraud on top of it all.<br /><br />If anything good could be said about Mencia, it's his effort. The man clearly has no talent, but like a wounded antelope in the mouth of a hungry alligator, god knows he's trying.
Yup, that's right folks, this is undoubtedly the worst show in the history of television. If you want to watch a sad, lonely and unfunny hack comedian attempt to entertain the masses with a half hour of pale and tired social ramblings that your mildly retarded cousin commented on at the Thanksgiving dinner table then this might be the show for you. This is billed as edgy comedy my friends but to be honest this makes Tim Allen look like Richard Pryor. Avoid at all costs. Unless you're a masochist.
I absolutely love stand-up comedy. I love to hear the raw thoughts of the stand-up on stage, as they are appealing to an audience of their peers different life experiences they have had, or things they have thought up or seen that they just thought were so ****ing stupid that they had to share it with someone. <br /><br />There used to be stand-ups who took on a persona that everyone could relate to (Rodney Dangerfield comes to mind) or were just so damn crazy that you couldn't help but laugh with them as they laughed at others (Richard Pryor). And then, there were the thought-provoking comics like George Carlin, who, despite pretending to be a loon, was the smartest guy in the room, who appealed to people to rethink things they saw when they walked around, and realize just how screwed up things were, and how easily they could change things.<br /><br />Now, this might seem to not have anything to do with "Mind Of Mencia," which, as I agree with most commentators here, is Comedy Central's horrid solution to the loss of "Chappelle's Show," but it does. Carlos Mencia spends half of the show doing stand-up bits for his audience, sometimes on popular topics, most of the time on just racism and racial stereotypes. He tries to be all three of the above types of stand-ups. He makes a stage character, an every-day Mexican named Carlos who, despite stereotypes, is just your run-of-the-mill normal guy. He then proceeds to try to laugh at others, people he calls racist or just those that disagree with his opinion. And then, finally, he presents skits to the studio audience and the viewer, telling them that it will help them see his point of view.<br /><br />Carlos Mencia always says he's showing a point of view that people don't see, yet what he is really doing is not only promoting racist stereotypes that already exist and have been joked about to death, but he stupidly encourages people to hear them and do the one thing that helps keep them around:laugh.<br /><br />Promoting stereotypes is usually the lowest, yet easiest, way to get laughs in stand-up. The best comedians, which, I fear, Carlos Mencia feels he is in good company with, don't have to resort to them. They talk universally, and ask you to laugh AT absurdity, rather than with it, like Mencia encourages. As he creates more skits or "real-life" situations that call for racism or the bashing of others with the use of it, he tells us, rather than asks us, to laugh, and actually presents these absurdities as truth, rather than just extremes of it. <br /><br />His show is an insult to the minds of those who watch it. Mencia doesn't give us comedy and ask us to digest it and take from it what we want (something that, as much as I hate to compare the two, was "Chappelle's Show's" finest quality) he tells us exactly how we should view it and react to it---which, according to him, is to make a stupid face and say "Dee Dee Dee!" This show is appropriately named. It is indeed a show about "The Mind of Mencia." It's Mencia's mind, through and through, and, as such, is nothing more than dumb entertainment. The show is tailor-made to give life lessons to its core audience, 14-24 year olds, about how stereotypes are bad, but that racial bashing is alright to Carlos Mencia, and therefore should be alright to you!
What is it now-a-days that minority comedians feel its okay to slander their minority and expect to get away with it? <br /><br />Carlos Mencia is no George Lopez. There IS a difference. When watching comedian Carlos Mencia, I think he hates his own people. And more than that, I think he was forced to pattern his show as the "Hispanic/Latino/Spanish" version of the Dave Chappelle show. What a horrible mistake. (Note to Mencia: Please do not do a "Block Party" movie. As much as I would like to see Santana, Tierra, El Chicano, Christina Agullaria, Jennifer Lopez, Shakira and the reunion of the cast of "Xica da Silva" on one stage, don't.) <br /><br />Carlos Mencia likes to use the word "beaners" as much as Dave Chappelle liked using the "n" word. Neither is funny and neither is acceptable, even if it's from 'their own people'. Carols Mencia also likes to say, "If you're offended, too bad". It's not the offense, it's the defense because of what is being said and asked to be accepted.<br /><br />Carols Mencia goes further - he disrespects everyone for what he assumes is comedy. It's not comedy, it's not funny. There is a finesse to being able to look at yourself and make others laugh out of comedy and not laugh out of enforcing stereotypes that other races believed in the beginning.<br /><br />Mind of Mencia needs polishing because Carlos Mencia needs polishing. Find out what is funny and not what will set more prejudices in motion and then - do it. Until then, the show, Mind of Mencia is a pass.
Carlos Mencia just plain isn't funny! His show is painful to watch because of that. His sketches/parodies are all very horrible, and this really just feels like a filler for the Chapelle Show, which while I'm not a big fan of that, it is much funnier than this trash. Carlos Mencia gives the stupid speeches and he all too often depends on finishing his monologues with a retarded voice and going "der, der der." It's just not funny. He often, when talking to others, makes puns. They are horrible and painful. When people don't laugh, he blames them...why would anyone laugh, he's not funny. He has an immature sense of humor in everything he does on this show, it's amazing that anyone but 3 year olds watch this. One of my least favorite things he does, is water down every topic and make it seem like a joke! I hope that this racist idiot gets taken off the air as soon as possible because he's dumbing down a station that doesn't need to be dumbed down anymore.
This is a great example of what happened at Comedy Central after Dave Chapelle left. Here's the problem with Carlos Mencia. Firstly, his birth name is Ned Holness, and was known that until he was 18, when he switched his name to Ned Arnel Mencia. He was born in Honduras, though he acts like he's from Mexico. He grew up in the United States, as well.<br /><br />I might be able to forgive all that crap, but...<br /><br />He's been caught stealing other peoples material. Joe Rogan has been his most vocal critic in this way. The Stereotype Olympics was an idea he ripped off a couple of DJ's from Miami. He has stolen jokes from Bill Cosby. He stole George Lopez's material in his own HBO special (13 minutes of it).<br /><br />He thinks what he's doing is so original, but Dave Chapelle and Lisa Lampanelli have been cracking on race for years before this idiot (amoung others).<br /><br />This show will crash and burn. The word Beaner can't last that long before it gets old. He hasn't done anything new since the first episode.<br /><br />"Wanna hear a joke? A Beaner jumping a fence!! That's funny for 3 Seasons!" Not.<br /><br />Awful.
I'm surprised that the comparison hasn't been made yet between Mind of Mencia and the television program The Awful Truth, which ran a few years ago. Helmed by controversial director Michael Moore, the show would begin, in the exact same manor as this show, with Moore interacting with the audience, and introducing segments, namely short documentaries and skits, which had been put together in an attempt to provoke thoughts about current issues. The difference? Mencia rarely delves past the superficial and the reactionary. What he says and does is often pandering and rude, and insults the ability of his audience to make decisions for themselves. There's a difference between being "edgy", which I have no problem with, but Mencia tries too hard to accomplish this, and ends up coming off as arrogant, and with little backing. He does however, make points occasionally, but often in order to get to them, one has to sit through some pretty mind numbing attempted shock humor.
...If you've been laughing too much for a long time, and need to take a break.<br /><br />After reading about 25 unfavorable reviews of this show, I decided to turn it on and check it out for myself. Everything that each of those people have said about this show is absolutely true. Mind of Mencia is like a half hour version of Mad TV, but with somehow worse jokes.<br /><br />One skit I had the displeasure of watching was "The Second Annual Stereotype Olympics". What's funny about black guy who has trouble swimming, or gay guy named "Sparkles" that wins a banana eating contest? Neither of these concepts is particularly novel, insightful, or amusing. Do we really need a joke about Star Wars every episode? That movie came out like 30 years ago. Mencia's solution to funny things up is toss in some stereotypes about Hispanics and throw a few "beaners" in there; and call it a day to go home to roll around in his pile of money. Pure comedic genius.<br /><br />Then he blatantly ripped off Jeff Foxworthy on a second show I watched, with a "Your gay if..." bit. You could just imagine the roaring laughter he got when he snook in a Ryan-Seacrest-is-gay joke. It's not like either of those has already been done to death.<br /><br />Unless you're a big fan of Jason Friedberg and Adam Seltzer movies, please stay away from this show. Especially when there are authentic comedians like Dave Chappelle out there who can joke about races and racism and still be insightful.
Did you find the title funny? Oh, you didn't? Well that's because you're uptight. Learn to laugh because if you're not laughing, you're not living. So please, lower your standards regarding to what you believe is funny to that of a mere infant. Now do you find it funny? Still no?! OK, that's because you're full of yourself and get offended too easily. If you're not laughing, you're not living. And if you don't like me then send me hate mail so that I could write another review and state how much hate mail I get and try to twist this into making it seem as if I am a bad ass. Are you laughing at my hilarious title yet? Still no?!?! OK that's it! You are a racist! You HAVE to laugh or else you are a racist. Why else would you not laugh? Oh, It's not funny!?! No, this can't be why. I want it to be funny so therefor it is!! Laugh damn it!!!! Please!!! Deedeedee!! Durdurdur!! Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OK that's it. Where's my notepad and pen? And where's my Richard Pryor DVD's? I need to write some jokes for my show.<br /><br />And...... scene. Thank you, thank you.<br /><br />This is basically what you'll get from Mencia for about 23 minutes. Please, do yourself a favor and change the channel when this bum's show comes on. Even basic cable channels have things 100x better than this. I'm not even saying this because I hate him. I'm for real. This show is like watching grass grow. Not sure though, at least grass doesn't steal jokes. I'm honestly trying to save YOUR time. I even tried watching his show. I told myself "maybe he isn't THAT bad.". But no, he is. I completely zone out when I watched his show. I tried to collect myself during the commercial break and focus on the show but I couldn't. I zoned out again, I think I was thinking of something more interesting like re-making my bed, vacuuming or folding my socks. Before I knew it, the show was over. Yeah, it's that bad.<br /><br />Here's my final thought - There's so many things you can do with 30 minutes besides watch this guy shout about nothing for half an hour. Don't watch a show that tries to shove racism in your face in vain. I can support shows that try to ease the tension of the race wars but this guy just provides more racism rather than stop it.
To put it simply, Mind of Mencia is the worst, unfunniest show on Comedy Central, and quite possibly all of television... ever. I love Comedy Central and watch many shows and movies there all the time, but every time the intro for this show even starts after some good comedy, I can't find the remote fast enough.<br /><br />Mencia tells used, worn out racial jokes in a bad attempt at being controversial, then will point out the ethnicity he just talked about in the audience as if to say 'they liked it, so all of your race likes it, and by extension me too'. Give me a break Mencia, I don't know if those people are plants or not, but just because you go to a black guy and high five him after one of your ridiculous jokes, doesn't mean he thinks you're funny, it just means you put him on the spot and what else is he going to do, smack you on TV? He gives the impression that his jokes are deep, meaningful, and thought provoking, which is apparent in his commercials, but when you actually watch the show almost 100% of what he says is common sense. He also claims that only smart people get some of his jokes, but you don't have to be any smarter than a monkey to understand what he just said when he says that, maybe you need to go finish 3rd grade Carlos. The guy goes on to say that he says what others are only thinking, but I think you'll find that if anyone was thinking what he says, they figured out all on their own that it was ridiculous, and that's why they never said it in the first place.<br /><br />All in all, watch 1 episode and be done with it if you must, because after you've seen 1 episode, you've seen them all. Why Comedy Central keeps renewing this horrible show is well beyond me. If you're looking for good comedy, look elsewhere, because you will find very little of it here.
Thats right I can't watch Comedy Central anymore just because I can't bear to watch the repeated commercials for this show. I'll tell you the truth, this is a terrible show not because I'm offended by it, but because Carlos Mencia is one of the worst comedians I have ever seen. I rather watch Carrot Top do a George Bush impression than watch this no-skill hack. And to believe he calls himself the greatest. Even if he didn't steal the jokes, he is still bad at telling them, he's way off-timing and unoriginal. I remember in one joke he said "Why do white people go camping? to pretend there poor for a week?" Now what is that suppose to mean? That all white people are rich? Another one I didn't understand was when he did a skit of the Price is Right and he told some fat guy "You should know how much a fridge cost, you're fat" and the fat guy had the saddest look on his face. But what does that mean? That "fat people" are always looking for refrigerators? Those are just the two I seen in his commercials, God knows what his show is like..<br /><br />This show falls in the likes of Epic Movie and Date Movie..
There's been a whole lot made about Carlos Mencia's (Mr. Holness, excuse me) theft of other comics' material. Heck, even before Joe Rogan had a blowup with him on stage I knew that Carlos Mensteala was swiping material from Cosby and Kinison and a host of others.<br /><br />To compound the crime of his theft, he retold these comic geniuses jokes BADLY.<br /><br />And that is a crime he continues to perpetuate on this show. I'm sure the series writers have to share some of the blame - it's got to be hard to write jokes day in and day out... but that's why people get paid so darned much to do it! These series writers need to go back to their day jobs of flipping burgers or whatever it was they were doing before they decided to embark upon a career of intellectual theft.<br /><br />Not to say that he steals all of his material. You can tell when he has devised a joke on his own when what you are watching transcends the merely awful and goes straight into the territory of horrifyingly bad.<br /><br />Because he likes to call people b***h on his show, ten year olds call him a genius. They're gonna grow up one of these days, Carlos, and when they do, you're gonna dry up and blow away.
The tagline for this show is, "He's speaking his mind. We're hiring extra lawyers." If you look back in time, any classic raunchy comedian never prided himself in being controversial. Richard Pryor's tagline wasn't, "I'm Crude, Racist and Daring." That's basically how Comedy Central is marketing this show - in your face, non-PC and "honest" - but how can a television show pride itself in being this way? Where's the humility and humbleness? And what suddenly has made Carlos Mencia this huge figure for Comedy Central? Let's start at the beginning - Dave Chappelle cancels his show (which became UNEXPECTEDLY popular and controversial) and Comedy Central is looking around for someone new to push. They hire this guy named Ned who claims to be a Mexican, even though he isn't. They splatter his face on a few TV ads and make it look like they're being "daring" by unleashing him upon the public.<br /><br />I've seen a lot of hateful topics on the forums for this show, and I don't agree with "Mencia's" detractors. This is not an awful show. It had me crying in laughter a few times. When it's funny, it's very, very funny. Yes, it's juvenile - but so was Chappelle's.<br /><br />The problem with Carlos is that he uses a lot of the same material over and over. And he's too obvious. The overt marketing put aside, "Carlos" has now said beaner so many times I have lost count. He's trying to make it the next famous line (like "I'm Rick James, b****!") but it's way too obvious.<br /><br />In terms of repeating himself, Carlos uses many of the same jokes over and over. For example, on one episode he said he'd love it if all Mexicans disappeared from America overnight. He'd wake up and an American guy would be saying, "Room ser'vuce!" in a southern accent.<br /><br />He used this exact same joke - verbatim - when he appeared as a guest on Adam Carolla's talk show. It was a great deal less funny the second time around, because he seemed more desperate.<br /><br />Is "Carlos" funny? I think so. There are some outrageous moments on his show. But he focuses too much on TRYING to be controversial rather than just going with the flow and letting his comedy naturally progress. Repeating silly little catchphrases over and over again coupled with goofy faces and loud vocal screams does indeed get old quite fast...I just hope Carlos - or his writers - can give a new edge to this show, because right now it's starting to dwindle in repeat hell.
Okay, I like to give the benefit of the doubt. I watched his show.<br /><br />It isn't funny to me. All I remember was a lot of "weird" noises and yelling. I don't think I even cracked a smile. The only thing that somewhat resembled humour was his Anjelina Jolie/Jennifer Aniston bit. I think you can get dumber by the minute watching it though.<br /><br />Also, what's with the "Ask Whitey?" section? Is that a ripoff of "Ask a Gay Dude?/Black Man?" from Chappelle's Show? Isn't it that obvious? But when Chappelle did it, he was exposing the ignorance of the subject. Like Borat. But what's up with picking random white people and yelling stuff at them? That's not funny, its just plain dumb.<br /><br />And I'm pretty sure I heard certain "jokes" of his somewhere else... it seems abit like he's 'plagerising' bits & pieces, throwing in some "loud" yelling.<br /><br />Anyway, it wasn't funny. Seriously. Don't even waste your time.
Besides the fact that this guy is a liar, he is also a total idiot, and a thief in the comedy community. Once when I attempted to watch this excuse for a television show, I believe i actually threw up in my mouth a little. I can't help but feel a little bit dumber every time is see one of his horrid commercials while I am enjoying great comedy central programs like Reno 911 and American body shop. It shows like this that make me worry about the continual existence of mankind. It's hard to believe that even Joe Rogan can make someone look like an moron. Please begin praying now that comedy central will realize their mistake and end this show as soon as possible. Haven't we suffered enough?
I'm a huge comedy show fan. Racial humor is always a little risky but the greats like George Lopez, Dave Chapelle, Lisa Lampanelli etc. pull it off perfectly.<br /><br />They don't go overboard, make the audience uncomfortable or *cough cough* STEAL JOKES! But I won't harp upon that.<br /><br />Carlos makes racial humor totally unenjoyable. His jokes continually scream racial humor to the point were it's not funny or clever, but it's insulting. I'm not one to turn cold towards racial humor. But his execution of these jokes is sloppy that cause people to recoil at his comedy.<br /><br />His humor is only surpassed by his stage presence in annoyance. I feel as though he's SCREAMING at me constantly! And he runs around the stage like a maniac. It only comes off as annoying!
Carlos Mencia is not funny. From his stand up specials to this train wreck of a TV series, Carlos Mencia is not funny. I have been trying to convince people for two years that he steals other comedians' jokes, and as far as his comedy material goes, he is a regular "Johnny-come-lately" with far less than sub-par results. Psycho astronaut jokes? Britney Spears breakdown jokes? I hope this is only a scheduling error, but come on Carlos and Comedy Central, those topics, and many others, have run the gamut of late night TV show hosts' opening monologues, Saturday Night Live, Mad TV and many, many others. Lampooning ethnic and racial stereotypes? Comedy stands no chance of evolving with Carlos Mencia around. Perhaps people, especially viewers and Comedy Central executives will get the point since this week's issue of "New York" magazine accurately labeled him: "Carlos Mencia, unrepentant joke-filcher."
Occasionally I accidentally leave the television on after "South Park" and I end up catching some of the train wreck of middle school humor that is "Mind of Mencia". It's the only time I wish my room was cleaner because I'd be able to find the remote that much faster. The truth is Comedy Central was in need of a replacement "Chappelle's Show", and what they got was a show that appeals to idiots that either miss Dave so much they'll cling to any minority variety show, or are satisfied with the plain "Mexicans love tacos" jokes that Carlos Mencia shovels in every week. I am to understand, though, that there are some people out there that actually find Mencia *shudder* funny. I firmly stand by my words when I say I believe these people to exist only in myth. However, if you are indeed out there, I ask only that you never enter into my housing district, and read these major differences between Carlos and "Chappelle's Show": <br /><br />1) Dave was funny. You may want to highlight this one. <br /><br />2) "Chappelle's Show" was FIVE TIMES as edgy as Mencia could ever hope to be. Yet every time a promo for his little show airs, it's all about him, tooting his own horn about how he's nothing we've ever seen before. You've got that right, Carlos. And not in a good way. Chappelle didn't need to tell people he was edgy and funny. We all just kind of stuck around to watch the show to find out for ourselves.<br /><br />3) Chappelle actually had race jokes that dove into some depth of the different cultures- things that some people didn't know about. Like his "I know black people" game segment. The grand prize was some hair cream that black people use. That's deeper than Mencia would ever dare to dive. So how dare he call himself edgy? If Mencia were writing that sketch the grand prize would have been fried chicken and kool-aid. And my accusations have some merit. I saw a promo for his show (which I have affectionately come to call 'My T.V. Monitor Taking A S--t For Thirty Minutes') a few days ago and it was some stereotype olympics sketch, which i admitted to myself was a pretty funny concept. Then I saw that the Mexican that won received a green card as a grand prize. That's it?! That's as close to the fire as you wanna get? Who COULDN'T think of that- back in 7th grade? For you fans of the show, if you're ever watching and you miss one of his punchlines- perhaps because you and your friends were discussing how "Duh-De-Durr" never gets old and is in no way the part of the joke where someone funny would have something clever to say- just remember that there are only five possible choices for punchlines anyway: green card, tacos, border jumpers, lawn mowers, and of course, duh-de-dur. Just remember-whichever it was, it was screamed. Enjoy!<br /><br />4) Kind of relating to number two. Every time he says something that gets a laugh, he'll pause to tell people (while laughing at his own joke) that he thinks he "went too far with that last one". Then don't say it for God's sake. Or let the people decide by themselves. He and Comedy Central keep shoving this tripe down my throat that he's this tell-it-like-it-is show that is more controversial than "The Da Vinci Code". You're not. You never will be. <br /><br />I've never been offended by the show's content. I would never give it that much credit. I'm offended that Carlos Mencia is given thirty minutes to scream unnecessarily. Yeah... I'm literally offended by that fact.
Carlos is perhaps not the most original comic, but the first series was amusing, his forthright comments and observations were fresh. I missed a couple of seasons, but after all of the allegations of stealing material I caught a couple of episodes of the Mind of Mencia at the end of July 07. A bit of a change I see! Carlos is much more into toilet humor and sex jokes than the race observations. In one episode he sort of implied he was in the same league as Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle. I think not. Perhaps Comedy Central will give him one more season, but episodes I saw sounded tired and samey with more words beeped out than the Osbournes. Carlos, go back to stand-up for a couple of years, get some fresh material and try again.
I've only seen most of the series since I leave the TV on as background noise in my dorm.<br /><br />I've been a fan of Mencia but this show really doesn't do much for me. Occasionally he'll say or do something to pull a chuckle out, but he has this aura of smugness that completely ruins it.<br /><br />I've always thought he was funny because of his raging angry-man routine that's not terribly prevalent in this TV series. Instead, he's just smug. I guess that just reflects how funny his comedy is: stale and uninteresting when he isn't in the proper mode of delivery. I've seen him get into it sometimes on his show, but for the most part, he just sits there smiling and looking smug, and it doesn't suit him well.<br /><br />Just my opinion though.
Carlos wants to make fun of affirmative action, racial stereotypes and related topics on his show which makes him a lot like Supreme Court Justice Thomas. He's there BECAUSE of his race and then denigrates it. He can supposedly make fun of Mexicans to no end because he is himself Mexican, and I would also contend he can get away with making fun of the mentally challenged because any lay person can tell he's not the sharpest tool....though he is definitely a tool of some sort. <br /><br />He is a hack comedian who, even with a staff of writers, can't put together 3 minutes of genuinely funny material in a 30 minute show. I can't think of a single comedian who is regularly on TV that Carlos can hold a candle to except maybe Larry the Cable Guy (not too surprisingly, he also has a show on Comedy Central to cater to the exact same audience no doubt.<br /><br />If you ever see the greats, Jerry Seinfeld, Chris Rock, Jon Stewart etc. talk about comedy you really get a feeling for the amount of work and thought that goes into developing a funny interesting comedic voice. All that work was completely skipped by Mencia; his comedic voice is, in part, stolen from other better comics and in part hidden by his propensity for yelling his unfunny rehashed racist tripe. Mencia's show is beloved by some of the "at least I don't suck that badly crowd" who I firmly believe watch it to feel better from his rants about the dumbing down of society; unfortunately Carlos and his fans are part of the problem not the solution on that topic.
It doesn't take balls to make-fun of retarded people. Having to listen to Mencia insist that he is brave to make "retard" jokes is intolerable. Also, it doesn't take balls to bite off of the chapelle show. The racial game-shows, the racial olympics, it seems like a lot of the skits are merely reworked Chapelle Show skits, that are just way less funny. <br /><br />But the most irksome thing in the show is his insistence that he is just marching to the beat of his own drum, when he is actually marching to the beat of many over-worked, over-done drums that have been drummed many times.<br /><br />I hate this show. I hate that it presents itself as a voice for Latin America.<br /><br />And no Carlos, I am not trying to censore you. If people like it, then keep it on. But I personally think that it's a bad show.
while mind of mencia could be summed up as nothing more than a clone of chappelle's show, it is really worse than that. first of all, Carlos mencia is a jacka** that is as funny as he is original, which isn't saying much. the show contains lame spoofs of American television ads and political issues, and mencia's "comedic" insight on politics adds to the low quality of this show. on top of it all, mencia tosses in more lame ethnic jokes and stolen Jeff foxworthy lines than i can count on one hand. while every once in a while Carlos gets a cheap laugh, the rest of the time he spends insulting everyone in sight, which does include exploiting his own audience members. with the exception of south park, drawn together, and Friday night stand-up, this show marks the end of the chappelle's show glory days, which for those of you who haven't heard, was before he went to Africa.
This show reminds me of an episode of "The Simpsons," where Smithers had just been fired by Mr. Burns and was forced to live a miserable life being unemployed. All he did to while the way the hours was to drink and watch Comedy Central. The implication was that Comedy Central was a pathetic TV channel for miserable people with nothing else to occupy their time. "Mind of Mencia" is slightly better than most of Comedy Central's programming, but it still serves as an example of why this channel is low-quality filler for people with absolutely no lives. <br /><br />Truth be told, Mencia is a fairly competent comedian who throws out trite, soft-ball ethnic jokes and cashes in on bland stereotypes of people based on their race, gender, or economic status, or a combination of two out of three of these characteristics. If you've heard one of these jokes by one of your friends at a bar or at work, believe me, you've heard what passes as comedy on "Mind of Mencia." Carlos also tries to make fun of current events, but lacks creativity or originality. This is not to say that Carlos is a washout all the time. I found some of his skits amusing, such as his rap video portrayal as an oil sheik. If you find bland, run-of-the-mill comedy up your alley, you'll probably enjoy "Mind of Mencia." For those people who are tired of repetitive, pedestrian comedians trotting out the same old time-worn jokes, stay away.
I'm sorry but this guy is not funny. I swear I've heard heard 4 year olds come up with better jokes then some of his. "Dee dee dee" for instance is possibly the worst catch phrase I've ever heard. It lacks any creativity at all, and to be making fun of mentally challenged people when you've reached level of having your own show is incredibly dim-witted on Mencia's part.<br /><br />Though every one compares this fool to Chappelle, their is no contest. First off they had very very different shows. I think all in all Menica's show on average had only about 2 short 5 minute skits in between his 10 minute rants about god knows what. Chappelles show came off more as sketch comedy, with 2-4 skits that occupied all the show. All chappelle did was a short summarization of each skit before and after each one. This is where Mencia fails even more. What would make Mencia think having a show which consists of the same standup comedy that he talks about on his standup specials would be a beneficial idea? Does anybody really want to listen to a bit George Lopez pioneered years before Mencia, but just dragged beyond belief to the point where its dead? Snowflake's chance in Hell.<br /><br />My point is even though most people hate this guy for his rascism, I just cant stand him for his imcompetence. Comedy Central was looking for a minority they could brand as "controversial" and then leave him to follow Chappelles path. The problem, is this guy made it very clear he doesn't want to be Chappelle. So instead he conducts his crappy show like a burning trainwreck right into the ground. Does anybody want to watch a weekly standup about the same stuff every thursday, I know sure as hell I don't.<br /><br />I cant express my gratitude to Comedy Central though. This idiot's show is done. Personally after watching his standup, I don't know how he got his own show in the first place. There are so many more deserving comics like Jim Gafigan, Zach Galifinakis, etc... In fact anyone is better than this fool.
This film is worth seeing since it is a classic in the sense of being the very first full length film released in the process of three demention. It was not very good in its acting or story plot, but can be a great movie quiz question from an historical standpoint. It should be seen in the 3 D process with polarized lenses.
I was a teenager when this first appeared in theaters, and I saw it in Japan. The film's plot wasn't my cup of tea as a high school sophomore, but I went to see it for the 3-D process. It had been ballyhooed in the press so that even service personnel overseas had heard of it, though it never screened at the Post theater.<br /><br />The film started the trend of throwing objects at the audience, which was taken to absurd levels with later 3-D films.<br /><br />I don't know whether this qualifies as a spoiler, but you've been warned if it is. In many films of the time, actors would often work in front of a "rear projection screen," where backgrounds could be projected to make it appear that they were in a different environment, such as a jungle background when the actors were actually on a sound stage. This works well on regular films, but when seen in 3-D, they look like a flat scene behind the actors. There were several scenes in the film where rear projection was used, and it didn't work well in the theaters. If seen in 3-D, it will constitute another disappointment.<br /><br />The film's only importance is historical, since it was the first of its kind.
I saw this movie when it was first released in Pittsburgh Pa. I had traveled from Youngstown Ohio, a distance of approx. 85 miles. I knew nothing of the plot nor the players. I had read no reviews nor had I talked to anyone who had seen it. Believe me I will never make that mistake again. It was being touted I believe as the first feature length movie filmed in the new 3D process. That was what enticed me to make a 170 mile round trip.<br /><br />There was a waiting line two abreast that stretched (I kid you not) 2 or 2½ blocks long and moving very slowly. I could hardy wait to be seated. If I had only known at that moment what I soon would know, I could have been ¾ of the way back to Youngstown by the time the feature started.<br /><br />By the time the first 3D scene was shown, I was already nodding off. The novelty quickly wore thin and from then on it was pure agony.<br /><br />Without going into excruciating detail, I can only offer the following advice. If you have ever seen the famous film PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE, supposedly the worst movie ever filmed, it in my humble opinion stands head and shoulders above this garbage.<br /><br />I don't know if this has ever been shown on tv, if it has I don't know why. If you ever get a chance to see it, do something else. Take a walk, cut the grass, wash the dog, have someone flog you with a rubber hose. ANYTHING. Your time will have been better spent.<br /><br />This has been my first movie review. It might well be my last unless a worse movie comes along and I wouldn't make book that will happen.<br /><br />Bill<br /><br />
"The Brotherhood of Satan" is a stupefying combination of conventional horror elements mixed with some imaginative characterization and direction (Bernard McEveety). It all starts out with father Charles Bateman (as Ben) driving out west with his pretty blondes: luscious Ahna Capri (as Nicky), and daughter Geri Reischl (as K.T.). Things get weirder and weirder for the trio, as they approach the town of Hillsboro, which is being gripped by a Satanic cult! <br /><br />When the dullish travelers hit Hillsboro, the "action" switches to the film's more interesting assemblage of characters: townies L.Q. Jones (as Pete, the sheriff), Strother Martin (as Doc), Charles Robinson (as Jack, the priest), and Alvy Moore (as Tobey). Their interplay is sometimes fun. Soon enough, it all gets very silly, and predictable. Mr. Martin is the stand-out (as you might expect); he considers the possibility of a Satanic cult to be a "cock-and-bull story", but is (of course) their leader. The "Come in, Children" ending is puzzling; unless, perhaps, it was the film's original title.
This is one of those religious horror films which never explain why the forces of "evil" are 10,000 times stronger than those of "good". We've got here a Satanic cult which can: 1) "beam away" people (like in "Star Trek"), 2) kill through little children's dolls, 3) transfer a soul from one body into another, 4) hypnotize telepathically from a bigger distance, and 5) cause drastic car-crashes in which selected persons turn into spaghetti while others (kids, in this case) survive unscathed.<br /><br />On the other hand, the forces of "good" can: 1) sit around helplessly, 2) stand around cluelessly, 3) panic, 4) laugh hysterically, 5) waste time by doing nothing, 6) read comics while people get slaughtered by the dozens, and 7) arrive too late to Satanic rituals.<br /><br />In every religious horror movie I have to assume that that movie's world is inhabited by God and by Satan. I also have to assume that Satan can't be 1,000,000 times more powerful, unless the movie has a world order resembling that of Hell. In other words, where were the priests in this film who knew something? The best that this movie's priest could do is guess that there are some witches about - nothing else - from reading all those books in his study. At the first sight of violence this priest becomes catatonic, then laughs hysterically, only to finish in a major panic attack. So this is supposed to be God's contribution to fighting Satan? Ridiculous. Every good religious horror film has the powers of "good" equipped with some form of (more-or-less) supernatural power, or at least SOME concrete knowledge of how to fight "evil". In that sense this movie is quite idiotic. As is the casting of the droll Martin to play the high priest(!) of the cult. There is very little menace or awe in watching the quirky Martin lead a Satanic ritual. I mean, it didn't have to be Christopher Lee or Langhella, but couldn't they have found someone less funny-looking? Also, why does the couple go back to the town after their car is put out of the running? After their "friendly" encounter with the town's folk no sane person would have gone back; they should've just walked on. The man's explanation to his girlfriend (and the viewer) is that "who knows what's in that direction".
I have to admit, I'm not a big fan of Satanic horror movies and, in fact, I seem to like them less and less every time I see a new one, and that isn't really surprising when I end up watching films like Brotherhood of Satan! Despite its low rating on IMDb, I was surprised to hear some good things about this film and my expectations went up. This turned out to be a big mistake as this is exactly the film that its rating suggests it is: namely, a very bad one! The plot is your basic bunch of Satanists causing trouble, and we focus on a small town where people have been murdered and kidnapped and it's not really clear why. Naturally, Satanists are behind it and this is bad news for a mother, father and daughter on a road trip who become trapped in the mysterious town. I had a feeling that this film might be along the same lines as the crappy Satanist flick 'The Devil's Rain', and while it's not quite as silly as Robert Fuest's later film, it's not much better either. The plot seems to be fairly down to Earth, but it's also rather boring and I can't say that I enjoyed myself at all during this movie. Brotherhood of Satan obviously has its fans, but I'm not one of them; this is a film that I see no reason to recommend...
Being a big fan of horror films and always manage to find something good about a picture, but this film just did not hold my interest or attention. This story revolves around a father and his daughter and a girlfriend, since his wife died a few years back. These people encounter a horrible situation in a town they stop off and visit and all the senior citizens in this town gang up against these people and almost kill them. This film reminded me of a film called "Children of the Corn" because it really involves children who are being presented to Satan and are his instruments of terror. There is plenty of chants, mambo jumble and a toy tank that completely destroys an entire family in their station wagon as well as dolls who kill a husband and wife.
This mess starts off with a real tank running over a car, intercut with images of a toy tank. This is followed by a family driving home from a birthday party without saying anything. The unexplained tank and the untalkative family take up, I swear, over 10 minutes of film. Finally, the family sees a car after it has been in a wreck and decides to report it to the proper authorities, only to find that the citizens of the town are all hiding in their houses, and the cops are hiding in the police station. Interesting? Almost. When the town folk come out due to the family's presence, we learn that both the writer and editor are conspiring to substitute suspense with incomprehensible storytelling techniques in the hopes that the audience's inability to tell what's going on will somehow bring unease upon the audience... and it works! ... but not in the way they thought it would. I was very uneasy with how bad this movie was, but not scared at all. The dialogue is composed of things that make little sense. Not in a fun David Lynch sort of way, but a sort of I-walked-in-during-the-middle-of-a-boring-conversation sort of way. Over the course of the next hour, we learn that the movie-makers try to bore us into being afraid by showing tediously mundane scenes combined with the above-mentioned "what's going on?" type scenes.<br /><br />The plot involves something along the lines of gentle-looking old folks putting children into a trance through the power of Satan and then bringing them to a party to play with toys, and an even more sinister intention, and it's up to a group of white men (everybody's white in the movie) to grab their guns and save the day, and a tag-a-long eye candy woman who whines at the drop of a hat. They look for the kidnapped children by looking in random places and yelling the kids' names.<br /><br />This is a great horror movie for any person who has never seen a horror movie because that person is frightened by the mere thought of Satanism, Paganism, Wicca, or even Catholicism due to a lifetime diet of brainwashing from the Trinity Broadcast Network. This represents Satanism as elderly folks in Halloween costumes with candles while mingling at a party, in front of an Ankh. Replete with a priest spouting completely made-up nonsense about Satanists, while calling them "Witches." The message that anything that isn't Protestantism can be all thrown into the same category for easy condemnation.<br /><br />About 30 minutes of footage is wasted to show mediocre elderly actors awkwardly babbling overwrought pseudo-Satanic gibberish corny enough to make a teen Goth blush, almost always in Olde English, and sometimes in Latin that may or may not be made up words.<br /><br />Highlights include a guy laughing at the idea of little green men for a solid 3 minutes, a family staring out of the windows of their car without talking for 10 minutes while listening to elevator muzak. A priest studying Satanism for 4 minutes with ooh-so-scary drawings of demons to scare the Church Lady crowd. Random shots of dolls. Random shots of children. Paint instead of blood at every chance. Film School level dream sequences. Introduces unimportant characters who do nothing before they exit. Sometimes, they act as if the Nothing that they're doing is a big deal.<br /><br />The directing is sloppy at best. An example of the directing includes a scene at the beginning where a man and woman are kissing and the man pulls away to look lovingly into her eyes and some dark red paint falls on her cheek. Looking up, they see that it's not blood, but droplets from a girl's snowcone. Snowcones are ice and colored / flavored water, and would not have produced droplets of the same texture as paint, not to mention the fact that her snowcone was a bright reddish-orange. Hackneyed writing, certainly, but made even worse by the bad directing. It then cuts to an alternate shot of the man, woman, and girl and shows that she's standing about four feet away from them, so the snowcone wouldn't have dripped on the woman even if she'd held her snowcone out over the woman's face. Way to go, editor! Of course, the acting is blah. The acting by the whole cast could be put on a scale and balanced perfectly between overacting and underacting.<br /><br />The director's most offensive technique is to give the actors no motivation and then go out for lunch as the unblinking eye of the camera leers as the actors make fools of themselves.<br /><br />And, FINALLY, after all that, we get to an ending that would've been great had it been handled by competent people and not Jerry Falwell.
This movie is full of pseudo deep thoughtfulness and it's cloying in its writerly-ness, that includes a canned ham voice-over and some unbelievable dialogue. Dialogue that is tinny and tone deaf the way Spike sometimes (not always) is when writing "certain" characters. For those that like nonsense films like Pieces of April and One Hour Photo, this is another one for you.<br /><br />That said, this comment is nothing against Ryan Gosling who has shown his awesome chops in The Believer. A film that proves that movies are a director's medium, and when a movie is rotten it's fair to say the fault lies there and not in the actors.
This movie states through its protagonist that the world is essentially sadness and pain and those that ignore this have blinders on. One can argue whether this is true or not. But even if you accept this as true, the movie's ending either A) disputes this by saying there can be some good in tragic situations or B) forgets this and uses a cliched montage in order to leave the audience feeling uplifted.<br /><br />That the movie metaphorically acquits its protagonist by presenting him as a sympathetic character despite any evidence for that sympathy shows contempt for the supporting characters who were the most compelling in the film.<br /><br />So what you have in this film is a script that is not consistent in its theme and direction that does not bring the ending into sync with the rest of the film. There are excellent performances given by every member of the cast especially Spacey, Olin, Martin Donovan, and Ann Magnuson. It's a shame that they weren't supported by a better writer/director.
Not much actually happens in this movie. There are a few pivotal moments, and everything else is talking about a crucial moment that takes place before the movie began. The primary mechanism used in the story is the flashback. Flashbacks can be used very well, but they aren't here. There is zero indication when flashing back or forward, and there are only weeks separating the events, so context as a scene unfolds is the only way to know when something happens. Perhaps this was intended to add a sense of mystery in places, but it was largely annoying.<br /><br />If you are interested in watching a 100 minute on-screen discussion of the why's of things and a lame questioning of good versus evil, enjoy. If watching close-ups of a mostly vacant stare on Ryan Gosling's face for much of the movie appeals to you, you're in luck. Sadly, I can find no reason to recommend this movie. Oh, and as another review indicated, Spacey really is only in a cameo role here, and plays with a disinterested detachment that you've probably already seen.<br /><br />*** The rest contains spoilers though a few big points are held back ***<br /><br />First, the killing of the so-called retarded boy happens before the movie opens, and we never learn what happened exactly. The implication is that he was killed to stop the deep sadness that was communicated through the boy's eyes. There aren't many other unanswered questions as the characters beyond the boy and the lead are very one-dimensional.<br /><br />As for what is with the lead character... Another review suggested he is crazy. I agree he isn't 'right', but don't know that I'd call it crazy. It seems that the movie tried hard to convey that he was either autistic or retarded in some way, because he sure seemed slow and unable to grasp the obvious. Either that or they were going for a neglected youth with some detachment disorder and/or who was heavily medicated. As always Ryan Gosling is good at conveying something to the audience, but it seems exactly what was deliberately left up in the air in this case. This movie provides no answers, just questions, but it was a sufficiently bad movie that I really didn't care.
For those of you who have never heard of the movie until now (of which, I presume there are many lucky people who haven't), I'll summarise it for you. Ryan Gosling plays the titular character of Leland, who also serves as the film's narrator (a la Kevin Spacey in American Beauty, but without the intelligent observations on life). Leland goes to jail for stabbing a retarded kid to death, and the movie attempts to figure out why he did it. He seems to be a nice boy (if not mentally absent), and is portrayed by Gosling with a complete lack of violence, anger, or agenda (and if you're waiting for him to reveal his sinister side later in the movie, don't waste your time-- it's not that kind of movie). Once in juvenile prison, Leland goes to classes taught by Pearl Madison, ably portrayed by Don Cheadle (who is incapable of anything but quality, even when in bad movies). Pearl attempts to unlock the mystery of Leland in an attempt to figure out how such a kid could do such a thing, and so he could write a book about it later (along with being a juvenile prison teacher, Pearl is also an aspiring author).<br /><br />The relationship between Leland and Pearl is the driving narrative behind the film, as their talks unveil Leland's past to the audience. However, to call it the central focus would imply that this meandering film had one. It does not. The United States of Leland boasts an impressive cast, which seems to be to the detriment of the film. It seems as though writer/director Matthew Ryan Hodge (don't worry that you haven't heard of him, he's never done anything) had to give EVERY character a personal story arc and personality flaw in order to get the actors to play them. Most of these traits and stories are clichéd, and most go underdeveloped and unresolved.<br /><br />I'll try and break them down here: Martin Donovan and Ann Magnuson are the parents of the slain retarded boy (I love how the movie kept calling the kid "retarded", never "mentally disabled". That part made me laugh inside), they apparently have a cold relationship, because all suburban marriages in contemporary cinema must be cold. Their other two kids are Michelle Williams, who is apparently an aspiring actress about to attend college, and Jena Malone, who plays the same troubled teen-archetype she always plays, this time with a heroine addiction. Malone was also the girlfriend of Leland, which gives him his link to his victim. Williams' boyfriend, who was orphaned and came to live with the family, and is a baseball player looking to go to the same college as his girlfriend, is played by Chris Klein. He ends up doing more with his character than any of the other bit players, managing to steal the movie at times. Lena Olin is Leland's mother, who seems to be perpetually sad for some reason. Kevin Spacey (also the executive producer) is Leland's cold and absentee father, who is a famed novelist. Eventually, Sherilyn Fenn will show up to put a wrinkle in Leland's story-- if you even care at that point. Oh yeah, and there's a drug-dealing ex-boyfriend, a couple of fellow juvees, and a co-worker of Pearl's with whom he has an affair on his long distance girlfriend with (played by Kerry Washington).<br /><br />Sorry if all that synopsis and character breakdown took so long. If it seemed meaningless and boring, then you've just experienced a bit of what I did during the 108 minutes I spent watching the movie. But the unruly supporting cast of over-wrought clichés is the least of this film's crimes. The biggest one is that the whole exercise is entirely pointless. We aren't given a fascinating look into a troubled mind, we aren't given an effective explanation, we aren't given much of anything. Given that it sucked so much, I'm gonna go ahead and spoil the ending for you so that you never have to see it: Leland stabbed the retard because all Leland could see in the world was sadness, and wanted to spare Corky (or whatever the victim's name was) the sadness in his eyes. It's like the worst emo band in the world made an album, and titled it "The World Is Sad, So I Killed A Retard". Oh, and Leland dies in the end, in a sequence so reliant of unbelievable coincidences that it would have ruined the movie, if the movie didn't already suck. Of course he dies in the end, because that made the movie so deep.<br /><br />I'm giving the movie 2 stars, because the actors themselves all did a pretty good job with the junk they were given. The scenes with Cheadle and Gosling together were even interesting on some levels. But, to paraphrase the film itself, you have to believe that movies are more than the sum of their parts, kiddo.
Every once in a while, an indie comes along that has an awesome cast and a story that sounds really interesting and can't-miss, but the movie sucks. Some recent films belonging to this unfortunate category are "Levity" and "The Safety Of Objects", and now here's "The United States Of Leland".<br /><br />Said awesome cast includes Ryan Gosling, Kevin Spacey, Don Cheadle, Jena Malone, Lena Olin, Michelle Williams, Chris Klein, and Kerry Washington. Gosling plays Leland P. Fitzgerald, the teenage son of a famous author (Spacey) who commits a disturbing and unforgivable crime (murdering a retarded child), but doesn't remember it and doesn't seem to have any sort of motive. <br /><br />Don Cheadle plays a teacher in juvenile hall who is trying to understand Leland (and also exploit him by writing a book about him), and Jena Malone is his ex-girlfriend. We see their deteriorating relationship (due to her heroin addiction) in flashback. Sounds like an awesome little drama, huh? I thought so, too. <br /><br />The fact is that this movie is just badly, badly written. The dialogue and narration are painfully pretentious and laden with irritating platitudes about "life", the characters are all two-dimensional indie cliches, and while it does manage to make Leland sympathetic in some ways, it glosses over his crime. <br /><br />For the most part, there's no problem with the acting. Gosling (who was Oscar-worthy in "The Believer") is a tremendously talented young actor, but the way they're written, none of these characters (least of all Leland) even feel like real people, so there's not much he can do but mumble his ridiculous lines and look sad. <br /><br />Jena Malone is the most memorable. She has one of the most expressive faces I've ever seen. Even playing an underwritten character in a bad movie like this, she can break your heart with one look. When she's got good material to work with (as in "Donnie Darko" or "The Dangerous Lives Of Altar Boys"), she's really amazing. <br /><br />But this is not good material. Maybe after a massive rewrite it could have been something worthwhile, but as it is, "The United States Of Leland" is ponderous, inert, and for a movie that seems in love with how "deep" it is, it's really shallow.
I'm sorry but I cannot even partly agree with some comments on this awful piece of sh...<br /><br />English is not my native language, because I'm a German citizen, so please do not blame me for inappropriate grammar structures or something *gg I cannot understand why this movie got such a high rating? 6.3??? Are you kidding me? This movie has completely no sense, not even a seem of good acting...<br /><br />When I looked at the comments on The Da Vinci Code, which has - I think - nearly the same rating, I had to bang my head on the table , because I watched 00 Schneider directly after Sakrileg, and oh my god , there are worlds between them.<br /><br />The majority of the posters in this board tears every hyped movie to pieces while rating this crime of movie making with a 6.3 and denominates Helge as a genius. Of course , he knows how to make money, but I think the main aspect of your opinions is the fact, that German isn't your native language and you just ignore - or rather don't notice the bunch of crap which is said in the sentences. OK , I must confess that some scenes ARE funny, but all in all , a 6.3 is just too much for my compatriot ;)
Insane really. Even if you haven't seen the original George Cukor movie with Norma Shearer, Joan Crawford, Rosalind Russell, Paulette Goddard, Joan Fontaine and a cast of a thousand other stars you may dismiss this forced, politically correct, depressing comedy. Depressing for many different reasons. Meg Ryan for one. What has she done to herself? Her face can hardly move. That alone puts her miles away from Norma Shearer. Annette Bening should be suing the DP and Debra Messing, what the hell was she doing here? Actresses with no connection in the public's subconscious trying to pass for friends, totally unconvincingly. Eva Mendes in the Joan Crawford part is an outrageous piece of miscasting. What a terrible idea! Her character is like a trans-gender performer without any taste or subtlety. Bizarre to think that a woman adapted and directed this women.The only positive things I can mention are a short but very funny appearance by Bette Midler and Cloris Leachman as the housekeeper.
As a Spanish tourist in Los Angeles and a fanatic movie lover I committed a terrible mistake. I went to see "The Women" The remake of one of my all time favorites. I've seen the original many many times, in fact I own it. My rushing to see the remake was based on Diane English, the woman responsible for "Murphy Brown" My though was: how bad can it be? She must know what she's doing. Well, I don't know what to say. I don't understand what happened. The Botoxed women is a rather depressing affair. Meg Ryan or whoever played Mary - she looked a bit like a grotesque version of Meg Ryan...another actress perhaps wearing a Meg Ryan mask - she doesn't bring to the character nothing of what Norma Shearer did in 1939. The new one is a tired, unconvincing prototype of what has become a farce within a farce. The "friends" Annette Bening, Debra Messing, Jada Pinket Smith are as disconnected as anything I've ever seen and if this wasn't enough: Eva Mendes as Crystal, the character created by Joan Crawford in one of her best and funniest performances. Eva Mendes's casting is really the poster sign for how wrong, how ill conceived this commercial attempt turned up. I didn't give it a 1 out respect for Candice Bergen and Cloris Leachman
I believe an entire book can be written about the odyssey to remake the classic film on which this film is loosely based. When Hollywood first started talking about such enterprise, the reaction was always negative because there were just too many aspects that could have gone wrong, starting with the solid ensemble that made the original unforgettable, and that's exactly where things begin souring here, with the selection of actresses that otherwise can do remarkable work, but that are not suited to the parts, and sadly enough, have been directed with the heavy hand of a director that doesn't understand or appreciate the source material.<br /><br />It seems as if there is no focus or direction, or as if the direction that has been taken is to obliterate anything that was good about the original film. This is called an updating, as in let's drain the story out of humor, snappy dialogue, and any interesting premise. Most of all, let's prove that women have come a long way, except that the problem is that we don't really get (at least by watching this film) where the women are truly going.<br /><br />For starters, casting Meg Ryan in the central role proves almost fatal to the movie because somehow she seems to have locked herself into some sort of limbo where women don't really change appearances, even after 20 years of working in the movies. Her Mary which proved to be a difficult role in the 30's, somehow grew from her interaction with the other stereotypes, like Dorothy in "The Wizard of Oz" by learning, observing, and realizing that she had a choice in the matter. It might not have been a choice that women would celebrate nowadays, but it was fun ride, and part of the fun, was the catty, silly, sometimes slapstick routines that elevated that movie into the realm of the sublime. In here, we are down to earth with a thud. By changing the nature of Sylvia, the film has lost a lot of its spark, and it isn't in anyway Annette Bening's fault. I couldn't help but admiring how she tried to save this sinking ship and got a sinking feeling as she struggled with the horrible lines she was handled. Thankfully I entertained myself by looking at some of her terrific outfits and kept reminding myself how talented this lady really was. Her Sylvia is wise but flawed, and she could have been a great creation. Unfortunately Ms. English wasn't paying attention to her own work and loses control of the one character that could have turned the film into a fresh direction.<br /><br />Yet that wasn't the biggest blasphemy of them all. In the original, we have Joan Crawford doing probably one of the best performances by a woman. Her Crystal is legendary, with conniving lines, incendiary moves, duplicitous maneuvers, and some very sexy poses. She was the link between the male and the female, and through her we knew what the whole catastrophe was about. She provided the tension between men and women. She was dangerous, sexy, the ultimate femme fatale. A woman of intelligence that we feared and admired, and most importantly, we wanted to destroy to save our heroine. Eva Mendes, as gorgeous as she is, is two dimensional in this outing because of weak writing, and once again, some bad casting.<br /><br />There are more atrocities in the film, such as the addition of a terrible role for Mensing as the dedicated mother who lives for having babies, and the rather annoying lesbian turn by Pinkett. Then comes the biggest waste of talent in the movie, as Bette Middler, who is a little unrecognizable in her make up, shows the spark of what could have been. Her acidic delivery reminds us of the contemporary angle the film could have taken. Her words revive and put a big of much needed naughtiness in the film, and it is exciting to see that it could really fly, then she is gone. She is in the film all of six minutes, and she fades away in the middle of the muddle.<br /><br />Here is a movie that raised our anticipation level and truly disappointed us, a film that could have joined the successful "Sex in the City" who made an amazing transition to the big screen because it respected its source material and didn't compromise. It gave us more, bigger and better adaptation. It truly updated what had made it successful before. "The Women" in its present reincarnation needs to go back and rework itself, much like "The Hulk" did it this year, find more suitable performers, a really good writer, and most of all, someone who truly treasures what good movies are about.
First, I should say that I've seen the '39 version at least 100 times; know all the dialog, and have read the '36 play, which is different from the '39 and contains nuggets of gold of its own. This version is as flat as a Lifetime movie on adultery. There's a reason you haven't seen an expensive campaign of TV ads for it. According to Entertainment Weekly, Bening hated the catty tone of the original and how the women spent the whole time going to war on each other. GUESS WHAT??! That was Booth's intent. It was a slick, theatrical take on gossip, adultery, and back-biting among a set of well-heeled Manhattan socialites. The crowd that made this new version had no intention of honoring the original source material. They pick at it weirdly, putting in half a scene here and half a scene there that come from the first version. Bette Midler (who is in just a few scenes and acts the old Countess part in a broad, grinning style) doesn't have any context in this version. She mentions going after "Buck," which is a key element in the original -- then he's never mentioned again. This movie is so dull that I'm not going to over-analyze it, but here are a few things that I found unbelievable: > Mary Haines bragging to her domestic staff: "I can suck the nails out of a board!" Right. Great writing. Norma Shearer could've done a line reading on that & gotten an Oscar nom, right? > A COMPASSIONATE Sylvia Fowler!!!??? Annette Bening got what she wanted, and the movie just sort of withers away. Claire Booth used Sylvia as the comic engine that swept through the play. As portrayed immortally by Rosalind Russell, she was an ignorant, spiteful woman who rattled off reams of petty, ridiculous, irresistible dialog that is still classic and quotable. She wasn't above biting Paulette Godard's ankle. The 2008 filmmakers decided that this character had to die. In killing her off, they killed the movie.
To say I was disappointed is an understatement. An amateur film made by professionals. I was about to leave the theater in two or three occasions (something I've never done)I was stopped by Cloris Leachman really. She rings true, the only one I should say. This new women are less modern than the George Cukor women of the 30's. This ones are "acting" for us trying to be with it but their "conflict" is exactly the same as it has always been, in movies anyway. The fun of the original was based on a crisp, vitriolic and very funny script. A masterful direction and an unrepeatable cast. All the elements that are missing here. TV actresses mingling with models and Oscar nominees/winners. There wasn't anything organic about it. The whole thing felt like a put on, improvised in the moment without a clear objective. 2/10
I really wish I had read everyone's review before going to see the movie... it was one of the most excruciating films that I've ever seen. I was ready to leave the theater 5 minutes into the movie; I should have followed my instinct. The movie offered nothing new or clever, it was boring and very cliché. I was surprised to find that it was directed by a woman! The characters did not represent any women that I know, they were boring, bitter and melodramatic. The movie was unrealistic and depressing and a waste of time and money. And the actors looked tired, poor make-up and hair styling. It was recently compared to the Sex and in the City movie; it was not even half as good. My suggestion, do not see this movie!
I saw it tonight and fell asleep in the movie.<br /><br />That is something that I have not done since - I have never fallen asleep at the movies.<br /><br />I LOVE the original and have seen it several times and recommend it to everyone. This may have been the problem but I do not think so, because there were a couple of bright spots that showed if done right they could have made this movie work.<br /><br />Bette was under used and Anne was over used and miscast.<br /><br />I do not know why English or anyone for that matter let this go out in that condition.<br /><br />They billed this as a Sex in the City but better? Not a chance I liked Sex in the City a lot and was disappointed by this movie.<br /><br />So do not waste your money on this movie - go see anything but this!
I've never seen the original movie others have commented on, so my perspective is just about this movie without comparison.<br /><br />I found the message of the movie to be,: if you only worry about yourself, all will be right with the world, everything will fall into place, your lovers will love you more, your friends will respect and like you more, your employers will want you more, pay you more and even your own children and parents will love you more.<br /><br />I find this message to be reprehensible and totally false.<br /><br />Kudos for the very funny birthing scene at the end; there isn't a mother out there who won't laugh during that scene.<br /><br />Overall a very disappointing movie plot. I didn't find myself rooting for anyone in this movie. I thought they were all pathetic self absorbed individuals that I just didn't care what happened to them and that's not a movie people want to see.
I was very disappointed by this movie. Ms English who says that she is a fan of the original movie seemed to have taken a great piece of artistic work, and transformed it into a flat-lined "ho-hum" you've come a long way baby production. I tried to like Meg Ryan's Mary Haines, but she was just boring. She didn't seem to feel anything about her husband's affair. There was no emotional struggle, no deep hurt. In the original 1939 movie Norma Shearer's Mary Haines felt betrayed, shocked, vulnerable, confused and angry. The 2008 production was more about some fake sisterhood theme, (Actually my wife's words)and didn't make you shed a tear or even chuckle. The only performances that were note worthy we're of Debra Messing, and Bette Midler. (I wanted more of Bette.) There was really no protagonist in this movie. The Sylvia Fowler character had too many sub themes to it. And Crystal Allen had no fire. The remake of the department store encounter with Annette Benning, and Miss Mendez was Luke warm. Also the pacing was slow as well. Obviously the 1939 version needed to be updated, but this one wasn't it. The reason that the original version worked so well was that the characters were dealing with "man" problems. A subject by the way which isn't out-dated. The magic of the original movie was that the movie was about both sexes, while you never saw the men.
This film could have been a decent re-make, and gosh knows it tried (or Ms. English tried). Assembling talented actors together with a successful & experienced writer/director should be a formula for a decent film. But Ms. English's experience - according to her IMDb bio - is exclusively limited to television work, and it is glaringly obvious throughout this film.<br /><br />I am surprised that none of the reviews I have read mention what I found most unlikeable about this film, and what kept it from reaching even a portion of its potential: it looked and felt like it was made for television. To give some credit to Ms. English, many of the jokes that simply did NOT work on a movie screen would have been terrific on TV (and maybe a laugh track would have helped). So much of the camera usage and the lighting would have played out fine on TV but looked awkward or odd on a big screen. If the whole film had been chopped up into a mini-series or a sit-com, I think it could have worked. But this is cinema and sadly Ms. English's talents didn't translate. I cringed at so many different points in my embarrassment for the actors & the writers that I felt like I came out of the theater half shriveled! Meg Ryan is her usual perky, cute self (except for the awful plastic surgery she has had on her face), but where did she have a chance to use her talent?! She has made films where she doesn't recreate her stereo-typed role and done them well... but not here. Annette Bening seemed to simply go through the motions - such a great talent and yet such a poor performance! I enjoyed the other women characters but they were more caricature than substance, and it was sad to see. What worked in this film in the 1930s doesn't translate to the 2000s, and no one helped Ms. English get the changes & updates or subtleties right. If only she (as writer, director AND producer) had reached out for some assistance, I think it could have been good. But it was not.<br /><br />It's so frustrating to go to a movie that has good stars and a good writer or director and come away feeling it was a waste of everyone's time & money! This New Yorker cartoon I saw yesterday is appropriate: A few movie execs are having a meeting & the caption reads: "Let's remake a classic with worse everything!"
This movie is not a comedy. It is not even funny in the "this movie is so bad it's funny" department. Rather, it is just plain bad. Other reviewers mention the bad lighting, but beyond that is the abundance of bad plastic surgery.<br /><br />Meanwhile, a lot of great acting talent was wasted on a poor screenplay and uninspired direction. The main characters are one-dimensional and boring. (It is hard to feel sympathy for any of them). It is also hard to see the four characters as close friends. It seems like just a bunch of women thrown together, pretending to be close.<br /><br />I won't list all of the problems with this movie, as it doesn't merit that much of anyone's attention. (Nor is it worth the time it takes to watch it).
Imagine a film the complete opposite of Lawrence of Arabia, instead of having an all male cast, it has an all female cast. Instead of being set in the barren deserts of Arabia, it is set in the bulging metropolis of New York City. And instead of it being one of the greatest films ever made, it is one of the most pointless, boring and forgettable.<br /><br />The film concerns Mary Haines (Meg Ryan) a perfect wife and mother, the envy of all others in her high society Manhatten social circle. She is painted as a women bearing the weight of the world on her shoulders, despite the fact she needs a live in nanny and housekeeper to cope with her one child. But I don't want to be too hard on her, Mary does all this whilst taking a liassez-faire attitude towards the fashion designing job her father has given her. This idyllic lifestyle cannot last forever though and things start to crash in a very real way.<br /><br />Mary's husband is cheating on her and her father fires her for not working hard enough. She is quite naturally upset and breaks down a little.<br /><br />Mary needs to bounce back though, for the sake of her impressionable young daughter and for herself. She does this through rehab, hair straightening and designing her own line of clothes; though amazingly for this kind of film, not a montage. Mary succeeds; her daughter loves her, her mother loves her, her friends love her and her husband decides he loves her now. She decides to take her cheating husband back after realising it was her fault he cheated, as she didn't dote on him enough.<br /><br />The films one saving grace is that it doesn't go down the "all men are evil" route.
I have never seen the original 1930s version of the film, but this remake is one of the worst I have seen from a major production studio in years. Seeing actors such as Meg Ryan and Annette Bening, once near A level talents, sleepwalk their way through poorly scripted roles is painful. There appeared to be no desire to be in front of the camera for anyone in this film.<br /><br />Jada Pinkett Smith and Debra Messing play worthless roles that have no bearing on the plot and add no entertainment value. Jada Pinkett Smith's character is used as nothing more than a ploy to appear modern, having an African American lesbian character, but in actuality she is there to just look cool. There is no actual reason why Messing in this film other than to fill out the amount of women in the original I take.<br /><br />The side characters played by Eva Mendes and Debi Mazar are stereotypical female characters, with Mendes portraying the vixen looking to steal the wealthy but bored and mildly neglected husband and Mazar covering the gossip roles.<br /><br />The movie is boring, lacking charm, humor, or sympathy for any characters. It almost felt like the movie was a punishment for everyone involved, whether in front of or behind the camera.<br /><br />There is one glimmering hope in the film, however little it is allowed to shine surrounded by the dim and dying stars around it is Cloris Leachman. Leachman is still an amazing talent that brings her remarkable charm and humor to the film, in the small role that she has.
The Women (2008) by Diane English is sadly such a waste of talent. With Annette Benning, Candice Bergen, Bette Midler, Cloris Leachman whom I like and enjoy in everything I've seen them, and Meg Ryan, Jada Pinkett Smith, Debra Messing, and Eva Mendes who may not be my favorite actors but are nice to look at, how could the movie be boring, predictable, embarrassing, sloppy, and simply bad? It was made by Diane English who is known as the writer of the very successful TV show Murphy Brown, and it is her first movie for which she wrote a script. The movie has been a labor of love for English who had tried for many years to make it happen and I respect that. I even found the scenes with the supporting players, Bergen, Leechaman, Carry Fisher and Bette Middler in short but memorable cameos, funny, smart, and enjoyable but in general the movie is a second hand "Sex and the City" which was released few months ago. I did not find Sex and the City very good when I saw it but next to The Women, it was simply brilliant. At least, Sex and the City spared us the long and tasteless scene in the hospital's delivery room where one of the characters' was having a baby and her friends were there supporting her. Poor Debra Messing, what did she do to deserve that nightmare she was put through and we, the viewers together with her? The movies like "The Women" give the whole genre, chick flicks, a bad name. It is nothing wrong with the genre, but why is it so difficult to make a really good comedy about female friendships and hardships, about dealing with marriage, motherhood, and proving yourself professionally? These are all very compelling and important subjects any modern woman can relate to. Why making movies with the lines, dialogs, and situations so clichéd, predictable, not funny and insulting that they will be forgotten as soon as the movie is over?<br /><br />After I saw the new movie, I checked out from my local library the original The Women and I truly enjoyed it. The story was told much better 70 years ago, and kept my interest all the way. The old movie had a real star power.
George Cukor's The Women remains one of the glittering gems of 1939, Hollywood's most golden of golden years. The film crackled and sparked and it's absence of males was a subtle touch, hardly noticed because of all the fine entertainment.<br /><br />Flash forward. We see Fifth Avenue in New York City, in front of Saks. Large crowds bustle along the Avenue...but something's off. The shot reveals only well dressed (attractive and young) women. Creepier than I Am Legend, the visual concept continues, inside the store and later at a large fashion show. What NYC fashion show doesn't have at least 5 gay men? The "no men" rule is rammed down our throats creating an alien world, off balance and distracting.<br /><br />Enter Meg Ryan, first seen digging in her garden wearing a ridiculous get-up complete with her retro curls and flailing arms. I immediately sympathized with her husband and could understand why he looked elsewhere. Later in the film she morphs into an older Jennifer Aniston look and keeps her arms at her sides. This seems intentional as if to say "Look! I can still be relevant!" Ryan's character is loaded down with a coven of miss-matched friends (insert Sex and the City comparison here) who, if it were real life, would despise each other. Annette Bening plays the power bitch, who during the course of the film realizes her life's dream doesn't really make her happy. Jada Pinkett Smith is the power lesbian, all atitudinous with no use for any of the men who aren't there. Debra Messing is some sort of baby factory that eats a lot. Eva Mendes is an odd choice for the bad girl to say the least. She looks fake, acts fake and any humor she tries to demonstrate falls flat. Someone's comment on here that she looked trans-gender was spot on. Other various stars show up, to rearrange the furniture on this Titanic.<br /><br />The only thing that would have saved this would have been the brilliant casting of Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie. They could have named their price, tucked their tongues firmly into their cheeks and pulled off something very clever and profitable. But no, Hollywood thinks of itself way too highly for that kind of exploitation. Instead we're given this thing that lumbers along awkwardly with no sparkle. Entire sections of dialog from the original are lifted and plopped down into a scene with awful results. At one point Ryan exclaims something along the lines of, "This isn't a 1930's movie!" No Meg, it's not.
Director/screenwriter Diane English's 2008 update of George Cukor's 1939 MGM classic comedy unfortunately shows more mothballs than its predecessor. Based on Clare Booth Luce's shrewdly observant 1936 play on the relationships that evolve among a strictly female group of pampered Manhattan socialites, the story would seem ripe for a contemporary remake. Instead, because of English's thematic overreach, the production comes across as an extended therapy session with a paucity of wit. What's more, the diverse lifestyles of women today have been reduced to sitcom-level stereotypes in this movie, and the original play's central conceit of eliminating men from the storyline seems even more contrived given the openly pansexual evolution that has occurred among men as well as women since the 1930's. To add insult to injury, the recent big screen adaptation of HBO's "Sex and the City" did this sort of sorority-style dishing much better and with far sharper fangs.<br /><br />The skeleton of the original play remains as the story centers on wealthy Mary Haines, who gave up her promising clothing design career to become the devoted wife of a Wall Street financial wizard. Like "Sex and the City", she is surrounded by three best friends - Sylvie Fowler, a successful, cutthroat magazine editor in the mold of Miranda Priestly in "The Devil Wears Prada" (yet another film this echoes); perennially pregnant Edie Cohen representing the stay-at-home wife; and Alex Fisher, a lesbian author who seems to represent every repressed group generally excluded from such an exclusive clique. Through a mouthy manicurist, they find out Mary's husband is having an affair with man-eater Crystal Allen, a perfume girl at Saks more than willing to break up a marriage as she struggles to become an actress. The rest of the plot doesn't matter much since it becomes a series of scenes focused on sisterly bonding and bickering, none of it very illuminating and without the satirical zing that buoyed the 1939 movie.<br /><br />Looking strangely youthful at 47, Meg Ryan seems to play Mary in a manner that tries to resuscitate the goodwill she engendered in the 1990's with "When Harry Met Sally" and "Sleepless in Seattle". It's not that she isn't age-appropriate here, but her familiar sprightliness seems at odds with the character's passive nature. Annette Bening fares somewhat better in the scene-stealing Rosalind Russell role of Sylvie because she has proved to be adept at conveying hardness while masking vulnerability, but her character goes through such a trite transformation that it undermines the actress' performance severely. Poor Eva Mendes has to play Crystal as a shallow, transparent shopgirl versus the smart, hard-edged cookie Joan Crawford got to play. Debra Messing and Jada Pinkett Smith are scooted way to the sidelines as Edie and Alex, respectively. Much better are Candice Bergen as Mary's savvy, supportive mother and Cloris Leachman as the non-nonsense housekeeper.<br /><br />Probably reflecting the lackluster box office response to the film's release, the 2008 DVD doesn't have a robust set of extras. There are two deleted scenes - one with Crystal and her friends having a girls' night-in as a contrast to Mary's elaborate garden party, and the other an extension of Bette Midler's cameo as a multi-married Hollywood agent counseling Mary during a late night at a yoga camp. Two featurettes round out the extras" "The Women: The Legacy" about the history behind the film from the original 1936 play, and "The Women Behind the Women" which has the cast and crew speak endlessly about female self-empowerment and self-image. The irony is that this version of "The Women" directed and scripted by a woman takes such a patronizing look at women.
I went along to this movie with some trepidation; the original is a masterpiece of both writing and acting and unfortunately my fears were realized. This is a humorless piece of work and I sat in the theater waiting for the wit and humor to begin- I'm still waiting, it seems. Updating the storyline to the present time just didn't work and the altering of characters an absolute travesty- why did they introduce Bette Midler's character when she disappeared just as quickly as she arrived; the related character in the 1939 original was an integral part of the plot. The women in the cinema laughed a few times but nothing touched me as being funny with the exception of a line from Meg Ryan talking to her mother about her situation and telling her that 'it's not like a 1930's movie'- I sorely wished I was viewing the 1930's version. It was all too touchy feely 'sisters stick together' and really needing some of the acerbic wit and clever dialog from the original play- I still watch the original movie and pick up a line that I have never caught before. There is no sense of closure to this new version, and whilst the 1939 movie is politically incorrect by todays standards, each thread was tied up and when the movie ended- it did so strongly. This remake should be labeled with a warning for any viewers- if you know the original, don't bother: I felt cheated by losing part of my life in a cinema watching this unmemorable piece of fluff. Bring on the Jungle Red!!
Saw this movie last night. I don't usually comment good or bad, as I think movies are like books in that there is something for everyone and everyone is different, tastes vary, yadda yadda. This movie was bad. By the end I thought, oh my, this is testing my patience. How many women really look and live like this when they hit "rock bottom" and if I could just borrow some cash from mum and carry out to live my fashion designing dreams - gosh, life would be great! I was out for a nice chick-date flick with my girl (my darling hubby likes watching movies together and I knew this wouldn't be his thing), something light and easy on the senses, but this was one bad movie. We are intelligent and interesting movie watchers and this movie wasn't that. Annette Benning is a great actress, she held her own. Bad. Bad.
No! no - No - NO! My entire being is revolting against this dreadful remake of a classic movie. I knew we were heading for trouble from the moment Meg Ryan appeared on screen with her ridiculous hair and clothing - literally looking like a scarecrow in that garden she was digging. Meg Ryan playing Meg Ryan - how tiresome is that?! And it got worse ... so much worse. The horribly cliché lines, the stock characters, the increasing sense I was watching a spin-off of "The First Wives Club" and the ultimate hackneyed schtick in the delivery room. How many times have I seen this movie? Only once, but it feel like a dozen times - nothing original or fresh about it. For shame!
Updating of the Clare Booth Luce play and the 1939 movie is a major disappointment. The cast of women is excellent, most of the individual scenes work but nothing hangs together. There is no connection from scene to scene almost as if the film was crafted in parts and then assembled in a vacuum. Granted the story of a woman dealing with her husband's infidelity and how she is helped and hindered by her friends is a less shocking one now in an age when divorce is so common, but at the same time its just as timely as ever, I just wish they could have managed to connect all of the pieces together because as it stands now you really don't feel pulled along by the plot. Wait for Cable.
This is, in simple terms, one of the worst films ever made. The story goes way beyond being tasteless and judging by the actors performance, they know it. There just in not one single redemming quality of this film. Patrick Swayze will have to overcome some major obstacles in his career, before people forget about this turkey.
Well, I fell for it. I saw the box for this at the video store, and mistook it for "Girlfight", which I'd heard was great. In my own defense, the titles are similar, and they re-did the cover art for the box so it looked almost identical. Anyway, to sum it up, they obviously re-did the whole cover packaging/promo to capitalize on the buzz/success of "Girlfight". I popped it in and got a bad feeling when they started showing trailers for low budget straight-to-video flicks, and even worse when a music video of the main song for the movie, which sounded like elevator music and featured corny slomo clips from the movie preceded the main feature. When I saw the first few minutes and Maria Conchita Alonso showed up, I knew I'd fallen for it. (don't get me wrong, she's a talented actress, but I knew she wasn't in "Girlfight", the movie I'd been under the false impression I was renting).<br /><br />So, apart from me feeling sort of cheated and mad at myself for not looking closer, the movie was OK. The plot involves Belle, a young Latino woman who is the daughter of an ex-champion boxer. One of her close friends is a female boxer, who--and I could see all this coming sooo far ahead of time it was really a drag--gets seriously injured during a match with a mean champ named "The Terminator", who resembles a female version of a bigger, more pumped up Ike Turner. Of course, Belle decides that the only thing to do is to become a boxer herself and avenge her friend. She lives with her caring, supportive yet protective Dad (her mother died of cancer when she was younger), who just happens to be a cop. Her love interest, also caring and supportive yet protective, is also a cop who works with her dad. Hmmm, they both have jobs that put their lives in danger in the line of duty...wonder what's gonna happen? She starts training and meets a sleazy manager who of course, pretends to care about her but just wants to exploit her. The actor they hired looks like a very low-rent Cary Eweles and is so young he barely manages to have a mustache. His acting was also really, really bad. I'm not even going to go into the plot any further because anyone who has seen Rocky, or almost anyone, knows exactly where this movie is going and how it will end.<br /><br />This was not a completely terrible movie. Most of the acting was OK, and the lead actress was very good. There were good, strong female Latino role models. The final fight scene did get me sort of interested, even though I knew everything that was going to happen long before it did. The actress that played "The Terminator" did a great job of being unlikeable enough that I really did want Belle to kick her a$$, and rooted for Belle-again, although there were absolutely no surprises. My favorite moment (maybe the only moment where I wasn't mad at myself for renting the movie by mistake) was when Belle slaps her sleazy manager after he's shown his true colors, yells at him, and then turns away only to suddenly fake a punch and watch him cringe back in fear, showing that she is really the one in charge.<br /><br />The dialogue was really, really bad, my main complaint. One of their attempts to be witty was someone discussing boxing saying "size doesn't matter" and the female replying wryly, "now where have I heard that before?" Other lines that are supposed to have dramatic impact are "The doctors told me I may never walk again!" "Come on, you know you can trust me!" and "Your mother would have been so proud of you". I could go on and on. Nothing you haven't heard a million times before in bad soap operas or movies-of-the-week. <br /><br />Maybe I'm being too mean-the filmmakers did make an effort, and I did sit through the whole thing voluntarily...but only because there was nothing else to watch while I worked out. You could do worse (especially if you are looking for a movie with strong female characters) but you could also do much, much better.
It's about time for a female boxing flick, but this one ain't it. Though the acting isn't too bad, the predictable storyline and silly dialogue pretty much ruin this one from the get go. To top it off, the boxing scenes display zero tension. Come on! How hard is it to make a boxing match seem exciting??!!
I hired the DVD yesterday and first of all it started bad, it's 4:3 aspect ratio film, and it just keeps getting worse, the acting is so bad and the movie itself is way to predictable, I was like watching the movie and said to myself: this going to happen next and guess what happened? right...<br /><br />if you want to see a good action boxing movie, don't watch this one you'll end disappointed on this low-budget movie like I did. go and see Ali its way better!
Woa, talk about awful. Do not waste your time. I wish I had seen the other use comments first. <br /><br />I have to admit, I didn't watch the whole thing. It was just too horrible. The worst, sappiest dialogue... I could go on and on. But what really made it unwatchable was the direction. The poor actors. You can't even tell if they have any talent because they not only have pathetic lines to speak but the director gave them no action. If you check the director's filmography on this site you will see why this film didn't have a chance. <br /><br />This would not even be good as a made for TV flick. <br /><br />Ouch!
This movie was a complete waste of time. The soundtrack was bad, story was lame and predictable, and the acting was terrible. One of the worst 25 movies I have ever seen. After the first ten minutes, the rest of the film was completely obvious.
This movie was terrible! My friend and I were so bored by it we fast forwarded through the last half of the movie just to see what happened. It's the typical sports thing, she either wins or she loses. The only remotely interesting thing was when the one guy refers to someone as a Veg-e-tab-le. That will be a line my friend and I bring up for years to come reminding us of this colossal cheesy cliche waste of time
With all of its technical flash, the 1993 "Stalingrad" movie is very disappointing. Before watching it I had read non-fiction accounts of the Stalingrad campaign and had seen a lot of documentary footage and photographs of the actual battle and its participants. I don't think that any movie can really succeed in depicting the titanic struggle and suffering that actually occurred, but I still wanted to see what a relatively recent German movie production would be like. While there are a few good elements of this movie, overall it is a failure. To me the worst aspect is that it includes substantial anachronisms, and also some very contrived and clichéd elements, most glaringly in some encounters between a German officer and a Soviet woman.<br /><br />Also there are some ideological elements in the movie which result in very distorted perceptions, including what amounts to a caricature of a German chaplain, some overblown class-warfare messages, and problematic depictions of "good" vs. "bad" Germans. Certainly the German Armed Forces of World War II included men who were able to maintain some decency throughout the war, and others who did very bad things, but the attempts in the movie to show this contrast are very simplistic and childish. I give "Stalingrad" credit in the sense that it doesn't completely portray German troops in the simple demonic quality which is the stereotype that many people now have, yet the movie includes stereotypes of its own, such as an almost too-good-to-be-true infantryman who has attitudes more akin to the 1990's than the 1940's, and two completely evil infantrymen and a rear-echelon officer.<br /><br />Some recent movies such as "Stalingrad" and "Saving Private Ryan" are frequently praised for their "authenticity" in depicting graphic scenes of combat, yet these same movies are deeply flawed and distorted in their depictions of the attitudes, values and behaviors of 1940's soldiers and civilians. "Stalingrad" and "S.P.R" have major and minor characters who lack the unselfconscious stoicism that was common among regular people during the World War II period. Certainly soldiers throughout history have been notorious for their frequent grumbling and occasional cynicism, yet the self-absorbed, talky and touchy-feely characters in both of these movies are something else, and are much more prevalent in our world of today than they were in the 1940's. While many people these days like to denigrate war movies from the 40's and 50's which present more patriotic messages and aren't as graphic about combat, many of those earlier movies such as "Battleground" are much more accurate in their depictions of typical soldiers' attitudes, and they are often successful in showing the horrible effects of war in more indirect ways.<br /><br />One well-done part of "Stalingrad" is a battle between German infantry and Soviet tanks, which does a reasonable job of capturing some of the horror and confusion in such combat.<br /><br />"Stalingrad" does a poor job though of showing the common look of the frontline soldier. Part of this might be due to the difficulty in finding thin, haggard-looking extras in our pampered and well-fed America and western Europe of today. Also, too many of the German troops in the movie don't wear their uniforms and equipment properly, and don't display the professional bearing that was common in the German Wehrmacht even during the years of German defeat. If you want to get a good idea of how the actual German troops looked, I recommend the following documentaries which contain footage of the Stalingrad campaign: "The World at War," "War of the Century" and "Russia's War." Also the books "Operation Barbarossa in Photographs" by Paul Carell, "Stalingrad" by Geoffrey Jukes and "Stalingrad" by Paul Carell contain a great many helpful photos. Books written about the battle by Antony Beevor and William Craig are recommended also, and the latter one is especially good about the common soldiers and civilians on both sides.<br /><br />Relatively recent movies which, in my opinion, are much better than "Stalingrad" and "Saving Private Ryan" in depicting attitudes and characters of persons during World War II, and the general feel, look, horror and grittiness of that war, are "Der Untergang" ("The Downfall") and "Talvisota" ("The Winter War"). While "A Bridge Too Far" and "The Longest Day" cover events on the Western Front rather than in the East, they are also excellent war movies, and stick very close to factual accounts. The latter two movies lack some of the grit that is more prevalent in more recent films, but they compensate for that lack with their other strengths, including truthfulness.
The horror. The film about the Nazis - the Germans. The murderers of babies, young girls rapists ... For that they regret? What are they interested in doing thousands of miles away from Germany? You do not come to mind is? Fascists are now good Samaritans? Think, killed, tortured, 27 million people. No, of course, they do not want. They were forced to Hitler, he gave each of them, and forced to kill: every fourth inhabitant of Belarus peace, all Jews, Gypsies ... Killing the Slavs. The facts: At the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, when taken prisoner by fascist (German), they were defiant and brazen. We kill you all, and so on. Since 1943, when they were taken captive, they suddenly became anti-fascists and peaceful peasants who were forced to Hitler, and personally. For such films should be put to prison for life for the glorification of fascism. <br /><br />If you want to see what they did, yet went to Stalingrad, then watch the movie "Come and see" (1985).
One would think that with the incredible backdrop of WWII Stalingrad that the writers would come up with a script. Nope. There is NO story here! It's like porn, vignettes of violence interrupted by pathetic, rote, and meaningless dialogue.<br /><br />A bunch of Germans march around shooting and getting shot. Slowly there are fewer Germans to march around, shoot, and get shot. Then there are no Germans to march around, shoot, and get shot.<br /><br />Pretty bad.<br /><br />Chilcoot
Do people rate this movie highly because it's a foreign war movie???<br /><br />To me it's nothing more than a bad Hollywood war movie in German.<br /><br />This movie is so bad on so many levels. To even mention it along with Platoon or Full Metal Jacket is absurd. The battle sequences are pathetic, the dialog and acting atrocious.<br /><br />This so called group of "storm troopers" are regulars in the Wermacht. Not SS troops. There is so much wrong with this movie it's sad. Bad editing, bad acting. It's got it all.<br /><br />The movie goes on and on and on as though the audience should be made to suffer as much as the soldiers did.<br /><br />I read in a review that the this film had a $20 million budget.<br /><br />For real? Where was it spent? In the fake train car sequences? In the pathetic "special effects"? Ugh.<br /><br />As a WWII history buff, and WWII movie fan, I found this movie to be a serious disappointment.<br /><br />For an excellent alternative war movie check out "The Beast". (Not a WWII movie, but still outstanding)<br /><br />Don't bother with this one.
I don't know, maybe I just wasn't in the mood for this kind of movie, but it was full of trite melodrama. It was too long and seemed at least mildly disjointed (granted, I didn't pay full attention...). For a more entertaining depiction of the battle of Stalingrad, see Enemy At The Gates. True, some pretentious folks will scoff because it's a Hollywood film, and doesn't show "the gritty reality of war" like this "wonderful foreign film" does, but it has better flow and is all around just more fun to watch. Besides, there are already enough contrivedly "gritty" war movies, and this one just seemed amateurly done. But hey, you might like it, so go right ahead; it just wasn't for me.
I love Das Boot. I hoped for something along similar lines -- a realistic war movie, portraying soliders and civilians on both sides as real people, with both the joy and pain of combat.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Stalingrad appears to have been written by a third grader and directed by a fifth-grade student. Major pieces of the movie simply appear missing, leaving it completely disjointed. The dialogue in translation is ridiculous, but appears no better in the native tongue; you only have to watch the actors' faces during the bad moments of dialogue to realize just how bad this movie is.
The war in the East,as the Germans referred to the WW2 Soviet-Nazi conflict, was a war of annihilation on the part of the Germany. 90% of the German army were in the Soviet Union fighting. Their ultimate aim was to wipe out the so called "sub human (Untermensch)" Russian population and colonize the mainly empty country with German settlers after they had won.<br /><br />Read "Hitler's Willing Executioners."<br /><br />Here we have the German army presented as innocent victims and not as Nazi mass murderers. When are modern German film makers going to be honest and face up to the past?<br /><br />Better see the Russian film "Come and See" instead!
What a sucky movie. This is without a doubt a low-class B movie. The German elite StormTroopers assault Russian bunkers en masse like an old WW1 battle. The acting is mediocre, the plot thin and threadlike. It's hard sometimes to follow where it's going. The action sequences are pretty worthless (when it shows any), except for the fact that they do use authentic equipment/vehicles from WW2. This is in NO WAY on the same level as "Saving Pvt. Ryan" or "Platoon". Lots of worthless attempts at character development, which lead nowhere. Old theme good officer/bad officer that's highly predictable. Even the action sequences look like a 12yr old kid set them up. I could have directed better. Too bad this is the same guy that did "Das Boot (The Boat)", because that was a dang good movie. He must have partied too much after that success because he sure lost his touch when it came to this film. I bought it on DVD, better to rent it instead.
I don't usually like TV movies, I reckon that if the thing was any good it would make it to Hollywood. This one though is better than average, pretty high production values, a few interesting story twists and some nice shots of NYC (along with Toronto) hold the interest.
As bad as they get. This film commits the fatal error of making the viewer not care what happens to characters. The two women in this flick are so stupid that you begin to root for the bad guys so this thing would end.<br /><br />This film is one of the few that was so bad that I had to turn to another channel. <br /><br />Put in highbrow language, this film lacks verisimilitude. People, not even people from Ohio, simply do not act like this. Well, maybe the writers do.<br /><br />There is not enough beer in the world to make this film bearable.<br /><br />F903
A really wonderful cast and very talented technical crew wasted their valuable career time, and our equally valuable leisure time, by bothering to support this utterly predictable and plainly formulaic piece of commercial junk. The movie is based upon a really good and very topical idea but both the producers and the director simply applied the standard Hollywood 'disaster movie' formula and thereby ruined any potential value from the production.<br /><br />An unusually high tide and very strong gale conditions combine to produce a record high storm surge that overwhelms London and floods most of the Thames Valley. The plot centers around a heroic scientist (Tom Courtenay) who alerts the authorities of the danger and ultimately saves the day, a glamorous female police chief who runs the entire show and an embattled Deputy Prime Minister (David Suchet) who tries to look important.<br /><br />But it's all so unreal that one feels like an extended tea break after just 30 minutes. The young glamorous female Police Commissioner demands complete authority over the army during a declared State of Emergency and gets it (as if!). The experienced General is just pushed aside like a complete moron who has to lick her boots because of her obviously superior capacity. The trouble is that our female supremo, whilst now responsible for millions of lives, spends most of her time worrying over the fate of her two daughters who have taken a trip to South West London and haven't telephoned to say they were alright. So our mighty woman sets her staff to look for them and decides that the sole priority for all the army and the rescue services must be South West London and not any other quarter of the city. Of course the Minister, the Army and the entire entourage accept her prioritization without question. One can only assume they all had property there. When her children are eventually found after endless reports and efforts by her staff she is told by our male hero, 'Thank God they're safe, that's the main thing'. Never mind about the millions of others or all the other responsibilities she was supposed to control; as long as her own kids were safe everything was alright. <br /><br />This film is just another excuse to push the same old female chauvinist sexist clap trap that women are the clever, mindful, caring and clearly able leaders whilst men are good for nothing except physical bravery, mindless strength and very specialist knowledge. And yet the one simple instruction that she could have given the populace; namely to go to the nearest tall building and calmly go up to the 4th floor or above and await instructions when the waters recede was never given by this female super hero - or indeed anyone else. The whole problem was so simple to solve and yet millions of people apparently didn't think of simply going upstairs! Pathetic rubbish.
There's something intriguing about disaster movies. The simple, primal premise can lead to several great stories. Granted, most disaster movies tend to explore familiar territory instead but I can usually live with that.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Flood probably marks the low point in the history of this sub-genre. Robert Carlyle is undoubtedly the star of the movie, even though screen time is split between different locations and characters. He gives a barely decent performance. As well, Joanne Whalley is very uneven. Veteran actor Tom Courtenay (he played in Doctor Zhivago for heaven's sake) is particularly bad. I mean, his timing is completely off most of the time and his characterization is extremely poor. What an embarrassing performance for that man. The rest of the cast ranges from decent to really bad with one exception: Jessalyn Gilsig, whom I thought might be there as a plot device/eye candy gives by far the most convincing performance. Doesn't mean much considering how bad everybody else is but still nice to see that she cared.<br /><br />The script is really bad, confusing and cliché. Some of the worse lines I have heard in quite some time are delivered by the actors one after the other.You've seen this story a thousand times. It employs every dramatic hook and tear-jerkers you've seen in "Outbreak", "Armageddon", the Poseidon movies (original and remake) and many others.<br /><br />The direction is awful. No sense of timing, nothing inspired. The shots are bland, dialog and action both fail to flow. Editing is bad but how do you edit such a mess? Without a doubt, this movie tried to rely way too much on (rather poor) CGI. The human factor, the drama and struggles of the characters are glossed over. Scenes where the characters must actually face the flood are rare and poorly done. The made-for-TV feel gives nausea. Some guy is supposed to go down a rope from an helicopter? No problem, let's show him inside a helicopter and make a really poor cut/editing job and have the next frame with him safely on the ground, in the most obvious way possible.<br /><br />The movie score is rather poor. All over the place, no timing.<br /><br />The ending is probably the worse I have seen in quite some time. Very much like they ran out of ideas. Scrap that, you can't run out of something if you never had it in the first place. Must have ran out of budget.<br /><br />This is a really amateur job. I give it a 2 for using London as a location, which is a nice change, for Gilsig being actually decent in a key support role and for the few CGI shots that were decent (those of the water closing in on London and the gates).<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and check out Day After Tomorrow or just about any disaster movie before this one. This includes older classics like The Towering Inferno.
Oh but this is woeful. One good actor after another turns in lamentable dialogue in half hearted fashion under what must have been incredibly pedestrian direction to consider it acceptable. I like Robert Carlyle and Joanne Whalley is one of my favourite actresses, Tom Courtney can act well when pushed and David Suchet is a professional of the highest integrity but they all wallowed around like fish in a barrel of watery gin. I swear Courtney was inebriated, on painkillers or both. <br /><br />Was there a good performance in the whole thing? Well yes, David Hood as the junior underground engineer whose mate got washed away looked like he was taking the thing seriously and credit to him for that, it can't be easy when "all around are losing theirs" so to speak, or maybe his scenes came under the direction of the assistant director ( if there was one) I just don't know what these people were doing in a film that was this poor ( other than paying the bills, obviously) I can't begin to say how disappointed I am in them. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES! <br /><br />Any positives other than David Hood the third... yes The aerial shots of London largely submerged were very well done and the effects artists responsible deserved better than to have their fine work punctuated by such a shallow story,if you'll forgive the expression, as those few people that do see them will do so on a far smaller screen than would be to best advantage. <br /><br />What's going on here? why are British film makers trying to imitate such characterless, spectacle driven, tabloid level genres as the disaster movie and then doing it even worse than the Americans. Gritty realism, character integrity, the capture of real emotion in a way that makes you feel it and care... The Family Way, Spring and Port Wine, Get Carter, The long Good Friday, Trainspotting....Don't get me wrong I like a bit of escapist hokum. The real "Italian Job" , The Adventures of Tom Jones; but oh that it should come to this, there was more realistic drama in Carry On Camping.
On the face of it this film looked like it might be really good - it isn't.<br /><br />The cast is pretty good, but most of them seemed embarrassed by the whole thing. The real disaster in this film is not the flood, but the script. It attempts to include every cliché in the book, all done incredibly poorly. The ending is very abrupt, but this is a blessing in disguise. Congragulations if you make it that far.<br /><br />All three main male actors (Carlyle, Courtney and Suchet) would surely agree that this is the low point in their careers. I hope they got paid a lot of cash, because none of their reputations come out in tact.<br /><br />The special effects are quite good, but the same thing was done to much better effect in The Day After Tomorrow.<br /><br />In short, a pointless exercise. Don't waste your time.
The production values for this film make it fall short of Hollywood blockbuster status, and the script makes it fall short of cult status. What is left is a tired formulaic attempt at the disaster movie genre that will disappear with the ebb tide.<br /><br />A decent cast, are either miss cast, or cannot be bothered.The beautiful Joanne Whalley is unable to bring any gravitas to the role of Police Commissioner Nash who wears the most irritating matching waist clincher above her skirt.<br /><br />Jessalyn Gilseg plays the heavyweight part of Director of the Thames Barrier with all the conviction of a fairground candy floss. Her Canadian nationality and accent were presumably drafted in to appeal to a transatlantic audience. It, and she, fails.Her initial appearance in a tight fitting pink jogging suit as she arrives at work is risible.<br /><br />The part of the "Siren old git who was right" is played by Tom Courtenay as though he is acting in his sleep, and the various plot twists that are designed to energise his son, played by Robert Carlyle, struggle to get any response from him.<br /><br />Nigel Planer looks determined to commit ritual hari kari for his failings as Met Office Director, or for his acting, or both, and only David Suchet emerges with some credit for his role as Deputy PM.<br /><br />There was enough in the story, and the cast and the effects to have produced a decent effort. Alas that did not happen.
You would have thought, given how much this overblown pile of rubbish must have cost, that the budget could have stretched to a decent scriptwriter. Instead, they seemed to have opted for a bog standard Hollywood 'Paint by Numbers' disaster movie plot and dialog. The only cliché they seem to have missed was the Cute Kid. But every other one is there. There's the sullen hero, flung together by fate with both his ex wife and estranged father. There's the doting Dad and the rebellious teenager.There's the 'Professor that everyone thought was wrong until it turned out he wasn't'(Played appallingly by the normally excellent Tom Courtney seemingly in the grip of some powerful drugs), plus the comic duo wandering about in the deserted underground railway.<br /><br />I sat down to watch this full of anticipation. The cast is, as noted, amazing. Yet within minutes it became clear how bad this was going to be. Stuff this useless should come with a warning. Something along the lines of;<br /><br />'This film may have been made in Britain but was aimed at the American market. It therefore contains tired clichés, stock characters, stilted dialogue and a plot so lame brained and simplistic that even George W Bush could understand it.'<br /><br />Avoid.
'Flood' is a prime example of how throwing good actors and cgi at a film will do little to compensate for a rubbish script. The basic premise is fine: what if a freak storm threatened to send the sea straight over the Thames flood barriers and engulf London so fast that most of the inhabitants would probably never get out in time? It's basically the New York segment of 'The Day After Tomorrow', but that shouldn't make it any less of a film. However, the script just isn't there. It's merely functional, flat, and lacking in depth. Great British talents like Robert Carlysle and David Suchet to name but two do their level best with what they've got, but their characters are two-dimensional cyphers, like something out of an old Marvel comic. and it'd be frankly easier to turn back the tide. Not that every actor gets let off the hook - Tom Courtenay seemed capable of only one emotion throughout the film, but then he wasn't given much of a challenge.<br /><br />I applaud any opportunity to see some non-Hollywood disaster flicks for a change, and I don't expect zillions of dollars spent on rendering ultra- realistic graphics. However there's no excuse for shonky writing - especially from a country that has produced some of the best science- fiction ever made on next to no budget at all. This is the kind of half- hearted B-grade fluff the Sci-Fi channel produces, and that's hardly a target to aim for. If like me you are such a fan of disaster films you're still tempted, do yourself a favour and watch it with some friends. Better still; don't bother.
This awful effort just goes to show what happens when you not only use computers to generate the effects, but also let them devise the plot and write the script. Someone somewhere has obviously come up with a new bit of software that asks a few questions then churns out four hours of loosely connected clichés, lousy dialogue and a collection of stock characters that you end up wishing had all drowned in the first five minutes.<br /><br />Tom Courtney took the prize for worst performance. Saying that he was wooden would be an insult to trees. It's hard to fault Robert Carlyle in almost anything he does, but the odds were stacked against even him in this one, especially since he was for some unaccountable reason required to adopt a gor' blimey London accent.<br /><br />A complete washout.
Topical? Certainly. Entertainment? Probably - but only on removal of any shred of the viewer's common sense. Reality? Only in so much that it was made on this planet.<br /><br />How thousands of people were supposed to have died as a result of a 5-metre wall of water in a city liberally littered with buildings in excess of 25 metres high is quite beyond me. Carlyle's line to the effect of "How could anyone survive that?" when the shot shows forests of buildings with several floors above the water is completely laughable. Further, if someone commits themselves to an area (under water) where one cylinder of air is not enough (i.e. they are going to die), why not use the simple expedient of taking more than one cylinder? Clearly, the writer thinks that people in stressful situations cannot count beyond one (one cylinder, one floor).<br /><br />Rather than watching this tripe, you would be more informed and entertained by throwing the DVD away and reading the pricing information on the cellophane outer wrapper.<br /><br />Pitiful, truly pitiful, and a terrible waste of the on-screen talent.<br /><br />As for the sexist propaganda suggesting that only women can see through the problems to illuminate the solutions to be effected by the expendable men: yet more PC 'tosh'. Small wonder that First Blood, Delta Force, Navy Seals and other such movies of little or no merit will always have a following while this blatantly politically-motivated bilge is peddled.
I really do not joke when i can honestly submit that this film is not suitable for Sunday night viewing on ITV4.<br /><br />The underground scenes are just awful when London is supposedly under 30ft of water, Robert Carlyles character is drab. The Police commissioners outfit reminds me of something Kate Moss threw up and Nigel Planer looks very VERY old, in fact, I am worried that he may have had suffered a stroke whilst filming.<br /><br />The father of Robert Carlyle who was 'right all along' has obviously been necking too many Ketamin and whilst he has a major part in this awkward journey, he deserved to be killed off way WAY before he was caught pretending to be Kate Winslett (Titanic) whilst dangling over the Thames Barrier.<br /><br />I'm sorry Film lovers but avoid at all costs.
Miscast, badly directed and atrociously written, this is watchable if you have an hour or two to kill or are suffering from insomnia, but only just. Robert Carlyle fully realises his potential as an actor of supreme mediocrity with only one expression to his repertoire (that of a chronically constipated football hooligan nursing a crippling inferiority complex), which he manages at times to alter slightly by flaring his nostrils and baring a row of skewed yellow teeth (this to indicate anger, tenderness, grief, surprise, horror, hilarity, compassion, etc.) In his role as "the best marine engineer in the UK" and son of a university professor he is about as convincing as my neighbour's cat. Tom Courtenay, equally miscast, slurring and mistiming every line, appears permanently soused to the eyeballs, and would seem no more able to tell a flood from a puddle of his own urine if he were standing in it. All in all, another silly attempt on the part of the British to imitate Hollywood pulp at its most rubbishy. The dialogue is a series of badly-delivered clichés; the action is disjointed; the plot is pointless and amputated; and the characters, if you can call them that, do not even make it into the basic two-dimensional sphere of their American counterparts.
I don't normally write reviews, but for this film I had to. I'm shocked at the acting talent in this move going to waste... the script was appalling... the editing awful... and the plot very thin. You spend the first half of the movie wondering who is talking to who and what on earth they are doing. The latter half of the movie slows down slightly, but has no depth or feeling. The only saving grace is the nice, but still limited cgi, and the location being London. I gave 3 stars for that, and the fact the actors still tried to do a good job with the drivel they were given. If you fancy losing a couple of hours of your life with mediocre popcorn disaster movie entertainment, by all means, this is the movie for you. But I would recommend doing something else with your time instead, like watching the real archive footage online! :) http://www.weatherpaparazzi.com/flooding.asp
I usually like these dumb/no brain activity movies, but this was just too stupid. There were way too many clichés and the plot didn't really make much sense. There were a lot of loose ends and the ending was extremely poor and abrupt. We didn't even get too see if the big master plan worked. We only got too see the main character sob over his dead farther, the professor (that died because of stupidity (see below)).<br /><br />One scene annoyed me particularly. Why did the professor only have about 5 minutes of oxygen in his container when he went to manually override the dam? And if they only had oxygen containers containing 5 minutes worth of oxygen, why didn't he bring two or three of them? Then he would have survived… that was bloody stupid. The movie is pretty full of such stupid things. I can not recommend it at all.
Well as the headline suggests this is not the particularly good movie i was hoping it would be. i thought it would be great with mr fully monty man himself but tragically not. From the beginning i literally lost interest immediately when 2 women are just making tea and then suddenly she points out there is random water coming from under the door, then bam a full on flood through the route of the house its hard to believe they didn't notice the rising water level outside or at least heard it. Sorry for this to sound like a rant but it really grinds my gears and has affected me. Most acting was poor and the story tried to copy nearly every cliché to each disaster movie ever but just failed in that sense. CGI was poor i could do a better job using ms paint, directing poor too, and at the end i didn't care about 1 character at all!!! don't waste your time people no wonder it was released straight to DVD. Well thanks for reading xxx
This movie follows in the tracks of The Riddle for an all star British cast in a downright awful movie! Poor cgi effects, poor editing, poor direction, a cast that i hope were well paid as this will be a nail in many a careers coffin.<br /><br />Nigel Planer should've donned his Neil wig once more & gone out with a laugh at least!<br /><br />It was like a particularly long & drawn out episode of "Torchwood" but without the camp fake Canadian doctor fella...it had the same overly dramatic music though, perpetually repeated, in a vain attempt to drum up some tension.<br /><br />Oh the humanity!
The digital effects were done on the cheap and the action sequences lack suspense. This was essentially made for TV and it shows. David Suchet looks bored and Nigel Planer looks down right embarrassed! and as for Robert Carlyle's Dick Van Dyke London accent, no comment! If you want to pass away an hour or two when you've nothing on then it will do. If your going to buy the DVD wait a few weeks and pick it up in the bargain bin at Asda, cos thats where its heading! If the budget was bigger and Richard Doyle's book followed more closely, then it could have been something special, but as it stands its a bit poor. Watch the trailer instead! Or read the book and see what could have been.
I'll put it straight to you, this movie is dead boring. It's about a flood, that's it. Blah blah a little about family, blah blah blah politics, blah blah blah boring. <br /><br />Blame it all on the weatherman, poor sod. The Deputy Prime Minister Campbell is a hard-ass that expects everyone to be clairvoyant, a most irritating character. <br /><br />If you are from the United Kingdom, or anywhere that it may flood, then you might like this film. It's sort of like earthquake movies are most appreciated where earthquakes happen. <br /><br />This is not really an action film, where the weather is the enemy and you must conquer, or outrun it literally, it is more like a time-bomb that must be disabled. <br /><br />Looking at this movie, it is understandable why the UK thinks the world is overpopulated, it isn't, but for them it is. <br /><br />Really, the movie is about as exciting as picking scabs and I can't recommend it. It's over 100 minutes, far far too long.<br /><br />The problems with the film; I won't get into them beyond this because the film doesn't deserve such dissection. Hint to you Londoner's - buy more boats. If you bring children to this movie they'll either fall asleep or become uncontrolled bored screaming demons.
In addition to all the negative reviews: I was amazed to see that at the drop of a hat somewhere, somehow a CCTV-camera was summoned at a most unlikely location, to show the 'crisis'-team (''Look Maaaaa-aaam'') what was going on, notably near the Thames-barrier, where the professor is hit at full (wind)force against the head by a heavy object and subsequently lives to tell the story. Otherwise I was unable to shake off the image of some actors as portrayed in other films/programs: I said to my wife: 'Hey, that's Neil, from the Young Ones' (Nigel Planer) and 'Did they summon Hercule Poirot for help?' (David Suchet). To add to the disgrace of this film (shown in two parts on ITV UK recently), ITV showed the telephone number of the Environment Agency after each episode for worried viewers, living in areas 'at risk of flooding'. How low can you as a broadcaster go to treat your audience like that? What must the Environment Agency have thought?? (''Oh no, it's Mrs Jones from Hull again. She says she was right all along, she saw it on ITV'').
This film was just on two nights running on ITV1.. dear oh dear. Someone actually bought this on the strength of Robert Carlylse.. OK, I missed the start.. but what I did see was so bad I thought, no... I watched in embarrassment for the stars who were in it. Nothing was based on reality, I doubt things would progress as they did in this film. Everything was poor about this film. OK, cgi.. but no reality. The write up gave the impression of a cliff hanger end..sorry, I wasn't impressed. Yes, formulaic. Couldn't guess the end. From what I saw the military had the upper hand, people doing the heroic stuff were given next to no time to do their thing, it just wouldn't have happened that way? It was worse than leave your brain at the door. It was annoying.. as someone else said.. yeah, right.. of course that would have happened... not!! The credits mentioned Quebec and Canada.. so it was a co production, missed the third party concerned.. I'll have to check back on this site. I'm not usually this critical, but this annoyed me.
It was inferred by a previous poster that the military would not be subordinate to the police in a disaster as depicted in the film. In fact the military role would be to supply aid to the civil authorities when requested to do so. The civil authorities would retain primacy. In practise the Army would need 48 hours or so to mobilise themselves, there not being much Army presence in London, especially with current overseas commitments. Even then they would be dependent on calling in the TA.<br /><br />As for COBRA, we were given the impression that it was a full governmental emergency department in its own right - even reference to a Met Police Cobra Division. In fact COBRA stands for Cabinet Office Briefing Room "A". It's just the room where the PM or DPM meet their advisers to discuss the current emergency!
Oh dear, Oh dear! What were they thinking of? Terrible script, terrible acting. I don't even feel sorry for the actors... they took their cheques to the bank and smiled happily.<br /><br />Since when did an air shaft from Charing Cross pop out at Bank? Why are vehicles crossing Tower Bridge going in towards the City when the surge hit? Why is Tower Bridge not crowded when the city is being evacuated? How does Carlyle dive into a raging torrent.... and survive? I could go on... and on.<br /><br />There is no real sense of urgency in the command room. They might just as well be waiting for the England eleven to come back onto the pitch after the tea interval at Lords.<br /><br />It says something when I await the adsbreaks to learn more about diarrahoea treatment with eager anticipation.<br /><br />Totally abominable trash!
This is possibly the worst film I have ever seen; I gave it one star simply because it is the lowest score possible. Whoever thought Flood would ever be a good film? The director and cast should be ashamed and then it dawned on me this could all be part of a shambolic scare tactic. Only propaganda could be this bad.<br /><br />The redeeming feature of Flood is that it's ghastliness and shameless formulaic storyline make it funny. If only the characters had the same depth as created by the flood itself, yet they galumph from sound bite to sound bite without any emotional response whatsoever.<br /><br />The sad thing about this film is that it could have been so much better, informative, imaginative and tense. Flood has the amateur streak to found in many recent British films where a more focused use of funds would have made for a better entertainment.<br /><br />Where was Smithee?
This film was total rubbish. I was sitting watching this absolutely furious that this was funded. They most definitely spent all their budget on the special FX rather than the script writer and director AND some of the actors.<br /><br />First the acting was bland and rubbish. The story was not relatable to the audience enough. Rather than being from the peoples perspective of the storm, the narrative was told more from government figures and the army, which really isn't a way to connect to them as most of us hate politicians anyway. The writer attempted to add a human element to the unrealistic characters by adding the little subplot about the father and son, which failed completely.<br /><br />As for the directing...oh god, his techniques to try and create tension and unease are repetitive and over the top. The sped up camera movements and then the sudden flash bolt pauses on a characters face when something horrendous has happened was pathetic.<br /><br />The only reason I watched it till the end was to see the special FX. Which is a bad thing as special FX shouldn't make the film it should only amplify the story and experience. There was no story.<br /><br />I really wouldn't bother watching this, total trash and an embarrassment to the British film industry.
I was struck by the awful acting and script for this movie. All the characters seem rendered immobile by personal issues - rather like deer in headlights. They dither around whining and moaning about their emotions when decisive actions need to be taken. I found myself yelling at the TV screen trying to wake them up to their situation and DO SOMETHING! The plot line is implausible. Every time there is a key decision to be taken by a lead character, one of the other characters has to bring up all the problems with the obvious decision as though to further render the decision more difficult - it is a tried melodramatic ploy and just wants to make you groan. Clearly the import of the decision is obvious - you don't need to treat the audience as idiots. Overall - there is just too much emotional melodrama in the whole movie.
Avoid this movie. If you are expecting "The Poseidon Adventure" (1972), you may experience nothing more than a case of the 'bends'. This film offers nothing more than two extremely-long, and drawn-out, hours of complete boredom.<br /><br />The cast members act as if they are angered by the irritation of a bathtub of water overflowing on a bed of an insignificant's petunias. The script is totally unrealistic, and the film does not even have the feel of a disaster movie. In fact, everything about this movie is bad, with the exception of Tom Courtenay. It is unfortunate that such a fine actor got swept away, by a flood of misrepresentation, to appear in such a washout. When this movie was being made, the Poseidon must have turned over, in its watery grave, in a sea of shame. And, Shelley Winters will rise again, from the dead (direct from the Poseidon), to haunt anyone who dares to see this pathetic movie. I rate this film a 1 out of 10, but it really deserves a zero. This movie will make you want to avoid, or completely turn against, water. And, it will leave a bad taste in your mouth. It may even make you want to see "Jaws" (1975), and befriend a great white.
After huge budget disaster films set in America like The Day After Tomorrow and Deep Impact, it was refreshing to see something on a smaller scale like Flood.<br /><br />Using mainly unknown actors and actresses and actually focusing on England it was a welcome change of pace to seeing The Empire State Building being demolished.<br /><br />However, this is not a strong film on any basis. Whilst being fairly shocking seeing all your favourite London landmarks being demolished by a very fake CGI storm surge, Flood doesn't really deliver on anything else.<br /><br />The performances are bland, being saved from the pit of hell by David Suchet and his refreshingly calm performance as the Deputy Priminister. He is perhaps a little too calm for what is going on in the film, all that fake water gushing around London must have made him pretty annoyed.<br /><br />It is understandable that the effects weren't going to be as good as TDAT and DI, but the CGI was at best, average.<br /><br />Bland, disappointing and sometimes even tiresome. Watch it if you must, but watch something else straight afterwards.
I really tried to give this film a chance but when I realized that most of the film was being told by a bunch of boring officials walking around and talking on phones, I knew it was over. A lot of this film also looked like stock footage. That's just lame.<br /><br />The camera person kept like doing these quick short zooms for NO REASON! It bothered me so much but I was just wondering why in the heck did they think it was a good idea. It doesn't add anything to a static scene of two people talking. This isn't NYPD Blue or some cop show or something.<br /><br />How could they have not realized that telling this type a story from conversations of people in conference rooms and what not, is BORING?!! Did they not watch this mess? Anyway, this was just a really boring movie and it does make it seem like whoever made it doesn't understand good storytelling in film.<br /><br />Darn stock footage... that's just wrong.
I'm sorry, but this movie is just way to shallow for me. In it, Perez is a taxi dancer with boyfriend Keitel trying to make it as an actress. First of all, what the hell is a taxi dancer? Even after sitting through this, I still don't know. Oh yeah, Perez also inspires DeLorenzo to follow her like a lovesick puppy. There's no reason behind the love, it just kind of happens. There are times when the characters and events really try to pull at your heartstrings, but it rarely works. The only character you really do feel anything for or with is Keitel's character, and that's only because he does such a good job with it. Any other actor and the character would have been just like the others.<br /><br />The script is basically an uninspired rehashing about how hard it is to make it as an actor/actress. It's been done and said before, the language and dialog sounds like it was written by a street pimp. The ending is...well, I don't want to spoil it. Let's just say it feels unsatisfying. I'd be more upset if the story was any good to begin with. The directing is average with nothing truly wonderful, but nothing that is really painful to watch either. To reiterate the acting, the only one that does anything worth watching is Keitel. Though I could have lived on without seeing him in tiger print bikini underwear.<br /><br />Oh yeah, Eddie Bunker shows up. As random as that mention is, that's how random it is in the film. And Tarantino does his director buddy a favor by showing up for about 20 seconds.
I registered at IMDb solely for the purpose of warning others about this movie. Hwo does anyone ever get funding for projects like this? That's the mystery. Farewell to Harry might be the worst movie ever, except that I tried to erase the others that rival this blathering idiocy. Bad plot, not-credible logic runs throughout. I can't spoil this movie for you by revealing anything that would make your experience less enjoyable. There is nothing enjoyable about this movie. I have the CD and will send it to you for free, it is that bad. First come, only served. If I know you, this offer is void, because I wouldn't inflict this movie on anyone, not on purpose. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
While the dog was cute, the film was not. It wasn't the premise, or the theme that was a problem. The premise had great possibilities for humor and pathos both. The theme is a worthy one. Helping other people is more important than amassing a fortune.<br /><br />Sadly, the adorable dog, the unique premise, and the theme were undercut by poor acting, stilted dialogue, and amateurish filming.<br /><br />Even my youngest child who will sit through almost anything gave up before we had gotten halfway through. How many times can that dog run up and down the same hallway? I can't spoil it for you, as I never saw the end. It just was not worth watching all the way to the end.
If you ever plan on renting (hopefully not buying) this movie, think again. It was as if Gary Busey had a gun to his head and was forced to act or die. I only wonder if Busey was arrested for something and was sentenced to play in this movie because I just don't see the guy that acted so much better with Keanu Reeves in Point Break play in this disaster. It was a feel-good movie, but there are thousands of other feel-good movies that make you laugh without wanting you to get your money back.<br /><br />The only reason I would ever tell someone to rent this movie is to watch this movie is to see Gary Busey jump up and down like a monkey. If you want a good funny movie, pass up Quigley and go rent Spongebob or something.
My wife rented this movie and then conveniently never got to see it. If I ever want to torture her I will make her watch this movie. I've watched many movies with my 4 year old and I can take almost anything. Barney is refreshing after a shot of Quigley. <br /><br />The plot, dialog, cinematography, & acting were one step above (or equal to) a cheap porn film. I feel cheated out of $3.69 that we paid to rent it and then 90 minutes of my life I will never get back. I will say my 4 year old liked it, luckily it was a rental we had to return right away.<br /><br />I just hope that the younger actor's careers are not ruined from being in this movie.
This is a really bad waste of your time. I would probably rather go watch some documentary than this; it's really that bad.<br /><br />The acting is really terrible, and you can tell that the producers had a low budget because of the terrible picture quality. It's by far on the low end of the scale; don't waste your money on it.<br /><br />I have a really hard time believing the person who made this movie that it would fare well. I had to watch it with the kids when my mother rented it because she thought it would be good for the kids. Even the kids (3, 4, 6, and 8) all thought it was pretty boring.<br /><br />I agree with the other commenter, Spongebob would be a lot better to watch than this.<br /><br />Overall: Just don't watch it. Don't. Don't.
This movie comes down like a square peg in a square hole. A poorly made peg. A peg so cheap it couldn't even be produced in a sweatshop assembly line in Chinatown, Mexico. In fact, when you try to press the peg into the hole for which it is obviously designed, it crumbles into sticky, disgusting pieces that smell like rotting fruit and won't wash off. Quigly is such a peg.<br /><br />This movie is so mind-bendingly awful, it couldn't have even been created. A movie like this must have been the result of some accident of nature; some freakish entity that congealed in the corner of a dank office somewhere and festered and grew until it was too big and terrifying to look at. Only science would be interested in such a thing; anyone not bent on studying it would exhume it from this world.<br /><br />What it comes down to is this: if you're the kind to enjoy first year violin recitals, racism, or Coke Zero, it might just be your birthday.
What a waste of precious time! My 5-year-old daughter brought this home from my mother's house, and we watched it as a family. None of us liked it. This wretched little film, rife with glaring inconsistencies, overt Christian themes and horrible film quality, is not worth watching even on a dare. It felt a bit like a bad high-school drama class attempt at film making. How sad to see talented actors (Chris Atkins, Gary Busey, and company) flounder their way through this trite and insipid storyline. The only good thing I can say about this movie is that the dog is cute. The film can should have gone straight to the pound. Avoid this film - your time is better spent watching paint dry.
I had to watch this movie with my 5-year-old. He didn't laugh once during the entire movie...and he loves dogs and will laugh at nearly anything! This movie was horrible from all aspects: poor script (even accounting for a children's G-rated movie), poor production (the jittery camera shots made me feel nauseous for the first ten minutes), poor acting (perhaps they were "directed" to act cartoonish), and even poor sound quality (there are parts where the audio level seems fine, then you can't hear what the next actor is saying). I'm willing to put up with quite a lot when it comes to watching a child's movie, but this was worse than having a stick in my eye. I also didn't like being battered over the head with the god-heaven-belief thing. In all, it was the biggest waste of 90 minutes in my life...and I've done some serious time-wasting in my day!
This movie should go down in the annals of fiefdom as one of the worst of all time. I will stop short of saying it's the worst movie ever, only because I have yet to see every movie ever made. I cannot make such lofty claims until then. The story is stale, the acting is horrible, at best, the "special" effects are no more than a couple of lbs. of dry ice and a fan. Somebody must have been related to someone to get this movie made. Mr. Busey mailed this one in! The dog is well trained and cute, making it the only redeeming quality in this never-should-have-made-it movie. Two hours and $3 of my life I will never get back.
All Grown up had a lot to live up to and there was much hype when this show was anounced. Now it's easy to explain why it didn't live up to expectations: Firstly, this show failed to create a realistic world of pre-teens in the way that Rugrats captured the world and the imagination of toddlers. Secondly, the show's character's are stereo-types (Angelica: white spoilt blond as opposed to Suzie: colored girl from modest family,...) or boring (Tommy, Chuckie) and annoying (Dil). Finally, there is not one ounce of innovation or an original plot-line. To sum up, All Grown Up is a waste of time and a bad idea for a sequel series to a show such as Rugrats. It's boring, lacks imagination and it seems that the producers don't even know how 10 to 13 year olds behave. To be accurate, shouldn't Angelica and Suzie be comparing bra sizes rather than fight over who's better at doing chores?
Why did they change the cute, Rugrats television show we all know and love into a lame attempt to target teens? They don't have to do that. All ages watch the regular Rugrats. When I heard about this, I thought, "Hey. They made a TV series about the movie. Except, they're really grown up as a teenager! This is going to be better." When I saw it, it was just as if I was watching As Told By Ginger, except they made it suck. Great job.<br /><br />When in the Rugrats series has tommy been a director? Never. Basically all the episodes in this attempted series is about Tommy's love of directing. I don't like that. I rather watch plots that change every episode. Not the same thing over and over. Also, when did in the old series have each character have their own sides of the story? Never. This series did that. I didn't like that everyone separated. I don't want to see Angelica's side of the story. I hate her.<br /><br />I do not recommend this show if you like As Told By Ginger and the Rugrats.
ALL GROWN UP is basically a spin off and not much else of the original Nickalodeon RUGRATS cartoon that featured the babies Tommy Pickles, Chucky Finster, Lil and Phil DeVille, Angelica, Susie and (later) Kimi (Chuckies sister) and Dill (Tommy's brother). I grew up with RUGRATS and thought it was a great cartoon. It had excellent humor, nice stories and the show's creators, Klasky & Csupo, were obviously very original and creative with the concept of the adventures of babies. The new show ALL GROWN UP tries to recapture the magic of the original cartoon. I was disappointed when I saw it. I found the "all-grown-up" Chuckie just annoying and the whole "pre-teen-acting-mature/trying-to-be-popular" that applied to (unfortunately) *all* of the characters dull and washed out. There still are some funny scenes and jokes in the new series and it was interesting how the artists would make the whole baby gang of RUGRATS look ten years from their age in the original show. Overall, this show is 'fair' and only watchable if a) you're a die-hard fan of the RUGRATS, b) have never seen the original show, c) you're a pre-teen that has nothing to do, or d) your so bored that your somehow forced to see this show. This show is not that good. It doesn't compare to the older RUGRATS episodes in quality, humor, and everything else.
This is a typical "perfect crime" thriller. A perfect crime is executed and the investigating police officer, ignoring all the clues, immediately knows who guilty is. The audience has to wait around the whole movie for the guilty to be caught. The result is like every single episode of "Columbo" or "murder she wrote". The director himself refers to the hackney story by showing the police officer watching an episode of Matlock! This story barely fills up 90 minutes but the director insists on using all 120 minutes filling with every cliche in the book. Skip this one, you are not missing anything.
An updated version of a theme which has been done before. While that in and of itself is not bad, this movie doesn't reach the ring like the other "inherent and pure" evil ones do. <br /><br />Predictable, ambitious attempt that falls short of the mark. Not worth sitting through for the tired contrived ending.
People, please don't bother to watch this movie! This movie is bad! It's totally waste of time. I don't see any point here. It's a Stupid film with lousy plot and the acting is poor. I rather get myself beaten than watch this movie ever again.
When I first saw this film it was not an impressive one. Now that I have seen it again with some friends on DVD ( they had not viewed it on the silver screen ), my opinion remains the same. The subject matter is puerile and the performances are weak.
Because it came from HBO and based on the IMDb rating, I watched the first season of this series, what a waste. The characters are occasionally interesting but mostly cartoon-like. The acting ranges from good to mediocre talent with a S T R O N G emphasis on the latter. Not only prisoners, also viewers should leave all hope at the cell door that this story is believable, it's such a load of dung that you will need unusually strong testicular fortitude to keep watching. The violence, as with most of the developments in the story, is titillating and whatever morality is supposedly served up, it's of the lite variety. If your idea of excellent television includes the the writing, acting and overall production quality seen in THE SOPRANOS, DEADWOOD or SIX FEET UNDER, avoid OZ. If you want to see a Disneyland for Illiterate Jerks, watch OZ. Stuff like this gives edgy a bad name.
Not for the first time, I'm out of kilter with the majority view. Oz is a dreadful, pretentious, voyeuristic series. The makers have their cake and eat it. Oz, Em City, etc are used as ultra- crude signals that the apparent grittiness is complete fantasy. This allows viewers the feeblest of intellectual excuses to watch soap operatic nonsense spiced with everything that is bad about human beings.<br /><br />When you watch an episode, please remember that while the foul-mouthed, violent, absurdly convoluted, unconvincing, sick, imaginary drama unfolds before your approving eyes, several hundred infants in poorer parts of the world have died from bad food or water.<br /><br />Oz is exploitative drama at its worst. It appeals to the basest instincts but pretends to be serious and meaningful. It blows hot and cold and changes from fortissimo to pianissimo more often than a Mahler symphony.<br /><br />Dialogue is unrelentingly ugly and utilitarian. The liberties taken with realities are stupid. Here's a nightclub owning dandy, arriving at Oz in his foppish finery, complete with a ridiculously cloudy contact lens in one eye, brandishing a stash of drugs that nobody detected. Here's a murderous wimp bleating about the heat death of the universe, begging to be killed, but of course being refused by the brute he approaches and doing a bit of improbable throat cutting himself.<br /><br />The action races on at a pace fast enough for the voyeuristic, dim-witted viewer to be thinking always about what happens next rather than the rubbish that has just been shown. Don't worry, a betrayal, a murder, a sex scene will be along within a minute or two. <br /><br />Finally, Oz is obviously pretentious. You don't have to feel embarrassed about being carried along by its flow. You can watch it and tell yourself that the producers, writers and actors are doing everything with a huge wink (or same word but for a change of vowel) to the audience. <br /><br />Yes, you can be a nasty-minded viewer and excuse yourself on the grounds of the cleverness, post-modernistic, etc skills of the Oz production team. They appeal to the lowest common denominator while pretending to operate on a higher plane.<br /><br />Truly, a despicable series. And every hour it shows, rewarding its makers and actors, and generating advertising revenue for the channels that show it to people who have nothing better to do than watch something so ugly and unnecessary, another few hundred children die whose lives could have been saved by the dollars spent by this horrible, successful, widely-praised series.
First of all, season 1 is intolerably bad. The prison is ridiculously unrealistic, the characters are so two dimensional they're nearly transparent, and the direction is terrible. It runs like a bad video of a junior high school play, characters wandering past the camera and uttering highly timed and rehearsed lines, passing off as random prison talk. Soon the show gets better, but not by much. The return from the commercial break is always accompanied by some ridiculous monologue by wheelchair-bound Augustus Hill, who is played impressively by Harold Perrineau. The only time his character is consistently bad is during the bad performance art monologues, most of which take place in an inexplicable rotating glass cube and generally have nothing to do with what's taking place in the show.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the bad ideas in Oz could fill an encyclopedia of several volumes. Consider the whole situation, first of all. Prisoners are able to hang out in plain sight getting drunk, doing drugs, and they not only have CD players (CDs?? They might as well pass out steak knives), but all incoming mail is thoroughly examined by PRISONERS. Christ, the place is like a men's club with guards. Guards that don't do much. <br /><br />Near the end of season two, an older prisoner's grandson is diagnosed with leukemia, and all of the prisoners pitch in thick wads of $20 and $50 bills to help send him to Disneyworld to fulfill his dying wish. These have to be the richest prisoners in the world. Every single prisoner in Oz all of a sudden became caring, loving guys except Kenny Wangler, an irritating character but one of the only ones who is consistently convincing. Even Adibisi wanted to be nice. But that's okay, because there is no order or sense in the show, so even this is not much of a distraction.<br /><br />Later, shockingly, there is a boxing scene in which one inmate is wearing an "I Love Cops" t- shirt. In prison!! Can you imagine?? I have a cousin who was in prison a few years ago. I sent him an old picture of us with some friends in high school, and in the picture, one of my friends was holding an "I Love Cops" bumper sticker, and one of "the woods" (guys who have been in prison for years and years) saw the picture but just grabbed it and ripped it to shreds. My cousin got lucky. <br /><br />Kenny Wangler also constantly berates the guards and even more senior officers for not calling him Bricks. One of them even tried to bribe him to go to an English class. You may lose track of who is in charge, the prisoners or the guards. More than one investigator, for example, goes into the prison undercover and gets killed trying to stop the drug trade. Personally I would just stop letting prisoners inspect incoming mail rather than risk the lives of investigators. <br /><br />Let's see, what else? Shillinger's son OD's in solitary and no one thinks to ask the guard how he got the drugs. He just...got them, I guess. And make sure to pay attention, otherwise you'll miss the reason why the prisoners have enough money to be able to afford ascellular dermal grafts when they get bad gums. I didn't know guests in maximum security prisons were afforded such luxurious treatment options. How about this, when Robson asks about Dr. Faraj's schedule so he can ask what race of gums he was given, Faraj is so terrified that he goes to the warden and quits his job on the spot. Do doctors and dentists not have the right to request not to see certain prisoners? After Poet and O'Reilly make the announcement to the entire prison, Robson asks to see Dr. Faraj, and is escorted to his office, brought in without knocking, and the guard promptly leaves without a word. They might as well give him a gun.<br /><br />I shouldn't go on about stupid ideas in this show, but it's like a flood, I can't stop it. Who thought of the Chinese refugees who can't speak Chinese and who disappear en masse from sight unless they're needed? Who thought of the goofy religious wars and all the reverend prisoners? Who though of Robson's gum transplant? What's the deal with Busmalis and Agamemnon? Agamemnon because he clearly doesn't belong in prison and Busmalis because of the whole thing with his grandson. Macbeth, because it was nothing but a ridiculous means to an end, as it were. <br /><br />But what are the worst ideas? Things that go nowhere, which are constant. An Irish man comes to the prison and builds a bomb. He threatens to blow up the entire prison, the bomb turns out to be a dud, and the episode ends with him being led away by the bomb squad after the entire prison is evacuated. Nothing is ever heard from him or about the whole situation again. It's like it never happened. In one episode, prisoners are given dogs to train. What the hell?? If that wasn't bad enough, during one training session, a guard fires his gun inside the prison walls as a training exercise. No one seems to mind.<br /><br />I also like how anytime some kind of altercation breaks out, the culprits are pulled aside, they don't say anything, and the guards or warden or sister Pete or whoever always says, "I hope you don't think I'm gonna let this go!!" And then they walk away and let it go. The audience won't remember. <br /><br />Maybe I'm spoiled by Prison Break, but Oz is just a goofy prison drama that might be better as a play. A short one. At least a low-budget movie. There is just not enough here to sustain a multi-season TV show. Then again, I watched six seasons of it on DVD. Sometimes I don't understand myself...
Where do I begin with the Killing Mind before I mention the good bit? This movie is about a young psychological profiling FBI woman, or something, that for some reason goes to work for the LAPD for a wee while. There are some recognisable faces, like the "I love you, man" bloke from Wayne's World, playing a cop (nice beard-age too!) and two guys who always seem to play cops playing..... you guessed it, cops. One of them was one of the cops in Gross Point Blank following John Cusack about the place, and the other is the FBI guy with specs in Final Destination, who is also in the Fugitive as another cop. I know the FBI, US Marshalls, CIA, etc aren't cops, but they're all the same. They enforce the law to a certain degree, that makes them cops in my book. Feel free to disagree with the definition of a cop all you want, they're still seen as the ones who are trying to bring the bad guys down. Any, I digress. The woman is working alongside these cops who just seem to sit around in a library in the basement or something, and for some unknown reason decides to reopen a case that hasn't been looked at for yonks. She saw the dead body as a kid, so naturally decided that she can reopen the case cos she was personally attached to it! I also like how the person profiling other people's psychological state witnessed a murder scene as a child. Surely that's the kind of thing that can screw with someone's head?! She starts asking questions off some journalist who covered the story when it was open, even though he appears to be the same age as the woman, so he presumably was either writing for a newspaper when he was 10, or he wrote a few school reports on it, and she decided he'd be the best person to ask about it.<br /><br />We then see that as well as reopening homicide cases from 25 years earlier, she tries her hand at petty theft as some really inconspicuous bloke sprints through a busy street wearing a balaclava. Way to blend, moron! Anyway, she and the cops she's with eating ice creams in the park give chase after him, and whilst crossing a bridge with a woman and child standing on it, the thief grabs the baby from the mother's arms and throws the baby in the river. This, if you haven't already guessed, is the best bit of the movie. I'm not sadistic, and don't have a hatred for babies or anything, but the scene just looks so stupid I promise you will wet your pants laughing at it if you should watch this movie. It gets better when the cop from Final Destination & the Fugitive jumps in to rescue the baby then declares to his friend "It's a baby!" How did he not know that before he jumped in, is beyond me.<br /><br />Anyway, she chases after the thief but loses him. Later on she remembers that a random dog didn't bark at the thief, so assumed it must be his and decided to track down the thief through the dog. The dog had no markings or anything on it, so how she knew where to find the dog, and thus find the thief is another question I won't go into. it was shortly after this that I stopped watching. The story was moving really slowly, and after I had stopped laughing at the baby throwing bit, I had kind of lost interest and missed what was being said.<br /><br />Saying that, I'll go ahead and assume that the killer was the journalist bloke because he seemed a bit shifty, and she was spending a lot of time with him, and anyone who watches Columbo knows that the person outside the police force who spends most time with the investigating officer is your bad guy. plus, other people's reviews say the killer was pretty obvious, so I'm sure it was him.<br /><br />So all in all, a pants film, but worth watching just for that one glorious scene.
The topics presented are very interesting; suburban culture, suburban sprawl, public transportation, oil & gas depletion, energy dependence, alternative energy sources, etc.<br /><br />The problem is that this is a pure and shameless propaganda piece. One viewpoint is presented, then hammered upon the viewer over and over. You see the same handful of 'experts' repeatedly making their case. The supposed 'narrator' starts off sounding like a news reporter, but by the end even he is preaching the film's dogma.<br /><br />The dark side of the film is not so much the gloom and doom message about oil depletion, but the sense that the folks in the film are actually wishful for a post-oil society and all that it entails. They paint this picture of a utopian society where we all return to the self-contained local village model; walk to work, shop locally, grow our own food, and generally live an idyllic 19th century lifestyle. For them, the post-oil society would seem a grand vision of a better world. It would certainly spell the end of globalization, and better still, the end of Walmart. I will give them some credit for applying actual math in exposing the weaknesses of several over-touted alternative energy sources, including ethanol and hydrogen.<br /><br />I gave it 3 stars because I appreciated the old footage and the premise.
A modern scare film? Yep it is..<br /><br />The hippies, peaceniks and environmentalists got together to deliver us a fear film.. I didn't recognize it when watching it only 2 years ago that it was a fear film but that's exactly what it is..<br /><br />There's no difference between this film and films the nazi made about us in ww2 and the same films we made about them.. this is pure propaganda and speaks only to those.. that believe in aliens, 9/11 conspiracy plots, faked moon landings, peak oil and major environmentalism What I can say is this film does push buttons, make you ask questions and ultimately just forget about it.. It's a scare film.. so if your scarred get in your houses, lock your doors and stock up for that nuclear winter we all know is coming when bush provokes the Chinese into nuclear war..
Doesn't anyone bother to check where this kind of sludge comes from before blathering on about its supposed revelations? Ask yourself a question: Is my skull an open bucket that I allow anyone to dump their propaganda into? Do yourself a favor and take a look at the bomb-shelter mentality of pathtofreedom.com before you waste your time with this screed.<br /><br />These sorts of Mother Earth/People's Republic of Berkeley urbanite fruitcakes that openly despise a way of life only because it doesn't match theirs must believe their case fails miserably on facts and objectivity. Else why resort to willful distortion and blatant one-sidedness? Pathetic.<br /><br />Don't be a sap. Take two seconds and cast a skeptical eye before falling for yet more 'end of the world' hysteria from it-takes-a-village types with a political agenda that's probably even to the left of your own. Mi. Moore (rather his unthinking followers) have really opened the floodgates with this kind of one-sided political trash passed off as a *cough* documentary. But apparently they understand the sentiment of an ever-gullible public: "If it's on a movie screen, it must be true." <br /><br />God gave you a brain - act like you know what you're supposed to do with it...
I loved all the other Don Knotts movies, but I never heard much about "How To Frame A Fig" and now I know why: I can't think of anyone who would find it enjoyable. This movie seems to appeal to 9 or 10 year olds, but even most of them would give this a thumbs down. At best there are brief moments of mild amusement, mostly from Don Knotts playing the same nervous, underdog persona that made him famous.<br /><br />After the movie finally finished I was curious if my teenager could pick up on this movie's fatal flaw. We were in complete agreement: the Prentiss Gates sidekick character was even dumber than the Don Knotts character.<br /><br />Be happy that Mr. Limpet, Reluctant Astronaut, Shakiest Gun and Mr. Chicken movies are around to enjoy.
The first time I had heard of Guest House Paridiso was in the, er... "washroom" after having just seen Fight Club. In each urinal was deposited a small, round black circle. When the circle came into contact with moisture (to put it delicately), it caused a colour picture to form, with photographs of the two stars and the tag line "You'll P*** Yourself Laughing". When you'd finished washing your hands, the circle had dried and faded to black again, waiting to spring it's surprise on the next "victim".<br /><br />Okay, maybe the punchline wasn't terribly sophisticated, but you have to admit it was innovative. In fact, I think I can honestly say I've never seen anything like it in my life before, and these days of over a century of cinema and marketing, that's a real feat. What a pity the film that went with it failed to live up to the promise.<br /><br />I hate to pan Guest House Paridiso and I am indebted to Rik Mayall (Richard Twat) and Adrian Edmondson (Eddie Elizabeth Ndingombaba) for many years of laughter through their appealing television series, be it the invention of The Young Ones (1982-1984), the sitting room plays of Bottom (1991-1995), or even solo work, such as Rik in the New Statesman (1988-1993). In fact, this would have made an hilarious 45 minute tv special. Unfortunately, its an 89 minute film.<br /><br />There's definitely some merit to be had, and I laughed continuously throughout the protracted finale, which spoofed the Exorcist and Raiders of the Lost Ark, and involved... well, you'll have to see that bit for yourself. Yet often the pace is leaden, and a sterile atmosphere is throughout. The two stars (Edmondson taking his usual backseat, this time due to the fact that he adequately directs) never really get into first gear, Mayall only sporadically showing the foul-mouthed mania that makes us love him on the small screen. Indeed, the writers' presumption that we are already familiar with the characters leads to them being underdelivered to the audience. The slight hints of depth seen in the series (Richie's effeminate, failed social-climbing for example) are not present here, and instead we are left with parodies of parodies.<br /><br />The Fawlty Towers accusation does pass water, complete with drunken chef and unseen, called-for waiter "Pasquele", which uncannily rhymes with Manuel. Some of the ideas, such a hotel next to a nuclear reactor with a childrens' swing hanging over a cliff face, are very, very funny, but ultimately the frenetic pace is stolen, the two constantly looking for a studio audience that isn't there, and all the "dead laugh" areas patched up with incidental "comedy" music that would have been dated in a Carry On film two decades ago.<br /><br />Paridiso's brand of puerile, sadistic, perverse humour IS funny, and I feel sure it will make you laugh ... just not as often as it should.
Possibly the worst film within the genre in existence. It was announced as a comedy, but is simply tragically pathetic. I don't think anyone could have achieved anything more terrible and irritating if they were specifically requested to. It is toilet humour at its very poorest, I would avoid even watching the trailer. I only went to see it because it was announced that if you like Monty Python, you are bound to love this. Whoever wrote that was either biased or seriously deranged. I am still bewildered how one can honestly believe such a statement. Rarely do I leave the cinema, really it takes a lot of effort for a film to have that effect on me: this one did it in just 30 minutes.
I had seen Rik Mayall in Blackadder and the New Statesman, so I thought I'd give this film a try.<br /><br />At around 4 pm I bought it, at around 8pm I started to watch, at around 8.15pm I fast forwarded the remaining film to see if there was anything left watchable for a human being with a brain... but there wasn't. At around 8.45pm I threw the DVD into the dustbin. And that's where this "film" belongs.<br /><br />What ever happened to British humour? The humour so fine and witty, intelligent and artful that you find in Yes, Minister, Blackadder, Vicar of Dibley, Fawlty Towers or The Fast Show? The black humour Britain is so famous for? I don't want to insult anybody, but I presume even stupid children wouldn't find this funny. They deserve more intelligent fun. And Rik Mayall, you can do better, so please, do!
Being a HUGE fan of the bottom series i was really looking forward to the release of this film.I was eagerly anticipating a laugh a minute roller-coaster ride......alas.<br /><br />Where to start on this mess?i think its a good start to say that its hardly richie and eddie on our screens in the first place as none of the jokes and one liners they usually deliver so well are funny.I was still waiting for the first laugh after a good 20 minutes of viewing.Many aspects of the story were pathetic and it was as if the film was full of those bad moments they rehearsed and decided to leave out of the final cut.<br /><br />The overall sets and atmosphere surrounding the film is dark and dingy which i suppose is good if they want to portray the 'terrible' guest house the 2 buffoons attempt to run,but to me its just puts an even higher dampener on a sorry state of filming that should never have been created.<br /><br />The acting,at times,is pathetic.Fenella Fielding is wasted as the loony Mrs Foxfur and i've seen Simon Pegg have much better outings.<br /><br />I'd recommend Guest House Paradiso to anybody who is blind drunk because they might appreciate the terrible puns much more.But to any bottom fan who hasn't seen this film and is expecting true richie and eddie action you have been warned
The premise of Bottom crossed with Fawlty Towers sounds great! However, Ade Edmonson & Rik Mayall have managed to create a film that raises barely a titter. Ten years ago, Rik Mayall's mad stare and Ade's idiocy were funny, now they are just annoying.<br /><br />The film had promise - though the most horrendous hotel in Britain is not a new idea - but failed to deliver. The saving graces were competent performances from Simon (Spaced, Big Train) Pegg and Helene Mathieu, and the film is only 90 minutes long. Sorry, guys, but you really have hit the Bottom
I have always been a fan of Bottom, grabbing as many videos as I could find of the series here in the states. The chemistry between Rik and Ade is always genius, and the combination of smart writing and utterly stupid humor seems to work without fail. I thus sat down to watch this movie with great eagerness... and was utterly disappointed by the end.<br /><br />The first 3/4 of the movie can best be described as uninspired and poorly directed (sorry, Ade!), but with some utterly brilliant moments. Unfortunately, these laugh-out-loud moments make you realize how less-than-brilliant the rest of the movie is. The slapstick starts off funny but eventually becomes a bit boring, with only the perverted sex jokes to keep things humorous.<br /><br />The end of the movie (the 'green' scenes, for those of you who've seen it) was... perhaps the worst ending I've seen in the past decade. Honestly. It was one joke repeated about thirty times, followed by an abrupt ending that made no sense (which didn't bother me) and wasn't funny (which did).<br /><br />To sum up, I was sorely disappointed by this movie. I shall cling to the few brilliant moments in it, to retain the fondest memories that I can... but I have to warn you, if you're about to overpay for your NTSC conversion tape from the local importer, don't. There are far better things to spend your money on.
Wow, this film was terrible. It is as simple as that. It is actually the first time that I walked out early, as far as I can remember. This turned out okay, though: I had a very nice chat with two most charming girls while we all waited for the rest to finally give up on that crap they called a "movie".<br /><br />Where to start. Bad acting, bad jokes. Faecal humour, which I simply cannot stand. Sorry, but snot, pee and scat are *not* funny. You have seen the title picture? That scene actually drags on for about 5 minutes, with the two "heroes" hitting and mutilating each other, which is supposed to be humorous all by itself. It is not.<br /><br />Apart from body fluids, violence and cross-dressing, I do not remember much about this. At least not much good. I was really, really disappointed by this piece of garbage. Or let us be honest here: given that I am actually a big fan of "british" (i.e., black) humour, I was angry.<br /><br />So, want my advice? Three words: do not watch.
The unthinkable has happened. Having first witnessed it a few years ago, I have had a film that has been my benchmark for awfulness and that film was called "McCinsey's Island". A family adventure movie with Hulk Hogan and Grace Jones (I'm not making this up), it plunged to new depths of movie making and is still the only film I've seen that made me wonder what else the film's budget could have been spent on. Like new schools or cancer-treating drugs. However, for sheer and unadulterated levels of crap, any film will be having to lower their standards even lower if they wish to trump "Guest House Paradiso" to the distinction of being one of the very worst movies I've ever had to watch.<br /><br />Based loosely around the puerile but amusing TV show "Bottom", this film introduces us to two of the biggest losers imaginable. Richard (Rik Mayall) is a hotel manager, as unfriendly as anyone you can imagine and so twistedly lecherous as to almost ooze slime from every action. His buddy Eddie (director Adrian Edmondson) is an alcoholic waste of human life and together, they try to run Britain's worst hotel situated upon a cliff-top next to a nuclear power station. Between them, they indulge in cartoony violence (with sound effects) at regular intervals, steal anything remotely valuable or interesting from the fools who stay there and stare longingly at any woman at all. The plot, such as it is, involves the arrival of fabled Italian screen goddess Gina Carbonara (Vincent Cassel) who is fleeing from her wedding and attempts to lay low at the Guest House Paradiso, much to the astonishment of Richie and Eddie. And... that's it.<br /><br />I used to think that the Carry On films represented everything bad about the UK film industry and God knows, we've spent so much time and money trying to escape that god awful legacy. We've had films like "Trainspotting", "28 Days Later", "Four Weddings And A Funeral" and the brilliant "Shaun Of The Dead" (also starring Simon Pegg) but this... this drags those films screaming and kicking back to the days of Sid James and Barbara Windsor's top flying off with the aid of a bicycle whistle. "Guest House Paradiso" is so low in its ambition that it insults you the minute you watch it. I kept watching, waiting in anticipation for the jokes to start but they never came. Just an endless stream of trapped knob gags, unimaginative scenarios that defy explanation, slightly amusing violence with frying pans and fridge doors and almost nothing raising so much as a smirk. Come the first ad break (it was on TV, you see) and I was ready to switch off but my loyal duties to you, my readers, kept me going. "I'm watching this so they don't have to" became my mantra so you guys better remember how much you owe me for this because this was about as much fun as having sand kicking into my eyes and being force-fed dog food.<br /><br />Trust me, I used to love the "Bottom" TV show. The combination of suitably grubby acting from Mayall and Edmondson with OTT juvenile humour worked... for half an hour every week. Certainly not for an hour and a half, as Edmondson and Mayall indulge themselves in their little private joke and bore and depress the rest of the audience. Honestly, this makes Mayall's "Drop Dead Fred" seem like "The Godfather" and should you happen to meet either of these two people (who are pretty much solely responsible for the chaos on screen pretending to be a movie), feel free to swiftly deliver a boot to their testicle region. They'd probably enjoy it. Pegg and Bill Nighy (both as guests at the hotel) are dragged down with this sinking ship but at least they survived. Mayall and Edmondson should not be so lucky. The movie equivalent of Chernobyl and should be avoided as such.
Yep, this has got to be one of the lamest movies I've ever seen. It's utterly tasteless, has no style whatsoever, the story is so thin that you can watch television through it, and the whole film has so many holes you could drive an oil tanker through it.<br /><br />Sure, I appreciate a good B-movie as much as most male white homo sapiens do. But this has got to be the worst I've seen. In fact it's so B that it lacks everything that makes a B-movie interesting.<br /><br />The whole movie is based around such charming artefacts as the characters beating the crap out of each other, various bodily functions and the complete lack of sanity of anything on-screen.<br /><br />It's not even funny. In fact it's quite the opposite. I found it even boring at times due to it's extreme predictability.<br /><br />I find nothing good to say about this movie. It was a waste of time watching it, and I hope others don't do the same mistake. If you also pay for it you should get a serious brainscan done.
This should have been a short film, nothing more. The Length of 1,5 hours is much too long, because after 10 minutes you have seen almost every joke. It's getting more and more on your nerves untill you finally kick out your brain to endure that movie.<br /><br />To do yourself a favor, don't mention to see that movie...
Apart from the fact that this film was made ( I suppose it seemed a good idea at the time considering BOTTOM was so popular ) the one thing that puzzled me about GUEST HOUSE PARADISO was what happened to the lighting ? There is absolutely no artificial lighting used in this film whatsoever , and I watched it on network TV so it wasn`t a case of watching a dodgy tape. In fact the film was shot so darkly it was impossible to see what the hell was going on . But if the dialogue was anything to go by that`s maybe not a bad thing
As a Christian, I found this movie to be completely embarrassing. The actors sucked, the writing sucked, the cinematography sucked, and the story was so typical. I couldn't say this is a great witnessing tool, because I'd be too embarrassed to show any of my unsaved friends. Hollywood has much better stuff, and that's because they invest the best into it. Christians put out sh*tty work and think it's OK because "it's for the lord". In the old testament, people spent huge amounts of money to bring offerings to God. David (or Saul.. I don't remember) spent what would be equal to about $50 Billion in todays money on building a temple for God. But these days, spending what would appear to be about $30,000 tops on making a movie to "witness" to people with is just pathetic. It's the person, not the product that affects someone. Don't waste your time trying to convert your friends with this waste of an hour and a half. If you want to make a positive impact with people, show them movies like The Matrix, American Beauty, Braveheart etc.. movies that have something to say and actually get it into you.
(As a note, I'd like to say that I saw this movie at my annual church camp, where the entire youth group laughed at it. I bought it when I saw it on a shelf one year later, if only for the humor I derived from a bad attempt at making an evangelical movie.)<br /><br />Lay it Down falls short of many movie fans' expectations on several different planes. Most of the problems lie within the impersonal acting. Regardless of the nice cars in the film, or the truth in Christ's sacrifice for you, as a movie AND witnessing tool, Lay it Down hardly delivers. <br /><br />Most good opinions of the movies are supported by Christians agreeing with the message. While it's easy for a Christian to agree with the points delivered, the audience hardly ever witnesses life outside a cliché. The fighting scene between Ben and his brother is horribly dubbed. And there are at least three blatant typos in the subtitles.<br /><br />I encourage anyone to watch the movie a second time with the director's commentary on. It really helps you understand just why the movie was written how it was. The director's views on secular society are practically opposite of what would cater to a movie-goer's needs: he shows a pedantic understanding of Nonchristians, as well as some points of religious conflict; most of the editing, he admits, was rushed, but "satisfactory"; he thought the over-used transitions and themes to be effective; and was completely happy with the acting. <br /><br />He also inserted motifs that he was rather proud of: -All (read: most) of the names are significant. Ben Destin = "Been Destined", Gus Pelman = "Gospel Man", Nicky D = Nicodemus. -The car doing donuts is symbolic of the circling nothingness that is a life without Christ. -When Ben leaves on Pete's motorcycle, he crosses his crutches to form a "cross".<br /><br />I'm not making any of those up. He throws around things like this in between saying while street racers and the like "blow their brains out with guns", and how "God is in control when your born and when your die". Yes, that was not a typo. He really says that.<br /><br />I have (little) forgiveness reserved for this movie. The "cool cars" and "good message" don't do jack to make this movie good. However, the movie was made from a group of unprofessional individuals on a budget less than 1/100th of "The Fast and the Furious's", and the time limit was unforgiving. With that in mind, I give it a score of 2/10, instead of the 1/10 I so dearly think it deserves.
Got this off of usenet, so I wasn't prepared for the heavy (and I do mean EXCEPTIONALLY heavy) religious theme. Not that I'm one of Satan's disciples or anything, but it was very heavy handed.<br /><br />On top of that, the acting stunk. It might be because they had to get good little boys to play bad little boys, but it didn't work.<br /><br />There was some pretty cool filmmaking involved, so any fan of directorial style might want to check it out, but be ready with the fast forward buttons.<br /><br />There was some sloppiness to the editing. In particular, a black Mustang (probably a representation of Satan?) squares off against a white 240Z. Wheels spin, camera changes, and whattya know, that white 240Z is transmogrified into a white Civic.<br /><br />I gave up early on, so I can't vouch for the moral impact of it. But I would like to point out that this sort of film is totally preaching to the choir. If the director/writer/producer was trying to bring religion to the unwashed streetracing masses, they went about it all wrong. I think I'd rather watch an adult diaper commercial than listen to a steely-gazed bible thumper rant about Jesus' dying for us. Yawn.<br /><br />
Truly awful nonsensical garbage. This movie does everything wrong except make the running time under an hour. The gore FX defy gravity & logic. There are no scares. The acting is abysmal, with everyone appearing to be reading their lines. There's a surprise ending that's just silly where we find out that things we saw happen didn't even happen. Boy do I hate cop out endings! They pad this thing out with long drawn-out shots of people doing nothing interesting(like putting on make-up or talking for what seems like forever). They have to pad out a movie that's under an hour long? Ridiculous. The story itself is pretty freakin' thin. I mean it's just a variation of the movie APRIL FOOL'S DAY, if I remember that movie correctly, and that film wasn't all that great either. The only good thing I can say is it seems to have been shot well. Too bad nothing happens that's very exciting.
Granny, directed by Boris Pavlovsky (who?), sees eight friends experiencing a night of terror when a psycho-killer dressed in a old hag rubber mask and a nightdress interrupts their party.<br /><br />They say you can't judge a book by its cover, but it appears that the same is not true of DVDs: I was in the mood for a REALLY bad horror film last night, and since the cover of Granny featured a shoddily photo-shopped image of the titular killer swinging an axe, terrible typography (they even use the system font Sand, a definite design no-no!), and credits featuring absolutely no-one I had heard of, I reckoned it would be pretty lousy.<br /><br />It was!<br /><br />When a film clocks in at just under an hour long, it really shouldn't waste too much time before getting to the action; Granny, however, spends the first 20 minutes or so with its unlikable group of friends indulging in pointless games and extremely banal conversation. Anyone who actually stays with the film long enough for the killing to begin (and I doubt most sane people would bother) will be treated to several dreadful death scenes featuring amateurish gore, loads of awful acting, and a surprise ending that comes as no surprise (if you've seen April Fool's Day, then you'll guess what the twist is way before it is revealed).<br /><br />Granny is uninspired, unexciting, and almost unwatchable. Avoid.
I watched this movie at a party, we were very puzzled by the ending, it ended rather poor. even though the entire movie isn't too amazing, i was expecting something slightly better. This movie is pure trash, but i suggest you watch it if you find cheap horror films with a weak script quite funny. Personally I loved the advert, it was my overall highlight, the fighting scenes were basic, a shot of a knife, some shadows in a window, fake blood. I must say the Granny costume was quite scary, This film is a mixture of kill joy, camp blood and boggy creek 2,except this film has slightly better camera wok and colour treatment compared with camp blood.
This film is so awful it is funny, not quite to Troll 2 levels of hilarity, but funny nonetheless. The acting is awful, the music is atrocious and the story does not make a blind bit of sense. The story revolves around a man dressed in an awful granny costume killing a bunch of people at a party. The death scenes are so badly done they are hilarious. One girl is stabbed repeatedly in the chest, but does not scream, try or defend or self or run away. She also manages to remain standing despite being stabbed repeatedly. Another death scene involving a rope is also extremely hilarious. No thought seems to have been put into the plot. The Granny seems to magically move from one area to another(e.g. be hiding under leaves in a woodland just where the victim just happens to stand, appears in front of someone even though it had been behind them ten seconds earlier), people kiss at extremely inappropriate moments(would you stop and kiss someone if you were being chased by a homicidal maniac) and the double twist at the end is utterly ridiculous, it seems they just threw it on just to confuse people. I would advise people to watch this film if they love awful horror movies like Troll 2, The Dreaded or Blood Gnome, but do not watch it if you are expecting a scary horror movie, you will be disappointed
OK end of the story is - all the kills were a joke on the main character and no one is actually dead. Yes I know Cry Wolf did it and did it well, but this isn't "Cry Wolf", it's "Scream Crap"! Even though the "characters" don't apparently die, we SEE them get stabbed to death (and other ways they are killed) even though these "kills" do NOT take place as anyone can see them. Mr. Director, if you're gonna show people getting killed, someone needs to see it, if they're off camera and the character getting faked killed is alone it doesn't work - and until the end I liked a couple of scenes but your end ruined the whole thing.<br /><br />The acting is horrid (especially the kid at the beginning who really thinks he tricked his friends into believing they were playing with his dead grandmothers brains) the script is less-than half baked (though if you're half baked you might like the movie) the only reason I gave this movie a 3 is because a) they actually made something b) they got it released and c) they shot on film Yes you read right, they wasted (at least) $5,000 on film stock for this crap. Sad, if they'd shot DV they'd had some cash for a better cast and another writer to go through the script and make it good.<br /><br />I admire the fact that the director made something (as most don't) but HATWE the fact that he comes on IMDFB talking about how "original" the movie is.<br /><br />Avoid the movie if it means buying it to see, if a friend has it, it might be a funny movie to borrow.
An object lesson in how to make a bad movie which masquerades as Horror. Without going in too close I would imagine this is the results of a bunch of film school students all adding bits to the story and then actually ACTING in it! Its like a film workshop of some kind and its a film badly in need of an editor-in which case it would have lasted 10 minutes! The director of this garbage probably had more money than sense. Consider the number of submitted scripts or even unreleased films which would have benefited from this. The so called Granny who was killing people in some pretty stupid ways looked like Christopher Lloyd in Back to the Future-or maybe the musicians Johnny Winter/Edgar Winter. It starts off with 20 minutes of crass boring nonsense spouted out by the students-something about paranoia. Giving this rubbish 1 is because it can't get any less. It has not one single redeeming feature-and when one of the girls thinks the body on the floor covered in blood is the guy fooling about she has to actually TASTE the red stuff before she knows its not tomato ketchup! Its an insult to the intelligence of an idiot
I love low budget movies. Including those that are intentionally or un-intentionally funny,excess fake gore,violence etc.<br /><br />This,however is beyond stupid. Once you see the ending you'll say,what the hell was the point of all the killing scenes with no one around(except in a couple) to witness them.AND how did the ending actually come about(I won't give the WHOLE story away for those dumb enough to actually watch this) Granny is like a psychic Jason. First she's outside the window with a body and 15 seconds later she's in the living room knitting. The whole thing is a setup for a newcomer. They pull off graphic kill scenes,the knitting needles in the eyes,that only Chris Angel Mind Freak could pull off. And again,the very end was Pre-posterous. 56 min waste of time. I've seen one of the directors other films and it was almost as bad. Give me 20 grand and I could do better. This really deserves a big fat 0.
NO WAY ! I hated Granny. First, she is way too tall -of course she is, it is Tom, whoever's brother, who's playing her- and I hate that thing she does when she brushes her fake silver hair back, but : there are funny parts in this movie. For instance, the fact that every single actor looks V.G. (very German), and also that they think that, even when left alone, they should pretend that that guy (Tom) is their actual "granny" or something. I specially liked -not- that moment where Charlotte leaves and starts walking to the nearest gas station to ask for some help. She suddenly finds herself in the middle of some woods (where were these before? nobody dares explaining) and turns, turns, turns a-r-oun-d like a ballerina, looking at the stars...and...ignoring the fact that GRANNY'S BEHIND HER, READY TO STRIKE !!! But, anyway, the music wasn't so bad, the haircuts were okay and the ending terribly provocative... Mmmmm... wish I had the German version.
Oh my god, this movie is incredible, it's the baddest movie ever and I know what I am talking about! I am a scary movies fan!<br /><br />The story is totally silly, a group of adults decide to make a party and a silly guy with an awful mask comes and kills everybody... the dialogs are a kind of parody, worst, they're just talking about sex with a so bad accent. The end is (oh!!!!!!) discover by yourself! you will be really really surprised... (not possible! yes it is!) and surprise the movie is just 58minutes. (not possible (bis) yes it is!) Worst than House IV and Howling V.<br /><br />To put it in a nutshell, forget it forever!!!
This one features an interesting way of handling a camera,<br /><br />espercially for a DTV movie - the version I saw was full-screen<br /><br />- but it falls short on the scenario department. First you get<br /><br />around 20mn of talk, talk, talk in a would-be-hip, post-"Trainspotting" way, then it's slasher city. And then comes<br /><br />the most dishonest cheat ending I've seen, much worse than<br /><br />"April Fool's Day" - where at least it made sense. So, all in<br /><br />all, it's the old song and dance : interesting director tries<br /><br />hard, but deserves better movie. Funny : usually, it is the actors which are in desperate need of<br /><br />something better… Skip it anyway, for your time
This home movie is basically scandalously rubbish, but you have to give them 3/10 for trying. The blood is rubbish, but the granny that kills them is quite funny, and I think the concept is good, and make-up is OK for a home movie. However thank god it was only 55 minutes long, and the twist at the end is quite literally Fight Club (as in almost as trash as the film). Just read this comment, don't watch the film.
Granny is definitely one of the worst horror movies ever made in the history of cinema.<br /><br />The script was diabolical, so bad in fact that I was almost crying with laughter at some of the things they came out with. The acting was almost as bad, they would have been better off casting traffic cones to play the roles (they would have done a better job). The murders were laughable, the suspense was non existent, the camera work was ineffective and the "major" plot twist at the end was disgustingly inappropriate, it just gets worse and worse.<br /><br />"The Granny" is possibly one of the most unthreatening "villains" caught on film, she looks like she is wearing a cheap mask from the supermarket (the nylon hair caused endless amounts of laughter) and a frilly nightgown. Would you be scared by that??? I certainly wasn't.<br /><br />If you like watching bad movies (see Manos, Troll 2, Michael Bay films &#61514; ) then this is a must see. Those who don't like bad movies and don't enjoy laughing at shockingly bad dialogue, avoid like the plague.
This movie really sucked.....HARD! It was just stupid with a terrible ending. I love a really cheesy horror flick, but this was terrible! The "trick" ending totally contradicts everything you've seen in the movie, if you last til the end. Take my advice and steer clear of that dirty old hag The Granny.
This film is truly execrable in all departments. Script, acting, plot, direction and editing are all uniformly awful. I give it 1 out of 10 simply because people turned up to make it. I would have given it 2 out of 10 if they had all stayed at home instead. Avoid at all costs!
A whole bunch of teenagers gather around to discuss their fears, but an uninvited guest has showed up and is killing everybody off.<br /><br />Probably the worst horror film of the 90's, Camp Blood (1999) is the only film that could challenge it for that title, has some of the dumbest characters and situations to ever grace a television screen. The so called surprise ending is awful, as is the rest of this film. Mildly entertaining on a sooo bad it is good level. My rating: 2 out of 10.
An annoying group of ex-students from 'Monte Alto International High School' decide to spend a night in the now abandoned institution where a 'mystery' killer called the watchman played by horror legend Paul Naschy murders them off one by one."School Killer" features some references to such teen slasher staples like "Scream" or "Friday the 13th".The climatic twist ending looks like lilted from "The Sixth Sense".The uncertainty about whether the homicidal watchman is alive or dead provide some mild interest,but the characters are one-dimensional and the endless scenes of walking through dark school corridors really got on my nerves.The presence of charismatic Paul Naschy almost saves this clichéd slasher flick.There is also some decent gore on display including a splendidly bloody beheading.It's nice to see Manuela Velasco of "Rec" fame in a small role.4 out of 10.
I was very disappointed with this series. It had lots of cool graphics and that's about it. The level of detail it went into was minimal, and I always got the feeling the audience was being patronized -- there was a lot of what seemed to me as "This is extremely cool but we're not going to explain it in further detail because you won't get it anyway. Let's just show you some pretty pictures to entertain you." The host would drop interesting-sounding words such as "sparticles" and "super-symmetry" without any attempt at explaining what it was. We had to look it up on Wikipedia.<br /><br />Furthermore, I know quite a bit about superstrings (for a layman) and I found their explanations were convoluted and could have been so much better. They could have chosen MUCH better examples to explain concepts, but instead, the examples they used were confusing and further obscured the subject.<br /><br />Additionally, I got so sick of the repetitiveness. They could easily have condensed the series into one episode if they had cut out all the repetition. They must have shown the clips of the Quantum Café about 8 times. The host kept saying the same things over and over and over again. I can't remember how many times he said "The universe is made out of tiny little vibrating strings." It's like they were trying to brainwash us into just accepting "superstrings are the best thing since sliced bread."<br /><br />Finally, the show ended off with an unpleasant sense of a "competition" between Fermilab and CERN, clearly biased towards Fermilab. This is supposed to be an educational program about quantum physics, not about whether the US is better than Europe or vice versa! I also felt that was part of the patronizing -- "Audiences need to see some conflict to remain interested." Please. Give me a little more credit than that.<br /><br />Overall, 2 thumbs down :-(
I'm really disappointed by this piece of work. It is quiet shallow, keeps repeating itself, is mostly not exact and sometimes on the verge of being wrong. I think it's made for elementary school, especially because it keeps repeating itself over and over again while leaving large gaps. A young kid might actually enjoy it and learn from it, but a better way to make a kid appreciate theoretical physics are books like "A short history of time" or "The Tao of Physics". If you are familiar with the topic on a very basic level, you won't gain any new information or views from this series. Don't waste your time with it. Nice eye candy though.
I had a hard time staying awake for the two hour opening episode. It was dumbed down to such an extent, I doubt if I learned a single thing. The graphics were rudimentary. Any small idea was repeated ad nauseum. Contrast this to the Cosmos series hosted by Carl Sagan. That had a good musical theme. There was NO music coming from these infernal 10-dimensional Strings.
Found an old VHS version of this film in my parents house so I thought I'd give it a go. Right from the start I wasn't expecting much from this film and I'm glad for that because overall the film was no good.<br /><br />The acting overall was very poor, even for a Nicolas Cage movie. One scene with a radio controller stands out as being so pitiful that I found it hilarious that this scene wasn't cut. The first 30 minutes of the film had almost no developed plot and I didn't know what was going on.<br /><br />The story itself had the possibility of being decent but either the director was just bad or was trying too hard to put his own unique touch on the style of the film. I managed to watch the whole thing but I won't likely ever see this film again.
I haven't seen all Cage's works by any means but his acting in this one was truly awful. The other characters run the gamut of ability but, having most of the emotional scenes, Cage's scenes are just embarrassing to watch. He's certainly come a long ways in 12 years.
Like many western Pennsylvania history buffs, I had been really looking forward to this much-heralded PBS program that was produced by Pittsburgh's WQED. However, I must say now that I was somewhat disappointed. On the positive side, I believe that overall this film did a fair job of explaining the main issues and describing the events of the so-called French and Indian War. In particular, its presentation of the Indians' point of view was somewhat new and quite interesting, although it certainly was at time over-emphasized. Also on the positive side, the blend of narrative and action scenes was well done and came across somewhat better than many of these typical documentaries made up of "experts" interviews and picture stills (a la Ken Burns). On the negative side, many of the battles did have a somewhat "staged" look and many important aspects of the war were overlooked. Most of all I was very disappointed and frustrated by how little importance was given to Forbes's successful campaign of 1758 against Fort Duquesne as compared to the earlier failures of 1754 by Washington and 1755 by Braddock. In particular, I was somewhat incredulous that there was NO mention of Colonel Henry Bouquet, the Swiss mercenary in the British service who was most responsible for Forbes' success. Finally I could not believe the complete omission of the 1763 Battle of Bushy Run that started as a re-run of Braddock's defeat but ended up as the victory that decided the outcome of Pontiac's War thanks to the wiles of the same Colonel Bouquet who certainly must rank as one of the most successful British commanders of this war.
The Presentation is VERY shabby. (to my notion) as documentaries often are. Michael Moore's "documenatry" - Farenheit 911 is FAR more convincing but has FAR too much media and political influence. Cant wait till Saturday when I get to see the docudrama "The Game of their Lives" . IFC goes right of center. I have started a collection of IFC movies from off the internet due to "TGOTL" *** out of ********** on "Decade". Wanna see good documentaries? Stick to the History Channel.. Or try docudrama. You cant go wrong with them my friend. Cant go wrong. The seventies were ten years of reruns. Or so the old times would have you to believe. Disco died and it is gone forever. When Elvis died o yes we all did grieve
There was some good build up of suspense throughout. The cinematography was surprisingly good considering such minimal budget. We witness occasional spells of good acting, however, this is quickly deflated by some quite cheesy lines. Understandably there would not be much of an intellectual conversation to be had, sitting up on trees while a crocodile is stalking you. Silence would have been golden here. There could have been a bigger play on suspense than dimly uttering, "I sat in the cupboard for fear of my brother..." Something tells me there's a slight difference in getting a beating from your brother than being eaten by a mighty 15ft croc. You decide. Throughout the film I can't seem to find a connection or for that matter, sympathy with the characters, perhaps thats because they don't develop one throughout the film, character that is. There are some occasional good scares when the crocodile sneaks up on the characters, overshadowed again by some questionable scenes. In one instance we should be terrified by an ear floating in the water but later we sit beside a decapitated, limbless corpse and only worry about a broken finger. A definite roller coaster of a film when it comes to logic.
Yes, the movie was that boring and insipid. after a certain point, I was wanting the croc to eat these people just so we could get the movie over with.<br /><br />The plot is that three Aussies take a fishing tour up a river in a little boat, where the fishing guide straps on a gun. He says he just does it for insurance purposes, all the crocs have been hunted out of this river. He is immediately eaten by a Croc. The trio then get chased up a tree, getting picked off by the reptile in their attempts to escape. They spend most of the movie arguing over the best way to escape.<br /><br />Predictably, the one survivor finds the tour guide's gun and shoots the crocodile. Aww, they killed the movie's only likable character! <br /><br />Where's Paul Hogan or Steve Irwin when you really need them?
Perhaps it's about time we declare 2007 to be "The International Year of the Cinematic Crocodile"! The ridiculous "Primeval" came first, about a croc named Gustave (!) ruling the swamps in Burundi. Then there was "Lake Placid 2", a low-profiled and made-for-TV sequel to a forgettable original. Thirdly, there's this incredibly derivative and soporific piece of Aussie horror and, finally, I have yet to see the promising "Rogue". The last one is likely to be the best, considering the involvement of the upcoming Aussie horror talent Greg McLean ("Wolf Creek"). "Black Water" certainly isn't a complete waste of time and film, but it's another pretty pointless survival flick that confuses real-life agony with horror. Pardon my bluntness, especially since I honestly feel sorry for the people who went through this ordeal, but depicting three characters sitting in a tree and whining for more than a full hour is not my idea of sheer suspense! Three young people travel through Northern Australia and decide to spend a day of fishing in the remote swamp areas. It doesn't take too long before a gigantic and ferocious crocodile capsizes their little boat and devours the guide. Grace, Lee and Adam barely manage to escape the reptile's hungry teeth by climbing up a tree. Even though he remains unseen most of the time, the croc patiently lies in waiting and makes it impossible for them to leave the swamp alive. Yes, it does sound an awful lot like the plot of "Open Water" indeed. Replace the numerous unseen sharks with one giant unseen crocodile and the open sea with an equally inescapable Aussie swamp, and there you have it. Oh well, "Black Water" at least features some rare moments of excitement and one impressively designed water monster. It has to be said, the croc looks fabulously groovy and you anxiously count down towards every next time he wildly emerges from the water. The three-headed cast does whatever they can to keep their characters interesting, but how do you achieve this by sitting in a tree the whole time? The based-on-true-events concept obviously causes a number of restrictions, like limited images of the fantastic filming locations, dialogs and amiable character drawings.
One of those movies where you take bets on who will die first and who will survive at the end. There was just something about the movie that made me zone out. I think because I keep looking back and thinking "yep still in that tree...still looking at the water". Poor character development. I felt nothing when they were in danger. I was voting for the croc. I found it hard to believe a croc would try to tip a boat in the first place and then when it jumps into the boat I find that really unlikely as well. The croc seems too supernatural at times ('all knowing all seeing'). Also when the croc attacks it's behavior seems very unrealistic. It's a killing machine and wouldn't be letting victims escape twice to three times in a row, especially when attacking in the water.
I was Stan in the movie "Dreams Come True". Stan was the friend that worked at the factory with the main character and ended getting his arm smashed in the machinery and got carried out screaming (where was the ambulance?) The acting in this movie was for the most part pretty poor with mostly local actors from the Fox Valley, Wisconsin. I saw the movie on the big screen. It played 2 nights in 3 theaters and was something special to see yourself on the big screen. I may be bias, but overall, I enjoyed it. Also the soundtrack was the band Spooner, who later became Garbage. My brother, Steve Charlton was also in the movie. He played Swenson the man who comes to the door on crutches to talk with the police.
A trash classic! Basically what we have here is a story about a couple of American teenagers (one male, one female both beautiful people of course) who seem to be psychically linked, in that every time both of them fall asleep, they can inhabit each others dreams and express each others innermost desires... think Mills & Boon meets X-files and you'll be somewhere near the mark. Actually, its more like an unhappy hybrid between one of Ed Wood's famously bad B- movies and a particularly silly episode of Melrose Place, so tacky are the special-effects and so amateurish is the acting. The actors who inhabit (I wouldn't say act in) this flick say their lines like they're reading from cue cards and pout when they're supposed to be showing an emotion, and it comes as no great shock (or loss to the industry) that they have since faded into obscurity. The whole thing is just a laughably misguided mixture of styles that don't go together at all, and the end result is a intriguing curiosity that no doubt will be lapped up by purveyors of so-bad-they're-good films in years to come. I'll probably be the only person who ever comments on this film, but if you are reading and have seen it please get back, it gets kinda lonely round here...
This is truly one of the worst films I have ever seen in my life. Rod Steiger who stars as the ornery grandfather, Charlie, is in full overacting mode hoping that the more flashy he is, the better his performance (Cue buzzer sound). Rod Steiger is one of the last true film legends and to see him in this film (although End of Days is the 2nd worst film I've ever seen) is really heartbreaking. From the bad storyline to the nonexistent direction, it becomes abudantly clear that the only reason this film was made was that the producer's last name ended in DeLaurentis. The only good thing about this film is that it is so bad, it's truly hysterical. Look for the flashback scene where Rod where's a Jor-El wig from Superman and a big black porno mustache. One only hopes that his follow up film, I Believe in America, from Uber-producer Kevin Arbouet will redeem him and leave a good taste in everyone's mouths.
So boring you'll fall asleep after the 20 first minutes. Sorry Mr Boutonnat, I do admire your work (all these beautiful "films" you directed such as "Tristana", "Sans logique" etc...) but here, the plot is extremely... vain ! Except the magnificent photography, everything appears dumb and there's no envy to know what will happen at these "medium" actors. Moreover, the dialogs are minimalists. The famous question "where are the children" is repeated so often it looks like a farce. Believe me, it's a pure waste of time (concerning the plot), and 3 hours is a long long time. Certainly the real reason of this box-office total mess !
Yet again, I appear to be the only person on planet Earth who is capable of criticizing Japanese films made before 1970. "Fires on the Plain" (1959) is another in the seemingly endless line of "classics" that get all sorts of praise for no apparently good reason. As much as I love to overgeneralize and psychoanalyze all of these moviegoers who have such horrible taste in film, it's still nearly impossible to rationalize why anyone would ever think that poorly made fluff like this should be proclaimed as some sort of "masterpiece." What I find truly ironic is that fans of derivative "classics" like "Fires on the Plain" focus so much on "inside the box" movie-making (orthodox grading standards like scriptwriting, acting, camera-work, etc.) yet it always seems like the most highly revered "classics" are most deficient in these very standards. For example, one of the laziest copouts for a filmmaker involves forced verbal exposition where characters basically explain everything for the viewer even when the constructed scenario is totally artificial. Most surprisingly, the very first scene in "Fires on the Plain" uses this indolent tactic to the extreme.<br /><br />After a funny head slap, the following useless dialogue assaults the viewer, "Why can't you grasp the situation? We landed to the west under heavy fire to reinforce units at Tacloban. We lost two-thirds of our men. Our artillery was sunk in transit. We tried to reach Burauen airfield by crossing the central mountains but without artillery it was impossible. The enemy's counterattack forced a fanout across the valley. You know that." So why, exactly, is one character telling another character something he already knows? Oh yeah, that's right, the makers of this film are too lazy to think of more natural ways to communicate this information. You see, a quality film would actually show these events happening, or at worst it would involve dialogue involving one character who has no knowledge of those events. Heck, even an opening summary in paragraph form directed at the viewer would have been better than what transpired here.<br /><br />Such instances of poor quality movie-making are littered throughout "Fires on the Plain" to the point where this film feels like it was written by imbeciles for imbeciles. For example, the lead character stumbles upon some skeletons wrapped in Japanese garb. Instead of doing the natural thing like – oh I don't know – giving a depressed mannerism, the character blurts out "Japanese soldiers." Thanks buddy, but I could have figured that one out for myself.<br /><br />Even worse, this movie is saturated with over-dramatic ploys. The most ridiculous scene involves a pair of boots. Picture this. A soldier walks along and finds a pair of worn out boots. One would think that such a find is utterly useless, but it turns out that the soldier's boots are in even worse condition, so he picks up the worn boots and leaves his SUPER worn boots behind. Fine, I get the point. The soldiers are in rough shape – a fact that is already clearly emphasized with their worn boots to begin with. The scene is ridiculous, but I was ready to let it go, until the SECOND soldier arrives! You see, he finds the previous soldier's SUPER worn boots and notices – get ready, cause here it comes – that his boots are SUPER DUPER worn boots! Lucky man, he picks up the SUPER worn boots and leaves his SUPER DUPER worn boots behind. But you see, that's not all – because the THIRD soldier then arrives! He finds the previous soldiers SUPER DUPER worn boots and inspects them, along with his own SUPER DUPER worn boots. Since both pairs suck, he tosses them both aside and smiles as he continues barefoot. At this point I was ready to throw my television through my living room window. The heavy handedness, overdramaticism, and paramount absurdity of this sequence is beyond bad film-making. It's SUPER DUPER bad film-making.<br /><br />There are a number of similar, completely stupid moments to be had. Like the time when the lead character asks someone, "Hey, are you dead?" Like the guy is going to answer "Yes" if he actually kicked the bucket. I'll also be the first to condemn the subpar performance of the lead actor, who is the quintessential posterchild for artificial reaction. I laughed hard during that opening head slap where his head slingshot back in place with this stupid, goofy expression on his face.<br /><br />The fact that this trivial fluff piece gets an IMDb average rating of 8.4 while a certifiable masterpiece like "A Tale of Two Sisters" (2003) only gets a 7.5 is the height of mass stupidity. And to think that some people actually delude themselves into thinking that "AToTS" doesn't make sense. Well, not every movie can have completely outrageous SUPER DUPER worn boots on its side.
... And it's a not very good documentary either American MOVIE seems to have confused some people into thinking this is a spoof documentary ( " Mockumentary ) and even some newspaper TV listings described it as such . I'll not laugh out loud at that because it's easy to mistake this documentary as one big wind up ala THIS IS SPINAL TAP <br /><br />What seems to have caused the confusion is that the documentary centres around budding film maker Mark Borchardt who is .... How can I put it ? Rather self deluded ? Yes but that's not necessarily a bad thing since if we had no dreams we'd all still be living in caves and the fact that Mark is obsessed with horror movies is not to be taken as a criticism since both Sam Raimi ( Yes that one ) and Peter Jackson ( yes that one ) both started out doing low budget horror comedies so again it's not a criticism . No it's just that Mark Borchardt ( yes that one ) is a parody of American trailer trash <br /><br />Remember in THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY Ben Stiller gives a lift to a dodgy hitch hiker ( " Come into my office because you're f***in' fired " ) ? Well that's who Mark resembles along with most of Jerry Springer's guests so it's very easy to see why some people thought this wasn't a real documentary . It's also not a very good documentary since Mark and co give me the creeps . Did you know that someone thought Mark would grow up to be a serial killer ? Does anyone else think there's plenty of time left for this to happen ?
The concept of this movie is unique, however its execution is less than special. When i arrived at the cinema and realised that there were only about 15 people or so in the crowd, i thought i had made a mistake. However the true mistake was realised in shocking detail when the film has ended and i knew that i had wasted two hours of my life.<br /><br />Without the cruel recordings of the old man, and the stupidly funny friend, this film would have rated 1 out of ten.<br /><br />This film is special, special because it is probably the worst film ever to be generally released to the public.<br /><br />There is also the issue of whether you could call it a film or just an advertisement for the probably crummy "Northwestern".<br /><br />If you are thinking of watching this film for the plot, the humor, the filming, the locations, then don't. On the other hand if you like to experience both ends of the film production spectra then go, just take a book, or a small game or just some novelty item.
This was a dreadful, boring movie, even for a documentary. At times, it did provided insight to life and also had humorous moments, but overall it was not worth seeing. Every time I began to feel sympathetic towards Mark and began to hope he would be successful, I would become disappointed by his lack of responsibility and drug and alcohol abuse.
Sorry, folks, but all of you that say this is a great documentary... and that award it won at Sundance... well, you've all been duped. I've heard for a few years how I had to see this documentary and I finally watched it. Maybe in 1999, when it came out, and reality TV didn't have such a dominant presence in the industry, this movie would have seemed entertaining. But Mike and Mark are so obviously playing themselves, Mike and Mark. At times they are funny and some of the lines seem off the cuff, but mostly they do not ring true. They are the reality version of Jay and Silent Bob. Yes the people are real, they are not actors, but it's put on, it's exaggeration of themselves, and it's so obvious that it's hard to believe so many people think it's the real deal. I wasn't fooled so it was actually a tad boring. Mildly amusing, but not missing much if you miss it.
I love documentaries. They are among my favorite genres of film. Before seeing this film I hadn't seen one that I hadn't liked.<br /><br />The premise for this film is a great one. The execution is well done. There were some times early on when I laughed and smiled. Yet as the film went on the more tedious and irritating it became. This could have been something special had the subject not been such an inarticulate, childish, inept putz. I appreciate his passion for film, but quit your whining. If you're short on funds, maybe you shouldn't have so many kids, or spend so much money on alcohol. Maybe you should have gone to film school, or at least graduated from high school. Maybe you should have lived life and gotten perspective and experiences that could add to your vision. <br /><br />There are so many people out there with stories that are interesting, funny and poignant. To see this guy chosen over any of them is nothing less than crass. If you want to do a documentary on a film maker, why not do one on someone from China or Iran, a film maker with REAL problems? <br /><br />Two final questions:<br /><br />Who takes a little kid to see Apocalypse Now?<br /><br />How many times did this guy say "man"?
I usually enjoy underground movies and antiheroes but this is a bad joke. I wonder how this can be called a movie. All these people are loosers and the filmmaker doesn't succeed in making them interesting at all. They are not funny, not tragic just plain stupid and boring.<br /><br />May be I missed something but I won't watch it again to find out what. Anybody with a camcorder can do better than that...<br /><br />I give it a 1 for the originality. All the rest is crap.
This film has been lauded to the point of the ridiculous. "American Movie" is a boring documentary about a boring person so ordinary you'll find equivalents on just about every corner in America. It takes a long, hard look at a guy who's failed at just about everything in the interest of making an independent movie..or two. Were his failures for other than his own selfish pursuits or were they in the name of real art, the movie might have had a chance. America has an abundance of better stories to be told. This one should be flushed and many critics have good reason to be ashamed. Two thumbs up indeed!
This is an Emperor's New Clothes situation. Someone needs to say "That's not a funny and original, (etc., etc.) film; that is an inferior film. Don't waste your money on it." The film is trashy, and the people in it are embarrassingly inferior trailer trash. They are all-too-realistically only themselves. They have no lines, they don't act. The American Dream is not to create shoddy no-quality films or anything else shoddy and of no-quality; it is to achieve something of quality and, thereby, success. Only people who are desperate to praise any film not made in Hollywood (it can't have been made in Hollywood, can it?) would try to impute any kind of quality to this film. It's worse than "Ed Woods," another film about a film-maker without standards. These films shouldn't have been made, and you shouldn't go see "American Movie."
This is an Emperor's New Clothes situation. Someone needs to say "That's not a funny and original, (etc., etc.) film; that is an inferior film. Don't waste your money on it." The film is trashy, and the people in it are embarrassingly inferior trailer trash. They are all-too-realistically only themselves. They have no lines, they don't act. The American Dream is not to create shoddy no-quality films or anything else shoddy and of no-quality; it is to achieve something of quality and, thereby, success. Only people who are desperate to praise any film not made in Hollywood (it can't have been made in Hollywood, can it?) would try to impute any kind of quality to this film. It's worse than "Ed Woods," another film about a film-maker without standards. These films shouldn't have been made, and you shouldn't go see "American Movie."
This movie sucked wind. I imagine that the other 300 people that gave this movie such high votes must be independent filmmakers. I can't imagine that anyone else could possibly find it funny or even slightly entertaining. I feel like 100 minutes of my life were just wasted.
Should you wish to see the worst film ever made, look no further. Some wretched movies are watchable because they are unintentionally funny. Alas, American Movie has no wit at all, no unintentional humor, just obscenities thought by its director to be laughable.<br /><br />For those who liked this film, I suggest you watch Kevin Smith's "Clerks," similar in tone. In Clerks you will find creativity, wit, and enjoyment -- all on a shoestring budget. It should make you forget this hideous effort.
Hey, remember when Hal Hartley was brilliant? What a time that was. I'd say the Book of Life was when things really started going downhill, but I will say that at least he went uphill from this one. A movie that looks like it was filmed on someone's cell phone wouldn't have to be a bad thing if it was distinguished by an interesting story and dialog, but alas, those are missing, along with Hartley's spare, quirky dialog. In their place is tedious exposition on themes of Christian end of times and a trite story of a modern Jesus in a quandary, packaged in a trying-to-be-hip modern world where everyone looks like someone out of a Hal Hartley movie. While it picks up a little in its second half, it's never enjoyable, or especially sensible. What the hell happened to you, Hartley?
I found this on the shelf and swooned with joy !! I danced up to the counter, slapped down my money and ran home! You know what?! I fell asleep less then half way thru! Tried again the next day...YAWN!! What the heck !?!! I could NOT watch it! I love all the other stuff he's done (I didn't see the one with the monster in it yet). What gives? Is it me? Or him? So sad. Boo hoo. P.S, I did like the camera work.
This movie was shot using a digital camera, and it shows. There were enough annoying digital tricks used to alienate the viewer, also with the help of a terrible score. As if that weren't enough, the acting was also terrible. Now in Hartley's movies the acting is always peculiar, but here it was just BAD, especially by Satan (Thomas Jay Ryan)and Harvey, who (thank god) doesn't get to say much. After all these external problems it is also very unfortunate that the story itself is not that good, either. The jokes are predictable and unbelievably straightforward, and the events just rumble on from one incident to the next. The so-called book of life with Armageddon inside isn't much more than an excuse to see actors struggle to say their lines. All in all this movie is a waste of time and money and effort. Thumbs down.
It opens - and for half an hour, runs - like an educational programme on the Old Testament, although not without humour. The movie finally begins to grow wings when the biblical cant gets dropped. In a scene of mixed success Martin Donovan (Jesus) decides to renege on kicking off the Apocalypse and the final quarter of an hour is a sort of humanist 'what's all the fuss about?' play-out, gilded with optimistic conjecture against a (retrospectively, miserably ironic) long shot of the WTC twin towers.<br /><br />Apart from Donovan's authority, the acting is split. There's the thespian melodrama of the rest of the cast: this, though formally contrived for biblical presentation, is appropriate for the modern, paranoid comedy that Hartley's aiming at. But I was also pleasantly surprised at the contribution of PJ Harvey (credited thus, and in danger of existing within the film solely as the pop star entity she is, not least in a set piece scene in a record store and a perilously patchy soundtrack to which contributes). She remained cool - a sort of disingenuous lack of focus - in the manner of many pop icons who have taken to film (I'm thinking the Jagger of Performance here) but nonetheless maintained a convincing integration with both cast and project.<br /><br />Ultimately affirmative, but this bittersweet essay is a bit too much like one and relies more on the perseverance than the imagination of its audience. 4/10
This movie was pretentious, foppish and just down right not funny. The filming technique reminded me of MTV. I am a fan of Hartley. But what was he thinking of? So much more thought could have gone into this movie, considering the subject matter. This could have been a true theoretical battle over good and evil, but Hartley, it appears used the stand technique of psyching out the viewer.
When I first saw "Race Against Fear" (don't you just love LMN movie titles?), I had to keep scratching my head. Was this meant to be serious? Why couldn't the main character even run like a normal person running, much less like a star runner? How did I know that the coach was evil only 1 minute into the film? All of these questions, and no answers. Then, I just let the inane script and the awful directing just carry me away...it was easier not to resist...then the film became funnier by the minute, and I now rank it among my top ten junk movies from LMN. Some have said here that Ariana Richards is really talented but that the material was flawed - I heartily disagree. Not only can she not convince me that she's an athlete, she's walks wide-eyed through the rest of the story, like she's just landed on earth. Maybe the coach broke out of prison and finished her off...at least I hope so.
My wife and I saw every episode in this series and loved it. However, the series was cut short without a final episode by the producers of the show. It ended with a typical end-the-season cliff hanger leaving it's fans feeling cheated. A waste of great writing and acting.
It's hard to decide what to say about this one. It isn't totally, one hundred percent bad. Although the movie-in-a-movie is unspeakably bad, meant to be campy, but missing by a mile. I'm pretty sure that this is intentional, however. Danny Aiello is perfectly adequate here, and more or less nails his pathetic character. Dyan Cannon was good in a small role. Clotilde Courau was impressive as the latest twenty-something girlfriend. And Linda Carlson had a brave topless scene that she pulled off very well.<br /><br />So, it's not totally bad, but I don't believe that this one accomplishes its goals. All in all, it's probably worth passing on.
A bad movie ABOUT a bad movie. Is that original, or what? If it is, then that's the only good thing about it. The lovely Ally Sheedy couldn't stop this bomb from destroying movie theaters and VCR's everywhere. It should also be noted, that she, and the other actors hired by Danny Aiello's character were billed as themselves, as well as the characters they played in his D-rated film. Calling it a B-rated film, is too much of a compliment, and would lead to delusions of grandeur.
This is a film that has garnered any interest or praise it has received simply on the merit of being a lesbian interest piece. The performances are mostly emotionless compared to better films in the GLBT interest genre. The entirety of the film's watchable value is garnered through modest suspense over whether and when the partners' family members will say something discouraging about their lesbian relationship. The best element of the film is likely the beautiful New England scenery, although much of the film is set inside. It is hard to envision how any viewer watching this film and not seeking affirmation of their GLBT lifestyle or wishing to see that of others affirmed, even through poorly realized drama, could appreciate Treading Water in any significant way. It is a terrible movie.
Have you ever tried a kind of food that your friend made, and then said to yourself, "wow, that was not a good mix"? Well, that is how I felt after watching this film.<br /><br />Many viewers will be left highly uncomfortable with this weird mix of crime and very, very corny comedy. Its almost like watching Mr. Rogers play a ruthless gangster, very weird. Some things just don't mix and this film clearly proves that.<br /><br />There are some very good performances here, as Dean Stockwell, Mercedes Ruhle, and Alec Baldwin are all excellent, but that doesn't make up for the lack of balance and symmetry in the film.<br /><br />Jonathan Demme has done some excellent work in films such as Silence of the Lambs and Philadelphia, but seems to be out of his element with this one.
Overrated mob comedy. Director Demme makes the actors pause after some funny lines to let audience laugh, and not miss next line. Seems odd - this director did "Silence of The Lambs" - now there's the way to use pauses! Casting seems off. Mathew Modine too young for FBI agent and Pfeiffer's love interest! Dean Stockwell is doing a Jack Nicholson-thing with a squint, and he gets a nomination for it! Plus we have to accept Pfeiffer and Stockwell as Italians? Charles Napier as a hairdresser and Al Lewis as a mob lawyer are underused with only one line each - they should be the bumbling hoods. Song score by Chris Isaak is totally out of place - better for a flick like "Pretty In Pink." Re-make this movie, it's worth it, but with proper casting and director and the satire will come through... even the often repeated "Forgedaboutit."
Before hitting international acclaim with The Silence of the Lambs, director Jonathan Demme cut his teeth making quirky comedies. This was one of them and like quite a few Oscar winning American comedies I could mention, it has a fine concept, is well paced, has great performances, a complicated romance. but it just simply isn't very funny. Pfeiffer is mob widow who moves to the city backwaters after her husband (Baldwin) is murdered. The crime boss who killed him (Stockwell) takes a fancy to Pfeiffer, his wife (Reuhl) is furious and to complicate matters Pfeiffer also falls for the cop who is trailing her. All of this should have been a laugh a minute. Pfeiffer, sporting a hefty wig is excellent as the widow, as is the hyperactive Ruehl and Modine is good too as the nice cop. But the script is simply devoid of one-liners, wit, humour or punch lines of the verbal or physical kind that this kind of film demands. The result is it raises smiles at best rather than guffaws. It oozes charm, but is tediously short on humour.
This is a very strange product from Hollywood. Apparently it didn't test well because actors who have footage in the credits have been edited completely out of the movie, which means a hasty cut job was done on it. It feels like it was wrestled out of the usually competent Demme's hands, and just thrown away. On the other and it is so totally lacking in substance that maybe nothing could save it. It has no real center, either narratively or time wise. Although it says the running time is 92 minutes, I seem to recall it ending abruptly, around the 80 minute mark. It's over before it even gets going. It's pretty much laugh free.<br /><br />The merits of the "Matthew Modine picture" were as elusive then as the Luke Wilson picture is now.
I seem to remember a lot of hype about this movie when it came out, but had avoided seeing it throughout the years. I wish I'd waited longer. Maybe this movie was funny in 1988, I don't know. I was younger then, but it didn't seem like the world was that different. Michelle Pfeiffer, lovely as she is, is never convincing. Mercedes Ruehl not only chews scenery, but stuffs it in her cheeks like a gerbil to save for later. Dean Stockwell is about as convincing as a mob boss as James Gandolfini would be as principal dancer for the Bolshoi. And Matthew Modine demonstrated the most pronounced case of delayed puberty I've ever seen. All in all, it's not bad enough to make you want to pluck out your eyes with a melon-baller, but it's not far off.
I watched this movie for the first time a few weeks ago, and It was quite possibly one of the most boring, unfunny films I ever had the misfortune of seeing. First of all Matthew Modine is a terrible actor, and ruined most of the movie, on top of that, the plot is just way too silly. The only reason a checked into this film was because of Alec Baldwin, and his character was eliminated pretty quickly. Unless you are a fan of Michelle Phiffer you should probably avoid this movie like the plague. Many people can't praise this film enough, but I just cannot figure out what people find so terrific about it. If its supposed to be the black humor that makes this film so terrific, then I guess anything can pass for comedy these days.
Pluses: Mary Boland is delightfully on edge as always (I never tire of her upper-crust zaniness, especially in "The Women" and "Pride and Prejudice"). W.C. Fields's brief role is fun, though the famous pool table scene stretches its welcome a bit because it seems to go on for ten minutes. The madcap antics of the film, typical of the period, are great. Also, a nod to Alison Skipworth's wonderfully grounded hotel mistress; I would love to see more of her (she reminds me of Marie Dressler, another personality worthy of high praise). <br /><br />Minuses: Gracie Allen. An irritating, unfunny presence whose annoyance went unmatched until the rise of Adam Sandler. That near-falsetto nasalness tinged with an accent of unknown origin gets old in her very first scene. This is the first of the Burns-Allen films I have seen and while I (as a big classic comedy buff) try to experience at least one film with every major comedy star, this is definitely one team I will not be calling upon again. Her timing and interpretation of the material is totally off. A maddeningly mediocre talent.<br /><br />The bottom line: An OK comedy, but the gags are few and far between. And at only an hour long, you can expect that this is not an A grade Hollywood comedy. Recommended only for Boland and Fields fans who want to see all of their work.
I wasn't expecting much from this film, but was eager to try something which I initially thought would primarily be an early 80s teen horror. Although three teens are somewhat critical plot, it is by no means a teen horror film.<br /><br />'The Power' is about a little Aztec idol that exchanges many hands as its possessor (who must be adult and thus, 'corrupted') becomes the vessel for unleashing all of the idol's evil, and often with deadly implications for not only the victims of the possessor, but of the possessor himself. After making several exchanges in vying over control of this thing, three teenagers wind up finding it and can't figure out what it is, except that since they found it, strange and dangerous things are afoot. They offer to explain the situation to a news reporter who doesn't buy into the spiritual bologna. Although, it is her producer who wants to investigate further, especially if it means he can get control of the idol (I presume the teens are even not yet corrupted enough to feel the dangerous desires encouraged by the idol). It is a story told a thousand times, particularly in 1950s and 60s horror and science fiction fare.<br /><br />This one was at least, for me, able to sustain some interest. Though low budget, it was not done so obviously cheaply or loaded with bad acting as many of the low-budget, come-and-go horror fare of the earlier decades had (nowadays, they have the same cheesy qualities, but bigger budgets). We are spare enough of it to at least allow ourselves an opportunity to become at least a little bit absorbed with the eerie atmosphere and so forth, despite a story of clichés. And, though not terribly gory, the special effects were done nicely.<br /><br />Again, it is routine horror tale, especially with the ending (which by modern standards has become a device that is annoyingly overused), but one that is not so embarrassingly bad. It might be worth checking out, even if just for laughs.
The Power started off looking promising but soon became boring and tedious to watch. The plot is about an ancient Aztec doll that takes possession of those who own it. The idea is "decent enough" and this film would have been fairly entertaining had it been done better. However after the first ten minutes or so it soon becomes boring; we don't get any good death scenes and have to listen to loads of talking. At the end one of the possessed men meets his death by melting away in front of two girls, but it's not very interesting and definitely not gory.<br /><br />I wouldn't recommend The Power to any horror or slasher fan as there's little to be gained from it.
Low budget horror about an evil force. Hard to believe in this day and age, but way back when this stuff actually used to get theatrical release! These days this sort of thing would either go direct-to-video or straight to cable. Shouldn't be too hard to avoid this one; who's ever heard of it?
It seems that Dee Snyder ran out of ideas halfway through the script. The second half of the movie is basically just a rehash of the first, which makes the film very boring. To sum up: Cop's daughter is suckered into party via chatroom where she is sexually molested/tortured by psychopath (played by Snider). Cop rescues her, psychopath is put in therapy/jail. Psychopath is released four years later and the whole thing is played out AGAIN. Within all this are many unexplained plot elements: Why was "Captain Howdy" psycho in the first place? What's with the one-time personality detour to bible-thumper? How does he kidnap all the adults and manage to sew their mouths shut without a struggle? And perhaps the biggest unsolved mystery of all... how does a 6'2" man with pink hair hide himself completely behind a 5'6" average build woman? These are just some of the questions I had watching this film.<br /><br />It seems that Snyder was trying to make some kind of commentary on a) the "dangers" of online chatrooms, b) the hypocrisy of Christian sexual mores, and c) the effect our twisted puritanical society has on us as individuals. If that is so, he failed. The movie is just too poorly done to entertain, never mind convey social messages. The torture scenes are stupid and boring, bordering on silly (especially when Snyder goes into one of his "pain and death" monologues), and everything else is just plain dumb. The "call tracing" scene is really lame... when are the cops gonna get caller ID and *69? The young partner of the main cop character is particularly awful... he shouldn't be working as an actor, basically. And the audio in the final showdown scene is really poor. I guess they couldn't afford two boom mikes?<br /><br />The rest of the acting is not awful but it's not good either. The cop is pretty one note, and his detached quality is not quite believable. Dee Snyder is actually not too bad, but he snarls and sneers way too much. Robert Englund (who deserves way better) puts in a somewhat amusing performance of a hypocritical redneck. If you're a big Robert Englund fan the movie is probably worth seeing just for him. Everyone else is forgettable.<br /><br />In conclusion, we've seen all these plot elements done before and done better, in films like SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, HELLRAISER, and TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE. I suggest you rent one of those instead of watching this turkey. 3/10.<br /><br />
I first rented this movie on the infamous day of September 11, 2001. Since then I've seen it a number of times. My only complaint is that it's too short. "Strangeland" would've be a complete piece of horror art at two hours. As it stands, the running time is only an hour and a half.<br /><br />Ex-Twisted Sister member Dee Snider wrote, produced and stars in this 1998 shockfest set in a small Colorado town. He plays Carleton Hendricks, a crazed sadist who has psychotic ideologies on human evolution and a love for near-death experiences. Hendricks is no pushover, he's a pumped up six-foot "modern primitive". Someone who has tattooed and pierced their body to the very extreme. When he makes his first full appearance in the film, it is a truly terrifying sight.<br /><br />Hendricks' main hobby in life is to share his "spiritual awakenings" with his kidnapped victims. He visits Internet chatrooms under the name "Capt. Howdy" and then invites people over to his house. They believe they're going to a party. Instead, they find themselves in a house of pain and suffering. Hendricks sows their eyes and mouths shut and tortures them by sticking blades and hooks in numerous parts of their body. If it sounds sick, it's because it is.<br /><br />One of Hendrick's victims is Genevieve, the teenaged daughter of detective Michael Gage. Gage not only manages to save her, but arrests Hendricks as well. Four years later, Hendricks is released from a mental institution completely rehabilitated to the disapproval of the community. A group of rednecks led by Freddy Krueger himself, actor Robert Englund, decide to kill him. They fail and Hendricks reverts back to his old self.<br /><br />The rest of the film I'll leave to you, only to say the conclusion is satisfying and will leave you in shivers. With the exception of Snider, the acting isn't too good, but it's serviceable. The direction is okay, too. There are some humorous parts in "Strangeland" and they are very funny. I also loved the soundtrack, it's awesome and worth buying if you love rock. Overall, this is a movie worth watching. If you love low-budget horror films with a sense of humor, check it out. You'll probably like it.
Put this movie out of it's misery and burn the negatives. What am I saying? The whole movie was negative. Fortunately, only a very few would find this movie the least bit appealing. This is what the vast American majority would call too much sex and violence. It will probably show up on some non-premium cable channel someday just for the shock value, but after editing out the nudity (most of the violence will stay) all that will be left is 45 minutes of really bad acting interspersed with 45 minutes of commercials. There are just too many starving actors in Hollywood.
Unbelievable. Great cast, fair acting, interesting plot.<br /><br />But this movie has such graphic cruelties that are not tense or giving thrills, just pure disturbing unruhe.<br /><br />*SPOILER*<br /><br />Everyone could see coming the freak returns to his habits. And that Robert Englund was acting (was he?) like an idiot; forbidding your daughter to sleep with a football player, but him trying to kill an idiot and liking kiddypr0n is alright?! <br /><br />The policeman who's daughter was kidnapped - anyone felt he was a cop and not an actor? Not me. This movie drags on and on with an ending that we see in other horror movies: if the returns were alright a part 2 could be made. Bad, really bad stuff. Might give creeps some inspiration...
Everybody I talked to said that this movie would be good and really weird so I figured that I would rent it. Half way through the movie I was thinking to myself what the heck was going on and what is the point to this movie. This movie from start to finish is so bad that even the sick parts of the movie didn't even bother me. I mean what are they going to come up with next Volcano 2 The return of the lava. I mean come on this movie is so stupid the characters are so poorly developed,and eve Robert Englund makes the movie worse I mean he might as well be transformed into Freddy Kruegur and Spook people. I was actually rooting for the bad guy to win that's how bad it was. I mean look the father is a cop he didn't seem to care real much about the fact that his daughter is going through one of the most moments in her life. I mean if my daughter was treated like that I would do everything in my power to keep the guy behind jail. Also it seems kind of obvious that Dee Snyders character would turn bad again. This is one of the worst films of all time right there with Volcano and 8mm. Do not waist your time you will not enjoy it....!<br /><br />Grade If there were a no grade on this site I would pick that ,thats how bad this movie is!
If you want to see a Horror Film which is Horrible and in very bad taste, this is definitely the film to view. This films starts out with two young teenagers getting wild ideas about going into a chat room and going out on blind dates, and quite possibly they will wind up like a little lamb to the slaughter house. Plenty of blood, gore, nudity, handcuffs and all kinds of blood draining hooks and things you will never dream a person is capable of performing on men and women. If you like piercing, well this kind of piercing deals with heavy heavy hooks and plenty of tattoo's; besides, lots of needles and thread to seal up things on the human body. I really hope that this film does not give some sick person in this world, the idea to act out these horrors in real LIFE.
The most worthless film of the decade. The responsible parties should never be allowed to film again. I have no words to describe the lack of entertainment this film provides. You couldn't PAY me to watch this film again. Quite honestly, I think I would be a better person had I not seen it. If I called it offensive, I would fall into a category of emotionally frail extremists. I would say this film goes so far as to damage the industry. There are films that I refuse to watch, now that I feel they might be this tasteless. I feel like an idiot that I didn't have the good sense to walk out during any one of MANY moments I was compelled to do so. Yes, I saw the end and am ashamed for it, as should anyone else, including the writer. I am in awe...
Oh, where the hell should I begin? Give a brief summary of the story? No. either you've already heard it, or don't want to. Either way, it sucks. Much like the movie. I happen to be a semi-large horror movie aficionado, and I must say this is one of the dumbest and most clumsily-executed movies I've ever had the displeasure of viewing. <br /><br />The script is horrendously stupid. The story starts too fast with absolutely no suspense or build-up in the slightest. All of those torture scenes would have been A LOT more effective if we gave even the tiniest bit of crap for the characters. Since the first scene in the film is when the teenage girls meet Capt. Howdy, how the hell are we supposed to sympathize with them? First off, they seem stupid for going to a party with a guy they don't even know, and second, we don't even know their damn names! Why the hell should I care if they live or die? Not to mention the fact that they actually have the guts to try and make us feel sympathetic towards Capt. Howdy after he's been "reformed"? PLEASE! I was cheering when he got his just deserts! He deserved them! Hell, he deserved worse! Also, we're forced to sit through a pointless misdirect sequence lifted directly from "The Silence of the Lambs" (and here it's done HORRIBLY! Of course he's gonna give them a false address! And even if he had given them the real one, don't you think he'd be waiting and not piercing some guy's Johnson upstairs? RETARDED!)<br /><br />Then there's the dialogue. Everything Captain Howdy says is either laughable or just plain stupid. "The dead are so dreadfully dead, when they're dead"?? What the hell kind of crap is that?! Dee Snider at one point says "knowledge is power". Well, if that's true, this film has absolutely no power whatsoever. <br /><br />Then, there's the plot holes. Yes, I know this is a horror film (well, wannabe horror film), but damn! You could drive a semi truck into these holes! First off, these have got to be the DUMBEST cops I have EVER SEEN! EVER!! I mean, DEAR GOD, these guys are morons! Call for backup, idiots! Second, how the hell did that humungous septum ring fall out of Captain Howdy's nose?! Evidentially this piercing expert guy says "that's the biggest one I've ever seen", but if it's so damn big, how the hell could it have fallen out so easily? Did Capt. Howdy just LEAVE it at the crime scene because he WANTED to get caught? They sure didn't make it seem like he did. Also, they would NEVER release Capt. Howdy, and I know that for a damn fact. He would be in jail for the rest of his life, and there's no getting around this. Much less let him return to his old house where he killed/tortured everybody. IMPOSSIBLE AND IMPLAUSIBLE. <br /><br />And now the acting. Dear God did these people suck. Linda Cardellini is the only thing good in this film. She's poised and amazing. Too bad she hardly gets a good chance to act in this piece of crap. Amy Smart shows up for about 10 minutes and then drops out of existence. Even the usually entertaining Robert Englund is underused and ineffective here. Dee Snider plays the crazy guy with no talent whatsoever. I never felt threatened, scared or intimidated. I'd rather have seen Dee Snider in Alexis Arquette's role in "Bride of Chucky". It would have been so much more fun to see this talent-less hack get it by that lovable psycho doll. <br /><br />Dee Snider just plain sucks. He can't act (one of the least scary villains I have ever seen), he can't write (did he write this damn movie in his sleep?), and he's obviously dumber than freaking Jessica Simpson! This film is just a way for Dee Snider to show off all the weird crap he knows about self-mutilation and modern primitives and blah-blah-blah. Either it's been done before or it just didn't need to be done. I was bored throughout the whole damn thing. <br /><br />The acting sucks, the music sucks, the script sucks, the pacing sucks, the special FX suck, the directing sucks... basically, this movie sucks. This film tries to be a serious and sophisticated thriller/horror flick and it fails miserably. It doesn't manage to scare, shock, or disturb in any shape, way or form. This is probably one of the least effective and utterly unoriginal films I have ever seen in my entire life. A piece of cinematic garbage captured on celluloid. <br /><br />"Strangeland" gets a 0 out of 10. Avoid at any and all costs. Not enjoyable in the slightest.
Wow...This movie really really sucks...'Nuff said.<br /><br />The Story: A psychopathic internet predator stalks and lures young men and women into torturous traps...It goes like this, kidnaps people, they find him, he becomes a changed man and is released on the world yet again, reverts back to his old ways and starts the torture again....The story is stupid, it's implausible. The characters are stupid, they're implausible...Or at the very least way over the top. It's got some very violent imagery, and if you have a week stomach you might just want to stay away...But than again, even if you don't have a week stomach, you might want to stay away...It's that stupid.<br /><br />The Cast: Dee Snider, Kevin Gage...If you're a die hard fan of Twisted Sister and Dee Snider, you might find this one interesting, since he's the writer and star of this film. His acting is laughably bad, and you can tell that he's the one that wrote the God-awful script. Kevin Gage...Well they say he's been in numerous other movies that I've seen, but I don't remember him from any of them...And you won't remember him from this...These two sadly, make the film...They don't make it good mind you...They just make it...<br /><br />One to Five Scale: 1 It's bad...It's very very very bad...In fact it's so bad, that this movie should come with a clip loading pistol to play Russian Rullet with...
I don't recommend you watching this movie if you are easily offended. I'm not even easily offended and this movie made me frustrated. It's so disgusting. And it doesn't make sense. All the internet thing is so cliché, and the producer obviously didn't understand all the "internet rules". When you chat with someone you CAN track their IP address. Really? (see the sarcasm here). It was dumb. Pointless. And I didn't even watch the end. I could always say "this doesn't make sense, this neither..." This movie is pure crap at his best. Nice comment right?
Sometimes I wonder if today's horror movies rely on human torturing to make people scared. If so, then there's a sad future for horror movies. Dee Snyder tries to make you feel scared and terrified, this movie does exactly this but not in a good way. Now there are some moments in the film where that there is a chance that Snyder is saving this film from falling into a hole but let's be frank, this movie didn't fall into a hole, it was already in a hole and Synder makes no attempt whatsoever to bring itself out of it. When you finish watching this movie, you are left sick, depressed, dirty, and insane. I have a feeling that was the intention of this movie. What is lower than dirt?
There are about ten minutes about half way through Strangeland when one suddenly sees the glimmer of an interesting idea. Themes of revenge and rehabilitation come into focus during Robert Englund's brief screen time. Sadly Strangeland then resumes its course as a thoroughly predictable and boring slasher film.
This sounded like it was going to be like Silence of the Lambs or Zodiac or something, but it wasn't. It really was more like one of the Halloween movies without all the jump scenes. It was a little like Plan 9 From Outer Space in the sense that the main bad guy kept making inane speeches that made me want to go get a snack without pushing pause. The idea of a person who is so crazy that he would abduct people and torture them as a form of spiritual enlightenment is actually an interesting idea, but the execution was too made-for-TV feeling. I have to say it was better than I expected for a movie written and starring Dee Snider. A good first effort. Maybe he'll learn some lessons and his next effort will be less clumsy.
This movie was one of the most boring horror movies I have seen in a long time (and I have seen a lot). Personally I liked the piercing take on it all that was original but other than that it was pretty unwatchable. I could not stand Dee Snider as an actor nor as a singer. I seemed that he was trying with everything he said to make it a memorable quote, which they weren't. I can get movies for free and I still didn't think it was worth the time to get.
I watched this movie on video the other night and found myself dozing off throughout this uninspired snoozefest. First of all, one of my biggest pet peeves is when movies like this are characterized as horror movies. It is a THRILLER! get it right!It has no monsters or anything supernatural. It is simply a movie about a twisted serial killer (Actually there is a very small body count so it is more of a serial torturer movie and it did a good job of torturing me.) The basic premise of a man luring teenagers to his house of horrors through online chat rooms could have made for a great movie but we only see him lure one pair of teen girls through the internet at the very beginning of the film. One of these girls turns out to be a local detective's daughter and he gets emotionally involved in the case. The film quickly changes from a potentially intelligent sado-masochistic thriller to a boring old cat and mouse game between the incredibly dull detective and the psychopathic Captain Howdy/Carleton Hendricks played adequately by writer/producer/Twisted Sister frontman, Dee Snider. The occasional attempts at meaningful poetic one-liners about the positive effects of pain and the like from Snider are laughable. If he is attempting to get people to subscribe to these opinions through this film, he fails miserably and (unintentionally) makes light of them. The directing by John Pieplow (whose only previous directing effort was Jurassic Women, which I will let the title speak for itself) was uninspired and there was something wrong with the editing which resulted in the film being disjointed with a few scenes completely unrelated to the plot, unless the screenplay is at fault (which is quite possible.) This film a completely unsuccessful attempt at a thriller trying to pass of as a horror movie that's only achievement was making me squirm at the sight of a few graphic bodily piercings. If you see it at your video store don't waste your money but if you need something to laugh at one night and Strangeland is on cable, you might as well watch. 3 out of 10
What starts off fairly well (and quite disturbing) quickly sinks into an annoying mess.<br /><br />Dee Snider (of Twisted Sister infamy) apparently penned the screenplay from his own idea, and while the idea of a cyber-stalking pierce freak has potential, they really blow it here on uneven pacing, bad dialogue, and one of the greatest non-endings you'll ever see. Despite some lifeless performances, the director manages a genuinely creepy first reel. This really looks like it's going to be a good low-budget effort.<br /><br />No such luck. The plot goes all over the map, and Snider's character relentlessly spits out tiresome psychotic fortune cookie lines that are supposed to pass for meaningful dialogue. Worse, the supporting cast barely registers, and the only halfway believable dialogue comes from a young girl who helps a detective navigate the internet.<br /><br />What a waste of a great idea. Oh, and there is a new twisted Sister song, if you care.
Dee Snider is the villain in this movie and his bad acting and overacting kind of ruined it for me. The whole movie just seemed to take itself too seriously. It tries to achieve the dark atmosphere of "Seven" without the good acting. The movie highlights the urban industrial rock / tattoo / body art "subculture" and expects us to be impressed (scared?) by the size of a guy's nose ring. I'm not a expert on movies but the script and acting in this movie are just awful. Dee Snider looks the part of the villain but his acing is downright horrid. I recommend not wasting the time on this one unless nothing else is available.
Strangeland (1998) D: John Pieplow. Kevin Gage, Elizabeth Pena, Brett Harrelson, Robert Englund, Tucker Smallwood, Amy Smart, Dee Snider (Twisted Sister), Amal Rhoe. Disturbing scenes of torture `highlight' this dark, disgusting movie about a sadistic psychopath who lures teens into his torture chamber via the Internet. Snider (from ex-80s rock band Twisted Sister) plays the putrid psychopath, who is a grimy `twist' (no pun intended) on Hannibal Lecter. Pena is wasted as one of the victims' mothers. Harrelson (brother of Woody) delivers one of the worst cop performances I have ever seen in a movie, and Rhoe proves why this is her only screen credit with an equally pathetic performance. The heavy metal soundtrack is ultimately numbing, the torture scenes very graphic and gross, and the ending just sucks. RATING: 3 out of 10. Rated R for graphic violence and torture, strong language, and sexual situations.
Strangeland is a terrible horror/technological thriller. Dee Snider plays Carleton Hendricks, a disgusting computer freak who prays on young girls through the chat rooms. His ridiculous philosophies on pain and suffering are both misguided and totally unfounded. There is no tie to reality with the ideas that are presented in this film, it is more like Dee Snider sat down and tried to think up the weirdest stuff possible to impress horror fans and maybe some of his old fans, but the end result is just awful.<br /><br />Unfortunately for me, as a horror fan, the cover of this movie looks very good and it immediately caught my interest, which is the main reason that I was tricked into watching it. I assure you that this is not a quality horror movie. It is a disturbing yet boring attempt to suggest what might go on in the minds of people who treat themselves the way the Carleton Hendricks did in this film. The sad part is that NO one does this stuff to themselves. Marilyn freakin' Manson doesn't even go that far, and the fact that he had a song on the soundtrack makes it clear that the film wasn't meant to poke fun at his type of music (that would be a stab at Snider himself), it is more like Dee Snider was trying to raise himself from the career-dead and present himself as a sick-minded individual once more. Dee, it seems that the time has come to let it all die...
I had watched this as a kid but, not being much of a Jerry Lewis fan, I had completely forgotten it (not that it's in any way memorable). The film revolves around impersonation (which seems to be in the curriculum of every comic star!) - in this case a German officer - and, while not as bad as Leonard Maltin claims (awarding it a BOMB rating), it's not exactly classic stuff either - certainly leagues behind Chaplin's THE GREAT DICTATOR (1940), even if comparably narcissistic! Ironically, the scenes prior to the appearance of the would-be wacky General offer more felicities than the rather forced humor at Nazi expense! <br /><br />The film was really Lewis' last gasp during his heyday; in fact, this proved to be his last vehicle to be released for 10 years (it's painfully apparent here that his particular brand of foolishness wouldn't pass muster in the age of Mel Brooks and Woody Allen)!
Just seen Which Way to the Front? on TCM (UK) it is a truly awful film. If I'd paid at the pictures I'd have walked out.<br /><br />A terrible mess of a film. Byers (Lewis) and his mates prance around in cast off uniforms from an Italian sci-fi movie of 1960's. Were the CND/Peace symbol badges on the uniforms meant to be Ironic? The sets were pure 1970, I'm sure a Hollywood TV back-lot could have provided a more realistic set.<br /><br />The film is riddled with racism. The film takes the mickey out of veterans. <br /><br />Not funny how Lewis every got to make another film is beyond me.
Not since "8 Heads in a Duffel Bag" and the "How High" previews<br /><br />have I laughed so little at something that the film makers thought<br /><br />would be hysterical.<br /><br />Jerry Lewis is the richest man in the world. He is rejected as 4-F<br /><br />by the army, and decides to use his money to raise his own army-<br /><br />of about half a dozen. He then impersonates a Nazi commander in<br /><br />Italy, and eventually tries to kill Hitler. That is the description of the<br /><br />flimsy plot.<br /><br />This film is as funny as a heart attack. This film makes "Hogan's<br /><br />Heroes" look like Shakespeare. If the money men of "The<br /><br />Producers" had really wanted to lose their cash, they should have<br /><br />shown this film. I cannot stress how bad this thing is.<br /><br />Lewis' direction consists of two different cameras shooting the<br /><br />action from two different angles, then being edited together. This<br /><br />sitcom type of direction works on television, but here it is an<br /><br />obvious attempt to cheat the audience. He ends most of his<br /><br />scenes with a still shot, as if giving the viewer a chance to double<br /><br />over in stitches before going to the next tired set up. I spent most of<br /><br />the movie doubled over in abdominal agony, accompanied with<br /><br />severe flatulence, over this thing.<br /><br />Lewis, the director and producer, sets the film in 1943, but makes<br /><br />no attempt to use period costumes or sets. Everyone wears the<br /><br />latest style and has the latest interior design...for 1970. The<br /><br />supporting cast is lost as Lewis goes off on his patented tangents,<br /><br />which last as long as major surgery and are just as painful to<br /><br />watch. When Lewis becomes the Nazi commander, he spends the<br /><br />last half of the film screaming at the top of his lungs in a<br /><br />performance so odious as to stink up any good will you try to bring<br /><br />in at the beginning.<br /><br />The final embarassing shot has Lewis and his cronies trying to<br /><br />put one over on the Japanese. They wear buck teeth, squint their<br /><br />eyes, and talk in a "funny" accent. It may be one of the most<br /><br />blatantly racist occurrences since the internment camps. I was<br /><br />slack jawed at what Lewis did through this whole thing, but that put<br /><br />me over the edge. Watch for Kaye Ballard's very tasteless scene<br /><br />where she tries to attempt suicide over and over again.<br /><br />"Star Trek"'s George Takei has two small scenes, then wisely<br /><br />drops out of the picture. This has less laughs than Mel Brooks' last<br /><br />three films combined. There is nothing sadder than watching a<br /><br />formerly respected comedian screw up a project so horribly, you<br /><br />actually feel ashamed for them. Jim Carrey learned that with "The<br /><br />Majestic," but Jerry Lewis still shows up on television once in a<br /><br />while pulling the same unfunny schtick. I feel sorry for him.<br /><br />"Which Way to the Front?" is cheap, unfunny, offensive, and stupid.<br /><br />I feel bad for everyone involved, and anyone who must endure this.<br /><br />I do not recommend it.<br /><br />Though rated (G), this contains some physical violence, some gun<br /><br />violence, and some adult situations. If your child shows interest in<br /><br />seeing this, please consult professional help.<br /><br />
As Ben Elton once observed, nothing goes quicker out of style than comedy. Steve Martin's latest offering - 'The Pink Panther 2' - recently opened to bad reviews and dismal box-office grosses, while Mike Myers' 'The Love Guru' seems to have won few admirers.<br /><br />In 1970, it was Jerry Lewis' turn to feel the pain of rejection ( ironically, his character in this film experiences a funny turn whenever anyone uses that word in his presence ) when 'Which Way To The Front?' effectively drove him off the big screen for almost a decade.<br /><br />In this World War Two comedy, he plays 'Brendan Byers 111', the richest man in the world, who wants to join the army to do his patriotic duty ( and also because he is bored with being successful ) but is rejected as he is medically unfit. He then decides to start his own privately funded army, recruiting other 4-F's.<br /><br />Decked out with ludicrous uniforms that look like those worn by 'International Rescue' in 'Thunderbirds', they go into training. Some good visual gags here. When they fire rocket launchers, they look pleased with themselves, until they learn they have just destroyed a Texaco oil station! Wishing to learn German, Brendan plays a long-playing record called 'Songs To Mein Kampf By'. When this army sits down to eat, instead of being in a draughty mess hall, they are in an opulent room decked out with a chandelier.<br /><br />John Wood is very funny as 'Finkel', Byers' ever-so English butler. His best scene is when he blackmails a Mafia-type gangster into teaching Byers' brigade to kill.<br /><br />The script was not by Jerry himself, but by Gerald Gardiner and Dee Caruso, author of a number of episodes of 'The Monkees'. 'Front' often has the look and feel of a television sitcom, indeed at times you almost expect to hear a laugh-track.<br /><br />Where it goes badly wrong is in the last thirty minutes when Byers replaces a top Nazi commander and, after ordering the Germans to withdraw from the front, gets involved in the plot to kill Hitler ( and Tom Cruise is nowhere in sight! ). As the commander, Jerry delivers a performance of such mind-numbing ineptitude as to defy description. He gives Brian Blessed a run for his money in the 'loudest man alive' stakes. It comes as a relief when the end credits appear.<br /><br />Perhaps the timing was just wrong - bringing out a war comedy when the Vietnam conflict was raging was not a good idea. Or the public simply had had enough of Jerry ( that beard probably did not help! ). What he needed here was a good producer, someone to take him in hand and say: "That gag stinks. Throw it out!". 'Don't Raise The Bridge, Lower The River' is a masterpiece by comparison with this picture.<br /><br />As the '70's got underway, the new comedy icons would be Woody Allen, Mel Brooks, and Monty Python - fresher, more biting and in Allen's case, more human styles of comedy replaced Jerry's brand of slapstick. It would not be until 1982 that he would make anything like a successful comeback - as the conceited talk-show host 'Jerry Langford' in Martin Scorcese's brilliant 'The King Of Comedy'.
Jerry Lewis was marginally funny when he didn't write his own material and had a good director like Frank Tashlin. When he started writing and directing his own films what little talent he possessed was overshadowed by his egomania. Whenever his films would fail (and deservedly so) in the American market (they made money in France) Lewis always blamed everyone and everything but himself; for example, he blamed the failure of this film on the fact that it was, according to Lewis, released on a double-bill with the porno feature "Deep Throat". If anyone should have complained about that situation, it should have been the producers of "Deep Throat." This is an absolutely idiotic "comedy" about the world's richest man (Lewis) who is rejected for military service during WW2 and decides to outfit a special "squad" to go to Germany and capture Hitler himself. Besides the many faults this film has (the script is mind-numbingly unfunny, Lewis' "direction" is nonexistent, the film has the look of a cheap home movie), Lewis apparently thought that surrounding himself with no-talent, over-the-hill Borscht Belt comics like Jan Murray and Sidney Miller was a good idea; he must have figured that they would be so bad, they would make him look good. He was half-right; they are embarrassingly bad, but he comes out even worse than they do. For a "comedy", Lewis' character is sullen, angry and pushy; the way he heaps abuse on his underlings makes you wonder why they would ever follow a bullying jerk like this on a dangerous mission like trying to capture Hitler. The fact that this movie took in any money at all is astounding. It is by far the worst Jerry Lewis movie I have ever seen--I've heard that "Slapstick" is even more pathetic, but I can't bring myself to see if that's true or not--and is to be avoided at all possible costs.
This is a standard action flick as we have seen them many times before. Not much action in this one though. Again it's about the guy protecting the president. He's macho - as usual, and at the same time soft and melancholic - as usual. Does he have the guts to take a bullet for the president?! And then there's the girl and the usual conservative flirting around. Stereotypical and predictable to the last toe-crumbling minute.
This has to one of the most pathetic, predictable and badly acted films I have ever seen. Clint Eastwood has never been worse, never have I seen somebody less convincing on screen. I was laughing at him the whole way through. Then there's this romance kinda thing between him and the gorgeous Rene Russo, which was even more pathetic than the one between Mr.Connery and Ms.Zeta-Jones in Entrapment.<br /><br />One IMDb user posed the question: What's not to like about this film? I'm asking: What is to like about it? And the answer is: John Malkovich. He is an absolute genius and probably the best movie villain ever (He even saved Con Air you know). But that's it. <br /><br />This movie is called In the line of fire, but 'Bodyguard 2: the rip-off' seems to be a more appropriate title. Watch only if you are a die hard John Malkovich fan. Otherwise, avoid at all cost. *1/2(out of five)
Interesting and short television movie describes some of the machinations surrounding Jay Leno's replacing Carson as host of the Tonight Show. Film is currently very topical given the public drama surrounding Conan O'Brien and Jay Leno.<br /><br />The film does a good job of sparking viewers' interest in the events and showing some of the concerns of the stakeholders, particularly of the NBC executives. The portrayal of Ovitz was particularly compelling and interesting, I thought.<br /><br />Still, many of the characters were only very briefly limned or touched upon, and some of the acting seemed perfunctory. Nevertheless, an interesting story.
Saw this movie at a Saturday matinée with a friend. Theater was about 70% full.<br /><br />Although there are quite a few funny lines, it is more of a drama/suspense with humor sprinkled on top. Robin Williams gives a decent performance as does Laura Linney. Being a Daily Show fan, Lewis Black is pretty good in this. Christopher Walken gives a good performance also. <br /><br />The movie starts out slow and remains that way for about the first thirty minutes, then the suspense part kicks in and starts keeping you a little on edge throughout the rest of the movie. Suspense in a supposed comedy movie? I know that I, as well as everybody else in the place, was struggling a bit with this. A character would crack a joke during suspense sequence and you would hear just one or two laughs in the theater. <br /><br />In all fairness, after the movie was over there was smattering of applause. So, definitely, some people enjoyed this movie.<br /><br />I gave this movie a four out of ten, because I believe the comedy aspect doesn't work very well in a suspense/drama movie and the actors performances, while not bad, were just decent. <br /><br />Again, this movie isn't what was advertised.
The premise of this movie, of a comedian talk show host running for president as an independent just to shake things up, is funny, entertaining, brilliant and even a bit inspiring. (thought about the west wing debate when Tom Dobbs leaves his podium, thought about Steven Colbert announcing his candidacy, good times) The first 15 - 20 minutes of this movie are therefore very very entertaining, the debate especially. When he eventually get's elected, it's a pity that is because of a computer glitch, you'd want him to win fair (although that is unrealistic).<br /><br />But after that this movie goes completely downhill. I thought we'd get a great movie like 'Dave' (1993) in which we see how it would out if a comedian actually ran the country. Instead, the movie turns from comedy into a thriller, a romantic comedy and a drama and does none good. The computer glitch becomes the main storyline, which really sucks. Boy is this disappointing. I give it 3 stars just for the premise and because I actually managed to watch this movie from start to end without stopping it, which is usually a good thing with me.
I saw a screening of this movie last night. I had high expectations going into it, but was definitely disappointed. Within 5 minutes of the opening, Williams is already campaigning for his presidency. And he becomes president in the first 40 minutes. So there goes all that aspect of the movie. The first half hour are hilarious. Don't get me wrong, the movie has its moments. But after the first half hour, it takes a turn for the worst. It becomes less of a comedy, and more of a thriller/drama/love story...which is pointless. the movie goes nowhere and stands still for a good 30 minutes. there are laughs interspersed here and there, but the consistently funny part is in the beginning and only the beginning. at one point, the biggest cheer i heard in the audience is when a person in the crowd yelled 'boooo' during a very confusingly emotional scene. Williams gives a great performance, right on par with his comedic style. Walken also delivers a strong supporting role as only he can. I think the one character that goes underrated is Lewis Black. Consistently vulgar and political, its funny to see him tone it down for a PG-13 rating. Overall, I would not pay to see the movie. Afterall, I saw it for free and even I was disappointed. The first half hour is solid, and its all downhill from there. Not really fitting into a category, the movie realizes half way through that it should not have been anything more than a one-hour comedy central special. 4.5/10
How is it possible to make such a bad movie with such actors? Were they forced into it? The plot has nothing to do with an idea of how things would turn out if a comedian ran for president. They don't even try to give an impression of that. Just when you thought you were watching a comment from famous liberals on DC politics (the first five minutes), the movie runs off the road and into B-film drama about 1) a computer voting error, 2) the regular evil corporate suits who wants to cover it up with the most unoriginal lines in history, and 3) a neurotic but extremely pretty female programmer who tries to tell the coming president about this. She's soon the victim of the evil X-files master-lords of the computer company, who - instead of killing her - drug her to make her seem untrustworthy. But, when she gets to DC, she doesn't tell him. In fact, the movie then changes from B-film drama, to idiotic B-film-love-drama. Up to now, we are so far off the original starting point of the movie, that most people turn it off. I almost did. If it just could've been INTELLIGENT love drama, but no! It's not! It's the kind of "oops I'm so nervous I'm being stupid all the time, so please love me for it"-kind of love drama. All with a slow, slow pace, that has nothing to do with either the political plot of the movie, the X-files plot of the movie, or the comedy plot of the movie. All plots fail on all levels, which every annoying bit of meaningless dialog reminds you of. The love part has to be the result of deciding during a drinking binge "hey, there has to be a dynamic of love between the president candidate and the extremely pretty female programmer, yeah, that'll work! Stick it in there!"<br /><br />Meanwhile, Lewis Black is castrated and put into a role where he doesn't come up with one single Lewis Black line. The Lewis Black anger is replaced by a hope for it to surface sometime in the film, which it never does. And Christopher Walken is thrown into a hospital with heart trouble, to duplicate the dramatic effect of the heart attack of the President's closest aid in Westwing. Watching Christopher Walken being castrated like Lewis Black in roles that constantly struggles uphill to sound casual and Westwing-ish, but fail like Titanic every time, is like watching a great blue whale dying on a beach. Heartbreaking.<br /><br />And then, enter the low point of the whole movie: It raises the mindbogglingly, enormously difficult ethical question: Should Robin Williams go on to be president, knowing that he got elected because of a computer glitch? The American Dream And All Good prevails as he turns down the presidency on live TV, like Lassie the dog would. With the usual Patriotic Glamor Of The Presidency and the we're-so-smart-that-we're-making-history-atmosphere that Westwing cultivated in sickening abundance for the next million years.<br /><br />The director and screen writer, Barry Levinson, is now on my personal list of writers and directors I'm staying away from forever. This film must be seen as a symptom of a faulty production process, where people (inlcuding Barry Levinson) got to spend production money due to their personal relationships, and not their skills. This is a project made to satisfy poorly skilled people's wish for career success, and the formerly mentioned great actors were tricked into participating in it. That's the only explanation there can be. <br /><br />PS: The voting error in the computers was due to the double letters in Dobbs, Kellogs and Mills. Of course it was, what else could it be when you write a script and can't tell a computer from a dish-washing machine.
I am pretty surprised to see that this movie earned even lukewarm reviews, I found this movie downright awful. The plot flounders around trying to decide if it is a comedy or a thriller, then realizes it cannot achieve either. So it throws in the towel and continues with its absurd plot highlighted with a unintentional hilarious scene with Laura Linney, an injection, and spilled coffee that leaves the audience awkwardly squirming in their seats looking at one another like is this for real? Basically it is abysmal and really disappointing for Robin Williams fans, and it makes you think someone blackmailed Laura Linney into adding this piece of trash to her otherwise respectable resume. I wanted to leave after 10 minutes and wish I had, even seeing it for free I wanted someone to pay me for my wasted time. The computer glitch/twist in this movie was embarrassingly stupid, and by the end you don't care who wins the election. I vote for straight to DVD.
I liked the understated character that Laura Linney played in 'Love Actually', and she is very good in 'Man of the Year'.<br /><br />But wow. Robin Williams doesn't give that much of a performance, with a couple of minor exceptions this was weak. Laura Linney may not have been miscast, but either the editing raped her character, or this was just a sad performance by director Barry Levinson.<br /><br />And I think it was Barry Levinson that got old. So many weak performances, such uneven results have to be the fault of management.<br /><br />Christopher Walken and Jeff Goldblum are great in supporting roles. Goldblum plays a sinister side with relish, and Walken's combination of entertainer's manager and commentator for the film is wonderful.<br /><br />But the story is cliché, the presentation looks like it could have (should have) been a very good picture, and too many actions are half-hearted. The pacing, story, and direction all come up weak, compared to, say 'Head Office' (spoof of 'Secret of My Success').
this movie, while it could be considered an alright attempt at comedy, is not what the previews made it out to be. the first half is comprised of typical robin Williams stand up material, though he really didn't do many voices; he was always great at the one liners and hitting the punchlines... somewhere during the election there is a problem with the computer program that is used in the election. here is where the net 3 comes in... a woman who helped with this program wants the truth to be told and the evil corporation wants to shut her up **spoilers** her boyfriend even helps them, though this isn't even fleshed out... this movie could have been one of political brilliance (perhaps with sorken at the reigns) but it falls short in a stew made by too many chefs
I went to see this movie mostly because it looked so good in the trailers. Robin Williams and Barry Levinson should equal greatness. Instead it just continues Williams' bad streak of movies lately. What's wrong with the movie? More like what's right: the ensemble crew does a pretty good job around Robin, and like usual, Christopher Walken is fantastic. That being said, this movie just plain wasn't good. I really only recommend seeing it if you want to see what it would be like if Jon Stewart ran for president and won. Saying he won isn't a spoiler, since it was in the trailer. The concept and idea is really amusing, but that's all. Most of Robin's jokes are just recycled from old comedy bits of his, and there are very few laugh out loud moments, and most are just dumb. Like most comedies that turn out to suck, all of the funny bits are put into the trailer. Really no surprises there, but come on! Some of the movie reads like a Tom Clancy or Vince Flynn novel! People were expecting this to be Robin's return to greatness. Instead, it's more a Flubber.
i found this Robin Williams vehicle mildly amusing at best.i guess you would call it a political satire of sorts.it's about a political talk show host/comedian who decides to run for president and unexpectedly wins.i found most of the humour dry myself,and Robin Williams is much more restrained and sedate than usual.i would say the movie is more of a drama than a comedy,with a bit of mystery and suspense.i think the dramatic parts worked better than the comedy parts,and the mystery and suspense aspect(though that's a small part of the movie)worked the best.still,i wouldn't rate this movie very high.for me,it was an OK waste of 2 hours,but nothing special.my best advice would be to catch it on TV/cable or rent it cheap first,before making a decision on whether to purchase.my vote for Man of The Year is a 4/10
I was kinda looking forward to Man of the Year, a couple girls at my work said it was a pretty good movie, and my mom said that she liked it, so I waited for the rental, and watched it last night. I have to honestly say that this movie was a huge disappointment. I barely made through it, because to be honest the beginning was pretty good and very well paced, but then it got too dark and not into the movie I saw from the trailer. It looked like a good comedy, then it turned into a very dark drama, that wasn't even that interesting, considering how many of these types of stories we've had about government conspiracy.<br /><br />Tom Dobbs is a very popular comedian with a top ranks show and has an act where many people would want him to get involved with politics, just because it seems like he has a good grip on what should be improved. So he does it, he runs for presidency, but many people doubt that he can win due to the fact that he's a comedian, but he does win! But Elenore Green who makes sure all the votes are accounted for tries to fix a computer glitch, but when the government tells her not to fix it, they try to get rid of her, and Tom soon realizes that this may not be the job he wanted.<br /><br />The acting was fine, the direction was OK, it was just the story that didn't work in my opinion. Like I said, it just turned into a dramatic change of genres, because if you see the trailer, you'd think it was a comedy, and when you start watching it, that's what you get, but then it just turns into a very dark and somewhat scary drama. I wouldn't really recommend this movie, it was one of the biggest disappointments I have seen so far.<br /><br />2/10
I was aware of Man of the Year's critical pans and unremarkable gross, but was prepared to give the film the benefit of the doubt because I know good pictures can fall under the radar during the crowded release schedule of the Fall months.<br /><br />What I found out was that the movie is surprisingly uninspired. Surprising is an understatement considering Barry Levinson's gift for political satire (demonstrated in Good Morning Vietnam and Wag the Dog) and Robin Williams' obvious comic gifts. Robin Williams, in fact, is mysteriously underused. On the "Making Of" featurette that comes with the DVD, Barry Levinson talked about how sometimes he let Robin Williams improvise off the script, like it was some naughty secret of his. Um…are you really that much of a moron, Barry Levinson? Whenever you have Robin Williams in your film and want to use him for his comic abilities (basically, every movie he's been in other than Insomnia or One Hour Photo), don't cage him within a script. Let him ad-lib whatever he wants because he is the funnier than anything anyone else can write for him and his uncontained comic rants can instantly raise the bar on any mediocre movie like RV or Patch Adams. What I found even more baffling in his failure to make use of Robin Williams was that back in 1987, Levinson used this exact formula to perfection in Good Morning Vietnam, injecting Robin Williams' bursts of comic zaniness into a war picture to make a resounding political piece.<br /><br />So the film isn't as much of a laugh-fest as it could be and feels awkwardly lost in its tone. If the film had potential to work as anything, it might have made one of those thrillers from the mid-'90s in the style of The Pelican Brief, The Fugitive, or one of those Jack Ryan films. Its plot centered around an employee at a Silicon Valley company uncovering a glitch in a system that reveals that the country elected the wrong president and the efforts of the CEOs to eliminate her before the secret gets out, so if you replaced Robin Williams with some Harrison-Ford-type actor, or perhaps even Harrison Ford himself, added a couple more explosions, and maybe that's where the movie was trying to go. I'll never really know and it's not worth it to try to find out.
Combining serious drama with adequate comedy is touchy at the best of times. LOOKING FOR COMEDY IN THE Muslim WORLD pulled it off thanks to a topical subject and a fantastic script; not to mention Albert Brooks' excellent broodish character portrayal. But MAN OF THE YEAR can't come close by comparison. It has a messy message folded in with forced jokes and a twisted love story that is completely unbelievable.<br /><br />The premise initially seemed very promising. Put a Jon Stewart-like comedy news guy up for President of the United States and see what happens. This independent runner is Tom Dobbs (Robin Williams, RV), a successful TV personality who is pressured into running by his audience. Along with him comes his manager Jack (Christopher Walken, CLICK), and his writer Eddie (Lewis Black). Seeming to have very little chance at a successful run, Tom Dobbs amazingly wins the election.<br /><br />But did he? Eleanor Green (Laura Linney, THE EXORCIST OF EMILY ROSE) is a computer whiz at the company who designed the new software for electronic voting at polling stations. She finds a glitch in the system that is quickly swept under the rug by the company's owner and his dark attorney Alan (Jeff Goldblum, INDEPENDENCE DAY). Poised to lose billions of dollars if word of this gets out, the company's evil men decided to discredit and/or kill Eleanor to make sure she never tells anyone. But Eleanor is able to get to President-elect Dobbs and finally spill the beans (this is where the unbelievable love story starts blossoming, too). Dobbs goes onto Saturday Night Live and explains everything to the world, thus removing himself as the newly elected President and ending the careers of those at the computer company ...oh, and saving Ms. Green's life.<br /><br />Does any of this sound funny? The comedy is forcefully wedged into the story and is often awkward. Robin Williams blazes for a few moments during a debate but is quickly doused as the gravity of how he became President bears down on him.<br /><br />The message of the film is interesting and debatable, too: that special interest owns presidential candidates. I'm sure there's substantial truth in this, and if you wanted to make a movie about it you could. If you wanted to make a comedy about you could. But Man of the Year isn't it.
A few bratty kids unwittingly unleash an evil that has lain dormant for the past twenty years and have to reap the ill fortune that comes with that.The Campbell Brothers' film before this "Midnight Skater" was fun & their picture after "the Red Skulls" was all right. So why is "Demon Summer" so mind-numbingly bad? I really don't know, it IS better then their "Splatter Rampage Wrestling" but not be much as the basement level of acting is cringe-worthy and when a 'horror' film is as talky as this one is, that's not a good thing. The story's been done to death in many other better films, so why waste your time on this one? <br /><br />My Grade: D-
I could not watch more than 10 minutes of this movie. It has set the standard. I will never again give a movie a 1, unless it was as horrible as this one. I fully agree with the other comments about this film. But, since I'm Dutch, I watched it with Dutch translation. Apparently, they didn't have money for a proper translation, so they decided to babelfish it. With sometimes hilarious results.<br /><br />Don't smoke, don't drink, don't do drugs, don't watch Demon Summer.<br /><br />I was surprised that the actors (Wow, I can't believe I just said that.) didn't hold the script (Was there any?) in their hands while shooting. I think they also did a good job on... Well... Uhmm... No, they didn't do a good job at all.
I understand that the budget was low on this film, but come on this is really terrible film-making. The script is just plain awful and that was the free part. The effects aren't bad, but this film plays out like a conventional R-rated movie with lame scares and cut-away violence rather than a no holds barred unrated gore-fest that was intentionally made for video. Who were these guys kidding? Like this would have been released in theaters.<br /><br />The acting is terrible. The editing, another free aspect of the film, is beyond amateur, and the plot, as I said before, leaves little to be desired. There's nothing original about the film. Gore fans, avoid this one. To the filmmakers: try for something original next time, or stop making movies all together. You're not good at it. People hate a trashy rehash, especially one of such low caliber. AVOID! It isn't even worth making fun of.
Did you ever think, like after watching a horror movie with a group of friends: "Wow, this is so cool! We have got to make a splatter horror movie ourselves some day soon. I bet it isn't as difficult as it seems"? Well, this must have been what went through the minds of the young Campbell brothers back in 2003, presumably right after watching Sam Raimi's "The Evil Dead" or a similar independent horror classic. This "Demon Summer", however, is so bad it's embarrassing! These young amateurish filmmakers obviously worship the horror genre and know their classics, but that nearly doesn't make them talented. I've seen quite a lot lousy B-movies in my years as a horror fanatic, but this honestly ranks as one of the biggest pieces of crap ever made. And it's quite sad to be this open-hearted, because the whole cast and crew clearly had good intentions. There's pretty much no script at all. A duo of thugs simply steals a mysterious book from a bum and, whilst reading some passages of it, one of them mutates into a hideous demon that starts killing off members of all the different teenager-groups: dorks, hot Catholic girls, stoners and troublemakers. That's about it, except of course for all the obligatory clichés, like the hot girl falling for the biggest dork etc etc... The performances are really painful to listen to and none of these annoying teenagers use mimicry! They just stand there motionless until the script says it's their turn to interact. I hate that! Some of make-up effects are remotely decent but still not spectacular and the soundtrack contains some of the most awful punk-songs ever. This film should never have been released... I can very well imagine that it must have been fun to be a part of the production, but it's utterly imbecile and doesn't feature the slightest redeeming element. Not even a bit of amateur-nudity, damned!
I rate movies on this site all the time, but I don't normally write comments. However, in this case, I felt compelled to WARN OTHERS! This movie is bad! It's probably one of only a dozen movies I have scored as '1 (awful).' I know people say this all the time, but this truly was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It's easily on the bottom ten, anyway.<br /><br />When it comes to horror movies, I have very low standards. I'll overlook all sorts of shoddy film-making for a good scare. But this movie is embarrassingly bad. It looks someone bought a video camera at Sears and decided to make a movie with his buddies. (The fact that every single crew member's name appears in the cast list proves this theory, I think.) This movie has lower production standards than your average high school play. It's actually a little shocking to see a movie that looks this bad released on DVD. The special effects are somewhat effective at times, but are still amateurish at best. The best thing that can be said about the actors is that at least they remember no to look into the camera, most of the time. I can't say for certain if they struggling to remember their lines or making them up as they went along. Any and all attempts at humor are lame. This movie is such a colossal waste of time.
Aimless teens on summer break in a small Ohio town can't find any meaningful ways to fill their time. Some consider driving to Chicago; others are content to drink and bully their peers. In a random act of alcohol-fueled arrogance, the bullies rough up a homeless man and steal a strange book. The handwritten text turns out to contain archaic spells designed to summon demonic forces. A night or two later, one of them reads an incantation and is quickly possessed. He turns into a vicious killer and begins to quietly prey on his former peers.<br /><br />"Demon Summer" is an amateur production with a microscopic budget. The production values are low, but the filmmakers were smart enough to not be ambitious. Little in the way of special props or shooting locations were needed. The acting is especially weak and there is virtually nothing original in the screenplay. On the positive side, the special makeup effects are surprisingly good by low budget film standards. Despite this, the gore is minimal. Makeup effects aside, there is little going for this film, even for die-hard gore-hounds. Not recommended.
Very slow, dull, enigmatic film. MAybe the kind of film Jean-Luc Godard would have made had he been Italian. Certainly conveys how tedious, repetitious, joyless and empty a person's life can be, but I don't usually go to the cinema to find that out! The plot (such as it is) doesn't convince. Why a gorgeous hotel receptionist (an exception to the dullness of the film) would be the slightest bit interested in a moody, chain-smoking, silent loner who speaks in 'deep' aphorisms baffles me. Very difficult to feel any sympathy with the main character. One feels like shaking him by the throat and telling him to 'snap out of it!'. His brother is a much more human character. The ending is inconclusive and puzzling. Everyone in the cinema (when I saw the film) went out muttering about how they nearly fell asleep. Of course, it shouldn't have to be a Hollywood Bruce Willis-style 'shhot-em-up' and 'crash-bang' fiesta, but a little bit of energy and action would have made it a lot more thrilling. One of the best Italian films ever?! Pleease...An art-house, curiosity at best.
I was so looking forward to seeing this film that I can't really understand how I got the impression I would enjoy it. I'm afraid it really is a yawn fest - every single patron in the cinema I attended yawned and fidgeted frequently during the whole film. This is a shame because it is a fantastic story - I'm inclined to think that it would make a better read. It is not helped by the principle character only showing his teeth once - and that was as a result of the camera angle. As the story unfolds it becomes easier to understand the main character's dilemmas. However, the suspense and drama that could have made this a really top rated film have been completely spoilt by the dull treatment. Dull as a half-baked documentary!
This is one of the worst pieces of cinema I have seen in some time. This is also my first review so you can tell I must hate this film at lot.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I like my serious films. I don't like Hollywood too much, I tend to like French, Italian, offbeat US or anything that tries to communicate something sensible.<br /><br />But this was awful. Why? 1. The plot (such as it was) was entirely unbelievable, even though the director seems to be hinging everything on a feeling of realism.<br /><br />2. The main character has nothing to recommend him. Does he smoke for coolness or to show us his angst? For goodness sake this guy is meant to be an ex-dodgy mafia lawyer. Are we meant to care more because that he is also one of the meanest unfriendly people you could ever meet? And he smokes...so he must have deep personal issues. Pop psychology at it's best. In the final moments, I almost cheered as he gets buried in the cement. Best place for him. And I thought that was about the only good scene. Or maybe that was because it was so close the final credits.<br /><br />3. The entirely tired and unbelievable interest in the main character from the beautiful girl. She was there simply because beautiful girls always have odd sexual relationships with old, old men with a deep and meaningful personality (as demonstrated by smoking). Happens all the time. In really bad films that is.<br /><br />4. The pace was so leaden. I like slow, I like careful. But this was just deathly.<br /><br />5-50 a bunch of other stuff that I really can't be bothered to write.<br /><br />Awful.
Oh my god! The Beeb hit a new low with this gutless act of political correctness, A mixed race family living in Birmingham with a disabled kid thrown in for good measure. Whoever commissioned this tripe should be hunted down and thrown to the dogs. The usually funny Jasper Carrott is about as funny as piles in this show and don't get me started about the others. They have the timing and subtly of a Nuclear bomb. I only hope comedy will get better but with the likes of Little Britain and Catherine Tate about I severely doubt this. I think you'd be better off getting the box set for a decent comedy from yesteryear such as Fawlty Towers or Bottom if you want a laugh.<br /><br />BAN THIS SQUEAKY CLEAN RUBBISH!
It says a lot about the United Kingdom when television programmes like this not only get made but also run for three series. Unfunny, politically correct to the point of sickening and poorly acted and written. Meera Syal has not been funny or accomplished in anything that she has been in, go on tell me I am wrong, and Jasper Carrott, funny guy as he is, is well past his eighties prime. This is such a bad comedy that it could have been made by ITV but even stinkers like The Upper Hand and the one with James Bolam as a car park attendant look like Fawlty Towers compared to this rubbish. I would love to sit down with the writer/director of this show so that they can point out the humour in this programme. Admittedly the majority of the UK's population is made up of poorly educated chavs but this would not tickle their funny bones. That's if they could tear themselves away from Big Brother or from their mobile phones but that's another story. Complete and utter dirt!
Oh how I laughed....this has it all...an Asian/White family, a disabled Asian boy...everything a healthy person needs to see in the eyes of the BBC.<br /><br />What utter tribe: This was a total insult to my eyes that viewed this rubbish for one episode and ONE EPISODE ONLY.<br /><br />When you think of some of the quality the BBC has put out over the years (Fawlty Towers for example) and then this comes rolling in...Its a disgusting disgrace.<br /><br />Its all geared on political-correctness and is devoid of any humour whatsoever.<br /><br />This is straight from the bowels of hell: but what would you expect from the ultra left-wing BPC...I mean BBC.
Here's another of these modern-day ultra-sleaze comedies in which dysfunctional families are supposedly hilarious. Know wonder people once asked, "What ever happened to Pauly Shore?" Well, Shore didn't disappear, but his career took a nose-dive, that's for sure. Movies like this one, didn't help.<br /><br />In "Son-In-Law," Shore plays an incredibly-obnoxious character called "Crawl," and yet he's the most likable of the family! His father is a profane idiot; his mother is totally incompetent, his young brother is a sex maniac and his college-age sister is a real snot.<br /><br />Watching an hour and a half of totally-unlikeable people was tough to do. I certainly wouldn't watch this again, or recommend it to anyone but die-hard Shore fans. Adam Sandler took Pauley's shtick and went a lot further with it.<br /><br />The following is an excerpt from the IMDb title page here under "biography" and it explains why I am not the only one who was disgusted with this movie.<br /><br />"........but his lunacy was dismissed as crude, dumb and, for the most part, unfunny. His film career quickly tanked. This downhill spiral was not helped by the failure of his failed Fox sitcom "Pauly" (1997) in 1997. Lambasted unmercifully by both critics and media alike, he was soon becoming a running joke and forced to lie low and ride out the storm...."
Frantic, somewhat mean spirited, infantile humor abounds in this city boy turned wannabe farmer tale. It is not outrageous enough to appeal to the Will Ferrell crowd, and not interesting enough to carry the feature length. The most I can praise "Son In Law" would be to say that for the most part it avoids toilet humor. The main problem is that all of the characters lack warmth, and Pauly Shore is so abrasive that he is a most unlikable hero. There are a few amusing bits involving farm animals, and that's about it. The story, what there is, is so simplistic and predictable, it makes "Jury Duty" seem like "Gone with the Wind". - MERK
Perfect double bill for the horribly corny "Beverly Hillbillies" is this equally atrocious, lame brained 'comedy', "Son in Law". Country girl Rebecca goes to wild California to attend college, only to be assaulted by the lifestyle. 'Resident Adviser' "Crawl" helps her settle in, and soon the two are good friends. Bec decides to bring the wacky "Crawl" home for Thanksgiving, with obvious "fish out of water" results.<br /><br />The only other comic angle Steve Rash (aptly named ) achieves here is a sexual one. This he bludgeons us with, but to no avail. Both comic aspects fail dismally, and you know the film is groping when "Crawl" hijacks the combine harvester and writes his name in the corn field.<br /><br />Dramatically the movie falls short too, with several attempts at family and personal counselling from "Crawl" misfiring. Between them Pauly Shore and Carla Gugino manage to raise a couple of smiles, but little else, while the rest of the cast are mere fodder. The problem is it's nearly impossible to actually like "Crawl", and you'll find yourself spending the whole flick wondering why Rebecca would want to spend a moment with him. However, if you're a fan of unintelligent comedy, "Son in Law" is right on the mark.<br /><br />Sunday, November 10, 1996 - T.V.
It amazes me that anyone would find Pauly Shore entertaining: he is basically one joke that gets stale *real* fast. He has his little "California" jerk vocabulary and a basic stock of lame jokes. Mainly, he is just obnoxious.<br /><br />That said, I watched this movie because I was up sick and there was literally nothing else on but infomercials, otherwise I would have turned it off after 30 minutes. Anyway, the film could have been OK if Pauly could have just turned off his spiel and just played it as a comic actor instead of, well, Pauly. <br /><br />Anyway, I'm sure Pauly fans will like it anyway - but if you are not a Pauly fan, stay away from this crock of manure.<br /><br />I had to leave this comment after seeing that another user actually gave this film a 10/10! (Maybe it was Pauly!!) Personally, I gave it a 3/10 because they didn't have any mike-in-frame shots, didn't drop the camera, and the supporting cast was pretty good.
On his recent maligned reality-show, Mr. Shore conceded his filmic oeuvre is best enjoyed stoned. No, he must have said "best watched." While a healthy toke might see you through the end credits, there is little pleasure to be found, save some sporadic chuckling at the picture, not with it. Titular hyphenate absence is the least grievance. Other hyphenate, wholesome Tiffani-Amber Thiessen (I dare you to rub out that "Saved by the Bell" patina of purity) is miscast as a rural vamp; she's too round of face for treachery. Mr. Shore, himself occasionally displays the odd talent for mimicry (I thought I recognized a Jimmy Stewart in there), however it is never aptly used. The trite fish-out-of-water formula has yet to be rendered with less grace. Our hero, Crawl has precious little wit to account for expeditiously charming his agrarian antagonists. Ultimately, I had to announce it's been ascertained: THE WORST MOVIE EVER. P.S. As another fish, Adam Sandler fared better with "Mr. Deeds." It may take a Shore to appreciate a Sandler.
This movie is one of the worse movies of all time. I'm kind of upset this movie isn't on the bottom 100; it deserves a spot at least number 60 or 70 on that list. This isn't just a film I think is bad in a campy-fun sort of MST3K way; it's just bad. This is one of the few films that I really, really HATE. Freddy Got Fingered is in the same category of bad.<br /><br />So the story in this one goes that the daughter (Gugino) goes to California to go to school and comes back with Crawl (Shore) and he tries to learn to be a farmer. Then the boyfriend tries to set Shore up so that the girl will leave Crawl and go back to him. It ends and what's left of the audience can leave.<br /><br />The main purpose of this movie is for Pauly Shore to mug for the camera and try to be funny; but I'd say about 100% of the time he fails at that. Their horrible inaccurate and out of date view of farms and farming is offensive and there's nothing in this movie worth seeing. If you think of seeing it: don't. The one time I saw the movie it felt like I was watching it for 5 or 6 hours. If you've already seen it; you have my sympathy.
If you are a Pauly Shore fan, you will laugh your butt off. If not, this is a silly mess wasting some very good talent. A cute coed(Carla Gugino)from South Dakota invites her California college dorm counselor(Shore) home to share Thanksgiving. Notable cast members: Lane Smith, Cindy Pickett, Mason Adams and the drop dead gorgeous Tiffani-Amber Thiessen. Watch where you step.
Good grief.. to think I've seen it all.. Danny Thomas looks SO out of place in this mishmash. He seems really uncomfortable. He can't sing worth a lick, and when he's paired up with Peggy Lee (PEGGY LEE???) she easily.. EASILY outsings him! Maybe the director saw this and made him do the reall really bad comedy routines that he sometimes does in the film. Peggy Lee is okay, but the whole thing is a shambles. Good for a laugh, maybe.
Yes this movie is obviously trying to be a Conan the Barbarian, and what amazes me is that this is a sequel (the people demanded another one?). The first part of the flick is a flashback showing the original. From what I saw it doesn't look worth checking out (and apparently Ator always kills a huge puppet in his movies). Well now Ator lives at the ends of the earth with his mute sidekick Thong. A girl seeks his help as this evil dude has her father in his custody. Let me just say this bad guy is extremely patient as the old guy constantly insults the villian and just prattles on endlessly. The bad guy waits to the very end of the movie and finally smacks the old guy around leaving you to wonder "What took him so long to snap?". Meanwhile, Ator and his sidekick and the gal go through one adventure after another. They fight cavemen, invisible soldiers (don't ask), rent a thugs, and people who worship snakes. Ator also battles a giant snake puppet and hang-glides (again, don't ask). All the while you will be thinking that Conan would kick Ator's butt.
I mean, you just have to love the Italian film industry. Someone came up with a post-doomsday action movie ("Road Warrior") and the Italians were busy for years doing one rip-off after another. Then some other one came up with a successful barbarian movie ("Conan") and the Italians were busy... eh, see above.<br /><br />Besides countless other variations of the theme (one of my favorites is Umberto Lenzi's "The Barbarians" starring the Paul twins) the Ator series was created. And this, the second one, is probably the worst (or best, depending on your point of view).<br /><br />Ator is called back into action by his old teacher, who has discovered some kind of nuclear power that, of course, has to be protected so it won't get into wrong hands. The old man sends his daughter to Ator, and after a few complications Ator, his sidekick Tong and the girl set back to the castle, which meanwhile has fallen to some evildoer (of course, an old "class mate" of Ator). Somewhere along the way the heroic trio forgets about the plot and eradicates some giant snake-worshipping cult for the fun of it (not before some virgins are sacrificed). Just in time before the madman finally loses his temper and kills the wise teacher our heroes remember their duties, invent hanggliding and grenades and save the day.<br /><br />Included: terrible acting by all participants (especially O'Keeffe), incredibly hilarious "special effects" (you just have to adore the snake fight scene, which must be sort of a hommage to "Bride of the Monster"), badly staged fight scenes, numerous continuity errors (Ator flies two different hanggliders during the climatic battle, watch for it, just an example) and an overall non-understanding of the concept of history (cavemen, "civilized" barbarians, castle-builders, all thrown in one film).<br /><br />If you're, like me, devoted to bad movies, this is the one of the series to see, you'll probably end up ROTFL. For the records: the Malta-filmed third part is actually quite watchable.<br /><br />Considering Joe D'Amato's other efforts this is probably his most entertaining movie, as he certainly has failed to deliver watchable horror or erotic movies. But I strongly have the opinion that this was completely by accident.<br /><br />
(spoilers) Horrifyingly enough, I have actually SEEN the film that this horrid film was a sequel to. It was called Ator the Fighting Eagle, and I saw it when I was just 8 years old. It made such an awful impression on me that i never forgot it. I've been an MST3K fan for a long time, so when Cavedwellers came out on tape I bought it. I was horrified to realize that it was a sequel to the wretched Ator movie that i'd seen so long ago! Ator's costume has, somehow, gotten ever skimpier than the last time i saw him. How can he wear that tiny little bikini? Doesn't he care that it shows off the fact that he has no...errr...package? And poor Thong...he gets no lines and no girl, and has to follow that frizzy haired girly doofus Ator around all the time. Has anyone else noticed that Miles O'Keefe walks like a woman? No wonder he's not interested in the pretty if somewhat lackluster Meela. The evil but prancy bad guy Zor is more to his taste, I'm sure. I loved Zor's cardboard spray painted swan helmet, and the way he spent all his time trying to touch some part of Ator. The fight scenes are so badly choreographed that its a wonder that the swords ever manage to connect. The dull old guy spends all of his time standing around looking depressed. Ator drinks from a cup given to him by a guy who hates him, and then looks surprised that they drugged him. He must be pretty smart though-he invented a hang glider in the space pf five minutes ,then flew it into a rift in the space/time continuum so that he travelled briefly into 17th century Bulgaria. That was after he stabbed the giant snake puppet, of course, and saved the post coital Meela while she sat around doing absolutely nothing. The real hero of the movie was Thong, who saved Ator several times from his boundless stupiditiy, and killed the evil Zor in the bargain. Kudos to Thong, the only competent person in the whole film.
BOOOOOOOORRRRRINNGGGGGGGG and STOOOOOOOPIDDDDD. Kept falling asleep. If you want to see Miles O'Keefe loping around in a furry Speedo by all means rent this movie. If not please don't bother... Rife with anachronisms. Was this supposed to be set in the Ice Age, the Iron Age, the Steel Age or the Age of Reason? What was the reason for the black nylon wig on the guy dressed up as Genghis Khan? Was that really supposed to be Genghis Khan? If Ator had access to so much advanced technology and science why did we have wait another 1000 years for Leonardo? It's never clear where Ator comes from or if he's supposed to be some superior sort of being. You wonder if it was all explained in the first movie but after seeing this one you KNOW you'll never bother.
This is about one of the worst movies I'd ever seen. It's not the worst though - Manos the Hands of Fate holds that honor.<br /><br />This movie has a lot of problems. To begin, this whole movie is a cheap rip-off of the Conan movies. There's the babe in a skimpy dress wearing a hubcap, the quiet Asian warrior, the cookie cutter bad guy, the almost mindless soliders, and so on. There's lots of continuity errors in this film. Some of the dumbest errors I've ever seen are in this film.<br /><br />Fortunately when I watched this film I seen the MST3K version. Joel and the 'bots make the film watchable, otherwise I probably would've turned it off five minutes into the film.
The credits come from the Sandy Frank stitching job that was made to turn this movie into Cave Dwellers for re-release. Now that that's cleared up...oh! Excruciating, eye-gouging pain. Blade Master leaps shamelessly on the sword & sorcery bandwagon started by the Conan flicks...except the bandwagon never left the garage anyway. As such, this Italian flick is a dud trying to rip-off a box office dud, with predictable results. However, this would give too little credit to the director and writers, who make no effort whatsoever to maintain a coherent plot, continuity, any semblance of era-accurate continuity. Miles O'Keefe is no leading man, now or forever (Tarzan The Ape Man proved that, if Ator didn't). Just an unlikeable picture and a chore to watch.
This was the second MST3K'd movie I ever saw, and still holds a place in my heart as one of the most hilariously awful film experiences you are ever going to have. <br /><br />Miles O'Keeffe (sp?) is in this, using his chiseled physique to score another payment on the mortgage on his condominium. He's stiff, wooden, and unconvincing, but he still comes across as a cool, likable guy, and at least he's photogenic. That's the only decent I can find to say about the movie, so I thought I would get it out of the way right up front. The fact that he is in the movie adds another point to the score and saves it from being a "1 out of 10". <br /><br />In no particular order, examples of how badly put together this film is:<br /><br />1)OK, the Tanya Roberts clone (Mila) quests to 'the ends of the earth' to find Ator, which takes 3 minutes of screen time, including the time she spends stumbling around dying from a poisoned arrow in her shoulder (which I assume would have slowed her down quite a bit). So Ator heals her up, and takes his trusty aid Thong and sets out to go back to the her castle...and proceeds to take the next 50+ minutes of the movie recovering the ground that Mila traversed in 3 minutes. How does that work??? I know that the intrepid crew is being harassed by magical forces and enemies etc. on the way back, but still...!<br /><br />2)Apparently the writer/director felt the need to add 'depth' to the film by adding a running debate/Socratic dialog/game of 20 questions between Zor (the mean John Saxon wannabe) and the wise man Akronas (the Richard Harris wannabe). But Joe Damoto apparently got his philosophical training from Hallmark cards, T-Shirts and bumper stickers, and he doesn't understand tempo, pacing, or timing...and neither do the actors. (Crow's remark during one of these exchanges is the tag line for my entry). The scenes with these two drag on and on, bringing the movie to a screeching halt and killing any momentum or excitement generated by the sword-fighting and questing of the heroic trio.<br /><br />3) Once Ator arrives at the castle (and is captured), things go even farther downhill. Zor decides to feed a bunch of women victims, along with Ator and Mila, to the Serpent God he keeps in his basement. This scene had some potential for excitement, so the director immediately kills this potential by instilling the scene with all the drama of people waiting in line at the DMV to pay their traffic fines. Ator proceeds to have a big battle with the Serpent that is barely more convincing than Bela Lugosi's battle with the rubber octopus puppet in "Bride Of The Monster". <br /><br />4) The climactic scene, in which Ator invents the hang glider out of twigs and animal skins, is so patently silly that it completely blows the viewer out of the movie and makes you roll on the floor, laughing until your sides hurt. <br /><br />5) Oh, yes, and the filmmakers decided to include stock footage of an atomic explosion at the end, with the moral that Ator decided to destroy the 'atomic nucleus' McGuffin that drives the movie because mankind was 'not ready'. ("Zzzzip! MESSAGE COMING IN!!!") Just like "Bride Of the Monster" again, come to think of it. All it needed was a bystander to observe, "They tampered in God's domain."<br /><br />6) For some reason, the version of the movie I saw features introductory and closing homo-erotic credit sequences that have absolutely NOTHING to do with anyone or anything else in the movie. I have no idea where this footage came from, but it is actually WORSE than the actual movie it bookends. <br /><br />Watch this only if you are a big fan of Miles, or if you enjoy the way MST3K skewers material like this.
There are plenty of reviews that describe this movie as the worst ever made. For sure there are plenty of mistakes: lackluster acting, rather boring and cliched and at times paradoxical script, and the stock B-movie sound and "special" effects. As noted, there are plenty of glosses of plot, making _Cave Dwellers_ a tissue of fantasy film, especially in comparison with the Lord of the Rings trilogy. However, this movie is not the worst movie ever. Most, if not all, (including this review) of these reviews are written by fans of MSTK3. Therefore, many of these reviews are pretty much summaries of the MSTK3 episode of _Cave Dwellers_.<br /><br />In the episode, Joel, Tom Servo, and Crow remark to the Mad Scientists that this is the worst movie ever sent to them. Of course, loyal fans have taken this quote and ran with it. I have found this movie endearing-not in a way that one finds _Forrest Gump_ endearing-but in the effort put into this movie by some the cast. Also, this movie is laughable without its MSTK3 treatment. That is because _Cave Dwellers_ does not take itself seriously, and it is not trying to import into its viewers some sort of righteous theme. For all of the monster puppets, medieval hang gliding, and continuity lapses-this movie does not advertise to be any more that what it is, a shallow depiction of a rather shallow genre.<br /><br />Likewise, I can't bring myself to hate Miles O'Keeffe or Lisa Foster. Instead this hatred is for Coleman Francis, Tony Cardoza, Jennifer Lopez, Arch Hall, Jr., and so on.<br /><br />
I actually own this movie which is the MST3K version called "Cave Dwellers" which is really the only way anyone could really watch a movie like this. If it weren't for Joel, Crow, and Tom Servo constantly making wisecracks, it wouldn't be possible to sit through this piece of crap. You have a hero called Ator who looks a lot like Jeff Spigoli in Fast Times at Ridgemont High and appears only slightly more intelligent, just without being stoned. He takes on cavemen (the cave dwellers?) invisible guys, a giant snake (with a bunch of anal retentive snakes that like to line up all the skulls to face the same way), invents a hang glider which suspiciously looks like a modern aluminum one with some cheap vines wrapped around it, and then does battle with the evil John Saxon-looking dude. Then he rides off on his horse across the tire tracks where someone's been four-wheeling.<br /><br />Yes, I got most of that from MST3K, which as I said is the only way to watch this turkey of a movie. If it weren't for that, it would get zero stars.
Another in the long line of Conan wannabes that tired to cash in on that movie's success, this Italian monstrosity is about as bad as they came. You know it's a bad sign when your heroes fight invisible enemies because the movie was made so cheaply there wasn't money for either adequate special effects or to hire real people. I won't even bother going into the plot as I defy anyone to follow it and make sense of the storyline. Maybe it's the television cut I watched, but I can't imagine any version being that much better. It all seems so random to me. Evil sorcerers, cavemen, giant snakes, medieval castles, grenades, and hang gliding – none of it fits together. It's as if director Joe D'Amato had an epileptic fit while making Cave Dwellers (or any of the other half-dozen names the movie goes by) and threw everything he could think of onto the screen regardless of how unrelated it was or how it fit into the film's already puzzling plot. The acting is sufficiently bad. Miles O'Keeffe could never act his way out of a wet paper bag and he proves that once again in this movie. The rest of the cast is equally atrocious. Then there's the . . . well, you get the idea. It's late, I'm tired, and I've already wasted more than enough time writing about this piece of garbage. Take my word for it – avoid Cave Dwellers (or whatever you want to call it) at all costs.
Why was this movie made? Are producers so easily fooled by sadists that they'll give them money to create torture methods such as this so called "film"? I love a bad movie as much as the next masochist, but "Cave Dwellers" is pushing it. It's seriously physically painful to watch. The plot is something about a dude name Ator - a buffed-up numbnuts whom I will refer to as Private Snowball for the rest of this review - who has to fight invisible warriors and rescue a princess in order to beat the bad guy who needs to find a better hair stylist. I might have gotten the plot wrong since it's been a while since I watched this excrement, but really, do you care that much? Oh yeah, Private Snowball also has a mute Asian sidekick (who hasn't?). Who's not funny.<br /><br />Anyway, Private Snowball fights invisible people, visits some caves, all in the name of a good king so personality-free he makes Al Gore look like Jim Carrey. Then Private Snowball builds a hang-glider (yes, I'm serious) and gets the girl. Yippie-kee-yay. It's cheap, unintentionally silly, and mind-numbingly dull. Why am I not surprised that the director ended up making porn?<br /><br />Bottom line: AVOID. Ator will steal a part of your life and you will have no funny "so-bad-they're-good" catchphrases to take with you from the experience. Bad Ator! BAD! Aak! *gags*
Why it's none other than Ator played hilariously bad by Miles O'Keefe. Surprisingly I had the misfortune of sitting through this turkey before Mystery Science Theater 3000 tore it to pieces. I highly recommend checking out the MST3K version since it's hilarious and one of their best episodes ever.<br /><br />The movie on it's own is basically the kind of typical B-movie crud that Italian film-makers were churning out in the early to mid 80's. This film was apparently made to cash in on the Conan craze, but it fails miserably on all counts.<br /><br />Keep an eye out for the scenes where Ator fights a giant rubber snake and also manages to make a complete hang-glider during a cutaway.<br /><br />"Thong, fish is ready!"<br /><br />rating: the movie itself-1 The MST3K version: 10
Like almost everyone else, I became aware of this turkey on Mystery Science Theater 3000. It easily ranks as one of my favorite MST3K episodes of all time. I really couldn't imagine attempting to watch this film on it's own though.........it's really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really bad.<br /><br />Miles O'Keeffe stars as Ator, a muscle-bound Fabio wannabe who lives during the time of cave men. We the viewer are asked to suspend our disbelief in that he knows alchemy and chemistry and can manage to build a complete hang-glider in about 5 minutes. Yeah, right! There's also a fairly attractive actress (can't remember her name) who wears a hub-cap as a chest shield. Oh, and I can't forget that wacky Asian side-kick Thong. He had the easiest role in the movie since he doesn't utter one word of dialogue throughout the entire movie. He had to figure out how to make his character interesting without talking.....and he failed miserably.<br /><br />The film isn't watchable in any way and should be only viewed in it's proper MST3K format. If you watch that version, you'll laugh yourself silly!<br /><br />"I'm HUGE!!!!"<br /><br />Rating:1
I saw this one on the late, late, late, late show back when MST3K was just a twinkle in Joel Hodgson's eye. I had the privilege of seeing it without knowing exactly how bad it would be. I didn't know that a woman with an arrow in her chest could run "to the ends of the earth" in about an hour and a half (thank God her father gave such specific directions) and then take days to make it back to the castle with help. I didn't know that a sword wielding barbarian-type could run into the forest and create a hanglider and flash powder bombs in under 30 seconds. I had no idea how disjointed a movie could be.<br /><br />It's a bad thing children, a very bad thing. If you enjoy bad movies, go for it.
Even MST3K couldn't make this painful, long, and ultimately mind-bending drek funny or entertaining. While most bad movies in and of themselves are hilariously bad, this one is one of those few videos that uses the word bad in its literal sense.<br /><br />The element that makes this so PAINFUL to watch is not the lack of story, but the fact that SOOOO much background is crammed into the first half-hour that it is utterly ridiculous and harder to follow than a highway while driving with no headlights.<br /><br />The hero of the film, Ator, is no more than eye-candy for this literal energy-sucker of a film. Dressed in a loin-cloth and sporting "pecs like melons," as Joel put it, he belongs more in a fitness magazine than here.<br /><br />I would recommend this ONLY to die-hard, and I mean die-hard followers of cheese. If you have an enemy, recommend them this film. If you make it through this, I commend you. You should be able to make it through anything.
The sequel that no one asked for to the movie no one wanted. There are obviously too many flaws with this movie to name here, so I'll just concentrate on the acting. Miles O'Keefe would have been better suited to play the spritely Asian sidekick Thong, mainly because he would then have no dialogue. Lisa Foster delivers her lines displaying one emotion, dullness. Charles Borremel brings life to his part by pausing every five words. And finally the flamboyant, John Saxon-type guy......no comment is needed.<br /><br />See "Conan the Barbarian" if you need to, but don't waste your time with this low-budget loser.
Cave Dwellers, or The Blade Mater, or whatever it's called, is in one word: VILE! I saw this on MST and I laughed not only at the great running commentary, but at the inept film making that was demonstrated. Sunglasses, tire tracks and where did Ator get a hang glider? Then they lift a few shots from another movie, Where Eagles Dare as Tom Servo points out. To show just how cheap this movie really is, watch the scene where Ator and Thong have to battle invisible swordsmen. Or even better, look for the giant hose dressed up like a snake that Ator must wrestle! And what exactly do those scenes in the credits have to do with the movie?
This movie has some of the worst production values and editing I've ever seen. There are several instances of actors pausing while trying to remember their lines, actors walking in front of actors who are talking, and one point where the film skips about seven frames. Not to mention the heroine getting shot in the chest, yet she starts limping! Oh, and what about the secret passageway that is well lit and right out in the open. Awful.<br /><br />The plot is non-existant, something to do with a primitive nuclear bomb and going to the ends of the Earth and some kind of caveman war. Ator pulls out a hang-glider at one point in the film's dumbest moment. The dialogue is stupid, containing such gems as "It is everything and nothing." and "I can feel it, here."<br /><br />The movie is a mess, a confusing, insipid mess. Ator is a bland hero, the sword fights are absurd, and the plot plods along slowly. All in all, this is a movie to avoid.
Miles O'keefe stars as Ator, a loin-clothed hero who resembles a Chippendale's dancer. The Conan-wannabe must do battle with an evil guy in a Cher wig, and protect the Earth from the Geometric Nucleus, a sort of primitive atomic bomb. Watch closely for visible sunglasses and tire-tracks. Mystery Science Theater 3000 made fun of it under the title CAVE DWELLERS.
I just read an extra long review on the front page of this movie on this site and he explained in full detail that this movie is only worth watching on the television show "Mystery Science Theater 3000!!!!!" And yes, I do find that advice really helpful! I mean, a movie that tries to be this good and this exciting just really is not what that movie wants to be!!!!! So yes, do watch this movie as seen on that show and instead of giving this movie a single star out of ten stars, you can give this a ten out of ten stars! Until then, my one star review is for the real, pure, untouched version of this movie only!!!!!! Got that now?
This movie's one redeemable quality (besides Ator's barely-there loincloth) is the hilarious acting on the part of the bad guy, Zor. This wonderfully overplayed villain has a certain...oh, Shakespearean presence that made this movie bearable (hence the 2). I just giggled every time he pirouetted, lifting an incredulous eyebrow to henchman or hero. A true example of someone not getting paid enough. (And that BEARD!)<br /><br />Now really, what was with the 12-minute hang-glider scene? Really, really, really bad. I can't emphasize that point enough.<br /><br />So, seriously, if you even deign to see this movie, watch the Mystery Science Theater 3000 version. With those dear silhouettes has many a horrendous movie been tolerated.
There's simply no redeeming quality about this film. OK, some of the costumes are OK, but they're nothing you can't see in, say, the Conan flicks. And what's up with Ator's hair? I can't believe this is part of a series! I will say one thing about this film: it was deemed bad enough for a righteous lampooning by the early cast of MST3K and I suggest to anyone that's curious enough to see how bad this film is to watch that version of the film for moral support if nothing else.
This movie was so bad it was funny! For awhile there I thought I was actually watching a parody of a bad movie (a la "For Your Consideration"). The "cliffhanger" scene at the end had me laughing until my insides hurt. The script was dreadful enough, but coupled with Sean Young's terrible acting -- especially while she explains the entire plot in great detail (complete with flashbacks) while dangling off a cliff -- makes it a truly classically bad movie worth watching! In fact the fakey shots in this scene reminded me of an Ed Wood movie. I still can't believe how this thing got made. First of all, how did such a bad script get the green light? How did star actors get attached? Were they at low points in their careers? Questions, questions.
It may be difficult to believe, but the basic plot of this abysmal flick has been lifted from Hitchcock's perennial classic, "Vertigo". To see Edward James Olmos in the part once played by James Stewart is heart-breaking; Sean Young is better, but still a poor substitute for Kim Novak.
This might not have been as horribly bad as it was if not for the absolutely awful acting job done by Raymond Wallace! This guy is so bad it wasn't even funny! His character was needed in the film, but why they chose this guy is beyond me. <br /><br />If you're looking for some quality Chinese films.....might I suggest "Raise the Red Lantern"...."The Story of Qui Ju"...."Red Sorghum"......<br /><br />Anything but this! I was surprised at how many people actually rated this highly! Really...the acting by this Wallace loser is so bad it overshadows the other good parts of this film. This was agreed upon by all 6 of us watching this movie last night!<br /><br />Stay Clear of this piece of garbage........
Thanks to silly horror movies like "Troll" and the indescribably atrocious cult-favorite "Troll 2", it has become practically impossible to take movies with kobolds, gnomes and various other types of little green hobgoblins seriously these days. Only just recently I watched the 70's made-for-TV movie "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark", which is basically a quite terrifying and serious-toned film about domestic little goblin monsters, and yet I still couldn't help thinking back about the laugh-inducing potato headed critters dressed in garbage bags that were running amok in "Troll 2". Same thing happened to me now. As much as I tried going into "Inhabited" with a clear mindset, unconsciously I kept comparing the supposedly creepy and menacing garden fairies with the badly sculptured goblins of Nilbog! Still, even without all the prejudices, "Inhabited" is a remotely entertaining albeit unmemorable straight-to-video horror flick. It's a cheesy, soft and politically correct pastiche of family drama and Northern Europe mythology. The annoying and murderous little creatures in this movie aren't your plain average goblins; they are "The Huldre": wicked little Norwegian demons that live underground and attempt to chase happy families out of their houses through influencing the youngest children. This overcomes the Russell family as they move into their ramshackle dream house in a remote little town. The cherubic blond daughter of MILF-actress Megan Gallagher starts to behave strangely whenever she hangs out in the cute play house in the back of the garden. She claims her friends are fairies, and even though the sinister handyman also warns for strange occurrences in the past, Gina's parents simply think the girl has troubles adjusting to her new neighborhood. When she keeps rattling about fairies, they arrange an appointment with the acclaimed psychologist Dr. Werner whilst "The Huldre" are slowly coming out of their botanical shelter. Not much special to mention here. The pace is acceptable and the attempts to build up suspense are pretty cute. You understand this is a family-friendly horror movie, so no bloody murder sequences are graphically being shown here. Heck, even the cadaver of the family's pet cat is kept off-screen. This is the umpteenth nonsensical horror movie in which Malcolm McDowell pops up and he practically always depicts an unreliable, greedy and self-centered authority figure.
*Spoilers herein* <br /><br />Where do I begin with just how silly this movie was? 'Mole sized people, living under the garden attacking residents of a big house'!!! When I first sat down to watch this movie I was unaware that the protagonists where not poltergeists etc but 10 inch high goblins that looked mighty easy to kick hard and far. I carried on watching it because I like to see movies through to the end even awful ones. this movie was terrible. My girlfriend, who went to sleep inside the first ten minutes, apart from finding it a good aid to sleep thought it was hilarious that I had bothered to watch it all.<br /><br />Tiny goblins even in large numbers (the thought is silly I know) are about as scary and menacing as flat cola. They only managed to trip one guy up 'fatally' and kill a cat before they were blown up, The End. I did mention it sucked right?
I bought this film from e-bay as part of a lot of about twenty horror flicks, all about a dollar a piece. When watching this, my first impression was that it probably was from the late 80s. Later on I began thinking - the Linkin Park posters on the wall and everything else seemed to hint that I was dealing with a more recent film. Realizing that, the flick became an unbearable torment. The last 3 minutes were the longest in the movie history - the film just refused to end. Is there a genre such as "horror for children"? In that case this film is definitely it. If there are parents, perverse enough to want to introduce their offspring to horror, I suggest this would be perfect for kids of about 6-8. The only thing I really liked was Greg Cipes who was much too good an actor for that kind of nostalgic retro bottom part of a drive-in double-bill.
Greetings;<br /><br />I never thought I would see the day when I would be so disgusted by A movie that it would be a burden to finish it... I was always a fan of horror movies, B'C and C's included. But in this case it's hard to describe how a movie could fail to qualify for any letters in that scale...<br /><br />The movie is centered on a poorly developed back story, a mix of folklore with an after taste. And to top it up, the performance of the actors is questionable. Horror B movies usually fall in two categories... 1) A gem that was under looked, and under funded 2) So bad it's funny, laugh or your money back. Well this movie falls in between. I wasn't scare, didn't laugh... So I guess if you really need to see it you could but I recommend you don't...
A friend of mine, who is even more into 1970s cult films than myself, recommended this one to me and in fact gave me the copy of it that I watched. However, I was not as enthusiastic about the result as he – or, for that matter, Michael Elliott – was. The film is a hybrid of HOUSE OF WAX (1953) and THE Texas CHAIN SAW MASSACRE (1974): indeed, I would venture to say that it served as the basis of the 2005 remake of the former much more than the 'original' did! So, we have a remote and derelict Wax Museum of incredibly lifelike dummies (guess why that is?) with its apparently harmless curator (a hammy Chuck Connors) being 'invaded' by the obligatory group of stranded teenagers (among them Tanya Roberts). He also has a mad brother – shades of PSYCHO (1960) incorporated for good measure, down to the self-same twist – who is supposed to be a mechanical genius (showcased in a 'poltergeist' which unaccountably accompanies the first murder). The film does benefit from a Pino Donaggio score but, being so derivative and not especially well made to boot, essentially ends up merely a redundant (and fairly muddled) genre effort.
This movie takes the plot behind the sci-fi flick "Doppelganger" (an astronaut from our Earth crashing on a 'counter-Earth' on the opposite side of the Sun, and the Cold War totalitarian vibes on that world) and tries to turn it into a pilot for a TV series. However, the whole thing sank without a trace, and TV is probably better off for it.<br /><br />Everyone here is perfectly adequate in a 'made for TV' way. Cameron Mitchell turns in his usual solid performance. So does Glenn Corbett (who seems to be a kind of poor man's John Saxon) who plays the rugged individualist whose very existence poses a threat to the foundation of the 'World Order' on counter Earth.<br /><br />But the low budget and low energy and inconsistent script and the lack of any real imagination in the set designs and cinematography keep this Sci-Fi adventure firmly tethered on the launch pad.<br /><br />I'll give one example: in the original template for this pilot, ("Doppleganger"), the astronauts lose control of their landing vehicle in a thunderstorm, and crash their ship in a truly appalling sequence (it was obvious that their ship was never going to fly again). Then the two astronauts stagger helplessly from the smoking remains of their vehicle in the middle of howling rains and winds, only to be smacked down and overcome by faceless men yelling through loudspeakers.<br /><br />In "Stranded in Space", the astronauts are sitting in their seats when buzzers sound, things start shaking, and the camera blurs into a blackout (and as a friend pointed out, it was pretty obvious that the actors were simply shaking themselves on their seats, the director wasn't even shaking the camera or the set). I've seen episodes of "The Twilight Zone" and "The Outer Limits" that took more effort to establish mood and setting than this made-for-TV mediocrity.<br /><br />And that, in essence, is what's wrong with "Stranded In Space". No budget, no time, no imagination...just making the token gestures and hoping the sci-fi Fan Boys' imagination and enthusiasm will fill in the rest. Sorry, guys, it didn't work. <br /><br />I'm sure that everyone here just finished their work on this one and walked away, and never thought of it again, except as a listing on their C.V. And that's what you, the viewer will do. You'll remember, if pressed, that you once watched a TV movie called "Stranded In Space", but it made no lasting impression on you, and you can't recall too much about it.
A malfunction in space sends astronaut Neil Stryker (Glenn Corbett) off course and headed to something of a parallel world, called Terra, circling the sun exactly opposite Earth. As a being from space would pose a threat to this world's order, Stryker is held until a determination can be made as to exactly what to do with him. Stryker, however, gets suspicious of his surroundings and escapes. With the help of a sympathetic nurse and a old scientist who opposes the government, Stryker will try to board a spaceship and head back to Earth.<br /><br />Stranded in Space (or The Stranger if you prefer) is another of those 70s made-for-TV movies that was to be turned into a regular, weekly show. In this case, it's easy to see why it didn't make it. First off, there's nothing new about the show's set-up. It was undoubtedly designed to follow the same formula used by The Fugitive or The Incredible Hulk or Planet of the Apes. You know, a stranger constantly on the move going from one town to the next taking whatever odd job he can all the while being pursued by a government agency or newspaper reporter. It's a formula that's been done to death. The second strike against Stranded in Space is its lead, Glenn Corbett. Could this guy come across any less likable? I was rooting for him to get caught. Without sympathy for the main character, this kind of show would never work. Finally, this is supposed to be science fiction. Just because everyone is left-handed and someone has hung three fake looking moons on the horizon I'm supposed to jump to the conclusion that this is some distant planet? So it's a mere coincidence that they all speak English, dress just like people on Earth, and drive Plymouth Furies? Yeah, right.<br /><br />The lone highlight for me was the inclusion of Cameron Mitchell in the cast. Sure, it's difficult to watch him in something this dreadful, but you know the old saying - any Cameron is better than no Cameron (yeah, I've never heard it either).<br /><br />As with a lot of these 70s made-for-TV movies, I watched Stranded in Space courtesy of Mystery Science Theater 3000. I wouldn't call it a great episode by any stretch of the imagination, but there are a few good jokes along the way. So in the end, while I rate the movie a 2/10, it gets a 3/5 on my MST3K rating scale.
Stranded in Space (1972) MST3K version - a very not good TV movie pilot, for a never to be made series, in which an astronaut finds himself trapped on Earth's evil twin. Having a planet of identical size and mass orbiting in the same plane as the earth, but on the opposite side of the sun, is a well worn SF chestnut - the idea is over 2,000 years old, having been invented by the Ancient Greeks. In this version the Counter World is run as an Orwellian 'perfect' society. Where, for totally inexplicable reasons, everyone speaks English and drives late model American cars. After escaping from his prisonlike hospital, the disruptive Earthian is chased around Not Southern California by TV and bad movie stalwart Cameron Mitchell who, like his minions, wears double breasted suits and black polo neck jumpers - a stylishly evil combination which I fully intend to adopt if ever I become a totalitarian overlord. Our hero escapes several times before ending up gazing at the alien world's three moons and wondering aloud if he will ever get home - thus setting up one of those Man Alone in a Hostile World Making a new Friend Each Week but Moving on at the End of Every Episode shows so beloved of the industry in the 70s and 80s ('The Fugitive', 'The Incredible Hulk', 'The Littlest Hobo' etc.) The curiously weirdest bit though was the title sequence. Somewhere between 'Stranded in Space' first airing (under the title 'The Stranger') in 1972 and the MST3K version in 1991 it somehow acquired some footage from the 1983 movie 'Prisoners of the Lost Universe'. So in 1991 the opening credits for 'Stranded in Space' run under a few shots of three people falling into a matter transmitter and vanishing. It's a sequence that has nothing to do - even thematically - with anything that is going to follow.<br /><br />Just to add to the nerdy B movie confusion, one of the actors in this nailed on footage, Kay Lenz, later appeared in a 1994 movie called 'Trapped in Space'. Knowing this fact could never save your life but it might score you very big points and admiring looks from fellow trash movie enthusiasts - if you could ever work out a way of manoeuvring the conversation round to the point where you could casually slip it in without looking like a total idiot...
The storyline of "The Stranger" mirrors somewhat the 1969 film "Journey to the Far Side of the Sun" (made by Gerry & Sylvia Anderson of 'Thunderbirds' and 'Space: 1999' fame). A parallel-universe Earth is the premise of both films. But there is a difference. Where the world in "The Stranger" features a totalitarian regime out to squash the freedom of the citizenry, "Journey to the Far Side of the Sun" merely showed a true mirror world where handwriting, roads, houses, machinery of every kind, and of course internal organs were all in reverse (or mirrored) order. So, the similarity of parallel Earths is the only connection of both films.<br /><br />Similarly, the TV series "Land of the Giants" came before both of those films, having run from 1968 to 1970. It featured a world that was nearly parallel to the Earth with the exception that the planet was populated by giants 12 times the size of the humans who crash-landed there. The idea of a totalitarian government out to capture and contain the 'little people' was similar to the premise of "The Stranger" more-so than the premise of "JTTFSOTS". Perhaps because of the similarly to "LOTG", a series to "The Stranger" was shelved. Had it turned into a TV series it would have been a sci-fi version of "The Fugitive," with star Glenn Corbett being chased by the baddies from week to week, hiding out in different locations, etc. BTW, a stronger script could have helped this film along.
I'll start by confessing that I tend to really enjoy action movies (military or other). I'm a guy. But this dreck was awful. I saw it for free, showtime or hbo and still feel I paid too much. It was a prolonged episode of general hospital. <br /><br />I gave it a 1, only because 0 or 0.1 was not possible. How or why 59 others would give it a rating of between 5 and 6 boggles my mind. Unless they are all family of the cast or crew. <br /><br />It might be, this movie was so bad many bailed out.......and as such, were too uninvested to bother.<br /><br />I'm sorry for repeating but the 10 line minimum seems silly, for what essentially boils down to a warning.........in hopes of saving others the 2 hr black hole, this movie represents. Trust me, stare at a blank wall, they'll be more action.
It is so bad, I can not tear myself away. I keep asking myself, "Why?" "Why?" with every scene.<br /><br />There is no continuity, but then again if you want to make a very overtly homosexual movie with a fetishistic attitude towards all things Big, Big boats, Big Boys, Big planes, then you don't have to worry about things like plot or character. I am baffled, and very concerned that the CAG looks so much like Richard Pryor. It seems wrong to put a Pryor look alike in such a terrible movie. But I can't tear myself away. This movie is the first movie I've ever reviewed. That is how phenomenally bad and bizarre it is. It motivated me to join this site. I have counted 50 main characters. Perhaps if I was stoned I could follow this, but as it is, I feel like I'm in some kind of never ending bad dream, where it is always 1988, and we were the greatest cocktry on earth.
Not only have I read the book and watched the movie, but I was stationed on the USS John F Kennedy when they filmed this. Needless to say, Film crews and actors can be trying to people trying to do their jobs. Now, about the movie. As a career Navy man, I was pretty upset on how they showed life on board an Aircraft Carrier. I could pick apart the inaccuracies throughout the movie (anyone that has lived on a carrier could), but that would take pages. One scene that stands out in particular was when they were in the CIC (Combat Information Center) and they were watching a RADAR contact move across the screen. Each time the contact moved, it beeped. Unfortunately, that equipment doesn't beep like that (I was a technician on that equipment). The book was based upon fact, the movie wasn't. The follow on TV series was just as bad and the Navy finally realized that support for this series would just make them look bad. If you're a Navy person, watch this to see how a movie about carrier life is seen from the eyes of Hollywood. If your not a Navy person, watch Midway or Top Gun, at least those movies are entertaining and based upon fact.
The horror of this made for TV film was that it didn't end with this one. It spawned a regular weekly series that was even worse than the pilot/movie. Most films about various professions have some type of realism to them and of course are jazzed up to make it exciting. This had none of that. If the intent was to make in "Camp" then it succeeded. It resurfaced on cable a couple of years ago and failed again. Richard Jaeckels performance as the Master Chief who does it all was the only redeeming part of this film. Campier than the Batman series of the 60's.
I hoped for this show to be somewhat realistic. It stroke me as just another mainstream show after I watched it. I didn't feel the characters at all, is this Americas glamorized idea of how terrorism operates? The main character doesn't act like a fundamentalist at all, and how he passes for a terrorist is beyond my comprehension. Neither of the other terrorists managed to appear genuine. One of the members, a blonde all-American white boy, would never be accepted by Muslim terrorists in real life. Another member, a french ex-skinhead, doesn't quite fit in an Islamic terror movement. On top of this the terrorists have sexual relations to white American housewives, which I find very strange. This is just another stupid misguiding American TV show. It is about just as realistic as Prison Break.
Very dull show. Whats worse, its very racist. The white guys are dumb idiots and the only romance is between a black guy and a white woman. There is nothing interesting about this romance, it is not exciting, it is not fun, they don't even seem to care for each other at all, its more like the writers and directors wanted an interracial thing going on. Why this is so popular in media today? It is social programming and will lead to no good, there is always tension when too many people want the same thing. This show is not worth the 20 bucks for the season, its a waste of time and harmful to society. At least when they use TV shows to sell products they are more discreet, selling whatever agenda here is quite obvious, and without clear thinking some may feel wrong to oppose it, but some of us know better.
Yeah, there's a "sleeper" watching Sleeper Cell and it was me. After reading comparisons to "24" (like on the cover of the DVD), I expected a fast-paced action romp. But nope... this series just putts along. In my groggy half-awake state I would think, "He's gonna... " and, poof, it would happen... "Guess that van is gonna roll off the... " and there she goes.<br /><br />And so on.<br /><br />And why would Darwyn, in extra-deep cover, pursue a babe? Could it be, perhaps, to provide a little T&A? Hey, that works for me, hence four stars rather than three.<br /><br />This show is no "24". I've watched "24". Sleeper Cell, you're no "24".
I thought sleeper cell was interesting, and exciting to watch, up until the last episode, when nothing happens, its F****** BS, you Americans portray Muslims as terrorists, and the Americans as hero's, its the other way around, i hate it when every American TV show ends up predictable, i was hoping the bombs would go off in that stadium, but i knew it would'nt, it takes the joy out of watching it when you know that the good guys are going to save the day, yet again, Americans are the biggest terrorists, g bush the leader of them all, he is to blame for 9/11, and I'm P***** off that you keep throwing these shows at us, which are all the f****** same! i've a good show about terrorism, its called " The Whitehorse" and bush himself the cell leader, its the same with 24, how ever 24 was good, sleeper cell is a mock and should never make a season 2, its F***** joke! and so are you American producers.
I've been looking forward to watching "Wirey Spindell" since having happened across Schaffer's "Fall". Unfortunately, I found "WS" to be a wandering, unengaging, boring bunch of claptrap pieced together with, what apparently is Schaeffer's signature, a mix of story, narration, and poetry. The film recounts the sexual and other experiences of a Manhattan man about to be married through self-narrated flashbacks. Like beads on a string, Schaffer apparently has strung together every little sexual life experience, while neglecting to tend to the beauty of the necklace. The result is a disjointed rambling story about a boy growing up which fails to engender empathy and leaves the viewer disconnected, unsatisfied, and with a bad after taste which taints the mechanical feel-good ending. A mediocre indie and a step backward for Schaeffer.
Seeing as how I am a big fan of both "Fall" and "If Lucy Fell", I came to "Wirey Spindell" with high expectations. I am not sure I could have been more disappointed. This had it all, weak dialogue, weak performances... you name it I was let down. Oh well, better luck next time Eric.
This is supposed to be the story of the life of a man named Wirey Spindell from age 8 through to 36 told in narrative by the character at each age point in his life. So for example, when he's eight, it's the eight year old's voice that is doing the narration; when he's in junior high, it's that one doing the narration, etc. That's about the only interesting thing about this movie. It looks like each actor playing Wirey is a separate character. Not only do they not look alike, their life experiences don't seem to match up.<br /><br />Avoid this movie like a bad cold.
I usually can tolerate twisted movies, but this one is really a sick obsessive self-absorbed movie!<br /><br />Firstly, the writer/director is totally a self-absorbed guy full of sick jokes that are not funny at all. Secondly, he is also a sick pervert who manipulates and poisons children's mind! I can't believe my ears when I heard the sick and perverted monologues spoken by the kids!<br /><br />I really feel sorry for Zane Adlum and Devon Matthews. They are both very talented, but fell prey to Eric Schaeffer's dirty little-known movie!<br /><br />And what the hell happened to Eric Mabius' good looking face? I mean, he met this girl that he's supposed to marry, but he wasn't in the wedding! In fact there is this bald guy in his place! Did time really fly that fast?<br /><br />Anyway, don't waste your time to see this movie, unless you want to be poisoned and manipulated by one sick Eric Schaeffer!
Alright, so not every Australian movie is all that good. Yes, maybe there have actually been very few with much merit. Take Away however is an absolute bomb, qualifying as one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I wanted to like it. I figured I'd give it a fair go. I've even met one of the screen writers Dave O'neil so I feel kind of a traitor giving this movie a bad review, but... The plot is fairly thin (I won't bother relating it... read the synopsis), which I can forgive: there are plenty of movies that can cover that up with a few decent jokes. Unfortunately, Take Away's jokes cover its plot up like a $2 prostitute's skirt. Probably the only laughs that came from the 6 other people in the cinema was at the poor acting and dialogue. Take Away goes down like a week old Dim sim ... You might understand that joke if you see the film but the joke's not worth it.
Someone told me that Pink Flamingos was, in a word, "insane". Now I'm doubting whether this guy actually ever saw it, because that isn't the way I would summarize it in one word. Disgusting, absurd, um, more disgusting...would do it. Every time you think it can't get any more filthy, it does. One of my particular "favorites" was when Divine had her birthday party and when the cops came to bust it up, they were butchered and eaten by the guests. I admit that it's one of those movies where it's so grotesque you simply can't look away, but this is by no means a creative work of art. It's pure shock value.<br /><br />On the upside, it makes the Jackass guys look like a bunch of pussies.
if i could rate it a zero i would , coming from someone who likes shock/exploitation films of the time and Waters overall i must say this is useless.<br /><br />It does nothing , serves nothing , an idiot with a camera and a urge to prove his cleverness by rebeling against social standards is all this comes off as.<br /><br />Its entirely amateur , both in principle and execution , it doesn't have a point , its digusting for the sake of disgusting ,obscene with the wit of a neanderthal , its useless.<br /><br />Someone said Waters was probably "chuckling" over all the bad press and disgust others gave with this film , but why? If i made a short film depicting a man in a bathroom taking a sh*t for ten minutes straight surely it would receive the same accomidations but why would i be proud or "chuckle" at that? <br /><br />Would it be because i am so unintelligent that i have to resort to this so i can say "HA! Take that censors and mainstream! Im so rebellious ill do whatever i want and film it!" No.<br /><br />Waters shouldn't be proud of this mess , fans of waters shouldn't watch it , its useless , that is , without any use.<br /><br />Its doesn't even fit under the criteria of art for arts sake.<br /><br />To like or defend this movie is to defend something that was designed purposely as being anti-culture to be pushed for the mainstream audience , in modern terms this film is the Hot Topic of films.<br /><br />Useless and Obsolete. A Poser film that demands it be acknowledged as rebellion .
I have seen most of John Waters' films. With the exception of several of his very early ones which are not available, I have actually seen just about all of them, so it's obvious I am a big fan and it's certain that I have a high tolerance for the gross and irreverent in his films. While way over the top and disgusting, I adored FEMALE TROUBLE and POLYESTER--two monumental tributes to bad taste and excess that are seriously funny films. So I am certainly NOT squeamish and can take most of what Waters has to offer. However, in PINK FLAMINGOS he has created a film so repellent, so unfunny and so offensive that I couldn't even stand it. In his other films he made before he became more mainstream, they were funny. Yet here, the humor just isn't there as it seems the intent is to shock the viewers and not entertain them in any way. I am glad that after making this film, Waters' sense of humor improved, as Divine consuming dog feces (as in this film) is shocking but not the least bit entertaining. My advice is to skip this film and just pretend it never happened and then watch his infinitely better films of the 70s and 80s.
I guess I was prepared after all the years of hearing about it. First heard about it from Siskel and Ebert. When they said Divine ate excrement, I had to look it up. Then a friend told me about it in 1991. She said also that her parents saw it when it first came out and that her mom almost dumped her dad over it! So by the time I caught Pink Flamingos on Sundance today, I was prepared. For the most part.<br /><br />I still couldn't help but be surprised by the anal close-ups and the blowjob scene. That said, the only characters I sympathized with were Edie and the egg man. Her crying scene early in the film, though over something frivolous to normal people, actually makes me sad. Though she sure wasn't pretty, she had a cute voice. I was happy for her and the egg man, and they actually touched me.<br /><br />On the other hand, the acting in this poverty-level production was not good. And as for the script, just how does John Waters come up with this stuff? Well, at least it's different.
The only reason I haven't given this film an awful rating is because I feel that it was such an awful film in every aspect that it deserves at the very least a 2/10; for not trying. <br /><br />The plot is the least of your worries as you are slapped in the face with over the top language and scenes like 'the singing arse-hole' in a poor attempt to shock and disgust. Seen as the main aim of this film is to shock and the main body of it didn't achieve this, the final scene disgustingly manages to erase the memory of this shockingly pointless film and fulfil its aim to be the most filthy film ever.<br /><br />A really low budget film, awfully acted and the dialogue is shockingly bad.<br /><br />I give it 0/10 really !!!
After seeing Forever Hollywood, it would be natural to want to see a John Waters film. At least, one get to say that they have joined the legions of cinema cognoscenti who have experienced the unique cinematic stylings of perhaps the best known non-mainstream director. It's worth the effort, and PF is a lot better than Eraserhead,and there is a certain campiness about his films which his followers find addicting.
This movie was playing on Lifetime Movie Network last month and I decided to check it out. I watched for the first 20 minutes and then shut it off b/c I am sorry but plot holes that are integral to a movie's plot make the movie nothing but garbage.<br /><br />The movie is about a woman who accidentally runs a child on a bicycle off the road, leaves to get help, returns only to find out that it's being called a hit and run and there's a hunt for the 'monster' that hurt (in the end killed) her.<br /><br />This is a movie about a female in an affluent neighborhood who has 2 small grade school children and who is an active, sociable woman and yet in order for this movie to work, it needs to be believable that she does not own a CELL PHONE. Sorry, but that's complete BS especially when everyone else seems to have one - they used theirs to call 911 when they found the girl lying on the side of the road - when our lead female left the scene of the crime to go phone 911 at some payphone. When the lead female comes back, the ambulance is already at the girl's side and there is chatter about how horrible the person is who hit and left her.<br /><br />Just DUMB. Sorry but I am not willing buy that this woman doesn't own a cell phone which is needed for the movie to work. Please don't insult my intelligence movie, thanks. Maybe if this took place in 1970 or 1960, I'd buy it but it's clearly a present day (1999 at the time) movie. ..but wait, if she had a cell phone, there would be no movie. Pfft.<br /><br />The woman clearly knows about technology since she had computers in her house, ones the kids played games on so all the movie had to do was make her cell phone dead in the car, making her resort to another way to call the cops.. leaving out a cell phone altogether just created a ridiculous plot.
Thomas Vinterbergs "De Største Helte" is yet another road movie without the most important element of a film: a good story. The characters are not very original and not particularly interesting. Especially Thomas Bo Larsen is a pain in the neck, playing the same role he has played in the past few years and which he repeated in "Festen" - it seems as if he thinks acting = being angry and screaming at other people! The film doesn't make much too sense and isn't very funny either - although it tries hard to be "kooky" and "weird". If you're going to make a road movie, why not add something original to the genre?!
The DEA agent's name, Anslinger, is a nice inside joke - this is the name of the former drug czar who almost single-handedly made marijuana illegal.<br /><br />Despite this bit of book knowledge, the writers go on to have the farmers harvesting and selling fresh undried leaf, rather than cured buds.<br /><br />Additionally, I always find it amusing that movie makers never seem to be able to find real marijuana plants for filming. You would think there would be a business that would make real looking fake ones for the movie business or maybe they could film a couple of scenes in Amsterdam or Switzerland. I suppose that's asking too much for the budget.<br /><br />Probably the most interesting thing about the film is the attempt to cover the notion of exactly what is right and what is wrong in society and how the law treads that line and yet tries to do justice in spite of it.<br /><br />
(Spoilers) "Cash Crop" goes something like this. Down-on-their-luck farmers grow pot to make ends meet. DEA agent blows into town. Farmers hide the pot. DEA agent leaves town. End of story.<br /><br />This flick features solid performances by some second tier actors, mediocre direction, and a so-so screenplay...but it ain't got no story. And since the story is the foundation of every drama, "Cash Crop" is an utter failure. Too boring to recommend.
I caught this on Cinemax very late at night...nothing else was on so I pretty much had no choice. Bottom line, terrible plot, slow, waste of good film and actors' time. To make it short, don't even bother with this one. It's too bad we can't give zeros as a rating; this one really is not worth even a consideration!!!
This is the dreary tale of the self absorbed affair between two unlikable people, one of whom is married to someone else. It ranks high on my list of most boring movies ever, and I'm a die hard romantic. My husband opted out after the first hour of its three, by which time little had transpired. The desert scenery is spectacular, with the endless sand and the sunshine on Katharine's golden hair. However, cinematography does not a brilliant film make, unless it's a National Geographic travelogue. The magnificent Saharan scenery in this ill conceived tale is like putting perfume on a pig.<br /><br />The movie revolves around a badly burned, dying pilot named Count Laszlo de Almasy, who is left in the care of a Canadian army nurse, Hana, during World War II Italy. He appears to remember little of his life but through a book in his possession, his story is VERY SLOWLY revealed, with the help of a man from his past named Caravaggio, who mysteriously appears at his deathbed. Almasy was a Hungarian cartographer employed by the Royal Geographical Society to chart the Sahara Desert. He entered into an affair with the wife, Katherine, of a fellow explorer who proved to be a British spy. Meanwhile in the present, Laszlo's nurse has her own affair with a Sikh nicknamed Kip, who is involved in the dangerous work of disarming mines.<br /><br />My quarrels with this movie are many, length and tedium for starters. I don't fault the acting in particular, it simply isn't a good story. Caravaggio seems unnecessary, his connection to Almasy sketchy. He provides a torture scene but appears to serve no essential purpose in the film.<br /><br />The core problem is that the two parties of this affair, Almasy and Katharine, are woefully unsympathetic characters, shallow and dull. They simply aren't very nice, thus there is no one to cheer for. Almasy is cool, aloof, haughty, and eventually disgustingly possessive of another man's wife. Katharine is likewise detached and nasty, not to mention having a deplorable lack of guilt or feeling whatsoever for her imperfect but loving husband...apart from managing one minuscule tear at the corner of her eye when he dies. <br /><br />This is a tale of LUST rather than love, with such pearls as 'I can still taste you'. Almasy ridiculously vocalizes to a colleague his erotic obsession with the indentation in his beloved's neck, surely more indicative of a focus on Katharine's body. The victim of this unrepentant adultery is the hapless husband, Geoffrey, who is treated as little more than an unpleasant nuisance. It's all quite sordid and disgusting, Katharine's charade of feeling faint so that these lovers can indulge in their much vaunted unbridled passion, all as Silent Night is being sung in the background. I'm not sure whether the intent was to contrast the carol's purity with their selfish lust, but I definitely was not impressed by the sacrilegious undertone. We have full frontal nudity with Katharine, but their sex scenes come across as cold, selfish, lustful, and sometimes downright hateful...not warm, loving, giving, nor even truly passionate. If either of these two feels any emotion for the other, it is a totally selfish one and definitely NOT love, as I define the word.<br /><br />Almasy's return to the Cave of the Swimmers to retrieve the body of his beloved comes across as contrived rather than moving. Katharine must have expired only moments earlier as she shows excellent colour and barely appears dozing, not at all corpse like. Of course this is all for dramatic effect, as the romantics watching this tale (normally I'd be one of them) would not appreciate a decaying, putrid corpse. In order to retrieve his adulterous lover's body, he has betrayed his comrades & the Allies by giving his maps to the Nazis, the English being cast as the villains of the piece. Regardless of whether or not he's keeping his final promise to Katharine, his traitorous act is not something I admire much. <br /><br />Kip seems a pleasant fellow and Hana generally likable, but their romance is not in the least engaging, merely a brief wartime fling with the parties indicating little trauma upon parting. Moving back and forth between the two settings (past Sahara Desert and present Italy) proved distracting and unpleasant but really, both stories were dull as dishwater. The only spark of interest in the whole picture was Kip's tense mine disarming scene.<br /><br />Not being totally heartless, I did have some sympathy for the current Almasy's severely burned and dying state. However, perhaps my major complaint with this film is the euthanasia at the end when Hana obliges her patient by giving him a morphine overdose. We are supposed to feel that this is justified and morally acceptable because she obviously has affection for Almasy, cries while she is preparing the deadly syringe, and reads aloud from his allegedly passionate Herodotus book to console him as he's dying. <br /><br />The amazing director David Lean's masterpieces should not be insulted by comparison with this pathetic, immoral tale. Yes, Lawrence of Arabia also has a desert, but in Lean films (Doctor Zhivago, Brief Encounter), those engaging in affairs are sympathetic characters exhibiting admirable restraint, guilt, and some regard for the betrayed spouse, as opposed to the total self absorption of this pair. In Ryan's Daughter, the cuckold husband displays touching loyalty and forgiveness. <br /><br />This movie is a supposedly intellectual, enormously over rated bit of boring and disgusting drivel that unfortunately passes itself off as a great love story. Its Best Picture Oscar does not speak well for the Academy. For those who wonder why people are so hard on this movie, the answer is simple. It's awful.
I am not surprised to find user comments for this film full of gushy nonsense, such as that this film "[proves] that when it is predestined, love will find a way." I begin in this way, not to criticize a specific reviewer, but because this citation so typifies the hyperbolic, uncritical treacle that was poured out over this film, even before it hit the theaters. Even the best of films do not "prove" anything, nor are they intended to. The best films entertain and move the viewer, and "The English Patient" fails on both criteria.<br /><br />I remember the studio's promotion of "The English Patient" very clearly: "From the producers of 'Amadeus' and 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest,'" it grandly announced. An ignorant or careless listener might miss the crucial word, "producers," in this disingenuous statement and mistakenly associate the director of "The English Patient," so very inappropriately, with the truly great director, Milos Forman. Such a comparison is offensive to the memory of Mr. Forman.<br /><br />While the novel by Michael Ondaatje upon which the film was based, is a good one, it is unfortunate that the film failed to capture any quality of the book in any way whatsoever. Aside from plot elements that seem only coincidentally similar, the film bears little resemblance to the novel.<br /><br />Despite misgivings which began when I heard that shamelessly misleading promotion, I went to see this film in the theater. As it began to unfold, I realized that the rendering of the novel's peculiar magic had failed, that the actors knew their words but not their characters, and that their characters were flat, dull, and unengaging. The film was a complete travesty of Ondaatje's novel and a completely still-born cinematic artifact of the worst description.<br /><br />Those who gush over this film are very apt to speak with adjectives like, "sweeping," and "grand," and "hypnotic." Well, it is none of those. In fact, not even Ondaatje's fine novel could be described as "sweeping" or "grand." It could be described as "magical" and "hypnotic" -- yet these are precisely the qualities that the film so utterly failed to deliver. It is almost as if Minghella had, as a reader, entirely missed what was valuable in the novel and could grind out on celluloid only a pale, skeletal version, a version that not only missed the spirit of the story, but that focused on the wrong characters. He produced a filmic transliteration that not only had no respect for story's metaphors but no apparent cognizance of them, as well.<br /><br />Minghella took the central focus away from Hana and Kip and put it on the Patient and Katherine Clifton, thereby missing the narrative trail of the novel as well as the "essence" of it.<br /><br />Ralph Fiennes and Kristen Scott Thomas put in unengaging, uninspiring, uninvolving, unemotional performances that were obviously intended to convey a great, driving, passionate love-affair to the viewer, but which in fact delivered only an inexplicable, perfunctory liaison between two flat, shallow, uninteresting adulterers. Both actors are physically and emotionally inadequate and unexciting, and neither performance provided the viewer with the great emotional response obviously intended by Minghella's grandiose and overblown presentation.<br /><br />The "grand, sweeping, David-Lean-like" qualities to which the many undiscriminating reviewers of this goofy film love to refer simply is not there. The comparison to David Lean ("Dr. Zhivago") is positively insulting to yet another great director. Take, for example, the "Patient's" sandstorm scene, which is no doubt one wherein these "grand, sweeping" qualities are believed to have resided (or should have resided): the sandstorm is not grand -- it is not even convincing. The subsequent burying of the characters in the automobile and their emergence after the storm, which no doubt was supposed to affect the viewer dramatically and emotionally, completely lacked either drama or emotion --in fact, because it was so patently weak, it had an air of comedy about it where comedy was clearly out of place.<br /><br />This film failed. It failed as a rendering of the novel, and it failed as a film. It seems to have been the "anointed Oscar vehicle" of the year (joining such over-trumpeted filmic slosh as "Kramer vs. Kramer" or "Terms of Endearment"). One can only thank God that even the hype-driven Acadamy<br /><br />had the good sense to present the Best Actress award to Frances McDormand for her truly deserving performance in the truly excellent film, "Fargo." There was not a single performance in the execrable "English Patient" that was not either embarrassingly horrid over-acting (Willem Dafoe) or truly forgettable, mediocre acting (Fiennes and Scott Thomas).<br /><br />Why this non-entity of a film retains a coven of fanatical (and clearly tasteless) devotees will remain a mystery. Fortunately, the sands of time will bury this mediocrity of a film permanently, and it will not, thankfully, have the strength ever to dig itself out.
OK, what was this story about again? I am afraid that I never read the book and frankly, this was one of the most confusing movies that I have ever tried to watch in a long time. I get a bit confused on the number of flashbacks between the nurse, the patient and the man with no thumbs. The film didn't even really explain what they were looking for in the desert until they found it; or even how in the world they all knew each other to come together.<br /><br />After recently seeing the "Pride and Prejudice" movie with Colin Firth, I have been trying to do a study on his film career by watching other movies of his, and bluntly, other than "What a Girl Wants" I am not finding much where he played in that was any good. I am definitely not saying that HE wasn't good. He is really one of the best actors I have seen in the modern day film, but the content and quality of the films he plays in have a lot to be desired.<br /><br />"The English Patient" is another perfect example of where the director, writer, and crew are just too close to their subject matter to see that the viewer is not getting the picture – literally. The entire movie seemed to be to showcase Ralph Fiennes as a dramatic actor with long periods of emoting that was a bore. Nothing is really explained and every one of the subjects from the beginning seems to need a psychoanalyst evaluation! <br /><br />Kristin Scott Thomas' character seems to enjoy describing erotic stories standing in front of a totally male audience and titillating other men other than her husband; Colin Firth, who plays her husband, does not necessarily have all his marbles in place and is supposed to be a secret agent – I guess; and Ralph Fiennes walks around like a Roman Mr. Darcy (sorry, Colin!) who thinks he knows it all. The rest of the cast is cast (pun intended) to the four winds as the plot wanders on.<br /><br />The subplot of the mental stability of the nurse (Juliette Binoche) and her motives and involvement with Naveen Andrews is another confusing element that leaves the viewer with an unsavory taste. But of course, the viewer is still reeling how in the world the first two characters (Thomas and Fiennes) ended up having sex the first time anyway. What was the attraction? There was no chemistry and no build-up. Just a slap, bam, thank you! <br /><br />And isn't it romantic that Fiennes ended up a traitor helping the Germans by giving them maps to the desert? (sarcasm) <br /><br />To describe this movie, I would have to simply say, "How to impress your gynecologist with your mammograms and cheat on your sweet, adorable husband who loves you." <br /><br />The final unbelievable section of this plot is to fathom how anyone would choose Ralph Fiennes over Colin Firth. Firth had very little opportunity to demonstrate any of his acting talents – in fact, when watching the movie, I thought it must have been one of his first. The scene where he had been waiting for his wife all night was perhaps the only two second clip that is worth seeing in the movie. At that, I have no interest in watching it again.<br /><br />The best scene I liked was the plane crash where Firth is trying to take them all out. Too bad he missed! It would have saved an extra twenty minutes of even more fruitless film. Aerial desert scenes were pretty neat, though.
It is beyond me why two million Danish people each week sit down to watch this terrible show. The dialogue is terrible and not realistic. The characters are hollow and simplistic. There's a tough man, a tough woman and a sensitive man. The writers actually say that they have modeled the characters after Greek mythology! Give me a break! All the characters are of course brilliant policemen. When I have watched this show I have longed for "District Hill Street" and "NYPD Blue". These are brilliant shows, and "Rejseholdet" is a lousy copy. This program is a symptom of the disease Danish television is currently suffering from.
Wings Hauser and son, Cole Hauser team up to make a film about Neo-nazi thugs targeting a gay man, and terrorising a city. Wings plays the hero, and his real-life son is the villain. Fairly low-budget film that has not many redeeming features, and for some reason, no one has seen it! Perhaps because it is quite a laughable and ridiculous film, and the studio realised this! Maybe Wings Hauser himself prevented the distribution of 'Skins', after seeing it himself! Maybe people just didn't want to comment on such a bad film! Oh well! I generally like Wings and Cole as actors, but this was a film that they both should have skipped. Wings directed, wrote and was the lead actor in 'Skins'! An extremely bad and stupid film! 1/2 out of *****!
I watched this film awhile ago and the only thing i can remember about the film is how absolutely horribly outstandingly bad it was its definitely in my top 5 worst films i have ever seen.And to think i had to persuade my mates to get this film out at the video shop,my reputation has been shot to bits because of this film will my mates ever trust me again?i doubt it,they always say don't judge something by its cover,they were right when i saw the cover to skins/gang boys i thought wow this looks great as it had a load of skin heads on the front cover running riot with metal bars.Don't WATCH THIS FILM.i can't think of anything else to say the acting is bad the story is bad its just bad.
I am a big fan of The ABC Movies of the Week genre. I am only 27, meaning I wasn't even born until after the series ended, but I am trying to collect as many of them on DVD as possible. I have about a dozen or so. I had read such wonderful things about this film, both on here and elsewhere, that I was really excited to see it. I just received my DVD in the mail today and watched it anxiously. I'll admit that the first one or two phone calls did give me the creeps - that boy's voice would give anyone the creeps! But it began to ware off fast and the entire divorce subplot was stupid. I also figured out that Michael Douglas was the antagonist about a half an hour before the movie ended. As soon as that story was told about how Elizabeth Ashley's character had locked up his mother, I knew something was fishy. Plus, didn't anyone ever think to ask him why he happened to suddenly appear that night when the fire occurred in the barn? I'll admit that I thought he was coaching a boy at the school to make the phone calls. I didn't guess the mute boy part or the pre-recorded tapes (did they ever say whose voice that actually was? I doubt Douglas could ever get his voice that high?).<br /><br />I am only giving this movie a four out of ten because I actually liked most of the acting in it. Ashley especially is great.<br /><br />It's a shame, because this movie has such a great premise, but oh well, thats what happens sometimes when one gets his or her hopes up for a movie too much.
After starting watching the re-runs of old Columbo movies, I thought they would all get about the same vote from me (6). But apparently I'm now starting to see differences in the movies. It happened in some of just previous episodes, that showed some pretty genius directing, and it shows in this one, but in the negative way.<br /><br />The movie was so boring, that I sometimes found myself occupied peaking in the paper instead of watching (never happened during a Columbo movie before!), and sometimes it was so embarrassing that I had to look away. The directing seems too pretentious. The scenes with the "oh-so-mature" neighbour-girl are a misplace. And generally the lines and plot is weaker than the average episode. Then scene where they debated whether or not to sack the trumpeter (who falsely was accused for the murder) is pure horror, really stupid.<br /><br />Some applause should be given to the "prelude" however. In this episode, a lot of focus is given on how the murderer tries to secure his alibi and hide the evidence etc. I really liked that. But alas, no focus on how Columbo reveals all this. And the "proof" that in the end leaves Columbo victorious is the silliest ever.<br /><br />Rating: lies between 4 and 5
After a snowstorm, the roads are blocked and the highway patrolman Jason (Adam Beach) comes to the diner of his friend Fritz (Jurgen Prochnow) and advises his clients that they will only be able to follow their trips on the next day. Among the weird strangers, Jason meets his former sweetheart Nancy (Rose McGowan), who has just left her husband in Los Angeles. Along the night, without any communication with his base, Jason faces distressful and suspicious situations with the clients, and finds some corpses, indicating that among them there is a killer.<br /><br />"The Last Stop" could be an average thriller, but the screenplay is simply awful. Most of the characters are despicable persons and the motives of the surprising serial killer are never disclosed, and the viewers have no further explanation why the killer decided to kill the guests. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Encurralados" ("Trapped")
I saw this movie while surfing through infomercials and late-night 80's sitcoms on tv one night at 2 in the morning. I must say, I didn't expect much, and I didn't get much. Although Rose McGowan is hot, her performance and the performance of the rest of the cast was not Oscar-worthy, to say the least. This movie has its ups and downs, and does have a nice couple of twists at the end, but in all honesty it was awful. Not even a typical slasher movie. No gore, no sex, no nudity, no real violence. Just bad acting. I'd give it a 3 out of 10.
Put the film down and back slowly away. The acting rivals a highschool play, the plot is treadworn, and the production values are slightly higher than community theater. The goofs are so plentiful that it becomes a laugher. Rooms are switched around, the dead move, dogs are used for wolves, men shot point blank with .45 caliber pistols are able to walk and ride snowmobiles, blouses button and unbutton without human touch... this is a baaaaaaaaaddddddd movie. I nearly passed out when I saw the average rating. There is no accounting for taste. BTW, there is no nudity.
this attempt at a "thriller" would have no substance at all! Some may state that this movie "has it all?" Autism, arson, robbery, lost love, a bag of money, cut throats, murder, blood, a snub nosed revolver, clenched teeth groaning, boobs (various definitions can be used), large flashlights, tribal people, a brother duo attempting to out-portray "dumb and dumber," white wolves, fight scenes that resemble "happy slapping," snow mobile(s), a large tracked vehicle, and a motel under renovation? All this, with an "Enyanesque" melody toward the end ...<br /><br />Perhaps my rating is a bit harsh, but one viewing will certainly be enough for the sane cinemaphile with nothing else to do. <br /><br />Yeowza!
Bette Midler is the best thing about this movie. It is a POOR second to the original from 1962 with Natalie Wood as Gypsy. The songs were done much better in the original and the costumes were better. Bette's voice was great and she looked better in most of the costumes compared to Cynthia Gibb. Only someone who has not seen the original would think this a good movie.<br /><br />There was not enough of a change between ugly duckling to beautiful girl. When Natalie Wood was Gypsy she only was seen as beautiful when she got into the dress with her gloves for the first time to perform in the burlesque show. When she has her hair down and then magically it is all done up beautifully and she looks so elegant, it is an important aspect to the movie because it is also the first time Gypsy sees herself as something special and that she might actually be a star, not just a poor substitute to her sister. And the scenes where she slowly becomes more famous were rushed through. It was an important part of the movie and they butchered it. It is critical to show her becoming more comfortable with her future as a stripper and the costumes are amazing in these scenes in the original. It was a huge let down to watch it unfold in this movie. I was completely disappointed and had it not been for Bette Midler I would have shut the movie off.
Such a highly-anticipated remake of a cherished musical classic and such a bitter pill it was to have to take. Very, very hard to swallow...all of it. It didn't have an ounce of believability anywhere. And when you don't have a Rose, you don't have a show.<br /><br />Bette Midler seemed born to play this part. Yet, all she was able to produce was a cute, funny, glitzy, trademark Bette Midler...weighed down with all the familiar Midlerisms. Roz Russell has nothing to worry about. She can rest in her grave knowing she is still the definitive Mama Rose (of film, anyway).<br /><br />I thought Midler was really going to put it across this time...to throw herself into what is one of the greatest musical roles of all time...like she did in "The Rose." But, no, she played it safe. She played herself. She made Rose a total dinner-theatre cartoon. Even her songs were uninspired. It was maddening to watch, knowing Midler has the talent to rise above her money-making schtick. She showed promise only once in this "Gypsy" and that was with "Rose's Turn." But, by then it was too little, too late.<br /><br />A sincere Cynthia Gibb as the titular heroine gave the film its only true spark and when the role of Gypsy outshines that of Rose, you know there's trouble in River City.<br /><br />A huge, huge letdown.
The film was disappointing. I saw it on Broadway with Bernadette Peters and she was outstanding. Maybe as she, herself graps on to the end of her musical career, her condtion of desperatation lands her in role that she flaunts, re-invents and triumps as her own. Bette's singing is always belted, always flat and lacking to show her ability as an actress. To be entertaining, this performance was dying for a stronger lead and a stronger cast, so that the others would be memorable in Bette's absence. Another criticism: she smiles directly into the camera every time she start singing! I know it is musical theater, but please leave some grace sociale-- Middler cannot perform like Liza or Streisand might in a retrospective tour - out of character and out of context.
Let me start by saying how much I love the TV series. The nature of class war was always going to be a subject worthy of poking fun at, but this TV series exploits it better than most. The chemistry between Yootha Joyce and Brian Murphy was always electrifying and the writers wrote almost entirely flawless episodes every time. In my opinion, it is the best British sitcom of the mid to late-1970s, surpassing the likes of RISING DAMP, ROBIN'S NEST, ARE YOU BEING SERVED? and so on. With the ON THE BUSES series having finished a few years earlier, GEORGE AND MILDRED became the next pride and joy of ITV (or ITV 1 as it's now known), enjoying a four-year run on the channel.<br /><br />The movie however is absolutely terrible in almost every respect. The general essence of the TV series has almost entirely been stripped by the writers of this abysmal movie (who anyone will immediately notice are not the same ones who worked on the series). As one commenter has already pointed out, Mildred lacks the sharpness she had on the TV series and does not come across as anywhere near as overbearing.<br /><br />The plot, instead of focusing on the class war with the Fourmiles that was the very foundation of the TV series, actually writes out the Fourmiles almost entirely after the first half-hour. The plot, if you can call it that, consists of George and Mildred going on holiday to some hotel and getting mixed up with gangsters. First rate talent in the form of Stratford Johns, Kenneth Cope, David Barry and Sue Bond are all wasted here. Most of these are well past their heyday and all of them look very embarrassed as if they very well know that the only thing worth hanging around for is a paycheck (which probably won't be much).<br /><br />The jokes and gags in the movie (if you can call them that) rely heavily upon traditional British farce, including mistaken identities, embarrassing situations, poorly-timed slapstick, characters losing control of what is happening to them and general confusion. And it all fails miserably. As another commenter has pointed out, it seems as though the writers of this movie have never seen an episode of the TV series and instead crafted out a something resembling a CARRY ON romp. The scene where George is stripped down by Sue Bond's character is particularly out of context.<br /><br />A mystery surrounding this movie is the BBFC certification provided - 15. Just why is it rated 15 when all there is to see is harmless, non-vulgar entertainment?<br /><br />Not surprisingly the era of sitcom spin-of came to an end not long after this movie was released (shortly after the sad death of Yootha Joyce). And the company behind this movie, Hammer, well known for producing first rate horror movies back in the 1950s to mid 1970s, soon disappeared into total obscurity.<br /><br />All in all, the movie is a near total washout. My advice - skip this and stick to the TV series. You won't be missing anything, I assure you.
George & Mildred - The Movie lacks the talents of its TV writer John Mortimer who brings the close quarter cut and thrust of George's class war with the Fourmiles alive.<br /><br />The plot is cut from standard spin-off cloth - hit-man/mistaken identity - and has as little tension as there are laughs. The producers should have taken a leaf from Rising Damp, (also 1980)which was also bought to the big screen after the TV series demise, and kept much of the story in familiar setting.<br /><br />Yootha Joyce died in 1980 but she should not be remembered for this creaking piece of work encumbered as she was by her illness. Mildred lacks the sharpness of her TV incarnation; cutting asides and withering looks largely directed at Georges lack of libido. George's sputtering incredulity also gets lost in the more expansive sets. This is not to say that they were much to shout about. The budget for this movies looks pathetically small; a restaurant they go to is clearly a new semi-starched house with some Christmas lights adorning the front door.<br /><br />For fans of 70's British comedy or those who just want to revisit an old TV companion from their youth this film can add nothing to the experience and they should just stick to the first four TV series out now on DVD.
George and Mildred is a truly unfunny film. This attempt to translate the successful TV series to the big screen was a dismal failure, as is so often the case.<br /><br />The wit and clever one-liners from the TV shows have gone missing. The plot is a typical English farce of confused characters and mistaken identities, which is neither funny enough nor weird enough to provoke many decent laughs.<br /><br />Die-hard George and Mildred fans might want to see this final episode of the pair's output (Mildred died of hepatitis before the film was released), but others should invest their time more wisely.
G&M started a the odd couple downstairs in Man About the House and went on to amusing the nation in their own sitcom.<br /><br />What was the typical small-scale personal charm of the couples chemistry on the small screen, G&M's transferral to the big screen was as appalling as genuis's Morcombe and Wise, and countless fine TV shows.<br /><br />Unfunny. Unsatisfying and featuring an ill Yootha Joyce who died before the film was released.
GEORGE AND MILDRED was a spin off from the mid 1970s sit-com MAN ABOUT THE HOUSE . Though I haven't seen the series since it was last broadcast I do remember it being fairly amusing with most of the comedy arising from the eponymous couple going to live beside the snobbish Fourmile family , a sort of LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR without the cynical racist gags .<br /><br />Having seen this " big screen version of the show " I find myself asking what it's a big screen version of ? Certainly not of a popular mid 70s sit com of the same name . For some reason the movie jettisons all character interaction from the television by having George and Mildred leaving the street where they live behind and getting caught up in a plot involving some serious gangsters who want something George has inadvertently picked up and which leads to some cringe making situations and lines like: <br /><br />" Did he give it to you " <br /><br />" No that's the first time a man has resisted my charms " <br /><br />" I meant the envelope " <br /><br />You do get the impression that screenwriter Dick Sharples ( Who never wrote an episode for the original sit-com ) has never seen an episode of the source material and has got the show confused with the CARRY ON series of films . In many ways it resembles the same mistakes of the latter LOST IN SPACE movie in that it has absolutely nothing in common with the series that spawned it
This adaption contains two parts: <br /><br />1. The "now" time, when Gulliver is at home in England and soon is put into a mental asylum by the Evil Dr. Bates <br /><br />2. The "described" time, in which Gulliver describes his travels.<br /><br />The times are interspersed with a very choppy tempo, which makes willing suspense of disbelief far more difficult than it would have been if the movie simply would have discarded that part, and followed the book as written. In the book, there is no Dr. Bates, no asylum, and Mrs Gulliver gets very little mention. The travels - in plural - are depicted as one in the movie. There are several movies covering the topic of sane people dumped into asylum by some nasty person out there, look at them if you want that stuff. The "now" time part adds absolutely nothing to the story's value, is a complete invention by the movie adapters, and takes valuable time from the real story. All the time when this was going on I was longing for the next bit of real travel to be shown.<br /><br />So much for the drawbacks. The parts which actually are part of the real story are well done, and the CGI is really well done for its time. Many small (and a few medium-sized) parts of the real travels are simply cut out, but that does not make the story halt. This is AFAIK the only version which depicts all four travels, and for that the movie should get special mention. <br /><br />The two interspersed parts get approximately equal time. I rate the first part 0 out of 10, and the actual travel coverage as 8/10. Averaging out, I give it a 4/10. If only they would have cut the rubbish and focused 99% on the actual travels, since that cut would have freed up a lot of time much better spent on filling in the details cut from the travels. <br /><br />Why some adapter think that he is gifted enough to improve upon Swift's work, I do not know. My best guess is that CGI was so costly back in 1996 so that the movie company felt a need to incorporate a lot of filler which did not need elaborate sets, GCI, etc. in order to keep total costs under some limit, while at the same time producing a mini-series which clocked in at some set number of minutes.
Cultural Vandalism Is the new Hallmark production of Gulliver's Travels an act of cultural vandalism? Not literally. After all, not a single copy of the book is burned. But if this is the only Gulliver people are exposed to—and to many it will be—those people will not get anything like what Jonathan Swift intended. Were Jonathan Swift alive, Hallmark could be sued for moral rights violations and they'd lose. That's a good way to think before starting a project using someone else's ideas.<br /><br />Swift's masterpiece is an extraordinary vision of humanity. Through his hero, Gulliver, he travels to places that make him feel big, small, shat on and… human. The little people in Lilleput are small in every way. Petty and stupid, they fight, the big-enders and little- enders, interminable wars of annihilation over which end of their soft-boiled eggs are opened at the breakfast table. Sounds a bit like us.<br /><br />I forget most of the rest: it's been years since I read it. The TV show reminded me of a few things and, on the bright side, it made me want to read it again.<br /><br />This gift to mankind has been shat on, like Gulligan under the boughs beneath the vulgar yahoos, and Danson, Steenbergen and especially two great actors, Peter O'Toole and Edward Fox, ought to be thoroughly ashamed. Some "Creative Person" got the bright idea to put the focus on "the star:" Gulliver, played by Ted Danson, whose acting is just plain bad. He portrays Gulliver as insane. All his travels were made up. Weeeeel. Yeeeaaah! Of course Swift made up Gulliver! Naturally, the lands he visited were imaginary: that's called fiction. His purpose was to talk about humankind and our, often awful, relations with each other. The travels of his imaginary character to imaginary lands is his method. But these people treat imagination as a disease and anyone who has a moment that Hallmark couldn't turn into one of its anodyne cards is suspect.<br /><br />I can sure see why Hallmark would produce this crap. It's so bad that O'Toole, always profound, seems as little as his Lilliputian character. He's in character, of course, while commenting on the character simultaneously, as many, if not all great actors do. Informing the character sheds light on it. Our light completes the character. It becomes three dimensional through this act of psychic triangulation. Most actors do this very subtly, like Hopkins in "The Remains of the Day." Others, like Nicholson, in most things in the last twenty years, play the two parts pretty broadly apart. Nicholson actually plays on the relationship of his two points and with us too: with him it's all cat's cradle and he, chuckling away, holds all the strings. Great fun, as is O'Toole. But something here is lacking. He is shouting into a megaphone (as great as ever) and all one senses is a hollow shell standing under him.<br /><br />That's because it is. Look up "anodyne" and there ought to be the word "Hallmark" as a synonym. Harmless, bland, inoffensive: Hallmark is the doll who can't pee because she has no genitals: it is the norm, the average, the person of no distinction. Hallmark's hallmark is to have no hallmark. I never suspected that such people despise those who have imagination quite so much. Suddenly, Pound's "Disney against the meta-physicals" stands out in bold type. Or Einstein's "Men of genius always will be violently opposed by mediocre minds." Indeed, anyone, to this mediocre type, who has an answer to any question other than "a)" or "b)" is suspect. Who more distinctive then that a man who journeys to the darker places of the human soul and shines his little flashlight to illuminate what can be found there? Hence the act of vandalism. The Taliban destroyed the Buddhas in Afghanistan, the Palestinians the oldest synagogue in the world at Jericho, the barbarians the great statuary of the Classical age and these things are obviously vandalism. Hallmark endeavors to protect us from foreign foes by undermining our own culture; the one that feeds and sustains them. And us.<br /><br />Please buy a copy of Gulliver's Travels wherever you live, and read it. Or order it online. I like to use ABE Books.
By strange coincidence I've started to watch this move straight after Brice de Nice and the good thing was that not many movies could be worst than Brice de Nice, so I was really looking forward for something better which would make me forget this horrible flop.<br /><br />Unfortunately OSS-117 again left me disappointed - I don't know, maybe it's just problem with translations, but since "Diner de Cons" I haven't seen ANY French comedy that I would call really good. Even when I look at the reviews on IMDb only people from France are giving the OSS-117 high notes...<br /><br />For me this movie didn't really work - in some parts is as funny as real Bond movies, in others jokes were a little bit too predictable or too corny.
The plot: Four people are caught in an elevator. One is a business man, the annoying kind who is aggressive and complains about everything and everyone and is a walking-talking sample of distilled stress and hostility. Then there's his colleague, a woman who is much more pleasant in her character. A teenage rebel who just broke into a coke machine and by his mere presence drives the businessman mad, and an older guy who just stole 100,000DM make up the rest of the cast...<br /><br />The movie is all about how they cope with their problem, as time goes on and on without any success in reaching the outside world, as the lights go out, and as the cables begin to snap one after the other....<br /><br />And yet, it isn't too exciting. The characters are stereotypes. The story is stupid and unlikely (how could so many things go so wrong in just one elevator?). You don't like the characters very much, you just hate one of them. And all the twists and turns in the plot are not contributing to the excitement, they are just stupid excuses for filling yet another few minutes with dialogue as the screenwriters keep running out of inspiration and ink on a full-length movie set in an elevator.<br /><br />Let's just hope "Phone Booth" will be a better effort...
Edge Vs. Michaels-Boring in general (loved the sweet chin music into the chair) 4/10 Taker Vs. Heidenreich-One of the worst matches I've seen, predictable as hell 1/10 Tripe Threat WWE match-Why do I watch them, nobody ever wins a championship at the rumble, its not the main event. Liked it when Show drove JBL through the wall. 3/10 World Heavyweight Championship-Pretty OK match, kind of more a beat-down by Tripe H than a match, but I was happy to see it after watching crap. 5/10 Royal Rumble-Good Rumble,Liked the brand showdown,the Hassan thing, and the end. 7/10 Overall still crap. Why does anyone watch the rumble???
OK, so it's a silly movie, but I think they knew that when they made it. And there are some neat little twists on the otherwise tired, overdone "Godzilla"-type genre. Borrowed a tape just because I knew someone in it, but I did loan it out to a couple pals, who also kinda liked it.
Aliens let lose a giant monster named Zarkorr, then send down a hologram that looks your average stupid teenage girl to tell postman, Tommy Ward (Rhys Pugh, in the only movie you ever see him in) that has been chosen to fight. Also if he loses the plant goes doom, so he goes off to fight Zarkorr the Invader! This movie is bad, very bad. So bad it you need negative numbers just to gave it a rattan. Horridly written, bad directing, way below Power Rangers over-the-top wooden acting that you're just whiting for a horde of Lumberjacks to come out of no where and cut them down! And don't get me started on the theme song at the end. The people who made this stemming pall of S$@# should not be aloud near a camera or any thing to do with films. Zarkorr is a cool looking monster that should have been in a movie a million times better than this one. Do your self a favour and don't see this movie, it's 80 or so minute of life. The actors that are in this never worked again by way.<br /><br />3/10
Zarkorr is one bad movie. This doesn't even rate in the so bad its good category. It's just bad. From the (lack of) set design to the acting to the special effects, everything about this movie stinks. For starters, the film looks like it was filmed in just empty rooms with a couple of props thrown in to make it look good. Then we get acting that is so bad that it makes a high school play look like it was an Oscar candidate. And to top it all off, there's the special effects that are so bad that they look like an amateur pulled them off in their garage. The towns that the monster is supposedly crushing look like my nephew's train set. So obviously fake that they scream out at the viewer. The only good thing about the movie is the monster suit. Its just too bad that they spent all their budget on that and left nothing for the rest of the film. And maybe a decent script would have helped too.
This is an utterly forgettable picture. A friend of mine picked it up in a bargain bin at a local rental place for $.50. He should have demanded a refund. Or at least a discount.<br /><br />The plot is something like this: A giant monster threatens the earth and aliens decide that the most average human being on the planet must be chosen to save the earth. Thus a tiny holographic space alien appears before a postal worker and tells him that he's "it."<br /><br />The devil is in the details when it's time to rate a movie, and on that count Zarkorr! The Invader fails miserably. The monster Zarkorr only has a few brief moments on the screen, totaling maybe 5 minutes tops (with a generous estimate). The cute alien hologram has even less screen time and might be the most interesting character to look at, and only because she's wearing a "teeny bopper" stereotype outfit, complete with a teasingly short pleated skirt. The climactic final battle with the monster is over before you can say "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over." In the next moment you are left to ponder whether you've just experienced a train wreck or if someone just drained 3 pints of blood out of you.<br /><br />Admittedly though, this movie did deliver one line that my friends and I to this day still repeat and laugh at and was about the only bright spot in this otherwise abysmal picture. As the cast of "protagonists" is being "interrogated" by the fuzz, one of them responds to the questions with the statement "What are you, some kind of a question asker?" It is delivered in such a preposterous manner that if you're sitting with a group of friends (who won't be your friends long if you actually talked your friend into watching this) you may actually experience a howl or two of incredulous laughter.<br /><br />While this is no Manos or Eegah (It's not even bad enough to be classically bad) this movie will still bore you with its awful dialog, unimaginative characters, and nonexistent special effects and still deserves to inhabit the bottom 100.<br /><br />1.5/10
This movie stinks. IMDb needs negative numbers in its rating system to properly evaluate this turkey. The acting is either wooden or over the top; the film was apparently NOT written by anyone in particular; and the monster scenes were mediocre at best. Even as a movie driven solely by the monster scenes, those shots were so disappointing that they could not inspire any sympathy for the rest of the movie. I want the 80 minutes of my life back that this movie stole.
First, let me make it clear that I'm a big fan of bad sci-fi, especially when it involves gigantic, city-stomping monsters. But this one is so fantastically lame that I can't even like it for being bad. They apparently didn't shave enough money off the budget by skimping on the props (the only prop we have to indicate the size of the alien girl is an oversized novelty pencil, available at Spencer's Gifts for about fifteen bucks), they also decided not to outlay for concept or plot. The monster DOES look okay, in my opinion, but it doesn't have enough interaction with the backgrounds, i.e. not enough destruction to suit most fans of the genre. The general rule of giant monster movies is: If you don't have a lot of fake-looking buildings to smash, then you'd better have another fake-looking monster to wrestle with. This movie has neither. I can't make my final complaint about the movie without giving away the ending, but suffice to say the origin of the monster, and the method found to get rid of it, just don't hold water. Not even as well as most of these movies. Skip it.
Explores the frontiers of extreme boredom. Life in a small Canadian town in winter as an experiment in extreme sensory deprivation. Absolutely nothing happens as viewed through the eyes of a blank, deadpan, totally uninteresting protagonist. Viewers of this film should be prepared to hallucinate in the style of "Altered States".<br /><br />In a groundbreaking study, David Snowden found that he could predict Alzheimer's thirty years in advance by comparing the autobiographical essays of nuns as they entered the convent. Those who eventually suffered the disease wrote in simple direct prose. The essays were quiet and contemplative with little optimism or episodes of joy.<br /><br />Now, why did I mention that? Perhaps , my mind begins to slowly unravel watching this interminable, autobiographical, contemplative film which shows, in simple direct style, the bleak and stoic life of a small community, living next to giant slag heaps of asbestos.<br /><br />This film became popular at the height of the Quebec separatist movement because of its presentation of this community as permanently wounded victims. Tragically, its writer-director was soon diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in the early 1980s and apparently committed suicide.
I had to watch this one for my Canadian cinema course and I was told that it was considered to be the "best Canadian film." When I watched this I really did not agree, considering I've seen a lot better ones. I understand that there were Canadian themes and messages, but the fact that the characters and the plot were so disconnected with me (as a spectator) it made me not really care what the film was trying to tell me. The plot was too dry. The characters did not have many positive personality traits, but this is to emphasize the messages, not to tick off spectators. This film shows a little about the history of Quebec. Not a very interesting film; it definitely does not deserve to be put on such a high pedestal.
I only rented this stinker because of its relatively high ratings. It totally sucked! I cannot imagine how anyone would think this a good movie - even an OK movie. None of the characters had ANY redeeming qualities of any kind. To varying degrees they were each selfish and mean-spirited - or abused and damaged personalities who hadn't a clue about the spirit of Christmas (when this takes place!) I know Canadians and like them - but I cannot think that even THEY would think this a good movie. I'd rather a sharp stick in the eye than watch this offensive movie again. A colossal waste of time and money. Do not believe the person who wrote the opinion that it was "worth watching." This person probably would enjoy having a dentist drill their teeth without anesthesia, too. Don't mean to be unkind but for the life of me I cannot imagine what this person was thinking. Unless they had ulterior motives. Maybe s/he was the director or the producer. If so, I'd like to ask them to give me back my money. If your money is important to you - save it instead of renting this piece of drek - or rent something (anything!) else. I'm running out of good reasons NOT TO rent this film. If I were Canadian I'd be ASHAMED that it's supposed to be a favorite Canadian flick. If so, I would say that those who think so are definitely in need of great quantities of powerful drugs. YECK!
1940's cartoon, banned nowadays probably because of the 'Black Beauty' gag, in which Daffy rides a black person as if it were a horse.<br /><br />The whole story takes place in a bookstore, where the characters of the books come to life every evening. So we have, among others, the Ugly Duck (Daffy) and the wolf of Wallstreet. They wind up in a chase after the wolf tricked Daffy with a phony duck (hence the title).<br /><br />And chase is all there is in this little cartoon, that doesn't have any real appeal nowadays. Only fun if you're a true fan of the Looney Tunes I guess...<br /><br />4/10.
Well, the episode I just watched had the older "Gastineau Girl" whining about why people keep mentioning her husband (Mr Gastineau, a famous American Football player apparently). She seems unwilling to accept that he's the only reason she isn't flipping burgers, she married someone famous and that's why she has cameras pointed at her.<br /><br />When challenged by an interviewer to explain what she actually does, she gave a wonderfully circular reason for why people should pay attention to her: "I work really hard on my reality TV show". Then she said "I'm not a celebrity... I'm a personality."<br /><br />I'm not quite sure who this series is meant to appeal to, except people who've had all their intelligence removed. It's certainly no role model to anyone except gold-diggers as the two stars do nothing but spend money, and all it tells you about rich people is that they have no money problems.
For a while it seemed like this show was on 24/7. Then apparently there was a second season or some other kind of continuation of this horrible show about the two most vapid and conceited people who have ever been filmed. All the other comments have captured the essence of these two selfish, haggish, airheads perfectly. Not much less can be said about them besides what everyone else has said.<br /><br />I doubt these two ladies have souls, and more than likely they made some kind of Faustian Bargain in order to get their lizardly snouts on a television series. May the fates protect the human race from any more exposure to the Ghastly Girls!
I remembered this awful movie I bought at Camelot music store in the summer of 1989 when I was visiting my Grandparents. It was a time when I had just discovered movies like Re-Animator, From Beyond, The Return of the Living Dead, and Dawn of the Dead. I was ready for all the horror/gore genre had to offer.... or so I thought! I was only about 12 years old at the time so I really don't remember it all that well. I remember a psycho running around with a corkscrew killing people, and a couple of cops (I think) who were riding in a car that wasn't actually moving, but being rocked side to side to look like it was... true cinemagic. I also remember it being the worst film I had ever seen up to that point and I promptly threw it in the garbage.<br /><br />Something tonight made me think of that movie (I can't believe I actually remembered the name), so I jumped on imdb to see if it was listed. To my surprise... IT WAS! And a full other 5 people have seen it.... Amazing. Even though I remember hating the film at the time I sort of wish I had kept it hidden away somewhere because I'd love to check it out again for a laugh (it would probably make a good drinking game movie). Anyway, I'm glad I'm part of the elite few that's seen this little "treasure". I would love to pick it up somewhere for a couple of bucks.... but beware, this is not a recommendation... it is awful... it's just for nostalgia.
I bought this movie at a garage sale when I was like 15. I hated it then, and watching it again, just for the hell of it, it's even worse now. You can hear the director and cameraman in the background yelling commands like "Zoom, zoom, zoom!!!". The are no special effects, just a raw piece of meat that is supposed to be a brain. This is utter crap, and i originally thought it was a one of a kind home movie or something that I bought. But this was distributed elsewhere and it's just really weird to know that other people have seen it. Whoops I need 10 lines....well....this can be an interesting thing to watch to see how no-budget movies were made before the invention of digital cameras. This sucks. Actually, yeah do watch this just to see if you can sit through the worst. If you can make it through this you can make it through anything.
I've already commented on this film (under the name TheLegendaryWD). But I see there are others who have commented since. All I can say is: WHAT THE F**K!?". I cannot believe that a whole 16 people have commented on this film or even seen this movie. Add to that the fact that a couple give it great reviews (probably the makers of the film who went to one of those places in a strip mall that provide internet service and wrote a good review - seeing as how there is no way they could or would pay for their own internet provider... just look at their movie). Although I still admit I got a soft spot for this movie. I thought that some of the other people writing about this one might have it confused with another... until I read the reviews... especially the person who identified the tag line on the front of the box: "The Ultimate in Frontal Lobotomy" (what the f**k is that supposed to mean anyway? "frontal" lobotomy?)... I totally forgot about that until I read it in the review. People, we are a select few... I say we meet once a year to view this film... wait, does anyone still have it? If anyone does have it please contact me... I'm dyin' to get drunk.
The worst film ever made, bar none. Give yourself a pat on the back if you can possibly sit through every excruciatingly painful minute of it. Except for the bit where the hard-luck loser turned deranged psychopath from forced medical experimentation pours his pea soup on the doctor's head and laughs like any good raving lunatic should...that's all.
Hard to believe that director Barbet Schroeder once did the majestic and very funny Maitresse (1976), and now only seems to do "by the numbers" Hollywood thrillers.<br /><br />This is very lightweight John Grisham material, crossed with the plot of a TV movie. Bullock is Cass Mayweather, a feisty and independent crime investigator specialising in serial killers. Ben Chaplin is her reserved police partner Sam Kennedy, and together they make an uncomfortable duo. Not good, when two unbalanced college maladriots (Gosling and Pitt) decide to send them on a wild goose chase - by planting very clever and misleading forensic evidence at a crime scene.<br /><br />Fair enough, but while Bullock and Chaplin fail to create any sparks, we also have to endure a several dull overly-melodramatic flashbacks illustrating an important event in Cass's history. Then of course there are the frequent shots of a cliff-side log cabin where there's absolutely no doubt the OTT ending will be set. Oooh... the atmosphere.<br /><br />Watch any episode of CSI instead. It's to the point and far more exciting.
Having been pleasantly surprised by Sandra Bullock's performance in Miss Congeniality, I decided to give Murder By Numbers a shot. While decent in plucky, self-effacing roles, Ms. Bullock's performance in "serious" roles (see Hope Floats, Speed 2, 28 Days) leave much to be desired. Her character is at the same time omniscient, confused, and sexually maladjusted (the sub-plot of Sandra's past comes across as needless filler that does little to develop her already shallow character). The two teenage boys gave decent performances, although their forensics expertise and catch-me-if-can attitude is belied by stupid errors that scream "We did it!" Chris Penn as the all-too-obvious suspect is wasted here, as is Ben Chaplin's token partner/love interest character.<br /><br />***Spoilers Ahead*** Mediocre acting aside, the biggest flaws can be traced to a TV-of-the-week plot that never has you totally buying into the murder motives in the first place, and as mentioned, the stupid errors (vomiting up a rare food on the murder scene, an all too convenient and framing of the school janitor, the two boys hanging out together in public, a convenient love interest to cause friction, etc. etc) cause the view to go from being intrigues to being bored and disappointed by the murderers. The ending was strictly "By the Numbers" and was probably the most disappointing aspect of the movie. Using the now-cliched tactic of almost showing the climactic scene at the beginning of the film, and then filling the audience in how we arrived at that moment, the final scenes surprise no one and lacked any of the so-called intelligence the film purported to arrive at it's conclusion. A somewhat promising concept, but poorly executed and weak in nearly every way. * out of ****.
There's something frustrating about watching a movie like 'Murder By Numers' because somewhere inside that Hollywood formula is a good movie trying to pop out. However, by the time the credits roll, there's no saving it. The whole thing is pretty much blown by the "cop side" of the story, where Sandra Bullock and Ben Chaplin's homicide detective characters muddle through an awkward sexual affair that becomes more and more trivialized the longer the movie goes on. Although Bullock is strong in her role, it's not enough to save the lackluster script and lazy pacing. Ben Chaplin's talents are wasted in a forgettable role (he did much better earlier in the year in the underrated 'Birthday Girl') as well as Chris Penn, who has a role so thanklessly small you feel sorry for a talent like him. Anyway, the plot really isn't even a factor in this movie at all. The two teen killers played by Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt are the only real reasons to see this movie. Their talent and chemistry work pretty good and they play off of each other quite well. It's too bad they weren't in a much better all-around film. Barbet Schroeder is treading way too safe ground here for such a seasoned filmmaker. Bottom Line: it's worth a rent if you're a genre fan, but everyone else will live a fulfilled life without ever seeing it, except maybe on network TV with convenient commercial breaks.
Alfred Hitchcock invented any kind of thriller you could think of:he set the standards so high that any director who makes a suspense movie will be fatally compared to him.<br /><br />The main subject of this Bullock vehicle ,all the ideas,almost everything was already in Hitchcock's classic " Rope":the two students who commit a gratuitous crime, Nietsche's philosophy,and the clues that the boys disseminate ,the Master was the first to transfer them to the screen.And with an eighty-minute movie which was a technical riveting tour de force.<br /><br />"Murder by numbers " does not take place in a single room,like "the rope" ,mind you.And ,what a supreme originality,it pits two cops against the evil youngsters;and ,you would never guess it,these two cops are very different:actually,Bullock plays the part of woman living like a man ,and her partner (Chaplin) is as shy as a clueless girlie.The two boys' performances are not really mind-boggling ,not as good ,as ,say ,that of Edward Norton in "primal fear" .<br /><br />Well,you know ," Rope" was so good ....
From director Barbet Schroder (Reversal of Fortune), I think I saw a bit of this in my Media Studies class, and I recognised the leading actress, so I tried it, despite the rating by the critics. Basically cool kid Richard Haywood (Half Nelson's Ryan Gosling) and Justin Pendleton (Bully's Michael Pitt) team up to murder a random girl to challenge themselves and see if they can get away with it without the police finding them. Investigating the murder is homicide detective Cassie 'The Hyena' Mayweather (Sandra Bullock) with new partner Sam Kennedy (Ben Chaplin), who are pretty baffled by the evidence found on the scene, e.g. non-relating hairs. The plan doesn't seem to be completely going well because Cassie and Sam do quite quickly have Richard or Justin as suspects, it is just a question of if they can sway them away. Also starring Agnes Bruckner as Lisa Mills, Chris Penn as Ray Feathers, R.D. Call as Captain Rod Cody and Tom Verica as Asst. D.A. Al Swanson. I can see now the same concept as Sir Alfred Hitchcock's Rope with the murdering for a challenge thing, but this film does it in a very silly way, and not even a reasonably good Bullock can save it from being dull and predictable. Adequate!
So, I'm wondering while watching this film, did the producers of this movie get to save money on Sandra Bullock's wardrobe by dragging out her "before" clothes from Miss Congeniality? Did Ms. Bullock also get to sleepwalk through the role by channeling the "before" Gracie Hart? As many reviewers have noted before, the film is very formulaic. Add to that the deja vu viewer experiences with the character of Cassie Maywether as a somewhat darker Gracie Hart with more back story and it rapidly become a snooze fest.<br /><br />The two bad boy serial killers have been done before (and better) in other films. As has the "good guy partner trying to protect his partner despite the evidence" character been seen before. In fact none of the characters in the film ever get beyond two dimensions or try to be anything but trite stereotypes.<br /><br />One last peeve - using the term serial killer is false advertising. Murdering one person - even if it's a premeditated murder - does not make you a serial killer. You may have the potential to become a serial killer but you are not a serial killer or even a spree killer.
At first the movie seemed to be doing great, they had the characters profiles set...the plot seemed to be going in the right direction... however, as the movie progressed it seemed the director focused on the wrong kind of things...or just a lot was edited from the movie. The characters' identities changed for the worse within the movie. Also, there seemed to be a lot of implicit meaning -- in other words -- they had things within the movie that didn't seem to fit the movie itself. AND the title... no where in the movie does the title fit the movie...I suppose the title works for the previews.... Actors did well with what they had.....if they had a better director and writer, maybe this would have worked out better. But it didn't. So now there's a new terrible movie coming out this Friday.... My opinion!....don't waste your time or money.
well, the writing was very sloppy, the directing was sloppier, and the editing made it worse (at least i hope it was the editing). the acting wasn't bad, but it wasn't that good either. pretty much none of the characters were likable. at least 45 minutes of that movie was wasted time and the other hour or so was not used anywhere near its full potential. it was a great idea, but yet another wasted good idea goes by. it could have ended 3 different places but it just kept going on to a mostly predictable hollywood ending. and what wasn't predictable was done so badly that it didn't matter. the ending was not worth watching at all. sandra bullock was out of her element and should stay away from these types of movies. the movie looked rushed also. the movie just wasn't really worth seeing, and had i paid for it i would have been very mad. maybe i was more disappointed because i expected a really good movie and got a bad one. the movie over all was not horrifibly bad, but i wouldn't reccomend it. i gave it 2 out of 10 b/c i liked the idea so much and i did like one character (justin i believe, the super smart one). and it also had some very cheap ways to cover plot holes. it was like trying to cover a volcano with cheap masking tape, it was not pretty. anyway, if you see it, wait for the $1.50 theater or video, unless you like pretty much every movie you see, then i guess you'll like this one.
Murder By Numbers is one of those movies that you expect is made-for-TV but isn't. Considering the only actor of any note is Bullock (although Michael Pitt seems to be moving onto bigger and better things), it isn't a great surprise that this movie quickly fades away from memory to be replaced by more important things. Like... remembering to lock your front door when you go out. Or putting clothes back on when you come out of the shower.<br /><br />Bullock plays Cassie Mayweather, a cop with personal issues (don't they all). Together with her new partner (a wet-looking Ben Chaplin), she is called to investigate the murder of a young woman. Nothing unusual there except that the perps are a couple of teenage students who think they've planned and executed the perfect murder. As the investigation continues, a battle of wills emerges between Cassie and the main suspect Richie Haywood (Ryan Gosling).<br /><br />The crippling issue here is that the two leads are hopeless. Bullock, though she is very nice to look at, is about as believable in the role of a hardened cynical cop as Rodney Dangerfield (actually, he'd be better!). Chaplin, for his sins, is a complete non-entity and I feel sorry that he has to put this film on his CV in his attempt to break into Hollywood. At least Gosling and Pitt, as the conniving sneering suspects, acquit themselves adequately. As if dodgy leads weren't bad enough, a story that would send anybody to sleep and a highly predictable (but illogical) ending shoot this film in the head before it has a chance to run.<br /><br />"Murder By Numbers" has absolutely nothing going for it, even a pointless nude scene by Bullock wouldn't redeem it. Well, just a little but still not enough to save it. Forgettable, predictable and redundant - this is one film that isn't going to move the cop genre forward. As Cassie probably says on her next case, there's nothing to see here people. Move along, keep moving...
Of all the films I have seen, this one, The Rage, has got to be one of the worst yet. The direction, LOGIC, continuity, changes in plot-script and dialog made me cry out in pain. "How could ANYONE come up with something so crappy"? Gary Busey is know for his "B" movies, but this is a sure "W" movie. (W=waste).<br /><br />Take for example: about two dozen FBI & local law officers surround a trailer house with a jeep wagoneer. Inside the jeep is MA and is "confused" as to why all the cops are about. Within seconds a huge gun battle ensues, MA being killed straight off. The cops blast away at the jeep with gary and company blasting away at them. The cops fall like dominoes and the jeep with Gary drives around in circles and are not hit by one single bullet/pellet. MA is killed and gary seems to not to have noticed-damn that guy is tough. Truly a miracle, not since the six-shooter held 300 bullets has there been such a miracle.
I have been a huge Lynn Peterson fan ever since her breakthrough role in the 1988 blockbuster movie "Far North", and even though I loved her in her one other film "Slow" (2004) where she plays "Francis", this is by far and away her strongest role.<br /><br />Lynn, as I'm sure you all know (or should), plays the critical role of "Driver".<br /><br />Unfortunately, other than Lynn's amazing performance, I'm afraid this movie doesn't really have much going for it.<br /><br />Oh wait - there was one other thing - the amazing creativity of the editing to remove profanity for TV viewers. Memorable lines like: "You son-of-a-gun!", "You son-of-a-witch!", "Shoot!", and "Well, Forget You!"<br /><br />O.K. Bye.<br /><br />P.S.: Does anyone know where I can get another Lynn Peterson poster?
A handful of nubile young college sorority sisters decide to go camping with a professor. A giant druid want to sacrifice them to prevent the apocalypse come the year 2000, they also have to contend with bikers, an Indian and a loch ness monster type thing. Worth watching for only 3 reasons, George 'Buck' Flower (a sadly unsung B-movie staple) is on hand as a hobo and the other 2 belong to the stunning Savannah (in one of only 3 non-porn roles she had). Both have very small roles. Too bad everything else in the movie is horrendously bad.<br /><br />My Grade: D- <br /><br />Retromedia DVD Extras: Original Trailer <br /><br />Eye Candy: 4 pairs of breasts, 2 asses
Oh my. Started out with such great potential - a bunch of cute sorority girls walking around practically naked, check. Then off to a bar where the 80's cheese gets turned up a notch, check. Off to a woodsy state park the next morning, check. A bunch of girls and their professor, rowdy bikers, a General store guy, and that dood from They Live acting as the local drunk - makes for a nice body count, check (and speaking of body count, notice the strong resemblance on the DVD cover to the foreign horror flick - Body Count! aka Camping del Terrore). A whacky Indian in the woods doing some sort of ritual, hmmm, OK I'll let it slide, check. And then, oh brother, all downhill from there. Terrible. The Lochness monster head in the pond had me cracking up though.
This movie is so irredeemably bad, NOTHING about it makes it worth seeing. NO effects, no suspense and poor dialogue poorly delivered. Oh, and neither a CAMP or any FEAR does it contain. Do yourself a favor and go see the original Friday the 13th or (preferably) Sleepaway Camp, but what ever you do, DO NOT see this movie. <br /><br />Even Michele Bauer's appearance at the very beginning can't save it. Usually, in these kinds of films you expect violence, suspense, and a little gore and some T&A. The violence was poorly executed, the "suspense" was laughable, there was NO gore, and the T&A is plentiful IN THE FIRST 5 MINUTES, then, NOTHING. At least one of these things, properly done would have at least made it watchable. <br /><br />To say at least one nice thing about it, Buck Flower is great, he seems to be the only one who understands they are making schlock and rightly hams it up. If everyone else had fit that tone it would have been campy fun, no pun intended.
This movie starts out the way every movie should start out, with a bunch of hot babes in a dorm walking around in their undies and/or topless. A couple of them take showers. I'm liking it so far! Unfortunately, we then meet or main characters. They're just not particularly likable. Usually in these movies, the actresses aren't really acting, they give very "natural" performances, and they're quite sympathetic, fun, and likable. Not here. They don't have much of any personality and I didn't care for them much.<br /><br />Some of the girls go on a camping trip for school. On the way they stop at a backwoods gas station and meet a biker gang. The biker gang should really have been left out of the movie - it was cheesy before, but now it's just plain stupid. The head biker looks like a middle aged guy dressed up as John Bon Jovi for Halloween. The girls go out to the woods and later the biker gang follows them.<br /><br />I don't really know what the heck happens after that. There's a bunch of stuff about the world ending because it's the end of the millennium, then some of the bikers get killed by a mysterious Indian dude who keeps disappearing. Somebody gets eaten by a cheesy Lock Ness Monster thing as he's swimming across a lake. Some guy in silly makeup is apparently a Druid, and he needs to sacrifice some of the girls in order to forestall the end of the world. Or maybe cause the end of the world, I'm afraid I wasn't paying much attention. First he dresses the girls up in animal skin lingerie.<br /><br />It could have been a really fun cheesy movie, but the biker gang kind of ruined the atmosphere and the plot was so scatterbrained that it didn't even live up to my grade Z schlock expectations. They really should have eliminated half the plot elements and just focused on one or two things. Instead it's all over the place. Overall, if you're looking for late '80 schlock, I imagine you could do worse. If you tried really hard. There's plenty of nudity at the beginning, but the characters are kind of crummy and the plot is too nonsensical to be even the least bit satisfying.
Why you ask does this man claim to have the truth behind the existence of the almighty? Well its deductive logic my friends, you see I know God exists because Satan does, how else would my poor eyes have been soiled on such a horrendous film? Yes there is no doubt about it, on a cold Friday in the year 2006 Satan possessed me and forced me to watch this film. He what? You wonder; the devil makes little girls spit up vomit and climb ceilings, why would he waste his time in making you watch this film? My only conclusion to that query is that Satan believes watching Camp Fear is the worst form of mortal punishment, not gouging out your eyes or making you speak in tongues, instead making you sit mindlessly through one and half hours of the most awful film making ever. Can this film be as terrible as he says? Yes my friend watching this film is the equivalent of getting kicked in the sack about fifty million times, maybe more. But maybe I am being too harsh, this film does have a few moments in it, the beginning for example, starts in a sorority house with a lot of topless girls; now never being in a sorority I am unsure if girls really do this, but hey one can always pray. Now after the five minutes of boobs and butt cheeks has ended we are presented with a scene on campus at an all girls college; the girls themselves (about eight in all) are in an archaeological class, where they discuss virgin sacrifices and ancient mounds. Flash forward the professor of the class (who happens to be the only male at this girls college apparently) takes a handful of his nubile students, plus girlfriend, to a remote lake in the mountains, their quests, to find ancient Indian artifacts; yeah right professor, we know what angle your pitching. Now this is where the movie gets going, the group of five, four girls, one guy stops at a gas station to get some directions, but lo and behold a biker gang pulls up and harasses the girls, only to eventually leave them alone and go their separate ways. Moving on they get to a "campsite" consisting of four logs and some trees and then things start to go horribly wrong. First the prof. and his girlfriend go wandering away to have some alone time when one of the girls takes it upon herself to find them, only to be captured by some unknown force. Continuing on the other two girls begin searching for the missing girl when the bikers, plus one drunk guy, come looking for them, their plan, to rape the girls and do horrible things to them. The movie goes on with something about a druid needing four virgins for a sacrifice to save the world from some kind of water monster before the year two thousand; but their is a hitch to this plan Mr. Druid, one of the girls is devirginized right before us, so away goes that plan. Now since I said there would be spoilers I'll go ahead and ruin the end of the movie for you, the four girls get taken, drugged with some green goo and then are ready to be sacrificed, after one of them is killed the two remaining bikers and the prof. come to save them; they stand upon a ledge where the not lead biker says, "I think I can make it down there!" only to leap down and break his leg. The prof. runs at the guy and gets subdued only leaving the once rape-minded-now-heroic biker left to fend off the 6'3" giant druid. First he makes a pathetic attempt with a stick then pulls a knife, the knife reflects some lazer beam within a gold snakes mouth and lights the druid on fire instantaneously. Afterwords they carry the wounded away via emergency stick stretchers and ponder if everything is really over, only to have the lake bubble showing the monster within it still lives. In a nutshell that is the film and this is my review, which unfortunately will go unread by most eyes since this is only the fifth posted review for a film that has been out for fifteen years. Thankfully Satan can only get to some of us and not all. The Judge would like to make one heartfelt apology to the poor girl at Circuit City I am going to let borrow this movie; "I'm sorry Sheila, please don't hate me for letting you watch this."
If this movie was made two years earlier it could have been a lot better. But unfortunately, it was made in the decade that had no idea about how a horror movie was supposed to look or act. When I first heard about this movie, people on IMDb were classifying it as the sequel to Cheerleader Camp. Oh how wrong they were. Yes, Betsy Russell was in it but Uma Thurman sure wasn't. I'd really like to find the person who started that whole sequel rumor. I'm sure a lot of us would though. I'm not gonna give anything away because frankly I don't remember how this movie even ends! I'm just gonna tell you to watch a real camp horror movie... The Burning starring Jason Alexander, Fisher Stevens, Holly Hunter & the geek from Fast Times at Ridgemont High. A word to the wise - Just because a horror movie has the word camp in the title, doesn't mean its gonna be worth watching. Oh, and another thing, ANY HORROR FLICK MADE IN THE EARLY TO MID 90's WAS EVER CONSIDERED EVEN REMOTELY GOOD!
I thought this would be a fun comedy with no sex or nudity in it. Well, there's no sexual content but as for being a "fun comedy," I only remember laughing a total three times during "The Green Butchers." The hilarity is centered around cannibalism and mental retardation, which is just sick humor, in a bad way.<br /><br />I should have walked out of this film and I'm kicking myself because I didn't. In fact, I shouldn't have seen this movie in the first place. The only good that came out of this film was was the fact that Bjarne and his brother finally made amends and put their ugly past behind them. I advise any well-meaning individual to steer clear of this gross-out flick.
There is so much bad to say about this movie and so little that's good!<br /><br />The plot has enough holes to sink the Titanic, the characters are completely unbelievable, the monsters are so unrealistic, and I'm sick and tired of seeing movies that involve an ex-husband and ex-wife being thrown together in some bizarre emergency - it happens far too often in films and it's become another bad cliché.<br /><br />I find it hard to believe that anybody would have invested $1 in making this garbage, never mind the $100 or so it must have cost.<br /><br />You could make a better movie with more convincing special effects on your home computer! I didn't think movies could get this bad! Avoid it at all costs - do something that's more fun and enjoyable, such as having a tooth pulled, or an enema!
Even by the standards of most B-movies, this movie is by far the worst I've ever seen. The graphics are so poor that a man in a monster suit looks more realistic. the ocean water effects are especially laughable, including the one scene where they board the mini-sub, and the "water" looks like its frozen in place. The problems with this film are so numerous that I'll just stop here with the details. needless to say, I kid you not when I say that even Uwe Toilet Boll himself could do a better job. Avoid this movie at all cost, there are other B grade movies out there that, despite being horrible, are at least a good way of passing the time by.
Some giant scorpions are on a submarine and kill everybody. Two months later, some Marines and the scientists in charge of the scorpion project go to the sub to retrieve their cargo. After finding 200 dead bodies, the Marine commander tells the doctor "I need to know if there's anything down here that could be a danger to my men". Uh, gee...ya think? She refuses to tell him what is down there, citing "need to know". Yup, that pretty well sizes it up. One of the scientists is apparently some sort of idiot savant - real heavy on the idiot, light on the savant. He's given the task of fixing the lights. He finds the control panel for the lights, cuts a wire, and shrieks like a banshee. Then he does it again. Then he takes a hammer and smashes the control panel to pieces, which causes all the lights on the submarine to start working.<br /><br />And so it goes. Apparently this was made in Sweden; I'm not sure if the Swedes have a really weird sense of humor or if they're just really awful movie makers. I'm inclined to think they're awful movie makers. If you guessed that there's a huge explosion at the end of this thing, well, sorry, but that's on a need-to-know basis, so I can't tell you.<br /><br />If you've absolutely got to see a giant scorpion movie, let me suggest Tail Sting, which is a cheesy and fun movie about scorpions on a plane, or Bugs, which is a fairly descent B movie about scorpions in a tunnel. Look at this movie as an absolute last resort. Oh, it's watchable, it's hard to turn it off just because of the sheer lunacy of it, but that's about all it's got going for it.
I'm a fan of low budget B-movies and campy horror flicks, but this was too much, even for me.<br /><br />If you can get past the weak plot, the cheesy effects and the uninspired acting, then the horrible writing will kill you, or you'll wish it would. The dialog was most likely written by high school stoners, who thought that saying "sir, yes sir" over and over again, made these guys sound more military.<br /><br />The characters were all the typical cardboard stereotypes: Gung-ho sarge, sorta gung-ho other guy with sensitive side, evil scientist with secret agenda (bald or course), bitchy brainy chick who would be hot if she tried too, dumb sexy chick with vital piece of information, idiot "genius" nerd, random other sorta military dudes who die soon enough, and spoiler character alert, crazy scientist who was in charge "until something went horribly wrong" Oh yeah, I almost forgot, there is a secret military (navy?) submarine, sitting on the ocean floor, 5 minutes from HQ (or so it seems), full of radioactive scorpions (ok?) and dead bodies. Your mission is vague and poorly defined.....<br /><br />If you watch this, don't say you weren't warned.
At the very beginning, the look at a control panel that reads "8 miles of the cost of California", and no, I didn't misspell that, they really did not realize the put of the cost instead of off the coast. These people must have been morons.<br /><br />It's good if you're into terrible movies, but the sheer fact they couldn't catch a simple spelling issue make me believe they really didn't put any effort into creating the movie whatsoever. The Navy uniforms are not correct at all in any manner whatsoever.<br /><br />Wow, completely ridiculous, but good if you are looking for something insanely stupid to watch. How these folks made any money off this is beyond me.
Stinger starts '3 Months Ago' on the submarine the SS Newark where genetic experiments have gone awry & the crew member are brutally slaughtered by large killer scorpions... Jump to 'Camp Pendleton' a couple of months later where General Ashford (James Cagnard) brief's Lieutenant Williams (John Miranda) on his mission to board the Newark & assist genetic scientist Dr. Carly Ryan (Michelle Meadows), before anyone knows it a group of corporate scientists & marines are on-board the Newark & are shocked to discover he mutilated corpses of the crew apart from Dr. Mike Thompson (Casey Clark) who doesn't make much sense. It's not long before the scorpions attack, first to fall is Lt. Williams so Sergeant Sam Harmon (Christopher Persson) is promoted & takes the responsibility to get everyone to safety & end the menace of the giant scorpions forever...<br /><br />This Sweedish America co-production was directed by Martin Munthe & he also handled the cinematography & I thought this was a strictly by-the-numbers uninspiring creature feature. It's early into the new year & Stinger is the first giant genetically mutated monster/creature/insect type film I've seen in 2007, hopefully things can only get better... The script by Mat Nastos is incredibly clichéd & gets all of it's ideas from other films most notably Aliens (1986), lets see there's the isolated location in this case being a submarine, there's the hastily assembled team of marines including one who chews on a cigar throughout the entire film, there's the scientists including a blonde Sweedish one to try & explain it all & the evil money grabbing corporate villain who puts the mighty dollar above human life & the final ingredient being the monster/alien/insect or whatever, in this case there's loads of large scorpions running around but they're not utilised in any sort of unique or imaginative way so they might as well have been killer grasshoppers. Yeah, it's all here, unfortunately Stinger isn't an Aliens if you get what I mean. It's a touch long at over 100 minutes & it's throughly predictable although it moves along at a reasonable pace & as a dumb creature feature you could do worse despite what many say on the IMDb...<br /><br />Director Munthe doesn't distinguish himself, it's not scary, there's a lack of atmosphere & the action scenes are dull & unexciting. There's not many scorpion attacks & it's almost an hour before any significant action occurs, the special effects are at the bottom end of the scale but I have seen worse that's for sure. I mean that's not to say the effects in Stinger are good but I've seen worse. There isn't much blood or gore, there's some mutilated bodies, some decapitated heads & someone is ripped in half. The only clever & amusing moment in the entire film is when the naked Sweedish female scientist ask's her lover to turn her on by talking about all the money their going to make from the scorpions... However there was a moment which had me groaning & tearing my hair out in it's stupidity as a bloke tries to repair the submarine's circuitry & get the lights working by hitting the power supply/computer boards with a hammer & it works as well...<br /><br />Technically Stinger is average at best & there's the usual endless amount of dark corridors which gets monotonous. Stinger was shot in Stockholm in Sweeden if your interested. The acting was poor & there's nothing else to say.<br /><br />Stinger isn't a great film & it isn't a great horror film either, I can't recommend it at all but I've seen worse. If you liked Stinger (unlikely) you might like the similarly themed 'giant scorpions on the loose' films Tail Sting (2001) or Scorpius Gigantus (2006) (just as unlikely).
I starred as Eugene Morris Jerome in my high school adaptation of the play and this film definitely doesn't live up to the script or the imagination of Neil Simon. I know this play backwards and forwards and I can honestly tell you that the acting was off, The production was cheesy. The changes in the play's script were poorly done. If you want to really enjoy this play you should see the actual play, not a Hollywood movie adaptation. The Eugene character lacked soul and was overly sarcastic in all he said. The other characters were off key as well. A general disappointment, messy, disloyal to the play, amateurishly executed!
My tolerance for shlocky direction was overwhelmed by some of the choices in this could-be-really-good time-waster.<br /><br />When the "romantic" intervals were of a nature to take me out of the story and into "How-and-why-did-the-movie-maker-do-/that/?" mode, you got to figure something is missing in there; restraint and tastefulness, I think.<br /><br />Brian Brown is a capable, empathetic actor - usually. I think he didn't like the project or the people, and it shows. I don't remember anything the other guy did. Can't even picture his face.<br /><br />On the other hand, it doesn't have to be any good to be entertaining; some of the vignettes and twists are fun and even ingenious.<br /><br />I watched this movie ($2.00 purchase at the vid rental place) against the advice of the screenwriter; I understand he was tempted to remove his name from the credits. Matter of pride, I bet.
Casper Van Dien... what can I say? I enjoy the guy! His movies bring a certain flair to them that is actually not brought on by the director or producer, but by him! Recycled plots... check. Rip-offs of better movies... check. Wooden acting... check. It's not that Van Dien is a bad actor (he has been effective in Hollywood gloss as Starship Troopers and Sleepy Hollow) he just really has not been offered a script worthy of his talents; and yes, he does have acting talent other than being eye-candy. This movie offers a slight hint of what Van Dien can offer but is bogged down by the production of it all. The script can be better developed (see Oliver Stone's U-Turn). The directing can be better utilized (see Robert Rodriguez's From Dusk Til Dawn). The DP could've made the desert more exotic (see Russ Meyer's Faster Pussycat Faster Kill!). This script is weak because this is something we have seen before many other times so the double/triple-crosses are expected. The direction is weak because it is not offering anything new and telegraphs many of the weak script moments. The cinematography at times paints a lovely autumn desert flavor to it, but at other times it doesn't take advantage of the scorching light and the beginning sequence is horrible in cornflower blue.<br /><br />Now to the acting... Van Dien shows some grace and charisma to his Jake. He neither gets too methodical nor too campy in his role. A nice balance especially since the rest of the cast seems too distracted as to how they should be acting in this film (bad script or bad direction... you make your opinion). The only other person worth mentioning is Bryan Brown's villain as it provides the only real credit for acting in this film... aspiring actors forget trying to learn how to act in green screen, try learning how to act in a horrendous script and take notes on Bryan Brown in this film. He adds extra depth to his role and is a nice counter part to Van Dien's character. Jake always seem to either be one step ahead or control of any situation whether if it is out of his control. The femme fatale is weak (this is a desert noir after all) and is another nail in this film's coffin (you decide... script or direction). The Rosalita character should've been thrusted forward in the movie instead of being pushed into the back ground later on to make room for the real femme fatale. So watch the film for Van Dien and Brown; and for fun, try to skip a rock across the plot holes laced within the film.
This movie was absolutely one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The plot could have been made to work, had the movie been written better. The acting was some of the worst I have ever seen. I was very slow and made me want to leave/turn off the movie several times. I watched the entire movie in the hopes that the ending would make it worthwhile but it didn't. this movie I think should be rated in the negative numbers. (In my humble opinion)
This was a crappy, miserably acted movie based on sublimated male fantasies. A shame that it was based in Texas, an otherwise excellent state. I would recommend this movie to no-one, and wish that it had never entered my consciousness as I am now so irritated that I wasted my brain cells even paying the slightest attention to it.
This is species already hatching into a beautiful model (Mathilda May). A smashing baby with an urge to kiss and kill!<br /><br />The movie begins with a strong launch, and infected by a bore-virus throughout the middle to end.<br /><br />The weakest spot is the presentation of the basic plot/story. As you should have compared it, Natasha Henstridge's Species got the same plot, but adds up much interesting side plot and not mentioning good actions and strong clymatic ending.<br /><br />This explain why Patrick Stewart joins the fleet of enterprise in Star Trek Next Generation; he wanted to find more models in glass cage, floating inside Halley-Comet.<br /><br />A must see for a science fiction fans.
Even though this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen, I would recommend this movie for anyone who likes good pyrotechnics. Its plot was terrible. Its horror wasn't really that good. Its sci-fi was even worse. But its pyrotechnics were excellent! (Mathilda May was extremely beautiful too.)
Usually, any movie with Steve Railsback in the lead is a good movie. However, this movie does not conform to that opinion. Lifeforce is a below average movie that is extremely confusing in the beginning (reminds me of Star Trek: TMP), but is able to pick things up a bit towards the end when London becomes Zombie City. A horror/sci-fi mess that is very hard to sit through, although the naked spacegirl/vampire is very easy to look at. This movie deserves a rating of 4 out of 10.
A poorly-paced sf/horror venture that takes itself much too seriously, memorable only for (a) the beautiful Mathilda May wandering around naked through the chaos and (b) terrible miscasting. It has a few mildly gruesome effects and startling moments, and some unintentionally funny scenes, but is mostly a waste of time.
First, I am a big fan of Alien and Alien II - in my opinion both of these movies created and defined the Si-Fi Horror Genre as we know it today. I noticed Lifeforce was often compared to the Aliens saga - after viewing this movie I would highly disagree. There are some okay special effects with the alien vampires, and the story line might have been acceptable. I just can't get past a naked woman space vampire throughout the whole movie, this is absolutely absurd (although she does look good). Add in a bunch of bad British acting and it's pretty much OVER. Most of the movie ends up taking place in London or somewhere in England, so after the first 20 minutes you lose the outerspace setting and any hope of some real Si-Fi Horror action and suspense.<br /><br />
I was really excited about seeing "Cold Mountain". Alas, like most movies I'm really excited about seeing, it was a letdown! Were it not for that miraculous invention called a DVD, I think I would've put my head through the monitor, I was so bored!<br /><br />I closely watched Kidman and Law when they meet because their characters are supposedly "destined" for each other. Yet Law's face showed anything but dumb-struck love, while Kidman seemed to be counting the seconds until she could run back to her trailer! Zellweger's character is pure Granny Clampett (as if we don't get it, cornball banjos mark her every entrance), and so over the top, it was all I could do not to laugh! Ironically, her performance serves to highlight just how stiff-as-a-board the leads are.<br /><br />Ada nearly starves because she freed her slaves; we never learn why. More perplexing is why didn't any of them stay on as Ada and her father were unusually benevolent, and (as shown in one scene) it was a very dangerous time for Negroes (as they're politely called here). Why didn't the neighbors teach her how to milk a cow or grow a crop? Heck, why didn't she just sell the farm and go home? And for all of Ruby's practicality, when she dispatches Ada's "evil" rooster, that kind of puts the kibosh on them having any more chickens!<br /><br />By the time her beloved finally returns, Ada doesn't need him or anyone else -- which is the big joke! Indeed, she may be physically intimate with Inman, but her real intimacy is with Ruby, who has turned Ada into an Über-Babe version of herself. Did anyone else notice how they walked down the hill holding hands, happy as two peas in a pod, as they left Inman behind?<br /><br />I doubt that Minghella recognized this as he was too busy making an anti-Bush movie. Inman tells us he is "like every fool sent out to fight with a flag and a lie", and Ada's father says "I imagine God is weary of being called down on both sides of an argument". These "observations" are historically inaccurate and insulting. While slavery was the basis of the South's economy, the reasons for the War were more complex. It was incomprehensible for a soldier to think that the cause was "a lie" (in fact, most in the rank-and-file were indifferent to it). For filmmakers to stamp their views onto a period where such views were foreign to those who lived in that time is beyond obnoxious.<br /><br />Structurally, the film is choppy and episodic. Law and Kidman are miscast, and have zero chemistry! The script is little more than half-baked dialog, and an egregious bunch of clichés and banalities. "Small moments like a bag of diamonds?" Ugh!
This movie was so bad, I thought I was going to scream in the middle of it. It was all I could do to sit through it. The beginning of the movie where they are at war was promising. Only it smacked of "Saving Private Ryan" to me...or at least an attempt at it. Only we don't care for these people. There was no build up to the characters. The kid that dies I guess was suppose to make us cry...but for some reason it just irritated everyone. Then we have to listen to line after line of sappy dialog that tried desperately to mimic "Wuthering Heights", which of course was also quoted in the movie. Go figure. There was nothing original about the movie at all, it was like sitting through the most mundane parts of every war movie ever made, with a little bit of humor thrown in to keep you hoping that it was going to get better. Sadly it doesn't. 3 hours later, I leave the theater feeling cheated. Anthony Menghilla should be shot for trying to duplicate the English Patient, which for it's time was a good movie, but now I wonder....should I rent it and make sure I wasn't just caught up in the HYPE??? Maybe I was, but I definitely wasn't caught up in the hype of this film. I really went to the theater wanting to like this movie. I am a die hard Nicole Kidman fan. Save your money, rent it on DVD and laugh through it, as I did.
***MILD SPOILERS*** Dear Inman, Kind words are hard to find for me to describe the movie I have just been subjected to that stars you. The problems are far and wide and painful for me to recount. . . yet I feel I must, if only to prevent others from suffering the same anguish as I did. This is NOT a film for anyone under 50, it's sloooowwwww, soooooo slowwww, and when the big reunion of Ada and Inman happens. . .the biggest and most important scene in the film, NOTHING happens, it is a epic letdown. Now, like the director should have done, I will keep my words short and end with this warning, your film is disjointed, boring, has no flow and Jude Law is tragically mis-cast, he showed more emotion as a robot in A.I. - be warned, the film should be retitled . . . Bored Mountain. Love, Ada
Critics are falling over themselves within the Weinstein's Sphere of Influence to praise this ugly, misguided and repellent adaptation of the lyrical novel on which it's based. Minghella's ham-fisted direction of the egregiously gory and shrill overly-episodic odyssey is one of the many missteps of this "civil-war love story". Are they kidding? After Ms. Kidman and Mr. Law meet cute with zero screen chemistry in a small North Carolina town and steal a kiss before its off to war for Jude and his photo souvenir of the girl he left behind, it's a two hour test to the kidneys as to whether he will survive a myriad of near-death experiences to reunite with his soulmate. Who cares? Philip S. Hoffman's amateurish scene chewing in a disgusting and unfunny role pales to Renee Zelweger's appearance as a corn-fed dynamo who bursts miraculously upon the scene of Kidman's lonely farm to save the day. Rarely has a performance screamed of "look at me, I'm acting" smugness. Her sheer deafening nerve wakes up the longuers for a couple of minutes until the bluster wears painfully thin. Released by Miramax strategically for Oscar and Golden Globe (what a farce) consideration, the Weinsteins apparently own, along with Dick Clark, the critical community and won 8 Globe nominations for their overblown failure. The resultant crime is that awards have become meaningless and small, less powerful PR-driven films become obscure. Cold Mountain is a concept film and an empty, bitter waste of time. Cold indeed!!!
<br /><br />This movie really has nothing going for it. With the Reverend played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman complaining about his constipation and other toilet humor in a 2.5 hour movie, you know that they made no cuts at all and left the crap in, literally. It's a waste of good talent, and a total embarrassment. Dreadful!<br /><br />
Jude law gives Keanu Reeves a run for his money as the most wooden actor around, Renee Z's character is straight out of the Beverly Hillbillies, and the two leads have about as much chemistry as Darth Vader and Queen Amedala. The "bad guys" are the worst kind of cliche, and there's not a subtle moment in the film. Incredible that some critics actually liked this movie.
I had to write a review for this film after I saw it last night and read some of the comments of people trying to classify the displeasure of this film go down to wfmitchell's post)). I don't fit any any of those classification. The other classification that needs to be on the list is 5) people didn't like this movie because it was not good. I found the film to be booring and forced. My wife picked it for us to see because she is a huge Kidman fan and she also likes Jude Law.<br /><br />Speaking of Law, it took a long time and a huge amount of suspension of belief for me to believe his southern accent. I can't help but wonder if they didn't make his character less talkative on purpose so we would't have to hear that tortured accent so much.<br /><br />As far as the movie, it took a long time for it to get interesting (about 1 or 1.5 hours), and then fell flat in it's ending. What was interesting, is that I did not know that this film was directed by Minghella. About 40 minutes into the movie, I asked my wife "this isn't going to be another English Patient is it?" It absolutely was.<br /><br />As far as the battle scenes. I'm trying to think of a word to describe the opening battle scene, but I think the most descriptive word that accurately describes it is simply "dumb". It was forced, it was unbelievable, it was silly and it was dumb. (After the battle I looked at my wife and asked "was that just dumb?" to which she vigorously nodded her head).<br /><br />The only bright point in the film was the performance of Zellweger. The role was a bit over acted like any decent comedy relief role, but it worked. From her speech pattern, her walk, her mannerisms and esp. her little quips (my favorite: "If you want to get 3 feet up a bull's ass all you have to do is listen to sweethearts talk to each other"), she was able to create an almost cartoon-like character who did her job extremely well.<br /><br />I simply did not like this movie and I have to wonder about the kind of people who do say they like it (or the English Patient for that matter). I suspect you could categorize them in one category: 1) Soap opera fans
I found the first 90 minutes of this film to be very interesting, even though a few parts of it were ridiculous (i.e.. Philip Seymour Hoffman's character). The last 60 minutes were distasteful and I began to lose interest in the film. The last hour lasted forever, it seemed.<br /><br />The movie is nicely acted and I can see why Rene Zellweger won an Academy Award since her character was so interesting. The movie also is beautifully filmed and the story is an emotional one. However, I found the message to be a bad one: not surprising these days in Hollywood. In this story, "Inman" (Jude Law) deserts the Confederate Army during the Civil War. His reason: his girlfriend misses him and wants him home. He's also getting disillusioned with war. (Can you imagine if every soldier who was in a similar boat deserted the army in the two world wars??!)<br /><br />Yet, in this film of course, all of that is perfectly acceptable. Then again, what Liberal filmmaker has ever had a nice thing to say about the U.S. military?? To add to their left-wing slant, they portray a vigilante-like posse going after deserters as cold-blooded sick killers. Well, in the world of films, as we know: good is portrayed as bad and bad is good.....and only Liberals would portray deserters as heroes.
Her embalmed look was totally inappropriate for the role. Her face remained too white, hair too coifed, clothes etc. too clean (and well-fitting, especially her father's old hat and coat in the scene where Inman comes home) for any sense of accuracy. It would be one thing if the production had allowed all the other actors to remain clean and perfect, too, but she was the only one who didn't get messy. There was never even a smudge on her powdered cheek. Are we to believe she was the only person in the Civil War with a bathtub and a mirror? She certainly looked like the only one who used them. Tweezers, too; I mean, what's with those eyebrows? She looked absolutely mean!<br /><br />The love story was implausible. She only went over to the guy because someone told her that he had said he thought she was cute. So, she goes over to tease him, then flirts with him a couple more times, and suddenly this is a love on a par with Odysseus and Penelope? Please.<br /><br />I should have known better than to expect anything better from the man who brought us "The English Patient." My reaction to that one was the same as Elaine's on Seinfeld: "It sucked."
Jude Law, Nicole Kidman, and Renne Zelwigger. They are all horrible. Especially the star, Jude Law. <br /><br />It's directed by the same guy who did the english patient and its based on a best selling novel of a man risking all to get back to his lover but unlike the wonderful English pateint, this movie sucks. It is really bad.<br /><br />Worst dialogue ever. "But we've only know each other for a moment" "But they were a thousand moments, like diamonds in a bag"<br /><br />or <br /><br />"In some cultures you just have to say I marry you 3 times and you're married" lovey-dovey-"I marry you, I marry you, I marry you, I marry you..."<br /><br />I'm ashamed I sat through it all. <br /><br />the whole movie was awful, horrible....Ughh no words, I'm sick.<br /><br />1/10 (the one is for the really loud bullet sounds, the sound crew did a good job)
The two leads, an Englishman and an Aussie filming an American Civil War story in Romania, have not the slightest spark between them, are utterly unbelievable as lovers, and wholly unsympathetic. There is no story, no characterization, virtually nothing to keep the eyelids separated during this interminable bore fest. Renee Zelwegger, also hopelessly miscast, practically chews the fence posts, but at least watching her embarrass herself provides some comic relief. Nicole Kidman is a decade too old for the role and has not the slightest idea what's going on. Jude Law's moron role could have been played equally as well by any of the Romanian extras. The only requirement is to wander about the forest looking stupid while watching a parade of guest stars steal the show. Not that it mattered, because all of the guest star roles were completely unnecessary as they did not advance the so-called plot by one iota. And as if all that wasn't enough, the auteur felt it necessary to throw in some spinning, whirling, kung fu jumping off horses. What was that about?
What gives Anthony Minghella the right to ruin two extraordinary works of fiction?? First, he destroyed The English Patient, which was bad enough, but now I discover he's butchered Cold Mountain - butchered!!!<br /><br />I had such a strange reaction to The English Patient. My son and I went to see it the first weekend it was released, and I was so disappointed, but told my son I felt like I needed to read the book. I drove straight to Barnes and Noble, bought it, read it, and tried to figure out what in the world the critics were talking about when they said Minghella had trusted enough in the intelligence of the movie-going public to give them a great film. That is what he most surely did not do. <br /><br />I do not ordinarily read a great deal of fiction, but Cold Mountain was so highly recommended by friends that I felt compelled to read it. I did not see Cold Mountain, the movie, when it played in theaters, and it was because of what Minghella had done to The English Patient. But like a fool, I rented it today, and I'm so upset, I had to vent my frustration and, most of all, my sadness, that someone could have taken this beautiful story and crafted it into something almost as beautiful on the screen, and now they never will. <br /><br />READ THE BOOK AND LET THE MOVIE ROT ON THE SHELF. I will never be taken in by a Minghella project again. I think he may be one of the worst directors working today, and I'm tired of the praise Hollywood heaps upon his head. It must be that no one in Hollywood reads anymore. This movie bears no resemblance to the book, except for the names of the characters. Minghella's ego must know no bounds, and if he didn't like the book, then why didn't he write an original screenplay and leave the book alone. Even if I hadn't read the book, I would still consider this movie one of the worst I've seen from 2003; and I've seen almost everything that's been released for viewing in the USA.<br /><br />Elaine, you aren't going to like this one either.
Another tiresome bore from Anthony Minghella, who seems to thrive on these big bloated super-productions that take over two and a half hours to do what any reasonable filmmaker would do in about ninety minutes.<br /><br />The story centers on Inman (a somnambulent Jude Law), who goes off to the Civil War having just barely started a sort-of romance with Nicole Kidman, a Preacher's Daughter who has recently arrived in the prettily photographed backwater town. The story cuts back and forth between Inman's trials and tribulations at war (which is, guess what boys and girls? HELL!!) and Kidman's trials and tribulations back at home (which are, very predictably, incredibly boring). Renee Zellwegger appears on Kidman's farm to help Kidman get it back into shape after Kidman's saintly Daddy dies of Inconvenient Character Disease. Zellwegger acts all squinty and bossy in that Granny Clampett kind of way, dispensing enough Tough Love and Homespun Wisdom to turn the stomach of even the hardiest watcher of Touched By An Angel.<br /><br />This film is, quite simply, excruciating. Avoid it like the big bloated Oscar-bait Bogus Pretentious Literary Adaptation nonsense that it is.
Kidman and Law lack the chemistry to make this sloppily directed, poorly written romance/melodrama work on any level other than grandiosity. Kidman pouts and<br /><br />pines wistfully for her absent lover Law. She's just met him when he's whisked off to do battle for the South in the Civil War, and they've only exchanged about 5 sentences and one kiss, yet they're totally smitten. Law's main direction throughout seems to be `Look vacant and shell-shocked, but sensitive.' Rene Zellweger is about the only spark in this dreary script, but she plays it way too broad and over the top, like she was starring in `Annie Get Your Gun.' Yee-hah boy howdy! Something about her character felt more like it belonged in a Monty Python sketch - the one from `Holy Grail' where the peasants spend all their time wallowing in muck making mud pies for no reason. Kidman is a smart enough actress to stay out of her way whenever she can. Their scenes together are like a comic book hidden inside a Victorian Era novel.<br /><br />Whenever the action bogs down into total tedium, which is frequently, all the writers do is shout `Cue the Simon Legree-type Villain!' and Teague (Ray Winstone) comes galloping out of nowhere to do his unspeakably dastardly acts, like kill and torture innocent God-fearing townspeople in the name of loyalty to a fast-fading<br /><br />Confederacy. All other times, he's missing in action, which is preposterous even in this cornball script. There is a plethora of other talented actors who give credible performances in small roles. These are the characters Law meets as he does his Johnny Appleseed trek from the front lines, where he has deserted, to the hopefully loving embrace of Kidman back in Cold Mountain. Ultimately though, none of these characters matter. Law has no time for them or their lives. Each of these little mini-movies has the same tired theme: war is gol-durn heck, and turns otherwise decent Christian folk into rabid animals.<br /><br />And the script is far too predictable, too heavy-handed. Moreover, the pacing of the story is dreadfully slow. You spend the entire movie waiting for Romeo and Juliet's inevitable reunion, with Kidman wringing her hands and sighing, Law overcoming incredible odds and dodging bullets. And when it finally comes you just don't care anymore. You'll be looking at your watch wondering how much more of this clap you have to endure.<br /><br />I give it one star out of five for the battle scenes. There is a potent anti-war message here. The incredible lack of concern for the loss of life by the Generals on both sides of the conflict is powerful stuff. But it's only about 15 minutes of this 150-minute dog.
Some movies are not for everyone. This accurately describes Igmar Bergaman's movie, Skammen (Shame). At only 18, I still have what I guess you could call a minor form of ADD and well, I watch movies to be entertained. Shame was a movie with a very interesting premise, of trying to convey the effect of war on the common people, it however fell short of accomplishing this for me. I don't know if it was the subtitles, black and white filming, length of the movie, or the fact that it took two hours out of my studying for a huge chemistry test, but I did not enjoy it. I understand it is considered a great movie and very important in the history of cinema, however, I think as my teacher pointed out, not everyone has liked or likes it. I guess I just wish it finished all of its many side plots. Maybe the translation lost something, but I felt there were infinite little off shoots that never met a conclusion. You would meet characters and never see them again, or really understand why they were included in the movie. My overall recommendation for this movie is that it's worth seeing, but only to form your own opinion on it. Whether or not you like or dislike it, it is necessary to respect the point that it is trying to convey.
I just recently viewed Shame which is directed by Ingmar Bergman. The film was interesting and very unique. I liked how it was in Swedish with English subtitles and that it was also in black and white. These features allowed me to better relate to the characters, the time period, and their stories. I didn't like how the movie was very slow in the beginning and how you didn't know what was really going on. At first, it was mainly a story of Eva and Jan's relationship. The movie also ended on a very depressing note because nothing good came out of all of the conflicts and changes throughout the movie. I probably would not go see Shame again, but it was a very cultured experience.
I felt that the movie Skammen, directed by Ingmar Bergman, was very dry. It shows the things people will do to survive during a war and the shame that comes out of these actions; however I feel that it was not complete or attention holding. He never fully got into the plot or deep into the character emotions or reasons behind their actions. The only thing that I found rather attention holding in the movie was the transformation of the two main characters, Jan and Eva. Many times during the movie was just the two main characters sitting around or doing their daily chores and not even having a conversation. I understand this was to show the reality of these people however I feel there are other ways to show reality and have it be entertaining. I think that Ingmar Bergman could have filmed this movie in a more riveting way.
I liked most of this film. As other reviews mentioned it has a good cast, the plot is interesting enough. All in all it is fun to watch.<br /><br />But the ending, I feel, is completely botched, it left me bewildered. Yes, you expect people crossing and double-crossing each other in this sort of movie, but quadruple-crossing? Well, if it's justified by the plot then why not? <br /><br />But that's the bad part, there's completely no need for it. After a certain point it's all scheming with completely no meaning. (here comes the SPOILER). After the airport scene Enrico and his accomplices already HAVE the money. I couldn't understand the need for the rest of the scam. Is it all necessary just to rub Federico's nose in the fact that he's been fooled? I don't buy it.<br /><br />So 6 out of 10 for 3/4 of the film and 2 out of 10 for the ending.
I was so offended by this film that I had to write SOMETHING about it, so please humour me.<br /><br />Its only redeeming virtue, outside of some good acting, is that it doesn't go on past 107 minutes. Even that length is about 30 minutes too long.<br /><br />Comparisons have been made here to the brilliantly dark 'The Grifters,' but I can't see it. They are two different films altogether. The closest 'Swindled' comes to an existing film is 'The Sting,' made in 1973. It borrows (sorry, STEALS) liberally from this splendid George Roy Hill 'entertainment,' which is exactly what is was. I enjoyed it because it didn't pretend to be anything else.<br /><br />There are so many red herrings in 'Swindled' that I thought I was in a fish tank. It's very confusing, but that's only one of its many problems. The principal one is this: if you make a film where everyone lies to everyone else, where everyone is conning, we have no 'anchor' to ground us. The inevitable result is a mish-mash of very sloppy seconds from other caper flicks.<br /><br />Just about everyone in this film is conniving and objectionable. Surely a basic Film 101 class would tell us that the audience has to 'care' for someone. We can't 'care' for anyone here: they're ALL swines. It might have worked as a rakish comedy, but it plays it straight from beginning to end.<br /><br />IF YOU WANT TO SEE THIS FILM, READ NO FURTHER. BIG 'SPOILER' COMING. SORRY, BUT I HAVE TO DO IT.<br /><br />There's so much fake blood and so many fake killings that it doesn't strain credulity -- it destroys it. The ending is absolutely ridiculous -- a 'murder' in a crowded airport that isn't really a 'murder' at all? And the 'murdered' guy, blood-soaked, simply stands up, brushes himself off, and walks away, fake blood dripping, with the booty? All while the police and hordes of people are looking on, and no one intercedes? The director must have a lot of cojones if he thinks we're supposed to buy into this. Noirish B-movies from the 1940s did better. <br /><br />I'm a great fan of European flicks, but this confirms that schlock doesn't always come from Hollywood. As far as 'Swindled' is concerned, my judgment lies with a famous line from the oft-misspoken producer Samuel Goldwyn, who knew all about schlock: 'Include me out'.
Although the acting was excellent, I spent the whole movie waiting for the nasty boy who caused so much grief to so many of the characters, get his final nemesis, and instead everyone else suffered except him and he gets the job of the husband whose wife's death he causes by running away from his friends, wins the girl he gave an overdose to and tried to rape. Even his friend gives money to his father, but the butterfly effect completely fails to return to its cause.<br /><br />This is a very dark film as each character that gets affected, suffers never ending depression. None of the normal avenues for relief seem to be effective and the only thing the authorities seem to do is give out quantities of stress pills.<br /><br />If this is normal behaviour in Finland now, I'm never going to go back just in case I am affected by such an amoral butterfly and end up as destroyed as the characters in this film were.
Let's see. This movie is many things to different people. To Finns, as shown by the comments, it can be OK or dreadful or boring. To other folks, it can be something different. First off: if you do not speak Finnish (I do), you will understand half of what is going on, as subtitles are dreadful and even the title is translated incorrectly ("Paha maa" would probably be idiomatically translated as Badlands in UK English).<br /><br />Why did I not like it? Because it is a Tarantino-style movie: it simply takes a very harsh reality and throws it back at you, as brutally as possible. I, however, am not American, and thus I am not particularly fond of this proceeding, because all it does is show that the director has really nothing new to say. Technical prowess (camera work is brilliant), script (not that unoriginal) do not rescue this movie from the bottom where it belongs. Should you wish to see a Finnish movie, then go for any of the Kaurismäki brothers' movie, who match talent and directorial skill, with very good actresses and actors. <br /><br />This director ought to review his intention and priorities: none was intelligible, and thus this film failed. By not watching it you won't miss much.
If this is what's best in the Finnish cinema at the moment, I'd say those big tax euros spent at supporting "culture" have gone to waste here in a horrible way. Paha maa is the worst kind of example of trying to make a Finnish "European film" for big audiences. I'm sure they wanted it to be all state-of-the-art, smart and touching at the same time. The result is crap.<br /><br />To make it short: - The story is pretentious, naïve and not credible. The same goes for the characters. I can imagine them brainstorming about making a film where "everything would, like, turn to ***t and people would be hurt and feel, you know, really bad inside, because Finnish people are so notoriously depressed, too, and their self-esteem is so bad", which brings us to the fact that...<br /><br />- The film is loaded with clichés, mostly about "the Finnish mentality". The way the it deals with people's problems and their causes could be straight out of a regular women's magazine or a cheap bull-psychology-self-help book. ("We feel so bad inside!") I'm sure they watched some Kaurismäki, too, to find out what it is about his films that people like, misunderstood him completely, and came up with a boring, depressing story about people going through all kinds of s**t for no other artistic purpose than perhaps social pornography. It's a crying shame they threw in Tolstoy here. It's just a sign of trying to be smart. And of not being.<br /><br />- I think the worst fault, however, is the complete lack of vision and depth. The film is highly unoriginal. It is also frustrating to watch endless sulking and suffering without any real revelation brought to it. I can go through this kind of mind**ck if the film is funny or ends up being an elaborate joke, or better yet, something sublime like in e.g. von Trier's Breaking the Waves. There was none these in Paha maa. Actually though, I did start laughing at some point because the turn of events was again just too predictable, over-the-top and incredible.<br /><br />Who does this crap? And who likes it? I hope they're pretending.
I recently waisted 8 € by going and see this movie in the cinema. It was a waste of time and the only feeling you get going out of the theater is a slightly nauseous of all the disgusting social pornography. <br /><br />It could have been interesting if it had a quite absurd twist but it hadn't so it was just plain awful with maybe one or two scenes which could have been taken out and made to very nice short movies.<br /><br />Another thing I thought about is the way the director uses all the Finish stereotypes as characters. It is quite extraordinary how you as a Finish director can make a movie with the worst stereotypes of your own nationality. It was sad to sit and and hear the audience sitting and laughing at things that they thought was typical Finish but in general just is making fun of people.
Some Janapese modern horror movies are very good. Strong plot, scary moments, good acting, while others are just.... unfortunately, Uzumaki belongs to the latter camp.<br /><br />I will rate the movie based on 3 elements: Plot, Scary Factor, and Acting.<br /><br />1) Plot - true to the name the movie, the plot moves in circle and never really explains itself. OK, the town is captivated by the spiral curse, but why? And why do people act so foolishly? There is a fleeting attempt to explain about what is happening by the reporter.. unforutunately...<br /><br />2) Scary Factor - if this was meant to be a horror flick, it has failed miserably. I can't really remember one good scary scene with plenty of build-up to it. <br /><br />3) Acting - very monotonous. People walking around, saying meaningless phases. I can't really feel much empathy for our tragic heroes.<br /><br />All in all, there are much better modern Japanese horror movies out there with coherent plot and strong characterization. Don't bother wasting your time on this wannabe.
I thought it was weird and just gory, not scary. I have seen a couple of the Japanese horror films, Ringu and Juon, and loved them; but this movie was a disappointment. It never even explained anything about the curse. I just didn't see any horror... it wasn't scary to me at all. The whole time I was watching I was waiting for Kirie to discover the secret of the curse and why it was happening now. If this was some ancient curse, why didn't it happen before Shuichi's father? And it never told us what happened to her father. I kept waiting for someone to tell us the meaning or the reasoning behind this curse and then it just ended. I was very disappointed.
Uzumaki, which translates into "spirals", arriving within this new wave of Asian Horror films following such hits like Ringu, Ju-On and The Eye (two of them with remakes.. and much more coming like Dark Water and Tale of Two Sisters), falls short of the spooky, supernatural thriller element so characteristic of the other movies, the only thing that remains is weirdness and not in a Tim Burton or David Lynch kind of way, but in a irrelevant and dull way. <br /><br />Its start with a girl, some other kid with a crush on her, her best friend and his dad who's obsessed with Uzumakis! Everything that happens concerns Uzumakis, people die and you see Uzumakis. So okay, It'll go along with it, I'm kinda amuse by spirals myself, characters don't seem to go anywhere, but I'll play along. We find out the town is cursed by Uzumakis, people start screaming at Uzumakis and the point is Uzumakis are everywhere, the movie is a disaster, it doesn't know where to go, except to show you the power of Uzumakis!!!!!!!!! There are some cool concepts like when the mother cuts her fingers because she sees Uzumakis on her fingerprints but then there's another scene where she hears her husband (from beyond the grave!!) tell her that she also has Uzumakis in her ear, the way they handled that scene was just laughable, not even cheesy fun, there are also some (a little bit) of cool visuals, like the collection the father has of Uzumakis and the girl with the Uzumakis hair.. yep, Uzumakis hair, its out of context though, its seems like it was taken out of a Fruit Snack commercial where if you eat an Uzumakis fruits snack, its taste is so incredible your hair turns into Uzumakis, now if this wasn't bad enough, suddenly, out of nowhere there are Snail Men.. or ManSnails… whatever… and you know why? right? Because in their shells they have Uuuuzuuuumaaakiiiis…. That only left time enough for a crappy anti-climatic ending and by that time I was sick of friggin' uzumakis.. uzumaki here uzumaki there, sure, look around you, how many Uzumakis can you find… If you want to see a movie about spirals go see PI (3.1416) now there you'll find some pretty cool uzumaki concepts in between the meaning of life and Dark City has also a little bit of a spiraling thing in there.<br /><br />This movie could have worked as a music video, it has already garnered a cult following and thats why I was compelled to see it, but after doing so, I'm not sure why people think it's great. I was truly disappointed.
This feeble attempt at veering your typically bland Japanese horror movie more towards a creepy cult hit did not have the ammunition needed to keep the viewer involved throughout. Translated to vortex, Uzumaki is about just that- an irrational and overabundant tribute to the strange downward spiral into nothingness that has seemingly captivated a whole small town into dementia obsessed lunatics. While this certainly makes for a pleasurable b-movie on the surface, the traditionally tiresome acting, direction, and script will have all but Asian horror buffs shaking their heads in dismay. What could have roughly translated into Japanese equivalent of an early David Lynch piece, instead wares out it's spiraled gimmickry before it even has a chance to explain itself- which of course it does not. Aside from a few clever techniques employed, the movie rarely connects the dizzying thematics with the dull script, ultimately coming across as a cheap exploitation into the cult genre, substituting hollow imagery for genuine substance. When the movie had ended there was hardly anything that was gained from any of the interactions, save a tiny few scenes or images that rose above the one note film. I do applaud the makers for at least trying to take the genre into more supernatural, metaphysical realms and understand the rough losses lost-in-translation, but with zero substance to back any of it's freakishness up this will likely be relegated to obscure fanboy's bong-ridden basements.
OK, let me start off by saying this isn't a horrible movie by any means. It's just not good. I recall one poster saying the acting isn't campy it's just nuanced. No. I've seen nuanced Japanese and Asian acting. I'm sorry, you're wrong. This is camp.<br /><br />The characters are totally unsympathetic, the deaths are totally random and utterly meaningless. The writing is bad. I'm fine with suspending disbelief, I'm fine with not having everything handed to me in terms of plot. But this movie has no plot. One reviewer stated "This movie is set in a small town where people are going nuts over vortexes and spirals." That's not a blurb, that's the entire freaking film. Congratulations, I've just saved you nearly an hour and a half. There is nothing more to it. No character development, no plot development, no explanations, no resolution. And not even the "Acceptable within the realm of J-Horror" lack of resolution. Just nothing.<br /><br />In addition, the musical score is done by someone who obviously wasn't actually watching the movie at the time because it's random enough to cause whiplash. Cognitive dissonance is one thing and done well it can be brilliant (see Dark Water), but here it just seems as if the score was designed to go with another movie all together.<br /><br />The best example I can give is it's as if the Japanese remade Evil Dead without any of the clever bits or good acting. It just falls flat. It's J-horror without the horror.
This movie started out as a quite decent-looking film but it never really kicked off, instead it became predictable and even a bit silly. Some scenes were quite well made, the photography and the cuts used in combination with sounds and such made it a bit more interesting to watch, but since the story was quite slow it didn't manage to keep the interest alive. And more importantly, its not scary at all! It's supposed to be a horror movie but there wasn't a single scene that was close to frightening or even exciting..<br /><br />To be frank, the actors weren't all that great either, no colorful characters you ll remember for the rest of your days..<br /><br />Overall a watchable movie but it doesn't add anything and once you've finished watching it, it wont last long until its already forgotten.<br /><br />The reason I watched it was because I had read some review giving it top scores, but I disagree and instead I would grade it 4 out of 10. If you still want some Japanese horror, I would suggest you watch Ju-On instead!<br /><br />
Worst.film.ever Nothing more needs to be said. Aaron Carter is utterly repellent and the rest of the cast should fire their agents immediately. It really is a terrible terrible movie from beginning to end. I wish I could be more eloquent in describing the movies many (oh so many) flaws however I cant be bothered/get too angry to form proper sentences. <br /><br />In short I absolutely hated everything about this movie and not in "so bad its good" kinda way...<br /><br />It was unadulterated drek.<br /><br />Gavin
The only people i would recommend this film to are both blind and deaf, although i'm sure a sadomasochist would get a kick out of it. This film had nothing; no acting, terrible music, awful script- only the power to suck any happiness from your soul. You may be wondering by now why or even how i managed to sit through the full hour and a half of sheer inanity, and it is honestly a difficult concept for even myself. Firstly, i had to pace up and down as the film progressed as i found it extremely hard to get comfortable. Secondly, i only made it without gnawing off my own arm in order to have something to beat myself to death with by phoning friends for moral support when the plot became particularly slow. The problem was it became a matter of pride for me to finish it after the opening thirty minutes, and that was a fatal error on my behalf. I normally like films to leave you with something by the end, but all this did was take..... For the sake of your sanity do not watch this film.
What really stood out to me about this movie was how little the plot made sense. So many characters were randomly introduced, it was like how I imagine Tommy Wiseau's "THE ROOM" would be re-envisioned for the Disney Channel set. We had the wise elderly couple who kept on hanging out where "Jane" worked, telling the same story about how "soda" brought them together, or Jane's Mom/Stepmom/random crying woman who would all show up at random times.<br /><br />Aaron Carter's acting is definitely the highlight of this film: I actually looked forward to every scene he appeared in. The editing is painfully bad, with scene cuts that make no sense. The "Jane" character is really irritating, mooning about and moping about "J.D. McQueen." The scenes with the "Music Awards" are more depressing than anything else. And the ending of this movie is surreal.
I rented this movie with my friend for a good laugh. We actually got laughed at by the clerk at the video store because of our questionable movie tastes. Unfortunately, I don't remember the first half of the movie because all I did was stare at the giant metal braces Jane wore. and I didn't hear anything either due to the incomprehensible lisp. The other thing that was able to grasp my attention besides her metal mouth was her questionable fashion sense. This movie was made in 2005 but it seems like the wardrobe people jumped all the way back to 2000 for the clothes. If you remember the days when Aaron Carter was considered a "popstar" and you like high waisted jeans, ankle socks and knee length skirts, then this little trip down memory lane is perfect for you.
Honestly, the only reason I picked up this movie from Blockbuster was because Aaron Carter was in it. Okay first thing's first. Do you notice how ugly Aaron Carter has become?? I mean, he used to be so cute but now..with that lanky body and blotchy skin - EW. I think he should stick with singing and the directors of the movie could've found a much better-looking guy who could lip-sync. No offense though. I thought this teen movie was majorly lame - and this is coming from me, being a teen myself. The 'mean girls' in there are oh-so predictable, the acting is so amateurish it makes you cringe at times (especially from Aaron) and overall I just didn't enjoy it. Although, I give out points for the storyline - that was alright, but not at all realistic. Anyway, stay away from this movie by all means you can unless you happen to have wads of cash on hand and have absolutely nothing better to do with 94 minutes of your time. It's not worth the $6.50!!<br /><br />(P.S; this review of mine may not be applicable to younger kids under the age of 13!)
It was funny because the whole thing was so unrealistic, I mean, come on, like a pop star would just show up at a public high school and fall in love with the girl who happens to be obsessed with him? Come on, people!<br /><br />Everyone but the lead girl were completely horrendous at acting. The dialog was cheesy, the premise was stupid, and the camera work was poorly done. I felt like I was watching a badly made home video. <br /><br />I feel as if I've wasted almost 2 hours of my life that I will never get back. <br /><br />I don't have anything else to say, except that I'd rather punch myself in the face multiple times, than watch this movie again.
My summary refers to the fact that this film has 1479 votes--just 21 short of making it eligible to be on IMDb's infamous Bottom 100 list--the 100 lowest rated films on the website. With a paltry score of only 1.8, this would place the film at approximately between #38 and 46 on the list--talk about a very dubious achievement!! My score of 3 isn't that bad--but it does bring the film that much closer to the dreaded list.<br /><br />As for the film, it stars the once-cute Aaron Carter--yet another prepackaged and forgettable pop star of the 1990s. When he first broke onto the scene, he was a cute kid with some songs that appealed to pre-teens and tweeners on Radio Disney. His songs, look and image were all scrupulously groomed and created by marketing folks and did the trick--leading to some huge album sales. Unfortunately, by 2005, sales were in decline and Carter had hit his awkward stage of life--something ALL kids his age have to deal with eventually. To put it bluntly, he isn't cute any more in this film and is at a very tough stage of life. I assume now he's a gorgeous young man...but in "Popstar" he's no longer the heart-throb he once was. Here, he is just very normal...a death sentence for a kid in his position as a "pop sensation".<br /><br />Interestingly, the film has some appearances by some other ex-teen heart-throbs from the last few decades--including a roles for David Cassidy and Leif Garrett--two guys who also know what it's like to disappear from the limelight. Cassidy managed to pick up the pieces and make a niche for himself, while Garrett is a great example of a pop star whose life after stardom has been a bit of a joke. Hopefully Carter will take after Cassidy in the future and so far, thankfully, he's managed to avoid the negative publicity and court appearances of many ex-pop idols. I was far from thrilled with the film but seriously wish him best in this department. It's not his fault he was plastered across the radio and television throughout the early to mid-1990s.<br /><br />In this film, Carter doesn't exactly need to stretch himself--he plays a pop star. However, despite making millions and being adored by girls, he doesn't "have it all". He's quite dense--mostly because he has little interest in learning. The problem is so bad that his mother decides to no longer home school him--forcing him to go to public school. The problem, though, is that he is rather phobic about taking tests...and making the grade in school is difficult. So, he gets the idea of finding a smart girl to date--one who would naturally be obliged to help him out in school. He picks the cute but bookish Jane (Alana Austin) and pretends to really like her in a sad attempt to make this scheme work.<br /><br />This plot, by the way, isn't bad and could work even though it seems a lot like an episode of a show like "The Brady Bunch" or a Nickelodeon sit-com. Sure, it's predictable and you KNOW that the formula will mean that she will eventually learn his plot and be hurt AND he will eventually realize that he actually does care for her AND by the end of the film, all will be forgiven and they'll be a real couple. But, given good acting and competent direction, this could be worth seeing for his teen fans, as predictable isn't always bad. And, as it turned out, this ISN'T exactly where the plot went...but it was awfully close.<br /><br />There are a few good things I liked about the film. Seeing Tom Bosley and Stella Stevens playing Jane's grandparents was very nice--their role was quite sweet and it was good seeing them again. Also, 1970s made for TV movie star Andrew Stevens appeared in the film--it was nice to see him again--though part of me hated him, as he looks so great after all these years and I look ever bit of my 45 years! He did a fine job and it was nice seeing him in the same film as his mother (Stella).<br /><br />As for Carter, with his many prior experiences on TV, he was, not surprisingly, pretty good. While his relationship with Jane didn't seem very believable, he and Ms. Austin gave it their best. The film wasn't great, but they did try and I think most of the problems with the film were in the writing--with a better and less formulaic plot, it could have worked much better. Plus the whole "testophobia" angle seemed pretty contrived...and rather insignificant. Who cares if a mega-millionaire star gets anxious taking tests in school?! Overall, not a rotten film as the current rating would imply, though there isn't much here to attract a wide audience. People who grew up loving Carter probably will enjoy the film. Older folks will probably care less as well as really young people who probably haven't heard of him. For them, there is no nostalgia value in the film.<br /><br />My favorite part of the film...Leif Garrett giving Aaron advice. I felt like screaming "don't listen!!" but didn't!
Horrendous! I'm a teenager and I don't mind teen movies but this is horrible! Aaron Carter plays this popstar named JD McQueen and to keep his grades up or something, he works together with the 'nerd', Jane whateverherlastnameis. But the 'mean girls' are too predictable and such The clothing most of the girls wear in the movie isn't realistic. How would any of those girls get away with wearing no bra, tube tops and shirts that expose the belly? IN HIGH SCHOOL? At my school, we'd be sent home for something like that.<br /><br />And one part of the movie where JD texts Jane, she says 'Sleep tight? He must think i'm an idiot! I didn't know texting was so stressful!' How is texting stressful? And how obsessed Jane is with JD and how he 'falls' in love with her is very stupid. The dialogue is cheesy and stupid, the acting's terrible. the music is somewhat enjoyable and the plot is little to none.<br /><br />For tweeny-boppers who still love Aaron Carter, you'll enjoy it. If you're a casual watcher like me, this is NOT the movie for you
This is a disaster-movie, in both meanings of the word. Every character, every role, every conversation, every twist, everything in this movie stinks big time. It's a shame to see Dennis Hopper's talent wasted in this dreadful movie. I can give you 100's of examples but see for yourself.<br /><br />Or rather : don't.
I found myself getting increasingly angry as this movie progressed.<br /><br />Basically, Dr. Crawford (Dennis Hopper) has predicted a meteor will hit the earth. The "powers that be" don't believe him so he sets about building a survival shelter inside a mountain for a small collection of people.<br /><br />Jake Lowe (Peter Onorati) is a down on his luck reporter for a trashy tabloid who gets a tip from a friend he thought was dead that something is going on in the mountains. He sets out to investigate.<br /><br />While trying to get into the secret survival shelter Jake spends a great deal of time shooting people to death or beating them to within an inch of their lives. He spends the rest of his time bitching at Dr. Crawford about who gave the doc the right to decide which people should get to survive the meteor.<br /><br />I found myself wishing Jake would do the future a big favor and turn a gun on himself.<br /><br />Don't waste your time on this turkey.
Not only did the effects and acting in this movie bite, but the story was terrible.<br /><br />A scientist discovers that a comet fragment will hit the moon ... world leaders ignore him ... he builds a shelter ... then, everyone is upset that he is "playing God".<br /><br />How lame! He built the thing, why is everyone "entitled" to access? Totally lame story, don't waste your time!
Like many others, I counted on the appearance of Dennis Hopper to make this not a complete waste of time. I was sadly mistaken. Everything negative said about this flic is more than true. What takes the cake however, is the horrible, horrible storyline for the main character.<br /><br />Here's why: The planet might be destroyed, the ONLY way to recover from it, for the ENTIRE human race to be saved trough it, is to get as many smart, capable, nice, competent people into an underground hide-out. And Dennis Hopper is the lone seer/scientist with vision who was prepared for the worst, and who has realized this. But what's the main motivation of Stevens (Sonny D'Angelo)?? He's angry because Dennis has decided who is to be saved or to be doomed! While it clearly explained to Stevens that Dennis' character has done everything to warn people of the danger but that he was laughed at. The Hopper-character was the boy with the finger in the dike, and now Stevens is blaming him for 'picking and choosing'??? And if that isn't enough, he wants to stop everybody from entering this hideout, because "it isn't fair!?" AND.... he's responsible for the death of the one guy who is humanity's saviour! OH MY GOD, how stupid can you get?<br /><br />What's also maddening that IMDb forces one to write minimal ten lines about this piece of crap. I mean, TWO MILLION in budget, what could have been done with that? Think Clerks, Blair Witch, and lotsa other movies who have been made for under 100.000 dollars and were still better. AAAAARGH! I count myself lucky that I didn't pay one penny to see this crap, and to sit through the end of this utter, úber-crap, is one the most heroic things I've done this year. It's no wonder that the writers of this pile of dung had jobs as camera operator and title designer before ...
Peter Crawford discovers a comet on a collision course with the moon. But when the government doesn't believe him (dumb fact #1). He builds a shelter in deep underground and is drawing lots to see who will go. Plus is willing to kill to save humanity (dumb fact #2). With millions of dollars of technology, how could a civilian see what NASA could not? Plus, the ends justifies the means moral of this story is just plain WRONG!!! This movie is improbable and totally unbelievable. What was running through these people minds, why the hell do crap piles like this get the green light? Some times I wonder who someone has to **** to get a movie made in this ****ing town.
this is complete crap do not watch the main character is so f u c king concerned that the doc's bomb shelter is not big enough for everyone thus he claims the doc is playing god by saying who lives and who dies all during his 13itching, he kills people without thinking twice and beats people to near death also, the main character is an selfish little a$$ wipe as because of him, the doc who made the shelter died and his friend died. he also killed several no name cops the main character is just a f u c king dumb hillbilly s h i t head that's got no concept of the greater good also, this movie makes no f u c king sense. tell me why a comet would cause seismic activity? (if you say gravity, i will f u c king rape you cause the comet is smaller then the moon and you don't see the moon causing volcano eruptions and earthquakes and avalanches).<br /><br />why does a comet cause atmospheric discharges (the red lightning, also why is it red?) in addition, if you don't know, the F U C KING MOONS BEEN HIT BY COMETS THOUSANDS OF TIMES!!! thats why there's f u c king craters everywhere on the moon. the size of an object needed to shatter the moon into the fragments as portrayed in the movie would require a comet around the size of the moon itself.<br /><br />it takes huge amounts of KE to cause an satellite to explode like that.<br /><br />a goof in this movie is that the nuclear explosion in space resulted in a disk shaped shock wave. this is incorrect as in space, the explosion should have produced an spherical shock wave. this inaccuracy is also apparent when the comet hits the moon.<br /><br />also, someone tell me why the commander (the person who drives the big old broken plane) suddenly felt the need to die? i mean he's just like walking with them to the shelter, then he stops, he salutes the main character.<br /><br />WTF?!?!!?!? the main character is also an ugly @$$hole, he's got a huge forehead and thinning hair. disgusting.<br /><br />STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE!!!
Not only that the VHS and DVD cover(at least in Europe)show a scene that has nothing to do with the actual plot of the movie, the acting is so bad, that the movie is crying out for being made fun of. If you have nothing to do, you are with some good friends and you want to have some laughs about a movie, that is supposed to be serious, watch Tycus and Peter Onorati, a man who will teach you how to knock over bad guys with empty carton boxes! Shame on Dennis Hopper, following Travoltas example by starring in his very own "battlefield earth". For those who want to watch a good movie about the earth being destroyed by a terrible force, please do not choose Tycus, but do yourselves a favor and watch "Armageddon" for he 20th time!
'Tycus' is almost as bad as a science fiction film can go.<br /><br />I can hardly find something good to say about this film. The premises are completely wrong. A comet is supposed to hit the Moon and cause catastrophic damage to Earth, but nobody believes the scientist who predicts this.A whole underground city plus a launching pad for nuclear armed rockets is build in the California mountains without anybody noticing. When the comet nears Earth the news make it to the TV and newspapers hardly a day before the event. And so on, and so on ...<br /><br />Neither does any kind of emotion make it to the screen. Is the genius who discovers the comet and builds the underground city a savior of humanity or a beast? The director or Dennis Hooper who is playing the role did not seem to decide until the film was done, and actually it does not make any difference because acting and directing is so confusing that you end by wondering what does this film try to say. The special effects are so cheap that not only that they cannot be convincing in the era of computer effects, but they could not have been convincing even in the 50s, four decades before this film was made.<br /><br />A total waste of time.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. My lifetime was drastically wasted by this pile of stink. I would rather chew off my arm than watch this film again. Painful story line, painful characters and a painful two hours.<br /><br />The best way of describing this movie is a follows:- I would rather stick pins in my eyes and cut out my brain than watch another minute of this tripe.<br /><br />Advice is to stay well clear and let your local dustman do you a favour of removing this rubbish.<br /><br />Lin, you told me this was good!!!!<br /><br />Goodaleebyeload.
Oh, boy, it's another comet-hitting-the-earth film. Coming within a year or two of Deep Impact, Armageddon, Space Cowboys and various other stupid flicks with rap stars in them, you'd think people would be burned out on this concept. Apparently not, since I rented it, hoping it MIGHT not be awful: Dennis Hopper was in it, after all, and he's a good actor, right?<br /><br />I forgot something important: along with Peter O'Toole, Robert De Niro and quite a few other esteemed actors, Hopper has a penchant for appearing in dreadful films. Not only that, but he seems to prepare for them by taking forget-how-to-act classes. His performance in Tychus is so awful that you expect Divine or Edith Massey to appear in some scenes.<br /><br />I don't know what else to say about this rubbish, other than if you're into things crashing into the earth films, watch Deep Impact, and then Armageddon and Space Cowboys at a stretch. Forget the others altogether. This one really is bottom of the pile.
Unimpressive and extremely low budget sci-fi without any charm and appeal. Even the scenes related with the fall of the asteroids are stolen from other movies with the same plot. It's just a bad rip-off of "Asteroid" (with Annabela Sciora) and "Deep Impact" (with Morgan Freeman). Mr. Hopper seems to be anxious to slip away from this pointless and dull sci-fi entry.<br /><br />I give this a 2 (two). And don't say I'm not a good guy!
Tycus is one of the worst films direct to video films that I see ever.<br /><br />I am not amazing that this product does not appearing at the cinema.Bad Visual effects (The start is dreadful)Bad actors (I don´t understand Why appear in this film the great Dennis Hopper)and Bad screen Without sense.My alternative:Armaggedon or Twister. SENTENCE FOR TYCUS:Do not watch this film.
I have read all of the reviews for this direct to video movie. I can agree that the movie is not "Armageddon" or "Deep Impact" quality. Nevertheless, if you are looking for a way to pass ninety minutes or so, then this is a movie that is bearable.<br /><br />I started looking at the film early in the AM hours as I was doing some geek stuff. It was very nice, because I was able to switch back and forth between what I was doing and watching the movie, with out missing a beat. It is a predictable movie, and the acting is not up to par for some of the veteran actors (for instance, Dennis Hopper).<br /><br />But I should point out that I paid only $2 (US) and as the old adage goes: You get what you pay for! If you are looking for some deep meaning movie that will have you have to watching it over and over again, then this is definitely the long video. On the other hand, if you looking for something to pass the time, then there is nothing wrong with Tycus (Which incidentally was called "Comet: Final Impact" in Mexico where I found this video).
It's certainly a direct-to-video, but the story is not as bad as most of the other reviewers think. I quite like the fact the hero is doing the wrong thing most of the time.<br /><br />The hero's reactions and the reactions of the rebels are just human. The Hopper character is actually playing god. That might be the right thing to do, but one may not like that anyway.<br /><br />In the end, the god player is doomed to death, and the hero, who would have spent his own life, can live. Quite a morale. :-)<br /><br />The most unrealistic thing I saw, is that earth is doing so well with no moon stabilizing its rotation.
I actually enjoyed Tycus, if not for much more than mocking the production values. Dennis Hopper was just fine, although I wonder if he would have signed on the project had he seen the special effects they used. And furthermore, what was with the scene with the ninja?? That was just completely out of pace. Perhaps someone came up with the bright idea mid-shooting. Oh well, This movie is great if you're drunk and need a good laugh. Cheers.
This movie (even calling it a movie is an overstatement) is ridiculously horrible. Normally a huge fan of Eric Roberts in "B" list movies, this tragedy of a flick makes me question his real B list clout! And Charlie, please go back to hoping for a Diagnosis Murder revival rather than this.....you can't blame the nameless eye candy (uhhum...beauty pageant members) for participating in this weak movie, but YOU are a former TV star man! Pull yourself together. Don't even get me started on Stuart Pankin. For the sake of all that is good Stuart, you should have seen this was not necessarily a real movie! Bryan Michael Stoller exemplifies absolute genius only in the fact that he was able to dupe anyone into investing in this picture (money or time).<br /><br />Really, this was no parody or spoof movie although it tries on a 2nd grade level. Mostly, it is poor writing and acting and camera work and editing and....well poor everything. I watched it because I read an article in some mag about agent MJ's involvement and my interest was peaked due to the lawsuit in which he was involved. I now wonder if the only reason they show him from the shoulders up in the movie is because he, like at the trial, showed up wearing pajama bottoms and barely lucid (wait a second, is he ever really considered lucid?...I digress). And Agent MJ? Is that the best they could come up with for a name for his character? Sheez. What a startling piece of originality! Or, maybe that was supposed to be funny? Putting Marriott into the movie was a nice touch at first, but overdone and annoying after all is said and done.<br /><br />Spare yourself the grief of watching......don't say I didn't warn you.
Do the following: Get a copy of this movie and a friend. Wager the friend $10 that they can't sit through this entire movie. They cannot divert their gaze or be distracted by anything. Now watch your friend. Win or lose, you get $10 of entertainment.<br /><br />It angers me to no end when people see a movie and are quick to give it 1 out of 10, or sum up their thoughts with "it sucked". (And when asked "Why?", they respond, "Just because." Arrgh.) That is why this movie exists. It's sole purpose is for me to say, "There! THIS is a horrible movie! THAT is 1 out of 10!".<br /><br />This movie is absolutely appalling.<br /><br />While the recent trend of movie parodies has forced them to become increasingly formulaic, this movie falls short in every single aspect. It's not funny. It's not entertaining. And for some of the parodies, it's completely inaccurate! Horrible acting. Unfunny dialogue. A witless story. Terrible "special effects". One INANE gag after another. And to make matters even worse, there isn't even gratuitous nudity to somehow make it even fleetingly worthwhile.<br /><br />This movie leaps past idiotic, stumbles over stupid, and lands face first on moronic. Even I, who loves a good "check your brain at the door" movie, found myself physically agitated watching this. This movie isn't even "Hard Ticket To Hawaii" so-terrible-it's-good bad... IT'S JUST BAD.<br /><br />NOTE: I actually challenged a friend to watch this as described above. Not only couldn't he make it all the way through, but he had a headache and needed a couple minutes afterward because he felt a little ill. True story.<br /><br />I could not accentuate this rating any more... a resounding 1 out of 10!
First, I would like to apologize for my rating of "1"... The only reason i give this film such a high rating is that I can't delve into negative integers. All "This is a spoof" musings aside, and while I certainly have tried to give it due consideration, have left me with a certain notion, namely; "This is quite possibly the worst film ever made." On any level and in any plausible quantification of qualitative measurement... Seriously, I tried, I'm just as in to any indie born-for-cult-video-distribution film as the next buff, but seriously, this movie sucked rhino balls...<br /><br />Honestly, if I had directed this "film" I would have seen it as a legitimate cause for suicide.
While traveling with a team of misses for the dispute of the Miss Galaxy, the airplane piloted by Maximus Powers (Eric Roberts) and Mike Saunders (Charlie Schlatter) crashes in an isolated, where lays Noah's Ark protected by the Jurassic Pork. While the group fight to survive, alien apes plot to use the ark to destroy the human race and dominate planet Earth.<br /><br />I like parodies, but "Miss Castaway" is an offense to human brains. The awful story and the special effects are very, but really very bad. There are spoofs with "Lost", "Castaway", "Jurassic Park", "Sixth Sense", "Titanic", "Planet of the Apes", "Raiders of the Lost Ark", "Congo", "MIB", "Perfect Storm", "Austin Powers", "Jaws", "Mission Impossible", "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", "Star Wars" and "Hulk", but the problem is that most of them are very silly and not funny. In the end, the trailer is better than the film. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Missão Quase Impossível" ("Mission Almost Impossible")
You should never ever even consider to watch this movie! It is absolutely awful! This isn't an overstatement!! It is so unbelievable and exaggerated, it gets boring. It is just a movie where they have taken stories and plots from several movies and put it together in one. They writer hasn't been able to pull it off in a good way.<br /><br />If you'd like to see pretty girls in bikinis and no brain this might be the movie for you, but still, you should plug your ears and just watch. It's not worth listening:p There are so many great movies out there, and if I could choose one, this would be the last movie I would pick. But all in all, it's your choice!!! <br /><br />Enjoy!
holy sweet murder this is quite possibly the least funny movie i've ever seen. you can take my word for this as truth because it's playing on television right now. it's really one of the most pathetic productions i've ever seen. there is not a single redeemable aspect of this flick. it just lacks any humor whatsoever. the only good thing it possibly has going for it is that it's so unfunny that it's wholly unmemorable. in fact, i just sat through some ridiculous sub-plot and i can't really tell you what went on. the only reason i can even possibly remember having seen this movie is because it's so absolutely humorless it will stick in my mind forever based on that alone.<br /><br />an absolutely must miss. if your friend wants to show it to you, shoot him and save yourself the boredom.
As an indie filmmaker, I try to at least make a decent film . This piece of ____ was beyond low budget. It was shot on video and not 24P mini-DV at least. The look and feel of this was just baaaad. I met the director a few years ago at ShowBiz Expo in LA and he was talking about that book, Film-making for dummies that he was putting together. I thought this little video was going to be something but I guess I was wrong. He could have brought the value up a little by shooting 16mm film instead of that awful video. The plot was stupid as well as the acting and all the fake green screen and sound and the whole nine yards. I had a choice tonight to rent any movie and made the wrong choice. Damn!!!!! I did buy JoyRide which was a hell of a movie. Maybe the director should read real motion picture books on film-making and not try to cut corners when trying to make a low budget flick. Maybe he should learn from the masters who made, Night of the living dead and The Evil Dead and Chain saw massacre. just to name a few of the all time low budget great hits. This is one video that should have stayed dead. I cannot call it a film because he did not use film.
There was a time when Michael Jackson was revered as the King of Pop. Then came a time when he attracted negative publicity as much as lemonade attracts wasps. Finally, it is now the time that we feel truly sorry for this man.<br /><br />This 'movie' is another reason to. I promised a rabid Michael Jackson fan to watch it with her. You know the type of fan -- someone who tells him- or herself to like everything the object of affection ever did. While watching this movie, which she had seen twice already, I realized how far this fandom goes. Probably far enough to rate this movie above a 1/10, as some people miraculously did.<br /><br />The movie attempts to be a parody of many other movies and series, most notably Cast Away, Lost and Jurassic Park. Unfortunately, it fails miserably at any level. The acting does not save the absolutely horrible story, the filming has the quality of a too-often played video tape, the special effects were better executed in Be Kind Rewind (for those who do not now this movie: with aluminum foil)... All this would be funny if the movie managed to be, well, funny. Unfortunately, it is not. It hurts to watch this.<br /><br />And then there is Michael Jacksons appearance in this garbage. He appears on a projection screen to deliver an important message, and manages to come across as mobile as Jabba the Hutt and as serious as a 4-year old. Just when I thought "who is the terrible person that lured this poor man into participating in this movie and yet again making a total fool of himself", I (finally) reached the ending credits and discovered that the movie was actually partially shot at Jackson's Neverland ranch. In other words: He. Likes. It.<br /><br />This movie, and Jackson's involvement in it, is truly disturbing. Do not watch it even for the "haha, a movie in the IMDb Bottom 100" effect. Or be warned.
This is a film that revolves around two mysteries (which I have now demystifed).<br /><br />First, did the film makers understand the concept of 'parody' before using it to carpet bomb the audience throughout the film? Parody is when a reproduction attempts to mock, comment on, or pay homage through self-depreciating humour to, the original work. In other words, there should be reasons to parody such work, and they should definitely be clever. I didn't see any of those in the film. I did see some awful 10 seconds jokes that fell flat within 2 seconds of delivery. Bryan Stoller probably went to Eric Roberts and said "hey, I was drunk last night, watching Survivors, and had this brain fart for a straight to DVD release. I want you on board without reading the script...because I plan to direct this film without one!" <br /><br />And herein lies the second mystery: Eric Robert's career. I use to think Eric Roberts had the career he had because he was unlucky. Now I realize it's because he is stupid (and therefore deserves the career that he had). After watching this movie, it is apparent that he would have been better off had he gone into mainstream adult films, which has higher budgets, more...intense...scenes and roles, better acting and direction, more elaborate and compelling plot lines, and a much wider audience than this B-movie reject (C-movie?).
Except for the appearance of talented Austin Powers impersonator Richard Halpern, this pic was your run of the mill movie spoof. Dated movie references will not help audiences that may come across this endeavor in future. Watch for "Groovy" Austin Powers in the hot tub. It's a hoot and a half.<br /><br />Poor special effects are overcome by the appearance of numerous starlets in skimpy outfits, so at least that should keep one entertained (if that's what thrills you).<br /><br />For my money, I would rent the DVD of classic spoofs such as "Airplane" or "Lobster Man from Mars".
This film, had it been done properly, has SO much potential. Parody films are always funny, and people tend to like them because they're light hearted, stupid and silly but fun. This film WAS funny in some parts, but it could have been a lot funnier. The acting itself was OK from all the actors, but...I wasn't satisfied. It seemed a tad empty, and my summary title says it all about the effects. Proper green screens weren't used for this movie...backgrounds were added in after which just looked terrible. No wonder this film went straight to DVD lol. It wasn't ALL a total loss, it is funny and will give you a good laugh (AT it, not WITH it most of the time).
MacBeth, I've always thought, is the most accessible of Shakespeare's 'Great Period' plays. Compact, focused, with heaps of violence, it should have been the play most open to screen adaptations. I'm not aware of a really good rendering of the story, however - the best effort being Orson Welles's vigorous shoestring version. To the list of MacBotches we must add the Connery/Baxendale effort.<br /><br />(It seems it was not a 'film adaptation' at all, but a TV version that was given a theatrical release, post Luhrman's Romeo + Juliet and Branagh's Hamlet. That might explain some of its flaws, but doesn't excuse them.) <br /><br />It starts well, with a feisty battle sequence with pleasingly grisly witches looking on. Poor old Gray Malkin and Paddock are cut from the opening scene, but they aren't alone for long. In quick order they are joined by the bloodied Sargent and his account of the battle, the treachery of the Thane of Cawdor, the luckless master o' the Tiger, even MacBeth's meeting with Duncan when he is invested as thane of Cawdor. All of these had virtues that plead like angels trumpet tongued against the dark damnation of their sending off, but sent off they are. These aren't the only cuts, either. This is MacBeth in a hurry.<br /><br />From the opening battle we are pitched directly into MacBeth's encounter with the witches, which is well done. Brian Blessed, curiously, directed the witchy sequences, and he has great fun with the special effects as MacBeth and Banquo are told of their fates. Jason Connery as MacBeth is awkward, obviously unsure what to make of the verse. Graham MacTavish as Banquo, on the other hand, is capable, making his lines natural and easy. Within a few minutes of Connery's mumbling, the viewer is struck the urge to see the roles reversed and MacTavish in the title role. No wonder MacBeth felt he needed to kill him.<br /><br />These first few minutes marks the high point of the film. From there we move to Helen Baxendale receiving word of her husband. She's as lost as Connery, and denied the beard that he gets to hide behind. Her "Unsex me here" invocation of evil is embarrassing, not unsettling. There are some reasonably clever touches - MacBeth's "We will speak further" is not a sign of his hesitancy in the face of his wife's wicked ambition, but his attempt to silence her prattling as he throws her onto the bed.<br /><br />The acting of the leads is the biggest let down. Connery's method consists of staring glazedly about the screen while he mumbles his monologues via voice-over. Baxendale looks pinched and neurotic. An attempt to do something interesting with "Is this a dagger" - the fantastical dagger is a shadow cast by a cross on an altar - falls flat due to Connery's poor delivery and sloppy direction, which mars the production throughout. We accompany Lady MacBeth back into the murder chamber, where she gets to stab the reviving Duncan, but the effect is comic, not dramatic.<br /><br />Big scenes are botched - the appearance of Banquo at the feast is made incomprehensible through attempts to mix subjective rendering of MacBeth's delusion with what those around him see, or don't see. The second meeting with the witches is even less coherent, and the prophetic visions are confusing. Timing seems to be an issue here - Banquo's banquet is the centrepoint of the play, but the film moves rapidly towards conclusion after it, giving it an unbalanced feel and no scope for the intricacies of the riddles MacBeth is caught in to be appreciated, or for his descent into madness to be convincing. Another crucial cut is the scene where Malcolm tests MacDuff, and MacDuff learns of the murder of his family. This robs his revenge of most of its emotional force - and the character of a lot of the screen time. He's a virtual stranger when he turns up to kill MacBeth.<br /><br />A point for trying. MacTavish's Banquo earns another. The first few minutes garners another. But that's all. From then on it's sound and fury blah blah blah.
I had high hopes for this production, being one of my favourite works.<br /><br />Indeed, a lot of it is reasonable: Helen Baxendale is not a bad Lady Macbeth, but lacks the devilry which the original character is infused with. Many of the minor characters do well, and the Scottish settings are superb.<br /><br />The big disappointment to me is Jason Connery in the title role: he seems to be reading his lines off a cue card with the wrong glasses - surely for the first time, as well. He can do so much better. Any production when compared to the sublime Ian McKellen (Macbeth 1979)who to my mind gave the gold standard performance, is going to struggle to be appreciated, but I actually fell asleep and had to rewind this one before I could get through it - hardly a great sign.<br /><br />Honestly, one to Avoid.
I have just watched this "latest" version of Macbeth and was pleasantly surprised with the solid acting and obvious effort that had to turn a low budget historical piece into a fully fledged watchable movie.<br /><br />One note however, the music was very lame and added nothing to the intensity of the film and sounded like someone with a keyboard and a bunch of samplers as opposed to a full orchestral score. I think Paul Farrer needs to get his act together!!!
Jason Connery is not an actor; he is the son of an actor. His Macbeth is the worst I have ever seen. Oh yes, he murders king Duncan, but he also kills William Shakespeare. His wife is even worse. Please, give me Polanski's version on DVD, so I can forget this monster. Jon Finch, Orson Welles, Laurence Olivier, there you have ACTORS!
If you are a Catalan nationalist anarcho-socialist with unnuanced reverence for the mythologies of the Spanish republic, this movie may be for you. Two brothers, real-life ones (one of them being Marc Recha himself), re-enact a fictional version of a real-life journey they had made through the spectacular Catalan countryside, and history is evoked (pans of bullet-holed walls, artillery booms on the soundtrack) but not shown. There is very little dialog, and most of it is incidental: the story is told in a third-person voice-over, the voice being that of an actress impersonating the real-life sister of the real-life brothers. The images have little to do with what story line there is, which isn't much. Many are stunning, brooding pans across stark semi-arid mountains and rivers (think Terrence Malick or Gus Van Sant -- there's not a little of both "Gerry" and "Last Days" here), interspersed with some stunning still images and motionless frames. These are best enjoyed within the film's superb natural sound environment and without the ultimately tedious narration or even the occasional background music (some quite good, some rather odd, but all gratuitous). The best of what this movie has to say is said in these sequences, with their occasional comment-less inclusion of power stations and dams.<br /><br />The relationship between the brothers is left sketchy and generic; a major character is a man-biting catfish, never shown. The more the Catalano-nationalist anarcho-whateverist commitments of the director are suggested, the more the film's richer, unspoken message is subverted and the more irritatingly narcissistic the experience becomes. Though the director said at the NYFF screening that the film was conceived from the beginning with its third-person narrative, I'd like to see a version of it without the narrative or the music and with only the natural soundtrack and minimalist dialog -- the result might be more moving, and would in any case not be that much less baffling.<br /><br />Meantime, this is most likely the only film you will see this year in which a guy strides into the frame with a cloth object (the bathing suit he had been wearing?) dangling from his penis. This is one of the few moments in the whole movie in which your interest is (sorry) pricked by something that's actually happening on screen (what is that? why's it hanging there?), but, as usual, no answers are provided. Very Warholian, very sixties, and a not a little tiresome.
The most irritating thing about "Dies d'agost" (August Days) is not simply that NOTHING HAPPENS in this film but that director Marc Recha has the nerve to pretend that this film is some sort of homage to leftist Catalan journalist Ramon Barnils. Unless mentioning Barnils' name a few times constitutes an "homage," this pretense is an utter fraud. You will learn virtually nothing about Barnils in this film nor about the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) nor about the special role of Catalunya in that war. You also will not learn about the collective punishment inflicted on the heroic Catalan people for years afterward by the victorious and vindictive Franco.<br /><br />The footage of the Catalan countryside is very beautiful, of course, but "Dies d'agost" does not have an extensive and varied enough collection of such scenes to qualify as a travelogue. The large number of stills shown -- not very illuminating images of the forest floor, for example -- is the clearest indication of the paucity of ideas here. The aimless drift of brothers Marc and David during their camping trip does not produce compelling cinema. On the contrary, one's strongest impression is of a film made by and for spaced-out, middle-aged hippies. Don't waste your time. Read a good book about the Spanish Civil War instead. (I recommend Felix Morrow's scathingly anti-Stalinist "Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Spain," which contains a gripping account of the 1937 Barcelona Uprising.)<br /><br />Barry Freed
Forced, cloying, formulaic. Do these adjectives make you want to run to rent his? Miriam Hopkins was brilliant in the original "Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde." A few other early movies of hers, notably "The Story of Temple Drake," are never shown but said to be excellent.<br /><br />Here, she is cutesy, bossy, and thoroughly unappealing. Ray Milland as a Greeniwch Village bohemian not at all convincing.<br /><br />The two child performers are creepy and also bear no relation to the Village as it was then.<br /><br />Speaking as a native of Greenwich Village, I find the setting ersatz, generic, and phony. Not that I was around for a couple generations but my relatives were there in 1937. It isn't funny. It isn't remotely authentic. We don't care about the characters.<br /><br />So many movies were made about the struggling masses vs the capitalists at this time, and done with elan. "Easy Living" comes to mind. It didn't take place in the Village. But it rings very true. This rings with a thudding knell.
Pat O'Brien portrays Knute Rockne, the All-American Notre Dame football coach. No doubt, this film will be considerably more appealing to those interested in some aspect of "Knute Rockne All-American Notre Dame Football" - probably, it's most interesting to serious followers of football and/or Notre Dame football. You will see some good documentary-style film footage.<br /><br />Otherwise, it's difficult to recommend this as a FILM. It's not much more than an historical document. You'll "know" the end is near when Gale Page gets a chill - and, don't blink or you'll miss Ronald Reagan doing, of all things, "Camille"! <br /><br />*** Knute Rockne - All-American (1940) Lloyd Bacon ~ Pat O'Brien, Gale Page, Ronald Reagan
Maybe this wowed them in the 50's, but this is one of those flicks that doesn't age well. It's got that preachy, earnest, downtrodden working man vibe of a 2nd rate Rod Serling live TV "Playhouse" broadcast. The "plot" is by the book, the Cassevetes character's troubled background seems tacked-on, and the love interest is unconvincing and half-hearted.<br /><br />Sidney Portier gives an OK performance, but man he sure was an annoying, haughty snot. If I had to work with this guy in a warehouse I'd probably want to hit him with a grappling hook too. Jack Warden is good, because as usual, he plays Jack Warden.<br /><br />Like 90% of the films rated on IMDb (whether they are classics, mediocre or crapola) somehow this one gets rated with 7-point-some-stars. It is in no way deserving of that. Save your time
a real hoot, unintentionally. sidney portier's character is so sweet and lovable you want to smack him. nothing about this movie rings true. and it's boring to boot.
Very resistible but ultimately harmless film version of the children's literary classic which incorporates an animated portion in the style of MARY POPPINS (1964) and BEDKNOBS AND BROOMSTICKS (1971). The human cast is very distinguished - James Mason, Billie Whitelaw, David Tomlinson, Joan Greenwood, Bernard Cribbins - but their roles range from the miscast (a 69 year-old Mason as a thieving chimney-sweep!) to the inconsequential (Greenwood as a befuddled aristocrat) to the bizarre (Whitelaw plays several 'exotic' characters - including a circus performer, an old hag, a maid and a fairy - for no apparent reason).<br /><br />The animated segment of the film, handled by a group of East-European animators, is hardly inspired but mildly enjoyable in itself and, as usual, with this type of thing, there is an assortment of songs one has to put up with, one of which in particular is reprised far too often for its own good. The film was directed by noted character actor Jeffries who had previously directed (far more successfully) other children's films namely THE RAILWAY CHILDREN (1970) and THE AMAZING MR. BLUNDEN (1972; which I've yet to watch myself but which was released some time ago on R2 DVD by Anchor Bay UK).
I was 12 when this film was released and adored it. The song's were inspiring and it made me feel good, watching it several time's at the cinema. I actually had the soundtrack album and played the song's over and over.<br /><br />26 years later...I'm ashamed. Just sat and watched it with my 2 daughters who enjoyed it lot's but my cynical older grown up eyes hated it. It's very poorly directed in many places and considering it was Lionel Jeffries directing I really wanted to enjoy it. The character animation was so rough yet the backgrounds were quite good. I remember the critics at the time saying that it was a poor film and was horrified but now I agree.<br /><br />It is an old film yes, compared to what can be achieved now, maybe that's why I thought it was good then. But that does not excuse it for it's poor acting, directing and sloppiness. The main child actor's voice seem's dubbed which is very distracting too. Can't quite see what they were trying achieve when it was being made, all that it become was a weak film.
Classic author C.S. Lewis once wrote an essay stating that no children's story is worth the reading, viewing etcetera if it can only be enjoyed by children. I'd say this film is an easy one to hold up as a defence of his argument.<br /><br />Around the age of five or six, I loved it, tracked it down only three or four years later and found it to be wet, poorly animated, dully and confusingly written, and with distressingly repetitive and awful songs (I'm looking t you, hi-cockalorum), showing a production aiming at joyful silliness and whimsy, but resulting with an ugly, twee, frustrating mess.<br /><br />By all means, show this to your infant, but I would heartily recommend that you don't buy a copy or attempt to sit in on the viewing. If you want something set in the same era but with genuine charm and wit, go after 'Oliver Twist' or the BBC's brilliant adaptation of 'The Box of Delights'.
this is a dreadful adaption of Charles Kingsley's story. The animation is, to put it bluntly, awful. And the songs are a disgrace to film songs, epsecially the "high cockororim" song, which they keep repeating. I feel sorry for Jon Pertwee and David Jason, 2 of Britain's finest talents, providing the voice for the depressing animation sequence. Bernerd Cirbbins tries his best to perform in this awful production ,but fails.<br /><br />Avoid this film at all costs, even if it is the last film on this planet!
I loathe, despise, and hate this film with a passion that makes the red hot gates of hell look cold by comparison. it's nothing but a campy, frightening, and completly shoddy trip down memory lane to that oh-so-nasty time, the 70's, a decade im glad i wasnt a part of if this absolute trite is all that was on offer!<br /><br />the animation is sickeningly dated, not least of all with it's tacky, missing frames, and characters with huge, bulbous heads, this film is an eye-sore. from the knowing, snide nod to the parents with the freakily gay sea horse, and it's camp hand motions and kenneth williams-esque voice, to the overtly, unsubtly druggy anthem, High Cockalorum, this film, im sad to say, is one that was forced upon me as a child and i have never fully recovered from the terror it caused me....<br /><br />This ghastly display of complete terribleness should carry an R rated certificate, so disturbing it is in it's contents!
This is a painfully slow story about the last days of 1999 when a strange disease breaks out and... I stopped caring. This is suppose to be about two people who live over or under each other in an apartment complex. There's a leak and a plumber put a hole in the man's floor so you can see into the woman's below apartment. Also since there is a crisis going on much of the dialog is actually news reports...<br /><br />Sounds promising?<br /><br />Not really.<br /><br />I became distracted and started doing other things which is deadly in a subtitled film. Basically I started not watching, which made events seem even more surreal when I did look up.<br /><br />It may work for you, it didn't for me.
My Wife and Kids was billed as the 00s very own Cosby show- but unlike the latter, it was unfunny and unwatchable. In fact, it is so poorly written and some of the jokes revolve around Michael mickey taking Michael Jr's dumbness and the fact that he is such a loser- which got more and more tedious and annoying as the show went on.<br /><br />What was supposed to have been a promising hit, eventually turned into a dumb, silly show later on where the ideas became so OTT and ridiculous. And as for the second Claire, i ended up disliking this character so much: she became a spoilt, childish and moaning teenage brat, in most of the later episodes.<br /><br />MWAK was no Cosby show trend setter, rather it was just a poor black sitcom by general standards.
I never really started watching the show until it was canceled and started showing re-runs. I actually enjoyed it for the first to third season. Once I saw the fourth and fifth one I was beginning to get irate. The first problem was that they did that irrelevant, scenario of history repeating itself (Jr having a kid like his parents did). The second had to be the one where they had everyone paired up with someone (ex: Katie and franklin) . The third one was when they made Jr even more idiotic than before which was beginning to be tedious and vexing to the point where I wanted to go into the T.V. and beat the stupidity out of him until he's unconscious . The fourth one had to be that zealous dork that Clarie claimed as a boyfriend. The fifth one had to be Katie, she was beginning to be too good for herself and was treated her "boyfriend" Franklin like the pushover he was. The last but not least was Noah Gray-Cabey!! Franklin, Franklin was just scary. It was like watching a terrible combination of Urkle and TJ Henderson only more annoying!!! They seriously jumped the shark when came he to the show. There was little to no realism to his character and the way he laughed was a sign of obvious force showing that Noah can't act. Eveytime I saw that kid just made me want slap he silly. However, B.F.(before frank) this show was funny and very entertaining.
Lets be realistic here. This is one of the worst shows I have ever seen. My Wife and Kids showed real promise in its first season and only went down hill after that. It is so bad that words do not describe. The acting and writing are so dreadful on a consistent basis I wonder if Damon Wayans was producing such an atrocious show on purpose. From top to bottom every performance is ridiculous. Damon Wayans completely phones it in and George Gore II is so horrible I cringe at every over-acted line. Can anyone really watch this show and find it to be entertaining let alone funny? Please I implore you. Do not watch this show. As soon as TV affiliates stop picking this up in syndication we can finally be rid of this absolute garbage.
This is probably the most irritating show I have ever seen in my entire life. It is indescribably the most annoying and idiotic show I have ever seen. Everything about it is just bad.<br /><br />Synopsis: Different situation comes up each week for the parent to handle their kids.<br /><br />I could not understand, what kind of idiot would produce this mess in the first place not to mention several season. The script is bad, very bad – it contains both cheesiness and unethical joke that you normally see in rated R or NC-17 movie. Especially for the young boy character where all he does is pleasuring himself, is that what one called family show humor? The casting is also horrible, cause all you see is a really really BAD Actors, period.<br /><br />Final Word: This Show is a real torture!! This show provides an image of how irresponsible parent can be (using power wrongly rather than understanding). It is zillion times away from reality. Listen to Kenny G would be a god sends compare to this. Watching washing machine twirling around wouldn't hurt your eyes as much as this show.<br /><br />Rating: 0/10 (Grade: Z) <br /><br />Note: The Show Is So Bad That Even Mother Of The Cast Pull Her Daughter Out Of The Show.
I jumped for joy to learn this show ended. This show's characters were extremely irritating. None of them had one singing redeeming quality. Damon Wayans is probably the most standable one. Kisha Campbell is... Kisha Campbell. She's just as annoying as she was in Martin.<br /><br />The kids are all very annoying as well. The oldest is an idiot, the oldest girl is a stuck up brat, and the youngest is frustrating to listen to.<br /><br />I guess I did like the intelligent little boy. But that's about it.<br /><br />It did the world a favor by ending.<br /><br />Let's pray that a Wayan never stars in another show... EVER.
I give the show a six because of the fact that the show was in fact a platform for Damon Wayans as the Cosby Show was for Bill Cosby, it dealt with a lot of issues with humor and I felt that it in fact tailored to getting a laugh as opposed to letting the jokes come from the character. <br /><br />Michael Kyle An interesting patriarch and a wisecracking person. He is PHENOMENAL in movies, but in the show he was there for the wisecrack and though I loved it, I felt that the laugh was more important than plausibility.<br /><br />Jay Kyle I have loved her since House Party and have enjoyed her in School Daze and Martin, this was a great role for her and she made a great choice in picking this sitcom to co-star in. I also feel that Jay and Michael were more like equals in the show but Jay was more the woman who fed her crazy husbands the lines and went along with his way of unorthodox discipline because she may have felt that it worked<br /><br />Jr Just plain stupid, his character should have been well developed and even though he does have his moments of greatness, we are returned to the stupidity as if he learned nothing, which drives me nuts!!!!!!!! Not to mention that most of the situations (in episodes I've seen) seems to center around him<br /><br />Clair The attractive sister who dated a Christian, I found her boyfriend's character to be more interesting than she was (she'd be better off sticking to movies, the writers should have done more to show her intelligence but it's not stereotypical enough)<br /><br />Kady Lovable and the youngest daughter. I think the writers established her character most on the show aside from the parents and Franklin<br /><br />Franklin I LOVE this character and I think they derived it from Smart Guy (T.J. Mowry) which only lasted one season. They did a great job of casting for this little genius (the effort would have been made if Jr would have been the smart one but show the down sides also)<br /><br />All in all, this sitcom is a wonderful thing and it's homage to the Cosby Show is well done, I love the show and wished it would have stayed on longer than that. I can't wait to see the series finale
Dull one-note characters with next to no development, unimpressive performances by people who sound like they're simply reading lines, and ludicrous special effects combine to make this a genuine stinker. The story begins with eminently bland commando Russo and his fellow soldiers attacking an Al-Qaeda training base. The scene tells us that Al-Qaeda has recently come to seek an ultimate weapon, and also serves to illustrate Russo's only character trait, a tendency to eschew teamwork. With the help of a collection of blank slates and walking stereotypes, including a Russian spy, Russo travels to Chechnyan territory to catch a mad scientist working for the terrorists. Along the way, they encounter vast hordes of flesh-eating bats that fly in broad daylight for some reason. From there, the movie becomes nothing more than a dragging morass of ridiculous action, including a scene in which a swarm of bats slices a soldier's arm off!
An elite American military team which of course happens to include two good looking women and a guy who can't quite grasp teamwork, lots of bats, some terrorists, and a Spetznaz team that acts like the gang that can't shoot straight -- all thrown together in a jumbled plot with mediocre acting. This one has nothing much going for it. The characters are not compelling. Even the setting, which has great possibilities, looks like something out of the middle of rural Pennsylvania, not an exotic Boreal forest in Eastern Europe.<br /><br />The bats are certainly ferocious looking. They can even pick up a man and fly with him for a few feet (harpies?) or chop off an arm. You see Delta force surrounded by hundreds of bats with a guys shooting assault rifles and pistols at them and bat flopping to the ground. It would be like trying to shoot skeet with a rifle from a distance of 3 feet. Utterly clueless. The dialogue is rancidly unrealistic, with boy/girl jokes and flirts in the middle of tense parts of the mission. One of the team is blown up by a mine and the first one on the scene just stares sadly at his body, stunned, not even bothering to take cover or secure the area. In fact AFTER the rest of the group shows up he talks about how the area is laid out like a minefield -- thanks for the heads up bub.<br /><br />If you want a contrast in how a horror movie involving a small military group can be done well on a low budget check out Outpost. Harvest is not the movie you want to see. In fact I think I'm going to give it a two instead of a three if I can make it through the second half. Seems unlikely at this point.
I have yet to watch the first entry in this series, however, fortunately, I was still able to follow the complex and intricate plot, with all its unexpected twists and turns, and I applaud them for the utter originality of the concepts herein. In case there is any confusion, let me leave no doubt as to the fact that everything I've just said is coated in pure, carefully nurtured sarcasm, the kind that flourishes and grows exponentially when exposed to crap like this flick. A clear sign that this is unimpressive is that it was directed by a visual effects creator, whose only other credit in that field is a Henry Rooker film that wasn't well received. The acting is average at best, and I defy anyone to not find... Scottish computer-woman(come on, seriously, what is with that last name?)'s Russian accent laughable and/or irritating. There is an attempt or two at stylization in this, and they are reasonable. The action isn't terrible. Cinematography and editing are fine. The music is cool enough. Language is infrequent, if even that. Violence is fairly bloody. I recommend this solely to fans of B-movies, and I will say that you can do worse than this. 1/10
Okay, I can sit through almost any movie, and I tend to get a real kick out of Sci Fi Originals, but there was a major flaw in this movie that made me have to turn it off half an hour into it.<br /><br />Having served in the US Army, there are certain expectations in a movie including the military. At least some semblance of attention to proper military rank, uniform, and terminology is necessary if you expect a viewer to actually enjoy the experience. "Bats: Human Harvest" had characters wearing rank that was facing the wrong direction on the lapel and, later in the movie, the time was listed as 11:00 hours, but it was full dark outside. Even if the script was perfectly done, and the dialogue spectacular, and the acting Oscar-worthy, if the people making the movie don't care enough about the movie to even bother to look up the proper way to display military time, why should anybody bother to attempt to watch it?
This movie over does it on the cgi i mean sci-fi really they over did it the original '' BATS'' is better it does not use cgi like the sequel. in this movie its the simple people running from mutated killer bats. and really bats in Afghanistan?! the plot involves u.s army soldiers finding a terrorist and being attack by bats and dying<_< but the reason i gave this movie 3 stars is because the way the camera zooms in on the soldiers. the acting is bad and this doesn't even look like a horror movie. in all this movie is a fairly good TV movie for sci-fi channel. but if like sci-fi's movies you'll like this movie because you just like channel 43 oh and if you fall asleep during the movie don't be surprised. oh sorry i think i give it 2 stars instead.
A child-like puppeteer, for a public access children's show, goes over the deep end when he discovers kids he entertains at a hospital were victims of horrible abuse. This movie has some of the worst indescribably monstrous parents you could ever come across. Not an exploitation film as much as an afterschool special on the dangers of child abuse. Seemingly harmless, Mr. Rabby takes matters into his own hands when it seems the police are neutered by lack of evidence to convict loathsome parents of their terrible abuse towards their children. The children are emotionless and zombie-like(..due to the amount of abuse inflicted upon them), the parents loud, inconceivably harsh, contemptible, and belligerent. The mothers, in particular, are so obscene, you'll root for their execution. They are essentially miserable people taking out their frustrations on the kids. Our detectives are a tired lot, frustrated with the whole judicial process, how police procedure is often unable to prosecute those who beat their kids into submission. While the crimes themselves are heinous, the film doesn't explicitly elaborate the grisly activity on screen. I'd say the reason to see this is for Tom Basham's performance as the unbalanced man-child who slips into psychosis. There's quite a weird dinner table sequence between Basham's Mr. Rabbey and his guardian shortly after he murdered the parents responsible for the death of their child, regarding how he lives in a fantasy and how what he had just done has left an indelible mark(..notice the changes in behavior, pretty impressive work, going from innocent to creepy). Peter Renaday is Lt. Hayes, the detective in charge of the homicides cases, expressing on his face the strain that is taking it's toll on him. There's an early performance by John Ashton as detective Matthews, always raising the ire of Hayes because of his inability to follow directions, not to mention how opinionated he is regarding the parents abusing their kids. Awkward laid-back bluesy score that seems improper for a film such as this. Controversial conclusion establishing that even kids can only tolerate so much. A bit too slow moving for my tastes, but there's an effective use, I felt, of Basham's eyes before he takes care of business, waiting patiently as he prepares to strike.
When this movie was made in 1980, I was a teenager in the football stands playing as part of the audience. This was done at Mooseheart, Illinois. The big letters spelling out "MOOSEHEART" at the top of the stands were covered up with a banner in the movie. The director would tell us to cheer loudly at certain points, as if a touchdown was being made. St. Charles juvenile correction center is a real place less than 30 miles from Mooseheart, although I think it may have closed down recently. During one scene, they show a black woman and a white man in the audience watching the game. Right below them, you can see my sister Noel's head (she was 11 at the time). In the VHS version, I can only see the top of her head, but when I saw it on TV in 1981 I could see her whole head and my sister Jacqui as well.<br /><br />I thought the movie itself was OK for a made for TV movie. Since there's already a description of the movie here, I need not repeat it. It's worth seeing at least once.
I don't know if this type of movie was as cliché then as it seems to be now.<br /><br />Considering how many "Bad News Bears" films had already been released by 1980, however, I think that this sort of movie was already a tired idea.<br /><br />A former football player is partially paralyzed in Vietnam and is confined to a wheelchair. The Chicago Bears offer him a PR job but he wants to coach. At the same time, his underage nephew is picked up for armed robbery. We are told that he has already been arrested over a dozen times before and he must now serve some hard time...which turns out to be less than a year! <br /><br />Of course, the kid is actually a good kid who only needs a tough male role model in his life. The same goes for all of the kids in the detention facility. Yes...even the one locked up for attempted murder! I'm sure you already know what happens so I'll try and keep the rest of this brief.<br /><br />Our protagonist becomes the coach of the kids' football team. He overcomes the delinquents' cynicism and earns their respect. His team faces off against a local high school team (yeah right!) and they get their butts kicked. Now determined more than ever to prove himself a worthy coach, he demands a rematch. Will these underprivileged, scrappy kids with hearts of gold be able to improve enough to win the rematch? Awful execution of the football sequences ruins any possibility of excitement in this film. "Coach Of The Year" should get penalized for roughing my brain. 1/10
Like another reviewer, my wife bought this movie as part of a 20 movie family pack. I guess you could say that this was a decent made-for-TV movie for 1980, but it is super-predictable and the acting, except for Robert Conrad, is generally sub-par. The football scenes are nothing special and seem to mainly act as filler for the movie. The movie is very dated now, but a decent remake could probably make this into a good movie. However, is that really necessary? I mean, how many "underdog sports team works together for the big game with the undefeated guys" movies do we really need? This is probably a good movie for your younger kids if you find it in the bargain bin, but a sports movie buff will find it lacking.
I received this movie in a pack called "50 all-star Movies" for $18 (45 cents each). Many are good. This one was terrible. It was a hackneyed retread done 1000 times before and each time better. A crippled ex-jock is dared to coach a team made up of juvenile delinquents. They learn from him that they can make it if they play by the rules. I'm sure the kids and the locals were thrilled to be included in a "real TV movie", but I can't imagine what the folks that launched and produced this project figured they could bring to this already over beaten subject. I kept waiting to see that 'new twist' or 'new angle' but, honest, it doesn't come. Avoid this movie. Forget about the 45 cents, I want the 96 minutes of my life back.
What a truly moronic movie, all I can say is the writer must be very fond of magic mushrooms and LSD because this must be the result of one of his 'trips'.<br /><br />You follow the whole movie thinking alright this is very weird but hey I'm sure at the end there will be a perfectly good explanation for all of this... Only to be disappointed to find erm no there's no explanation at all and the twist at the end makes it even more confusing. At the end of the movie you'll probably have the same facial expression as if you were standing in a Que paying for you groceries and the merchant told you, that'll be 11.95 please and proceeded to elbow you in the balls for no apparent reason. There are so many factors in this movie that go unexplained and I think it leaves it to the imagination of the viewer in an entirely bizarre way. Don't get me wrong I like weird movies, 'The Cell' could easily be described as weird and twisted but in my eyes it's a brilliant movie (despite casting J-Lo who I dislike to the maximum even that didn't manage to sway my opinion). This isn't one of those movies, and I think you should take in to consideration the characters of those who praise this movie. I can tell you they are probably the sort of people that would go to an art exhibition, see a splat of pigeon excrement on a white board and say "Oooooh what a masterpiece, the artist has truly found a unique way to portray eternity" when in actual fact all it is, is bird excrement on a board.<br /><br />Keep that last bit in mind when watching this movie, <br /><br />Thanks for reading!
This movie seems a little clunky around the edges, like not quite enough zaniness was thrown it when it should have been. But I mostly enjoyed it.<br /><br />The storyline is more than a little bit preposterous, so no expectation of "something real" should be included in your viewing experience. Check your brain in at the door. It will not be needed and might be an impediment otherwise.<br /><br />I quite enjoyed Clennon's performance as the real Dr. Baird. His role was spot on for giving Aykroyd's character a protagonist. What a putz the real Dr. Baird was.<br /><br />And Matthau was quite good as the lead character's sidekick. Annoying at first, but ultimately lovable. Sort of. Kind of. Or at least something the use of a bar of soap and a lot of water would have been more than helpful.<br /><br />Actually worth watching? If you're in the mood for a spoof on the psychiatric profession, sure, why not.
This was an 1970s-type irreverent comedy, poking fun at the psychiatric profession and at Beverly Hills. I didn't mind that but I did object to more that irreverence regarding marriage and religion: two topics which secular filmmakers (meaning about everyone in Hollywood and elsewhere) just can't stop trashing. <br /><br />Walter Matthau plays a scuzzy character, "Donald Becker," who walks around with a cleric's collar on, which offends me but when has Hollywood ever been worried about offending Christians?<br /><br />Anyway, despite that nonsense the film has its entertaining moments and even some charm to it. Dan Aykroyd is good at paying a nut-case and Donna Dixon ("Laura Rollins") is a knockout. I am sorry she didn't have a bigger role.
I should have known better..the clues were all over IMDB.com. This flick was written and directed by the same guy who has no track record. The cast is a bunch of unknowns with the possible exception of Joe Estevez who seems to specialize in bad movies. Etc. Suffice it to say, I can't see any reason why anyone would want to see this awful, amateurish attempt at film making. Turn on any broadcast channel at 3am and you'll see better movies. Nuff said.
Tommy Lee Jones was the best Woodroe and no one can play Woodroe F. Call better than he. Not only was he the first and best, he was the only person that could portray his grief and confusion. It was a bad let-down and I'm surprised I even made myself watch it. I can even begin how how pitiful they made Woodroe. I understand he would be old by that time, but everyone knows that he would NEVER let that pull him down. The first movie was the best and the only one that I'll ever watch. I hope to God that no more directors plan on continuing or remaking the wonderful classic without Tommy or Duval. Without them, the movies are pointless wastes of time and money for everyone, including the director. IF YOU PLAN ON MAKING ANOTHER LONESOME DOVE MOVIE OF ANY KIND, take mine and billions of others, don't waste time. Continuing the movies is just grinding the first one into the ground. Thanks.
This is probably my least favorite episode. I lived in Cape Girardeau for quite some time. I can tell you there is no ocean or shrimp boats, fresh crab or scallops anywhere near Missouri. Cape Girardeau is the only inland Cape, it's on the Mississippi River. It looked like the license plates were from Mississippi, which may explain why there was so much racial tension. Missouri and Mississippi are 2 completely different states that don't touch one another. There are many roads in and out of town and none of them are Route 6 or Route 666. This whole inaccuracy was very distracting. Also, Cassie did not seem like someone who would want to hang around Dean if she was well educated. I did not buy them as a couple and didn't enjoy the lengthy love scene. Jo was more Dean's style.
André Roussin was a specialist of what the French call "Theatre de Boulevard" : plays where you find the eternal triangle:man/wife/(male or female)lover .Many of his plays gave Elvire Popesco some of her best parts on stage....and the great actress was the main reason to watch them,for Roussin is not Sacha Guitry ,by a long shot.The French audience remembers "Au Theatre Ce Soir' .<br /><br />Still with me? Roussin's plays were not made to be filmed.And this one is pretty mediocre material ,even if the screenwriters call Lewis Carroll to their rescue .I like Stewart Granger and David Niven ,and Ava Gardner is eye candy .But this might be their worst film ,being crude, predictable -even the native's (Bola -Bola )intervention is ludicrous- a knockabout farce around a Menage à Trois on a desert island where Granger would be some kind of Robinson,Niven ,his Friday and Gardner his girl Friday.
Linda Arvidson (as Jennie) and Harry Solter (as Frank) are enjoying a romantic tryst, when in walks her father Charles Inslee; furious, he chases Mr. Solter out of the house. Undaunted, he goes to her balcony and begs her to elope. Ms. Arvidson is agreeable, and goes to pack. Then, burglar George Gebhardt arrives to rob the place. Though he doesn't get much in the way of booty, thieving Gebhardt manages to use Arvidson's trunk to escape from the police… <br /><br />A Contrived Comedy. Note, during the balcony scene, Solter goes off-camera, so burglar Gebhardt can enter the house undetected. And, Arvidson travels very light, since there appears to be nothing in her heavy trunk; perhaps she just wanted to buff up beau Solter? Director D.W. Griffith, Robert Harron, and Florence Lawrence are illustrious extras. <br /><br />** A Calamitous Elopement (8/7/08) D.W. Griffith ~ George Gebhardt, Linda Arvidson, Harry Solter
Where to start, where to start....hmmm...well how about some of the stiffest, most unnatural, unbelievable and camped-up performances one can imagine? How about stereotypical "characters", situations and locations? Or what about a manipulative, cloying, utterly wretched script? I can't think of one element in this movie that was original, worthy of watching or interesting.<br /><br />Note to all you Josh Hartnett/Chris Klein/LeeLee Sobieski fans - enjoy their collective fifteen minutes, folks, because they're not going to be famous much longer...
Life is too short to waste on two hours of Hollywood nonsense like this, unless you're a clueless naiive 16 year old girl with no sense of reality and nothing better to do. Dull characters, poor acting (artificial emotion), weak story, slow pace, and most important to this films flawed existence-no one cares about the overly dramatic relationship.
******************SPOILER********************SPOILER******************** This movie stunk. Just let me say now that I totally agree with what carissaphillips had to say about this. What was Sam thinking? She was with a guy who told her he loved her (3 times in total), was EXTREMELY HOT, and stuck with her though her trying times (Josh Hartnett). But, she decided to break up with him, no, cheat on him with a snobby,ugly, spoiled, rich-brat jerk loser who never said he loved her in the entire movie(oh wait, he wrote it on the wall, does that count?), and left her in her time of need because he was scared (Chris LOSER Klein). Who would you want to be with? The only reason I sat through the entire movie was because it had Josh Hartnett in it and hoping that maybe she would die at the end. I wanted Jasper to get another girlfriend who was actually worthy of him. The whole "your mom" thing was funny. I enjoyed it. I hate it when people around here say it but I think that Kelley deserved it. Jasper should have said it to Sam as well, she needed a good slap. How the romance started is a mystery to me. They never said anything to each other anyway so I don't understand how they got together. "I was thinking about the cheese sandwich you gave me...did it have mustard or mayonnaise or....." Oh what a come on. The supposedly romantic lines were so stupid. Plus he's sosososososososo UGLY! I must admit, I did cry in this movie. For a long time, really hard. Not because she died, but because she broke Jasper's heart. He cried in this movie so many times...he tried to smile for her but he couldn't stop the tears. He cried when 1) He told her he loved her 2) She got sick 3) Chris Klein came back and he saw how happy she was w/ him 4) she died. I cried when he cried because he loved her her entire life, and told her, and yet she was dumb enough to not care and love a guy who left her in her time of need, and who DID NOT CRY at the funeral. 1 1/2 stars only because I LOVE JOSH HARTNETT! Oh by the way Chris Klein, YOUR MOM! -Wiley's sis
This comes close to the worst movie I've ever seen. The writer starts you out in a way that you'll side with Jasper (Josh Hartnett). When he did absolutely nothing wrong, Sam (Leelee Sobiesky) leaves him for Kelley (Chris Klein), in a way that leaves you mad at Sam. You aren't let in on what she feels, so her feelings with Kelley aren't real to you, and their relationship is phony. It drags you in either direction, and it gets rather exhausting and annoying. The only good thing about this movie that I saw was the cast.<br /><br />
I'm not sure why I disliked this film so much. Maybe I'm too old or too male or too something. Just who was the target audience here? If you're it and you liked it, then I'm happy for you. Personally, I found it a bit of a pill. The characters were uninteresting and unlikeable, the script was just plain embarrassing and some, though not all, of the acting was uninspired. Mawkish, tedious and occasionally nauseating -- Surely there's something better on.<br /><br />On a related issue: Why is it that whenever I see Chris Klein in a film I get an urge to slap him silly? Does anyone else get that?
I watched this on cable because I was a big Leelee fan. Big mistake. What a horrible film. You don't care one bit for any of the characters in the movie. Chris Klein plays a guy who is a complete jerk in the film, and steals away Josh Hartnett's longtime girlfriend. If the writer knew what they were doing, this film would have followed the proven formula, and made Hartnett an ass, and Leelee as the girlfriend trapped in a bad relationship, from which she's saved by Klein. But Hartnett is a really cool guy, who shows a lot of emotion and love for Leelee. <br /><br />You then hate leelee, because she cheats on Hartnett with Klein, who is a jerk to everyone in the town that's trying to help him and really stuck up. <br /><br />It's also really campy, and the characters do everything but run around the kitchen dancing and lip synching, and using hairbrushes and spoons and fake microphones (although they come very close). <br /><br />What a horrible horrible movie. You don't even care what happens in the end because the director never lets you care about the characters.
I rented this movie the other day b/c I love romance stories, but this has got to be the worst one I have ever seen in my life. I find it hard to believe that Sam would fall in love with Kelley after they've said hardly no more than 2 words to each other when she has a great long-time boyfriend who's devoted to her completely. I thought Kelley was a major jerk throughout the movie, and he never changed at all. The only good thing about the movie was Josh Hartnett. I thought he did a wonderful acting job, and I'm going to start watching more movies of his.
One can always tell if I'm enjoying a movie by the number of times I cross my legs, switch positions, make slight rustling noises, etc., etc. The lesser = the better. I moved so many times throughout this movie that I succeeded in knocking over my friends giant tub of popcorn and getting a huge thigh-strengthening workout.<br /><br />Sobieski, a young actress who at some points in "A Soldier's Daughter Never Cries" gave some promise for her thespian talents, played poorly in a poorly-written part. Depressing fact number one. Number two: Chris Klein was in it. Depressing fact number three: Chris Klein had lines. Number four: Chris Klein played a valedictorian. Woah. Dummies from rich families unite! Even worse, he actually tries to act, but only succeeds in sounding like a mentally disabled overactor in an increasingly sappy independent version of a Cecille B. DeMille film. Go back to humping your American Pies.<br /><br />This movie was terrible in almost every sense, save Josh Hartnett's mildly endearing performance as LeeLee's stiffed boyfriend Jasper. Luckily, he refrains from trying to have too many "moments," unlike all the other characters. Of course, this is why he's much better than the rest and he actually shows some mettle here. If you like Josh or are thinking of casting a kid who knows a few things, he's your man. <br /><br />Hartnett is a sharp actor, but the rest need no further lambasting.<br /><br />2 out of 10 (for poor Hartnett in this terrible film)<br /><br />
Well, if you set aside the fact that this movie features abysmal acting; and, if you set aside the fact that the story is muddled and wanders off in about five different directions without ever deciding which way it really wants to go; and, if you set aside the fact that I didn't find a single scene in this movie that was remotely interesting; well, if you set all that aside, this is still a REALLY terrible movie!<br /><br />I take it that this is supposed to be a love story about rich guy/poor girl. I never really understood for a moment how this romance between Kelley (Chris Klein) and Samantha (Leelee Sobieski) ever got started. The inexplicable romance is made worse by a complete lack of chemistry between Klein and Sobieski. The screenplay (by Michael Seitzman) is dull to the point of stupefying. How Seitzman managed to write the thing without falling asleep is a miracle; that he would think anyone would want to pay to see this is unbelievable.<br /><br />Did I mention that this is a REALLY, REALLY terrible movie?<br /><br />I'd give it a ZERO, but the IMDb doesn't provide for votes of ZERO. So I give it a one while holding my nose.
I had been waiting eagerly to see this movie, but when I finally got the chance, I was very disappointed. I had to stop half-way (or was it quarter-way?) because of the poor script and directing. Not to mention the poor cast! Josh Hartnett is the only one who can act, and he's much more suitable to be the hero of the story.<br /><br />Well, basically the story is just about a loose girl from the country who cheated on her long-time decent boyfriend only to have meaningless sex with a spoiled rich brat. This movie failed to draw my sympathy, not even when the writer intended to. I wonder where the moral values go?<br /><br />The actors are so stiff that when I resume the movie (few weeks after it was interrupted due to its boring nature), they still failed to make me pay attention. The spoiled couple can only disgust me! What a movie!<br /><br />I think all the people involved in this production need to sit down and review it together so that they won't make the same mistakes next time round. And next time they might consider Josh Hartnett as the protagonist...
Ho hum. Rich good looking kid gets in trouble, poor girl falls in love with him, jealous ex-boyfriend causes tension.. yadda yadda. I actually laughed out loud in many parts of this movie because the next scene was so predictable and just plain stupid. As one scene moved on to the next, I often found myself wondering just how we got there, like I had skipped a few chapters in a book.<br /><br />The script was pretty pitiful and didn't have me or my wife caring much about any of the characters, except the jilted boyfriend. Now, if the ex boyfriend had gotten an axe, and hacked apart the girl and rich kid, then.... then we would have a movie, and all the stupid dialog and leaps in plot could be acceptable. But, since this movie attempts to be touching and totally misses the boat (and ends up resorting to the romance equivalent of divine intervention to try and jerk a tear)... it just falls very very flat.<br /><br />Avoid this movie. Clip your toenails instead, you will have more fun.
All I have to say is one word...SUCKS!!!!. The only reason I gave this a 2 is because Josh Hartnett was in it and he's cool. Should have beat that Klein guys ass...stupid dumb and brainless. By the end of this movie you can't stand Klein and you really don't care what happens to Leelee. Hartnett was the only good thing about it.
Interferencia starts as unemployed Martin Sanders (Andres Bagg) hears something strange on his phone, he hears a mysterious man talking to a prostitute named Diana & arranging to meet her. Soon after Martin reads a local paper & sees the front page story about a prostitute being murdered & thinks back to what he heard. Martin confides in his friends Laura (Virginia Lustig) & Aaron (Oliver Kolker) but they don't believe him. Then shortly after the same thing happens again, the phone call, the man, the prostitute & her death reported in the papers. Martin decides he has to find the killer & put a stop to his killing spree but who is it?<br /><br />This Argentinian production that was apparently shot in just eight days (why so long?) on a budget of about $3,000 (why so much?) was written & directed by Sergio Esquenazi & I cannot believe some of the glowing comments Interferencia has on the IMDb. Out of 195 user ratings as I write this 113 of them rate this pile of crap 10 out of 10, I am sorry but there is no way anyone should be giving a film this bad a quite literally perfect score of 10 out of 10. If a score for a film on IMDb is fixed then this is it, I honestly don't believe that if you showed Interferencia to 195 average people that well over 100 of them would rate it as being absolutely perfect, no way on Earth. The user comments are also amazingly positive, all by IMDb users who have only wrote comments for one film, this. The one user (besides me) who has actually written more than one comment gave it a rock bottom 1 out of 10 which sounds just about right. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but I would stake my life on the fact most of those positive comments are from fake accounts set up purely to big this piece of crap up. Where do I start? How on Earth can I adequately describe how bad Interferencia is? The plot is a mess that basically lives or dies by it's terrible twists, while most twists turn a plot on it's head & alters the perspective of everything that has gone before in a clever & relevant way & are genuine surprises here in Interferencia the twists destroy the first half of the film & makes it utterly pointless in a 'it didn't actually happen' sort of way & the twist is so poorly handled that it leaves you asking more questions than it answers. What made Martin go mad? Why did he imagine the phone calls? Why did he imagine a killer? Why did he imagine the newspaper headlines? No explanation is given for Martin's behaviour during the first hour or so of the film, there's just this absurd revelation that it was all in his mind & that's it, that's all the exposition there is. Then there's a plot twist about Martin's missing wife & her lover before Martin for reasons unexplained starts to kill his friends for no apparent reason. I am sorry but Interferencia is so bad, it's so boring, it's so badly written & thought out that I honestly can't think of a positive thing to say about it. Sorry guy's but that's how I feel, quite simply Interferencia is one of the worst films I have ever seen & is a complete mess both conceptually & technically.<br /><br />According to the IMDb Interferencia was hot in just eight days, to be honest it doesn't feel like that at all. Nope, it feels more like it was shot in five days! The whole film is an eyesore, Interferencia has probably the worst nighttime shooting I have ever seen. It's like no attempt was made to light the scenes, it's like the makers just went into a dark room or basement or whatever & just shoot the scene regardless of whether you could see anything. The scenes set outside in the daytime have this horrible unnatural blue green tint to them for no apparent reason which just looks daft & becomes increasingly irritating. This strange tint is not repeated on indoor scenes so they are also quite jarring & noticeable. There's no real horror or scares, in fact I would say Interferencia is more of a thriller than a horror. As far as gore goes there are two decapitated heads in a fridge, a knife is stuck in someones mouth & nothing else.<br /><br />According to the IMDb this had a budget of about $3,000 which makes Interferencia one of the lowest budgeted films ever commercially released surely? Some people think just because a film is low budget all reasonable viewing standards should go out of the window & we should accept any old crap, wrong! To watch this on DVD you will still have to pay good money & I personally think we have the right to expect some sort of good product. If this can get released & praised like it's Oscar worthy then we can all release our holiday camcorder footage (including embarrassing karaoke footage & scenes of total blackness as we forgot to take off the lens cap) & win top prizes at the next Cannes film festival! The acting is awful although the female lead Virginia Lustig is actually rather sexy & helps ease the pain of the final twenty odd minutes as she features a fair bit.<br /><br />Interferencia is an absolutely terrible film, seriously I beg you don't be fooled by all the fake positive comments, there is no way anyone not involved in this or have some sort of agenda is going to give it a 9 or 10 out of 10. An amateurish mess that is truly horrible to sit through. Sorry but that's the way I see it, sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind... you have been warned!
Did you ever watch a really bad movie and get mad about it? Even a movie you didn't have high expectations for? Well I just rented the movie "Dead Line". This is the US video title for "Interferencia". Now I have seen a lot of bad movies, and watched a lot of "B" titles, but this is in another league all its own. It was put out on "The Asylum" label, and anyone that rents a lot of direct to video horror films knows this label. When you rent one of there's you know what your getting. A lot of marginal acting low budget horror, but usually still pretty good. Not this one. The acting by the three leads was beyond bad. Even fast forwarding couldn't help. The tag line on the front of the box says"..in the tradition of DePalma's Body Double. The nerve to compare this to that classic movie. The only true comment is "The screams you will hear are real". Yea you will be the one screaming if you rent this.
If it wasn't for Colin Firth, the movie would be ready for the dust bin! So foreseable, so silly and so badly acted!! Only Colin Firth, as always, shines through this mess as single light on the end of the tunnel!!<br /><br />The worst was Jennifer Rubin's acting, for sure! Maybe it was because of this script (did they actually have really written one or was it just made up "on the way"???).<br /><br />To cut a tooo long story short:<br /><br />It is a MUST SEE only for Colin Firth Fanatics (like me) since he is incredibly sexy and good acting (struggling hard against this "mentally challenged" script). These minutes of Colin-Screen-Time make up a lot of this movie. <br /><br />Don't spend too much money on it, though. Try to see or get it as cheap as possible (an auction or something like that) and then do stick to the Colin Firth scenes. <br /><br />The rest of the movie might be dangerous for anyones mental health.
If you need a clue as to whether Playmaker is decent or not, look to its star, Colin Firth, who refers to it in an interview as "absolute rubbish -- I sincerely hope no one ever sees it."<br /><br />The script and plot are ludicrous, the female lead is unconvincing. The only thing worthwhile is Colin Firth, and he seems slightly embarrassed throughout.<br /><br />For diehard Firth fans only -- the shower scene alone is worth the $3.99 you might have to shell out, should you find it in a video cutout bin like I did.<br /><br />I'm happy for Mr. Firth that his days of taking projects like this one are over!
Plunkett and MaCleane are two highwaymen that rob from the rich in order to give to ... well, the rich; comparatively, they ARE the rich. But we know they're the good guys because the chap behind the forces of law and order, a Mr. Chance, is just so evil. He rapes women - or tries to. He beats up his underlings. He commits murder. He has bad breath. He doesn't shave properly. He has no fashion sense. He tortures puppy dogs. That last one is just an inference of mine: we don't actually SEE him torture puppy dogs. But I'm sure he does. Little of Chance's villainy has much to do with his pursuit of Plunkett and MaCleane. It's just something he does in his spare time, a kind of a hobby he takes up to make absolutely certain that we don't like him. He needn't have tried so hard. No-one in this film is likeable.<br /><br />Let's take stock. Appealing characters? There aren't any: I believe we've covered that. Swashbuckling? Not a swash. Instead we have a kind of grimy heavy-breathing. Dash? Sparkle? Vigour? All gone the way of swashbuckling, I'm afraid. Realism? None of that, either. I think they were TRYING for realism, since everyone was so filthy, but the characters and action had all the plausibility of Errol Flynn - with no sense of exhilaration to back them up. Beauty? Nope. Fine camera work? For a TV crew, perhaps. Humour? You might giggle once or twice if you're in a benevolent mood. Then again, you might not. Dialogue? See `humour', above. Music? Don't even get me STARTED on the music. The music in `Ladyhawk' was, by comparison, uncannily apt; and at least the misguided aesthetic of that score was a consistent one.<br /><br />Ugh. I apologise to `Ladyhawk' for even THINKING about it in this context.<br /><br />To sum up: there's much positive badness here and NOTHING good - unless you count Liv Tyler, which I'm in two minds about doing.<br /><br />I feel as though I've just written a review of the pox. `Not very good,' the review says. It would be much more interesting if I could somehow DEFEND the pox, to claim that critics of the pox have got it all wrong - but I don't know how I'd go about doing that.
If you have few expectations, then this will entertain for 90 minutes. My problem is that they've dumbed down this tale for the modern audience. Highwaymen are already sexy, exciting characters. They don;t need the techno soundtrack and snappy dialogue.
Sorry this was a woeful excuse for a film.. a plot line so holey it resembled a block of swiss cheese and a butch of characters who seemed to me to be utterly devoid of inter-personal relations.. Well except of course for Carlyle and Lee-Miller who i could have sworn were meant to be in love.. Unlike the union of Tyler and Miller who were for the most part, like the rest of the film, utterly unconvincing.. although the end product was uncaptivating and amusing for all the wrong reasons, the production values were high and deserve some acknowledgement..but unfortunately the end result was rubbish..what was everyone involved thinking..? they definitely should have packed up early on this one..
This was one of Christie's later stories. Throughout her long career, she was interested in the shifting narrative and the notion of conflicting agents. Both are essentially the same thing and boil down to questions of who it is that controls or creates the situation.<br /><br />In detective fiction, the game is a matter of conflicting realities. The murderer intends to change reality to fool the detective, the writer intends to do the same to the reader. Both the reader and the detective are in similar battles to create what they see. That's why her stories often include a writer.<br /><br />In her works, she explores every combination of tricks she can think of that deal with this. Along the way, we often have bodies that are not who they seem, and times, and intended victims and such. But the real magic of the books is this notion of control. In 'Bertram's' it was literally a building.<br /><br />Here, it is a dead man. Well, sometimes that happens, but not like this. It is as if the writer were the famous Mr. Rafiel. This is particularly sweet to Marple readers who remember this same character from the 'Carribean Mystery,' which in a way was also framed by her nephew. In that story, Rafiel was the conveyor of the story to the authorities.<br /><br />The producers of this series have an almost wacky commitment to using a different creative team on each one. Sometimes it produces bland work. The 'Bertram's' episode was rather brilliantly staged. This one is the most lavish of the lot, and has an active camera. But unlike the 'Bertram's' work, it has nothing to do with the story.<br /><br />The camera moves and captures merely because it can. The 'Citizen Kane' quote at the beginning was a little too literal and blunt. This story is good, but the adapter took out some pretty critical stuff, and that irrelevant camera annoys.<br /><br />Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
What a frustrating movie. A small Southern town is overflowing with possibilities for exploring the complexities of interpersonal relationships and dark underbellies hidden beneath placid surfaces, as anyone who has read anything by Carson McCullers already knows. This does none of that. Instead, the writers settled for cutesy twinkles, cheap warm fuzzies and banal melodrama. The thing looks like a made-for-TV movie, and was directed with no particular distinction, but it's hard to imagine what anyone could have done to make this material interesting.<br /><br />The most frustrating aspect, though, is the fact that there are a lot of extremely competent and appealing actors in this cast, all trying gamely to make the best of things and do what they can with this--well, there's no other word for it--drivel. A tragic waste of talent, in particular that of the great Stockard Channing.
A very carelessly written film. Poor character and idea development. The silly plot and weak acting by just about the ensemble cast didn't help. Seriously, watching this movie will NOT make you smile. It may make you retch.
God, did I hate this movie! I saw it at a sneak preview 13 years ago, and I STILL have bad flashbacks. It was, without a doubt, the WORST movie I ever paid to see. It was badly written, badly directed, and (surprisingly considering the cast) badly acted. I would rather be thrown off a rooftop onto razor sharp spikes, and then have my skin peeled off, than to sit through it again. Can you guess I didn't enjoy it?
I watched the version with pathetic American over-dubs, maybe this made it much worse, but from what I could make out the film was pretty bad anyway. It seemed low budget. The visuals reminded me of a second rate TV movie, random white dog substituted for Dogmatix, embarrassing 60's BBC costumes, etc. Mainly though, I feel like the characters in the movie did not behave anything like the characters in the comic, and as a result I never felt willing to even try to forgive the poor look of the film. It is always going to be hard to capture the feel of the comics in a film without using animation, and I didn't feel this attempt was worth it ultimately.
Whereas the movie was beautifully shot and reasonably well acted, the script was dull. plodding and nothing we have not seen before. Not once in this film did I ever get the feeling that these people were really in danger. No noticeable climax and a very standard resolution. I believe these type of movies have been overdone and should be given a rest. After all, didn't EVERYONE on the planet see "Schindler's List"?
Yes, this bizarre feature was written by John Sayles. Shot in Toronto, it's yet another '80s era feature about the dangers of the urban jungle, where the police fear to go and the homeless and the criminal classes are the only inhabitants. Into this mix comes the myth of Wild Thing, a feral young man raised by a bag lady after his parents were murdered by a dirty cop on the take (Maury Chaykin) and Chopper, the local crime lord (Robert Davi). Stir in the local do-gooders (priest Sean Hewitt and clueless social worker Kathleen Quinlan), and you have a recipe for some rather unexciting action sequences. Davi is the standout amongst the cast, and cinematographer Rene Verzier does a pretty good job. Otherwise this is a rather lumpen action pic that won't satisfy action fans and will leaves Sayles' admirers slack-jawed.
I can't believe they do this kind of filth out of a serious theme. Totally unrealistic (they seemed to want it to be HIGHLY realistic but all the elements are based on clichés), real propaganda stuff. After seeing this, an addict probably just want to continue his/her career :-) I gave it 2.
I'm not picky with movies, oh I've seen so much crap I could watch anything. Maybe that was the reason I watched this one to the end. Im big fan of RPG games too, but this movie, its a disgrace to any self-respecting RPGer there is. The security-camera footage of a game-play would make it feel more realistic than this movie does. The lines, the cuts, the audio, everything is wrong. In some scenes you can see that it was filmed in some photo when !!!!!(spoilers ahead)!!!!!people running around does not disturb people sitting near computers. I mean would you continue your work if you got ninjas around you? oh and the jokes about pirates, that's the worst one yet in movies!!!!!(spoilers end)!!!!! At least first one felt like a documentary, now it looks like someones home video experiment. You can find better movies at youtube. Top line: Don't waste your time and money on this one, its as bad as it comes.
I guess the previous "House" movie was a hit, prompting Universal to wring a few more drops from the monster cash-cow. The creative team must've been in a recycling mood, starting with the opening theme lifted from 'Son of Frankenstein' and some of the stock footage dispersed through the film, like one unintentionally funny bit of business where footage of Glenn Strange as the monster is mixed with clips of Karloff from 1935's Bride, and compared to how robotic Strange moved, Karloff seems to move like a cheetah in comparison.<br /><br />Previous film continuity is thrown by the wayside, concerning the miraculous death-cheating abilities of the Wolf Man and Dracula, but when Dr. Edelmann & Larry Talbot discover Frankenstein's monster with the skeleton representing Boris Karloff , Edward T. Lowe does at least acknowledge some of the past movie history, though Talbot curiously never mentions having met Karloff's Dr. Niemann. <br /><br />Since this was to be the last of Universal's horror cycle, the supernatural elements of The Wolf Man and Drac get(unconvincingly) morphed into medical ailments. Drac is told he suffers from a blood disease, a very rare sickness that allows him to transform into a bat or evaporate if sunlight touches him. >:-] And Larry Talbot just has a little pressure on the brain. Of course all of this is painstakingly explained with a 'lot' of medical jargon being related in many scenes throughout. This proves to be the biggest hindrance, as somewhere along the way the filmmakers seem to forget about actual horror or entertainment in favor of giving the monsters conditions that seem as treatable as a flu. <br /><br />As a huge fan of the old Universal horrors, it's rare that I feel so bored while watching one. The whole thing just feels like a movie that was made just because it could be, but if this mess hadn't been slapped together, the monsters might never have met Abbott and Costello, so I guess some good came of this.
I have not figured out what the chosen title has to do with the movie. This is another gathering of monsters just like the HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN. Not exactly a masterful plot, but Universal needed to capitalize again.<br /><br />Dr. Edelman (Onslow Stevens) is either very ambitious or over the top in the ego department. He is working on the cure to keep Larry Talbot from turning into the Wolf Man. Somehow Count Dracula happens to drop by to get a fix on his vampirism. And rounding out the good doctor's experiments is the restoring of the Frankenstein monster's energy. Along the way, the kind hearted doctor's blood is tainted with that of Dracula.<br /><br />John Carradine plays Dracula again. This time he is more convincing. Lon Chaney Jr. as usual is the soulful Wolf Man. Glenn Strange is the Frankenstein monster, who has very little to do this outing. Also with mentionable roles are Lionel Atwill and Martha O'Driscoll.
I've been a classic horror fan my entire life. Many nights stretched until the early hours of the morning watching the Universal films on "Horror Incorporated" and "Creature Feature Night". Sadly, I viewed this film in the early evening and yet it still almost put me to sleep.<br /><br />I don't think I've ever seen a "horror" picture where everything was so matter of fact. Dr. Edelmann doesn't seem to believe in the supernatural, yet before long he's medically treating Dracula and watching Larry Talbot change into the Wolfman while hardly blinking an eye. He and Talbot discover the Frankenstein monster like it's an everyday occurrence. Edelmann is all fired up to bring the monster back to life, but after Talbot, Miliza and Nina protest he's like "Aww, you're right. No big deal". After realizing Dracula's treachery, he opens the Count's coffin to sunlight and POOF!, he's gone, just like that.<br /><br />The only person who didn't appear to just be phoning in her lines was Jane Adams as Nina. Her reward is getting bounced off the hump in her back into a pit by the Frankenstein Monster at the end of the film...and no one even tries to rescue her! She, Dr. Edelmann and the Monster all perish, while Talbot and Miliza casually leave the castle.<br /><br />Definitely the low point for Universal during it's classic horror years.
It's proof that movie makers and their financiers treating their audience with contempt isn't a new phenomena as it was done as early as the 1940s and HOUSE OF Dracula is a great example . You'd think having a film with Dracula , the wolf man and Frankenstein's monster the producer would dictate to the screenwriter to have all three appear in a scene . They had a chance with HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN then when they had a second bite of the cherry they blew it again with HOUSE OF Dracula . To lose one chance is a misfortune , to lose two smacks of cynical money making <br /><br />It's obvious the producers are beyond caring . Larry Talbot turns up again even though he was shown to die in the previous film which sums up the cynicism of the franchise . It also shows what a poor screenplay it is and we're mistreated to some awful plot turns like Talbot's condition being cured by a special type of plant which will soften his skull . I'm thinking screenwriter Edward T Lowe might have had his skull softened if this is the type of stuff he comes up with <br /><br />Director Erie C Kenton can't improve on the script and throws in a few spanners of his own . For example Talbot is startled to see Dr Edelmann snatch a lift on a cart but nonchalantly watches Edelmann climb a wall and jump in to the château courtyard . One can't help thinking Talbot's reaction shots were mistakenly switched round at the editing stage <br /><br />Lon Chaney Jnr is famous for his roles in horror movies but didn't have much of a career outside them . Perhaps that's down to the fact he's not a good actor and here he commits the worst type of acting - being very wooden . It's not entirely his fault though because all the characters spout rather awful dialogue and are all rather wooden due in part to Kenton's lackluster directing <br /><br />HOUSE OF Dracula feels a million miles away from James Whale 1931 film and its sequel from 1935 and would have been a very sad note to end on . But ironically Universal decided to make one more movie to wrap up their franchise with a horror comedy starring Abbot and Costello
I watched this film when I was a kid, and I thought it was terrible then. Now that I'm older, I found it just as terrible. Universal could have done better than this. They merely decided to make the most money they could out of using all their monsters at once. To me, that was a cheap shot. These characters were capable of holding their own in their own movies, and the choice of actors was deplorable. Dracula needed to be Bela Lugosi, Frankenstein's, monster needed to be Karloff.<br /><br />In my mind, it was the Disney squalid sequel sequence done decades ago, and it was not appreciated. Umiversal started out with something great and original, and then thought they could pander to the masses with the schlock which is extremely evident in this film.
Okay -- the title "House of Frankenstein", was a reference to a line from the original Frankenstein movie. When they follow it up with a movie entitled "House of Dracula", which makes no real sense, you know that it's just beginning to turn into a franchise.<br /><br />Without explanation, Dracula is back, and he's calling himself Baron Latos. He infiltrates the home of a Doctor Edelmann, with the claim that he is seeking a cure for his vampirism. Edelmann has a hunchback nurse who assists him (what is it with hunchback assistants in these movies?), but what Dracula is really interested in is his other, more beautiful assistant. At this point, Larry "Wolf Man" Talbot returns (again, no explanation given) and just happens to be seeking the same doctor for a cure to his lycanthropy. And then he just happens to fall into a cave in which plants can be grown to help him, which also just so happens to contain the Frankenstein monster. Dear God, when will it end ... sure, the other Universal monster sequels were silly, but this is just ridiculous.<br /><br />First the good stuff. There are some great settings, and the vampire bat effects are slightly better than usual. Some of the other effects are pretty neat too. John Carradine isn't bad as Dracula once you get used to him, but still nothing like as brilliant as Lugosi was. In my opinion, Onslow Stevens plays a much better vampire in this movie, although he has exactly the opposite problem to Carradine -- all of the creepiness and none of the class. None of the performances are that great, but it's more due to the atrocious script than anything else -- the female parts are particularly badly written. But stupid as it is, it remains reasonably entertaining for the most part. The best thing about it is it's short length.<br /><br />Now the bad stuff ... it's not creepy, it's poorly written and it doesn't work. I was hoping the three monsters would begin some kind of a supernatural struggle for power, but it doesn't happen. The focus is almost entirely on Dracula, who isn't particularly well portrayed. On the other hand, this is the only movie in which Dracula infects another man, but it is done via a blood transfusion rather than a bite as Universal were always uncomfortable with the possible homosexual subtext. Larry Talbot is decent as always as the Wolf Man, but he plays a comparatively small part. Once again the part of Frankenstein's monster is reduced to the anti-climatic closing moments. For God's sake, Glenn Strange was fantastic as the creature! Why not give him more screen time? It's unfortunate that the series had to end on this note (not counting the classic comedy "Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein"). In the end it just fizzled in the sunlight and died, much like Dracula himself.
Although inevitably linked to the 70's decade, the concept of "exploitation-cinema" is actually nearly as old as cinema itself. Moreover, Universal Studios practically invented the term with their long running monster cycles Dracula, Frankenstein, The Wolf Man and The Mummy. Every original classic spawned a couple of sequels, at least, and after a while they even thought up the idea of making genuine monster stewing! "House of Frankenstein", released one year earlier and also directed by Erle C. Kenton, was quite a successful effort with interesting ideas and enthusiast performances, but "House of Dracula" is a little too loony for me to recommend it. The plot suffers too much from extremely irritating 'coincidental' situations, forced twists & dialogs and – most of all – a far too short running time to elaborate the monsters' personalities like they deserve. Onslow Stevens doesn't receive top billing but plays the most fundamental role as miracle a doctor who's challenged to cure Count Dracula (Carradine) from his incontrollable thirst for blood and fix Lawrence Talbot's illness of mutating into a hairy Wolf Man whenever the moon is full. During a nightly walk in some caves, they also pick up the remainders of Frankenstein's monster and the good doctor himself eventually undergoes a Jekyll/Hyde metamorphosis due to a bad blood transfusion. The last invitation to the messy party is a female hunchback (though not of the Notre Dame). Something is very wrong when you're watching a movie that is literally stuffed with horror icons, yet the only character in the whole movie that is able to freak you out is an ordinary villager going by the name Siegfried. The actual monsters are dull and their once-fabulous backgrounds are fully drained. Count Dracula is a whining romanticist, Talbot is a pitiable and also whining old martyr and the Frankenstein creation … well, his share in the plot isn't even worth mentioning. There's a serious lack of atmospheric settings and nifty photography in this Universal film, especially compared to all their other efforts, and the abrupt climax is a disaster.
One True Thing may have seemed like a horror movie to the yuppies of the 80's, but it doesn't ring true today... unless you happen to be part of a pampered, upper-middle class family which is so insulated from the world that it has never tasted suffering.<br /><br />Avoid this shallow flop.
I appear to be in the minority on this one, but I found One True Thing to be schmaltzy, contrived and generally unpleasant. Not that the acting was all that bad, but the characters seemed little more than archetypes (the bad father, oh, but wait, maybe he's not unredeemably bad; maybe there can be a resolution at the end . . .). Admittedly, the woman I was with loved the movie, so maybe you'll like it. But I didn't.
Unlike Terms of Endearment and Steel Magnolia's, I left the movie theater feeling VERY disappointed. I started to get into the characters and their complex mother/daughter and father/daughter relationships at the beginning. I even cried. But I had no sympathy for the characters with the ending. The final act did not seem in line with the mother's character at all. So, although the acting was pretty good, I thought the movie on a whole was disappointing.
What really amazed me about this film was that it ringed so false. First of all, who in the late 80's (when the film takes place)lived like this family? A college professor wouldn't make enough money to support the lifestyle I saw on the film. Hence, he and his stay home wife would be plagued by financial woes, especially when she gets cancer. Second, Streep is my age, and most women, particularly in her class (educated, white, well off) experienced the feminist movement. Yet this woman seems oblivious to her anachronistic behavior. I actually felt that she was a very controlling woman who kept her husband an emotional child by taking care of his every need.<br /><br />The fact that so many people were moved by the film is amazing. I have admired Carl Franklin's films in the past, and I actually like Meryl Streep, but gad, what a manipulative and lying film this is.
Apart from the DA (James Eckhouse), and a brief appearing woman who is convincingly sympathetic to Ellen Gulden's (Renee Zellweger)plight, Ellen herself is the only convincing character--and likable character in the movie. She is the one, not her dying mother, who should be and is--the one true thing. it's not only in the role, in Zellweger's acting, but also in the plot itself.... Until, the plot turns against itself--and makes the mother the "one true thing" in the eyes of her weak willed, shallow husband who can do nothing right for his wife or daughter. The daughter perceives what the viewer perceives, but such intelligent perceptions must give way to the shallow sentiment of the husband who is blanked out on both the realities of his wife and daughter. <br /><br />To boot, the one powerful scene in this whole movie, when Ellen confronts her father's cruelty, is given the lie at the end. Ellen is just another young strong woman who must be tamed into conformity by a crybaby father. A very flawed movie--so flawed as to be called a bore and not worth the time.
Cronica de un desayuno combines the worst defects of mexican cinema, a rare feat nowadays.<br /><br />It's pretentious: it wants us to believe that it is deep, only because some scene is out-of-focus, another is pseudo-surreal, yet another plays with the Eisenstein-Infante-Caifanes tradition of laughing-crying faces, the edition is fragmented, and it is all so solemn.<br /><br />It has a weak script: the main story hardly develops, so it has other three smaller, needless stories, stuck into it. They are only good to make the film last longer.<br /><br />Most of the acting is bad. A true feat, baring in mind that many of the best known mexican actors were cast.<br /><br />There is an abuse of unnecesary foul language. To the point that the character of Paloma, who symbolizes the dreams of freedom of a child, uses it throughly.<br /><br />It is homophobic. The character played by Eduardo Palomo is the sorriest, and most punished, representation of a transexual I have ever seen.<br /><br />It is very boring. I ended up envying the people that left the theater before the end of the film.<br /><br />Whatever it tries, it has been done better, in Mexico and elsewhere.<br /><br />In other words: "Para partirte la madre, nada como una mala película"
I have seen tons of trash, in every language, about every topic and of every trend of film-making. From every period, every director and any kind of budget available. That said I really have to declare:<br /><br />This is one of the three worst movies I have EVER seen.<br /><br />It's painfully bad. It's pompous. It's grim. It's incomprehensible. It's annoying. It's a really bad mess. It is a piece of you-know-what.<br /><br />And, what's more important: it lacks a point. And even if it had one, the characters are so unreal and annoying that it's impossible to overlook the lack of cohesion of the whole thing.<br /><br />It's just weird for the sake of being weird.<br /><br />I actually felt sick watching this trash. The theater where I saw it (Lincoln Center in New York) was full when it started. By the end of it, half of the audience had walked out. There was a Q&A programmed at the end but nobody stayed. With the exception of about two sickos everybody else ran for the door, myself included. <br /><br />Save 2 hours of your life. It's probably one of the worst ever done.<br /><br />If there is a movie theater in Hell, this movie will be playing 24/7, for eternity...
I live in Mexico City, so I have to suffer throug the trailers for every piece of trash that comes out from all these stupid Mexican filmmakers. You want to admire a Mexican guy for making great films? Take a look at something by Guillermo del Toro (specially The Devil's Backbone), or maybe Alfonso Cuarón (though I really don't like his films, but I respect them).<br /><br />Mexican filmmakers often produce some of the most terrible utter trash ever (Por la Libre, El Segundo Aire, American Visa), but this is one of the lowest points in Mexican films ever. If you respect your brain, please avoid this piece of **** at all costs. It would be more intelligent to watch some video of a wedding or to watch Britney's reality show. That's got more IQ than everyone in this 'film'.
This might be for those who have been to summer camps, but it sure isn't an entertaining camp. I went to one before, but it didn't make me scream up and down for joy. Instead, it made my head hurt.<br /><br />The first thing you notice is that Bill Murray actually had some hair in the 70s. Yeah, and he also didn't mind running some. But to get him to run a lot, you would need to give him a woman to chase after.<br /><br />Its not that some of the stunts can't be funny. For example the running joke with one of the councilors who is always waking up somewhere else due to the movement of his bed. Instead, its that the jokes and stunts were poorly setup and executed. It just failed to be funny.<br /><br />To somebody who loves comedy, this is a pain. Others are glued to it for life. I wish it was more like Leonard Part 6, but it doesn't come close. "F"
Stripes, an army training camp comedy starring Bill Murray and directed by Ivan Reitman, is a favourite of mine. Meatballs, a summer camp 'romp' starring Bill Murray and directed by Ivan Reitman, is a complete waste of time. It takes a considerable effort for four screenwriters to produce a movie (the word 'comedy' infers a work with mirth aforethought) as witless, anaemic and boring as this.<br /><br />Murray evidently reached the same conclusion during filming, but his usually reliable powers of improvisation escape him and his flailing attempts to inject life into proceedings just add to the embarrassment - the "It really doesn't matter" chanting scene is excruciating. It doesn't help that the supporting cast is bereft of talent - the funniest thing about them is their hair, but then Meatballs was made in 1979. ("And introducing Chris Makepeace as Rudy" announce the opening credits. No, not THE Chris Makepeace?!).<br /><br />Mercifully, Reitman rectified his mistake two years later for Stripes. Murray's shtick is so much funnier when he's larking around with the likes of John Candy, Warren Oates and John Larroquette. Ditch this and watch that.
You know, as you get older, you somehow think the movies you did not like when you were younger, might have been because of your youth and inexperience. Case in point, when I saw The Godfather at age 14, I thought it was boring. 20 years later, its an incredible movie to me. In other words, I grew up and began to appreciate great movies.<br /><br />So I rented Dirty Dancing with my girlfriend last night on her request, as she loved it at age 14 and I hated it at the same age. But I hoped, because I was young and stupid at age 14, perhaps this would be a new experience for me. So I sat down with her to watch, hoping to be enlightened.<br /><br />Well, the night after watching Dirty Dancing, I feel a violation. I feel like someone reached into my soul and robbed me of 2 hours of my life from watching this cheese fest.<br /><br />First, Patrick Swayze plays a 20 year old, but he looks like he is 35. And the premise of the movie is him seducing some underage teenager, wooing her with his dance moves. Really Creepy.<br /><br />Anyway, the movie is the cliché plot where the "wrong side of the tracks" guy and the "rich smart girl" accidentally fall in love with each other. Of course, their romance is fueled by the fact the "rich girl" can't dance a lick, so the "poor hero" teaches her in a week to become an expert dancer for the big end of vacation show, or something like that.<br /><br />But you guessed it: The disapproving father soon enters and forbids the two to see each other, and the movie progresses to secret meetings of dance lessons and love making. This all culminates into the final scene where the entire resort rallies around the two young lovers while the once antagonistic father accepts the 35 year old dancer as his teen daughter's new man.<br /><br />Even my girlfriend whimpered at the end of the movie as she admitted it was not anything like she remembered. I didn't press her, but I did smirk a little, and put the Godfather part II in the DVD player.
This is not a good film by an standards. It is very poorly written and the acting is just a little above par (some performances are well below par, but Swayze and Grey do a very good job with little to work with).<br /><br />What was good:<br /><br />The dance sequences were choreographed very well and, as stated above, Swayze and Grey were high points.<br /><br />What was bad:<br /><br />The script. The "bad" guys were simply too evil to be believable. The best villains are the ones who aren't so obviously evil. These guys (the owner's nephew, the waiter who impregnates the girl) do and say NOTHING that would leave me to believe they could be real people (perhaps there are guys like them, but I sure don't want to see a movie about it).<br /><br />Another scene, the first where Grey and Swayze meet when the employees at the resort are "dancing". Swayze and Grey dance together and seem to enjoy themselves. The next time they meet, Swayze is hostile towards her. Why? What happened in between to make him dislike her so when they danced well together?<br /><br />And some of those lines, I mean COME ON (I cringed at the end when Swayze muttered the line "Nobody puts baby in the corner". How did he EVER do that with a straight face.)<br /><br />Another thing wrong, the setting of the 1960's. Everyone looked and dressed like the 1980's! Who was in charge of the costumes and hairstyles?<br /><br />The music (original music for the film) was laughable (with the exception of "I Had the Time of My Life" which was a good song).<br /><br />Not the worst film I've ever seen, but DEFINITELY the most over-rated
Just caught "The Rain People" on Turner Classic Movies late one night. The film was released in 1969. Shirley Knight stars as Natalie, a Long Island housewife who -- exact reasons unknown -- leaves her husband and embarks on a road trip, not knowing exactly where she is going. Natalie is also newly pregnant, which complicates things. Along the way, she picks up a brain-damaged ex-football player "Jimmy" (James Caan), who has been kicked out of his college and is hitchhiking. There are many twists and turns along the way between these two, as Natalie struggles to take care of Jimmy and she begins to realize he is mentally limited and cannot take care of himself. She is going through her own struggles, needless to say, and in no position to care for him. Natalie appears to be a woman on the edge of a nervous breakdown at times; she makes some odd phone calls to her husband, who begs her to come home. Natalie tries to dump Jimmy several times, only to have him re-enter her life through circumstances. A young Robert Duvall plays a strange and troubled cop who befriends Natalie. You get the sense all along that this film is going to end badly, and it does. This film is certainly uneven at times, and the script is somewhat lacking. Francis Ford Coppola directed this, and of course he would soon become immensely famous in the next few years for directing "The Godfather." The actors are good ones, needless to say, as they all would have futures ahead of them in film. Shirley Knight is the least known of the three, although she is also underrated as an actor. James Caan is especially effective here and he seems to just inhabit this character. This film remains little more than a curiosity now, no doubt because it is an early movie of Coppola's, and I confess I had never heard of it. So God bless Turner Classic Movies for bringing it to a new audience.
This movie is really stupid and very boring most of the time. There are almost no "ghoulies" in it at all. There is nothing good about this movie on any level. Just more bad actors pathetically attempting to make a movie so they can get enough money to eat. Avoid at all costs.
I don't know why IMDb lists all the Ghoulies films as theatrical releases.. They were all straight to video films. Same with the Puppet Master series. Why hasn't anyone noticed this yet? Right, somehow you've stumbled across Ghoulies IV, probably raiding through an old abandoned video rental store from 1993. You looked in the discount section and found this...Look at the back and front covers. What do you expect, The Shawshank Redemption? There is no need to review this film so critically. It is the fourth GHOULIES film! I bought it on DVD for €6.50 because... it was €6.50.. I knew it wasn't Kubrick material. And I was right. An unremastered DVD with no extras, not even a trailer, boasts an uncared-for film.<br /><br />It actually contains the star of the first Ghoulies film, Peter Liapis... who really didn't get many 'big' roles apart from those two films. And I don't see why... He's not too bad an actor and is pretty fun. But I guess if you're gonna take a lead role in the Ghoulies films, Scorsese and Tarantino will lose interest. Also present is his idiot sidekick Bobby Di Cocco, who despite having a very small resemblance to Al Pacino (very small), retains none of his acting ability... A complete idiot who's just awkward to watch. Then there's Stacie Randall - obviously a porn star, I don't need to look that up. She does look quite sexy, though her costume, her character and everything she does drags down the films credibility, which is no easy task for such a film.<br /><br />Then there is the Ghoulies themselves! Who also manage to let us down. Ghoulies III made them start talking, mistake no. 1, but Ghoulies IV takes it a step further. Instead of being puppets, this time the Ghoulies are in fact KIDS in COSTUMES!!!! The filmmakers decided to run that extra mile to insult the films viewers. Also, there's only TWO of them, and they're not the main highlight of the film, as they don't appear in a lot of it. However, at times they are MILDLY amusing... And they're not evil this time either.<br /><br />This really is hilariously bad stuff, it's amazing that I was actually able to enjoy it. I dunno why... Some of the black humour is actually funny, though the script is mostly effortless. Imagine Satan's only threat to you being that he will "kill you, slowly...painfully...".<br /><br />But at least Full Moon had no involvement this time. Did they? Yeah, a very bad and cheaply made film with 0 production value, but not so bad as to be in the ranks of Puppet Master 1/2, Lawnmower Man 2, Surviving Christmas or even Ghoulies III.
Busty beauty Stacie Randall plays PVC clad, bad-ass bitch Alexandra, the faithful acolyte of Faust, an evil entity trapped in hell. Determined to free her master, the malevolent minx breaks into a warehouse to steal a magical gem vital to her success; but whilst conducting a satanic ritual to summon Faust, the silly mare accidentally enters the pentagram she has drawn on the floor, which results in the loss of the gem and the release of two diminutive, troll-like creatures called Lite and Dark.<br /><br />Now Alexandra must find a replacement gem, which isn't going to be easy: the only other stone that will do the trick is worn around the neck of her ex-lover, police detective Jonathan Graves (Peter Liapis), who is investigating the warehouse robbery and who knows only too well what evil Alexandra is capable of. Meanwhile, wise-cracking inter-dimensional half-pints Lite and Dark get into all sorts of zany trouble as they try to find a way back home.<br /><br />In the warped movie world of Jim Wynorski, all females are big-breasted babes with the fashion sense of a cheap hooker. Ghoulies IV is no exception: every woman in this film—whether she be a police captain, a curator of antiquities, or a mental patient in an asylum—is hot, hot, hot and wears not a lot, and it's this fact that makes this otherwise totally unwatchable piece of STV crap just about bearable.<br /><br />But be warned, even though the presence of semi-naked, quality crumpet makes the going slightly easier, there is still plenty about this film to warrant it being labelled as an ordeal: the acting is wooden and the dialogue is painful; the black humour (as the DVD blurb describes it) is about as funny as a knee to the knackers, with the comedic banter of Lite and Dark being particularly cringe-worthy; and the special effects are bargain basement, consisting of rubbery creatures and visual effects that would have looked dated ten years earlier.<br /><br />3/10 solely for the high bimbo quotient.
Some things just won't stay dead. They just have to keep coming back for more whether we like it or not. I guess some people like to beat a dead horse. The first 'Ghoulies' was a surprise hit and it's first sequel was an even better film. The third film took a more comical approach and by this point the little buggers were starting to overstay their welcome. I guess someone out there in Hollywood thought it was a bright idea to resurrect the franchise, but the outcome will likely disappoint fans of the previous entries.<br /><br />Pros: The acting is actually pretty good for a movie like this. A silly, but fun score. Moves at an alright pace. Some cheese for those who love it. Some pretty good action-packed sequences. Has a bit more plot than the others and unlike II & III at least attempts to link itself with the original.<br /><br />Cons: Not nearly as much fun as it's predecessors. Though it has more plot than before, it's a pretty ridiculous one. Poor effects. The original Ghoulies only appear in flashbacks and here they're replaced with two trolls who serve no purpose other than to be comic reliefs. Speaking of comedy, all attempts at humor are lame. Is a direct sequel to the first film, but there are so many loose ends. For example, I thought Jonathan was done with black magic after what happened in the original? Not that it was spectacular in the others, but this film's direction is especially bland.<br /><br />Final thoughts: The first three 'Ghoulies' movies are a bad movie lovers' dream. This fourth, and so far final sequel (Let's hope), is a bit of a letdown. Sure there's some fun to be had, but it just isn't the same. The others are low budget too, but the people involved put a lot more into them. See if you're a completeist or you wanna see beautiful women in skimpy outfits. Otherwise just stick with the other three.<br /><br />My rating: 2/5
All movies that contain "goofy sound effects" should be shot. If there is one thing I HATE, it's gotta be the use of a "whoop whoop whoo" when somebody gets hit one the head. The only movies I have seen to do this is Ghoulies IV and Hobgoblins when they are in the bar, and Pixie is hitting the guy in the red suit with a beer bottle... or rather, fanning him with a beer bottle, because she never really hits him with it. Yes Ghoulies IV does suck. But I have to wonder, did they MEAN to not make the so called "Ghoulies" mouths move when they supposedly talked? Their faces are almost as static as the masks used in Trolls 2. Hell, I can make a better mask out of construction paper, some rubber cement and a handful of glitter. This sucked.
The only good thing about this film is they managed to tie it with Part one! But other than that it was one of the worst films ever! The only time you see the Ghoulies is in a flashback (and the flashback is just clips from Part one)! A must NOT see! On a One to Ten, "Ghoulies 4" gets a One!
This is quite a bad movie but oh well, this movie is at least not as lame as the third Ghoulies movie.<br /><br />Yes, this is a bad movie in terms of its writing, directing, acting and basically everything in between. It has such a weak, simple and ridicules story, that besides has little to do with the previous Ghoulies movie entries. It tries to connect the movie with the first movie "Ghoulies", from 1985 but then on the other hand, if they really wanted to connect this movie with its predecessors, then were are the Ghoulies in this movie? Instead now we are having some small people, played by Tony Cox and Arturo Gil, dressed up as demons. Not that the Ghoulies from the previous movies were any classic characters but they were nevertheless the heart and soul of the movie and also provided the movies with a certain amount of fun. It's like having a Gremlins movie without the Gremlins.<br /><br />The movie is not really interesting to watch because it lacks any tension, good humor, intriguing characters and basically everything else you can think off because it got put together by persons who obviously aren't the most talented ones within their business. Just like at director's Jim Wynorski resume, with movies such as "The Witches of Breastwick" and its sequel, "Alabama Jones and the Busty Crusade", "House on Hooter Hill", "Scream Queen Hot Tub Party", "The Bare Wench Project" and the sequels "The Bare Wench Project 2: Scared Topless" and "The Bare Wench Project 3: Nymphs of Mystery Mountain" and "The Da Vinci Coed" on it. <br /><br />Yeah the movie is quite silly and campy but this is not really enough to boost this movie and gives it some more entertainment value. You know, it's the kind of cheap looking movie with some lame special effects, costumes, make-up and actors nobody has heard of ever since.<br /><br />Still it isn't the worst movie out of the series because of the reason that "Ghoulies III: Ghoulies Go to College" is by far a more worse movie, since that one had some horrible lame attempts at humor. This movie at least still does some attempts to be serious and professional one, even though the end result is far from perfect.<br /><br />Bad movie making and perhaps only watchable for those who have seen the previous Ghoulies entries.<br /><br />3/10
This is one of the worst movies EVER made. I can't believe how bad it was. I was shocked at the awfulness of the "ghoulies" masks. They are OBVIOUSLY Halloween masks! The mouths don't even move when they talk!!!!! Why did they feel the need to make the ghoulies comical and goofy? Whenever they do anything there seems to be this circus-like music and overused BONK and BOING noises when they hit people. The bondage dominatrix lady is one of the worst actresses I have ever seen. This movie is just bad. The plot is nonexistent. The mom from ONE TREE HILL is in this though and she has obviously had a nose job since this was made. Why did the main character from the first movie return to make this garbage? BAD BAD BAD movie.
Ghoulies IV starts in a museum storage facility where PVC & leather clad blonde Alexandra (Stacie Randall) is looking for a ancient jewel, after offing various guards she summon the demon Faust who she worships & wants to have sex with, unfortunately she lost the jewel so he's not very happy & orders her to get the last remaining one... Which belongs to Jonathan Graves (returning from the original Ghoulies (1985) Peter Liapis) who is experienced in demonic possession & stuff like that after the events of the original Ghoulies. Alexandra sets about finding the jewel so she can bring Faust to Earth permanently from the 'other side' to, well I don't know actually. Erm, that's about it really...<br /><br />Directed by Jim Wynorski whose very name name sends shivers down my spine when it's attached to a film I'm about to waste 90 minutes of my life on Goulies IV is as I expected complete, total & utter crap from start to finish & it's as simple & straight forward as that. The ,ahem, 'script' , cough, by Mark Sevi has virtually nothing in common with the other Ghoulies film except in it's title & that they managed to convince Liapis to reprise his role which also has the added bonus of big able to use footage from the original even though it has no relevance whatsoever. The story is almost none existent, the whole film is a real chore to watch, it's incredibly boring & moronic, it's slow, it's predictable, it's squeaky clean as far as blood or gore goes & it has two comic relief goblins whom I assume are supposed to fill the Ghoulies quota even though they look nothing like they did in the previous films & are in fact just embarrassing to watch, in fact I think they were practising to be ventriloquist's during most of the film as when they speak their mouth's don't move... You know I don't want to talk or think about Ghoulies IV anymore so please believe me when I say this is one huge piece of crap of Elephant sized proportions, don't waste either your time or money.<br /><br />Dirctor Wynorski turns in a throughly rotten film on just about every level, the special effects are terrible as is the whole film. Apparently Ghoulies IV is meant to be some sort of horror comedy but it misses both targets by the proverbial mile & it is neither funny nor scary. The best thing about this film is actress Randall in her PVC & leather outfit running around trying to find the jewel & that's hardly worth sitting through this rubbish to see. There's a half decent runaway car scene with a few crashes but it looks like it was edited in from a completely different film & given Wynorski's track record I'm sure it was. Forget about any gore as there isn't any.<br /><br />Technically Ghoulies IV sucks, it's obvious it had & low budget but that simply isn't an excuse for it to be this bad, is it? Liapis is back in the cast although he probably wishes he'd stayed away, PVC clad babe Randall is easily the best thing about this film which says a lot.<br /><br />Ghoulies IV is crap, there's nothing else to say really. I honestly can't see anyone who enjoy films getting anything out of this, I just can't. I can't believe that I'm going to recommend the original Ghoulies over anything but it's going to happen now because even though that's crap as well it's a hell of a lot better than Ghoulies IV, one to avoid folks & you can thank me later. The things I sit through so you don't have to, honestly...
This movie was so horrible...I want to beat the hell out of who ever made this movie...I was a original fan of all the ghoulies movies...but when i seen this i just began to cry I could not handle it..There are not even ne ghoulies in it...like the original creative monsters...this is so friggen cheap...I meen come on a witch...thats bull crap no one wants to see the witch...they wanted to see what the movie is about..."GHOULIES" i meen jeesh am i right or what? Thats y we watched the other ones..now we have to actually put up with this horrible storyline...This makes me want to eat my own poop after Spaghetti Monday!!!
They do... Each sequel is worst. You, who think that Ghoulies 2 or 3 need a 1, please, watch this sequel... You'll be wondering with the first three parts. Then you'll give a 10 to the first, 8 to the second and 5 or 6 to the other. That's because Ghoulies 4 really gets the big 1 (from me it does).
Wow! This movie is almost too bad for words. Obviously the writers wanted to somehow link this to the Ghoulies franchise, so they got Pete Liapis from the first one to reprise his role as Jonathan...only now, he's a cop and has no similar character traits as he did in the first one. The ghoulies in this one aren't the ghoulies from the last ones. The cheap looking puppets have been replaced with even cheaper looking costumed little people. Instead of being any main antagonist or being evil, they are more like the comic relief characters that appeared out of nowhere for no reason.<br /><br />When watching this film for the first time, it felt like I'd seen it before. Why was this? Because everything in this was stolen from another movie. All the cheesy cop lines and action scenes were from Lethal Weapon. The ghoulies were pretty much like Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck, except they weren't amusing at all. Even scenes from the original Ghoulies film were sprinkled throughout this flick.<br /><br />I think the target audience was supposed to be adults, but the mixture of black magic, cartoon slapstick, cop drama and bad acting doesn't work at all. I hope they don't make a Ghoulies V, because I don't want a movie studio to lose their money.<br /><br />My rating: BOMB/****. 78 mins. R for violence.
A group of teens have their car break down in the middle of nowhere. They seek shelter in a farmhouse. But three murderous convicts are there killing the owner of said farmhouse and his family. One of them accidentally brings zombies around by knocking over a scarecrow. Cue blood, gore, carnage, bad acting. Better than the first but only by default. I still wouldn't wish it on my arch-enemy, bob. In the end the filmmaker wants it to be a parable about how we us Americans are killing ourself and our forests (huh? OK, whatever buddy) Dude I'd rather chop down forests then have my braincells diminish and my Grey matter leak out of my ears. In other words become a simple-minded idiot Liberal.<br /><br />My Grade: D-
Jerry Angell, owner of zombie-horror's finest mullet, returns for more undead action in the sequel to director Todd Sheets' atrocious home-made gore-fest Zombie Bloodbath. This time around, Jerry plays a sleazy low-life thug who, along with his equally despicable partner-in-crime, some escaped convicts, several teenagers, and a bunch of screaming girls, comes face-to-face with a horde of shambling, flesh-eating corpses.<br /><br />Obviously having learnt zilch about improving his craft in the two years since Zombie Bloodbath, Sheets delivers another shoddy mess of a film that somehow manages to be even worse than the original—a feat that I thought was almost impossible to achieve. The acting is uniformly lousy, the effects amateurish and cheap (most of the gore appears to be nothing more than a selection of offcuts, offal and blood from the local butcher's shop), the story incomprehensible (as far as I could fathom, the zombies rise from the dead because a scarecrow commands them to!!!), and the direction frustratingly laden with cheap looking video effects and completely meaningless cuts to black-and-white.<br /><br />And as if that wasn't enough to convince you of this film's complete lack of redeeming features, the simply mind-bogglingly moronic ending should do the trick: the few remaining survivors stumble upon an abandoned truck that conveniently happens to have a stash of flesh-eating bacteria laying on its passenger seat—just the thing for dissolving the undead (but, strangely enough, not at all detrimental to the living).
When I say worse, I mean less entertaining. Todd Sheets seems to have learned some stupid camera tricks since the last Zombie Bloodbath, which makes the movie even less tolerable. In the last movie there were no special camera effects, where in this one, we are treated to shaky cam, and constant switching to black and white. Also, this is called Zombie Bloodbath, despite the fact that the zombies are barely in this one. The movie starts in 1945, where some satanists kill a violent burglar and put him up as a scarecrow. Back in modern time, some kids have a car problem and go to a house, the same house in which the satanist murder happened. Some mean people try to rape the kids (or something), and they bring the scarecrow burglar back to life, who comes back with some zombies and now talks like Darth Vader. Mr. Sheets amped up the language and lessened the violence. If you want to see what a bad movie is, check this out! <br /><br />My rating: BOMB/****. 96 mins. Not rated, contains violence and language.
In following Dylan Moran's star from the charming misanthrope bookstore owner in the surrealist sitcom Black Books, I could see his comic potential begging to be utilised in theater or larger cinematic avenues. This first big screen outing in a starring role (he had a cameo as Rufus the thief in Notting Hill) had oodles of promise, but like the strained Steve Coogan vehicle, The Parole Officer, has too many creases which should have been ironed out in preproduction.<br /><br />The plot is so convoluted that I shan't bother repeating the finer details (the script has every character do that for us), and the laughs are sourced from show business in-jokes. Michael Caine is a pompous has-been running a production of Richard III - updated to Nazi occupation (one of the few genuine laughs, a satirical jab at Ian McKellen), in which everyone is forever doing the Hitler salute every time they take the stage. Convincing Dylan that acting should be a conceptual act unto itself, the two plot to steal money from some fairly harmless gangsters by way of their acting prowess. Confusion ensues (both on screen and in the audience), there's a romantic sub-plot between Dylan and the daughter of one of the gangsters blah blah blah and Dylan gets to dress in odd clothes and do funny accents. Michael Caine delivers some choice lines, and Dylan's comic timing is on the money, so why isn't it any good? It does have a certain charm that you would expect from Film 4, but it also has a precocious little girl acting as compass in a muddled and irrelevant plot - a no-no in screen writing 101. Exposition overshadows everything else. You just want to see Moran and Caine acting as comic foil to each other the way the were at the beginning, but when they're together toward the end, the the pairing has lost its charisma.<br /><br />The Actors is an amusing, albeit underwhelming effort. Should it come on telly during a rainy Tuesday afternoon, then have at you. Otherwise you would be better off watching your old Black Books videos, or renting Withnail & I.
The real surprise of this effortlessly lightweight movie is how such a top notch cast got assembled for what is nothing more than a hammy uninspiring affair. Presumably it was a proverbial snowball rolling down a hill gathering pace and size and shape. One can imagine that by the time Miranda Richardson got contacted by her agent, the conversation went along the lines of: 'Do you want to shoot a movie in Dublin scripted by Neil Jordan? Michael Caine and Michael Gambon are already in!' This is a dull 'comedy' that sees Michael Caine and Dylan Moran try and pull off a well-planned hustle where Moran must imitate a London gangland boss (whose arrival is imminent) to collect a sizeable sum of cash from local kingpin Michael Gambon. The rest is simply a forgettable romp that is thankfully over quite quickly. Moran is mildly amusing in places but on this evidence is better suited to life on the small screen in hit comedies such as Black Books. Caine is unchallenged in his role and gives a steady performance without being overstretched. One can only imagine what made him sign up for this movie - it can't even have been a summer in Dublin given that many of the scenes look positively autumnal in the background. Gambon actually steals the show, and anyone who has caught some of his performances in the likes of Have I Got News For You will know that he is a wonderfully funny man. But overall the result is disappointing, and it seems a lifetime ago that Neil Jordan was making quality movies of the likes of Mona Lisa.
It is hard to imagine two actors of such class and experience as Michael Caine and Michael Gambon getting involved in such an embarrassingly inept film. The responsibility for this ill-judged production has to be down to the writer, Neil Jordan and director, Conor McPherson. I doubt I've seen such a bad film with such good credits in a long time. The comedian, Dylan Moran, who made his mark as the irritable and incompetent bookshop owner in the TV sitcom, Blackbooks, turns in much the same routine here, except with such excess and lack of comedic control as to leave one squirming. It is easy to see how the story could have been made to work, for the situation is an interesting one and loaded with comic potential. A classical actor (Caine) tries to rip off the mob (Gambon and co) with the aide of a bumbling wannabe colleague (Moran), with predictable results. It could have and should have been good. Sadly, it was not to be.
We saw this in a bargain basket at the local Asda: £1.50 for the DVD. reading all the hype plastered all over the cover saying how "hillarious" it is, and it also had a really good, established cast, we thought this must a great film.<br /><br />So we bought, took it home, shoved it in the DVD player, sat back and waited for the funnies to begin.......and waited.......and waited.....and waited a bit more.<br /><br />Some 90 minutes later, although it felt more like 3 hours, the credits rolled, and that was the end of that.<br /><br />What a letdown - even paying £1.50 seemed a con. God knows what Caine, Richardson and Gambon were thinking when they said 'yes' to this tosh. And as for Moran: well much as I enjoyed Black Books, Shaun of the dead, and his comedy tours, I felt he was out of his depth in this film. He tried too hard playing for laughs, probably thinking that if retaining the characteristics from his Black Books character, would work here.<br /><br />Sadly it back-fired. The gags fell flat after awhile, and then he became just an irritation. Which is a shame because I believe given the right part he could be a very good film/character actor.<br /><br />Anyway, to sum up: the actors in The Actors, failed to Act!!! <br /><br />**/*****
Michael Caine usually appears in either very good ("Blame It On Rio", "Sleuth", "Without A Clue", "Gambit", "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels") or truly bad comedies ("Noises Off", "Death Becomes Her", "Harry & Walter Go To NY"). This falls into the latter category.<br /><br />TA is a comedy that succeeds in only two things: managing to waste a cast that includes Caine, Gambon and Richardson, all of which have comedic abilities, and succeeding in its mission not to make the viewer laugh. There isn't a single truly funny moment here. The main reason is the lousy script; there was so much futile effort put into writing a pointlessly convoluted story which is simply too bothersome to follow (considering it's only a comedy) that the writer(s) forgot to make the damn thing funny, which, as far as I can recall, is what the whole point of a comedy is supposed to be.<br /><br />I've never seen this Moron before. Some people even say "if you're a Moron fan you'll love this" bla bla bla. A Moron fan? Does this non-descript person really have fans? A comedy as badly written as this requires a mega-talent to eke out a laugh or two out of it, someone like Steve Coogan and not your average Moron.<br /><br />If you're going to make a comedy about actors then at least make them out to be the utter morons that they usually are. The characters of Caine and Moron are insufficiently dumb.<br /><br />The single most annoying thing about this unfunny collection of scenes is the little girl. Only a truly horrible writer would think that to spice up a lousy script it's wise to include a super-intelligent wise-ass kid. Smart-a** kids aren't even funny to Bill Cosby fans any more. In "Little Miss Sunshine" we had a totally normal kid and she was very funny. This stupid ol' the-kid-is-smarter-than-the-adults shtick belongs to a century-old Marx brothers film.
If you are thinking of going to see this film then my advice is - dont.<br /><br />For me the film failed to make the grade at every level and was a reminder of how dire most British (& Irish)films are. Forgettable tripe is the best i can say. If it had been on telly l would have wandered off to do something more interesting five minutes after the start. I saw this film with a group of friends and having read the press previews went along prepared to not be critical and hopefully pass an amusing 90 minutes. But, oh dear.....<br /><br />As a comedy it wasn't funny, as a thriller the stupid story was sloppy and lazy. As a love story totally unbelievable. Most of all as a piece of 'gloriously over the top whimsy' it lacked both style and charm. Gambon and Caine did what they needed to do to earn their money playing er..... Gambon and Caine. Is it just me, but other than playing east end gangsters and jack the lads, does Michael Caine leave you cold?<br /><br />In fairness, some of my friends thought it was 'ok' but if you do go, my advice is have a few drinks (or puffs) beforehand and leave your critical faculties safely locked up at home.<br /><br />
Mario Racocevic from Europe is the only user who has posted a comment so far and covers the major points to the film.Yet again another difficult film to purchase in the UK.I had to go through "Midnight Video" who have a Swedish branch.I went to the post office and bought by mail order this and a similar title at only SKR30 a title.<br /><br />This film goes under many "a.k.a's" depending on when and where it is marketed.I had previously purchased "The Bloodsucker leads the Dance" (which you will find if you search on Imdb under "people" and input "Krista Nell").The actor who plays the Count on his private island in the latter film had his words dubbed from Italian into English by an actor with an unmistakably mournful and rather tired sounding voice.I smiled when I heard this same voice dubbing on the English soundtrack as the police inspector who is investigating the murder of the prostitute killed in the copse in the subject film.My choice of course was to see another outing by the delicious Krista Nell.<br /><br />There are quite a few rather inconsequential sub plots in the movie involving blackmail/extortion, sleazy affairs with girlfriends' mothers, a motor cycle chase resulting in a gangland hit, a gangrape by a "client's" motorcycle friends, sleazy photography, cross dressing by transvestites etc. which give a flavour to this film summarised in a word - SLEAZE, (but artistic sleaze).The aforementioned contributor liked this film but the lowly rating suggests other Imdb fans did not albeit without explaining their "wheres and whyfores".Personally I thought there were too many subplots and not enough put into the main story and the relationship of these subordinate characters to the central plot and the development of their screen characters.Also a professional film editor was sorely needed as some of the scenes appeared to last far too long, having made their point, so that the film appeared to drag in places; e.g. the scene of the dancing transvestite.Krista Nell appears in one fruity scene with a client but this too is but a vignette and I was left wanting more from her, the director and the screenplay.<br /><br />I love the political incorrectness shown in older films (this is 30 years from its making) e.g. smoking in offices and the way some characters react to each other in the office!I would suggest 4/10 as a more realistic rating and I have awarded it as such.
INFERNO starts off with a fairly impressive for a TVM starscape effect . We`re also introduced to a scientist who`s called Heller . Don`t you get it ? Heller , Hell-er , Inferno . So I guess someone on the production had some intelligence . However it does become more and more obvious as the TVM progresses that intelligence has been discarded throughout the storyline in order to appeal to an American TVM audience <br /><br />The story itself is overwhelmed by subplots featuring umpteen stock TVM characters like the tough liberal schoolteacher who`s trying to save a home boy from a life of crime , the doctor who`s lost his medical licence etc . In fact the story concentrates far more on these characters than the approaching disaster that all the potential tension and drama the scenario might have had soon goes up in a puff of smoke , and being a TVM we just know that there won`t be a downbeat ending <br /><br />There is an onscreen problem I noticed and that is everytime there`s an explosion there`s a massive fireball which looks ridiculous not to mention physically impossible . Look at the scene where the national guard are in a fight with a gang . A soldier fires a grenade into a tower block and the whole building explodes in a fire ball . What a small greanade containing no more than a few ounces of high explosive can do that ! No it can`t . There`s also another scene of army engineers blowing up a dam with plastic explosive and the same fireball effect is seen . Can directors please note that high explosive is not the same as napalm <br /><br />Having said that I did find INFERNO highly watchable for a TVM and at no time did I find myself wanting to turn it off . It did have some potential and let me repeat the special effects are fairly good considering the budget and it`s not as bad a TVM as some people are making out
Absolutely horrible movie. Not a bad plot concept, but executed horribly. Cliché storyline; bad script. So schlocky it doesn't even qualify for campy. This is the kind of movie that gives sci-fi a bad name.
This has to be one of the worst films I have ever had the misfortune to see. The general idea of a coronal mass ejection hitting the planet earth with EM disruption is fair enough, but where did they get the idea that humans could survive a sustained 155ºF? The acting was so terrible I got the feeling that the casting agents simply grabbed a handful of people off of Santa Monica Boulevard and threw them in front of the camera. In all honesty I have seen less wooden acting from my ironing board. Sorry, but this film was poor, poor, poor.
Whoever wrote the screenplay for this movie obviously never consulted any books about Lucille Ball, especially her autobiography. I've never seen so many mistakes in a biopic, ranging from her early years in Celoron and Jamestown to her later years with Desi. I could write a whole list of factual errors, but it would go on for pages. In all, I believe that Lucille Ball is one of those inimitable people who simply cannot be portrayed by anyone other than themselves. If I were Lucie Arnaz and Desi, Jr., I would be irate at how many mistakes were made in this film. The filmmakers tried hard, but the movie seems awfully sloppy to me.
When I first saw a glimpse of this movie, I quickly noticed the actress who was playing the role of Lucille Ball. Rachel York's portrayal of Lucy is absolutely awful. Lucille Ball was an astounding comedian with incredible talent. To think about a legend like Lucille Ball being portrayed the way she was in the movie is horrendous. I cannot believe out of all the actresses in the world who could play a much better Lucy, the producers decided to get Rachel York. She might be a good actress in other roles but to play the role of Lucille Ball is tough. It is pretty hard to find someone who could resemble Lucille Ball, but they could at least find someone a bit similar in looks and talent. If you noticed York's portrayal of Lucy in episodes of I Love Lucy like the chocolate factory or vitavetavegamin, nothing is similar in any way-her expression, voice, or movement.<br /><br />To top it all off, Danny Pino playing Desi Arnaz is horrible. Pino does not qualify to play as Ricky. He's small and skinny, his accent is unreal, and once again, his acting is unbelievable. Although Fred and Ethel were not similar either, they were not as bad as the characters of Lucy and Ricky.<br /><br />Overall, extremely horrible casting and the story is badly told. If people want to understand the real life situation of Lucille Ball, I suggest watching A&E Biography of Lucy and Desi, read the book from Lucille Ball herself, or PBS' American Masters: Finding Lucy. If you want to see a docudrama, "Before the Laughter" would be a better choice. The casting of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz in "Before the Laughter" is much better compared to this. At least, a similar aspect is shown rather than nothing.
I am a usually a very generous voter on IMDb and don't bother commenting on movies I did not like, but this was just lame. I actually turned it off 15 minutes before finishing it, to watch "This Is It" (because my gf wanted to... I just chose the lesser of two evils).<br /><br />If you want to watch this movie: picture this film as a collection of worse-than-average "horror"-stories, like "scary short-stories" that you find in an issue of "Reader's Digest" in the waiting room of your dentist's.<br /><br />I did not expect anything particular terrifying or funny, I am not the "I want to see blood!"-type of person, but this "movie" is neither "horror" nor "comedy" nor entertaining in any other way.<br /><br />It's probably more scary/funny and entertaining to look at the movie-poster of "You've Got Mail" for 90 minutes while drinking chamomile tea.<br /><br />Conclusion: a "horror-comedy" for people between 4 and 7.
The concept for this movie was quite good. But somehow the execution failed on many parts. There aren't many horror movies that I can think of that used dolls that looked so realistic. Especially when these dolls start blinking their eyes or moving hands. So much could have been done with this premise. There were a lot of scenes where there was room for tension and suspense. And I really was expecting creepy things to happen. But never did the movie managed to be scary. One of the main reasons is that the story is too minimal and predictable. I actually thought that they did this on purpose in order to surprise us with some wonderful twist. Sadly this doesn't happen. Well at least not in the way that I hoped for. The cast also failed to make it all believable. It would have been nice if more background was given on the characters. In the beginning when we get introduced to the main character. It seems that she and other characters are invited by some sort of artist. But it also is apparent that they don't have an idea themselves what they are invited for. Of course this is part of the mystery. But it does seem unlikely. If I got an invitation without having a clue what the deal is I simply would not go. Furthermore most characters aren't real likable with the end result that you never actually care for them. Another flaw is that the director deviates from the basic premise which is scary enough and brings up new elements that never get explained and aren't even relevant to the "Doll Master mystery". Overall this movie has been a big disappointment to me. If you want to see a good horror movie involving dolls go see "Dead Silence"!
The worst ever Korean movie! The plot is ridiculously complex, unbelievable, and the film creates not a single shock. It builds up suspense well enough then leaves you agitated providing no shock or jumpy moment. Whenever there is a chilling moment you are not bothered by it as you're still trying to work out who is who and what is going on! It goes something like this: a modeling company recruit 4 people for a modeling career. but the owners are not what they seem, they have model dolls of everyone and a strange girl is seen walking about the place and the owners have no recognition of a girl. It turns out that everyone is there for a reason and thats as much as i could grasp. The ending is a muddle of killings and you don't know who's a doll who's real and who's dead! i don't recommend it to fans of Korean/Asian horror films.
Have to disagree with people saying that this is a lousy horror film with good acting and camera-work - I'd say it's an okay horror flick RUINED by shockingly abysmal acting and poor camera-work - watch 'Ju-on : The Grudge instead of wasting your time with this garbage. The principal idea behind the film is rather an original one, considering the abundance of killer-doll-based scare-fests which have been foist upon us over the years; unfortunately, the story is handled with all the subtlety of the latest Michael Bay actioner, with a cast of characters which are uniformly unlikable and played with precision-perfect dreadfulness by actors presumably sifted from daytime Korean soap operas. It isn't scary and only succeeds in dampening your expectations of the next Korean horror movie to come-a-calling. Oh well.
Doll Master is an example of a lousy horror film, fallen somewhere in the space with it's two not so well established genres, a horror film and an emotional drama film. Seems like The Doll Master tries very hard to be a very scary horror film, but it fails. The noise of the dolls while moving is like taken from the croak of Kayako in Ju-On, and the crawls are like sadako esquire. The killing dolls will remember you a cute version of "Chucky". But compared to Child's Play, this film is more superb. But the story seems a nothing, the brilliant camera shots and the brilliance of acting was taken away cause of the plot.<br /><br />Don' watch this if you are expecting great shocks.
This relatively obscure Hong Kong "minorpiece" is the perfect desert island movie for video age peeping toms (at least its first half is). Every set-up, every scene, every sequence is an excuse to look up a girl's skirt, stare down at her breasts, gaze at her bottom and leer at her tight crotch. What it's establishing is the lead character's perverted proclivities, of course(!)<br /><br />Genre stalwart Anthony Wong is a marginally perverted married man who is plagued by erotic daydreams and outrageous fantasies. All involve scantily clad, sexy Chinese ladies with nothing but sexual servitude on their minds.<br /><br />The plot is thickened by a homicidal subplot, voodoo doll skewering and a little rape and pillage.<br /><br />Some of the sex scenes are fairly hot and the gore is liberal, but the supernatural elements introduced into the second half feel half-baked and the plot developments are ludicrous.<br /><br />Clearly, producer of garish garbage Wong Jing was in a terrible hurry to get this into and out of theaters.<br /><br />The arty title sequence did not fool this jaded punter.
I was looking forward to this movie as everyone was talking about it as being a good horror movie, and finally an European one. So, maybe my expectations were to high.<br /><br />It begins with a good quiet horror/shock sequence but it lets you down right away in the following scenes, where the plot begin being introduced, as the acting and the motivation/life of the characters reveals itself no better than any 'made for TV' drama. It keeps that way right into the end.<br /><br />About the horror part of the movie, it is certainly a good idea and a different one, but ALL the scenes are of the 'seen it before' kind.<br /><br />Overall, my idea of this movie was that it had a good concept, which was inserted into a mediocre story, bad acting and less than tolerable plot holes.<br /><br />
Firstly, this movie works in the fact that it is disturbing. I really did not like seeing all these scenes where people get cut up alive, etc. The weirdly erotic introduction gives one a sense of necrophiliactic wonder. It is somewhat... distastefull to me personally. But the movie really works in that respect, and it is suppposed to be scary, so I give it credit for that. Yup, a few points there for those scalpels and....well, damned disturbing idea of getting disected alive.<br /><br />But what this movie lacks is an interesting plot, characterization, or real surprises. The whole teen-flick horror genre usually goes in a very simple, predictable way. Lots of 'tense' moments, creepy guys who are insane, and the big question of all: is the boyfriend the murderer? This movie fits into the category of "Scream" and countless others which have spawned over the 90s. Well, I won't spoil it for you, but it's not exactly interesting who is the killer. We find out who it is half way through... and from there on, the movie drudges on, trying to fill in some time... rather boringly to say the least. I was looking at the clock a bit on this movie.<br /><br />The lead actress is great, as usual, but the carboard acting box she is placed into makes one groan in pain... the college girl who is a detective who everyone thinks is insane, but she is the one who really knows whats going on. And the cops? Ahhh, they just laugh and eat donuts. Very predictable, flat, disturbing at times, and most of all, boring and dull... It's like an American film company took a flight to Germany to shoot a movie to make it foreign..... hmmm..... or did they?<br /><br />
Medical student Paula Henning wins a place at an exclusive Heidelberg medical school. When the body of a young man she met on the train turns up on her dissection table, she begins to investigate the mysterious circumstances surrounding his death, and uncovers a gruesome conspiracy perpetrated by an Antihippocratic secret society operating within the school. Disturbing and gross, lots of scary parts. It even has a good script and ending. But it has a one poor part. What else could you see from this movie? It's a good mystery and horror movie. But, of course, if you like it, Go buy it. If you don't, there still is not reason to waste your money on this.<br /><br />Rated R for Extreme Graphic Violence, Sexual Situations and Profanity.
This movie had such a good premise to start with. Suspense, slashers, a secret society, and you really couldn't figure out who the bad guys were until the last quarter of the movie.<br /><br />But it contained so many dumb clichés from the worst of the old American slasher/horror movies. Now, I love slasher/horror movies, but there are all the old clichés that have long disappeared from American cinema. For example, the old "I hear noises in the basement and I'm home all alone and the basement light doesn't work, so I'll go down to investigate" cliché.<br /><br />Three examples of these clichés just really irked me to no end: <br /><br />1) When Potente finds out that there may be a secret society at work at the medical school carving up live bodies, she proceeds to ask questions and tell EVERYONE -- very publicly. In essence, she is saying, "I found you out. Come kill me because I am telling everyone your secret." And then she wonders why she finds blood smeared all over her bed and is brought her roommate's severed finger in a towel.<br /><br />2) Even after one guy she met two weeks ago ends up on the dissection table and she finds out about this secret society disemboweling live people, she goes to the lab where all the dead bodies are stored 2-3 more times BY HERSELF AT NIGHT to investigate.<br /><br />3) Her roommate gets killed. She gets chased by the killer, whom she knows, doesn't report him to the university or the police, then leaves the school to go home to visit her parents. Then she returns to school, apparently thinking that this guy who tried to kill her will let bygones be bygones and not try to kill her, even though she knows his secret. She was, of course, wrong.<br /><br />For someone who was supposed to be so smart (she was studying to be a doctor in the best school in Germany), she acted like the cliché bimbo in a horror movie.<br /><br />These things just made a potentially good movie very frustrating, and made me wish the ending would come even sooner. Halfway through the movie, I stopped routing for her and wished that she would end up on the dissection table, too.
There is an endless supply of trashy horror movies. It seems that people never get tired of trying to scare and thrill. Alas, very seldom these attempts succeed. This, unfortunate movie has almost no redeeming value. The story is highly predictable, most of the actors very uninspired, or just plainly miscast, special effects of very low quality. It took a lot of effort not to switch off the DVD and go to bed. With such a limited number of foreign movies issued in the USA, why in the world would anybody want to import this drivel. To top it all, apparently there is an "Anatomy 2 ", for those who have nothing better to do. I'd rather watch the paint dry.
Okay, I had reasonably high expectations for this. The controversial subject matter was a good concept. As a horror fan I admit I was fascinated and very excited about this.<br /><br />It turns out they had a great idea, but it was terribly executed. Let's see. This movie seems to run in 3 modes: Happy, Sex and Dark. The problem is that the movie never decides what it wants to be. The "Happy" parts I believe were meant to contrast with the "Dark" parts, but it doesn't work. The soundtrack is one of the reasons.<br /><br />The movie transitions between these 3 modes very badly, I can't even begin to say how much the directing and editing suck. There's sex in the most unappealing and unerotic way. I'm not complaining but even for Horror standards they were unnecessary and filler.<br /><br />The characters are all unlikeable with the exception of Paula (Potente). Her friend from Munich is a slut and possibly one of the most annoying characters in movies I've come across recently.<br /><br />There's a bit of plot which I won't go into detail... It's not stupid and in more talented hands would make a good movie. There's even a nice twist and a cool conspiracy going on. Don't try to understand everything because there are giant plot holes here.<br /><br />It's all so shoddily done that you don't care for the victims, the perpetrators, anyone. And to think this could have been great. I can say ONE good thing about it which is, the movie shed some light on today's unethical medical procedures. With genetics and controversial sciences advancing, this could have been a great philosophical film that raises and discusses these questions. But you won't find that here, just a series of scenes loosely pasted together with people and things that you don't care about.<br /><br />Skip this and go watch Flatliners instead, you're welcome.<br /><br />3/10
1st watched 6/24/2007 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Stefan Rujowitzky): OK thriller, but a little too predictable. This story is based in Germany, which is also where the movie is made. It is about a young medical student who gets a shot to go to a premiere school in Heidelberg and arrives seeing some strange things occurring. Someone she met on the train there and saved, shows up on the school's experimentation table and she's suspecting foul play right away. She does some investigation and the disappearance of her friend leads her to a secret society called AAA(and no it's not Alcoholics Anonymous) that has something to do with the anti-Hippocratic oath and is used to perform experimentations on live people that doctor's wouldn't normally be able to do. She finds out her grandfather(who was a dean at the school) was a big part of establishing it and it's pretty readily filled by members of the school. It's an interesting story but the problem with this movie is how quickly the audience is told what's going on and then it's kind of a horror movie with the heroine fighting off the bad boy of the group that's taking things to the next psychotic level. Although this movie was made in Europe, it plays to a young American audience with it's focus on gore, sex and the horror film premise(which is really it's big downfall) and explains why it probably made good money and spawned a sequel but doesn't necessarily make for a good movie.
Anatomie isn't very unique in horror genre, in fact it isn't even scary at all. It reminds me of its American cousins, horror slashers. It's just a copy of any other horror slasher and as a German movie it's just too American with nothing to add to it.<br /><br />Actually Anatomie is too predictable and boring, its plot is not intact and consistent. It's got stupid scenes to it which don't even fit into a horror movie genre. Amusing sex scenes with pop music and topless women in underwear. Why do they need to have it all in just one movie? They should have made a cheap German adult movie instead.<br /><br />I can't recommend this movie to anyone because it's just too boring.
Finally got to see this movie last weekend. What a disappointment..it barely reaches "made for TV" level. Given the list of actors, I would have expected something substantially more sophisticated. The movie lacks a good story, well, actually any story for that matter. It has no credibility, instead lots of predictability. Save yourself the money and the time.
This is by far the worst non-English horror movie I've ever seen. The acting is wooden, the dialogues are simply stupid and the story is totally braindead. It's not even scary. 2 out of 10 from me.
Anatomie was a German made Movie and subtitled.It was also overlong and boring.If it was supposed to be a horror movie,it failed miserably for me.The actors went through their paces looking more like they wanted to be some where else.The film work was ok but more attention should have been applied to the awful banal script.I paid nothing to see the video and I still feel cheated.Go read a book and save your money.
This is a pretty lousy picture.It offers nothing unique or original or even interesting.<br /><br />A medical student discovers that a secret society at her university is engaged in macabre medical experiments.And of course she becomes involved in solving the weird deaths at the school.This movie started out promising with a few cool special effects in which a guy is partially dissected while alive and tries to get away after he wakes up but then even that fizzles and the rest of the special effects are pretty routine plastic models of the human body and that unreal looking blood that these second rate horror movies always seem to have.<br /><br />And as if the routine plot and the lousy acting wasn't enough this movie had subtitles that many times didn't even match the dubbed English that you hear being spoken and then add that to the mouth movement not matching the dubbing ..well let's just say trying to coordinate all that in your head isn't worth it for this mediocre movie.<br /><br />I was at least counting on some skin in this movie and except for a bit during the opening credits this movie didn't deliver on that either.<br /><br />This is a boring routine run of the mill horror/gore movie---short on horror and gore.Skip this movie unless "Ernest goes to Camp" is the only rental left.
I had high expectations going into this film, but alas, I feel let down. I bought it for 5 bucks at a used VHS place, and the version I bought was the English dubbed version. The dubbing is awful, so beware. "Lola" just wasn't as good in this film as in "Run Lola Run", and the bad guy just kinda came out of nowhere. And "Lola" starts to catch on to what's going on the second she gets to the university. Seems unrealistic to me. I was also wondering if in the original version there were American songs in the soundtrack... they seemed extremely out of place. Too bad for this film, I really thought it was going to rock.
I watched this basically for the sole reason that it was supposed to have Third Reich references in it. It turned out a pretty brainless and predictable slasher film that appeared to be made to appeal to feminists or something.<br /><br />Let me tell you something, if you wait an entire movie to see the attractive female lead's breasts, the last thing you want is a "tastefully" done sex scene with annoying camera angles that don't show anything. Her busty friend didn't get hers out either, but we saw plenty of men's butts and pubic hair and guys with their shirts off. And at the end you have our heroine magically dodging the scalpel thrusts and swings of the villain (who turns out to be the hunk, funnily enough) and she easily out fights him (uh huh) while her male love interest is tied down and waiting to be rescued. The funniest part was when she picks up a chair and "swings" it at the guy and it breaks over him. Now it'd be about as much as she could manage to lift the chair let alone smash it against a person with enough force to break it! It looks ridiculous, she basically brushes it against him and it falls apart. If you are going to do this sort of "role reversal" rubbish (which has already been done to death) then you have to at least make it semi plausible.<br /><br />There was one good bit though. The bad guy did get the better of her slutty friend, teaching her a lesson for being such a tramp and sleeping around. That's not exactly something feminists would like.<br /><br />Pretty stupid really. Not that American slasher flicks are generally much better, but you have to wonder why they bothered. It brought nothing new to the genre at all.<br /><br />5/10
On assignment in scenic Italy, beautiful lip-synching Lana Turner (as Fredda Barlo) meets older singer and prince Ezio Pinza (as Mr. Imperium). The two fall in love, while enjoying the pretty Italian countryside. Unhappily, Mr. Pinza is called away to his Kingly father's death bed, leaving Lana in the lurch. Twelve years later, Ms. Turner is a Los Angeles actress, about to make a motion picture about falling in love with a King. Turner is being romanced by co-star Barry Sullivan, who wants to marry her - then, King Pinza re-enters her life… <br /><br />"Mr. Imperium" provides a tired storyline for sex symbol Turner and debuting bass vocalist Pinza, who appeared for several decades with the New York Metropolitan Opera. Pinza likely earned his MGM feature film career after appearing in the hugely successful stage production of "South Pacific" (1949). The cast album, and Pinza's golden "Some Enchanted Evening" single, sold millions. Supporting casters Marjorie Main, Cedric Hardwicke, and Debbie Reynolds give the film a even greater sense of wasted resources.<br /><br />*** Mr. Imperium (1951) Don Hartman ~ Lana Turner, Ezio Pinza, Barry Sullivan
Simply miserable Lana Turner-Ezio Pinza vehicle. Pinza had a beautiful voice but he rarely uses it in a film that reminded me of "The Student Prince" with adults. Pinza is no leading man either. He looks like an elderly man ready to collect social security and go fishing.<br /><br />The plot is extremely thin and the supporting cast of Barry Sullivan, Marjorie Maine and Debbie Reynolds are given so little to do. Sir Cedric Hardwicke comes in at the end to announce that our King Ezio had better return to his people. As far as I'm concerned, the faster the better. Is that Lana Turner really singing with Pinza? Not bad if it is her. The picture would also remind me in a way of the 1960 movie "The Prince and the Showgirl" with Marilyn Monroe and Laurence Olivier.
This brief review contains no spoilers since the movie spoils itself. It is wooden and pedantic. It has no saving grace whatsoever. If someone invites you to his house to watch "Mr. Imperium", don't go. Even the title of the movie is dreadful and portends what garbage lies within. The whole plot is so bad that it could drive Mother Theresa to despair!!! It wasn't a stroke that led to the early demise of poor Ezio, it was having to act in this clunker that did him in. It must have haunted him the rest of his days. Perhaps he was an enemy alien and wanted revenge upon the Americans for his confinement. He found a perfect vehicle for his wrath in this travesty.
Alan Rickman & Emma Thompson give good performances with southern/New Orleans accents in this detective flick. It's worth seeing for their scenes- and Rickman's scene with Hal Holbrook. These three actors mannage to entertain us no matter what the movie, it seems. The plot for the movie shows potential, but one gets the impression in watching the film that it was not pulled off as well as it could have been. The fact that it is cluttered by a rather uninteresting subplot and mostly uninteresting kidnappers really muddles things. The movie is worth a view- if for nothing more than entertaining performances by Rickman, Thompson, and Holbrook.
It's not easy to find Judas Kiss on VHS (it's not available on DVD), but I wanted to add this rather obscure movie to my Alan Rickman movie collection.<br /><br />I can't understand how the talented Mr. Rickman gets into these mediocre films? Judas Kiss boasts several wonderful actors, an interesting plot and intriguing twists, but its strange visual wanderings and chopping editing ruined what might have been a great crime drama. Many scenes seem to be missing vital information to explain the character's actions: Why was our hero immediately suspicious of his bosses? Why did he mistrust the detective he replaced? There were times when I honestly couldn't tell if the director meant Judas Kiss to be a legitimate crime drama or a campy spoof. Why else would he toss in a topless/alien/lesbian porno scene in the first two minutes (that little surprise certainly made me scramble for the remote since my kids were playing nearby!)? Did he purposely instruct his two distinguished English actors (Alan Rickman and Emma Thompson) to use such awful New Orlean's accents? As an Alan Freak, I confess that I still thought Mr. Rickman was sexy: in a rumpled, weary, "take-him-home-and-tuck-him-in" sort of way.<br /><br />Judas Kiss isn't a great movie, but it does have some intriguing moments, but I don't recommend it unless you're trying to immerse yourself in Alan Rickman.
This film would like to be the kind of shocking, cerebral, and intense movie that many others in its genre have successfully been, but it's not. It is at best confusing and absurd. When the twists and turns finally revealed themselves, rather than saying "Ahh, I get it!" I muttered something along the lines of "Okay...whatever." In my opinion, when a movie reveals a major plot twist it shouldn't have to employ a flashback sequence to prove that it did give some hints that would enable the viewer to discern the truth himself. But this movie does have a flashback; and here's the kicker: it flashes back on scenes that weren't even in the movie!<br /><br />The characters were stereotypical, unsympathetic, and wholly ridiculous. I feel that the "steamy" love scenes between the romantic leads were the most untitillating and unsexy that I've ever scene in a movie that wasn't porn. It seems that the director was going for shocking and kinky with the love scenes, but they were really just plain silly.<br /><br />And don't EVEN get me started on the crappy accents and second-rate sets. I guess the movie was set in New Orleans, but Aside from the afore mentioned accents and a couple bland city shots the movie could have been in Anytown, USA.<br /><br />My recommendation: don't bother!
This series continues to frustrate and annoy. How are they going to drag this out for another year? Each episode offers up more and more questions, whilst providing the answers to very few. To quote another very popular website, I believe that this show has now jumped the shark!<br /><br />Will, I keep watching it?<br /><br />Probably,<br /><br />Will they manage to keep the show on-air till it ends?<br /><br />Probably not...<br /><br />How did two qualified doctors fail to notice that Naomi was still alive? How did 30 plus people not notice a corpse wake up and walk off with a knife still in her back? How did someone have enough strength to create two trails and climb up a tree to ambush Kate?<br /><br />We've now introduced a ghostbuster...<br /><br />Same time next week? yep!
I felt last night's episode was slow and kinda of boring at times. I honestly don't think it has to do anything with the writing. Because I know the story was well staged and tried to keep things in place. I thought it wasn't that bad but overall, I didn't enjoy it. The most blame has to do with the director of that episode- Stephen Williams. I always hated Stephen Williams's directing. If Jack Bender continues with this episode from the season premiere, he would have kept it in a good pace and keep things float to keep things interesting. I'm glad Jack Bender is directing next week's episode and it'll be much better and I'm glad he got first Syaid episode to direct and I'm curious what he will pull off this time since Stephen Williams had directed too many Syaid episodes before.<br /><br />I always keep thinking that Stephen Williams needs to be thrown off from the show. He doesn't even do anything interesting with the show.<br /><br />Why does the opening have to be done with a target thing while being in the helicopter? IT was so BORING! Bad perspective of camera work too!
This is the first and as far as I can tell, the only completed production of "Heart of Darkness" ever released. Prior to starting on "Citizen Kane," Orson Welles shot some test footage for a version of "Heart of Darkness" that was to be filmed entirely in what would now be called "POV", where we would see everything from the point of view of the main character Charlie Marlow; he would be seen only fleetingly in mirrors, windows, water, etc. The film was never made. The "POV" technique was used, not too successfully, in 1947 in "The Lady in the Lake," with Robert Montgomery starring as Philip Marlowe. Presumably, the coincidence of the two "Marlow(e)" characters is just that. Of course, Francis Coppola's "Apocalypse Now" was based on "Heart of Darkness."<br /><br />The short novel "Heart of Darkness" by the Polish-born British writer Joseph Conrad, first serialized in a British literary magazine in 1899, features one of his favorite alter egos, ship captain Charlie Marlow, who also narrates the short story "Youth" and indirectly tells the story of "Lord Jim." Marlow, temporarily out of work, decides to take a job captaining a river boat for a Belgian company involved in the brutal exploitation of the resources of King Leopold II's personal fiefdom, the cruelly misnamed Congo Free State. Marlow travels from London to Brussels, signs on with the company, and is told that his mission is to take a boat up the Congo River to a far inland station headed by one of the company's most productive agents in the colony, a German named Kurtz. Shipments of ivory, latex (for the production of rubber) and other products from Kurtz's station have ceased, and no word has come downriver from Kurtz for some time. There are rumors that he has "gone native." Marlow is to investigate, take any necessary action, and make a report on his return. He takes passage down the West African coast to the mouth of the Congo, is delayed for weeks while he is forced to repair his boat at the company station on the coast, and finally sets out upriver to find Kurtz's station. The river, the heat, the vegetation, the wildlife, the insects, the people, all take their toll on his endurance, his imagination, and his mental resources. He finds Kurtz ill, half-mad, and close to death. The final encounter and the death of Kurtz are almost an anticlimax, especially since Conrad is so obscure about what actually happens that we are left to puzzle it out for ourselves. This is a novel where you close the book vaguely dissatisfied with the ending but nevertheless treasuring the story for its amazing atmospherics.<br /><br />This "Heart of Darkness" was filmed with Guyana in Central America standing in for West Africa. It is best where the novel is at its greatest disadvantage: Actually showing us First World urbanites what a boat trip up a tropical river would look like. But the rest of the film was forgettable. Tim Roth does his best as Marlow, but so much about the plot, characterizations, and character relationships has been altered beyond recognition that you wonder why they bothered. If the aim was to make Conrad's story for the screen, why didn't they leave it alone? It's unreasonable to expect that no compromises will be made when a book is made into a movie, but so many changes were made that to me had no cinematic justification that you wonder whether we are simply dealing with incompetent screenwriters and cinematographers. Most disappointing of all was John Malkovich as Kurtz. He was completely miscast and simply flubs the role. Everything about him is wrong: His looks, his acting style, his voice, his accent, everything. A vastly better choice would have been someone like Bruno Ganz (unlike Malkovich, an actual German, like the character).<br /><br />This is a very disappointing production and I would recommend it only after you've read the book if you want to depend on more than your imagination to get a visual picture of a boat trip up the Congo River circa 1900.
After seeing the film version of Heart Of Darkness, I feel as if I wasted 100 minutes of my life. Though the book was not my favorite, I was very disappointed to see how poorly Nicolas Roeg portrayed the story. Despite the fact that he left out many bits of important information, the cast just did not seem to fit their roles and the whole film seemed vastly emotionless. The book depicts vivid scenery and detail that are completely disregarded in the movie. <br /><br />You'd think a director would be able to fit 76 pages of a book into a film of at least an hour and a half. The differences completely changed the story for me. For example, when the character of Kurtz's fiancée is nonchalant to the fact that Kurtz has died, it completely modifies the ending the book had given. Not to mention the sets and scenery used in the film were not nearly as beautiful as they were described. It sincerely feels as if Roeg was filming another story with references from Heart Of Darkness embedded in it. <br /><br />If you watch the movie without knowing the title or expecting it to be anything like Joseph Conrad's tale, you may find it good. Though I thought the camera work was poor and the cast unfitting, it is a captivating story all the same. However, if you are looking for a good movie version of the famous classic story, don't look for it in Roeg's film.
Overall, the movie "Heart of Darkness" was pitiful compared to the book. Anyone who has ever read the book and had a sufficient understanding of it would be able to see the countless obvious flaws. There is an immeasurable difference between the two. It seems to me that the director was walking into a losing battle. I couldn't imagine that someone would take on the monstrous task of recreating "Heart of Darkness." The immense detail and magic of the story would be impossible to justly interpret. Conrad's story had so many layers and so much depth that it would seem pointless to try to make a visual interpretation.<br /><br />First, capturing the details of the story is unattainable. The colossal fine points created by Joseph Conrad cannot be rightfully recreated through film. Marlow's feelings and emotions cannot be equally construed in the movie. If you have taken on the enormous task of tackling Conrad's work then, you know as well as I that Conrad only wrote half the story. The additional half is a series of connections made by the reader. You, as the reader are required to be capable of inferring and connecting Joseph Conrad's ideas. As a result, several crucial details are absent in the movie.<br /><br />Also, although the movie was an adequate length, the film seemed short. It seemed that Conrad was able to pack many more details into 75 pages than the movie could pack in an hour and a half. The speed of the movie kept the viewer from getting to know the characters. Marlow was much more of a stranger. The viewpoint of the book puts you into Marlow's shoes. However, in the movie, you're almost watching Marlow from a distance. I began to think that the director was trying to utilize the same "read between the lines" method as Conrad did. However, the connections were weak. I know that if I had not read the book then, I would, in no way, be able to begin to understand the depth of the situation and the characters.<br /><br />Finally, Kurtz also seemed to be interpreted incorrectly. His role was short and the details weren't all included. It was impossible to comprehend the true Kurtz in the length of time he was shown. An important detail in the book was that Kurtz had become a god to the Africans. I didn't think that significant detail was defined. Also, in the book, Kurtz represented a soulless being. He had died inside long ago. I believe the director comprehended this detail. However, instead of recreating it, he just had Kurtz mope around and mumble everything. Moreover, it seemed like the director attempted to make Kurtz seem mysterious, however, instead, he seemed entirely unidentified.<br /><br />Altogether, this movie reminded me of a teenager cramming to finish a science project, due the next day. It appeared to have been crafted effortlessly and in hardly any time. The characters were alienated, crucial details were left out, and, overall, the central plot was lost in translation.
Despite the excellent cast and the potential of the story, this movie fails on many levels. I was convinced that the director was a beginner. The movie is very poorly edited, shows a lot of non-important and annoying flashes, has very visible goofs and has no suspenseful atmosphere whatsoever. The question which repeatedly popped up in my mind while watching this was: "so what?". I couldn't care less about the protagonist and what happens to him. It's not that the story isn't compelling, it's simply the way it's told. The movie tells the story. PERIOD. It's like an actor who mumbles his lines, without knowing what he's saying. The movie simply tells the events that happen, without any soul. And the director's to blame. He doesn't know how to make something interesting or suspenseful or enjoyable. (And believe me, I'm NOT somebody who wants to see die hard 8 or 2 fast 2 crappy. On the contrary, i especially like slow-paced movies.) So i was convinced the director was a beginner. But to my amazement this man has years of experience and has worked as a cinematographer or camera assistant on a lot of marvelous productions. Guess he had a bad year back then.
The movie Heart of Darkness is an insult to the book by Joseph Conrad! To be quite honest the movie made me want to fall asleep. On the other hand, the book was definitely extraordinary. I feel that the movie left out several key elements and missed some of the main points from the book. In addition, the actors were boring and lacked originality and enthusiasm.<br /><br />The book, while not an adventure story or easy to understand, is full of hidden meaning and interesting twists in the plot. The book, though very confusing and complex, is astonishing. When you do finally understand it, you feel as if you have actually learned something. The novella, or short story, had several key ideas like futility and craziness, which the movie left out. In addition, several key scenes were changed, which in return affected the entire plot. Many of the scenes seemed to be very "choppy", in the sense that they did not fit together. In summary, the movie seemed to be a bad interpretation of the book. <br /><br />I would only recommend watching this movie if you cannot picture or understand the book, but otherwise I would skip this one. It was dreadful, and in complete disarray. If you have never read the book then, definitely do not watch the movie because you need the basic information from the book to understand the movie. The movie was a horrible spin-off of an outstanding and detailed book.
To be honest, I've never been to the Congo or even Africa, and after watching the made for television movie Heart of Darkness, I do not think I'd want to. The movie completely shames the book to the highest level possible. Though the book was not the best I have read, after watching the movie, I seemed to appreciate the book a hundred times more. Nicolas Roeg, the director of the movie, did a horrible job portraying Joseph Conrad's novella into a movie. I give Roeg some credit for trying to attempt the impossible by making the book into a movie, but this may not have been the job for him. The movie was unsuccessful to express any part of the novella other than the basics of the plot. The set and scenery also lacked the beauty Conrad portrayed of Africa in the book. In the book Marlow had seen so many great wonders, but in the movie you did not get that same experience. No, I'm not blaming everything on the director; the acting in the film was just terrible. All of the actors were dull and uninteresting. Throughout the whole movie I felt as if the actors were not putting forth any emotions, as if they were reading from the script the entire time. Tim Roth, who plays Marlow, did not portray Marlow's sense of adventure for his journey into the Congo well. Marlow's journey to find Kurtz was supposed to venturesome, but I didn't experience that in the movie. I would not recommend watching this movie, especially if you have read the book already. It does not come close to doing justice for Joseph Conrad's novella. Conrad's words capture the reader and take them on the journey with Marlow, on his quest to find Mr. Kurtz, where as the film did not. A great novella, but a very poor film. Heart of Darkness, the movie, is based on the book written by Joseph Conrad also called Heart of Darkness.
Taylor Deemer Mrs. Drake English 10 PIB B4 31 March 2010 <br /><br />A Shot in the Dark<br /><br />It is difficult to make it through the movie Heart of Darkness because it is incredibly unexciting. The book that this movie is based off of has little action to begin with. So the thought of turning it into a movie seems like a totally off-handed idea anyways, basically guaranteeing a fail. <br /><br />Most of the book is of the mental travel of a young seaman named Marlow on a job through the many darknesses of the Congo and people as a whole…I feel like the screenwriter failed massively at capturing the essence of Marlow's travels. It totally missed the biggest issue of light versus dark. That is the major point in the book and when that doesn't translate to the movie, all that's left is 100 minutes of boredom and monotony. <br /><br />This being the case, the question is posed, why would anyone make this into a movie? An even better question could then be asked, who would want to watch it? It is utterly a chore to watch. Had it not contributed to a grade in my English class, I would have never even considered watching the movie. I would never recommend this movie to anyone. Heart of Darkness is stripped of all its insight and meaning when it's taken from the pages of the book. The novella is torture to read until the last twenty pages or so, but the afterthought is that it is a pretty decent book. The movie is like a shot in the dark with no chance in the world of hitting its target. <br /><br />How can a book that's all about the mental processes and realizations of darkness be portrayed in a physical, visual sense? I feel like it's impossible to accurately show thoughts. Also, I feel like the time difference between the book and the movie creates major points that don't seem to add up at all. The novella Heart of Darkness was published in 1902, while the movie version of Heart of Darkness is from 1993. The 91 years between the two may be a reason behind the seemingly different terrains. The novella seems to have much harsher conditions, and the movie does not portray the prehistoric feel of the Congo. The Congo, in the movie, just seems like another place, not the dark, inhuman place that the book paints this setting of. I feel like this removes another major element that really contributes to the novella.<br /><br />With two of the biggest aspects of the storyline missing in the movie, the little bit of decency that is in the book Heart of Darkness is gone. When the controversy of light versus dark is the biggest theme, not including it in the movie makes it seem like the entire movie will be incredibly pointless—and it is. It's dull, unexciting, and a major waste of time. There's no reason to watch it. The book is stripped of any significance it has. If it's necessary, for some reason, read the book. Avoid the movie at all costs. <br /><br />Cast and Credits Marlow: Tim Roth Kurtz: John Malkovich The Russian:Morten Faldaas The Intended: Phoebe Nicholls<br /><br />Directed by: Nicolas Roeg Written by Benedict Fitzgerald, based on the novella by Joseph Conrad Running Time: 100 minutes Rated PG 13 (some sexuality and language)
A made for television version of the Heart of Darkness seemed like a good way to add more insight to the book, well, that was the wrong assumption. The movie made it even worse. I was highly disappointed about almost everything in the movie. I hoped that the movie would possibly help put the pieces of the book together that I didn't comprehend, but it did no such thing. It still left me confused and hanging. It is one of those movies that makes one feel like it would be more fun to watch the grass grow instead of watching the movie. Not exactly anyone's cup of tea. It was an overall dreadful, boring, and slow movie.<br /><br />To begin with, Nicolas Roeg must have been pretty desperate when he decided that he wanted to undertake the task of making the already boring book into a movie. It's a guaranteed loss. It's like going into a knife fight, but forgetting the knife on the kitchen counter. The knifeless person is going to lose; and in the case, the knifeless person was Roeg. All I've heard about the movie are bad things, and the movie deserves those bad things to be said about it. From watching the movie, I got the impression that the people who made the movie, just skimmed over the book to get the key points.<br /><br />Furthermore, although the movie did follow the main story line of the book, it left out quite a few details, and it also changed the ending. I am not a fan of that. Roeg left out when Marlow and his crew came across the Russian sailor's camp, and at that camp they found the book. Also it didn't show when at the camp they came across the sign that says, "Wood for you. Hurry up. Approach cautiously" (Conrad 110). Also, at the end of the book Kurtz dies on the boat, not at the inner station.<br /><br />On the contrary, Nicolas Roeg did one good thing while he was making his movie; he managed to hire some pretty decent actors to play in the movie. For instance, he acquired Tim Roth and John Malkovich, both of whom would later go on to have successful careers. In doing so, he added a little something to the horrible movie. Also, though I am ripping his book to shreds, I do have some respect for him, because it takes a lot of courage to try to take on The Heart of Darkness. It isn't exactly the easiest novel to portray into a film. Twus a valiant effort, though! In conclusion, if for whatever reason someone actually wants to watch this movie, I suggest the reading of Heart of Darkness first. This way, you'll get all of the scenes that were left out of the movie and you won't be completely lost when you watch it. But I really suggest you don't read the book and that you really don't watch the movie; both will be a complete waste of your time. Trust me. I was forced to do both by my English teacher, and now I wish that the book and the movie didn't exist. If either the book or the movie are pursued, good luck!
After reading the book, Heart of Darkness, the movie did not do it justice. The movie puts the book to shame and anyone who has not experienced the book would frown upon the story and plot because it was portrayed so poorly by the movie. In the film, the characters and set were just some of the let downs that occurred in the movie. The director left out so many important and interesting aspects of the book that made it one of the best literary works ever made.<br /><br />Of course any book is better than the movie but these weren't even comparable. Joseph Conrad as a writer was brilliant in vocabulary and the cleverness of the written word. The movie doesn't even start to show any of this. Some of the very important and influential scenes from the book were completely left out, like how Kurtz was not in the boat when he died. Also when Marlow went to deliver the news to Kurtz's intended, she reacted differently in the movie, rather than the book. Another major difference was that Marlow saw the picture of the lady that was blindfolded at the end of the movie, not at the beginning, like the book. This was influential on how the audience perceived Marlow, and the movie totally messed that up.<br /><br />The book was so fine tuned on what every location looked like, but the scenery in the movie was a let down. There was a bunch of cheesy fake backgrounds and to compliment, a bunch of bad actors to go along with it. There was one exception to the awful actors and that would be Isaach De Bankolé, who played Mfumu. His character was depicted the best. Though the movie wasn't that great, I still would recommend it ONLY if you have read and understood the book very well. That way, you can see what the differences are in the movie and book and contemplate them. If you have not read the book, I do not recommend the movie because it is a boring, lifeless mess. I loved the book, so you should definitely read it and enjoy it.
Heart of Darkness Movie Review Could a book that is well known for its eloquent wording and complicated concepts ever be made into a movie good enough to portray the deep meaning in the book? So far, that goal hasn't been achieved. The Heart of Darkness was attempted to be made into a movie in 1993, but it was a failure in comparison to the book.<br /><br />It is hard enough to make any book into a movie. There always is the worry that it won't be as descriptive or have the same meaning. So why the novel, The Heart of Darkness, is made into a movie, I am clueless. There is so much description and hidden meaning throughout the entire book. When just reading the words plainly, I think that a person would think it is pretty boring and wouldn't get the symbolism. I think that is what happened in the movie; the movie just skimmed the story at the surface.<br /><br />The movie didn't even follow the full storyline of the book, major changes were made that I thought made the movie worse. For example, the manager did not go along on the boat with Marlow and the rest of the crew, the spy did instead. I think that took out some major plots and took out the great deception of the manager in relation to Kurtz. Also, Kurtz wasn't even on the steamboat when he died, which especially made the entire journey even more futile, which just got annoying after a while. And when Marlow was telling Kurtz's fiancée about his final moments and words, it was no where near as descriptive or important, the fiancée didn't even get that upset.<br /><br />As far as the acting went, none of the actors did a very good job except for the actor that played Mfumu. In my opinion, Kurtz was not very evil, and that was kind of an important thing in the book. Also, other characters such as Marlow, the manager, and the fiancé didn't do the characters justice that they deserved from the book. Their acting wasn't very exciting or memorable at all. Over all, I don't think that this book should have even been attempted to be made into a movie. I think it is fine to use some of the themes in a different story line like in Apocalypse Now. But as for following the same exact story line of the book, it just does it shame.
If you've ever heard the saying, "the book is always better than the movie," Heart of Darkness is no exception to the rule. I believe that it was much easier for me to comprehend the details of the novel over the movie because I read the book aloud with my English class. We discussed each paragraph in great detail so I grasped the concept pretty quickly. I couldn't really understand the plot as well while watching the movie. This may be because there were no discussions held in class, but I suppose it is also because I couldn't paint my own pictures in my mind of the events of the novel. If you're the type of person who believes in that well-known saying, then leave watching the Heart of Darkness movie off your to-do list.
In a sense, this movie did not even compare to the novel. However, it was good to have a visual of what the Congo looked like and also the natives if you are not good at visualizing as you read. I would never recommend watching the movie rather than reading the book. I hardly suggest even watching this film, let alone any other films based on this literary work. This movie; and many others, did not fulfill this book. One important part that is missing from the movie is MArlow's sense of how government of lack of there in Africa was forming an early genocide. Also in the movie, MArlow and his companions didn't stop and get the note and wood. Likewise, Kurtz' African mistress knocks Marlow out towards the end of the story which has a major influence in the story but was not in the book. In the novel, Kurtz died on the ship, however he died in his hut in the movie. The fiancé's reaction to Marlow's interpretation of Kurtz' last words also differed. This movie is only effective if you wish to visualize more clearly the novel.
If you're looking for a movie that puts you to sleep, then Heart of Darkness is the movie for you. The book wasn't what I expected to it to be, and the movie disappointed me even further. The cast list was pitiful, and the all around plot was pathetic and was not like the book, except for a few scenes. I understand that everyone has their own point of view as they read Heart of Darkness, and they create their own movie in their head, but they director cuts important scenes and adds pointless ones. If there was someone in the movie who was supposed to be of a certain culture, they should've used an actor that was of that culture. There are actors from every where, and I'm sure that they could've found better ones to fit the roles. Joseph Conrad was a respectable man and created a book that will entertain you if that's what you're looking for, but the movie was cheap and pointless, and someone who could make the movie as respectable as the book should've done it. If you want a movie that drags you into darkness, then Heart of Darkness is the movie for you.
The movie adaptation of Heart of Darkness is disappointing, both as a movie and as a representation of Joseph Conrad's classic story. <br /><br />There are several small differences between the book and movie, but that's expected in any book to movie transition. Kurtz dies in a different location; the manager does not accompany Marlow on his voyage; Kurtz's mistress spends much more time with him than in the story. The real issue is the amount of footage that's put into the movie but has no basis in the actual story. For some reason, the director finds the need to "spice up" a few of the scenes, adding drama or actions that seldom make any sense and are always unimportant to the story. Some examples that come to mind are Kurtz's "mistress" beating Marlow over the head and knocking him out. Nothing happens while he's unconscious and Marlow didn't even provoke the attack. A couple hours pass and he wakes up: total waste of time. Kurtz has a pet monkey which, for some random reason, he kills on a whim. Also, when Marlow leaves Kurtz's station, he makes the "noble" decision to leave behind all the priceless ivory he had obtained, for no real reason at all. One other flaw is Kurtz's character. John Malkovich is a terrible choice to play the man who is described as tall and inspirational: a man with a commanding presence. He practically whispers all of his lines which, in a more capable actor's hands, could have been very thought provoking. I can't remove the image of John Malkovich playing a mentally disabled farmhand in Of Mice and Men when I'm watching him botch the role of Kurtz. Over all, I would rate the movie at 3 out of 10 stars. It's a good movie if you've read the book and want to see it in movie form, perhaps to help you visual the scenes, but as a source of entertainment, I would never recommend it.
The 1994 film production of Heart of Darkness was in no way capable of living up to the outstanding book. The film contained unnecessary scenes that confused the viewer rather than aiding them in understanding what was going on. The director was obviously not experienced, and if he is, then he didn't show it. On top of that, scenes from the book were left out or changed, scenes that were rather important. The movie left me feeling rather bored and was a complete waste of my time. The characters acted as though they had no idea what was going on, and the actors did not portray the emotions that Marlow and the rest revealed in the book. Overall, the movie was terrible and completely lacked the suspense that was otherwise necessary to make it even remotely interesting.
Joseph Conrad's novel, Heart of Darkness, had a vivid sense of description that made this book astonishing. When reading this book I had every scene totally drawn out in my head and I knew what every character looked like. This book had many pieces and when I finished reading this book it seemed as the puzzle had been completed. After I finished reading Heat of Darkness, I watched the movie, which was a mistake. The movie cut out so many substantial parts. For example, in the novel Marlow waited a very long time for the rivets to come for him to fix his boat. This was a big source of futility. In the movie that part was just left out. The movie added more parts that were useless and made no sense. For example, when Kurtz was talking to Marlow at the end of the book and Kurtz snapped the monkey's neck and killed him. What purpose did that scene have, other than to make the audience feel sorry for the monkey? It's as if the script writer didn't even read the whole book and just put the parts that he read in the movie. If I had not read the novel before I had watched the movie I would have been thoroughly confused. The book was amazing and it is truly a classic in American Literature, but the movie could have defiantly been nominated for the worst picture in the Razzie Awards.
Heart of Darkness Movie Review Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness is pretty dark, deep, and very profound. I would have to say reading the novel is way better than the movie. The character Mr. Kurtz, played by John Malcovik was totally the wrong actor to do the part. He fit the character in "Of Mice and Men." The movie left out man key parts that I consider important to get the true message of the story.<br /><br />The movie is poorly edited. It shows a lot of non-important and annoying flashes. In the novel it has a very suspenseful atmosphere, but in the movie it lacks that kind of feeling. In the book there is so much that was left to the imagination of the reader. For example when Marlow spent timeless hours and days waiting for rivets and that entire scene was left out of the movie. In the novel Marlow waited very long time for the rivets to come for him to fix his boat. This was a big source of futility in the novel. The movie added more parts that were useless and kind of didn't make sense. For example, when Kurtz was talking to Marlow at the end of the book and Kurtz snapped the monkey's neck and killed him. That kind of just ruined everything, didn't make any sense to me what so ever. So my suggestion to you is don't view the movie, just read the book. You will understand more and have a better interpretation of the story.<br /><br />~Chris C.
The movie 'Heart of Darkness', based on the 1899 book by Joseph Conrad is one with little to no detail and has an almost schizophrenic like plot line. If you have read the book then you know that little to none of the important "story making" scenes were put into the movie. In the book there is so much that is left up to the imagination and I feel that that is one of the part that make the book what is it. An example would be when Marlow spent timeless hours and days, even months waiting for rivets and that entire scene was left out of the movie. Again if you have read the book then you would know that this scene in the book is one that almost describes the main, theme of futility, best. Finally I feel that the movie was too cut and dry. Not enough though was put in to the original text and how that made the story what it is today.<br /><br />If you have not read the book, 'Heart of Darkness' (preferably, the Norton Critical Edition) then don't waist your time in renting or buying the movie. However if you have read the book then I think that you will appreciate the book a lot more if you decide to watch the movie <br /><br />Eric 2007
Roeg's take on Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" was not quite what I had expected. Although based on one of history's most studied and interesting texts, the film just became sort of dull. The story just never manages to grasp the viewer. It just comes across as indifferent in a way.<br /><br />The traces of the text are easily spotted, but still this is not really Conrad's "Heart of Darkness". Benedict Fitzgerald's (who also wrote "The Passion of the Christ") script just uses Conrad as an inspiration, and thus becomes Fitzgerald's "Heart of Darkness". The film is just not worth it, unless you are particularly interested in Conrad or perhaps John Malkovich.
Joseph Conrad's novel, Heart of Darkness is a dark, profound, and lasting novel that portrays the futility and irony taking place in Africa. If you are looking for a great book to read over the weekend this is not the book for you. Conrad holds nothing back when describing 19th century imperialism, but the novel is meaningless without giving it the reflection and consideration it deserves. If I read this novel looking for a great adventure story I would say that I wasted my time, but looking at in the perspective of explaining the futility of 19th century civilization, I would say this is one of the most significant novels I have ever read. Because of the fact that I read this novel in my English class, and we analyzed every page, I think I appreciated the book more than someone would who was just reading it for entertainment. I am not going to lie, this book was difficult and it challenges the reader to dig deep into this novel to find the true meaning. The movie on the other hand I found tiresome and boring. The movie, "Heart of Darkness" comes no where near giving the book justice. The movie left out many key parts that I consider important to get the true message of the story. If you are having difficulty understanding and visualizing the novel then the movie might be a good recourse but I would not recommend seeing the movie as an alternative to the novel or even a different perspective.
After completing the lackluster novel, Heart of Darkness, I moved on to watch the movie, which was a complete and absolute disappointment. At the onset, I expected that the movie would help put together the jigsaw puzzle of a book. However, even though I had read the novel, the movie still made no sense at all, so I can't imagine how lost I would be if I had skipped the book altogether. It seemed as though the writers picked out their favorite parts and put them in the movie, and left out anything that may assist the viewers in comprehending the meaningless plot. This dreadful movie made no sense at all, and I would strongly recommend against watching it, as it will do nothing more than leave you completely baffled and bewildered.
Heart of Darkness, a short novel written by Joseph Conrad about greed, corruption, and traveling through Africa was, to say the least, a tedious read. The Narrator follows Marlow, a seaman who travels into the deep of Africa to rescue Kurtz, somewhat of a prodigy Ivory trader who supposedly went crazy, this conclusion arose when the Ivory stopped coming into the main port. The basis of the story is Conrad writing lavishly of the surroundings, he sets the scene wonderfully, but possibly a bit to extensively. The story seemed more like a water color painting, as apposed to the slow creeping mild action story that Conrad might have intended to pan out.<br /><br />It sometimes happens that after you read a book, maybe watching the feature film might help correspond some thoughts with those in the book, or vise versa. Not so with Heart of Darkness, even with the supporting role of masterpiece actor John Malkovich the movie only confused me more, there seemed to be no real main characters in the film, no one stood out to the others, non of the extensive symbolism was explained. It was rather bland and drudging to say the least.<br /><br />In all do respect to the Author, The Heart of Darkness is a true short novel masterpiece, it touches on some very severe subjects, the lies of Marlow, and the greed of Kurtz. It is not a book to be taken lightly, and will put you in a rather somber mood. A book like this I feel might be to heavy for a lot of people. I would however recommend this book to those who crave a sad pseudo action story without a textbook happy ending.
Heart of Darkness was terrible. The novel was difficult enough to understand, but when a production company decides to release a film loosely based on it, then that just messes everyone up. Not only did those in charge decide to change certain characters and completely eliminate others, but the acting was horrid and the overall impression I got from the movie was that it was a complete dud. I watched the film in hopes of understanding the novel a bit better, but it just threw me and my fellow classmates off completely. I think the movie was a waste of time, and I was disappointed to see Tim Roth in such a disappointing film, especially when he has awesome flicks like Pulp Fiction and Resivior Dogs under his belt. Same with the very cool John Malkovich.
Too bad, I really like Kristen Cloke and Gary Busey. But the director failed to put this together. There's a lot of action, a lot of promise, but it all comes off hokey. The director didn't do his job. Promising action comes off lame. So much seems contrived in a desperate attempt to save the film. This version of "The Rage" (DirecTV credits it as 1996) simply isn't worth the time to watch it. Another director would have done a better job.
Aside from the horrendous acting and the ridiculous and ludicrous plot, this movie wasn't too bad. Unfortunately, that doesn't leave much movie not to suck. Do not waste your time on this film, even if you find yourself suffering from insomnia, as I did. Watch an infomercial instead.
As Americans, we have come to expect crapiness as "par for the course" when it comes to HORROR and unknown directors directing unknown actors acting for unknown writers. We truly expect this to suck & when they don't suck,it becomes an over night success.<br /><br />This is NOT an over night success, nor is it an over the weekend or over the month success. This blows from start to finish and my only recommendation is this: GO INTO THIS KNOWING IT SUCKS, enjoy it for what it is, for what it isn't & if you have something better to do, keep this on the back WAY BACK burner. It's entertaining in the way watching the elderly cross a busy street during rush hour, but don't expect much-they almost never get hit by an actual car, its just a lot of hoopla.
The thing that's truly terrifying about this is that the filmmakers thought they were making something intelligent and sexy. Instead they made probably the stupidest horror picture of the year!<br /><br />This movie starts with a bunch of art snob friends at a gallery. This trashy European weirdo walks up and starts talking pretentious fruitiness to the main character, sounding like he just walked out of an episode of Dark Shadows. He then offers her up some stick to smoke(yes, a freakin' stick), which she eagerly agrees! He picks off some red crap and puts it in a spoon for her to freebase! If this ever happens to you in real life, don't do it!<br /><br />She's transported to some weird wannabe Jean Rollin netherworld that's supposed to be sexy but isn't, where there's this thing that looks like a rotted creature from the black lagoon!<br /><br />Soon she turns all her artsy sleazeball friends onto her new form of supernatural crack. No matter how much these idiots freak out and turn blue they can't leave it the hell alone. At one point she even makes out with the rotten creature!<br /><br />After the final battle and the stupid woman is vaporized or whatever, the so called hero is left alone to pack up his copy of Michael Moore's Dude Where's My Country and can't resist smoking that stick one more time to try to rescue his moron lady friend. What a dope.<br /><br />Rates four stars for sheer unintentional humor.
What can you expect from a direct to DVD film? You know what you are getting yourself into when you rent this. The quality of the cinematography reminds me of reality TV shows. <br /><br />Why are they shots always up so close to the actors!? And why are they always centered? There isn't anything to look at. (And the actors are that great looking, so that blows.)<br /><br />The writing and dialogue is just plain awful. That intro scene, with the British Guy is hilarious. Just try and listen this words, they hardly make any sense, just goes around in circles. The lines in the rest of the movie sounds like they were pull out of romance and sci-fi novels, as if the writers had no idea what they were doing. The characters definitely sound like they have no idea what they're saying. <br /><br />This is a terrible movie. I feel bad for the actors tied to this project. Embarrassing!
The film is somewhat entertaining, but the greatest feature is Shalom Harlow's laughable performance. It has been 4 years since this movie was released and hopefully Harlow has gone through more training. Perhaps she should stick to the more worldly, somewhat corruptive characters that she has generated in other performances.
Out of the handful of alternative titles in English, "The Sexorcist" is definitely the most appropriate one, since this is basically just a shameless rip off of William Friedkin's classic horror film in which they replaced 13-year-old Linda Blair with the 19-year-old Stella Carnacina only so that she could gratuitously show her ravishing naked body. I'm not sure what exactly Satan tries to accomplish here, but he exclusively seems to possess the young girl to play sexual tricks on her! Poor Danila masturbates around the clock and tries to seduce priests and even her own father into having sex with her. The young girl is introduced as a smart and ambitious theology-student with an odd-looking boyfriend (driving a stupid yellow car) and loving, albeit adulterous parents. When she takes a peculiar crucifix home to renovate, the ancient relic comes to life and no less than Satan himself (played by Ivan Rassimov of "Jungle Holocaust" and "Planet of the Vampires") starts to torment her. The overlong masturbation sessions and some bizarre nightmare sequences cover about three quarters of the movie, and then finally director Mario Garriazzo begins with the actual exorcism. That final segment is even more embarrassing and amateurish! The priests don't really do anything apart from saying some vague prayers but, somehow, Danila seems cured all of a sudden. There isn't much gore, the dialogues are horrible and the producers seem to compensate every little flaw by adding more sleaze! This is one of the strangest Italian exploitation efforts of the seventies (why the hell are they referring to "The Rocky Horror Picture Show"?), but definitely not one of the best. If you fancy clones of "The Exorcist", I recommend "Demon Witch Child", "Beyond the Door" and "The Antichrist".
I just can't get it, freaks out on the planet are talking about this one as a must seen, they even dare to call it a (s)exploitation because the possessed girl is seducing priests and is masturbating all time. Don't let me laugh. I watched the movie, seducing is only at the end of the movie and don't call it seducing,it's just bad language that's she is talking. And the masturbationscene is a big laugh too, she tries to seduce her father while masturbating, let me be clear, with her clothes on you perverts out there. It isn't gory or bloody at all, everybody is vomiting on Beyond The Door, well, let me tell, that one is for me better than this flick. Only the last 5 minutes the possessed one is vomiting and having weird eyes. If I had know that this is so bad then I would never caught me a copy. If you really wan't to see a (s)exploiation about exorcism watch Angel Above, The Devil Below or other cheesy ones. a waist of time this is.
WOW! What a horrible, hideous waste of time this celluloid atrocity turned out to be. I remember seeing it years ago and thinking it was fun but now...it's just plain silly. Not to mention the fact that it is a blatant rip-off of "The Exorcist" to the point where it was re-released at one point under the title "The Sex-orcist". The only real difference is that the producers have the gall to further discredit themselves by slapping on the claim that the events in the film are REAL! Who in their right mind would actually believe such a bold faced lie? To make matters even worse, there was a video release in circulation with cover art that blatantly tried to cash in on the "Rocky Horror Picture Show" by throwing a pair of lips on the cover! How low could one possibly sink? Do not be fooled by the false claims, blatant lies or title rip-off because you will be SORELY disappointed if you do!
An art student in Rome is possessed...or something. She has dreams of being nailed to a cross and Satan himself raping her. He possesses her (I think) and turns her into a sex addict. That's about all I could take and I turned it off.<br /><br />A pointless "Exorcist" rip off. I caught this on cable back in the 80s and was horrified...and not in a good way! This movie is supposed to be a horror film but turns into nothing more than a sex film disguised as a horror movie. There's tons of pointless female nudity and the actress playing the lead has to degrade herself more than once. We see her being raped by Satan (a hot-looking guy), masturbating, coming on to her own father...Gotta give her points for bravery. Add to that bad dubbing, editing (the rape scene looks like it was cut a bit), lousy acting and a story that makes next to no sense. The one disturbing sequence (her being nailed to the cross) ALMOST works but the lousy "special" effects ruin it. This is one of the few horror film that was so bad I stopped watching. Skip it.
Kinda boring, kinda gross, kinda unsettling, this wasn't horrible, but not too good. There's a good creepy bit when the statue comes to life, though, props to this scene. Not much happens, and the movie just feels sort of scummy. I was happy when it ended, and don't believe anything about this being a true story....very surprised this is averaging around 6.
Brilliant acting, excellent plot, wonderful special effects! This is what I would say about this movie if I had been watching it with a bag of diarreha on my head for the entire film. Instead, I endured a 2 hour crap-o-rama. Our "brilliant" story begins with some billionare who has nothing better to do than look in volcanoes in a vain attempt to find his lucky charms. Instead, he finds a 5'4" man in a cheesy rubber dinosaur suit and some queer cave-folk.<br /><br />In his infinite wisdom, (along with his infinitely large nose)he decides to go inside this volcano with a team of "special" people. To travel to this underground land, they go by plane? No. Boat? No. They use this giant soup can with a "solid metal" drill on the end that I swear I saw wobble. In summation, this movie was faker than....Oh that's right! This was the fakest movie I've seen! For those of you who haven't seen it and are thinking of sitting down on a Sunday afternoon with this wonderful movie; I warn you! If you watch this movie you should be prepared to cut of any shred of your manhood and give yourself a full frontal lobotomy.<br /><br />ECCCHHH!! The rating system only allows for a minimum of 1/10. I give this a -10/10!
I had nothing to do before going out one night so I didn't want to watch anything too heavy, I picked the perfect film. This must have been a gift to Barrymore from someone she slept with, the director Raja Gosnell has made nothing but silly crap and the writing on this one is just atrocious. In what high school can you register without a parent present and no proof of age or former schooling? They let kids all come to the prom with no shirts, in skin tight leotards, ass shorts and one girl was dressed as Eve wearing only fig leaves? She announces that she's 25 and her brother is 23 but there is no reprisal from the school, parents or lawsuits of any kind against the newspaper for fraud or spying? The newspaper boss wants to catch the teacher in an underage sex scandal but doesn't realize the teacher is coming on to a 25 year old so any case would be entrapment? They allow a camera in and record peoples private conversations with under age kids? I wonder if I hired my younger sister to go back to HS with a camera on her and filmed under age girls for my personnel use I would not get in some kind of trouble??? NAHHHH No problem. Didn't she have to take gym or go to the bathroom at some point? The secondary characters in this were like cardboard cutouts of what high school students are thought to be and everybody was a stereotype. Jessica Alba is just embarrassingly bad in this mugging for the camera at every chance. In what world do the parents not get suspicious when their uber-geeky daughter is miraculously asked out by the school stud to the prom? And they don't ask the guy inside to meet him like every other parent in history. If some guy in my school or any other school for that matter had conned my sister and thrown eggs at her in her prom dress he would have been in a body cast for the rest of his life. This movie is so contrived and predictable it's nauseating, and why at the end is everybody (the Alpo girls included) cheering for this chick when two days before they hated her????<br /><br />DUMB, DUMB AND DUMB.
There is a reason to call this a teen flick. Out of 100 possible points I would put it somewhere in the teens. It is predictable, the acting is horrible, especially the minor roles, and above all else it is super predictable. The ending is so hokey that I should have left early and maybe it would have passed. By the way, could you call the male lead a pervert? I bet if it really happened, someone in my school district would have said so. Finally, in the school I grew up in, even though the average class had over 1000 students, we could have picked out a chump like Josie as being a fraud and we would have singled her out of the crowd. My final word is save your time, when it comes on TV watch something better, like the stock quotes.
...an incomprehensible script (when it shouldn't have been) dependent on a rather flaky voice-over.<br /><br />The animation, however, show real talent.<br /><br />Quite visually impressive.
It is the early morning of our discontent, and some friends of mine and I have just gotten through watching "The Wind." Truly a disaster film. Not in the sense of forces of nature wreaking havoc on an unsuspecting populace, but rather an awful movie wreaking havoc on an unsuspecting audience. To give you an indication of how frustrating it was to watch this particular bomb, I'll give you an example quoted during my first pained viewing. If given the choice of watching this movie for a second time and, say, boiling myself, I'm afraid to say the choice would not be an immediate one. But rather than simply ranting "ad peliculam" with lousy one-liners, I'm going to get specific as to why exactly my friends and I panned this particular film.<br /><br />To start this off, I like low-budget horror flicks. I even like artsy, low-budget horror flicks. I liked "Cold Hearts", "Midnight Mass," "Jugular Wine," etc. Films that were ambitious and daring, even if they were lacking in production value, execution and even acting. Generally, an interesting premise, unusual camera technique or merely just a well done scene or two will save a movie that is running a little rough around the edges. With these provisos in mind, I would like to say conclusively that I hated "The Wind."<br /><br />The movie was probably most disappointing in the sense that it was incredibly frustrating to watch. From the actions of the main characters, to the flow (?) of the plot, to the big portents hinted at by the opening which ultimately aspired to dust (and did not even attach themselves logically to what transpired in the remainder of the film, and left the viewer, expecting something more, with a sense of much ado about nothing). The dialogue was spotty at best, woodenly delivered and completely unrealistic. By this I mean, no one in any of the situations that the characters were in would have reacted the way the characters did, or said the things that they said in the way that they said them. There was an obvious lack of vision and direction that would have corrected this problem. <br /><br />Character interaction and development was abysmal. Claire, the "lambent sex goddess," or so the aggravating, passive-aggressive lamesters in the movie thought, was so overt in her manipulations she may as well have pulled a gun on the characters. Nevertheless, she was the shining high point of the film. The other main characters (with the exception of Mick's Milfy Mom, who was not terrible) are so indistinct that they may as well have been portrayed by the same actor. Let's see if I missed anything: borderline personality, co-submissive goons with profound feelings of sexual confusion and inadequacy, spurred to fits of puerile rage through the artless orchestrations of a loose-lipped bimbette-suddenly-and-unmasterfully-turned-Caligari. No, I think that about covers it.<br /><br />Lack of scope was also problematic. How did those involved with the making of this film expect the casual viewer to derive that this was the beginning of the end of the world from this amateurish, unbelievable, poorly-portrayed lust pentagon (well, what would you call it?) that occurred largely in the woods in the middle of nowhere? There were no witnesses to the "atrocities" presented. There were no witnesses anywhere in this film.<br /><br />The believability problems stemming from this lack of attention to detail were rife even from the point where the plot begins to sicken. Case-in-point: If that guy Bob took that route through the woods to come home from the gym, and here's the key, ****every day****, there's a jolly good chance that someone else would have been around to see something at some point afterwards while the perpetrators argued vociferously about the crime scene. One would think that with the murder of a young man in the woods, said town would have been in an uproar, the characters would have been questioned, etc. But instead, there wasn't a witness in sight (other than Earl, the closet psychopath with no inner monologue). We suggest that there be no witnesses *for* this film, either. <br /><br />As for the quasi-homosexual meanderings present, I don't have a problem with those either. It's not as if they came as a surprise, considering we had been shouting as to the closet case stati of most of the male characters since the second scene. Again, not problematic in and of itself, but thrown in for the wrong reasons. It was utterly unnecessary, thrown in for pure "shock" and/or "dangerous art" value, and neither shocking nor dangerously artistic from any perspective. What we had instead was an awkward attempt to redeem a boring, clumsy movie with a boring, clumsy plot. The poorly hinted-at sexual tension, which was only hinted at heavy-handedly in anticipation of this flaccid snogging scene, only pushed this film further down the totem pole from "mediocrity warranting criticism" to "film sucking so bad that it lacks the inherent grace to suck enough to properly mock and harangue."<br /><br />So it is with most of the film, a lot of artistic fumbling, very little meat and a lot of aggravation. It's not that we don't get it. Oh, we got it, alright. We just don't want it. Look, the very fact that we were cheering the bludgeoning in the final scene as the *only* tableau that made sense on its face is an indication that something was terribly wrong with this film. Rather than moving briskly along as its name implies, this movie oozed languidly forward like the sweat trail working it's way down the side of your nose while your hands are full. Argh. That sensation pretty well sums up the gut-wrenching frustration realized while watching this train wreck. There is no breath of fresh air with regard to this movie, only the stale miasma of bad ideas poorly realized, putrefying before coming to fruition.
pretty disappointing. i was expecting more of a horror/thriller -- but this seemed to be more of an episode of dawson's creek but with out the acting. there were some very impressive shots, though -- almost worth seeing. maybe future efforts will improve.
This was the most uninteresting horror flick I have seen to date. The premise is glaringly forgotten after about 1 minute. The acting is terrible. The scariest thing about this movie is when the two guys kiss, yuck! What were the film festival judges thinking when they gave this garbage a 'best film' notation? The only reasons I didn't turn this movie off were to see what NOT to do as a filmmaker, and if the paper-thin plot line could really keep going on as is was. I was not disappointed by this latter notion. There wasn't even a single bit of nudity or gore to keep the kiddies interested! Also, I thought it was tacky to use about 3 minutes of "Resident Evil 2" in the movie... Was that supposed to be filler? 'cause it was the goriest and most interesting part of the movie.
Somewhere in USA, the young Clair manipulates her friends Mic, Billy and John, showing a letter that would be sent by Bob to her and the group cowardly beats Bob and Mic kills him with a piece of wood in the forest. Mic feels sorrow and decides to tell his mother what he did, but John and Billy threaten him, with tragic consequences.<br /><br />I believe "The Wind" is the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. The awful screenplay is ridiculous, and it is almost impossible to write a summary, since there is no story or plot, only sequences of disconnected scenes. The amateurish direction and acting are amazingly poor and terrible. It is unbelievable how producers invest money in such garbage, distributors release this crap worldwide and viewers like me buy this DVD. I waited until the very last scene because I was curious to see how bad this film could be and I was impressed, since it is worse than I could imagine in my lowest expectations. In the end, I question why IMDb does not offer zero in the vote system, since the garbage really deserves this vote. My vote is one.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Força Invisível" ("Invisible Force")
OK, I wanted to see this because it had a few good reviews, but this movie was awful... Just plain awful. The characters were 1 dimensional and nothing the actors could do could ever breathe any life into them. The story was abysmal... The wind stopped becoming a plot device halfway through... It just completely becomes forgotten. The visuals while were cool were sooooo drawn out... 5 minutes of a guy crawling on the ground, 3 minutes of a girl putting on her makeup. I don't know what this guy is trying to pull off... it's like he had no plot no dialog and the movie needed to run just so long so lets not edit scenes at all... Foreign films are great for creating a story without using a lot of dialog, this movie makes me think that there is no way American cinema can ever do this. I want to give up watching movies altogether... Bad Bad Movie!
alright this movie might have been good if there was a plot behind it. the title didn't even fit the it after the first ten minutes. the wind didn't have a whole lot to do with the rest of the movie. the acting was sub-par and the writing reminded me of something you would read in a children's book of scary stories. <br /><br />as far as horror movies go this shouldn't even be classified as one. this was a disgrace to horror and thriller fans everywhere. I hate to be so harsh but I felt I want the time I spent watching this movie back. hopefully there will not be a follow up to this. this movie should be locked in a vault and never released to the public for viewing.
The Wind. Easily one of the worst films ever made. The only good that comes from this kind of pointless drivel, is the fact that seeing films like this get distribution makes indy horror filmmakers like me confident that my upcoming feature will make the cut too. I mean, if this represents the market for indy horror, I could make a fortune videotaping myself taking out the garbage for 83 minutes. <br /><br />A complete list of what this film lacks would take way too long to write out. But, the highlites are: no story, terrible acting, awful cinematography, and virtually no editing. That last one bothered me the most. As an editor myself, this film drove me absolutely crazy because it had almost no editing at all. Every scene was shot in a master. They had absolutely no coverage at all. For anyone who doesn't know..."coverage" is shooting a scene from multiple angles to have cutting options when editing to make for a desirable viewing experience. Yeah, this movie had none of that. I'm talking about even the simplest of scenes. Example: an ordinary conversation scene between two people sitting at a table would typically start out with a master establishing who's in the scene and where they are. Then, as the conversation goes on, you would cut back and forth to over-the-shoulder shots as the conversation continues. You may even throw in a cutaway shot or two of something on the table, or in someone's hand. Anything. This is "Film 101" stuff guys. It seems as though these people had no idea this is how films work. Every shot was a camera lock-down. No movement, no cutting, no nothing. If I was teaching a course in filmmaking, this would be the visual aid for my "What not to do" lesson.<br /><br />In closing, don't waste your time folks. The only amazing this about this film is that it ever scored distribution at all.<br /><br /> <br /><br />
I found this dvd in the store and figured, why not support some indy film and watch a cool horror flick. Please save your time and money and pass this one by. The acting, the script, practically everything with this film is sub par. There really isn't much of a story, and there is no character development. I found myself not caring what happened to the people in the movie as long as something happened. Everyone is supposed to be college age, but they all look like they are in their mid thirties, except for the woman who plays a mother who looks like she is pushing 40. In fact the worst part of the film is that every single scene is shown in a master shot. There is no editing, no cut ins or close ups. Do yourself a favor and skip it.
The beginning voice over sounds like 'The Wind' could be quite an intriguing movie, but as the story unfolded I knew it was downhill from there. The major things about this movie that blew were the terribly bad acting jobs all the main characters did, (except for a few scenes involving the inner turmoil of Mic), there was a total lack of character development and absolutely no point to the plot - What were the writers thinking?<br /><br />Michael Mongillo won 2 'horror/sci fi' awards for 'The Wind'. HUH? What was so scary about this movie? NOTHING! Except for the resident evil 2 video shots, the rest was more of a 'made for t.v thriller' - it wouldn't even have to be edited. If you want a far better movie about 'murder among friends' rent "Shallow Grave" instead.<br /><br />'The Wind' */*****
Screenwriter Steve Tesich's sophomore effort (following upon the wildly overpraised BREAKING AWAY) is a compendium of clichés, coincidence, and dour melodrama. Perhaps he lived some of this; if so, I'm sorry to say he was inexplicably unable to dramatize any of it convincingly.<br /><br />In fairness, he's not helped much here by Arthur Penn, a talented director who's done remarkable work in the past (BONNIE AND CLYDE, LITTLE BIG MAN), but fails to inject any energy or verisimilitude into Tesich's narrative. <br /><br />The cast struggles as best they can but are saddled with weak motivation and dialogue. Sympathies should be reserved particularly for Craig Wasson, whose morose performance presages the impending quick fade of his leading man career, as well as the embarrassingly untethered Jodi Thelen, miscast as the film's extremely unlikely 'femme fatale.'<br /><br />It all seems longer than it is, and any points made are heavy-handed and obvious. See Arthur Penn's earlier take on the subject of the 60's, the droll and elegiac ALICE'S RESTAURANT; it's everything this one isn't.
Have I seen a worse movie? No I can't say that I have. This was pathetic. If the director is still alive: 1. He shouldn't be. 2. He should be ashamed. 3. God, how I would like to take out my 2 completely wasted hours of time on his a$$.<br /><br />To give you guys a few pointers of the "film": <br /><br />1. (I'm a male) and I would rather give myself a papercut on the opening of my urethra before viewing this again (seriously).<br /><br />2. It does have a few known names in it (Casper Van Dien, Erika Eleniak, Coolio). They don't help, and their careers in cinema after this "film" are officially over by the way.<br /><br />3. The dialog is the worst I've ever heard. "I want to ejaculate on your bozonkas."? What kind of writer did they have on this film? Was he still using hooked-on-phonics and just got his letters mixed up to make these horrible sentences?, or was he trying to get the Director killed by the few people who saw this? <br /><br />4. Watch this "film" backwards. Because I PROMISE you that you do not want to watch it forwards.<br /><br />5. This "film" would make Helen Keller get up and walk out of the theater.<br /><br />6. The set of the movie looks like an adult sized McDonald's playplace. I was just waiting for this so called "Dracula" to fall in the ball pit at some time in the movie.<br /><br />7. Also, I like that in the year 3000 they still have headsets with wires that go to their mouth. No bluetooth, no wireless headsets, no chips placed in the brain, but they use headsets borrowed from a telemarketing agency that went out of business in 1983(Nice job Set director on this one. Real professional. I hope you're currently unemployed and reading this.) <br /><br />8. I don't know who was in charge of special effects, but I could have done better in my backyard with my VHS camcorder that doesn't have a battery.<br /><br />9. I was a devout Catholic before this "film". But since viewing it, I know there is not a God, because if there was, he wouldn't have let this film be produced. I am now an atheist.<br /><br />10. I'll be honest I can't talk about the ending. Last time I tried to explain it I fell into a coma.<br /><br />Folks however bored you get, however curious(or brave) you are, however many laughs you THINK you will get out of this movie, please DO NOT WATCH THIS. It has literally ruined my life. AVOID AT ALL COSTS!<br /><br />Comment to the director: I hate you. You have ruined my life. After viewing this I feel empty inside. My wife and kids have left me and hate me because I couldn't speak or hardly move after seeing this. I lost my job, my dignity, and above all my pride. I will never forgive you in this life or the next(which is not looking good from my newfound beliefs) .
Considering that they wanted to do a vampire movie in space, I thought, "Well, it'll probably be pretty cheesy, but at least interesting enough to see a different take on the whole genre." Whoops. I don't care what kind of movies you like; even if you're the biggest vampire, horror, thriller, or suspense fan in the world, or adversely, if you've never seen a horror movie before and would expect that your first would be impressive in any way whatsoever...you're wrong. I don't think I've ever seen a "made for TV movie" or after-school special this bad. I've never seen a TV pilot show this bad. I've never seen footage of animals sleeping or shitting that's as bad as this. This is, by far, the single biggest waste of hours you could otherwise spend contemplating the importance of dish towels and their effect on your life. I would far rather be trapped in a bathroom for weeks with nothing to consume but my own urine and excrement than watch even a single clip of this movie again. Watching this made me wish for the fates that the characters fell to instead of dealing with knowing that I paid money to watch it. It was, however, like a train wreck: so bad you just couldn't help but watch, hoping something good might happen. It didn't. Please, for the love of God, if you or your friends - even if using illicit substances while doing so - even consider watching this movie, choose instead to have a contest to see who can shoot a snot-rocket farther. It will bring you far greater enjoyment and entertainment.
Space is a vacuum, right? Therefore, space sucks. Vampires also suck. A really bad vampire movie set in space would have twice the sucking power, right?<br /><br />It started with what could have been a fun premise. Retelling Bram Stoker's Dracula story in the future. There's a salvage crew that's sent out to investigate a cargo ship that's lost in space called the Demeter. Fans of the original novel will unwittingly assume that this is to be a straightforward retelling of Dracula set in the future... unfortunately, short of sharing character names, this one takes the lowbrow route and goes into the B-movie galaxy twenty minutes later when Coolio becomes a vampire. Trust me when I tell you he's the best actor in the movie, and that's not saying much.<br /><br />Casper Van Dien should be peddling his wares on daytime television. Erika Eleniak should have quit after she left Baywatch and poor Udo Kier is having trouble reading from the cue cards. The guy who plays Dracula in this one is more ridiculous than Frank Langella was in the 1970's version. If you can manage to sit through the whole movie, you will be rewarded with the worst ending imaginable. The ending makes one wonder if the actors and the crew realized what a piece of garbage they were making and walked off the set.<br /><br />Take heed, vampire fans. This one sucks twice as hard.
I'm at a loss for words. This movie is beyond description. I don't believe there is a language on Earth that has a word that can describe how horrible this movie is. If you do attempt to watch it, be sure to stick around for the "suprise ending". I only made it about three quarters of the way through this piece of crap before I couldn't take it anymore. Fortunately(or unfortunately) a couple of my buddies stayed till the end. When they woke up from their coma and after a couple of weeks of therapy they were able to fill me in on what I had missed. This movie has no story, no plot, horrible writing, and even worse acting. If you enjoy watching train wrecks or auto accidents then this film is for you. I think my IQ dropped about 30 points from watching this (insert expletive here).
My goodness. And here I thought that there were no directors worse than Uwe Boll.<br /><br />Imagine the number of decisions necessary to produce a motion picture. Conceptual approval. Scriptwriting. Dialogue editing. Casting. Set and prop design. Location selection. Acting. Timing. Cinematography. Lighting. Music. Sound and video editing. Direction.<br /><br />Now imagine that every single one of those decisions was made wrong.<br /><br />Result: Dracula 3000.<br /><br />For a film supposedly set in the 2900s, this movie looks surprisingly like a cheap gangsta flick of the 1970's. The set is ridiculous for the period. The dialogue is atrocious. The timing of each scene is ludicrous. The acting is beyond abysmal. Everything stinks.<br /><br />Let's just take props, for example. If you have a movie set on a space freighter built in 2900, how likely is it that it will have the exposed piping and hydraulic doors of a 1960's era oil tanker? What, technology hasn't changed in 900 years? The 'Professor' uses a standard tandy keyboard and Radio-Shack flipswitches to "reprogram" the computer. What, they haven't figured out voice control yet? Of course, the Prof is tethered to a wheelchair. With wheels. Even though, you know, they've got intergalactic hyperdrive...but apparently not even a motorized wheelchair, much less a floating one, or bionic legs or something. And apparently this freighter was carrying an intergalactic consignment of rosewood caskets. How convenient. Then there are the weapons -- the crew carry standard late 20th-century firearms. In a ship. In the vacuum of space, where one bullethole would kill them all. Nice planning there, prop department.<br /><br />Oh, why go on.
Being a huge horror movie fan, one of the most difficult things to be considering the lack of abundance of good movies in the genre, and having seen hundreds of them in my lifetime, I have to say that Dracula 3000 is by far the most uninspired, lame and poorly done piece of trash I have had the misfortune to see. STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE! It's so bad it's not even laughable. The special effects (did I say "special"?) were probably achieved spending a couple of grand, the acting is terrible and the script should have ended up in the trash bin after the first read by the studio that decided to take on this miserable project. The whole movie was literally filmed in a warehouse. Also, for you guys out there who like nudity in your movies, don't be fooled by the R rating. If you're thinking you get a chance to see Erika Eleniak even half-naked, you're wrong. She is fully clothed throughout the entire movie. And the cover art is completely misleading! There is no scene in any part of the movie that even marginally resembles the awesome cover art they put on the box to draw unsuspecting horror fans.<br /><br />Too bad the rating is only 1 to 10. I would give this movie a -10. Be warned. Don't waste your money or your time on this one.
Dracula 3000 is the epitome of painfully cheesy cinema. From the get-go, I assumed I was in for something pretty nasty. With a cast line up that featured Casper Van Dien, Erika Eleniak, Coolio, and Tiny Lister, what could be expected? Well, let's just say that expectations were crushed...<br /><br />If I really start up, I feel like this review will go on for ages, so we're gonna keep this simple. The vampire isn't even named Dracula. The space crew is carrying coffins from the Carpathian sector of the Transylvania system. In his big scene, Coolio speaks of the most horrible things ever spoken of in film history. In the year 3000, everyone wears bad clothes by today's standards, they don't have anything more advanced than a modern wheelchair, and they decorate with neon lights that appear stolen from a roller rink.<br /><br />To top it all off... the ending. Sweet merciful God. It doesn't deserve to be ruined. It has to be sen to be believed.<br /><br />I've rated this movie a "1" and I wish I could give it a zero... yet I feel compelled to make you watch it. What madness is this?
This might quite possibly be the worst movie I have ever seen. I knew it was a B-movie before watching it (it was actually the reason for watching it), but I'd never thought it could be this bad. The title promises Dracula in space and does deliver, however, the story makes no real use of the fact that Casper van Dien's character is a descendant of Van Helsing. And watch out for the ending of the movie, it comes at you fast. I've never seen an ending scream out "And now we're over budget!" in a clearer fashion. Their resolution of the movie was rather comic though, the story had so obviously painted itself into a corner. If you feel you have to see it, watch it with a friend who shares your love of B-movies. If I hadn't, I wouldn't have made it to the end.
A space ship cruising through the galaxy encounters a mysterious cargo ship apparently adrift in space. The crew investigates, hoping to lay claim to its cargo and acquire the ship. However, once aboard the ominous vessel, their own ship mysteriously disengages, leaving them to fend for themselves and battle none other then Count Dracula or Orloff as this creature calls himself.<br /><br />Not a bad start. I mean it follows any number of typical sci-fi/horror plots. The genres have been around enough that even the most original story will inevitably invoke comparison to some other film. But, when you start with a fairly typical horror convention, the legend of Dracula and vampires in general, and combine it with a fairly typical sci-fi convention, a crew happening upon something and becoming marooned to battle whatever they're forced to confront, the filmmakers better have some clever up their sleeve to imprint their own mark on the familiar genre staples.<br /><br />Director Darrell Roodt, who also wrote Dracula 3000 with Ivan Milborrow, is primarily responsible for this utter failure. So, no, Roodt and Milborrow have nothing up their sleeves but their arms.<br /><br />This film begins ominously enough, with a very poorly delivered voice over by Caspar Van Dien, essentially providing enough exposition to explain who the crew on his ship are. I should also point out that Van Dien's character is named Van Helsing. And, oh so very cleverly, this Orloff character is from planet Transylvania in the Carpathian System. No kidding. I mean, come on guys, we get it. And, again, don't be goofy and use such names unless you got something special in store.<br /><br />So, after Van Helsing's introduction of the crew, we have, essentially, a film about this crew trapped in a space ship with a vampire lurking about.<br /><br />I'm a very forgiving viewer when it comes to low budget films. Occasionally, they can be brilliant, see Raimi's first two Evil Dead films. Dracula 3000 had a decent budget, enough for some decent special effects and for the salaries of 3rd stringers like, Van Dien, Erika Eleniak, Coolio, etc. However, unlike, the EVIL DEAD flicks, there is no talent behind the camera. In front of the camera, the talent is marginal, but I'm going to give the actors some benefit of the doubt. It really seems like they don't know what to do. The best actor of the bunch, Alexandra Kamp-Groenveld, gets killed off quickly and the ever-enjoyable Udo Kier is reduced to being an exposition vehicle for the viewer as the deceased captain we hear and see via a video journal. Grant Swandby is also okay as the Professor, but it's hard to take seriously a scientist in the year 3000 who wears glasses and rides a wheel chair. And, yes, it's a WHEEL chair as in there is nothing futuristic about it. As for the rest of the actors, well…….I'm sure Coolio really tried to be scary after getting turned into a vampire, but, well, I don't think irritating qualifies as scary in most people's book. Tiny Lister and Erika Eleniak don't really provide much either. Lister is never really more then the IL' big brawny black stereotype. Eleniak actually appears unhappy throughout the film and never tries very hard. Eleniak is a pretty girl, even in her mid thirties, but looks a little worn out and uninterested for the movie's duration.<br /><br />This brings us to Count Dracula/Orloff played by Langley Kirkwood. To be honest, I can't recall who exactly the vampire is supposed to be. He introduces himself as Orloff but at some point he acknowledges himself as Count Dracula as well. Go figure. In any case, you will be absolutely astounded by just how lame this vampire is. Have you ever scene those cheesy horror show hosts local networks would have on their creature feature time slots? Yes, it's that bad. Langley Kirkwood, the actor playing Orlock, must have found it almost impossible to concentrate in such a ridiculous outfit. I'm sure he's still getting hassled by his friends.<br /><br />There isn't much to the plot. The vampire is the last of it's kind and wants to go to Earth, for some reason, and also, there is some lip service about wanting to defeat Caspar Van Dien's character, Van Helsing. Most of the crew get turned into vampires, including Van Helsing, and the crew use conventional machine guns and pistols to try and defeat them before they figure out the old stake in the heart routine. Yeah, that's right, bullets, and yes, the year 3000. Keeping in that baffling vein, one of the main areas the crew hole themselves up in while battling the vampires, or vampire, since there is really never more then one threatening them, is filled with old Soviet posters and insignia and such. What the? There are also references to God/religion being antiquated systems. But these references only confused me. Did the Soviet Union make a comeback? Is there some point Roodt and Milborrow want to make with this? It never really goes anywhere, seems dumb and the posters, etc. just look cheap.<br /><br />On the positive side, the film is competently shot and edited. The cinematography is nothing spectacular, but it's clearly done by professionals and, I had no problem with the special effects. The ships look like ships in outer space. Although, as I write this, I recall how god awful the corpse of the captain looks when the crew discover him. What were they thinking? Why didn't someone say something? See how difficult it is to say something positive about this film without falling back on the negatives? I guess, ultimately, that's the thing. Whatever positives you try and grant this sci-fi/horror debacle, you become overwhelmed by it's lack of quality.<br /><br />Poor Udo Kier.
Greetings from Lithuania.<br /><br />This is the first question that comes to head after watching this "movie". <br /><br />You know, I saw a lot of bad movies in my life, but after watching this one, i only had two questions: 1) Is this was just a parody (spoof) <br /><br />2) How could people create such a thing!? <br /><br />If You never saw this "film", than you REALLY don't know what is a REALLY bad "film". I mean BAD. The script - Are you kidding my? Acting is so horrible that i thing "the actors" where just having fun in this movie. I know, this is "B" movie, but come on?? Is this have to be a reason to be such a garbage?? <br /><br />Oh! And what an ending!!! A must miss ending! Just when you thing that this is the worst thing you have ever saw, wait until the ending - because THAT kind of ending You have NEVER saw before (and I hope You will never see). <br /><br />Awoid this "movie" at any cost, and don't say i didn't warn you...
Dracula 3000 or Van Helsing "Dracula's Revenge" (Cheap cash in on another lame Vampire flick) as I saw it is a master class in how not to make a movie. A rag tag collection of misfit salvager's board a previously lost cargo ship "The Demeter" in the (cough) Carpathian System (which later is upgraded to the Carpathian Galaxy) and awake a relentless evil (in this case the script). The film is a bizarre bastardization of Event Horizon and whatever the lamest Vampire film of all time is.<br /><br />****Spoliers Follow**** After a plethora of production company logos and a credit sequence that most of the budget must have been blown on, we open with a cheesy exposition type speech from Casper (silly name) who plays Captain Abraham Van Helsing (sillier name) and in lieu of actual character development, goes on to describe the twisted, unintelligible oddities that make up his crew. Van Helsing himself sports a spray on stubble and wears a body warmer throughout in a sort of retro 80's tribute to Han Solo (I guess). Now and again the Captain of the Demeter pops up in some sort of mad video diary to tell us nothing of consequence in a pronounced German accent (subtitles sadly not included). Crewmember Mina boards the derelict ship (alone???) armed only with a gun shaped torch and thick east-European accent while conversing with Van Helsing on his ships bridge (which is basically a single glittery wall). Mina wearing a gas mask with rubber hoses glued to the front, encounters what can only be described as a skateboarder in a black cloak who continually glides by the camera. Why this happens as the Vampire is not yet made flesh is never explained. This leads on to a shaky camera chasing Mina down the hallways until she runs into Humvee. It's possible Will Smith could have been drafted in to write Humvee's lines as most of them consist of Humvee reminding us he is black every ten seconds and saying the word "ass" enough for a Guinness book of records entry while delivering all this in a "from DA hood" accent (this is the year 3000, does "DA hood" even exist?) One of the main problems with this film is that it insanely tries to pretend its set in the year 3000. Unfortunately anyone with healthy eyes won't buy this, as the Demeter looks suspiciously like a soviet style ocean going tanker. Possibly the film crew thought it would be okay to leave hammer and sickle symbols everywhere and a sexy poster of Lenin next to a bunch of lockers and explain it away as some sort of futuristic communist comeback special. The crew's clothes look as if they were raided from a Oxfam collection box (sealed since 1993) and they are armed to the teeth with latest in 20th century automatic weapons (with added year 3000 zing when fired) which of course are absolutely no use against vampires. Healthcare is a thing of the past (in the future) as the simpering Professor not only has glasses but is in a wheelchair??? My god what happened to all that genetic engineering stuff.<br /><br />The professor is an interesting character as he is a direct rip off from Alien Resurrection who had their own rag tag misfit crew with a guy in a wheelchair (who oddly wasn't killed). Fans didn't take to Prof as he appears scared in a lot of scenes If I were entombed in a non-wheelchair access soviet ship pursued by bad acting vampires, and everyone left me because I was such a whining wimp, I'd be scared too.<br /><br />During the UN-dramatic Mina chase scene the prof informs us (with feeling) "this is disconcerting". The rest of his lines are also disconcerting "bugger", and "We're all going to die" X 100, follows.<br /><br />Erika Eleniak appears as the Vice Captain (what happened to 1st officers?) in what I thought would be the tired, standard issue, hard nosed, no nonsense, "don't eye me up unless I tell you too", beat up 10 stuntman at one time super-babe, but this is a Z-flick so she basically wears a tight low cut top and even tighter leather trousers. Coolio's performance boosts the ham factor by 90% and is camper than a row of tents but luckily for us he dies soon enough. Although he seems to keep his heart on the right hand side of his body.<br /><br />After a lot of running up and down the same corridor, using clunky soviet style controls, and sitting in soviet style locker rooms the crew find themselves stranded as their own ship buggers off to find a more interesting crew (probably). Why Dracula is even mentioned is unknown as the main bad guy is called Orlock which is Space Transylvanian for "crimes against fashion" as he dandies about in a big puffy, frilly shirt and even bigger starched collar making Hammer Horror Vampires look slick by comparison. Orlock stops to explain his entire back story (off camera) to Erica Eleniak, but fails to kill her in another rip-off twist from Alien Resurrection. His back story is such a load of mince it's not worth repeating. As the budget can't afford fight coordinators, special effects, original music, script (not written by a chimpanzee) and even proper end titles (the first cast list I saw, were same characters but completely different and Italian names) the film begins to destroy whatever sanity you began with. The crew luckily are able to fight back with the help of a ships computer that contains obscure, millennium old references on how to kill fictional creatures and some handy 20th century pool cues they find in the ship recreation room (up yours "holodeck"). The ending is awful and a little suspect, either they ran out of money or the ex-soviets demanded their ship back. I walked into this film knowing it was bad but oblivious as to how bad it really was.
Imagine the worst thing that could ever possibly be conceived by human intellect. Now imagine something infinitely darker - I mean, worse, than that. Then multiply that by the quantity of the suckiness possessed by the Star Wars Holiday Special. This movie is by far worse than that.<br /><br />"Dracula 3000: Infinite Darkness", starring such illustrious and reputable actors such as Coolio and Langley Kirkwood (as the film's "horrifying antagonist", Count ORLOCK) is equatable to eating one's own feces exclusively for one's entire life, condensed into approximately one hour and twenty minutes. To be frank, there is no way to approach a review of this cinematic tragedy - riddled with Communist propaganda, promotion of drug use, futuristic anachronisms, and quite possibly the worst special effects since the (original) "War of the Worlds".<br /><br />The hammer and the sickle of the Soviet Union can be seen proudly displayed throughout the dingy sets they dare call a spaceship. Lenin can be observed on several posters throughout the "film". And of course, religion has been abolished for two centuries by then. So they don't know who this "God" is, even though they have no reservations about using His name in vain. But of course, in the Socialist Republic of space (presided over by interstellar President Baker), death-stick like drugs are legalized and quite common. Yet handicap mobility seems even worse off than it is today (they don't even have a wheelchair ramp).<br /><br />Racial tension still festers throughout the galaxy in quite a familiar/predictable fashion. We receive great commentary on ethnic division through lines such as "is Dracula a brotha?", "us brothas gotta stick together", and "once you go black, you don't go back." Speaking of the token black characters, one is played by Coolio. Playing a stereotypical stoner, Coolio becomes possibly the most annoying and ridiculous vampire ever. Oh wait, SECOND most ridiculous vampire ever. That prized title goes to our friend COUNT ORLOCK, from PLANET TRANSYLVANIA, in the CARPATHIAN SYSTEM. These two make quite a pair, between Coolio's attempts to cripple a paraplegic, strange attempts at making high-pitched animal noises, a hairstyle 1004 years old, and GIGANTIC stretches of completely worthless dialogue; and Count Orlock's twenty dollar generic Halloween-style vampire costume, exploding coffins, or confusingly inane back story.<br /><br />One wonders if they did not simply give Coolio the opportunity to get "as high as a kite in space without gravity", let him interact with the other "actors", and just went from there.<br /><br />Count Orlock's motivations are also somewhat in question. Does he want "infinite darkness", as the film's subtitle would have you believe? Does he want to eat the crew? Or does he want *Coolio* to "kill them all"? Or does he desire to give handicapped people a chance in such an inhospitably future? It doesn't really matter, because none of this film's plot makes sense anyways.<br /><br />The highlight of this movie has to be it's ending. More for the fact that it means the movie is over than by any merit of the abrupt trainwreck of a climax they phone in before the credits. Instead of facing Count Orlock off in some sort of duel (the closest we get is a shot of Orlock flailing around at breakneck speeds in front of our protagonist, who dies shortly afterwards), our heroes beat him by cutting off his arm in an ordinary door. Orlock then proceeds to collapse, screeching in pain at a totally mundane yet understandably painful injury. This is by far the most fun you'll get from this movie. Watching a vampire's contorted face as he cries in pain will have you on the edge of your seat - with laughter. Almost worth the four bucks for that alone. Of course, right after that we're treated with one of the film's worst one-liners, the mandatory allusion to sex, and perhaps the most ABRUPT EXCUSE FOR AN ENDING *EVER*. They're driving into the sun, and their ship literally just blows up before they even come remotely close to impact. I think they just outdid the Wachowski bros. for the worst finale ever.<br /><br />I can only sleep at night because we know that a sequel is impossible. Secure in this fact, we can safely say that this is the WORST MOVIE EVER CREATED, and one which will never be exceeded in low quality, lower budget, and lower-est acting talent.
Oh dear Gods, this is awful. Stay away, just stay away. If you think you've seen bad movies, think again. Never before has my brain hurt as much as it did after I watched this movie. The acting, if it is allowed to be called that, is enough to cause internal bleedings inside your head. The story is so thin it is just barely there... no wait, scratch that. There is not a complete story there, but once in a while, there is a few thin lines that stick up from all the amount of horribleness, and believe me, those few lines should have been shot. The best way to enjoy this movie is to drop napalm on it, and watch the cozy fire from a distance.<br /><br />Some may call me sarcastic in this review, but I am only trying to spare some of you of a serious headache. However, should you be, what I like to call, a visual masochist (like myself), please, go right ahead and watch this monstrosity.
...and that's a goddamn shame! Please make the sun rise and have it incinerate all copies of Dracula 3000. This must be the WORST vampire-flick of the new millennium so far (I haven't seen REIGN IN DARKNESS yet, but they don't get much worse than this). Don't be fooled be the movie's cool H.R. Gigeresque cover. This is so bad, it's almost hilarious. I can't describe all the emotions this movie conjured. I laughed my ass off, I yelled at the screen, I sat there numb, nodding my head in disbelief,... This film has 'cheap & cheese' written all over it. The best thing of this movie are the opening-credits and the opening-shots which feature more or less okay CGI of two space-ships. But when Casper Van Dien's voice-over comes on, you start smelling something fishy. And, indeed, it all goes downhill rapidly after that.<br /><br />The crew of a salvage-spaceship finds an abandoned vessel, the Demeter, which seems to be heading for earth. They enter it, thus sealing their fate. This movie is, above all things, a shameless low-budget ALIEN-rip-off, mixed with vampires. Right down to the plot-twist were Erika Eleniak's character, Aurora, reveals she's a robot. Coolio goes badly over-the-top as the dope-smoking, bloodsucking 187 (pffff, code from the hood as a name?!?!). Casper Van Dien's character's named Capt. Van Helsing (hahaha!) and he looks like...,er well, Casper Van Dien. Udo Kier as Capt. Varna, former commander of the Demeter, is only shown on a monitor-screen and he really does seem to have trouble reading his lines from an auto-cue (poor Udo, what where you doing in this flick?). And then we have Langley Kirkwood as count Orlock, one of the most pathetic and laughable Dracula's ever to (dis)grace the silver screen. Just look at his outfit. Instead of some cool-looking futuristic black suit or something, he's wearing a cheap old-school Halloween-suit with fringes. You thought Richard Roxburgh was unconvincing as Dracula in VAN HELSING? Then wait until you see Langley's performance!<br /><br />The set-designers went overboard on this one. The interior of the Demeter looks like a cross between an oil-tanker and an old steel-factory, which they decorated with awful lights and colors like green, pink, blue and yellow. The prop-master must have forgotten that this movie takes place in the year 3000, because the characters use guns which look like today's .45 magnums and "Prof" uses a non-motorized, non-floating wheelchair. It has to be pushed around in order to move.<br /><br />Aside from one dried-up corpse, a few impalements and one dismemberment there's absolutely no gore. And the vampire-fangs and contact-lenses look fake as hell. Add to that also the most lame, stupid and abrupt ending ever: Humvee and Aurora are the only survivors. Instead of having one final (bloody) showdown with count Orlock, they lock themselves in the control-room. Then Aurora explains that before her program was upgraded and joining narcotics, she used to be a "Protheus 3.2 PB", in other words: a pleasure-bot. So she says "Well then, what are you waiting for". Humvee answers "Ain't gotta tell me twice. Come on, girl", picks her up and... "BOOOOOOM!!!" the ship explodes and credits roll. No sex-scene, no Erika flashin' her boobies, no bloody climax,... Just one more shot of Udo Kier reading a line on the monitor and it's over.<br /><br />So, this movie is a must-see for every bad-movie-lover, but I must warn them: It gets really painful at times. And everyone claiming that VAN HELSING, UNDERWORLD or even QUEEN OF THE DAMNED is the worst vampire-movie of the new millennium clearly is insane, or just hasn't seen Dracula 3000 yet.
My original comment on this particular title was deleted, by a IMDb user or the staff, only because I just happen to dislike this film to the point I had to sincerely write what I felt after seeing this poor excuse for a film. where's my freedom of word?<br /><br />Obviously this movie was made by students, 'cos so lame and amateurish it felt. Of course even they have to start from somewhere? The script was incoherent mess and so was the acting. With low budget and b- class actors, what can you expect? There's some CGI in places, so poor, it looks like done with an old PC. Some may say, this is sort of an "Alien" clone, only this time it's Dracula (in a vintage costume) who's sucking the other cast dry, one by one. The sets are unconvincing, cheap and small (boiler rooms), although the story takes place in a large space craft. <br /><br />It would be fun to know what the stars (Erika Eleniak, Casper Van Dien, Coolio and Udo Kier) thought about the film after it was released... Coolio must be the worst rapper turned actor ever!<br /><br />It was a total waste of my time and money, don't know why I even bothered to rent this flick. Honestly, I just hate this film. With Uwe Boll's House Of The Dead, Dracula 3000 shares the questionable honor of being the worst movie ever. (Well, I've seen even worse than these two)<br /><br />Avoid! Any other film will do better.
Hmmm! is it worst film ever? well sort of, for some of the cast its a shame to see them in such a film but hey if it pays the bills why not, as for the film well. OK cg effects not to bad for such a cheap film ,music is just about OK again for a cheap film, end credits are OK lol<br /><br />BAD to many to list but, cast, acting, sets, script, ending..what the hell ,Drac..........worst Drac EVER!, many more but can not be bothered to put them all down.<br /><br />Idea was OK but needed ten times the budget and more thought and much better lighting and style and change all bad points, i do say however to see this film so you to can say"What the FU%$ was that all about"as the credits run.Also its kind of a must see just to see how bad it is.
Well it is about 1,000 years in the future and we have finally breached traveling the vast distance between galaxies!! But sadly we still use guns that shoot bullets, black men are still calling each other brothers, and getting high, stoned, fighting etc.. Common stereotypical urban black men are still getting the short end of the stick! Babes in tight black rubber pants that look like they're from Baywatch share close quarters with the captian and crew. Crippled people still require wheelchairs to move, no fancy cures, implants, or robotic legs. Dracula still looks and acts gay. Need I go on... In short this move was shot on a typical sci-fi set low budget props, actors, and no real special effects to speak of. The beginning, the middle, and the ending was pathetic. I have to go off and shoot myself now there is nothing left to live for.
Wow, there's a lot of venom directed at this movie, and a lot of it is deserved, but it's not the WORST movie of all time. (That's probably "Zoolander".)<br /><br />Anyway, if you're high on something, really drunk, or just in the mood for a "B-minus- minus" movie that you can make fun of, this may be your cup of tea.<br /><br />Yes, as others said, the first part of the movie makes you think you're watching an updating of the Bram Stoker novel. Two of the main characters are named Van Helsing and Mina, the ship is the Demeter, and they're in the Carpathian galaxy. You later find that Van Helsing is a descendant of the original, and he just happens to be on a ship in the 30th century with Dracula. Suuuuuuuuuuure.<br /><br />Oh yeah, and to add to the originality, this "spooky ghost ship" movie has another character named Ash. Sound familiar?<br /><br />There's paper-thin character development and anachronisms like the aforementioned manual wheelchair, and Coolio and Tom Lister talking 20th century black slang. But what really makes the movie ridiculous is the ending. If THAT's what happens to the characters, then the previous two hours have been a waste.<br /><br />Like I said, it you want a dumb movie to play "Mystery Science Theater" with, and your mind is in approximately the same mode required for viewing the "Great Vegetable Rebellion" episode of LOST IN SPACE, then you may find this diverting. Otherwise, put a stake in it, it's done.
Hey if people thought ed wood was a bad director then they totally have not seen this movie. I mean there were gaping plot holes and under utilized cast. Shoddy special effects. I mean I cant believe that this movie came out from a Hollywood studio. A high school drama club could probably come out with a better product. I mean they had Erika Eleniak who is gorgeous Casper van dien and under rated actor. Their agents should be shot to ask them to sign on to this dribble don't they read scripts. I still cant believe that tiny lister was a survivor in the movie i was banging my head the whole time at why him and not a descendant of van helsing be the last man standing. I am a fan of vampire movies and this is by far the worst they should stake it so that it never sees the light of day.
This was by far the worst movie I have ever seen! Me and my husband own over 600 DVDs, most of which are Sci-Fi and Horror B-Movies that aren't top quality, but still entertaining. Dracula 300 had absolutely no redeeming qualities at all! The writing was horrific, and the acting was even worse. It took us a 3 tries to get through the entire movie, because we could only tolerate it in 30 minute intervals. We thought surely it must get better...we were wrong. I would rather watch a corpse being embalmed than to have to sit through that again!!! When it ended me and my husband just looked at each other like "Uh..is that it?" The ending seemed like there was supposed to be more, but they ran over their apparent $500.00 budget and were like "Oh, crap...we are broke..end it now...quick..roll credits!"
I won't reiterate what so many others have said about this film; I'll try to add a few new points. The Coolio-as-vampire bit is a nod to fans who are familiar with his turn on the Blondie song "No Exit" in which he assumes the role of a rapping vampire (it actually works as a musical concept and is in fact a great song). Casper Van Dien is no worse than Brad Pitt and is actually more handsome. And really what does anyone go to a Brad Pitt movie for other than eye candy? Same here, although this is poorly filmed (check out "Starship Troopers" instead). And of course Udo Kier, after having played Dracula in the Morrissey/Warhol film, has little more than a cameo. Enjoy it if you can.
It is quite rare that a movie comes along that is so useless, that I with IMDb allowed the use of negative scores. In fact, I reflect back upon this movie and I truly cannot think of a movie that had so little going for it. Acting: Your Kidding right. Direction: No. A plot: No. This movie has nothing going for it if you take it as a serious movie, this is often the case with movies of this genre, but most movies of this nature can be watch as if they are a comedy and you can laugh at how pathetic the characters and situations are and almost get your times worth. This movie is so empty, that it cannot even suit that purpose. I have to give this a -1/10, three points lower then any other movie I have ever rated. I truly feel that the staff involved in this movie should pay me for the 83 minutes I spent watching it. I do not really have the words to describe how bad this is. No one should ever watch this for any reason again.
Please don't waste your money on this sorry excuse for a motion picture. The only way I could see someone watching this is if they are a die-hard fan of Erika Elaniak, but you would be better off surfing the internet than to watch this piece of crap. I would rather watch paint dry than go through watching this. <br /><br />They lure you in with Casper and Erika and lead you to believe it is a sci-fi Dracula movie, but it quickly works out to be a farce about Van Helsing's great-great (you get the point) grandson, here ironically for one last show-down between himself and Dracula.<br /><br />The movie also tries to make a political statement, I believe, when it appears that none of the characters in the future know who God is, that they have not been taught about him and don't understand when they see a cross. Could have done a lot more with this idea. It's a shame it turned out the way it did.
OK with Coolio in it I should have known better! But Noooooooo.<br /><br />Within 3 mins you've encountered 5 bites from other movies & and TV shows...<br /><br />8 mins Casper Van Dien should have learnt by now! <br /><br />10 mins you're feeling sorry for Tom 'Tiny' Lister Jr. that he has been reduced to doing movies like this.<br /><br />15 mins Erika Eleniak Shows up looking like Zena.<br /><br />20 mins you're ready to shoot you're self...<br /><br />How these movies receive funding is beyond me! And yes I watched the whole thing. The Ending is priceless!!! Just stay away!
This is my first comment on a movie in here. I have to say that of all the bad films I ever seen, including Braindead for an example, this is really WORSE! I promise. Don't even look at it. It is boring, bad acting, bad script and plot, bad effects the whole movie is one big piece of crap! If I could I would give 0 stars out of 10, but since the lowest is 1 which is awful, I need to vote that. But I would say the movie is worse than awful.<br /><br />Don't pain yourself by seeing this movie and hoping it will get better because I can tell you already now, it wont! I hoped that there might would come one single scene which would be worth watching. There didn't came any good scene at all. <br /><br />What an excellent piece of crap. <br /><br />And Coolio as a vampire? LOL! LMAO! YARGH!
This was on SciFi this past weekend, and I had to check it out. After all... it was science fiction, with vampires and Erika Eleniak. What could go wrong with this B-movie?<br /><br />A lot.<br /><br />To start with: It can't even be classified as a "B-movie," because that would put it in the same league as Roger Corman... and this movie doesn't even meet his expectations. The most money they spent was on the contact lenses for the vampires.<br /><br />Secondly: The casting was horrible. Yes, casting Udo Kier as the captain of the Demeter was a smart move... but the director clearly couldn't even get Kier to memorize his lines. Casting Eleniak, in a vampire movie, is also a smart move because it means a bunch of horny guys are going to buy/rent/record this flick to watch her get seduced by a vampire. But, the director, writer and producer screwed that one, too. Granted, they got some money out of the poor, unfortuate souls who enjoy watching vampire movies with hot women in them... but no one is going to remember this movie in another two or three years.<br /><br />Thirdly: Little things that just emphasize the laziness in this movie. For example, Van Helsing calls a cross a "crucifix," and, when Mina is staked in the coffin, the viewer can clearly see the fact that her "chest" is nothing more than pillows.<br /><br />Oh, and one other thing: Why did they go for the George Hamiltion-type Dracula instead of something that would look decently scary? Does George Hamilton have an overwhelming hold on our future? Why didn't everyone who saw Dracula just laugh at him for his get-up?<br /><br />A waste of time. Even with a TiVo remote in your hand.
I normally like Casper in his movies, a real credit to STARSHIP TROOPERS. But the box cover on this video SSOOOOO mi-sleds the renters. At my local video, people rent it expecting a (PERHAPS) Borg like vampire, and instead they get a bad re-make of Lon Chaney. It had great potential, and fell very flat. Ireally think I could have written a better story line and screen play. Why is it in EVERY science fiction movie, they (the cast) constantly refers to a solar system as a galaxy? Didn't any of these screenwriters or authors stay awake in science class? It is a pet pevee of mine, but a solar system is a single star with planets, a galaxy is a WHOLE bunch of solar systems. It is like referring to a can of coke as a gross of six packs. Makes it sound even dumber.
My guess is that the producers of this low-budget space/horror film wanted a serious movie but the director had his heart set on a parody. So...this is what we get. Set in an abandoned spaceship 1000 years in the future and peopled with characters and props right out of the 90's. The set is some industrial complex, maybe an oil tanker, whatever. They use is AS IS so the controls consist racks of old TV equipment. One location is obviously the employees lunchroom and sports an old TV and VCR as well as a water cooler with plastic demijohn. Tiny Lister and Coolio get the best lines, arguing throughout the story. The dialog is packed with terms that are pretty dated even now ("A-OK, Daddy-O") but then maybe the 30th century is very retro? When the captain declares the ships cargo is a load of coffins from "The Transylvania Station" you know this is all a put-on. Its a bit of Alien, part JasonX, shameless rip-off of all the best sci-fi and horror titles. At one point Casper VanDien even tells his pilot to "make it so" with a straight face. This film would have been better if they had just let everyone run with the satire but they keep attempting to make the story serious....maybe the backers were on the set that day. Anyway, not a bad boredom killer if you aren't too picky. FX are as good as the sets are bad.
Chuck Jones's 'Odor-able Kitty' is the cartoon that introduced Pepe Le Pew to the world… sort of. There are a few key differences between the Pepe we know and love (or hate, in the case of some people) and the character in this cartoon. For one, the disguised cat who Pepe amorously pursues in 'Odor-able Kitty' is distinctly male. Also, Pepe is exposed as a fraud whose real name is Henry at the cartoon's climax, his French accent dropping away when his wife and family turn up. Pepe is not even the lead character here, the focus favouring the put-upon cat who disguises himself as a skunk to scare off his enemies. For the most part, the storyline largely follows the usual format of a Pepe Le Pew cartoon but Pepe's aggressive courtship is lacking the usual wisecracks and straight to camera addresses that make him such a great character. He is also not nearly as handsome as he would become and rather awkwardly animated. In fact, 'Odor-able Kitty' is a fairly ugly and clumsy looking cartoon all round. Its main source of appeal comes from its concept which was original at this stage before it became the template for every Pepe Le Pew cartoon that followed. This subsequent development has robbed 'Odor-able Kitty' of any impact whatsoever and to modern viewers it just looks like a rather dull Pepe Le Pew short with a weird surprise ending. As a child, I hated Pepe Le Pew. As an adult, able to appreciate his more sophisticated, verbal and risqué humour, I love the character and most of his cartoons. 'Odor-able Kitty' makes me feel like a child again!
After nearly getting killed by a big dog, a stray cat thinks to herself, "Why can't I be a skunk? Then everyone would leave me alone." She looks around the junkyard and gets an idea: white paint, black paint and some Limburger cheese and some garlic......hmmmm. The next thing you know, we have the forerunner to "Pepe Le Pew," although in this cartoon, she's still a cat, she's a she, and just a skunk in disguise. <br /><br />The cat also is enjoying and taking full advantage of her new status as a smelly skunk. He's a happy, content guy now.....until a real skunk (with the Charles Boyer imitation voice) shows up! <br /><br />I did appreciate the cat putting on a Bugs Bunny outfit. However, overall I never cared for these French-takeoff characters, finding the stereotypical dialog overdone and not really funny, so I only rate this as "fair." I do this a point, however, for the moral at the end of the story.
I just saw this stinky old boiler on TV. Best watched with a very large flagon of Dr Jurd's Jungle Juice at hand, this exploitorific cheese-fest is hilariously bad. On the (very slim) plus side, Raquel was in her physical prime, she looks good, and you get to see a fair bit of her, since she plays a go-go dancer; she had great legs, that's for sure. There's also some minor interest for screen buffs in the footage of Los Angeles ca. '69, and in spotting actors in minor parts who went on to better things. Veteran thesp Ron Rifkin ('Brothers and Sisters') delivers a toe-curling early performances as "Sailor" the "faggot junkie" barman who rats Raquel out to the bad guy. You might also recognise the gun-toting security guard in the hit-and-run scene -- it's a very early appearance by Gordon Jump, who gave such a lovely performance in 'Soap' as Piece of Chelief Tinkler.<br /><br />The 'plot' of 'Flareup', such as it is, follows the travails of an exotic dancer (Welch) on the run from her murderous ex-husband (Luke Askew). This turkey is classic production-line Hollywood sludge -- a paint-by-numbers script, pedestrian direction, hokey shots, edits and effects, ultra-cheesy stock music, plywood sets, and performances to match.<br /><br />The cast is as uniformly dreadful as the screenplay. Although Raquel is capable of fair performances in the right vehicle, this wheezy old clunker is SO bad that she doesn't really stand a chance, and neither does the audience. One of my favourite moments occurs when Raquel awakes up in the hospital, sees the Vegas cop who's pursuing her murderous ex, and asks "How did you get here?" -- to which he of course replies "In a plane." Oh the humanity ... And you won't be able to take your eyes off the doctor (Michael Rougas) who has what might well be one of the very worst walk-ons in the long sad history of bad cameos. I don't think I've ever seen anyone stand in one spot so badly before.<br /><br />Raquel's love interest Joe (James Stacy) ambles through the film with a fixed look that's somewhere between bemused and embarrassed -- and no wonder. This bomb puts the cast through just about every made-for-TV cliché in the book, from Raquel's spectacularly dreadful turn in the dreadful nightmare montage, to the pure schlock of the 'romantic' horse ride along Leo Carillo Beach.<br /><br />**Spoiler Warning** -- just about the only interesting thing in the whole film is the denouement, in which Raquel finally gets her own back, and hilariously enacts the title, by setting the baddie on fire. Whoever the stunt guy was really earned his money on this one -- he goes up like Yorba Linda in a heatwave. Yet even this fairly spectacular scene is compromised by the fact that one of the crew moves into shot near the end.<br /><br />There are so many crappy things about 'Flareup' that it's oddly compelling; I found yourself wondering if this could be one of the worst films I've ever seen made. The answer seemed to be a resounding 'Yes' ... until I saw the film that followed it, Roger Corman's mega-trashy 'caged heat' classic 'The Big Doll House', which takes Awful to a whole new level. I can heartily recommend these two shlockers as a double-bill. You'll laugh yourself silly.
It's okay ... a few years later Chayefsky's classic "Network" will be his true cinematic BIG home run ..., but for now, this dark comedy isn't the classic it aspires to be. It's mostly awful, although it has some good scenes: the first murder victim being found, the E.R. clerk responsible for billing patients making a surprise discovery, Drummond's delusional confessional, and the very last scene where Scott's character regains his professional integrity and self-respect. It also has some ludicrous scenes: Scott's character's whiny monologue during his early visit to the hospital psychiatrist, Scott's character's raping Rigg's character, Dysart's horrible mugging in his brief scenes, and the O.R. doctor pouncing on the operating table to resuscitate the wrong patient because "I already have one malpractice lawsuit".<br /><br />Chayefsky also tries TOO HARD throwing every conceivable hurdle at this one hospital (i.e.- the murders, the administrative mistakes, the poor people protesting outside, etc). It might have worked better as a look at the industry as a whole. Acting-wise: Scott is passable, Rigg seems miscast, Hughes is inspired, and Dysart mugs through out his brief performance. The rest of the cast is TOO one-dimensional.
Cowardly and cynical, `The Hospital' represents the nadir of Paddy Chayefsky's special brand of celebration of the status quo disguised as satire.<br /><br />Thanks to ham-handed director Arthur Hiller, this ludicrous script gets the visually ugly, poorly paced presentation it deserves.<br /><br />Only a great performance by George C. Scott, in the sort of mean-spirited role he was born to play, keeps `The Hospital' from being a complete disaster.<br /><br />Ironically, though, Scott's performance does viewers a disservice. His magnetism keeps them watching when they might more profitably turn off the VCR and clean out the closets, stare at the clouds, or watch re-runs of `Baywatch.'<br /><br />Certainly, anyone who emotionally invests in the set-up _ modern medicine apparently gone amok _ will feel cheated by the dismal payoff, where Chayefsky reveals that The System Works Just Fine, So Quit Your Carping.<br /><br />While the first half of this film provides some entertaining black comedy, it all turns out to be a red herring. Before that becomes clear, though, Chayefsky gives some good lines to Scott as his middle-aged, middle-class, white male stand-in.<br /><br />Bitter, alcoholic, impotent, Scott's Dr. Herbert Bock has alienated those who know him best, and he has the bile to keep alienating them. In Chayefsky's worldview, all that of course makes Bock a magnet for a hippie chick half his age.<br /><br />Playing a collection of adjectives, the long-haired, long-legged, braless and almost bust-less Diana Rigg struggles in the part of `the girl.' The British Rigg is miscast as a southwestern free spirit, but any other actress would struggle as well. Like the rest of a good cast gone to waste, Rigg can't overcome a script that isn't interested in any character except Bock, or any philosophy beyond banality.<br /><br />For fans of George C. Scott, this is another star turn and worth watching. For fans of black comedy, turn it off after the first 45 minutes. For anyone else, don't bother.
I have to ask myself, do movies like this get their support by people associated with the movie itself coming here and critiquing it? How can something so awful score this high? My parents went to see a lot of the more adult themed movies when we were kids, anything with an R in it until we were old enough. I only remember two films that had them saying yech! when they got home. This one, and "Catch-22".<br /><br />The movie is comprised of bumbling physicians and staff in a filthy hospital, rambling narratives, and a pack of inner city people (who look like rejects from a 1970s Norman Lear sitcom) staging a protest. The worst part is the "murder mystery", a crazy old guy doing "God's work" by killing doctors and others. When he confesses, Scott and his girlfriend show little emotion. They only care about him getting out of there where he will "be safe and happy". A doctor that drops dead of a heart attack is faked as the man so he can get away. Oh, my, what a fun movie.<br /><br />This movie didn't "make me think", chuckle, or have any other feeling other than "It must get better", but it never does. People wonder why it was a failure, no wonder here. I wonder how IMDb has enough members that think this movie is good. YECH.
I'm amazed that "The Hospital" has been so well-received by the critics and the public. I found it dreary, visually ugly and generally meaningless. After the first virtually unwatchable 40 minutes, the film does improve (relatively), but it remains WAY too far-fetched (not to mention unfunny) to be successful as a satire, and has too little substance to succeed as a drama. The film's uncertain tone is its biggest fault, overshadowing even Scott's terrific (as usual) performance.
This movie is worse than "heaven's gate" or "plan 9 from outer space". Don't know why it got even one Oscar, it should have gotten a million raspberries, just like the audiences that either walked out or didn't show up in the first place. The Hospital was a first-rate financial failure, but I'm certain the elite classes of left-wing, gutter-mouthed intellectuals railed that the American public was far- too plebeian to appreciate biting social-commentary when they saw it, and on and on. George C Scott, in one of most-artless and embarrassing roles, along with aging sex-symbol Diana Rigg spend most of the movie trying to cuss in an increasingly-blasé manner as they push along a silly plot. Poor old George is impotent and is just crushed by the event, but after lots of dirty language between him and Rigg, he rapes her multiple times on lovely night in a filthy, crumbling NYC hospital that looks so disgusting that I wouldn't want a dying pet rat treated in it. There's also some sacrilegious junk-dialog tossed about hither and yon, laced with plenty of cussing as well. It ends by portraying the faulty notion that unusual stress without physical exertion always brings on cardiac arrest. Never want to see another minute of this awful movie again.
The premise of this movie is ugghhhh. The guy is married and yet everyone on this site seems to think, "Yeah, this is funny, cute, and a good movie." What the Hell?!?! What is funny about immature girls fornicating with a married man with a new baby? What is cute about the fact that he is cheating on his wife? What have been wrong with them finding some teenage boys to have sex with before starting college? Noooo, that is not good enough, the guy has to be married, off-limits, off-the-market, that's the one we gotta have. Dumb-ass GIRLS! Then one of the girls decides that she "loves" the guy. No, she just "loves" the way he makes her feel. Two of the girls are having fun with it, they think it is funny and no one seems to have any moral problems with what they are doing. It just shameless, but yeah this is all good with everyone one this website. The dark-haired girl even has the audacity to have her dad pick her up from the guys house, under the ruse of baby sitting. This is a morally disgusting movie and where is the wife? Poor woman working and paying the bills while he screws the baby sitter.
This movie tries to be artistic but comes across as puerile as a film school student's first attempt. Next it tries to be erotic but comes across as clumsy as a virgin's first attempt. Lastly it tries to be cruel & gripping, but aside from Kinski's performance--which is powerful but conspicuously misplaced amidst the amateur melodrama--it's about as gripping as your hand around a wet noodle (which is an appropriate metaphor considering how un-erotic this film is). It features a blowjob scene which is even lamer than Chloë Sevigny's career-burying performance in The Brown Bunny. Run away now while you have the chance. Go find yourself a Victoria's Secret lingerie catalogue instead--it's more artistic AND more erotic than this tripe.
This is one of the worst films I have seen in a while.<br /><br />The problem is that it doesn't know whether it wants to be an intelligent political film, 'artistic' or an exercise is eroticism. As a result it fails on all accounts.<br /><br />The acting is atrocious, the narration off putting and the supposed symbolism pointless.<br /><br />Klaus Kinski is probably the best thing about this film but that isn't a good thing. Sure he has an intense and 'unique' look but ultimately he can't actually act. Just look at how he reacts when his mistress leaves....<br /><br />Really don't watch this film, some say it needs repeat viewings I say one is too many.
I bought this film on DVD despite the "stale" review and that was idiotic... That review was completely accurate and I have never seen any worse "erotic" film in my long life! Even if it partly was lovely filmed and had interesting surroundings, plus a nice cover... But my own Extreme Erotica (c) films are over 100 times more erotic (just in the soft delicious aspect) with probably less than 100 times of this films budget! The story have no logical connection with the first film or the famous book... Or any new (exciting) element of slave training, except some very strange and sad developments... Then did the main male character - Klaus Kinski - not look a bit like the second Master of "O" he try to play... And not even lovely Arielle Dombasle, did look delicious in any scene!
This film is sometimes called 'The Story of O-Pt.2',which tries to pass itself off as a sequel (of sorts)to the French erotic S&M thriller 'The Story Of O'. Although I've never seen the original version, I did, however get to see this sorry mixed bag of sexual & social politics. I guess the 'O' angle comes from the occasional S&M overtones (which were never as explicit (and unpleasant to watch) as the ones in 'Mistress'. Klaus Kinski is the only recognizable face in this French/Japanese production (but speaks his lines in English--at least in the version I saw). The unnecessary use of surrealism only manages to make this some what boring example in pseudo porn even more pretentious (what are they trying to prove with depicting a piano floating in water?). It's obvious that after the whole "porno chic" trend in cinema petered out (ouch-sorry,bad pun!)about 1975, producers had to scrape the bottom of the barrel trying to please the mavens of adult cinema,not to mention Foreign/Art Cinema,so film goers had to contend with dreck like 'The Last Woman',and others like it.
I really like Kinski he is a great actor. I've seen this movie because I've heard that there are autobiographic aspects in this movie.<br /><br />The film is full of symbols like a piano sinking in a river or strange shadow-pictures at the walls. Then the narrator always says abstract sentences like: "A kid sells fortune, but her box is empty now." This is really disturbing and wasn't really necessary, because everyone understands what this movie is all about. The movie shows how Kinski's character treated woman, and how he kept them under control. If there are really some aspects of Kinski's life in this story - then he really was an swine. So there is no need to watch this movie, unless if you want to see Kinski naked or if you like sick trash movies to laugh about.
When The Spirits Within was released, all you heard from Final Fantasy fans was how awful the movie was because it didn't seem like Final Fantasy. This is a different story, for better or worse. The familiar settings, characters, music, story, and over the top action scenes should thrill fans of the original game. The problem is that it just isn't a good movie in its own right.<br /><br />The direction during the fight scenes is often sloppy, switching camera angles ridiculously fast in an attempt to make the action seem more frenetic, but only serving to make the scenes look jumbled and confusing.<br /><br />The CG itself is exceptional, but I can't say it's the best I've ever seen since Spirits Within had much more detail on the characters, although I must admit that Advent Children's characters moved much more naturally.<br /><br />The plot is virtually a black hole. It's a giant deus ex machina designed solely to bring Sephiroth back for one last fight. Old characters reappear, but serve no real purpose other than to please fans. Character development is nonexistent and the film does nothing at all to resolve any of the plot threads left hanging after the game's end. But it's packed with neat-looking fight scenes with magic, summons, and limit breaks, which is probably what fans wanted anyway.<br /><br />In the end, Advent Children is a very flashy, but totally brainless action flick that serves more as a side story for Final Fantasy VII than a real sequel.<br /><br />By the way, don't think you're hurting my feelings by voting Not Useful. It just makes me feel superior knowing that fanboys/fangirls resent my objectivity so greatly.
First i will say that i am going to be as subjective as I can.<br /><br />There will be some potential spoilers ahead so beware.<br /><br />I hardly ever review movies, but this one in particular i felt i had to review. This movie Final Fantasy 7 Advent Children, based off the ultra popular rpg (Final Fantasy VII) for the ps1 has been in the works for quite some time. After the years of hype and the dozens of trailers (none of which i ever saw, i had only seen stills) this movie got the legions of fans really excited about seeing their favorite characters on the big screen. I myself had played and completed the game a few times like any good fan, and being such a movie freak i was pretty excited myself. So i had thought to myself, "WHAT COULD GO WRONG?".<br /><br />Well, the movie started out OK in the first 20 minutes, but then things get out of hand as the movie progressed. Without a doubt, this is the best looking CGI animation around, but that won't help a weak plot, undeveloped characters,and over indulgent action scenes. <br /><br />Here is the story basically. These three silver haired nancy boys in leather who have nothing to do with the game, are supposedly clones of Sephiroth (he's the villain of the game who had supposedly murdered all his supposed clones)are trying to kidnap all the children for some reason that was not really explained all that well, probably to make an army (of kids?) They also center some of the story on some kid named Denzel, i don't know who this kid is, or what his point is, he just seems depressed all the time. So the sephiroth clones also are involved in some kind of scheme involving some disease called geostigma, that only affects the children, this disease seems to cause boredom and small amounts of skin discoloration.<br /><br />So now Cloud must save the day from these guys. Apparently Cloud and his fellow team mates have learned the ability of flight, i felt a little insulted that these characters where flying around a city fighting a dragon and landing on there feet all the time. Maybe if the movie wasn't so over the top, then the view relax into it and then they can be amazed by something incredible. The real problem of this movie is logic. Now i know what you are gonna say, "But it's called Final FANTASY! it should have those ideas in it!" well that is a foolish way to think, the game based itself in some kind of reality and the movie should follow through in that CONTEXT. Context and logic in this movie is inconsistent, i could explain it all, but if i did, i would end up writing the screenplay.<br /><br />Also some scenes in this movie were extremely contrived and trite. like when all of the characters from the game show up just in the nick of time for their obligatory screen time so as not to upset the fans. They show up, do there bit and pretty much have no point in the story.<br /><br />If this is too long here is the simpler review-<br /><br />the pros- the first 20 minutes top-notch cgi animation decent action scenes visually stunning<br /><br />the cons- illogical over indulgent action/ unbalanced action (leaves the viewer jaded at the climax) weak plot super human characters=no suspense the j-rock soundtrack/score (what happened to the orchestra?) Horrible ending<br /><br />BIG TIME SPOILER-<br /><br />Now the ending of this movie really disappointed me. they could have had gone the really cool and sweet ending where cloud dies and meets up with aeris in the after life but after the great battle at the end cloud gets shot in the back, the kinda wound where the bullet blast out through the chest. then cloud has his 100th flashback in the movie and then wakes up in a pool of lifestream. (now i remember the lifestream in the game, but it did not have resurrecting properties, if it did, they could have brought aeris back to life, thus making a completely different story) so cloud is brought back to life and everyone has a party and dives into the pool and we have a ultra cheezy hallmark/ lifetime type moment.<br /><br />not that the movie doesn't have it's moments. its is worth seeing for its visuals. but thats all.<br /><br />other than that it's not really a good movie. it is strictly for blinded fans of the game. not for people who care about plot and character and story telling.
I was giddy with girlish-glee when I found out about this movie shortly after seeing Spirits Within.<br /><br />After years of anticipation, they gave November 2005 release date. Well, November came. And went. Followed by December. Oh, look, today's January 31, 2006. No US release as of yet.<br /><br />Oh well, I'm so glad I had a friend with a bootlegged subtitled copy. ;D<br /><br />Well, the cg was great. Not as good as expected, but near perfect. I cringed, however, at the unnatural movements made by the children throughout the movie. I had thought that we were passed this by now. Also, I didn't really care for the anime look given to their faces. I was under the impression that they were shooting for a realistic look to the film, and yet most of the characters have larger-than-norm eyes, especially the girl characters. They had personality, though, I'll give them that.<br /><br />Even though I'm not a big fan of anime, I do have to say I was impressed with the wild fight scenes. They were animated beautifully and had me hanging onto the edge of my seat.<br /><br />For about the first two.<br /><br />And there-in lies Advent Children's biggest flaw. It's mostly just a bunch of hyper-stylized fight scenes.<br /><br />A FF7 sequel of epic proportions had been promised for years. Instead, they gave us a pretty piece of cg with barely a plot to excuse it's just-under-two-hours running time.<br /><br />Where Final Fantasy is famous for its intricate stories, this movie falls short. You don't really get to know the characters. The only way you'd have any understanding of most of what occurred in the film would have been if you had played the game. We barely got to see them before they were battling it out with whatever current threat.<br /><br />What hurts the fans even more is the awful cameos that the majority of FF7 characters were given. They were nothing more than Cloud's "I'll call if I need you, but I probably won't" back up singers. And, to add to the hurt, they had each character individually throw Cloud higher and higher. This little part here was so cheesy I almost turned it off. I would have been much more impressed if he had just simply jumped up all on his own, ricocheting off of walls to get himself up higher.<br /><br />It hurt even more when they reduced the Turks to less-than-just comic relief. That was fine for the game, but this is cinema. People do not act like cartoon characters in a harsh battle. They took away their dignity :/<br /><br />And, spoiler (yeah right, most of you probably already know, anyhow). Who remembers Darth Maul being hyped up in SW: Episode 1? Yeah, now, picture that, but with Sephiroth. That's right. He had maybe 5 minutes of screen time. Maybe that. End Spoiler :P<br /><br />If this movie was made for the fans, then way to go Square. If this is any indication of the direction you're taking the FF series, I doubt you're going to be seeing much of my money. I played your games for the wonderful story and the excellent characters.<br /><br />You had a chance to make something epic. Something truly beautiful, a masterpiece that flies in the face of all of the Disney CG films.<br /><br />Instead you gave us a pretty piece of flesh with hardly anything underneath to hold it together. Way to go.<br /><br />And I'm sure if the rest of the fans paused for a moment and tried to just pay attention to everything but the CG they'd know what I'm talking about. Well, I was gonna rate this a 5/10, but after thinking about it while righting this, I'm giving it a 3/10 because they could have done better. They have done better. And this is just sad.<br /><br />If they're gonna remake anything FFVII, they need to do this one first.
Final Fantasy: Advent Children is and will remain a classic example of style over substance gone wrong. Instead of drawing upon the memorable characters and captivating mythology of the original game, Square Enix has churned out a frivolous montage of incomprehensible battle scenes. Yes, I said "incomprehensible." Did you know that Tifa knows blindingly fast Kung Fu techniques that magically cause the camera angle to shift every second? That Cloud can effortlessly suspend himself in midair for a full minute while wildly swinging away with his 2-ton sword? The English dub is mediocre. While not egregiously bad, it is far from well-produced. The quality is comparable to that of an average anime dub.<br /><br />Here is what I'd like to say to the die-hard FFVII fans who can't stop gushing over this movie: Advent Children is the best fan service you could have hoped for from Square Enix, but even a trashy CG flick like Galerians: Rion had a better story. You'll be embarrassed by this movie and its lack of thought in due time. The days of its novelty are numbered.<br /><br />Movies like Advent Children make me question whether Square Enix recognizes the potential of its franchises. After all (and no offense), it's a Japanese company. Japanese developers can deliver fun games, but most of their offerings are disappointingly shallow. They are utter psychos, however, when it comes to production quality. Advent Children features some of the most breathtaking renders in CG history, but that doesn't save it from its convoluted plot and cardboard characters.<br /><br />Any fan who followed this film knows Sephiroth comes back. Bending the story to accommodate his resurrection was a big mistake.<br /><br />NOTE: The one point I give this "film" is in honor of the 10,000 enslaved Japanese animators who gave their lives to render each bleached blond hair on Cloud's effeminate Caucasian head.
Pretty visuals and a lot of fights make not a good movie. And that is precisely what happened here.<br /><br />First off, let me admit, I am yet to play FFVII (I intend to order it soon). However, I did do research to familiarise myself with the characters and the story. However, not everyone has the luxury of time to research things like this, and Advent Children demands that knowledge of FFVII is required.<br /><br />In spite of incredible visuals, I can't say there is too much thats new. We've seen it in Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, and apart from some better movement, I can't say they've done lots of super-daring stuff with this.<br /><br />The fight scenes - well, they are a bit of fun. Still, how could we ever doubt the result of any of them. This one was boringly classic - there were three fights with the bad guys, following the standard procedure (the hero, Cloud, gets smashed, then he almost gets there and gets smashed, and then finally wins). The reason I say it was boringly classic was that it is used a great deal, but in this case is poorly executed. I'll touch on that later.<br /><br />The English dub seemed fine to me, though I didn't watch it in Japanese, so I shan't judge the Japanese dub, but only the English one. I'll say this - I've heard plenty of better ones, even in my limited repertoire.<br /><br />And now, the plot. Ummm... what plot? Let me be frank, this movie is nought but a fan service, a chance to see the FFVII characters on the big screen with lovely eye candy. As I said earlier, the fights seem to just happen for no reason. The opening fight is never explained, Kadaj seems to have neither ambition to destroy the world himself nor any real motivation to do anything nasty. Cloud sits around moping for the entire film, and pretty much everyone else gets an obligatory cameo.<br /><br />Really, FFVII was an ensemble piece. Advent Children is anything but. If they'd managed to give everyone some significant story role (Star Trek: First Contact proved it was possible, I might add), then this could have been a lot better. Naturally, that would have changed the plot too, which, lets be honest, is almost set to be better than the one we got.<br /><br />Characters were also generally either unused or virtually forgotten. The members of Avalanche (thats the group Cloud worked with in FFVII, for those who don't know) get 2 scenes (3 in the case of Vincent Valentine, and some get even less). Hell, the bad guys get more lines than these guys, and that is pretty bad.<br /><br />The music... well, I don't care if Nobuo Uematsu is God Himself, he botched this film big time. Advent One Winged Angel was the only decent piece. Otherwise, he couldn't decide whether to be epic (and orchestral) or fun (with electric guitar). When he switched from one to the other, you felt it as though he'd taken a sledgehammer to your head.<br /><br />And that last point on whether this movie was epic or fun... it tried to be both, and failed miserably. Honestly, you can't please everyone and do everything. The movie also tried to be deep (you can go epic and deep, or fun and deep, but all three is too much), but failed here too. The last scene, which is reminiscent of a baptismal ceremony, was thrown in there for what looks like the sake of it. You don't need to be a Christian to just shake your head and cry there. That scene just didn't belong in the film (and nor did Aerith's frequent appearances - she's dead Jim!).<br /><br />Given just how fantastic I've heard Final Fantasy VII to be, this movie is nothing short of a gigantic disappointment. Because of the beautiful visuals, I give it a 2 out of 10.
I give this movie a 4 cause I'm a die hard fan of the video game series. the graphics and animation are excellent and its nice to see the whole gang in CG form Sephiroth's still cool<br /><br />now the reasons it only got a 4 well the characters feel like planks of wood with some of the worst voice acting I've ever seen(I've watched epic movie)<br /><br />the movie just seems cloud orientated so much so that it make even the fans embarrassed with cloud this and cloud that. clouds mentioned so much that it make you not want to see him in this movie <br /><br />the villains have the award for the worst villains ever (i was more scared by the wicked witch of the west) <br /><br />all the other characters in this movie are simply put in the movie for a nod to the fans and doesn't take it further then that<br /><br />wtf's with the chilly chally???<br /><br />summary: waited 9 years for this movie and this is what i get a large pointless and boring cut scene i beg the head of square cenix to shoot the man responsible for this burn every copy of the movie and any one involved in it and create a new movie from the ashes's (it would be nice to make the movie in live action and based on the original game)
So after the initial disappointment of the first Final Fantasy movie, which seemed to bare next to no resemblance to the Final Fantasy series, Final Fantasy: Advent Children has released itself to a warm reception and, now, a dedicated fanbase. And the reason for the films success is understandable as it has lush graphics, fast moving fight sequences and some cool as hell characters. However, if you haven't played FF7 then it is likely that you will not enjoy this film as it's storyline carries on from the game without previous explanation and your likely to get lost from the plot even if you have played the game. Secondly, there is no character development, without previous knowledge from the game your opinions on the characters are limited to 'cool' and 'not cool'. Of course, for FF7 fans the film is almost guaranteed to entertain, at least for nostalgic reasons, and it's cool seeing all the characters you grew to love from the game rendered in some pretty amazing computer animation. One last complaint, the film, at least in my opinion, attempted to cram too much into less than two hours and therefore the last half hour or so seems horribly rushed. If you played and enjoyed FF7 than it is a worthwhile watch, though nothing too special. If you have not played FF7 then it is best that you play it first before watching this film.
This show lasted for most of the 1980s, and had its moments, but plots were usually dishwater thin and often painfully unfunny.<br /><br />Terry Scott and June Whitfield were wasted in this sitcom, they both deserved better, but it does provide some fond memories and I have found myself smiling at some repeated scenes. June Whitfield's talent for comedy is allowed to shine through on occasion (when she is not being a foil to Terry) and she really is clever.<br /><br />The 1980s is the last decade where you will find this kind of middle class, middle aged comedy, and many people remember it fondly, but I prefer to remember the decade for alternative comedy and the biting satire of Spitting Image.
This cosy middle class sitcom became the subject of much hatred by the new breed of talented comedians in the 1980s, such as Ben Elton. Did it deserve such malice? Well Terry and June was never clever, it was never a well-written tale with different threads which intersect at the conclusion. It was the show your mother and father and probably grandparents watched. They chuckled rather than laughed, but they were never likely to be offended by the show, so the fact that it never challenged them was immaterial.<br /><br />One Foot In The Grave suffered initially because it appeared at first sight to be just another Terry and June.<br /><br />A few days after the death of Terry Scott an episode was broadcast on terrestrial TV, and that has been its final outing. There have been few repeats of the show on any TV channel.<br /><br />Thankfully TV comedy has advanced since Terry and June. It's hard to find kind words for it - Terry Scott did make the best of weak scripts.
A pretty transparent attempt to wring cash out of the thriving British club scene, Sorted is a film that shows promise in certain departments, but does very little else. A perfunctory thriller plot (which is there merely to string the club sequences together), variable acting and a pretty ludicrous script, all stop Sorted from being the showcase that director Jovy obviously intended.<br /><br />However, although Jovy is sometimes over indulgent (especially when using the often ill-fitting dance music) he does show potential, and the lack of an anti drugs message is enormously refreshing. Overall however, the film is a wasted opportunity, and the prospects for a great clubbing movie remain out there somewhere. Watchable nevertheless.
A rather disappointing film. The club scenes were ok, but over done. The plot was thin and boring. It's only redeeming features were some of the characters. The Chemist and The DJ were pretty fun characters. Tim Curry's character was just bizarre and stupid.
There were so many reasons why this movie could have been great. I'll give you three.<br /><br />1. Sienna Guillory. She is extremely hot in this movie and was the reason I chose to watch it in the first place.<br /><br />2. Tim Curry. Amazing bad guy and I always get excited seeing him in movies (even Home Alone 2).<br /><br />3. Jason Donovan. For all you Aussies and Poms out there, this is a rare treat. Former Neighbours star 80's heart-throb dressed in drag selling drugs.<br /><br />However none of these things nor the fact that the movie is about the drug/rave culture managed to make this movie even remotely interesting. The script was dull, the performances ordinary and despite the scenes with J.D and any scene with Sienna I found everything about this movie pretty passe.<br /><br />3 out of 10.
After Kenneth Opel's rousing story of the invigorated me back into the pleasure of reading during grade school, I had high hopes for this series. The story of an underdog bat voyaging across country to reunite with his colony captivated my imagination and resonated deeply with my burgeoning imagination.Upon hearing of this series, I began browsing Bardel Animation's site and liked what I saw. The character design looked impressive and the fast-paced plot seemed to have been stretched respectably across a thirteen episode arc. Much was my disappointment, then, when I decided to watch a rerun early one morn.<br /><br />The opening episode shows our hero, Shade Silverwing, pursuing a tiger moth in the deep hours of the night. Chirruping an echolocatory song, we see a nifty if crude CGI effect illuminate the moth, and the chase takes on a frenetic turn as the tiny insect creates numerous illusory copies of itself do deceive its pursuer. As a lover of biology, I had a decent understanding of the principles in place (tiger moths can sense the sounds their predators use for echolocation and spin a sonic cover for themselves) but without such exposition I would have surely been lost. A minor quibble, I thought. Surely they director will fill us in momentarily. I waited in vain.<br /><br />Once our protagonist roosts down with some of his fellows, we are treated to some of the dullest dialog I've ever seen on television. Chinook, Shade's childhood rival, begin taunting the diminutive hero with the stupidest lines I've ever seen on a show. I can understand the writers not producing Shakespeare, but one would think they'd have had some social contact in their lives - surely enough to make communication seem natural. Oh, how wrong I was.<br /><br />The voice acting, while not horrendous, hardly was a shining example of human achievement. "Oh Shade, you're broken the law!" Shade's mother sighs emptily. "You must come with me, young one." croaks Frieda, the wizened elder of the Silverwing Colony. The actors try, but it hardly matters at this point, as the story becomes less and less compelling with each pass minute.<br /><br />While each episode deals with a problem of the week, as is typical of with most television series, overarching story arcs pervade the saga, for better and worse. While the main point of the story is Shade's reunion with his family, later episodes tack on other story arcs, involving cannibalistic bats from the Southern jungles and a brewing war between birds and beasts. The writers try to do too much at once, fighting to compress as many promising ideas as possible in the hopes that it will grab audience interest enough to keep the bloody show going on. Unfortunately, these attempts are futile to all but the eight to ten year olds at whom this show is aimed.<br /><br />While it's nice to see Canadian media be perpetuated, it would be all the sweeter if the enjoyability of the series wasn't limited to the immediate family of the animators or frothing fans of Kenneth Oppel's books. There are worse things out there your children could be watching than Silverwing, but far better programs are out there, too. Pass on the mediocrity and read the books instead.
Having already seen the original "Jack Frost", I never thought that "Jack Frost 2" would be as absurd as it is. Boy was I wrong! Then again, A-PIX movies have a way of showing unbelievably bad material, even worse than you might expect. I believe this is the first A-PIX sequel, and it may be an indication of what to expect in the future: more A-PIX sequels.<br /><br />It's hard to watch this without laughing, especially during the later parts of the movie in which Jack Frost's offspring (which are essentially snowballs with eyes, arms, a mouth and sharp teeth) start killing people with the typical comedic dialogue and silly voices to go with it. They are shown both as puppets (with a stick underneath to move them) and as computer animation, which I have to say looks very cheesy. The computer animation surprised me, as the first "Jack Frost" had no such effects.<br /><br />I'd strongly recommend that you see the original "Jack Frost" before seeing this one (both of which it would be preferable to watch with a group of friends) to get the full amusement out of it, and because it would make more sense ("sense" being a relative term).<br /><br />Now only if there was "Uncle Sam 2"...
Ill-conceived sequel(..the absurd idea of having the killer snowman on the rampage at an island resort where there is no snow or cold weather)brings back the spirit of the psychopath, returning thanks to a scientific experiment providing foreign elements which reintroduce life to his molecules(..it's the best I could do to explain this preposterous concept).<br /><br />I could go into depth about how he winds up at the island in order to slay numerous tourists, but I simply find no reason to bother because it'd all be so exhausting. Anyway, the filmmakers think it wise to kill off the pretty girls not ten minutes after their arrival(..I mean seriously, why worry with even introducing them to us if we can't enjoy our eye candy no longer that this?!).<br /><br />The "snow anvil" murder scene takes the cake. Ice icicles protrude from the beach's sand so that a victim can fall on them. Oh, and another girl is stabbed with a pair of weenie tongs.<br /><br />Look I get what's coming to me when I sit down to watch a killer snowman movie..such a ridiculous supernatural slasher will either tickle your funnybone("Oh, it's such a wonderfully cheesy horror movie!")or have you pondering why the hell you're wasting time with such nonsense. Jack Frost has the power to freeze water(..then how were they able to melt him in the first film?)and causes the island resort to snow. One sequence has Jack freezing pool water, encasing a swimming model under the sheet, result being her drowning with nowhere to escape.Oh, there's also a recreation of the "tongue stuck to the icy pole" bit from The Christmas Story("Cowatonga dude!").<br /><br />I gotta hand it to the cast, though..they're real troopers for trying to make this wretched material entertaining. Christopher Allport(..perhaps unwisely)returns as Sam, to face his old nemesis, as does Eileen Seeley, as his wife. The attempts at tongue-in-cheek humor(..for me, at least) fell flat, but the cast soldiers onward trying to make the most of a very difficult situation, with spirited performances they do their best to rise above the pitiful premise and woeful dialogue.<br /><br />A development occurs which increases the danger towards those still around to face off with Jack, his genetically altered water molecules, thanks to the introduced foreign elements, allow him to withstand coolant/anti-freeze, and, even worse, he now can reproduce..through indigestion, Jack hacks up what appear to be snowballs which hatch to reveal little snowballs with black eyes, mouth and sharp teeth! The killer snowman costume and little snowball puppets introduced later in the film might produce belly-laughs if you are in the mood for such shenanigans, but I personally found this junk rather hokey(..that's the purpose behind it, I suppose, cheap guffaws from those willing to embrace this)and unbearable.The snowball offspring is an obvious homage to Gremlins where we get a bar scene where the little bastards are celebrating in number over terrorizing victims at the resort. The weapon against them..bananas! It's explained that when Jack went to kill Sam in the first film, both fell in a truck bed full of anti-freeze(..an icicle emerging from Jack's belly was penetrating Sam's chest when he pushed them out a window into the truck bed, and I guess in their being "being linked" by the icicle, Jack inherited Sam's banana allergy, or so this is what we are led to believe!)and in doing so both "merged" in a sense.<br /><br />Phew, such a film as this defies simple explanation. It's a film with effects and plot so terrible, one might find the presentation enjoyable because of it's many failings.
Yes, in this movie you are treated to multiple little snowmen on the attack in apparently a very warm climate so yes this movie is definitely not to be taken seriously. It is in fact a much worse movie than the original as at least with that one the whole production looked like it cost more than a couple of bucks and a video camera to make. It has its funny moments, but really playing off the cheapness of your movie and making that be your intended laughs is kind of weak film making if you ask me. You can not come up with a good story, your effects are going to really be bad, hey let us just make the movie look as bad as possible with horrible one liners and we have our movie. The first one at least had a somewhat credible story as the snowman in that one attacked during the winter and not what amounts to a resort. It also had better effects too, this one is just a step or two ahead of "Hobgoblins" as far as the monsters are concerned and you really want to be more than a step a two above a bunch of hand puppets. Still, it makes up for all of this with a super ending that depicts a great sea vessel being taken out by the mighty frost. Actually, I am just kidding, but really it was the funniest part of the movie.
this movie sucks. did anyone notice that the entire movie was shot in like 2 rooms. there are NEVER any outside shots and if there are its obviously film taken from somewhere else. this movie blows hard, painful to sit through too. stay far away.
-may contain spoilers-<br /><br />Clearly, who ever made this film must have had a lot of connections. I just can't see it any other way. What really surprises me is no one used the name Allen Smithee, and more surprising, everyone involved didn't use this name.<br /><br />Anyhow, where to begin. The bad dialogue, the crummy costumes, the sorry looking film stock, the unintentional comedy, the over-the-top characters, and more inconsistencies than George W. Bush's college career. I don't know what was funnier, the guy losing his arm because of a snowball, or the slow motion scene where all the baby Jack Frosts' were getting killed. Also, one of the great lines of all time was uttered in this film. "How do we know it's him?" Like there's another mutant snowman who can talk and kill people with snowballs! A great camp film, but a very bad film overall.
Jack Frost 2 was a horrible, terrible, sadly pathetic excuse for a sequal to a great movie. The original, was a low budget comedy horror film about a murdered who was turned into a snowman after an accident with some toxic waste. And the snowman went around murdering people, and avoiding blow dryers like the plague. This, however, was a far cry from the quality of the original. It seems like this even had a lower-budget because for some reason, after an hour into this film, I still hadn't seen the snowman. Some revenge he's getting if he's always in the form of Ice cubes with a cheesy voice-over and a little shake of the cooler he rests in to give animation to the character. Disappointing to no belief, even for a fan of bad cinema.
Alright, we start in the office of a shrink, and apparently not a very good one. The main hero from the first Jack Frost is in the shrinks office blurting out random rhymes about Jack Frost. Gee, alright my brother is yelling ''Turn it off!''. Anyway, back to the crappy movie.<br /><br />The shrink has his speaker phone on and is letting his secretary and her friends listen in on this heroic insane sheriff. I suppose he is supposed to be the hero from the first movie, but he looks nothing like him!. Yadda yadda yadda, they laugh at the poor sheriff, yadda yadda. Now some people are digging up the anti-frozed snowman, yadda yadda, now we're in a lab with some type of doctor people.. I don't quite see how this has to do anything, but their poking the anti-freeze/Evil killer mutant snowman with needles, heating it, shocking it, adding strange and bizarre chemicals to it, the whole nine yards. Nothing. Alright, they give up and leave it in a fish tank. One of the doctors leaves his coffee on the top of the tank. The janitor walks in, cleans stuff, bumps the fishtank and the coffee spills the tank which makes Jack alive.<br /><br />Behold the power of mocha! Now somehow he is in..uh.. i believe the Bahamas... but it looked more like Hawaii.. But it couldn't be Hawaii! Unless they spent all of their budget on the dang air plane tickets. Bah.. I wont spoil the rest of this rotten movie, so you'll have to rent it and watch it your self... Er... i wouldn't suggest doing so though.... Sheesh..
In all, it took me three attempts to get through this movie. Although not total trash, I've found a number of things to be more useful to dedicate my time to, such as taking off my fingernails with sandpaper.<br /><br />The actors involved have to feel about the same as people who star in herpes medication commercials do; people won't really pay to see either, the notoriety you earn won't be the best for you personally, but at least the commercials get air time.<br /><br />The first one was bad, but this gave the word bad a whole new definition, but it does have one good feature: if your kids bug you about letting them watch R-rated movies before you want them to, tie them down and pop this little gem in. Watch the whining stop and the tears begin. ;)
If you like bad movies (and you must to watch this one) here's a good one. Not quite as funny as the first, but much lower quality. A must-see for fans of Jack Frost as well as anyone up for a good laugh at the writing.
Please, If you're thinking about renting this movie, don't. If you're thinking of watching a couple of downloaded clips, don't. If I had my way, nobody would even have to read this summary.<br /><br />The acting, despite being one fo the high points of the movie was still pathetic. The director was probaly a sadist. The witty one liners were something you'd expect from a room of highly paid anti-social 7 year olds that eat paint-chips for breakfast.<br /><br />The problem with this movie, is that it tries to be a movie like "Evil Dead 2"(do not under any circumstances associate these 2 movies) in that it's so bad it's funny. But it also tries to be funny at the same time, and fails so overwhelmingly to do so, that your sense of humor is left too crippled to do anything but set off your gag reflex in an attmept to save itself.<br /><br />I could go on for much much more, detailing just how awful it really was, but I think it would strip me of my will to live just to continue to think about it. If you need me, I'll be off trying to boil myself so that I might feel clean again...
Horrible movie. This movie beat out revenge of the living zombies for the WORST movie I have ever suffered through. What the !@$% were the morons who made this film thinking. Was it supposed to be scary. Because man let me tall you it wasn't. It was so dumb it wasn't funny. We all know that tropical islands are the natural hunting grounds for killer snowmen. And those stupid baby snowballs. Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid. Fake snow and lousy actors. OH and frost looks nothing like he does on the box. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME. REnt it and destroy it.
Why did I have to go out and buy (yes buy!) JACK FROST 2: REVENGE OF THE MUTANT KILLER SNOWMAN??? Maybe it was a burst of temporary mental derangement? But I'm guessing it's because I kind of enjoyed the first JACK FROST. It was a silly but funny horror-comedy which had some okay effects by Screaming Mad George. That and the fact that on the back-cover of the sequel there was this nice picture of this guy impaled by this giant icicle (coming out of his mouth with a lot of blood and all). So I thought: if it's as idiotic as the first and has some nice splatter/gore in it, it should be fun, right? Well, I was so dead wrong! <br /><br />Let me first say that the movie deserves some credit for having an immensely insane and retarded plot. I mean, a mutant killer snowman on a tropical island that spawns mutant killer baby snowballs which can only be killed or harmed by bananas??? As much as I love the premise, I really hated the movie. First of all: while the first JACK FROST looked like an actual movie (seemingly being shot on real film and all), this sequel has the look and feel of a third-rate soap-opera. It has this way too slick shot-on-video look. The lighting is just plain awful (bright white spots for the day look, and stupid colors like blue and green at night). The acting... well don't even go there. The dialogues range from stiff to extremely senile (that Jamaican man was just moronic, saying "man" after every sentence). And when it comes to the voice of the killer snowman, all I could think of was a seventh-rate Chucky from CHILD'S PLAY spewing dumb and supposedly witty one-liners before he kills someone.<br /><br />The best joke was were one guy asks "Why are you talking to your watch?". And the best scene was undoubtedly the one with that beautiful Asian chick popping up out of nowhere and taking a swim in the pool totally naked (thank god for that!). Oh, yeah, and that little scene over the end-credits with those two Japanese dudes on a miniature ship being badly dubbed had me laughing too. But the worst thing about this movie was: Where was the gore and splatter action everyone is talking about? There were plenty of occasions to show some decent gory killings. A lot of people were killed off in original ways here, but all off-screen. Like I've read in many other comments, there were indeed nice set-ups to a head explosion, a crushed body, eyes being poked out, tongue ripped out,... but on the crucial moments the editor cuts away to some blood splatters on the floor or nothing at all. That frontal shot of that British guy being impaled (from the back-cover of the DVD) wasn't even in the movie. I only saw that particular killing filmed from the back (meaning I didn't see sh!t!). I was waiting throughout the whole movie for that to happen, and then I get to see nothing?!?! What a let-down! Could it be that I saw a cut version of the movie? That would be a shame, 'cause only a decent amount of splatter-fun could have saved this movie if you ask me. Seeing a lot of killer snowballs reduced to bloody pulp just didn't cut it for me. Speaking of those snowballs: they were done very poorly. They made MUNCHIES look like state-of-the-art 'animatronics'. But I guess that was the whole point of it. At some point, the special effects crew even turned to some laughably bad CGI. Boy, you really have to see it to believe it. Best is to not see it, actually, 'cause this flick is just too bad (okay, I did laugh with it, for it kept getting worse and worse). Just stick with the first JACK FROST (1996) and you'll be okay (just bare in mind that it's a pretty silly horror-comedy but fun in it's own right).<br /><br />It's funny, but writer/director Michael Cooney somehow must have realized that he was a pretty bad director after JACK FROST 2, and then focused on writing. Turns out he then wrote two pretty good thriller screenplays for THE I INSIDE (starring Ryan Phillippe) and IDENTITY (starring John Cusack). So the man seems to have some talent after all.<br /><br />Now it would be far too easy to give JACK FROST 2 the lowest rating possible. So I say one point for that naked Asian babe doing the skinny dipping and one point for those completely retarded snowball babies. Way to go Mr. Cooney!
This is the worst film I have ever seen, bar none. From the flimsy-looking, poorly lit sets, to the laughable acting, to the infantile plot and shoddy, drawn-out action sequences, this film is so bad, its hilarious. For about ten minutes. After which you will be reaching for the remote or the power socket to end this film non-experience. Although it was obviously made with the entire production and acting staff's collective tongue rammed in cheek (please God), I found Jack Frost 2 so dreadful as to be unwatchable for more than a quarter of an hour. If you have not had enough of it after this time, you must be indulging in drug abuse.
Jack Frost 2 is out of the question, I'm actually surprised people are allowed to make these sort of movies.<br /><br />As Sam and his wife take to the Tropicana for a relaxing Christmas, Jack returns to kill off the fun and take on a revenge with inbreeding...<br /><br />Don't take a swip at this film at all, most people say its a laugh with your mates, but frankily its a waste of time. If the people who made this film can get a job by doing what they do, they can at least take the time and effort to write up a better story, especially the cheesy character names.
Jack Frost 2. THE worst "horror film" I have ever seen. Why? 1)The premise is WELL beyond ridiculous 2) The damn thing doesn't even have legs to move on! 3) It escapes AFTER being completely submerged in Anti-Freeze (first film) 4) Get this...It travels all the way across an ocean of SALT WATER to a TROPICAL island to get revenge on the sheriff that did him in the first film. 5) "Killer Snowballs". I have yet to be drunk enough to see "Ginger Dead Man" so as of the writing of this, Jack Frost 2 hold the distinction of being THE stupidest "horror" film ever. Even Surpassing the inaneness of it's predecessor (if you can believe that!).
I remember when I first heard about Jack Frost. I was in Video Ezy at Miranda with my family on a monthly video hiring tradition. It was at this time that I worked up the courage to venture over towards the horror section of the store. Browsing the various titles, I finally came across Jack Frost. The cover was enough to convince me that the film was beyond my viewing pleasures. Years later the film disappeared, only to be replaced with the inevitable yet unnecessary sequel. I once again ventured to the horror section and picked up the case only to come to one conclusion: the film would be scary… but not intentionally.<br /><br />Jack Frost 2: Revenge Of The Killer Mutant Snowman (quite a title) follows off where it's predecessor left it. Sheriff Sam is seeking counseling after his ordeals and Jack is now in the form of anti-freeze. To escape his past, Sam and his wife head to an island hotel where he is in the company of a wide variety of slasher film stereotypes including busty female models, thick headed sports jocks and Caribbean staff. However, Jack is released from his liquid grave and is back to his icy methods. He heads over to the island and proceeds to kill anyone that would prove to have an awesome death. Only Sam can stop him.<br /><br />Let me just say that this is a straight-to-video film so it's bound to be bad. But this is terrible even in the eyes of other over the top films. The camera work is poor, using a camera that would make a soap opera look majestic. Half the actors look like they've come out of a porn shoot and the other half look like they've come out of a retirement home, but in actual fact they've actually come out of an asylum. There is an extensive use of special effects used in the film which tends to alternate between bland puppetry and CGI that can be bettered by an infant, and the death scenes are mostly off screen showing us little of what has happened to the hapless, yet deserving, victims. But the film is most memorable for it's killer one liners such as "There's something that needs a little Christmas stuffing" and "I know pronounce you officially f***ing dead!" Ultimately the whole purpose behind a film like this is to make a popcorn flick for those Friday nights of boredom and even it fails at that. To make a sequel to a film that was a poor slasher with a concept that a child would find unbelievable must've taken some nerves of steel… or a total frontal lobotomy. To director Michael Cooney… thanks for wasting my time. To everyone else… avoid like arsenic.
Hello it is I Derrick Cannon and I welcome you to the first ever Cannonite review show. My movie for this week was debatable, what route what movie, what excellent four star epic would I choose, guess what I decided to pull a one eighty and go the other route, I've decided to review a movie so atrocious that it totally killed what could have been a very unique concept. The movie I will review today is Jack Frost Two revenge of the mutant killer snowman. The Stars in this movie include Christopher Allport as Sam Tiller, Eileen Seeley as Anne Tiller, Marsha Clark as Marla David Allen Brooks as Agent Manners, Sean Patrick Murphy as Captain Fun, Ray Cooney as the Colonel and Scott MacDonald as the killer snowman himself Jack Frost.<br /><br />It's hard to believe that this movie was in the same series that gave us the incredibly funny Jack Frost(loved the carrot scene),but it's even harder to believe that this is the exact same cast. The movie was ruined for me as soon as they arrived on the island and Captain Fun was introduced. What was the point of his character and how did he fit into a horror movie?The only possible reason I could see was that they wanted to give us a character that was total killer snowman fodder. Sam Tiler seemed more paranoid then he did in the original, his babbling about anti freeze was one of the most pathetic display I had seen in a movie. His wife however was one of the few bright spots. She played her role as the main woman to a hilt. She was a voice of reason in film of pure idiocy. The scene where she figures out how to kill the snowmen was one of the most anticipated parts of the movie. Ray MacDonald once again did a great job as Jack Frost despite what he was given. If it wasn't for such weak characters he could have been immortalized like Chucky,Freddy and Jason. Laugh if you must but when it comes down to it Jack Frost had spunk, he had humor, and most importantly he had an undoubtable vicious streak.<br /><br />This movie could have been so much more, it could have been a continuation of a great franchise, instead any plans to make a Jack Frost three have been canceled.<br /><br />This movie gets a two out of ten for me, and it's lucky that it even gets a one.
Jack Frost returns with an army of Styrofoam balls that can only be foiled by being shot with super-soakers loaded with margaritas. How's that for a plot? The film hinges on such a ridiculous premise that it barely raises an eyebrow when characters are killed with BBQ tongs and are impaled by carrots. You might even say the whole movie is skating on thin ice (ba-boom-tish).<br /><br />Admittedly, there are some fantastic one-liners including a remark about the Murderous Coconut Shark.<br /><br />Fair enough times are hard, but that does not excuse the willingness of the actors to take part in such utter tripe.<br /><br />For those fans hoping to see Jack Frost, be prepared to accept him as merely a phallic carrot creeping up the beach with corny voice-over commentary.
Talk about rubbish! I can't think of one good thing in this movie. The screenplay was poor, the acting was terrible and the effects, well there were no effects. I can't believe the writer of this movie did Identity, everything in this movie made me sick to start to finish.<br /><br />The front cover of the video box shows a showman with shark like teeth and scary eyes. I looks like a scary villain, but like the old saying "never judge a book by it's cover", the whole villain looked like a cardboard cut out. One part in the film a girl gets killed by a salad tongs, terrible. The setting was bad enough, like they could of set the whole thing in Lapland but no, a tropical island instead.<br /><br />I took this movie as a spoof, which I think they wanted it to be but the only thing that made me laugh in a bad way was the tacky effects. You can argue that I haven't watched the first one, but seeing this I would be safe if I wouldn't attempted it.<br /><br />The biggest joke in this movie is the effects, the snowballs looked like they were home made, and that carrot was a complete embarrassment. If I would of guess the budget of this movie would of probably be between 8 to 9 pounds fifty. The producer in a last minute panic must of grabbed the actors for the street gave them the script told them they have 6 minutes to practise these lines and shoot on a island.<br /><br />Lastly the acting in the film was painful, it was like the actors forgot their ordinary lines and made them up the way through.<br /><br />In conclusion I give this film: 0 stars out of 5
I had noticed this movie had been on Cinemax a lot lately, so this morning, I decided to watch it. I had just finished the Infiltrator, which is a great movie, and I thought this looked good as well. From the description the cable had, atleast. This film was awful. It's slow, the pacing is horrible, it feels as tho it lasts 4 hours. There's no real plot to speak of...agh! How can anyone say anything good about this movie. Rickman is good...but he always is...the other two characters work well, but there's no real story to support any of it. After 2 hours, and you sitting there wondering what on earth is going on, where on earth is the plot- it ends with a surprise that frankly just made me sick. Don't bother with this one.
This is a classic B type movie that you'd rather not waste your time and see. It started well and i thought it will grow up as a good thriller, but i was mistaking. All movie long you get the feeling that soon something interesting will take place and it will suddenly turn into a tensed thriller, but that doesn't happen. It runs slowly and peacefully til the end, with nothing interesting in it. Just the ending was unexpected and original, but that's it. Vote: 2.5 out of 10. Oh, one more thing. Why is this movie rated R anyway???
It is easy for a movie that tries to be suspenseful to wind up being merely uninteresting. It happens quite often. Not only is Dark Harbor uninteresting, but it is very poorly done. Scene after scene is tacked on to an otherwise overdone premise. A troubled couple picks up a troubled stranger only to find more trouble.<br /><br />Some movies build tension by building the story. Dark Harbor keeps adding on to its story but never building upon it. I was hoping that like other movies, the suspense would finally explode. It never does. Also, the characters have no continuity from scene to scene. They may act one way in one scene, but then act a completely different way in another scene. At first, you think that they are merely out of character, but by the end you realize that they are not really characters at all. They are just props for the final twist. The final ten minutes try to be shocking. Instead, it's rather lame and uninteresting. The only thing that was shocking to me was that the movie finally ended. At less than ninety minutes the movie still feels way too long.<br /><br />This isn't one of those low-budget gems. It's more like a counterfeit watch that breaks as soon as you take it home.
This is really bad, the characters were bland, the story was boring, and there is no sex scene. Furthermore, it lacks drama, the conflict is minimal causing it to be extremely slow paced. Nothing happens in this film, you would expect a sex scene, but they just have a kiss. The plot revolves around three characters, a man, his wife, and a stranger that they pick up from the high way. The couple invite the stranger to stay with them, because he is homeless. At this point you would expect the stranger to have sex with the wife right? No they just kiss and thats it. Also, this film contains no action, no comedy, no drama, and not even suspense. Makes you think that maybe the studio did not even read this script!!!!
The movie had an interesting surprise. Somewhat psychologically gripping. And the makers could have ended it tastefully without making it just another of a rash of movies put out by Hollywood promoting homosexuality and/or other sexual deviances. This could have ended with a "pay-off", but there were other motives behind the pen. What torques me off is that the mud slung in your face AFTER you've seen the whole movie. Like the disappointing "The Talented Mr. Ripley". Yeah sure, I'm just another puritan. This gay content tarnished the whole film. I wouldn't positively judge a movie for artistic or entertainment value if its sole purpose was to promote an ulterior political motivation, more so for this.
WARNING!! This review may contain spoilers. The back of the box is misleading. It says all this crap about kids telling ghost stories, which they do, but then it implies that they will all be killed by some killer in the woods. This doesn't happen. The stories they tell are a little interesting, specifically the one with the dog and all that licking, but most are rather boring, monsters in the woods, some mute girl, and the main one, the whole movie.
Okay, so the movie went straight to video. If I had paid to see this, I would've been disappointed. But, at 2 am in the morning, alone at night, it's a pretty good fright! (hey, that rhymes!)<br /><br />
Overall I'd call this a disappointing performance. It attempts the old "Horror Anthology" approach, but fails miserably. The acting was bad, and so were the stories. Any skin shown in the movie was obviously random, just to attract the R-rating for sex. Typical, I guess, but bad nonetheless. Take your $5 and rent a REAL movie instead!
This is by far the worst and most stupid show I have ever seen on TV. It is almost physically painful to watch an adult (well in his twenties) doing nothing but torture and mock his parents, who always seem to have no clue what so ever about the stunts they are forced to endure by their dimwitted son and his equally stupid friends. Of course I know his parents are in on it, but I really hate how they always act like they are caught completely by surprise. It seems fake through and through. And I really hate the intro of the show, in which a voice over asks "Bam Margera, what WILL he think of next?!?!" (I think that's how it is, anyway), and Bam himself answers: "Whatever the f^*k I want!" - WOW! Bam is really a hell raiser - living at home with mum and dad! -of course the word "f^*k" is replaced with a tasteful beep, but we get the message. Bam is the real deal rebel - at least in his own eyes. Of course Bam and his posse of numb sculls aim at an audience of teenage boys, and of course it's a MTV show, but please, raise the bar a little. It's painfully predictable and stupid, and therefore nothing but boring.
Anyone remember the first CKY, CKY2K etc..? Back when it was about making crazy cool stuff, rather than watching Bam Margera act like a douchebag, spoiled 5 year old, super/rock-star wannabe.<br /><br />The show used to be awesome, however, Bam's fame and wealth has led him to believe, that we now enjoy him acting childish and idiotic, more than actual cool stuff, that used to be in ex. CKY2K.<br /><br />The acts are so repetitive, there's like nothing new, except annoying stupidity and rehearsed comments... The only things we see is Bam Margera, so busy showing us how much he doesn't care, how much money he got or whatsoever.<br /><br />I really got nothing much left to say except, give us back CKY2K, cause Bam suck..<br /><br />I enjoy watching Steve-o, Knoxville etc. a thousand times more.
Bam Margera of the Jackass fame is back with his own reality show, and not only is it not as funny as Jackass, but it's also amazingly stupider! This has to be one of the dumbest shows ever conceived. Sure there are worse reality shows but none are as mean spirited or as dumb.<br /><br />Bam Margera has made it big, and his parents decided to piggy bank off of his fame. Bam and his parents, his uncle, his crew of idiotic friends all live together, and while Bam and his buddies are off breaking things and getting into mischief, generally his parents are at home being stupid. When Bam's parents aren't at home being lazy, they're being tortured by Bam, especially his father. To add to the humor, we are treated to his fat uncle Don Vitto who is constantly out of it, and never paying attention.<br /><br />This show really is like a toned down version of Jackass...toned down in that there aren't stunts, instead Bam and his buddies just go break stuff, and do lame stunts, and meanwhile loud music plays to make it all the more awesome. This is not funny in the least. I can't imagine a dumber show than this because there is not an ounce of intelligence found here.<br /><br />If you are a big fan of Bam Margera, and want to see one of the many follow up/cash-in sequels to the Jackass series.<br /><br />My rating: * out of ****. 30 mins. TV14
VIVA LA BAM This "Jackass" spin off focuses on the (obviously scripted) adventures of Bam Margera and his pals (Johnny Knoxville, Brandon Dicamillo, etc). This show, while it has its fair share of gross-out comedy and crazy stunts, focuses mainly on Bam's torturing of his parents.<br /><br />I'm sorry to say this, Bam, but... you're in no way as cool as you think you are. This ego tripped show is not only painfully unfunny (and yes, I liked Jackass), but also narcissistic beyond belief. The overly stylized intro ends with Bam coolly explaining that he's going to do "whatever the f***" he wants to. How about you do something that is actually funny? I liked "Jackass" for what it was worth. The camera-work was horrible - any idiot could have made a better show with a camcorder in their parents' garage - but at least the show moved at a steady pace and never felt boring between the crazy, dangerous or simply disgusting stunts the pals performed.<br /><br />Not so with "Viva la Bam". We follow our hero around as he plays pranks on his friends and tortures his relatives, but never does it feel like anything else than really lame and scripted comedy. The stunts and pranks are mildly entertaining, but presented in such a tedious and dull fashion that they can barely make you smile.<br /><br />"Viva la Bam" is a poor spin-off of that does little good but feed Margera's already too big ego. I don't recommend this lame and unimaginative show to anyone.
I have not watched every jackass episode. It was mildly entertaining if nothing else was going. But after watching Jackass #2 i was fond of Bam and Dunn. They had a nice attitude in the movie jackass so i figured i'd tune in on viva la Bam. Boy was i mistaken. Seriously, you could pair a bunch of 2'graders, provide them with the same budget and i bet they could knock off something more creative on the screen. I mean, C'Mon MTV!! At 23 where most people are tuned in you give us this rubbish.<br /><br />Everything seems so forced. You don't know the characters because there's no attitude at all. You can't appreciate Bam or Dunn, or anyone for that matter. If there would just be a tiny tiny doze of thought. Anything we won't forget as soon as next shot goes on.<br /><br />They finally manage to create a good shot and you like whats going on. You sit there, just waiting for their reaction, and then some jerk closes the scenes with two lame sentences and bang. Was that the close for that shot or what, please?. If i had been there i would freak out and laugh. Do some insane stuff and have my adrenaline pumping but these guys... Just scripted stupid reactions.<br /><br />Yes they get a few chuckles of the audience by cheap gross jokes, or gigantic jokes which in my opinion are such a waste of cash. <br /><br />Many many normal humans which was not taken under the Jackass wing could in a heartbeat write a far funnier script. Or impress with visual camera work. Even spontaneous wannabe cool guys without a script would pull of a better job. MTV could in a whim bring more soothing material on the screen. You just need to fire the writer of this stupid show.<br /><br />Some scenes actually require a bit of courage and therefore 2 stars.
Reading the other user comments, the review by A666333 has articulated most of what I was feeling throughout this film- predictable storyline, cliché versions of lesbians/heterosexuals (i.e. straight woman becomes a lesbian while concluding that her husband is abusive and aggressive). <br /><br />Also, the score was severely disappointing. It was bland, soft, sentimental elevator music- another common cliché in movies about lesbians. The movie would have had a few interesting dramatic moments if they had not been destroyed by the music.<br /><br />A few scenes concerning sex and eroticism also struck me as attempts to titillate and raise shock value, including parts of the final performance scene. The conventional "hot and steamy" moments were as boring as the overly sentimental score. For example during the pool scene, the women are kissing, and then the camera pans along the abandoned wine glass, the flowing water, the sound of their heavy breathing over the soft crashing of waves.<br /><br />The only elements I liked were the costuming and arobatics. They are well-choreographed, and the development of attraction between the two characters felt very natural during the training scenes. I genuinely smiled during those, and during the last scene with the police officer. But they were not enough to balance out the negatives or make me enjoy this film.
My Take: Even splendid underwater photography can salvage a familiar script and paper-thin characters. <br /><br />For those who haven't already got enough of the FREE WILLY pictures, FLIPPER might serve up a decent rental. Others are (heavily) suggested to stay away. Although FLIPPER is harmless affair, it hardly showcases anything for the adult audience (unless it's your first time to see a dolphin).<br /><br />A remake of a 1960's TV show and film, FLIPPER may have sound like a good idea back then: A dolphin charms the life of boy and a girl, they help ave the environment by first getting rid of toxic wastes thrown in on the sparkling waters of the Florida Keys, and at the same time, battle a shark and a salty sea baddie who happens to be the one responsible for the toxic dumping and also happens to hate dolphins. But even for the 90's, especially if an eerily similar film like FREE WILLY was a recent hit, FLIPPER is just another harmless yet occasionally empty summer splash movie for the kids. Although the animals (this, in case, is the main dolphin, a clumsy pelican and a realistic-looking hammerhead shark, typecast as the villain) and the pristine underwater cinematography steal the show, there's nothing much in FLIPPER to steal from anyway.<br /><br />The story is completely predictable, something than nowadays even a 6-year old may find evident. The (Human) cast, led by a pre-LORD OF THE RINGS Elijah Wood and an out-of-work Paul Hogan, have rarely anything to do but stand around and look pretty. Their acting skills, whatever they may be to this movie, is rarely revealed on screen, unless you consider the "acting" talents of cheerful Bottlenose Dolphin. I guess not trying to recommend FLIPPER as mindless family entertainment won't be fair, but anyone over the age of 10 (No, make that 8), are better off renting or buying something else. Besides, the film is about 95 minutes tops. That might just give you enough time to something elsewhere without worrying about your kids. That alone might be worth the rental.<br /><br />Rating: ** out of 5.
I saw this when it came out in theaters back in 1996. I remember I was already familiar with Elijah Wood's work (that's right, he made stuff before "Lord of the Rings"!) and the merchandising tie-ins to the film were pretty abundant ("Flipper" water guns were even circulating).<br /><br />Adults were reminded of the old movies and TV show and for nostalgia's sake took their kids to see it, who were excited because it was a movie about a dolphin and a stupid boy.<br /><br />Unfortunately it wasn't what anyone expected and flopped severely. You know a movie's in trouble when a boy swims away from a Hammerhead shark in the middle of the ocean, and a pack of dolphins scare the shark away, and the kid -- instead of getting out of the water into a boat -- floats in the water for five minutes thanking his dolphin for saving him ... apparently he hasn't taken into mind that the shark is still out there, perhaps even below him.<br /><br />Another problem is Paul Hogan. He looks old, crusty and tired of recycling his Croc Dundee shtick. By now, no one even remembered "Crocodile Dundee" much less Hogan, and I half expected him to suddenly start pretending he didn't know what a hair dryer was for the sake of fish-out-of-water/social-satire laughs.<br /><br />All in all this is a really poor "family" movie that is amateurish and almost hard to watch at times. I hated it when I saw it in theaters back in '96 and I hate it more now.
It's probably a cultural thing---somehow, the natives of this country have been conditioned to find this stuff funny. I have experienced this phenomenon first-hand, during an open-air cinema event, where this film was shown before the feature. Most of the indigenous audience laughed, and no, this wasn't in a sanitarium or a clinic for retarded children, this was in a well-to-do area, and the audience consisted mostly of educated adults.<br /><br />So it must be possible, somehow, to find this amusing, but honest to goodness, I have no idea what it takes---maybe it's in the air or the water, prolonged exposure to which causes this condition. Something must cause it, obviously, the only thing I can say is that I am quite sure what doesn't cause it: the movie itself.<br /><br />There are no jokes in it. It's brain dead, stupid, nonsensical, unfunny, lame. It's, in short, a waste of time. Any Tom and Jerry is funnier, heck even funerals are funnier.<br /><br />Just in case you have been fortunate enough not ever to have seen any of the Stooges' performances: It's three guys behaving, running, even talking like retarded infants, causing all kinds of unfunny mayhem, with no plot, no real purpose, and no real conclusion. It's like ugly Teletubbies without the cute costumes.<br /><br />Sitting in a crowd watching this garbage in this country can be quite exasperating, because you feel like you are at a party with a bunch of potheads and you are the only one who hasn't smoked anything.<br /><br />So unless you are prepared to intoxicate yourself to make this bearable, or come equipped with whatever it is that makes people think watching three ugly old men behave like morons is funny, my advice on this is: Stay way. Far away.
Sadly a great opportunity to utilise a superb cast to bring King Lear up to date. However, instead, we got a contrived family drama that appeared to dip into Lear when the writer had run out of ideas, the cast worked hard but it just didn't gel. Recently Stephen Harrigan showed how to adapt and update the classics with his screenplay for the magnificent TV movie "King of Texas".
This movie has more on its plate than a sumo wrestler and the result for the viewer is indigestion. There are some good performances, but the subplots are extraneous and largely unresolved.<br /><br />In addition, I found all the characters unlikeable, and if you can't identify with at least one character, there isn't much to get excited about. All in all, this is a classic example of trying to do too much with too little.
The story is derived from "King Lear"; the setting is a farm in Iowa. Here's a test for this kind of thing: if you find yourself asking, "Why did so-and-so do such-and-such," and the answer is, "because that's what happened in 'King Lear'," you know that the film has failed. Well, that IS what happens here. The father figure in this story isn't living his own life, he's mimicking a fictional one. But there's more wrong with the film than this.<br /><br />Jocelyn Moorhouse is ambitious - far more ambitious than I think she realises. She's trying to take the King Lear story and completely change the setting. This is a task in itself. The likeliest result is that the transplanted story will die, and nobody will quite be able to work out why (although there are enough successful transplants, like "West Side Story", to make it worth trying). But she's ALSO attempting a revisionist retelling. In the version of "King Lear" she wishes to create, Reagan and Goneril command our sympathy, and Cordelia is a villain. This is a task in itself, too.<br /><br />Succeeding at either task is hard; succeeding at both at once is impossible. In fact, succeeding at one while so much as attempting the other, is impossible. If we are to look on the very same events from a different moral perspective then the events must BE the very same events - which means there can be no tampering with setting. If the story is to be transplanted, alive, into a different setting, its moral heart must keep beating the whole while - which means there can be no tampering with ethical perspective. Moorhouse was bound to fail in not just one but in both of her endeavours. And so she did. ...Naturally, it's possible to attempt both tasks, fail at both tasks, yet by some fluke hit upon a work of art that's good for independent reasons. I mention this because I haven't read Jane Smiley's novel, which, for all I know, IS good for independent reasons. But the film isn't. If there was nothing else wrong with it, there would still be no getting around the fact that it's just so thoroughly, excruciatingly DULL. The very fields of corn are even more boring than they would be in real life - which needn't be the case, since off the top of my head I can think of four films ("The Wizard of Oz", "North by Northwest", "The Straight Story", "Kikujiro") in which the cornfields aren't boring at all.
**** Possible Spoiler **** <br /><br />If you were making a serious movie involving a powerful, but aging father with three apparently ungrateful daughters, featuring actors of the highest caliber, with great cinematography and a beautiful Midwestern setting, now where would you go with it? Why, you'd fashion a modern tragedy after "King Lear" of course.<br /><br />That's what I was expecting. That certainly wasn't what I got. What I got was 105 minutes of feminist tripe--one long harangue about man's inhumanity to woman. Why, there wasn't a decent male in the entire story.<br /><br />You see early on where this film might be headed, but you can't believe anyone would waste all these fine actors and craftsmen on that trite scenario--you just want them to get on with the King Lear theme. But it never happens; and there's the real tragedy if you ask me.<br /><br />Aside from the panorama of glorious rural heartland, about the only thing worth watching in this film was that wonderful chameleon, British actor Colin Firth, practicing his Midwestern accent. Now there was a treat.<br /><br />3/10
Dear Mr. Seitzman, Or Whomever I May Hold Responsible For Mr. Seitzman Not Meeting His Rightful Fate Of Being Eaten Alive by Rabid Wolverines;<br /><br />I do not know you, and so cannot comment on your character; for all I know, you give to charities and help little old ladies cross the street. Still, I must insist, for the common good, that you never write another screenplay as long as you live. Put down the pen, step away from the laptop! <br /><br />If you refuse to heed the pleading of wounded brains, I have watched a movie or two in my life, and I believe you will find my counsel helpful: <br /><br />1. Do not include love scenes in which overwrought teenage boys name the body parts of their girlfriends after US states. If you must pen such a scene, please do not name the breasts "New York" and "New Jersey"; it causes unnecessary speculation as to which cities occupy the nipples. Also, it is almost incomprehensibly stupid and annoying.<br /><br />2. Do not rely solely on John Hughes movies in order to reinforce class distinctions.<br /><br />3. Do not bludgeon the audience over the head with exhausted clichés. Yes, yes, Kelley and Sam stand out in the rain, and it cleanses them of their cares. We get it. Yes, the roses continue to bloom in Kelley's dead mother's greenhouse, even though every other plant has begun to rot. It Is A Symbol Of Their Love. It is also very painful when applied via blunt-force trauma to the backs of our heads. For the love of God, Mr. Seitzman, we get it. We all get it, all across the land. Amish people, the hard of hearing, unborn babies - we all get it.<br /><br />4. Do not require the actors to perform mime sequences. Ever. No, never.<br /><br />5. Did I mention that you should ease up on the trite symbolism? Because the audience can draw the parallel between the rebuilding of the restaurant and the building of the relationship between Kelley and Sam without any help. Truly. We get it.<br /><br />6. Go through your script, and cull out the following lines, and any lines resembling them: "I don't know what we are anymore." "I don't want to lose you." "He's just like the rest of them!" (And its corollary, "Daddy, you don't even know him!") <br /><br />7. Yes, yes, she's in heaven, running around in a field. We get it.<br /><br />8. And in other news, we get it.<br /><br />I have seen dozens of terrible movies in my life; I never expected to suffer for your art, and I would have just left the theater, but an elephant with the words "DOOMED LOVE" painted on its side fell from the sky and pinned me to my seat.<br /><br />In closing, your writing bites, you owe me ten dollars, and I hate you.
..that separate good, memorable movies from movies like this. Its not entertaining, touching, funny, interesting and at times feels a little sub-human. The principals act like they are other-worldly, in the worse way, when they are supposed to be relating to each other and the audience. <br /><br />Starts out conventionally enough. Rich kid gets new car for graduation but the dean says he can't have the car until after the ceremony. Goes joy-riding nonetheless, and stops in the diner on the wrong side of the tracks for a quick argument with the local yokels. Wise-asses the waitress/girlfriend of the head yokel. Shockingly, they play chicken until they accidentally burn down the diner they left three minutes earlier (aren't all diners five feet from the gas station?).<br /><br />They told they have to Pay The Price in court, so the only reason to get this 'fish out of water' to stay in town is to come up with the scenario that both boys have to assist in the rebuilding of the diner. Worse than that, the rich kid in staying with the family of the un-rich kid..in the room above the attic. That 'room above the attic' has rescued many a person in need of a bed..<br /><br />Rich kid inexplicably is treated well by the girlfriend, who never mentions to him that he nearly killed her. This does not bode well, of course, with her boyfriend, and is never fully explained. You don't know why Sam (Leelee Sobieski) falls for Kelley (Chris Klein), or why Jasper (Josh Hartnett) allows it. <br /><br />Chris Klein is tolerable, Leelee completely intolerable, and Josh does not register much of an impression. The character with the most life is the judge that sentences Kelley and Jasper to help re-build the diner. She gets off at least one funny remark, which is more than anyone else does. Everyone is so morose and humorless that you will feel a little sill if you even think of smiling while the movie is on. <br /><br />The ending is one way to end the piece, not the most original, but at least it was over. I don't enjoy trashing a movie that some little girl somewhere in the world might really love, but since I am not one, I have to. The nicest thing I can say about this movie is that its not mean-spirited, and although it fails to compel, its innocence and home-spun, corny dialogue comes from a nice place. 4/10.
I watched this movie to see the direction one of the most promising young talents in movies was going. Unfortunately, with this movie, Leelee Sobieski has chosen a path not only well worn, but completely free of any meaningful destination. This movie used every hackneyed trick in the book to leave the screen, tap you on the shoulder and politely ask if it can have your heartstrings so that it may give them a good tug. Romance can be done well, and when it is, the viewer is left feeling the love portrayed on screen. During the emotional climax of this movie, I laughed. Heartily. To save you the time and money, I would suggest, instead of seeing this movie, you have a meal of Karo syrup and Velveeta. It's about the same.
To be fair, it has been several years since I watched the bile committed to celluloid known as "Here on Earth," so forgive me if my memory of the film is a little sketchy. I'll stick with the main points which plague the soul of the unfortunate viewer.<br /><br />Scene One: Chris Klein, after having been thrown out of prep school (because he looks like a seventeen year old--yes, very believable), gives what I assume is his valedictorian speech...to a field. Let me repeat that for you--a field. I think we're supposed to be moved by the combination of shame and eloquence he is failing to express. Klein has the delivery and facial expressions of a cardboard cutout. He is a decent looking piece of cardboard, but little more.<br /><br />Scene Two: After some joyriding and teenage pyromaniac hijinks, Chris Klein and Josh Hartnett do some damage to the local diner, of which he is forced to rebuild. Of course. Because who better to help with construction than some random moron who crashed into it/ burned it in the first place. Better yet, let's have said random moron move in on Josh Hartnett's girl, Miss Sobeski, the girl he fancies for...her equally wooden line delivery? <br /><br />Scene Three: Chris Klein's character is making out with Leelee Sobeski's character and decides to name her various body parts after the states on the eastern seaboard. My soul weeps. Really, how can this scenario turn out well? Surely you must alienate several million people if you imply their home is equivalent to Miss Sobeski's more...erm...feminine areas. Secondly, naming her breasts after New York and New Jersey prompts some confusion as to whether Miss Sobeski is actually freakishly disproportionate.<br /><br />Scene Four: Leelee is running. She falls down. This gives her...knee cancer. "We always knew it could come back," her father(?) says. Right. Knee cancer. From tripping. Perhaps I missed something. As I said, it's been a few years. Surely I missed something. Didn't I? For the love of God, please tell me the girl did not contract KNEE cancer from falling down. <br /><br />That scream you just heard was my soul dying.
A fine young cast is wasted in this empty, mawkish, manipulative film that tries to be a combination of both a cute comedy and an insightful drama. The plot moves so slowly that the 90 minutes seems endless as characters do nothing but mope and emote. The dialogue is filled with stilted cliches and fortune-cookie attempts at pseudo-philosophy.<br /><br />Apparently aiming at being a moving and profound look at life and love, the film ends up being merely pretentious. The only real weight is the burden that the talented cast is forced to carry as best they can. But, never fear -- they are held up by the puppet strings of the contrived plot.
*** This comment may contain spoilers *** Warning: this does contain spoilers I have seen some pretty lame films in my day. And that only stands to reason seeing as I see about 80 films a year. I would have to say that out of those 80 films I see at the theater, maybe 5 are really really good, 15 or 20 are not that great, 40 or 50 are okay and then maybe 5 or 10 are absolutely terrible. Here On Earth falls into a category unto itself. This is one of the most predictable, vehement, despicable films I have ever seen. It is loaded with unlikable characters, maudlin situations about after-school-special kinds of topics and enough fluff in here to make THE YOUNG AND THE RESTLESS look like American BEAUTY. And I am not being unfair. This is an awful film.<br /><br />This is the story of a rich guy, a poor girl, a poor guy and a small town that makes fresh cookies every day for all of it's town folk. Are you getting warm and fuzzy yet? Let me continue. One day, the rich snot comes waltzing into town with his new graduation present that his dad has bought for him and he insults the pretty girl at the diner, almost gets in a fight with her long time boyfriend and then races him and destroys the little diner that she works at. So he is sentenced to a summer in the small town where he and the boyfriend have to fix the diner together. What this does is gives us plenty of opportunity to see Chris Klein with no shirt on so we can understand why the girl at the diner would fall for him. He has abs!!! Oh and he is rich!!! And.... he is the biggest jerk with no respect for anyone. He is James Dean, he is a rebel that doesn't give a damn!! He is rude to everyone in town, he doesn't want to associate with anyone that is trying to be nice to him and he acts like a spoiled rich brat. But Leelee Sobieski still falls for him. There is no reason given as to why she does, she just does. Oh, pardon me, that's right I forgot to mention that he likes the same poet that she does. Well if that doesn't get you wet then I don't know what will.<br /><br />Here On Earth also has some of the most predictable moments I've ever been privy to in film. There was one point when I left the theater to get some popcorn and read the graffiti on the wall of the bathroom and I told my fiancée exactly what was going to happen in the next ten minutes. Upon my return she just laughed and said I was right, even when I said that there was going to be a dancing scene. And furthermore, the disease that she suddenly contracts is cancer. This is the most beautiful cancer patient I have ever seen. Have you ever watched a cancer patient die slowly? They lose weight, they lose their hair, their gums begin to rot. It is not a pretty picture. Sobieski glows after she contracts cancer, like she is pregnant. What an insult to people that have watched love ones die slowly from this disease. And how do you contract knee cancer from falling down in the field?<br /><br />Now I realize I have seen way too many movies and this causes my cynicism to run rampant at times, but this is ridiculous. There wasn't one thing to like about this film or the Chris Klein character. He is a jerk, he is obnoxious and he never once tries to make peace with anyone around him. Here On Earth is not only a bad film, it is an irresponsible one. This received a 4.2 on the IMDb voting chart, and that is way too high. This is an embarrassment to screen writing and whoever gave the green light to this being made should not only lose their job, but he or she should have to promise never to step foot near a script again.<br /><br />0 out of 10, and that is being generous. This film should be shown at film schools as how not to write and direct a film.<br /><br />If you are bored and really need something to do and your choices are cleaning a farm full of cow manure or watching this film, choose cleaning the cow manure. It'll smell better and you'll feel like you've done something good with your two hours.
Why did they have to waste money on this crap?!<br /><br />WARNING! CONTAINS SPOILERS!!!<br /><br />The plot: down-to-earth-good-kind-girl meets a rich-snob-ignorant guy. Her boyfriend gets jealous and with the guy, they burn down a resturant? (Over an UGLY girl?) Guy has to stay in town to build a new resturant, perfect for the love story to begin. But, hark!!! The girl is dying!!! Isn't that a surprise boys and girls? But she teaches him love life, and enjoy it. He's sad she is dying. She dies. He is sad. But has now learned to love life.<br /><br />What's the moral of the story? When, dying, teach another person to love life.<br /><br />LIKE EVERY OTHER LOVE MOVIE EVER MADE!!!!<br /><br />AAAAAH! This movie was the crapiest thing I have ever seen!!!! Did the director want to try to make this plot original?! AAAH! And the friggin' girl would not die!!! It took her a half hour?! I felt no pity for the charactors, and the love story died the first hour of the movie.<br /><br />1/10<br /><br />DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE, UNLESS YOU WANT TO BE BORED OR GET A HEAD ACHE!!!!
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** HERE ON EARTH / (2000) 1/2* (out of four)<br /><br />Mark Piznarski's "Here on Earth" holds the record for a movie containing the most recycled material in 96 minutes. Literally every contrivance, cliché, and familiar plot element are somewhere in here; there is simply nothing unique, original, or fresh about it. God, what an agonizing motion picture to sit through; I wish I saw the film during its theatrical release last year so it could have earned on my year's worst list. This is the kind of movie where the story makes itself instantly obvious, and goes downhill from the opening credits, and worst of all, takes itself seriously. "Here on Earth" is clearly one of the most horrible, painful movies to come down the pike in some time.<br /><br />"Here on Earth" is a teen heartthrob film, so it must contain some of Hollywood's most prized young men who are attractive and inexperienced enough to accept a role in a movie as bad as this. Chris Klein and Josh Hartnett fit that vary description, and take the lead roles by storm. Klein plays Kelley, an arrogant and insolent student with a wealthy father (cliché number one). He is to graduate as the valedictorian and attend Ivy league college following in the footsteps of his father (Stuart Wilson). This sets up the "I don't want your life," cliché in which the father tries to control his son's life, while the son resists rebelliously. Throw in Kelley's deceased mother who committed suicide a while back. When his father brings home another woman, he brutally questions his intentions (the "no one can replace mom" cliché counts as number two).<br /><br />Josh Hartnett plays Jasper, a character on the opposite side of society to Kelley. His family owns a local diner. Enter his long-time love interest, Samantha Cavanaugh (Leelee Sobieski) a waitress at the diner who covers for her sister (who has no purpose whatsoever rather than controlling the following scene) when Jasper and Kelley act like childish morons by racing their cars and (oh no) crashing into the diner, causing it to erupt into flames. (Conflicts between the rich and poor will count as cliché number three.)<br /><br />The bungled car chase sets both Kelley and Jasper up for a contrived and plausible conflict. They get in trouble with the law, but because this movie feels the need to exist, the local judge orders them an alternative to serving time: they must work together to help rebuild the diner.<br /><br />The two boys work hard during the summer growing strong and getting a nice tan. Samantha's eye catches Kelley, and romantic sparks fly. Jasper is jealous, but wants what is best for his true love (cliché number four). Her parents (Annette O'Toole and Bruce Greenwood) disapprove of her little romantic triangle (cliché number five), but she continues two timing Jasper without a second thought. Her father also happens to be the local sheriff, how surprising (lets count that melodramatic nugget cliché number six).<br /><br />The contrived romantic feelings between Kelley and Samantha count as cliché number seven. But Samantha's relationship with Jasper is never defined, so how can there any romantic tension? If the film is going to induce involvement in Samantha's choice between the two young men, then we need to see both characters from both sides. The movie depicts Jasper as a distraction to her "rightful love," Kelley. It's clear Jasper truly loves her, but it is also clear she does not love him back. This absolutely slaughters the romantic tension early in the story.<br /><br />Leelee Sobieski does no harm here; however, her charm and kind performance do not fit a two-timing character like Samantha. John Hartnett is also right for the role of Jasper, but the movie gives him nothing to do except bicker with Kelley. Chris Klein gets to make a hunk name for himself here; he spends much of the movie shirtless, sweaty and overworked. Unfortunately he does not show off his acting ability, maybe because he has very little. The supporting cast is much more talented. Bruce Greenwood supplies the best performance in the film, but does not have near enough screen time to save anything but a few brief moments. I also enjoyed the performance by Stuart Wilson, who perfectly fits the role of a rich, controlling father of high social status.<br /><br />Then we lean about Samantha's knee problem exactly one hour and ten minutes into the movie (another spoiler ahead). What is this, she has a serious incurable illness (yet another contrivance into the picture, approximately number eight). Her terminal disease brings the two competing young men together as friends, well, at least I think that is what the movie intended to show, that the loss of one loved by two nemeses can bring both together (cliché number nine).<br /><br />Klein rehearses his valedictorian speech to demonstrate his character is more than a shallow stereotype, but we have seen this so many times before I would prefer a rich character rather than a deeply sentimental who hides actual feelings (cliché number, um, was it ten)?. The conflicts between Kelley and Jasper are desperate and inane; a "your mom" comment triggers a fist fight while they rebuild the establishment. There is a retread from "Armageddon," as Samantha and Kelley sprawl out in an open field, horny as hell, as he slowly moves his fingers around her body, naming areas after US cities (why not call that number eleven). The movie uses alcohol as a means to increase the romantic tension: an intoxicated Kelley makes a fool of himself after getting in a fight with Samantha's date, Jasper, but the following day he recites desires only to dance (cliché number, oh no, I am losing count).
This was a sad waste of two such promising actors. Chris Klein's character was unlikable from the start and never made an improvement. What did she see in him?? He was rarely kind, never thankful for what he does have...and a coward. Pass this one by on the shelves. You'll be glad you did.
Rich vs. poor. Big city vs. small town. White collar vs. blue collar. These things are not original themes in movies. So when one chooses to involve these themes, the situational story-line had better be very original, or very good. This one was neither. I never believed in the romance of the two young lovers in this movie. Neither convincing nor compelling, it just fell flat. Don't bother, even with a video rental.
This excruciatingly boring and unfunny movie made me think that Chaplin was the real Hitler, as only someone as evil as him could torture people with this tripe. I saw this movie remastered, which only made the suffering inflicted by this atrocity more severe. This movie is nothing but a pathetic, repetitive movie, which instead of inducing two hours of laughter, it induced two hours of suicidal urges. After the first 10 minutes of this, I began wishing that gas would start seeping from the speakers of the theatre.<br /><br />If I could give it a zero out of ten I would happily do so. Avoid at all costs!
Wow, this movie was horrible. As a Bills fan I was really looking forward to it, but this was bad. They should have left it on the shelf it was on for 4 years. I can't believe a guy like Jon Voight would sign on for something like this.
I don't normally write reviews, but this "film" was special. I couldn't turn it off. I don't believe I've ever seen a worse movie, but there I sat, watching. It was like a horrible car wreck with blood flowing all over the highway. It was disgusting, but I couldn't turn away. Where do I start? The movie seems to think it's a sports thriller, but it's so utterly ridiculous, it can only be a comedy, but it's not funny, not even in a dumb/silly way. It's like watching your cousins try to act out a skit on family get-togethers. It's painful to watch, but at least it's only for a minute or two. Second String went on for over an hour. <br /><br />Whoever was involved with making this movie should not work again. The writing, directing, acting, and everything was just terrible. The problem is I can't describe how bad it was; you just had to see it. And I'm sure this will NEVER be shown again, so unless you saw it, you're out of luck. I mean it was almost worth seeing just for the fact that it gave me some appreciation for every other "bad" film I've seen over my lifetime. And for every film I see in the future that I can't stand, I will think to myself, well, at least it wasn't bad as the Second String.
Why do I hate this? Let me list the ways:<br /><br />I have nothing against Mary Pickford but a 32 year old woman playing a 12 year old is just stupid.<br /><br />There's a fight scene in which kids are throwing bricks at each other and it's considered funny---and it goes on for 15 minutes <br /><br />Strange how none of the kids are even remotely hurt<br /><br />The title cards contain plenty of racial and ethnic slurs<br /><br />For a "family" film the fights were WAY too violent (loved it when Pickford was punching it out with a little boy!) and the humor was just stupid <br /><br />Seriously, 40 minutes in I gave up and turned it off. The slurs, racism and little kids throwing bricks at each other got to me. Also there was no plot that I could see. The only thing worth seeing in this film was William Haines who was a top leading man in the silent era.<br /><br />Just painful. Avoid.
Elderbush Gilch was a big disappointment for me. I'd heared how great it was, how important it was. It just didn't strike me. It had a dim-witted story line, plus some moronic and sadistic Native American characters that are thurroughly offensive by today's standards. While most of D.W. Griffith's films have depth and intelegence, this one feels more like a formula-baised programme picture.<br /><br />I loved seeing Lillian Gish and Mae Marsh in pre-Birth of a Nation roles, plus some of the staging of the battle scenes were pretty good. Acording to future Griffith cameraman Karl Brown, audiences were standing on their seats and cheering once the cavalry comes riding in at the end. I felt nothing. And beleave me, I lve watching Griffith's early work at Biograph. This film just isn't what it used to be.<br /><br />The best thing about this film it that, for all of it's flaws, it has many of Griffith's touches to it. He handles his principal actors pretty well, plus the scene where the indians are encircling the cabin it reminiscent to the climax of Birth of a Nation, a far superior film that would send shock waves across America a little over a year later.
When voting I was going to give a 2 but when seeing that 1 meant awful it hit the nail on the head.The portrayal of native americans as blood thirsty savages is deeply disturbing to me.This is the third film I've seen of D.w. griffiths where races of men are stereotyped in ugly ways.The man isn't able to tell his side of the story so I'm going to try and keep away from attacking Mr. griffith personally.In my opinion the three films probably influenced the thinking of millions of people and their children's children.Films like this probably made for many of the resentments that are still with us..Some may say the camera work was great,the action a first for it's time.The positives are far outweighed by the negatives,it's like someone taking $10 from you and giving a dime back to make up for it.
While the writing was terrible, the acting was atrocious, the only thing that saved this "turd" was the breast count, but that wasn't enough to make me watch this again. All said and done I'm actually dumber from watching this movie. This was a new low for Troma. Lloyd Kaufman starting the movie wearing a garbage bag and making fart noises should have made me realize what I was getting into. This was by far one of the worst ever put out by the Troma team. The best place to show this movie would be to invalids, sense they can't get up to change the channel. To conclude this is not a swift recommendation to watch this movie just for the breasts.
I understand that this was Llyod Kaufman's attempt to save a movie that was the pits. The whole movie is voiced over since the audio reel was junk. The voice overs were SO bad and terrible quality. As much as I love Troma, they tend to be a little heavy on the voice over work. The acting was terrible. One thing I did enjoy from this movie was the quick cameo of Trey Parker doing the aristocrats joke with a goofy wig on. There are a lot of big director dudes in this movie like James Gunn and Eli Roth (friends of Lloyd Kaufman). Again I think this was Llyods attempt of saving a crappy movie and trying not to lose 1000s of dollars. I won't go on and on but this movie was a mess. Check out other Troma titles.
"Tales from the Crapper" is gory, disgusting, tasteless, offensive, lowbrow and scatological. But that's OK, I was prepared for all that from my previous Troma experiences. What I WASN'T prepared for is that it's also witless, unfunny and boring. Very little of the genuine anarchic spirit of films like "Class of Nuke'em High" has remained intact; in its place, we get ENDLESS fart jokes (to the point where you start wondering if Lloyd Kaufman is going senile, thinking that adults find loud farting so darn hilarious!) and a cynical, shameless exploitation of the viewer, who is essentially investing time and money to see a "film" that even Kaufman himself seems to know should never have been released in the first place. Oh yes, there is plenty of female nudity on display, but let's face it: the average porn film probably offers a better storyline, higher production values, funnier humor, and above all more RESPECT for its intended viewer than this atrocity. <br /><br />P.S: Kelly Powers AKA Suzi Lorraine (the blonde lesbian student in the "How to make your own movie" segment) is one of the most beautiful women I have ever seen.
Troma founder, Lloyd Kaufman is The Crapkeeper in this anthology film made up of two films that were such celluloid feces that Llyod tried to salvage them by combining the two into one anthology film and throwing in copious amounts of nudity whenever possible. Does it work? nope, it's still crap that I'd have to scrape off my boots if I stepped in it.Will anyone like this mess? Sure, Young teen aged mongoloids with the combined IQs of a Vienna sausage have to laugh at something, I guess. For those who have brains that are even semi-functioning steer clear though and watch something less insulting to your intelligence, even "Dude, Where's my car" would do.<br /><br />My Grade: F
With Matthias Hues on the cover and only $3.00, i had to buy it. I enjoyed some moments, like Hawks annoyance with the pleasure droids, but i only really watched to see Matthias Hues' scenes. I particularly enjoyed the showdown at the end. It was a cross between Clint Eastwood's "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" and "For a Few Dollars More" (a 3 man quick-draw showdown, with a musical pocket watch used as the countdown timer). Apart from that, there's really nothing more I can add. The actors gave good performances, (all except the "Assassin Droid" whose performance was nothing outside of comical) but the movie really lacked depth and purpose; simply not enough to fill up 1hour and a half of standard movie time, so we're stuck with the main characters aimlessly wondering around from place to place for an hour or so, until the ball gets rolling. For example, the main character returns to the same strip club about 4 times, taking up two-fifths of the movie.<br /><br />The scenery really lacked depth and creativity, probably due to the films budget. I don't think we ever did get to see this "perfect city" of New Angeles that was always talked about, in fact, when the main characters finally reached New Angeles, its set in a factory or warehouse full of pipes and walkways; hardly the kind of "kingdom" the owner/creator of an entire city would dwell in. The "super-high security" of New Angeles was also always talked about, but only a total of 15, maybe 20, security guards were counted, even when the alarm went off; not even close to Matthias' approximation of "at least a hundred men out there".<br /><br />If you are a fan of any of the actors/actresses in this film, then you may want to watch it, simply to "add it to the list". However, if you value 1 and a half hour of your time, or $3.00 of your money, you may want to give this one a miss.
My first thoughts on this film were of using science fiction as a bad way to show naked women, althought not a brilliant story line it had quite a good ending
Cyber zone, as this DVD was sold in Oz, is about the worst B-Grade junk I have seen. Apart from a restrained deadpan act from Singer, indicating he knew how bad the movie was going to be, the other actors sway about genuine attempts at line delivery (Swanson and Quarry) or absurd imitations of classic movies scenes. Mathius Hues makes the most ham-fisted portrayal of dying since Jim Carrey's Mask. All of this with no real thread to suggest an attempt at a spoof by genre, period or any common vein is plain annoying. Don't even try to join the dots with the plot. It is Blade Runner, thinly disguised with no content, actors or scenery due to a very limited budget. "You gets what you pay for" is never more apparent. There is repeatedly annoying re-use of limited sets, with no attention to set dressing and a spew of special effects that would have hit the cutting room floor for Dr Who in 1976. The Helicopter explosion is worth a rewind to demonstrate my point. Of course there are masochists that will lap up this tripe but if you are watching this movie for a bet, make sure you get more than your pay rate. At $2 this DVD will make a cheap and interesting beer coaster.
I was given this film by my uncle who had got it free with a DVD magazine. Its easy to see why he was so keen to get rid of it. Now I understand that this is a B movie and that it doesn't have the same size budget as bigger films but surely they could have spent their money in a better way than making this garbage. There are some fairly good performances, namely Jack, Beth and Hawks, but others are ridiculously bad (assasin droid for example). This film also contains the worst fight scene I have ever seen. The amount of nudity in the film did make it seem more like a porn film than a Sci-Fi movie at times.<br /><br />In conclusion - Awful film
In the early 1990's "Step-by-Step" came as a tedious combination of the ultra-cheesy "Full House" and the long-defunct loopy classic hit "The Brady Bunch". The differences between "Step-by-Step" and the two aforementioned shows was of course better writing, excellent comedic timing from almost all of it's actors, and a great deal funnier situations that weren't quite as sugar-coated as it's extremely popular predecessors. Admittedly though, even with the big boosts in the show's basic dynamics and all it still wasn't exactly spectacular, nor was it really even that memorable in the long line of corny family programming! It was just a much better time-passer, you might say, in comparison to the cutesy migraine-inducing "Full House", which coincidentally, ran neck-and-neck with "Step-by-Step" during that time period in terms of overall popularity. The show, now in syndication obviously, is certainly suitable family-fare but be sure to not expect much beyond that when watching it.
Back in the cold and creepy early 90's,a show called "Family Matters" aired and became an instant classic.The trick was to buy a manual in standard family situations and their solutions and insert some attempts to sarcastic remarks in it and you had yourself a lovely little stealing-is-wrong,parents-are-right-show. So that worked out fine, so Bickley-Warren had a new ambitious plan: making the exact same show again.<br /><br />Here's the difference though: "Family Matters" had Urkel. "Step By Step" has the guy from those "Kickboxer"-sequels nobody saw. He says things like "dudette" and "the Dane-meister", and somehow the audience is still not supposed to hate him. I mean seriously, "dudette"? How can you even get that across your lips?<br /><br />The rest of the people were mostly white versions of the whole Winslow-bunch, combined with some more one-or-zero-dimensional characters, like the dumb guy (JT. Well, Eddie), the smart girl (Laura), and a pretty girl who spends her days looking pretty(in theory).The character development was just awful in this show. Grover and The Cookie Monster have more depth than the Lambert family. Everybody just milked their stereotypes for what they were worth. They weren't worth much.<br /><br />Powered by a massive laugh-and-cheer tape stolen from something funny,this show aired for a whopping 7 years,which was humiliating for the competition.Although,you'll have to note that this is the time where family sitcoms were pretty much all big hits,everybody just ignored their crappyness because well,it was the 90s,one more crappy show didn't hurt.
Yes, my summary just about tells it all.<br /><br />If you haven't watched this, try it. But not for pleasure. For studies of one of the worst examples of trying to be politically correct, family-oriented and "cool" at the same time.<br /><br />The men always think they know everything, are stupid, and finally loose to the magnificent women. Etc.. This is especially offensive, when all the characters are just as terrible and stereotypic. I mean, ok, "Cody" was funny one time or another, but unlike other "stupid characters(tm)" like Woody in Cheers or Joey in Friends, he doesn't get good lines. His stupidity is cast in a "duude" way, which gets quite annoying after a while.<br /><br />The family morale is awful. Everything for the family. Mother and father are supreme dictators, who inbetween severe punishing and old-fashioned parenting, constantly say they "love" their kids, and then of course, in the end, the kids love them back *barf*.<br /><br />And: There's always a "tender spot" like that squeezed into the "action", where american(c)(tm) morale lessons are forced upon the viewers, about sex (in a mature, you can't have sex before you're 18 (!!), kind of way), or drugs. Even church-habits are thoroughly described here. The whole concept is directly sickening, all made in a half-hearted way to make money. If there are people like Karen and Frank out there, please lock them up and desintegrate the key.<br /><br />So, with themes ranging as far as revolting religious propaganda, I think it's fair to conclude as I did in my subject...
I cannot see how anyone can say that this was a real good entertaining movie. With a few well known actors I found it hard to believe that this was only made in 2005. It's crap! The acting is tantamount to amateur dramatics, poor amateur dramatics. Unless you want to laugh loudly at an amazing 100 minutes of pure corn, don't bother to download it or rent it, worst that I have seen in years. It's from the bygone days of acting, where cowboys are shooting 8 bullets from the six-shooters. The more well known the actor, the worse they were, Drury was just sad. I was extremely disappointed with Lee Majors, has he actually stooped to this sort of garbage? It was bad enough when he played the six million dollar man.
I'm not sure what the point of making this film was. It looked as if it was made by some historical society to be shown in your local 'Pistol Pete' museum. At first it appears that it could be the beginning of a Mad TV or SNL sketch. But then the joke is on you when there is no punchline and you realize that someone was taking this seriously. The story wasn't bad but the inclusion of the SASS members seemed to be a ploy (that worked) to get me to see the film. I swear, the trailer listed every character in the film down to "dead cowboy #5". The reason Westerns are so fun is the atmosphere and the characters it brings. I just had the feeling I was watching Civil War rean-actors dressed up as cowboys. Not even worth the digital video it was recorded on.
I love a good Western movie, but this was more like watching a play on stage or an act at the local street carnival show. I could only stand 38 minutes of it in hopes that it would improve, but it only got worse and I had to end it. Each actor(s) stated the lines as if reading directly from the script or cue cards. There was too much predictability to the lines and actions not as if a natural occurrence or conversation. The wig on Rachel Kimsey was obvious. The actresses playing Native American sisters, could have played non-native parts and should have. Wardrobe for the Native Americans could have been better and a little more authentic looking. If I decide to watch it with any friends in the future, I will do so, not with the expectations of watching a good Western, but with the expectations of watching an amateur comedy film production.
There's no use trying to describe in detail the convoluted, overly melodramatic plot involving Civil War bitterness, a crooked town boss, and other complications. It's all bad.<br /><br />Stella Stevens, Andrew Prine, Bo Svenson, William Smith, Tim Thomerson and Lee Majors are all good actors that may not be big stars (or big stars anymore) but always made fun movies.<br /><br />Here, they're all wasted on a picture that looks like it was shot in a wild west tourist trap, with costumes borrowed from the local high school theater department. In fact, most of the acting appears to be on the high school level too, which might not be so bad if it weren't so pretentious.<br /><br />The name of Ed Wood is invoked way too lightly these days. I think in this case the comparison is warranted. However, I suspect that old Ed would have made a more entertaining western than this.
I am not sure who is having more fun, the people that wrote the reviews or the director of the movie. I could not go any longer reading this comments or watching this movie, I had to say something.<br /><br />I can see a low budget western film that is done with passion and interest on the detail, but using a garage with art deco lettering, pastel colors, actors that seem to be falling sleep because the script is so boring and the boom getting on the way of the camera every two scenes, that is definitely not my definition of "one of the best western movies produced in the new Millennium".<br /><br />Please if any of you guys had friends in the movie just say it!
The seasoned actors in this do know how to act and have proved that before but the Director, who also wrote and produced this travesty, is incompetent on so many levels. O.K. it's low budget but I know films students with lower budgets and lesser known actors who can do much, much better. For example, since there were people involved who should know better some of the gun rigs were totally out of place and never existed in those days. The stunt work was clumsy - the story stale and hokey. If some one gives you a copy of this use it for a coaster. By the way, I love westerns and have known many stunt men and even went to high school with one of the actors so I was looking for it to be good.
I simply cannot believe the folks that made and performed in this movie really took it seriously. The skits on SNL look more real. Everything was laughably fake. The goofy gunfights, the ridiculous fist fights, the dialogue, the sappy background music, and even Bo's blind eye. Had it been billed as a comedy, it still would have made more sense but still would be bad. I can see this as "entertainment" only if you get a room full of stoned college kids watching it like it were Rocky Horror Picture Show. Imagine some of the stuff you saw on Blazing Saddles, like Mongo knocking the horse down or the old lady gettinf stomach-punched. Now imagine the producer wants you to take those scenes seriously and you get the gists of this disaster.
Not sure if this is just a lousy movie or if it was intended to be a mockery of a "B" Western. Story line was so-so but the filming, editing and acting were just plain bad. Plus the music in the background was irritating to no end, too loud and just non-stop. Many times you could not make out the dialog over the background music. I'm in SASS (Single Action Shooting Society) and do some Old West shooting with them, and a lot of the actors are members of this group, so that's why I bought it. If you have no interest in this group of people, or that sport, you certainly most likely wouldn't even have this little bit of interest to help out with the film. The acting of even the veteran actors (particularly Stella Stevens) left a lot to be desired also.
This has got to be the worst case of over acting since the silent era. Not just one or two actors but virtually the entire cast. Lee Majors and Bo Svenson were fine but the rest of them look like their first time acting.<br /><br />So the budget was not tremendous. Much of the costumes and set were believable but there were many things that jump out at the viewer to let us know that they couldn't double check or get all of the props to match the period.<br /><br />I can't think of one aspect of the film that I liked or didn't shake my head. Your time will be better spent burning lint collected from your bellybutton.
Hell to Pay was a disappointment. It did not have anywhere near the substance of a B Western movie, and should in no way be compared to a fantastic movie like Silverado. The dialog was dull, the plot was torpid, the soundtrack was overbearingly unnecessary, and the acting was awful. Even the professionals could've taken some lessons from the Sunset Carson School of Acting. The only positive thing about this movie is that it showcased some of the top Cowboy shooters in the nation, but you can see them in a better light in any SASS video. The packaging of this feature makes it very enticing, and the preview is decent, but it's all over after that.
You know you've got a bad film when you hear that the soundtrack is performed completely on a single cheap programmable synthesizer, without any melody or sense of rhythm.<br /><br />It's hard to see how anyone could take this film seriously, even while giving it a bad review. This film is way beneath 'bad'.<br /><br />The continuity of this film is outrageously butchered. In one fight scene, we the hero (wearing bluejeans and undershirt) turn a corner with two revolvers in his hand; he doubles back, only now he has two semi-automatics in his hands; he turns another corner and now he has an automatic rifle in his hands; he chases down a hallway and comes out (suddenly dressed in standard army fatigue jacket)with a shotgun; after which he exits the building with yet another automatic rifle. Or here's one for the books - a bus slams into a car at high speed; the car goes flying, thrown by a gigantic explosion - cut to the bus which is completely unscathed from the same explosion? The narrative continuity suffers from an equally numbing sense of unreality; the bad guys really want to kill the hero - obviously - but every time they knock him out or otherwise get him in a vulnerable position, they suddenly decide they want him "to live to see this!" Huh? One of the funnier moments of the film is when the hero is released from isolation because his lawyer has come to see him; then the bad guy decides he's not going to let the two meet after all; and this despite the fact that the the villain, the hero and his lawyer all know what's going on anyway, so the hero writes a note to the lawyer and next we see the note being passed to the lawyer by another prisoner, even though we never see the hero give it to him. (This lawyer, BTW, has complete access to the Offices of the ATF in California, including its confidential computer files.) Huh? Well, but it's a mindless action movie - so how're the action scenes? Not bad, surprisingly; unfortunately they happen to be stoled from about a dozen Hong Kong films made five or ten years previously. The opening scene, a shoot-out in a junker garage, actually has shots the composition of which are stolen directly from "Hard Boiled" - so clearly so that it's a wonder John Woo didn't sue for plagiarism.<br /><br />Other Hong Kong films stolen from include "Prison on Fire", "Island on Fire", "Burning Paradise", "Police Story" I, II, and III (aka "Supercop"). I thought I recognized a couple Sammo Hung clips here as well. In other words, the actions scenes are exciting only to the extent that they are successful duplications of action scenes from other films.<br /><br />There's nothing one can do with this film unless one shoots smack and just needs a lot of visual stimuli that needn't be make any sense.<br /><br />Very funny film, for all the wrong reasons.
I do not know which one was first released earlier in 1970 . Cannon for Cordoba is an "Europen Western" It was made in Spain. This means this is fairly inferior to Sergio Leone's so-called #Western Spaghetti and to the Real American Masterpieces of John Ford, Sam Peckinpah, Howard Hugues,John Sturges and Anthony Mann, in my order of merit. This order is not to be interpreted as all John Ford Westerns are better than all by Sam Peckipahn's. I think IMDb's 100 Sort them out all pretty well.<br /><br />The worse about this firm is the Casting. George Peppard is fit for a sergeant's role, Raff Valone for a "Maffia Capo" and Giovanna Ralli to a "puttana" in "Piazza Vennezia" in the sixty's in Rome.
After slightly over 50 years of avid film watching, I've come up with some simple rules for making good movies.<br /><br />1.	Introduce your main characters early, certainly within the first half hour 2.	Keep your characters to a minimum. If adapting a novel, combine characteristics and actions of minor characters<br /><br /> into one person 3.	Make sure your characters actions have credibility; if necessary, create additional scenes to establish motivation 4.	Keep the action clear. Violence does not have to be explicit, but it must not be confusing, either 5.	Get the best music money can buy. Frequently it matters more than acting, photography, etc. 6.	Usually if a movie isn't very good within the first 10 minutes, it's not going to get any better<br /><br />`Cannon for Cordoba' is a textbook example of what happens when these simple rules are not followed. Elmer Bernstein's score is rinkydink, one of the worst I've ever heard in a modestly budgeted movie. This is altogether surprising considering Bernstein's credentials (`Man With the Golden Arm,' `The Magnificent Seven,' `The Great Escape,' `Sons of Katie Elder'). Paul Wendkos' direction is lackluster and confusing. Performances vary from very good (Don Gordon, Peter Duel) to terrible (Raf Vallone, Giovanna Ralli, Gabriele Tinti) with the usually reliable George Peppard falling somewhere in the middle. This should not be surprising, considering the mediocre direction and amateurish script, which breaks rules 1, 2 and 3.<br /><br />Don't waste your time. I give `Cannon for Cordoba' a `3'.
His significant charisma and commanding presence are about all that keep this afloat, but Fred Williamson has done far better urban action films including many of his later, vid-released fare. The big studios' Williamson films of the early-to-mid 70's rarely had the punch of their mid-level counterparts, and this is a prime example. Clumsy action, little violence, and the PG rating is nowhere near questionable. Worth a look for Hammer completists in any case.
BLACK EYE (2 outta 5 stars) Unimaginatively-filmed '70s action movie looks like it was made for TV... only the occasional cuss word and a subplot about lesbianism tip you off that the movie was actually made to be shown in theatres. Fred Williamson plays a tough guy ex-cop who becomes a tough guy private eye. He stumbles upon a couple of murders and attempted murders linked to a mysterious cane. There are some fistfights, a Bullit-inspired car chase, a fairly original elevator scene and even time for Williamson to confront the rich, lesbian lover of his girlfriend (Teresa Graves). There is also a scene with Williamson bullying a poor old man by tearing up some priceless old autographed photos in his memorabilia shop. Yeah, way to go, tough guy... maybe you can find a cripple to beat up later? Obviously meant to cash in on the success of "Shaft" (this and about six thousand other movies), this movie doesn't have enough edge or enough originality to make much of an impression.
Ahem.. I think I'll be the only one who's saying this but yes, I was a lil bored during the film. Not to say that this is a bad movie, in fact it's a very good attempt at portraying the innermost emotions - dilemma, sorrow, love.., esp it's the director's debut (read from somewhere, is it true?). I felt that something's not quite right, maybe it's just me, I'm not drawn to the characters enough to immerse me in their world. This is a simple story, about ordinary people, ordinary lives. Through simple and short dialogs, the director tries to relate a simple guy's life, and how copes with the news of his illness by laughing it away every time. Oh ya his laughter was kinda cute at first but gradually it gets to me, such a deep hearty roar for a gentle man! I must say, I didn't feel the impact that most readers felt, in fact I was more drawn to the trivial scenarios like spitting of watermelon seeds with his sis that clearly shows that they're comfortable with each other, the granny who came back for another shot - this is kinda melancholic, the thoughtful gesture of writing down the procedures for his dad - hmm but this is predictable.. Don't misunderstood that I'm an action-lover, independent films are my cup of tea! Perhaps I just have a really high expectation after watching many deep films that have stronger imagery. Some Asian films worth the watch: <br /><br />Tony Takitani (depicts loneliness) Wayward Cloud (only 1 dialog) My Sassy Girl (I like it!) 4.30 (loneliness as well) 15 (gangsters lives in local setting) Before sunrise and Before sunset (I just have to mention these even though they are not Asian films. Fans will understand!)
If I were to rate this movie based solely on the acting/script/production, etc., I would give it one star. All these elements are awful. I can partially forgive this, in light of the film's $250 budget. The movie does contain many entertaining scenes, mostly those of the unintentionally funny variety. Some of these include: a 14-year-old kid stealing and driving a bus, teenage hooligans (one of whom is sporting a Joy Division t-shirt) getting scared away from harassing the film's protagonists by a woman brandishing an obviously fake firearm, and an encounter with a plastic bull's skull in the Arizona desert.<br /><br />I would have given it 5 stars just for the entertainment value were it not for the presence of that horribly annoying, morally pontificating old granny. I had to dock one star just because of her. Who the *bleep* makes a wedding cake with black frosting, anyhow?
I cannot get over how awful this movie was. My eyes want to jump out of my head and my ears are gushing blood from the horrible awful one song soundtrack. There are four kids and dog and they run away from a hospital then get away with stealing two cars and a bus. No one gives them any punishment or anything to correct them. The acting is just so awful it sounds like an instruction video for social studies class. I cannot think of one thing that I like about this movie. Nothing. Even the kid that loses his dog made me want to vomit. He gets his dog back without the lady even seeing the dog run out the door. Maybe the dog was trying to escape out of this movie. Then there is some horse manure in the whole mix. It was torture watching this movie. Then at the end the oldest boy says something like staying together isn't a crime and they all hug him and love him. Stealing gas is a crime. Stealing two cars and a bus is a crime and he should have went to juvenile hall or something. Avoid this movie at all costs and especially if you want to keep your family together.
Italians movie-makers love to rip off American movies. All of our movies, and as often as possible. <br /><br />I'm not stating that as a slur against Italy as a whole, but I would like to further observe that the Italian film industry does itself great harm by allowing travesties like this to go overseas to be seen by the world at large. That's all I'm saying.<br /><br />And no more grave injury do the Italian people subject themselves to than by not sticking a harsh penalty upon those who made the world watch "Shark rosso nell'oceano" - which is, admittedly, a ripoff of the far-superior "Jaws" (as if you didn't know).<br /><br />Let's dive into the plot (Get it? Haw-haw...): this huge monstrous swimming thing that looks like a cross between an octopus, a shark and Steven Tyler attacks many innocent Americans (ie: Italians) off the coast of Florida (ie: Italy) and the intrepid, beer-swilling Peter (Sopkiw) sails out with his anorexic, beer-swilling girlfriend and other beer-swilling people whose main purposes are to be eaten by the creature, killed by mysterious forces who want the creature left alone or just stand around and be otherwise useless (and swill beer)...or be the doctor in this film who defibrilates dying patients repeatedly (20, maybe 30 times in a row) without waiting for his paddles to recharge (must be one heck of a good battery there, doc).<br /><br />Then there's the monster...brother, if you thought the "Jaws" shark was fake, look herein and have your mind changed IMMEDIATELY.<br /><br />This is a movie that was directed as an afterthought (by a Bava!), edited with an onion chopper, acted by ambulatory (beer-swilling) pieces of driftwood and written by (PRESUMABLY beer-swilling) people who should never ever ever ever be let near a typewriter, movie studio or major city in the world ever again. If this is how the people who made this film think real people act in such a situation, they've obviously made one too many of them zombie movies. Or swilled too much beer.<br /><br />Need I say this movie is bad? It is: bad like green cottage cheese; bad like a Hawaiian shirt at a formal wedding; bad like the "Bad Theatre" skits Dan Aykroyd used to host on "Saturday Night Live"; bad like Calista Flockhart Weight Gain Tablets - get it? Good.<br /><br />Mike and the SOL gang slap this beer-drunk beauty upside the head repeatedly and reveal this "horror" film as what it is: horrible. Though, with a certain European charm: it's charming, when watched by a European - preferably a beer-swilling one.<br /><br />No stars for the waterlogged, dead fish known as "Shark rosso nell'oceano"; six stars for the MST3K version. ...and now, anyone for a beer?<br /><br />
I'm not sure what the director and editor were thinking when they were editing this poor excuse for a film, but whatever they thought of didn't help this movie, it only hurt it, and it hurt this film badly. The acting, for once, isn't the problem, it's the horrible editing, scenes will end for no apparent reason, while in the middle of an action sequence or people will be cut off in mid sentence. I'm not sure what the story was, but it didn't really matter, since what I did see was fairly uninteresting. Just bad all around, a huge "Jaws" rip-off and not a good one at that. The MST version was funny though. 7 for that, none for the film itself.
Sometimes it's hard to judge how bad a film made in Italy or Spain really is, because they all seem to use the same stable of 9-10 ESL trained voice actors to supply the English voices for release in the US. And things are always lost in translation anyway -dialog, character shtick and plot elements written for the expectations of European audiences may not go too well with our American ideas of what is funny, hip, or dramatic. I imagine that the team responsible for making the translation for the sound track of this movie to English had about 3 days to do it from start to finish, and they probably each earned the equivalent of an installment payment on their used Fiat to do it. In other words, pure hackwork, tossed off in one or two takes and never reviewed or redone by someone with a real ear for the American language.<br /><br />Watching "Devil Fish", I can imagine that if you were an Italian watching this presented in your native language, you might find it a mildly amusing little piece of fluff. You'd laugh at the 'in jokes' and the amusing drunk, you'd gasp at the monster and the villainy of the bad guys, and you'd ogle at the attractive pair of Peter and not-quite-Daryll Hannah as they couple on the beach for no apparent reason in the middle of a search for clues about a man-eating monster who has already killed one of their friends.<br /><br />But since the jarring voice acting and tin-eared dialog keep yanking we Americans out of the film experience, we can't help but notice that the editors had serious Attention Deficit Disorder, that no one on screen can really act so much as project an Attitude, that the stated reason for the creation of the monster makes absolutely no sense, that the action sequences have all the impact of a cereal bowl full of cooked oatmeal and that the director, screenwriters and producers really hate women.<br /><br />Don't even THINK about buying or renting this movie - watch only on cable TV on Saturday afternoon with one of several beers in your fist, or with the help and protection of Mike and the Bots on MST3K.
boring, horrible piece of Italian euro-trash about a scientist who seems to spend most of his time guzzling beer(this is what makes him American, right? Our scientists spend most of their academic life soused out of their minds, sure. That's where all the really great theories come from), who's studying something(dolphin calls, fish migration patterns, who knows). He hears a weird sound through his headphones, proving that his radio is picking up a station in Jamaica. At the same time, a Jack Skellington girl with one of the worst, most bleached manes of bad 80's hair that it has ever been my pleasure to witness is trying to calm down the dolphins in the Seaquarium she works at, as they're apparently upset about the amount of fish she's been doling out lately. The beginning of the film was a really badly colored storyline about two annoying, very Italian people who's boat is attacked by something unseen under the water. The whiny woman is never seen again(best part of the story), and the guys' corpse is found with no legs. The dim, alcoholic scientist(who has an inexplicable, English- American- Italian accent) and the stick girl with the hay hair begin to theorize that there's some kind of giant monster lurking under the seas off the coast of Italy...err..Florida.<br /><br />They enlist the help of an electrician to set up an underwater mike, so that the monster can sing karaoke. This guy has a beautiful girlfriend, who's only drawback is that she pronounces Peter "Pey-tah", but for some reason he's sexually drawn to the anatomical skeleton with the frizzly hair, a situation that leaves one blinking.<br /><br />The dubbing is awful, the editor a spaz, and the storyline generally a yawn. There's a bit about how this weird scientific corporation genetically engineered this monster giant shark-squid-barracuda thing for some reason that makes no sense, and a really unpleasant greasy haired guy goes around killing women, again for no apparent reason. A stupid sheriff and his bulked up deputy are along for the ride, along with a female scientist(who we know is smart because she wears huge glasses). At one time the woman scientist takes on the huge, terrible monster(yeah, right, Ed Wood's giant octopus was more believable) with only a small handaxe, and she wins the contest. Hooray for skinny little women, who obviously make the best monster hunters!<br /><br />The solution to the problem of the giant thing is to blow up half of the Everglades, leaving a dead zone for several miles in every direction. To Hell with ecology and the environment, right? We have to kill this giant monster! At the end, the electrician and his broomstick love ride off into the sunset on her Vespa, which is o.k. since she's gotten over her colleagues' death and he's not very upset that his girlfriend got whacked by the crazy guy with the greasy hair. Hooray for true love! Wait a minute, isn't there something fishy about all this...
WARNING: MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS<br /><br /> The ripples in the wake of the first "Jaws" movie were still prominent in the 1980s as well as beyond. Movie monsters went from being radioactive monstrosities to unknown and voracious beasts lurking in the unexplored corners of human experience (ie: the ocean, deep space, genetics). Although "Jaws" was a milestone in this particular realm of film horror, few films have been able to match the visceral impact of the original. "Shark rosso nell'oceano" (aka Devil Fish or Red Ocean), is a dutiful follower of the original "Jaws" formula. After several hapless boats and seagoers are brutally murdered by some ocean creature, there is an initial drive to discover the beast, then a failure to study it without horrible results, and a final push to destroy it. Although the filmmakers attempted to inject some fresh life into the equation by adding elements of technology and corporate conspiracy, the result is nothing short of disastrous. This movie sinks under its own weight of ghastly editing, brittle acting, and cheap scares.<br /><br /> The most sickly compelling feature of "Devil Fish" is its cookie-cutter editing. From the onset of the film when 3 different scenes are mashed together, the viewer gets a sense that the film lacks any technical credibility. It appears as if the editors cut the scenes around a set musical score instead of cutting the film and then making necessary changes to the music. Furthermore, every cut is an intercut and it would appear as if the editors had never heard of the terms "fade", "wipe", or "dissolve". The impact of scenes can never settle in because they are immediately cut short after a final line and a new scene begins. Silly camera tricks abound such as when two of the principle characters share a private moment on the beach and a sort of time-lapse image of their act is composited over their bodies.<br /><br /> The music is equally bland. The creature theme is a hopeless duplicate of the "Jaws" theme with slight variation. Although I like to keep my reviews devoid of MST3K influence, Mike most aptly described the somber score as "soft core porn music". Failing to produce tension in a film that relies so heavily on it is a death blow to "Devil Fish". The acting is stale, the relationships baffling, and the whole conspiracy is laughable. The question remains that if genetics had advanced to such a level to create a huge chimera of a sea monster to protect oceanic interests, why couldn't a more practical use be administered to better mankind? One of the few positive aspects of this film is the idea of the monster, even though its film presence is less than stellar.<br /><br /> Overall, this movie is bad enough to dip below mediocre. If "Jaws" had never been made, then the film could be described as average because its subject matter would be new and exciting even if it was executed ineffectively. Sadly, as a carbon copy of Spielberg's original thriller it sits most comfortably on a garbage heap of cheese.
Never before has such a large cast of ugly people gathered together to make an equally ugly film.<br /><br />Something huge and horrifying is loose in the waters off the Florida coast, something that leaves half chewed up bodies behind in its wake. Unshaven beer dependent Bob thinks he has caught the Thing's "evil voice" on tape. Bob's assistant, the amazingly unattractive and painfully skinny Stella, decides to enlist the help of slimy ladies man Peter, an electrician whose equipment may be able to help them locate the mysterious creature. But anyone who sticks their nose too far into the mystery winds up dead, killed by a baboon faced hit-man with a bad perm. What is the terrible secret behind the Sea Killer? <br /><br />Ugly scientists have torrid affairs, inept cops and doctors puzzle over the increasing numbers of corpses, Stella and Peter make out on the beach and characters we don't care about are killed off or munched up. The Sea Killer, a weird combination of an octopus, a shark and a pair of large dentures, never really seems as threatening as it should. The conspiracy behind the monster's creation makes no sense whatsoever. None of the characters are particularly likable, and the ones who might be are killed off immediately. This is a poorly shot, badly dubbed, plot less mess. The whole thing is so scuzzy and smelly it made me long for a hot bath. I've had sushi plates scarier than this film. Avoid it, unless it's the MST3K version.
A "40 foot long" giant mutant squid with five tentacles, razor fangs and the ability to reproduce it's own cells terrorizes a small Florida town. Various marine biologists, doctors and cops plot to kill it. Meanwhile, a human monster named Miller offs people who discover the "Devilfish" is a manmade creation used for the greedy benefit of some evil doctors! Miller attacks a female researcher, strangles her, drowns her in the bathtub, tosses in a hairdryer, then rips the panties off her dead body!<br /><br />Lots of false alarms are set when our heroes Peter, Stella, Janet and Bob set out on a high tech (high tech for 1984, anyway) "Seaquarium" boat to catch the creature, who is frequently seen in close up or hilariously obvious speeded-up film to seem more menacing. And only fire can destroy it, which leads to a flamethrower-armed posse vs. aquatic beast finale.<br /><br />This JAWS cash-in is pretty tame (other than a legless corpse and a decapitation) but watchable and benefits from an excellent Antony Barrymore score and a decent (again, for 1984) monster design. Luigi Cozzi and Sergio Martino wrote the original story.<br /><br />Score: 4 out of 10
This stupid, anti-environment wannabe "Jaws" is sad, pathetic, boring, poorly dubbed, and stupid. There is nothing redeeming about it.<br /><br />Plot follows some shark/octopus creature-thingy that appears off the coast of Florida and kills some people (including a boring, stupid couple with a whiny wife and a silent husband who stabs himself with a fork for some reason). His ascent to the surface is always represented by a vague sideshot of something bumpy over and over. It makes no sense, it's horribly boring, and it's conspiracy plot sucks.<br /><br />There are moments of camp that cannot be ignored: the same shot of the boat of the couple of the opening sequence THREE TIMES; the doctor slamming a dying patient's chest twenty times with a difibulator without stopping, even though he's clearly dead; the porno-esque soundtrack; the shot of the couple making love on the beach, with three different thems ("That us is getting ahead of us!") doing this; the ancient computer that sounds like Kermit the Frog; a beer-guzzling scientist screaming "I know!" a la Dr. Smith; the list goes on and on.<br /><br />Oh, and everyone drinks at least thirty bears in the course of the movie (much noticed by Mike and the 'Bots) . . .<br /><br />The MST3K version is their best episode, but it's certainly better than the movie itself. "This is how I like to go fishing, guys . . . with a flashlight and a flamethrower . . ." - Crow<br /><br />One star for "Devil Fish"; seven for the MST3K version<br /><br />
movie I have ever seen. Actually I find it one of the more entertaining episodes of MST 3000 I have seen. Not that it was good, but for anyone who has seen Manos: the Hands of Fate knows this one wasn't two bad. The monster in the movie looked terrible, everyone wore upsetting swim suits, and the plot was laughable. I still don't have a clue as to why they made the monster, they never really gave a good reason. The lead female had to be the scrawniest gal I have ever seen. They would have done better if they cast the gal that was killed at the beginning as the lead. On the plus side the dolphins acting was great!!!
I wish I had something more positive to say about Devil Fish, but I honestly can't seem to come up with much. I can't even come up with many of those "so bad, it's good" kind of moments. Devil Fish is just plain old bad. The plot is completely derivative (Jaws, anyone?), the acting is wooden, the characters are uninteresting, the special effects are beyond bad, and the score is annoying. Add to that the seemingly inept direction of Lamberto Bava and you've got one stinker of a movie. I think, however, that the film's biggest sin is its lack of a budget. It doesn't appear that Bava had much to work with. By 1984, the Italian film industry was in full decline – especially as far as genre films go. The funding available to Bava was most probably very meager. Film's like Devil Fish that rely on special effects just never had a chance to be good. It's not the only Italian film to suffer this fate. There are a number of Italian movies made in the mid-80s whose ideas and concepts far exceeded what anyone could realistically have expected given their budgetary limitations. <br /><br />However, having said all that and noting the film's many weaknesses, I can't bring myself to rate Devil Fish lower than a 3/10. I've even considered rating it higher but can't because I realize how bad a movie it is. Why don't I rate it lower? Well that's hard to explain. Despite the many problems found in the movie, there's something about Devil Fish that I inexplicably enjoy. It could be as simple as my love for low-budget, cheesy, Italian movies. Maybe my taste in movies is horribly skewed, but I enjoy what I enjoy.<br /><br />The Mystery Science Theater 3000 treatment of Devil Fish is actually very enjoyable. I rate Devil Fish a 4/5 on my MST3K rating scale. The guys do a fine job of poking fun at the movie's many flaws. One very astute observation comes very early in the commentary when Tom Servo notes, "Just because you can edit, doesn't mean you should" – highlighting yet another of the many weaknesses to be found in Devil Fish.
This cheapo exploitation flick is some genuinely insipid stuff, courtesy of spaghetti land director Lamberto Bava, who wisely left his name off this junk.<br /><br />The basic crux of this outing concerns the discovery of some brutally mutilated individuals being washed-up on shore in the Caribbean. Authorities initially believe them to be victims of shark attacks, but as the investigation unravels, turns out to be something much more sinister.<br /><br />All of this ultimately amounts to very little however, we have here - poor dubbing complimented by similarly weak script, which often consists of nonsensical jabbering, and is really of little consequence for the most part. Acting can only be described as sub-par, which is par for the course in this instance. Truly lax direction doesn't help things either.<br /><br />Special effect mainly is for numerous close-ups of various gory bodies missing limbs, and so forth. Of course, there is the obligatory creature which periodically emerges at feeding time, which looks something like a big monster octopus thing, where its animation only consists of its pointed teeth ascending and descending in rhythmic articulation. Overall, the end result is none too convincing, sure, but admittedly is almost entertaining in a cheesy kind of fashion.<br /><br />It seems what the film makers were going for was a sort of low-rent hybrid of Jaws and Piranha, but the final product is just a bloody shambles, much like the corpses incessantly shown throughout this picture. I find it difficult to think of any redeeming attributes to warrant viewing this, so moreover, strictly for incurable monster movie addicts.
I really wanted to like this film as I have admiration for Italian rip-off cinema (especially Jaws rip-offs!), but the simple fact of the matter is that Monster Shark isn't very good. All the signs of this being a great piece of trash are there; we've got one of the kings of trashy cult cinema, Lamberto Bava, in the director's chair - one of the best ridiculous cult actors, Michael Sopkiw, taking the lead role, and a central creature stupid enough to give even the best that this sort of film has to offer a run for it's money, yet somehow the film still manages to be rather stale. The fact that the 'monster shark' doesn't feature too often is probably a good thing given the creature design, but there's never enough elsewhere to pull the film through without it. The plot focuses on a resort off the south coast of Florida (or rather, somewhere in Italy) where several local people have turned up in the water with arms and legs missing. It's not long before the local authorities decide that this creature has never been seen before, and it's up to a motley crew of various sea experts to catch it alive! <br /><br />The main problem with this film is that it always feels very pointless, and since there is little in the way of characters or plot development, even the least demanding of viewers are likely to start getting bored before long. This sort of film is hardly famous for being brilliant, although the fun element of films such as 'The Last Shark' and 'Killer Fish' is unfortunately absent for most of the running time. The thing I love about lead actor Michael Sopkiw is that he always seems like he's taking himself seriously no matter what film he's in (although he only ever made four). This is certainly the case here, although Bava never really allows him to completely dive in, and often he feels as much like a spare wheel as the rest of the film. Much of the runtime is spent watching the various characters sup American lager, and it's not very fascinating; although Bava does manage to come good by the end with an entertaining flurry of action as the central monster finally gets to wreak havoc upon its would-be captors. Overall, there really isn't much to recommend this film for. As mentioned, I really like this sort of stuff and even I found myself bored on numerous occasions. For hardcore Italian horror fans only!
A man (Goffredo Unger) is found floating in the sea among the wreckage of his destroyed boat, just off the Florida Coast. A helicopter winches him up only to reveal both of his legs are missing below the knees. Dr. Stella Dickens (Valentine Monnier) and her partner Dr. Bob Hogan (Lawrence Morgant) are marine biologists of some sort and are conducting research in the sea regarding Dolphins. While out at sea Hogan hears a strange high-pitched noise. Intrigued he and Stella hire Peter (Micheal Sopkiw) and his assistant Sandra (Iris Peynado) to create a device to locate and track the source, or something like that anyway as it isn't made particularly clear. Meanwhile a scientist named Florinda (Cinzia De Ponti as Cinthia Stewart) who works at a rival organisation called the 'West Ocean International' is brutally murdered when she threatens to expose someone within the organisation. More people are attacked and Sheriff Gordon (Gianni Garko as John Garko) is on the case. Peter, Stella, Hogan and Sandra all set out to sea. Soon enough they find evidence that something monstrous and very unfriendly may be lurking beneath the surface. Together with rival scientist Professor Donald West (William Berger), Sheriff Gordon and the United States army they set out to destroy the monster, but there are other sinister forces at work as someone doesn't want the genetically engineered creature to be exposed at any cost! Directed by Lamberto Bava as John Old Jr. this is a far cry from the classic Italian horror and splatter films of the 70's and early 80's. The script by Gianfranco Clerici, Herve Piccini and Dardando Sacchetti is drearily slow and will put most people to sleep well before the 90 odd minute run time has elapsed. The monster is barely used, large portions of this film are made up of footage of boats and helicopters. Large chunks of the first half concentrate on the not so mysterious 'who's behind it' part of the story. There isn't really any gore to speak of, a guy with both his legs bitten off and someone with one arm is about it. The special effects on the monster itself are generally poor and it is shown in very quick flashes, disappointing. The cast of virtual nobody's don't help make this any easier to sit through. There really isn't much to recommend this film so I won't. Don't bother, you can do a lot better.
Yikes.<br /><br />I've seen quite a few bad movies in my days, a lot of them in the company of Mike, Tom, Crow and the others from MST3k. So was the case with this one as well and even though I found the movie in itself quite funny, it wouldn't have been nearly as fun without the MST3k commentary.<br /><br />The movie is a prime example of really bad movies coming out of Europe during the eighties. Horrible music, horrible acting, horrible plot (what little there is), horrible dialogue and really, really, REALLY, horrible editing. Cripes.<br /><br />This might be called a turkey if it weren't for the fact that it's not unique in any way whatsoever. It's pretty much the same kind of film that almost every italian hack of a director cranked out.<br /><br />So, try and get the MST3k version. It's a pretty fun episode with Mike and gang in quite good form.
What could possibly go wrong with a movie that includes a bunch of Italians pretending to be Flordians, and some vague-lava-octopus-crustacean-thingy as the hell-induced hellspawn-devil-fish?!?!<br /><br />Everything is what goes wrong I tell you!<br /><br />This is a very good MST3K episode because the heckling in right on the ball, which without fault, is easy to do considering this movie is a piece of junk with a lousy and boring plot.<br /><br />9/10 for MSTied version. 1/10 for un-MSTied version.<br /><br />
The lousiest of all lousy Jaws rip-offs was regretfully made by one of my all-time favorite directors; Lamberto Bava (here under his John Old Jr. pseudonym). You know how it goes in these cheap European imitations, right? They only want their monstrous animal to be be bigger, sicker and more threatening, but this more than often results in the opposite effect. Bava's creature is a humongous sea-devil and it's more than just a shark! We're seemly dealing with a prehistoric monster here, with the jaws and appetite of a Great White, but it also has tentacles like an octopus! It's up to a couple of dolphin-loving oceanologists to discover how this monster was able to survive all these thousands of years and why exactly he only started his killing spree now. The script of "Monster Shark" makes few to no sense and most of the action takes place on the mainland. The shark itself is an unintentionally laughable creation and it was a wise decision of Lamberto Bava to only show it vaguely and in quick flashes. The acting performances are above average and the underwater photography is surprisingly clear and well-handled. The twists in the plot are predictable and you'll probably have the most fun spotting detailed facts about the characters. For example: count all the cans of beer Dr. Hogan drinks throughout the whole movie!
There's really not a whole lot to say about this. It's just really, really bad. The acting is bad, the script is bad, and the editing is probably one of the worst jobs ever. It's so sloppy and choppy that it serves only to confuse the audience. There's no real to plot to speak of, mostly it's a really fake looking monster fish attacking Europeans trying to pass themselves off as Americans. Pass on this one.
A perennial fixture in the IMDb Bottom 100, upon viewing this it's not hard to see exactly why for it proves to fail utterly miserably in just about every bloody department going!<br /><br />Take the editing for a start; to call this choppy would be overly complimentary! Indeed, had the makers of this got drunk one night and sliced and diced the film reels with some scissors and children's glue, then the resulting mess could hardly have been any worse than what we actually have here. Added to this, the inane story drags on mercilessly for what seems like a torturous infinity before we finally reach the decidedly lacklustre climax. <br /><br />Aside from the ever game Michael Sopkiw, poor performances from most of the rest of the cast don't exactly help matters any either and the actual beastie that is causing all the troubles is somewhat less than convincing to put it mildly. Yay verily, all in all this is a complete pile of crap if ever I've seen one.<br /><br />Deary, deary me....and to think that Lamberto Bava directed this to....tut, tut indeed. <br /><br />Note: This was released in the UK under the alternative title of Devouring Waves, although bereft of most of its gore scenes, which ironically are just about the only reason that this may have been worth watching.
This movie is a pure disaster, the story is stupid and the editing is the worst I have seen, it confuses you incredibly. The fish is badly made and some of its underwater shots are repeated a thousand times in the film. A truly, truly bad film.
Muscular 'scientists', unpleasantly thin females in swimsuits, lots of beer drinking.. Yet it's too long to be a beer commercial. Oh, okay, there's some plot about a big shark-like monster that's killing people and stuff. But it's nothing you haven't seen before.
This film has the worst editing I've ever seen. This is yet another film to avoid at all costs unless you view it via MST3K. On their website, they wonder why the Coast Guard cooperated with this film. I mean, they let them use a helicopter!
This is a perfect example of why many people say the 90's sucked when it comes to horror-movies. A boring voodoo-on-campus tale of terror starring the once so promising Corey Feldman (STAND BY ME, THE LOST BOYS, etc). There might be just enough stuff happening to keep you from falling asleep and it doesn't look too cheap, but this still is horror aimed at an audience that were in their very early teens during the 90's. I might have been part of that audience, but still I got as good as nothing out of it when watching it now. And nowadays, teens are used to a lot more and better already, and I can't imagine any of them knowing or caring about who Corey Feldman was. Or, "is", actually, as the dude's still making films. But the only thing still linking him to his days of glory, is the LOST BOYS 2: THE TRIBE sequel that got made recently. And I imagine even that one isn't going to encourage anyone to seek out VOODOO. Just another movie that got lost in 90's horror for obvious reasons.
This is a perfect example of the 90's mainstream horror crap.Nothing is scary here and the film is almost bloodless.Yes,there is some violence,but everything is politically correct like in a TV movie.This is not a completely bad picture,I can safely say that I found it quite enjoyable.However a lack of the originality really hurts "Voodoo".All in all if you are a part of the mainstream audience and pseudo-horror movies like "Scream" are your favourite then you'll love "Voodoo",but if you want something very gruesome avoid this film.
Joe was first released in the US in the summer of 1970. Despite respectable notices, reasonable box office and an Oscar nom, it vanished shortly afterwards and remained forgotten about throughout the 1980's, before being enthusiastically reappraised, somewhat unjustly, in the US in the late 90's. Thanks to this lengthy unavailability, its reputation has gone on to see it placed (inexplicably) alongside the likes of Michael Winner's original Death Wish. Although revenge is a theme, a film about vigilantism this most definitely is not.<br /><br />The plot isn't worth synopsizing. Its a flabby, hammy and bizarrely stagey ramble about an accidental murder and the unlikely relationship that blossoms out of it. That relationship and the largely class-based quirks of its two leads are exaggerated into ridiculous caricature; these two, and their situation, bear absolutely no relation to reality.<br /><br />Almost everything about the film is cantankerous and begrudgingly antiquated, which makes the whole thing completely fascinating. Hippies are depicted as snide and exclusive misanthropes, hard drugs either make you sleep or dance around maniacally with lipstick on your face, and most young women are prepared to have sex with strangers in exchange for marijuana at the drop of a fly. Its very much a film of the 60's rather than the 70's, so why some industry luminaries have begun to include it in retrospective conversations about the beginnings of the Hollywood New Wave is a complete mystery. Martin Scorcese of all people even got involved, though probably only to give a nod to the dank, lavatorial hues of the grim urban cinematography, which almost certainly influenced Taxi Driver four years later. But Joe seems very much like a furious tirade against the likes of Easy Rider and Bonnie And Clyde, rather than a continuation of that same insurgent cinematic ethos.<br /><br />It isn't a film of any real artistic significance - despite Joe's incontinent fury at everything in his world, it remains a story about absolutely nothing - but its value as a cultural museum piece is unprecedented. Shot on and around the streets of New York City during the darkest hours of the Vietnam war, and at a time when America (and, significantly, its cinema) was being revolutionized to the horror of the old guard, the film ends up, in its own completely oblivious and accidental way, saying more about that period of history than numerous infinitely superior movies that directly endeavored to capture it.<br /><br />But as a film? Despite a really surprising and effective shock ending, this is basically a Michael Winner film, but not as well made. How does that tickle your fancy? ** Incidentally, if you are, like me, a fan of spotting arbitrary background lookalikes, then check out Harold Steptoe at 1:22:11 in the hippy art gallery.
I think this movie can be called the movie of misdirected rage.<br /><br />The characters of Joe and Bob were relics of the WWII generation who didn't quite understand their kids opposing the war, taking drugs and listening to rock and roll. But I think their real rage was at the fact that America was beginning her long decline from the heights the war left her at.<br /><br />"Joe" himself is a low-rent Archie Bunker, ranting at all the things that have made him angry, living his life of quiet desperation, until he teams up with Compton, a guy who wants to avenge himself on the hippies who ruined his daughter.<br /><br />Honestly, most of the movie looks silly, the characters are worse than one dimensional, they're laughable. Peter Boyle was capable of better stuff.
Will Spanner (David Byrnes, the fifth actor to play the role in the series) stumbles onto another bizarre case, this time involving vampires rather than the usual witches, warlocks & demons (he's at the hospital to check on his friend's son who got hurt in a hit and run when they wheel a girl who's been attacked by a vamp in). He brings in Detectve Lutz to help out with the case which revolves around a clandestine vampire organization trying to get a business merger to go through to let them legally own all the blood banks in the world or some such nonsense.<br /><br />The plot of this movie pretty much takes a backseat to the nudity & simulated sex scenes. (As is to be expected from this series, i guess). So complaining about the lack of good acting, or compelling plot-line, or even convincing characters, I suspect, would fall on deaf ears. If you're watching this film, you don't care about such 'frivolities' and just want some 'action'. Sadly on that front the film fails as well. All the woman are attractive enough but the way the scenes are filmed are just atrocious. Making this more or less an exercise in futility in every conceivable way.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Both Kimberly Blair & April Breneman show everything; Ashlie Rhey shows full- frontal; Aline Kassman & Mai-Lis Holmes only shows their breasts<br /><br />My Grade: D
Just after watching the first one and it is very dumb. I happened to watch an episode of Bones first and then the Eleventh Hour. The 11th Hour should be embarrassed.<br /><br />It is so weak. Stewart introduces himself as a Government Scientist. No mention of what kind of scientist just general sciency stuff. In a program about cloning they bring a caretaker, who was paid to dispose unsuccessful embryos, to a church and made him kneel before the statue of Jesus on the cross and ask forgiveness... and as well tell them where the bad guy is so as they can move the plot on. Now thats science at work :(<br /><br />There is a dumb, not good dumb, bit where Picard rages at a TV that advertises skin scream that makes you look younger, shouting "It's a lie", as his randy female assistant gets groped by the local hot bobbie next door.<br /><br />The end of the first episode is like a bad cartoon where the bad old lady, named after Pinnochios daddy in order to move the clunky plot along, waves at Picard from the street as she gets in a taxi. Picard is one floor up and he looks out a window wistfully going... she got away. He could like try to run down.. or maybe ring the cops... or maybe get the number of the taxi and ring it in or maybe had anything other than... I am waving and getting into a taxi now and there is nothing you can do about it until next week ending... mahhahahahah.<br /><br />Pity it's so stupid. At one point a grieving father is convinced by Picard that even if a replica clone son was born it would never be his son as his son had a soul. Yes that's right folks. The general scientist argues against cloning on the basis that every soul is unique and sure why else would you want to clone. <br /><br />Although the general scientist Picard finds cloning a bit gooey he's all up for stem cell research and goes as far as to say that calamity will befall humanity if it isn't allowed. He has a pretty strident rant about how important it is. Of course he doesn't mention a single example. That kind of sums up the show. Buzz words and tawdriness.
If I was British, I would be embarrassed by this portrayal of incompetence. A protection agent of the Special Branch unable to defend herself against a sick, unarmed and untrained assailant? The Home Office sends a single "Science Adviser" to investigate a possible Level Four biohazard, and that "Advisor" doesn't have the sense to wear even a mask and gloves? Totally unprotected London police officers working side by side with technicians in full biohazard suits? The "Advisor" and his bodyguard bearding the lair of a sociopathic doctor experimenting on human subjects without any backup? Puh-leeze! One wonders whether the producers could not afford to hire any technical advisers or if, for some arcane reason, they consciously decided to portray the principals as hopelessly incompetent. Even my wife, who has no background in either medicine or law enforcement, was rolling her eyes in disbelief. After the first episode, I was discouraged; now that I have seen two episodes, I give up.
How on earth can you have such fantastic actors in such a miserable creation? This is one of the most stylized pieces of rubbish I have seen in a long time. Not only is it poorly written, it is a product of shoddy direction and editing. The cinematography is so horribly manipulative and unoriginal and the montage jumbled beyond belief. The actual ideas behind the plots (cloning, toxic waste, climate change) are all fine to begin with but where the production/direction team takes them is a big cesspool of filth, the likes of which are seen in one episode. And this is a Scientific series? I am a physician and all I can say is that the science in this film is utter crap, almost embarrassing to watch. I really felt bad for the actors involved since they were all extraordinary.
Can I just start by saying I'm a fan of bad movies. And this is a really bad movie. It states on the front 100 passengers, 3000 snakes, but I think it's more accurate to say 12 passengers and about 20 snakes.<br /><br />The snakes don't do anything particularly interesting, the whole movie in fact just blunders on with little happening. Although there is occasionally a great gore shot of pulsating arms and green goo puke (bad movies have to have green goo don't they?).<br /><br />But then the ending comes along and will quite literally smack you off you seat in hysteria. and for that, this movie gets a boost up to a 2* rating.<br /><br />There are certain movies about in the world that you will want to show to your friends, just so you can watch there reaction when a certain event happens in them.<br /><br />For example The arrival of 'Big Man' in R Kelly's 'trapped in the closet' 'The LINE' in 'Shark Attack 3' (you'll know it when you hear it) The arrival of the mama shark in 'Shark Attack 3' Almost every scene of 'troll 2' The ending of 'Dracula 3000' (just for utter disbelief and confusion) and the end of this movie proudly sits in this category. It's worth sitting through just for that. So get drunk, stoned, whatever your poison is and watch this movie with some mates.<br /><br />Quite simply, if you like bad movies, get this, but don't get it confused with 'Snakes on a plane' ... there's no relation.<br /><br />And don't pay more than a fiver for it either ....
So I was energized during my Snakes on a Plane weekend, after the movie we craved some more. Why not Snakes on A Train? How bad could it possibly be, its snakes probably killing people on trains. The snakes were supposed to be rattlers. First off me and my buddies thought the snakes were harmless garden snakes and pet snakes with the same cheesy rattling sound clip. We actually sat through the entire thing completely ready to turn it off (we're too lazy to walk over and hit eject). Next thing we knew we don't know what the heck was going on but something amazingly funny happens at the end. It's one of those endings that you'll rewind a few times just to squeeze the laughs out, because you suffered for so long. <br /><br />Last 10 min a "8", rest of the movie a 2.
The movie starts in Mexico where a girl has been cursed, she spits on snakes thru green jello and her friend tries all these crazy spells to lift the curse. He does nothing but chant horrible language that does nothing, so they decide to cross the border get on the train to make their way to L.A. to see his uncle to lift the curse. Comic hilarity ensues. This movie has the same snakes over and over! It has garden snakes and pythons that will never bite. They all make the sound of rattlesnakes which makes no sense. The whole movie has some funny lines, some weak effects, but most important a great ending that leaves you like WHAM BAM WHAT THE HECK JUST HAPPENED!!!!! The whole movie is about a 1, but the ending is a 10, so by my crazy math it gets a 3 overall. When blockbuster has nothing else you want, grab this for mindless entertainment!
Seriously i thought it was a spoof when i saw it at the rental store but i realized it was just crap, i can't even believe i didn't shut it off, like we all know those snakes weren't rattlers they were pythons and Gardner's, the acting was lame and oms i still cant believe the ending loll if your gonna watch it just watch it for the end it was seriously priceless way better then 6th sense, i don't even know if the makers of the movie actually thought this title would fly, the only time it is really going to fly is when i throw it in the garbage......just watch it for a laugh it was hilarious in the stupidest way, Don't BUY JUST RENT.
For their credit, this is one of their more competent pieces of trash, and that's because there's considerably good gore, and an interesting take on ripping off "Snakes on a Plane." But, if there's any more of example of the inconsistency behind Asylum's newest rip-off it's the two characters at the beginning whom are illegal immigrants and can't understand nor speak English to a Texas man sneaking them across the border, yet when they get on a train and meet a friend, they begin understanding and speaking perfect English.<br /><br />Aside from being a pretty bad depiction of a Hollywood formula, "Snakes on a Train" is utterly boring. At least, with "Snakes on a Plane" we were given the chance to watch actors wax comedic and attempt to be remotely interesting. The Mallachi Brothers installment features some of the most boring characters I've ever seen, from an electrical engineer (gee, I wonder how he comes in handy later on), to some stoner surfers, right down to our two main characters attempting to fight off the snake curse that lurks in the husband's wife.<br /><br />"Snakes" is never entertaining, and even when it's very gory, it's still never as good as it has the chance to be, because "Snakes" could have been a funny short film, and instead just takes itself much too seriously, and never camps it up at any moment. Instead of taking their small budget and making original films that can set a precedent, they instead force their small budget to work against them in these knock offs. While the Mallachi brothers seem to be trying, the train just looks incredibly artificial.<br /><br />It seems almost like a stage play with these inconsistent and awfully bland set pieces that try desperately to look like actual train cars, while every so often it shakes, the background of the windows are blurred, and the sound effects go off every now and then to let us know they're actually on a train; not to mention that in such a large extended train there only seems to be about ten passengers on it. And beyond the train fight, and a drawn out sex scene, we're forced to be subjected to a plot that makes zero sense. And not even the directors can work around the fact that the "lethal" snakes that go on this train look far from venomous or dangerous.<br /><br />The rest of the film staggers onto only about a minute of snake carnage and a bad subplot of an ex drug agent trying to molest a passenger. All of this dull exposition ends with a really ridiculous climax in which a poorly computer generated snake (I saw better animation on the Super Nintendo) completely swallows the train whole, and is then dispensed in a method that should have been exercised from the very beginning. Asylum scores again.<br /><br />Asylum scores yet again with a hackneyed, lazy, horribly directed, and boring rip-off of another better film. "Snakes on a Train" takes itself way too seriously, and that's why it's never entertaining or memorable.
Truly, truly awful. I don't even know where to begin. This is a perfect example of a movie that doesn't know what to do with itself. I'm not sure I could even assign a category myself, except that I'm quite sure it's a slap in the face of everyone, every where. Even the unborn.<br /><br />At times, I thought I was watching a parody, or some kind of farce. At times, just a bad B movie. But I kept holding out for the porno, which, I fear, is almost(but not entirely), non existent.<br /><br />Some one advised skipping to the ending. I would definitely second that emotion. The last five minutes are intense, and certainly contain some of the best film making/cgi you will ever see, ever.<br /><br />Ed Wood would be proud.
I would probably want to give this movie a zero if not for the climax, which involves not really Snakes on a Train, but rather Train IN a Snake. The premise was cooked up far more than likely over the course of a night of beers after hearing about Snakes on a Plane in production (this, in fact, was released to coincide with that film's release). The joke is probably not lost on those who will seek this out; I don't think there would be a soul out there who would consider this anything as a serious action-thriller effort (unless on an ironic level beyond the capacity for rational thought). It's about a Mayan curse placed on a woman who's damned by her family for leaving with another man, and is soon seen sickened and coughing up green slime laced with, of course, snakes. She and her beau go on a train headed for Los Angeles, and very soon after the more-than-cliché characters are privy to snakes overtaking the train- with the originator woman becoming a snake herself. <br /><br />If it would be worth listing more about the movie I would, but there isn't enough time during the day. All that can be said for the quality factor is that it's almost on-existent; there are student short films with larger budgets. Maybe that was a wise calculation on the filmmakers' end, that there would be so many copies sold, just for the joke factor alone, that they would re-coup their budget in the first weekend. Because by looking at the sets (the trains themselves change randomly in the middle of a scene!), the actors (if you can call them that, with only one other actor- the one with the very thin hair who hits on the one woman throughout the movie- who benefited from the flick being produced), the FX (also next to non-existent, making the effects in Snakes on a Plane seem like Star Wars), and the actual CGI snakes themselves, with the final huge behemoth snake something to behold in sci-fi movie channel terms.<br /><br />This all means, basically, that it is a laugh riot every step of the way (especially, as cruel as it sounds, when a little girl becomes involved in a snake's "attention"), with the very disregard for good taste working well in its favor. This being said, it is also 100% disposable, like a B-movie sour-flavor lollipop.
Oh. Good. Grief.<br /><br />I saw this movie title in the TV schedules and thought "I must watch this movie, ripping off Snakes On A Plane, it will be terrible but hopefully laughable too. Sounds fantastically bad". Well, I was half right.<br /><br />This movie is eye-meltingly bad and, sadly, not even unintentionally hilarious. It's just bad. Even worse, it takes almost an hour to get to anything resembling action. For the first half of the movie we have to endure some mumbled foreign language (Mexican or Spanish, apologies for my ignorance) and terrible acting as some woman vomits up live snakes for reasons we only find out later on. Then we have to endure even more terrible acting, and we find out that those mumbling in the foreign language could speak English anyway, as the snakes finally get loose on the train and things move from the sedate to the ridiculous.<br /><br />Low-budget does not always mean "bad" but, in this case, it does. What we have here is a movie given no thought, a terrible script, a bad cast and not even the sense to capitalise on it's very few strengths. I give two marks for a few decent special effects and a whacky ending but that still feels a bit too generous. Avoid if you can.<br /><br />See this if you like: Stagknight, The Wicker Man remake, terrible CGI.
There are spoilers but trust me, I'm doing you a favor.<br /><br />My friends and I like to watch crappy movies every so often. Inspired by Mystery Science Theater and our knack for on the spot jokes; We set out to find movies worth watching that are in fact...not worth watching. However trouble comes into paradise when these movies can only be found if you buy them. And I am a firm believer in not giving one cent to such a group of talentless scumbags. So, as another reviewer has said, films like this are a reason why downloading movies for free should be legalized. I prefer the idea of; instead of straight to VIDEO you have straight to INTERNET. That way the ass-bags who made this travesty won't ever turn a profit. Which unfortunately you know they do. They hire a bunch of actors who can't act, special effects from a high school classroom, rubber snakes you can get at the dollar store, constant vomiting of green jell-o, and the two main characters who seem to switch between being border jumping Mexicans who only speak Spanish, to Arabs to being 100% fluent in English, random nudity, a guy being shot like 10 times including one to the side of the head and living and the most retarded ending in the history of film, book, cave drawings and hustler magazine. The fact that I actually predicted that the jell-o puking snake girl would actually TRANSFORM into a snake about half way through terrifies me...<br /><br />Anyways, the movie is great to make fun of, but you have to make sure there's at least 4 of you and you're all spitting out jokes in rapid fire, because if there's even 1 second of watching this movie where you're not laughing your ass off, you will feel physically ill. I kid you not. My friends and I were eating chicken wings and now I can't even look at such a thing anymore without being reminded of this piece of Sh!t.<br /><br />This film is one above Alien Vs. Hunter which is by far the second worst movie ever made. And I've seen lots of bad movies. Incidentally, it's the same production company as this film and that bald guy is in both as well. just thought you might like to know that little fun fact. -100 out 0f 10.
Snakes on a Train starts as Mexican couple Brujo (A.J. Castro) & Alma (Julia Ruiz) cross the boarder into the US, they then illegally board a seventeen hour train to Los Angeles. However Alma's family didn't approve of her & Brujo's relationship & placed an ancient black magic curse on her that turns all her insides into snakes, ain't life a b*tch? As the snakes pour out of Alma's mouth & slither away to other parts of the train they begin to infect the other passengers with the same unusual ailment...<br /><br />Edited & directed by the Mallachi Brothers (although the IMDb claims it's just one guy using a pseudonym, Peter Mervis) one has to say that I thought Snakes on a Train was crap, it's as simple as that really. It seems the entire film was set-up & made to cash in on the Samuel L. Jackson cult flick Snakes on a Plane (2006) by every horror fans least favourite production company the Asylum who specialise in ripping-off big budget Hollywood flicks & that style of money & film-making is no more evident than here with Snakes on a Train, making a film just because the title rhymes with a more successful film is not a good starting point. The script by Eric Forsberg is rubbish, for a start Snakes on a Plane was great fun whereas Snakes on a Train is a lot more serious & when you actually break it down & look at it this should have been much more light hearted. In fact it probably would have worked better as an Scary Movie (2000) type spoof. You know something, I am struggling to find one positive thing to say about Snakes on a Train it's that bad. For a start the character's are rubbish & it's impossible to emote with anyone, the story is downright awful & makes no sense (if people spew all those small snakes up where did the huge ones come from? Why did Alma turn into the giant snake at the end? Why did Bujo kill the train driver? How was he going to stop the train once it reached Los Angeles? Where did that typhoon come from at the end?), it takes itself far too seriously, the first seventy odd minutes is so boring & uneventful I am surprised I stayed awake & it's just a very, very poor film on just about every level.<br /><br />Director Mervis only has a few train carriage car sets which all look pretty much alike so the film becomes very repetitive & dull to watch. There's barely any blood or gore, there are some snakes borrowing under a few peoples skin, someone gets shot & that's about it. The special effects are rubbish too, the giant CGI snake at the end is truly awful & the least said about it the better. It's not scary, there's zero atmosphere & it's a bit of a bore from start to finish. The real live snakes are a problem too, they are just so docile & nonthreatening. If you look at any scene featuring a real snake & an actor the snakes never make any move towards them or act aggressively & in fact always appear to want to slither away in the opposite direction.<br /><br />Shot in California technically the film is obviously low budget & it show's, basically it looks cheap because it is. The acting isn't great not that the actor's are given any sort of material to work with.<br /><br />Snakes on a Train is rubbish, I am sorry but that's how I feel & I don't quite know how else to describe it. I really can't see what anyone would get out of watching Snakes on a Train, it really is that bad.
Upon renting this, I wasn't expecting to be blown away. In fact, I knew it was going to be horrible. It was just seeing how horrible it really was. That's what comes with low budget horror.<br /><br />"Snakes On A Train", not to be confused with the serpentine summer blockbuster "Snakes On A Plane" with Samuel L. Jackson, is about a woman who is put under a Mayan curse that causes snakes to hatch inside her and devour her from within. Her only hope of surviving lies in a shaman that lives across the border, so she and her companion stowaway onto a train bound for Los Angelas. Throw in a few passengers and hilarity ensues.<br /><br />Come to think of it, though, the story isn't half bad. Isn't half good, either.<br /><br />The acting in this film rivals that of a Sci-Fi Original, if not worse. Trust me, it's horrible. The snakes were another problem. They were supposed to be rattlers, I guess, but most of what you get instead are mostly harmless garden snakes that don't attack anything and there's this rattling sound effect that gets really annoying.<br /><br />The gore effects on the other hand, while not on the Tom Savini level, were actually pretty good.<br /><br />And another thing, the ending alone makes up for the rest of the movie. I'm not going to talk about it here, so you'll have to rent this and see for yourself.
Snakes on a Train is a movie I rented due to the pure amusement of the thoughts I had, about the movie. Snakes on a Plane was an enjoyable Action film, so obviously the film makers wanted to cash in on the success, with this low budget effort. At 85 minutes, Snakes on a Train is almost unbearable to witness. I had to keep pausing the film to do something to entertain myself, due to the lack of happenings in the film. Throughout the duration of the film, it's never fully explained why this girl has this curse, or why she keeps coughing up this green/purplish goo constantly. Not only that, there is endless boring dialog of the two main characters, Brujo and Alma discussing how to get rid of the curse. I can appreciate low budget film-making. I'm truly not picky on movies, i'm open to any genre or budget, but Snakes On A Train is truly one of the worst Horror films I have ever seen. Were the writers on Acid or something at the end of this film?. Why did the woman suddenly turn into a giant snake? and most importantly how on earth was it able to devour the train?.<br /><br />Bottom line. Snakes on a Train is a movie that needs to be avoided at all costs. Don't be intrigued like I was by the title, this is a movie that's seriously bad. Let's put these snakes to rest<br /><br />0/10
Looking back on the year 2006,one of the things i will remember most is the "Snakeamania" on the internet for a film called Snakes on a plane.But unknown to me there was a straight- to- DVD rip-off film called Snakes on a train!After seeing this i feel its at best a below-par B-Movie.<br /><br />The plot:<br /><br />A husband and wife get on a train to go to Los Angles,to get help form the husbands uncle who is a shaman.This is because the wife's family do not approve of her marring him,so they have put a curse on her that snakes will "become her".Thought with a sixteen hour drive to Los Angles and a group of passengers the include an ex-Narc cop and some drug traffickers.Will they get there in time before the snakes take her over? <br /><br />View on the film: First the effects:I have to say that while some scenes with the smaller snakes look good in a gory-way,the main effect shots you have to wait eighty minutes to see!Are sadly that bad that they completely kill any good memories of the film(The film makes 198os Video Games look like T2 next to this!.)One of the things i noticed is that there is no screenplay credit on the film! and the directors make the film so anti-climatic it ruins the whole film. Final view on the film:<br /><br />A below-par B-Movie,with an unbelievably bad ending.
Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film
Overall, this is a pretty bad film. But for $5 at PathMark, it wasn't a total waste.<br /><br />The whole scenario has to do with a guy who is with this lady infected with snakes, supposedly from a magic curse. The actors/actresses aren't names that are big (even though some look like from TV shows), so I won't do my usual Troy McClure thing.<br /><br />For awhile, the film holds your interest as the couple hop a train and travel to L.A. to see a shaman to undo the curse. There's a bit of other plots going on too; like two ladies smuggling drugs.<br /><br />But the last 20 minutes turn out to be a total let down. As violent and gory as the whole film is, the grand finale is just totally computer animated.<br /><br />I saw the unrated version which had tons of language, gore, blood, violence, everything! The bonus features were OK.<br /><br />Overall Grade: D-
very straight - not happy with the movie.<br /><br />The main center of the movie is the story where the lady is the mother of all the snacks and all the things.<br /><br />If they can more explain that how this is happening and all the stuff then it was quite a fun and more rating for this movie.<br /><br />The end was very short and sudden, till now actor of the movie was to save her then at last he told sorry !! now we are late. OH !! crap.<br /><br />what was the story , and how this all this thing happen, I think they can put all these stuffs. So the end user like us will be satisfied that yes we are happy with the movie. <br /><br />any way , but nice idea and nice try so I will say 4 or max 4.5.
Snakes on a Train (2006, Dir. The Mallachi Brothers) A Zombie curse is placed upon a woman, which causes her to have living snakes inside her. Brujo, who is looking after her, attempts to take her to Los Angeles on the train. After several confrontations on the train, Brujo's collection of snakes manage to separate themselves from their owner and go on the hunt. Whilst all this is happening, normal, everyday passengers are relaxing, what is unknown to them is that something deadly is heading their way, and that their is no were out.<br /><br />After watching the wonderfully fun 'Snakes on a Plane', i had to check this out. I knew it was going to be a rip-off and that the film will look cheap, but what i found was worst to watch. The whole curse plot was silly and should never have been included. The special effects aren't terrible but are not the best looking. I did not have a clue about the ending. It was silly to watch and pathetic. The acting was absolutely terrible, and looked bad. They just could not act to save their lives. If you want a great laugh, watch this, otherwise you should really avoid this.<br /><br />"We have a runaway train. I repeat. We have a runaway train." - Conductor (Stephen A.F. Day)
Not to be mistaken as the highly touted Samuel L. Jackson vehicle SNAKES ON A PLANE; SNAKES ON A TRAIN is low budget, features no actors(to speak of), but some pretty decent visual effects. An attractive young woman(Julia "Rayanne" Ruiz)does not want to marry someonelse's choice for her husband; so she is put under a powerful Mayan curse that has snakes hatching inside her body, slowly devouring from the inside out. Her only hope for survival is a shaman who lives across the border in Texas. Time is running out for her; and she is put on a train from El Paso to Los Angeles. Before long the snakes are leaving her pain wrecked body and rapidly growing in size. The passengers aboard the train are now trapped and soon to be snacks for the snakes. The finale sequence is no doubt the best of this 91 minute flick. Also receiving acting credit are: Alby Castro, Al Galvez and Giovanni Bejarno.
I can't believe that anyone would green light this let alone voluntarily star in it. I will never be able to get that 90 mins of my life back.<br /><br />This has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen. Some films are so bad they're good. This has gone so far round again that's somehow it's so bad it's terrible. I was not exactly expecting much, it being a low budget, bandwagon jumping, rehash of a B Movie, but it still came in way under my expectation levels. Even TV movies have higher production values.<br /><br />There were (very) poor special effects, shocking dialogue, terrible acting and a completely unexplained plot. Who cursed her and why, why did the 6 inch snakes turn into 15 foot snakes, has anyone ever heard of highly venomous garter snakes or pythons? 100 passengers? 3,000 snakes? So many promises, none delivered. <br /><br />Some comments would have you believe that this film is worth watching for the last five minutes. It's not even worth a rental. Stay in and watch a low budget TV movie, you'll enjoy it a lot more. <br /><br />Why was this made? Oh yes, to shamelessly cash in on the internet phenomenon that is SOAP. Shame on you Mallachi Brothers, shame on you
"SHUT THE FRONT DOOR" That's what I said when I was told that Blockbuster got a new movie in called Snakes on a Train. Okay, maybe that's not exactly what I said, but you get the point. I didn't need to know who was in the movie, or anything else. All I knew was that I am renting this movie.<br /><br />I probably should have asked what it was about though. In retrospect, I don't know if I would have really wanted to watch a movie about a Mayan curse that causes a woman to give internal birth to snakes and have them spit out of her mouth. Nor would I want to see a movie that features a guy who looks strangely enough like a pedophilic version of Leif Garrett.<br /><br />Anyways, while the curse might be interesting on some levels (well, maybe not), there was still promise of these annoying characters getting eaten or at the very least, killed by snakes. So I was willing to sit through the first hour of very little happening other than a Texas Ranger forcing a girl into a nice little titty grope so she can keep her cocaine, or the Hispanic shaman that likes to occasionally stab people. But then, all hell broke loose, and the girl started to spit out more and more snakes.<br /><br />*SPOILER ALERT* So everything's going well at the end, and I'm willing to overlook the fact that some of these snakes all of the sudden turned out to be 25 feet long. After all, people are getting eaten, so it's all good. But then all of the sudden, and I'm not going to tell you how because that would ruin the best part, one of the snakes is about 300 feet long. Then it proceeds to squeeze and devour the train, with all the graphic artistry of Serpentaur from the old GI Joe cartoons. Unfortunately, I could not make a Nemesis Enforcer connection with this movie. Anyways, so you would think that a snake that big, who ate a train, would be pretty unstoppable. Well not if you know your Mayan voodoo rocks and have the ability to summon tornadoes from heaven. Yeah, that's all I'll say about that.<br /><br />In short, this movie is bad. Really bad to the point where you might be numb after watching this, or your brain might hurt. I didn't give this a one, because no matter how stupid it was, it still wasn't as bad as Date Movie. So if you like camp or badly constructed B horror movies, this is the one for you. If you think this will actually be cool like its bigger, more infamous brethren, just walk away from the box if you see it. And I'll leave you with a quote from the movie that should basically sum it all up.<br /><br />"Snakes can't get on a train!" Because that's just silly. Not like they make stops or anything....
This train-wreck begins with Brujo and Alma crossing the Mexican border. Alma is suffering from some horrid curse that causes her to vomit garden snakes and Nickelodeon Gac every few minutes as well as clench her teeth and mutter nonsense. So Apparently Alma has this uncle in Los Angeles who knows of a cure for her. They hop aboard a train to get there and luckily a friend of theirs pays their way. Alma and Brujo stay in the luggage cart the whole movie since they can't afford upper class seats. Meanwhile in the higher class we see a bunch of nobodies on their way to LA for whatever reasons. A balding guy on a business trip, two girls, one of whom is carrying $5 grand and a wad of cocaine, three stoners, and some Mexicans. The Mexicans rough it up with Brujo and try to take his "weed" which apparently is a sedative for Alma's snakes slithering inside her. They realize that the snakes don't attack, they Enter Your Body Through Your Veins! Very twisted and B-Movie. Brujo saves the guy by ripping out his heart (Temple Of Doom style) and procuring the snake. For some reason he cannot have the snakes harmed or it'll hurt Alma. While this is going on a narcotics expert tries to bust one of the girls and gets a little action (topless) in exchange for not telling about her shipment of drugs. A mystery guy shows up and has a gunfight with him. As a grand finale Alma turns into a vampire, bites her man and then becomes a giant pathetic excuse for a CG snake the size of the train, eats the train and is blasted into a nuclear bomb hurricane whirlwind and disappears. Everyone then heads to LA on foot.<br /><br />The credits actually say at the end "Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental, and very weird. We suggest moving and/or taking a plane". Odd since a line in the movie from the bald guy is "Yeah, I HATE planes!" The credits go on to say "No snakes were hurt during the production of this screenplay. Only a small child but it's cool." There actually were a LOT of real snakes used in the movie, and all of them very tame. There is actually no scene of CG snakes attacking anyone unless you count the large one, but then it just eats the train and the other fake snake is just the head and it looks like a muppet. The snakes don't really attack anything, they're just...there. One crawls out of toilet paper actually!<br /><br />the movie isn't funny, isn't scary (as there's no real snake attack), and is just a 'quickie cash-in' which is when a low-budget movie company hears about a big budget Hollywood release, then they rush to put out a similar film, or even a parodic version, for release just prior to, or simultaneously with, the big name flick. The effect of this being that many people will either confuse one for the other, and go see the quickie rather than the 'biggie' or, they will want to see both, for whatever reason... like myself. Avoid at all costs.
Last week on Friday, I went to see "Snakes on a Plane" with my friends. It was amazing compared to this horrible film (however, many of the scenes were ridiculously hilarious). Basically, some woman has a Mayan curse where she pukes up harmless harmless garter snakes that, instead of attacking, crawl inside of they're victims. The girl with the bag of coke is pretty hot. On the title screen it says "100 Passengers... 3,000 Venemous Vipers!" Scary, I know. There weren't even 100 passengers on the train. Only a couple of stoners and some other washed out losers. It's worth the five bucks to see the woman turn into a huge CG snake and devour the whole train then get sucked into a huge vortex though. It's just sad that someone would go to such lengths to make a crap film, only to make a few bucks because of the "Snakes on a Plane" craze.
I picked this DVD up for 3.99 at rogers video in order to get enough points to get a better movie for free. I never actually was planning on watching this but it started poking at my curiosity and i finally decided to pop in it the DVD player. The effects in this movie are horrible and cheap. Some of the dialog in this movie sounds like it was written by a swear happy 12 year old boy. The acting is really cheesy in some parts, and the "action" scenes are completely laughable. You'll burst out laughing at some parts which was a positive for me because it kept me mildly entertained. The plot is some girl has a curse on her which causes her to vomit snakes so some shaman has to get her to Los Angeles, there are also two girls trying to smuggle drugs there and a few other people that are unimportant to the plot, not that there really is a plot at all.Don't expect anything from this movie and don't listen to the cover, there are not 100 passengers and 3,000 vipers, there are 10 passengers and 20 random snakes.<br /><br />As for the DVD, there is a trailer which is almost as laughable as the film, a blooper reel which is just one shot over and over of one actor trying to say train, and the deleted scenes are really pointless, if they weren't good enough to stay in this movie they must be pretty bad. There is also a really bad making of featurette which doesn't really show much at all except that the people involved with this movie were kind of idiots. I can't recommend it unless you want a really bad movie that you can laugh at with friends. I give it 2 kitty cats out of 5.
This film is bad, yes, but had the producers used a REAL KANGAROO, it would have killed the actor it was boxing with. I am an Australian and I have seen two seven foot tall male 'Roos fighting each other, it is not a pretty sight as the object is for one or the other to kill it's opponent,(this is there way of securing the herd of females) and there are incidents where someone has boxed a kangaroo, and been injured or killed, so when you see a kangaroo on TV or Film it is likely to be a female, or Animated, as it is a good idea not to injure actors (they might be annoyed at losing the ability to breath). There is a strange idea that Australian animals are cute and cuddly, that is false, many are dangerous (10 of the 12 most deadliest snakes live here)and most are just plain ugly (Koalas are as soft as steal wool). So if you come to Australia BE CAREFULL!!!
Just Desserts was, I must say, one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The acting was terrible and even the plot line was laughable. I gave it a 3 out of 10 instead of a 1 because I enjoy laughing at excruciatingly corny movies. My expectations weren't high to begin with, but it turned out to be cornier than I expected. I thought it might not be all that bad when it started, but as soon as the name of the competition--The Golden Whisk--came up i began changing my mind. It all went downhill from there. The only thing I did like about this movie, other than snickering at it's absurd plot and dialogue, was watching them cook. However, being a movie about pastry chefs, there were minimal scenes in which they actually baked anything. I would recommend watching the cooking channel instead of this movie. You get to see more food being prepared, and you dodge the pathetic one-liners. However, if you enjoy corny love stories, which is sometimes fun, go ahead and watch.
This Spaghetti Western uses three American lead actors which takes away a little of the typical spaghetti aura. The plot is about an amnesty that the governor of New Mexico gives to all willing criminals to provide them a chance to start a new life. Usually this kind of opportunity is limited to past events but in this film it seems more like a licence to kill because even new crimes (like e.g. threatening the governor) are forgiven. The story is an endless chain of killings where nearly every character has only the purpose to deliver more carcasses. Only the few leads have stamina. Clay McCord is haunted by nightmares related to a childhood event where unsurprisingly he killed a lot of people. In the middle of the everlasting mayhem this kind of reflections lack credibility. Compared with similar films like e.g. BANDIDOS none of the characters in this film was likable for me.<br /><br />Apart of the weak content which targets certain customers this film is well shot, sets are somewhat detailed and the acting is average. <br /><br />4 / 10.
I saw this movie over 20 years ago and had rather fond memories of it. Catching again on Cinemax this month, I realized how little discernment I had about films back then. This is an utterly ordinary spaghetti western, with absolutely nothing noteworthy about it. Script, direction, acting, photography are all a big blah. Stick with the Sergio Leone westerns!
I didn't see this movie when it originally came out, but there has been a couple songs sharing the title and the term still gets used from time to time and I figured there must be something to the flick, so I dug it up and gave a view. Now I would like the approximate hour and forty five minutes of my life back(it seemed much longer). There was nothing particularly bad about the movie, the acting was good, no large plot holes, of course there wasn't much plot to have holes in. There just wasn't a lot to the movie. There was some chemistry between the two but nothing compelling about their relationship; Nothing interesting about their story. Near the end when he attempts to chase down the train to catch his fleeing romance, neither my wife nor I wanted him to catch her. Honestly we figured they were better off with out each other and if they did get back together we really didn't care. So what's that say about this love story when even a 25 year old sappy romantic like my wife had no emotional investment in the relationship. I should have left this one in the "missed" category.<br /><br />Logan Lamech www.eloquentbooks.com/LingeringPoets.html
Watchable but pretty terrible. How shocking that this was the great Gregory La Cava's last directing credit! Even in his better known roles, I don't care for Gene Kelly. He seems to me to be smug, hostile, and self-involved. Here, paired with a minor actress like Marie Wilson, he seems to show those characteristics in spades.<br /><br />Marie Wilson, playing an heiress who falls for a military man, is exceptionally hard and unsympathetic. The actors seem to be working hard to get past the hard, disagreeable core of the picture and they do OK.<br /><br />The know-it-all butler is apparently meant to be funny but he seems like an extended riff on the prissy bits for which Franklin Pangborn was famous (and in which, despite their stereotyping, he was generally funny -- unlike this guy.) Phyllis Thaxter is as always very appealing in a rather underdeveloped secondary plot.
The Greek locale for parts of the movie were very beautiful and the photography get all my votes and that's about the extent of my raves for this movie. I found that all the characters were narcissistic archetypes found so often in the American culture and were shallow and uninteresting. Susan Sarandon and Gena Rowlands are easy to look at but I found their characters very narcissistic and unlikeable for many other reasons. When Gena Rowlands sings at a party it made me wonder how this woman could think of herself as a competent star of the stage. I was tempted to hit the MUTE button until she finished singing. Molly Ringwald was herself and Raul Julia's character was so lecherous he was downright creepy. The movie was much too long for my liking and I could not sit through it again even at the point of a gun.
Paul Mazursky misfires on this film. The writing, direction, casting, and acting (with the exception of Victorio Gassman) are all off the mark. I remember the reviews from 20+ years ago being mediocre, but I thought it still might be worthwhile to view. With notables such as Susan Sarandon, Raul Julia (who overacts in most of his scenes) and John Cassavetes, I understandably expected much more. The music picked for the film is jarring, the cuts between New York and Greece confusing, and the overall pace all leave much to be desired. Why Paul Mazursky felt the need to update this story, or add his touch to it is puzzling - this retelling of Prospero and his daughter takes very little of import from the play, and adds not much more. The play is not one of Shakespeare's best anyway, and to gut it even further seems not to be a good decision. Unfortunately, there is nothing to recommend in this film.
Tempest is based on the classic Shakespearean work of the same name, but bears little resemblance to its source material.<br /><br />It masquerades as being as cerebral as its namesake, but instead is a jumbled, convoluted, and hackneyed exercise in tedium. The original probed the premise that people have an evil side, which would be destructive if unchecked. Here you just get an uninteresting mid life crisis (yawn) goof ball who is having everything go wrong in his personal and professional life. He becomes endowed with a supernatural power that he uses to try to control his environment; in other words: to get his own way.<br /><br />Every few minutes, after something else in his pathetic life goes wrong, he finds a secluded place and starts babbling "Show me the magic!" while waving his hands around and making a "serious concentration" expression. From the way these scenes are shot, it looks like he's trying to turn bugs into other kinds of bugs. Turning a spider into a cockroach, maybe, but by this time, you really don't care.<br /><br />The story has him bolt from his life with his daughter to a Greek island somewhere, then have a awkward relationship with some girl he meets, one of the dullest romances ever committed to film. The story just bogs down and moves at a slower and slower pace. You are never given any reason to like or dislike anyone.<br /><br />I'll give this a 2 because of the beautiful Greek location shots and the semi-optimistic conclusion (although it isn't clear if the tempest power brought this ending about or not). The spirit of Shakespeare's work has been captured much better in other movies; one notable example is "Forbidden Planet," which gave credence to how the power gets out of control.<br /><br />As for this "Tempest", its only magic is to cure insomnia.
this 2.5 hour diluted snore-fest appears to be one of the poorest excuses for an adaptation, ever. clearly possessing a budget allowing for breathtaking location shooting in greece, the monies might have been better spent working out a cohesive script with character development and motivations clearly outlined; especially since bill has gone through the trouble of doing this already. the portrayals lacked passion & direction, leaving the viewer debating whether they should bother to care about the demise of the protagonists at all. which brings out another point-the main character of the original work, prospero, is not so named in this rendition despite the fact that most other characters' names are used. enchantment and magic are also markedly absent from this particular piece. in fact, all aspects that made the stage version of 'the tempest' full of wonder and intrigue have been sucked completely from this convoluted version about a self-absorbed, pompous arse who can't figure out how to care about anything beyond the blur of his wealth and power. over all, a lackluster effort at best and a brutally poor imitation of the intended inspiration.
Before launching into whether this film is worth your time or not, I should inform you I've never seen another adaptation of Carmen, so if you're looking for a review on how it ranks amongst others, this might not be of much use to you.<br /><br />The only time I've come across Carmen was on the car stereo when driving through Spain on a family holiday when I was a teenager. I didn't pay much attention to it because I didn't like opera at the time and I didn't know any better. The story has been around for 150 years or so. Do I feel I've missed out after seeing this movie? Yes, mainly due to the plot, but also because if all the actresses who played Carmen looked like Paz Vega, I would have all the adaptations happily sitting in my DVD collection.<br /><br />Directed by Vicente Aranda (who also co-rewrote the story with Joaquim Jordà), the story is told through the eyes of the original author Prosper Mérimée, a French writer making his way through 19th century Spain. He comes across José (Leonardo Sbaraglia), a delinquent soldier and one of many men who fall in love with Carmen (Paz Vega), a sultry, sexy, bedazzling gypsy woman, who has the mouth of the devil, the temper of a 'toro' and who recklessly leads men to their doom. The moment she meets José, she is attracted by his stand-offish behaviour. But she hooks him, reels him in and lets him go, many-a-time. Until one day, José is wanted for murder. Carmen persuades him to join her band of gypsy smugglers. They seem to be settling, she's fallen in love with him, but she meets the charming Escamillo, the bullfighter. Can José hold his jealousy in check, or does it destroy him? <br /><br />It's a beautiful,seductive story, something that resembles, almost, a Shakespearian or Ovid plot, with the portrayals of immense passion and emotion that can make or break us and transform us to do things out of character. It's poetic, fiery, and above all, slutty. I was left hanging on, I didn't know which way it was going to turn. I always hoped that José might change Carmen's dirty little ways. I won't tell you if he succeeded or not.<br /><br />The above synopsis is what I took away from the film, but I was not impressed by the film itself. It was only after I watched it that I dug a little deeper into the story and I realised how much of a missed opportunity Aranda had made of retelling Mérimée's classic. It was a shallow, slutty period-drama blunder, that saw Paz Vega spend a lot of the time partially or completely naked (not that I'm complaining about this in particular!).<br /><br />First of all, the acting was poor. I was not impressed by Sbaraglia as José. I'm still unsure whether he was a weak actor or José was supposed to be a weak character, I've not read the book. He's supposed to be a man who with burning desire for Carmen, but he spends much of the time looking confused, jealous and a bit dim. Paz Vega was slightly better as Carmen. I was convinced by her hardened, wicked character, although I have seen more convincing performances by her in other films, such as Zapping and Lucia y El Sexo. She seems too pretty to play a gypsy woman (not that I've come across many Andalusian gypsy women), so in a way, the role didn't really fit her. The other actors in the film weren't great either. They seemed to do everything half-heartedly. The story is passionate, emotive – they looked half-arsed, as if they couldn't wait to get out the tight 19th century costumes they were wearing.<br /><br />However, the costumes, I was impressed with - one of the redeeming factors of the film. I like Spanish culture, I liked the soldiers' uniforms, the top-hats and the women's Flamenco dresses. They fitted the time well. That's all I can really say about that. Sorry, back to the criticism.<br /><br />The script, as stated above, was co-rewritten by Vicente Aranda and Joaquim Jordà, and done so badly, so much that it would leave Mérimée turning in his grave. It was boring. It didn't make best use of José's intense passion for Carmen (or maybe that was just the acting). There were cheesy lines piled upon one and other, Satan and devil connotations everywhere, amongst the millions of swear words. I know the Spanish are partial for the odd swear word, but the film was littered with puta, 'whore', in literally every line Maybe it was realistic in 19th century poverty-stricken Seville, but the story itself didn't need it.<br /><br />The editing and camera work was dull and ordinary. There was only one bit I actually liked, and that was when the camera follows a fly close-up in mid-air, which lands on Carmen's face. That was good. But the rest? Boring.<br /><br />To conclude, it is sad to see such a great story go to waste with unconvincing acting and directing. If you're a literature teacher, by all means let your class watch this adaptation to get an idea of the story. However, only the male half of the class will be paying any interest to the film, thanks to Paz Vega. Otherwise, stick to the opera version (even though I hate musicals). I give this film 4, just for the fact I love the storyline! And Paz Vega!
Carmen is a prostitute that lives seducing and stealing soldiers of the Spanish army; she is, without any doubt, the best femme fatale at the moment. When a man resist her charming attentions, she decides to do everything to destroy him. At the end, he falls in her web and he will be forced to make all the things he ever hated only for being with Carmen. Despite Paz Vega is very beautiful, she doesn't seem a gypsy (as Carmen is) and neither her acting nor Sbaraglia's are good. The story results very boring, and, in most moments, it is very absurd, while intending to appear truthful. in the same way are the scenarios and the Special Effects, despite not being but they are not but acceptable, and too much artificial for a historic film as it is. To sum up, boring and bad, with a very absurd development, there are much betters thing to watch.
When I saw this in the cinema, I remember wincing at the bad acting about a minute or two into the first scene, then immediately telling myself "no, this has to get better". It didn't. The performances are pretty uniformly teak 'n pine and no, there is NO sexual chemistry in this film whatsoever, just the awkward posturings of a reasonably comely, discreetly talentless actress who seems born to grace the cover of "Interviú" and not much else besides. If the scriptwriter thought that making Mérimée a character was a stunningly original creative ploy he perhaps ought to get out more. And Aranda, if he'd given the matter a bit more thought, would have realised that the story of Carmen is just CRYING OUT for a thoughtful, iconoclastic, parodic deconstruction, not this leave-your-brains-at-the-turnstile affair of ersatz passion and comic-book dialogue. This is contemporary Spanish cinema at its worst.<br /><br />
This movie has been promoting in everywhere in Spain with a huge publicity campaign, after watching it, you realise that someone has stolen your money. Paz Vega is horrible as Carmen, she´s not natural at all and she looks like she´s making a fashion magazine cover in all the shots ("the best" is when she as an andalusian woman ...¡can speak basque and fluently¡, Leonardo Sbaraglia is much better than her as Jose, but the story is very slow, the plot don´t work, and the screenplay is really very very bad...I think Penelope Cruz (the film was written for her)would have been a much more credible and sexy Carmen.<br /><br />What a waste of time and money
Like the other guy said It sux , you can count the words that have been said in that entire movie on one of your hands, Too nudity , she got naked like 7 or 8 times in a 1 and a half , well past the nudity you'll find a porno behind that film , He f**ked her all movie long, bad acting, bad story,bad language, Carmen was swearing all movie long , so you get out of that movie, pornografic scenes and dirty language, A lot of gaps in the movie, a big silence every now and then The only good thing in that movie is the beautiful places were it has been shot, otherwise it's an hour and a half of your life that you'll gonna waste so if u gonna watch that movie Good luck It really Sux
Dull acting, weak script...worst spanish movie in years...I was<br /><br />attracted by the (naked) beauty of Paz Vega, but as an actress<br /><br />she's useless, you almost can't understand what she's saying...<br /><br />About the story there's not much coherent to say...we heard of it<br /><br />before, but as this is a "modern Carmen" we find a few changes: -The french soldier is now a basque soldier. -Merimee himself is a character in the story. -Carmen is a dangerous "bandolera" in love with a famous<br /><br />"matador" and she can speak fluent basque...<br /><br />Can anyone understand this mess?
Another pretentious film from Vicente Aranda. If "Juana la loca" shinned of the same, at least its quality was superior (mainly thanks to the great performance of Pilar López de Ayala), but "Carmen" is boring and full of topics (ardent brunette with a dagger in the stocking, poor man dragged to madness due to passion, Sierra Nevada gangs, "toreros",...)<br /><br />Obviously Paz Vega is a pretty woman, but about its talent there're more doubts, and Sbaraglia role is so stupid that results almost incredible. The script is weak and and Aranda's presumptuous character influences the entire film. With these ingredients the result could not be good.<br /><br />Not the worst film I've seen, but a complete failure, in my opinion.
Another bad spanish picture. This is very baaaad. I only save the photography and the music of José Nieto. The rest of the film is the worst I've seen in years. Paz Vega is horrible. Don't see it.
The plot for a movie such of this is a giveaway. How can you go wrong with a gay plot line and all the colors and music of India - a story like this writes itself. I'll watch most anything, but this was unwatchable. The sad thing is, the white folks are the most colorful in the film. Vanessa was a riot with a mouth like a sailor, and Jack was great eye candy, but everyone else was so boring. Saeed Jeffrey, who was exceptional in My Beautiful Landrette, did what he could but the story was so boring. The saving grace was really the background music, which made it OK to laugh at the film, instead of with the film, or not at all. There are many other better gay movies, ethnic movies, just plain movies. I give a lot of low budget movies a pass, but this shouldn't have been made, or should have been made by someone else.
For those expecting the cover art and story outline to indicate another entertaining Bollywood Indian production, beware: no musical dance numbers or songs of production value exist to brighten the mood in this rather tired story of arranged marriages in the British Indian culture - with a few variations thrown in. As written by Roopesh Parekh the script jumps around topics worthy of discussion only to cover them up with routine avoidance tactics. Harmage Singh Kalirai directs like a traffic cop, trying to hold together the disparate subplots to the point of Keystone Cop tactics.<br /><br />Jimi (Chris Bisson) is a medical school student who is gay and has a lover Jack (Peter Ash) and they live with Jack's obese, alcoholic, loose morals aunt Vanessa (Sally Bankes) and Sally's chubby daughter Hannah (Katy Clayton). Jimi's family is visited by the Patel family from Delhi who bring their beautiful daughter Simran (Jinder Mahal) to England to find a husband. Jimi's parents (Saeed Jaffrey and Jamila Massey) and his grandmother (Zohra Sehgal) decide Simran is the girl for Jimi to marry and arrange an engagement and wedding in the custom of Indian ways - without consulting Jimi. Jimi discovers the plot and is too spineless not to go along with it, a decision which enrages Jack and infuriates Vanessa. Hannah tells a 'little lie' to Simran (that she is Jimi's daughter) and the wedding is off. When Jimi's parents visit Jimi's house they discover the drunken Vanessa, are repulsed by her, but eventually decide that for Jimi's happiness they will go along with the fact that Vanessa has given them a 'granddaughter' and decide to use the marriage preparations as a wedding for Jimi and Vanessa. Jimi convinces the very reluctant Vanessa to go along with the idea and before long Vanessa is dressed in a sari, prepared for a wedding, and Jimi, terrified at what he is doing just to please his parents, includes Jack as his best man. At the wedding the truth comes out and to Jimi's surprise his family adapts to Jimi's true self and the day is saved by simply being truthful.<br /><br />The cast copes with this silly bit of nonsense rather well and there are some good performances: Chris Bisson and Peter Ash are attractive men and play their roles well, albeit without any indication at all of a loving relationship (the director seems terrified of showing the least suggestion of intimacy between the two men); Sally Bankes provides most of the laughs as Vanessa; the rest of the cast repeat the stereotype roles they've played countless times in Indian movies. This is not a bad film - it has its moments - but it is just too superficial and tired to make us care about any of the characters.
As the film reviewer for a local gay magazine I automatically get sent any dreck if it happens to have a homo in it. Chicken Tikka Masala is churning on in the background as I write this. I gave it my undivided attention for 53 minutes before I found myself involuntarily shouting - like a Tourrette's sufferer -"This is the sh**test film I have ever seen". We're just coming to the emotional climax where the son is giving some coming out speech to his father at his wedding. Father seems to be taking it quite well. An attempted honour killing at this point would at least have livened the film up a bit. And made it funnier. <br /><br />I didn't particularly like Beautiful Thing, for example, but could at least see why other people did. It was made with some professionalism and I seem to remember it had at least a couple of good lines. The lack of wit in this film is quite astounding - even the most mediocre sitcom will tend to have recognisable jokes. The nearest this movie got to being funny (at least in its first 53 mins) was the subtitled comment delivered to the fat unattractive female lead "Look at her with her legs wide open - she's like the Mersey Tunnel." Completely witless and I didn't crack a smile but I could imagine someone with a low IQ (who perhaps works in a chip shop) enjoying it.<br /><br />I'd imagine it's some Lottery-funded atrocity. If not I can at least console myself with the fact that the backers will lose a substantial amount of money as even a low-budget British film will still set someone back a couple of million. Seriously, if I met the most handsome bloke in the world and, on going back to his place to make sweet love, I found a copy of this in his DVD collection ("Man, I love this film") I'd probably kick him in the nuts and leave forthwith. And this from someone who's gone about six months without any of the aforementioned sweet love. <br /><br />Oh Lord I hate this film.
I am at a loss to find the words to express how bad I thought this film was. The initial precept was promising, but in all respects afterwards it was totally awful. Let's run through the main points. Plot - good initial idea but truly terrible development. There were many points when I thought "no, nobody would do something that stupid". The ending was amazingly anticlimactic. Characterisation - all of the characters were either completely bland or grotesque caricatures. I keep trying to think of one that wasn't - possibly the mother, but that's it. Music - intrusive, inappropriate and generally terrible. Direction - totally amateurish. Cinematography - doubt they've heard of it. Camera angles / stability / zoom levels often really bad. I am totally bemused at how this film has scored so highly. It's the worst movie I've seen at the cinema for years, if not ever.
I don't even know where to begin...<br /><br />It's is not worth typing a review so I will just quote what another user posted because I agree thoroughly, but I give it 1 / 10 instead of 2 / 10 "I am at a loss to find the words to express how bad I thought this film was. The initial precept was promising, but in all respects afterwards it was totally awful. Let's run through the main points. Plot - good initial idea but truly terrible development. There were many points when I thought "no, nobody would do something that stupid". The ending was amazingly anticlimactic. Characterisation - all of the characters were either completely bland or grotesque caricatures. I keep trying to think of one that wasn't - possibly the mother, but that's it. Music - intrusive, inappropriate and generally terrible. Direction - totally amateurish. Cinematography - doubt they've heard of it. Camera angles / stability / zoom levels often really bad. I am totally bemused at how this film has scored so highly. It's the worst movie I've seen at the cinema for years, if not ever."
I was an extra on this film but wish i wasn't because its rubbish. the worst thing about this film is the music but the acting, script, editing, directing and story are terrible as well. the main reason its bad is because the budget is so low and the only way to make good film on a low budget is to have a good script. the script which should have been ripped up before the film was made isn't funny, i didn't laugh once. what did make me laugh is how makers probably think the most important thing was getting the film made, who cares if its total rubbish. the film needed about million pound more budget and a better writer. the only reason i didn't give the film one out of ten is because i felt sorry for the guy who is gonna lose a few hundred grand making this, if you do go and see it just make sure your drunk at the time. ha ha
Saw this on French TV today and was most disappointed ! The film starts off reasonably well but nothing is elucidated and at the end we are no farther forward than in the beginning. As to seeing the husband for the murder of his wife, this is just not plausible. You need tangible proof to convict someone and a minimum of evidence. In this case there is none at all so it just is not plausible. Remember the old adage "innocent until proved guilty". The fact that a woman has disappeared without trace is no proof that her husband killed her. So I really don't know what kind of point this film was trying to make. The outcome is totally illogical and incomprehensible, no incriminating evidence is revealed to the spectator. So quite frankly, viewing it is a complete waste of time. After all, a film must be entertaining .... this is completely untrue in the case of this one and I suggest it be irrevocably consigned to the dustbin where it belongs !
There are those who gripe that this is NOT the opera, but then they don't quibble with the film of CABARET that was not the original show either. All films of musicals/operas are and have to be "adaptations" or they don't work. CABARET took more liberties with the original show than did the film of PORGY AND BESS and yet it kept its original integrity, reworking the material, and is judged an artistic success. The same holds true for PORGY AND BESS- it reworked the opera into a dialogue/song libretto because audiences at the time loved musicals but stayed away from the few echt filmed operas. It would have been economical suicide for Preminger to produce a film of the opera - it would have lost a fortune for the Goldwyn Studios.<br /><br />That said, this is a fine adaptation. The acting is excellent, the Oscar winning scoring of Andre Previn is magnificent, as is the choral singing, and the individual vocal achievements are incredible. Robert McFerrin (dad of popular musician Bobby McFerrin) dubbed Porgy and Adele Addison dubbed Bess. While Sammy Davis Jr. sang his own songs in the film, his recording contract would not permit his voice to be heard on the soundtrack album, so Cab Calloway recorded his numbers (spectacularly) for that release. Brock Peters' bass/baritone is extraordinary and Pearl Bailey is her own unique self. Diahann Carroll, although a singer of fine note, has the small role of Clara which required a high soprano, so old reliable Marni Nixon dubbed her singing.<br /><br />The Gershwin Estate hates the film and refuses to grant the musical rights, although the dramatic rights are in the public domain. This sort of hate feud held up the video release of CAROUSEL for almost fifteen years (although in that case it was the dramatic rights that were in litigation) and is currently preventing both PORGY AND BESS and ANNIE GET YOUR GUN from being released on video.<br /><br />Of all the stage productions given film versions, it is these latter two which are the sole holdouts to video. Only a campaign of letters to the Gershwin Estate in NY might loosen up the reserve.
I bought this DVD as part of a set of 50 "historic classics." It's hardly a classic, and as the plot was updated to the time of its release, is not historic either. The actual title on the DVD is "Indecent," and additionally subtitled "The Private Life of Becky Sharp." Myrna Loy is not very convincing, although in her defense she is saddled with an awful script and trite dialogue. As with many early talkies, and especially ones made by smaller studios, there is little skill demonstrated by the cast and crew. Loy does wear a few gowns that are quite stylish, but her costumes and make-up in the later scenes are overdone. The one saving grace is a tolerable performance by Billy Bevan, who plays one of her many suitors
A girl is looking for her soul mate-- this movie was very strange-- lots of sequences that look like an hallucinations. Tommy Lee Jones is the only stable one in the picture. It was hard to figure out what the director was trying to say-- Most of the time the main character is dressed in weird clothes and makeup. A weird combination of reality and madness.
This movie is of interest to the fans of the famous rock group "The Band" in that singer/ keyboardist Richard Manuel appears in several scenes. It looks to me like the movie might have been shot some years before 75, judging by Richard's looks. Interestingly, Jones would later act with The Band's Levon in a considerably better film "Coal Miner's Daughter." Anyway, you really need a special reason to outlast this tough to watch Art film. Alas, the famously sensitive Manuel would commit suicide. I've never heard how he ended up in a movie. Four of the five members of the Band would appear in another bad film "Man Outside."
This film is a disaster from beginning to end. 75 percent of the movie is made from scenes taken from HERCULES & THE HAUNTED WORLD and HERCULES & THE CAPTIVE WOMEN badly edited together with original scenes that do not add up to anything but a complete rip-off. I'm a big fan of those two movies and seeing scenes taken from them, re-edited and re-dubbed with nonsensical dialogue made my head spin. These kind of cheap producers tactics to make more money by duping unsuspecting audiences basically killed the Sword & Sandal genre back in the 1960s.<br /><br />There is one memorable scene in the new footage and it's the one when Hercules fights with the bad Hercules. The fight is albeit cool and Giovanni Cianfriglia, who plays Antaius, definitely stands out. He makes a memorable nemesis to Herc. But the rest is borderline embarrassing that was probably shot in a day.<br /><br />Avoid at all cost!
This movie is just crap, I cant put it differently. Since the very beginning one knows is going to be crap. <br /><br />The story, dialogue, acting, special effects, make-up, pretty much EVERYTHING sucks. I like vampire movies and I know they will never be Oscar winning movies but this one is not even worth seeing, I can't believe how somebody produced this thing.<br /><br />It's not even about vampires, it's more about a dream/reality experience. The development of the movie is incoherent, the motivation of the characters is... Doesn't exist, everything seems like a big joke. Maybe that's what they tried to do, but I sincerely doubt it. I wish I knew what they tried to pull but it just backfired, it's definitely one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life (and I've seen many bad movies, but nothing compared to this) Please, make yourselves a favor and do NOT watch this. <br /><br />P.S. It's also full of clichés! P.S. 2 Bad Script, Bad directing, Bad cinematography. P.S. 3 I bothered commenting on this as a favor to everyone.
This movie is probably one of 3 worst movies made in history. I rented this by chance, without reading reviews, and wow, do I regret it. Really has no plot, doesn't really follow the vampire genre. Just plain god awful. Watching this movie will taint your enthusiasm for vampire movies. I felt like the writer/director/producer went on this drug binge and had hallucinations and tried to recreate it on film. Whole time I wanted the movie to end.. but the ending was even more whacked. <br /><br />If this review can save just one person from watching this crap, I felt my time spent on registration and writing this review was well worth it.
Once again, I fell for it, in my roots I crave a fun and gory horror film, even a vampire one. Even if it's stupid, as long as I get my fun gore in the mix, I'm a happy camper, it doesn't take much. So I saw the cover of "Bled" over at Hollywood Video and was kind of curious what it was about, it looked kind of interesting, so I decided to rent it. Why? Why do I always fall for it? Not only did this movie not fulfill the satisfaction I needed for my gore and senseless violence and nudity, but I was bored out of mind. This movie has the kahoonies to say it's a vampire movie and it's really not! I'm so close to going back to the store and begging for money back because this is one of the rare times I actually turned the movie off.<br /><br />An artist meets a vampire, I think, dunno, I'm still trying to figure out what the heck he was but his name was Reinfield, so I'm assuming maybe he's a cockroach eating guy who likes to freak people out? I think, I dunno. Anyways, he thinks the artist has a certain flare for darkness, so he gives her a drug to go into an alternate fantasy where a vampire exists and needs blood to become alive? I think, I dunno. So her friends get excited and decide they wanna try the drug too, I think, I dunno. So after they decide to try the drug, things get weird, the fantasies are real, I think, I dunno, and the vampire is now enjoying the will big breasted girls in scandly clad clothing. I think, I dunno. But a couple of the girls really end up being vampires? I think, I dunno.<br /><br />Sorry for all the "I dunno's", this is possibly one of the worst reviews I'm going to write, but that's because this movie was just awful, boring, and confusing. I love just seeing these wanna be actors who you can tell are waiters looking for that "big break". Not too smart that they fell in the cliché of the horror genre, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, in this case, they really should have read the script. Because the movie, the look, the feel, the acting, everything about this movie was just bad, I really recommend that you just pass the movie if you see it at your video store. This possibly could have been an interesting movie with it's concept of a different dimension, but why did they pick this director to display his "creativity" if he even has any? This was a bad movie, just stay away.<br /><br />1/10
Bled is a very apt title for this As you watch it you will feel your life being bled from you . The cliché in horrors is about people doing exactly what they shouldn't ( going down into the basement or going up into the attic) Then the trouble ensues Take heed then DON'T watch this film .Show the brains that victims in horror movies never do Stay clear Do not enter .And if you need anymore incentive This film? is as bad as the worst Uwe Boll film I mean ,The house of the dead bad. I have often thought about entering a review of a film on I.M.D.B. and ,after watching some based on the comments herein ,I discovered I guess everyone's entiled to his/her opinion. Please trust me on mine
I rented this movie today... worst movie EVER. It was a total waste of time and a horrible story. The acting was horrible, especially by the actress of "Sai". She was so bad it was ridiculous. I can't tell if it was her bad acting or because the character was just that stupid in the first place. I can't even get my mind wrapped around just how awful and pointless this whole movie was. I'm surprised someone even thought it was a good idea to FILM this movie and bother to release it.<br /><br />If you're looking for a good Vampire/Horror flick.. this is not the movie for you. Move right along! It's a waste of time and money. Heck, I wouldn't even DOWNLOAD this movie if someone PAID me.<br /><br />This movie is so bad it doesn't even deserve a "1". I wish I could give it a "0"!
simply i just watched this movie just because of Sarah & am also giving these 4 stars just because of her,on the other side This movie was easily one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Theacting was horrible. The script was uninspired. This was a movie that kept contradicting itself. The film was sloppy and unoriginal. its not like I was expecting a good film. Just something to give me a jump or two. This did not even do that. <br /><br />he worst thing is that, the more I think about the overall plot, the less sense it actually makes and the more holes we keep finding. A real shame really, as I'm fairly sure that there was a good idea lurking in there somewhere...<br /><br />I'm perhaps being a bit harsh giving the film a 4/10 but given the actors involved and again SARA obvious writing talent, this film really should have delivered far more.
What on earth? Like watching an episode of Neighbours after drinking two bottles of cough medicine- nightmarish and making no sense at all. I was waiting for the clever part where everything fits into place and saves the film. Maybe it was there and i just missed it, or was lost on me.<br /><br />My strongest suspicion is that it is a thinly veiled attempt to market a new drug thats about to hit the streets. I wouldn't say "don't watch it" but I will say its pretty poor on every level- like am dram in high def. Whack. Unless you drink two bottles of cough syrup. Then it's just dandy.
Bled starts as young female artist Sai (Sarah Ferooqui) meets a mysterious yet charming man named Renfield (Jonathan Oldham) & they end up back at her studio apartment where he gives her the bark of some sort of tree which is used as a hallucinogenic drug when melted down. Sai quickly becomes hooked as she is whisked into an alternate fantasy reality which involve Vampiric creatures. Sai's photographer friend Royce (Chris Ivan Cevic) becomes concerned about her as she drifts further from reality as she becomes addicted to the drug, can Royce her kick the drug or will it end up ruining her life & why did the mysterious Renfield get her addicted to the stuff in the first place & do the elaborate fantasy dream like trips have any significance?<br /><br />Co-produced & directed by Christopher Hutson this anaemic arty Vampire flick is pretty much 95 minutes of tedium & is throughly deserving of all the bad comments. The script was written by the interestingly named Sxv'leithan Essex (how the hell do you even pronounce that anyway?) who is also credited as production designer & his unusual name is actually more interesting than anything that ever happens in Bled, I would guess that the makers set out to make a very serious fantasy based horror film with a strong moral message about the dangers of drugs, drug addiction & date rape drug at it's core. The majority of the film is spent on the drug issue with Sai's initial introduction to the drug, how great the first time was & how she becomes hopelessly addicted which eventually destroys her, her life & her friends lives. It's never explained where she keeps getting this drug from as Renfield only gives her a little bit during their initial meeting but hey, who cares? The first twenty odd minutes of Bled are really boring & dull, the following hour or so aren't much better before a mess of a final ten minutes which involve a Vampiric monster & Renfield making a reappearance. The moral elements are patronising, the fantasy elements seem like an afterthought & the horror is none existent. There's also the dialogue which is awful, every sentence tries to be profound, have loads of hidden depth & just tries to have so much meaning that it becomes tiresome to listen to.<br /><br />The concept of the film is terrible & so is the execution as there's absolutely no gore or violence to speak of & the entire thing is set inside an apartment that doesn't appear to have any lights. The fantasy setting looks a little better but it's sparsely seen & underused. There are no scares here, no atmosphere & to make matters even worse the makers have decided to used muted very faded colours which I just hate & find annoying, what's wrong with a nice colourful image? It seems to me to be a fad with current filmmakers who seem to think that it automatically makes a film cool or adds atmosphere which it most certainly doesn't, more often than not it just makes your film look dull & drab as evidenced here with Bled.<br /><br />This probably had a low budget & was shot in Los Angeles & it has reasonable production values but it's all so dull. The acting didn't impress me, I didn't care for or about anyone which is never a good sign.<br /><br />Bled is a terrible Vampire film that goes for psychological horror as well as physical with all sorts of parallels to real life dug addiction & what it can do to little or no effect because the whole thing is so dull. There might be an audience for a film such as this but considering the other comments not that big a one.
Pretentious horror film that looks like a soap opera gone goth about a drug that send you to a fantasy world where strange creatures lurk. The film has some good imagery but its odd mix of whats real and whats not doesn't go anywhere. Worse are the vague pronouncements in voice over from one of the characters. It seems to herald a more serious, more meaningful film, but I don't think they even got into the serious or meaningful territory to begin with so trying to over sell the meaning comes off silly. There isn't a great deal to say, people talk, take drugs have visions...they talks some more. Its not bad so much as pointless and dull. The dull is the sin here and the reason you'll want to avoid this.
worst. movie. ever made. EVER. I have no words to say about it.. other then it truly had no point, no plot, no... anything. sheer crap!!! I don't know how everyone in the movie didn't shoot them shelves after watching it.... .... .... ... .. I love vampire flicks and mysteries, and alternate abstract outside the box films, and.... this was non of those. I mean what the crap!!! I cant even tell you what the film was about cuz I still don't know, and I just wasted an hour and ahalf of my life watching it... bottom line.. I think the maker of this film just wants everyone to do drugs. thats the only thing I got from this film. please don't watch this... I mean for a " sultry sensual vampire flick" there wasn't even the to be expected nudity you'd get from a vamp flick. anyway back to my point.... this movie blows. go set yourself on fire instead.... .. ..
simply i just watched this movie just because of Sarah & am also giving these 4 stars just because of her,on the other side This movie was easily one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Theacting was horrible. The script was uninspired. This was a movie that kept contradicting itself. The film was sloppy and unoriginal. its not like I was expecting a good film. Just something to give me a jump or two. This did not even do that.<br /><br />he worst thing is that, the more I think about the overall plot, the less sense it actually makes and the more holes we keep finding. A real shame really, as I'm fairly sure that there was a good idea lurking in there somewhere...<br /><br />I'm perhaps being a bit harsh giving the film a 4/10 but given the actors involved and again SARA obvious writing talent, this film really should have delivered far more.<br /><br />This movie is just crap, I cant put it differently. Since the very beginning one knows is going to be crap.<br /><br />The story, dialogue, acting, special effects, make-up, pretty much EVERYTHING sucks. I like vampire movies and I know they will never be Oscar winning movies but this one is not even worth seeing, I can't believe how somebody produced this thing.<br /><br />It's not even about vampires, it's more about a dream/reality experience. The development of the movie is incoherent, the motivation of the characters is... Doesn't exist, everything seems like a big joke. Maybe that's what they tried to do, but I sincerely doubt it. I wish I knew what they tried to pull but it just backfired, it's definitely one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life (and I've seen many bad movies, but nothing compared to this) Please, make yourselves a favor and do NOT watch this.<br /><br />P.S. It's also full of clichés! P.S. 2 Bad Script, Bad directing, Bad cinematography. P.S. 3 I bothered commenting on this as a favor to everyone.
Dubbed beyond comprehension, the HBO version of Lumumba is a disastrous rendering of what looks like what was once a decent film. Some scenes simply don't make sense in English and the actors bring zero energy to their voice reading. Add in the self-censorship involving CIA operative Frank Carlucci, and you have a film stripped of both its drama and its power. Here's hoping the subtitled version gets to American television screens at some point.
So I rented this movie hoping to learn about the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the beginnings of its independence from Belgian rule. I was excited to become familiar with the figures involved in its history, mainly Lumumba and Mobutu. I wanted to see how the new Congolese government attempted to bring together the various groups opposing colonial rule, the political motives behind each one, the reasons behind Belgium's decision to give the DRC its independence, and also how the United States and the former USSR were involved. Sadly, all of my questions went largely unanswered. My belief is that this movie was made by people who, through a passing familiarity with the story of the DRC's fight for freedom, saw a story filled with drama and emotion, and decided to exploit it. They then proceeded to try and stuff all the dramatic points into a storyline, briefly filled them out with dialogue, went to the set and shot it. I could be wrong, but if so it's all the sadder, because then the makers must have simply become too tied up in getting everything in, and ended up glossing over all details in an effort to create an encompassing history. Whatever the reason, the fact is that the movie could be a timeline of sentence-long statements and facts printed on the screen. The film goes through each major occurrence, and tells the viewer point-blank the main idea of what's going on, completely smoothing over the actual details in favor of getting across the big things. For instance, there is the scene when Lumumba is captured by the increasingly rebellious army controlled by Mobutu. In the situation the soldiers have three possible viewpoints: one that sympathizes with Lumumba, one that vilifies Lumumba, and one that stands in the middle, sympathizing and yet obeying orders. Correspondingly, there are three soldiers that speak in the scene, uttering lines that unadornedly show their points of view. Then, to avoid dealing with the actual tensions that these opposing viewpoints bring up, the scriptwriters simply inserted some random shooting, more army guys show up and they just end up beating everyone up. This is the extent of the reflectiveness of the movie. Most of the time, each character simply states their basic motives, the other characters respond with theirs, and that's that. There's little telling through actions; even the things they say are direct the point of painfulness. It's hard to believe that the people represented actually acted like that. Also, in the trend of this directness, things like political tension between factions is reduced to simple acknowledgement of the fact-- we never learn what these factions are, what they're fighting for, their power, basically anything except that they exist. The characters likewise are one-dimensional and flat; unfortunately I don't know whether Lumumba was actually a freedom fighter passionately devoted to ideals of Congolese unity, but after an hour or so of the movie I certainly didn't trust it to tell me so. The DRC, like many developing countries, has a complicated and important history, especially in the period leading up to and after independence. But the telling of these histories will not be useful unless there is recognition of the intricacy of the situations. Lumumba fails to give proper attention to these details, and ends up telling the viewer little except the most general of outlines.
This movie is the last straw in a list of films I have seen this week that have pushed me over the edge and forced me to join IMDb and spread some warning to the public. It was absolutely horrible. The film was drawn out and painfully boring. The sound, effects, and even picture quality seemed like they came from Willow (1988) or maybe even Conan the Barbarian (1982). The battle of Bannockburn was absolutely absurd. This "largest filmed reconstruction of medieval battle ever staged in the British Isles" made me snicker. There wasn't even a coherent formation at all, just a few guys with spears and horses running right through them. The scenes of Douglas, especially in the last battle, were simply horrible, as was most of the acting in the film.
The murder of the Red Comyn in Grayfriars Abbey was a long way from one of the most horrendous things ever done in the Scottish War of Independence and fights (and killing) in churches wasn't unusual at all. Not that much later Robert Bruces wife, daughter, two of his sisters were captured during a fight in a church in which people were killed. And comparing it to the massacre of Berwick in which the English slaughtered at least 8000 non-combatants (some, yes, in churches) is ridiculous.<br /><br />That said this is not a well-made movie. It is slightly antidote to the absolutely RIDICULOUS sniveling representation of Robert Bruce in Braveheart. Whatever Bruce was, it wasn't a wuss.<br /><br />Too bad that they didn't do a better job of this because someone should make a really GOOD movie of a war that is so amazing that it sounds like something someone made up going from complete defeat at the Battle of Methven to a secret return from hiding to a long guerrilla war to Bannockburn. This isn't it though. Poorly made and to a large extent poorly written and acted. Too bad!
When my Mum went down to the video store to rent a film for the night my sister and I learned a lesson, to always company my Mum to the video store! In fact the only reason why she chose it was because Colin Firth was in it and she *cough* thinks he's a good actor!<br /><br />It starts off with some beautiful veiws of Africa and then goes DOWN AND DOWN AND DOWN, AND DOWN. After this film I was very surprised that Colin Firth got as far as he did since this pointless film could destroy any actors career.<br /><br />The story is about a divorced women who's son is trying to matchmake her to a man called Matthew Fields who he met whilst impressing his friends because of his large house.<br /><br />Nimi the divorce does not like Matthew at all and is going out with the local vicar who does not like her son John.... and the same with him!<br /><br />I am sorry if you disagree with me and i hope i haven't offended you but to all the people who haven't seen this film, I leave you with one word of warning, DON'T WATCH THIS FILM!!!!!
You know, I really have a problem with movie lists. I was reading Maxim magazine a while ago and they had a list of the 50 Greatest B-Movies of all time, and knowing me, I of course have to go through and watch them all and write reviews of all of them. This is why you see reviews of movies like Gator Bait and Barb Wire and Coffy on my list. So I noticed H.O.T.S. at the video store the other day and recognized it from Maxim's list of the 50 greatest B-movies, and I decided to rent it and check it out. My only consolation is that I rented it because I recognized it from a list of B-movies, so I already knew it was going to suck. <br /><br />Given the type of movie that it is, I can't say that H.O.T.S. is a total failure, since it is nothing more than a late 70s T&A film, and it never pretends to by anything else. The only place where it strays widely from its objective is in a ragged subplot involving a couple of ex-cons who have stashed a lot of stolen money in the house that the self-named H.O.T.S. move in to, because this subplot has absolutely no place in the movie. Despite the fact that the rest of the movie is as well, this subplot is completely superfluous and unnecessary. <br /><br />The story is based on a couple of rival sororities at the beloved F.U., which exists as one of those Universities that contains a grand total of one sorority until the rejects form their own in order to get back at the snobs in the other one. This new sorority, Help Out The Seals (H.O.T.S.), is a sorority supposedly based on helping seals (the seal subplot is another one that doesn't really belong in the movie, and little attention is paid to the meaning of that name beyond having a seal running around here and there throughout the movie). <br /><br />This is going to sound weird, but there was actually one scene that I was pretty impressed with in this movie. One SHOT that I was impressed with, I should say. About midway through the movie, one of the girls in Pi, the rival sorority, is pouring alcohol into the punch, and she pours some for herself in a glass and drinks it. Oddly enough, what she does as she drinks that alcohol reminds me of something that Charlie Chaplin would do, which really brightened up the movie. Obviously, nothing in this movie comes close to anything that Chaplin ever did, but that shot alone raised my score for the movie from a 2 to a 4.<br /><br />As a whole, however, the movie is exactly what you would expect it to be, a lot of people running around looking for excuses to take off their clothes (I liked how the remove-one-piece-of-clothing-for-every-score in the football game at the end was one of the GIRLS' ideas. Riiiiiiiiight…), and not much thought is put into much of anything else. There is, for example, a scene early in the film when a couple of the Pi girls pour hot sauce into the refreshments at a H.O.T.S. party, accidentally getting caught in an incriminating photograph (the girl taking the picture didn't realize that she photographed them at the time), although the photograph never comes up for any reason later in the film. <br /><br />I've seen movies like this before, it's kind of like Gator Bait but without the violence and the rednecks and Coffy wasn't far off. Even Barb Wire is much the same, just with a bigger budget and more silicon. Thankfully, Maxim's 50 B-movie list contains only a few more comedies, because while these cheesy teen T&A films are entertaining every once in a while as bad movies with the occasional semi-nude scene, after watching H.O.T.S. I think I've decided that I like the bad horror movies better than the bad comedies. I'd rather watch a lot of terrible actors pretend to be scared than pretend to be funny.
The glorious Edward gets to move up in the world when his supervisor tells him that he can drop those filthy Swedish drama movies and head up stairs to the splatter and gore department. Excited along with his big anticipations for the new type of movies he soon will be going to edit, he asks all sorts of questions, about the wage, his workspace and lunch brake. Well, not really. Edward is maybe quite the opposite. Calm, stuttering guy, on top of that, he got glasses. With the exception when he's insane. I guess that created a much creepier atmosphere.<br /><br />Evil Ed is with all reason a Swedish movie, but somehow a magical force came across the good actors and turned their lovely Swedish accents into stereotypical American voices. I guess that's some of the expertise an actor needs these days. The acting is very….wooden, as in they are inflexible, not bendable (well hey, what did you actually expect?). On top of that the movie has a jamming techno theme song, sounds like its E-Type. In any case, this only makes the movie experience worse. Since I'm fairly harsh against this movie so far, there will usually be a breaking point where I tone the level of happiness up. But there's really not much to say. The blueprints look good, but somehow 'Hanz' spelt coffee over it and partially destroyed it. That's how I look at this movie. If the movie ended where Edward is taken to a mental institute and they refurnished the parts from where he goes insane and kills people, the result would have been much better, but that's just my radical view. I would also like to see more footage from the lose limbs movies.<br /><br />There are also illogical things to discover in this piece of movie. Let's to say that the actors really are American, living in America, why would they then work on a Swedish movie, like Edward did? And also, that delivery man, why is it that he never uses the doorbell which is located directly beside him? Instead he goes away with tapping softly at the door. Good old Edward really got some good ears to hear all that while he is editing.<br /><br />Anyway, this movie had its moments, it's just a shame there were not that many. But that doesn't mean I would not recommend it. It's a rather cheap movie, go ahead and buy. It's almost like I see a pattern for the price and the movie. On the other side; if you like watching dubbed movies getting crappier by the second this might be IT. My verdict would then be a rock solid 4.
Calling this film a decent or enjoyable horror tribute is far too optimistic. Heck, you can't even refer to it as a nice spoof of the genre because it's way below average ( it's funny, but not "haha-funny, you know). But still I'd say to give it a look. If only for the huge amount of trivia elements in it. By the way, all those people who're complaining about this movie here in their comments have only themselves to blame. When you see the DVD-cover of this film, you should already know that it's not going to be on the same level as "The Piano" for example, so don't come complaining afterwards...<br /><br />Evil Ed could've been something but the totally screwed it up. I suppose the main idea behind this film is criticism towards the growing 'cutting-committee' in horror nowadays. It shows an editor named Edward who's slowly (well,not too slowly) going nuts by seeing all the violence and gore in the movies produced by his company produced. The big boss is named Sam Campbell...Funny, isn't it ? Personally I also expected a character named Bruce Raimi, but to my surprise there wasn't. Anyway, this guy became rich by making movies called "Loose Limbs". They feature ( and I'm not kidding you! ) scenes in which a girl is getting raped by a BEAVER (?) and then gets shot in the head by a bazooka !!! Now, who says horror isn't original anymore ?<br /><br />With all the gore and the 'loose limbs', it's hard to believe it but it really gets boring very quick. After a decent first 25 minutes, Evil Ed turns into complete boredom and never recovers from that. The only think left to do then ( besides pushing the eject-button, of course ) is look for the obvious amount of references to other, much better horror films. I saw scenes obviously stolen from The Evil Dead, Silence of the Lambs, Braindead and several others.And there's a huge amount of classic horror posters on the walls to admire as well.<br /><br />Evil Ed finds it origin in Sweden. I'm convinced there's a lot up talent there, far North ( take the Danish "Nattevagten" as an example )...but none of them talents joined the cast or crew of Evil Ed. Only to see if you're in a dumb mood and you don't want to use your brain at all.
This Swedish splatter movie tries to parody/imitate American horror films such as "The Evil Dead", "Gremlins" and others. Writer/director/actor/cinematographer Anders Jacobsson and writer/producer/actor/makeup effects supervisor Göran Lundström (did I miss something?) were obviously inspired by Sam Raimi. But the camera work is a bad copy of what can be seen in "The Evil Dead" and elsewhere. Some other users have written that they enjoyed the humor of this film but I didn't.<br /><br />The film rather disturbed than entertained me. It tries to combine suspense and comedy and the final product just left me with a feeling of oppressiveness although it wasn't scary or shocking at all. The combination of different genre elements made this film very strange. I was never sure if it was meant to be scary or funny.<br /><br />The story is quite inventive except for the showdown at the hospital but I didn't like the way it was staged for the reasons mentioned above. The gore & make up effects are considerably good and at least the "Loose Limbs" sequences were quite entertaining because in these scenes the film-makers didn't try to mix scares and jokes.<br /><br />All in all a strange film that you will either hate or love. Rest in pieces, Evil Ed.<br /><br />My rating: 3/10 (made me stick to American productions)
Once in a while i like a good horror movie, so i thought this would be a splatter and gore movie. but it was a boring boring movie, maybe because i have seen a cut version, because there where only two things that where a little splatter, one time where some ones cuts someone arm of and where some one shots an arm of, but that where the only things. Wismaster for example had more cool senes then evil ed, its more a boring ed than a evil ed. and some actors where lousy to.o
A swedish splatter movie? Has the world gone insane?<br /><br />Probably not, but it's still not a common sight in these days with swedish gore-flicks, the b-movie business in Sweden seems to have troubles these days, long gone are the golden days of "Rymdinvasion i lappland". And this movie seems to have some troubles on its own: it's just too much talk in it, it still manages to be somewhat amusing mainly for the good FX, which are great for a b-movie. The script and most of the acting is still pretty bad though, but that actually don't matter that much, it's supposed to be a gore flick and nothing more, that's where it goes a bit wrong for some reason. There's is simply not enough blood to fill the void. <br /><br />Every person who know about Gert Fylking will have a good laugh over his role as a sgt. though. I nearly laughed my ass off. It's really that hilariously bad. <br /><br />Besides the good parts I've listed there's really nothing else to recommend here unless you're starved for swedish B-movies.<br /><br />4/10
This flick is TERRIBLE! It sets out to disgust and make you laugh, but it fails horribly. The director obviously has no sense of slap stick gore comedy, and the actors are like nothing I've ever seen - lacking both acting talent and flair of comedy. Even their attempt at the English languish is really sad, and actually the down right peculiar Swedish accent, in which the incoherent dialog is spoken, is probably the most comical and enjoyable thing about this film. Even the gore i awful and unconvincing. If you crave gore comedy, I'd suggest you turn to classic fare such as the evil dead series or even brain dead if you must. We all enjoy a bloody good laugh, but this is ridiculous!
Actually I feel like having my review be that one word. My friend, whose opinions I almost always trust about movies, especially horror movies, warned me NOT to rent this no matter how tempted or bored or desperate to see a new horror movie I was, because it was a complete waste of time. Unfortunately I haven't talked to him in a while, and I was in a hurry to pick a movie, and thought, 'what the heck, how bad could it be?' WHY don't I learn? What was I thinking? Did I think it would magically turn into a better movie while sitting there on the shelf for years waiting to be rented?<br /><br />The 'plot' concerns a guy who edits films for some company. His boss is a jerk. The guy who had the job before him went insane and blew himself up in the pre-credits sequence, so for some reason the boss picks nerdy 'Ed' for the special project of editing "Loose Limbs" splatter movies. He never says what Ed is supposed to edit, but I guess that doesn't matter. Ed is upset by some of the clips, working on them up at this house all by himself that the boss has decided to relocate him to for no apparent reason. He asks his boss if he can stop or do another project, but his boss doesn't care. He starts to slowly go insane, supposedly from watching the clips, and wants to carry out the gory murders in real life. Or has he been this way all along? Please note that I am making this plot sound much more deep, interesting, and coherent than it actually is.<br /><br />We don't care about the characters at all, or have any sympathy for them, or even hate the bad guys. The plot is really, really boring and predictable. The splatter isn't even that gruesome or creative-this is NOT worth renting just to see the gore, because what there is isn't interesting or original.<br /><br />All the 'tributes' to Sam Raimi just come off like really bad ripoffs, and no-one in the movie is anywhere near good looking enough as Bruce Campbell, so you can't distract yourself with that. I think an "Evil Dead II-Dead by Dawn" poster is only prominently displayed in one scene in the hopes that Sam Raimi will be flattered and not consider any sort of legal action. A trained chimp could have written a better screenplay. Every time I hear lines like "Are we having fun...yet?" (which even Bride of Re-Animator couldn't pull off without making me wince) I start feeling like picking up some sort of deadly weapon myself. Characters just appear out of nowhere with no explanation, wandering in only to get killed. This might be OK if the movie was even remotely amusing or entertaining, but it was all I could do to keep from fast-forwarding through most of it. Fortunately I chose to pay some bills and balance my checkbook at the same time the movie was playing. Trust me, it did not require my full attention-I still felt like 90+ minutes of my life were wasted just by having this on in the background.<br /><br />Don't watch it, no matter HOW tempted you are-you'll hate yourself for wasting your money. Horror fans will be completely disgusted by how incompetent it is. Even those who haven't seen too many splatter movies should stay away, as there are so many movies out there you could rent that are much more well worth your while. If you want something brainless, low-budget and fun, rent something else. Complete waste of time with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Be smarter than I was at the time and don't be fooled by the "Warning-Not For the Faint of Heart" on the box. You have been warned!<br /><br />
Not as bad as some people say...This is a unofficial Bond movie and a remake of "Thunderball", written by Kevin McClory (co- producer in "Thunderball"). Well, the cast is very very interesting, Maria Brandauer is a great Bond- villain, Kim Basinger and Barbara Carrera are just like the "original" Bond- girls, plus Rowan Atkinson and a truly great Edward Fox, who looks really refreshing in the "M" role. In fact, the whole movie is refreshing and gives some new impulses. Sean Connery does it once more confident and charming, except that he looks a little bit too old. But alright, he is the original Bond and it was great to see him once more in this role. The locations are also typical- Bahamas, France, etc. The only thing that really fails is the music score, the song "Never say never again" is O.K., but the theme song is just missing. All in one, a nice try to make a difference from the comic and silly Roger Moore movies like "Moonraker". Only if there was another story, "Thunderball" was a excellent movie and really did not needed a remake
Though some would prefer to comment on the value of Bond movies in the connection of learning frequency, and while most of the jargon that tends to limit Bond to a meager 007 following has been exploited beyond all reasonable contention, there are several redeeming plausibilities that extend the credibility of Sean Connery in this doubling role that had seen its counterpart adaptation in part of a previous performance by Jessica Tandy in Driving Miss Daisy. While Connery had been less visible in the latter, his woman-seeker qualities had maybe not cast a frown on the face of embittered spectators as it would in this latest rendition which, to most involved, approached the 007 theme with kind resentment, albeit while the general flavor had been altered. Great for those who interest others while faking to be who you're not!
Sad in every aspect, this poor excuse for a career boost for Connery was neither that nor the hit Warners wanted it to be. Overlong by 20 minutes and filled with embarrassing moments for everyone involved, this film and "Robocop 2" are proof that Irvin Kershner did not have any real control over "The Empire Strikes Back." Connery hadn't been in a hit since he bowed out from Bond in 1971, but this didn't bring him back at all. "Octopussy" was released several months before this film, and easily outgrossed it. Imagine that - a Roger Moore Bond not only better than a simultaneous Connery release, but outgrossing it (and compared to "Never...," "Octopussy" is on par with "2001."<br /><br />The worst Bond theme song, even worse than "The Man with the Golden Gun," pointless scenes that drag on pointlessly (with the worst example being that ridiculous video game sequence - MY GOD - WHO CARES?!), and the most atrocious collection of non-talent as far as the fabled "Bond Girls" go. Does anybody SERIOUSLY think Kim Basinger is attractive in this movie? There were girls in my high school who could never get dates who looked better than she does in this. And Barbara Carrera - just plain stupid - but the way Kershner has directed her to prance around all the time didn't help her out any. She is the seedling that would become the very impressive "Onatop," which was about the best feature of "GoldenEye," but that doesn't mean anything as you laboriously struggle through this film.<br /><br />Casting Leiter as a black agent was an excellent idea, but the buddy-loke interaction Connery and he are supposed to have is awfully bad. Two actors never appeared so clumsily linked together - witness the scene where, to escape local authorities, they strip to their boxers and pretend to be out exercising - I can not imagine another scene in any movie that tried so hard so fruitlessly to get a laugh.
This is more than just an adaptation of Bond: it's a plain rip off! With mediocre character sketches that Ian Fleming would not have approved of, this film goes down as the worst 007 movie. An older (even haggard) Connery tries to relive his past 12 years later. The result is a humourless, tacky version of the classic hero. Give me Roger Moore any day!
Connery climbs aboard the Moore buffoon train in this stinker of a movie. Tossing away everything that made Bond successful in the first place, this movie further degrades the Bond character throwing him into the category of Inspector Gadget. Get Smart this ain't. There is no style here, only second rate actors performing on cheap sets. It's a shame that Connery couldn't lend an element of class here but it doesn't come across. Everything here reeks of mediocrity, including Connery's bad toupee. Perhaps if I was snowed in and given the choice between watching "Never Say Never Again" and "Howard The Duck" I would choose the former. If you want the real James Bond, pick up any Ian Flemming novel.
Thunderball and Never are two of the biggest box office misses and Never is a surprise farce from Empire Strikes Back hero Irvin Kershner. Klaus Maria Brandauer seems to steal the show, when, in the midst of the unfolding plot, Bond's mission turns more to Hollywood romp (Sometime around when Basinger comes in). How about Klaus Kinski? I still think that the casting of Largo makes or, as is evident in both films, breaks the story. Worst of all is the attempt to pass off the aging and very hairy Connery off as the sex symbol he indeed was in the '60s. The '80s was a barren time for Bond flicks mostly, though For Your Eyes Only is a great title. At times, when I happen to need to waste some time over the holidays by watching this film in the often string of Bond re-run festivals, I think the best attribute of the film is its score, and I'm not into soft '80s 'jazz'.
It only took one viewing of this dog, for me to say "Never again!" It's so profoundly unmemorable that I had to read other people's reactions to it before I could remember anything beyond (1) it was awful, (2) Connery should have quit while he was ahead, and (3) the film included a total gross-out bit involving faking a retinal scan through the most gruesome (not to mention horribly inefficient) means possible.<br /><br />Actually, I've never understood why anybody would prefer even the best of Connery's Bond films over even the worst Moore or Dalton outings. Or Lazenby, Brosnan, or even David Niven, for that matter. I personally found Octopussy and Moonraker, among other "canonical" Bond films, to be far more entertaining than this, and probably for the very same reasons why others deprecate the Moore Bond films, namely their wry humor, and their willingness to surrender to the preposterousness of the whole basic Bond milieu.
I bought a tape of this film based on the recommendation of other IMDb users and have to say that I was very disappointed. I'm a college professor and showed this movie to my class; they unanimously voted that it's a terrible film. I guess that if you like the old Dark Shadows series, then maybe you'll like this. (I liked Dark Shadows when I was a kid in the '70s, but now I think it's just awful). The first half hour or so at least has the virtue of some fidelity to Wilde's novel. After that, the story veers wildly off course, at least as compared with the 1945 MGM version (which won two Oscars). Nigel Davenport as Lord Henry is really about the only thing watchable in the whole production. A lot of the other acting is bad, the music is melodramatic, and look of the film is terrible. Actually, it's not a film at all--it was obviously shot on video and has that characteristically claustrophobic BBC look about it. The opening scenes are particularly poorly lit, the women's costumes are terrible (the men look all right), and a lot of the characters--including Dorian--seem to have 1970s rather than Victorian hairstyles. The movie does well to include a lot of Wilde's dialog, but the voice-over narration in the voice of Dorian contains a lot of rubbish that directly contradicts Wilde's character. I'm a big Oscar Wilde fan, and I fear that he must have rolled over violently in his grave when this monstrosity was made. Its only improvement over the 1945 version is that the homosexual subtext is definitely more apparent, without being heavy-handed. I haven't seen either of the more recent versions, but if one is interested in seeing the story well told, I would have to recommend the 1945 MGM black-and-white over this one.
I was supremely disappointed with this one. Having just read the wonderful Oscar Wilde story, I had hoped for at least a little of the magic to translate onto the screen. Well, there was none. This version played like a condensed, dumbed down Reader's Digest movie. Not only did it feel rushed, it was cheapened and needlessly re written. Major characters and plot points were either changed or completely removed. I appreciate the difficulties in trying to bring a novel to the screen, especially on what may very well have been a limited (TV) budget, but there is no excuse for mangling a great story in this way. I thoroughly recommend reading Wilde's tale of the depravity that exists under even the most beautiful exteriors. But I cannot advise anyone to rent this travesty.
By-the-numbers, Oscar-hungry biopic about the late, great singer Ray Charles. There is one -- exactly one -- great scene in *Ray*. It occurs during a flashback to Charles' youth, after the boy become completely blind. Running into the sharecropper house which he shares with his mother, he trips over a chair and sprawls on the floor. He cries out for his mother; she, in keeping with her philosophy that a person should "stand on their own two feet", observes silently and pensively from the kitchen, waiting to see if the boy can fall back on his own resources. The boy proves to be up to the challenge, using his ears and memory to locate a kettle on a stove, a nearby fire-pit, the grass blowing in the wind outside of a window, the scuttling of a cricket across the plank-board floor.<br /><br />The movie pauses, here; it expands; it breathes -- even if for only 40 seconds. The scene is a much-needed respite from Taylor Hackford's otherwise noisy film. By "noisy" I'm not referring to the music, which is, of course, excellent. I AM referring to the sound effects (big BOOMS! preceding yet another flashback) and the inane dialog ("I'm speaking to you as a FRIEND, Ray," etc.). On the visual side, Hackford is equally and pointlessly flashy: sepia-colored filters over the camera lenses during the flashbacks; whirling-dervish 360s from the camera-crane, etc. etc. All the modern amenities. What a horrible cinematic style is displayed in *Ray*! -- a style all-too-common in wanna-be "important" movies from the past decade or so (Scorsese's *Aviator* is stylistically very similar to this movie). These gimmicks are employed to obfuscate the cliché-ridden screenplay. Some of us won't be fooled.<br /><br />Some of us also are not quite prepared to accept Jamie Foxx's performance as anything more than superb mimicry. Granted, Foxx eerily resembles Ray Charles: he walks like Charles, talks like Charles, and even twitches like Charles. Foxx's imitation of the singer during live performance is technically perfect. I'm not begrudging Mr. Foxx his Oscar; he deserved it. (It was a pretty weak field this year, anyway.) But one wonders if Foxx really UNDERSTANDS Charles. The actor does achieve one great moment when he insists on trying out the smack that his band-mates are shooting up: he registers, if only for a brief moment, a disgust at the unfairness of being blind and a life of darkness. The movie seems to want to dramatize the struggle within Charles between the bright salvation of music and the oblivion of heroin, with his blindness as the battleground between those two compulsions. But the damn movie just won't take the time: it bounces along from triumph to triumph, never really pausing for any insight into the man. One has to STRETCH to find the dramatic tension; one must supply the drama FOR the movie. One must, in other words, imagine a better movie than this one.<br /><br />In its rush toward a glorious conclusion, *Ray* introduces, then dodges, several excellent ideas for a movie: his early days on the "Chitlin Circuit"; his bold musical innovations for the Atlantic label; the problem of his addiction to heroin; the inevitable artistic compromises attendant upon overwhelming success; the man's importance to the Civil Rights struggle (touched on in the movie for, oh, about 3 minutes of screen-time), and much more. The filmmakers are too lazy to focus on any one of these elements. Two-and-a-half hours of watching a man overcome one adversity after another may make us feel good, but such a movie is not necessarily a grand work of art. This sort of approach certainly provides no deeper insight into the film's subject -- and shouldn't insight be the real goal of a movie like this? If I had wanted a laundry-list of Ray Charles' accomplishments, I'd have simply Googled him.<br /><br />3 stars out of 10 -- the extra 2 stars strictly for the music.
This is the first recorded effort to put sound with a movie, and a the oldest that, obviously, is still in existence. This historic piece of film is the opening segment in the "More Treasures Of The Natural Archives" DVD.<br /><br />It's only a 15-second clip of a man playing a violin in front of a huge recording cylinder. Next to him are two men dancing. Near the end, another man walks on the stage. William Dickson, the director of this experiment, is the violin player. This "movie" had several titles over the years but the sound experiment was not really a success. It took over 30 years from this point to the synchronize sight and sound to the point where something could be issued to the public for entertainment. However, this was a start, no matter how primitive it came off. <br /><br />For more of the technical information and history of this film process, see the other review here by "Boba Fett1138."
Director/screenwriter Allan Burns seems to have patched two different scripts together before coming up with this minor outing: a comedy about infidelity and a melodrama about loss and sabotage. It results in a wincingly unfunny film. Christine Lahti plays a crass, cynical TV news reporter who makes friends with aerobics instructor Mary Tyler Moore and is soon having dinner with Moore and her family--only to discover Mary's husband (Ted Danson) is Lahti's secret affair! Burns has a strange, stop-and-start rhythm to his dialogue which is neither realistic nor effective (just increasingly annoying, because nothing important ever seems to get said). Rail-thin Moore, looking alarmingly frail in her leotard, has a radiant smile but doesn't convince as Danson's wife, and Danson gets stuck with a paltry, thankless role (he's just there to be a cad). The movie attempts to cover all the bases in a classic case of overreaching (woman's role in the workplace, the TV news-biz, the cheating family man, the working wife and mother who wants more, a woman's need for female friendships, et al), but nothing substantial comes out of these ideas since Burns only half-heartedly examines the issues. As a writer, he is surprisingly free of punchlines, but is devoid of a purpose as well, and the heavy plotting just gets all fouled up. *1/2 from ****
This is what used to be called a "women's picture" and later a "chick's flick" when times and movies got more juvenile. The plot is just soap opera for women and will only appeal to those types. The only appeal for most guys is if they wanna see a too rail-thin Mary Tyler Moore in leotards. (If you're of a certain age, like me, that might still be enough to give it a look.) Otherwise MTM gives another of her typical by-the-numbers performances that she's been giving since the early 70s when she took it to heart that she was America's Sweetheart. Christine Lathi gives another of those abrasive and unpleasant performances that seem a real part of her as a person and probably only appeal to those of that type. (Sorry, but it seems true.) Ted Danson is too young as MTM's husband and usually gives off a slightly creepy appeal unless he has an acting partner who can soften it. And it doesn't happen here. Allan Burns wrote & directed and probably got it all through because he worked with Mary before, wrote it as a project for her, and she had the juice at this point to get it made. There seems no other purpose to it.
Boring, utterly predictable soap opera. Mary Tyler Moore is married to Ted Danson who's having an affair with Christine Lahti. Moore is friends with Lahti and doesn't know about the cheating. Danson dies in an accident and Lahti is pregnant with his baby. YAWN! <br /><br />I'm ashamed to admit I paid money to see this in a theatre in 1986. I liked all three stars but even their considerable talents couldn't pull this off. I CONSTANTLY knew what was going to happen. Like another poster said--this plays like a PG-rated Lifetime movie.<br /><br />It does have Lahti swearing nonstop at one point and even Moore lets loose once! Also there's a pointless shots of topless women playing football (!!!). Other than that it's TV friendly. The only good thing about this was Timothy Gibbs playing Moore and Danson's teenage son. Very handsome and quite a good actor. That aside there's nothing to recommend this. You've seen it before...and done better. It's obviously been forgotten. Skip it.
This four-hour miniseries production is about two hours longer than necessary, primarily because the filmmakers seemed not to have a clear idea how to adapt a novel to the screen. They seemed not to know what should be kept in and what might safely be left out. The film opens with Sir Walter reading from the Peerage book that is his primary solace in his troubles. This introduces the family - all of whom we get to know intimately over the next four hours anyway - but serves little other purpose. Similarly, the scenes where the Musgroves lament "poor Richard" serve no purpose but to drag the story down. Some of Austen's actual dialogue is allocated to different characters and some of her narrative is recycled as dialogue that falls awkwardly from the tongues of the characters. There is some fill-in dialogue, too, and this is uniformly dreadful. The scene where Charles Hayter is boring Henrietta with his concerns about getting Dr. Shirley's curacy was only barely interesting as narrative in the book; as a scene in this production, it is stultifying The scene on the Cobb, when Louisa falls and is "taken up lifeless!", is entirely without urgency, and I wondered whether Wentworth's line "Is there nobody to help me?" might have been directed at the writers, as well as the other actors.<br /><br />This production often looks and feels like a play that has been filmed, rather than an actual film, and this is most evident in the acting, which is the opposite of subtle: booming delivery of lines, exaggerated gestures, and actors who have no idea what to do with their hands, feet, or faces when they are not speaking their lines. Charles Musgrove stands in his parlour, feet shoulder width apart, and appears to project to the balcony (if there were one) when speaking to the other people in the room with him. Louisa Musgrove's face, when not actively simpering or giggling, seems to be in confused repose. Louisa is a giddy, giggly, ditzy creature, and I did not for a moment believe that Wentworth would be interested in her. <br /><br />The costumes are a mixed bunch, but mostly awful, and Anne Elliot's green tartan gown is quite possibly the most hideous alleged period costume ever devised. We are given the dates at the beginning of the show - it is the late 1790's or perhaps very early 1800s - and yet many of the costumes seem to be of Victorian design, and thus about 60 years too early! The hair is just so wrong that I won't even mention it here. Except to say that I won't mention it. :-)<br /><br />This production does do some things right, however. Mrs. Smith is given her proper importance, and her history with Mr. Elliot, his dissipation and his intrigues, are fully addressed. I was also pleased to see the fleshed out "reconciliation" scenes with Anne and Frederick at the end, which are precious reward for the reader but were glossed over in the 1995 production.<br /><br />If you love the book Persuasion, and even vaguely like the 1995 movie, don't waste a moment (or a penny) on this production; you will find it sorely wanting.
Okay, if you discount the production value, the ugly outfits, and the big hair, this adaptation is still far inferior to the 90's version. First Ann Firbank (playing Anne Elliot), is literally ten years too old to play this role and her acting leaves much to be desired. Amanda Root (playing the same role in the 90's version) can express more in her big, brown eyes than Firbank can with her entire face in a four hour production. Anne is turned into a peevish, whining, boring character (and what was with the scene during the `long walk' where she stops to spout off poetry?). Henrietta and Louisa looked so much alike that the only time I could tell them apart was when they stood next to each other (Henrietta was taller). And Louisa! Never was there a more obnoxious character! It was ridiculous to think that Wentworth was supposed to be interested in her. She is supposed to be high spirited and pretty and charming, not stupid and silly with her ridiculous laugh that's like nails on a chalkboard. When she starts to chant, `to Lyme, to Lyme, to Lyme,' I started yelling, `shut up, shut up, shut up!' The best part of the movie was when Louisa falls those three feet at the cobb because I knew I wouldn't have to see her anymore in the movie. Speaking of the fall at the cobb scene; it was the mose poorly acted, badly directed and edited scene of the entire film. How does a person fall three feet down, land on her feet, and still be knocked unconscious?<br /><br />On the plus size, the character of Elizabeth was much closer to the book than in the 90's version. They also put in many more scenes with Anne and Frederick at the end.<br /><br />I'll admit, I have bought this movie, even though I knew how sub par it was, but I'm a huge Austen fan, so I'll buy any movie adapted from one of her novels. Watch this move if you're morbidly curious, or to appreciate the 90's version even more.<br /><br />The bottom line is, this version may follow the letter of the novel, but the 90's version follows the spirit.
Well, Anne is way way too old. Wentworth looks younger than she and he should not. Louisa is much too young and too cheerful Oh sister Mary is way too pretty. She is supposed to be average, not pretty. When this actress complains the way Mary should all I think is that she is too pretty to be a complainer. Lady Russell is too Old. This is crazy. If you read the novel, she is Anne's older more mature friend, maybe as old as Annes mother would be which would be around 18-20 years older than Anne- so around 50 NOT 70! Its crazy, doesn't fit. How come Anne is so darn happy in the beginning? She smiles when she says "oh the worst is over, I've seen him now the worst has passed" yeah right. OK if anyone has seen the 1995 Roger Michell version than you cant compare these two. That one is right on. This one is way off. Read the novel and you'll know what I mean.
Oh yes, I have to agree with the others who describe this as appalling. The acting in this four hour feature is uniformly bad, so bad to the point that I find it impossible to believe any of the actors in this production could possibly earn a living as an actor. I still wonder who did the casting. Each delivers their lines without appearing to have any kind of engagement or emotional investment with any other character. None appear to have a true relationship, family or otherwise, with another. The direction is also appalling and any action scene is laughable and unconvincing. Were the film editors asleep?<br /><br />The costumes appear authentic to the Regency period but the fabrics look 20th century and colors (especially the blue colors!) are jarring and I don't believe were available in early 19th century fabric except perhaps in silk. <br /><br />Also the hair: the men have obvious 1970s haircuts, and the women have "big hair"---especially the woman playing Anne Elliot.<br /><br />All the female characters, young and old, are quite lovely but this doesn't make up for the lack of acting abilities. The actress playing "Anne" looks as though she is in her forties while Anne Elliot is supposed to be 27 years old. I mean, where was the makeup and lighting crew if we were to find the woman playing Anne believable? She spends much of her time gazing pensively with her eyes at the level of the horizon whether indoors or out. I wonder still what that was suppose to convey. Regret perhaps? Yes, this production is regrettable!<br /><br />The actress playing Louisa was truly appalling. She screams, squeals, giggles, and leaps around like an ill mannered twelve-year-old (my apologies to anyone twelve years of age reading this) that I found myself eagerly awaiting the moment when she knocks herself out. How this behavior is suppose to attract an adult male is beyond me. Most would back off when she first opened her mouth to giggle and shriek.<br /><br />The actor playing Captain Wentworth portrays someone so bland and colorless one wonders why any woman could pine over him for eight years.<br /><br />The rejoining of the pair at the end is not convincingly done or explained. How did they get together again? Not because Louisa was in a coma; that is certain. No, there has to be more than that and it is not explained in the film. <br /><br />I rate this production two stars: one because it is Austens' work, and the other because some of the outdoor scenes were lovely. The only reason I could watch the entire production is that I was off sick with the flu and I got it from the library. <br /><br />If you enjoyed the book see the 1995 version with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds. I would recommend this film even if you have't read the book.
Oh, my. Poor Jane must have done the old rolling-over-in-the-grave thing. Even allowing for poor production values for the time (1971) and the format (some kind of mini-series), this is baaaaaad. Whatever else you do with Austen, the dialog should sparkle (even in this, perhaps her most serious work), and melodrama should be strictly out of bounds. Alas, not the case with this production. By the time you get to Anne's "Frederick, Frederick, Frederick," you'll either be laughing or crying. Unless you're just out to visually "collect" all extant films of Austen's work, you can skip this one. If you do watch it, however, there are small consolations: The actresses playing Anne's sisters each do a wonderful job with their roles.
Usually when BBC releases a TV series one is used to a certain satisfaction guarantee. Usually the TV series is splendid, even if the story is boring, you can trust the acting will make the it worth while. When I came across, Persuasion, here at the local library, I was looking forward to an enjoyable evening, cause I read the story.<br /><br />I'm glad I read the story first, otherwise I would not think highly of it. Further was I relieved to learn that the production date of this TV series was from 1971, since I thought, until that moment, that BBC had lost it. It is really bad, and should be used in acting schools as a horror movie.<br /><br />The only positive thought I have about this series that the people in this film are not likely to appear or be involved in any BBC or other product this century other than the young Musgroves sisters, who apparently were taking their fist steps in acting, and doing remarkably well under the direction otherwise given.
The comparisons between the 1995 version and this are inevitable. Sadly, this version falls far short.<br /><br />The casting is uninspired and the acting wooden. One gets the impression the director did not read the book,so did not understand the characters.<br /><br />Sir Walter Elliot is portrayed as pompous but his inadvertent silliness which Redgrave brilliantly captured (in the 1995 version) is nowhere to be found.<br /><br />The Musgrove sisters are so unlikable, one doesn't understand why Wentworth or anybody else would give them a second glance.<br /><br />The relationship between Wentworth and Anne is devoid of feeling.<br /><br />In the 1995 version, Hinds and Root managed to convey the depth of emotion the two of them felt towards each other with their body language and facial expressions. In this one, it is hard to understand Anne spent years mired in regret unless one has read the book.<br /><br />This production does not capture the emotional complexity of the main characters' relationship.<br /><br />In the scene where Wentworth walks in on Anne and Mary having breakfast, it seems to the viewer, as Mary thinks, they are only slight acquaintances.<br /><br />In the 1995 version, when Wentworth walks in (the first time he sees her in years), the tension is thick. Resentment is coming off Wentworth in waves, while Anne is almost overcome.<br /><br />In this version, while Wentworth is courting Lousia, it is as if he is truly invested, the undercurrents are missing. In the 1995 version, the viewer sees Wentworth's anger at Anne. He is flaunting his courtship in front of Anne, as if to say, "see what you gave up, I don't need or want you anymore".<br /><br />Yet he still cares if she suffers, as the scene where he asks his sister and the Admiral to take Anne back to house illustrates. In the 1995 version the viewer feels Anne's shock that he would care if she was tired, we also feel Wentworth's discomfort that he does still care. In this version he just walks on with Lousia as if nothing happened.<br /><br />The pivotal scene where Anne is conversing with Harville about who loves longest, man or woman, is totally botched. The actors are just reciting lines with no emotional investment.<br /><br />When Anne reads the letter from Wentworth, it is as if she is reading a grocery list.<br /><br />Contrast this to the 1995 version, where the viewer feels Anne's joy at her second chance. We are there with her as she reads the letter. The director had both actors reading the letter and you hear both their voices. Wentworth is full of frustration, passion and hope, while Anne's is at first incredulous then evolves in to joy.<br /><br />This production has more scenes after the revelation, probably because it was needed to explain to the viewer what just happened. The 1995 version didn't need to explain, we knew and rejoiced for the characters The only thing this production has in it's favor is it kept the Mrs. Smith sub plot intact, while the 1995 version did not.<br /><br />The 1995 version however did include part of Austen's original ending. The scene where Wentworth is commissioned by the Admiral to find out if Anne and Mr. Elliot will want to move back to her house (which he & Mrs. Croft are renting) after they marry. <br /><br />This is a production to avoid at all costs.
This is not a good movie at all. I cannot believe that after fifty years, this movie gets the National Award when there have been such gems from Marathi cinema that have been so systematically ignored. This is a very overrated movie that got very, very lucky. It was given the National Award, harvested the popular opinion and now is going to represent India before the international audience. Anyone with even a marginal understanding of good, quality cinema will know very well that this will not even be nominated at the Oscars.<br /><br />I cannot understand where to start. There are just so many things that are wrong and lacking in this movie that it amazing it even got considered for the National Award. That this movie is awarded as the best movie to come out this year goes to show the biased judgment of people who hold the reins of Indian cinema and the diminutive understanding of the people who blindly appreciate this movie.<br /><br />The topic chosen is great. It is important that such movies be made – but only by people who are able to handle them. Sandeep Sawant does not measure up to the task – not even close. His direction is jumpy, confused. There is no clear thought process. He tries, but is not able to explore the depth of the characters, especially the grandfather. He is not able to show the initial horror, anxiety and then hopeless detachment and yet the insurmountable courage of the grandfather. He wastes our time in the hospital when we should have been shown the time pair spend together. He is trying to cram in everything without any priorities. He does not understand his subject properly and that really counts against him.<br /><br />However, the cast does not help Sawant either. Worst job – Amruta Shubash. She is a terrible actor and a terrible choice for this or any sensible acting job. How did she get 'Tee Phulrani'? Extremely lucky and/or extremely influential and/or extremely pitiful casting. Having said that, she goes out of her way to do an even terrible job in this movie. Her act of the MSW should have gone to the more responsible actor – Sonali Kulkarni. Amruta Subhash did not understand it. MSW's work under constant emotional stress and yet it is important for them to project a calm, strong exterior, as this is reassuring to the patients. Amruta Subhash's Asawari seems even more scared and in need of support than the people she is working for.<br /><br />Second worst – Arun Nalawade. I have never seen a more wooden face in Marathi film industry (it is abound and everywhere in today's Hindi cinema though). He is the producer and so he chose himself; no second thought, no consideration. Any good actor would have jumped to play this role even if he had to pay the producer's to do it, but Arun Nalawade would not let anyone else do it. Over ambitious and obtuse, he contributes to bring down the movie more than everyone else combined. His acting lacks research and even the basic acting skills. My choice for this role would be Vikram Gokhale.<br /><br />The music is uninspired. The movie is technically lacking. It could well have been an FTII project job.<br /><br />On the up side; brilliant performance by Ashwin Chitale. It is amazing that such a young boy could give such a respectable performance. He put many of today's actors to shame. Unintentionally maybe, but he brought his own innocence to his character and that made it a memorable performance. Also, Sandeep Kulkarni really gave a very believable performance. Really put in all his efforts and it shows. The script too is well written.<br /><br />'Shoestring budget' cannot be a valid argument to praise this movie. Lack of funds dogs all of the Marathi movies. Cricket and Hindi movies sponge all the money and the rest are left to fight for the scraps. It is a sorry state of affairs but yet not reason enough to praise any immature movie that comes out. 'Doghi' was brilliant movie and it too was made on a shoestring budget. 'Doghi' also lacked technically but it was well researched and well made. It was abound in details and supported by wonderful performances by everyone and that made it rich cinema. Why did it not receive the accolades it so very deserved? – only proves my point of biased judgment.<br /><br />Lack of research and not of funds, is what makes 'Shwaas' such a bad movie.
Shwaas may have a good story, but the director is utterly devoid of talent. He does not know when to stop. When the story calls for people to act confused, there are ten minute scenes of people miming the act of confusion. When the story calls for a little background history, there are ten minute scenes of Konkan's greenery. When the story calls for a kid throwing tantrums... you get the idea. <br /><br />Not to mention the extreme closeups so that you can count people's nose hair. There are movies that should be seen on a big screen, this movie should be seen on a 13" TV. Also Amruta Subhash who plays Asavari is the worst actress I've seen in quite a long time. A normal human being would need to practise overacting for years to achieve what she does so effortlessly.<br /><br />I give it 4/10 solely because the subject matter is different, and the story is not bad. The fact that a movie like Shwaas gets to be India's entry to the Oscars tells volumes not about the state of Indian cinema but the state of Indian judging committees. A movie is not good just because its subject matter is arty.
If you really loved GWTW, you will find quite disappointing the story. Those who may think this is just about a romantic story and the south, will be probably satisfied with this decent TV production (altought I consider an important miscast the choice for Scarlett). But, let me say that considering the novel, nothing good could came out of this.<br /><br />I've read GWTW more than 20 times and I can really appreciate the adaptation Mrs. Mitchell did for the film. It took me some time to understand how good the ending was: Scarlett knew for sure she was going to recover Rhett, since she always got what she wanted. But there was no kiss in the end.<br /><br />Then Alexandra Ripley came to "fix" this by showing us exactly how perfect and mighty Scarlett could be, and of course, describing in detail how exactly she gets Rhett back even when she had an important affair with someone else (nothing could have been further from Mrs. Mitchell mind, I am sure).<br /><br />The story between these points is in my opinion just a long and boring ride made up to tie ends, showing off costumes and scenarios just to give us an obvious and totally unnecessary ending.<br /><br />If Margaret Mitchell could came to live again, she would die one more time at the very moment she'd find out what Scarlett became after GWTW.<br /><br />Sure it's not fair to compare this to the original but this is not GWTW fault. Isn't it? Is it any good if I don't compare it to the original? Maybe. Sorry to say I don't really care.<br /><br />I would expect little more compromise to continue someone else's (suberb) work, otherwise don't even try.
As everyone knows, nobody can play Scarlett O'Hara like Vivien Leigh, and nobody can play Rhett Butler like Clark Gable. All others pale in comparison, and Timothy Dalton and Joanne Whalley are no exceptions. One thing that I really couldn't get past was that Joanne has BROWN eyes. The green eyes were the most enhancing feature of Scarlett's good looks, and in this sequel she has been stripped of those.<br /><br />The movie, as well as the book, had several lulls in it. The new characters weren't all that memorable, and I found myself forgetting who was who. I felt as though her going to Ireland did absolutely nothing whatsoever. It could be that I'm only 11, but I saw no change in her attitude until the last say, 10 minutes when Rhett told her she had grown up. If Rhett hadn't told her that, I would have never guessed that there was any change in her attitude. She really loved Cat, her baby. She likes this child best because she had it with Rhett, her only loved husband. Still, if you've read Gone With The Wind, you would see that children make no difference in Scarlett's world. <br /><br />Quite frankly, it seemed to me like there was way too much going on without Rhett. All anybody cares about is whether or not Rhett and Scarlett get back together, and Scarlett took way too long to get to that. It is virtually nothing compared to Gone With The Wind, but then again what isn't? If you have read the novel, you will like that better than the movie.<br /><br />I would watch it, just because it is the sequel to Gone With The Wind, regardless of whether or not it's worthwhile. It may not satisfy you entirely, but it will get you some of the way there.
I've read the book 'Scarlett' and was expecting a good movie the first time I saw it. I'm afraid to say that I was disappointed. The movie did not follow the book and made many changes that I did not like. <br /><br />One of the changes that I did not like the way that Lord Fenton was portrayed. It made no sense to make him out to be a bad man. The way that things ended between Lord Fenton and Scarlett was a lot different and their whole relationship was too intimate. <br /><br />There was also a lot less confrontation between Scarlett and Rhett in the movie than was originally written in the book. The movie sent the two in two completely opposite ways and they did not seem to cross paths often enough to make it seem like there still could be love between the two. A fine movie, but I believe that it certainly could've been better than it was, had it more true to Alexandra Rippley's book.
As an avid Gone With the Wind fan, I was disappointed to watch the original movie and see that they had left out many important characters. Luckily, the film on its own was a wonderful piece. When the book Scarlett came out, I read it in hopes of following two of my favorite literary characters farther on their journey together. While the book lacks any true quality, it remains a good story, and, as long as I was able to separate it from the original, was and still is enjoyable. However, I consider the six hours I spent watching the "Scarlett" miniseries to be some of the worst-spent hours of my life. Discrediting any of the original character traits so well-formed in Margaret Mitchell's book, this series also turned the story of the sequel into one of rape, mistrust, murder, and misformed relationships that even the book Scarlett stayed away from. The casting for many of the characters refused to examine the traits that had been so well-formed in both the original novel and film, and even carried through in the second book, and again leaves out at least one incredibly crucial character. In the novel, Scarlett O'Hara Butler follows her estranged husband Rhett Butler to Charleston under the guise of visiting extended family. After coming to an "arrangement" with Rhett, she agrees to leave, and proceeds to reconnect with her O'Hara relatives in Savannah. Eventually, she accompanies her cousin Colum, a passionate leader of the Fenian Brotherhood, to Ireland, to further explore her family's "roots that go deep," and is eventually named "The O'Hara," the head of the family. While her duties as The O'Hara keep her engaged in her town of Ballyhara, Scarlett ventures out into the world of the English landowners, and instantly becomes a sought-after guest at many of their parties. She, having been scorned by Rhett time and time again, eventually agrees to marry Luke, the earl of Fenton, until Rhett comes along in a clichéd "night-on-white-horse" - type of a rescue. The "Scarlett" miniseries fails even to do this justice. Raped by her fiancé and scorned by her family, the series shows Scarlett thrown in jail after she is blamed for a murder her cousin committed.<br /><br />I heartily advise anyone considering spending their day watching this to rethink this decision.
...But not this one! I always wanted to know "what happened" next. We will never know for sure what happened because GWTW was Margaret's baby. I am a lifelong fan of Gone With the Wind and I could not have been more repulsed by the movie. I did compare "Scarlett" to the original GWTW because any film worth following GWTW needed to be on the same quality level as the first. Rhett was cast beautifully, although NO ONE will ever compare to Mr. Gable. I am also a strict Vivien Leigh fan!! She WAS Scarlett. She fit the bill. Not another actress in this lifetime or another will ever fit the same shoes but with "Scarlett" the job could have been done better. Not enough thought went into finding the proper Scarlett, that was evident.<br /><br />Overall, something to look to but if you want to know the what happened to Scarlett and Rhett, I suggest writing it yourself or finding fan fiction. This movie is not worth the time.
I am insulted and angry over the idea that a sequel to 'Gone with the Wind' should EVER have been undertaken. Having expressed that, I have no problem with the quality of the acting or the actors in this film. The performers are talented people whose talents were wasted on this piece of garbage. The hype surrounding this book and film just happens to be an exercise in futility. I think it will go down as one of the misguided films of Hollywood. I don't believe that the beloved characters created by Margaret Mitchell should have been soiled by the ideas and interpretations of another writer. The film and the book should be on the list of worst ideas conceived in the world of publishing and film-making. The sad thing is that people actually made money off of this tripe.
Alexandra Ripley wrote a horrible sequel to Margaret Mitchell's masterpiece book published in the 1930's. Margaret Mitchell's heirs sold out their rights and for big bucks allowed Alexandra Ripley to write a piece of junk book even worse than Barbara Cortland romance novels. I was a huge fan of Margaret Mitchells book and the fake sequel by Alexandra Ripley was written just to cash in for money.<br /><br />Although I always admired the acting talent of Joanne Kilmer and Timothy Dalton, this is a really terrible film. The script is horrible and full of clichés. Ann Margarets cameo as Belle Watling is so awful I wanted to slap her.<br /><br />The only worthwhile thing in the movie is Sean Bean who gives a masterful bravura performance as the sexy, feral villain - Lord Fenton. Sean Bean's performance is along the lines of "The Man You Love to Hate" and portrays an unsafe sex symbol.<br /><br />But Sean Bean is only in the first half of the movie so you then have to be tormented with watching an incredibly long 6 hour movie with an insufferably boring script.<br /><br />Don't waste your money on this film, unless you are a hard core Sean Bean fan and just watch it for his wonderful performance.
Margaret Mitchell spins in her grave every time somebody watches this mess! Fine costuming and sets can't even begin to overwhelm lackluster performances by Joanne Whalley (as the title character) and the ever-bland Timothy Dalton (as Rhett). Even worse than the acting--and perhaps partially explaining it--is the script, which is astoundingly cliched and predictable. Add to that hellishly bad script a score that'll have you cringing, and you've got a disaster I wouldn't wish on any viewer. SCARLETT is just amazingly lousy, and I can't imagine how it ever got made, much less made it to video.
This movie was NOTHING like the book. I think the writer of the screenplay must have wanted the job of writing the sequel to Gone with the Wind and been turned down. This was his or her way of getting their ideas in anyway. The only similarity between this movie and the story it was portraying was the names of the principle characters and the location of the main action. None of the events that are shown in the movie happened that way in the book. For a Gone with the Wind fan (of both the book and the movie) this was deeply disappointing. If you loved the book Scarlett, don't watch this movie hoping to see it played out on the screen. They only share the title in common.
<br /><br />Summary: Not worth the film<br /><br />As an avid Gone With the Wind fan, I was disappointed to watch the original movie and see that they had left out many important characters. Luckily, the film on its own was a wonderful piece. When the book Scarlett came out, I read it in hopes of following two of my favorite literary characters farther on their journey together. While the book lacks any true quality, it remains a good story, and, as long as I was able to separate it from the original, was and still is enjoyable. However, I consider the six hours I spent watching the "Scarlett" miniseries to be some of the worst-spent hours of my life. Discrediting any of the original character traits so well-formed in Margaret Mitchell's book, this series also turned the story of the sequel into one of rape, mistrust, murder, and misformed relationships that even the book Scarlett stayed away from. The casting for many of the characters refused to examine the traits that had been so well-formed in both the original novel and film, and even carried through in the second book, and again leaves out at least one incredibly crucial character. In the novel, Scarlett O'Hara Butler follows her estranged husband Rhett Butler to Charleston under the guise of visiting extended family. After coming to an "arrangement" with Rhett, she agrees to leave, and proceeds to reconnect with her O'Hara relatives in Savannah. Eventually, she accompanies her cousin Colum, a passionate leader of the Fenian Brotherhood, to Ireland, to further explore her family's "roots that go deep," and is eventually named "The O'Hara," the head of the family. While her duties as The O'Hara keep her engaged in her town of Ballyhara, Scarlett ventures out into the world of the English landowners, and instantly becomes a sought-after guest at many of their parties. She, having been scorned by Rhett time and time again, eventually agrees to marry Luke, the earl of Fenton, until Rhett comes along in a clichéd "night-on-white-horse" - type of a rescue. The "Scarlett" miniseries fails even to do this justice. Raped by her fiancé and scorned by her family, the series shows Scarlett thrown in jail after she is blamed for a murder her cousin committed.<br /><br />I heartily advise anyone considering spending their day watching this to rethink this decision.<br /><br />
A VERY un-Tom and Jerry short. Jerry narrates this tale that revolves around Tom the cat falling in love and losing her to his rival, Butch. Tom is best friends with Jerry here which irked me a bit. The cartoon is also presented in Cinemascope. Overall I found this Tom and Jerry cartoon sad and depressing. The should have just put "Puss gets the boot" on the DVD instead and I would've been happy. This experimental animated short can be found on disc 2 of Warner Brother's 2-DVD Spotlight Collection set. It's the last one on the set and I'm hoping that Warner Brothers chooses to release a second Volume soon.<br /><br />My Grade: C-
I will just start with some quotes from other reviewers that describes it the best.<br /><br />"This is easily one of the most overrated films of the year and probably the worst film Tarantino has ever done." "The ONLY good thing in this movie was the performance of Mr. Waltz".<br /><br />"So I was really disappointed, and seeing this movie on place #40 of the greatest movies of all time is the only thing about this, that leaves me with my mouth opened" Now for more details go and read "Hated it" reviews.<br /><br />One thing I hate about a movie is when it treats audience as bunch of dumb people. (Spoiler ahead). Now I know Tarantino's style is based on fantasy and fictitious plots, but come on, Adolf Hitler and 200 top Nazis Officers will be in attendance of a movie premier in occupied France and you have only two guards in the whole theater and the surroundings? Where also an American-African walks around freely with steel pipes locking doors and setting fire. These 2 guards are then executed in seconds opening the door for our 2 "heroes" to slay Hitler at point blank with around 100 rounds... very dumb. At least, challenge our intelligence and create a smarter plot to kill one of the most feared tyrants of all time (Go watch Valkyrie). Besides, Mike Myers impersonation of a British general is more realistic and authentic than the guy doing Hitler, just picture that.<br /><br />What ruined it further, is that the only smart and powerful character, which nailed everyone in the movie, with his psychological and mind bending interrogations, ends up to be effortlessly tricked by the most mindless character in the movie.<br /><br />After watching the movie, I was sympathizing with Nazis, who were portrayed to have more bravery and humanity than our Basterds!!! Imagine that.<br /><br />My recommendations, if you have insomnia, 2hrs 33 min to waste or you want to give your mind a break, go watch this movie.
This usually all sounds a lot better in my head (so forgive me for rambling) I'm hardly Tarantino's biggest fan (and will *try* not to stoop to calling him a 'hack'....which is quite hard) I don't like to mock or critique a movie before seeing it. So with cautious hesitation, i walked to the cinema today to watch 'Inglorious Basterds'<br /><br />Now, to call it a 'rip-off of a rip-off' would be unfair here. Tarantino is happy enough to take the title from Enzo Castellari's (less than spectacular) Dirty Dozen clone, but not it's plot points (that, he takes from all other genre of movies) 'Inglorious' opens with a Nazi officer and his lengthy interrogation against a farmer who is hiding Jews in his basement. This is such an anti-climax, in that, it's dialogue is stale, and outcome signposted a mile off. Of course, one of the hidden Jews makes her escape (but more of her later) We (the obviously, easily pleased) audience are treated to the introduction of Lt. Aldo Raine (ha-ha, that name almost sounds like B-movie king ALDO RAY....ha-ha Quentin...keep those 'tributes' coming) and this character is played by none other than Brad (DALLAS) Pitt (sorry, DALLAS was about the only good thing he's ever starred in) and with jaw-jutting, Mr Jolie treats us to a hound-dogged, southern drawled, smirking Nazi-killer. Meanwhile Mr Tarantino forgets that actual grown-ups may be in attendance, so assumes that the teenyboppers won't have heard of the 'Dirty Dozen'?<br /><br />Raines 'platoon' consists of (John Cassavettes looking) blood-thirsty Jewish soldiers, all looking to get the big payback on Adolf Hitler. Tarantino in all his superior knowledge, pays special attention to two of these men, by casting his long time best buddy (and fellow homage-sycophant) Eli Roth (as the baseball bat wielding 'Bear Jew') The other man is called Hugo Stiglitz (and i'll wager more than half the QT fan-boys had never heard this name before this movie) Keep up the good work Tarantino, you've managed about 6 or 7 'hommages' so far (in the first 15 minutes) keep adding them, and it may detract from the plot (or lack of?)<br /><br />Anyhow, cutting a long (and extremely boring and protracted) story short, both Raine and his men (the 'Inglorious Basterds') and the sole survivor from chapter one, both have separate plots to kill Hitler at the showing of a Nazi-propaganda movie, in a french cinema (owned by the fore-mentioned survivor, now grown up)<br /><br />More boring (and pointless) conversations follow two and fro, as Pitt mugs away at an audience past caring. And any genuine suspense, leading to the assassination of the most deadly tyrant of all time, is thrown-away by the directors insistence of placing a 1980's David Bowie song in a WWII movie.<br /><br />My problems (and there are many) with this movie, is the re-occurring problem i have with most Tarantino product.....he rarely knows when to either start or stop. I don't need 'homage' after 'homage' to get the *joke* (whatever it may be) I knew of Inglorious Bastards, Enzo Castellari, Aldo Ray, Hugo Stiglitz (and the ultimate crime of the entire movie) Ennio Morricone's haunting score from REVOLVER. I go to the cinema to see the stars.....if the best you can do is the dire Barad Pitt, i'll assume You (Mr Tarantino) are the main draw here? I don't want the audience directing the movie. I pay to see YOUR vision, your ideas, your creativity....NOT how you can patchwork (time and time again) endless scenes from endless movies. It's high time the fan-boys (on IMDb) employed some 'tough love' on your 'idol' (god knows, if you don't....the studios should?)<br /><br />The tired old argument with Tarantino worshippers is "well, if you can do better...do so" Let me tell you, if i was a 46 year old director, with the (unfortunate) pull QT has.....i'd want to offer YOU a lot more than a warmed up muddled re-hash of better WWII movies than this tripe. The directors he attempts to emulate, made movies so bad by accident, or due to budgetary constraints. It's a cop out, time and time again, to hear his fans campaign his lack of imagination as 'art'. I'm sure he's capable of better (but after giving him the benefit of the doubt, once more....and not to mention 2 and a half hours of my life.....) maybe he isn't?
Seriously disappointing performance by Brad Pitt and Q T, the plot is very superficial and lame, and, unless indirectly intended, this film actually glorify the Nazis and portrays them as men of honor, and show that the Jewish people are deceiving, cant keep promises and bloody vicious. ((THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS SPOILER)) Hitler together with the most notorious Nazis are attending a stupid plot less movie about the killing of 300 Italian soldiers in a small cinema theater in Paris is unbelievably ridiculous. the Nazis laughing and hooraying each killing in the movie as if watching a basketball game STUPID, the deal at the end is lame. whats really appalling is that the movie earned great reviews and is ranked here in the 40s amongst the greatest 250 films. will not be surprised if it harvested many awards, including Oscars, as well. the movie is simply a kissing ass to the Jewish people, but hey reconsider, its not even doing a great job doing that. it truly dwarfed the whole Nazi - Jews conflict and a pure insult to all who fought and suffered from the tyranny of the Nazis.
Previous Tarantino movies were from a guy in love with other movies. This one is from a guy in love with his own writing. It isn't Inglorious, its disgusting.<br /><br />I absolutely hated Inglorious Basterds. The entire point of a film is to entertain - if u call bashing people's heads and removing their scalps entertaining!!!! - and if there is one unforgivable sin a movie can commit, it is extreme boredom or disgust.<br /><br />The movie is just a collection of endless and excruciatingly boring and disgusting scenes of people talking at tables in various languages. There is even one scene where 3 people talk for nearly 45 minutes at the same table, before, thankfully they are all shot. I wished they would have been killed off after 5 minutes. Even Woody Allen knows when to shut the F**K up.<br /><br />This table talk style is a Tarantino hallmark, but in other films, I actually cared about what they were saying and the people who were talking. Here, I couldn't care less. All of Quentin's films display an enormous confidence, particularly Jackie Brown. But here there is a pervasive feeling in every scene, Tarantino had no idea where he was going with the film.<br /><br />Is it violent? Sure there's torture and scalping galore, but you'd have to remind me. Thankfully, the film was so thin, I didn't even remember I had seen it earlier in the day when until I saw a review headline on MSNBC.<br /><br />He's out of gimmicks and apparently dying to write a novel. But do us a favor QT and spare us the movie.<br /><br />I walked out of this movie halfway through and I would never recommend anyone seeing it no matter what a die-hard quarantino fan he or she is.<br /><br />I give it 0 / 10.
I deliberately did not read any reviews of this movie on IMDb before I watched it because I really wanted to see it and make up my own mind. I have been a big fan of QT in the past, I think we can all agree he has made some great movies, but lately he seems to have been overcome by his own mystique and disappeared up his own fundament. This "movie" proves that. It consists of few scenes of the Basterds at work. It consists instead mostly of long, tedious, boring stretches of conversation between people that, after a while, you realise you just do not give a stuff about. It's longwinded and lacks any of the great sparkling dialogue that QT has been responsible for in the past. The entire movie is anticlimactic. There is no tension - what is going to happen in every scene is telegraphed so clearly in advance that by the time it happens you just don't care. Honestly folks, don't believe the hype. This is a very boring movie and you will be missing nothing if you don't see it.
I am sorry folks, but I have to say I really cannot understand the overwhelming feelings everybody gets by seeing this movie...<br /><br />When I saw it I looked at my watch to know how much more time I had to spend with this Kindergarten nonsense.<br /><br />So why this verdict?<br /><br />First of all: The movie tells a story that doesn't deliver any excitement! It is not even the amusingly distorted reality of a Quentin Tarantino we used to know. This story could have come out of every little kid's head. It doesn't have anything intelligent in it, neither anything inventive and it goes on for hours... the story has appropriate content for about 30 min. The rest is just awfully enhanced scenes that are supposed to leave a somewhat cool image. Doesn't work. Even the previously seen cutbacks that Tarantino often uses just confuse and are not in any way cool. <br /><br />Second: Some guys go to Germany and kill Nazis. Ah really? Do they? The only Nazis they killed were a handful of guys, one of them being man enough to rather die than betray his companions. Is this the ugly face Tarantino wanted to give the Nazis? A brave soldier that is more valiant than any of the "Basterds"? Certainly not --> fail And what happens to the terrible Nazi-killing Basterds? Well they all get killed by Nazis except two who are taken hostages --> wow, what terrible revengeful monsters they are...<br /><br />Third: Any characters? Yes one! The only role and the only gleam of hope for the entire movie is Chritoph Waltz who is building a truly deep and very detailed character here. Great acting! Brad Pitt really sucks and is completely out-acted by Waltz. Never seen a such a weak performance by Pitt... And the rest? Well, some Germans you've never seen before and will never see after. When the movie started and I saw the group of the seven Basterds I hoped to see something like the "Magnificent Seven": A group of extraordinary guys, each one with a distinct character, making their way to their destiny fearless and knowing... I was then very disappointed, when I saw the "inglourious Basterds". No details at all, no characters, no real men, just some random guys you won't remember who were not given any chance to differentiate themselves... But in fact you don't even need to differentiate, cause the "Inglourious Basterds" except Pitt hardly play any role in this movie...<br /><br />So I was really disappointed, and seeing this movie on place #40 of the greatest movies of all time is the only thing about this, that leaves me with my mouth opened...
I will never go to another Tarantino movie again. The entire film was worthless. My wife and I both regret that we didn't get up and walk out at the first indication of what the film was really going to be about (which is still hard to determine since it was such a ridiculous storyline...blood, guts, and violence seemed to be the only real theme), but we kept hoping there'd be something redeeming just around the corner. Unfortunately, there wasn't because there wasn't anything that made sense! We, along with a lot of the other people in the audience walked out of the theater muttering "that was disgusting", "what a waste of time", "I should've walked out", "where was the comedy", "that was pathetic", etc. It actually made us, the audience, voice our disgust and the feeling that we had just been thoroughly ripped off. The only thing of merit in the film was the costuming and the acting ability of almost everyone in the film....there just wasn't a plot/script worthy of their talents. I rate this a 1 because there isn't a 0. I can't quite understand how anyone could rate this higher than a 0!
Chapter One: Once Upon a Time… At A Table (1941)<br /><br />In which a German Nazi and a French Dairy Farmer talk at a table for 20 minutes; first in French, then in English.<br /><br />Chapter Two: Three Years Of Inglorious Basterds In Sixteen Minutes... Without Tables (Mostly)<br /><br />In which an American Lieutenant talks to his newly formed 8 man Jewish- American commando unit. There are no tables present. Cut to Adolf Hitler, three years later. He is angry at his men's inability to deal with the Basterds. Hitler does have a table. We return to the Basterds in a flashback. Again, distinct lack of table-based content. <br /><br />Chapter Three: German Night in Paris... At A Table... Talking<br /><br />In which a Jewish woman who escaped from under the table in Chapter One has somehow managed to become the proprietress of a cinema. The Jewish woman talks to an Actor at a table in a bar. Later, the Jewish woman, the Actor, Joseph Goebbels and a Translator talk at a table in a Restaurant. The Actor and Goebbels talk in German. The Translator translates the German into French. The Jewish woman replies in French. The Translator translates the French into German. Goebbels decides to hold a film premiere at the Jewish woman's cinema. The Actor and Goebbels leave. The Nazi (who talked with the Dairy Farmer at a table for twenty minutes back in Chapter One) arrives. He talks with the Jewish woman at the table. He leaves. The Jewish woman breaks down; overcome with emotion at having spent so long talking at a table. <br /><br />Chapter Four: Operation Table Talking<br /><br />In which Austin Powers sends a British Officer to join the Basterds and an Actress on a mission to talk in German at a table in a Tavern. After 21 minutes of talking at a table they all shoot each other. The actress survives but spends the next 5 minutes lying on a table talking.<br /><br />Chapter Five: Revenge of the Giant Table<br /><br />In which, The Basterds decide to continue the operation by talking in Italian and suicide bombing the cinema. The Nazi takes the Actress into a small room where they sit next to a table. A hoe that he found under the table in the Tavern fits her so he kills her. Then he takes two of the Basterds to a big room, where they sit and talk at a table. Meanwhile, the cinema burns down, Hitler is riddled with bullets and the two Basterds blow themselves up for no good reason at all.<br /><br />The End
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen.<br /><br />What is the purpose of this movie? A bunch of Americans enters Nazi-occupied France and starts slaughtering Germans. You see them scalping their enemies and beating them to death with baseball bats. While making jokes, of course.<br /><br />Some will say that this movie is a parody of a certain genre. For a parody, it is neither witty nor funny. The contents is zero. It is exceptionally brutal and disgusting. Underneath lies a subtle political message, because it is again "the good guys" killing "bad Nazis". The whole plot is unthinkable if you turn it around. Could you imagine a storyline where Nazis (while making jokes) kill everybody in the Warsaw ghetto with flamethrowers? Probably not, but this movie is exactly about that, with the exception that is satisfies the weird moral expectations of a certain audience: slaughtering people is so cool when done by the right people.<br /><br />This movie only works because of the hidden Nazi-ideology underneath. It does not regard the enemy as people. And if the latter is supposed to be an element of the fun, I am happy to say that this kind of fun will always remain a mystery to me.<br /><br />Another mystery is how such violence can fascinate the American crowd while a bit of nudity will freak them out. But if a naked body is pornography, this movie with all its brutality is pure pornography at its very worst.<br /><br />Inglorious Basterds is a pointless, boring and tasteless waste of time and money.
I was debating between this movie and 2012 but chose Inglourious Basterds due to it's amazingly high IMDb rating. I must say now, what a disappointment. I expected a certain amount of gratuitous violence, but I also expected a lot of witty dialog. I got a huge dosage of the former, but not nearly enough of the latter. I felt shortchanged. The ratio between violence to plot is very important and I think this movie gets it totally wrong. And the plot? It's that believable or really all that entertaining either. Save your time and money. I can't believe what this rating says for the gory and violent tastes of the modern masses.
Hooray for Title Misspellings! After reading reviews and contemplating, my girlfriend and I confirmed that this movie is an utter piece of trash. This movie lost her as one of those Rare Tarantino fans.I wish it were made on nitrate film, and all the copies piled neatly underneath a chain-smoking Tarantino fanboy. The literally needless violence, the plot holes, Tarantino's table-itis sans drama, and absent character development made this a thoroughly painful, glorified montage. <br /><br />What acting was there? And how much of that was just because I was too busy reading the subtitles? I watch my share of fansubbed anime, and kudos for the attempt at authenticity, but it was overdone for an English-language movie. With the glaring historical inadequacies, the constant reading killed what acting there was.<br /><br />Why pay money for a narrator who will have absolutely no tie to any of the characters, plot, themes, setting, or anything involved in the movie? When the movie needs that sort of off hand explanation, it's foreshadowing the utter filth that follows.<br /><br />Historical Research - while it was sprinkled with interesting factiods, used the proper costumes and props for the soldiers, this movie stretched the truth beyond belief even for historical fiction. Kudos on Mata Hari reference, though using it as foreshadowing was a bit much. Mata Hari was executed by a firing squad, not choked in an isolated room. This ruined any sense that the reference may have had.<br /><br />Other reviews mention more than half a dozen homages to other artists in the first 15 minutes. Considering the audience, all these and other references were completely lost on many who would bother to see this movie, and all who would enjoy it.<br /><br />I'm confused by his choices of when to start a scene, end it, and what needs to be included. In a movie promoted as an action film, why did it take nearly 20 minutes to set up any sort of testosterone? <br /><br />What I believe to be the message was trite. The idea of rats and how we act on a primal nature against them, and "who is the rat?" were at best clichéd, but at worst not realized. Mention of American camps for the Japanese and German Americans would have added legitimacy to this question to the moral high ground. Literally every character in the film that gets a speaking role was caught up in their own legend. Is that the world in which Tarantino lives?<br /><br />I'm glad I didn't pay to see this one. I regret that I bothered to view it at all, even with well-meaning hosts. There was a rich base of ideas to develop, but none were realized.
Every movie Quentin Tarantino has made has become progressively worse. I'd like to believe that most people would agree with that statement, but seeing as "Inglourious(sic) Basterds(sic)" has an 8.5/10 from over 100,000 ratings, it doesn't seem like the general movie-going public has any sense. Even his best work, Reservoir Dogs, wasn't a 'masterpiece.' The trouble is that claiming that you like Tarantino's work has become trendy. As soon as that happens, you get boatloads of people ready and willing to hop on another bandwagon. They will ignore laughably terrible acting, and utterly self-indulgent writing just so they can be part of the exclusive club called "everyone." This movie is so terrible, that I swear it must be some sort of twisted joke by Tarantino to see how much torture his fans will tolerate and still praise him. Like another reviewer has already said: "Previous Tarantino movies were from a guy in love with other movies. This one is from a guy in love with his own writing." I couldn't agree more. This movie is nothing more than self-indulgent and in-joke riddled writing paired with acting ability taken right out of a high school play. But, thanks to the general movie going public, I'm sure it will still go down as one of the best movies ever made. Bravo, Tarantino. You've pulled-off one of the best practical jokes of all time.
The first half of this movie was quite good. It was interesting and suspenseful. The second half was pretty bad. The comic book revenge story came full circle and we see lots of comic Nazi characters and some badly acted "good guys" blowing them away. There's a lot of violence in this movie. I'm not squeamish about violence but I think it should at least have some purpose in a movie. There was little purpose to the violence here except to create a genre film where we see lots of people getting mowed down with rifles. We're somehow supposed to be amused by this.<br /><br />I watched Reservoir Dogs recently. There was a movie where violence was employed effectively. It was realistic within the world the movie created. There were never any over-the-top sound effect. It was a crime movie which played it straight. Inglorious Basterds should have played it straight but didn't. I was rolling my eyes at how the violence was exaggerated with sound effects and extra bullets to the head and face.<br /><br />None of the back-story of any of the Basterds is really explained either, they're simply Nazi hunters. We don't really get to like any of them either because they're too busy cutting scalps off and shooting people in the face. It's all about "revenge" and very little else.<br /><br />There was 2 1/2 hours to work with here but few of the Basterds were really examined in depth. This seems like it was simply a revenge flick pure and simple. We saw that in Tarantino's last flick, "Death Proof" which I didn't care for either. It suffered the same problems. The characters were almost interchangeable.<br /><br />The first half again, was pretty good. I wanted to see the exploits of the Inglorious Basterds across Europe. I was presented with a much lamer movie about the resistance movement plotting revenge against some comic book Nazis when they all go to one movie premiere in France.
Bad bad bad....<br /><br />This is another stupid movie. still don't know what is the language of this movie? is itEnglish or french or German!?!! you have to be speaking all 3 languages ( at least ); preffered Italian too to understand it. poor quality translation with very hard to read font. showing a very stupid way of ending this movie!! in the mid of the movie you will lose interest in this movie and start to think why am i watching this?! brad pitt is proving that his acting talent is going down.<br /><br />Maybe this is the movie number 1000000 that talks about Nazis. is there any other subjects that Hollywood can produce?! I think this movie is another American propaganda to show super heros American. I expect next Hollywood movie is American hero will save Jesus!!!
This movie is not worth a descend review, it just made me decide that I am not going to go see the next Tarantino film. And I used to love Tarantino's films.<br /><br />Not artsy, not entertaining, not witty, not funny, nothing, just dull and stupid. If this movie would have been Tarantinos first, it would have also been his last.<br /><br />Tarantino has to get a grip on himself, otherwise his next movie is going to be 3 hours of meaningless, boring and uncool dialog. It seems like he has fallen in love with his dialog - and his love is blind.<br /><br />After you finish your popcorn's there's no reason to sit in a theater anymore.
Countless Historical & cultural mistakes 0/10<br /><br />(1) A Jewish guy named OMAR!!! Hahahaha (2) Brilliant detective was taking out by the least intelligent guy in the movie! (3) Jewish suicide bombers!! That was funny. (4) Hitler and his top guns went to watch a movie downtown Paris!!! With two guards at the door. !! shoot me. (5) Brad Pitt overacted and it was painful to watch him. (6) Mr. QT is re-writing history, "Hitler was killed in a theatre… really!" the funny thing about this is that people "and I mean stupid people" will actually believe this plot. <br /><br />And finally can any one tell me, how this movie made it to the top 250 movies of all time!!! Shame shame shame, still wondering how can anyone like this movie.
Quentin in my opinion has written and directed only really one good movie and that was the multiple award winning Pulp Fiction. However, most of films, especially of recent, have been real REAL turkeys. People still rate him and his stuff today and i really can't see why. There are many other directors and writers nowadays producing far better entertainment in all aspects of their movies. From this point on, i shall not believe the hype that is a Tarantino movie.<br /><br />Inglorious was too long and worse still you felt it. The humor was, well, minimal and not that humorous. The violence was nothing new (minus the end scene). The dialog was sometimes very VERY drawn out.<br /><br />For some they'll love this movie; and for others they'll hate it.<br /><br />... and i thought the subject matter of Nazis was finally put to bed with the awesome 2004 German movie Der Untergang.
Little Quentin seems to have mastered the art of having the cake and eating it.<br /><br />As usual, the pure sadistic display can be explained as a clever thought-provoking way of sending violence back into the audience's face.<br /><br />Sure, Mr Tarantino. Violence is Baaad. Sadism is Baaad. It is well worth wading in it to make that point. How very brilliant.<br /><br />The juvenile part of the audience may well not be clever enough to follow all the smart references to higher levels of consciousness though, but I'm confident they'll see the light one day.<br /><br />Thanks for making this little world of ours a little better. You deserve a medal.
Inglourious Basterds IS Tarantino's worst film he has ever made. It's full of his usual ingredient's i.e. snappy dialogue, brutal and sudden violence, but it all feel's deja-vu. The directing is typical Tarantino and nothing seem's new at all. It's almost as if he's copied exactly from his only masterpiece, Pulp Fiction. <br /><br />There is nothing new or exciting about Inglourious Basterds to be honest, it's just a war drama that isn't funny, nor brilliant as Pulp Fiction was. Basterds supposedly is Tarantino's tribute to Leone's Spaghetti western's but seem's mis-jointed and out of place especially with the continuing use of big sub-titles and throw's the audience of balance.
I went to see the movie because my boyfriend was raving about how much he wanted to see it, and how his friends had already been and loved it. So I came in with a neutral attitude, not really expecting the worst. Unfortunately, that is what I got. I could write a 15 page paper on why this is easily THE WORST movie I have ever seen. But for your benefit I will point out the pros and the endless supply of cons. To begin, the acting was very good, especially Christopher Waltz and Melanie Laurent. There were also a few lines that deserved a laugh, and a couple suspenseful scenes. Sadly, good acting, a little humor and suspense is where the good points end. The whole beginning story could have been great. A Jewish girl's family is butchered, she goes into hiding, later encounters the man responsible for her pain and then hatches a great plan for revenge. Sounds very good. But the movie wouldn't be quite as "satisfying" for the Americans and Jews craving Nazi blood. I have no problem with WWII movies or killing Nazis; I saw Defiance and like it very much. However, it's the way and attitude with which our would-be heroes kill. I'll give you a prime example of the kind of hypocrisy this movie oozes. Our hoodlum gang ambushes a German unit and kills/scalps all of them except a sergeant and two other soldiers (no problem so far). They ask the sergeant to divulge information on another German unit. When he "respectfully refuses" to betray the lives of his fellow soldiers they bash his head in a with a baseball bat, cheering, and swearing as if they were at a football game. They took that Nazi's head off yaaayy! Now let's look at the hypocrisy in that scene. Here's a hypothetical situation: a group of American soldiers are ambushed and taken captive by the enemy. The same scenario follows and the American commanding officer would rather die than betray his fellow soldier. The enemy bashes his head in with much celebration. This would infuriate an audience if this scene were in a movie. That American soldier was a hero for placing his men above himself, and those barbarians brutally murdered him! Well…what about the Nazi sergeant? Well he's a Nazi and deserves to die the cruelest death possible, right? Coincidentally, the Nazi's felt the same towards the Jews. See the hypocrisy? By celebrating the butcher of the Nazis we are placing ourselves on the same sadistic level. <br /><br />Major hypocrisy #2: The Nazis make a propaganda movie about a German sniper who kills nearly 300 American soldiers. Near the end of the movie, the film is revealed. Hitler and his cohorts giggle with delight as they watch an American soldier get shot out of a window and fall into a fountain. The Nazis cheer as soldier after soldier falls to the snipers skill. This is supposed to enrage the American viewers of this scene. Those evil Nazis are laughing over the deaths of our brave men! Well the irony is, isn't that what we were doing (or supposed to be doing) the entire time we're watching Inglorious Basterds? Laughing over the pain of others simply because they were "the bad guys." How would we feel if Native Americans somehow made a hit film in which they reek bloody vengeance on the American settlers? Or what if blacks made a movie glorifying the Nat Turner Rebellion? OK enough about the hypocritical flaws. <br /><br />I'll summarize other reasons for the 1 star rating. 1) There were view admirable characters throughout the movie. Brad Pitt even tortures a woman by sticking his finger in her gunshot wound because he suspects she betrayed him. He's the good guy? 2) Scenes dragged on way longer than they needed to. 3) Brad Pitt's southern, supposedly Tennessee accent is HORRIBLE and thoroughly annoying throughout the entire move. I'll quit now since I'm at 700 words. <br /><br />Unfortunately it seems that the general population doesn't think anymore, they just want blood. And that is why this movie received such a high ranking. I recommend this movie for the ignorant or if you are Jewish and simply wanting to see a nice "fantasy justice." Personally, when I finally got out of the movie theater I felt like I had been scalped (or wish that I had so I wouldn't have suffered over 2 hours of mental rape).
This is "realism"? If Rivette was seeking to give us a ground-level study of a woman in a certain place and time and how she was able to influence (and was influenced by) the world around her, he has failed miserably. Most prominently because we never get a clue as to why thousands of men would have followed her into battle. There is certainly not enough exposition of the cultural/historical context to define the country's need for such a savior and, god knows, there is nothing particularly charismatic about Joan as she is presented here. Unless Bonnaire's wooden posturing and flat line readings are supposed to indicate transcendent faith and determination. The use of landscape is particularly uninspired - we never lose the feeling we are watching twentieth century actors wandering in a supposedly medieval landscape. And as for the battle scenes (which, in contrast to some commentors claims, do take up a good 15% of screentime)- they look like look like some some History Club from your local high school recreating a medieval siege, although the kids would no doubt put more passion into it. I will give Rivette credit, however, for picturing a side of Joan left out by other movies: that of a petulant, naive, and narcissistic adolescent (played by a woman all too clearly at least twice the age of the character she is supposed to portray) obviously unable to understand her place within the movement she is helping to create or the world existing outside her own passions. Joan's outrage at her own soldiers swearing and astonishment at the enemy for their lack of respect and obedience to her are jarringly spontaneous and believable notes (you suddenly realize such moments must naturally have occurred)in an otherwise uninvolving historical "representation". Unfortunately they also serve to point out precisely what is not addressed on screen -what made Joan SPECIAL? I must say I also continued to be puzzled and frustrated by certain foreign film lovers who equate tedium and lack of dramatic involvement with "artistry" and "seriousness". Does this film really increase our understanding or involvement with the subject? Or with anything for that matter? 4/10.
For one thing, he produced this movie. It has the feel of later movies with international casts that are dubbed. The opening credits tell us it was filmed in Vienna.<br /><br />Bey was a delight in the Universal adventure movies of the 1940s. He was also superb in a movie I saw maybe ten years ago but have never heard of since: "The Amazing Mr. X." Maybe it was Dr. X. I remember it as a thrilling and frightening movie.<br /><br />This one is pretty wooden, unfortunately. The plot isn't easy to follow. When I got the hang of it, I was disappointed anyway.<br /><br />Francis Lederer looks great as a concert pianist. He was a very handsome leading man ten or 15 years earlier. He never really caught on as a major star, though he should have.<br /><br />This isn't terrible but it's pretty heavy going.
This is the second addition to Frank Baum's personally produced trilogy of Oz films. It's essentially the same childishness as in the other two pictures, although I consider it preferable to the others because it's shorter. As in the other films, there are performers in animal costumes, an adult woman pretends to be a boy, and the characters and plot jump all over the place while the camera-work is static. This time, at the centre is a magic cloak that grants wishes, and the boy played by a woman is made a king.<br /><br />Most of the special effects are witnessed at the beginning. Fairies are represented by multiple-exposure photography. And, there's a man in the moon that looks just like those made by Georges Méliès years before, most famously in 'Le Voyage dans la lune' (1902). Méliès' imaginative fantasies and creative trick effects made him the leading pioneer of early cinema, and the films he made around the turn of the century were far better and even technically more advanced than this trifling Oz series.
At least it is with this episode. Here we have a time traveler, the Professor from Gilligan's Island, no less, going back in time to 1865. What does one do--why try to save Lincoln of course! No really interesting variations are rung on this old theme. As another reviewer has stated, this episode is particularly drab and unstylish, with little to suggest that "the Professor" really is back in the 1860s. Budget limitations are readily apparent, and the direction is stolid. John Wilkes Booth adds a spark but it remains a very flat production. We too often feel we are on stage sets, waiting for something clever to happen. There is a minor twist at the end, but I emphasize minor.
If regarded as an independent feature I can't say it's too bad at all but from where I'm standing this sequel and the original "Lady and the Tramp" don't agree with each other! They are two completely different movies with different style, different voice personalities, different narratives and about the only thing that they share with each other is the visuals (e.g. the town-house of Jim Dear, Darling, Lady and Tramp) and none of those have changed.<br /><br />If you're seeking any kind of continuity years after the release of the original for those memorable songs like "Bella Notte" and "The Siamesse Cats Song" this sequel won't give you any at all! Just about every song has a little pop to it and those good old characters like Jock and Trusty, Jim Dear and Darling and Aunt Sarah and her cats may well be seen but they're seeming to be somehow replaced by new characters, not to mention Peg not appearing at all, whose voices are quite annoying. Even Lady and Tramp don't appear often enough and as for Scamp?! He is so spoilt! And treats his father Tramp with utter disrespect, then runs away with no remorse even after hearing how much he's being missed at home! And they called his shameless getaway an adventure! I'd say Scott Wolf truly brought out the abusive bad boy in Scamp wiping out the typical cute Disney animal. Even the old characters just drive you mad in this; Trusty sounds like Goofy sick in bed, Jock (Jeff-stupid-Bennett) - and his VOICE - sound neither Scottish nor worth hearing! Zap him off as far as possible to free our poor ears from his voice and as for the dumb, feather-brained, EXASPERATING JUNKYARD DOGS!!!!!! Somebody put them down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />"Lady and the Tramp 2" isn't completely bad if you're not already having a tough day but I expect a lot more charm from a sequel to a true classic - Scamp is chavvy, so is his girlfriend Angel and there is a feeble storyline. Still, I think you should try it at least once because, as I say, there are much worse movies around.
I rented this movie, knowing that it would be bad (i have only seen one good Disney sequel and that was toy story 2), but it went far lower than my expectations. I am a die hard disney fan and i just don't believe in sequels with disney movies. For somebody who didn't grow up with the classics (either watching them when they came out, or renting them since you were born) it's a cute story. I just feel that the plot was dragged out a little too much, and was to predictable. The one thing that annoyed me the most was the voices of the girl children of lady and tramp. They were too high pitched. Although most reviews say that it isn't that bad, i think that if you are a true disney fan, you shouldn't waste your time with this one.<br /><br />Hopefully Disney won't be making any more sequels to any of the other classics any time soon.
My Take: Typically routine and lazy straight to video attempt from Disney. <br /><br />Disney must have fallen in love with the family movie tradition that is the family dog. Many movies have devoted themselves with stories that solely center themselves with man's best friend. Disney themselves have made a handful. They also made a handful of those that are literally dogs. Add this one to that bunch.<br /><br />I haven't seen the original for a very long time, so probably I'm not the right person to judge if this straight-to-video sequel fares any better. Anyone above the age of seven aren't the right people to see it either. Perhaps only the youngest of the young will want to see LADY AND THE TRAMP II: SCAMP'S ADVENTURE, and even they would grow up and say it wasn't the best kind of family entertainment they have ever seen. I guess to be fair, I can say is that it warrants a rental, but that ain't much to say.<br /><br />This sequel pretty much picks up the parts left behind after the original oft-called classic. Lady and Tramp now have a litter of cute Crocker Spaniel pups... and one mischievous mongrel named Scamp who is a chip off the old block. Instead of the confines of home, Scamp wishes to run off with the other junkyard dogs of town, unknown of his dad's own past as one of those mongrels of the streets. To capture the charms of the original, this one throws in the same poor dog/rich dog love story, in vice-versa. Scamp falls for a one of the junkyard dogs named Angel (and who wouldn't with a name like that and a voice that sounds like Alyssa Milano?). Que replay of the famous spaghetti scene! Other than the "cute" factor, there is nothing in store for any audience in this lazy straight-to-video effort. Stick with the original.<br /><br />Rating: ** out of 5.
A few of my fellow writers have covered this movie's plot elements so I will stick to some of the cuff remarks...<br /><br />1. This is entertaining - but not for the reasons you'd think. It's cheesy but somehow still watchable.<br /><br />2. Tamra, Daniel's love interest has to be about thirty. The Christian girl that Dan ignores is way cuter.<br /><br />3. Muriel stole his shirt from Mr. Spock. Also, if my guardian angel looks like Muriel I'm going to have to apply for a transfer.<br /><br />4. Okay... so apparently... Dan is responsible for his parents' divorce! What kind of horrible guilt trip is that?! Muriel says that it was Dan's prayers that kept his parents together. I just thought that was absolutely ridiculous. Listen, I can pray for my parents as much as I want but the only way they'll stay together is if they decide they're going to do it.<br /><br />5. I'll echo the atheist's comments on how this movie portrays non-Christians. Apparently they're all slovenly bullies.<br /><br />6. For something positive - David White is a decent actor. He gives the movie a little bit of credibility, even if he is the only one. He pretty much holds this film together on his own.
All those who criticize The Sopranos for its stereotypical portrayals of Italians haven't seen anything until they've gotten a good look at this cornball gangster film which focuses on a family so irritating, you almost want them to be rubbed out.<br /><br />The parents in this clan aren't so bad, but their two little boys--one a total brat, one cloyingly cutesy-poo--are insufferable, while their older good-for-nothing son and Pollyanna daughter ably compete for audience contempt. But the granddaddy of them all is, well, Granddaddy. As played by Chic Sale (in full "Dag-nabbit!" mode) he serves as the films moral compass, throwing in lots of diatribes about "dang, dirty foreigners" for good measure. If these are the good guys, it's no wonder the actors of that era who played baddies became the big stars.<br /><br />Not that there are any stellar performances to be found among the criminal actors, but they at least acquit themselves better than the grating Leeds family. The incompetent police officers aren't even given enough screen time to bring things down any further. Only Walter Huston, as the district attorney, elevates the cliché-riddled material in his futile attempts to breathe some levelheadedness into these dolts.<br /><br />The film deserves credit for being an early entry in what would prove to be a very popular silencing-the-witness formula, and it doesn't flinch in its depiction of the hard-bitten underworld lifestyle, but there are quite simply better--and less xenophobic--examples in the genre.
Aside from a few good moments of fairly raw violence, this painful film is most notable for making 68 minutes seem like two hours.<br /><br />It starts with an interminably long intro where the Leeds family is introduced, including two insufferable tykes and their adult brother and sister, completely clichéd Pa and Ma, and incredibly annoying Grandpa (played by Charles "Chic" Sales). While sitting down to dinner the family is disturbed by the sounds of gunfire, and rushes to the window in time to see two men gunned down by mobsters in the street. The mobsters flee through the family's house, leaving them as witnesses to the crime.<br /><br />The rest of the movie consists of Walter Huston as the crusading DA occasionally interrupting long anti-crime speeches to make half hearted attempts at trying to protect the family from the mob. It all winds up in a predictable manner.<br /><br />Good points about the movie include a couple of decent shootouts and a truly nasty beating, Nat Pendleton as one of the mobsters, and the gorgeous Sue Blane in a small role as the Leeds daughter. <br /><br />If you want to watch Huston play his early trademark crusading lawman, try 1932's "Beast of the City." Avoid this one if at all possible.
Warner Brothers social responsibility at its most ham-handed, with sermonizing every five minutes or so about how we're Americans, we don't run from trouble, we face up to our responsibilities. It also suggests that if you're willing to perjure yourself to protect your family from clearly deadly gangsters, you're un-American. Walter Huston, looking bored, is the frustrated DA, and the "average American family" includes such familiar faces as Sally Blane (looking a lot like her sister, Loretta Young) and Dickie Moore, as an allegedly adorable moppet. Both are regularly crowded out of the frame by Chic Sale, only 47 then but playing an octogenarian Civil War veteran, ponderously jumping and "amusingly" nipping at Prohibition hooch and moralizing about how we're Americans, dag nabbit. His St. Vitus Dance old-coot performance is tiresome schtick; it's like Walter Brennan based his entire career on it. William Wellman directs efficiently and quickly, much like his earlier "Public Enemy," but he and the screenwriter neglect to show what happens to this family after the happy fadeout -- i.e., they'd probably be rubbed out by the Mob.
What annoys me with so called 'science' programs such as these is that it is presented as if it were a FACT that dinosaurs live 'millions' of years ago. Firstly, nobody can even conduct a scientific experiment to prove that the earth is millions/billions of years old. It's a shallow theory based on inaccurate radiometric dating methods with huge assumptions thrown into the evolutionary pot.<br /><br />Secondly, nobody can prove that evolution ever happened. All Darwin's missing links are still MISSING ! If you look at all the fossils anywhere in or on the earth, they are complete animals of a certain kind eg: a dog or a cat. Nobody has ever found the skeleton of a dog turning into a cat or in the example presented in this series, a dinosaur turning into a bird.<br /><br />This is utter hogwash. There's more proof that Santa Claus exists than any animal changing into another kind of animal.<br /><br />All the ideas presented in this series is an attempt to eliminate the idea that the universe and the everything in it, was created.<br /><br />This series is NOT SCIENCE. It is a religious world view that hides under the banner of science. Science is something we can observe and repeat. What you are seeing here is SCIENCE FICTION. <br /><br />If you want to watch a science fiction program that has the decency to admit that it's a science fiction program, then rather watch Star Trek or Star Wars.
Based on a Edgar Rice Burroughs novel, AT THE EARTH'S CORE provides little more than means to escape and give your brain a rest. A Victorian scientist Dr. Abner Perry(Peter Cushing)invents a giant burrowing machine, which he and his American partner(Doug McClure)use to corkscrew their way deep into the earth to explore what mysteries it may hold. They soon discover a lost world of subhuman creatures having conflict with prehistoric monsters.<br /><br />Cushing comes across as an absent minded professor to the point of being annoying. Instead of being a bold adventurer, he comes across effeminate. On the other hand McClure overacted enough to make himself also laughable. Caroline Munro plays the pretty Princess Dia that refuses to leave her world near the center of the earth. Also in the cast are: Godfrey James, Cy Grant and Michael Crane.
Compared to director Kevin Connor's later ARABIAN ADVENTURE, this is a masterpiece. However, that's not saying much. In fact, AT THE EARTH'S CORE is a silly fantasy adventure in which Peter Cushing - who appears to be on something strong - and some other actor (whom I don't know) use a giant digging machine called the "Iron Mole" dig their way down to the Earth's core - only to find that the inside of the Earth is pink and populated by ape-like creatures who have enslaved the humans. There's also a giant bird that controls the apes by means of telepathy, and we get to see it blink its eyes in closeup throughout the film. Most importantly, Cushing and what's-his-name also encounter the lovely Caroline Munro in the subterranean caves. And here's what I've really got against this little flick: why oh why is it that whenever Munro's in a movie, she only gets approx. 5 minutes of screen time? In THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, MANIAC, DRACULA AD 1972, GOLDEN VOYAGE OF SINBAD - always she's in the background! How can Kevin Connor possibly think that we'd rather listen to Peter Cushing's fake accent and look at some ridiculous ape-man whose voice sounds like a scratched cd than gaze at the beautiful Munro? I don't get it. Please, somebody direct a movie where this English brunette is on-screen all the time!
A brilliant professor and his sidekick journey to the center of the earth in a huge machine which screws its way to the core. There, naturally, they find all kinds of things that are intent on killing and eating them. Plus, of course, a love interest for the young sidekick. Ho hum, does the plot never take a different tack?
Mildly entertaining and self consciously cheezy -- but what else could it possibly be? Cushing in one of his poorest roles, and he often sounds dubbed. McClure is just too Cheezy to be believed, but who can blame him in the wasteland of this movie whose plot about ancient dinosaur birds ruling humans has 19th Century throwback "period charm," but not enough and unfortunately the script carries the racist connotations of the literary genre into films. Nice effort from the actors, but a poorly conceived production.
There I am sitting at home in the morning, suddenly my brother flips on what appears to be the stupidest looking movie i have ever seen. Considering it was the 70's and special effects weren't to sharpe, this movie just about equaled the definition of crap. The stupid monsters, the stupid story line, and the stupid setting made this the worst movie I have ever seen. So bad in fact I didnt even finish it, I made it up to a certain point then proceeded to see how long I could go without putting a rope around my neck and hanging myself. (im just kidding haha) AWFUL MOVIE
Doug McClure has starred in a few of these British produced genre adventures and this one has got to be the worst of the lot . I know THE LAND THAT TIME FORGOT has its critics but please at least that movie featured location filming and relatively good production values . That's the problem with this movie - The production values go way beyond " So bad they're good " affectionate territory and become " so bad I think I'll go and see what's on the other channels " <br /><br />One case in point is the first scene featuring the intrepid Cushing and McClure encountering a monster . It's painfully obvious the monster is an average sized man dressed up as a rubber monster being made to look over twenty foot tall via overblown back projection . It becomes even more painfully obvious that our heroes are trying to escape the monster by running on the spot . Have I mentioned that this is one of the more convincing set pieces ? No really this looks like it was filmed in somebody's living room with the spare change left over from that year's DOCTOR WHO budget . Even former DOCTOR WHO Peter Cushing is bland and what should have been an amusing line " You can't mesmerise me - I'm British " is delivered in a very flat way ( A very similar line is spoken by Cushing in HORROR EXPRESS ) in a script devoid of characterisation , plotting and memorable dialogue . It's not just the fact that the dialogue is unmemorable it's also infrequent and rare since the monsters don't speak . Wouldn't it have been better having the chief bad guys humanoids like in WARLORDS OF ATLANTIS so that they could explain the plot . Does anyone here know what the plot actually is ? <br /><br />A very tedious British movie that even the twin talents of Caroline Munro can not save . The whole mood of the movie is summed up by the final sequence featuring two keystone cops
"At the Earth's Core" was on television yesterday. I was at my computer working and happened to glance over and see what must have been some of the worst action sequences ever made. I was instantly enthralled by the film's shoddy production values, appalling acting (by all included -- even Peter Cushing) and horrific, unintentionally hilarious action sequences and puppet-monsters.<br /><br />The film is about a Victorian scientist who takes a stereotypical Buff American Hero on a ground-boring trip in the Welsh countryside. Little do they know that a great evil lurks at the center of the earth's core....<br /><br />Forget the fact that the title doesn't make sense. (If they were really at the earth's core, they'd be about 2700 kg/m3 underground and burning alive in a sea of iron or whatever it is down there.) Forget that the puppets used in the production rival "The Beast Master" for being the fakest-looking of all-time. No, the real genius of "At the Earth's Core" is its naive stupidity -- a gung-ho action spectacle without real action and without real spectacle. It is in essence just a gung-ho movie and a stupid one at that. People who enjoy MST3K-style stuff will love this -- it's appallingly bad, and indeed so bad it is almost enjoyable in a strange way.
Why is impossible to write in french ? Very Kitch! This journey in the center of the earth is despicable technical possibilities nevertheless current in 1976. These big "Casimir" of monsters is completely ridiculous! The film deserve however a "remake", as was "KING KONG" (the last one), with a little more supplied scenario. The professor has resemblances with the Professor Calculus and is rather funny. David (the character) is enough inconsistent but cross(spend) to the people from below a good message " you unite and will overcome you! " Altogether we would say a film made in the 40s. Now that I said everything (or almost) the evil of which i thought of it, we can say that if we have the brain get tired or anything has to see of the other one, then the thing(matter) is even rather entertaining. Hugh! Such is my opinion! (translating French to English with "Reverso" : sorry for possible mistakes !)
Of all the E.R.Burroughs screen adaptations that Doug McClure starred in the 70s, this is the stagiest of all. It's so stagy, you can taste the dust of the sets and feel the heath of the lamps above. The thing looks like a very, very big budget school play, or indeed, a very very low budget action movie, which it actually is. It's been said on many occasions that this was the last of the genre entries, and I do hope it was. The genre didn't die peacefully, but in horrible agony, amidst a lot of smoke, fake blood and lousy sound effects. Peter Cushing must have felt a boy again, as a nutty professor whose shirt stays white as snow after the gentlemen has dragged himself through the slimy crap-holes of the Underworld. What a sport he was, to accept a part in this mishmash and carry it so bravely.<br /><br />Shot entirely on a sound stage and accompanied by then trendy, now unbearable synthesizer soundtrack, the main anti-attraction of this film are the cardboard monsters. Yes, there are always monsters like that in a Burroughs adaptation, but they rarely manage to be so completely ridiculous, helpless or void of any credibility. On a few occasions, during the elevated action-combat scenes where Mr McClure heroically attacks the creatures, you can almost hear the empty, hollow sound as his head bangs against the side of a triplodactocryptosaurus. Fortunately, the animals explode and go up in flames the minute they trip and fell over. Indeed, there is a great deal of unmotivated exploding as the film (and the genre) draws towards the finale. And lovely Miss Munroe loses her underworldly accent.<br /><br />The triple bill, currently on the market, features this film plus two others - The Land That Time Forgot and The War Lords Of Atlantis. The first two are quite strong entries, especially the first one, with a lot of money invested and occasionally even fascinating script turns. Don't expect any of these qualities from this film. Get drunk with pals and laugh shamelessly at what you see. After all, the makers didn't have any shame either.
There is something about Doug McLure's appearance in a movie that is a warranty of wretchedness. His DG initials are like a special cinema-certification, that comes somewhere before 'U'. <br /><br />Cushing, on the other hand, seemed to suffer from both a dilatory agent and poor judgement of his own. He did excellent work in the Hammer movies as Dr Van Helsing. I'v seen him do a very passable Sherlock Holmes in 'Hound Of The Baskervilles'. And his magnum opus was probably Grand Moff Tarkin in the first 'Star Wars'. The only man but the emperor who could tell Darth Vadar to 'stop bickering' and get away with it. But - crikey! - he's done some turkeys. There was that lamentable 'Daleks' movie for one. And here's another.<br /><br />There's a machine that's been hijacked from Tracy Island. It's a cylinder with a screw at the front and traction devices at the sides. I'm surprised Jerry Anderson didn't sue for plagiarism. Maybe he was bought-off. Yet if the movie is any guide, they can't have paid him much.<br /><br />It's 1976 and we're still playing about in latex romper-suits. <br /><br />That's about it really. Some movies have an entertainment value in the 'so bad it's good' category. This one doesn't even manage that. It wouldn't even entertain kids. 'Crash Corrigan's' stuff from the 1930's has got more going for it.
This is just about one of the dumbest things I've ever seen. Maybe not a worst movie ever contender, but if you haven't seen that many bad ones, this could easily make your Top Ten Worst List. When you consider what was achieved in 1933 with the original "King Kong", you've got to ask yourself why anyone would stoop so low as to produce this debacle. Then, taking it one step further and realizing that the quantum leap to "Star Wars" the following year achieved a new level in sci-fi entertainment, this offering will make you laugh and cry at the same time.<br /><br />Now let me ask you, what would possess the Professor (Peter Cushing) to bring along an umbrella as a prime piece of subterranean research equipment for the ride to the earth's core? OK, so it was useful in fending off the parrot/tyrannosaur (parrotosaurus?) in the early going, but come on. Somehow I don't think this is what Edgar Rice Burrough's had in mind when he wrote his tales of Pellucidar. He probably didn't have Caroline Munro in mind either as Princess Dia, probably the only redeeming factor to this whole escapade.<br /><br />At least there was one bit of pseudo-scientific explanation that I got a kick out of; I'm always looking for one in films like this. That would have to be how the sky at the earth's core was really the underside of the earth's crust, explaining that ethereal pinkish glow. But try as it might, the story just couldn't hook me in a way to find anything at all interesting about Hoojah the Sly One or Jubal the Ugly One, much less those goofy half man, half pterodactyl creatures. To paraphrase the good professor - "You cannot mesmerize me, I'm paying attention!"
It's amazing to think that this movie came out only one year before Star Wars but seems a million years behind it in sophistication and special effects. Actually, the art direction and set design (nice Victorian space ship) aren't bad; it's the monster costumes that are the most laughable, resembling the "guy in a rubber suit" monsters from the LOST IN SPACE TV show. The evil cave-man makeup reminded me of some of the aliens from ancient TWILIGHT ZONE reruns.<br /><br />The script is stilted, and outside of Peter Cushing's comic relief the acting is pretty miserable too. This movie is only recommended if you really enjoy bad kitschy SF. And the music...yikes! A horrible 70s experiment with synthesizers that doesn't fit the time period of the film and which sounds like someone rambling with a Minimoog and a 2-track tape machine.
Yeah it may not be for adults, and some adults may find it stupid, but if you don't think about it it's really not that bad.<br /><br />The story has Alvin and his gang, going across the world, in search of jewels for a bad person, and the misadventures that they come in contact with.<br /><br />So the animation is good, and the story is cute, and the songs are forgettable but it's a good movie.<br /><br />I give it a 6 out of 10 or *** out of 4 stars.
Meltdown opens on a scene of scientists preparing to conduct an important test on a missile system developed to deflect asteroids should they be on a collision course with earth. Nathan (Vincent Gale) mentions some misgivings to his, but the test appears to be an unqualified success. Then the asteroid breaks apart, and the largest piece is pushed into a direct collision path with earth. Fortunately, the huge rock skips off of earth's outer atmosphere and ricochets into space. Unfortunately, the glancing blow is just enough to alter earth's orbit, and the planet begins to spiral closer to the sun.<br /><br />While all of this is going on above their heads, Los Angeles cops Tom (Casper Van Dien) and Mick (Greg Anderson) are on a stake-out. They're supposed to collect evidence against a suspected drug dealer, but the deal they're watching quickly devolves into a shooting match. Afterward, Tom takes a few minutes to be interviewed by a local television reporter who also happens to be his girlfriend, Carly (Stefanie von Pfetten).<br /><br />At a nearby hospital where Mick is treated for a minor injury, Tom has a brief chat with his ex-girlfriend Bonnie (Venus Terzo), who is a nurse. He tells her he's concerned about the fact that their 17 year-old daughter Kimberly (Amanda Crew) is dating a man named CJ (Ryan McDonell). Once Tom explains to Bonnie that he's discovered CJ has a criminal record, she's a little worried herself.<br /><br />It's not long, however, before everybody has something else to worry about. The temperature is rapidly rising all around the world. Carly is one of the first non-scientists to learn what's really happening. Nathan, who is her brother, calls her to say he may have a way that they can survive. Carly calls Tom; he, of course, promptly contacts Bonnie.<br /><br />In relatively short order, the motley group is on the road. Before they can reach their ultimate goal, however, they've got to make their way through bands of looters, deal with a catastrophic water shortage, and manage to travel in temperatures that are high enough to kill.<br /><br />Casper Van Dien is a good looking guy, and I actually enjoyed him in Starship Troopers. That may be because he's good in action scenes. It might also be because he didn't talk much in that movie. In Meltdown, he's unfortunately given just enough lines in situations that are just dramatic enough to showcase his entirely average acting abilities. Amanda Crew is also okay, and Ryan McDonell isn't bad, either. Vincent Gale and Stefanie von Pfetten are also both reasonably good, but Venus Terzo is sadly on a par with Van Dien.<br /><br />What really makes or breaks a movie, though, is the story and the script. While the story here is okay and actually has some real potential, the script is just awful. The science part of the science fiction is non-existent starting with the asteroid pushing the earth out of orbit and escalating with the notion that the "gravitational balance of the solar system" might "pull the earth back" into its usual orbit "over time." When the temperature in LA hits 120 degrees, cars start blowing up.<br /><br />You know what's even worse than the bad science? The bad continuity. Okay, really hot. Why are people in the movie not only wearing long sleeved shirts, but jackets, too? Why are people mugging each other for bottled water instead of turning on the taps at home? Why are the streets completely empty, but the freeways completely full? And why are the freeways full of unexploded? It's almost superfluous to note that the sets, costumes, and production values were good, especially when that only forces me to say that the edits were not.<br /><br />So basically, you take a pretty good story idea and combine it with mostly mediocre acting, a terrible script, low-end special effects, utterly irrational plot twists, and poor edits, and what do you have? A movie that's even less than the sum of its inconsiderable parts. I'm sorry to say that I can't recommend Meltdown: Days of Destruction to anyone.<br /><br />POLITICAL NOTES: There is mention here that Congress finally loosened the purse strings enough to fund the tests that start the movie rolling. While the tests here were wholly irresponsible (targeting an asteroid with a nuke and not knowing the composition of the big rock is, in fact, well beyond irresponsible and approaching the insane), the fact is that such scenarios are a very real danger to the planet. Unfortunately, we've tracked nowhere near all of the near earth asteroids that could be worrisome in some orbit some day; and our ability to spot something on a collision course with us is limited at best.<br /><br />Once we do discover we're going to be hit, we quite literally have no system in place to deal with it. There are no nuclear-tipped space missiles we can launch; the space shuttle is completely incapable of going beyond earth orbit, and if it were, we couldn't launch enough of them or launch them quickly enough for it to matter. I'm not big on the government doing anything beyond its constitutional mandates, but I certainly think protecting the planet from destruction coming at us from outer space could be construed as defending the country, don't you? FAMILY SUITABILITY: Meltdown: Days of Destruction is rated R for "some violence." I frankly didn't find the violence here anything beyond a fairly typical T-rated video game. If your teens are keen on seeing Meltdown and you can't talk them out of it, the R-rating shouldn't dissuade you from letting them see it. It's not, however, a good idea to leave the younger kids in the room with their elder siblings. While the shootings aren't too graphic in the main, some of the dead bodies are.
This movie is total dumbness incarnate. Yet, i've seen this movie several times already and plan to watch several more times because, despite its sheer dumbness, it's very entertaining. And it has one of my favorite hokey-movie actors, Casper van Dien, who is here in his full hokey-movie glory. Here, Casper van Dien is fully Casper van Dien, and ya gotta love him for it. If he hadn't been in this movie, it would have been totally unwatchable dreck, or at least far dreckier than it already is.<br /><br />The (cough cough) "science" used here makes absolutely no sense at all. No one else in the world noticed that big asteroid approaching the Earth besides that small group? Not even with thousands and thousands and thousands of professional and amateur astronomers constantly searching the skies for just such a thing? An asteroid that big would have made itself completely obvious to anyone who has a pair of eyes even vaguely capable of sight. And a chunk of the asteroid bounced off the atmosphere and no one even noticed it? A rock that big hitting the atmosphere would have caused enormous shockwaves that would have in turned caused an enormous amount of damage to the planet's surface. Surely, someone would have noticed such a thing. Bwahahaha! The "science" used in this movie is so completely ridiculous, that, somehow it works for making this movie as entertaining as it is.<br /><br />One thing i noticed is that despite the uber heat, all the characters weren't dripping with sweat and their clothes completely soaked with it. At the most, the characters looked like they had been lightly spritzed on occasion by someone off-camera with a water bottle to give a "sweat sheen". Authenticity was *not* a goal that this movie assiduously and constantly strived for. Which, in a weird and hilarious sort of way, gives this movie its entertainment charm.<br /><br />Is this movie actually worth watching? Definitely! Assuming, of course, you have absolutely *no* expectations of anything that even remotely approaches reality. And, it's your desire to wallow and luxuriate in total hokeyness at the moment.
MELTDOWN is pretty interesting SCI-FI. No major budget, very few special effects; but decent acting and a storyline of global doom is enough to sustain viewing. An asteroid grazes the atmosphere and thrust the Earth into an orbit closer to the sun. Global warming rapidly becomes unbearable. A determined LAPD cop(Casper Van Dien)goes all out to save the world from certain annihilation as the rising temps are devastating. The pressure is on to save mankind from this solar catastrophe; as well as protect his daughter, nurse ex-wife and TV reporter girlfriend. The cast includes: Stefanie Von Pfetten, Venus Terzo, Amanda Crew and Vincent Gale.
Poor Casper Van Dien, his career has slid a long way from Tarzan and Starship Troopers.<br /><br />In Meltdown he's a policeman who just happens to be dating TV reporter Stefanie Von Pfeten and her brother is a scientist who's trying to deal with a speeding comment headed for Earth. But in the runaway comet business, even a near miss causes some real problems as the Earth's orbit goes out of kilter.<br /><br />From the survival of the Earth we go to the survival of Van Dien and his immediate family. His daughter's gangbanger boyfriend, Ryan McDonell actually proves to be of some use especially when he suspects a guy he knows as a crooked cop might mean the Van Dien group a lot of harm.<br /><br />My only question here is, why didn't they have Bruce Willis, Billy Bob Thornton and the rest of that crew to deal with the nasty comet?<br /><br />Pass this one up folks.
I would rather have someone cut out my eyeballs with a razor blade than have to watch this movie again. I watched it from start to end thinking it couldn't get any worse....BUT IT DID. The writers and producers should be slapped for putting this kind of crap on television. The actors are ALL terrible. Get out of Hollywood you fools and go work at McDonalds sweeping the floors and emptying the trash. Anyone that thinks this movie is even remotely decent should be hung. They are an embarrassment to humanity. To think we have soldiers putting their lives on the line for anyone that produces this kind of inane garbage. Makes me embarrassed to say I'm an American.
This was a modest attempt at a film, though it appeared more like a TV pilot extended.<br /><br />Some may find this unfair, but it looks like someone saw "The Brothers" and "Save the Last Dance", and thought "Hey, I could do that too." Well, not quite.<br /><br />While I personally found the movie predictable, somewhat poorly acted, and contrived (watch for the cookies), Carl Payne shows that he can carry off a lead role, and should be back on television. The leading lady (can't remember her name, sorry) was plausible too, but you keep thinking of Julia Stiles (she was the one in "Save the Last Dance", right?) because this one was really stuck in "white girl" mode.
I am a huge Randolph Scott fan, so I was surprised and disappointed to find he is barely in this film! The movie really belongs to Robert Ryan, who is the hero in the jam, and the one embroiled in the love triangle. Good grief, Gabby Hayes gets more screen time than Mr. Scott in this movie!! For many viewers, that is not a problem, but I am from the Walter Brennan school of sidekicks, not Gabby Hayes...although I will say that his lines were a bit more humorous than annoying in this film than in many of his films with Randolph Scott and John Wayne.<br /><br />Personally, I found the movie very slow going, with a convoluted plot that was muddied even more by the unnecessary romance subplot. By convoluted, I don't mean impossible to understand or figure out, I just mean too messy for its own good.<br /><br />The direction is uninspired, and the two main bad guys have the most unsatisfying come-uppance at the end. The whole movie comes across as fake, unrealistic, and poorly filmed.<br /><br />Just so you don't think I can't find anything good here...<br /><br />On the plus side, Anne Jeffreys is very sexy in her all-too-brief parts of this film. Not sure if it is actually her singing, or someone else, but whoever it was had a very pretty voice. Ms. Jeffreys also had a couple of nice acting moments. The script needed either a lot more of her, or to remove her character altogether. As it was, her nice few moments weren't enough to help the film.<br /><br />Lastly, there is Mr. Scott. He looks fantastic in this film and is the no-nonsense lawman out to set things right. Some folks complain that his characters prior to 1950 were too goody-goody perfect, but that's never bothered me at all. I'll take him goody-goody pre-1950, or gritty and violent post-1950...either way, Randolph Scott was a real Western hero.<br /><br />It saddens me to have to say it, but I would have to recommend passing this film by, unless you are a die-hard fan...there are so many better Scott films out there that this one won't be missed.
This movie is such a piece of unbelievable crap. First let me talk about the pros: Sandra Bullock in a black bathing suit.<br /><br />Now the rest of the story which is all pretty much bad. We have said computer programmer Angela Bennett (who's online profile is ANGEL - HOW WITTY!!! I bet the directors cheered over that one for an hour) who basically checks other Company's software for errors/glitches etc. So we start with her ordering pizza on the Internet and then putting on a fireplace on her monitor (EXTREME computer skills shown thus far). This is after she finds some virus on a macintosh program which crashes the whole system after hitting the escape key. This is apparently a HUGE problem yet the virus created to do such could be done in about 1 minute with a simple batch file.<br /><br />Any event, we move on. She gets this call from some other bloke (that works at the same company) and this fool says to go click this symbol which apparently opens up some secret Internet gateway to a bunch of unprotected 'top secret' data woohoo! Angela saves this crap on a disc and now the people that created this loophole are out to get her. This of course is only after she hooks up with one of the bad guys only BEFORE he tries to kill her BEFORE she jumps in the ocean off his boat, BEFORE she winds up in a random hospital.<br /><br />Problem #1: You can't create a loophole on the Internet to gain access to a bunch of top secret FBI data. Where the hell did this come from? Since when can a group of hackers control the basic flow of the Internet (even in 95)? Problem #2: Angela would need proper identification before a hospital or clinic would release her. She could not just pack her things and go.<br /><br />Then these 'hackers' or whatever change Angela's ID so she can't get help from anyone and conveniently enough all her ID is gone. So she returns home and a cat and mouse chase goes on and on and on.<br /><br />Apparently all police and FBI people are stupid and don't believe her. So then she has to utilize a bunch of tactics to enter into the building where she works (where the person who is now filling in for her is) and get back to her old computer. She starts talking to some other random bloke and finds out who is behind everything through some BS IP address that the director knows the audience is too stupid enough to believe.<br /><br />Then she runs to some center to mail all this information to the FBI. She apparently HAS to use a mainframe to email stuff to the FBI. But then the same fool that tried to kill her BEFORE throwing her in the water catches her and easily hacks into the FBI again (wtf?). But remember that cool virus? Well somehow she luckily gets that and even though the virus only worked on software, it now works on the entire system too. It brings down the whole mainframe which has all the fake information because the mainframe was just sitting in the middle of some convention... WHAT THE HELL IS THIS CRAP! Anyway, the now uber virus works and Angela (the real one now) runs away and later kills the evil dude with a fire extinguisher. He of course has a gun, runs up to her so he's like 2 feet away and then decides to aim. CLASSIC Hollywood.<br /><br />All in all this movie is so full of BS and crap. Anyone who doesn't know a lot about computers will be wildly fooled into thinking this crap is possible but not one thing is accurate concerning computers or the net. And I honestly doubt I'd see a multiplatform virus for Mac and a mainframe computer (*cough LMAO*).
Made and released at the time when the internet was just becoming huge, this is a storyline Hitchcock would have loved.<br /><br />Sadly, Hitchcock wasn't around to make it, and we're left with an occasionally suspenseful but mostly silly thriller, that is held (barely) together by Bullock's intelligence.<br /><br />It was released in 1995 but is already dated, and the amount of mistakes and inaccuaracies regarding computers must be seen to be believed, and you don't even have to be a dot.com person to spot them!
Okay... she's on the boat with this guy, realizes he's out to kill her, knocks him out, and then finds the reason he's out to off her is this disk that got her coworker killed. So what would any rational person do? Maybe conk him over the head again to make sure he's really out?? Tie him up?? Look, Sandra honey, you've got the chance to escape while the guy is out for only so long. Until you know how long it will take you take you to escape, make sure he's not able to come after you. I HATE these stupid female victim roles. The rest of the movie was just a series of twists and turns that were completely convoluted and too unbelievable to remain interesting.
SPOILER ALERT!!!!<br /><br />I don't go into 'high tech' movies expecting them to be 100% accurate on all things computer related. But somehow, even the average 'I have a computer' user is supposed to believe that:<br /><br />1) A computer professional with a top secret, special data<br /><br />2) is going to keep the primary copy of said data on a 1.44 floppy<br /><br />3) and make absolutely NO BACKUP of this special secret data<br /><br />Even high school students back up their homework for goodness sake.<br /><br />Also this is the worst represntation of a computer nerd ever. Even though she is super cute we are supposed to believe that she has no friends, neighbors, extended family, or coworkers who can identify her. Even the unabomber had a family that could turn him in.<br /><br />END SPOILER<br /><br />These aren't just minor mistakes that had no bearing on the movie - These are the major plot points that fueled the storyline. The characterization was awful, the plot wholly unbeleivable, and if you haven't seen this, don't bother.
This is basically just a dumb chase story, nearly identical to zillions of other chase stories in terms of acting, suspense, plot, dialogue, characterization (or lack thereof), and pacing.<br /><br />The one area in which 'The Net' diverges from traditional chase movies is in its subject material: Computers. Unfortunately, the scriptwriters clearly didn't understand the differences between a pocket calculator and a Cray!<br /><br />Computer-newbies shouldn't watch this movie, because it will make them paranoid about computers. No matter what Hollywood tries to tell us, it's just not that easy to erase someone's identity by hacking. There's still too much paper documentation in the world, and there was even more of it in 1995.<br /><br />Computer-pros shouldn't watch this movie, either. I mean, a magical virus that can melt your entire PC when you press "Escape"? Please. And the whole virus, including the cool multimedia effects of your screen dissolving (what's THAT all about?) can fit on a single 1.44mb diskette? Yeah ... whatever.
Rating: *1/2 out of ****<br /><br />"The Net" is one of those films that won't remain in your mind till the next one hour. Well... Just if you keep thinking how bad it is. It's a mediocre, miserable, hollow, laughable and predictable piece of garbage. One of those adjectives I've just used above is the reason which made me add 1/2 a star to the one I would have given. So is it a case of 'so bad it is good'? No. It's a case of 'so bad it is laughable'. <br /><br />Bullock in a (surprise!) very bad performance plays Angela Bennett, a computer expert who is at home all the time. She works at home, doesn't have any friends and her neighbors don't know her. Suddenly, she sees herself involved in dangerous situations, after her colleague dies and the same thing almost happens to her. Her identity, bank accounts, etc, etc, etc, are all deleted, and she is now Ruth Marx. The conspiracy involves even the government and... Wait! Haven't we seen this before? Yes, thousands of times. "The Net" tries to be modern, to be the portrait of the '90s, showing the computer as a villain. Big deal! It is a film about nothing, just a pretext to show ridiculous action scenes. Take the scene of the boat accident. I just laughed when the camera started to get slow...<br /><br />What makes everything even worse here is Sandra Bullock. How awful she is! Has she already made a decent film? "A Time to Kill", okay. But she is still a bad actress, repeating her robotic face moves in each of her pictures.<br /><br />The vantages and disadvantages of the computer were already shown in "2001: A Space Odyssey", the best, most intelligent and most complex film ever made. It's not needed to compare "The Net" with it, is it...?<br /><br />The only reason to see "The Net" is to laugh, as I've said, and to see what it tried to be. The results, well, are a shame.<br /><br />DELETE this film from your mind!
Computing . Can there be anything more boring ? Sitting in front of a computer all day typing away at some keys all day every day , tap tap tapping . That's much of the problem with this movie , the heroine sits in front of a computer VDU tapping the keys and no matter how many looks of agitation she gives , or how much suspenseful notes the composer strikes or how many extreme close ups the director uses there's not much excitement down to the fact that there's few things less exciting than watching somebody on a computer <br /><br />There's a few other problems too much of them factual errors regarding how computers work . Is it possible to hack into a computer that is both turned off and not connected to the internet ? I guess that when THE NET was made 10 years ago very few people would understand how computers worked so the screenwriters would have been able to BS at length but since we now live in a global village where nearly every household in the western world has their own computer the audience are certainly very clued up on the factual errors of this movie . And of course there's too many instances where someone acts stupid or out of character at crucial times in order to progress the plot which makes THE NET a very mediocre movie
We can conclude that there are 10 types of people in this world.<br /><br />Those who understand binary and those who do not. Those who understand binary put this movie to its grave along with hackers, while those who do enjoy this movie for the sake that none of this crap could happen. Ever.<br /><br /> For a movie to attempt to be a modern movie with fiction applied to it. It has failed. Horribly. Only a 11yr old and below can enjoy and only 30yr and up could be scared to have their identity taken. It losses out on the main market for a resale value(i watch it now it is more boring than when it was first released).
[ as a new resolution for this year 2005, i decide to write a comment for each movie I saw in theater (10%) or in DVD (90%). <br /><br />I must admit that DVD have revolutionized this habit. For instance, i can hear the true voice of the cast, which is an essential trait of the personality. In my country, non french movies are dubbed and we end up with aberrations: french voice is terrible, very far away of its original tone ! the same voice for different people or a same people with different voices !!!! <br /><br />And well, if everybody found my comments unuseful, well, in 2006, I will stop my reviews... Ah,AH.... So, enjoy them now !!!! ]<br /><br />My summary means that the story, locations, cast is not very enjoyable...<br /><br />Only....<br /><br />Sandra bullock is there.. She is a talented actress, able to get the viewer to catch on the movie....<br /><br />It reminds of a feminine "the fugitive".... So if you look for a moment of escaping your life, watching this movie makes it worse because Sandra's life is a mess....<br /><br />She got nothing left to hold on to, only her poor mother (Who is Alzheimer ill: again the touch for depression)....<br /><br />In fact, she has a sad life in the beginning of the movie, has a sadder life throughout it, to finally get back to it at the end.... what a happy ending !!!!<br /><br />maybe the writers wanted to make a point about a nerd's life....<br /><br />very far away from the best computer movie of all time: *WARGAMES*
When, oh when, will Hollyweird write a decent movie based around computers? I cannot believe people actually consider this movie to be a credible story.<br /><br />No computer operating system could ever survive wit that sort of annoying scrolling interface. It may look good on a movie screen but if you actually tried using it for any length of time you would go nuts.<br /><br />As for "tracing" people the way she did it simply cannot be done that way. Network security alone would prevent that from happening. The key stroke logging was laughable to say the least.<br /><br />Regarding the software that was supposedly being installed, no system administrator would allow such a critical piece of software to be installed on a production system until it has been tested, retested and tested again on a sandbagged system.<br /><br />But probably the worst possible part of the movie was the "virus". There is no way that a virus that works on one operating system will work on any other system. And as for a virus that could take out a mainframe is a couple of seconds, that just beggars belief. There is no way that an open remote connection would have the required superuser access that would allow deletion of system files.<br /><br />I could go on but I can't be bothered.<br /><br />A porno has a better thought out plot that this pile of garbage.
The Net is a movie I never saw upon release, I remember giving it a pass upon the mediocre reviews and since then perhaps been noticing a snippet here and there when it's been on TV. Seeing it now, fourteen years after it's original release, I'm a little flabbergasted as to how time flies. Being in my mid 20's, it made my childhood feel ancient. I felt as if I should probably do some exercise before my body starts stacking up fat in all the wrong places. Cut down on fat and sugar. Too much coffee and cigarettes.<br /><br />Anyway, that was the best part of this movie experience for me. I'd say the first 30 minutes of this movie really kept me occupied with retro heaven. Look at those big cans they call computers. Look, they chat in chat rooms! I remember those tank tops! They look.... stupid. And hey, it even stars Sandra Bullock. First billed! Would you look at that.<br /><br />As a movie, The Net is just an unimaginative, plain and totally routine Hitchockian cat-and-mouse thriller. Nothing archaic about that, they made them then as much as they make them now. Bullock plays a reclusive computer nerd who's job it is to fix software for people who don't get "that whole computer thingy". As it happens, she stumbles upon some delicate information and after her vacation trip ends up with her nearly getting killed by a sexy lay who turns out to be a killer (played by Jeremy Northam, and she should have been suspicious by the fact that they are in an American movie and the guy both smokes and has a British accent!) she gets her "identity wiped out". Her house is empty, for sale, and upon checking it out, it turns out that she now has got a new identity. A convicted prostitute and impostor, no less.<br /><br />Now you might say that this is improbable. How could they possibly do that to her? Even in 1995, it's impossible! That's true, but back in '95 a lot of people didn't even know what the Internet was. I can see how it's a plot hole you could have accepted back then. What's far more disastrous though is the inconsistencies that have nothing to do with technology. The movie obviously owes a lot to Hitchcock movies (it's one of those thrillers that feature a merry-go-round by night) but Hitchcock always made sure that his movies were plausible. The characters didn't act like confused maniacs when trying to prove their innocence, and the plot didn't conveniently lay down for a structure where one obstacle inevitable leads to the other. The characters also tried a little before giving into the whole rouge chase. Has Bullock's character really no friends what so ever? Couldn't any old high school teacher confirm her identity? Or like... her nearest pizza guy? Oh right, she orders pizza from the Internet. Never mind. You figure the movie out pretty quickly. There seems to be hope in an ex boyfriend. You really think so? You should always count on at least ONE surprise. The Net offers none.<br /><br />The Internet poses a lot of danger, this movie seems to predict. But, had the movie been made today, imagine the troubles the villains would have to go through to ensure the identity wipe. Not only do they have to do all those boring literal things, she would still have her Facebook membership, with at least like 100 friends or so, and picture tags, not to mention she might be on YouTube or Linked-In, and what about her video blog with like 150 daily hits, or the webcams in her house and recorded video of her in other people's cell phones, webcams, web downloads... her IMDb membership?
Now i have seen two movies by the director Chen Kaige, a very good one (Farewell my concubine), and this bad one, The Assassin. Both movies depict crucial events in chinese history, FMC in the 20th century and TA the first unification of the whole chinese nation in the 3rd century bc. FMC succeds with memorable characters, gorgeous cinematography, convincing sets, good acting and an interesting story. The Assassin fails on nearly every level (okay, the sets are great, the cinematography is good, and the few battle scenes are quite exciting). But...the pathos. Call me a cynic, but too much is too much. If you felt that Saving Private Ryan was too pathetic, be aware, this here will make you sick. The dialogue is lifeless, many lines seem like political statements, subtle or entertaining is this pic not. The film is overpowered by its own pompousness. I am really surprised that The Assassin gets such high votes here on imdb. 4/10
Lots of flames, thousands of extras in battle scenes, lots of beautiful sets. I don't think the plot supported such a vast expenditure. The story could have been told far more effectively and have been more valid, psychologically if there weren't so much macho bombast in the production. Chinese movies tend to be this way, in my experience. and I think this detracts from the film.
I read all of the other comments which made this movie out to be an excellent movie. I saw nothing of the excellence that was stated. I thought it was long and boring. I tried twice to watch it. The first time I fell asleep and the second time I made it to within six minutes of the end and gave up. I suppose that it was mainly my fault going in with great expectation, but I don't think that this would have completely ruined the movie for me. The movie was just bland. It had nothing that was spectacular or unique to it. The plot was not half bad, the action sequences were non-existent, the dialogue forced and the movie just went on forever. I would not recommend seeing this movie.
Los Angeles physician Tom Reed (Vincent Ventresca) survives a tragic auto accident but ends up going to prison in the high desert of California. When his time is up he lands in a small, wind-swept town named Purgatory Flats. His first stop is a bar, where he quickly slams a beer and gets hired as a bartender. So much for ex-cons having a tough time finding work. This is the first in a long line of absurdities that make up the plot of writer/director Harris Done's silly attempt at modern, desert-set, film noir.<br /><br />His first night on the job Tom meets a sexy femme fatal named Sunny (Alexandra Holden), who hangs out with a family of bad boys: the Mecklins, consisting of Uncle Dean (Gregg Henry) and his two nephews, the drug addicted Owen (Kevin Alejandro), who is Sunny's husband, and AWOL soldier Randy ("90210"s Brian Austin Greer). After his shift is finished there's a shooting, and Dr. Tom just happens to be nearby. He agrees to treat one of the wounded and, most importantly, not tell the cops. I'm not sure that's a good move for a guy fresh out of the pen, but this script (co-written by Diane Fine) has very little to do with logic.<br /><br />Tom makes a series of poor decisions that get him further and further entangled with the criminally inclined Mecklin Boys, including stealing medical supplies and hopping into the sack with Sunny. Everybody in the theater is screaming, "Don't do it! Walk away", but Tom does it anyway.<br /><br />In a classic film noir like "Body Heat" or "Double Indemnity" we root for and empathize with William Hurt and Fred McMurray as they get sucked into the web of bright, sexy, devious femme fatals like Kathleen Turner and Barbara Stanwyck. It's not their fault. We'd probably be tempted by all that money or that particular dame, too. But Dr. Tom's weakness seems to stem from stupidity more than circumstances. Sunny is sexy but not a very compelling character, and there's no money to tempt him. You're left wondering if he attended the same medical school as Dr. Nick Riveria from "The Simpsons".<br /><br />The silly script would have you believe that a redneck's rural home has almost everything you need to treat a gunshot to the stomach, and that one so wounded could easily hop to attention and effectively participate in a fist fight. It gives us an implausible car chase with one of those "The Club" things clamped to the steering wheel. Oh, that oil tanker that just exploded - no one noticed that.<br /><br />I wonder how such a ridiculous script ever got green-lighted? Perhaps Brian Austin Greer has more juice than I gave him credit for. It's obvious that he took the relatively small role of Randy - a hot-headed murder - to show producers that he had more acting range than he displayed on "90210".<br /><br />It's also sort of sad to see Nicholas Turturro playing a stereotypical Hispanic drug dealer. He deserves better than this.<br /><br />If you have an IQ over 50, "Purgatory Flats" will have you shaking your head in disbelief. I'll give it 3 stars for the unintentional laughs and the scenes with the sexy Miss Holden running around in her red panties.
It starts off pretty well, with the accident and the decision not to return to LA. But everything falls into place too quickly. There is a decent plot twist towards the end, but so many scenes that don't make sense. Randy (played by Brian Austin Green) comes home angry and ready to confront people and he takes the time to put on the club, when he parks his car in front of his house in the middle of nowhere? I don't want to spoil it, for anyone who does decide to see it, but the last 45 minutes are ridiculous. Even the acting, which wasn't bad early on, turns bad towards the end. Don't bother unless you want to see how bad it is.
The Movie is okay. Meaning that I don't regret watching it! I found the acting purely and the most of the dialog stupid ("oh no, this was my grandmothers bible!"). It's sort of bad remake of U-turn. A man arrives to a desert town out in nowhere, meets the wrong people and falls in love with the wrong woman. And off cause get's involved in something, he thought he could leave behind him. The movie is quite predictable and there is really nothing new in it. When it's finish, you didn't really care. Most of the characters are stereotypes, specially Brian Austin Green!! All in all just another movie from the states, but okay entertaining on boring Wednesday night. IMDb vote: 4/10
it's the best film that takes the first place at the sickest and an useful films ever made in this poor country. really u people even don't know what the word cinema means and u cast votes for movies, i'm really curious to know how many movies of P.P.P. or L.Bunuel have u seen. The score of this "faield experiment" it reflects a lot of u're way of understanding things and to recognize a good/quality movie when u see it. We the Romanian people have only ONE movie and until this day the status hasn't change & that movie is "Padurea Spanzuratilor". But I don't lose my time thinking how many of you have seen it. That is a movie that respects all the required quality's's of an MOVIE. From the script to the frames and even to the quality/clarity of the picture even are past over him 41 years. I recommend to the voters to search for better movies and then vote. KuDos will See u later .
OK, so this film is well acted. It has good direction but the simple fact is that it undermines what all gay and lesbian people have been fighting for all these years. The straight man "deciding to be gay" and the gay man "Deciding to be straight" I did enjoy it up until the last 20 minutes, after that i got really offended. As what usually happens in these films the straight actors play the main parts and the out gay actors play the secondary straight roles. The leads are played by handsome men but don't let that distract you from the fact that this is a a film that leaves you feeling unfulfilled. All the romance and relationships you hope would happen do not. Unless you are a priest that is in which case god bless straight woman who cure our homos.
This movie starts at A and never quite reaches B. Its title promises far more than the film delivers. It's superficial and filled with the usual cliches of a story in which a guy questions his sexuality. The people are agreeable, even the obligatory flamboyant type. The lead (Kevin McKidd) overacts insofar as there's a reason for him to act at all. Simon Callow, playing a horny straight, is always worth watching, and he's by far the only reason to stay with the movie. However, the rubbish about his men's group "meditations" or whatever they are grows extremely tiresome in short order. They seem to have been thrown into the movie's mild mix in a misguided effort to vary the setting and non-stop inaction. The same comment applies to a really odd and unconvincing camping trip. Don't worry about pausing the tape so you can get a snack. Let the thing run; you won't miss anything. Hugo Weaving's character is superfluous. He appears in a sequence with one of the lesser leads and doesn't even meet the rest at all. The outcome of that sequence isn't explained, and Hugo's real estate dealings have nothing to do with the story. The movie is a total disappointment at the end, because there is no resolution. The thing simply fades out and we're sent to the closing credits. This is an interlude with no structure.
I found it hard to care about these characters, who were either annoying or insipid, all living their fabulously hilariously urban lives.<br /><br />The dialogue was excruiciating at times, and at other times the narrative seemed hard to follow - was it me or were entire scenes deleted?<br /><br />It felt like a poor sitcom somehow turned into a film. The stereotypes and jokes about "men's groups" would perhaps have been funny in the early 90s. As it is, this is where much of the humour of the film comes from - and boy, does it get old fast.<br /><br />Apart from the attractive Irish man - this film was a dud. And not even in a "so bad it's good way". The last 20 minutes were particularly painful. Perhaps if you've never met any gay people or never thought about homosexuality before, then this film might have something meaningful to say. Otherwise - darlings, you'd still be better off renting The Boys in The Band or Beautiful Thing.
"Go Fish" garnered Rose Troche rightly or wrongly the reputation of a film maker with much promise.<br /><br />Its then hard to understand how she could turn out a movie made up of stereotypes that one associates with inferior sitcoms. The entire film rings hollow. I cringed the whole way through.<br /><br />Its supposed to be a look into nineties human sexuality. Well not much more here to be learned than from "In and Out". By now most of us actually do know, that there are men who are sexually attracted to women and there men who are sexually attracted to men and there are even men sexually attracted to both sexes. <br /><br />Seldom has this revelation been portrayed on the screen with so little wit and style.<br /><br />Pathetic.
The daytime TV of films. Seldom have I felt so little attachment to characters. Seldom have I been made to cringe by such dire dialogue. Nauseous London thirty-somethings mincing round lurid BBC sets spouting platitudinous mulch. Avoid this film as if it were your grandmother's clunge.
I bought this video on a throw-out table at the video store expecting a good cast in what was touted as an award-winning Brit sex comedy. I guess I should have read the finer print. I rarely write a panning review, but here goes.<br /><br />These actors in gay roles really play games with your memories of a lot of far more worthy films. This comedy was a very cruel joke at the expense of the actors, the theatre-going public and of all the nice films that have contributed to their reputations.<br /><br />I repeat: is the joke about trashing the actors' other highly respectable on-screen personae with this scurrilously trashy flick? Can the reference to the Austen classics 'Pride and Prejudice' and 'Sense and Sensibility' be anything else? How much of a political statement was it to produce this melodrama using these stars? Are we meant to simply take it as a lay-down misere that all actors are gay and thus letting their on-screen roleplay affect our lifestyles is accepting their private homosexual dealings in our faces, too? I'm sorry, but I don't think so. I say NO to this one.
This is supposed to be Charlie's masterpiece, but I will contend that it is actually one of his weaker films. First of all, it's not funny. Not one thing in this movie made me laugh. Okay, there's a quick jump into a box that was a giggle, but that was one of desperation. The Tramp's first - and only - talkie where he speaks (he sings in an earlier film), but his flat dialogue shows us exactly why he was such a joy to watch in "Modern Times" and "Gold Rush" - two films that are at least ten times better than this film. There's literally only one good scene in this film, the one where Hitler plays with the globe like a beach ball. That's it.<br /><br />Okay, so it gets a lot of praise for being the first film to wage war, even long before we entered the war. Nope. Not true. Simply not true, so that praise can be turned down a bit. The Three Stooges did it on January 19, 1940 with "You Natzy Spy" - ten months earlier than the October release of Chaplin's film - and that movie was actually funny! If you want to watch Chaplin's greatest film, watch this only for reference. And then pop in "Modern Times", "Gold Rush", "City Lights", "Limelight", "The Kid", or even "Tillie's Punctured Romance".
Maybe this was *An Important Movie* and that's why people rank it so highly, but honestly it isn't very good. In hindsight it's easy to see that Chaplin (probably all of Hollywood) was incredibly naive about the magnitude of what was really going on in the ghettos, so you can't fault him TOO much for the disconnect that affects a modern viewer, but the disconnect remains.<br /><br />More disappointingly, the movie is just clunky; it's as if Chaplin had no idea that movies had progressed in sophistication since the silent era. The set pieces, those involving both the Jewish Barber and the Dictator, don't flow into each other; they just sit there like discrete lumps of storyline that progress in fits and starts, moving SOMEWHERE but never arriving at resolution. Some are funny, some less so.<br /><br />What charm the movie has is strictly in the person of Chaplin himself. His parodies of Hitler's speeches were the best part of the whole thing, and there's no denying that he had a physical grace that was delightful to watch. But virtually everything he surrounded himself with was ANNOYING. Hannah was TOO DAMN American. The Storm Troopers were TOO DAMN American.<br /><br />Oooh! Oooh! One more thing! I don't know what purpose was served by having Garbage be the source of evil behind the throne. It almost seems like the film is saying that, if it weren't for malign influences like Garbage, Hynckle wouldn't have been that bad a guy.
*MILD SPOILERS*<br /><br />In this would-be satire, Chaplin set his sights on the evils of German fascism, playing the twin roles of Tomanian dictator Adenoid Hynkel and one of his subjects, an inadvertent World War I hero and Jewish barber. Through events inspired by both Adolf Hitler and the Marx Brothers, Hynkel negotiates contracts and declares war on neighbouring Osterlich whilst finding time for numerous, oddly flat set-pieces. The dictator's much-celebrated waltz with an inflatable globe is actually entirely heavyhanded, underwhelming and unfunny.<br /><br />Chaplin should certainly be commended for looking to lampoon Hitler and for speaking out strongly on celluloid - his much-maligned final speech is actually the bold, memorable highlight of the piece - but the film simply isn't sharp or funny enough to merit the praise frequently heaped upon it, nor to demand repeated viewings. The best gags are away from Hynkel's tiresome posturing and involve The Barber attempting to avoid a large spinning bomb (a sequence which steals from the gun tussle in The Gold Rush) and later, with a pot on his head, accidentally walking the plank off the roof of his shop.<br /><br />Compared to the director's silent classics, The Great Dictator is slow, wildly inconsistent and altogether somewhat unsatisfactory, whilst the barren spells between laughs are often long and difficult to endure. There is no doubt that Chaplin was a genius, but even geniuses make disappointing pictures and The Great Dictator certainly ranks as such.
Chaplin was great a silent comedian, but many silent era stars fell when the public heard their voices in the first talkies. In my opinion, Chaplin's voice simply did not fit his silent characters that made him rich and famous. His career never recovered when sound came to film. Contrary to most of the reviews I have read, Chaplin's lifestyle and politics did not help his popularity with the average viewer who expected to be entertained by Chaplin the comedian, and not spend their entertainment dollar watching Chaplin's political commentary.<br /><br />Despite Chaplin's awards and knighthood, I would take exception to his "contributions" to humanity. The Great Dictator was made at the same time Stalin's brutal dictatorship was having it's show trials, and both Dictators signed the agreement that lead to invasion of Poland by both Dictators. WWII started in an attempt to save Poland. The Nazi's were defeated in 6 years, but Poland disappeared as a sovereign country. This happened during the time this film was made and the investigations of Hollywood by the Federal government. Had Chaplin included Joe Stalin in this satire,in addition to including the Italian dictator, perhaps he would have had less criticism about his politics by the politicians. The Soviet's mistreatment of Jews and dissidents exceeded the Nazi's in time and numbers.<br /><br />Judged simply as a film, many of the gags were too topical to be understood by younger viewers, who wouldn't know who Goebbels, Goring or Mussolini were. A classic piece of art must stand the test of time. Classic Greek Tragedy, the Mona Lisa and Beethoven's 9th are still enjoyed centuries after their creation because they are timeless. Films which rely on topical political commentary or currently popular social views usually do not outlast the generation in which they are made. But those that address issues that are common to all generations will probably live forever and receive a high rating from me.<br /><br />Chaplin, as the writer, director and lead actor must take the blame for what I judge as a dated and tiresome film.<br /><br />Chaplin's apologists have excused his decision to leave the country that made him rich and famous. If Chaplin found the US so offensive, why didn't he return to his native land. Great Britian fought the Nazi'with blood and money. What did Switzerland contribute in the fight against the European dictators? Switzerland is like a country club that picks and chooses its members based on race and class, and cares little about people who can't join the club.
Adenoid Hynkel, a lowly soldier in World War One, rises in subsequent years to become the ruthless dictator of Toumania. He creates an aggressive, antisemitic war machine and cultivates a little toothbrush moustache. Sound like anyone you know?<br /><br />From the safety of Hollywood, Chaplin uses this soapbox to exhort Europe to take up arms and defy Hitler and Mussolini. Given that the United States in 1940 had more than a year of neutrality ahead of it, and no strong desire to embroil itself in Europe's civil strife (remember, it was Hitler who declared war on the USA, not the other way round) it is surprising that Chaplin was allowed to distribute this immoderate polemic.<br /><br />The story involves on the one hand the the vulgar and repellant Hynkel and the reign of terror over which he ineptly presides, and life in the jewish ghetto where every single person is friendly, humane, brave, etc., etc, Chaplin is Hynkel, and he also plays The Jewish Barber, the little hero of the ghetto (The Tramp in all but name). Needless to say, Chaplin writes, directs, stars, composes the music and does the catering.<br /><br />In 1940 the full truth was not yet known about the Third Reich, and Chaplin can be forgiven for having something less than perfect historical foresight, but even by the standards of the day he gets Hitler badly wrong. A comedian and a sentimentalist, Chaplin tries to ridicule Hitler by making Hynkel silly and hapless. All this does is to humanise him. When Hynkel the not-very-warlike soldier fools around with the big gun and the upside-down aeroplane, he becomes endearing rather than despicable. As dictator, he inspects his subordinates' technical innovations which don't work (the parachute hat, the bulletproof uniform etc.) and these passages are meant to make us think that the real-life Nazis are incompetent and can be swept aside. In fact, Hynkel's regime is made cute and likeable by its bumbling bodgery.<br /><br />In truth, Chaplin's day had already passed when he made this ill-considered polemic. At heart, he was still a dinosaur of the silent screen (check out the humour, with gags like staggering up and down the street semi-conscious, or the pantomime of the coins in the puddings). The hero Schultz is meant to represent a yardstick of European decency against which Hynkel can be judged, but Schultz looks more like a character from operetta than a Nazi. Is it in any way believable that a Schultz figure (if such had existed) would say to the Fuehrer's face, "your cause is doomed to failure because it's built upon the stupid, ruthless persecution of innocent people"? And how does Schultz come to be in the cellars of the jewish ghetto? If he is the object of an exhaustive manhunt, why does he persist in wearing his Ruritanian uniform? Chaplin did not yet know the full horrors of Auschwitz-Birkenau or Treblinka, but the Nazi concentration camp which he offers us is hopelessly out of kilter with the grim spirit of the age. As usual, Chaplin thinks in terms of 'silent' comedy set-pieces, loosely pegged onto the narrative clothes line. There is the knockabout scrapping with the stormtroopers, shaving a man to the accompaniment of Brahms, and the globe ballet (watch for the segment filmed in reverse).<br /><br />Paulette Goddard is the unremittingly perfect Hannah. Just as the people of the ghetto are impossibly nice, and the jewish haven in Osterlich is ridiculously idyllic, so Hannah is quite literally too good to be true. Brave, defiant, resourceful, hardworking and (of course) beautiful, she is the canary of judaism in the ghetto cage. "Gee, ain't I cute?" she asks, after the Barber gives her a make-over. Too cute by far, is the answer. She doesn't come close to ringing true, because Chaplin has made her a caricature. The 'wouldn't it be wonderful?' speech which Chaplin puts into her mouth is typical of the author - too wordy, too emotionally cloying.<br /><br />Jack Oakie is great as Napaloni, the fascist dictator of Bacteria. He brings a whiff of much-needed comic brio to the proceedings, but the film's underlying weakness remains. If Napaloni is silly and ineffective, how can we fear him? And anyway, the stuttering stop-start of the back-projected train is a fine Chaplinesque example of a gag that is persisted with far beyond its comic worth.<br /><br />And where did the Jewish Barber acquire that immaculate Hynkel uniform?
This show is not in my opinion, good,Then again I have not enjoyed any cartoon from Disney Channel. Except for "The Proud Family" because that so is about a normal female teen This show is very similar to the way I feel about Lilo and Stich the Series. It was a mistake turning the movie into a cartoon because the movie was excellent, the cartoon is terrible. Disney Channel was doing just fine before adding all these stupid cartoons such as Dave The Barbarian, Brandy and Mr. Whiskers, Lilo and Stich the Series, American Dragon Jake long,and where it all started: Kim Possible. The shows would have been better had they come to PlayHouse Disney! As for this particular show Kuzko will never get out of school just as Dave The Barbarian's Parents will never return home, and as Brandy And Mr. Whiskers will never get out of the jungle.
First when does this storyline take place? It has to take place after the first movie because Kuzco knows Pacha and Chicha has her third child but it can't take place after the second movie because doesn't Kronk get a girlfriend or wife or something? You never see her in the show.<br /><br />Also, why is Kuzco going to school? The whole plot of the show is that Kuzco is going to school so that he can be emperor. But wasn't he emperor before this? And who's emperor while he learning to be emperor? Shouldn't that be Yzma? Or was Yzma fired in this time line already? And if that true why is waiting for him to fail to become empresses? Plus, you know in the first movie he said he was trained from birth to be an emperor by private tutors. So he should kinda know what he's doing.<br /><br />Kronk. Why is Kronk a student? He's around 25 they stated that in the first movie. He's an adult going to high school. Does everyone think he's a moron? I really like Kronk but I think because of his age and because everyone know that he is working for Yzma he should have been a teacher. Being a Home Ec teacher would be right up his alley.<br /><br />Malina, is very unlikable. She suppose to be Kuzco's love interest/moral compass. But a lot of time, she comes off bossy and know it all. She commonly says thinks I like "I should be proud because I am pretty and smart". <br /><br />She has ESP when it comes to Kuzco and knows whenever he's in trouble, when he's cheating, or even when he sings the Hot Hot Hottie song in his head even though she does cheer leading, school newspaper and keeps straight A+ in all of her classes. <br /><br />She seems more interested in using her prettiness to get Kuzco to do the right thing and do well in school then dating him. In fact, she seems more motherly to Kuzco then a love interest.<br /><br />Yzma. As I bought up before Yzma is trying to get Kuzco to fail so she become empresses. Not sure how that's suppose to work with being fired and all. Yzma seems to be reliving the first movie in every episode. In almost every show that she appears in she turns Kuzco into an animal in hopes of having him fail a class. (There are only 3 times that I can think of that that didn't happen.) The jokes about Yzma being old aren't as clever in the show as they were the movie. And classic jokes about Yzma are used to death in the show (like the "Pull the level, Krunk!", roller-coaster, and the lab). <br /><br />Also, some other points that don't make sense in this series. The fact that whenever Kuzco is assigned something everyone acts like this assignment will make him pass or fail the class but he seems to pass every assignment given to him. So why does one assignment matter so much?<br /><br />Seriously, who is ruling the kingdom while this is going on? Do they have a consul or a steward? You never see anyone ruling the kingdom unless Kuzco has weaseled his powers back or Yzma is empresses.<br /><br />Why is Kuzco going to a normal peasant school? Shouldn't he learning about how to lead a country, what to do in case of war or something that will be useful to him in the future? I could see taking some normal classes on like farming (so he would know how to prepare the country for a famine or something like that) but knot tying? How is that helpful?<br /><br />Now I know that someone is going to say "But it not suppose to make sense; it's suppose to be funny." Then they should have more funny things in there. All the funny things about the show have been done already in the movie. Also, if they notice some of these huge plot holes why don't they poke fun at them like in the movie? (For example, when Yzma and Kronk get to the secret lab before Kuzco and Pacha and Yzma and Kronk can't explain how they got their first.)<br /><br />There are some good points, it is nice to see some of the characters from the first movie in the series like Bucky and monkey with the bug. Pacha and his family are still very good characters with a good down earth feel. I feel that this series would be amusing for younger children. <br /><br />In conclusion, the series is not as good as the movie that it based on but it may good for younger children.
It pains me to see an awesome movie turn into some lame, repetitive and lazy series. It is filled with plot holes and the plot is confusing, in a BAD way. Whoever the prick writers were that decided to turn such a great movie into this garbage should have done some research, instead of filling it with one-liners and hollow new characters, and the classic jokes from the first movie OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Sure they get a little creative, but its like seeing the same episode with a small twist. Pretty much like listening to Creed, or Nickleback. Kuzco has to prevent himself from failing, Yzma has a complicated plan, but decides to go the easy way to save time and just use a potion, someone questions the monkey and the bug, Bucky appears in the background, Kuzco flirts with Malina, she disses him without sounding like a bitch, Yzma disguises herself as "Principal Amzy" and she calls Kronk, and he forgets that she is Yzma. I admit, this show does have it's moments. Another problem is the fact that Yzma looks younger and Pacha looks....weird. Also, no one can replace David Spade and John Goodman! Their the ones who made Kuzco and Pacha Kuzco and Pacha! Sorry, but i give this show two thumbs down.
Awful, awful, awful...<br /><br />I loved the original film. It was funny, charming, and had heart... this piece of junk has NONE of those things.<br /><br />Reused jokes from the original film, stupid plots, bad animation, different voices (with the exception of Kronk and Yzma) that sound NOTHING like the ones in the original (especially Pacha... *shudder*).<br /><br />The characters are off model, the animation is flat and boring, it's just a bad job all around.<br /><br />And why is Kuzco a jerk again? I thought he had reformed... but since when are these TV spin offs loyal to the original *rolls eyes*.<br /><br />I'm sorry, but there is nothing redeemable about this... at all.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs.
OK from the point of view of an American, who i assume do not know much about rugby this would be an amazing film for them.First of all its got heart, good morals the typical good coach trying to change the bad boy. HOWEVER to us where I come from rugby is the number one sport, it is a way of life it is a game played only by the bravest and the victorious are hailed like heroes as though Americans do for their baseball/basketball stars. Am not really sure if it was the cheap budget or the maybe the director or actors knew very little about rugby and being a rugby fan my whole life i can see than some of the actors didn't even knew rugby existed before acting in this movie. In summing up to me this movie was terrible. If you watch it and thought it was great please make time to go online and maybe Google "All Blacks" this is new Zealand's national team and the ones who made the haka famous. Believe me they will make the Highlands boys look like school girls.
This movie is horrendous. The acting is cheesy and laughable. If you know anything at all about Rugby the match action is boring. In fact any episode of Power Rangers contains more realism than this movie. The 'action' consists of no more than one pass and a shot of guy landing over the try line or being tackled without the ball and hectic hand held shots of who knows what. It's impossible to tell. There is nothing of the excitement, skill and construction of try scoring that real Rugby contains. As for the haka, this is a bunch of yanks trying to imitate a tradition they know nothing about, much like the white rasta character that should have been left out of the film. Next time there's a Rugby movie made we can only hope that people who know Rugby make it.
First off just let me say that I live in South Africa where rugby is our biggest sport by far, and our national side, the Springboks, have won the Rugby World Cup twice, so it's quite a big deal over here. I've played all my life and I'm shocked at the poor attention to detail in this movie! At first I thought it had the potential to be a great movie considering the cast of Neal McDonough, Nick Ferris, Gary Cole and Sean Astin for goodness sake, but it turned out to be a mockery of the sport. They basically mashed it together with your normal everyday American Football movie.<br /><br />My first problem is that this movie supposedly captures the values of rugby, but the discipline or should I say the total lack thereof during the games are contradictory to this. In the final it looks more like an NFL game with Penning being tackled of the ball numerous times, in front of the referee...that would've immediately led to a couple of red cards, because foul play like that would never go unpunished in by a referee, of that I can assure you! You'd also not be able to find a coach in world rugby who would have so little control over his team. Any coach would take a dump on a players head if he intentionally stiff arms an opposing player or double teams him like they did in the final...red card and certain suspension, full stop.<br /><br />Secondly, it's absurd that a coach would take a brand new player, who has played wing all of his life I gather, move him to hooker which is a highly specialized position and say that it's for the good of the TEAM?! What?! Hooker is a highly specialized position in the front row where you have to be able to scrum extremely well and preferably be able to throw the ball in at line-out time, which Penning NEVER does for some or other reason. By moving a wing to hooker without any extensive long term training it would firstly lead to your team's demise at scrum time & secondly the poor kid would probably break his neck! How is that good for the team I ask you? Finally, the overall high emotional pitch of the movie is way too much, because even though rugby is a great sport, and it builds great friendships & team spirit, it rarely gets that out of hand & corny. I've seen true-life football drama's with less emotion than this movie & it turned out great, but in this one Sean's (Penning) acting skills is dragged way too far and the movie attempts too force an emotional response out of the audience, which ends up being boring and hard to watch at times.<br /><br />Hollywood have made some great sports movies over the years, but next time they venture into a sport which has just recently picked up in the states, they should try and do their homework & maybe get some experts into the fray.<br /><br />DO IT RIGHT OR DON'T DO IT AT ALL!
This movie, like so many others (Remember the Titans, Miracle), follows the basic sports-movie formula: There's a guy, he's a jerk. Jerk does bad. Jerk must play by someone else's rules. Someone else's rules change Jerk, Jerk becomes good. Insert tragedy (Death, drugs, riots, etc.). Tragedy effects Jerk, makes him totally change. Jerk must now play championship game. Lots of close-ups on the sweating players and the balls. Jerk wins. Quote from coach or news or something that explains title. Credits. Weren't you touched? These movies can now be used to sort out the morons of society. Anyone who pays to see this in theatres must be slapped.
Coach Preachy or Straight Sappy. It's bad writing combined w/even worse acting. You can choose to drink the Gatorade of this after school special, but I didn't, not even on it's 20th Toby Robbins/Islander philosophy, motivational moment. It's too much posturing to be entertaining and not substantive enough to be informative. I have respect for the coach and the program this movie is inspired by, but the move itself is awful. As someone who has played rugby for nearly 20 years in the States I had hoped for a better rugby movie (even one that has something loosely to do with rugby). And I can tell you that the Haka performed by a bunch of Haoles and Islanders is not intimidating (much like when it's performed today by the All Blacks, seriously boys, everyone has seen it,it's time to put it away). If you want real intimidation, line up across from a bunch of South Africans (the real eye gouging convicts of rugby). This is a fake and badly done movie about being a genuine and good person.
This film is probably the worst movie I have watched in a very long time. The acting is so wooden a door could have done a better job. The plot is laughable and shallow and the actual "rugby" shown is a far cry from reality. I still don't get the "haka" as portrayed in this poor excuse for entertainment. I am not a Kiwi but I do know that the Haka can only be performed by someone of Maori origin and not by an all-American white boy.<br /><br />I am assuming that this was made for the American audience so the shallowness and "Disney end'" is excusable but there was hardly any attempt to point out the basic rules of the game apart from the prison side where the main character suddenly takes charge of an American Football game and gets everyone playing rugby instead. The only thing good about this film were the end credits. It would be less painful to spend ninety minutes inserting toothpicks into your eyeballs.
I'm from Australia and have watched with respect the extraordinary culture surrounding rugby union in New Zealand. I can totally appreciate the comments made by Kiwis in relation to this movie. It was a total insult to a race of people and their beloved sport.<br /><br />Whoever was involved in the making of this atrocious movie should be made to formally apologize to anyone who had the misfortune of watching it. Note: people do NOT kneel down and cry while slowly reciting the Hakka. What a pitiful scene this was.<br /><br />Are we supposed to feel some kind of sympathy for this idiot who nearly killed his girlfriend, who refused to listen to any advice from anyone with half a brain, then apparently saw the light? What a thoroughly dislikable character (with the visits to children's hospitals doing nothing to redeem his despicable personality).<br /><br />And why are people even making a movie about Americans playing rugby? They barely even feature in the sport on the world stage, not so much as to even warrant an attempt at making a movie about it (yes, Rugby's a 'world' sport, unlike gridiron and baseball)?
Awful film. Terrible acting, cheesy, totally unrealistic, embarrassing to anyone who has played the game. For a start that guy is not a hooker, he would be snapped in two. As for ''I score, that's my job'' well no it's not. For the the uneducated American audience it might come across as a good film. For me, well, that's a few hours of my life I'll never get back. I read through the reviews and came across one where the guy sounded like he knew what he was talking about. Then I read - <br /><br />''And while American rugby may never reach the level of talent that New Zealand or South Africa has, third in the world is also nothing to hang your head about''<br /><br />All I can say is, LMFAO! <br /><br />Keep playing your American football and baseball, leave the real sports to the big boys.
If the directors/producers/publicists wish to promote a film as "based on actual events" and make a film that is meant to inspire and have meaning then, for a start, to maintain any sort of creditability and integrity, you would want to keep a film as honest as you possibly can.<br /><br />A team wearing "all black" jumpers and doing the haka in America is just plain dumb. Any half intelligent person would know that the "All Blacks" are the National Rugby Union team of New Zealand and their jumpers are all black and the Haka is performed by them as a part of a traditional Maori dance.<br /><br />Having such stupidity in a movie, without explanation, merely reduces the credibility of the movie to zero and negates the message and inspiration that the movie is trying to achieve.<br /><br />The question is "Why"? Why would you do such a stupid thing and for what possible gain?<br /><br />I can only conclude that the writers or director or producers have seen it on TV before a international Rugby union match and thought "wow, that would be great in our movie, no one will know that it never happened, they're all too dumb to know about NZ nd the all blacks, this will be great."<br /><br />How would an Americian audience react to a movie made in NZ about Americain grid iron, with a team wearing an American Indian costumes and war paint, doing a native American Indian war dance, running round in circles shouting "oh woo woo woo, oh woo woo woo" react? They'd laugh their heads off!<br /><br />The people that made this movie and the industry that spawned it really should have their heads read. For some reason the industry thinks that they can "fool all the people all the time".<br /><br />It's just dumb!
Where to begin? This film is very entertaining if you are new to the wonderful game of rugby, however, if you live outside the US and do follow the game, it is laughable. Various rugby traditions such as the "Haka" which is preformed by the New Zealand "All Blacks" and only by the All Blacks. The leader of the Haka is usually the member of the team with the best Maori pedigree. This is one of the most important conventions of the modern game and has been misused and represented by the writer. The film itself is quite well directed however it is the poor script and over-all execution that lets it down, heavily. Taking into account is is based on a real story, it does posses a great deal of clichés in the storyline. I would strongly suggest that any American interested in rugby watch this film then watch what rugby actually is on Youtube because the rugby portrayed in this film has been distorted and skewed so far from what it really is.
If you`re not old enough to remember Yoram Globus and Menahem Golan here`s the rundown : They`re a couple of film producers and finaciers from Israel who set up the Cannon film company in the early 1980s . The only Israeli to get a worse press than these two was Menachim Begin . Begin probably deserved the bad press but Globus and Golan were a god send to film makers because no matter how bad your script was they`d happily fund your movie and would normally employ directors who couldn`t direct and actors who couldn`t act . In fact you often got the impression that people would just walk up to Yoram and Menahem ask them for some money and they`d oblige without seeing the film maker`s resume . If only producers nowadays were so trusting.<br /><br />THE YOUNG WARRIORS isn`t a Cannon film but Globus and Golan did finance it and it has their signature all over it . It`s badly directed , badly acted , badly edited but it`s the script that jumps out and attacks you with its awfulness . It starts with a bunch of high school jocks getting involved in all sorts of zany pranks , in fact the first 20 minutes of the movie plays out like a sex comedy and it`s something of a shock when THE YOUNG WARRIORS turns into a vigilante movie . But it`s not just any type of vigilante movie like EXTERMINATOR 2 or DEATH WISH 3 ( Notice a connection ? They`re both sequels and they`re both vigilante movies made by Cannon films ) , no siree this is a laughably bad vigilante movie about pretty boy high school jocks and their poodle going on a mission to wipe out scumbags . This film is proof that Globus and Golan were giving money to people regardless of their film making abilities and you have to worry about people who seem to spend their entire reserves on making movies set entirely around vigilantes
There are good-bad movies and bad-bad-movies and enjoyably bad movies...this isn't one of them. This is a movie that doesn't realize just how bad it is.<br /><br />I saw this at a screening on November 14, 2006 at the New Beverly Theater in Los Angeles as part of the "Grindhouse Cinema" this theater puts on every month. Hopefully presenters Eric Caiden & co. will think twice before letting writer/director Lawrenece Foldes anywhere near them again. What a con man. The guy got up to speak before the film -- you would think he was Orson Welles talking about "Touch of Evil" or some other lost classic. Hardly. Nice of him to take up 20 minutes of the audiences' time with his incoherent rambling. <br /><br />"Young Warriors" has been described as a cross between "Animal House" and "Death Wish" but if you are expecting something along the lines of imitations like "Revenge of the Nerds" or "The Exterminator" you will be in for one sad disappointment. The script makes zero sense. The direction is so poor the actors looked embarrassed and what can you say when the best thing about the movie is watching a car blow up?<br /><br />Poor Richard "shaft" Roundtree. In this movie he plays another character with the first name of "John" but that's about the only similarity his character here has to the aforementioned classic. I hope this film allowed him to pay the rent for another month. Other actors who look like they wished they could be anywhere else included Ernest Borgnine and Linda Day George. <br /><br />This is a complete waste of time. Even the audience did not seem that into it (except for the one spazz-boy sitting in the back who yelled "whoa" every five minutes and his girlfriend who giggled with the fervor of a lobotomized talking Barbie every time he opened his mouth).<br /><br />For real films about vigilantes, I would suggest the following:<br /><br />Death Wish I, II, III, Exterminator I, Vigilante Force, Ms. 45, Rolling Thunder, the No-Mercy Man (the latter two being a pair of films presented at this theater a couple of years ago -- probably the same budget as "Young Warriors" but both were a million times better!)
A party-hardy frat boy's sister is brutally murdered by a street gang, sending the young man into a sudden psychotic rampage. He and his buddies massacre half the city to bring his sister back to life.<br /><br />SAVAGE STREETS was released a year after this film, and was more entertaining. Linnea Quigley, who has a costarring role in this film as the sexy (and briefly nude) girlfriend of one of the guys, also starred in SAVAGE STREETS.<br /><br />This film is subpar, though it delivers enough escapist entertainment and gratuitous nudity to please its intended audience (me).<br /><br />MPAA: Rated R for strong violence, nudity, language, and some sexuality.
It begins with a couple of disgusting sex-comedy gags, but soon it reveals its true colors: it wants to be a "Death Wish" clone. I say "wants to" because the script gets so increasingly laughable by the minute that it ends up looking like an absurdist "Death Wish" spoof! From a love scene in a room inexplicably filled with candles, to "heroes" who dress up as commandoes and wave their machine guns because they don't want to attract attention to themselves(!), to bad guys who drive around the city in a black van long after it has been recognized as their vehicle, this film has too many ludicrous points to fit in a list. The other major problem is that you can't tell most of the characters apart; of course, you know who Borgnine and Roundtree and even James Van Patten are, but all the other roles could have been played by different actors in various scenes, and you wouldn't know the difference. (*1/2)
So I give it one star for true quality, but I'd give it an eight and a half for sheer enjoyability. An incredibly strange hybrid of sex comedy and vigilante thriller, "Young Warriors" is just the sort of bad movie you usually hope to find when poking around the video fringe, yet so rarely do. It starts off with about half an hour of wacky hi-jinx, sex jokes, and juvenile shenanigans (including an olive in the martini joke that has to be seen not to be believed). Then the main character's younger sister gets gang raped by a bunch of swarthy bikers (an objectionable scene that keeps me from giving this a 10 for entertainment value - rape is not entertainment!), and the main character gets the rest of his sex crazed frat brothers to help him in a quest to clean up the city, find the responsible bikers, and kill anybody slightly criminal they run into along the way.<br /><br />It's hilarious, non-stop fun, apart from the very unpleasant rape scene, and is essential viewing to any serious bad movie fan. Trust me - I've put my time in on these things, and this is one of the best. Highlights include a wonderful visit to the library, a great flickering slo-mo shootout in a sleazy bar (with a shot of a guy blowing his own foot off that's pretty impressive), a couple of decent slumming actors (Richard Roundtree, Ernest Borgnine), a couple of semi-famous recognizable faces (Lynda Day George, scream queen Linnea Quigley), and a couple of relatives of famous people (Chuck Norris' brother Mike, Van Patten clan member James). It even has one of those great "What have we become?" type morality lesson endings, although the turning point comes when the vigilante fratboys gun down a couple of kids robbing a store with a toy gun. I've always wondered why that was the catalyst that got the hero thinking; after all, whether they were kids and not hardened criminals, and whether they had a real gun or not, they were in fact still robbing a store, so as far as I can tell, it was just another job well done for our vigilante frat boys, right? Wonderful stuff. Highly recommended, just don't blame me when you enjoy it despite yourself.
The only thing good about this movie is the artwork on the promotion poster by H. R. Geiger. Anti-nuke protesters who all looked like punk rockers of the late 1970s, and somehow became non-violent, (except for their leader, "Splatter") occupy the cities. Fraternity boys descend on the punkers to do some violence on them and turn them into victims. Bad acting and bad plot then descends on the real victim, you, the viewer. I gave this a "2" because a few sexual scenes at least give it MST3K potential.<br /><br />
I'm sure I saw FUTURE KILL for the same reason as most people: the awesome poster by HR Giger. And like everyone else, I was disappointed to find that the movie could not live up to the poster (Giger said that director Moore actually begged him to do it). When I first saw this, at the age of 14, I thought it was the worst movie ever made. I'd still think that if I hadn't seen certain movies on MST3K since then.<br /><br />The plot has a bunch of annoying college boys driving into the "mutant city" to kidnap a gang-leader for their fraternity. That's when they meet Splatter (Ed Neal), a mutant/cyborg/psycho who kills the gang leader and blames it on the frats as an excuse to hunt them down and seize power. The rest of the movie consists mostly of chases. A hand-full of frats try to battle their way out of mutant city (which I think is supposed to be LA, even though it was made in Texas). There's some pseudo-political stuff about the frat boys' society being pro-nuclear weapons and the mutant-society being anti-nuke. There's talk of how Splatter became a freak due to radiation. Most people develop cancer from radiation, but splatter just shoots spikes and slaughters girls. Yeah, that makes tons of sense. At one point, our heroes rescue a mutant girl from two pro-nuke police, and she shows them "how the other half lives." The other half, it turns out, are all punk kids who dance around to a bad 80s pop-band. So our little epic is both dumb and dated. That's really all there is to it. Frat boys running around in messed up buildings while guys who look like bikers try to kill them... Oh, and it's the future.<br /><br />I don't think you'll have any doubt about why Ron W. Moore never made another movie. This thing is a real stinker. If you like Giger, buy his books (they have the poster without the horrors of the movie), or just watch ALIEN again. FUTURE KILL is a waste of time that nobody needs.<br /><br />If this description makes the picture sound good, there's another crappy movie that does the same thing, only bigger and better: AFTER THE FALL OF NEW YORK. It's crap, but it blows FUTURE KILL off the screen.
I didn't really know what to expect from "Future-Kill", but I certainly hoped it would be a little better than what I got. I knew the rating was bad and the reviews were unfavorable, but the Subversive DVD-cover illustration looks beyond cool and I can't resist that. For a very long (too long, in fact) time, this film raised the impression of being an unofficial sequel to Porky's with lame, vulgar and offensive fraternity pranks. Five mega-dorks, one of them resembling an exact young clone of Jim Carrey, desperately want to become members of a frat house but their ultimate initiation might just be a tad bit far-fetched and dangerous. They are dropped in the city center with provocative marks painted on their faces, simultaneously with the outbreak of a violent gang war. It doesn't take too long before they are confronted with Splatter, a seemingly half-man and half-machine warrior, who leads a gang of which I never really figured out who or what they were. Were they a government experiment? Cyborgs? Terminator imitations from a distant future? Does anyone care? "Future-Kill" is a bizarre amateur flick with a scenario that leaps from one subject onto the other without any form of logical connection or narrative. The plot borrows vital elements from great cinematic cult classics like "The Warriors", "Escape from New York" and "The Terminator", but the end result is one gigantic Sci-Fi monstrosity. The costumes and special effects are quite pitiable and there's a truckload of cheap and gratuitous nudity. The acting is terrible, but I'm willing to blame the retarded dialogs instead of the cast members. One to avoid at all costs, in spite of really cool DVD-cover art. Resist it!
If you tried to make a bad film, you could not make one worst that this one. I can't imagine anyone paying good money to see trash like this in a theater. The thing that really gets you is being mesmerized in looking at the entire thing just for the amazement of seeing how lousy it could get. The redeeming facet of this film was seeing the words "The End"
During my struggle to stay awake during this borefest, I fought through my near-dosing off to discover some silly plot regarding fraternity schmucks, quite incredibly obnoxiously annoying, running into trouble with a psychotic , radioactively damaged half-human/half cyborg named Splatter who sends his soldiers after them for the murder of their prestigious, politically vocal leader(..for whom Splatter killed himself, setting them up to take the blame so he could become the leader). These face-painted freaks form a group who express their feelings anarchically, though non-violently, living on dilapidated streets abandoned by the "civilized world" voicing their concerns regarding nuclear disarmament. Anyways, most of the film has these five frat goons running throughout darkened streets with graffiti walls, as Splatter and his punks pursue them. Thankfully for these guys, they find a punk chic to assist them on their journey out of this rather ugly terrain with which they're unfamiliarized. This territory the frat guys are immersed is a veritable labyrinth of streets and alleys with the idea of an exit out most difficult particularly when crazies and Splatter's bunch occupy nearly every turn.<br /><br />Yeah, I was duped like others thanks to the HR Giger poster which is most excellent. If only he had been the designer of this dreck..this is not the case and we, the viewer, are left a film modeled after, of all movies it seems, Walter Hill's THE WARRIORS, except this film doesn't have the style or grit that film has. The film has a plethora of unfunny bits and lame confrontations between the frats and the punks with hand to hand combats often laughable. The setting is rather interesting, and there are some atmospheric uses of neon light, but it's not the environment that's the problem..it's the plot and characters within the environment that grow tiresome. The saddlebags under my eyes weighed heavier every minute this movie continued. Yes, Texas CHAINSAW stars Edwin Neal(..quite a funny voice-man, who has an entertaining interview on the DVD I rented for this flaming turd of a film)and Marilyn Burns have "key" roles as opposing members of their faction against the government resulting in the final conclusion within a building complex at the end. Neal's character Splatter uses these metal spikes which emerge from his metal arm to kill his victims.
Simply put, the only saving grace this movie has is settings, costumes and an OK punk concert. How H.R.Giger must feel about his cyborg picture on the cover of this movie, I wouldn't like to know. Right away, all I could do was make sardonic comments about the films protagonists, I was hoping that the "freaks" in this movie would execute them in gory fashion. I sense SPOILERS a comin'! I was wondering if this film in the spirit of the first 20 min. was intended to be as humorously half-baked as the rest of it? Examining all the obvious political outcries (Police trying to rape a "freak", the discussion of superficialities between the "freak" and the frat boy and the punk concert w/ the female vocalist) and the use of slow-motion in the fighting sequences (which screams "martial-arts coordinator") I just don't know. The character named "Steve" irked me since he tries to pick fights w/ people off the street (he shoulda been mugged and raped) and looks bad when he broke that guy's neck towards the end (want me to show you how to do it?) I must say this though, if they would've developed other characters better than they did "Splatter", this might have gone somewhere. If there was a 0 to give this movie, it would've got it, but alas it's a 1.
This film is worse than Cat People, which I saw during the same week. It has all the 80's style. MTV punk rockers, the real ones who are anti social, not todays PC commercial type, frat boys, and a bad guy called Splater. I really like Splater, and the film does that blue lighting 80's feel, but the rest of it looks like low budget Canadian schlop. I have seen so much of this while living in this great country, and realize these type of movies were made because of Tax breaks. Avoid at all costs.
This movie has the distinction of being the worst movie I have ever seen, and the only film I have ever given a 1 out of 10 on imdb as of yet. I was fooled into renting it because of the cool H.R. Giger cover art on the box. This cover art is the only thing the least bit good about this steaming pile of...<br /><br />It was about frat boys fighting "freaks" in a strange but not the least bit interesting post apocalyptic world where the cities are in ruins/chaos, but apparently the suburbs are still a safe and wonderful place for young men to haze other men into braindead frat organizations. The most uninspiring performances by boring characters, not so special effects, dreary, un-original scenery and just generally extremely poor quality in all production aspects make this lemon the all time loser on my list.<br /><br />FINAL RATING: 1/10 I wish I could give it a zero.<br /><br />Noob Aalox
Very curious that Nichols and Hanks would team up for this, obviously they believe it. Strange because it should carry the title "Charlie Wilson's War the Lie.<br /><br />How could the time frame leave out the real history that while ridding Afganistan of the Russians the CIA was providing support for the Taliban, and today's World of Terrorism. In 1990, Bin Laden went home to Saudi Arabia as a hero of jihad, who along with his Arab legion, "had brought down the mighty superpower" of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. <br /><br />To avoid any connection to Osama Bin Laden is to say again, Hollywood cares little for Historical Truth. Charlie Wilson, a patriot, hardly, more like a congressman gone amok.
Russians never dropped children's toys filled with explosives over Afghanistan, that never happened!!! Who did invention of that?? Hollywood portrays Russian army as horrible, dreadful troops of evil! That is disgusting!! United States President Jimmy Carter had accepted the view that "Soviet aggression" could not be viewed as an isolated event of limited geographical importance but had to be contested as a potential threat to the Persian Gulf region. The uncertain scope of the final objective of Moscow in its sudden southward plunge made the American stake in an independent Pakistan all the more important. A great deal of damage was done to the civilian children population by land mines.
SPOILER - This film gives away plot points and discusses the ending. I hated this film - mostly for political reasons, but also for moral and aesthetic reasons. Politically, this film glorified war and military technology - blowing things up real good. We are led to cheer as the music swells and the Afghans use our weapons to blow the Ruskies to bits. And no U.S. soldiers put their lives on the line - so it's a fun war. Aesthetically, there isn't a touch of real human emotion in the film, just smug, privileged people being sarcastic, feeling superior, and doing whatever they want regardless of the consequences. And speaking of consequences, the film only makes a few small hits at what the arming of the Afghans actually led to. I had read an earlier draft of this script, and it ended on 9/11 - with Charlie Wilson realizing that things had gone horribly wrong. But that wouldn't leave the audience feeling good. This is a feel good movie about killing Ruskies. And it made me sick.
When the American movie industry tries to critically look at their own government they make damn sure it looks good even when it's bad.<br /><br />The film does 1 thing right it demonstrates perfectly what is wrong with the American politics. The motto seems to be to f**k with whoever it takes to get things done!!! Mix an American Congressmen, a CIA agent, a Jew and an Arab... just to f**k the Ruskies. Thanks to US for giving us Osama Bin Laden.<br /><br />The disappointment of the film comes in the face of muddling up the issues: using imagery of Afghan children with no arms and the stories of soviet atrocities and then making a blatant attempt to suggest a link between those and the reasoning behind the American help. Every sensible person knows why the $1,000,000,000 was raised... not the dying Afghani children that's for sure.<br /><br />As usual the serious issues are covered into facade of bullshit dialogue. "Here is to you, you M***r F*****s" Hoffmam chants at the end, all that's missing is the American flag in the background and the stupid military solutes. The films can not help but leave the aftertaste of the feeling of American pride and glee on how we (the Americans) have saved the world... once again. Not even the last 5 minutes of the film can save it, where an attempt is being made to stop praising yourself and wake up to the fact that its just another American F**k up.<br /><br />The acting and editing was good though.
The filmmakers neglected to connect the dots--that is, the sequence of events and choices that led from Charlie Wilson and the anti-Soviet mujaheddin to Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden and eventually to 9/11. The filmmakers of course neglect to tell us the back-story--why were the Soviets in Afghanistan?--but that omission pales in comparison to their failure to reveal that support for Islamicist extremists in Afghanistan in the name of rabid anti-communism ultimately strengthened the hand of anti-western forces and was a big contributing factor to the mess that we find ourselves in today (9/11, terrorist networks, a prolonged ground war in Afghanistan, etc.). Because these consequences are not spelled out, the movie leaves the viewer feeling sympathetic to Mr. Wilson (hey, check out his latest projects on the Internet) instead of seeing him as an individual whose actions were contrary to the best interests of his country and the West as a whole.
I'm sure that the folks who made this movie think they're doing something wonderfully politically correct, because they manage to criticize U.S. wars in Afghanistan and particularly Iraq by suggesting that the U.S. does war well, but doesn't clean up afterward, thus sowing the seeds for future trouble. Furthermore, they do this without making Islamists the enemy AND without making Republicans the enemy, since it's the Republicans that are in office and are doing this supposedly great thing, bringing down the USSR by covertly supplying a war in Afghanistan.<br /><br />But seriously now . . . do we really want a movie that repeatedly says "let's go kill some Russians!" like that's the greatest thing a red-blooded American can do? And are we supposed to find this congressman adorable because he surrounds himself with women with big hair and revealing clothes? Even his supposedly smart assistant, who is always dressed professionally, keeps looking at Charlie like he's just the most wonderful, handsomest, greatest guy around. As if she's Nancy Reagan to his Ronnie. Julia Roberts does a bang-up job in her role, but basically women are really demeaned in this movie, and it was really annoying.
The 3 stars are for Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Nothing else and no one else in this movie deserves even a wee smidgen of a star. Well, OK, Amy Adams deserves a wee smidgen, but the smidgenometer doesn't seem to be working, so I'll stick with 3. Tom Hanks...nothing. Julia Roberts...nothing. Mike Nichols...do you see a trend yet? Aaron Sorkin...OMG, not a chance. <br /><br />I could rant on for several paragraphs about the way Charlie Wilson's War glosses over history, morality, legitimacy and so on, but I don't think any such rant could outweigh the gushing of Aaron Sorkin fans. The rest of you, beware.Spend your movie money elsewhere.<br /><br />Still, if you're looking for a pithy comment, here's mine. You can put hot fudge sauce on a pile of garbage, but it changes nothing. Garbage is garbage and so is Charlie Wilson's War.
Your time and brains will be much better spent reading or listening to Charlie Wilson's War. Phillip Seymour Hoffman, plays the most enjoyable character in the movie, Gust, the Greek, and he plays him as a eunuch. Gust, in the book, is hard core and completely free to speak his mind. In the movie, he's not even shown as being equally important to Charlie. And poor Charlie is never shown donating blood (which he did every time he visited the camps in Pakistan). In short, the movie is too bland, and the history is too old for our modern time. We don't really care about the end of the cold war and the defeat of the Soviet Union (which happened in spite of Reagan, not as a result of) by a well financed group of people who were extremely willing to fight. Not quite the lesson we need to be hearing and seeing considering how well the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are going. (As I read the book, I kept getting that deja vu feeling, except it was present day).
"Love and Human Remains" is one of those obviously scripted, obviously acted, obviously staged flicks which is so obvious that the escape velocity from its contrivances and fabrication is beyond me. Not worth explaining, this amateurish flick tries to cram every clever line, every misanthropic overtone, every peculiar sexual predilection into one film with an absence of concern for making the pieces fit. In short, sensationalistic crap without the sensation...which pretty much just leaves crap.
Love and human remains directed by Denys Arcand is an abysmally pathetic film as it is completely different from the kind of films he has been making all through his career.Making a different film is not an objectionable matter,what is troublesome is the fact that if a film from a master is complete out of tune then it is a really bad event. The film begins on a good note as there is some suspense created. However as the film progresses what is shown is just a futile attempt at creating something meaningful as Arcand shows us half a dozen oddball,whimsical characters whose lives are intertwined with each other.Homosexuality and Lesbianism are not of any consequences here. What is even more bothersome is the feeling of guilt related to the characters who are rather in a fix regarding their feelings towards each other and sexuality.Such a film would be of interest to some who wants to see a different Denys Arcand film.All in all,there would surely not be many takers for this film.
The premise is interesting and the cast does the best it can, but the script and the directorial effort are so poor that it is not surprising that this film was buried--which is fitting given the screenplay. As I watched this, I could not decide which was worse, the screenplay, or the directing. The actors are over the top, the art direction looks like a Disney movie, the music is contrived, and the sentiment so sweet that it gives viewers cavities. It's a bad attempt to imitate "FOur Weddings And A funeral". If one wants to watch comedy that is as flat as a pancake and how poor direction can turn a story into cavity sweetness, this is a good one to watch.
Oddball black-comedy romance featuring a great cast and a less than stellar script. Brenda Blethyn ("Lovely & Amazing") is the title character 'Betty', a woman trapped in a loveless marriage with a man who is obviously having an affair with his beautiful, blonde secretary. Guess who's playing this minor role, yup! Naomi Watts ("Mulholland Drive") must of sandwiched this project in before her superstar status was insured with the blockbuster thriller "The Ring."<br /><br />On the male side of the cast list there's the woefully miscast Alfred Molina ("Frida") an old-fashioned undertaker who suddenly decides to reveal his desires for 'Betty' which have lain dormant for decades. Perhaps Miramax is hoping Molina's turn in the upcoming "Spider-Man 2" might generate some interest in this little trinket which belongs on the DVD rental shelf.<br /><br />But the award for wildest thankless performance goes to Christopher Walken ("Catch Me if You Can") who goes completely over the top as 'modern' undertaker with his Vegas-style funerals in a small provincial town. His character must have parachuted into the village because there's little reason for him to exist in this script.<br /><br />That said, if you'd like to see some top-notch actors engage in some low-brow humor then this one's for you, and if this isn't your cup-of-tea then try renting "Harold and Maude," the ultimate funeral movie that's still funny to this day.
A good idea let down by heavy-handed production.<br /><br />Quite a bit of the dialogue was unintelligible because of the level of music/background sound, and this didn't help this reviewer. Nor did the Welsh accents, pretty impenetrable at times. Towards the end I lost the will to live trying to follow the dialogue.<br /><br />This movie didn't know whether to be a farce or a black comedy - and they require different approaches. Some of the incidents were laid on so thick that they only merited a groan, some were so unbelievable even for this sort of plot that they made the story just not worth following.<br /><br />The acting was in the main good - although the American just came over as a clone of the "Back to the future" mad scientist. The little boy was very good.<br /><br />I did watch it all the way through but God knows why: I can't remember laughing once.
How better to describe it than scuzzy criminals on TV? And I don't mean in the show COPS; here, they're actually being presented as protagonists.<br /><br />I don't see any remedial value in this show unless you have a perverse penchant for human tragedies. Whitney Houston is a tragic example of the fallen star; a star which Bobby Brown helped pull from the sky. Bobby Brown is nothing but a low-life criminal. Why watch him? Why does Whitney stand by him no matter how despicable he is? This couple should be locked up and it's a loathsome shame they are making money and achieving a modicum of fame from watching the septic tank which is their lives and the human waste which is their character.
Though not a complete waste of time, 'Eighteen' really wasn't all sweet as it pretended to be. Nor are the ages of the actors they're portraying – 18, my butt. McKellen could have actually shown up in the film telling us he was 30 and ask us to believe it. Even Michael J. Fox was more believable as a teen in 'Back to the Future' Parts II and III (okay, maybe not; they're probably equal believability.) If you can get past the obvious age flaw, you'll have either the complete void of acting or simply overacting (Paul Anthony's so called anguish, Clarence Sponagle's Lifetime moments, and even though I do favor Brendan Fletcher, it's best to just watch him, and more, in 'Freddy Vs. Jason,') incomprehensible scenes (a faster than Britney Spears marriage, incest to prove a point and a man who needs help to urinate, but still has one hand free – I'm guessing this was the writer's fantasy,) an entire movie of despicable characters (Anthony might be playing someone that's 18, but acts like he's 12 and some odd "john" thrown in so Anthony's character Pip can save the day – was there really a sex scene in front of a baby?) and practically every character questioning their own sexuality by strange actions/scenes. On the positive side, I did enjoy Ian McKellen's voice-over, seeing a (rarely well portrayed) straight/gay friendship, puppy love (from someone who collects stuffed puppies, that is,) good score, some decent dialogue (love the separation of gays and pedophilia – wish more people would realize that) and acting from the female leads (as well as Cumming.) I can't really recommend it as it's really trying to be too many things – gay tolerance, gay hustling, homelessness, WWII epic, priesthood, first love, flawed judges, etc, etc, etc – on a shoestring budget.
On paper this movie has some chops: a street kid overcoming past trauma, rebuilding his life and succeeding when the world would have written him off. Great stuff, everyone loves a happy ending.<br /><br />In the theater though, there were some omissions that left the movie dead inside. The dialog was hollow and uninteresting, the characters were almost cartoonish in their lack of dimension and complexity, and why did everyone need to be gay? I have nothing against homosexual themes or characters in a movie but when it's used in this fashion not only is is offensive to homosexuals, it trivializes the lifestyle and cheapens the movie. If the story works without this cheap trick it should have been cut.<br /><br />Every character seemed to come out of the same cookie cutter form: Each had one major flaw and one minor flaw, every character is good hearted were they succeed or not, and everyone one of them had or is in an abusive relationship with someone.<br /><br />The most annoying fact of the movie is that they never let you get over that the name "pip" comes from great expectations. They give it to you once and that should be enough. The story shares enough with the Dickens classic to make this fact obvious.<br /><br />The most interesting part of the film is the story of the grandfather and the cassette he leaves for Pip and how Pip, the main character, learns how to grow up from the lessons learned from the tape. In the end, with lessons learned, Pip confronts his dark past and movies forward with his life.
Four Guys (Jacks) go into the restaurant business with a fifth Guy and lose all common sense. They allow themselves to be abused worse than textile workers at the turn of the century without simply leaving the situation. This is truly one of the worst films I have ever seen. I just hope I can resell this item to someone who might like it. <br /><br />It is true that it holds your attention if you can let the illogical plot developments not bother you too much. It is very silly throughout however especially once a stranger enters the restaurant. Who is he? Guess.<br /><br />
If you see the title "2069 A Sex Odyssey" in the video store, BEWARE!! The cover has Tori Wells and three other "80's" porn stars, and has a copyright of 1986. If you're like me (and I hope you're not) you'll think "80's porn? Tori Wells? Alright!" Trickery!! It was made in 1974 and has dubbed German stars! There's nothing inherently wrong with 70's German porn, but it's not my cup of tea, and it's nothing like what the cover leads you to believe you're getting. Once I got past my rage about the blatantly misleading jacket, I watched it anyway. It's a bad, bad movie. Sorry, I guess I didn't really get past the rage.
"The New Twenty" is one of the worst films I have ever seen. Yes, some may argue that formulaic small budget films that strive for less may seem worse, but I would argue that a pseudo-intellectual anti-formulaic "indie" film that pretends to be more is worse. <br /><br />"The New Twenty" was written and directed by Chris Mason Johnson, and I will never get back the 91 minutes of my life that I wasted on his film.<br /><br />THE SCREENPLAY & CHARACTERS<br /><br />From beginning to end, the screenplay failed to provide an anti-hero or hero with a moral core that the audience would want to see succeed or fail. <br /><br />In story telling, the three dramatic conflicts are man vs. man, man vs. the world, and man vs. himself. <br /><br />The screenplay focuses on a group of college friends in New York, and is preoccupied with the dynamic of man vs. himself, where each of the film's characters are so self-absorbed in a stupor of depression and self-destructive behavior that the movie atrophies before the audiences very eyes. <br /><br />Each of the main characters indulge in unexplained bad behavior (heroin addiction with no history as to why the character is an addict; a fiancée who has sex with her fiancée's boss/investor, even though the character is written too smart to have sex with such a sleazy character; a man who begins as a decent guy, but is attracted to a foul-mouthed investor, and converts for some unknown reason into a similar foul-mouthed business jackass; a closeted chubby gay cyber geek, who does nothing, but find dates online; and a gay Asian man who dates an HIV positive older man, but has no scenes establishing why the relationship works and why love develops).<br /><br />Crucial scenes establishing the cause of the character's addiction, the suffering and self- loathing of the fiancée that might explain why she would sleep with a sleaze bag; the back story that would explain why a decent guy would be attracted to a "Gordon Gecko" type character and become a jackass; a story line for the chubby cyber geek; and more scenes of interaction between the Asian man and HIV positive boyfriend are all missing.<br /><br />Without proper establishing details, all of the characters' actions seem forced and contrived.<br /><br />DIRECTION, CINEMATOGRAPHY & SCORE<br /><br />I found Mr. Johnson's direction to be without a clear point of view, leaving the actors emotionally incoherent. <br /><br />The cinematography can be described as mundane at best. Mr. Johnson selected small spaces to shoot and failed to catch the grandeur of New York City. This failure created a claustrophobic film, that viewed like the filming of a stage play, and not a film.<br /><br />The score was embarrassingly absent from most of the film. I assume that Mr. Johnson is to blame, since he could have asked for full score to enhance understanding in each shot.<br /><br />CONCLUSION<br /><br />"The New Twenty" is an annoying and unmitigated failure in film-making.
What we're given in this trying-to-be trendy film is a "frat-pack" of college friends, now approaching age 30 (which we all know, of course, their generation thinks of as the "new 20"). Consisting of four guys and a gal, we have thrust at us the following types: seemingly "unemployeds" and frequent drug users, along with one individual who is job successful and one who is trying-to-be. They are all, in their own way, drifting while trying to find both a future and emotional happiness. With one, possibly two exceptions, these are people this reviewer would definitely never care to come close to modeling myself after. There is disappointment after disappointment after disappointment in almost all their lives. Except in the instance of one individual (who appears on the way to finding it), none appears headed toward emotional satisfaction in his/her life. And so, about the only sincere moment in this film is when a knock at the door brings to the person answering it an unexpected and heartfelt "I love you."<br /><br />With only the exceptions mentioned, these people are the kind hardly deserving or worthy of several hundred thousands of dollars being thrown away in presenting their stories.<br /><br />PS--Writer/director, Johnson, definitely appears to have a problem with showing gay sexual scenes----with no such problems in presenting more prolonged and revealing heterosexual ones. Why might that be?<br /><br />****
Talk about marketing. The poster/home video cover of 'The New Twenty' broadcasts a half-naked male in a "Wolfe Video." For those familiar with the gay-themed movies – this broadcasts a "must-see." (I loved reading one reviewer (from another site) stating they had been "tricked" into seeing a "Sodomite" movie. Are you serious? The tagline itself as the word "gay." The Lord gives you eyes, yet you cannot see…) That being said, despite the number of gay characters, stereotyped, no less (see: the lonely gay, the AIDS victim gay and the closeted gay) it's more about long-term friendship and characters that grow apart. In fact, if anything, there's more (here's one for Christians to complain about) heterosexual couples having sex outside of, gasp!, marriage. Not to mention backstabbing, drinking to excess and drug usage. I see this more of a made for TV-Logo or Showtime movie than big screen effort. Sure, I loved the cinematography, some of the actors could act and I always love seeing a big-group-of-friends that actually act like they've known each other for a million years. But we've see this all before. Nothing really "new" here. Barely an original idea – hence bringing back the same 'ole "I have AIDS, let's deal with that" for a good portion of the movie and boy, our friend has a serious drug problem, but let's not deal with that until it's almost too late. That's so (US) 'Queer as Folk' and 'Broken Hearts Club,' respectfully. The film deals with a group of college buddies, now grown (in size not minds) who have to eventually grow up and each trying their best while failing. Strangely, as in most of these independent movies, the most interesting, to me at least, was the heavier-set one, Ben. He stole each scene, but, again, there wasn't much to take.
Synopsis Correction: The ending does not show Ben cruising online for guys. He is looking up Arabic Language courses at The Presido Military Acadamy in San Francisco. Perhaps to Join the War in Iraq as a translator, (FYI- many of the dishonorable discharges from "D'ont ask D'ont tell have been Translators (they are now it major short supply) Ben Also spoke Russian. This movie is a good time capsule of life in Manhatten but quite a bit of non reality here. Mostly a good laugh at Lame social skills and the sad portrayal of "Grown up" twenty somethings not developing beyond the college party mode. Also a brief study of the always changing scene in Manhatten.(somehow it Always stays close to the edge of the same B.S.)<br /><br />Watch together the films "Englishman in New York"" and the "The New Twenty" Both good for Nostalgia. I think the movie "twenty" shows how far the blur between gay and straight as evolved.<br /><br />These two films are GAY Time Travel For Sure!!!!ENJOY
Ugh. Unfortunately this is one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. None of the characters are remotely likable, which makes this film difficult to watch. They're all miserable thirty year olds who don't take responsibility for their crummy lives. I was only able to make it through a half hour of the film, so there's a chance things got better afterward, but I doubt it. I can't imagine five people as self-absorbed as they are would manage to remain friends with each other for ten years.<br /><br />Three sex scenes in the first half hour were also disappointing, as they had no relevance to the plot, and were clearly a gratuitous (failed) attempt to bring some life to this otherwise dull film.<br /><br />Save your time and money, and skip this movie.
imagine if you took the Christ myth, mixed it with a healthy dose of porn, against a backdrop of bad sci-fi blackxploitation(brotha from another planet like) throw in a dash of after school special, and lots of really bad kung fu fighting. oh and some decent break dancing. with an awesome casio keyboard soundtrack.<br /><br />and some how they make this even worse than you could imagine. there are at least 4 rape scenes, at least one great car explosion, a buff black guy running around in his undies with an Uzi.<br /><br />add alcohol and this is the perfect movie.<br /><br />i mean lots and lots and lots of alcohol
This film almost gave me a nervous breakdown. When I was recovering from appendicitis a few years ago, I had just started teaching in secondary (high) school. The whole teaching business was all a bit nervewracking for a beginner, but to mentally prepare myself for going back into the classroom I decided to watch some rather awful films. The Flintstones was one of the films that I chose, and then I put "King Of The Streets" (the UK title of 'Alien Warrior') on. Just before it finished I found myself almost in tears at the sheer waste of it all...my life, the film stock, the £2 I had paid for it a couple of weeks ago in the Blockbuster ex rental section, the time it must have taken to print the sleeve art, the effort of the editors and musicians involved in the soundtrack (as negligable as their efforts were)...the list goes on.<br /><br />I love bad films. Let me make this perfectly clear - I LOVE watching crappy films from Blockbusters. Me and my mate Dan used to sit and watch many, many cheapjack horrors and laugh at them. But this was a different type of crappy film. I don't think that anything has come close to this, not even Tobe Hooper's "Death Trap" (which is probably my second worst film in the world). The whole making a car from abandoned parts section nearly killed me; the repetition of music at any available opportunity, regardless of on-screen events; the whole.... AAAGGGHHHHHHH!!!!! I can't even carry on with this 'critical' dissection, as my gag reflex has started. The futility of that film, even now, three years after I watched it for the first and last time, still renders me speechless (but I am still able to type). The whole "making a car from odd parts" section had me contemplating horrible things.<br /><br />I implore you, if you are interested in watching this film, just gaze at the cover of the video and imagine the worst possible version of the story synopsis on the back. I can almost guarantee that it won't be even half as bad as this film actually is. Don't, under any circumstances, contemplate actually watching it for any reason whatsoever. Not if you are a Christian and you want to see a Christ allegory; not if you are a bad movie afictionado and you want to experience the true nadir of trash; not even if you want your life to seem longer (and believe me, every second that this film runs seems like at least a minute). Make no mistake about it, this film is unholy. It is the antichrist in video form. As Bo Cattlett in Get Shorty said: "I've seen better film on teeth".
Hargh... this film is so bad it's almost good. Trash at its best. Jesus' bro vs. pimps...come on. I'd say that you'd actually have to see this, it's so bad... my sides hurt when I laughed. I can't understand why this isn't in the worst 100.
I think it's the first time that I go inside a theater and go out so disappointed. There were two reasons why I went to see "Astérix et les Vikings": first as a film buff, and second as a big Astérix fan.<br /><br />In the end, the film doesn't satisfy any request. It's simply a big animated mess and it proves that the Astérix franchise is going from bad to worse.<br /><br />In fact, it has been this way since the death of first scenarist René Goscinny in 1977. His faithful collaborator, illustrator Albert Uderzo took his place, but the following books were clearly lacking of the quality that was present during the Goscinny years.<br /><br />"Astérix et les Vikings" is based on the book "Astérix et les Normands", which was published during the Goscinny reign. The basic story is the same: Goudurix, Abraracourcix' nephew' arrives to the village and Astérix et Obélix must turn him into a real man, while the Vikings come to Gaul in order to discover what fear is, because it seems that fear gives wings.<br /><br />The similarities end here. What follows in the book is a non-stop series of laughs, gags and hilarious dialog with the result that the Vikings do discover fear and they flee Gaul. The movie is silly, unfunny, fast-paced, corny... Well, just name a default and it has good chances of being applied...<br /><br />The difference between the book and the movie could be more acceptable if the movie was good. But the new ideas simply crashes it in a bottomless pit. Even older Astérix movies such as "Astérix le Gaulois", which almost transferred the lines one by one without changing them are easily better.<br /><br />Animation has the quality of other 21st century movies, but it has its faults and any film beginner could find the mistakes. The greatest example is the continuity mistake, where the day follows the night after a fraction of second, in the same sequence.<br /><br />Imagine. They took animation studios from numerous countries and they still can't get adequate film-making.<br /><br />The changes of the original story are simply unbearable. And they still could be even if there was no original story. Goudurix, in the movie, has a pet pigeon named SMS and who act as his cell phone (!). Grossebaf, the Viking chief, has a rebellious teen daughter named Abba (!) and she constantly defies her father's authority. There's also a stupid Viking wizard, his cartoonish dumb and muscular son, the faithful bride of Grossebaf who is obsessed with decoration (her name is Vikea!) and... well I can't stand that much longer.<br /><br />We're far from the original gags from the original book. The biggest problem is the difficulty of transferring the images to the big screen, mainly because the greatest laughs in the books come from the verbal jokes and visual gags which do not have the same appeal on a theatre screen. I remember that the greatest moments in the book were Obélix laughing at the invaders' names (which all finish in 'af') and Goudurix tries to scare them in ridiculous ways.<br /><br />And if everything wasn't enough, somebody in the publicity staff decided to write on the movie poster that there's an already existing Céline Dion song which would be featured in the final credits. If it was a new song, I could have understood. But using an old song is only another proof that the movie is so badly made that they're ready to do anything in order to attract film-goers.<br /><br />The only good point for this movie is that it is so stupid and the end is so bad that we just can't walk out of the theater without being left cold. In a summer release, it just can't hurt...<br /><br />The only other acceptable point of the movie is how Goudurix becomes courageous. His psychological transformation in the book is too spontaneous and not credible, while it's better pictured in the movie and the motivation point is more believable.<br /><br />So if you haven't seen the movie yet, don't waste your money on it. Grab the book instead.<br /><br />Oh René, why did you leave us?
This film is a perfect example that a movie can not be successful with a high budget alone. It's obvious that there was a lot of time and effort dedicated into this: the animation is fluid, detailed and superb- the soundtrack isn't too memorable except for the ending song by Celine Dion (at least I think it was her). The musical score is powerful full orchestra material. Kudos to the animators and music composers! 9/10. However, the story and characters fall flat. It feels very 'been there, done that', predictable and plain uninteresting. The characters have distinct personalities but nothing too likable. They annoyed me to no end. I tried really hard to like this, but I didn't care about the story- it was cliché action-adventure plot. There were 'jokes' that weren't funny. It was vomit inducing predictable from start to end. The dialogue was cliché and awful- especially the last line "It's not ... that gives you wings, it's love!" Whatever it was, I remember cringing. I was wishing it would hurry up and finish. I wasn't the only one either- the people I went with thought it was boring. Please watch the Asterix and Obelix Cleopatra film if you're going to watch any. This was a waste of time.
This Asterix is very similar to modern Disney cartoons. Soulless, technically good and the usual in-jokes for adults. Maybe it's because this is the first cartoon I watched after Laputa: Castle in the Sky, but it was quite disappointing.<br /><br />The plot is contrived and forgettable but it involves Asterix and Obelix going to the Viking's territory to rescue a spoilt teenager who then learns humility and finds love as well. Oh and initially they don't get on but after facing adversity they all share a deep bond of friendship... yadda yadda.<br /><br />The best bit is to watch out for the little jokes. The Vikings get all the best ones. Such as Vikea (the Viking's chief's wife) giving a list of furniture and skulls to bring back from the next raid. Or the Vikings not knowing the meaning of mercy (literally). Oh, and Olaf the dumbest Viking is actually hilarious (as much for the voice acting as the dialogue).<br /><br />For example, aboard the Viking ship: (After a speech by Abba, the captain's daughter) Olaf: Who is this new guy? Captain: That's my daughter, cod-brain! Olaf: Your... daughter's... a man?
It's not awful but what a waste... Lousy gags, bad music, poor drawings and animation...<br /><br />Regarding the impressive number of animators and intervallists on this picture (from, hum... a hundred different studios throughout the world? Come on, how can you expect something coherent when doing an animated movie this way!) I wonder if one guy on the credits = one drawing! The lines are rough, the 3d work inadequate (I'm not against it, but not in this film) But the backgrounds are corrects. The storyline is rather dumb, far from the precise cleverness of the BD, and obviously aimed at an international audience. To distribute a movie all over the world doesn't mean to take everyone in the world for a simple-minded guy... A cultural object is far more interesting when challenging, even when it is a foreign movie (being french in this case it's even worse!).<br /><br />Some new stuff is doing well (the Olaf character, sometimes, like with the stone explanation, but it's not great) but the modern references are exasperating (music, SMS -not even a verbal joke, just a stupid bird named short message service: does anyone know imagination?). But, hey, it's a M6 / TPS production with some Celine Dion in it... pathetic.<br /><br />Asterix is underemployed and Obelix talks too much. Goudurix could be great (like in the book) but he is too clearly a "cool guy" having a love affair (with an uninteresting made up female character). In fact, only the vikings (wizard excepted) are funny. Too much action, not enough laughs. The best part of the movie are the end credits. Not the music, but the few stills it contains. BD style. Well, definitely, Asterix is not made to move!
I've always said that there's nothing to beat the original form: the comics. I've been proved right again. This, like all of the other movie takes on the Asterix series, failed to impress. The makers of this movie don't get it that what makes all the other such comic-turned-movies (x-men, superman et al.) ventures successful is that they all deviate from the original comic versions and adapt it to make it more watchable. Agreed, this movie did deviate, in the sense that this movie was a cross of two Asterix books, viz. Asterix and the Great Crossing & Asterix and the Normans. Also, uncharacteristic of the Asterix series (save Asterix and the Secret Weapon) , a love interest for one of the main characters was introduced. All this ended up doing was create a childishly immature storyline. The funny parts were very few and far between. All in all, a total waste of time and money watching this, let alone at theaters, even at home.
Danny De Vito shows us here he is definitely, indeed infinitely, a better on screen performer than off. He plays the part of Owen, a miserable would-be writer with a cranky old mother (delightfully played by Anne Ramsey) he would like to see dead. Billy Crystal is Larry, a very frustrated writing teacher who has an estranged wife he feels the same way about. So Owen, after viewing Hitchcock's "Strangers on a Train", suggests they swap murders.<br /><br />As director though, De Vito's control is inconsistent as he wastes this clever idea, while his film lurches from the very humorous to the very bland. He and Crystal are okay in the lead roles, but the show belongs to Anne Ramsey as the cantankerous Mrs. Lift.<br /><br />Saturday, June 20, 1992 - Video
This is a comedy version of "Strangers on a Train". It works pretty well. I am a harsh grader, so the 3 rating reflects mostly on the characters and plot. The performances are extremely good, all of them. Of course, the two stars, DeVito and Crystal, shine most. Each performer acts well enough to play off of. The comedy works in a level just short of slapstick. DeVito characters work best when depraved. His character, portrayed as a writing hack, would probably be more real if he was published and lauded as much as most hacks are. His character would, in real life, have a great agent and multiple solicitations. The characters are one dimensional, which is okay in comedy. But Crystals's character is not written very well. His desire to kill the "moma" all of a sudden makes no sense at all. It looks like a pitiful attempt at humor. The pitiful attempts are not too often, and the movie flows fairly well.
Leonard Rossiter and Frances de la Tour carry this film, not without a struggle, as the script was obviously hurriedly cobbled together out of old episodes. When it came out, this must have been a real disappointment as it's also done on a bus ticket budget. Attempts to move it out of the house - which is jarringly unrecognisable, a bad job all round there - with a picnic, fantasy sequences, rugby and a boxing match in the local gym simply don't work. Most of these are just character-light setups for a solitary not-particularly good gag. That said, the interplay of Rossiter and de la Tour (and anybody else with him) is mostly hilarious; they even manage to make a soda syphon gag work, but you can see the struggle with recycling a literally uninspired script that changes plot half way through. Don Warrington has very little to do except 'be black', and due to the random script hacks Christopher Strauli changes character at least twice. And in the end, as he often did in the TV series (though you might not remember - read the scripts), Eric Chappell lets you down with a 'time's up' ending. Were they that cynical, or just too desperate to be in the film business? Rossiter and de la Tour are always funny but as a film, it's a terrible postscript to a fondly remembered TV series. RIP.
This film derives from a Long Running ITV sitcom by the same name.The Sitcom lasted for half a decade roughly and brought to our screens Rigsby,Phillip,Alan,Mrs Jones & Vienna.<br /><br />Then in 1980 The film version hit the Cinemas.Now when it did,sadly Richard Beckinsale had passed away & was replaced by Only when i laugh actor Chris Strauli.<br /><br />I myself felt this gave the film a different feel.I would have preferred if it wasn't shot as Richard was a key character.Thats like having the porridge film without Godber or Mackay!<br /><br />The Film did have some classics moments definitely but it felt a bit De-Ja-Vu! Many parts were seen before in the TV Series. Now if you saw the movie first rather than the Series you would get a different feeling about it then the series fan!<br /><br />Saying that Leonard is definitely on top form and makes the movie,just like in the TV series.The Film has recently had a new lease of life on DVD and is usually on Terrestrial over a quiet weekend.It is a cracking good film,but for Rigsby fans you may feel that youv'e seen it similarly before.<br /><br />Saying that though its worth a buying/watching<br /><br />7.8/10
The film version of 'Rising Damp' came out two years after the television series ended. Like many fans I duly went along to the cinema when it opened. I came away bitterly disappointed. Eric Chappell could not have spent very much time writing the script; most of it is rehashed ideas from old episodes. At the time of the film's release, the 'Rising Damp' series was still being repeated regularly on I.T.V. so the public was being asked to pay to see something they'd seen already. At least the 'On The Buses' movies boasted original screenplays.<br /><br />Secondly, Richard Beckinsale had died the year before, so they eliminated the character of 'Alan' as a mark of respect, substituting art student 'John', played by Christopher Strauli of 'Only When I Laugh' fame. It simply wasn't the same.<br /><br />As another poster has pointed out, Rigsby's boarding house looked nothing like the one used in the series, being bigger and altogether cleaner.<br /><br />Director Joe McGrath was one of the directors who worked on the original 'Casino Royale', a film steeped in surreal humour. 'Rising Damp' also has its share of 'Walter Mitty' style fantasy sequences, such as the 'Saturday Night Fever' parody. Personally, I found them horribly out of place. A case of 'over-egging the pudding'.<br /><br />On the plus side, Leonard Rossiter is as magnificent as ever as the seedy 'Rigsby', as are Frances De La Tour as 'Ruth' and Don Warrington as 'Philip. Its just a shame the film isn't worthy of their talents.<br /><br />When Rossiter died in 1984, it was shown by I.T.V. as a tribute, with its final scene - showing Rigsby laying prostrate at the foot of the stairs - removed in the interests of good taste.
Doesn't this seem somewhat familiar? Oh wait, that's right.. 90% of the jokes in this movie have already been done in the TV series. What's the point in repeating yourself, you may ask? Is it for the benefit of the Americans who haven't seen the programme? Did the scriptwriters run out of inspiration? Or maybe everyone on set suffered a sudden attack of amnesia, and forgot they'd covered this ground already? Either way, for someone who has sat through the first three series, this was just really boring. I had to turn it off during the 'tablets that turn your water green' part.. yes it is very funny, but give us something original for goodness sake! Actually, if the best new stuff you can come up with is Leonard Rossiter's take on Saturday Night Fever, you can forget it.<br /><br />The guy they got to replace the late Richard Beckinsale is a lookalike alright, but not half the actor. Personally I would exorcised the role, as a mark of respect to him. Or better yet, not bothered making the film at all, and just let the hilarity of the TV series speak for itself. But no, they couldn't do that.. not as long as there was money to be made. Sad, really. 4/10
no way out 2007 was a really bad and if it is the road to wrestlemania they choose the wrong road.<br /><br />Chris Benoit & the hardy boys def MVP & Minn: in my view this was the best match of the night some good wrestling here but not much. 7/10<br /><br />cruisweight championship open(which chavo Guerrero won): awful, no high flying at all, really quick and boring. 3/10<br /><br />little bastard & Finlay def little bogeyman & the bogeyman: this was more comedy than wrestling, some laughs. 5/10<br /><br />Kane def king booker: a decent effort by these two but they could do better. 6/10<br /><br />wwe tag team championship Paul London & Brian Kendrick def deuce & domino:another boring match,no high flying by the champs. 4/10<br /><br />ecw world title Mr Kennedy def bobby lashley (disquilification): in my mind the worst match of the night. truly awful.i thought ecw was no rules,i was wrong 2/10<br /><br />john cena & Shawn Michaels def Batista & the undertaker: an okay match but could have been a hell of a lot better. 6/10<br /><br />overall this was bulls*it id give it a 3/10
A good ol' boy film is almost required to have moonshine, car chases, a storyline that has a vague resemblance to "plot" and at least one very pretty country gal, barefoot with short shorts and a low top. The pretty gal is here (dressed in designer jeans)-- but the redneck prerequisites stop there. Jimmy Dean is a natural as a sausage spokesman but as a tough guy former sheriff, he comes up way short. Big John is big, but he isn't convincing with the "bad" part of his moniker. Bug-eyed Jack Elam is a hoot as always and Bo Hopkins has been playing this same part for decades; Ned Beatty also does his part in a small role... but there is no STORY. It smells more like an episode of In The Heat Of The Night than a feature film. Cornball cornpone with easily predictable sentiment. Perhaps the most glaring problem with this movie is Charlie Daniels singing the theme. You know the one; it was made famous by... Jimmy Dean.
"TNT Jackson" isn't completely unwatchable. But either the version I saw on DVD was edited with a weed-whacker, or the screenplay itself is the lowest level of grind-house/blaxploitation sausage. Or maybe both.<br /><br />Jeanne Bell is supposed to have been a Playmate at one point in her career,and the movie makes the most of the connection by displaying her breasts at least two times more than was really necessary (including a hilarious topless fight scene that I am pretty sure was meant to be funny). I will admit, they are quite nice. Still, she's sort of average looking and doesn't have the charisma of a Foxy Brown, of even a Cleopatra Jones. She does have her moments as an actress in the film, though, but it would have been nice if the director had pushed her a little harder or the screenplay had given her a chance to do more than emote "attitude" and kick people.<br /><br />Speaking of kicking people, the fight scenes (the other putative reason to watch a film like this) are pretty poorly done.There's no real choreography to speak of here, just people posing and sticking feet and fists in the general direction of their opponents. One minor exception is a nice moment with an opponent equipped with butterfly folding knives; another is a sequence near the very end where an obvious stunt double for Bell (and maybe for Stan Shaw) leap around and do some decent sweeps and groundwork for a minute or two before Bell/"Jackson" punches her enemy's liver out, Shaw collapses and the screenplay just stops. (Again, I will admit that this is very much in the tradition of Shaw Brother quickies since time immemorial).<br /><br />There are a couple of supporting actors who are actually better than the film deserves (I'm thinking of "Joe" and the fellow playing the drug lord's right hand man). There's a halfway decent funk laden soundtrack that complements the action on the screen and add a star to the rating by itself. There's a semi-dodgy sex scene that manages to be effective almost in spite of itself.<br /><br />This one is strictly for hardcore fans of blaxploitation. I saw it out of sheer curiosity, and I'm not sorry I took the time. But I can't imagine wanting to take the time to see it again unless I decide to write a dissertation on the pop culture intersections of "Kung Fu Theater" and "Foxy Brown".
A young woman nicknamed "T.N.T." for being virtual dynamite in a fight and a knockout in terms of looks to boot, goes to the most lawless part of Hong Kong in search of her missing brother Stag Jackson. When she learns he has been murdered, she decides she will bring the killer to justice in a fashion only she can.<br /><br />Sounds good, doesn't it. Well, there's really nothing wrong with the basic premise as a starting base for a martial arts/blaxploitation action thriller, which is what this aims to be. The leads actually prove pretty good too with Jeanne Bell fitting nicely into the role of "T.N.T." and Stan Shaw doing well as the ambitious, power-hungry Charlie. Where this fails miserably is in terms of the fighting action it offers up. The fight scenes are totally and completely unconvincing and/or sometimes so completely over the top it reaches the point of ridiculousness which doesn't at all help when the basic focus of your movie is a Kung Fu action heroine. Also the poor lighting, actors sporting accents making them hard to understand, the confusing camera-work and the sometimes poor sound doesn't help this obvious low budget effort out either any. This does deliver in one area which may delight some fans, it does offer up plenty of the T in "T & A", in fact practically every fight scene in the film is proceeded by some type of nude scene and Jeanne Bell actually does have one extended fight scene in which she is completely topless.<br /><br />In the end, this fails to be something you want to revisit because the fight scenes are so pathetically, laughingly bad.
Now any Blaxploiation fan will recognise the ingredients: big Afros, topless babes, surreally bad fashions and some 'jive' talk. In this case add in a lead who can't act, a plot that makes little sense, editing by someone with no hands who has been blindfolded and the most god-awful fight scenes and you have 'TNT Jackson'. Not quite bad enough to be good, but not good enough to be bad, this is a wonderful mess from start to finish. I especially loved the endless continuity errors and the lead's white stunt double.<br /><br />This is so '70s bad Far Eastern martial arts meets black power that it hurts, but boy it hurts so good! I am ashamed to admit that I almost enjoyed it.
This extremely bargain-basement Blaxploitation/Kung-Fu hybrid was in my country released by a questionable DVD label that usually speaking just occupies with the transfer of pure crap onto disc, so that wasn't exactly a favorable herald. Several other titles were released in the same series, like "The Black Six", "The Black Gestapo" and "The Black Godfather" and judging by all their low ratings and negative reviews none of these belong to the elite of the 70's Blaxploitation hype, neither. "TNT Jackson" is a pretty lousy film, completely lacking a significant plot but featuring far too many laughable fighting scenes and horrible acting to compensate. Apparently Roger Corman – never too embarrassed to make some easy money – assigned two of his most loyal acolytes to rapidly invent a simplistic story that would appeal to fans of both oriental Kung-Fu movies and contemporary trendy Blaxploitation flicks. The result Cirio H. Santiago and Dick Miller came up with was "TNT Jackson"; the tale of an arse-whooping black babe traveling to Hong Kong in search of her missing brother. She quickly discovers he was killed by a criminal network of drug-smugglers and swears to avenge him. Mrs. Jackson smoothly infiltrates into the underground and encounters macho pimps, helpful undercover agents, loads of vicious Kung-Fu fighters. Only one thing's for sure; they all want a piece of TNT's ravishing body in one way or another. I sincerely doubt movie concepts get any more elementary than this, but – unfortunately - all the other aspects suck too. The battle scenes are overlong and moreover pathetically staged. Jeannie Bell and the other poor suckers try really hard to stare menacingly and assume a tough position, but eventually all they ever do is kick in the air and stupidly leap across rooms. The cinematography is horrid, the soundtrack is vastly disappointing (whatever happened to soul music?), the few dialogs are poorly written and the acting performances are inferior. Speaking of which, Jeannie Bell is undeniably a beautiful woman, but still she can't hold a candle to Tamara Dobson or Pam Grier. There's only one really good and memorable scene in "TNT Jackson", namely the famous hotel room battle where Bell, entirely naked except for panties, repeatedly switches the light on and off whilst kicking the hell out of some goons. Amusing scene ... I just haven't figured out yet whether it's thanks to the light switch ingenuity or Bell's perfectly shaped breasts.
I cannot believe how this atrocity managed to capture the hearts and minds of a cross-section of the 'bright young things' of its era, but I'm certain I wish it hadn't. In my opinion it is an inaccurate, poorly acted, weakly scripted, pretentiously directed piece of gumpf. The brief outings to an imagined reality bludgeon any humour to death. The situations are unsubtle exaggerations which make the the already flimsy characters even more unbelievable and detestable. The romance is dull, the end is unsatisfying and ruins the only sensible drugs message in the film and the simple plot ('Withnail and I,' 'Fear and Loathing') is tested to extremes with the uninteresting motion of the film. In short this film as a blatant visual assault with no hint of skill or initiative. I condemn it to the ash heap of history and pray it stays there.
utterly useless... having been there, done that with the subject matter i have to say this captures the clubbing atmosphere in absolutely no respect. It may have done so had the characters not just been mouthpieces for incredibly dire, unrealistic drivel. So many cringe-worthy scenes that would put The Office to shame (not a compliment to this film). It also may have helped to have some semblance of a story, a point, a message, a commentary, anything. Seriously, Kevin & Perry Go Large had more to say on the subject than this film (term used very loosely in this case). There should be minus numbers reserved for films like this. -10 (extra turd)
"The Best Movie of the 90's" "The Welsh Trainspotting"....Aye, right! I went into this movie with pretty high expectations, and it was all downhill from there.<br /><br />This movie was supposed to be this archetypal movie on the drug culture of the early 90's, and was going to allow us all to see inside this scene, and shatter the media's preconceptions following the moral panic which followed the death of Leah Betts in 1995. Unfortunately it has fallen a long way short. <br /><br />Where Trainspotting was able to treat you like an adult on the subject, and potential problems that surround drugs, this just provided us with some schmaltzy tale of the wonder of drugs, and how it can like, you know, like totally open your mind. Cue some guff about Bill Hicks, and Howard Marks ad nausea. It is painfully bad at times. I mean, the scene at the end between Lulu and her Auntie actually made me laugh out loud.<br /><br />Now maybe I am just a cynic, but the way Jip leads us through this tale is like listening to THAT Acid frazzled guy you once met at a house party, who talks to you about how "the man" is holding us back, and how Acid has released him from the strains of modern society. You just wanna shake some sense into him, and ask him to leave the premises.<br /><br />The script was a real problem for me, because where Trainspotting had Irvine Welsh's excellent book to cite from, this is written and directed by Justin Kerrigan. The words "Jack of all trades, master of none" come to mind. You can see where his inspiration comes from, particularly in the style of narration from main character Jip (which sets the main character in a social situation where he speaks directly to the camera, and outlines what is going through his mind as the scenario plays out) The problem with this is that some of the speeches to camera are just painful to watch. Mainly this comes down to a lack of empathy for Jip, but they are so desperate to sound philosophical that they just end up sounding like your average A-Level drama project. The direction is fine, and the intentions are good, but it is so lacking in any integrity that you start to wonder what the hype is about.<br /><br />Saying that though, it is not all bad. There are moments which are genuinely very amusing, and entertaining. Moff is the highlight of the movie for me. For an independent movie it also managed to attract a high numbers of quality British actors/actresses, which maybe outlines why there was such a buzz about the movie.<br /><br />Best movie of the 90's? Not by a long shot, but if you're looking for a solid Sunday night movie, then this might just be your bag. Inevitably though, the movie is flawed by the hype that surrounds it.
If I wouldn't have had any expectations of this film, it might have received a 5 or 6. As it stands, I give it a 3. The acting is poor, the factual accuracy of the drugs it discusses is lacking, and I feel no empathy whatsoever for the characters.<br /><br />I watched 'Adam & Paul' immediately before watching this film, and I both laughed and cried on several occasions. This film did not strike even a similar chord. The directors of 'Human Traffic' may have some off-hand experience of ecstasy, but there is no demonstration of actual drug-related semantic knowledge here. In fact, I find it rather offensive and contraproductive to the strife of making current drug laws less politically oriented.<br /><br />Watch 'Requiem for a Dream' if what you're looking for is an amazing, touching film about drugs.
Human Traffic is purely a `been there, done that' experience – only this time it's quite limp.<br /><br />Major themes explored are paranoia, male impotence and jealousy – but only mildly and poorly.<br /><br />A lot of the movie seems to want to imitate Trainspotting (drug / `clubbing' culture) – but it fails to include the low times / come-downs that Trainspotting deals with (eg: issues with death / dependence, etc). It even tries to come up with a similar monologue to Ewan McGreggor's classic `Choose Life' speech – but `The Milky Bars are on me! Yeah!' – what the fudge is that all about?!<br /><br />The characters try to analyse their lifestyle but when their lifestyle is so shallow – their analysis becomes boring and repetitious.<br /><br />The soundtrack (for a movie that is trying to be cool) is pathetic. It includes the likes of Fat Boy Slim and CJ Bolland – come on people – good dance music IS be better than this!<br /><br />The characters become grating and annoying (especially half way through the movie) and the lack of care-for-the-characters soon dawns.<br /><br />There are a couple of funny scenes – but they are few and far between. The mother catching the son in the bedroom was quite amusing.<br /><br />But PLEASE – I'm sick to death of the Star Wars analogy scenes. I thought it was much more sharper in a couple of Kevin Smith's movies (ie: Clerks and Chasing Amy). According to the characters – Yoda is a drug fiend hence that's why he is short and bald – huh?!<br /><br />My score – 4 out of 10 – do yourself a favour and see Trainspotting or Go instead!
Saboteur was one of the few Hitchcocks I had yet to discover and I was less than half-overwhelmed. The French title "La Cinquième colonne" (i.e. The Fifth Column, a very evocative phrase for underground spying and sabotage organizations) set my expectations quite high as did the images of the finale on top of the Statue of Liberty.<br /><br />Basically Saboteur is as much light-hearted as were The 39 steps (note this is another evocative phrase, even McGuffin as a title) but it lacks most of the humor (so the characters are rather down to earth) and it's definitely not as fast paced. As a chase movie across the USA from LA to NY Saboteur drags its feet from sequence to sequence. The sequence at the villain's lovely ranch? Lovely ranch, lovely villain but pretty tame on the whole, it doesn't really add up to nothing. The meeting with the blind man, the mixing with Circus people, the Soda City sequence, the NY ball sequence? They fall flat, bringing in more characters with very little added suspense value.<br /><br />One big problem I can point out is the relationship between the leads Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane which is not building up as with Robert Donat and Madeleine Caroll in The 39 steps. Hence the whole narrative structure is floating, depending on the addition of new scenes. And new scenes only bring us nearer the end since it's not clear if the hook is the hero's escape from the police, from the villains or his action to stop the plotted sabotages. In The 39 steps it was clearly scripted as 1/escaping from the police (so you know the hero can't just go to the police) then 2/running for his life and after the villains to prove his innocence.<br /><br />If you want a better Hitchcock from the 40s wartime propaganda I would advise you to chose Foreign Correspondant over Saboteur. They are both chase movies with a catchy finale, well really a gripping one and not just sightseeing in Foreign Correspondant as well as beautifully efficient scenes (the umbrella crowd, the tulip fields, the strange mills...).
Rarely will anyone deny that Hitchcock remains one of the most creative, inventive and prolific directors of all time, because he is arguably all of these things. It takes true genius to scare generations of film goers out of taking showers and wearing neck ties. Saboteur, however, is not creative or prolific at all. Rather, Hitchcock set out with the soul intention of creating a film to muster "American Pride," a certain call-to-arms, support-our-troops title which was a popular theme of the time. With that in mind, Hitchcock severely underplayed other important aspects of the film, including but not limited to a logical plot, characterization, believable dialog, and a fluent, running storyline. <br /><br />Typically Hitchcock does great with espionage films, only a few years earlier achieving cinematic greatness with The Foreign Corespondant and The 39 Steps, but seemingly lost his stride in creating Saboteur and merely recycled the same once-thrilling story lines both his previous excursions readily provided. Without going into any great depth here is a list of a few of this films major problems: <br /><br />1. Despite having his face plastered on every newspaper across America, the only person who recognizes Kane is blind.<br /><br />2. At the dinner party, Kane and Patricia don't want to run for the door because the bad guys might grab them and tell the party they were "gate crashers." Logically, what prevents the spies from grabbing them and saying this at any point during the evening? Besides, does anyone need to be reminded Kane is a wanted terrorist?<br /><br />3. Since when can a fan belt cut through handcuffs? <br /><br />4. Nobody recognizes him...his face is on EVERY NEWSPAPER!!! <br /><br />5. The spies catch up with Kane in the ghost town and assume he's the man Freeman sent to work with them...shouldn't't he have some sort of credentials? I know spies don't run around with name tags and photo IDs but a secret handshake maybe? <br /><br />6. Cop picks up Kane escaping from Freeman's house, still seems no one recognizes this guy.<br /><br />7. How exactly does the FBI come to believe Kane with no evidence? They don't even show Kane talking to the FBI, the scene simply fades in and we are forced to assume everything is now kosher.<br /><br />8. When the cops search the Carnival Caravan how do they know Kane is now with a woman? The blind man believed Kane's story thus logically would not have reported his daughter missing, kidnapped, or even more importantly running with Kane. Why does this movie not employ logic?<br /><br />This is a running list. The movie is not exciting, the plot makes no sense, and the world is full of people who willingly take wanted terrorists into their homes and cars everyday because its no big thing. Hitchcock fails miserably on this one.
As I post this comment, IMDb currently rates Alfred Hitchcock's subpar Saboteur a 7.3/10. Personally, I rated it less than half that. Honestly, I can't tell how a movie this bad could've come from what is probably the most consistently good director I know of. I've seen about 10 other Hitch movies from the 30's-60's. Vertigo is thus far my hands down favorite while Saboteur is easily the worst. It's hard to believe that 7 years earlier Hitch used the very same formula in The 39 Steps far more competently. My recommendation would be to see that instead and avoid this like the plague. It's the only Hitchcock movie that I turned off before before the end and have no desire to go back and see the rest. If you must watch it, then rent or borrow. Don't make the mistake I did and buy the DVD on good faith earned through Notorious, Rebecca, Vertigo, Rear Window, etc. Even a master screws up sometimes, I guess.<br /><br />EDIT: Maybe I was a bit harder on this film than I should've been. It's certainly nowhere near Ed Wood or Manos or anything like that, but there's three reasons I feel I must rate it so low:<br /><br />1) The name "Hitchcock" brings with it certain expectations of quality. This film delivers on a few of them, but they're way overshadowed by the darn near non-sensical plotting.<br /><br />2) I want to compensate a bit for all the 8+ ratings this film is getting. Hitchcock is like the John Coltrane of directors. True fans will find reasons to consider anything by him a work of art, but the high rating on IMDb gives more casual movie enthusiasts like myself the impression that this movie is far better than it actually is. <br /><br />3) I spent $18 on this. Maybe if it'd cost me $5 or even $10 I'd probably be a bit less bitter. ;)
Hitchcock is a great director. Ironically I mostly find his films a total waste of time to watch. I admire Hitchcok on a purely visual and technical level.<br /><br />First the positives. Hitchcock invented the notion of the probing camera. The curious eye that is able to withhold or search for information. It isn't exactly a new visual grammar but it was revolutionary then.<br /><br />Secondly, Hitchcock pretty much perfected the thriller and chase movie. He has an economical style and is always thinking of the audience. He gives them regular thrills, regular jolts of humour and regular shocks. In short, he anticipates the audience's base needs and plays them like a fiddle.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the base needs of a human being are mostly stupid. Food, sex, the thrill of danger and a little comedy. Hithcock caters for all these needs on screen, with the exception of food, which, judging from his size, he catered to off screen.<br /><br />It's this pandering to the audience that sabotages most of his films. A second downside is that most of Hitchcock's camera work and visual grammar are now common place. What keeps his films watchable are the simple economy of his tales, the intelligence of his camera work, and his skill at crafting tense action set pieces.<br /><br />So on to "Saboteur". This is a light-hearted romp in the vein of "The 39 Steps". It jumps from sequence to sequence, until it concludes at the typical Hitchcock final act set piece.<br /><br />On an emotional level, the relationship between the leads is not up to par with Robert Donat and Madeleine Caroll in "The 39 steps". Hence the whole story lacks a certain energy. The plot simply rumbles on like a machine, desperately depending on the addition of new scenes. And new scenes only bring us nearer the end, since it's not clear if the hook is the hero's escape from the police, from the villains or his action to stop the plotted sabotages.<br /><br />There are the usual Hitchcock logic flaws. For example, a guy with handcuffs frees himself using a car fan belt etc. (Why doesn't he just drive away in the car? Surely handcuffs aren't that restrictive? He's able to swim in them, after all!)<br /><br />If you want a better Hitchcock wartime propaganda flick from the 40's, I would advise you watch "Foreign Correspondant". They are both silly chase movies with a catchy finale, but "Foreign Correspondant" makes great use of umbrellas and tulips, something Spielberg rips off nicely in "Minority Report".<br /><br />7.5/10 - Some good set pieces. Beyond that, however, there's nothing much to sink your teeth into.
This movie was one of a handful that actually caused me pain. It might be enjoyed by anybody who thinks that it would be funny to see his/her mother in a crowded discotheque full of people half her age "inventing" some totally ridiculous dance in a completely misguided effort to be "hip" (in the parlance of that age). To see Ingrid Bergman stoop to such a pitiful performance on the disco dance floor was hard to watch. I was embarrassed.<br /><br />To make matters worse, the music in the disco was not realistic at all - it is the bogus idea of some Hollywood director about what pop music was like at the time. That is always a total embarrassment in most films of that era - the ersatz music is canned and bears only a painful, passing resemblance to the music that was actually popular in the 60's.<br /><br />Mathau is hopelessly miscast as some kind of ladies' man; he just looks lecherously grotesque. Hawn's wide-eyed innocence is just too silly. The handsome neighbor in her apartment is portrayed way too earnestly and seriously. He seems like a Brady kid who got lost in this farce. Painful, pitiful mess.
Subspecies is set in Romania where two American college students Michele (Laura Mae Tate) & Lillian (Michelle McBride) arrive to study local folklore with the aid of local friend Mara (Irina Movila). There they rent rooms in a hotel & become curious about the mysterious ruins of a nearby castle, it turns out that a powerful & evil Vampire named Radu (Anders Hove) lives there who has stolen the Bloodstone from his father King Vladislav (Angus Scrimm). Radu takes a fancy to the three girls & starts drinking the blood of Mara & Lillian, meanwhile Michele falls for a guy named Stefan (Michael Watson) who just so happens to be Radu's brother. Michele & Stefan decide to team up & rid the world of the evil Radu...<br /><br />Directed by Ted Nicolaou this film seems to be quite highly regarded amongst genre fans & while it's not terrible I certainly wouldn't call it very good & I could't really see anything much to get excited about. Subspecies is a rather slow going film, not that much actually happens & while it does try to stay close to certain classic Vampire lore there's all this nonsense about a Bloodstone & some little monsters that grow from the tips of Radu's severed fingers for some reason. Subspecies could have been a half decent film if not for the fact that it's dull, I really can't remember that much about it, good or bad. The character's are alright but some f the dialogue is silly & there's a scene which bugged me near the start when the girls are at the castle ruins & one says they have to go because it's getting dark yet it's still clearly the middle of the day & very bright. There's also a scene where one of the American girls finds a coffin that hotel's attic & doesn't really seem that bothered by it, I am not being funny but is some bloke whose house I was staying at had a coffin in his attic I would be very, very worried if you know what I mean. I don't think I would ever want to watch it again, there's no real threat, the plot is weak that mixes classic Vampire themes with silly subplots & I was distinctly unmoved by it all. Not the worst film ever but hardly the best either.<br /><br />The film looks alright with nice locations & some local scenery although you feel the look is down to the budget rather than the makers attempt a authenticity. There's not much gore apart from a decapitation & some broken off finger tips. For no apparent reason the makers throw in some average looking stop-motion animated monsters that really don't do anything or have much significance to the story.<br /><br />Filmed on the cheap by Charles Band's Full Moon Entertainment production company in Bucharest in Romania, the production values are alright & better than many later day Band productions. The acting isn't great with many of the cast putting in below par performances while genre regular Angus Scrimm has a small cameo at the start. There's a little bit of style here on occasion with a few scene reminding heavily of the original Nosferatu (1922) in particular the bit showing Radu's shadow coming down the stair with his long claw like fingernails standing out.<br /><br />Subspecies is a film that many seem to like for reasons I don't quite see, I thought it was throughly average at best & overall rather dull. Followed by Bloodstone: Subspecies II (1993), Bloodlust: Subspecies III (1994), Subspecies 4: Bloodstorm (1998) & the spin0off film Vampire Journals (1997).
First of all, let me make it clear. This movie is a real piece of garbage, but although it is a real piece of garbage, it is an better piece of garbage than it could have been. It could have sucked big-time, but it doesn't...<br /><br />What this movie didn't have, was for example scary moments, good acting and a good script. It wasn't very entertaining either. But the movie had cool music, fancy locations and hot girls. It also works great as a Dracula spoof. (hope it was meant that way, although I really don't think so)<br /><br />The story focuses on three girls in Transylvania, awaking an ancient vampire, which then terrorizes and kills the girls, one by one. Sounds familiar? Yes, so it does!<br /><br />After reading through this, you may think that I should have given it a better vote. The reason I don't, is because I almost felt asleep at some points...
regardless of what anyone says, its a b-movie, and the effects are poorly done.. if you're a vampire fanatic, I suppose it would be OK, not 10 out of 10, you others here cant sincerely mean that?. we are to view this as a movie, not read it as a book, so the effects and characters are important, as well as the story. The story are good, but it doesn't carry the film, no wonder it has a low rating over all. I write this because I chose to see this movie when I saw some good reviews here on IMDb, but got severely disappointed. don't get me wrong, I thought the blade movies was awesome, and loved the underworld movies, but this characters aren't close. the make up on the vampires is poorly done, and the effects are worse. this sucks. I might not have gotten so disappointed if I had not read reviews here that told me how great it was. the reviewers must have had something to do with the production company or something, seriously, if you think this is awesome, you don't care about acting or make up. this is better as a book. 3 out of 10 for an OK story..
<br /><br />A few years ago I bought a movie called The Cellar. I had heard that it was supposed to be a great movie, but it turned out that it was a flop and a B-Movie.<br /><br />The story is good, but there are no good effects in the movie. (Maybe they didn't have enough money for that on the budget???).<br /><br />If you choose to watch this movie be sure to watch it three times. The first, only and last time!!!
"The Cellar" is an intolerably dull and overly child-friendly 80's cheese parade, directed by Kevin Tenney (creator of the much better films "Witchboard" and "Night of the Demons") and starring the incredibly untalented Patrick Kilpatrick, supposedly depicting a guy with feelings. The pacing is really slow, the plot feels far too familiar, the monster-effects are all but petrifying and the film opens and ends with tedious narrative ranting that somehow feels unrelated to the actual subject matter of the film. The voice-over keeps on nagging about wind and creatures riding on wind, but what the hell, there's no wind in the plot? Like so many 80's horror movies, "The Cellar" handles about cursed Indian landscapes and all-too-real mythical monsters hidden in basements and quagmires. Mance Cashen and his family move into a house build on what once was the home of Native Americans, but then white people came and turned the land into oil fields. Half of the script is wasted on explaining the origin of the monster, but I can easily summarize it for you: an ancient Indian witchdoctor summoned the creature (which looks like an over-sized paper-mâché rat) to annihilate the white people overflowing his land but he buried it again because, and I quote, the SOB kills Indians as well. Mance's hugely irritating son accidentally awakens the beast and naturally can't convince his parents about the big hungry rat in the cellar. The allegedly emotional family situation (daddy constantly wants his son to love him) is very pathetic and redundant and the film badly needed more bloodshed; kids' movie or not. The youthful hero (Chris Miller) is quite annoying, but we've definitely seen worse kid actors in the 80's. "The Cellar" is very much not recommended, unless of course you're a fan of cheesy and typically 80's monster designs. The big dodgy rat-thing is a real hoot to see.
If you can get past the slow start and bad acting it's worth watching. The story line was pretty decent. The father had a wicked temper because he was unemployed and he hardly got to see his kid except in the summer because his ex-wife had custody of him. The father was very angry and frustrated the majority of the time. The monster in the story wasn't too scary. The movie breaks consistency of the monster being so incredibly strong. The one scene that the moviemakers do this in is one of the times when the kid is down in the cellar and the monster goes to attack him. When the monster goes to attack the kid his arm gets caught in a steel trap attached to a chain. The monster is about a foot away from the kid's face. Every other time throughout the movie the monster is strong enough to break through or tear down anything. Yet the steel trap and chain holds him back from getting the kid! More than likely the moviemakers did this for shock factor because no one wants to see one of the main characters die. Moviemakers just wanted to scare us into thinking it may be a possibility that the kid could die. Instead of breaking consistency, the moviemakers should have replaced the kid with someone who they could dispose of!
Mediocre at best. Slow, but probably more entertaining to the younger viewers. A young boy(Chris Miller) is haunted by an Indian spirit and horrid monster in the cellar of his father's new home. Also in the cast are Patrick Kilpatrick, Suzanne Savoy and Ford Rainey.
I watched this film on Telly the other night and little did I know what a cringe-fest it would be...I knew it would be stupid but not this bad! This film exemplifies everything that is awful in Australian comedy. Apart from the most tedious, uninspired scenarios and characters I have ever come across (aside from those dubious French produced American tax break comedies!), most of the situations were boring, unbelievable, stereotypical and SO not funny just...terrible! <br /><br />One such scenario that really annoyed me was the nerds on the bus scene. From a screen writing perspective the writers used the most uninteresting - not to mention unbelievable - scenario to get these three stranded without their luggage...They are on the holiday of their lives and they're going to risk it all (including a $300 deposit, luggage and room) to exert their rights to dance on a bus? I mean, they're about half an hour away from their destination! At least they could have had the bus driver kick them off but, no they leave willingly cos 'they can't take it anymore!'and wreck their holiday...Anyway, I can't believe the writers didn't workshop this appalling scenario out. I think a ten year old could come up with 5 set-ups more clever, funny and believable.<br /><br />I can go on with many others - the really unimaginative stereotypical psychopath, the whole relationship with the angry jilted girlfriend and tag along virgin, the 'Wow Man! Out there goth girl' inhaling stuff on the train - EVERYTHING was just woeful! I cannot think of one redeeming feature of the this film except that maybe the third wheel nerd was kind of cute. Spoilt his career by appearing in this trash though!
Schoolies is a pointless exercise... Go to Gold Coast, get drunk and have sex. Worthwhile ambitions maybe but not highly intellectual. The plot is a simple as a few sentences assigned to each character and nobody is helped by the cliches doled out here.<br /><br />Something that would help is the casting. Everybody looks too old. These characters are supposedly innocents embarking out on their own in faltering steps to adulthood yet they all look way too old to be believable in the role.<br /><br />
To me this film is just a very very lame teen party movie with all the normal clichés and boring stereotyped characters (Nerds, Jocks, Popular girls, Sleezy guys, etc) but with an underlying anti drug/drinking theme. <br /><br />If you ever have the unfortunate chance of seeing this film, keep an eye out for all the references to responsibility and keeping it real (dunno how else to word it) I guess the only thing that'd make this film cool, would be if they TV playing it was on fire. That, or DVD it was on exploded...<br /><br />1 out of 10000 - Watch Animal House instead.
Like most, I rented this after I heard the universal praise. And despite COUNTLESS bizarre, unexplainable moments along the way, I was very interested and entertained through 100 minutes of the film. Then the two women went to the "performance" late at night. The rest of movie (which is another 40 minutes by the way) is even WEIRDER than the first part AND completely contradict and dump on what I had already seen. Then the movie abruptly ends.<br /><br />Baffled, I wandered over to my computer to see if I could buy a clue as to what just happened. Nothing made sense, and I'm a pretty clever guy. None of these other user comments made sense, even when they say "SPOILERS." I still have no idea what they're saying. Someone's dream? Not real? Then what's the point of a 2 hour 30 minute movie if it's "not real?" Or is it real? I'm forced to make a choice. Either:<br /><br />[a] The movie is a work of genius on a MENSA level and I'm simply too stupid to understand it.<br /><br />[b] The movie is weird for weird's sake and just doesn't make sense. Everyone who loves it is trying to save face and pretend like they "get" it.<br /><br />I choose [b]. Screw you guys, I'm going home...
If you are a pretentious person, it would sound like a good idea to brag about your intellectuality saying that you really like this movie.<br /><br />Otherwise, don't bother and better watch something good.<br /><br />This is the stereotypical movie for snobs. The plot line would be very silly if you could see it from beginning to end. It is just presented in a messed up way as an attempt to make it hard to understand and make the movie look intellectual.<br /><br />Mullholland Drive is not enjoyable to watch. You would very rarely understand anything the first time you see it. And if you do, you would most likely be disappointed because it is not a big deal.
It´s a joke, right?! Lynch could not get produced this as a TV show. He was out of money, so what to do? Well, he received somehow some Dollars and "completed" the pilot and created this mess by just mixing everything together... How can anybody see a failed pilot for TV as an cinematic masterpiece?!<br /><br />And now everybody is guessing about the deeper meaning!? Well, wake up, there is none! Like in that other TV series by Lynch, what was the name again? Same procedure there. Build up a mystery and then come up with nothing. I guess Lynch will repeat this concept until people will realise, the emperor has no clothes. <br /><br />In Germany there is a comedian called Harpe Kerkerling. He dressed up as an opera singer and "performed" some new "art songs". Singing complete nonsense like this: <br /><br />"The wolf. The lamb. On the meadow. Hurrz!" <br /><br />It´s a classic now. <br /><br />Anyway, afterwards he discussed it with the audience. And they were talking seriously about the deeper meaning of the wolf / lamb relationship.<br /><br />You people giving this movie a rating of 8.0 in imdb.com, you people could be one of them. <br /><br />So let´s say it all together: "Hurrz!"<br /><br />0/10 Macaulay J. Connor
I get the feeling a lot of people liked this movie (not all people, but a lot of them) because they don't want to admit they don't understand it. People of middling intelligence, if you will, who pretend to be ever so avant garde and trendy who think Lynch is a genius.<br /><br />Lynch, to me, is like Tarantino. They're both great, but neither one is the messiah as so many fanboys want to believe. No director can change the world, so chill out. And both make sucky flicks sometimes, it just happens. Everyone has a bad day. And clearly, since this movie was actually designed as a pilot first and then hack-jobbed into a feature film, it wasn't made with all the passion and forethought one should put into a movie. Face it, much of the movie is gibbering unintelligibility which cannot be understood. We can all make up meanings, Lynch may have his own view, but none of that matters. It was strewn about the screen incoherently. Admittedly, the first portion had the semblance of an intentionally convoluted passingly interesting story, but then it falters.<br /><br />The cowboy, the mysterious organization of men with their phonecalls, the lawyers... come on. I can almost picture David Lynch yelling cut, forcing the crew to gather around him and explaining to them all "Look how crazy and weird I am! Isn't it great?? It's so weird and crazy!" Weird and crazy works if it's a by-product of your style. However, it's pretentious and tired when you go out of your way to do nothing but that. It's like all those half assed Pulp Fiction throw backs that came out after Pulp Fiction. It's just not cool.
Some directors take 2 and a half hours to tell a story, David Lynch takes 2 and a half hours to piece together scenes with "clues" and his trademark oddity, but there's never a story. No plot. No progression of the characters (unless you find revealed delusion a "progression"). It amazes me how anyone can call Lynch's garbage "art", but if beauty rests in the eye of the beholder, so be it. Lynch's movie and TV work in the 1980's came off as "avant garde" and "alternative", fine. 20 years later, work like "Mulholland Drive" comes off as a 2.5 hour David Lynch masturbation piece. It's embarrasing. I've finally seen the movie that takes my top spot as the worst ever. At least the people churning out "Godzilla" and "Rodan" weren't passing them off as "art".
How does David Lynch do it? Unlike the legions of thick-black-framed-glasses-wearing types and pretentious movie critics who praise his name, I just don't see how this guy keeps getting paid to make such tripe. How can Lynch sloppily cobble together leftover footage from a failed TV pilot into a nonsensical, poorly-acted mess & have critics rave about it & actually include it on Year's Best lists?<br /><br />I'm baffled. If you're looking for a good film noir, rent "Bound" instead. If you're looking for a good "puzzle" movie try "Memento." But beware of this over-hyped stinker unless your idea of a fun night is throwing away 2 1/2 hours of your life & $3.50 of your hard-earned cash.
seriously, if i wanted to make a movie that makes zero sense, never will, and features lesbian scenes as its only high-point, i could have.<br /><br />david lynch is the worst, as is this movie. anyone could have made a better movie in which at least some answers were given and the story wasn't so slow and long-winded. the story means nothing without something at the end besides the credits. what a waste of time. i will never get those 147 minutes of my life back and hope that others can learn from my mistake.
How much longer are we to persist with this flawed belief that once a director produces great, ground-breaking work, all future work "can't be all that bad, after all, he made such-and-such".<br /><br />Mulholland Drive is a case in point, and is in fact unmitigated rubbish. The performances are excellent, particularly from Watts and Theroux, but a good film they do not necessarily make. What Lynch has clearly forgotten is that just making a film unnecessarily wierd only works when it takes the audience by surprise. When the audience is expecting the film to not make sense, then the film has to have some substance to keep the audience interested. Lynch succeeds in the first half of the film, with the murder-mystery set up with lots of twists and red herrings, and then ... plop! The story decends into a quagmire of bizarre halucinations and pointless segues. Methinks Lynch realised how muddled the film was becoming, and threw in the lesbian and mastobatory scenes to the audience awake, and to stop the male viewers from standing up and leaving.<br /><br />Watching the film at the preview, I was surrounded by Lynchophiles who had no more idea of what was going on than I did, but left the theatre commenting on the "layers and layers" of Lynch's film-making. Excuse me but these people are the same nitwits who stand in art galleries staring at canvasses that have been painted white commenting on the "courage of the artist at painting such a brave work".<br /><br />Films like these are made because (a) Lynch is trading on his previous work; and (b) because people convince themselves that unintelligeable film is art, and therefore, must be good. I queried a number of the Lynchophiles about what they ACTUALLY liked in the film and only response I recieved that wasn't a broad "layers" type of answer was that they liked it when the "chicks got their kit off".<br /><br />Nuff said.
ok we have a film that some are calling one of the best movies ever..but i'm sitting here thinking hell the f!, the storys sux{ which there is no story], the diolouge is quite plain, artisticly nothing great!, and the acting is nothing real out standing, so if you want to pretend to be arty say you like it, but if you have a real view say you don't like it or if you did explain why!
There is an inherent problem with commenting or reviewing a film such as this. I remember feeling the same way after disliking Dogma. If you do not like a film that is odd and controversial like Mulholland Dr., you are seen as "not getting it." Of course for those who have already seen this film you know that the entire point is not getting it anyway.<br /><br />I have heard from several different sources that the unique and likable aspect of this film is a dream-like quality it has. In other words, the plot isn't structured like other films. With the case of Mulholland Dr., it seems more like an unfocused collage made by a third grade boy who procrastinated until the last second to do his art project. It doesn't make sense, it isn't supposed to, but I know it was to be a TV series at first. It appears Lynch had a stack of unused film and decided to mash it in with a bunch of new stuff. You will notice that toward the end the nudity, sex and foul language increase. All things he would not have filmed for television.<br /><br />For a better film not told in a traditional, linear fashion, rent The Thin Red Line from 1998. That was a great film, this is not.<br /><br />Rating: 2 out of ten
I thrive on cinema....but there is a limit. A NAME isn't enough to make A MOVIE!. The beginning of the movie puts us in a mood to expect the unseen yet. But we remain hungry ( or angry..) till the end . Things are getting so confused that I admit that I DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE END or was there an end to this nonesense. The opportunity to make an outstanding movie was there but the target was totally missed. Next...
Oh boy ! It was just a dream ! What a great idea ! Mr Lynch is very lucky most people try to tell classical stories. This way he can play with his little plantings and his even more little payoffs. Check out Polanski's "The lodger" for far more intelligent mix of fantasy and reality.
A colleague from work told me to watch this movie, since he considered this movie to be one of the best movies ever. So I did watch it. First I have to admit that I dislike mainstream movies and prefer to watch movies with a real meaning.<br /><br />And this is the point, why I dislike this movie. It doesn't have any meaning. It's just a combination of funny, stupid, boring, entertaining, absurd and thrilling pieces.<br /><br />At first I thought that this movie could be a real mystery thriller (as the German packaging read), but the movie was too mysterious for me.<br /><br />David Lynch may be able to make a combination of the most different images, but the composition tastes to me as awfull as a combination of milk with beer. Both for themselves are pretty good, but together?
I had stifled high hopes for this David Lynch, whom I really like, film, but the very poor acting by everybody but Naomi Watts was the first clue that this was a wasted effort. Some Twin Peaks characters are recycled into this film, but it wasn't eerie, it wasn't interesting (except for the topless Watts scenes) and the quirks were poorly executed. <br /><br />I will probably give Lynch one more chance, but the hype around this film just doesn't pan out, especially for those of us fans who saw Eraserhead when it first came out.
If you don't like bad acting, poor editing, ridiculous dialog and unbelievable characters you will hate this movie. If you like all of the above, that is to say if you are a Lynch fan, then you will love Mulholland Drive. This is quite possibly the worst film to be rated above an 7.0 on IMDB.<br /><br />Outside of Naomi Watts work, you will be hard pressed to find any competent acting in Mulholland Dr. The other female lead went to the "hide your face with your hands when you don't have the chops" school of acting. Given the script they had to work with it's a wonder all of the actors weren't holding their heads in their hands.<br /><br />Characters wander in and out of the film that do nothing to advance the storyline. You have a hitman, a mysterious cowboy, an adulterous wife and her cliche'd poolman lover, a mafioso type figure sitting in a darkened room who speaks through an external voice box and a host of others too numerous and tedious to mention. Suffice it to say that they manage to do little more than fill up screen time.<br /><br />This isn't so bad however in that it distracts the viewer from the fact that the movie has no discernable plot. You will wait and wait for for all of the loose threads to come together and in the end you will be abysmally disappointed. The hardest thing for a writer to do is to bring everything together in a believable fashion at the end of a movie in a way that leaves everyone feeling fulfilled. The easiest thing for a writer to do is to create a lot of odd characters and put them in scenes that are not connected to the movie as a whole and then to take what few coherent threads there are and jumble them up at the end for the sake of surprise. Guess which way Lynch goes. SURPRISE!!<br /><br />You know you have a bad script when you have to resort to dream sequences to make any sense out of it. After all, a dream sequence covers all sins. Dreams don't have to make sense. Anything can happen in a dream.<br /><br />The editing is similarly disjointed. Let's just say good editing does not call attention to itself. Much of the way this film is edited seems to be done for the sole purpose of calling attention to the editing. "Look at me... You can see my editing... Aren't I a genius?" Uh, well... NO! This movie has all of the earmarks of the worst and most self-indulgent French films.<br /><br />So why is this movie so popular? My theory is that it is just another sign of the decay of our culture. Melodies are hard to compose so let's listen to rap. Plots are hard to follow so let's dispense with them. Pictures are difficult to paint so let's pee in a cup and stick a crucifix in it. These are the symptoms of our times and Mulholland Drive is just another part of the affliction.
I bought the video for £13 at HMV (we pay more in Britain) as a friend had told me it was highly rated and the reviews on this site were generally impressive.<br /><br />I have to say that the opening credits were a let down...the dancing/music not very powerful.<br /><br />The car ride and unexpected crash just as the lady passenger was going to be harmed was a nice touch,..something unexpected...though the way she walked away from the car with hair perfectly groomed and still carrying a handbag looked corny for most Directors ..but for Lynch was something else.<br /><br />Her dazed walking around after such a shock was enhanced by a regular low noise similar to fingers scraping along a blackboard; I thought another Lynch master touch perhaps portraying the demons gnawing into her shocked and traumatised self conscious. After a while this noise became somewhat annoying and on further investigation I discovered the new video cassette squeaked.<br /><br />I dont know whether this squeak took away a lot of my enjoyment but this movie became a waste of time.(and money)<br /><br />The two female characters had some presence and the lesbian scenes were fair enough, though predictable. There were no male characters of any merit and apart from a few vaguely good scenes (the hoover switching on )there were far too many dreadful scenes that were plain weak and ridiculous. Eg, the coffee being spat into the napkin by the menacing loon and the silly monster face at the back of the diner. Oh and what about the paint in the wifes jewels..boring and naff.<br /><br />This whole film gives you the feel of the failed genius..you know when you listen to the worst Dylan track ever and think my God that was embarrassing....was that really Bob?<br /><br />The whole feel is that of a failed TV movie , badly put together with a few (not many) extra bits to give it a 15 rating.<br /><br />I whizzed it on during the last 30 minutes .<br /><br />Do I give it another chance and watch again. If I want to be puzzled and work hard at understanding a film I will watch Frank Woods Guide to Consolidated Accounting.<br /><br />Lynch did one classic ..Blue Velvet and Straight Story was nice.<br /><br />This, like Wild at Heart, was a let down ; his weirdness is now predictable and stale. Anybody want to buy a 2nd hand video?<br /><br />Make way for some younger original talent, David.<br /><br />Four out of Ten (and no more). Sorry.
Most of the comments on this movie are positive so I thought I would try and redress the balance. I came out of this movie wondering what was going on. I now know and still consider it to be a poor movie. I intially discounted a dream sequence as that seemed too obvious. I was glad that I had a free ticket to the movie or I would have asked for my money back. Movie reviewers and critics love this movie, which only confirms to me that most of them would rather sound intelligent than review how an audience may enjoy a film. The 8+ rating this movie has is so misleading. In 20 years time this film will not compare to true greats such as The Godfather. The film does have fine performances from both the leads but that isn't enough to save the film. (nor are the lesbian scenes!)
In need of work, straight man Bud Abbott (as Jack) and comic partner Lou Costello (as Dinkel) get the latter a job babysitting self-described "problem child" David Stollery (as Donald). Young Stollery winds up reading Mr. Costello's favorite novel (see if you can guess the title), which puts Costello to sleep, dreaming he and Mr. Abbott are reliving the story of "Jack and the Beanstalk" (you guessed it).<br /><br />The sepia-tone switches to color for the bulk of the production. Apparently, this was an attempt at something different for the duo, a colorful children's fantasy. It fails, but this is where you get to see Abbott & Costello in color, silent film superstar William Farnum (as the King) make his last performance a bit part, boxer Max Baer's brother Buddy, and Stollery before Disney's "Spin and Marty".<br /><br />** Jack and the Beanstalk (4/4/52) Jean Yarbrough ~ Lou Costello, Bud Abbott, Buddy Baer, William Farnum
I watched this last night for the first time in 40 years. It's bad. Really bad. But it has enough hilariously awful moments, that it's worth watching. First of all, was it deliberate to make the boy being babysat completely effeminate? He even says to Costello a la Mae West "you fascinate me!" as Costello does a double take. God only knows what would have have happened if the babysitter had been a hunk. THIS kid would have seduced him in a heartbeat! Then there's the principal male dancer. He is totally inept. Roar with laughter as he leaps and prances with no talent whatsoever over the giant's grave during He Never Looked Better in His Life. The two romantic leads are zeros, wastes. Abbott gets to sing one line and that was dubbed in by another singer. Geez, I guess he couldn't even carry a tune! Costello does manage to be charming in his I Fear Nothing number, and I guess very small children might like it, but there's not much to recommend it. But oh that seductive effeminate boy! THAT aspect alone blew me away! Plus the fact the family accepted anyone off the street with no references to babysit a child! Today, little femmy boy would be taken away from them!
I'm not really much of an Abbott & Costello fan (although I do enjoy "Who's On First") and, to be honest, there wasn't much in this movie that would inspire me to watch any more of their work. It wasn't really bad. It had some mildly amusing scenes, and actually a very convincing giant played by Buddy Baer, but somehow, given the fame of the duo and the esteem in which they're generally held, I have to say I was expecting more. As the story goes, the pair stumble into a babysitting job, and during the reading of Jack & The Beanstalk as a bedtime story (with the kid reading it to Costello), Costello's Jack falls asleep and dreams himself into the story. There's a "Wizard Of Oz" kind of feel to the story, in that the characters in the dream are all the equivalents of real-life acquaintances of Jack, and the movie opens in black & white and shifts to colour during the dream sequence. The fight scenes between Jack and the giant and the dance scene between Jack and Polly (Dorothy Ford) are among the amusing parts of the movie. Polly, of course, also leads to one of the questions of the movie - what happened to her? Jack and gang apparently left her behind in the giant's castle! I know - it was just a dream, so who cares. Still - I wondered. There were also a couple of cute song and dance routines. My 4 year old giggled a bit during this, so she was able to appreciate some of the humour. I found it to be an acceptable timewaster, but certainly not anything that would convince you of Abbott and Costello as comic geniuses. 4/10
Absolutely inane film starring Abbott and Costello. Even our young children would become increasingly annoyed with this complete mess of a film.<br /><br />Abbott as Dinklepuss. What a look he had on his face. Sure, he had to be part of this dreadful film.<br /><br />Did anyone notice that Costello's mother in the film sounded and looked like Fay Bainter? Luckily, for Ms. Bainter, that she wasn't in the film.<br /><br />There is really no excitement hear for children. The jokes, if any, are quite stale. Some of the singing is nicely done but the lyrics are ridiculous.
For some reason my father-in-law gave me a copy of this tape. I think because my great uncle, Buddy Baer, was the giant in this movie and my father-in-law thought I'd like to see it. I had, years before as a child, and didn't like it then, either.<br /><br />My son, then two, watched it and was hooked. Every waking moment in front of the TV, this horrid video played. I went to work with the inane songs stuck in my head. The two "leads" were worse than a junior high stage review. The dancers looked like rejects from an Ed Wood horror flick and Abbot and Costello phoned their parts in. Thankfully, I was able to distract my son long enough to lose this videotape. Frankly, I think it was the tape from "The Ring".<br /><br />To correct another reviewer, Buddy Baer is the UNCLE of Jethro (Max Baer, Jr) not his father. 0 out of 10.
I'll start blasting the movie first. Remove Abbott and Costello from the cast and you've got a badly colored movie, stiff cardboard from the casting department, badly dubbed sound (especially during the singing!) and annoying dialog (ex. listen to the line "Mr. Dinklepuss" ad infinitum). Obviously some studio hack thought that they could cash in on Disney's CLASSIC presentation of "Mickey and the Beanstalk", but maybe audiences were either more gullible back then (improbable) or stuck in a double feature (more probable). Even children should feel insulted at having this movie shown to them. A total waste of celluloid. Now, about the acting of Abbott and Costello. Bud Abbott always played the straight man, and by all accounts was the nicer person off the set. On radio, his character was usually the smooth fast talker, and was especially funny when his speed caused him to flub his lines and smooth over the mistakes. In the movies, he still plays the straight man, but is more of a con artist. Not that he's bad at it, but that character has been played to perfection by Groucho Marx. The real travesty of the duo on film is Lou Costello. Again, on radio he was funny. He played a character that was a little slower than Abbott, but not too much slower! He was also glib with the lines, and got me laughing when he would ad-lib at Abbott's mistakes. On film, I don't know if it was his decision or not, but in the movies his character becomes a shoddy impersonation of Stan Laurel, which in turn was even more shoddily done by Jerry Lewis. Why the change? he was funny on radio when he was a smarta--, but here he becomes a child-like character that looks like he's mugging for the cameras in every shot. this characterization is shown in every movie they do, and only brings a stain to the reputation they had on radio. What is left to their film career is a poor (very, VERY poor) copy of Laurel and Hardy. The movies would have been much funnier if they had played their radio characters instead of retreads of stock casting.
Although I am sure the idea looked good on paper, and it appealed to me when I first heard of it, this movie often lumbers along and falls flat, and when I watch it, I just want it to end. The bookend beginning and ending of the film about Lou having to babysit a troublemaker is contrived at best, although I found the tall cop part to be humorous. However, I found little to laugh at with the bottom of the barrel script that was thrown together for these two great comedians. I thought that it was a mistake to put them in a musical, and it reeks of "Wizard of Oz" rip-off (with the songs and black and white to color format). I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone but die-hard A&C fanatics. Anyone else will be disappointed, and they have many better films.
This little cheapy is notable only because it is the worst film Abbott and Costello ever made. It is dreadful in every way: crummy music, horrid choreography (check out the awkward lead male dancer), cheesy special effects and sets, wooden actors (the leads are barely at the high school level in their profession and were unheard of later), and a script without a single laugh. Better times were ahead for the comedy duo. Abbott and Costello Meet Captain Kidd is much preferable, as is the television series, which at times was inspired. But skip this one.
"ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ"! If IMDb would allow one-word reviews, that's what mine would be. This film was originally intended only for kids and it would seem to be very tough going for adults or older kids to watch the film. The singing, the story, everything is dull and washed out--just like this public domain print. Like other comedy team films with roots in traditional kids stories (such as the awful SNOW WHITE AND THE THREE STOOGES and the overrated BABES IN TOYLAND), this movie has limited appeal and just doesn't age well. Now that I think about it, I seriously doubt that many kids nowadays would even find this film enjoyable! So my advice is DON'T watch this film. If you MUST watch an Abbott and Costello film, almost any other one of their films (except for A&C GO TO MARS) would be an improvement.
I´m only joking. This was potentially the worst film I have ever had the misfortune to sit through. How anybody in the 1950´s could have raised a laugh at this innane rubbish is beyond my comprehension. I jest not.
1 hour and 40 minutes of talking--boring talking, and more talking and then some. It is hard for me to grasp how an actress like Anne Parillaud, who shone superbly in Femme Fatale, would sign up for such a piece of crap! Unbelievable. If you need a nightcap, this movie might help, although I would prefer some nice classical music. unfortunately, i just found out that i have to write 10 lines for my comment to appear--that's almost as unbelievable! so, short and succinct one or two sentence commentaries expressing one's core take on a movie is not enough. geez, people. i made my point and don't to waste your time with more, unnecessary words--as this movie does. Wolfgang
I don't recommend watching this movie. It's a movie in which a movie is being filmed, with no attraction between actress and actor being played. The sex scene at the end of the movie which is to explain the reluctance of the actress (being played in the movie) to cooperate with the actor (being played in the movie)in it is a blunt repetition of the same scene in the Breillat movie Fat Girl. Everything there was played with more delicacy, if you can attach delicacy to a sex act like that. A typical French expression for the the thing happening in Sex is comedy is Oh la la! In Breillat's film Brief Crossing there also is sensitivity. In Sex is comedy I don't see real sensitivity and also a clear plot for the movie is not being developed so that there is a rather loose story with the disillusion of the end.
As one who loves films that appeal to intellectual sorties as well as those that simply tell stories, this film should have been appealing. But as written and directed by Catherine Breillat who seems to be playing out her own conundrums in film-making experiences, this tedious and talky film fails to arouse interest.<br /><br />The main character Jeanne (Anne Parillaud) is the screen form of Breillat, a director frustrated in her attempts to film a convincing sex scene with two difficult actors (Grégoire Colin is The Actor and Roxane Mesquida is The Actress). The one 'comic' bit is Jeanne's imposing the use of a dildo strapped onto the Actor in order for her to drive the sex scene to fruition, but even this sight gag wears thin quickly and we are left with a film within a film that feels more like a 'Deleted Scenes' featurette on a DVD than a solid French comedy with class. Grady Harp, August 05
The first users comments are very detailed for a very vague movie. Not saying that I disagree, but this summary can be written in a few sentences. To get straight to the point, this is pretty much like watching the making of a really bad amateur porno flick. There are a few funny points in the movie, but with the kind of things that happen in todays youth everyday its actually kind of lame. The main actor in the movie is a pompous jackass and both guy and girl in the film are way too modest to be in a film like this. DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY ON THIS MOVIE. The only reason why I gave it a 4 and not a 1 is that they used at least a somewhat attractive girl in the movie and towards the end you got to see almost full frontal nudity from the girl, thats it, thats the only thing thats worth watching it for. the end
I'd really have to rate "Sex is Comedy" as one of the worst pieces of dreck I have ever seen. The film inadvertedly showcases those which are the worst aspects of the French, or at least how they are stereotyped, narcissism, snobbery, and pseudo-intellectualism. I myself am French-Canadian and feel slightly ashamed that the creators of this film are from the same culture as me, that should give you an idea as to how bad this movie really was! One doesn't so much watch this film as undergo torture to it, there was a total lack of humour, and it seemed to me as if the entire film was a documentary interviewing people who were neither famous, nor talented, as if to celebrate something that has never happened to begin with. Instead, why not watch Auberge Espagnole, Happenstance, or Je t'aime... a la folie, three fantastic modern French films.
To preface my remarks on the film, I know the topic is horrendous and words can't adequately express the compassion any decent person would have for people dealing with the post-horrors of an atomic bomb dropped near them. <br /><br />However, this film doesn't really deal with in a horrific way except for the first 10 minutes. Some of the images there are horrifying, and should be as a reminder what devastation nuclear weapons can produce. Seeing burned people walking around aimlessly or man combing his hair and clumps of hair coming out, etc., is not a pretty sight. <br /><br />But after the first dozen minutes, this Japanese film concerns people dealing with the aftermath of Hiroshima in the mid-to-late '40s. I actually found the story developing quickly into a boring soap opera. <br /><br />Almost all the story occurs five years after the bomb and deals mainly with one family's problems at that point. This is why it became more of a melodrama than some shocking story of nuclear disaster. It's simply a story about how these people got on with their lives from about 1950 on, whether one of the women was permanently damaged and if so, should she marry? <br /><br />This could have been a real impact film but it didn't go in that direction
I remember when "The Love Machine" was first released to theaters. I was a mere 13 years old, too young to see the much-ballyhooed motion picture release, but not too old to take my Mom's paperback copy of the Jacqueline Susann novel to school and pore over the 'naughty bits' with my schoolmates.<br /><br />Though I'm not sure what my problem was at such an early age, but I was very much into the book. I bought and wore an "ankh" ring just like on the paperback cover, and I remember the ads for the perfume, "Xanadu" that was cross-promoted and featured clumsily in the film. Despite such an interest I didn't actually see the film until several years later. I should have left things as they were.<br /><br />"The Love Machine" is hands down the worst of the many bad films adapted from Susann's novels...which of course makes it the most fun to watch. Its faults are many: from its hopscotching script that jumps choppily from one incident to another with nary a connecting thread; its dated, horny (brass instruments, I mean) music score of ersatz Bacharach; the flat, first-take performances; the boring sexuality -I've never seen bathrobes featured so prominently in a movie before. It's like a fetish! Whenever sex, nudity or something sleazy is called for, out pops somebody in a blue robe! Very odd, that; and most certainly, the circus train of awful 70's fashions that are on endless display. Poor Dyan Cannon's performance (which is no great shakes anyway, but heads over the rest of the cast) is consistently undermined by the jaw-dropping get ups she's called upon to wear. However, the film's chief liability is the stoic, stone-like John Philip Law as (appropriately enough) Robin Stone, the object of every girl's (and one over–the-top flaming male photographer's) affection.<br /><br />Law is just awful and performs as if he were pulled off the street, handed the pages of the script in hurry and told to give a cold reading on the spot. Just lifeless! Not only that, but he appears in desperate need of a blood transfusion or something. He looks wan and sickly throughout and is several pounds smaller than most of his female costars. Robin Stone should be a hunk, not a hankie.<br /><br />For anyone finding the film hard going (it's rather slow by today's standards) I beg you to stick around for the climactic "fight scene." Here Ms. Cannon (balancing 23 pounds of teased hair) finally abandons her heretofore starchy acting style and lets loose with that infectiously raucous laugh of hers, setting in motion a truly memorable free for all that should have become a cinema clip highlight by now. Trying to rival "Valley of the Dolls"'s infamous wig-down-the-toilet scene, "The Love Machine" finally does something right.<br /><br />Jacqueline Susann's unique brand of trash is sorely missed. Perhaps someone out there owns the rights to Rona Barrett's "The Lovomaniacs" and will revive the genre.
Movie based on Jacqueline Susann's best-selling novel. It's about Robin Stone (John Phillip Law) a ruthless TV anchorman who claws his way to the top. It details his love life concentrating on Amanda (Jodi Wexler) and Judith (Dyan Cannon). It also shows his total inability to commit to anyone and instead sleeps with any woman he can get.<br /><br />The novel is no work of art (it's not even good literature) but it's a quick, silly, trashy read. But this movie makes it seem like "Gone With the Wind"! This is a textbook example of how NOT to do a movie adaptation. First they condense the novel terribly. In the book Stone's inability to commit is dealt with and it's revealed why. Here it's brought up...and ignored. Also there's a truly revolting scene in which a woman is brutally beaten. It's in the book--but there IS a reason totally left out of the movie. And the book dealt with three women--not two. Don't even get me started on the homophobia.<br /><br />Adaptation aside the acting is pretty terrible. Law is just horrendous as Stone--VERY wooden and boring--you seriously wonder why all these women are after him. To be fair to Law--another actor was cast but had a very bad accident before shooting began and Law stepped in at the last minute. Wexler is terrible as Amanda; Maureen Arthur is truly astoundingly bad as Ethel Evans; Shecky Greene is unbearable as Christie Lane. Only three performances stand out: David Hemmings (having a GREAT time) camps it up as a gay photographer; Cannon is actually very good and Robert Ryan is just great. Also Dionne Warwick sings the catchy opening song ("He's Moving On").<br /><br />It IS bad but I watched the whole thing and it is (in a silly sort of way) a lot of fun. I'm giving it a 3.<br /><br />Also Jacqueline Susann has a cameo as a newscaster.
Even though this film was nothing special as such, I am drawn to comment on at least one factor that ruled in its favour - that of the lead female performer in the film, Dyan Cannon. In spite of the film's ridiculous storyline and what she goes through here, hers was the best acting job in the film, making the unbelievable seem more plausible. Her raucous scene with the gay photographer David Hemmings has to be seen to be believed. Good work, Dyan.
Jacqueline Susann wrote several novels all involving sex and melodrama and a few of them actually were made into films including this effort and they all have the distinction of being some of the worst films ever made. Story here is about Robin Stone (John Phillip Law) and his rise to the top of television by being ruthless and calculating to everyone around him. He's a playboy of the worst sort using and then throwing away every woman he beds including the wife of the IBC network president.<br /><br />*****SPOILER ALERT***** Greg Austin (Robert Ryan) is in charge of the television network IBC and when his younger wife Judith takes one look at Robin she wastes no time getting into bed with him. Greg falls ill and has to take some time off and this is where Robin steps in and starts trying to run the network but during all this a model named Amanda (Jodi Wexler) who is in love with him kills herself. When Greg returns to his job he tries to get rid of Robin by using the morals clause in his contract when rumors start flying about his relationship with Jerry Nelson (David Hemmings) who's a gay fashion photographer.<br /><br />This was directed by Jack Haley Jr. who went on to be a very successful producer in both television and movies but this was only his second film as a director and the material he was forced to deal with seems way over his head! The script comes from Susann's novel and that would probably be why this resembles a cross between "Alfie" and "The Valley of the Dolls" and I think the reason why her books never could translate well onto film is because the filmmakers made the terrible mistake of taking her stories seriously instead of tongue in cheek. With that, the laughs that come from this are unintentional especially during that totally ridiculous fight towards the end of the film which starts when Cannon refuses to give back the slave bracelet to the gay characters! Hemmings was a very good actor but his role here is completely over the top and it has him wearing one of the worst beards in history and using the term "chic" in every other sentence. Law was not the original choice for the lead but another actor that was cast had a serious accident and Law stepped in and delivers one of the more wooden performances this side of Miles O'Keeffe. The film's script suffers in two different areas in that it's both completely silly and horribly dull and it will test a viewers patience if they choose to watch this. One has to wonder what would be the outcome if a director decided to film one of Susann's novels and not take it seriously because the attempt here is ponderous and ridiculous.
Cute idea to have Dionne Warwick do the song vocals for this movie-adaptation of Jacqueline Susann's bestselling book (a la "Valley Of The Dolls")...although it's really too bad this sudser doesn't have Patty Duke's Neely O'Hara to spike the story. "The Love Machine" is unrelievedly dull. Even the final brawl (with an Academy Award as a fight prop!) can't save it. Dyan Cannon seems embalmed in her heavy pancake make-up and cumbersome fall (although her tiny, suntanned figure is a beauty to behold), John Phillip Law is a block of wood in the lead, David Hemmings embarrassing in gay-mode as a flamboyant photographer. And where is Robin Stone walking to at the end? Is he trekking out to the waterfront to pick up some sailors? After Cannon has deflated his masculinity, it would be a safe bet. In that case, "Love Machine--The Final Episode" might've been a more interesting flick. Certainly better than this yawn-inducing snooze-opera. *1/2 from ****
Contains spoilers. <br /><br />The British director J. Lee Thompson made some excellent films, notably 'Ice Cold in Alex' and 'Cape Fear', but 'Country Dance' is one of his more curious offerings. The story is set among the upper classes of rural Scotland, and details the strange triangular relationship between Sir Charles Ferguson, an eccentric aristocratic landowner, his sister Hilary, and Hilary's estranged husband Douglas, who is hoping for a reconciliation with her. We learn that during his career as an Army officer, Charles was regarded as having 'low moral fibre'. This appears to have been an accurate diagnosis of his condition; throughout the film he displays an attitude of gloomy disillusionment with the world, and his main sources of emotional support seem to be Hilary and his whisky bottle. The film ends with his committal to an upper-class lunatic asylum. <br /><br />Peter O'Toole was, when he was at his best as in 'Lawrence of Arabia', one of Britain's leading actors, but the quality of his work was very uneven, and 'Country Dance' is not one of his better films. He overacts frantically, making Charles into a caricature of the useless inbred aristocrat, as though he were auditioning for a part in the Monty Python 'Upper-Class Twit of the Year' sketch. Susannah York as Hilary and Michael Craig as Douglas are rather better, but there is no really outstanding acting performance in the film. There is also little in the way of coherent plot, beyond the tale of Charles's inexorable downward slide.<br /><br />The main problem with the film, however, is neither the acting nor the plot, but rather that of the Theme That Dare Not Speak Its Name. There are half-hearted hints of an incestuous relationship between Charles and Hilary, or at least of an incestuous attraction towards her on his part, and that his dislike of Douglas is motivated by sexual jealousy. Unfortunately, even in the swinging sixties and early seventies (the date of the film is variously given as either 1969 or 1970) there was a limit to what the British Board of Film Censors was willing to allow, and a film with an explicitly incestuous theme was definitely off-limits. (The American title for the film was 'Brotherly Love', but this was not used in Britain; was it too suggestive for the liking of the BBFC?) These hints are therefore never developed and we never get to see what motivates Charles or what has caused his moral collapse, resulting in a hollow film with a hole at its centre. 4/10
This movie was a rather odd viewing experience. The movie is obviously based on a play. Now I'm sure that everything in this movie works out just fine in a play but for in a movie it just doesn't feel terribly interesting enough to watch. The movie is way too 'stagey' and they didn't even bothered to change some of the dialog to make it more fitting for a movie. Instead what is presented now is an almost literally re-filming of a stage-play, with over-the-top characters and staged dialog. Because of all this the storyline really doesn't work out and the movie becomes an almost complete bore- and obsolete viewing experience.<br /><br />It takes a while before you figure out that this is a comedy you're watching. At first you think its a drama you're watching, with quirky characters in it but as the movie progresses you'll notice that the movie is more a tragicomedy, that leans really more toward the comedy genre, rather than the drama genre.<br /><br />The characters and dialog are really the things that make this movie a quirky and over-the-top one that at times really become unwatchable. Sure, the actors are great; Peter O'Toole and Susannah York, amongst others but they don't really uplift the movie to a level of 'watchable enough'.<br /><br />The story feels totally disorientated. Basicaly the story is about nothing and just mainly focuses on the brother/sister characters played by Peter O'Toole and Susannah York. But what exactly is the story even about? The movie feels like a pointless and obsolete one that has very little to offer. Like I said before; I'm sure the story is good and interesting to watch on stage but as a movie it really isn't fitting and simply doesn't work out.<br /><br />The editing is simply dreadful and times and it becomes even laughable bad in certain sequences. <br /><br />More was to expect from director J. Lee Thompson, who has obviously done far better movies than this rather failed, stage-play translated to screen, project.<br /><br />Really not worth your time.<br /><br />4/10
I thought maybe a film which boasted a cast including Peter O'Toole, Susannah York, Michael Craig & Harry Andrews might be worth watching. Alas, I was wrong. Utter pretentious nonsense from beginning to end with both O'Toole and York overacting wildly. I watched it twice and still have no idea what is was about. I've a feeling O'Toole plays the Laird of a Scottish castle who has a drink problem and likes reliving childhood games with his sister (York). He is also barking mad. But apart from that, your guess is as good as mine.<br /><br />The film has no redeeming feature whatsoever. I can only assume the cast and director were blackmailed into making this dreary, unimaginative, stagy piffle. Clearly a waste of the time of a talented cast and director. Risible.
Like the previous commentator on this film, I too found myself in tears at times during this movie. Sometimes one wonders how a film of such awe-inspiring awfulness comes into existence. From the first moment when our protagonist wakes up in his New York apartment from a dream of subway trains intercut with galloping horses (what Irish emigrant hasn't had that one), its clear we are in trouble. And it doesn't get much better.<br /><br />Whisked back to 1950s Ireland, we enter a world where everybody speaks without intonation, and exclusively on the topic of the Irish Civil War. Schoolchildren go to school to learn about the Civil War. The drinkers in the pub divide themselves according to their Civil War allegiances. Remembrances are carried out for those who died in the Civil War. The town is divided between those who believe we should remember and those who want to forget...the Civil War. Every glance and conversation is dripping with meaning that traces back to the Civil War.<br /><br />The blurb on the videocover of Broken Harvest suggests that the film is a parable of the troubles in modern Ireland. The only parallel which strikes me is that in present day Dublin conversation is indeed dominated by one topic: house prices. If its intention is to offer some sort of insight into Ireland's obsession with its past, it fails miserably. It is striking how few Irish films have dealt with the Irish civil war and its legacies. However it will take a film of a great deal more subtlety and intelligence than this one to tell us anything about the lasting effects of such a traumatic event on the nation's psyche.<br /><br />For those American viewers who have suggested the film evokes the atmosphere of 1950s Ireland: it doesn't. 1950s Ireland was a horrible, poverty stricken pit of sexual repression and misery from which young people fled in their droves. However there was more than one topic of conversation.
I could not stand the woman who played the mother. I wanted her to shut up. She had a bizarre manner of speaking and the lines she was given to read didn't make it any better. I had no idea why the men of the town were so taken with her to cause all these problems except that in a town populated by men she seemed to be the only woman over ten and under sixty. Even after a terrible tragedy her voice was devoid of human emotion, she seemed to have no ability to grasp the events of her life. She delivered her lines with the same emotion whether she was saying "i love you", "i hate you", "the bank is foreclosing", "my dress is on fire". Was this actually filmed in Ireland? The sun blazed throughout the movie and the characters seemed surprised by a rain shower during the harvest. I lived in Ireland during the summer of 2002, the wettest summer in a century. Most everything was still harvested. If the farmers in Ireland could only harvest during long dry stretches then the country would have starved hundreds of years ago. It seems as if there wasn't a lot of money to make the movie. The black and white flashbacks looked as if they were filmed with the security cameras one can get at Sam's Club.
If it had not been for Christopher Guest's hilarious role, I would have stopped watching this movie after 20 minutes. The jokes were flat, the movie choppy and slow paced, certain characters were obnoxious and painful to watch, but Guest's character kept me laughing so I stuck with it.<br /><br />I do feel there are much better choices out there!
I must say I was disappointed with this film. Although it is well acted and directed, the underlying story simply plods along too slowly.<br /><br />Granted, in another mood I would have liked it better. I did chuckle a lot, but rarely laughed out loud; and there was actually a sense of suspense to discover who won. But in contrast to another movie that my wife picked up the same day (one neither of us had heard of before) this one paled in comparison.<br /><br />If you see lots of movies, then by all means see this -- it's distinctly better than your average fare. But if you (like me) have limited time and want to watch only the best and most entertaining, save this for later.<br /><br />[Rate: 7/10]
First of all "Mexican werewolf in Texas" is not a werewolf movie. This title is bullcrap. The story is actually about a Chupacabra that kills all the local villagers in the little town of Furlough in Texas. I suppose the distributors renamed the original title so that it would make some extra bucks or something. And I guess it actually works because that's the reason why I bought this piece of crap, it sounded so stupid. Anyway the movie isn't any good. Actually it's bloody awful. But I didn't expect anything else when I bought it. It's a low budget horror movie with a Chupacabra monster. If you enjoy low budget horror with bad dialog, actors and some gore then you should check into this movie. But I must warn you, this movie is really baaaaaaad.<br /><br />This movie has some of the worst acting I have ever seen. The actors try to hard and t it gets completely ridiculous. They almost never say a line in a normal way. They always have this completely wrong tone about just everything they say. It's so stupid it almost looks like a freakin parody. It's like they shot each scene only one single time and were happy about it. The worst of them all is the blond girl which is supposed to play a bimbo. She's the worst of them all. I have never seen an actor as bad as her (And I've seen Pteradactyl). Even when her boyfriend dies she can't stop being a bimbo about it. I hate her.<br /><br />Some of the shots in this movie were actually quite good. The ones that where shot in the daytime are all pretty decent for a low budget project. But most of the movie is shot in the night when the Chupacabra strikes and the lighting is way too dark. The gore scenes are few and short, but really grizzly and violent. The effects are pretty hilarious really, but that's the way I like it. The Chupacabra looks pretty messed up, and it's easy to see that it's a guy in suit.<br /><br />Overall this movie should only be watched by extreme fans of low budget flicks and it's very important to not watch this alone because you will probably be bored to death. I recommend watching this flick with your friends and some beer.
In the dusty little town of Furlough in Texas, an animal is slaughtering the cattle and the locals. When the teenager Tommy (Michael Carreo) is killed, their friends Anna Furlough (Erika Fay), her Mexican-American boyfriend Miguel Gonzalez (Gabriel Gutierrez), Jill Gillespie (Sara Erikson) and Rosie (Martine Hughes) finds that a Mexican werewolf Chupacabra is the killer and they plot a plan to kill the beast.<br /><br />"Mexican Werewolf in Texas" is an amateurish crap and among the worse movies I have ever seen, if not the worst. Nothing works in this movie: the screenplay is laughable, with some of the most terrible lines I have ever heard. The direction does not exist and the camera follows the "style" of "The Blair Witch Project". The amateurish acting seems to be a prank of high-school students or a high school play. The "special effects" are gruesome and extremely poor and the "werewolf" is the cheapest I have ever seen. Ed Wood movies are cult, but this "Mexican Werewolf in Texas" is pure garbage. In the end, Jill says that no man can resist her teats (actually the most beautiful thing in this flick). But I believe the correct quote should be "no man (or woman) can resist to watch this movie to the end". I was driven by my curiosity to see how bad a movie can be and I lost 88 minutes of my life, but I believe most of the viewers will stop seeing with less than 20 minutes running time. My vote is one (awful).<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Um Lobisomen Mexicano no Texas" ("A Mexican Werewolf in Texas")
First off, Mexican Werewolf in Texas' title is misleading as many others have pointed out. It is actually about El Chupacabra, which is a similar creature to a werewolf, but by no means the same.<br /><br />The production and editing just plain suck. When it was over, I probably wouldn't be able to give a very accurate description of what exactly the Chupacabra looked like, for whenever it was in a scene(despite one or two exceptions) the camera turned all shaky and you could only see the monster's face clearly. The special effects were laughably bad, but that has to be expected from a low budget horror movie.<br /><br />Along with the terrible production comes the bad actors. Now a couple give fairly plausible performances(Erika Fay and Martine Hughes), but then there were the bad actors(everybody else), who seemed to have no emotions whatsoever when people died. Then there's the absolutely terrible actor(Sara Erikson), who gives one of the 2 worst performances I've ever seen in a movie. I mean my god, she was indescribably bad.<br /><br />The plot was very simple. Basically, a Chupacabra is in a small Texan town killing off local residents and a group of teens look to stop it. However, even with the plot being this simple, a few plot holes managed to leak through.<br /><br />Anyways, horrible movie. However, if you are looking for a movie to make fun of and laugh at with your friends one night, this would be a pretty good one. My friends and I had a good time watching this. Probably the 2nd worst movie I've ever seen, 1/10. Awful.
Mexican Werewolf in Texas is set in the small border town of Furlough where Anna (Erika Fay) lives, her best friend is Rosie (Martine Hughes) & she has a Mexican boyfriend named Miguel (Gabriel Gutierrez) who are determined to track a beast down that has been terrorising the town, killing livestock & several residents including some of their friends. Local Mexican legends speak of the Chupacabra, an evil creature from myth & legend. Erm, I'm struggling now because not that much else actually happens...<br /><br />Written & directed by Scott Maginnis I won't beat about the bush here & simply say that Mexican Werewolf in Texas is awful, period. The script only ever mentions the word Werewolf once & the rest of the time it's referred to a Chupacabra, in fact I suspect this wasn't really conceived as a Werewolf flick at all. The 'Werewolf' creature looks mostly hairless & more like some vicious dog, there is no reference to anybody changing during the full moon & it actually attacks during the day on a couple of occasions, there is no transformation scene & at the end when it is killed it doesn't change back into anyone either. To be honest apart from the title there's nothing here to indicate a Werewolf film at all & even then the title is just a rip-off of the highly popular An American Werewolf in London (1981). This is the type of home made crap that I personally think is killing the horror genre, how long has it been since there was a true low budget horror classic like Dawn of the Dead (1978), The Evil Dead (1981), Halloween (1978) or Friday the 13th (1980) which were all made on shoe string budgets, maybe The Blair Witch Project (1999) but that's it in recent years & crap like Mexican Werewolf in Texas has absolutely no chance of ever being considered a classic. The character's are awful & things just happen around them, the dialogue is rubbish, the pacing is terrible, the story sucks & virtually sent me to sleep & as a whole this film is just crap, I'm sorry but I don't know how else to describe it.<br /><br />Director Maginnis does nothing to make this watchable, there's the annoying hand held camera type cinematography which could easily give someone a headache & quick 'blink & you'll miss something' editing which just annoys & irritates in equal measure. It's not scary, there's no nudity, there's no tension or atmosphere & the special effects are awful. The monster really does look poor & it's no wonder Maginnis keeps it in the shadows or cuts his scenes so quickly you never get a good look at it. There's virtually no colour to the picture either, it's either almost pitch black or over saturated desert sand oranges which makes the thing an eye sore as well. The gore consists of some fake guts (blink & you'll miss them!), a few bloody wounds & a severed arm, big deal.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $300,000 I admit the budget was low but I simply refuse to accept that for making such a rubbish film, there are plenty of low budget horror flicks that make their meagre budgets go far. The whole thing has the look of a home movie, it has no style & is throughly bland & dull to look at. The acting sucks too although you probably already knew that.<br /><br />Mexican Werewolf in Texas will probably con a few people into renting/buying/watching it because they might mistakenly think it's a sequel to John Landis' classic which it most certainly isn't & it isn't even a proper Werewolf flick either. Don't be fooled this is awful & I'm fed up of having to waste time/money on home made amateur crap like this.
I rented The Matrix Revisited with a friend of mine. We both loved The Matrix and we both love filmmaking so we wanted to see what was going on behind the scenes of The Matrix. It turns out that The Matrix Revisited tells you hardly anything about the art of filmmaking or even how The Matrix was made. It is basically a huge commercial for The Matrix, a movie that the target audience of The Matrix Revisited has already seen!<br /><br />If you really want to know about the process and the troubles and the stress and the detail that went into making of The Matrix, look no further than the bonus features on the original DVD of The Matrix. There are things they show in those documentaries that I had not even realized had to be done or was done. The Matrix was such a difficult and challenging film to make that it deserves more credit than a "documentary" that's about as informative and interesting as an MTV special.
What a terrible movie! It represents perfectly the state of degenerateness of French society, where the most elementary respect for wholesome values and traditions has completely disappeared. The plot is nonsensical, the movie is not funny at all and the characters are completely shallow and uninteresting. To say the least, the direction and the cinematography are very poor and uninspired. Catherine Deneuve is as bad an actress as she always was, even when she was directed by Bunuel in Belle De Jour. The rest of the usually good cast (Vincent Lindon, Line Renaud, Jean Yanne) seem completely lost in an ocean of vulgarity, platitudes and restlessness. I cannot help to draw a parallel with the wonderful James Ivory's "Le Divorce", with its thoughtful depiction of French and American mores, its superlative cinematography and stellar cast put to good use. Having watched "Le Divorce" you can feel a kind of empathy with the French, regardless of their foibles. "Belle-Maman" leaves you with only a nauseated contempt for its morally bankrupt and clueless protagonists.
May be spoilers so do not read if you do not want to Just like watching the TV news , everything is already happened, a great tsunami looms over a city bay and CUT , no more to see, Tokay suffers a large earthquake , did anyone see more than the 5 seconds I saw? If you want to make a love story , make a love story but if you want to use a disaster movie title , do please be kind enough to show me THE DISASTER , pd after watching this movie watch JISHIN RETTO or any GODZILLA film to satisfy the part that was willing to see people screaming and buildings collapsing that did not get a chance to do in this movie. Don t take me wrong I love disaster movies and I love the original Nihon chimbotsu and Jishin retto, I even like the latest Poseidon , not to much of a story there but a very good and graphic disaster sequence , New Nihon chimbotsu looses the point as many times as pearl harbour or the day after tomorrow but at least this two movies do show good disaster sequences, and also enough with the expensive FX that did not show anything , give me fake buildings if you like as long as you do destroy them properly , I know I must sound like a sadistic freak, however I did go to see Love actually when I felt like going to see a romantic film , grrrrrrr even kimpachi sensei makes me cry and this movie didn:t . there is also a TV series called napping chimbotsu made in 1975, I have on DVD and it is much better
This film has some nice special effects, tearing apart the Japanese archipelago to a degree that would humble Godzilla. The two leads also put in above-par performances. Apart from that, it is all a bit ropey in this understated disaster flick. The incongruities in the pacing are bizarre. At one point we have Hokkaido sinking into the sea and pyroclastic snow falling on the rest of Japan, while Osaka is buried under an immense tsunami. Yet elsewhere in the country, people are still strolling around sightseeing and licking ice-cream when another tsunami rolls in... Kusanagi also manages to travel great distances without any hindrance, or even a crease in his cream shirt. Other people turn up with burns, ripped clothes and mud-streaks on their faces. <br /><br />The Japaneseness of the film is both touching and repugnant. Kusanagi's sacrifice in his final evening with Shibasaki is a touch of chivalry seldom seen in this genre these days. However, the ill-fated PMs musings on the Japanese psyche and the seduction of death, and the fact that Japan is abandoned by everyone and has no friends in the last instance, hint at a darker paranoia that infects Japanese concerns regarding their status in the world.<br /><br />Sadly, the final sequence is a rip-off of Armaggedon, edited with a cookie-cutter.<br /><br />Finally, my own particular bug-bear - the heavy handed product placement for cigarettes. This time around, it is mad(-or-is-he?) scientist Toyokawa who gets to be the poster boy for Japan Tobacco. At one point, he manages to light up 5000 meters below the ocean surface, in a miniature sub the size of a phone box. Gimme a break.
This disaster flick is a remake of a 1973 movie of the same title, based on a novel by Sakyo Komatsu. Japan is located right alongside the Pacific Ring of Fire (active volcanoes) and also along the edges of plate tectonics, whose shifting will cause earthquakes and tsunamis (a Japanese term in itself for tidal wave). Naturally, this makes a natural premise for a disaster picture, what with Hollywood having a field day with films like Armageddon, Deep Impact, and more recently, The Day After Tomorrow, which tackles how global warming becomes the catalyst for natural disasters gone bonkers around the world.<br /><br />But I'll have to say this: The Sinking of Japan makes all the films mentioned earlier, look like classics. This disaster movie IS a disaster, and a massive one at that. Having to look at my watch every 10-15 minutes is a signal that the movie doesn't engage, and feels than it had over-clocked its runtime.<br /><br />The special effects are gorgeous to look at. From satellite styled outer space pictures, to the vivid recreation of every conceivable natural disaster that can strike the land of the rising sun, the effects are the star of the show. However, having spectacular computer generated graphics does not in itself make a movie palatable, as too much of a good thing just plain bores.<br /><br />If you had seen the trailer where you're enticed by the effects and specific scenes of chaos and mayhem, then yes, in fact those scenes are just that. There are no details, and everything is seen from afar, in a God-like mode. Things happen just like that on screen, with nary an attempt to try and delve deeper to look at issues up close. It's akin to Godzilla knocking over buildings, and it's as if there are no humans or loss of lives through that single act. Morbid as it might sound, show us the victims! A populous nation like Japan doesn't just suffer disaster after disaster with an extremely low fatality count, not when the filmmakers unleash mayhem in such an epic scale.<br /><br />Trying to weave a romance into the movie, it stood out like a sore thumb. There are many characters in the movie, but each one of them lacking real characteristics, or humanity, and look like wandering zombies, without expression, without emotion, and definitely very stiff and unconvincing. Heroes become stuck in generic control rooms issuing statements, instructions and form policies, and react to incidents like it was a computer game, all settled with a push of a button. These are characters that you don't give a hoot about.<br /><br />If I may just use The Day After Tomorrow as a comparison, while there are terrific effects, there is at least an attempt to provide a microscopic view of the entire disaster from different individual's point of views. And infused within are plenty of action sequences, big ones like the disasters themselves, and small ones with the focus on the triumph of the human spirit, that makes it relatively compelling.<br /><br />Unfortunately for The Sinking of Japan, this movie should preferably be one to sink and tank, and hopefully undergo a short and quick death at the local box office to make way for better stuff.
Due to rather dubious plate tectonics, Japan starts to slip under the sea. Initial predictions say it'll take about 40 years before the country is submerged, but a rogue scientist adds in some even more dubious science and determines it will actually take less than 1 year! The government think he's a crackpot, but evidence soon starts bearing his theory out.<br /><br />This big budget disaster movie follows the formula set by any number of Hollywood films of the late 90's (I assume, having seen none of them), with the scale of disaster and tragedy bringing out the nobility of the human (well, Japanese) spirit in acts of heroism and sacrifice, and proving the power of love or something like that. i.e. it's as naive in its psychology as it's geology... we all know that half the populace would be out raping and looting the minute they thought the police had their back turned, and the other half would just panic and be useless.<br /><br />The film does have some very nice special effects, but is not as slick or expensive looking as an equivalent Hollywood production would be. It is at least as nationalistic, humourless and lacking in self-awareness as that Hollywood film would be though, and probably has even worse acting. It does have the hot evil chick from Battle Royale as one of the leads... but she's not even slightly evil, and is therefore much less hot.<br /><br />The film is much too long at 132 minutes, and gets worse and worse as it progresses towards a conclusion that had me in danger of puking. I certainly didn't care in the slightest whether Japan sank or not by the half way point, and well before the end I was trying to think of ways to expedite the process should I ever find myself in that situation for real.<br /><br />But, it does have nice special effects, and Kou Shibasaki is still pretty hot, so I magnanimously give it... 3/10.
I have just finished watching this movie, and for me.... it takes ages to finish because it is so boring.....and the storyline is extremely bad.<br /><br />now... where should i start....O.... the movie is called "sinking of japan" ....yeah yeah... it does show that japan is actually sinking but the action part is very bad. Compare to the movie "the day after tomorrow" i would have rate it at least 8/10.<br /><br />The "sinking of Japan" does not show much about the disaster that actually happening right in front of our eyes. there isn't much excitement at all...boring... all i can say...<br /><br />one more point... i would recommend this movie to have a better title... maybe something like "the romance of sinking of japan" because this movie does have lots of talkings (waste of time... talk nonsense) & the love story is extremely boring & have been dragging too long...honestly.. i almost get frustrated.<br /><br />Overall... this movie does not show enough details of the disasters e.g. many people running like hell to avoid death..love story part was extremely not touching enough for me.<br /><br />but hey... there is one thing we should appreciate about this movie though.... & its has got good songs!
First off, this is the worst movie I've ever seen. That may make you want to see it, but it is not bad in a good way. It's boring, implausible, poorly shot, ridiculously scripted, and lacking in cool disaster effects.<br /><br />Worse, it is intensely patriotic without a trace of irony or fun, wallowing in a sense of Japanese uniqueness and victimhood. Everyone abandons the Japanese in their hour of need. Particularly the Koreans. The most noble characters choose seppaku -- going down with their ship as their beloved island sinks. "Only Japanese would think this way," says the prime minister.<br /><br />If this movie in any way reflects the Japanese opinion of their place in world opinion, the first thing they should do to rectify the problem is stop making movies like this.
This movie was different from most of Jimmy Cangey's films of the 1930s in that it was NOT done by Warner Brothers/First National, but was a loan-out to a smaller studio. Because it was a "poverty row" studio, the production values are lower than you might be used to seeing with Cagney films. Plus, the plot is certainly one of the strangest I have seen. Instead of him being a gangster, he was a good guy in this one--fighting for the law. This isn't all that unusual because Cagney frequently played lawmen--such as an OSS leader (the forefather of the CIA) of FBI agent. BUT, to make him an investigator for the Bureau of Weights and Measures was indeed odd--especially since, at times, he acted pretty much the same way he did in the movie G-MEN! <br /><br />All in all, a time passer and that's about it.<br /><br />Finally, the videotape I saw this on from Memory Lane Video was perhaps one of the poorest I have ever encountered. The sound was terrible and scratchy and the print looked very white and had lots of torn film and gaps.
On a flight back from London, I watched She's the Man; apparently Air Canada has a crap movie policy. Perhaps that's not the best way to start a review of this movie. Amanda Bynes plays a girl who loves soccer so much that she pretends to be her twin brother to get on a team at a boarding school across town. Even if you check your mind at the door (on a 6 hour flight you have to), the story is implausible and ridiculous. There are some moments of humor, mostly from comedian David Cross as the principle, but the intricate love polygon doesn't really inspire emotion, although is is cleverly mixed (with the caveat of mindless plausibility). The ending is just as ridiculously mindless as the rest. I guess if I was a 12-year-old girl, I might have really enjoyed this one.
Anyone who will pay to see Troma movies knows, and appreciates, what they are going to get. Having said that, I didn't think it was possible to make a movie this bad, and still be compelling. I found myself watching just to see how much worse it could get before the end. First off, it's an Indonesian action movie with an American main character who looks and acts like the bastard son of "Taxi"'s Christopher Lloyd and Rambo. He puts posters of himself dressed up like Sly's "Cobra" all over the place and even has a custom built firing range (with action-posed cutouts of his greatest enemies)in Jakarta although he's in the CIA and has just arrived days earlier. There is a lot of action involving gun-play(no muzzle-flashes on those M-16s, only sound effects), motorcycles(that bust through walls), karate(where no one makes physical contact) and even some sex(where all the actors are ugly). The main plot of an epic like this should at least be reasonably plausible, but not here. It involves the world's most dangerous drug cartel going all out to find a "drug detector device". Why would they need it? That is never revealed, why not kill drug-sniffing dogs? Makes no sense, but, it is taken seriously. The actors are to be commended because they really seemed to think this movie would make them all famous and tried hard to "act". Best line? "Now dance to your grave you dirty whore!" Best scene? Rambo jumps onto flying helicopter, pulls machine gun out of baddie's hand, let's go, falls, shoots helicopter as he's falling, helicopter blows up, cut to mannequin thrown in water. F**king genius! If you can't appreciate trash, don't watch it. If you can, it's awesome. One last thing, did I mention it was directed by the three Punjabi brothers?
Abysmal Indonesian action film from legendary Arizal triumphantly sculpts a template for future Cinemax pap like 'China O'Brien' and 'Do or Die' with Erik Estrada while simultaneously burying poor rising action star Pat O'Brien with a hackneyed backyard script and three cans of hair-styling gel to perm his impressive 1984 mullet. This guy's physical prowess resembles a more femme Mark Gregory and his next credit would be second fiddle to Chris Mitchum as "Tom Selick." Powerful. At least the action is mindless and non-stop with some daring Asian stuntmen risking their lives for what is essentially a poorly constructed movie by teens and/or meth addicts with no concept of reality. One poor extra gets gorno-ly shredded by an electric hedge clipper and many more are killed by getting hit in the head by odd objects such as a motorcycle wheel or cardboard box. Classic rape scenes are tasteless and priceless and quotable dialog such as, "I would rather trust a rattlesnake!" are delivered with such exuberance and fervor from the third-rate polizioteschi voice actors. Random highlight: some crazy dude eating live lizards. Movie also holds the record for most cars driven through walls. 2/10
Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon starts in Switzerland as the world's foremost detective Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone) outwits the Nazi's & manages to smuggle a brilliant scientist named Dr. Franz Tobel (William Post Jr.) out of the country & to the relative safety of London. But is London as safe as Holmes thinks? Dr. Tobel has engineered a revolutionary new bomb sight that will change aerial bombardment forever & he has agreed to give it to the British government, but those Nazi's want it just as badly & Holmes arch enemy Professor Moriarty (Lionel Atwill) plans on stealing the secret of the bomb sight & selling it to the Nazi's. Add the bumbling Inspector Lestrade (Denis Hoey) of Scotland Yard, Dr. Tobel's love interest Charlotte Eberli (Kaaren Verne), assassins, mysterious scientists & a puzzling coded message & Holmes has his work cut out to keep Dr. Tobel alive so he can deliver his bomb sight...<br /><br />Directed by Roy William Neill Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon was the fourth in a series of fourteen Holmes films made between 1939 & 1946 to feature Rathbone & Bruce as Holmes & Watson. The script by Edward T. Lowe Jr., Scott Darling & Edmund L. Hartmann is based on the short 'The Dancing Men' by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle & isn't the tradition Holmes murder mystery as it's more of a wartime adventure story. To neglect what Holmes is all about, the solving of complex crimes & mysteries is a big mistake as far as I'm concerned & the involvement of the Nazi's & the war as a backdrop to the story feels out of place, awkward & just didn't sit too well with me. The dialogue isn't great, Professor Moriarty feels almost like an afterthought as if they couldn't come up with a villain for it & as a whole it's far less engaging than other's in the series. However, at least it's short.<br /><br />Director Neill does his usual efficient job but you have to cut it a little slack & bear in mind that it was made over 60 years ago. It has no real style or imagination & lacks both atmosphere & intrigue as well.<br /><br />Technically the film is OK if unspectacular, the black and white cinematography is fine although I understand that a computer colourised version is also available. The acting is alright, Bruce & Hoey do their usual comic relief turns & Rathbone's hairstyle in this looks ridiculous & I'm glad he changed it for later instalments.<br /><br />Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon was a disappointment when compared to some of the other excellent entries in the series, there is very little by which I can recommend it & everything that made the other's so good seems to be missing here. Leave this one till last & watch some of the better ones first, for die hard fans only.
I think the problem with some reactions to this film is that - with few exceptions - they don't focus on the main disconnect, hence the main split in the audience.<br /><br />On the one side, there are those who are taken by the visual design, pretty costumes, and variety of elements going into the film. Some children's movie fans love the colour and animation, and all the un-scary 'magical' effects, shapeshifting animals, and so on. Some culture vultures like the complicated references, the layerings of different folklore elements, and the fact that they can watch Zhang Ziyi singing and quasi-miming, in two different languages, in what really was intended to be a children's comedy.<br /><br />On the other side, there are those who say that a children's movie should still have a point, that a blend of folktales is not a tale at all, and that it's easier to believe in magic when enough thought and care has gone into the technical aspects to make it seem real.<br /><br />In other words, the ideas could be lovely; but when you put them onstage they have to deliver. Here, they don't.<br /><br />A good folktale - from any country - has a clear story, a point, and characters who interact strongly with each other. This lacks them all. A few over-sophisticated gestures to opera, Western and Japanese, are no replacement for a solid theme.<br /><br />As a fantasy fan, I must say that I've sat through some turkeys and loved a few, but this one really tries to do too many things - cheaply. Putting in Zhang Ziyi to try to add a little glitter smacks of exotic flower syndrome. The other problem isn't that there's no plot; there's half a plot, which means that you keep getting pulled in, then dropped again as another none-too-sharply-executed dance number kicks off.<br /><br />The characters all seem to know that they're starring in a movie. Unless you really like watching other peoples' amateur video, this ain't good. I'd like to test this on real children; I think they'd drop it for Uproar in Heaven after about 20 minutes.
This movie starts off promisingly enough, but it gets a little to convoluted and caught up in its stylistic charm. The set designs, costumes, and music were wonderful- as close to perfect as one can get. But the more I got into the movie, the more I felt like all this effort was for the director's entertainment, not the audience. Although, I loved looking at it, except for a few brief musical scenes, I can't say I enjoyed it. The director shows enormous imagination, but if he had fun with this film, he failed to share that with the audience, or at least with me. I didn't get a sense of whimsy and I didn't get sucked into this universe.<br /><br />A big cause of this was (surprisingly) Zhang Ziyi. You can tell she's trying very hard, but she seems to have been so miscast that she comes off almost amateurish. She's a capable actress but she has her limitations. I've noticed in her acting, that she has yet to truly react to her fellow co-stars, a flaw that creates a void of chemistry. The language barrier in this film seems to have only exacerbate matters. She and Odagiri act as if they're on separate planets. She's also not a very good singer which made me cringe every time she sang, but thankfully there weren't too many scenes of that. Odagiri was OK but doesn't make much of an impression.<br /><br />I didn't even care for the characters separately. There really is a sore lack of characterization. The only reason to care about them seems to be that they're good-looking royalty. Without the compelling love story at the center of the film though, it's hard to care what happens. The film also takes detours into minor scenes that added nothing to the story and was actually distracting. I had to rewind because after going into a subplot I couldn't remember what the heck they we're doing in the main storyline. There were also scenes where it was hard to tell what the action occurring was because it was so stylized.<br /><br />Mostly I'm just disappointed because I really like the concept behind this and there are a lot of things I do like. The music and dance choreography are really great.The supporting performances are uniformly excellent, fantastic in both the acting aspect and the singing. It's just too bad the lead actors were so bland.
Weird with unnecessary singing and backdrops. Randomly much of the action will occur on stage giving the feeling of an opera performance. None of that explains why this is such a bad film.<br /><br />It's the impression that either not enough rehearsal took place or that no experienced choreographer was available. The acting is flat. Even the sparkling Ziyi Zhang looks like she's just waiting for her next movement or line. You may notice the trivia on this site stating that she spent half a month in Japan learning to sign and dance. Read that again as 2 weeks and things begin to make sense. Even worse are the little kids who seem to be looking at their parents at the back of the studio rather than at the camera.<br /><br />The cheap and cheerful sfx are just cheap and cheap. The editing is staccato chops peppered with slices of just nothing that adds to anything except annoyance. Just imagine all the silly dance scenes from the recent Zatoichi - particularly the closing routine - performed by your local high school drama club with one famous actress who speaks in another language (but you get her in simply because she's so good normally despite being unsuitable), recorded on a cheap camera and then edited into three times its length in no artful order.
I just saw Princess Raccoon at the Asian Film Festival in New York. The gentleman who introduced the film congratulated the audience on their fine taste. "You could be at Herbie: Fully Loaded," he said with a smug smile, "but instead you're here to watch Seijun Suzuki's Princess Raccoon." The audience applauded and cheered. Well let me tell you, I would have rather watched Herbie: Fully Loaded twice in a row. Princess Raccoon, an allegedly whimsical musical based on Japanese folklore, easily qualifies for one of the ten worst films that I have ever seen. It is so wretched that its wretchedness actually makes me dislike other Seijun Suzuki films, which is quite a feat.<br /><br />There is such a vast expanse of things wrong with Princess Raccoon that I hardly know where to start. Perhaps its worst faults are being both aggressively unintelligible and mind bogglingly monotonous. If the reels got mixed up or if half of them got lost in shipping the audience would not know the difference. If you don't believe me I dare you to steal a print and have someone run the reels in random order. If you can tell me which one goes where I will give you every penny I have.<br /><br />The first third of the film features a mishmash of scenes, songs (including a cringe inducing rap number), and images that don't seem to be related in any way at all. Horribly integrated computer animation is thrown into the bargain, adding yet another brick to the immense, and rapidly growing, wall of incomprehensibility. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the writer wrote down any Japanese folklore that came to mind of on a bunch of note cards, stacked them up, shuffled them, dealt the cards out on a table, and then wrote the script according to their order.<br /><br />About thirty-five minutes into the film some semblance of a plot arrives on the scene. Something about a shape-shifting raccoon princess (in human form) and a regular human falling in love. I hoped that this was be a portent of the film being something other than a series of perplexing scenes, but no such luck. The film continues in the same absolutely baffling manner. I wish I had gotten out then, but I was trapped in the middle of a narrow row. In retrospect it would have been worth the awkward scene.<br /><br />I'm exhausted just thinking about the last couple of reels. I spent every moment hoping and praying that it would be over. Every big dolly move, swell in music, or scene that looked remotely like it was concluding things renewed my hopes that the credits were about to roll. For agonizing minute after agonizing minute it went on. And on and on and on. Finally, after dozens of false alarms, it cut to what I was sure must be an abstract pattern over which credits were about to appear. Then, in defiance of all reason, it cut to another scene. How could I forget? The completely unrelated subplot concerning a ninja being captured, urinated on, and boiled in a soup hadn't been wrapped up yet.<br /><br />I'm never going to get those 111 minutes back, but you can spare yourself the pain. Unless you want to taint your memory or future enjoyment of great Seijun Suzuki films like Youth of the Beast and Tokyo Drifter do not see Princess Raccoon. I would have rather spent my time vomiting.
I was so disappointed in this movie. I am very familiar with the case, having read not only Mark Fuhrman's book but also the far superior "A Wealth of Evil: The True Story of the Murder of Martha Moxley in America's Richest Community" by Timothy Dumas. Anyone who watches MURDER IN GREENWICH should be aware they're watching The Mark Fuhrman story, not the Martha Moxley story. This film is nothing more than an ego-trip for Fuhrman. Just watch his character strut around as if he is the second coming (yes, even being ogled by women). The actors playing the kids look way too old for their roles and the flashbacks to the 1970s are totally unconvincing. If there is any hero to this story, it's Martha's family, her mother Dorothy and brother John. They kept this case alive for two decades before Fuhrman walked into it in order to make a name for himself. They, and Martha, deserve to have the true story told.
this movie is trash because, out of many reasons, it is based on Mark Furman's book, which is also trash. let me must say that Mark Furhman is a racist pig that is just looking for another way to get himself into the spotlight - and others that right this type of trash belong in jail. for the movie itself, being based on the book, was horrible as well. the only reason that this murder case became such a big book and movie was because the guy is related, thru his aunts marriage, to the Kennedy family and it is ridiculous that people still believe that this family somehow has the ability to make and cover up murders - they are just a family and middle America needs to get over the obsession. this poor guy, and his family, have been hounded by the police for years, they couldn't get tommy so they went after Micheal. its amazing that he went to jail with all the evidence that supports that he Didn't do it, besides the facts that the statute of limitations, among other things, should have kept this trial from being brought back after TWENTY years for the love of god, don't watch this garbage
I can't believe it! Were they crazy in filming a movie about Connecticut in southern California? For god's sake, there's Palm Tree's everywhere. In one of the opening scenes a guy says "Welcome to Connecticut" and throws down a newspaper, the newspaper says something like "Greenwich Herald". Greenwich Connecticut doesn't have a "Herald" it has a "Times" as in "Stamford Advocate AND THE GREENWICH TIMES." (Refering to the Stamford, Connecticut Newspaper). Maybe the film makers should have done a little research, I mean my god, at least get the name of the newspaper right, or film in locations that look at least remotely like Connecticut.
Man, are you serious? Did you read the book or watch this movie? Well, if you did, let me warn you, it is bogus. Mark Furhman has been seeking a job since losing his job with the LAPD. You remember him, don't you? He was the guy that lied on the stand and gave the OJ Simpson defense a foothold they were looking for. Well, he has written three books since then. I have read all three of them. No, I am not a fan, they were given to me. HOWEVER, I will tell you one similarity in all three, they grossly distort the importance of Mark Furhman. He shamelessly exaggerates his stature in all three. In "Murder in Spokane", he pretends that he had something to do with catching the killer, when he had nothing to do with it. In all books he takes great delight in running down local law enforcement efforts. Kind of like his efforts were run down in the OJ trial. In this movie, there are plenty of slow motion shots of ladies looking at Furhman and lusting after him. Many other shots have him at the center of attention, when in reality, I am sure the only thing people were thinking at the time was "hey, isn't that the racist that caused OJ to get off?" This was an interesting real life story, but not a good movie over it.
While everyone does a decent job in this film, I agree with the other comment: it's too loose and scattered, too much like a script-less experiment with really talented actors. As such, it isn't enough to hold your attention. Having said that, there are a few really funny moments, one involving Dylan McDermott and a flaming shot glass that I think anyone who's been that drunk would find as funny as I did; the other is a split-second with an inflatable dinosaur. Crispin Glover does his usual nutty twitch-fest guy and does it fine, Harry Dean Stanton does his usual nutty patriarch (Repo Man, anyone?) etc. Good cast, not enough to keep it going. Just a few gems, seconds long.
A root canal without anesthesia is more amusing. This movie is disturbing and pointless. There is absolutely nothing believable about any of these characters or the plot line. What in God's name were these people thinking when they agreed to star in this movie? The acting in this movie is so incredibly bad - even from actors who are usually pretty damn good. "The In-Laws" is a funny movie. "The Birdcage" is a hilarious movie. "The Big Lebowski" is a humorous movie. This movie is just dumb. I cannot even begin to fathom the kind of sick mind it takes to write the "novel" that this movie is based on. I honestly cannot think of even one nice thing to say about this movie. It just doesn't make any sense. People please - I beg of you - do not see this movie. You will regret it for the rest of your life. This movie is not the worst ever made, but it is definitely right up there on the top of the list.
I used to work at the company that originally put out this film, Vestron Pictures. Vestron had the same problem that a lot of small independent film companies had, they didn't have a lot of money to put into the production values of their films. Not that money alone will buy you a good film. Look at Kevin Costner's Waterworld, for instance.<br /><br />Sometimes, if you have a talented person in-house doing the acquisitions or development, you can create your own new talent. But at Vestron, there wasn't such a person and they always skimped in some crucial area. In this case, it was on the director and the writer. Which makes it pretty hard to have a decent movie, even with the great ensemble cast this film has.<br /><br />I think the basic premise of this movie was "Let's put a bunch of quirky characters in a room and see if anything interesting happens." It's an intriguing idea, but not worth your time watching.<br /><br />Most Vestron films ended up having a very distinctive look and feel to them. My wife and I developed the ability to spot this quality even in non-Vestron films. Many times, we were even able to spot that quality from watching only the trailer or TV ad. We'd sit there, watching the trailer or ad, and afterwards, we'd turn to each, and almost in sync, we'd say, "Now that's a Vestron movie!" This is a Vestron movie.
I had read online reviews praising this obscure outing as a combination of gory horror, quirky black comedy and borderline art-house; the film has elements of all three, to be sure, but they are at the service of such a supremely silly premise (the title immediately gives the game away) – and amateurish production to boot – that its long-term neglect due to a lack of proper distribution – basically until Cult Epics picked it up for DVD release a full 30 years after its inception! – was no great loss to cinema or even the genre(s). The bed was apparently created for the purpose of accommodating a demon's dalliance with a woman; anyway, a dying man who had made use of the four-poster and even painted it ends up trapped in the wall behind the canvas(!) and provides intermittent commentary to the 'action'. Several people (from teenagers-on-a-fling to gangsters-in-hiding) supply fodder to the perennially-hungry bed; latest on the menu are a trio of girls – one of whom, however, recalls its mistress of long ago and, consequently, the bed seemingly fears her! Seeing various objects – from cigars to pieces of fried chicken – and people getting swallowed up (the belly of the bed is depicted as a vat of honey-colored liquid) makes the film mildly amusing at times (especially when a young man's hands are reduced to their skeletal formation, which he seems to take rather too easily in his stride!), but also awfully repetitious…so that, at even a brief 77 minutes, the whole pointless exercise feels strained and downright desperate.
When I attended college in the early 70s, it was a simpler time. Except for a brief occurrence in 1994, I've been totally free of the influence of illegal substances ever since and I've never regretted it...until now. DB:TBTE has got to be, hands-down, the best movie to watch when stoned. The odd, dreamlike state it creates is very strange when you're not smoking anything, but I'm sure that it would seem completely normal after a big doobie. (Not that I'm recommending this, you understand.) The soothing narration, provided, as it usually is in quality cinema, by a TB victim trapped in a painting, would be ideal to help the stoned viewer to follow along as things get complicated. Plus, everything in the film is pretty organic...from old-fashioned natural breasts to the bucket of fried chicken.<br /><br />Now, there's also no question that the young man with the (ahem) "hand problem" is absolutely sailing away in the film. At one point, you just KNOW that he's going to say, "Hey! When I move my hand, it leaves trails!!" Trust me...you'll know when you get to that point.<br /><br />The only other thing we have to address is this: How good can a film be when at least half the budget was spent on moving a huge bed frame around for interior and exterior shots? <br /><br />Definitely a must-see for horror aficionados, but suitable for the general audiences under the right conditions (if you know what I mean, and I think that you do). It only earns four stars because I can't actually say that it took any talent to make.
This movie was really stupid and I thought that it wasn't so bad and I could tolerate a movie about a bed eating people. Then the part near the end where the guy has skeleton hands ended up being the cherry on top of a bad movie. I could see the screws in the plastic skeleton hands for goodness sakes. The brother was still alive and moving when his hands were bare bones. The funny thing was that he could still move his hands that was just not right. Without muscles, you really can't move your hands but he did. The brother should have bled to death even before he was moving his hands. The movie wasn't great but it was okay until the hand scene. I was laughing so hard that I don't really remember how it ended. It had something to do with foam or something.
It's difficult to criticize a movie with the title like 'Deathbed: The Bed that Eats' and involves a ghost narrator who's trapped behind a 2-way painting he drew and a bed that snores and – if I'm not mistaken, masturbates. (Now, that's getting back at its human companions!) Furthermore, it foams up (in orange, for whatever reason) to absorb edibles lying on its surface, including apples, wine, fried chicken and, of course, people. Again it's suffice to say, that don't expect too much when you see what I guess is stomach acid – the final remains of anything that orange suds takes – dissolving only certain things. It'll drink the wine, but the bottle's okay and it'll eat away at the chicken bone, but the bucket's just fine. Heck, the bed even replaces the unused containers. Hilariously, at one point it downs Pepto-Bismol. I had to laugh at that one. I don't think they really wanted you to take any of this seriously. It's low budget, and it's extremely easy to see where they cut costs and saved oodles amounts of money. I thought, in a world where there can be a killer 'Lift' and a 'Blood Beach,' this 'Deathbed' might be amusing to watch. For reasons that might involve cost, 90% of the film is voice-over, no one screams or shows extremely low signs of fright/confusion on why a bed would attack (I can think of one – and I never was one of those kids that jumped on the bed) and you'll have to suspend your disbelief beyond belief. (A victim loses all flesh on his hands, barely saying "ow.") Only one scene, that went on too long, was minutely tense – a woman attempts to crawl away only to be dragged back, using a sheet. Where are the MST3k guys?
I first heard of this film when Patton Oswalt talked about it on his "Werewolves and Lollipops" CD. He said it was a lost classic that is completely ridiculous. Being a lover of terrible cinema, I knew I was in for a treat.<br /><br />This film is, hands down, one of the weirdest I've ever seen. Certainly one of the weirdest shlock films. Basically, a demon took human form years ago for a woman, the woman died or something, the demon cried blood, the blood fell on the bed, the bed is now possessed and it now eats. Along with fruit, flowers and chicken, it also has a taste for people. The people can range between horny teens, mayors, gangsters, servants or professional orgy throwers. There's also a sick guy who the bed ate but put his soul behind a picture in the room.<br /><br />Most movies let you figure out the plot through exciting action. Death Bed takes another path: it basically tells you through narration exactly what's happening while slow, dull murder scenes take place. Also, I must say everyone who's eaten by the bed are surprisingly quiet. I would think if a bed is eating you through the ways of a 5th grade science fair experiment, it would sting a little. I guess nerve endings weren't invented until 1981 or so.<br /><br />The story is wacky, the direction is slow and pretty awful, the sets are sparse, the acting it fairly painful and the brother is one of the unintentionally ugliest actors I've ever seen. Probably would make a great party film if alcohol and smart-asses are involved. Certainly one you shouldn't miss.
OK, this is one strange film! Fans of Ed Wood Jr. will appreciate the "inventive" techniques director George Barry utilizes, like stock footage and cheesy voice overs. He can make a crack in the wall into a plot device! There is more humor than horror here, but I found it an uneven blend. You will be laughing and crying, and probably wondering why you got your hands on this. Barry explains in the introduction that filming began on this movie in 1972, and was completed in 1977, at a cost of $10,000. That's 59 months and $9,900 too much! If you like your cheese on the campy side, with vintage '70s "gore", you might find this an irresistible and freaky snack.
I, like most other people, saw this movie after hearing of it from Patton Oswalt. Oddly enough, it was easier to find than I thought it would be. Though, it shouldn't come as a surprise that I found it used.<br /><br />The plot is summed upped masterfully within the title. It's a bed that eats. Nothing more, nothing less. There is an effort to throw in a story line but not a very good one.<br /><br />A demon's blood ended up on a bed and, as a result, it becomes possessed. It devours anything that happens upon it by absorbing and then dissolving it in what appears to be orange Fanta. There is an artist who fell victim to the bed, but was sick and ends up behind a painting in the room it inhabits. The narrative is told entirely through him.<br /><br />This movie fails horribly at everything, even at being bad. Still, it's not without its own brand of charm.
Luchino Visconti, the artist with the sword. Courage should be the first word associated with his entire opus. Film. Theater. Music. Revolutions, artistic, cultural, personal. A legacy with powerful consequences and endless ramifications. He introduced the neorealism through the work of an American novelist James Cain in "Ossesione" He gave Anna Magnani the most extraordinarily beautiful close ups of her career. He gave us Alain Delon and Maria Callas. But the last word about his life and work rests on the talents of a certain Adam Low and the voice of Helmut Berger. What a terrible fate.<br /><br />For those interested, there is a 61 minute documentary by director Carlo Lizzani (a man who really knew Visconti) titled LUCHINO VISCONTI A PORTRAIT. It is out on DVD distributed by Image Entertainment
Luchino Visconti was and is one of the most influential cultural figures of his generation, but Adam Low (the director of this thing) allows the stronger voice to be Helmut Berger's! How can it be? What a missed opportunity! We come out of this ordeal knowing less of what made the Master great and more about the things one shouldn't care at all. The beautiful images belong to Visconti's world, the embarrassing interviews to the likes of Berger and Zeffirelli to Adam Low's tiny little world. A must to avoid!
How dare you? Adam Low, without apparent shame, puts his name to this fake tribute. It's not even a serious study or analysis or commentary of the great Visconti's work. Yes it's long and portentous, yes we do have some wonderful clips from the films that, most people interested on the subject, have already seen. But what resounds the longest leaving the most lasting impression is the gossip. The last and loudest voice comes from a third rate German actor, ranting and raving. The appropriately named Mr.Low directed this, hoping, I imagine, to get better ratings than his previous, more to the point, but deadly boring documentary on Kurosawa. Well I have news for you Mr Low and your cohorts. You missed a great opportunity and I for one, won't give you another.
Having seen Carlo Lizzani's documentary on Luchino Visconti, I was bound to higher expectations before watching this film made three years later by Adam Low. But the viewer like me did get dissatisfied... I faced a need for critical opinion, which I generally don't like giving due to the fact there are no documentaries that will satisfy every viewer. There are also no documentaries that will examine a theme totally. But when I read the reviews already written on this title, I also felt a bit confused. People sometimes don't know what to criticize. Therefore, to be clear, I'll divide this film into two major parts that differ considerably: the former one about Visconti before his director's career and latter one about Visconti the director. <br /><br />The aristocratic background, all the hobbies, the wealth that young Luchino experienced and enjoyed are clearly presented. His effort in horse racing is mentioned as well as his relation with his mother so much disturbed after his parents' divorce. We also get a very accurate idea of where Luchino was brought up as a real count of Milano: in riches galore, with nannies, cooks with access to everything, in TRUE ARISTOCRACY. For instance, his father's splendid villa at Grazzano and other marvelous villas prove that. There is also an emphasis on Visconti's crucial visit in Paris in the 1930s where he met eminent people ("left wingers") who later had impact on his style and message in art. That clearly explains the idea of a communist with the aristocratic upbringing (a contrast at first sight). <br /><br />However, the part about his director's career, which started with OSSESSIONE during WWII and ended with INNOCENTE just before the director's death in 1976, is poorly executed. His movies are not discussed well. Why? Because there are very few people who really have something to say. Franco Zeffirelli, the director, remembers the works on LA TERRA TREMA and that is all right. There are also some interviews with Franco Rosi. But later, such movies like IL GATTOPARDO, LA CADUTA DEI REI, LA MORTE A VENEZIA or LUDWIG are mostly discussed by Helmut Berger. Although I liked the actor in the role of Ludwig, I did not like the interviews of his. Moreover, some thoughts he reveals are not accurate to entail in such a documentary... There is no mention of significant works of Visconti like CONVERSATION PIECE, there are no interviews with eminent cast Burt Lancaster. A mention about Silvana Mangano and Romy Schneider should also be made. There is one footage interview with Maria Callas that appears to be interesting but that is only a short bit. Franco Zeffirelli, though I appreciate him as a director, makes fun of it all rather than says something really precious. For instance, he mentions the event how Visconti separated from him after years of service. Therefore, I say: simplified and unsatisfactory. <br /><br />What I find a strong point here are footage interviews with Visconti himself. As a result, we may get his own opinion about his works. For instance, I very much appreciate the words he says about death regarding it as a normal chapter of life and as natural as birth itself. He also discusses his health problems after the stroke while filming LUDWIG.<br /><br />I believe it is better to see LUCHINO VISCONTI (1999) by Carlo Lizzani than this doc. Although it is shorter and condensed as a whole, you will get a better idea of the director. Visconti would be furious about that and the fury of his usually turned people's emotions and viewpoints into stone... 4/10
Based on a Ray Bradbury story; a professional photographer(Brian Kerwin)returns to his modest home near a tiny desert town, where most of the citizens wishes he stayed away. A lonely boy(Jonathan Carrasco) latches onto him for the attention; and the two witness the landing of an alien craft in the rocky region of the desert. The aliens turn themselves into the images of townspeople. Kerwin must convince evacuation of the town and falls in love with the young boy's mother(Elizabeth Pena). Acting is pretty shallow; the story line is no worse than some others; this movie leaves you feeling that you got shorted on a decent ending. Supporting cast includes: Howard Morris, Dean Norris and Mickey Jones.
This is a pretty pointless remake. Starting with the opening title shots of the original was a real mistake as it reminds the viewer of what a great little period piece chiller that was. The new version that follows is an exercise in redundancy.<br /><br />Brian Kerwin plays a 'city boy' photographer who returns to a semi-abandoned desert town populated by a scattering of underdeveloped clichéd stock characters: the lollipop sucking Daby-Doll Lolita, the 'ornery old coot prospector, the crippled vet and his Asian wife, etc...<br /><br />Kerwin's character witnesses the crashing of 'something' into a hillside and shortly after strange things start to happen as pieces of weird blue rock are scattered around. The temperature starts to rise, all the water in the area vanishes, people start to act weirdly, things explode. Kerwin's character gets in and out of his car more often than is humanly possible in one movie. The film develops no sense of place, no character development, no humour, no tension. Everything that made the Jack Arnold's original a creepy little Cold-war paranoia classic has been abandoned. It just runs through its minimal hoops and then just ends.<br /><br />The special effects aren't very special - the interior of the ship looks like bits of cling film wrapped round some ropes which were then dangled in front of the camera to frame some of the most uninspired and clumsy wire-work ever put onto the screen. The script is repetitive - everyone says everything at least twice, Kerwin gets to say "let's get out of here" at least three times during the movie, twice in one scene. Loads of things are left unexplained at the end - why do the aliens need all the heat and water for example? - not that anyone watching would care; if the film makers didn't care why should we?<br /><br />The acting is adequate - better than the script, which at times, has an under-rehearsed improvisational quality, deserves. Though often the actors look like they just want to get the thing over with as quickly as possible - a notable example of this is when Elizabeth Peña registers the briefest, token moment of "frustrated despair hands to face gesture" before following sulking son Stevie outside to watch him do "angry sulky teenager smashing something off a table" gesture. <br /><br />Continuity errors include the (GB) sticker on the back of Kerwin's jeep appearing and disappearing, a double action of the gas in the exploding car, a towns-person being in two places simultaneously - once in the Alien Stevie's POV shot then immediately afterwards in a reaction shot, Elizabeth Peña appearing to shut a car door twice... you can tell I was gripped can't you? The movie commits that greatest of errors. It's boring.
Alien body-snatchers in the desert. Little blue rocks that look like they are made from cheap plastic. The overall storyline isn't bad if you like that kind of thing but the acting is so far beyond poor that it amazes me that some of them actually entertained my in The X Files! And the special effects? Hello?! Where did they get their FX crew from, Secondary School? I mean, come on; there was so much more they could have done! It was amateur and extremely basic. I didn't particularly enjoy it (and my Dad fell asleep during it!) And of course our hero falls in love with the leading lady! Its so typical and highly predictable. Bleugh!!!!!
They've shown i twice in a very short time now here in Sweden and I am so very tired of it. The bad acting isn't enough... The story itself is so boring and the effects hardly exists. I love the original from 1953 so I recommend you to go and rent that one instead. Because this one is such a bore.
I cannot believe I sat through this utter waste of time. I was just too fascinated by how unspeakably bad it was that I couldn't move. It reminded me of the feeling when you can't take your eyes away from a horrible car crash or the rotting carcass of a cow. You can't help but look, but you feel sick and nauseated afterward.<br /><br />Let me elaborate: "Plan 9 from outer space", for instance, is not a bad movie. Not even "Star Wars: Holiday Special" is a bad movie. They both are awful to watch, for sure, but they both have SOME qualities and at least they leave you the strength to reach for the "off"-button.<br /><br />This "remake" (in name only) of the sci-fi classic left me weeping on my couch, desperately trying to come to terms with why such scripts get filmed, why anyone would soil the memory of the original classic, and whether or not I could resume my normal life without my suddenly acquired longing for the quiet and peace of death.<br /><br />Although death, I realized, would offer no rest from the horrid memories of this pile of crap, as the poor souls in hell are probably forced to watch it over and over again for eternity...
this film is so unbelievably awful! everything about it was rubbish. you cant say anything good about this film, the acting, script, directing, effects are all just as bad as each other. even ed wood could have done a better job than this. i seriously recommended staying away from this movie unless you want to waste about 100mins of your life or however long the film was. i forget. this is the first time i wrote a comment about a film on IMDb, but this film was just on TV and i had to let the world of movie lovers know that this film sucked balls!!!!!!!!!!!! so if you have any decency left in you. go and rent a much better bad movie like critters 3
The opening was a steal from "Eight-legged Freaks", a film that is everything this one isn't. Stilted and pedestrian are the words that apply - along with others that can't be repeated..! Drifter type returns to his home(?)town, meets up with old friends etc.... the usual annoying kid, single mother,local loudmouth and so on..Bad special effects, alien ship, atmospheric disturbances, (hey, didn't the Director see "Close Encounters"?). Good acting? Good story? Good camera angles? Good cutting? Not here! Do not rent, unless you are sharing the cost and have a lot of beer handy. Do not watch on TV, go and drink a lot of beer instead - you'll enjoy it more!
I've seen several of these body snatcher type movies, but none was nearly as bad as this one.<br /><br />No thrill, no FX, bad acting, bad photography, bad sound, bad everything.<br /><br />Blue Jello eats'em all!
First off, I refuse to even consider this piece of work a Music video... I consider it a short film that uses excerpts of the song "Thriller" in its soundtrack. To me a music video must be no longer than the song itself, and the song must play the entire length of the video. Calling this a music video is like calling The Great Gatsby a poem. On top of this... let's face it... "thriller" is a boring 14 minutes, including the extremely dated werewolf transformation, the mindless Vincent Price poem (just because VP recites it doesn't mean it's not lame), and the least threatening zombies I have ever seen. Sure, this was certainly a cultural phenomenon, but don't forget, this also happened at the same time the A-Team was the #1 show on TV, so lets not give the culture too much credit on that one... One last point on this film's impact on the media on music videos... what exactly did this add to the equation that "Billie Jean" and "Beat It" didn't already add? From what I can tell, it only added the practice of stopping the song for some dialog, or a superfluous dance scene... so you could say that all this video really did was give Puffy the inspiration to make more annoying music videos... Not quite my definition of great
One of a few movies filmed at Coronado High School in Scottsdale, AZ in the late 80's as well as Just One of the Guys, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure and Just Perfect (which was a segmented movie played during the Mickey Mouse Club.) Movie is definitely for kids as the previous comments have it pretty right on. <br /><br />Coronado has gone through an overhaul in the past couple of years and many of the buildings seen in this film are now gone. The field where they are playing catch is adjacent to the football field, one of the few areas still there. The internal scenes near the lockers I believe were in the old 200 building.<br /><br />Unless it is playing late at night on the Disney channel it may be a very hard to find flick. How they ever made sequels to this is beyond me.
Wow. I felt like I needed to shower off after watching this one, but maybe there were other reasons that I will leave to your imagination. I felt used and abused after wacking, I mean watching this film. Hairy chests, thick mustaches, and well, hairy everything describes this porn/horror movie, but hey, it was 1981, you can't call it "porn" in the 70s and 80s without the hair.<br /><br />As a horror flick, this bites. But as a piece of exploitation/porn from Italy's rich cinematic history- it definitely has a place in my library. The copy I have is in Italian with English subtitles. I wish it had the really poorly dubbed English, I think it would have added to the sleaziness factor that already existed. The only white guy who gets laid in the movie is "Mark Shannon"- he is the moustache wearing, hairy chested piece of machismo who really does try and give a performance every time he "steps up to bat". This was at the end of an era where porn producers were actually trying to make something artistic. Nothing like panning the camera from a tropical backdrop to a hairy man having "doggie-style" sex with a woman. I can't help but laugh.<br /><br />This is one of those movies that I pray my future wife and kids never find.
Joe D'Amato might have made some other notable movies in his very long and very prolific career- prolific, of course, by turns of making VERY cheap Z-grade movies in Italy's big exploitation boom of the late 70s early 70s- but Porno Holocaust isn't one of them, or at least shouldn't be. Granted, I should not expect much from a movie with such a title, but I thought considering the back of the box's description that it might have some fun horror scenes with the "horny, mutant, cannibal zombie". Turns out the zombie doesn't appear until more than halfway into the movie, and at every turn we get instead a tawdry sex scene as hardcore as one can imagine. Which is fine. But it's not very enjoyable, except in the most "what the f*** is this BS" kind of way. There's laughable dialog involving lobsters costing more from mail-order Japan than in Paris, hot, slim women play biologists and zoologists who have particular sexual hang-ups (letting the door be unlocked to be raped, and a bi-polar kind of enjoyment out of getting gang-banged).<br /><br />It all leads up to the island, where the "main attraction" is a guy who early on just spends an absolutely pathetic (forget ludicrous) amount of time just staring at the newcomers to the radioactive wasteland of the shot-on-Caribbean island, and once revealed has a face like one of the guards in Jabba's palace and has a sweet potato for a main genital. But much dumber than anything before it is the "relationship" that develops between the monster and a dark-skinned lady who has an inordinate amount of time to escape, but just sits there, blank-faced, as the monster brings gifts and for what must be a racially-motivated exploitation move on the part of the filmmakers the monster ONLY rapes and kills the white women, and not her. And it ends, of course, with a "happy" ending. I use quotes, of course, out of a kind of shock that this could have any kind of legitimate ending at all.<br /><br />Bottom line, this is NOT what you might expect, as possibly being a bloody horror movie with plenty of tacky but cool looking Italian monster-zombies devouring human flesh. If anything what violence is in the film is done on a shoe-string; a log hit to the face is immediately cut to the bloody aftermath, which is like the aftermath of a tomato hitting someone. So really, the last part of the title is meant more for market sake. Yet even as a porno movie it has little to go on except as a reason for the cast and crew to get a paid vacation to the Caribbean (as an interview with George Eastman suggests, this was just one of a few quickies made while on the island). Its got penny-bought schlocky camera-work and similar actors, filled with genitalia about 3/4 of the whole time and with wretched lip-syncing and music like Nino Rota forced at gun-point to make something snappy in a bordello, and it's STILL a piece of celluloid dung all the same; all of this could be an immense guilty pleasure, but it isn't.
As a serious horror fan, I get that certain marketing ploys are used to sell movies, especially the really bad ones. So I wouldn't call it naiveté that I assumed this was softcore horror ripping off Cannibal / Zombi / Jungle Holocaust. Unfortunately, I was completely wrong as this is very hardcore. I should have realized that when I saw the odd "No actual or identifiable minor was used" warning. Notice the identifiable part as though he is daring us to catch him? A group of scientists, half of whom are pretty women in bikinis, are led by a sea captain with a penchant for 69ing on the beach, in search for a mutated native killing villagers. Due to a nuclear bomb detonated on a supposedly evacuated island, the radiation turned this last man into a rapist/ killer.<br /><br />Writer/ actor George Eastman is the only one trying here and succeeds in keeping his clothes on. The sex scenes are whacked out. Women walk around nude exuding a strange overconfidence and one even asks for rape when her husband turns her down. Well, two chicks slapping each other naturally turns into a lesbo scene because women are horndogs. I saw the chick toss another chicks salad and finger herself.<br /><br />If there is anything you should know about this film, it is that. Because the rest of this insane movie is just the same. Oh, who am I kidding? There is a ton more to tell here. Like the white "Duchess" that pays for 2 black guys to tag team her in a parlor. Or the "Duchess" taking off her top to use as a bandage when the captain cuts himself. When he refuses her advances, she starts crying. So being the good gentleman he is, he reluctantly lets her pleasure him in front of the other crew members. I was honestly waiting for the pizza guy to show up and the "Duchess" to ask if there is any other way to pay him.<br /><br />And all of this happens before they depart for the island to conduct their research. Wait, I thought this was a zombie flick? But the zombie doesn't enter until the 73min mark, but by that time everyone else has been "entered" plenty. I found myself hitting fast forward a few scenes…or several. This is my first splatter porn flick and I don't think it does that subgenre any justice. I guess it is the woman in me talking when I say that I would like more plot and less sweaty, slobbering, hairy sex. Funny thing is this could have worked as a decent horror film as the idea of atomic bombing mutating a bitter man and killing his family, was a good one. Even Eastman's character shakes his head and walks away from a couple copulating. It makes me wonder if it was the character or the writer himself that was disgusted.<br /><br />I don't feel like going into the sound or film quality because you should have already guessed it was bad. This production was shot back to back with 3 other movies including Erotic Nights of the Living Dead, which sports most of the same cast. Eastman has said this was done because everyone wanted a vacation and a paycheck. Nevermind, I feel like talking about the sound suddenly. The sound was weird during the sex scenes because while the cast is speaking Italian, it seems as though they recorded English voiceovers and played that over their dialogue. So while 2 people are boning, I can clearly hear someone in the background say, "No! Yes! Wonderful! Wait!" There was a slightly amusing Italian score that couldn't save this movie. The SFX were minimal at best and consisted of some blood in only a few scenes. And I would like to point out that there were no violent rape scenes as the bright warning label said on the DVD cover (ahem, another marketing ploy), so no fear there. Only fear the bad movie.<br /><br />Presented in Widescreen 1.85:1 aspect ratio. I watched the Region 1 Not Rated version running at 113min released in 2005 by Exploitation Digital. There is apparently a XXX version by Alfa Digital, which is the same running time, so I doubt anything is different. Prices vary, but you shouldn't pay more than $25.00 for a copy. Or as I would recommend, pay nothing and pretend it doesn't exist.<br /><br />Favorite Quote: Shipmate, "Civilians are bad luck. Women are bad luck. They're scientists too? They must really be monsters." DVD Extras: Original trailer with hardcore shots & kills to make it look more interesting than it is, Trailers for SS Hell Camp, Emmanuelle, & ENOTLD, and a very informative interview with Eastman.<br /><br />Bottom Line: Lame porno, but even weaker as a horror film. Either get real porn or watch real horror.<br /><br />Rating: 3/10 by Molly Celaschi www.HorrorYearbook.com
It's strange, while the film features full X-rated sex scenes and violent murders, it never feels as shocking as it ought to.<br /><br />A group of scientists go to an island in the Caribbean to investigate a radioactive incident. Upon their arrival, a mutated islander goes about the happy business of murdering the men and having his way with the women. Doesn't it always seem to work out that way.<br /><br />Among the sored acts we find a some lesbian encounters, a three-way with male prostitutes, assorted heterosexual couplings and the rape of an already dead body. Even though it's all fully explicit, it fails to ever shock or stir as it is meant to. As soon as the sex goes fully pornographic it just loses it's edge; the suspension of disbelief is broken and we realize we are just watching people having sex.<br /><br />There is some blood and gore with the murders, but given that this is a D'amato flick it's really tame. For a much more rounded experience watch the similar 'Erotic Nights of the Living Dead'.<br /><br />2/10
D'Amato's hardcore/horror hybrid doesn't really live up to its extraordinary title and intriguing premise, wherein various vapid contemporary types are attacked by a monster on an Atoll previously used for nuclear experiments, but for the most part the film is so slow, the action so dreary and the cast so clearly repulsed to be having to have sex with each other that the film becomes a chore to watch.<br /><br />This is a pity, because the film sets up a promising idea. A group of scientists are taken to the Atoll by a naval officer in a small vessel. The scientists – three women and two men – are an intriguing cross section of sexual types, suffering to various degrees from nymphomania, co-dependency and frigidity; there's even an intriguing foray into the world of female sex tourism, where one of the women stops off at a brothel to get serviced by two hunky Caribbean studs for hire. The creature himself – a mangled native Islander with a horribly scarred face and an unfeasibly long pizzle – bears some affinities with the old Creature from the Black Lagoon and is the kind of nuclear nightmare that has hovered over postmodern man since the cold war commenced, despite those of us in the West having retreated into hedonism and relativistic science.<br /><br />Porno Holocaust certainly is a film which shows the post-sexual revolution Westerners coming across their mirror image in a nuclear monster, yet the torpidity with which it unfolds really lets down the fierceness of the idea. There is a promising interplay of action shots with POV shots, which suggest that the monster (who looks/stalks on as horror monsters from their POV position tend to do) is akin to the voyeur in the audience getting off on the sex between the "beautiful people." The sight of the monster forcing a gorgeous young woman to suck his over-sized member certainly throws the target audience's ugly fantasies in their face. But D'Amato has developed similar ideas better in other films, and Porno Holocaust is a potentially fierce idea let down by the execution (even D'Amato's usual cinematographic skills let him down with much dreary camera-work).
Well, since it's called Porno Holocaust and directed by Joe D'Amato, I went into this film expecting sleaze...and while I somewhat got it, Porno Holocaust was a massive disappointment as it's just so damned BORING. The title suggests that the film will feature porn, and that's not wrong - Porno Holocaust is pretty much just porn, and most of it is just the same stuff over and over again, I was fast forwarding before the end. The first sex scene is between two women and it got my hopes up, but after that it just degenerates into normal porn, and the rest of the film (for the first hour!) is made up of talking, and you can imagine how much fun that is to sit through! The plot focuses on a deserted island where, believe it or not, something strange is going on. Naturally, it's not long before a group of people - made up of a few men and some scientists, who all happen to be sexy women, land on the island. They have sex a few times and some strange things happen, then over an hour later they're attacked by a mutant zombie creature with an eye for the ladies...<br /><br />This must have seemed like a good idea for an original porno - a zombie who likes to get it on, but unsurprisingly it doesn't work well at all. The film clocks in at just ten minutes short of the two hour mark, and that is far too long for a film like this. I have no idea why Porno Holocaust is as long as it is; if they'd just snipped one minute out of every sex scene, the film would have been under ninety minutes, and that would have made it much more tolerable! The zombie takes what seems like an eternity to appear (it's quite a long time before there's a sex break long enough for them to actually travel to the island in the first place), and when it does finally appear, it's a huge disappointment! I realise that this is low budget B-movie trash, but D'Amato surely could have tried a bit harder and come up with something better than this! I'm not even going to bother mentioning the acting, atmosphere etc, there's no point. Porno Holocaust is basically just your average dull porn flick with a slight sprinkling of horror, and I can't recommend it!
Six stars for Paul Newman's portrayal of General Groves, negative four for the inclusion of a highly fictionalized event where the truth is well documented. Michael Merriman did not really exist. His character--or at least his fate--is based loosely on that of Louis Slotin, a Canadian physicist who did not come to Los Alamos until after the war. He conducted his lethal "tail of the dragon" experiment in May 1946. This is a critical point. The effects of hard radiation on the human body were not known until they were observed in the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts. Had anyone died of radiation poisoning at Los Alamos before the Trinity test, it's very possible that the scientists would have abruptly stopped their work, and history would have been changed. Whether for the better or the worse we can only speculate. Someone should ask the producers and the director whether they added Merriman's character for dramatic effect or to deliver an anti-nuclear message. For a more even-handed and accurate treatment of events at Los Alamos during the Manhattan Project, see the TV movie, "Day One," or better yet, read the Peter Wyden book on which it is based.
The United States built the atomic bomb in order to show their superior military power and to end the Second World War. The movie Fat Man and Little Boy is a portrayal of the efforts of American physicists to invent the technology necessary to create the bomb, and the tension that existed between the scientists and the military over the potential uses of the bomb, and even the acceptability of its creation. The scientists thought that the bomb should be created as a deterrent, a mechanism that would halt the war by wasting as little life as possible. Fist, they saw themselves as in a race with German scientists, who were attempting to build nuclear weapons themselves. When the Germans were defeated, many scientists hoped to stop work on the bomb project, as they knew that the Japanese did not have the technology necessary to build a nuclear weapon, and therefore did not pose a threat of massive loss of life. Those who favored the continuation of the Manhattan Project hoped that the bomb would be used as a demonstration, inviting the Japanese head of state to view its deployment upon some tiny deserted island. This massive display of force, they felt, would be enough to win the war-no killing would be needed. The US military, under the direction of General Leslie Groves, hoped all along to used the bomb as a actual weapon to be deployed against the enemy, first against the Germans and then against the Japanese. Because of the persistence of Japanese soldiers on the small Japanese islands, the US decided to drop the bomb on populous cities in order to end the war, first Hiroshima and then Nagasaki. The display of that vast amount of force also served notice to the rest of the world that the US was the dominant military power, a message aimed especially at Russia, whose growing military power and economic weight in Eurasia threatened our preeminent world position. Fat Man and Little Boy was a movie that had good intentions in mind, but muddled them rather badly by the choice of actors, script, and cinematography. One of the main points of the movie was the struggle between the military view of science for killing, and the scientific view of science for knowledge. The keystone of this conflict is the continued disagreements between General Groves and Dr. Oppenheimer. Mr. Newman does his job in the part of the General, craggy, massively angry, and radiating his dependence upon the success of the project. Dwight Schultz, on the other hand, never puts up much resistance at all to the General's demands, always looking rather weak, deflated, and phlegmatic in his audiences. John Cusack presents a stunningly unsympathetic character in as flat a role as I have ever seen-it looks like he is just reading his lines. Laura Dern seems to be suffering from the same malady. None of the characters are helped by the script, which is almost childishly ridiculous in the way it attempts to explain scientific concepts unscientifically, offers the most unrealistic stock relationship between Mr. Cusack and Ms. Dern imaginable, doesn't even give us the cheap thrill of watching the army drop nuclear bombs on Japan, and relies heavily on voice-over-a technique that is evil anytime, even when explaining a characters true innermost thoughts, or for the narration of something that cannot be possibly show on the film medium, but is used here to read some absolutely trite selections out of Cusack's diary. The cinematographer offers us several shots of the ominous shadow of the two bombs, which might be striking if it didn't look like they were cardboard cutouts instead of bombs, the fake atomic fire really does look fake-and why use it when the stock footage on hand is so genuinely stunning and realistic--, and the pervasive brown tone doesn't seem to be thematically appropriate. Besides that, it's not a bad movie.
I've read just about every major book about the Manhattan Project. Most people know what it was, but few people understand the depth and breadth of the project. Its scope was immeasurably massive -- rivaled in US history perhaps only by the space program of the 1960's.<br /><br />There were -- literally -- MILLIONS of people involved from all walks of life at numerous sites (most clandestine) around the country, each involved in a specific and different aspect of the project that they couldn't talk about to the person sitting in the cubicle next to them, much less their family. The logistics are overwhelming, particularly given the considerations of wartime communication, security and transportation in the 1940's.<br /><br />As an example -- my colleague's father was a carpenter who worked for one of the companies that had a contract with the federal government for the Manhattan Project. His job was to supervise a crew of about 30 other carpenters, who were responsible for manufacturing forms for the pouring of concrete for the massive research installations at Hanford, Washington. That's "all" he did, six days a week for nearly two years. These carpenters needed food, housing, sanitary facilities, hospitals and materials just as much as did Oppenheimer and his crowd at the top of the pyramid. Just think about it! That being said, it's simply impossible to do the subject justice in a 2-hour movie. In defense of Joffe, however, I would say that they had an impossible task, particularly since he chose to have a diverse screenplay with multiple plots, multiple angles, and multiple characters. What, exactly, was he thinking, and how could he be so arrogant to think that this would work? That's Hollywood, I guess.<br /><br />FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY has so many flaws that it would take a book to list them all. Horrible casting. Dreadful (and politically-motivated) writing. Bad science. The portrayals of Groves and Oppie are particularly inaccurate and downright galling. Notwithstanding the screenplay's all-too-obvious agenda, it is STILL incredibly bland and sloppy.<br /><br />These flaws have been listed elsewhere on IMDb, but I was particularly struck by the fact that the scientists had so much time on their hands -- softball, horseback riding, parties, semi-formal dinners, ballet, etc., not to mention romance, and of course circulating political petitions. According to FM&LB, if these great brains had gotten off their duffs and actually spent some time in the lab instead of seducing Laura Dern, we might have won the war before D-Day.<br /><br />One final gripe -- FM&LB mentions that "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" were the code names of the two atomic bombs, but it doesn't mention that these names were a semi-good-natured jab at Groves ("Fat Man", for heavy stature) and Oppenheimer ("Little Boy," for his slight stature). Another reason Paul Newman should not have been in this movie...
It' s easier to watch this film if one views it as a scenario created by Star Fleet Lieutenant Reginald Barclay during his holodeck addiction. (Barclay is a recurring Star Trek character played by Dwight Schultz.)<br /><br />Dwight Schultz is miscast as Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer's character is poorly written, so we never see the depth and breadth of his knowledge. Instead, we see a shallow, two dimensional figure from a soap opera. Paul Newman is also miscast as General Leslie Groves, but this movie's problems go beyond having the wrong actors in the wrong roles.<br /><br />The factual errors and great liberties taken (with the chronology of events) in order to advance screenwriter Bruce Robinson's political agenda make this movie embarrassing to watch. That's probably why this movie has found a home on the so-called History Channel. <br /><br />"Fat Man and Little Boy" combine bad science, bad history, bad screenwriting and mediocre acting to produce a movie that should not be viewed by impressionable high school or college students who know nothing about the Manhattan Project.
I watched this years ago on television when I was sick (I don't know, I tend to be more complacent with my TV viewing when I'm sick; too much effort to use the remote control, I guess).<br /><br />From what I can recall, every aspect of the movie--casting, acting, writing, directing, etc.--was ill-advised at best. I could have forgiven the historical inaccuracies if this film had created a sense of what it was like to work on Trinity; but it didn't. There were attempts to humanize the scientists, but they were insufficient and never transcended caricature.<br /><br />I didn't know very much about the people involved in the Manhattan Project at the time, but the portrayals in the movie were so cartoonish that I became interested in learning about the real personalities. And I did. So I guess this horrible film has done a very small amount of good, after all.<br /><br />This is not an in-depth review, but FMLB neither deserves nor requires one. You might enjoy it if you're a fan of bad movies.
There are lots of other comments here about how poor this film is. What I wanted to point out is how this film took the largest science project in history and made it look small. The Manhattan project was an incredible achievement and it was huge. Virtually all silver in the country went into making wire for electromagnetic separators. If there was every a choice between two alternative ways of doing things they just did both. The first sustained nuclear reactor was fired up under the stands of the University of Chicago football stadium with graduate students wielding axes as a scram mechanism. It's a fascinating story involving hundreds of locations and thousands of people that this film seems to reduce to a small group of eccentrics in New Mexico.<br /><br />The other thing I really disliked was the huge moral debate over if we should continue the project after Germany surrenders. Okay, we have thousands of (mostly) men who worked for years to make a really big boom. Does anyone think they didn't want to see it work? There was some controversy at the time about if we should use the device, but it was not that serious, clearly not the huge debate this film makes it out to be.
This movie is a definitive 5. I finally caught it on HBO the other night. I remember when it came out in theatres telling a friend that it would never be a hit because Americans didn't want movies about history, especially movies that were more about ideas than action. I don't know if that was the reason FMLB didn't do well, but now, having finally seen it, I can add a few observations of my own.<br /><br />First, while Dwight Schultz has been fine in Star Trek and The A-Team, as the lead in this movie he is off-putting. I kept expecting him to shout out Jon Lovitz-like, "I am ACT-ING!" He phrasing and tone of voice sounded like he was trying very had to be an ACT-OR, on a stage where he had to emphasize strangely various words and phrases. <br /><br />Second, I enjoyed the sly positioning of Paul Newman's character as a manipulator who, at every turn, strives to herd these cats (the scientists) along to get to his goal. <br /><br />Third, there was some discussion of the moral implications of creating the A bomb, and whether the US should use it. Probably not enough of this, or as in depth as warranted.<br /><br />Finally, there seemed to be an awful lot of twists thrown in for dramatic effect. I don't know how much of the events in this movie are true to life, but things like having the test bomb slip in its chains or having a lab accident caused by a spilled coffee cup (and a scientist killed as a result) were stretching the bounds of believability. Maybe that stuff, or events that were similar, really happened, but it sure felt like various scenes were added solely for dramatic effect, which undermined the whole tone and purpose of the movie.<br /><br />FMLB was OK. I need to read more about the actual events to know if it was over the top or just mostly accurate.
I did a screen test and read the script for this turkey in 1988. It was awful then and even worse now - I spotted it on VHS at the local HollowWood Video and said, "oh, what the hey, for auld ang sine". Yech.<br /><br />They had to shoot most of it in Mexico after they ran out of money, a couple of the "stars" pitched bitches because they ran out of some kind of exotic fruit drink crap. The movie's plot is OK, I suppose, but I happen to know that the writer intended for it to have a spy catcher thread running throughout.<br /><br />Dr O ended up being a cartoon character. He must still be whirling in his grave over in the Kremlin Wall.<br /><br />Technical errors were all over the movie, not only with the infant atomic technology but with the uniforms, insignia, and military jargon. They were too cheap to hire a professional military adviser, of course. Even Mr. Newman's august and expert presence couldn't have saved this bird from being stuffed for Thanksgiving.
There is no real story the film seems more like a fly on the wall drama-documentary than a proper film so this piece may in itself be a spoiler. Teen drama about 3 young Singaporean kids (very similar to UK chavs) who play truant from school, run with gangs, get into fights, insult people on the street, get tattoos, hang about doing nothing, etc. etc, They generally imagine themselves to be hard and every so often shout challenging rap chants into the camera. Filmed in MTV style, fast cuts, crazy camera angles, tight close ups and animation interludes. The dialogue might have been crisper in the original languages of Mandarin and Hokkien than in the subtitles and I have no doubt that some of the contemporary Singapore references will slip over Western heads as well as the cultural and political context unless of course you are familiar with Singapore. This kind of teen film may be a first for Singapore but it has been done before and done better in other Western countries, La Haine (1995) for example.
I was expecting a documentary covering the 1950 to 1965 era of Sci-Fi and received a big ol' commercial laced with leftist political innuendo by James Cameron and movie mogul baby boomer's pushing the own works. 'Watch the Skies' has in the past referred to the 'Giant Bug' and 'Space Exploration' movies from the 1950's including such favorites as "Earth vs. the Flying Saucers, "Thing from Another World" and "Forbidden Planet" as well as "Them", "Deadly Mantis" and "Tarantula". There are lower budget examples that rarely get mentioned like "Space Monster", "12 to the Moon" and "Cosmic Man". <br /><br />This would have been a much better documentary had the few remaining actors, directors, stunt men and collectors plus the non-Hollywood 'boomer's from the era been interviewed. I only wish there was a "0" rating available since a "1" is much to generous.
Purported documentary that tries to examine sci-fi films of the 1950s and how they affected (and REflected) America. Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Ridley Scott and James Cameron are interviewed and Mark Hamill narrates.<br /><br />Pretty terrible. The "insights" that are given are nothing new--for instance--the Cold War and the threat of nuclear war affected a whole generation of children. Well-duh! They try to cover all of the different sub genres of sci-fi films of the 1950s--the big bug movies, invaders from space movies etc etc. That's good but they choose the most obvious films and they've been over analyzed to death already. It was cool seeing clips from "Rocketship X-M", "Destination Moon", "Forbidden Planet", "The Thing" and "The Day the Earth Stood Still" but everything the directors said was so incredibly obvious to any viewer that it's insulting. Even though it's under an hour I was thoroughly bored 30 minutes in. This gets a 2 for some of the clips but nothing else.
* Some spoilers *<br /><br />This movie is sometimes subtitled "Life Everlasting." That's often taken as reference to the final scene, but more accurately describes how dead and buried this once-estimable series is after this sloppy and illogical send-off.<br /><br />There's a "hey kids, let's put on a show air" about this telemovie, which can be endearing in spots. Some fans will feel like insiders as they enjoy picking out all the various cameo appearances. Co-writer, co-producer Tom Fontana and his pals pack the goings-on with friends and favorites from other shows, as well as real Baltimore personages.<br /><br />That's on top of the returns of virtually all the members of the television's show varied casts, your old favorites as well as later non-favorites.<br /><br />There was always a tug-of-war pitting quality-conscious executive producer Barry Levinson, Fontana, James Yoshimura and the rest of the creative team against budget-conscious NBC execs, who simply wanted a another moronic police procedural like "Nash Bridges," which regularly beat "Homicide" in the ratings. The pressure told as the show bounced between riveting realism that transcended its form, and sleazy sensationalism that demeaned it.<br /><br />Unfortunately for this movie, Fontana, co-writers Yoshimura and Eric Overmeyer and director Jean de Segonzac simply threw in the towel. They took the most ludicrous story are from the series, topped it with an unlikely and artistically unfruitful new plot line, and laid the burden of carrying the whole mess on one of the weaker cast members.<br /><br />Briefly, some time has passed since the last episode of the show. The former heart of Baltimore's homicide unit, Yaphet Kotto as Lt. Al Giardello, is now a Kurt Schmoke-like candidate for mayor, and Schmoke himself makes a cameo appearance. But this promising start immediately and improbably takes a tragic turn.<br /><br />The spotlight shifts to Giancarlo Esposito as Giardello's son Mike. A handsome man who has done good work elsewhere, Esposito was one of the pretty faces brought in late to supposedly enliven the TV series. But the question for viewers always was: is Mike that uncomfortable as Gee's son, or is Esposito that uncomfortable in the role?<br /><br />To be fair, Esposito doesn't get a chance to play out the main story without interruption. That's because the writers choose this moment to revive another storyline that spat on the intelligence of the show's loyal voters.<br /><br />An apparent snuff streaming video was promoted, and then seemed to actually take place, on the Internet. After some red herrings, the detectives arrested a repellent suspect. But Zaljko Ivanek's harassed and overworked Deputy States Attorney forgot to file motions in time, and the suspect was released, only to be murdered later.<br /><br />Let's summarize: he forgot to file the paperwork because it wasn't the most sensational case of his career, because the mayor, the attorney general, the governor, the entire Maryland Legislature, the U.S. Attorney General, NBC, Court TV, the BBC, AP, Reuters, People, The Sun, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the LA Times, Time Magazine, The Times of London, The Economist, The Johannesburg Mail and Guardian, L'Osservatore Romano, Le Figaro, Paris Match, L'Equipe and Computer World weren't calling every 10 minutes to ask about the status of the case.<br /><br />Nevertheless, the old gang of detectives and associates flocks back to Baltimore to help out. There's quite an array of talent on display. Unfortunately, with the limited amount of dialogue to hand out, some of them are merely on display.<br /><br />Two of the strongest actors, Clark Johnson and Melissa Leo, are criminally underused, while time wasted on Jon Seda and Michael Michelle could be better spent on commercials. The writers do seem to satirize this, presenting Jason Priestley as the latest big-deal detective. On the other hand, they give easy-come, easy-go Michelle Forbes a very affecting scene.<br /><br />There's some other sly casting, with actual Lt. Gary D'Addario, the center of the book that gave rise to the show, playing another detective. Guests drop in from other shows, like Whitney Allen doing her deadpan and clueless "Miss Sally" from the children's show beloved by the inmates on Fontana's "Oz." Dina Napoli of WBAL TV turns up as herself. <br /><br />Even when entertaining, though, these guests can be distracting. Ed Begley Jr. actually advances the story in his brief appearance, playing Dr. Victor Ehrlich from Fontana's "St. Elsewhere." He's still a vivid character, and fits in a hospital setting. Then you remember, didn't St. Elegius turn out to be an autistic boy's fantasy?<br /><br />The most useful cameo reflects corporate synergy. This movie was made when Court TV bought re-run rights to the series. That network contributed legal waif Helen Lucaitis, who had interviewed the Homicide team and later appeared on "Oz." The TV correspondent does an efficient job summarizing the news, that is, plot points for latecomers.<br /><br />Although she's so thin that she disappears when she turns sideways, Lucaitis also adeptly handles a bit of physical comedy with Esposito. He shows more juice in his scenes with Lucaitis than with any of his usual colleagues. Perhaps those two should have done a spin-off.<br /><br />As the movie winds down, the cream of the cast rises to the top. Although they are saddled with a loser script, Andre Braugher and Kyle Secor overcome it. Their performances remind viewers what made Homicide, for considerable stretches, the best show on the air and one of the best television productions ever.<br /><br />It's fun to watch top pros do their stuff; it's just a shame this movie doesn't give them more of a chance. Die-hard fans may want to see this movie anyway, but you can live without it.
I saw this movie on videotape with my younger brother a long time ago, despite the fact I was a young boy who's hearing impaired. I didn't have the closed captioning decoder at the time (it was 1986, the year of The Transformers: The Movie), but I could follow the plot and understand what's going on. It wasn't my fault I saw the animated movie intended for girls. My father rented the video to show to my other younger sister.<br /><br />A decade later and I rented the video (for 50 cents) to watch again with the closed captioning turned on. My memories of this movie was utterly destroyed by none other than a WRETCHED SCRIPT. I have seen plenty of poorly written movies (like COOL AS ICE and JASON GOES TO HELL: THE FINAL FRIDAY), but I have never seen (or heard) the dialogues this bad, only inundating with enough inanity to make your head spin from laughing in hysterics and screaming from the pain of enduring the torture of sitting through this movie. Despite good plot and intriguing story concepts, the script has to be ONE OF THE WORST EVER WRITTEN FOR THE SCREEN, BAR NONE! The incompetent Howard R. Cohen should never be working as a screenwriter, professional or otherwise. I can not believe they would even allow the terrible script to produce a movie like this in the first place. Did the Japanese producers read the script, in broken English or translated before they know what they were into? Even crap like G.I. Joe The Movie and My Little Pony The Movie have redeeming values compared to this abomination.<br /><br />If you're a big fan of 80s animation, or just taking a nostalgia trip, BEWARE OF RAINBOW BRITE AND THE STAR STEALER! It does not matter whether you were elated or traumatized by the sloppily animated movie with an atrociously written script, or you have not seen the movie, STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE. The movie should be viewed with the precaution to learn how NOT to write a bad script!
Here we go another pop star breaking in to the grand TV land and from my observations from her pop careers directors saying yeah your great gwen you could be a real star maybe some day you'll be in the A list movies, they would do anything to expand the show, there just not a pretty face but have an acting ability as well almost overnight. gwen has some how found the Ability to act by watching actors like James dean or Clint eastward, please give the real people in the world that have to sit behind that box and have to suffer pop stars effort's in trying to act. Please gwen stick to your pretty pop videos with your jap posse and don't insult the British with your efforts as an actress. anyway i'm going back to my working class job and think to myself god, i could do that. but yeah remember i'll be working till i'm 65 if i live that long and yeah you put your feet up girl with your royalties every three months, pah marry into money right xxx
This show had a promising start as sort of the opposite of 'Oceans 11' but has developed into a shallow display of T & A. Actually, according to my little brother thats the only good part of the show. <br /><br />The first season was by far the best, it was new and interesting things just went downhill after that. The only redeeming point of this show is JamesCaan, The other actors are lack-luster. The characters lack depth and they seem to be incredibly selfish nd generally un-likable people. <br /><br />To quote a friend "Las Vegas is like Baywaych in a Casino" In my opinion thats way to generous, Baywatch was way better, and much more realistic.
Wow...not in a good way.<br /><br />I can't believe people dig this trash. Most of the shows on television are pretty bad, and this has been a running trend for a while now - they just keep getting worse, but Las Vegas definitely takes it home. What a terrible show...<br /><br />The actors are a bunch of has-been C+ losers that never went anywhere (except James Caan...who knows what he was thinking when he signed on to this pos) so its not their fault that this show sucks. They just can't help it. Blame the producers and the writers. I can't believe they shot this and were actually proud enough of their work to air it.
When Las Vegas came out one review described this show as, quote "A harmless bit of fluff". Needless to say that after seeing a dozen or so episodes I think this description is right on the money. An assortment of pretty boys and strutting model types play out an assortment of paper thin stories while all the time trying to pretend they are serious business people. One dimensional characters, in a one dimensional setting, pursuing one dimensional stories. That pretty much sums up Vegas. I still watch from time to time to see if the show is trying to evolve and take itself a little serious but alas to no avail. So far.
I've seen every episode, and the characters have all remained the same self absorbed whinny little brats thought out, there's no character development in 5 years (getting pregnant is not development if your still the same daddies girl, only now Delinda whines to Danny because dad isn't around) Sam never changes or grows, which makes her boring, repetitive and just so annoying its sickening after season 3, Danny is a typical soft character that gets ordered about by everyone in his life, (he has no principals morals of his own) especially Mary and Delinda. The old boring cliché will they wont they on and off relationship does get boring very fast indeed.<br /><br />James Cann can act and his character is OK to watch, only he is just another hack writers wet dream, an ex CIA man that has huge contacts and training etc so he can stop any thief or cheater known to man, even though the cameras cant do half the stuff they make out its fun for a while, however in 5 years the writers act very dumb, why? Because they have all this expensive and advanced technology, but no simple walkie talkie (communicating is fast and easy) you never see security walking the floor, only when there's a situation, and suddenly everyone is just there.<br /><br />The plots very quickly move from the cheating and robbing the casino in one way or another, to awful typical American boy girl relation ships, the same done to death material seen all over the world, they have sex, but I hate you, I've always loved you, I think I do but I love her/him instead, but what if, maybe one day blah blah blah.<br /><br />I'd recommend ''Hotel Babylon'' to people who like Las Vegas, it has so much more going for it simply because the characters are interesting engaging and not forced down our throat for 6 months of the year.<br /><br />I'm glad to be British – I'd rather see the same actors in 5 different shows rather than 5 years consistently getting worst in the same one.
Really, REALLY... What pleases audience (american one!) in this so called show is totally beyond me. What can we learn from these series:<br /><br />1. Each casino there is spending about 2-3 billion bucks every year to rent a satellite and enormous quantity of hi tech high resolution cameras for their security team. Let FBI bites the dust of them.<br /><br />2. Every security employee must have voluptuous breasts, of course natural ones. The tits must be shown all the time otherwise they will lose their job. <br /><br />3. If the employee happens to be a male, he needs to get breasts implanted, then go to step 2. <br /><br />4. Only in Hollywood one can blatantly rip off other show's ideas then implement them as their own and call all this crap "original" and "art". <br /><br />5. Every security with tits bigger than 39D is considered immortal and cannot die.<br /><br />I really would like to have the opportunity to vote with minus values. -10/10 for this one!
1) If you want to make a movie that deals with social realism it's quite important that the audience identify with the characters that are being portrayed. 2) The audience can't identify with characters that are highly stereotyped or with situations that are to obvious. 3) If you got a bad actor then you can't build any character. Anyway, even if you got nice actors their job will result ridiculous if you force them to speak with a fictitious Andalusian accent.<br /><br />Jesús Ponce ignores those 3 points and also makes some cheap jokes that are completely out of place. His script is so predictable: a woman comes out of prison, she meets his old junkie boyfriend, life's tough, etc. Whatever, the fact that the story is everything but original wouldn't be that bad if only Ponce weren't a complete incompetent writing and filming.<br /><br />I wonder how long will they keep giving money from our taxes to make movies such as this one.<br /><br />*My rate: 3/10
This is a comedy/romance movie directed by Andy Tennant, starring Will Smith, Eva Mendes and Kevin James.<br /><br />It is about a professional dating doctor -Will Smith - known as 'Hitch' who helps men to land dates with the women they are interested in. He is currently helping a shapely, clumsy Albert who is obsessed with a very powerful, famous and rich woman called Allegra. At the same time, Hitch has become interested in a gossip columnist, Sara, - Eva Mendes - who has been assigned to write about Allegra. When the best girlfriend of Sara has a love disillusion with a man that Sara thinks that is a client of Hitch, she plots a revenge against Hitch and the misunderstanding leads the two couples to a conflictive situation This film is not one that men should see as it has a lot of male-bashing and both subtle and blatant male-hating. There are also double standards that you would have to be blind not to spot. Hitch and Sara are both very guarded around the opposite sex, Hitch still likes women despite his burns from them in the past and is teaching men to make them happy. But of course Sara, is a sexist bigot who makes frequent sexist comments along the lines of "men want to have sex with anything that walks." Shes self-obsessed and knows she looks like a goddess and knows there are no 'real men' out there. What annoyed me most of all was the 'bad' guy who wanted a quick fumble with Sara's best friend who is the classic example of a defenceless 'victim' and even after being turned down physically by Hitch, receives as blow to the pills from Sara, after which she says "Now I'm satisfied." Add to that the "women are still oppressed" vibes you get from Allegra not being allowed to spend her own money after asking permission from a table of men. In spite of all the rubbish assumptions and generalisations - Women can always tell when you ain't being straight with them? - this movie does have the correct point that in America, love simply doesn't exist. There are some funny parts in this film, such as Albert and his dancing habits but this film overall, only beats the dreadful film Honey by a marginal amount.
Nothing about this movie stands out as either being great or terrible.<br /><br />In the end, that is what kills it. The blandness is just not good. I can't say I expected better from Will Smith, but I definitely did from Kevin James of "The King of Queens"-- but, hey, I'm getting used to saying that a lot lately. This film attempts to make its mark as a witty romantic comedy, but it never hits the bull's-eye. In fact, it never hits *anywhere* within the target. The allergy scene is disturbing; the fact that Kevin James can't dance is something that wouldn't exactly catch anybody off-guard, and is therefore (in a movie like this) not funny. This movie constantly tries to win your heart, but always with the wrong ploy at the wrong time. Some parts are okay (but I'm searching my brain for examples), but I really think this movie should be avoided.
What is wrong with American movies these days? Hollyweird keeps making movies that have men acting like women and women acting like men. The idiotic male director and writer of this movie need to have their heads examined. The main problems with this film are its overt extreme feminist portrayals of the sexes.<br /><br />In the scenes of the bar, Eva Mendez and her friend are swigging from the beer bottles like you may find sailors on an oil tanker doing so at a bar in Iceland. Mendez continually kisses every girl she sees after that. She also dresses provocatively in every scene, yet curses like a guy. She gets very emotional when she fights with Will Smith for a while, while trying to 'defend' all women from bad guys everywhere.<br /><br />The men are no better in this movie. What we see is a bunch of idiots trying to do anything they can to win a date. The males in this movie are concerned with getting either sexual favours or unable to speak clearly when face to face with a woman. Men in real life do not behave this way.<br /><br />What we see in this movie is a product of culture gone awry. Everything is flip-flopped. Guys act like girls, girls act like guys. All this is done while keeping the extreme predilections of the sexes very much a part of the story. Men are shown as soft and stupid but only interested in sex most of the time, while women are shown as macho and overbearing but only as a veneer for their emotional insecurities.<br /><br />This movie would be good if it wasn't presented obnoxiously to the audience. The content is not the culprit. It is the manner in which the content is presented.
No, *Hitch* is decidedly NOT a romantic-comedy about bilious (and bibulous) former-Leftist-pundit-turned-reactionary-pundit Christopher Hitchens, though it sure would've made for a funnier movie. A dumpy little Englishman, teeth stained black from cigarettes and Guinness, barking out advice -- and acerbic political commentary -- to lovelorn men: "Look into her EYES when you speak to her, you nutter! And remember: calling someone a 'neo-conservative' makes you a de facto anti-Semite! Can't you get anything straight, you liberal pantywaist?"<br /><br />Oh well. Instead, we get Will Smith, whose continuing success remains a mystery to me, at least. I am apparently alone in this regard. Smith is the most powerful man in Hollywood as of this writing: Americans just can't help throwing their money at him. I, on the other hand, find his smugness insufferable, unmitigated by a scene here (spoiled by the trailer) where he suffers a drastic allergic reaction to seafood. We know Smith will bounce back to his bland, over-muscled good looks, because there's a fat sit-com actor (Kevin James) on hand making a fool of himself. We're supposed to laugh hysterically whenever the slob starts dancing like a jackass (cue "Everybody Dance Now!" by CC Music Factory), but why would a straight-arrow accountant behave in such a way? I've worked with several straight-arrow accountants for years, and I can tell you that if, in Norman Mailer's memorable phrase, "tough guys don't dance", neither do straight-arrow accountants. Am I taking all this too seriously? Or -- and here's a daring thought -- perhaps the writers couldn't conceive a logically-drawn character to save their lives?<br /><br />Speaking of the writers, they come up with a lousy idea for Smith's love interest: a writer for a tabloid (Eva Mendes). Since when do tabloid creeps deserve love? What universe am I in, anyway? -- everyone here at IMDb is actually gushing over this tripe. Either you all need to raise the bar, in terms of entertainment value for your buck, or I'm just a skunk at the garden party. (Me, and about 150 million other long-suffering boyfriends and husbands.) In any case, if I may imitate Smith's Hitch and offer my male readers some smooth advice: when you're dragged to see *Hitch*, say to your Better Half, "Hey, that was pretty good" after the movie is over. Don't be overenthusiastic; don't rave about it -- she'll know you're lying to her. Praise it in a lightly surprised way, as if the movie was better than you expected and wasn't the agonizing time-waster that it actually was. But what am I saying, eh, fellas? -- we dudes know all the moves. <br /><br />1 star out of 10.
I cannot believe I actually sat through the whole of this movie! It was absolutely awful, and totally cringe-worthy, and yet I sat through it thinking it had to get better. It didn't, and I have wasted 2 hours of my life. Will Smith is much better in action movies - I loved him in I, Robot, Enemy of the State and Independence Day - and I don't think he can really be expected to carry off an entire movie as the romantic lead in the way that Cary Grant could. Then again, the script was unbearably awful, and the dialogue was so cheesy. <br /><br />I disliked everyone except for Albert's character, and even that I found was done with a heavy hand. If you want to watch a modern feel-good romantic comedy, watch something like How To Lose A Guy In Ten Days, or When Harry Met Sally. The 40 Year Old Virgin left me with a smile on my face. I even preferred Music and Lyrics above this - and yes, I know it's cheesy, but at least it didn't take itself seriously, and was sweet. I also disliked the main female lead - and wasn't convinced of the chemistry between her and Will Smith's character. <br /><br />In all, I think there were two scenes that I liked (and definitely not the ending, which was nauseating and unconvincing!) - Hitch calling Sarah when she hadn't given him her number was quite sweet, and - no, sorry, that's the only thing I liked about the entire film. Don't waste your time.
Well, it is standard Hollywood schmaltz that you can see coming a mile off. It's enjoyable in parts but just oh so predictable. I must confess I did not really enjoy it, but I am pretty tough to please and a lot of my friends loved it.<br /><br />It is quite sweet, and the actors give good performances. It's a nice backdrop and the eye candy is pretty good. But the irritatingly predictable, unoriginal and really quite dull storyline holds the film back. Personally, I can think of better ways to spend a couple of hours of my life.<br /><br />The chick flick genre gets some bad press but there are some genuinely good chick flicks out there; this isn't one of them.
For what it's worth, this is a fairly decent Road Runner cartoon, if a little short (just under 6 minutes). The gags are adequate at best, the animation is competent, and the new restored DVD master looks nice. However, that's where the qualities end. Allow me to provide a little backstory: in 1958, thanks to a labour dispute, WB got hold of a bunch of canned music that would be used in 6 of the year's cartoons.<br /><br />There is only one phrase to describe this short's music, and that is "it has the 4Kids sound". I use that phrase to describe music which has absolutely no correspondence to the on screen action, and feels like it was recorded by an orchestra consisting of members of a Sonic Youth cover band. The music in this short feels hopelessly tacked on and incredibly obnoxious, especially considering there are scenes in this short (namely the piano trap) that would have worked best with little or no music.<br /><br />I didn't think a WB cartoon would be ruined by awful music (even Lava's scores aren't this obnoxious), but considering the cartoon isn't that notable anyway, it becomes almost painful to watch with the music. It's kind of like how late 80's episodes of Doctor Who could be bad anyway, and yet be made unwatchable thanks to Keff McCulloch's unbelievably awful music (which sounded like he hit the demo button on all 5 of his Casio keyboards at the same time).<br /><br />I am going to have people call me crazy for this, but I'd easily watch one of Larriva's RR cartoons over this. At least the canned music was usually in sync with the action on those.
According to the article at http://blog.ifeng.com/article/2737487.html, one of the actors in the film, Carina Lau, was forced to appear in this movie for free. She was the victim of an infamous kidnapping shortly before this movie was made, and later photos of her in distress were published in a magazine, which has since been forced to shut down and its publisher sent to jail. The actress denies she was assaulted but there was a movie leaked on net that allegedly showed her being gang-raped. (The Hong Kong press, out of respect for her, has mostly refused to report on the incident, but google will turn up a few articles about it.)
2 deathly unfunny girls stays a their deathly unfunny Uncle Benny's beach house. Uncle Beeny doesn't like party. But guess what? the deathly unfunny girls have a, yup you guessed it, a deathly unfunny beach party. If you didn't catch the not so subliminal message that I'm trying to convey. First off, you're a moron. I would rather watch a nude jello tag team watching match between Bea Aurther and Cameryn Manhiem VS. Rosie O'Donnell and Jessica Tandy. This movie, and I lose the term loosely is just THAT bad.<br /><br />My Grade: F <br /><br />Eye Candy: Kristin Novak and Charity Rahmer go topless, Iva Singer shows breasts and buns
This movie is awful. If you're considering to see this movie... two words DO NOT. It's tasteless, the storyline is really lame, and the jokes are even worse. The acting is really pathetic. I can't believe that this movie was made. Rather watch American Pie, Going Greek or Road Trip if you're in the mood for a teen comedy. It's about two girls who head for Malibu on their Spring Break. As usual they didn't do much planning and called (i think her names Michelle)'s uncle to crash at his Malibu mansion. Uncle Bennie strictly forbids them of having any kind of party, and as you would of guessed, they go ahead and do it. Please, I urge you, do not see this movie.
This is by far and away the stupidest thing I have ever seen on celluloid. I mean, we started watching it assuming it was a "skinemax T&A flick", but aside from a couple boobs, that was it. I mean, I get the point of making stupid movies in order to show some sex scenes, as they are the sole reason for a movie of that kind to be made. This movie, however, has no sex scenes, and really has no point at all. There is no linear time, the scenes travel around like a fart in the wind, people show up for no reason, then leave, and it is never explained, the plot is never advanced, and nothing happens. I have never been as flabbergasted at how bad a movie was until I saw this. Has the director even been to a film school? Has he ever seen a movie? I don't know, but from the looks of it, he seems to have made some moron proud with this piece of crap, as he is still working. I literally walked away from this movie dumber, but I still recommend watching it, as it should be shown in every film school of the country as an example in what not to do when making a film. Move over PLan 9 from Outer Space, you have a new contender for worst movie ever made.
This movie had lots of potential, beautiful women, cute guys, a beach, beer, a hot tub, a mansion on the beach, a swimming pool, a sexy maid who hates her job, and really nice cars. However, the movie had one thing that doomed it to failure... a full length script and a bunch of sexy women who want to give acting a try because they think it would be a cool idea.<br /><br />Let's put it this way...<br /><br />If you find yourself at a party and you have a choice between watching this movie or a childs potty training video from the 70s, choose the potty training video.
too predictable for spoilers, but i'll not be cagey below, so don't read it if you care.<br /><br />a few dull scriptwriters together for half an afternoon, and even then they run out of ideas. so let's start with a criminal sought by all France...doesn't matter what he has done, we'll think of that later (they don't). some seconds of suspense, but not too much, and nothing unexpected, because that requires Art. half an hour needed to finish off the film; i get it: have them rob a jeweller's, and take a lot of time avoiding alarms etc.; everybody robs jewellers in films just ike this, it's bound to work (it doesn't). no humour, no character (ok, yves montand does get to ham it a weeny bit) and have everyone speak in a quiet deadpan voice that is supposed to make one think of noir, but merely makes the actors sound depressed. if they are silent, it'll make them seem grimmer - but also save us writing their lines. we'd better add something for the stay at home women who are going to watch this stuff, so let's have something to make them empathise with hubby (we forgot to put any women in the film). got it: a son on (gasp) marijuana - oh, and have him attempt suicide for no particular reason (shame? his dad's a mafia boss for crying out loud, but the audience will feel his fatherly care, and if not, sod them). oh, the crooked cop was a classmate of the guy who gets him in the end; wrenching, eh? let's have them all die at the end, or we'll never finish this stuff. is it in the can? right, that's over with then, thank god. who'll we get for director?
Jack Black and Kyle Gass play fantasy versions of themselves in this comic showcase for their side-band Tenacious D, an art-rock outfit with satirical, barbed lyrics. An ex-runaway obsessed with heavy metal and a beachfront-living, pot-smoking slacker who pretends he's a rock god meet and form a band (the birthmarks on both their butt-cheeks form the group's moniker). Opening with a funny prologue which apes a Twisted Sister video from the '80s, "The Pick of Destiny" is a fairly well-produced movie aimed at older kids; it occasionally resembles nothing more than a middle-aged variation of "Wayne's World", with jokey-stoner interludes and a climactic bout with Beelzebub himself, yet Black and Gass have an enormously comfortable rapport (they also acted as producers, co-wrote the script and all the music). The target audience will obviously go for it, though inspiration is a bit low, particularly in the second-half (just about the time our heroes impulsively outrun the cops in a student-driver car). The music sequences are far more successful than the attempts at movie satire and, for the first thirty minutes or so, Jack Black's manic enthusiasm is infectious. *1/2 from ****
"Once again, we have a movie that packs about 20 minutes of entertainment -- much of it involving the band's occasionally funny lyrics -- into a 90-minute package." For anyone old enough to remember, this is along lines of the first "Bill and Ted" WITHOUT the story line. If that doesn't say enough as to how brainless this movie is, think about Jack Black singing for about 20 minutes of the movie and that being its selling point. If you actually like listening to Tenacious D because of their musical prowess, then knock yourself out and buy the soundtrack. Don't waste your time with this though. If your a stoner looking for a good bad movie filled with laughs, you're still barking up the wrong tree. No matter the potency of your buds, you'll still be left wishing you'd popped in Grandma's Boy again instead.
"JB" (Jack Black) runs away from home after being spanked by his father (Meat Loaf). Years later, he finally makes it to Hollywood and comes across the greatest guitar player he has ever heard, "KG" (Kyle Glass).<br /><br />After a little squabble, the two decide join forces and perform at an Open Mic Night at what appears to be a less than popular bar. To their shock, they don't do that good.<br /><br />Back at their less than spectacular apartment, the two are trying to figure out what the legends of rock have that they don't while looking at some old magazines. It's only then that they realize that the guitarists on the covers have the same guitar pick.<br /><br />While trying to look for a similar pick, an employee of the music shop (Ben Stiller, who is also the film's Executive Producer) tells him the ancient story of the "Pick of Destiny", of which they seek. This employee, who has long gray hair and thick glasses, also tells them that the pick, which was made from Satan's tooth, is in a history of rock museum.<br /><br />Now the two pot-smoking losers with delusions of grandeur goes on a music-filled adventure to steal the pick.<br /><br />Let me say this up front, if you are not a fan of Tenacious D, which gave us the comedy actor Jack Black, then you should skip this one. I am not a fan of these two, and only watched it because it was suggested by Flixter.com.<br /><br />The jokes, for the most part, produce silence more than anything. I laughed at maybe three of the jokes, and chuckled at a few others. Tenacious D is only for a certain audience, of which I am not.<br /><br />This movie lags in numerous places, and this is where the worst jokes appear. And let me say that, when Black and Glass are not working off one another, they are completely lost on screen.<br /><br />All the songs in this movie is by and performed by Tenacious D. Many of the songs perfectly advance the storyline by describing their adventures at the time in the film. However, I felt that the songs sounded too similar to be told apart.<br /><br />Another problem with this film is that the language will turn off a lot of people. There are a lot of four-letter words in this film. There are also some drug references. I would not recommend this for children.<br /><br />Part of Tenacious D's schtick is that Black is in your face, and Glass stays in his shadows for the most part. This is how they are in this movie, and it doesn't really work. Now, this may have been part of the act, but I felt that Glass just didn't want to be there. In one scene, he performs his (background) lyrics at a party and he just can't work alone.<br /><br />Tenacious D are supposedly rock fans in real life, and have maybe two rock legends in the movie, I lost count because I was so bored with this film. Personally, I would have liked to have seen more rock legends and icons in the film. However, we don't get that.<br /><br />What we do get is a movie filled with completely lame jokes, lots of foul language, a lackluster script. You also get horrible acting, and an unoriginal story. However, you get some pretty good songs that pretty much sound the same.<br /><br />The story could have been promising, but many of the scenes appeared to have been added into the film at the last second. This is somewhat similar to The Blues Brothers movie many years ago, but the Blues Brothers had a much bigger following -- and two songs on the Billboard music charts. Tenacious D only has a small following, with a few HBO specials under their belt. And, unlike The Blues Brothers, the comedy is not well thought out at all.<br /><br />If you are a hard core fan of Tenacious D, then I suggest you check it out. However, like most of the movie audience when this film was released to theaters, I would say avoid this one. Save your money on this one, folks.
This is about as pretentious a movie as a shallow director like Joel Schumacher could make, I suppose. A group of medical students take it turns to die for several minutes; upon revival they discover that their sins have manifested themselves somehow or other. As some of the characters are visited by dead people and some just seem to be haunted by their guilty consciences it's not quite clear exactly what the connection is, but the visions do all seem to look like sixth form art films. Why the students treat their experiment as some kind of grand journey that'll make them famous is a bit of a mystery, as the results are completely unproveable and, as the movie mentions several times, have been documented plenty of times before. Still, it's nice to see Schumacher practising for his Batman trainwrecks with a bit of the old neon paint and coloured lightbulbs. And William Baldwin is a plank.
A bunch of medical student yuppies get together in their spare time to hook each other to the electrical cables and die. Then they stand around counting the time before brain death, and then start CPR and heart-massage and bring each other back to life. The fact that Julia Roberts was in this movie should say it all. FLATLINERS is like group GHOST. Everyone wants to see their dead relatives and visit their old dead buddies, so what better way to do it than have a bunch of Medical Students kill you for five minutes and then bring you back to life. The rest of the movie has the predictable relationship issues, plus the predictable "GEE MAYBE IF WE KEEP KILLING EACH OTHER, ONE OF THESE DAYS ONE OF US WILL STAY DEAD?" D'OH!!! This movie should have been called BRAIN DEAD. The fact that the characters were depicted as being Medical Students made me wonder if they had gone to a foreign Correspondence School to get their degrees. The only thing that kept this film from being a total laugh was that they did not just stick their fingers into electrical outlets in order to "die." This film would have been a great THREE STOOGES comedy movie.
I don't much mind the factors that others here have objected to - acting, lighting and so forth. For the most part, these things were executed well enough to carry the film and put its points across. It's just a horror film, after all.<br /><br />What bugged me were the points themselves. Because this is a deeply moralistic film, and its morality is deeply tacky. In fact it's actually fundamentalist Christian morality, and this is a fundamentalist Christian film. Look at the 'sins': <br /><br />* Sutherland's character picked on a kid at school when he was a pre-teen, leading to his accidental death.<br /><br />* Baldwin's character used masculine wiles, persuasion and good looks to shag quite a few women, some of whom he videotaped. Ooh, the swine! How unlucky for him that women are such passive, gormless creatures that they had no complicity in the matter.<br /><br />* Roberts' character's dad came back from Vietnam a junkie, so ashamed to be caught shooting up that he kills himself. Yes, what a terrible sin! Why couldn't he have just become an alcoholic like all the others?<br /><br />* and Bacon's character picked on another schoolkid. How awful! The fact that he was a child himself apparently counts for nought. Children, it seems, are divinely judged by adult criteria.<br /><br />Well, maybe lots of people support this level of moral absolutism. It certainly seems to have gone unremarked in this movie's comments. Does everyone just buy this stuff? At least human laws treat children differently from adults, recognising that their ethical sense is partially-formed. This film has no such qualms, and I find that pretty objectionable. Ditto the notion that women are helpless, fluffy creatures before young men's evil lusts. Or that a Vietnam vet driven to drug addiction is so shameful that suicide is a valid option. Pathetic.
What I came away with after watching this movie was a guilty conscience. The film itself has a rather intriguing plot line and premise to it, but unfortunately it is a movie that you cannot watch with out being bombarded with pornography. If you plan on viewing this and have a moral problem with the degradation of the marital act for the viewing pleasure of an audience then you are making a big mistake. This is not the type of movie with the token sex scene that you can skip on your DVD player. Near the beginning of the film Baldwin's character is video taping his sexual exploits without the knowledge of his partner. This tape and others like it continue to pop up throughout the movie at unpredictable times. It appears that the film is attempting to make a statement about the dignity of women. Ironically in doing so they made multiple women into prostitutes. I only gave it a 2 instead of a 1 because had they handled Baldwin's promiscuity better it would have been an interesting film.
The only thing more full of holes than this movie's premise is its script. Flatliners is the ideal showcase for Joel Schumacher's glorious, flamboyant, brazen lack of talent. The plot is totally illogical but super fake-ponderous and everything is art-directed within an inch of its life in the most clichéd, overheated way. I love how the med school autopsy room is a cavernous vaulted marble mausoleum low-lit in red with huge Rembrandt paintings hanging from the walls. I love how Keifer Sutherland drives a canvas-backed army jeep. No one in Joel Schumacher's movies lives in an un-eccentric manner. It's always an alternate universe where everyone is young and painfully hip, but hip strictly and obsessively according to an out-of-touch middle-aged billionaire man-child's idea of hip. And holy crap! The part where Baldwin brother #16 dies and comes back to life and then is haunted by all the women he's slept with who intone "I'll call you" and "I just need some space" is the funniest friggin' thing in the whole universe!!!! What kind of a world do we live in where Joel Schumacher gets to keep having people throw money at him? "Flatliners" made me want to review the man's entire oeuvre solely for the kind of high-quality yuks contained therein.
Greetings All,<br /><br />Isn't it amazing the power that films have on you after the 1st viewing ?<br /><br />I was so delighted by the first viewing of this film, I couldn't stop talking about "Flatliners" to all my friends for weeks - mind you I was a very impressionable 18 year old back then and my taste in films have become a little more conservative since then.<br /><br />Then somehow I forgot about this film until I saw the DVD in my local department store and remembering how great it was I thought "Right ! I'll pluck you off the shelf when they bring out the Special Edition".<br /><br />Last week, I was overjoyed when my best friend invited me over to watch Flatliners on DVD. The expectation was that I would love this film even more on 2nd viewing.. How wrong I was !<br /><br />Verdict: after 11 years my view on this film had changed from a very scary 1st class movie to total junk which overplays on the religious and supernatural side of things ratherly superficially.<br /><br />I have never been a big fan of Julia Roberts' acting (excepting for Erin Brockeridge in which she deserved her Oscar) I think the problem with this film definitely lies with the director and a so so mediocre script. I left this film feeling it had no real substance or potential, and just a couple of scarey cheap thrills which weren't very well done at all. Not even the score by James-Newtown Howard, who I rather like as a film composer, could captivate and thrill me.<br /><br />In 1990 I would have given this film 9.5 / 10; but in 2001 I'd be lucky to give it 2 / 10 at best.<br /><br />
From 1936-1939, Peter Lorre made a string of highly successful Mr. Moto films. While technically B-films, they were much better made than typical films of the genre. However, Lorre tired of making these highly repetitive films and told friends he wanted out of the series. When it was canceled in 1939, Lorre was thrilled but his plans of getting more complicated and satisfying roles did not materialize when he moved to Columbia Pictures. ISLAND OF DOOMED MEN is one of these films and it's pretty obvious the studio isn't putting much effort into the movie, as I think the plot was written by penguins. Talented penguins, perhaps...but still the movie made little sense at all.<br /><br />It begins with a guy agreeing to be an undercover agent for the government. He is to infiltrate an island in the US where something strange is amiss. Now they easily could have just got a search warrant to do this. But, given that penguins were writing the film, the agent takes the rap for a murder he didn't commit and spends a year in prison for this. He apparently hopes that he'll be paroled to this island, as many parolees are sent there when they finish the term.<br /><br />There are some more serious problems with this idea. First, they only have him serve a year before getting paroled--but he was convicted of MURDER and he refused to divulge who he really was. They would never parole anyone in a case like this. Second, what if he wasn't paroled to the island? He would have spent an entire year in jail for nothing! Third, why not just have scuba divers or paratroopers or cops in boats come to the island?! Talk about a contrived plot! <br /><br />Once on the island, the agent discovers that evil Peter Lorre has set up his own private prison and staffed it with guys on parole as slave labor. What about the men having to report to their parole officers? This was never explained, but Lorre was using them to mine for diamonds and they were treated abominably. Now, another question I had was that if Lorre was discovering huge diamonds there, he was a very wealthy man. So, why not just PAY people to mine for the diamonds?! Why set up your own version of Devil's Island and savagely beat and kill the men?! <br /><br />Eventually, Lorre gets what's his and the island's slaves are released. Unfortunately, by then, I really didn't care. Overall, watchable but rather dumb. Lorre's career only took a turn for the better when he moved the following year to Warner Brothers. With films like ISLAND OF DOOMED MEN, I could see why his stay at Columbia was short.
Thursday June 9, 6:45pm Broadway Performance Hall & Saturday June 11, 1:45pm Broadway Performance Hall<br /><br />Bless the independent filmmaker. Without them we'd see nothing but Spielberg the Farrelly brothers and films based on old sitcoms. They are the risk takers. They reap the rewards of success and suffer the failures. Max and Grace is most definitely a failure. Credit is deserved by Michael Parness for getting out there and making his first feature which he claims drove him to bankruptcy. He might be better off sticking to the stage if this film is any indication of what to expect in the future. Even though everyone warned me I went to see Max and Grace anyway, hoping I might discover something they did not. It starts off well enough, a party for Max in his parent's house shot in warm subdued light, the camera floating into interesting angles. As soon as we see Max has hung himself, an obvious rip-off of Harold and Maude, the whole thing goes right in the tank. How could he do this unnoticed in the middle of a birthday party? For that matter how could two mentally ill and committed psychiatric patients decide to get married and do it with the blessings of all parties concerned? In the Q&A after the film David Krumholtz suggested the entire story was the surrealist dream of his character Max. This story is so badly written the comment sounded more like an excuse. The film doesn't look as though it was made on a shoestring, all the more reason to be so disappointed with the results. What's intended as funny isn't but instead is offensively bad. The continuity is sloppy the lighting is dreadful and the effects look cheap and forced. BPH seats under three hundred and was surprisingly full but I saw at least thirty or forty walkouts within the first half-hour. At one point Grace, played by Natasha Lyonne, laments her inability to die. I found myself thinking the same thing since I never walk out before the credits. If Krumholtz really thinks this is "one of the best scripts" he has ever read it sounds like he needs to catch up on his reading. A terrible waste of talent and resources, this is the worst independent I've seen since Bubba-Ho-tep.
I watched about an hour of this movie (against my will) and couldn't finish it. I'd rate it as a 0. The writing was bad, the plot predictable and one that's been done far too many times. The most annoying part of this movie was the acting done by Melody Thomas Scott. This part did not call for someone appearing snobbish, but she managed in every single scene I saw to look like a (sour) snob or someone who was about to spout something extremely sarcastic or cruel. <br /><br />The two romances which seemed to develop into something serious almost upon the couples meeting was a bit too much. <br /><br />I should know better than to watch made for TV movies. If there is absolutely nothing on the telly and this is the only choice, read a book.
When I think about TV movies, I always think of this film, I have watched it a few times on Sky Movies, it was terrible.<br /><br />Its been a long time, since I have seen this film, was just browsing, and came across it on here :-S.<br /><br />A microbiologist (Linda Flemming), goes on holiday, with her son (William Flemming), at this holiday resort kinda place, they meet up with Paul Johnson (taxi driver / owns a bar?), and Kathy Johnson.<br /><br />Its like a weird romantic thing, William starts to fall for Kathy, and Paul falls for Linda.<br /><br />Some guy passes out in a street, he has some mark on his arm, Joseph (Joseph was a deep sea diver, who on some dive, saw a light, or something, and converted to religion), says he will take care of this person, there is a gap in my memory, then there is a wide out break of the virus, I think Linda offers her help, to come up with a cure, Kathy gets infected (William notices a mark on Kathy's arm), with the virus, also does Joseph.<br /><br />Paul says some lines to Joseph, then Joseph stumbles away, the next time you see Joseph, he is cured some how, that information is used to cure the infected, then there is a beach party, the end.
I think i would rather have my piles clipped with a pair of rusty clippers than bear another 5 minutes of this movie. In fact i cannot even be bothered to go in to detail! Not sure how they managed to get the needles into the wooden actors to cure them! Better off for all concerned if they had just nuked the island after finding out about the virus, that way it would have lasted as long as the commercial break, and we could have moved on with our lives. Plus one more thing was this rubbish commissioned by the god channel? As all they seemed to do was praise the bleeding lord most of the time. Avoid like the plague! In fact i would prefer it!
I ticked the "contains spoiler" box, in case I say anything that is a spoiler and don't realise I've said it until I re-read it after I've posted. So it's just in case.<br /><br />Anyhow, back to reviewing this film.<br /><br />I saw this film on skymovies earlier on this afternoon, and by the description Sky gives you (these people must be on acid) it sounded pretty good, but then when I actually got about 30 minutes into it, I was appalled. This film, in my opinion, has the worst scriptwriting and actors/actresses - ever. The young girl who falls in love with the boy from L.A after about 3 hours, is a really stupid, lame character, who has an annoying, whiney voice, and boff hair. -.-. Then there's her lover, who's an idiot, and is also very whiney. Actually, maybe they suit each other. Then there's the boy's mum, who's with him on holiday, and surprise, surprise - she's a doctor, and - oh my god, wait, there's even more unsuspected surprises! A virus suddenly breaks out on the island and she knows all about viruses! =O. SHOCK HORROR! Yeah, right. Lol. Then there's this insane religious lad, who keeps going on about "'erbs" or something, and how the Lord knows all. Everyone on the island seems to love him, yet he's actually a stubborn, arrogant, steroid-pumped (you really need to watch this film just for the scene where he comes out of the sea after a swim, his head is like tiny, and his body is MASSIVE. it's hilarious) buffoon who's had way too much to drink.<br /><br />Anyhow, after all these weirdo characters, including a stoned-looking taxi driver, the religious lad finally gives in to the doctor, and she takes a blood sample, and they get straight to work on finding the cure from that, because for some reason he's dramatically been saved, all down to "'erbs and God". AND OH MY GOD. YES, THERE'S ANOTHER Surprise!! YOU'LL NEVER GUESS WHAT!! Just in the nick of time, with 11 minutes to go before everybody on the island drops dead in-fact, including her son and his girl, she finds the cure, and injects everybody, and it's all resolved!!! What a pathetic film. I mean, I knew it sounded an obvious ending from when I first started watching it, but I actually though it'd be good and have some sub-plot twists somewhere, but no-no, it was just boring and dry.<br /><br />Don't watch this film. You'll end up like me - stunned for 3 hours and then demanding the hour and a half you spent of your life watching it back.
Before I saw this masterpiece I never would have guessed that a devastating and hideously contagious virus could be defeated by the use of Lutheran prayers... and "erbs". Ralf Moeller's performance is gargantuan; the realism incandescent. I was so inspired I'm flying straight to Zambibwia tomorrow to crack out the pesto and get my hands together for third world prosperity. God bless this film.<br /><br />Seriously, I'm going to have to watch Troll 2 and Anus Magillicutty just to believe that it is possible to concoct more hamfistedly clichéd dialogue. It's so tortured that taking a cheesegrater to your knuckles might well be preferable to sitting through it. The only subtlety it manages to achieve is in its thinly disguised racism, as the poor islanders turn to ineffectual dumb-ass collective prayer which achieves nothing until the übermenschlich, linen-shrouded Teutonic hero Moeller, with his direct line to Yahweh, can provide a blood sample which the horn-blowing yankee scientists can get to work on and save the hapless natives. This movie sucks.
Unbelievable. I never saw something like that. Everything is bad; really bad. From photography (lots of scenes without focus!) to the acting (the young female is terrible). And what can we say about those helicopters made in Paint Brush...? Really amazing B, I mean, Z film.<br /><br />The plot are bad, cliché and bad wrote. Basics conveniences to the screenplay seems to work. I can't even think a young student of cinema making this movie. Nothing justify it.<br /><br />I recommend that you don't even think to see this movie. Sleep or play solitary are best choices. ;)<br /><br />xxx
Standard "Disease outbreak in remote area; expert who happens to be vacationing in the area takes charge" movie. There are only a few deviations from the norm. One is that the kids involved are pretty reasonable from the outset. Usually they are monsters who repeatedly gum up the works until they redeem themselves in the end. Another is that the local medicine man/witch doctor who is normally an impediment early on is never completely discounted or redeemed in the end. Perhaps since this seems to have been made for the faith oriented PAX channel, they didn't want to seem too judgmental about the faithful. Finally, there were no evil local politicians/leisure industry bigwigs trying to cover the whole thing up. The lack of these stereotypes was refreshing -- if we have the PAX channel to thank for that I may have to sample a few more of their offerings. Aside from that, however, this was pretty standard stuff. You've seen it all before.
Cartoon-like special effects, horrible acting and dialogue, and dry plot! This movie has it all! My friend and I went to blockbuster to find a horrible movie that we could make fun of, but this was just too much. The movie begins with a women and her son vacationing on a made-up island in the Bahama region. The women, who just happens to be a doctor/virologist is in the area when a man collapses. He has a strange wound on his arm, and she immediately knows that it is a contagious virus. The story goes on to show startlingly fast romance between the two teenage leads (this is justified by the girl saying "I know it's fast, but it just feels nice." ????) Anyway the entire island gets infected with this virus and the CDC is brought in. We are told that within three months, if the virus is not treated and contained that it will spread to the united states and kill millions of people. This information does not stop the CDC from leaving the island to save themselves. Thankfully the cure to this horrible virus is found just in time, and the entire island is saved. To celebrate the death of there loved ones, the island people have a smashing party where everyone is dancing, having fun, and forgetting about the horrible epidemic that just occurred.
Genre: Cartoon short with no dialogue, African girl and lion.<br /><br />Main characters: Inki, the lion and the minah bird. <br /><br />What happens: A lion wants to eat an African girl called Inki. There is also a rather confusing Minah bird. Is he on Inki's, or the lion's side..?<br /><br />Message: Erm…<br /><br />My thoughts: I agree with Lee Eisenberg, this is rather mean on poor African people!! :-( I like how the main character, Inki (who is an African girl) is quite a nice main character, but they still portray her rudely and make a younger audience not like her very much just because she's HUNTING!! GRRR CHARLES M. JONES!! I don't like the lion very much and I think the minah bird is ALL RIGHT (I suppose). Personally I prefer Charles M. Jones's Looney Tunes cartoons in the future.<br /><br />If you want to watch this anyway, then I recommend the website YouTube. Just type in "Inki" on the space in the main page and you're there. <br /><br />I wish Charles M. Jones had been nicer to Inki in this short. So there. <br /><br />Recommended to: People who are interested in old cartoons and/or people who are just messing around on You Tube.
Silly Disney film about a college student who accidentally discovers a potion that makes things invisible. Not a bad idea and some of the special effects are pretty good. Still, the script is VERY bad...all the jokes flop and the acting is lousy. Everybody's trying to be funny and they're not. A real boring, stupid Disney film. But it was fun seeing Kurt Russell so young.
Miserable film. Not even to be compared in one breath with "To Kill a Mockingbird," or "In the Heat of the Night."<br /><br />Yes, there is racial prejudice but the film is at most ridiculous. <br /><br />Come now. Would you really have Elizabeth Patterson, of all people, guarding a jail so as to avoid a lynching? Patterson, in her day, played everyone's mother and was the landlady in "I Love Lucy" before Fred and Ethel Mertz bought the building.<br /><br />Imagine exhuming the body so that it will not come out that the black man's gun killed a white man?<br /><br />Claude Jarman Jr., who was so fabulous in 1946's "The Yearling" appears in this mess. He still had those sad eyes. My eyes would be sad too if I appeared in this awful film.<br /><br />To me, this was nothing more than a Faulkner flop all the way.
Virtual Sexuality proves that Britain can produce romantic comedies as vapid as those from America. The only differences are an ending that ties up the loose bits differently than an American film would and a cameo by Ram John Holder, which is always welcome. That's enough to make this a watcher on a cold winter's night.
A British teen movies which centres around a girl (Justine) accidentally creating her dream man (Jake) in by the use of a virtual reality machine, there is only one problem (well….not just one…) she gets trapped inside his body with a geek as the only person who knows the truth and the only person she can trust. It sounds a lot worse than it is, I found it more watchable for the reason that Laura Fraser was starring in it more than the film content, indeed she looks stunning throughout especially when she dresses in a red lycra dress in order to impress Jake, WOW!!, If only I had a virtual reality machine………
Justine cannot find the perfect mate to make her first time the perfect one. With geek friend in tow, she enters a virtual machine to improve her appearance. When she sees the opportunity to create her perfect man, an explosion occurs and the results are left to your imagination. Problem is, how many obvious sex jokes are left anymore? How predictable can these kind of movies get? A few funny moments here and there, but nothing too outrageous or different from jokes in other movies or even normal life. If you liked WEIRD SCIENCE or jokes about the 'fish out of water' combined with 'gender identity crisis', then by all means these 90 min, you could enjoy.
Laura Fraser creates her ideal man on a virtual reality machine and he's suddenly brought to life, of course. Oh what jolly japes don't ensue in a Britcom flop so Day-Glo bright yet so dismal it manages to make the execrable 1980s American teen flick Weird Science look almost decent. The sex-obsessed script is by The Sun film critic Nick Fisher, a former teeny-mag 'agony uncle' who's obviously never watched an episode of Smack The Pony in his life; shame, because then he might at least have been in with a shout of writing female characters that were recognisably members of the human race. This knicker-twisting lot have all too clearly emerged from the virtual brain of someone who imagines they're amusing. Suddenly, the thought of new-wave Iranian cinema is somehow attractive.
Oh dear. this was quite possibly the worst film i have seen in years. I mean what more can be done with the old "woman inside mans body" storyline? it was full of cliches, eg the nerd coming into his own sequence, the "lad" getting whats coming to him etc. im not calling these spoilers because any one could guess what happens!! the only thing it had going for it was Laura Fraser, who gave an average performance. and as for the "dream" boy, that was the wettest piece of acting ever. even the bad guys were instantly forgettable.<br /><br />terrible movie.
It's hard to tell who this film is aimed at; the characterisation and style smacks of a "Children's ITV" series crossed with an Aussie soap, yet the subject matter, nudity, and language aims it at an older audience.<br /><br />The first half-hour has the heroine Justine philosophising about losing her virginity, and is excruciatingly embarrassing to anyone over 18. A complete rip-off of "Ferris Bueller", from the talking-at-the-camera bit down to the on-screen graphics.<br /><br />Her nerdy friend Chas brings her to a computer fair where an explosion during the use of a virtual reality machines turns her into a man. Or actually, creates a male alter-ego of her, called Jake. Don't look at me like that; I'm just relating it the way it was shown.<br /><br />After this the film is mildly amusing for a while; amongst all the drama-school mugging, only Rupert Penry-Jones brings a real comic touch to his woman-trapped-in-a-man's-body role of Jake. There's some funny scenes with Jake dealing with his new body, and new feelings; nothing you haven't seen before, but then in this film you'll clutch at anything that's entertaining.<br /><br />Unfortunately Justine and Jake meet up, and hilarious antics ensue (I wish), involving the owners of the virtuality machine who want to kidnap Jake in order to have sex with him, or examine him, or something. Anyway, it's just an excuse to fill an extra half hour with some explosions and car chases; for such a cheap looking movie, the explosions come often and loud, suggesting the money was spent in all the wrong places.<br /><br />In the end, the heroine realises she can't fall in love with herself, deletes her alter ego, and ends up in a one-night stand with the nerd to lose her virginity (this presumably is what is meant to pass for a happy ending in the 90s). But only after he removes his glasses and puts some hair gel and a leather jacket on; god forbid she actually have sex with someone who _looks_ like a nerd. Of course, this is a bit subversive - in these days of PC movies which tell you to love and be yourself, and that everyone is special in their own way, it's refreshingly reactionary to have a film which screams "CONFORM!" at you, and treats virgins and nerds with the contempt they deserve.<br /><br />The characterisation is simple dire; the nerd is very nerdy (room full of computers, thick glasses, social retardism, virginity, no leather jacket), there's a slut, she's very slutty (blonde, tight dresses, orange tan, vampy accompanying music), there's a jock, he's very... well, you get the picture. You can get away with this kind of characterisation in a broad comedy, but "Virtual Sexuality" isn't very funny. It's only mildly amusing in parts, and excruciating in others. It takes a lot for a woman as cute as Justine (played by Laura Fraser) to annoy me, but she manages it.<br /><br />Don't be fooled by the title; there's absolutely nothing erotic about the film, and it doesn't deal with the topics of how the new communications technologies are changing the way we view and acquire relationships (unless you actually think there _is_ a chance your PlayStation might blow up and change your sex).<br /><br />
This movie plays out like an English version of an ABC after school special, with nudity. It makes you wonder who the target audience was supposed to be. It's not as though the writers were too preoccupied with selling a plausible plot either. While it does possess a certain watchability, Virtual Sexuality is fluffier than dandelion meringue. It's a good movie to watch if you're snowed in, the cable's out, and it's the only tape you've got.
I don't normally write reviews, in fact, I never write reviews. This film was so atrocious it actually inspired me to start. Virtual Sexuality attempts to be a light hearted and cheeky teenage comedy regarding the usual trappings; virginity, boys etc. except the main character apparently turns into her perfect boy that she has created using the help of a machine at a technology fair. <br /><br />Sound interesting? Well, it isn't. The acting is the most half-hearted and appalling I have ever seen. The unfortunate thing is they appear to be genuinely supportive of script and movie, which probably explains why I have never seen them in any memorable production since. I have not bothered to learn the actors names, nor their characters. The lading lady does not enrapture or charm you and, thus, you do not care for her whatsoever. The leading lady's male friend raises no sympathy even when the script is vociferously screaming for you to pity him. The only rise he will get out of you is one of extreme anger and sudden violence. The only half decent actor was the blonde leading man, who, despite his miserably weak role, really gave it all he could, which wasn't much in the light of such a horrendous piece of work. I will not even talk about the acting abomination that are the 'bad guys' of the plot. But then again, what plot?<br /><br />I watched this film unfold incredulously, as I had absolutely no idea how anyone would have the foolish audacity to write such a script, nevermind produce, act in, and direct it. I can only wonder. The only reason my companion and I continued to watch such a mangled example of film was the disbelieving laughter it managed to arise out of us as cohesion, logic, class and even impotent storyline were disregarded within half an hour into the film. I have completely no idea why anyone wanted to violate the movie industry by releasing this to the public. This is a joke of a film and is best left to gather dust in warehouses for the rest of eternity. 1/2 out of 10. If that.
I think this was a HORRIBLE mistake on Disney's part. First off, Kuzco does NOT need to pass "emperor school" to become emperor! That's never happened before. Secondly, the new voices don't sound like the originals at all. Very poor redo. And while I adored the movie The Emperor's New Groove, the New School is just stupid. Like all the jokes are the same, and many are from the movie. The plot gets redundant, always Yzma (is that how you spell it?) trying to become empress, Kuzco stopping her, etc. Or Kuzco learning to become a better person. I think Kuzco gets annoying with his constant complaints and questions. He is a spoiled brat and it bothers me. I do not think this is worth five minutes of your time, much less a half hour.
I cannot believe this show was okay-ed. First off J.P. Manoux does a horrible job filling in for David Spade and Pacha's voice is too deep compared to John Goodman's. The theme song is so annoying and the plots of the episodes are so stupid!!! The only good thing about this show is that Eartha Kitt and Patrick Warburton remain as the voices of Yzma and Kronk. This show is a waste of money and a waste of your time. Half of the episodes are copied of the movie. In my opinion The Emperor's New Groove was one of the best children's movies in years, but they complety ruined by making Kronk's New Groove and this show. You should watch such shows as Spongebob, Fairly Oddparents, Danny Phantom, or Kim Possible but not this show.
All this show is, is the same plot. Kuszko (spelling?) is in danger of failing school, he needs to pass to become emperor. He needs to learn something, which he thinks is stupid, he then uses it/ learns more about it and realizes it's not so stupid. Eezma, posing as the principal, tries to transform Kuszko into some animal to stop him. Every episode.<br /><br />Jokes from the movie are copied (Eezma's incredibly complicated plans, Kuszko breaking the 4th wall constantly, squirrels.) They should try hiring some writers.<br /><br />2/10
I'm new to Argento's work, and if this and Suspiria are any indication, then Argento is much more a filmmaker of experience than story. In his films, characters are placed in grueling and mesmerizing horror contexts that literally saturate the logic of the world around them. The camera literally flows gracefully through sets as the characters run, stumble, and choke their way to an eventual horrifying conclusion. It worked, REALLY well, in Suspiria. For some reason it didn't work here.<br /><br />The problem I see with this movie is that even though the protagonist "gets help" by way of contacting the police and asking for help from her friends, it still feels as if she refuses to "get help" in terms of actually trying to find a solution to her problem. The entrapment in this film is that she's trapped in the killer's little game, one that she could easily get out of by... not setting herself up so easily? In a weird way it seems like the character wants the torture the killer gives her, which in a way is the point and could have worked except that the whole psychology of it is thrown about mostly due to whatever Argento feels like doing.<br /><br />As a loving homage to "The Phantom of the Opera", it's certainly an interesting and unique take. For all his worth, Argento delights in operatic movements as well, which well highlights the action. It just doesn't make much sense, especially as it delves further into a completely useless ending (yes, I know it's a reference to Harris' novel "Red Dragon". No, it didn't work). Why the character should go from one horrifying experience of entrapment to a willing one with the director is beyond me. It felt almost self-serving on Argento's part.<br /><br />Overall, a fun experience, and between this and Suspiria I'm more than willing to follow up on more Argento productions. But this is not a movie I'd want to return to or remember.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB
Obviously it seems many people really enjoyed this movie, and that's wonderful. It is certainly a very well-intentioned film, and I appreciate that in an era of heartless or emotionally damaging films. Unfortunately, the film has a lot of problems and it was not something I enjoyed watching.<br /><br />The primary problem is the writing. It is just not very funny. When something tries to be snappy or witty and fails, that is far worse than when it hasn't attempted wit at all. This film is to a great degree a series of "snappy"-but-gentle come-backs between adult family members, none of which seem imaginative or apt. There is also a few central premises in the film that seem like too much of a stretch of coincidence or character motivation to be believable or really work. Some of the back story seemed more intriguing, and did serve to decorate the story around the edges fairly well, but it couldn't make up for the moment-to-moment flatness that pervaded almost all of the movie.<br /><br />The directing/editing doesn't support the film well, either, although I don't know to explain how exactly. Somehow things always seemed to me rather fake, and that the actors were forcing there way through unnatural material for the most part. They tried, and I don't fault any one person here. There were also too many small and charmless roles in it outside the immediate family.<br /><br />Not a good rental in my opinion, though, again, apparently a number of people found it very charming (I am 38; I suspect that perhaps people over 60 might enjoy this film more?).
This movie was, unfortunately, terrible.<br /><br />Clichéd, hackneyed, stilted dialogue and acting make it almost unwatchable.<br /><br />The feel-good finale is laughably lame.<br /><br />There is a reason Judge Reinhold's career has vanished.<br /><br />If you don't live in New York, and aren't Jewish, several of the jokes will be inscrutable.<br /><br />I, too, found the need to have the unacknowledged lesbian daughter go straight at the end quite insulting.<br /><br />I simply cannot fathom how this film was so popular at film fests.<br /><br />It is, without a doubt, one of the worst films I have seen in quite some time.
Scott's collection of 80's icons cannot save this teen disaster. But then I suppose that's why it was only a TV movie and not a major motion picture. William A. Schwartz (writer) comes up with something closer to "Stewardess School", except this movie is more boring. This movie isn't really stupid, just boring and completely plotless. The only reason to see this might be to see Tina Yothers in an actual role after Family Ties. After this movie and equally dumb "Class Cruise", I guess Mr. Scott wised up and went back to directing sit-coms, which was his best move yet. 4 out of 10
After Loomis gives a quick recap of Micheal Myers we flashback to 1989 where Jamie is kidnapped by the Man in Black before the burning police station explodes. Micheal returns to Haddonfeild once again to find Jamie and his baby. In this version the Loomis character gets more scenes and seems much more pro-active than he is in the final cut. The Score is much better, more in line with parts 4 and 5, none of the electric guitar BS. And the ending makes a tad more sense. For these reasons coupled with the fact that this cut has more characterization and suspense, and cuts back on the gore factor (Halloween, unlike say the "Friday the 13th" Franschise, was never about blatant gore) is why I prefer this bootleg Producer's cut. Not to say that the cut magically turns a turd into gold, it just polishes the turd a little bit and makes it more comprehensible. The whole cult plot is still very stupid, as is Micheal fathering a kid <br /><br />My Producer's Cut Grade: C- <br /><br />My Theatrical Cut Grade: D-
Okay wait let me get this street, there are actually some morons on this site who reckon this is one of the better if not the best Halloween sequel. I even read someone saying it was just as good as the original. Pah what nonsense don't believe them I've watched every Halloween and clearly unlike some people knows what makes at the very least a good horror movie and this shower of S is one of the Worst horror movies i have ever seen in my life. Frankly if i was John Carpenter i would sue the person who wrote this either that or go around to his or her place with a hunting rifle. Seriously Halloween sequels in general are nearly all rubbish, two was crap, three was stupid, four is alright, five is well five, H20 alright, Resurrection painful. Yet, in many ways i find this to be the worst of a very bad bunch of sequels. Why? Well let me just embark on some kind of rant not so much a review but a mindless rant on why Halloween 6 the Cure of Michael Myers is one of the most abysmal movies i have seen in a very long time. OK where should i start, ah yes the plot oh boy the plot. Basically the plot is a heaped together mess containing cults, signs of Thor and some other crap. It's just stupid it really is, the film tries to be flashy and intelligent yet, its heaped together in such a horribly made way. Why does Michael Myers got to have a reason for killing people? Simple enough explanation Micahel likes to kill his relatives that would suffice, but no we have to have a man in black and mysterious cults and signs of Thor and utter crap. God its so bad it made me want to cry it really did, the writers have tried to add to the character of Myers but have actually managed to do the entire opposite. Apart from wearing a mask and a boiler suit < which is a completely different colour by the way, Myers just isn't the same guy from the original or even two, heck maybe even four. Thats another thing why has Myers become a Jason Voorhes parody? I thought it was meant to be the other way round, yet Myers is so similar to Jason, all he does is endlessly kill people in gory ways. In the original he teased his victims took his time and as a result the whole thing was far more suspenseful. In this he just walks around hacking people to death. I mean in the space of Half an Hour we had equalled the amount of kills in the original it was just ridiculous. Oh and Myers in this seems to have a really big head, i mean its huge and hes put on loads of weight. What else is crap, oh yeah the return of Tommy Jarvis thats pretty bad, in fact all the characters in this film are crap bar Dr Loomis of course. I can't stand the little kid, i wish he had got it he's really irritating. Our Heroin is boring and not interesting. And her whole family are a terrible bunch of actors. The mother is rubbish, the brother is bad and the Father i mean was this his first part or something? He was like a cartoon villain for gods sake he was actually more evil than Myers < By the way his death is one of the most abysmal i've ever seen i think even Friday the 13th wouldn't come up with something so entirely laughable. What else is rubbish oh yeah Tommy Jarvis, don't know the name of the guy but he really can't act, he tries his best to be serious and all that but i just wanted to laugh at him. I wish he had died in fact if everyone had died it would have been quite good really. There is Dr Loomis a horribly aged and dieing Donald Pleasence by all account. Despite him being on his last legs Pleasance is still the stand out in the brief amount of time he features. Its such a pity that such a corner stone of this franchise had to say farewell in garbage like this. What else is rubbish, oh yeah the bit where the radio DJ gets it. Firstly how the hell did Michael manage to get in that van when five minutes ago he was in his house? Secondly it was just a pointless kill which may boost the body count but is just another peace of nonsense which adds to the drivel that is this film. Its in fact that death which said it all for me in that it was pointless a lot like this film.
Taste is a subjective thing. Two people can watch the same movie with one of them loving it and the other one hating it. As it concerns 'Halloween:the Curse of Michael Myers' I fall into the latter category.<br /><br />I'm of the opinion that John Carpenter, in 1978, made one of that decade's finest fright films, which despite its flaws, still holds up well into the 21st century. It reused many of the old horror film devices but utilized them in original and effective ways. It had no pretensions that it was anything other than a movie about an escaped mental patient stalking babysitters on Halloween night. And yet there were 'ideas' in the film but they were subtly introduced and not hammered into your skull. It juxtaposed the myths of the macabre festival with the reality of what was taking place in the story and it did this with a wonderful ambiguity. <br /><br />The 'filmmakers' of this 'film' probably wouldn't even understand that previous paragraph. That's why we're saddled us with this miserable and inept piece of disposable celluloid. Direction, script, acting are of the lowest strata imaginable. This is the type of film that is so mind numbingly dull and nausea inducing as to make you want to crawl back into the womb and die. It is also truly, truly sad to see veteran British actor Donald Pleasence wasting his acting abilities with this saliva puddle of a movie. He seems drained of all his energy and resigned to the fact that this may be his last film. Maybe that's what killed him.
All ambiguity about Michael Myers has withered away thanks to this series' chronic habit of arseholing about with its continuity and pulling relatives out of nowhere. This entry introduces the potty angle that he's not just a psycho killer but is actually controlled by runes, which appear as a star constellation every Halloween, and a cult is using him to... erm, well, this film is far from coherent and I lost track of the plot after a while. The movie hemorrhages credibility so profusely it doesn't have a drop left by the end. Why does Michael put one victim's clothes in a washing machine? Why does an otherwise empty corridor have a deadly spike sticking out of the wall? Does getting electrocuted really make your head explode? And so on. It's left to Donald Pleasence, in his penultimate film role, to produce some wonderful little moments from the pile of dreadful dialogue he's given.
Man, the '90's really were an horrible decade for movies. The movies are lacking in a good style and also the storytelling is often lacking.<br /><br />This 6th entry into the long running Halloween-series is certainly a bad one. You just never really get into the story because it isn't a very well constructed and build-up movie.<br /><br />It's simply a poorly done film, that also suffers from its imagine-less writing and non-compelling characters that are in it. Dr. Loomis seems to be in it just for the sake of being in it. It's a real shame that this had to be Donald Pleasence last film-role. It's nice and also sort of suiting that his last role is in an Halloween movie but he definitely deserved to be in a better one.<br /><br />There is never a sense of real danger in the movie and the character of Michael Myers just never comes across as threatening or scary. Perhaps it's because he's featured too prominently throughout the movie, from pretty early on already. He does his usual stuff again but without too much class or originality. Also the attempts to uncover Myer's past don't really work out, for the main reason that it just doesn't get explained very well. It's obvious that the script went through various re-writes before- and also very possibly during filming. Several scenes even got re-shot or added after the first cut turned out to be far from pleasing. <br /><br />The movie more often looks and feels like a made for TV one. This is also due to the lack of some real good gore. As an horror movie it really is lacking in basically everything to make this a good or even original one to watch.<br /><br />So far the worst out of the series!<br /><br />3/10
Scanning through the comments, there doesn't appear to be a lot of love for this movie, and it's not very hard to see why, it's rubbish.<br /><br />Now, I will start by saying that the finished product was hurt, in any number of ways, by the death of Donald Pleasance (Dr Loomis) in post production. This required a re-jigging of the film's conclusion with Loomis buying the farm and took away what was supposed to be a double twist at the end with Micheal swapping places with mysterious "Man in black" and I do not mean Johnny Cash.<br /><br />Now to the story. The fifth movie ended rather unsatisfactorily with Micheal Myers escaping from jail with the mysterious man in black. It turns out (aggh) that this man knows the origin of Micheal's evil and is also a colleague of Dr Loomis named Dr Wynn. They also kidnapped Jamie Lloyd (played by Danielle Harris in parts 4 and 5 but here played by JC Brandy). Jamie, pregnant, escapes from Dr Wynn's lair and so Micheal follows her and kills her. But she'd had the kid so now he needs to track the baby down so he can kill his great nephew.<br /><br />We hear some ludicrous explanation to Micheal's evil involving Gaelic curses down bloodlines and mysterious symbols. A radio show is broadcast from Micheal's home town for some reason, which gives Micheal some more hapless victims.<br /><br />In the end the movie, just like this review is vague, confusing and directionless with a very anticlimactic ending.<br /><br />Some sex scenes and nudity. Poor plot, passable effects, with some good run of the mill slasher kills, but severely lacking in motivation. For what was supposed to explain everything, this only stirred up some new questions, made parts 4 and 5 pointless and was a poor way for a great actor in Pleasance to end his life and career.
There is a lot wrong with this movie. It can be said that doing a sequel to "Halloween" was a bad idea in the first place, and we should feel lucky that the previous entries, even at their lowest, were still watchable. But even still, "Halloween: The Curse Of Michael Myers" -- even today -- is so bad, it's shocking. Poor movie-making at it's worst, indeed. There is so much blame to go around. But where to begin? Whose shoulders does this blame rest on? <br /><br />Was it director Joe Chapelle's style-over-substance directing? Well, at the very least, the sixth installment is fresh on the visual front. And as far the visual effects go, you get to see Michael kill in some pretty gruesome ways, even if it doesn't quite fit in with the overall tone of the series.<br /><br />So, could Daniel Ferrands' troubled script be the culprit? Well, to be fair, he did the best he could. By the time you reach the sixth entry in any series, you're running out of places to go. Finding a rhyme to Michael's reason isn't a bad concept so much as it's an uninteresting one, especially the way it's handled here. And it really doesn't help that the movie was hacked to pieces and sewn back together so many times that the story got completely lost towards the end.<br /><br />Perhaps Dimension/Miramax could have botched the whole thing. Afterall, this was the first studio film in the "Halloween" series and we all know what happens when too many cooks get in the kitchen. Heck, look at the unbelievable lows they dragged "Hellraiser" to? I guess everyone is to blame, because aside from the actors and the visual effects guys, it seems nobody put in the effort to deliver a decent flick.<br /><br />The bottom line, though, is that no matter how you cut it, slice it, dice it or electrocute it until it's head explodes, "Halloween: The Curse Of Michael Myers" was never a good film. Marking an all-time low for the series that nearly killed off any credibility for Michael Myers, "Curse" is just that: cursed. The thorn angle was never interesting, nor was it probably expanded upon. The needless gore is so out of place and replaces the tension that is the trademark of the "Halloween" name. Towards the end, the movie stops making sense, stops trying to push a plot and simply tries to find a way to kill the characters and end the film before anything else is lost. It's sad that Donald Pleasence's final performance is immortalized in this film, even if the man did the best he could under the worst possible conditions. And for the most part, there's other strong cast-members in this film. Paul Rudd plays the weird, anti-social adult Tommy Doyle rather naturally while Marianne Hagan does a fair job at portraying the sympathetic female lead. On the other side of the coin, the re-casting of Jamie Lloyd was a shame, and thank God Devin Gardner doesn't do movies anymore. As the child in the film being pursued by the "Man in Black," Danny is the anti-Jamie in that he is annoying, whiny and absolutely unbelievable in his role. It's sad when you can't even feel sympathy for a child in a horror film. But I guess that's "Halloween 6" in a nutshell. Essentially, this is the anti-"Halloween", made by a director who didn't know what he was doing and a studio that had their own agenda. Hell, even the music is bad. Many will try to paint this as the edgy-"Halloween" because of it's sci-fi twist, but really, it's just stupid. Save for some good visuals and decent characters, "The Curse Of Michael Myers" is just about as bad as it gets. And this is coming from a fan!
"Curse of Michael Myers" is a very frustrating piece to deal with for a fan of the Halloween series. After a very disappointing letdown in Halloween 5, the series reached a near ebb in plot lines, with a silly devolution into witchcraft and a teenage cult dedicated to the worship of Michael Myers. "Curse of Michael Myers" ups the ante in blood and gore, but really represents a decay in the series' integrity. It's too bad to, as this is the last movie for Donald Pleasance as the character of Dr. Loomis. Pleasance has some good screen moments (precious ones if your a fan of the series) as the now very aged and as he says "very retired doctor". Sadly he died before the movie was completed, and it is very apparent at the conclusion of the film that the stories original climatic scene was never realized. Right from the beginning credits, Halloween 6 has more of the feel of a made-for-TV movie then that of the block-buster horror flick that it started out as in 1978. Any loyal Halloween alumni should have demanded more from this film,... Dr. Loomis and Donald Pleasance deserved more.
If Halloween 5 was a cruel joke to the fans of the series, than Halloween 6 is a like a vicious insult. The storyline has gone to the dogs everyone. Michael is used as a helpless pawn in this film and he isn't at all scary. He reminds me of an over-weight alcoholic man than the boogeyman that struck fear in our hearts back in the original. There are almost no redeemable qualities about this feature and i'm so glad H20 came out because it would be an insult to fans to have this be fresh on our minds.<br /><br />Halloween 6 had about 2 aspects that I liked. Having an adult Tommy Doyle in the film was a nice touch and it linked it to the original. Donald Pleasance is here(in his last performance...what a bad film to end an otherwise nice career on). When he's on screen he makes you remember the good old days when Halloween was actually scary.<br /><br />That's about it my friends. The stalk sequences are unoriginal. One of them being a blatant rip-off of the Laurie/Michael chase in the original. The other characters are terribly under-written and just aren't likable. The music, on of Halloween's highlights even when the film is bad, is tortured in this film. we get a silly rock version of the stalk/chase theme. What were they thinking when they made this film.<br /><br />*SPOILER*<br /><br />Their biggest mistake was killin off the character of Jamie(Now played by another actress who isn't worth mentioning)We watched this character escape death in two films. We rooted for her and when she is killed in this film you cant help but feel sorry for her and realize that the filmmakers don't care when good characters are established in a film.<br /><br />*END SPOILER*<br /><br />The less said about thi embarrassment the better. I wish it didn't exist. I suggest skipping this film, and even 5, and just going straight to H20 because if you watch this you may not want to see another Halloween film again.
[possible spoilers] <br /><br />The sixth "Halloween" film is an utterly depressing affair, but unfortunately not in the manner envisioned by the filmmakers. By now, everyone knows the story of how it was butchered and released in such a sloppy, incoherent form. The second half, in particular, makes little to no sense, as plot elements are introduced and dropped, seemingly at random. The very ending left me scratching my head. What the hell happened? Is Dr. Loomis dead or what? This is what you get when you put a shameless hack in charge of a motion picture. It's not a pretty sight. <br /><br />On a related note, this is the most graphically violent entry in the series. I have no problem with gore if it's in the right place, but this movie takes it to absurd levels. The infamous exploding head must be a new low for the series. Michael himself even seems to be enjoying the act of murdering another human being, inconsistent with his efficient, methodical approach in the John Carpenter original. <br /><br />I'm not quite sure who was responsible; director Joe Chappelle or the producers, probably a combination of both. I'd be perfectly happy to grant a pardon to all concerned if only they'd release the legendary "Producers' Cut," a more complete version of the film that is a vast improvement from every account. From what I understand, it's like a different movie altogether. I offer to pay full price to purchase the DVD if Miramax comes to its senses and releases it. <br /><br />There are a handful of good elements, however. The idea of Michael being controlled by the Druids is intriguing. Paul Rudd is solid as Tommy Doyle, whose appearance is a neat tie-in with the original. The slick visuals help make the proceedings a bit more watchable. But these meager offerings are overshadowed by the overload of drivel we have to put up with.<br /><br />Finally, "The Curse of Michael Myers" is noted for being Donald Pleasance's last film. Many of his scenes were excluded from the final cut, and when he does appear, he seems frail and unhappy. The movie is dedicated to his memory, a blatant (if unintentional insult) if there was ever one. The fact that a talented performer should end his career like this is too depressing to even think about. <br /><br />*1/2 (out of ****)<br /><br />Released by Dimension Films
This movie is very bad. In fact, the only reason why I've given it a 2 rather than a 1 is because it made me laugh. Without giving anything away, a man's head actually explodes in this film. It was so pathetic, I laughed. I don't believe the scene was meant to be funny but it's nonsense. Complete nonsense. The original Halloween is such a good film, it's a shame they had to go and make such a stinker.
I am not quite sure what to say/think about this movie. It is definitely not the worst in the series (there's still "Halloween 3"). The style is just very different and it focuses on other elements than its predecessor did. It tries to explain why Michael Myers freaks out on Halloween and starts butchering around. Well, all that stuff about Michael Myers being cursed and the evil cult was a rather nice effort, but I didn't buy it. None of the other installments in the series tried to come up with any fancy explanations.<br /><br />The movie contains lots of gore. Actually it's plain carnage. If you haven't seen the other Halloween films you will probably like this one for its blood content. But for a real Halloween freak this sequel might be just too different to be seen as a good one. Suspense was turned into terror and carnage (exploding heads..., you get the point).<br /><br />The ending (theatrical cut) is simply awful. Michael gets stabbed with a needle, then beaten up with a pipe, then stabbed again, this time with more needles, then beaten up a little more until there's slime running out of his head (where did this green stuff come from anyway?). Basically it's nothing more than trash worth 5 million $.<br /><br />There was one good thing though: Michael's mask!<br /><br />Dedicated to Donald Pleasance, quite a disgrace. <br /><br />My rating: 4/10
Most of this film was okay, for a sequel of a sequel of a sequel...<br /><br />I was impressed by the amount of suspense there was; I HAD actually expecting that to be chucked out the window in favor of gore, gore, gore. It wasn't, but there's some pretty ridiculous deaths.<br /><br />The thing that I disliked, however, was all of the plot complications. Those could have been okay, if the scriptwriters had taken the time to explain all of them through. But what was the purpose of the secret society in the mental institution, specifically? Why were they protected from Michael's damage until a certain point? What exactly were they going to do with the baby? How did Jaime Lloyd get pregnant, for that matter? Why lock her up for 20 years for her to get pregnant, too? Why did Michael kill all his co-conspirators in the end? Why were there fetuses in the lab? The actors seemed to have "figured it all out" once they saw the fetuses.. But it was never explained to the audience.<br /><br />If you're just going to watch this film to see people get snuffed, then this'll be okay for you.. However, if you can't stand a plot being thrown at you which remains unresolved by the time the credits roll, you should go watch something else.
Avoid this one! It is a terrible movie. So what if it is very exciting? All it is is just pointless murders. And the whole thing with Thorn and Michael's curse, that was the absolute worst thing they could possibly do to the series! Why couldn't they leave Michael's story a mystery? He's supposed to be the Boogeyman, not part of some stupid cult!! Ugh! Thank God for Halloween H20, which wiped out Halloween 3-6! They all sucked! But anyway, if you see this movie, please expect no more than pointless murders and gore.
Normally I wouldn't go to the trouble of commenting on a horror movie sequel, because it's usually assumed that they're BAD, and if you watch them with a healthy disrespect, they can be very fun and enjoyable to taunt/laugh at. However, this chapter of the ongoing Halloween saga came close to gumbing up everything the original stood for. In the very first movie, Dr. Loomis said (very pointedly I might add), that Michael Myers was evil, and this tries to explain why (doing a bad job of it I might add). In my opinion, he was much scarier when he was just a blood hungry freak. The whole goth/cult thing was unnecessary and a desperate attempt to throw a new curve into the Halloween equation. The result was a boring, predictable movie that was not scary and not bad enough to be funny.
By far this is the worst Halloween movie ever made. The acting is bad, except for Paul Rudd, and Donald Pleasence. The girl who played Kara (forgot her name) was ok, but overall this movie was basically a big letdown. Nothing moved the story forward, it lacked substance, and the scares that made Halloween and H20 so good. All and all, skip this movie, it's not worth the price of rental.
OK, just what the HELL is all this supposed to mean??? Halloween 6 (let's just call it that, OK?) is, without a doubt, the most CONFUSING film in the series (and from what I've heard, seeing the original "producers cut" doesn't sound like it makes things any less bewildering than the "official" release). What a mess.<br /><br />This isn't a really bad film, as some have said. It has its scary scenes and some rather intense moments - it just DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE! Don't tell me that Michael was "engineered" from the beginning to be evil and kill and destroy, and blah blah blah. It was bad enough when they turned Michael into Jamie Lee Curtis' brother (just so they had an excuse to keep her in the second film) - this is too much.<br /><br />It would seem this is another case of the creators of the film trying to be "too smart" by coming up with a new premise that will shock and impress us all. Bad move, guys. We're not looking for an explanation of why Michael kills, so please don't try and feed us this crap. Show me Michael looking menacing and killing a bunch of people. Show me Dr. Loomis trying to track him down and, as always, coming up just short. Don't waste (what turned out to be) the last performance of Donald Pleasance by telling me (in the most confusing way possible) that Michael was "created" by some cult from hell and that his "seed" will be passed on to another and... oh, brother.<br /><br />Halloween 6 has its moments, don't get me wrong, and we all know there have been FAR worse sequels than this (Hellraiser, anyone?) so get what you can out of it (the scene toward the end of the film with Michael charging down a deep red corridor is particularly effective) and try to ignore the screwball plot. Hopefully one day we can all see the "producer's cut" and maybe get the chance to make (a bit) more sense out of all of this. Till then, this will have to do...<br /><br />-FTM
Michael Myers, the deranged, not-so-young-anymore psycho, who seems to get beefier with every appearance, is resurrected by his druid brothers to wreck more menace upon his family members, and any one else who gets in the way. Gaps in logic seem to be ignored in favor of a healthy body count. Michael, who originally preferred strangulations and kitchen knives, learns to swing an axe and use whatever means necessary to off his victims, and the result is an awful, patchwork, dollar store film virtually unhelped by a few genuinely creepy sequences. Donald Pleasance, who died shortly after production, seems to have been injected into this story simply so *somebody* could be billed as the star. You won't want to cover your eyes during this one, but you will shake your head at the downward slide of John Carpenter's classic creation.
The stranger Jack (Matthew Lillard) arrives in the studio of the crook collector of antiques Max (Vincent D'Onofrio) and tells his ambitious companion and specialist in poisons Jamie (Valeria Golino) that he is Jack's brother. Jamie does not buy his story, dominates Jack and ties him up to a chair. When Max arrives, Jack proposes US$ 100,000.00 for each one to protect him in a negotiation of the antiques "Spanish Judges" with a wealthy and dangerous collector. Max invites his stupid acquaintance Piece (Mark Boone Junior), who comes with his retarded girlfriend that believes she is from Mars, to compose the backup team. However, Jack double-crosses the collector and then he intrigues Jack, Jamie and Piece.<br /><br />The low budget "Spanish Judges" is a movie with a reasonable screenplay with an awful conclusion that wastes a good cast. Valeria Golino is astonishingly beautiful but together with the good actor Vincent D'Onofrio, they are not able to save the stupid story. Further, the scenes that are supposed to be funny unfortunately do not work, and actually they are silly and not funny. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Tudo Por Dinheiro" ("All For Money")
James Cagney plays Richard Gargan (nicknamed "Patsy"!), a former gangster now overseeing the surly lads as the new superintendent of a state-run reform school. Tepid genre entry wherein Cagney's the whole show; he dominates the picture, but only because there's not much else of interest going on. Jimmy gives just what's expected from his hard-boiled persona, which can be satisfying if you're in for a quick fix. The direction (by Archie Mayo, though Michael Curtiz was said to have helped) is straightforward without being particularly gripping, although the narrative slips in the second-half, grinding the film down to a messy conclusion (with even Cagney's Patsy getting lost in the shuffle). Remade in 1938 as "Crime School" and again in 1939 as "Hell's Kitchen". ** from ****
A friend gave me this movie because she liked it. I decided I would finally watch it. It was sooooooo long. I kept waiting for the suspense to happen but it never did. I kept waiting for something to happen after the opening scenes, and it never did. I stopped the movie and came back later. I actually forced myself to watch the rest of it hoping it would get better. It got worse. I kept asking myself, who are these people? Do they have feelings? are they just robots? I'm glad I didn't pay to see it or pay to rent it. The end would have been better if Dutch died from the gunshot wound. At least we would have gotten some emotion from the audience. Or maybe not.
Did you ever see the film "Marathon Man"? The part with the dentist? I would rather have that happen to me than to sit through "Random Hearts" again. It wasn't simply uninteresting, or uneventful-- It was horribly, painfully, and agonizingly BORING. At one point, I momentarily lost conciousness. To the average layman, I may have appeared to be sleeping, but the other movie patrons knowingly realized I actually BLACKED OUT from the bordom. I thought I was going to die. When the film finally ended (I think it was twelve hours long, but I'm not sure), I let out an exhasperated "Thank You Jesus, It's Over!!", to which all other movie goers cheered. If I had to listen to Harrison Ford drone on one more second in that monotoned whine, I would have been forced to search for something sharp to jam in my eye to divert my attention. This is 136 minutes of my life I will never get back.
Unusually cold and silly drama from director Sydney Pollack. Soapy plot revolves around adulterous couple perishing in a plane wreck, leaving their spouses to find eachother and connect on their own intimate level. Romance-novel writing gets sluggish treatment, although I thought the performances by leads Harrison Ford and Kristen Scott-Thomas were fine. Slick production holds interest, even though the plot keeps covering the same ground, and never builds any emotional momentum. As a result, the climax in the airport is a big 'So What?'
Nothing could be more appealing than the idea of a good love story featuring Kristin Scott Thomas and Harrison Ford. The cool, refined English beauty and the warm-blooded American male -- what could possibly be more lovely? Well, this is not that movie. Right away they ruin it by casting Kristin Scott Thomas as an American Congresswoman. That's like casting Hugh Grant as Babe Ruth. Or Colin Firth as Al Capone. Kristin Scott Thomas is exactly the sort of woman you don't picture shaking hands with greasy ex-junkies in filthy slums, or squeezing into smelly crowds and kissing babies. She would have been far better cast as the English born widow of an aristocratic Senator, the kind who belongs to the hunt club and goes to flower shows but has no idea how the other half lives.<br /><br />Then there's Harrison Ford as a regular guy cop. Certainly he's tough enough for the role. But the idea that he's going to romance this stunning high society beauty is a bit hard to swallow. Why couldn't he have been, say, a tough but wealthy reform politician with blue-collar roots who inherits Kristin's late husband's Senate seat? The two of them are initially quite cool to each other, but for duty's sake Kristin is cordial to him, and he in return starts showing her some of the rawer side of life -- things her husband sheltered her from. Her political awakening coincides with the jolting passion of a newer, more blue collar, lover -- one who appreciates her polish and refinement far more than her aristocratic husband. Now that's a love story! Instead of that, though, you get a blank, meaningless "thriller" where the action drags and nothing happens. Well, there is one ghetto style "drive by" scene where Harrison almost gets killed, but it's so abrupt and unexplained it's really more like welcome comic relief.<br /><br />The sky is always gray in this movie, and our refined, lovely Kristin always looks a little chilled. When she's supposed to be dreaming of passion, she looks more like she's dreaming of a wool blanket and a cup of tea! She also looks a bit sleepy most of the time, like she'd really rather be napping in the bed than screwing Harrison Ford.<br /><br />All things considered, I'd say you can't blame her.
It wasn't until I saw Sidney Pollack in the picture that I ever connected him to this film. This is his worst possible movie. Absolute dreck. The dialog is wooden and unbelievable, the plot is unbelievable.<br /><br />Kristen Scott Thomas is wasted in this movie. There is nothing about her character that makes you even want to believe in this story.<br /><br />Harrison Ford is like on Valium. There is no life in his eyes.<br /><br />I blame Sidney Pollack for the failure of this movie. The script is awful, and he is too smart to not see that. So it smacks of some kind of payoff, whether of a studio obligation or something else, but this is just BLOODY ROTTEN!
So much great chemistry between Kristen Scott-Thomas and Harrison Ford, but every time the story about their relationship began to gather momentum the script cut away and dealt with some irrelevant sub-plot that did nothing to advance the story. Indeed, the subplots had nothing to do with the story at all. They were like commercial breaks in which you watched a trailer for another movie. <br /><br />The writers (or someone who controlled the writers) obviously didn't trust themselves to write compellingly about relationships and the interior lives of their characters. They seemed to be uncomfortable unless they threw in some gun battles and bar fights. Or perhaps they didn't trust the audience to pay attention to a story about a man and a woman trying to understand their relationship under difficult circumstances. After all, we all know how boring "Casablanca" was. <br /><br />Perhaps if the relationship between Kay and Dutch had been developed more and had been allowed to play out, the writers would have know how to end the story. This film is a disappointment for not doing more with its wonderful actors, who gave good performances but could have done more with a better script.
Why is it that such "romantic" movies that never actually go anywhere, always start (and probably end) with crappy jazz? It's not clever and it makes it look like a bloody tv-movie. This film was sappy, slow paced, boring, unoriginal, wooden and did I say boring?<br /><br />Harrison Ford was probably trying to be mysterious and crude, but he was just a crawling, mumbling cop that seemed to walk into the congress-woman's home like everything was fine, when he behaved like a pervert - staring at Thomas with a pervy glare, hardly ever bothering to speak.<br /><br />And why the hell do they always get British actors to put on crappy accents - they're casted because they're famous, and everybody knows they're british precisely because they're famous!
Motivations of the characters was completely unbelievable. Many times throughout the movie you find yourself thinking that the characters' actions were totally illogical, making it impossible to identify with the characters. Possibly, the writing / direction were completely out of sync making the movie painful to sit through. I wanted my money back from the video store...
Being a Harrison Ford fan I am probably being kind. It was predictable, sappy...my husband made a lot of gagging sounds while we were watching it. What a disappointing movie. Our local newspaper (San Jose Mercury News) actually gave this 4 stars out of 4 stars!!! Hard to believe that the reviewer saw the same movie we did.
I clerk in a video store, so I try to see the movies we're about to put out each week. I don't have a problem with this; in fact, I sort of feel it's a privilege. Not so with this film . . . After an hour and a half of our hero whining and growling his way through scene after scene, I was truly wondering if they planned to get to the point. I felt like I should be getting paid for watching this at home, in my free time. And if I'd known there was another hour to be endured, I might have given up right then. I didn't care about the characters, the filming was unremarkable, and Ford made kissing look like a chore. Even the score was incongruous and jarring. What a waste.
I really like Harrison Ford so I eagerly rented this movie only to be disappointed minute after minute. Mr. Ford seemed to be walking through very warm water looking for a place to urinate. His co-star was very good and had the better lines. The story intrigued me but the mistake - BIG MISTAKE - as everyone is identified via driver's license or passport before they board any american commercial aircraft left numerous plot questions in my mind. <br /><br />I could have cared less about these people. In fact, the sub-plot of the Internal Affairs investigation was more interesting than the two lovers killed while flying first class to Miami.<br /><br />I am disappointed in the director, Sydney Pollack who gave us the classic Tootsie and other films. This one is a waste of time and energy.
Two things -- too long and totally lacked credibility. This movie didn't make any sense and was excrutiating to sit through. I am usually pretty patient, but man... It just doesn't keep your attention at all! I think I am being nice here even! You keep thinking it's almost over only to find out it's still got another half hour! Good actors.
Harrison Ford plays Sergeant Dutch Van Den Broeck of the District of Columbia Police Department. He tries to get the bad guys, but doesn't do a very good job. When we meet up with him he's trying to catch a corrupt undercover officer. Kristin Scott Thomas plays a New Hampshire Senator, Kay Chandler, trying to get reelected. She's running against a candidate who has plenty of money. The last thing she needs is the death of her husband. She's a politician- she can't be bogged down by feelings.<br /><br />This story moves slowly and painfully. I was looking at my watch every five minutes wondering when it would be over! The story gets lost in details the director, Sydney Pollack, didn't need to put in. We don't want to know about Dutch's police investigations. They throw in some insight to politicians and the ‘spin control' they do for campaigns. After seeing the movie I'm still wondering why they got involved romantically. Doesn't anybody mourn anymore? Don't you need more than two weeks to even consider going ‘horizontal' with someone else?<br /><br />It was good to see actress, comedian, Chicago native and Second City Alumni Bonnie Hunt. Her role isn't necessarily comic relief, but she was the only one I wanted to see more of. Do yourself a favor, wait for it on video if you want to see it at all.
To quote one critic's review of the movie, "it started off slow and stopped." The plot was believeable enough (although some of the characters' actions seemed very, very RANDOM), the script was fairly well written (in that the dialogue did not seem forced), but everything went way too slowly. There were too many pauses between lines, and the way the lines were delivered was not all that great. This movie had potential, but blew it like a teenager turning to drugs. My advice? Wait for it to come on TV before you see it.
It was tough watching Harrison Ford obsessing over nothing. Kristin Scott-Thomas should have slapped this guy and told him to take a hike.<br /><br />Save your money. Don't even bother with a rental fee, unless you need a good nap.
I went to see Random Hearts with 3 friends, and at first, I thought maybe it was just me who wasn't enjoying the movie. After all, I didn't like As Good As it Gets and that movie won all sorts of awards. Well, it wasn't just me...none of my friends liked it either. It was unbelievable slow, much like getting teeth pulled. The only action that is in the movie is what is in previews. We didn't walk out of the theatre because we all assumed something more would happen. We weren't as smart as the 7 or 8 people who did walk out. I have never walked out on a movie in my life, but I definitely should have. This is all tough for me to write, considering I am relatively easy to please when it comes to movies. It takes a lot for me to think a movie is awesome, but not much for me to just like it. This movie didn't even come close in the like category. Not only was the movie about 2 hours too long, but it was like two separate trite stories in one, but they weren't smoothly sewn together. Plus, the "soundtrack" if you could even call it that was so annoying. Like Seinfeld has the same riff that is played over and over again (difference being that i like Seinfeld)..this movie had this jazz riff that it kept playing, which sounded highly inappropriate at times, especially when people were dealing with the deaths of the plane crash. Hard to explain what I mean, but trust me it was awful. I cannot say enough to make people not waste their money. After I left the theatre, I honestly wanted to write to the movie company and demand my $7 back..sheeesh, I could have gone bowling or something for that money.
Back in the dark days of 1990, the hoped-for Heir to the Spielberg Throne (after the failure of supposed whiz-kid Phil Joanou) was mistakenly believed to be pretentious Spielberg wannabe David Mickey Evans. Evans managed to fleece the studios for over a million dollars, suckering baby-boomer executives into believing his screenplay -- a combination of nostalgic, 1960s references and a disturbing drama about child abuse -- somehow equaled good storytelling, and a decent film. <br /><br />As Rod Stewart once sang, "look how wrong you can be."<br /><br />But the novice's artsy-fartsy, "E.T."-inspired script convinced enough people he was the next Chosen One -- the New Spielberg -- and so a deal was struck to not only buy the script for more money than 99 percent of the world's population will ever see in their lifetime, but for Evans to direct the film as well -- even though he'd had never directed anything in his life. <br /><br />Hey, how hard can it be to be another film-making genius, after all?<br /><br />Two weeks into the shoot, Columbia found out. His dailies were called "totally unusable" by the studio -- or at least those level-headed enough to not to have fallen under the E.N.C. (Emperor's New Clothes) spell. All his footage was scrapped and recycled into guitar pics.<br /><br />So what's a studio to do after sinking 10 or 20 million dollars into something they still believed represented the Resurrection of Steven Spielberg? Hire Spielberg himself to save the day? Columbia probably tried that.<br /><br />Enter old pro Richard Donner. Hey, he may not be a cinematic genius, but he gets the job done. "Superman" wasn't too bad, after all -- and the first "Lethal Weapon" was pretty good.<br /><br />So Donner steps in and grabs the directorial reins. Fortunately he manages to convince Columbia that the worst of the film's insipid fantasy sequences -- which would have played out like a ten year-old's acid trip -- have to go. Unfortunately, he leaves in the Crying Buffalo (ooh, how poetic) and the ridiculous, pseudo-Spielberg fantasy ending, complete with Clueless Mom perfectly content for the rest of her life to get postcards from her missing son as he circles the globe in his red wagon. Right.<br /><br />But Donner did manage to get a decent performance out of Elijah Wood. And Lorraine Bracco as the Idiot Mom wasn't bad either. Maybe Donner should be reevaluated. Maybe he's not such a phony Hollywood hack as everyone has always believed.<br /><br />The only reason I'm giving this over-baked misfire a 2 rating is that someone was smart enough to cast the great John Heard (but in the wrong part, of course). The kids do okay... though Tom Hanks' horrible, overly-explanatory narration nearly destroys every scene it intrudes upon.<br /><br />One might think that after the David Mickey Evanses and Phil Joanous and Troy Duffys of the world, the studios might finally wise up. One might hope that these hype-driven film-making debacles might prevent the Emperor's New Clothes syndrome from ever rearing its ugly head again.<br /><br />Doubtful!
Even though this was a well-told story, I found it too unpleasant. The main subject is child abuse, which is never fun to see - a sordid topic. Add to that a lot of profanity by the drunker-abuser husband and a GD by a little kid, no less - and this movie turned me off as far as ever seeing it again. <br /><br />Also portrayed in here were punks picking on the two little boys, another unpleasant viewing experience. The realism of the story takes a swan dive when one of the boys flies away on a home-made airplane! Give me a break!<br /><br />The only positive, enjoyable part of this movie is seeing the nice, loving and touching relationship between the two young brothers, played by Elijah Wood and Joseph Mazello. The latter became a familiar face in the next couple of years with big roles in Jurassic Park, Shadlowlands and The River Wild. Wood, of course, didn't hit it big until a decade later but, he made it very big In The Lord Of The Rings trilogy. Those two kids, and narration by an unbilled Tom Hanks, are the only facets of this film I liked.
This was one of the most mixed up films I have ever seen. Everything in the movie seemed to be attached to justify some other element that had been glued on. There is even a talking buffalo that wants his wet nose rubbed to make the magic happen. Even the brutal father seems to be stuck in just to give the kids an excuse to fly away in a wagon. It was laughable, but in an uncomfortable way because of the serious subjects that seemed to be used just to set up the plot.
This movie was horrible. If it had never been made the world would be a better place. Come on, a flying wagon? What were they thinking? This was a sub-par movie with a horrible hook, and I would like a written apology from the studio that produced this, along with some cookies to help repay me for the time I wasted on this crap fest that I can never get back. If you payed to see this movie, I am truly sorry because I watched it on TV on a Sunday afternoon when I had nothing better to do and it pretty much ruined my whole week. A flying freaking WAGON?!?! And that's supposed to make up for having a horrible mother who cares more about her own screwed up needs than her children? No wonder they don't have enough sense to tell someone he is beating them, their mother teaches them nothing but that what she wants comes before everything else. Absolutely horrible.
If it wasn't for the very attractive Jennifer Jostyn in the lead role, I would have turned "Milo" off after the first 30 minutes. However, as easy on the eyes as she is, she's not enough to save this film, not by a long shot.<br /><br />Milo starts off with a group of young girls accompanying an "assumed young boy" in a yellow slicker to a house in the woods where he shows them embryos in jars. Apparently, the deal was that if he showed them the jars, ol' Milo gets to conduct a gynecologist exam on each in return. One of the group volunteers to be Milo's "first patient" and he leads her behind closed doors. Moments later blood flows from under the door and we are whisked into present day. Enter the lovely Jostyn who plays one of the girls all grown up in present day. A substitute teacher with shallow confidence whose closest friend appears to be a goldfish, she receives an invitation to return home for a friend's wedding. Yep! You guessed it. Return to Miloville. Milo, who allegedly drowned years ago, seems to be having a dilemma staying dead and begins terrorizing and murdering the girls he failed to "examine" all those years ago.<br /><br />Milo, the character, reminded me of one of the mutants from Cronenberg's "The Brood." He could have been scary, but just how scary can a villain be who wears a yellow raincoat? The plot confuses even itself and the conclusion left me wanting my 90 minutes back. I'm sending Milo, an inept slasher film, to stand in the corner!
"Milo" is yet another answer to a question nobody ever asked.Do we really need more slashers?I for one think we already have more than enough.I guess the professional tall guys overcharged so in this one we deal with a murderous kid that's also a zombie or a ghost when he feels like it.A long time ago,he drowned but that didn't bother him and he still kills people("Friday the 13th",what's that?).One day,his survivors have a big reunion and as a surprise twist,Milo comes to pay them a visit.Through some really bad shots that show everything except the murders the cast is thinned out till only the final girl is left to find out Milo's dull,I mean dark secret.She and her friends have been dying to know.Once discovered,Milo goes on yet another murderous rampage(isn't it his bedtime yet?) and the girl,well she screams a lot.The acting is not even bottom of the barrel,the barrel refuses to be associated with it.Milo can be one creepy bastard from time to time I give him that,but some movies just can't be saved without a great script or gratuitous nudity.
This "horror" movie lacks any horror or even mild suspense. Even the gore is not good. The plot would have some promise if it was done by someone who cared about what they're writing/filming, but the people who made this movie obviously did not. Basically, the film proceeds in a series of fits and starts thusly:<br /><br />Main character insists she's not crazy.<br /><br />"Milo" lurks about in his yellow raincoat or rides in front of a car on his bike.<br /><br />Main character insists she's not crazy and rambles on about her passion as a schoolteacher.<br /><br />Someone gets killed in an unsatisfying manner.<br /><br />Main character insists she's not crazy and musters up a few fake sobs.<br /><br />Are we seeing a pattern here? If you don't, you may enjoy this film. Otherwise, watch something else. The budget is low, low, low AND IT SHOWS (unlike say, THE EVIL DEAD, which makes you forget about its crap budget), and the acting is bad, bad, bad (with the possible exception of the janitor). In general the movie is boring, boring, boring. I can't think of a single scene that's actually done well. In fact, I disliked the movie so much I actually turned it off ten minutes before the end, something I very rarely do... heck, I watched the non-MSTied MANOS, THE CLONES, and WILD WILD WEST all the way through.<br /><br />3/10. Spare yourself and watch PHANTASM again.
In a quiet town a couple of girls witness the murder of one of their friends to a strange young boy named Milo, who lives on the other side of town. After the murder, his body is found in a river and his pronounced dead. So sixteen years later a weddings draws the girls back to their childhood town and Claire a school teacher becomes obsessed that Milo hasn't died as she has recurring visions of him and her friends are dying one by one and no one believes her when she claims Milo is apart of it. So now, she sets off to find out the horrifying truth.<br /><br />When I came across this film, I was pretty sceptical about it, especially when it had "From the creators of Anaconda" on the front cover, but reading the odd little plot outline on the back of the video case, it sounded alright and rather refreshing for a change. Well, guess what? I thought it was a good idea at the time, but it was a totally different story when it came to watching the film. It just seemed to try to hard to be smart and very psychological based, but that latter element didn't come off that well for me and it was basically a prolonged and mostly unconvincing thriller. Hey, I'll admit it had its moments, but hardly enough to make it neither effectively chilling, or memorable. But, a bravo to the filmmakers, at least the story isn't a rehash of those slasher imitators that followed "Scream" and shock horror, there's no self-referential humour evident… actually there isn't even a HINT of humour. Although, maybe it was too serious? Especially, since the plot is rather absurd, but that's not its main problem. What a disjointed plot we get, I didn't know about to much that was going on, as it seems to skim a lot stuff in favour for some supposedly shocking and disturbing sequences. No! More like irrelevant scenes and yawn inducing clichés that we see from time to time. Also you can see some influences from some "good" 70's horror films, one being "Don't Look Now". This when our main character keeps on seeing the figure of her past in a slicker. The other would have to be one of my favourites "Alice, Sweet Alice" with the person causing the trouble wearing a yellow slicker and committing grisly deaths. Interesting idea but it comes across quite shallow and too many faults pop up. I liked it more when the scenes dealt with the character's childhood, as the performances and circumstances had something creepy about it, but when it leans into their adulthood its tired and uneventful for most part and the performances weren't awful, but incredibly mundane and hardly involving is a good way of putting it. Most of the dialogue had me groaning in disbelief at how contrived and awkward it was. You'll be yelling "no duh!" at the screen, because you just can't believe what you're hearing. The police detective gets the brunt of it! <br /><br />Quality wise - the film isn't bad, actually it's better then your usual straight to video I would say. Very slick stuff. With some inventive and prominent camera angles and a faint score that works reasonably well. Another factor that stood out and was a key to building on the moody atmosphere was the creeping sound effects and that bicycle bell does leave a ringing sensation in your ears. The setting of a quiet elementary school was well done and rest of the action takes place in a house. But, just don't be expecting any real suspense or surprises as the execution of these are non-existent. The deaths aren't pleasant and they're mildly bloody and it's more the aftermath to what happens to these bodies, which tries to disturb you. The villain in this piece, the mean-spirited child Milo Jeeder was mildly unnerving, well that voice and yellow slicker does make an imprint to begin with, but it does seem to lose its effect when we come to the films conclusion. The cheesy tag lines on the video compare him to (move over) Jason, (watch out) Freddy and (this isn't child's play) Chucky, but you got to be kidding me! Right? He's labelled "The New face of evil", yeah sure. All he needs is to be taught some manners and problem solved. Overall, the film just left me with a sour taste, as I've could've gone without seeing it. I probably wished I did.<br /><br />Just don't expect too much in this blur of a film. Or, even better just skip it, as you won't be missing out on much, really.
Typical story of an evil kid going after people. I suspect that Antonio Fargas (Huggy Bear on "Starsky and Hutch") and Vincent Schiavelli didn't want to stress this junk on their resumes (actually, Schiavelli left this life with a mostly good resume). Sometimes I wish that the killers in these movies would just go after the idiots who decide that we need a new one of these movies every other month (note: that comment is not to be taken seriously; I just think that slashers have lost their touch).<br /><br />Anyway, this is one movie that you'll do best to avoid. It's ninety minutes to two hours that I'll never get back.
This movie was so weak that it couldn't even come up with good cliches to rip off. I love horror movies and will see practically anything, but if I had it to do over again I would have skipped this one entirely. You may think that I'm exaggerating, but I challenge anyone to find anything even remotely satisfying or interesting about this piece of garbage. Not scary, not funny, not curious, not worth it.
Stay away from this movie at all costs. I was suckered into watching this movie in a bet to see which one of us knew the t "worst movie of all time". Needless to say this one won hands down. It is long and drawn out, and has no purpose or plot from what I can gather. A movie about a killer kid raised from a fetus that was grown outside the womb just has no place inside your vcr. If you are extremely bored and have no life watch this movie. But if you rather keep your sanity, stay AWAY.
This movie was crap. The script is so full of holes; I can't see how the producers agreed to finance it.<br /><br />We are never given an explanation of ANYTHING. The acting is horrible. The plot sucks. This movie was obviously written for those 8 and under.<br /><br />I have to say this: why are the high school classes only 2 minutes long? Teacher walks in, finds a frog in the desk, or drawing on the chalkboard, and 30 seconds later, the bell rings, class is over. The kids haven't even opened their books. Can we have at least a little continuity?<br /><br />Oh, the dialogue. Milo Jeter is the re-incarnated, aborted fetus, zombie thing. Do we really need the line, "This is Dr. Jeter's office. Dr. Jeter, Milo's father." Thanks for the tip; I could never put that together myself. It never gets any better.<br /><br />Why does Milo talk the way he does, even in the beginning? Was Milo ever `real'. Or was he never real, just always what he currently is? And if it was always that way, why the unexplained `accident' Milo had?<br /><br />Besides "What is Milo?", what are all the unresolved items for? We see all these contraptions in his father's medical office, and are never given an explanation of what they are for, or what they have to do with the story. What are the injections for? What about the aquarium contraption? They obviously aren't needed. (See the movie, it'll make sense). And what does this medication do to anyone? Apparently nothing, since it has no effect on the lead actress.<br /><br />This movie is a very, very bad rip off of all the other slasher movies. It's a really awful Friday the 13th/Halloween slopped together by a 10-year old writer. It's not cheesy enough to laugh at, it's just an incredibly frustrating bore.
This movie was by far the worst movie I've ever had to endure. I couldn't believe that they tried to pass it off as a serious movie, it was so bad I couldn't even laugh at it's pathetic attempt to entertain me. If you want cheesy horror that you can laugh at, rent Dr. Giggles instead.
This has got to be the worst horror movie I have EVER seen.<br /><br />I hated it so much I wanted to come here and complain about how bad it was. Normally bad movies are no big deal, but something about this one if you hated it.. you really hate it.<br /><br />If anyone liked this you probably enjoyed Baby Geniuses, I thought I could never find a movie that was worse then that one.. I guess not.
this movie scared the hell out of me for no good reason. the eerie music was well written but other than that, its a complete waste of time, and it REALLY disturbed me.... I'm not really sure why either.... if you just want to see a bad 'B' horror movie, i guess you could give it a shot, but only as a last resort
This movie sucked sooo bad, I couldn't even watch the ending. Milo's voice was too low and I couldn't understand what he said as well as some of Kendra's lines. Also, where did he get all these wedding dresses from; it was very impractical. The movie failed to elaborate on Milo's drowning and how it made people ridicule Dr. Jeter and his practice. Overall, I was disappointed that I was unable to give this movie a rating of zero because by grading this movie as a one, I felt I was giving it undeserved praise.
I happened to catch this supposed "horror" flick late one Friday night, I wish I'd gone to bed! Tell me.. Is a 3 ft tall raincoat-clad twerp on a gurly bike supposed to convey some sort of fear? Not here, yet Mi-low is still able to beat the crap out of the janitor (Antonio Fargas) who is three times his size(?) uh-huh. And the ending is so pitiful... it just leaves you hanging with nothing to go on what-so-ever! I found myself asking, "Is that it???"<br /><br />Acting is about as good as it'll get in a low budget film. The aforementioned Fargas delivers a decent performance; but it is my conclusion that Jennifer Jostyn maybe one of the worse actresses to ever strut into Tinsel Town! Sure, cute face, but bad acting.<br /><br />Rating: 1
This is easily one of the worst films I've seen in many years. I started viewing the film not expecting much and that is exactly what it delivered....not much! In fact, it ended up delivering even less than I expected. My first reaction when I saw the opening portions of the film was that I would probably end up rating it a "4". I thought that it seemed to have reasonably good photography and a haunting atmosphere.<br /><br />As the film progressed however, the rating kept going down and down in my mind mainly due to pedestrian acting and a plot that went from being just plain silly and tasteless at the beginning to being both silly and repugnant near the end. By the time the movie was over, I was willing to rate it no more than a "1". <br /><br />Don't waste your time or money on this one.
Four young grade-school girls witness the murder of one of their classmates during what they thought was just an innocent game. The killer is a strange young boy named Milo Jeeder. Sixteen years later, the four survivors of the event re-unite under happier circumstances in the same town where it happened. They believe that Milo drowned in a river shortly after the murder, but soon learn that the demonic killer Milo has also returned, still a young boy, unchanged even after almost two decades.<br /><br />The cover for this movie makes it look really cool (yet I still expected a bad movie to come out of it). When I pop in the DVD into my player, the menu comes up and makes the film still look cool. Sadly, this movie isn't all that it got my excited about. The movie is your average attempt at a slasher film and when I say average, I mean just like all those other small-budget slasher movies that have never been welcomed with open arms into most members of the horror community (I'm talking about you, the horror fan). In other words, you could walk up to any horror fan and the majority of responses would be "this sucks".<br /><br />What mistakes did the movie make? First of all, the DVD cover art makes Milo look really dark but they blow it all by showing his face in the movie in many different scenes. He had the potential of being a very freaky character. Secondly, the back of the cover art tells Freddy, Jason, Chucky etc to pack their bags and move on out because Milo is so much better... why in the hell would you want to say something like that when it comes to a no-name, low-budget slasher film that has obviously failed? I mean, it just raises your expectations of the movie, making it harder to impress itself upon you. In a last ditch effort to attract attention, it says (in very big letters) "From the creator of Anaconda". Just shows you how low they're going to get as much attention as possible for the movie.<br /><br />The gore in the movie sucks, the director gives you some hideous angles when Milo attacks someone. The music isn't all that bad and I never once fell asleep during the movie (congratulations). I'm still trying to figure out what Milo actually is. My best bet would be that he is a zombie, if anyone else knows, tell me. Rest assured, I won't be losing any sleep over thinking about it.
Milo is a complete rip off of the 1992 slasher flick Mikey, if you actually check it up both films have the same tagline!But if you want to watch an incredibly funny film with absolutely no plot whatsoever......well then this is the film for you.The acting is terrible and the flashback scenes are overwhelmingly confusing. The story behind this atrocity is simple Milo Jeeder is a kid with serious family problems,his father is an abortion doctor who keeps unborn feoutus's in a jar (NICE!) and was desperate for a child of his own, he figured out a way to bring one of these aborted children to life and he named him............. MILO!!!!!<br /><br />Aside from all the Bad Acting,Terrible directing,annoying sound of Milo's voice and the ear piercing sound of the bell on his bike ,if you take away all that badness its still a bad but funny attempt at a film.<br /><br />I'll give it a bank busting 1 out of 10
This was a very good show. I enjoyed the construction of real time and flashback, seeing the old Diggers meeting again and recalling the terrors of their captivity in Changi POW Camp. The main problem with the way the show was written is that the scenes of life in Changi are more like a holiday camp than what the place must have been like. I am old enough to remember film footage of the men being liberated from Changi and other Japanese POW camps. No actor could lose enough weight to have a resemblance of the state of those men. They made the Jews of Belsen look like sumo wrestlers. I have met several veterans from Changi over the years. Many would never ride in a Japanese car, let alone own one. The physical and mental torture those men endured was too horrific for them to even talk about. What percentage survived? John Doyle might be OK writing comedy for "Roy and HG" (I hate that too) but this is a serious sugar coating of history that should never have been tolerated. I'm happy for satirists to write "The Life of Brian" and make fun of the Crucifixion because it is obviously comedy, even if some consider it to be in bad taste. "Changi" is written as a portrayal of a real event and, as such, might be regarded by younger people as a true record. Great performances by a fine cast cannot redeem this lightweight screenplay.
"Changi" is an Australian comedy/drama set in the World War 2 Japanese prisoner of war camp of that name. The story cuts between past events, and the present day, when the aged veterans plan a reunion. This is a much publicised and controversial miniseries, here in Australia. The budget ran over ($6.5 million Aust. dollars); historians and veterans criticised it's authenticity; and critics pilloried the uneasy mix of comedy and drama (shades of "Pearl Harbor"). Series writer John Doyle (half of the successful Roy & H.G. comedy team), has tried to defend himself with comments about "the characters are composites of actual people"; "the troops used comedy to cope with the situation"; "it's only based on actual events"; "one of our actors was actually there" etc. I don't have a problem with any of these points. Many superb fictional and factual dramas have come out of the Japanese P.O.W. camp experience: "King Rat", "Tenko", "Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence", "Bridge on the River Kwai", "Paradise Road", "Empire of the Sun", "Blood Oath", and "A Town Like Alice". Black comedy has often been used successfully in P.O.W dramas: "Life is Beautiful", "The Great Escape", "Seven Beauties", "Stalag 17", "The Colditz Story", and even "Hogan's Heroes". So why is "Changi" a monumental failure? - the acting in "Changi" is uniformly excellent, the music and cinematography is good - it is the writing and direction that have let it down. Every scene seemed to give me waves of deja vu. When Anthony Hayes is made to stand in the blazing sun, I thought "Didn't I see Alec Guinness do this in "Bridge on the River Kwai"?". The sudden flashes into surreal song & dance brought back Dennis Potter's "Singing Detective", but without the finesse. This borrowing happened so often, it smacked of lazy writing by cut and paste, rather than homage. The constant intercutting between the past and present stories left me unable to concentrate on either. Flash forward and flash back can be a useful tool - here it left me distanced from characters, where intensity was called for. The "Ausiness" is overdone - every conversation seemed to include "stone the bloody crows" & such, that I was saying "I get the point, I know they're Aussies". Cultural stereotyping extended to the British and Japanese too -sadistic young Japanese officer; uptight British officer; wiser Japanese commandant; fun-loving, rascally Aussies etc. I thought I was watching "Hogan's Heroes on the River Kwai". After 3 episodes I'm tuning out.
I was forced to watch 'Changi' last year in year 10 Australian History. Looking around the class room, both classes, all 40 students were nearly asleep, all 40 heads on the table whispering to the person next to them. I refuse to believe that because I am only 16, that my opinion doesn't count, having studied world war two, I not only felt embarrassed and ashamed watching this Australian piece of trash television. I was out of my mind at the appalling effort this mini series applied in the usage of film elements. The acting was poor, the screenplay was very inaccurate and the score was dreadful. Please, do not watch this film, it is bias and very racists (to the Japans).
Lazy movie made by a lazy director. The characters are grotesque. Despite the tragic of this war, there is no emotion at all in the movie. Symbolism is artificial and inefficient (and old Bosnian woman giving a photo of her son to Arbour will "concretize" her willingness, will awake the super-mother sleeping inside her, a corpse eaten by worms to show the horror of genocide... too much is sometimes worst than not enough).<br /><br />This movie is only an advertisement, an empty elegy to a woman who is not a hero. She worked for United Nations. Remember UN failed to protect civilians at Srebrenica. Who are the true heroes of this war? A Canadian judge leading post-mortem trial for atrocities that happened mostly because her organization failed to prevent them? Where is the criticism in this movie?
Thank God I was not operating any heavy machinery, it could have been an even worst disaster. Shots were slow & very repetitive. Different scenes, same shots, medium shot, medium shot, medium shot, snooze. Story line was rather empty. William Hurt was the worst. Where did he get that stupid accent from? Random shots of scenery just to include them really didn't add much. There were more shots of Arbour traveling in her car than anything else. The direction really didn't take us into any of the scenes & it also didn't make me feel for any of the characters. I would have rated it a zero if IMDb had the option. Great sedative if you can't sleep. There went 2 hours of my life I will never get back.
I watched the first few episodes a short while back and felt I couldn't take it anymore. The horrible looking fight scenes are the worst I've ever scene in my life. About one-third of each episode is dedicated to Flash Gordon and his "mighty" fight moves. I know fight choreography from that era isn't exactly up to par with today's standards, but this is ridiculous. They don't even try to make it look realistic. Flash Gordon, who hardly resembles a fighter, uses his drunken slow moves and bare fist to knock out four or five guys with knives, guns, and other weapons. Give me a break! There's also a scene where he does some similar act while in the water. Basically every episode has scenes similar to that. As for the rest of the episode, there's not much else I remember. I basically viewed it out of curiosity on what science fiction looked like 70 years ago.
Retro Puppet Master starts in Kolewige during 1944 where puppet master Andre Toulon (Guy Rolfe) & his living puppets plan to escape Germany, hold up in an Inn puppet master Toulon reminisces about his early life & the point at which he learned the secret of giving life to dead objects way back in 1902 in Paris when his younger self (Greg Sestero) ran the Theate Magique. He describes the fateful night when he met a 3000 year old Egyptian sorcerer named Afzel (Jack Donner) & the eventual love of hi life the young & beautiful Ilsa (Brigitta Dau). He tells the story of how Afzel passed the gift of life to himself & gave life to his own wooden puppets that were part of the Theatre Magique show. However the gift of life was also a curse as the ancient God Sutek whom the secret was stolen from in the first place by Afzel wants it back & everyone who has learnt it dead...<br /><br />As of late I have been on a bit of a Puppet Master bender as being a big fan of the first three I decided to watch the rest of the franchise & as such I have seen Puppet Master 4 (1993), Puppet Master 5: The Final Chapter (1994), Curse of the Puppet Master (1998) & now Retro Puppet Master in the space of a couple of weeks & boy was it tough to get through them all, especially this one as it's the worse of the series so far. Retro Puppet Master feels like a cross between Puppet Master III: Toulon's Revenge (1991) with it's period setting & Puppet Master 4 & Puppet Master 5: The Final Chapter with Sutek trying to kill everyone associated with his stolen life giving secret. There's not much continuity here either, again there's none of the green serum featured in the earlier films & despite Andre Toulon committing suicide in 1939 at the start of the original Puppetmaster (1989) he is seen alive & well during 1944 in this. The majority of the story is told as a flashback & concentrates on Andre Toulon himself rather than the puppets, the film focuses on his relationship with Ilsa & him learning the secret of life & it's all rather dull & tedious stuff to be honest. Even at only 80 odd minutes Retro Puppet Master feels long & padded with no real pace & the no central concept as the plot never really settles down & generally hops around a lot. Then of course there's the baffling decision to totally redesign the puppets which I found incredible, I mean why would the makers take the one basic thing that made the Puppet Master films so memorable & completely do away with it? The puppets are seen briefly at the start & the end but otherwise we get these rubbishy looking wooden caricatures that are nowhere near as cool as their modern re-workings. It's never even explained why these puppets were used rather than the ones all Puppet Master fans have come to love although one suspects that Full Moon was hoping to make yet another sequel which dealt with that very question.<br /><br />If a poor story & a complete lack of our favourite puppets wasn't bad enough Full Moon decided to go with a PG-13 rating for this making Retro Puppet Master the only Puppet Master film not rated 'R' in the US (obviously other countries have their own film ratings systems) & therefore there's not a single drop of blood in the entire film, the puppets don't kill anyone, there's no swearing & no nudity either. This is tamer than tame kids stuff all the way. Besides the puppets themselves being rubbish the special effect are the wost of the series too, there's no stop motion animation at all in this one, no CGI computer effects (surely in 1999 CGI was cheap enough?) & all the effects are of the stiff rod puppet type effects. I mean whenever you see a puppet 'walk' the camera is always positioned above it's wait so it's legs don't have to be shown & there's obviously some production assistant just pushing the thing along, that's as complex & state of the art as the special effects get.<br /><br />The one positive thing that Retro Puppet Master does have going for it is that it looks rather nice, the period production design, costumes & props are actually quite impressive & it's a fairly handsome film to watch at times. Apparently filmed in Bucharest in Romania which doubles up quite nicely for turn of the last century Paris. The acting here is awful & maybe the worst of the series.<br /><br />Retro Puppet Master is more or less the final Puppet Master film as the next one Puppet Master: The Legacy (2004) basically edits together footage from the previous seven films & it's a pretty crappy way to round the series off which started so well with three excellent & distinctive little killer puppet flicks. Don't bother with this, just watch one of the first three again & just remember the good times... The killer puppets would return in the terrible spin-off flick Puppet Master vs Demonic Toys (2004).
Now this is a movie I really dislike. It's one of the most boring Horror movies from the 90's mainly because it starts slow and centers in a boring atmosphere. The settings are not even attractive for the eye and do not serve for the movie's purpose. <br /><br />The puppets look really cheesy , not in a good way like in the Puppet Master 80's flicks. What did they do to our favorite toys?!<br /><br />The story is lame, not interesting and NEVER really explains the sinister origins of the puppets. There aren't death scenes like in previous movies and the f/x are terrible. <br /><br />I felt asleep the first time I watched it, so I can recommend it for insomniacs.
In the literal sense....<br /><br />Reminds you of those "cops-and-robber" or cowboys-indians" role-playing games you played with your 8 year old friends. <br /><br />Tedious and un-inspired, the storyline was obviously written to make bad acting and dialogue seem as part of the plot, but all it does is showcase it. I cant believe John Badham let his name be associated with this piece of crap. This could have been done better by a high school film buff who had been given the camera lighting, filmstock and editing<br /><br />Destined to be a time-filler on Sci-fi channel, when they've overused everything else from their library, and barely better than the paid programming shill downstream.
I have never seen a movie so bad. It's not even entertaining enough to be a drinking game.<br /><br />It's SO bad, I don't even want to talk about it... and that's the whole point of this, isn't it? PLEASE. Don't bother to see this movie. 'Nuf said.
Retro Puppet Master is complete and utter CRAP.In particular,the puppets look stupid,and crappy.The acting was unforgivable and the story was rancid.This movie goes back into the the past,where the dolls where first created,thats not Puppet Master.Retro Puppet Master is rated PG-13,the first Puppet Master to be rated PG-13.The movie contains no horror,or suspense.The fact that this movie was a Puppet Master film boggles the mind,because this installment doesnt have the buckets of blood,good acting,or any entertaiment like the previous movies did.Dont see this movie,dont rent it,and dont even watch it f its on TV,because this film is stale,not violent,and completely crappy.2 out of 10.As a Puppet Master fan,I am disappointed...seriously.
Very disappointing 7th chapter of this slowly dying series. Very evident that the budget was extremely low. This movie was made for one reason and one reason alone. To sell Puppet Master Toys! Fans, such as myself of the series have decided, from what I have read and heard that the only one in the series worse than this is Curse of the Puppetmaster. In turn, turning us away from the series. <br /><br />Opting to make this a PG-13 film, for whatever reason, did not work in the films favor. The plot seemed almost to be there, but was easily lost in the steady stream of nonsense. <br /><br />The only film in the series worth watching, also directed by Decoteau is part 3 - Toulon's Revenge.<br /><br />Granted, I do favor the scenery in the film. <br /><br />Yuck!
AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHEN DOES THE HURTING STOP? That's what I said somewhere between the beginning and that other part of the movie that really sucked. This film nearly sapped all the life out of me and I have sat through some really bad movies. Coming from a true Puppet Master fan, I would expect to hear myself say this, but it's true. The plot is inane, the special effects awful, the sound track the most benawl, infernal tootling I have ever heard. Oh! I almost forgot about the acting, it was so bad that I forgot it was there at all, nuff said. The only redeeming factor in the film is the puppets themselves they truly are the stars and could out-act all but Guy Rolfe himself(he is the puppetmaster)and although you can see their wires and strings, they carry me throughout the painful start to finish of Retro-Puppet Master. In closing, PM7 is recomended for true fanatics who happen to be masochists.<br /><br />Roach<br /><br />
Latest attempt to revive the series actually based on a pretty good idea but without the required gore fx/violence for this type of thriller - and thus... BORING!! Good special fx, sets, costumes, etc. but the film comes of just plain silly and a near-waste of time... hopefully the next installment will correct this problem.
You know, I'm sure the boys were sitting around the office one day and said, "HOW CAN WE MAKE MORE MONEY?" They had made every possible variant of toy they could make with their current characters. So they decide, let's steal the star wars idea, A PREQUEL, and we can make up all new characters, and sell them as toys. Incidently something they did in puppet master 3, but who cares? Anyway they pick a point in time before the first movie when Toulon is still alive, he and the puppets are sitting around, and a wooden head roll on the floor and the puppets want to know if that is a dead family member or something, it doesn't matter. So the tale of the puppet master ancestry begins. It's long, it's boring, no body cares.<br /><br />The funniest part is, they tell the origin of these new characters in the movie, but give no clues of their fate. SO GUESS WHAT, once the revenue from the new toys pays off, they can fundsa new (and 4th straight rotten) sequel, called "PUPPET MASTER 8 THE SEQUEL TO THE PREQUEL OF THE FATE OF THE DEAD RETRO PUPPETS!" hold your breath!
This seventh (yes you read right - the seventh) Puppet Master movie shows how the demented group of dolls came to be; by a french puppeteer who uses them to get revenge on a group of ancient mummies who are after him once they learn that he holds the secret to life. It was taught to him by a sorcerer, also on the run, before he died. He used this power to bring normal puppets to life. This sequel is basically nonsense, sprinkled upon even more nonsense like most of the Puppet Master sequels. Due to the PG13 rating, we don't even get any entertaining puppet murders. Come to think of it, there are NO damn puppet murders. If there was one franchise that needed to be cut off it would be this one. No more....god, please no more...
This film may have been the first Puppet Master but this sure bored me to death when I saw this stupid movie,I wanted a refund. This was a bad series to the Puppet Master and I'm sure that I am not the only one that thinks this was terrible. To some it was great but, to others it was a ticket to snores-ville and boy are they right. The puppets didn't even do anything nor did they kill people. It should't be seen by people so I'm warning you not to see it. You will be disappointed even to the fans who love Puppet Master, it was a waste of their time and it didn't make so much money.Nobody even got kill but one or two,very pointless.<br /><br />1/10
This son of a son of a sequel was terrible to say the least. You would think that production would be better 10 years after the original was released, however Retro Puppet Master was not directed by or written by the original writers and contained poor story, lack of any emmontional connection to any characters, and dragged out slowly scene to scene. No build up of strong plot, very weak climax, you will find yourself slowly getting antsy throughout the movie, if you can sit through the whole reel. I never could understand why a horror movie continues making sequels after the release of their "final chapter." I hardly suggest watching this flick, but if you must I wouldn't recommend making anyone else sit through it with you.
As a kid, I never understood WHY anyone would watch this very crappy show. It was pretty stupid and I always wanted Spridle and Jim-Jim to get in some sort of fatal accident (they were THAT annoying).<br /><br />Now, almost 40 years later, I have a new attitude about the cartoon. While I still think it was complete crap, this is only in regard to the American version of the show. That's because I was reading a book about anime and found out that the shows we watched growing up were completely different from those originally shown in Japan. You see, the idiots in charge of syndicating the series thought it was too violent so they cut this out of the episodes. That's bad enough, but what else they did is beyond belief--they actually chopped the episodes apart and spliced them together to create shows that were NOTHING like the originals! For example, one episode might be made up of parts of episodes 3, 6, 18 and 27! As a result, I really don't know if the original show really was bad--it might have been brilliant. But who can tell considering all we have to watch is this Americanized mess!?
It had its moments, but overall when I watched this cartoon as a child I was bored out of my mind. The only thing that kept me watching was the fact that it was a cartoon, probably my first exposure to anime. It is also one of my least favorite anime's, I remember others one involving a giant ship in space that made no sense, but was more enjoyable because they were in space. I also remember one with these people dressed like birds that was a bit strange, but more entertaining. I do not really like car racing though at all, did not then and still do not so that is probably one of the reasons I did not care for this show even though today I am an avid anime fan. The characters were a bit goofy too, and then there was the horrible scenes where virtually no action was taking place that was probably used to cut down on animation costs and to pad the show. The gadgets in the cars were cool though and provided some entertainment for me back then. Overall, I find this show to be rather unwatchable compared to newer animes and some from the same era, but this is just a personal opinion I am sure many other reviewers love the show which is cool.
Wow. After seeing this film, you will know why America's youth continues to lack intelligence and any traits to contribute to the wellbeing of society, except for making themselves more inept to function.<br /><br />Jackass Number Two stars some of the most repremandable people imaginable, who at there core lack any sort of talent or brains to make anything of themselves (especially Bam Margera and Steve-O), and there only option for fame was to make a living entertaining those as stupid as them by harming there being. A guy drinking horse semen? Just flat disgusting. A man putting a fish hook through his cheek and acting as "bait" for sharks? This isn't humor, it's evidence for institutionalizing him.<br /><br />Overall, I walked out of the theater with no hope for mankind.
When Family Guy first premiered, I was not in a discriminating mood. With the 1990s containing a wealth of clever, surreal cartoons, why should I be? Nickelodeon produced Doug; Ren and Stimpy and Rockos Modern Life among other fine cartoons(Yes, this includes Spongebob).All had quirky, dreamlike animation and surprisingly sophisticated stories and dialog. The Simpsons became an outright phenomenon, perhaps not as brilliant as its biggest defenders claim it to be, but a very fine investment of your time and certainly dismisses the false axiom that all TV is junk. South Park started out as a crude but hilarious attack on everything with unique and intelligent satire underneath. It evolved to become a Monty Python- esquire show with outrageous concepts and brutally swift and sharp societal critiques(Such as their defense of the noble underpants gnomes) and eventually settled to be entirely self referential and "meta" like the Simpsons did, and has unfortunately jumped the shark. Family Guy is superficially like The Simpsons and South Park. It pushes buttons and is a favorite among college students and bestiality enthusiasts. However, what it has in loquacity it lacks in true wit.<br /><br />The show is famous for its use of gimmicks, especially for flashbacks. Many are references to bad TV sitcoms or commercials. Some are funny(Especially from the first two seasons), most are not. Are references inherently funny? I'm not sure, but they are mostly what the show stands on considering that its characters are painfully uninteresting. Where Homer and Bart have charm, and Cartman has an artillery of self awareness and pure outrageousness to back up his awful behavior, Peter Griffin has no excuse. He's just a loud, obnoxious pig. Anything funny coming from his character is only because the writers forget how to be unfunny that day. Lois is also very shallow and dull; Meg is a prop, only to be abused; Chris is borderline retarded and only occasionally funny, and the two main stars of the show(Stewie and Brian) are so inconsistent in their characterizations that it all really kind of pointless.<br /><br />Other gimmicks I can't stand are when a character points to something obviously and lingers on it for an uncomfortably long time. This happens a lot lately, and I can't bear it any longer. Not just the oft mentioned chicken that likes to beat Peter up, I'm talking about the painful moments where they talk about pop culture and prod it as if they are alien spectators. That's not wit or even ironic humor, it's totally boring and lifeless.<br /><br />Not that the show can't be funny, in fact some of the earlier episodes had me rolling. Highlights include the pilot episode, where Peter loses touch with reality after losing his precious television; when Peters religious zealot father shows up and wreaks havoc; When Peter becomes a narc at Megs school, and the "pancake" episode. I suspect these are the episodes that accidentally incorporated actual human traits in its characters, or merely were times the writers had actual comedic inspiration.<br /><br />One last thing, the show is not offensive. It's only offensive to those who wouldn't watch the show in the first place, so it's almost like a circle jerk to the choir of hipsters.
This could have been great. The voice-overs are exactly right and fit the characters to a T. One small problem though; the look of the characters, mostly the supporting or guest characters look exactly the same. The same bored look on every face only with minor changes such as hairlines or weight size. It looks kind of odd to see a really big guest star's voice coming out of a lifeless form like the characters here. If I am not mistaken Kathy Griffin did a voice-over for this show and it looked too odd to be funny.<br /><br />There is a few other problems, one being the family plot. The Simpsons did it much better where you could actually buy most of the situations the characters got themselves into. Here we get too much annoying diversions, like someone having a weird fantasy and then we are supposed to find that funny but for some reason the delivery is a bit off. As you can probably tell it is hard for me to put a finger on exactly what is wrong with this show because it basically nothing more than a clone of the Simpsons or even more "Married with Children".<br /><br />If I should point a finger on what is totally wrong with this it probably is it's repetitiveness. Peter Griffin is not really a bright character but neither are any of the others. Lois should have been named Lois Lame because she is sort of one-dimensional. Seth Green as the kind of retarded son is the best thing about this show and that is the most stereotypical part on the show.<br /><br />So what more can I say. There isn't exactly anything wrong with this show but in the long run you have to admit that it takes a lot of work to do what the Simpsons has done for almost two decades.
I must admit I did enjoy the earlier episodes, but probably because I was younger and stupid at the time. I was sorta excited about the return of family guy until I saw the "new" crap they were putting out. No surprise, it was exactly like the old crap. All the lame jokes were there including the flash backs, except this time they added a joke about a old creepy pedophile who seems to be in EVERY SINGLE EPISODE. this is just one of the annoying gags family guy lives off of, and for some reason people keep watching. its no longer funny, its just annoying. let it die.<br /><br />maybe family guy was funny at a point in time, and the cheap laughs and gags were original and fresh, but now its just not funny anymore. if you actually do find family guy funny than you must be retarded or borderline retarded.
Everything about this show is terrible. Its premise even sets itself up to get cheap laughs with bad writing. A "disfunctional family"-theme has already been used too many times, most notably by the Simpsons, which is an excellent show with great writing and many laughs. Meanwhile, Family Guy has about five minutes of story in each episode, with tons of celebrity jokes and random flashbacks thrown in. Now, if this was original or funny, sure, I'd think it was clever. But no, it's not funny at all. In fact, the only reason the episodes are like this is because it is the easiest way to effortlessly crank out episode after episode of this junk. Much of this show is unoriginal, and what is original is just lame. It is also amazingly crude and irreverent, which again can be fine if it's still intelligent. Animation isn't everything either, but from an artistic point of view, this show fails also, proving yet again that Family Guy strives for as many cheap jokes and easy shortcuts as possible. People enjoy this show, and I don't really care, because people can enjoy anything they want, no matter how much it aims for the lowest common denominator. But no, I don't recommend this, especially for anyone who wants to someday study film or become a writer. This is cheap entertainment that aims low and has found success in this. The fact that this is so successful says bad things about America.
Ya know what? Family Guy started out as something fresh, funny and more original. The random humor USED to be funny. I actually used to think it was the best animated sitcom next to The Simpsons. After watching the new episodes that aired for the past few weeks; I grew fed up with the show relying too much on random humor to be funny. South Park was right about FG dead on when they brought up the Manatees and the idea balls.<br /><br />And watching the show itself, I don't understand why my parents like it so much; there's nothing great about it. The "Intellegent" humor is funny and would've been funnier if the show didn't rely on randomness.
this is the most overrated show on television. i believe people continue to watch it because they feel they should, because it has become somewhat of a "cool" show to watch and talk to your friends about the next day at work or school. rarely does it actually elicit anything more than a chuckle and never provokes any sense of irony or thought from the audience. every joke is interchangeable with "punchlines" that seem to be drawn out of a hat. the complete lack of originality combined with the even somehow lamer spin off it has spawned (see: American Dad) makes me question the intelliegence of an audience that continues to keep this horrid show on TV. i award family guy no points and may god have mercy on its soul...
Words cannot describe how asinine, juvenile,and repetitive this steaming pile of a series is. It relies on 3 things: 1. Constant 80s pop culture references 2. the tired "stretch out a joke to the point of awkwardness" bit, and 3. at least 3 or 4 pointless flashbacks per episode. The only reason I can see for this crap fest being as popular as it is for the constant pop culture references which I suppose elicit an "OMG LOL THAT'S FROM SUPERFRIENDS!! THAT IS SO TOTALLY IRONIC, AND I AM SO EDGY AND SMART FOR GETTING IT!!" response from the viewer. The writing is beyond lazy, and panders to its viewers, mostly in their 20s and 30s. Plus there's the character design, which seems to consist of the same three characters with the same bored expressions drawn over and over again, but with different skin colors and maybe a different hairline occasionally. Insulting crap.
Family Guy is easily one of the worst shows I've ever forced myself to watch (Not at THE bottom, though - I've seen The Jersey Shore). A popular hit with high school and college kids who mistake immaturity for edginess, this show is unoriginal and stale.<br /><br />As this has been dubbed a comedy show, let's take a look at its "humor." 1. Random flashbacks/cuts to celebrities or movies or politics or anything that can be cut to for a knee-jerk laugh. It got old after the 5 or so repetitions per episode. Simple solution: Every time you hear "This is worse than/like the time...", plug your ears.<br /><br />2. Inappropriateness for its own sake. This show is notorious for inserting inappropriate gags that have little to do with the overall plot. Solution: Watch South Park. They did it right.<br /><br />The bottom line is that Family Guy is not worth your time, and doesn't hold a candle to The Simpsons.
I haven't seen a lot of episodes of "Family Guy" and it's a pretty safe bet that I won't be seeing too many in the future. Some people say to compare this show to "The Simpsons" is unfair. I absolutely think this show wouldn't exist if "The Simpsons" hadn't come first and I absolutely think it wants so very much to be "The Simpsons". I don't understand what's so funny about this show. In the episodes that I've watched, I've understood where they've WANTED me to laugh, I understand that someone thinks a joke was just told but the joke isn't funny. I find the whole show to be lazy: the title, the "jokes", there is a complete lack of inspiration throughout.<br /><br />The best shows on television (cartoon or not) are created like this: a script is written, it goes through several rewrites, stuff that doesn't work is taken out, inspiration is sparked, good stuff is added, there are more rewrites and then it is filmed.<br /><br />I picture a "Family Guy" episode to be created like this: a script is written and it's filmed.
It's literally the Three Stooges all over again, without the charm. This show's nothing more than the worst slapstick. I'm surprised they actually have writers. The so-called jokes are completely haphazard, and 'controversial' for no other point than trying very (very) hard to be controversial. And people think this is 'edgy'?? Get a clue: this show takes absolutely no thought, time, effort, money, or creativity/originality to produce. Any references present are geared toward anyone between the ages of 6 and 16 who would occasionally browse People magazine. But I suppose this is only what all the kiddies want, like and need today.
It is such a shame that so many people "love" Family Guy, because it is easily one of the worst shows on TV, there are many points to address here. <br /><br />The Flashbacks: Now, in Season 1 and 2, which I think was exceptional, the flashbacks were quite frequent, and actually somewhat tied into what the plot was about and was even funny. Now season 4 and on, the flashback s are even more occurring, and has NOTHING to do with the plot, aren't funny, and really long, boring, and meaningless. Family Guy thinks that long drag scene which go nowhere are funny, when really it is poor writing.<br /><br />Stewie: Wow, a baby that sounds British. How funny can that be? It's not. His character is so unstable it's unbelievable. Remember in the early season's when Stewie was all about world domination and killing Lois. Well now he just has scene's that are awkwardly gay with Brian. From wanting world domination to being gay = bad writing.<br /><br />References: How do they manage to keep making poor references to 80's TV shows or events? Well they just re-use the same old garbage. You know, in 20 years, hopefully Family Guy will be canceled by then, if they are still doing jokes about shows from the 80's, it will be even more irrelevant than it was before. Because will have forgotten. This still keeps me wondering why they can't just writ good episodes with quality jokes.<br /><br />Voice Acting: My God, the voices in this show is so poor. Seth McFarlene should just focus on his crappy episode writing and stop doing voices. All the extras in the already bad Family Guy episodes all sound the same. The Simpsons get 6 or 7 people to do ALL the voices. A few of them are voicing about 15-20 characters...all sounding very different. But why can't Family Guy do that? Oh right, it's a crappy show.<br /><br />The Stuttering: Usually done by peter, Stewie, Brian and any extras, whenever they talk or are offended by something, they have to stutter out their sentence's just to try get a cheap laugh. I can't believe that Family Guy can't even speak normally to get people to laugh at their "jokes".<br /><br />Offensiveness: OK, short and simple, Family Guy tries to break the barrier and be cutting edge, but really they fall flat every time. Go watch South park...<br /><br />Terrible Plots: The plots and story lines are just utter trash. The Simpsons have started their 20th seasons are STILL have better plots than Family Guy. About a total of 8 or 9 minutes is flashbacks and drag scenes which have no relevance. <br /><br />Popularity Lots of little kids have Stewie shirts and think hes so funny, when really they don't even get the terribly written sex jokes. They just say, "oh, ha ha, stewie!" when they don't even get it. Family Guy has gotten canceled twice, and brought back by DVD sales, how sad is that. They got canceled the first time I think after the 2nd or 3rd season, and I honestly believe, that shoulda been it. those episodes back then were superb, they shoulda left on a high note.<br /><br />Drag Scenes and Falling There are scenes that go on way too long. One that just aired this last Sunday, Peter went to an executive bathroom, in which about 2 minutes was spent imitating the intro to Jurassic park, and the plot of that episode is stolen from a Seinfeld episode as well. Also a scene when Chris is working at a store and hes talking with the employee for about 5 minutes about a movie, which also features the stuttering. THE CHICKEN FIGHTS ARE SO STUPID, 3 of them, each one longer then the last. useless, unfunny writing, thinking that people enjoy long scenes of rerun fighting, between a CHICKEN, yeah a chicken. now, every time someone falls down, and by the way, NO FAMILY GUY FAN CAN DENY THIS, that every time they fall down, its under a split second, and they ALWAYS land with their arm over their back to make them look funny i guess, its been used at least 30 times.<br /><br />Herman Oh jeez, everyone thinks the old pedophile is so funny when its just a really bad running gag. they've even gone to lengths of giving him singing scenes (which are very poor) and basing ENTIRE episodes around him, they've done the same thing with other characters, like the doctor, who I know has had an episode based around him.<br /><br />The Simpsons Well, not much explanation needed here. There is so much evidence of Family guy stealing Simpson's jokes. How family guy is just a poor mans Simpsons.<br /><br />so Im sure I've forgotten some key points somewhere, but Im sure this is enough to prove that family guy is really a terrible horribly written TV show that everyone seems to love, when really they should go watch Simpson's, Seinfeld, and Frasier.
Have you ever seen one of those shows that became so popular that it could eventually get away with any crummy nonsense and repetitive halfhearted gimmicks that it's creators can get away with? If you haven't, then you've never seen Family Guy.<br /><br />Fans of the show seem to think of it as witty, edgy, and poignant. It's none of these, it is however dull, repetitive, insulting, and uninspired.<br /><br />The "humor" of the show comes from two sources.<br /><br />1) Irrelevant idiocy. The show often has flashbacks to things that have nothing to do with the plot and are mostly just absurd and pointless. And then there's the random movie references in which the shows characters reenact a scene from a popular movie without effectively parodying it . . . or parodying it at all(which ISN'T FUNNY!!!!!).<br /><br />2) the same crap that's in every episode the show. The one guy is a sexual deviant with STD's, AHA HA! Isn't that funny?! Hey, ya know what's even funnier? Making the same joke about him anywhere between one and fifteen times in a single episode. And don't just tell it numerous times in a single episode, make sure you drag it out so that an entire scene is devoted just to telling the one joke. Now also imagine that this same routine is used over and over again for practically every character in the whole series.<br /><br />The offbeat "un-PC" humor isn't as "un-PC" as they would have you believe, mostly they just say whatever morons think about the latest newspaper headlines, politicians, and random celebrities.<br /><br />The series had it's moments, but now I think it's time just take the show off the air and be done with it.<br /><br />You know what IS funny? I still like this more than Nausicaa of the valley of the wind.
Family guy. When the show first aired, it was fresh, original, and actually quite funny. Now, I have stopped watching it. It has become one of the worst shows on television, combining unfunny jokes, repetitive, drawn out jokes, and the hope that each joke can become funny with the inclusion of the word "bitch." Seth Macfarlane clearly has issues with himself, and he is obviously pandering to the 13 year old boys audience.<br /><br />I just don't understand how something that started out so funny, so different from everything else, can devolve into this horrible mess of a "comedy" show. I seriously have heard better one liners from a pud comic.<br /><br />It truly is sad to see great shows fail, and watch drivel like this continue on. Either Seth Macfarlane has stopped trying, or he believes that this show is hilarious the way it is.<br /><br />Either way, God help us.<br /><br />I hate this show, and will dance an irish jig when its finally cancelled.
The screen-play is very bad, but there are some action sequences that i really liked. I think the image is good, better than other romanian movies. I liked also how the actors did their jobs.
"The New hope of Romanian cinema"...if this is the new hope, then i wouldn't really like to see the saving hero of such a prolific cinema(Romanian cinema, that is). Now seriously, where should I start? 1. The crappy scenario: are you kidding me, this is not even believable not to mention it's high degree of stupidity 2. the Direction: what direction? This movie should have had psychological tension, at least that, since they have decided to make it look as trashy as possible. Oky, I admit, Radu Muntean is no Polanski, Hitchcock, Fincher or Lynch(the list could go on), but at least the minimum of effort would have been appreciated. 3. The language: Oky, I don't understand why (almost)every single Romanian director believes that if you make the movie as miserable and obscene as possible, then you have art. I don't mind explicit language or bad image quality as long as the final result makes it worthwhile. In this case, it doesn't. There is nothing to comment upon, since everything this movie wants to say was already told thousand times, the characters are far too thinly portrayed to become memorable, the "shocking events" that occur are also poorly illustrated and become unimportant. This film relies only on the self-induced emotions, on the "we must" hype. Someone was found murdered so "WE MUST" feel sad, frightened or panicked, someone went through this and that so "WE MUST" feel in a certain way. That's baloney. Because a movie is a piece of fiction, nothing is for real here. So the only true emotions are those that you discover when you wander deep into it's world(the movie's, that is)<br /><br />*/* * * * *
I'm usually quite tolerant of movies, and very easily entertained, however this movie was dreadfully disappointing.<br /><br />I watched this movie after seeing on the cover that William Zabka was in it (The Karate Kid bad boy) and during this movie I could see that this would be the only reason.<br /><br />This film is a tremendous waste of the actors talent. The music, and sound is dreadfully tacky - I couldn't believe this of a movie made in the 90's!<br /><br />I wouldn't really recommend this movie unless you're interested in one of the actors.
I couldn't believe how bad this film was, and trust me, I was not expecting a masterpiece from a made-for-cable film. I taped it just because I liked Jane Seymour. I've seen her enough to know that she is certainly an accomplished actress, so I just don't know what happened here. The characters were shallow, the dialog stilted, the acting bad, and yes that includes Seymour. It was nice seeing her play against type, but not in something this bad. I noticed that she carried a credit for executive producer, so she cannot escape blame for the sheer badness of this film. And oh, yeah, they had Barry Bostwick playing the male lead. 'Nuff said.
This is so blatantly a made-for-TV ripoff of Black Widow (1987) - even the insect titles are so similar.<br /><br />If you want a better "marrying for money" movie, check out Black Widow, starring Debra Winger & Theresa Russell.<br /><br />These movie is cheesiness at its best..! I just had to watch it entirely to see how it ended.
I got to watch this one without commercial interruption, and let me tell you, even for a TV movie it was pretty predictable. The actors did a workmanlike job with what they had, and the cast was pretty accomplished -- Barry Bostwick, Jane Seymour, Frances Fisher, etc. However, the script was not only predictable (except for the last scene), but the dialogue was treacly and sounded as if it was lifted from a third-rate romance novel. Jane Seymour's psychotic monologues were laughable. I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that anyone that creepy would arouse no suspicions whatsoever. As bad as Theresa Russell was in "Black Widow" -- and she sure stunk it up -- she at least had the sense to play her pseudo-characters somewhat straight. Seymour is a much better actress but didn't overcome the material here.<br /><br />Lastly, the musical score is incredibly cheesy. It's almost a satire of its genre, like a Kenny G meltdown. A movie with such a lackluster and derivative script really should have gone for something edgier.
Debra Winger's 1987 "Black Widow" is MUCH better.<br /><br />This is like a lame version, and Jane Seymour usually does better.<br /><br />Chad Allen is pretty poor in this too. Just playing his usual role as a boring rebellious child.<br /><br />Maybe the both of them being from Dr. Quinn was supposed to make us get excited.<br /><br />If it's on, go grab a copy of "Black Widow".
I saw this film last night and came online specifically to see if others thought it was as awful as I did.<br /><br />Granted, obviously some people see a lot in this film that I didn't, so if you're one of those people, fine - good luck to you. But I'm a patient person. I've enjoyed extremely long films before. But this was an exercise in torture for me.<br /><br />I honestly felt that this was one of those films with little to say, and that it was more about style than substance - however, the style, too, made me feel like tearing my hair out. Pretty much anything interesting that happens during the course of the film happens OFF-SCREEN. It's like a deliberate attempt to make a film entirely from outtakes - the bits that would usually be reserved for the deleted scenes section of a DVD, if they were shown to the public at all.<br /><br />You don't even get to find out, in the end, ANYTHING about the main character, Francois. I had no sympathy for any of the characters in this film, except perhaps the violinist & his goat, and the old man who believes that octopuses live to 300 because they're really smart. Seriously, I was excited when it cut to a shot of Francois holding a gun to his head. I felt so ripped off when even his inevitable suicide turned out to be gut-wrenchingly boring.<br /><br />Oh, and where was the editor? Off smoking opium, too? I swear, I almost screamed every time I was subjected to an extended shot of absolutely nothing happening, except perhaps someone pacing backwards and forwards, and then FINALLY there would be a very abrupt cut to the next scene, and it would be A YEAR LATER, and WE'D MISSED EVERYTHING INTERESTING THAT HAPPENED IN THE MEANTIME, and everyone was STILL wearing the SAME BLOODY CLOTHES....!?!?!???<br /><br />So, in conclusion, if you liked it - great. But this review is intended as an antidote to the fawning "you'll love this film if you love cinema" dross I've seen posted here and elsewhere. (See? I hated the film and I STILL included a sly winking reference to its content!)
Well , of course everybody is entitled to have an opinion about a thing ...everything. The presentation was interesting : black and white movie , the year 1968 , students manifestations , general strike , youth , ideals, love.....etc. Sorry but I did not sense LOVE , ROMANCE . A lover who is all right that his girlfriend sleeps with no matter who ? That is love ? But not only that , the movie is very long and for no reason , I had to stop watching the movie several time because I simply lost interest. I waited for something to happen but .......NOTHING. The only thing I was impressed during the movie : Gypsy fiddler playing in the streets , yes that was nice. I do not think that art should be complicated , encrypted , hidden in secret meanings , confusing .Big disappointment and waste of time !
This is clearly a French film. It is about young group of idealist/revolutionary/anarchistic people. It moves very slowly. Long takes. LOng closeups. A minute or more devoted to an attempt to light a pipe full of hash/opium. A long take on how a group overturns a car and burns it. It is a black and white film. The subtitles were white, so about a third of the time they were unreadable. (Why do they do this?) I walked out after about an hour and three quarters when it became clear that this picture was going nowhere, slow. I was not the first to walk out. It was the first time I walked out of a picture in my long lifetime. (Well, maybe the second.)
I saw this at the Toronto Inter. Film Festival in Sept. 2005. The description seemed intriguing--how wrong I was! This could easily be the worst movie I have ever seen--in 50 years! I see the director is my age (b. 1948) and lived with Nico of the Velvet Underground, which leads us to Andy Warhol, which coincidently is the one I thought of while watching this--Warhol's 24+ hour movies of nothing much happening. This is not art, this is boredom.<br /><br />Specifically: black & white. OK, maybe...but what is the purpose here? Surely they had color in 1968! And there is no contrast with the present. And yes, the subtitles were in white, naturally. I don't think I missed much, but that made about 20% of them illegible.<br /><br />Next, it's pure chronological order, but with seemingly random events thrown in. What's the purpose of the conversation with the old man at the dinner table? It adds nothing to the movie. There were many similar scenes--almost like someone took a camcorder and filmed random people and spliced them together to make a movie.<br /><br />Plot? None. The "riot" consists of some figures in the distance occasionally heaving a rock off screen. Mostly it's an excruciating length of time watching people (in the distance!) stand around. The repetitive opium smoking is just as boring. When the main character got a cute girlfriend, I perked up, but no, she was boring too! This is perhaps the only French film I've seen where no one takes off their clothes. Probably they were too bored to bother.<br /><br />Romance? None. The girl seems totally indifferent to everything--maybe her sculpture holds some interest, but if it does, we're not shown that. We are completely indifferent to the fate of the characters because they are all unappealing. Maybe that's the point of all this?
I caught this film late at night on HBO. Talk about wooden acting, unbelievable plot, et al. Very little going in its favor. Skip it.
"The Patriot" staring Steven Segal is a late 90's thriller/action movie that is not really a thriller and not really an action movie; rather it is Steven Segal playing Steven Segal by another name, but this time he is a Native American country doctor who kicks butt every now an again. Baring the obvious plot line holes, the movie itself is absolutely amazing in terms of the blatant disregard for character devolvement. <br /><br />From a marketing standpoint, I was left asking myself, "who in the world were they aiming at?" The bio-thriller plot-line is way off the mark for the middle America crowd and Segal as silk cowboy would never sell to anyone even if you deep fried him and put him between a kripsy-cream donut. The whole movie is just way out there, even for Segal fans, because it simply does not deliver on any level.
The Patriot (nothing to do with the Mel Gibson film of the same name) came out Steven Seagal was still doing that 'saving the environment' thing in his movies. Which is fine. But it doesn't make for good action.<br /><br />When the plot(?) of this film finally kicked in I saw the twist(?) coming a mile off. Seagal's anti-warfare, care-for-mother-nature stance is not very subtle. For a film that was originally going to debut in the cinemas it is shot very much like a TV movie despite some wonderful shots of the country by Dean Semler, the photographer of Dances with Wolves.<br /><br />Steven Seagal does like 1 fight scene in the entire film and it's totally boring. As an action film it fails, as a drama it stinks, as an environmental message it's obvious. Avoid like Ebola crossed with plague.
Steven Seagal's intent is to be commended, and his acting in this film is equal to that in many of his others, if you ignore the fact that he is supposedly portraying a brilliant scientist. The problem I had was with two items of the plot, which stretched my suspension of disbelief beyond the breaking point.<br /><br />First, how is it that a carefully engineered variation on a nasty germ, whose antidote must be just as carefully researched and engineered by a big lab, is cured by drinking tea from a flower growing high in the mountains? and that Grandpa's family seem to be about the only people who know anything about this?<br /><br />Second, and this one really takes the cake: Having gathered up enough of the cure to fix a whole town, wouldn't you expect the army to land the helicopter and start rushing bags of flowers to all the homes in this small town? No, they instead decide to sprinkle the flowers all over the town and force the sick people to go out and gather them up all over again. Just plain silly, unless under Native belief the power in the drug somehow depends on one's having gone out and gathered the flowers oneself.<br /><br />Add in the cardboard nature of the villains and the unsuitability of the title, and you might think my vote on this movie is actually high.
This is a known fact, Mr. Seagal cannot smile, he can act, he can kick butt, there are faint smiles, no real smiles no laughing out loud and no real point of watching this confusing movie. We see an over weight Mr. Seagal as Dr. Wesley Maclaren, who is in desperate need of a haircut and his real daughter Ayako made an appearance as his office assistant. Story: Okay so Wesley lives in another darn outback with his sweet daughter Holly. They sit and enjoy their red flower tea and omelettes and on the other end of town some over weight militia leader decides to make the whole town sick by spreading a virus that travels by air and kills in a matter of 2 days thinking he can survive as he had an antidote. Problem, there is no antidote and the one that exists only holds back the virus for a while. The CIA are contacted and even they can't help and only one person isn't ill, Wesley's daughter Holly. So she gets hunted thinking the cure is in her blood. Wesley manages to grab his daughter and take her to her grandfather, who is a native indian. Together with his sister in law Ann they go to a base where there is a hidden lab to find a cure but even the soldiers there are dying slowly and so will others if they don't find a cure in time. And to shorten the moment, neither Ann or Wesley are infected by the virus...hmm. One weak fight scene. Terrible movie and all the men in it are in desperate need of a stair master.
You get a good portion of Steven Seagal environmental anxieties, and some breathless mountain views along with cow-boy scenes (or alternatively use parts of any remains of the HORSE WHISPERER). You then add a large piece of OUTBREAK virus or similar (attention it must be more lethal and at least Biohazard Level 4) wrapped around a fat Militia group leader. You add one teaspoon of martial arts, and a zip of explosions and gunfire for the taste. Add the classic red Indian herbs for the extra taste. Serve immediately.<br /><br />What is the name of the film you get ?: The Patriot. Perhaps the worst film of Steven Seagal. I am sure that Seagal tried to say something in this film except the usual I-am-a-cook (but-also-an-ex-seal) but his recipe was confusing and the taste was awful.
[POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT]<br /><br />It's unlikely that Seagal will ever again scale the heights of lousitude he did with *On Deadly Ground* (mainly because no one's ever going to let him direct again), but he sure tries, don't he?<br /><br />This one's a typically brainless and badly-written little fantasy about how Indian folk remedies are much more effective than Western medicine. Seagal seems to actually believe this nonsense, although he never explains why life expectancy in the Americas and Europe is so much higher than it was in 1492.<br /><br />Kinda like he never explains how his supposed "water-fueled engines" work in *On Deadly Ground*.<br /><br />Even the "action" in this one sucks.
Forget the fact that most people expect an action movie form Seagal. This movie simply had no substance. Very long, drawn out, and boring. Scenes were much longer than they had to be - the camera would often focus on something for long periods of time when absolutely nothing was happening. Cure for insomnia. Worst Seagal movie by far (I do like some of his other movies). 1/10
Seagal was way off the mark with this film. I'm a fan of his and come to expect cool fight scenes and sharp one liners but this film had none of this, instead it had injections and cheesy music. Even if you're a fan of his i strongly recommend you keep away from this film and watch under siege or even on deadly ground instead.
Since I am not a big Steven Seagal fan, I thought this was a pretty good movie. It is apparent that his fans are very displeased with this drama that lacks an over abundance of martial arts and brute force.<br /><br />Gailard Sartain plays a self claimed patriot leader of a militia in a standoff with the ATF for weapons violations. He surrenders with the intentions of releasing a deadly virus. Seagal is a former CIA agent turned country doctor that pressures himself to find the antidote for the lethal bug that has incapacitated a small town. His Grandpa's Native American herbal remedy figures into the salvation.<br /><br />Notable appearances by L.Q. Jones, Camilla Belle and Silas Weir Mitchell. My personal favorite in this movie is Whitney Yellow Robe. She is stunning and appears to have what it takes to take on a more challenging role.<br /><br />Despite the far fetched ending, this was a decent movie that could have used a lot more action.
This film is without a doubt the worst action film I have ever seen. I am sorry, but it is just pathetic. In fact, the best part of the movie (this movie is supposed to be a serious one) is when a chicken speeds across the road, on foot, at about 100 miles per hour. This pathetic editing mistake makes the film absolutely hilarious for approximately 2 seconds, then it is back to "non stop, on the edge of your seat, as you try to find a comfortable position to sleep in, action!"
Steven Seagal has made a really dull, bad and boring movie. Steven Seagal plays a doctor!!!!!!???! This movie has got a few action-scenes but they are poorly directed and have nothing to do with the rest of the movie. A group of American Nazis spread a lethal virus, which is able to wipe out the state of Montana. Wesley(Seagal`s character)tries desperately to find a cure, and that is the story of The Patriot. The Patriot is an extremely boring film, because nothing happens. It is filled with boring dialogue, and illogical gaps between events, and stupid actors. Steven Seagal has totally scre#¤d up in this movie, and I would not recommend this guff to my worst enemy. 3/10
Apart from some quite stunning scenery, this Steven Seagal vehicle is devoid of reasons to spend any time watching it. For a Seagal movie it has very little (almost no) action but he does put in some reasonable (for him) acting in contrived character development scenes. Not recommended. To anyone.
Wow, I haven't seen a movie this bad since "Fire Down Below". Wait, that's a Seagal movie too. Like "On Deadly Ground" and "Fire Down Below", Seagal centers the movie around his environmental awareness message and how the military, FBI, and CIA are incompetent idiots. Problem is that both reality and a sensible plot are secondary to whatever gobbleygook social commentary Seagal is trying to get across.
The most stupid of Seagal's movies I've ever seen. The final scene is just crescendo of stupidity. My recommendation - if you really like Steeve Seagal's movies, NEVER , NEVER rent or buy this one - do not repeat my mistake and keep a good impression of him, which I've lost
Dr Steven Segal saves the world from a deadly virus outbreak. This movie strikes me as foolish earnestness that has morphed into an unintended camp classic (the best kind). Memorable lines include "Knowledge is like a deer. Chase it, and it will run away from you" and "Drink this. It will make you feel better." It is so sublimely bad -- they couldn't have made it any worse if they tried.<br /><br />Segal tries to convince you that he is 1. sensitive -- by saving a stricken pony; 2. a good father -- by a saccharine cooking scene for his daughter; 3. a man of science -- by looking at a fake spectrum; 4. in tune with nature -- by using homeopathic remedies; 5. politically correct and multicultural -- by having Indian friends; 6. an iconoclast -- by opening a rural practice after a former life in a national research lab; and 7. an action hero -- by being really fat but yet can still fight. ROTFL.<br /><br />It's good to see on as a late-night Saturday flick, with friends, preferably (but not necessarily!) inebriated.
I discovered "The Patriot" in a DVD-store and thought it could be a real action thriller. No, it´s instead a low budget movie with a ridiculous story. It´s no doubt a cable-movie and not one for the theatre. Fortunately after 90 minutes the movie stops otherwise the audience should have taken an anti-virus against sleep. One thing came over: it was the nice country the film has been shot. You can really feel the American air but that´s all. I hope for Steven Seagal that he finally succeeds in a big hit. It is not a must see because I and my wife voted average 4/10.
I don't know about the rest of the viewers of this movie but personally I'm dead sick and tired of Steven Seagal films. When Above the Law came out, it was a great action film. Wahoo. Now in the Patriot, Steven Seagal plays Steven Seagal from Above the Law. I get tired of seeing no character changes. It's the same character, time after time, after time. He needs change. This movie was probably one of the worst action films I have ever seen. Calling it an action movie is giving it almost too much credit because there's too few action scenes and they're spread far apart throughout the film. I guess they wanted to go for some drama but it was a meaningless try as the film portrays nothing but the regular squinty-eyed-Steven-Seagal we've seen thousands of times over. Get a new look and lose the pony tail is all I have to say, I definitely do not recommend viewing this film in any form, go out to eat, heck, rent Barney goes to Vegas but do not under any circumstances rent this movie under the precept that Seagal will make a great performance.
Okay, some other people have commented that this isn't an action flick, so I don't need to rehash that (even though I just did). This isn't exactly a let down, in fact, it's nice on occasion to see an actor try something different. But, unfortunately, this isn't one of those occasions.<br /><br />Now, the story: non-existent. This film lacks in storyline almost as much as 'Showgirls' did. Sure, they throw in a couple environmentalist, no, not even environmentalist, something else, tidbits here and there to please Seagal (being that that's what he's into). This doesn't make a story, not even close. Now, the ending... Even those amongst us who actually liked this film... the ending, you have to admit it was a bit much, or a lot stupid.<br /><br />Now, from what I understand this was a direct-to-video film (at least in the states), but this is even too good for this one. This piece of garbage should have been cable only, on TBS or Starz (late night).
Steven Seagal played in many action movies. Most of them were bad but not bad as The Patriot. This one is a Z-series action low-budget movie. After Operation Delta Force, Act of War, The Substitute 2, Plato's Run, The Base, Drive, Sabotage, etc comes The Patriot. Now Steven Seagal is sure to be considered as a bad actor like Mark Dacascos, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Treat Williams, Jack Scalia, Gary Busey, Chuck Norris, Michael Madsen and many others. The scenario was full of holes and the characters were not realistic (maybe because of the very bad actors) and the 4.25 bucks you spend by renting The Patriot are called Lost Money!!! I give it 0and a half( for laughs) out of 5.
Seems Sensei Seagal is getting more and more moralising and less "action packed". To date this has to be his worse movie... no action, a poor story line, an impossible plot and to make things worse, one of the CHEEZIEST endings I have ever seen.<br /><br />Seagal films are like seeing a Dirty-Harry, you do not go see it for the great social causes or impeccable acting... you want a good action flick.<br /><br />On a scale of 1 to 10, this one gets a 1...
I remember when this came out it was the first kung fu film ever seen around our way and we were all excited about seeing it for sure .Although the action was mediocre at best it gave us our first taste of kung fu and our first taste of bad dubbing as well as bad film making or more precisely the way Chinese people were making films at the time . They were admittedly inferior wlthout question but there was entertainment value here and that caught on for sure . The kung fu craze had begun and Bruce Lee and ''The Chinese Connection'' would soon follow either that or ''The Chinese Boxer'' with Jimmy Wang Yu . In any case this film was chosen to lead the way .
This is indeed the film that popularized kung fu in the 1970s. However, if it ever had any kind of excitement or even halfway interesting plot, it doesn't seem to have aged very well.<br /><br />Long story short: extremely drawn out, slow-moving, confusing plot with run-of-the-mill choreography, typically annoying and exaggerated whiplash sounds with every punch and kick, and constant "plot twists" that never come to an end. By the time the film reaches its emotional climax, I had long had all the wind knocked out of me to actually care.<br /><br />Watch it for its historical value as a milestone of Chinese kung fu cinema -- just leave your expectations at the door, or you'll be bitterly disappointed.<br /><br />For hardcore fans only.
I really liked this quirky movie. The characters are not the bland beautiful people that show up in so many movies and on TV. It has a realistic edge, with a captivating story line. The main title sequence alone makes this movie fun to watch.
After hoo-hooing American Indians scalp number one son, frontiersman Bruce Bennett (as Daniel Boone) seems, at first, like he wants to get even; but, he really wants to make friends with the natives. When sad-eyed Indian chief Lon Chaney Jr. (as Blackfish) also loses number one son, it gets more difficult to clear up misunderstandings. Apparently, this was Republic Pictures' attempt to do for their "Daniel Boone, Trail Blazer" what Disney Studio's had successfully done with "Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier" (1955).<br /><br />The "Dan'l Boone" song, whistled and sung by a group of children in a wagon, did not follow Fess Parker's "Davy Crockett" up the Hit Parade. Singer Faron Young (as Faron Callaway) doesn't perform the title song (perhaps wisely); he does sing "Long Green Valley", and makes a good impression as a blond boyfriend for Boone's daughter. But, Spanish actor Freddy Fernandez is the film's most valuable player. In a cute scene, Mr. Fernandez reminds Mr. Young the name of the character ("Susannah") he is supposed to be in love with.<br /><br />**** Daniel Boone, Trail Blazer (10/5/56) Ismael Rodríguez ~ Bruce Bennett, Lon Chaney Jr., Faron Young, Freddy Fernandez
Big D.B. tries to keep peace between the settlers and their red brothers.<br /><br />Boone (an aging Bruce Bennett) has to try and prove to the local Indian chief (Lon Chaney, Jr., appearing to be drunk, as usual) that his son was killed by the tribe's leading jerk who has also been dealing in rifle-trafficking when nobody's looking. Faron Young sings, though he holds his rifle like it's a mop. <br /><br />OK western-adventure directed by two guys, neither of whom has many credits on his resume, but this flick ain't too bad and it has a nice short running time of 76 minutes.
Reports of this film's brilliance appear to have been greatly exaggerated, and unless the other reviewers were watching a different movie, I fail to see how anyone can find this film anything other than dull, unscary, uncreepy, overlong, and at times, unbearably irritating. I'm not some schlocky horror fanatic. I love j-horrors and euro-horrors over American horrors any day, but I feel the need to warn any potential viewers about this film before they invest two hours of their life in it.<br /><br />It could have been so great. A reporter is investigating a series of bizarre deaths and occurrences, which seem ostensibly unlinked, but a series of unnerving tropes appears to connect them - dead pigeons, thudding noises, the presence of strangely tied knots... Our reporter goes from person to person, interviewing them, filming them and then passing on. Three important characters are among this jumble of people, a young, shy psychic girl, an immensely irritating, insane psychic man, and a crazy old woman and her boy, whose importance is not revealed until later on.<br /><br />The problem is that the film is not even remotely interesting, which makes its two hour running time unforgivable. It's also not even remotely scary or creepy. Supposedly scary scenes, like shots of ghoulish faces are done incredibly poorly, shown twice, or worse, we are told when they are about to happen. Other techniques, such as telling us that a family just interviewed "died five days later" simply don't make me care, let alone mildly creeped.<br /><br />The film does pick up a bit towards the end, as our reporter, cameraman, psychic and cursed woman go to a village in order to 'remove' the curse which is linking all these deaths. However, by that time, I was in a state of catatonic boredom, and couldn't care less, so all the fairly creepy camera-work and shocks were wasted on me. The "final tape" is quite good, but once again, I'd given up caring and just wanted this film to end.<br /><br />Boring and dull, not scary and not creepy, I would advise you keep away from Noroi. It has promising moments, but this is a film that was poorly made and not worth your time.
I haven't seen any other films by Antonioni and the people that saw this one with me agreed that it shares themes and imagery with the rest of his works. Maybe if I had seen other stuff by him I would have enjoyed this one, knowing what to expect. <br /><br />I saw it as an almost complete failure for so many reasons. First of all, the film introduces interesting, deep issues about social relationships, feelings, the nature of reality versus fiction, but this is very often done in the clumsiest of ways making the characters speak as if they were delivering speeches, rambling on and on, juxtaposing declarations rather than having dialogues. The scriptwriters seem to be so worried that we will not get the point that they prefer to tell instead of showing.<br /><br />Secondly, the movie has no rhythm, especially in its first half. It is not only that it is slow. Some slow films have been made with an excellent sense of pace and rhythm (El Sur by Victor Erice Or Scorsese's The Age of Innocence are examples I like), but for that to be successful it is necessary that we find the characters so engaging or the story so moving that we can adapt to it. This does not happen in Beyond the Clouds, where the first episode seems to drag endlessly, and the relationship between John Malkovich's "reality" and the love stories "fiction" is at times fluid, others abrupt, others confusing.
If rich people are different from us because they have more money, then film makers are different from us because they think the world cares about their every thought.<br /><br />This self-indulgent piece of tripe seems to have been made just because the director felt it was time to make another movie, and someone would finance it. Not every trivial idea or reflection is worthy of a movie (unless you are a college film student trying to complete a course). When you don't have anything to say, sometimes it is best to remain quiet.<br /><br />The visuals are not breath-taking. They are quite ordinary. The dialog is inane and unbelievable. They speak words no one would every sequence together in situations that are beyond imagination. Germaine Greer's zipless f**k is finally brought to the screen. Even if you believe in love at first sight, no one falls into bed as easily as these characters. They screw before they talk. Even more unbelievable is an aging, balding director finding instant sex with the most beautiful chick in town, though gravity is already getting to Miss Marceau at a youthful age.
What a shame. This could have been good. The main problems are the script and the star. The film cannot decide whether to be a slapstick comedy (of a very uninspired and routine kind) or whether to be a insightful satire on the old East Germany and its mores. Its attempts at the latter flop totally, however. The film does not hold together well and the ending is very artificial and unbelievable. Any stereotypes one might have about German comedy are sadly reinforced.<br /><br />The characters are stereotypes one and all, and the leading character, played by Kim Frank, is colourless in the extreme. He just cannot carry the film and appears to have been chosen largely for his baby face. It may not be all the actor's fault (he is a pop singer), as the script does not give him much to work on.<br /><br />One plus -- the recreation of the East German 'style' and period is good.<br /><br />The worst thing is that the film feels somehow dishonest and demeaning. The film seems to have been churned out by people who were not necessarily giving it their best and just wanted to make a quick buck from a few cheap laughs. (If they were giving it their best, it is a sad case indeed!) I watched it at the cinema with an East German audience and I felt sorry for them. The GDR regime was awful in almost all respects, but those who lived through it deserve better than this.
I didn't expect too much from this movie, but I was still disappointed. It's supposed to be a comedy, but there are only four or five scenes where I actually laughed, and I think that's rather poor. There is no real plot either, I always had the feeling that most of the scenes could have been put anywhere in the movie because there's no connection between them. But the worst thing was the "acting" of Kim Franke. He has ONE facial expression during the whole movie, as if he was supposed to play some retarded guy, but I believe that's not the case. All in all I rate it four out of ten, I've seen worse movies than this, but I wouldn't spend money on this one again.
As was mentioned before in other comments, the major problem of NVA is that it cannot decide what it wants to be, slapstick of the cheapest kind or an honest parody of the East German Army. There are a couple of moments which are quite moving, for example when one of the recruits returns from the army prison in Schwedt with a completely broken personality. But in the end, Leander Haußmann goes for the infantile humour. No wonder the film flopped at the German box office as it's historically untruthful to the real situation in those training camps and led by an actor who is unfortunately incapable of giving a nuanced performance.<br /><br />However, there is the camera work of Frank Griebe who - as always - does a wonderful job. If it wasn't for his beautiful images I would have rated the film far worse.
If you have been to the east of Europe (or even in their armed forces), you might find this movie interesting. I don't know why calls this a comedy (sure, there are a few funny moments), but it is not a good movie if one of the orderly officers talks for 15 min about the achievements of socialism on a Christmas dinner, and the officers in general act like funny oafs, the soldiers are running of the base to meet their girls at night, and surprise, surprise, one of the girls is the daughter of the commander. The east German army was known for its abusive and humiliating service of its conscripted men, and the comedy was basically not filmed on the facilities or with the equipment to make a good movie of the east German army and their time now gone by. Despite this, some of the actors and actresses tried to act well, but it came out only in the roles they're known for from East German TV and some small films. I would not recommend this movie to anybody, it was basically boring and very cheap made.
I've expected a comedy about the NVA, but this is a parody. It shows the national army of Eastern Germany in a light that is not appropriate, and definitely not true.<br /><br />One can make a comedy about everything, as long as the underlying facts are not changed. Even a comedy about the German KZ is possible, as Roberto Benigni with "LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL" has shown.<br /><br />The movie NVA would be an "OK" comedy, because the jokes in it are overall OK. Nothing special - not hilarious, but enough to live with it.<br /><br />The point is, that the movie makes a farce and a parody about the NVA. A death machine that was ready to attack WESTERN EUROPE along with it's friend the RED ARMY. An institution that used everything to get the utmost from it's soldiers. An army that marched into the CSPR in 1968, and was ready to march also in POLAND to destroy the SOLIDARNOSC. You can't make a movie without showing the tiniest bit of evil, or would you make a parody about a KZ,Guantanamo or 9/11??? Showing Osama bin Laden as a funny screwed guy? 90 minutes about a funny Osama in a Afghan Taliban camp, where he makes jokes and is training his soldiers would be comparable to what this movie is doing about the NVA!
A young man, who never knew his birth parents, receives an old farm in an isolated section of West Virginia upon the death of his natural father. He visits his property with a cross-section of potential victims including the comic relief black guy and a trendy lesbian couple. (Hmm, will there be skinny dipping? Take a guess.) Unfortunately, the party comes to an end when the spirits of drifters killed by his evil great-grandfather and used as scarecrows come back for revenge. This film starts out well. An artful montage of depression-era photographs and phony newspapers set against a speech by FDR - this, I believe, is his first appearance in a killer scarecrow movie- establishes the mood. I developed some hopes for the film, which were partially realized. The story was serviceable enough. The setting was sufficiently bucolic. The photography was mostly in focus. The acting, while no great shakes, was slightly above par for horror movies in this budget range. The film might've actually worked within the narrow demands of the genre if the scarecrows were scary. But they weren't They looked cheap. They weren't frightening at all. The better the monster, the better the movie. These scarecrows wouldn't scare Dorothy, let alone Toto.
Rent this only movie if you're in the mood for laughs (for sheer stupidity) , as this movie wouldn't scare a bunch of kindergartners at a Halloween party! The trouble is, there is too much gore for kiddies, so definitely don't put this in your VCR for the toddlers. It starts off with a little bit of promise, giving you the impression that the box cover artist may have actually started watching this film before designing the cover, but then descends quickly into epic stupidity. The "killer scarecrows" are clumsy oafs that are about as scary as the one in the Wizard of Oz, but not quite as smart. If they'd only had a brain...? I got this movie for $1.20 at a local discount/close-out store and even so, I feel somewhat ripped off. I think with all the other comments posted here, if you actually pay to see this, you can only blame yourself.
I was in Blockbuster and I saw a film called "Dark Harvest". The cover art looked great, the plot wasn't that bad, and the tagline (You reap what you sow) made the movie look pretty good. But I was dumb that day, because I did something I should have never done. I rented a "Straight To Video Independent Horror Film" Walking out with my much better rentals, I went home, popped Dark Harvest in the DVD player and it began. I figured I would watch the trailer after the film was done (BAD IDEA) but went ahead and watched it anyway. NOW to the review.*POSSIBLE SPOILERS* First off, the acting by the "kids" sucks, and the scene when the 2 (main characters) are talking, the lighting sucks, and the buildings even look fake! Now they go to this house, where Sean Connel's (I think he's the main character, I don't care) relatives lived there. All of a sudden one by one, they all start getting killed by...(gasp) A KILLER SCARECROW!!!! AHHH!!!!! The scarecrow is obviously the definition of low budget, and the scenes where the scarecrow is computerized looks so fake it's hilarious. It makes dinosaur noises and everything! And then at the end...they shoot the scarecrow with a gun (that is red for god's sake and looks like it was purchased at a local family dollar) and it pauses for a while and then.....(gasp) BLOWS UP!!!!!!<br /><br />Save yourself some time, I'm telling you this movie sucks. if you need to pass an hour and a half, look at the wall, because looking at the wall is A+ fun compared to this disaster. It is quite funny though.<br /><br />Overall Grade: F If there was anything lower **F-** Than I would give it that.
This is possibly the worst of the worst. I am a huge fan of the horror movie industry and I can believe this movie was allowed to be made. The acting was juvenile and the story completely idiotic. The camera work was also juvenile. One scene that comes to mind is outside a store. It is nighttime and you can see the moon, yet the characters all have shadows that cast on the wall. There was no street light to be seen. One character gets gutted at one point, yet manages to resurface later after removing herself from a post. Come on!!! It felt like I was watching a middle school play. I kept expecting the characters to wave to their family members off camera and mouth "hi mom". I can only give it two positive comments...it ended and it was good for a laugh. Please do not rent this movie!!!!
Few videos in recent history have been as amateurishly produced as this one -- at least none that have been released by such a reputable distributor. Every frame of this film is a plaguerism of better films of the past. The word 'cliche' is given new meaning by a talentless writer/director who should reserve his imagination for lesser masturbatory efforts that don't victimize film viewers. Assisting in the amateur night 'horror' effort is a number of less than capable technicians who contribute poor cinematography and laughable make-up and special effects. Unfortunately, the one or two of the amateur actors in the film who display a hint of talent that will go unnoticed due to the reputation that this atrocity will produce.
I think there's a reason this film never came close to hitting theaters. It was probably my neighbors down the street who filmed this movie with their mother's video camera. The acting is very amateur. This movie is definitely not something you would want to watch unless you were extremely bored. The actors even seem to double as directors and crew members, with no "professionalism" whatsoever. Should the director(s) and/or actors choose to continue with their endeavor of making movies, I would definitely advise them to brush up on their skills and perhaps take a few (ok, many) classes on film-making and acting.
Dark Harvest is about a group of friends that go to a farm(it belongs to one of the friends relatives or something) for a getaway. But there are killer scarecrows lurking there(there was something about a curse in there too but I forgot what that was about).<br /><br />The acting in this movie is awful, I don't know what the director was thinking when he was casting actors and actresses. The script is the same story as the acting "awful"(this statement coming up is very obvious but..) if there was better acting and a better script this could have turned out "okay".<br /><br />The directing stunk too, I see no potential in this guy's future. After all these negatives this movie still maintains a "fun" factor that bumps it up to a two. The last plus is they don't use CGI! My overall thoughts on this film are it's bad, real bad, but so bad it's "fun" so it gets a 2/10
pardon my spelling. This is probably the funniest horror movie that ever existed. Think evil dead * 1000. The acting is horrible, you can see the makeup line on a certain lady's face. there is a lesbian scene, which makes no sense at-all. And the ending, haha ohhhh the ending... be prepared to have your stomach hurting from laughter. Now if you watch this film for more then 5 minutes and are still expecting something, take a look at your self, and ask what the hell is wrong with you. This is a very bad movie, meant to laugh at and enjoy for its pure silliness.<br /><br />Don't forget to watch all the outtakes after the movie, you can see just how low budget the whole thing really was. All in all this movie is a rare gem in demonstrating the pure and udder lack of talent/care/ability/money/ and anything else you would ever need to make a successful film. But its definitely worth watching.
Now, I am going to do this without putting spoilers if I can. My cousin and I were renting movies the other weekend, and we stumbled across this, with the big freaking' scarecrow on the cover. It looked cool, so we rented it alongside Kungfu Hustle.<br /><br />Wow... Just... Wow.<br /><br />To start off, the movie was horrible. Now, the box art, opening scenes, and music was decent-to-well done, but the movie itself is horrendous. The acting is sub-par (Sean, the lead, shows hardly any emotion and/or effort in his character), the scarecrows look nothing like the one on the cover (False advertising, perhaps?), and the camera shots and angles were that of a bad wrestling event.<br /><br />And trust me, I'm a wrestling fan. I KNOW bad camera angles. And honestly, this is right up there with Gigli and Pootie Tang. It's done so bad that it AMUSES me. It makes me laugh. So, somehow, this movie takes its place as a good comedy to me.<br /><br />But, to be fair, it does serve as a what to do and what not to do in movies, especially of the slasher genre. I recommend that people DO watch this, just to get a good grasp of what to avoid.
MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS. This movie was the worst movie ever. I couldn't even watch it all it was so bad. This film is actually worse than scarecrow slayer which is saying a whole lot. This was worse than terror toons which at least terror toons was funny at times. Not even the gore in the film was good. The shootings were fake and the acting was worse. Please do yourself a favor and skip this one. If you see it at the rental store then run the other way. There is nothing good about this film at all. If you want to see a good scarecrow movie then watch Night of the scarecrow or pumpkin head. If you want to see an OK new cheesy movie then watch Scarecrow. I rate this movie a 0.2 out of 10. That's how horrible this film really is. THE WORST MOVIE EVER.
DO not take this film seriously, rent it with some folks who want to play Mystery Science 3000, and you will probably laugh your butts off. The evil guys are so not scary, it's funny, it's like some dude from 7th grade with a sickle in a scarecrow get up. The acting is hilarious. I love the occasional self torture with a poor horror film and this really had me giggling. I recommend it on that basis. Of course recreational drugs will enhance the experience. Oh, there is a naked group swimming scene, that will allow for some star dust on the 5 star system. The token black male gets injured badly, but continues his joking as well as using the injured body part quite readily throughout. Enjoy this complete and utter disgrace to films.
Okay, I'm sorry to the cast and crew for this review, but this movie is by far the worst I've seen yet...First off, the acting was okay. It could of been better (especially in some parts), but it was "okay". Then, there was the cheapest video camera (which they used). The violence was pretty good. If it were paced faster, it would be awesome, but they didn't (*sigh*)...Scares. The scares were well written (in the script), but not well done. For instance...(SPOILER HERE!) In the loft, a girl is half way in it and the other half is in the dark, bottom area of the barn house, then she gets it. The monster yanks her down and then you hear someones guts getting ripped out. The scares could have been better if the music wasn't ripped from a cheap horror sounds CD. The blood effects were pretty good, but the blood was like that of "Kill Bill". K.B. pulled it off, because it was meant to resemble old kung-fu movies, but when the crew can't tell the difference between red and pink....it's sad. The ripped up bodies in the movie were good, but the scarecrow costumes were something you would see for 25 bucks at a halloween store. Don't let the cover fool you, the costumes suck! My overall grade is a 3/10. If you are interested in independent movies, are easily satisfied, or just have 3 bucks burning a hole in your pocket, go to Blockbuster and see the horror of failure.
Bad script? Check. Awful effects? Check. Horrible actors? Check. Lame direction? Check.<br /><br />After seeing the DVD box at blockbuster video and being a fan of the horror genre, I placed my $4.28 on the line and rented this "film." My girlfriend was out of town and I was bored so on a late Tuesday night I decided this would be a perfect time for me to watch, what appeared to be (based on the box cover art) a horror movie. What I got instead was the worst film ever made. Up until that point I had always declared "Slumber Party Massacre 3" the worst film ever made.<br /><br />If you are the type that wants to see a movie because you heard how bad it is, this is for you. If you don't want to lose $4.00 and 80 irreplaceable minutes of your life, steer clear of this garbage.<br /><br />An added note: I noticed a few of the "actors" come on here and post comments on the bulletin board. How can you brag about being in this film? You were all horrible. I mean really bad. If there was an American Idol for actors, you all would be laughed at in the first few episodes.<br /><br />Peace.<br /><br />Sutter Cain
The movie starts off as we see a footage of a huge drought back in the 30's in America. Then a short story is shown about a creepy - looking farmer Elija who made a deal with Satan , to get good harvest. Elija hired young men to work in his garden , killed them , and used as scarecrows. He also fed the ground with their blood. Some time after 2 cops come to visit him. One of them gets shot by Elija , another one kills the farmer himself... After that , the present day is shown , and some guy named Sean is told that he has an old farm left as inheritance. He decides to go there with some friends to see what's up. Little did Sean know that the next night is the "Payback Night".....<br /><br />As for me this movie had a good story for a horror flick , but low budget and poor special effects just ruined it. "Dark Harvest" is a perfect example of lazy film making. For example we see a scarecrow (a usual guy wearing a funny , cheap mask) chasing a girl. When he raises his hand we get to see a normal human skin below his glove, instead of some rotting flesh. The gore is not very impressive as well. There are some nasty killings by our "lovely" scarecrows but everything is very cheap and unrealistic. Surprisingly the acting is somewhat OK in this flick , or i better say its believable. Some nude scenes are presented as well for the fans (even a lesbian scene) ,but those scenes don't save it.<br /><br />Verdict : Good music, good story, solid acting. But awful effects , cheap gore and plot holes slow this movie down. Not really recommended.
The first opening scene that lasted around five minutes showed the potential of becoming an instant classic, with moderit to good acting, good film, a story that keep the volume up, and an in the corner the of screen a spooky "did you see that!"(the scarecrow moves).<br /><br />After the quick set up of history that would come into the present, it was like someone else had written and directed the rest of the "film". The next scene is a basic outline of how the film goes downhill like a runaway truck. It looks like the rest was shot in video, with crappy "porn style actors", the set design was a lawyers office with practically nothing on the bookshelves or anything in the office at all. <br /><br />I remember only watching crap horror films for a chance of seeing some naked "teenage" girls, back then there weren't Victoria's Secret mags everywhere, and not watching for things that make great horror films of today like acting, terror, suspense, intregue, and so on.<br /><br />It took nearly fifty minutes for the first person to die. When it did, me and and my friends were so shocked by the WORST costume of a "monster" EVER, we through our popcorn at the TV screen booing.
According to the budget information given on this web site Dark Harvest had an estimated budget of $130,000. Where this money was spent I'm not exactly sure. Let me see....costumes...no...location and sets...hmmm, think not....special f/x...NOT...acting lessons...ah, no. Dark Harvest tells the epic tale of a young man who inherits a family farm in the hills of West Virginia. His girlfriend talks him into taking their friends up there to check the place out. Once there our intrepid hero learns that his great grandfather used a unique method for getting his crops to grow and now it's revenge time. Killer scarecrows out for revenge!!! Ewww scary. Well no, not really. We all know there have been some terrific movies made with very little money but this is not one of them. This film contains pretty much some of the worst acting and dialog I've ever seen. Terrible clichés with terrible delivery. All in all do not be fooled by the half way decent cover and avoid at all costs. I'd like to give the film makers at least a D- for trying but I'm afraid they didn't even do a good job with that. GRADE: F
Let's begin by acknowledging that there are arguably three types of horror films: good, bad, and utterly embarrassing reels that make the entire genre suffer in every way. Dark Harvest promises big with its Artisan DVD cover, but rest assured that is where the show stops. Following a grueling opening montage, we soon discover that the film consists of a very poorly written script, extremely under qualified (even for a beginners film) acting, disastrous lighting and even worse special effects. Seriously, could no one afford anything more than a mask for the villain, or did they just think it was good enough for Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers , so it's good enough for us? Well, it did not work at all to create a scary villain. At any rate, this is one of the movies that make you check your watch, sigh and curse your own gullibility. The timing in every scene is painful, and the entire production has a middle school feeling to it (come to think of it, I have seen better middle school stage productions, right down to the special effects). I'm trying to think of some way to end this review on a positive note, so let me suggest that all copies of this train wreck be donated as drink coasters, Frisbees, wind chimes.......I'd say "go see your yourself", but that would just be cruel.<br /><br />Check out the rest of this production company's reviews and you'll find the same for every one of their movies. They claim to honor the contract between film and audience (i.e. please the fans) but all they have done is chuckle and dumped a load on our heads for the cash (of which I am sure they saw very little for this). <br /><br />Sorry people, the high ratings and favorable reviews are obviously posted by those either directly or indirectly connected to this travesty. <br /><br />1 star out of 10 because it is the lowest possible rating. Giving it even one makes me angry.
Some teen agers go to an old deserted farm house left to one of them by their dead grandfather, unaware that there had been several murders there decades earlier because their grandfather had made a pact with the devil for a good harvest- couldn't the guy have thought of something better to sell his soul for? The man's grandson and his friends are set up to be the next sacrifice, for reasons which are never explained. The stereotypical teenage son and his girlfriend, the black guy with a white girlfriend, and the two lesbians have to do battle with three killer scarecrows- but, don't be tricked like I was, this isn't nearly as fun as it sounds. It's mostly just a lot of chit chat about ball kicking, dope smoking, and the lead actor complaining about never knowing his parents. The camera work is atrocious and shaky, maybe done on a hand held camcorder in some scenes, which maybe a good thing since the scarecrows look like they just came from some kid's birthday party, and apparently they could only hire two people to play the three scarecrows! Some of the best movies I've seen have been these low budget, independent horror movies, but this one is just pathetic. The cast and crew seems to have just been made up of a bunch of people who knew each other, had never acted before and had no intention of acting again, and had a few thousand dollars (I can't believe this movie cost $130.000 to make) and a weekend of free time on their hands- even the lesbian skinny dipping scene is lame.<br /><br />I think it's amusing also, that as of this writing, there is a sequel to this film which no one has even bothered adding to IMDb.<br /><br />* out of ****, and I only rate it that highly only because of the skinny dipping scene, no matter how lame it may be.
I woke up and it was a beautiful day; the sun was shining, the birds were singing and i fancied getting a movie, something new, a horror movie perhaps? Like many other reviewers i came across what can only be described as a piece of poopy in a gold wrapper. The front cover is great, and the comment on the back is mesmerising - 'it will scare the crop out of you'...oh how i chuckle looking back at such naivety and ignorance.<br /><br />One of the many things scarier than this movie is the acting skills of these 'actors'. I think, no, i did actually cheer when they got slashed up by these 'scarecrows', who were wearing some classic fancy dress costumes. I used to drive quite quickly past cornfields as i found them to be pretty scary at night, but having seen this movie, i nearly wet myself (through laughing so much) just at the sight. <br /><br />I have seen scarier omelette's quite honestly, not mine though, i'm a dab-hand at cooking omelette's, and if anyone associates this movie with my omelette's, let's just say that i would create a situation in which they would be forced to watch this movie 3 times in a row.<br /><br />If anyone has any good corn (crop not pop) movies they can recommend, feel free to inform me. It's a great comedy if nothing else, OK it is nothing else. Enjoy, but a little advice - before pressing the play button on your DVD player, throw it out of the window.
This is an irredeemably stupid, boring, unimaginative, lazily put together piece of garbage. When watching a direct to video slasher pick, it is only fair to expect the film to be trashy on some level, but this goes beyond trashy. It is just horrible on every level, with a cliché ridden script that manages to be both incredibly stupid and incredibly boring at the same time, a cast of no name over actors, and some of the worst special effects I have ever seen. Even fans of slasher movies won't be able to find anything here that would make this film a worthwhile use of an hour and a half. <br /><br />The plot focuses on your usual group of young people who decide to spend the weekend at a remote farm in West Virginia that one member of the group has recently inherited. Unfortunately for the teenagers, the inherited land was once owned by a farmer who made sacrifices in order to help his crops grow, or something stupid along those lines, and now some evil scarecrows are out to kill everybody. I don't know anything about writer director Paul Moore, but I am assuming he is over ten years old, and therefore he ought to be able to come up with something more original than killer scarecrows. Honestly. <br /><br />The special effects bringing the scarecrows to life are laughably poor. They often look like hardly more than Haloween costumes on sticks. Special effects such as these would have been considered rather rather poor twenty years ago, but by todays standards, they are nothing short of embarrassing. <br /><br />This is a total waste of time for all viewers, whether or not they are into horror movies. If you must watch a slasher film, rent any one of the "Friday the 13th" or "Halloween" movies. Most of them aren't very good, but are certainly superior to crap like this.
Straight to video and with good reason. Its like the neighborhood kids putting on a play in the backyard, but worse. A young man,(Don Digiulio) inherits a farm in West Virginia that has been dormant for generations. He decides to take a few friends to check the property out. This farmland used to produce good corn crops, even during the Great Depression. The secret being that the owner was murdering folks and watering the fields with their blood. Then hang their bodies out as scarecrows. The special effects are pretty lame and the the horrible dialog is full of unfunny one-liners and the banter so ridiculous the sound may better be turned off. Cheap gore and a sham of a horror flick. Along with Digiulio in the cast: Jeanie Cheek, B.W. York, Booty Chewning and Jessica Dunphy.
This is one of those films that you watch with a group of people. You will have the best time. It's really, really bad, like Showgirls bad but without the quality of Showgirls.<br /><br />You've got the best mix of bad actors, bad director and bad script here. Everything that can possible be wrong that can make for an entertaining evening, you have here. The first being the tag line is "a bunch of teenagers..." These people are as much "teenagers" as my grandmother.<br /><br />The director has zero sense of suspense or tension. The 30 year old "teenagers" are standing around and the "monster" comes out and attacks and this pretty much happens throughout the movie when the monsters are revealed. There is no suspense building up to this or surprise or anything. It's more like when you were kids pretending to be chased by monsters and just kind of made up stuff as you went. And when I use the word "monsters" I exaggerate. More like a couple guys in Halloween masks bought at the .99 cent store.<br /><br />There is no doubt this script was spun off in a couple days, no rewrites and I can only imagine how bad and poorly formatted it looked on the page because it was clearly written by an amateur with no clue. It's another example of one of the bad things about this day and age: anyone can make a movie.<br /><br />But of course the best bad thing about this film is the acting. It's as bad as you can get. There isn't one person in this who has the slightest skill at acting and the lead is the absolute worst. He delivers every line in this monotone manner without any expression and you have to wonder how someone this bad could possible get a part in any movie, no matter who he knows. When he had to "cry" when his girlfriend was killed, it was one of the funniest scenes I've ever seen in a movie. Watching these people reciting some of the awful dialog is very very funny. But when the black guy said "tell her...tell her...I love her..." before his death scene, there was a huge laugh among our group. Funny, funny stuff.<br /><br />My only hope is this movie gets bad enough ratings to take its place where it belongs: in the IMDb lowest rating 100 movies. We can do it, folks!<br /><br />PS. Is it any surprise that the one "great" comment this movie got in here was from someone in Virginia (who has one comment, only on this movie and nothing else). And guess where the movie was made? Virginia. I've said it before and I'll say it again: people who work on the movie should NOT be allowed to comment on it.
I knew full well when I rented this DVD that it could very well be one of the worst movies I've seen in my life. But to say that it was one of the worst movies I've ever viewed would be putting it lightly. I'm wondering if there isn't some legal action that can be taken against the individuals that allowed this film to produced. I mean, the financing had to come from somewhere, someone had to put up money for this to be produced!!??<br /><br />I'd pinpoint several production values that led to the failure of this film, but this film violated every production standard in the universe. I couldn't make it thru the entire movie, as I started getting dizzy the from horrendous filming techniques. I also can't tell you how many scenes I just ended zoning off during because of the inexplicably horrific dialog.<br /><br />I feel like I've been permanently scarred for life. If you viewed this movie before getting this warning, you should think about starting a support group with me for the poor people who did view this monstrosity.
Another stupid "movie". The quality of image is correct. Sound too. Music is middle. The guy try make music like in Halloween.<br /><br />For one rare time, producer/director choose no-anorexic girls. It is cause this "movie" take one week to do and cost $10,000. Does it mean when producer have money they choose all anorexic girls? Good question.<br /><br />But girls in this "movie" are physically correct. But they are not good actress. Neither guys too. But maybe it's just cause the "story" of this "movie" have no value.<br /><br />I'm sure we give $10,000 to some teen who like movie, and they can create a better movie.<br /><br />Don't lose your time to watch this "thing".
Dark Harvest is a very low budget production made by a bunch of rank amateurs which manages to come off as a kind of semi-professional movie. Unfortunately the poor effects, wooden acting and unoriginal story makes this a very mediocre horror slasher at best. By no means is Dark Harvest the worst horror movie i've ever seen, it just isn't anything special and has nothing in it to warrant a second watch or hope for a sequel. You know a director has doubts about their own horror film when a) there is some pointless nudity and b) the movie's so short they add some rather boring outtakes at the end credits that nobody really cares about because the movie wasn't that good! A slightly better movie which i can't help feeling was the inspiration for Dark Harvest is the eighties movie 'Scarecrows' which is an OK movie but still pretty average.<br /><br />Dark Harvest isn't as bad as some of the other comments say it is but don't think that you will be entertained much either. One thing i also have to comment on is the character of Angela who has a really terrible English accent! What was the point in that?! To maybe give it a certain touch of class? Yeah right! English people do NOT say "WAAHTAAH" when they mean to say "water" and i don't care what part of England they are from! If you can't find a genuine English actress or a non-English actress who can put on a brilliant English accent (not many of them about) then DON'T BOTHER! Sheesh! Final score: 4/10
First off I am in my mid 40's. Been watchin horror films since I was a kid so I have seen A lot of variety. IMO,this is not as bad as the multitudes that gave this a 1 or 2. <br /><br />Yes,it is a low budget horror flick. The dialog is soso and acting tolerable,sometimes. The basis of this film plotwise is actually pretty good. For those of you old enough to remember or lucky enough to have seen them on DVD. This is very much like a 1970's movie of the week. Just add in blood and minor gore,minor T & A and swearing, without big names. That is it to a T. I would rather watch this than Jason vs Godzilla or whatever other continuois crap is out there. Tho not as good, EVIL DEAD was a LOW budget film. At least give these guys credit for trying. With acouple MIL budget this could have been a pretty good flick. My score a watchable 4.
Any time a movie feature a dwarf or a midget in a prominent role, the odds are 10-to-1 that the director threw him in because he didn't know what else to do to keep the movie interesting. In this case, the featured little guy isn't all that bad - he manages to keep his dignity for most of his scenes (except the part where he drags the leading man down the stairs of the dungeon), but the movie itself uses him like a doggie chew toy. <br /><br />The problem here is a common one with low budget exploitation movies - there's a germ of a decent idea in here, but the director and the screenwriter don't know how to develop it. A good director would take the various story elements - brain transplants, mad doctors with secret labs and a dungeon, car chases, fist fights, dim-witted monstrous Frankenstein style assistant, mind control, betrayal and conspiracy, etc...and make an exciting, involving film full of cheap thrills and fun. <br /><br />Instead, what we get here is a bunch of people stumbling around and arguing in the doctor's lab, then a cheesy operation where the patient bleeds tempura paint, followed by some of the same people stumbling around and arguing in the doctor's lab some more, followed by another subgroup of the initial group driving around and having an accident, followed by a dungeon escape scene that is mostly about a woman putting her shoes back on, followed by a rooftop chase (the actual high point of the movie), followed by a confusing series of events where everyone in the movie apparently escapes from everyone else, followed by a lovely stroll in the countryside where everyone either chases, bumps into, attacks or escapes from everyone else AGAIN, followed by, well, not much else. <br /><br />Somewhere in here is a scary peroxide blonde dressed in white, a well meaning heroic type who is sort of blandly good looking, a three foot lab assistant, a big lunk with a mass of melted rubber pasted to one side of his face, a kid who wonders into the middle of the movie to provide more of the "frankenstein factor", a brunette who sort of falls in love with the hero for no apparent reason, and the mad doctor himself,who must be the luckiest man in the history of evil super-villains, because nothing goes according to his plan, but things work out for him anyway... and all because he remembered to stick an electrode into the transplanted brain at one point in the operation. <br /><br />This was by no means the worst movie I've seen, or even the worst exploitation movie I've seen, or even the worst badly made exploitation movie I've seen, but it just lies there, oozing cheapness and inattention to detail at every point, and there is no real reason for even bad movie enthusiasts to watch it.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a film as bad as this. Awful acting, All over the place plot, terrible special effects. There are some 'so bad its good' moments in here but not really enough to maintain interest. The woman who plays Tracey looks hideous. There are some fairly worrying scenes with a dwarf which leave you feeling ever so slightly violated. On the plus side the operation scenes are fairly amusing for the special effects as is the car chase where one car is "trying to force us off the road" without actually making contact. Guess the budget didn't stretch to trashing cars. Oh and what looks like a Postcard of the Taj Mahal is shown every time they cut to the fictional foreign country.
In the Muslim country of Khalid (fictional), its benevolent leader/dictator,Reed Hadley as Amir, is dying of cancer. Amir dies and a desperate plot unfolds. His body is wrapped in aluminum foil and taken in a clandestine operation (the population does not know of his death) consisting of his doctor (Nigserian) and Mohammed, out of the country to perform a risky brain transplant. The surgery is being performed by the disgraced Dr. Kent Taylor, who believes there is no chance of failure and has two assistants. One of them is about 3 feet high (Master Blaster did indeed run Barter Town) and the other is a mutilated & traumatized 7 foot giant named Gor. What could possibly go wrong??<br /><br />Did I forget to mention Amir's deathbed American, blonde-Barbie wife, Tracy or that Dr. Kent has a dungeon with female slave test subjects & delusions of grandeur? How about a brain transplant that didn't take? There is a lot of double-dealing throughout this and people are killed, but I'm not going to lie to you anymore : MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. The ends justify the means. If you can accept that then you will not have to waste 80 minutes. I hope that is warning enough. Don't say I didn't warn you. If you must watch, then don't watch alone and have plenty of medicine standing by.<br /><br />-Celluloid Rehab
This is a cheap-o movie made by Al Adamson--a man who was perhaps the worst film maker ever--even possibly worse than Ed Wood, Jr.. Adamson specialized in extremely low budget horror and skin films during the 60s, 70s and 80s and with such titles as FIVE BLOODY GRAVES, HELL'S BLOODY DEVILS, SATAN'S SADISTS and LASH OF LUST it's obvious he wasn't making Shakespeare!! His movies all had rotten production values, sensations, gore and amateur acting.<br /><br />Here in BRAIN OF BLOOD, several stock Adamson actors (such as his wife, Regina Carrol, Zandor Vorkov and Angelo Rossitto are along for the ride and had appeared in Adamson's previous film, Dracula VERSUS FRANKENSTEIN. This is fortunate because the prior movie was so terrible and so poorly executed on every level that BRAIN OF BLOOD can't help but look good! Sure, the makeup is laughable, the plot dumb (it involves the ubiquitous brain transplant scheme) and acting is level Z, but it's STILL better than their last film! <br /><br />About the only positive things about this film are that aging supporting actor, midget Angelo Rossitto actually had a better than usual part--with more dialog and a more important role in the plot--and there is actually some sense of danger and tension at times. As for Ms. Carrol, she STILL looks like a stripper and the rest of the cast limp through this silly flick. However, it's bad enough that it makes for good watching by bad movie fans--you've just gotta see makeup on the guy with acid burns as well as the ray gun that appears to be made out of an old tail light!
This is one cheap looking movie! A stripper keeps getting attacked and raped by zombies and no one believes her. She goes to the police who also rape her. She finally finds a kid who was also attacked by the zombies and they trace the zombies back to 'The Zombie Master'. The fact that Stephanie Beaton stars as the stripper is the only reason to watch this film.
I gotta go with my boy Allen (who also reviewed this film)...ZOMBIE GANGBANGERS (as my copy is entitled - guess they left out the "NINJA" part after realizing there isn't a single "ninja" nor reference to ninjas anywhere in the whole f!cking film...) is a total wasted of time. Honestly one of the most boring, retarded "films" I've ever had the displeasure of viewing.<br /><br />A hooker is repeatedly (un-graphically) raped by two zombies, and then by a cop (again, un-graphically) when the cop doesn't believe her story. She meets a guy who was beaten up by said zombies and the two try to find a way to seek vengeance on the undead culprits...<br /><br />First off - there is NO "gangbanging" (or really other "banging" at all) to be had in ZOMBIE NINJA GANGBANGERS. I was hoping to at least get some sort of horror/porn hybrid a la PORN OF THE DEAD, or RE-PENETRATOR, or perhaps PERVERTED STORIES - but no - there was absolutely NO sex in this film. At least a bit o' the ol' in-out might have redeemed this boring garbage to some degree, but without it, we get a bunch of poorly shot scenes of complete boredom with zero payoff. I'm all for "trash" films and most other schlock, gore, porn, and exploit material, but this one honestly sucks in every conceivable way. Save your time, pass this one up...1/10 (and the one is only for a few brief shots of some sub-par titties...)
What I liked best about this flick was the chance to see Joan Woodbury, who awe-struck me as one of the several beauties in the Charles Boyer classic "Algiers", in a leading role. She does well as Rita, an orphan who rises to make good as a lady crime boss. Her ascent to the top reminds me of Joan Crawford's characters, e.g. Mildred Pierce, who realize their ambitions by fierce determination and willpower. If you're looking for a film noir classic, better look elsewhere. At several points, it's difficult to know where this story is going. I first got the impression that it was going to encompass Rita's plot for revenge against the father and son who tricked her into taking the rap for a drunk driving death perpetrated by the playboy son. But payback time ended up being only a minor point, and a springboard to the somewhat confusing second part of the film, where Rita becomes increasingly involved in city corruption. Anyway, it's only 72 minutes, so a second viewing should clear up any haziness. My copy is from a Platinum box set called "Mobster Movies". The picture quality is good, but the soundtrack sucks, constantly skipping fragments of dialog. There are eight films in the $5.50 box, making each movie a fair 69 cents. Look for Anne Archer's father, John Archer, as Rita's childhood friend Bob. Alan Ladd doesn't get much screen time. It's definitely Joan Woodbury's picture.
This obviously was a pretty low budget production, but the cast was pretty decent, the basic premise had promise, and something more could have been done with it, but the script wasn't that great- the plot is incoherent and seems almost random at times and the dialog is stilted and terrible.<br /><br />Basically, a girl's father gets whacked by fellow gangsters, and later she becomes a robber, and wants to avenge his death, and then it goes into a mob protection racket involving corrupt politicians.<br /><br />Alan Ladd gets top billing but he really plays a very minor role.<br /><br />I have to say I found it mildly entertaining in its archaic B-grade hokiness but it really is shoddy and pathetic.
My question is what was the worst element of this movie? Was it the acting? directing? script?. Maybe it was the waste of Alan Ladd and Jack LaRue. LaRue and, especially, Ladd are capable of bringing extreme sinisterness to a role. In this movie, it was hard to tell who the bad guy was. Granted, Ladd was playing an undercover good guy, but even in his good guy roles, he could be very chilling. So, the net result was a potentially good movie bereft of any feeling of conflict.
As a young lass, beautiful Joan Woodbury (as Rita Adams) was orphaned, after her "stool pigeon" father was shot to death. As a young woman, Ms. Woodbury finds herself struggling to keep a job, as her murdered father's ex-convict status makes Woodbury a bad business risk. Woodbury rooms with understanding songstress Linda Ware (as Donna Andrews), who advises Woodbury to get in touch with old orphanage friends John Archer (as Bob Elliott) and Jack La Rue (as Mickey Roman). But, none of her friends can help when Woodbury is the victim of a scam, which lands her in prison. Upon release, Woodbury decides to give the male mobsters a run for their money… <br /><br />Re-titled "Gangs, Inc.", this is an obviously weak, cheap mobster melodrama. Still, it's a lot of fun to watch Woodbury work wonders with inferior material. She plays the innocent growing more sophisticated "Rita" quite convincingly; and, she tosses in a great bit as a blonde hooker. Woodbury must be added to the list of unfortunately underutilized Hollywood actresses of the past. "Paper Bullets" also features an early Alan Ladd (as Jimmy Kelly aka Bill Dugan). Ms. Ware, who sang the hit "An Apple for the Teacher" with Bing Crosby, sings a couple of fair '40s numbers nicely. But, mainly, it's Woodbury's show.<br /><br />**** Paper Bullets (1941) Phil Rosen ~ Joan Woodbury, Linda Ware, Alan Ladd
I couldn't make heads or tails out of this terrible film noir.<br /><br />The plot was confusing, the acting was alright, but the picture quality was awful! Though I bought this at a "Gansters Double Pack" (8 movies on two discs) at WalMart for $5.50 and when you put the DVD in, it apologizes for the awful picture quality that some of the movies may have.<br /><br />The plot was flip flopping everywhere I couldn't understand it and had no idea what was going on...then "The End" popped up and the movie was over. <br /><br />What a waste of my time!<br /><br />I say don't waste your money or time on this! Or if you too bought that Gansters Double Pack then just skip over this one...<br /><br />2/10
This movie really sucks.<br /><br />Just try to stay awake for 5 minutes while watching this baloney about a nice girl (Joan Woodbury) who gets involved with the 'underworld' because she needs money (and because she's too lazy to take a job from friends after they offer it to her). Alan Ladd was supposed to be the star of this thing, but he's nowhere to be found for the first freaking half hour and when he does show up, he stands around like a constipated mannequin. A real dud with enough talky scenes and unlikeable (as well as stupid) characters to make you wish somebody would shoot anybody, like really fast.<br /><br />Bring a pillow.
The film begins with a little girl (Rita) seeing her father killed. He apparently was a criminal who squealed on his fellow crooks. Later, and this part makes little sense, the girl has grown to adulthood and STILL her father's past haunts her! A bit later, Rita meets a good-for-nothing and dates him. During one of their dates, he's a bit intoxicated AND driving like a total fool. The cops give chase and he speeds away--killing a pedestrian in the meantime. Here comes the Really stupid part. He convinces her to confess to the crime, as he assures her his lawyers can get her off scot-free. Why, oh why, would she agree to this?! Yet she does and spends the next couple years in prison!! And, soon after her conviction, this boyfriend disappears--showing that he's a total heel. What a chump!!! Later, after her release, her friend (Jack La Rue) informs her about the truth about the boyfriend. Then, he explains, the boyfriend's family is loaded and she should shake them down for lots of cash for all the trouble he put her to by taking the rap. Frankly, this does make sense--as they certainly owe it to her--especially since they knew she'd go to prison and had every intention of using her and then casting her aside.<br /><br />Now the idea of bleeding money from the rich chumps is a good plot idea. However, there is no way this would have occurred in the first place because it's hard to believe anyone could be so stupid as to take the rap for a hit-and-run! In an interesting twist, the dumb lady decides on a life of crime--donning a wig and picking up a rich guy--taking him into the desert and robbing him at gunpoint! Wow...how she's changed! Apparently she loves the idea of stealing from "phonies"--i.e., rich hypocrites. However, and this made no sense, she soon stopped doing this and began shaking down the father of the old boyfriend--why she bothered to do some petty robberies in the meantime made little sense. And, what also was a bit hard to believe was that instead of wanting money from the old jerk, she was interested in getting him to put his influence behind a mob-controlled man for mayor. Odd...very, very odd.<br /><br />In the meantime, another plot develops involving a young Alan Ladd. He's an undercover agent who has infiltrated the mob. He was chosen because he just happens to be a dead ringer for a real crook--what a cliché! But what makes no sense is that this real crook isn't in jail and is out committing crimes while the fake one is infiltrating the mob in another town.<br /><br />Eventually, evidence that Ladd is able to uncover is enough to issue warrants to the mob kingpins--including Rita. This is a case of very bad timing, as in the interim, she's made a decision to become a decent and legitimate woman, as she's met a really nice guy who she wants to marry! Wow,...what are the odds?! Overall, this is a goofy and rather dumb movie that suffers from "kitchen sink syndrome"--in other words, there is way too many plot elements and weird twists to make the movie the least bit believable. Plus, since the movie is only a little over an hour long, it all seems very forced and contrived. It's a relatively bad B-movie from crap-studio PRC of note only for the performance of Alan Ladd just before he gained great fame the following year at Paramount.<br /><br />By the way, this DVD was released by Alpha Video---a company which sometimes releases some wonderfully obscure titles (mostly public domain) but which NEVER cleans up the prints or adds closed captions. In other words, the DVD production values are strictly 3rd-rate...at best.
Fellow noir devotees, be not deceived, this is a stinker...poorly filmed, poorly acted and there is nothing...nothing here for the film buff looking for yet another solid B-movie from the goldmine of the 40's & 50's era of classics. I gave it a try based on the relatively high rating on IMDb. There's no accounting for taste, but I found nothing in this movie to recommend to other IMDb members. This is a classic example of having watched a movie and feeling like you have been cheated out of x number of minutes that it took the movie to get to its thankful demise. To have Alan Ladd on the cover of the DVD/tape is nearly fraud, he is on camera less than two minutes and has almost no dialogue! This isn't This Gun For HIre folks...it is a classic in the lousy sense of the studios cranking out fodder on no budget...We all search for the great ones... save your time on Gangs, Inc./Paper Bullets...it is lousy!
Someone should teach the people who made this movie that there is a difference between "presenting multiple twists" and "screwing the audience over". They even use hypnosis as a tool to cover up the plot holes; whenever they can't find their way into or out of a scene, they just say "she is regressing to her past now" or "she's snapping out of it now", and they think that explains everything. This movie is a dishonest cheat and in the last 20 minutes becomes a full-blown fiasco. (*1/2)
If this film is an accurate display of J. Smits acting skills, I think he made a big mistake leaving television. Hasn't he watched any films "starring" David Caruso, especially "Cold Around the Heart"? Along the lines of acting ability, what about Mary-Louise, she has done much, much better. Yes, it is a terrible script, ineptly edited, and totally lacking in continuity, but skilled actors can and have overcome similar obstacles. A very big disappointment.
A good cast... A good idea but turns out it is flawed as hypnosis is not allowed as evidence in courts. So many good actors and they are all acting so badly! So why did they all get attracted to this mess... And yes it has its good points such as lighting etc... But ultimately I wondered two things.... How could so much talent lead to such a bizarre mess? What is that accent that Nigel Hawthorne is putting on? He is/was a great actor and so what is that accent all about? It is impossible to identify? What was he trying to do? Maybe it is his subtle indication as if to say to us: 'I've got involved with a turkey so here's a crap accent to go with it!'
I have read a lot of books in my short lifetime but this is by far the WORST!!! I just got done reading this worthless piece of trash and when I finished it I threw it across the room! I hated it and let me state the reasons! 1.The soldier dies. Why would the author make the soldier die?! Why couldn't she have kept him alive like a good love story author would do?! I deeply applaud Patty for trying to claw that FBI agent's eyes out.<br /><br />2.Ruth get's fired. Ruth (the black housekeeper) get's fired and for no apparent reason too! She tried to comfort Patty and then Patty's SOB dad fires her for no good reason! Ruth and Anton and Patty were the only bright spots in the book. Oh and the grandparents too! 3. The perm. Yes. The perm. Now you people might think why would the perm upset you? Well here's why. Patty's mom asks the girl if she wants her hair done. Patty says no but the mom calls Mrs. Reeves (the horrible hairdresser) and tells her to give Patty a perm. Why on God's green earth would she do that?! Why would a mother ask her daughter if she wants a perm only to have her get a perm anyway! The mom always pretends that Patty has a say when she dosen't have a say at all!!! She should be given the "Worst Mother of the Year Award" for the stuff she dose to Patty. Thank God Ruth cut her perm off! 4. Discrimination, Racisem, and Prejudious. I hate the discrimination in this book. They use the word *beep* too much. Yes.I know that in those days blacks were free but had basically no rights but come on! Why teach todays children that word! It just teaches them how to discriminate people. Not only were blacks discriminated but the Chinese too. In the book people refer to Mr.Lee (a Chinese man) as "The *beep* That is really despicable and last but not least... Jews and Nazies. I hate the town for spitting on a little girl. What was so wrong for her liking Anton. SHE IS A 12 YEAR OLD GIRL!!! It was just a crush. Like a 12 year old can really love a 22 year old. Come on! This isn't "Lolita". And "Lolita" is a good book not a piece of filth! I'm surprised that this movie isn't considered "dirty" like "Lolita" is.<br /><br />5. Patty going to a reformatory. Patty should not have gone to that reformatory. Refirmitories are for thieves and murders, not innocent 12 year olds! The teacher or whatever she was called Patty an ungrateful, spoiled brat. Ungrateful spoiled brat my butt! Patty was not a spoiled brat because her father and mother never gave a rip about her! Patty should of got community service or something. She did nothing wrong. She just helped a friend.<br /><br />6. Favortisem. The parents played favoritism with their children. Patty, their firstborn daughter is clearly the least favored while Sharon, the five year old brat is their favorite daughter. The dad says that he wanted to take Sharon to Hollywood but clearly forgets his other daughter.<br /><br />7. The dad. I hated him! He was so mean Patty might as well had Hitler himself as her father. Her dad beats her for no apparent reason and the way he talks to her in the end will make you so mad you'll be caught thinking "Patty would get better treatment in a concentration camp".<br /><br />Well there you have it folks. 7 reasons I hate this book. Instead of reading this book read "The Diaries of Anne Frank" or anything else because I warn you, it is very depressing and it will leave you really mad! The only reason it gets 4 stars is because of Anton, Patty, Ruth, and the grandparents!
I was forced to read this sappy "love story" between a German 24 year old POW and a 12 year old Jew. That has "political correctness" written all over it. Its kind of like the movie "SPIRIT" in which a horse wants to be free but those "evil" Americans wont let it because they need it. Well i have good news the Americans are "evil" in The German soldier and his summer book. Why!!! Horses where given to us by god and if the Americans needed a horse the can darn well use it. In the same sense the German had been trying to kill Americans, but this book/movie makes it seem OK! The casting is absolutely awful!!!!!!!!!!!! The girl is Hispanic the mother is white the dad it probubly from mostly white descent and the little sister is "shirley templish." The acting is pretty bad too, the serious parts become comedy! Concluson-Bad movie, bad book, but both have different endings, don't read or see either one!
Times I look back to high school and it amazes me that I never went lower than Marvin did in this BAD film.<br /><br />Poor Marv is the main character who's bad luck just gets worse and worse. Despite his intelligence, he manages to get bullied, exploited, supports his lousy deadbeat Dad, and plenty more goof-ups including a daring heist which let's say doesn't go fully to plan. Of course, the viewer feels no empathy with anyone in this film, so all this disastrous gloom bounces off like harmless zeta rays. Recommended for those days you're feeling down, pop this film in and you'll smile and say, "I'm so glad I'm not Marv!"
drab morality tale about a high school kid who's pretty much the now-stereotypical nerd. He's smart, but has no friends, no social skills, and a lazy loser of a father who borrows money from HIM. A pretty girl hits on him(he should've known she wanted something-he's supposed to be smart, right?). She manipulates the poor desperate fool into writing her term paper on Shakespeare, which the teacher immediately knows she couldn't have written. He loses the girl(not that he ever really had her) the confidence of his teacher, and his college scholarship, all in one fell blow.<br /><br />Marv is so silly and desperate for love that he decides to rob some heroin dealers who are running the stuff through the warehouse he works at. Then maybe the trashy little slut will be impressed and want to marry him. Sad, really sad. Marv is such a pathetic dope(and pretty brainless, for a supposedly smart guy. I mean, trying to rob drug dealers? Has this kid got a screw loose?) that you stop feeling sorry for him and get the dreadful urge to kick him in the butt, instead.<br /><br />The girl, of course, tells her boyfriend about the robbery Marv boasted of to her, and talks him and his cronies into stealing the money from Marv and company. They try to do so, and in the process manage to shoot several people. The cops show up at the same time, and the idiot Marv is dragged away, a total disgrace forever. I know this thing was geared towards making teens behave themselves by showing them the consequences of bad behavior, but all it really illustrated was the consequences of stupid behavior. Which is the premature end of your film career, of course. Goodbye, Marv, we never really knew ya. And thank goodness for that.
This could have been so much better than it turned out. Tom Pittman gives a good performance and some of the older actors do well with what they have to work with, but it just doesn't work.<br /><br />First, the actors are much too old to play high school students, especially Howard Veit (Vince). He looks about thirty. Second, it's hard to sympathize with poor Marv, especially since Betty is not all that hot, to start with.<br /><br />*******Spoilers****** The ending is so strange. It looks like the director intended for Pittman's character to get shot, but there are no gunshots...he's just knocked to the cement, where he lays there until the ambulance drivers pick him up and place him on a stretcher (face down!). What were his injuries? A skinned knee? Goofy! Vince has just shot his girlfriend dead without any remorse whatsoever, yet he simply shoves Marv to the ground and rushes off, despite the fact that he makes no secret of the fact that he hates the kid. And to make matters even sillier, Marv begs the police to tell his father he's sorry. (Duh! Hey Marv. You just got knocked around. I think you will have plenty of opportunities to tell your father you're sorry...in person). And this writer didn't get an Oscar nomination? Skip it, unless you get to watch it on MST.
I saw the MST3K version of this film and it is a bad movie - but its not nearly as bad as its low IMDB rating (currently 1.8 out of 10). At least the movie has a few production values and it apparently had a competent editor (unlike the movies that truly are awful). The primary problem with this movie is that it had no appealing characters whatsoever. The main character, Marv, is so pathetically morose, that he practically asks for all the bad stuff that happens to him. And he isn't very smart either, or he would have figured out to stay away from the conniving girl Betty. And even more pathetic than Marv is his father, who is nothing but a drunken loser. The highlight of the film is the heist sequence at the end but even that is so weakly executed, any excitement it might have added to the film is completely missing. At least this movie made for a very funny MST3K episode, as Mike and the 'Bots do a great job making fun of it.
This movie reminded me a lot of a song by the Dead Kennedys called "Straight A's." However, unlike this film, the hero of the DK's song turns to suicide. You'll wish this bozo had resorted to killing himself instead of doing the crime he did. The whole thing was convoluted and in the beginning, you sympathize with the hero of the film, then he quickly betrays your sympathies. The long sequences of just showing the hero's face while he delivers a monologue drag the film down quite a bit. Avoid this if possible.
Make no mistake about, High School Bigshot is a bad movie.<br /><br />High School Bigshot is about a geek who makes a plan to become rich and get the girl. However, he goes about it all wrong, and of course by the end of the movie ends up dead along with a few other people, thankfully including the girl.<br /><br />The moral of the story is all women care about is wealth. Also for us men, I guess we're just supposed to accept we either "have it" or "we don't have it"! <br /><br />I could easily see how this movie could be rated a 1, however it is above that of the very worst of movies. The acting's not totally horrible, and production values aren't ultra-terrible. Over all it's a bad movie and not worth viewing for many reasons. If you insist of course at torturing yourself, watch the MST version. <br /><br />2/10 (maybe a 1.5/10)
If you like The Three Stooges you'll undoubtedly like this 17 minute short. There were certainly some amusing moments in it, but like all the Stooges' work, this revolves around their particular style of slapstick comedy, and I have to confess that somehow the Stooges just never really did it for me. Their slapstick always seemed angry rather than funny, and even though it was obviously fake, their antics always seemed more likely to cause hurt rather than to cause laughter. In this short, the slapstick revolves around the attempts to find Shemp (who is a Professor of Music in this) a wife, because he's just inherited half a million dollars on condition that he marry within 48 hours of the will being read. One of his students is interested, but once word of the inheritance gets out , there's suddenly a long line-up of potential brides, and a pretty good cat fight emerges between them. Fans of the Stooges will enjoy. For me, it has all the elements that drive me nuts about them. 4/10
Shemp finds out that he stands to inherit a million dollars IF he is married within 24 hours. Considering how hideous he looks and his personality, it isn't surprising that he can't get a taker--that is until an article appears in the paper explaining his predicament--at which point five crazed women appear from no where to claim their new hubby (plus the money, of course).<br /><br />While I don't hate the Three Stooges and like to watch their shorts on occasion, they never, even on their best day, came close to the brilliant comedy of Buster Keaton. That's why I disliked this film, as it was a ripoff of the plot from Keaton's masterpiece, SEVEN CHANCES. With the Stooges it wasn't uncommon for Columbia Pictures to steal old comedy plots or just recycle older Stooge shorts. So, from the outset, this film is a pale imitation of an original. It's also obvious that this film lacks the charm and subtlety of the original and the gags generally seem very forced (paricularly the phone booth scene). The cousin Basil bit, however, was pretty cute and funny--though far from subtle! However, the worst aspect of the film was the not particularly funny conclusion. In the Keaton version, hundreds of women appeared to marry him and the action became very fast and furious--here, it all stayed in one small room and lacked comedic punch--ending in a fizzle.<br /><br />Overall, a dull retread. Also, before marking this review "not helpful", be sure to FIRST see SEVEN CHANCES to see what I am talking about--then you decide.
I've read a lot of reviews on the IMDb (well, all five of the ones that have been written at the time that I'm writing this) and I'm surprised at the amount of praise heaped upon The Brideless Groom, which is undoubtedly one of the lesser comedies performed by the Stooges. I prefer the older ones where it was Larry, Curly and Moe, although Shemp gets credit for most of the funny scenes in Sing a Song of Six Pants, another Stooges short which is only moderately amusing but far superior to Brideless Groom. Indeed, there is a single slightly amusing scene in the film, the "don't-hit-a-lady" scene, which is barely amusing at all and is 15 minutes into the film. Not very promising in a 17-minute comedy.<br /><br />Shemp is a voice trainer whose uncle has passed away and left him an inheritance of $500,000, provided he get married within 48 hours, which is short enough notice as it is, but by the time Shemp learns about it he has only 7 hours left. This is a premise that had been done and redone before, but was not, I don't think, a massive cliché at the time this film was made, as it is now. There are a series of gags throughout the film, none of which are even close to the level of comedy for which the Three Stooges are so widely known. It seems that the Stooges have run into the same troubles that plagued so many of Shirley Temple's films – there is too little reliance on content and too much reliance just on the fact that they're there.<br /><br />The standard characteristics of the Stooges are here, Moe is the mean one, whose meanness is certainly not used sparingly in this film, and the slapstick sound effects (although with more exceptions than usual) are fairly amusing, but are plugged into their standard slots in this film. The line "Hold hands, you lovebirds" is immortal. The rest of the film is not.<br /><br />There is much talk among the other people who have reviewed this movie for this site about this being one of the best of the Stooges shorts, that you won't find one weak moment, about how this is their best since the early 30s shorts. It's just not true. I can certainly understand a level of automatic respect for milestone classics and for the giants of early comedy, which the Three Stooges certainly are, but that respect is damaged when poorer films are praised more than they should be. The Brideless Groom deserves some respect because it is a Stooges film, but for exactly the same reason, it should have been better. The Three Stooges were just better than this.
This movie is everything but the true story of Phoolan Devi. Director Shekhar Kapoor's claims are countered by the fact that he made the entire movie without even once meeting Phoolan Devi, on whose life this movie is supposed to be based! The excuse being that meeting the woman would have interfered with director's conception of the story! The film wastes the opportunity of sensitizing the society of the plight of low-caste women in the Indian society and ends up as a stereotype portraying Phoolan Devi as an angry woman whose sole motivation is revenge. No wonder, this Shekhar Kapoor's film was successful in the west as it catered to their non-bollywood tastes!
As powerful as the true story of Phoolan is, this book this film is based on came out before she herself was released from Prison and had the chance to tell it. <br /><br />It is allegedly based on her diaries but she is illiterate. How does that work? <br /><br />That said, some areas of he film are accurate and the acting isn't bad, with some sensitivity being shown. <br /><br />Really though this story needs to be old in a TV series. Far to much happens to cram into a couple of hours. <br /><br />Read her autobiography. Highly recommended. It is a fantastic story.
Before I had seen this film, I had heard some negative comments about it. However, when watching it I found myself thinking "ok, it's a little slow-paced but this is quite interesting". As it built toward the end, it created a complex moral dilemma, leading to a shocking yet, within the context of the film, entirely believable decision with extremely powerful dramatic consequences. If this had been followed through, it would have been a tremendously powerful ending and would have given me a very favourable impression of the film.<br /><br />However, due to an ending which not only cops out emotionally, tacking on an unnecessary happy-ish ending without real emotional credibility but also within the context of the film makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for you clearly see one of the character take an action which should end her life but inexplicably doesn't. Incidentally, please tell me if I did miss something here and there is a reason why she survives as I just couldn't how logically she could have and this wrecked the whole film for me.<br /><br />This said, all three leads put in powerful performances although Kevin McKidd's characters' transformation by the end goes a little further than is fully convincing and it does create a very powerful ethical triangle.<br /><br />This film is recommended if you ready yourself to walk out when the mother and the sister are lying on the bed. But do not watch further than this unless you have only a pinch, but several mountains, of salt.
`AfterLife' is about a somewhat arrogant, reasonably wealthy man who discovers that his mother is dying, and finds himself looking after his sister, who has Down's Syndrome. He can't be bothered with her, and basically just wants to get her off his hands; he has better things to do. At one point he finds that he has to take her, by car (she doesn't like flying) across the country.<br /><br />If that all sounds familiar to you, it is probably because you have seen `Rainman,' a film far superior to its imitator, `AfterLife.' That it copies the basic premise (heck, it nicks a few characters and even scenes too) is not the fundamental problem with the film. The fundamental problem is that I did not care about these characters.<br /><br />The brother, Kenny (Kevin McKidd), is a bit of a womaniser. He has a girlfriend who comes and goes in the story, and who learns to like the Down's Syndrome sister (again, this is taken from `Rainman'). He is a journalist, trying to get an interview with a doctor who is facing a scandal. When he ends up looking after Roberta, the sister, he doesn't have much time for her, and sometimes leaves her alone for a little too long. When she wanders off, he becomes even angrier towards her. Am I spoiling anything by saying that he becomes a nicer, loving person by the end of the film?<br /><br />Roberta is not determined to be 'normal'; she is 'normal,' and wishes people would stop treating her differently. She is played by Paula Sage, an actress who does have Down's Syndrome, and her performance is easily the best thing about the film; why did the screenwriter not explore her character more? Well, probably because that would mean the characters would get in the way of the story. When we surely already know the story anyway, didn't the filmmakers see the problem they were creating?<br /><br />For a film about a dying mother and her handicapped daughter (the father is absent; I think he is dead, but I'm not sure), it is surprising how little impact the film has on the emotions of the viewer. The scenes are performed in such a standard, dull way, with such standard, predictable dialogue, that I found myself rolling my eyes.<br /><br />I have nothing against sentimentality in films, but it only really works if you care about the characters. Here the characters are so uninteresting and two-dimensional that I didn't really think there was much to care about. `Rain Man' has an emotional climax, but that moved me, because I cared about the characters.<br /><br />Talking of climaxes, this film has a stinker. There is sequence at the end of the film that starts off as an unbelievable situation and ends up in even worse territory; an unforgivably cruel trick is played on the audience. The sequence is designed to move the audience, but ends up being horribly manipulative and offending the intelligence of the viewer. Audiences aren't stupid, and they know when the film is cheating. What a cheap shot.<br /><br />There is not one scene in this film that has the impact it should. There are a few sequences that are funny, yes, but when the characters talk to each other, I can practically see the screenplay in front of me, moving predictably and uninterestingly, never hitting anything that touches the mind or the heart. There are those phoney arguments that are reserved especially for the movies, where the other character knows exactly what the reply is. Why don't supposedly 'realistic' films not realise that, in real life, anger can be irrational, and sometimes people can't express their emotions, and they might say things that don't make sense, or not be able to say anything at all? All of the actors in this film deserve better material. This film is not based on fact, but I think a documentary on a family with a Down's Syndrome member would be much more interesting. That way, we might have had truth and emotion. For some reason the characters in this film think that an emotion only involves saying something loudly and making a suitable facial expression.<br /><br />** (out of 5)
I love basketball and this seemed like an intriguing movie. However, in the first ten minutes of the movie I knew that it was going to be lousy. It was poorly acted and much too slow. On top of that it was very, very racist, sexist, antisemitic and homophobic. Sometimes putting in racial, ethnic and other types of slurs has a point, illustrating the bigotry that exists. In this movie there was no point to the horrible bigotry and no one learned from what was being said. Part of the problem is that it was an adaption of a play and a remake of a 1982 movie that dealt with a basketball team from the 1950's. Having this movie take place earlier in time would have made a little bit more sense. It didn't translate well to modern times and the writing was horrible. I don't know how the play was originally written but I can't believe that any movie as bad and as hateful as this one has made it to television and video in 1999. It was disgusting. Don't waste your precious time on this one.
-SPOILERS------------ I am a fan of 60's-70's french cinema but not necessarily of the more modern,so to be honest i watched this because of Bellucci.She is very young here,extremely beautiful and on top of this supposedly this movie is where they met with Cassel,so it gives it some extra importance.<br /><br />The movie begins with a very nice style reminiscent of DePalma.Then suddenly we are thrown to flashback,and the back and forth goes on which gets tiring.I don't mind one flash back,but do it and get it over with man!!!Anyway,the movie is still interesting to me until a point when the first and definite hole in the plot,that allows for the rest of the story,never lets me enjoy the rest.I can allow for little holes here and there,but not to base an entire plot on hot air.This is the story of a man who is literally searching for an old flame.This is the main plot.I will go along,when the story at some point will convince me that there are really mysterious things going on,but in this story there's nothing really mysterious.Bellucci-Cassel are a couple ,then Bellucci urgently has to leave for some job in Italy(not the farthest place on earth from Paris)and she leaves him a message,which for reasons later explained he doesn't get.OK,so what?Don't these people have phones?Supposedly she was away for 2months(not a century exactly) and wouldn't she call her boyfriend in Paris to see how he's doing? Of course not.Instead,even after she gets back she forgets all about him.And thats fine,but later in the movie she tells her friend that it was her greatest love and was ready to commit for the first time in her life.Yet she failed to give him a call for 2months and then never tried to get back with him.And what about Cassel's character?He was supposedly unable to locate her in Italy,really hard to find someone in Italy,its probably like Siberia,especially an actress who is probably listed even in the arts papers.And after 2months when she would be back,really hard to find her and ask for an explanation. One thinks she wanted to avoid him,but no,we find out they simply couldn't meet.So hard to meet in Paris. OK,i don't need to go further,because this is the incident where the entire movie is based. What is even worse,Bellucci is not really the star of this movie but this other girl Bohringer is.
I admit to a secret admiration of the original Love Thy Neighbour TV shows - mostly because they exhibit the kind of exuberant brashness and bad taste synonymous with so many programmes of their era - but I'd be lying through my teeth (very uncomfortable position) if I pretended that this big-screen spin-off is anything other than an abomination. The opening scenes of wanton vandalism are not only pointless but baffling as well - it's never explained why the film opens with a tracking shot of people trashing each other's houses - and nothing improves from there. By the time the film unearths the oldest joke in the book - the horrible dragon of a mother-in-law turns up unexpectedly to stay - is followed by the crashingly obvious revelation that she's developing a soft spot for the black neighbour's father, moving her bigoted son to ever greater depths of self-righteous, ignorant rage, most discerning viewers will have switched off. Take that as a warning, unless you're keen on cheapskate spin-offs with terrible acting, static direction and the overall comic flair of a burning orphanage.
On the heels of the well received and beloved coming of age film classic ,concerning the lives of teenagers as they headed into adulthood, George Lucas' American Graffiti, we have Cooley High. An adaptation of sorts by one Eric Monte, co creator of the popular 1970's CBS sitcom Good Times.<br /><br />Cooley High was, and is, viewed as a black version of American Graffiti.Instead of central California ,as in American Graffiti, we have the black slum of Chicago's Cabrini Green as the backdrop for the story here. Instead of America in 1962 Cooley High is situated in 1964.The movie stars Welcome Back Kotter's ,Lawrence Hilton Jacobs and Glynn Turman as the movie main protagonists and its' main characters. It has Garrett Morris playing the principal who tries to keep Jacobs' and Turman's characters,named Coceise and Preach, out of trouble a great deal of the time.<br /><br />You know, I would like to say that Cooley High is a worthy comparison piece to American Graffiti or that it is a great film on its' own but I can't. The problem lies with the fact that the producers of the film couldn't or wouldn't hide the sad underside of black life in America.Having the film in the Cabrini Green part of Chicago doesn't help things.<br /><br />Neither does the crass gross attempts at humor here. When Coceise is looking for a letter of intent from a college he finds his little brother has thrown down a toilet. When the gang visits the Chicago Zoo, one of the gang named Pooter, has manure thrown on him by an ape. When the Turman's character,Preach, is being chased by two hoodlums in the school hangout(A dirty and depressing place to eat food in much less meet people at), he opens the door of the girls' bathroom while a girl is relieving herself as he escapes through the window of the same bathroom! The high school, the homes of the characters, the bathrooms, just about everywhere in the film displays the unfortunate look of urban decay and poverty.<br /><br />If that wasn't enough there was the rough display of humor in the film. The use of violence and profanity in the film. Cooley High may be an coming of age film ,but it is a hard and rough coming of age film with little or none of the wit and liking of the use of nostalgia that made people like and appreciate American Graffiti so much.<br /><br />Motown Records had a hand in making the film. The company's music was part of the film's soundtrack. But even here you get a sense of same old same old as one has heard these songs before a million times over. Not that they weren't great songs within themselves but black music,of that time period was more than just Motown.Especially in Chicago. The song nearing the end of the movie, by the Spinners' G.C. Cameron, was not all that impressive. There have been better Motown ballads that have been done, by better Motown artists than Cameron without question.<br /><br />The last part of the film showing where the characters went to pay homage to the film Cooley High aimed to be ,American Graffiti. It shows that Preach,an intelligent but underachieving student went to Hollywood and became a successful television writer. Eric Monte may have patterned himself as Turman's character. The last shot of film show's Preach running away from Coceise's funeral ,held on a dark rainy afternoon, and all the bleakness that Cooley High came to represent. Eric Monte ,through Preach and that final scene, had one little lesson for all of us when watching Cooley High and for the love of the past. Don't look back.
This was pretty inevitable. This movie borrows from "The Core" and from the film it borrowed from, "Armageddon", and the films it borrowed from and so on. Except this time there's Luke Perry too. This films version of the familiar save-the-world plot involves super-earthquakes beginning in the Pacific Northwest and extending too the whole ring of fire. Its soon determined that everybody on Earth just might be doomed. So the military and some scientists build one of those high-tech drilling machines to go inside the Earth and fix things (it just wouldn't be as much fun if they didn't have to go somewhere like space or inside the planet). There's even a line the tries to make the journey into the Earth sound more impressive than the journey into space (like the one in "Armageddon"). It's a Sci-Fi Network movie, so the script is paint by numbers disaster movie. There is in-fighting between scientists and military guys, there are rock-melting lasers, people die and sacrifice themselves for the good of all, and above all, there are (weak CGI) special effects. Not original and not all that entertaining. This is a movie to watch when you have nothing to do, particularly if you've got beer.
I'm a pretty tolerable guy, when it comes to movies, even B movies. I routinely watch some B movies for fun, and they can range from surprisingly good, to just downright awful. I usually set my expectations really low before watching these types of movies, and even after doing that, Descent was just downright awful. I really didn't mind that they were ripping off the Core to some extent, but they did absolutely nothing interesting with the material. Some scientists are worried about the earth's seismic activity, and must travel into the depths of the earth in order to stabilize the mantel. So what we get is a monotonously long set-up in which two dueling scientists played by Luke Perry and Rick Roberts have to work together on a top secret mission, named Project DEEP. The man in charge, General Fielding played by Michael Dorn, is secretly withholding vital information from Assistant Marsha Crawford, played by Mimi Kuzyk. Rounding out the cast is Natalie Brown who plays Jen, a mission specialist who created the "Mole" a drill which is used plunge into the depths of the Earth.<br /><br />Other than some pretty good special effects, and set designs, nothing about Descent is worthwhile. The movie starts out fairly entertaining, but it gets bogged down quickly in a tiresome story about uncontrollable seismic activity, which has been done to death in other movies such as the Core. Descent also has a poor script, with useless, forgettable dialog between the characters. To make matters worse, there is literally no action, no real threat or danger. The attempts at comic relief are painfully unfunny. The plot has gaping holes and some of the subplots are left untied at the end leaving a bad taste in your mouth. <br /><br />In closing this movie was just a cheap way for everyone involved to get a paycheck. There was no thought behind this movie, no innovation, it's just there. Other than some nice looking special effects, and set designs, this movie fails on every other level. The story is from the garbage can of Hollywood, and the characters are uninteresting to boot. Descent will simply descend you into boredom, and frustration. Avoid at all costs.
I just watched Descent. Gawds what an awful movie. Right off the bat they depict a lava geyser and a note says that it is miles below the the surface of Washington State. Folks, there are no geysers deep in the Earth like that. They thought it looked neat and in typical Hollywood style they threw it in. And then there is that well that spewed lava. He dropped a stone and I heard a splash. Steam would have erupted out of that well before a blast of lava could, if ever.<br /><br />And the acting was pretty bad as well. Micheal Dorn has sunk to a new low in jobs.<br /><br />What a dog of a movie. I bet the vote goes no higher than a 3.5<br /><br />It didn't look like SciFi Channel spent too much other than to have pretty boy Perry as an attempt to draw.
Usual awful movie... I'll not bother you about the synopsis, just put together The Core, Armageddon, an evil-planner Military Officer and one or two Solve-All Nukes and you'll have the movie, if I can call it that way. <br /><br />Seriously, nukes in this kind of movies are more useful than Swiss Army Knives: <br /><br />the Big One is approaching? Nuke some places and it's over... A tornado wants to destroy "Insert important city name here"? Nuke "Insert another important city here"... A volcano is erupting? Nuke it! A nuke is near to go off? Nuke it! Coffee is cold? Nuke it! You didn't like Transformers? Nuke yourself, but I can't assure this will fix things...<br /><br />In the end, how many more movies like this can be made before they start copying one another? I doubt there are still many things to blow up with a nuke...
This movie's script is indistinguishable from others, most notably The Core, another bad movie. It's pretty clear why Luke Perry doesn't get much work, but to see the beloved Lt. Commander Worf (Michael Dorn) resigned to something like this is just sad.<br /><br />I really can't think of one plot twist that isn't seen coming a mile away. That's not an exaggeration.<br /><br />Special effects are very poor, even by TV standards. The lava flow at the beginning of the movie signaling the coming global disaster, starts things off at a very amateurish level. And it gets no better from that point on.
This movie is a great movie ONLY if you need something to sit and laugh at the stupidity of it. As a geologist this movie gets most of the important facts wrong and uses actors that are too young to even be considered in the top of their fields. It is interesting how it shows spurting lava in massive caverns below the Earth's surface. It also is funny how seismically active areas are shown to have massive destruction from a 6.5 magnitude earthquake. They seem to forget the building standards in these areas would be higher needing a bigger quake to do this much damage. Also it is funny how much they make the coast line of Washington State and also Oregon to look as though they are nice beaches of Southern California. The Jelly donut analogy is very entertaining even if the way it is used is wrong. The director does a good job of adding more comic relief with the 2 "supossed" PhD's.
This movie was so awful i don't even know where to begin...The only positive thing i can say about it is that Luke Perry gave a good performance. The entire movie was all over the place, there was no explanation as to the cause(only theories)of the eruptions, or rationals for their solutions or why it would work. It was ridiculous! All the characters and relationship between them was so cheesy, you just wanna laugh!! There was just no background to any of them. The "love" relationship seemed to have been added on to the script, it was so awkward. There's an army man; big black general with a permanent cigar in his mouth, with the "AaarrrGH!i'm the Man!" attitude, such a pathetic bad guy. The two sidekicks, who are supposed to be geniuses are acting like two 16 year old frat boys. And then to create some action they decide to drop a rock on somebody's shoulder and for the rest of the movie he's coughing as if he was dying of a pneumonia or something...and then plays hero (cheesiest scene of all!!) to help the plan which is to do who knows what... its never a good sign when you find yourself laughing out loud in the middle of THE dramatic scene...in a nutshell; don't waste your time!
This is a Very Very VERY bad movie !<br /><br />The plot is weak the acting is bad and the science is worse.<br /><br />The special effects are unconvincing. The dramatic scenes are a joke. Every step of the way you can see coming a mile away. The end is disappointing and there is no suspense. The best aspect of the film is the soundtrack.<br /><br />The only reason not to give this a lower vote is because it is a TV movie and i believe the budget was low to start of with.<br /><br />I do believe that the young female fans of Luke Parry will still see this movie however he has done better work. Again this is Terrible. Very very very terrible. If you have a choice, look at something else.
The script seems to have been wholesale (ahem ahem, cough cough) "borrowed" from a certain other movie involving using a self-propelled manned drilling machine. Scene by scene, the two movies were almost identical. Just enough of the serial numbers filed off in this one to prevent a copyright infringement lawsuit.<br /><br />But other than that, I have to say I found this somewhat entertaining as I enjoy deep-underground-in-the-earth genre of movies. It's a little bit on the stupid side as far as the science goes, but if one is willing to squint one's eyes real hard and pretend one didn't notice that scientific gaffe here and there and all over, this movie is almost bearable. Far better than "Supernova" which was another flick that Luke Perry had a leading role in that was so dumb, dumb, dumb that nothing could save it. A note to movie makers: employ someone who knows something about the subject the movie deals with. It would be a very small part of the movie budget, but it would have a big effect overall in helping prevent your audience from guffawing at you for doing dumb science.<br /><br />Production values: almost passable. I've seen far worse in my time.<br /><br />A new thought for disaster movies: instead of them always having a happy ending where the world gets saved yet once again, how about some where things are a tad bit more realistic, where sometimes even the very best efforts still end up in failure. Particularly when the problem that needs to be resolved was caused in the first place by sheer stupidity. Stupidity-caused disaster movies with glowing, heartwarming endings sort of backhandedly justify stupidity by stating, "No matter how awful a problem is caused by braindead stupidity, it can be fixed." Which is definitely not the case. A self-caused disaster movie with an unhappy ending would serve better as cautionary tale of "Don't be so damn stupid in the first place." Should you watch this movie? If you're bored and you've seen everything else in the scifi section at your local video rental store, sure, why not. But do avoid "Supernova" as I can assure you that you're not THAT bored. That definitely was not one of Luke Perry's better movies. This one is better. That's not saying much, but it is better.<br /><br />One dead hoof up for being a deep-underground genre movie. One dead hoof down for naughtily ripping off from the screenplay of another certain movie of the same genre.
Terry Cunningham directs this Sci-Fi Network original. All is not well in Washington state and Oregon; volcanic eruptions and earthquakes threaten to drop most of the Pacific Rim in the ocean. Trying to keep the world from plunging in ecological havoc, a crack team of scientists led by Dr. Jake Rollins(Luke Perry)take a massive earth drilling vehicle called "The Mole" to chew its way to the Earth's fiery core to avert impending doom. Technical dialog doesn't really help or speed this movie along. The acting is lame, but then Perry has always been laid back. You can only blame him for taking part. Others in the cast: Michael Dorn, Adam Frost and Michael Teigen
"The Core" meets "Crack in the World" (1965 made for TV). The acting is stock, the suspense predictable. Once you subtract all of the plot ripped off from "The Core" - basically the manned drilling machine - you end up with the plot of "Crack in the World". "Crack" was a truly excellent movie starring Dana Andrews. His team of scientists, working in South Africa, drilled down to the crust and "punched through" with a nuclear device in order to provide a steady source of geothermic energy. One of his subordinates, also a brilliant scientist disagrees. He believes that the blast will not drill a simple hole, but will instead form cracks in the crust. (Possible spoiler) He is right. In order to stop the resultant crack from destroying the earth they must place another nuclear device in the path of the crack. <br /><br />Although I have placed a spoiler warning, i don't know if I really spoiled anything for either movie. And since "Crack in the World is only available in very rare VHS format if at all my decision not to reveal whether or not the counter-blast works is probably academic.<br /><br />All in all, I rate "Descent' just below average.
For sci-fans this will be better than anything likely to be running on TV at any given time; that's about the best you can say of it. Good points; repartee and sense of humour is less dull than usual in such movies, the plot is coherent and doesn't use any magical mystical revelations. Bad points; the writers try to do good science but it falls down in direction and production (eg, a rock drilling mole using superheated rock drilling equipment breaks surface underwater with nary a bubble or boiling cauldron to be seen), the characters are cliché's and the plot unfolding is pretty stock standard. OK for a too-tired-to-do-anything-else type evening; but don't expect any major edification or even talking points really.
I got subjected to this pile one Wednesday afternoon when my mother-in-law was watching it. I can't get over someone basically doing a remake of a crappy high budget Hollywood flop ("the CORE" with washed up actors like Luke Perry). If the HIGH budget one flopped, what makes people think doing the SAME movie 2 years later with NO budget would go anywhere? I was laughing through most of the movie because of how insanely similar it was (in fact I am shocked it's not held up in Legal rather than airing on TV), and how it was basically the script of the CORE just redone badly, which if you have seen "the Core", you know why doing it worse is funny, since the CORE was ALREADY so bad it was funny.<br /><br />If you enjoy getting a laugh out of REALLY bad movies, this one will be right up your alley. The only thing I can say, is that I wish Luke Perry was able to have a career, because he isn't a horrible actor.. he just lands horrible roles. Crappy made for TV movies that will only run on daytime television is pretty much one step closer to the end for him, if it wasn't for 90210 he would have a career.
You'd have more excitement cutting off your testicles than watching this, clearly a trick to get you to rent "Descent" instead of "The Descent", which is a much better movie.<br /><br />This is a total rip off of "The Core" and much, much worse as regards special effects, I could do better with a box of cornflakes and a roll of tinfoil, I mean come on!....that "Mole" thing, bore more resemblance to a vibrating dildo than a subterranean vehicle .<br /><br />Don't watch it - if you do you'll find the room your in has a funny smell for days after and you'll have this nagging feeling in the back of your head that you should go kill yourself or something.
It's a bit difficult to believe that this came from the same director that gave us HELLRAISER. Where's the style, the foreboding, and the charm? I mean, HELLRAISER is not a great horror film, but at least it had something. NIGHTBREED is like a large ball of bad ideas poorly executed. From the opening there is a problem with subtlety: the monsters are shown in the first shot! The opening dream sequence shows too much for too long. Our hero doesn't display professional acting skills (but no one expected that from this bastard genre). There are killings that one wishes were more interesting. Then we have David Cronenberg. The man was never really meant to be an actor. He fills the role of the creepy psychiatrist adequately, but what he should have done was step behind the camera and save this disaster. Then we come to Midian, a creepy fake graveyard with an over-creepy fake gate. This thing is not a huge improvement over the cemetery in PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE. It gets worse when we meet the creatures in it. There is nothing really wrong with the character design and make-up effects here (well... except for the guy with no scalp, the guy with a pointy chin and forehead, and the fat guy with dark circles around his eyes), the problem is the way they act and the terrible dialogue that is given them. Barker's photography of the subterranean city is tired and this part of the story could have been made much better. Some might call what follows SPOILERS. After our hero dies and becomes "nightbreed" we wait around to see what he'll turn into (there's talk of things that fly and werewolves), but when the time comes for him to change they appearantly thought their hero too pretty to give a decent creature design. With the turn in Cronenberg's "character" the story just gets less interesting until the battle of freaks vs. norms (which is just bad). Barker's mythology failed him here. There is no genius and little originality behind any of NIGHTBREED. The picture could have used a larger budget, a serious script, and character design that doesn't leave you saying "oh...oh, how lame." What a waste. Not scary, not cool, not even very dark, just weak.
It's times like these I truly wish I was a more avid reader of Clive Barker's literary repertoire, since very few things feel worse than not being able to fully comprehend a movie of this stunningly 'visual' caliber. Based on the novella "Cabal", the story of "Nightbreed" involves a behemothic amount of lavish and bizarre creatures and settings in an underground society of demonic ghouls. A normal guy becomes linked to the strange world, called Midian, through his dreams and his psychiatrist coerces him into believing he is responsible for a series of gruesome murders of families in recent months... Thinking this to be true, he retreats to Midian - located under a rural cemetery - where he is reluctantly accepted. The shrink, however, is right on Homeboy's heals with a diabolical scheme to whip out the community of Nightbreeds...<br /><br />Wanting so much to love this movie, I was very let down in the long run. I have regretfully not read the story so Barker's fantasy world and the purpose of it and all these monsters was horribly confusing and the premise was painfully uneven. I understand how the final cut was diced to hell and even Barker show's moderate dislike for the overall product, but I just didn't "get" it. Even if it is crucial to read the story, I feel like it should at least be translated to film in a way that it is still comprehensible for those unfamiliar with the literature. If "Cabal" is as convoluted as this film than Barker really milked a dead concept. Couldn't help but feel a bit bored after a while, especially when things started getting increasingly ridiculous (somewhere around the jail scene I realized just how bored I was) - like a police department fearlessly going to war with Midian like it happens every week! No one seems to think the idea of immortal monsters is a tad... strange. I DID like the visual effects and all that crazy sh*t that went on in Midian, especially that porcupine lady and that big headed SOB... Definitely an epic flick when you consider the massive quantity of effects and convincingly morbid decor. David Cronenberg fills his position well as the loony shrink with his cool zipper-head potato sack mask, but we ALL wish he had done some behind-the-camera work to help save this heap... <br /><br />So, if you have a boner for Clive Barker material and fully grasp what exactly Midian is, why they show the creatures during the opening title sequence (terrible idea!), and why these creatures reside there and how some punk kid shares a telekinetic link to it, you should probably check out "Nightbreed". I'll look for "Cabal" one of these days and hopefully gain some perspective... Or maybe I'll just forget this travesty completely... Until then, this is a poorly constructed and fairly tedious mess of a movie... Watch "Hellraiser" instead.
"The Vindicator" is a weird little Canadian B-Movie. At first glance it would appear to be just another cheap (extremely cheap!) "Terminator" knockoff, but strangely enough it also shares some qualities with the original "RoboCop," which hadn't even been released yet when "Vindicator" appeared (1986). Coincidence? Who knows? Anyway, the story is thus: scientist Carl Lehman seems to be a pretty nice guy who works for a super duper secret government high-tech research lab, reporting to a sleazy boss named Whyte, whom he butts heads with about project funding early in the movie. Carl's got a loving wife at home and a baby on the way, which makes it all the more tragic when he is suddenly killed in a "lab accident." But wait! Carl's not really dead after all! Whyte has extracted Carl's brain and inserted it into his pet project, some sort of experimental bio-mechanical space suit. When Carl wakes up inside his new body, he understandably goes a little nuts, trashes the lab, and escapes. This is a problem because Whyte (for reasons known only to himself) has programmed the mechanical suit with a "Rage Reaction" program, which will cause Carl to kill anybody who touches him for any reason. In hindsight, that little addition to Carl's psyche was probably not the best idea.<br /><br />So Robo-Carl wanders aimlessly through the movie for a while, killing a couple of random muggers and other assorted background characters, till he returns to his home and contacts his wife (this scene is supposed to be heartbreakingly touching, I guess, but turns out comical because Carl's robot voice is so heavily synthesized that you can barely understand a word he says). He of course tells her to leave the city and never come back because she's in danger, but she wants to stay and help him, yadda yadda yadda. Eventually Whyte hires a gang of commando thugs led by "Hunter," an apparent ninja assassin played by Pam Grier (!)to hunt down and destroy his runaway creation, using Carl's wife as bait, and predictable (but laughably cheap looking) mayhem ensues.<br /><br />I'm a B-Movie kind of guy but "The Vindicator" was so half-assed that it turned into high comedy pretty quickly. I'm assuming that a good hunk of the budget went into Stan Winston's robo-Carl suit design, because that actually looks pretty cool, but the rest of the movie suffers from a cheap, made-for-TV kind of look. The script could've used a LOT more work, but then maybe the filmmakers had gotten wind of "RoboCop" going into production and rushed to get "Vindicator" out so they couldn't be accused of ripping them off. Either way, judging by the other comments here on IMDb, I'm not the only one who's noticed the parallels between "Vindicator" and "RoboCop," and obviously "Robo" is the superior film, so there's no need to waste your time sitting through this piece of nonsense unless you want to see a film that can best be described, at best, as a rough draft of "RoboCop" if it were made by an 8th grader.
The Vindicator opens with the memorable scene of a monkey in a cage attacking a ripping apart a small toy robot as part of a scientific experiment. This random act violence sold it for me and I'm happy to say the rest of Vindicator provided a veritable feast of cheese.<br /><br />The Vindicator is about a scientist (David McIlwraith) who is nearly killed an explosion in his lab whose tattered remains are put inside an experimental body suit/armour. For some unfathomable reason he is fitted with a Rage Response Activator, a device wired into his brain that will turn him homicidal if he comes into physical contact with any other person. They give some daft explanation about how it is a necessary defensive mechanism but I cannot see the logic in installing such a device unless you wanted a rampaging cyborg killing machine. It is especially ridiculous when it is indicated the suit Carl is wearing is actually an experimental space suit. What possible need would there be for an astronaut to turn into the incredible hulk whilst on a mission? He predictably breaks out of the lab and proceeds to battle the dodgy scientists who put him in the suit, along with the ninja assassin Hunter played by Pam Grier (No, really).<br /><br />The Vindicator itself looks pretty damn goofy. It is basically a dude in a mangled golden foil suit. He also has a perpetually bewildered look in his eyes, that doesn't inspire fear or even compassion. I guess you can't blame him for that, most people watching the movie will have that same look on their faces.<br /><br />The acting is of the really bad, stilted, 'I'm not sure what the character's emotions or thoughts are that this point so I'll take a punt and spurt out my dialogue in a random tone of voice whilst trying not look at the camera' school of acting. The actor playing the funky black scientist even struggles with this last part.<br /><br />It is after this initial accidental death that the Vindicator goes after the scientists. Strangely enough the whole Rage Response Activator 'touch me and I'll kill you' thing doesn't play as big a role as you might expect with Carl going after his former colleges in a reasonably detached manner. There was one scene where he rather brutally kills some street punks who push him around. I know that it is de rigueur for street gangs to randomly assault the lead characters in eighties movies but surely one of them must have realised it might be a bad idea to attack the hulking cyborg guy even if he does look like C3PO's retarded cousin. As it is they don't even seem that surprised to see a mangled golden cyborg walking down the street as though it was an every day occurrence for them. The only other time this rage response activator comes up in the movie is when old Carl can't give his wife a hug. When Hunter tries to turn this against him by throwing her into him so he'll be forced to kill her he casually remarks he has reprogrammed himself (Off-screen naturally) so this doesn't happen. They could have left out the whole Rage Response Activator thing and just gone with a straight revenge story and it wouldn't have made a huge difference to the movie.<br /><br />There is an amusing sequence in the sewers as Grier and her cronies track down the Vindicator. Due to his armoured hide they are all armed with weapons which fire 'vapourised acid.' For some bizarre reason when these weapons fire it is represented on screen by cartoonish red lines that streak toward their targets ala Ghostbusters. The Vindicator fights back by ripping a gas pipe out of the wall and incinerating all of Grier's goons in an enormous streak of flame that comes out. The resulting fireball is so huge and powerful that it comes out of the sewers out of a man hole and blows up the van a couple of the scientists are. Strangely enough Grier escapes by throwing herself down into the inch deep water despite the fact she was closest to the Vindicator. This is one of several fake fiery explosions throughout the movie, including the death of funky black scientist when the vindicator sends his van of a cliff. (This is after they capture The Vindicator by trapping him in a giant lump of gello- no, seriously). <br /><br />There is also one unsettling and long and out of place sequence in which Carl's treacherous overweight friend, who looks like a poor man's Ned Beatty, reveals his infatuation with Carl's wife and tries to rape her. It goes on for about 5-10 minutes and is full of disturbing shots of the guy slobbering over the wife's face, gyrating on top of her and trying to pull her dress off. It is icky to say the least and seems really out of whack with most of the rest of the movie which is kind of cartoonish and larger than life in its violence.<br /><br />The movies finale involves the Vindicator battling a whole bunch of other dudes in battle suits. For whatever reason all these other dudes are less kick-arse than Carl, some of them being dispatched by the wife simply by having a protruding tube in their side ripped out. Luckily for Carl the suit he is wearing lacks this crucial design flaw. The only really memorable part toward the end is the death of Grier. Doing something I've never seen a baddie do in a movie before, in the middle of her confrontation with the Vindicator she decides she really doesn't stand a chance against him and in a rather of matter of fact manner blows her own brains out with his pistol.
Am I the only one to notice that the "realism" of the 19th century ship is erroneous. Actually it's a 15th century, right around 1620 if memory serves me, because the "realistic" ship in the movie is the Mayflower, now as far as I know the Mayflower NEVER went to Australia or even attempted a voyage to Australia. I don't know who handled R&D for this film, but using the Mayflower and hoping that no one will notice is a poor job indeed.<br /><br />They even printed it on the cover art and the DVD. I wonder how may other people noticed this little blunder? Not to mention that the movie itself was just plain awful, I would have expected better from Sam Neill.
This could have been a good TV-movie, but the flashbacks do not make it easier to understand the movie. As they give the viewer informations on the way (will the movie proceeds) i found myself wondering why she never said or mentioned that in the beginning. Then the whole trail would probably not have been necessary.<br /><br />When the movie ends you understand why she shot, and of course she is not guilty. Too bad that the producer/director used the flashbacks this way, but on the other had the movie would not have been worth while at all.<br /><br />Nice movie for a rainy day, big bag of chips to kill the evening.
I am disgusted and appalled by the positive reviews this movie is receiving. Not only is it hokey, manipulative, and melodramatic. It's also shamelessly offensive. The character of Radio `Gooding Jr.' is paraded around as a cute little stuff animal, like a puppy that's so cute you just want to take him home.' This mentality is shameless; Radio is never treated as a human being, but as a manipulative device to draw sympathies from its audience. Even more atrocious are the film's numerous moments, in which Radio gets hit in the head/trips/falls over/etc. These moments of slapstick comedy had the audience howling with laughter merely purely because, `it's funny because Radio is retarded' This is shameless, Now I do not feel that the word `retarded' is an appropriate word at all to describe the mentally disabled, but this seems to be the stance the film is taking, `Radio is retarded, but that's okay, because he's cute and we like him.' Gooding's portrayal seems better suited for a John Water's film than an inspiring family drama. To add insult to injury the film is incompetent on every level, Debra Winger is uninspired in the role as the `stereotypical housewives' that the very reminder of her heinous monologues insights laughter in all who see the film. The Score by John Horner is pure sap always overlaying its tear some score over the tired cinematography. Ed Harris is decent in a role he could have slept through, but manages to retain much of the audience's attention throughout the film. In conclusion, if you consider yourself a decent human being, ignore this travesty of a film, read the book, but otherwise skip this dire film on an interesting character from American history.
No offense to anyone who saw this and liked it, but I hated it! It dragged on and on and there was not a very good plot, also, too simple and the acting was so so...<br /><br />I would give this snorefest a 2 at the most
I appear to be in the minority, but I thought "Radio" was pretty awful. It seemed to contain almost every cliche in these types of "heartwarming" movies.<br /><br />The motivation for the characters falling in love with Radio was never really explained. We were just supposed to accept that everyone was fond of Radio except for a couple of bad apples.<br /><br />You could see almost all of th big moments in the story from 100 yards away. When the movie wanted you to go "Awww" or pull out your tissue, I was rolling my eyes and wished I was watching "Rudy" instead.<br /><br />There were some good performances by the cast. Too bad they weren't given a better movie in wish to appear.
radio is possibly one of the best films i have ever seen while at the same time one of the worst. It made me laugh in places where you were supposed to cry, and made me cringe at moments you were supposed to laugh. it lacked any kind of character development which is usually crucial to a sentimental flick that this is. some questions, why did ed Harris character take radio under his wing, this was not properly explained, and I'm sure their relationship(which is the main aspect of the film) is the most pointless if ever seen.<br /><br />who keeps on giving Cuba Gooding junior work, he is a crap actor and should be taunted heavily until he takes up another line of work.<br /><br />as true stories go, this is not that interesting. p.s the reason i said it is one of the best films i have ever seen, is because, despite it being complete pap, i still enjoyed it. laughing at the script, and most monologues which are truly the work of either am idiot or someone very clever trying to show how easy it is to release a crappy film about a retard who becomes everyones favourite joke. the fact of the matter is, Cuba's character is comedy fodder for the people who watch the football matches.
As Joe Bob Briggs would say, this movie relies a lot on the actresses' talents rather than their talent. This early 1990's show-the-babes-in-bikinis-fest has very little to redeem it, other than showing beautiful women nearly naked. Joe Estevez, Martin Sheen's little brother, proves once again that his movie career will be nowhere near what his brother's career is.<br /><br />Avoid this one unless you like watching beautiful women in skimpy clothing. It's about the only thing that redeems it.
I am easily pleased. I like bad films. I like films featuring attractive young women in small amounts of clothing.<br /><br />This film gives all the above a bad name. Yes, you know going in that what you're getting is not high art, or anything like. But, even for the type of movie it is, Beach Babes From Beyond isn't very good.<br /><br />Some people have given it 10. I can only assume that these are people who have had the organs which enable rational thought to take place surgically removed.<br /><br />It isn't very good. It simply isn't very good.<br /><br />3 out of 10 solely on the grounds of a) novelty value for the famous relatives and Burt Ward and b) some of the girls are cute.<br /><br />Oh, by the way, did I tell you that it isn't very good?
Tacky, but mildly entertaining early 90's soft core comedy features Xena (Sarah Bellemo), Luna (Tamara Landry), and Sola (Nicole Posey), as three outer-space teenagers. Xena's parents have gone on vacation for a couple of days. Following some persistent persuasion from her friends, Xena agrees to take her father's spaceship for a ride. The end result? They wind up running out of gas in space, and crash-land on planet Beta 45, AKA earth. Meanwhile, teenagers Dave (Michael Todd Davis) and Jerry (Ken Steadman) have come to California to stay the summer with Dave's Uncle Bud (Joe Estevez ) a beach bum who lives right on the beach. The three of them wind up meeting our three space girls who have walked away from the crash without a scratch. Uncle Bud is about to be thrown out from his soon-to-be-condemned beach pad thanks to Sally (Linnea Quigley), who lives right up the hill and used to be in a relationship with Bud. She's also a bikini magnate, and is trying to win a bikini design contest to the tune of, $30,000....exactly what Bud would need to fix up his property, so the girls decide to try to win the prize for him. And that's about it, folks. Knowing that their paper thin plot was barely enough to sustain a feature length movie, the filmmakers subject us to scene after scene of endless beach parties featuring tons of extras gyrating their half naked bodies in the scorching sun. Oh, and lets not forget the sex. There's quite a deal of it. Before I go any further, I need to put this movie in context. It was released in 1993, long before the advent of such soft core labels such as Surrender Cinema and Seduction Cinema. Compared to these newer, edgier, more explicit movies, the soft core movies of the 90's sure seem somewhat mild. When Beach Babes From Beyond first came out in 1993 from the Full Moon offshoot Torchlight Entertainment, it was heralded as the debut release of a label that specialized in "mature audiences" type films. Needless to say, the times have changed. This particular film genre has gone from a few steamy, but brief sex scenes and fleeting glimpses of female full frontal nudity to extended sex scenes that occasionally threaten to venture into the realm of hardcore. Looking at Beach Babes From Beyond again after viewing it upon its 93' release, it's safe to say that if this same film were to be made today, there would be a hell of a lot more emphasis on the sex scenes and less time spent on plot and dialog. As for the sex scenes themselves, they tend to run hot-and-cold. Our three space girls waste no time in getting comfortable with the boys that evening. So each couple gets a soft core scene, complete with annoying slow motion camera work and too dark lighting. They're really not that horrible, and are surprisingly graphic in a few spots, especially the scene between Xena and Jerry that takes place in the back of a trailer. But the one sex scene that REALLY leaves a lasting impression, and causes you to be surprised in its overall intensity, occurs quite early on in the film. Sally is attending a topless photo shot with three of her models posing by a pool. All of the actresses in this scene are beautiful gorgeous, but Nikki Fritz stands out from all the two due to her enormous presence. Remember that this point in her career she had yet to achieve the type of enormous popularity that soon would follow. Her posing nude by a pool leads to an unforgettable fantasy sequence where she shows her soapy body in a tub and then again when walking away from her bath. Walking toward the bed towards a nearly nude pumped up guy in the waiting, we get a full length complete nude scene with her almost heart shaped rear end and perfectly shaped back. It's good that Nikki's back is so muscular as it is about to get a pretty good workout. Nikki spends the next few minutes completely nude with a hunky guy in a variety of positions in a scene that is filmed completely differently than the three other lovemaking scenes. No dark lighting or annoying slow motion here...just two actors in one enormous bed sans sheets and covers who seem at time to be barely acting at all. Nikki's ecstatic body language just goes to prove that few other actresses seem to enjoy filming sex scenes as much as she does. It's really the only time where Beach Babes From Beyond truly delivers the goods. But even without this spectacular scene, I am mildly recommending this film just for the fact alone that it's fairly watchable and never dull no thanks to an incredibly energetic and attractive cast, many of whom would show up in various direct to video features in the remainder of the decade.
Yes, it was an awful movie, but there was a song near the beginning of the movie, I think, called "I got a Woody" or something to that effect. I would love to find a sound track of that if there is one available. I saw this song on MST 3K, and as awful as it was, it had it's moments, and that song was one of them.<br /><br />If you like babes in bikinis, this is the movie for you, but if you don't, then don't bother. It was great material for MST 3K, I have to admit though. I would really love to know where to get a copy of the soundtrack though. Not just that song, but a couple more were really funny, and are classics as far as I'm concerned.
Do you get it? Like the car. These are the jokes, folks. Softcore Beach Blanket Bingo with aliens answers many of life's important question. What do the relatives of celebrities do for some cash? How does a hot tan alien wash herself? How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? Well, maybe not that one. Linnea Quigley, member of the Softcore hall of fame, provides some comic relief. Nikki Fritz, also a member, show her talents. Sarah Bellomo is not as bad as you might expect from a porn star. This is not erotic, except the shower scene, and not funny enough to make up for the rotten plot. The sequel has a couple of pleasant scenes as well with Miss Bellomo.<br /><br />P.S. The title is a good example of alliteration.
This has to be one of the, if not the worst movies I have ever seen. After watching this piece of sh*t I felt as though I should write to Madonna and demand compensation for my time, but now I feel that I should write Madonna and demand a great 80s album (considering she can't record a good album to save her life anymore) in return for this disaster. <br /><br />On to the movie itself, which can be summed up like this:<br /><br />It consists Madonna jumping around acting like a spoiled teenager who lost her way. She is trying to impress this absolute douche of an actor who plays "the lawyer' in the movie. But, the best was the ending. I was staring with my jaw on the ground into the television as the credits rolled by thinking to my self, "That's it? That's the ending? What a piece of sh*t!". If Madonna wasn't a pop icon at the time of this film, this movie would have single handedly destroyed her career. And the funniest thing of the whole situation was that I just watched the damn movie to see where they placed the song "Who's That Girl". Well, guess where they placed it?...................................at the end!
This is the epitome of bad 80's film-making, unless you are a pre-pubescent girl. Riding on a big name like madonna, a story line that physically assaults one's intelligence and humour that is most suited for a nursery school. If there was ever any doubt i think this turd of a movie clearly displays Madonna's absolute lack of acting talent and made me feel highly embarrassed on her behalf. The only thing i can't believe is that they ever let the director near another movie again. Madonna spends most of the movie prancing around like an infantile rag doll, and talking like a baby. It is painfully obvious that the only reason this movie was ever made was due to the fact that Madonna was a big name in pop music at the time. DO NOT BE DUPED INTO SEEING THIS AWFUL ATTEMPT TO CASH IN ON POP STARDOM. Stay away at all costs!
**********POSSIBLE SPOILER********** Madonna plays an ex-con that needs to recover some valuable information that might clear her from the murder that she was put in prison for four years ago. Griffin Dunne is a tax attorney who's marrying his boss' daughter. Together, the two of them are supposed to come together in a world where chaos keeps you from getting on the bus...<br /><br />When you get down to it, this is a stupid movie. Without trying to give away the plot ****POSSIBLE SPOILER****, the bad guys in the movie are trying to protect their boss by retrieving the information that would incriminate them for the murder that Madonna was sent up for. What kind of bad guys don't commit murder by trying to hide the original murder?!?!?!<br /><br />Then there's the cops who are trailing Madonna who follow the bad guys in a limo, where they have the brides-maids all tied up! And let's not forget those same brides-maids who fought from the front gate to the front door, still all tied together! And I hate to say this, but that patagonious feline sure looks like a cougar! There might be only four of them in the New York City area, so they might be endangered there, but I know there's plenty of them in the Rocky Mountains (see "Charlie the Lonesome Cougar" if you really want to see a large "cat" in the movie). And let's look at the old man who falls asleep on his feet... NAW!<br /><br />The plot is there, but that's all there is to this movie. I was barely out of my teens when this movie originally came out and I was some-what of a fan of Madonna, but that was the only reason I liked the movie, but since then, she's fell out of popularity with me, and I've faced the fact that she is just a terrible actress (good thing she's got that singing career to fall back on). It rated maybe a "5" back then, but it's fallen to "barely making a 2" over the years.
for people who have absolutely no idea of what a comedy is. That not only includes the people who liked this movie, but the people who made it. What could they possibly have been thinking? Madonna playing Judy Holliday? Please, she can't even play MADONNA (if there actually IS a Madonna). I hope Griffin Dunne was paid well. He deserved every penny he got, because if this didn't kill his career, nothing will. I'm sure that the few people who actually paid to see this movie left it feeling like their pockets had been picked. Madonna is apparently past the point of feeling embarrassed by her virtually complete lack of talent as an actress, but you can't help feeling embarrassed for her anyway. She has no connection with the rest of the cast; it appears like she showed up on the set and said, "OK, I'm here, I'm gonna embarrass myself by doing the absolute worst Judy Holliday impression anyone's ever seen, now stay the hell out of my way" and then proceeded to do exactly that. I know the phrase "rotten Madonna movie" is redundant, but it certainly fits this. It's painful to watch a totally inept and talentless "actress" make a complete fool of herself, but it apparently doesn't bother her, as she does it again and again.<br /><br />The only remotely funny thing about this "comedy" is that she actually managed to find people who gave her the money to make it. Now THAT'S funny.
I was actually planning to see this movie when I noticed it in my TV guide but after about 5 minutes decided time is definitely more precious than "Who's That Girl" could ever be worth. Describing how bad Madonna's acting looks like is impossible and the end result is one of the most annoying characters ever captured on film. This crap is an insult to movies and intellect. I almost never! rate a movie I don't see from start to finish, but in this case the former is impossible. 2/10
An ear-splitting movie, a quasi-old-fashioned screwball romp designed to showcase singing star Madonna's comedic attributes. She does indeed go far out on the proverbial limb here playing a beyond-vivacious parolee attempting to prove she was framed for murder (a body was found in the trunk of her car after she ran a red light...big laughs). After an energetic animated credits sequence--which is much more fun than the rest of the picture--we have nothing to look at but Madonna's black mascara and red lips set off by her platinum hair and pale complexion. What else is there? Griffin Dunne seems defeated playing Maddy's keeper, while the poor-choice supporting cast struggles to get laughs with lousy dialogue. It's an unfortunate set-back to the talents of director James Foley, who unwisely allows his star to run rampant in the spirit of the nutty slapstick films from the 1930s (but even Katharine Hepburn in "Bringing Up Baby" had a human side). Wretched. * from ****
The laughs are few and far between in this dull movie, and I can't help but wonder about how this mess ever got made in the first place. About the only good thing in this movie is the talent of Griffin Dunne, but his best efforts were easily overshadowed by Madonna's obnoxious performance. I was able to sit through this without getting TOO bored, but that's probably the nicest thing I can say about this time-waster.
The first time I watched this movie I was ten years old. I thought it was bad then, and at that age I had no cinematic taste whatsoever. I watched this movie on Cinemax about 3 days ago and was reminded why I hated the movie in the first place. Madonna's character, Nikki, is annoying and obnoxious. There's no way that the main character would ever fall in love with her. The jokes were corny and the dialogue was worse than a t.v. soap opera!! I'm glad that I didn't see this movie at the theatre, or rent it. I feel bad for my parents who had to endure watching it with me! Madonna is not necessarily a bad actress, but in this role she is portrayed as a complete idiot.
I like Errol Flynn; I like biographies and I like action movies. This featured all three of these....but I didn't like this film. It just went on too long although the last 20 minutes was excellent, especially in the photography with some great low- angle shots. However, I seemed like it took six hour to get to that point, and I really can't say why I feel this way. <br /><br />The action is interesting, Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland are fine. In fact, it was refreshing to see de Havilland actually be supportive of Flynn instead of her normal role as antagonist to him. Yet something is lacking in this movie.<br /><br />The film has been roundly criticized for its historical inaccuracy but I don't hear that same criticism for a lot of other films which have done the same. In fact, its RARE when a film is historically accurate. For some reason, this revisionist history offended most critics. If the film had made General Custer a lot worse than he really was, they would have probably liked it. Well, too bad. In their twisted way, critics prefer villains to heroes. <br /><br />I really wish I could have enjoyed this more but I'll take a lot of other Flynn adventures over this one.
Although this movie is inaccurate overall, there are some items that may be true. Certainly, he was a wild character in his youth, having played practical jokes on his fellow cadets at West Point, almost expelled several times, graduating last in his class (of 34), and often reckless in his leadership during the Civil War.<br /><br />But history may have made him a scape goat of the Indian Wars. Certainly, he did his share of cruel things, but how much was he under orders? Also, there is evidence that he testified before Congress (at great risk to his commission and command) that he argued about the fairness of breaking treaties with the Indians and that if he was an Indian he would also fight rather than live on a reservation! <br /><br />As a character said in the play 1776 when asked what will be said about the British about losing the Revolutionary War, the character states "history will do what it always does...it will lie." Who knows how bad a man Custer was. Certainly he wasn't the sympathetic character as portrayed by Errol Flynn and later by Ronald Reagan. But I also doubt he was completely evil as he is later portrayed.
As a cartoon, the Spytroops Movie was pretty bad. It is only 44 minutes long, yet several battles occur culminating with the destruction of the COBRA headquarters. One downer was the very beginning of the movie. An animated battle that was better than the rest of the movie turns out to have been some kind of battle simulation. That right there was a major turn-off and made the rest of the movie lack credibility. Then there was the issue of Shipwreck tied up along with his parrot, and tossed into some room where nobody had checked for several days. Whatever happened to surveillance cameras?<br /><br />The COBRA base only had a handful of characters, and the rest were BAT robots. Aside from a lot of corridors the COBRA base did not seem to have any weapons, tanks, trucks, or any other equipment. Then there was the silly notion that 100 complex androids could be created overnight. The plot was silly even if this was intended for small children. Spongebob, Powerpuff Girls, and even Barney The Dinosaur give more attention to their plots.<br /><br />The characters were not bad, except that I could never understand anything Destro was saying, and the Cobra Commander was silly and not much of a villain. In fact, except for Storm Shadow and Xartan, the rest of the COBRA characters were comical and hardly impressive. The GI Joe characters were pretty good. Scarlett, Agent Faces, Road Block and Snake Eyes were my favorites here. Shipwreck and Beach Head were the worst. Shipwreck is written as a goof-ball and Beach Head sounded like some 1990s surfer dude. I guess the writer, Larry Hama was trying to make a character that appealed to teenagers, but he was a decade off the mark. Just listening to Beach Head's Spicoli surfer-talk (Fast Times at Ridgemont High) I was wondering if the new GI Joes were going to smoke a dube before the big mission.<br /><br />The CGI was pretty good, except that Cobra Commander had a jerking spastic walk, and the vehicles did not look very realistic at all. The flying tank and the explosions were not very impressive. Old style animation would have been much better than this. Since Hasbro reportedly likes to do things cheap, they got what they paid for. I had trouble watching the whole thing, it was just boring and lacked any soul or GI Joe spirit. Even the old GI Joe commercials would have been better. In fact, the DVD included extras such as four or five current commercials for GI Joe Spy Troops, and those commercials were much more entertaining than the movie. The commercials had more kid-oriented fun and spirit. The commercials were lively, while the movie was dull.
As a fan of the old series I must say that this is at best a parody of a much beloved series. First the old series would at least attempt to follow some military structure. I know in this P.C. world it is not the thing to do but hey don't turn it into the care bears. In the old series Beachead was a hardspoken soldier, now he is a teenage mutant turtle. Another thing is the flying tank, ok it flies out of the cobra base and bounces off the copter and they are both ok???? Lets face it if the next one is not better this could spell the end of G.I.joe.
So far I disliked every single Jean Rollin movie I've seen, and that always bothered me because he's an acclaimed Euro-trash monument and extremely popular amongst many regular reviewers on this lovely website; people whose opinions I always value and usually concur with. Apparently everybody always appears to pinpoint some sort of gloomy and stylistic filming trademarks in his work that are completely lost on me. Rollin's movies are unimaginably boring, they all feature the same basic concept (lesbian vampires in various settings), the dialogs are incredibly absurd, the marvelous Gothic setting are always underused and the production values are cheaper than the price of a bus ticket. I had actually given up on Rollin's repertoire already (especially after enduring "The Iron Rose"), until I found out about "Night of the Hunted". Allegedly, this movie doesn't feature any lame lesbian vampires and stands as a bona fide horror movie with gruesome killings and macabre plot twists. And the verdict is … yes and no! On one hand, this is undeniably the most compelling and inventive Rollin film I had the pleasure of seeing thus far (and also the only one that I watching without dozing off…). On the other hand, it still remains a moronic movie with a nonsensical plot and emotionless sex sequences to compensate for the dullness. Jean Rollin heavily attempts to generate an atmosphere of secrecy and suspense, mostly through a lack of information and vaguely introduced characters, but barely manages to hide the fact he actually hasn't got a story to tell at all. The unearthly beautiful lead actress Brigitte Lahaie and the beautifully ominous musical guidance are the only elements that keep you hooked on the screen. During a nightly drive back home to Paris, a young man abruptly has to stop for a confused and scarcely dressed girl who comes running from the woods. Her name is Elisabeth but furthermore she can't remember anything about herself and from what or whom she was running away. Her case of amnesia is so bad she even continuously forgets who picked her up. The next day, she's kidnapped again by an old guy and taken to a sinister apartment complex where multiple people in the same bizarre mental state are held captive. Elisabeth knows nothing, but she does sense she needs to escape from here. Obviously I won't reveal the denouement, but I can assure you it is quite dumb, illogical and far-fetched. Apparently Rollin realized this as well, because the explanation is kept very brief and quick. There's a large number of overly weird and senseless sequences, the sex footage is dire and filmed without passion, the nasty make-up effects look cheap and randomly thrown without actual purpose. As said, the score is mesmerizing and Brigitte Lahaie's perfect body is addictive to glaze at.
Amnesiac women who remove their clothes at the drop of a hat (or a blouse?) are about the only stand-out points in a film that is otherwise slow and aimless. Although the basic premise of the story offers a wealth of possibilities, they are never developed to any satisfying degree, and exposition is almost non-existent. A large proportion of the film is mere wanderings through the corridors of a multi-storied clinic/hospital. The overall effect is bleak and sterile, a la THX-1138.
I went to see "Quitting" with high hopes, because the director's "Shower" had impressed me so. Despite a few lapses into mawkishness, "Shower" ranks high on my list of all-time favorite movies for its penetrating insight into family relationships and its generally superb acting and direction. And I've seen it at least three times now.<br /><br />But "Quitting" fell flat, in my estimation. It seemed a pointless exercise and I was quickly so tired of the main character's insufferable personality that I was longing for the movie to end. I admit to falling asleep six or seven times, but it was only for a few seconds at a time, so I think it's still OK to write this comment.<br /><br />I did admire the parents and sister. The device of using all real characters in the film is a nice one I've never seen used before.<br /><br />Disappointment aside, I will still make an effort to see any film bearing Yang Zhang's name, simply on the basis of the beautiful "Shower."
I actually trawled through the entire set of reviews, searching for the ones which gave this film less than 5 stars. They were few and far between. Which is utterly baffling! Yes, I know it's a Disney film and it isn't directed by Christopher Nolan, but good Lord. This is straight-to-the-bargain-bucket nonsense. They should've had done with it and animated the bloody thing.<br /><br />And what's even worse is the fact that IMDb won't let me simply finish my rant there, because my review needs to be longer! <br /><br />The "Awesome" in-game camera shots are LITERALLY taken from Tiger Woods PGA Tour Golf on the Playstation, the story plods like a sulking school boy, the multi-stranded character and plot development cripples an already weak setup, and the grand finale is plain boring.<br /><br />Aside from that, it really was the greatest film I've ever seen in my entire life. <br /><br />Good, authentic-looking costumes, sets and sports equipment. There, I said it.
A female ex-cop who was drummed out of the force for recklessness (and who could probably beat Chuck Norris in a fight) hires herself out as a private bodyguard; her first client is a worthless playboy type. It takes half the movie for her to get kicked off the force in the first place. Lots of great fight choreography but the plot is strictly by the numbers, and the acting is as wooden as the dialogue. Give this one a miss.
This is one of those wonderful martial-arts movies that begin with two posses of tough gang members facing off in a park; and when the deal goes wrong and the battle starts, it turns out they all know karate and kung fu! The ever-wooden Cynthia Rothrock plays (as usual) a cynical, deadpan, good cop, this time in Los Angeles. She and her police partners are trying to break up a counterfeiting ring, and when that plot line is exhausted, the story just switches over to something else, and Cynthia becomes the personal bodyguard of a wealthy, great-looking tycoon. Within the film's obviously rock-bottom budget, there's some helicopter action, some speedboat action, some car chases, a brawl where Cynthia beats up everyone in a country-western bar, some swimming-pool scenes with bimbos in thong bikinis, and a surprisingly good horseback chase. About a dozen and a half cops get gunned down. A lot of plot twists happen that just don't make any sense; don't worry about them. (And counterfeiting currency is a federal crime, so where the hell is the FBI? I guess they were too busy.) The fight choreography was done by Cynthia Rothrock's frequent co-star Richard Taylor, whose classy and witty presence in front of the camera would frankly have made this a better movie. He also tended to make Cynthia a better actress when they appeared together, and frankly she could use it; she seems tired and bored, and does her best acting in GUARDIAN ANGEL when she is playing opposite a pet dog to whom she delivers bitter drunken monologues. The dog almost out-acts her! She also wears some of the most god-awful clothing any leading lady has ever worn in any movie: loose, baggy-leg jeans with pale acid-washed areas over each buttock were the most shocking. The other actors are all over the map. You can picture many of the minor characters being cast this way: "Hey, me and some other guys I know are going to be in a movie. You wanna be in it too? No, dude, I'm serious!" Then there are the slumming professionals: the most fun is Lydie Denier, the stunning French model and veteran of "Red Shoe Diaries," "Baywatch," "Melrose Place," and of playing many, many other variations on the sexy French bombshell; here she plays a psychopathic killer as if she were in BAISEZ-MOI or an "Alias" episode and not some direct-to-cable trash like this. There's also the tall, dark and handsome Daniel McVicar, now a regular on "The Bold and the Beautiful," John O'Leary, who has played a dignified old man in dozens of movies and sitcom episodes and does it again here, and Aharon Ipale, the veteran Arab character actor perhaps best known as "Pharaoh Seti" from THE MUMMY and THE MUMMY RETURNS. For these professionals, GUARDIAN ANGEL must be the most laughable entry on their resumes. I gave this movie a better rating than it probably deserves because my daughters, who are enthusiastic martial-arts students, both like to see a woman kicking ass and having the big action scenes for a change. They're still a bit too young to care what a low-quality picture this really was, and just enjoyed cheering Cynthia on as she did her swivel-legged, high-kicking, stick-fighting thing. If you like this kind of flick, you could probably enjoy it on that level.
Watching this movie and then listening to the commentary, it's clear that Michael Radford doesn't understand this play. The first clue that he fails to fully grasp the work is that he takes pains to set the film in seventeenth-century Venice. Which sounds truly odd, yes, that misunderstanding the film would mean trying to make it as accurate to its location as possible. But anyone who's studied Shakespeare knows that, while he set most of his plays in exotic locals, the culture and values are always contemporary England. This doesn't hurt the film, but it displays a lack of necessary knowledge.<br /><br />Where Radford kills the film is in making it so dead serious. He manages to suck every joke out of the script, leaving the whole production flat. Every ounce of passion is beaten out of the characters. Even Shylock's 'Do we not bleed' speech is a mild, awkward ranting from a choleric who seems to only be saying and doing what he does because he's supposed to. The lovers are solemn and far too restrained (Joseph Fiennes delivers some of the most romantic lines in the cinema this year in a barely audible whisper), Gratiano (who has to promise to behave at one point) is more sober and collected than Bassiano (who makes him promise to behave), Jessica is reluctant to leave her father and spends her life with Lorenzo pouting.<br /><br />In the commentary for the bland and watered-down court scene, the director voices his shock that an audience laughed at Portia's 'A pound of flesh, no more, no less' sentence; ultimately concluding that it had to tension release laughter. 'The Merchant of Venice' is a comedy and Radford scoffs at the idea that the most absurd and hysterical portions of the story are anything but the most daringly provocative drama.<br /><br />The film has no intelligible focus, yet cuts out some of the most entertaining scenes. The characters are forced into high drama veils, so they come out sounding like Ibsen characters reading Victorian poetry. And the comedic ending, where all of the good guys go to bed happy, is drowned in a dignified despair that feels like they're finding stiff- upper-lip peace with impending death, rather than reconciling with lovers. Even Lancelot and Antonio exit the film holding their hats like aristocratic mourners.<br /><br />The film is poorly done because the creative powers that be don't understand the script. It is stern where it should hysterical. It is reserved where it should be passionate. It is Michael Radford where it should be William Shakespeare.
I saw this film as a sneak preview before the Venice opening at the Telluride Film Festival. Your reaction to it will largely depend on your attitude about respecting the text of Shakespeare. On the plus side: Pacino gives a very good performance indeed as Shylock; Lynn Collins is a fine Portia; and the film has a sumptuous look. <br /><br />The negatives are predictable. "The Merchant of Venice" is arguably the most difficult of all of Shakespeare's plays to stage today, largely because we look at it through the distorting lens of 20th century history. The romantic plot with Bassanio and Portia presents no problem. The character of Shylock does, because we lack the original frame of reference of the Elizabethan audience. Shylock is simultaneously a human character with human qualities and motivations, and an abstraction of the pitiless quality of the Old Law. When he says "Hath not a Jew eyes?" he is a character; when he proclaims "I will have my bond!" he is an abstraction. The long passage on music and cosmic harmony in the final scene (here moved and cut to ribbons) is the key to the play, in that it re-establishes universal harmony after the disruptive and evil (the Shylock of the trial scene) forces are ejected. It is possible to make psychological sense of the character of Shylock by showing his gradually going mad and turning into a monomaniac by the time the trial scene rolls around--the key is that at a point he must cease being sympathetic.<br /><br />Pacino's performance almost does it, but not quite. The film can't quite make up its mind--on the one hand, there is the right movement in the character of Shylock, and on the other there is a great deal of extraneous footage of Jews being abused and Venetian whores with rouged nipples (no doubt to show the decadence of Antonio et al). Shakespeare was not writing an Ibsen-like social drama; he was writing a comedy following the classic pattern of disruption of social order and the restoration of social order, symbolized by marriage, with a theme of love versus law at the center of the Shylock plot.<br /><br />In this sense, the film is a travesty--Radford's surgery on the play and direction almost force us away from what the play really means. (Taking the beginning of the final scene, cutting most of it, and moving it before the trial scene is the most extreme example.) There are some other significant difficulties. Jeremy Irons, a fine actor, plays Antonio as if he were overdosed on sedatives. Joseph Fiennes is pretty but shallow as Bassanio. Most of the actors, with the exceptions of Collins, Pacino, and the actor playing the Duke in the trial scene, mumble their dialogue.<br /><br />Final verdict? A pretty film with a few decent performances. It's not Shakespeare, it's poor interpretation. Not really worth your time or money--although Lynn Collins as Portia almost redeems it.
I am a Shakespeare lover since childhood. I am also a Jew. Merchant of Venice is anti-semitic through and through no matter how hard scholars and literature lovers try to re-interpret it.<br /><br />In the play, Shylock is portrayed as demonic and cold-hearted and has no forgiveness, no warmth, no love except for money and cruel revenge, whereas the Christians are kind, moral people. His motives in the play revolve around money (he plots revenge from the start based on damage caused to his business as well as blind racial hate), not noble ideals or hurt racial pride as this movie wants you to believe. And this characterization is given to him by Shakespeare himself, not by the other characters. As final proof, the happy ending is where the Jew loses his money and is forced to convert to Christianity.<br /><br />I acknowledge this and move on. It is part of history and I enjoy Shakepeare despite this fact. Therefore I expect a movie based on this play to play it straight. I would much rather see the work adapted for its rich language and storytelling without any whitewashing.<br /><br />But many of the the bard's artful subtleties and playful characters are lost in this movie. For example, in the last scene where the men discover Portia's undercover work as a man who also took away their rings, instead of the playful game of words and misunderstandings as the truth reveals itself, it becomes a mean-spirited game where two bitchy women play cruelly with their soon-to-be husbands.<br /><br />So instead, we are only left with lovely detailed sets, fragments of the rich language with poor reinterpretation, poor casting, one intense courtroom scene, and a controversy.<br /><br />The truth is, I think it would be much easier to identify the anti-semitism in the story and move on if it were left as is. Despite all the whitewashing the makers of this movie pulled out of their hats, there is plenty of hatred left, only now people can make excuses and pretend the portrayal of Jews isn't so bad anymore.<br /><br />And finally, another problem is with most of the actors being miscast. Pacino is way out of his league and is very uncomfortable with the language, not to mention the horribly fake accent. Fiennes as Bassanio is charmless and awkward with the language. Irons is dependable as always but doesn't do much with his role. Portia is somewhat OK but unlikeable, and covered in bad makeup, just like the movie.
Last week I watched a Royal Shakespeare Company production of Macbeth. It was 25 years old, filmed w/no props except swords, no furniture except chairs. It was RIVETING. The acting was super - all the actors trained Brits. Contrast that performance to this...yawn yawn yawn. Al Pacino, as Shylock, was tragic, heavy, and couldn't quite lose the New Yorker accent, despite the long....pauses....between.....lines.... The whole thing was soporific, even the "comic" scenes were barely even worth a smile, let a lone a belly laugh. This is supposed to be funny. They tried to make it tragic. It was neither, just boring. I give it four points for costumes, scenery, and Jeremy Irons, who is good at playing a dull, depressed, deep-voiced guy (can he be anything else???)
I have to admit that although I'm a fan of Shakespeare, I was never really familiar with this play. And what I really can't say is whether this is a poor adaptation, or whether the play is just a bad choice for film. There are some nice pieces of business in it, but the execution is very clunky and the plot is obvious. The theme of the play is on the nature of debt, using the financial idea of debt and justice as a metaphor for emotional questions. That becomes clear when the issue of the rings becomes more important than the business with Shylock, which unfortunately descends into garden variety anti-Semitisim despite the Bard's best attempts to salvage him with a couple nice monologues.<br /><br />Outside of Jeremy Irons' dignified turn, I didn't think there was a decent performance in the bunch. Pacino's Yiddish consists of a slight whine added to the end of every pronouncement, and some of the better Shylock scenes are reduced to variations on the standard "Pacino gets angry" scene that his fans know and love. But Lynn Collins is outright embarrassing, to the point where I would have thought they would have screen-tested her right out of the picture early on. When she goes incognito as a man, it's hard not to laugh at all the things we're not supposed to laugh at. With Joseph Fiennes standing there trying to look sincere and complicated, it's hard not to make devastating comparisons to Gwyneth Paltrow's performance in "Shakespeare in Love." The big problem however that over-rides everything in this film is just a lack of emotional focus. It's really hard to tell whether this film is trying to be a somewhat serious comedy or a strangely silly drama. Surely a good summer stock performance would wring more laughs from the material than this somber production. The actors seem embarrassed to be attempting humor, and unsure of where to place dramatic and comedic emphasis. All of this is basically the fault of the director, Michael Radford, who seems to think that the material is a great deal heavier than it appears to me.
I have long tried to understand why people like Shakespeare so much and every few years I give him another go. I was hoping that this play/film (my 6th different Shakespeare play) would unlock the lucky casket and marry me to the riches of this literary Demigod. Bah, I clearly chose the wrong key.<br /><br />Once the phrase "pound of flesh" had been uttered 10 minutes into the film, the main parts of the plot were transparent, which grinds along with a languid script and lifeless acting. At every step, the plot is laid bare two scenes in advance. The concept that a dying aristocrat would persuade his daughter to choose her future husband by means of a lottery is incredulous. It is no surprise who wins the matrimonial jackpot because Bassanio's a main protagonist in the play.... and he's the third man to try .... and there are three caskets to choose from ... and his friend risks his life to pay the dowry. The only genuine surprise that I had watching this film is that it did not end immediately after the resolution of the court case. However as soon as the ring treachery began it was immediately apparent what would transpire.<br /><br />OK so I know that millions of you love Shakespeare not for the surprise in the well known stories but for the depth and passion of the characters. But I felt nothing for the characters. Rather than gripped with suspense and admiration during the court scene I sat there impassionately hoping that it would be over, soon, please.<br /><br />One day, I might just find a Shakespeare play that does something other than bore me.
The discussion has been held a thousand times. Is the "Merchant of Venice" antisemitic? (I think it is.) Isn't it unfair to always point out this little bit of antisemitism in an otherwise great piece of art? (I think it isn't.) Does this play stain Shakespeare's reputation as the world's greatest playwright? (I think it does.) Does it play a role if he didn't do it on a particular racist purpose? (I think it doesn't.) Michael Radford knew all this and this is why he added to his movie a prologue about the pitiful situation of the Jews in Renaissance Venice.<br /><br />In vain; for the play remains what it has always been and the new make-up only gives a first (but futile) hope that someone has dared to set something right that remains a permanent outrage, not because its degree of antisemitism would be particularly shocking but because the play comes under the name of William Shakespeare.<br /><br />Why spend so much time in portraying the hatred of a man -- Shylock? Why employ a great and serious actor like Al Pacino, if in the end everything is getting ruined in this outrageous (but hey, I'm-not-responsible-Shakespeare-wrote-it) court room scene. And now I'd like to be very precise, just like Shylock himself.<br /><br />He's demanding his right, according to the contract which the -- not very responsible -- Christian Antonio, who always used to look down on him, signed in full awareness of the consequences. Sure, what Shylock demands is cruel and useless, but that's not the point. What we see (or should see) is a man who has been humiliated for all his life, to the point where all what remains on him is his hatred. I think, it is certainly a bit inappropriate to lecture such a man on things like compassion.<br /><br />But what the play/the movie (they are one and the same now) does at this point is... become a soap opera! The cruel madman with his knife, the horrified (but rather short-minded) audience, the poor "victim" tied to his chair. True, Antonio accepts his fate but why can't he just say one word, "sorry"? I think we need not lose many words on the ridiculous verdict of the young Dottore from Padua; it's a truly "popular verdict" not much different from what would be seen 400 years later in the show trials of the Nazis. From one minute to the next this Jew is robbed of everything he owned, sentenced to being baptized Christian, and kicked out.<br /><br />Isn't that outrageous??? Obviously not. The story moves on to the romantic intricacies of the rings and its happy end.<br /><br />What one can learn in Libeskind's Jewish Museum in Berlin and similar places all over the world is that antisemitism often goes unnoticed by the mass because what's so devastating for a minority or some individuals is embedded in the alleged greater good for the majority. It should be exactly the task of everyone of us to develop a sensitivity to detect and unmask such tendencies.<br /><br />I don't accept the excuse that this film was made to create empathy with the badly treated Shylock (it just doesn't work out). I don't think that anybody can be forced to be merciful.<br /><br />I don't recommend this movie; in particular not for an Oscar.
This movie is truly amazing,over the years I have acquired a taste for Japanese Monster movies and am well aware that early examples of this genre can be poor. However this one reaches a new low, as it follows the adventures of Johnny Sokko(?), a young boy who controls a Giant Robot, and his fight against the evil Gargoyle Gang, who seem to have an endless supply of horrid giant monsters at their disposal.
at first i thought it was bad because i had great expectations for this movie, but after giving some thought it IS that bad. i was almost caught up in hk's promotion of bad stars in bad movies. hk's new generation of actors and actresses not to mention bad script writers are bringing the industry down. at the moment im still trying to figure out how it gross so high. normally you cant lose in a movie with donnie yen and ekin (forget jackie, he's past his peak). but then i shouldve figure it out when twins was on the cover. it is cheesy, campy, very corny, i try to laugh from some of the jokes, but not only is the effect very minimal but the jokes are very recycled and not funny. im sorry i bought the movie. the only reason why some people think it is so good is because they are brainwashed into the hype that the twins are cute, and everybody likes them, and that everything they make is good and funny. and that if you like twins, then you are up to date...<br /><br />sigh... i miss the good hk movie days when jet li and stephen chow movies dominated the box office...<br /><br />movies from mainland china are much better than this, and they are shot for lower budgets.
"The Twins Effect" is the worst movie I've seen! Not only is the support weak, but the characters as well. I'm sorry to say to you Edison fans, but Kazaf is by far the weakest Vampire I've seen in my life. I'm sorry Edison; your role in this movie was disappointing. Edison does not fight whatsoever in this movie and I'm sure if they didn't have Kazaf in the movie, the plot wouldn't be much different. The main plot in the movie is not explained nearly enough and the entire movie focused too much on Helen and Kazaf's growing relationship. I mean, who the hell was Kazaf and why did they need his blood? Yeah, he's the prince right? So what!<br /><br />Certain scenes in this movie were just plain stupid. Yeah, the action was great but the entire outline of it was stupid. In one scene towards the end, Duke Dekotes says that Kazaf is the strongest of his brothers... yeah it would seem so now that he's full grown. Why would you wait until he's grown up to attack? Another scene was with Jackie Chan, one of my personal favorites. In the scene, Jackie asked Helen who were the creatures that persistently followed them. How can you be so naive as to not know that they are vampires? People are dying around them with bite marks on their necks; surely the NEWS would be on it faster than you can say "Vampire."<br /><br />The characters were yet another mistake in the movie. Helen, played by Charlene Choi, is the girlfriend of Kazaf. What kind of girl would not be scared of Vampires, especially if it is your brother's job to kill them? I can bet you that you would not find such a brave girl as Helen if you searched your whole life. Helen is annoying, bitchy, and is a total drama queen in the movie. She tries too hard to be different and in the end fails miserably. One of the weirdest and most disturbing characters I've seen in any movie. Why would you bite someone's neck especially if you're not a vampire? It's very odd that her reaction to Kazaf's confession doesn't turn him off. Kazaf, played by Edison Chen, is another stupid character in the story. How degrading for a young actor as himself to play in a movie with such a poorly constructed role. He does not stand up for himself throughout the movie and does not fight. Although I'm a fan of Edison, I wouldn't want a man who lies on the ground the whole time. Gypsy and Reeve are my favorite characters in the movie. Their love is pure and sweet. Gypsy is gorgeous and does not try too hard like Helen. Reeve, played by Ekin Cheng, is wise and seems to be the only person that makes sense in the movie. A plot failure was the death of Reeve. The movie had absolutely no substance yet it doomed itself by removing one of the only likable characters. Another character was Duke Dekotes. The story didn't focus much on him and therefore made his desire to obtain Kazaf's "rock" seem irrelevant.<br /><br />It's very sad because towards the end of the movie, I was forcing myself to watch because I so desperately wanted to see Kazaf fight. The end was so abrupt because the whole time I was expecting so great to happen. Kazaf, who's the supposed Vampire Prince, does nothing for the movie and I'm sure if he were taken out, the movie wouldn't be much different. I highly recommend you to NOT waste your time on this movie as I have. I was greatly disappointed. If you're in search of a great movie, why not watch "Lord of the Rings" or "Pirates of the Caribbean?" Likeable characters with a well-written plot.
I saw this movie in Blockbuster and thought it might be a good Sunday evening movie when there is nothing else to do. So I bought it used, 3 DVDs for $25. Although it was cheap, my money would have been better spent on a nail to drive through my foot.<br /><br />The film started out nicely. Kinda Dark and mysterious. I was always enthralled with vampire and samurai movies as a kid. I thought the combo would be really cool. The first fight scene was pretty cool. I was excited for the rest of the movie. Then the movie took a serious nose dive.<br /><br />I understand that this was a big hit in the east. I guess because of the twins. I don't see it though. This movie, aside from the first 10 minutes, was absolutely horrible. So many movies in this genre have the potential to be great, and blow it terribly. This is just another casualty.<br /><br />Jacki Chan's role in this film doesn't make any sense at all. Whyyyyyyyy? Complete silliness. He probably made a few bucks off it though.<br /><br />The only cool thing in this movie are the swords they use. Nice idea.<br /><br />I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone.
Stay the hell away from this one... No, really I'm serious - I know you might think this is a fun, campy, cheesy Hong Kong action style B movie. I did, but trust me, it's not. In fact, the only thing accurate about that description would be the words Hong Kong, and then only used in a strictly geographical sense.<br /><br />Yes, Donnie Yen has co-directed it. Jackie Chan has a cameo. The guy Ekin Cheng, from Storm Riders plays the lead. It got vampires. It should be good - or at least fun, charming and action packed. Once again - it's not.<br /><br />I could digress on why this movie sucks - I could dissect it, hack it to tiny, shivering pieces. But where to start? There's so much to hate...<br /><br />To make it easier, and to give this hate-fest some credability, let me say that I'm usually a big fan of Hog Kong cinema. The heavier drama stuff as well as the more lighthearted action and/or comedy.The really good movies as well as the really cheesy ones. I can sit through hours of bad subtitling, jokes lame enough to make first graders roll their eyes. I can handle lovers as chaste and celibate as a convention of nuns, that and pretty much anything else the average film goer would bang their metaphorical toes against on their way between action sequences. Also, Hong Kong or any other origin - I love it when a movie goes from just being bad to bad enough to be good.<br /><br />But this - Arrgh! It's just horrible, STUPID, unwatchable garbage. So far from being funny or charming it's actually painful. So derived of action it makes a Bergman movie look like the Texas chainsaw massacre.<br /><br />Why?! Why waste such an opportunity?! This could have been so much fun!
I'm rather surprised that anybody found this film touching or moving.<br /><br />The basic premise of the film sounded to me like an excellent, if provocative, idea for a movie about a rare sort of relationship, but one (if I can judge by the real-life examples I've known) is extremely deep and loving.<br /><br />However, the film is cheaply scripted--poorly scripted--and although it has a number of very pretty-looking shots, I didn't find it to be anything special.<br /><br />Probably the biggest problem is that it is far too short and poorly-composed to give its audience time enough to invest, emotionally, in the characters: we don't really care about any of them, and so their stresses and obstacles don't really touch us.<br /><br />I think a REMAKE--from the screenplay up--with some character development by some really good writers--could improve it greatly. It is instructive to compare this film with Brokeback Mountain, which the screen-writers took to far loftier levels than did the author of the screenplay--screen-writers who were clearly conscious of how to write a classical tragedy, and carried out their task with care, planning, and superb craftsmanship! However, people only seem to remake those films that don't need it! You're not really missing anything if you skip this one: I found it very disappointing indeed, and it is only saved from getting a 1-star from me by virtue of the daring and gumption it took to make a film on this sensitive subject.
* Terrible * * Below Par * * * Not Bad * * * * Good * * * * * Brilliant<br /><br />WARNING *MINOR SPOILERS*<br /><br />Homosexuality these day's is hardly the taboo subject it was over forty years ago.However it must be said that perhaps more so in America than say, over here in the U.K. it can still be a touchy subject.Just look at the whole debacle of gay's in the millitary some years ago in the US.It's with 'In and Out' that writer Paul Rudnick taps in to the small town mentality of middle America and the way the press in the US (As well as in the UK) make such a big deal in outing a celebrity.You need only look at when Will Young and Stephen Gately of Boyzone came out of the closet.<br /><br />The movie centres on Howard Brackett(Kevin Kline), a High school English teacher in his home town.The local people are preparing themselves for Oscar night as one of the nominees Cameron Drake(Matt Dillon) came from their town and was a former pupil of Howards. Cameron, who plays a gay soldier in a vietnam epic wins the award only to out Howard as being gay during his acceptance speech.This could not come at a worse time for Howard who is just day's away from marrying his fiance and fellow school teacher Emily(Joan Cusack).As you would expect the media reaction is cataclysmic and turn's Howards life upside down.Not only does he try to convince his family and friends that he is not gay but evade sleazy news reporter, Peter Malloy(Tom Selleck).<br /><br />Although this was billed as a screwball comedy it's clear that Rudnick and director Frank Oz are also attempting to be satirical.You only have to look at the early scenes at the Oscars cerimonee and the way the people of Bracketts home town as well as the teaching board of the school react to his outing.<br /><br />Sadly the film doesn't live up to the promise we see early on in the movie.This is a pretty flat attempt to make social commentary out of a wacky comedy.A good cast is sadly wasted on a script that never really delivers the nessecary amount of laughs and is no where near as insightful as it thinks it.<br /><br />Kline gives us the same kind of endearing performance that he gave us in his earlier comedy 'Dave', making Howard an instantly likeable character. Cusack too is good value as Howard's weight obsessed fiance while Tom Selleck play's very well against type as a gay news reporter.Bob Newhart is a joy also, as the principal of the high school where Howard works.It's great to see him on the big screen for a change.It's a shame that it had to be this.<br /><br />The performances as good as they are can do little to rescue the movie from being a rather dull affair.While a couple of scenes do offer some amusement.Namely the inspired scene where Howard attempts to make himself seem more manly by listening to a self help tape.There is little to enjoy, and when things can't seem to get any worse Rudnick resorts to a sickening finale that lurches in to over the top sentiment. I also couldn't help but feel that my intelligence was being insulted.Malloy appears to be too sleazy a character to become the man who put's his ethics before getting a good story while Cammeron finally come to the rescue in the film's climax seems at first to be too self involved a character to care a jot about what happens to his former teacher.After all it's he who caused all the trouble in the first place.<br /><br />'In and Out' isn't exactly dire.But when you consider the likes of Klines better work like 'A Fish called Wanda' you can't help but feel that here is a great talent being sadly wasted.<br /><br />Robs Rating:* *
I found this film to be extremely homophobic... the main character doesn't know he's gay until he realizes that he likes Barbra Streisand and has a limp wrist!!! I was so offended that after the screening at the Toronto Film Festival, I went up and spoke to the screen writer to complain about this film. This is the sort of film that GLAAD needs to work to have banned.
This movie's basic premise is that everyone in the world can know that a person is gay except for that person. And that a man who likes show tunes, has good taste, and is neat in appearance MUST be a homosexual. Yes, the movie is funny in parts, but the basic premise is to homophobic and insulting that the entire movie crumbles into something that is quite painful to sit through. The performances, particularly Joan Cusak and Kevin Kline are very good.
Well, where to start describing this celluloid debacle? You already know the big fat NADA passing as a plot, so let's jut point out that this is so PC it's offensive. Hard to believe that Frank Oz, the same guy that gave us laugh riots like Little Shop of Horrors and Bowfinger, made this unfunny mess.<br /><br />So, this guy doesn't know he's gay till this actor points it out. OK, sure. If anyone ever says I'm gay, I'll know the truth, even if I currently like girls more than George Luca$ likes a dollar.<br /><br />And how to know the true nature of my sexuality? Well, if I like classic litterature, dancing and Barbra Streisand, I'm gay. If I dress like a blind man in a hurry (with half my shirt hanging out), I'm straight. Oh, sure.<br /><br />And here's the big cliché of clichés: no matter how you look, there's always a very attractive Hollywood actor who'll adore every bit of grease under your skin, or a top model who'll love your zero IQ, your butt-ugly face and your pointing-out ears. If all those gay common places weren't enough to get me angry, this did. In real world looks matter, folks, and I know for sure.<br /><br />I see it coming: now you'll say "Relax! It's a comedy! Don't take it so seriously!". If being a comedy gives anything "carte blanche" to suck out loud, I think the world has a serious problem. Wouldn't be much better (and funnier) to make a movie to denegate those old tiresome clichés, instead of magnifying them over and over again?<br /><br />So, one of the absolutely worst movies I've ever seen. 1 out of 10. If giving this rating has something to do with my sexual tendence, please let me know. I'm interested.
In & Out made me want to vomit. I have never seen such a shameless film! It seriously wanted to say that being gay is something wonderful and joyous, but has no idea how to say it. To me this was not a comedy, unless cruel,sick jokes are something to laugh at when a victim falls for it.<br /><br /> From what I saw, this film had four (4) major flaws starting with (A) Matt Dillion's character as he announces to the world that is former teacher, Howard Brackett (Kevin Kline) is gay. Never mind how unbelievable it is that Matt Dillion character won an Oscar for what looked like a serious role on the edge of a crack-up. But why would he say such a thing? After all, this was never an issue with Howard's students, his friends, family, nor his finace. Nobody. So why would he say something like it when it wasn't true? More to the point, why doesn't the movie supply us with an answer as to why he said it? The reason is because there is NO answer, and for the convenience of the plot none is provided. The second (B) flaw is with the fact the film seems to have forgotten what homosexuality is--the attraction and sexual relation to members of the same sex. In this movie, being gay is based on liking Barbara Streisand musicals and being passionate about literature. It's all based on stereotypes!<br /><br />Both of these flaws are met up again at that must-be-seen-to-be-believed graduation ceremony. Matt Dillion finds out about the commotion going on in that small town and the film looks poised to let us know what made him say such a thing. When he arrives to the ceremony, he says nothing, and I wondered why in the world he then came there at all. He didn't solve anything. Then when all of the audience stood to announce they were gay, I was so moved I wanted to throw up! Those folks were standing up in defense of Howard being gay by mocking all of those stereotypes. What the film forgot is that it was using those stereotypes to show why Howard was gay. They filmmakers just shot themselves in the foot! But wait there's more!<br /><br />During the ceremony,(C) Howard appeared to be on trial to lose is job as a teacher, because people believed that he would influence his students to be gay. What the film was trying to say is that homosexuals NEVER recruit, and that he wouldn't influence his students. But did we not see Tom Selleck's character endlessly pressure Howard over and over again, even to the point of kissing him unexpectedly, to come out of the closet when, in my mind, there was no closet to come out of? From that, the film clearly show that homosexual are capable of recruiting. The film, again, then shoots itself in the foot.<br /><br />And (D) when Howard came out of the closet, did anyone not notice how the screenplay shut him up for the rest of the film? I counted only three lines he had afterwards: "Yup!" to his parents, "Hi there!" to a student, and "Are you ready?" to Tom Selleck before the last vomitous scene. I might be low by one, but the point is he is not allowed to tell us what made him decide he was gay. I wanted to know what was in his head, because I never for once believed he was gay.<br /><br />As bonuses, the movie also includes several truly offensive scenes. One in which Howard is asking a priest in confession for advice about what to do for a friend (him), who is engaged and has not yet had sex with his fiance. "Does that make him gay?" he asks. The priest responsed "Oh yes, he's definitely gay". Uh-huh. Or what about the scene when all the old ladies are gathered around telling Howard's mother that she doesn't need to be sad about her son's deep, dark secret because, well...everyone has them. Then one the ladies confessed that she's never seen "The Bridges of Madison County". Funny? No! Becuase the film shows that it is insensitive and has no idea how devestating it can be to family to have one of its members announced that he/she is gay. I know. I have several friends that are gay, and none of their families took it well at all. That was a poor way to diffuse the whole situation.<br /><br />The last straw for me was the last scene that gave they appearence that Tom and Kevin were getting married. The camera panned down very slowly to the front of the church when... It wasn't what you thought! I had been thoroughly disgusted by that point, and I never could forgive that sick joke. I have nothing against films about being gay or homosexuality. "Philadelphia" and "Longtime Companion" were very honest and true in what they had to say. "In & Out" is just screaming for political correctness, but has no idea of the corruption at its core. what I gathered from the film is that if you are 99% straight and 1% gay, meaning if you have the slightless doubt, YOU ARE DEFINITELY GAY. It's like gayness is becoming a dominant trait in genetics. In reality if everyone told you over and over that you were worthless and stupid, you would eventually believe it too, wouldn't you? This is what happened to Howard Brackett about being gay. I left the theater sad and angry. Angry the whole weekend, in fact. This was a seriously sick and cruel film, the WORST of 1997.
Maybe I expected too much of this film, but at the very least a comedy should be funny, and this one has very few amusing moments. It manages to be insulting to homosexuals, heterosexuals, women, the obese, and probably several other groups as well. The scene at graduation where _everyone_ claims to be gay is one of the most distasteful I have ever seen.<br /><br />Tom Selleck and Matt Dillon are ridiculously miscast and Kevin Kline seems bemused most of the time.<br /><br />Other reviewers compare the film to "Will and Grace", but at least "Will and Grace" _is_ funny.
I suppose that in 1997 Hollywood wasn't quite at the point of openly celebrating homosexuality, so one might want to give some credit to those who put this movie together for having shown a little bit of courage. One simply wishes that credit could be given them for having put together a really good movie, and in my opinion "In & Out" doesn't qualify on that count. It's the story of Howard Brackett (Kevin Kline) - a small town high school English teacher who on the eve of his wedding is outed by a former student who happens to win an Oscar and who then has to go through what can only be described as a period of self-discovery as he comes to terms with being homosexual. To me, that was the first problem with this movie. Howard didn't really have to turn out to be gay. The movie would have been funnier (and perhaps even more thought provoking) had Brackett remained defiantly straight in spite of the stereotypically gay aspects to his life and the town's belief after the Oscar speech that he was gay. (In fact, I thought that identifying him as gay given the presence of those stereotypes might actually have been rather insulting to the gay community, as well as to straight men who like poetry and believe in dressing neatly!) <br /><br />Kline was decent enough in the role, and largely carried the film. Aside from him, most of the other cast members (although fine actors) were people not really noted for their success on the big screen. Folks like Tom Selleck and Wilford Brimley and Bob Newhart are good actors but not big movie stars. I actually thought that the funniest (if very small) role in the movie was that of the super model Sonya, played by an actress named Shalom Harlow (Speaking of stereotypes, I loved her oh-so stereotypical model line "I promised to do that photo shoot this afternoon. I have to shower and vomit!") In the end, what really turned me off about this movie was the ridiculous ending, starting with the graduation ceremony (and, to be honest, even if someone decided that the graduation was really necessary, the movie should have ended there, rather than proceeding on with the totally unnecessary nuptials at the end.) <br /><br />Basically, I got a few chuckles out of this but nothing more. 3/10
i believe that this movie was a terrible waste of my time, and i would know after watching it 5 times in class. this movie does not show what absolutely perfectly happened during these times. no one can truly say that these things happened to the letter. if anything the only good part would be the actors, even tho that they were really really crap.they were reading the script without expression. quite boring. i would rather watch play school. so i would definitely like to never ever see this movie again in my whole life. it is a complete waste of time unless you want your time to be wasted and if you would like to see an unrealistic view of what happened back in 1981.
Well, I generally like Iranian movies, and after having seen "10" by Kiarostami the night before, I was expecting a great movie. I was very disappointed. This is by far, the worst Iranian film, and one of the most boring Asian movies I have ever seen. If you have never seen a Kiarostami movie before, watch "Ten" instead. If you want some good Iranian movies, you may also try "Sib", aka "The Apple". This movie is divided in 5 parts, and only the fourth, featuring some funny ducks, is worth watching. If this is the first Iranian movie you see, you probably won't want to see any more. I don't blame you, but you will miss some great movies.
Coming from Kiarostami, this art-house visual and sound exposition is a surprise. For a director known for his narratives and keen observation of humans, especially children, this excursion into minimalist cinematography begs for questions: Why did he do it? Was it to keep him busy during a vacation at the shore? <br /><br />"Five, 5 Long Takes" consists of, you guessed it, five long takes. They are (the title names are my own and the times approximate): <br /><br />"Driftwood and waves". The camera stands nearly still looking at a small piece of driftwood as it gets moved around by small waves splashing on a beach. Ten minutes.<br /><br />"Watching people on the boardwalk". The camera stands still looking at the ocean horizon and a boardwalk. People walk across the camera frame, their faces too far and blurry to make them interesting. Eleven minutes.<br /><br />"Six dogs at the water's edge". The camera stands still looking at the ocean horizon with a sandy stretch of beach nearby. Far away at the water's edge, six dogs not doing much, just relaxing. Sixteen minutes.<br /><br />"Ducks in line, gaggle of ducks". The camera stands still looking at the ocean horizon near the water's edge. Dozen and dozen of ducks stream in single file from left to right. I assume that Kiarostami released them gradually. The last two ducks stop dead on their track and suddenly a gaggle of ducks rolls quietly from right to left. I assume Kiarostami collected the ducks and re-released all at the same time. It is not the first time that he deals with the contrast between organized and disorganized behavior. Eight minutes.<br /><br />"Frog symphony, oops, I mean cacophony, for a stormy night". The camera stands over a pond at night. It's pitch black except for what appears to be the reflection of the moon on the undulating water. It is a stormy night and clouds race to cover the moon. The screen goes dark. What remains for us is the cacophony of frogs, howling dogs and, eventually, morning roosters. Hit me on the head if this was done in a single take. I saw this segment as a sound composition put together in the editing room and accompanied by a simple visualization. Twenty seven minutes! <br /><br />Except for the mildly amusing ducks, this exercise in minimalism left me cold. A nonessential film for Kiarostami admirers.<br /><br />I thought I would rate "Five" a five, but four is what it deserves.<br /><br />The film is dedicated to Yasujiru Ozu.
Can this "film" be considered as a film? Imagine the situation: somebody puts a handy cam over a tripod and in front of a sea promenade and film people walking or jogging along it. Then, he places the camera in a beach, buys some ducks in a pet shop, open their cages and let them run in front of the camera. Later, he just films the water surface and the sound of birds and insects in an absolute darkness. Is it an experiment or just an insult to the audience intelligence? What would it happen if any unknown director did a film like that? Would we mark his job with 10? I always disappoint directors who believe that can do everything they want once they became famous.
Billed as a romantic comedy set against the early years of WWII it fails to deliver. The problem is that while beautifully photographed it has no consistent story line or narrative. Starting as a murder mystery it offers no hope to its actors as it meanders through recent history. Depardieu is wasted in a trivial role he obviously is not comfortable with playing. Adjani cannot carry the picture. The hero is not; obviously an imitation of a Hitchcock "wrongly accused" role it lacks balance. Neither heroic, comic nor suspenseful.<br /><br />This could have been a good film. I am reminded of "The Lady Vanishes" which did combine suspense, romance and comedy in a serious film dealing with fascism.
I've just been at the cinema in down town Prague watching this film. <br /><br />Not due to the poster I found very Holywood old-fashioned heroic<br /><br />style. Not due to the high level starring which remind me that most<br /><br />of those high starring French films are usually pathetic. But just<br /><br />because there are not so many films in my French mother tongue in a<br /><br />city like Prague. And because I love Adjani, Depardieu and Rappenau's<br /><br />Cyrano. Then I decided to write up this small comment because I think<br /><br />I really don't agree with the comment main stream on this film on imdb.<br /><br />I was not disappointed. The film just look like the poster. The<br /><br />characters are just as stupid as they look like. For a while I<br /><br />thought Adjani would be like a caricature -- just a funny character<br /><br />you can laugh at. No she is not! For example when she decides to tell<br /><br />Depardieu she is the one who murdered the fat one she killed at the<br /><br />beginning of the film then come the violins in a big fat pathetic<br /><br />music which should make you cry and realize Adajani's character is a<br /><br />deeper person as she looks like. Maybe this was humor at the 10th<br /><br />level but I am sorry my sense of humor is not that high! If I want to<br /><br />see some funny French film on the WWII I watch once again La Grande<br /><br />Vadrouille! It is definitively more fun! I have also read on imdb<br /><br />that Lemoine is making a great performance in this film. I have to<br /><br />say I have never seen a so bad acting! (Well I have never seen any Ed<br /><br />Wood's film). Nevertheless the film is good filmed with a lot of good<br /><br />(very costly) scenes like the one with the Pantheon in the morning<br /><br />when the German army arrives at Paris or when the refugees settle down<br /><br />on a bridge in Bordeaux. I think Rappeneau is a good filmmaker but<br /><br />that he does better with a good script. It was easy with Cyrano. He<br /><br />had not to write the dialogs!<br /><br />I give 1/10.
The 33 percent of the nations nitwits that still support W. Bush would do well to see this movie, which shows the aftermath of the French revolution and the terror of 1794 as strikingly similar to the post 9/11 socio-political landscape. Maybe then they could stop worrying about saving face and take the a**-whupping they deserve. It's really a shame that when a politician ruins the country, those who voted for him can't be denied the right to ever vote again. They've clearly shown they have no sense of character.<br /><br />What really stands out in this movie is the ambiguity of a character as hopelessly doctrinaire as Robespierre; a haunted empty man who simplistic reductive ideology can't help him elucidate the boundaries between safety and totalitarianism. Execution and murder. Self-defense and patriotism. His legalistic litmus tests aggravate the hopeless situation he's helped create. Sound like any belligerent, overprivileged, retarded Yale cheerleaders you know of? <br /><br />Wojciech Pszoniak blows the slovenly Deparidieu off the screen. As sympathetic as Robespierres plight is, it's comforting to know that shortly after the film ends he'll have his jaw shot off and be sent to the guillotine.
The most remarkable thing about "Talk Radio" is how bad it is. The callers' voices all have a phony, reading-from-a-script ring to them. An evening with an annoying loudmouth at a Dallas radio station is told with the portentousness of a Sartrean glimpse into Hell. Stone tries for an existential revelation and gets unintended comedy instead. Whenever a caller makes a "profound" (empty) point about something, Stone shoves the camera at one of his character's face as they are stricken with some traumatic realization that is never revealed to the audience. Bogosian overacts throughout in one of the most irritating performances ever smeared onto celluloid. Underrated classic? Give me a break.
A very disappointing film from Oliver Stone which, unlike his recent epic "J.F.K.", fails to stimulate any sort of real emotion. "Talk Radio" is about talk-back host 'Barry Champlain', a very loud, opinionated man who manages to upset a lot of people and yet still draw an audience, most of whom mind you just want to ring up and abuse him. His boss in the movie (Alec Baldwin) sums up his character very well by saying he's just a shoe salesman with a big mouth. And as Barry (Eric Bogosian) gets death threat upon death threat, the final outcome is almost inevitable.<br /><br />This is the sort of movie that usually has something very powerful to say. However, "Talk Radio" fails to make a serious comment and remains a frustrating, pointless film.<br /><br />Thursday, September 17, 1992 - Video
This movie would receive a much higher vote from me in general and I will talk about why, but first and foremost it receives four stars and should stay at four stars because of the directors ridiculously tasteless portrayal of rape and sexual assault. Not far into the movie Oyama sexually assaults a woman he rescued earlier, and while she briefly becomes somewhat miffed by his actions this attitude only lasts about five minutes before loving adoration sets in and carries her character through the rest of the film. I know many will argue that it's not that important in a kung fu beat-em-up, and as a fan of the genera I can't say that it's all that unusual, but that doesn't stop it from being completely tasteless every time I see it.<br /><br />What I will say in this movie's defence however is that it's somewhat refreshing to see a martial arts, or even action movie of any sort, that offers no actual hero for the viewer to get behind. Oyama is portrayed as a rapist and murderer; a societal outcast whose only student becomes completely mentally unbalanced before being gunned down by the police. The final shots of the movie leave one with the feeling that Oyama himself is poised for a major breakdown and no longer seems to care for the woman he earlier assaulted into loving him and has since followed him with puppy-dog like devotion.<br /><br />Whether this was truly the intended message of the movie or not, one can't help but feel a little hopeful that Oyama might be on the brink of suicide by the time the movie is over. This is a rare emotional treatment from the martial arts genre and its interesting to see a film that leaves you with a sense that its violence is not to be celebrated. If only Karate Bullfighter had treated the subject of sexual violence better, either by creating more emotional depth and recognition between the two characters involved, or by leaving it out all together, this would have been a much more interesting film.
I'm thinking of some things for this movie: First, really is a very bad movie. This is really "Superbad". The film looked very promising in the trailers but fell flat... Maybe the original idea was good, but between a bad script and bad acting the movie became boring and empty. My advise is don't waste 2 hours of your precious time. You have been warned. This is the first movie I rated 1 star at IMDb.com... Second, none of the characters are likable. You really don't care what happened to them... Third, the villain is very easy to identify. The grandson kills his father, sodomizes the friend's son, get the maid pregnant, smothers his grandfather... Like JT says, "If you like evil with no retribution, this is your movie". Nothing more to say...
Me and my friend read the summery and watched the trailer and were very interested and excited to go rent this movie. BAD IDEA. We thought a movie with actors that influential would have been a sure hit, but our expectations fell extremely short. First of all, the trailer and summery are misleading to the point of lies. The movie started out slow for the first 1 1/2 hours(reminder, its about two hours long) and when it finally started to gain momentum, It sucked. Plus, the plots were very hard to follow. It confused us because it kept skipping from one story to another in random order. The characters where not very realistic when it came to reality. Sure the mum and son could be actual people in reality, but everyone else seemed to be one extreme or the other. If your a person who likes sick, twisted, unusual movies, then go for it. But we advise not wasting two hours of you life you cant get back. Unfortunitly, no one told us that...
While this isn't an all time classic comedy it is a pretty good little movie to watch if you catch it on a rainy Saturday morning with not a lot else going on right then.<br /><br />Harold Lloyd plays Ezekiel Cobb, an American coming home after growing up in China where his dad was a missionary.He has come home from China to find an American wife and plans to return to China to continue his father's work.Cobb unwittingly is recruited to run for mayor of his corrupt home town when the existing political machine that controls the town realizes that he would make a perfect patsy to run against the current mayor who also is the head of the town's underworld.They figure the bumbling ,stumbling Cobb has no chance to win and therefore the current mayor continues to run the town and run his schemes which makes them all rich.<br /><br />Lloyd isn't doing the physical comedy here like he did in his silent films.He does a convincing portrayal of Cobb with a reserved understated dignity.The acting was good from all involved and the story and script were also quite good.<br /><br />Being made in 1934 the film does have some rather racist language when talking about the Chinese and it also has a typical black character from that era but these stereotypes aren't nearly as mean as I've seen from other films from that time.<br /><br />Although not close to being Lloyd's best film ,this movie does entertain and Lloyd is very good as Cobb.You won't be blown away by this film but it may be enough to peak your interest in Lloyd and make you want to see more of his work.
If one were to return to the dawn of the talking picture, one would prophesy a bright future for Harold Lloyd. Unlike his competitors, he was comedic actor trained on the legitimate stage not a performed raised in the purgatory of the music hall or vaudeville circuit. He had a good voice which matched his image. Moreover, from 1924 on, his "silent" films had incorporated sequences based on sound gags lost on the audience (e.g., the bell sequence at the Fall Frolic from THE FRESHMAN and the monkey sequence in THE KID BROTHER). Yet Lloyd's sound features consistently failed at the box office once the novelty of WELCOME DANGER had ebbed. Lloyd blamed his fall on many external sources, but never realized that the Glass character's enemy was not sound but the Great Depression. Pre-Depression audiences, giddy with optimism, may have rooted for this ambitious go-getter in whom they saw their surrogate; Depression audiences despised him as the person likely to foreclose on their mortgage and throw them in the gutter. Compounding this problem of character choice is Lloyd's perception as an insincere glad hander. Sincerity, of course, is a subjective appraisal, but it is undeniable that Lloyd, despite his own tragic upbringing, could never play a convincing down-and-outer. Perhaps this is because he feared returning to that state permanently. THE CAT'S-PAW fails for these reasons, but it alone suffers from the revelation of Lloyd's pro-fascist agenda. Many film scholars believe that Lloyd was prompted to make this film because he saw the presidency of FDR as a dictatorship bent on soaking the rich and soft on crime. We should remember that he was not alone in this feeling. DeMille had directed THIS DAY AND AGE, a pro-police state drama, the previous year. We should also remember that America was founded by hotheaded tax protesters and continues to be motivated by those who want something without paying for it. TCP suffered because it treated fascism lightly in a "comedy" and because its release was particularly ill-timed given the events in Germany in that year. The Production Code of 1934 would ultimately curtail the glorification of vigilante justice and reaffirm the rule of constitutional law, cumbersome as it might be. The ideal of the benevolent despot, the good-intentioned all-powerful leader who brings about a utopia once freed of the checks and balances on this omnipotence, dates to classical antiquity. For this reason, totalitarian regimes fear laughter even though it acts as a safety valve. Ironically, the mere existence of TCP, a film which demonizes the democratic experience of the country of its origin, shows that FDR's America was secure enough to accept criticism. One sees no parallel criticism in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's USSR, or Mussolini's Italy. But can one laugh at the gallows humor of pending fascism? Lloyd's unnuanced film is skewed to the right and might have been written by Dr Goebbels himself if he'd had a sense of humor, of course. It posits an alternative history in which a chosen one restores order and lost honor BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY, and does so with good nature and fun. Impending fascism approached by the left is, of course, Chaplin's THE GREAT DICTATOR. This latter film has the benefit of being set in another country and based on a thinly veiled actual persona and events. THE GREAT DICTATOR produces few laughs today because it under-estimated the extent of human evil, but it succeeds despite its artless and inappropriate speechifying, because it has the distinct advantage of being vindicated by history. Lloyd, however, should be credited for two things: first, he neither made any further pro-fascist films nor produced any subsequently hypocritically pro-allied films during the War: second, he never sold TCP to television. The post-1945 world had seen the face of fascism and it wasn't amusing.
This lame Harold Lloyd sound film has nary a laugh in it, and makes one wonder if this Lloyd is even the same one that made all of those delightful and hilarious silents.<br /><br />Lloyd's boyish likability becomes fey and limp when we can hear him talk, and a sluggish, restrained pace replaces the zany antics of his silents. Lloyd plays a young son of a missionary who grows up in China and then finds himself transplanted to contemporary New York City without a clue as to how life outside his Chinese village works. He finds himself an unlikely victor in a mayoral election and quickly draws the ire of all the government organizations because he refuses to look the other way in the face of rampant corruption. When he's framed in an attempt to bring him down, he decides to play just as dirty as everyone else, and stages a fake execution of every crook in NYC as a scare tactic. This darkly satiric ending feels out of place next to everything else in the movie, but it's the only part of the film that comes remotely to life. Everything else is a dull bore.<br /><br />I don't like having to admit that a Harold Lloyd movie fails, because I like him so much, but I don't have a choice with this one.<br /><br />Grade: D
Possible Spoiler alert, though there's not much to spoil about this film. I saw Project A part II not having seen the first movie. I don't think I missed much. Project A Part Two is not only the worst Jackie Chan film I've seen to date (yes worse than `Fantasy Mission Force'), this film is one of the most unwatchable films the world has ever seen. It's right up there with `Plan 9 From Outer Space' on the sleep inducing scale. The plot is twisted up and knotted like a 50 foot ball of yarn the cat's been playing with and finally left for dead. The `humor' if you could call it that, seems to have been written by an annoying High School freshman, who despite how many people tell him he's not funny, is determined to get his lame humor out no matter how painful a movie is made. And this movie is painfully bad. The plot involves Jackie Chan as a Navy officer recruited by the police force to round up `all known criminals'. He rounds them up in the first half hour of the movie, and I prayed for a quick ending which I didn't get. Why the movie bothers to progress from this point I haven't a clue. The movie drags on and on and on with no purpose, no plot, and attempts at humor that fail so miserably, they make Carrot Top look like a comedic genius. The Kung Fu in this movie is lame, and forgettable. There's better Kung Fu in that movie about the 3 Ninja kids. Project A part II is neither an action movie nor a kung fu movie, it is however a complete waste of the talents of Jackie Chan and Maggie Cheung who have made films worlds superior to this. As Jackie Chan repeatedly escapes certain death, I enter `Blair Witch' mode asking (and wishing) `Is he going to die NOW, so the movie can end? `. An Example of how ludicrous this movie is: Jackie Chan is handcuffed to another man. A gang of pirates (that look nothing like pirates) throw axes at Jackie. Does Jackie grab one of the wayward axes and break the chain on the handcuffs? No! You see that would spoil the `hilarious' gag of him being handcuffed to another person. If you have a friend who laughs at everything, I encourage you to watch this movie with him or her, and watch as even they won't get a chuckle out of this film. If you're an insomniac this movie is sure to put you to sleep. Do not operate heavy machinery while watching Plan A part II. Possible side effects include headache, retinal strain, and death by boredom. 0/9 Stars
Remember those old kung fu movies we used to watch on Friday and Saturday late nights when our babysitters THOUGHT we were in charge? Well, this movie plays exactly like one of those movies. Patsy Kensit's biggest claim to fame was the love interest to Mel Gibson's character in "Lethal Weapon 2," and this performance was one of the reasons why she's never made it big: she's a terrible actress.<br /><br />In "Lethal Weapon 2," I thought she was cute. Cute enough to check out some of the other movies she'd been in, including "Loves Music, Loves to Dance" another big let down, which I, obviously, was not impressed with, either. But, as attractive as she is to my eyes, my soul screamed at me to turn it off because she played another cheap, predictable role, and done it very badly.<br /><br />In this movie, Kensit stars as a comedienne (and not a good one, either) who's working the clubs of France (couldn't cut it in her own homeland, so she's making THEIR ears bleed), who's down on her luck, but, even worse, the French government wants to throw her out because of an expired visa (or maybe they just caught her act). But she gets married to this Casanova (Freiss), who is just as down on his luck, and the predictability begins...terribly! Is there any way to give this movie a NEGATIVE rating? 1 out of 10 stars is over rating it!
I'd have little to add to bowlofsoul23's bull's-eye comment here. But as the first Brazilian (born, raised and living in Rio de Janeiro, in a neighborhood just a few miles away from the favela of Vigário Geral, depicted in the film) to comment on U.S.-financed "Favela Rising" here on IMDb, I get mixed feelings: on the one hand, it's good that the dire situation of Brazilian favelas are getting more attention from filmmakers and the media, both from Brazil and abroad, since local governments seem to have given up a long time ago. One the other hand, it's incredibly frustrating that "Favela Rising" turns out to be such a missed opportunity for enlightening Non-Brazilian audiences on the issue, because first-time directors Jeff Zimbalist and Matt Mochary (who are from the U.S. and, understandably, neophytes on the matter) turn the biography of AfroReggae group leader Anderson Sá into a glamorous canonization in this superficial, one-sided, under-researched and misleading documentary. Good intentions, muddled results. "Favela Rising" looks like a TV-ad, is shallow as a prime-time TV interview, and biased as a promotional video.<br /><br />"Favela Rising" feels uncomfortably phony for a Brazilian viewer, and not only because of its hype visual treatment of a bleak reality, and its misplaced feel-good happy- ending. "City of God" is an obvious reference here, with COG actors Leandro Firmino and Jonathan Haagensen cameoing for no apparent reason other than "hype". "Favela Rising" is, allegedly, a documentary about the AfroReggae group and its leader Anderson Sá, but beware: when you see the scenes shot in favelas overlooking the beautiful Rio shore line, you might as well be warned that Vigário Geral (the home of AfroReggae and Anderson) is located in an area of Rio far away from ANY beach. Strange choice of location, to say the least.<br /><br />"Favela Rising" is probably confusing for non-Brazilians, who won't know many of the interviewees (and the film won't tell them either) and will have to wait for the closing credits to find out that many of the songs on the soundtrack are NOT by the AfroReggae Band (though you'll get suspicious when you start to hear Pink Martini, of all people!). They won't know either that important issues were simply left unmentioned: why does the film push the notion that AfroReggae is a one-man project? Why not acknowledge the many partners who supply it with substantial financial and logistic support, like Rio's City Council, private Brazilian corporations, multinational recording companies and international NGOs, without which AfroReggae might not even subsist? Why not state clearly that Vigário Geral is still plagued by violent drug wars, and that its dwellers still live in constant fear of attacks by traffickers and cops? Why not state clearly that many of the archive footage clips showing police violence and corruption did NOT take place in Vigário Geral? HOW and WHY did the kid Richard Murilo finally join AfroReggae? WHY on freaking earth wasn't he interviewed once again at the end of the film?<br /><br />As for Anderson himself, the film leaves a lot of loose ends for the viewer: what's the story about Anderson having "two" mothers? Is the baby he holds in his arms his son? Why is he inspired by Shiva? Is he a Buddhist? Why does a Candomblé woman appear on the beach when the films mentions Anderson's "miraculous" recovery from the accident? Is he a Candomblé follower? Why not let him explain the contradiction of starting a group that fights drugs and simultaneously praises Bob Marley? If AfroReggae is also a pride-building movement for black people from favelas, why are the girls in the AfroReggae band limited to booty-bouncing routines? No, you won't get any answers to these questions either.<br /><br />Instead, the filmmakers are interested in turning Anderson Sá into a composite mix of pop-star, Malcolm X, Gandhi and Christ (check out that last image of the statue of Christ the Redeemer atop Corcovado hill, immediately after showing Anderson "miraculously" walking after his surgery). And that's the WORST thing the filmmakers could do to Anderson and his cause: turn him into a special CHOSEN one (by the time they show his surgery scar, you're ready to believe it's a mark from God). <br /><br />Because what's remarkable about Anderson -- who's the most ordinary guy you could ever meet -- is that he helped change his environment NOT by being "special" but by copying and adapting winning projects (like the Olodum movement in Bahia, among others) to his own community, with strong support by friends, artists, intellectuals, politicians, businessmen and the media. If you're not fluent in Portuguese you probably won't notice that Anderson isn't particularly bright or articulate (unlike his sharply witty partner José Junior), as much as he isn't particularly talented as a singer, lyricist or musician. Yet his "ordinariness" might have been the film's true "inspirational" core: to show that ANYONE with idealism, perseverance and steady support can in fact contribute significantly to his or her community, no need to be Jesus incarnate. Because what really matters is the movement -- AfroReggae -- not the guy, see? Haven't we had enough of personality cult? <br /><br />By the end of "Favela Rising", you probably won't know much more about Rio's favelas than you did when you walked in -- you'll just have SEEN what some of them look like.
Documentary content: Amazing man, amazing movement he started, amazing stories- most of them yet to be really told.<br /><br />Celluloid treatment: Nike Ad. Sorry, ain't got nothing else to say about this but that you can say all you want about the dire circumstances in the favelas, but... if you attempt to support that claim with flashy and romanticized images and camera-work of that life, the humbleness necessary to show this life as an outsider filmmaker goes out the window. And with that goes the legitimacy of the narrative. Besides that, the time-space continuum in the film is all off, and I'm not necessarily against that in films as a tool, but here it serves only to confuse the viewer into wondering what was said when; thus leading me to the question: is this a documentary or a docudrama?<br /><br />cococravescinema.blogspot.com
Let's Get Tough is one of those movies that people probably regret years later that they made. Full of awful racist Jap talk and jokes, this East End Kids story details how the kids want to join the military to defeat the Japs. Since they're too young, they decide to clean the town out of those dastardly Japs. They find one, throw fruit at it (without anyone doing anything to stop them) and he pulls a short sword out to menace them! The cops say to stop annoying him! He's only Chinese! He's on our side! When the kids go back to apologize, the Chinese man's dead! It's all part of this huge Jap and German Spy ring! The kids see to it that this is stopped At All Costs! I'm sure all of this was fine when it was made (1942) but viewed now, you realize of course, that this is clearly a product of it's time. Full of stereotypes, German and Japanese. Funny how the East End Kids have a black kid in the group, and he's not spared either. Gee whiz.
Propaganda pro-American war effort film that came out in 1942 has the East Side Kids getting tough against any Japanese they spot in their own neighborhood when they learn they're too young to enlist. Ultimately they learn they were mistaken in their mistrust of some individuals but also happen to stumble across a spy ring they then set out to bust. The film is harmless enough in its fashion although some may well take offense given how innocent Asians really did get singled out during the Second World War. Overall though, it's a pretty generic effort and both Leo Gorcey and Huntz Hall would have better moments, the best of which tend to come here when they ad-lib.
Following the World War II Japanese attack on U.S. forces at Pearl Harbor, "The Eastside Kids": Leo Gorcey (as Muggs), Bobby Jordan (as Danny Connors), Huntz Hall (as Glimpy), David Gorcey (as Peewee), Ernest Morrison (as Scruno), and Bobby Stone (as Skinny) want to serve their country. But, both the U.S. Army and Navy reject them as too young. Still wanting to "knock off about a million Japs", the "boys" attack an Asian clerk, who turns out to be Chinese. The unfortunate incident does, however, lead the gang to help uncover some really nasty Japanese and German people.<br /><br />If "too young" is defined as "under twenty-one", only Mr. Jordan and Mr. Stone would be rejected for military service. But, it's possible recruiters were turned off by the office manners displayed by Mr. Gorcey and Mr. Hall. "Let's Get Tough!" was made during what the script accurately describes as "open season on Japs" - for this and other reasons, it hasn't aged well. It's a wasted effort, but the regulars performs ably, with Tom Brown moving the storyline along, as Jordan's spy brother.<br /><br />*** Let's Get Tough! (5/29/42) Wallace Fox ~ Leo Gorcey, Bobby Jordan, Tom Brown
And I may be being generous. The overwhelming majority of the movie consists of looped footage...the shambling monster, two women exercising, the shambling monster again, a bunch of people in the pool, the shambling monster again, none the worse for wear despite having been injured...you get the picture. I restrained myself from yelling "GET ON WITH IT ALREADY" on several occasions.<br /><br />And it doesn't help that the footage they used was poorly produced. The sound is disconcertingly out of sync with the image. And in the one scene where they tried to get "artistic" with the lighting and camera techniques, the lighting guy, holding the flashlight that provides the scene's only illumination, is clearly visible in the shot.<br /><br />My hope is that the production was the victim of some horrible disaster in which the original audio track and most of the footage was destroyed, but they decided to release it anyways, cobbled together from the editing room floor, in memory of the heroic crew members who gave their lives trying to save the *real* film - the one with the plot and the interesting dialog. Sadly, there's no evidence of this, and I'm forced to conclude that, in the immortal words of Joel and the Bots, they just didn't care.<br /><br />
This is horrific. No really, this is ,bar none, the absolute worst...worst...I hesitate to even call it a @&$%in' _movie_. It is a ninety minute visual root canal. The plot is practically non-existent: a mad scientist who looks like the frontman from 'The Cars' impregnates a woman in his secret lab, a lawn chair in what I think may be a garage, via an injection of Palmolive. Within hours she births a full grown monster who then goes on a rampage. Thats the whole movie. The death scenes: these are poorly set up, take _forever_, and the acting...how can you mess up _screaming_?? The victims stand there while the growling, wheezing, congested freak advances on them and proceeds to limply strangle them for about three days. The sets are cheesy, the lighting for most of the movie consists of a single maglite (yes, a big honkin' flashlight), the sound quality is poor, theres only about 40 words of dialogue for the entire movie and the acting is generously described as wooden. Footage is shamelessly recycled to pad out the movie. And the special effects would make any BBC sci-fi production shake their head and proclaim "They didn't even try". The 'monster' is some nameless in a $3 halloween rubber mask with a few bandages slapped on. In its encounter with the lone cop of the movie the cop fires flashless, smokeless, invisible bullets that apparently travel so slow the monster can dodge them at five paces. Don't see this movie. No really, thats not a dare. Don't see this movie. The director should be shot. The writer should be chained to a giant rock where his liver will be devoured every morning by Ed Wood. Enough rentals and there could be a sequel, don't let it happen!
A montage prologue, quite obviously manufactured by the blessed maniacs who actually chose to distribute this thing, tries to convince us that the comic impact of this staggeringly incompetent bit of nothing is entirely deliberate. Don't you believe it: this is to Lloyd Kaufman as Andy Warhol is to Herschel Gordon Lewis. It is so thoroughgoing in its project of torturing its hypothetical audience that it seems like some kind of misanthropic negationist art installation, only it can't be because it is so completely bereft of self-consciousness. As obnoxious and ugly as "Things" or "Frozen Scream", this manages to up the ante by recycling itself with a maddeningly bald insistence that has to be seen to be believed. A Hitchcock-style shot-by-shot analysis of, say, the attack on the cardio girls might yield twenty edits and perhaps three minutes of footage - only the sequence is ten minutes long! You WANT to believe that this started life as a slightly more bearable short subject, except if you took away the repetition what's left would be far less fascinating: eg. when the 'fiend' does enter the room, he only inspires extended, highly apathetic, utterly blank stares from his imminent (offscreen) victims. Repeat this scenario about four times, in marginally varied settings; bridge these with perhaps thirty lines of dialogue total; offer up actors even more hateful and lethargic than those in the above mentioned classics; and grace us with a monster comprising gauze, ketchup and one yellow Spock ear, and you've got a movie too mind-boggling to refuse, a working definition of bad. I'm proud to own it!
This is by far the worst movie ever made. I have no doubt. I have seen such crap as Manos, Space Mutiny, and whatnot, and I can honestly tell you that they do not hold a candle to Science Crazed.<br /><br />Science Crazed has no discirnable plot. Something about a guy making a woman pregnant via turkey baster, and the child born *hours* later is fully grown, and ready to kill. Of course, being a newborn, it takes him about an hour to kill people. The director loops footage constantly, and takes about fifteen minutes to set up an awkward death. There is about a page of dialogue for the whole movie, however the dialogue arrives about a minute after it is spoken.<br /><br />Sample Scene: The monster is walking down a hall. We know this because there is about ten minutes of looped footage of his feet. In between loops, we are treated to two women working out. Repeat ad nauseum for about 20 minutes. When the monster does show up, no one moves, and everyone looks like deer in headlights as the monster takes another 10 minutes to get to them to kill them. By the level of the acting, you would guess that the people are already dead.<br /><br />I know my description doesn't seem too bad, but trust me, I can not fully describe the pain that is Science Crazed.<br /><br />Stay away, and boycott all video stores that carry it. :)<br /><br />
You know, after the first few Chuck Norris movies, I got so I could tell that a movie was produced by Golan-Globus even if I tuned in in the middle, without ever looking at the credits or the title. What's more I could tell it was Golan-Globus within a minute of screen time. Something about the story structure, the goofy relationships between the characters, the mannered dialog, the wooden acting (spiked with the occasional outright terrible performance), the scene tempos and rhythms that made Albert Pyun look like John McTiernan, the paper-thin plots and not-ready-for-prime-time fight choreography...Golan-Globus has been incredibly consistent over the years in style, subject matter and point-of-view.<br /><br />What can you say, it must work for them, since they've produced literally dozens of movies. You go to one of their productions, and you know exactly what you're getting. And it ain't brain food, folks.<br /><br />"Ninja 3" is another piece of hackwork in a long line of products from the G-G sausage factory, and offers the typical limited pleasures to the movie-goers' palate. You've got a Bad Ninja, slicing up cops and criminals and anyone else who gets in their way. You've got a Good Ninja, pledged to stop him. You've got a Westerner thrown into the mix so we Americans can identify with him (or her in this case) and be reassured that "We can still beat those pesky Orientals at their own game." You've got a Love Interest (who is usually also the worst actor/ress in the film) fencing with the Hero. You've got your endless string of assaults, assassinations and lingering shots of men gurgling in agony while an arrow or throwing star sticks unconvincingly out of their eye, neck, or chest. You've got your Beefy White Guy/Bodyguards in Suits calling a Ninja a 'Son of A B*tch' and throwing a roundhouse punch, only to get his *ss handed to him. You've got a Final Confrontation between the Good Guy and The Bad Guy which goes on for 20 minutes and just sort of stops like a RoadRunner cartoon instead of reaching a climax or a resolution.<br /><br />Ninja 3 is a little different, in that the plot revolves around a scrappy female athletic type getting possessed by the Bad Ninja, so she ends up killing a lot of the cops and criminals and Beefy White Bodyguards in Suits while under his spell. But all the other elements are there, as formal in their way as a Kabuki play or a Noh drama.<br /><br />I actually thought Lucinda Dickey was pretty likable in this film. She's nicely muscled and curvy, has great cheekbones and some athletic 'ooomph' to her movements, and you can actually suspend belief enough to accept that her character could do some of the feats she pulls off in the movie. She can almost, but not quite, carry this thing. One extra start for her participation and good energy.<br /><br />Naturally, Sho Kusugi is in here, and he pretty much dominates the last 10-15 minutes of the movie. And just to show you how 3rd-rate and uninspired G-G movies are, the director and editor inter-cut the last climactic fight between Kosugi and the Bad Ninja scene with numerous reaction shots of Dickey and her boyfriend watching the life and death battle with an expression of mild bemusement. I'm serious...for all the emotion and reaction they show to the proceedings, they could be looking at a sea turtle in an aquarium at Marineland. I can only imagine how Dickey must have felt when she saw the finished product - she probably wanted to run the editor through with a katana for real because those reaction shots make her look like a complete idiot. <br /><br />An enjoyable waste of time...but it definitely IS a waste of time. Maybe if you are a Sho Kusugi fan, or even a Linda Dickey fan you'd find it worth your while.
I remember catching this movie on one of the Showtime channels. What stood out for me is that this movie takes place entirely in Phoenix, Arizona. I'm from there so I spot the locales easily.<br /><br />Regardless, a ninja kills a scientist, because they wear yellow sweaters and golf, who is pursued by the police. It takes about half the police force to take him down and when they do eventually kill him, there are no discernible bullet wounds. His spirit lives on however when a woman finds her and touches his katana.<br /><br />From then on, she periodically gets possessed and kills the police officers who killed the original ninja. Then another ninja from Japan comes to kill the evil ninja. This might be a plot device from the previous two films, or perhaps a plot hole. All I know is that this movie is very campy, bad and entertaining. This is something to watch with a tub of popcorn, and several friends and give it the MST3K treatment.
You can only describe this with one word and that would be WOW!!! Wow, I really did not think piece of crap like this could ever be released. If you watch a movie titled ninja then you expect to see at least some cool martial artists, right? However, none of these guys know any martial arts whatsoever and it seems like they went to china and picked the first people they saw on the street and trained them for a day in martial arts, that's the level of their martial arts skills! The actors are way overacting, the special effects are ridiculous and there is not any plot that makes any sense. This is the worst martial arts movie I've ever seen and I have seen plenty!
...and boy is the collision deafening. A female telephone lineman is taken over by the spirit of a recently-deceased ninja, strips down to her undies, pours tomato juice on her body so her boyfriend can lick it off, performs a seductive dance, then goes off to kill the policemen who killed the ninja she's possessed by. Only to be hunted down by a one-eyed ninja master. Just like in real life, eh? Enlivened only by Sho Kosugi's martial arts choreography (and his declining to put his obnoxious kids in this one), you really have to see this to believe it. It's the ultimate mix of totally at-odds genres.
Following the movie that represents the pinnacle of the 1980's Ninja genre namely, 'The Revenge Of The Ninja' salivating fans were 'treated' to this bizarre offering that mixes Ninja shenanigans with spiritual possession....the end result being not dissimilar in nature to that somewhat horrifying experience when one spies a nugget of human poop floating menacingly towards oneself in a public swimming pool.<br /><br />Take for instance the supposed 'action packed' introduction which is set of all places on a golf course(!) Here we witness an evil green clad ninja slaying a group of golfers for apparently no discernible reason whatsoever (although I must admit that the shallow elitist attitude adopted by many participants of this particular sport does irk me somewhat though...hmmmm perhaps THAT'S why he murdered them?.....yep I can relate to that after all). Actually later in the movie we are told that one of the golfers was a top scientist but this story line is never elaborated upon nor alluded to ever again!!!<br /><br />Anyway back to the intro, the police proceed to surround the golf course and basically shoot the absolute hell out of the assassin....and they have to keep on shooting him because he just won't stay down!!! Yes literally hundreds of rounds are pumped into him and STILL he gets up to slay evermore of the law enforcement numbers.<br /><br />Finally (after what seems like an eternity) our miscreant detonates a smoke bomb and disappears.....or so it seems, for in actual fact he is merely hiding beneath the soil and upon our decidedly gormless officers leaving the scene to search for his body, he crawls out from hiding and staggers away.<br /><br />We next see the lovely Lucinda Dickey, a truly beautiful actress and in superbly fit physical condition, here playing a telephone repair worker. From her high vantage point she happens to spot the dying (AT LAST!!!!!) ninja. However, upon closer investigation the man, supposedly on his last legs suddenly leaps upon her and grapples her to the ground. After a bit of a struggle our feisty heroine manages to break free luckily but doesn't count on the ninja possessing hypnotic powers and she inevitably succumbs to them. It is at this point that the dying ninja actually projects his soul into our heroine! His intention is to use her corporeal form to slay those officers who killed him (the few he didn't actually manage to wipe out initially!)<br /><br />From this point on, throughout the film, whenever our heroine spots one of the aforementioned officers she is subjected to some overwhelmingly awful cinematic scenes of flashing lights, smoke effects and the sword that the ninja bequeathed unto her levitating towards her in a most wobbly manner!<br /><br />To make matters more complex, a particularly irritating police officer (who sports enough back and shoulder hair to put an average yak to shame!) persists in trying to win her affections (in a most bloody annoying manner!!!)......well of course it doesn't take the gift of preconception to work out that in a rather feeble 'shock' (less) twist towards the end of the film, HE is revealed to be one of the officers she must slay!<br /><br />But wait there's some hope yet! <br /><br />Step forward the one and only Sho Kosugi!<br /><br />Yes, THE ninja himself and looking here as cool as ever! Golf club news obviously travels fast and upon learning of the said events that transpired there, he flies all the way from Japan to sort the situation out (suspecting the worst!) In a brief sub story (that amounts to all of a few seconds!) Sho's interest in this particular ninja is demonstrated to be personal after the said villain is shown to have murdered Sho's father/teacher(?) and blinded one of Sho's eyes (thus necessitating Sho to wear a really decorative looking sword guard eye patch!)<br /><br />After stealing his dead nemesis's body from the morgue and then tracking down our heroine who provides an unwitting abode for the evil soul, matters climax at an oriental temple (seemingly in the middle of nowhere) where our man Sho manages to reunite the two disjointed aspects.<br /><br />Now reanimated from the dead, the evil ninja and Sho battle it out in traditional ninja style with swords with the winner being........well yes you can probably guess.<br /><br />Really this movie has only two things going for it, namely the always excellent Kosugi (who looks absolutely fantastic in the role as always) and the lovely Miss Dickey. What a shame that the material they found themselves in here is such a rancid pile of ordure.<br /><br />Oh well, to be fair, I've seen a lot worse than this in my time although I certainly still can't recommend this other than to those desperate to complete their Sho Kosugi/Ninja movie collections.
I saw this movie a few years ago, and man I never want to golf again. I mean ninjas apparently have no respect for the game of golf or the way it has evolved. And I'm not talking about "victimless" stuff like forging a scorecard. No no- Based on what I've seen here, they shamelessly massacre policemen and golfers alike on hallowed country club grounds. Judge Smailes would be spinning in his grave. And do they repent for said sins? No no, based on what I have seen here, the typical response by a slain ninja is to take over the body of a buxom female telephone repairwoman and seek revenge. I find this morally reprehensible, and needless to say, after viewing this nonsense, I not only stopped golfing and talking on the telephone, but also decided to stop feeding the homeless.
Wow, this movie is bad. Think "Flashdance" with ninjas. The worst part is when a sword is supposed to be floating in midair, but you can see the strings. Or maybe the worst part is the gigantic eye patch (that looks like a coaster) that the good ninja wears. Actually, there are so many bad parts, I can't make up my mind which is the worst. I can't believe anyone actually put up the money to have this thing made. The only redeeming value is that it is good to laugh at.
"Ninja III" is not quite as bad as "Enter The Ninja", the first part of this "trilogy", but it's still a very bad movie. It will hardly please the fans of martial-arts movies, because there isn't enough action, but even the action scenes themselves are often spoiled by laughable excesses and needless violence. As if the film wasn't already weak enough, the filmmakers turn parts of it into an idiotic "The Exorcist" rip-off. The only redeeming value is the winning presence of the actress who plays the "dominated" heroine; she is a beautiful and athletic woman, which the director doesn't forget to exploit in various sleazy ways - she just happens to be an aerobics teacher. I don't mind a little soft-core exploitation, but it must not pretend to be something else.
I never saw the other two "Ninja" movies and for all I know there are known, but for some reason I watched this one. This one starts out rather fast as this one ninja goes on a super killing spree. He is almost unstoppable as it takes quite a number of bullets to take him down. He is not out for the count though as he ends up possessing a woman and he then continues his killing ways by using her as his tool. Another ninja enters the fray and apparently the only way you kill a ninja is with another ninja so he volunteers. This leads up to a big battle at the end as the dead ninja goes back into his body and they have it out in an all out war. Sounds better than it actually turned out being, but at least it was not boring.
I'm also a SF buff, among other genres, and I especially like those films from 60's and 70's with their "ideas over effects" premise that produced so many intelligent and likable stories put on screen. In a nutshell I completely agree with scott-886's review of this movie. I heard of this film, and being what I previously mentioned, a 60's and 70's SF buff, with a penchant for SF stories with touch of the "Twilight Zone", I expected a lot, and my expectations were heightened with reviews ranking the effects of this movie "second best" to Kubrick's "2001 Space Odyssey". What a fraud. "Journey to the far side of the sun", was ordinary, convoluted, half baked, silly looking film, with laughable amateur special effects (and remember I love films from that era and despise CGI), and it can be fully compared more to 60's SF disasters such as "Marooned", which "Journey" very much reminded me of. The idea behind it all is not that bad, but building the plot on a story of a twin planet to Earth, on which the same world is inverted, asked for a master like Kubrick to direct. Needles to say Robert Parish is nothing like that, so he delivered boring and silly movie, that looked and felt like a matinée TV series of those days. Not worth wasting your time on, even if you are an absolute fan of the genre.
Being the sci-fi fan that I am, I was always curious about this film. So I was excited to see Journey to the Far Side of the Sun finally get released on an affordable DVD (the previous print had been fetching $100 on eBay - I'm sure those people wish they had their money back - but more about that in a second).<br /><br />Anyway, the premise of this film (just like Twilight Zone's "The Parallel") is that there is an undiscovered planet resembling Earth on the "other side of the sun". This planet is of course exactly like ours except that it's inverted. This basically means their letters are reversed and people drive on the wrong side of the road.<br /><br />Sound intriguing? Well that's basically all there is to this film. The first hour or so is dedicated to the preparations for the journey to this other planet. It's just tedious scenes of switches being pressed, banal dialog, etc. There's no point to it whatsoever. Gerry Anderson managed to find the most boring British actors in the history of cinema to play most of the roles. I mean they are so dull I'm surprised the crew was able to stay awake to finish the film.<br /><br />Anyway, once the crew FINALLY lands on the planet (after an interminable sequence of the astronauts sitting and literally sleeping in the cockpit), Roy Thinnes notices the copy is all backwards on a bottle of cologne and hops back on another ship to tell people about what he has discovered. Oops he never gets to do it as he crash lands and dies. The end! Oh wait, there's a bonus scene of one of the space executives hurling himself into a mirror in his wheelchair at the end. I guess he wanted out of this film too.<br /><br />I'm really surprised a film like this could get made even back in the 60s. Rent if you must. DO NOT BUY.
This is a very dull film with poorly developed characters, subplots that go nowhere, and barely tolerable acting. It comes across as a poorly conceived rip-off of "2001."<br /><br />The only thing making it worthwhile are the sets and costumes and visual effects. But even that wasn't enough to keep me from nodding off. I would like to get the soundtrack, especially the music during the space flight sequence, for nights when I have trouble falling asleep.
This is a really really bad movie. However It's good to laugh at the horrible ideas and "special" effects. The plot centers around an EU space agency that discovers a 10th planet that orbits directly opposite the Earth. They send a maned mission (they have been to Mars and have yet to discover this planet? Is anybody stupid enough to fall for this?) to the planet and can you believe it, it's the mirror image of the planet they came from. Most everything is predictable from that point. Honestly from the title of the movie you can guess just about everything. The only surprising thing here is a maned space program run by Eurpoeans :) There really can be no excuse for the plot concept or execution. So it's good for a laugh or maybe if you are in an altered state of consciousness.
This movie is honestly one of the greatest movies of all time...if you suffer from insomnia. It is a fool-proof way to guarantee hours of sleep at a time. As the movie slowly progresses, the audience slips into a state of unconsciousness and gradually loses sight of any sort of plot that the movie might actually contain. This effect is surely created due to the lack of sweet action/sweet babes.<br /><br />Also, Mr. Eisenstein was obviously unable to master the art of montage. A prime example of this is the scene on the Odessa steps. For no apparent reason, an event that in real life would have taken a matter of seconds is transformed into a seven minute nightmare for any sane viewer. This editing flaw tarnishes any sort of realism in the entire film. Honestly, i've seen more realistic editing watching cartoons.<br /><br />Some individuals who have commented on this title have hailed Battleship Potemkin as: "One of the greatest movies of all time" and, "Truly a masterpiece". Well i'm writing this comment to persuade readers to avoid watching this film at all costs. My best guess is that my fellow Potemkin critics simply wrote the wrong words in their summaries. Surely what they meant to say was: "One of the greatest snooze-fests of all time" and, "Truly an epic fail".<br /><br />In conclusion, don't waste your time. If you are interested in watching a movie of far superior quality, go to www.youtube.com and watch a Halo 3 montage. If i played the movie "Battleship Potemkin" in a game of slayer on guardian, i would shoot it in the face with my sniper rifle and then teabag its dead body. PEACE!
Additionally titled BURNING MAN and FLASH FIRE for its various releases, this Australian made film, shot in New South Wales is problematic for its producers from its outset due to several personality conflicts and extended shooting time that prematurely uses up its allocated budget, and although the storyline is at times nicely detailed, below standard post-production finishing and overmuch cutting jettisons the affair. Tom Skerritt plays as Howard Anderson, an American entrepreneur with a "passion for building" who is in process of erecting a tourist hotel in the Blue Mountains region, all the while unaware that his business partner, Julian Fane (Guy Doleman) has insured the incomplete structure for ten million dollars, far more than its actual worth, and plans its destruction as corollary to normal summer brush fires in order to collect a handsome sum through fraud. In line with this illicit scheme, Fane arranges for an arsonist to perform the incendiary deed, a young man who also happens to be the boyfriend of Anderson's daughter, and due to the future resort's being in the midst of a critical fire hazard sector (one of the many unexplained elements of the screenplay) Julian has every expectation that his dastardly design will come about without serious hindrance. As the local insurance firm victimized by the crime is majority owned by Fane, the policy's naturally skeptical underwriters, Lloyd's of London, deploy senior investigator George Engels (James Mason) to probe into the nature of the felony, made more sinister because of the death, possibly a homicide, of an insurance investigator (Wendy Hughes) who, in following clues was apparently coming close to the cause of the arson. The setting for the film is the week before Christmas, capstone of summer in the Antipodes, a dramatic background, but the links within the story are not smoothly compounded, resulting in the presentation of events that are rather difficult for a viewer to follow, a problem heightened by erratic editing, the mentioned heavy cutting, and poor sound and picture quality. Skerritt's semi-comatose and droning style is fatally invalidated by this dim sound processing but Mason is very effective, as ever, and enjoys the best dialogue with Hughes impressive as the too early written-out investigator; Doleman wins acting laurels with his performance as the malevolent Julian Fane.
I've been on a bad run of films. This is a clinker about an arson plot and a psychopath. Tom Skerrit, whom I really enjoy, was pretty young here. He is a builder with a passion, but he has a partner whose profit motive includes over-insuring and burning. Into the mix comes an agent, who is drowned, his daughter, and her nut-case boyfriend. James Mason plays the insurance investigator. Any idiot, given a little warning, would know something was rotten in the nation of Australia. Still, they bumble their way. The most interesting thing to me was that the huge hotel that was going to be built, never got beyond being a bunch of sticks. Low budget, I guess. The plot could have been interesting. Maybe they should have hired a film editor (the did?). Half the time you don't know where the characters are, but I guarantee a five million dollar payoff would have probably made a close watch on the structure mandatory. It doesn't work. Although there is lots of neat fire.
***SPOILER ALERT*** Disjointed and confusing arson drama that has to do with a sinister plan to burn down a major vacation resort before New Years Day. Being insured for ten million dollars the man behind Valley View Estates in the Blue Mountains in Australia Julian Fane, Guy Doleman,is determined to bring his own project down in flames in order to collect. This has to happen by January 1, two weeks hence, before the insurance policy on the project runs out.<br /><br />With his mind totally on his work builder and architect Howard Anderson, Tom Skerritt, has no idea that his boss, Julian Fane, is planning to burn down the resort he's building and possibly set him up as the fall guy. Anderson gets a bit suspicious when insurance investigator Sophie McCann,Wendy Hughes, informs him on some very fishy goings on between Fane and the insurance company Proud Alliance. It turns out that Proud Allience is actually owned, or 60% of it, by Fane himself! This explains whey Fane is having all these arson fires happen in order to collect the ten million dollars of insurance which is at least twice as much as the entire Valley View Estates is worth!<br /><br />We later have Sophie McCann murdered, in a faked swimming accident, to keep her from finding out whats happening with the suspicious fries around and in Valley View Estates. It's when Lloyd's of London, who's underwriting Proud Alliance, insurance investigator George Engles, James Mason, shows up that Fane takes a powder leaving his ace arsonist on his own and out of control to blow Fane's entire plan.<br /><br />Meanwhile Anderson has gotten wise to both Fane and Engles who unlike Fane wants the Valley View Estates to go under for reasons which are never made quite clear, just watch the last few seconds of the film to realize that, by it's writer and director. The arsonist is exposed as he's about to do in his girlfriend with Anderson coming to her rescue. We then have this wild chase scene with the arsonist getting lost in the Valley View construction site only to have it set on fire, with the help of Howard Anderson, where he ends up burning to a crisps by the time the fire department came to hose him down.<br /><br />The sudden and unexplained ending never made clear to just what happened to the Big Cheese in this whole scheme of things the sinister and evil minded Julian Fane. It's as if Fane got away Scot-free and only his unstable and deranged henchman, the arsonist, who was only the instrument of Fane's crimes ended up as the only person who payed from them.
This flick is worse than awful! It took a good story plot and turned it into schizophrenic cinema. The photography is EXTREMELY amateurish . . . looks like a 5th graders home movie project filmed with malfunctioning 8mm kiddie cameras . . . the editing appears to have been done by somebody having psychotic flashbacks (while on drugs and booze), with scenes cut short, followed by other, unrelated scenes, then chopped segments of scenes pasted in . . . totally unnecessary and gratuitous nudity . . . missing scenes . . . daytime scenes inexplicably turning into night-time scenes, then suddenly back to daytime . . . obviously no continuity. Tom Skerritt, Wendy Hughes and James Mason's good acting skills are wasted, as are the talents of the "key" supporting cast - (forget the villain and the Anderson women - very amateurish acting). This movie is a good candidate for a remake, even with Skerritt and Hughes . . . just have it professionally done this time.
Yet again not quite bad enough to make it enjoyable. In fact this one is just boring. It's reasonably well made, even though the script is bad, the effects are OK and the acting average. (Apart from James Mason who is always great, but in this one underused)<br /><br />I suppose it is hard to write anything about this film because it didn't evoke any reaction in me what so ever.<br /><br />Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull.
A man is builing a hotel with a partner. He finds out the hotel is over-insured. Things just get worse. This film has a huge mumber of scenes. They must have been put together in someones' sleep. It jumps around from place to place. It does not stay focused on anything for very long. The ending starts on christmas morning with a hotel fire. It then cuts to a night scene of that fire and then cuts back to day time. The DVD sound track is horrible. It takes a fair plot and turns into the worst film I have scene in a long time.
Elfriede Jelinek, not quite a household name yet, is a winner of the Nobel prize for literature. Her novel spawned a film that won second prize at Cannes and top prizes for the male and female leads. Am I a dinosaur in matters of aesthetic appreciation or has art become so debased that anything goes?<br /><br />'Gobble, gobble' is the favoured orthographic representation in Britain of the bubbling noise made by a turkey. In the film world a turkey is a monumental flop as measured by box office receipts or critical reception. 'Gobble, gobble' and The Piano Teacher are perfect partners.<br /><br />The embarrassing awfulness of this widely praised film cannot be overstated. It begins very badly, as if made to annoy the viewer. Credits interrupt inconsequential scenes for more than 11 minutes. We are introduced to Professor Erika Kohut, apparently the alter ego of the accoladed authoress, a stony professor of piano. She lives with her husky and domineering mum. Dad is an institutionalised madman who dies unseen during what passes for the action.<br /><br />Reviewing The Piano Teacher is difficult, beyond registering its unpleasantness. What we see in the film (and might read in the book, for all I know) is a tawdry, exploitative, nonsensical tale of an emotional pendulum that swings hither and thither without moving on.<br /><br />Erika, whose name is minimally used, is initially shown as a person with intense musical sensitivity but otherwise totally repressed. Not quite, because there's a handbags at two paces scene with her gravelly-voiced maman early on that ends with profuse apologies. If a reviewer has to (yawn) extract a leitmotif (why not use a pretentious word when a simpler one would do), Elrika's violently alternating moods would be it.<br /><br />A young hunk, Walter, studying to become a 'low voltage' engineer, whatever that is, and playing ice hockey in his few leisure moments, is also a talented pianist. He encounters Elrika at an old-fashioned recital in a luxury apartment in what may or may not be Paris. In the glib fashion of so much art, he immediately falls in love and starts to 'cherchez la femme'.<br /><br />Repressed Erika has a liking for hardcore pornography, shown briefly but graphically for a few seconds while she sniffs a tissue taken from the waste basket in the private booth where she watches.<br /><br />Walter performs a brilliant audition and is grudgingly accepted as a private student by Erika, whose teaching style is characterised by remoteness, hostility, discouragement and humiliation.<br /><br />He soon declares his love and before long pursues Erika into the Ladies where they engage in mild hanky panky and incomplete oral sex. Erika retains control over her lovesick swain. She promises to send him a letter of instruction for further pleasurable exchanges.<br /><br />In the meantime, chillingly jealous because of Walter's kindness to a nervous student who is literally having the shits before a rehearsal for some future concert, Erika fills the student's coat pocket with broken glass, causing severe lacerations to those delicate piano-playing hands.<br /><br />The next big scene (by-passing the genital self-mutilation, etc) has Walter turning up at the apartment Erika shares with her mother. Erika want to be humiliated, bound, slapped, etc. Sensible Walter is, for the moment, repulsed and marches off into the night.<br /><br />At this point there's still nearly an hour to go. The viewer can only fear the worst. Erika tracks down Walter to the skating rink where he does his ice hockey practice. They retire to a back room. Lusty Wally is unable to resist the hands tugging at his trousers. His 'baby gravy' is soon expelled with other stomach contents. Ho hum.<br /><br />Repulsed but hooked, perhaps desirous of revenge for the insult so recently barfed on the floor, Walter returns to Erika's apartment. Can you guess what happens now? It's not very deep or difficult. Yes, he becomes a brute while Erika becomes a victim. One moment he's locking maman in her room and slapping Erika, the next he's kicking her in the face, having sex with her and renewing his declarations of love. <br /><br />Am I being unfair in this summary? Watch the film if you want, but I'd advise you not to.<br /><br />Anyone can see eternity in a grain of sand if they're in the right mood. I could expatiate at the challenging depiction of human relationships conveyed by this film if I wanted. But I 'prefer not to', because this is a cheap and nasty film that appeals to base instincts and says nothing.<br /><br />I'm supposed to say that parentally repressed Erika longs for love, ineffectively seeks it in pornography, inappropriately rejects it when it literally appears, pink and throbbing, under her nose, belatedly realises that she doesn't like being hurt, blah, blah, blah.<br /><br />The world has, for reasons not explained, stunted her. She apparently makes a monster out of someone who appeared superficially loving - but surely we all know that any man is potentially a violent rapist, because that's his essential nature however much he tries to tell himself and the world otherwise.<br /><br />At the end, if you have the patience to be there, there's a small twist. Before going to the final scene, where she's due to perform as a substitute for the underwear-soiling student with the lacerated hands, Erika packs a knife in her handbag. For Walter?<br /><br />Yes, you're ahead of me. She stabs herself in a none life-threatening area and leaves. Roll credits.<br /><br />If this earned the second prize at Cannes, just how bad were the rest of the entries?
This movie purports to be a character study of perversion. Some reviewers have been gulled into assuming that because perversion is depicted, the film is psychologically deep; actually, considering the salacious material, it is surprisingly tedious and shallow, with no motivational substance. Why is the main character the way she is? You won't find out from the script. For a better treatment of the same theme (and a more entertaining movie), try Bunuel's Belle de Jour.
Isabelle Huppert is a wonderful actor. The director of "La Pianiste" understands this, providing the viewer with long takes of Huppert's face, and these are a pleasure to see. Huppert is not an animated actor--she registers emotion with the smallest lift of an eyebrow or flicker of a smile.<br /><br />Other than the enjoyment of watching an experienced actor excel in her profession, there is nothing in this movie that makes me want to recommend it. (Well, if you enjoy self-mutilation, sado-masochism, and bizarre behavior, "La Pianiste" might work for you. Other than these attributes, I could not find any redeeming value in it.)<br /><br />Buried in all this strange material there is a kernel of truth. People who compete at the very highest level--musically, athletically, whatever--begin as strange people, and are shaped into stranger people by the competitive environment.<br /><br />Not worth a trip to a movie theater to relearn this life lesson. <br /><br />
I do not fail to recognize Haneke's above-average film-making skills. For example, I appreciate his lingering on unremarkable-natural-day-lighted settings as a powerful way to force a strong sense of realism. However, regarding the content of this film, I am very sad to see that in the 21st century there is still an urge to pathologize domination-submission relations or feelings (and/or BDSM practices). The problem that the main character has with her mother is unbelievably topical as is the alienation and uncomprehension felt by Walter (I don't mean the frustration of a lover which is not loved back in the same way, which is understandable; I mean that he looks upon her as if she were crazy, or as if he was a monk, come on!). I mean D/s is not something new in the world and I think it is rather silly to treat the subject as if it were something "freakish" or pathological; it isn't. In general, films dealing with this subject are really lagging behind the times.<br /><br />So, for me, I feel that this film ends up being quite a programmatical film, worried with very outdated psicoanalitical theories (isn't it nearly embarrassing?), and that does not really relate with real-life lives and experiences of those engaged in D/s relationships (personal experience, forums, irc chatrooms even recent scholar studies will show this).
Well, the artyfartyrati of Cannes may have liked this film but not me I am afraid. If you like the type of film where shots linger for so long that you wonder whether the actor has fallen asleep or the cameraman gone for lunch then it may be for you. A large part of it is like this with short sojourns into the realm of unpleasantness. I did not find it shocking nor disturbing as some other reviewers have - simply a little distasteful and pointless. The only reason I did not give this one star is that the acting is commendable ans the film is fairly well shot. The plot, however, has little to recommend. A large part of the film just shows a grumpy woman teaching or listening to piano, which might appeal to some people. But lest you think this is harmless enough be prepared for some snatches of pornography and sexual violence just to wake you up with a bad taste in your mouth. Not recommended.
Although I can see the potentially redeeming qualities in this film by way of it's intrigue, I most certainly thought that the painfully long nature in the way the scene structure played out was too much to ask of most viewers. Enormous holes in the screenplay such as the never explained "your father died today" comment by the mother made it even harder to try to make sense of these characters.<br /><br />This won first place at Cannes in 2001 which is a shock considering. Perhaps the French had been starved for film noir that year and were desperate for something as sadistic as this film. I understood the long scenes as a device to keep the viewer as uncomfortable as possible but when matched with the inability to relate to the main character it went too far for me and kept me at arms distance from the story altogether.<br /><br />This is a film for only the most dedicated fan of film noir and one who expects no gratification from having watched a film once it's over. I LOVED movies such as "Trainspotting" or "Requiem for a Dream" - which were far more disturbing but at least gave the viewer something in the way of editing and pacing. To watch this teachers slow and painful silence scene after scene just became so redundant that I found it tedious - and I really wanted to like this film at every turn.
I rented the video of "The Piano Teacher" knowing nothing about it other than what was written on the video box. I did this with some trepidation because films that win awards at Cannes are usually very good or very bad. Unfortunately, this one falls in the latter category. About one quarter of the way into it I found myself saying out loud, "This movie is boring." About half way through I was saying to myself, "Where have I seen this before?" At the three quarters mark I had figured it out.<br /><br />In spite of its literary origins, this film is essentially a remake of Robert Altman's much earlier (1969), and better, "That Cold Day in the Park." Although the details obviously differ and Altman's work was more plot-driven and less of a character study, the two films are thematically identical. There is nothing "new" to be seen in this production. Every aspect of it has been done before: a character spiralling out of control with increasingly self-destructive behavior (Abel Ferrara's "Bad Lieutenant" 1992); a perverse and doomed 'love' culminating in an operatic (near) death scene (David Cronenberg's "M. Butterfly" 1993); uncommonly brutal sex scenes (David Lynch's "Blue Velvet" 1986); and so on. Hence, I am bemused by the fact that so many found the film to be "shocking," "shattering," etc. This highly derivative film seems to have been made for the sole purpose of making viewers feel uncomfortable, and clearly succeeded with some. However, I largely attribute such a reaction to a lack of film-viewing experience. See enough movies and you really will, eventually, have seen it all. And while it is true that I saw the expurgated 'R-rated' version, I doubt that the additional scenes would change my overall opinion of "The Piano Teacher."<br /><br />Technically, the film is not without merit. There is some very good camera work and the lighting is excellent. Isabelle Huppert's creditable performance also helps save it from being a waste of time. This is the first of Haneke's films that I've seen, and if I were to see more I expect I would have the same opinion of him that I have of Ferrara: an interesting director but not nearly the genius others make him out to be. Rating: 4/10.
I read the reviews of this movie, and they were generally pretty good so I thought I should see it. I'm a big Francophile and art film lover, but I believe this is yet another case in which the critics make something "arty" or "intellectual" into something it is not. I will be blunt: it contains scenes of sexual perverseness that I never, ever wanted to actually see. Obviously, the piano teacher has some major psychological issues, but I really did not want to see them displayed so graphically. The film is, in essence, disgusting. I mean, when I saw Requiem for a Dream, I was repulsed by the last sort of scene with Jennifer Connelly, but that was not anywhere near the sort of disgust and repulsion I felt during this film.
The basic plot of 'Marigold' boasts of a romantic comedy wherein the film industry is kept as a backdrop. An American actress Marigold, played by Ali Carter gets stuck in India. Worse that, she is out of money. She then decides to play a small role in a Bollywood musical, so that she can earn enough money to get back to her nation. Here she gets to meet Indian choreographer Prem, played by Salman Khan. Basically, the movie fails at the script level. Just by calling a film a Hollywood venture doesn't guarantee quality cinema. Marigold stands out as the best example. The art direction is weak and outdated. Musically, Marigold turns out to be a dud. Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy's is far from being acknowledged as a decent hear. Actingwise, Salman delivers of his most amateurish performances till date. Ali Larter is good and has immense screen presence. Performance wise too, she is good.<br /><br />One can also find good reviews regarding this movie at http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=36310
To me Bollywood movies are not generally up to much, though they are still quite desired and Bollywood is a big file maker as they have their own fans.<br /><br />The only motive that made me watch the movie was to see to what extent an American actress could change or affect the logic that Indian movie were based on. Not only did not it change the movie story also this blending caused some ridiculous series of events.<br /><br />I mean it is quite common to see heaps of illogical things through Indian movies as they have their own world in their movies. But once you see such incidents happen to an American it makes you laugh. For God's sake can you believe a famous American actress is stuck in desperate situation and feel impotent. Can you imagine an American actress falls in loves with a dance instructor whose fiancée already fell in love with American's boy friend and they met each other at the same time. There were lot of similar things to mention. the less said the better.<br /><br />Perhaps I was wrong as I expected too much from Indian Movies.
I really like Salman Kahn so I was really disappointed when I seen this movie. It didn't have much of a plot and what they did have was not that appealing. Salman however did look good in the movie looked young and refreshed but was worth the price of this DVD. The music was not bad it was quite nice. Usually Indian movies are at least two to three hours long but this was a very short movie for an Indian film. The American actress that played in the movie is from the television hit series Heroes, Ali Larter. Her acting had a lot to be desired. However she did look good in the Indian dresses that she wore. All the movie had not a lot to be desired and I hope Salman does a lot better on his next movie. Thank you.
To put in simple words or rather a word, would be best suited by PATHETIC !!!!!! The movie starts with attracting a little interest by the plot, but, BUT as few minutes by audience is getting restless for restrooms and getting snacks, or to get a breathe of fresh air outside the closed dark hall....<br /><br />It seems like watching a movie from 1960's where colors were dull, directed by a debutant, and acted by high school students ! Movie revolves about a American high headed actress trying make a comeback into films by acting in one of the not-so-great Indian movie. Her acting is real Sad complimented by the worse dialogue delivery.<br /><br />OverAll: i would not recommend anyone to watch this movie Still want to watch: Then try watching it at home, when some TV channel airs it, believe me it would be fun as this movie would not get a Single advertisement and no sponsors.<br /><br />And better carry a aspirin, u might need it if you cant find a remote control to change channel ! p.s. I have no clue, if the other reviewers even watched the movie ? i did and wasted my $10 on the ticket !
wow...I just watched this movie...American people have this stereotypical view towards Hindi films such as, ALL Indian films have dances, songs and a love story....Its pathetic how far away from the truth that is. This film simply exposes the stereotypical western view of Hindi films. Horrible acting, horrible direction, horrible cinematography. And all this by a Hollywood director. Most Indian films today are much more content driven, realistic, touching and meaningful than this piece of crap. Indian cinema (not just Hindi) also cover a variety of different subjects. Just like most other Hollywood films these days, this shows a very stereotypical view of of another country, where truth is thrown out the window. This is a highly NOT recommended movie. Instead watch good Hindi films like black Friday, eklavya, omkara, khakee, awarapan, gangster, don, zakhm, dor, sholay, mother India, lagaan...Those films are what real Indian cinema are all about.
this movie was really bad. it has that quality that a lot of indie movies have: moments of humor filled with long spaces that are completely boring. Any die-hard BAM magera fan will prolly like this movie, but then again thats probably the only person who would see it. someone gave me this movie to watch knowing i am a fan of Jackass and was a fan of viva la bam, before the scripted nature of that show wore thin. To explain why this movie doesn't work i should just say the premise itself is played out<br /><br />a guy who is with a girl who is horrible to him. And pretty much the whole movie you've got this Ryan Dunn guy whining and Bam magera skipping around like a merry mischief maker. Dicamillo's performance is strange at best. It's a humorous little nonspecific Canadian french accent that pretty much is the extent of his performance (basically funny for 5 minutes and then its like 'ok you're pretending to be foreign enough already")<br /><br />Maybe it would work if they were going for parody but all they succeed in doing is making a movie with an IQ of zero. I love toilet humor as much as the next guy, but this isn't even lowbrow its just stupid. Its like the only humor to be gotten from this movie is completely inside and the audience, even those savvy to Magera and company, are left out of the joke.<br /><br />Next time magera is handed a sack full of money let's hope he doesn't blow it on some lousy pet project
I did not think Haggard was the funniest movie of all time I like CKY and Viva La Bam a lot more. I think a lot of it was just really stupid and had no plot for being a movie. I highly recommend not paying a lot of money for this movie but anyone who likes viva la bam, CKY, or Jack Ass should see it. I loved many parts of the movie and then there were parts that should have been cut out. I think that Jonny Knoxville should have played in the movie because he is a much better actor then most of the people from Haggard and probably could have made this movie allot more funnier. I think Ryan Dunn was probably the best actor and it should have had bam skating more.
I kind of like Bam Margera, so I was curious. <br /><br />But watching a home production with somebody elses friends and family, with a decent camera and a sound guy, just isn't good film-making. <br /><br />Writing, direction, acting and editing is abysmal at best. But I sat through half of it. And why?<br /><br />This film gives perfect examples of what not to do, it is a film student's dream of what to avoid at every stage of the process. Cram it into film school curiculums all over the joint!<br /><br />So thanx Bam! Now I know Jackass is for real - cause you ain't looking to win an Oscar, dude:)
I like CKY and Viva La Bam, so I couldn't resist this when I saw it for £1.99 in Gamestation. It is Bam Magera's debut scripted film, penned by himself and Brandon Dicimaillo, and stars the entire CKY crew (Ryan Dunn, Raab Himself, Rake Yohn, Jenn Rivell, Don Vito etc etc). Brandon also is in charge of the artistic direction - which is one of the film's greatest merits - its quite CKYish in its colour style - but also shows progression.<br /><br />Basically it follows (very loosely) Ryan Dunn's break up with girlfriend Glauren (played by Jenn). Vilo (played by Bam, named after Vilo Valo by any chance?) and Falcone (Bran) play his best mates who reek havoc by doing various stunts.<br /><br />Its a bit like the CKY films but with a linear storyline (which is very basic indeed) and poor acting. Its strange, the usually super charsmatic gang seem to have the life sucked out of them when they know what their meant to say next.<br /><br />The acting and script is pretty appalling for the most part, but the second half of the film is much better than the first (90 mins is a stretch for the flick though), and there are a number of redeeming factors, such as Tony Hawk's cameo, Dicimaillo's sub plots such as 'The Futurstic Invention Awards' and 'The Diamond Bike', the soundtrack is also very strong (its not ALL cKy and HIM - in fact Bomfunk MC's steal the film in terms of its use of music). In the second half of the film the sense of fun is much more real - especially since Don Vito has a fairly prominent role in the latter part - and he seems to steal every scene he is in.<br /><br />The film will appeal to those who like the CKY antics, but only because of the core material and not the filler or story line bullshit. Oh, and will someone tell Bam that skating montages, especially in films, is sooo 1998.<br /><br />However, the best part of the package on the DVD is not the film - but the 40 mins 'Making Of' doc.<br /><br />The last 20 minutes of the documentary deal with Raab Himself's alcholism and the crew's real feelings towards each other amazing candidly (as usual Bam comes across as a bit of a dick, especially towards Raab's drink problem and Ryan Dunn comes across as a really nice down to earth guy). The last ten mins of the documentary deal with a friend (who is an infrequent CKY member) trying to kick heroin whilst staying at the Magera household with the crew - and a caring unitary side of gang (espcially Ape and Ryan) really comes across - a startling gem in an otherwise dull DVD.<br /><br />For £1.99 I'm very satisified - although I hope Bam stays to the improvised and short skits from now on.
I've just watched Fingersmith, and I'm stunned to see the 8/10 average rating for the show.<br /><br />Not only was the plot was difficult to follow, but it seems character development was randomly applied.<br /><br />The actors were adequate, but in the process of attempting to create twists and turns, their characters are rendered entirely one dimensional. Once this happens, the story really falls flat and becomes tedious.<br /><br />And just in case anyone didn't see the predictable lesbian undertones from miles way, this is hammered home in the most banal terms at the end of the film.<br /><br />The end scene is disappointing and phoned in, and anyone who sat back and went "Ohhh, so they were carpet munchers all along!", must have been out for the evening.<br /><br />Two stars for the tonsil hockey in the earlier scene which was at least a bit raunchy, none for the rest of it...
I couldn't stand to watch very much of this crap. This is your standard junk that certain annoying women love- old English era drama with lots of costumes and cliché characters that seem to be plucked from either directly from oliver twist or some other dickens novel. This uses the usual clichés from the Victorian era. Certain idiotic people really think that the whole emotional torture of that culture being so bloody repressed is somehow fascinating and romantic. This is sap, pure and utter junk and boring as watching grass grow. As such it is perfect for women who crave some sort of English countryside snoozer romantic drama in a Victorian setting but for this man this movie is nothing but torture and cruel and unusual punishment to watch a bunch of drab boring scenes with unoriginal characters speaking in that wretched forced and fake English accent.
and parading around a 14-year-old girl in a thong swimsuit is one of them. To fans of this movie, I'd like to ask: would you allow your daughter to walk around a resort dressed like that? And would your 14-year-old be able to handle the reaction she'd get from men? If yes, I'd like to know why, on both counts. A suit like that is a clear invitation to men; it's hypocritical to suggest that's not. <br /><br />And on another point, what teenage girl would ever claim her father was her lover, without the excuse of severe mental problems? That's almost as disgusting as the swimsuit. <br /><br />Simply put, some things are just not funny or appropriate, and they never will be.
I have really enjoyed several movies by Gérard Depardieu and expected I'd like this movie a lot more than I did. The biggest reason was that I just didn't find the movie very interesting or funny--so, it didn't hold my interest. Also, although he does NOT sleep with his headstrong daughter, the idea that she is lying by telling everyone that he is her much older lover is just plain icky! Yes, I know there is no incest and I know that nobody around them knows he really is her father, but I found that any kid passing her dad off as her sexual paramour is too yucky and prevents the movie from truly being funny. In addition, I really didn't like this little brat very much. Apart from her lies, she seemed very sassy and self-involved. I would have preferred if somehow she'd gotten her "come-uppance" and somehow been punished, as I just didn't like her.
About one step above an Olsen's twins film, there's a nary a surprise in store here except for how repulsive the bloated, hunchbacked Depardieu looks walking around the beach without a shirt on. This guy was supposed to be some sort of heartthrob? Quasimodo hubba hubba? Well, whatever.<br /><br />Katherine Heigl's a great actress, whose career over the last several years has displayed a lot of her potential as both a comedic and dramatic actress, but this movie definitely didn't do anything to offer her a break-out role. Her vapid character lacks any trace of personality or self-esteem, spending her entire vacation crushing on a cute boy that she thinks is the greatest guy in then world (basically because he's a cute boy), yet she can't be honest with him for two seconds. Ladies, let me tell you something; if a guy's really into you, he's not going to stomp off in a huff because you tried to pass your dad off as your boyfriend. He may be a little confused about why you'd do something so silly, contrived, and um...incestuous, but in the end it's just going to be something you'll laugh together about.<br /><br />The plot and dialogue hits every clche' right on cue. No originality and no wit...but it's rilly, rilly SWEET and Ben's rilly, rilly cute so viewers who think Titanic is the greatest movie ever made will of course say this movie is great because they won't notice that it doesn't have a brain in its head. One star.
I bought this movie hoping that it would be another great killer toy movie. I am a big fan of the Child's Play series and was hoping to see the same here. Boy, was I wrong. Most of the movie was not the least bit scary, plus the only time we really see Pinocchio "alive" is the final few scenes of the film. The little girl in the film, her acting is so bad it's almost laughable. Plus, the ending never showed what happened to the puppet or what made them put the little girl in a asylum or wherever she was at the end of the film. So, in my opinion this movie is the worst of the "killer toy" genre. If you want a good killer toy series, stick with the Child's Play franchise. Pinocchio's Revenge is a waste of money and time.
When I first heard about this movie, I eagerly went out to rent it, believing (mistakenly) that it was one of those so-bad-it's-fun movies and that I was in for a treat. I was wrong.<br /><br />For starters, the pace is agonizingly, mind-numbingly slow. The pace doesn't even begin to pick up until the last 15-20 minutes of the movie! The plot was boring, and the ending was nonsensical and confusing. For those looking for a cheesy horror movie with cheap thrills, look elsewhere. This movie provides the cheesiness in spades, but is sorely lacking in "thrills," cheap or otherwise.<br /><br />Try "Child's Play," instead.
This seemed really similar to the CHILD'S PLAY movies except so much worse. A lawyer tries to save a criminal, who was convicted of killing his son, from execution. She fails. The lawyer's daughter then finds a puppet that the killer had buried with his son and is immediately attached to it. Then after several people are seriously injured they find the little girl secretly talking to the doll saying that she didn't hurt anyone. Throughout this movie I found myself asking myself ' why am I watching this cheeze?' over and over. The end sucked so bad that I went and watched the Disney cartoon version right after and slept with the light on.
Child´s Play made a new genre of horror,THE KILLER DOLLS,Some of this films has not got too much money for make it but I think that the only film that make shadow to Chucky is this.Ok it´s a tipical product direct to video or direct to tv but Pinocchio is not real and the killer is the little girl.The imagination of children are too big and this film play with it.The roles are good and Candance Mckenzie is great.<br /><br />
Pinocchio's revenge is not a good movie. Nor is it terrible.<br /><br />The acting was wooden at least on Pinocchio's part.The puppet had all of 2 expressions.As did most of the actors,except strangely enough...the secondary characters...most of them were enjoyable over the top.<br /><br />The special effects in this are pretty "B" and as I said earlier the puppet really blew.<br /><br />The 2 best scenes in the movie are the knife through the hand...looked pretty good,i think they spent about a 1/3 of the budget on that...and the shower scene...WOW...I think they must have spent the other 2/3rds of the budget on talking the actress who did that scene to do it.Outstanding.<br /><br />Seriously this is a slightly below average "b" horror puppet movie...rent Chucky if you have a urge to see puppets kill.<br /><br />The story had a few interesting idea's, enough to keep me watching it to the end.
I was really disappointed after viewing Pinocchio's Revenge the other night. I had a good inclination that it was going to be a bad one, but I didn't think that it'd be as bad as it turned out. A wooden puppet of a murdered boy falls into the hands of an attorney's eight-year-old daughter. From there, it is a murderous path for anyone who gets in the way between the puppet and the little girl. We've seen movies like this before, i.e. the Child's Play series, which is by the way, far better. However, it was good to see actors like James W. Quinn and Todd Allen. Both of which have worked under Kevin Tenney before. In any event, I encourage viewers to check out "Night Of The Demons" and the original "Witchboard." These are titles that tend to bring out the best in Kevin S. Tenney.
I have never seen a B movie like this one... on the part that the nanny Sofia is being killed... a hand of a woman appears on the tape handling the stick... how bad is that??? LOL, I seriously laughed and wanted to stop seeing the movie, but I kept watching it to see if this movie could get worse...LOL...it is bad for itself... poor Pinocchio.. the only nice bit is the first time you see some special effects of Pinocchio's face moving... apart from that the whole movie is awful... it's not really worth your time if you don't really have much to spare! But if you have nothing to do... go on... treat yourself with some "Z" movie cos B-movie is still too good for this one...LOL
....You get this stupid excuse of a Child's Play rip-off! Man, what were they thinking? First they mess with a Rumpelstiltskin horror movie then they make crap like this. Fariy Tale haters! Well to be honest, I've seen this as a kid, and it scared me a bit a lot, simply because I was under aged with the assumption that Pinocchio wouldn't do that, wah wah wah. But I've grown and come to think of this as Child's Play rip, a fairy tale bashing nonsense, and a lame Tales From The Crypt episode, or trying to be one at least, with a lame ending that was stupid, and it had many plot holes, and I still can't understand how it came to life. Was it the work of an evil Geppetto? Then what, after a few evil deeds, he becomes a real boy who becomes America's Most Wanted? Personally, I think the concept of an evil Geppetto sounds better, he builds an army of wooden killers, and starts a crime wave, funny. But this is awful, awful, awful, awful, AWFUL! AWFUL! Stinky like a shoe, and awful! IT SUCKED IT SUCKED! If you want killer puppets, settle for the killer doll, specifically Child's Play, instead, no strings attached. Or if you want a fairy tale figure turned upside down, watch Leprechaun, or if you want Pinocchio, watch the animated Disnet version or live version with Jonathan Taylor Thomas and Martin Landau instead. >>>>> -10/10(negative 10)
This movie is just plain dumb. Don't bother watching it; believe me, you're better off.<br /><br />Long and short of the plot: a defense attorney represents a man who murdered his son and other children. In defending him, she comes across a wooden doll of Pinnochio. She takes the doll home. Pinnochio is possessed and begins to start killing people.<br /><br />This movie moves very slowly only to have such a weak ending. The plot is very bad and the Dennis Michael Tenney's musical score is pitiful. The story, written by Kevin S. Tenney, is just pointless and evokes NO horror or fear. This is a far cry from his work on Night of the Demons and Witchboard, which are decent outings but nothing to write home about. His directing is OK, but with such a bad story no one could have made this movie any good.<br /><br />In conclusion: 2 out of 10, perhaps the blandest, most boring movie I've seen all year.
Before watching this film (at a screening attended by the director herself) we were informed this had won the short film prize at the Galway Film Fleadh. Surely this result will give filmmakers hope, anyone can do better than this!<br /><br />How anyone cannot notice the flagrant rip-off of Donnie Darko in this I'll never know. The film is pure drivel, the acting cardboard, the dialogue ridiculous & the ending just flat! The only crumb of comfort we enjoyed after seeing this rubbish was to loudly comment on how dreadful it was, in front of the director! Yes that was mean, but liberating!<br /><br />At least Irish film-making can't sink any lower!
I sincerely wonder why this film was ever made. A Bulgarian-Italian co-production set in a version of Berlin where all Germans speak English with a German accent and all Turks speak English with some Turkish words in between, is hardly credible. The English vocabulary is basically limited to "fuck you, bastard" and the acting is worse than anyone can imagine. Apart from this, racial tensions in Germany can be an interesting subject but in the Germany I know there are no gangs shooting each other in the middle of the street in clear daylight. And if all that is not enough, there is also a serial killer going around who kills Turkish children and paints them white. In order to create some tension, we see the serial killer and hear him hum Schubert's lullaby but we won't see his face. <br /><br />I don't even believe they actually shot it in Germany. There are some street shots that are quite obviously in Berlin, but the actors are not seen in those shot. It's probably Bulgaria with some German signs added here and there.
This is probable one of the worst movies i have ever seen.<br /><br />The only reason i gave it 2 stars out of 10 is the appearance of the gorgeous Lydie Denier in some of the scenes.Despite her 42 years she is an amazing woman in every aspect,her nude scene in the bathroom with Armand Assante is as hot as hell.<br /><br />Anyway about the movie,well nothing really interesting to say,a Neonazi and a Turkish gang fight over Berlin in scenes that include people open firing on the street in daylight and inside a club where 30-40 people fire at each other with machine guns in a place no bigger than my house and amazingly after some hours of firing just three die and ten are injured LOL.<br /><br />While the gangs fight over Berlin terittories a serial killer is killing young children and then dumps them painted white on various places around town.<br /><br />Armand Assante appears as the Turkish detective who although now working for the police was an ex leader for the Turkish gang and now is up to solve the serial killer crimes.<br /><br />The movie is obviously a very bad rip off of the classic M movie.The killing of the children,the involvement of the underworld,the character of the serial killer and the ending scene with the "trial" of the serial killer are more than influenced from this classic movie.<br /><br />The acting is terrible,the script just stupid,the production of the lowest standards possible and in general this was a great waste of time and money.<br /><br />Don't even bother renting this one.
First I have to say that I really love Udo Kier and have always had respect for Armand Assante but nothing could save this train wreck of a movie. Udo does not even appear till much later in the movie and the acting from Everyone is just terrible. The script is all over the place, the dialog is wooden, the "action" is laughable and the plot could be summed up on a dirty cocktail napkin. I really wanted to find something redeeming in this movie but found myself holding my hands over my eyes, shaking my head and repeating over and over to myself, "Oh Udo.....why???....Why?????..". If you are a fan of Udo or Armand, please don't watch this movie. It will only make you sad for them.
Well, it wasn't a complete waste. Armand was as usual very good in the movie,,,the whole turks vs German thing was kind of strange because I remember seeing Bulgaria at the beginning of the movie...dint' bother to go back and check...the central theme is about the serial killings with the whole gang warfare loosely woven in. Never saw a movie where the characters looked Italian, supposed to be Turk, taking English(American accent and euphemisms) with German words. The climax was the most intriguing part and there are parts of it that still did not make sense to me. In any case, if you have nothing else better to do, you can watch this movie..
Terrible. Absolutely terrible. Long, confusing and unrewarding. After about three hours of this painful mess the ending truly is the final nail in the coffin. Not even the magnificent, sexy, beautiful goddess Francesca Annis can save this poor adaptation of Agatha Christie's work. The plot drags and drags and time goes by slowly and suddenly you realize that you don't even have any idea of what's going on anymore. By the end even with the usual explanation by the villain there's still a lot that's left unexplained and then… it's over. A complete waste of time and without a doubt one of the worst adaptation's to bear the name of Agatha Christie.
The plot was really weak and confused. This is a true Oprah flick. (In Oprah's world, all men are evil and all women are victims.)
Worse than mediocre thriller about an abused wife who goes on the lam after she is linked circumstantially to the death of her husband and sister. Determined to prove that her husband is alive she follows leads across the state, her peril increasing at each stop. Chasing after her are the traditional 'good-cop' and 'bad-cop' pair of partners. One is convinced of her innocence the other more interested in closing the case and getting home. This pair is often able to corner their suspect but never quite to capture her. All the main players meet up in a remote town in the desert and the truth begins to unfold with deadly consequences for some.<br /><br />Wow! This was a bad movie. The lead acted as if she was tranquilized, The cops couldn't find a suspect if he or she is in the police station (this happens twice) and everyone else is as one-dimensional as can be. Avoid this one at all costs.<br /><br />
Bridget Fonda is the sexually satisfied wife of handsome Hart Bochner. One afternoon she comes home, calls him "honey", and quietly fixes him a drink, only to find that he's sulking. Minutes go by while she compliantly puts up with his frowning silence. Suddenly, he bursts into a rage, accusing her of infidelity in the complete absence of any reason to do so, calls her the C word, slams her head against a cabinet, slaps her around, and winds up flinging her off the second-floor balcony, breaking her hand and a couple of ribs.<br /><br />She wakes up in the hospital where, it is revealed, she is deaf, although we notice that she reads lips perfectly. That avoids all the awkwardness associated with an ASL interpreter or having her squawk words in a simulacrum of language.<br /><br />All right. Let me just lay out the basic plot elements. This beautiful and devoted handicapped woman is beaten by her husband, misunderstood by her elderly mother, betrayed by her sister, has her bank account emptied by unknown hands, almost raped by a fat man who accosts her in a bar, is thought to have murdered her now missing husband, and is pursued by two cops (Kiefer Sutherland and Steven Weber), one of whom is interested only in justice while the other seems to dislike all women and is embarrassed by their presence. The end finds her standing alone at a deserted bus stop with a hand full of cash -- alone, tearful, but brave.<br /><br />Now, a pop quiz. There is only one multiple-choice question. "This story was written by: (a) a man or (b) a woman." Not to sound sexist. One could as easily pose a scenario about a decorated military hero and trained warrior who is captured by his enemies, betrayed by his organization, beaten and tortured, escapes to exact revenge, and winds up with the woman he loves, whom he thought he'd lost long ago.<br /><br />The direction is functional and conventional. When Fonda regains consciousness in a hospital bed, we see from her point of view the faces of the anxious doctors and nurses looking down at her -- that is, at the camera -- an echo of every scene in myriad second-rate movies in which the gurney is being hurriedly wheeled down the corridor and people wearing starched white coats and festooned with stethoscopes hover over the camera.<br /><br />Hart Bochner has played a number of evil people in an interesting way -- some of the characters are stupid ("Die Hard") and some are rather more than plain rude ("And The Sea Will Tell"). His virile handsomeness has a kind of evil tint to it. It would be too easy to cast him as a hero. Nice, intentionally bland performance by Steven Weber as the dumb cop -- maybe the best in the film.<br /><br />Bridget Fonda is interesting too. Her acting range is limited but it's on full display here. What makes her an object of interest is her almost stereotypical beauty. She's like a high school prom queen. Very feminine. Of course she can't help it if she slithers around or moves her hands so gracefully. Neither can she do anything about her nose. For most of its length it's perfectly normal and attractive but at its very tip there is a bump outward that follows the natural flare of her nostrils. The tip of that nose is full of intrigue.<br /><br />As for the movie -- Pfui.
Low-rent version of Ashley Judd's Double Jeopardy. Sutherland is too professional to be bad, but what was Brigit Fonda thinking?!? The Penelope Ann Miller curse continues (Think about it--when has she EVER been in a good movie other than Other People's Money? And I'm not saying she's bad, but all of her movies fail in some way).
This was a very brief episode that appeared in one of the "Night Gallery" show back in 1971. The episode starred Sue Lyon (of Lolita movie fame) and Joseph Campanella who play a baby sitter and a vampire, respectively. The vampire hires a baby sitter to watch his child (which appears to be some kind of werewolf or monster) while he goes out at night for blood. The baby sitter is totally oblivious to the vampire's appearance when she first sees him and only starts to put two and two together when she notices that he has no reflection in the mirror, has an odd collection of books in the library on the occult, and hears strange noises while the vampire goes to talk to the child. She realizes that the man who hired her may not be what she thought he was originally. She bolts out the door, the vampire comes out looking puzzled and the episode is over. I don't know what purpose it was to make such an abbreviated episode that lasted just 5 minutes. They should just have expanded the earlier episode by those same 5 minutes and skipped this one. A total wasted effort.
At first I thought that this one was supposed to be somewhat of a comedy/horror when I had seen the body in the bathtub with the lady just standing there screaming over and over again but as the film proceeded on, it got more and more flat. The plot was silly with a man upset that the prices of real estate have gone up so now he dicides to call up some radio psyciatrist and babble out his fury because he has nothing better to do. Then the law gets involved and tries desperatly to make us feel that they really care who the caller is and go out of their way to track this guy down. One suspect after another are accused. This movie is terrible and the slow moving love scenes of Adrian B. and her husband are boring and made me just fast forward the movie. Avoid it!
Best thing I can say about this porno-horror film is: boobies boobies boobies !<br /><br />Beyond that, this film is made by some Hindu/Indian guy with some background in porn films or such .<br /><br />Plot: Talk-Show host and girlfriend are stalked by a psychopath who is angry over the plight of the homeless and takes it out on, you guessed it, beautiful real-estate agent ladies ! (films like these are why the slasher films of the 80's got a rep for misogyny)<br /><br />This film is not really a Slasher, but has the same sort of implausibilities and stereotypes: the dumb-ass cops, the villain is an old white male, and the women are busty babes . <br /><br />If you like porno-horror, this is your movie, otherwise stay away . (Adrienne fans will get to see her sagging breasts for a second or two)
(Some Spoilers) Dull as dishwater slasher flick that has this deranged homeless man Harry, Darwyn Swalve, out murdering real-estate agent all over the city of L.A because of the high prices that they charge for their proprieties. Looking like an extra from a Clint Eastwood "Spaghetti Western" Harry who's been living in abandoned houses eating dog food get's very upset where his quite lifestyle as a squatter is interrupted. This happens when a number of real-estate agents invaded his space in an attempt to sell the houses, that he's staying at to their potential clients.<br /><br />Joseph Bottome stars in this bottom-of-the-barrel horror movie as radio talk-show host Dr. David Kelly the handsome and popular host psychologist of the KDRX survival line. DR. Kelly is being sued by the family of one of his callers,Tracy, who ended up blowing her brains out while on the air with the doc who couldn't do anything to help her survive her ordeal of taking to him.<br /><br />The real-estate killer gets to talk with Dr. Kelly on the air about his adventures and the police try to get the doc to get his phone number and address, by keeping him on the line, but he refuses to in order not to hurt his rating by having potential callers not call in in fear of being monitored by the LADP. <br /><br />Kelly also is having a hot and heavy affair with a real-estate manager and agent the busty Lisa Grant, Adrienne Barbeau, who's office of sellers are Harry's main victims in he movie. Harry also gets to murder Lisa's main competition in the housing business the chubby and outrageous Barney Resnick, Barry Hope, who threatened to put Lisa out of business by any means possible even if he has to kill her. <br /><br />Getting Berney alone and with his pants down Harry slices his head off while he's being entertained by one of his clients, a hooker, whom he leaves dead and hanging together with the headless Barney. The movie ends with the deranged Harry taking Lisa hostage and having Dr. Kelly try to come to her rescue only to have Det. Shapiro (Robert Miano), looking like e hasn't slept in a week, pop out of nowhere and blow Harry's brains out. Harry quickly come back to life minus the gay matter between his ears and gets himself killed for the second time in the movie by being thrown from a balcony and landing on the ground as a dozen members of the LAPD, M16 cocked and ready, come on the scene.<br /><br />Nothing in the movie "Opean House" worked with the tension laughable to almost non-existent. Even the hot sex scenes between Dr. Kelly and Lisa didn't save the movie since there were far too few,only two, of them and and sexy Adrienne Barbeau was a bit too underexposed, with not enough light and too much clothes on, in all of them.<br /><br />Harry the killer in the movie was also a bit to comical to be taken seriously in trying to make a point, to Dr. Kelly on the phone and in person, about the high rents and real-estate prices in the country and how people like himself find it almost impossible to find a decent place to live in. You can sympathize with Harry's concern about the high cost of living but be very critical of him in how he crazily went on in correcting it.
Lisa Grant (Adrienne Barbeau) is a real estate agent who finds herself in jeopardy of getting killed by a deranged maniac who kills people in her profession who he feels make house prices too high. As motives go, this is pretty damn retarded. Lisa's boyfriend happens to be a talk show host whom the killer keeps calling on-air. At first I was positive this was supposed to be a comedy or satire of some kind, but as the endless minutes drone on and on, I realized that it wasn't and the film was just grossly incompetent in every way, shape, and form. I'm just surprised that something this horrid wasn't directed by Jeff Lieberman (yea, email me some hate mail again, Jeff you hack) Anyway, back to the film, poor, poor Barbeau, you can pinpoint EXACTLY when her film career went down in flames and it all started here.<br /><br />My Grade: F <br /><br />Where I saw it: The Movie Channel
This movie was the slowest and most boring so called horror that I have ever seen. I would include a comment on the plot but there was none. I do not recommend this movie unless you are prepared for the biggest waste of money and time of your life.
Now, let me see if I have this correct, a lunatic serial killer is going around murdering estate agents....okay...what's wrong with that scenario, I can live with that.<br /><br />What next, a slasher with tax inspectors butchered? Traffic wardens sliced to death? Are we supposed to feel any sympathy for empty headed and shallow, money obsessed property people? Er...no.<br /><br />Sadly, joking aside, it's just not a very well made film with poor acting and crude effects, the climatic scene is particularly silly. You can almost see the director shouting, 'action' to the stuntman as he falls through the glass of the window.<br /><br />As another reviewer quite rightly said, after starring in 'The Fog,' this was the nadir of Adrienne Barbeau's career. Therefore I was happy to see that she had rekindled it by becoming the voice of Catwoman in the Batman animated series, while watching the extras on the live action Catwoman film. NB: not quite the awful film it's made out to be, by the way.<br /><br />This however is a bad film, think a poor episode of 'Kojak' or 'Streets of San Francisco,' and you will get an idea of what is on offer here.
... Brian? what the hell were you *on* when you signed to do this?<br /><br />I saw this recently at a festival, and it was greeted by howling laughter throughout. By the time the credits rolled, tears were streaming down the faces of many of the audience. <br /><br />The plot is a clunky melding of 'E.R.' and 'The X-Files'; as cynically aimed at the TV audience as is possible to get without being sued. The sequences involving the abductions are hilarious- both Yuzna's staging of the 'floating from the bed' and 'Screaming Mad George's pathetic plastic aliens drew gales of disbelieving, derisive laughter. <br /><br />Limp, camp and stupid. My only hope is that it was an aberration- As awful as 'Return of the Living Dead 3' was good.<br /><br />Steev
Rented the video with a lot of expectations, but it was a disappointment. The story didn't make sense, the plot was very weak and the special effects.. well, I think even I can do better with my home computer. Sorry. Missed a change here.
A young doctor and his wife are suddenly expecting a child. Both are disturbed about a two hour memory lapse on the night of conception. Interesting twist on an hackneyed story. Very good F/X and interesting editing. Jillian McWhirter is outstanding in a cast that features Arnold Vosloo, Wilford Brimley and Brad Dourif. Brimley brings normalcy to the outlandish. Kudos to director Brian Yuzna.
I love Brian Yuzna's other work, even cruder stuff like 'Necronomicon', but 'Progeny' was too much even for me. My chief complaint is that it's needlessly exploitative of Jillian McWhirter's nudity, I'm no prude but these nude scenes just drag on and on and on... only to culminate (virtually every time) in a tawdry *wink, nudge* insinuation of sexual violence. The scene where she attempts a coat hanger abortion after several minutes of naked screaming is a prime example. Arnold Vosloo's 'performance' is utterly turgid, but even Jeffrey Coombs couldn't save this festering heap of a film. The aliens are boring, the uniformly dull lighting saps your interest, and the plot is absolutely predictable. The only highlights for me were an all-too-brief glimpse of the aliens' true form (very nice model) and the scene where Vosloo finds his wife in the closet was OK too. But you've been warned.
This was not a good film. Poorly scripted and acted - the concept was not new, the effects poor and not a showcase for Arnold Vosloo who really is a half decent actor. I watched this under some protest and only remembered having seen it before towards the very end - it's that forgettable. The acting seemed to consist of a number of glares & looks devoid of any sincerity. I kept expecting this to actually get going and before long I was just hoping it would finish. As for the medical bits - well I wasn't expecting a true version of ER events but this was just comical - I am a Dr so know what I am taking about - and the operative bits were just plain silly.<br /><br />Do not waste your valuable time - unless you have absolutely nothing else to do - go out, ring up a long lost friend, watch paint dry, sort out your sock draw, do some household task. AVOID at your peril.
As a big fan of Brian Yuzna and the majority of the movies he's been involved in, I guessed I'd enjoy Progeny. I didn't, although in ways it has it's moments. However, if you're expecting something of the calibre of Society or Beyond ReAnimator, you could be in for a shock. In a way this is similar to Society, being a tale of a seemingly ordinary world with a horrific supernatural underbelly...but that's where it ends.<br /><br />I'm not covering for Yuzna when I say that the fault doesn't really lie with him, as bad direction is bad direction, but the direction is sound. What trips the movie up is both script and acting. Stuart Gordon (ReAnimator, Dagon) has written an intelligent script, but one that doesn't really work with Yuzna's style of direction, leaving him paused on actors delivering lengthy dialogue when really he wants to throw that camera around and get down with his bad self. This matter makes the movie awkward enough as it is, but there's worse.<br /><br />If the movie had been made with great actors, the movie would have probably held it's own. Unfortunately this is very far from the case. The acting is wooden, shockingly so even for a low-budget B feature. The inexplicably successful and renowned Arnold Vosloo wrecks every damn line with near pinpoint precision, handing in one of the worst performances I've seen in a long while. The man manages to turn every line of well considered dialogue into the kind of ham-line you'll be throwing drunkenly at mates next time you're in the pub. 'Hey Bob! GOOD GOD, AM I GOING MAD! WHAT'S...COME OVER ME! NOOOO!' In fact I may try that one myself next weekend. The last minute addition of genre veteran (and personal favourite) Brad Dourif, instead of enriching the film like it should, almost seems to hand Dourif the movie in a last ditch effort to stop Vosloo from hamming, but quite frankly Dourif looks deeply uncomfortable (possibly waiting for the next assault of bad acting) next to Vosloo, and even an eccentric turn from him fails to resuscitate the film.<br /><br />If the acting was better, this movie would have been okay. Hell, it might have been pretty enjoyable, but the lack of character makes the movie a soulless affair, and makes the horror element seem tacked on and tasteless instead of an organic part of the film. I found the alien torture/rape scenes a little difficult to stomach already, but the fact that the characters were so lacking made them seem gratuitous as well as unpleasant, leaving a nasty taste in the mouth.<br /><br />So, if you really like Sci-fi and don't have a problem with bad acting, pedestrian pacing and a really garish, nasty rape scene, Progeny will probably be your cup of tea. But since I do, I'm probably never going to watch it again. Once was enough. On the plus side, this is the only Sci-Fi movie Yuzna ever bothered to make, so he obviously wasn't really that pleased with it himself.
First of all this is one of the worst soft-core straight to cable "erotic thriller" I've ever seen in my life. Of course, like all erotic thrillers are want to do, it's about a brothel madam and is set in a brothel. This, of course, makes the softcore simulated sex that pops up every other 10 minutes seem "in context." Whatever.<br /><br />Forget for one moment that this was never meant to win any awards. The actors are terrible and their line reading made me cringe. The woman who plays the female cop is so bad it's beyond description. She must be a really REALLY good friend of the guys who put up the movie for this terrible adventure, if you know what I mean.<br /><br />The production values are only slightly higher than porn. Other than that? I suppose if you're really drunk and you need something to laugh at, this would be a perfect film. And if that's the case, I recommend fast forwarding to all the scenes with the female cop. What's that accent, Brooklyn? Hilarious!
This espionage melodrama has a nice, almost promising cast, and should have been very atmospheric; there is a will, or an intention of atmosphere—and also a want, or a lack of it.<br /><br />Sheen plays a dissident who now activates as an agent, he is a loner, loved by women but haughty; Mrs. Fossey is his mistress. Neill plays the gallant, generous, chivalrous Soviet agent.<br /><br />Sheen and Neill are both essentially annoying; Finlay does a cameo, and so do other known actors. Mrs. Fossey is hot; but then again, she always is.<br /><br />I will be your true friend and break it to you—the flick is low on suspense and on excitement, it's trite and quite boring; the good thing is that you get to see Mrs. Fossey naked. Other than that, lukewarm derivative espionage exploitation.
After receiving a DVD of this with a Sunday newspaper, I hoped that it was not the usual duff films that are given away because no one would ever buy them. I was wrong. Sheens acting is on par with that of a ten year old in a school pantomime production and the same goes for the majority of the cast. Neill is satisfactory, but plays a Russian and isn't helped by his hybrid Northern Irish/New Zealand accent, and nor are the rest of the KGB characters, all of whom sound like they're in a Cambridge Footlights reunion. In fact, the only people with genuine accents are extras who supply an odd word here and there, helpfully letting us know at least where the hell everything is going on in what is otherwise a complete mash. The "espionage" factor is unimpressive for the most part and primarily consists of Sheen faffing about in various ridiculous disguises whilst trying to blend into the background, quickly becoming not only boring but laughable. The plot has potential but is completely murdered by the rest of the confusing production elements. This could have been so much better.
This film is bundled along with "Gli fumavano le Colt... lo chiamavano Camposanto" and both films leave a lot to be desired in the way of their DVD prints. First, both films are very dark--occasionally making it hard to see exactly what's happening. Second, neither film has subtitles and you are forced to watch a dubbed film--though "Il Prezzo del Potere" does seem to have a better dub. Personally, I always prefer subtitles but for the non-purists out there this isn't a problem. These DVD problems, however, are not the fault of the original film makers--just the indifferent package being marketed four decades later.<br /><br />As for the film, it's about the assassination of President Garfield. This is a MAJOR problem, as Van Johnson looks about as much like Garfield as Judy Garland. In no way whatsoever does he look like Garfield. He's missing the beard, has the wrong hair color and style and is just not even close in any way (trust me on this, I am an American History teacher and we are paid to know these sort of things!). The real life Garfield was a Civil War general and looked like the guys on the Smith Brothers cough drop boxes. Plus, using some other actor to provide the voice for Johnson in the dubbing is just surreal. Never before or since has Van Johnson sounded quite so macho!! He was a fine actor...but certainly not a convincing general or macho president.<br /><br />In addition to the stupid casting, President Garfield's death was in no way like this film. It's obvious that the film makers are actually cashing in on the crazy speculation about conspiracies concerning the death of JFK, not Garfield. Garfield was shot in Washington, DC (not Dallas) by a lone gunman with severe mental problems--not a group of men with rifles. However, according to most experts, what actually killed Garfield (over two months later) were incompetent doctors--who probed and probed and probed to retrieve a bullet (to no avail) and never bothered cleaning their hands or implements in the process. In other words, like George Washington (who was basically killed by repeated bloodletting when suffering with pneumonia) he died due to malpractice. In the movie they got nothing right whatsoever...other than indeed President Garfield was shot.<br /><br />Because the film bears almost no similarity to real history, it's like a history lesson as taught from someone from another planet or someone with a severe brain injury. Why not also include ninjas, fighting robots and the Greek gods while you're at it?!?! Aside from some decent acting and production values, because the script is utter cow crap, I don't recommend anyone watch it. It's just a complete and utter mess.
Ya know, I have no idea how everybody else's teenage life was, but this does not reflect the folks I knew and hung around with let alone, myself. And just in case if you're wondering..NO..we weren't pristine/clean cut/Pat Boone type teens. (If there was ever such a thing!!!!)<br /><br />Look, I'm NOT saying being a teenager is easy. The better, well actually the BEST teen movie of this time is "Fast Times at Ridgemont High". Now those kids I knew and were as realistic as it got back then (and maybe now).<br /><br />This was crap. This was a low rent version of Fast Times and even then it didn't do much for me. It had a few moments, but not enough for me to recommend this, or even claim "this is how it was for teens back in 1982". I couldn't relate. The lead girl (girls) did nothing for me and please if they really wanted to keep their virginity, they would have, in which case, this film would not have been made. Pure crap and a bad staple to be left behind as a time-capsule cinema for teens/young adults in the early '80's.
i wrote an essay in 1981, the year i graduated high school called the "last American virgin." i also had a friend named nancy who was the prostitute in this film. apparently her daughter got a hold of my essay one night when she slept over my house. a year later i wake up one morning and see the advertisement for this film. i was 18 years old & based the essay on experiences in my life. the film is a bit different from my essay but definitely taken from it. i did not have any proof of this matter except my English teacher mr.Versace who gave me an A on my essay.i let it go & never did anything about it.i figured what comes around goes around.i still would not take any action against anyone involved in this film. i just needed to get it off my chest, as i really never told anyone about it, except my closest friend & they agreed to keep it a secret.the same year it came out i saw nancy in a market, she actually had the nerve to ask me if i had any good stories or scripts for her to look at. i guess thats what Hollywood is all about, getting stories from wherever you can.it was interesting seeing parts of my life on the big screen though.<br /><br />ghost writer!
Well the film starts good, but after half an hour it becomes boring and stupid, when all the plot is about Karen's( that was the name of the girl right?) pregnancy.<br /><br />The end of the movie it's really corny and the characters really dumb.<br /><br />I don't know who is more stupid, if the girl because she came back with her old boyfriend or the boy for the way he was used for her.<br /><br />Anyway my conclusion is this: definitely not the best eighties comedy, just another movie like many others with nothing special, they could do it better but they ruined it, if only the plot had take another way but they keep that pregnancy stuff and they definitely ruined, so final conclusion: i don't like.
This thing takes the horny teenager genre, very poorly respected to begin with, and completely flushes it down the toilet. The only people I would even consider recommending it to are teenage girls, for a "revealing" scene in a boys' locker room. And in the end I wouldn't make such a recommendation. To do so would be to contribute to the delinquency of a juvenile. An absolute piece of garbage with utterly no redeeming qualities.
Having seen just about every movie on record that a child of the eighties could have seen, this ranks at the very, very, very bottom of the heap of bad movies I have ever seen. It's depressing and just plain, painful to watch. Nuff said.
Sex,Drugs,Rock & Roll is without a doubt the worst product of Western Civilization. The monologues are both uninteresting and pointless In the rare monologue that captures the audience's attention it is quickly lost through overly long repetition and unnecessary additions (The Hells Angels at McDonalds comes to mind) I guess Bogosian's one man show needed some filler material to give a length that he thought justified the price of admission.<br /><br />I would rather sleep with my aunt and be hung upside down and drained of my blood than see Sex,Drugs,Rock & Roll again.
I can imagine why he'd want to die, after starring in this rubbish. The man is incredible, but even Sidney Poitier couldn't save this tiresome morality play about racism in the old West. He and Joanna Going are both fantastic in this film: too bad the screenplay, co-stars, directing, and score couldn't match those two.
I'm a big fan of sleaze and horror movies, when you put them together that's my sweet spot: horrible sleaze. You're not going to get it in this film, though.<br /><br />There is certainly sleaze, in the form of girls being kidnapped and tortured, tied naked to various things. The sleaze isn't very sleazy, though. It didn't register very high on my sleaze meter, mainly because none of the girls were in the least attractive, nor did they attempt to act as if they were even threatened. They seemed to be thinking more about what was for lunch, or maybe when they could score some crack.<br /><br />Forget the effects, they were lame in the extreme. The lameness was contributed to by the bad acting; effects are harder to believe when even the actors and actresses aren't buying into them.<br /><br />Cinematography was pretty bad, they could have hired a couple cameramen from a porn movie and done better. In fact, that might have raised the sleaze factor enough to make it enjoyable. As it is, there are a lot of dark shots where you can't see very clearly, and what you can see isn't looking too good.<br /><br />The horror factor is nil. Null. Zero. Nada. Zip. Zilch. I've seen kids movies that were more frightening. There's no camp here, either. It's just a movie that attempts to be shockingly sleazy, but doesn't even come close.
This movie was absolute trash. The director and stars(?)should be banished from making movies forever. The paper-thin plot concerns a sleazy director played by the sleazy director (now thats acting) advertising on the internet for women to star in a snuff movie. <br /><br />There's no horror at all, the girls look strung-out and bored, the direction is pointless, the music is misplaced (heavy metal in a library scene?), and the lighting is awful. The director should have cashed in a couple more shopping carts full of aluminum cans and gotten a script, sober actors, and a few light bulbs. As it is, this is one disgusting, nasty, worthless mess of a movie.
Could easily have been better. In fact maybe so much so that if the filmmaker hadn't tried even as hard as he did, it might have actually been better.<br /><br />On a good note. The lighting was reasonably okay. But pretty much everything else was lacking. Wobbly camera work. (Yeah, yeah, I know, that's supposed to be the style now.) Poorly recorded audio. And editing that looked like someone watched too many Ulli Lommel movies (which are some of the worst edited movies.) To sum it up, the movie seemed to be a rationalization for the director/writer/main-character to get some young women naked, put them in fake bondage, and grope them, while saying "menacing" things.
Kill the scream queen may sound like a good slasher flick but it is terribly boring and very dumb.<br /><br />Kill the scream queen is about a crazy filmmaker who auditions girls to be in his snuff film. He rapes and tortures them. This is trash that is not amusing, suspenseful or entertaining.The killer has no motive,okay maybe hes just sick...and very dull. Maybe they could of gave a victim a story of their own. Anything could be an improvement. It needed a lot more.<br /><br />They could of put just a little more into it. I love horror/slasher films but this is ridiculously bad.
While I was watching this movie I never thought I'd be defending it. It's honest enough from the begininning about not having much of a plot. There's no real characters to latch onto except the killer. Some of the acting can be better, but most of it is capable.<br /><br />I know, a three out of ten isn't stellar, but there are reviews saying it was shot poorly and completely useless, etc. I think it set out to do what it's supposed to fairly well. The lighting is minimal at times, more natural than most audiences are used to, but it's supposed top look like a camcorder snuff film. In fact, at times the quality is probably still too high to be true to that, but nobody would make it through tne minutes of camera work that's truly that bad.<br /><br />It's not particularly scary, but it is disturbing at times. There are one or two characters who don't come across as believable at all and the soundtrack does get tiring at times, but overall it was put together cleaner than a lot of camcorder movies.
who reads these comments may think we may have in hand a great movie. I am Portuguese and I'm ashamed that this film became a blockbuster in Portugal. It can't really call this cinema. The direction and "mise-en-scene" is basic (even Ron Howard does better!); the script is bad and pretentious (a really bad Tarantino); the cast is covered in TV stars, models and reality show stars that don't no nothing about acting. When you put in a movie this ingredients of course that the fans of this kind of TV shows will all go see. i am also surprised that people who make comments here in IMDb say that this movie is a masterpiece. I thought that this site was only for people who truly like cinema and understand a little bit of it. All the movies made to be blockbusters in Portgal always use the same ingredients and are always awful. if you think this movie is reasonable, please don't say your love movies and cinema.
Any movie should have an idea; Simple or more complex, it needs one... The problem with Fragata,..it's once more, that when he decides to make a movie, he so anxious to do "whatsoever" that he forgets this main detail, and as result we have the characters doing whatever without any justification, behaving without justified reasons...they are simple puppets going along the movie on the flavour of the wind. It's boring and sad to see them appearing and vanishing like cards being discarded in a game. Fragata always seem to have talent in advertising is own work...and that leads you to see what he did...but in the end there's always a big disappointment. It's not enough having a movie full of the "hot Portuguese's pink magazine stars"...especially when half of them can't act...they only pretend to be funny. Here my only good point goes to the actor Helder Mendes...one of the few non stars': He makes the effort to establish some credibility, and in such a messy movie without any direction (of any kind) I give him the credit for trying hard. But this movie its worth to check out as a manual of "how to not do a movie"...and if Fragata's previous works where bad...this one it's a "masterpiece" in achieving the title of AWFUL. In few words,..Just check it out! It will make you good,...and if you homemade your family movies,...and always feel bad with your work...so just spend 30 minutes looking to this so "called" professional work...your home made stuff will look like Powerful Hollywood Flicks compare to Sorte Nula.
I'm big into acting, writing, and directing, but not famous yet. My friends and I frequently rent bad movies, just for fun and a good laugh, but when we went to the local Family Video and found a movie called Biker Zombies From Detroit, we knew it was gonna be the worst movie of all time and it was! Biker Zombies From Detroit has no script! They can say they do have one, but they're liars! There was a 4 minute scene of just two guys riffing about women and sexuality, and you could tell it was improvised. And if they're going to improv, it should be at least decent, but it wasn't, and you could tell by the two actors screwing up lines and saying stuff that didn't even make sense.<br /><br />To give you an idea of how terrible and retarded this movie is, here's the beginning: a girl flicks a guy off, he punches her in the face and beats her up, then rapes her. Then we see zombies who attack and they both turn into zombies.<br /><br />This is the beginning of the movie! Not to mention the lead zombie voice over that carries through the whole movie, trying to be sinister and thought provoking, but sounding like Marylin Manson having a conniption fit.<br /><br />Worst movie ever. Bottom line, folks. But watch it if you like movies with no script, no plot, bad acting, bad editing, bad music, and over 100 F words used in the movie.<br /><br />If this can hit video stores, my future films are gonna win Oscars.
Recognizing the picture of the diner on the cover of the DVD made me realize that this was a local movie. The word Detroit in the title furthered my suspecions and I did some looking up of things and yes, a local movie it was.<br /><br />So I picked it up. Someone I knew actually knew some of the producers/director (dont remember which) and said the producers/directors got people to PAY to be in this movie.<br /><br />Brilliant! What a great idea. The movie makers get some capital to do the movie with, thanks to their cast and crew. Then the investors (cast, crew, others) get some of the profits, I'm imagining.<br /><br />Profits!<br /><br />Um anyways. This film totally underwhelmed me. The special effects were special as in special children who ride the small buses to school. The acting was very amusing, not intentionally however. There's a great line where a guy says "well? this bone aint gonna smoke itself!" as a pickup line. Unfortunately that is the only fun part of the whole film. The story? Well, I sort of followed it about 3/5 of the way in, then everything stopped making sense and as we were sitting there watching it, it suddenly ended. I mean as in,..no resolution of anything..like they ran out of time. "Sorry folks, out of time, goodnight!"<br /><br />We sat there baffled and booing, and threw in another film. Then about 20 minutes later a neighbor of mine showed up..with one of the guys from the movie! We threw it back in and he (the actor) gave us a running commentary, which was awesome because he totally ripped on the movie!<br /><br />What more could you ask for??<br /><br />The most absurd scene for me was a motorbike chase scene were it was so dark that it could have literally been a guy running past with a flashlight and not a motorbike at all. That and the jaw droppingly in your face sudden ending is enough to make you howl. In pain! The zombies looked less like zombies than my coworkers do. And I dont work at the morgue either.<br /><br />So, I recommend seeing this if you can get someone from the movie to come over and give you a running commentary as to all the things that went on behind the scenes and make sure this person hates the movie because that just adds to the fun.<br /><br />Otherwise, give this one a pass. Rent something like Feeders if you want a jaw droppingly bad in a funny way movie...
OUCH, No real need to say anything else. This movie actually had me contemplating suicide. As a huge fan of the wonderful genre that is zombie movies I found this to quite possibly be the worst attempt I have ever been privy too. The film never actually seemed to go ANYWHERE! What was the point to it all, I am left feeling hopeless and lost. Hell this was so bad i cant even justify bashing it anymore. I'm just gonna go hang myself in the closet. OK now I tried to submit my comment but the server will only accept comments that are ten lines or more. So here it goes... Bad, horrible, no where near enough gore. NO TITS!!!!!!How can you have a Zombie movie without tits. As a matter of fact the female lead had one hell of a rack and the only reason I watched the film to completion was in order to maybe by chance get a glimpse. NOPE! Of course there was one line that does deserve mentioning, a line I am looking forward to using myself someday (when i just feel the need to get my face smacked) "This hog isn't going to smoke itself" This movie is bad, so bad.
I rented this pile of sewer waste hoping for a few good laughs. With a title like `Zombie Bikers from Detroit' and with Dead Alive productions stamped on the front cover, you would think that this could be a funny/gruesome film, but no. This is the worst movie I have ever seen (and yes, I have seen all of the Police Academy movies). The story (this is a joke within itself) and the dialogue are atrocious. The make up of the so-called zombies looks like they used one of those two dollar `Make yourself look like a Zombie' kits that you buy at K-Mart.<br /><br />I would rather watch Beverly Hills 90210 while listening to the Backstreet Boys and be whipped by a 400lb novelty birthday card model than to sit through another single minute of this pathetic excuse for a DVD. Honestly, I could make a better movie with $3, some popsicle sticks and a slinky. I feel as if 90 minutes of my life were stripped away from me and taken to the land of Suckdom. I know that tagging on the Dead Alive production doesn't guarantee a great flick, but you do expect to get your moneys worth.<br /><br />The only thing that made me happy (save, returning the horrid mass of elephant feces) was that it wasn't titled `Biker Zombies from Pittsburgh'. I feel for Detroit folks that wasted their hard-earned money on this one. Unless you have been lobotomized …. Do not buy, rent if you must … But …. You will regret it.
Evil never looked so bad. They meant it.<br /><br />When a buddy of mine picked this DVD up at a half-priced book store, I didn't know what to expect. I mean, based on the title, I knew it would be worth a laugh, but I didn't realize how laughable it would really be.<br /><br />The first time through, I missed some of the dialogue (if you could call it that) because we were all too busy poking fun at the plot of the movie. It seemed like it was written in filmed in less than a week, and they hadn't the budget to go back and fix some of the minor flaws. Wait, did I say "minor"? I meant the exact opposite. For instance, the main character is credited as 'Ken', but several times throughout the film he is referred to as 'John'. <br /><br />If the plot holes aren't enough fun for you, take a look at the acting. Nobody seems overly concerned about the zombie raids in their state, including the mother of the main character, who is missing for days while she sits in front of a fireplace reading a book.<br /><br />The constraints that the budget puts on the movie are equally as hilarious. Maybe they didn't have a permit to film wherever they were, because during the BIG MOTORCYCLE CHASE SCENE, the characters are obeying all traffic regulations. The zombies, who had just killed twenty or so people, actually stop at a stop sign coming out of a parking lot. I don't even do that, but then again, I'm not a biker zombie. The ending of the movie looks like they just ran out of money. It ends so suddenly that it leaves you wanting more... On second thought, it ends just soon enough.<br /><br />So if you're looking for a good time with your friends, seek out this movie. It's a great unintentional comedy.
As a Michigander, I got the Michigan jokes. Very funny - make fun of Pontiac, Ann Arbor, all those lame suburbs of Detroit. Yes, yes, I've heard these jokes a million times. I'll give them credit for accurately depicting the lameness of Grosse Pointe. It couldn't get more White. Did you hear those lovely Michigan nasal accents? Where the girls talk so fast you can't understand one word that comes out of their mouth (nose)...? As much as I love Michigan, I hated this movie. <br /><br />I have never met one person from Grosse Pointe that I liked. Listen to that awful live band and that annoying and horrid background music! What is that? One of your Gross Pointe homeboy's band? Probably. Wow, what a great "Detroit scene" you guys have over there. Funny how people from Grosse Pointe always say they're from Detroit. They're so White and rich, they wish they had something to complain about.<br /><br />Anyway, this movie blows. All the way from the lame jokes about girls in thongs to the terrible character development. Oh wait a minute, you mean the entire basis for a character is that he says the f-word a lot? What a deep personality. Great job, Grosse Pointers! And I love all the sexist lingo, like how the narrator calls the first girl who gets killed that we never even hear speak a "naive b*tch". That's really lovely.<br /><br />And those homemade masks with the Marilyn Manson contact lenses are really great. And I love how it made perfect sense as to why the bikers came by and killed people. And how their narrating master had such a obvious role in the movie... ?? The main boyfriend dude was so boring I fell asleep looking at him. The three idiot guys (or was it two or four? how can I tell, they all look and act the same!) were so desperately trying to make me laugh, but Beavis and Butthead already got out my butt humor laughs back in 1994. And what's with the gay jokes? No wonder this movie sucked - everyone involved must have some minor problems with their masculinity, eh boys?<br /><br />The only saving grace to this film was the main girl. Despite what the other people on here have said, she actually was a good actress. Teenage girls talk the way she talked. They really act the way she acted. Her acting was very natural and believable. I really thought she was a Grosse Pointe convenience store employee. .. maybe she is! And yeah she had big boobs, most the women here do. Michigan is the fattest state in the union, you know. In all aspects.<br /><br />So, those of you who think this is a representation of Detroit, it's not. It's the suburbs of Detroit. They are very White and full of aimless teen angst. Limp Bizkut, ICP (yes, ICP is from one of our suburbs) and $75 baggy khaki pants all the way! Lame rich kids who are mad because they have lots of money and nothing to complain about. And they make bad movies, too.<br /><br />
Some people may remember Ms. Russell from films such as "Black Widow", which had some appeal and critical acclaim. Boy, she must have really needed a rent check when she signed on to do this dog.<br /><br />Yes, there will be those who like the gratuitous violence and nudity. But one must sit back and wonder, in retrospect, what possessed anyone to spend money and time to make this in the first place. I just saw this movie on one of the "HBO's", and I can't believe they picked it up.<br /><br />In 1996 Ms. Russel didn't have the physical attractiveness she did earlier in her career. But, come on! Having her play Ma Barker??? Her "sons" all look like they could be her brothers. It's also creepy in that you think there are going to be incestuous relationships occurring (thank goodness there aren't, hope that doesn't count as a spoiler). With Eric Roberts and Alyssa Milano added into the cast, this one is B-movie 'straight to video' all the way.<br /><br />The scenes between Purvis and Ma Barker, either in person or on the phone, are a primer in terrible, terrible acting. Oh, wait, I forgot terrible, terrible writing as well. Chalk this one up to experience. A bad experience.
Wow, pretty amazing that something this bad could actually be made. I am giving this movie a 2 because it is so bad it has a certain "car wreck" kind of appeal. Its so bad its comical and that does have a certain entertainment value. Plus there is a bit of gratuitous nudity and that is always appreciated.<br /><br />So where do I begin. The acting is beyond awful, its like you are watching a high school play being filmed. Theresa Russell must have done something really bad to have been forced to make this movie and her acting reflects how happy she is to be in the middle of this mess.<br /><br />The rest of the cast is simply silly with the casting of Dan Cortese as an FBI agent the cherry on the top of this piece of crap. His acting actually had me laughing at loud.<br /><br />As for the screenplay and the directing C. Courtney Joyner and Mark L. Lester should simply be taken out back and shot.
Is this movie as bad as some claim? In my opinion, yes it is. I wasn't going to comment, noting that quite a few comments have already been made, ranging from 'awful' to -not nearly so bad...'. However, I can't resist.<br /><br />What do you make of a movie that has, on the DVD cover. the phrase "the real story of "Ma BArker and her boys...", and the standard "any similarity to actual persons..." disclaimer in the credits? I'm not naive, but in this case, it's a pretty relevant observation regarding this movie.<br /><br />Several comments knock the performances. They are pretty awful, Roberts, Russell, Milano and Stallone have something like 315 movies and TV shows listed between them. They can act, or at least perform.<br /><br />However...the dialog is not to my taste, and quite unintentionally funny at times. The story arcs didn't seem to be anything but the barest minimum required to string specific scenes of violence and melodrama together.<br /><br />Direction and screen writing has to be faulted: Amyrillis giggles after seeing Ma Barker's violent temper and finishes with "Take The Girl!"?????. What ever you think of Alyssa's acting abilities...some screenwriter wrote that line or reaction, and/or some director shot it, and said, 'OK, that's good enough, no need to retake that, that's credible...' One footnote: I did pick up my copy for $1.99 or $2.99 in a grocery story discount bin; the running time is shown as 91 mins, and I note that the running time is listed on IMDb as 95 mins. I don't know what 4 minutes I'm missing, but I acknowledge that if those 4 minutes were of the right sort of person in the right sort of situation, my rating might soar to 3 or 4 out of 10. As I saw it, 1 / 10 is what I must vote.
It's too kind to call this a "fictionalized" account of the Barker gang. They got the names right, but that's about it.<br /><br />Russell is still hot, I'll grant you that, but this is not the real Ma Barker, who basically took care of the boys by cooking and assisting when they moved around the country, not by planning or participating in the crimes. I think it would have been far more interesting to present the real story of a middle-aged woman caught up in the criminal activities of her children and their cronies.<br /><br />I also have to agree with those reviewers who found the shoot-out scenes to be totally unbelievable. The Barker/Karpis victims were a combination of the innocent and of the law-enforcement agents who pursued them, but they definitely did not mow down half-a-dozen FBI agents every time they were cornered. (On the other hand, as several recent books have related, the FBI of that era emphasized the idea of agents coming only from legal or accounting backgrounds to the extent that many agents had very little law enforcement or firearms experience. They were not the well-trained agents that we picture today.) <br /><br />But the worst sin of all is that the movie is basically a bore. Nobody changes, nobody grows. We know the end of the road is ahead, we just don't know which shoot-out it will be.<br /><br />Only for die-hard Russell fans.
By the time this movie came out in 1996, director Mark Lester had been making tight, sharp little B action pictures for more than 20 years. He was responsible for the great "Truck Stop Women" from the '70s and several other little gems; unfortunately, he's also responsible for this dud. It's a shame to see the talented--and still smoking hot--Theresa Russell wasted yet again, but she's still the best actor in this picture. Eric Roberts shows up for a while, does his Eric Roberts thing, then goes away, a not altogether unwelcome occurrence in a picture with Eric Roberts in it. Frank Stallone actually isn't bad, which should give you an idea of how truly pathetic this picture is. As has been mentioned by other reviewers, the action scenes--which is the reason a picture like this gets made in the first place--are almost completely illogical and unrealistic, in addition to being somewhat inept. Other than some "vintage" clothes and a few old cars, there's no feel whatever for the 1930s, the era in which this film is set. A by-the-numbers script with irritating lapses in logic and little historical accuracy--this isn't a documentary, of course, but the filmmakers could have at least TRIED for a little authenticity--and performances that range from grade B to grade school relegate this cheap little quickie to the 4:00 a.m. Sunday slot on HBO, which is just where I saw it.
This film contain far too much meaningless violence. Too much shooting and blood. The acting seems very unrealistic and is generally poor. The only reason to see this film is if you like very old cars.
This film is about a party put together by the high school "scary girl." Per the illogic of these sorts of films, she gets permission to hold the party at a house which used to be a crematorium, a dubious place long shut down and locked up. Apparently the history of this piece of property is one of those town secrets best left unspoken of among proper folk though the legend does get whispered about among the young.<br /><br />Why was this crematorium really shut down? What actually happened there in the past?<br /><br />I like these kill-kill-kill films of a supernatural nature as long as there is something in them not copied from a hundred other films. The highlights of this film are a petty theft "7-11" robbery by distracting the clerk with a vivid view, the changing clothes scene by the "good girl" witnessed by her jerk younger brother, the eventual demise of the ugly neighbor who hates the holiday, the spooky mirror scene and the concept of running water being a barrier against the supernatural; the best part of this film is when the possessed party sponsor dances to BAUHAUS in front of the fireplace; that scene rocks.
It's difficult to decide whether this movie suffers from crap dialogue or if it's just made to appear so by crap actors. In any case it suffers from storywriting which is mediocre at best.<br /><br />Although made in the late '80's, the first part of the movie plays like a 60's teenage screwball comedy (barring the absence of any actual humour), especially the part of the 'good girl', which is as annoying a Doris Day figure as you could hope/fear for, including the slightly whiny opposition to anything 'fun' her friends want to do. The net effect is, after a while you start to hope she'll bite it so you don't have to listen to her voice anymore.<br /><br />Some profanity and gratuitous nudity, plus some really 80's style clothing is your only clue that this movie was made in the 80's. Oh, and some pretty passable music, too.<br /><br />Storywise, it's pretty formulaic stuff. A bunch of horny (apart, obviously , from 'miss nice girl') teenagers decide to celebrate Halloween night by throwing a party in a haunted house. Partying and fornication ensues, along with an ill-advised 'seance' which kicks off the demonic possession spree which is the subject of the movie. After this, the only suspenseful part will be trying to guess in which order the characters will expire. You're sure not to care whether or not they will. The actors are so bad that becoming demons/zombies/dinner actually improves their performance somewhat, and the ridiculously cliché dialogue is so annoying that you squirm in your seat.<br /><br />Gorewise, this flick ain't nuthin' special, unless you think cheesy is kind of 'special'. For example, the demon head which occasionally appears is so screamingly fake that you wonder if it's a 5-year old trick-or-treating.<br /><br />This is not to say there's nothing enjoyable in the flick. Some of the music isn't half bad, and the first of our insipid Scooby gang to get possessed performs a marvelous and really sexy dance routine at one point, before she turns nasty.<br /><br />Also, and I don't know why, towards the very end of the flick, I actually managed to get somewhat involved. The suspense lacking in most of the movie made a late appearance, and I started to squirm out of unease instead of annoyance. Which is what a horror movie is supposed to do.<br /><br />Concequently, I cannot bring myself to give this movie a rock-bottom rating, since by some inexplicable miracle (I don't rule out being possessed by demons) I was actually a little creeped.<br /><br />Don't pay money to see it, though. It's hardly worth your time, yet alone hard cash. Watch it on YouTube while it's there.
When I first saw this I thought bits of it were fairly scary. But the horror is a little undermined by the fact that the dozy teenagers are so irritating that you don't really care what happens to them. There are some genuinely good moments such as Angela's speech about demons, and the briefly-seen demon itself is effective. But this really doesn't stand up to repeated viewing or close analysis. It's all pretty tacky and cheap-looking and often downright silly, pornography and unfunny wisecracks all too often replacing horror. The music is excellent, however, and the epilogue is certainly amusing, but this film doesnt have much to recommend it, just comes across as another Jason-type stalk-and-slash fare.
Dear friends, I've never seen such a trash movie as NIGHT OF THE DEMONS (1988). It seems that the director Kevin Tenney had the intention to copy classics like THE EVIL DEAD by Sam Raimi (1978) or George A. Romero's RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD from the same year. The cinematography was lousy, the movie was very dark, so I had to turn the brightness control to the maximum. Indeed, horror pictures have to be dark, but not the way like NIGHT OF THE DEMONS. The entire movie was ridiculous, no suspense, worse actors except Alvin Alexis in the role of Rodger, and horrible make-up effects. An average vote of 5 stars for that movie? I can't believe this. Perhaps the users were pleased about the tits, asses and pussies of the actresses, they were indeed worth 5 stars. Regards, Hans-Dieter
And you know why? Because they thought (or at least made horror fans think) that a bunch of obnoxious, foul-mouthed, screaming teenagers, some stupid demons (Where do they come from? What is their purpose? Who knows?) and a dark mansion are all you need to make a horror movie. Needless to say, they were wrong. You also need a script, some logic, some rules, and some invention. This flick DOES have one scene that lives up to its reputation (the lipstick scene, of course), and a couple of funny moments (the kid brother's description of his mother's cookies, Linnea Quigley's "don't look at me" scene). It also has more profanity than any movie I've watched since I last saw "Reservoir Dogs". Literally every fourth or fifth word is a "f***" or a "b****". Then again, when a movie begins with FOUR false scares in its first 5 minutes, you know not to expect anything resembling good filmmaking. (*1/2)
Worst Movie I Have Ever Seen! 90 Minutes of excruciating film-making. All the ingredients to make this movie a true work of CRAP. Bad acting, bad directing, bad storytelling, bad makeup, bad dialogue, bad effects, and bad reasoning behind certain actions taken by the characters. It also threw in a terrible naked shot of a dumb blond, and a breast shot of a stupid Asian girl, and both attempts were just scary, since these girls are ugly. Some good horror movies came out of the 80s, but this could never be considered one of them. Kevin Tenney also committed one of the greatest sins in storytelling: he introduced characters at the end of the movie (an Old Man and Old Woman). I would vote for it below a 1 out of 10 but the voting system doesn't work that way apparently. Right from the title sequence I knew it would suck and I would return my DVD but Best Buy doesn't refund DVDs, or consumable products as they call it, or so my receipt says. I have "The Dunwich Horror" and that was truly god-awful, but I still feel that "Night of the Demons" (an obvious Evil Dead RIP-OFF) was far worse than "Dunwich Horror." This is just like "The Howling," how in the hell could sequels get milked out of this anorexic cow??? Save your money and get the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (just don't get any of its sequels though) or "The Evil Dead" or "Dawn of the Dead." "Night of the Demons" is a very, very, very bad investment. Every second of it was just maddening, excruciating pain for the audience, because the whole movie all-around was horrible! Do yourself a favor, DON'T SEE IT! You'll be saving some brain cells.
One of the many silent comedies Stan Laurel featured in before he teamed with Oliver Hardy, 'Mud and Sand' is a ho-hum hokum. The story is badly disjointed - though this could be because of the modern-day edit - and the humor itself is not at all inventive.<br /><br />Potential plotlines are started and ignored; for instance, Stan's promise to make Fillet de Sole pay for what she's done to him never comes to fruition. Stan's character doesn't seem very centered, either, but this is a common criticism of his work before he developed 'Stanley' of Laurel & Hardy fame, so it might be that I was just expecting to see this shortcoming.<br /><br />I strongly believe that all the silent films should be preserved and viewed, and I'm glad this one is still available. It's just not a great film.
Before Stan Laurel became the smaller half of the all-time greatest comedy team, he laboured under contract to Broncho Billy Anderson in a series of cheapies, many of which were parodies of major Hollywood features. Most of Laurel's 'parody' films are only mildly funny, and even less funny for modern audiences who haven't seen the original movie which Laurel is parodying. Fortunately, 'Mud and Sand' lampoons a movie which is still well known: 'Blood and Sand', starring Rudolph Valentino. 'Blood and Sand' was released only nine weeks before this parody, giving you some idea of how quickly Broncho Billy's movies were ground out, edited and distributed.<br /><br />Various sources (including IMDb) state that Stan Laurel's character in this film is named Rhubarb Vaselino, with a final 'o'. I've screened a print of 'Mud and Sand' with the original titles (in Hobo type font), so I report that Laurel's role is actually cried Rhubarb Vaseline, with an 'e'. But I agree that 'Vaselino' is funnier. Laurel copies the elaborate sideburns which Valentino wore in 'Blood and Sand' (he should've made them longer!), and there's a parody of Valentino's dressing scene from that movie, which made female movie-goers swoon in 1922. A señorita named Carmen in the original film is parodied here as Caramel (a girl I'd like to sink my teeth into).<br /><br />This movie (like the original) apparently takes place in Spain, yet there's a Prohibition gag. Laurel uses a distinctive hat-tipping gesture here which could have become a trademark for him (like Hardy's distinctive necktie twiddle), but I've never spotted it in any other Laurel film. There's some amusing dialogue: Rhubarb Vaseline tells the other matadors to 'Save a bull for me.' When Vaseline becomes a successful toreador, a lackey tells him 'The bull is without, sir' ... which is funny, but I was disappointed that Laurel didn't reply 'Without WHAT?'.<br /><br />There's one funny moment here which almost certainly wasn't planned, when Vaseline shows up for the bullfighter auditions. Laurel swaggers into the bullring, and -- before you can say 'corrida querida' -- he tosses a bull over the fence, where it lands with a thump near the other auditioners. The bull is obviously a fake, but the gag is funny anyway ... and, aye, there's a title card with a joke about 'throwing the bull'. The serendipitous moment occurs when Laurel repeats the gag, and Vaseline slings a second bull over the fence. This one lands on its butt, and balances upright for just an instant before toppling. VERY funny! If somebody planned that gag in this quickie comedy, I salute the unknown gagsmith ... and the tech man who rigged the bull to land in that position. More likely it happened by luck, and the director and editor were smart enough to keep it in.<br /><br />During the silent era, whenever Hollywood made a big-budget feature film which was set anyplace where the people don't speak English, it was a common cinematic device to show a piece of text or an inscription in the local lingo, then dissolve to a shot of the same text in English. I was surprised that this low-budget comedy spent the money to copy that device here: we see a notice-board outside the corrida with a message in Spanish, then it dissolves to the same text in English. Unfortunately, the photography in this cheapo movie is so dark that the effect is wasted.<br /><br />The actresses in this movie are attractive ... including Broncho Billy's wife Leona Anderson and Stan Laurel's common-law wife Mae Dahlberg; the latter briefly does a pretty dance. (Mae had danced in Stan's vaudeville act.) I was surprised to spot Charlie Chaplin's half-brother Wheeler Dryden in a brief role, since Chaplin had nothing to do with this movie. In 'Mud and Sand', Laurel gives a funny performance that's quite unlike his later familiar Stanley character ... but this film is much less funny than his brilliant work with Oliver Hardy. My rating: just 3 out of 10. TRIVIA NOTE: Twenty-three years later, in Stan Laurel's very last American film -- 'The Bullfighters' (1945) -- he again played a Spanish bullfighter (with his Spanish voice post-dubbed). Coincidentally, that film used stock footage from 'Blood and Sand': not Valentino's movie, but the Tyrone Power remake. 'Mud and Sand' is funnier than 'The Bullfighters', but not much.
I'm starting to wonder if all these PG-13 horror movies are just glorified screen tests for young and emerging talent. Get a first-time screenwriter, an inexperienced director, a few TV actors looking for their bigscreen break and see what they can do. 'When a Stranger Calls' is a little better than most such recent offerings, but is still completely by-the-book; riddled with plot holes and genre clichés.<br /><br />The story is unbelievably simplistic. The slim 87 minute running time is heavily padded with inconsequential friends and a pointless cheating boyfriend. The killer is devoid of even the token motivation of Jason or Michael or even the original movie's killer, and as a result is never particularly frightening. The police behave in such an unbelievably ineffectual and lazy manner as to verge on professional misconduct. Simon West brings the same attractive banality to proceedings that he managed with Lara Croft, but his style of directing is decidedly generic, possessing no indicators of real talent or vision. The performances are routine, dark hallways replace genuine horror, and the scares are of the tired cat-in-the-closet variety.<br /><br />The cinematography and production design, however, are above average for this kind of film. The house is beautifully designed, all dark wood and glassy reflections, and there are a few moments that are of visual interest.<br /><br />Though lacking an ounce of dramatic originality, it acts as a reasonably satisfying 'dark house' thriller, and maintains interest longer than most of its ilk.
Once in a great while I will watch a movie that completely surprises me. One that comes out of nowhere to be a bit of rousing entertainment. One that is pure fun from beginning to end. Well folks, When A Stranger Calls is NOT that movie. It is an unbelievable stupid and far fetched remake of the much better 1979 horror camp classic. Our lead heroine Jill is forced to babysit after going over her cell phone minutes and is harassed by telephone calls from a mysterious caller. Every cliché in the world is used here from the stupid cat-jumping-out-of-a-hidden-spot to the car that won't start to the killer can be anywhere at anytime. This movie is bad...not even bad in a "so bad it's good way" more in a "so bad it's boring way." Skip this godawful film and save your movie for something else. You'll thank me later, trust me on this. Grade: D-
This starts out interestingly, as there's a carnival right next to someone's house with an oil rig right there too and some kind of store-front church across the street with a neon "Jesus Saves" sign, all right in one tiny area....Now that's pretty dazzling, if improbable...and then we go right into the movie which takes improbable to new levels. Of course this is a lame remake of the 1979 thriller starring Carol Kane as the babysitter Jill Johnson....now Jill is some chick that ran her cell phone minutes up so high her evil parents are punishing her by making her work it off, probably something that the audience this movie targets can identify with. Jill is taken to this huge and fancy house on a lake in the middle of nowhere (of course) by her dad to babysit for the Mandrakis family. The children are already nestled all snug in their beds when Jill arrives, and the housekeeper is still there, huh, she couldn't babysit? Of course, despite the remote location one of Jill's friends pops by, one whom with which she apparently has issues as in "boyfriend stealing" or something. Anyway, of course the alarm in the house goes off for no reason and then calls from someone start coming in, calls from someone that wants to kill her. Of course Jill calls the cops and since there hasn't been any actual threat on her life they blow her off, but tell her to call back if there's anything else they can do for her. Check out the scene with Jill calling her friends at the high school bonfire/pep rally or whatever it's supposed to be, it looks like some kind of "Burning Man" festival, ??!!?? There's all kind of contrived scares in this including the cool cat Chester who of course pops up here and there, one of the tiredest "horror movie" clichés there is. I will admit that I dozed off at some point during this, and did I miss anything? Hard to tell, or care, really. This is one of those films that makes me wonder how bad the remakes of "Amityville Horror", "House of Wax" or "The Fog" could have been. Anyway, from reading online reviews, it seems like the folks that were the most scared by this were 12 year old girls, and I can only assume that from statements like "it made me pee-pee my pants". Well, one can only hope that this will put an end to Hollywood remakes of films that weren't exactly stellar to begin with, but don't bet on it. 2 out of 10 and I'm being overly generous.
This movie is bad. Really bad. So bad it made me want to shoot myself in the forehead. I hated this movie. First off, the plot went absolutely nowhere and anything shocking about this movie was seen in the 30 second teaser trailer. Secondly, Anyone who saw the original in 1979 knows that it was a bad movie too and completely unworthy of a remake. By far the best part of the movie is the house it takes place in. Which is not saying much for the actual movie. There were parts in the movie when the music gets very suspenseful and you're positive someone is around the corner and it turns out to be the maid or the cat, but when someone actually is around the corner it is impossible to be even startled because you've been expecting it all movie. So save yourself the money, save yourself the time, save yourself the headache and just watch the trailer. There is absolutely no point in seeing this movie, not in the theater, not on DVD, not on TV, never.
What should have been a routine babysitting gig at a secluded lake house turns into a night of terror, as high school student Jill Johnson (Camilla Belle) receives threatening phone calls from a sadistic stalker, while trying to stay one step ahead of him.<br /><br />The first 20 minutes of the original film were pretty good but it was all downhill from there. The remake takes those first 20 minutes and stretches them into an 80 minute feature film. That's a good idea because its eliminating everything that made the original bad. However, if they wanted this film to work more effectively then they should have hired a better lead actress, better director, writer etc. There's no suspense, everything can be figured out long before it happens and it's a very dull film since not much happens. At least there isn't much to sit through since its less than 90 minutes.<br /><br />If this premise were to work, then the lead actress has to give a realistic performance. Camilla Belle gives one of the worst performances I have ever seen and throughout the whole movie, she seemed to be reading her lines. You get a lead role in a Hollywood film that will be viewed by millions of people and you give no effort at all! Why did they hire this girl? Sure, she's pretty but she can't act at all yet I suppose this won't matter to the target audience who will most likely eat this film up. The rest of the cast is bland and forgettable especially the woman who plays the maid, Rosa. Even the stranger was lame and his lines on the phone were not effective at all.<br /><br />This movie reminds me of last years disappointing horror film Boogeyman. That movie was a bunch of cheap scares and false alarms and When a Stranger Calls is pretty much the same. Jill enters a room because she hears a noise but its just a false alarm like a cat or the maid. This type of scene happens over and over again until finally after about 50 minutes, the stranger appears. He has to be one of the lamest killers ever. He carried no weapons and didn't seem to pose much of a threat. The ending is bad but it matches the rest of the film so it doesn't really matter. The film is directed by Simon West and he is really bad at building up suspense. He was using every cliché he could think of and the results weren't very good. The house was amazing and I'll give the film credit for that. It was an isolated house so it was pretty creepy but that's about the only good thing this film has to offer. In the end, if you're not a teenage girl then you should skip the movie. Rating 2/10
That's pretty much all I can say about this flat and uninspired remake of the 1979 Carol Kane vehicle. Camilla Belle isn't much of an actress, and she brings no energy and vitality to the role of Jill Johnson, the babysitter harassed by an anonymous phone caller.<br /><br />But if you're looking for some great home architecture and interior design ideas, this movie provides more inspiration than anything you'll see on TLC or HGTV. Jill spends nearly 90 minutes wandering through the house of the rich doctor and wife for whom she's providing her sitting services, searching for the origins of strange sounds and things that keep going "bump" in the night. As she lurks around corners and peers down hallways, we get to see a beautiful master bathroom with his and hers sinks that look like Roman tubs, a huge kitchen with incredible back lit glass shelving, and the piece de resistance, a self-contained aviary and coy pond that feature a self-watering system.<br /><br />Because the movie isn't compelling enough to draw us into Jill's fear, we're distracted by the grandeur of the house, which isn't something you should be doing when you're watching a thriller. Even as Jill is pursued by the faceless maniac, we cringe because she's breaking valuables and messing up the coy pond, not because she's about to get murdered.<br /><br />The movie plods along as predictably as most teen slasher movies, and the ending is anything but original. By the time it was over, I just wanted to find out where the heck that house was and if it was real. Never mind Jill and the kids she was babysitting.<br /><br />2 stars - both for the house.
This movie had potential to be a good little high school thriller. Instead, we got a bore fest about a whiny, spoiled brat babysitting. The problem was there were too many unnecessary things. A fight with the boyfriend, random friends coming over to be killed. It was obvious they were just killing time. The main character was bland and uninteresting. Camilla Bell had no emotion during this movie. She was just there. Another problem was the fact that the killer was not a threat. The children survive, so it's obvious they are going to let Jill survive. The only reason this got a four was because the last ten minutes (when the killer FINALLY comes out) is actually exciting.<br /><br />4/10
While babysitting at an isolated Colorado house, a teen girl is terrorized by an elusive murderer on the telephone.<br /><br />Remake of the 1979 semi-classic horror film basically takes the opening 20 minutes of the original film and stretches it out to fit an 87 minute time span! So it's pretty needless to say that the plot of this remake is pretty thin. There's little in the way of originality or interest in this movie. There's a lot of Camilla Belle wondering around a dark house wondering who's calling her and encountering all kinds of false scares. It all gets repetitious and routine after the first 30 minutes and never manages to muster up much in the way of suspense or chills. It certainly never reaches the intensity of the original film, especially since it wimps-out and changes one important plot point from the original. I guess we have the PG-13 rating to thank for that.<br /><br />On the plus side there's an impressive set design and some dark atmosphere, unfortunately there's not much going on around it to save this remake from being sub-par. Belle's performance is pretty mediocre too.<br /><br />It's just another unimpressive remake.<br /><br />* 1/2 out of ****
This is so overly clichéd you'll want to switch it off after the first 45 minutes. The beginning is very interesting, with a fair going on and someone gets killed. This movie would have been better, set on this setting.<br /><br />So, Jill Johnson is a depressed sprinter with boyfriend issues. I don't see the point of adding her breakup with her boyfriend occurs in any of the events in the story.<br /><br />Since Jill has come home late, her father sends her to babysit for the Mandrakis's in their glamorous home in a deserted lake. The kids are sleeping and the maid is cleaning, another empty house to the side for their son who's at college. OK.<br /><br />After about half an hour of her stalking around the house by herself, she gets a couple of hang ups. Ooh, scary ones. TO which her friend comes to the rescue, to come up with a couple of high school lines about 'love' and whatever. Friend leaves and goes to her car. TO which then, she drops her keys. Uhhh...then the music! DumDumDum..! She fumbles to pick them up, and gets into her car. Which of course, doesn't start. How cliché'd is that..? So..She disappears =D Jill, alone again. UH. (Most of this movie is with her by herself, so there's not much dialog) So more hangups, she calls the police. Who say they cant help her, but call back if she has any more problems.<br /><br />So then she suspects that her boyfriend is calling, or her boyfriends friends are calling. They have been but only once. Like thats supposed to be scary much? Oh, and did I mention? Her friend just now comes on caller ID and some creepy man voice comes on. She gets all freaked out and shyt.<br /><br />Yeah, so skip that. She see's the light in the house of the Mandrakis's son go on. So she runs through the woods with music as her companion and goes in. Bleheh.<br /><br />AH ITS SO BORING I CANT CONTINUE!!!!!!!!!
Simon West's remake of the 1979 horror classic is a pathetic attempt to bring old school thrills to a contemporary audience. Starring talented teen Camilla Belle, When a Stanger Calls fails to even elicit a shocked, or even surprised face. Poor attempts at scaring the audience range from blurred coats that look like people to building the tense music up for a cat running out of the shadows. The plot follows Jill Johnson (Belle), a teenage girl that has to pay off a bill to her father via babysitting. She is invited to work for the night at a house by the river, and thinks it a perfectly easy way to make cash. But little does she know, a stranger lurks in the house, and constantly harasses Johnson via the phone. A pathetic excuse for a film.
When a Stranger Calls belongs to the group of this year's remakes, with movies like Poseidon just over the horizon. Director Simon West (Con Air) helms this updated version, with plenty of relative unknown casts, which signals either the death rate is high (it isn't), or that established stars are steering clear from a potential turkey.<br /><br />Clocking in at a relatively short 87 minutes, it's primarily made up of two acts. The first, which takes a full one hour, is the setup. Our heroine, Jill Johnson (Camilla Belle), chalked up 800 minutes of talk time on her mobile phone (do the math), and as a lesson in responsibility, her parents had confiscated her mobile and grounded her. To pay off her debt, she works part time as a babysitter, and looking after the wealthy Mandrakis' kids, is her first stint.<br /><br />The huge Mandrakis mansion gets a full tour treatment, as it is where all the action will take place. Plenty of rooms (makes for good hiding), an indoor pool sized aquarium-pond (to get wet in, for the wet T-shirt treatment), and check this out - motion detector lights, which you just know will contribute to the scares with the manipulation of lights and shadows. Naturally, prank calls, red herrings are aplenty, which chalks up this act's runtime, but most of them fall flat in the suspense department.<br /><br />There's a minor trend emerging, with actors being the unseen, providing and acting through their voice instead. Recent attempts include Edward Norton in Kingdom of Heaven, and Hugo Weaving's V for Vendetta. Here, Lance Henriksen does the honours for the anonymous, nameless psychotic killer, but it just falls flat. Why? The script doesn't give him much dialogue. Most of the phone calls made were of the silent (mind-masturbatory) nature, which I felt was a waste - they could have also casted some unknown instead, and the job will still get done.<br /><br />The second act, where the main action takes place, is too little too late. And the bogeyman, well, is purely a bogeyman. Those expecting blood and gore will be disappointed, as basically it's a one -woman show to hold your attention in the first hour (eye candies always succeed), and this act will have her resolve everything in double quick time, ala Rachel McAdams in Red Eye. Don't expect any form of character development, nor subplots that will engage.<br /><br />The ending tried to be too smart for its own good, and came across as a cheap way to end the movie. There's not much of goodness to highlight from this movie - no scares, no thrills, no enigmatic villain, and plenty of security flaws, especially with that door alarm - the only thing it's good for, is to provide a number for 4D.
The original WASC isn't by any means a must see movie in the genre. In fact, if it weren't for it's chilling first 25 minutes there wouldn't be any logical reason for watching it. The remake takes those 25 minutes and turns them into a mediocre 85 minute teen Horror flick. <br /><br />Now, I don't have anything against PG-13 Horror movies but the tendency surrounding them is getting lame. When you see the PG-13 rating you expect a movie filled with false scares, teen t.v. or music stars, and a plot that has been used for several times. Don't even ask for gore or violence. <br /><br />I know that it's not correct to compare both the original WASC and the remake, but I think that it's necessary to do it because the whole idea of the new one is based on the beginning of the original. The tension that is felt through the first movie is not present by any means in the remake. Not even with the amazing settings or great use of lightning. No tension, suspense, thrills...nothing. The movie goes too slow before it gets a little "interesting", and that's when the stranger appears. The chasing sequence is probably the best part of the movie because at least there's a feeling of "what will happen next?". But that's it. The situations that set up for the climax are predictable, boring, and lack of suspense. The original has merits for having suspense in the most important scenes, and also, for a chilling climax for the most important scene of the movie. <br /><br />Now, I understand that this is a PG-13 Horror movie but, if you pay respect to the original. Why change it's most important situation? The children are not supposed to survive! After the ending I felt like this movie was pointless. So the baby sitter was playing cat and mouse with a wacko...that's it?. Then, the sequence at the hospital was plain stupid. And worst of all, it means that a sequel may be on the way. <br /><br />Camila Belle is the best thing about the movie. She delivers a cute, believable performance. She needs to pick better projects although this role will gain for her thousands of teenager fans. <br /><br />Please, don't watch this movie. Some people say that in order to support the Horror genre we are supposed to support any movie that comes out. I don't necessary agree. If we ignore movies like WASC then the producers of Horror movies will understand that we won't accept CRAP. We want good Horror movies, not lame flicks filled with false scares. <br /><br />Watch the original "When A Stranger Calls" instead because it's first 25 minutes are WAY BETTER than the whole (pointless) remake.
Unlike most reviewers here, I hated this movie, simply because the writer/director's bloated ego was in the way of an otherwise potentially interesting topic. Too many film fans equate 'EXTREME self-indulgence' to 'film GENIUS!', but I don't buy into that cult of personality. A film should be about its subject, not its director (unless it's a Woody Allen film, of course). *SPOILER* (which is just as well, save your time...) There is nothing brilliant about of showing you the foot-long porn-star's you-know-what in the last frame- that's actually called a tacky maneuver that SCREAMS film-school hackism. <br /><br />The poseur flick has achieved 'great film' status based on its indulgence and pandering to the audience – which, first and foremost, is the writer/director. But the rest of the audience should look down on the surly, brutal nature of the porn biz, too. The flick had an aloof angle to the porn industry, looking down on each and every player it could bash. No matter, just love your writer/director. Love those four-minute steadicam segments, which are supposed to show the energy of the moment, but somehow had all the verve of an off switch. Love the story- no matter how dull it is- about the gee-whiz rise and sordid fall of a porn star. But look down on it, too, of course. While the subject has the potential to be fascinating – innocence, money, degradation, beauty- your worshipful writer/director somehow managed to make it all look, again, DULL. Partly because of its run time. Here is something your auteur hero DIDN'T try: Giving the characters dimension. Or soul. Anything AT ALL to give a hoot about, aside from Genius That Paul Is, of course. But I'm not buying. I don't buy into indulgent hacks with astounding hype. <br /><br />Another overlong auteurist hack piece, with fifty times more hype than quality. I know some of you agree. The rest will see likely see this indulgent flick again. Not my problem.
Sorry this movie was a bad made for TV movie. Are the rest of you on drugs when you watched it? I thought the hair,make-up and characters were poor 2 dimensional types. The story is doubtful,especially since all of the main characters are dead,or nearly dead. I think it's not well acted either...what was up with that hair on the main guy in the Turtles? It looked glued on badly, and the sideburns looked like they were going to fall off at any moment. It didn't feel like anything new was revealed in the story of the band and how the members met other bands,and people. I laughed all the way through it,Frank Zappa looked stupid,so did Mama Cass, and so did the Beatles. They were made out to look stupid and ridiculous. Also the other band people like Jim Morrison,Donovan also took a big hit at looking stupid too. Kind of terrible,if this is how you remember these people. It's a poor history lesson on music,it's fictional the way it was made.
This film really misses the mark on most fronts. The accents are laughably weak, the acting amateurish and the comedy weak at best.<br /><br />They've got a great idea, it could have been particularly enjoyable but for the reasons mentioned above.<br /><br />The writer seems to think by putting the word f*ck into every sentence it'll make it funnier and the main character just seems to try a little too hard. He's no Brick top thats for sure.<br /><br />Next time at least get a cast that can keep the accent for the whole film.<br /><br />It's a crime to compare this to films like The Business, Lock Stock and Snatch.
I've sat through less painful operations than the time I spent watching this film. <br /><br />If you give it a try thinking it's going to be something in the vein of a Guy Ritchie flick.....Think again! The production, dialogue, acting, script , film work and plot were about the worst I've ever seen in a film. My fave part in all honesty was the closing credits. In all the history of cinema has there never been a better excuse for turning off the TV and going out and doing something better with your life.<br /><br />Have root canal work done rather than wasting your time and money on this!
The film moves along quite well but the acting, direction and editing leave a lot to be desired. The characters are mostly lifted from other films and the Vinnie Jones lookalike is straight out of Gone in 50 Seconds. The comedy gangster movie is a genre that should have lots of contrast, the stupid dealers in Lock Stock and the shoot out that leaves everyone dead. You should never really know whether to laugh or just sit there in shock. This movie had the right elements but it is too easy to sit there like a person knitting and tut at the small details that should have been fixed somewhere along the line and once belief has been unsuspended one just become increasingly critical. A pity cos it was a brave attempt and although Clint Eastwood is famous for saying that'll be OK for a scene, he puts the work in before he shoots and he is Clint Eastwood. Here a bit more imagination with the camera and and a bit more coaching and rehearsal for the delivery of the lines would have made a big difference.
Words almost fail me to describe how terrible this Irish vanity project (funded by Canadian taxpayers - both federal and Albertan) really is.<br /><br />There's a sudden appearance by a nice looking Canadian woman (Kathy Ranheim) who in real life was a star athlete in Alberta, for no other reason to ensure Canadian content. Credits also indicate that certain Calgary pubs were of assistance.<br /><br />Everything here is poorly filmed and at least third-hand (chunks of poorly digested Trainspotting, Lock Stock, Snatch and Reservoir Dogs are the most obvious steals). Avoid like the plague unless you fancy one of those campy "so bad it's almost funny" nights in front of your telly.
DIRTY WAR <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.78:1<br /><br />Sound format: Stereo<br /><br />Emergency services struggle to cope when Islamic terrorists detonate a so-called 'dirty bomb' in the middle of London.<br /><br />Daniel Percival's frightening movie uses all available evidence to dramatize the possible effects of a radioactive explosion in the heart of the UK capital, using the kind of documentary-style realism which has distinguished this particular subgenre since the 1960's. In essence, the film reveals a catalogue of flaws in the British government's current strategy for dealing with such terrorist outrages, and Percival's carefully-honed script (co-written by Lizzie Mickery) vents its spleen against mealy-mouthed politicians who would rather maintain the economic status quo than tackle this issue head-on. The film covers all necessary bases, and makes the salient point that this kind of terrorism is practised by a tiny handful of fanatics who have tarnished the Islamic faith with their reckless disregard for human life, though viewers won't be reassured by the subsequent scenes of devastation and horror. Not merely a drama, the film acts as a warning against complacency. Either that, or its just another post-9/11 scaremongering tactic. YOU be the judge...
Highly suggest not to watch this film 'TV' if not mentally mature enough , the film create quite realistic simulation with the steps how they prevent from terrorism if such touch wood incident happened , London suppose a Lovely and chill ful City , while these kind of wars still going on , just wasting the time and money for study and Living, every time passing around P Square, the feeling really obvious, uncomfortable actually , I don't want to vote , the scored means nothing , just 4 'fill in the blank' <br /><br />Only Safty and Positive thinking cities encourage better Economy and investors to keep investing Time,Energies and Money
Anyone remember the docudrama THREADS ? It's a drama documentary which shocked Britain in September 1984 . Whilst not exactly wholly entertained by Mick Jackson's nuclear holocaust horror film I could respect it . Unfortunately I can't respect this docudrama broadcast 20 years later which deals with terrorists letting off a radioactive dirty bomb in the centre of London <br /><br />The problem I have with it is that director Daniel Percival production values are far too good when in fact this would have benefited from rather cheap production values . The cinematography is superb but in this type of speculative drama do we need superb and well lit Oscar standard cinematography ? What we certainly don't need is a musical score as the survivors of the blast slowly stagger out of the smoke . Neither do we need vaguely well known cast members . Did anyone else sit there asking themselves " Hey what was he in ? I know that face " several times ? I know I did and it's very distracting . <br /><br />Perhaps the biggest production flaw with DIRTY WAR is that someone decided to make it a docudrama with too much stylistic emphasis on the drama . In THREADS the action cuts away from the action in Sheffield umpteen times and becomes an edition of HORIZON on the effects of nuclear war before cutting back to the fictional protagonists again and THREADS is very effective because of this . Here the information presented suffocates the drama which drowns in expositional and totally unconvincing dialogue . The characters in the teleplay aren't really characters they're just cyphers there to inform the audience what happens when radioactive material is exploded . It would have been better for the action to cut to captions to convey this type of information ala THREADS . The worse thing is that director Daniel Percival used the same technique as seen in THREADS a couple of years ago with his docudrama about smallpox . He should have used the same style with DIRTY WAR<br /><br />I should also lay my cards on the table and state that while I don't consider most Muslims are terrorists I am getting slightly fed up of TV productions like THE HAMBURG CELL , THE GRID and DIRTY WAR having to point out this fact to me by whalloping me over the head with it which is somewhat typical of patronising PC attitudes in TV companies nowadays<br /><br />I managed to miss the studio debate that Bob mentions here but I have also heard it discussed elsewhere and I can't help thinking it makes better viewing than DIRTY WAR itself with its heated arguments between differing factions of the political spectrum . If DIRTY WAR is remembered twenty years from now ( Highly unlikely I know ) it may well be remembered for the discussion it caused more than anything
I have watched this movie over and over since it first came out. I was fifteen and even then, I knew it was cheesy. It had such great potential and I constantly rewrite the script in my head. The Capoeira ruined what could have been a good drama. I loved the fact that it was shot on location. Too bad that the characters were underdeveloped. It's like they wrote a first draft of a script then made the movie right away. At fifteen I could have written a better script!Some scenes and dialog seemed to come out of nowhere and you were left with a lot of unanswered questions. And was it just me, or did it seem like Lobo was sexually attracted to his cousin? "Elena's grown into some kind of woman!" And the way he was always touching her. Would have an interesting plot twist, Elena working for her drug dealing cousin who is also a perv. Too bad they missed the mark on this one.
Begotten is, no doubt, someone's attempt at originality, but, what we have here is art in its most morbid, grotesque form, so, for that, Begotten has my respect, but, to be realistic, it makes no difference what this abomination is about, but for the record...<br /><br />In the ultimate in incoherent horror, we begin in an unknown time, in an unknown place. Right off the bat, we are plunged into the psychotic nightmare that is Begotten, a god is, seemingly depressed, mutilating himself with a razor, I mean, really trying like hell to end it all, it takes a while (why wouldn't it?) After this ultra-morbid introduction, something is happening, something is rising from the corpse, say hello to Mother Earth. What does she do? Well, she gives birth to a thing. The thing would have probably preferred to stay in the womb, but that's life. The psychotic nightmare realm of Begotten welcomes the thing the only way it knows how. The thing, along with Mother Earth is mutilated by unknown, hooded, assailants, with evil intentions being the only clarity available. From this point on, things drag as they've never dragged before. Interesting, grim images, with a totally decent soundtrack, is the high points of the remainder. Not to give the impression that I don't recommend this evilness, because I do, but only once, and only for people with an appreciation for the dark side.<br /><br />From my description, it may appear that I don't "get" Begotten. Trust me, I get it, and yes, Begotten is art if I've ever seen it. Everything in this film, regardless of how unrelated it may seem, is significant. That, perhaps, is the only thing that makes Begotten art. With that said, most of us require some form of entertainment value, and this is coming from someone who enjoyed The Chooper. Probably the most intriguing first five minutes, I've seen in a film, but let's be realistic, the next 7 hours and 55 minutes would put one in a coma, that is, unless it's just meant for some kind of psychedelic purposes, in that case, never mind. But, how would one rate such a uniquely boring masterpiece? Depending on how much your attention span can take, It should be either 1 or 10, any other number just wouldn't make a statement. It hurts to do this, but as far as entertainment value goes, Begotten just ain't it. 1/1
Directed by E. Elias Merhige "Begotten" is an experiment with a few interesting ideas that don't quite succeed in what they were trying to do. The film is a 76 minute ultra slow, questionably effective, irritating experience that tries to present an intriguing philosophy about the creation of the Earth and human nature.<br /><br />It opens with god presented as a chair-bound psychopathic man who tears open his stomach using a knife. From the guts, blood and human waste Mother Nature emerges. She proceeds to impregnate herself with the dead god's semen. Later she gives birth to the Son of the Earth. A retard who is constantly abused a group of cannibalistic people whom I believe to be the representation of mankind.<br /><br />"Begotten" takes a twisted and disturbing look on the origin of life. Demonstrating the self-destructive nature, violence, lust and greed that have become a trademark for mankind. The problem in the movie come from two points. One is that the film is just too slow in it's exhibition. What we get is a good thirty minutes spent on showing how the Son of the Earth is constantly shaking naked on the ground while at the same time being molested and tortured by mankind. Such tasteless prolonging gets boring pretty fast and lacks the punch in delivering a blow to the viewer's senses.<br /><br />Another point is "Beggoten's" visual appearance and sound. The grainy, inverted, black and white low frame cinematography enchants the disturbing factor of the plot, but such novelties often work in only short periods of time. Then gradually begin to lose their effect as the audience becomes accustomed to the look. The audio suffers from the same problems. It's constant repetitive and similar sounds become annoying so fast I had an urge to turn off the volume. "Begotten" loses it's charm shortly after it begins. It tries to be original and creative but it fails to expand on the ideas hinted by the vague plot instead it repeats the same scene again and again.<br /><br />The conclusion is that "Begotten" is stuck in one moment. Even though plot-wise it tries to move forward, the visuals and audio remain the same throughout. Showing the same action in a slightly different way with just slightly a different sound. A gimmick cannot alone make a movie. It also needs pace and variety, something Merhige seems to have forgotten.
Good lord.<br /><br />I'm going to say right off the bat, I only watched 20 minutes of this movie. As I am a hardcore Eraserhead fan, the "what, you can't watch a wierd black and white movie with little-to-no dialogue?" defense does not apply. I simply can't watch TERRIBLE weird black and white movies with little-to-no dialogue.<br /><br />This movie is what happens when you give an angsty goth-child with no talent and nothing to say a camera and budget, and let him/her put as much meaninglessly offensive imagery on screen as possible. It was clear from the start that this film should have been 5 minutes long (assuming it should exist at all). Shots that should last a few seconds drag on for minutes, because the director has "I-Just-Love-The-Sound-Of-My-Own-Voice" syndrome, and refuses to cut to another shot until the entire piece of footage has been viewed. From the moment the girl in the mask started masturbating the corpse of "God" (the opening scene of the film! joy!), I knew it was only a matter of time until I turned off the tape. After at least 10 minutes of a different corpse being pulled around, twitching, on a rope, by a gang of cloaked mystery-men, I knew it was time to give up. Rarely do I give up on a movie. I sat through the entirety of Blair Witch 2: Book Of Shadows, albeit not happily. This did not deserve the 20 minutes I gave it.<br /><br />If you're an Eraserhead fan, do NOT let simple-minded comparisons to said film con you into renting this piece of amateur trash. Allow me to refer you to Tetsuo: The Iron Man, for a watchable and enjoyable piece of incoherent black and white weirdness.
Wasted is just that, a waste of time. MTV is churning out made for TV movies at quite a clip nowadays. A friend of mine recommended this and i rented it, needless to say i will not be pursuing anymore recomendations from her anytime soon. This movie shows the rollercoaster of drug use. The problem is, you really don't care about any of the characters due to lack of believabilty and their own self discipline. This movie is in a word, annoying to watch, from the terrible camera angles to the quality of dialogue and pacing. The 'digital' format tries for realism, but comes up distracting. If you want a true scope on drug use watch Requiem for a Dream.
There were two things I hated about WASTED : The directing and the script . I know I`m opening myself up to ridicule but Stephen T Kay`s direction is too much like a .... like a .... well like a MTV pop video . It`s shot ( I think ) on digital video against an intrusive soundtrack , often out of focus and often with rapid cross cutting . If you`re not a teenager you`ll find many segments of WASTED unwatchable due to the stylistic approach . As bad as the directing was it was the script that yanked my chain . The story is told through Samantha , a poor little rich girl who spends much of the film talking through voice over ( Strange how the voice over never seems idiosyncratic enough to have come from the same character ) telling us of the pressure of her exams , the pressure of home life , her social solitude and it`s all this that led her to take drugs . It`s for similar reasons like parental break up that her two male friends ( I thought she was supposed to be lonely ? ) to start taking drugs . Oh poor little Sammi in her nice house and her problems how my heart bled for you and your chums - NOT . What WASTED doesn`t mention is that no matter what someone is addicted to , be it drink , drugs , nicotine or chocolate that person has to work at becoming an addict , they`re not a victim of external forces , they`re commiting an act of free will . Both TRAFFIC and TRAINSPOTTING made this point very well , people become addicts because they want to . To portray them as victims in any way is wrong patronising and very possibly dangerous<br /><br />By the way , if MTV are anti drugs will they stop playing videos from stars who freely admit taking drugs ?
4 realz son my game iz mad tite yo I cant wait 2 get on dis show and roll up in da club n do it real 905 style wit mad models n bottles, son!<br /><br />No, I'm just kidding. This is a sad show, created by, and for the enjoyment of, sad men. Men who are so neutered by modern existence that they channel their frustration into the clubs, where they eke out fleeting self-validation preying on chicks in hopes of getting their little wieners touched to try and dull the sting of loneliness and make them feel, even if just for one night, as though their seat on the Board of the Sausage Party of Toronto is a little less permanent. <br /><br />I read some comments on here saying that this show represents Canadian TV's finally stepping up to stand on a par with American TV or somethingorother. Well, that's not aiming short at all. It's like, Yes! Pat yourself on the back, Canada -- you've finally cracked the elusive formula for such groundbreaking American content as "Studs", "Change of Heart", "Elimidate" and "The Fifth Wheel". See, the real brainchild here is tacking "...meets Candid Camera" onto the pitch. Genius. And there's nothing that straddles that thin line between fratboy camaraderie and latent homosexuality like a group of grown men taping each other on hidden camera, admiring each other's "game" up in the club. The man-love on display here is so palpable they should really consider rechristening it "Keys to the Steam Bath".<br /><br />On a side note, how interesting that the folks who gave this show such glowing reviews seem to have registered an IMDb account for the express purpose of doing so (I guess I'm guilty of employing the same means to do the opposite here.) My personal favorite is the one enthusiastic reviewer that claims to hail from the "United States" who gushes that "Now it's clear that the talent in Canada has the ability to produce American quality television." <br /><br />Smooth. <br /><br />But why even bother manufacturing online buzz? You can't really get cancelled, after all -- you're on the Comedy Network in Canada, baby! The viewing public will go on ignoring your show for years to come. In all likelihood you'll be just fine, coasting comfortably along that proverbial plain of mediocrity with the majority of the Comedy Network's original programming.
GAME.... Huh... game. I'm not even sure the bloody hosts of that particular reality-game know what the term 'GAME' means, let alone the bloody PLAYERS in the game! <br /><br />An aspiring PUA would look at that and think... Hmmmmm... What the flying FORK was that useless excuse for a demonstration of seducing women? I've seen my neighbours DOG seduce women with more panache than that! And it is one UGLY bloody dog! And its main approach tactic is to frenetically hump legs! <br /><br />I challenge the frustrated chump hosts of that show to a SHOW-down; a demonstration of their SO-called pickup ability... Can they deliver? If one is to view that piece of un-reality-drivel, then you would realise, No, these grandstanding, mentally-masturbating, suck-me-darling-boyfriend, wanna be hosts of Queer Eye or something similar (not that there's anything wrong with that...), are unable to un-shrinkwrap their penises long enough to provide a demo of a REAL pickup. <br /><br />As you lovely North-Americans say: "...'Nuff Said!..." <br /><br />A message from Down Under... with Love....
This is just what we need, a show about the people nobody likes in high school or in university. Man or Woman. People objectifying others and congratulating themselves for doing so is exactly the opposite of intelligent thinking. And this show is just disgusting for doing exactly that.<br /><br />So four men sit in chairs and watch two other guys try and pick up women to have sex with them. And in the end one of the two wins, great...just f-n great. I'm also supposed to accept these four douche bags as being "judges" of people's "Game". The term "game" has got to be the most moronic thing to come out of modern English since the term "Bling Bling", added to the fact that these men are called the "experts" just makes me want to throw up whats left of my respect for modern culture. These are not god damn role models, they are the result of MTV culture coming to bite us in the ass. If you enjoy the bullshit spilling out the sides of this monstrosity then you probably think Paris Hilton and Britany Spears have talent. Its not true and you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking so.<br /><br />And for all those people who will say that I would like this better if I got laid, or that I'm just jealous. Go screw yourself, because its obvious that a REAL girl certainly won't.
This is possibly the worst thing I've ever seen on television. First, I'm pretty sure it takes itself entirely seriously, and I tend to be pretty good at recognizing satire. Second, it displays Aristotelian levels of chauvinism; in one of the ads for it, one of the "playas" describes women in terms of "quality". Third, every contestant I've seen on it (six, I think) was a dim-witted meathead of the variety likely to possess a Facebook with "BONING U" or "WOMEN" entered under "Here For". To paraphrase Roger Ebert, this doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel, nor deserve mention in the same sentence as barrels. The closest thing to a redeeming feature I've experienced with regards to Key to the VIP was having a female friend reassure me that the male cast were indeed the opposite of attractive, in both physical and mental terms.
Though it pains me to some degree that I'm bothering to christen the comments board for this new series - mainly because I'd hate to give the false impression that there's actually any semblance of public interest in it - I feel compelled to throw in my chips on this one.<br /><br />To put it simply, never before have I felt so persuaded to root for a TV show's swift and merciless cancellation based solely on the merit of its promo ads. And, in case you're wondering, I'm a dude.<br /><br />Listen, Comedy Network: though your existing original programming is already, shall we politely say, of a 'questionable' quality (I'm looking at you, "Girls Will Be Girls") you have truly outdone yourselves on this one. Whoever green-lit this thing could not be further out of touch with what's cool right now.<br /><br />Best of luck.
yeah..that's what the station disclaimer states after the commercials for this show "some scenes may be disturbing to some viewers" .<br /><br />It is beyond disturbing. The validation of this whole display of ego framing and chauvinism is in the fact it is on the COMEDY channel. Yes..a comedy true and true. A JOKE. To see these 'playas' go through their rigid charade really spells out what is wrong with society. Especially the meat market bar scene. Both sides, the male and female, are equally as weak and desperate to be mingling among this superficial atmosphere. The club is obviously one of those Cigarette corporation sponsored plastic coke scenes. These people do have a choice, and that is what makes it even more of a joke. <br /><br />These slick ricks try too hard. They glisten with their own groove grease. That's OK. It's a lesson on video tape for the new generation of how NOT to focus on a potential heart interest. Hopefully that facade will crumble along with the Bush/Harper administrations. Problem is, who's lined up after these characters fade? The bastard children of the one night stands?
It's too bad these guys, the so-called judges, are such jerks, even the nominally "sensitive" ones. It's the self-congratulatory tone that really makes me sick though; these guys don't have any perspective on their behaviour. I think the real problem, though, is the quality of the contestants. Not a single smooth or truly charming one in the lot. They pick the most pathetic girls out of the crowd because they're the only ones these guys have a chance with. Let's see some real players trying for a truly unattainable girl, and maybe you have a show. Otherwise, you have a revolting half-hour of self-love. And real sexual tension takes two.
1) Men over the age of 25 that refer to themselves, without irony, as having "game", or being either a "player" or a "baller". Gentlemen, from here on in it's a swift descent into starring in your own real-life version of "A Night at the Roxbury". <br /><br />2) Saying "The V.I.P." The term "V.I.P." in and of itself isn't bad, but when preceded by "The" it instantly becomes part of the Douchebag Dictionary. This goes double for white people. <br /><br />3) People that make TV shows based on stuff that they don't know isn't cool and then go on IMDb posing as "fans", (...right...) moreover, one of whom is from the "United States" (hey, me too!) to bitterly insult members of their potential audience for inevitably thinking their show sucks. Minus 1 additional demerit point if they employ any variation on the oh-snap-nice-one-bro justification that "If you don't like the show you obviously can't get laid." <br /><br />4) Canadian Hip-Hop/R&B sensation Massari...a random addition to the list at first glance, but at the end of the day Massari gets the gas face for the simple reason that his particular brand of low-rent American-aping uncool and general Aqua Velva douchebaggery dovetails with the overall sensibility of "Keys to the V.I.P." <br /><br />5) Last but not least, "Keys to the V.I.P."...for all the above reasons and more.
After having seen this show a few times; I am thoroughly offended as a female that there are so many stupid, women out there that fall for this bullshit. Im a little more mature than some of the "players" in this show, but am still appalled that the whole dating game has been boiled down to a gameshow: where goofy dudes can score points on their lame ass attempts to pick up chicks. If young guys are watching this and using it as a learning manual: Don't!!!. Save yourself the effort and hire a prostitute if all you are after is a piece of ass. Maybe there are girls out there with the same mind set;but some how I don't think so.
this show just sucks. i don't think i even need to say it or why because judging by the number of comments already i am just repeating everything. keys to the vip is like turning on your TV and having it throw poo at you. that is exactly what it is like i am not even exaggerating even a little bit. these guys are so stupid, not funny and not smooth with the ladies that it's not even funny-casue-its-stupid. i sat through four episodes and i want my two hours back. where do they find the contestants because they are obviously deficient mentally. if i was the man who came up with this idea for a show and put it on TV i would do the world a favour and jump off the tallest building i could find. how does garbage like this get on TV? especially the comedy network shouldn't a show on something called the comedy network at least be a comedy show or maybe be funny so often?
This show is pathetic. I can't even begin to imagine how anyone with an IQ greater than that of a can of split pea soup that's past its expiration date can willingly sit through this garbage for an entire half hour. It is one of those rare shows that is so mind-numbingly awful in every respect you can honestly say you are less intelligent simply from watching it. I conducted a study and found that the average person loses 10 IQ points for every fifteen seconds they watch this show. That is second only to another Comedy Network abortion, Popcultured (19,863,221 IQ points per second lost) and pretty much a tie with Girls Will Be Girls. Keys to the VIP owes each and every one of us an apology. Whenever I watch this travesty of a show, I feel sad for society. How is it allowed to continue?
Keys to the VIP is just another one of the horrible T.V. shows that you can and will see on this station. The show is terrible with guys claiming to be real players competing against each other (there are two of them competing in each episode) in stupid games where they try to get girls at a bar to talk to them, get girls numbers, and so on. The judges are four other guys who also claim to be expert pick up artists but they also seem like just huge d-bags just like the contestants. The show is not funny at all and not even interesting, it is just boring watching these guys desperately try to convince us what awesome players they are (talking even more about the four judges than I am about the contestants). Nothing funny has even happened in the shows I have watched and the shows are obviously rigged. Do you really think they have invited all these people to the club, got them to sign releases, and get them on tape while these guys carry out the same stupid games with them? It's not reality at all it is just stupid, it probably even tapes in the day time. Somebody else on here wrote how they knew somebody on the show and it was all fake well yeah that is obvious, it's a fake show and even with actors it's still not funny. One of the worst shows I have ever seen.
A professional production with quality actors that simply never touched the heart or the funny bone no matter how hard it tried. The quality cast, stark setting and excellent cinemetography made you hope for Fargo or High Plains Drifter but sorry, the soup had no seasoning...or meat for that matter. A 3 (of 10) for effort.
Most of the films I really like are art-house fare and seldom appear on the box-office top-ten lists. That said, I found "Northfork" utterly incomprehensible. I have no idea what it was even about. Writing in the New York Times about a different film, Stephen Holden once observed that some people seem to think they can throw just anything up on the screen and have it work as a fairy tale. I thought of that review several times while watching "Northfork".<br /><br />On a scale of one to ten, I gave it a two.
There is nothing I hate more in a movie than pretentiousness, and this is one of the most pretentious films ever made. It's self-consciousness is obvious in every frame: "see what a profound, sophisticated film we are making," the director and screenwriters seem to be saying to us, and to themselves they say, "lets's see how we can bore and confuse the audience even more." I would rather watch the worst film by Ed Wood or Edgar G. Ulmer than something like this. At least they were giving us honest trash, and at least their films, in their own atrocious way, were entertaining. This film is about as entertaining as a root canal without anesthesia, and thus is tantamount to torture.<br /><br />Have these screenwriters ever heard the word 'story?' It doesn't appear so. They have a concept, they are able to create an atmosphere, and they were able to assemble an excellent cast and elicit good performances from them. And for what? To bore us for an hour and 45 minutes? Nothing really happens in this film. The only exciting part, and this lasts only about two minutes, occurs when one of the soon-to-be-evicted homeowners starts shooting at the state employees who come to tell him he has to leave. But nothing comes of it. Too bad he didn't keep shooting until he hit the screenwriters. The only redeeming features of this film are the acting and some beautifully photographed scenery toward the end. 3/10
This is one of the best looking films of the past few years. The fact that it was done on a virtual shoestring ($1.8 million or so they say on the DVD:they infer that they ended up with even less financing) makes it all the more impressive. Not simply the photography, but the design and particularly the locations (Eastern Montana) which are at once authentically American and otherworldly.<br /><br />Too bad there isn't a coherent movie to go with it. An extremely promising setup of the last 48 hours of clearing out a rural town in 1955 before it will be flooded for a dam is washed away with pretentious mumbo jumbo alluding to angels and a dying child. And what is presented as the "real world" is hopelessly arch. Note to the Polish Brothers:the Coen Brothers are funny-you are not.<br /><br />No doubt many cineastes will find "Northfork"'s abundant symbolism and inscrutability as marks of some sort of profundity, the sort that sophisticated types wrestle the night away with in coffeehouses while the braindead masses watch "Charlie's Angels" or something. (Sigh) If you insist....<br /><br />In the meantime, recommended only as a case study for filmmakers for its' impeccable technical credits and photographic beauty.
If this movie had a point I never discovered it. A very depressing movie which supposedly is about the final evacuation of the residents living in a dam site area on the Northfork River in Montana. The problem is that there is no actual Northfork River in Montana. There are several north forks but they are branches of other rivers which divided into north and south forks.<br /><br />	The opening scene of the movie is a coffin bobbing to the surface of the lake but the scene is never tied into the story and the viewer is left to speculate as to its meaning. But much is left to the viewer's speculation in the movie. Another example is when a team of dam employees responsible for the evacuation of the residents arrives at the dam headquarters, another group of people are departing. Some remark which is almost inaudible is made about these people which makes no sense whatsoever and there is no followup in the movie to explain it.<br /><br />	The movie is butchered into several stories and the film keeps switching back and forth between stories which is quite disconcerting. And the stories are weird. In one of them the occupants of one property refuse to be evacuated because they are living in a home that is built like Noah's Ark.<br /><br />	Another senseless story centers around a sick orphan who is dying and somehow he is sharing his presence with a house full of ghosts and in an orphanage with a priest at the same time. If anyone can figure out what the ghost story was about the author must have explained it to them.<br /><br />	The scenery was stark and the sun never shines. There are snowy mountains in the far distance. I guess the purpose was to set the mood. The time period is set by the fact that the evacuaters all drove Ford sedans of the 1946-48 era although the events are supposed to have occurred in 1955. The acting was mediocre. When I saw the billing for this movie it said that Darryl Hannah was in the picture. If she was, I didn't recognize her but I surmise that she was the ghost lady.
I tried to be patient and open-minded but found myself in a coma-like state. I wish I would have brought my duck and goose feather pillow...I apologize to all of the great actors in this movie. Maybe it takes a degree from MIT to understand the importance of this movie.
The frustrating thing about a movie like this, with a true potential for greatness, is that it almost enjoys being heavy-handed. We speak of allegory, of metaphor...but the truth is, there's no getting around the fact that there is absolutely no plot or real character.<br /><br />At a certain point, we most know who the people are...even if we never understand where they are going. The sheer pretentiousness wore me down every time I tried to grasp a truth in this film.<br /><br />Call it beautiful, great and awesome...I just call it "cheating." All style and no substance. Sure, it's a matter of taste...but I would never take a confusing modernist pastiche of symbols and splashes over the spiritual clarity of Jean Cocteau or Renoir. But if it works for you, I'm all for it. Art is a personal thing, I guess.
"What symbolism!" exclaimed a woman as we exited the theater after viewing the Polish brother's paean to Ingmar Bergman. Some symbolism is there all right. But not much. "Northfork" adds up to some fine acting weakened by dreary cinematography that fails to make any coherent statement and a muddled story that irritates rather than enthralls.<br /><br />Northfork is a town facing extinction after a new hydroelectric dam goes into operation. It's the early to middle 1950s and a squad of identically dressed state agents, all looking as if they had just answered a casting call for "The Untouchables," have the job of relocating recalcitrant dwellers who fail to appreciate both their immediate peril as well as the proffered bounty for moving. An exciting anti-development movie is always a possibility but let's get real: rural electrification is one of the greatest advances in bringing decent living conditions and a boosted economy in American history. Dams can be built without forced relocation? Not in this country.<br /><br />But this film is less about the plight of homeowners than it is a fantastical creation of a dying young boy's escapist imagination. Nick Nolte is the priest who tends to the lad and much of what he says might have been interesting if the sound was clear enough to hear.<br /><br />Alternating between the black-suited evacuation agents (working for "lakefront" land when the dam creates that valuable acreage) and a phantasmagorical collection of weirdos, the film develops neither theme coherently or even interestingly. <br /><br />The cinematography is poor. A washed out, subdued and depressive color permeates the whole film to little dramatic purpose. There is no reason for this vast terrain to be depicted so bleakly. Indeed, a contrast between largely untouched natural beauty and the massive and grim solidity of the evolving dam and power plants would have been very effective.<br /><br />4/10.
Pretentious storytelling such as this always uses the same technique: 1) Throw opaque, unstructured threads around to perplex the audience. 2) Deal only in `big' topics such as life, death and God. 3) Make it appear profound with scenes of life, death, sky, etc. 4) Depend on an intellectually weak audience to give you the benefit of the doubt. 5) And finally, laugh all the way to critical acclaim.<br /><br />This movie is pretentious faux-intellectualism at its boldest. Not only do these filmmakers not answer any questions, they're afraid to pose the questions to begin with. The film is held together by wisps. Directions are raised and dropped awkwardly. Pop cultural references are jolting and arbitrary. There is so little to point at, that any critical stabs will miss.<br /><br />Critics who found an intellectual base to this movie are afraid to admit the truth: they have no idea what this movie is about. Good news: neither do the filmmakers. Satisfying attempts at answers to profound questions about human existence demand wit, intellect, poetry, and genius. Sadly, this movie demonstrates none of these traits.
'Northfork' is what is wrong with indie films. For all of their hard-edged commentary and attacking big subjects studios won't, this is the sacrifice we make. For nearly two hours I was subjected to the torture and pain of a film that starts by wandering like a blind man in a new place and ends without covering any new ground and thankfully dies.<br /><br />There are parallel stories that detail a dying town and a dying boy. Two men dressed in black (one of them James Woods) must coerce the remaining inhabitants of Northfork to leave before a dam opens up and floods the town. The other story has a boy returned to the priest (Nick Nolte) that gave him to the parents. He is dying and is visited, I guess, by angels. Among them Anthony Edwards with bizarre spectacles and Daryl Hannah in a bizarre costume reminding me of the pirate shirt from Seinfeld.<br /><br />Though this is the "plot," it is not what the film is about. The film is about nothing. It does nothing, says nothing, goes nowhere, and has nothing interesting to show. Perhaps by design, more likely an after-effect of the pretentious, surreal, David Lynch wannabe - we're an important artsy film can't you see - style of direction. The entire movie is filtered through a gray, bleak backdrop that, I suppose, fits a film about death. Instead, it simply makes the film that much harder to watch.<br /><br />If you want to see a film about men in black, see either 'Men in Black' films, neither too impressive but compared to 'Northfork' they are lifted to 'Citizen Kane' status. If you want to see a film about a boy dying watch 'Lorenzo's Oil.' If you want to see a film that has the destruction of a town through water watch 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?' If you want to watch a film better than 'Northfork,' there are hundreds. If you want to watch a film that is worse, there are only a handful. 0* out of ****
This is the most boring, pretentious, and stupid film I have seen in a long time. I saw it at the Academy in Beverly Hills, and there were quite a few people in the lobby who had left the screening and were seeking refuge there. All were solemnly shaking their heads and looking as though they had been to a funeral. What a waste of time and money. Even worse are the critics who gave this pretentious blimp good reviews. What's with them? Are they just afraid they won't be considered "hip"? Were they bribed? This film is staggeringly bad. Don't take a date to it expecting to have an in-depth chat at the Cheesecake factory afterwards. If going to see this film was your idea, she'll browbeat you and hold it over you the rest of your life.
Usually I'm the one criticizing the twenty-something Neanderthals for not being able to appreciate a film unless it has plastic t*ts, gunfights and car chases. However, in this case the film might actually have been improved with a few of those additions. At least I wouldn't have gotten bored after an hour and changed channels.<br /><br />I don't mind surreal, and I certainly don't mind having to pay attention to find subtlety or hidden meaning, but there should be some point to the whole thing. I didn't get the feeling that even the writer or director really had a broad vision of anything but were, instead, just so self-absorbed in their own pretentious visions that they became deliberately scattered. Or perhaps they just got confused themselves. Either way, I don't care. It bored the crap out of me for just over an hour with no saving grace.<br /><br />Although a whole pack of other viewers have filled up this site with excited ravings about the alleged symbolism and masterful cinematography, I must respectfully disagree. Perhaps I didn't mince through enough film classes to appreciate some inspired techniques not visible to mere mortals ...<br /><br />Or perhaps this movie was just crap. <br /><br />I give it a "1" and file it next to "Ishtar."
First the easy part: this movie is pretentious crapola!<br /><br />It put me in mind of "Magnolia". And then I thought "Wow-- somebody made a movie even dumber and more irritating than "Magnolia".<br /><br />I know nothing about the Polish brothers, but this film seems to have been made by someone who learned a lot in film school but knows nothing about storytelling. The trite plot elements and sledgehammer symbolism are bad enough, but the dialogue is just pathetic. <br /><br />Detailed comments would just be a laundry list of failure. The parts that are supposed to be funny or satirical are not; the "elegaic" parts are nice coffee table pictures with mediocre music; the "emotional" parts are simplistic.<br /><br />The worst thing is that the movie shows no love at all for the characters, except for a little cornball dignity in the priest.<br /><br />I still can't believe the respect some people have given this picture.
This is a good time to say how good I think of this site: it gives me the opportunity to feedback all the frustration I lived for two hours, awaiting for something to happens, for something to be said, to be shown, to be insinuated subtly, for a symbol, an idea, whatever. No, just long, endless violins, alternated by a tired piano. Tired voices, tired actors and bored characters and situations. Boring is the long death of the mind, and this movie is, from that point of view, a public enemy. How many thousands of live hours will be still stolen to another thousands of innocent spectators. I don't claim for my money back, just for my time and the time of persons I invited to watch this thing... oh God !
I was fairly lost throughout most of this film, and I am the one who usually understands the works of such enigmatic cinema greats as David Lynch (Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me) and Darren Aronofsky (Pi). Not to say that Northfork doesn't make sense on some level, it just doesn't combine to form a wholly coherent film. As time passes from watching the film, its themes and intentions become clearer, but during my initial viewing, I was really confounded, and I find that this is the major fault of the film...its lack of direction. The plot centers on the town of Northfork, Montana in the year 1955. The town has been emptied and will soon be flooded to make way for the creation of a hydro-electric dam. The major problem is that not all of its inhabitants are willing to be evacuated and relocated. A group of men are hired to coerce the remaining residents out of the town before it will be drowned, and for the most part they succeed amidst some fairly odd situations and townspeople. Simultaneously, the film tells the story of Irwin, a very sick young boy (or is he a fallen angel?) whose adopted parents gave him back, due to his illness, to the Northfork orphanage that they adopted him from. Father Harlan (Nick Nolte) cares for the dying Irwin, but Irwin imagines (or does he?!) that a group of angels (including Daryl Hannah and Anthony Edwards) have arrived in the desolate and empty town looking for a fallen angel. Irwin has scars on his back and on his head, and he tries to convince the angels that his scars are where the humans amputated his wings and halo. Oh yeah, and during all of this there is a strangely surreal walking animal on stilts that roams throughout the backdrop of the landscape. There are a lot of other small events that happen in the film, but none of them end up amounting to much more than momentary intrigue. One can appreciate the artistic quality of the film (it's obvious that the filmmakers cared deeply about this film) and its rich cinematography, but the film still tries too hard to be different and then gives up and whimpers to an end without making much of a statement. Like I wrote earlier, it becomes clearer, long after viewing, what has possibly taken place in the film. Irwin is dying, and so is Northfork, and in coping with his own loss and death, Irwin has most likely created characters, from ideas he gets from the objects that surround him at the orphanage, to console him as he is abandoned and his life nears its end. But then again, maybe he really is an angel, and he has found his kind and can now return home. I must emphasize that there are some truly beautiful moments in the film, heartbreaking, vivid and full of loneliness and sadness. Unfortunately, the film as a whole just ends up feeling disconnected and somehow incomplete.
I should live this film, but I don't. It won international awards, it is foreign (I usually like such films) it is slow moving (again something I like) and it has no gratuitous sex or violence. the problem is that it is boring. We have two friends from the same village in Turkey one "successful" the other not. the unsuccessful one comes to Istanbul to stay with the successful in an attempt to get a good job at sea. Both live lives that are unfulfilling, pointless and petty.<br /><br />Well, it isn't the first time this kind of film has been made. I didn't see anything new being added to this tired theme. There are long takes that are just someone standing and looking at the sea or sitting in a coffee shop or watching TV. I do understand that this kind of thing is there to show the emptiness of their loves, While it does do that I got the idea in the first 15 min. I don't need to be beaten over the head with it for the rest of the two hours.<br /><br />The symbolism is also a bit heavy handed. the plate of live minnow type fish with one off the plate and flopping around in its death throws. Symbols are best when they are not obvious but are there, in the background, creating a mood just slightly below the viewer's awareness.<br /><br />The film is so apathetic, that it doesn't even rate a score of 1, so I gave it a 2. To rate a 1 takes a talent at being bad. This film didn't have that much energy.
I can't think of anything, I repeat, ANYTHING positive about this "Movie"! The whole 1 hour 45 minute movie could be shrunken into a short 5-minute movie! In most scenes, there is absolutely nothing going on and it seems just the camera was left on recording on purpose only to increase the time of the movie! All you see is someone in the background walking around or watching TV with no specific subject or even talk what so ever! I just feel I've wasted 105 minutes of my, my family's and my friends' weekend for nothing! If a movie is poorly made or the scenario isn't great that's whole another story, at least it leaves you something to discuss about but about DISTANT, I just have to call it a "Movie" because it was motion pictures recorded by a camera.<br /><br />If you haven't seen it, imagine a 105-min long movie based on two-three lines of story! What will you end up with? 5% of content and 95% of fillers! That's exactly how "Distant" was at least for us! Actors did a great job acting roles that had nothing special in them, they barely talked or showed any special emotions! I picked up this movie in the comedy section of a store relying on what I read on the back of its cover. I'm still wondering what was funny in it other than our face after watching the movie.
This movie is about a depressed and emotionally constricted man has a distant relative move in with him in his apartment in Istanbul. As time passes, their relationship becomes more and more strained until finally he begins yelling at his house guest--who is out of work and doesn't appear all that eager to find work. That's most of the movie in fact. The problem is that although emotionally constricted and depressed people are VERY withdrawn and non-communicative, they don't make for a very satisfying movie. That's because most of the time he (and his roomie) just stare into space and say nothing. I think all these flat moments could have been shortened to make a 30 minute movie--I certainly wouldn't have minded.
There seem to be many fans of this movie here, but I found it boring, slow, meandering, and pointless. And I watch and enjoy plenty of art-house and independent films, so I wasn't expecting an action movie. I didn't sympathize with either character. The guy from the countryside was a bad guest and didn't seem to be trying very hard to find a job, and his relative in Istanbul was humorless and closed off emotionally. <br /><br />In an interview on the DVD, the director says that the movie is about a common situation in Turkey - the person leaving in the countryside because there are no jobs and coming to Istanbul and staying with relatives while trying to find work. That in itself is interesting, but the movie wasn't.
Don't get me wrong: I enjoy art-house movies, low-budget flicks, character studies, and foreign movies. Unfortunately, I couldn't enjoy this one -- glacial pacing, complete lack of plot, and characters that you can't dislike enough to hate, but you can't tolerate enough to like.<br /><br />For me, Distant was like watching the cutting-room floor footage of a reality show -- all of the scenes which were deemed too uninteresting which would normally not make the final cut, were the only scenes included. A camera in my apartment with two of my friends ambling around for hours does not an interesting movie make.<br /><br />Distant certainly makes the watcher feel that way -- long stretches of no dialogue (nearly 10 minutes before the first word is spoken from the credits) can be made to work (2001 comes to mind), but for me, something else compelling needs to happen to draw me in.<br /><br />If you're the kind of watcher who can sit through a movie and be content with movie analysis, perhaps it will work for you. However, if you're somebody who chooses to watch movies to relax, expand your mind, or be entertained, you should probably look elsewhere.
Bad, ambient sound. Lots of shuffling. Loooong pointless scenes. Eg: guy sees interesting woman in lobby. Manages to stay there and watch her under the guise of waiting for the building supervisor to get a package. Says nothing. Stares creepily. More shuffling and other irritating ambient noise. Wait. Wait. Wait. Guy says nothing. Woman looks frightened or at least slightly disturbed about it and rightly so. Manager comes back with package. Guy goes up to the apartment with the package.<br /><br />Another example: the guy and his host sit around watching bad TV. More ambient noise and shuffling. Wait wait wait wait. Guy wanders off to bed. If you can stand to sit through any more of this movie, you get to watch them watch TV again later.<br /><br />If you want a story, any dialogue, entertainment, or a well crafted film, look elsewhere.
I've seen comments from Turkish people (which I'm not) saying this movie is fantastic and accurately portrays Turkish life. All I have to say is... Turkey must be one of the most boring and depressing places in the world, because in my opinion, that is exactly what this movie was to me. If I were Turkish, I think it would have had a greater impact. But if you're not from Turkey, I would advise you not to waste two hours of your life on this.<br /><br />"Distant" seems to lag on forever. Many scenes are painstakingly long with little or no purpose. I don't understand the director's objectives in even including many of the scenes. It is pointed out that the director used his own car, apartment, and friends in making the movie...Well guess what? It shows. It looks low budget. The acting is poor. If it's a cultural thing then so be it. I just don't understand the purpose of basing a movie on this story. It's unbelievably boring.
Silly and violent thriller that is a rip - off of 'Deliverance' but without any charm and intelligence. The plot is ridiculous and the cast seems to be tired and anxious to be free of this obnoxious entry. This movie is a solid example of a bad plot and a very, very bad idea all the way. It's a shame to see good actors like Thomerson and James make a living in a mess like this.
No idea how this is rated as high as it is (5.8 at the time of writing) but this movie was absolutely horrible. The acting wasn't entirely bad but it really had no point whatsoever and the overall quality was poor. Its obviously a B movie (or a C if such a thing exists) and it looks like it was made over a weekend at a friends house or something. Im all for low budget movies and I generally watch any I come across but this one is really really bad. I mean like "The Fanglys" bad. I don't know what else to say but trust in this as I have indeed sat thru this horrible horrible movie and I can save you the effort... Don't bother. Seriously... Just don't.
This is a little slow-moving for a horror movie, but the quality is better than you might expect for a director's only effort on IMDb. The camera work and lighting were both surprisingly good, and the acting – although variable – is better than is often found in Indie genre flicks.<br /><br />As the lead, Robert Field is rather stiff, which is especially unfortunate given that his character, Claude, is the film's narrator as well as the centre of its action. However, it was the entry of Christopher (Brandon deSpain) that I considered the turning point of this film – and not in a good way. A twist is introduced in a clumsy fashion, and slow-moving becomes drawn out and overly wordy.<br /><br />On the up side, Pete Barker is consistently entertaining as Father William. He's the easy stand-out in what is a fairly ordinary offering. While the first half hour caught my interest, I ended up feeling quite disappointed in the way things played out.
Sometimes you just have to have patients when watching indie horror. If you can just toe-tap your way through the slow-paced early scenes, sometimes a real gem will present itself... This (unfortunately) was not the case with "Satan's Whip".<br /><br />Written and directed by Jason Maran, "Satan's Whip" attempts to drag us along on a boring snore-fest of a film, with no real pay off at the end. I'm guessing that the black & white (and blue) cinematography must have been for a reason, however it is never explained why the majority of the blood is blue, and I found this increasingly annoying as the film went on. The story in itself is not that bad, and actually had some originality and decent content but the acting is simply pathetic. This, combined with the slow-pacing and lack of any real (red) gore made "Satan's Whip" one to forget quite quickly. I will give it a "4" rating for some witty dialog that made me chuckle, but alas that could not save this boring waste of my time.
Just saw this movie yesterday night and I almost cried. No, it wasn't because it got me utterly petrified, no. It was absolutely HORRENDOUS! Sometimes, you see movies that make you wonder what will become of the human race in the near future - this movie is one of those. It's as though the writer, actors, director, et al, just came together and copied and pasted scenes of their favorite horror flicks, zipped it all together and said "hey, here's Satan's whip!!!" After seeing this movie, I could not help but be tormented by the sight of people whom call themselves "actors"; waltzing around like they're some kind of talented artistic interpreters... do not be fooled they suck! Don't bother wasting your time or money!!!
This was without a doubt the WORST movie I have ever see, yet once I started, it was just like the really bad car wreck on the side of the road - you can't help yourself, you just have to look. My EYES !!! The acting was awful, the production was awful, the filming was awful, awful, awful, awful. I was glad the priest got chopped, would have loved to have done it myself because of his POOR acting. I mean suck-ful acting to the tenth power. I would have cheered if Chris had just axed the lot of them before turning it on himself. And what was WITH that freaking wig from hell on his head?! I sincerely hope no one got paid, I mean if getting paid were to be considered here, they should be paid to never attempt another film project again, everyone that was involved, never, never again. That was just a huge piece of garbage that I am embarrassed to say I just had to keep watching until the very end. Don't watch it, it's about an hour and a half of your life you will never get back, and then you'll have to spend time registering on this website so you can write a comment like I am doing now, which you must do as a catharsis in order to survive the aftershocks of having viewed this film (and I use the term "film" loosely here).
The people at ABC forgot to do their biographical research... so many scenes were just plain wrong! The actor playing JPII was very rigid, there was no personality there. It is very very obvious that this movie was on the bottom of the programming totem poll, the move is so low budget. The script is terrible. Conversations like: "You must follow the rules" "No, the people are starving." Lame. Plus, the movie was jumping like crazy from event to event in order to fit it into the two hours. Terrible! A better use of your time would be to watch a PBS documentary on JPII. Also, CBS put out a miniseries on JPII that is better than ABC by far. JPII was a wonderful man, and it bothers me to think that my grandkids might get a hold of this ABC movie and think that THAT is what he was really like!
I saw that this movie was coming out and could not wait to see it. I have to say I was very disappointed with it. This would have been better as a mini-series. The whole show seemed very rushed. They did not explain things very clearly. At the end they showed John Paul II, alive and well and the next scene he was dead. Never any explanation as to what happened. (We all know what happened in real life) I think ABC dropped the ball big time on something that could have been great. In all I think this movie was a blur. It seemed like a drunken monkey jumping around from one point in John Paul's life to another point never explaining how or why things happened. Such as when his older brother leaves, it was never explained that his brother was a doctor and that is why he left home. Also when his father dies, all we see is his father lying on the floor and that was that. I was very disappointed with the over all movie.
Not finding the right words is everybody's problem in this vaudeville-type urban comedy. They don't know what to say, and they don't know how to say it, which is why they embark on the potentially humiliating enterprise of pre-arranged speed dating. Unfortunately, they all come across as cardboard characters rather than real people. The story follows a conventional three-act structure: getting to know the sizable cast in their sorry single lives, the actual dating circuit, and a final stretch of romantic fallout, showcasing some of the new-found couples' follies. Because it's all so predictable, I'd say that as a narrative, "Shoppen" is a failure. As a comedy, most of the time it's too goofy to be really funny. Thumbs up to Kathrin von Steinburg. She stands out from the soap opera crowd as the aloof, independently wealthy Miriam. Great makeup on her too (Verena Weißert): Heavy eye shadow meets skin-tone lip gloss, creating a brooding and bohemian, yet girlish effect. Thumbs up also to Stefan Zinner as the Bavarian love machine and Tanja Schleiff as the hot nutritionist. They bypass the communication challenge by way of the timeless body language of copulation.
This feels like a feature-lenght treatment of a comedy-routine that could have also been told in a ten-minute short. Also, technical credits are sup-par. The film really feels like a film school diploma project.<br /><br />The cast is a mix of seasoned stage pros and talented newcomers but the problems is the superficial scrip. Their lines feel constructed, exactly like cued TV show material.<br /><br />The director fails to take his protagonists seriously, therefore we are not touched by their problems and conflicts.<br /><br />The film has been cleverly marketed and offers a unique selling point, but in the end the film disappoints on all levels.
Well, I have to admit that this movie brought some occasional laughs to my face. OK, but that does not make it a good movie. Most of the characters are terrible stereotypes and truly unconvincing. Not all of them give great acting performances, but some really try, but fail because their characters are badly written. The perfect example is Julia Koschitz: She changes her eating habits from one talk to the other, on one talk she does not drink alcohol on the next she is allergic to champagne, she feels too beautiful for most people (in fact she is) but still ends up with the "perfect" fit concerning the looks, and refuses to give some more "realistic" guys a chance, and so on... The end is very cheesy, although I like one of the final scenes, when everybody finally stops talking and the director gives us a chance to catch our breath again. Shoppen is basically a movie that offers some cheap laughters (mostly because it is about sex and relationships, I assume) and maybe some short entertainment. Still, the whole picture is one big stereotype and nothing is really special about it.
Even though I tried to avoid German films recently, positive reviews lured me into renting this one. There I stand fooled again by German media which has been hyping domestic flicks over and over again. To me it is no wonder no one abroad wants to see this crap. The idea to make this film is no idea at all (I guess some fool read a women's magazine article about speed-dating). In short: The characters (which are none), dialogue and content are so stunningly trivial, trite and cliché-ridden, I continued watching because I could hardly believe what I saw. BTW to call the flat theses mechanically delivered by the figures (certainly from the aforementioned magazines) dialogue, would be simply incorrect. Acting is so over-the-top, I can't remember worse than that on screen in a long time. You have to guess the director had/has no clue at all. Amazingly distributors and producers around the country are still wondering why German films (with rare exceptions) generate no interest world-wide. Why? Because it's waste of time and money.
1 thing. this movie sucks BIG TIME..i was into singaporean comedy when Chiken Rice war came along. But, this time, even Gurmit Singh (well-done) acting cant pull this one of. A total failure of following HK's Shaolin Soccer. Next time: do ur own thing!
Okay, so I'm Singaporean and I would like to say that it's time to stop stereotyping Singaporeans and making such films. Some of the actors/actresses actually have talent, but sadly it wasn't shown much in this film. I was fidgeting in my seat when I watched this, being quite young at that time, my parents dragged me along to see it. Honestly I could say that I was going to fall asleep. And there was this arrogant westernized boy whom just got on my nerves. Overall a boring film, and a general waste of the actors' talent. I have seen better Singaporean movies than this. Chicken Rice War was good. However, I cannot believe that this one would be considered a better Singaporean film. Sorry, I wouldn't recommend it.
To soccer fans every where -- stay away from this movie. It was so baaaaddd! Lame acting, lame script, lame soccer and no directing! I rented this movie during my stint in Asia and was appalled that this was considered one of the better Singaporean films. It was just nonsensical and thoroughly boring. There are thousands of rich, exciting stories in Asia. Why write a bad story about over the top and stereotypical Singaporeans?
Why is it that Instant Noodles aren't instant, this was the perplexing problem I placed in the lap of the one legged angry Sherpa; he angrily retorted that noodles weren't his bag, equally I replied "What bag?" He looked further perplexed.<br /><br />Some of you will be wondering, why has the Sherpa only one lower appendage.<br /><br />The Sherpa, who we shall call Sherpa 5, for data protection reasons, injured his toe. "How!?!" I hear you ask, I will proceed, as we have learnt from the review of Donkey Punch (2002) Irene via sly nudges and dirty winks etc tried in vain to teach the slight peculiarities of checkers to all the angry Sherpas. Sherpa 5 who is known only for his violent tirades against democratic principals during the post revolutionary years of the now United States of America and it's consequential affect on the mind sets of it's population in the post modern empire that now exists, through the invasions of countries smaller than it, got carried away in a river of violence due to his lack of comprehension of checkers. According to an eye witness , he sprung around like a feckless banjo string at Mardi gras wielding a stick with nail through it, after the struggle that ensued 5 llamas were each found to be missing their left testicles, 3 Sherpas were discovered spooning beneath a gooseberry bush and Sherpa 5 had the nail stuck in his big toe.<br /><br />A Sherpas lifestyle is as modest as a nuns, with only rudimentary health care facilities at 15000 ft above sea level. Consequentially when the first aid hut was opened only an IOU for a tin of spam, and some crotchless knickers were found. Sherpa 5 hopped around like a dark on a noose in agony, until Irene burst forth like a cock from a hen house and suggested soaked his ailment in llama spit. Sherpa 5 agreed to the procedure , to sedate him, a bottle of 100 yr old Glenfiditch was produced, some say it was left by an angry Scotsman, who is thought to be an ancestor of the angry Sherpas. One under the influence, the toe was bathed until ridged, dressed with Irenes slightly soiled diaphragm and some blue tack. Some of you may feel that this procedure wouldn't do the Sherpa any good and you would be fully vindicated for holding that view. Only four days later gangrene set it and a week later the leg was removed through the use of even tighter elastic bands
Hollywood has made a lot of strange movies over the years, but none stranger than this. WHY this movie got made I will never know, nor how Paramount could have thought it would sell any tickets in 1947. It is the strangest mix of genres I have seen in a long time, a movie that truly does not know whether it is trying to be a serious war drama or a Viennese operetta comedy.<br /><br />It tells the story of a British spy trying to get a poison gas formula out of Germany in the days just before WW II began. Ray Milland, a fine actor, is stuck playing the part like an escapee from Monty Python, all very exaggerated English prep-school dialogue. In Germany he meets a gypsy, Marlene Dietrich, who helps him to travel under cover as, of course, another gypsy. She plays her part like the typical Viennese operetta gypsy caricature, as do the other "gypsies" in the movie. But there are also Nazis, who are not funny at all. And then Milland finds he is starting to think like a gypsy, and that is not treated as a joke. Sometimes the music is for a light comedy, sometimes for a drama. Every time the Nazis show up, the film score plays Wagner, which is funny by itself.<br /><br />This movie could have been a comedy, or it could have taken the plight of the gypsies seriously and done a serious job of showing how the Nazis treated them. Both are hinted at in this movie, but neither pursued. What we are left with is a truly strange mish-mash of genres that must have embarrassed everyone (except the director) involved.<br /><br />Bizarre.
Silly comedy casts an embarrassed-seeming Ray Milland as a British officer in World War II Europe escaping German confines and taking up with a man-hungry gypsy woman, played by Marlene Dietrich. Slowly-paced, overlong, and miscast: the leads are far too old for this type of juvenile fodder, although Marlene shines in her solo moments. It took three scriptwriters to adapt Yolanda Foldes' book for the screen, but this material must have already seemed dated by 1947--it smacks of something Ernst Lubitsch might have turned out in 1939. The scenario is musty, and the stars have absolutely no chemistry together. ** from ****
42/100. Often referred as "Tarzan with clothes on", but it's not at all in the same league as his far superior Tarzan series. Basically, The Jungle Jim series became a Tarzan replacement for Johnny Weismuller, after he started getting too out of shape for a loincloth. In Jungle Jim, he is fully clothed. It can't compare to the Tarzan series in any way, not in acting, screenplays or quality of production. It's pretty hokey stuff. This one is the first the best in the series, and that isn't saying much. Too much stock footage is used, and it is so obvious. The score is overdone, and the plot is lame and the production is so poor it makes it hard to watch at times.
Seems like some of the previous reviewers has seen another movie than what i saw earlier tonight... Actually, this movie is the reason why i registered at IMDb. Sure Bobbie Phillips can "fight" and for that i give this movie a 2, but the rest of this movie is just pure crap... The acting is bad, the plot is bad, the camera angles are bad, and the effects are bad. Sure the actors are in physical good shape, but they cannot act! Sometimes i enjoy watching bad movies for the laugh, but this movie had no charm and after i saw this movie i was filled with regrets for seeing it. Sure, if you would like to see mediocre fighting without anything else then this movie is for you. If not then stay away from this film! PS: Sorry for any spelling mistakes... i am just tired as a cause of this movie!
I just have to say that this was the third worst movie I have ever seen right after the attack of the murder tomato's 3 and starship troopers 2. It wasn't just dialogs or the paper walls or even the guns shots which just automagically disappeared with no holes in the walls. It was the horrible acting. No wonder that I have never seen these actors before they all probably slept with the director(s). I think i'am being nice to this movie now but that is only because i'am to tired from screaming at the movie (just saw it). My advice is to buy as many DVD's of this movie as you possibly can and burn it so no one ever can see this horrible waste of time, money and film ever again.
There were very few good moments in this film. Only a couple of characters were fleshed out and not that well. There were plot holes big enough to drive a truck through. The pace creep-ed along like an old man. There were many moments that the film never came back to like Coco stripping. What happened to her? How about Garci's sister? Is she better now? What about Leroy? We learned absolutely nothing about him. What about the electronic piano guy? How about the rich girl that got an abortion? What happened to her? That was an interesting subplot.<br /><br />Overall this is not a good movie and I recommend another musical that was in this film. LET'S DO THE TIME WARP AGAIN!!!!!!!
No matter what you've heard, "Fame" is not a good movie. It's not worth the investment of over two hours to watch stereotypically troubled teens dancing, singing, learning, and staring at girls in the dressing rooms.<br /><br />Every cliché finds a cozy little home in this movie. There's a gay teenager looking for acceptance. That would have been great if it had been treated as anything more than a secondary plot point. There's a ghetto kid who has too much attitude-- what, was I surprised? And guess what? They all want to become big stars, finding fame and fortune, and they'd all be willing to crawl over their own mothers' smoking corpses to get it.<br /><br />Oddly enough, this film is remembered for its music. But in actuality, the only moderately good song is "Hot Lunch Jam," which is still too cheesy to be of any real quality. The two most popular songs are nothing, either. "Fame" is meaningless fluff drowned out by the sheer spectacle of a massive dancing-in-the-streets scene. And "I Sing the Body Electric" (what in Bubba's name does that even mean?!?!?!?!?) is just an incomprehensible joke.<br /><br />Bad acting, tasteless dialog, and hack direction (it is, after all, from the director of "Evita") are only marginally helped by Michael Seresin's appropriately ordinary camera work. But cinematography alone cannot carry a movie, especially one as uninspiring and pointless as this.
Fame did something odd. It was not only a musical that was created originally for the screen (most are based off of Broadway musicals), but it spawned a TV series and a Broadway musical. Let me correct that sentence. Fame is not a musical. Musicals have song numbers in order to advance the plot or to show characters' feelings. The singing in this music is not used to do either; in fact, there's no use for it at all. People just randomly sing to fit in with the plot. And that's not the type of musical I know.<br /><br />The so-called plot of Fame has an onslaught of characters (who are all introduced at once-last time I saw that in a movie [Gosford Park] it had disastrous results) who audition for, and get into, New York High School for the Performing Arts. All of them are in for different reasons-i.e. acting, singing, etc. Quote-unquote drama unfolds as these middle-aged people pretending to be teenagers go through their four years.<br /><br />My largest complaint is that the high school is supposed to be selective. After all, it's a free college, and they can't let everyone in. So how is it that some people who are really bad get into the college? Obviously so that drama could ensue between all of these different people. And why is the person top billed not even in the movie until near the end, for no reason at all, except to make us feel uncomfortable? There's many unsettling situations that these untalented people get into, yet you can't feel bad for them because you don't know who they are! These relationships occur between people whose names you don't know. And these characters realize things about themselves throughout the course of the movie, yet you don't realize that, because you don't know what they were like in the first place.<br /><br />As for the singing, it pops in randomly (and is supposed to be humorous?) and does nothing. When the title song is sung, it's played in the middle of a street and before you can say Ferris Bueller everyone's in the middle of the street dancing wildly and off-beat to it. The song itself is fine, but the whole scene, like the whole movie, is unnecessary. Fame is an unpleasant movie, to say the least. I would say more, but most of the movie has thankfully gone out of my head. Just don't see it. You'll be doing yourself a favor.<br /><br />My rating: 2/10<br /><br />Rated R for language.
My wife and I both remembered this film being a lot better than it is. When we rented it last weekend, we wondered if we were watching the same movie we had seen 22 years or so ago. We both agreed that we were probably remembering the TV series, which, in its one-hour segments, was compelled to actually wrap up plot lines. This movie leaves many loose threads, as has been mentioned by others here... basically every main character's story line is left unresolved.<br /><br />Gotta like the title song, though.
This was on TV last night. I painfully forced my way through it, and barely made it through. First of all, except for Leroy, Hilary, and possibly Coco, NONE of the other students we are supposed to care about have any discernible talent. It's like HSPA had no standards, just sign on the dotted line and you're in. <br /><br />The story lines were grating and obvious. Doris was just impossibly awful. The gay guy was such a thrown away cliché (funny how that school had only one gay guy, right...) I liked the Leroy character, but calling your teacher an obscenity and then vandalizing the school should have sent Leroy packing. Lisa looks like she'd rather be anywhere else, and since she wasn't any talent, I wonder why they kept her. <br /><br />I would have rated this one star (awful), but the music wasn't that bad, and I did like the premise. It just would have worked much better if the students had been attractive and actually had some talent.
This film was produced by Producers Releasing Corp. (PRC), among the so-called "Poverty Row" film studios of the 1930s and 40s. So you can imagine how little money was spent making it.<br /><br />The music is forgettable. Cast member Gerra Young does exhibit an operatic-quality voice, but is sort of a discount Deanna Durbin. The IMDb database doesn't show any other film appearances for her, so let's hope she was able to move on to some kind of position in Grand Opera.<br /><br />The opening credits for the print recently broadcast by Turner Classic Movies indicates this film has been preserved by the National Film Museum. This immediately begs the question—WHY? <br /><br />Are their resources so plentiful that they can afford to preserve junk? Some low-budget or B musicals of that era have redeeming features which make them worthwhile. This film has none.<br /><br />In my opinion, skip this movie. It REALLY wastes an hour of your time.
I have seen Shallow Grave years ago, and *that* was one of those movies I kept in memory for a very long time. It was intense from beginning to end and with plenty of sudden twists. But all of these made sense.<br /><br />I can't tell the same about Dead Bodies. Above the title is a subtitle that claims it to be "even better than Shallow Grave". This is a big lie.<br /><br />Dead Bodies looses strength and gets far less convincing during the movie.<br /><br />Two supporting characters for example, turn out to be a whole lot less innocent than they first appeared to be. That could work as a surprise, but it didn't surprise me. I could see it coming minutes before, and *that* is a big difference with Shallow Grave.<br /><br />Another thing I have to mention is that characters in this movie often respond not very realistic. They behave like that more often when the movie gets to it's end.<br /><br />I would have found it far more interesting if some of the characters would have stayed completely innocent, not knowing what is going on. It would have been better for the contrast with for example Tommy and his friend who have to carry a *huge* secret with them.<br /><br />But no, for some stupid reason the makers of this movie decided that all characters should show their darkest sides. It does not work in a movie like this.<br /><br />The end felt much like an open end. It left me with an unsatisfied feeling. I expected a whole lot more of it.<br /><br />At first I would have given this movie six stars because it is not entirely a bad movie. I liked watching it. Most of the time.<br /><br />But occasionally I saw some really poor acting and unrealistic scenes and because of the disappointing open end, I stick to four stars this time. And because it turned out to be a mistake that I have spend my time and money to it. Unlike Shallow Grave, I will probably forget Dead Bodies very soon. It is just not such a special movie.<br /><br />The makers could have done a far better job with this movie. It is a shame that they did not.
This belabored and sloppy spy melodrama featuring two buffoonish (one idealistic, one drug addled) California kids dealing secrets to the KGB never seems to get enough steam up to sustain any tension and suspense before it dies a very slow death over two hours later. John Schlesinger's finished product gives the impression that he was asleep in his director's chair most of the time as the film lags and the actors sleep walk, save for the highly annoying over the top performance of Sean Penn. <br /><br />Childhood altar boys and friends Chris (Tim Hutton) and Daulton (Penn) devise a plan to sell secrets to the KGB when Chris lands a job that allows him access to top secret government materials. Disillusioned by what he sees as US meddling in foreign affairs the idealistic Chris and the drug hungry Daulton make contact with the Russians and begin to funnel them classified materials. When Chris decides he wants out things begin to unravel at a lackadaisical pace. <br /><br />The eighties were not kind to distinguished director John Schlesinger. In the 60s and 70s he had a series of critically acclaimed films in both England and America but then came Honky Tonk Freeway in 1981 and it marked the beginning of the end. The Falcon and the Snowman more or less put a lid on it. Lacking the suspense of Marathon Man and the quality performances (Hoffman Voight, Christie, Jackson, Finch, Olivier) he had coaxed from leads in the past Falcon goes in circles most of the way. <br /><br />Sean Penn chews scenery from start to finish in such an obnoxious fashion you find yourself encouraging his torturers to do more to him. Tim Hutton is governed by his limited acting chops and most of his scenes show a need for more rehearsal time. Lori Singer as Hutton's girlfriend plays it mute most of the way with Schlesinger content to film her vapid expressions. When she does emote you understand why. Only David Suchet as the KGB handler with a piercing eyed introspective presence and restraint acquits himself well.
Based on the true story of two young Americans who sold national secrets to the Soviet Union in the height of the Cold War, "Falcon And The Snowman" wants to be both suspenseful and philosophical, and winds up falling short in both departments. It's less le Carré than who cares.<br /><br />Timothy Hutton stars as Christopher Boyce, a former seminarian who, disgusted by Watergate and the middle-class values around him, is probably the wrong guy to be hired by a company running spy satellites for the CIA. Sean Penn plays his drug-dealing pal, Daulton Lee, who makes himself Boyce's courier, delivering secret files to the Soviet embassy in Mexico City. An offbeat synth-jazz score, lack of sympathy or emotional attachment for anyone, and lots of scenes of guys getting angry in rooms all combine to deaden what could have a decent moral-dilemma thriller.<br /><br />It's really Penn's movie despite the second billing; his character gets to talk turkey with the Russians while Hutton plays with his pet falcon. Hutton looks like they woke him up five minutes before they called "action". With Penn, it's a crapshoot whether you get a brilliant performance or an over-the-top one. Here, it's a bit of both, but more the latter, especially in the second half when Lee switches from coke to heroin. He screeches. He snorts. He crashes Russian embassy parties. He gets pummeled with telephone books. He spits at himself in a mirror, a big goober he must have been saving for a paparazzi. "I don't know who my friends are anymore!" he cries out. It's exhausting to just watch him.<br /><br />Penn seems to have modeled Lee somewhat on Dustin Hoffman's Ratso Rizzo from "Midnight Cowboy", complete with overly nasal line readings and constant eye shifting. John Schlesinger directed this film as well as "Midnight Cowboy", but he seems to have had another Hoffman film in mind, "The Graduate", throwing up scene after scene of Boyce and Lee poolside, trying to decide how to live their lives in their gilded cage. Too bad no one suggested plastics.<br /><br />From the opening shots, news footage of American decline juxtaposed with Boyce and his bird, "Falcon" makes clear it is a message movie, though the message itself is far from clear, probably because the characters never come into focus. Is Boyce supposed to be an idealist? Or is he just a mercenary? Hutton and Schlesinger don't seem to know, which makes it harder for us. Meanwhile, opportunities to establish some suspense, like Boyce stealing documents from the top secret "Black Vault" where he works or Lee playing games with the Russians, are interrupted by jump cuts to scenes of the pair with their families and friends. It's the normalcy of the story that Schlesinger finds interesting, but it's the least interesting aspect for us.<br /><br />Good stuff: It's interesting to see a film that works the 1970s vibe so early as this one, referencing Maria Muldaur and Tang. Dorian Harewood, memorable in "Full Metal Jacket", has a nice turn as Boyce's paranoid colleague Gene, who shows Boyce how to make margaritas with a shredder but has some serious 'Nam issues beneath his partying exterior. Macon McCalman is also fine in a totally different way as the no-nonsense boss who gives Boyce his high-security job. David Suchet as the Russian embassy official who deals with Lee makes for a fascinating blend of menace and amiability.<br /><br />But "Falcon And The Snowman" stands or falls on the the question of the two title characters, and neither the actors nor Schlesinger are able to mine much in the way of answers. Worse, after more than two hours in their alternately feral and catatonic company, you don't really want answers. You just want those credits to roll.
The film begins with Ingrid Bergman and her two freaky servants arriving in New Orleans from Paris. Apparently years earlier, her mother was involved in a scandal and Ingrid returned in an effort to irritate kin who would have sooner forgotten she or her mother existed. That's because she reasons if they are shocked enough, they'll pay her off to get rid of her. Then, with this money, she will leave New Orleans and seek out a millionaire somewhere else, as she poses as a Countess. Along the way, Gary Cooper shows up and looks totally out of place as a love interest.<br /><br />It's amazing that this film wasn't the reason that Ingrid Bergman's film career plummeted--her performance and character were THAT bad! Instead of the classy and demure female she usually played in films, she is probably one of the most annoying characters in film. Her fake Contessa was shallow, demanding, unpredictable and stupefyingly dumb. How she was able to vamp ANY man seemed a mystery, as she seemed less vampish than just plain nuts!! I am not exaggerating to say that she behaved, at times, like someone with a combination of a severe mental illness and a personality disorder, and all these together make me think "who in the world would fall in love with this mess?!". Frankly, I couldn't stand watching her histrionics and narcissistic behavior and she looked more like a guest on "The Jerry Springer Show" than a leading lady! Confusing, awful and overacted are words that come to mind when I think about her role.<br /><br />The rest of the cast is, frankly, overwhelmed by Bergman's ranting and hysterics. While Gary Cooper is generally an excellent leading man, he is dominated by her and just looks lost. And, oddly, they cast two total weirdos as her entourage--Flora Robson and Jerry Austin. Ms. Robson is best known for her portrayals of Queen Elizabeth I, but here, for some odd reason, they coated her in makeup and the end result looked much like the love child of a cigar store Indian and Aunt Jemima! Her face was very wooden, she sported odd eyebrows and she dressed like a slave. As for Mr. Austin, he was a dwarf and while this shouldn't be held against him, his role was written like he was a court jester--a very, very thankless role for someone who is "vertically challenged"! Overall, the rotten acting, writing and limp direction make this one of the big stinkers of the age--nearly as pointless and dull as such famous turkeys as PARNELL and SWING YOUR LADY.
This movie is way too long. I lost interest about one hour into the story. Saratoga Trunk tells the story of Ingrid Bergman, who is an the child of a prominent New Orleans man and his mistress. After her mother dies in Paris, Bergman comes back to New Orleans to scandalize her father's "legitimate" family and to blackmail them. She meets Gary Cooper, who is likewise seeking revenge against the railroad tycoons who cheated his father out of his land in Texas. She draws him into her schemes, and the movie climaxes at a Saratoga resort. Long and boring, but worth watching if you are a Bergman or Cooper fan. The midget Cupidon provides the only bright spot in this meandering story.
Anna Christie (Greta Garbo) returns to see her father Chris (George F Marion) after 15 years. He is the skipper of a boat and she stays to travel with him. During this time, she meets Matt (Charles Bickford) and they fall in love. Matt and Chris don't see eye to eye and Anna has a secret to confess.....................<br /><br />What a boring story......it starts badly with George F Marion and Marie Dressler playing drunks in a bar. The scene goes on forever and they are both terrible. Its also hard to understand them. In fact, its difficult to understand the whole cast. I missed whole sections of dialogue between Bickford, Marion and Garbo because it is incomprehensible! Garbo is obviously something special as you are drawn to her every time that she is on screen and her presence gives this film the 4 stars that I have given to it. But nothing really happens - its a boring story with atrocious accents. You'll do well to stay awake.
Mild spoiler in the second paragraph.<br /><br />Anna Christie was Garbo's lackluster 1st talkie. She and Dressler look like the only people who know what they're doing in this movie. The old guy who plays Garbo's dad (George F. Marion) in the film is soooo ah-noying!! All he does is stumble around drunkenly in a totally fake way and yell about "dat old dah-veel sea". He blames Garbo's "past", his whole life, and Everything on the sea! He comes across as stupid x 10. Charles Bickford is Matt, the rough 'n' tumble sailor Garbo falls in love with, and he's fine in his role, but nothing really outstanding.<br /><br />The best part is when Garbo unleashes her "terrible secret" on Bickford and her dad. Finally, Marion stops talking about the evil of the sea and beats his head and fists on the table in perfect time with Bickford. Then soon he goes on a tirade about the sea.<br /><br />I had to practically force myself to finish Anna Christie. It's too melodramatic in many parts and creaky. There are many good early talkies but this is not one of them. If you haven't seen Garbo before try something else before Anna Christie, like CAMILLE or GRAND HOTEL.
The most famous thing about this movie is that this was the first time Garbo talked in a motion picture. Aside from that 'milestone' (if you want to call it that) this is a movie that doesn't go beyond creaky melodrama, with Garbo trying her best not to fall asleep.<br /><br />The plot involves Greta Garbo returning to her Father after 15 years abroad. Her father, who is a captain on a barge, is happy to see her, even though she's acting a bit cagey. She soon falls in love with a grizzled seaman, who also notices that something, a barrier if you will, is holding her back.<br /><br />Anyways, the two fellows don't particularly like each other and soon come to blows over Garbo, when she diffuses the situation by revealing her Big Secret which is no surprise to us, if you've read the video box (damn you MGM!!) Garbo is nothing but arms in this movie, she acts and acts flailing her arms about, and gets grating quickly. The two male leads are alright. Probably the best performance comes from the classic silent actress Marie Dressler, who plays the drunken captain's even drunker girlfriend. What a performance! It's too bad the tagline couldn't have read, "Dressler Talks!"
This could have been a very good film, a very interesting look at ancient tradition and oral history, but it should have been a short subject. As it is , it moves at a snail's pace; sure that's part of the life being portrayed, but this was unbearable. I fell asleep watching them make soup and that was a highlight.
The opening scene makes you feel like you're watching a high school play. But I've seen high school plays with better acting! Every line was delivered so obviously that I felt like I was watching actors work instead of seeing characters. I found the character development to be poor and the acting very forced! I found that 25 minutes into the movie, I really didn't care what happened anymore because the plot was overly obvious and I was bored. I kept hanging in there, waiting for the film to redeem itself, but it never happened. Sister Theresa was overly sweet, even for a nun, yet appeared impulsive and slightly manipulative. All in all, I was mighty disappointed.
We were waiting in line to see The Good Girl, an excellent movie starring Jennifer Aniston, when some lady came up with this cheapo mock twenty dollar bill advertising MANNA FROM HEAVEN. "Come see this movie!" she said. "You'll love it!"<br /><br />She then introduced us to the director of the film. Now, this should have been our first clue. I mean, in how many cinematic situations do you have the director of the film standing out in the lobby begging people to see it? "Is this a Christian film?" I asked, not really caring one way or the other. I love Jesus. No shame in that. "No!" she said defensively. What a load of crap.<br /><br />This movie is BAD. So bad. And it's not only because of the obvious Christian agenda, but because of the terrible dialogue, acting that alternates between wooden and overexaggerated, and the obvious lack of an editor. The film is way too long. Had it been an hour and a half, then maybe (just maybe) I wouldn't have had to visit the suicide prevention center after seeing the movie.<br /><br />Actually, I lie. See, after an hour of this garbage we snuck into SWIMFAN. At least with SWIMFAN we know it's garbage before going in to see the movie. We know to brace ourselves. And SWIMFAN has hot half-naked people. The only thing half-naked in this film is the desperation of the stars involved whose obvious lack of script offers is anything but hidden. And the actress who plaid the nun? It's called a personality. Get one.<br /><br />The people shamelessly begging for ticket sales in the lobby told me that if I liked MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING, then I would *love* (their emphasis, not mine) MANNA FROM HEAVEN. Right. More like, "If you like GLITTER, you'll love MANNA FROM HEAVEN." And Mariah could actually outperform any of the clowns from this flick. If that's not an insult, then I don't know what is.<br /><br />I've railed enough. Go see indie films, but don't see the bad ones. This is definitely one of the bad ones. MANNA FROM HEAVEN is in need of some divine intervention.
1st watched 2/18/2007 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Leon Leonard): Fair adventure movie based on a novel by the author of Moby Dick fame, Herman Melville. This movie is about the captain of a ship who had stolen the eyes(that were extremely rare black pearls) from a native tribe's God sculpture and hidden them somewhere that only he knew about before leaving the Island of Tivi. He got very sick and was on a secret voyage to go back to the island to retrieve the pearls for himself while others(like his daughter) thought that he was going back to be treated by the local medicine man. Others didn't know the reason for the voyage. A stowaway actually knew the real reason for the trip -- to return the eyes to their God. The silly part is that the pearls were hidden very close to the statue and all this time the natives ran their tribe without their God having eyes(causing them all kinds of problems). Along the way, we are treated(for some reason) to a short underwater nature show with an electric eel fighting a local octopus(I guess only Herman Melville knows what this was all about). Once they get to the island, the Captain dies but passes the whereabouts of the pearls to his daughter but she also gets the sickness curse as well. One of the bad guys finds out where the God is housed and convinces the daughter to go there and steal back the pearls but at this point the good guys find out what's going on and a fight ensues. I won't tell you the results of the fight or the ending, I'll leave that up to you to find out if you want. As I said earlier, the movie was OK, but some very silly things that I've already mentioned lessened it's impact. I wonder if that new "Pirates of the Caribbean" got some of it's plot from this one ---hmm… black pearls, a curse( I wonder…) Well, it doesn't matter, those elements didn't make for a very good movie in this case or the other. It seems they would learn they're lesson, but with the money rolling in on that newer movie I'm sure they won't. Oh well.
Oh, Man, talk about the effect of advertising. Apparently, all that you have to do to enjoy box office succes is title your movie after a revered 19th century novel. Horrendous acting, directing, and cinematography in this sham of an effort.
The movie starts off with Reeve (Ekin) and his assistant fighting same vampires. This scene is probably the best out of the entire movie. The rest of the movie unfortunately is cheesy, highly unrealistic and a Buffy the Vampire Slayer ripoff. The ending also sucks big time.<br /><br />Some moments such as the scene where Gypsy and Helen (played by popular Chinese duo band Twins: Charlene & Gillian) fight over a stuffed teddy bear are particularly cringeworthy. The storyline is also lame, surely they could have come up with something more scary than a book called "Day for Night".<br /><br />Some good parts though. Jackie Chan and Anthony Wong make the movie bearable with their comical roles. However, the good bits just end there. Charlene & Gillian (from Twins) have never been able to act well and annoy you to pieces and "the friendly but wussy vampire" role was unfortunately given to Edison Chen who is a talentless pretty boy. <br /><br />Rating: 4/10 --
This movie reminds me of Harry Potter - not the style but the marketing strategy. There may be part 2 , part three...until one day the product life cycle finishs, of course on the condition that the part one has a commercial success. so many things seems to be hidden and thus the story looks quite incomplete. the action design is boring. set design is ok but not fine. perhaps Edison Chen would be a big star one day. He really looks charming even on big screen. The most impressive is still Anthony Wong. 4/10<br /><br />
Now really can u call that a movie. I knew some of the movies that Japanese people do are good for nothing but this bad? I mean com'om i fell a sleep three times at this movie. No horror at all, some tiny percent (0.2-0.5) comedy. Action let's just admit that it has some but the scenes are poorly filmed, the actors are pathetic. None of the actors did a good job in it's own role. The were not convincing. The script is also awful. I mean this movie may be great, REALLY, but for the 60's(in not 100% sure.) I recommend NOT to see it, unless you want to get so bored as i did. I can't quite figure hot this movie got it's rating. It's OVER, OVER, OVER RATED!!!. This is a PERSONAL opinion of course. I don want to offend anyone but who could like this crap? So i hope this helps someone NOT to loose some time "enjoying" this movie. Nevertheless it's your choice!
TWINS EFFECT is a poor film in so many respects. The only good element is that it doesn't take itself seriously. Other than that, this is not really a movie, but rather a merchandising tool for the film's two stars, popular pop idols in their native Hong Kong.<br /><br />The film itself is poorly constructed and acted. The direction offers up some silly martial arts, which is odd since the action director (and supposedly co-director) is Donnie Yen. Like many Hong Kong films geared for the teen audience, the major fanbase of "actors" like the Twins (the two girls who stars in this film) and Ekin Cheng, there is so much bad music to prod the audience into believing certain scenes are funny, clever, etc.<br /><br />The final conclusion: It's all for naught. Even as a fan of Hong Kong movies, this is a poor film. Not funny enough, not serious enough, and just generally too bubble gum fake for its own good.<br /><br />3 out of 10.<br /><br />(Go to http://www.nixflix.com for a more in-depth review of this movie and other foreign films)
To identify this movie as a vampire movie would be technically correct. Simply because it will suck the life right out of you.<br /><br />Vampire Effect is an insult to movie-buffs everywhere. The plot is almost non-existent. The make-up is just plain awful. And the acting is just not there.<br /><br />I have to wonder if Jackie Chan owed someone a huge favor to be convinced to appear in this film.<br /><br />My wife picked up the movie at the rental store because it had a picture of Jackie Chan on the front (as though he was playing the lead) and thought that a good JC flick would be fun to watch. This movie was interesting to watch in the same way that you can't help staring at the car wreck when you drive by. You realize very quickly the movie isn't going to get any better but, you keep watching wonder just how bad it will get.
Quite possibly one of the greatest wastes of celluloid of the past 100 years. Not only does it suffer from a painfully (and enormously predictable) disjointed script, but it's clearly a carbon-copy of Alien II. Within five minutes I had correctly predicted who would die and who wouldn't (and in which order). The special effects are laughable; there is a scene where one crew member is mauled (unconvincingly) by two Krites that look like a pair of teddy-bears, and the sparse humor is misplaced and dire. There are better things to do with a VCR remote than use it to watch this movie.
Anybody who thinks this film is great, desperately needs their head seen to. It strikes me that this film was made as a joke. It has no good points whatsoever. The props cost about $10 and the entire set looks like it could fall down at any time. Why do films like this get made in the first place? This also had two of the most annoying characters I have ever come across in the young boy on the spaceship and the redneck from the twentieth century. This film is almost as bad as "Cool as Ice" starring the incredibly talented Vanilla "misunderstood" Ice.
i'm watching this horrid film as we speak. it is possibly one of the worst movies ever aired in my house. i'm sitting here with 3 friends and they agree. its not scary. its not funny. its not dramatic. it contains nothing appealing whatsoever. we are 49 minutes in the movie. we've only seen 2 critters. only one person has died. this movie is one big letdown. nothing about this horrible, horrible movie has made me want to watch the rest. i'm getting a movie hang over. i hope that everyone who had anything to do with making this movie dies. i don't just mean the actors. i mean the director, producers, the presidents from the studio that financed this movie. it is in full, the worst movie ever. it should make the IMDb worst 100 movies of all time. at number 1.
I saw a great clip of this film, which I'll talk about later, and then the cast list, and thought I might as well give it a go. Basically, a down-on-his-luck bartender, Randy (Matt Dillon), his cocky cousin Carl Harding (Paul Reiser) and murder investigation Detective Dehling (John Goodman) all have something in common, they have seen the girl of their dreams (whether married or not), and they would do anything to please and be with her, even die. All three met/saw her "one night at McCool's", the bar that Randy worked at, they have no knowledge of each other, but all three cannot stop thinking of Femme Fetale Jewel Valentine (The Lord of the Rings' Liv Tyler). All three are telling their stories to someone they hope will listen to their pretty intense and revealing stories, Randy talks to hit-man Mr. Burmeister (Michael Douglas, who co-produced the film), Carl to psychologist/psychiatrist Dr. Green (Reba McEntire) and Dehling to priest Father Jimmy (Richard Jenkins). They confess all details of what they have been willing to do, their sexual contact with her, and eventually they are all brought together in one place, all intent on being with her, and all involved with the final shootout that leaves one dead, one running away (and eventually dying) and one stunned, and the unexpected guy she chooses (but at the same time obvious, cos it's sex-obsessed Douglas). Also starring Andrew Dice Clay as Utah/Elmo and Sandy Martin as Bingo Vendor Woman. If I had to pick a favourite moment, it would definitely be what was mentioned at number 11 along with Cool Hand Luke on The 100 Greatest Sexy Moments, where Tyler copycats the woman washing the car with suds all over herself, and in front of Goodman, very sexy! Apart from that, not the most memorable film. Okay!
Wow. I watched One Night at McCool's yesterday, and all I can say is, "Wow."<br /><br />Here I go. MAJOR SPOILERS.<br /><br />Would you like a summary of the plot, just to see how stupid and pointless this movie is? I would never tell anybody to watch it, unless I was out to inflict pain upon them. Anyway, here's a glimpse (or a huge chunk) of the plot.<br /><br />Randy works for a bar, McCool's. He meets up with this woman named Jewel who convinces him to, surprisingly, have sex with him. Her ex-boyfriend ends up trying to rob them and gets killed. Randy and his cousin and the detective at the scene of the crime all fall for Jewel. She, being the mascot of stupidity, uses every one of these guys to get what she wants, involving a DVD player. Randy hires a hit man to kill her, and eventually the detective is killed by the ex-boyfriend's psycho brother and the hit man and Jewel take off.<br /><br />Seriously. That's it. I left hardly anything out, except for a few more sex scenes and a nearly-pornographic scene of Liv Tyler as Jewel using a hose to flaunt her sexuality.<br /><br />What was the point of this movie? To be honest, I think it was so that the producers and directors could show off their male urges. Which I think is absolutely uncalled for and just plain stupid. When I watch a movie, I want a plot. I want characters. I don't care about sexy woman flaunting anything they might have. Something should happen in a movie, for goodness' sake. This is as bad as Fight Club.<br /><br />It gets even worse. John Goodman is the detective devoted to the higher being. I myself wondered why Goodman would play in something so outrageously pitiful as this, but then I remembered that he was in O Brother, Where Art Thou? as well. His reputation just went down a notch.<br /><br />Liv Tyler was an amazing actress in the Lord of the Rings series. In this movie she is nothing more than an unintelligent slut who wants nothing but her way. Her reputation has gone down seven or eight notches, to me.<br /><br />I am amazed, simply AMAZED that people would work so hard to make something so stupid. The music is absolutely crappy (having "YMCA" play while John Goodman's character is being killed doesn't really fit), the characters are totally unlikeable, the plot is one of the most stupid ever conceived by man, and to top it off, it doesn't even fit into any genre. The closest it gets to is pornographic comedy. If it was even supposed to be funny. Which it wasn't.<br /><br />I think I'm done ranting now. But let me just assure you that nobody in their right mind would ever, ever want to see this movie. Unless they lust for Liv Tyler as much as the characters do, that is.
This was really the worst movie I've ever seen. Anyone who has seen it will know what I'm talking about. I saw it on Starz, so thank goodness I didn't waste my money. Please everyone, don't waste your time. I'm really suprised this wasn't straight to video.
The intertwined points-of-view can come up as a good idea in some movies. Here it is a total mess.<br /><br />But the total mess begin with the story: a video-clip bummy wants to shoot a light comedy with a pernicious noir-like female character. She is gorgeous and no men could resist to dive and crawl and suck her toes. She is all the more materialist, looking as if butter wouldn't melt in her mouth.<br /><br />The movie does melt away in its own pretentiousness: being smart/funny/good-looking. Phalocretinism at his best. White trash only, please.
Probably one of the worst movies ever made, I'm still trying to figure if it was meant to be fun, but for sure I had no fun at all. Maybe the movie lost something during the english-italian translation, dunno, for sure I miss the guts to watch it again in original version.<br /><br />My rate for it 2/10, and I feel like I'm being pretty generous (let's say 1 point is for Liv cause she's a nice babe, and the other point is for those decent actors that got trapped into a worthless, useless and pathetic movie)<br /><br />Take Care<br /><br />Alex
I don't usually watch Hollywood dribble, but I was dragged along with some friends to see this one, which turned out to be amusing in places but totally devoid of any originality. Don't worry, you won't have to think - Tarantino-like storyline leaves enough over-obvious hints for us to correctly predict where this one's going about fifteen minutes before every "twist" - I sat there worrying that the film was building up fairly nicely for a Hollywood flick but that it would have nowhere to go at the climax. And boy were my fears realised - YMCA couldn't save this one, but Liv Tyler almost did. I suppose being male and in my twenties helped, but she delivered a really good performance - obviously she didn't have to do much except look absolutely stunningly over-the-top sexy, but what she did she did well! McCOOL'S is certainly not going to go down as one of Hollywood's great successes (or should I say "shouldn't" because the mainstream American film industry is not going anywhere at present, and hasn't for a decade at least, save the odd hit like AMERICAN BEAUTY, TITANIC and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, and even those had major flaws), but if you're a teen male, do yourself a favour and see Liv - she is one hot chick. Rating: 5/10. See also: anything by Quentin Tarantino, any American teen film over the last decade, anything with sex as its main selling point.
I give this piece of Hollywood trash 1 out 10! Seriously! I mean, I like comedy as much as the next guy. I also can take just plain stupid comedy and actually sit back and laugh with it. But this film had nothing to laugh at OR with.<br /><br />I like nearly all of the actors in this film. So I thought I'd overlook what many people told me about it (my fault for not listening). I was just mortified at how stupid this script was! Just ridiculous and not even in a funny way. The only funny scenes were in the previews that everyone saw in the theater when seeing other movies or on TV. I was very disappointed and I really would like to know why these otherwise relatively good actors would read this script and then still sign up to be in it! Bad decision on their parts...<br /><br />*********************MAJOR SPOILER************************<br /><br />Okay - here's my biggest question on this film.......If the characters are looking back on this story of Jewel (Liv Tyler) after the fact....then how can Paul Reiser have gone to a therapist remembering the past!?!?!?!? He dies in the last scene by being crushed by the dumpster!!!! Can anyone answer me that?!?!?!?!? Major goof on the part of the film makers.....Nobody noticed this?!?!?!?!?!?!
One Night at McCool's wants you to think it is a hip and clever black comedy. It pushes its "quirky" characters and "outrageous" situations at the viewer like a crack dealer making overtime. The premise is about a gold digging woman, named Jewel who dates men to get them to steal and sometimes murder, so she can have all the worldly possesions she so desperately desires. You know, this wouldn't be a bad strategy, if she chased after rich guys. This film really wants one to believe that a foxy con artist would waste time dating bartenders and Andrew "Dice" Clay. Please. That major flaw in Jewel's scheme is really the only entertainment to found found in this stinker (and that's unintentional). Watching it, it is not hard to believe there could have been a good movie inside it somewhere. One Night at McCool's just could not decide what direction it wanted to take, so just sat in the middle of the road like a dead armadillo. It tries to be sexy but no clothes are removed on camera, and the few scenes of body head are dreadfully pedestrian. There is one recurring scene where a hitman is asking the protaganist (played by Matt Dillon) about how the sex is with Jewel. It seems like Matt doesn't know, neither do the viewers. Why was he dating her anyway? One Night at Mccool's also wants to be funny. Sorry, bizarre coincidences and misunderstandings didn't even work on Three's Company. What's worse is that this movie really seemed like it was going for a dark atmosphere to accompany its comedy. Kind of like a sophomoric Coen brothers film but its shallow script could not play subtlety, nor could its lackluster dirction sledgehammer in any shocks. What the audience is left with is a film that seems to busy trying to please everybody and just losing any appeal along the way.
Horrendous "comedy" in which a beautiful, crazy woman (Liv Tyler) "comedically" destroys the lives of three men (Matt Dillon, Paul Reiser and John Goodman). Dillon hires a hit man (Michael Douglas) to kill her. What is happening to comedy? The year 2001 has produced some of the worst comedies ever (Saving Silverman, Sugar and Spice, Freddy Got Fingered, Tomcats, etc etc). This is one of the worst. There's not one, repeat, not ONE funny moment in it. The jokes are either stupid, unfunny, smutty or real sick. Also there's a strong hatred of women in this garbage--the only main female character (Tyler) is constantly used as a sex object. Also extreme, bloody violence is thrown in at the end. The only bearable moments come from Reba McEntire as a psychiatrist and Andrew Dice Clay in two roles--both psychos. Dillon, Goodman and Reiser have hit an all-time career low with this--the only way to go is up. And poor Tyler! She quit doing intelligent, gutsy independent films for THIS? And DOUGLAS???? What was he on when he agreed to this? An utter piece of crap--to be avoided AT ALL COSTS!!!!!!!!!!
I'm afraid I only stayed to watch the first hour of this movie as it really seemed to me to be mindless TV-trash and a waste of talent. Liv Tyler plays a sumptuous beauty, but her acting skills are not yet sufficiently developed to give the part any real kick. As she slowly seduces a bartender into a life of crime it is difficult to feel any real concern over any of the characters. Even John Goodman delivers his weakly comic lines with an absence of panache, as if the witless humour needs to be recited slowly in case anyone misses the joke. The ending is supposed to be good, but the starter and main course left me with no appetite to find out.
This is one of those star-filled over-the-top comedies that could a) be hysterical, or b) wish that you had gone to the dentist to have all your teeth pulled instead. Unfortunately, One Night at McCool's is a classic "b."<br /><br />Goldie Hawn recently commented about "Town and Country" that it's a big problem in Hollywood that they start with hiring the actors and putting together a deal before a script is completed. You have to figure that not only did they go into this picture without a complete script, they also mangled it daily. Maybe we need to send cards and letters to the heads of all the studio that say, "It's the script, stupid." <br /><br />This is also one of those movies where you find yourself feeling sorry for the actors most of the way through. They're working their asses off trying to make all this seem hysterical, but they know most of it is going to be accompanied not by belly laughs but by the sounds of the crickets you can hear inside the silent theatre.<br /><br />Is it an unmitigated disaster? Not entirely. There are some smiles along the way, mostly due to the efforts of the actors. I probably would have gone out of the theatre thinking, "Eh. It was okay." So why the undeniably hostile tone in my review? The ending. If, as it's been noted, the rest of the movie is just all a setup for the ending, then it misses spectacularly. I really wish I could speak specifically about it, but I hate people who give too much away (even in warning). Suffice it to say that as soon as you see John Goodman behind a bent-over Paul Reiser (nothing given away here. It's in the trailer), get the hell out of the theatre and go out thinking, "Eh. It was okay." The rest of the movie is tacked-on and creatively bankrupt. And you'll be appalled that there will actually be people laughing at this mess. <br /><br />If you loved "There's Something About Mary" or "Meet The Parents" (both GREAT movies), then don't bother to see this movie. Go have those teeth taken care of instead.
This is one of those star-filled over-the-top comedies that could a) be hysterical, or b) wish that you had gone to the dentist to have all your teeth pulled instead. Unfortunately, One Night at McCool's is a classic "b."<br /><br />Goldie Hawn recently commented about "Town and Country" that it's a big problem in Hollywood that they start with hiring the actors and putting together a deal before a script is completed. You have to figure that not only did they go into this picture without a complete script, they also mangled it daily. Maybe we need to send cards and letters to the heads of all the studio that say, "It's the script, stupid." <br /><br />This is also one of those movies where you find yourself feeling sorry for the actors most of the way through. They're working their asses off trying to make all this seem hysterical, but they know most of it is going to be accompanied not by belly laughs but by the sounds of the crickets you can hear inside the silent theatre.<br /><br />Is it an unmitigated disaster? Not entirely. There are some smiles along the way, mostly due to the efforts of the actors. I probably would have gone out of the theatre thinking, "Eh. It was okay." So why the undeniably hostile tone in my review? The ending. If, as it's been noted, the rest of the movie is just all a setup for the ending, then it misses spectacularly. I really wish I could speak specifically about it, but I hate people who give too much away (even in warning). Suffice it to say that as soon as you see John Goodman behind a bent-over Paul Reiser (nothing given away here. It's in the trailer), get the hell out of the theatre and go out thinking, "Eh. It was okay." The rest of the movie is tacked-on and creatively bankrupt. And you'll be appalled that there will actually be people laughing at this mess. <br /><br />If you loved "There's Something About Mary" or "Meet The Parents" (both GREAT movies), then don't bother to see this movie. Go have those teeth taken care of instead.
'It's supposed to have got good reviews' says the g/f. If so, I can't find them. She goes off to sleep and I endure. Michael Douglas as a good ol' boy - now there's a new one. Matt Dillon all screwed up. John Goodman losing his cool. Paul Reiser running around in BDSM leather. Oh it's a riot all right.<br /><br />The hitch is you're probably going to lose interest pretty soon on. Liv Tyler plays the femme fatale and critics complain she might not have the register for her part. But it's immaterial: this movie is not about character development. In fact I'd go so far as to say there's no character at all. What you're supposed to appreciate here is the plot.<br /><br />No one is 'bad' in this movie. Some people wonder why all these 'stars' - Reba's even in here for goodness sake - sign up for such a junky project. Odds are they thought it would be fun. Maybe they did have fun. Who knows? Hey - maybe they got paid good too.<br /><br />But you have to fork over money one way or another to see this turkey. And that's probably not a good idea.
Before I took a job as a reviewer, I never went to films like this, and thus remained blissfully unaware that at the soul of the Hollywood film lies a deeply woman-hating spirit that thrives on putting its knocking little knees on the silver screen for all to either empathize with or revile. Or is this just a particularly bad year? An ugly trend? <br /><br />Here we have yet another seemingly sweet, innocent, beautiful woman turned lethal weapon. The kind that cautions us that beneath every pair of batting eyes and nesting instincts lies a wild-eyed beast guaranteed to make everyone's life within 50 miles a living hell.<br /><br />This month's specimen is Jewel Valentine's (Liv Tyler), whose simple dreams include having her own little house, a backyard fountain, and a mondo home entertainment system. Unfortunately, Randy (Matt Dillon, in his first film in 3 years), the dim-bulb bartender she picks up at McCool's one night intending to rob, is less materially oriented. The kind of guy who drinks beer out of a toilet plunger, he prefers to hunker down in his dead mother's house with few creature comforts save his snowglobe collection.<br /><br />In that same low-rent bar, the Devil in the Red Dress also bumps into Randy's cousin, Carl (the highly amusing Paul Reiser), a lawyer with an ego the size of St. Louis. When things go south within hours, enter the widowed detective with a heart of gold (John Goodman). The result? Three men sustain big, bad crushes on the leopard-clad progeny of Steven Tyler and Bebe Buell-crushes that make them do things that common sense would normally contraindicate. Like get involved in the first place.<br /><br />Multiple points of view and flashbacks patch together the front-page news about how easy it is to fall victim to one's libido, especially if you're male. As each of these men relates his perspective to a confidant, his desire to possess The Jewel colors the `truth' of the situation. About 70 minutes later, things come together in a reasonably amusing way. But it's amusement from the same source that tells you that the stuff on the popcorn actually tastes like butter.<br /><br />MCCOOL'S is the first film by Norwegian commercial and music-video director Harald Zwart, and his pedigree is clear during some of the fantasy segments, including one about a car wash, soap and a hose that you can probably extrapolate. It's also the debut project from the production company owned by Michael Douglas, who's found his niche as a toupeed sleezeball in a bingo parlor.<br /><br />Dillon and Tyler are unlikely to win any gold statues for this one, though given the one-dimensionality of their overdone film noir-type characters, you can't really fault them. Several minor roles drag out unexpected guests--Reba McEntire plays Carl's psychiatrist, and Andrew Dice Clay doubles as both the hoodlum Utah and his even-scarier brother. (Finally, an outlet for all that aggression.)<br /><br />This film unwittingly speaks volumes about the dynamics between men and women--or men and their mommies. But ultimately you'd probably find more lasting psychological truths in a Bugs Bunny episode. I will say that it's better, funnier, more sophisticated than other recent gems like TOMCATS, but should we really have to choose what to see based on what ranks lowest on the misogynism scale?
I rented this film because I enjoy watching things with Lauren Graham in them. Well, she was the highlight. Everyone else seemed complete separated from the picture. You kept looking around you at those watching the film with you going, what? However she provided some clarity, as she was the only normal character in the picture, which actually isn't saying much for the film. Personally it was too far fetched for me. However, I am glad I rented despite the fact I would never want to own it. I still feel that Lauren Graham proved to be a strong actress and even thought she was not the main character, she seemed to steal the movie. My husband and I were happier and cared more about her character ending up with Josh's character than we were about the two main characters.
This movie was SO stupid~!!! I could not bare to watch the rest of this movie..... To think that the spoiled bitch suggested to see other people, then walks right into another relationship 5 minutes after the agreement was made.... I really felt sorry for the guy, but then again, for a guy like that to even consider letting his fiancé see other people, to go along with her grand idea, well, I'm sorry but, he deserved what he got~! And she was definitely not the best fish in the sea either, he can do way, way, way better.... She had no tits.... to hips.... no nothing~! And you had to have known that she wanted this right from the start... 5 years~??? How on earth did they last that long~???
I am shocked and amazed to find reviews short of miserable for this horrible film. I rented this "movie" or feces, whatever you wish to call it, with several friends and after thirty minutes we had to stop watching. Just listening to the dialog left a horrible taste of sour milk in my mouth. This film was about as intelligent as an ass pimple.I hope I never see that bra-less, raggedy Anne look alike (Julianne Nicholson) again.It was like watching the most putrid pilot for a sitcom that will never make it to television, but instead of being a quick but painful 30 minutes( all I could bare)this was an excruciating 90 minutes.
I like Wes Studi & especially Adam Beach, but whoa is this movie a load of pretentiousness. Ponderously slow. Overly cryptic to the point of obfuscation, not because the plot warrants it but because there is almost no plot. Even less in the way of characterization. This is almost like one of those creaky old Charlie Chan mysteries (the cheaper Monogram studio versions) with lots of red herrings & oddball characters (like the old ex-senator with the checkered past who is now a recluse) & loads of people getting killed over objets d'art that you wouldn't look twice at in the mall. Great scenery, though. Pretty hair on the redhead, too, although I never did figure out what she was doing in this at all. Neither could my wife. Sheesh, at least the old B-movies had the decency to be short.
There is NO Esperanto in this movie<br /><br />I watched this movie specifically because IMDb lists Esperanto as one of the languages used. But IMDb is mistaken about the languages used in this film. There is absolutely no Esperanto at all. It's almost all English with a couple of words of Navajo. Do not watch this film if you're looking for Esperanto movies. Other options instead are "Idiot's Delight" (with Clark Gable) which has a bit of Esperanto, "Incubus" is all Esperanto (although completely mispronounced), and there are some Esperanto street signs in Charlie Chaplin's "The Great Dictator." There was supposed to be some spoken Esperanto in "Gattaca" as well, but I never heard any. <br /><br />Aside from that, the other reviewer is right. This movie is a complete mess.<br /><br />Spend your time elsewhere.
The action was episodic and there was no narrative thread to tie the episodes together and move the story forward. The plot plods along. With few exceptions (e.g., Graham Greene) the acting was uninspired, and pedestrian at best. The actors seemed to have something on their minds, other than the scene they were in. It is boring to observe a man driving a car through the semi- desert country of this movie's setting, whether he drives poorly or well. Such scenes are typical of the level of tension in the video. So there was nothing about this video to engage or draw the observer in, to make him or her care about the characters and the out comes. I am doubly disappointed because I rented this movie based on the reputations of the executive producer (Redford) and the writer of the novel on which it was based (Hillerman). I note that the jewel box reports that funding is provided by PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as well as Carlton International. I would hope that this video was as disappointing to them as it was to me and my wife, to the point that they will not fund any more disasters coming from the same source.
Seriously Reality Charity TV These producers must think that the masses are full of non-thinkers.<br /><br />These shows are called reality, which means they are suppose to resemble something real, with truth or facts.<br /><br />I suppose the characters are really acting in all the pathetic-ness.<br /><br />At one point I wonder if these type of shows decrease or increase the collective unconsciousness.<br /><br />We live in a world that already contains individuals that are not authentic. <br /><br />Is it necessary to promote an inauthentic way of being?
for me,this is not a good TV show,animated or otherwise.it is however,annoying to the nth degree.there are a few reasons for this,in no particular order.first,the intro of one of the most pointless,and annoying characters ever,Batmite.this character serves no purpose for the show,whatsoever.maybe it is intended as comic relief,but it doesn't work out that way.next up,the Joker.i thought it was really ridiculous to have his character let loose with that ridiculous laugh after almost every sentence.talk about repetitive.this gets old really fast..also don't think the had the right actor to voice the character.it just doesn't sound at all like the joker should sound.lastly,they made Robin look like a complete dork.other than these problems,the show isn't that bad.but these are big enough problems to drastically lower the likability factor.for me,"The new adventures Of Batman" is a 3/10,at best.
This film is cringingly bad. You can tell that all the actors are embarrassed to be associated with such a truly terrible movie. There are obvious budget constraints but with a little thought and attention to detail the movie could have been so much better. For example: check out the scene where Mickey first goes to the mortuary and is talking to his friend the pathologist whilst the murdered taxi driver is lying on the slab. You can actually see the corpse breathing! What, couldn't they afford to hire a half-decent extra that could hold his breath for a 2 minute scene?!
Hardware Wars rips off EVERYTHING in Star Wars. But if you are planning on doing any parody, you need to do it just a bit better than this. Not that there is anything wrong, per se, with Hardware Wars, but if you spoof, do it well, or not at all.
In efforts to make a somewhat comedic yet serious movie about the art of growing marijuana, Stephen Gyllenhaal (director) fell a few bong rips short of a good movie. While the cast is nothing short of amazing, this movie is extremely hard to sit through. The acting of Billy Bob Thornton, Ryan Phillipe, Jon Bon Jovi, Hank Azaria, and Kelly Lynch couldn't even save this movie from failure. It would be wiser to flush three single dollar bills down the toilet then to check this movie out at the local video store.<br /><br />
I think Homegrown is a bit of a misnomer for this movie - more like "Plantation Grown" - but it doesn't have quite the same ring to it. My guide described it a comedy, but the pathetic travails of these hapless buffoons is not my idea of a belly laugh. More in the genre of the farcical thriller/drama. The characters developed well enough - an all-star cast made it oh-so promising, just a shame the plot was patently absurd. Ted Danson provided a fine cameo as did Jamie Lee Curtis in her walk-on part. Jon Bon Jovi has this amazing ability to measure THC content in the front seat of his car! I guess if you imbibe a few beforehand you should be able to sit through this one - not for the gun shy paranoid types though.
I usually don't consider turning a movie off unless it's REALLY bad. Homegrown is a movie I wish I hadn't even turned on. The plot is interesting but the acting and writing are too low key. I didn't care about the characters. Any movie that has drug use and gratuitous nudity as its highlights is not worthy of praise. The characters spent their time getting high and believe me, that's the only way to sit through this movie.
Though Stephen Gyllenhaal is a good TV director with a few good full-length to his credit, "Homegrown" is just a mess in its script and direction. Despite performances from Billy Bob Thorton, John Lithgow, Kelly Lynch, Jon Bon Jovi, Jamie Lee Curtis, and Ted Danson, a cast this good couldn't save the film.<br /><br />Gyllenhaalics will know that Jake and Maggie are in the film but you don't see Jake very well and Maggie's only in it for 30 seconds as babysitter tipping off Lithgow's character about a bust. It's not even a lowbrow pot comedy as the film was intended to be. It just wasn't funny.
So many films are now in a Genre described as "Comedy/Thriller", as was this one. A fine cast, interesting premise, but what an unpleasant film to watch. Into Hemp films? Then either "Saving Grace" or "Lock, Stock..." are far more enjoyable films. Rating: Just 2 out of 10 Roach Clips
horrible! All i can say is that is movie was horrible. I came to watch this movie half expecting some good acting. All i got was a horrible movie. This movie deserved to stay on the cutting room floor. I do not recommend this movie to anybody. I have seen better porformances by the actors.
It's Valentines Day and we decided to stay in, have a nice dinner, and watch this movie on TCM instead of going out. We're in our 40's - 50's, love romance, and are both "softies" but this movie just bombed for us (it's hard to imagine that it was nominated for Oscars, etc. but I guess that was then). The cinematography was beautiful but for the most part the movie as a whole is terribly dated. Jennifer Jones' character made so many references to her being Eurasion that we started counting and after a while we were giggling every time she said it. Add to that the "theme song" played incessantly throughout the film and we couldn't wait for it to be over so we could watch the evening news.
This love story between an American journalist and an Eurasian lady doctor does not contain much conflict, since she is largely Westernized (having studied in London), nor any fireworks, since she behaves rather restrained. What little interest the story manages to raise is knocked down further by their wooden dialogs. They are supposed to be two cosmopolitan intellectuals, but talk as if the words are put in their mouths by a Hollywood hack who is not much of one himself. The movie also suffers from an amazing lack of realism - a completely deserted beach in crowded little Hongkong, overrun by a million Chinese refugees? And a presumably accomplished American journalist in his 40s who doesn't know what a hysterectomy is? Hollywood ideas. Finally "the song". After hearing it an estimated twenty times throughout the movie, starting right with the credits, it tends to loose some of its emotional impact, sorry to say.
This film looks great, and that's about where my praise ends. "Love Is a Many Splendored Thing" came out in the very schizophrenic year of 1955, when candy-coloured nonsense like this co-existed with trail-blazing artistic fair like "Kiss Me Deadly." As a trend toward smaller, socially conscious films like "On the Waterfront" and "Marty" established itself in the mid-50's, other directors felt the need to stick with the unchallenging, pandering melodrama that classifies so many other films from that decade, and "Love" is one of the latter.<br /><br />This is the kind of 50's movie where the Technicolor is used to its garish utmost and the lighting is invariably high-key; even scenes taking place in a dark room or at night are brighter than the average sunny day. I never want to hear the theme song again, as it's played frequently enough over the course of the film to last anyone a lifetime, and I certainly don't want to hear it sung by the shrill, ear-piercing choir that belts it out over the end titles. Jennifer Jones and William Holden are passable, but really anybody could have played these parts. Jones' role is horribly written--her character is incredibly inconsistent, and it seems as if whenever her character is required to make a decision about something, the screenwriters flipped a coin to decide what that decision would be.<br /><br />People will undoubtedly tell me I'm taking this film too seriously, that I'm unromantic, etc. But I loved "All That Heaven Allows," released the same year and just as cornball in its own way, except that Douglas Sirk is able to turn melodrama into an art form, whereas Henry King (director of "Love") is not.<br /><br />I'm usually able to enjoy bad melodrama, but in this case I was just bored.<br /><br />Grade: D+
Frankly I met real Han Su Ying before and seeing her portrayed by an American actress which has no resemblance of anything Chinese makes my head spin while I am watching this movie Why can't Hollywood get Nancy Kwan instead .... at least its more true to the story...cos for goodness sake...Dr Han Su Ying is Chinese I know cos I have meet her in person<br /><br />and looking at the whole cast....so few Asian faces in a movie about a Asian love story makes me wonder too <br /><br />I think the acting is good but without real Asian faces in a Asian love story makes the plot so corny and a whole load of Baloney<br /><br />its just like another movie I know of ' THE CONQUEROR' imagine my eyes pop out when I see John Wayne as Genghis Khan!!!!!<br /><br />and to make matter worst ....how on earth can a man born an bred in MONGOLIAN STEPPES come up with a Alabama southern accent??? !! and a cheap imitation of anything Asian<br /><br />Good Grief<br /><br />I am not surprise that one day I will see Dr Martin Luther King Jr being played by One of the boys from the black and white minstrel show<br /><br />Would love to see that<br /><br />and laugh the whole roof off !!!<br /><br />Cheers
Seeing this movie in previews I thought it would be witty and in good spirits. Unfortunately it was a standard case of "the funny bits were in the preview", not to say it was all bad. But "the good bits were in the preview".<br /><br />If you are looking for an adolescent movie that will put you to sleep then Watch this movie.
This is a film with a lot of potential, well done and acted, with a rather week and inconsistent script. A young woman with two children moves to her mother's cramped apartment, because the husbands flat on top of the workshop where he cuts up stolen cars is aggravating their son's asthma.Husband ends up in jail when an ex pat's stolen car is traced to his shop, ex pat ends up being kind,generous and naive shmoe(and rather cardboard and we learn next to nothing of him ), but ends up with the girl, who "trades up" despite being sexually satisfied only by her husband. I expect this film to be successful in Czech, where it will be welcome due to its obvious premise - "Them ex-pats may have money, they may even get our women, but they're old, soft and our women want to be satisfied,we may be poor, but ... . Now if only could Evzen keep Marcela satisfied so she would not need to play with herself, or if he already had an existing family in Italy ... but that would complicate things.
Spheeris used this documentary to push a stereotype of punks. This documentary is biased and guided, not objective. The cutting techniques that jump from interview to interview may be used to take the spoken word of interviewees out of context. When you watch the film, the sticking idea that comes from the interviews of the punks is that they are pretty dumb. Band members and other punks seem to be of low intelligence and unable to explain their motives or give detailed or coherent answers or even answers at all. I highly doubt that if some of those who were interviewed knew what Spheeris was creating or saw the final product would allow themselves to be included in the project. This film puts punks in a bad light by making them seem unintelligent and simple-minded. Spheeris' film should not be taken as a representation of the L.A. punk scene. If you want to see a good punk documentary watch "Another State of Mind" featuring Youth Brigade and Social Distortion.
Okay, you hippies are probably wondering what I have against an "education" and "informative" show like "Barney"? Well, I have a lot of hate against it for these reasons:<br /><br />1. It teaches that having a personality and individualism is immoral. No one on the show has a personality. Everyone dresses alike, talks alike, acts alike and dances alike. Even in the episode called "Being an Individual", kids try to tell Barney about what they like and EVERYONE on the planet should do what I like. Do you wanna teach your kid that being an individual is wrong?<br /><br />2. "A Stranger is a Friend,You Haven't Met" Episode. While seemingly harmless, the show's producers soonfound that it could also be extremely dangerous for young children. In fact, several young Barney-lovers from across the U.S. fell victim to pedophiles, who were using the show's friendly message to lure children away from their parents. The episode has since been pulled, but the damage had been done. So called "Innocent" mistakes in programming, like this one, clearly show why parents need to watch television WITH their children.<br /><br />3. IF your not happy all the time, you are a bad person. No one seems to show any other emotion but happiness, no matter which situation they are in. If the child's parents get mad or sad for some reason, the child may think of Mommy or Daddy differently. Not a good message at all.<br /><br />4. Magic solves everything! Seems like every problem is solved by magic. At least in shows like "Fraggle Rock", it teaches us that magic CAN backfire at it is best to solve problems on your own. Does Barney teach this? NO, of course not. There HAS to be magic in there. And the problem is, a lot of two year olds cannot tell fantasy from reality, and might think their parents, siblings or relatives can use magic to solve everything, yet become confused when they CANNOT use magic and think they are weird. Another boner pulled again.<br /><br />5. Barney makes no distinction between stealing and sharing. He has even specifically said that "stealing is okay if the person you steal from doesn't mind". Kids can learn that if you really want something, stealing is a perfectly acceptable way to get it. This is not something that preschoolers need authority figures to tell them.<br /><br />6. "If I just have the right thing, I can solve all my problems." Whenever the kids have a problem, Barney gives them whatever they need to solve it. The message being sent here is "Don't try to think to solve this! It's too much work, and the solution probably wouldn't work anyway. Just use this." Because of this, children could stop thinking through things (Barney said it was too much work) and become dependent on the "right" object. (The right shoes, the right food, the right computer, the right exercise machine...) This is obviously a good message for the Barney marketers, but it's not good for preschoolers.<br /><br />7. The message that cheating is okay. In another episode the children are involved in a contest to carry a peanut on a spoon without dropping it. One child puts peanut butter on his spoon, and easily wins. The child is then rewarded for his creative thinking, when the child in fact bent the rules, and changed the game so that he could win. This teaches that cheating is good, you win and people think that you are creative, when in real life you will often be disqualified, or worse, and severely disliked by other competitors who played by the rules.<br /><br />8. Do the kids in this show eat anything else besides cakes, cookies and candy? That teaches that it is okay to eat tons of junk food and avoid healthy food, despite Barney's so called "Health Food" song. Other than that, EVERYONE in the show eats junk food. No wonder there are so many obese kids in America and Europe.<br /><br />And finally....<br /><br />Most other kids' television shows teach creative problem solving well, without having to resort to "magic". Barney could also have done that but instead decided to use the method that was A) best for the marketers and B) took the least time and money for scripts. It's a blatant sellout that shows just how little the Lyons Group actually cares about children.<br /><br />That is my rant for you all.
Barney teaches kids nothing!!! Here are some 3 reasons why you shouldn't let you kids watch this show: 1. Barney teaches kids that we should think EXACTLY like each other to get along.<br /><br />2. Barney teaches kids that you shouldn't be sad, and if you feel sad, EAT LOTS OF ICE CREAM!!! 3. If you make people pity you they will give you what you want when you want it.<br /><br />Barney is just a Fat doll who told kids strangers are your friends. He should NOT be trusted. And he is high every day!!!, he constantly GIGGLES!!!! DO NOT WATCH THIS SHOW!!!!!!!!!!! Your kids will thank you when there older
I don't get it. I just don't get it. "Barney and Friends" has been lambasted by millions through the years, and I will admit, I was one of those lambasters. Any child who watches this show doesn't realize that what they're watching is just a piece of trash. Barney is very annoying, and very selfish. Add Baby Bop, and it gets even worse. Add B.J., then you have a very creepy television nightmare. Then, you get the children. They're old enough to know what Barney is trying to teach them! What are they doing there in the first place? It would be funny if Barney and his friends appeared on the Jerry Springer show. That would certainly be one of the wildest moments in television history! Even more significant is that this show marked the beginning of the end of public television as we knew it, as we have seen less and less of the more informational and interesting public television programs that aired in the 1970s and the 1980s. What a BIG difference a selfish son of a gun makes. When this show leaves PBS, a big sigh of relief will be felt among millions of people, but a huge dent will have been made in the annals of television history. A message to Barney himself: You may not realize it, but YOUR DAYS ARE NUMBERED.<br /><br />In a nutshell, there are other choices. Better choices.
"I hate you, you hate me, Barney stole your SUV with a great big bunch and a kick from me to you wont you say you hate me too?" "jingle bells batman smells grandma had a gun shot Barney and made him pee and now there is no more barney the moron" Now why the heck would come up with a idiotic show like barney ???????? So what I'm saying is Barney is a retard from the underground world? And the kids on this show are like 12 years old. If i were them i wouldn't believe this stupid idiot called barney.Now producers why do you believe this crap that barney says? They are always happy. That is stupid.they should be sad sometimes. am i right? bottom line barney is so stupid who watches that ugly creature.
Barney and friends...the Dora the explorer of the 1990s.<br /><br />OK, i'll admit it. as a kid, barney was my ultimate hero. i had my barney plush toy and i used to watch the same barney episodes over and over on videotape. maybe cause it was so sugar coated and mind-numbing.<br /><br />However, by the time i turned 7, i started to hate barney. everyone at school would Dis barney, and i went along with it (mainly because it was funny) and it's what little boys do. but a few years later, I discovered something else about barney that i will never forget.<br /><br />a person known on the IMDb as Angel_meiru did an Essay for school, explaining the dangers of watching barney, and he or she posted it in the message boards. a lot of those dangers made sense.<br /><br />Barney is a dinosaur who can magically come to life during a day at school. he is supposedly educational, or so Sheryl Leach (Barney's Creator) says, but really, all i can remember him teaching me, is that magic can solve anything, which is not true.<br /><br />to end off this comment, I'd like to tell you a little story. There was once a young boy who watched a particular episode of barney. one day, he was alone, when a stranger lured him into his car and drove away with him. i don't know the outcome (but it's safe to assume the child died) but why was he abducted in the first place? because he watched the Barney and friends episode titled "A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet." <br /><br />0/10
OK, when I was little (and I mean like 2 or 3, not 6 and 7) Barney was one of my favorite shows. I then grew out of it and threw all my old Barney tapes away. So one day as I'm flipping through channels, I see that Barney now takes place in a caboose, and I thought "Um huh is this the right show?" Once I realized it was, I freaked. Why did they change the show's setting from a school to a CABOOSE? Ever since then, the show has been absolutely terrible, and the only reason I'm giving it a 2 is a) because I'm nice, b) because of Riff, and c) because in the old times the show was tolerable. Now I just hate it. HATE IT.<br /><br />2/10
Barney is just awful. As many of the other reviews on this show say. I'm not one to disagree with them (I won't). Because I hate this show just as much as they do. They use kids that look like they're in sixth grade, cheesy plots, horrid dialog and really crappy special effects. Not to mention that big purple dinosaur himself. He makes every other kid show look like award winners (Sesame Street has won awards, that I know about).<br /><br />Please, just watch Sesame Street, Thomas the Tank Engine or even the Teletubbies. Avoid both, this and its movie (which I also reviewed). They are both extremely crappy and are inappropriate to anyone (even little babies).
That someone could have conceived this nonsense and then got it produced is incredible. That it actually aired on television and advertisers actually PAID TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH IT is mind boggling. This stomach-wrenching excuse for kid's programming is almost too vile to comment on. I've burned -- yes burned -- any Barney tapes that people have given my son. To find this awful programming in my library was an unpleasant surprise. And where, tell me where, do they get those smarmy kid actors? Have their parents no sense? Those kids will be on drugs before they're teenagers. Geez. The final insult is that I have to add this extra line to the review to get it on IMDb.
Barney and Friends is probably the worst kids show that I have ever seen. It teaches kids nothing, the songs are corny, it is not educational and the characters are just plain agitating. I am not one to disagree with those who hate the show. Honestly, I have seen more negative than positive reviews for this show. 75% of the reviews are negative and there are some really mature people. This show contains no educational value or age-appropriate educational material whatsoever. More reasons why I dislike this show is because of the crappy plots, cheesy dialogue, horrid special effects and the abysmal story lines. Besides, it says that you should eat junk food if you are sad and that strangers are your friends. Saying that is a "model of what preschool television should be",as expressed by Yale researchers Dorothy and Jerome Singer, is a load of crap. They don't know what they're talking about. I would never recommend Barney to anyone. Te reason why some kids keep crying for or get addicted to junk is because of this show poisoning the minds of children everywhere. For people(parents/children) who seek real preschool mater, switch over to Nick Jr. and watch "Super Why!" instead. It's far more better than this turd and Five TV once had the nerve to put it on "milkshake" but thankfully took it off. I highly advise everyone to keep far away from this show as possible. Parents, I highly advise you to keep your kids as far away from this show as possible. They'll thank you later.<br /><br />BOTTOM LINE: Don't Bother Wasting Your Valuable Time With This Stupid Show. It's Utter Garbage. -10000000000000/10. Grade: Z. Avoid Like The Plague!<br /><br />Thanks for reading.
I AM NOT LYNNE BATES MY NAMES IS RITICHIE BUT LYNNE IS MY MUM I'M JUST USING HER ACCOUNT! Barney and Friends, (Or Barney, as it is called here in England) is the corniest show ever. I never really liked it, It had been about for 3 or 4 years when I was born, so It was nothing new. My friend, however, loved this dildo of a show. I was about 6, and I was at his house once, and he had a Barney VHS tape playing on the TV. I turned the power off, and he burst into tears. GROW UP ITS A TALKING DINOSAUR FOR CHRISTS SAKE! Anyway, I happened to catch the Barney movie on TV later that year, and I loved it. I got the VHS of it a few months later, and I wore the tape out I loved it so much! I gave that tape away a few years ago now, but I loved it at the time. But the show! My god the show was bad! Several kids fell victims to paedophiles because of this butt plug of so called entertainment! Never again, never again! Its not just me who hates Barney, either! 85% of all the comments on this show are bad, and and just look at the amount of You Tube Poops and videos that take the mess out of Barney are on You Tube! And don't get me started on Blow Job BJ! Why the hell would the producers dare give a character such a sexual name! Yet another subliminal message in a kid's show! And that Baby Bop is the worst thing since Osama Bin Laden! All in all, I give Barney and Friends MINUS 1000 OUT OF 10!
Barney is that idiot dinosaur who (unfortunaltely) didn't go extinct with the other dinosaurs many eons ago. Instead he sings stupid songs and has stupid morals about life that are 100% worthless and/or extremely dangerous: that is "STRANGERS ARE YOUR FRIENDS YOU HAVEN'T MET YET!". The reason why I say he's evil? Well, on YouTube, there's a video of a Barney song about toy balls. When it's played backwards, it comes out as "WE'LL ALL COME HANG YOU! LET'S STAB THE KNOCKERS!". Don't believe me? See it for yourself! I also read on another review that they are now reading out PC folklore and fairy tales. Now that is just stupid with a capital S! I mean, really! Anyways, I don't recommend letting your kids watch this filth as it contains stupid morals like strangers are your friends (as said before), there is never a reason to be sad and if you are sad eat junk food, being an individual is taboo, magic can solve all of your problems and heaps of other ridiculous crap.
Being a child of the 1980s, I grew up with numerous educational as well as diversionary programs (or both), and continue to learn so much from them now that I admire the wisdom of those who worked on them. After learning that Sesame Street, to name the best example, was not solely responsible for the fact that I could read at an adult level before I could walk, it only increased the level of disgust I feel not only towards the Lyons corporation and its product, but those who defend them, too. As if I had faith in those we assign to protect us or our children to begin with, the fact that Barney & Friends still pollutes our airwaves after more than a decade later is a discredit not only to the FCC, American commerce, and its makers, it is a discredit to all of humanity. In a world where I can be harassed without recourse by the police, welfare services, and child protection agencies simply for being born different to those in power, yet broadcasters are allowed to pump this drivel into my home uncontested, you have to ask what is wrong with people.<br /><br />You see, in a world where we are expected to behave like adults and account for ourselves, what we say to our sons and daughters is of importance because it will often have consequences long after we are gone. Not only are our attempts to make our children more normal, more alike, more think-alike, potentially devastating, what we end up teaching them to be normal has a big part to play, too. So the question becomes one of what Barney is teaching our children to be normal. Apart from lessons such as that we are not good if we do not have good feelings, or that someone will change the rules to make us happy when we come up short, other shocking things we are shown on the Barney show include Barney molesting children. The issue of child abduction and child molestation is a big one in our society, and has been ever since we started trying to pretend it was not, but that would qualify as one of the most inappropriate ways in which to present the topic.<br /><br />So far I have only mentioned the inappropriate and emotionally damaging lessons Barney himself presents. Adding to the problem is the children shown on the show. I use the word children loosely here, as the range of ages shown goes as low as three years and as high as fourteen. Yet no difference in emotional response is shown at either extreme. Fourteen year olds react to Barney and his proposed situations in the exact same way as five year olds. Experts in childhood and adolescent autism especially consider this an incredibly foul thing to expose children to. Adults on the autistic spectrum who faced increasing problems as their needs were not only not met but flat-out ignored have a tendency to watch this and feel an urge to do the kinds of things with Barney that would make fourteen year olds cry. As irreverent and sick as shows targeted toward the elder-child market such as You Can't Do That On Television were, they stamp all over Barney by demonstrating that not only do different ages respond to the same thing in different ways, so too do different people.<br /><br />So in response to mdmireles1295, I have to say that I hope like hell they do not have children. For every time I see a parent showing their child this drivel, it gives me an overwhelming urge to report them to the police for child abuse. And I speak as a man whose entire upbringing was dominated by abuse. They might sing about manners, loving, caring, or sharing, but the examples they show are not only so lopsided as to be the opposite of educational, they are so devoid of realism as to become dangerous, as The Light Triton has already pointed out. The kind of lessons children learn from Barney are that people do not vary, feelings must be suppressed at all costs, and rules are entirely arbitrary. When compared to the lessons that variation is what makes the world go around and even the most bitter feelings have a purpose that television taught me as a boy, it still boggles the mind that the authorities have yet to step in and yank this trash off the air. If a parent did to their child what Barney does around the world, they would face criminal charges.<br /><br />Hence, I gave Barney my favourite two out of ten score that I give to all rubbish with absolutely no redeeming value. In a world of adults that know how to properly respond to their children, it has no place.
I didn't watch this show that much when I was little. And I think I only watched 1 episode which was about Railroads I believe because I liked trains and still do. Even then I thought it was a baby show. I mostly watched Arthur. The songs are pretty weird too. And I don't think it's that educational either. They just sing some dumb Nursery Rhymes. This is a dumb show, any adults who like it are crazy! If you want some good kids shows, watch something like Arthur, Mister Rogers Neighborhood or even better Pee-wee's Playhouse. I thought Sesame Street was boring when I was little but even that is better than Barney. Trust me, this show is pretty dumb, there are other Kids Shows that are better than this one. I can see many of the reviews here that a lot of people don't like this show. Now there are some mature people. I hope they take this show off air soon.
When I was a younger(oh about 2)I watched Barney for the first time, and liked it. BUT, back then I didn't exactly have a brain, either. And now I look back and see what a horrible show "Barney" really is: First of all, EVERYTHING on that show is creepy. Barney, the main character, is a horrendous 9-foot tall talking, purple dinosaur that teaches 13-year-olds about "imagination...."(*shudders*) B.J.(I know what your thinking about his name.)Is a smaller yet creepier yellow dinosaur that is put in to be "supposudly" cool. But in fact, he is the exact opposite. After watching a few episodes with B.J. dumbly trudging in with his slightly turned back cap, and making a few no-so-funny jokes, I wanted to scream. Baby Bop-oh-oh-god!(*vomits*)oh-oh-OH-anyway Baby Bop is the worst idea of a character EVER. She is a green triceratops(it's a dinosaur) that carries a yellow blanket. Her remarks of "hee-hee-hee" and Barney's praises cries of 'super-deeee-doooper", make it hard to sit through each episode, as the Seventh graders learn about shapes and manners.<br /><br />And that, my friend, is what makes this show truly horrible.
I was a little to old for this show I was 6 when it first came out. First off when I was a young child there were a few children's shows that were on sesame street which I did watch and learned from, but other than that there wasn't much else. My Cousins were all born a few years after me 7 years was the first one more came latter. Barney was a very big part of what they watched. When I first saw this show I told my grandmother how it doesn't teach anything just uses magic to fix everything. I was 9 at the time, how many 9 years old have any idea what is really going on with a TV show. More and more that I saw or heard what the teachings of Barney were the more and more I told people how bad the show was. The funny thing is my parents who had a young child in the mid to late 80's which was me by the way. They agreed and said the same thing as I did. The sad thing about this is my cousins who are older now 13 and such still agree with what they saw. Its not cheating its creative, its not right to think differently than what someone tells you to. Its o.k to steal if the person wont find out or mind that it is gone. Lets be honest with ourselves, Barney is out to make money not teach children anything. The more flashy the program the more inclined children will be to watching it. Children are stupid not because they are not educated they just do not know any better, second Barney put on a show and parents bought it. I never believed that TV could affect people the way Barney does. If you have a young child read to them watch a show that teaches them numbers, do not let them get involved in this show. Barney is like smoking once is to much, smoke a few and your hooked let your kid watch this show they are hooked and one day their kids will watch the same crap and buy the same crap you bought
Okay, I agree with all the Barney haters on this site. I think Barney and his friends are all ugly looking and obnoxious and the show is very lop sided and unrealistic.<br /><br />But the thing that ticked me off the most is how Barney presented Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals on his show when talking about same sex parents and relatives. That wouldn't be so much of a problem if the creators of this show didn't use so many derogatory stereotypes of homosexuals. I mean, not all gay men wear mascara and love the colors purple and pink, and not all lesbians are ugly and manly looking with a bosom that sags to their abdomen. As a bisexual female, I just think this is terrible for a children's show. If this were South Park, I wouldn't mind it, because South Park is for people who can distinguish fantasy from reality. A lot of people who watch Barney are little kids or handicapped people who can't usually distinguish fantasy from reality.<br /><br />And now that I think about it, Barney sort of comes off as an ugly gay stereotype himself. Let's see, he doesn't have a girlfriend, he's pinkish colored and wears clothes with sequins (yes, it's true) on it. If you claim to be for the rights of gay and bisexual individuals, then stop making a mockery out of them in front of people who don't know any better. If Barney went black-face and ate fried chicken and watermelon at the same time, the show would be pulled off the air before you know it.<br /><br />I give this show a negative one out of five. Don't show your kids such hateful crap. There are children's shows out there that are so less insulting.
What should have been a dramatic tale of life on the river Murray turns out to be a silly, soppy romance about an English refugee (Sigrid Thornton with Aussie accent) who falls for the larrikin first mate (John Waters) of a paddle-steamer.<br /><br />The first half of this four and a half hour mini-series shows some promise, but it soon falls flat as it becomes predictable and thin. Some real verve and spark was needed in the plot to give the movie some life. Gus Mercurio's early exit didn't help as his character seemed to me to be the only interesting one.<br /><br />Perhaps the longer T.V. version has more depth, because this video translation certainly lacked it.<br /><br />Sunday, June 27, 1993 - Video
I rented this movie from a local library without having any prior knowledge of the book it is based on or the movie itself, purely based on the chance that it's one of those rare, overlooked gems that one can discover from time to time and really enjoy.<br /><br />Unfortunately this is not one of those movies. I am not sure if this is a movie driven by sentimentality or worse, deliberate agenda, but certain elements of it made it impossible to immerse. It is supposed to portray a struggling immigrant worker community which tries to cope with the difficult realities of their life. That is a fine premise and it could have made for a gripping story, but the execution just made me alternate between getting annoyed and amused at the ridiculousness of it.<br /><br />Here we have a community of simple farm workers who migrated to the US in search of employment and who get used and abused repeatedly by evil white men. And when I say evil - I mean EVIL. All white people in this movie are sinful, racist, sadistic, abusive devils whose sole purpose in life is sexual depravity intertwined with exploiting the poor immigrants. It would be a sad story if it wasn't so unintentionally grotesque and therefore hilarious.<br /><br />The portrayal of the immigrants is also a poster-worthy example of exaggeration except that it goes in the opposite direction. The immigrants are saintly, clean and could serve as ointment for boo-boos and ouies the world over. I couldn't help but laugh when I saw these "field workers" presumably digging in the ditches all day with their notoriously clean clothes and chiseled hair cuts from a top notch hair salon. A little restraint and a more unbiased hand at the helm could have made this a much better movie evoking some intended emotion rather than sarcastic snickers.
Looking for something shocking? Okay fine... the imagery is that. That's about it. This film attempts to make deep connections with the audience through various symbolism and just ends up being annoying. I am not quite sure if the director's purpose was to truly portray some sort of deep message to his audience, or if he just sought to shock the hell out of them with gore, sex and violence. I am thinking that it was probably the first...but in the failed attempt..it simply ended up to be a piece of artsy garbage with lots of blood, some obnoxious characters, and an over reliance on religious symbolism. If you're looking for some independent film to critique for its attempted use of metaphor...have at it. If you are looking for a gore flick that will make you queasy and uncomfortable... here you go... If you are looking for a film that will irritate you to no end because you realize that in the end, the message was stupid...the movie was stupid... and you will never get those minutes of your life back..this is surely the film for you!
you know, i always fancy disturbing or strange movies, especially when they get shown at the fantasy film festival in hamburg, germany. but subconscious cruelty was probably the worst film i saw this year. will this comment contain any spoilers?<br /><br />no, because i just did not understand this movie. but well, what can you expect from a flick that was introduced to a festival crowd "we (the guys from the festival) know that not all of you will watch this one until the very end"...<br /><br />i like splatter movies and i also like movies with a strong graphical language. but this? there are a lot of bloody scenes in this one, but why? what is the director trying to tell us? is he saying that we lost all morality and all religious feelings? or is he saying that incest will always end in a disaster? who knows - i do not.<br /><br />if you want to watch a movie that keeps you thinking for quite some time - watch it. but don´t expect to think "wow, i got the message" - i did not get it...
This film has to be one of the most boring films ever made. The only thing I liked is using Argento-esquire lighting in most of the scenes. The music is awful and the pace is so slow that you can watch it at 2x the speed and even then it would be slow. The story doesn't exist. It doesn't even have any shocking scenes.<br /><br />It is classified (on this site at least) as a horror, but it's not. It's a sort of an art film exploring the dark side of the human nature. If you are into that kind of thing and can stand the slow pace, then watch it, but I'd rather recommend you something Japanese (e.g. Ichi the Killer) I think that the only reason this film was never in theaters is a fear of audience committing collective suicide caused by the huge amount of boredom generated by this movie. These 80 minutes of it's length would've been better spent watching the paint dry.<br /><br />I gave it 1/10 simply because there is no 0 in the pull down menu
I´ve seen this at the Fantasy Filmfest in Cologne and left the cinema halfway through this "movie" (with a bunch of other people), so maybe I´m not the right one to comment on it, but I think the fact of leaving "S.C." is reason enough to do so. "S.C." is a different film. People who need a coherent narration, characters or a plotline won´t find anything in this one. It´s supposed to be an experimental film, relying on the power of images. But these images have no power. They are so forced in their intention of simply grossing people out, that they have nothing else to say. The gibberish of the off-narrator is simply boring, the visuals are cheap. OK, the effects are good, but if that´s the only thing, why care? Husseins film wants to be shocking and thought-provoking - instead it is boring and annoying in its non-creativity. Note: Not every movie without a story is art and there is absolutely no creativity in breaking taboos anymore - especially not if everything is executed as bad as in "S.C.". I´d suggest director Hussein should either visit a psychiatrist or a filmschool, before he mistakes crap for art again. Note: I never want to see a baby getting slashed during birth again.
Critics are a strange kind of people. Some of them are common people like you and me. Some of them are not. When a critic say Subconscius Cruelty is beautiful I wonder where they did grow up? What's beautiful with filming a field, some clouds or a tree with an old camera if you can't do it with style and capture the mood of the environments. Karim Hussain for sure can't. I've seen kids do better footage than Karim manage to do in Subconscius Cruelty. But that's not the worst part. The worst part is the whole recording, I refuse to call this a film, is just a bad excuse to picture nudity and extreme torture, rapes of both sexes, masturbation, sperm, pissing, cannibalism, child-murder and much much more. I love gore/splatter and I love horror. This ain't neither of those. This is utter crap and if my comments make just one single person skip Subconscius Cruelty it's been worth it. Always remember that your life won't last forever, don't waste two hours of precious time on Subconscius Cruelty. You've been warned.
For the people who have compared this TRASH to the brilliance of David Lynch etc... please listen to your carer when they say... DONT USE OTHER PEOPLE'S PC WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION! <br /><br />This is complete and UTTER POO! There is NO art here. This is some person trying to make a name for himself with a cluster of gross out ideas which he was not clever enough to enforce into ONE main idea so instead he went for the easy option. <br /><br />Any one with half a brain could sit at home and conjure up some controversial images to shock viewers, but it takes a person with true imagination to be able to make it into a movie people WANT to watch.<br /><br />I am a LOVER of shock cinema. I have seen OR OWN pretty much all you can get... And I can strongly advise to anyone who LOVES the world of movies to steer WELL CLEAR of this garbage.<br /><br />This one is ONLY for people who like to over analyze what they are watching, OR for the 17 year old first time drinkers who dont know any better.<br /><br />0/10!<br /><br />
First, I would like to admit that Chokher Bali was not my cup of tea. This movie was evidently not targeted toward the masses. It's the type that critics would enjoy watching. The hype and publicity were quite misleading.<br /><br />I was expecting something very dramatic like Devdas. Understanding that the story and time-period demand it, I found the movie extremely slow-paced.<br /><br />I'm a die-hard Aishwarya fan, and I regret to say that I thought she was miscast. The role of Chokher Bali required an actress who can portray herself as subversive, not innocent and naive. Everyone else gave a good performance. Tagore's depiction of the human condition does come across the celluloid to give the movie an interesting theme.
Bardem is great. Actresses are great. But Amenabar did not have to do it like this. It is OK that he defends his position on the euthanasia, an extremely delicate issue. But doing it like this makes him lose his point: the movie is a false, offensive to the intelligence, full of tricks and even sometimes extremely boring. Some scenes are advertising material, more than a movie. Women are incredibly attracted to this mind-sick man who wants to make someone to kill him, not understanding the implications of that. He seems not to care about no one and thank them for their caring, love and attention. I think that Amenabar might have make people think about this issue in a different way but the way he chose to do it I believe is not correct. He could have make his point more powerful exposing the other side of the coin without mocking it.
Great. Another foreign film that thinks it's Fellini. On top of that, we have to have more propaganda about murdering disabled people.<br /><br />I see no reason why we have to be inundated with these thinly disguised euthanasia commercials.<br /><br />I found nothing redeeming about this film. What can be redeeming about a man without the courage to carry on, in spite of some adversity. It does not take courage to commit suicide. That is the action of a coward. Sharing this "wish" with his woman simply inflicts her with the same illness he has. If this had been a film about a man's courage to go on, in spite of his problems, similar to the Jill Kinmont story, that would have made it a great film.<br /><br />If you're interested in seeing true courage, check out the movies about Jill Kinmont, the former skier who was disabled after a bad ski accident.
There's something rotten about this film, and basically the way it turns a sinister and twisted character into a hero by exploiting our sympathy with his admittedly horrible situation. Sampedro, like many who have lost hope, chooses suicide. The fact that he has been contemplating it for more than 26 years probably makes his condition worse, but the belief that we should do whatever anyone asks, even if it means ending a life is in my opinion profoundly wrong. What a contrast to the uplifting example of the scientist Stephen Hawkings, who suffered a far worse condition for far longer! Yet with the morals upside down, the film revels in hero worship, and the people who disagree with are painted in simplistic idiotic terms. There's little room for subtly especially in the encounter with the priest(deliberately manipulating the real life encounter which was with a much younger priest). In that way I suppose the film is on a par with Riefenstahls Triumph of the Will. The insidious idea is that everyone should have to right to take their life, when they feel they cannot live it anymore. It makes no difference whether you are physically or psychologically damaged, there are people evidently who believe you have the right to choose. The same people are likely to make a case for abortion. Its all part of the current trend to get the suffering or sufferers out of sight, brush it under the carpet, mammy will say its. OK, and we all feel very happy with ourselves. So we go down the slippery path of believing that some lives, just ain't worth living, and then we'll decide that as some people can't really decide for themselves then we'll bring in the state to decide for them. Enter Adolf Hitler straight from that other Oscar contender "der Untergang". Hitler of course believes that he carrying out exactly what Nature does in disposing of the weak. Under his regime, there were forced abortions among the "weaker" strains", the mentally handicapped were quietly put away and the Jews were "humanely" liquidated by using gas. He would have applauded this film, and why not for it is in line with his philosophy..."some lives are just not worth living". I differ from Ramon Sampedro, Hitler and all the people involved with making this film. Human life is sacred, it is not a right, it is a gift and an obligation. Nobody chooses to be born. Then who can choose death. Its not about religion, its about protecting the weak and helpless, something this film does a lot to undermine!
This might have been an excellent flick. However, as many other people think so do I. It is poorly done due to the languages transfer. If the entire movie must be read then it kind of takes away from the movie and becomes something else. It does have an excellent rating as far as I am concerned and I couldn't wait to rent it. But, once I did it was a real let down. Out here in Boardman, Ohio I could not find an English version to anything similar. This movie was also compared to Dark Hours and this we will not get to watch in Boardman, Ohio. It is not available. So I guess we will never know how good the movie actually was.
Dakota Incident has to be one of the strangest westerns I've ever seen. Not good, but definitely strange.<br /><br />A driver-less stagecoach rides into the town of Christian Flats with all passengers killed. It's scheduled to go on, but very few for obvious reasons want to risk the Cheyennes on the warpath out there. But Linda Darnell, Regis Toomey, John Lund, Whit Bissell, and Ward Bond each have their reasons for going on. And Dale Robertson who killed John Doucette in a gunfight after Doucette and Skip Homeier shot and left him for dead in the desert, is so anxious to go he's willing to drive the team.<br /><br />Of course the Cheyennes attack the intrepid group of passengers if forced into a dry wash for cover. Who will live and who will die is the remainder of the film.<br /><br />Dakota Incident came at the very end of Republic Pictures before Herbert J. Yates pulled the plug on his little studio. Westerns were their specialty, but normally of the kind Roy Rogers made. This would not have been a Rogers product. <br /><br />In fact it's beyond belief. The characters aren't ground in any kind of reality. Whit Bissell is taking back ore samples from his claim, but Robertson discovers it's iron pyrites, fool's gold. Toomey is a guitar playing cynic who goes mad from thirst. Darnell is after a cheating manager of her's, but really doesn't know what to do when she finds him. Lund is looking to bring in Robertson who committed a crime he took the rap for, but has to bring him in alive. For that he'd require help, but doesn't have any.<br /><br />But the worst is Ward Bond who's a United States Senator on his own peace mission to the Cheyennes. In real life Bond was a most right wing individual and I'm not sure this wasn't some kind of a caricature of what he would perceive as a liberal. He's really quite the fatuous fool, but I think that might have attracted him to the role.<br /><br />I tried to get into Dakota Incident, but couldn't. And the ending was a bizarre fantasy to say the least.<br /><br />Give it three stars for the cast involved.
Scenarist Frederick Fox's sometimes memorable dialogue and a study cast of old-pros cannot save this lukewarm western about whites pinned down in the desert by a band of bloodthirsty Cheyenne Indians. Other than his occasionally catchy dialogue, you won't find any surprises in Fox's screenplay about this run-in between whites and Indians. The characters in "Dakota Incident" generate only minor interest, certainly not enough to make them stand-out as much as some of Fox's choice dialogue. Unfortunately, good dialogue is Fox's only contribution because this conventional little sagebrusher withers with a lackluster ending that contradicts its previous 80 minutes. The ending is as contrived as they come and lacks credibility. Most of the characters are sympathetic, but some just plain lack common sense.<br /><br />Dale Robertson is appropriately tough and leathery as outlaw John Banner, one of three bank robbers who has to shoot it out with his low-down, no-account partners. Veteran western character actor John Doucette (Rick Largo) fares the best of the badmen, while Skip Homeier, wasted in an inconsequential role as Banner's brother Frank Banner, later dies from an Indian arrow. Doucette tries to gun down Banner at the outset of in the action, but our left-handed gun-toting hero fakes his own death, tracks down Largo down later and slaps leather with him in a town called Christian Flats. Naturally, Largo bites the dust this time, but Banner makes an interesting discovery. One of the passengers on a stagecoach from Christian Flats to Laramie turns out to be none other than the bank teller from whom he stole the money. Not only is John Carter (John Lund) on a quest himself to find Banner, but also he wants to clear his own good name with the bank that has issued wanted posters for his arrest. Evidently, the authorities have mistaken and enlarged Carter's role in the robbery. Carter is prepared to take Banner to Laramie and turn him over to the law, but Banner has other ideas about Laramie. Banner's ideas change when he crosses paths with Amy Clarke (former Twentieth Century Fox beauty Linda Darnell) who wears a bright red dress and still packs quite a bosom. As everybody else here has mentioned in their reviews, Republic Studio's Truecolor brings out the RED in everything, from Darnell's fetching outfit to the blood spilled on the ground. The problem with director Lewis Foster's handling of this run-of-the-mill oater is that everything bogs down after the stagecoach loses a wheel and our heroes hole up in a dry wash to defend themselves against the Cheyenne. The good guys and the Cheyenne eventually run out of ammunition, but "Dakota Incident" never runs out of clichés. Ward Bond has several interesting moments as a politically correct politician who defends the way of the redskin. By the time that this 88 minute dust-raiser concludes, you'll feel like you've been trapped in a gulch and menaced by marauding Cheyenne yourself.
This has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen.<br /><br />We are supposed to like and be rooting for an arrogant, know-it-all, trashy bank robber, played by Dale Robertson, and a coy tease played by the extra-ordinarily beautiful Linda Darnell in a fire engine red dress. She must have been sewed into that bodice! <br /><br />A Senator in the film thinks Native Americans and whites should try to come to an understanding, the bigots, however, win the day. I could barely sit through the endless dialog of bigotry that issued from the other characters mouths.<br /><br />Except for Wounded Knee and Dances with Wolves there are few films that give a positive portrayal of American Indians, and very few old westerns do. This one is exceptionally bad in that regard.<br /><br />The romance between Robertson and Darnell set my teeth on edge, as he came swaggering in, forcing a kiss on her, while she plays the old hard to get game.<br /><br />There are scenes that are unintentionally humorous, such as the characters obviously not really riding in or on a stagecoach in several shots.<br /><br />A puzzlingly humorous incident in the storyline is Linda Darnell's character going to great lengths to purchase tickets for the stagecoach, only to then demand a horse to ride, minutes later, for no apparent reason.<br /><br />Another humorous scene is when the stagecoach comes to a screeching halt at the sight of a cowboy hat lying beside the road, and not only that, but then ALL the passengers pile out for a look-see.<br /><br />1 star.
I want very much to believe that the above quote (specifically, the English subtitle translation), which was actually written, not spoken, in a rejection letter a publisher sends to the protagonist, was meant to be self-referential in a tongue-in-cheek manner. But if so, director Leos Carax apparently neglected to inform the actors of the true nature of the film. They are all so dreadfully earnest in their portrayals that I have to conclude Carax actually takes himself seriously here, or else has so much disdain for everyone, especially the viewing audience, that he can't be bothered letting anyone in on the joke.<br /><br />Some auteurs are able to get away with making oblique, bizarre films because they do so with élan and unique personal style (e.g., David Lynch and Alejandro Jodorowsky). Others use a subtler approach while still weaving surreal elements into the fabric of the story (e.g., Krzysztof Kieslowski, and David Cronenberg's later, less bizarre works). In Pola X, Carax throws a disjointed mess at the viewer and then dares him to find fault with it. Well, here it is: the pacing is erratic and choppy, in particular continuity is often dispensed with; superfluous characters abound (e.g., the Gypsy mother and child); most of the performances are overwrought; the lighting is often poor, particularly in the oft-discussed sex scene; unconnected scenes are thrust into the film for no discernible reason; and the list goes on.<br /><br />Not to be completely negative, it should be noted that there were some uplifting exceptions. I liked the musical score, even the cacophonous industrial-techno music being played in the sprawling, abandoned complex to which the main characters retreat in the second half of the film (perhaps a reference to Andy Warhol's 'Factory' of the '60s?). Much of the photography of the countryside was beautiful, an obvious attempt at contrast with the grimy city settings. And, even well into middle-age, Cathering Deneuve shows that she still has 'it'. Her performance was also the only one among the major characters that didn't sink into bathos.<br /><br />There was an earlier time when I would regard such films as "Pola X" more charitably. Experimentation is admirable, even when the experiment doesn't work. But Carax tries nothing new here; the film is a pastiche of elements borrowed from countless earlier films, and after several decades of movie-viewing and literally thousands of films later, I simply no longer have the patience for this kind of unoriginal, poorly crafted tripe. At this early moment in the 21st century, one is left asking: With the exception of Jean-Pierre Jeunet, are there *any* directors in France who know how to make a watchable movie anymore? Rating: 3/10.
I wish Depardieu had been able to finish his book and see it become a dazzling success. At least he'd have wound up with something.<br /><br />The film struck me as pointless, rambling, and very stylish, like some other recent French films. Not to knock it. Most recent American films are pointless and rambling and have no style whatever. We should be grateful, I suppose, for photography that evokes a European city in the midst of a wind-blown Continental winter, and for elliptical conversations that challenge our ability to understand what's up.<br /><br />But there can be too much of a good thing. Golubeva is found stumbling around near the sea in the middle of the freezing night, carrying on in a bad accent about dreams and such. (There are a few sequences of dreams that include things like swimming in a river of blood. You'll love it if you're Vlad the Impaler.) Lots of people die. Catherine Deneuve dies in a suicide by motorcycle. I don't know why. Golubeva's young girl dies too, and I don't know why she dies either. She gets slapped in the face, falls to the pavement, and dies.<br /><br />There is supposedly an explicit sex scene too. I'll have to take their word for it because, although it is stylishly photographed, it is stylishly photographed in almost complete darkness. Don't worry about the kiddies being shocked. They'll probably be asleep by this time anyway.<br /><br />Depardieu isn't a bad actor. As we see him deteriorate from a carefully groomed handsome young man -- well, handsome except that his nose can't seem to get out of his way -- to a limping, murderous, hairy physical wreck, we feel sorry for the guy. Golubeva has a wan pretty face, with enormous half-lidded eyes and wide cheeks, like a doll. Her next movie should be a remake of Lewton's "I Walked With a Zombie." Then there is this mysterious guy who leads a band. I guess it's a band. As far as I could make out, the band is made up of about a dozen drummers and a dozen musicians playing electric guitars. Every viewer will find the resultant sound interesting but uncultivated listeners fond of "easy listening" might not enjoy it. If you don't like the music, there's a payoff involved because the sinister composer and leader gets whacked over the head with Depardieu's walking stick.<br /><br />I must say, I found it barely worth sitting through. (And it's a longie, too.) At times it was like waiting in your car at a railroad crossing while a long long freight train rumbles slowly by, sometimes stopping entirely. I wish it had had a few jokes.
This movie is so unreal. French movies like these are just waste of time. Why watch this movie? Even, I did not know..why. What? The well known sex scene of half-siblings? Although the sex scene is so real and explicit, but the story it is based upon is so unreal. What is the use of it, then? Can you find easily in life, half sibling doing such things?<br /><br />Did I learn something from this movie? Yeah: some people are just so fond of wasting time making such movies, such stories, such non-sense. But for those who like nihilism, nothingness in life, or simply a life without hope, then there you are.. you've got to see this movie.<br /><br />Only one worth adoring, though: CATHERINE DENEUVE. She's such a strikingly beautiful woman.
(Spoilers)<br /><br />Oh sure it's based on Moby Dick. Totally obsessed and it destroy's him. It's a total folly. The movie starts off rather well, but by the end of the film, everyone else is destroyed and the main star's mind is a blank.<br /><br />The supposed half sister is never convincing. Some very poor lighting effects. Music is interesting. But little else. It took me over a month to finally finish the darn thing. I suppose if you like Being John Malkovich, you might like this. But where as BJM was a great movie that I just didn't want to watch again, Pola X is a movie I just hate to high hell. The only possible excitement in the film is the gratuatious incest sexual scene towards the end of the film. (Hopefully yer not thinking of Catherine either.)<br /><br />This movie is severely boring, depressing, and poorly directed. Not highly recommended. If if you like french movies. (go watch Crimson Rivers instead)<br /><br />4/10<br /><br />Quality: 5/10 Entertainment: 1/10 Replayable: 0/10
I won't lie, I rented this film because it was an "arty" film with some possible explicit sex. I got that scene and Catherine Deneuve's (briefly shown) breasts, but the rest of the film is just the usual long pretentious European art films with lines like "Did I have a mother or father, I don't know" (paraphrased). Usually delivered in long soliloquies.<br /><br />If you are curious about the transition of "art" to porn, might be an interesting look, with use of the fast forward button (I was still too slow!)
I enjoyed Carax's "Les Amants du Pont Neuf" and was therefore expecting this film to be of a similar standard. Well, the first 10 minutes were OK, but then it disintegrates into a rather pretentious journey of a young man looking for the essence of life. A sad disappointment.
It's difficult to express how bad this movie is. Even in the 1950s when intellectual searching for the meaning of life was fashionable and beatnik rejection of physical comforts, clean clothes, haircuts, etc. was a common reaction to the smug middle-class mores of both the USA and western Europe, this movie would have been a stinker. The plot is a mishmash of several dei ex machina (if that's the correct Latin grammar); the acting consists of deadpan stares broken by occasional hysterics (by the male lead as well as the females); the gratuitous view of Catherine Deneuve's (or somebody's) breasts are worthy of a Budweiser commercial; the repeated cacaphonous orchestra rehearsal in the abandoned building is I'm sure heavy with meaning in the director's mind but to me is just one more stupid symbol thrown into this meaningless movie -- I'm ranting because my time has been wasted watching this scam excuse for an art flic. The scenery is beautiful and the sex scene is hot -- but underneath his clothes, this king has no substance.
Pretentious claptrap, updating Herman Melville (!), about a young man's vaguely incestuous relationship with his aristocratic mother getting transferred to his long-lost sister who has been raised by gypsies. Or something like that – not that anyone really cares to unravel its multi-layered plot decked out with pornographic sex scenes, pseudo-symbolic imagery (the siblings swimming in a river of blood) and other bizarre touches (a gypsy child repeatedly insults passers-by in the street until she is anonymously beaten to death, the deafening music of a rock group utilized in the demolition of old buildings). Considering the source material and the presence of Catherine Deneuve (who at least gets to bathe in the nude), I was expecting a lot more from this one; apparently, there's an even longer TV version of POLA X out there…
I'm accustomed to being patient with films because I've generally found it usually pays off. But a few works take tedium to new levels and enter the realm of provocation...."Last Year at Marienbad" comes to mind. Well, "Pola X" ain't no "Last Year at Marienbad". I can count on one hand the number of films I've walked out on over the years. "Pola X" achieved membership in that august group. In my defense, I believe I made a valiant effort to stand my ground - hoping things would turn around. However, I finally threw in the towel just shy of the 90 minute mark - quite respectable under the circumstances. "Pola X" does not come anywhere near living up to the promise of Carax's earlier work. After a 10 year hiatus, that must have been bitter for him indeed. Melville is still spinning in his grave!
The movie contains a very short scene of Deneuve in a bathtub. She looks absolutely stunning for a lady age 56, but this is the only saving grace of the movie. Otherwise, it has a mindless, unmotivated script and the lead actress has none of Deneuve's appeal. The director apparently watched too many Peter Greenaway films and Pola X comes across as a student's imitation of the Greenaway style, without any of his inspiration.
French Cinema sucks! Down with all these psychiotric visions with their my-God-am-I-cultivated distinguished attitudes! Pestilence to conceited symbolic film-language and impervious chiffres! I'll no longer have a mind for that! Léos Carax, did you ever think about, that a dialogue in a film could be natural and vivid??? Maybe I'm too common to understand you? Or had it been your task to confirm all the clichés of a Frenchman the world can have? Guillaume the to-be-guilliotined comes to his home-palace, Mme. Deneuve, not in the picture, plays the flute: "Here am I, darling!" In this moment, I knew, that she's in the bathtub, and we`ll see her lying in there soon. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not prudish, and the incestous sex scene was the climax of the film. But this is, in Berlin, we say "etepetete", what means something like "être-peut-être", a snobistic, self-satisfied, and, the worst, seen that often in French movies I can tell! Other example: She, beautiful and willing, is looking at herself in a mirror, combing her hair, and her wild-bearded, dirty young guru rushs into the room, breathless shouting: "There's no escape, there's no escape!" Forty years after existencialistic Sartres and consorts- what's new, what's exciting about? My God, there's that woman and she loves and admires you, what would be more natural to be happy with your life? And when you're not, please explain much better, why!! Born French means you have to live a life in extravaganza, no escape, is that the point?
First, I don't see how the movie is on any "best" list or how it won any awards. Compared to La Pianiste, which is also on a "best" list, La Pianiste is gold. This movie lacked so many things, on so many different levels, but I can't quite explain why I disliked it so much. The lead actor was annoying, I felt as though I never knew what was going on, and I was BORED!! Even though this was supposed to be some worthwhile life change that Pierre was starting, I wanted it to end.... as soon as possible. Why did it have to be his sister and cousin? Ugh. And why did Thibault get mean? He just bipolarly turned mean. And also, was it me or did I miss the whole purpose of what that guy in black was all about? Who were all those people playing music in the big basement of the big warehouse? Why did they have all that weird equipment and the guns and all those extra rooms for people to live in? I mean this in all seriousness, but does incest happen a lot in French culture? European culture? I took 5 years of learning about the culture and I never heard anything about that!
You would probably get something like this. I'm translating movies for a living and this is the first movie in my 5-year working experience that I found offensive to my intelligence. Of course, there are stupid Hollywood movies about drunken teenagers on a spring break, but those movies don't even claim to be serious works of art. But when someone strives for greatness and poetry, but delivers a muddled (and often ridiculous) story, a bunch of disparate scenes, pretentious dialogue... Then you get the worst kind of a movie that some other reviewer very accurately defined as "pretentious crap". To those who find this movie intelligent or even masterful, I can only say - it's your intelligence and your imagination you obviously used to try and make some sense of this pitiful attempt (it's in our human nature to try and make sense of things) .<br /><br />One more thing: I can tolerate political incorrectness very well, I'm all for artistic freedom and suspension of disbelief, but the Slavic female character was just too much. I wish someone told the director that it's kind of ridiculous (even in an unrealistic art movie) to portray a Slavic woman as a half-articulate dishevelled creature connected to the forces of nature, probably due to the fact that she had spent her entire childhood looking at the stars and milking cows on a three-legged stool.
A ridiculous movie, a terrible editing job, worst screenplay, ridiculous acting, a story that is completely ununderstandable...<br /><br />If God was going to decide if movies should continue to be done, judging by this one, the entire world movie industry would now be dead...<br /><br />A wonderful movie to show that cinema should not be done by people who "think" they can make movies.<br /><br />I am still wondering who are those two gipsy girls who show up in the movie for over half an hour, and are never introduced to us...<br /><br />
I had to read I Know Why The Caged Birds Sing in my English class and we watched the movie after finishing it. After watching the movie, I regret seeing. It completely took away any of the impact the book had. The scenes made no sense in their sequences, the acting was horrible, and it seemed as though the screen writer never actually picked up the book but opted for the cliff notes instead. I was outraged at how the movie ended. Almost half of the book was cut out and certain aspects were extremely important to Maya's growth as a person. If you have read ...Caged Birds, this movie will ruin the experience of the book so I warn you not to see it.
The story overall, though quite graphic, is actually decent and reasonably interesting to readers. However, the movie was absolutely dreadful. The story was good, but the acting was terrible. I was crying the whole time because i knew i could never get my spent time back. Don't see this movie. If you do, bring a pistol with a bullet in it, and a few bullets if you're going with friends. I feel sorry for everybody who had anything to do with this film. I also feel sorry for everybody who had to watch the film. Avoid this film at all costs, and if your mother forces you to watch, kill her. Hahahahaha! See! I'm a psycho now!!!! IKWTCBS turned me into a psycho!!!!
I bought this movie for about 2,5 dollars at a local flea market. I thought that with the cast present in this movie (Ice-T, Rob Lowe & Mario Van Peebles are all OK), it would be pretty good. Boy, was I wrong. This movie annoyed the hell out of me. Almost every scene drags on too long. The scene where Rob Lowe is watching this girl singing and dancing in a bar lasts forever! It was one of the worst scenes I have ever witnessed in a movie. The rest is no picknick either. My guess is when they finished the movie, they only had 30 minutes of film, so they made everything last 3x longer.<br /><br />Conclusion: The current 1,9 rating here on imdb is right on the money. This was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Go watch some paint dry for 1,5 hour instead of watching this!<br /><br />If you want to see some better movies made by this director, watch 'Mean Guns'(with Christopher Lambert & Ice-T) or 'Postmortem' (with Charlie Sheen) instead.
this is the worst movie ive ever seen. And i have seen lots of movies. Me and my friends rented this one a wendsday evening. Man we had lots of fun. This movie is the worst most boring crap ive ever seen. But it makes you laugh! U will lay on the floor rolling around tryin to get some air. You wonder why? Just rent it and check for the keyboard playing girl at that sleazy russian bar. My mother would make a 1000 times better movie about her feedin the cats.
Honestly, I didn't really have high expectations for this movie, but at the same time I was hopeful. Having it be directing by Albert Pyun - one of the more well known b-movie auteur's - didn't exactly raise my hopes. I mean how many Albert Pyun flicks rank that highly? Yeah, exactly ... but still the movie advertised a decent cast. Rob Lowe, Burt Reynolds (pre-reborn stardom), Ice-T and Mario Van Peebles.<br /><br />It all amounts to squat however as the movie is so boring and moves so slowly that the energy just seemed to drain right out of me the longer it went on. It runs over 90 minutes, but it's telling a story that could have been told in 30 minutes flat. I don't know what Pyun was going for here. I mean the movie drips artsy-like style, but it's a blur at times and maybe I'm an idiot for expecting more from Pyun this time around. Here he seemed to actually have a budget and a potentially great cast for the material, but it's all wasted. Crazy Six isn't much of an action film, it's not much of anything really.<br /><br />I guess what's the saddest here is the fact that I found the end credits the most entertaining part of the movie. The music score is actually half-decent with some smooth female vocals too, but the rest is a complete waste and the less said the better. Avoid.
Crazy director....Yeah, you need to be crazy to make a near movie. Rob Lowe was bad in his character, Ice-t is always bad and Burt Reynolds had nothing to do in the movie. Crazy six is an unknown movie, with some known actors...this is pretty weird. A bad movie with some good actors in it. It looks like the bad movie did an influence to their performance...It did! Crazy people.....I give it *and a half out of *****
Do not rent this movie. I ended up buying the "previously viewed" tape of this for $4.00. That was close to the price of a rental, so thought, I might as well buy it. I'm tossing it out after I finish this review. The movie which stars Lowe, is a music video with few lines of dialogue, slow moving shots and poorly done editing. I thought I'd be seeing a mindless action flick, which is what I wanted to see, I didn't even get that. This movie is an exercise in slow moving shots, no script, close-ups, terrible edited, and a poorly developed plot. I can't believe that is actually ends with a scene in which they think the audience cares about the characters. By the end of the movie, we still don't even really know who they are. Believe the hype, stay away.
Yeah, that's right. If I were to ask my friends this question: "What's the worst movie you have ever seen?" They might reply something like "Armageddon" (can you drill the hole?!?), "Shriek", "Plan Nine From Outer Space", "The Medallion", "Scooby Doo" etc... No - Don't get offended by this by thinking you have seen something that might be in the same department of naturally produced human fertilizer that this movie is in. If the worst movie you can think of is, let's say so bad it really pisses you off; then you know nothing my friend.<br /><br />Crazy Six... I remember the day me and a buddy of mine went to the local video store to rent a movie. Both of us had already been through most of the movies in there, and on the "new movies"-shelf we see it staring at us. "Wow, there's some good actors here man. Says something about mafia, lets just get it and get out of here". This was without doubt the worst movie mistake in my movie loving life. It was also the worst mistake for everybody else: movie lover or not.<br /><br />Watching this movie is as fun as watching a glass of ice cold water (or ice-tea....) until it reaches room temperature. Watching this movie will make you dream an eternal dream of death, if death is just blackout light and nothing, and then you realize you are just staring at your TV-monitor. Not staring. You are actually paying as much attention that is humanly possible. This is no joke.<br /><br />This movie is the perfection of making a bad movie. It's not the kind of bad you can watch, point and laugh of, its the kind of movie that is so bad you actually have no chance of ever get out of your memory. Unless perhaps you use electric shock therapy to clear out the brain. .... ... (Hey! That might be something similar to how I remember me and my buddy felt after watching it....)<br /><br />Best regards from me to you Albert Pyun.<br /><br />-Joergen
I'm actually too drained to write this review -- bad movies always do that to me -- but I feel obligated, as if it's my civic duty, to warn anyone who might be considering purchasing or viewing this god-awful mess-of-a-picture. Please, please, just take my word: this is one you'll want to stay away from. It's so boring and dull, so insipid and uninspired, such a poor excuse to assemble any familiar talent. Burt Reynolds? Wasted (despite his best efforts). Ice-T is barely in the film, and when he does appear on screen his performance is so restrained and muted that it becomes crystal clear that the director, perhaps intimidated by Ice's intense stare, didn't know what to do with him. Rob Lowe, as the title character, has never displayed so little on-screen charisma. Mario Van Peebles should be ashamed of himself; his performance is, in the saddest sense possible, a joke. Surely, Satan himself signed Mario's check for this film. The plot is as weak, half-baked and annoying as all the music involved (the utterly boring club song seems to continue on, literally, for the first third of the movie). The film's look will prompt one to seriously wonder if the Director of Photography was also forced, like one of the film's forgettable female characters, to smoke crack from a pipe duct-taped to his mouth. And if you're looking, at least, for stylized, shoot-'em-up-type violence you'll get none here. This film, I assure you, I promise you, has Absolutely no redeeming qualities! Please, I implore you, Avoid this Flick! Don't put it in and get suckered into believing that its pace will pick up, it'll get better, and evolve into a decent denouement. It won't. It don't. It can't! It sucks! Now, you have been warned, and I can now go to bed (It's 3am - please forgive any resulting errors this admonition might contain) -- knowing my conscience is clear, because I've done my civic duty for my fellow man!
the worst movie i have ever seen i didn't even watch it all i just fast forwarded it to Burt's bits and then the end!!! he is the only reason to watch this!! i have to admit to owning a copy as i am a HUGE Burt fan (stop laughing) and needed it for my collection i wouldn't care when this movie came out i had a nightmare renting ti as my local store only had 2 copies and fans of all the various stars always beat me there, imagine my disappointment when i sat down and watched this movie!! THERE ARE JUST NO REDEEMING QUALITIES ABOUT THIS MOVIE!!! Absolutely NOTHING WHAT SO EVER TO LIKE ABOUT THIS MOVIE!!! this movie became a running joke between myself and a mate Burt's worst!! Rob Lowe's worst WORST HOUR AND A HALF OF MY LIFE
Crazy Six is torture, it must be Albert Pyun´s worst film. Even Blast and Ticker are better! I can´t believe how boring this film is! How this even got greenlighted? I saw this movie about 3 years ago and the only thing I remember is how bad it was. This isn´t good bad movie, it is simply bad, bad, bad, bad, bad movie.<br /><br />1 out of 10 (½ out of *****)
I saw this movie a time ago, because some of my friends wanted to rent it, and I got voted down.. I tried as best I could to get the story, because some moviemag had said that this would be a movie that would be for Rob Lowe, that Pulp Fiction had been for John Travolta... Well.. we can all see that he not only failed, but he fell aaall the way down. This is actually the worst film I've ever seen, and I've seen a great deal of bad movies.. it's just not even worth seeing for free on tv.
Do not watch this movie, or.. If you are really mad at anyone, you can give this as a birthdaypresent. This is the worst movies I have ever seen. Do NOT watch this. If you do, remember: That would be a self-destructive action. It is a shame that this is not voted lower.
It's been said that some directors make small budget pictures look like blockbusters. Albert Pyun makes small budget pictures look like high school A/V project films. This film was pretty much lacking in all departments. Practically every scene drags on excessively, the "experimental" lighting and camera work is terrible, Rob Lowe apparently equated being scruffy with acting, and the poor drab Euro-pop numbers stop the movie to a dead halt. On the plus side, Burt Reynolds does a pretty good job with what he's given (which isn't much), Mario Van Peebles is surprisingly decent and Ice-T puts in another of a long recent string of B-movie gangsters. Not Pyun's worst work (Urban Menace), but certainly not his best (Mean Guns).
What is the story what is it on the screen. At first I must say, do not touch this movie, it is for your own best (it sucks). And really what is the story, in the beginning it seems okay but after ten minutes it all gets worse. And that is not all, you can hardly see what it is on the screen it is too dark all the time.<br /><br />Do not touch.
This movie was a monument to inept filmmaking on a colossal scale. I'm a huge Burt Reynolds fan, but even he was horrible in this film. The only redeeming quality of this film was the chick that smoked all the time. She was kind of attractive to look at. Otherwise, what a waste of time and energy...
Do yourself a favor and stay away from this film. Minus 50 billion out of 10. If you want hard boiled action don`t rent it! If you want a good independent film look elsewhere!<br /><br />I never thought i`d see Burt Reynolds in such a crappy movie. It has the thinnest plot-line ever. Van Damm flicks should win an Academy compared to this one.<br /><br />Rob Lowe once again prove why he is not the hottest actor in the world. Even Hasselhoff would have made a better drug addict than him. I do not want to bore you with more facts about this crappy movie, except to say that you are better off renting anything by Hulk Hogan or Dolph Lundgreen. This should prove my point, if you get my drift.<br /><br />
I am not afraid of bad movies. I like bad movies. I enjoy mocking them in the company of my friends. We're all quite good at it, in fact. That being said, let me tell you how much I hated this movie.<br /><br />To begin with, it was incomprehensible. Rob Lowe attacks some people, they capture him but he escapes in this big ol' shoot out. There's this singer whom we think died, only she didn't, unless maybe there are several of them who all act and look the same. Cue Burt Reynolds to come in and question the singer. He looks like he's just wandered into this movie off of the Walker, Texas Ranger set and is darn confused. Then Rob Lowe dies, only he doesn't... And the worst thing is, there's not enough dialogue or action that doesn't involve killing people or attempting to to even make fun of this movie!! And don't even get me started on the random chihuahua. Then there was the fact that it was supposed to be about the old power structure in Eastern-Europe falling apart. We didn't know where we were, all the accents were apparently "Eastern-European" and what were Burt Reynolds and Rob Lowe doing there in the first place?<br /><br />I desperately wanted to tell the people at Blockbuster what I thought of this movie, and to get my money back, but since I'd gotten it as a special (only $.99) I decided against it. What I want to know, however, is HOW THE DIRECTOR GOT THE GREENLIGHT to make this darn movie, and what the 'stars' were thinking when they signed on???
Don't waste your time and money on it. It's not quite as bad as "Adrenalin", by the same director but that's not saying much.
directed by albert pyun in his inimitably awful but strangely hypnotic style, "crazy six" is yet another jewel in the crown for this decade's upscale hugo haas (jess franco?). "Stylish" overdirection, incoherent plotting, time-outs in the middle of action sequences for eurodisco torch -song performances, all these seem to be signifying traits for our man Pyun. Most interesting is how he always gets top-notch b-movie casts, compared to Wynorski or some of the other video directors. Ice-T, Rob Lowe, Mario Van Peebles, & the very strange Burt Reynolds ain't a bad cast, though they often look a bit confused. Check out "Postmortem", "Mean Guns", & "Omega Doom" for more top-notch Pyun mayhem!
I was suckered in by the big names. Rob Lowe, Mario Van Peebles, Burt Reynolds, and the fact that it was an independent film. Unbelievably slow beginning: 35 minutes, two dreary songs and a botched rip off. I didn't care about the characters, and the plot never tempted me to even pretend it could be realistic. I can't believe this is what makes it to the screen. I loved watching this film because it felt so good when it was over.
This film should have been much better than it was. Christopher Eccleston is an excellent actor but even he couldn't rescue this tale of a young woman searching for the truth over her sister's death. Spoiler warning : In effect the truth is that the older sister ( played by Diaz) is just a spoilt, selfish and shallow girl who took too many drugs. Not much of a twist and not that interesting either. The film is also overladen with far too many flashbacks and voice overs and lacks dramatic pacing. All in all this is definitely worth missing - not to be recommended.
What a shame. What a terrible shame. The table was set, the candles were lit, the guests had arrived... and then...<br /><br />... well nothing really. Just pretentious drivel. It could have been great, OK maybe not great, but it could have been very good. All the elements were there but at the end of the day the bottle was empty: NO LIGHTNING! How that happened is a mystery with everything at the director's disposal...<br /><br />... the story was quite brave although it certainly needed considerable work with possibly several finishing rewrites to fix the story and tighten up the characters a lot (the only thing that was consistently and constantly and unnecessarily tight was the cinematography, but i'll get to that). But the direction was lousy, the acting was just that: _a-C-T-i-n-G_ with a heavy side of cheese and lots of ham, and then the cinematography...<br /><br />...well that was something to behold! But only if you are in film school's "Cinematography 101 how to never ever use a professional movie camera under any circumstances". Obviously the student had fallen asleep through part of the lecture's introduction and only heard "... use a professional movie camera..." then blissfully back to la la land as the sentence finished off.<br /><br />What can i say; amateurish and pretentious to the last! I can only see this film meant to appeal as a Chick Flick because it's supposed to be sad, but then falls flat and just ends up being 'sad' (as an excuse for a movie)... so that even those 'Chicks' wouldn't be fooled by this schlockenspiel! <br /><br />PS. I felt bad for Miss Diaz. She's a lot better at her craft than what this film allowed her to be, even though she was totally TOTALLY miscast. Actually i feel sorry for everyone in this movie except the director and (you guessed it) the cinematographer! I say '1st against the wall for them when the revolution comes!' OK, not really, after all "it was only a movie" but perhaps a good "tar and feather and running out of town" might be more satisfying or at the very least a lot more entertaining!!!<br /><br />TTFN :-(
what a waste of time! i expected better from cameron diaz! i guess it wasn't really her fault for being in a terrible film. the film does not capture the beauty of europe.....and wasn't successful in leading the audience into suspense or wonder. weak attempt at storytelling and narrating -- dialogue is dull and wasn't able to convey what i sometimes think simplicity is beauty. no love, energy, electricity on screen. too bad!!!!!!!!1
I wanted to love this film so badly...I really did. But it was a horrible disappointment.<br /><br />I read Jennifer Egan's novel in 1996 and was enthralled by the story. In fact it remains one of my favorite books of all time. Mind you, the book had much more depth than this movie, in plot and emotional resonance. It MADE you care about the characters. It painted a complete picture of Phoebe, unlike the utterly poor characterization of the young girl in the film.<br /><br />Though beautiful and showing *some* promise in her burgeoning career, Jordana Brewster was as flat and hollow in this performance as was the script. And Christopher Eccleston (Wolf) was just an awful choice for the role of Wolf, both physically and logistically. What an awkward looking couple. Wolf should have been more of a dark brooding character, and more physically alluring, like he was in the book. What's more, the chemistry between the two actors was painfully forced.<br /><br />Cameron Diaz, however, deserves utmost praise for her performance. She took an impossibly mediocre script and gave her character life, a real spirit. She is simply gorgeous and her careful mannerisms make her very believable as a hippie. It's too bad her talent was squandered on this forgettable film.<br /><br />In the book-to-movie category, this is a dreadful translation, almost as bad as Message in a Bottle with Kevin Costner. But don't get me started on that one...<br /><br />I am not usually so harsh in my critiques but I was so disappointed here, because I really cared about the story and wanted to see it told right. It did not deliver...<br /><br />
This movie attempts many things but never really accomplishes anything, the plot time travels, meanders and weaves along without really satisfying. It left a hollow , "is that all" feeling at the end. Unless its free to air and there is nothing else on, forget about it.
The films' producers are hoping that Cameron Diaz' name will help sell this picture. Unfortunately, nothing can save what has already been captured on the screen. Despite some beautifully shot European locations and some solid production design elements, the film fails mostly due to its awkward, unbelievable romance between Brewster and Eccleston. An unplesasant filmgoing experience.
One of the worst movies I've ever seen. Yes, I know I'm not the target audience. Target audience is females, either college age or middle aged or any aged I guess. I'm none of these so the makers don't mind if I don't like it. But that won't excuse the fact that the dialogue and the plot are horrible. The main character, Phoebe, goes on a journey to Europe to find out what happened to her sister, Faith, who committed suicide. Phoebe is an inane character that i hope no one identifies with. Faith is also a character with very little believability. Wolf is the only person who seems to be somewhat reasonable. As I said the dialogue is boring and uninteresting. The plot does completely stupid things at times. The absolute worst is that Phoebe and Faith's father is an artist but his paintings are completely dreadful. There is nothing new, interesting or refreshing in this movie. If your a guy, you will pray for the ending. If your a chick you might be able to sit through it but you will be unimpressed.
I saw this film right in the middle while going through a breakup. It was about 3 in the morning and I was battling insomnia with a quick snack. It wasn't too bad at the time, but every time I have tried to watch it since, I can't get into it like I did that night.<br /><br />At the time I thought it was cute and I loved the variety of characters, though they totally could have done better than Goran V, in my opinion. But the one thing that kept me watching was Heather's character and her sad "commitment" to her husband who didn't want her anymore, which made me feel sorry for her and root for her at the same time. (Considering I was in a similar situation at the time, perhaps that's why I liked her so much.) Not a bad film, but you pretty much have to be somewhere near the character romantically in order to appreciate it, and let's hope you never are.
A ditzy girl (yes, ditzy is about as complex as her character gets) won't take no for an answer and does quirky things to get her husband back. It's too far-fetched to be believable with such flimsy characters going through the motions. But not far-fetched enough to be fascinating in the way that say, Being John Malkovich, was. So it ends up boring.<br /><br />sv
I saw this film because Calexico did the score. A real disappointment. Annoying, trendy scenes, with urban hipsters and their cliche hip lifestyles. Cheesy stereotypical Mexican border culture (mystic grandfather with the rattlesnake and potions, granddaughter in her mariachi-style restaurant getup). A few laughs, but hipper-than-thou, and sorely lacking in vision and basic filmmaking talent.
"Committed", as in Heather Graham being COMMITTED to saving her husband/marriage, and then being COMMITTED to a psychiatric ward in failure to do so: what a clever, clever use of words.<br /><br />One of those meaningless wanna-be philosophical films in which narration is a series of oh-so wise observations that verge on poetry (90s chique club-poetry, better known as "chit-chique poetry"). Oh, it's so je-ne-sais-quoi... Written/directed (or "auteured") by a woman (Lisa Krueger, whoever the hell you are), this is a pointless, lethargically directed road-movie full of New Age spiritualistic nonsense and characters that are meant to be interesting but are merely seen-before or just plain dull. The Latinos in this movie, as part of the poor urban minority, are typically glorified in all their mysticism-obsessed primitivism as a "spiritually superior" people, which is the "highlight" of this film's political correctness.<br /><br />The whole affair is lifeless, and ceases to be so only when occasional good cast members appear (Kay Place, Baker, Wilson). On the other hand we have Casey Affleck, who is one of the very best examples of why nepotism is on par with first-degree murder as a crime. I have rarely seen a more apathetic "actor"; a skinny, ugly moron who goes through his lines in a sleepy manner, almost as if he were uttering them in a half-awake quasi-dream, plus that weak voice, one of the weakest male voices I've heard in my life. (He must have gone to the Tobey Maguire Lethargy School Of Acting.) To cast this idiot in ANYTHING speaks volumes about ANY movie, i.e. about ANY director or producer. Hence, Lisa Krueger is a talentless waste of space. We've also got that moron who had the lead role in the MST3K-spoofed "Werewolf"; I think his name is Goran Vishnjic, but I'm not sure. Check out his ridiculous accent and the dumb speech.
From what I remember seeing of this film, it was not good. I always say that if a film is good and can keep you attention throughout the hardest of moments (example: a Tylenol Cold & Sinus war) than it is a film that has done its job. The fact that I was asleep for most of this film only proves the fact that it could not keep my attention, and ergo, it did not complete its job. Why did I fall victim to the Tylenol Cold & Sinus, when I had a film in my arsenal? <br /><br />To begin, Committed did not make any sense. The acting was poor and the overall story left more doors opened that just couldn't be closed. I am thinking of the moment when I swear I saw Affleck and Graham (brother and sister in this film) kissing. That didn't make any sense. Then there was a scene with Affleck and his roommates indicating that he was sleeping with one of them, almost breaking up a perfect lesbian couple. I suppose this was to show that most are not as committed to a relationship as Graham is, but for me it just was nothing more than filler. I have this suspicious feeling that the director of this film was sleeping with Affleck. His acting in this film was atrocious. I mean, I have never seen him do any "good" acting, but this was by far the worst. Oh, I just had another moment during the battle come through my mind and I confirmed it with IMDb.com ... what was John Stewart doing in this film? That was yet again another moment when my eyes were opened just for a moment in one of those battles that seemed to last forever.<br /><br />And frankly, it's Heather Graham - we could care less about her after a while. She's just not interesting - she's just bland, boring and basically stops acting after a while. While they desperately start throwing wacky characters into the mix to revive the movie, it just doesn't work and instead of just calling it a day - they start throwing more characters into the mix so now it's just weird, tedious, boring and really, really long. Luke Wilson's slow drawl acting style slows an already crawling movie to dead halt - why exactly were these two married? Committed is a truly terrible film--the kind of "hip comedy" that leaves you staggering out depressed and bored.<br /><br />Grade: * out of *****
Committed stars (Heather Graham) along with (Casey Affleck) and (Luke Wilson). Its the story of Joline who is determined to find her ex-husband who is in the process of a mid-life crisis. <br /><br />Committed was not at all what I expected it was lacking in comedy which was ultimately the genre. It was beyond stupid and un-realistic, Casey Affleck delivered a reasonable performance, Graham's recent roles have been lack-luster and this is not an improvement.<br /><br />Graham's most recent role was Blessed which I also found misleading and didn't appeal to me at all.<br /><br />Pros Affleck<br /><br />Cons Predictable, Unrealistic, Poor Acting and not a comedy movie!
Horrible waste of talent. Not even worth watching when there is absolutely nothing else to do. My hope against hope is that the actors at least got paid well. Anyway, if you're a fan of Heather's or Luke's, you'll be really disappointed by this big budget student film.
More of a character study then a movie, COMMITTED is yet just another relationship romp with the trimmings specifically made for a young, target audience. The direction seems very basic, with obvious dramatic irony and a classic case of the lost loser versus the clueless committed. COMMITTED is watchable at times and there is a small feeling of originality from Lisa Krueger.<br /><br />COMMITTED is completely aimless for the first twenty minutes. We get to know Joline but the movie picks up when her husband disappears. Joline sets off to find him.<br /><br />Some parts are strange. Other times the movie drags. The second half is more humorous as we see Joline's spiritual antics take a turn for the more intense. The annoying guitar music is awful, but perhaps a necessary evil as COMMITTED offers very little anyway. An average movie hampered by some completely pointless moments, COMMITTED 's only asset is Heather Graham and Patricia Velazquez.
Usually, I start my reviews with an explanation of how and why I watched the film I'm reviewing. With this, I simply cannot explain. I needed to be awake early for work the next day so the last thing I wanted to do was watch a film that I didn't know anything about. But something kept me glued to my comfy futon as I watched this Heather Graham vehicle. Oh, that's right. Boredom.<br /><br />Graham plays Joline, a bohemian nut-case who seems more obsessed with her marriage vows than the guy she married (played by Luke Wilson). When her hubby decides to set off in search of better things (work, women and scripts, presumably), Joline begins a fanatical quest to find her husband and free him from his "spiritual wheelchair". It sounds like I'm making this up but sadly, I'm not. In reality, this is little more than an acting exercise for Graham as she gamely gives this Phoebe-from-Friends role a work-out. Oh and Goran "ER" Visnjic is in there as well, for some reason.<br /><br />The TV schedules had this down as a comedy but I failed to find a single laugh anywhere. It struck me that this was a personal journey for Lisa Krueger (the director and writer), in the same mould as "Girl, Interrupted" but even that had more laughs than this. Graham's character is simply too self-centred for the audience to care about and I felt sorry for the hen-pecked husband as he bravely fought for his freedom from his clearly mental wife. Very little of this film made sense as characters simply appeared in the story as though they were standing around, waiting for Graham to turn up like the extras in "The Truman Show". In fact, the only positive note I can produce from my scribblings was "Heather Graham - nice baps". And that wasn't because I was too tired to enjoy the film.<br /><br />In truth, it's very difficult to think of anybody to recommend this film to. Graham purists (a VERY small number of overall movie-goers, I think you'll agree) will have to be committed to watch this dross and possibly hippy students who collect American Indian dream-catchers will take something from this. I was amazed that the average rating (at time of writing) was 5.0 - that would make this film as good as "Die Another Day" and "Gothika" in my book and that simply ain't right. "Committed" is a quirky oddball mess of a movie that neither entertains or enlightens. It's complicated, pointless and simply too boring for my tastes and probably yours too. Don't even think about watching this.
What an uninteresting hodge-podge. It could have been something more but no imagination seems to have gone into the script or the direction. A man is framed for murder by his wife and her lover. The conspirators do a pretty thorough job of making him look guilty. But the man (Richard Thomas), whose psychiatric records reveal him as "stable" and "unimaginative", manages to escape from jail, beat it to the conspirator's beach house, and secretly record a conversation between them in which they reveal their guilt. Then he accidentally drops the tape recorder with all the evidence on it into the sea water but manages to retrieve it. He shows a heck of a lot of creativity and improvisational skill for an unimaginative guy, if you ask me.<br /><br />The tape is now damaged goods but it's enough to break down the wife's lover and he sobs out his confession. Bad people are punished. Good people are saved.<br /><br />The location shooting is impressive. The beach house is nothing more than a wooden exterior thrown up on the grounds of Fort Fisher Battlefield on the Cape Fear peninsula. The house was torn down immediately after the production wrapped.<br /><br />It's a pretty place. Unfortunately it's a little hard to see because someone seems to have shot every scene through a pair of pantyhose stretched over the camera lens. It's all very fuzzy. And for all the natural splendor of the location the viewer never gets a real sense of place, of what the sand feels like, of the texture of the gray bark on the stunted evergreens.<br /><br />The acting is okay but the performers have nothing much to work with. The best performance, as is often the case, is given by Dick Olsen as a sleazy but not unsympathetic defense lawyer. Virginia Madsen radiates infidelity with every beat of her eyelashes. Ted McGinley is within his range as an immoral weakling.<br /><br />The musical score neatly blends the ominous with the mysterious and is effective. If you want to hear the original, from which this was ripped off, rent Hitchcock's "Vertigo" and listen to Bernard Hermann's suspenseful theme.<br /><br />I can't think of any particular reason to catch this one except utter boredom.
Years ago, I caught a fairly well made TV movie entitled "Linda". It was made in 1973, and starred Stella Stevens in the femme fatale title roll. Imagine my surprise when, over ten years later, I once again saw the same story unfold on late night TV. However, it was this 1993 version, starring Virginia Madsen. Don't get me wrong, I can handle remakes, even obscure ones. But this badly written and poorly filmed retread made me feel sorry for both Madsen and co-star Richard Thomas. Unlike the original, the dialogue here is cliched, making me wonder, "Why did they bother to re-write it?" Second, the camera work is very heavy-handed, and the the film stock is poor. At times I felt reminded of the student film competition at the beginning of Christopher Guest's "The Big Picture". Finally, the cast looks either bored (Madsen) or suffering (Thomas). In fact, the only one who seems like he's really enjoying the work is Ted McGinley. Of course, with his perfectly coifed hair and capped teeth, he's really stretching himself from his previous work on "The Love Boat". Bottom line, to borrow a critique from Opus the Penguin in Bloom County:<br /><br />"This movie does for film what Jonestown did for Kool-Aid."<br /><br />Thomkat
This TVM seems to have polarised opinions amongst the commentators on this page so perhaps I can settle everything by saying this is a very stupid not very well made television movie . How bad is it ? It's a teleplay that can't even decide what its name is because while everyone in America calls it LINDA it's known in Britain as LUST FOR MURDER and it's usually a bad sign when a movie has to change its name . And can I also point out that it's not a tongue in cheek spoof as somebody else claimed <br /><br />I will be honest and say the plot is rather sound . Linda and Paul Cowley meet another couple called the Jeffries who they get on very well with . They get on so well that they go on holiday together ( Make up your own mind if there's some wife swapping going on ) and Paul sees his wife kill the Jeffries . After that the plot takes a shock twist <br /><br />Writing the above paragraph I have suddenly realised the large amount of potential the story had and I won't say anything to put you off the premise . It's just that when the story continues after the events I've described things become more and more unlikely and bizarre . Not only that but the production values are fairly unimpressive with the actor playing Paul Cowley doing a very wooden voice over that irritates while most of the scenes - Exterior and interior - look like they've been filmed on a foggy day
Some films are so badly made they are watchable purely for the cringe factor. Disciples made me cringe so much it was uncomfortable. I watched it all disbelieving what I was watching, wasn't anyone aware how bad this was whilst they were filming? Mix the most hammed performances from the most wooden actors, an abysmal script were every comment from all of the 'actors' sounded like it came from the same character and the most hurried editing that tried (and failed bigtime) to give the film a forced pace. All these combined into a film that will rob you of a few hours of your life and give nothing in return. Avoid at EVERY cost.
Terrible. There's no way to get around it. A script at the level of one from some Mexican soap opera, a choice and use of the places of shooting that make the movie labyrinthine and at the same time, repetitive and monotonous, with disastrous performances of almost the entire cast. The references to Tarantino's work, so poorly made, are more an insult than anything else. I suspect that was not for the shameless and plot-unrelated exploitation of Matadinho's generous curves , nobody would take the effort to go watch this film to any theater.<br /><br />These are the kind of films that make me have no desire to watch Portuguese cinema.
My daughter liked it but I was aghast, that a character in this movie smokes. As if it isn't awful enough to see "product placement" actors like Bruce Willis who smoke in their movies - at least children movies should be more considerate! I wonder: was that intentional? Did big tobacco "sponsor" the film? What does it take to ban smoking from films? At least films intended for children and adolescents. My daughter liked it but I was aghast, that a character in this movie smokes. As if it isn't awful enough to see "product placement" actors like Bruce Willis who smoke in their movies - at least children movies should be more considerate! I wonder: was that intentional? Did big tobacco "sponsor" the film? What does it take to ban smoking from films? At least films intended for children and adolescents.
I thought this movie was too absurd for me to finish watching it. The premise was too silly and predictable. I didn't make it far into the movie.<br /><br />Let me see. She is obviously older than the cabbie (unless she is a lot younger than she looks). He is black and she is white. She makes more money than him (he is only a cabbie). That's 3 of society's most statistically failed unions all rolled up in one and we are supposed to pretend they have a chance in hell. She would be better off marrying the guy she doesn't love.<br /><br />I only watched it partially because I love MJW as an actor. His acting was superb. Hers, meh! It was OK but the premise is too silly. Didn't see the end. Couldn't make it there so I don't know if it ended differently from the way I predicted the ending would be. I can't imagine any black woman liking this movie. There is something sickening about watching a black man catering to a white woman like that. And an old one at that. PLEASE! Not in the real world!
This film was basically set up for failure by the studio. One, Anne Rice (author of the book) offered to write the screen play but was refused by the studio. Two, they tried to stuff 2 in depth novels in to a 2hour movie.<br /><br />I maintain the only way for these two books -Vampire Lestat and Queen of the Damned- to work in a live action form would be through a mini-series. First off the the Vampire Lestat alone takes place from the 1700's to the 1980's and has a plethora of character vital to the plot understanding of the main character, Lestat. The entire book Vampire Lestat sets up the events of the second part Queen of the Damned. Without that full understanding the premise of a movie is destroyed.<br /><br />Lestat was not cruel and vicious to all, he was not wanting to go along with Akasha's plans, Marius did not make Lestat, Lestat did not love Jesse or make her, Lestat could not go remain unscathed by the light, Marius was not after David nor the other way around, every character was completely represented wrong, BASICALLY same names different story.<br /><br />If they wanted to make a vampire movie, fine. Even if you wanted to be inspired by these novels, fine. But don't piggie back into the theaters off the success of Rice's great novels and characters just to destroy what her loyal readers have come to love.<br /><br />If you haven't read the books you won't understand the film really, if you have read the books you will be insulted. That being said, I am such a huge fan I had to see the movie knowing full well this was going to be the case and still went for it. Catch 22, must see it, will hate it.
I should have known when I heard Anne Rice left the project that the movie would disappoint me. I couldn't have predicted that years after it's release just thinking about the movie still makes me angry. The novels are amazing, and while I understand much gets lost in the translation to screen, this movie was a great big middle finger to her original work. I hope one day someone tries again, the right way, starting with The Vampire Lestat. They change the roles and looks of major and minor characters alike for no good reason. They destroy Lestat's history. The acting of the Queen is exaggerated to the point of comedy, but I just can't bring myself to laugh. The charm and allure of the novels just isn't there. The movie is a bad excuse to cram as many musicians and "dark" imagery as possible into one movie, hoping the teeny Goths of America would lap it up. Part of the appeal of the first movie, of Louis' story, is that he is caught between his humanity and his curse. Lestat is supposed to take over and display the magic and excitement of the vampire world. Thank goodness I read the books first, or I'd have never touched them after this movie.
Why did they unleash this movie upon us? It seems as though they set out to make this movie a total slap in theface to Anne Rice and every self respecting Vampire Chronicles fan. It ignores the ground work laid down by Interview with the Vampire,mutilates the plot of the novel and has Stuart Townsend stumbling around drunk.<br /><br />Stuart is NOT our Lestat! Our brat prince, our adventurous rebel with the damndest sense of humor. Stuart IS a second rate, boring rip off of Dracula in black leather. He DID NOT read the books or know the character...is he illiterate? Tom Cruise is dyslexic and still he made a point to read the books and know and love Lestat.<br /><br />Don't kid yourselves, it is not a "Stand Alone" vampire flick it's trash plain and simple.
I'm usually not inclined to write reviews about films I don't think deserve a mention. But, in the quest to grow as a writer and film critic, I feel it is important to express my thoughts when I DON'T like a film. "Queen of the Damned" is one of those films.<br /><br />Anne Rice's popular horror stories of Lestat, a bisexual Vampire, first took to the screen in 1994 in the successful "An Interview With A Vampire". Starring two of Hollywood's biggest heavyweights in Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt, the film's stylish aesthetic and gothic mise en scene captured the audience. While it may have been a case of style way over substance, there was something about it that worked, despite its chessiness (I have never been that enamoured with the Vampire genre in general).<br /><br />Since that time Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise have gone on to much bigger things. It's likely both would have roared with laughter when asked to appear in a sequel. They would have been laughing even harder when they saw the final outcome. "Queen of the Damned" typifies the type of cr*p Hollywood is content to put out at a low cost with the hope of earning a quick buck thanks to an average soundtrack and big marketing campaign aimed at 13 to 17 year olds.<br /><br />Needless to say this film is terrible from the start. Lestat, now played by Brit Stuart Townsend of "Shooting Fish" fame, awakens from his dark grave to the sound of... you guessed it, Nu-Metal. He freaks out some confused punkish musicians and joins their band, under the proviso that he only appear at night, what with the sun burning his skin and all during the day...<br /><br />Jesse (Marguerite Moreau), a student studying the paranormal (Vampire Studies 101 perhaps?), tries to find out if Lestat really is who he says he is. Along the way she falls for him (something to do with her odd past), but has a little competition in Queen Akasha (Aaliyah), a Vampire demon queen who is returning from the underworld to acquire Lestat as her chosen King.<br /><br />The film is shamefully self-indulgant, yet its campy tone leaves some room for its depreciating humour. Anybody who sees this film for anything but a good laugh needs to see more films in general! Watching Townsend is enjoyable. He knows the role is utterly over the top and does his best to walk the tightrope between utter hamming and serious acting. The late Aaliyah is, unfortunately, terrible in the title role. She has minimal screentime, and what she does have she does not use to the fullest. The poor makeup and special effects do not help; at times she sounds like she's talking through a voicebox.<br /><br />It is rumoured that this film was heading straight to video until Aaliyah's untimely death last year. With the possibility for people to see her final film, Warner Bros put this out to a general release. Otherwise this would have been one of those movies you see on the shelf at video shops but avoid because you can tell it is going to be simply terrible.<br /><br />No doubt films like this will continue to be made. Look at the spate of teen rom-com rip offs around or the spoofing of that genre itself with films like "Not Another Teen Movie". If there is a market to exploit Hollywood will do so.<br /><br />The biggest issue I have with this film is not the film itself. Hollywood is about making money, so if there is a market for this film then they will pursue it. That's business. But what concerns me the most is that people will actively go out to the cinema and pay money to watch it! I guess that's the biggest argument in the world of cinema: is film art first and entertainment second, or is it the other way around? The only people who can decide that is the audience. If you like and are intrigued by good films, stay clear of this turkey.
I remember all the hype around this movie when Aaliyah was killed. Being a fan of Ms. Rice's novels, my first thought was "how can they do Queen Of The Damned without doing Vampire Lestat first?"<br /><br />Having finally seen the movie, now I can see how they did it. If you have read these books, imagine taking out the gory parts from Vampire Lestat, cramming Marcus and Marius into one character, and removing everything to do with Lestat's beginning (the wolf hunt, his violin playing, the Theatre Of The Vampires, and also Louis, Claudia, and Gabrielle), then in the last 15 minutes cramming in Queen Of The Damned.<br /><br />What we loose is a very important piece of Lestat's character. His inner agony of having to kill to live, the fact that he carefully tries to select killers as his victims, and his love-hate relationship with Louis, Armand, Gabrielle, and all the other vampires.<br /><br />Also important to the story is that we loose the "Story Of The Twins", which is the Genesis of Ms. Rice's vampires. And while I am sure the cannibalism was to intense for showing on the screen, they could have done something closer, and showed us more of ancient Egypt.<br /><br />Even worse, we have this love interest thrown in between Jessie and Lestat. The Vampire Chronicles is basically an American Yoni story. For those that do not know, Yoni is another form of Hentai (Japanese Porn Comics). But in Yoni, it is about gay male relationships, told by a female. While I am sure many men object to the "gayness" of the characters, in this movie they went to the far extreme the opposite way. For instead of Lestat persueing killers, he goes after young female groupies.<br /><br />And the other flaws in logic and storyline are vast. At the beginning Lestat emerges from a century long sleep, then later on asks Marius how he made it through the 1950's in red velvet. Marius has no idea who Elvis is, and says he slept through that period. Makes you wonder how Lestat knows about 50's fashion and music, since he slept through the same time period himself. And nothing is ever even mentioned about Louis, Claudia, or Gabrielle. I think that is a huge shame. Is like seeing "Snow White and the 3 Dwarfs".<br /><br />Overall, the movie I thought was really bad. About the only good thing about it was the soundtrack. Most of the acting was poor, the accents drove me up the wall, and all of the really in-depth parts of the book were removed, leaving us only with a hollow shell, kind of like Enkil after he was sucked dry.<br /><br />If you want to see a good modern vampire movie, get Lost Boys, the original Interview With A Vampire, or even some old episodes of Dark Shadows. Let this one Rest In Piece, with a stake through the heart, cloves of garlic around the neck, and a vial of Holy Water in the mouth.<br /><br />In ending, remember that before Aaliyah was killed, this was intended to go straight to video, no theatrical release was planned. It is obvious now why this was. It is only sad that somebody as talented as she will be remembered for this dog of a movie, instead of something where she really might have shined.<br /><br />I rate this a 2 on a scale of 1-10.
''Queen of the Damned '' is one of the worst adaptations of a book to a movie that I already saw. The only thing that I like in this movie is the soundtrack, anything else besides that.( Since I am a fan of Korn, Marilyn Manson, Chester Bennington of Linkin Park and Wayne Static of Static-X)<br /><br />There are so many mistakes and so many bad choices that I don't even know how to start. So many stories were cut, like the twin's legend (one of my favorite)Armand and Daniel's relationship and even Louis is not present, to mention a few.(The plot was dead) First, they should have made a movie of ''The Vampire Lestat'', because it is the second book after ''The interview with the vampire'',and not ''Queen of Damned''. They tried to squeeze in a single movie so many informations, that you finish not getting almost anything unless you read the vampire chronicles.<br /><br />So many meaningful characters doesn't seem to have a real importance in this movie. It is Pandora's case, for example.<br /><br />The actors that they choose to play all the characters doesn't match with many of Anne Rice's descriptions, specially Marius, that is suppose to be a beautiful,tall,imposing blond guy with blue eyes, like Lestat. (Stuart Towsend is also far from being like Lestat) I didn't understand why they changed Lestat's maker to be Marius instead of Magnus as well.<br /><br />''Interview with the vampire'' was an awesome movie, I loved the actors and Tom Cruise as Lestat was PERFECT and far superior then Stuart Townsend.(I am sad that Tom Cruise declined the chance of playing Lestat again) Only Antonio Bandeiras as Armand didn't match with Armand's looks, but anyway, far superior from this crap movie called '' The Queen of Damned''.<br /><br />Anne Rice was so picky about Interview that I didn't get how she just sold the rights for this terrible production.
This is definitely the worst vampire flicks of all times. I started to watch this right after Interview With the vampire and I was thoroughly disappointed. Not only did this movie's script have craters as big as the grand canyon, the movie seemed to jump from one scene to another leaving the viewers thoroughly puzzled. The vampire Lestat played by Stuart Townsend was terrible-having a good body does not make you an actor! The end of the queen was too easy and sudden, insulting the viewers intelligence. I'll give this one star because Aaliyah actually tried her best in this movie and the soundtrack is pretty good. Other than that I would advice Anne Rice to take an ax and start hacking those who destroyed her brilliant story.
Even if I had not read Anne Rice's "Queen of the Damned" from the "Vampire Chronicles," I probably would still have thought this movie was just awful.<br /><br />It was tasteless, plot-less, it made absolutely no sense at all. I sat for a while pondering the plot disassociated from the book, and the longer I thought of it, the worse it was. To associate it in any way with the prior Chronicles film is ridiculous as it is ridiculously inconsistent with that movie, let alone the book. The bare few ideas taken from Rice's genius in "The Vampire Chronicles" were butchered and ridiculed.<br /><br />It is an absolute insult to Anne Rice fans everywhere and such a pathetic excuse for a legacy in being Aaliyah's last film. Truly, it's an insult to Aaliyah fans as well.<br /><br />Possibly the only compliment can be paid to the sound effects as well as some of the graphics. Good as they may be, it is still not at all enough to make me regret the time spent watching this movie. As a matter of fact, I signed up for this membership for the sole reason of communicating to people bothering to look at this film (7 years after the release, as it may be) to not waste their time or expect much beyond disappointment.
Now don't get me wrong, I love seeing half naked chicks wiggling around. It's part of the fun of a Moroccan restaurant: ogling the belly dancers. But it doesn't make much of a plot.<br /><br />My first major problem is the music. I have the feeling that when Ann Rice wrote "The Vampire Lestat", the Cure was more the style of the music he would have liked (though I could be wrong). I know relating to current "goth" music might have seemed like a good idea, but they did a horrific job incorporating it. Lestat was an actor with presumably a pretty good singing voice. That they chose Jonathan Davis to be his stage voice is heartbreaking.<br /><br />Second, and someone else said it, mashing two very intricate books into one crappy movie is a bad idea. "Lestat" could have been a movie in it's own right, and a damn good one if done right. I honestly don't think "Queen of the Damned" lends itself to a movie very well. Though I would love to see a movie that incorporates a creation story, there's too much, how to word this, "inaction" in the book for it to be a very interesting movie. And the retelling they did soiled it pretty badly. Now mind you, it's been a long time since I've read it, I always thought "Lestat", "Tale of the Body Thief" and "Memnoch the Devil" were much more action packed and would have made better movies.<br /><br />I know a lot of people (hey, myself included) who like a lot of cheesy vampire crap that thought this was absolutely the worst of the genre to be a major motion picture. I tend to agree with them there. Aaliyah had a nice body though.
This is one of the worst movies, I've ever seen. Not only, that it is a comedy, which isn't funny, but it's also very badly made with an over the top direction full of unnecessary split screens and other effects.<br /><br />The two "heroes" with their fantasy language are just annoying and it confused me quite a lot, that they touched each others genitals all the time. But the worst of all that nonsense is the cheap attempt to give that movie some appeal, by referring to German history and to show sensitive aspects of the "heroes", which finds its climax in showing how Erkan and Stefan cure a mentally ill woman with their "joyful" lifestyle (!). But I hadn't expect anything better by director Michael "Bully" Herbig, who also made two not funny TV-shows, a not funny western movie and a nearly not funny SF-comedy movie. But Erkan and Stefan had been- just a little- better in some of their stand-up programs. For me the only good thing about the movie is Alexandra Neldel, who is very beautiful to me.
I have never before voted 1 for a movie on the IMDB, but for this one I am sorry the scale doesn't go down to -10.<br /><br />All I can say abou this movie is that I saw it in a Sneak Preview, and it was my worst movie experience ever. I don't mind the stupid jokes. I can live with the silly story. But when I see those dumbly grinning "main characters" with their pseudo-foreign speech (only Germans will understand what I talk about), I felt I kind of loathing I never thought I was capable of. (If they had left them out, the thing may actually have been acceptable...).<br /><br />There's not much more to be said about this one. You may laugh once or twice, because it's so ridiculous, but that doesn't make it any better. It is definitely not funny.<br /><br />If you live outside of Germany, be happy and rejoice that this awful work will most likely never make it to your cinemas.<br /><br />If you do live in Germany, avoid this movie at all costs.
It's nice that these three young directors have produced films with good productions values and decent acting. There's some good work here.<br /><br />Unfortunately they suffer from what afflicts much of modern gay cinema; recycled plots, too familiar devices (i have seen the "pool" setting way too many times in gay male films) and hackneyed scripts. Most egregious of all is "Dorothy" whose preposterous premise is that a cute young guy will have trouble getting laid in NYC due to a shortage of identifiable availabe gay guys in his vicinity.<br /><br />In terms of cinema these shorts play like tacky little gay afterschool specials. Not a lot of imagination in their writing or execution; basically they follow a point-and-shoot, shot/reaction shot/master shot convention which becomes painfully dull after five or so minutes. There's hope for queer cinema in the works of Todd Haynes, Sadie Benning and the late, great Marlon Riggs...but not here. These films are incredibly middlebrow, singularly whitebread and their values basically pander to a gay bourgeois sensibility. Which is probably why they play so well at gay film festivals.
Specks of white and various shapes, a beautiful nude, random images. That is what this little experimental short film is.<br /><br />It's kind of interesting to think how in the early days of film such images could be transferred onto film, but despite my love of a lot of surreal images and films, and a fascination with the bizarre, this film just didn't do it for me.<br /><br />I'm not sorry I watched it, but if there is any underlying meaning in it, I don't get it. Visually, it is not that outstanding, in my humble opinion. As an example of dadaism, I suppose it would fit in quite well, since it seems to reject any semblance of logic or reason, though I would have preferred that it do it in a more visually interesting way.<br /><br />But to each his own.
OK. Well, I guess it was worth my time sitting through this *once* but I won't be watching it again. There are several things about this film that irritated me.<br /><br />First, man...I really hated the characters. I had the same problem with Sid and Nancy. I have a hard time rationalizing spending a fair chunk of time following characters who I really don't care about, and can't relate to. It's not that the actors or the writing were technically bad; it was that the characters were written in such a way that I just had contempt for them, and as the movie went on, I almost wanted to see the sky fall on them. And this leads me to the second problem, and a question which I think is at the heart of this movie: Was the intent to simply document this generation and these types of bohemians who were (I guess) wandering around Europe in the 60s? Was the intent to criticize and lambaste them? Or was this film some kind of a warning? My final assessment of the film (that is to say, in determining if there was anything salvageable here at all) hinges on this question.<br /><br />Regardless, these characters are really unlikeable, and as a consequence, it's hard to really give a crap about the plot or what happens to them. If this was some sort of statement on this generation, then the film becomes a little more tolerable. It is clear that Schroeder is not some kind of geriatric establishment square, so the way he proceeds here carries more weight than, say, the countless stupid AIP films set in or concerning the 60s counterculture.<br /><br />At bare minimum, this film has two things going for it - first, the soundtrack (obviously). I like how Cymbaline is used here and others have mentioned it too, as it takes the forefront in the movie. I am guessing that if you are a Pink Floyd fan and want to see it for that reason, nothing you read here is likely to stop you from watching it anyway (it wouldn't stop me either). The curiosity of hearing Pink Floyd in a movie may be enough to just barely get you through this.<br /><br />Secondly, there is some nice scenery. Ibiza looks like a nice place to visit. Maybe I'm just sick of looking at Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago in films, but European films which take the time to actually show us Europe (the beautiful or the ugly - mostly beautiful here) are always welcome.<br /><br />But I really see no particular genius here. No revolutionary camera work, not even a moral, tone, message, sensibility, or plot that has anything new to say. Perhaps what was revolutionary about this was merely that it came from a guy like Schroeder - a film critical of a mindset that at least in part made his movies marketable. To that extent it is an honest film; there's no glorification of the abject excesses of the 60s here, which is perhaps something you might expect. In fact, the portrayal of the characters in this film closely mirrors the (somewhat distorted, in my opinion) modern cultural memory of that generation.<br /><br />Oh yeah, bunch of (yawn) nudity and sex here; nothing new if you watch these kinds of movies from this time period. I guess it was considered novel or provocative or something at the time. I don't find it offensive or titillating (I doubt you will either); rather it just extends the running time of an already tedious film. In its own way, this particular use of sexuality in movies of the time (especially European ones) has become a bit of a cliché. But I guess in hindsight you can't blame them; they were just in that decade able to "get away with it" and I suppose (I'm guessing here) the very presence of this kind of graphic sexuality was a political or social statement in and of itself (That being that sexuality was a part of life that this generation wasn't going to be all weird about like their parents were).<br /><br />Should you watch it? If you're a Pink Floyd fan, sure...I guess it's worth a watch. In any case, The Valley is a better film. I went into this movie expecting largely what I got. If you don't normally watch these kinds of arty, avant garde films and don't know what to expect, this is bound to be annoying as hell. This is a normal, healthy reaction :) <br /><br />If you're not a Pink Floyd fan, I'm not sure why you'd spend your time here. I noticed one fellow who left a comment did enjoy this movie quite a lot, so maybe I'm just missing something. I don't need guys running in slow motion from fireballs, special effects, explosions, or anything like that to enjoy a movie. But I do need some kind of handle - I need to find something to like about a movie, and generally I need to sympathize with some aspect of the characters' plight (barring that some novel film-making will work; camera-work and so forth). Here, there's just nothing to hold on to except for Pink Floyd's magnificence. Which is *just enough* to make this tolerable. At bare minimum, if you're a Pink Floyd fan to begin with, you'll like the bit with Cymbaline, I promise.
The only reason anyone remembers this steaming load of fecal matter is because it was scored by Pink Floyd. (Or as they were known then, "The Pink Floyd".) Stefan, a really annoying Eurotrash hitchhiker, hooks up with American model Estelle and they proceed to get high and naked throughout the whole movie...<br /><br />And the point of this is, what exactly? That drugs are bad? Or only heroin (horse) is? The problem becomes that you don't give a crap about the characters, and for that matter, even Pink Floyd wasn't up to their best work. When Steffan overdoses at the end, you are almost glad to be rid of him because he was so annoying.
Great music, but ain't these people PATHETIC?!? A true period piece of The Trippy Sixties, and it left me depressed. The director paints the wrong side of the jetset life and it stings as a hornets nest. If the culture of the time led people to do these things, it appears to me that it was all a journey of no discovery, only despair. I tried, really tried, to like this film, but these people aren't anywhere on my page. Yes, it would be nice to see the world, go away for awhile, but I always plan to come BACK. Drugs aren't the cause of these characters' downfalls, it's their lousy attitudes – these guys passionately drink their cup of poison. They cheapen their lives, and in the end, cheapen the journey that is life. Has romance ever been so dark?<br /><br />Cheers: Interesting scenery. Wonderful soundtrack by Pink Floyd.<br /><br />Caveats: Dated. Drugs. Depressing. Thoroughly unlikable characters; they aren't flower children.<br /><br />Only for the curious, since most packages swoon The Pink Floyd connection. ( Rare Floyd tracks many will have never heard before, as FM ain't what it was. )<br /><br />Rating: Two Stars.
Like many other people, I've heard about "more" and I wanted to watch it due to the music that was composed by Pink Floyd. I must say that I was truly disappointed, not because of the music but the movie in itself. it's a boring insipid movie that lacks rhythm. Where does this disappointment come from? According to me, from different things. First of all, the movie's subject, the drug links up badly with the idle sunny atmosphere of the movie. This one should have taken place in the sordid areas of Paris and should have gave birth to a dark and helpless climate,for example. Moreover, it's supposed to tell a descent into hell but this descent is softened and barely sketched out. Barbet Schroeder doesn't insist enough on the dramatic side of the story. You could have wished a little more of madness, cutting. On another hand, Schroeder doesn't succeed in gaining the audience's emotion and adherence in front of the two main characters' distress. You watch carelessly their trials with drug. Whereas the two main actors, they're perfectly inexpressive and hardly evolve during the movie, especially Mimsy Farmer. At the end, you only retain the beauty of the mediterraneans landscapes bathed in sunlight. The film created a huge sensation when it was released in 1969. Nowadays, it <br /><br />seems dated. The hippy culture is nothing less than a faraway memory.
"More" is yet another addition into the countless pile of 60's druggie, trippy junk. Avoid at all cost. Terrible acting, equally moribund script. The only thing to enjoy is Pink Floyd's wonderful soundtrack, which is too good for stereotypical waste like this.
OK, so she doesn't have caller ID. When you are being stalked, you GET IT! And no cell phone? When you are being stalked, you GET ONE if you are one of the few full time working parents that is the head of the household that doesn't own one already. This mom gets a big ZERO in the parenting department. So her mom is in the hospital and she decides a shopping trip will help her out. Just a stupid movie. Glad I have Tivo and a FF button on the remote.And what is with the 10 line minimum, I just don't have that much to say about such a bad movie. I guess I can ask why she keeps opening packages that she has no clue who they are from. The son really didn't add much to the movie either. The cops were a big ol zero too. Now get to the nearest Verizon and get the darn cell phone. @@
Warning: This may contain SPOILERS!!<br /><br />First of all I watch a lot Lifetime movies and realize they are just that....Lifetime movies. Some are great (really), some are good and some are bad. Unfortunately this movie falls into the latter category. It actually started out with some potential....single, divorced hard working mom (who gets out of work at 2:00 AM) cuts a guy off while driving home from work and let's just say he doesn't take it too well. The stalking begins immediately with phone call hang ups and escalates to her home being broken into and completely trashed. So she goes to her mother's for the night and the next morning her mother's car blows up. This seems to be just a pain in the butt for our heroine who deals with it by going underwear and jewelry shopping!!! So the police put her and her son in a local motel for safe keeping and what does Mom do? She goes off to work leaving the kid all alone at night in a strange motel room and tells him to order a PIZZA!!! I couldn't believe it! Then it really gets stupid! And the ending just made me angry because it was so ridiculous and typical. Too bad because it seemed to have possibilities.
Bad news for anyone wanting to film a full-length parody of a Lifetime Network movie- the makers of A Deadly Encounter have already done it, albeit unintentionally. All of the Lifetime tropes are there- a divorced mother in peril from a deranged stalker, an unreliable ex-husband (who, of course, cheated on her while they were married), and a police department that patronizingly dismisses her complaints, forcing her to Stand Up For Herself. Especially jaw-dropping is the scene where the heroine, after enduring a break-in and the attempted murder of her mother by her seemingly ubiquitous stalker, decides to relieve the stress by going shopping! Having seen first hand the harassment of a co-worker by some creep she met at church, I know stalking is not a joke, but it certainly is in this movie.
I have no idea who these others are but this movie is plain awful. They have to prop up Joe Pesci when he is a minor character. Bait and switch movie just like the studios did with Adam Sandler and Jim Carrey, etc. The DVD I watched states "this obscure gem revolves around JOe Pesci's MOB character who is a hothead that start a war" etc. etc. Joe plays the part of Joe, he does not even carry a gun, plays a whimpy character and gets SPOILER - (whacked). So much for the movie revolving around Pesci. The only halfway memorable scene was a bad attempt at comedy when they passed gas while waiting for a score. If you watch this movie after reading this, I warned you. Please stop and do not lose 87 minutes of your life.
Above all, you must not take this movie seriously. It takes itself seriously, unfortunately, but that can't be helped. This anime ninja flic has to be the crowning achievement in spoiling what could have been an endearing, if unoriginal, story with bad plot twists, ridiculous time-killing cutscenes, and one outrageous guest appearance which will either make you laugh or groan (or both, like me).<br /><br />While I'm typically a fan of ninja/samurai anime (Ninja Scroll and Rurouni Kenshin to name a few), this one has to be the exception. For the record, from a technical point of view of its time, this movie was very well animated and constructed. It is just the plot that stunk. The authors of this movie clearly decided (for what rational reason I don't know) that they could somehow make up for the lack of a script if the character halfway around the world in search of a treasure that (he learns) his father fought and died for. In the process, he saves a black slave named Sam, meets a French girl who is living in an Apache village, makes friends with a ninja clan whose members then try to kill him, meets more family members then he knew he had in the weirdest places and circumstances (and whom all subsequently die at some point in the movie).<br /><br />Even so far, these ludicrous plot twists could be excused, but then come the two "guest appearances". #1: After having a ridicuously cliche showdown with two cowboys, Jiro meets a man who introduces himself as "Mark Twain". At this point, you're probably saying "What the ****?!!" This "meeting" serves one purpose: it entirely discredits a movie which tries to add to itself an educated historical background. I found it disappointing that the authors went to all this trouble to research the 1860s US and didn't manage to realize that "Mark Twain's" real name was Samuel Clemens. #2: When Jiro finally finds the treasure, it turns out that it used to belong to Captain Kidd. I can hear the groans of disgust now.<br /><br />Finally, there are the running scenes. These scenes show various characters running, with the landscape moving statically behind them, for several minutes, and there are a lot of them. It is these scenes which make this movie, 2hrs 12 min, to seem to last a week and a half.<br /><br />If you and your friends are looking for a bad subtitled movie that just asks to be made fun of, this is it. Feel free to poke fun at every possible aspect of it, and have fun. Just don't take it seriously. 3/10
What can be said about a movie that makes two hours seem like three weeks? The hero starts out in ninjaville, Japan, goes through an identity crisis (saving a shinobi), makes a voyage to America (saving a slave named Sam) engages in a little wild west action (saving a French/japanese native american named Julie), goes hunting pirate's gold, and then heads back to Japan to fight a war. The film obviously has no clue where it's going at any point in time; I think the director modeled each scene after the last movie he'd watched. If you're going to watch this film, I suggest renting the subtitled so you and your peers can openly discuss how dumb the movie is without speaking over the movie, potentially missing another dumb plot twist.<br /><br />Movies the director was watching during the making of this movie - An American Tail, Fievel Goes West, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, The Goonies, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Kung Fu, Vampire Hunter D, The Ten Commandments.<br /><br />Notes of Interests - Most fear inspiring line of all time. About 90 minutes (or 19 days) into the movie, the lead character has just bested an American villain, and just as one heads to the vcr to end the pain the hero proclaims "Let's go back to Japan", and the agony continues for another week.
I have been living in Istanbul for 24 years and I (a 39 years of experience would suggest) do know what Istanbul has gone through all those years.<br /><br />Faith Akin is still quite young (born in 1973) and falling in the great mistake of being ORIENTALIST when looking at Turkey (just as his other movie Gegen Die Wand did) This movie SERIOUSLY LACK contemporary urban Turkish life AND MISLEADS the audience when giving out (quite false) clues as to the geographical and cultural spreading of Istanbul.<br /><br />Anyone who could speak Turkish could easily attest that many underground bands & groups depicted in the movie (Siyasiyabend for one ) are SO MISERABLE and their members cannot even speak a proper language that they cannot be taken as 'representatives' of the contemporary Turkish music. Much less a piece of crap which many Turkish listeners even do not know about at all.<br /><br />We Turks have long been accustomed to 'superficious' westerners who look at Turkey with some Orientalist point of view: trying to fit the actual Turkish image into their mind molds.. What is new in this movie is the fact that now a Turkish originated director (Faith Akin) is making the same mistake: Looking at Turkey with some false western glasses and scrambling to depict it as if he understands better. All of a vain effort.<br /><br />Just ask any Turkish friend of yours: What sort of a musical documentary is this without mentioning the names : Zeki Muren, Baris Manco, Ajda Pekkan, Teoman, Muslum Gurses, Ibrahim Tatlises, Ferdi Ozbegen?.. and many others who have SHAPED so far the real MUSIC we are listening today?<br /><br />Faith Akin has a long long lesson to learn before babbling away and confusing other people's minds with false images about the contemporary Turkish Music.
There are shows and films I've seen and subsequently read reviews of on IMDb.com that I've disagreed with, and been happy to accept that there has just been a difference of opinion.<br /><br />Reading positive reviews of this filth merely puts me in mind of a sinister conspiracy involving TV network employees being ordered to browse the internet, posting unconvincingly positive reviews for programmes they themselves are responsible for.<br /><br />How else would one explain a review opining that this show is "sure to become a phenomenon" a full year after it's become clear its going to be nothing of the sort?<br /><br />I won't waste words describing this mess, but suffice to say if you enjoy, wives who emasculate their husbands, husbands who emasculate their sons, children who are disrespectful jackasses towards their parents and absolutely no other threads of behaviour or subtext to legitimise characters that are basically just unfunny one-liner spewing automatons, then watch this show.<br /><br />I, on the other hand, have some Seinfeld DVDs to get through.<br /><br />Futurama - Cancelled. TItus - Cancelled. Arrested Development - Cancelled. The War At Home - Renewed.<br /><br />No justice.
I watched the first episode of "The War at Home" because I thought it was worth replacing "Arrested Development", boy, was I disappointed. It should be clear to everyone that this show was blatantly ripped-off of "Grounded for Life", "Titus", and "Married...with Children" since they are all similar in plot and overall mood. The so called "punch lines" are all repetitious and formulaic, even more, those "punch lines" aren't even funny at all, to me, they're more along the lines as being crass and crude. The main character Dave Gold acts like a white trash thug, who thinks he's being funny and cool, which he's not. (Even Hillary (Dave's daughter) said so in the episode "Gaza Strip").<br /><br />In the episode "Dream Crusher", Hillary wanted to be a singer {but was actually pretty bad}, Dave and Vicky then gladly decided to crush her dreams by telling her she sucked. After that, she then wanted to be a child psychologist and planned on going to Harvard, after telling Dave and Vicky so and left the room, the two of them began mindlessly mocking her. Also, in the first episode Dave said of Hillary's {black} boyfriend "Does she actually think we're gonna let her go out with this guy? I'd rather drink my own urine", that line has to the dumbest line in the history of television. And Dave is constantly making fun of Larry (his son) when he breaks the fourth wall because he thinks he's gay and is a geek. Also, let's not forget that he also made fun of Larry's (fat) girlfriend. Dave is the father he's supposed to stand up for his son no matter what. "The War at Home" is without a doubt the worst TV show for family. That clearly explains why the show should be canceled since it spreads a racism and homophobic agenda. It's like the show wants to be funny for always putting in that stupid laugh track every time someone says something, but the lines are all somewhat forced, idiotic and pathetically juvenile.<br /><br />Another reason why the show's horrible is the acting, Mike Rappaport and Kyle Sullivan are terrible, terrible actors. Rappaport has to always move his hands around when he's in front of the camera, he not only does this on this show but he also did that during his time with "Boston Public". Sullivan talks and acts like some kind of robot every time he acts (he also did this in "Malcolm in the Middle"}.<br /><br />So to wrap this whole thing up, you all got your reasons of what's wrong with this show 1.It's unoriginal 2.The acting sucks 3.It's not even funny 4.All the jokes are the same 5.Has lousy script 6.The characters are pitiful and unlikable 7.The dad's a rip-off of Archie Bunker<br /><br />FOX needs to take this trash off the air, because anything's better than this.
What Fox's fascination with dysfunctional families, made up of mean, obnoxious, spoiled kids, and parents who are determined to be cool, as opposed to being a parent?? I'm sorry, I don't get it. The one episode that I was barely able to stomach watching involved one of the kids demanding a Bar Mitzvah, with the intention of getting thousands of dollars in gift money. Of course, the idiot mother decides that her precious little junior has to have the biggest and bes-test party of all, and has no problem dropping 20 grand on the big event. The ditzy, brain dead, boy crazy teenage daughter bounces back and forth between wanting to be Jewish and then Catholic, when she see's the "cute" religious tutors.<br /><br />The one borderline "heartwarming" moment in the entire episode, was when the putz of a father, who has been convinced the entire time that the Bar Mitzvah is solely a money making scheme, see's the son studying his Hebrew lessons, and is momentarily duped into thinking that perhaps, his conniving offspring is being sincere about the right of passage into manhood. This warm, fuzzy feeling is immediately ripped out of his chest when he informs junior that since he has not yet had a bris, a certain "procedure" needs to be performed. The Bar Mitzvah is called off, and the mother is out several thousands of dollars when the kid refuses to comply.<br /><br />This show is garbage, and I am saddened that I shall never get back the 23 minutes of my life I wasted watching this piece of crap, because nothing else was on TV ...
I'm one of those gluttons for punishment when it comes to sitcoms these days-I still will check them out every once in a while.My observation is that most of them aren't very funny even the ones on major networks that are getting high ratings ,I just don't get who is finding them gut busting funny. While a few have made me crack a smile ,none of them made me laugh out loud,I usually change the channel after a few minutes. Now on the FOX network they churn out new shows like changing your underwear,for some reason they think they can make a good sitcom,wrong dead wrong. They have beat this dead horse so much it is to the point of hiring just anyone they can find to write a crappy pilot with bad dialog and just churn them out.Let's take a brief look at the latest piece of junk that Fox has churned out called "The War At Home"<br /><br />I watched about 5 minutes of it and that was generous. In this particular episode,the daughter is mouthing off to her parents doing the I'm an adult now rant.The dad gets fed up tells her "OK fine,go ahead and do whatever you want,If you screw up it's your problem" to which she replies"Well I guess your mad but hey at least I didn't get AIDS"(cue the laugh track,no way that can be a live audience unless they have been paid to applaud such garbage)-I found the crack about not having AIDS to be in such bad taste. Well hey at least I don't have to watch any more of this crap. Take a hint FOX, stop wasting your time with sitcoms.OK well you have the Simpsons but it is now getting really old and tired as well.
A stupid show in the vein of the rest of them with terrible music and a laugh track that must be from I Love Lucy. I got rid of TV because of shows like this, but picked up the 1st season at big lots for $3.00. Should bought the Van Damme movie instead.<br /><br />If I was a conspiracy theorist, who believed that a small group of people are working against real families and keep coming up with this drivel/propaganda in order to undermine family values I would point to this show, Married With Children, Family Guy etc. but I'm not so I won't.<br /><br />BTW I'm not Christian, love the Simpsons and Peep show. I watched two episodes and thought that if shows like this are popular, who are they popular with? Then I remembered all those fotos of the people of Walmart that have been circulating around the web and thought ah ha!. It is no wonder our culture is a joke around the world when this is prime time.
WHAT WAS HE THINKING?!?!?! How sad an actor as tremendously talented as Michael Rapaport- who stole our hearts in "Mighty Aphrodite" and fascinated us in "Ill Town"- has sunk to this pathetic level. The writing on this sitcom is the crust left on the bottom of the barrel after it has been scraped. Shame on all involved. There is a trend: major movie actors that are no longer hot merchandise are turning to TV- often with disastrous results (reference the stinkaroos on CBS and NBC; however, ABC has a hit with "Boston Legal"- hip writing and great nostalgic use of Bill Shatner). To waste Michael Rapaport in this "All In The Family" rip-off is an insult to viewers and mostly Michael himself.
I grew up watching sitcoms such as Seinfeld, Roseanne, Simpsons, etc. etc. in other words mainstream television. Over the years many sitcoms have come on the air and of those a very small percentage are genuinally smart and funny. The War at Home is a prime example of the majority of modern American comedy.<br /><br />I give the show a 3 out of 10 because it is what it aims to be, a comedy, but it doesn't seem to go out of its way to be a good comedy. A good comedy should have you swept off your feet with its big jokes, you shouldn't be able to see them coming and in TWAH I see just about every joke coming. The characters are probably the most simplistic and horrible stereotypes I have seen yet on screen, and the acting isn't very good save for the father who portrays a stereotypical beer drinking sport loving American idiot perfectly.<br /><br />Poor acting, unbelievable characters, and jokes that don't catch you off guard detract from this show to a point of where it is unwatchable. If you don't have cable and would like to see a comedy worth watching, try Boston Legal. It is more worth your time.
This show drives me crazy. It goes against everything a family should be, even if it is intended to be a comedy. The show is suppose to follow Dave and Vicky Gold (Michael Rapaport and Anita Barone) as they raise their three teenage children: Hilary, Larry, and Mike. A good premises for a comedy yes but it does not mean it will be a good show.<br /><br />I don't think I've ever heard cruder talk from parents to children and vice versa. The only talk that seems to be in the show is control of children by the parents and sex. I know that sexual intercourse is usually a subject talked about by teenagers often but it is brought up in nearly every episode with no point to it. The one episode I was just watching involved the parents giving their daughter, Hilary a car, not once do you think they are related in anyway by the way they talk to each other and how the parents talk about how Hilary is like "their slave."<br /><br />The show fails on the comedy level the most. I haven't laughed at this show once in the numerous times I have attempted to watch it, and I'm a person who gave such films as Animal House and Dumb and Dumber very high marks. Michael Rapaport is a very good actor and why he choose to ruin his career by making this piece of filth show is beyond me. <br /><br />Parents, make sure your children never and I mean never watch this. Teenagers, you'll probably get a laugh out of this just for the blatant sexual references but nothing comes out of it and afterwards you feel rather empty. <br /><br />1 1/2/ 5 Stars.
How can stuff like this still be made? Didn't Seinfeld, Arrested Development, The Office etc etc kill this old-fashioned unfunny crap off? Apparently not...<br /><br />I'm actually quite a fan of Michael Rappaport and have enjoyed his various cameos and supporting roles (Copland , Friends) but in this he sucks but anyone would struggle with this script.<br /><br />My wife enjoys it. But she's Brazilian. And if you've ever seen a typical Brazilian sit-com you would understand why she would think this so funny.<br /><br />Just to demonstrate how predictable the show is and to prove a point with her I guessed what the next 3 or 4 plot developments/lines would be while watching it for a while and was correct almost word for word! I felt very smug. This annoyed my wife as she hates it when I do that (can understand why but I felt good so screw-it!)
You've seen the same tired, worn out clichéd sit-com stories, characters, stories 1000's of times before…only this excels at sucking more than others. First and foremost there isn't a single character in this show that's even remotely likable...in particular Michael Rapaport's. Dave Gold is by far one of the biggest asses ever to grace a television screen ever...repugnant comes to mind. If in real life a father was this unlikable, cruel and just generally unfit to parent...fratricide would be your only option. To call the remaining characters stereotypes, would be too complementary. If these characters ended up on life-support the line to pull the plug would be light years long. How this show finished one complete season, much less 2 is a mystery. FOX cancels "Arrested Development" and keeps this on the air??? You tell me the terrorists aren't winning.
How is it in this day and era, people are still dumb enough to think that other dumb stuff is smart? Maybe dumb people like watching stuff that makes them feel smart. Such as 'The War At Home'. 'Cuss it's even dumber than the dumb people who watch it. There are no jokes, only half-jokes and slight gags that barely even warrant a tiny internal smile. The acting is your typical, unsubtle, idiotic, standard sitcom flailing-limbs type acting. And why oh why did this crap replace arrested development? Well you gotta hand it to Fox. They know that they need to have stupid shows to attract all the stupid viewers. You see, the reason Arrested Development wasn't massively popular was because it was so smart. It was so smart that it made dumb people feel bad about being so dumb. And of course, if a dumb person encounters a smart person, the dumb person will hate the smart person. Most of the time anyway. Either that, or try and mooch off of the smart person. If you like this show, and are one of the dumb people, I truly cannot fathom what it must be like not to have open eyes and open minds. I cannot fathom what it must be like to be mindless, laughing drones, influenced by every little thing. Basically, people who laugh with a laugh track are parrots. Trained, obedient, mindless parrots. Maybe I shouldn't insult parrots by comparing them to you. You know who you are. (If I seem like a bastar* in this review, it's because I'm so annoyed at AD being canceled.)
I finally managed to sit through a whole episode of this show. I was very, very tired. Clearly. Previously I would always have to turn it off because I thought it was that bad. Watching a full episode convinces me that it really is that bad. I couldn't even tell you what happened but I distinctively remember not laughing. For people who think this is the new All in the Family or Married with Children...have you ever actually WATCHED those shows? They are well written and well acted and most importantly, funny! This show is NOT funny. You might think so if this is the first sitcom you have ever watched. I cannot see who else would. I echo all previous sentiments about Arrested Development, etc... It's probably my own fault for getting frustrated with television and not watching it, thereby allowing the stupid people to dictate what actually stays on the air.
I would label this show as horrendous if it weren't for the fact that it's on the same network as Arrested Development. Because it is on FOX and getting renewed while AD got cancelled. <br /><br />It is absolutely beyond words how atrocious this show actually is. But let me try and describe it. Take an extremely low rate Archie Bunker and have him spout out humor that would have been out of date if it were on Married with Children. Then take great plot lines from AD (son has an ugly, boring girlfriend) and dumb them down so the idiots who watch sitcoms can understand them. <br /><br />If you watch this, I will have completely lost respect for you, as should your family. However, if you are a fan, you should love FOX's new comedy 'Til Death. Looks like real funny, cutting-edge stuff. I mean, married couples not getting along ... brilliant.
This show is just another bad comedy which will probably be cancelled after two seasons. It's not just that the jokes are sexist/racist/homophobic, they're also not funny and clichéd. In the first episode the Father said something along the lines of ' I wish women didn't go out and get jobs and have the same rights as men blah blah blah' That really helps attitudes huh? Then he was making fun of his son saying he was weird. What parent says their kid is weird? So overall this show is boring, unoriginal, offencive, clichéd and most of all NOT FUNNY. Yeah American Dad's offencive. But it does also make you laugh and is obviously taking the micky. Thats the difference.
The actors & actresses on this series are OK, but the scripts have been absolutely horrible. This family is so dysfunctional that they are not even funny. In fact, the scripts illustrate very often how not to be a parent. The scripts are so bad, they make Homer Simpson look like a better father than this one.<br /><br />Anyone who is becoming a parent, if you want to see what not to do with your kids, this show is the perfect guide. I think the garbage this show feeds us, is beyond words. <br /><br />Michael Rapaport has seen much better material in his career (including his role in HITCH). They need a strong lead in & better, much better scripts than what I have seen to this point.<br /><br />If you think this is generational, my teenager even turned off one show of this because they thought it was horrible.
This is easily the worst, most offensive piece of crap on TV. I'd love to completely ignore it but Fox has stuck it into their Sunday lineup, forcing me to find something else to watch between American Dad and Family Guy. The dink-head male star guy is just about the least evolved, pathetic excuse for a human I have ever seen on TV. Nothing on the show is remotely funny and pretty much everything on it has been done already and much better by other shows.<br /><br />It's obvious that their strategy is to ram it deep and hard into the Sunday schedule and hope someone starts liking it... but I have to break it to ya, Fox, thats the wrong hole. The scam not worked on me - I simply look elsewhere - but come on, you freaking boneheads, this show freaking SUCKS, and it sucks even worse when compared to the rest of the Fox Sunday lineup.<br /><br />THEY CANCELLED ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS STEAMING PILE?
I cringed when I heard the first canned laugh track in the first few seconds of the show but yet I gave it a chance. You KNOW when someone offers a line which is only slightly amusing and you hear an obviously fake laugh track explode in uproarious laughter that it's a show aimed at morons who need to be told "yes, it's funny, go ahead and laugh".<br /><br />Ugh. I couldn't stand this show as it revealed itself. I can't speak for everyone - after all some people actually like that IDIOTIC show "Stacked" (which makes me wish to vomit). I can imagine those who like "Stacked" might actually like this drivel, too. Some people still get a kick out of the old "pull my finger" gag. To me, this show is just about as witty - and just about as original.<br /><br />The themes were old and tired. The jokes were lame and hackneyed. The characters were ones we've seen everywhere before - and the worst of any you might imagine.<br /><br />So... if you like things like burping words and neighbors who say "pull my finger"... you might actually like this show. Otherwise... pass it by. It's stupid - and not in a clever or original way. This one is about as old and tired as any show has ever been at its premiere.
If you haven't seen "The War at Home", let me tell you what you've been missing. It's a show about ethnic diversity and sexuality that could have only been edgy and funny in the 60's. Where America has grown in it's acceptance of race, sexual preference, religion, etc... this show seems to argue with that progress. It's a backward step in America's evolution.<br /><br />For example, one of the ongoing jokes of the show is that the WHITE daughter is dating a BLACK kid from school. This is obviously hilarious seeing as how you can't see that type of relationship at any mall in America. I've lived in both small towns and big cities, so don't give me some type of red state, blue state excuse. Not only is this the joke, but the father, who is supposedly not racist, finds this disturbing and asks his daughter repeatedly to break up with her boyfriend, which opposes his "he may sound like a racist, but he's just dumb" character.<br /><br />If this isn't enough, a second running joke is that one of the sons, and soon to be metro-sexual, is ambiguous in his sexual orientation. The audience learns over and over that he isn't gay, but the father isn't convinced, so he constantly avoids his son, afraid perhaps that his son will hit on him, as all gay men are nymphomaniac wild men, who can't control their will. The father always comes to some acceptance of his son, once per show, but usually goes on avoiding him in the following episode.<br /><br />The only way this show can cure itself in my eyes is if the continuous exposure to these "unnatural occurrences in life", open up the father's eyes a little, but that may be too much to ask - and besides, with jokes like these, I'm sure we'll have hilarity in episodes to come like - Episode 13, "Father Votes Against Women Voters", and Episode 14, "My Muslim Neighbor is a Terrorist".<br /><br />Please drop this show, FOX. We're living in a different world from the one your execs grew up in.
Robert Montgomery-Myrna Loy farce about Loy (Irene) and her fiancé, played by Reginald Owen, stranded in Labrador when their plane crashes. (That's really what should have happened to this highly predictable film.) Montgomery lives there while he is waiting for his fiancé.<br /><br />Surprise! Montgomery and Loy are soon attracted to each other. The scene with the bear is so contrived. We knew it was a tamed bear all along.<br /><br />Complications ensue when Clara shows up. Loy wants Montgomery to tell Clara that they should part ways, when he refuses, she wants to leave at once.<br /><br />You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out how this will end. Out with all that snow, it's just too cold for anyone!
This is a piece of celluloid CRAP. You can tell when you are watching a "wanna be" mafia film....and this is it. This made NO SENSE at all, didnt start at the beginning of his life, charactors were all over the place...and the TERM "GODFATHER" didnt even EXIST until PUZO wrote the book!.....THEN, the real mafia, borrowed the PHRASE and made it their own AFTER the movie.....THIS piece of claptrap would have one thinking that the phrase (representing the mafia don) was used back in the 20's...when these people were only called "DON"....outside of the original Godfather movie, if you want to see another decent mob flick, check out Puzo's The Last Don (part 1) part 2 sucked.
The hero John Keem is going after some drug dealers who kidnaps girls for some reason. On his journey he uses karate and kung fu moves and I don't believe he got hit a single time during the movie. This is Crap.
The acting was bad, and the plot, well i don't think there was one.<br /><br />Some fat blonde chap who is always dressed in a dinner suit, kidnaps a sort from a nightclub, i think he then kills a copper. pointless fights then happen Kidnapped girl is put in cage on a boat, why? Tough uncompromising martial arts trained cop turns up, speaks bad english and does stuff that does not make sense. Its utter tripe. But he does have a nice car. christ on a bike, this film was a waste of 90 minutes.
1 Bolo Yeung is in the movie ten minutes altogether including when he's serving iced drinks to his boss. 2 a lot of street thugs looking like junkyard keepers get instantly overpowered by the Asian superhero who talks like an illegal alien just out of the back of a manure truck. 3 (thug) let this to me -shirt off, gay model like muscles- heee-haaw! hee-heeew! hap hap! - he's dead on the floor with his neck, elbow, chin or balls broken - 4 cheap semi-sex scenes where the white broad come out of nowhere digs the Asian superhero. 5 Norton (former C action movies star ) does nothing but pose as an eccentric trendy weapon smuggler who traffics white slutty girls hand picked at a night club where they willingly follow some idiot posing as a millionaire snapping at them ( you reap what you sow ) 6 yes, the local police captain is involved and yes, the first butchered cop is the former patrol teammate of the super-hero ( yaawn! ). 7 Action scenes are fake, like A) hee-haw! Chinese tries some spinning kick B) skinny leg of Chinese to the throat of negro thug C) finishing death move to his head too much like Walker Texas ranger fake action 8 end titles finally<br /><br />utter rubbish. Those people are good enough only to be stand ins or body doubles in other C movies and be credited AT MOST collectively as "stunt crew provided by the county prison ".
While I agree that this was the most horrendous movie ever made, I am proud to say I own a copy simply because myself and a bunch of my friends were extras (mostly in the dance club scenes, but a few others as well. This movie had potential with Bolo and the director of Enter the Dragon signed on, but as someone who was on set most every day I can tell you that Robert Clouse was an old and confused individual, at least during the making of this movie. It was a wonder he could find his way to the set everyday. I would also like to think that this might have been a better movie if a lot of it had not been destroyed in a fire at Morning Calm studios. I can't say that it would have been for sure, but it would be nice to think so. I was actually surprised that it was ever released, and that someone like Bolo would attach his name to it without a fight. Oh well. Also look at the extras for pro wrestler Scott Levy, AKA Raven. He was a wrestler in Portland at the time...nice guy, very smart.
I saw this on sale - NEW - at my local store for $6 and said "hey! an action film with that guy from Bloodsport and Enter the Dragon, directed by the guy who did Enter the Dragon - and it's cheap!" So I bought it. Oops! This is possibly the worst film I've ever seen, and I've seen some doozies.<br /><br />You know how movies which are intentionally campy, like Evil Dead II and Dead-Alive, are AWESOME? You know how movies that are supposed to be serious but turned out so awful that you have to laugh out loud, and watch them again, like Lionheart (an old Van Damme film) or John Carpenter's Vampires, are pretty cool? This film, Ironheart, manages to be NEITHER of those. I don't know what the filmmakers were thinking, but it looks as if this movie was made with no time to shoot, no budget for anything, and no script to speak of. (While I'm on the script note, I should point out that Bolo Yeung has NO LINES in this movie - the only reason he gets first billing on the box is the fact that he's the only actor in the film that you'll ever recognize (unless you're a Jackie Chan fan, in which case you'll recognize the bad guy - and you'll want to call him Giancarlo!).)<br /><br />What's also sad is that this film is from '92. By that time, T2: Judgment day had come out, so you know that the era of 80s campiness was over... but not quite. After this, you'll think 80s Chuck Norris films, high-school comedies, and Jason/Freddy sequels were works of sheer genius. <br /><br />Things to know:<br /><br />1) Nobody in this film can act for beans. The closest you get is Richard Norton looking appropriately rich and cocky, and Bolo Yeung looking appropriately mean ... and cocky. Everything else is dreadful.<br /><br />2) The martial arts scenes are forgettable - just many instances of white guys with lots of muscles taking off their shirts, yelling, running at Britton Lee, getting kicked by Britton Lee, getting punched by Britton Lee, then falling down. Even the final showdown against Bolo is disappointingly short, and about as creative as the design of my running socks (and equally stinky).<br /><br />3) The rest of the action is pathetic, too: the guns look like they came from the toy department at K-Mart, and indeed they fire with the sound of a capgun. When someone gets shot, they bounce around a little bit, then lie still with splotches of brownish-red liquid on their clothes. Britton Lee apparently gets shot in the side, but you don't see it at all, then later that day you see the wound ... I've had paper cuts that were worse than that!<br /><br />4) Of course then the girl dresses the wound, then they kiss, then next thing you know they're lying in bed talking after sex. Huh? What? Believable development of the love interest, as well as any kind of character development at all, are overlooked completely in this film. Remember how Bruce Lee's characters didn't need to have sex with anybody to be cool?<br /><br />5) The car chase is by far the worst I've ever seen. It looks like the director was sitting on the curb with a hand-held camera as the two cars weaved down the road doing, oh I don't know, about 30 miles an hour? Don't try this at home, kids, these people are professionals! Hah!<br /><br />6) Really bad writing. Here's a scene for you: Lee is being followed, so the girl follows the followers to "warn" Lee, but her car is too slow. So by the time she catches up, Lee and the bad guys are out of their cars and there's a gunfight in progress. Lee has killed two bad guys, but the third is shooting at Lee when the girl almost runs Lee over, so the bad guy runs away. (Huh?) Then the girl's car stalls and she can't start it. She tells Lee she's involved now and she's coming with him. He points out to her that they can't leave her car there because the bad guys will trace it to her. She somehow convinces him that he should decide how to deal with this problem - so he shoots the gas tank and blows up her car. (And remember, later that same night they have sex.) Huh?!?<br /><br />7) If you look closely, in more than half of the nightclub shots, the dancers are very much out of sync with the music. The dancers are also all way too co-ordinated with each other (apparently in the '80s all people at dance clubs took dancing lessons). There is a girl in the DJ booth with a microphone, but she never does anything except dance. The bouncers tell people who are fighting to "take it outside" - without moving their lips. In one scene, the only bouncers Lee and Stevo pass by are just inside the entrance, but with their backs to it! Also, apparently, if you're a major character in the film, you can go straight to the head of the line.<br /><br />8) Lee notices the first time he is being followed, but he doesn't notice the second time - even though it's the same guy in the same car. The girl, however, notices. Bad guys get followed twice, but they never notice.<br /><br />9) Lee is worried the bad guys will trace the girl's car back to her, even though they have already seen him show up where she works twice. The girl proceeds to leave her child at work, in the care of a friend, while she is off having sex with Lee. DO NOT learn parenting from this film!<br /><br />Can't think of more gripes right now ... you get the idea ... Ironheart is so bad, it ain't even funny, it's SAD.
Me and a couple of friends went to rent some movies one day, we picked one each and one of us picked Ironheart. Lets just say that from now on, we never let him pick a movie. This movie sucks
My brother plays "Moose" in this film. Although most of his scenes were left on the cutting room floor. The funniest line is the movie is "nothing wong with stat." So anyway, this is filmed in Portland, OR, where we grew up. The dance club is/was called "Up Front FX". What I loved about this movie is that the main character (who is not named on the box because Bolo brings more clout) is supposed to be a police detective...a great opportunity to drive around in a red convertible Porsche. I need to get a copy of this, preferably the director's cut, so I can see all the scenes my brother is in. The only scene he is in is the beginning when they are in the dance club. He got the spot because he was dating this cheerleader from a semi-pro football team called The Oregon Thunderbolts. It is interesting because his name comes up as the first entry in IMDb. Fame has him, fortune, not so much.
This really is the worst movie I have ever seen. For a while, I made a habit of watching lousy movies, including "Battlefield Earth", "Delta Force Commando" and "Starship". All of these movies are cinematic gems compared to Ironheart.<br /><br />There isn't much point in summarizing this piece of junk; I think it's more beneficial to summarize my reaction to the movie, which is as follows: I become furiously angry and I want to rip the tape out of the VCR and burn it after (roughly) 80 minutes of play.<br /><br />I rate this movie a 0, but IMDb does not let one rate a movie less than 1. I give it a 0 knowing full well that I am saying any movie that has any score above 0 is infinitely (undefinably) many times better than this one - That's really how bad it is.
This movie has one of the worst lead characters ever. I say this because he is made out to be the hero when, in my opinion, everything he does in the whole movie screws up people's lives and causes problems. He can do nothing right, yet the movie makes him seem like the cool dude everyone should be looking up to. He has temper tantrums at all the wrong times, he has all the wrong stances on things that end up making people mad at him and getting people killed, he is too nosy, too pushy, too macho, too assuming, makes all the wrong decisions and has no common sense. <br /><br />It's about a private detective hired by a successful painter to find the woman and son that he walked out on years ago. The detective finds the woman and what he thinks to be her son. However, all kinds of things happen to make this story full of crime, drama and twists. It's made for TV, what do you expect?<br /><br />Anyhow, the movie is fairly entertaining. Johnny Depp is very young in this one and has an awful 80's haircut. He chews gum and tosses a soccer ball around for about 5 minutes and that is all we get to see of him.<br /><br />For some reason, the out of print VHS version of this sells for $40 in online auctions. It must be for Johnny Depp collectors only. It couldn't be because of the plot. It couldn't be.<br /><br />
Maybe, like most others who have seen this film long after it's premiere on television, I wanted to see many of my favorite actors in old and obscure form, which is exactly what 'Slow Burn' is. Except, aside from the nostalgic value, the movie itself is not very good.<br /><br />Eric Roberts plays former reporter Jacob Ash, hired by a Gerald McMurty (Raymond J. Barry), a rich artist, to investigate the whereabouts of his estranged son, Brian, who had been living with his mother, Laine (Beverly D'Angelo) for the past few years. In a Phillip Marlowe-esquire fashion Jacob Ash narrates what would become more than just an investigation into the whereabouts of Brian. But, once Jacob tracks down Laine, his discoveries break open wide a whole lot of trouble. Perhaps because events in the film move too slowly, there is never much suspense to this little thriller, not even by the end with the finale routine of revealing the culprits and their motives.<br /><br />However, as said before, this movie is probably one that will draw attention for it's then-relatively unknown cast of actors, which include both a very young Eric Roberts as well as the adorable Johnny Depp, who plays Laine's stepson, Donnie. That may be reason enough to give it a try...if you can find it.
Every time I watch this movie blood comes gushing out of my eyes. Yes, you read that correctly: I've watched this wretched, foul thing more than once.<br /><br />Caddyshack 2 went wrong for so many reasons: Harold Ramis dialing in a script and abandoning the direction duties, Rodney Dangerfield (wisely) walking away from the project because they wouldn't allow him to tinker with the script, Bill Murray showing excellent judgement and not being part of it, and a puppet being pushed forward as the feature player of a cast who deserved much better.<br /><br />I can't help but think of Dyan Cannon in this and wonder why she's perpetually laughing and smiling. The only conclusion I can draw is that she is indeed the face of pure evil. Stay with me a moment. She must have been watching as the film came together and revelled in the untold agony that it would inflict on countless soon to be extremely sorry movie goers who would have this film inflicted on them. She may also have been extremely drunk. That's what I need to be right now to wash the foul taste of this complete and utter failure out of my mind. If I'm lucky it'll be washed out forever.<br /><br />I have seen this film several times. I blame several of them on childhood and being a very dull and dim-witted boy who apparently had no aesthetic sensibility. Perhaps puppets are just funnier when you're a kid. No, the Muppet show is funnier now ... guess I was just dull. Caddyshack 2 is that rare kind of film that is so extraordinarily disappointing on so many levels that you convince yourself after the end credits that it couldn't have been as bad as all that. It WAS. It IS. It will only get worse with time.<br /><br />My reasons for going back to this film, mercifully, are becoming fewer. Randy Quaid is limited in his role as Jackie Mason's lawyer. His opening scene isn't bad and brought out my only chuckle. We see him a few more times but it becomes as tired as the rest of the movie and descends with unfortunate rapidity from incidentally amusing to vapid wasteland. Randy Quaid acquits himself well, and this film owes him big time because if there was reason to watch this film as anything other than a torture tactic, he was it.<br /><br />Maybe that's the trick of the movie. It has enough potentially endearing qualities that people watch it, are horrified at what they've done to themselves but later because the pickings were so slim can remember only what did actually amuse them. Years later they unwittingly watch it again and the cycle repeats.<br /><br />Jackie Mason takes a lot of the blame for this film but in fairness, I'm not sure he deserves it. He's really trying out there but it is impossible to not to notice that he spends the entire movie doing a Rodney Dangerfield impersonation. That's who the movie was written for but I'm not sure even he could have saved it. Ultimately this fails miserably through terrible direction, bad editing (shall we count continuity errors?) and a rehashing of the same story with none of the wry humour or heart that made the first film endearing.<br /><br />Dragged kicking and screaming up to a three out of ten instead of two by Randy Quaid's bulldog determination. It isn't even bad enough to laugh at. I've definitely seen worse, but trust your memory -- this one is a dog. If you've never seen it you've made excellent life choices and I salute your excellent judgement.
I saw "Caddyshack II" when I was ten and I mostly laughed because of the horse scene. I should have realized that the movie was as empty as...I can't come up with a good comparison. It's stupid and not even really funny. The cast members from the original who chose not to star in this made probably the best choices that they ever made in rejecting this; why, oh why, did Chevy Chase return?! And how on earth did Jackie Mason, Robert Stack, Dyan Cannon and Dan Aykroyd get involved in this swill?! I bet that every person who had his/her name even remotely attached to this junk (e.g., the caterer) is ashamed beyond redemption. So, all in all, it's beyond dreadful, terrible, and everything such. Avoid it like you would the Ebola virus.
Caddyshack II is NOTHING compared to the original Caddyshack. But, there are legitimate reasons for it. (1) Rodney Dangerfield was supposed to be the ace of this film BUT he didn't like the script, wanted to change it, his request was denied, so he didn't do the film. (2) It was low budget, Bill Murray had grown to superstar status. Ted Knight passed away in 1986, and Chevy Chase the "so called ace" of the first movie (although it was Rodney all the way)couldn't't be on more than 5 minutes, because it would cost too much to pay him. BUT you had Dan Aykroyd, Robert Stack, Randy Quaid and Jackie Mason, all serviceable substitutes, who none had their best performances.
When I first viewed this movie, I didn't know the title of it. I realized it had Chevy Chase in it with the same name he had in Caddyshack so I had an idea this was Caddyshack 2. At the end of the movie when I did find out it was Caddyshack 2 I was disappointed. They could have done better. Dan Akroyd I thought was bad. The whole story was bad. Call this movie by another title, but don't call it Caddyshack 2. You give that great movie a bad name. Jackie Mason's daughter when I first saw her looked like his wife. How old is this girl? Geez. How about making this movie a little believable. I thought Chevy Chase was good.
Caddyshack Two is a good movie by itself but compared to the original it cant stack up. Robert Stack is a horrible replacement for Ted Knight and Jackie Mason, while funny just cant compete with Rodney Dangerfield. Ty Webb is funny, being the only character from the original. Most of the other characters in the movie lack the punch of the original (Henry Wilcoxon for example) except for the hystericly funny lawyer Peter Blunt, being played by Randy Quaid. Every line he says reminds me of the originals humor, especially the scene at his office (I don't go in for law suits or motions. I find out where you live and come to your house and beat down your door with a f***ing baseball bat, make a bonfire with the chippindale,maybe roast that golden retriever (arff arff arff) then eat it. And then I'm comin' upstairs junior, and I'm grabbing you by your brooks brothers pjs, and cramming your brand new BMW up your tight a**! Do we have an understanding?). Offsetting his small role however, is Dan Acroyd, who is obviously no replacement for Bill Murray. His voice is beyond irritating and everything he does isnt even funny, its just stupid. Overall Caddyshack II is a good movie, but in comparison to the awesome original it just cant cut it.
This movie is so God-awful that it was literally a chore to watch. I wanted to eject it from my vcr and throw it across the room, but kept thinking (foolishly) that it would eventually get funny and then everything would be all right. "You lose, we win, yay!" This movie should be required viewing for anyone who even once entertained the thought that Jackie Mason was funny. After that, beat them ove the head with this movie until the tape cracks. And if you're even considering renting this turd (or worse yet, have!) I have one thing to ask of you: didn't you even look at the cover? I mean, with crap like this you can tell with just a glance how bad it is! "Oy vey!" This movie sucked.
Why was this movie ever made?They have tarnished the original Caddyshack with this crap.I was only able to watch half of it and i didn't laugh once.At least i didn't pay to see it because it was on t.v. but i won't get back that hour of my life that i spent watching this dreadful mess.There wasn't one original star from the first except for Chevy Chase and he probably regrets doing this film.Jackie Mason was supposed to be the outrageous,funny buffoon like Rodney Dangerfield was in the first but Jackie Mason wasn't funny at all.Jackie Mason is no Rodney Dangerfield.If you want laugh,watch the first Caddyshack.If you like terrible movie's,then this you're movie.This movie stinks like a barnyard in july.Avoid at all cost.
Why is this one no good when the first one rocked? Try the fact that they attempted to replace Rodney Dangerfield with Jackie Mason! Please! That's like replacing the Beatles with Wierd Al. Randy Quaid is the only one that saves this movie from a zero.<br /><br />However, don't let this stop you from watching the first movie which was outstanding.
caddyshack II does NO justice for the caddysack. thin plot, thin actors(exception of randy quaid). the ONLY thing that is decent with this movie is the soundtrack..maybe. this movie should have been destroyed when the script was written.
<br /><br />It sucked.<br /><br />I returned the video after watching half of it. Not funny,<br /><br />just a cheap and desperate attempt to cash in on a very very funny original. junk, forget it, don't waste your time etc etc
Watch this movie .....only to truly appreciate how good the original is. I'm not real hard to please, but this was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. <br /><br />It hurt me deeply, because I like Chevy Chase, Jackie Mason, and Dyan Cannon. The writing was just terrible! I thought Chevy would have at least ad libbed some better stuff than he did. There was hardly anything to laugh at in this movie. I went into it wanting to enjoy it. I wanted to laugh but nearly cried. <br /><br />In the beginning credits it read Special Appearance by Chevy Chase. This worried me from the start. Chevy is actually in more than I thought he would be. It's more than a "special appearance". Too bad the appearance wasn't special. Mason's character would have been a good secondary character but got old as a main. I would rather have seen more (much more)of Dyan Cannon. At least her character was fun, if not well written. I also missed the gratuatis teen sex scene. Mr. Gopher went from being cute and innocent to a pesky rodent that deserved to be blown up. Jonathan Silverman is the only character that interested me and we didn't see enough of him.<br /><br />I take it back. Try..to watch half of this movie, then...remember the Alamo, the Maine, and CaddyShack I.
After watching Caddyshack 1 I'd heard there was a sequel and decided to look it up. The movie seemed pretty bad and I told myself to stay away but stupid me gave in and actually bought the damn thing! All the reviews and everything bad you've heard about Caddyshack II are true. The movie is simply worn of ideas and the lamest plot and jokes I've ever heard, the gopher, the acting the whole movie really is bad (Randy Quaid was funny though).<br /><br />Just stay away from this movie as much as you can is all I can really say. I deeply regret watching and buying the DVD but not sure which was the worser decision. Just stay away as much as possible.
Caddyshack II is one of those pictures which makes you ask 'Why?' As in; 'Why was it funded?': 'Why was it made?' and 'Why was it released into the public domain?'.<br /><br />To say the least it's a bad film. It serves little purpose but to underline how superior its prequel was by setting an almost identical set of characters against each other in a similar storyline as a 'New money' land developer attempts to buy out the establishment's golf course sanctuary. <br /><br />Right off the bat making the follow-up a whole 8 years after the original is somewhat bizarre. I mean if your going to cash in on highly successful picture such as the first one then you have a window of a few years to do so. But leaving it 8 years means that the formula is hardly fresh enough to simply do a follow up, or poor imitation as this is, so your sort of obliged to reward fans of the original by giving them at least reference to if not indeed actual contributions by the actors who made the first one so memorable. But there's little if any of this.<br /><br />Instead we get cheap imitations. Okay the passing of Ted Knight in the interim years would have made it impossible to bring back the memorable Judge Smails but Robert Stack's inclusion as 'Chandler Young' (a fellow WASP elitist akin to the Smails character) is unimaginative and seriously lacking in the sort of anarchic frustration that made Knight's turn so watchable. Jackie Mason's 'Jack Hartounian' is a feeble attempt at recreating the non stop wisecracks delivered by the Al Czervik (Rodney Dangerfield) character of the first. While Dangerfield's role was endlessly quotable Mason's is completely forgettable. <br /><br />Bill Murray's laughably ridiculous groundskeeper 'Carl Spackler' and his war of attrition with the pesky local gofer is substituted for his Ghostbuster's co-star Dan Ackroyd's role as the militant 'Capt. Tom Everett' who's high pitched voice just splits your sides with frustration as opposed to the intended laughter.<br /><br />Randy Quaid , brilliant as Cousin Ed in the National Lampoon's Vacation series, is quite the opposite here playing Hartounian's unstable lawyer. The looks of disbelief shown by the actor's looking on at Quaid's character's intended to be hilarious acts of inappropriate violence echo that of the audience. Your not laughing. Your just asking 'What the hell is he doing?'<br /><br />Chevy Chase shows up, all be it occasionally and wisely rather fleetingly considering the disaster that's perpetrating itself around him,as club pro 'Tye Webb' in the films only direct reference to the original not withstanding the golf course itself that is. With his deeply tanned skin and loud Hawaiian shirts Chase looks like he's just got back from a lengthy summer vacation and needs a paycheck. He distances himself from the events in the actual picture enough that he takes little of the blame and leaves with some, all be it little, credibility still intact. <br /><br />Jessica Lundy as Mason's daughter 'Kate' takes over from the 'Danny Noonan' role of the original as teenager struggling against class divides. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? At least in the first Danny (an Irish Catholic from a blue collar family) and his laughable attempts to make inroads into the White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant dominated world of the golf club mover and shakers was played out to some memorable set pieces such as being dismissed by the resident Lutheran Bishop as well as being mocked by the offspring of the local yacht club. Lundy's embarrassment of her father's inability to fit-in is hinted at being because of his Jewish roots. That aside it may also have to do with him being a classless moron but such intricacy's are swept aside though I stopped caring long before they were resolved. At the end of the day Noonan was trying to get ahead in life. Miss Hartounian's biggest problem is getting the hob nobbers at the local golf club to like her multi-millionaire father so that she can get a date with the club's prodigal white kid. Or so I gathered. <br /><br />Anyway in summation its poorly written, badly scripted with lame set pieces and wastes a lot of talent. Indeed kudos if you were able to sit through it to it's conclusion. It really is a penance. There is that question mark though of why did so many of the original actors not return as opposed to being replaced by performers who on paper at least looked their equals. Maybe they just weren't asked. Or perhaps I suspect they actually read the script. Stick to the original!!!
I have vague memories of this movie being funny.<br /><br />Having seen it again either I have changed or I was thinking about a another film altogether.<br /><br />It seems as if we are supposed to be sympathetic to Jackie Mason's character however nothing in the movie actually engenders that emotion. Its notable that he is really the only person accorded tender dialogue with loved ones. No-one else's character is allowed to rise to the status of even vaguely human.<br /><br />I don't even like golf but as the film went on I found myself really rooting for Robart Stack and the club guys, really hoping they would repel Mason and Chevy Chase.
When a hardworking entrepreneur is rejected from a prestigious country club, he starts a battle between the members and eventually buys it from Ty Webb(Chevy Chase) and turns it into a theme park/golf course in which everyone can join.<br /><br />This is by no means a good movie, but it is still slightly amusing at times. Almost all of the comedy is cheap slapstick and bad jokes except for Chevy Chase. Chevy Chase plays one of his greatest roles as Ty Webb for a second time and plays it great. He is not only the funniest character in the movie, he is the only funny character in the movie. Even Dan Akroyd fails to bring humor to this film which aspires to be a great sequel to a classic comedy but falls to rubble with others shown on Comedy Central. The movie might have been better if Ty Webb(Chase) had a larger role but instead he was reduced to a minor character and the star became Jackie Mason(Who??) They should have brought back all of the cast and made a sequel the right way! This is a perfect example of what not to do when making a sequel to an already great movie. Overall, Caddyshack II is humorous but a large mistake.<br /><br />I do not recommend this movie.
This movie sucks. It's horrible. If anyone liked it, those people should get there heads examined. Jackie Mason's character sounds like a retard. That guy who tries to kill the gopher is a loser and he sucked. Even though Chevy Chase was in this movie, he wasn't funny. This movie had crude and unfunny jokes and did not have Rodney Dangerfield, Ted Knight, and Bill Murray. Even though Jackie Mason's character had the personality of Rodney Dangerfield's character, Mason's character sucks. Rodney Dangerfield was funny! He should have returned! I don't care about Ted Knight, but Bill Murray should have returned, also. The original Caddyshack was Murray's career performance. If he was funny in the first, he could have been funny in the second.<br /><br />Final comment: I recommend this movie to... NO ONE!!!!!!!! THIS MOVIE SUCKED!!!! IT HAS SUCKED, IT SUCKS NOW, AND IT WILL ALWAYS SUCK!!!!!!!<br /><br />2/10
This is quite possibly the worst sequel ever made. The script is unfunny and the acting stinks. The exact opposite of the original.
Have you heard the theory of cloning redundancy, where a copy is poorer than the original? Caddyshack 2 is a perfect example of that. They try to duplicate everything from the first movie. Now, in a few cases this work. Robert Stack is actually a little better than Ted Knight, when they play essentially the same character. I actually like Randy Quaid, who is no more or less offensive than Bill Murray in the original. But Jackie Mason is no Rodney Dangerfield, and worse of all, C2 demonstrated once and for all that Dan Ackroyd is one of the worst comedy actors of all time. There is very little that I like him in, and C2 nailed the coffin shut on his "comedic" career as far as I'm concerned. He seems to feel the same, sticking more to tuffy like Driving Miss Daisy and hosting Psi-Factor. Other than that, it's mostly, "been there, done that" for Caddyshack 2. Watch the original twice rather than each version once, and you'll get more for your rental money.
This film should never have been made! It stinks, it's awful, it's no good, it's bad, it's terrible. Starting to see a pattern here? Jackie Mason is certainly no Rodney Dangerfield. Gone were Ted Knight and Bill Murray, who, along with Dangerfield, were essential to the first film. It seems that the three of them (the stars) all knew a stinker of a script when they saw one. The one who didn't have the good sense to bow out of this was Chevy Chase, who stuck around but was extraneous to both films in my opinion. This film is quite simply NOT FUNNY. Nor does it have any other endearing qualities. This thing relies heavily on anti-Semitism to work and it works to it's detriment. I hated this thing. A waste of everybody's time.
I usually give sequels the benefit of the doubt and go easy on them. But this…is very poor. The exact same as what happened in the first film happens here again. The exact same. Only they wanted younger kids to be able see it (this accounts for the repeated presence of Bugs Bunny but why they threw in one 'f*ck' is beyond me).<br /><br />They didn't even bother to change Jackie Mason's character from Dangerfield's. Let me explain, in CADDYSHACK Rodney Dangerfield played a boorish Real Estate owner who enrages the uptight members of Bushwood country club. In this movie Jackie Mason plays a boorish Real Estate owner who enrages the uptight members of Bushwood country club. A big effort they made to change the content of the script huh? No, I don't think so. A very unfunny Dan Aykroyd shamefully copies Bill Murray's character. He even goes after the gopher (now more like a Gremlin) in much the same fashion as Murray did. <br /><br />There is not a laugh to be had. A sample of the 'comedy' in this film: Jackie Mason is getting ready for a hot date with Dyan Cannon. He is in the bathroom is his robe. He moves to the door to get dressed in his bedroom when…the door handle breaks off. Wow!?! That's the best they can do. Eight years to think of a completely new sequel and that's all we get!?! I could have pulled a better script out of my ass.<br /><br />See it only if you're a die-hard fan of the original. It's the only way you'll find any kind of laughs in it. Everyone else steer clear.
This movie beats everything out there. Well, depends on what you are looking for... it could be a 10 or a 1 on the scale. This movie is in a complete league of its own.. I don't think any movie could possibly come close to it. I am not sure what the director intended to make it as.. a thriller or a comedy. If he did think he was making a thriller, then he has by a stroke of luck, created one of the best bollywood comedies of all time. You have to see it to believe it.. a matrix + terminator + a host of other movies rolled into one, along with a storyline dating back to 1980's Hindi movies, with a icchadhari naag (a mythical snake which can turn into a human).<br /><br />Its an ideal movie if you are sitting with a bunch of friends with alcohol on the side, planning to laugh at the movie! I am not sure whether to give it a 1 or a 10.. On the basis of flipping a coin, I have decided to give it a 1!
This movie made me laugh so much. It was a bloody joke to tell you the truth. So unbelievable and the worst plot ever. The acting as well was bad. I don't how come so many popular Bollywood actors and actresses took on to do this movie. The script must have been somewhat of a joke. The visual effects in this movie was excrutiatingly painful to watch. I believe that a kindergarten kid could have done a better job of the visual effect and a monkey could have done a better job of coming up with a plot.<br /><br />The plot has numerous attempts at copying major Hollywood movies like The Terminator but it fails miserably. I laughed my head off seeing this movie. A total disaster in Indian cinema history!
OK, I would give this a 1, but I'm gonna give it a two because I laughed while watching this film...First of all, I can make a much better movie than this one...in a week...The special effects made this film look like a joke. One shouldn't make such films with horrible special effects because then people won't take it seriously. The acting and direction was also horrible. The screenplay had many plot holes and the whole film wasn't believable at all. This has to be the worst Indian film ever. The songs were also bad. The acting was bad and artificial. Need I say more. Don't watch this movie unless you are curious to see how bad it is. That's why I watched it. I am going into film and I wanted to see how bad a bad film can get. Trust me, I watched one of the worst films in history if not THE worst film.
An insane assault on viewers senses. This is a mish-mash of assorted Hindi and English movies - poorly done. The name carries over from a 70s' multi star cast, which the 2002 version also boasts of. The story is taken from the 70s' Sunil Dutt/Reena Roy starrer - "Nagin" and visual effects taken (a horrible attempt) from The Matrix, Terminator 2 and Mission Impossible II.<br /><br />Set in a college environment (Sunil Shetty, Akshaye Kumar, Manisha - college kids!!!???!!), Manisha Koirala is the victim, who mistakes a fatal assault on her by two students as a collective effort on the part of our heros. As it turns out Manisha is a Cobra (Nag) snake reborn as a girl in this life and her mate from the previous life, now a super powerful-all-and-any-shape-assuming (Ichadhari Nag) - Munish Kohli, is out looking for her in this life. Manisha appeals to him to avenge her violation and murder.<br /><br />So begins the mad killing spree, where the avenging lover starts singling each male of the group, with increasing powers and tricks with successive attempts. The effects are extremely cheap, with computer generated skeletons, morphing bodies and motorcycle stunts completing the farce.<br /><br />Carry over from Nagin includes Raj Babbar playing a catholic priest who provides temporary relief to our boys with a more "Religiously correct" multi-religion locket (the original Nagin only had an "Om") . Sunny Deol plays Manisha's love interest in her current life and the ultimate saviour against the all powerful Munish Kohli.<br /><br />Music and songs are below average.<br /><br />Avoid if you don't fancy cheap thrills.
hi, This is the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. The day when I watched this movie, I was having high fever. But still I watched the movie with lots of patience. And after watching the movie, I felt like repenting. Because, I wasted 3 hrs for this stupid movie. I could have taken rest rather then watching this movie. And I was really surprised that how come actors like Sunny Deol, Akshay Kumar Aftab etc acted in this movie.<br /><br />I don't understand if directors don't find a good story to make a film then why do they remain as directors? Why can't they sit at home and spent their time at home? <br /><br />I request to all directors that it will be good for them if they request audiences, either by mail or by media, newspapers, radios etc... to send them a nice story if they don't find any good story for to make a film . I request again to all directors please don't make such films.
If you have seen this movie, then you will know that it is one of the worst Bollywood movies ever made. Bollywood is known to copy Hollywood movies. Who would of known that they will copy Terminator 2. The difference between both Film industries are Hollywood spends millions and Bollywood spends 100 thousands (Average). Thats the problem with this film, if you want to make a T2 style movie, then do it properly. The director added a bogus fantasy storyline about a reincarnated snake who finds his long lost girl (in the previous birth) dead by 2 guys, but the blame goes to 10 people. She suddenly reincarnates into a ghost and together they want to kill the 10 people they blame for her death. Not to mention, the Reincarnated snake guy or villain has some kind of super powers. He can transform into anything, he can fly, disappear, fire power, wind power, you name it, he has it. He even gets bazookered and survives the T1000 style. You are probably wondering how he survives. its best not to ask, and its best not to waste time and money on this movie. Its Best just to forget this film even came out. I think its a shame to use a big starcast for this outrageous movie with a nonsense storyline.
I am ashamed to admit in public that I even held the cover of this movie once! This is an absolute reason why one should research on the movie before seeing it! The 'makers' of this movie have called us all fools and gullible losers with too much time on our hands.<br /><br />Based on the mythical Indian shape-shifting powerful cobras and rebirth, the story takes us for a painful ride. College going 40+ actors (now really?) are the target of their former friend Manisha Koirala (who was in her former life a cobra, but is now a ghost!) and her pathetic, eternal, powerful boyfriend cobra/killing machine boyfriend Munish Kohli (who thankfully hasn't been seen since). Now do you need to know more?<br /><br />I vote for studying for the upcoming test in school rather than this movie! Give it a pass if you are sane. If not... then you'll probably enjoy it.
Friday the 13th meets the Matrix. As with all of these stupid horror movies, everyone knows who has been killed and who will be killed next, but do nothing to prevent anything, all with the added CGI action effects from the Matrix. Hasn't the world seen enough Matrix reproductions?
Oh If any day u wanna see a supernatural thriller turning out to be a comedy watch this movie<br /><br />This film was a shocker as it had so many actors in it but what they do and how they fit in?<br /><br />The handling of the college scenes is like a school play where each person comes talk and then the next person comes infront<br /><br />Okay reasons to laugh at the film: 1) Akshay, Suneil, Aditya Panscholi, Sharad Kapoor, Arshad Warsi as college students 2)Akshay carries a gun in college 3) some pathetic stunts and SFX<br /><br />there are several more flaws like why doesn't the snake save his lover from being raped and comes in so late? also why he doesn't kill all of them together there only?<br /><br />But afterall they have to make a 2 hrs + film so hence you have a tortorius movie<br /><br />The movie is painful to watch The film was directed by Rajkumar Kohli who was an expert making such films in the past and had a successful record of films like JAANI DUSHMAN(1979) and NAGIN Rajkumar Kohli wants to help his son's non existent career Right from VIRODHI(1992),Aulad Ke Dushman (1993) and QAHAR(1996) all flops he tried hard to promote his son and he also casts big stars so that his son gets noticed, sadly nothing could help his son's career<br /><br />The film has several comical scenes like the death scenes, how the actors after being bashed by the snake are so fit to fight him again and the climax<br /><br />Direction by Rajkumar Kohli is bad Music is bad<br /><br />That brings us to the cast Akshay Kumar - ordinary stuff, he has nothing much to do rather then stunts Suneil Shetty- awful Sonu Nigam- the worst debutante award goes to him, he gives cartoon acting a new meaning Aftab- terrible Arshad Warsi- nothing to do Sharad Kapoor- bad Aditya Panscholi- irritates Sunny Deol- is comical in the scene when he comes to save Sonu LOL Manisha Koirala- ordinary Rambha- Akshay's pair Kiran Kumar, Raza Murad are as usual Raj Babbar- hilarious for wrong reasons the girls are awful Which brings us to Munish Kohli This guy has a huge physique, he is even more stronger and taller then Akshay Kumar Sadly he comes across as poor man's Akshay His voice is awful, his expressions are painful The only thing he has to do in the movie is wear glasses and make an evil face Rajat Bedi is awful
No words can describe how awful this film is. Its like the director literally took a s*** in a roll of film and sent it out to the viewing public.<br /><br />The acting in this movie is horrendous, The plot is so dumb, and the deaths of each character is laughably bad. Some stupid scenes include Akshay Kumar pulling a gun out of nowhere to kill a hologram (yes a hologram), Akshay Kumar carrying a bazooka around the town, Rajat Bedi getting beaten up by a poorly animated skeleton, Rajat Bedi and Siddharth double penetrating Monisha Korella (How did they think this was straight?). Also i'd like to point out that the animations are absolutely terrible. The scene that supports this statement is when Kapal has the motorbike and somehow gains the glasses. The shopping job looks like it was done in microsoft paint.<br /><br />The best parts in this movie are with Sunny Deol. This man is so strong that he makes even god feel scared. In one scene, he literally breaks open a jail door by kicking it. Chuck Norris' round-house has nothing on that! He is even so powerful, that he can fly from London to India in a matter of 10 minutes! Overall, this movie is perhaps the most poorly made movie in the universe. If you were to watch it, watch it for the hilarity that ensues throughout (BTW this movie is supposed to be serious)
So many bad reviewers, it made me wonder, what people are thinking while watching a simple flick made by a quite bad director??? Did you all expected a super-hit flawless movie?? No way, you already can see, Raj Kumar Kohli loves multi-starrer movies... All of his earlier works where multi-starrers, but no one was flawless. Take the first Jaani Dushman for instance, so many flaws, but still good fun. Anyways sticking to the movie, the movie Jaani Dushman is a Hindi fantasy film about a snake, who can take any form (Armaan (Munish) Kohli) which takes revenge for the suicide of its lover (Manisha Koirala) on the people who caused it. Its quite good, with a great star-cast. But i think it could have been much much better. For instance, take the script, can't say its flawless. For example Take the ages:<br /><br />Do 40-48 yrs old still study in university??<br /><br />There are many many more, i won't list more, but there are dozen more. A solid 5.5 is good for this one.<br /><br />**.75
Based on the excellent novel, Watchers by Dean Koontz, is this extremely awful motion picture that probably shouldn't be viewed by anyone. Not since "The Running Man" have I seen a book butchered so far beyond recognition. The difference, however, is that "The Running Man" film was still enjoyable as an amusing action film laden down a million catch phrases. This film… Nope, nothing remotely amusing. In fact, if you love the book, as I do, you'll hate this bastardization even more.<br /><br />**WARNING**CONTAINS SPOILERS** Rightio, I'm basically going to tell you the story here, almost in it's entirety. Why? Because you, dear reader, do not also need to suffer through this abomination—it's okay for me, because I enjoy watching crap. Because I like complaining about sh*tty things. Now, on to the nasty: This film revolves around a boy and his mother running away from the government and a mutant-monkey-creature-soldier which escaped from a destroyed Government genetics lab with a super-smart golden retriever which the "hero" calls "Furface." Groan… Trust me, in the novel, this story rocked. I'll get to that later. Anyway, the hero is none other that dreamy boy-child Corey Haim. Oh, I'm not kidding. Our hero runs around, crackly voice and all, trying to convince his Mom to help save this dog from the "evil government" which birthed him and made him genetically ultra-smart. The monkey-creature, retardedly referred to as an "Oxcom" (God help us) is also a genetic-stew of a creature built to be the ultimate fighter on battlefields of the future. Michael Ironside (Total Recall, Starship Troopers—always plays a badass) is also in this film, and no, I couldn't figure out how anyone convinced him this would be a good idea. He plays a government agent with the NSO hunting the dog and creature. Oh yeah, here's some spoilerama: He's also a creation from the government, and the same lab, and lo and behold spends most of the movie being a prick and killing people—and all that killing is supposed to be done by the monkey-soldier. Instead of a rockin' kick-ass, creepy horror film, we have a rectal hemorrhage of a teenybopper horror flick. The dog's intelligence is discovered all-too-conveniently, and believed easier than we believe we can see clouds by looking outside. Breakdown!!<br /><br />Change from Book to Film:<br /><br />--Lead character (Travis) turned from man to boy-child.<br /><br />--Man's love interest in book (Nora), is now his mother—and all her depth and character growth is completely gone.<br /><br />--Lem Johnson, black man, is now white Mr. Ironside. This matters as the character's strength was built on his heritage in the book.<br /><br />--Relationship between two authority figures completely ignored, Lem now kills the guy who was originally his best friend.<br /><br />--One principle character in the book is now totally absent, the "immortal" that hunted the heroes--maybe this is supposed to be Ironside, but then why is he someone else?<br /><br />--Dog never receives deserving name of "Einstein" in the movie.<br /><br />--No part of the book took place in a High School—at least nothing that had strong bearing on the plot.<br /><br />--Takes place over a matter of days, rather months like the book—unrealistic pacing.<br /><br />--Corey Haim's girlfriend in the movie appeared in no more than two chapters in the book--and they never met in the book.<br /><br />--Character of Lem Johnson is no longer cool-headed; instead, he's a total asshole that bullies his way through people.<br /><br />--Hero Travis was part of Delta Force (military segment specializing in hunting terrorists), instead, his Dad, who is never seen in the film, was part of that group.<br /><br />--Perceived intelligence in the monster now totally absent.<br /><br />--Subplots involving Soviets and The Mob completely gutted out of the story.<br /><br />--These are just the most obnoxious changes, and the one's I could remember off hand (and a day later).<br /><br />The Good:<br /><br />--Eventually, after 90-odd minutes of pain and mental anguish, the movie ended.<br /><br />Didn't Hurt It, Didn't Help It:<br /><br />--Michael Ironside—usually, I like him.<br /><br />--The dog is still fairly likable.<br /><br />--Wacky "totally 80's" title screen.<br /><br />The Bad:<br /><br />--Okay, the writing for one is extremely awful.<br /><br />--The direction is so half-assed that anyone watching the film will feel superior to everyone involved in it.<br /><br />--The acting is crappy and weak, especially from Corey Haim.<br /><br />--Loose, weak, watered down story.<br /><br />--The monster looks just pathetic, that is, when we are actually allowed to see the bloody thing. Its head is gigantically over-sized, the yellow eyes that were so much a part of the thing in the book are seen for no more than two seconds. Instead of a lean, powerful, fast, intelligent killing machine, we have some jackass in a puke-ugly monkey suit forced upon us.<br /><br />--Absolutely no character development.<br /><br />--Even the violence and gore are done poorly, for f*ck sakes, this is supposed to be a HORROR film!! Usually violence is at least done well!<br /><br />The Ugly:<br /><br />--The idea that Dean Koontz whored out his brilliant novel to become this filthy f*cking piece of sh*t brings me dangerously close to vomiting all over myself and anyone near me. There are movies worse than this (headache-inducing as that idea may seem), but so far, only "Alien vs Predator," at least to me, is a bigger travesty and more painful disappointment. <br /><br />Memorable Scene: Watching the end credits start.<br /><br />Acting: 3/10 Story: 4/10 (the novel was really good, this is just terrible) Atmosphere: 5/10 Cinematography: 4/10 Character Development: 1/10 Special Effects/Make-up: 4/10 Nudity/Sexuality: 0/10 Violence/Gore: 4/10 Music: 5/10 Direction: 3/10<br /><br />Cheesiness: 7/10 Crappiness: 9/10<br /><br />Overall: 3/10<br /><br />I would recommend that no one watch this movie ever, except for a few extreme die-hard horror fans—and only if you haven't read the novel. Instead, I would recommend that anyone interested in this avoid it entirely and buy/check/borrow the book.<br /><br />www.ResidentHazard.com
Every time I think about this film I feel physically ill. To read such a great book and later discover there's a film of it was a great feeling. Years later and imagine my joy at switching on the sci-fi channel and finding it starts in just 5mins!!! Up go the titles and then uggg. If just a couple of things had changed OK. Everything is changed. Numerous characters are removed entirely new rubbish ones are added. The main hero is shrunk and de-aged by about 30 years, and hilariously his girlfriend/wife is now his mother! Even the dog is reduced to sub-lassie capabilities. This is truly appalling cinema at its absolute worst. I would quite happily remove my own toenails with pliers rather than sit through another horrific viewing, and I urge anyone thinking of watching this - please don't. If you own a copy burn it now, right now and think how much better your life would have been had this celluloid insult never occurred.
It is hard to believe that anyone could take such a great book and and make such a terrible movie.<br /><br />Imagine King Kong being recast as an organ grinder's monkey and Fay Wray's part being played by a young boy. How about Elton John as Rambo!!!!.This movie is even worse than the TV remake of The Night of the Hunter.<br /><br />By using the title Watchers and Dean Koontz's name the makers of this movie should be sued for fraud by readers of the book who expected a reasonably accurate adaptation of the book.<br /><br />Read the book, I have never talked to anyone who didn't like it. Another good book is The Winner by David Baldachi.
This was a film based on the Novel written by the modern literary god that is Koontz? I refuse to believe that studio bought the rights to this movie for anything using the Genius' Koontz name. Ever since my sight became poor enough to require Large Print, I have been unable to read this book as I had at least twice a year since first reading it. I missed the book greatly and was unable to find it in Large Print.<br /><br />I was hoping by renting this movie I would at least get my vicarious Watcher's pleasures, but this movie was a travesty. Because of subtle plot points, it is my belief none of Mr. Koontz's, or most decent authors for that matter books can be crammed into 1-2 hours of film.<br /><br />It will be the wise network, cable or other wise, who buys the rights to this novel and makes a multiple part television movie, i.e. mini series, of this book the RIGHT way!<br /><br />one a star out of five - would that I could go lower ...
I still find it hard to believe that a fine - if overlong - novel by Dean Koontz was transformed into this utter excrement.<br /><br />This movie is so bad it's disgusting. Boos to all who participated. Shame on you!<br /><br />P.S. The fact that sequels have appeared just goes to show how little taste and discretion remains in Silver Screen Land.
Dean Koontz's book "Watchers" is one of the finest books I have read. Sadly, the movie is a sad caricature of the book. The disillusioned middle-aged hero and the lonely spinster with whom he finds a meaning to his life are converted in the movie into a couple of silly teenagers, the stoic security agent and the conscientious sheriff are combined into a farcical villain - you get the picture? The moviemakers have taken a moving tale of love, horror and adventure and converted it into a Z-Grade horror flick aimed - very poorly - at the teen market.<br /><br />Buy the book and enjoy many hours of reading - it will be far, far more rewarding than watching the movie.<br /><br />
Corey Haim is never going to be known as one of the great actors of his time, but at least in movies like "Licensed To Drive", he was more in his element... lowbrow humor.<br /><br />Dean Koontz's book "Watchers" was one of his earlier works, and still probably his finest to date. Sadly, this magnificent tale of a brilliant dog, a deranged mutant and a genetic experiment gone wrong is butchered horribly. The acting is so lifeless, you might think you're watching a zombie movie. Only the dog gives a respectable performance, and if you want to see a decent movie about a dog, you'd be better of watching "The Incredible Journey", "Cujo" or even "C.H.O.M.P.S."...okay, maybe not "C.H.O.M.P.S."<br /><br />If you've read the book, avoid this movie at all costs. If you haven't read the book, read it and avoid this movie. You'll thank me later.<br /><br />A somewhat better translation of a Dean Koontz book is the capable thriller, "Phantoms".
Corey Haim plays a kid who teams up with a dog to take out a giant troll and OSA hit-man (Michael Ironside) with a 30/30 and homemade bombs (Which plays plausible considering Haim) Oh and he also protects his mother and girlfriend as well in this watchable yet disappointing adaption of a decent story. Corey Haim is terrible, of course but the movie's sheer momentum as well as Ironside's imposing presence make this at least a modestly effective film. Still the plot is ridiculous and it would've been nicer if we could've seen a monster or at least more gore. At least it's something different. Also it's fairly likely that this film will be the last teen movie for awhile to show a teenager making pipe bombs.<br /><br />Matt Bronson 2/5
I couldn't agree more. The book is one of Dean Koontz's best novels and this film is a total travesty. I watched about half of it then threw the tape in the bin in disgust! I have NO idea what the idiotic director was thinking making this piece of crap but I would rather poke my eyes out with a sharp stick than watch this useless movie again! Everything about this film is just wrong. First the main character is changed from an ex marine to a high school KID. WHY??? Second the love of his life in the book becomes his mother in the movie! hem I bet Freud would have something to say about that! LOL. The dog is cute enough and the best thing in the movie and completely outcast everyone else! Also a main character who helps them in the book betrays them in the movie. There really is nothing good to say about the film except that at least it's relatively short at an hour and a half or so. If anyone hasn't seen the film yet do yourselves a favour! READ THE BOOK! It is so much better than this worthless waste of time!
okay, my question; who's the idiot that wrote this movie, giving it the same name as Dean Koontz's awesome book? its terrible, nothing like the book...you got the dog, and the watcher, but there the similarities end...might be good, if you haven't read the book, though...but it disappointed me, really.<br /><br />they should make a new one, and let koontz write it... now that would be a good movie... I'll say it again, this movie disgusted me...absolutely disgusted me. it was terrible, it was absolutely nothing like the book. I would never again watch it.
I hated the book. A guy meets a smart dog, gets a virgin girlfriend, and all the while they're being chased by a hit-man and a ape beast thing (both of whom want the dog). Dean Koontz really can't write (I read the book at my sister's recommendation, I should have known better). When I saw this, (mostly out of a morbid curiosity) I actually found myself criticizing it because of the fact that it was untrue to the book, even though this is a book that its impossible to make a good movie of. I figured at least if they're going to make a film adaptation of the worst book I've ever read the filmmakers might as well be accurate. They turned the guy and his virgin love interest into a boy and his mother, for some reason that bothered me most of all (even though I seriously doubt keeping it a guy and his chick wouldn't have made it any better). Quite simply; bad book, bad movie, don't see it.
This is beyond stupid. <br /><br />Two high school graduates travel to Nantucket for the summer and find situations there that are absolutely revolting.<br /><br />Demi Moore co-stars in this one. As the film was in 1986, was Ashton Kutcher just a babe in the woods at that time?<br /><br />Moore's grandfather has died and his home is on the verge of being sold to ruthless people with a father and son who bring a new meaning to the term mean.<br /><br />Bobcat Goldthwait, with that obnoxious voice is in the film, as well as two brothers, who make dumb and dumber look more and more intelligent.<br /><br />The writing is absolutely ridiculous. Highlights of the stupidity are where one person says to the other: "Did you ever notice that when people die, they go alphabetically in the papers?" <br /><br />I rest my case.
Savage Steve Holland wrote and directed his second film, One Crazy Summer, with John Cusack and Curtis Armstrong again in a supporting role. Cusack and Bobcat Goldthwait are recent graduates headed to Cape Cod in order to stay at Goldthwait's grandmother's for the summer. Along the way, they bump into Demi Moore being pursued by John Matuszak and a motorcycle gang. Soon the three are united in trying to save a house from being turned into another lobster restaurant by a conniving, spoiled family that considers "work" a dirty word. The film contains several funny vignettes like the millionaire dollar radio contest gags and the Godzilla skit.<br /><br />Like Holland's first film, Better Off Dead, John Cusack adds immeasurably to the film. Otherwise, this is a dud of a film filled with contrived situations and idiotic characters (as opposed to quirky). Moore even sings a few bars in a nightclub with some horrible synthesizers. Goldthwait's gags wear thin after awhile, and Armstrong never was an actor of any caliber to appear in anything except grade Z stuff. The tow truck twins are extremely annoying and obnoxious instead of the endearing underdogs they're obviously meant to be. This is more of a hit or miss, kitchen sink comedy which could have used a better script and direction. *1/2 of 4 stars.
Despite this being one of John Cusack and Demi Moore's early films, it is one even hardcore fans can miss, unless they absolutely have to complete the collection. I have rare moments, where I can handle Better Off Dead, but this movie is ultimately worse. I am just not a Savage Steve Holland fan, and he did both movies. So if you don't like the cheesy, random comedy and amateur animation, steer clear of this one. FYI even for the Demi Moore fans: she can't sing and the 80s synthesizers did not save her. There are too many predictable twists and too-easy jokes. I suppose if you want mindless entertainment or something you can leave on in the background and ignore while you do something productive, then go for it. Otherwise, don't watch this movie. If John Cusack (or Demi Moore) couldn't save it, you know it's got to be bad. They are the only reason I didn't give this movie a 1.
what happened to Mathew Modine's career??? i can still recall when he was considered an A list actor...<br /><br />was it cutthroat island the final nail in the coffin of a once promising career??? wow, this guy must really hate Renny Harlin's guts...<br /><br />This movie wants badly to be a comedy but fails to deliver any laughs, the characters are caricatures, and badly drawn ones at that ... but still what pains me the most is seeing Mr. Modine taking up on this kind of roles, next to actors so far away from his caliber, i mean at the time when he was making movies like BIRDIE he could never in his worst nightmares have imagined that in the future he would be acting in movies with a hick humping a cow that just had her anus stapled shut, and maybe whats even worst;next to Elizabeth Berkley!!!
This movie might be o.k. if not for all the language in it. I think that the storyline itself isn't bad, but I would be too embarrassed to let my wife or kids see the movie. I know that kids will learn all the swear words along the way eventually, that's true, but parents should not assist them in the process by letting them see and hear the stuff in the guise of entertainment.<br /><br />I used to quite like Robert Loggia; he has a distinctive gritty quality with that rough voice of his, but in the last few years all I have seen him do are roles with a lot of language in them. If we had an award for over-use of the F word, he would have to be a contender. Unfortunately, I think he's now lost me as a fan. When I see his name on movies in future, I will be thinking twice about picking up that title.<br /><br />Look, I'm no prude. I use language sometimes too, in extreme circumstances, but when we're watching a movie it is for the sake of E N T E R T A I N M E N T, something which we hope will bring us some joy and escapism. I do not want to be reminded of what's happening out on the streets in any big city these days, and it's a hassle to have to wonder whether or not a movie is alright for my family to watch.<br /><br />I like Matt Modine too, but it's a pity that he has associated himself with a picture which has let his image down like this. He probably did an o.k. job in the movie, but I turned off about 1/4 of the way through after having had my ears assaulted once too often by others in the cast. Why can't these actors just say no when these scripts ask them to carry on with this gutter language? Once enough actors, (especially the big names), kick up a fuss about it, the writers will stop putting it in the movies!<br /><br />I'm sorry, but I cannot recommend this picture. It's a pity too, because I think it would probably have been alright, if it had been made well enough for decent families to watch! Thank God I only wasted $2.00 on it!
Well, I'm a huge fan and follower of Elizabeth Berkley. I bought this on DVD off of eBay for my boyfriends birthday. We sat down to watch it and it was so boring. I don't remember laughing once. It's only on for about an hour and half and it seemed to take forever to end. Elizabeth is great in this though. Maybe it's just because I'm a big Elizabeth Berkley fan though. If she wasn't in it I wouldn't have watched it but every time she came on my face lit up. Unfortunately even Elizabeth couldn't save this film. Just the overall story and awful comedy makes this a film you'd rather miss than waste an hour and a half of your life. It's a very forgetful film.
A great gangster flick, with brilliant performances by well-known actors with great action scenes? Well, not this one.<br /><br />It's rather amazing to see such a wide cast of well-known actors, that have many good movies in their filmographies in such a movie, without doubt this may be one of the worst they could possibly appear in.<br /><br />First of all, the plot is as you'd expect it from your average gangster biography, nothing new, nothing fancy in it. The way it is told makes the movie look a LOT longer than it is (when i thought the two hours should be almost over, i was quite surprised that only 45 minutes had passed).<br /><br />The action scenes look a lot like those from 80ies TV series - the A-Team, for example. It's just that in the 80ies (esp. with the A-Team) those scenes were far more sophisticated than those in "El Padrino". It's especially fun to see the guys point their guns in the air and still hit something (not to talk about people that take cover behind car doors which later look like they've been shot through).<br /><br />The acting fits quite nicely to the action. Either you get the same reaction to everything that happens (Dolph Lundgren style), or it's so overacted that you may think it's a parody (but unfortunately it's not).<br /><br />My advise is to stay away from this movie, any other gangster movie is better than this one.
A friend of mine decided to rent this thing, lucky it wasn't my money.. Pretty much wasted my time though. A story that could have been interesting is completely wasted by incredibly bad acting and horrible editing/directing. Maybe it could become a classic because of all the weird over-acting :)(Gary Busey's character for example) All the over-acted characters were actually the only thing that made this movie a little interesting as they grabbed your attention (for all the wrong reasons obviously) where the movie in itself failed miserably. In short: A waste of time and money<br /><br />2/10
Some weeks ago, at a movie theater, I saw a movie poster of El Padrino (2004) with the tag "The Latin Godfather". How lame have we become, I thought, Latin just because he is a Mexican? Let me remind you that ANYTHING Latin comes from or is related to Latium, Italy, So the original guy in the Godfather movie is more Latin than the Mexican Godfather and this is why: We are called Latin-American people because we speak Spanish, a language based in the Latin language that originated in Rome now Italy. So to place a tag in a movie poster like "The Latin Godfather", is not just ignorant, of course if we are trying to related this movie to the original Godfather, but a desperate and uncreative attempt to get some credit by copying the title of a movie classic. Now about the movie, I just hate overacting so from 1 to 10 I guess is 3 the most.
I'm a sucker for mob/gangland movies, so I rented this movie. This movie is a complete train wreck. With all the big name actors in this film, I can not believe how bad it was. It was so bad, that I began laughing hysterically towards the end of the film. The actor better known as Zues or the big dude from the Ice Cube movie "Friday" does an incredible overacting job throughout the film. First thing I told Blockbuster when I returned the film was to remove this garbage from their shelves. Do not rent this movie, unless you want to waste two hours of your life. If they come out with a sequel, I wonder if it will be twice as bad as the first. I will be more cautious when renting so called 'mob/gangland' movies.
What is the deal with all these ethnic crime groups copying Italian mafia related movies ? We all know the Godfather as in Don Vito Corleone, now we have this Mexican one which is just a strait out Copy. I cant see why other ethnic groups have to Mimic and imitate Italian mobsters, but it sure makes them look silly. They sure seem to be wanabee Italians. I would much prefer to see Mexicans perform there own ideas and like to see there own culture, and the way they do it, instead of copying ideas from The Godfather trilogy. Apart from that the movie was disappointing, seeing mexicans acting and trying to be Italians is not my thing. After watching this, I'm now going to Watch the "Real" Godfather so this movie can be erased from my memory.
It's amazing that this no talent actor Chapa got all these well known stars to appear in this dismal, pathetic, cheesy and overlong film about a low life gangster who looks white but is half Mexican, much of the acting is bad and many of the well known stars in this trashy movie are given a script that seems made up by a 16 year old, i'm sure this movie is the career low point for actors such as Dunaway, Wagner, Keach, Tilly and Busey who i'm sure are very embarrassed that they ever appeared in this turkey of a film. I doubt many people have ever heard of Chapa and after this terrible movie i'm sure he will disappear into oblivion where he belongs.
A little while ago, I stumbled upon this DVD while browsing Netflix, and with such an impressive cast, decided to give it a go.<br /><br />Never before have I seen a movie try to be a new version of an existing great movie (Scarface) and failing so spectacularly.<br /><br />The main issue seems to be a complete misunderstanding of what the story should be. In Scarface, Tony Montana was the self-proclaimed "bad guy." His spectacular rise and eventual downfall wasn't sad, it was a great (and the only logical ending) to someone who lived such a life.<br /><br />Damian Chapa, as director, writer, and lead actor, sees Kilo as some sort of hero, or at least a complicated guy. However he doesn't want to do the grunt work of creating a realistic, sympathetic character. He was raised by a white mother, except for the six months of his childhood where his father, a gangster himself, showed him his life. For reasons never fully explained or even really mentioned, he decides he wants to be a drug dealer, and actually drives to the bad part of town, approaches two dealers and says, "Hey, I'd like to buy some drugs." He drops his father's name, and in apparently no time they are not only rich, the two guys who are supplying him are acting subserviently to him for reasons, again, never explained.<br /><br />Chapa wants you to feel bad when his character is sentenced to prison when a police informant lies about him. However, since he's dealt large quantities of drugs before, why should one feel sympathy for him going to jail for it this time? The most obvious case of Chapa wanting to be the good guy is in his prison execution of a White Supremacist/rapist played by Gary Busey. In Scarface, Tony Montana kills someone in prison because he pretty much has to in order to elevate himself, it's done, he moves on. But in this case they ham-handedly have to make Busey not only a rapist/pedophile but also a White supremacist. A little overkill, don't you think? I won't go into detail in this regard too much more, but their desperate message of "PLEASE LIKE ME! I'M A COMPLICATED GANGSTER!" fails on every level. Try as they might, I didn't feel bad, conflicted, or sympathetic when his buddies are killed (following a shootout), his wife is also killed (shortly after she called him out on being a lousy father, and during an attempted escape when he decided it'd be OK to ride right next to a car filled with gunmen while his wife is in the car), and his eventual demise.<br /><br />Suffice it to say his acting can be fairly summed up as lousy, his only achievement bringing the term "wooden" to starry new heights. Busey should be credited for actually putting effort into his ridiculous role. Tiny Lister did well. Stacy Keach is playing his warden from Prison Break role. Robert Wagner is coasting for a paycheck. Faye Dunaway, while a touch dramatic, still turns in a performance better than this movie deserved. Brad Dourif is in the film for about two minutes and does what he can. And to give the film credit, it does one-up Scarface in one way - Jennifer Tilly now holds the title of "Most Ridiculous Attempt at a Hispanic Accent." (Sorry Robert Loggia.) In short, this movie had an interesting premise, but a poor story arc, unsympathetic characters, and hit-or-miss performances. I'd advise Mr. Chapa to ease up on the forced sympathy next time - really, we don't need to like your character, we just need to be interested. Better luck next time.
El Padrino :The Latin Godfather - while this seems to be a straight to DVD/video type movie- my fullframe copy obviously looked cropped- so maybe this flick had a limited theatrical run.And the title character appears to more of a Gringo than moi( I am half Honduran). Pretty typical rise and fall of a drugdealer movie with the A-list of B-list actors- Robert Wagner(drug lawyer),Kathleen Quinlan(crusading judge),Tiny Lister(mob enforcer),Gary Busey(child rapist),Brad Dourif(white power jailbird),Stacey Keach(bereaved Governor),Joann Pacula(bereaved Milf), Faye Dunaway(crusading lawyer) and Galo Make Canote as an uncredited party guest.This movie is pretty lame- I only watched it to kill time before the Skins game- the only thing that saved it was Jennifer Tilly as a crazed Latina drug dealing assassin - she was over the top and sexy-skanky that it was fun to watch her scenes.Not worth renting or seeking out. D+
Nothing I dislike more than a kung-fu movie that plays for laughs. It is the main reason I can't stand Jackie Chan (or his lookalikes). He was not always a clown, I must add. "My Young Auntie" is slapstick martial arts of the worst kind. It is a perfect example of how the subgenre was brought down to the mud by endless silly antics and childish behavior. Unless you are 5-year-old, I really don't understand how anyone could find this kind of film funny. But humor is indeed a very subjective thing. Personally, I think this type of approach did permanent damage to the beloved subgenre. I did think leading lady Kara Hui was very good here. But I had such a hard time sitting through this one that I could not enjoy her fine performance. If you don't mind all the silliness, you might enjoy it. I know I didn't.
The clever marketeer is he is, Jess Franco naturally also cashed in on the huge temporarily success of psychedelic spy movies like Mario Bava's ultimately sensational "Danger: Diabolik!". Franco is the ideal man to shoot a similar film, as he could freely insert as much sleaze, kitschy scenery and absurdly grotesque plot twists as he wanted to. And he partially understood this very well, as "The Girl from Rio" revolves on a man-hating organization, led by a funky dressed lesbo, that plots to turn all men into obedient slaves! Unfortunately (for them, at least), the diabolical plans conflict with the daily business of a feared crime syndicate boss, played by George Sanders. All the right ingredients are well-presented, yet this is a surprisingly weak and unsatisfying adventure movie. The plot is rich on imagination, but seemingly only on paper, as the action is quite tame. The film is also very colorful...but not too bright and especially shocking was the total lack of vicious sex. There's a bit of nudity, sure, but too few according to normal Franco standards. All the characters are sick in the head, so the least I expected (or hoped for) were more perverted undertones or frenzied themes. Franco obviously had a bigger budget as usual to work with, and I must say he spends that money well on more convincing set pieces and talented cast members. Particularly the veteran actor George Sanders ("Village of the Damned", "Psychomania") is one of the best players ever to appear in a Franco production. Too bad even he can't save "The Girl from Rio" from being a huge letdown. A legendary Euro-smut filmmaker like Jess Franco could and should have done more with this concept. Shame, shame, shame...
There are certain scenes in this film (like the hero's first meeting with super-villainess Shirley Eaton) where it seems to be on the edge of breaking sexual taboos and doing its premise (females want to rule the world by making men slaves) justice, but it never dares to. The result is a film with no sexuality and some tame violence. Despite the choppy plot, the film is not overly bad until its climax, where its amateurishness runs rampant (terrible editing, overuse of stock footage). Worth seeing only as a curio. (*1/2)
Take the secret agent / James Bond craze of the sixties, mix in some concepts from Sax Rohmer's female Fu Manchu femme fatale and stir in some absurdest twisted revisionism by director Franco - you have the man-hating lesbian Sumuru, or "The 7 Secrets of..." - better known as "The Girl From Rio" in the USA, recalling "That Man From Rio," which has nothing to do with this. Yes, this does take place in Brazil, we must give it that. Sumuru, or Sumitra as she's also referred to, is like an evil version of "Modesty Blaise," played here by actress Eaton with that familiar coy smile which most of us first became acquainted with in "Goldfinger." There are numerous close-up shots of her staring off camera, slowly opening her mouth, probably while watching something unpleasant (however, she is doubled in her key lesbian scene). She controls an entire army of female warriors, colorfully costumed, and rules a city called Femina or something (just outside Rio de Janeiro?). These concepts, which previously appeared in "The Million Eyes of Sumuru," sound terrific, but, despite some intriguing set design & visuals, it follows the same campy atmosphere of, for example, the very dated "Some Girls Do," which came out around the same time and which also featured a female army. At first glance, the sight of all these armed females, usually lined up in a row, catches one's interest, but, after 15 minutes or so, you realize there's nothing else there beyond just setting up the visual.<br /><br />The plot follows what seems like a secret agent, a male, arriving in Brazil with 10 million dollars. He catches the attention of the local crime lord (Sanders, hamming it up as an elderly Bond-type villain), who sends dark-suited thugs in bowler hats to accost him. This sets everything up for a 3-way conflict between the agent, the crime lord and the mysterious Sumuru (the crime lord wants Sumuru's secrets). Sumuru also keeps various prisoners in glass cages - maybe that's one of the secrets. This sounds exciting but there are problems which go beyond just a slow pace; there are many shots which could have used a lot of tightening: one shot of an arriving airplane, for example, stays on the craft as it settles to a near stop, as if this had never been captured on film before. There's a similar approach to a typical sunset, as if there's something unusual about it. The fight scenes are very substandard, as if the filmmakers had to use the first takes. To add some production value, there's a scene of the real Rio carnival about midway through. I'm guessing there were various budget problems, especially evident in the climactic battle, where fake sound effects and smoke cover up a lot of bogus action, such as the lack of even real-looking guns - it calls to mind those times when kids use plastic guns and pretend bullets are being fired, falling over unconvincingly. There are touches of sadism, such as torturing a character to get answers, and female nudity, an early depiction of such after some restrictions were lifted. But, mostly, you'll be rolling your eyes. Hero:3 Villains:5 Femme Fatales:5 Henchmen:4 Fights:3 Stunts/Chases:3 Gadgets:4 Auto:4 Locations:6 Pace:3 overall:4
Now this is a real turkey by the overrated director Franco, who gave us such classics as "Las Vampiras/Vampyros Lesbos". Yes, I think that bad films can be great fun. I adore the hilarious howlers of Doris Wishman, Dwain Esper and Ed Wood jr., but this one proved to be too much for me. It is the first film I rated 1. Where should I start? The screenplay is idiotic to the utmost. The dialogue is unbelievably bad. The directing seems to be nonexistent. The best music cue (used repeatedly in this film) was taken directly from the movie "Der Hexer" (1964). And it's BORING! Poor Shirley Eaton and George Sanders! In one shot Sanders reads a Popeye comic while his henchman torture a girl (this aspect is probably the intellectual highlight of this movie). The only thing that baffled me was that Franco promptly showed female nudity whenever I thought the movie would gain from it - this is real directing skill! Still, I'm afraid that a movie in which actors pretend to shoot with machine guns by shaking them is not really worthwhile.
During my childhood time I have seen the first three "Critters" movies and enjoyed 'em.They were fun and entertaining horror comedies perfect for adventurous horror loving kids.I have never seen "Critters 4",so I finally decided to check it out.My verdict:forgettable and pretty bad flick with strikingly low body count.The script by Joseph Lyle and David J. Schow is both predictable & clichéd,the plot rips off "Alien" and "Star Wars" and the sets look bland and murky.The tone of the film appears to be deadly serious throughout making it slow and dull."Critters 4" was apparently so low budget that the filmmakers couldn't afford any optical effects;the ones taken from "Android" look seriously dated.4 out of 10.One to avoid.
Sending the Critters to space does seem like an entertaining idea, but was there really any need for a third film much less this fourth one? A film with Brad Dourif can't be all bad, can it? Well, maybe in this case. This cheap sci-fi effort stars returning lovable klutz Charlie(the reliable Don Keith Opper) who is about to eradicate the last two remaining eggs of the Critters' species when Ugh(Terrence Mann)tells him that he's about to break some sort of Trans-galactic Endangered species law. So at Ugh's request, Charlie places the two eggs in special holders inside a space pod. Unfortunately for Charlie, the damn thing takes off for space and he's trapped inside. The smoke under his feet places him into hibernation stasis and he awakes 53 years later inside a decrepit<br /><br />space station as Captain Rick, with fat cigar, rude alcoholic malevolence, and greedy to the core is blasting open the space pod trying to see what possible novelties are inside for possible sale or trade. Rick, unbeknown-est to him, lets out the two critters who feast on his flesh. You see Rick and his crew found the space pod drifting and had intense dollar signs flashing in their eyes so they dock it. Ugh reports to them(now in a fine, prominent position as Counselor)that money can be made if they dock at a space station under the Terracor organization. Once the crew dock, they find that this station is in ruin with many corridors in bad condition, but what's worse is the station computer Angela. Angela is a real thorn in the side to the crew because she has been left unrepaired without proper maintenance for some time. It takes some little tricks to get doors to open and close not to mention the elevators and computers. Brad Dourif is Al Bert, pretty much the impresario of computer functions(..and is pretty much the real leader of the group for he is the most level-headed and intelligent). He seems to be a father-figure to Ethan(Paul Witthorne)who just wants to make it to earth to find his father..this story though doesn't necessarily reach it's zenith. Bernie(Eric DaRe)is primarily in the film to be a druggie victim for the critters to munch on. In the film, Charlie, after one critter enters Rick's mouth and eats away at his throat{yuk}, becomes the crew's guide in understanding what they are fighting against. The film has some elements I found rather confusing{or for a better word, ridiculous)..the two critters grow in size quickly, are somehow able to coordinate a ship for Earth, not to mention grow themselves to massive size in this laboratory in the space station. The crew are able to tap into a log from a Dr. McCormick{Anne Ramsay, whose badge is found in a coat thrown to the side for which Ethan discovers her access card}which shows signs that Terracor was looking into creating a species to exterminate worlds and people. Knowing this bothers Al Bert who wishes to leave Angela and her bleeding station for greener pastures. Things don't work out that way because well-meaning Charlie(thanks in part to Al Bert's "ancient" Colt .45)kills a critter which had got on board, but in firing several bullets hits major guidance systems in the ship. So many repairs on in order, but they halt them when Ugh and his storm troopers dock at Angela and prove they are not what Charlie thought they'd be. Ugh is a changed man and Charlie realizes that he is completely evil and his mission is to preserve the Crites for purposes of a cruel nature(representation of corrupt corporate governmental types?). This betrayal is what changes Charlie..he has perhaps grown up a bit(a wee bit)and now understands that some people just change for the worse. Charlie and Ugh will come to a face-off over those critters..will the crew be able to escape a space station which has set auto-destruct? This film really doesn't exploit the critters as much as the other three films. I believe we can clearly see this as the true end to the franchise. The first film was a hoot..a really entertaining romp. But, by the time this sequel cam around, the critters just wore out their welcome. The cast, however, do give the film a boost. The critters do get to feed a bit, but their plans of global domination is under-developed. Their role in the film isn't established to the greatest heights. I said to myself,you have this enormous space station with unfortunates trapped on board.. could you not take this idea and run with it? Sadly, they don't.
I haven't seen this movie in years, the last time i did i was really drunk after 5 pints of tenant's at my local Witherspoon's but even then i though it was quite awful. this movie is pretty terrible compared to the other critters movies, the first two were quite good, 3 was quite crap but miles better than this. The story takes place 53 years after critter's 3, were Charlie the bounty hunter from the previous movies is found floating in a pod in outer space by a crew of some kind of space miner,em,people and taken on board. Once on board the last critter eggs left in the galaxy which Charlie has brought with him from Earth crack open and we then have critters on board the space ship, cue an obvious 'Alien' rip off and a lot of terrible FX and you pretty much have this movie in a nutshell. only good thing is when we are re-introduced to UG(or so we are lead to believe) who is now a villain and wants to preserve the critters instead of destroying them
Critters 4 starts, & I quote 'Somewhere in Kansas 1992' & a replay of the last few minutes of Critters 3 (1991) as the recurring character of Charlie McFadden (Don Keith Opper) is about to shoot the last two remaining Critter eggs in the universe which, we are informed, would mean the extinction of the entire Critter race which is against some sort of intergalactic zoological law or something like that. Charlie's bounty hunter friend Ug (Terrence Mann) is now known as Counsellor Tetra & is a top ranking official at the intergalactic council & orders Charlie not to shoot the eggs but instead put them into a pod that will land nearby very soon, the pod does indeed land nearby very quickly & Charlie does indeed put the eggs into it but he is also caught in the pod which I presume cryogenic-ally freezes him as it's never really explained. Critters 4 then informs us that we are 'Somewhere in Saturn Quadrant 2045' where a salvage ship comes across the pod drifting in space (the credits have barely finished & Critters 4 is already stealing entire ideas & scenes from Aliens (1986)). Rick (Anders Hove) decides to claim the unidentified, to them anyway, pod & try & make a bit of cash out of it. With the help of his crew, Ethan (Paul Whitthorne), Fran (Angela Bassett), Al Bert (Brad Dourif) & Bernie (Eric DeRe) the pod is successfully recovered. They get in touch with the intergalactic council & Counsellor Tetra say to go to an abandoned space-station where a trade will be made for the pod & it's contents, Tetra also specifically tells Rick not to open the pod. So in true horror film tradition Rick opens the pod, thaws Charlie out & the Critter eggs which hatch, kill Rick & escape into the space-station...<br /><br />Co-produced & directed by Rupert Harvey I thought Critters 4 was a pretty useless film & rounds the Critter series of films off with a whimper rather than a bang. The script by Joseph Lyle & David J. Schow is both predictable & clichéd, the space-station with an unstable reactor that will blow up in a few hours, the protagonists only means of escape being neutralised early on so they are stuck, the race against time to save themselves, the constant bickering & arguing amongst the crew, people splitting up & the loser who turns into a hero & saves the day, yawn. A lot of plot devices seem to come straight from Aliens & it rips off Star Wars (1979) with a tacky waste compactor scene. The characters are no better & you probably won't give a damn about any of them. While the other Critter films could be described as comedy horrors part 4 cannot, it appears to be deadly serious throughout. Critters 4 is also incredibly slow, uneventful & dull. It's over 30 minutes before the Critter eggs hatch & after this brief sequence it's nearly the hour mark before their seen again, why make a Critter film & barely feature them? It can't be because of the expensive special effects as they look like glove puppets anyway, oh & how can a mere hours old Critter operate an entire space-station & set a course for Earth? How do they even know what Earth is? Why did Capatin Rick want to open the pod anyway? What is all that stuff about with the female scientist & a rubber alien thing that is mentioned only once? Why do the intergalactic council want the Critters so badly? Why only send four men? Why is this perfectly good looking space-station totally deserted again? Critters 4 looks cheap throughout with bland, dark unimaginative sets & it even steals footage from Android (1983) for it's ships & space scenes, Critters 4 was apparently so low budget that the filmmakers couldn't afford any optical effects & the ones it takes from Android look seriously dated. For the most part only two Critters are used although some-more start to hatch but it's pretty late in the day when this happens, for most of the film they are barely seen & the effects for them are the worst of the entire series. Forget about any blood or gore as the Critters only kill two people during the 90 plus minute running time which just wasn't enough to maintain my waining interest. The acting is pretty poor as well with Angela Bassett's over-the-top melodramatic reaction to seeing a few Critter eggs particularly cringe worthy. To look at Critters 4 it is as cheap & unspectacular a production as you could hope to (not) see. The ending of Critters 4 has the universe finally being saved form the Critter menace, lets hope it also saves us & our local video-stores from the menace of a part 5...
This is a disgrace to the name of all of the lovable and laughable Critters' saga. Why do the writers feel the need to make the movie unbearable to watch by all quality standards. The Critters are cute and adorable as ever but deadly behavior has been transformed into that of a killer baby. They aren't as terrifying, gruesome, some what spine -chilling and funny as they were portrayed in the movies before. I used to love their porcupine shots but now it is hidden as if it was thought to be repetitive and boring. And what is with the killing and not eating. I thought this movie would have been cool but everything was so wrong. Why did Ug have to be evil and killed by that which is known as Charlie. This movie sickens me. Disgrace! Disgrace! DISGRAAAAAAACE!!!!
(SMALL SPOILERS) I just bought the DVD of this movie yesterday. I saw it with my friends and I couldn't believe what had happened.<br /><br />In the first 3 movies, the critters at least had a sense of humor (especially the 3rd movie), but not only did the critters barely ever make an appearance, they weren't funny! They never made me laugh. I must admit that the story did start off nicely. After an hour had gone by I remembered that the Critters movies were always very short. So I thought to myself, "Where the $^%#$ are the critters?!?!" They were barely in this movie! If that didn't make me mad enough, the boy named Ethan was sitting on his bed after Charlie had "murdered the ship" and he knew that the critters were still on board! In the first movie the Brown family was scared out of their minds. But here, Ethan didn't even care! It was as if the critters weren't even a threat!<br /><br />Now what I'm about to say next may ruin the ending, but I'm going to say it anyways. In the first movie, at the end, they had to face the giant critter for a final battle. In the second one, there was the great ball of critter. In the third movie, the critter with his fave burned did a spindash (from Sonic the Hedgehog) and was going to attack the little kid. But at the end of the fourth one (which is what made me the angriest) the bald critter charges toward Ethan, and Ethan kills it as if it were nothing.<br /><br />Now something that I really don't understand was what happened to Ug. He was one of my favorite characters in the first two. Then after 50 years, he's evil. That was very disappointing. Not only that, but wasn't he a faceless bounty hunter? Why was he still "Johnny Steele?" Plus he seemed to have a different personality. He seemed much smarter and not as monotone like in the first two.<br /><br />Being someone who actually enjoyed the first two critters movies, and loved the third one, I give Critters 4 a 2/10
trying hard to fit into the scary space comedy genre, this film falls down in two of these. It does indeed take place in space - but it is neither funny or scary. The plot is dismal and the one joke, concerning the computer's intellect, is overplayed to death. Saying that Paul Whitthorne as Ethan, Angela Bassett as Fran and Brad Dourif as Al Bert make the best of their ham script. The homo-esque relationship between Ethan and Al Bert is hinted at but never explored whilst the attempt at sexual tension betwen fran and rick is so crude as to be laughable. All in all this is a turkey that is best suited to late night tv, preferably whilst do the ironing.
Didn't the writer for this movie see the other three? I loved the original, I thought 2 was the best, I tolerated 3 (it was OK, nothing special). But I HATED this one. Who dare they kill off UG? This was certainly not the Ug who had been almost like a brother to Charlie in number 2. Remember his speech? Charlie said, "You wouldn't just leave me on Earth, would you". Ug replied, "Charlie, Bounty Hunter", saying that he was now one of them now. How dare the writers ignore this special bond between them and turn him into a baddie who get's killed by Charlie (in a particularly awkward scene) just because they realized the movie was getting boring. In fact for the first 20 minutes, we get a new cast and have to wait this long until we again find out what happened to Charlie, who was the hero we've been waiting to see. I kept waiting saying, "Come on, when's Charlie going to appear?" Angela Basset must be doing her best to deny she was ever in this Turkey. Moving it to the future eliminates the possibility of ever seeing a sequel with the original cast or in our time. I think the writers decided, that their movie was going to be the last and they could do whatever they wanted. This movie is totally out of line with the first two. And it didn't even seem like it was written by the same people who made 3. 3 at least had humor and could easily be seen by younger Children. 4 is just ugly and mean-spirited (Eric DaRe) is particularly cruel and unnecessary. I hated this movie. Hated, hated, hated it. I hated the fact that anyone could like it and I hated the fact that it ruined what was one of my favorite camp classics. I give this a one start simply because IMDb.com won't let me give it a zero.
After 30 minutes..mostly fast forwarding, deleted it off my recorder. The first Critters movie was self-consciously fun, The "conversation" between the critters just before Granny blows them away off the porch, for example. This film just limps along, waiting for someone to shoot it and put it out of your misery.<br /><br />I can't imagine anyone who worked on this turkey being proud of it.<br /><br />One was fun, four just was awful. Don't bother even if the alternative is watching reruns of a TBS "700 Club" fund-raiser, you'll at least get some good laughs there (and the "alien" makeup is more believable..grin).
I'm a big fan of the first Critters movie. The second episode is good,but it's not as good as the first Critters. The third episode is a little bit boring,but lovely. And WHAT IS THIS?? What a crap! It's stupid and really,really boring. It's the worst of the series. I can't watch it again,because I felt asleep at the first watch. And Ug's evil side...eeewww...that's one of the most horribble moments of the movie. In the first 50 minutes,we can't see the little,furry monsters,that's the reason why the audience fell asleep at the beginning of the movie.<br /><br />It could have been much better.<br /><br />2/10
(Caution: several spoilers)<br /><br />Someday, somewhere, there's going to be a post-apocalyptic movie made that doesn't stink. Unfortunately, THE POSTMAN is not that movie, though I have to give it credit for trying.<br /><br />Kevin Costner plays somebody credited only as "the Postman." He's not actually a postman, just a wanderer with a mule in the wasteland of a western America devastated by some unspecified catastrophe. He trades with isolated villages by performing Shakespeare. Suddenly a pack of bandits called the Holnists, the self-declared warlords of the West, descend upon a village that Costner's visiting, and their evil leader Gen. Bethlehem (Will Patton) drafts Costner. After much misery and numerous efforts to break Costner's spirit, he escapes, thus ending a lengthy section of the movie that could have been told better in a three-minute flashback.<br /><br />We now finally get to the major premise: the escaped Costner finds an abandoned mail truck and delivers the letters to the nearest town, hoping to get some food under pretense of being a postman. A number of the village people led by young Ford (Larenz Tate) want to get in on this postman act, which does not sit well with Bethlehem and his bandits, and Costner finds himself the unwitting and unwilling leader of a band of postmen at war with the Holnists.<br /><br />The idea of The Postmen versus The Bad Guys is not as ridiculous as it sounds. The Holnists depend for their livelihood on the fact that the villages they prey on are isolated from one another; the Holnists can destroy any one village, but could not stand against all their victims united. To unite, the villages must communicate with one another, and a working mail system would thus be a big step toward putting the Holnists out of business. So it really makes a lot of sense that Bethlehem would get medieval on our heroic mail carriers. Unfortunately, Bethlehem's eventual defeat is not the result of the villages uniting against him, but instead your old standby cliche, the one-on-one brawl between him and Costner. Nor is there even any real attempt by the communities to use the mail to work together to solve their problems; all the mail seems to be the standard "Hi, Aunt Debbie" stuff played for maximum sentimental value.<br /><br />THE POSTMAN is one of the most predictable movies, shot for shot, that I have ever seen. Now, I don't purposely try to ruin movies for myself by straining to figure out what's going to happen next. But here we're talking about the kind of predictability that requires no effort; I just knew what was going to happen next whether or not I wanted to know. After a lion is prominently showcased eating people, a Holnist bandit seeking the escaped Costner ventures into the bushes after a noise, and we are then "shocked" when the lion eats him. A bunch of unoffending villagers are rounded up and shot by a firing squad, and one of the villagers sings out some Famous Last Words right before being shot, to my immense lack of surprise. A covered statue is unveiled to show exactly what everyone knew was going to be there: Costner bending to pick up a letter from a cutesy kid we saw earlier in the movie. A man tells Bethlehem that no sir, you can't just take my wife; Bethlehem runs the unsuspecting sod through, though he is the only person in the theater who is unsuspecting.<br /><br />But it is rank, cloying sentimentality that really undoes THE POSTMAN. Olivia Williams, playing Costner's lover Abby, is worst served. She pours her heart into the material and gives her very best effort to make it sound natural and sincere. She tries so hard, it's heart-breaking. But nobody could ever have made the lines "I have a gift for you, Postman . . . You give out hope like it's candy in your pocket" sound like anything but the syrupy pap that they are. Another example is the scene where a mounted Costner thunders past a little boy, ignoring his proffered letter, only to turn around, stare at him for what seems like five minutes, and then thunder back to pick up the letter. Why didn't Costner just pick it up the first time? No real reason; it's just an artifice that tries and fails to give us a feeling of elation by dashing the kid's hopes and then restoring them.<br /><br />Schmaltz and predictability unite at the end as the statue of the Postman is revealed. I sat thinking, "Please don't tell me they're going to show the statue and then cut back to the scene with the cutesy kid. Surely that is too saccharine, too obvious for even this movie." Then, alas, the music swelled and we did indeed cut back to the dreaded little boy smiling as his letter to his maiden aunt is whisked away, and I held my head in my hands and thought, "Somebody shoot me." It felt like having thirty pounds of apple pie rammed down my throat.<br /><br />Gen. Bethlehem is a more humanized villain than normal. Your standard-issue post-apocalyptic villain is the meanest, toughest S.O.B. in the valley. Bethlehem is shown to be a little nothing of a man inside, who tries to make himself feel important by beating up on others. Although some menace is thereby sacrificed, Bethlehem is credible in a way most villains aren't. Unfortunately, Will Patton overacts. And although we are told early on that Bethlehem utterly destroyed his last challenger in five seconds of hand-to-hand combat, Bethlehem's actual fighting skills shown at the end of the movie are absolutely ludicrous.<br /><br />The acting is otherwise pretty good. Costner has done better, but his Razzie was an overreaction. As mentioned, Olivia Williams is very impressive. Larenz Tate as Ford does a sincere and credible job. James Newton Howard's score is competent, though short of the epic standards the movie was going for. But it's not enough to save this film.<br /><br />Rating: *1/2 out of ****.
Having watched the first scene, I realized the acting was so bad that it couldn't possibly pick up later. Superficial and artificial, with frequent attempts to look professional through references to technology the way a five year-old tries to make it sound as if he knows what he's talking about. <br /><br />The second-to-second storyline is completely unrealistic and just about every single decision the screenwriter did, was the kind you expect from a below-average grade school student. The overall storyline was as unoriginal and predictable as a pack of sausages. The few attempts to make the dialogs sound intelligent, was limited to neurotic, apologetic behavior. A ten year-old might like it. But it would take a five year-old to accept the lack of realism; How does advanced cell function allow someone to bypass a code lock by touching it as if with a magic wand, pick out one out of 100s of voices through a ventilation system (thereby ripping off Superman), and repair a home computer by just sensing whats wrong instead of looking for faults? Actually, that scene is a neat example: The fault was that one of the cooling pipes (aluminum ribbons) on the CPU was broken, the way it would look if a exhaust pipe on a V8 engine is ripped off by an explosion. This is something that can't happen, and if it did, it wouldn't prevent the computer from working. There is no electrical current passing through this ribbon, but when he (without doing it himself, his arms worked by autopilot because the cells in his body was super efficient) put a push-pin into the rip, a desktop with icons appeared on the screen immediately without booting.<br /><br />And so it goes all the way. Like when he escaped an interrogation room in the NSA headquarters by lighting a lighter below a fire sensor, resulting in open doors throughout the building. Naturally, NSA didn't predict this sharp witted approach to escaping, nor did they put any guards outside his room (or anywhere else) to guard a living, walking breakthrough in military nanotechnology. So he walked out and got a cab. Examples like this one are not only numerous, there is in fact just about no single scene that makes sense. <br /><br />Also, the so-called great effects were terrible. He threw a basketball back to a kid in the park, and the kid was thrown back horizontally 20 feet into a tree. No acceleration or deceleration, but constant speed and height, like a motorized trolley. I'm sure if I paused and looked for the cables that kept the posture of this kid the way only cables can, they probably didn't know how to or bother to erase them completely. If someone is thrown that far into a tree, they would at least say ouch (or rather be hospitalized with broken bones), but the kid was just just confused and amazed.<br /><br />Moronic. That's the word for every creative decision made throughout the entire production. I'm going to put the director's name on my own personal blacklist, someone as poorly skilled as him cannot improve. I feel like demanding compensation for having wasted 45 minutes of my life for watching it, and the time it took to write this. Although it felt therapeutic, it was traumatic to realize how little it takes to get a pilot approved. The only excuse a slightly intelligent person could have to watch this voluntarily, would be imprisonment or lobotomy.
Making a film for under 1 Million might be a triumph for a line producer or an accountant but doesn't do anything for the audience. The balance sheet might have been pretty but the viewing experience was poor.<br /><br />What will be a triumph for Irish Cinema is when people realise that production values and the script can't be sacrificed.<br /><br />I don't understand why people expend the energy it takes to put a film together when the production quality is worse than a low grade TV show.<br /><br />The deficiencies of the plot have been mentioned in another review on this site and I totally agree with what was written. What I would add is that the film skimmed the surface of several genres without ever settling in one of them. The film would have benefited from either going the direction of a straight out comedy or social/political commentary.<br /><br />My overall impression was that the film was rushed, thematically under developed and visually not up to standard. On a positive note the performances and music were very good.
This is a poor film. It certainly belongs in the how not to make a feature film category. Story, direction, acting and style are all flat as a pancake. Story consists of five – yes five – football matches spread out over the film's duration, each one more boringly filmed than the last, as a dysfunctional amateur football team go from strength to strength. That's it, that's the plot. It's hard to know who this film is aimed at. It's too banal for football fans and there's nothing in it for teens nor grown-ups. There's nothing in it for women either, there isn't even a single female character. It's dreariness wears you down as the team play game after game after game after game after game. The story, such as it is, dialogue and mannerisms seem lifted from a bygone Ireland, with all the actors spouting cod theatrical Dublin accents. It doesn't have to be seen to be believed. Avoid at all costs. Can someone give me back my 90 minutes. High point the credits at the end, low point too numerous to mention. Brendan Gleeson is in this film.
I managed to see this at what I think was the second screening in the world, a few days after its opening at the Dublin International Film Festival. While I was attending another film two nights later at the same theater, I saw Brendan Gleeson, Paul Mercier and the rest of the cast & crew at another promotional screening of Studs.<br /><br />I have to say that I was bitterly disappointed with the film, I was by no means expecting a masterpiece, but what was presented to me, I believe lacked all the crucial elements of the genre it had set itself into. Before I continue, two things, I accept that some filmmakers like to subvert generic expectations, here this is simply not the case. Secondly, I know that it was based on a play (which I haven't read but have been informed that it isn't a shimmering piece of literature), but this does not excuse the massive narrative problems that permeate the film.<br /><br />My main problem with the film is the script, forget that it was based on a play, as a sports comedy it simply doesn't work, the down and out team are trying to win a football cup, few of the games are shown (when they are, it is very short) and we are not given any satisfaction due to any of their sporting achievements. Having read so far, you might assume that it is not a strict sports film but a psychological study of the relation between a "charlatan" of a manager and his hopeless team. It certainly does not achieve this, I'm not even sure if it was aiming to. Any attempt to shed light on the history of any of the characters is hackneyed and peripheral. Overall, I found the script lacking in many respects.<br /><br />I do think the performances and the music were good and technically, the film was well made. But aside from those points, which should be expected from any Irish film at this stage, I left the theater feeling very disappointed.<br /><br />My judgment may seem harsh but I do think there is some hope for a strong national Irish cinema in the near future and this simply does not back that argument. As Studs has become a recommended Dublin Cineworld film (I was part of the audience at that screening), most people would seem to be disagreeing with me, so that means you should probably make your own judgment of the film.
This was amongst the worst films I have ever encountered. The cinematography was dull, with long tedious shots (like a camera on a tripod filming a stage play) interspersed with "dramatic" angles that made little sense to the content on screen. The editing was terrible, scenes matched together with the delicacy of a butcher. The plot hinged on the viewer being familiar with the historical night in which Mary Shelley wrote frankenstien. The acting was forced, with the type of character development that left you with an intense interest in seeing each of them die horribly (the sooner the better).
I'm glad I never watched this show when it came out.<br /><br />I just wondered why it lasted 4 years. It reminds me of the terrible 80's with fake people, fake clothes, and fake music. How did I ever survive growing up in this era? <br /><br />The acting in the majority of episodes I have watched are forced. This makes for very boring shows. The plot lines are not very interesting as the old Twilight Zone shows. The old show inspired the imagination and made one look forward to the next show. <br /><br />Stick with the old Twilight Zone shows and spare yourself the pain of watching garbage.
Two stars <br /><br />Amanda Plummer looking like a young version of her father, Christopher Plummer in drag, stars in this film along with Robert Forster--who really should have put a little shoe black on top of that bald spot.<br /><br />I've never seen Amanda Plummer in a good film. She always plays these slightly wacky characters in films that don't quite add up, and she does so yet again in this one.<br /><br />Firstly, we have two young women, sisters, who don't resemble in the slightest, who allow themselves to be picked up, separately, by questionable men along the roadways.<br /><br />Amanda's character, Sandra, does at least have a good reason for allowing Dr. Jake (Robert Forster)to pick her up in the first place. She has been run off the road, seemingly by a maniac, and her car is pretty much destroyed.<br /><br />Warning - Spoilers ahead! <br /><br />However, as we go along, we realize Dr. Jake is not playing with a full deck any more than Amanda is. He makes every decision based on the flip of a coin.<br /><br />When Dr. Jake and Amanda arrive at a motel, who do we see but the maniac's car, and what does Amanda do but get inside his station wagon and start snooping around. What her motive was for doing this is never clear considering the man is apparently dangerous and might try to kill her. One would think the last thing she would do is place herself in such a precarious situation.<br /><br />Not only does she snoop around, but she finds some money and takes it.<br /><br />Shortly after this we have several other things that don't add up.<br /><br />Dr. Jake, with Amanda as his passenger, runs out of gas, and the two of them abandon his car and begin walking. One would think crossing a desert, he would have checked his gas gauge--this seems a very unlikely thing for him to allow to happen. Then later, he is seen driving the same car. When or how did he get the car back? <br /><br />Dr. Jake tells Amanda he knows she has taken the money. Now how would he know that? He didn't see her do it as far as I know, and she didn't tell him she did it.<br /><br />Then later we have a character named Santini (David Thewlis), the man who was driving the station wagon, give the two of them a lift and I'll be darned if he doesn't know Amanda took the money as well. How would he know that? <br /><br />It loses credibility at an alarming rate the further we go.<br /><br />When Alice, Amanda's sister (Fairuza Balk)gets in the clutches of the killer and decides her fate on the toss of a coin - one would think she would be very, very careful that the coin she swaps for a trick coin would definitely be the trick coin - but apparently it isn't.<br /><br />It's jarring things like this, that destroy any credibility this movie may have had.
Coen Brothers-wannabe from writer-director Paul Chart relies far too much on ideas lifted from other (better) movies, yet does manage to create a creepy atmosphere that keeps one watching. Robert Forster cuts loose as never before playing a psychopathic psychiatrist (ha ha) who goes on a killing spree in the desert. The film is unusual, but in its attempt to keep one step ahead of the audience, it becomes alienating and off-putting (with a role for Amanda Plummer that is downright humiliating). An admittedly bravura finale, many quirky bits of business--and Forster looking great in the nude--make this a curiosity item, nothing more. Veteran movie-director Irvin Kershner produced, and maybe should directed as well (could Paul Chart be a pseudonym?). *1/2 from ****
I enjoy watching Robert Forster. That was the main reason that I rented this movie. I also wanted to see a story take place out in the middle of nowhere where the characters could work off of each other really well with no distractions. <br /><br />Unfortunitaly I found the movie to be dull. I couldn't get interested in the characters. I couldn't get interested in the story which seemed to meander nowhere. <br /><br />After watching this movie for an hour I turned it off. I will rate the movie 4 out of 10. This falls well below the mandatory 7 rating that makes a movie worthwhile to watch.
OK look this show is the worst show on nick@ night. I love so many shows on nick@night and I love them. When this show came on to nick@night I was so annoyed. It's such a boring show and it is corny. Out of all the times I've watched I found one episode slightly funny. This show has some of the most unfunny and stupid jokes ever. This show sums up to terrible. Give props to Fresh Prince of Bel-air and George Lopez. This show is boring and not the least bit clever. This show should have been canceled much earlier. I don't think it deserves to be played on nick@night alongside some great classic shows. This show is lacking cleverness, good jokes, and style.
this show disturbs me. it takes up slots on nick at nite that could be reserved for the fresh prince or George Lopez. even full house and Roseanne. they're all better than home improvement. first off, the mother Jill annoys me SO much. she is an oversensitive whiny baby and i really despise her. brad is a fat toad, and he is annoying too. and the youngest brother, i don't even know his name! i don't notice him at all! that's probably not the actor's fault though, it's probably the writers'. Tim is just a stupid ass. although Jill is DEFINITELY my least favorite, i don't like any of them. the only reason i gave this stupid show three stars is one star goes to randy. as the middle child, he is still a pesky little brother, but an older brother, and i like his fun character. the other star goes to Al. as the chubby friend, his character is likable. other than randy and Al, this show sucks.
honestly I don't know why this show lasted as long as it did. ah well, humor is subjective eh? but yeah, this show is incredibly unfunny if you ask me. Tim Allen is annoying. Jill is annoying. the boys are annoying. Al is annoying. the neighbor is annoying. it's just more annoying then funny. the plots are all the same, Tim makes Jill mad and has to make things right again. and the latter seasons? less said about them the better, who the hell things cancer would be good for a damn sitcom? yeah, great idea jerks. so yeah, home improvement isn't a very good sitcom. I'd recommend you go watch News Radio or Seinfeld. if i had to give this show a rating I'd give it a 1/10 seeing as it never made me laugh once. ever. so yeah, it's still better then The Nanny though.
Tim Taylor is an abusive acholoic drug addict. He's a coward and a child and has absolutely no redeeming qualities as an actor or a person. The only film with him in it that is enjoyable is "Galaxy Quest" and that just because his character - a boozed out washed up actor from a former hit TV show - was so close to real life for him. The rest of the cast is equally bad. I HATE the mother and the actress that played her Patricia Richardson, she sucks! Ever cliché is there, the stupid woman who is fat and likes opera and only cares about her children, while in real life she's proclaims family values and gets divorced after having twins. And the child actors were about as interesting as a root canal.
These writers are trying to re-create the characters they have on "scrubs" in a different occupation however the characters they are stuck with have no charisma or acting ability not to mention the writing seems poor and effortless. These guys are trying to create something that would be good if the writing wasn't so disgusting which is leaving the shows only lifeline to be two attractive teachers that that are barely keeping it alive. The humor in this show seems like it is trying to target an audience with an I.Q. of 40 or below. Another reason why this show is becoming a failure could be that the writing on the show "scrubs" is excellent and this show has to follow it up leaving the viewer in an odd position not knowing whether to cry or to just lose hope in new sitcoms all together. This is just my opinion but i think these guys should stop now before they humiliate themselves anymore than they have already.
I love how everyone treats this show like it was the next great American sitcom. I watched five episodes of this abomination, and the only person that came close to an actual teacher was the old guy that sort of loved and hated his job. The rest of them were just pretty people trying to read the lines written by people who never actually went inside of a real classroom. I loved how every episode consisted of the two idiots (one who got laid and the other who didn't) getting into some form of zany trouble that indirectly involved their students. The British girl who thought she found an likable quality in the main idiot, but in the end was somehow shocked that he turned out to be a jackass. The hot chick that was there for the particular purpose of being hot, and the principal and her lackey that served to somehow move the almost non-existent plot forward. I loved how almost all the teachers on this show were very young, but I ask you to think back to your high school days and remember the teachers that you had . . . did they look like that? Or did you go to the high school that had middle-aged people teaching in it? That is the high school that everyone else went to. The show lacked any form of research into what goes on in schools. In public schools, principals do not have the power to higher and fire teachers, the school board does, but in every episode that I watched the principal made threats to fire her teachers. Think back to your history class . . . . . or think of any history class, did you ever see an incredibly hot British chick teach an American History class? No. Did you ever see a teacher's lounge that is so huge that you could actually play basketball in? No.<br /><br />Teachers could have been a great show had it actually of based itself in some form of reality. What makes teaching funny is the stories that you get from interaction with students, and the teachers find it funny because they deal with the students day in and day out. The overemphasis on their lives outside of teaching just made it another four camera sitcom that had unrealistic people in an unrealistic environment saying unrealistic lines, and I'm sorry, I just didn't buy it. The show could have modeled itself after other currently successful sitcoms and used a single-camera format, and it should have centered more around the teacher's relationships with their students and not with each other.<br /><br />It gets a star for trying and a star for the hot chick (she was really hot).<br /><br />In the end, it was a failed sitcom that will go down in history as a hacks attempt to understand a profession. I only hope that if they make another sitcom based on teaching that they learn from their mistakes so that a monstrosity such as this never touches the television screen.
You get an hour and a half of braindead i have to save the world action all the way, one liners and a woman somewhere in the equation. This time he plays a guy who help people in the witness protection program. to quote the cover of the movie. He erases their past to save their future. Woppi, this have to be cool :) I bet younger people will like it though but it is a little over the top for my taste. And the one liners are really something else, and i don't mean that in a good way. After killing a crocodile he manage to say. "you're luggage" If you are in the right mood you may enjoy the movie. And as far as braindead action go, this is not very bad. But almost before the movie starts you know exactly what is going to happen. But if you like these kind of movies, you will probably enjoy this one. I rate this movie 4
!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!<br /><br />With the exception of THE TERMINATOR and TOTAL RECALL I don`t think Arnie`s action/adventure movies are up to much . They`re better than his comedies for sure but that`s hardly saying much . The problem I have with his all action blockbusters is that they`re overblown and lacking in any sort of morality <br /><br />Morality ? I mentioned in my review of TERMINATOR 2 the scene where good guy Terminator blows the kneecaps off the SWAT team . Are we to think that because the hero maims people doing their job instead of killing them we will admire him in someway ? This is the problem with ERASER , when James Cann`s character is revealed as a traitor within the US Marshal department Arnie`s character John Kruger goes on the run with a witness he`s protecting but in several later sequences Kruger kills a fairly large amount of marshals working with the villain . Are we take it they were all traitors too ? Surely many of them were honest men who were trying to stop Kruger because the bad guy told them Kruger was the traitor ? It`s a rather uneasy thought that Kruger killed several people who were trying to genuinely up hold the law <br /><br />Despite costing one hundred million dollars the special effects aren`t all that impressive . Look at the scene where Kruger lets go of the jet wing and scrambles to put on a parachute . It`s obvious as the action intercuts that it`s a stuntman who`s doing the free fall sequence while Arnie is in a studio in front of a blue screen . ERASER is also a film that has unnecessary CGI featuring killer alligators , not only unnecessary CGI but unconvincing CGI too . There`s also a few plot holes like in the opening scene involving a couple of witness protection people that the mob has caught up with . Kruger opens a car trunk and pulls out a couple of bodies and starts a fire thereby throwing the mob of the scent . Kruger is next seen rearranging the dental records via computer of the couple he`s saved . It would be logical to do this but would ALL the couples dental records be kept on computer ? Most importantly of all are we to believe the US Marshal department keep a freezer full of bodies for such events ?<br /><br />So they`re you go , a typical Arnie thriller long on unlikely set pieces and short on intelligence and it`s interesting to note that ERASER didn`t make much of a profit at the box office as the production costs almost outweighed a potential audience figure . After ERASER Arnie didn`t do much more business at the box office save for TERMINATOR 3 : RISE OF THE MACHINES which was an event movie and it`ll be interesting to see if he`ll be remembered as a politician rather than a movie star
Why do they keep making trash like this? because it makes money that's why. Eraser is not so much a film but a string of action set pieces strung together. It's well filmed but predictable and it's all been done before, only better. This is basically a Nineties version of 'Commando'.
I did not enjoy the film Eraser whatsoever. It's awful acting, boring storyline and average special effects made this an annoying arnie film, as it had a mountain of potential. With other action films of the time Eraser fell very short!!!
Ten years ago I really wanted to see this movie on the cinema. But I missed it, and then forgot about it. Oh boy, am I glad this movie didn't get to ruin my teenage eyes back then.<br /><br />I saw it yesterday, and seriously, this must be among the 10 worst movies ever made. And I'm talking about movies which has had too much attention, such as those wonderful trailers on TV, and too much money spent on actors and the making of the movie.<br /><br />The script sucks and the acting sucks even worse, do I need to say more?<br /><br />Please, Hollywood, NO MORE ARNOLD!!
So I got this from the rental store where I work before it was released (release is 8/21), just watched it today, and now I'm speechless. They could have had a decent movie here, but they screwed it up in some painfully obvious ways.<br /><br />First of all, the parts with John Krasinski were funny, and are the only reason I gave it above a 3, but they are broken up by bad acting and terrible "serious" reflections on life between the main character (Andrew Keegan) and his girlfriend (the annoying Lacy Chabert). It would have been much, much better as a straight comedy ala Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.<br /><br />I wanted to like it, because I think Krasinski is funny and want to see him do well. The story wasn't bad either, just not very original. But the directing (and a lot of the acting) was terrible. I swear they had trouble keeping peoples faces in the shot and just went with it anyway.<br /><br />Their carelessness is showcased when the gun expert corrects another character and says that a "Dirty Harry" gun is not a .357 magnum but a .45 (it was, as everyone knows, a .44 magnum).<br /><br />So see this if you 1- really like John Krasinski 2- like to watch low-budget (and poorly-directed) movies or 3- Have too much time on your hands (this is me!)
I found this movie to be okay.<br /><br />On paper, this movie has everything a person may want! Romance, comedy, drama. A bank robbery, a unique cast, great music and storytelling!<br /><br />In reality, this movie ended up being mostly garbage, and I'll tell you why.<br /><br />a) This is my biggest problem: The editing. This movie has by far the worst editing I've ever seen short of local-car-dealership commercials. The editing could've been done better by a deaf Parkinson's patient tapping away at iMovie with a a dead cat. There are scenes where two characters are talking to each other and you can see their lips moving and the audio/video isn't in sync because its clearly dubbed. Why was it dubbed? I don't know! Its English dubbing English! The voices were done in a studio elsewhere in certain scenes! Could they not find a boom-Mic?! They're not expensive; Jesus, even I own one! And i don't make films!<br /><br />b) Andrew Keegan's performance lacked. It really didn't seem like he wanted to be a part of this project, and his acting was the equivalent of a skit performed by D.A.R.E. for schoolchildren. At least John Krasinksi showed some enthusiasm.<br /><br />Yes, John Krasinski is the only reason I rented this flick, and its the only real reason worth watching. He's did a good, witty performance and he was the most three-dimensional character. Dean Edwards' character was quite thin, as was whats-her-face.<br /><br />Final Word? If you're a fan of John Krasinski, this is worth your time. If not, don't even bother. The editing
I have to say, Krasinski is the only reason I even watched this film. He is good. However, everything else about this film is so far below average that it's not worth the time and effort spent viewing this film.<br /><br />This film has loads of technical/aesthetic issues: namely, shot selections, framing, camera movements within monologue sequences, extremely bad editing (probably due to the total lack of fluidity in and between shots), and overall terrible acting (except for Krasinski).<br /><br />It was far too theatrical (in acting and presentation) to develop any sort of suspenseful moment in this film...which is surprising, because it's all about a bank robbery, which should be at least somewhat exciting.<br /><br />How does a film this bad get made, and then released, AND THEN distributed?<br /><br />Kind of reminds me of a C- film student's thesis project, probably not even that good though.
This (very) low-budget film is fun if you're a John Krasinski fan, but is otherwise disappointing. At least it was short, so I didn't feel like I had wasted too much of my time. John's scenes are funny enough, but the attempted 'deep' scenes with Lacey Chabert are pretty nauseating. It starts off seeming like it could be a funny movie, but some of the characters are just so outlandish while the others are far too serious that it just falls flat. Don't get me started on the ending. It was totally implausible and didn't even fit with the rest of the movie. I will say that I wasn't bored, though, which is why I rated it above a three. Fans of John Krasinski will enjoy seeing him with a bandanna and stockings around his head, and eating Cheez-Its. Oh, and make sure to check out John's deleted scenes, they're better than some that were actually included in the movie.
Other than John Krasinski, this movie was absolutely terrible. The Lacey Chabert and Andrew Keegan love story was as clichéd as possible, full of unbelievably bad lines about how her parents wouldn't ever let them be together and super-hammy longing looks. None of the "emotion" had any depth or reality whatsoever. The two accented-characters (Dean Edwards as Rupert and whoever it was playing the gun expert)....once they saw how bad the accents were, couldn't they have decided to just drop them and rewrite a couple of lines to avoid giving the audience headaches? Apparently not. I don't even know where to start with the editing, particularly the sound editing. If you hate obvious over-dubbing as much as I do, don't watch this. That being said, Krasinski was great. Off the bat I'll admit that I'm a huge Office fan and that's why I rented this. But he's quite entertaining as the "off-the-wall friend with crazy ideas". He's got a clichéd role, but he still manages to make it as entertaining as possible. The ending was awful. Just flat out terrible. The idea of the robbery gone awry had potential, but Keegan floundering around after being shot, all the way to his studio to fall ontop of a painting of Chabert (which looks nothing like her) is the most cringe-worthy scene.
This World War II film, set in Borneo, tries so hard to work on so many levels, it is a shame it fails on all of them.<br /><br />Nick Nolte is an escaping American who witnesses the executions of his comrades by the Japanese. He wanders deep into the jungles of Borneo, lost. Cue Nigel Havers, who finds Nolte's adopted tribe. Nolte, now looking like Robert Plant, has become his tribe's new king. He defeated a staunch warrior in a bloody battle, and had a telling tattoo on his chest (a dragon). Now before you go out and get a painful tattoo and a one-way ticket to Borneo, things are not going well in Nolteland. Havers wants the tribe's help in fighting the Japanese, who are invading the island. He teaches the natives how to use machine guns, and a whole lot o shooting begins. As the tribe becomes more successful, they run up against a new squadron of Japanese who are not like the others. This squad cannibalizes the villages they conquer in order to keep their strength up (talk about your sushi), and they move through the jungles even quicker than the tribe. Since we know the outcome of the war, we know eventually the tribe triumphs, but with heavy casualties. Here come the spoilers: Havers is injured and returned to "civilization." He gives the location of the kingdom and Nolte is captured. Havers then goes through the trouble of releasing Nolte, and the end credits roll.<br /><br />Milius' direction is certainly adequate, but the screenplay here is rather vague in its motivations. It presents story ideas, then abandons them in order to get to the next story idea. Nolte is awful as the soldier turned king, desperately trying to channel the spirit of Marlon Brando's Colonel Kurtz. He talks about freedom, and the beauty of the jungle, and the richness of his people, and you will not believe for one second the words he utters. He is often unintentionally funny, especially his initial bug out in the jungle, and he spends the rest of the film sounding like a hippie. Nigel Havers spends the movie looking at Nolte like he was Raquel Welch. The vague homosexual undercurrent between the two goes beyond friendship, not quite to sex, and settles into an unspoken relationship that must have had the natives talking.<br /><br />Havers often stands around and has an internal conflict, repulsed at the tribe's headhunting, but basking in Nolte's attention. His fellow straight laced British servicemen go native faster than the Bounty landing party in Tahiti, but all I saw concerning Borneo is that it is very humid and has lots of green.<br /><br />The climactic betrayal, where Havers gives away Nolte's location, is completely devoid of any reason. There is not one thought given as to why Havers does this, except to keep the film going. I was angry, when by chance, Havers and Nolte end up on the same ship going to the Philippines, the ship happens to run aground, and Havers runs to the hold to free the freshly shorn Nolte. No goodbye kiss, but Havers says farewell to the king, explaining the title.<br /><br />If you were fighting a war, and an enemy squadron was eating your allies, would that not freak you out? This elite Japanese squad is not shown enough, although their eating habits are so horrific I would become a conscientious objector right away. The same type of ghostly enemy was handled much better in "The 13th Warrior."<br /><br />Other types of interesting ideas are dropped. What about the fact that then modern technology brings about the deaths of so many backward people? Why did King Nolte let the Brits use his subjects without too much hesitation? Why can't Hollywood find a decent actor to play General Douglas MacArthur?<br /><br />In the end, "Farewell to the King" is a letdown, not anchored by a strong lead, and trying to be too many things without thinking and exploring its options. I cannot recommend this one.<br /><br />This film is rated (PG13) for strong physical violence, strong gun violence, some gore, some profanity, some sexual references, and adult situations.
The story of Farewell to the King is intriguing. An American "deserter" (I had the impression he and his 3 comrades were only trying to escape capture in the Philippines as their desperate escape by raft to Borneo is not your classic desertion). But no sooner do they come ashore when they are discovered by the Japanese. Nolte's character (a sergeant) has only moments earlier walked down the beach alone and was not noticed. And incredibly, no one noticed his footprints in the sand which would have led the Japanese right to him. But anyway, Nolte is taken in by a tribe of headhunters and becomes their king after defeating another tribesman. So he's out of the war. Then the British commandos show up and want the tribe to assist them in fighting the Japanese.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Nolte's incessant hamming ruins an interesting story. Instead of acting like a former soldier thrust back into the war, now with a tribe of warriors under his command, Nolte acts like he was raised by the tribe. He speaks as if English is almost a foreign language, rarely using contractions. He makes sweeping gestures when he talks, and acts like he is one with nature, as if he was raised in the jungle.<br /><br />There is plenty of action and many interesting scenes with the British interacting with Nolte and the tribe. But Nolte's character is never believable. It always looks like he's overacting. He needed to be a little more of an American soldier and a lot less of a tribesman. As it is, he comes across, not as a regal king, but as a lunatic who has forgotten who he really is. But that is not the intent of the film, as the script has him being admired and trusted by the British commandos. There is never any suggestion that the British thought his behavior was strange. He is simply viewed by the British as the defacto leader of the tribe. Thus, it always seems that Nolte's character isn't fitting in with what's supposed to be happening in the film.<br /><br />Another actor might have done a great job with the role, delivered his lines believably, and made it an outstanding movie. But Nolte ruins the film by hamming up every scene and appearing to not understand what his character is supposed to be.<br /><br />What a waste.
I just caught "Farewell to the King" on cable, and maybe it's just because I'm a girl, but I thought this was on the craptastic side. The script and direction are pretentious (once I found out John Milius was responsible, it all became clear). The supporting actors actually weren't bad - James Fox was outstanding. The biggest disappointment was Nick Nolte, who I usually enjoy. Once he goes native, he starts speaking a very stiff, stilted English, and half the time, he seems kind of distracted, as if he'd just smoked some of the bounty of Borneo's rain forest. And then the end -- what the ??? Learoyd just happens to be on the same boat as The Botanist (by the way, had the Botanist dumped the girlfriend, or what?)??? The boat just happens to run aground conveniently close to an island ripe takeover by a crazy Anglo ex-headhunting Army deserter??
A very hyped-up, slick, edgy reinterpretation.<br /><br />They've fallen into the "because it's modern, it has to be hyped-up, slick, etc." trap.<br /><br />"Romeo and Juliet" carried this idea off much more successfully, but I really think it's time we move beyond the two extremes here (period piece vs. edgy film).<br /><br />Just because this is a "modern" retelling, doesn't mean the movie has to look like a magazine ad, or have anything to do with drugs or guns.<br /><br />If the trappings were as subtle as the honeyed words, Macbeth would be a far more powerful film. As it is, read your Shakespeare. Read it out loud. Ask your Oxford dictionary some questions. Skip the film. Or don't, but you've been warned.<br /><br />Sorry for the super-long review. IMDb made me do it.
An interesting concept turned into carnage...<br /><br />My first seeing feature from Geoffrey Wright (Romper Stomper), When i first took interest in it, it seemed at the time an interesting concept...<br /><br />Shakespere + Aussie Film + Gothic setting + Melbourne Gangland<br /><br />A very odd mixed that turned into a disastrous piece of Aussie cinema that gives my country a bad name...<br /><br />Pros: -Interesting concept<br /><br />Cons: -Waste of a good cast -Stuffed and stupid plot -Crooked camera angles -Not much variety of locations -Crap use of Shakespearian diologue<br /><br />Overall: Australia's worst attempt of a Shakespere film, Stick to Baz Lurhman...or Romper Stomper (WARNING: That film is dangerous)
The story of Macbeth was one of the most successful Shakespeare ever wrote. This may be due to some features that place it close to the slasher genre, murder, murder, kill, kill, gallons of blood, a tense sexual relation between the main characters etc. More than this, the original play is very appealing taking into consideration the length (it's only half the size of Hamlet) and the focus on Macbeth for whom we are constrained to care in spite of his bloody nature. The play would seem ideal to base a movie on. Not so lengthy it gives the directors the possibility to explore it's many levels, a good actor can play the role of his lifetime, the film has deep meaning in any historical period. Unfortunately this has not been the case with Macbeth. Polanski's version comes quite close but it insists too much on the medieval period. Welles' film is too personal, with an interesting twist towards totalitarianism, the 1990 or so TV version is too shallow. This 2006 movie is no exception. It is very far from a Shakespeare film, but it is interesting to see how the director understood the story and where he places it in contemporary life. No knights in shiny armor but gangsters in shiny cars. A lot of drugs and trippy music replace the dread of night in the original play. The idea of Macbeth is so simple that to take and implant it in modern day life doesn't need Shakespeare at all. The worst part in the film are the lines. Most of the poignant scenes of the play, such as the dagger scene are trimmed so much they seem pointless. Replacing the knocks in the door with doorbells and horses with cars seems funny. If they wanted to make a movie about power and its temptation they could have done it easily without Shakespeare. This Macbeth seems to be a looser with a brain injury not a valiant warrior, brave and ambitious that wants power so much he is prepared to to kill and who gets caught up in a net of fears and despair. The movie doesn't make clear what drives Lady Macbeth to madness, it doesn't give a reason why some of the characters should fear Macbeth and his "terror" (since there is no hereditary ascension to the throne, what with no throne and all) and it places Macbeth in an awkward position, since the leadership of a gang is as far from kingship as this whole movie is far from any Shakespeare. In conclusion, we have two superimposed ideas that never quite meet making this a film that's ultimately pointless.... Stand not upon the order of your going but go!
Macbeth is one of the most frequently told stories in cinema and has been translated many times in numerous theater and celluloid settings. Originally written by William Shakespeare in the early 1600's, Macbeth tells the story of betrayal among royalty and one man's quest for power. Director Geoffrey Wright (Romper Stomper) tries his hand at updating Macbeth by setting it in the contemporary Melbourne underworld. A film where the characters substitute swords for guns (ala Baz Luhrman's Romeo and Juliet) and royal vassals for gangsters, Macbeth is a gritty, violent, but critically flawed film.<br /><br />Macbeth (Sam Worthington)works for King Duncan (Gary Sweet). After being elevated to the Thane of Glamis by The King (as was prophesied to Macbeth by three witches), Macbeth starts setting his eyes on the throne. One night the King comes to stay at Macbeth's house and Lady Macbeth (Victoria Hill) talks him into killing The King to assume power. Macbeth kills his master and then assumes his crown. But success has it's downside, as Macbeth soon finds out, when he has to go to hideous lengths to protect his murderous secret. <br /><br />OK, first things first. The film's major fault is Sam Worthington. His portrayal of Macbeth is in a word... boring. I honestly didn't care about Macbeth while watching the film. I had more sympathy for Victoria Hill's Lady Macbeth because she bothered to act at least. Worthington sits sullen and wood faced throughout the entire film. I felt like he was doing his best impression of Johnny Deep's George Jung character from Blow... but without the charisma. I have never seen Worthington in a film before so I'm not sure if it was his or the Director's fault, but either way the glue that should have tied everything together into one cohesive unit is weak.<br /><br />The dialog is good, but when matched up to the Geoffrey Wright's Australian Gangster Motif seems a bit out of place. Frentically paced action sequences mixed with long Shaksperian musings creates pacing conflict within the film. I understand that this is Macbeth and that the director wanted to use the original dialog intact. But hard, fast action scenes following a three minute soliloquy tends to get annoying if not a bit pretentious. <br /><br />The camera-work is highly stylized, and for the most part, it works well. One thing that I found annoying was how the camera would slowly jostle back and forth, almost constantly. I don't mind shots like that it's just overdone. It's passes beyond the realm of being cool and stylish and instead becomes irritating. Other than that, the art direction and cinematography is fairly well-done. <br /><br />For all of the good qualities Macbeth possesses; stylish direction, Shakespearian dialog, a strong soundtrack, supernatural nude witches(the weird sisters), and good helpings of brutal, bloody violence. All of these strengths are forgotten when one considers Sam Worthington's uninspired portrayal of Macbeth. The role of Macbeth was essential for tying everything together and in this respect Geoffrey Wright and Sam Worthington failed miserably, making Macbeth a forgettable foray into Shakespeare.
The Play Macbeth was written by William Shakespeare between the years of 1604 and 1606. Ever since then, many other versions of the play have been produced, including remakes completed in 1948, 1971, and 2006. Akira Kurosawa even directed a Japanese version of Macbeth in 1957 entitled, "Kumonosu jô." The play starts out with King Duncan hearing about the success of two of his generals, Macbeth and Banquo, in a recent battle with the Irish and the Norwegians. After a quick promotion from Duncan, Macbeth instantly gets an uncanny feeling for lust, greed, and power and does everything in his power to gain access to the crown: even if it includes murder.<br /><br />Geoffrey Wright tried creating his own version of the famous play in 2006 by setting it in the modern Melbourne underworld. Just imagine a lowly Macbeth slaying hundreds of soldiers with an AK-47 and rapping his own rendition of, "Low" at the same time. Just kidding about the latter, but one thing he does do is utter the traditional Shakespeare. And he keeps it going throughout the whole movie. That's right! Shakespeare meets ghetto. It's all you could ever hope for! Not… The newest Macbeth is rough and violent enough to match up with any other modern day action film, but it lacks decent acting, the right lingo, and a good technique of camera work.<br /><br />The modernized movie starts out with Macbeth (Sam Worthington) who works as a hit man/drug dealer for Duncan (Gary Sweet), a drug lord from Melbourne, Australia. After being promoted to the Thane of Glamis by Duncan (as the three witches had predicted), aspiration starts to take over Macbeth as he sets his eyes on the throne. After promoting Macbeth, Duncan invites himself over to Macbeth's house for a night of drugs and alcohol. Before the festivities begin, Lady Macbeth (Victoria Hall) talks Macbeth into killing Duncan to take power over the throne. After the bodyguards are drunk and everyone's asleep, Macbeth sneaks into Duncan's room and stabs him to death. After his murder, Macbeth takes all of Duncan's belongings including hid title and crown. Just as soon as he thinks he's got what he wanted, he finds out that it will take more than bribery and running away to solve his problems. <br /><br />One major flaw of the movie was the acting. A once seemingly flamboyant and empowered Macbeth suddenly turns into a sissy. And he looks like a sad puppy dog throughout the entire film. I don't really know if this was Worthington's or Wright's fault, but either way, one of the two should have realized Macbeth was a king, not a knot on a log that took everything his wife had to say literally. Like I said earlier, Macbeth should have been rude, arrogant, and spiteful. But when his character changes over to a drug lord, he changes personalities as well I suppose. On the other hand, Lady Macbeth really knew how to nip it in the bud when it came to recognizing and personifying her character. She didn't seem quite as spiteful as she was in the play or the 1971 version, but she reminds Macbeth that compared to murder, anything else he could possibly do, wouldn't quite match up. <br /><br />Another thing I found distasteful was all the nudity. This fluke HAD to be Wright's fault. The witches didn't do a bit of acting, unless you call parading around in your birthday suit acting. At one point in the film, I started to wonder if I was watching Macbeth or Unique Positions Vol. 2. <br /><br />Don't get me wrong when I say I find the Shakespearean dialogue out of place. It's spoken flawlessly, but when it's spoken by an Australian gangster, it's just really weird. When Macbeth starts to kill people off, he first lets them know by talking to them in Ye Olde English. Macbeth contains plenty of action, blood, gore, and nudity to last anyone a lifetime. You forget all the positive facts though when you start to think to yourself, "Okay, what in the heck did he just say in that last sentence?" At some points in the movie, I don't even think the actors themselves knew what they were saying. The new age-ness of the movie could have easily been pulled off it weren't for the, "Thou's" and the, "Thee's". <br /><br />The camera work was just simply fair for me. One thing I could not stand was the constant pacing back and forth between characters. The camera technique used gave off that Blair Witch sort of vibe and made me throw up a little in my mouth. Matt Reeves tried to attempt the same concept of camera work in, Clover field but it just doesn't work. It makes me want to get out of my chair and look around for the little barf bags they have conveniently planted on every seat in the airplanes. <br /><br />Looking back on it all, the gangsta' Macbeth holds one positive: plenty of action. Other than that, the movie contains nothing more than uninspired acting, correct English usage, and stomach-turning camera work. The soundtrack holds one or two of the same songs, but each song is edited or remixed differently for every scene. There is never a variation of interesting or captivating media used. From now on out, directors should leave the dangerous drug underworld to Al Pacino and Robert Deniro. Future renditions of Macbeth should be created just as Shakespeare intended the play to be 400 years ago. I would recommend using medieval clothing, Ye Olde English, swords and shields and a soundtrack prepared by Enya. But either way, the modern Macbeth makes you yearn for some good 'ole folk music, a camp fire, and a bustier.
This movie illustrates like no other the state of the Australian film industry and everything that's holding it back.<br /><br />Awesome talent, outstanding performances (particularly by Victoria Hill), but a let down in practically every other way.<br /><br />An "adaptation" of sorts, it brought nothing new to Macbeth (no, setting it in present-day Australia is not enough), and essentially, completely failed to justify its existence, apart from (let's face it, completely unnecessarily) paying homage to the original work. If there's one body of work that has been done (and done and done and done), it's Shakespeare's. So any adaptation, if it's not to be a self-indulgent and pointless exercise, needs to at least bring some new interpretation to the work.<br /><br />And that's what this Macbeth fails to do. As it was done, this film has no contemporary relevance whatsoever. It's the same piece that we have seen countless (too many!) times before. Except with guns and in different outfits.<br /><br />Apart from the fundamental blunder (no other way to put it) of keeping the original Shakespearian dialogue, one of the more cringeful moments of the movie is the prolonged and incredibly boring slow motion shoot out towards the end, during which I completely tuned out, even though I was looking at the screen. I never thought I had a short attention span, but there you go.<br /><br />I suppose the movie succeeds on its own, very limited terms. But as Australia continues to produce world-class acting talent, its movie-makers need to stop being proud of succeeding on limited terms, and actually set high enough standards to show that they respect for the kind of acting talent they work with.<br /><br />A shame. An absolute shame.
Recap: Not entirely familiar with the Shakespeare story of Macbeth, but my wild guess is that this is pretty close to the original, only set in present time. It tells the story of Macbeth, a member of a crime syndicate in Melbourne (?). He is a valued hit-man and in the favor of leader Duncan. But he and his lady has higher ambitions than that, and plan the murder of Duncan, and any competition of the throne. This is a story of betrayal and cold, brutal death.<br /><br />Comments: Very interesting idea, I must say. To use the story but change the setting to present time, but still keep the original (?) dialog. It sets a huge contrast between the classical poetic work and the violence. Promised to be extremely violent, it is a promise that it keeps, but not in the notion I imagined. It is very bloody indeed, but the violence is slow. Not just figuratively speaking that it is calculated, which it is too, but also literally. A lot of action is actually slowed down to slow motion and that is what brings the movie to its knees.<br /><br />What could have been a unique strength, the contrast between the superfluous and poetic dialog and the extreme violence, now turns into something else entirely. Now both slow the move down painfully much, so much that it actually becomes dull and boring at times.<br /><br />Also I can't figure out the context the three witches act within. Set to present time and reality I figure that such magical witchcraft had no place in the movie. Apparently it does, but to me it seems completely out of place. Not a subplot but a complete sub-story with it's own rules, completely different than the rest of the movie. Seems completely out of place. Surely it must have been possible to convert that part too to something modern. Drug-induced hallucinations perhaps (which I suspect that the director hints at but then he has left way too much witchcraft in it to be believable)? Now they only bring stretches of the movie that is clearly beside the story and I just waited for the real movie to begin again.<br /><br />A clear disappointment, but maybe something for Shakespearean-buffs?<br /><br />4/10
If you want a horrible interpretation of "MacBeth", then this is your answer. Filled with archaic Shakespearic English language in a 21st century Australian setting, this film lives to disappoint and leave you scratching your head. But that isn't all.<br /><br />Not only is there sophomoric action sequences but there are plenty of scenes where the female body is displayed. The witches, played by actresses that resemble school girls more than witches, put on a soft porn display with MacBeth in a unremarkable display of affection. Welcome to stupidity and depravity - all at the same time.<br /><br />Its a wonder why this project was green-lighted. So much for modern cheesy movies. "D-"
Geoffrey Wright, the director of "Romper Stomper", transplants Shakespeare's "Macbeth" in the contemporary, criminal underworld of Melbourne, Australia. The result is a semi-awful piece of cinema. Sam Worthington is Macbeth, and walks around looking very self-conscious and bored. Victoria Hill, who wrote the script with Wright, is Lady Macbeth, and she's neither awful nor good. Lachy Hulme, who plays McDuff, is the only actor in the cast who exudes any kind of authority. The rest, including Gary Sweet, are wasted and misdirected. Shot on HD by the late Will Gibson, the movie's visuals lack character. Everything is too clean and too deliberately lit. Wright's direction is uninspired in the extreme and the action sequences are confusing and inept. Marketed erroneously as "the most violent Australia movie ever", the film is violent at times and reasonably bloody, but it fails to deliver a single impactful moment. Slow moving and terribly pretentious, this umpteenth silver screen version of the classic play is the personification of wrong-headed.
Aussie Shakespeare for 18-24 set.with blood ,blood and more blood.and good dose of nudity. this will not be for every one on may levels, to violent for some too cheap for most. done on low budget they try and do there best but it only works sporadically.and this macbeth just seem to be lacking ,its just not compelling. although there is some good acting on the part of most you don't get into there heads especially mecbeths. the best performance came from gary sweet and the strangest mick molly. if your into Shakespeare then see it,but if you like your cheese mature you will love it.it not a bad film but it not that good either. sam peckenpah would of loved it, that is if it was filmed as a western. i was expecting a lot from this, as i loved romper stomper. but this is was a vacant effort.
Love sublime says the title. Another blurb during the promotions of the film talked about inner vs external beauty. Well in this case the beauty - you decide inner or external - is provided by scantily clad (or is that scantily dressed/ undressed) Zeenat Aman who the director Raj Kapoor called "a volcano of talent" while the film was being made. One can't accuse him of sarcasm of course - after all he was promoting his own film.<br /><br />The paper thin plot is about a woman with a disfigured face who has a - er - well proportioned body , a great voice (thanks to Lata Mangeshkar) with whom the hero Shashi Kapoor falls in love. He doesn't want her face only her voice. The acting is desperate and even the 4 is because of the music with Lata Mangeshkar giving some good numbers. The rest is of course bunkum. Avoid - save your money. Inner beauty vs Outer beauty. !!! You need not be an Einstein to figure out which one the director was concentrating on
This movie is not worth the time it takes to put it in the VCR or DVD player! Michael Dudikoff and Lisa Howard are two bounty hunters in love, yet they are total opposites. She is ambitious and organized, while he is laid back and totally scatter brained.<br /><br />In this movie, bad guys are chasing Jersey Bellini (Dudikoff's character). This opens the door to bad Godfather impressions, ludicrous fight scenes, and Tony Curtis playing the most effeminate looking mob boss I have ever seen! The ending has to be the most...unbelievable scene I have seen in a movie in quite some time. I would believe the Terminator, even the Matrix, has a better chance of possibly being true than this ending! This movie just reeks of cheapness. The script had to have hit someone as being totally ridiculous. Yet, the green light was given for this piece of dung to be made and let loose on on unsuspecting public. I watched this movie with several other people who all agreed that we had been cheated. No one in the group could say anything good about the film except that it was over.
I only bought this DVD because it was dirt cheap and it seemed interesting in its own special way ("special" meaning "retarded"). The movie turned out to be quite uninteresting - boring camera work, nothing really driving the story, and of course the acting is horrible. It wasn't even "bad" in a campy way - it was just plain bad. There are actually a handful of great lines of dialogue but for the most part its awkward and weak. All I could think about while watching this was that this could actually be a good movie if the script was given a major overhaul (if it were written by someone who actually understood drug culture) and if some decent actors were cast. I wouldn't recommend "Weekend With the Babysitter" unless if you plan on a career in film and want to learn what not to do in a movie.
I've just seen this film in a lovely air-conditioned cinema here in Bangkok. And since the temperature outside is hovering somewhere around 37C with very high humidity, my 100Bt was not wasted.<br /><br />Failing that, I haven't seen such a piece of extremely well-made junk in a long time. This is the kind of film that provides a test of taste, as it were. Anyone who claims to like or love it goes immediately onto the same list of tasteless phonies who still go around talking about the superiority of British television. At least the gormless old broad in the wheelchair was good for a few guffaws.<br /><br />Pseudo-profundity and fat lips, while characteristic of much French cinema, really do not a good movie make. I'd rather watch Independence Day 10 times in a row than sit through this stinker one more time.
After watching the first movie in BCI's new Aztec Mummy Collection, it's difficult to believe how excited I was about the set and how upset I was when the release date was pushed back. I've watched a lot of Mexican horror in recent months. Some great – The Curse of the Crying Woman. Some entertaining despite obvious flaws – Night of the Bloody Apes. And some Cheesy – Pick any Santo movie. One thing that all these movies have in common is that none can be called "dull". Well, that's not the case with The Aztec Mummy. It's been awhile since I last watched something so sleep inducing. I wasn't hoping for or expecting a great movie, but at least entertain me! The Aztec Mummy takes every situation that could be interesting and sucks the life out of it through repeated scenes of people doing nothing and then extending those scenes for what fells like an eternity. I guess that's what happens when you make an 80 minute movie with only 30 minutes of material. Padding extraordinaire! For example, for anyone who has seen the movie, what purpose does The Bat have other than to bring a masked wrestler type to the screen and to extend the runtime by 15 or so pointless minutes? <br /><br />I can only hope that the other two movies in The Collection are more entertaining than this one.
First of three Aztec Mummies film is the only one that to the best of my knowledge was never completely dubbed into English. The film was chopped up and used in pieces by people like Jerry Warren in other films (he combined it with another Mexican horror comedy with Lon Chaney to make Face of the Screaming Werewolf. And it showed up in Attack of the Mayan Mummy and elsewhere.) The longest of the three films, a good chunk of this film makes up the two later films which use this as a basis of flash backs. The plot of this film has a scientist conducting a past life regression experiment which causes his subject to travel back and discover hidden chambers in an Aztec pyramid. The group, as well as a sinister figure known as the Bat, hope to use the information to discover hidden treasure. Instead they discover a living mummy who has other plans. Long and long winded this film has way too little action to sustain its 80 minute running time (worse the mummy doesn't even show up until an hour has passed). Probably the least of the three films, its easy to see why this film was cut apart, it's the only way to fashion a non-sleep inducing film. Watching the film late last night I found myself fighting to stay awake. It was a tough haul and I found that I ended up scanning to the point where the mummy showed up. Given the choice I'd take a pass and watch the second two films.
Being a science fiction fan from my early childhood (long time since) I always hated implausible plots. It's a pity that most authors of science fiction stories for children do not show this kind of respect for their audience. I always suspected them of thinking: "children are to dumb to realise, so we don't have to strive". The writer of "Science Fiction (2002)" is no exception. The story is about a boy who is instigated by his new friends to spy after his parents, because they think that the parents are aliens. As intriguing the idea sounded to me, as much was I bored by its realisation. It seemed to me that the filmmakers had exactly this one idea and tried to stretch it over the ninety minutes by dunking it into a dark, stylish and painstakingly slow atmosphere. The only thing that kept me in my seat was the question "how do they manage to get out of this implausible rubbish"? And then - bang - they did not even try. So if you are looking for good entertainment for both children and parents, go and watch "Klatretøsen (2002)" instead.
First off just to say i didn't get the edition I thought I would - I chose the Italian version over the R2, but what actually arrived was a UK release from 1998 - claiming to be a special edition - i never knew there WAS a UK DVD release - but the promised biogs were not actually on the disc - just a couple of duff trailers. Anyway - as to the film itself - just as I was recovering from "Night TRain Murders" my second genital mutilation thriller turns up in the same month - this time in (an Italian) UK nubile schoolgirls are being offed and Teacher Fabio Testi - (unhappily) married but nailing one of his students - becomes the main suspect. Joachim Fuchsberger is the detective on the case. Sorry to say I was less than entranced. It was watchable but more than equally miss able,and aside from the aforementioned gruesome nature of the crime, the "surprise" killing of Cristina Galbo which was actually "spoilt" by the DVD cover telling me about it - Grrrrrr!!!! and a surprise twist that cast the "victims" in a new light - i thought this was very routine. Itwont put me off the two "sequels" though. with Karin (Hannibal Brooks)Baal and Camille (I Spit on your grave") Keaton.
Solange is not a great Italian thriller. Get ready for the spoiler - the main suspect, the professor, didn't do it. But is it really a spoiler? No, because you know that he couldn't have been the murderer from the very beginning; he and a student witnessed the first murder. So, there is absolutely no suspense as to whether or not the professor is the killer. There is a long, tedious build up to the final explanation of the mystery. The solution is interesting, but it comes out of nowhere. The rest of the movie (and it's not a short movie) is just not exciting enough to hold your interest. Even in the tradition of "wrong man accused" it fails, because the police never seriously accuse the professor, and the killer is never after him. Dull, dull, dull.
I love watching a good gory giallo. Unfortunately, SOLANGE is definitely not one of them. It's long. Very long. The story is tacky and makes very little sense even if it's very obvious. The script spends so much time on the killings and the girls but it spends almost no time at all on the killer. This leaves a big hole in the story: we might get to see a bunch of young women showering together but we get zero characterization of why the killer decided to murder those girls. Yes, what happened to Solange is terrible but we still pretty much left in the dark over when, why did the [boring] killer decided that it was worth going through the effort of offing those oh so naughty girls. It's all so contrived that I couldn't get into it one bit.<br /><br />As for the look of the film, again, boring. Nothing memorable about it. The actors? Boring. The script? Laughably boring. The whole "torrid" love affair between the teacher, the blond and the student was really embarrassing. What planet are they living on? The music? Boring. Skip it.
Let me preface by stating that I have lived in Louisville, Kentucky all of my life. I grew up about ½ mile from Waverly. In the wintertime we would pull our sleds down Maryman road and cross Dixie Highway to go sleigh riding on Waverly Hill. Many times during the winter of 76-77 we would climb into the Tunnel to warm ourselves. The place was still being run as a "Geriatric Center" at the time. We would go all the way through the tunnel up the hill to bang on what we thought was the "Door to the Morgue". I have to be honest. The only sensation we felt was that we were getting away with something we should not be doing. I would have to say we went up that tunnel over 50 times that winter. Nothing stranger than teen-aged boys acting stupid ever happened. I love the fact that it is getting attention after all these years. One evening when I was young we looked out our front porch and it appeared that the entire hill was on fire. There was an older hospital on the hill that burned down. It burned for hours while the entire neighborhood sat outside and watched. The thing that gets lost about Waverly is that many people survived TB there. Let's face it…The doctors back then did everything they thought was correct to save people. It took a lot of guts for people to work there knowing how contagious TB was. Too much is focused on those who suffered. I also have traveled into the building several times in the early 70's. We would go and visit shut-ins in the Nursing Home through a church youth group. By the way, the doors there were not prison like steel doors with chains and padlocks as portrayed in the film. They were wooden and open…sometimes too open. It did smell of urine and feces and you saw the occasional open gown associated with patients with dementia. It was true that it was closed by the state in the early 80's. A lot of that may have to do with the age of the building or the right guy wasn't paid off. This is after all Kentucky. The part of the documentary that turned me off the most was the piling of bodies into a cart. If I am not mistaken it appears to have been Holocaust footage. That was added for dramatic effect. It left me with a sour taste in my mouth for the filmmaker. I am a skeptic when it comes to "Ghosts". I do believe that many around here truly think the place to be haunted. Waverly for me however symbolized a fun place for adventure for a boy with a sled.
I am very into Waverly Hills and first watched Death Tunnel The Movie.Couldn't have been much worse. Then I heard that the documentary was coming out and got excited thinking that since it was a documentary it would be more serious and not have the horrible special effects.Wrong the same guys did the documentary and ruined it with effects instead of producing it raw the way a documentary should be.Waverly Hills doesn't need help with goofy effects its fine just the way it is. Tours are $20.00 per person and $100.00 for 8 hour overnight investigation per person minimal group of 10 for overnight investigation.Tours must be set up ahead of time. Awesome place for the Ghost Hunter!
I watched this AFTER seeing "Death Tunnel" (this being, without question, the worst movie I've ever seen in my life) so you can understand I went in rolling my eyes a little at seeing the directors and producers of that cinematic gem being in charge of this one. First of all, I thought the director and producer were the same guy. They both are Kid Rock meets Dawg the Bounty Hunter. I watched the TAPS investigation, and I am not a skeptic- I think TAPS is the closest one will ever get to a scientific method in the field. That was cool and believable- I do believe they are haunted.<br /><br />But this, like the reviewer above mentioned, like taking a tour. Okay a tour, fine, but the "investigators" and "group leaders" seemed to make a pretty penny and have a financial investment into whether its haunted or not, so when THEY have fantabulous stories, I have to take it with a heaping teaspoon of salt.<br /><br />As someone else mentioned, I could make out whatever they wanted me to see in the picture about 50% of the time. The rest of the time, I couldn't make out anything. Also without any context to the photos- time of day, type of camera, moisture in the room, dust particles (which 75% are what the orbs are), weather and a ga-gillion other factors, I cant accept them. I also cant help thinking that some might be doctored.<br /><br />Why would that band keep the numbers from the door? Vandalism? Also during the TAPS investigation, they tried to dig up the death certificates of those nurses- and they only found one which was ruled "accidental" (people didn't want to officially proclaim suicide). Yet when one of the guides was mentioning this, he said "yep, and its marked suicide." It really felt like the guides to the haunted houses here in October.<br /><br />I DID however like the interviews with the patients and staff from the old hospital(s), that really gave it a lot of perspective and a personal touch. I'm also glad that they mentioned that the staff had the best of intentions, and weren't some ghoulish-wardens. They weren't the best methods, but its all they had. They were desperate to stop the disease.
The first film I saw from these people was "Children of the Grave" and when I heard that this one was coming on I thought it would be good to watch mostly because Waverly is a real place that is rumored to be haunted. This documentary/film was AWFUL! There was too much fake commentary from the producers, directors, camera men...they needed to keep their faces out of this film. Waverly has been rumored to be haunted for a long time yet if anyone in doubt about it watches this film they will no doubt start to believe that every story about the place is as fake as this documentary. The paranormal proof was horrible and almost non-existent. I have heard better EVPs from high school students with tape recorders in a bathroom! They tried too hard to make things scary and the end result was that nothing was scary. Not the stories, not the blurry too dark to see anything videos, not the pictures, not the tape recordings! Children of the Grave was bad as well but at least it had some substance and a little bit of a creep factor. The only reason I am giving this a 3 is because the history portion of the show was very good and informative. Learning about how the hospital came about, the daily life there,and how it ended was the only thing worth while in this 2hr piece of crap.
Basically, this was obviously designed to be promotional material for the movie produced by the same horrible director, which happens to be even worse than this documentary and absolutely the worst movie I've ever seen, so avoid it at all costs.<br /><br />As for this documentary, it's entertaining; entertaining and blatantly misleading! Most of the "historical" looking footage is most likely just that, historical footage from completely unrelated events that were sadly cut and pasted into this documentary to make it more dramatic than it would have ever been otherwise. There's no doubt that Waverly is a pretty interesting place with plenty of it's own fascinating history, but manufacturing a documentary to market the locale and the related production is, for lack of better words, appallingly useless.<br /><br />And yes, I've lived in Kentucky my whole life, and I have visited the location numerous times. Waverly Hills deserves respect; and there's nothing respectful about this lame documentary.
How is this a documentary? Much more like a walking ghost tour one might take in any given Southern city. Quotes were generously dropped throughout without the first effort at identifying the source. George Orwell was the most identified quoter. <br /><br />Documents were referred to without ever being produced in any form. Flat out fraudulent shots depicting period film stock were spliced aside historical film reels with no separation from reality and self-promotion. Film reels which were entirely unrealistic and improbable for the time at hand were dropped in, as if trying to ape Blair Witch, hoping to drum up a spook house on what would otherwise simply be dead real estate. <br /><br />Is this not in some way a great disrespect to actual victims of TB, a dance on their collective graves for the sake of commercialism? The line between actual footage and manufactured self-service is so thin; the drippings of doubt so insignificantly played down; the scientific boundaries so blatantly ignored... how could this possibly be listed in my TiVo as documentary? <br /><br />It's a vacation promo, and at that it fully succeeds.<br /><br />Hell, I'd visit the joint if I could locate it on Google Earth. Not scary said a previous poster. Not too serious either, says I. Fascinating story. Flimsy film-making.
It was like someone was trying to make a scary video game and a documentary at the same time. The historical aspect was great. Everything else was horrible, the plugs for the directors other movie that seemed to happen every other minute, the video of the actual ghost hunting was edited like a scary movie rather than an investigation, they had haunted house music and sound effects that would distract you from what was happening. THanks for wasted 2 hours of my time! When there was evidence, it would fly by! Most of it was just people talking about the place.The episode of the Ghosthunters show that went there absolutely destroys how this show was. I am so upset with sci fi channel for playing this, I haven't watched it since it aired.
This is just a long advertisement for the movie "The Death Tunnel". Although it is an interesting history of the Waverly Hills Sanatorium, the whole ghost theory is up to your interpretation. More "Ghost Orbs" which you can duplicate with dust in front of a flash camera, and the "Ectoplasmic Mist" is just someone's cigarette smoke lit up with the camera flash. I couldn't see any "Shadow People" until they drew an outline around the blurry distortion of the image. No scientific explanations were suggested for the phenomena, only paranormal. Perhaps these are only events one would have to see to believe, so be sure to make plans to visit the Sanatorium on your next vacation in Louisville, Kentucky.
The incomparable Paul Naschy, horror film icon of Spain, lends his talents to this entertaining if not scattershot film. What begins as an action flick ends up a horror story. All I can say is just sit back and enjoy the ride.<br /><br />Paul Naschy plays a cold-hearted hit-man hired by some shady Japanese diamond hunters (one of which is his flame who is carrying his child) to swipe a cache of diamonds from a Belgian businessman. When the deed is done, the allure of the diamonds is too tempting for Paul to dismiss so he kills his Japanese cohorts. His girlfriend, whose brother Paul killed, vows revenge and chases Paul through the forest, shooting him up and leaving him for dead. However, Paul is found by an egghead with two horny daughters and brought to his estate to recuperate.<br /><br />At the estate, the two daughters, Silvia Aguilar and Azucena Hernandez, fight for Paul in his weakened state, with the busty Silvia Aguilar determined not to lose out to the sweet and prim Azucena. But things get hairy for Mr. Naschy who begins to see the ghost of the daughter's long dead mother on the estate grounds. Couple this with the Japanese lass looking to finish the job of killing Paul and he gets pulled from two sides.<br /><br />STORY: $$ (The story goes a number of ways and doesn't fully satisfy. The script builds up a fight for Paul between the daughters but Silvia, whose character seems assertive and volatile, simply lets Azucena win in the Paul Naschy sweepstakes without putting up a fight. Personally, I would have preferred the ghostly apparition story to the revenge seeking of the Japanese woman)<br /><br />VIOLENCE: $$$ (You get gunplay, a blown-up babe and pigs eating some poor schmuck alive. Gore hounds will not be letdown with this Naschy flick).<br /><br />ACTING: $$$ (Paul Naschy, as always, is fun to watch but he does spend a bit too much time in bed recovering from his wounds. Starring with him again are the luscious Silvia Aguilar and the beautiful Azucena Hernandez, who teamed with Mr. Naschy in the little gem "The Craving." Both girls do a fine job).<br /><br />NUDITY: $$$ (You get very brief glimpses of both Aguilar and Hernandez but they are strategically placed, keeping the naught bits covered. Full nudity is supplied by the two lesser appealing actresses: the Japanese woman chasing Paul and the African maid that works for Silvia and Azucena).
I've read through a lot of the comments here about how this movie sticks to the book.. I don't think any of them have actually read it. Edgar Rice wrote about a dangerous African Jungle and Apes were killers and hunters. We know differently now and this movie portrays Apes in a more modern view. I've never seen a Tarzan movie that even comes close to Edgar's vision. Maybe one day Hollywood with trust talented and respected authors to tell the story. So, if you've never read the book and enjoy a good story about feelings and a fluffy bunny view of wild animals, maybe a good cry, see the movie. I hope John Carter of Mars get's more respect than Tarzan has. We miss ya, Edgar!
This is my opinion of this movie, expressed in its dialogs.<br /><br />To be more serious, i can't say this movie is a bad moment but i didn't enjoy it either. <br /><br />First, I was simply indifferent & couldn't get my mind into the apes world. Even though the make-up are very realistic, the constant screaming was irritating. May the film have changed apes for cats and it's a cult movie for me in relation to my fondness of the latter.<br /><br />The second part is more interesting, with the talent and freshness of then newcomers (Macdowell & Lambert), but i felt alienated: all the story is located in a big British mansion: no matter how luxurious is it, it was like a prison for me.<br /><br />At last, it could be a good adaptation of the Burroughs' story of Tarzan ? I don't know, having never read the book (or seen the Disney): .<br /><br />In conclusion, i don't have any good moments to remember, so one viewing would be enough for me. <br /><br />I should have guessed my boredom after the endless freeze called "Overture" at the beginning... What's the meaning? Only the director knows it.
I am very interested in animal children and I have read many Edger Rice Burroughs novels -- but this awful movie couldn't keep me interested, nor could I stomach all the absurd, unrealistic scenes. I only managed to sit through the Africa part and John's first few days in Scotland. Let's talk about 'unrealistic' and 'downright silly'! The actors in ape suits looked like extra large chimps, rather than great apes (there is a difference). They did not move with the grace that a wild animal would. (For comparison, see some of the better Planet of the Apes movies where they trained their actors to move in simian fashion). The apes eat large haunches of meat -- not a common ape practice as far as I know. I am a sucker for animal stories but the script did not make me care about the apes. The great white hunters of the expedition that finds John Clayton are charicaturish entirely. The parents of Clayton were shipwrecked on an ocean beach, but somehow it is a very long trip down the river to get to the coast -- give me a break! Let's talk about 'slow'. Even the folks who think this is an excellent movie admit that it is not an action movie. Far from it. It tries to be a character study -- unfortunately the downright silly part predominates! I did not read Burroughs' Tarzan books, but many of his other series -- they were packed with meaningful action and heroic purpose! This film just isn't there.
A female friend invited me to see this in the theaters.<br /><br />After half an hour we walked out, and went into the next multiplex (yeah, we broke the rules) in time to catch the beginning of Against All Odds.<br /><br />I remember too many apes dancing around saying, "oog, oog." Very little about the characters or introduction to the story captured either one of us or was even memorable. It just dragged to the point of being painfully boring (and believe me, any excuse was good enough to spend time with this particular friend).<br /><br />The production values were excellent, good photography and lighting, but this was a major studio release, and we came to see a movie, not an art gallery. It seemed like Ralph Richardson and Andie McDowell were going to be wasted in such a poorly written film.<br /><br />Perhaps if you make into the second hour, there is something worth seeing. I do not have so much patience with my time. 4 out of 10.
Here's why this movie fell very short of its potential(I don't read much, so I don't care WHAT the novel was like). 1. I think Brendan Frasier copied his Encino man from Lambert's Tarzan. It was stiff, and while his Tarzan call was a little more realistic, he had no humanity. 2. They screwed with the story. Maybe that's how the book goes, but for as long as I can remember the first utterances of Tarzan were "Me tarzan, you Jane". Jane is the first human tarzan encounters. I did like the natives a bit more than the shoepolished midget pigmys in Weismuller's version, but those bows and arrows were a bit cheesy. 3. Tarzan is primarily a love story. I'm sorry, but the love interest enters over an hour into the picture. That qualifies her for a supporting role at best. Supporting roles and leads don't fall for each other, not enough screen time, sorry. Not only was Andie McDowell's vioce over pathetic(most likely because her strong southern accent couldn't be masked) the chemistry scale between Tarzan and Jane was a whopping 0. I never believed they loved each other, which made the Belgian dudes closing voice over, quite frankly, silly. When Tarzan sees Jane for the first time in the jungle, he feels an urge, if you will, a feeling he's never felt before. Jane brings out the humanity in him, and he brings out the untamed side of her. Its this chemistry that compells the story of Tarzan. Not that Lord Greystoke's dying wish is to keep his land whole and that johnny boy is going to do it for him. Even a good face lift couldn't help this movie. It needs massive internal reconstruction. Oh, and could we possibly shoot more in the jungle, or at least use camera angles that don't show off the sound stage like qualities of the place. Final judgement, 4 out of 10. Sorry Tin-man, and by the way, if you want to see real acting, drop Lambert and check out Leonardo Dicaprio.
This DVD is barely 30 minutes long, and has dull interviews that reveal that the average Slipknotian has an IQ of around 30. But these aspects are the least problematic here.<br /><br />The real trouble is that Slipknot is one of the least talented metal bands to ever sell over 100,000 units of their crap. (The only reason I say "one of the" instead of "the" is because System Of A Down are even worse.) Much like Ed Gein's girlfriends, this band's music is pieced together from age-old metal clichés, which are to be found in both their image and their ultra-dull music. In fact, their image is kind of fun; their videos are like snippets from cheesy horror films hence they fulfill at least some purpose as entertainment.<br /><br />Their music, however, consists of nothing of quality - whatsoever: just a bunch of gimmicky, heard-them-a-million-times-before played-solely-at-the-guitar-neck riffs that are in no way related to each other and yet are randomly grouped together to form "songs" that have no cohesion, no highlights, no nothing. But if the riffs are truly bad, then the vocals are even worse: Slipknot's singer has a stereotypical hence uninteresting "evil" growl - the kind 90% of all metal bands today have - but that is nothing compared to when this deluded hick starts trying to sing! Still, what could one expect? Rule no.39 of the "Nu Metal" handbook says quite clearly: "You will alternately growl and sing. Ignore the fact that the two styles don't mix well, because most of your fans are so tone-deaf they will love you even if you **** into the microphone." Slipknot are at their absolute worst when their "singer" starts belching out "melodies".<br /><br />But back to their image. It's stolen, copied, ripped off, nicked, borrowed, taken without asking from none other than Mr.Bungle. You've never heard of them? Of course you haven't. You only listen to nu-metal, and Mr.Bungle is quite far from that, and beyond any categorization anyway. They too wore masks - grotesque, horror ones, similar to those of Slipknot, I might add - in the late 80s and early 90s. This band, whose frontman is Mike Patton from Faith No More, never hit it big because their music wasn't directed toward the average music fans (to put it mildly).<br /><br />So, basically Slipknot aren't even original in the image department. They have nothing at all new to offer hence will be forgotten in several years: once the masks become boring to the legions of their zit-faced fans, which is when Slipknot will be forced to compete in the music market solely with their generic music.<br /><br />Speaking of Mike Patton, it's interesting that a number of nu-metal bands often site his singing as a major influence. Predictably - and thankfully - Patton is not flattered by this and has denied being in any way proud to have been an influence for one of the worst metal sub-genres ever...<br /><br />Having said that, enjoy this short DVD and the cheap thrills it might provide to the untrained ear and bored eye... And then polish those Slipknot posters, because in a few years no-one will be taking care of them, the poor dears.<br /><br />Having seen Corey in the documentary "Get Thrashed", I finally understand why he wears a mask: he is a blue-eyed baby-faced ginger, looking like Dave Mustaine's younger brother! Not exactly scary.<br /><br />For more of my music-world rants, go to: http://rateyourmusic.com/collection/Fedor8/1<br /><br />Please punish me hard, very HARD, by clicking "no" below. That'll teach me...
Some of the greatest and most loved horror movies have a wicked sense of humour, but when a film comes along that isn't as original as the "classics" but just goes at it for laughs then a bunch of po-faced, wanna-be critics completely slag it off. This film made me laugh aloud several times, this is testament to the way this film was approached and it shows. The two main leads look natural and believable together and this really helps this film. You root for them the whole way and laugh along with them, everyone has friends like both of these guys. Another highlight for me was the monster truck, it's awesome, intimidating and really well shot. Taking inspiration (completely stealing) from loads of films, the most obvious being Duel, Jeepers Creepers and probably in reference to the Jack Black alike co-star Orange County. But really you can pick any road trip gone wrong movie and find a reference here. But so what, it's not trying to win any Oscars just give the viewer a good dose of frights and laughs and on that score it's a 10! Obviously It's not getting a 10, I give real sensible reviews and scores unlike 99% of the people on IMDb. There is no-way this movie can get a zero like so many lazy idiots give to too many films and as fun as it was it ain't getting a 10 either. It's just a good fun movie for anyone with a sense of humour and a liking for scares. You really can't get anymore simple than that.
Fans of horror comedy will like this one. Others might get quickly annoyed and shut it off. It's sort of a buddy film, with over-the-top violence and gore, deliberately stereotyped characters, and a lot of craziness.<br /><br />It looks to have been made on a budget of about $100, by a bunch of fraternity guys after a big beer keg party. There's a lead who's a frustrated nerd, and his loudmouth prank-pulling friend who mocks him about 30 times per second. There's a cool monster truck chasing them for hundreds of miles, which is the highlight of the film. Whenever this thing and its gnarly-mask wearing driver appear, it's a great scene. There's a mysterious girl who randomly appears in their back seat, and plenty of giant guys in overalls hanging out in red neck bars. The nerd's friend never shuts his yap, and gets them in one mess after another. Their arguing got on my nerves, but other aspects of the film make up for it.<br /><br />Sight gags poking fun at several "psycho tormenting and trying to croak somebody" films are everywhere. Take your pick which one is riffed the most: Hills Have Eyes, Saw, and Jeepers Creepers were some that I recognized.<br /><br />It's enjoyable insanity, if you're in the right frame of mind. Sensory-dulling brewskies with your friends can make viewing this more fun; it's a good bet that's the condition of the movie makers when they put this thing together.
I completely disagree with the previous reviewer: this movie has amusing moments but hardly a laugh riot. (unless you really think sipping from a septic tank and heads exploding in a vice are a laugh riot) In fact, the only reasons I gave this a 2 instead of a 1 are because a.) two of the actors are decent b.)the soundtrack is above average with some tuneful pop songs thrown in for contrast and c.)the monster truck is pretty terrifying.<br /><br />Other than that, this is a movie with some intermittent, creepy or interesting ideas which are overwhelmed by unrelenting crassness, crudity and vileness. The former best friend character is one of the most annoying I've ever seen and the small grace that the hitchhiker character had disappears in yet another contrived twist ending that makes little to no sense at all.<br /><br />A waste of the lead actor who shows some nervous charm and the aforementioned actress portraying the hitchhiking character...
I would like to know who conned the producers of this movie to pay for its production - That persion is a genius of sorts. This movie somehow held my attention for about two thirds of it until I realized that it was going nowhere fast. I think the music managed to make it seem like something was going on, but nothing really was. It was not scary. The dialog was poorly written. The first 90 minutes should have been covered in about 15 minutes. This would have been a moderately acceptable Twilight Zone or Outer Limits episode.<br /><br />At this point I'm just mad that I wasted all that time. That's a couple hours that I will never get back.<br /><br />I hope these comments save someone from wasting their evening. Take a nap or hit the gym instead. Or if you want to be scared, turn on a cable news channel.
Last night, I am sitting in my TV room, beer in hand, bowl of pretzels on the TV tray & I decide to put the movie "Monster Man" into my trusty VCR. Expecting a fun-filled, gory, crash & bash cheesefest of a movie. What do I get instead? One of THE most silly, stupid, unfrightening & predictable films I have ever had the displeasure of sitting through. And what's even worse, all during the(& I use this next phrase loosely) "sex scene" the girl keeps all her clothes on! I'll make this summary short & sweet: mix "Dude Where's My Car" (about a good 1/2 of the film) with a very watered down "Hitcher", add a redneck version of the antagonist from "I Madman" as the primary villain & finally some incoherent black magic mumbo jumbo & you'll kind of get a clue how rotten this movie is. It's also utterly predictable throughout. The only notable factor to this buddy movie disguised as a "horror film" is that some of the moments between the 2 guys (even though the "hero" is one MAJOR annoying geek & the other is a Jack Black clone) are kind of funny (just mediocre funny i.e..like most of SNL skits). Other than that, "Monster Man" is a monster mess! 3/10 (This one I'll be handing out at Halloween time-just hope after the person views it I don't get my house egged or worse)
Heard some good remarks about this film as being very gory and frightning, but it's neither. Obviously the screenwriter wanted to do a scary horror film but at the same time inject some teenage comedy for the young target audience. Scares and comedy seldomly result in good films, the same goes for MONSTER MAN.<br /><br />Not really funny, nor scary or overly enjoyable on ANY other level.<br /><br />Aproaching 39 years of age I've seen my share of horror movies. I have seen good ones and terrible ones, but the crop of films released these days are so frighteningly mediocre it bores me to watch 'em. The acceptance these days for bad films like this is what really annoys me. Let's face it, they produced a lot of crap in the 70's, 80's and 90's but they were regarded as such then as well. Today they're regarded as "good entertainment". - Bollocks!
Wow, where do I begin? After suffering through this wretched $1.00 rental (thanks a LOT, Family Video) I just had to make a few comments. I did not bother to write down the names of the 3 actors in the film, but hopefully you will know who I am talking about.<br /><br />A monster truck terrorizes the countryside and chases two college-aged buddies to their doom. They encounter a hot girl wearing slutty clothes. I mean, this just sounds fantastic in theory. I was laughing hysterically at the DVD box while I walked it up to the girl behind the counter at the video store.<br /><br />Acting: the hot girl, played by Aimee Whatever, is visibly laughing through many scenes where she is supposed to be scared. The other two major actors in the film, the fat prankster and the vanilla straight-guy are both terrible. The fat guy thinks he's Jack Black. He's not. The other actor, our hero, over-emotes and misses all his cues and comes across as some generic character you might see in a made-for-Nickelodeon movie about skateboarding in the early 90's. Look: I don't expect great performances in movies like these, but at least the actors can make an effort to not be annoying. You can be an incompetent actor but still be agreeable (i.e. John Wayne). At least that Aimee gal is attractive.<br /><br />Script: Holy ****, who thought this dialogue was funny? I wouldn't have the nerve to play this out in front of my grade school drama class, much less pitch it as a film script. Unfathomably bad. More on this later.<br /><br />Production: OK, this is the one place where the film definitely succeeds. Production quality is amazingly high. The look of the film is very good. Apparently the only talented person who worked on the movie was the director of photography.<br /><br />OK, here are my biggest gripes: 1) The guy driving the car never drives faster than 25 miles an hour.<br /><br />2) The guy driving the car is well out into the country before he realizes there is a fat man in a mask in his back seat. He is supposedly meticulous about recording gas mileage and keeping his antique car in good condition but he does not notice a 300lb Jack Black impersonator in the back? Come on.<br /><br />4) Characters never change their clothes. There are two hotel scenes. Presumably, showers are available to our characters yet over the 3 days this movie takes place, none of the characters bothers to change their clothes.<br /><br />5) Comedy. Lighthearted, slapstick comedy does not mix with horror. Period. You can't have our characters running away from a monster truck one second and the next second have them verbally jousting one another with some dopey light/comedy music playing. This kind of pacing virtually ruins any tension in the movie. Movies like Evil Dead 2 which mix comedy and horror understand that tension can be loosened yet never completely eliminated with humor. Monster Man doesn't get it.<br /><br />I'm irritated that what could have been a VERY funny horror movie was ruined by a director who thought he was a lot more clever than he really was. Oh well.
Now don't get me wrong I love bad movies... no I adore bad movies, Troll 2.... ouch painful, Manos The Hands of Fate... just watch Torgo go, Guru the Mad Monk.. is that traffic noise in the medieval background? OK so that's clear, but this is one of those films that was quite obviously trying to be something better, but didn't make it. Why not? Well it would be easy to blame the plot, but heh we've seen worse, there weren't too many holes and heh I know there's not a lot of originality in it but then that needn't kill a film. The effects aren't bad (if you completely ignore the last scene), the monster is OK, the truck quite menacing so where did it go wrong? Well I'd love to blame it on the 'Chris Moyles' look-a-like Harley... so I will! Comedy and horror are difficult to mix well, bad comedy and horror even worse and there's the problem. I loathed this guy from the moment he stuck his head up (literally), the continual bating of the overly meek Adam becomes annoying, so annoying that you lose belief that the mildest of people wouldn't react by pushing him out of the moving car door... and I thought it was the monster bits that the director was meant to have trouble convincing us of. Why are bad movies fun? Well you have great fun poking holes in them, laughing at the script, all the howlers etc. This film doesn't make the coveted category of 'Worst Movies' because its just bad due to being annoying nuff said. Don't bother, go watch anything else and you'll be a better person for it... I promise! (Fade to chants of Torgo Torgo Torgo)
What an absolute joke of a movie. The case for this film would have you believe it is Duel meets Jeepers Creepers meets Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Three good films in their own right and you would think, using their blueprint, MM couldn't go far wrong. Well that's what I thought, and I was very, very mistaken! <br /><br />We follow two college students as they travel miles across the desert to reach a wedding. They pick up a girl (no she doesn't get her clothes off), then they get chased by a Leatherface rip-off in a Monster Truck, whom they aptly name F**kface (AKA Monster Man).<br /><br />The Monster Truck I will admit is a very cool vehicle, but the less than suspenseful chase scenes ruin it's potential.<br /><br />So MM decides he's got a bit of a grudge against these guys and chases them for a bit, they loose him for a while and stop at a bar full of amputees, then they go to a motel where lead character Adam sleeps with hitch-hiker Sarah (though they both wear underwear!). Then they are caught by MM, taken to his home where they escape death and try to kill MM, but fail, hence the set-up for the sequel. Apart from a minor 'twist', that's it.<br /><br />If you can get past the first 2 minutes – where Adam's friend Harley pops up from hiding in the back of Adam's car to try to scare him, with no explanation as to how Harley even got there, how long ago or how Adam even failed to realise – without thinking you hate it already, then you may just enjoy this film.<br /><br />Monster Man has very poor cinematography and direction which is immediately off-putting. This is the kind of movie that you'll be able to pick up as one of those films in a box set of 20 horror movies that you've never heard of.<br /><br />What is so irritating is Blockbuster stock so many of these poor quality films that are shot on digital by some amateur film students, and that's exactly what MM is (though IMDb states this particular director was born in 1961).<br /><br />The acting throughout this film is atrocious. The script, which the writer obviously considered to be funny, is irritating and childish. You get the impression only one draft was written before they started shooting. In fact, the script is do dire a lot of the film seems improvised, full of those boring, un-entertaining conversations that are only funny or important to the actual people involved. Imagine you filmed yourself and your buddies having a conversation, sure, points are funny – TO YOU, but mostly it's trash. That's what the script for MM is like.<br /><br />Don't watch it for the gore either – it's fairly minimal and there are much better gory films out there (Bad Taste, Evil Dead et al…) <br /><br />Jeepers Creepers 1 & 2, even with their cheesiness and plot holes, are far superior to this film. Compare the intro of Jeepers Creepers to the intro of Monster Man and you'll see what I mean.
Okay, so when a friend of mine told me he was supposed to direct MM2 and MM3, I thought, heck, I got to check out Monster Man and see what its like, maybe I can get a part in it, but when I popped it into my DVD player and and tried to choke down the first 45 minutes of nothing but bad, bad I mean horribly annoying bad comedy from that fat ass thinking he's funny, not to mention how looooong the director spent on the pointless desert road trip, I cam to the conclusion that these guys didn't have a clue of what they were doing and missed the boat by a long shot. The story had potential to be somewhat different than the usual BS you see on the Blockbuster/Hollywood Video shelf put out by Lions gate these days, but they surely messed this one up. Why put so much time and effort in shooting annoying bad acting and bad jokes, why not shorten the road trip and put more of the plot in the movie. Myabe the writing was so bad that they had to cut out a lot of the movie or maybe the director didn't shoot enough of the horror and gore, that they had to find filler to make the usual 84 minutes???? All in all, and I'm being easy here, maybe because a friend of mine is the bald redneck in the bar scene that gets his skull crushed when chasing the three leads out into the street, I will give it at least 1 star for trying, and the gore/kill scenes weren't that bad, again, they tried. Too bad, Lions Gate could have created a cool franchise from this idea, but failed. I don't recommend paying to rent it, maybe you can find a cut down version where the movie starts from the hitch hiker scene. CRAP!
This "space snippet" was kind of dumb. I guess it was supposed to be a shocker unexpected ending, but IMHO it was just a huge letdown. Joseph Campanella and the rest of the earthbound actors do a great job in this one; their performances are not done justice with such a silly ending though. How this ending could ever have made it through any kind of review by the producers is beyond me. The other comment on here is not correct, the tongue in cheek vignettes only came in during the second season, this thing was supposed to be taken seriously! The producers and writers could have been a little more creative with the ending to do the rest of the episode justice.
Although I could sum this pathetic episode of Night gallery in two words, those two words being "horse manure," I am obligated to write a minimum of ten lines. This is a very sophomoric episode, not worthy of the standards of Rod Serling, but rather an inept attempt at some sort of ironic black comedy. The premise of giant rodents inhabiting the moon, a lifeless orb to be sure, is totally ridiculous, as is the construction of a giant mousetrap. I suppose we are to also assume that the moon is made of green cheese and that is how these absurd creatures survive. I can only assume that this episode was presented as a filler to supplant the other two episodes first aired on that date. All in all, a waste of film, actors and air time.
This episode had potential. The basic premise of a woman living next door to an empty apartment (but a phone that constantly rings) is somewhat interesting. And when she explores the noise, there is genuine tension and fear. But stupid script writing ruins any promise the episode had.<br /><br />First of all, the woman readily admits to seeing things that would send most of us running in the other direction (e.g. "It's funny that the door slammed shut even though there is no wind;" "This door has serious damage to it that wasn't here a minute ago;" "The door opened by itself, without me touching it;" etc.). Given these supernatural phenomena, plus the fact that a woman committed suicide in the room, wouldn't she take some precaution before entering it? Maybe she could investigate in the day time. Or maybe she could investigate the apartment with somebody else. Or maybe she could TURN ON THE LIGHTS!!! Also, while in the haunted apartment, she decides to make numerous phone calls to the operator and gets into an argument over who has the power to disconnect the phone, and then they begin discussing the details of the suicide. JUST UNPLUG THE PHONE! The phone company doesn't need to be involved. Walk up to the phone and unplug it. Case closed.<br /><br />Finally, showing the phone scamper across the floor like it's alive was just comical. If the director wanted the woman to get strangled by the phone card, he could've done it in a way that didn't look cartoony. Brave Little Toaster anyone?
The poet Carne disappears (didn´t he disappeared with Prévert?) and is followed by the judge Carne. The director wants to give his own vision of a youth that he doesn´t understand and he doesn´t want to. It´s a long way from the wonderful "Les enfants du paradis"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Having already seen the original "Jack Frost", I never thought that "Jack Frost 2" would be as absurd as it is. Boy was I wrong! Then again, A-PIX movies have a way of showing unbelievably bad material, even worse than you might expect. I believe this is the first A-PIX sequel, and it may be an indication of what to expect in the future: more A-PIX sequels.<br /><br />It's hard to watch this without laughing, especially during the later parts of the movie in which Jack Frost's offspring (which are essentially snowballs with eyes, arms, a mouth and sharp teeth) start killing people with the typical comedic dialogue and silly voices to go with it. They are shown both as puppets (with a stick underneath to move them) and as computer animation, which I have to say looks very cheesy. The computer animation surprised me, as the first "Jack Frost" had no such effects.<br /><br />I'd strongly recommend that you see the original "Jack Frost" before seeing this one (both of which it would be preferable to watch with a group of friends) to get the full amusement out of it, and because it would make more sense ("sense" being a relative term).<br /><br />Now only if there was "Uncle Sam 2"...
Ill-conceived sequel(..the absurd idea of having the killer snowman on the rampage at an island resort where there is no snow or cold weather)brings back the spirit of the psychopath, returning thanks to a scientific experiment providing foreign elements which reintroduce life to his molecules(..it's the best I could do to explain this preposterous concept).<br /><br />I could go into depth about how he winds up at the island in order to slay numerous tourists, but I simply find no reason to bother because it'd all be so exhausting. Anyway, the filmmakers think it wise to kill off the pretty girls not ten minutes after their arrival(..I mean seriously, why worry with even introducing them to us if we can't enjoy our eye candy no longer that this?!).<br /><br />The "snow anvil" murder scene takes the cake. Ice icicles protrude from the beach's sand so that a victim can fall on them. Oh, and another girl is stabbed with a pair of weenie tongs.<br /><br />Look I get what's coming to me when I sit down to watch a killer snowman movie..such a ridiculous supernatural slasher will either tickle your funnybone("Oh, it's such a wonderfully cheesy horror movie!")or have you pondering why the hell you're wasting time with such nonsense. Jack Frost has the power to freeze water(..then how were they able to melt him in the first film?)and causes the island resort to snow. One sequence has Jack freezing pool water, encasing a swimming model under the sheet, result being her drowning with nowhere to escape.Oh, there's also a recreation of the "tongue stuck to the icy pole" bit from The Christmas Story("Cowatonga dude!").<br /><br />I gotta hand it to the cast, though..they're real troopers for trying to make this wretched material entertaining. Christopher Allport(..perhaps unwisely)returns as Sam, to face his old nemesis, as does Eileen Seeley, as his wife. The attempts at tongue-in-cheek humor(..for me, at least) fell flat, but the cast soldiers onward trying to make the most of a very difficult situation, with spirited performances they do their best to rise above the pitiful premise and woeful dialogue.<br /><br />A development occurs which increases the danger towards those still around to face off with Jack, his genetically altered water molecules, thanks to the introduced foreign elements, allow him to withstand coolant/anti-freeze, and, even worse, he now can reproduce..through indigestion, Jack hacks up what appear to be snowballs which hatch to reveal little snowballs with black eyes, mouth and sharp teeth! The killer snowman costume and little snowball puppets introduced later in the film might produce belly-laughs if you are in the mood for such shenanigans, but I personally found this junk rather hokey(..that's the purpose behind it, I suppose, cheap guffaws from those willing to embrace this)and unbearable.The snowball offspring is an obvious homage to Gremlins where we get a bar scene where the little bastards are celebrating in number over terrorizing victims at the resort. The weapon against them..bananas! It's explained that when Jack went to kill Sam in the first film, both fell in a truck bed full of anti-freeze(..an icicle emerging from Jack's belly was penetrating Sam's chest when he pushed them out a window into the truck bed, and I guess in their being "being linked" by the icicle, Jack inherited Sam's banana allergy, or so this is what we are led to believe!)and in doing so both "merged" in a sense.<br /><br />Phew, such a film as this defies simple explanation. It's a film with effects and plot so terrible, one might find the presentation enjoyable because of it's many failings.
Yes, in this movie you are treated to multiple little snowmen on the attack in apparently a very warm climate so yes this movie is definitely not to be taken seriously. It is in fact a much worse movie than the original as at least with that one the whole production looked like it cost more than a couple of bucks and a video camera to make. It has its funny moments, but really playing off the cheapness of your movie and making that be your intended laughs is kind of weak film making if you ask me. You can not come up with a good story, your effects are going to really be bad, hey let us just make the movie look as bad as possible with horrible one liners and we have our movie. The first one at least had a somewhat credible story as the snowman in that one attacked during the winter and not what amounts to a resort. It also had better effects too, this one is just a step or two ahead of "Hobgoblins" as far as the monsters are concerned and you really want to be more than a step a two above a bunch of hand puppets. Still, it makes up for all of this with a super ending that depicts a great sea vessel being taken out by the mighty frost. Actually, I am just kidding, but really it was the funniest part of the movie.
this movie sucks. did anyone notice that the entire movie was shot in like 2 rooms. there are NEVER any outside shots and if there are its obviously film taken from somewhere else. this movie blows hard, painful to sit through too. stay far away.
-may contain spoilers-<br /><br />Clearly, who ever made this film must have had a lot of connections. I just can't see it any other way. What really surprises me is no one used the name Allen Smithee, and more surprising, everyone involved didn't use this name.<br /><br />Anyhow, where to begin. The bad dialogue, the crummy costumes, the sorry looking film stock, the unintentional comedy, the over-the-top characters, and more inconsistencies than George W. Bush's college career. I don't know what was funnier, the guy losing his arm because of a snowball, or the slow motion scene where all the baby Jack Frosts' were getting killed. Also, one of the great lines of all time was uttered in this film. "How do we know it's him?" Like there's another mutant snowman who can talk and kill people with snowballs! A great camp film, but a very bad film overall.
Jack Frost 2 was a horrible, terrible, sadly pathetic excuse for a sequal to a great movie. The original, was a low budget comedy horror film about a murdered who was turned into a snowman after an accident with some toxic waste. And the snowman went around murdering people, and avoiding blow dryers like the plague. This, however, was a far cry from the quality of the original. It seems like this even had a lower-budget because for some reason, after an hour into this film, I still hadn't seen the snowman. Some revenge he's getting if he's always in the form of Ice cubes with a cheesy voice-over and a little shake of the cooler he rests in to give animation to the character. Disappointing to no belief, even for a fan of bad cinema.
Alright, we start in the office of a shrink, and apparently not a very good one. The main hero from the first Jack Frost is in the shrinks office blurting out random rhymes about Jack Frost. Gee, alright my brother is yelling ''Turn it off!''. Anyway, back to the crappy movie.<br /><br />The shrink has his speaker phone on and is letting his secretary and her friends listen in on this heroic insane sheriff. I suppose he is supposed to be the hero from the first movie, but he looks nothing like him!. Yadda yadda yadda, they laugh at the poor sheriff, yadda yadda. Now some people are digging up the anti-frozed snowman, yadda yadda, now we're in a lab with some type of doctor people.. I don't quite see how this has to do anything, but their poking the anti-freeze/Evil killer mutant snowman with needles, heating it, shocking it, adding strange and bizarre chemicals to it, the whole nine yards. Nothing. Alright, they give up and leave it in a fish tank. One of the doctors leaves his coffee on the top of the tank. The janitor walks in, cleans stuff, bumps the fishtank and the coffee spills the tank which makes Jack alive.<br /><br />Behold the power of mocha! Now somehow he is in..uh.. i believe the Bahamas... but it looked more like Hawaii.. But it couldn't be Hawaii! Unless they spent all of their budget on the dang air plane tickets. Bah.. I wont spoil the rest of this rotten movie, so you'll have to rent it and watch it your self... Er... i wouldn't suggest doing so though.... Sheesh..
In all, it took me three attempts to get through this movie. Although not total trash, I've found a number of things to be more useful to dedicate my time to, such as taking off my fingernails with sandpaper.<br /><br />The actors involved have to feel about the same as people who star in herpes medication commercials do; people won't really pay to see either, the notoriety you earn won't be the best for you personally, but at least the commercials get air time.<br /><br />The first one was bad, but this gave the word bad a whole new definition, but it does have one good feature: if your kids bug you about letting them watch R-rated movies before you want them to, tie them down and pop this little gem in. Watch the whining stop and the tears begin. ;)
If you like bad movies (and you must to watch this one) here's a good one. Not quite as funny as the first, but much lower quality. A must-see for fans of Jack Frost as well as anyone up for a good laugh at the writing.
Please, If you're thinking about renting this movie, don't. If you're thinking of watching a couple of downloaded clips, don't. If I had my way, nobody would even have to read this summary.<br /><br />The acting, despite being one fo the high points of the movie was still pathetic. The director was probaly a sadist. The witty one liners were something you'd expect from a room of highly paid anti-social 7 year olds that eat paint-chips for breakfast.<br /><br />The problem with this movie, is that it tries to be a movie like "Evil Dead 2"(do not under any circumstances associate these 2 movies) in that it's so bad it's funny. But it also tries to be funny at the same time, and fails so overwhelmingly to do so, that your sense of humor is left too crippled to do anything but set off your gag reflex in an attmept to save itself.<br /><br />I could go on for much much more, detailing just how awful it really was, but I think it would strip me of my will to live just to continue to think about it. If you need me, I'll be off trying to boil myself so that I might feel clean again...
Horrible movie. This movie beat out revenge of the living zombies for the WORST movie I have ever suffered through. What the !@$% were the morons who made this film thinking. Was it supposed to be scary. Because man let me tall you it wasn't. It was so dumb it wasn't funny. We all know that tropical islands are the natural hunting grounds for killer snowmen. And those stupid baby snowballs. Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid. Fake snow and lousy actors. OH and frost looks nothing like he does on the box. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME. REnt it and destroy it.
Why did I have to go out and buy (yes buy!) JACK FROST 2: REVENGE OF THE MUTANT KILLER SNOWMAN??? Maybe it was a burst of temporary mental derangement? But I'm guessing it's because I kind of enjoyed the first JACK FROST. It was a silly but funny horror-comedy which had some okay effects by Screaming Mad George. That and the fact that on the back-cover of the sequel there was this nice picture of this guy impaled by this giant icicle (coming out of his mouth with a lot of blood and all). So I thought: if it's as idiotic as the first and has some nice splatter/gore in it, it should be fun, right? Well, I was so dead wrong! <br /><br />Let me first say that the movie deserves some credit for having an immensely insane and retarded plot. I mean, a mutant killer snowman on a tropical island that spawns mutant killer baby snowballs which can only be killed or harmed by bananas??? As much as I love the premise, I really hated the movie. First of all: while the first JACK FROST looked like an actual movie (seemingly being shot on real film and all), this sequel has the look and feel of a third-rate soap-opera. It has this way too slick shot-on-video look. The lighting is just plain awful (bright white spots for the day look, and stupid colors like blue and green at night). The acting... well don't even go there. The dialogues range from stiff to extremely senile (that Jamaican man was just moronic, saying "man" after every sentence). And when it comes to the voice of the killer snowman, all I could think of was a seventh-rate Chucky from CHILD'S PLAY spewing dumb and supposedly witty one-liners before he kills someone.<br /><br />The best joke was were one guy asks "Why are you talking to your watch?". And the best scene was undoubtedly the one with that beautiful Asian chick popping up out of nowhere and taking a swim in the pool totally naked (thank god for that!). Oh, yeah, and that little scene over the end-credits with those two Japanese dudes on a miniature ship being badly dubbed had me laughing too. But the worst thing about this movie was: Where was the gore and splatter action everyone is talking about? There were plenty of occasions to show some decent gory killings. A lot of people were killed off in original ways here, but all off-screen. Like I've read in many other comments, there were indeed nice set-ups to a head explosion, a crushed body, eyes being poked out, tongue ripped out,... but on the crucial moments the editor cuts away to some blood splatters on the floor or nothing at all. That frontal shot of that British guy being impaled (from the back-cover of the DVD) wasn't even in the movie. I only saw that particular killing filmed from the back (meaning I didn't see sh!t!). I was waiting throughout the whole movie for that to happen, and then I get to see nothing?!?! What a let-down! Could it be that I saw a cut version of the movie? That would be a shame, 'cause only a decent amount of splatter-fun could have saved this movie if you ask me. Seeing a lot of killer snowballs reduced to bloody pulp just didn't cut it for me. Speaking of those snowballs: they were done very poorly. They made MUNCHIES look like state-of-the-art 'animatronics'. But I guess that was the whole point of it. At some point, the special effects crew even turned to some laughably bad CGI. Boy, you really have to see it to believe it. Best is to not see it, actually, 'cause this flick is just too bad (okay, I did laugh with it, for it kept getting worse and worse). Just stick with the first JACK FROST (1996) and you'll be okay (just bare in mind that it's a pretty silly horror-comedy but fun in it's own right).<br /><br />It's funny, but writer/director Michael Cooney somehow must have realized that he was a pretty bad director after JACK FROST 2, and then focused on writing. Turns out he then wrote two pretty good thriller screenplays for THE I INSIDE (starring Ryan Phillippe) and IDENTITY (starring John Cusack). So the man seems to have some talent after all.<br /><br />Now it would be far too easy to give JACK FROST 2 the lowest rating possible. So I say one point for that naked Asian babe doing the skinny dipping and one point for those completely retarded snowball babies. Way to go Mr. Cooney!
This is the worst film I have ever seen, bar none. From the flimsy-looking, poorly lit sets, to the laughable acting, to the infantile plot and shoddy, drawn-out action sequences, this film is so bad, its hilarious. For about ten minutes. After which you will be reaching for the remote or the power socket to end this film non-experience. Although it was obviously made with the entire production and acting staff's collective tongue rammed in cheek (please God), I found Jack Frost 2 so dreadful as to be unwatchable for more than a quarter of an hour. If you have not had enough of it after this time, you must be indulging in drug abuse.
Jack Frost 2 is out of the question, I'm actually surprised people are allowed to make these sort of movies.<br /><br />As Sam and his wife take to the Tropicana for a relaxing Christmas, Jack returns to kill off the fun and take on a revenge with inbreeding...<br /><br />Don't take a swip at this film at all, most people say its a laugh with your mates, but frankily its a waste of time. If the people who made this film can get a job by doing what they do, they can at least take the time and effort to write up a better story, especially the cheesy character names.
Jack Frost 2. THE worst "horror film" I have ever seen. Why? 1)The premise is WELL beyond ridiculous 2) The damn thing doesn't even have legs to move on! 3) It escapes AFTER being completely submerged in Anti-Freeze (first film) 4) Get this...It travels all the way across an ocean of SALT WATER to a TROPICAL island to get revenge on the sheriff that did him in the first film. 5) "Killer Snowballs". I have yet to be drunk enough to see "Ginger Dead Man" so as of the writing of this, Jack Frost 2 hold the distinction of being THE stupidest "horror" film ever. Even Surpassing the inaneness of it's predecessor (if you can believe that!).
I remember when I first heard about Jack Frost. I was in Video Ezy at Miranda with my family on a monthly video hiring tradition. It was at this time that I worked up the courage to venture over towards the horror section of the store. Browsing the various titles, I finally came across Jack Frost. The cover was enough to convince me that the film was beyond my viewing pleasures. Years later the film disappeared, only to be replaced with the inevitable yet unnecessary sequel. I once again ventured to the horror section and picked up the case only to come to one conclusion: the film would be scary… but not intentionally.<br /><br />Jack Frost 2: Revenge Of The Killer Mutant Snowman (quite a title) follows off where it's predecessor left it. Sheriff Sam is seeking counseling after his ordeals and Jack is now in the form of anti-freeze. To escape his past, Sam and his wife head to an island hotel where he is in the company of a wide variety of slasher film stereotypes including busty female models, thick headed sports jocks and Caribbean staff. However, Jack is released from his liquid grave and is back to his icy methods. He heads over to the island and proceeds to kill anyone that would prove to have an awesome death. Only Sam can stop him.<br /><br />Let me just say that this is a straight-to-video film so it's bound to be bad. But this is terrible even in the eyes of other over the top films. The camera work is poor, using a camera that would make a soap opera look majestic. Half the actors look like they've come out of a porn shoot and the other half look like they've come out of a retirement home, but in actual fact they've actually come out of an asylum. There is an extensive use of special effects used in the film which tends to alternate between bland puppetry and CGI that can be bettered by an infant, and the death scenes are mostly off screen showing us little of what has happened to the hapless, yet deserving, victims. But the film is most memorable for it's killer one liners such as "There's something that needs a little Christmas stuffing" and "I know pronounce you officially f***ing dead!" Ultimately the whole purpose behind a film like this is to make a popcorn flick for those Friday nights of boredom and even it fails at that. To make a sequel to a film that was a poor slasher with a concept that a child would find unbelievable must've taken some nerves of steel… or a total frontal lobotomy. To director Michael Cooney… thanks for wasting my time. To everyone else… avoid like arsenic.
Hello it is I Derrick Cannon and I welcome you to the first ever Cannonite review show. My movie for this week was debatable, what route what movie, what excellent four star epic would I choose, guess what I decided to pull a one eighty and go the other route, I've decided to review a movie so atrocious that it totally killed what could have been a very unique concept. The movie I will review today is Jack Frost Two revenge of the mutant killer snowman. The Stars in this movie include Christopher Allport as Sam Tiller, Eileen Seeley as Anne Tiller, Marsha Clark as Marla David Allen Brooks as Agent Manners, Sean Patrick Murphy as Captain Fun, Ray Cooney as the Colonel and Scott MacDonald as the killer snowman himself Jack Frost.<br /><br />It's hard to believe that this movie was in the same series that gave us the incredibly funny Jack Frost(loved the carrot scene),but it's even harder to believe that this is the exact same cast. The movie was ruined for me as soon as they arrived on the island and Captain Fun was introduced. What was the point of his character and how did he fit into a horror movie?The only possible reason I could see was that they wanted to give us a character that was total killer snowman fodder. Sam Tiler seemed more paranoid then he did in the original, his babbling about anti freeze was one of the most pathetic display I had seen in a movie. His wife however was one of the few bright spots. She played her role as the main woman to a hilt. She was a voice of reason in film of pure idiocy. The scene where she figures out how to kill the snowmen was one of the most anticipated parts of the movie. Ray MacDonald once again did a great job as Jack Frost despite what he was given. If it wasn't for such weak characters he could have been immortalized like Chucky,Freddy and Jason. Laugh if you must but when it comes down to it Jack Frost had spunk, he had humor, and most importantly he had an undoubtable vicious streak.<br /><br />This movie could have been so much more, it could have been a continuation of a great franchise, instead any plans to make a Jack Frost three have been canceled.<br /><br />This movie gets a two out of ten for me, and it's lucky that it even gets a one.
Jack Frost returns with an army of Styrofoam balls that can only be foiled by being shot with super-soakers loaded with margaritas. How's that for a plot? The film hinges on such a ridiculous premise that it barely raises an eyebrow when characters are killed with BBQ tongs and are impaled by carrots. You might even say the whole movie is skating on thin ice (ba-boom-tish).<br /><br />Admittedly, there are some fantastic one-liners including a remark about the Murderous Coconut Shark.<br /><br />Fair enough times are hard, but that does not excuse the willingness of the actors to take part in such utter tripe.<br /><br />For those fans hoping to see Jack Frost, be prepared to accept him as merely a phallic carrot creeping up the beach with corny voice-over commentary.
Talk about rubbish! I can't think of one good thing in this movie. The screenplay was poor, the acting was terrible and the effects, well there were no effects. I can't believe the writer of this movie did Identity, everything in this movie made me sick to start to finish.<br /><br />The front cover of the video box shows a showman with shark like teeth and scary eyes. I looks like a scary villain, but like the old saying "never judge a book by it's cover", the whole villain looked like a cardboard cut out. One part in the film a girl gets killed by a salad tongs, terrible. The setting was bad enough, like they could of set the whole thing in Lapland but no, a tropical island instead.<br /><br />I took this movie as a spoof, which I think they wanted it to be but the only thing that made me laugh in a bad way was the tacky effects. You can argue that I haven't watched the first one, but seeing this I would be safe if I wouldn't attempted it.<br /><br />The biggest joke in this movie is the effects, the snowballs looked like they were home made, and that carrot was a complete embarrassment. If I would of guess the budget of this movie would of probably be between 8 to 9 pounds fifty. The producer in a last minute panic must of grabbed the actors for the street gave them the script told them they have 6 minutes to practise these lines and shoot on a island.<br /><br />Lastly the acting in the film was painful, it was like the actors forgot their ordinary lines and made them up the way through.<br /><br />In conclusion I give this film: 0 stars out of 5
Below average blaxpoitation action / melodrama in which the lovely Ms. Grier plays a private eye who comes to the aid of her father (Rudy Challenger) and his partner (Austin Stoker of the original "Assault on Precinct 13") whose loan business is being threatened.<br /><br />I'll be frank - I agree with the few other user comments for this movie. "Sheba, Baby" has a less than satisfying script, direction that isn't particularly distinguished, action scenes that are moderately entertaining at best, and one of Ms. Grier's more nondescript supporting casts (although there's an important supporting role for D'Urville Martin, also a familiar name in blaxpoitation). I get the feeling that this routine movie may have been put together quickly merely to cash in on her then enormous popularity.<br /><br />It sure was cool seeing Stoker again, although Ms. Grier doesn't have as good a role - or dialog - as she has had in other films, although she is doing what she does best, and that's playing a sassy, sexy sister on a mission of vengeance.<br /><br />Non-stop soul / funk soundtrack is enjoyable, at the very least.<br /><br />Mostly recommended to those who wish to see everything in the Pam Grier film repertoire.<br /><br />4/10
Sheba Shayne (Pam Grier) receives a telegram informing her that her father may be in trouble. Sheba, a private investigator and former cop, goes to her father's aid. But someone will stop at nothing to run her father out of business. An attempt to show their muscle goes awry and Sheba's father is gunned down in cold blood. These guys have messed with the wrong woman.<br /><br />If I had to describe Sheba Baby, the best I can come up with is Pam Grier Lite with some really bad acting. For a Pam Grier film, Sheba Baby is incredibly tame. It's nowhere near as violent as some of her earlier films. Gone are the over-the-top images of Pam placing a small revolver or razor blades in her afro. Pilot (D'Urville Martin) and his crew can't hold a candle to some of the real villains Pam faced in her previous movies. It's strictly by-the-numbers and almost has a made-for-TV feel. As for the bad acting, the baddies that Pam faces off with are as unnatural sounding in their delivery as I've seen. As a result, characters like Pilot don't come across as threatening as they should or need to for the movie to work.<br /><br />That's not to say there aren't moments or elements in Sheba Baby that I didn't enjoy (Pam in a wetsuit and Pam brandishing a spear gun), it's just that when compared with Pam's other films like Coffy, Foxy Brown, and even Friday Foster that the movie fails.<br /><br />One final observation - maybe I'm just more sensitive to these things post-9/11, but I don't remember a time, even in the security lax 70s, when you could take a suitcase full of guns on an airplane. When Sheba flies to her father's aid, she's got an arsenal packed in her luggage!
When Pam Grier made COFFY in 1973, it was an exciting though flawed film. The plot was gritty and satisfying--even if the acting was often amateurish. It was so successful that American International Pictures decided to rehash the formula the following year with FOXY BROWN--not a bad film but certainly almost like "COFFY II". Now, only a year later, the studio had apparently given up on creating anything new for Ms. Grier, as SHEBA, BABY was essentially the same plot from COFFY and FOXY BROWN yet again. Because the idea was so recycled and because the acting and acting are so tired and low-energy, it's really scraping the bottom of the Blaxploitation barrel.<br /><br />Exactly like these other films, SHEBA, BABY begins with some local Black mobsters pressuring and eventually killing someone Pam Grier loves. In the past, it had been drug dealers and pimps, now it was mobsters trying to run all the loan companies and pawn shops out of town so they can corner the market. And, like the other films, Pam is a one-woman hit squad--dispensing justice and a good butt whoopin'. And, like the other films, there is a "cat fight" between Pam and a White lady right in front of "Mr. Big". And, like the other films, Mr. Big is a White guy pulling all the strings. And, like the other films, she is captured by Mr. Big. And, like the other films, he DOESN'T immediately kill her but gives her ample opportunity to escape (here, leaving a knife conveniently lying around). And, like the other films, she eventually gets free and kills his jive-@$$.<br /><br />While this formula did seem interesting in 1973, by this film it was frankly a predictable bore. Even if you hadn't seen the other films, it still was bad because the action was so slow--the punching and kicking seemed so slow and staged. The same could be said for the gun play. In one scene, four guys with machine guns, an AR-15 and shotguns attack. Pam responds by opening fire with a .357 revolver and killing 3 of the 4 and getting the other to surrender!!! Even if she's a good shot, she was rather slow and the guys just seemed to wait until she killed them!!! Plus, even a world champion shooter or Rambo couldn't have succeeded with such one-sided odds--after all, these guys had very impressive weapons and they were already pointed at her when she "cleverly" whipped out her pistol and easily dispatched these professional hit men!! <br /><br />In addition to slow and lame action scenes compared to any other Blaxpoitation film, the movie has many logical gaps that show the writing was terrible but the studio just didn't care. In one case, her boyfriend, "Williams", knew about the yacht and Nu-tronic at the end of the film but Pam never told him--how did he know about this? In another, the cops approach a boat filled with hoods and the hood immediately open fire. However, the cops had no evidence anything was happening and the crooks began firing with little provocation. And, the crooks had .30 caliber machine guns and other amazingly powerful weapons but in many cases were killed by cops wielding snub-nosed .38s! <br /><br />The bottom line is that this is a great example of "Been there/done that....a WHOLE LOT BETTER". I love Blaxploitation films, but this one is just too dopey and slow to merit watching except by very devoted fans of the genre.
I really tried, but this movie just didn't work for me. The action scenes were dull, the acting was surprisingly poor, and some of these characters were TOO stereotypical to even be funny. Pam Grier tries, but when you have nothing to work with, even her considerable talent cannot prevent a disaster. Even by the standards of this weak genre, this film is pretty bad.
I've seen Foxy Brown, Coffy, Friday Foster, Bucktown, and Black Mama/White Mama...of these this is Pam Grier's worst movie. Poor acting, bad script, boring action scenes...there's just nothing there. Avoid this and rent Friday Foster, Coffy or Foxy Brown instead.
Threadbare horror outing has an innocent teen (Meg Tilly, appealing as always) attempting to get in good with the popular clique at school (despite the fact they seem to hate her outright) and letting herself be subjected to their sorority-like initiation: spending the night in a creepy mausoleum. Despite the complete absence of originality, this low-budget thriller manages to come up with some decent special effects and has several good performances (particularly by Robin Evans, oozing campy viciousness as the leader of the girls). The script isn't razor sharp, but it has enough quirks to make the proceedings somewhat bearable. ** from ****
I had never even heard of ONE DARK NIGHT until someone mentioned it on a horror message board here recently, and reading into it, I gained interest due to Meg Tilly's involvement and recognizing that it was an early gig for Friday THE 13TH VI:JASON LIVES director Tom McLoughlin . Unfortunately, sad to say, it's nothing special. The premise has a familiarity to it:a college girl must survive the night in an old mausoleum until morning in order to join a sorority. That girl is a young Meg Tilly, as Julie, who wishes to prove to her loving, caring boyfriend, Steve(David Mason Daniels)that she can make his cruel, conniving ex-girlfriend, Carol's(Robin Evans)sorority regardless of the tactics she pulls in order to see her fail. Along with Carol's gang is Kitty(Leslie Speights), always with a toothbrush in her mouth, and Leslie(Elizabeth Daily)who doesn't really wish to cause Julie such trouble. While Leslie insists on leaving Julie alone as she remains in the mausoleum, Carol and Kitty plan to torment the poor girl. Meanwhile Steve searches for her while Julie, Carol and Kitty encounter an evil they couldn't possibly imagine..the corpse of a recently diseased "psychic vampire", whose telekinesis was of a dangerously powerful degree, will seek to drain them of their very lifeforce. The only one who can help these girls is the dead man's daughter, Olivia(Melissa Newman)who is equipped with the same psychic power he has.<br /><br />I think what many will find exciting is the unusual evil that threatens the girls in the mausoleum, it's certainly different than what you normally see in the slashers that were out at this time. Like Adam West's character(..he was the cynical husband of Olivia who found the idea of her father's power ridiculous), I had a really hard time adjusting to the tacky plot, and I personally never found anything within the film to get excited about. The mausoleum to me never really was that spooky(..it doesn't really achieve the same kind of eerie quality PHANTASM captured) and the corpses which are used to attack the girls are laughably unconvincing(..there is one great scene where a corpse's face melts away). I have a soft spot for low budget films from this period of time, but I just never really could find a reason to get involved when you have this unsatisfying undead corpse shooting electric bolts from it's eyes causing other bodies to break free from their crypts to obey their master. It's just too silly to take seriously. Carol is your typical blond bitch wishing to punish a nice girl who is dating a former flame. Steve is your typical, squeaky clean all-American boyfriend, handsome and tender, who becomes the hero seeking to save his girl from whatever sinister forces are at play. To make up for the small budget director McLoughlin tries every trick in the book to thrill the audience, using a series of ooga-booga effects such as corpses which pursue young girls, chairs which shake and tremble, doors that slam shut, and objects levitating by themselves. The film obviously has it's fans, and I am glad I had a chance to see it, but I was a bit disappointed that ONE DARK NIGHT wasn't the horror sleeper I hoped for. Adam West has a very small role as the concerned husband hoping his wife will snap out of her depressed state regarding a father who had nothing to do with her. Melissa Newman is the troubled Olivia, recognizing that she must stop her father once and for all or else he'd continue to prey on the living. Donald Hotton is Dockstader, an associate of Olivia's father's who informs her of what he was. I wasn't particularly blown away by Tilly's performance here(..she was basically scared most of the time), but she'd get a chance to prove herself to a greater degree from this point onward. This will undoubtedly be of some value to those who watched it back at that time, for nostalgia purposes it might seduce fans of movies from this era.
When you look at the cover and read stuff about it an entirely different type of movie comes to mind than what you get here. Then again maybe I read the summary for the other movie called "Mausolem" instead as there were two movies of this title released about the same time with both featuring plots that had key elements in common. However, reading stuff about that movie here I know I saw this one and not that one and that movie is even less what one would imagine a movie with that title would be about. I will be honest, I expect more of a zombie type picture and you get that in this movie to some degree. However, there is more stuff involving the occult and strange powers as the opening scene of the people being taken away by the coroner at the beginning of the film will attest to. The movie also has the old theme of kids going somewhere they do not belong to have some crazy party, in this case it is in fact a mausoleum. The other movie I do not think really has that key feature playing that prominent role in the movie and I see the score for this one is higher too, still it was just not the movie I was expecting.
I received a copy of this film from a friend for my 21st birthday, which he had obviously picked up for 99p from a bargain video bin.<br /><br />Never have I been so frustrated when watching a film - it was tedious, Adam West was wasted (literally) and, in retrospect, I cannot recall a single thing about it. My lack of enjoyment grew to such an extent that the second the credits rolled we smashed up the cassette and hung the tape around the living room. Just for good measure, we set fire to the cover.
I saw this on a cheap DVD release with the title "The Entity Force". Since I enjoy cheesy 80's horror films I thought I was in for a real treat. Sadly the film is mostly boring and you're constantly waiting for something to happen. It does eventually get somewhat interesting, but this is in the last quarter of the film. It's a case of too little too late. When the action does happen it's not that great, what we get are dead corpses 'floating' along the ground and chasing after the girls in the mausoleum. It's not the absolute worst I've seen, but you can do a lot better. I would only recommend this to die-hard collectors of cheesy 80's horror.
Some guy named Karl Rhamarevich learns how to live on even after death through telekinesis. He's interred in a mausoleum. That same night Julie (Meg Tilly) has to spend the night there to get into a group called "The Sisters". And Karl's "power" is in full bloom.<br /><br />Silly movie. I saw it in a theatre when I was 21 and was generally bored. The PG rating should have tipped me off--this is a horror movie for kids. One REAL stupid scene at the end has a corpse breaking THROUGH concrete to hit a young guy! For starters corpses are put in HEAD first making it impossible for the corpse to use his arms and there's no way anybody is going to break through concrete. When you're noticing silly mistakes like that, the movie is not doing its job.<br /><br />It has two good scenes--two of "The Sisters" are "attacked" by floating corpses crowding them in. At one point one of the sisters punches a corpse in the stomach--her hand goes IN the body and she can't pull it out! That scene has stayed with me every since. And there's a cute little bit involving a corpse and a toothbrush at the end (which had my audience laughing). But the rest of the movie is a dim, dull memory. For kids only--adults will be bored. I give it a 3.
I must, in light of the encomia of praise for this flick from viewers, assume once again the role of the turd in the punchbowl, as Lowell Weicker used to say, I am scratching my head at the sheer number of laudatory comments. "The African Queen" this ain't. The period flavor is wonderful, yes. The acting is fine, but no actor no matter how great can bring life to the seemingly endless stream of perfectly tedious and insignificant party and dinner table conversation here, and I care not how much of it is taken from Joyce's text. Imagine spending an hour and a half as a fly on the wall at a Christmas dinner of a not particularly interesting group of people (it's not clear to me that it's a family, as one person suggested), having to listen to their mundane table talk, and you have the essential experience of this movie. Absolutely nothing happens. And nothing important is said, but it is said at interminable length. As I said, the popularity of this movie is a mystery to me. Speaking of mysteries, watch a good one rather than this.
I want very much to believe that the above quote (specifically, the English subtitle translation), which was actually written, not spoken, in a rejection letter a publisher sends to the protagonist, was meant to be self-referential in a tongue-in-cheek manner. But if so, director Leos Carax apparently neglected to inform the actors of the true nature of the film. They are all so dreadfully earnest in their portrayals that I have to conclude Carax actually takes himself seriously here, or else has so much disdain for everyone, especially the viewing audience, that he can't be bothered letting anyone in on the joke.<br /><br />Some auteurs are able to get away with making oblique, bizarre films because they do so with élan and unique personal style (e.g., David Lynch and Alejandro Jodorowsky). Others use a subtler approach while still weaving surreal elements into the fabric of the story (e.g., Krzysztof Kieslowski, and David Cronenberg's later, less bizarre works). In Pola X, Carax throws a disjointed mess at the viewer and then dares him to find fault with it. Well, here it is: the pacing is erratic and choppy, in particular continuity is often dispensed with; superfluous characters abound (e.g., the Gypsy mother and child); most of the performances are overwrought; the lighting is often poor, particularly in the oft-discussed sex scene; unconnected scenes are thrust into the film for no discernible reason; and the list goes on.<br /><br />Not to be completely negative, it should be noted that there were some uplifting exceptions. I liked the musical score, even the cacophonous industrial-techno music being played in the sprawling, abandoned complex to which the main characters retreat in the second half of the film (perhaps a reference to Andy Warhol's 'Factory' of the '60s?). Much of the photography of the countryside was beautiful, an obvious attempt at contrast with the grimy city settings. And, even well into middle-age, Cathering Deneuve shows that she still has 'it'. Her performance was also the only one among the major characters that didn't sink into bathos.<br /><br />There was an earlier time when I would regard such films as "Pola X" more charitably. Experimentation is admirable, even when the experiment doesn't work. But Carax tries nothing new here; the film is a pastiche of elements borrowed from countless earlier films, and after several decades of movie-viewing and literally thousands of films later, I simply no longer have the patience for this kind of unoriginal, poorly crafted tripe. At this early moment in the 21st century, one is left asking: With the exception of Jean-Pierre Jeunet, are there *any* directors in France who know how to make a watchable movie anymore? Rating: 3/10.
I wish Depardieu had been able to finish his book and see it become a dazzling success. At least he'd have wound up with something.<br /><br />The film struck me as pointless, rambling, and very stylish, like some other recent French films. Not to knock it. Most recent American films are pointless and rambling and have no style whatever. We should be grateful, I suppose, for photography that evokes a European city in the midst of a wind-blown Continental winter, and for elliptical conversations that challenge our ability to understand what's up.<br /><br />But there can be too much of a good thing. Golubeva is found stumbling around near the sea in the middle of the freezing night, carrying on in a bad accent about dreams and such. (There are a few sequences of dreams that include things like swimming in a river of blood. You'll love it if you're Vlad the Impaler.) Lots of people die. Catherine Deneuve dies in a suicide by motorcycle. I don't know why. Golubeva's young girl dies too, and I don't know why she dies either. She gets slapped in the face, falls to the pavement, and dies.<br /><br />There is supposedly an explicit sex scene too. I'll have to take their word for it because, although it is stylishly photographed, it is stylishly photographed in almost complete darkness. Don't worry about the kiddies being shocked. They'll probably be asleep by this time anyway.<br /><br />Depardieu isn't a bad actor. As we see him deteriorate from a carefully groomed handsome young man -- well, handsome except that his nose can't seem to get out of his way -- to a limping, murderous, hairy physical wreck, we feel sorry for the guy. Golubeva has a wan pretty face, with enormous half-lidded eyes and wide cheeks, like a doll. Her next movie should be a remake of Lewton's "I Walked With a Zombie." Then there is this mysterious guy who leads a band. I guess it's a band. As far as I could make out, the band is made up of about a dozen drummers and a dozen musicians playing electric guitars. Every viewer will find the resultant sound interesting but uncultivated listeners fond of "easy listening" might not enjoy it. If you don't like the music, there's a payoff involved because the sinister composer and leader gets whacked over the head with Depardieu's walking stick.<br /><br />I must say, I found it barely worth sitting through. (And it's a longie, too.) At times it was like waiting in your car at a railroad crossing while a long long freight train rumbles slowly by, sometimes stopping entirely. I wish it had had a few jokes.
This movie is so unreal. French movies like these are just waste of time. Why watch this movie? Even, I did not know..why. What? The well known sex scene of half-siblings? Although the sex scene is so real and explicit, but the story it is based upon is so unreal. What is the use of it, then? Can you find easily in life, half sibling doing such things?<br /><br />Did I learn something from this movie? Yeah: some people are just so fond of wasting time making such movies, such stories, such non-sense. But for those who like nihilism, nothingness in life, or simply a life without hope, then there you are.. you've got to see this movie.<br /><br />Only one worth adoring, though: CATHERINE DENEUVE. She's such a strikingly beautiful woman.
(Spoilers)<br /><br />Oh sure it's based on Moby Dick. Totally obsessed and it destroy's him. It's a total folly. The movie starts off rather well, but by the end of the film, everyone else is destroyed and the main star's mind is a blank.<br /><br />The supposed half sister is never convincing. Some very poor lighting effects. Music is interesting. But little else. It took me over a month to finally finish the darn thing. I suppose if you like Being John Malkovich, you might like this. But where as BJM was a great movie that I just didn't want to watch again, Pola X is a movie I just hate to high hell. The only possible excitement in the film is the gratuatious incest sexual scene towards the end of the film. (Hopefully yer not thinking of Catherine either.)<br /><br />This movie is severely boring, depressing, and poorly directed. Not highly recommended. If if you like french movies. (go watch Crimson Rivers instead)<br /><br />4/10<br /><br />Quality: 5/10 Entertainment: 1/10 Replayable: 0/10
I won't lie, I rented this film because it was an "arty" film with some possible explicit sex. I got that scene and Catherine Deneuve's (briefly shown) breasts, but the rest of the film is just the usual long pretentious European art films with lines like "Did I have a mother or father, I don't know" (paraphrased). Usually delivered in long soliloquies.<br /><br />If you are curious about the transition of "art" to porn, might be an interesting look, with use of the fast forward button (I was still too slow!)
I enjoyed Carax's "Les Amants du Pont Neuf" and was therefore expecting this film to be of a similar standard. Well, the first 10 minutes were OK, but then it disintegrates into a rather pretentious journey of a young man looking for the essence of life. A sad disappointment.
It's difficult to express how bad this movie is. Even in the 1950s when intellectual searching for the meaning of life was fashionable and beatnik rejection of physical comforts, clean clothes, haircuts, etc. was a common reaction to the smug middle-class mores of both the USA and western Europe, this movie would have been a stinker. The plot is a mishmash of several dei ex machina (if that's the correct Latin grammar); the acting consists of deadpan stares broken by occasional hysterics (by the male lead as well as the females); the gratuitous view of Catherine Deneuve's (or somebody's) breasts are worthy of a Budweiser commercial; the repeated cacaphonous orchestra rehearsal in the abandoned building is I'm sure heavy with meaning in the director's mind but to me is just one more stupid symbol thrown into this meaningless movie -- I'm ranting because my time has been wasted watching this scam excuse for an art flic. The scenery is beautiful and the sex scene is hot -- but underneath his clothes, this king has no substance.
Pretentious claptrap, updating Herman Melville (!), about a young man's vaguely incestuous relationship with his aristocratic mother getting transferred to his long-lost sister who has been raised by gypsies. Or something like that – not that anyone really cares to unravel its multi-layered plot decked out with pornographic sex scenes, pseudo-symbolic imagery (the siblings swimming in a river of blood) and other bizarre touches (a gypsy child repeatedly insults passers-by in the street until she is anonymously beaten to death, the deafening music of a rock group utilized in the demolition of old buildings). Considering the source material and the presence of Catherine Deneuve (who at least gets to bathe in the nude), I was expecting a lot more from this one; apparently, there's an even longer TV version of POLA X out there…
I'm accustomed to being patient with films because I've generally found it usually pays off. But a few works take tedium to new levels and enter the realm of provocation...."Last Year at Marienbad" comes to mind. Well, "Pola X" ain't no "Last Year at Marienbad". I can count on one hand the number of films I've walked out on over the years. "Pola X" achieved membership in that august group. In my defense, I believe I made a valiant effort to stand my ground - hoping things would turn around. However, I finally threw in the towel just shy of the 90 minute mark - quite respectable under the circumstances. "Pola X" does not come anywhere near living up to the promise of Carax's earlier work. After a 10 year hiatus, that must have been bitter for him indeed. Melville is still spinning in his grave!
The movie contains a very short scene of Deneuve in a bathtub. She looks absolutely stunning for a lady age 56, but this is the only saving grace of the movie. Otherwise, it has a mindless, unmotivated script and the lead actress has none of Deneuve's appeal. The director apparently watched too many Peter Greenaway films and Pola X comes across as a student's imitation of the Greenaway style, without any of his inspiration.
French Cinema sucks! Down with all these psychiotric visions with their my-God-am-I-cultivated distinguished attitudes! Pestilence to conceited symbolic film-language and impervious chiffres! I'll no longer have a mind for that! Léos Carax, did you ever think about, that a dialogue in a film could be natural and vivid??? Maybe I'm too common to understand you? Or had it been your task to confirm all the clichés of a Frenchman the world can have? Guillaume the to-be-guilliotined comes to his home-palace, Mme. Deneuve, not in the picture, plays the flute: "Here am I, darling!" In this moment, I knew, that she's in the bathtub, and we`ll see her lying in there soon. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not prudish, and the incestous sex scene was the climax of the film. But this is, in Berlin, we say "etepetete", what means something like "être-peut-être", a snobistic, self-satisfied, and, the worst, seen that often in French movies I can tell! Other example: She, beautiful and willing, is looking at herself in a mirror, combing her hair, and her wild-bearded, dirty young guru rushs into the room, breathless shouting: "There's no escape, there's no escape!" Forty years after existencialistic Sartres and consorts- what's new, what's exciting about? My God, there's that woman and she loves and admires you, what would be more natural to be happy with your life? And when you're not, please explain much better, why!! Born French means you have to live a life in extravaganza, no escape, is that the point?
First, I don't see how the movie is on any "best" list or how it won any awards. Compared to La Pianiste, which is also on a "best" list, La Pianiste is gold. This movie lacked so many things, on so many different levels, but I can't quite explain why I disliked it so much. The lead actor was annoying, I felt as though I never knew what was going on, and I was BORED!! Even though this was supposed to be some worthwhile life change that Pierre was starting, I wanted it to end.... as soon as possible. Why did it have to be his sister and cousin? Ugh. And why did Thibault get mean? He just bipolarly turned mean. And also, was it me or did I miss the whole purpose of what that guy in black was all about? Who were all those people playing music in the big basement of the big warehouse? Why did they have all that weird equipment and the guns and all those extra rooms for people to live in? I mean this in all seriousness, but does incest happen a lot in French culture? European culture? I took 5 years of learning about the culture and I never heard anything about that!
You would probably get something like this. I'm translating movies for a living and this is the first movie in my 5-year working experience that I found offensive to my intelligence. Of course, there are stupid Hollywood movies about drunken teenagers on a spring break, but those movies don't even claim to be serious works of art. But when someone strives for greatness and poetry, but delivers a muddled (and often ridiculous) story, a bunch of disparate scenes, pretentious dialogue... Then you get the worst kind of a movie that some other reviewer very accurately defined as "pretentious crap". To those who find this movie intelligent or even masterful, I can only say - it's your intelligence and your imagination you obviously used to try and make some sense of this pitiful attempt (it's in our human nature to try and make sense of things) .<br /><br />One more thing: I can tolerate political incorrectness very well, I'm all for artistic freedom and suspension of disbelief, but the Slavic female character was just too much. I wish someone told the director that it's kind of ridiculous (even in an unrealistic art movie) to portray a Slavic woman as a half-articulate dishevelled creature connected to the forces of nature, probably due to the fact that she had spent her entire childhood looking at the stars and milking cows on a three-legged stool.
A ridiculous movie, a terrible editing job, worst screenplay, ridiculous acting, a story that is completely ununderstandable...<br /><br />If God was going to decide if movies should continue to be done, judging by this one, the entire world movie industry would now be dead...<br /><br />A wonderful movie to show that cinema should not be done by people who "think" they can make movies.<br /><br />I am still wondering who are those two gipsy girls who show up in the movie for over half an hour, and are never introduced to us...<br /><br />
My boss at the time and showed it to us at a Halloween party at our office. He is the Chris Huntley that co-wrote and acted in it. He knows it's bad, we know it's bad and we all agree that the monster looks WAY too much like a vagina to be coincidence. Maybe it was from a gynocological experiment gone wrong.<br /><br />It was a VERY low budget and the actors were all friends so what you have here is a case of "hey gang, lets' put on a show".<br /><br />Nobody got hurt and it was a first attempt. Nothing wrong with that. It gave us all a good laugh and it's a great film to watch with friends and make fun of. :-)
This extremely low-budget monster flick centers around a group of mine surveyors exploring an abandoned gold mine in order to see if its worth reopening. They get trapped after a cave in and find they are at the mercy of a strange, slimy creature which seems bent on knocking them off one at a time. The word that most came to mind as I watched this movie was 'desperate'. The script and acting is terrible, the stop-motion monster effects were unintentionally funny, and since the bulk of the movie takes place underground lighting the sets convincingly looked like a logistical nightmare. All that being said however for some reason I felt this movie failed not from lack of effort, but maybe from either a lack of budget, experience and/or lack of creative inspiration. The whole thing came off like it was either a college project or a first film made by amateurs, I have a certain amount of affection for films like that even when they completely miss the mark. I guess what I'm saying is I give it an B for effort and a D- for actual results, not insultingly bad as some low-budget monster movies I've seen but still not worth seeing unless you have a LOT of free time on your hands. I'm voting it a 4.
A group of 7 gold prospectors head into a mine that was recently opened back up after an earthquake. Of course, they don't pay attention to local legend that something is down there and killing people. This low budget ($25,000) horror flick has a slight cult following and I'm not exactly sure why (unless it is because it is so obscure). I'll admit the last half hour is pretty entertaining, but the hour getting there is pure torture. Lots of walking and talking and our titular strangeness doesn't appear until 45 minutes in. Even in the extras co-writer Chris Huntley admits it commits the unforgivable sin of being boring. I would forgive them if they were strict amateurs, but this group graduated from USC so I would hope they know an exploitation film should be exploitive. Anyway, like I said, the last half hour is cool as three survivors battle the stop motion monster and there is a cool John Carpenter-like score. I wanted to see more of the monster, but it is literally on screen for 45 seconds.<br /><br />Even if the movie isn't the best, Code Red DVD has given this great attention. You have interviews and an audio commentary by director Melanie Anne Phillips, producer/actor Mark Sawicki and co-writer Huntley. The tales about how the film was made are pretty fascinating and inspiring (like a cave set being built in a backyard). Even more interesting are Sawicki and Huntley's USC student shorts, which are actually all better than the feature production. Huntley was a pretty talented artist and it is a shame he didn't go on to anything else. Sawicki has worked steadily in Hollywood as a visual effects and camera guy. The film's VHS is kind of legendary for how dark it was and I'm sure this is much better. However, you still get scenes where the only image are five helmet lights bouncing around in the blackness. Safe to say, the original MY BLOODY VALENTINE is still "horror film set in a mine" champ.
Some movies are just … unlucky. These are the films that obviously thrived on a lot of goodwill and a handful of potentially great ideas, but simply didn't have the budgetary means and/or professional cast and crew members at their disposal to make it happen. "The Strangeness" definitely belongs in this category. You really want to like it, but even the most tolerant and undemanding 80's horror fanatics will have to admit the film barely reaches the level of mediocrity due to its atmosphere of cheapness, clumsy stop-motion effects and impenetrably dark cinematography. "The Strangeness" has a fairly original plot and setting (okay, it's similar to "The Boogens" but I sincerely doubt that director David Michael Hillman intentionally ripped off a fellow insignificant 80's B-movie) and the players deliver enthusiast performances even though they're all miscast. An assembly of amateur speleologists go on an expedition to explore the infamous Gold Spike mine. Many years ago, several miners mysteriously died there and the place has abandoned ever since, but there's supposed to be too much gold hidden there to remain closed forever. Shortly after they descended into the mine, the group members one by one encounter the slimy ruler of the Gold Spike mine; a Lovecraftian monster with tentacles and an incredibly cheesy way of moving forward. Throughout most of its running time, "The Strangeness" is a boring and incompetent mess that is difficult to follow due to the complete lack of lighting. The characters are uninteresting and the mine remains a mystery because the only lighting effects come from the helmets of the speleologists. There's very little action or horror to experience in the first hour, but director Hillman cleverly grasps the viewers' attention by showing bits and pieces of the monster at regular intervals. As soon as you catch the first glimpse of the monster's tentacle, you're doomed to keep watching till the very end. The creature is realized with stop-motion effects, which I usually adore and worship, but here in this case they look extremely weak and pitiable. The person responsible for the special effects should have paid more attention to the work of Ray Harryhousen. The death sequences largely occur off-screen and there's very little suspense throughout the whole movie. A horror flick with a setting like this should benefice from claustrophobic atmosphere and unidentifiable sound effects, but "The Strangeness" lacks all this. The biggest trump of the film is unquestionably the beautiful appearance of blond actress Terri Berland. She resembles a speleologist as much as I resemble Mother Theresa, but she surely looks good in her tight white top and beige pants.
I want to say I liked this film, I really do, but when it boils down to it it was just far too boring. It starts off looking promising, and even once they get inside the mines the creepy atmosphere and mood is great. The problem is the monster, or lack of it. As people have said it's a stop-motion monster, but that's not the problem (stop-motion can look great if done properly). The problem is that we don't see enough of it and we don't get to see any deaths. This is meant to be a horror film so a lack of monster and a lack of deaths equals boredom. There were some scenes I liked, such as when one girl is using her camera in the dark and the monster is coming towards her. There are also a few other creepy scenes but they are far too few to hold your interest and definitely not worth watching the film for. It's a shame, because I can see that had it been handled correctly it would've been an effectively creepy horror flick. The saddest thing is that films like this will never be made again, because film makers over-polish their films these days and rely on crappy CGI effects.
The whole movie was done half-assed. It could have been a much better movie but, that would have required a re-write and different actors. Compared to "Traffic" this was a wreck. I am just glad I didn't have to pay for it.<br /><br />Spoiler:<br /><br />What was the point of having crooked cops getting arrested? To share the guilt of drug dealers and make them feel better? Pu-leaze! The parents were scum, driven by greed, and didn't even consider the harm they were doing; as pointed out by Ice-T. <br /><br />2 out of 10
I caught the North American premiere of this at the Chicago International Film Festival. I was beyond disappointed. From the mood in the audience, I wasn't the only one.<br /><br />The film takes a long time to get to the conflict, and then refuses to resolve it, opting instead to tell us the story is "To Be Continued". Is it a spoiler to reveal that a movie has no ending? I consider it more of a warning. This is, at best, only half a movie- and not the good half.
I don't know what has happened to director Abel Ferrara. Ever since the "Body Snatchers" remake he seems to have lost it. "King of New York" and "The Bad Lieutenant" remain two of the best films of the '90s: searing indictments of a decade gone wrong. With films like "'R Xmas" (whatever that means) and "New Rose Hotel" he seems determined to disgust and bore his former supporters. This film has NO LIFE in it. While he gets excellent performances out of his actors in all of his projects the result of this mishmash of ideas just doesn't jell. Whatever the point is -- that the new breed of drug dealer is more or less the same as any other upper middle class New Yawkuh -- gets lost in the mind numbing script and boring direction. <br /><br />I saw this opening night at the 4-Plex in downtown L.A. In the lobby, while buying tickets, I was surprised and delighted to see it filled with a large, racially mixed group of men and women in their twenties and thirties. Then they started into the theater but it was the theater that was featuring "8 Mile" not "'R Xmas"! The theater showing "'R Xmas" (keep in mind, this was opening night!) had a total of 4 people watching it, myself, my wife and two others! <br /><br />Way to go, Abel!<br /><br />2/10
'R Xmas is one of the only films I've seen where I can almost say that simply nothing happens.I felt as though I watched a drug dealing middle- class couple,with child,walk around,eat,smoke,converse(excuse me,swear)through most of the film.And I don't believe I'm missing the point.I think this film was well directed,well acted(although the husband's performance was rather wooden),and the constant feeling of impending doom around every corner certainly kept the viewer involved.But when the dust clears,your left with zero(just a boat-load of fade outs).I didn't want car chases,gun violence,beatings,etc.In fact,I'm sick of violence.But my goodness,let's at least get a bit deeper into all these characters(let's get to know each of these corrupt officers a little better-not just show glancing shots of them as street thugs).Why was the dialogue so juvenile? Everyone spoke as if they were in junior high.I believe even this side of our human race can say something other than fu_ _,sh_ _,etc.The pacing and the storyline of 'R Xmas I found quite interesting,but the execution was plain and simple-empty.4/10
The whole movie seemed to suffer from poor editing - every scene seemed to take forever to unfold and when they did, I felt like I had waited a long time for very little to happen. I guess I missed the whole point of the movie - either that or there wasn't one.
Good actors, good director, well acted, well directed but...Where's the movie? Did they have an script or just improvised it all? At least it is a short-length movie (only 80 minutes, including credits). Nothing seems to happen in this film, nothing at all. A couple of small time drug dealers caught in small time troubles, but you'll never get a clue of what's happening, nor even what are they talking about in some sequences of the movie. Tons of "f***'s" and "motherf*****'s", but nothing else...<br /><br />For the people who love Abel Ferrara's films such as The Funeral, 'R Xmas is going to be a big disappointment, as it's been for me. What was he thinking about? Did he really think that this was a good movie? And if he didn't, then why did he made it?
"R Xmas" peers into the lives of a middle class married-with-kid family of narco-distributors during the Christmas holiday season. There's no story here - just a disjointed collection of events. Ferrara seems to get off on the juxtaposition of the holidays and home life with narcotics peddling in NYC, jumping back and forth between each. The players appear to be improv'ing and adlibing now and then making for an unconvincing watch. Overall a poor effort not worth the time. (D)
In New York, in a morning close to Christmas, an upper class father and mother go in their BMW to a private school to see the play of their daughter. Then they go shopping and later they return to their fancy apartment in Manhattan. In the night, they move to a simple apartment in a dangerous neighborhood, where they prepare drugs for distribution. On the Christmas Eve, while buying the Christmas gift for their daughter, the father is kidnapped, and his wife desperately tries to raise a high amount of money to pay the requested ransom. "R Xmas" is a deceptive movie of Abel Ferrara. The lead characters do not have names, are anonymous, and maybe his intention is to tell that in the breast of a neighbor family in your building may have drug dealers; or that drug dealers may also have families and may be loving persons; or that there are many dirty cops, probably worse than the criminals; or is it a simple apology to crime? Whatever! However, this humanization of criminals is a horrible message, and I really did not like this movie. In Brazil, for example, many drug dealers and criminals help their communities, due to the absence of the State in poor areas and slums, but this procedure does not make them model citizen. In this movie, we see a loving upper class family in the day, providing drugs as means of living, but the destruction of the members of other families is not shown in the story, and it is impossible to feel sympathy for any characters. In the end, I wished all of them dead. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Gangues do Gueto" ("Gangs of the Ghetto")
I really enjoyed "Candid camera" with Dom DeLuise and I was surprised to see that after the years Suzanne Somers have becomed the co-star of the show. But that was the only positive side of the show - the whole studio, the intro, the hosts - all that give the new meaning to the word "pompous".<br /><br />Well, that would be OK if the materials weren't so cr*ppy - I mean come on, the best you can do is show few men that have problem with getting ketchup out of the bottle, Suzanne Somers walking with Halloween basket in July, ice cream place that sells only vanilla...? I've seen few episodes and each time it was horrible. They were posing like it's the greatest show ever and then fill the time with scenes so dull that I really felt embarrassed to watch. Even the people in them looked bored and that just can't be good.
I recently rented this film on DVD and thought it would be an interesting choice seeing as I am both from the north of England (Bradford), and also interested in film-making. However, it soon became apparent that this film seemed to lack a decent level of development script-wise. The characters were weak and often stereotyped and the story lacked substance. The subject matter could be an interesting basis for a film. However, the delivery of this appeared naive and unfocused. <br /><br />The ending felt as though it was casting judgement on the characters - punishing and rewarding where the filmmakers felt necessary. This felt a little awkward and silly, and seemed at odds with the 'realism' used in the style of shooting. For me, the film dealt with the characters and subject matter in a rather heavy handed and clumsy manner. It felt as though the writer had already decided how he wanted to end the story and set about crow-barring everything else in to fit it.<br /><br />Another point that I feel strongly about is the watered-down Ken Loach feel the film had. I get quite upset that UK film financiers can't see that there is more to British films than 'gritty realism'. It has become almost a safe option. Film is an infinitely wonderful playground for imaginative ideas and it is not being exploited by UK feature film producers. There is a lot of talent here in the UK. It's unfortunate that most of these individuals end up either making music videos and commercials 100% of the time or they go to America. <br /><br />Love + Hate would have worked better if it had been cut down to 30 or 60 minutes and appeared as a one-off TV drama.
That's what I kept asking myself during the many fights, screaming matches, swearing and general mayhem that permeate the 84 minutes. The comparisons also stand up when you think of the one-dimensional characters, who have so little depth that it is virtually impossible to care what happens to them. They are just badly written cyphers for the director to hang his multicultural beliefs on, a topic that has been done much better in other dramas both on TV and the cinema.<br /><br />I must confess, I'm not really one for spotting bad performances during a film, but it must be said that Nichola Burley (as the heroine's slutty best friend) and Wasim Zakir (as the nasty, bullying brother) were absolutely terrible. I don't know what acting school they graduated from, but if I was them I'd apply for a full refund post haste. Only Samina Awan in the lead role manages to impress in a cast of so-called British talent that we'll probably never hear from again. At least, that's the hope. Next time, hire a different scout.<br /><br />Another intriguing thought is the hideously fashionable soundtrack featuring the likes of Snow Patrol, Ian Brown and Keane. Now, I'm a bit of a music fan and I'm familiar with most of these artists output, but I didn't recognise any of the tracks during this movie (apart from the omnipresent "Run"). B-sides, anyone? We get many, many musical montages which telegraph how we're suppose to feel. These are accompanied by such startlingly original images as couples kissing by a swollen lake and canoodling in doorways. This is a problem, as none of the songs convey the mood efficiently, and we realise the director lacks the ability to carry the emotional journey to the audience through storytelling and dialogue alone.<br /><br />The ending is presumably meant to be just desserts, as everybody gets their comeuppance and there is at least one big shock in store.. But I remained resolutely unmoved because the script had given me no-one to root for. It's not enough to tackle a hot-button issue, you have to actually give us a plot that hasn't already been done to death and individuals who are more than window dressing. As it stands, this film is a noble failure, with only the promising lead actress and a few mildly diverting punch-ups to save it from the bin. 4/10. Must try harder..
I find it difficult to comprehend what makes viewer's feel this is a powerful movie. I would guess that the main intention of this film would be a character study and the effects of racism in a British community. It is therefore all the more disappointing that all the characters are two dimensional and the acting is at the level of a college performing arts course. I'm always sceptical of "improvisation", another word for being too lazy to write a decent script. I was embarrassed by the performances and sat in an audience who laughed when they surely were supposed to be moved by the story. Racism is a serious issue but I think a subtle approach in cinema works far better than laying it on with trowel.
Upon writing this review I have difficulty trying to think of what to write about. Nothing much happens in this film. The storyline is a South Asian woman who falls for an English Londoner. The problem is he and his friends have had a racist streak. At the same time her friend at work is unknowingly to her having sexual relations with her brother, and it just escalates from there. The problem is that this movie is very predictable. As soon as all this stuff has happened it's all pretty much standard. It drags slightly even though it's only about 90 minutes long. This is more of a Chick Flick than anything else. So if you're male I do not recommend this film to you.
I have to agree that the movie is not the best I've ever seen, but I would like to make mention that the actors portraying Tommy and Jimmy Dorsey were the actual Dorsey brothers. As actors, they were wonderful musicians. The movie, based on their famous split, would have been better had professional actors played the parts. Many movies made during this time frame took advantage of the popularity of Big Bands. Most often, the movies were not that good because musicians are not actors by trade. Most of the movie-going audience didn't go to see Tommy or Jimmy Dorsey playing themselves; they went for the plot and the music. I've never been much of a Dorsey fan, but the music is good even today.<br /><br />I have to comment on a previous post regarding the actors who played Mom and Pop Dorsey and that their accents would be considered extreme by a Dublin audience. Arthur Shields and Sara Allgood were actually Irish actors, both born in Dublin. You might remember Mr. Shields as the Reverend Mr. Playfair in The Quiet Man and Ms. Allgood as Mrs. Monahan in Cheaper By The Dozen.
Why spend a moment slogging through this awkward and self-conscious movie? Every now and then, after an hour of tedious plot and amateur acting, we start getting bits and pieces of the big band swing that made Tommy and Jimmy Dorsey, separately and together, the great musicians they were. Occasionally -- in a jam session with Art Tatum, with Tommy Dorsey and his orchestra doing "Marie" and, a standout, Jimmy Dorsey and his orchestra fronting Bob Eberle and Helen O'Connell singing "Green Eyes" -- we get a complete song. <br /><br />Unfortunately, the movie is in the public domain and the DVD transfer is just as bad as the acting. My copy has only four chapter stops. That means you can get arthritis in your fast- forward finger trying to speed through to where the good stuff is. The swamp you're moving through is Hollywood's version of the life and battles of the two Dorseys. Tommy, superb on trombone, and Jimmy, superb on saxophone, usually couldn't stand each other. In 1935 they finally split, with Tommy starting his own orchestra. Each had greater success alone than they had achieved together. They reconciled when their father died in the Forties, which is where the movie ends. They later managed to tolerate each other in the orchestra led by Tommy as the big band era faded out in the Fifties. Tommy died in 1956 at age 51, vomiting in his sleep after booze, pills and a big meal. Jimmy died of cancer at 53 in 1957. Jimmy was hugely talented and, from all accounts, a reasonably easy-going guy. Tommy was hugely talented and, from all accounts, often an overbearing jerk. But good music makes up for a lot of faults, and the Big Band sounds the two created helped define the swing era. <br /><br />They play themselves in the movie, and we see them develop from tussling tykes (with child actors) to grown men battling and yammering at each other. The movie is lumbered with not just their two parents, played by those Hollywood Irish clichés, Sara Allgood and Arthur Shields, who just want their boys to get along with each other, but also with a major sub- story involving a romance between Janet Blair, as a childhood friend of the Dorseys who becomes a vocalist with them and serves as a nearly full-time mediator and enabler, and William Lundigan, as a piano player. Blair is not bad at all. However, if you want to see why she never became the star she quite probably should have become, just look at the films, like this one, that her studio put her in. No wonder she left Hollywood. Lundigan simply takes up space. <br /><br />How bad is this movie, other than when we can actually hear the Dorseys play? Well, here's a song written especially for the movie and given to Blair to warble. It's called "To Me." <br /><br />To me...you're the rose of a rosary...the rise of a rising sea...the glow of a star... <br /><br />The rose of a rosary? The movie doesn't get any better than this, and it can't get worse. Still, if you like the Dorseys and if the price is right...well, in hindsight I'd still not buy it. The highlight, for me, is Eberle and O'Connell singing "Green Eyes." You can watch them on You Tube for free. You'll also find there quite a bit of each of the Dorseys. I wish I'd known.
For me this movie is essentially like a feature length pilot episode for a TV series. It reminds me particularly of the British remake of the TV series Wallander, starring Kenneth Brannagh. People interviewed by the police are hardy, and often as bitter as the weather, the lead investigator has huge family problems, investigations invariably lead to cruelties of the distant past, and the plotting is labyrinthine with strange occurrences and subplots making sense only at the end. Both have excellent cinematography.<br /><br />The plotting of Jar City is extraordinarily reminiscent of a standard UK or US crime series. Effectively you could take the plots of any of the episodes of Touch of Frost and transplant them on top of the bleak locale in this movie and have an effective sequel.<br /><br />Really the script couldn't be more obviously from the cookie cutter. You get even the most familiar of motifs, such as the police going to the local prison to interview a manipulative and dangerous psychopath, who inevitably explodes at the end of the interview.<br /><br />I'm absolutely convinced that this is scones and jam for many folk, but I feel it needs pointing out to people like myself who do not go to the cinema to watch television. What I felt a keen lack of was message. The movie takes as its theme the genetic studies in Iceland. Icelanders in genetic terms have remained largely isolated from the outside world, presenting a great opportunity for scientists to study their genetics. Lots of information concerning the heredity of the population has been kept, and many genetic diseases unique to Iceland can be traced effectively in a population that has refrained from interbreeding, and is remarkably genetically homogeneous (it's like trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle of the London underground map, instead of a jigsaw puzzle of a field of daisies). A company called deCODE genetics attempted to set up a database carrying all the genetic and hereditary information for the entire population of Iceland. Due to privacy concerns this project was terminated, and at the end of last year deCODE genetics went bankrupt in Iceland. The episode is a rich topic for debate.<br /><br />But in this movie genetics and medical science are not there for education's sake, they're there for weird atmosphere.<br /><br />It's a grisly movie if you are interested in that, and there's often a morbid focus on food to accompany events, like a coroner who eats lunch in between incisions. The most queasy for me was when the lead inspector devours a sheep's head. Unfortunately for me this occasionally became farcical. The movie attempts the rather delicate task of mixing the grisly with the sentimental, and ended up providing unintentional humour towards the end. This is the equivalent, in cinematic terms, of attempting to prepare fugu, if you're not well-qualified, deft of hand and sharp of eye, you poison the client. This rather novice director should have lowered the tariff on his performance.<br /><br />I walked out of this movie feeling rather bad about myself and about life in general.
Would a different translation have made it chillier or scarier? Are the subtitles too compact to convey the nuances of the original language? Does it even matter? You may have heard that great actors can make reading a phone book exciting. Well, this is an opportunity to judge for yourself. <br /><br />If this isn't about homosexuality, murder, dismemberment, psychopaths, insanity, deviant psychology, then it is about acting - acting helped along with lots of dialog, So, enjoy the acting or muse about how titillating the dialog actually is.<br /><br />For English speakers, "Twelve Angry Men" might be a better choice. There's a bit more interaction, and you can judge if the acting is consistent with the dialog. You don't have to wonder if you're missing something.<br /><br />I would recommend Andy Warhol's "Empire" to those who like this film.
Surprisingly Kieslowski's this movie is disappointing to me because of the sometimes weird and sometimes cliché script that also seems a work of a poor observation sometimes. There is an isolated young boy. He lives with one of his relatives, but he is lonely and every night watches a woman who lives across their building. It seems! that he wants her. He is one of the youths who are not good at communication with the opposite sex. However, he likes that woman, when the woman comes to his house with a man, Tomek gets pain. Then, we understand that Kieslowski tells us a story about an isolated young boy who needs a female to flirt or who falls in love with a mature woman. He does not do something else, because may be he knows that it is his salvation. One day, he stops that woman, suddenly, he seems a shy boy, but proves that he is not, so he explains her almost everything. She lectures and refuses him. Everything is so realistic like the other Kieslowski films, no problem. The problems start when Tomek visits her, the story of a lonely young boy who falls in love with a mature woman (but an unrequited love) turns into the story of a lonely young boy falls in love with a mature woman, at the beginnings the woman refuses, but after a short time, she starts to change her mind. This U-Turn makes the movie cliché firstly. The personality of Tomek is weird? or a result of a poor observation? I disappointed with this character, this is my opinion and I will try to tell why. When he goes to her house, Magda treats him very friendly. She asks what do you want from me? To kiss me? to make love with me? to go out with me? At this point, I remember the people who say she is a femme fatale. See? Returning to the scene, Tomek rejects all the proposals. Why? Because he is shy? I don't think so, but his communication is blunt, OK. After the leg scene at home, some events make the movie misses its aim. I think that the aim of the movie is (should have been according to the story) to show us there are some people who suffer from lack of endearment and to save from this situation is not easy owing to lack of communication and being aloof especially for men. I mean that at this point, what does the movie say? It is blurred and disappointing. It is seen that he is not hunger for love or a female or sex. Then, what? And the suicide attempt scene support this weakness. So that he touches her legs, he wants to kill himself! By the way, as I mentioned before, some say Magda is a femme fatale. Totally not. She endeavors in order to make Tomek happy. Does she avoid having contact with him? No. Does she insult him? No. Does she amuse him? No. And Does she deceive him? No. She has some troubles with her (ex) lover, so she is not O.K. However, she does not take revenge for it from Tomek. She is not an angel, but not a femme fatale also.
This is an excruciatingly boring, slow-moving movie. We can feel some sympathy for the socially- and sexually-inexperienced and awkward Tomek, but the motivations of Magda are pretty hard to see, and the ending, at least for me, was inscrutable. <br /><br />Maybe it's about how we all need love, but I'd get more out of a good Busby Berkeley.<br /><br />I'm told that comments have to be at least ten lines, so I'll add that in the background are some interesting shots of the relationship between Polish citizens and government employees and institutions. I wonder if it's meant to portray this before or after the fall of the communist government.<br /><br />Finally, watch for the clever way the men from the gas company investigate whether or not there is a gas leak in Magda's stove.
A depressed creepy teenager does many bad things to a socially active older lady who does not like to use shades or drapes in her windows. He steels assorted things from her, peeps at her, does prank calls, and plays assorted unpleasant tricks on her. Oddly, he keeps none of this a secret from her. At first, she does not seem to care one way or the other that he is bothering her. Then later she seems to begin to respect him for his cruel fevered activities.<br /><br />There are some illogical items to note. One is that the guy peeps into the night through a pane of glass from the more brightly lit side. In real life such a thing would not happen. The more brightly lit side of a pane of glass acts as a mirror. He would be able to see exactly nothing. Also, everyone out in the night would be able to look inside at him sitting in his well lit room.<br /><br />One other illogical item is that the creepy teen takes a job as a milkman, and his one and only customer each morning seems to be the lady he is picking on. Easy work, if you can get it.<br /><br />I saw A SHORT FILM ABOUT LOVE at a public showing. By the end, there was not a single open eye in the house. A SHORT FILM ABOUT LOVE is the foreign language movie for those who do not like reading subtitles. Not only are there very few words spoken in the film, but much of the movie is silent. A certain rest in peace.
Conclusion: very, but very, very boring, yet I watched till the end, hoping for some upside-down effect, but the end was worse, because it was nothing. The old black&white game didn't helped at all, it usually helps psychological movies, but this was not the case. The script, the plot, etc were linear, had no substance, nothing in-going. When you deal with psychological, you deal with analysis, therefore with details, that unity-diversity formula....there was no essence, no detail. Just a story, there are many stories to tell, but something makes them unique and hard to forgive with the tools and creativity of movie-makers...well, this is not the one.
This movie tries to say something profound; I'm just not sure what it was. Too much is left unresolved in the end for me to figure out the main point. A couple scenes really have me wondering what was left on the cutting room floor. I don't think the wall was very well developed I never got what was actually going on there. When the mother finally unveils it I just couldn't make any connection to the boy's silence. What was the point of the boy not talking? Was he just delusional or did he acquire some sort of power. What was the scene with the burnt girl all about? Another power the boy has or what? I don't understand how that developed any character or moved the plot. I got the bully bit but what happened to the dog? Did the dog come back or did mom get rid of Fido for good somehow? <br /><br />There were several additional plot elements that were more clutter than use. Like the radio talk show in the background discussing the Iraq War. I think that was supposed to create some sort of comparison to the grief and insecurity the mother and Addison were experiencing but for me it was distracting and strained. I didn't buy the link very much. I also found the teacher getting on Addison about not saying "here" for roll call a bit much. The mom seeing the doctor was pointless, how did it serve the plot? Was that to show how desperate the mother was getting, or was it something about the medicine that I didn't get? Was that the dad coming back in the last scene, or just some guy? So did writing on the wall work? What happened to the Dog?
This film is about a grieving wife who lost her husband through suicide. She is tormented by her son who refused to speak after that.<br /><br />Child grief is rarely explored on film, so it is refreshing to see a film like Addison's Wall. However, due to the very nature of the film, there is no tension or drama. Apart from a few key emotional moments, everything in the film is very plain. The abrupt ending that does not solve any mysteries certainly do not help the film to be more watchable. Addison's Wall could have been much better, such as exploration of the contents of the wall, a more intensive care program to help Addison to go through his trauma. Instead, the film feels very unfinished and non engaging.
I saw this movie on the strength of the single positive review and I can only imagine that guy is a shill.<br /><br />The acting of the female lead is actually quite good, but the entire film is just so excruciatingly boring I could hardly bear to sit through it. This is the very definition of dullness.<br /><br />So far, this film is rated as 8 out of 10 on 7 votes. That must mean the director, director's girlfriend, producer, actress and drinking buddies have given their own film a 10.<br /><br />For the rest of you, who simply want to be entertained or enjoy a good story, avoid this.<br /><br />This man on the street shall give it a 2 out of 10.<br /><br />FDA note: while this movie can be used as an aide to obtaining a good nights sleep, no medicinal value is implied or offered.
This was the most god awful movie I have had to sit through. 30 minutes into the film and I couldn't take any more. Seriously, do not bother with this one unless you are a sentimental nut job or one of those pseudo-arty types that like this kind of tripe so that they may feel more cultured. Boring, although the acting is fine; the kid is just plain irritating. Some scenes are a little strange with very weird close-ups. I don't know why they did the whole movie in black and white, but whatever effect they were hoping to have failed miserably. There was just nothing to watch, and although its a sad tale, supposedly, its just so stupid that its hard to feel any sympathy for the characters.
A nicely evoked 1930s setting provides much interest for a viewer in the early 21st century; unfortunately, "London Belongs to Me" has little else to recommend it besides lashings of quaint English charm. All of the problems rest with the deeply unfocused story. The main plot concerns the actions of young lad Richard Attenborough, the problems he gets into and how the community in which he lives bands together to save him from society's laws. Or something. The main issue here is that Attenborough's character brings everything upon himself and, quite frankly, is guilty of almost every accusation brought against him, so it's baffling why the film (and all the characters) have so much sympathy for him. He's treated as a victim of circumstance when he really, really isn't; and what's more he isn't shown to have very much remorse for his actions, only caring about getting away with things he didn't mean to do. Alastair Sim gets a lot of screen time in a subplot that has absolutely nothing to do with the main plot line and you wonder what he's doing there (though Sim is, as always, superb). You know there's a problem with the structure when the main plot impacts constantly against the subplot but not vice-versa. And, following a sedate pace and a careful build up, the plot completely falls apart in the last 20 minutes with a deeply unsatisfying and unexplained conclusion which doesn't even show us if Attenborough's character has developed at all from the previous proceedings. The film doesn't end, it just stops.<br /><br />The acting, direction and the general feel of the film can all be commended but unfortunately the story and structure of the piece jars constantly. A last point of trivia: Alec Guinness based his performance in the vastly superior film "The Ladykillers" on Alastair Sim's performance in this film, right down to both the characters having almost identical first scenes.
I watched this movie based on the good reviews here, and I won't make that mistake again.<br /><br />The first couple minutes shows that a group of people have been brought together by some tragedy, but you don't see what it is. Flashback 12-hours and we get to see the boring lives of each of these people, which in the end are totally meaningless to what is about to happen. When the ending is finally reveled, you realize that you just wasted an hour of your life waiting for a big payoff that doesn't happen and means nothing to what you have been watching. The only connection these people have is that they have all had a "bad day"--but even that continuity gets lost in the boredom.<br /><br />If this was supposed to be a "Crash" clone, it's a complete failure.
The Ealing Comedies constitute their own specific sub-genre in the history of film. They were wry, droll reflections on British life in the late Forties and early Fifties. They are always amusing but I feel it is misleading to characterise them as comedies. They are breezy and good-humoured, rather than laugh-out-loud funny. However, the best of them are laced with understated satire and shot through with an occasional dark streak (epecially Kind Hearts and Coronets and The Ladykillers).<br /><br />I have an affection for all of them, but The Lavender Hill Mob is probably the one I have most difficulty with. Compared to the others, it seems somewhat perfunctory. To me, it is an outline sketch for a movie, but one that needed to spend a lot more time in development before it was ready to go before the cameras.<br /><br />Everything about it is a bit undercooked. For example, nobody is given any real context or background. Henry is simply a dutiful drudge, whose secret dreams and hidden ambitions go unrecognised, while Albert is a frustrated artist forced to prostitute his talent by making gift shop trash for a living. This establishes a motive for their crime, but nothing that subsequently happens is a consequence either of their characters or their plan.<br /><br />Other characters are introduced but play no real part in the story. The elderly resident in Henry's guest house could (with her love of detective stories) have been made an unwitting thorn in his side, but is merely used as background 'colour'. Similarly, the various policemen who pop in and out of the action are simply there to keep the plot ticking along.<br /><br />As a result, the movie is driven entirely by its contrived plot devices, which I find both frustrating and faintly irritating. The not-very-ingenious robbery is accomplished with minimal problems, despite Albert being prevented from carrying out his part in the plan (by Sidney Tafler's Clayton). The gold is then smuggled to France without mishap. Everything would have gone smoothly if it wasn't for a minor hitch, lamely based on the French pronunciation of the letter 'R', which results in six of the gold Eiffel Towers being accidentally sold to some English schoolgirls.<br /><br />This leads to a series of frantic chases as Henry and Albert seek to retrieve them. These scenes are well executed, but at each point the conspirators are frustrated in their pursuit of the schoolgirls by a series of wholly factitious accidents. It is as if God is deliberately intervening to give them a hard time. This kind of plotting always has me grinding my teeth.<br /><br />When they finally track the last Eiffel Tower to a Police Academy exhibition and snatch it from under the nose of John Gregson's Police Inspector (why is he there, anyway?) all shreds of plot logic are abandoned. The final car chases are then simply filling up screen time until we are returned to the framing device with which the picture began.<br /><br />The movie doesn't even bother to tell us the fate of Albert (Stanley Holloway), Lackery (Sid James) and Shorty (Alfie Bass).<br /><br />This genial little caper has the professionalism of the Ealing team behind it, so it is far from being a bad movie. I suspect most viewers will find it considerably more enjoyable than I do (and why shouldn't they?), but I cannot help thinking there was a much better movie waiting to be made, if only more time and effort had been expended on fleshing out both the characters and the story.<br /><br />By the standards established by Ealing, Lavender Hill Mob is a missed opportunity.<br /><br />PS: One curious footnote is that Audrey Hepburn gets a credit for her single line early on, but Archie Duncan remains anonymous despite his much more substantial contribution. I guess she just had a better agent.
The acting in this film was of the old school: corny and stiff. Irene Dunne is luminous, and comes off the best even though she has some very unnatural lines to say. Still, her ability to convey emotion comes through.<br /><br />Old movie buffs will find at least some redeeming qualities in this film through observation of cinematic technique of the 1930s. Otherwise, it is not really that worthwhile.
One of the most boring movies I've ever had to sit through, it's completely formulaic. Just a cookie cutout of a movie, you could predict about every scene in the movie just from knowing the genre, as this movie adds nothing new. The dialogue is never funny, interesting, or intelligent. The acting is weak and the soundtrack is annoying - basically everything looks to have been done by an amatuer filmmaker. Nothing fresh, memorable, or entertaining in this movie, combined with the fact that it is LONG gives it an easy thumbs down. Sorry, fans.<br /><br />Overall Grade: F
I had high hopes for this one after reading earlier reviews but it was so slow and the plot so basic that well I wondered if I had read the wrong reviews. <br /><br />Please, a boy meets girl next door at 11 and both aspire to love and being basketball legends. Grow apart, but watch each others progress. Guess what! Both get scholarships to same university and become lovers again until his father is caught out playing around with a younger woman. Our young hero unable to cope has lapse in court concentration but some how decides to go pro and drop studies, and guess what is picked up by Lakers. Dumps the heroine because she was not there for him during this emotional period. So for 5 years they go their own way. She returns from Spain having lost the zest for the game and our hero is getting married in two weeks. Mom tells her that she should fight for her love so she professes her on-going love and challenges him to a basketball shootout. He wins he marries she wins he loves her. Well he won but decides to dump other girl for our girl. The End has her playing basketball and he has baby duties. Sorry 2 is my high score. My partner she scored 0 for a soapy story for those who read Mills and Boon
A plot that is dumb beyond belief. However, that said, it must be admitted the lead actors go at their roles as though it were Shakespeare. And that is as it should be. It isn't their fault the writer seems to be in a coma.<br /><br />Hats off to what is really a very cunning performance by Joanna Kerns. She proves that just because it isn't on the page doesn't mean a role can't be seized and dug into. And she does so with gusto. Good for her.<br /><br />Ditto to Christine Elise who is called upon to be little more than confused and weepy, but goes way beyond what is asked of her by the script.<br /><br />And to Grant Show as well. A graduate of daytime and prime time soaps (Ryan's Hope, Melrose Place). He is always versatile and underrated. His primary drawback seems to be his impossible-to-ignore good looks. He is a sturdy, well grounded actor capable of much more than he is generally given the opportunity to do.<br /><br />The rest of the cast is basically window dressing.<br /><br />The direction is adequate and the script, as I alluded to, is fairly idiotic.<br /><br />Watch this one to enjoy three good actors in the leads taking delight in performing some much needed scenery chewing. It's fun.
Not even original in the plot. Ho hum. There were a couple of angles that could have been quite interesting, but the film follows the path of 90% of Hollywood movies. I don't really "get" Samuel Jackson's acting most of the time in his other films, but he was rather good in this film. He rarely yelled and went much further in his character rather than reverting to an "in your face anger." I liked Eva Mendes - as usual - and even though she is great eye candy, she proves herself to be much more than that as an actress. Luis Guzman was actually really good also, except that I disliked the change of his character towards Samuel Jackson at the end of the film. How can one's character center around a dislike for a former cop and then turn into lollipop land within a split second? Is there no original thought left in Hollywood?
It starts really interesting - the story develops around the main character, who runs a "cleaning business", specialized in cleaning up crime scenes. As a former cop, he runs into some strange situation, when one job does suddenly "offically vanish". Furthermore, he discovers some relation to an investigation into police corruption. His "Columbo Feeling" is justified, the deeper he gets into the background of the story. The good actors (Jackson, Ed Harris, Eva Mendes) play in an suspenseful story with some twists --- but only up to the last 25 minutes. (up to here 7 of 10 stars). SPOILER:::: Suddenly the movie looses its touch and in the end there is a completely unnecessary shoot-out, involving the 14-year old daughter, a betrayal of friendship and a not justified righteousness out of the character development... why not having Cutler giving up his investigation for the sake of the friendship? or having the daughter discovering some facts? or ... many possible much better story finishes are imaginable... a truly wasted ending!
Request you to not watch this movie... It starts with a promise and as it goes on you crave for the movie to end... Predictable,not entertaining at all,wasted movie... Save your time and watch better thrillers.... The synopsis sounds good and that is why I watched the movie... But it was way too predictable with nothing to give you a start... No great suspense.. no great direction... nothing phenomenal with the acting... shy away from this... low rating... Nothing to write about this movie so I am filling up the remaining lines of text so you can imagine how much a time waster this movie is...really irritated at how good a premise that was and how bad a screenplay was written out of it...
I normally don't try and second guess a crime thriller, but Cleaner was just entirely too predictable. Samuel L. Jackson playing the character Tom Cutler, along with his profession created an interesting twist in the beginning of the film, however, that was about it. Without even thinking I knew where the plot would be taken and within 30 minutes I had already figured out who the killer was. Rather then trusting myself and having seen several films that make a turnabout, I watched to its completion. What a disappointment, I was right from the beginning.<br /><br />The casting of characters was a good, as well as the acting from Jackson and Harris...except for Eva Mendes. From the starting gate she didn't play a believable character in correlation to the script and this ruined the entire plot too soon. Maybe this was a directing mishap or just weakness in the story itself. Her role as Ann Norcut should have shown more emotion and distress for the situation that was building around her. This would've made the build-up a bit more compelling and the ending more dramatic. Nevertheless, Cleaner is watchable, not memorable. I've seen episodes of CSI that were more thrilling then this.
Tom Cutler (Jackson) is a retired policeman who now works as a crime scene Cleaner-upper. In his latest job, he cleans a new crime scene and destroys evidence and isn't aware the crime hasn't been officially reported. Uh oh, this can't be good. <br /><br />You hear about Cleaners all the time, but usually when a mob or gangland hit is involved when bodies etc need to be removed and the area cleaned up. This one is different in that Tom Cutler works with the Police to clean up after the police have done their investigation of a crime scene. Hey, someone has to do it. You know the Police won't. The movie makes that quite clear and it is up to the family to get the area cleaned up. <br /><br />This is almost a good thriller, but a side plot involving Tom's daughter (Palmer) makes this story somewhat awkward. I guess they had to fill in some time. Oh, they brought this side plot around to connect with the another side plot, but it was still a reach and awkward. See?<br /><br />This was almost a good thriller because there was a noticeable lack of tension, suspense and the pace was somewhat draggy. The music didn't help either as I noticed the music was more appropriate for watching people take a long journey. You know, journey music. Get it? HA!<br /><br />The acting by all was excellent in this almost a good thriller. <br /><br />Violence: Yes, Sex: No, Nudity: No, Language: No
Matthew Aldrich. This is a name worthy of remembrance. This is the individual that took fingers to keyboard and came up with one of the worst scripts of all time. Cliché. Predictable. An insult to the public's intelligence.<br /><br />Is he the sole beneficiary of blame? Of course not. Renny Harlin took this abysmal excuse for a script and made it into a movie. Sam Jackson and Ed Harris actually read it (or not) and chose to star in it. Culpability abounds.<br /><br />This is the Denise Richards of film scripts. There aren't enough Razzies in the universe to give proper recognition to how truly horrible this writing really is.<br /><br />In all fairness, Samuel Jackson's profession is incredibly novel and the manner in which it's presented is highly creative, but, at the end of the day, it's all just trimmings. Pretty trimmings.<br /><br />Package it any way you want- garbage writing is still garbage writing.
I remember flipping through channels on HBO and saw this. This, my friends, is one of the worst TV movies I've ever seen. There is no excitement in this film.<br /><br />The story starts out with Drew Summers(Candice Cameron Bure) driving to a small town while in a trance. She stays with a couple who coincidentally, had a daughter named Laura Fairgate who looked exactly like her and is played by the same actress. Even the townsfolk agree that they looked alike. Thing is, Laura was killed over a year ago. Her boyfriend went missing around the same time she was murdered, making it look like he had killed her.<br /><br />While settling in this town for a while, Drew starts to have visions and nightmares. These visions and nightmares might prove that the boyfriend of Laura isn't the killer after all. Throughout the film, you find out that Ray Ordwell Sr.(Denis Arndt) is the one that raped her frequently over a period of time and killed her.<br /><br />The movie is too long and very boring. The film just drags on and on and on and on. Amazingly, I saw another TV movie after this called (Cloned) 1997 which was good but I'll review that one later.<br /><br />I give this movie 1 star out of 10. Avoid this TV movie. It is not worth your time. This is the worst TV movie of 1997!
While Watching this movie you notice right away the cheesy elements of a standard TV movie... though through out the picture the plot changes (if you are bold enough to say this movie has a plot) are by the book and unoriginal... and with every one the movie KEPT GETTING WORSE!<br /><br />Candace Cameron Bure, famous for her role as DJ Tanner on the hit TV show Full House, is not very convincing as a Possessed twenty something.. trying to avenge the Possesers Death. I believe she is fine actress.... just not in the thriller range.<br /><br />The Filming was trashy, and like I said the plot stale... though watching it I knew I was in for automatic cheese, I had NO idea how much worse this film could get...<br /><br />I highly do not recommend this movie... unless cheep Filmaking and poor writing is what you looking for
Nightscream is a TV Movie so it's bound to be pretty dire especially as it's a supposed horror film. This young girl is haunted by dreams as she arrives in a small town where there was a murder of a woman one year before. She is amazed when everyone in the town thinks she looks exactly like the murdered girl. The townsfolk are amazed when she keeps entering dream like trances where she reveals accurate details about the murder and murderer because the police got it all wrong apparently. Thinking that they are in danger of being found out, the murderers (there are two of them) start to hatch a plan to get rid of her before she gets to the real truth. By this time you will have probably fallen asleep and why do the makers of the film have the 'mist-making' machine on full throttle in the dream sequences.
This is horrible even for a TV movie. I can't believe it took three people to write this movie. I am not familiar with the novel on which this film was based, but it has got to be better than this. I'd rather watch a "Full House" marathon than this stupid movie. I gave it 2 out of 10 stars only because it was made better by commercials.
Think you've seen the worst movie in the world? Think again. The person who designed the cover of this box should be accused of false advertising. The cover makes it look like a good, scary horror suspense thriller. But, no. What we have instead is NIGHTSCREAM. A movie that makes a "sweeeoooowww!!" noise every time a credit flashes across the screen. The biggest name in the entire film is probably Casper Van Dien who hardly has a part.<br /><br />I voted a one for this one only because I couldn't vote any lower. If I could vote something like negative five-thousand, trust me, I would have. So, for now, I'm going to give NIGHTSCREAM 1/2* out of 5 just because it ended.
I truly was disappointed by this film which I had high hopes for. It seems to have been rushed out to take advantage of the success of screwball comedies at the time (including MGM's own "Libeled Lady", which featured two of the same stars) and the success of William Powell and Myrna Loy. Three years into their pairing, they were still attractive to watch and filled with fire in their scenes together, but a weak screenplay and rushed premise destroys any chance of it being a great followup to the previous year's "Libeled Lady" and the two "Thin Man" movies they had done prior to this. "Double Wedding" tells the story of a clothing store manufacturer, Myrna Loy, who is intent on dominating the life of her sister (Florence Rice), future brother-in-law (John Beal), and her own servants (which include Sidney Toler and Mary Gordon). When the independent spirited William Powell comes into her life, having distracted Rice and Beal from Loy's constant control, Loy meets her match. Sounds good so far, right? Yeah, an interesting premise falls short, sad to say, because Loy's character is so one dimensional it is hard to even like her let alone see Powell fall in love with her, which we know will soon happen. It's another attempt to put a career minded woman in her place by changing her views on her what kind of life she has been leading, something Hollywood did often during its golden age. When Loy says she doesn't have time to both run her business and have a man in her life, its a groaner.<br /><br />Fortunately, other than Powell, there is free-spirited Jessie Ralph on board. A salty wealthy older woman who helped Loy start her business, she has an acquaintance with Powell and can see immediately through Loy's cool claims that she loathes him. Rice and Beal are a boring couple, and the whole premise of Powell getting between them is senseless. Then, an ex-wife of Powell's shows up, which really isn't necessary at that late point in the story, and the final wedding scene (where a crowd of people try to get into Powell's tiny trailer) is a weak attempt to bring some farce. (It is funny though, that Powell keeps getting hit by items meant by Loy to hit Edgar Kennedy with; Those chuckles are most welcome, since there are so few others.) Powell and Loy would do better in two later screwball comedies, "I Love You Again" and "Love Crazy", which are sophisticated, witty, and fun. This film attempts to be all three, but ends up a sophisticated bore.
A 'Wes Craven presents' movie from 1995, directed by Joe Clayton and starring Lance Henriksen. A group of scientists save a dying man they find by their desert stranded government outpost by injecting him with their experimental virus, of course, one of their colleagues goes overboard and the virus transforms the man into a near unstoppable monster with them trapped inside. Lance Henriksen plays the morally offended researcher who leaves the project before all this, but returns after receiving a call for help to save the man (pre-unstoppable death machine mutation).<br /><br />Deciding to combine two trips in one he brings his family along with him (they're going on vacation afterwards) and proceeds to give them entry to the top secret government facility, thus putting them right in the middle of the chaos within. In case you can't tell, this one relies on the viewer to work with it a little and put aside some petty (see: major and blatant) details.<br /><br />Overall though: Watch-able with mild bits of enjoyment. Note: The Outpost is commonly known under the title 'Mind Ripper'
The only reason I saw this movie was because it had Giovanni Ribisi and it was supposed to be "Horror". Don't be fooled, this movie has to be the worst "horror" film I have seen. It's about these people who go to a secret location which has a "Monster" in it. The monster is a man with a deformed face running around in blue sweat pants who has a craving for brains. Some people die, some people don't. In the end they throw the monster off of a plane and then fly away happily. BUT OH NO! THE MONSTER IS STILL ALIVE AFTER FALLING OUT OF A PLANE! Go spend 2 hours some other way like watching paint dry on a wall, trust me, it's more entertaining than this crap.
I really loved the Millenium series, starred by Lance Henriksen, which is why I bought the film. Obviously at some level it was a mistake. Mutant/monster films are usually very bad and this film is no exception.<br /><br />The basic idea itself is not totally judged to fail (well nevertheless this film would never have been a success, even with a good director & actors), but the way it turns out this is just a B-class movie. The scenes that are supposed to be scary seem more funny to me and the critter is not credible at all.<br /><br />However, watching this film with group of friends in restless mood makes this film shine as it is so unintentionally hilarious.
SPOILER!!!! Mind Ripper hmmmm.... I had just watched the nightmare on elm street movies and had just found out about Giovanni Ribisi. I thought Giovanni Ribisi hadnt done any horrors so I checked into it. I saw "the outpost" (mind ripper) I checked on my Tivo for it. There was an air date on Sci Fi. So I was set. I got my pop corn ready came in and set on the couch and what the hell is this? A freakin bold guy in blue sweat pants running around yelling! Nothing is scary about this movie at all! If anything its funny! Funny how low the budget is, funny how predictable it is, funny how bad the acting is and funny how much money it DIDNT make. Ok giovanni ribisi is a good actor but this movie is dumb. It is so stupid. They killed him at the end and then they go on this plane and the "monster" is on it. They shoot him in the head with a shotgun and it falls a long way to the ground. And<br /><br />-GASP- The killer ending, Its Still Alive! WOOHHH! Scary! woooohhhh! Sucky fat sack of crap waste of 2 hours.<br /><br />Bottom Line: You have somewhere to go and you need to kill some time. Mind ripper isnt the suggestion. I'd rather sit out naked in the snow than watch this movie a second time.<br /><br />OVERALL GRADE: F- - - - - - - - - - (ENTERNAL)
Why a film maker with a track record like Wes Craven would want to lend his name to a tedious collection of cliches like this is anyone's guess. And if he did stump up any money for it - all of £50 judging by the looks - he should have been banging on the director's door for a refund the minute the film was released. There are many "Alien" rip-offs and this is one of the worst. Even the reliable Lance Henriksen, saddled with a character dumb enough to allow his kids to wander around a dangerous government lab, can't save it. As a cure for insomnia, this rates a 10+. As a piece of quality film making - forget it.
This is Wes Craven at his worst! this is the very worst horror, if you can call it horror, you will ever watch, esp from one of the masters of horror Wes Craven, Poor Direction, Poor Acting, Poor Set, Poor Atmosphere makes this the biggest pile of rubbish ever! the bad guy is totally unconvincing, you couldn't even feel sorry for the guy! the gore, and horror involved in the film is laughable, it's just plain rubbish! the only good points i can think of is, It stars Natasha Gregson Wagner, Giovanni Ribisi, and Lance Henriksen, but not even that cast, could stop this from spiralling out of control, and into one of the worst horrors ever. If you still ain't watch it yet, don't bother, you'll only hate it.
A scientific experiment designed to create a superhuman being has gone wrong.The creators become trapped in a remote desert outpost,pursued relentlessly and mercilessly by their own creation.James Stockton,the scientist whose research was used despite his protests to create the monster,is called the outpost to help undo the horror that now lurks somewhere within the dark halls.James,together with his son and daughter,soon find themselves trapped inside with the others,trying desperately to survive.And with the outpost sealed from within,there is no way out..."The Outpost"/"Mind Ripper" is highly unoriginal.The sets are pretty claustrophobic and there's a bit of gore.However as a horror it fails miserably on almost all levels.There's zero suspense,the script is weak and filled with big holes and the ending is extremely predictable.So-called master Wes Craven produced this one-I wonder if he is happy with this trash.Joe Gayton directs without any style.The acting is horrible,only Lance Henriksen can act at all.OK,I'm a big horror fan and was bitterly disappointed.Avoid it like the plague-it's just the same old boring crap again!
Sigh…the stupid government once again attempted to create an inexhaustible and indestructible soldier, and of course the experiments went terribly wrong, burdening us with a half man-half mutant who pukes an awful lot and squeaks like a little girl whenever he's upset. Lance Henriksen stars as the honest scientist who immediately quit the experiment upon hearing it was a military project, but he returns (bringing the whole family with him) when he finds out his beloved guinea pig has gone on a killing spree. "Mind Ripper" certainly is a watchable horror movie, but it's very unoriginal and features pretty much every lame cliché you can think off (including the estranged father/rebellious teenage son sub plot...yawn). The characters are like wooden puppets, the dumbest things are being said and done and there's a completely pointless dream-sequence...coming from the monster!!! There's a handful of interesting gory scenes to enjoy and some of the isolated desert-locations are effectively eerie. Lance Henriksen is adequate as always, even though this is yet another inferior production he stars, and Giovanni Ribisi surely deserved a better motion picture to make his debut in. For some reason, this anonymous 90's thriller is also known as "The Hills Have Eyes part 3". Is it because it handles about members of the same family being terrorized in the desert? Is it because Wes Craven was once again involved, as a producer this time? Or maybe it's because the monster gets bald near the end like the freaky Michael Berryman in the 1977 original? Who knows...Who cares? Wes Craven probably financed this project because his son co-wrote the script and it's always moving to discover that your offspring is equally untalented as you are. Not recommended!
I saw this film at Temple University. I cannot imaging that anyone will ever see this film in a theater (projected on film). The acting is similar to Saved By The Bell (The TV Show). The plot is simple and unimaginative. The sound recordist likes the sound of wind and the DP needs a light meter. Vampires, Vampires, Vampires.<br /><br />Don't waste your money.
OK, let's see... a handsome young stranger is new in town, and walks around on the local boardwalk. He meets a pretty girl, meets up with the obnoxious leader of the local hip young vampires club, is dared by them to follow them into this cave, gets into a conflict over the pretty girl, an epic fight ensues...<br /><br />No, it's not Lost Boys, although you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference, since I think even some of the carnival music is the same. (Do you have to pay royalties for sampling a movie?) Even the ending of this stinkbomb is ripped off from Lost Boys. The make-up is below par, even for a low-budget thriller, the characters are one-dimensional, and just exactly how many "Oh, I had this horrible experience" scenes of teen angst does one movie need? The humor is flat and stupid, and everything else is sadly predictable. Yawn.<br /><br />The only scary thing about this turkey is the promise (threat) of a sequel, an idea that hopefully every distributor in the country will drive a stake through.
Hi Y'all,<br /><br />I bought this on DVD from England. You see, I have one of those multi-region players. I thought it would be fun to get a cool movie to show to my friends. Well, surprise to Amy-Jo Johnson, she's barely in the movie. Although she is on the cover. It's really difficult to imagine how a film this bad got made in the first place. Perhaps someone has a trust fund.<br /><br />Oh... It's about Vampires who live at the beach
I don't know who financed it, or why, but this "want to be" vampire flick is really awful. It tries to be hip, and appeal to the young MTV-generation audience, but it is just downright laughable. The acting is horrible, and the directing is horrendous. I heard the budget was $600,000. I want to know where all the money went?
"Nuts in May" may be one of the worst films i have ever seen. If Ed Wood was still alive this would be the type of movie he would be doing.To say this movie is bad would be the understatement of the century. But how bad is it really? Well, here are two levels of bad i go by; "it's so bad it's good" or "it's so bad it's GOD AWFUL". This film falls into the latter section. What little unintentional humor it has does not make up for the slow, hard to understand, boring majority of the film.<br /><br />SUMMARY: SPOILERS**<br /><br />Two middle-aged Anglos take a trip to the countryside for some R&R and camping, there they met Ray soon-to-be Jim (I'll explain later), who's tent is next to our main couple. Throughout most of the movie the two leads go sight seeing on the beach, at a rock quarry and other exciting locations. In between these adventures they talk endlessly about the environment, vegetarianism,fossil collecting, the duty of a proper citizen and proper diet, all thing i want to see in a comedy. They bore anyone who will listen to them. The dialogue is not only bad, but the pacing in some scenes is so slow i sometimes felt like dosing off. Scenes would go on forever and just when it begins to build up and something is about to happen the scene ends. Half way through the movie i thought to myself, "Nothing is going to happen in this thing, it is truly a movie about nothing".<br /><br />The characters are annoying and constantly repeat things. At one part i felt the director was playing a cruel joke on his audience. The scene i am referring to is the "Sing Along" scene. In it our two boresome Brits play some of there music for us, actually it was the same 4 four lines over and over and over and over. The idea was to get Ray to sing along with them, but Ray knew, as well as us, that they are the worst songwriters known to man. This scene was beyond tedious, by the fifth time the song was played i started to question the existance of a merciful God.<br /><br />Words can not describe the awfulness of this film. The first thing that strikes you is the indecipherable British accents that most of the cast has. Remember the thick Scottish accents in Trainspotting? Times that by 10.<br /><br />Towards the end our tree hugging, incoherent, couple get into a fight with some of Ray's friends that have complete disrespect for the rules of camping. Our hero becomes so incensed that a climatic battle ensues between our hero and the head hellraiser. To settle their dispute the two men engage in a stick fight. That's right a stick fight! Now this is where the unintensional humor starts. I laughed so hard at the ineptitude of it all that i thought, "This may make up for the other 80 minutes." After this histerical battle our hero runs behind some bushes to cry his eyes out and the other man calls Ray over by calling him Jim for some unknown reason.<br /><br />A stick fight, a crying nature loving 40 year old and a character name change 3/4 into the movie, Ed Wood would be proud.<br /><br />Though, i was again forced to endure the last 10 minutes which to sum up ends with a long take of a pig. Why? who the hell knows. At one moment we see a pig grazing and the next the credits start to role over the screen. One of the worst endings to a one of the worst films of all time.
**SPOILERS** The killer in the movie doesn't wait a second as we see him sneaking into a girls shower and hacking her to death taking her severed and bloodied arm as he makes his getaway. We then get this official looking prologue, as if were watching a true story, stating that a number of gruesome murders were committed in the late fall of 1985 in a small mid-western collage.<br /><br />Grandfatherly looking, and hearing impaired, Sheriff Ron Delboys is baffled by this murder and later when the murders of local collage students, all women, continues his run for state senator is in jeopardy with him bumbling the investigation at every turn. There's at least two times when Delboys says that they'll never be another murder as long as he's on the case and within minutes another murder happens.<br /><br />Finding a golden amulet at the scene of each murder the sheriff's daughter, the collage librarian, Tina finds this reference book about Withcraft indicating that the amulet is a symbol of a witches cult that originated in the early 1700 just after the Salem Witch Trials. This cult was out to avenge the 19 accused witches hung by the local townspeople back in 1692 and they went out at night killing men and women of authority and taking off with a body part. When the body parts would form a complete person they would be burned in an occult midnight bonfire ritual.<br /><br />You never get a handle to what's exactly happening in the movie "Blood Cult" not just because it's totally disjointed story but it's ever more outrageous and grad-school level acing especially by Charles Ellis playing the butterfingered sheriff Ron Delboys. Getting himself into more trouble then even the on the loose killer could have gotten him into. The bumbling Sheriff Delboys ends up with his head busted coffee spiked as well as almost burned alive, after being dismembered. The only reason he wasn't is because he seemed to have dreamt it all up while under the influence of some strong and unnamed drug.<br /><br />There's a weird dream sequence in the movie suggesting that a number of highly respected members of the community are members of the Witches Cult that's responsible for the sorority murders. The movie doesn't bother to explain at all if the dream, that the drugged Sheriff Delboys had, was a dream or actually a real experience on his part by dropping the whole thing as if it were cut out of the movie!<br /><br />Getting out of the hospital and staking out the collage sorority house, while munching down a bag full of McDonald cheeseburgers, Sheriff Delboys finally comes face to face with the killer. Shefiff Delboys find out to his shock and amazement that not only does he know who he, or she, is but he's also willing to let the killer escape!<br /><br />The very first straight to video motion picture and it shows. Not only would no one it their right mind be crazy enough to pay admission, at least with the video you can tape over it Thank God, to see this disaster but no movie-house owner would dare play it on their screen without the danger of the outraged patrons, in a justifiable show of righteous indignation, tear the place apart!
Let me see...I've seen every film Lou Ferrigno has made. I've seen Batman & Robin...twice. I've memorized the dances in Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo...I've watched unfinished Blade Runner rip-off student films...yet this film is the most painful thing I've ever seen.<br /><br />This was the first movie for the "straight to video market." So you can thank Blood Cult for all of those mysterious Michael Dudikoff films at your local Blockbuster. You should know that this isn't even high quality video. This is consumer grade. This is you father's video camera he never uses. This is what you have to look at for 90 minutes.<br /><br />I won't bore you with plot details since I'm getting sleepy just thinking about it, but I will tell you that watching this movie is a form of torture. I only watch this movie when I am angry at myself. So I recommend this film if you are suicidal, or if you are up for a mighty challenge.<br /><br />If you happen to rent this film (God have mercy) you will know what you are in for from the first 10 minutes. This is when you are hit by the usual horror film intro. You know the drill. There's a lot of suspense and build up before some girl dies. Yes, you've seen it before, but not like this. This is the most boring intro I've ever seen. I honestly believe that you could get a camera off ebay for ten dollars, grab the bum that most smells like gin and candy, and tell him to film your mom cooking dinner and it would be more interesting than this intro. It bored me to tears. I cried like a baby.<br /><br />Another one of the things that makes this film so unbelievably painful is its actors. Yes, I've seen bad acting. TRUST ME. I've seen 4th grade productions of Oliver Twist with more realistic dialog. The lead actor makes me ill. The "supporting" actress is a train-wreck of a human.<br /><br />I will not even comment on the boyfriend. True horror.<br /><br />So, rent this movie if you can find it. You'll never be more depressed that you spent 3 dollars on anything else.
What can I say? This was hands-down the worst movie I have ever seen in my life (and believe me, some of my favorite movies are admittedly horrible). The acting was amateurish, the sets were boring, and the camerawork was shoddy and sophomoric. This whole movie seemed like a college final project. I had to keep convincing myself that it was done by a teenager to make it seem somewhat good. The most disturbing factor of the "film" is that it's not even film at all-- it 's shot on video. That was extremely distracting. On top of all that, the dialogue is simply disastrous and the plot line is so basic it makes my eyes water. Not to mention they steal from at least four other horror movies in the first 20 minutes or so. If there were such a thing as zero stars, this movie would get it.<br /><br />The only thing scary about this movie is how bad it is.
Hitting the ground running, the film begins with THREE murders in a row. No plot, no characters, no motivation; the second murder happens off screen, and that victim's severed head is actually used to quite efficiently bludgeon the third victim to death! This is a high point. But the Lewises are obviously smart enough to lead with strength; soon they're covering up botched dialogue scenes with detective voice-over and shooting endless snappy repartee in ugly wide shot. By now this Betacam production's horror atmosphere is rapidly giving way to an insurance infomercial vibe, with the monumental (and rather endearing) plainness of the leads skewing things further in that direction. Shlub cop investigates, meat cleaver guy slaughters, repeat, climaxing early with a memorable severed-finger-in-the-salad gag. Only, how the hell did the fingers get in the salad? And wasn't the Blood Cult's purpose to collect the appendages they severed? When the GORE stops making sense, you know you're in trouble. And without spoiling the big, nonsensical twist ending, just take my word for it: the fascinating incompetence of the first scenes gives way to a deep cathode-tube-smashing impulse. The basic reaction is to try to put it behind you and get on with your life.
This movie is so mild! I tried not to expect anything greater from this film, but still it was a big disappointment. The basic idea of the story is interesting and potential. This could have been so much better. The characters are really simple, no depth at all. It's a shame that previously talented performers Tiina Lymi and Petteri Summanen didn't make the already poor characters any better. The director just don't get the watcher emotionally involved at all with this piece of cr*p.<br /><br />And the the chase sequence at the end of the movie. That's hideous!!!<br /><br />Why there had to be so stupid and old solution for that situation?<br /><br />It's too much used element with even more terrible way of filming it. OH NO!
usually a movie that starts bad stays bad in a monotonically descending pattern. This bad movie started to seem to get better before going into a steep dive. The acting, save for the male antagonist, was awful. The plot was essentially a set up for the final main scene, which is probably good as performance art, but it was wasted in this movie. Not sure why this movie was made.
"Cleo's Second Husband" is an amateurish attempt at psychodrama with more to fault than to praise. The plot is hacked, the story monotonous, the acting poor, the execution second rate, etc. Not worth the time unless maybe your a relative of one of the actors. PU! (D)
I recently watched this movie because I'm a big Kinski Fan. But, oh my god. Don't get me wrong. I love this guy. But in this movie his whole acting is just simply a refusal to work! But fortunately he isn't the only one to blame. First of all the complete storyline is totally weak dealing with a gunmen looking for a murderer while Kinski is stuck up in jail for a crime he did not commit. That's all. All the dialogs and characters are so bad it's making you scream. But maybe that's the fun of it all. If you know the Kinski-Biography it's obvious that Kinski didn't care about those movies at all. Especially all his Italo-Western roles. He just took the money and that was It. again, this whole movie is totally weird. Only for hardcore-Fans of the genre.
Hungary can't make any good movies. Fact. This is a great example of that.<br /><br />First of all the term "plot" does not exist in this movie. It's seriously weak. Even tho a lot of people would argue with me on that. Sure, it's about a taboo, but that's about it. There are endless possibilities, which could have been really great, if used, but they nearly skipped everything. I think the whole movie is just an excuse to show pictures, which are the only decent things in this whole pile of awfulness.<br /><br />The acting is just plain shitty. There aren't many lines, so you would think that the actors have great facial expressions or mimicking abilities, but no. In fact, 86% of the time, they suck. And that's when they don't say anything. If they say even a single word, you'll start tilting your head, saying: "That's damn unrealistic". But than again, this is partly the fault of the writing. There's also no emotion in most of the dialogs.<br /><br />The editing is sometimes OK, but most of the time illogical and just worsens the whole picture. It could have given an emotional push, yet it seems the editing in here is all about putting cuts after each other.<br /><br />Someone please explain it to me, why critics say this movie is a masterpiece. Calling this an "Art" isn't gonna make it better. Sorry Mundruczo, but you failed. Live with it. Even tho you probably won't care about my or any other guys opinion scarifying your "child".
This film is a very bad example of uninspired storytelling, which tries to hide behind an "artfilm" facade, trying to shock the audience with unmotivated violence (against women) to cover up for it's lack of psychological depth of the characters & internal conflicts. Everything in this movie is pretentious, from the thank you's to Bela tarr at the beginning, to the photography, the acting, music, the story & editing. When suddenly, without reason, you are forced to watch close ups of "charismatic" looking hungarian country people in their boats, while the soundtrack is trying to persuade you that this is supposed to be a dramatic moment, although they are only on the way to the funeral of the local alcoholic, thats one thing. Putting completely unmotivated rape scenes as a shocker is a different thing, for which i absolutely have no comprehension. This movie is trying really hard to enter a certain genre of artistic (east European drama kind of) films but lacks the subtlety, observational skills and "soul" that other directors have.
No way this overly simplistic script, with basically one character, should be interpreted as feature entertainment. In reality it has about enough material for an eighteen minute short, and even that would seriously tax your attention span. Zero characters beyond Noble Willingham are developed. The never ending closeups of lips and telephones are sleep inducing, and the script is so underdeveloped that a chimpanzee could have written it. In fact this whole sad thing shouldn't have even been put on film. A tape recording would have been more than sufficient to put you to sleep. Definitely not recommended. - MERK
I recently watched this film on The Sundance Channel and it kept me interested from the start. However, it seems to take forever getting itself where it wants to go and in the end, I felt somewhat cheated. In a nutshell, Noble Willingham (of Walker, Texas Ranger fame) plays a boat salesman who starts getting harassed by telephone from a man claiming to be his son. According to the mysterious caller, Willingham has a dark, dirty little secret that affects the son and he (the son) is enjoying reminding him of it. I won't spoil anything for anyone but for me three things kept me from liking this movie a great deal. One, the movie has more foul language than Goodfellas, Scarface, Casino, and Glengarry Glen Ross combined. 99% of it is spewed from Willingham himself. It didn't take long to wear me out with constant four-letter words. Two, I simply could not believe that anyone would answer the telephone that many times, especially when one knows that a crank caller is on the other end of the line. No matter where Willingham is in the movie whether it be at work, home, a diner, etc., the phone rings and he always answers it spewing venom at the "son", and then hanging up ONLY TO ANSWER IT AGAIN WHEN THE CALLER CALLS BACK IN ABOUT TEN SECONDS! How many of us would do that? Now I realize that we probably do not have a movie if he doesn't keep answering, but I just could not suspend disbelief on that particular matter. Three, and this is the most minor of the criticisms, why is the director so opposed to showing us the "Corndog Man" (a.k.a. the caller/son)? Most of the time he's just a redneck sounding voice on the other end of the phone. I could have lived with that one if other things had fallen into place, but since they didn't it's just one more to tack on. I do give the movie credit for being a somewhat original idea and for holding my attention with suspense from the beginning but that's about it. Do see it, if only one time. However, if you're like me, you'll be saying "Triple K Marine!" in your sleep for a night or two after you finish watching it.
I must begin by saying that this is one of the most annoying films I have seen in my entire life! Annoying factor number one: Never seeing the "son's" face (for the entire movie). And the infinitely more annoying factor: That incessantly ringing phone..nothing but listening to the phone ring over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...you get my point. The old man was being harassed but the VIEWER was too! At first the film was interesting to me but it deteriorated VERY quickly. The film may possibly have been good as a short but was definitely not enough to maintain anything approaching feature film length. I guess what I am trying to say is that the message about racism (which finally put in an appearance during the last two scenes of the movie) is secondary to this old mans being harassed. Who cares to sit and watch what is really nothing more than an old man spouting obscenities at someone prank calling him?? If you've never seen a movie that just gets under your skin and drives you CRAZY...check this one out!
Dumb, meaningless movie should appeal to Southern Rednecks, teenagers with IQ's bordering on retarded and the average Bush supporter. Noble Willingham plays the lead in this simpleminded script for what it is and uses a generous dose of MFers, eff this and eff that and SOBs. The ending which I anticipated to "Save" this hollow story was the biggest letdown, leaving me hanging and wondering, "Why"?<br /><br />It's a story of cat & mouse or more like Bully vs. victim.<br /><br />Don't waste your time unless you like hearing the phone ringing every 2 minutes and constant cursing and screaming throughout this 123 minute piece of dumpster droppings.
This movie was horrid and at the end made me wonder why someone went to the trouble to make it. Now it was not all bad, I have studied film and this film was put together very nicely and had very good cinematic everything with interesting angles to very nice lighting and excellent camera work. I wish I could have seen it back in school because it would have made a good film to write a paper on. BUT........ Since I have graduated and lost most of my film pretentiousness I have realized that a film should be entertaining above all, this movie was long and boring and I'm not sure when it finally got to the point that it was worth my time.<br /><br />
This movie is bad.<br /><br />This movie is REALLY bad.<br /><br />This movie is might as well be half a minute long and shown 200 times in a row, because you'd get the same effect.<br /><br />The phone rings. Man A answers the phone and gets annoyed by Man B. Man A curses off Man B, and then hangs up the phone. Repeat.<br /><br />This is the entire movie.<br /><br />DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE. TRUST ME.
I get the impression that I was watching a different movie to the majority of other people I know who have seen this film. It's not really that I found the film offensive or anything - just that the script was unbelievably amateurish for a film that had obviously had a bit of money thrown at it. I really respected Paul Haggis' work on the Million Dollar Baby script and was bitterly disappointed to see how bad this script was. It was clear to me that it was desperate to be the 'racism' version of Traffic, but I don't think Traffic was really a film worth ripping off in the first place. <br /><br />The worst feature of thisfilm is the way it shamelessly spoon-feeds its audience. Does Haggisreally think we are so dumb as to require a shot of the blanks? Do wereally need to see the phone book sitting on Farhad's dashboard, withthe address circled in black texta? Can we not be left to make someleaps in logic for ourselves? <br /><br />I also had a major problem with the dialogue which was so 'on the nose'. I have heard one critic say that the quality of dialogue is deceptively high, because even though people may not speak this way, they certainly do think this way. That is irrelevant. It is the job of a script like this to utilise dialogue in a way that helps add to the characterisations and believability of the (in this case highly implausible) situations that are set up. These characters all speak using the same voice and all they ever talk about is racism. <br /><br />Surely the purpose of a film like this should be to promote the fact that race should not really be an issue in these situations, but by making it the sole focus of every scene, doesn't it become innately racist itself? Characters walk around spouting their philosophies and conveniently memorised statistics on race relations as though they're regurgitating extracts from the research essay they've just written. It's utterly unconvincing and obvious. <br /><br />A film should reveal its meaning gradually, not slap us in the face with it in the opening scenes and then never let up. I can see that Haggis' intentions with this film were honorable, but dare I suggest that by directing his own script he has not been able to identify and, therefore, overcome its flaws. I really hope that writer/directors will be really careful in future when approaching this 'mosaic' style of narrative. It has been done well a number of times, but getting the balance between the personal and the political right is very difficult. And Robert Altman will not be outdone in that department.
I saw this "movie" partly because of the sheer number of good reviews at Netflix, and from it I leaned a valuable lesson. Not a lesson about ethnic diversity however...the lesson I learned is "Don't trust reviews".<br /><br />Yes, racism sucks and people are complicated, but the people who actually need to see this movie are going to be the ones who are the least drawn to it and least affected by it if they DO see it. The only reason that I can think of for the number of good reviews is that it's being reviewed by people who aren't used to thinking, or who've seen their first thought-provoking movie and somehow think that Haggis invented the concept. In fact, he basically made this film, which should be called "Racism For Dummies", as emotionally wrenching as possible, seemingly to give people who don't spend a lot of time thinking the impression that they've discovered some fundamental truth that's never been covered in a film before. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintanence it's not... An after-school special for the unthinking masses, cut into bite-sized overwrought ham-fisted pieces to make it easier to swallow without too much introspection.<br /><br />It's as if they portrayed everyone as being the worst possible extreme, simply to make us happy that we're such good people because we don't identify with the characters. Let's face it people. NOBODY identifies with these characters because they're all cardboard cutouts and stereotypes (or predictably reverse-stereotypes). It's well acted (even if the dialog is atrocious) and cleverly executed, so much that you don't think to ask "where's the beef?" until you can tell the film is winding down. The flaming car scene was well executed, like much of the movie, but went nowhere in the end. <br /><br />The messages are very heavy-handed, and from the "behind the scenes" blurb, the producers were clearly watching a different movie, because there is very little to laugh about in this movie, even during the intended funny parts. I have to stress that this is NOT entertainment, more like a high school diversity lesson...call it the "Blood on the Highway" of racism. They could even show this in high schools if it weren't for the "side-nude" shot of Jennifer Esposito.<br /><br />In this film, everyone's a jerk and everyone learns a lesson (except for Michael Pena who gets the best role, but the most predictable storyline).<br /><br />This is a bad film, with bad writing, and good actors....an ugly cartoon crafted by Paul Haggis for people who can't handle anything but the bold strokes in storytelling....a picture painted with crayons.<br /><br />Crash is a depressing little nothing, that provokes emotion, but teaches you nothing if you already know racism and prejudice are bad things.
The film's tagline is "You think you know who you are. You have no idea." I reject both the suggested idea that I have no idea who I am and the inferred suggestion that this film tells me who people truly are. If people in real life are really like this, then man, we're screwed.<br /><br />A bilious film that I walked into late and left prematurely. A film which is so wrapped up in its goal of becoming The Race Film of All Time that it loses sight of the very tools a film must use.<br /><br />The rules of Hollywood are such: if you show something in the first half, it must be used in the second half. Thus the gun that the daughter worries about her father buying will somehow find its way into the story in the second half. The rules of Hollywood are to make dialog 'real' - a concept which changes with every decade. Is this 'real dialog' somehow less ludicrous than the 'real dialog' of Kevin Smith ten years ago? The rules of Hollywood state that we set the scene, and as action rises, the camera moves in closer to the faces - in this film primarily so we can see the supposed shame, humiliation and transcendental realism of the characters. The strings increase, the frame-rate slows down, and our heart is meant to break.<br /><br />This film is as crassly manipulative as it is vapid. I have my own prejudices against L.A., which I freely admit, so to combat this prejudice I will not say that this is a natural situation stemming from the location, but rather probably from the author and director. The writer, Paul Haggis, already showed a taste for polemics over humanity in his Million Dollar Baby, which at least had a director who understood how to make the vision of the film bring out the best of a script's ideas. Now that Paul Haggis has his own hands on the camera it becomes obvious that not only does he not know how to write true, natural human drama, he does not know how to photograph or direct it as well. Paul Haggis comes from the land of TV, let us not forget: the land of diminished expectations.<br /><br />Everything is as obvious as a TV-movie, simply presented for simple minds - Haggis drills into us, over and over again, that while on the surface people may seem to be awful, they have secret pains hidden. This is a nice idea, but so hamfistedly presented that the whole juxtaposition of bad/good has an amateurish feel. Structurally the film is broken up, in the tradition of Magnolia and other earlier films. The editing is as typical and conventionally "cinematic" as could be - if there is a dramatic movement, such as a door opening or a car driving past between the subject and camera, the editors use that extreme movement to give the cut that occurs there a more kinetic quality. The problem is that other than the drive to keep things moving, there is very little intelligence and thought behind the cuts - everything is kept by the books. Not only are the puppets of this hideous racial punch and judy show ineptly handled, but even the curtains are lowered and raised with incompetence.<br /><br />The film tries desperately to present reality, but there's just no talent whatsoever. Some of the actors are good, some of the actors are bad, and all of the performance get muddied together, brought down by the low, low aesthetics of the film. We have cinematography which is technically clear: we can see the scene, we have a clear understanding of what is happening. However, not only is the cinematography unremarkable, but it is thoughtless camera-work and framing which believes that it actually is inspired. The result is little stylistic flourishes which one recognizes but do not actually add anything to the drama or pathos. For example - and this is a spoiler - as a father holds his dying child (the father might be shot too, I didn't stick around to find out) the camera sees his face and gives us the famous Vertigo track/zoom. The Vertigo shot!!! It was at this point that the film became hysterical and I just had to leave. I had to leave because it was so bad. I left because I was in the middle of a crowded theater, and I wanted to express to the audience that I was sick of emptyheaded Hollywood 'art' which is full of sound and fury, yet signifying nothing (in the Bard's own words). I hate to waste such good Shakespearian references on something this remarkably bad.
I agree with what so many others have said about the shallow and offensive nature of this film's examination of racism. It is baffling to me that so many people seem to have been fooled by its pretentiousness. I want to comment on the Matt Dillon character as an example of what's most infuriating about this movie. Here we have a man who -- contrasted with the film's underlying message that "we're all a LITTLE racist" -- effectively rapes a woman in public, cruelly humiliating her husband and deliberately goading him to make a move that, as he well knows, will lead to his arrest or even death. He does all this after pulling the couple over without any legal cause but because, as we come to understand, they are black and wealthy and he is a hurt little boy who is now the police and can therefore do as he pleases. This behavior is not a LITTLE racist. This behavior is evil. It is disturbing to me that this extreme of racism is held up next to another character's behavior -- spouting her paranoid stereotypes about gang violence -- to illustrate that everybody's a LITTLE racist. Later, we're spoon-fed some tripe about Dillon's poor old dad and how black folks drove him into the poor house. Is this supposed to explain, or worse, excuse this behavior? And is Dillon's character meant to redeem himself by committing the utterly unmotivated and unbelievable, laughably coincidental act of saving the woman he sexually assaulted the very night before? Please. The fact that so many people seem to feel some kind of self-congratulatory admiration for this film makes me feel sad about the shallowness of our understanding of racism, and our apparent lack of commitment to condemning and ending it.
*** SPOILERS***<br /><br />One of the worst films I've seen since last years "The Village." An insult to anyone of any intelligence at all. Poorly written and astonishingly contrived. Nobody, especially in Los Angeles talks the way these characters do. No subtly at all. If the point of this film is to say that "we all have a little bit of bigotry in us" he does a horrible job of stating the obvious. Not only was his point clearly base, but every character in this film was AMAZINGLY STUPID. The car jacking scene almost made me walk out, along with the rescue and oh lets not forget the WHITE off DUTY Rookie COP picking up a hitchhiking black thug and... I could go on and on. Awful, just awful.
I can not believe the positive reaction to this movie. I had great expectations for it and was disappointed. First of all, they used every cheesy racism cliché in the book. It was so predictable. For instance, from the second the young Latino guy showed up you just knew that he would be a really nice guy because he looked like a gangbanger. Matt Dillon's character has been played a million times, a cop who had been hardened over the years and would see the light to some degree by the end of the movie. The predictability hardly ended with those characters. A phenomenal cast was wasted on a weak script. The morals of the story were PC to the max. There were a few clever twists but not nearly enough. The dialouge was embarrassing at times. It wasn't all bad.I just can't believe this movies high score so far. It was somewhat entertaining, just a little insulting to ones intelligence. I admire what this movie was trying to achieve but it fell well short.
I wrote this as a two part review. Part two has spoilers.<br /><br />Part 1: <br /><br />No, this isn't that one about the sex with car accidents. This is the one about racism in L.A. You know, the one where everybody is a racist, and race is the topic on everybody's mind at all times. Race.<br /><br />Its like the movie has a form of turrets syndrome where race is the constant theme. Race. Racist. Racism. Race Relations. Relay race.<br /><br />Paul Haggis made a movie which took the structure of Magnolia, which was used to show the disconnect of people who are tangentially connected, and then screwed it into a 1'53" mental vomit about racism in America. RACE. In the 24 hour period we have 7 stories running parallel all connected and about race. The first hour, people say ridiculous stuff and do absurd things in an effort to be real about racism in America.<br /><br />For example, the story with Ludicrous and Larenz Tate provides the comic relief. Too bad, the first half of their story is lifted straight from The Bonnie Situation in Pulp Fiction. RACISM. Their section is the Quentin Tarantino section where, instead of being cool and talking about foot massages and religion, the characters talk about race and racism. CONSTANTLY. <br /><br />The other good thing about it is the Mexican story when the Mexican guy is talking to his daughter. He gives her his invisible impenetrable cloak to protect her from bullets. Decent writing, but that's only because the writers have had daughters and know what they would say in his place.<br /><br />The rest of the stories are extremely ludicrous. The Hindi does not act in any semblance of realism. The scene where he's trying to get the lock fixed and the Mexican tells him he needs a new door is abbreviated and stupid. Why would anybody act like that? Is it realistic? NOOO. It reminds me more of the convenience store clerk from The Doom Generation. "Six Dollar Sixty Six Cents girly." If i ever watch the second half of the movie, I hope his head is shot off and his bodiless head starts coughing up relish.<br /><br />I haven't mentioned race in over a paragraph. RACE. RACISM. RACE FOR THE SUN. Better. Then, there is the black guy who wants to be white, Matt Dillon who has a chip on his shoulder against blacks, Ryan Phillippe who looks beautiful and does nothing, and various other bad actors acting badly with bad dialog. When Matt Dillon molests the black producers wife, could I help it if I was cracking up? When Philippe is second guessing his writing up of his partner for racism, can I help but crack up? The movie is so funny when it is being racist. Racist. RACIST I tell you.<br /><br />Now, mind you, this movie was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, and Best Editing, besides a nod to Matt Dillon who actually did attempt to do a decent job. Who was paid off for that one, I have no clue.<br /><br />Don't see it unless you feel like being preached at about the racism in society through a bad and unrealistic script from 2 white men over fifty who have no semblance of reality or interaction with real society in any way shape or form.<br /><br />D- <br /><br />Part 2:<br /><br />The second half of Crash takes any and all story lines in the first half...and spews them back out in a sort of redemptive, conclusionary, the world is a big coincidence kind of way. And it is in fact one of the worst ways to do it.<br /><br />Take 1999's Magnolia. People weren't conveniently tied together over and over again. They were just connected in a strange way that happens more often than you think. You know somebody who knows somebody who did something that you knew somebody else was also involved in. Crash takes this wrapping into a serious extreme.<br /><br />The stories are lined up so everybody meets again. Are there only 5 on the LAPD force? Aren't these people working weird shifts? Dillon and Philippe were a late shift then an early one the next day? And, why did Tate have to be the murdered hitchhiker? Wouldn't it have had more emotional tension, as well as realism, if it had been somebody we had not been following all day long? Like Phillippe just picks up a random hitchhiker and then freaks out. Everybody'd be freaking out.<br /><br />Eventually, in the second half, the touching invisible cloak scene is used to get the Hindi to shoot the daughter. It ticked me off and made me feel dirty. Not that the Hindi shot the daughter, but that they created a beautiful touching scene and then had it be the direct cause of people tearing up. It really ticked me off. At the writers, not the scene.<br /><br />The whole movie is fake and totally uncalled for. The coincidences are far too many and they require an extreme suspension of disbelief. Unlike Magnolia which was connected mildly, this had connections upon connections upon connections which were just so over-the-top. The only good part in the second half was when Sandra Bullock falls down the stairs. She doesn't die though. She should have. I cheered when she fell.<br /><br />The worst part about the movie is it pulls a Magnolia. Not just in structure, but it has a montage over the song In the Deep where you see everybody being depressed. Magnolia took this and had post-modern commentary on it by having all of the characters singing along to Aimee Mann's Wise Up. Unfortunately, Magnolia came out in 1999, while Crash came out in 2005. Its hard to make commentary on a movie which won't be made for another 6 years, but it happened. Somehow.<br /><br />Utter waste of my time.<br /><br />First half: D-; Second half: lowest grade ever; Overall: F---
i am amazed anyone likes this film. i never walk out of movies, but my friend had to physically stop me from leaving the theater during this insulting disaster. the white characters are saints and the Asian characters are practically nonexistent and worthless to the story. they exist only as objects, surprise. characters of other races fare much better. the twists and turns were laughable and predictable. but if you're reading this, you know that already. Paul Haggis is a hack. Hollywood can't even do multicultural movies right. do yourself a favor and watch a much more honest take on race relations, Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle!
What a disappointment. The story line is so simple - "the good guys sometimes do bad things and the bad guys sometimes do good things" - dressed up into a racial setting to make it seem clever, sophisticated and meaningful. It isn't. It lacks any subtlety.<br /><br />Everything that happens is telegraphed and then gone over again in case you missed the explanation.<br /><br />For a film like this to convince and move the audience it has to be represent the ambiguity of the characters and their motivation and actions; not simply present it as a series of 180 degree changes in each character's actions.<br /><br />Half way through I really wanted to waste no more time on it, but I thought I would stick with it in case it improved; big mistake I should have stopped then - it simply got worse.
THE GOOD: The acting were great especially Terrence Howard and Thandie Newton. Terrence Howard should have been nominated for Best Supporting Actor instead of Matt Dillon.<br /><br />THE BAD: I'm a visible minority (non-white) and I have experienced some form of racism in my life. BUT despite my life experiences and the movie's subject matter, I would definitely NOT say that this movie is the best of the year, in fact, it's FAR from it. I have problems with this movie both from a moviegoer's perspective and from a visible minority's perspective. Some of my problems with this movie are:<br /><br />(1) Poor character development (or none at all). Just because we saw extremes in a character, for example, Matt Dillon being a racist cop and being a good caregiver to his ailing father, that does not mean in any way that the character is well-developed. Yes, I admit that in a big cast ensemble like in this movie, it is quite difficult for every character to be well-developed, BUT that does not mean that at none of the characters should be like that.<br /><br />(2) The dialogue seems really contrived to the point that I'm really surprised this movie won for Best Original Screenplay. They should show this movie in a screenplay writing class NOT because it's good but to show students and future screenplay writers what NOT to do. I just felt like I've been hit by the head over and over again how bad racism is. I get it.<br /><br />(3) The plot seems so coincidental, it is laughable. What are the chances of a black car robber running over an Asian guy who also happens to be a human trafficker while entering his van, and that same black car robber ended up carjacking that Asian guy's van several hours later after he brought him the hospital, only to find out that the several Asians being trafficked inside the van just to show you that the black car robber has a good side after all? Or, what about that scene where a prejudiced upper-class white woman who fell down the stairs and all her prejudice and hatred vanished into thin air? If it was THAT simple, why don't we throw every racist in America down the stairs so they will have a change of heart?<br /><br />(4) I think my biggest misgivings about this movie is the unrealistic view of racism. As someone who has experienced racism in my life, the realistic view of racism is that it is hidden rather than in your face. I've been refused to enter a supermarket because I'm not white. Did the store owner said because I was not white? No, he said the store was closing even though there were a lot of people shopping inside. Did he yell racial slurs? No. Racism in America is more hidden. Some cab drivers probably won't stop to pick you up because you're non-white but that does not mean that they will try to run you over or get out and say racial slurs. If a Chinese woman rear-ended me, I won't be saying "blake! blake! Learn some English bitch!". On the other hand, if I was a Chinese woman and I accidentally rear-ended a Mexican woman, I won't say "Mexicans are bad drivers" in front of her face. That's not how things work. Instead, I would give out my insurance info, say sorry, and go home and tell my fellow Chinese friends and family that Mexicans are poor drivers and make fun of them behind their backs. That is the real racism. It's hidden and not in your face.<br /><br />Anyway, Crash is not original unlike what some people may say. The interlocking and interweaving story lines, plots, and characters have been done before. "Magnolia" is a movie that does this much better than Crash did and yet, it was never nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars. It had a stellar cast -- Julianne Moore, William H. Macy, Phillip Seymour Hoffman (who won best Actor recently), Tom Cruise, etc. It really boggles my mind how Crash was even nominated for Best Picture.
Terrible writing, highly contrived, from a "do-gooder" who knows absolutely nothing about race relations in L.A., or the USA in the present day. The gushing positive reviews are a mystery to me - but could only be provided by folks who think that someone's "good" intentions should be applauded regardless of how shallow, simpleminded and just totally unrealistic the results are. If you want to see a film which deals realistically with modern day L.A. race issues - the movie you need to see (and probably already saw) is Pulp Fiction. There's more honesty and realism regarding race in any two minutes of that film than there are in the full 4 hours (oh I'm sorry, it just felt like 4 hours) of this stinker. <br /><br />If anyone ever needs proof that the path to hell is paved with good intentions - then this is the movie for you.
Crash is overwrought, over-thought and over-baked. A great example of how to make a pompous and self-important film with a message. Haggis tries too hard to make his point and overreaches in just about every category of the film. It feels very much in love with its own sense of social relevance and has all the subtlety of a jackhammer to the skull. Sure, race relations affect everyone and there's a great deal of ambiguity to the issue, but the universe of 'Crash' operates to suggest that we are all victims to our own perceptions on race. It's a tiresome thread that repeats itself ad nauseum and wears out its welcome within the first 30 minutes. I found the outcomes of the characters unsurprising and forced and the film took forever to sputter out and die. The fact that this film is in the top 50 movies on IMDb is a testament to the public's willingness to get suckered by Hollywood malarkey.<br /><br />Indeed, if you want the real "Crash," go check out the one by David Cronenberg: dark, twisted and original. This film plays as preachy, tiresome, and masochistic.
This movie was offensively PC, predictable and clichéd. I couldn't imagine a movie that better exemplifies the myopic, narcissistic preachiness of today's Hollywood. If you haven't seen this don't bother watching it. If you have, show some courage and tell people how awful it really is. My wife, a minority in her own right, was offended by the inherent and unendingly racist message of the film. This movie has nothing to do with the real world and has little, if anything at all, to add to any discussion about racism in this country. Instead, it's the kind of cheap, sensationalist crap that is promoted as deep and challenging thought. What kind of a bubble do you have to live in to think that this is at all impressive?
'Bland' is probably the word I'd use to try and start describing this film. I only watched it because it had a good rating on here and i was SO let down.<br /><br />Basically the film is about racism in a post 9/11 America and the director went at it with a sledge hammer! There was no subtlety in the film at all and it felt as though they were trying to achieve a kind of Magnolia feel to the film - which is never a good idea as that film was three hours of tedium and confusion only for it to start raining frogs at the end...<br /><br />All in all a HUGE disappointment.
Through its 2-hour running length, Crash charts the emotional anguish of its 10-odd ensemble of characters when faced with the sometimes blatant and sometimes latent forms of racism underlying in American society. That and the emotional anguish of one of its audiences sitting near the front and desperately trying to make sense of what movies have become these days.<br /><br />The era we live in has become so complicated. Not only do we reject modernism, even the not very enthusiastic flag-waving of post-modernism ideas is always being shot down by what, post-post-modernism that aims to destroy all these ideas, all in no part thanks to the great destructivist ideas of those great 'thinkers'. But I digress. This has nothing much to do with the what the movie is about, but rather what the movie is.<br /><br />Sure, it seems hard to earn a living in a Hollywood that has to cater to a market that is so post-post-post everything that cynicism has become more than just a motto in life. It has become part of everything we do and part of everything we think of whether we like it or not. And so a new studio product is born! Indie films, which once were energetic and idealistic in its defiant experimentalism now seem to be as equally adamant as Hollywood films to sell to indie film markets. An indie film must sell at Sundance before becoming 'acclaimed'. And so nothing is simple anymore. Even what constitutes a good film becomes so murky. Whereas in the past filmmakers just wanted to entertain people and tell a good story--and in these seemingly simplistic attempts the greatest of films are borne--filmmakers nowadays have to make films that are good first and foremost; films have to make people think, have to be meaningful, has to be provocative, raise questions, yadda yadda yadda. What it all boils down to, is a subversion of the Hollywood movie system, but this subversion seems strangely similar to the formulaic similarity of Hollywood films, the countless ways of differing to essentially be the same product.<br /><br />And I haven't even begun on the film yet. Maybe I've become too picky on films I see these days. Maybe it's because of my primary need to be entertained, rather than, say, be probed when seeing a movie. But hell, this movie is one big load of crap. And I'm repulsed by this movie not just because it follows the How to Make a Good Movie Good 101 guidebook to the T--characters spout eloquent lines and are sooo witty like they're gifted with the speech of God; it raises issues about racism and life confronting racism in America; it has 'touching' moments where everyone discovers more about themselves and more about other people; not to mention the fact that once you hear the ambient/new age soundtrack of women singing in high registers in foreign languages, you know you're in for all of the above traits.<br /><br />And something about the aforementioned point--about it raising questions about immediately-compelling issues like racism--pisses me off big time. Like all post-post-post-post-post everything movies, it doesn't contend with just having a message about this issue. Because oh, our audiences are much to intelligent for that these days in this post-post-post-post world. Our audiences want us to make them think, doesn't want us to put things so simplistically, (and then they will go into existentialist crap and say) that's because life itself isn't simplistic. Ha ha ha. What other common drill do we here then the audience need to think about issues rather than have them fed to them. Okay, okay, and okay. So the film makes it a point to pound the audiences with these non-messages and since they're not exactly a message, it's so decidedly subtle and subtle means good right? So we're being hit again and again with this well-written subtlety with the eloquence of rhetorical prose. And as if the irony is not steep enough, we have Ludicrous' character, the only character who seems to not take all these racism discussion bullshit seriously, being 'converted' into one of those irritatingly meaningful characters where he learns something in the end, giving meaningful looks and pauses where audiences are supposed to 'learn something about themselves too'. Um, yeah. How I wanted to see an incredibly racist film right after this man.<br /><br />To cut the long bullshit short, I guess I wouldn't have taken issue with the film if it wasn't so bloated in its self-importance. The angst that forms the entire movie felt more like white-boy whining than actual Spike Lee-ish anger. It's so Tim Robbins and Sean Penn, the type that wants to wave flags about humanitarianism when the only thing they don't realize is the flag they're waving is their hole-ridden underwear. Plus it's become so trendy in the post-post-post-post world to be completely subtle about it. Nothing is simple any longer. In its best efforts to actually be good, provocative, and ultimately human, it's become neither, imho, just another indie crap from an indie director that wants to make a name out of himself as a credible indie-filmmaker. Now at least Hollywood is more simple and sincere in its manipulativeness.
i had gone to the movies expecting to see a great film based on all the word of mouth and terrific reviews. the minute the opening sequence started i knew i was in trouble. the music and credits were trying so hard to evoke emotion i wanted to puke. all i got from this film was clichéd characters, contrived dialog and an unemotional script. director/writer Paul haggis' has managed to get great reviews with his manipulative, self righteous writing, but it doesn't fool me. some performance were good. don Cheadle is always good. i think Terrance Howard is slightly over rated but he was decent. ludicrous was way too on the nose. he should stick to rapping. Brendan Fraser was fine. Jennifer Esposito left no impression what so ever. i find nothing interesting about her. Sandra bullock is always the same in every movie, she's just okay. Matt Dillon was very good and i enjoyed watching him work. Ryan Philippe was good as well. but as far as the script and the lousy directing- this is actually one of those movies that is so annoyingly bad i actually took the time to write about it. i would not recommend this film to anyone, what a waste of time.
Okay, it was very good...but Best Picture? Please, not even close. Munich was better, Capote was much better, Good Night and Good Luck was much better...Brokeback Mountain - well, that should have won! The Academy voters seem to act like the current day Democrats - please just a little of everyone, but don't dare take any concrete positions. That's why we have a complete moron in office in the US.<br /><br />This has been the WORST AA presentation ... and forget 1987 ... since way before that. Hollywood is so afraid of it's bottom line, that it can't be set "straight". Many voters apparently didn't even see Brokeback Mountain. Get real and get with it.<br /><br />This was the most pathetic year since I have been watching in the mid- 60's and I was only two.<br /><br />Wake up, whoever you are. Hollywood IS mainstream, and that's what happened to the Box Office in 2005. King Kong, the last Star Wars film, another Batman film, a re-make or whatever of Charlie and The Chocolate Factory, and much more to come in 2006.<br /><br />At least there were original best pictures, i.e. Munich, but heard that one before, Capote - great; Katherine Keener should have won, even though now we know Reese can sing like a Cash/Carter, etc., Syriana was a much better picture than Crash. That film has been done, since the early 1960's and we have to make that the best film? What a horrible Oscar night and a horrible year to end with in 2005 and another boring year in 2006. At least the BAFTA for best picture went to Brokeback, and what about the horrible song that won? Pathetic. I think we only have about 20 years left as America or the USA, before someone comes in and changes up things a bit. Maybe it will be China since they own so much of this country ... or India, because they have all the high-tech jobs and are the largest democratic country in the entire world.<br /><br />America has become the land of the fat, the pathetic, and the stupid. Trash can be found in more places than Florida, West Virgina, South Dakota, and in the mid-West.<br /><br />Drive-through a local McDonald's or Burger King for goodness sake. Order all you want until you get a heart attack. Put yourself out of your misery.
This movie is bad. Just bad. In absolute terms, bad. <br /><br />The dialog jumps off the screen and slugs you in the face with its thoroughly artificial banter, and then defecates on your ability to detect even trace amounts of subtlety. <br /><br />Racism is bad. Racism in Los Angeles can be especially bad. I live in the city of Angels, I can attest to that. What is so terrible about the bigotry in Los Angeles is its insidious nature. It creeps at you with a knowing glance, or a swallowed word. Until just at the edge of a full on fist-fight, It almost never comes right out and says, "why did he have to be black!" <br /><br />I can see quite clearly that the car-jackers are black, the detective's partner is hispanic, the DA is white. As long as there is film rolling through the projector, I can let the visuals, music and words take me to that conclusion without just telling me the conclusion. Characters emote, and we read between the lines to make the connections and conclusions. <br /><br />That is a partnership and trust between filmmaker and audience. That trust is raped by this movie. <br /><br />A good film pulls you in directions as an audience, and it steers you with cues to drive to a point. This movie beats you down with its point and insults you and your intelligence along the way. My unanswered question is, why did we as a society say collectively, "thank you?"
Given this film's incredible reviews I was expecting something truly exceptional. It certainly starts well with witty and sharp dialogue, and a fine cast in place. A series of Robert Altman-style interwoven stories reel the viewer in with some compelling scenes. I found it gripping entertainment right through to the second half of the film when sadly, it collapses like a pack of cards. A series of ludicrous coincidences and right-on messages stack up until I'm left deeply disappointed and wondering what all the fuss is about. Paul Haggis has tackled the subject of race in LA, and that alone seems to have elevated this movie to a new level of interest. Given that most of the Academy voters live in LA and have experienced racism to some extent, this film is sure to have an impact on them. That means the Oscar for Best Picture will go to the race movie or the gay movie. Let's hope it is the latter, because Brokeback Mountain is a bona fide masterpiece that deserves recognition.
Crash is supposed to be a film about racism in Los Angeles. But in fact, it's just a bunch of coincidences between several characters that connect each other during one day in one of the biggest cities of the world. Who the hell is going to believe that? There are unrealistic situations, one after the other. On the other hand, this film pretends to show racism between Asians, Iranians, Latinos, Blacks, and Whites. But the big error relies on a pre-establish racism coming from the writer. Mainly because the White characters in this movie are usually portrait as people with a better social-economical status than the rest of the other races. Iranians are poor, just like the Asians. And Latinos, as always, are portrait as Housekeepers, police officers, or with a very low profile job like a locksmith. Jesus!!! Don't you guys think it's about time to change these stereotypes? Same with blacks, portrait as gang members, with the exception of a Black TV Director, who was the only fresh character for me. This movie sucks so hard, that makes me so disappointed about the kind of cinema coming out from Hollywood these days. Always with stereotype characters. No realism whatsoever. Nothing to identify with. It's simply a big waste because this could have been a great opportunity to show Latinos, Koreans, Iranians, and blacks, from a different perspective.
I remember viewing this movie when I was a kid. I recall it terrified me immensely and it stayed with me all these years. I spent a couple of years trying to find it online...didn't remember the title, only the storyline. After searching and searching, I came across a VHS that was being sold on E-Bay. I was excited and when it finally arrived, I jammed it into the VCR and couldn't help but feel a bit nostalgic. Needless to say, I was slightly disappointed. This wasn't the movie I remember watching as a kid. It was boring at times and I found Beryl Reid's incessant whinning extremely annoying. Both performances by Reid and Flora Robson were good overall but the movie wasn't scary. I think any movie is worth viewing to form you're own opinion but sometimes, well......
The `plot' of this film contains a few holes you could drive a massive truck through, but I reckon that isn't always top priority in horror. Two elderly sisters in rural England keep their brother in the cellar since more than 30 years. Now, he escaped and started a killing spree, focusing on militaries that are homed nearby. `We only did we thought was best for him' they keep on repeating and – strangely – all the army officers love these women and don't doubt their sincerity, even though 5 of their men died. I don't know whether to find the revelation near the end suspenseful … or tedious! In a way, this film reminded me about `Arsenic and Old Lace'. In that black-comedy classic, two half-insane siblings mother their goofy younger brother as well, yet they do the killing there. The old ladies in `The Beast in the Cellar' are by no means less crazy, though. The `horror' in this early 70's film is very amateurish and cheap, but there are a few neat attempts to build up the tension. Too many `old-ladies' talk about the good ol' days, though and that rarely is something you seek in a horror film with such an appealing title. Flora Robson, who may be recognized by classic film buffs, plays one of the sisters. She gave image to the Queen of England is the legendary Errol Flynn swashbuckler film, the Sea Hawk.
One thing I have noticed about British horror movies from the 1970s is that they don`t hold up to repeated viewing THEATRE OF BLOOD is a case in point as are all those Amicus anthology movies . Add THE BEAST IN THE CELLAR to the list <br /><br />Much of the drama of this movie revolves around the build up of a plot revelation at the end . Once you know what the revelation is this becomes a rather flat film . It does open with a fairly good hook but after that we`re treated to long boring sequences of two old ladies making small talk . Correct me if I`m wrong but how many people watch a horror movie expecting a couple of old ladies making small talk ? The only sort of interest to be found in THE BEAST IN THE CELLAR is the anti-smoking stance . Some people have mentioned that this is an anti-war or anti-military film but watch carefully and you`ll see that everytime a squaddie lights up for a fly puff he gets killed . Rather strange considering attitudes to smoking weren`t nearly so hysterical as they are nowadays
The bad news: the Canadian version of Beast In The Cellar released by Maple Pictures that I saw was of poor quality. Dark and washed out, it appeared to be dubbed haphazardly from a VHS tape. It even skips at one point due to some missing frames.<br /><br />The good news: this movie is so bad that the poor quality of the DVD detracted little from my viewing enjoyment. This horror movie fails to build tension and lacks scares. It is a horrorless horror film. While most frightening films have limited dialog, Beast In The Cellar is a gabfest, so much so that a character will repeat something we have just heard said by two other characters. Presumably, all the chit chat acts as filler for a very low budget, unimaginative movie. Unfortunately, the dialog isn't campy enough to make it worth a watch.
This film has the language, the style and the attitude down ... plus greats rides from Occy (a world champ) and the great Jerry Lopez. John Philbin as Turtle has the surf pidgin down, and the surfing scenes are still the best ever. A true classic that can be seen many times. Nia Peeples is a babe, and Laird Hamilton shows the early stuff that has made him the world's number one extreme surfer.
I was lucky enough to grow up surfing in San Diego (not the biggest waves in the world but it was a hell of childhood, I'll tell you that) and I have seen A LOT of so-called surfer flicks in my life. After watching NORTH SHORE for the first time just now, all I can say is THANK GOD I never saw this as a kid. If I had seen this and mistakenly thought that this was a realistic portrayal of the surf scene, I would sold my board and totally gotten into, I don't know, accounting or something.<br /><br />Seriously, this movie has a as much in common with real surfing as TOP GUN has was real military life. The acting is terrible, the music is worse, the cinematography is iffy at best and OH MY GOD what was Laird Hanilton thinking?! WOW!!! DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE!!! IT SUCKS!!! If you want a REAL surf flick, see RIDING GIANTS. Hell, watch SURF'S UP instead of this. Seriously. Sucks. Sucks bad. Sucks REAL bad. Brah. ;)<br /><br />PS: Had to change my summery from "WTF?!" to wtf because, apparently, we are supposed to whisper on this site. NO YELLING!!! (shhhhhh!) ;D
One of the worse surfing movies I've ever seen. This movie is so bad I don't know where to begin-- Okay, let's start with the premise - some dude from the mainland who barely knows how to surf travels to Hawaii and enters a big wave contest which he more or less expects to win. A good analogy for those who don't surf would be a that of a grossly overweight chain smoker slapping on a pairs of running shoes and entering the LA Marathon with expectations of winning. No way! And, the contest is held on The North Shore which conjures up images of 15+ foot waves, but contest day the waves are maybe 6 foot. The acting? What acting? If you must see this woof see it on TV, don't waste your money renting it. If you want to see a pretty good surfing movie - granted it is flawed, but that's another story - rent Big Wednesday.
This movie is one big stereotype. The acting (except Philbin & Harrison) is awful and the horrid script only make things worse. I must agree with another review that the "local" characters sound ridiculous as a matter of fact so do the "caucasian" characters. 3 stars out of 10 for 1)Philbin 2)Harrison 3)surf scenes. (1/2* out of ****) Watch "Aloha Summer" (**) and/or "Beyond Paradise"(***) for Hawaii done right, especially BP which I found to be entertaining and brilliant.
I am astonished at the major comments here for this OK surf film. It really stems from the "California Dreamin" school of barnyard to beach antics and isn't really plausible. The idea that the lead kid learn to ride a board SO well in a concrete wave pool that he beats the real surfers at their game in the real ocean, is just plain silly. In Australia where most urban teens do surf, this film was laughed at audiences took it all with a grain of sea salt. Made in the 80s but with its heart in the 60s, it is fun to watch and looks and sounds good, but it is not a in a classic class at all. Even the actors didn't outlast this. We're seriously in LIQUID BRIDGE or RIDE THE WILD SURF or BEACH BLANKET BINGO land here. Oz stars like Occy and BIG Wednesday hero Gerry Lopez are drafted in to add head nodding recognition to our farm boy's wave prowess, but it only made the crowd in the cinema guffaw. It is for 10 years olds who do not question much. It's not even IN GODS HANDS and that was silly too.
This movie is highly improbable. Read the other reviews to see why.<br /><br />I would say that most of the characters were plastic, but they didn't even afford themselves that little luxury; they just act like cardboard cutouts. Of course, they had to get real surfers for the surfing contest roles, so that's a crap shoot whether they can act. At least Occy didn't give a crap and just went with it. But "Lance"??? Fuhgeddaboutit.<br /><br />The one character who rang true was portrayed by Gerry Lopez who didn't really act, he was himself pretty much. He's quite accustomed to stomping people. :-) The only reason I gave this movie a 2 instead of a 1 was because I was laying out a newsletter on my laptop when it came on some cable channel late one night. That saved me from having to pay full attention to this silly little time waster. No way I would go out of my way to watch it.
Being a fan of bad movies, I was thrilled to find a 3 pack of cr@ppy horror at Best Buy today. The set was cheap and included a terrible film called "the Dark" that I actually remember seeing in the theater.<br /><br />The remaining 2 were equally as bad. "Creatures from the Abyss" being probably the worst of the bunch. Since they were all bad that isn't saying much. But its stupidity, bad acting, terrible effects and retarded storyline actually made this one a lot of fun to watch. I was rolling on the floor with each new plot development. The discovery of the abandon ship, the missing crew, the realization that there was something terribly wrong!!! It was great!!! Of course, everyone's favorite scene seems to be the sex scene. OMG!! I almost lost it!!! Between that an the "monster cam", I have to say I enjoyed this film a lot.<br /><br />I am a fan of bad movies so I enjoyed it but in all fairness, I did have to give the movie a 1. IT WAS AWFUL... But if rubbish is your bag, at least rent this one... (YES the BAD pun was intentional)
Boasting some pretty good Rick Baker-esque special effects and Deran Serafian in a small role, this pretty lame Italian movie deserves some recognition. Cerchi gets some credit for still making gore flicks while most of the other Italian directors (Ruggero Deodato, Sergio Martino, Lamberto Bava, and Enzo G. Castellari) have moved on to lower-key TV movies. As for plankton, it's half Piranha - half The Thing, with people turninging into monsters, raping women, and causing general mayhem. The ultra-grimy, sleazy, and over-sexed feel of the film makes it hard to enjoy. Only available in Italian language work-prints floating around.
Plankton, or Creatures from the Abyss as I'm positive it's more commonly known as & filmed under as the title Creatures from the Abyss appears over a moving image & in the same font type as the rest of the credits, starts with five 20 something kids, Mike (Clay Rogers) his girlfriend Margaret (Sharon Twomey), sisters Julie (Ann Wolf) & Dorothy (Loren DePalm) & an annoying idiot named Bobby (Michael Bon) whom decide to all fit into a small rubber boat & head out to sea, don't ask why as I don't know. Oh & the complete idiot Bobby left the petrol behind & never thought to tell anyone so it comes as no great surprise that they end up stranded out at sea without any petrol for the motor & to make matters worse they become trapped in a thunder storm & discover a dead body floating in the water. Shortly after their luck seems to change when they come across a yacht & potential safety, in a flash everyone boards the yacht & begin to explore. First of all they find a scientific lab with various fish specimens & computer equipment, then down below they find fully furnished & luxurious cabins. They find a chemist (Deran Sarafian) who appears mad & can't talk. They eat fish from the fridge which makes Dorothy puke up green vomit, beetles & slugs. They learn that these fish are living fossil's 1000's of years old & have been contaminated by toxic waste dumped in the sea & that they fly, mutate, bite & are generally unpleasant to be around. I really can't be bothered to go on with this plot outline so I won't, here's what I think...<br /><br />This Italian production was produced & directed by Massimiliano Cerchi under the pseudonym Al Passeri (I'd hide under a different name if I made a film this bad too) & I think Plankton is quite simply one of the worst films ever, there are so many things wrong with this film it's difficult to know where to start. First the script by Richard Baumann is total crap, it makes no sense whatsoever & is so slow & dull it was torture for me to sit through. Why would five people just simply set sail for the middle of the ocean on a rubber dinghy barely big enough to fit them all in? What were they planning on doing exactly? Why do we often get point-of-view shots from these fish creatures but they seem to be totally invisible to the characters as they are never shown on screen even though they are right next to a character, & how do these fish get around the boat as there is no water for them to swim in? People's actions & reactions to things are all wrong, they constantly split up, they make bizarre decisions that simply don't make any sense in the situation they find themselves in & some of the dialogue is as awful as anything I've heard. I could go on all day about all the plot holes & ridiculous goings on but I'll run out of space if I do. The fish creatures themselves look awful, a mixture of rubbish rubber puppets & some really bad stop motion animation at the end, the scenes where they interact with the human cast also look terrible with some bad super imposition. I have heard a lot of comments saying that Plankton is gory, don't make me laugh! Forget it there is virtually no blood or gore in Plankton whatsoever, there are a couple of slimy scenes when Bobby transforms into a fish monster while having sex with Julie but it's pretty brief & he doesn't kill her, he just sort of drips slime on her, grows a couple of tentacles & a fish head comes out of his mouth. Later on Julie's vagina starts to drip some dark slime but that's it, we never get to actually see what happens to her or what the slime is. Dorothy has a fish creature come out of her back, off screen, & control her but again we never get to see what happens to her while Margaret commits suicide, a very brief shot of a plastic harpoon stuck to her forehead. Easily the grossest scene is when Dorothy pukes up that green stuff with what looks like beetles & slugs in it. That's it, only one person actually dies on screen & for the most part Plankton is quite tame & as exciting as watching paint dry & I nearly fell asleep it's so boring. I can't see how anybody can like this total crap, I just can't. The acting is awful, the dubbing is awful, the characters are awful & I hated all of them. Tecnically Plankton is predictably crap as well, with an estimated budget of only $250,000 all I can say is where did the money go? The sets are monotonous & dull with one lab & a few cabins, the special effect's are bottom of the barrel stuff including the most fake looking exploding boat ever, the cinematography is bland, the music sucks there is zero atmosphere or tension & as a whole Plankton, like it's name sake, is as low in the food chain as it could possibly be. I hate Plankton, it's awful in every single aspect of it's overlong 86 minute duration. Do yourself a favour & avoid this one at all costs unless your either a masochist or insomniac.
This documentary attempts comedy, but never quite gets there for me. Camp? Ehn, maybe. The more apt word that everyone will agree on -- and have a hard time avoiding in any review -- is kitsch. It dripped kitsch. It was as if the film makers had worried their viewers would take the movie too seriously, and so they bent over backwards to insert kitsch and proclaim, "We're joking around here! See???"<br /><br />In short, I felt it was trying too hard. For example, the sock puppets that introduced each scene were (to me) annoying when I'm sure they were meant to be amusing -- or at least (ahem) kitsch-ey.<br /><br />Do not, however, avoid this movie based on my complaints. Just be ready to revel in kitsch rather than having it thrust at you unprepared. If you're interested in lighthearted fare, you could do far, far worse. At the very least, the facts surrounding the rise and fall of the Bakers make this interesting and worth a view. At best, gaggles of like minded kitsch lovers will hoot and holler over choice bits throughout the film.
I just attended a preview screening of this film. A masterpiece of documentary film-making it was not. Totally absorbed with its subject, the film becomes incapable of leveling any sort of critical commentary with regard to Ms. Faye. Cloying and sappy, the only redeeming quality of the film was its use of puppets in an attempt (albeit a failed one) to structure some kind of narrative. But the creepiest experience occurred as the closing credits rolled. The audience rose and applauded. Like moths to flame, Americans in the 21st Century are still drawn to freakshows. The narrative of the misunderstood monster is getting rather tired.
What a disaster! Normally, when one critiques a historical movie, it's always fun to point out the inaccuracies that slip in, usually added by the writers to create more "dramatic" situations. However, "Imperium: Nerone" is a whole 'nuther kind of animal. In this movie you strain to find ANYTHING at all that is confirmed by the historical record amidst the farrago of nonsense and fiction presented as the life of Rome's bad-boy artist-emperor.<br /><br />And it's a pity, because Nero is one of the most fascinating of all the Roman emperors. His life was filled with enough tumultuous events and interesting people to make a really good movie. The producers of this mess chose another route, which leads only to head-scratching on the part of any informed viewer.<br /><br />Just a few examples: <br /><br />1. Nero is depicted as an 6-8 year old boy when Caligula has his father killed for treason, exiles his mother Agrippina, and sends the boy to be raised by slaves in the countryside. "Ten years later," the story resumes just before the assassination of Caligula. Facts: Nero was born about six months after Caligula began his four year reign, and was only three when he was assassinated; Nero's father died of natural causes; Agrippina was briefly exiled for bad behavior, not treason; and Nero was not raised among slaves, but had the typical upbringing of a young member of the imperial family.<br /><br />2. Okay, according to the writers, Nero is now about 16 when his great uncle Claudius becomes emperor (in fact he was about to turn 4); Agrippina engineers the downfall of the empress Messalina and marries Claudius, who adopts Nero. Then he goes off to conquer Britain, and is poisoned by Agrippina soon after his victorious return. Nero is declared emperor, although he's still perhaps only 18 or 19 years old. Fact: Claudius conquered Britain in 43 A.D., two years after beginning his reign. He lived until 54 A.D. Nero should have been 31 years old by then by any normal chronology, but in fact succeeded to the throne at age 16.<br /><br />History tells us that there then followed the "Five Good Years," where Nero ruled wisely and well under the tutelage of the philosopher Seneca and the Praetorian commander Burrus. This is shown -- sort of -- except that portraying the Roman Senate as opposing Nero's good measures is false. Senatorial opposition to Nero only commenced when he started to show signs of insanity and began killing Senators for real or imagined treason.<br /><br />3. Nero's mother Agrippina is the controlling sort, who murdered her uncle-husband to make her son emperor. After a while, Nero tires of her meddling and decides to kill her. In the movie, he sends his henchman Tigellinus to stab her to death. All true enough, but the reality was so much better! Agrippina was a survivor, and didn't go easily. Nero tried three times to poison her, but as an old poisoner herself she was savvy to all that, and he failed. Then he tried to crush her to death by collapsing the ceiling of her bedchamber, but that also failed. Next, he sent her on a voyage on a ship that was deliberately constructed to fall apart and sink; as it went down, she jumped into the sea and swam to shore. Finally, he had her stabbed to death. Now showing all THAT would have definitely improved this movie! <br /><br />Other errors abound: Nero's lover Acte was not a childhood slave-friend, she never repudiated him, and there is no evidence that she became a Christian. Nero did not commit suicide by slitting his wrists while sitting beside a lake. Etc. etc. etc.<br /><br />The sources for Nero's life are primarily the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius, both of whom were of the senatorial class hostile to him and his memory. But the evidence indicates that he remained very popular with the common people, unlike one of the final scenes where he is pelted by the mob with vegetables as he leaves the city to commit suicide.<br /><br />WHY did the writers and producers take an inherently interesting story with plenty of good stuff for any movie, and make THIS piece of crap? Oh, and did I mention how cheesy the sets and costumes were? Lol.<br /><br />One star, because there's no way to rate it lower.
Perhaps, we are too much attached to great spectacles when we hear of antiquity brought to screen. Perhaps, we expect too much from these films. However, if we, as viewers, are offered far too little, what happens then? <br /><br />That is what I thought after seeing IMPERIUM - NERONE by Paul Marcus, a part of the production series on the Roman Empire. AUGUSTUS by Roger Young, the first IMPERIUM movie, included at least Peter O'Toole but what does this movie include?<br /><br />Hardly anything accurate. The historical errors are so serious that the movie changes facts and constitutes rather a distorted image of the Roman Empire than the true history. Throughout the movie, we see Nero young: young man during the allegedly long reign of Caligula, young man during the reign of Claudius and finally during his own (historically 14 year long) reign. And...he dies the same. According to the movie, Nero, born during the reign of Tiberius, lives for more than 40 years but looks to be in his late twenties when he dies... Continuity combined with made up history is the biggest problem of the movie, which makes it hardly logical, not to say reliable. Nero loses his father, is raised by slaves. At that time, his mother, Agrippina, is exiled by Caligula. Later, however, she suddenly marries emperor Claudius who already has big children with freshly married to him Messalina. At these moments of the movie, we see Acte (Rike Schmid), Nero's mistress. All right, it is historically "accurate"; yet, no source proves that she played such a decisive role in the rise of Christianity in Rome. In the film, she is not only a devoted Christian but even a witness of St Paul's miracle (he brings a young girl Marzia back to life). Besides, there was, historically, nothing like Nero seen on the court of Caligula since Nero was born in Caligula's 4 year long reign (A.D. 37-41). I understand that movies may change something but such an error makes the script absolutely unreliable! And many, many other shortcomings concerning content that are hard to enumerate but after 30 minutes of watching this film, I doubted whether I was watching a historical movie or a total fantasy.<br /><br />As for its artistic features which supply us with entertainment, they are equally lame as the history here is. The performances are artificial, the cast simply have beautiful faces but weak acting abilities. Perhaps, I am too much attached to Peter Ustinov or Charles Laughton in the lead, but Hans Matheson does not fit as Nero at all. He could have some of the good moments as an actor but never as the infamous Roman emperor. Is he an artist who burns Rome for a song? Is he a cynic who disguises the love to his relatives? Is he a cruel ruler who sacrifices the lives of thousands of innocent people for the sake of "alleged justice"? None of these. He is just a young man who does not know how to rule and, in the long run, begins to release the fire burning within himself... John Simm is out of place in this film as Caligula and absolutely inferior to other portrayals of the character. Elisa Tovati is only sexy as Poppaea; yet she could have been much much better. The costumes are inaccurate and the sets do not amaze. Low budget results in low effects and, consequently, low entertainment.<br /><br />But what made me most angry in this movie and, as a result, I give it 1/10 are some moments that are absolutely unacceptable:<br /><br />- the death of Poppaea and St Paul's talk with Nero at her dead body, <br /><br />- Claudius' mention of the current conquest of Britannia on the feast and soon his death (he conquered Britannia while Messalina was his wife much before his death), <br /><br />- Tigellinus killing Agrippina (Laura Morante), Nero's mother, <br /><br />- Nero's arguments in the speech to the senators, <br /><br />- finally, Nero's death - a calm day at the lake and an indifferent suicide that leads to a moral said by Acte "Let us forgive him"<br /><br />All in all, this film is a waste of time and is absolutely unneeded as yet another production concerning the Roman Empire. It's better to make one good film in 30 years than ten minor little ones in 5 years. 1/10 - should not have been made at all.
"Nero" as the title of the movie is in Germany is a another attempt to show one of the most interesting Roman emperors, Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, better known as Nero. Although this attempt at least tried to show a more historic accurate Nero than the amusing but completely fictitious Nero Peter Ustinov played in "Quo Vadis!" it still is a major failure. And to those IMDb-commentators who still believe that Sueton and Tacitus propaganda is true, please read a book about Nero that was published less than 20 years ago. Nero did NOT burn Rome, this is proved! He did not murder Britannicus. He did not torture, kill and maim for pleasure, he was the first emperor who BANNED the gladiator fights. The movie still shows a lot of mistakes, errors and is by the way made in a really cheap style, especially the sets were cheap and unconvincing, the palace looking like some villa, the city itself looked like..well like a cheap set. The acting was between good and sub-par, the music nearly insignificant and the movie soon deteriorated after Nero became emperor to a rushed, bad edited mess without any clear narrative structure. So there still is the potential for an epic biography of Nero that shows the true Nero, who was one of the best emperors who ruled Rome, despite the lies of Sueton et al.
For a good take on the Roman Empire watch the excellent BBC produced miniseries "I, Claudius". This just sucked. The acting was pathetic and you could almost see the actors looking at the camera. Hans Matheson was irritating. Cheese factor was so high that it promotes constipation with repeated viewings. Even Caligula was tame. I think this film was silently supported by "religious" groups who shall remain nameless ;). The overt tones of Christian favoritism and persecution were blatant if that gives any hint. Stay away what ever you do - the running time is so long that I was able to read Harry Potter's first book faster than the time it took to view this tripe.<br /><br />Italy has done better - don't let Hans cute face fool you. He is not a great actor...he is a great bore.
"Imperium Nero" is the second movie of the series of six productions named "Imperium". I have already unfavorably commented the first one: "Imperium Augustus". This second TV movie produced and broadcast last weekend by the Italian state owned network has the same defects. In addition contains a considerable number of historical errors. Some examples: Nero is a child and Agrippina calls him: "Nero, Nero". At that time is name was Claudius. He was named Nero after his adoption. Nero did not meet Acte when he was young as in the movie but after his marriage with Octavia and his nomination to Emperor. When becoming Emperor his sons where not adults: Britannicus is one month old and Octavia one year old. And many many more. If you are fond of ancient roman history you can find yourselves other examples. "Imperium" series will continue with four more movies : "Titus", "Marcus Aurelius","Costantinus" and"The Fall of the Roman Empire". Finally!
Sorry if I disappoint anyone about what I am about to say to this made for TV movie. But, I paid money for the movie and turned out this movie is disaster. The directing is really awfully bad. But, after I looked up its information here, I realized there might be reasons for the low quality of directing and producing. Maybe they don't have budget, but anyway, Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility had little money too but it turned out a hit. The director in this movie did really bad job in telling the story and the movie couldn't even keep up a rational continuity in itself. It keeps pulling me outta scenes. Maybe someone need to work hard on story line/ board. The dubbed sound is also awfully bad. My god.... Normally, I would appreciate every movie because behind it lie ideas and imaginations of an individual. but, this time I am just mad , "I really wanna hit something HARD." ...Just don't do the job if someone can't fulfill it to its best. Bad arts (its' not even art, what is it? )really hurt people.
I cannot comprehend how this picture was allowed to be made. It is mostly, if not completely, inaccurate so much so that the main character does not even resemble how history has him look physically. This movie made me go on the internet and go through my books to make sure I remember Nero's personality correctly. For God's sake, I have a book that lists Nero as one of the most evil person's of the world and the movie made me feel bad for him. I must say Aggrapina's character seemed close to my understanding of her, both physically and psychologically. Although, the actors all did a good job, the movie was terrible and I'm sure I will not watch any others made by this sorry team.
'Leatherheads' tries so hard. Tries to be light hearted. Tries to be a comedy. Tries to be a love affair. Let's see, it tries to be a 'His Girl Friday' by way of 'The Sting' by way of 'It Happened One Night' by way of a dozen sports movies. Alas, trying isn't doing and the movie is as soggy as the last game's field.<br /><br />A fan of movies would watch the big fight scene in the speakeasy between the Duluth Bulldogs and some soldiers and realize that the fights that John Ford staged with such style and verve and humor in movies like 'The Quiet Man' or 'Donovan's Reef', or 'The Searchers' may have seemed easy to do but obviously aren't. I would bet George Clooney thought channeling John Ford would be easy as well. How hard could it be: masculinity run amok, punches, bottles broken over heads, an imperturbable piano player...just put it up there on the screen with some happening music. Sorry. It takes a master to make fight scenes flow.<br /><br />Movies aren't wished into existence. Humor is hard. Romance is hard. Slapstick a lost art.<br /><br />I once read that you never wanted to sit too close to a ballet performance. Something about not wanting to prick the fantastic bubble of the performance by hearing the thuds of the dancers' feet or the grunts of the lifts. This movie is like that...all strain and good intentions, handsome actors, nice sets, but it thuds through its paces rather than gallops like the original Galloping Ghost, Red Grange, who the movie is loosely based on.
A lot of the negative reviews here concentrate on the historical accuracy of this film. OK, it had about as much to do with the actual NFL as your average war movie has to do with an actual war, or a Western has to do with the true "old west". So, I think we should give them an artistic license pass on that one.<br /><br />The problem here is, the director (Clooney) apparently thinks that making a screwball comedy means a) do stupid things, b) mug for the camera, and c) take stupid scenes full of mugging and stretch them out way too long. Screwball comedies need a fast pace, not necessarily frenetic, but moving briskly along at all times. Here, things drag, and drag, and drag. After you watch this movie, it will make you appreciate how brilliant Mack Sennett was when he pretty much pioneered the genre with his Keystone Cops. After 90 years, you would think that directors would have studied the old masters and learned a thing or two, maybe even improved on things a bit. But no, it's as if someone had watched an automobile pioneer build a Duesenberg, and nearly a century later, paid homage and "improved" on the concept by cobbling together a child's wagon with square wheels.<br /><br />I've enjoyed several of Clooney's movies, I consider him a gifted actor. But very few actors can competently direct themselves; Clint Eastwood notably took a while to get the hang of it. Clooney is clearly at the bottom of a very steep slope. The movie becomes more watchable during the very few times he is out of the frame, but when he's in the picture, he makes himself the centre of attention. In the fight scenes, his mugging is so obnoxious you wish somebody would thump him for real.<br /><br />If you are making a screwball comedy and want some romance thrown in, you need to develop some chemistry between the male and female leads. Clooney and Zellweger have all the chemistry of pair of dumpsters sitting in a parking lot. No spark, no sizzle, not even a post-mortem twitch. Zellweger, who has also turned out some pretty good movies, must have traded her botox injections for oak tannin, giving a stunningly wooden performance. She might just have pulled off the "tough broad in a man's world" act if just once, while trying to out-testosterone the guys, she had looked into the camera with a little half-smile and twinkle in her eye. But no, she kept her jockstrap cinched up tight to the very end.<br /><br />Of course, the biggest sin here is that the movie simply isn't funny. Doing stupid things is not the same as slapstick. Doing stupid things very inventively, like the Stooges, or very athletically, like Buster Keaton, can be hilarious. But otherwise it's boring and, well, stupid. I think I got one good laugh out of the entire movie.<br /><br />Avoid this one. I saw it for free on cable, and still wanted my money back.
I thought this movie was going to be good. It absolutely wasn't, despite the Oscar-winning lead actors. I may have laughed once, and I never heard anybody else in the theater laughing. Renee Zellweger's pancake make-up was very unbecoming. Everybody seems to be trying so hard in this movie, running around in imitation of slapstick but not pulling it off. I think perhaps the movie must've sounded good in development, but something got lost in translation. Were the roaring 20's really like this? I think not. Everything seems a tad artificial. Randy Newman's score was annoying. The film is in sepia tones, just like every other movie that takes place in the 20's or 30's. There's just not that much originality here.
How many times must I write the words boring and not funny on this page until I get to ten lines. George is about original an actor as Alfalfa from the little Rascals. Although that is probably a slight to Alfalfa. How many times do I have sneak into these overpaid actors crappy films before I will learn that there is but one law in the movie industry. Take the money and make a movie - even if it is crap. They spend millions making this movie but can't take a few moments to watch the end result. And Renee GoAwayZigger should stop taking the illegal drugs she is on and seek medical help for the facial problems she is sporting. At least I hope its drugs as she is quite unattractive whilst talking out the side of her mouth. This movie was neither funny nor dramatic and these hacks should just stop making crap like this. George and Renee, you should be ashamed of yourselves and stop being stop stinking greedy.
Check out the two octogenarians who review Leatherheads. These guys are old-school Hollywood and a hit on YouTube. They always give an insightful and fun review. They have movie comparisons that are really interesting and they have a banter back and forth that is endlessly entertaining. They know movies, collectively they have been in the biz for practically a century. Lorenzo is a well-known screenwriter and Marcia is a famous producer. All of their insight on movies always leaves you with something to think about. See what they think about Clooney's latest...<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-W7evBEArs
Leatherheads is an apt title, however a leather strap would be more useful to self-flagellate oneself after purchasing a ticket to watch this noxious attempt at entertainment. Clooney's attempt at self deprecating humor comes across with a quiet thud as his demeanor implies that he is anything but. Perhaps with another actor playing the Clooney role, the movie might be marginally palatable. Sorry George, I doubt there will be any Oscar nods this time. George Clooney is definitely a fish out of water when it comes to comedy (unless you are referencing to his politics). Anyway, only the most ardent of Clooney fans will enjoy watching Leatherheads, everyone else will long for the days of the silent picture.
OK where do I start? I saw a screening a couple weeks ago and I was shocked how bad this movie is. Sure if you just LOVE Beverly Hillbillies and Green Acres (bad acting) and you think they are the best TV shows on air then you will definitely love this movie. Me, personally, I really like George's work and he is very talented, but comedy is not his forte. Some people are natural in comedy and I am sure he is great & funny to work with personally but comedy he can not pull it off on the big screen. It was a cute movie but would I pay $12.00 to see it? H&LL no !!!! Now that I have seen it I would not recommend it to anyone to spend their money. George, buddy, I love you but please don't do any more comedies? This script is lacking a lot, great concept but just didn't do it.
This is defiantly a DVD rental movie. I'm a big fan of the cast members but the storyline never really grabbed me. Don't expect "Oh brother where art thou" in any way shape or form. Funniest part in my opinion is when the war hero explains what happens over in the Argon. Seems like they were trying to copy some of Clooney's funny facial expressions from "Oh brother where art thou" but you could kind of tell they were trying for that. John Krasinski was the bright spot and was solid throughout. Renee Zellweger plays the part of a zealous reporter willing to do whatever for the story. Overall it's a movie worth watching at home.
Let me preface this by going on record, I am a huge George Clooney fan, and I love John Krasinski in 'The Office'. Well, I was and I did.<br /><br />This was the world's worst hang nail and it took 113 minutes to rip it off. The stupefying boredom was interrupted only by my frequent efforts to read my watch and estimate when it would be over.<br /><br />Every funny scene was in the previews. All three of them. There was no real story, no character development, and the script was just plain bad. I've had a colonoscopy that was more enjoyable.<br /><br />The title should have been SuperDuper Bad. This movie is a lock for a Razzie. It should get a whole slough of Razzies. I want my money back.
I also made the mistake of thinking that I was going to see the 2003 Swimming Upstream with Geoffry Rush. This was worse then a lot of student films that I have seen. The script was forced, the acting was subpar and the editing annoying. It was so slow that I just managed to force myself into staying. But I always give a movie a chance, so I suffered until the very end. Apparently there was a memo out about this movie, because my friend and I were the only ones in the theater. Why didn't somebody send me this memo?!?! That is why I'm posting, as a warning to others thinking of shelling out good money to see this. I just hope that you actually got to this page, and didn't get trapped like I did by looking at the wrong "Swimming Upstream." P.S. Sorry to the cast and crew if you are reading this. I know that you worked hard to make this. I know what goes into making a movie... keep trying!
CRAP! I accidentally watched this film-thinking that it was the Swimming Upstream that was released in 2003. I seriously regret wasting an hour of my life sitting through it. Shame on whoever gave this junk an award. I thoroughly loathed this film-in fact I didn't see it through to the end. After an hour I could no longer stand it. I am disgusted that people are amused by such a lousy script-which tries and fails to rip off a dozen other human interest stories and such BA-AD acting. PAINFUL. I rate it 1 star out of 10. An amateur could make a much, much greater movie.
The depiction of Ichabod Crane's character was so terrifically unlikable, my wife and I were hoping that the horseman (or some other character) would not only cut off Crane's head, but do it slowly and painfully.<br /><br />I mean, this Brent Carver guy played it over the top---like he was on Broadway. And he was such a relentless jackass that we had no sympathy for him whatsoever.<br /><br />I could go on with specific critiques of how this movie failed, but I prefer to not devote the energy.<br /><br />Just skip it and go for the Johnny Depp version. Either that, or rent the Haunted Pumpkin of Sleepy Hollow (animated). It is quite good--entertaining for kids and adults.<br /><br />Better yet, read Washington Irving's original story.
Its incredible to me that the best rendition of this amazing story remains a cartoon made by Walt Disney in the 1940s, but its true. Here another clumsy attempt sputters confuses and alienates would be viewers with admirable effectiveness while successfully antagonizing those of us who have actually read the story. Irving's original work is short by any measure and making a feature length film is bound to be a challenge. One can either completely rewrite the story a la Tim Burton which is a discussion for another time, or pad the bust-line of the old girl with unintended detail. The latter is what is attempted here, and if I may say, pitifully so. Unimaginative and thoroughly modern new facets to character personalities such as religious zealotry in Crane or wanderlust in good old Bram Bones ruin the story's intent and betray a severe lack of talent by the filmmakers. By the time the tale's famous climax approached, I had completely lost interest. Its the kind of film where you expect to see a stagehand smoking in the background.
It's difficult to find anything worth of praise with this movie. It's not the worst picture ever made, but that's not saying a whole lot. The plot is quite incoherent and unbelievable; it seems that the producers wanted to make a space movie, but decided to make it underwater to cash in at the success of The Abyss. In some scenes it seems as if the story indeed was set to outer space initially; the sub has a landing gear, the technicians are worried of a rip in a rubber diving suit at the depths of several kilometers, where the pressure would crush the diver and the suit like an empty beer can. <br /><br />The movie starts out okay, with planning of a recovery of a lost naval sub. After that the movie takes a plunge along with the Siren 2.<br /><br />Effects are so-so. The navigational screens are all done on Commodore 64 (remember, this is 1990, not 1983), the sub is controlled like no other sub ever; instead of control consoles, the officers have keyboards with which they enter long number sequences to control various functions of the ship. The interior of the ship isn't too convincing either.<br /><br />The final scenes leap from awkward to absurd. Welcome to the fifties, you can check your suspension of disbelief at the door.<br /><br />I fail to see enjoyment factor here. The movie is neither good nor hilariously bad MST3k-style (until you get to the final scene), it's like eating a slightly bad apple.
An awful B movie at best with video quality similar to Dead Alive. I challenge anyone who is a "Aliens (James Cameron 1986)" Movie fan to count how many times either lines or almost entire sequences were ripped off from the first two Alien movies to make this classic piece of garbage.<br /><br />Cast members such as R. Lee Ermey and Ray Wise were the only two actors with any talent and the lead "Jack Scalia" was really absolutely horrible. I think they cast him for his massive cleft chin. I was also annoyed with the stereotyping of the only black male on the set John Toles-Bey who must look at this movie and just wonder. Look him up sometime as he has done a lot of interesting movies.<br /><br />But on this movie: The script as I said earlier was a rip-off of Aliens tweaked and turned into a submarine "thriller". It included such lines as "I got a bad feeling about this" and "Kill me" as one crew member is infected by one of the mutants and his belly starts doing the "alien hop" just before it pops out of his stomach. There is also a rip-off of the classic "get some!" via Bill Paxton. We also have a bunch of navy grunts running through caves with creepy crawlies popping out of walls. Even the explosions of the mutated creatures is very similar to the popping of aliens as they charge marines in the movie "Aliens". And the kicker is that some of the mutants spit acid (as opposed to having acid for blood). There are many more major examples. So if you want to see this script done well watch the first two classics Alien and Aliens (With Sigourney Weaver). You'll have a more enjoyable time.<br /><br />The plot could have been interesting and done better if not for confusing sequences in the start of the movie and generally poor editing. Camera shots were pretty dull and honestly it wasn't very hard to stop watching it and walk around the room to get a snack or check email. Many of the interactions between characters made little or no sense and went nowhere more often than not. The whole command structure between crew and Capt. was poorly done. I'm not even sure if there are Captains in the military that have full control over nuclear subs. In general this just shows that there was little research done for background information to make the movie seem at least a little respectable and there are many other similar examples (like dive depth etc..).<br /><br />If you like horrible movies or are a big fan of Alien and Aliens and want something to just laugh and shake your head at then this movie may be for you. As for me this one is going back on the shelf...permanently.
ZERO stars out of ****<br /><br />Endless Descent has absolutely no redeeming values, whether it's the ridiculously bad acting, the laughably awful special effects, the incompetent direction, the stupid script, or the gratingly annoying musical score. It's the kind of pitiful production that makes me wonder how a movie like this could even have the slightest consideration for being greenlighted by a studio in the first place.<br /><br />I don't think I'm going to delve into the plot other than to say it's about a bunch of people who are trapped under the water and have to kill a lot of fake-looking creatures.<br /><br />Let me go more into detail as to what is so awful about this flick. First of all, the acting is simply horrendous. Jack Scalia is ten times worse than Sylvester Stallone, a feat that is hard enough to accomplish as it is. The supporting performances aren't really any better. And what is with actor Luis Lorenzo, the guy who plays the cook, Francisco. He has a high-pitched voice and an accent that sounds appropriate for a comedy, not a sci-fi horror film.<br /><br />The special effects are even worse. The creatures range from weird-looking eels to giant starfish and "mostquitoes." The effects look like something you would see in a muppet movie, and I don't believe I need to delve further in this issue.<br /><br />Director J.P. Simon has slight cult status because of all the terrible films he's made. I'm sure some will enjoy Endless Descent in an Ed Wood type of way, but I don't even think it's that good. Everything he does is shoddy, especially the camerawork. The man cannot direct a movie, that's all there is to it.<br /><br />This was the last of four films that took place underwater, and it sure does make Leviathan and Deep Star Six (Both bad films in their own right) start to look masterful in comparison. Either way, just stick with The Abyss.
Its a sin how these things are made, but then again we wouldn't get to see the best "Dummy scene" ever filmed. Ahhh the beauty of low budget Bigfoot flicks, you lean to see the beauty the more you watch them, thats if your brain doesn't melt first. As I said before, this has the best dummy scene ever! Words cant express it, you have to see it for yourself. Wonderful lines such as "Smells like decain flesh", "Thems human..."(You will know this one when you see it) The creature makes a Blah, Blah! sound and the scene where the baby gets shot will make you cry(with laughter) you will be rewinding it. Has a car chase, snowmobile chase, a Bigfoot folk song as well as a Disco song. It dosn't end there, while watching the credits a friend noticed "Wardrobe provided by K-Mart". You ask, how could you even get as far as the credits and then watch them? I could only explain this as a sort of shock to the brain, you are so mentally exhausted you cant move and also I guess you have to know who was behind the mess. All that being said, this is a must see especially if you want to punish yourself mentally. Its a keeper!
Bill Rebane's "The Capture of Bigfoot" is one of the most awful horror movies ever made.A greedy sawmill owner Harvey Olsen(Richard Kennedy)decides that he wants Bigfoot captured at all costs.However local game ranger Dave Garrett(Stafford Morgan)learns that the Bigfoot used to live in peace upset by a geological expedition,and sets out to protect the creature.There is nothing even remotely interesting in this piece of crap.The film is extremely dull and filled with horrible songs and cheap special effects.No gore,no suspense-just gigantic boredom.Avoid this horrible junk like the plague.
The Capture Of Bigfoot is one of the silliest and worst movies of all time. I love Sasquatch and Bigfoot movies but this one is just a sheer waste of one's time.Terrible, terrible, terrible!I watched this movie last night, and it was all I could do to finish watching.I understood that this weird crazy man wanted to capture Bigfoot,but that was the only thing that made sense in this movie.It did have some amusing parts though.There was this very cheesy and corny disco club with very bad disco dancing that seemed to go on for far too long in the movie.I think the director was trying to fill time.The worst thing was the way the Bigfoot looked.The obvious man in a suit looked like a pink faux fur Bigfoot.It was laughable.If you want to see a very bad Bigfoot movie, then I suggest that you purchase this movie.Personally, I wasted my time and my money on this one!
This movie is, in all likelihood, the worst film ever made. It is certainly the worst that I've ever seen, and I have seen A LOT of bad movies.<br /><br />In this, nothing at all interesting happens throughout the movie. One could, literally, start the movie, take a short nap, and then wake up secure in the knowledge that nothing interesting has happened while you are sleeping. And I have seen this movie three times, staying awake throughout. I feel I should be congratulated.<br /><br />The movie goes as one might expect, according to a formula, with no variation. Hunters capture baby bigfoot, get killed by parent, and the nearby town goes into a bigfoot killing frenzy. This is surprisingly boring for a Troma release.<br /><br />So please do yourself a favor, and skip this movie. If you have to see it you will understand why.
This movie is the very worst that I have ever seen. You might think that you have seen some bad movies in your time, but if you haven't seen this one you don't know how terrible a movie can be. But wait, there's worse news! The studio will soon rerelease this masterpiece (I'm being ironic) for all to see! The only things worse than the plot of this movie are the effects, the acting, the direction, and the production. Bill Rebane, the poor man's Ed Wood (not that there is a rich man's Ed Wood) (I like Ed Wood's movies, though) manages to keep things moving at a snail's pace throughout this film. It opens with the capture of a baby bigfoot (a Littlefoot? --sorry, couldn't help it) by a pair of unlikable hunters, who are killed by the parent. This causes the entire town where the hunters lived to go on a Bigfoot hunting jihad. This is pretty much it for the plot. Nothing even remotely interesting happens, and we the viewers are never able to care about any of the characters. If one is interested in the films of Rebane I would recommend almost any other over this. However, as I said, it will soon be rereleased by Troma in order to bore a new generation of filmgoers.
If it weren't for the editing out of curse words and a superimposed blur when one character give another the finger, it would be easy to mistake this low-budget snoozer for a Sci-Fi channel pilot. The plot about the government's attempts to destroy a group of telekinetics it originally trained as military weapons ends ambiguously enough with the hero, himself gifted, in pursuit of a telekinetic survivor bent on revenge. Alas, the movie is talky, boring, predictable and even devoid of interesting special effects. Top-billed Louis Gossett, Jr. has a minor role as the evil government bureaucrat who originated the program and now wants to eliminate all traces. He walks through the part and it is hard to understand why he bothered. Other members of the cast do a decent job with a script that demands little.
The films of the Science Fiction Channel ( Sci-Fi Channel ) have become boringly predictable. The seem low on budget, originality, and plot.<br /><br />In this creation the government is out to get a bunch of telekinetics and recruits a poor soul by devious means to help. There is plenty of over worked recycled twists on evil government organization theme. black coats, shadows, short meaningless lines make these one dimensional cartoons.<br /><br />Daniel Dae Kim stands out as a good actor in a small role. He brings a bit of the style of his "Angel" character to the role. It is hard to miss the link that his "Crusade" character was a telepath and this is a film on telekinetics. Was this a Sci-Fi casting move to try and draw fans from the other show? Who knows. Thankfully he is a decent actor and a pleasure to watch.<br /><br />The movie is definitely low budget. It reflects The Sci-Fi Channels current model of Canadian location, few well known characters, few effects, and woefully terrible plot and character development. One would think they believe science fiction fans will view anything labeled "scifi."<br /><br />If you want a good telekinesis movie, check out "the Fury" ( 1978).
I know a lot of people like this show and i apologise to people who think this show is awesome but it is the worst show ever created. Sure i'm sure I would be a big fan of this show if Jeremy Clarkson wasn't on it. I mean I think that testing out cars and doing things like seeing whether a car can beat a aeroplane is awesome! But Jeremy Clarkson is just pathetic. Here are the reasons I hate this man: . He thinks it's cool to trick speed cameras that measure your average speed by taking measuring your distance and time by driving 200mph down the road and then resting for two hours. . He clearly thinks that he is better than Richard Hammond and James May. . He's got my best friend saying pathetic things. . He screams at kids just for taking a picture of him. I'm sorry top gear but Jeremy Clarkson is a freak.
"Haaaarrrryyy!" <br /><br />The amplified, dispassionate female voice could have been Leona Helmseley in heat but, no, it belongs to Allison Hayes as Nancy Archer, the 50-Foot Woman of the title. In the most infamous role of her film career, Allison's performance literally rips off the roof. In fact, make that a couple of roofs.<br /><br />Jaw-droppingly tacky, "Aot50FW" is the tale of Nancy, a neurotic, boozy heiress and her loveless Lothario husband, Harry (William Hudson, who also co-starred opposite The Amazing Colossal Man). Nancy has a close encounter of the third kind, in the desert, with a bald giant from outer space who wears a mini-skirt and gladiator sandals, and who has a thing for Nancy's jewelry. What he does to her once he's carried her off is probably best left a mystery, but soon Nancy starts to grow.<br /><br />Treading into the center of town on tranquilizers, tightly wrapped in nothing but the bed sheets, the buxom giantess heads toward the low-rent saloon where Harry is having a few laughs with a floozy named Honey (Yvette Vickers). The confrontation turns ugly.<br /><br />The Poverty Row f/x make the alien giant and Nancy appear to be transparent due to incompetently transposed images. You'll understand why director Nathan Juran changed his name to Nathan Hertz on the credits. Juran was no stranger to directing giant creatures, human and non, having also directed "The Deadly Mantis," "The 7th Voyage of Sinbad," "Jack, the Giant Killer" plus several episodes of TV's "World of Giants" and "Land of the Giants." <br /><br />A lot of laughs for all the wrong reasons.
This is a fair movie, good for one-off viewing. The plot itself is fairly well worked for a picture of this kind which is a pleasent surprise as is the acting, which although a little hammy, is better than normal for these types of flick.<br /><br />The 'special effects' are hilarious - a translucent giant and a blatantly polystyrene/papier mache hand wobbling unconvincingly on a bit of wire.<br /><br />Definitely to watch once for kitsch entertainment value.<br /><br />5/10.
This is the kind of movie that BEGS to be shown on TV at 3 or 4 in the morning, if at all.<br /><br />No doubt the film-makers responsible for "Attack of the 50 Foot Woman" thought they were making a pertinent statement about women and philandering and the dangers of the demon rum, all wrapped up in a sci-fi allegory. <br /><br />Or maybe it was a tax write-off.<br /><br />Either way, "Attack" proves best for the viewer under the following circumstances: a) extreme intoxication, b) seen on a double-bill with any of those Jacqueline Suzanne movies (maybe "Once is Not Enough"?) or c) just a night when you feel insecure and the world around you is a little too perfect. Pop in "Attack" and you'll feel great, guaranteed!<br /><br />It's good for a laugh at the expense of the hokey script, the rubbery special FX and that four-eyed sheriff. And I think the last line should be engraved in a monument somewhere in Washington D.C. - it's just that memorable.<br /><br />Four stars for "Attack of the 50 Foot Woman"; buy a copy, mail it to Gloria Steinem - she'll love you for it.
I saw this movie because it had a giant person and was labeled as a monster movie. I do not understand why it is called a monster movie. The movie is a drama. I was expecting a lot of destruction, but what did I get? Most of the movie was relationship problems and people thinking that a woman was a loony because she saw a spaceship crash with a giant inside for an unexplained reason. The action started a few minutes toward the end. Since the woman was killed, isn't that murder? Couldn't they have done anything else besides murder her? If you watch this because you expect it to have action because it is labeled as a monster movie, don't watch it. It is not a monster movie. It is a drama.
I’d been interested in watching this ever since it was cited as the Worst Film Ever on an entry devoted to 1950s sci-fi cinema in a British periodical from the early 1980s entitled “The Movie” (incidentally, the Leonard Maltin Film Guide also awarded this the unenviable BOMB rating). When it came out on DVD last year, I became interested in purchasing the “Cult Camp Classics” Box Set in which it was included (along with QUEEN OF OUTER SPACE [1958] and THE GIANT BEHEMOTH [1959]); however, since recently acquiring QUEEN on DVD-R, I had put paid to the idea.<br /><br />Happily, I’ve just stumbled upon the film on DivX – however, the print wasn’t culled from the Warners DVD (which is said to boast a surprisingly pleasant-looking transfer) but rather a muddy TV print…though not so much that the detail is lost (in other words, it was like watching the film in sepia as opposed to black-and-white!). Anyway, to get to the matter at hand: I have to admit that, in a way, I was disappointed the film didn’t prove to be the laugh-fest I had anticipated all this time (Maltin calls it “hilariously awful”); actually, I found it quite engaging – and thankfully brief at a little over an hour in length. Some undeniably amusing bits remain though – such as when the old nurse starts screaming her head off at the sight of the 50-foot woman, and when the Sheriff’s deputy almost runs over his chief and the leading lady’s butler in his enthusiasm to be of assistance in such an unusual case. Neither did the special effects hit me as being “among the funniest” (Maltin again) on film – though they’re certainly embarrassingly bad! <br /><br />O.K., so the idea that an alien (in giant-sized human form, clad in cave-man rags, and radioactive to boot!) coming to Earth in a big ball-shaped(!) spaceship and apparently after the heroine’s prized necklace is utter nonsense – and his quasi-transparent appearance does it no favors at all…but, really, it’s the human story that holds our attention (relatively speaking). The character of the philandering husband isn’t very interesting, but his two women are: wealthy but nagging alcoholic wife Allison Hayes and ambitious, vixenish girlfriend Yvette Vickers. Also involved in the narrative are Hayes’ faithful servant (already mentioned), a couple of cops (one of them, as noted elsewhere, being amiably goofy) and as many doctors (one of whom is named Dr. Cushing[!] and another a specialist who’s called in when Hayes starts growing in size after being exposed to radiation).<br /><br />Of course, the film could be seen as the reversed female version of THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN (1957) – though it wouldn’t be fair to compare the two further, as the Jack Arnold/Richard Matheson classic is far more psychological/intellectual in approach; actually, Hayes doesn’t seem to be that bothered with her ‘condition’ and, in fact, takes advantage of it in order to teach her husband a lesson! However, her rampage – exaggerated in movie posters of the era – is rather quaint (especially when considering that it only occurs in the last ten minutes or so); when not shown the damage caused by her enormous but highly unconvincing hand (especially when lifting the puppet that’s supposed to be her husband!), she’s mostly seen walking in long shot and almost from behind (with her size even inconsistent in proportion to the buildings she passes by)!! Still, Hayes’ demise via electrocution (when she bumps into an electrical cable) is competently done.<br /><br />Finally, I followed this with its 1993 TV remake with Daryl Hannah as the titular creature – which I rented specifically for this purpose.
A woman as rich as she is insecure has a history of alcoholism and nervous breakdowns, helped no doubt by a smooth-talking gigolo husband who openly cheats on her. Naturally nobody believes her when she claims to have been accosted by a giant man who stepped out of a giant satellite. Much to the delight of her husband, this could be the incident which finally puts her away for good. <br /><br />From the very opening scenes, with it's ludicrous news broadcast and ridiculous satellite encounter, you'll probably be convinced that the only redeeming value of this movie is that it is so bad that it is funny. Although not too far off the mark, this is most definitely not true.<br /><br />Unlike most movies of this genre, this is not really a sci-fi or a horror film, but actually a serious drama which intelligently incorporates a sci-fi scenario into the plot. It's not a good or even mediocre drama, but it will exceed your expectations if you weren't expecting any legitimate drama at all. The acting is surprisingly good for such a low budget effort and, most importantly, it is well edited and excellently paced. It is never boring and manages to generate more than a little interest in seeing what will come next. Nevertheless, this is still a movie strictly for those who can't pass up the chance to see a 1950s film with a title like "Attack of the 50 Foot Woman"!
I like 50s sci-fi movies a lot. I like the really good ones (such as The Day the Earth Stood Still, When Worlds Collide, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and many others) and sometimes the really bad ones because they can be really funny and great to watch with friends (such as Plan 9 From Outer Space). However, when a sci-fi movie is bad but not bad enough to be fun, it really should be avoided. This movie is just such a film. The posters make it appear as some sort of sexy she-beast is attacking mankind, whereas the real plot is a lot less interesting. A woman is married to a womanizer. She is contaminated and begins to grow to a HUGE size and decides to track down this worm and kick his tail and that's about it. Also, many of the special effects really stink--especially the gigantic papier mache hand that comes into the room to grab the wicked hubby.
The plot in this movie is very thin, and there is not much acting. Val Kilmer--I don't know why he agreed to do this movie--plays a minor role as a gang leader. In short, the movie is tedious to watch.<br /><br />One guy, who sort of resembles an archeology/religion professor, is exploring a subterranean area of Moscow, that has some history connected to railway construction and the Bolshevik revolution. A church tragedy in that history makes the exploration "spiritual" and spirits of a malevolent intent haunt the underground ruins. A friend of the professor decides to find his friend in the underground and hires a couple of Russian guides. The entire movie is based on this plot and contains much repeated footage of the underground, and some camera effects; much like those seen in "Day Watch", "Night Watch", etc.
In Moscow, the priest Owen (Vincent Gallo) hires a team to guide him in the underworld to find his friend Sergei (Rade Serbedzija) that is missing while researching the legend about the existence of demons and an entrance to hell beneath the city. <br /><br />I bought this DVD based on the name of Val Kilmer and the interesting pictures on the cover. I am totally disappointed since this film is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I do not understand how Val Kilmer accepted to participate in this production. There are two shameful reviews in IMDb promoting this movie and they are typically fake, written by users with only one review in this site. There are two possible ways to see this boring and awful film: my wife and I napped many times because of the monotony of this pointless story, and we used the rewind button of the DVD to repeat each lost scene. However, the correct way should have been the use of the fast forward or the stop button, to end this crap faster. My vote is one.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Cidade Sombria" ("Dark City")
After watching this film I decided that it was so awful that I must join IMDb and write a review to warn other people of the pit falls of renting/buying this film. To be fair to the film there is only one good section to this film and that is the end credits cause then you know that this crap is well and truly over. I watched it to the end in the hope that I may get a little bit of pleasure out of the film. Just tunnels more tunnels and an old man talking to himself (If you watch this film too many time so will you). As for Val if he keeps selecting films like this he may as well kiss goodbye to his acting career. There is no point in even writing about what is in the film as that has already been done. Keep your money and sanity and keep well clear.
Sit in your basement with the light out for an hour and a half. That's about the same as watching this subterranean search for the Devil's door. An American researcher Owen(Vincent Gallo)travels to Moscow and gathers a rescue team to search for his friend Sergei(Rade Serbedzia), an archaeologist who has disappeared in the catacombs beneath Russia's capital city. They will be shocked to discover subterranean dwellers thriving in the dank and dark complex system of caves and tunnels. The searchers will come upon the gatekeeper of Hell, Andrey(Val Kilmer), and will strike a deal to continue their venture; only to succeed in being scared almost witless when realizing they are among walking dead. Also in the cast: Joaquin de Almedia, Oksana Akinshina, Sage Stallone, Joss Ackland and Julio Perillan.
There are good movies, and there are bad movies, and then there's Moscow Zero, a film so utterly bad it makes spending a month in solitary with an insurance salesman an attractive entertainment alternative.<br /><br />With an incomprehensible plot about the gates of Hell opening within a labyrinth of tunnels under Moscow, the film is a mess of repetitive and nonsensical shots of a little girl running through tunnels, red lights floating about, and strange wall shadows, none of which serves to mount any fear or tension, but instead elicits the reaction of "here they go again with the girl (or lights)" from the viewer.<br /><br />Directed by María Lidón, who for reasons I can only conclude as shame, was billed as Luna, the movie stars Vince Gallo as Owen, an American priest who travels to Moscow in search of Sergei (Rade Serbedzija), a friend and colleague who has gone missing in the tunnels. He enlists the help of a series of locals who, with the exception of Oksana Akinshina, are all portrayed by Spanish actors trying with limited success to inflect Russian accents.<br /><br />Along the way they cross paths with members of some sort of underground leather-coated religious mafia headed by a portly Val Kilmer, whose career seems to be in such free fall that he's resorted to appearing in dreck like this, and henchman Sage Stallone (Sly's son), who seems to have been cast merely so the Stallone name can be included in the film's marquee.<br /><br />Apart from watching the troupe try to navigate their way through the tunnels with the aid of a comically drawn map, and repetitive shots of them being followed or eluded by a pale faced young girl, not much else goes on throughout. Dialogue routinely switches between English and Russian, with actors frequently taking turns in each language, and entire conversations are uttered half in one and half in the other with the only apparent reason being they felt like it, adding a frustrating dimension for the viewer, over and above trying to figure out the crazily cobbled together story.<br /><br />About the only thing Moscow Zero gets right, however, is its title, which could only have rendered a more accurate description of this movie if the word Moscow had been omitted.
This may not be the worst movie ever made, but it is absolutely the most boring. Wonder why it is shot mostly in the dark, and mostly with Vincent Gallo walking away from the camera, or looking down? Because he doesn't want to show his face for actually agreeing to being in this movie. I liked his early stuff, but the pretentiousness of the "Brown Bunny" and then being cast in this drivel knocked him down a peg in my book. And Val Kilmer? I actually want to send him a sympathy card. The "doors" to this??? Actually the casting was the only reason I watched this movie, and Val doesn't even show up until the movie is more than halfway over. Simply a sad movie.
i never made any comment here on IMDb, but as i saw this movie, i cant be quiet. i just set up my account here only because this horrible movie. in two words, this movie is PURE CRAP. the movie has no sense at all! Nothing makes sense in this movie. Watching this movie was pain all the way. I don't understand why Val Kilmer agreed to do this movie. He plays a minor role as a gang leader, says few words, and he is there like 5 minutes total.<br /><br />I bought this DVD based only because of Val Kilmer name on the box and the interesting pictures on the cover.<br /><br />As was stated in other review, Moscow Zero stole my money and I want it back!!! The title of the movie itself brought the clue about the rating everyone should give it: ZERO
I suffered the watching of this movie at Sitges Festival last month. If there would be a possibility of "unfilm" a movie to avoid its existence, this should be the first in the list. María Lidón isn't a director, she is just a dumb woman that pretends that holding a camera with the hand and shout "action" makes her a professional film maker. What a mistake! The movie itself is pointless and a total waste of good actors that could be doing something better in another project. Val Kilmer does nothing but place his face in front of the camera. His character don't have specific weight in the movie. The same thing can tell about Joss Ackland, Vincent Gallo or Joaquim De Almeida. It's a shame the way Rade Serbedzija's character has been written. WARNING SPOILERS<br /><br />He spends most of the time alone in the tunnels talking with himself in the way (now I'm doing this, now I'm low of bats, I'll search in my bag, now I'm turning left, now I'm turning right...) only to bring the audience a clear idea about his actions. It's simply nonsense and proves the lack of talent of the director. END OF SPOILERS<br /><br />The usual joke about this piece of garbage among the audience was that the title of the movie itself brought the clue about the rating everyone should give it: ZERO
This line is a good summary of this movie. If you have read it, and watched 20 minutes of the movie, you will know exactly how the rest of the movie is going to behave. Some researcher named Surgei (pronounced SirGay) are searching for hell in the underworld of Moscow. However he seems to have disappeared, and his friend Oven follows with a team to search after him. Could they have find a more boring plot? Some bad actors looking after an old man in the underground. The acting is very bad, the romance really feels pointless and untrue, often there is no good reason for the way the characters are acting, nothing is scary and most of all: there's not happening anything interesting in the whole, entire movie. They just walk, asking some gang leaders and other guys about the way, walk some more, complain some, finds the old man, and then they run, and finally finds the way out of the underground.<br /><br />The only thing that provides me from giving this movie the lowest of all ratings is the atmosphere. If you just want to see a movie for that, this may be a good choice. It's dark, and it's mystical and murky. However, the rest of the movie is really dull. You just sit there all the time, waiting for the movie to begin or something to happening. It's actually happening some things, but they are not very well performed. For example, i didn't really notice when one of the characters disappeared, and I swear I wasn't sleeping or something. And I don't understand what's dangerous with these children... They just run around in the underground together, scratching it walls with sticks (I suppose it is meant to be scary in some way).<br /><br />Just watch this movie if you are in immediate need of some murky atmospheres.
The gate to Hell has opened up under Moscow. A priest, played by Vincent Gallo, goes to the city to find a friend who has gone missing in the tunnels under the city in an attempt to find the gateway. Wandering around underground he and his colleagues have to deal with the tunnels inhabitants both human and demonic. Good idea with a good cast of second tier actors goes nowhere much like the tunnels that are its setting. I've watched this twice now and I still have no idea why this is suppose to be scary when not a heck of a lot happens other then people talk about the evil and we see shadow forms. Nothing is clear and honestly I didn't see the point of it all other than provide a pay check for those involved (Second billed Val Kilmer is in a couple of fleeting scenes that don't amount to much other than to allow him to be billed as in the film.) The idea is really good, the performances are fine, the script goes nowhere. Take the advice of several of the characters in the film and don't cross the river to see this.
The gates of Hell opened up and spit out this film, then closed again.<br /><br />Watching this movie makes me appreciate other movies I have seen, like all other movies. Nothing makes sense in this movie.<br /><br />It would really take too long to mention all the plot problems. In fact, except as a warning, it really isn't worth wasting some of the nearly infinite space available on the internet writing about this film.<br /><br />From now on, I will check IMDb before watching any film.<br /><br />Hot darn, IMDb is forcing me to write more about this film. I guess I should warn you about Edison Force while I am at it. But if you had to chose between the two, pick Edison Force.
Moscow Zero stole my money and I want it back! This is a horror movie, not thriller, not suspense, a horror movie. Yes, this movie is a horror. Horrifyingly bad. After many years of lurking here at IMDb, I am actually moved to set up an account just so I (like at least one other reviewer here) can warn people DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE! IT WILL STEAL YOUR SOUL, or at least your desire to live in a world that makes movies this bad, or at least an hour and a half of your life if you are not wise enough to hit the fast forward button.<br /><br />Seriously, I'd love to hear the director's voice over on an "enhanced" DVD (there's another horrifying thought) to see what the hell they were thinking. The producers had to assume there were enough suckers out there to fall for the Val Kilmer name to make this film at least break even in international distribution.<br /><br />I actually had the misfortune to pick this to watch on movies on demand, which provided no subtitles to the Russian dialog. Not that it mattered much. Straining to hear the Russian, translate it in your head (if you can) only to find out how dull it is just adds insult to injury.<br /><br />I will give this movie a "1" because I cannot give it a lower rating, and because it did achieve one remarkable thing. It somehow made an almost entirely subterranean movie NOT feel claustrophobic. Now that's a dubious achievement.<br /><br />HERE'S YOUR SPOILER: And the ending, holy mother (no pun intended) it's like they ran out of money and just decided to stop filming. The "climax" of the film literally happens seconds before the end and is solved by the simplest escape I have ever seen on film. Exercise your simple escape mechanism too if you find yourself watching this - the off button.
I was hooked in by the premise that the show was about demons. From hell. And a doorway to hell. What I didn't realize was that I would be watching some guys run around tunnels chased by small children who may / may not have been demons for the entire movie. Sure there was some dialogue in between, and great underground scenery but the lack of a plot, developed characters, any twists or development in the story at all was sorely lacking. Oh, and out of interest, there were no special effects. The entire budget was spent on actors salaries, sets and lots of time running around with a camera underground.<br /><br />The ending was one of the typical lackluster boring endings that makes you say "I endured this film of boredom for that!?" If you want to see demons and a doorway to hell, I promise you that you would be better off served watching the trailers to the game Hellgate : London which while shorter than this movie at 5 minutes, pack more dialogue, character development, action, plot and satisfying conclusions than this.<br /><br />The second star is for effort, but overall a low score for failing to make a movie that stands out, and for promising in the tagline much more than what was delivered.
If they had a Zero out of 10 I would of entered it. Everyone involved in this film should be ashamed of themselves taking money from the public. I don't know how films like this get released Video or Pay Channel. I am disappointed in Vincent Gallo. Val Kilmer was in it for about 8 minutes, so I can't get that mad at him. Only the person who listed him to be the star in it. It is like Marlon Brando in Superman.There is no plot except Gallo searching and finding his friend in the catacombs. Why they were searching for the gates of hell only the director knows. They should of kept this film in Moscow and burned it for fire to keep all the homeless extras warm for the night. There is nothing more to say about this film that all the other reviewers have written. I wish I could forget this movie it hurts my brain.
While in Madrid I was able to see a screener copy of this film. Wow! Gallo is amazing in it. Very unusual performance he gives. Aside from Gallo's genius, the film however is a dull a film I have ever seen in my life and at times is so poorly done it borders on laughable. I am also a Val Kilmer fan so he was part of the reason I made such a grand effort to view the film. The problem is Val is really only in one scene. Having his name in the cast as the lead is an insult to my intelligence and to the rest of the cast. I have only seen Stranded of the directors other films. Both films are far far below average but both contain very interesting Vincent Gallo performances. If you are as much as a Gallo fan as I then see this film regardless of how bad it is. If you do not like Gallo then there is ZERO left to love.
I can't remember the worst film I have watched.Total waste of actors and audience time.If you prefer sitting by your TV and think when will be this film over,then this is the right film for you.Maybe this film is recorded to make people believe that Moscow has some mystique past. But I must say I have not expect anything else from Rade Serbedzija,but I have expected more from Vincent Gallo.The film lacks a plot, character,development,denouement.Entire movie is about underground tunnels and how they are mystique.I must be fair there is some camera effect but even that is too poor.Over and over are the same pictures.Total waste of time.
Wow.. where do I begin. I rented this movie because it sounded like something I would be interested in watching. With a name like Val Kilmer starring in this film, I thought how bad could it be? This has got to be the worst film I have ever seen with such a big name attached to it. I was wondering why it slipped through the cracks and I never remember hearing anything about it when it first came out. It starts out pretty good, and is somewhat reminiscent of the intro sequence in the bourne identity, but after the initial 30 minutes or so it goes from bad to worse and then it ventures into WTF land. If you haven't seen this, do yourself a favor and don't rent/buy it unless you are a masochist or on a quest to see every Val Kilmer film out there. There are many more titles out there that are more deserving your time. This film (if you can call it that) is a bona fide waste of time. I want my 82 minutes back.
This movie is total dreck. I love Val Kilmer and was very surprised earlier this year by "Felon" (a good movie!). The entire DVD box is misleading. Val Kilmer while being billed as one of the main people in this film, is in the movie for about 2 minutes. Even the summary on the back of the DVD is not entirely true. This could have been a good movie but the direction was horrible and the plot was about as thin as a sheet of paper. Usually when a movie is this horrendous you can sit back and laugh at it. This film though is so bad and boring I actually fell asleep to it (which I never do during a movie). AVOID AT ALL COSTS!
It seems that there is great potential for the story line of this film to be something worth watching. The acting was flat and the story lacked depth. There was too much reliance on camera work, which had some high points. I have to agree with the other negative comments. I only wish I had read them before buying the DVD. The film may be worth watching for free and you are bored to tears before hand. There could have been a lot more plot development with why there are homeless in Moscow (i.e. post-Soviet 'capitalism', rampant drug usage (i.e. increased heroin trafficking from Afghanistan); more development of why the resurgence of Russian Orthodoxy after the fall of the U.S.S.R.; the archaeologists themselves; or even more into the struggle against nihilism.
Val Kilmer is almost nowhere in this film -lucky for him! He plays maybe 30 seconds of screen time and his role is completely irrelevant. After seeing the film I couldn't tell you what "role" he plays in the film!!?? OK... they suck you in the first hour by immersing you in dark underground tunnels. Spooky movies filmed in dark underground tunnels easily suck most people in to last the first 30 minutes to an hour. Then you will begin wondering, "why am I watching this?" I remember thinking how easy it must be for a director/writer to use dark underground labyrinths to make a film. Simply film people wandering around in dark tunnels and you have instant "suspense". But that is where this movie goes no further! We all wonder what goes bump in the night, but there is nothing out there in the dark in this film but more darkness. The story is even worse. Apparently there is an underlying story to the film that I learned of "after" watching the film. But the film uses such poor dialouge that it never came across clearly during the screening. I still don't understand what the writer/director meant to say. Some children trapped underground by a misled sister in Russia? Why? Are they in our time -the same time as the characters? Are they ghosts? <br /><br />This was an absolutely Horrible film that drew me to write my first IMDb review to warn others to avoid it.
This is by far the worst film i have ever seen it has next to no plot and the plot it does have is very scattered. The story line is lacking in both content, suspense and subtitles, as what would appear to be story line is in Russian. The set appears to be only one room with various lighting effects and at the moment you think something good is about to happen you are let down by the total lack of acting, drama, suspense, horror, gore, story line and mythology. The directing style has been done to death(The fisheye camera). It would seem that the only action in this film is within the last 10 - 15 minutes and the action is made worse by the actors inability to portray the suspense correctly. The only interesting thing about this movie was my dog barking at the surround sound.
If you enjoy sitting in the dark, both literally and figuratively, for ninety minutes then this is the movie for you.<br /><br />A waste of actors, resources and audience time. Ultimately a waste of space. Don't be tempted by the resume. There is nothing of any further substance beyond it. The film lacks all of the basics that you might expect from the genre; plot, character, development, denouement. The cast may perhaps take heart from the knowledge that in this instance their efforts will be entirely forgettable and, given time, their careers may perhaps improve.<br /><br />Absolute tripe.
Take a few dark and stormy nights, fog coming in from the coast, obsession and doubt, two brothers who have a mysterious connection based on hatred, a suspicious disappearance, a shoe in the night silently grinding out a glowing cigarette butt, and, finally, a tremulous heroine who finds herself threatened as much by her own doubts as by one -- but which one? -- of the men around her. Sounds like we might have a good 80 minute noir. Instead, under the direction of Vincente Minnelli and with two A-list leads, Katharine Hepburn and Robert Taylor, Undercurrent becomes a nearly two-hour matinée melodrama, a long slog of threatening angst amidst the perfectly groomed, coifed and dressed cast. When you glance at your watch half-way through a movie and with a sinking heart see that you have another hour to go, both you and the movie probably have problems. <br /><br />Minnelli, in one of his earliest non-musical movies, doesn't lay on the rococo hothouse approach as heavily as he later was known to do. Still, what is basically a simple story of greed, murder and obsession is turned into an endless Katharine Hepburn vehicle. Hepburn shows us in carefully lit close-ups how to demonstrate fear, love, anxiety, giddiness, happiness, doubt, suspicion and terror. Robert Taylor is more or less along for the ride. <br /><br />Hepburn starts the movie as the tomboyish Ann Hamilton, an energetic young woman in slacks who helps her father with his inventions. Their housekeeper is determined to get her married. When Dr. Hamilton decides to sell an important formula to Alan Garroway (Robert Taylor), it's love at first sight. Garroway is the smooth, handsome, dynamic inventor of the Garroway Distance Controller, which was vital in the war, and which has turned him into a hard-charging millionaire manufacturer. He's a captain of industry, as one of his many Washington friends says. Ann Hamilton, now Ann Garroway, may still be a bit of the tomboy, but her husband shows her how to dress and how to be a successful social hostess for all those Congressmen and judges her husband knows. She learns fast and eagerly. They both are obviously and blissfully in love. <br /><br />But wait. The canker is about to gnaw. Ann realizes she knows nothing about her husband's family. None of his employees or friends seem inclined to talk about them to her. When she learns bit by bit that Alan's mother died in the old family home in Middleburg while seated at the piano, or that he has a brother, Michael, who has disappeared, Alan becomes very quiet...and sometimes goes into a rage. He always apologizes. But wait once more. Did his mother really play the piano? Didn't she really die in bed? Wasn't Michael caught taking money from the family firm and Alan sent him away? All this plays out against the exquisite hotel suites, the manicured country home in Middleburg with the horse stable and the tasteful ranch house by the sea. Everyone in the movie except employees are dressed to the nines. There are exclusive cocktail parties and intimate dinners for twenty. Even in a black- and-white movie, Minnelli can't help but give us dining tables filled with crystal and china, tasteful and elegant furniture and lots of gowns. <br /><br />By the end of the movie, when all is finally known, when Ann on horseback is chased along a high, extremely well-designed mountain trail by the bad guy on another horse, when she is threatened with death by boulder and her pursuer finally meets death by horse, it's a relief. Even Robert Mitchum, who plays Michael, is unable to bring much tension to the movie. What might have been in lesser hands a taut little B-movie, instead with the A list is just an overwrought melodrama, too big for its bones.
The casting (and direction) in Undercurrent is more insipid than inspired in this noir clunker that fails from the outset to get off the ground. Robert Taylor's wooden style poses a roadblock almost immediately for the highly affected Kate Hepburn and it's bad chemistry from the outset.<br /><br />Naive and innocent Ann Hamilton (Hepburn) falls for handsome airplane manufacturer Alan Garroway (Taylor) and rushes to the altar with him. She soon finds out there is a lot she does not know about him. As Alan becomes more remote she delves further into the murky past and Ann soon finds herself living a nightmare instead of the American dream.<br /><br />Undercurrent resembles a few Hitchcock plots but Vincent Minnelli rapidly establishes he is no master of suspense. Hepburn is no shrinking violet and she is a hard sell for a character more suited to the reticent styles of Teresa Wright or Joan Fontaine. Minnelli never really succeeds in getting Kate to defer in desperate fashion to Taylor's limited abilities as an actor. Her attempts come across as silent Gish while Taylor's wide descent into madness takes on restrained Bela Lugosi. Robert Mitchum completes the miscasting as the sensitive brother. Talk about piling on.<br /><br />Cinematographer Karl Freund provides some highly stylized noir interiors but Minnelli and cast utilize the atmospherics meekly and the tension remains tepid. With Minnelli far from his forte (musicals) and Hepburn's victim role fitting her like a bad suit Undercurrent drowns all involved.
"Undercurrent" features a top-notch cast of wonderful actors who might've been assembled for the perfect drawing-room comedy. Alas, they are pretty much wasted on a 'woman's view' potboiler--and a paper-thin one at that. Katharine Hepburn is indeed radiant as a tomboy/old maid who finally marries, but her husband is deeply disturbed and harboring dark family secrets. Director Vincente Minnelli has absolutely no idea how to mount this outlandish plot, concocted by Edward Chodorov from a story by Thelma Strabel, and the friendly, first-rate cast (including Robert Taylor, Robert Mitchum and Edmund Gwenn) is left treading in murky waters. ** from ****
Misguided, miscast, murky, interminable lunacy given the high-gloss MGM A-budget treatment. Kate Hepburn plays a bride who comes to suspect her rich, handsome husband (Robert Taylor)is not the dreamboat she married but a psychotic killer. MGM's attempt at a Hitchcockian thriller is doomed from the start by a turgid, muddled, ludicrous script, and the idiotic casting of Hepburn as a jeopardized woman fearing for her life (who could ever imagine Hepburn afraid of anything?) Louis B. Mayer forgot to tell Vincent Minnelli he was directing a thriller, not a musical. Taylor is embarrassing. Only Robert Mitchum, also cast-against-type as a good guy, retains his dignity in a quiet, low-keyed performance. Karl Freund's ravishing cinematography creates images of eerie beauty--and was wasted on the wrong film. End result: Metro's "Parnell" of the 1940s.
<br /><br />In Japan and elsewhere in Europe new technology is enabling filmmakers to bypass the closed shop of the Hollywood mainstream and avoid Ed Wood like visible low budget production values to produce compelling films. What a shame that in the UK we can find examples such as 'Avatar' (name of many a video game) where brain dead attempts are made to imitate so many films - and console games beloved of girlfriendless teens - that themselves are cheap photocopies of clichés abound like testosterone fuelled kangaroos. Check out a bit of the synopsis:<br /><br />"Set in futuristic London, 2024, it tells the story of a Team of Virtual Reality Virus Exterminators faced against the ultimate Internet virus."<br /><br />Go back and read that quote again - avoid guffawing - and try to find a single original idea in it. This should have seemed a tired, sad concept in 1993, never mind 2003. Ah, but there is more - the 'ultimate virus' has already caused planes to crash, infected the air traffic control centre, etc. It has been developed by a 'child genius' and manifests itself as a scantily clad, athletic, mammary jiggling discount Lara Croft imitator who does a great line in snarling and cod martial arts moves straight out of the playground - the living product of adolescent fantasy. Oh, and she is accompanied by 'Predator' like sound effects to emphasise her remarkable powers.<br /><br />The whole thing has a 'futuristic' vision of stunning originality - the Lloyds building filtered with AfterEffects to look somewhat green. The budget does really show - which in this day and age should not. On the whole, a pointless mess of cheese, ham and cliché that Roger Corman would have left on the cutting room floor in his most shameless, desperate moments. Shame that such an alleged labour of love delivered nine minutes of wasted celluloid.<br /><br />
Dark Reality is a Saw like movie that is slightly decrepit. While the plot and story are good, there is a little too much unnecessary nudity. While I feel the film was technically well done, the acting was spotty, it was just a little too dark for my mood while I was watching it. IT basically says that there are a lot of missing people out there that will never be found and are perhaps being tortured by sick whackos. I feel that some information on the captors and their reasons for being so sick would have helped some. It came of as a snuff film, just made for the violent content. If you like to see women beaten, tortured, and killed then this is for you. If you're looking for something a little liter and more expressive and reasoned, skip this one.
8 days no script that's what the DVD tells you is how the movie was made. It's shot in blurry video that's occasionally used to good effect, but it's really partially naked women sitting around in a room for most of the running time. It is very well acted and this helps a lot. But the killer only shows up once in a long time and the girls/women sit and mope they don't try to escape or do anything too interesting, so the whole thing grinds to a stand still after about 20 minutes. Would have been a good short maybe even powerful. Even for eight days they do very little. Why? Because they had no script. How many movies have been made without scripts. Not too many. I wonder why that is? How many great movies have been made from bad scripts. Not too many. Why is that? Working against this major problem, the direction tries and does some interesting things but with what is essentially nothing. Topless girls shot in dark grainy colorless video sitting around will keep some going for a while but not for the short but too long feature length. Actors again deserve praise, if only there was a script.<br /><br />Also the video quality, or lack thereof, is really low end, they try to use it to advantage and at times some shots look they are from Miami Vice, the recent movie that is. But that's not intended to compliment Miami Vice or this failed venture.
I have to start out by saying that the actresses and actor did a fine job for what they worked with. The problem in Dark Reality is you had a poor director who tried so hard to be innovative and evocative he ended up trashing up the film. From start to finish you can tell the film reel quality itself is low, but the poor lightning and shaky camera only hurt it further by obscuring what is going on. The sound is muffled and often times not understandable. I'm sure Huston (the director) would argue this was to induce a state of panic in the audience, but he had more than ample material in which to do it. Having to result to camera and lighting the way he did was a sign of over the top syndrome.<br /><br />The story is good. A basic sadistic female kidnapper story that avoids cliché by keeping the girl's in a state of despair the whole time for good reason. Billy Bob from Silence of the Lambs treated his victims better than Netwon. The biggest problem with the story is that dead people constantly harass the lead character in her mind, and by the second time they showed up I was fast forwarding as this was attempting to destroy the only decent part of the film.<br /><br />In the end, the way the director pieced it together showing random blurry things and constant barely viewable scenes (not because of horror, because of the lighting, angles, and camera) ultimately destroyed this film. Huston was obviously trying too hard and if anything it resembled a bad film school project. If you want to see a decent story then it's all right, but be warned the film quality is enough for most to turn it off.
The not the best movie in the world???? That was an understatement. I personally didn't like this movie at all. Not because of the story line, not because of the graphic violence, and the nudity. The nudity didn't really need to be in it, it did nothing for the story, except maybe the girls were going through a rough time, and being naked probably messed them up even more. But one of the things in the movie that I hated.. was that it was sooooo dark. You couldn't really make out what was going on. I think if it wasn't as dark, and you could see where they were, then it might not have been so bad. All you know that its a basement somewhere. You see no house, no road, the killer in it, all you could see was half his face for about 5 seconds. I wanna see some stuff in a movie. It gets boring after 20 mins of pretty much darkness and all you see occasionally is a flashlight or a wall. Then you will hear the girl sobbing. There was nothing that really stuck out to me that was good about the movie, maybe the suspense in the first 10 mins of the film... but not the suspense of how the movie is going to end, but the suspense of.. will I get to see anything in this movie but a few naked bodies and various flashing lights. But honestly people, this was a Saw meets Blair Witch Project wannabe. Both top notch movies, and both with the correct lighting to figure out what was going on. Forget this movie if you can see.. if your a blind person.. you might wanna rent it to hear the screams if your into that sort of thing. But then again if you are blind, your probably not reading this either.. so anyway... BAD MOVIE!!!!
This movie looked like it was shot with a video phone, it had very little plot and unnecessary nudity. The movie never really came together or made much sense and for a movie like this, of course, there were some unnecessary boob shots. The director was obviously trying to make the movie subjective and different, but it just never gave enough information on what was even really going on, even in the end i was left with a mixture of anger and confusion. Confusion from the lack of plot, and anger because i wanted my two dollars back from blockbuster and an 1.5 hours of my life back. They should have a payment program for people who accidentally rent this movie.
My girlfriend and I are really into cheesy horror flicks. Especially ones with lots of unnecessary nudity. When we saw the box cover for this movie at blockbuster we thought it would be a perfect movie for the night. We began watching it, already not expecting it to be GREAT, but thought it would at least catch our interest. 20 minutes into the movie we realized that the pace would not eventually pick up and that it was an incredibly boring movie. We tried to get into it, but the plot made very little sense even after reading the back of the DVD box over and over again. The film was shot very dark and it was pretty annoying to try to figure out what was going on in each shot. Each violent scenes were very hard to make out, and you never get to actually watch the violence you're expecting. This is definitely a film without motive that was shot poorly and very drawn out. Each scene was about 20 minute of the same thing and I felt I got the point after the first 5. Skip this film and re-watch another Freddy or Jason flick and you'll be way more content.
I know if I was a low budget film maker I would probably be checking this page to find out what people are saying about it. So I really hope the creators of the movie actually read this! I think you should find a way to repay me for the hour and a half of life I just wasted watching this garbage. Please STOP making movies about something you probably fantasize about. Just stop making movies all together...you are one of the reasons it is so hard for indie filmmakers to make it big. Do the world a favor and get a job a McDonalds or something so you can do something productive with your life! I feel like calling blockbuster to complain that they actually carried this film in their store.
Maybe I saw a cleaned up version, but other than a few flashes of breasts, I'm not sure what over the top nudity these other commenters are referring to.<br /><br />All in all not as bad as I was expecting by the previous comments, although the end leaves you wondering ... WTF? It was dark, but not so much that you couldn't make out the scenes, and I think it just added to the creepiness and the terror of the situation.<br /><br />Film quality could have been better, but the acting was pretty decent.<br /><br />All in all a decently creepy (and yes, brutal) movie with a disappointing ending.
This "movie" will give me nightmares, I will wake up drenched in sweat, screaming "I didn't make this film please don't blame me!" I honestly think it would have been more entertaining to watch a fat guy eating lard in his moms basement for a hour or two, than to watch this crap. I understand money was tight but goddamn what the hell were they thinking there was no thought, plot or effort put into this. This movie needs a warning "Please for the love of god don't fund the drama department a the local JC." On an other note these are the least likable characters I have ever seen, and I have seen movies with Hitler in them. So lastly take my advice the next time you even think about renting this just pop a few hundred Adivl and let the sleep come.
Overambitious and shoddy; and at times too darkly lit. DARK REALITY'S scenario is not even close to being original. Dark and dank basement. Kidnapped prisoners. Fearful survival. Carey(Alisha Seton)tells her family and friends she will be backpacking across Europe. She doesn't make it out of town. She is grabbed from a rainy sidewalk, drugged, and awakes chained in a dungeon. She eventually realizes she is not alone and upon meeting a few of her fellow captives there is different thoughts on survival. Her cell mates start dying off one by one. Can she garner enough strength and courage to see daylight again? Others in the cast: Laila Dagher, Rachel Oliva, Eva Derreck, Arthur Bullock and Jen Parker.
From reading the back of the box my first thought was that this is probably a knock off of Saw 2. I couldn't be further from the truth. It seemed to me like they gave somebody with downsyndrom a camera phone and $10.00 and told them to make a movie. The plot didn't exist and neither did the acting. It was almost as if I was watching a silent film about grass growing. It didn't surprise me at all to find out later that the entire film was "improvised". By the end of this "film" I had lost the will to live and I may have gotten AIDS just from viewing this piece of cinematic crap. It was about 70 minutes that I could have spent doing something that was less painful. Like jumping off of a building.
The guy mentioned to sue for the 1.5 hours wasted of his life, i cant disagree on that one. The movie started as some kind of class project cam thing, and ended up in a dark room. whenever the girls where fully nude there magically appeared light all over, I know i dint write the script or having anything to say about it. But this one is like a bad remake copy of saw with a bad ending. To think of a man who actually wrote this story, sick. This is really a shocking movie cant say ist horror cause its not. Its mere the brutality and the violence that made me sick. It really is frustrating to watch a movie without ending, its like bang, in your face. the movie is done now you can go home. <br /><br />cons -cam -lighting (althrue i think is was supposed to) -overdone -sickening<br /><br />cons -real in your face -acting was good in my opinion -it sucks you in<br /><br />Overall The movie is NOT my taste of movie the witer wanted us to know that these things happen, and the man wrote his own little fantasy. If you ever saw the movies saw ? they all had a moment of comfort in it something to hold on to. This one ? does not. Maybe its just me, that im too soft but this movie made me tremble, and the story is real short, sick man kills girls slowly. But the actors sucked you in this movie every blow every scream you could almost feel it.<br /><br />And to be honest, i was to quick to judge about this one, its a terrible movie ? no its not. its an overdone example of reality, this is a real as it could get. But don't watch this movie if you expect great mystery or a real plot, or even some kind of story. man gets girls in a dark room and kills em one by one, thats really it.
This movie has the feel of a college project over it, who wants to do a blair witch project meets saw theme. But it isn't successful. The cinematography is poor, and the acting even more so. The characters, in my opinion doesn't come off as being credible at all. The editing of the film isn't really working as intended either. There are a lot of poor effects, which I believe are put in there to try and add a horrid effect. But to me it just gives me a feeling of indifference.<br /><br />I would stay away from this movie, unless you are a dedicated movie freak, who likes to watch "different" and indie "horror" movies. However, I believe this movie is not worth watching, for the average person. You will get no pleasure out of the poor effects, and the handycam feel, which this movie bestows on it's viewers.
I had looked forward to viewing this movie, it seemed anyone who had seen it loved it. I was completely disappointed. The acting was so overdone. The script seemed like the writer had gathered 25 different scripts from various movies and randomly chose dialogue and pieced them together to form one plagarized script.<br /><br />Spoilers: Was any cliche omitted in this movie? There was a mobstyle hit, homosexuality, prostitution, a serial killer, a fire, numerous godfather wannabees, the main character in love with the prostitute, cross dressing, torture by the police, Hannibal Lechter style mutilations, I could go on and on.<br /><br />Line's like (the godfather wannabe to the prostitute)<br /><br />-"Ben senin arik calismani istemiyorum" (I don't want u to work anymore)<br /><br />-"Ben calismasam kirayi kim odeyecek?" (Who would pay the rent if I didn't work)<br /><br />Unrealistic scenes: We never saw a single policeman during the serial killer scenes, yet when the main character disappeared his father was taken in by the police and tortured for weeks.<br /><br />The only way I can make sense out of this whole movie, is if the version I had scene was severely edited from the original. I definitely do not recommend it, and would greatly enjoy discussing it further with anyone who would care to do so.<br /><br />
MGM tried pairing up and coming young men with the Divine One to give them exposure and try them out as leading men. Gable and Garbo had chemistry in SUSAN LENOX but it was a lousy film. Here in INSPIRATION there is no chemistry whatsoever between Garbo and Robert Montgomery and the script is poor as well. What were they thinking? The modern, fast-talking, wise-crack-snapping Montgomery and the long-suffering Garbo? It is a tale like CAMILLE. Young student falls for woman of the world and is repelled by learning of her past, rejects her, takes her back, rejects her.... you get the picture. Garbo is completely believable as a top Parisian artist's model and completely at home, although bored, with her life at the top of society amidst her artistic friends and their loose morals. Suddenly she is fascinated by this innocent. She finally gives up her life for him and sinks into poverty, only to be rescued by him and set up in a house of her own. Ironically, he intends to marry and keep her on the side - so much for his pure moral ethic of earlier.<br /><br />The scenes are incredibly dull and boring and nothing much happens. Only Marjorie Rambeau as Lulu is able to inject life into the proceedings with such lines as "Unfortunately weak women have strong appetites" and "Odette, Where is thy sting?"<br /><br />Only for Garbo fans.
The sound in this movie is a nightmare. That is the best I can say for this movie. Any chance of a good story is lost once this films starts. The premise of the film sounds good. A playboy who comes to terms with the people around him. The plot is predictable and very dull. The wet T-Shirt contest may be the worst scene I've ever watched and is almost worth watching in a Mystery Science type of deal. The sound is at times hard to hear and the main actor seems to not know how to speak clearly. His accent makes him very hard to understand. The only bright sport is the acting of Penelope Ann Miller. Her role is underdeveloped but she plays it well. In short, do not waste your time.
Despite the solid performance of Penelope Ann Miller, this movie was an awkward mess. The lead character's American accent was ridiculous and he never seemed comfortable as a result. There was no chemistry between the two actors and I'm still not sure what Ann-Margaret was doing there.
Subject matter: Worthwhile Acting: Fair (some of it) Plot: Ridiculous <br /><br />Details: Sound goes from screechingly high to nearly inaudible; music is not altogether awful (but mostly is); dialog and characterization are laughable; the main character's process of discovery is blindingly obvious to everyone but himself (and the writer, apparently); animal scenes are just plain stupid (singing "Moon River" in an off-key, forgotten-lyrics, silly duet to a "herd" of wild boars for hours, as one example). Finally, the "wet t-shirt" contest is so over-the-top silly that it has to be seen to be disbelieved. (Hint: The 'girl' who wins is not a ... well, I'm not giving that away.)
A feminist tract in which if you the viewer believe that: i) wild animals are seldom tamed by singing but instead attack, kill and eat (the line that grizzlies never attack unless provoked was a hoot - unless "provoked" means that it sees flesh); ii) homosexuality is both immoral per se -- and its acceptance almost always associated throughout history with signs of a society's dissolution and decay iii) few women are bisexual (in this one, virtually every woman is presented as having no preference for men or women) iv) divorce is far worse than infidelity v) land is there for human beings to use, develop and enjoy vi) it is as incumbent upon a mother of an adult son to keep in touch as it is upon the son vii) a mother raising her son alone is an unfortunate and real tragedy for the child viii) the idolization of a parent for worthwhile ideals is a good and healthy thing ix) adults continue to bear a responsibility for their sexual behavior, no matter their age, and the duty to engage in this most intimate and giving of acts only within the most intimate and openly sacrificial of relationships: marriage -- believe me, you are NOT going to like this film! Essentially it's a Howard Stern sort of fellow who is brought down by a Jane Fonda sort of woman (think The Electric Horseman). It's ugly stuff because the values, the ideals, of the screenplay are all so harmful.<br /><br />I share the other objections about the odd things in the writing: a) why would this man lose every girlfriend he has -- because he refuses to reveal that his mother's death and funeral caused him to be unable to keep dates with them? It's a mystery why he just keeps saying "it was personal" when faced with angry and disappointed women. HUH? <br /><br />b) there's an enormous inconsistency (i.e., the screenwriter wants to have it both ways) by telling us that the protagonist's mother loved the father with everything she had - and then later we're told that there was only one great love in her life - her lesbian girlfriend.<br /><br />c) the underlying legal assumptions are nonsense. We're never told that the executor has any right to live at the property - merely that she shall determine the timing of the sole heir's title and right to occupy the property. Yet somehow the film makes it appear that the executor is the rightful occupant - which is crazy. (Try to think of any executor of any will who uses the decedent's property before the will's bequests are fulfilled - it doesn't happen).<br /><br />d) the assumption throughout this film is that women are equally drawn to men and women - it's just absurd. Thus, we're told: i) that Penelope Ann Miller's character is dating other men near the end of the film - after having been with the decedent for five years - and before that in a fulfilling relationship with the protagonist, ii) that the protagonist's housekeeper after being devoted throughout her adult life to her kind husband - is now dating another woman iii) that one girlfriend upset with the protagonist would now therefore "like to try a woman".<br /><br />iv) that a male transsexual is eager to date the protagonist v) that Mary Kay Place's character naturally looked at other women in college ("and they looked back" she says with an idiotic triumphal flip of the head).<br /><br />This is all just ridiculous.<br /><br />I agree with others about the sound of the DVD (I had to keep it at maximum volume and repeatedly rewind to understand names, phrases).<br /><br />This is a film by someone who really despises traditional heroics by any man, hates the notion that a man is needed to raise a child, loathes the idea that there is any necessary connection between marriage and sex. The film is out to preach - and that kind of propaganda of false messages doesn't sit well.
Just do a little research on the making of this film. Something so simple as a Google search. It was funded by the US Army and promoted just in time for the elections. It is a great idea, but I'd much rather see a DOCUMENTARY, not something edited by the Bush Administration and told its reality. The timing of the movie's release, its tone, and the fact that MS&L promoted it, raised questions about the intent of the movie. "According to MS&L Managing Director Joe Gleason, he and his colleagues also deliver key targeted messages about the war in Iraq to specific constituencies," wrote Eartha Melzer. "Was the left-leaning art house crowd one of those constituencies? Is the government hiring documentary filmmakers to propagandize the U.S. population? Nobody involved with the film is willing to say who initially put up the money for the film or how they ended up represented by the Army's PR firm."
Well there's a few things about this movie. Everyone should see it. You see the nation of Iraq like you've never seen it covered by the media, and shot from a perspective that is hardly considered by most Americans, where the movie has its main audience. However all that glorious stuff in mind lets take a look at a few other facts of the movie. There were 150 cameras handed out to the Iraqi people most all of which view the war and subjugation of the occupying forces as a growing pain for the bettering of their nation. And in comparison to Saddam it is simply a feeble scratching at the skin. Also, Netflix as its main distributor advertised it before the fun election we just had by sending out a mass e-mail to its entire roster to see the film. Many of the, what should be labeled as opinions played out as facts listed off by the interviewed Iraqis are wrong. If one is to review the Red Cross' records of Abu Ghraib tortures it wasn't Saddam's henchmen who were being tortured it was a fine mix of a 80-90% innocent civilians and 10-20% rightfully detained people. Never was it disclosed that any of that 10-20% were Saddam's Henchmen or curfew violators. In addition the Arab world really has never listed 'Democracy' as one of their opponents, more correctly it is the USA's 6 Billion Dollars a year to Isreal, our military bases in Saudi Arabia and our interest in Oil. I agree that the media is a complete distortion, but this film shows that same distortion. I'm afraid that the Iraqi people that this film represents have been edited to speak with a Yankee voice. Yes its true that Saddam is a puke, and that his removal many see for the best. Its true that some Iraqis actually get paid a good wage. Just as its true that no Iraqi people have control of their most prized oil and US corporations do. Nor does it mention that 20,000 civilians have died due exclusively to US artillery. Still 15% of the country which once had running water and electiricity now does not. Nor does it mention that from 1993-2003 UN sanctions purposed and authored by the USA Government killed over 200,000 Iraqi civilians. Nor does it mention that Democracy in when people decide the government, not a massive war machine that sends the message, 'Be killed or Obey'. I am afraid that the cutting room floor must have quite a bit of Iraqis that aren't so happy with the Occupation. Just as the vast majority of the world was not for the war. In fact the America, Britian, Spain and the rest of them are not carriers of Democracy, they turned their back to it when they saw how full their pockets could be. Hurray, Saddam is out of power, but I'm afraid that no Iraqi is yet in power. Corporations are in power, the media is in power. Read, do your own research, and don't let them blindfold you.
I was looking forward to watching this movie, and it does contain very interesting perspectives from Iraqis all over the country, not just in major areas.<br /><br />However, as the film went on, and as it seemed to become increasingly more one-sided, I started wondering who had edited the film. To get several hundreds of hours down to just 80 minutes, obviously decisions had to be made.<br /><br />I would have really enjoyed a film that showed how everyday Iraqis felt on all sides of the issues, but with the newspaper headlines in contrast to what people were saying, and with everyone in the movie having the same opinion at the end, I thought it was obvious that the editing was done with a pre-conceived bias.<br /><br />It could have been such a great film.
I have tried to like this show, I really have, but I can't find a reason why anyone would like it. The story lines are weak, the acting is weak and unbelievable. Every cast member seems to have been picked up off the street at random. And it seems to me that the whole show is just a vehicle for Jamie Lynn Spears to be able to move on to movies. Every episode shows Zoey as the girl that every girl wants to be her best friend and that every boy wants to date. She's always perfect and no one is like that in real life. How can people relate to a character that is just a Barbie doll? Jamie Lynn's acting is fair but she is not a strong enough actress to have the lead role in a series. All the show's fans are just young girls who don't know any better. I'm sorry if you think my comments are too harsh but if you can find a meaningful and deep moment in this series that isn't quickly directed to a beach party - please accept my opinions and find something worthwhile to watch.
This is the absolutely worst show in the history of Nickelodeon. First of all, no boarding school has a Sushi Bar, Flat screen TVs, and gives every student a laptop. This makes the show so unrealistic, and boring. The plots are pointless, and incredibly boring. The actors are so bad, it makes me want to take my own life. I really hate the fact that in the show, Zoey is the most popular girl in school, and the prettiest, and smartest, and gets the best grades without doing any work. She never has any real problems, and every guy wants to date her. She is so perfect. There isn't anyone like that. Also, I hate that everyone would do anything for her, and everyone picks her for every team, or club. It is so annoying. Quinn is so obnoxious. Her experiments are pathetic, pointless, and fake. Chase is such a wimp. He says he loves Zoey, but if he told her, it would ruin their friendship. How pathetic. Michael tries to be funny, but he never accomplishes anything. Nichole is so perky, and screams a lot. She is never seen doing any work, or studying, but she is a straight A student. Lola thinks she is an actress, but she sucks (Excuse my language). Need I say more? I think no. For your own good, stay away from this show at all costs.
When I first watched Zoey101 with my sister we thought it was a piece of garbage. No one is that rich and lives at a dorm off the pacific coast. In the show, Zoey is a mega popular rich girl that everyone always go to her for advice. Zoey is always the one with the good idea and everyone agrees with her no matter how stupid her idea is. She is always perfect at everything including her perfect figure. And she is such a dietetic freak she talks about carbs like she knows what they are. When she sees that her friends are eating chocolate she confiscates it. And another thing that ticks me off is that she is always chewing a piece of spearmint every time you look at her. And everyone wants something do with her, for example in one episode that Logan guy bid $4,000 to have her and her friends cheer for everything he does in his pathetic life. And her friend Nicole is an overly perky freak that screams a lot.And Lola dresses like a hoochie Houdini lady. 80s called they want there bushy hair back.Might as well shave off the hair chase. This show sends a bad message to kids everywhere to make them think that if they don't have the latest I-Pods and designer clothes they will hate themselves. <br /><br />This show is a big thumbs down. <br /><br />We hate you Jamie Lynn, <br /><br />Best wishes Ryan, and Kara L
Right, where do I start? I cannot even imagine to comprehend this preteen pathetic excuse of a show. Picture this: a boarding school, where kids whose parents are rolling in money simply chuck them in there so as to jet around the world themselves. It could not get any more diabolic than this.<br /><br />If you taught these kids, shall not even upgrade them to the term teenagers, because they hardly even act like sane homosapiens, were self-centered, think again. About 23 minutes choked full of their so-called problems, boy troubles, and the like.<br /><br />The heroine of the show, of course, Mademoiselle Zoey, played by Britney's Polly Pocket Little Miss I'm All That sister, Jamie Lynn Spears, has obviously much to learn about acting. However, I will give her some face, because her superficial, one dimensional character, does not allow much room for depth. She plays Pacific Coast Academy's sun, moon and stars, crusader fighting for the plight of all women, equality of all genders.<br /><br />Perfect in everyway, always with her two loyal sidekicks, Nicole, the daffy bimbo, who obviously has too much of Daddy's cash, and tough chick, Dana, who proves a hard nut to crack. Both left the show in seasons 2 and 1 respectively, not that I blame that. But horror of horrors, in comes Lola, who deems herself the greatest actress since Natalie Wood, with green feathers in her hair and fake tan. She is even more rude than Zoey herself, if that is even possible, and even more dumber than Nicole, and hell, we know that cannot be possible.<br /><br />This show, like all the sorry excuses for television programmes Nickelodeon has been spewing out since 2000s, is a prime victim of stereotyping. Get girl next door and dense to her best friend's feelings for her Zoey, a great albeit inarticulate at times best boy friend, Chase, a cool, arrogant ladies man, Logan, a boy and clothes crazy girl, who is not very bright, Nicole, the one whom everyone thinks is weird just because she is extremely smart, the nerd, Quinn, the over-dramatic, annoying yet super thin, Malibu picture perfect model, Lola, and the tough yet soft inside woman, Dana. Now, where have I heard these characters before? I am sorry, but what is so wrong with having a personality? Just because Quinn is passionate about Science, and actually cares about her future and doing well in the academic aspect, in which the rest should be concerned about as well, she is "weird" and a "nerd"? Lola at the beginning of the series, proved to be a potential great character with her sassy ways and different outlook in life, Zoey just had to go, get out your pitchforks, burn her at the stake, she's going back to Weird Town and all that jazz. So much for womens rights. Unfortunately, Lola just became nothing more of another OC clone, in all its anorexic glory. Probably so as to not outshine her Mistress.<br /><br />But hey, the 2000 generation of MySpace whores seem to love it with the Chase/Zoey typical fairytale romance, the tension between adamant, "hot" Logan and "kick-ass" Zoey or Dana, whichever to your liking, and the pretty people. Please, this show exists to remind us that people do not like realism, they prefer a pretentious, shallow and vapid lifestyle. Sorry to break it to you darlings, that will not happen, unless you have a major trust fund and parents to cushion you.
This show makes me(and many others) hate their lives. Let's face it, Zoey is perfect; she's bland pretty, gets good grades, everyone goes to her for advice, she's popular, she goes to an amazing school with amazing rooms. Reasons why I gave this show a 3: 1. The acting is horrible.Sometimes I just want to hurt the people who put these untalented actresses(especially victoria justice) on television. 2. The characters are unbelievable and mismatched. You have your typical popular girl. A peppy, shallow, stupid ,stereotypical, girl who is portrayed by a horrible actress. Then you have a typical jock guy who is somewhat normal and actually nice.Then the stereotyped smart girl who is a freak and obviously does not fit in with the perfect popular friends of hers. Then a stuck up rich pretty boy that would be happier gazing into a mirror all day. Then the wanna be actress who is played by another stinky actress. And last a normal nerd person guy. 3. The plot is boring, and lame. 4. I hate how spoiled these characters are. Can't they just be normal! 5. Everything ends up perfect for them, and we all are reminded of how much our lives stink.
Shopping, sunny skies, beaches, boarding school for rich teenagers and perfectly happy endings. Welcome to the life of Zoey Brooks and her friends. Zoey Brooks is portrayed by Jamie Lynn Spears, the self proclaimed actress who got her claim to fame by being the younger sister of the international pop star Britney Spears. With her lovely blond wig in the first season and an attempt at hiding her monotonous country accent, it's confirmed that Nickelodeon has indeed gone to the dogs with nepotism. When Kristin Herrera, the actress who portrayed Dana Cruz in the first season, left the show, all hope vanquished as she was the only decent actress. The female casting is a complete disgrace but the male casting has potential for a teenage media. If they continue to pursue Jamie Lynn Spears as the picture of perfection, very many people will have to lower their standards. With hope, they will soon find that you can't make a career out of nothing. Jamie Lynn Spears is useless for acting, singing and anything else she attempts for that downward spiral she calls a career. There is no wondering why she is a self-proclaimed actress. Critics would most definitely proclaim her as something other than that.
I've seen this programme a few times and the more a see of it, the less I like it. Jamie Lynn Spears was approached to do this because of the fact that she is Britney's sister and I'm sorry to say that that in the show is obvious. They've created the character Zoey to be everything people want to believe Jamie Lynn is, clever, original, smart, pretty, popular etc. The characters around her are only there to make her look better, by being smarter then them, more popular than them, more wanted by boys then them. There is nothing original about this and it's poured with money, so every kid there has the coolest of fashions and stuff. I also have to say, for a 13 year old girl (or however old she is, can't be much older) she wears very mature clothing, those short skirts are too short, it makes young people want to wear them, and all that make-up, this adds to the rising problems of why young girls get into so much trouble. The only thing I will say is that the opening credits are sung by Jamie Lynn and, given her age, isn't bad at all, much better than her sister anyway when it comes to vocal ability. Sorry, it's too mature and yet too dumbed down. It's poorly acted with predictable story lines and there is far too much stereotyping going on too.
For any fan of Nickelodeon who used to watch the network in the 80s and 90s, there was always something good on. You had entertaining acts like You Can't Do That on Television. You had weird but good shows like Pete & Pete. You even had cartoons that taught morals like Doug. But just like Disney, Nickelodeon has fallen down the tubes, limiting their demographic to shallow preteens and giving us poor excuses to come up with new, innovative shows. As I tried watching Zoey 101, I just shook my head in disgust.<br /><br />The setting couldn't of been more fake than this one. Each character attends a boarding school called Pacific Coast Academy, boasting everything that a spoiled child wants. A sushi bar, laptops everywhere, flat screen TVs in every room, cool dorms to hang out, etc. The kids in this show are rarely seen in class and there doesn't seem to be any real teachers. It looks more like a place that you would spend on a nice summer vacation rather than to work and study while preparing for college.<br /><br />The characters were also a factor that turned me off. Every episode consists of boy problems, situations that they caused themselves, and troubles that should be solved. Each character is a stereotype. Zoey (Jamie Lynn) seems perfect in anything she does, and each of her friends ask her for help when they feel they are in grave danger. Only leading her to have no other side. I've been through school and I can tell you, nobody is like that. Chase is dumb. Logan plays the arrogant tough guy. Quinn plays a nerd who is highly unrealistic in what she does. Michael is an idiot. Lola is a clone of Nicole. Dana is just well, a tough person. Why not use some originality? Something that is unique for these characters, and different from other personalities? Is being stereotypical the best the creators of this show can come up with? Instead, these actors are dull personalities with the sense in that there is a lack of creativity involving their roles. There is nothing here to be amazed or surprised at.<br /><br />Not only that, but the show is clearly for the intent of aiming for kids of adolescence, facing a stage in that they must evolve from being a child to being an adult. Through that period they must learn to study on their own, make their own decisions, and do what's right for them. Zoey 101 contains nothing of those values. In this case, we are supposed to believe that looking good and having a stereotypical personality is all you need to succeed. I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true. People can't expect things to be handed to them like the actors in this show are and just let those things sit there. If I expect things in Zoey 101 to happen in real life, then I would be living in a fantasy world locked away in a dream house. Nothing in this show relates to those who face health and money issues. Neither does it relate to kids wanting to learn something meaningful.<br /><br />So in conclusion, Zoey 101 is a show made by Nickelodeon that only falls flat on it's face. It displays a horrible message for kids and I highly think the show itself is simply inappropriate for them. Sure, it doesn't have morbid violence, but it teaches everything to make a kid act and look stupid. A horrible show, and should be forgotten with the rest of the garbage Nickelodeon has been making in recent years.<br /><br />1 out of 10.
The only time I ever actually laugh while watching this show is when I'm making fun of it. Jamie Lynn Spears only got the acting job because of her big sister, and I don't think anyone could argue with me on that. There is no expression in her face EVER (even when she smiles) - just watch the show and you'll see what I mean. Now let's talk about the show. Zoey 101 is one of the most unrealistic shows I've ever seen! As a lot of people have already said, Zoey Brooks is absolutely perfect: everyone loves her, she's a straight A student, and all the boys think that she's "hot." PCA is a boarding school full of rich kids that gives all their students flat-screen TVs and laptop computers, serving kids sushi from the sushi bar. In one of the newest episodes, Zoey is completely clueless and thinks that Chase is not in love with her, and acts as if she doesn't even want Chase to love her. Then, when she barges into Chase's dorm room to prove her friends wrong, she finds Chase kissing this girl named Rebecca. Zoey, of course, freaks out, probably because she likes the attention from Chase. Anyway, only watch this show if you have nothing else to do and the only thing on television is Zoey 101. You can at least have fun laughing at how unrealistic it is!
This television show is stereotypical and far-fetched in many of its aspects.<br /><br />First of all, the setting. All of the characters attend PCA, this unbelievable boarding school with painted, stylish dorms. The campus seems to have no reasonable rules - for instance, the boys are often seen in the girls' dormitories, and vice versa. But this may be simply because the dorm adviser, a silly character that basically bores the viewer instead of amusing them, as I assume her purpose is supposed to be, sits around and does nothing. I have friends in boarding schools, and they laugh at many aspects of the school in this show.<br /><br />Next, the characters. I was so disappointed to discover that Nickelodeon wasn't creative at all with the personalities in this show. They all represent on characteristic which is exaggerated to the extreme: Zoey is supposedly perfect in everything she does (looks, grades, sports, guys, judgment, creativity, etc), Michael is the jock, Logan is the arrogant jerk who basically does nothing aside from aggravate all the characters as well as us poor viewers, Nicole is the preppy idiot who knows nothing but somehow maintains straight-A's, Dana was the tough girl, Quinn is the unrealistic 'smart kid,' whom they consistently make fun of, Chase is the guy who is afraid of confessing his 'true feelings' which really aggravates me as the show continues, and that new girl- Lola or something- is just another clone of Nicole.<br /><br />The main two characters that aggravate me the most are Zoey and Quinn. First of all, I just do not understand Zoey's character. She was obviously created to be the 'perfect' character as I said above, but she seems to be the most flawed out of all of them- in most of the episodes she creates a problem, then has to fix it. What's frustrating is that we are supposed to love her and think she is amazing when they haven't even created a very realistic character to begin with.<br /><br />Quinn, on the other hand, bothers me because she is exaggerated to the point at which her character is absolutely insulting. The impression I get from Nick concerning her character is that 'geeks' and 'nerds' are people to laugh at, to criticize, to mock. In the spring break episode they did a year ago, they introduced two more 'nerds' who the characters had to make 'cool.' I found this highly offensive and stereotypical. What kind of message is Nick sending to these kids? Is it: Don't do well in school, don't get good grades, don't study hard- you'll end up being a geek and we will mock your profession in future television series! Because that is definitely the message I get from these poorly constructed characters, and it is an awful message through and through.<br /><br />All I can do is hope that Nick one day realizes that by putting down the intelligent folks in our world, they are not doing anyone any good.
I have seen about five or six episodes of this stupid show, and most of them I was forced to watch. And I did NOT like the episodes I saw. What happened to Dan Schneider? After giving us such awesome shows like Drake and Josh, why did he decide to create a stupid show like this? My problem is not just with Dan, it is also with the guys who nominated this show for an Emmy, were they drunk that day, or what's the problem? Drake and Josh didn't get nominated for an Emmy, but it's way better than Zoey 101. The makers of this show should be ashamed for the existence of this show, let's just hope the pregnancy of you know who will affect the show, or better yet it'll cause it to get canceled.
Imagine this: a high school. Except it's boarding school, and the kids don't have parents around. Oh, and it's in Malibu. And the kids are all thin, white, and gorgeous, with the exceptional token minority or fat kid to play the "weird" outcast. And there aren't any reasonable rules, like how they have co-habitation, nuclear weapons in their dorms, coffee stands, a sushi bar, and a complimentary laptop per student.<br /><br />Here's the story: A girl, Zoey Brooks, attends PCA, a formerly all-boys school. Absolutely perfect in every possible way, she is smart, pretty, thin, athletic, creative, and everything a perfectionist wants to be. Almost all the boys in school want her, and every girl wants to be her friend. She's the one everyone comes to for advice, the one who saves the day with a simplistic plan, and is just wonderful. Too bad none of this makes her likable.<br /><br />Are we supposed to believe that if we don't even come close to Zoey's perfection, we're bad people? In the show, nothing's her fault, and if anyone contradicts her, they're portrayed as the bad guy(Logan). He may be a jerk, but at least he has some kind of brain that thinks for himself instead of simply agreeing with the princess every time.<br /><br />Her loyal group of blind followers are: Chase, the average dumb ass that has a secret crush on her, Michael, the token black guy (and the only decent actor on the set), Lola, a wannabe actress and anorexic, snobby airhead, Quinn, the smart but clueless girl when it comes to teen stuff, and Logan, the rich jerk who has a soft side. Yeah, this show basically spews out stereotypes.<br /><br />What ticks me off, though, is that they all try to pretend they're normal kids. They complain that Logan gets too much money while they have to work themselves, even though they already go to a too-good-to-be-true boarding school and have relatively nice things that many teenagers can't afford. They drink coffee and eat sushi on a regular basis, hardly have homework, and suntan almost every day. Wow, they have it hard! Any other problems? I'm too good-looking, rich, and stress-free! I guess Zoey 101 (what's the 101 for, anyway?) is Nick's attempt at trying to portray teens realistically. Except they caught a glimpse of reality, didn't like it, and decided to give the kids lives like the asses on The Hills.<br /><br />But hey, at least the set's pretty.
First, I want to clear a common misconception: It is not unrealistic that the school Zoey goes to gives students laptops. At my school, those in grade 7 and higher must have Apple Macbooks (this is payed for in the entrance fee). Moving on. This show is very annoying. It has boring, predictable plots and bad acting. Often in the show it brings "girl power" to a new high, with girls beating guys in everything they try. But that is not the worst. The worst is that girls are nevertheless all portrayed as being focused on their personal appearances, and screaming whenever they are happy. Except for the one smart girl, who is portrayed as a freak who is obsessed with ugly boys and science. However, this show is very addictive. I do not know why, but it is. Although, the most recent season has been SO terrible, bringing the stereotypes, boring plots, and bad acting to extremes I never thought were reachable, so I am no longer addicted, thankfully.
I first watched this show hoping for a few laughs, good acting, and good plot. Sadly, I got none of those things.<br /><br />First off, this show is completely unrealistic. How can someone go to a boarding school that's super hip, awesome location, and barely any rules? Plus a sushi bar. A SUSHI BAR. No school has a sushi bar. And what's up with the huge, ultra cool, ultra hip dorm rooms? This doesn't happen in boarding schools! Everyone in this show seems to be perfect. Zoey, looks perfect, has the perfect friends, never has to do homework, and is super popular. Sounds more like a villain to me! I hate how they use so many cliques in this show, Example: Dana the skater chick. She is completely ignorant and wears "edgy" clothes. The jokes are old sooooo old too! I wouldn't watch this show if I were you, it's one of the most horrible shows I have ever watched and I hope it gets canceled soon! Rating: 1/10
Blond main character, always believes in everyone and when you stick together you can do ANYTHING! Shy guy best friend with curly hair (rip off of Gordo) wants to be a movie director has a secret crush on zoey. Spanish best friend (rip off of Miranda) Weird smart girl Quinn (rip off of Lary Tudgemen)and the popular stock up prep Logan (rip off of kate)And Zoey's little brother Max, annoying (rip off of Matt)<br /><br />Zoey is the semi popular girl, with 2 best friends. The only thing it's missing is the funny little sacastic cartoon Lizzie Mcguire has, and Hillary Duff was a lot cuter. Jamie Lynn Spears looks more like a tooth pick in a tube top.
Zeoy101?? Really, this has to be one of the most stupidest attempts to get people in my age group's attention. It's about some preppy girl named Zeoy and her friends that attends boarding school. BORING!!! All she ever does is whine and complain and acts like a spoiled idiot. I remember this show came out in 2005, I was 13 going on 14, and even then I thought it was pointless. The only episode I EVER liked was when the boys hid a camera in the girls dorm. THAT'S IT. Anyway, I just don't understand why Nickel-Oh my bad-Nick feels the need to syndicate this sorry poor excuse for "entertainment". serious this decade is becoming a joke every year and it gets worst and worst. What's with this generation??<br /><br />Anyway, R.I.P. Nickelodeon 1979-1998?/2005?
This show sucks. it was put on fridays on roller-coaster, and whilst it undoubtedly destroyed the running theme of Friday programming i shall judge it rationally... still i think it sucks. It really is super lame. Zoey and her stupid friends are weak characters and the pot sucks and is really lame. <br /><br />The lame continuuity and pot sucks and i reckon the dialogue and joes are weak. The weak humour and lame sucky characters suck, and the whole show is frankly a disappointment not worth watching. It sucks and is really, really lame. It really has to be one of the lamest shows on TV, really not worth watching. I mean how lame weak and sucky can a show get before it gets axed?
I actually belong to the demographic Zoey 101 specifically is trying to target, so I can see that as much as it tries to be relatable to people my age, the premise is simply too ludicrous for an average person to relate to. The show revolves around the wealthiest boarding school in existence, and the lovely, incredibly tan, attractive gang of one-sided characters who inhabit it. As is the tradition amongst kids networks, the cast is an array of skinny white kids, with the token black guy, of course.<br /><br />The story lines all revolve around Zoey and her gang of friends stumbling upon or creating some sort of minor dilemma, such as not wanting to attend gym class, resulting in Zoey devising a scheme to save the day for all her friends. There is generally a B-line revolving around either a one- sided guest character, or placing supporting characters in completely unrealistic situations, such as having a hive of wasps in a dorm room and no one noticing. These plots often play off stereotypes, such as any character who pulls good grades in math must by default completely lack social skills. The majority of episodes have the continuous and overused will-they won't-they Chase-Zoey dynamic.<br /><br />The characters, unfortunately, are all incredibly one-sided; there is Zoey, the perfect girl with a solution to literally everything,Chase, the constantly lovesick still but rather endearing Best Friend, Michael, the token black guy (kudos to Christopher Massey for managing some genuinely funny one-liners), Lola, the theater chick (meaning she dies her hair and 75% of her dialogue is about her dreams of stardom, despite the fact that she never does anything in the actual theater), Logan, the womanizing narcissist, Dustin, the spazzy little brother, and Quinn, the science geek. The few words I spent on each of these characters sum up each character entirely.<br /><br />Zoey 101 does manage to be entertaining at times, but the serious flaws in the system of values it promotes are a major turnoff. Zoey, who is set up as the obvious role model and quasi-feminist crusader and who is on the surface portrayed as flawless, still manages major character flaws. For example, when Lola was first introduced, she was believed to be a goth girl. Zoey tried to use this as an excuse to kick her out of their shared dorm room for being "freaky".<br /><br />As for the acting, it is quite clear that Jamie Lynn Spears landed this role because of her name, not because of talent. Although she has definitely improved as time goes by, it is clear she is not a born actress, which greatly affects the quality of the show, as most of the plot lines revolve around her character. The supporting cast is surprisingly good, especially considering the material they have to work with. They deliver quite a few good one-liners for comic relief, if the plot hasn't yet ventured into obscurity.<br /><br />All in all, Zoey 101 is a flawed view at high school life, and anyone past their Limited Too years shouldn't expect much from it.
Okay people, I have to agree with almost everyone else's reviews here. The characters. Are. Stupid. They're ALL stereotypical, and yet have nice clothes and are always skinny.<br /><br />Don't even get me started on Jamie Lynn's role as ZOEY. Zoey is a pretty, popular, tan, blonde young teen who everyone just LOVES! She has a "rebellious", great, personality that everyone agrees with no matter how dumb or extreme it is. Most annoying of all: her voice is so darn bubbly and obnoxious. "OMG!"<br /><br />Take for example the first episode. The moment she steps onto the huge PCA campus, everyone seems to love her. The boys want to ask her out, the girls want to be her friend, etc. Thinking she's all that, the episode plays out with Zoey always being the center of attention; she is the so-called best player of the unofficial girls basketball team, confident, and has everyone pity her when she weakly gets hit in the face. Oh boo-hoo.<br /><br />My favorite character by far is this whole series is a girl that appears much later into the show, Lauren or something, who is the ONLY person ever introduced in the show to hate Zoey.<br /><br />And Zoey doesn't even seem to be very loyal to her friends sometimes. In one episodes she even calls her friend a freak without EVER apologizing and doesn't show the least bit regret in doing so.<br /><br />Zoey is ALWAYS the best:<br /><br />-Desiging professional T-shirts and backpacks (which become a big hit)<br /><br />-coming up with VERY elaborate schemes BY HERSELF to teach a single person a lesson. <br /><br />-Flawless grades <br /><br />-Taking the blame for stuff that wasn't even related to her just so everyone else could be happy.<br /><br />-Coming up with a commercial that was so good it was put on TV. The list goes on and on...<br /><br />Ugh. She has no acting talent. She's always the perfect person. She acts snotty and rebellious and preppy and...UGH! Can't stand her.<br /><br />Not only that, but everyone in the show always has great clothes. EVEN THE NERD! Her wardrobe is better than mine, and mine is pretty freaking decent.<br /><br />No one cares if everyone at PCA loves you, Zoey, and would do anything for you, even if it meant giving their right arm.<br /><br />BUT regardless of these cardboard characters, the plots are creative. Not everyday things. They're interesting and amusing. The humor is usually good-natured and fun, but the characters are so paper flat that it's hard to enjoy it.<br /><br />This show would be really good if Dan Schnieder put a bit more time thinking of the type of characters he wanted, because they are so typical, so boring that's it's lame and stupid.<br /><br />Point: No one's the least bit overweight, everyone has stylish clothes, Zoey is the definition of Mary-sue, the story lines are well-thought out, and the humor is laughable. But again, I want to emphasize that the characters taint the show. Watch the show if you must, but don't say I didn't warn you if your eyes start to bleed.
I strongly dislike this show. I mean, like, basically everyone at that school is perfect, and rich, and I doubt a boarding school would look as cool as that. And why do they suddenly allow girls into the school? Isn't that just a little weird? anyways, Jamie Lynn spears CANNOT act. She always has the same facial expression, which really annoys me. She is basically emotionless, and all the guys seem to like her.<br /><br />and shouldn't chase tell her he likes her? its not that hard! really! None of this show is real life, and she isn't "a girl like me" because majority of the regular girls do NOT go to boarding school, do not have designer clothes, and do NOT live by the beach.<br /><br />fake fake fake.
This was another one of those shows that I watched to root out the positive elements, and because I've been a Nick fan for years. Some of those would be the stage sets, B-plots, guest stars, and a few of the main actors that were good. I dabbled in the show through high school as I quickly grew to despise Jamie Spears, along with the other chicks in the show that can't act. The only characters I seemed to like were Dustin, Quinn, Stacey, Michael & Logan. Quinn is a perfect outcast that eventually started to fit in; Stacey is a complete oddball; Dustin gets put through a bunch of strange, random situations; and Michael is kind of the comic relief right-hand man of Logan. There's a remarkable difference between the execution & acting quality of the B-plots that involve them, and the A-plots that showcased a bunch of screeching girls and an iconic "Miss Perfect," repeating bad lines and obsessing over guys. This show would have been great if the main plots contained the quality of the side plots, but the main plots just don't deliver anything. When it recently came back in reruns, and I tried to watch it again, I was more calloused towards the girls' abysmal acting and had to change the channel. However, I will give the previously listed characters credit because they did make the show more or less worth my time.
This is a children's TV series about a Mary-Sue who is at the same time, mean and bitchy. I couldn't bring my self to sit through 3 episodes of Zoey101. Not to mention that Jamie Lynn Spears can't act to save her life! What message does this show bring to kids? If you're not perfect like Zoey, you're unworthy *rollseyes*.<br /><br />It's absurd how Zoey's character is exactly the type of person who would be despised in real life yet she manages to become so popular. Then there is Chase who is basically a lovesick puppy who worships the ground Zoey walks on. Then there is the fact that all the other characters seem to have been dumbed down in order to stop them from outshining Zoey. I'm sorry but the characterization in this show = extremely unrealistic.
Zoey 101 is such a stupid show. I don't know if that's because the snooty Jamie Lynn Spears is the prissy star of it or what, but I just know that the show sucks. It's about a girl and her brother who go to a boarding school. The jokes in this show are extremely dull and unfunny, and I hate every single character except Chase and Lola. Heck, the jokes on this show are so unfunny that they make Jack Black look like Monty Python.This show is without a doubt one of the worst shows on Nickelodeon, it's right down there with Avatar and Danny Phantom in the pit of shame, and if this show was a person with any honor, it would hang itself in shame.<br /><br />1/10
Zoey 101 is basically about a girl named Zoey who transfers into an all boys boarding school during the first year that they integrate girls into it. That raw plot line is, I'll admit, a pretty good idea. Although this show was meant for children, a five year old could probably point out its fatal flaws. First, Zoey is a cliché character, her being super popular, super attractive, super smart, and there;s nothing wrong with her; no girl is like that. It feels like the show was put the spotlight on Jamie Lynn Spears and increase her fame. Dana, who appeared at the beginning of the first season, is just plain mean. However, in my opinion, she was probably the most realistic character of them all, which is sad seeing that Dana is never nice. Nicole is too peppy and acts like a complete airhead, but mysteriously gets straight A's. Lola seems to be able to fool anything with her Emmy-deserving acting skills. Quinn is supposed to be super smart, and although she is able to create the most unrealistic things, she is also made out to be weird, and she never gets any guys although she is both beautiful and smart, while Zoey, Lola, and Nicole get guys and they're all beauty and no personality. Chase and Michael are very similar, and I even sometimes get them confused. Logan is unrealistically rich, and hands out millions like they're dollars. Nobody's that rich. I've also noticed that every character on the show is mean to that Stacy girl, who does nothing but act nice to them. That's not funny! That's mean and it just influences young girls to act mean to totally nice people. Finally, the school itself adds the frosting to the unreal cake by providing the students with 5-star amenities such as a scenic location, sushi bar, hot lounge equipped with free soda machines, pool&jacuzzi, movie theater, and the allowance for boys and girls to freely go into the other sex's dorm rooms. At most boarding schools, if a boy were to go into a girl's dorm or vice versa they would be expelled.<br /><br />In conclusion, Zoey 101 was poorly written and should have spent a few more years in the drafting process.
I'm not going to lie and say I don't watch the show--I do. BUT it has a lot, and a lot of flaws. 1) The Boarding School is perfect. The drama is at a minimum. Everyone is so nice to each other, you know. Lets give that a reality check. Its IMPOSSIBLE that ANY school is perfect like PCA. Free laptops for everyone. Big dorm rooms. Mini fridges. If there was a school like that in real life, almost nobody there would be a virgin for one. Two, everyone there is so rich, and its weird how nobody has anything stolen yet. 2) Characters really unrealistic. First things first, who in they're right minds talk like they do. They talk like a perfect teenager would. Secondly, Logan Reese(Matthew Underwood) is an extremely rich boy "hot" teenage boy. My question is, why isn't almost ever girl in that school all over him? He's rich and "hot" now a days all those girls would be after him, even if he was a jerk. Also, Chase is the most stupidest person ever. He is this shy teenager who claims to not be in love with Zoey, and over-reacts to everything that involves Zoey. She must be BLIND not to see him in love with her.<br /><br />Come on Nick. I know you can do better than THAT. Please..
Snake Island is one of those films that, whilst one sits and watches its amazing level of stupidity, makes one wish the film camera had never been invented. The real reason why Plan 9 From Outer Space will hold onto its honoured title of Worst Film Of All Time for a while to come is not so much because of how bad it is. It is because of the fact that it is the most entertaining bad film you will ever see. Snake Island is the other kind of bad. Snake Island is just so bad that it is excruciating. A stupid premise combines with a script that was written by monkeys tapping one-key typewriters onto transparencies that were then overlapped in order to resemble dialogue to make the most obvious problems here. Filmed entirely on location in South Africa, the environments in which the film takes place are about the only element that can truthfully be considered well-realised. Many shots involving snakes consist of close-ups so surreal in appearance that one begins to wonder whether said snakes are CGI, puppets, or real snakes that have been fed really hard drugs.<br /><br />William Katt stars, if you can call it that, as an author traveling to an island resort on what appears to be a river ferry. Coming along with him is an assortment of very generic, poorly-defined characters. It is all a matter of random screen writing as to who survives to the end, but Katt certainly appears to be contemplating firing his agent. The rest of the cast seem to be from the Home And Away acting school, where any contemplation of an unpleasant plot point is accompanied by open-mouthed gaping and darting one's eyes about in every direction. The foley effects are often worse, with one memorable scene where a double-barreled shotgun sounds like the rather flat sound effects that used to accompany gunshots in such games as BioForge. Meanwhile, snakes continually explode or jump about at random. It would have been more accurate to call the film Snake Holocaust.<br /><br />Of course, no Z-grade horror or sci-fi film is complete these days without gratuitous scenes of nubile women in a state of undress. As every woman in the cast, almost, gets their clothes off, the film starts to become less Snake Island and more Snake Island Orgy. But like all the worst piles, all there really is in this case is a lot of setup with no real payoff. The sex scenes never eventuate, and the deaths of characters are so flat, so uninteresting, that the entire film becomes pointless. Unless you consider watching William Katt running through a muggy forest wearing ill-fitting cricket gear and smashing snakes in all directions with a cricket bat a payoff. For the record, I don't. I used to think that Anaconda was the worst film ever made about predatory snakes. I was so very, very wrong. At least Anaconda had a snake one could be afraid of if they suspended disbelief for quite some time. Some of the snakes shown killing the human cast are no bigger than the shoelaces from some pairs of combat boots I have worn.<br /><br />So we so far have the checklist for bad horror films running along nicely. The unrecognisable, lame cast are accounted for, as are poor audio and visual effects. The dialogue is so wretched, so ill-timed, that I have seen better writing and delivery during some of the school plays I have acted in many moons ago. Unfortunately, where Snake Island falters in this respect is the area fatal to all bad films. In essence, it forgets to be so bad that it is funny. It is so bad that it stops being good after the opening credits and becomes painful the second that the cast start to speak. Compared to William Katt's performance in Snake Island, Jon Voight's performance in Anaconda was as Oscar-worthy as Russell Crowe's in Gladiator. Not that Voight or Katt are necessarily bad actors, but with material like this, you're hard-pressed to say a single word naturally. Listening to some of the lines here was like being the victim of a violent crime. One's mind tends to blank out the experience, primary as a self-defense mechanism.<br /><br />Because of the aforementioned failure to be entertainingly bad, I gave Snake Island a two out of ten. My special score for films that are so bad they cannot possibly be good, but not bad enough to entertain. It is all just so boring or pointless that one might as well be watching the test pattern. The proper way to spell "crap" is S-N-A-K-E-I-S-L-A-N-D.
I usually like movies about animals or reptiles turning against the mean old humans who threaten their environment, but I have to say Snake Island was a major letdown.<br /><br />The premise is interesting, a group of people, including a writer numbly played by William Katt, goes to an island called, duh, you guessed it "Snake Island", and quess what the island lives up to it's name. That is one thing I will give this movie, there are snakes, LOTS and LOTS of snakes of all sizes and kinds. So that part of the movie in fairness lives up to its name, but the writing, acting and directing is SOOOOOOOO lame it is almost painful to sit through.<br /><br />The characters are so unlikeable I was begging for the snakes to finish these horrible people off to put us all out of our misery. There are a couple of scenes that are so surreal and ridiculous they have be seen to be believed---snakes gyrating to really horrible disco music while 2 women dance seminude together and a scene with a snake holding some inane dialogue with one of the actors, it's beyond absurd. I think the writer was trying to be funny but this just came off like some weird LSD trip...<br /><br />I remember William Katt years ago back when he starred in "Carrie", what a hunk he was..not that he was ever a major star, but to be reduced to this garbage, I feel for him.<br /><br />Avoid this movie like the plague unless you are really into movies that feature lots and lots of snakes and really horrible humans.
Don't waste your time. One of those cool-looking boxes that you pick up at Blockbuster on a hunch, but not even worth that. You will NOT say, "It's so bad, it's good." Just, "It's bad." The Greatest American Hero is a writer who rents a cabin on African island, called Snake Island. Some other tourists are on the boat that drops him off, but they are not staying on the island. They just stop there to let off the writer. Then the boat is stranded there, and --in true Hollywood originality-- the one and only radio on the island is busted. So they start walking around and see a bunch of snakes. Like hundreds of them, which really became annoying and you knew the plot would go nowhere. It's not like there ever was ONE main snake. Like a giant mutated snake or an extra poisonous king of all snakes. Instead, there are just a bunch of ham-and-egger snakes of all kinds of breeds. Their only goal, then, was to escape the island...as opposed to having to conquer the enemy. Because there were so many snakes, you knew they couldn't possibly try to kill them all, and they didn't try. I've seen a similar movie where a town was haunted by snakes and they lead all the snakes into a cave then blew it up. At least then you get the feeling that the good guys killed the bad guys and it was a normal ending. In Snake Island (by the way, every single character was shocked to see snakes on the Island...duhhhhh, it's NAMED Snake Island for a reason), there was no plan other than trying to get gas for the stupid boat. Oh, they never do get gas by the way. They "just happen" to find another boat on the island already gassed up.
I really don't think it's necessary that I write a review on a movie with a title as derisory as "Snake Island", but even in the abstract confines of its own genre, this hit a new low, so my anger must be known. The only reason why I even bothered to watch this unbelievably bad movie is because I knew it was going to be bad, it was really late at night, I could not sleep, and in the past, really bad movies would drain the energy out of me and make me long for slumber. It became very quickly very early on that this movie was going to be awful, but it condescended below even those expectations.<br /><br />The movie was directed and written by Wayne Crawford, who also stars in the movie as a tourist guide on the African river, who ends up having to strand his team on a remote island called Snake Island until another boat comes down to pick them up. They hang out, get drunk, and then become subject to the onslaught of poisonous snakes who are on a mission to purge their island of human beings.<br /><br />If your jaw dropped at the last sentence of my second paragraph, don't bother to reread it, you got it right the first time. Frankly, I prefer my creature features when the creature(s) just attack the nonsensically dumb humans out of hunger, not because they have some kind of a mission. These aren't mutant snakes. They're not giants like what you see in "Anaconda." They're just ordinary, everyday African snakes like mambas and vipers…only they have the brains to form armies, take up causes, work together to trap people, understand our language, and even dance! Did your draw drop again? Well, it's going to drop further. Amount midway through this awful B-movie, about the part where I'd already given up, the human characters start drinking around a campfire and then all of a sudden, they break down into some kind of an orgy. And while they dance nude and such, the snakes hunting them all of a sudden stop and start jamming along to it. The combination of this scene and the scene where we discover that snakes, some the most roguish creatures on the planet, have formed an alliance against human beings for some oddball reason, proved just too much for my poor brain. And just when I though the filmmakers couldn't take it to an even lower level, the snakes started to sing.<br /><br />The people in the movie? Well, let's just say that never before have I rooted for the creatures to kill everybody off so quickly. I just could not stand it any longer.<br /><br />I really don't think I need to keep going on; you get the picture. If there is anything that makes "Snake Island" any different from its other rivals, it's that it does dare to try to be even dumber and that's not a complimentary achievement. Why—just why—I continue to subject myself to these really bad movies, I guess I'll never really know. But "Snake Island" hits a brand new low. It's a cheap, trashy excuse for a motion picture that makes "Anaconda," a brainless snake movie, look as brilliant and sophisticated and thrilling as Steven Spielberg's "Jaws." You have been warned.
Now we know where they got the idea of Snakes on a Plane. To put it bluntly, do not pay to see this movie. If you really want to waste 90 minutes of your life, then either catch it on cable, or get it as a free pick from NetFlix or Blockbuster. Do not pay to rent this. If you do pay to rent this, then you are one stupid individual. The acting was awful, the plot was awful, everything was awful except for the snakes. Whether they were real or CGI generated, they did look pretty good. But that being said, still this movie has to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Even the nude dancing scene was pretty bad that I actually fast forwarded through that. Don't sat I did not warn you.
A wide variety of snakes stage an uprising on tourists "invading" their island due their captain's boat damage. The few remaining survivors who aren't caught vulnerable by the snakes will attempt an escape mission, their goal to flee to available boats which can get them safely off the island.<br /><br />Presented straight-faced with injected doses of visual humor featuring lots of snake gags, Wayne Crawford's SNAKE ISLAND features plenty of different breeds of the slithery predators, in striking position, ready to attack their prey. Star William Katt, as an author researching snakes for a forthcoming novel, has fun in his role along with writer / director / co-star Wayne Crawford(..as the tourist boat captain) as put-upon heroes who stare down a most serious crisis. Kate Connor is Crawford's attractive love interest, a lawyer on vacation. The other cast members serve as either tourists or crew, mostly fodder for the snakes. <br /><br />As in many other movies of this type, director Crawford features live snakes with computer generated ones, and the violence is really tame. Crawford even incorporates the point-of-view technique with the camera as the eyes of the snake as it faces the potential victim(..with the actor looking directly into the camera). Never to be taken seriously, the tongue-in-cheek approach was probably the best way to shoot SNAKE ISLAND because the premise is just too ridiculous to accept on it's own.<br /><br />The effects and suspense scenes rarely work because Crawford is often unable to successfully stage the sequences where humans face off with the snakes. The snake attacks themselves also never happen on screen(..one or two tops), or are so limply presented they leave little impression. That's a no-no for a genre such as this. Fans of Katt will probably want to check it out because he does provide some facial comedy that establishes the overall tone of certain scenes where he must defend himself against the snakes. The CGI scenes where we see a large number of snakes in a general area aren't very effective which remove the realism Crawford might've attempted to establish. There are plenty of better horror films featuring snakes as the aggressors than SNAKE ISLAND. Surprising moments of nudity, relegated to a scene where the tourists and crew unwind after a long day with the bubbly, not knowing what danger lie ahead.
I will not vote this movie as an awful one, mainly because i kind of like it, i was one of those summer days that i was so lame to do anything and decided do rent a movie in the stupid section of the videostore. Besides that i didn't slept in the nigh before and the movie got me awake...Let's just start the autopsy, OK, the movie haves a strange plot, first is isolation, there is an expedition, they get isolated in an island because there is no gas on the boat, something like that, there is not a single convincing performance on the actors part(so far), the main problem starts after the isolation idea, the POV of a snake, then another, ...then another, then snakes that change, then false spooks, a lot of them, and when we believe the movie is going on a good way for a b flick keeping the suspense it fails, because after ten or eleven spooks we don't get carried away, the one scene that unmistifies all is the scene when we witness a drunk lesbian show watched by snakes that seem to dance, after this it's becoming not a horror\adventure but a comedy driven movie, the adventure part is discarded also.<br /><br />For me the problem in a movie is the third act, it is the one section that just drives the movie for a already guessed conclusion, or if it succeeds we don't noticed it, like a ninja smoke in our eyes, well....Snake island haves a bad conclusion, it all comes to a «by the book» ending, with a confront, persecution and escape sequence, it was predictable in the moment i rented the dam copy. The other real problem is concept, concept is very important, it is the reason you believe in dinosaurs coming to life or a corpse full of stitches that just wants to live, the main concept about snakes that want revenge after decades on torture by the human civilization, well...hmmm, just doesen't glues on the wall. One thing you will enjoy (if you watch it with an opened mind) is the more b-z sequences, naked lesbian girls, some amateur camera angles, the braindead homage with the grass cutter, the black dude doesen't die first, and thats all... if you want to see snakes, black dudes and comedy and you prefer bigger budgets go and see «snakes on a plane».<br /><br />Hasta moviegoers
A group of tourists are stranded on Snake Island after an unfortunate accident with their boat. They are forced to spend the night and as you probably suspected, it isn't called Snake Island because it's just soooooo much fun to say - it has a history of people disappearing one by one because of the large snake population, which is just what happens with these poor dumb souls. This is a very boring and typical movie with tons of off screen snake attacks and lousy performances from NOBODY actors. The only somewhat entertaining scene was an absolutely unnecessary and forced strip scene which ain't anything couldn't see in a PG13 rated movie, folks. If you are into snake movies than check out SSSSSSS, but don't torture yourself with this crap.
George Sluizer of THE VANISHING fame ( He made both the haunting European original and the Hollywood remake ) directed CRIMETIME . He shouldn't really be blamed for this confused , poor movie because all the problems lie in Brendan Somers script . It's ill focused and lazily written . For instance the killer hangs around a nightclub waiting to pick up a victim , any victim and starts talking to a teenage girl . Cut to the next scene where she tells the villain " I've told you everything about myself , tell me about your life ? " Unfortunately the girl has told the baddie her life story off screen and is a terrible example of the screenwriter not being able to bring a character to life through dialogue . I know for a fact how bloody difficult this is but for a screenplay that is produced the writer should have tried harder <br /><br />It's difficult to explain the message of the film . At some points it feels like it's trying to be a British NATURAL BORN KILLERS satarising the media's voyeurism with crime ( Perhaps it even influenced the infamous video game MANHUNT ) but the script isn't witty enough to carry this off . When you've got a sex scene that doesn't progress the plot or characters or hint of subtext you know you've got a badly written screenplay and CRIMETIME is a badly written screenplay
The basic idea for this movie was good, but there was no real character development and the pacing was slow. Maybe because I saw it in a sloppily edited, pan&scanned video version ? (It went straight to video in France.)
Thinking that it could only get better was the worst assumption I ever made....<br /><br />Drivvle does not describe this movie appropriately enough!<br /><br />Not only is the plot thin, but I get more emotional acting from my pet fish!<br /><br />It was a shame to see Pete Postlethwaite, whom I respect as an actor trying to do the best with the little he had to work with...<br /><br />I think that a cardboard cut out of Stephen Baldwin would have done a better job , and in fact have been more animate.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs! This could really be hazardous to your health!
The Emperor's New Groove was a great twist for Disney. It wasn't a musical! It had clean, fresh jokes and no political twists. It was just a darn funny movie.<br /><br />Kronk's New Groove, on the other hand, is tired and weak. My 3-year-old still loves Emperor's New Groove, but fell asleep during Kronk's. There really isn't any really conflict (that, in the first movie, lead to all of the wacky adventures). Because of the lack of conflict, it almost seems like the animators threw out the writers and just made the storyline up as they went along.<br /><br />I kept waiting for something to happen that would make the movie fun . . . and still am.
...but of course I was wrong.<br /><br />Now, I never expected to like the first movie. I'm not sure what's up with Disney's marketing group, but it seems that every trailer they make for an animated film ends up turning me off as too childish, or silly, or stupid, and yet the movies themselves are usually anything but. And no movie looked worse to me in the trailers than The Emperor's New Groove, which is why I was quite surprised to actually find myself quite enjoying that film when I finally broke down and saw it. I entered with zero expectations and came out pleasantly entertained.<br /><br />Despite Disney's track record with direct-to-video sequels, I had nonetheless hoped for a better experience with Kronk here... but in the end I was nothing but disappointed (and unfortunately not exactly surprised that I felt that way). There's almost no humor targeted towards adults. The original songs are uninspired and sickly cute. The animation, while not bad, still doesn't come close to Emperor (which was no Lion King to start with).<br /><br />The main plot, as such, is astoundingly "minor" and is comprised mainly of a sequence of mini-plot flashbacks - in fact the while thing felt more like a sequence of pilot episodes for a Saturday morning cartoon series than a well conceived single entity.<br /><br />David Spade gets about four lines throughout the entire movie and there isn't exactly a lot of John Goodman either, so overall we're just left with far too much of Patrick Warburton's Kronk - who was entertaining as a secondary character in the first movie but is completely inappropriate as the main lead here.<br /><br />Although kids might find it somewhat fun, the only thing Kronk's New Groove managed to do for me is make me want to go back and watch the far superior original.
The EMPEROR'S NEW GROOVE cast returns for Disney Pictures follow up, but this time the spotlight is on Kronk(voiced by Patrick Warburton), who is no longer Yzma's(Eartha Kitt)henchman. Kronk has started a new life and is very happy with his role as chef of his own restaurant. Things go merrily along until Kronk gets word that his Papi(John Mahoney)is coming for a visit. Kronk is worried, because he knows that his life won't impress his Papi. One thing that he has always wanted and never received is a "thumbs up" from his dad. A flurry of blunders and a gigantic cheese explosion in the restaurant leaves our likable hero very deep in trouble and anxiety. To save the day, a little help from his friends.<br /><br />Other voices: Tracey Ullman, David Spade, John Goodman, Wendie Malick, April Winchell and Gatlin Green.
This might sound weird, but I only got to see the first movie (The Emperor's New Groove, yaddayadda) a week ago and only because of one episode of the TV show. I simply adore Kuzco's character, but Kronk isn't that bad either. Anyway, eventually I decided to watch the second film, just so I would've seen it. Hoped it would be as good as the first one, but... I'm sorry to tell this, but the more the humour got American, the more I yawned. I agreed with Kuzco when he started crying seeing all the cheesy footage.<br /><br />Still, younger kids and probably veterans too will love this movie to bits (if they like the old school moralising Disney that is), but I just had expectations that were an eensy teensy little bit hell of a lot higher than they should've been. Kronk is a lovely character, being good hearted and dumb all at once, but it were Pacha and Kuzco in drag that woke me up at the end of the movie. (I'll ignore Rudy... for as far that's possible).<br /><br />Anyway, great movie, just not my style and as they say, you always have to be true to your groove.
I really liked the movie 'The Emporer's New Groove', but watching this was like coming home and seeing your wife having "relations" with a llama. Seriously, this movie was bad. It's like Club Dread after Super Troopers. I am supposed to write 10 lines, but I don't even know what else to say. I laughed a couple of times, but only because I was drinking. A movie like that should at least be funny when your drunk. It was not. Maybe llamas are just funny and regular cartoon people aren't. Either way, just stick with The Emporer's New Groove if you want a funny, cartoon, llama-themed movie. Line 10 is this line right here.
Another direct to video movie from Disney, that is essentially perfect for the kids. The problem with Kronk's New Groove I find is that everything that made the first movie a fun great ride is replaced with a more sad and sombre film. In this movie, Kronk learns a great deal of lessons at many others' expenses. It takes away much time that could be spent at creating a more enjoyable film.<br /><br />Kronk's New Groove deals with two stories: Yzma returns for payback and one Ms. Birdwell hopes to defeat Kronk's camp counseling championship. This all leads up to Kronk confronting his father and his disapproval over his son's direction in life.<br /><br />From Lord of the Rings to Michael Jackson's Thriller, Kronk's New Groove recycles every bit of time that it allows to entertain its viewers. If you loved the original, or are looking forward to the upcoming TV series about Kuzco, I recommend Kronk to his loyal fans.
What we have here the standard Disney direct to DVD sequel, where I would expect cots are cut in all areas resulting in an okay animated movie that falls well short of the original. That is not to say that this is a terrible movie it is just that it is a very mediocre movie full of the preachy messages intended to show children the virtues of friendship and being nice to one another and unless done subtly (which it is not here) can quickly become grating for adults. The film has a very thin plot line with Kronk trying to win the approval of his father, and ending up finding the true meaning of wealth and success. This has it's comedy moments but is really nor enough to carry a full length film.
This is the worst waste of time I've ever experienced. not even close to the first one. The story line difficult to follow - plot was weak - at best. The whole thing looked like three stories trying some way to tie them together and make a movie. It had a few good lines here and there - and the attempt at the message was admirable, but they went from Houston through New York to get to Dallas. It was really hard to tell over what period of time the present time took up. The movie was just over an hour and it felt like we had sat there watching the movie all afternoon. Mayve points for being honest - but a son should not have to do all that Kronk felt he had to do. Do your self a favor - Watch Kuzco again.
This coming from an adult who happened to come across the first one expecting a movie aimed towards children and was surprised at the adult humor that was in Emperors New Groove. The character i liked most of all was Kronk, so i was thrilled when i heard of the sequel (sp) featuring non other than "Kronk".<br /><br />I just watched Kronk's New groove, it took me two days because i had to shut it off, i was so bored halfway through it. I finally watched the rest of it the next day and unfortunately the 2nd half was every bit as lame as the first.<br /><br />Being a Disney film, i was expecting to have some musical scenes, however this one was filled with them and they were not amusing. The great thing i found about Emperors New Groove was that it could be appreciated by a wide audience, from toddlers to adults. Kronks New Groove in all honesty did nothing for me nor my girlfriend and we both loved the first. It is really aimed towards young children, the comedy is pretty childish, the musical scenes are not very well done and the plot itself is extremely corny.<br /><br />Save yourself some money and rent this movie if possible because its definitely not worthy of a second viewing. I was extremely disappointed and shocked at how thrown together this film was. They actually managed to make a character(Kronk)not funny in this film, that is amazing in itself.<br /><br />Obviously every ones opinion differs but i am very easily amused, i usually enjoy sequels (sp) even when others discredit them, mostly because i loved the first so much i needed more of the characters and no matter how bad the plot was i would enjoy the film. I cannot say the same for this one, i never would have thought i would be turning it off half way through due to pure boredom.<br /><br />Buy at Own Risk.
Ewww! A Disney sequel that is rubbish! Who would have thought it? Actually, quite a lot judging by the comments here, and they aren't wrong. I actually looked forward to seeing this awful film based on my liking of the original. And therein lies Disney's whole "cash-in" mentality. Shovel out any old junk on the back of a success and people will go for it. Don't think they are that cynical? Ask yourself this, then....How many Disney films have sequels? And then....How many of those sequels spawn a follow-up? A significantly lower number.<br /><br />Kronk's New Groove is just another example of this. The plot is laughably simplistic and drawn out. Even more annoying was the increased number of "out of place" items and scenes - an old folks home for example and, God forbid an Aztec version of the Boy Scouts! Worse yet, Kronk's opposing Chippamunk leader has a completely bewildering over-the-top English accent for no reason whatsoever. An accent that was, after a very short while, intensely grating on the nerves.<br /><br />There are a couple of good things. The animation is very nice and the voice talent do well with the sub-standard dialogue they are given - especially Warburton in the lead role. But other than this there really is nothing to recommend it. Sure, little kids may like it, but there is little to amuse mum and dad whilst they sit through this tortuous maiming of the original concept.<br /><br />Avoid this monstrosity with the same zeal you'd use in avoiding a pack of ravening man-eating lions.
When i heard they were making this i was quited happy considering the first film was pretty good, if a little on the short side.<br /><br />But then i remembered some of the Disney sequel disasters i have previously watched (im looking at you Little mermaid 2).<br /><br />Anyway i watched it and unfortunately i was very disappointed. The best thing about it is the animation is superb. It really has that special polish that the "proper" Disney films have.<br /><br />Apart from that.. the rest is disappointing. The storyline is seriously all over the place. One moment its about something, then completely changes to another storyline and then changes to another completely different storyline. It reminded me of how the Family Guy movie was like 3 separate episodes, turned into a film.<br /><br />I laughed perhaps once at the most. Kronk was very funny in the original film but in this he just isn't funny at all.<br /><br />Stay away from this film, unless someone lends it to you for free.<br /><br />4/10
I don't understand the humor in this film. I also found it offensive on how Koreans were depicted in that film, despite how it is actually just a caricature of Koreans in those areas. First, the actors are Japanese, and they make the most rude expressions of Koreans in that film. It disgusts me on how these people are expressed. I felt anger just watching that one scene, and how they were so badly made out in the film. The humor lasts just for one laugh, and then you don't understand why it's even funny. It's crude humor with the most disgusting representation of society there. I found it to be an offensive film overall... Maybe it was just because I never lived in the "hood" or saw any "hood" movies, but I don't intend to either.
The is one of the worst spoofs I have ever seen. For one main reason: IT ISN'T FUNNY! I laughed a handful of times. The acting is bad, the script is worse. And why those guys had baby pacfiers in their hair I will never know. And you can tell this didn't have much of a budget to work with and it openly hurts the film. They had a good idea going in some parts but it never really came to past. And what was the point about the lead being older than his Dad? 3 out of 10
Now I know that a lot of black humor pokes fun at typical black things like for example gold teeth. But that doesn't mean that they always are funny. Don't be a menace is an example of this. The urban movie certainly lends itself for satire. The problem is that Wayans and consorts not only try satirize the typical 'ghetto' culture, they also belittle valid statements that are made in urban movies such as Boyz 'n' the Hood or Menace II Society. Personally I think that the makers of this movie should get their heads away from the bowel movements of their white masters. Besides this, the movie in itself is terrible. It's absolutely not funny. The jokes are racist. Instead of satirizing the urban movie genre, the moviemakers show their views of the 'ignorant' urban (ghetto) blacks. Now there are some other jokes in this movie, but I believe this to be the main fare.<br /><br />In conclusion this movie is crap and the makers should use their talents to make a constructive comedy/satire movie. They have examples in Men With Black Hats (which was made before this movie) and Friday.
"Menace" is not funny. It tries hard - too hard. but rarely brings a smile. There is no acting, just mugging. One of the main characters wears a stupid grimace on his face the entire movie. No doubt as the less talented Wayans brothers starred, wrote and produced the film they were entirely blind to their lack of talent.<br /><br />Menace consists of a series of unfunny, one joke skits. The punchline can be seen a mile off, but you have to wait until it all unfolds. No zippy one-liners or snappy dialogue here. Just one scene after another building up to the joke. The jokes themselves are juvenile. Loc Dog (the one with the perma-grimace) talks to a beautiful woman - but then she has ... bad breath and then she picks her nose and then, wait for it (remember you must always w-a-i-t) she farts! How funny is that? Ten-year old boys may find it funny as they won't have heard the jokes as many times before. Alternatively, if you like watching movies completely drunk or stoned then you will be able to follow along and may even find it amusing. The challenge will be getting drunk enough to reduce your mental state to the level of the movie without passing out.
(mild spoilers)<br /><br />This movie was filthy and stupid. It could have done well without the constant humping and nude sex. It was also very profane. I think that they had a good story developing, but they messed up the whole thing by overdoing it.
Ok, I will make this review short and to the point for those people whose mental capacity is perfect for watching this movie. Everybody knows of Motion Picture Association of America's ratings: G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17. For the purposes of this movie, I think the MPA should create a new rating standard: IQ-20.
Going by the good words of my friends, I hired this movie, hoping that it would at least equal the laughs of the similar movie, "House Party", but I was very disappointed, and very bored.<br /><br />Falling asleep while watching a movie is never a good sign. I don't know whether this didn't appeal to me because I don't live in "da hood", or if I'm not black, but it's probably one of the two.<br /><br />It tries to spoof a few movies, only coming up with a couple of laughs, but in the long run it fails miserably. Miss it.
i have rated this movie a 1/10 and have done this in good nature. this movie is not as it seems and i don;t get the point of it. take the first joke for instance. Their's that sign at the beginning to start. well that was OK but then they start having some guy talking about the hood and then he dies then theirs the other guys who talks then he dies after the other guy says people don;t get to their birthday with out dieing. and he gets a cake now. then he dies. <br /><br />The jokes are just stupid they are;t that smart and i would have thought they would have been better from some one like the directors of scary movie:<br /><br />Shawn Wayans (written by) & Marlon Wayans (written by) & Phil Beauman (written by)<br /><br />but it sucked and i hop next time they want to make another comedy they make some good jokes not lame ones.
I know, it's a movie. But when it comes to portray real life (in any matter) it should be as faithful as possible. I'm sorry, but "El Misterio Galíndez" isn't as accurate as it seems. Nor is the Dominican Republic depicted as it really is. In fact, it shocked me to see that the filming location for Santo Domingo was actually Cuba. And incredibly enough, movies with Cuban themes (Havana, The lost City, Bitter Sugar, The Godfather part II) were actually filmed in Santo Domingo! So what happened here? Why did they shoot the movie in Cuba instead of the D.R.? The Spanish dialogs with the Cuban accent are horrible! Those are not Dominicans! On the historic level, Galíndez would have never been hanged. He might as well been shot, decapitated or died from the inhumane torture he'd been receiving. Then, thrown his body in the Caribbean sea. But Trujillo would have never ordered death by strangulation. His sick mind wouldn't have allowed it.<br /><br />Acting isn't delivered as expected. Harvey Keitel looks like he's just expecting a paycheck. I prefer the leading actress in "Deep Blue Sea". The rest of the cast would have been excellent in some Cuban movie, and the same goes for the selected shooting location.<br /><br />I suggest "La fiesta del chivo" (The feast of the goat), from bestselling author Mario Vargas Llosa, directed by his cousin Luis Llosa. It's a bit more realistic with Dominican history. The Trujillo character is very well portrayed, and the Galindez incident is treated very briefly in this movie.
FC De Kampioenen's only reason for existence is it's local popularity. It has caused this sitcom to run for over 15 years (and still counting).<br /><br />It deals about an amateur soccer team with the emphasis "amateur". Every storyline deals with the same subject: some misunderstanding that takes ridiculous (and predictable) proportions, to get resolved in the end.<br /><br />The show's been running for over 15 years now, and the production probably decided not to change a winning team. Which means that the show has had minor changes over the course of years (besides a couple of actors getting replaced (they nearly all left by themselves rather than being thrown of the show)). The humor hasn't changed a bit over the years and it was already outdated when it first aired in the first place.<br /><br />I guess you have to be Flemish to get this, and over 60 years old, to enjoy such an old fashioned TV show as this.
We've seen a story like this before: a wife in marital troubles (played by Nastassja Kinski) engages in sex with a stranger (William Baldwin) and then wants to go back to her life with husband and girl. When she returns home she finds out that her husband has finally found a job. Everything seems bright. However, Kinski finds out that her husband's new boss is actually the stranger who still shows interest over her and seems to do anything to get what he wants. What to do? Say nothing?<br /><br />I didn't really like the movie. While it wasn't just bad, it clearly lacked "that something". Maybe it should've focused more on what's going inside Kinski's head. Nothing to say about the actors themselves (I guess Baldwin was a good choice for the role of the obsessed boss) but the characters seemed somewhat stereotypical, acting the way you would see characters acting in your everyday TV films. Finally, the ending totally ruined what could have been an interesting plot.<br /><br />In my opinion the movie tried to look cool, it had a bit of shaky camerawork here and there, some stills, fast cuts and glamour, but in the end I think it fits Spelling productions much better. Same goes for the music. Otherwise it didn't look that bad.<br /><br />Some might like this but it definitely wasn't my cup of tea. To be fair, I don't usually watch much this type of thrillers. This one felt too long even if it was just an hour and a half long, I think it could've worked better as an hour long episode in some TV series. There was absolutely no need for some of the scenes, especially the shower scene.<br /><br />My advice: Try before you buy!
Brief marital infidelity comes back to haunt loving wife Grace Needham (portrayed by the always sexy Nastassja Kinski).<br /><br />She had left town, and her depressing husband, to embark on a trip to sunny Miami, where she was pursued and ultimately seduced by Julian Grant, a handsomely evil and manipulative business executive, who is portrayed very well by William Baldwin (why do all of the Baldwin brothers play evil people so damn well?)<br /><br />The seducing of Grace took place as the two drank champagne on a deserted beach they reached privately by sailboat. Grace admitted she drank too much for her own good and revealed the many problems in her marriage. Julian gained her confidence by claiming he would never allow those types of problems to occur, if he had a relationship with Grace. Julian's manipulation continued as he described a "lost at sea" fantasy involving the now uninhibited Grace, who sat near, listening to his every word and becoming more and more engaged with his romantic dream.<br /><br />His manipulation paid off as a few subtle nudges led to Grace's soft kisses, paused momentarily by her pulling back as if suddenly thinking to herself `What am I doing? I'm a wife. I'm a mother. I have a real life. Real responsibilities. Sure, the two of us have talked about being together, lost at sea, but that is just a fantasy. Look at what we're doing here. The consequences are real. We're really alone on a secluded beach. Am I going to let this fantasy really happen?'<br /><br />She succumbs to the dream, as her kisses became more passionate. The once guarded Grace, who used to respond to men's propositions by saying "I'm married" enjoyed watching as Julian unbuttoned her shirt, leading to more kisses, body caresses and her climbing onto Julian's lap! She smiles, kisses, moans, laughs and frequently looks up at the sun throughout what unfortunately was a brief love-making scene in which everybody seemed to have most of their clothes on.<br /><br />While I thoroughly enjoyed the look of illicit passion on Grace's face as the once devoted wife was being thoroughly satisfied by having sex with a man that clearly enjoys manipulating others, I will say that on the whole, the scene was undeserving of the movie's "R" rating.<br /><br />Julian returned home to find her husband rejuvenated from his securing of a high paying job, and she is excited about being able to return to a normal life where she can once again be a loving wife and caring mother.<br /><br />But the evil Julian Grant reenters the picture and is not willing to give up so easily on Grace. Grace has a plan to rid her life of Julian, but will it work?<br /><br />Obviously, I don't want to ruin the remaining story line for you. However, I will say that I always enjoy movies involving sexual pretense by a wife (especially when she exhibits uninhibited attraction and behavior that is normally reserved for her husband) but in actuality, is seeking revenge against the antagonist. This movie would have been much, much better if the movie had included more of that in the story line. My feelings are if the movie brings it up, then the movie should finish it. And this movie definitely brought it up. Unfortunately, certain constraints in the story line prevented this from being significantly pursued. There are many other movies available that succeed with that very point, and I'll include their titles in the "recommendations" portion of this section. I'm also open to receiving emailed suggestions of other movies that contain a good story line involving sexual pretense on the part of a seemingly devoted wife.<br /><br />Overall, Nastassja Kinski and William Baldwin are both very good. The movie is not.
Egads.<br /><br />I used to think Keannu Reeves was the worst actor in Hollywood. I not so sure anymore, Willy gives Keannu some stiff competition with his "I'm made of plaster" performance in this movie.<br /><br />Combine that with the fact that there is almost no plot, and not a single likable character, and it's pretty hard to recommend this turkey.<br /><br />Natasha tries her best, but even Julia Roberts couldn't save this flick from obscurity.<br /><br />Avoid it unless it's really late and there's nothing else on. -Oh heck, in that case just read a book.
Awful! Awful! Awful! Drab, unimaginative, predictable - and with all the usual suspects. Exactly the sort of film the Irish Film industry shouldn't be making. And with the added bonus of a treacle-coated ending. A sickening example of how talent & originality is by-passed in favour of an almost aggressive mediocrity. Yes - the children are sweet. Yes - it almost looks like it's done professionally. But this is film making by numbers, a direct smash and grab on what the director obviously thinks is 'success' - a film which patronises and despises the audience. It's quite amazing that Working Title would pour £3m into this rubbish. But then, they paid for Love Actually. Don't waste your money.
A blind person could have shot this movie better...seriously! The director is clearly a novice. He must be Dennis Hopper's coke dealer or something to convince him to be in this movie. I felt so embarrassed for Dennis.<br /><br />To John, the director...PLEASE retire from directing. Your contribution is not needed nor wanted. The medium of film is stronger without you. You are terrible at directing. Stick to bagging groceries or something.<br /><br />This movie should've bypassed "straight to video" and gone "striaght to the trashcan." I'm a dumber person for having seen this movie. DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE IF YOU RESPECT YOURSELF AND RESPECT THE ARTFORM OF FILM!
I thought Choke had potential, but I thought it could have been a much better film. It had some interesting twists and turns, but some of them seemed kind of pointless. When showing background on the two main characters, some of that really seemed to go awry. Most of it was sort of useless and didn't help the movie at all. This was also not Dennis Hopper's finest hour. However, the main saving grace of this movie for me was Michael Madsen. His performance was excellent. In this movie, he almost makes Mr. Blonde look like a nice guy. All in all, it was watchable. Still, I was left thinking some things could have been done differently. These things would have made the movie much better, in my opinion.
Hopper has never been worse as if he felt as this movie is worthy of only a grade B performance and he delivers a rather good one. Outside of Madsen and Hopper the acting is horrid; you've seen better at your local high school. The sound and at times the editing and camera shots are low end of B-movies. The scene with the peeping tom is of movies greatest gratuitous nudity scenes I've ever seen (it doesn't even come close to fitting in the movie). The script was probably a great 10-page outline, but when it comes out to a full-length movie there are more holes in it then the dead bodies Madsen left behind. I do have to say Hopper dressed in a nice suit driving the Hummer had me laughing out loud, but I don't think that was the intent. Yes there is a little style, and Hopper can always draw my interest. However the interesting plot concept never pays off and you are left wondering why you wasted your time watching this.
The worst movie i've ever seen. I still don't understand what Dennis Hopper and Michael Madsen intend to do in. Maybe they had bills to pay... The best and cult part happens during a flashback which brings us during WWII when a Nazi officer hide his Jewish wife. That's the beginning of a typical serial killer life! It seems to be directed during the beginning of the 80's but then appears a New Beattle... Amazing! This movie was directed in 2001... I'm quite sure that it took less than two weeks to do that movie. I heard that Dennis Hopper's wife asked for divorce after she saw that picture and Michael Madsen's mother had a heart attack when the actor admitted to be the man under the yellow baseball hat. Pathetic!
I admit it now. This is one of the lamest films ever made. But, in Mr Sjogrens defense, the "Not really"-scene wasn't all bad! <br /><br />And you gotta love the effort of going all the way to Sweden just to find a sweet Swedish 15 year old blonde, have her speak Swedish posing as the Jewish mother of Henry (dennis hopper). <br /><br />What makes this scene so perfect is that Henrys father answers the blonde Swedish-speaking(Jewish?) girl in German... <br /><br />The best actor/actress of all in the film must be the nun who takes care of Henrys mother, this is a woman who has had no experience whatsoever of acting, but still puts in the most convincing performance of all!<br /><br />All and all, this flick is nostalgia for me personally, it is after all what gave me a posting on IMDb:s database. :D<br /><br />//Feelin like a movie-star*
I think it's two years ago since I have seen the movie and till this day it's the worst film I have ever seen. The only thing I thought after seeing this movie was that it was made for some tax reason. So after all this time I finally spilled my gut ;) And now IMDb says I have to fill 10 lines with comments:<br /><br />"Sorry, you must provide at least 10 lines in your comment. Please return to the edit window (or use the BACK option if this isn't a new window)."<br /><br />Please there is nothing to say anymore...<br /><br />Sorry for some bad English.
I just can't imagine any possible reasons why Madsen and Hopper wanted to be in this movie after reading the script. They got blackmailed maybe? Or are they that badly out of money? The main problem with the movie is that it's boring. The conversations between Madsen's and Hopper's character are pointless, just like the bored chatting between two buddies while drinking beer on a saturday night. You never feel for any of the characters (although Madsen's psycho killer is very likeable, comparing to the other characters). Hopper always was a good actor, and Madsen does a fine job as the serial killer, otherwise the acting is almost laughable. There are about three scenes in the whole movie where something is actually happening, each of them last about three minutes. Although the "talking and thinking about murder and the nature of murderers" scenes would have been interesting, if they were scenes in a book. The whole concept would've been interesting for a novel, but a movie just can't bare with a story with that much inner thinking and so little action.
This movie was very disappointing, and except for a few moments, wasn't fly at all. More than anything, it was just flippin' stupid. The music was frickin' bad and the plot played out like a BYU bowl game – very predictable (avoiding embarrassment by scoring, a late game flurry of touchdowns, a rally that falls short and leads to a loss). In essence, the half-childish / half-naive Will (the movie's fetcher) and his religiously confused brother Danny (we'll just call him a democrat), treat Kirby (the movie's "Sweet Spirit"), the 3rd member of their hapless Mormon "boy band," like crap until the man and father figure of the film (the stage manager, Jill) has a talk with Will and straightens him out. Believably, Will's personality changes 180 degrees and he's instantly the mature and self-aware leader of the band. This would be a cute, perhaps funny, 10 minute roadshow gig, but the fact that the movie is 93 minutes long really sucks the life out of you if you watch it to the end. My advise – take the money you'd normally spend to rent this show and either burn it in your fireplace or flush it down the toilet – more entertainment with much less time commitment. If you want to watch a better movie of the same genre, get Saints and Soldiers – not a comedy but an infinitely better show (actually, Kirby has more funny stuff in Saints than he does in SOP).
I attended the premier last night. The movie started out with a bang (perhaps due to pre-premier excitement). The audience laughed for about 15 minutes, then most of us spent the rest of the time fighting off sleep. This movie can not be compared to _Spinal Tap_ or any of Guest's work, unless you want to say _Sons of Provo_ is a wanna-be gone awfully wrong. It just fell flat, it died, it was painful. The story went nowhere, the jokes were bland, even if you were a Mormon and could get all of the inside jokes, it felt like a waste of time. There were two redeeming qualities: Kirby's acting was spot on! And the songs were very clever (for an LDS audience only). So, my recommendations... Avoid the movie. And if you are Mormon, buy the music CD.
I was invited to an early screening of the movie about four months before it was released. I had to watch the film and later fill out a packet on my thoughts. It was THE hardest thing to sit through on earth. The show just crawls by, and you quickly begin wishing you were dead. The thing is, there are two types of Mormon films. The good ones with actual good stories, and the crappy ones that just plain stink. Saints and Soldiers, now there is a good movie. But, with these wannabe-comedies, the writers and the actors just try too hard. Basically, they try to be funny when they are not. No wonder why there is such a small target audience for these films; they're filled with 'inside jokes' that aren't funny to begin with, and they just try to poke fun at average things. It's the story that makes the movie, and the stories for these movies are just weak. I bet you can guess what my packet looked like when I was told to fill it out after the movie. ;)
Alice Dodgson,a New York doctor gets her license suspended when she treats one of her patients with an unapproved drug,resulting in the patient's death.Without a job,Alice is forced to go to Jamaica,where she tends to the brother of a wealthy white landowner.The brother thinks he's a zombie and is deeply involved in the local people's voodoo practices and rituals."Ritual" is a mediocre horror flick.The action is pretty dull,the plot twists are silly and there is no suspense.There is a bit of gore as someone is killing off white people with a machete,but not too much.The cinematography is decent,however the acting is truly woeful.Definitely one to avoid.4 out of 10.
I can barely find the words to describe how much this piece of trash offended me. Why is it that American filmmakers always go out of there way to portray Jamaicans as a bunch of backwards ass bush babies and worse yet, cast people to play Jamaicans who sound utterly ridiculous when they try to imitate the accent? We are not all extremely dark, we do not all walk around carrying machetes whether for work OR PROTECTION, we do not walk around naked in our homes and we do not practice VOODOO!! We are doctors, lawyers, architects, Businessmen and women, musicians, actors AND FILMMAKERS. I am sick and tired of watching all of these portrayals of Jamaicans as a bunch of dreadlock wearing Rastafarians who do nothing but sit around all day smoking weed on a beach or shooting guns in the air (When we're not living in our tree houses). YES, we wear clothes. YES, we have electricity. No, weed is not legal on the island AND CHANCES ARE WE SPEAK BETTER English THAN YOU! The worst part is, this isn't just me being angry and bitter, these are actual answers to questions that most Jamaicans who have traveled overseas have been asked at some point. Read a book before you assume what's it's like in another country and worse yet, decide to make a movie about it.<br /><br />WELCOME TO JAMAICA! The land where all we do is murder white people and beat our bongos drums...Tales from the Crypt has officially sickened me, along with the entire crew of people who worked on this garbage, especially the writer.
This turned out all right and looks interesting. However, as it goes on the attempts at creating emotions between the characters is so inept that it really turns the horror off and is an insult to serious viewers. The story this is based on "I walked with a zombie" is probably much better although unfortunately I haven´t seen it yet. "Ritual" looks so exciting and could have been a great movie about zombies and voodoo but in reality it has turned out very poorly which is a shame. It´s hard to say what is wrong with it. I guess there are just too many inept scenes and it is hard to believe, for example, in the lovestory between Alice (who is called Alice Dodgson like the girl who supposedly inspired Lewis Carrol to call his heroine Alice) and the younger brother. Absolutely nothing has been built up between them and then in the end they get married. Anyway, this looks great, and it was worth a look - but the movie is just so poorly performed. 3/10.
Tim Curry was the reason I wanted to see this film, and while of course his appearance is always entertaining, he's basically wasted in it. The rest of the cast doesn't fare too well either, in this remake of an early zombie movie that has extremely graphic effects that are totally unnecessary. To quote a popular axiom, sometimes less is more.
This film was the one of the first, of the 70s women-in-prison film genre. This movie was incredibly violent, with lots of sadistic torture being inflicted on the inmates. The film takes place in the Phillipines, which looks like a horribly ugly country. No doubt, the producers used this factor to their advantage, to emphasize the gruesome situation that the prisoners were in.<br /><br />Blaxploitation movie queen Pam Grier, has the starring role in this movie. She plays Blossom, a renegade who gets thrown in the vile women's prison, on trumped-up charges. Her boyfriend, played by Sid Haig, tries to rescue Blossom. He and Blossom are part of a political guerrilla faction, and Blossom's incarceration was orchestrated by the corrupt, Phillipino government.<br /><br />Pam Grier and Sid Haig, stand-out amongst the otherwise lackluster cast. The film itself, put way too much emphasis on violence perpetrated against the prisoners. Their captors just used them solely as objects of their sadism. This got boring real fast. This movie could've used more interesting plot-lines, and subtlety. This is not one of Roger Corman's better pictures. The many women-in-prison films that followed this one, were much better all around. I'd recommend The Big Bird Cage, only to Pam Grier fans.
This was the typical women prison movie. I thought the women were very sexy and the outfits were great. All the camera did was focus on the women and the women were always in provocative poses for the camera and they were always scantily dressed(which I loved). This is your basic prison/breakout movie of the 70's. All I can say about this film is that it's extremely cheesy, but the women are gorgeous and their butts are great!
Some of the reviewers of this film were extremely "generous" with praise. I personally was disappointed, because due to those reviews, I was optimistic as the opening credits began to roll.<br /><br />The all-too familiar story line goes like this: Deformed boy and his father live out in Louisiana swamp. Local boys ridicule and torment him. Local boys start Gruesome's, oh sorry, I mean Victor Crowley's cabin on fire with him in it. Dad attempts to rescue his son, formerly known as Eddie Munster meets the Elephant Man, but accidentally puts a hatchet through the kid's head instead. Victor becomes a murderous ghost who hunts down unfortunates who enter his domain. Oooo... scary.<br /><br />One thing I appreciated about Hatchet was that it never took itself seriously and some of the gags even made me laugh. The thing is, I've grown tired of the Hollywood-polished, B-horror slap-sticks. I like to laugh and I enjoy a good scare, but this film didn't deliver a solid dose of either. As for Crowley being the next Michael, Jason, or Freddy... Pumpkinhead has a better chance.
Any horror film that casts Robert Englund (Freddie Kruger!) then kills him in the opening 5 minutes before the opening credits have even run should be instantly viewed with nothing but suspicion.<br /><br />Tony Todd (Candyman!) as a swamp tour guide (his James Earl Jones voice impression is hysterical by the way, I don't know or care if he was trying to be funny but I was laughing at it). Sadly his role was all of 5 minutes long as well. More reasons for suspicion and quite rightly so.<br /><br />Mercedes McNab (AKA Harmony from Buffy & Angel, I had to look her up to see what I remembered her from but she gets semi-naked!), Marcus the token black guy (Not Another Teen Movie) is filling a comedy role that really isn't required in a horror movie unless it's intended as a spoof.<br /><br />Joel Murray (Bill Murray's brother & Pete from Dharma & Greg) plays Shapiro, the guy shooting the gonzo video with the 2 cute girls. As they take a "Spooky Swap Ghost Tour" the 2 lead male characters meet up with some other folks and get run aground on rocks and have to leave the boat. So their now all isolated in the swamp at night in the rain.<br /><br />Once the real story of Victor Crowley has been told (his make-up looked like Sloth from The Goonies) we have established he is dead (well you aren't coming back from being hit in the skull by an Axe!) Once the old guy is attacked, despite pulling her gun and having a very clear shot it takes Marybeth more than 30 seconds to actually start firing at a guy who is hacking an old man apart with a hatchet. Is she stupid? Thats 29 second too long! In terms of plot there really isn't one (I don't class undead psycho as a plot, sorry) and the pacing is really bad as well. You have a killing, some running away, some light relief then some slow dialogue before beginning the cycle again.<br /><br />After an extremely long scene investigating a wobbly bush with a raccoon in it Victor appears again (with some sort of power tool) and kills the dark haired porno girl, he also manages to slice the tour guide in half with a Shovel? Once Misty is left on her own to keep lookout for Ben I felt it was pretty obvious she was going to be the next to die (I was right but you don't get to see it).<br /><br />Film makers? Rain will NOT extinguish burning gasoline, OK? Idiots! Obviously after the 2 near misses in the cemetery Marcus was next to die and Ben was hurt in the foot with the spike but they managed to find a boat after impaling Victor on the spike.<br /><br />She's pulled into the water by something unseen, he's trying to save her then she's suddenly pulled into the boat by Victor and is screaming and the movie abruptly ends.<br /><br />Yeah, just like that. No clue if Ben was dead (he seemed to be missing an arm) and no clue if Marybeth was going to survive and what happened with Victor.<br /><br />It's an awful ending and no doubt my verbal attack at the film makers got the last review deleted. So much for free speech, eh?
I read the recent comments and couldn't wait to see the movie. however, after sitting through 80 minutes of predictable "suprises" that didn't even make me jump and unrealistic villain, i was left hugely disappointed. I thought cartoons were the only movies that were still only 80 minutes long. I thought this might be because of the edits to make it 'R' rated, but the original only contained ten more minutes of "Kill Bill" type blood. When blood sprays out like hoses, reality loses appeal. Add in the killer who's supposed to be a "ghost" but can rip someones head off from the jaw (ala King Kong with the T-Rex), lives through everything and has an ending similar to that of the sopranos finale and you quite possibly have the most over-hyped movie in the last year. After watching the movie i felt like i had seen countless movies with the same plot and method and also felt largely unsatisfied. I dunno what everyone else saw in it, but if you want a good horror movie this weekend, see Halloween, it's definitely worth the $10. When it comes to Hatchet, let's hope the next one IS based on the Book.
This is one of the worst films I've seen for years. The storyline has potential that is never realized. The actors are a poor choice, but considering the screen writing, their talent isn't wasted. I really wanted everyone dead as quickly as possible so I could get out and watch something else. Unfortunately, I did stay to the end and had a laugh at the murmurs of people moaning about how crappy this is. There wasn't booing, after all, this is England, just gentle moans about how crap that was. Then, I look on IMDb and see 288 people have given it 10 out of 10. I really just cannot see how those people are able to give that score. They must be a PR company working with the distributor. There's a hilarious set problem towards the end of the film, when in the graveyard and the hick attacks, look out for the dodgy scenery that rocks when touched (supposed to be a brick wall) - the blood effects are waaaay OTT - the film feels like everyone is making a spoof horror except the Director.
It's important to check your expectations when you see HATCHET. The *buzz that has been generated on this site far surpasses the real impact of the movie. What may help someone about to see the movie is to realize that it is --not supposed to be scary--. It is pure camp and an attempt at fun. It is not --funny--, just campy. Don't expect something like SHAUN OF THE DEAD; nor something like Friday THE 13TH (Part II through infinity).<br /><br />HATCHET does possess passable actors. The cinematography is straight Ed Wood. Creature effects and make-up are silly - probably on purpose. Gore and blood is something between Romero and DEAD ALIVE. HATCHET is a movie of betweenness. It's between SHAUN OF THE DEAD and LESLIE VERNON. It's between campy and comedy (there's a difference). It's between ultra violent and violent comic book.<br /><br />Instead of "capturing the essence of American Horror," or whatever other silly jargon that has been used to describe the movie, it tries to capture something between seminal --American-- Horror like Friday THE 13TH and new Horror like SHAUN. It thankfully stays away from Torture Horror.<br /><br />In the end HATCHET is between a bad movie and a decent movie.<br /><br />*I think it is happening more and more that people involved in movies are flocking to sites like IMDb to rate and comment on the movies that they are involved with. At very least there is campaigning going on for people associated with the associates to leave positive feedback and ratings. There is no other reason for this movie to have stared out in the high 7s with 600 votes and quickly fall after wide release. This movie is on just better than the HorrorFest releases and should not be so bloated.
Let me just give you guys some advice, if your going to watch this movie just to see a bunch of unlikable characters get slaughtered in a dozen different ways then you are going to love this movie because everyone dies a horrible death, beyond the gore however there is not much else.<br /><br />where should i start: -the characters do not appeal to the audience as there are no back stories for any of them, there for i didn't feel connected to any of them, in fact i didn't like any of them, and i was so sick of them that by the end of the movie i was rooting for the disfigured creep to kill them all.(which he did by the way)<br /><br />-bad acting; i mean i didn't get it, take the Asian tour guide for example, first he spoke perfect English then after their little tour boat thing sunk he somehow got an accent out of the blue, then later on went to speaking normal English.<br /><br />-one of the worst endings for a horror:(if you can call it that)after the monster/human mutant thing kills almost everyone, he is killed by the last two remaining idiots, or so they thought! the monster/human thing is finally killed when the beauty and the geek stick a pole through its heart/nick(it was hard to tell)and presumably it died right in front of them(within arms reach) but later on it comes back and kills them(wtf) i mean why didn't it just kill them when he was right next to them. Arghhhh! i mean it was just way too retarded,it was like the writer didn't know where he wanted the story to go.(or he was a few minutes short of 80 min so he added some more retarded twists to the movie so people can get 80min worth of crap instead of 75min.<br /><br />what i didn't get was why didn't they just kill the damned thing while it was unconscious, instead they just walked away from it like idiots and left it so it could come back and kill them. the only reason i gave it a 4 was because of the gore which was actually the only thing that i watched this movie to the end for, that and to watch them all get killed.(no, i'm serious)
is it just me or have all "horror" movies become nothing more than titties, slapstick, and an over the top villain who cannot be killed. this movie had no point. whatever happened to the days of a person being able to escape from the killer as in hostel. and at least make the killer a little more realistic. victor crowley was the worst killer i have ever seen. he reminded me of a demon spawn between quasimodo and leatherface. it was over the top that while victor was lying there on fire no one thought to finish the job. and the ending was the biggest disappointment of all reminiscent of the soprano's finale. i had to agree with the fella behind me when he blurted... WHAT THE F***! if i could give the movie a negative score i would have taken care of it.
Saying this movie is worse than asphyxiating on your own diarrhea is a generous understatement. The only thing more pathetic than this reprehensible piece of garbage of a movie is the shmuck getting paid by the producers to register a bunch of accounts to post fake appraise.<br /><br />If watching a poorly-acted, suspenseless, snoozer of a movie about Sloth from the Goonies kill people in a fashion that completely ignores every law of physics (pulling on an unrestrained person's legs, causing them to be ripped from the torso) is your idea of a good movie, then knock yourself out.<br /><br />No carbon-based lifeform with a functioning occipital lobe would consider in a million eons that this movie is scary or entertaining.
A terrible movie that is amateurish on almost every level - a boring and derivative screenplay filled with stereotyped characters played by embarrassed actors for a director lacking the most rudimentary understanding of his craft. The whole thing stinks. It plays like a slasher movie from the early eighties, down to the crappy score and ketchup SFX, but without the childhood nostalgia that is required to look fondly on such dross. One of the worst horror films I've ever seen - definitely the worst that received a mainstream theatrical release. I've never walked out of a film in my life - had I been unlucky enough to see 'Hatchet' at the theater, it would have been a first. Avoid at all costs.
am a hardcore horror/thriller fan...when i was searchin for good horror flick to scare me on my weekend night..grabbed HATCHET..with impressing BLOOD STAINED HATCHET movie poster added to average ratings in IMDb..but i was wrong after watchin this crap...no characterisation..sick dialogues,with sexy babes bared boobs. i got the feel of watchin porno certainly..and the substory which so called main theme or suspense of the story SUCKS big time....and here comes the CLOWN wearin funny mask to scare..THINK users rated this movie went nuts ..it deserves 1 out of 10 i give 2 for bare boobs babes n soundtrack it has...
Like "The Blair Witch Project" before it, "Hatchet" has garnered its own fair share of publicity from the bottom-on-up (as an avid reader of Fangoria Magazine, the full-page ads are hard to miss); even after its middling theatrical run, the film is bound to subsist solely on the hype surrounding it, and will probably turn into a cult item at some point. With a MySpace URL and a mighty (if puzzlingly subjective) promise of preserving so-called "old school American horror," "Hatchet" will draw a lot of curiosity seekers with its DVD release (where that claim is emblazoned on the disc itself). Perhaps it was the large-print blurb from Ain't It Cool News on the ads that caused me to approach the film with some trepidation (it seems that Harry Knowles and his minions will approve of any film for VIP passes and free food), but "Hatchet" makes me question what writer-director Adam Green's idea of "old school American horror" really is: based on the evidence here, it means the insipid, late-'80s rip-offs of "Friday the 13th" and "Deliverance." The characters are obnoxious stereotypes (black Chris Tucker type, Survivalist Chick, Topless Bimbos, Requisite Old Couple, Asian Tour Guide) whose interactions are marred by painful, trying-to-be-hip dialogues and mostly obvious stabs at humor (not quite as bad as "Cabin Fever," but still); the script has too much padding (the "rustling bush" scene, for example), and "Hatchet" winds up as typical as any postmodern slasher of the last decade, with its only distinguishing trait an expertly-calculated hype machine. I'll give it some faint praise for the gore--if you can wade through the padding in between kills, the red vino is definitely a thing of wonder, and the only real reason to watch this.
Harry Knowles has a quote right on the front cover of the DVD stating"The Next Icon of Horror" Really?!?!?!? I have heard a lot of hype surrounding this one but wasn't totally convinced. However I am a die hard horror fan and will give just about any horror movie a chance. No matter the budget or the rating cause ya never know where your gonna find the next gem. Not here.Not Hatchet. Hatchet is poorly conceived,poorly acted and un funny. Just because you have the actors who played Freddy Jason and Candyman and a Buffy chic topless with tons of gore does not make you an expert on horror.Sorry. I don't even want to describe the plot because it is so idiotic. Honestly my money is on Rob Zombie. There is a man who knows old school horror. Forget this trash.
I first heard of this movie at the "Flashback Weekend" in Chicago 2007 for the "Nightmare on Elm Street". Robert Englund was really talking the movie up and he was great in his part of "Hatchet". The same can be said for Tony Todd. Knowing this is a low budget first time director / writer it delivers every bit as much as the big budget and also cameo laden "Holloween" (2007) remake/re-imagining.<br /><br />Technically it falls short in a couple of places. The alligator attack seen was shoot too dark. When it happened the dark head of the alligator against the swamp clamping on to the black pants became almost invisible. The mood music in the swamp scenes was too loud in volume and canned, like a bad sitcom. And just like "Holloween" (2007) someone is smart enough to have a gun, but of course shooting the killer is only a pause button for the killer. The ending, well, as soon as I saw where it was going I knew what was going to happen, not very original.<br /><br />The highlights of the movie are the characters and their interactions. Unlike "Holloween" (2007) we got to meet the people and care what happened to them. Ben (Joel Moore, who is also the lead of "Spiral")the sulking lead and Marcus ("Not Another Teen Movie")as the best friend and funny man to root for during the movie. Shapiro (Joel Murry "Dharma & Greg"), Jenna (Joleigh Fioreavanti) and Misty (Mercedes McNab of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer: The Series", "Angel: The Series" and "The Addams Family" movies) give a convoluted reason for topless women. Mr. and Mrs. Permatteo played by television regulars (Richard Riehle "Grounded for Life", Patrika Darbo "Step by Step")as the older couple that you know don't stand a chance, even the tour guide Shawn (Parry Shen) is a fleshed out character. I hope to see more from all involved in this film, but I think it will play better on home video than in the theater, sorry.
I don't understand what the big hype was about this film. All the horror sites were saying that this movie had all the essentials of an 'old American slasher' flick that it would satisfy your needs. -- Even though this was similar to an old American slasher flick, my needs were still not satisfied.<br /><br />My big problem with this movie is that we are now in the 2000's, not the 1980's. 1980's horror is the past and should stay in the past. Horror movies have changed so much that older movies now look cheesy and unrealistic. Even though they are fun to watch, they don't offer the same realistic blood thirsty gore that the recent films offer.<br /><br />Hatchet is cheesy, unrealistic, and down-right awful. If we wanted to watch an old American slasher flick, i can just go back to the Friday the 13th series, Nightmare on Elm street series, or the Halloween series. I must admit, the movie is better than some of the horror movies being released but it is among the worst. The jokes are not funny and the actors are horrible.<br /><br />I would personally stay away from this movie and never look back.
This movie is one of the worse examples of hype. People who read IMDb comments might be tempted to view this total waste of time, as I was, by false tag-lines like " A throwback to 80's horror" and what-not. This movie sucks, from the acting to the directing to the story. Horrible, all across the board. And I really like GOOD horror films, I am not at all a snob. This sucked. For reference, I loved The Grudge 1 and 2, Black Sheep, Planet Terror, Texas Chaisaw Massacre The Beginning, The Others, The Ring, Jason X, Slither, Planet Terror, and really hated The Ring 2, Texas Chainsaw Massacre(re-make)Wolf Creek, The Hills Have Eyes(re-make)Hostel 1 and 2, and this movie. Gore doesn't trump fun or originality.
another eli roth in the making. self promoting, bad script writing excuse for a horror director. victor is as far from the new horror icon as mary poppins (reference to the Disney score). what is going on here? you have marilyn manson opening and closing this piece of crap and chitty chitty bang bang all through it. can this even be called horror? horrible, yes, but horror is a stretch. David lynch should sue them for stealing the elephant man prosthetics. please stop these fan boy want to be directors now. the video directors already have enough competition breaking into the film industry. getting online and talking about how great your movie is does not make it true. stop the insanity. i work in the industry and yes these films are fun to work on, but rarely ever entertaining to actually watch.
A washed up reporter called Bart Crosbie (Pat O' Brien) blackmails gang boss Heinz Webber (George Colouris) for the money to pay for his son to have a life saving operation. In return he agrees to turn himself in for the murder of his editor, whom the gang killed in order to prevent an incriminating story being printed about them.<br /><br />Typical poverty-row b-pic of the time directed for far more than it's worth by Terence Fisher, who within months of making this would become one of the leading British horror film directors at the Hammer studio. The script is far-fetched and teen idol Tommy Steele (guitar in hand) was drafted in to sing a poor rock and roll number called "The Rebel" at a coffee bar that acts as a legitimate front for the gang's activities.
Stodgy drama starring Pat O'Brien as a washed-up reporter who turns up at his ex-boss's house to ask for money to fund his son's operation, only to find him dead on the floor. Since O'Brien knows the identity of the culprit, he offers to take the rap in return for the money he needs. A decent premise is wasted on a film that pretends it has surprises, twists and turns, even though it really doesn't. Performances are rotten across the board, the movie dresses itself up as a hard-boiled American noir but the mix of dodgy accents doesn't work, and the story is hardly gripping. And it contains possibly the least attractive screen kiss of all time.
Being stuck in bed with the flu and feeling too rough to get up to find the remote, I actually watched this abomination from start to finish (how many people can say that? And for any who can - what's your excuse?). My God, has there ever, EVER been such a total mess released by a major studio? There is not one second of genuine tension in a supposed "thriller"; the script is inept and ludicrous; the sets look like they were leftovers from a low-budget TV movie; and the cast ... WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?!!! Sally Field gives what is without doubt the worst and most embarrassing performance of any Academy Award winner in history. Her irritating nasal whine and stupidly perky behaviour in what is meant to be a life-threatening situation are truly asinine. It's a wonder she didn't use all her future earnings to buy up and destroy every print of this turkey. Michael Caine, who now pontificates endlessly on the art of screen acting - even running master classes for would-be thespians - should be taken out and shot (preferably by one of Telly Savalas' henchmen). Angela Cartwright, an actress I usually like (and whose name isn't even in the opening credits, poor soul), is ten years too old for her role, and her horrible matronly yellow prom dress must haunt her nightmares to this day. Slumming it are Karl Malden and Shirley Knight - hopefully they collected a big pay packet to assuage their involvement. The whole film is a series of bad scenes, but one that especially sticks in my mind is the explosion which results in the "ceiling" (if an upside-down ship's deck can be termed as such) collapsing and a load of empty cardboard boxes falling through! Ooh, how scary! Really, really, terrible.
...but other than that, there's almost no redeeming social value to this sequel to the original Poseidon Adventure. Where the heck are all the people from the original, including the rescue crew? Michael Caine undergoes his most humiliating performance to date (although he later trumps himself with Jaws 4 down the road). Slim Pickens is just embarrassing as a stereotyped Texas, and generally you just have to wonder, "Why did they bother?" Irwin Allen's last stab at cashing in on the disaster craze, I guess.
I accidentally caught this in the middle flipping channels. I immediately recognized almost everyone in the cast, "groovy" haircuts aside, and wondered what kind of film could attract such a cast of both past and future stars? Having not seen the original, I guessed it might be the Poseidon Adventure, since it was obviously on a ship in distress. Was I wrong! I cannot for the life of me imagine why any of these great (or promising) actors and actresses would allow their name to be associated with such trash. There is no story, the performances all looked forced, the characters a parody of the usual disaster movie roles that are suddenly brought together by an event, and start pontificating about the real meaning of life at the level of bumper sticker philosophy.<br /><br />It is only worthwhile to see the unusually awful performances by such greats as Sally Field, Michael Caine, et al. They must have needed the money badly. Can we blame the director?
Maybe here in Sydney we are all poop side down and as a result we get to lap up floaters like this s-eek!-uel in classy theaters. Released here in 1980 this hilarious all-tar drama was greeted with howls of delight at the session I attended. In fact the audience were so into the ludicrous antics on screen it played like a Rocky Horror session. Within 5 minutes we all knew it was a real disaster: the tug boat scene where you can see the buckets of water tossed in from off-set. after that it was every patron for himself and the cinema rang with advice, cheering for bad acting and oo-waah reactions. The gunfight in the hold among the crates is especially idiotic and allows drunken viewers with friends in altered states also watching to contribute appropriately. I call these films with Michael Caine his holiday house films as I always reckon he agrees to do them because he has seen a house he likes and doesn't want to spend his savings. Like Jaws 3 or 4 or whatever it was called.
Sequels, well there are many reasons to make 'em but what went through Irwin Allen's mind to come up with such a boring idea is beyond all logical matters. There are so many open answers to this movie that it is ridiculous...like The Poseidon which is a monstruous ship with passengers on is drifting on the sea and just Michael Caine with his miniboat and an evil Telly Savalas discover the boat...well, at the beginning the French marine are circling above the wreck with their helicopter but as a sinking cruiseship is a daily thing, they just fly away... What am I trying to say??? Hmmm, Michael Caine goes on board with sally Field and he might pick up everything he sees (diamonds)if there wasn't a Telly Savalas who is looking for weapons on the ship...my God, why in fact am I wasting my words on here? It's ridiculous and knowing that both Field and Caine were involved makes you think what went through their minds when reading scripts....certainly not diamonds....
Wretched. Talk about botched. BEYOND THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE is bad in every respect. Salvagers Michael Caine and Karl Malden decide to tow the wreck of the eponymous ocean liner with a really creaky tug boat. They're challenged by ruthless Telly Savalas and his gang of machine-gun toting goons. This part sequel, part remake has Caine, Malden and ANOTHER group of Poseidon survivors making a similarly dangerous trek out of the sinking ship. Among this group are Shirley Jones, Slim Pickens, Peter Boyle, Shirley Knight and Slim Pickens. Jack Warden plays a blind man. Surely, you'll wish you were blind after seeing this mess. Sally Field is particularly annoying as a stowaway on board Caine's tug.<br /><br />Disaster master Irwin Allen not only produced this one, he decided to direct it as well.
Awkward disaster mishmash has a team of scavengers coming across the overturned S.S. Poseidon, hoping to loot it before it goes under for good. Irwin Allen's sequel to his 1972 blockbuster "The Poseidon Adventure" arrived in theaters SEVEN YEARS LATER! Never mind that nobody cared anymore, why give us such a shoddy production, filled with dim characters and miscast actors, only to trash the memory of your biggest hit? One might end up feeling really sorry for Michael Caine, Sally Field, Peter Boyle, Jack Warden, Karl Malden and Shirley Jones were it not for their lost-at-sea expressions (good for a few stray laughs). There's a moment when saintly Jones is tempted into taking some treasures just for herself and she timidly starts stuffing her pockets that is an unintended hoot. The film was a career bungler for all concerned, most especially Allen, who never quite recovered from this. * from ****
This film is in a dead tie with the original for worst film ever made. I think this one may be slightly worse, if anything. SPOILER ALERT!!! Here are these survivors on a ship that's been capsized for a long time. Improbable? No - IMPOSSIBLE. The whole premise is so laughable as to not be funny. There are some pretty big names in the film, and even they couldn't save this sorry thing. I find it truly a waste of good celluloid. After seeing this, I also unfortunately decided that it had been a waste of my time. Don't bother with this one. Or the original for that matter! I gave it a 2, mainly because they throw votes of 1 out.
4 Oscar winners, Karl Malden, Sally Field, Shirley Jones, Michael Caine. Great character actors Telly Savalas and Peter Boyle. 1 hour 54 minutes of sheer tedium, melodrama and horrible acting, a mess of a script, and a sinking feeling of GOOD LORD, WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?<br /><br />Irwin Allen was just trying to cash in on the popularity of the original classic disaster film with a grade D minus script, the actors were obviously just in it for the paycheck as well,... the horror, the horror!<br /><br />How insane are the characters that Caine, Savalas, Malden and Field are playing? Go into a potentially deadly sinking ship that's 1. on fire 2. Hot from steam 3. Slippery from water and oil, 4. boilers that are exploding every 5 minutes, etc., all for the love of money? Greed? 5. They have very little equipment, not even a pair of gloves or work boots in sight, much less a grappling hook, rope, etc.<br /><br />Stupidity!<br /><br />What were they thinking?<br /><br />Peter Boyle overacts so much that I just wanted to smack him! Stop it! And what's the deal with the bad toupee? Also, there is no way you can believe his character was a WW2 veteran.<br /><br />Caine, Field and Malden find all that gold and money and they are happy--whoopee! We're rich! (We may not live to spend it, but hey...)<br /><br />And yee haw, it's the great character actor Slim Pickens!<br /><br />Survivors galore! Jack Warden and Shirley Knight, too!<br /><br />The final dramatic sub plot about that scary plutonium never really went anywhere, it's like they forgot, sort of? Lots of holes in the script.<br /><br />This film has an illness that the strongest pill couldn't cure. I'm surprised Alan J. Smithee's name wasn't on the script, I'd be embarrassed to have penned this one!<br /><br />Oh the insanity, Oh The humanity! Oy Vey!<br /><br />The Horror, The Horror!<br /><br />It's like a bad two hour TV movie.<br /><br />At least the sets were made from recycled material from the first movie.<br /><br />The script needed to be on the compost heap...
...a good script or director couldn't fix.<br /><br />The original 'Poseidon Adventure' was a story of human courage triumphing against terrific odds and personal tragedy. The survivors were led by a charismatic figure of great spiritual strength who would take anything God threw at him.<br /><br />The follow-up tries to recreate the mix but fails through a formulaic script and pedestrian direction. Irwin Allen may have been a great producer of disaster flicks, and done a fine job directing the action scenes in 'Towering Inferno', but he just can't bring any human depth to his characters. If the characters aren't credible any danger they face also falls flat.<br /><br />The script also tries to copy the original too obviously. So we have Peter Boyle doing the Ernest Borgnine thing by being tough and obnoxious (but he has a tender heart); Karl Malden is the Red Buttons moderating influence (and is terminally ill for good measure); Slim Pickens does the comic relief for Shelley Winters, and so on.<br /><br />To make the story more contemporary we have a rogue arms dealer ready to flog weapons-grade plutonium to the highest bidder. A really nasty piece of work who ruthlessly abandons wounded men (the actors playing his henchmen were presumably paid as extras because they don't seem to have any lines) and has a woman shot in the back - what a cad! Thank goodness the French rescue services made the hole in the Poseidon's hull twice as large as in 1972 (and on the other side of the propeller shaft) so he could he get his goods out. And while we're on the subject, how did they get the crates *to* the... oh, forget it.<br /><br />I actually paid good money to see this when it was released. Given the film's current reputation this may seem odd, but it actually got quite mixed reviews at the time. Some said it was junk, some said it was as exciting as the original. Never mind, nobody can be right all the time.
I was totally disgusted with this unnecessary sequel to "The Poseidon Adventure" a movie which I have given a great comment about.<br /><br />This film is unbelievable from the word GO! I agree, why were no other rescues boats around and helicopters? The one that rescued the original survivors had just flown over the boat that Michael Caine & Sally Field are on. THAT WAS THE ONLY RESCUE CREW? Hard to believe.<br /><br />The acting is generally poor and the show looks cheap. I really hated the waste of talent from some good actors.<br /><br />Don't watch this film unless you must catch Sally & Michael as lovers.<br /><br />gord
I went to see this 3 nights ago here in Cork, Ireland. It was the world premiere of it, in the tiny cinema in the Triskel Arts Centre as part of the Cork Film Festival.<br /><br />I found "Strange Fruit" to be an excellent movie. It is a bit rough around the edges, but for a low-budget movie that is to be expected! In general the acting (particularly from the main lead Kent Faulcon) is wonderful, the cinematography and direction excellent, and the script hugely entertaining and thought-provoking, with some nice set-ups and witty dialogue.<br /><br />The ending was a bit sudden, with no conclusion given to characters and events once the finale came to its gripping end ... but perhaps that's what the filmmakers were going for? It certainly did make the movie more unsettling. I did like the fact that the main character never came to terms with his mother on screen: it leaves you wondering whether or not he ever will, as in real-life sometimes these things are never settled. This was a good choice, to leave it unresolved rather than sentimentally wrapping it up!<br /><br />Taut and suspenseful throughout, "Strange Fruit" is a hugely ambitious debut and I have high hopes for what the writer/director Kyle Schickner will unleash next. He - and his colleagues - are a talent worth watching.<br /><br />I hope "Strange Fruit" gets a wider release soon, as more people deserve to see this movie, an above-average thriller with some original and insightful twists on homophobia and racism in America's Deep South.<br /><br />Highly Recommended: 7/10
I too had waited a long time to see this film. As far as I know it has never been released in Australia so in the end I found a copy on the net and ordered it through there. Weeks after my order confirmation it finally arrived and I was extremely excited to finally be sitting in front of my TV ready to watch a film that sounded so interesting and controversial and filmed in an area of the world where so many good movies are. What a disappointment. Within the first few minutes I realised I'd ordered a B Grader but was still full of expectation. I convinced my son (18) to watch it with me as I love sharing when I find a movie of value with good underlying statements and/or story lines. About half way through he got up and said he couldn't stand watching it any longer, it was so predictable and amateurish. I agreed but watched to the end. The acting was atrocious even for B Grade standards. The stereotyping also predictable and I feel for the good folks of Lake Arthur, Louisianna who must've cringed after seeing the film depicting them in such a way. No doubt some racial prejudices still exist in many parts of the world not just the States but really, in this day and age I doubt they'd get away with all the ridiculous alibi's presented in this. I had to double check the date the film was made as their attempts at gimmicky filming of the more gruesome scenes was something I'd expect from a high school student's first attempt at making a film 'indy' like. I'd like to see this film put into the hands of experienced scriptwriters and film makers, its an old tale but one that could still pack a punch if dealt with professionally. So disappointed after such a long wait and with such high expectations. The soundtrack was probably the only thing I enjoyed.
This is a movie with an excellent concept for a story but that got sidetracked but a large number of clichéd sub-plots, hackneyed and unrealistic portrayed characterizations and performances, and some frankly implausible (and highly coincidental and, not to mention, convenient as plot points to move the story to its inexorable finish).<br /><br />The lack of anything that marked the lead as actually gay, other than some coincidental references to Crow Bar or that he's gay, was troubling. It wouldn't have hurt to actually show him do something, even if it was just meet a friend for drinks.<br /><br />It's worth checking out and has it's merits. There isn't much, even now a few years after the movie was released, in the way of movies that feature both a lead that is gay, or a significant gay plot line, and that is also about African-Americans. For that, it's worth checking out. I wouldn't look too hard for it and I wouldn't waste my time looking for it to own. This is a rental, and not a premium rental at that.
Horrible writing, directing and acting! The writer/director has portrayed Southerners, especially Southern law enforcement as ignorant, backwoods, homophobic and racist (a very popular, yet ignorant, stereotype, that the film industry loves to perpetuate). The acting (or overacting) and the writing came across as amateurish and low budget. The plot line is the same old stale Hollywood story of the mean 'ol racist and homophobic rednecks who are ultimately defeated by the enlightened people from "Newwww Yoke Ceety".<br /><br />I was raised in the small Louisiana town where this movie was filmed and looked forward to seeing the film but was immediately disappointed during the first few minutes of the movie. The start of the film depicts a gay bar located in the "swamps" of Louisiana. How ridiculous a concept! There are a lot of gays and gay bars in south Louisiana but no gay bars in the "swamps" or small towns of Louisiana. We then are introduced to the sheriff who uses the phrases "homuh-sex'l" in the worst southern drawl and overdone performance ever. Then there is the scene where the local police are watching porno on duty in the police station. I could go on and on about the horrible cheesy acting or the stale stereotypes or ridiculous scenes.<br /><br />This director and his crew were welcomed into this small friendly town and shown true southern hospitality. The townspeople of Lake Arthur, and the state of Louisiana were only to be insulted and degraded in the final editing. The good people of Lake Arthur were excited and enamored with "Hollywood" being in town not knowing that in the end, they would be portrayed as ignorant, racist and homophobic country bumpkins in a low budget amateur movie that went straight to DVD. My advice: skip this one or watch it on late night Cinemax if it ever makes their rotation.
I think I've finally seen the Worst Movie Ever Made, and it hurts me to say that. As a big fan of indie cinema, gay or otherwise, I had high hopes. Several minutes into the film, however, the sheriff appeared and has my vote for the worst actor of this or any other century. His performance, and the dialog he was forced to perform, caused me the unusual step of stopping the DVD in its track. Hours later when I screwed up enough courage to press the play button again, it was no better.<br /><br />Aside from the sheriff and his cartoon-racist deputies, the film has an attractive cast for whom I felt genuine sympathy since they had such a miserable script. The idea behind the film is fine - using lynching of gay men in the "New South" the same way it was used on black men in the Old South, leaving "strange fruit" hanging from the trees.<br /><br />With an accomplished writer and director, we might have had a movie. Instead we get fake detective work, platitudes about homosexuality, and a cliché with a the one good white man trying to save the day.<br /><br />I have no doubt that racism still flourishes. The FBI is currently investigating a white school bus driver in the back woods of Louisana who forced the black kids to get to the back of the bus. But this town is a cartoon, and it is hard to believe anything you see or hear.<br /><br />There a few subplots in a weak attempt to try to make the main character more three-dimensional, but for the most part, they also fail miserably.<br /><br />For the truly masochistic, the DVD contains some deleted scenes that will leave you running for cover.<br /><br />The is probably the first movie that makes me believe that writer/directors should have to pass a test and get licensed before they can make a film. Although I would look forward to seeing several of the cast members in better films, I would be hard-pressed to witness anything else from this director.
This opens with the company credits informing us it`s by World International Network . I knew I`d seen this company credit before but couldn`t remember where , but knew it was at the start of a really bad movie I`d seen so I seriously thought about changing channels , only thing was I`d seen every film on the other channels which is one of the problems of being an IMDB reviewer . What the hell I thought it won`t really matter if WANTED is good or bad because I`ll still be able to review it for this site.<br /><br />As I expected WANTED wasn`t all that good . It`s a plot I`d seen so many times ( Too many times ) before involving a fugitive on the run , a bit like THE INCREDIBLE HULK TV series without the shirt ripping . Jimmy crosses the mob in an entirely contrived way and goes on the run and in an entirely contrived manner finds himself working at a catholic reform school . Have you noticed an oft used description in the last sentence ? " Entirely contrived " is the answer . Let me repeat for the hard of thinking that this is an entirely contrived film where everything relies on coincidence . Another problem I had was the reform school run by the church - it`s far too compassionate and kind , I`m led to believe these type of establishments make Alcatraz look like a country club , I`m saying this is a fact but when the head priest looks like the spitting image of Donald Rumsfeld you do feel there`s a large amount of sugar coating going on .<br /><br />To be honest despite the ridiculous plot twists etc WANTED isn`t really a bad thriller though it`s a terribly good one either . I never really had the urge to switch it off no matter how contrived it became which is an under hand compliment to the movie
This movie about a man on the run for killing a mobster is the kind of film you can watch entirely on fast forward, once you know who's who, and not lose a thing. It has an attractive cast but the plot is a virtual writer's guide to cinema cliche, and boy does the dialogue clunk!
Pretty terrible, but not entirely unwatchable. Another review mentioned "predictable" - and that's almost an understatement. You can make a game out of guessing what the next line will be. Every character is either stereotype or archetypical. The good guy in a bad situation, the struggle between older and younger priest on acceptance and discipline, the repressed, sexually/emotionally deprived woman returning to the small town after failing in the big city, engaged to the hotheaded, feeble minded beau from youth, the unredeemable bad guys, two "lost boys" looking for a sense of family - they're all here, and none of them with even the remotest spin of something new. From the first few minutes you can figure out exactly what will happen by film's end. The story isn't entirely lame, but direction, acting (even from a cast with some talent) everything is thrown together without skill. As to the storyline, we've all seen it before in a movie called "Sister Act." This is also one of those films where inattention to small details show up in an even more glaring light. (As example: the nurse and our hero drive into town but park several blocks away from their destinations (post office and hardware store) - yet both walk across empty parking lots for no apparent reason. Or the passage of morning to night during a scene that seemingly should occur in no more than half an hour. The movie is filled with that kind of stuff and then tags on an improbable denouement.
The most impressive thing about 'Anemic Cinema' is its title: an anagram which is very nearly also a palindrome. Unfortunately, it only works in American English, since in Britain 'anaemic' is spelt differently.<br /><br />I've always found the dilettante Man Ray and his artistic efforts to be deeply pretentious, and I've never understood why his work attracts so much attention. Apart from his Rayographs (which he invented by accident, and which are merely direct-contact photo prints), his one real contribution to culture seems to be that he was the first photographer to depict female nudity in a manner that was accepted as art rather than as porn. But surely this had to happen eventually, and there's no real reason why Ray deserves the credit. The critical reaction to Man Ray reminds me of the story about the Emperor's New Clothes.<br /><br />Back in the early 1960s, the second season of 'The Twilight Zone' opened each episode with a shot of revolving concentric circles in black and white. There's an image in 'Anemic Cinema' which is so similar, I wonder if 'Twilight Zone' borrowed it from this film. The main difference is that the revolving image here is a black and white spiral. Indeed, if ever there was any movie that deserves to be described as a spiral, this one is it. Throughout 'Anemic Cinema', we're treated(?) to shots of a revolving disc containing words (in French) moving in a spiral. The effect is vertiginous, and the texts -- about incest and Eskimos -- are nearly Dada in their meaninglessness. I did laugh at one clever sexual pun.<br /><br />The emperor is naked, folks, and this movie just barely rates 2 points out of 10. Au suivant!
So this guy goes into a psychiatrist's office for his first appointment. After the paperwork is done, the psychiatrist says "I'm going to show you ink blots. Tell me what you see in them." "Well, says the patient," looking at the first one, "I see a man and a woman having sex." On seeing the second one, he says "I see two women having sex." On seeing the third, he says "I see two men having sex." On seeing the next one, he says "I see two men and two women having sex." The psychiatrist puts down the the inkblots. "So," he says, "We'll start by discussing your monomania." "MY monomania?" says the guy. "And you with all these dirty pictures!" That's how this movie strikes me.
If Corky St. Claire in WAITING FOR GUFFMAN had directed the citizens of Blaine in a horror movie with comic undertones the result would have been very much like THE MILPITAS MONSTER.<br /><br />To be generous, this was the longest hour and twenty minute movie I've ever seen. To call the pace glacial is to be kind.<br /><br />Almost nobody associated with this project ever made another movie with the exception of Ben Burtt, who did the really admirable (considering the budget) special effects. He went on to do sound for movies like MUNICH and several other big budget projects. The narration is by veteran voice-over actor Paul Frees, who probably donated his efforts.<br /><br />When you're watching the opening titles and see the Milpitas Unified School District listed as one of the producers you know you're going on a long, strange trip.<br /><br />Pollution at the down dump in Milpitas, California, becomes so toxic that it creates a monster. Remember that this is 1975 and ecology was a hot topic. Just a few years previously moviegoers had been treated to GODZILLA VS. THE SMOG MONSTER.<br /><br />So far so good. The monster is a winged creature at least fifty feet tall and has the capacity to tear the town apart. Instead it steals garbage cans.<br /><br />Central to the premise is the idea that this monster can prowl a small city and leave eight foot long footprints behind but not be noticed by anyone. There's a nicely conceived scene where it walks through the middle of a carnival at night but somehow nobody notices.<br /><br />The only person who sees the monster until the final scenes is George, the town drunk. All through the movie I hoped, hoped, hoped that George would be torn to shreds on camera but this didn't happen. Drat. In fact, nobody gets killed. George supposedly sacrifices himself to save Priscilla (he's tied to a helicopter to lure the creature- George smells worse than garbage and the monster is attracted to the scent).<br /><br />The nominal leads are a group of high school students. There's pretty Priscilla and her nondescript boyfriend and some "bad" boys who (surprise, surprise) whip themselves into shape to help defeat the monster in the final scenes.<br /><br />The monster is involved in four main set pieces. He attacks a Browning-Ferris garbage truck and leaves it beside an elevated highway, but nobody notices. He walks through the carnival, again unnoticed. He tears up a building (nice miniature work) and nobody sees him but George. Then he attacks the high school during a dance and grabs Priscilla and carries her off just like a certain very tall ape has done several times, most recently this past winter.<br /><br />There are plot ideas that come out of nowhere and are dropped. Local citizens picket at City Hall because they want their garbage cans back. An elaborate secret weapon for tracking monsters is flown in by private jet, examined, and forgotten.<br /><br />So why did I watch the whole thing? Because these people were having so darned much fun. I had the idea that the firemen were firemen, the businessmen were being filmed in their own offices, Priscilla may well live in that suburban tract house, and scenes of people in their yards may well have been in their own yards.<br /><br />They may not be great actors, but they are real people. Nobody is stunningly good looking. In fact, I'd estimate that four out of five of the adults on screen wear glasses. Since this is the mid seventies we see some really bad clothes and some of the men have awesomely bad facial hair. One dignitary being interviewed before a meeting at Ciry Hall has such a loud tie and sportcoat that you think he's on his way to play Marcellus in THE MUSIC MAN.<br /><br />And that got the movie two extra stars. Zero for the story. Two points for the sometimes decent special effects. And two points for the fact that people in the community actually got together and did this. They can actually say they've performed in a movie; despite lots of stage experience and working behind the scenes in live television I can't say that, and I'm happy for them.<br /><br />Remember those great old movies with Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland? At some point somebody would say, "Let's put on a show! Aunt Edna has all those old clothes in the attic, and we can use Uncle Ned's barn!" Then they'd do 'neighborhood shows' with sets and costumes that would cost well into seven figures if duplicated today.<br /><br />That's the spirit that the good people of Milpitas had for this project, and bless them for that.
I'm giving it a three instead of the lower number it deserves because of its history. A full-length movie made by high school students! It shows, too, but that's part of the charm and appeal. Get ahold of some of the stuff George Lucas did at UCLA; this is better. Maybe due to being a group effort.<br /><br />A monster made of toxic waste and too much garbage--these kids were way ahead of their time!--starts ravaging the town of Milpitas during a high school dance. The monster destroys randomly, leaving garbage and smelly footprints.<br /><br />The movie has local TV and radio people, the Milpitas mayor, the Samuel Ayer High School principal, and a whole bunch of the high school students and their parents, not to mention the mayor's daughter as the ingénue.<br /><br />Dumb? Yeah! Fun? Yeah! Great screen writing? C'mon, they're untrained high schoolies! Copy that comment for the acting, cinematography, directing, et cetera.<br /><br />Milpitas is right next to San Jose in the heart of Silicon Valley; maybe one of the graphics geniuses there will update the video somehow. Now THERE's a challenge.
This is a VERY bad movie. However, I read that it was made by a high-school teacher so maybe I should give it at least a TINY bit of praise for it's ambitious (yet awful) special effects. Here is the plot: a monster emerges from a pile of trash and pollution in the town of Milpitas, California and embarks on a destructive rampage. I'm about to spoil the "big surprise" about what the monster looks like, so please read the rest of this at your own risk. You have been warned! The monster looks sort of like a giant, two-legged fly wearing a gas mask. In some scenes, the monster is an actor wearing a costume. In other scenes, the monster is created by stop-motion animation. The acting is terrible. The dialogue is terrible. The special effects are terrible. The plot is predictable. Stay away!
It is real easy to toast, roast, flay, and otherwise burn this film for all of its abundant flaws. It was made by high school students and faculty and a whole community; it shows! Sure, I could examine the script which is just ridiculous. A monster created from the garbage of a growing Californian city starts eating garbage and taking garbage cans all over the city. Soon this huge beast with wings no less begins to destroy buildings and even plays the "beauty and the beast" act with a young high school girl. Fortunately for her there is a gang of guys, her former boyfriend nicknamed "The Penguin," and the town drunk out to help her. The direction is awful, the production values just dreadful, the acting non-existent, and the pace sluggish. The movie is hard to sit through - period. However, that being said, it is also a miracle of a film when you consider that this thing was crafted by an entire community. You can see all the collective effort from the actors, the actual mayor and actual firemen and policemen, to the area location shots used. I also was really amazed at all the local businesses credited at the film's end with helping to finance or contribute in some way to the film. When you look at the film from that perspective, it is indeed quite an achievement. I didn't know anything about it before I sat down and watched it. Now that I have found out something about it, I am impressed. But make no mistake - I have no...NO...desire to sit through it again.
This is the result of the town of Milpitas California making a home movie and subjecting the rest of the world to it. Legendary in some circles as the biggest cinematic turkey this movie is rightly thought of as a bad movie. Part comedy, part giant monster horror movie this movie is full of non actors not acting. the plot has something to do with a giant monster being created from the garbage and pollution in the area and going on a rampage. The monster, which we don't see until the final 20 minutes, is rather cool looking but isn't cool enough to warrant watching the preceding hour of boredom. Frankly even hardened bad movie lovers are going to have a tough time getting through to the end. This is a stinker.
I've heard that this move was put together by a bunch of high-school students. As a high-school art or theatre project it's not too bad. Unless you lived near milpitas in the seventies or knew someone involved in the making of the movie, this is pretty awful. Most of the actors are clearly not actors, but locals who volunteered. Bob Wilkins (the original host of Creature Features on KTVU in Oakland appears, but only for about a minute). Some of the monster effects are done with stop motion animation and some with a man in a monster suit and each works okay on it's own, but there is no continuity between the two. Watching without dialog, you'd assume that the movie had 2 monsters. I guess the most unsupportable aspect is that even the main characters, who I assume are the kids behind the movie, cannot even pretend to act. These kids must have been involved in theater in some way to want to do this project, but they display zero believable emotion in front of the camera.
In the past 5 years I have rented some bad movies...completely on purpose. See I aspire to be a movie reviewer, and as we all know there are horrible movies released every year. Anyway, about 3 months ago I rented this one. I watched it all the way through...and cried profusely. This is one of those movies that is so freakin bad it makes you want to puke. It actually put a sick feeling in my stomach. I've seen lots of bad movies (Mystery Science Theater 3000 anyone?) but this one takes the cake. The plot was hard to follow, the lighting horrible and the sounds almost inaudible. If there was a negative rating on the scale here this movie would be at -11 for me. This may seem odd, but I highly recommend it. It's something you have to see for yourself...but don't say I didn't warn you. I don't think this review could get any more precise so I'm done now.<br /><br />
The parallels between this film and "Captain Walrus" (an independant film shown at the Team Projection Film Festival in 1994) are so blindingly obvious that any praise for "Sally Marshall Is Not An Alien" must be viewed with the knowledge that it is riding on the success of another work.<br /><br />In Captain Walrus, two young boys (Geoff and Roger, played by Dean Turner and Brett Allen respectively) examine the bizarre behaviour of their new neighbour Britney (played by Louise Farley). As the two boys watch through their telescope, they observe the repeated visits of a man in uniform who they call Captain Walrus (played by Peter Sargent). However, the emphasis in Captain Walrus is on the pointless and somewhat power-hungry actions of the neighbour Britney, and less on the friendship between the two boys.<br /><br />A critical success at the film festival, the plot of Captain Walrus has obviously been appropriated and rehashed in order to give the Australian Film Community another notch on the belt with regards to children's product. Although Sally Marshall is not an Alien is a fine film, and a credit to its producers, its inauthenticity leaves something to be deserved.
Reading the other two comments, I had to wonder if I had seen the same movie!<br /><br />Perhaps life is drastically different in Australia, but, wow - call it sci-fi or fantasy, but people just don't act like this.<br /><br />I couldn't pass up this review without commenting on it myself.. it gets better after the first half hour, but I doubt most could make it that far..<br /><br />Yikes.
Veber is not renown for his outstanding directorial skills. In fact nobody cares as long as they got the laughs, quite a few here to be honest, scattered in the whole process, thanks to Depardieu's half-wit characterization and the dialogue Veber puts in his mouth.<br /><br />But this is not enough to make a great comedy since there's no movie outside of the usual Veber premise: a tough guy is doomed to team up with a very naive character. In L'Emmerdeur, La Chèvre or Les Compères there was a real story going on over the fire vs. water proceedings. Le Diner de cons, although it was a play, managed to create a real suspense about the next catastrophe Pinon would cause. In Tais-toi the backstory about the vengeance is both redundant and too weak to arouse our interest. Plus the heavies are lame both on screen and in the script.<br /><br />Now what's wrong? Veber wraps this up creating no action, no rhythm. Instead he uses systematically and overuses ellipses (maybe he met William Goldman in Hollywood) and the 'music' really stresses that lack of nerve and a backbone in the story.<br /><br />So you'll have to be content with Depardieu's performance.
I attended a screening of this film. Travolta came to do a Q & A after the film ended. It was a small screening room in Tribeca. Out of courtesy to him I did not walk out which I wanted to do. This is film-making at its worst. To start the script was poorly written. The writer writes in one voice. The dialogue was stilted and clichéd. How this writer/director got Scarlet Johansen, John Travolta and Lions Gate Entertainment to back her on this is the only brilliant thing she accomplished in this fiasco.<br /><br />I do in fact recommend this film to all aspiring screenwriters, directors and filmmakers. Because when you are told that you are wasting your time and it will be impossible for you to reach your goals. Hey...just look at this crap and say to yourself...if they can make this then anythings poosible.<br /><br />PS- Travolta did a great Q&A though...he was at ease, spoke freely and was a down to earth nice guy. The director/writer stood on the sidelines. When John tried to engage her in the conversation she stood back like a piece of wood and never joined in. I looked at her and I thought...how was this person able to successfully "pitch" to agents, studio execs, top talent ...when she can't open her mouth at a screening of her own film. The conclusion from a few of us in attendance was that she must have strong family connections in the business.<br /><br />After you watch this you should follow it with Guy Ritchie's zero star masterpiece "Swept Away" with the most unintentionally funny and worst performance by wife Madonna. She's so bad and looks so bad in this film I figure this was her his way of getting back at her for all the abuse he takes from her at home.
What a waste. John Travolta and Scarlett Johansen deserved better than this. To start at the beginning, JT was horribly miscast in the lead here. The role called for someone who could convince as a broken-down anti-hero, someone who could look haunted and defeated. Billy Bob Thornton would have fit the bill, or even Al Pacino, but JT is just too alive, and looks to be having too much fun. Also, surely someone who has been through the mill to the extent JT's character had would have suffered some physical effects? The character presented to the audience looked as if he could start as tight end for the Oakland Raiders. Scarlett faired little better role-wise. Where was the pain and conflict of what should surely have been troubling development? And as for the "plot" ... well, none of it makes sense. The characters leap from one frame of mind to another seemingly without cause - and certainly without explanation. The pace of the film also leaves something to be desired, namely, pace. This is a very slow film, not that I have anything against slow films, as long as they are heading somewhere. The pace only picks up towards the very end, when it shifts from a slow dirge to a frantic race to pack in as many tired clichés as possible. In this it succeeds - the only thing missing being something involving a small dog. 3 out of 10 for this one purely for Gabriel Macht's performance - he was the only member of the cast who was a) well cast and b) able to convince in his role. All in all, a terrible disappointment and a real waste of a couple of hours.
This movie is an incredibly self-indulgent character piece that assumes that the mere impression of a story is as good as an actual story. It was utterly painful to watch and had I not been suckered in to buy the DVD because of John Travolta and the positive buzz, I would not have finished watching it.<br /><br />This film lacks anything resembling an interesting premise and seems to rely on weighty (and frankly, heavy-handed) characterization. There is one altercation scene between Purslane and Bobby Long in which a TV is destroyed that, when played out, is incredibly flaccid and ill-timed.<br /><br />I found myself caring less and less about the characters as I watched it. It was probably very fun, film-school-wise, to make it. But it is just awfully boring to watch. A indulgent and pretentious film school project you should not waste money on.
This overheated southern Gothic "mellerdramer" has a few decent moments --but is too often spoiled by a novice director piling cliché upon cliché, and a star who apparently decided to take it upon himself to turn the picture into his personal showcase, rather than allowing writer/director Gabel to update Inge or Williams as a sort of contemporary "Midnight Cowboy" meets "Lolita" tearjerker.<br /><br />Close your eyes, listen to the exaggerated southern accents, and try to decide if you're witnessing a feature film, or an acting class -- full of eager amateurs. <br /><br />Johansson is for once tolerable (i.e. less pouty than usual) -- though by no means good, Macht is decent, though a little too pretty-boy cute to be believed, and Travolta chews the scenery as never before (with the help of a decent editor and some directorial restraint, his performance might have been really touching; as it is, he -- and almost everyone else -- is too unlikable to ever move us past the point of boredom or revulsion). Kara Unger is perhaps best of all; had her role been developed beyond a few lines, she might have even found herself with a Best Supporting Actress nomination. <br /><br />Pic is almost saved by Leonard Cohen-style growling theme song, decent production design and locations, and continual reference to literary works (which has earned the otherwise standard screenplay reviews such as "poetic.") Also helpful are a few old pros in the cast like Sonny Shroyer, and perhaps most importantly, Soderbergh cameraman Elliot Davis -- whose fine work will no doubt be credited to the first-time director, who, ten or twenty years from now, may actually learn how to direct.<br /><br />But probably not.
The director does not know what to do with a camera... too many options and she always always always picks the wrong one... she let travolta take charge... and he controls the movie from the beginning to the end... the characters are not developed... maybe because we need to watch them singing... no pace at all, sometimes too fast sometimes too slow... miscasted: travolta OK... johansson, she is too grown up to be a 18... even if she is really 20...<br /><br />the happy ending? well it looks like that there must be one, so the story is sad but not too sad... travolta doesn't know how to play a guitar but the director doesn't look she cares too much that he is totally out of synch... <br /><br />the idea is the only thing that is great... but how she developed it? well, it is simply full of stereotypes and lines heard too many times...<br /><br />too bad, another missed chance...
On the cusp of being insufferable. Somehow I stayed just slightly interested, but was it because I truly wanted to know what the "secret" was (which, I should say, is pretty damned obvious) or because I hoped Scarlett Johansson would put on a more sexy outfit? This movie is poor and what's more it's a disgrace to all the lonely, alcoholic Southern literature professors out there. Travolta wants his Oscar so bad he is willing to cry drunkenly in the bathroom after urinating blood. Sorry, pal. . .you were more believable is "Staying Alive." Not everyone can pull a Peter Fonda in "Ulee's Gold." If you want the against-type brave anti- hero Oscar you have to, um, actually act. . .not just pout on screen. Stop this director before he/she (name is vague on gender) directs again!
There is a phrase by the experimental filmmaker Nathaniel Dorsky, who says some films are structured like a camera mounted on the head of a dog who goes down an alley, sniffing everything along the way.<br /><br />That's how this movie is. The structure is "Kurosawa started out as a baby, then he became a kid, then a young man, then a movie director, then he started making 'masterpieces', then he grew old, The End." The word 'masterpiece' is used a lot in this film to describe Kurosawa's output, without explaining *what* makes his films so good/great. Just because the off-screen narrator reading a script says that a film is a masterpiece, are we supposed to kiss his rear-end and accept that a certain movie is one of the great works of art of the 20th century? And one more point. The voice of Paul Scofield is used as the voice of Kurosawa, when excerpts from the director's memoirs are being read off screen. He brings pear-shaped Shakespearean tones to the text...but why him?? If you were making a documentary about Billie Holiday, would you use Dame Judi Densch as her voice????
Rocketship X-M should be viewed by any serious movie buff for the following reasons:<br /><br />1) It is one the first -- and the few -- movies not to have a happy ending. Doubtless the effect was more profound in post-World War II America than it would be today, but nonetheless the sad ending adds to the film's message.<br /><br />2) It is also one of the first movies to deal with space travel in a serious fashion, using space as a valid setting for drama. The lack of scientific background notwithstanding, the movie stands on its own as dramatic fare. It's not so much a space drama as it is a drama set in space.<br /><br />3) The anti-nuclear war message is delivered in a serious manner that is not lost in sfx involving large grasshoppers, men, or animal. The effect of Martian society from nuclear devastation is starkly and frankly presented. The fact that the survivors from the expedition crash land and as such are unable to preach the lesson learned on Mars adds another element of sadness to the tragic ending.<br /><br />Sterno says take a ride on Rocketship X-M.
I first saw this when it came out in the theater. Though only 13 at the time, I was an avid reader of "hard science" science fiction stories. The technical gaffes of the film are burned into my memory.<br /><br />Some of the following may have significant spoilers.<br /><br />Even as a youngster, I knew the premise is silly. The rocket takes off for a lunar mission, in a cosmos where there is always a gravitational effect on the crew (though loose objects float as in zero gravity) and because of that, the "cabin" (the area with the controls, whatever they called it) was gyrostabalized to maintain the "correct" orientation (so that when they landed, why didn't they land standing on their heads?) and where, at least in near-earth space, the rocket engines had to be running continually -- with propellant combusting away without an oxidizer. When the engines quit, the rocket stopped _dead_ in space, and couldn't start going until a PhD chemist determined it needed at a little oxidizer. This time, the rocket recalled it had momentum, and the next thing our heroes know they're near Mars (even a 13-year-old nerd knew such a minimum-energy trip would take over 200 days).<br /><br />They land, find the air was breathable (though at the time scientific data revealed that the pressure, even if the atmosphere were pure oxygen, would be too low to do any good). They decide to camp outside the ship, and even build a campfire. They come armed, even though they were supposedly going to the Moon, where firearms wouldn't be needed.<br /><br />They get a sight of a collapsed civilization, encounter stray martians who look just like people, develop an anti nuclear war philosophy, and those who survive try to get back to the home planet, and die in the attempt by crashing on the Earth! To do that would require such a long orbital period, they'd have died of starvation long before approaching their destination.<br /><br />The film it preceded, Destination Moon, used real science most effectively (even though their "rescue" with the Oxygen Tank forgot about the moment arm from the tank's center of gravity to the output nozzle). This film showed woeful ignorance of even the most basic science. Only the most technologically illiterate should think of it as a science fiction film: it's on a par with the old Flash Gordon serials where their rocketships took off from their bellies and climbed in spirals, and whose engines were always on.<br /><br />The story on this one I considered banal, and I can recommend this only as a film to be shown to students for them to pick out technical gaffes.
I like this movie and have watched my copy twice since acquiring it a few weeks ago. But you have to view it in the right context.<br /><br />I haven't checked on the dates, but I bet this movie came out after and certainly around the same time as the Collier and Walt Disney popularisations of the vision of spaceflight being promoted by W.Von Braun. This is reflected in the attempt to seem factually correct and scientific. However, whilst certain ideas are put across ( step boosters, for example ) roughly correctly, other things are hilariously wrong.<br /><br />For example, we are told that a rocket ascends to an altitude and then turns ninety degrees to enter space...like reaching the top of a flight of stairs and turning onto the landing! Then we are told that by turning in the direction of the Earths rotation the total velocity of the ship is increased accordingly.<br /><br />This is an hilarious misunderstanding of what really happens. Most space launch centres are located as near the equator as possible where the Earth and anything on its surface is rotating at roughly a thousand miles per hour, including any rocket departing to space, in an Eastward direction ( the same as the rotation of the planet ). Of course, if the ship turned to travel westwards once in space, its speed in relation to the surface of the Earth would be greater, but it would add nothing to the actual velocity of the vehicle. Decsribed in this movie as "air speed"! <br /><br />Similarly, we are told that the travellers only feel free-fall, or "weightlessness" when they reach some thousands of miles from the Earth, outside of the planets gravitational field. Again, comically incorrect. Most crewed spacecraft travel no higher than a couple of hundred miles up, but as long as they ( and, their contents, including crew ) are travelling at an adequate velocity that their momentum in an outward direction balances the pull of gravity inwards, they will orbit in free-fall. Of course, travel far enough from Earth and even a slow object will coast outside the Earths gravity well, but in order to leave Earth orbit, outwards ( towards the Moon for example ) requires the attainment of "escape velocity", around twenty one thousand miles per hour. So the vehicle will have already attained "orbital velocity" ( and "weightlessness" ) by definition.<br /><br />But the movie has vastly more hilarious stuff than this. Someone decided it would be more fun if they missed the moon due to a technical problem, fell asleep for a few days and then woke up to find they had accidentally gone to Mars! The captain then ruminates to the effect that this must have been divine intervention! At which point, any pretence to being scientific is torn into little pieces like confetti and thrown upon the wind amid the merry dance of an increasingly barmy plot.<br /><br />The strength of a film like this in fact is in illustrating "how far we've come". Not least in attitudes to women. The patronising drivel heaped upon the female crew-member is both hilarious and also shocking.To think that such attitudes were so recently "normal".<br /><br />As I said at the start, I find this film very entertaining, as a late night, lights out romp through the romance of travel in outer space, from the perspective of the days before it had actually happened. An antidote to the cold routine of spaceflight as it has now become in the Twenty First Century.<br /><br />I won't reveal the ending. It is both brave and shocking for a movie of this vintage and character.
Wow, this was a real stinker. This early sci-fi flick has nothing going for it than pure camp. There's so much scientific mambo-jumbo in the dialog it's laughable. The female character played by Osa Massen is just a plot device for the male characters to serve sexist remarks during the entire length of the film. Watch this one with your girlfriend I guarantee it will make her blood boil.The only good thing is the musical score which expertly build the moods of the film. The special-effects are rather crude but not bad considering the vintage of the movie. With some good B-stars in the lead roles,the acting isn't too bad. But the lines they are given must have given them quite a challenge. The challenge of not laughing their heads off.
Minor spoilers<br /><br />First I must say how rare and charming it is to find a movie with such basic messages in it: nuclear war will inevitably destroy all of civilization, and women are for making babies. It is absolutely incredible how well formulated the plot is to hit in these two points, as with a golden hammer. Essentially, everything about this movie annoyed me. The casual sexism, the character whose sole trait was coming from Texas, the mysterious choice of dying Mars orange, and of course the flawed science of it all. Then the martian woman screaming as if she had just noticed that she was blind? What was that? However, I will give it credit. The fifties did spit out some sillier things. But not much...
I bought "Rocketship X-M" on DVD in a two-pack with "Destination Moon." Now I see why the distributors did that: no one who had ever seen this movie would buy it on its own.<br /><br />I cannot fathom what school system turned out the reviewer who claimed that RXM is "great in its predictions of how space travel would take place..." Launch straight up, and then do a 90-degree right turn and circle faster and faster until you reach escape velocity... I don't think I recall that from the Apollo program. Never mind that the astronauts should be weightless once they shut off the engines, gravity changes directions every time they pass through the hatch to the engine room. Going to the moon, but "missed" it? No problem, it's just a hop-skip-and-a-jump (with a helping hand from divine providence) and you'll be at Mars! And OK, if you want to put life on Mars, given the state of planetary knowledge in 1950, it was a forgivable convention for the sake of the storytelling, but can you make them look at least a LITTLE alien? These Martians looked like extras from the cast of "10,000 B.C." I can accept some scientific mistakes, but this wouldn't pass muster with an above-average second-grader.<br /><br />And that's aside from the screaming plot holes: 12 minutes before launch (as you're reminded of constantly by the nagging P.A. voice saying "X minus so many minutes") the astronauts are giving a press conference! I guess the time crunch is why Dr. Eckstrom didn't change out of his coat and tie before launching into space. And how handy that, even though they were planning to go to the moon and had pressure suits for that, they brought hiking gear (and rifles!) just in case they ended up at Mars. They're lucky they landed anywhere, since apparently the method they had developed for landing was to have Dr.E look out the window and tell the "pilot" (Lloyd Bridges) to tweak down the throttles every now and then. Note to the designers of the XM-2: how about giving the pilot a window seat? <br /><br />Ditto the previous comments on the casual sexism that had eye-candy Dr. Lisa (Osa Massen) doom them all by repeatedly screwing up her fuel calculations, but hey that was the early '50s. She was there to fill her sweater, not a useful function.<br /><br />"Rocketship X-M" is notable for being one of the first of the first films to say "ohmigod we're all going to blow ourselves up with these here A-bombs", but one can note that about it without wasting 77 minutes watching such dreck. By the way, that message might have had a bit more impact had there been some money in the budget for actual sets of the Martian city ruins, rather than just matte paintings.<br /><br />I can appreciate "good" bad sci-fi, for the unique way the "future" used to look, and for the inherent (if condescending) humor you can find when when we look back on the naivety of audiences 60 years ago, but this film must have been insulting even then. "Rocketship X-M" isn't even suitable for an MST3K-style lampooning. Sometimes, bad is just... bad.<br /><br />Anybody want to buy a DVD? Used only once, I swear.
Although it can be VERY tedious at times, this movie is really not all that bad. The acting is fairly well done, if stereotypical, and the production values are pretty high considering some of the Sci-Fi movies that were to come later in the decade.<br /><br />My biggest problem with this film are some of the very outdated characterizations in it. There's the guy from Texas, the "professional" scientist, and worst of all the woman scientist who finally realizes her womanhood. For a film seeking to make a statement about mankind, it loses some of it's impact by reducing its characters through sexist stereotypes.
To call "Rocketship X-M" a science fiction classic is due more to its release date (1950), its savvy ability to capitalize on the publicity for "Destination Moon", and the appearance of actors who would later star in television as Sea Hunt's Mike Nelson, Rockford's dad and Wyatt Earp.<br /><br />The movie itself is bad enough to be good fodder for MST3K and is best viewed with commentary from Joel and the robots. This is the type of movie best suited to added riffing from the MST3K characters; something preachy, slow-paced, poorly scripted, and full of painfully bad acting. While unintentionally funny stuff like "Plan 9 From Outer Space" don't lend themselves to satirical commentary (because the movie constantly upstages the hosts), really bad and dull movies like "Rocketship X-M" are ideal. So add some stars to the rating if you are watching the MST3K version.<br /><br />The basic story has the crew taking an unplanned right turn at the moon and ending up on Mars. What they find on that planet are the remnants of a human-like civilization devastated by an atomic war. Only one Martian is shown in close-up, a normal looking woman who is blind or at least has no pupils in her eyes. The men look like the "goons" in the old Popeye cartoons, they scamper agilely around the cliffs and throw boulders at the crew with amazing accuracy-especially if they are supposed to be blind. Of course none of this is ever explained as doing so would require some sign of logical analysis from the writers of the screenplay.<br /><br />The scenes on Mars are presented in something called "Sepia Color" to distinguish them from the rest of the B&W movie. If this has you thinking "Wizard of Oz" you will be disappointed because it is just black and white stuff with a slight brown tint added to the print in post-production.<br /><br />In keeping with the moronic sexism of the movie, the icy female scientist screws up her fuel calculations-both coming and going. Her failure to measure up to the men causes her feminine side to surface and she and Mike Nelson coo sweetly to each other as they face their doom (insert sound of gagging here).<br /><br />The real stars of the movie are the reporters at the command center. So much so that MST3K was inspired to specially salute these unheralded heroes. The intrepid squad of "newsies" are featured for the first 10 minutes of the movie, then take stations about 12 inches behind the technicians and monitoring equipment in the command center. Later they are called upon to ask the moronic questions needed by the mission director to expound on the movie's already too obvious message.<br /><br />The DVD has an extremely low audio level, is not captioned, and is accompanied by a trailer. Although you will be thankful that it is only 77 minutes, it is still about 60 minutes too long as any 30 minute episode of "The Twilight Zone" has several times more content than this entire movie.<br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
I completely understand the historical significance of Rocketship X-M, but that doesn't make it a good movie. To begin with, the plot (or what there is of it) is dull and lifeless. Five astronauts blast off for the moon – they get knocked off course and end up on Mars (huh?) – cavemen-looking Martians throw rocks at them – they return to Earth and meet a fiery death – The End. Believe it or not, but this pithy plot description makes it sound much more interesting than it really is. To make matters worse, John Emery's character, Dr. Karl Eckstrom, feels it necessary to give long drawn out speeches on everything from the nature of man to the dangers of nuclear weapons. It's just a thrill-a-minute (sarcasm intended).<br /><br />Looking back at Rocketship X-M almost 60 years later, I would call the portrayal of women funny if it weren't all so sad and misguided. There are a number of examples I could cite, but there's one exchange of dialogue just after take-off between the male chauvinist pilot Floyd (played by the irritating, plastic-haired Lloyd Bridges) and Dr. Lisa Van Horn (the only female crewmember and the constant object of Floyd's often creepy attention) that illustrates the film's attitudes toward women quite nicely: <br /><br />• Floyd: "I've been wondering, how did a girl like you get mixed up in a thing like this in the first place." <br /><br />• Dr. Van Horn: "I suppose you think that women should only cook and sew and bear children." <br /><br />• Floyd: "Isn't that enough?" <br /><br />I think Floyd should have stayed behind with the cavemen!
I'm seeing a pattern here. If you see a movie on Mystery Science Theater 3000, chances are if you go to IMDb.com there will be hordes of lovers of the film, yet it was picked to be on that TV show because it was sooo bad. I'm sorry but I read a lot about Rocketship X-M as being some landmark sci fi film that stressed realism. Well if that is the case I could write for several paragraphs about how even with 1950's knowledge this movie is utterly flawed. Gravity might be the first obvious observation, or as MST3K did as a skit "selective gravity", also what about when they are plunging to their death and they are just standing there looking out of the window, um would'nt the ship being upside down effect that scene? I would like to think that they started with good intentions and that it ran over budget or something but I think this movie was just plain cheese as in the from under type. Just compare this to "When Worlds Collide" which was released in 1951 to see the true place where this movie ranks, there's no comparison. The movie gets a 2 or maybe 3 on its own, its not even funny to watch on its own. It gets about a 5 or 6 as a MST3K episode as there is no action or much to make fun of, just bad, bad, bad, oh did I mention, it's bad.
You have to hand it to writer-director John Hughes. With enormous success behind him in the misfit-teenager/high school vein, he managed to branch out into other areas of comedy, finding in the bargain a great ally in comedian-actor John Candy. Here, goof-off adult Candy becomes a better person after agreeing to babysit his brother's wiseacre kids; it's a surefire formula designed to please both cynical teens as well as their parents, and it isn't any wonder the film was a winner with theater audiences. Still, Hughes relies almost completely on Candy's charm to put the scenario over, and one may eventually grow tired of the repetitious gags with the star front and center. The kids are sitcom-smart, the other adults shapeless blobs, and Amy Madigan is too intense, too hyped-up playing Uncle Buck's girlfriend. Later became a TV series, which is befitting since the material was already television-perfected. *1/2 from ****
Of the four main players in here - John Candy, Jean Kelly, Amy Madigan and Macauley Caulkin - the only one I've never heard about (at that time) was the one that annoyed the heck out of me and ruined the film. Well, she must have done a decent job of acting to make me want to throw her and the VHS into the garbage pail. I am referring to Kelly in the role of teenage brat, "Tia Russell." Ironically, six years later she played a stunning and extremely likable role in the person of "Rowena Morgan" in "Mr. Holland's Opus."<br /><br />Candy, as usual, is fun to watch as "Buck Russell," or the title character, "Uncle Buck." Few actors were better at playing a lovable, hapless slob than Candy. I enjoyed his character in here, but I cannot watch that spoiled teen girl more than once. Also, in the first few minutes of the film, the little boy "Miles" (Cauklin) says the word "G-damn." How bad is that, having a six-year-old kid saying the Lord's name in vain on film? These Hollywood people are such sickos. No wonder many of their child actors turn out to be mentally screwed up, Caulkin being a case in point.
Big fat slob 'Uncle Buck', played by John (eats-a-lot-of) Candy, visits the sane members of his family for a week in order to baby-sit two cute kids (Gaby Hoffman and MacCauley Culkin) and a pretty but snobby teenager (Jean Louisa Kelly). The shenanigans begin when Buck makes breakfast and then tries to sleep in a bed two sizes too small for his blimp of a body. <br /><br />Mostly dull, but peppered with two or three funny scenes including Buck trying to get a word in edge-wise on the telephone with his angry girlfriend (Amy Madigan) and his meeting with a very disgusting clown.<br /><br />Candy looks like he weighs 600 pounds.
Full disclosure: I was born in 1967. At first the premise tickled me -- after all, if you were a teenager growing up in the age of Reagan, a trip down memory lane was worth a laugh or three. Pop Rocks, Atari and Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots? Loved 'em, not *despite* the fact they were goofy, but *because* they were goofy and silly and fun. But when VH1 decided to make the series "I Love Last Tuesday", I knew enough was enough. Goes Hal Sparks have nothing better to do than read from a teleprompter how idiotic Slinkys are? (Wait, let me check... hmmm, no. No, it appears he doesn't.) Snarky, snotty uber-hip posturing has its place, but enough already!
Let's face it, this is a pretty bad film.However if you go in ready to make fun of it you can survive the experience.Okay, you'll scream in agony a lot.African jungle fun in a dopey kind of way.<br /><br />Tom Conway (who spends most of the film wearing a funky chapeau) is using the local witch doctor and mad science to create a "perfect" being.It looks like a varmint that has been on a six week drunk and is in a sack dress.Ugly is being kind.But it won't kill for him because he's using a good girl as his subject.He needs a bad bad girl.<br /><br />Marla English and Lance Fuller are two petty crooks in search of African gold.Acting lessons for Ms English should have been at the top of the search list.She's a bad girl and lets everybody know it in a performance worthy of a junior high school play.Mike "Touch" Connors is the white guide English & Fuller con into leading the expedition.<br /><br />English & Conway finally meet and it is a match made in hell.She is the perfect subject to become his voodoo creature because she'll do anything (stress anything) to get what she wants.You will do anything to stop the agony of this movie at this point.<br /><br />What made this movie interesting for me was Conway wearing that funky tribal hat/headdress/floral piece!Still trying to figure out what kind of dead animal it was.Guess he thought if he pulled it down low enough over his eyes nobody would recognize him.<br /><br />Truly bad cinema.
This 1950's howler is so bad it's unintentionally funny. Tom Conway portrays Dr. Gerard, a scientist who is turning natives into a monster using voodoo. His poor wife, played by Mary Ellen Kay, is being held captive by her wacko hubby who has no time for her but threatens to kill her if she leaves him. Along comes Marla English as a greedy murderess who has already killed a man to find treasure in the jungle. Her idiot boyfriend, portrayed by Lance Fuller, is along on the safari. They hire "Touch" Connors, (later renamed Mike Connors, of Mannix fame) as a guide. English is a terrible actress, but hey, no one else in the cast were turning in academy award winning performances either. "Touch" (I'm sorry, I can't even type the name without cracking up, I mean, what the...) gave the only half way decent performance of the bunch and that's saying a lot. The monster is only seen briefly, and the ending is predictable to say the least. I would say this movie falls into the "it's so bad, it's almost good" category of movies. It's good on a rainy night when nothing else is on the tube.
Let's not kid ourselves, this atrocity is not Plan Nine or Cat Women. It is bad, period! The performances vary from drama school theatrics (Marla English) to a 'couldn't care less' walk through (Tom Conway). The photography (even in a good print) is so murky it is occasionally hard to see what is happening. The real problem, however, is the aimless, pointless, nearly plot less story and the leaden, paceless direction. At a brisk 77 minutes it still feels endless.<br /><br />The screenplay is especially inept. There are two story lines that only intersect at the very end of the picture. Tom Conway is trying to create a super race, using voodoo and modern science (although there is little science in evidence) which he can control telepathically. He is keeping his wife prisoner (for no discernible reason). Meanwhile a couple of petty crooks and a white hunter type guide are trying to find the village in which he is working, in the expectation of gold and jewels. When they finally arrive, Tom Conway decides that one of them, the woman, is the perfect subject for his experiments. She is turned into a monster, kills Conway (natch!) and then reverts to normal. She sees a gold statue half drowned in a boiling pool, tries to retrieve it and falls in the water and apparently drowns. The white hunter rescues the wife. In the final shot we see the supposedly drowned woman emerge as the monster again; threatening a sequel (now that really is a scary thought!).<br /><br />The AIP producer, Samuel Z Arkoff, in a lecture included on the DVD, prides himself on spotting the teenage niche market and satisfying it with ingenious low budget movies. However, it is difficult to see how anyone could think this rancid concoction would satisfy any sort of audience. What appeal do they think it could possibly have? The monster appears so rarely that it could hardly be called a horror film. The jungle action is tepid and tedious. There are no teenagers in it and no characters that teenagers could be expected to identify with.<br /><br />The producers exposed 77 minutes of film, but they didn't make a movie. This is a con trick and Arkoff should be ashamed of his association with it.
Martha Plimpton has done some prestigious movies, working with River Phoenix and Harrison Ford, but she was never able to expand her limited, tomboyish appeal into the same class as, say, Molly Ringwald. This film, which was barely released, is just an extension of her late '80s/early '90s attempts to find a screen-persona which was identifiable to moviegoers, and it represents another failure. Plimpton plays a troubled young woman who finds out on her 21st birthday that she was adopted and--worse than that--was actually abandoned as an infant on her parents' doorstep! She sets out to find her biological mother and father, but the viewer has no clue why she'd even want to (would simple curiosity give her this much determination?). Unattractive material given sitcom handling; it starts off on the wrong foot and never recovers. Plimpton gives a sour, surly performance, but Hector Elizondo and Mary Kay Place are fine as her adoptive parents. *1/2 from ****
According to most people I know that saw this film and to the reviews I've read this was supposed to be a hugely entertaining thriller that oh so needs to be seen by more people. I didn't expect this film to blow me away but I certainly didn't expect to find this movie mediocre at best, which is what it is.<br /><br />I'm no stranger to French films being both French and having studied them as a student so i'm aware of the clichés and corny plot twists that can go unnoticed by English/American audiences. There are some great French films that should have been given widespread international release but this isn't one of them.<br /><br />To begin with the plot is both far fetched, over complicated and too smart assed to be entertaining so you really feel every minute of its 2hr and 5min run time and by the time everything is finally revealed you are beyond caring. The main character himself is lacking any real charisma or even acting talent to keep your attention fixed mainly on him and his journey anytime close to the crap ending so by the time you've even considered swallowing the main plot twists it's begun to dawn on you that you've wasted your time! I actually remember switching off before the credits actually began to roll after the film's climactic reunion - that was the point in which I was sure I had almost completely wasted my time by the way.<br /><br />The film is not at all the worst thing i've seen but it seems completely overrated. For instance I read somewhere that it beats all the Bourne Identity films in terms of suspense or even that it has 'wall-to-wall tension'. I can safely say some people are hyping up this frankly dull movie.<br /><br />4/10 is a generously considerate rating for this film I feel, and since I have seen some complete and utter stinkers, I'll therefore save the 1s, 2s and 3s for them.
First off, if you want to make a good film, don't cram all your exposition into the last 10 minutes. The viewer is expected to be bewildered for nearly two hours, only to have Margo's father explain everything to Alex very late in the film. To make matters worse, the scriptwriter decided it wasn't enough to have the basic mystery solved, but adds in a completely unnecessary murder that we knew nothing about (involving Alex's father!).<br /><br />There's some serious motivation issues with characters also. Margo's father's choices don't seem to make sense once the film is over. Why didn't he just kill Philippe's father and be done with it? Instead, a complicated plot to obscure the truth is concocted, but one which ensures that everyone will be in physical jeopardy for years (including the completely innocent photographer, who gets murdered by Philippe's father's thugs). Although Alex is a doctor (whom one would think is relatively bright), he chooses to flee the police, during which he not only endangers his own life, but those whom he involves in a nasty pile-up on the freeway. Why was Margo's friend so keen on keeping her promise to Margo, once all the crap hits the fan for Alex? And are we to think that Margo's father would rather kill himself rather than go to prison? What about his wife? Did he consider her wishes? Those are some of the main problems.<br /><br />Then there are some nasty details, like: why was her father there the night of her faked death? How did he get a hold of the junkie's body on such short notice and get it back quickly in order to bury it with the other two? Alex's friend Bruno seems over-eager to be part of the mayhem, in which he and his friends have to kill for Alex, notwithstanding the perceived debt he owes Alex for saving his son's life. What good would the photos of Margo do? They don't implicate Philippe at all. And why would Margo have the safety deposit box key handy that night for her would-be abductors to take? Did I miss some other things? Probably. Minor irritations of mine include the fact that although Alex is a doctor, he smokes like a fiend. Which makes his marathon run away from the police even that more impressive. Also, when he is riding in the convertible with his lawyer, neither of them is wearing a seat belt. How bright could they be?
Sorry, but I usually love French thrillers - e.g. Chabrol - but this was a glossy shambolic mess. The fact that it was based on a Harlan Cohen book is telling, because rather than being a French film (strong on psychology and character), it's more like a John Grisham-esquire roller-coaster ride by numbers with ludicrous plot twists, flashbacks that update previous flashbacks, a predictable villain (as soon as his name is mentioned you think 'hmm, he'll be the bad guy!') and sets of mysterious stereotyped characters who seem to inhabit different movies. By the end I was laughing hysterically at the unevenness of the film's tone (the scenes where the lead character is being helped by two streetwise shady characters are unintentionally hilarious), the utterly baffling plot, the absurd coincidences and strokes of good fortune (e.g. guessing the password for an email account) AND yawning uncontrollably (thought I must have misread the 1hr 50min running time as it seemed to drag on for 3 hours 50 minutes).
I walked out of the cinema having suffered this film after 30 mins. I left two friends pinned in by a great fat bloke to endure the remainder.<br /><br />As soon as the opening sequence of the film unrolled, I sensed something was wrong and it wasn't long before I to stop myself from hiding under my seat cringing in embarrassment. I'm not one for walking out of films however bad as they usually have some redeeming feature, but this one suffered from a catalogue of bad directing, bad acting (bar 'Bruno' character & the impeccable Jean Rochefort -according to my friends),awful editing (in terms of theme and meaning), terrible soundtrack and image correlation that seemed to make an art out placing the wrong peace of music over the image and scene at the wrong time . The worst crime was its overall insipidness and unbelievability (a result of the aforementioned atrocities). Why was it so awful? I do not want to waste more of my time explaining. I'd say go and see it for yourself but I don't want to fill the coffers of this project any more than necessary. Oh, the screening did possess one redeeming feature: My friend cambering over the rows of seats in silhouette with his umbrella hooked over his arm as he tried to steady himself -more pathos, tension & entertainment in those few moments than in the 125 mins of this sadly dire effort.
it's unfortunate that many of the other detractors of this film seem influenced by prior biases. (i.e. anger at the gay characters, thinking french thrillers are bad, etc.) i will admit that i'm unfamiliar with the novel, but as a film, after about 45 minutes, i was rolling my eyes. hopefully i can explain in writing my complaints eloquently enough before i get sick of spending anymore time on this film over the 2 hours of its running length.(2 hours that felt like 3) don't get me wrong, i can sit through hour and a half silent films, 3 hour epics, i don't have a short attention span, nor am i so jaded by the mtv generation that i cant appreciate a subtle and slowly building film. here goes, my grocery list of complaints. first off, the ending. yes, it had a scooby-doo-esquire, character explains everything at the end. now i actually think for this movie, this was necessary.. the film had so many plot-twists, emotional revelations, new facts surfacing and being discovered.. one reviewer said it well: "..yes, it is a very logical story, but without the very essential back story (their childhood stories, the relationship amongst the 3 parents, the relationship amongst the two lovebirds and the son of the Big Man), it just doesn't feel right. I felt cheated " i won't throw in too many spoilers here, i could name specific revelations that i thought were unnecessary, but according to the reviews on here, there's a lot of people who seem to really love this, so i don't want to give anything away. i personally, can't stand soap operas. the complexity, and twists and turns, for me, snuffed out ANY impact the final revelations could possibly deliver. By the end, i seriously didn't care! there weren't any gaping plot holes necessarily; this seems like it could make a great book, in WRITING it is perfectly logical, but if i'm supposed to believe this is REALITY, something doesn't sit right with the pieces that have been haphazardly inserted. too often i felt crucial characters we were never able to get to know were thrown in to further complicate the plot, increase the emotion, and develop the mystery. the acting i had no complaints about, the directing, eh, not bad, but the plot, and especially its development, SEVERELY lacking. sorry to those that felt this was a perfect thriller, but i couldn't get into it. i gave this a 3 simply because i don't want to seem completely unfair, and it did have moments of slight intrigue and excitement. <br /><br />*MAJOR SPOILER* and i have to mention it.. but when the father is making his revelation to alexandre and JUST when you think the plot couldn't fit in another twist.. "your father didn't die in a hunting accident".. I ALMOST DIED.. when was the father at all developed or even really mentioned much in the back story?!! are you serious!! like the already complex plot involving characters from all the families and their relationship to one another wasn't enough!!? does the protagonist NEED another emotional whallop more than he has already been fed?! sorry i had to throw in such a spoiler, but that just bothered me as much as i've ever been bothered in ANY film.
There's potential in there with "Tell No-one". A curious and intriguing plot, and a French take on a very American story. But for me, the opportunities were not exercised here.<br /><br />Although I liked aspects of this film, there were three prominent failings which pulled it right down to four out of ten.<br /><br />Firstly, it's a silly, clichéd murder mystery. A particularly contrived Murder She Wrote or Bergerac. Being French doesn't eliminate this problem - it's just silly and in French at the same time. It's full of implausible coincidences.<br /><br />Secondly, the transition from the US to France seems to have failed chronically. This French doctor hanging out on "the streets" of a French city with his new "homies" and their blingin' SUVs... and then there's the car chases...<br /><br />But thirdly and mostly, it's just too darn long. To me, a film needs a good reason to be significantly over 90 minutes, and over two hours takes some serious justification. This once didn't have it.
The fact that this movie is bargain basement quality is a real shame, but back in the 1940s, that was about the only type of film made for theaters catering to Black audiences due to segregation. So, while MGM, Warner and all the other big studios were making extremely polished films, tiny studios with shoestring budgets were left to muddle by with what they had. And from seeing this movie, it's obvious that a lot of energy went into making the film, even if it is a pretty lousy film aesthetically speaking. Some of the actors weren't particularly good (especially the French guy), the sets were minimal and the plot totally silly BUT the film also had some good music--of varying styles from Classical to Jazz to Rhythm and Blues. This is thanks to many talented but pretty much unrecognized Black performers.<br /><br />Now as for the plot, it was totally stupid and silly but still watchable in a kitschy way. I loved seeing Tim Moore ("Kingfish" from the AMOS 'N ANDY TV show) in drag, as he made the absolute ugliest woman in cinema history (this includes the Bride of Frankenstein and many others)--this is probably due to the fact that when NOT in drag, he was a pretty ugly but funny guy. If the man pretending to be a woman actually looked remotely like a woman, I doubt this movie would have worked as well. Seeing this ugly and rubber-faced man with a cheesy wig STILL being ardently sought after by three suitors was pretty funny.<br /><br />This isn't a great film but from a historical point of view, it's fascinating and excellent viewing for young adults to know what America was like for Blacks in this era. A very interesting and funny time capsule.
This film had a couple of funny parts,but for the most part, made me want to go ahead and change DVD'S and watch "Malibu's" instead,which I had in my own collection. At least I would know there was something funny coming up and give me something to look forward to.<br /><br />I was disappointed in this very low budget film. And I do not judge a movie by it's budget.It just lacked originality and was too predictable. I would not rent or even watch this film again, and I am usually a repeat offender of film. The actors were forgettable. The story was half thought out, and it left me with an insatiable urge to get my laugh on.I ended up watching Jamie Kennedy's White Boy Gone Gangsta to have the comedy itch scratched.
Much praise has been lavished upon Farscape, but I don't think it's that good. It certainly has a distinctive look, but it lacks just about everything else: story, purpose, direction, excitement; you name it. I'm a big sci-fi fan, and I make it a point to watch all the sci-fi shows I can. I've almost finished the four seasons of Farscape, and at this point I'm not very satisfied. The show does have a few good things - most notably Claudia Black (who's sadly missing from the first few episodes of season four) -, but they are very few and very far between. As a whole the show is marred by a lot of very silly stuff (such as Fantasy elements rather than SF ditto), and many many episodes, esp. in season four, are unspeakably messy and very poorly structured. And one just feels that it isn't going anywhere. It's mostly just non-directional adventures with thin, long-running plot lines which develop painstakingly slowly. Well, sometimes it's a little bit tighter, but it only lasts for a very few episodes at a time.<br /><br />Effects-wise, there are a few impressive things here and there (esp. out in space, occasionally), but the show seems stuck in the same style of effects, which frankly gets old fast. Outlandish and unconvincing puppet aliens mar the show a great deal, and I've come to prefer (by far) the episodes where regular human-looking characters are the focus.<br /><br />I think the Peacekeepers are by far the most stylish and intriguing and interesting figures on the show; they succeed in being a convincingly alien culture, despite their all-human appearance. There are a few really cool episodes with them, esp. in the first season (IIRC), where Crichton masquerades as a Peacekeeper captain, and invades and eventually destroys one of their secret bases. Such episodes can reach a rating of 8 out of 10, but I cannot award the show as a whole more than a "4" rating.<br /><br />Aside from the Peacekeepers (which themselves are somewhat too single-mindedly totalitarian and militaristic to be really nuanced), the show simply doesn't offer anything important or significant that you need to know or want to see. OTOH, it does contain a few good ideas and is not a total loss.<br /><br />This is just my opinion, of course, but as a seasoned sci-fi fan, I think it counts for something, and may be of help to others. There aren't a lot of good sci-fi shows out there; but Star Trek (any series) and especially the new Battlestar Galactica are definitely better than Farscape. But if you're a huge fan of mediocre sci-fi shows, you may well like Farscape, too.<br /><br />My rating: 4 out of 10.
I honestly fail to understand why people love this show so much. A friend of mine watches this and since I like sci-fi, I tried to watch along since the plot of the show sounded promising, but in truth it really is a very boring show. The only thing that will keep you awake during this show are the video game-like CGI-effects and the complete overuse of muppets. Note that I call it muppets because they actually really look like muppets, not like the aliens they should be.<br /><br />Speaking of which; the muppets and make-up effects are horribly overused in this show. You have this guy who could be best described as a alien/dwarf-hybrid, you have a pale girl who looks like a cheesy vamp-girl, you've got a floating potty-mouth frog-alien... It just feels very unnecessary and furthermore even to the point that you feel distracted from the whole storyline about a lost astronaut.<br /><br />Every episode is also too much of a stand-alone. The creators of this show directed this in such a way that every episode almost feels like a whole other show. At least up until the point that you see the main-characters/muppets again, that is. The whole plot about the main-character getting back to earth is way to much pushed to the background at points. The acting is also quite bad.<br /><br />Conclusion: if you want good sci-fi, just look somewhere else. This isn't even real sci-fi to begin with in my opinion, since the show is more aimed at fantasy-elements with all the puppetry and weird dreams going on. And if you just want to see muppets then I suggest you watch the Muppet Show and feel glad that this abomination of a show has come to a end.<br /><br />By the way; doesn't anyone have dejavu's with the concept of a living spaceship? Ohyeah thats right; Doctor Who started that concept almost about 30 years ago! This show is like a collection of 'sci-fi' leftovers. Scripts and events that were abandoned for a good reason, only to be picked up by this horrible show.
I love John's work as a singer, but the movie was dull and 'no worth the time' to view. <br /><br />I thought he did an 'ok' job at acting his part. When he says, "your having an affair with the ol' man", to his co-star, I kinda chuckled at his facial movements... or lack thereof. <br /><br />I would suggest the movie if you like John's music but not as a Saturday night video. <br /><br />If you love his music, then the video has a little music from him in it, but not much. <br /><br />So so.. at best
Celebrity singers have always had a tough time breaking into the movies (the cinema is littered with failed attempts), and one can go on and on speculating why John Mellencamp never made it big as an actor. Instead of taking small parts in heartfelt projects, Mellencamp dives right in playing the lead in "Falling From Grace", which he also directed, and the results are as awkward and unbecoming as that title. Story of a famous singer returning to his hometown in the sticks, opening up old family wounds, boasts a screenplay by Larry McMurtry, but the meandering film goes nowhere slowly. The supporting cast is decent, including Kay Lenz (whom it's always nice to see), Mariel Hemingway and Claude Akins (who share the one really strong scene in the picture). As for John's acting, he doesn't look particularly comfortable, despite apparent efforts to make him look at home; he seems to be ducking the camera most of the time, and he never connects with the audience in an immediate way. *1/2 from ****
First of all, I think the casting and acting were excellent. The problem is the story. There is basically no story here worth telling and thus basically no movie here. Larry McMurtry has done Lonesome Dove and I can't fault the original, though it probably didn't need sequels. He did Hud with Paul Newman, which is one of my favorite movies. Mellencamp is supposed to be a country singer, but the only song I hear him sing is an old Buck Owens song. The movie makes a big deal out of chicken farming. Mellencamp's character has a good wife, and it's utterly stupid of him to stray from her. The incident with riding in the sliding cage is utterly stupid. Maybe people do that for fun in some parts of the country, but I never heard of it.
Feeling Minnesota, directed by Steven Baigelmann, and starring Keanu Reeves, Cameron Diaz and Vincent D'Onofrio: The strained relationship between two brothers, Sam (D'Onofrio) and Jjaks (Reeves), is pushed to breaking point when Jjaks arrives at Sam's wedding and makes off with the bride, Freddie (Diaz), a former stripper, marrying Sam to repay a gambling debt owed to night-club owner Red (Lindo). Baigelman's writing and directing debut is a frustrating mess, full of hateful characters and lacking coherence. Putting Keanu and Diaz in the same movie should at least provide some eye candy, but Baigelman even cops out on that score, grudging his actors up with little positive effect. Very poor.
Feeling Minnesota is not really a road movie, but that's still the best categorization I can generate. A road movie does not primarily depend on a great story line, and since the plot of this movie is truly pathetic, it does fulfil that description. To be interesting, such a movie must rely entirely on moving and intriguing characters, and on the chemistry between them. Unfortunately the staff of Feeling Minnesota fails utterly in producing this excitement.<br /><br />The initializing presentation of the characters is unsatisfying and confusing; I can, for example, not figure out whether Jjaks (Keanu Reeves) did grow up in the house of his mother and brother or not. It is said, by his mother (Tuesday Weld), that he must live with his father, but nothing in the film suggests that it ever happens. The same goes for the rest of the characters - I never get to know them. They appear irrational, and no real explanation is given to why they do so.<br /><br />The bottom line is that I leave the movie without any feelings for the characters, except dullness and perhaps a tiny kick of attraction for the cute Cameron Diaz.
The first time I saw this film it was with this cute girl I was attracted to. we had a lot of fun laughing at it and generally making fun. So my impression was that it was terrible but watchable for cheeseyness value. Then, as part of our anniversary, we watched it together again on video. As it turns out, the movie is just terrible and unwatchable. It's amazing how cute girls can change the way the world looks.
It hasn't even been two years since I first saw this film, and yet, I can barely remember a thing about this movie. Needless to say, I found it to be VERY forgettable. Of what I do remember, nothing stands out as particularly good. A talented cast is wasted in what I suppose was meant to be a dark comedy, but if that is the case, it fails miserably. At best, this film is mildly interesting. At worst, the seemingly omnipresent overcast skies are more interesting than the storyline. If you like watching films where it always seems damp and cool, then I guess you may find something to like in this picture. Just try to ignore what else is going on, because it is barely watchable.
J.J. Jameson (from Spiderman 2) Quote ... Crap, Crap, ...<br /><br />Mega-Crap It pretends to be an homage (un/intentional) to the Coen Brothers ... done poorly.<br /><br />There is no real mystery to the plot.<br /><br />Diaz's performance is totally uninspired.<br /><br />The quirky characters don't really work.<br /><br />There are a lot of "duh" moments.<br /><br />I love black comedy, but this film isn't funny.<br /><br />In my view, it wasn't worth the electricity.<br /><br />There are many films in this genre which are much more entertaining.<br /><br />I hope you find this review helpful.
Feeling Minnesota is one of the worst films I have ever seen, it is also one of the most disgusting films ever made. It has to do with a woman who is forced to marry a disgusting mob man. At the wedding she meets his brother Jjaks. They have sex in the house after they eat the cake than decide to run away together. The other brother of course comes after him guns blazing and he kills his wife. Jjaks wakes up to find her corpse in the bathtub and buries her. He than seems to become friends with Jjaks and they try to get money together because someone is blackmailing them because he saw them and the body. This loops about and several characters dies or come back to life, but it never comes together with anything that could be called a good plot. The performances are horrible by pretty much everybody. Cameron Diaz, Keanu Reeves, and Dan Akroyed. The direction, dialogue, and visual effects are just horrible. A disgusting and horrible movie.
During a lifetime of seeing and enjoying thousands of films, Feeling Minnesota is absolutely the worst (**major film with A-list stars) that I have ever seen. Bar none. This movie totally fails on every level. It's poorly photographed and edited. There's uninspired acting, the kind where the actors appear bored out of their minds. Just collecting paychecks, perhaps? And worst of all, the sludgy script appears to have been written under the influence of some unpleasant substance found only in sewers. I can't even begin to comprehend how the writer/director could ever have found anyone to finance this project, let alone attract any of the stars that it did. I truly wish I could get back the time that I wasted watching this piece of garbage. If possible, I would have given this film a grade of zero. Better yet, a negative number.
What a waste of talent. A very poor, semi-coherent, script cripples this film. Rather unimaginative direction, too. Some VERY faint echoes of _Fargo_ here, but it just doesn't come off.
This was without a doubt the worst movie I have ever sat through. And that's saying alot, because I've seen my share of horrible movies.<br /><br />But I have never seen a movie in which every single character portrayed was an unintelligent loser. Seriously, there was not one respectable character in the entire script. How fitting that the plot was equally lame, lacking any intelligence whatsoever.<br /><br />I can't believe that Keanu Reeves and Cameron Diaz would even consent to participating in such stupidity. And while I haven't seen all of their other movies, I've always enjoyed their performances until now. It's not that the acting was bad, just the entire story line was moronic.
OK, if I was in the rental store and someone asked me if the movie was worth the three bucks for the rental, I'd have to say no. The plot was implausible. I've come to the conclusion that Keanu Reeves can not act. He can, at times, be painful to watch (though my wife thinks he's cute). Dan Aykroyd (who is usually great) was even a little disappointing as the crooked cop. On the plus side, the plot (because it is far-fetched) is unpredictable. Cameron Diaz was good.
A waste of time, talent and shelf space, this is a truly abysmal film. What are big leaguers like Keanu Reeves, Cameron Diaz and Dan Aykroyd wasting their time being in such rubbish?. Petty criminal Reeves turns up to his brothers (Vincent D'Onofrio) wedding and ends up leaving with the bride. A comedy?, thriller?, romance? I honestly do not know! Reeves is wooden in the lead and casting Dan Aykroyd as a cop is so dreadful it has to be seen to be believed!. Only bright spot from a dark dark tunnel is Diaz and even she isn't that good. Rent out something else. everyone involved with this mess should hold there heads in utter shame and prey that it gets lost in oblivion in the years to come.
I want the 99 minutes of my life back that was wasted on this pathetic excuse for a movie. The acting was horrific! I used to be a fan of Cameron Diaz and Vincent D'Onofrio. I will never look at them the same again. Keanu Reeves and Dan Aykroyd were not a surprise. Everyone knows they never could act. Thankfully, only Dan attempted an accent. His accent was a disaster as expected. I think he was either confused about the location of the film or had never actually spoken to anyone from Minnesota. I hope this review helps anyone who is undecided about what to do with their precious time. The only reason I was able to sit through the whole movie was because I was stuck somewhere without anything better to watch or read.
I don't remember too much about this movie except that there was a distinctly gratuitous destruction of luminaires (lamps). Almost every fight scene included the unnecessary and wanton destruction of useful light fixtures, even if outfitted with cheesy, '70's-style, cylindrical shades to keep with the time setting of the story. On one occasion, raucous lamp destruction takes place in a domestic fight scene between the brothers in both the living and dining rooms of their mother's house, with fixtures in both rooms being taken out. Yet, the most malicious destruction occurs moments later in a bookie's office and includes, but is not limited to, the toppling of a fixture with a ceramic horse-head base, which is consequently disintegrated, and the severe denting of a cylindrical shade as a guy falls back into it during another fisticuffs fight. Later, that lamp is toppled as well when the guy is shot, incurring further damage to the plastic-coated shade.<br /><br />While this movie encourages a particularly wasteful attitude toward lamps, one should keep in mind that lamps, regardless of their cheap construction or gauche, top-heavy appearance, are still valuable for the illumination that they provide. However, if you ever feel the need to vicariously smash a lamp, I would highly recommend this movie.
WARNING! SPOILER! This movie is absolute crap. It is not entertainment. I haven't the words to describe the disgust that I felt at the end.<br /><br />This is a badly made movie about the scum of society. During the whole movie I kept waiting for it to get better. It didn't. Instead, it just kept getting worse and worse.<br /><br />When I see a movie that is as bad as this one I always try to find at least one good thing to say about it. In this case it proved impossible. I have not one good thing to say about it. How bad did it get? Well, here's an example: Towards the end Dan Akroyd smothers and kills Vincent D'Onofrio while Reeves and Diaz watch! This is not entertainment!
How to qualify this film, simply HORRIBLE. It is badly done with poor dialogues, Reeves played as bad as ever and Cameron Diaz competed with him. Do not waste your time watching such a film although a big waste of money has already occurred to make the film.
Although I do not recommend this film, neither do I recommend reading this review without first seeing the movie. Though I have not given away the ending, or most of the plot twists, this movie would be best viewed without any prior information. It's hard to pinpoint the chief problem with the film Donnie Darko, as there are many to deal with. Richard Kelly, in his first feature film, seems to have collected enough scenes of adolescent rage, late-night stoner diatribes, self-righteous justifications and inoffensive, banal philosophy to inspire twenty teen-angst dramas; then mashed them into a single two hour package with a sci-fi twist. The result is deeply distressing-- for all the wrong reasons. The film attempts to lead the audience down convoluted paths without any sense of symbolism or meaning, to make them sympathize with one-dimensional characters, and above all hopes that they will ignore the underdeveloped plot, full of unreconciled loose ends, by hiding it under a veneer of CGI effects and neo-surrealism. The main character, Donnie Darko, is a young man, committed to therapy, misunderstood by his friends, and rendered hostile and disaffected by his suburban life. We are meant to feel that he is more intelligent than his schoolmates, although sometimes that is a difficult assumption to make. For example, when one of his friends comes up with an absurd theory about the Smurfs, and Donnie counters with a theory of his own, his friend complains about Donnie acting "all smart." Donnie's speech, however, is no smarter than that of his friend-- just angrier. The only clear evidence of his intelligence is his principal's description of his standardized test scores as `intimidating;' but given the director's slant against simple categorization of human elements (as shown in the FEAR-LOVE sequence), this is a poor substitute for character development. Donnie takes prescribed drugs to combat mental problems, which are not addressed directly in this film. In fact, the entire issue of the drugs is understated, and one of the first chances the director has to redeem the film is lost. The ambiguity of Donnie's strange destiny, the possibility that all of this may be a product of his imagination, is pushed into the background, making the film 100 percent science fiction. This would not be a bad thing in itself, except that the "science" behind the "fiction" is very shaky. The explanations of time travel are weak, at best sounding like detached, uninformed rambling. We get the idea that the film's writer once read a book about time travel or a few chapters, and can't quite remember how it worked, but was sure that it was really interesting and wanted to work it into the film. The scientific portion, as a result, depends more heavily on expensive computer animations than actual development of the theories involved (at one point, a teacher discussing time travel states that if he continues to speak on the subject, he'd be fired. Apparently no further explanation is needed). Donnie's dealings with a visitor from the future lead him to commit several vicious actions. The justification for these actions is a tricky business. He damages his school, but it's okay, because his school doesn't treat him like a person. His punishment of a creepy self-esteem advocate (somewhat similar to Tom Cruise's character in Magnolia) results in the man's public humiliation. But should the audience believe that Donnie is some sort of avenging angel, striking out against ignorance and debauchery? He himself seems ignorant of the effects of these actions until after the fact. Aside from these flaws, the film is riddled with flat, uninteresting generalizations of humanity. The story is set in 1988, just before the Bush/Dukakis election, and the director touches on this point during the film. The focus, however, extends exactly this far: Donnie's gruff, blue collar father is voting for Bush, while his free-spirited, rebellious daughter plans to vote for Dukakis. There is nothing even remotely resembling a political statement here; simply a statement of the obvious. The former are not necessary to make a good film, but the latter should be left out. Likewise, Donnie's heartfelt speech about not being able to lump all human emotions into the bland categories of "fear and "love;" this doesn't ask the audience to make any great leaps of understanding. Everybody knows that there are more that two human emotions, and particular emphasis on this fact is worthless. Mr. Kelly gives homage to several symbols of 80's pop culture in his film: E.T., Stephen King, the Smurfs, Back to the Future. At it's heart, this film feels like the director's homage to himself, a collection of his own experiences, interests, personal heroes and adversaries, affirmations and disenchantments, roughly stitched together by untrained hands. Entire songs are played in music video format to the characters actions, seemingly because the director likes the songs. Characters who have little to no bearing on the plot (including the archetypal bully, fat girl, and right-wing idiot teacher) are given unnecessary focus, because the director really wanted to pack them in somehow. The awkward mess that is Donnie Darko leaves us wondering if Mr. Kelly has enough ideas left in his head to make another film, or if he has wasted all his creativity in one pointless, cluttered, meandering effort.<br /><br />My rating: 1/10.
Meek and mild Edward G. Robinson (as Wilbert Winkle) decides to quit his bank job and do what he wants, open a "fix-it" repair shop behind his house. Mr. Robinson is married, but childless; he has befriended local orphanage resident Ted Donaldson (as Barry). Young Donaldson is an eager workshop assistant, and sees Robinson as a father figure. Robinson's nagging wife Ruth Warwick (as Amy) is unhappy with Robinson's job choice, and conspires to return matters to her idea of normalcy. Their lives are further disrupted when Robinson is drafted.<br /><br />The war also disrupts what might have been an interesting story, as Robinson's character struggles against a domineering, unsympathetic wife. Possibly, filmmakers are showing how war can save marriages and positively redirect lives. Robinson and Donaldson are a likable team. Robert Mitchum has an inauspicious bit part. The ending "trick" played by Ms. Warwick and Donaldson is predictably staged.
If this film becomes a holiday tradition I am going to have to hide for Christmas for the rest of my life. How do you even think of comparing this with 'A Wonderful Life'! It was absolutely awful! The boy singing made my toes curl. And what on earth was the deal with his hair?? Emmy worthy performance?! Please. Granted, Lucci did OK but an Emmy????? I think this film is a waste of money. The fact that they stuck so close to the original story pretending to give it a modern and retro touch made it even worse. It lacked enthusiasm and persistence on all accounts. Lighting, wardrobe, make-up, it seemed everybody wanted to go home. Just a big NO from me.
This was truly horrible. Bad acting, bad writing, bad effects, bad scripting, bad camera shots, bad filming, bad characters, bad music, bad editing, bad casting, bad storyline, bad ... well, you get the idea. It was just, just ... what's the word? Oh yeah ... BAD!
The film has weird annoying characters, strange unexplainable slapstick, and an insurmountable amount of dialogue about smoking. The movie has a contrived plot of a bitchy, empty-headed woman's (Jeanne Tripplehorn) search for love. Although who would ever like Jeanne's character, personality, or reading of the dialogue, I really cannot say. Except that she likes to smoke.<br /><br />Sarah Jessica Parker gives an interesting character performance (who likes to smoke). Dylan McDermott does his best to look pretty and soulful (as he smokes). And, hey, what is Jennifer Aniston doing there? Oh, she's not really in it enough for anyone to care about her. (But she likes to smoke).<br /><br />This is a waste of anyone's time. I don't even know how I was able to sit through as much of the movie as I did. I can't even believe I spent the time to write this, except to warn others of its banality. Anyone need a cigarette?
From the beginning, 'Til There Was You was on the right track, setting up for the big finish where it would all come together. But the thing is, it didn 't. I found the ending extremely disappointing, but maybe in someway it was the right ending; a little more realistic you could say. Judge for yourself.
'Til There was You is one of the worst films we've ever seen. It fails in every respect. Jeanne Tripplehorn was better (as an actress...) in Waterworld. In comparison, this film is Dungworld. When a character stumbles once, or even twice, in the course of a film, one can understand it. But Jeanne's character falls, trips, stumbles so often that she might have a bit of Jerry Lewis in her. In her defence, each (prat?) fall was probably blocked, choreographed, and rehearsed. And rehearsed. Although this is bad enough for a film, the actors (Dylan McDermott and Jeanne Tripplehorn) seem to spend most of the plot going "out for a smoke" or trying to find a place to smoke. If the film was a diatribe on having no place to smoke- Ok - BUT, it isn't.<br /><br />However long this film runs, it is too long by 10 minutes past the running time.<br /><br />Oh, Jeanne Tripplehorn, ALMOST acts in a public forum meeting. You ALMOST see her break life into the character. Oh, it's ALMOST as convincing as her scene yelling at Michael Douglas in Basic Instinct--hmm, on second thought, not really.<br /><br />This is a film to avoid at all costs unless you need a cigarette and are trapped in nicotine addicts anonymous or forced to watch outtakes of HOOPER (Burt Reynolds). And even then, toss a coin or go to sleep.
On this site I've often lambasted the Americans for not knowing how to write comedy, BUT, while they've never produced anything of the quality of 'Fawlty Towers', 'Blackadder' or 'The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin', they have also never (to my knowledge) made anything as bad as this: the nadir of British comedy.<br /><br />On my Richter scale of comic awfulness, it rates only behind the truly execrable 'Are You Being Served' as the worst comedy show in the English language, with bad acting, annoying characters and humour that I'd grown out of before I left primary school. Unfortunately, it was part of a large crop of shows back then, along with 'Dad's Army', 'It ain't Half Hot Mum' and 'Allo, Allo' that relied on ridiculous situations and familiar catch-phrases to keep audiences "amused".<br /><br />Michael Crawford proved later on that he's a talented performer, but personally, I'd rather be sentenced to a month of watching 'Rhoda' than endure a single episode of this drivel, which makes me ashamed to be British.
I love Juan Piquer-Simón! He's my absolute favorite bad-movie director and, throughout his whole career, he incompetently tried to cash in on simply every successful contemporary trend in the horror and fantasy genres. After the big hit that was "Superman", J.P made his own and hilarious "Supersonic Man", he picked in on the violent slasher-movie madness with the insane "Pieces" and he really over-trumped himself with "The Return of E.T.", the unofficial and downright laughable sequel to Spielberg's SF-blockbuster. "The Rift" is obviously inspired by the series of profitable underwater monster movies like "The Abyss" and "Deepstar Six". From start to finish, you can amuse yourself by spotting all the stolen ideas and shameless rip-offs of these (and other) classics. When a completely new and fancy type of submarine vanishes near the deep Dannekin rift, a second mission with U-boat designer Wick Hayes on board is sent out to investigate what really happened to Siren One. In the dark depths of the ocean, the rescue mission discovers an underwater cavern where the government secretly experiments with mutant sea-creatures. The monsters are quite aggressive but there's also the danger of a government enemy among the crew members... "The Rift" is a forgettable film, but it nevertheless has some ingenious – though very dodgy – monster models. Fans of blood and gore won't complain, neither, as the beastly attacks are quite gruesome and merciless. The acting is very wooden although many of the cast names can definitely do better. It's advisable that you simply enjoy the clichés and gory effects in the "The Rift" because, if you start contemplating about the screenplay, you'll find that it makes absolutely no sense.
If you like poor SE, (some) bad acting and a total lack of credibility, this is a movie for you. So a really cheap looking movie, but I liked it anyway. Why? Because I like those kind of movies. I can't help but smile when I see these kind of movies....... What were the producers, actors, director and SE people thinking when they made this film? Don't expect an "Abyss" or "Alien", just a (very) low-budget horror/adventure movie.<br /><br />There is one nice "splatter"moment when a guy's head is shot off, but for the most, the horror is pretty tame. The final monster is pretty cool too.<br /><br />It's only 73 minutes long, so you can t go wrong there. Maybe you can pick it up at your local videostore or watch it on TV. I'm sure you will have a good time watching it.<br /><br />But don't say you weren't warned.............
How many English 101 student's versions of 1984 must America endure? "Gosh, this is a great book, but kind of a downer. I know, I'll write one just like it where everything works out okay. I'll also replace Orwell's old, used up political insights from the thirties with my own insightful, informed opinions form the 1970s. Think, think, political insight... Evil Politicians, I'm a genius! And there will be clones that they make of themselves for some diabolical reason... I'll work on that. It'll work." No it won't, Bob Sullivan, writer of this story. This really is all you're fault. You could have stopped them early and said, "Guys, with our budget and acting abilities, I was thinking more… romantic comedy, or we could move away form taking ourselves so seriously and make a campy spoof this tired, familiar genre of movies." Did you do that though bob? No you didn't, and you've had 28 years to think about it. <br /><br />I don't mean to be so spiteful. I'm sorry I yelled at you Bob. You've obviously had to live with this mistake a lot longer then I have. Some blame really should go to Ron Smith, who helped you adapt the screenplay. He could have stopped you at any time. You were young and naive, and he took advantage of you. Now he wrights the plots for video games and you, bob, well who knows what you do. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh Bob, but that's the way it is. You were sold upriver by the Hollywood hotshots. As if Ron wasn't enough, Michael bay also saw your movie, and without even asking for rights or anything, added some explosions to your concept and turned it into "The Island." That I think is the most disgusting part of all, that with a little eye candy, your script could of easily been good enough for a major Hollywood production, which I'd of hated just as much as this movie and not felt sorry for you at all. <br /><br />I'm sorry things worked this way for you bob. Ron and Michael walked all over you, leaving you a withered shell of a man, who's height of movie writing greatness will be a joke on Mystery Science Theater 3000. Don't focus on that though Bob, because Karma works in mysterious ways, and one day, they'll pay for what they did to poor little Bob Sullivan.
For those of you who have a few kind words for this film, I suspect you didn't see it when it was released as "Parts: The Clonus Horror." <br /><br />It was a dreadfully boring movie. It missed the mark in at least three ways. It wasn't good enough to be scary; it wasn't bad enough to be funny (although MST3K took care of that); and, even in 1979, the plot was unoriginal.<br /><br />Earlier contenders are "The Resurrection of Zachary Wheeler" (1971). It's the same idea (clones as spare parts). The movie is entertaining, and it had a fine cast. Another is "Sleeper" (1973). Yes, the Woody Allen movie. Remember the flattened nose? And "Clones" (1973). The last two plots aren't as similar to Clonus as the first one, but they predate Clonus.<br /><br />They are also several fiction books from decades earlier that deal with the idea, although often, the word "clone" isn't used.
A man is pulled off a London Street and taken to some foreign country where he is tortured as a terror suspect. Dull, banal film bored the hell out of me. More an idea then a film. I was half way into this 77 minute film when I realized I had no idea who anyone on screen was. It was as if they took every other similar film and pulled out all of the ideas and put them in one place with out the real notion of character. Certainly its well acted with passion but there is no emotional center, there is just an everyman of sorts which the filmmakers feel is enough. Its not. And while the story presented id in theory important as a warning the film is too dull to convince anyone of it, especially if one has seen the other, better films of a similar ilk (rendition with Reese Witherspoon for example)
Beloved tale of hero "Benji" ("Higgins" the dog) who is many different things to many different people. In his busy day "Benji" grabs breakfast at the house of two young children, has a chat with an officer of the law, chases an old lady's cat and reminds an aging café owner to start on the day's special. Helper to some, amusement to others, he is companion to all.<br /><br />Trouble arises when his young friends are kidnapped and taken to the abandoned mansion that he calls home. From here on we know only "Benji" can save the day.<br /><br />Plot is routine from writer/producer/director Joe Camp, and he does tend to over do the slow motion effects. Audiences though will find it hard to resist the lovable little pooch, and kids of all ages are sure to adore him. Cast were never going to be anything but background to "Benji".<br /><br />Not what you'd call inspired, but fun family fare. Academy Award nominee for "Benji's" theme, "I Feel Love".<br /><br />Saturday, July 13, 1996 - Video
You know the movie could have been a lot better when the animal - in this case, a little dog - is the best actor on the screen! The acting in this film is so bad, so amateurish, by dog got embarrassed watching this. He ("Rusty," our Golden Retreiver) could have done a better job than the people in here.<br /><br />By now this is almost a trite story: kid finds animal, pet is not liked nor wanted by one of the parents but the "pet" winds up saving one the kids and is now a hero and an official member of the family. Sound familiar? <br /><br />I remember this movie being a big hit, but never got around to seeing it until the mid '90s on VHS. I was shocked how bad it was. Why so much fuss over a film? Was it because there was so much sleaze in the early '70s that a nice family film stood out in the crowd? Possibly. There wasn't a whole lot of wholesome entertainment in the decade of the '70s plus a lot of people are suckers for cute little animal stories. Who could resist this cute little dog? Not me. But the movie I can resist: it's a Grade B storyline with horrible acting. <br /><br />Recommended only for small-dog animal lovers and I mean "lovers" because even the average pet owner will fall asleep trying to watch this film in this day-and-age.
If you are like me and observed the original "Benji" phenomenon from afar, finally seeing the movie for the first time 30+ years later, you may be shocked to discover how truly awful it is, and more mystified than ever about its popularity back in 1974.<br /><br />My judgment is not entirely objective as I tend to have a favorable bias toward children's films and for that reason cut them considerable slack. On the other hand I have always hated this particular dog, a feature on the last couple seasons of "Petticoat Junction". Never a great show, the dog-less early episodes were at least a nice showcase of beautiful actresses and the introduction of the dog cut into their screen time.<br /><br />Benji is an 86-minute mega-dose of the dog, following him on several daily circuits through the town of McKinney, Texas. If this sounds boring you would be advised to give "Benji" a wide birth and to never let your remote control fall into the hands of a "Benji" fan (if there are still any out there). <br /><br />Unlike "My Dog Skip", "Monkey Business" or "Because of Winn-Dixie" the human actors in the cast are extremely weak. "Big Valley's" Peter Breck plays the standard stern father and just seems to embarrassed at the idea of appearing in something this lame. <br /><br />If one of your children (of any age) appears to be finding "Benji" entertaining you should consider cutting back on their medication.<br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
The dog can act...unfortunately nobody else in the cast of this sordid faux children's film can. A stray yet very clever dog insinuates himself into the lives of two motherless children, much to the chagrin of their bitter and cold-hearted father. In what can only be described as Dickensian, the evil widower forbids his children --- who may or may not be mentally challenged --- from playing with Benji. Neither the children nor Benji obeys. Soon the children are kidnapped and Benji has to help the police find them. It's only then that the old man realizes that Benji is good, not bad.<br /><br />Tom Lester, whose only previous acting experience appears to have been playing the dim-witted Eb on GREEN ACRES plays one of the kidnappers. So does the regrettably over-utilized Deborah Walley. Walley's previous screen triumphs include BEACH BLANKET BINGO and the woeful IT'S A BIKINI WORLD. She also played both Gidget and Tammy in the past and here attempts to obliterate her good-girl reputation by playing it bad! <br /><br />STAY away from BENJI...he's a dog and this movie is a dog!
This adorable dog (called various names during the film) is seemingly loved by the whole town...but he's alone. He is friends with two children (Cindy and Paul played astonishingly bad) but their father won't let them have a dog. Then Benji meets Tiffany--ANOTHER adorable dog. They (instantly) fall in love and it leads to a hysterical montage of the two of them frolicking in the grass, drinking from a fountain...in slow motion no less! Also Benji lives in the cleanest abandoned house I've ever seen. Then the two kids are kidnapped by the most inept, unfunniest kidnappers I've ever seen and--wouldn't you know it--they hide the brats in the exact house Benji lives in! <br /><br />WOW was this bad! A huge hit (for some reason) in 1974 which led to many sequels (which I will NOT see). The film is just terribly acted with "humor" so unfunny and badly done that you just stare at the TV in amazement. The film also has a song that is played NONSTOP during the movie--so much that you want to scream. It was inexplicably nominated for Best Song at the Oscars--it didn't win. Yeah--the dogs are adorable and much better than the human actors--but I need more than cute dogs to keep me interested.<br /><br />You might think I'm being a little hard on a kids film but I saw it with my 5 year old nephew. Within 20 minutes he was bored silly and basically stopped watching. I kept watching in hope that it would get better--it didn't. Really lousy--but VERY patient kids or dog lovers might like it.<br /><br />Note to parents: It's G rated but a dog is viciously kicked a few times. You don't see it--you just hear it and the dog survives but this might bother real young kids.
The word honor should be erased from the vocabularies of all nations. It aggravates male dumbness and is responsible for the death of millions of innocent people. Anybody who does not agree should not care to continue reading this comment.<br /><br />As can be expected with these screenwriters, Yakuza is an engaging crime thriller with quite a lot of respect for the ethnical background against which it is acted out. Friends of gore and violence will not be disappointed either, but especially towards the end violence becomes somewhat pointless, redundant and downright silly. Contrary to other reviewers I found Robert Mitchum's performance not very good. This is an actor who definitely did not improve with age. He looks like a tired janitor (it does not go too well with the part), and his air of detachment which made him such an impressive screen presence in earlier years comes through as either confusion or lack of interest. Ken Takakura and Richard Jordan are very good as man of honor and young, intelligent, feeling thug respectively.<br /><br />The best way to stand this movie is seeing it as a tragic comedy. Things are set in motion by the Mitchum character's asking the Takakura character a favor based on wrong assumptions. The error quickly becomes evident, but the sense of honor demands they must not back off. So they start sneaking around, shooting in all directions, wielding swords and wrecking their friend's arty apartment (although the guy pleads with them „stop it, please" all through the corresponding fight). Bodies start piling up and the story ends with Mitchum's character making his point: If YOU give HIM YOUR little finger, I will give YOU MINE. Well, it's the least he can do, can't he? So he pulls out a knife, takes a resigned breath and starts sawing off said extremity (outside the frame, luckily). It was a moment which probably should have been solemn. It just made me laugh.<br /><br />The use of locations is very good in this movie. I particularly liked the scenes filmed in and around the International Conference Hall on Lake Takaragaike, an interesting futuristic building by architect Sachio Otani (the Kyoto protocol was signed there). To me the presentation of architecture seems better here than in Sydney Pollack's more recent documentary Sketches of Frank O. Gehry which is about architecture and nothing else.
This was probably intended as an "arty" crime thriller, but it fails on both counts - there are few thrills and not enough substance. The plodding pacing makes it hard to sit through, and the occasional action scenes are too sloppily edited and confusingly staged to offer much compensation. At least the level of acting is high. (**)
A group of teenagers discover a bootleg video game, but once they start playing it, they each start dying just like they do in the video game. As they become addicted to the game, they need to find a way to beat the game's central villain, The Blood Countess, before she kills them all.<br /><br />The premise does sound a little stupid and familiar but this film could have still been mildly entertaining. However, this "horror" movie is not scary at all. It's actually more of a comedy than anything else. The film takes itself way too seriously and the movie is not a lot of fun to watch. Sure, there is the occasional laugh but for the most part, the film is very dull. PG-13 horror films can still be good like The Ring or Cry Wolf. The Ring and Stay Alive aren't really the same type of horror film though. Stay Alive is more of a slasher movie and since its rated PG-13, the death scenes are very tame. It should have been the movie's main sell and since it had an interesting concept the deaths could have been really good. Unfortunately, the studio wanted a bigger audience and the film had to be altered.<br /><br />The acting is a complete joke and most of the cast give awful performances. Jon Foster is not a very good leading man. He lacks charisma to really engage the audience or for the audience to care about him. His character isn't unlikable just very bland. Samaire Armstrong actually gives an okay performance though a little too bland to truly stick out. Frankie Muniz probably gives the best performance in Stay Alive. That's an honor on the level of being the best player on the Houston Texans. Sophia Bush is absolutely terrible as October. Her performance feels so rushed and so fake. The most annoying character in the movie is Phineas played by Jimmi Simpson. His character is so unlikable you will be rooting for him to die.<br /><br />In fact, most of the characters are pretty unlikable so that makes it even harder to become interested in the film. It's just hard to feel sorry for some of these annoying kids and it's a lot more fun to watch if you want the characters to actually survive. The only real good thing about the movie is the atmosphere. It's a little old but it still kind of works. The film is also really short so it's not too much of a pain to sit through. I wouldn't really blame the cast though because they were working with an inexperience director and writer. The direction is not very good and the screenplay isn't much better. Stay Alive is actually not the worst horror film of 2006. That honor would go to When a Stranger Calls. Stay Alive is still a missed opportunity though. In the end, this cheesy and lame horror film is better left on the shelf. Rating 4/10.
I haven't laughed so much in a theater in years. The only problem is that it was not the intent of the movie to make my throat raw from laughter.<br /><br />This movie is absolutely overflowing with bad CGI, absolutely terrible duologue, absolutely terrible *acting*, and enough geek references to make the whole thing come off as nothing but complete cheese.<br /><br />As a gamer and a geek-type girl myself, I did recognize all of the obvious game references in this movie as well as the geek STUFF that was just thrown into the background as eye candy (the Steamboy poster, the t-shirts from thinkgeek.com and j-list.com), and that didn't redeem the movie at all.<br /><br />The only thing that might have been good at ALL were the ghost children type characters that were purposefully badly done in CGI to make it look like they were from a game, and who were OBVIOUSLY stolen from Japanese horror movies.<br /><br />To be honest, it was hilariously bad, and something I'd expect from a midnight showing of a made-for-TV b grade Sci-Fi channel movie. Don't expect more than that and you'll have a great time. Just don't get a soda or you'll spit it everywhere when you get great lines like: "Why did you bring that game into our lives?! WHY?!"
Aside from Frankie Muniz chattering too fast to understand (Malcolm in the Middle flashbacks?) this film still cannot conjure up a scare. The idea with the "Countess" and the history surrounding her placed into the story was fun but the plot, and many side plots, just don't tie together. Plot synopsis: murdering ghost lures victims through video game. Toss in some blood spatters and a special effects and you've got yourself another bombed out would be horror flick. The ghost cronies resemble the ghost in "The Ring Two" far too much. The acting and constant and dramatic change in everyone's emotions is unbelievable. Save your money.
Bad, bad movie. When I saw the synopsis I was expecting something like Ring only with video game instead of tape. Nothing of the sorts happened. I'll admit idea is interesting and could be turned into a good movie but this is not it.<br /><br />First of all choosing real life person, countess Bathory, is stupid move that adds absolutely nothing to the story. Anybody even vaguely familiar with her story would begin to wonder why and how did this Hungarian noblewoman end up in this movie. Choosing a generic vengeful spirit would be much, much better.<br /><br />Then there is whole you-die-in-real-life-as-you-die-in-the-game concept. As I said before interesting, Ring-like story. But instead of developing it into good story line it sort of just flows along with no explanation given why did this game became such as it is, why it was created and so on. Waste of good idea.<br /><br />And finally this movie doesn't even have gory of funny parts that can if not save at least make crappy horror movies watchable. Death scenes are too quick and acting is too wooden to be funny.<br /><br />Avoid if possible.
In The Ring, it was a videotape; a website was the problem in Feardotcom; the danger in Pulse came from computers; and Phone and One Missed Call featured—you guessed it—deadly phones. In Stay Alive, the piece of technology that causes all manner of problems is an online game: those who play it wind up dead soon afterwards. How clever!<br /><br />Directed by William Brent Bell (who?), and featuring an unimpressive cast of twenty-somethings that you might have seen before, but probably can't remember where or what the hell their names are, this is an extremely derivative piece of film-making aimed squarely at the PG-13 horror set; seasoned scary film watchers will no doubt find Stay Alive extremely tedious, highly predictable and not in the least bit frightening.<br /><br />The poorly developed plot follows a group of gamers with extremely daft names (October, Loomis, Phineus, Hutch, and Swink!?!) who attempt to unravel the mystery behind the deadly game before they too become victims. Eventually, they discover that it is the evil spirit of the legendary Countess Elizabeth Bathory who is killing anyone who dares to play, and that their only hope of survival is to continue with the game to the end.<br /><br />With a story as dumb as this, viewers should expect a film with loose ends aplenty, not one iota of logic (who made the game, how, and why is never explained), very little in the way of scares or gore, and a dumb closing scene to leave the door open for—God forbid—a sequel.
A group of young adults open a plain of escape for the spirit of Elizabeth Bathory when they recite her poem from a video game supposedly representing a séance. The only one who dies in the game is Miller(Adam Goldberg)who also is found dead the same way he perished in said video game. While the others' characters didn't die in the video game, their reciting her poem has instead unleashed the video game into reality with walking CGI characters stalking and killing each of them, one by one. They must follow certain methods using a mirror and nails to defeat Bathory and save their skin.<br /><br />If this premise sound stupid, that's because it is. The characters are ho-hum rejects from bad WB television shows, this time allowed to spout profanity. This flick follows the slasher rules, but doesn't show much violence or gore. It stays PG-13 safe with most of the death taking place off-screen. There's a scene where the true hero and heroine are running from video game characters pursuing them. Yes, it's that bad. Nothing at all to recommend. Good-looking cast including Sophia Bush as the appropriately named October.
After the mysterious death of an old friend,a group of teenagers find themselves in the possession of Stay Alive,a horror survival video game based on the gruesome story of Erzebet Bathory known as The Blood Countess.The group begins to play the grisly game and soon they are murdered one by one in the same method as the character they played in the game.As the line between the game world and the reality disappears,our heroes must find a way to defeat vicious Blood Countess. "Stay Alive" is an incredibly poor teen slasher flick without any iota of suspense.Writer-director William Brent Bell doesn't have the damn clue how to make a watchable horror movie.The jump scares are irritating,the blood/gore level is almost non-existent and the story doesn't make sense.The dialogue is utterly bad and the acting of all involved is embarrassing."Stay Alive" is easily one of the worst mainstream horror flicks of 2006.Stay away from this stinking turd.
Talk about false advertising! I wasted an hour and twenty five minutes watching this piece of crap and there was not one leisure suit, not one platform shoe, no pointy-finger dancing, and not a single disco ball. I watched it on a Saturday night, and ended up with an awful fever, but it had nothing to do with the music.<br /><br />Seriously, with or without John Travolta, this movie sucked.<br /><br />From the opening scene, you will be asking yourself the question, "Where did that rope come from, and will it please hang me, too?" From its unabashed bias against the driving abilities of the Pennsylvania Dutch, to the shameless promotion of the apparently everlasting capacities of Alienware laptop batteries, to the cheap horror effects lifted directly from Japanese cinema, this is the worst film to hit theaters since The Grudge.
I was not very excited to see this movie in the first place but a group of us decided to go see it on opening night. I felt like getting up and walking out and attempting to get my money back 20 minutes into this film. I felt that the movie was very boring, uninteresting, and not true in many aspects including "gaming". I tried my best not to fall asleep during the movie as i watched one of the worst horror films i have ever seen. The scary movie series was scarier than this movie. The sad attempt to pull in a Gothic girl, an overworked business man, and 15 year old geek, and some random guy into a video game that kills you is a bad plot to begin with. Then they try to throw in a very horrible love scene where the main character kisses another girl after saving her 10 minutes after his girlfriend was murdered. The theater was packed when the movie started by then end a little over half of the people had left before it was over. If you feel the need to waste only 1 hour and 16 minutes of your time seeing this movie ... prepare to feel cheated.
The Plot: A group of young people with ridiculous names (Hutch, Swink, Phineaus, and October)are brought together by the death of their equally ridiculously named friend Loomis. After the funeral, they decide to divide up their late friend's belongings. Among them is a video game called Stay Alive. The group decides there's no better way to show their grief than to all partake in a little virtual bloodshed. But the more they play, the more they realize the connection between the game and the death of poor ol' Loomis.<br /><br />The Production: This film is just another entry into the latest Hollywood craze of low-budget PG-13 horror aimed at cashing in on the junior high school crowd. The direction is sloppy to say the least with quick, music video style cuts that make the action difficult to follow. The dialog is so bad that it actually kills brain cells. The plot itself is so full of holes that we never even learn where the game came from or why those who play it die.<br /><br />The idea behind this film, although not entirely original, had some promise. But the poor execution on both sides of the camera make this one big dud.<br /><br />If you've ever got a craving for a "killing someone in a video game makes them dead in real life" horror film take my advice and skip Stay Alive for the superior Brainscan.
I tried. God knows I tried to like this Swiss Cheese of a movie, but the story was too full of holes, some big enough to drive a horse drawn carriage through. The acting overall was even and the characters endearing enough that you regretted they died off like recently sprayed roaches, scattering off to die their own gruesome deaths. Overall, however, it was not really very scary. Afterall we have seen spooky quickly moving figures in the background since "The Brood" why back when / and it was scary then just briefly. This film just never resolved the basic plot points and thats the writer's job. Naturally you would expect the director to pick up on the fact that the story did not make sense. Like who's was the secret room behind the wardrobe, why did the blood hungry ghost not die when she received the nails as prescribed by the book they read earlier? Why did the computer say "game over" for Frankie's character even though he lived? The list goes on and on. I don't really feel comfortable recommending this film as its makes you feel like you wasted your time and there was not enough payoff in truly scary moments.
This movie was not very good in my opinion. While not a complete waste of an hour and a half (luckily I didn't have to pay $ for it), it just wasn't very scary. There were parts where I jumped and a few minimally violent/gory scenes, but overall only someone easily frightened would consider this movie scary.<br /><br />The overall writing and acting were very weak. The characters never evolved or grew as people. Even at the end, the lead guy, whatever his name was, didn't man up and had to be rescued from the fire at the last minute. The plot also had inconsistencies. The police officer who was killed was NOT murdered in the same way he died in the game. The girl October mentioned that in order to kill the evil demon lady you had to read something from the correct text. Funny how they never bothered to do that and still managed to escape. The Malcolm-in-the-Middle kid died in the game but didn't die "in real life." Also, making the game play by itself was very weak writing. It would have been okay for the brother's death, just to get them playing again. But you are supposed to play a video game and stay alive and 3 people die before you play again...why do you even need the game? If you like movies like the Ring and thing its scary and fun, watch this movie. If you know someone like that you can watch it with at laugh at, do it. If you like "horror" movies that make you laugh out loud and you have the opportunity to watch this movie for free, do it. Otherwise, stay far far away.
Stay Alive has a very similar story to some Asian horror films which include technology on the story.Some of this Asian horror films are One Missed Call,Ringu and Pulse.So,the idea of Stay Alive is very clichéd and obvious but the filmmakers behind it did not know how to put something new or interesting to the clichés in Stay Alive.This film is totally crap.But a very big crap.All the elements of Stay Alive belong to the worst class of ''horror'' films:shallow characters,nothing of suspense,stupid ''horror'' which makes laugh and light violence.It's easy to note that the ''director'' is incapable to create something original or disturbing.I do not wanna loose more time writing about this pathetic film.I just give you an advice:do not see this film.I really hated it.
I could tell this would be a bad one from the trailer, but the lure of the DVD box got me to rent it anyway. Boy was I right..<br /><br />Also for some reason the DVD version is VERY fuzzy and unclear at times (in terms of video quality). It appears as if they shot the whole movie with a 20 year old camcorder, it looks so bad. I really did not like the plot, and after watching the movie I was very let down. I will NOT tell any spoilers, but let it be said that the end was so bad that I laughed, it has been done so many times before.<br /><br />The whole story seems like something that came out of a middle schooler's English paper. If I had to peg one movie as the worst horror movie I've ever seen, this one may just be it. I can't believe they actually released this film. It really isn't worth the rent, or a penny of anyone's money unless you want a good laugh at the movie's expense.
A mediocre at best horror flick that deals with dumb, not so horny teens who discover an evil video game (GASP) is killing those who die in the game (DOUBLE GASP). This movie is the sustained mystery of the Mystery Gang in "Scooby Doo". I was waiting for them to pull off a mask of one of the villains. I could deal with this for 40 minutes even as a movie on sci-fi but going all the way to the theaters, come on people. The effects were very mediocre, this whole scenario is something of crummy two-but director Uwe Boll, since this would be his cast. As always the great thing about video game systems is the glorious power button. I'd suggest using that mid-viewing. *1/2
Stay Alive, Stay Alive, Stay Alive, I am called the attention it was the trailer and not the cartel.<br /><br />The topic of the movie centred on a video I play that was created by a countess to kill the people and to live eternally is acceptable.<br /><br />First that quite, bad movie of horror, the blood sees more or less sparked(spread gossip), these scenes is bled they are the more bad.<br /><br />But actually(indeed) that bad is this movie, very, very, bad, but bad in all the aspects.<br /><br />I do not recommend this movie to anybody, trailer well, movie bad.<br /><br />I do not deal since(as,like) they spend(consume) money and time doing these senseless movies and too bad.
Honestly, I was a big fan on 'Stay Alive' trailer when it got released even some months before. I kept on telling my friend how this movie has a great story plot - and perhaps a good one. Anyway - this movie is somewhat below my expectations.<br /><br />The plot has a great potential, but how the story unfolds, along with the acting , directing and bad CGI - this film is a disaster. The ghost doesn't make any sense, and including the killings - its all just too hurried, creating a sense of 'unrealistic' in the audience's mind.<br /><br />This film could be scary for some audiences - but fear in a sense of shock (Due to the sound effect, etc) rather than enduring fear due to certain valid factors in the movie.<br /><br />You should re-consider watching this movie.
Stay Alive is a bland horror movie about a video game that kills people the same way they die inside the game. The friends that play this game soon figure this out, and then realise they must defeat the Blood Countess from the video game or accept their fates. We've had video tapes in The Ring, a deadly website in FearDotCom. Now it's onto video games. Stay Alive does some things well; the character development is quite a bit deeper than it usually would be in a horror movie. We really see into some of the characters feelings and past and get to know them all quite well, so the audience may gain some emotions for them. The film is also very suspenseful. Tense, unnerving moments are frequently played through the film, accompanied by unsettling, creepy music. There are plenty of jumps and jolts for the viewer. This can be ideal once or twice, but these false scares that Hollywood seems to enjoy overplaying in horror films nowadays, wears thin in Stay Alive. The camera will tend to provide sharp angles or quick flashes in order to give viewers a very quick glimpse of a demon or witch, and try to scare them with this sudden burst on the screen. Why? The gore is obviously very weak because of the film's certificate. The script to Stay Alive is very cheesy and quite laughable, and the characters tend to play it too melodramatically and confusingly. Also, clichés come in from every direction, for instance people wandering around on their own in search of a strange noise or if they have spotted a figure in the dark, they will go and investigate it. However the computer graphics used for the video game segments are rather impressive and look colourful and sharp, working well with the other parts of the film. But overall, there is just not enough to hold out on with this film. Stretching at just over a hundred minutes, it won't be a battle to Stay Alive, but rather, Stay Awake.
Seriously, if you want to see a cliché horror movie you have to see this one I guess. It contains all the " scary parts where nothing happens ", " the nerd type who actually isn't killed", " boy and girl coming together and surviving", "facing an old child-fear" etc... I can go on. I wanted to see this movie cause i tought the mix of a video game and a movie would work out. Guess i was wrong. Which makes the movie more bearable? It is only 1hour17min so if you are bored it might be a good idea although i rather stay bored. Why absolutely not see it? Frankie Munitz aka Malcolm is just irritating as the nerd-type. I could smack the guy and it is so sad he didn't die earlier and in the end he even comes back. See something else!
Good idea....shame about the actual movie. Would of liked it to be a bit more scary, and explain more about the characters and who exactly the evil woman was? If she was torturing those kids why were they helping her kill and not helping others kill her?? Its a bit of a come down from Malcolm in the Middle!<br /><br />I think it would of benefited from being slightly longer and going into more detail with the characters, although after about an hour I was wondering when it would end!!<br /><br />Would of been better too if the actual characters that killed them were not computerise in reality, it sort of made them crap looking. And what happened to the Frankie Munitz character? He fell into a bed of wild roses so should of been safe, however the computer game showed him as game over, ie dead. Next thing he appears with that irritating blonde lass to rescue the guy afraid of fire who, I noticed, had no qualms about flipping the lighter when demon lady was after him!!<br /><br />Too many inconsistencies in this movie to really enjoy it, however, might make you think twice about playing that new computer game!!
Daniel Auteuil's Bruno in Petites Couperes is a middle-aged model of his Pierre in Christian Vincent's La Separation of 10 years ago. In both films, youthful confidence in left-wing ideology and love (mutual metaphors) crumbles into paranoia - manifesting itself as trapped aggression in Pierre and desperately comic womanizing in the more recent Bruno.<br /><br />Unfortunately for Auteuil fans, the actor has become reliant on a uniform world-weariness (not unlike compatriot Johnny Hallyday in Leconte's recent l'Homme du Train). Acting it ain't, and becomes rather frustrating as the film progresses. Pascal Bonitzer doesn't help as the writer/director of the project. His sequencing of episodes overlaid with connecting symbolism fail to mask the film's lack of rhythm. I was particularly furious that the imposingly dramatic/romantic backdrops of Grenoble were made virtually redundant by a cameraman who was obviously shivering in the cold.<br /><br />Krisitn Scott Thomas almost rescues the show with her female counterpart to Bruno, Beatrice. She dramatizes the dizzying contradictions intended as Bruno in a character of increasing complexity to the point of becoming surreal. Bonitzer cannot sustain this though, and the flagging plot demands Beatrice to even out into another bourgeois mannequin. In doing so Bonitzer shows then denies Scott Thomas the Oscar cabinet.<br /><br />All the characters' submersion into the bourgeoisie may be a viable and indeed tragic outcome, but in this case it's a cop-out of a cadence (unlike the brutal, painful denouement of La Separation). A serious disappointment, 4/10.
I happened to see this film on a flight from Paris to Boston and it reminded me of the food on the plane: generic, tasteless and obscure. The French cinema seems to have lost its footing these days and this is a good example of how a motley script can waste brilliant actors. While some may find the 'playfulness' of the script to be in line with the dictates of Euro post modernism, the whole project seems more like a post-mortem on the death of Euro-cinema's golden years and truly fabulous talents --- one is vaguely reminded here of Bunuel but without the charm or wit.
The obsession of 'signifie' and 'signifiant' is not enough to make a good film. Pascal Bonitzer should have remained in our memory as a brilliant film theorist back in the '60´s. It was not necessary to take the camera. The result is quite frustrating. It´s a pity for his excellent leading actors.
The distribution was good, the subject could have been interessant and comic. whereas, he described the wandering of an old non credible communist looking for loving sensations. Instead of this, the atmosphere is nor lively nor heavy.
The plot in Petites Coupures certainly left this viewer dumbfounded.<br /><br />***spoiler***<br /><br />In the space of 48hrs or so, Auteuil's character has an affair with a teenager, loses his wife's affections, attempts to seduce Scott Thomas, is rejected by her goes on to grope yet another female character in the back of a car and then is finally shot for his trouble.<br /><br />***end of spoiler***<br /><br />wha ???<br /><br />The only saving grace in this flick is Kristin Scott Thomas. Similar to Charlotte Rampling, she seems a *natural* to star in French cinema. My hope is that one day François Ozon may cast her in a part where she can show her true talent.<br /><br />There are some fine French films such as the remarkable Le Colonel Chabert begging for a DVD release, yet this is the tripe that gets chosen.<br /><br />Avoid this one.<br /><br />zzzz..
This movie was not that good at all. Here is the first clue and that it is not gonna be a strong movie, Harrison Ford's name not only appears first but it is also bigger than the title. The music was nominated for an Oscar, What the heck was that? That music was probably the most annoying thing in the movie. The acting was sub par at best, except the Amish boy he did a decent job for being so young. Then you have the story which was weak and a little over the place, and it won for adapted! The music was horrid, I know I already said something but it was really bad. The premises was real good and it should be remade. Well that's all I really have on that.<br /><br />Your Average Movie Guy,<br /><br />-Trever
Harrison Ford playing a playing a cop in a crime thriller. The perfect ingredients it SEEMS for top entertainment with Harrison back to his Indy and Han Solo best, protecting a witness from ruthless and merciless murderers. How easy it is to be fooled. If the film concentrated on the main, supposed, themes of crime and suspense instead of putting up barns and shoving ice creams in peoples faces it possibly could have been more worthwhile. Unbelieveably predictable with the best method of despatching of a foe is with corn.
A cheap and cheerless heist movie with poor characterisation, lots of underbite style stoic emoting (think Chow Yun Fat in A Better Tomorrow) and some cheesy clichés thrown into an abandoned factory ready for a few poorly executed flying judo rolls a la John Woo. Even the squibs look awful. At no point in the proceedings does it look remotely like America. Three wonky old cars do not a country make.The Mustang even has a wobbly right front wheel. The plot, such as it is, is so derivative and predictable that the ending is like a mercy killing. It couldn't come soon enough. Even the jewellery from the robbery looks like the cheapest junk costume jewellery available. The awful dialogue and hopeless overacting by everyone who gets shot top off a real waste of space and time. Worth watching if you want to know how not to make a cliché-ridden low budget movie.
Yes Pigeon and Coburn are great, and it's interesting to watch them, although Coburn seems rather restrained and dull here. It's enjoyable to view Seattle, Victoria and Salt Lake City of 1970's, and the period cars and clothing. That's all the good in this boring film. The dialog is incredibly bad, as is most of the acting. Ray and Sandy's motivations seem forced and unlikely. I've seen this "training to be a pickpocket" routine several times before. There's a long build up, leading to nothing. Better to catch an episode of "Streets of San Francisco", or one of the many great crime/caper movies. To name a few, there are Bedtime Story, remade as Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, The Lavender Hill Mob, The Grifters, Paper Moon, The Sting, and best of all, House of Games.
I don't care what anyone says, this movie was crap. The only thing it had going for it was camera work which was very well done. As for the dialogue I have heard so many people talk about...it sucked too. Yes it was honest and true to life, but so what, I can hear anyone talk like that on the street, or in a fast food joint. What made the dialogue good in movies like Pulp Fiction, and Gosford Park was the fact that it is WRITTEN dialogue, that takes time to think through. Another thing was that the director should not have put himself in the picture. I believe that the male character could have been a lot stronger, but instead it seemed weak. In fact the movie seemed to revolve around the male character, and then he completely disappears in the last twenty minutes. The girl in the film I found completely repulsive, not in appearance, but in her needy needy ways. Saying she is in love with a guy, and actually getting jealous of him the next day, what a crock of crap. Final thing: the sound was terrible, and I hope it was only something that plagued my theater instead of actually being on the final cut of the film. There was a constant buzzing sound during several scenes and it was actually taking away from the talking going on. The one good thing again was Blood's job as the DP, but the actress that played the main guy's ex girlfriend did a very good job as well. These two things couldn't save an ultimately terrible movie, which I refuse to call a film.<br /><br /> 2/10
I preface by stating I am a big fan of JJL and NOT one of Patrick. Therefore I watched this to see her performance and of course, it was excellent. I do not feel the director was adequate for the film as several very bad choices were made re: shot angles, blocking, etc. If the director was trying to give it a "realistic" feel, they failed and lost some good performances because of it. Nearly always felt that the camera was way too static, too far from intense facial reactions -- and so many times when the action depended on the intimacy of lead characters, the dialog was slow and plodding. This easily could have been resolved by cutaways or changes of camera angle. But the impression I got was that the budget was too small and only one camera was used! I also got the impression that perhaps scenes were shot multiple times and the energy coming from the actors was... used up.
The performances rate better than the rating I've given this work, simply because I will not support a movie which shows any child or mentally challenged person how to obtain, cook, and inject narcotics into their bodies.<br /><br />This is a disgusting film, which serves no purpose in the world, but to glamorize and attempt to legitimize the narcotic lifestyle. It bears convincing performances, which add to my disgust. What were these people THINKING?! I could not enjoy a movie such as this. It's enough to make someone who has never done drugs, think about it, and those who have and have redeemed themselves, consider reversion. I'm surprised it doesn't make every clean junkie who sees it, fall off the wagon.<br /><br />There's nothing good about this "movie," which stands more as a How To Get Strung Out docu-drama. This is the epitome of what's wrong with Hollywood.<br /><br />Utterly disgusting.<br /><br />It rates a 1.3/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.
This movie is poorly written, hard-to-follow, and features bad performances and dialog from leads Jason Patric and Jennifer Jason Leigh. The premise, believable but weak (undercover narcotics agent succumbs to the drug underworld) deserved better than this Lili Fini Zanuck flop. The competent supporting cast (Sam Elliott, William Sadler, others) was not enough to save this film.<br /><br />In addition, this movie also contains the absolute worst "love" scene in cinema.<br /><br />Moreover, the soundtrack is vastly overrated; specifically the revolting, sappy-without-substance "Tears in Heaven" by the otherwise legendary Eric Clapton.<br /><br />"Rush" is wholly unenjoyable from beginning to end.<br /><br />2 of 10
There's nothing particularly unique or interesting about this run of the mill low budget sci-fi flick. Regardless of its pedigreed origin (the film is loosely based on a novel by Leo Tolstoy), the plot and overall themes of this film are in no way remarkable or original, the science is weak at best, and unfortunately, the film fails to even involve compelling action sequences.<br /><br />The plot begins with a manned space flight to Mars, and though the main plot doesn't really get rolling until the ship lands, most of the most interesting scenes occur en route. Unfortunately, as soon as our interplanetary travelers touch-down, their previously interesting interpersonal relationships, speculations about cosmology and the meaning of life, and everything interesting about the film all give way to an only remotely coherent plot concerning Martian revolutionaries, environmental problems and not very convincing webs of deceit.<br /><br />There is nothing very remarkable about the production quality of the film either. It's passable. And most of the acting is, though slow, OK. Cameron Mitchell is actually pretty good and plays a likable character. I guess the best quality of this film, from my perspective, is its fashion sense. The martians have very nice outfits! If this film had a point, it might have been much more interesting. Oh well.
It is said that there are some people out there who actually ADMIRE Monogram's movies. Well -- and why not? Monogram Studios lived on a kind of Cost Plus basis; cost, plus enough to pay the rent and buy a pizza and a bottle of robust muscatel every once in a while. Sure, they're cheap. But let's face it: they're coarse, fast, Philistine, vulgar, but exhilarating. They have no pretensions at all. They're designed to divert the audience for an hour or so at the bottom of a double bill. So what if John Wayne gallops through the Wild West along a road lined with telephone poles? This isn't art, it's entertainment.<br /><br />Take this movie, "Flight to Mars." At the beginning, when we're first meeting the characters, a man might introduce his female companion abruptly, avoiding any tedious subtlety: "Professor, this is my fiancée and assistant, who is a rocket scientist and a beautiful woman. She loves me but is growing impatient with me because I'm always wrapped up in my scientific work. Perhaps you could steal her from me, marry her, give her the babies and the picket-fenced home she yearns for. If necessary I will die on this journey to see her dreams realized. Also, she likes it a little rough." It saves a lot of writing and shooting time, doesn't it? That's what people mean when they say a narrative is "fast". (This one was shot in five days.) Why should we have to hint about these things? I mean, what the hell is this, a cheap sci fi movie or Henry James? Actually this is a particularly well-funded example of a Monogram movie. It's in color, for one thing. "Cinecolor" to be exact. (You can tell it's not any other "color" you'd recognize.) And look at the cast. The female lead is dismissible, as is usual with Monogram, but the male leads are definitely up there on the B List. Cameron Mitchell as the reporter, yet to hit his stride as a male lead, which, come to think of it, he never really did. And Arthur Franz as the pipe-smoking head scientist, the pride of Perth Amboy, New Jersey. And -- for science fiction fans -- how about THIS pair of aces: both Morris Ankrum AND John Litel! There's not really much point in describing the plot in detail. The five crew members crash land on Mars where they find an underground civilization inhabited by organisms whose evolution was isomorphic with ours, right down to their having five digits and willowy babes in short skirts. And they picked up English from listening to our broadcasts. American broadcasts, that is, judging from their speech. They're led by a sinister cabal who try to hijack the space ship, build many imitations of it, and colonize earth. They do not succeed.<br /><br />The special effects aren't very special. The men walk around a couple of spare sets, wearing black costumes with stylized lightning bolts emblazoned on their chests and scarlet capes billowing behind them. Their names consist exclusively of English phonemes -- Alzar, Terris, Ikron. The lissome Martian who falls for Arthur Franz is named Alita, with an Indo-European diminutive appendage, and she already knows what kissing is.<br /><br />Overall, I found it as snappy as it was intended to be, but dull too. The story is that of any Buck Rogers 1930s serial. Once the earthlings and the Martians meet and it's established that they have a common language, and that the Martians have a sinister agenda, that's it. In two hours, even an indifferent screenwriter could turn this into a story of Nazi spies in World War II. The plot is done by the numbers, the dialog has no sparkle, the acting is pedestrian.<br /><br />However, dedicated aficionados of Monogram productions should enjoy it. After all, Jean-Luc Goddard, the contrarian French egghead, dedicated "A Bout de Soufflé" to Monogram, so they can't have been all that bad.
Early 1950s Sci-Fi directed by Lesley Selander. Special effects of course are very primitive, but pretty good in comparison to what else was out there then. Drive-in Movie double feature fare; still interesting enough to watch. Two leading men, Arthur Franz the brilliant young scientist Dr. Jim Barker and straight talking and earthy newspaper reporter Steve Abbot(Cameron Mitchell)are joined on a manned flight to Mars by Carol Stafford(Virgina Huston)another scientist and two other space experts(Richard Gaines and John Litel). Upon landing on the Red Planet, the space travelers encounter inhabitants that appear friendly and mentally advanced. In actuality, the Martians are led by Ikron(Morris Ankrum), who has the idea of conquering Earth to vitalize their civilization. There is a beautiful Martian(Maruerite Chapman)that Dr. Barker intends to take back on the return trip. She is the movie's redeemable element.
Obviously influenced by the success of Pal's "Destination Moon" and Lippert's "Rocketship X-M" this one just doesn't make the cut. Limited special effects, a thin story line result in a production that even the half-decent cast can't save. Just no believability here. No one seems surprised to encounter Martians, much like earthlings, etc. etc. Pass on it!
Cheaply-made, poorly acted, and unimaginatively directed, Flight to Mars still is entertaining despite what its has going against it. A flight to Mars is planned with five people(three older gentleman, Cameron Mitchell as a newspaperman, and one female scientist/obvious love interest)"manning' the ship. The spaceship gets there and finds that very human-like Martians live there and have technological advances that would make Earth blush. But all is not rosy in the subterranean cities of the Martians(here shown as some caves and a few rooms). The Martians are a dying planet and one faction wants the Earthlings to fix the ship only to take it away at the last moment and then mobilize for an attack on Earth and another faction wants to talk peace and see if they cannot persuade Earth to give them living space. The special effects here are pretty lame even for 50's sci-fi standards complete with slow-moving rocket ship, pastel/neon alien garb where the women wear shorts that would make many blush(except the men of course), and little less offered. Cameron Mitchell is the journalist and is affable if nothing else. Marguerite Chapman is beautiful in very short shorts but adds little acting range. The rest of the cast is filled with some older sci-fi veterans like Arthur Franz and Morris Ankrum doing serviceable jobs. This isn't a premiere sci-fi film from the Golden Age by any standard, but it is very watchable and zips by at fast pace.
Square pigs as a way of efficiently utilizing cargo space is the one and only clever moment in "Space Truckers". Believe it or not, Dennis Hopper has done worse, see "The American Way", but this movie is way up there on the "cream of the crap" scale. I think the best way to describe the viewing experience is that "Space Truckers" will please no one. Too cartoon-like too be taken seriously, an almost total lack of humor, and poor character development, virtually assures disappointment. The beer and popcorn crowd might tolerate one viewing, but all others have been warned to avoid "Space Truckers" for all of the above reasons. - MERK
I must admit that this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I thought Dennis Hopper had a little more taste than to appear in this kind of yeeeecchh. If this is supposed to be funny then I gotta look around for a new sense of humor. If you're thinking of buying this movie you'd better think again.
Dennis Hopper must've been really hungry to do this movie. Atrocious special effects, very poor writing, cheesy dialogue, stupid-looking killer bio-robots. Never mind the blatent disregard for science. The awkward scene with the 2 young leads taking their clothes off. The best part of this movie was the pull-start cyber-penis on the wacked-out cyborg pirate captain. 2 out of 10 stars because I'm in a generous mood.
Oh dear! ohdear!ohdear!ohdear!<br /><br />I love science fiction but this... er... 'movie' just puts space flicks to shame. Every sci fi film I've seen over the last YEAR has been disappointing to some degree, and I'm now seriously reconsidering what genre of movies I actually like in future!! (Maybe I'll watch romance flicks from now on!) <br /><br />SPOILERS ALERT! (And thats not saying much!)<br /><br />This flick is so insipidly dumb it rivals Battlefield Earth and Baby Geniuses in sheer badness. The special effects are obviously fake, the Big Mac Truck looked stoopid with its roller coaster seat restraints, the killer robots looked like a more idiotic version of the Power Rangers, a huge fat guy is sucked out of a port hole window butt first and... Space Truck School??? WTF?<br /><br />Mr Hopper can do better than this. What really stunk were the two good-looking young things who accompany him and run around in nothing but their underpants (??) for an entire two thirds of the flick! The obligatory 'sex scene' (snicker!) between our young heroes was so poorly performed I nearly choked on my tonsils laughing at the TV screen.<br /><br />The only character worth mentioning is the pirate ship captain/cyborg/mad scientist. He oozed the word grotesque and was predictably sleazy, but I believe he could've been much more menacing. He does and says things which are quite funny (all the best scenes involve him!) so for the captain I give this movie an extra point.<br /><br />But this flick is so bad it'll make you want to hurl abuse at the TV or maybe throw your TV out the window! It may even kill off a few brain cells and put you into a catatonic state.<br /><br />CONCLUSION? I like the way the captain struggles to walk around on his peg leg when its obviously a fake peg leg!! I would've given it 0 out of 10, but since he cracks me up with his stoopid antics... this flick gets 1/10!
I'd never heard of this film before I caught it on the telly last night. I do hope it was never given a cinema release as this would be an insult to the silver screen and movie-goers alike.<br /><br />Was it supposed to be serious, was it supposed to be funny? Why the outrageously basic plot? Does anyone actually care?...<br /><br />Awful film.<br /><br />2/10
Okay,<br /><br />I realize that there are some doubting Thomas's out there...I was one of them...but then I saw this masterpiece of celluloid.<br /><br />All I can say is that the scene in which George Wendt gets sucked out of the spaceship BY HIS A** left me trembling. I sometimes sit bolt upright in my bed, screaming like an old man on a proctologist's table thinking about it. If the director is reading this... I would pay to be an extra in the sequel.
You've got to be kidding. This movie sucked for the sci-fi fans. I would only recommend watching this only if you think Armageddon was good.
At one point in this waste of celluloid, Charles Dance as some sort of meant-to-be-funny, cyborg bad guy says "If I had an anus, I'd soil myself."<br /><br />Quite.
There is only one word that describes this film: BAD!! I have no idea why this movie was even made, or how they got Dennis Hopper to star in this film. Stuart Gordon is a better director than this and Hopper is a much better actor. The film is plain stupid. I did like the "square pigs" idea and there was an interesting love scene involving a cyborg, other than that, avoid this film at all costs.
K, one day my father picked up a movie with a 'neat' cover. Got home with my mom and we were like yay lets watch this new movie we never saw before! .. Ok so it started ... interesting start, cool robots and disgusting gore (eek) on a strange planet (actually it was Pluto wasn't it?)... Blablabla I could tell the whole story but I rather not point, WTF NEVER EVER pick up a movie with a lame ass name, and seriously don't EVER I mean EVER judge a book by its cover (err tape..) it looked like an interesting movie HOWEVER it was a slap to the face for sci-fi movies, its DISGUSTING. I mean it was so bad I just started laughing (I swear it tryed to be serious) I CANT DESCRIBE THE STUPIDITY! It killed more then a million brain cells of mine I can't even write a descent critique. ITS THAT BAD! Argh and I wana prepare you for something "strange' *COUGH COUGH* mechanical p3n1$ *COUGH COUGH* Sorry just had to say it, its so funny, think of it as a commedy or a parody of sorts for sci-fi movies. Its classic batman laughs but in a new packaging. What the hell was this director thinking?
If you're one of those people who doesn't really like Sci-fi because of their sometimes far-fetched ideas and surreal world perspectives, you better stay away as far as you can from Stuart Gordon's Space Truckers! It truly is an absurd space adventure, stuffed with eccentric characters, colorful kitsch and ludicrous plot-twists. In all honesty…I probably never would have cared for this film, if it wasn't for Gordon's name on the credits. This guy comes pretty close to being a genius in the horror genre, with undeniable milestones like ‘From Beyond' and ‘Re-Animator' on his résumé. Apparently, Stuart Gordon likes his humor as twisted as possible! He already went completely over the comedy-top once (with Re-Animator) but, with the slight difference that the bizarre humor was effective there. Something that isn't really the case for Space Truckers…most of the gags lead nowhere and the entirely exaggerated atmosphere only works in small doses. In the end, all that remains is an occasionally amusing but completely unnecessary mess. Dennis Hopper and Charles Dance (or at least a semi Charles Dance) are always a joy to look at and the still stunning Barbara Crampton has a small role near the end of the film. Crampton was Stuart Gordon's regular heroine in previous horror films. The story of Space Truckers is as silly as they come. Dennis Hopper plays the self-made loner who's fed up with his job. Who wouldn't be when you're transporting pigs across the galaxy for a company named Interpork? He sees his change to flee while bringing his muse to earth. They float into Space-pirates and find out their cargo is meant to wipe out half the universe! Stuart Gordon wisely returned to making horror again after this little escapade. Since Space Truckers, he already made the sublime `King of the Ants' and the absolutely brilliant `Dagon'
About five years ago, my friend and I went to the video rental store to get something to watch. My friend saw Space Truckers on the shelf, and so we got it. Once we got home and started watching it, we realized what an absolute piece of crap it was! A beer can floating in space? A guy taking a dump in a toilet? A guy with a mechanical dick who tries to arouse a women by saying, "Whizz, whizz!"? WTF!!! The dumbest, stupidest, most retarded, horribly throne together piece of trash my eyes have ever been exposed to. My friend and I still refer to it as THE worst movie we have ever seen. Only one other movie has come close to its crappiness (and that would be the stupid Jackie Chan flick, "The Medalion"). If you eyes ever see this piece of junk on the shelf at your video store, proceed to do the following: 1. Take it off the shelf and throw it to the ground. 2. Stomp on it for at least 30 seconds. 3. Proceed to set it on fire in a contained facility (bathroom stall). 4. Lastly, take it to your local hazardous waste management facility immediately so that it may be properly dealt with.<br /><br />STAY AWAY FROM "SPACE TRUCKERS"!!!!!!!!
How do stories this bad get made. That's not a question. It is a statement.<br /><br />Here are my problems with the film.<br /><br />1) Much of the story development was predictable and boring. My emotions ran pretty much in a flat line throughout. There wasn't really much to draw the viewer into the film.<br /><br />2) The characters were decidedly uncharismatic. One was a loon, another was confusing, and the third was pretty damned boring. There was absolutely zero reason to be drawn to these people. Even though I knew it wouldn't happen, I kept hoping that they would run into someone else, someone more interesting.<br /><br />3) The physical environment was uncomfortable for me. A trailer??? In the desert??? The desert is a place that most people would prefer not to visit. How is it that these three people end up in the desert???<br /><br />4) And in the same desert. Did the writer really expect me to believe that the last three people on Earth would manage to find each other within the span of a few weeks out in that desert?<br /><br />5) Was it really necessary for Ms. Ryan to be in two scenes that required a swimsuit? Hey, she looks great, but it was pretty gratuitous.<br /><br />Okay, so if I thought it was so bad, why did I give it a 3? I am trying to be as objective as possible. Even though I found Alan annoying, I have to say that David Arnott did a very credible job of portraying a neurotic nerd (the character reminded me of a few of Albert Brooks more annoying roles). Jeri Ryan tried to do something with Sarah, but it just wasn't written very well. Okay, so she was supposed to be a confused, dysfunctional woman. But why? What did it add to the story? Her mood swings left me feeling like I was being jerked (hard!) one way and then another and then another.<br /><br />I don't often walk out on films, but this one had me contemplating it several times. Stiff, predictable, boring. Proceed at your own risk.<br /><br />My 2 cents.
I saw this movie in part because of some positive comments here on IMDb. After wishing I had those 90 minutes of my life back, I feel it's my duty to get on here myself and say...Please don't bother watching this movie.<br /><br />I can't argue with the actors efforts - they did what they could given the material, but that material is dreadful. The pace was deadly - slow, meandering, and you saw everything coming about an hour away, and then it took forever to happen. The dialogue was boring, pointless, not funny at all. The characters were all completely unsympathetic. And the cinematography was, in my opinion, very low quality - the cliché of "character uses home video machine!" was used to very bad effect.<br /><br />Yes, Jeri Ryan is a cool person. Don't let that sucker you into wasting your time on this film.
Hypothetical situations abound, one-time director Harry Ralston gives us the ultimate post-apocalyptic glimpse with the world dead, left in the streets, in the stores, and throughout the landscape, sans in the middle of a forgotten desert. One lone survivor, attempting to rekindle his sanity, takes food from the city to his bungalow in this desert. All alone, he hopes for more, but with nobody around, he is left with white underwear, and a passion for a local Indian tribe – until the discovery of a camera which opens up new doors and breaks the barriers of human co-existence. Alan, a man of the book, is left on Earth after an unknown disaster. Thinking he is alone, he begins living life his way – until, Jeri Ryan, appears (like she would in any dream) out of the woods, disheveled, and unhappy to find the final man alive to be ... well ... like Alan. Anyway, they try to co-exist, fail, get drunk, and before creating the ultimate dystopia, they run into Redneck Raphael (played by newcomer – Dan Montgomery Jr). Bonds are torn, confusion sets in, a couple becomes a third wheel, and the battle between physically inept nerd vs. brainless jock. Even with nobody left on the planet, it becomes a truth that even the darkest of human nature will arise.<br /><br />Using a variable film technique, Ralston gives us a mediocre story based loosely on another film entitled "The Quiet Earth" (which I will be viewing next) oddly which he never gives any credit towards. With a borrowed story, I guess he does a decent job of reinterpreting it. His punch seems to be lacking at the beginning while Ralston tries to find his stride, borrowing yet again from other film director's techniques to attempt to find his own. He opens the film interestingly enough, but fails to answer any direct answers. Sure, the final days have arrived, but could there be a concise answer as to "how" or better yet "why" these select few survived. A spookier beginning would have led us stronger into a comical film. The juxtaposition would have been like "Shawn of the Dead", but instead left us feeling like we were watching a "made-for-TV" program. Listening to the audio commentary, I have respect for Ralston because he worked diligently to get this film made, and his passion nearly sells the film, but you could tell from his interaction with the cast that he wasn't as happy with his overall final product. There were mistakes, ones that he pointed out and others that he was ashamed to point out. While this does make for decent independent film-making, it sometimes feels cheap, and in Ralston's case, it was the latter.<br /><br />I must admit, David Arnott's portrayal of Alan hooked me. He played that wimpy, school nerd, adult role very well. He was funny to both watch and listen to, and thus he became sympathetic to the viewer. He was a key player in keeping the film together, alas, I cannot say the same for the rest. This was Dan Montgomery's first film, and it was obvious – I mean – really really obvious. There were scenes in which I thought the cue card was about to come out and read the lines for him, perhaps even giving us a more realistic performance, but alas, it wasn't the case. Then there was Jeri Ryan. She pulled into her character near the end of the film, which to me, was the culmination of the entire piece of art. She goes from estranged unknown to bitter cranky insane girlfriend by the end. Confused? Again, she fell into her character by the end, giving us just a glimpse of what she could have probably done as her acting matured. Even as the commentary progressed, all that she contributed was a laugh, giggle, or "ohhh, look at that color" moment. While her beauty may sell tickets, one may want to consider knowledge to be just as beautiful. This was her first film, so can I be too harsh? <br /><br />Overall, this film felt like it was missing something. I though the idea was strong – the premise that even with only a peppering of people remaining on the Earth the evil of human nature still exists. Jealousy cannot be killed by bacteria or bombs (maybe because it is consumed by zinc?) and we as a race will always want what we cannot have. Ralston is not a surprising director, his techniques are flawed and pre-used, but he does know how to make a low-budget comedy. I think our idea of "funny" is different, so that is why I couldn't find myself laughing at many of the bits he found "hysterical". His actors provided the level of acting needed for this film, which was lower than average. His film was loose, meaning that there were elements never quite explained or tackled (i.e. anything with wings survived?!?), which overall harmed the intensity of the film. This was a comedy, but it could have been much darker and much much funnier. For those thinking that Roger Avery was a huge element to this film, as we learn from their commentary, all he was there for was money – the was in essence, the bank for "The Last Man". Don't get your hopes up for any classic Avery moments.<br /><br />Don't expect more from Ralston – and that is how I will end it.<br /><br />Grade: ** out of *****
After wasting 2 hours of my life watching this movie on late night television, I went back and reread some of the IMDb material, to remind myself of why I watched it in the first place. In hindsight, the only thing that I can think of is that the genre generally appeals to me. But this movie was a total waste of effort. It fails on every level, and to see that it's described on IMDb as a comedy really leaves me at a loss. I don't recall more than a couple of chuckles. There are more laughs in any episode of Law and Order than in The Last Man. Seriously.<br /><br />Too much of the characters' interaction just didn't seem to me to have any foundation, and was therefore very unlikely/unbelievable.<br /><br />If it hadn't been for the almost-gratuitous bikini shots, well, what can I say? Avoid this movie like the plague. Or tape it and just fast forward to the bikini shots. Do not spend even $1 to rent it though.
The only reason I rented the movie was to see Jeri Ryan in it! OMG that was the most boring, pointless movie I've ever seen!!! HOW LAME!!! I mean really, give me a break! After Voyager, I'd hope she'd be offered better roles!!<br /><br />If I were one of the last people on earth, I would NOT still be living in a travel trailer in the dessert!! This is just such a bad movie!! The thing about the indian tribe and how he compared it every 10 seconds really, really got old. Poor Jeri, better luck next time!
Wow, umm this was a very, how to say it, different type of movie. It calls itself a comedy...but it wasnt really laught out loud funny at all. It was insane. If you are willing to accept that 3 people survive a calamity of a global scale, why not 4? or 5?.....and why did it suddenly end without anything happening??? They could have made this much better by simply having another element in the plot such as a dumpy female for the ugly dude or something.......zinc, riduculous....ahh<br /><br />i dunno..watch it...it wasnt that bad.....sorta funny at times....i guess...<br /><br />schneider
Don't be fooled by the other reviewers. Although this film contains an impressive array of talent, the material they present leaves a great deal to be desired. Nat King Cole's 3 numbers are pretty lame and not even close to his later efforts, though he does impress with his piano playing. 'Moms' Mabley is not a bit funny, though I remember her as a very entertaining talk show guest from my youth. Actually, the best performances are from a couple of fat guys who impress with a lively tap dance and a Four Tops takeoff, and the jazz band itself, especially in the number featuring the bass player. The print itself is pretty poor quality, and the wonderful Butterfly McQueen is totally wasted in the wraparound plot.
When I started watching this, I instantly noticed that I couldn't understand what anyone was saying. I turned up the volume. With background noises now booming out, I could hear the voices. Just what are the actors saying? Is the movie not dubbed? Are they speaking Spanish? After some confusion, I realize that it was English. At least, I think so... The Amazing Jess Franco has placed the microphones too far away from the actors. As a result, we cannot completely hear what they are saying. He's done this before. But maybe this is Mr. Franco's intention? By not knowing what people are saying, we are thrown into some mystery about what is going on, and are left with more visual clues... Maybe it's just me, but I would have liked to know what was going on! How about a few hints? The basic premise (I refuse to call it a "plot") concerns a young American exotic dancer named Paula (played by Amber Newman) who has a boyfriend who gets her invited to a small island owned by some sleazy rich people. It is somewhere off the coast of Spain. For this visit, a large cash payment is promised to Paula, which the boyfriend gets. He then escapes from the island, only to return later. Why? Pay close attention to the scene where the boyfriend opens Paula's US passport. Though his hand tried to cover it up, you can see the actress' REAL name, Amber Newman, printed below the photo on the bottom of the passport!! Anyway, back to the "story": There are some other sleazy, rich, beautiful characters visiting the island, all with ambiguous motives. We witness sadistic games (are they real or fake?) and unappealing dining scenes. But the food must be good, as a phony French chef prepared it! There is a young woman servant who runs around naked and never speaks. Is she really mute? And do we care? Of course all the women are mostly naked throughout this film... Oh well, we can at least be thankful that the (50+ and overweight) men remain clothed! In addition to the abysmal sound quality, what I have always marveled at about Jess Franco is his amazing ability to film beautiful naked women in such a way that leaves the viewer completely turned off. This film is no exception – I needed fresh air after watching it! <br /><br />In conclusion: I am happy to report that regardless of what Mr. Franco can dream up, I am still attracted to women.
I know Jesse Franco is responsible for a wide variety of films, and I mainly go for his horror films, as lousy as they are at times. I guess it was morbid curiousity that drew me to this, and I wasn't even curious enough to finish it. Maybe it got better towards the end but unless you're into lesbian sex scenes (of which there's plenty) then you may want to take a pass. So what exactly can you say about a movie that features a woman that pees in a bowl on the kitchen counter (while standing up)? Just never you mind what that's used for later, you probably don't want to know. If this sounds intriguing to you, then that's your problem but then again you might just like this movie. I myself, am no prude, I've seen plenty of disgusting movies in my day but at least they were done well, and this isn't. Sometimes too much is just too much. Bleah.
I consider myself a fan of Jess Franco and his trash movies, but nearly every time I see one of them, I just see missed opportunities and plots that don't play out well. This film is, unfortunately, no different. The film certainly had a lot of potential, as Franco has fused the intriguing theme of the classic film 'The Most Dangerous Game' with his usual brand of trashy sleaze, but the plot here gets lost too often, and it takes an eternity for Franco to get round to the main point of the movie. With this being a later Franco film, you might be forgiven for thinking that the director would have got better, but actually I've found that the opposite is true; as this and the terrible 'Killer Barbys' are two of his very worst films. The plot focuses on a stripper and her sleazy boyfriend. The pair is invited to a private island by a rich woman and her lover. However, they soon find that they haven't been invited there for social reasons as they are 'released' on the island so that the wealthy woman and her friends can hunt them down for sport! <br /><br />What attracted me to this film was the front cover and the fact that it was directed by the king of sleaze flicks. You'd think, then, that I'd be pleased that the movie features a plethora of sex scenes and general sleaze; but I'm not. The reason for this is mostly that the sex and sleaze in the film is really boring and most of the time served only in giving me the condition known as 'itchy fast forward finger'. However, my inclination to see everything through to the end ensured that I had to lump it. There was a time when I didn't think girl-on-girl could possibly be boring, but I have since been proved wrong. The only positive I can pluck out the movie really is that the soundtrack is quite catchy, and despite it being silly foreign pop music; actually blends quite well with the sex scenes. I did enjoy the last ten minutes; as that's when the plot finally got going, but it was a case of too little too late and unfortunately, this is a severely lacklustre film. On the whole, I only recommend this film to those who feel they must see all 180+ Franco movies...everyone else should watch Vampyros Lesbos, Faceless or She Killed in Ecstasy instead.
The opening scene of the beach at Fircombe while amusing in itself, unfortunately provides a suitable metaphor for the film - insipid and washed out. It is actually not as corny as most of the others in the Carry On series, but maybe because of that doesn't really deliver much fun. It's a fair bet that the title will appeal to fans of the Benny Hill show but those looking for attractive females in bikinis and miniskirts, while they will see some in this, will probably enjoy some of the other titles in the series, such as "Carry On Abroad" or "Carry On Up the Jungle" more. The emergence of early 1970s feminism is used as a plot device which seems rather self-defeating.
This is definitely one of the weaker of the series of Carry On films. It lacks the usual fun and sparkle and even the cast seem embarrassed by the poor dialogue. By the time this came out, the series was in terminal decline and boy does it show! If you're coming fresh to this series, avoid this one till near the end.
I will admit I didn't pay full attention to everything going on in this film, but to be honest, I don't think it would have mattered. Basically local councillor Sidney Fiddler (Sid James) persuades the incompetent Mayor Frederick Bumble (Kenneth Connor) of Firecombe to hold a beauty contest, to improve the town's image. They face opposition from women's liberationist Augusta Prodworthy (June Whitfield) trying to sabotage the contest, but they do have publicity agent Peter Potter (Bernard Bresslaw) and Palace Hotel owner Connie Philpotts (Joan Sims). Soon enough the young, beautiful wannabe models show up, including Hope Springs (Barbara Windsor), Paula Perkins (Valerie Leon), Dawn Brakes (Goldfinger's Margaret Nolan), Debra (Sally Geeson) and Ida Downs (EastEnders' Wendy Richard). When the girls have cat fights, it does draw away regular residents, but after quite a while of some plodding not that funny innuendos and William (Jack Douglas) having over-active twitches, it does finally reach the competition, and it's just afterwards I couldn't be bothered. Also starring Patsy Rowlands as Mildred Bumble, Peter Butterworth as Admiral, Joan Hickson as Mrs. Dukes, David Lodge as Police inspector, Angela Grant as Miss Bangor, Arnold Ridley as Councillor Pratt, Robin Askwith as Larry, Patricia Franklin as Rosemary, Jimmy Logan as Cecil Gaybody and Dad's Army's Bill Pertwee as Fire brigade chief, Charles Hawtrey had obviously quit the Carry Ons, but where's Kenneth Williams? I suppose seeing Babs and young, beautiful looking Pauline Fowler in bikinis, but for comedy value, this fails miserably, and the overuse of the swanny whistle just gets on your nerves. Pretty poor!
I have seen this movie twice, once a few years ago in college, and again this past weekend. Although I absolutely despised it the first time, I decided to give it another chance. Terrence Malick is clearly a well-respected director, and it seems that the IMDb viewers, at least, think very highly of the film. But, unfortunately, it seems my tastes haven't changed at all.<br /><br />Where to start? For one thing, Linda Manz's narration is horrific. Her voice is so irritating with that horrendous New York accent (please don't try and convince me that Chicagoans talk that way - they don't). She herself admitted to just sitting down and talking about random things, which does not make her a talented actress. She's not even acting! I came on IMDb expecting to see her ripped apart, since her performance is just so utterly laughable, but people actually seemed to like it! She's simply unappealing in every way - I kept hoping Malick would just kill her off.<br /><br />The other actors were fine, but certainly nothing special. Adams was probably the strongest in the cast, but she also had the only decent part. Except the old guy - he was pretty good.<br /><br />Speaking of acting, how could Shepard's character be so ridiculously stupid?? He bought the "brother and sister" act because...uh, why would he buy that? Bill and Abby took every single opportunity to be touchy-feely, as though they didn't realize that their lives depended on acting in a very platonic way. It was just completely unbelievable. And finally, after a considerable amount of time, the Farmer suddenly realizes that, "Oh my god, they're together!" Then he goes after Bill with a gun, but instead seems to trip into Bill's hand and ends up with a mortal stab wound.<br /><br />Speaking of which, the fate of the characters was similarly stupid (and, dare I say, lazy). Of course Bill has to die - could it be more boring than getting shot in a pond by a pack of cops? Abby goes on with her happy life, getting on a train and feeling really content about the way things worked out. And the irksome narrator randomly finds her deadbeat friend and they wander off into the sunset. But it's okay, because Malick never gave me any reason to care about the characters anyway.<br /><br />As for the plot, this film drags along endlessly with no real plot twists or development. I can't believe it's only 94 minutes long - I could have sworn I was sitting in my seat for a solid 3 hours. The sudden locust disaster was like throwing the Bible in my face; I'm totally fine with metaphors and allusions, but this was completely over the top. Clearly the message was, "Don't marry for money or bad things will happen to you." Very original.<br /><br />I understand that "Days of Heaven," like all of Terrence Malick's films, is meant to be a piece of art. And I will certainly agree that the cinematography is simply stunning, and the magic hour shots add a unique aura to the film. But I need more than nice pictures to enjoy a film, and this one just didn't do it for me.
Now don't get me wrong, i love a good film and after watching The Thin Red Line (and loving it) I was eager to track down Terrence Malicks two earlier films, and, having just watched Days of Heaven, my enthusiasm to see Badlands has virtually disappeared.<br /><br />I have noted much rave about the beautiful photography, but i saw this film on a terribly old vhs tape which made it look pretty awful. All i can say is i hope the photography was superb, because it would have been one of the only things of interest in this film. Not since the Replacement Killers have i fallen asleep during a film. This film felt so long (and it wasn't!), the editing was choppy and disjointed, the storyline non-existent, the voice over was an incoherent ramble, the characters weakly developed, and the whole thing was uninvolving. I know that Malick was uncertain of how to do the film. He consequently shot a heck of a lot of footage then spent around two years editing in an attempt to piece it all together. This is very apparent on screen. Everything looks chopped up, every time a scene seemed to gain some momentum (or some character development) it would obtrusively cut to boring scenes of people doing boring things. It was as if someone had tried to cut together a story out of stock footage of people farming. The few good points are the music and the chase scene near the end, but those things are no where near enough to maintain interest. I would normally let a bad film pass by without being too vocal but when it is so highly over-rated something must be said.<br /><br />Maybe a farmer would like it...?
DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE!<br /><br />I had to see why all the critics fawn over this movie. I have seen it and still don't get it. The Plot is thin, very thin. After the movie was over, I still did not know the female lead characters name and one of the two male characters did not even have a name in the credits, he is credited as "the farmer". I did not care about the characters, so I did not care about the movie.<br /><br />The scenery and cinematography were brilliant, but so is the stuff on National Geographic or The Discovery Channel.<br /><br />I can not recommend this movie to anyone.
Lovely music. Beautiful photography, some of scenes are breathtaking and affecting. But the dramatic tension is lost in a film that is so poorly edited it is hard to know what exactly is going on. At times, the dialogue is incomprehensible. Then there is Richard Gere. He's supposed to be a factory worker who gets into trouble and gets work on a farm. We see dozens of farmhands sweaty and dirty in the hot sun. Then we see Gere, looking like he just wandered away from a Calvin Klein ad. Sam Shepard, another glamour guy, is supposed to be terminally ill. But he looks great. Nice try, but it just doesn't work. Brook Adams try hard but she gets lost in the scenery.The real star is the girl.
Before I begin, a "little" correction: IMDb states that Richard Gere is 180 cm tall. Wrong! I passed by him 10 years ago, and he can't be an ant's a** bigger than 165. I'm 183, and he looked like a child next to me.<br /><br />Should have been called "Wheatlands"; an appropriate title to complement Malick's previous (and much better) movie "Badlands". This movie shows that not all directors have as their prime objective to entertain. In fact, some of them have as their main objective to show wheat in all its splendour.<br /><br />The movie is depressing and relatively uninvolving, with the obligatory tragic ending. Nothing more than an average and predictable love triangle drama, with the male two-thirds of the triangle not surviving the movie. Praised for its visual quality; while it does have that realistic 70s feel to it, there are limits to how spellbinding wheat fields can be. You can shoot them with 1500 mm cameras, for all I care, but they are still wheat fields.<br /><br />Gere, who at first seems miscast as some kind of lower-class factory-worker-turned-Wheatfield-worker, is quite solid, while Brooke Adams appears distant and cool for most of the movie, making one wonder just how much she loved either of the two hunks. But for those looking for a movie that displays all the glorious colours of a field of wheat, look no further: you've found your dream!<br /><br />If you're interested in reading my "biographies" of Richard Gere and other Hollywood intellectual heavyweights, contact me by e-mail.
Days of Heaven is one of the most painfully boring and pointless films I have ever seen. In no way, shape, or form would I recommend it to anyone...unless you're trying to put your kids to sleep or, God forbid, give someone an aneurysm. If I could go back in time and do one thing, I would set fire to the reels before they were sent to theaters. Why? Days of Heaven's plot is simple, but extremely vague. Long sequences devoid of dialogue compose much of the film. The characters are too shallow and ridiculously stupid to relate with. The climax of the story does not touch you: by this time your brain has worked so hard to figure out the plot and the array of hidden metaphors that your ability to think is gone. The only things working are your eyes, and unfortunately, your ears, who must listen to the sound of Linda, the little girl in the story, who talks like a man. I am now dumber for seeing this movie. Don't let it happen to you.
I was shocked to read all these wonderful comments about this movie because I hated it. I stuck it out to the end, but it was painful-- especially having to listen to that voice of the child. As Socact-1 remarked, even though the girl claimed to be from Chicago, she didn't have a Chicago accent-- It sounded more like she was trying to imitate a NY accent--but failed at that as well. I was so confused that I was waiting for the punchline. Of all the wonderful actors who could have played that child, why did they select this one? And why force her to talk like that? It wasn't even just the accent, it was the script, the monologue created for her. The reason I even selected this movie was that the plot idea appealed to me-- this era in history, the type of characters that are poor and uneducated, the setting --and the love triangle. As far as I'm concerned it could have and should have been much better. I was just soooo relieved to read that at least one other person felt the same way that I did about this movie.
Quite what the producers of this appalling adaptation were trying to do is impossible to fathom.<br /><br />A group of top quality actors, in the main well cast (with a couple of notable exceptions), who give pretty good performances. Penelope Keith is perfect as Aunt Louise and equally good is Joanna Lumley as Diana. All do well with the scripts they were given.<br /><br />So much for the good. The average would include the sets. Nancherrow is nothing like the house described in the book, although bizarrely the house they use for the Dower House looks remarkably like it. It is clear then that the Dower House is far too big. In the later parts, the writers decided to bring the entire story back to the UK, presumably to save money, although with a little imagination I have no doubt they could have recreated Ceylon.<br /><br />Now to the bad. The screenplay. This is such an appallingly bad adaptation is hard to find words to condemn it. Edward does not die in the battle of Britain but survives, blinded. He makes a brief appearance then commits suicide - why?? Loveday has changed from the young woman totally in love with Gus to a sensible farmer's wife who can give up the love her life with barely a tear (less emotional than Brief Encounter). Gus, a man besotted and passionately in love, is prepared to give up his love without complaint. Walter (Mudge in the book) turns from a shallow unfaithful husband to a devoted family man. Jess is made into a psychologically disturbed young woman who won't speak. Aunt Biddy still has a drink problem but now without any justification. The Dower House is occupied by the army for no obvious reason other than a very short scene with Jess who has a fear of armed soldiers. Whilst Miss Mortimer's breasts are utterly delightful, I could not see how their display on several occasions moved the plot forward. The delightfully named Nettlebed becomes the mundane Dobson. The word limit prevents me from continuing the list.<br /><br />There is a sequel (which I lost all interest in watching after this nonsense) and I wonder if the changes were made to create the follow on story. It is difficult to image that Rosamunde Pilcher would have approved this grotesque perversion of her book; presumably she lost her control when the rights were purchased.
With Knightly and O'Tool as the leads, this film had good possibilities, and with McCallum as the bad guy after Knightly, maybe some tension. But they threw it all away on silly evening frill and then later on with maudlin war remnants. It was of course totally superficial, beautiful English country and seaside or not.The number one mistake was dumping Knightly so early on in the film, when she could easily have played someone a couple of years older, instead of choosing someone ten years older to play the part. They missed all the chances to have great conflict among the cast, and instead stupidly pulled at the easy and low-cost heartstring elements.
Okay, you have:<br /><br />Penelope Keith as Miss Herringbone-Tweed, B.B.E. (Backbone of England.) She's killed off in the first scene - that's right, folks; this show has no backbone!<br /><br />Peter O'Toole as Ol' Colonel Cricket from The First War and now the emblazered Lord of the Manor.<br /><br />Joanna Lumley as the ensweatered Lady of the Manor, 20 years younger than the colonel and 20 years past her own prime but still glamourous (Brit spelling, not mine) enough to have a toy-boy on the side. It's alright, they have Col. Cricket's full knowledge and consent (they guy even comes 'round for Christmas!) Still, she's considerate of the colonel enough to have said toy-boy her own age (what a gal!)<br /><br />David McCallum as said toy-boy, equally as pointlessly glamourous as his squeeze. Pilcher couldn't come up with any cover for him within the story, so she gave him a hush-hush job at the Circus.<br /><br />and finally:<br /><br />Susan Hampshire as Miss Polonia Teacups, Venerable Headmistress of the Venerable Girls' Boarding-School, serving tea in her office with a dash of deep, poignant advice for life in the outside world just before graduation. Her best bit of advice: "I've only been to Nancherrow (the local Stately Home of England) once. I thought it was very beautiful but, somehow, not part of the real world." Well, we can't say they didn't warn us.<br /><br />Ah, Susan - time was, your character would have been running the whole show. They don't write 'em like that any more. Our loss, not yours.<br /><br />So - with a cast and setting like this, you have the re-makings of "Brideshead Revisited," right?<br /><br />Wrong! They took these 1-dimensional supporting roles because they paid so well. After all, acting is one of the oldest temp-jobs there is (YOU name another!)<br /><br />First warning sign: lots and lots of backlighting. They get around it by shooting outdoors - "hey, it's just the sunlight!"<br /><br />Second warning sign: Leading Lady cries a lot. When not crying, her eyes are moist. That's the law of romance novels: Leading Lady is "dewy-eyed."<br /><br />Henceforth, Leading Lady shall be known as L.L.<br /><br />Third warning sign: L.L. actually has stars in her eyes when she's in love. Still, I'll give Emily Mortimer an award just for having to act with that spotlight in her eyes (I wonder . did they use contacts?)<br /><br />And lastly, fourth warning sign: no on-screen female character is "Mrs." She's either "Miss" or "Lady."<br /><br />When all was said and done, I still couldn't tell you who was pursuing whom and why. I couldn't even tell you what was said and done.<br /><br />To sum up: they all live through World War II without anything happening to them at all.<br /><br />OK, at the end, L.L. finds she's lost her parents to the Japanese prison camps and baby sis comes home catatonic. Meanwhile (there's always a "meanwhile,") some young guy L.L. had a crush on (when, I don't know) comes home from some wartime tough spot and is found living on the street by Lady of the Manor (must be some street if SHE's going to find him there.) Both war casualties are whisked away to recover at Nancherrow (SOMEBODY has to be "whisked away" SOMEWHERE in these romance stories!)<br /><br />Great drama.
After three hours in the Cinema hall,the strongest impression garnered was that their is something amiss. What was clear was that the Directors forgot to direct, the actors to act and most importantly the script writer to write. Evervbody shouted without reason and made one cringe. The script moved on and on with lots of avoidable twists and turns ending in now, too familiar Priyadarshan theory of Converging actors at a single point. This theory worked well in Hera-Pheri and Hungama but somehow managed to irritate this time, so did the habit of every actor's incapacity to answer asked of them directly. Simplest questions such as " what is your name would be repeated N times".<br /><br />Finally what was amiss was that the director forgot that his audience have something called intelligence.
I saw this with high expectations. Come on, it is Akshay Kumar, Govinda, and Paresh Rawal, who are all amazing at their comedy, I was really hoping for a laugh riot. Sadly, that is not what I got at all...<br /><br />Unfortunately, nothing in this movie really made me laugh out loud. There were times when I chuckled at one or two things, but nothing really made me laugh. In short, it was badly attempted comedy, and in a way, a bit of a Hera Pheri wannabe.<br /><br />Out of the three main guys, I think Paresh Rawal's role was the most powerful. It wasn't the biggest role, but it certainly stood out more than Govinda or Akshay. Their performances were okay I guess. Nothing special, just mediocre. Though Govinda stole the limelight from Akshay in more than a few scenes. Lara Dutta and Tanushree Dutta also make appearances in this film, and both of them were pretty bad. Lara's role did not move me, or make me laugh, and Tanushree Dutta's character just got on my nerves! The music seems to be the only good thing about Bhagam Bhag. My favourite song is "Tere Bin", followed by "Afreen", which I really liked. "Signal" and the title song "Bhagam Bhag" are also worth a listen.<br /><br />You either will like it or you won't. And judging by the poor comedy and lack of direction, I don't think you will.
I was all in awe of the film looking at the promos and went to watch it FDFS The film was horrible to say the least<br /><br />The first scene is good and till they go to London things are funny but slowly the pace slackens and they is nothing funny about it<br /><br />The Manoj Joshi subplot is funny at places but is unwanted and adds to the boredom<br /><br />The drugs part is funny especially the monologue of Govinda<br /><br />The film goes on and on aimlessly just like a small kid has written it<br /><br />The interval brings a twist in the story but by then i lost hope<br /><br />The second half starts okay but the way things are handled makes a mockery The entire Arbaaz- Jackie angle is half baked Also how come people don't identify them?<br /><br />The climax is quite funny though stupid<br /><br />Priyadarshan is not at all in his elements, from this film he started doing craps and his films got bad and bad Music is good, SIGNAL, TERE BIN stand out and AFREEN too Camera-work is good<br /><br />Akshay Kumar has white in his stubble and looks old but he acts well though this role he has done many times yet thanks to his natural comedy acting things look bearable Govinda looks out of shape, bad and his act except monologue is boring too surprising from Govinda seems too much pressure on him to comeback and Priyan fails to utilize him Paresh is okay in parts but overall just repeat act Manoj Joshi is funny at places Sharat Saxena is okay Shakti Kapoor is great Jackie Shroff looks overweight and acts in his sleep Arbaaz Khan is bad Lara Dutta shrieks to glory but fails to act
If you're a sane person and you have seen films before then you cannot tolerate this piece of idiocity for more than 20 minutes. And if you do stay there longer then it won't be because you'd expect akshay or paresh (not govinda please!) but because you value your money too much and you want at least a short nap on the plush seating in the multiplex in return of the money they robbed you off! Its hard to believe that the director who gave us a cult film like HeraPheri can fall to such levels.. alright he's repetitive but now he's coming out of all third rate storied and expects us to laugh because he's brought in Paresh Rawal and Akshay Kumar...!No sir this ain't going to work now.. especially with this stupid script of yours!Even comedy films can have meaningful scripts (Lage Raho Munnabhai anyone?).<br /><br />Govinda doesn't have much to do so can't comment..Akshay Kumar was boring, Paresh Rawal cracked some of the worst joke possible.Lara Dutta had real scope for acting in this one but she fails miserably...the only high point of the film (possibly) is Tanushree's acting!But she's there only for the first 10 minutes.<br /><br />I don't think this film is worth any more space... (probably not even this much!). So final warning- don't watch it!
Rs.30/- is all I paid as rent for the DVD of the movie and believe me it is not worth it.<br /><br />Bollywood directors think that showing fools is funny? well it is not. Please grow up.<br /><br />Here goes a dialog from the movie -'AGAR TUM LADKEE KO IJJAT DOGE TO LADKEE TUMHE APNI IJJAT DEGI'.<br /><br />Plot is useless, criminals and police alike running after fools. That is it. BHAGAM BHAG.<br /><br />Well it lived the title, I had to run away from it. :) I switched over to Star Movies and watched Home Alone 2 instead, and had a good laugh.
Bhagam Bhag was a waste of money and time big time! I wonder y Govinda did this movie? Govinda...dude...m your big fan, u have to make right decisions now in choosing movie? i wonder he had any role in that movie.Govinda's role could be given to Johnny Lever. Akshay Kumar steals the show here! Akshay...dud u rock! u have created space in everybody's heart all over the world! Lara Dutta, Tansuhree ....u guys deserve better. Paresh Rawal is good at his witty! overall there were few scene where i laughed...otherwise i was just wondering "y the hell did Priyadarshan made such a stupid movie?" Anyways, lets wait and watch upcoming movie.
This was a Hindi movie. Hindi=Horrible. reasons: cheap dialogues, cheap special effects, cheap directing + stretching a 2 hr max movie into 3 hrs. <br /><br />%^^^^^^spoiler...little bit%%%%%%%%<br /><br />Specifically for this movie: 1. dialogues are not funny. they are cheesy, and cheap. Though akshay tried his best acting for which i admire him, comedy was not funny at all! I laughed only 3 times during this movie. 2. first half of the movie was useless to the story of the 2nd half. the 2nd half was the actual story/movie. the first half was time pass/build up. 3. The characters are not developed properly at all. paresh rawal is smart in the first half, an idiot in the 2nd half/rest of the movie. we don't really develop any feelings or caring for akshay, and govinda. their characters are stupid nothing more. they do not seem to struggle in their difficulties. Jokes are funny, but they are not funny in a very serious scene. the characters of the gang and the drug smugglers are cheesy and have been used in last 20 movies. there is nothing new about those characters. Again, they are shown to be stupid for being funny. however, stupid=funny when stupid is the norm throughout the whole movie. the only character that made sense was that of lara dutta with a real story. 4. special effects were crap. at the end, ppl r fallin off the ladder of a fire truck. you notice that they are not actually on ladder in air. secondly, ppl start to fly off when the ladder starts to move around. ppl can't fly off a ladder when its moving...they fall directly to the ground due to something called gravity. 5. the whole movie was dubbed. all the dialogues were recorded after the movie. The actors' lips hardly synced to the dialogues. <br /><br />There are probably many other reasons why this movie was crap, but i can't remember them. look at this masterpiece of crappy Indian movies by non-intelligent, even stupid, director yourself and you will agree with my review. ppl who like Hindi movies, please increase your expectations for decent quality in Hindi movies. <br /><br />Let me say that not all Hindi movies are bad. I like some. i did not like this one. <br /><br />1.5/10 (1.5 for the effort by akshay and lara)
I don't mind sequels; sometimes they're better than the original. However, many times the originals are best left alone....especially when you can't duplicate the cast. One of the big reasons "The Magnificent Seven" was such a hit was the very popular cast.<br /><br />This is hardly the "magnificent seven," when only Yul Brynner returns as one of the members of that famous group in "The Magnificent Seven." With six of the seven guys absent and replaced by much lesser-known actors, this loses its appeal in a hurry. In other words, except for Brynner, these guys have no charisma! This is a like a championship sports team fielding all substitutes except one.<br /><br />Brynner is good, once again: fun to watch, fun to hear with that distinctive deep voice of his, but the story, not just the rest of the crew, is lame. This movie should never have been made. In the original, we cared about the "seven;" in here, we couldn't care less.
I'm not sure this film could ever match the first one, even if it starred the original seven (notwithstanding the fact that four were killed). It just doesn't have the spark and chemistry. All the actors seem tired and look as if they are just going through the motions to get their paychecks.<br /><br />It's interesting how Yul Brynner is "magnificent" in the original film but stiff and unconvincing in this sequel. Yet when he stars in Westworld and Futureworld in the 1970s his character (in the same matching black pants, shirt and hat) evokes the same mystery and presence of the 1960 film's Chris Adams.<br /><br />There's nothing in this 1966 flick to make it worth watching, even on cable.
"Return of the Seven" has a few good action scenes, and Elmer Bernstein's score is as rousing as ever. Nevertheless, it's a boring film, because it simply fails to involve us emotionally. Mcqueen's absence makes a really bad impression, and the fact that his character here is played by a different (little-known) actor is odd - in a bad way. The characters are not developed, so we don't connect with them - and we hardly care when some of them die. This sequel is a passable but poor imitation of the original.
This movie had potential. The script was not bad, and it presented an interesting dark atmosphere with themes of suicide, patricide, regrets, and--as Chris says--"10 years of going nowhere". It's a sharp contrast to the original MAG7 which was bright, humorous, and even the bad guy was lovable.<br /><br />It's a very interesting change of tone, and if they had developed the characters more, maybe I would've liked it.<br /><br />But instead they waste far too much time on gratuitous (and ridiculous) battle scenes, poorly edited together. At one point you see a horse fall, and 5 seconds later you see the same scene again. But not many people would notice that, since there are already 2 dozen horse trips (I'm not exaggerating), and by then we've already dozed off.<br /><br />Which leads me to the title of my review. This film was extensively cut due to animal cruelty, so chances are (if you decide to watch it) you'll get the watered down, kiddie version. There's a bullfight where the matador stabs the bull, and suddenly as the crowd erupts cheering, there's no bull, just the matador in an empty arena. Like wow, maybe the bull was a Jedi, I dunno. More likely, the scene was cut.<br /><br />Later there's a cockfight scene where, in the original version, one of the birds gets horribly mauled before a crowd of cheering Mexicans. This was cut. But we still see enough to get pretty annoyed.<br /><br />But by far the worst scenes are the horse throws. One after the other, you see horses' legs get yanked, sending thousands of pounds of horse onto its head. In one scene, a horse gets thrown, and then while it's squirming on the ground in paralytic convulsions, an explosive goes off right under its neck.<br /><br />This film was made in 1966 when Hollywood was just starting to regulate animal brutality on film. This is probably one of the last flicks where you can see it happen. So if that sort of stuff it floats yer boat, check it out & you'll get a mild thrill. But if not, you'll either be irritated or flat out bored.
The original title always struck me as a rather overblown definition for a bunch of gun-toting saddle-tramps. Still; their screen presence was at least underscored by a top-quality group of actors to support Yul Brynner. Most were movie stars in their own right.<br /><br />However; this first sequel was a pale imitation, with a group now composed of largely B and C list players, who were more mediocre than magnificent. It was a similar set-up. Brynner's 'Chris' had to recruit yet another team of gun-toting saddle-tramps to sort out the Mexican peasants' problems again. Another tyrant was giving them grief.<br /><br />With the originality and freshness of the first movie now spent, this remake had little else to offer. The budget was evidently very limited. This was reflected not only in the cast, but also in the below-par script, which borrowed much from the earlier classic. It was also more than half an hour shorter than John Sturges' original. Yet we still had a reprise of the agonising and moralising that made even the first a little turgid at times. However, here there was no decent acting, action or location work to balance things up. Filmiing was less expansive. It failed to convey the broad sweep of landscapes that were a great part of the original.<br /><br />Generally; it just lacked imagination. The first movie had been a smash-hit, and this pedestrian sequel was evidently put together as quickly and cheaply as possible in order to cynically cash-in on former success. And it shows. There's very much a 'made for TV' feel about it.<br /><br />Not recommended.
B. Kennedy tried to make a sequel by exaggerating and amplifying—a gargantuan leftist western (not as leftist as the G. Kennedy sequel, that came after this one).<br /><br />This is the ugliest film of the two sequels—very ugly looking. It is slapdash. B. Kennedy made it amplifying—but without having the genius for that. Hundreds of peons, hundreds of Mexican _compadres, hundreds of women, a desert, barren landscapes, a storm—the largest scale.<br /><br />Everything in this clumsy sequel, likable only in a weird way, is phony.<br /><br />The movie itself is very ugly looking. Brynner, who made the best part in the first film, doesn't look good at all in this one.<br /><br />Rey plays a priest; he will be a political leader, Quintero, in the next sequel of the franchise. <br /><br />It is true that when you have that many characters you may not need a very interesting storyline; sometimes. E.g., Brynner meets McQueen; then they pick other 'compadres'; or, B. Spencer meets Coburn; etc.. It's fun to see where and how they'll meet the rest of the crew, etc.. But you need at least these several characters. Unfortunately, Burt Kennedy's installment is not very good at that. <br /><br />Return of the Seven (1966) begins with a bullfighting. Vin and Chris meet there; they decide to rescue the third survivor of the original Magnificents—Chico, who belongs to a huge group of 300 peons abducted by the Mexican bandits. We find out the name of Chico's appealing wife—it's Petra. Chris must constitute again a small army—and here we have a Dirty Dozen treat—Chris chooses his men from the convicts. Another member of the commando is a womanizer, who will take good care of the wives left without husbands. The sexual humor is especially displeasing and distasteful in this film. It strives to seem smart and spicy; it is simply boorish and dumb and gross.<br /><br />The choosing of the members of the small army was one of the greatest joys in the McQueen film. Unfortunately, in the first sequel there is the most unmemorable of the three crews assembled under the Magnificent Seven's name.<br /><br />Robert Fuller makes a lousy "Vin";Oates is the smiley womanizer.<br /><br />In this mock—gargantuan attempt, a Mexican revolutionary leader has a gargantuan plan—he kidnaps 300 peons and uses them to build a village and a church in the memory of his lost sons. (Useless to say that this insane Mexican revolutionist doesn't equal Wallach's part in the first film.) B. Kennedy bets exclusively on camp and over—the—top stuff: ugly landscapes, a thunderstorm, gargantuan lightning ,a desert. A huge battle between the emancipated peons and the revolutionary vaqueros. Of course Return of the Seven (1966) completely abandoned the good sense of the McQueen film.<br /><br />What is particularly shocking is that this sequel came quite quickly after the original film—yet, everything changed meantime in the way of making westerns.<br /><br />Both the sequels look weird.
I could have done with the seven gunslingers just staying away. This sequel should never have been done, the first did it all and better. The plot was a turkey, the acting was turkey, the direction, production, camera work... all turkey. Whoever put out this junk should be tarred and feathered. May they not return again!
The great Yul Brynner, who won an 'Oscar', and who has starred blockbusters such as 'The Ten Commandments' among lots of others, ended his remarkable career with cheap backlot movies such as this one, 'Sartana', and such. Regretable, indeed. One should take pity on seeing him making his very best to make this idiotic thing stand. Gone were the days when he was surrounded by Steve McQueen, James Coburn, Charles Bronson, Eli Wallach, in 'The Magnificent Seven', and walked around under the famous Elmer Bernstein soundtrack. It's difficult to make a living out of being an actor, sometimes.
"You know - I've been in some towns where the girls weren't all that pretty. In fact I've been in some towns where they're downright ugly. But it's the first time I've been in a town where there are no girls at all" I am sure the fans of great classic remember this phrase that belongs to Vin... one of the TRULY magnificent seven (from the first movie)...<br /><br />Now I'd want to re-phrase him here. You know - I've seen some movies where the plot isn't all that good. In fact I've seen some movies where the plot is terrible, but that's first time in my life that I saw the film where there isn't any plot at all.<br /><br />OK. Maybe my above statement is little bit over the top, but honestly... how one can call the plot a crap that is going on in this movie. The bad guy (oh, don't ask me to give you his name, because I don't remember and his not even somehow close to Calvera who's name and character is unforgettable...) is trying to build the church in the name of his late sons, that were killed in some battle, and this bad guy is kidnapping poor villagers to force them to build the church...<br /><br />first of all how big must be church to have to force hundreds of villagers to build it... is it some Egyptian pyramid or something? but OK, let's stop here about the plot and absolutely forgettable character of a bad guy and let's say few words about The Seven itself...<br /><br />Yul brynner's good old Chris, always calm, always silent, talking less but talking wise is gone (unfortunately). Oh no... he's as calm as he was... but now, he's calmness are so fake that you just don't buy it. (imagine, he meets a good old friend Chico, who he must rescue after so many years and there is just a few "hi, Hello" and not even handshake (as far as I remember))... honestly, it looks more like meeting of two strangers in some internet chat, rather then meeting of Chris and Chico. That makes "new Chris" more look like robocop or terminator rather then our beloved wise quickgun...<br /><br />I won't stop here talking about other characters. There simply aren't ANY... (imagine if strong actor like Yul Brynner is so much fake forgettable, then what will be other characters look like)...<br /><br />There still are some attempts to give us a background story for each one of them... for example one is women favorite guy, second is a man with dark past who's wife was raped and killed by indians and he since then is killing everyone and everything that is moving... but non of these characters are making any sense or non of them can take your heart.<br /><br />I remember I was a little child and when O'reilly (Charles Bronson's character) died in the first movie I was crying. Here, I just didn't care about each one of them... even if whole of them with all the crew of the film would die, it seems I wouldn't care more...<br /><br />So, please, go and SEE THIS MOVIE... I recommend it, because you won't have the other chance to see something worse then it.
The seven collaborations between director Joseph "von" Sternberg and star Marlene Dietrich were so distinct in look and tone, and so different from anything else going on at the time, they almost seem to constitute a sub-genre of their own. Like any genre, they have their outright masterpieces, as well as their absolute turkeys. Time to send Blonde Venus back to the farm.<br /><br />After the seedily seductive hits The Blue Angel, Morocco and Shanghai Express, in which Miss Dietrich established her screen image as cabaret-singer-cum-prostitute, someone at Paramount decided it was time for Marlene to play a mother. There is nothing wrong with that in itself; as an actress she was up to the part. It's just that nothing else about the format has changed. It's like The Blue Angel plus a kid. Fair enough, the story of a woman who drags her child along on her sleazy escapades is a sound premise for a tragic drama, but that's not the way this is played. Dietrich's journey is played as some kind of adventure, using her wits and accomplices to stay ahead of the law. This is not some cheeky example of pre-code libertarianism – it is just bizarrely distasteful.<br /><br />Although we may be able to accept Marlene is a doting mommy, there is absolutely no way we can buy Sternberg as a director of warmth and poignancy. In spite of this being one of the handful of pictures for which he also took a writing credit, Sternberg simply fails to get the story-arc. The film's emotional payoff is supposed to be the eventual reunion of the family, but even at the beginning this is not established as something worth getting back to. As usual Sternberg's interiors are dressed and shot to look like either brothels or insane asylums. The Faradays' home is actually quite a creepy, dingy environment, and it's a wonder little Johnny wasn't wetting the bed and asking to sleep with the light on.<br /><br />But as anyone familiar with them will know, the point of a Dietrich/Sternberg picture is to make Dietrich look fabulous, and in this respect at least Blonde Venus is a success. Marlene is introduced emerging from a forest pool in a bright, shimmering close-up, and even when she is reduced to rags the camera still loves her. The same cannot be said for the rest of the cast, whom Sternberg tended to view as mobile pieces of scenery. The normally likable Herbert Marshall is here reduced to a moody grouch lurking in the shadows. Even the suave and lively Cary Grant becomes just a boring, background blob, and does not seem nearly interesting enough for Dietrich to run off with.<br /><br />The only standout moments in Blonde Venus are Marlene's song and dance routines, especially the renowned Hot Voodoo number where she parodies her own surreal stage persona by emerging from a gorilla outfit. But even these feel like they have been cut-and-pasted from a different film. Sternberg's fans may hail it as another masterpiece, as they are wont to do, but for the average punter it is a massive disappointment. Audiences of the time did not lap it up as they had her earlier hits, and this heralded the beginning of the end for Marlene's heyday. A year later there would be a new queen at Paramount – Mae West.
Well...there were some great, creamy-smooth facial shots of Marlene, along with her "shocking", gender-bender outfit (plus her not-to-be-missed "transmogrification" from ape into human being); but, overall, the generally unconvincing plot and dated acting -- not to mention the less than engaging tunes coming from Miss Dietrich's "baritone" voice --did little to ensure Blonde Venus a permanent place in my mind's Pantheon of Memorable Films. Cary Grant -- still in the throes of cinematic infancy -- seemed as though he was forever looking to "find himself", while Herbert Marshall was probably never anything BUT Herbert Marshall from the day he was born, until the day he died. Naturally, from an historical point of view, Blonde Venus was fun to watch, so long as one was able to put aside..."great expectations".
The fifth collaboration between Marlene Dietrich and director Josef von Sternberg, BLONDE VENUS is a film that looks great while it's playing but fails to engages the viewer. The plodding storyline of Dietrich being torn between two men, becoming a mammoth cabaret star, and fighting for the custody of her child is jumbled and often feels like bits of three separate films half-baked together. Dietrich is unwisely cast in a rather passive, reactive role for much of the film and her character remains aloof from viewers, while Herbert Marshal is unconvincing as her ill-tempered husband, and Cary Grant is largely wasted as a suave suitor who dashes in and out of the picture. The film does contain some intriguing set pieces (the "Hot Voodoo" number is the high point) that are impressively surrealistic for this era in Hollywood, although it proves to no avail in such a dull, incoherent film.
This was such a terrible film, almost a comedy sketch of a noir film.The budget was low compared to a blockbuster, but still higher than most.But its where they've decided to cut costs that is totally weird.Some actors are at least competent, while others look like they just been dragged off the street.One of them being the lead actor, hes so very bad that i cringed when ever he said anything (he talks through the ENTIRE movie).Then there's the weird costume choices.At the start of the movie all characters are wearing 1930's clothes.They drive a classic car, but the background is a modern day windfarm thats blatantly state of the art.And the costumes and some settings continue to follow this 30's film noir theme.Then BAM in drives a brand new escalade with 24 inch rims....WTF.Same thing again when a guy has a night scope on his rifle, you get a shot down its sight.Hes aiming at a guy with an mp5 and tactical gear on.In a even stranger contrast the locations are brilliant, and seem to have cost more than the rest of the entire film.The camera shots/angles a very good, and show these locations brilliantly in the scenes.The director has a keen eye for a good looking single shot, but no idea how to do much else.<br /><br />People who should be shot for this film▼<br /><br />The writer The director The casting agent The costume designer<br /><br />People who should be tortured to death for their monotone, monotonous nails on chalk board voice.▼<br /><br />Anton Pardoe- the lead actor, writer, producer If you ever seen the movie Hostel, i wish that would happen to this guy, but he doesn't escape.
This is the first time I feel the need to comment on IMDb, to write some sort of a review and, as it so often happens, it's not because of a really excellent film, but a truly appalling one.<br /><br />Take the narrating style the youngest might relate to the Max Payne video game series, a cast of virtually unkonwns (which is not a bad thing in itself), poor dialogs, some dark scenes but not many enough, and make a film out of it. Don't worry about the bad acting, the length (way too long), the lack of immersion (the lead character has to be one of the lest interesting I've seen in a long time - couldn't care less if he died) or the often ridiculous solutions they find to certain problems the lead character finds himself in.<br /><br />I wouldn't have written anything if it hadn't been for another review here, giving it 10 stars. I gave it four, but maybe three is closer to what I feel about it. Not only do I not wish to see it again, but the mere thought of it takes me dangerously close to wanting to kill myself. Oh, and a so called noir film is nothing without a good soundtrack - not the case here. The ending song sounds like it was more suitable to a western movie.<br /><br />It's not romance, it's not action, it's not noir, it's not good. That would be my review if it weren't for the minimum of 10 lines.
Film Noire is a genre that requires a certain level of tact, cleverness, intellect, and imagery. This movie has none of that, though they really tried hard with the imagery.<br /><br />It's the kind of movie that your cousin Marky the dump truck driver, who's always talking about how he's going to make it big in the movies someday, would make.<br /><br />The dialogue is wooden and lifeless. The visuals, while obviously expensive to make, are the work of a director who has tried to be clever and failed miserably due to a severe lack in cerebral ability. The acting ranged from sub-par to just plain bad. The story might have been salvaged by a real writer and director, but I suspect that such people would not have touched it with a barge pole.<br /><br />About 1/4 of the way through, I noticed striking similarities with the scene in Sim0ne where Viktor, desperate to be rid of his actress, makes the world's worst movie. I figured I'd check IMDb to see if a similar effect has occurred in this movie, and to my surprise it has. I'd almost be tempted to give a 2 out of 10 just because it's exposed the pretentious groupies, but I won't. It's that bad.
Imagine Diane from Cheers, the self centered over intellectualizing character, now imagine she was trying to make a film moire movie. This would be it. If you just looked at some of the shots without any sound you would think Hmmm.. this could be a good film. <br /><br />Now if you turn on the sound and listen for anytime at all you quickly realize that the person that made the film knows nothing about films beyond what they read in a book. I was continually thinking is this thing a foreign film, it was that bad.<br /><br />If you don't remember Cheers, then think of Mr. Beans Holiday... remember the DeFoe character that made the horrible movie... well imagine that horrible movie without Mr. Bean saving it. That is what this movie is. I'm not saying anything about what the movie is other than it is an attempt to make a dark moody film about a hit-man going back home.... at least that's about all I could get out of it.
I have seen many movies over the years and I am a big fan of comedies.<br /><br />But this so-called comedy almost reduced me to tears. It is without a doubt the WORST movie I have ever witnessed, the worst.<br /><br />I remember hearing about this movie from a friend, and decided to view it. If I could I could turn back time, I would. I will regret for as long as I live, the time I wasted watching this rubbish.<br /><br />The storyline is so insane; it just makes no-sense at all and leaves you confused. There is a Scottish mob and a German headhunter who are after Pestario 'Pest' Vargas (John Leguizamo), the Scottish mob after $50,000 dollars and the Germans after his head.<br /><br />In trying to escape The Pest, takes the form of many disguises. But in doing this we witness some of the most annoying, worst, mind numbing acting, dialogue and sounds in cinema history. This movie annoyed me so much; by the end I was full of aggression. I was so angry that I had wasted so much time watching a movie that would surely drive depressed people to almost certain suicide. I mean how can there be hope when a movie like this can be given permission to be made?<br /><br />I know people have their own opinions, but the most shocking thing about The Pest is that people actually like it. Why? What is funny about a man that is annoying from the very first second to the last? A man who cannot act? Who has an annoying voice and confusing face?<br /><br />I sat through it thinking the movie would get better, surely it would. It did not. Usually, you want the good guy to survive, but I wanted the Germans or the Scottish mob to find and kill The Pest, anything to put me out of my misery. There is nothing funny, interesting or normal that happens in this movie, its just plain annoying and confusing. The jokes are dead even before they are told. I feel sorry for the cameramen who have no say in how the movie is made, but actually have to film this drivel. I wouldn't be surprised if they are receiving counselling.<br /><br />If you want to remain sane and part of society, my advice is to never watch this movie. I'd rather lock myself in my room for 5 weeks and go without food and water than watch this movie again!<br /><br />I don't think I'll ever hate anything more than this.
Only watched this to see Joe Morton in an early role and honestly wished I hadn't bothered, he can and has since, done much better than this crap. Cannot understand why anyone finds this kind of stupidity funny but each to his own; it is an absolute mess and not funny in the least. No wait, ONE line only was funny, where Mr Kent (Joe) and his family are having dinner with this nut job as he's been invited for dinner (Lord alone knows why). Pest to Mr Kent: You know what it's like dog, you've been there Mrs Kent: Not lately, Joe's expression was funny but that's it one line does not make a great comedy and this tat is so far away from being funny it should be consigned to the nearest trash cart, it's only good enough for that. Joe Morton - glad to see you don't appear in rubbish like this anymore; you are far superior and a great great actor.
...un-funny and un-entertaining, possibly the worst movie I have ever had the misfortune to watch. Think 'Ernest goes to..' humour done even worse. Myself and my girlfriend sat through it just to see if it could be as consistently dire as it seems in the opening sequence... Yes it is. Avoid at all costs.
There is a famous short story about a man who becomes the prey of a safari hunter who has lost interest in hunting anything except humans. Its quite good, and its been done and redone in film and TV many many times. Some are notable, but this urbanized version, that injects the tired old racism themes, just flat out stinks. Leguizamo's slapstick is almost as weak as the unfunny script. Chaplin, this guy isn't. There must be people who find a dwarf who cant stop dancing funny, I mean I suppose it is funny in a pathetic freakish way, but its just not enough to carry a movie. You have the usual Nazi holdover or neo-Nazi whatever the heck we are supposed to think, type villain, who's son of course is gay, German accents...get the picture?
I can't believe that there are people out there who voted 10 for this garbage! Have any of you gained access to a computer in the madhouse where you are undoubtably kept, or is there a special colony where especially crass people are secretly imprisoned that I don't know about?<br /><br />If I was to say what I really thought of this film, none of it would get published.<br /><br />To begin with its 'star' is a no talent idiot who acts like a bad impersonator of Jim Carrey who has hoovered enough angel dust up his nose to resurface the Sahara desert. His name will be a total guarantee that I will not watch a future film with him in it - even if he plays a rock hidden by a crowd.<br /><br />As for the 'plot'. One more crime that we can chalk up to the Nazis is that they were so awful that they can be considered fair game as 'baddies' in tripe like this; mere criminals and murderers would have the audience on their side in a trice.<br /><br />To the people who made this movie - Give up making films and if not then confine yourself to making advertisements, where your efforts will at least have the virtue of being fleeting in duration.<br /><br />Finally, a criticism of IMDB - Why don't you have the facility to vote 'Zero' for a film? Or perhaps not. To express my contempt for this tripe I would then have to vote double zero, or something.
A friend of mine who has a mysterious knack for finding and - horrors! - liking bad movies recommended I watch 'The Pest.' At the time unaware of just how truly pathetic his taste in movies was, I decided to give it a try.<br /><br />Bad mistake.<br /><br />The story, although clearly ripped straight out of any sixth grade English textbook as far as the "manhunter" theme goes, would be amusing under the right conditions - good actors, writer, director, wardrobe, and so on and so on to almost no end. Clearly these factors are absent.<br /><br />'The Pest' is supposed to be funny, I think. I say "think" because I let crack nothing more than a slight smile throughout the whole film. Not a guffaw, not a laugh, not a chuckle, not even a grin. A smile, at best. And that happened so rarely while watching this film I even remember how often I did smile - maybe 3 or 4 times at best.<br /><br />So do yourself an immense favor. Never watch this movie. Avoid at all costs.
Ok, I'm normally pretty open minded about movies. I can normally see a good side to a film which has been totally pandered by others. This is an exception.<br /><br />I won't waste to much energy telling you what happens, but think along the lines of Bill and Ted meets the worst Police Academy movie out of all of them and you won't be far off.<br /><br />The thing that really got me about this film was the stupid purile racism that was evident throughout. The general theme of latino/black guys = cool, white guys = lame is slightly amusing for the first couple of jokes but when the same joke has been reiterated for the 500th time (not an exageration by the way) it gets both tiresome and offensive.<br /><br />I spent months waiting for the laws of Karma to get back at John Leguizamo for this film. I had almost given up hope when the 'My VH1 Awards' were screened live in the UK. What followed was Mr Leguizamo performing the rare feat of a comedian bombing on stage. You'd have to be a complete sadist to laugh at him. Ahem. Ha! Ha! Ha!
What a turd! I like John Leguizamo but man this is bad. I thought spawn was the worst movie he had been in, but I was wrong. I like all types of comedy from stuff like Ace Ventura 2 to american werewolf in London. This is a piece of trash.
I am almost tempted to demand my money back from the video store. This movie plumbs the depths of inanity and is almost completely unwatchable. I NEVER bail out of a film early but this was painful to view. A thorough waste of celluloid. My vote 1/10 (it would have been zero).
The sole reason for someone wanting to see this film would be because of John Leguizamo. I remember the previews, and it looked to be another second rate comedy. But the fact that Mr. Leguizamo starred, tried to redeem it. His name, how known it was at the time or not, tried to sell it.<br /><br />I was pretty disappointed with the performance of Leguizamo. His days on "House of Buggin'" (an "In Living Colour" clone), were his tip-top. There is a fine line between wackiness and idiocy, and we'll just say that Leguizamo crossed it tenfold. He looked like he was trying to be too outrageous and crazy for the camera. As a matter of fact, I'll say that he tried too hard. Madcap humor spilled over into stupidity, and the film was spoiled. I can't say I blamed him, if you were given this opportunity, you'd try as hard if you could, right? Your eagerness cost you dearly though Mr. Leguizamo...<br /><br />The Pest follows in the tradition of any comedy film, and plays the "race card", and more. No group is left out from being poked fun at. Blacks, Latinos, whites, Jews, Koreans, Germans, homosexuals, and the blind are among those singled out. Again here, things get too overboard, and too much tries to get spoofed in too little time. The resolution of the film takes all of five minutes to clear up and move back to normality.<br /><br />When you have a film, and you're going to bypass plot and reality for comedy's sake, just make sure it's funny, or all you have is 90 minutes of senseless film. Which would sum up Leguizamo's "Pest" quite nicely...
Obviously, this one doesn't aim for the brain : the so-called "humour" is based on farting and every cliché about any ethnic genre you can imagine, gays included of course, as long as they are not WASP. And a latino cowrote this ? Besides, John Leguizamo does have talent and charisma, but in such a self-indulgent movie it is a definite waste. What the point in trying to out-Jim Carrey Jim Carrey himself ? "The Pest" of the title could then be this movie, almost as funny as Bergman's finest. Prepare to be annoyed, not amused
This movie is pathetic in every way possible. Bad acting, horrible script (was there one?), terrible editing, lousy cinematography, cheap humor. Just plain horrible.<br /><br />I had seen 'The Wishmaster' a couple weeks before this movie and I thought it was a dead-ringer for worst movie of the year. Then, I saw 'The Pest' and suddenly 'The Wishmaster' didn't seem so bad at all.<br /><br />Bad Bad Bad. Excruciatingly bad.
I was unfortunate enough to see this movie at a friends' house. What an utter waste of time. What an utter and complete piece of crap this movie is! Absolutely nothing is funny in it, from the shower scene to the insulting and degrading portrayal of Germans. There is no plot, the acting made me gag and at the end, I personally wanted to beat John Leguizamo with a stick. I thought John Woo movies were bad.....this movie is officially the worst movie that I have ever seen.
Just to save you the $3, or whatever it costs to rent movies at your local video store, and the anguishing hour-and-however-long-this-movie-is here's a simple plan. Go over to a friend's house, talk them into renting The Pest for you, watch the first 30 seconds or so and then make up some excuse to leave. The opening sequence is really funny, definitely worth watching. Unfortunately, the other 99% of the movie is horrible. Without the shower scene at the beginning this is one of the worst movies of all time.
John Leguizamo must have been insane if he thinks this was a funny movie. I laughed more times watching Remains of the Day. Pathetic plot, unbearable acting. Horrible music -- Michael Sambello IS a "Maniac."
This is a terrible movie, don't waste your money on it. Don't even watch it for free. That's all I have to say.
This was the worst movie I have ever seen. I have to admit I didn't watch it from beginning to end as cleaning the toilet was more entertaining.<br /><br />The 'star' was the most unpleasant character I've ever seen, neither funny nor attractive, in fact, creepy and obnoxious are far too complimentary.<br /><br />It is painful to watch, there is no acting, especially not from the star who behaves as a doped up mentally deficient take off on one of those loud mouthed black actors.<br /><br />As horrible as it is to watch one of those can't shut up black actors, watching a Puerto Rican one is even worse. <br /><br />The name of the movie is descriptive, he is the pest. This movie is a must miss.
Obviously, the comments above that fawn over the movie were made by someone who's on the crew. I don't recall ever seeing a movie that's more insulting to the talented actors or the audience watching. In my 30 years of watching movies, this is the only one I have ever walked out of. Bad humor, bad jokes, bad gags, bad editing, bad plot, etc. <br /><br />Note to producer: It's never funny to hunt humans based on race. Great that you tried to be politically correct by incorporating all races, but you're still hunting humans based on race, and that's sickening.
I actually joined this site simply to write in about this movie. I was sitting in my living room and this movie came on one of the local channels. I made it about an hour through before I simply had enough. Curious to see what the general movie-opinionated public thought of this movie, I looked it up on this site. I was absolutely shocked to see that there were an overwhelming amount of people that thought it was great. I needed to have my say, and here it is: This movie is absolute garbage. It was a chore to sit through. The "jokes" were uninspired rehashes from other, better shows and movies, and Leguizamo's manic portrayal of this obnoxious character should only appeal to age ten and below. That actually may be a stretch even for that age. I'm all for slapstick ridiculousness, but there isn't even the faintest hint of wit or cleverness. I have an idea, lets take bad uninspired obvious jokes and play them at twice the speed. Now that's funny. Ha. Ha.<br /><br />Movies that you should see that take silly humor and add comic timing and originality: The Marx Brothers' A Night at the Opera, Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut,...and the list goes on. Don't lose an hour and a half of your life on unmemorable crap.<br /><br />By the way, I can only assume that the reason that David Bar Katz (the other writer) did VERY little in film after this movie is because he was instantly blacklisted. I'm actually impressed that Leguizamo was able to recover after this mess.
At times when I watch this movie i start to think that the people who made this movie were on drugs.What's wrong with this film I'll tell you Bad Plot,Bad Jokes.Bad Acting and flat-out characters everything just bad.<br /><br />The movie is about Pest Vargas a two-bit scam hustler who is given the chance at $50,000 to survive for 24 hours by a German hunter who kills people for a living.so now Pest must think of ways to out think this hunter before he gets killed.<br /><br />I know what your thinking "What The Hell is this?" a another wannabe Ace Ventura trying to get money really this plot is just dull and confusing at times it changes the story plot and you get lost during the film.<br /><br />As for the funny scenes this film I had a straight face oh yeah I did smile a couple times but nothing laugh-out loud.besides the jokes are corny and seen before it's like watching Ace Ventura meets Dumb and Dumber but bad.<br /><br />As for character development it's dry and flat.You don't learn much about the main character Pest all you know is he's a annoying scam hustler but that's it he doesn't change his image or be a little smart just corny.as for The German hunter all you is that he's crazy and wants to go back to Germany.really you start to wonder why is this guy living on an island if has money to go to Germany.The hunter's son Himmel fares better but not much.He's really a coward and is snake-obsessed for reasons by the end He stands Up to his father and sides with Pest.<br /><br />As for the acting no only were there any memorable perforamces but just over the top.For example John Legizomo is so over the top with performance and dosen't fit in his role he's out of place as for Jeffery Jones who plays the hunter same thing but gives a stereotypical performance as well.as for the rest either just no used enough or just over the top.<br /><br />overall bad comedy that you'll find for $2.00 at K-Mart.
I'd like to start by saying I would not go see this movie again if they were giving out popcorn made of solid gold and the ticket granted me eternal life. This movie was terrible. I can't give this it a truly honest rating because there are no negative stars. The acting is absolutely terrible. This movie is a travesty, based on the classic, "The Most Dangerous Game". If you really want to torture yourself for 90 minutes rent something like Gigli. At least J-Lo provides some better scenery, Ben should pacify the ladies viewing it. I'm not upset about the $7 I paid to see the move, I'd just like the 90 minutes of my life back.<br /><br />"Can you give me my time back!?!" Samuel L. Jackson, Changing Lanes
Like most everyone who views this movie, I did it for the stars Michael Madsen and Dennis Hopper. The two are extremely underrated and sadly, because of that, have to headline a lot of crap. In this film, Hopper plays a guy who accidentally kills a blackmailer and is offered help from the mysterious Madsen.<br /><br />The film actually isn't as terrible as it could have been. I've seen both in much worse, both independently and working together (LAPD, horrible film). The direction was pretty poor and the script needed a few re-writes, but both give the best performance possible with the material offered. Also the ending is pretty strong, so you can tell the story had potential. But when a glowing review of a film is, "It could have been much worse", it doesn't say much for the film itself.<br /><br />All in all, this is one that can easily be skipped if neither of these actors draw you in. But if you're a fan of either or both, give it a watch. They both give strong performances that outshine the obvious flaws of the film. Trust me, there are much worse options out there.
'A comedy of biblical proportions!' Those masters of hyperbole, the movie-tag-line-writers, at it again; the sequel to 2003's Bruce Almighty, raises barely a chuckle. The only thing which raises my interest in this movie above total indifference is its dogmatic Christian undertones. Sorry, make that overtones.<br /><br />Steve Carrel, ignoring Jim Carrey's good sense to decline a role reprisal, plays Evan Baxter, the smug news anchor from Bruce Almighty, who has just been elected to congress. With a new life in Virginia and the stress of moving into a house the size of the Acropolis, the pressure of all the change takes its toll on his family. His wife (Lauren Graham), evidently airlifted in from Stepford, and three sons (Jimmy Bennett, Graham Phillips and Johnny Simmons), who do a stilted job of looking sad to a piano accompaniment, pray for the family to become closer, and almost out of guilt, so does Evan.<br /><br />In what must be the greatest shock of all time, God (Morgan Freeman) actually shows up, but does the whole pesky 'working in mysterious ways' thing all over the place by telling Evan to build a Noah-esquire ark in preparation for a great flood instead of just giving him a pool table or and X-box or something. And in true mischievous deity style, he also forces Evan to grow a beard, long hair and wear worn and tatty robes. Now, back in the day I'm sure razors were hard to come by so the beard was somewhat of an inevitability for Noah, but I'm almost certain it had nothing to do with spirituality. Same with the robes; a massive construction job is surely made all the more difficult by such impractical clothing. Couldn't God have conjured up a pair of steel toed boots and a hard hat for the poor guy? Apparently not.<br /><br />To paraphrase Bill Hicks, I find the idea that God is messing with us somewhat unsettling, and so does Evan who fights him every step of the way. And who wouldn't? God essentially gets him fired, drives away his loved ones, makes him a laughing stock and at one point actually threatens him. Of course God turns out to be right, and the rational, hard working family man who was getting on fine by himself is forced to eat a large slice of bittersweet humble pie. It's almost as if to be left alone by God, Evan had to tolerate and humour him. What kind of message is that? <br /><br />Evan Almighty does have a highly commendable environmental slant, with the underlying theme being that the Federal Government is blind to the damage being done to the world around us. It is also the first film ever to offset its carbon emissions and this should surely be considered a landmark achievement by a Hollywood studio. Were it not for the trite, condescending banner of American Christianity flying high above it, Evan Almighty could have been an inoffensive family movie, with a praiseworthy environmental record. But with its confused religious dogma and relentless 'blind faith' message, it ranks as one of the most repugnant movies of all time.
I hated this film. Simply put, this film is so bad that I almost want to disregard ever watching it and never again mentioning it. But on the other hand, I can't resist a good bashing. And if there's one thing that Evan Almighty does for the audience it is that it brings out the best criticism.<br /><br />The film (a sequel to the much funnier Bruce Almighty) starts out by reintroducing the audience to Evan Baxter, a mere supporting at best character in the original film. That's right. This film shows no Jim Carrey or Jennifer Anisten. Not even a small cameo appearance. You know your film is bad when the guy that agreed to do Ace Venture: When Nature Calls won't even have a short walk-on role. But somehow they manage to keep Morgan Freeman as God. While sitting in the near empty theater bored out of my mind at the lack of comedy I couldn't help but wonder how much money it took to secure Freeman for this film. Then it hit me an hour ago. It's just a throwaway role that takes up all of 20 minutes in the 100 minute film. God just pops up in between scenes to tell Evan to build the ark. Sure I know Morgan Freeman won't look at this film in a year and think it's as good as his roles in The Shawshank Redemption and Million Dollar Baby but it's easy money.<br /><br />Where was I? Oh yes, the plot. Sometimes it's so hard to keep focused on the plot when you realize that you gave more thought thinking about the plot than the writer of the screenplay did. Anyway Evan (Steve Carell) has apparently left his job as a news anchorman for a job as a congressman. Yeah... with no transition in between. He never turns to his wife and says "I think I want to be a congressman." It just happens within the first five minutes and you are forced to deal with the big transition. Well as a congressman he is to partner for a bill proposed by John Goodman's character when suddenly God appears to tell Evan to build an ark. No "Hey, how you doing? How's the weather?" bit. Just "I want you to build an ark." Evidence of bad writing: Evan determines that God is giving him clues to build an ark after noticing a fan hold up a sign saying Genesis 6:14 when he's walking past his son whose watching a televised baseball game.<br /><br />That's basically the plot of Evan Almighty. There are some random supporting cast members that do their best at creating comedy but they don't do very well because they aren't given hardly any screen time. It's just your basic run of the mill family building an ark film. Oh and also there's that obligatory scene where a father has to cancel his hiking plans with his kids and wife because he becomes busy with work. They walk off disappointed but they understand, as do all the other times in film this has happened. Just once would I love to see the youngest kid turn to his father and kick him in the chins and tell him "You're a real bastard for canceling your plans with us. I'm going to turn emo now." There's also that drama that you'd expect from the father with his family when they realize (the wife, actually... the three kids have no problem helping dad build an ark) that he's gone crazy and he claims God wants him to build a big boat. But don't worry. His family decides to stick with him. Oops, I just spoiled the drama.<br /><br />Another problem with this film is that there is hardly any good comedy going on. I know the decision was made to rate have this be a PG film to get a bigger crowd reaction but I don't think I'm in the minority when I think that family humor is more than just guys getting kicked in the nuts and animals crapping. Maybe I'm wrong and that's what quality family humor has been reduced to. And if it is, please bring me more adult comedies so I won't have to sit through anymore of this crap (pun not intended).<br /><br />The ending is extra cheesy. All of a sudden the film takes a dramatic CGI filled turn that makes me shudder to think how it is a terrible waste of CGI. I bet it was expensive too. Finally after all that waiting we are told why God wanted Evan to build an ark. And boy oh boy I hated the reason why. I'll spare the details but it was like watching or reading a murder mystery and having the killer turn out to be the person who walked behind the main character for one second and had no lines.<br /><br />Oh and then there's a nice touch at the very end. The song "Gonna Make You Sweat (Everybody Dance Now)" plays over the credits and we are then subjected to the "dancing" of the cast. I don't get it. They spend 100 minutes unsuccessfully making a comedy and then they wrap it up with a thriller. I swear I haven't been that scared watching Steve Carell dance since ... well never. There you have it folks. Evan Almighty is the scariest film of all time.<br /><br />All in all I thought it was a wasted experience. I'm baffled at all the talented actors (Carell, Freeman and Goodman) appearing in this bore-fest alongside Lauren Graham, the woman from Gilmore Girls that has yet to prove to me that she can act her way out of a paper bag. But most of all I'm surprised at my will power to actually sit through the whole film without walking out.<br /><br />Rating: * out of ****
This was a flick doomed from its conception. The very idea of it was lame - take a minor character from a mediocre PG-13 film, and make a complete non-sequel while changing its tone to a PG-rated family movie. I wasn't the least bit interested. Then came the trailer. Not only did it only confirm that the film would be unfunny and generic, but it also managed to give away the ENTIRE movie; and I'm not exaggerating - every moment, every plot point, every joke is told in the trailer. It's like a 3-minute Cliff's Notes version of the flick. So obviously I wasn't gonna pay to see it, but once it hit DVD, I thought sure, I'll watch it for free. Maybe Steve Carell can save it.<br /><br />Nope.<br /><br />I'm still baffled as to why he signed on for this. He must have owed someone a favor. The jokes were all so flat and obvious, and the director obviously asked him to go for very broad comedy style like the original Bruce Almighty's Jim Carrey. But it's just not funny. The studio obviously tried to cash in on the success of 40-Year-Old Virgin, complete with several of Carell's past co-stars, a reference to the flick on a theater marquee, and another musical closing credits sequence. But even the talented Carrell can't save this. His co-stars don't fare much better, with people like Morgan Freeman, Jonah Hill, and Ed Helms just wasted. Wanda Sykes isn't wasted, she's just a waste in anything she does, and her horrible one-liners and reactions just make you wish people would stop giving her work.<br /><br />The story itself is just predictable and lazy. It pounds you over the head with obvious foreshadowing, like Evan's disregard for the environment (drives a gas-guzzling Humvee, opts to use wood from endangered trees for his house, hates animals,...), and by the end it's just over-the-top preachy on both faith and the environment.<br /><br />Why the movie was made at all is puzzling enough, but I really don't understand how it reportedly became the most expensive comedy ever. The only real effects work is the presence of all the animals, and the integration of those into the scenes is some of the worst and most obvious blue/green-screen work I've ever seen. Maybe the rental of the live animals on set cost a fortune. Who knows. But whatever it was that cost them so much, it didn't translate to quality, that's for sure. But hey, it wasn't the worst film of the year by far. There's still plenty of worse duds like Norbit and Death Proof.
The biggest problem with this film is that it's nothing like Bruce Allmighty. The first film played upon every daydreamer's fantasy of being able to control ones surroundings as one sees fit. Evan's experience though is entirely different. He has none of the control that Jim Carrey fools around with and instead the story centers around the power of belief. Now this would have been fine, since the first film was preaching the same message. The problem is that the sequel does it's preaching at the expense of the comic relief. And to add insult to injury it also throws in politics into the plot. You get the distinct feeling that there is a clear message with this film, and it's main objective is not to make you laugh. To sum things up this movie is failed mixture of Eddie Murhphy's "The Distinguished Gentleman" and Charlton Heston's "The Ten Commandments". I'm not sure if Steve Carrell is at fault here, you get a sense that it's his character that limits his abilities as a comedian, the former news anchor Evan Baxter is not supposed to be funny, he's basically an antagonist made into a protagonist which in this case only adds to the confusion of what this movies message is supposed to be about.
I very much enjoyed Bruce Almighty but the minute i found out that there was going to be a sequel WITHOUT Jim Carey, i knew it was bad. Although Steve Carell was hysterical in the first film ( the babbling scene is one of my favorites) , and, in my opinion , deserves an Emmy for his role in The Office , he is pretty weak in this dull comedy. I'm curious how much work the script writers put, because we could just as well do without the story . But even if we discard the huge plot holes (why did elephants and lions come to aid Evan when the flood only concerned that particular area of Washington) the film is simply ...not funny. I did not laugh once and as far as i remember, a comedy is supposed to make you laugh . Or giggle at least. Not this one.<br /><br />There is small hope however. Evan Almighty has "family" written all over it and maybe a family viewing might be enjoyable,(kids might be entertained by the variety of animals and the silly jokes) , but ,for me, Evan Almighty simply doesn't cut it.<br /><br />I give it a 4/10 and hope that Carell will be more careful when choosing his roles in the feature.
This movie was a failure as a comedy and a film in general. It was a very slow paced movie that seemed to be trying to convey a message, but the message was a cliché, hopeless mess to begin with. This movie falls on shameless environmental point, even making a self-righteous point of destroying an SUV and promoting Animal Planet.<br /><br />In sitting through this, I couldn't help but notice that Steve Carell got no more than a single truly funny line. The only thing that could hypothetically mark this as a comedy is the pitiful attempt to give comic relief lines to Wanda Sykes. Her character gets frequent, cringe-worthy lines where they absolutely do not fit.<br /><br />Far from the brilliance of Bruce Almighty, Evan Almighty blows its whole record-breaking budget on special effect plot devices that turn out to barely advance the plot. The movie spends the first half building up to the construction of Evan's ark, but by the end, we learn that the ark was completely meaningless, and the whole plot was a just a vessel for the stupid gags and even stupider messages. The movie concludes when we learn that the whole ark, flood, and animal gathering was just a weak political statement by none other than God. Yes, God was trying to influence politics.
Well, I watched this film expecting to be rolling in the aisles ... how wrong I was. The film was moderately amusing, at best, and irritating at worst (the slapstick comedy styling of building an ark with archaic tools, laugh ... no I didn't). I'm very disappointed given Steve Carrel was the lead. I've watch the Office US religiously, cracks me up immensely, I thought 40 year old virgin was good ... but Evan 'elp us- why on earth did he accept this script. And, as for Morgan Freeman- he's old enough to know better.<br /><br />So, the idea seemed reasonable, the actors I had every faith in- but the execution was nothing to write home about and the ending, well it seemed as if they had run out of money, or ideas. This for me was one of the most contrived endings I could have imagined. They took a biblical story and dumbed it down to a cautionary tale on localized environmental issues, not even global issues, but a local bill - yawn!<br /><br />In summary, reasonable start, got gradually worse and, for me, it was all washed out by the time the credit's rolled.
Although I'm not too much of a religious person, I still had relatively high hopes for this movie, as it does have the amazing Steve Carrell, and its prequel, Bruce Almighty, was actually a creative and clever Christian-themed comedy. However, Evan Almighty comes nowhere near this originality and freshness that the original has, and can't decide whether it's a comedy or a sentimental movie about faith and family values. If it had chosen one clear path of which of these themes to focus on, it could have lived up to its potential, but instead the result of mixing the two is a film that has a very flat and dry sense of humor, cheesy dialogue and motifs that attempt to give the movie profundity, but instead practically insults the intelligence of the audience, and also a very confused and clouded presentation of the movie's opaque message. It was very obvious that Evan Almighty was very poorly written, there are numerous plot holes and elements in the movie that make absolutely no sense. For example, although a large variety of exotic animals from all over the planet swarm to Evan as he builds the ark for their salvation from the flood, is their inclusion really necessary when the only "flood" that happens in the movie is downtown Washington D.C. and a suburban neighborhood, meaning they are at no risk of being wiped out? The filmmakers it seems lacked the originality to modernize the Bible story whatsoever, and instead just had it take place in a present time without changing anything to the plot, leaving many elements that just don't add up such as this and make it obvious of the idiotic motifs and writing within the movie. Overall, this work is tragic in that the acting talent of Steve Carrell and Wanda Sykes isn't exhibited because of the bland characters they portray, and that it was so poorly written that it skews and clouts many of the film's attempted themes, and makes a mockery of the first film. Finally, Evan Almighty also is an insult to the brilliant actors in it and any halfway-intelligent moviegoer, in that it fails both of them miserably.
If like me, you enjoyed the first film "Bruce Almighty", my advice to you is not to get your hopes up too high; in fact disregard any hope you possess for this movie if you are above the age of 12 and have any film-sense at all.<br /><br />Without giving too much away, the story sees Evan (Bruce's nemesis co-anchor from the first film) move home with his family to the Virginian suburbs to "Change the World" with a new political path. What follows is a rather far-fetched and quite 'silly' storyline, which is obviously set out to target young children as the main target audience. Unlike it's predecessor, Evan Almighty is a family orientated film with the ambiguous genre of 'comedy' tagged upon it's misleading position of 'sequel' to which some would regard a modern-day comedy classic that can be enjoyed by a slightly more mature, upscale audience.<br /><br />Generally speaking, Evan Almighty comprises itself of terrible cinematic values. The acting; omit Steve Carell and Morgan Freeman, was rigid and many of the characters were seemingly thrown in to use up the unnecessarily large budget issued for the production. Additionally, the cast includes acting legend John Goodman who makes an appearance as a heel and is seen just a few times in the movie's entirety; I didn't quite buy the character though and thought the storyline from which he was involved in lacked depth even for a family comedy. Every other character in the movie (especially the wife and kids!) deserve a mention for their acting so cheesy it could fill a king-size Kiev. Be warned though; it is the typical Americanized cheddarfest associated with many mainstream family-orientated films, so I'd advise you defend yourself with the nearest grater in sight.<br /><br />It may seem the movie is worthless thus-far, however, it does have -some- promising aspects. The CGI was outstanding and it was clear that a lot of time went into modelling the Ark and producing water effects and animation of the computer generated animals towards the end. The particles, renders and textures used were aesthetically stellar. Although part of me couldn't help, but think these were undeserving to a movie with such poor ideals and were, in my opinion, 'too good' for this piece of cinema and carried the movie throughout.<br /><br />Overall I view this film as a disaster in terms of continuing what was a franchise with huge potential, but unfortunately it fell short to a bad conclusion in the Almighty series and approaching the end of the film I had set my expectations high for an epic and somehow meaningful finale to make up for the mediocre content I had so far witnessed. This wasn't the case and I was deeply disappointed and confused come the closing credits. As I sat discontent I couldn't help, but think the movie wasn't anywhere near as 'Mighty' as I hoped for. In many ways the film reminded me of a watered down "Night at the Museum" as it showed similar styling and characteristics, but unfortunately was leagues below even that.<br /><br />I give this movie 3 out of 10, as it is watchable, but it's definitely one to be avoided! If you HAVE to see this film, be prepared for disappointment as 'mildly entertained' is the best you could hope to obtain in watching the said production.
The only redeeming feature of this movie is Steve Carell. Like John Wayne, I've never seen Steve Carell stretch too far as an actor, but it doesn't matter. He always plays his one role perfectly.<br /><br />As Marty Feldman once said, comedy must have internal consistency. You can have 4 men on stage sitting in garbage cans, and that's fine, but if you bring a fifth man on stage who isn't in a garbage can, you must then explain to the audience why he is not also in a garbage can.<br /><br />Why doesn't Evan accept his role as a messenger of God? Why, when he does accept it, is he so profoundly embarrassed by it? Why isn't anyone more impressed with the way that animals follow Evan around (they are explained away by the unthinking doubters as "trained animals" possibly from a circus). There's a terrible flood at the end, and most everyone we see hops on the ark and is saved, but surely thousands of people would have been killed by the flood; there is no post-disaster emotional atmosphere at the end. Instead, most of congress has finally seen the light and is about to prosecute the lone incorrigibly bad congressman for "profiteering".<br /><br />I gotta admit: I also liked the fish in the aquarium reacting to the presence of Evan.
This certainly isn't a comedy - I don't know what it was marketed that way. As a serious movie, it lacks any sort of substance. Unless you're fresh out of Sunday school or needing your Noah fix, you'll find yourself bored to tears.<br /><br />The supporting cast took away from what little of the movie was left. Lauren Graham plays an empty housewife with no real depth. His children don't really add anything to the movie. They seem to be around solely to brood about their absent father at the beginning. Jonah Hill plays a creepy internet addict that doesn't come off as humorous. <br /><br />I found the original to be a decent movie. Disappointed that this one didn't really go anywhere.
The only way I can feel good about having handed over these precious minutes of my life is everyday telling someone how awful it was. And even if I say it once a day, every day for the rest of my life I will not fully get my point across. Just dumb.<br /><br />There's a difference in movies like this and movies like Elephant or Fat Guy Goes Nutzoid, two of my other least favorite movies. The latter two were terrible, yes, but that was that. Evan Almighty takes a strong cast and attempts to kill them all. Wanda Sykes, Jonah Hill, John Goodman and Steve Carrell...WHY GOD WHY!? All these people have much better talent, now every time I see any of them I will think of this terrible movie.<br /><br />The only reason I gave this a 2 instead of a 1 was when I saw the movie, there was a mentally challenged elderly woman who thought the barrage of bird poop and getting-hurt-by-tools-while-building jokes were so funny that she didn't stop laughing the entire time, nearly stroking out at several times.
Oh Mr. Carell! How far you've fallen! After a glowing moment in LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, Steve Carell's choice of films is beginning to contrast starkly with what has come since. Although THE 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN was entertaining, it was dwarfed by his "Sunshine" character. Hoping to find something that'd get me to spew popcorn from my nose, I decided to rent EVAN ALMIGHTY and see what possible guffaws might await me here. Not much...<br /><br />Given the trite and clichéd script, the entire film felt forced and unemotional. Poking a bit of fun at flagging family values and the current U.S. administration's take on the environment, Evan Almighty also tries to put a profound biblical moment into humorous terms but fails miserably.<br /><br />Nearly every person on Earth knows the story of Noah and The Ark. God's wrath was sent down with 30 days and nights of rain which flooded the entire planet while Noah, his family, and two of each of His creatures on Earth rode out the wetness in relative comfort via the gopher wood ark. It was a huge moment in human history (if you believe the biblical text).<br /><br />So why would God appear to one man and ask him to build an ark that would only carry the world's animals for a few minutes after a dam break? The simple answer is that He never would. Too much emphasis was given to U.S. government policy and not enough on world events, making Evan Almighty a terribly myopic and Ameri-centric film. Although designed as a comedy, it really never reaches anything approaching belly laughs. Maybe a few grunts and a smile, but little else.<br /><br />John Goodman (CARS) pulls in another forced performance as the despicable Congressman Chuck Long who's only goals are to create development opportunities on protected national land holdings. Even the strong presence of Morgan Freeman (10 ITEMS OF LESS) as God can't help mop up this soaking wet disaster-of-a-film.<br /><br />The only funny moments are between Carell and the animals, especially as Evan learns what animal magnetism is REALLY like. Birds literally flock to him. Sheep herd around him. Lions take pride in being near him (please forgive the puns).<br /><br />The special effects were fun to watch but were brief (with good reason). The "flood" was interesting in that the Ark was obviously guided by His hand and shoved in just the right direction.<br /><br />But other than that you're in for little more than an insult to common sense and intellect.
The creative team behind Evan Almighty really should have been able to make a better film. Starring one of America's favourite funnymen and helmed by Ace Ventura Pet Detective director Tom Shadyac one expects a higher laugh count than the picture provides. Hell even Steve Oedekerk who wrote and directed last years atrocious Barnyard, and attains a writing credit here has done better work. The fact of the matter is that Evan Almighty isn't the worst picture of the Summer season but it might well be the most disappointing. The title and creative team behind the picture suggest this is a sequel of sorts to 2003's Bruce Almighty. That picture had Jim Carrey in the lead, and whilst both Steve Carell and Carrey are both funny guys it's the latter who's better suited to this sort of material. I've heard that Carrey was offered this sequel before anyone else, but the actor declined staing he saw no other places for his character to venture. Thus Shadyac moved over to Carell, who ever since an amusing bit part in the 2003 original has been gunning for stardom. After sleeper hits The 40 Year Old Virgin and Little Miss Sunshine the man has become big business, and so it's him rather than rubber faced Jim who leads this production into theatres. The story see's Evan Baxter (Steve Carell) having been elected as a Congressman and thus he and his troop move house and state so Evan can find success with his job. His wife (Lauren Graham) and three kids have doubts but overall show a supportive side towards Evan, who himself looks at the future with optimistic eyes. However things start to go belly up fairly fast, God (Morgan Freeman) appears to Evan stating a flood is coming and that the politician must build an Ark. Initially ignoring the encounter, Evan is quickly granted some robes a beard that refuses to stay shaved and animals are beginning to appear two by two. Evan then begins to put the boat into construction but the neighbourhood aren't happy and neither is a fellow Politician (John Goodman). Anyone expecting the wacky laughs of some of Tom Shadyac's other films will probably be left completely cold by this movie. Ace Ventura, Liar Liar and hell even Bruce Almighty where largely very funny pictures, but all of those ;projects have one thing in commen and thats Jim Carrey's presence. Shadyac hasn't made a worthwhile film without Carrey at the helm, he's worked with Robin Williams, Eddie Murphy and now Steve Carell, but still only Carrey seems to meld successfully with Shadyac. Carell after the disappointing Box-Office and critical mauling won't be desperate to work with the director again, and with Carrey now doing more serious projects Shadyac had better find a new comic muse fast. Carell himself is fairly dull here, whoever felt that his bit part in the first movie (Despite being quite amusing) deserved a full length feature should be taken out back and shot. I expect after Bruce Almighty's Box-Office draw it was Universal studios themselves, but you know when a quality comedian can't do anything with a character then the scren persona is a dud, and thats exactly the case with Evan Almighty. Lauren Graham isn't any great shakes as Evan's wife nor do any of the children strike the right note. Freeman lets it all hang loose as God in another amusing and chilled performance but he appears to sporadically to carry the piece. Indeed the most consistent source of laughter is Evan's Secretary (Wanda Sykes) and creep co-worker (Jonah Hill), both made me laugh twice as much as any other character in the project. Oedekerk's writing has been worse (Barnyard) but also better (Ace Ventura When Nature Calls) than his work on this production. His script does have genuinely funny moments but it's also full of cloying family moments and the humour is never weird or indeed offensive enough. The film takes tame and easy swipes at religion when it ought to rip the concept to shreds, indeed the opening church sequence in The Simpsons Movie shakes religion harder than Evan Almighty's whole 95 minute run. With a bit more daring and heart this could have been a far better picture. I don't doubt that the core family audience will be mildly entertained by this film, but if they'll be satisfied is a completely different question. There's a line between being watchable and being worthwhile, a line that Evan Almighty is always on the wrong side off. Maybe when you're feeling bored and the films on cable you can afford to watch, but I can think of plenty better ways to spend my time and indeed more importantly my money than tuning into this mediocre comedy.
Evan Almighty continues the mainstream Bruce Almighty franchise, this time with newsman turned freshman Congressman from Buffalo, Evan Baxter (Steve Carell), at it's center. A wholly innocuous (and not even really self-doubting) man, God (Morgan Freeman) decides to enforce some sort of quest upon Baxter, in order to illustrate the importance of... reciprocal kindness, so that Baxter can "change the world" (aka, pay it forward).<br /><br />Think of Evan Almighty as a wholesome derivative of 'Distinguished Gentlemen.' Baxter is not a con, but his colleague, Congressman Long (John Goodman) wants his unquestioned support on a bill that essentially, is harmful to the environment. And well-meaning Baxter, knowing the importance of networking and visibility, is willing to support him. <br /><br />In addition, with the new job comes more responsibility, and Baxter is in a sense, vilified, for not spending enough time with his family. <br /><br />So God, decides to give Evan Baxter some guidance by forcing him to become the modern day Noah. His orders: build an ark. Except, while it may be mildly humorous to see Baxter's transformation to the "weirdo with a beard-o," there doesn't seem to be much point to this whole thing which becomes abundantly clearer when the climax of the film fizzles. (SPOILERS: if none of the population is killed by the "flood", then what was the point of summoning the animals... or at least the ones that obviously weren't from suburban Virginia? or, more importantly, if all Baxter had to realize was that Long's projects faltered in their quality, then why did he have to build an ark?).<br /><br />So, although a comedy like this needn't be a hysterical laugh-riot, it was certainly one made far less enjoyable as it was crammed with far too many homilies (and not all from Morgan Freeman) and action that seemed intended for a film of more epic events.
Was this supposed to be funny? This is one of those films that just doesn't work. The first one, Bruce Almighty with Jim Carey, had some very funny moments. This one had none.<br /><br />Steve Carrell, who was brilliant in Bruce Almighty, fails to deliver here. His performance is very ordinary and he can't carry it off like Carey did.<br /><br />The one good thing about this is I only paid $1.95 to rent it. It's a movie for children...very young children who have only seen about 4 films or so in their short lives.<br /><br />It's interesting to note that where Jim Carey stars in a film and they make a sequel without him that it's usually a huge turkey. Anyone remember Son of Mask? (IMDB Worst 100 films of all time) Avoid this one movie lovers.
EVAN ALMIGHTY (2007) ** Steve Carell, Morgan Freeman, Lauren Graham, Johnny Simmons, Graham Phillips, Jimmy Bennett, John Goodman, Wanda Sykes, John Michael Higgins, Jonah Hill, Molly Shannon, Ed Helms, (Cameo: Jon Stewart as himself) Strained 'sequel' to "BRUCE ALMIGHTY" with Carell's jerk anchorman Evan Baxter leaving TV to begin his stint as a freshman Congressional rep has his hands full when God (Freeman reprising his holy role; Jim Carrey wisely avoided the 'calling') demands he build an ark like Noah and the hilarity ensues (or should have). The Godforsaken sitcom-y script by Steve Oedekerk, Joel Cohen & Alec Sokolow is absolutely lame and only Carell's amiable persona transcends his vain Evan into something resembling a human being. The end result is a lot of bird poop gags and overall bloat (reportedly costing $175 M for the CGI F/X). Sykes steals the show as Evan's sarcastic assistant. Sacrilegiously unfunny. (Dir: Tom Shadyac)
This film is definitely up there with the worst films I've ever seen, probably in my top 5 of worst films. I laughed once and that was when:<br /><br />EVAN: "im building something" Evan's Secretary: "i hope its a barber shop"<br /><br />That was literally the only time i laughed in this 'comedy', awful compared to Bruce almighty which as a big Jim carrey fan...wasn't even that great! <br /><br />This movie lacked the humour of having God's powers and was more about family bonding. Id class it solely as a family movie, definitely not a family comedy. <br /><br />Seeing a bird poo on someone's shirt is not hilarious, neither is a beard that grows back instant!<br /><br />I didn't even think the special effects were great, the animals looked really stuck on, it was like watching a film which hadn't been 'glued' together properly<br /><br />2/10 film - avoid!
I want to say that I went to this movie with my expectations way too high. I thought it was going to be funny because it's the sequel to Bruce Almighty which was really funny and it stars Steve Carell who is an excellent comedic actor but boy, did it sucked.<br /><br />The movie is advertised as a sequel but it really has nothing to do with the original since the only people reprising their roles are Morgan Freeman and Steve Carell but Steve's character is completely different, he is no longer the jerk he was in the first one here he is a nice guy. The story is different and the actors are different and it's not funny.<br /><br />All the actors involved(Steve Carell, Morgan Freeman, Wanda Sykes, John Goodman, Ed Helms and even Jon Stewart in a very crappy cameo) have talent but none of them seems to use it and it looks that there in the movie just for the money.<br /><br />Now the plot is obviously shaped after Noah's story but there are so many wrong things with it, I don't know where to start. I guess the big problem is that in the everyone around Evan thinks that he is crazy despite all the things that are happening to him, he grows a huge white beard in two days, he gets help from animals from all around the world, he builds a giant arc in a few weeks, in real life people wouldn't be mocking these guy after that, they would be saying he is the new Noah.<br /><br />Also the special effects are good but what the hell is the greatest movie flood ever filmed doing in Evan Almighty? Did they really had to waste such good special effects as filler for this crappy movie.<br /><br />Jim Carrey seems to be a smart guy since he has stayed away of three of the worst sequels ever made, Son of the Mask, Dumb and Dumbered and now Evan Almighty.<br /><br />This was a giant disappointment and Tom Shyadac should be ashamed of himself.
If you're not a fan of the 80s, and you need to be a particularly strong fan, or of one of the two leads, there's nothing about this film to recommend.<br /><br />The story, as others have said, is dull, almost an afterthought to the basic notion of the characters and the idea of making a slightly manic comedy. I watched it to about an hour, hoping it would turn a corner, a twist would occur or it would somehow kick into gear but no... It's not unwatchable, it's just dull. It goes by. It goes by with bits of running around madly, lingering shots of feet at strange angles, bits of shouting madly but I didn't get a real feel of energy or manic fun, it just came across as forced. Needless to say also, there was nothing to laugh at particularly. A bit of mild amusement here or there but nothing more.<br /><br />Don't be fooled by the mention of feminism by the way, all it means in this case is that almost all the principal cast is female. If anything, it's actually cloying... Two female leads, fine, excellent, the drug dealer is female, okay, their landlord is a landlady, alright, their friends are female, okay, the only other person we particularly see who lives in the same building, oh, female... I wasn't on the lookout for that but after a while it felt like a conscious decision had been made to have the film cast that way and it felt, again, a bit forced and cloying.<br /><br />On the plus-side, if you are a fan of 80s fashions and culture, there is plenty to see and if you're a fan of Helen Slater, she's fun and enjoyable to watch. There's also some screen-time for Carol Kane, which is great, but not enough...<br /><br />Overall: 3/10. If you're a huge fan of the 80s, Helen Slater and Carol Kane, you could maybe stretch it to a 5 because of them, although there's still the fact it's a comedy which isn't funny, which hinders it substantially. If you're not a fan of those things, you might as well make it 0 because there's nothing much else to enjoy here.
I gave this film a 2 mostly because it does actually have an ok cast but the film itself is just so (insert unusually rude word beginning with the sixth letter of the alphabet)-ing pointless that I felt bad that at the time I voted for it its lowest vote was a three.<br /><br />Very predictable plot....two nare-do-well musicians have no money and plenty of money problems. However when a friend leaves a bag full of money (that belongs to drug dealers) in their care they of course spend it and then the "fun" begins.<br /><br />Not an original idea in this whole film.
This film was embarrassing in its clichés, poor acting and generally low production values. It starts out badly with the long haired 3 star general calling the hero, Masters, "major" when he is obviously wearing the silver oak leaves of lieutenant colonel. But what was most distressing was the crew of soldiers on Neptune Atoll. How out of touch with any kind of reality can you get? They were all experts on flying a 747 and the scenes of the soldiers digging the ditch were beyond comical.<br /><br />WARNING: THIS FILM IS DANGEROUS TO YOUR INTELLECTUAL HEALTH! WATCH AT YOUR OWN PERIL!
I should have gone without seeing the movie after reading the review here. I saw the whole movie by fast forwarding and ended in 25 minutes. though its a low budget movie it could have been made better. <br /><br />The movie starts more like a thriller and in few minutes it tells you that you should switch off immediately. And why was the movie named "crash landing" when it was landed so well in such a bad climate. <br /><br />Without any acting, all the characters where just moving or doing like kids.<br /><br />And should not forget to comment on the joker - the main hijacker who would have been more suitable if this movie was a full time comedy.
This movie is so bad it's worth seeing. This movie will have viewers lapsing in and out of a coma within the first 10 minutes. It all started when a bunch of writers came up with the idea of a jetliner being hijacked and a passenger who can fly a small plane has to land the beast. However, they know it's been done before many times so to make it different, let's do it very badly! Major Masters has his name pirated from 80's movie "To Live and Die in L.A." from character played by Willem Dafoe. That saved 10 minutes in writing and production time. The plane is supposed to be a Boieng 747. That plane has a unique silhouette, even in the dark with its characteristic forward hump on the top. Just ask the late Ronald Reagan who lamented this point when them Ruskies shot down KAL 007 in the eighties. Yet when the plane takes off it's clearly not a 747 looks more like a 767. This well researched film also forgets to include the engineer's seat in the cockpit and replaces it with two comfy rumble seats. No need for a flight engineer on this complex plane! Heroine is played by perpetually pouting Gloria Lynn Berg. After tying up the hijacker, despite several bus-loads of people on this jumbo jet, nobody bothers to watch this guy who almost killed all of them. He's just forced to amuse himself.<br /><br />The crippled plane, leaking fuel from all the hijacking shenanigans won't make it back to Hawaii so Masters will try to land at an Air Force base located on an island. Only the runway's 300 feet too short! Four army guys with little Bobcats (the kind you rent to take all day moving a load of horse manure to the back of your barn), are gonna clear a 200 foot wide and 300 foot long swath through the jungle in 20 minutes! No need for a bulldozer here! Where can you find guys like this? These guys could make a highway between Los Angeles and Las Vegas in 3 hours equipped only with tablespoons, a compass and a duck!<br /><br />After that hellish obstacle is fixed, Masters will try to land the plane as heroine pouts away. Hijacker giggles to himself and unsupervised gets free to make more trouble. He is finally subdued in a most retarded manner that I can't tell you. But, can YOU say Moby Dick?<br /><br />There are so many retarded scenes in this movie. The wounded captain is parked prone on the bar on the plane while Masters, who supposedly can barely fly, puts the plane into 60 degree banks and 20,000 feet per minute drops. The pilot should be french kissing the ceiling during these challenging stunts, but doesn't budge an inch. <br /><br />I think that if they had picked different actors to play the parts, this moving could have been way better. If we need a pouting heroine in the movie, why not pick better known actress Bernadette Peters who seems to be perpetually pouting as well? Besides, she can sing and the busty well aging Peters could feature some gratuitous cleavage shots. Now with the singing angle this could be a Hijacking, Let's Land the Plane Movie MUSICAL! Cast Luciano Pavarotti as the Pilot. They can sing a duet in the cockpit prior to the hijacking and there's no way that tubby tenor would fly up to the ceiling as Masters works his magic on that big bird. In keeping with the musical theme, Masters could then be played by Andrei Bocelli, that Peters Can sing with as he lands the plane. Not only is he totally blind but only knows a couple of words of English. Now that's a plot! Think of the edge of your seat conversation between Masters (Bocelli) and the Air Traffic Controller:<br /><br />ATC: "Sir, please throttle back to 180, flaps set to 25 degrees. maintain 230 heading"<br /><br />Bocelli: "What?"<br /><br />ATC: "Sir, arm spoilers now, confirm brake pressure at 250 psi. Maintain descent at 500 fpm"<br /><br />Bocelli: "What?"<br /><br />The hijacker could have been played by the late great Rodney Dangerfield who can spew a plethora of his one liners as he sits tied up and unguarded: "I get no respect. My wife is into group sex. Yeah, she screwed me in front of the judge and jury!" Get the idea?<br /><br />MISSED OPPORTUNITIES The movie has your standard crying and moaning passengers that are never developed. Woody Allen could have been at the back offering one of his neurotic monologues: "She said I was great in bed. I told her I practice myself a lot..." Now THIS is a movie!<br /><br />Also, according to similar movie "Executive Decision" where lazy eyed Steven Segal is mercifully killed at the start giving that movie a chance, 747's have massive attics up top. The plane was introduced in 1969 so who knows what has accumulated in almost 40 years up there? My uncle has old clothes, a sled, magazines and all sorts of stuff in his. WOuldn't it have been cool if Masters opened the trap door and saw a teary eyed Chevy Chase in a woman's housecoat watching old Super 8 movies of his childhood? Just a recommendation.<br /><br />So give it a chance, and as u lapse in and out of consciousness imagine how great this movie could have been if I had my hand in it...
Aghhhhhh! What a disappointment. A perfectly good hunk like Antonio Sabato Jr and nothing but embarrassing drivel coming out of his mouth. I cringed at 95% of the Dialog! It would have been better to have made the character a mute! How Antonio Sabato and Michael Pare could speak those lines without losing control of some bodily function is beyond me! If Michale Pare's character prefaced or ended just one more sentence with the word 'Men' I think I would have thrown the iron through the TV set (I love to multitask - especially to get through bad movies). Must have been a lean year for both of them to sign up for this movie. Washing cars for a living would probably look pretty good to them by now. And the bad guy......if he was so bad why didn't he just shoot all those rich College kids instead of promising toilet breaks. Even the title was a misnomer. A 'Crash Landing' means the plane actually crashes and doesn't just land without even a token fire or anyone being injured. Instead of landing safely the plane should have crashed and burned just like the script.<br /><br />THIS MOVIE IS A STINKER !
Hilarious!! I would have sworn Ed Wood wrote this. Terrible. I loved every frame. Bad movie aficionado's, this is your trophy! I will watch it again. Words cannot explain how entertaining this movie is. Pare's career must have dipped low, but I really think he's heading in the Leslie Nielson direction. He was perfect for this. Terrible, just terrible!! You'll love it!! Get some friends, lots of beer, and you'll have the time of your life. It's an MST3000 party, waiting to happen. Enjoy!! It is worth the rental!! You like the "Colombo type" cop and the comic relief coroner. The bad guy will have you on the floor laughing. He's also in another Pare movie, Komodo vs Cobra, and he's just as good there. I don't know what the budget was but they'll get it back because this film is destined to be the best unintended comedy of the year.
The idea that anyone could of concocted such a trite, cliché, yet indeliberately comical movie is shocking. The final 20 minutes of this film are comical glory; with six men digging enough trench in 10 minutes to light the runway with gasoline for a 747, while a supposed 'major' perfectly lands the 747 in a 110mph crosswind - leading one to question the misnomer of calling this movie CRASH LANDING...<br /><br />Some of the dialogue was equivalent to rubbing sandpaper in my ears, while the only aspect that saved this movie for a 1 was the plethora of attractive women filling the screen a large portion of the time. Not exactly a consolidation for this pathetic excuse of a movie, but my mute button finally received a workout.<br /><br />View at your own risk! 2 out of 10
I can't believe that someone actually paid to have this film made. Stupid, unrealistic, and stereotypical. Right from the take off of the massive 747 the pilot pulled the throttles back to increase speed. then you have 5 armed persons with semi to fully automatic weapons firing without so much as one bullet breaching the walls of the pressurized cabin at 38,000 feet. Then once below in the belly of the plane a stray bullet hits a FUEL line and we see the fuel leaking from the side of the plane. The acting was just horrid and forced. There just didn't seem to be any direction. I have seen some pretty horrid B movies in my lifetime but with the names that were in this film I was extremely disappointed.
My suggestion..... This movie was really intended to be a "comedy",wasn't it?!!!! If not, the producers, directors, actors & "hair stylists" should really choose another career! Now, the guidelines of my submission requires a minimum of "10 lines". How in the world can I add any more to this? Hmm...Let me see. Oh yes, the beginning of the movie was quite hilarious with the "crash landing" scene. Too bad that the plane didn't hit the tanker truck & a bunch of "martians" would have scrambled out from the wreckage (obviously hiding) and decided to take over the "world" planet and make a better movie. Now, that would have been a great beginning!<br /><br />T
You have to see this. I could not stop laughing about the stupidities I saw in this movie even late after the event. There is maybe a million of individual mistakes and stupidities in this movie. The acting is bad. The story is so predictable and flat. The effects are like 50 years old. The supposed thriller is nowhere. You will not enjoy the movie, but you will laugh at it and enjoy laughing at it a long time after it. We had a great time AFTER the movie. Truly. Me and my friend spent entire 40mins long bus trip home chatting about this movie like we have seen next Oscar winner. Sadly we were talking about all those bad things we had just seen.
I have seen three other movies that are worse than this one, "Plan 9 from Outerspace", "Side Hackers" and the dreaded "Blair Witch Project" There are so many technical errors in this movie that regardless of a decent plot the movie just isn't believable.<br /><br />Let's start with an AMTRAK train with no skirts or handrails between cars. The killer walks up behind his victim as she moves from car to car and just pushes her off the train.<br /><br />In one scene a killer sneaks into a woman's apartment. He wants to sneak up on the woman to kill her, so what does he do? He turns up her stereo! If I heard my stereo suddenly get louder I'd be concerned. He kills the women by throwing an electric hair curler into the tub. I was amazed to see that an electric hair curler with a five foot cord could be tossed ten feet and remain plugged in. Plus the apartment looked modern enough to have ground fault outlets in the bathroom and the victim was still electrocuted.<br /><br />The Boeing 747 is one of the most well known commercial airliners on the planet so this part really amazed me. First the cockpit was not even close to a real 747 and second it wasn't on the top deck of the plane. I watched in utter amazement as the pilot and co-pilot (Where was the flight engineer?) walked right past the spiral staircase and headed forward toward's the nose of the airplane.<br /><br />I was also amazed that bullets wouldn't penetrate an aluminum serving cart (good thing for our hero), or bathroom doors, but would penetrate the ceiling causing a fuel leak that exited through a small hole in the fuselage. Huh? Watching three guys lengthen a runway by 100 yards in less than a week was pretty amazing as well.<br /><br />I didn't check, was this a movie of the week or something? It was terrible.
Maybe this movie was actually intended to be satire like 'Airplane' but it failed at that as miserably as it failed at being a 'thriller'. I don't understand why they couldn't have paid an actual pilot a couple hundred bucks for a little technical advice. Hell, I would have done it for free! This magical aircraft managed to morph from a 757 to a 767 to a 747 in an hour and the power levers worked backward. And the dialog sounds like it came out the back end of a kid's game of 'telephone' where everyone spoke different languages. I actually rewound the TIVO and watched some of it a second time to see if it was really as bad as I thought at first. It was.
I would have given this film a one star vote had it not been for the laughs I got out of it. Some of the dialogs were just plain so lame that they make you laugh!! How could some one have actually talked like this. Not to mention the fact that the bodyguard Majors (Antonio Sabato Jr.) flew a 747 like a pro and Michael Pare's team of whiners were able to dig a trench filled with gasoline and blow up a huge boulder in the nick of time. Did anyone notice the lame tribute to "Fantasy Island" with the guy saying "Boss, the plane!!" to Michael Pare just as the 747 comes in sight.<br /><br />The only saving grace were the cute girls and even cuter female hijackers. Not to mention that the main hijacker deserved to die the lame death that he did for being such a joker!! Imagine escaping from being tied up just to shot by a "crossbow". Hello.<br /><br />The poor pilot probably died in the plane while everyone was eating steak and having rum!! Just for laughs, they should make a sequel to show us how they all spend the night in the midst of a Category 3 hurricane on Neptune Atoll. Did I hear Michael Pare calling it the "best honeymoon resort in the Pacific." Now that would make an interesting movie!!
The plane is a 747 Jumbo. The cockpit is located on the upper deck on a 747. In the movie the pilots do not climb the stairs in the 1st Class cabin to reach the cockpit. They walk to the front of the 1st Class cabin and through doors into the cockpit. What a gaff !!! The front of the first class cabin has a cloakroom for jackets and a TV screen. Beyond that is the radar dome. Before takeoff a 747 is shown to commence the taxi to the runway. On take-off the plane is shown to have only two engines. Areal 747 has four engines. Who was in charge of continuity on this movie ? During the early part of the flight the front of the plane suddenly includes toilets - another farcical gaff !!! After that the front of the plane becomes the rear and vice-versa. At this point I stopped watching. Absolute rubbish!!!
As a massive fan of DM, it goes without saying that I have seen this film numerous times. However, I watch it purely for the concert footage...the rest of the film is, um, pretty dreadful, sad to say.<br /><br />Famed rock music film director DA Pennebaker followed Mode around on their late 80s Music For The Masses tour, which promoted the superb album of the same name. The title 101 derives mostly from the fact that the concert material included is from the 101st and final concert of the tour at the Pasadena Bowl, but is also a reference to the movie being a 'beginners course' on the band and how it ticks ie Depeche Mode 101. Amidst footage of the quartet playing live and exploring America is a second story thread covering a group of DM fans who've won a competition to meet the band, go on the tour in their own coach bus and attend the finale gig.<br /><br />Now, as I said above, the concert footage is great. Mode are here on top of their form as stadium rock gods, which was a somewhat unusual achievement for an electrorock band back in the late 80s. Though the film catches the band before they recorded their 1990 masterpiece "Violator", there are still countless excellent tracks seen and heard here eg Behind The Wheel, the majestic Never Let Me Down Again, Everything Counts, Just Can't Get Enough from the Vince Clarke years, Shake The Disease and many more.<br /><br />When Mode are onstage, they are brilliant. When they are not, they're, well, very boring. Nothing even vaguely of interest happens to the lads as they check out the US in the dying days of the Reagan administration. As an example, the probable "highlight" of the material is a visit to a country music store to buy cassettes. Not exactly thrilling stuff. I know all bands don't have to be wild and reckless idiots, but these guys make the Mormon Tabernacle Choir look like Rammstein.<br /><br />The only real excitement comes from various clips centring on the band's lead singer Dave Gahan. Gahan comes across in 101 as being mildly psychotic, talking about a violent power inside himself he can't control, recalling a bizarre rage attack involving a taxi driver and so on. There's one point in the film where he throws a prima donna tantrum at some poor guy backstage - truly embarrassing. The man clearly had issues back then, which thankfully have been resolved. Songwriter Martin Gore and keyboardist Andy Fletcher are presented as very articulate, clearly massively talented, but also utterly colourless men; while the somewhat enigmatic fourth member Alan Wilder is the only one of the quartet who pulls off the rock star persona with any sort of aplomb.<br /><br />And as for the 'fan tour' thread, well it's unwatchable dross. Let's not kid ourselves. Maybe it's just because it's all so *very* late 80s, but the gaggle of young devotees do little for me but raise a feeling of irritation. They are, to a person, singularly shallow and vapid people, whose antics are banal when they aren't hide-your-face cringeworthy. Let me reiterate....*nothing* happens in the footage that isn't onstage that is of any interest. Nothing. Endless scenes of kids spraying their hair, arguing pointlessly, changing their clothes, getting lost in cities on the way to gigs and finding their partners in bed with another competition winner makes me wonder just one thing - if Cure fans were this mind bendingly dull back in '88/89. The love the youngsters have for the band is something I can definitely relate to, and is at times infectiously joyous, but if what we see was the most interesting stuff out of what was filmed of them, then I'd hate to see the outtakes.<br /><br />But the music is all that matters, and in this regard 101 excels. The Pasadena concert, one of their all time best gigs, makes the film worth seeing. The recent DVD edition of the movie comes with a bonus disc containing what remains of the unedited concert footage (a good 80% of the performance), and thus makes the DVD an absolute must for fans. The audio commentary by the band (minus Wilder, who left Mode in the mid-90s) on the first disc is also, oddly, far more interesting than the film itself.<br /><br />As a document of the boys from Basildon during their amphitheatre idol period, Depeche Mode 101 is invaluable. But if you're looking for excitement, you're better off getting the accompanying double live album (now available in Super Audio CD format).
[WARNING: Some spoilers included, though it is a documentary.]<br /><br />I bought this documentary because I like the work of the directors D.A. Pennebaker and Chris Hegedus, which includes MOON OVER Broadway, STARTUP.COM and THE WAR ROOM., all terrific documentaries I would highly recommend. Watching this ultimately boring and uninsightful account from Depeche Mode's 1988 tour, I realized they had nothing to work with when they went to edit this film together. The band members were certainly less than forthcoming on-camera; hence, undoubtedly, the contest to add fans on a one-week bus trip was added to liven things up a bit. Really, now, I mean, c'mon. Who thought a concert film of a synth-pop band with three keyboardists and a singer would be a good idea? Granted, I like Depeche Mode's music, and Martin Gore writes good melodies, but seeing them in concert never seemed like it would be interesting, and this movie is proof positive. Unless you are a HUGE fan of Depeche Mode, stay away from this documentary....it's a complete waste of time.
This is without a doubt the WORST sequel I have ever seen, & I've seen plenty of them to make that conclusion. The plot is simply ridiculous. I can catch a ball & run around a field, too. Why can't I play in the Superbowl? Yes I know this movie was intended for children, but there are just some plots that even children can realize are totally dumb & unrealistic. The first Air Bud movie was pretty good, but this one was a total crash. Disney is loosing it. If I controlled who won the Razzie Awards, I would give this one a couple. Have a nice day! =)
"Air Bud 2: Golden Receiver" is a very bad rehearse in making a sequel in the course of a single year. The first film was cute, cuddly and charming. The idea of a dog playing on a basketball team is quite far fetched, but he defiantly pulled off enough stunts to save the concept. Even the human story had some explanation to it. Josh's father was killed in a plane crash, so he is sad. And the audience becomes emotionally involved as well.<br /><br />Now for the poorly made sequel. It is terrible. This is the worst kind of bad sequel, the kind that changes the good ideas and turns them into bad ones. The kind that changes the main plot piece in one way, this time, the K-9 plays football instead of basketball. No madder how much time is spent in mind over matter, benefit of a doubt, walk into with an open mind of an attitude you have with a film like this, there is no positive thinking when it comes to down right bad film making.<br /><br />The sequel stars Kevin Zegers as Josh, who is in eight grade. He lives with his mother and little sister in a Seattle suburb. In the first film the human story involved him losing his father in a plane accident, which the audience can relate to, most people know what it feels like to lose a close loved one. <br /><br />In this movie, the emotional plot is a bit more complicated. Josh's mother is dating once again. He and Buddy, his dog who can play basketball, don't like this at all. Why? If I were in his shoes I would love to have an extra parent in my life, especially one this nice. The man's name is Patrick Sullivan, and Josh's mother, Jackie, met him became he is a local veterinarian for Buddy.<br /><br />The animal story is too simple. Josh is influenced by his best friend to try out for the school football team, the Timber Wolves. The team itself looks like something from America's Funniest Home Videos, the can even catch a ball without tripping or plummeting into each other. So when Bud shows up one day, he proves he can play as a receiver for them, and is no doubt the team's best player.<br /><br />Buddy's extremely cute in his football costume. Oh, he is enough to melt the heart. The dog is the best in this movie as well. Too bad there wasn't enough stunts done by him to draw attention away from the fact that no one ever asks any questions about a dog playing off a school football team.<br /><br />There is a very bad sub-plot about Russian circus workers that like stealing amazing animals, of course they try to catch Buddy. But their dim minds are ruled over by the animals and end up doing what looks like a "Home Alone" scenario to them.<br /><br />"Air Bud 2: Golden Receiver" is much more goofy than the first too. The Russian kidnappers add a bunch of lamebrain slapstick that, I have to admit made me laugh, at the stupidity of it all. There are way too many sequences that detail a screwball nature and too few scenes that depict the true reason why people will see this movie-to see a dog play football.<br /><br />The performances were also quite the embarrassment. I liked Gregory Harrison and Robert Costanzo's presentations, but the overall acting grade would be equivalent to a D+. Kevin Zegers and Cynthia Stevenson were absolutely pathetic.<br /><br />There were a few hilarious moments near the end by a couple of football announcers, but that isn't even worth mentioning. Will children enjoy this movie? Perhaps, but even they will grow weary when the heart felt discussions become too long and deep. They will most certainly complain that the dog didn't get enough screen time in, and loath over the fast changing script, and protest against the boring performances, and argue that this movie is trash in comparison the origami al "Air Bud," as I did.<br /><br />I suppose that they will think the dog is adorable.
It is amazing what you can see if you wake at 2 am and turn on the telly. I didn't know they showed films like this. I immediately thought of Roger Corman, who reused locations for movies or used other films locations for his own movies.<br /><br />The makes of this film could just move the camera angles and add some time and they would have an XXX film.<br /><br />There was no story, just minimum dialog that led to stripping and sex. I bet there wasn't 100 words in the whole film, but there sure was a lot of very large busts and hot lesbian action. There was male/female action too, but it was only about 25% of the movie.<br /><br />Another interesting thing came to mind in watching this film that may interest those who are buying hi def DVDs. Sony refused to license Betamax to adult film makers and adult films came out on VHS. You can guess what happened to beta max as the adult film industry makes millions of videos. Sony has again refused to license Blu-ray to the adult film industry and they have just signed a deal with Toshiba. You can guess which high def system will disappear.
There's nothing wrong with softcore but this one is pretty clinical - lots of nudity but it's all fake (of course, it's always fake - it's a movie but you know what I mean). There's no sexuality or erotica, it's all random nudity and poor acting of "lust" and sex with each other.<br /><br />Part of it is of course, your personal preference. These women clearly have some body issues with their piercings, tattoos and silicon - not to mention that overly plastique & leathery look so if that's your thing - great, you get to see all that here.<br /><br />I don't think anyone's expectations are very high when looking at a movie title such as this but for many people, it would be pretty much like looking at cyborg fembots ... they almost seem real but it's really more creepy.
Whenever I see a video like this, I have to ask myself how it was financed. HBO or Showtime or whatever must pay for the production company to go through the motions -- to hire someone who may or may not actually speak English to get high and hammer out something approaching a plot, to pay strippers with terrifying boob jobs to bounce up and down on grossly waxed dudes' torsos, to find people to design and light sets, to purchase the rights to cheesy techno music, etc. But I have to imagine this has to be a vanity project for whoever's serving as executive producer... He had to have nailed all of those girls, right? And bro's not wrong about the "Spanish looking" girl, but to call the cops "stunning" is awfully generous. In fact, I'd go so far as to call them something much closer to "hideous," or "fugly." Watching these women writhe around -- sometimes *clearly* high on pain killers -- was so far from erotic that my testicles actually ascended inside of my body. Gross.<br /><br />Why waste time with this when there's so much freely available hardcore porn on the internet? I wonder whether the popularization of internet video will slowly kill the softcore video industry... One can only hope, right?
The Tender Hook, or, Who Killed The Australian Film Industry? Case No. 278. This sorry excuse for a period drama takes a cast and idea with potential – Rose Byrne, Pia Miranda, Hugo Weaving, in a Jazz-era gangster drama – and turns it into a sloppily paced and executed soporific. McHeath (Weaving) is a boxing promoter and gangster and functioning illiterate; for no apparent reason he's given to singing Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen songs before bouts. How post-modern. How stupid. Anyway. There's a boxer, Art (Matthew Le Nevez), who becomes McHeath's latest protégé, over his unfortunately Aboriginal stablemate Alby (Luke Carroll).<br /><br />McHeath's flapper moll Iris (Byrne) makes the goo-goo eyes at him. Sexual tension squelches under the surface. Miranda plays Daisy, a friend of Iris's (these flower girls stick together) who keeps turning up in scenes unannounced. They practice dancing together and talk about "hooking up" with guys. In the 1920s. I stopped counting anachronisms after that. There's a subplot involving Japanese beer and a backstory of Broome pearl fishermen. I don't know what it was all about. For some reason that is not exactly (at all) explained, Byrne puts cocaine in Art's lemonade. McHeath thinks he's a drunk and sacks him. Byrne plots and schemes to help him out again. She's a big one for the plotting and scheming. Most of which causes trouble. McHeath's two gunsels, portly Ronnie (John Batchelor) and Russian Donnie (Tyler Coppin), debate bumping off McHeath when he realises their part in one of Iris's schemes, but Ronnie wimps out when he sees McHeath crying. A lot of practically incoherent scenes get in the road of the film finally ending.<br /><br />Director Jonathan Ogilvie spends a lot of time working with cinematographer Geoffrey Simpson creating some pretty images, but utterly fails to generate a sense of style, which might have compensated for and decorated the wispy, pathetically underpowered script; unfortunately Ogilvie's sense of film grammar, the lack of structuring of the scenes and exposition, is stunningly incompetent. In an early scene, Daisy suddenly appears in the car with the protagonists. How she got there, and indeed who she is, seems to have slipped Ogilvie's mind. There are many more examples of this sloppiness. Where he chases poetic sparseness, he achieves only wan irritation. He gains awkward performances from actors who are normally reliable, badly miscasting Weaving and leaning on Byrne's ability to project a kind of haunted doll-like humanity whilst saddling her with an incomprehensible character.<br /><br />It might not matter so much if the story had more substantial characters and stronger plotting preferably not stolen from a dozen old noir films and festooned with witlessly sprinkled pop-culture quotes. But it doesn't. It's boring.
In the only act of commonsense they have ever made, the NSW Film & Television Office refused to fund this film. The Producers kicked up a big stink & in a blaze of publicity took their production to Victoria. Apart from the lost work for technicians, NSW were lucky not to have been involved...<br /><br />The film fails on just about every level. The post modernism fails, the casting fails (what is Rose Byrne's character all about ? which 1 dimensional snarling nasty did Hugo Weaving channel ? what the hell is Pia Miranda's character doing?) and the story is a clichéd mess of contradictions. In fact, the story runs like a dragged out prelude rather than a complete plot line.<br /><br />It might have had a chance if the "pop culture meets depression" style was better thought out and executed. If the casting was quirkier, if the style was less serious ... if just about everything was different. <br /><br />Apart from the usual excellence in costume, design & cinematography (like most Australian films), the film is just a total miscue. <br /><br />At a reported budget in excess of $7m, "The Tender Hook" is a symptom of the malaise of the Australian film industry - the wrong people and the wrong projects are getting funded. Compare this mess with "Noise" (under $2m), or "Cedar Boys" (under $1m) and you get the idea. The tough, interesting films are struggling for funding and the flabby, overblown projects with name casts are getting the bucks.<br /><br />The funding bodies who invested in this deserve to go the same way as Hugo Weaving's character at the end of the film.
My friends and I have just finished seeing a preview of this new Australian film. Everyone who was in the cinema agreed, what was the point of this film? There was no good story to follow, the characters were undeveloped, and the plot seemed unmotivated. I find it bizarre that this film, that probably cost in the high millions, got funded and made. It serves no purpose to the drama community, its adds nothing to the palette of Australian cinema. It really was a waste of time creating this droll unemotional piece of work and more time really should be spent work-shopping scripts and creating good stories, not creating a mess like this. Hugo Weaving and Rose Byrne were OK but severely hampered by a bad script. Pia Miranda's character was unnecessary and abstract from the plot, and her lines were average at best. A true waste of talent. The saving grace was Geoffrey Simpson ACS' cinematography, which like most Aussie films, was superb. <br /><br />Come on guys, think about it next time please.<br /><br />4/10
The movie is about a day in the life of a woman who is going insane. To show that she is mentally ill, she overacts a lot and the narrator tells us she's "going mad". Along the way, she goes out with a fat guy who looks like he could be Orson Welles' brother and he later takes a header off a building in one of the only interesting moments in the movie.<br /><br />This is a strange little film that is very cheaply made--and it sure shows. The film was shot without sound (probably using 8mm or some other cheap type of film) and had some sound effects and an overbearing narration added later. In fact, the narration was the most obtrusive and unintentionally hilarious I have ever heard and it is said in such a silly and over-the-top manner you'd just have to hear it to believe it. As a result of these cost-cutting actions, it's not surprising that the film is bad, though the idea of trying to make this sort of film was pretty original. Plus, it's VERY hard to make it through the entire film.
Skip all the subjective "this is a great film" reviews and read the IMDB trailer or the back the KINO videobox (which includes both versions of this flick) which I'll paraphrase: "To the tune of sci-fi score by George Antheil, the camera goes on a sleepwalk through B-Movie hell, all photographed by Will Thompson (who did 'Plan 9 from outer space' & 'Maniac')." You don't know whether to laugh AT the film or WITH it. So if you like self-produced B or C-grade noir-wannabe actors and effects with pretensions of surrealism, this could be for you! Otherwise, get a copy of "Screamplay", a modern low-budget expressionist masterpiece.
In spite of its high-minded ambitions, Zurlini's film must be seen as a failure. It's one thing to create a world which draws the viewer into feeling the tedium and angst experienced by the protagonist (which I think is what Zurlini was attempting). It's another thing entirely to make a film that is itself tedious and meaninglessly episodic. Despite beautiful cinematography at a haunting location - and a wonderful score - the film never lures the audience in. Too much is unintentionally funny (the phony sound of dripping water in Drago's quarters, for example, or the silent-movie mugging by some of the actors) or simply confusing (Why exactly does Drago want to leave the fort the first time?) for the film to succeed as a coherent work.
When I first saw this I thought it was a joke. All I could think was "You get the 8MM camera, I'll get my little brother's monster toys, we'll make a movie!" Why would anyone in a modern time like 2001 make a sci-fi movie like this, it looks like it was made in the early 80's. With actors that are as wooden as a cigar store indian, a script that was written by the director's 4-year-old son, a camera that was stolen from a burning pawn shop, poverty-row special effects, and to top it off, a director that thought making this crap would make them famous. The end result wasn't spectacular, complete with scrappy dialogue and continuity. From Venus must have been fun to make and I'm sure everyone involved had a blast with their silly little movie.<br /><br />A 2 out of 10 for a valiant, hopeless effort.<br /><br />
This has got to be one of the weakest plots in a movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />However, that is not all that this movie is lacking. This movie has the worst acting, writing, directing, special effects, you name it--it's the worst ever.<br /><br />I highly advise you to spend your time on worthwhile movies and not waste your time on this garbage.<br /><br />I do agree with an earlier post that the "women" were definitely men dressed up in drag, and that did give me a laugh, I keep trying to figure out if they were being obvious about it or if they were actually trying to be sexy women.<br /><br />Anyway, there is not much else in this movie that is worth watching!<br /><br />To sum it up: horrible acting, horrible script, horrible idea for a movie. An hour and a half of my life I want back RIGHT NOW!!
This movie was just so utterly horrible that I couldn't get through the entire thing without turning it off, it was just that bad! When I was watching it I kept thinking it looked like some really cheap film made back in the 60's or something with those terrible looking special effects, but then I realized that this was just made in 2001. <br /><br />The dialog and the acting were really very horrible and the plot was almost non-existent. I didn't think anyone would go back to making films that look so cheap and old, I'm not sure if they did that on purpose or if they really didn't have any budget for this movie at all. It really looks like it was shot on someone's camcorder at a local person's house or something. Maybe they thought they were being retro or something but it just comes off looking really cheesy.<br /><br />I really don't know how anyone could ever actually enjoy watching this.<br /><br />0 out of 5 *'s.
If you want to see how to ruin a film, study this one very closely. In fact, it is so bad that people should buy it for that reason alone. Especially note how most of the scenes look as if they were knocked up in about 5 minutes. Realism escapes this movie on every level. The overall impression is that someone was given a below average script, wannabe actors, an average director and absolutely no budget whatsoever. With a formula like that, it just had to be doomed.<br /><br />I rented this once, and I swear I got stupider watching it. If you are a humanitarian, buy this horrible, horrible movie, and burn it-UNWATCHED- as a favor to the world. It has no discernible plot, bad acting, and then tosses in something about evil ugly women just to really cap the whole thing off. I would suggest watching paint dry before this stupid waste of a tape! Seriously. The paint would be better. I wish I could give this negative 10 stars.
To have to actually own up to making such a horrible movie! Actually, I'm more embarrassed that I sat through the whole thing. It looks like an old 80's sci-fi movie complete with super-fake looking "special effects", queer imagery, and very cheesy dialogue. Maybe that's the way they wanted it to look, maybe they think it's cool to do movies in 80's fashion like it will come back in style. Who knows...<br /><br />If you think the promised eye-candy will save the film, you're in for a disappointment--the so-called "babes" are manish and downright ugly. They can't act at all, I don't understand why they couldn't at least get good looking chicks if they want babes with no talent! But I guess when you're making a film this stupid, you don't get very good choices, hot chicks aren't just lining up to do this kind of pitiful crap!
This movie was SO stupid I couldn't believe what I was seeing as I was watching it, it was like a huge train wreck -- I couldn't look away because it was just SO horribly awful! I can honestly say I've never seen anything this bad in my whole entire life. It was so cheesy and the acting was just so deplorable that I just kept thinking "this just has to be some kind of a joke, right? Nobody would actually make a movie this crappy on purpose, right?" I really hope this is all just a bad joke and these people don't actually expect people to watch this with a straight face, and I really hope the people who were in this movie were doing terrible acting on purpose and don't actually believe that they are good actors?! The drag queens are pretty funny to watch, though, and so are the cheesy special effects straight out of a bad 80's sci-fi movie.<br /><br />Only watch this if you've already seen every other movie in existence first and there is nothing left to watch at all! I would give this a "0" if it were possible.
Words cannot express how poor this film is.<br /><br />There is no plot, the acting is appalling, basically the whole film is a joke.<br /><br />With a running time of 97 minutes, it's about 96 minutes too long.<br /><br />It might have been OK as a short sketch on a comedy show, but the premise is way too flimsy to work for that amount of time without boredom kicking in.<br /><br />Avoid this one, go rent a good movie instead!
It's tempting to view this film as a daring avant-garde experiment. I like to think that the director was trying to see if it was possible to take all the conventions of comedy film and produce something that was completely, utterly, entirely unfunny.<br /><br />The answer, to judge by "From Venus", is a resounding 'Yes'. This may not be the worst film I've ever seen, but my brain seems to have repressed all memory of the others. This horrible flick hovers just on the borderline: bad enough that the thought still causes pain, but not quite so bad that my internal censors have obliterated it from my consciousness.<br /><br />It's difficult for me to imagine what the director and the cast thought they were doing when they made this, or why they went ahead and released it once they'd made it. I doubt anyone involved with it earned very much, but surely between them they could have got together enough money to buy up all the prints and have them burned.<br /><br />This is a movie that has nothing whatsoever to recommend it. It's not even enjoyably bad. It's just a non-movie in which nothing interesting happens. I gave serious thought to taking it back and demanding my money back, which is not something I've ever done before.<br /><br />Don't even think about renting (much less buying!) this horrible non-movie!
This is just the same old crap that is spewed from amateur idiots who have no clue how to make a movie--gee maybe that's why it is a straight-to-video wanna-be movie!<br /><br />I guess it is my fault for actually spending money to see it (one of the worst decisions I have ever made). What a waste. I usually like B movies, some of them are actually quite good--but this is just too ridiculous and stupid to even be funny.<br /><br />The losers that made this junk deserve to be put out of business for wasting everyone's time and money making a movie that obviously doesn't even deserve to be on film! These so-called movie makers have absolutely NO talent!<br /><br />Stupid plot, horrible acting (especially the drag queens--what sicko would actually find that sexy?!), lame writing (if there even was a script--seems like the kinda bull**** someone just made up on the spot)<br /><br />What is stunning about this movie is its utter lack of anything well-done at all.<br /><br />How much attention to detail would it take to insure that every frame of a film would be so far below any reasonable standards? I don't think it would be possible to make such a bad movie intentionally, and it is inconceivable that sheer bad luck could produce such consistently awful results.<br /><br />Anyway, avoid this stink bomb at all costs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As you can tell from the other comments, this movie is just about the WORST film ever made. Let me see how many different words I can use to describe it: Boring, Unbearable, Laughable, Lousy, Stupid, Horrible.....<br /><br />I could go on with such descriptions but you probably get the point.<br /><br />I would have given this a 0, if possible--bad acting, bad directing, bad production, bad plot.<br /><br />This was made in 2001 and it looks more like 1965. Very low budget, boring plot, horrible acting, really bad special effects, etc...<br /><br />I rarely ever see a Sci-Fi film I absolutely think is this bad. I mean this is pure garbage. It has nothing going for it either. As far as a "B-movie" this is the very bottom of the lot.<br /><br />I think I would be more entertained by staring at a blank piece of paper for 90 minutes. Junk like this gives good low-budget "B" movies a bad name. This makes Ed Wood movies look good.<br /><br />The thing about watching direct-to-video movies is, just when you think you've seen the worst, you see something even worse!<br /><br />DJ Perry is a horrible actor and has no individual characteristics that make him stand out.<br /><br />Avoid this waste at all costs! Oh the humanity!
This is without a doubt the STUPIDEST movie of all time.<br /><br />I don't know who I'm angrier at--the idiots who made this or my video store for actually carrying this piece of crap!!<br /><br />I can't even begin to name all of the things wrong with this horrible wanna-be movie.<br /><br />All of the dialogue sounds like it was made up on the spot, and the acting is the worst I have ever seen in any movie-EVER!!<br /><br />There is nothing about the script that would appeal to any decent person, in fact I don't think they even had a script, they just made up everything as they went along--and you can tell.<br /><br />The "women" (i.e. men dressed up in drag trying to look like women) in the costumes looked so ridiculous, I guess they were trying to be sexy but--NOT SO MUCH!! Especially that old woman-disgusting.<br /><br />There is nothing scary about this movie, the only thing scary is that somebody else might actually rent it and have to watch it.<br /><br />No brain required for watching this, you must be a total loser to want to see this movie.<br /><br />Don't forget-- I WARNED YOU!!!
I let a friend talk me into viewing this movie, and all I can say is--I want to kill that friend.<br /><br />That is an hour and a half of my life I will never get back and I will forever regret it.<br /><br />If you've also had the bad luck of seeing this movie you will agree with me that this is absolutely the worst movie ever made, EVER!<br /><br />If you've never seen this movie and are thinking of seeing it-- let me save you a waste of time and warn you: DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE, IT SUCKS!!!!<br /><br />Everything in this movie fails, the attempt at comedy and sexiness--it just comes off as stupid, trashy and disgusting. Try having women in the movie who are actually attractive and sexy and not fat, ugly and gross to look at!!<br /><br />The acting is laughable as is the writing. Obviously, this was made by total amateurs, I can't believe these people were allowed to make such a stupid movie, isn't there a law against that? There should be.<br /><br />There are a whole slew of good "b" movies if you are into that sort of thing, but do not waste you time on this crappy wanna-be movie.<br /><br />PEACE
I had the terrible misfortune of having to view this "b-movie" in it's entirety.<br /><br />All I have to say is--- save your time and money!!! This has got to be the worst b-movie of all time, it shouldn't even be called a b-movie, more like an f-movie! Because it fails in all aspects that make a good movie: the story is not interesting at all, all of the actors are paper-thin and not at all believable, it has bad direction and the action sequences are so fake it's almost funny.......almost.<br /><br />The movie is just packed full of crappy one-liners that no respectable person could find amusing in the least little bit.<br /><br />This movie is supposed to be geared towards men, but all the women in it are SO utterly unattractive, especially that old wrinkled thing that comes in towards the end. They try to appear sexy in those weird, horrible costumes and they fail miserably!!!<br /><br />Even some of the most ridiculous b-movies will still give you some laughs, but this is just too painful to watch!!
This was a very disappointing movie. I would definitely call this the worst movie of all time.<br /><br />The acting and writing were poor. And the jokes were not funny.<br /><br />I don't see why on earth this piece of crap was even made. I'm not a picky person and I can enjoy stupid things but this is just way too stupid and just plain awful.<br /><br />Avoid this wretched piece of garbage at all costs!
No movie I've ever seen before has even come close to being as boring and stupid as this hunk of junk. And I have always been a big B-movie fan. After viewing this total piece of crap, though I can honestly say that this doesn't even come close to being a B-movie. <br /><br />No one in this movie could act if their life depended on it. The script is so stupid I don't think I've ever heard anyone talk like this in my life. The writer should go spend a few years studying real-life people to see just how they act and talk, even then they would not be able to make a watchable movie because it is so obvious that no one involved in this movie has any talent driving them at all. <br /><br />I could make a better movie with a digital camera and some monster toys. Also, forget about any sexy scenes, the women in the leather outfits are so grotesque, you would sooner puke than get turned on!<br /><br />Avoid this pointless drivel unless you want to be bored out of your mind!
Watching this movie really surprised me. I have never found myself to stop watching a movie in its entirety because 3 dollars to rent a movie is a good amount of money and darn it, I should at least watch the whole thing and get my moneys worth. I made it through about 30 minutes of this absolutely crappy movie when I thought to myself, I am now a little more dumber after watching this movie. I can't believe that the director and actors in this movie actually had that low of respect for themselves to allow this to be released! <br /><br />There's nothing I can say that hasn't been said by the other reviewers, but even in the worst of films there are usually one or two decent performances...not in this piece of pathetic garbage. I've seen better acting in high school plays. Every, and I mean every 'actor' is bad beyond belief, and what's truly amazing is the uniformity of the badness...gosh, it must have been the director. Where did they get these people?<br /><br />This is possibly one of the worst horror movies I have ever seen. Although entertaining in places due to its laughable script and even weaker acting, and I use that term very loosely, it is unfortunate that this film was not consigned to B movie hell for all eternity. What could have been a good idea has been ruined by an ultra low budget, poor sound and effects and actors who probably earned their wings in children's television, and poor children's television at that. <br /><br />Please, STAY AWAY from this movie. Not even worth a minute of your time.
I can tell by the other comments that NOBODY could ever actually enjoy this trifling piece of crap, that's the same way I felt.<br /><br />The whole time I was watching it I was horrified that anyone could make a movie this stupid! What is the world coming to? I guess it is my fault for sitting through the entire movie (ugh!) but it was like a bad car wreck, I couldn't look away.<br /><br />If you are a kid under 8 years of age, you might like this movie. Otherwise, stay away from it at all costs. It's the stupidest movie I've ever seen.<br /><br />Everything's stupid--the story, script, and especially the acting, everything! While watching the movie you'll either turn the TV off and think "how can a movie be so sadly stupid", or keep on watching from curiosity, to see if things can get more stupid than this (they can't).<br /><br />These movie makers (if you can call them that) need to seriously go back to their day jobs, not one of them has an ounce of talent, and I highly doubt you can make a living churning out such horrible useless garbage that no one in their right minds would ever want to see!<br /><br />Just drawn out B.S. Don't waste your time.
This was so poor I had to turn it off in the end. I have never watched such a pathetic film. I love B movies and was looking forward to more of the same but was sadly disappointed.<br /><br />This has the worst acting/plot/direction/writing, etc...... of anything I have ever seen in my life!<br /><br />My advice to anyone thinking or watching/buying/renting, don't go there!
Oh my god, it just doesn't get any worse than this!!! I always love silly little sci-fi B-movies that are so stupid they are funny and I thought that this would be one of those, but this was just so stupid I found it absolutely deplorable that it was allowed to be released. What were these people thinking? They are obviously not real filmmakers and I really hope that they have gone back to their day jobs after realizing that this is the best they could do! The acting and the not-so special effects were nowhere near the standard of even the lowest budget B-movies. And what is with the men dressed up as women, could they not find any women that wanted to appear in this crappy thing. No, probably not.<br /><br />I would give this a "0" if possible, it does not even deserve a "1" for awful. Do not waste your time (and especially not your money) on this horrible loser of a non-film!
This is such a crappy movie I have no idea how it got on the shelves, they must have paid the movie store to make them put it there, seriously! The story makes absolutely no sense unless you are on some seriously heavy drugs, you would definitely have to be on something in order to watch this total piece of garbage, so much so that you would not care what was on the TV because you're almost in a coma. The writing sounds like it was done by a 5-year-old and the acting is worse than grade school plays. The hideous special effects they were trying to do look so stupid, what did they spend a whole $5 to make the entire movie, it looks like it! Oh my, that scene with the old woman who has an 80's hairdo and the ugly girls in the rubber suits, me and my friends laughed so hard. Did someone actually think it was a good idea to make this into a movie? I find that hard to believe!
This whole movie is just so terrible it is a complete mess. The story is just so stupid I can't believe somebody actually sat down and wrote about this and thought it would make a good movie! The acting is quite possibly the very worst out of any b-movie ever made. I've seen a lot of sci-fi type b-movies before and some of them are actually pretty good, some of them however-like From Venus-should never have been made.<br /><br />Some movie makers think that just because they put something together and somehow got it on the shelves of a movie store, that they have accomplished something-that it is good and should be watched by people. This is not always true, and it is definitely not true of From Venus. This film loses on all accounts: horrible acting, stupid plot, very weak special effects, ugliest costumes ever, non-realistic dialogue, bad direction, etc. You can just tell this film only took about $20 to make, and I may be giving it too much credit there! I urge you to stay away from this train wreck of a film for your own good!
That's what me and my friends kept asking each other throughout this entire flick. We couldn't believe how stupid it was! I think somebody shot this on their camcorder at home and snuck it into the movie store and put it on the shelf as a joke to see if anybody would ever pick it up. Well, I guess the joke is on us.<br /><br />I guess I should have come to this website first and read all of the reviews it has gotten, every single one says this movie is HORRIBLE, STUPID, and on and on. And boy are they right! Although it did provide some pretty good laughs (me and my friends were pretty drunk) because it is so stupid. We just can't believe somebody was dumb enough to make such a crappy movie! I swear this had to be made in the 70's before they had good technology for movies and stuff because every scene looks really crappy, but when I looked on here it said it was made in 2001? What? It sure doesn't look like a movie that would be made today, but I guess that's what you get when you use a camcorder and shoot home movies using strobe lights and really fake looking lasers, and use real life people from your home town instead of actors or even aspiring actors. BTW-some of those chicks (or were they drag queens, we couldn't tell!) were so fugly, even my drunk horny college buddies wouldn't touch them with a 50-foot pole.<br /><br />So there's absolutely no appeal to this movie at all, bad acting, bad writing, bad directing, bad special effects, bad, bad, bad. Don't waste your time or money on this one, you'll be completely disappointed!
I don't understand how this garbage got on the shelves of the movie store, it's not even a real movie! It was unbelievable, me and a group of friends decided to watch this one night and it was just the stupidest thing any of us had ever seen, I couldn't believe it! We watched the first 15 minutes in utter awe that somebody actually thought of this and then made it into a movie. Are they on crack? My guess is yes, in huge doses. I highly doubt that anyone could ever like this trash. Is this supposed to be sci-fi or comedy or what? I don't thing the idiots who made this even care, they just decided to make a movie about nothing and see how many suckers they could trick into watching it. Well, we put something on film so let's take it to the movie store and see if they actually put it on the shelf--no, no, no. This is not movie-making. The acting is like watching wooden puppets moving around and reading from a book, that's how bad it is. I feel like going to the movie store and complaining and getting my money back, nobody should have to endure this crap. So I am here to warn you--DO NOT RENT THIS MOVIE, it is the dumbest thing you have never seen!
I rented this DVD because I'm a big science fiction fan, but this thing (I won't call it a film, because it was obviously shot very quickly on video) seemed like they made it up as they went along. I'm still not sure what it was about. There's these guys dressed up in some weird S&M outfits, and I guess they're from another planet, anyway, not much makes sense in this low, low, low, budget film. If it was their first film, I'd cut them some slack, but I think it's like their 5th film and it's really REALLY bad.<br /><br />Very bad acting not one good actor is this movie. This director must have been out of his mind to even work on a horrible film like this. Don't waste your time or money on this DVD please people don't. It is not even worth the .99 cents I paid to rent the DVD. In fact I'm going to tell them the DVD was messed up to get my money back. I don't believe in giving anything at all a bad review but I must here. My advice to anyone involved in this sinking ship--please find another profession to get into. How could you make a rotten movie like this? I would give this negative stars if possible, it's that terrible.
I have always had this morbid curiosity when it comes to notoriously bad and unpopular movies. I also have always enjoyed so-bad-it's-good flicks, you're looking at someone who actually liked recent cheese filled kid flicks like Catwoman and Thunderbirds (2004).<br /><br />So I watched this, and it turned out that all the critics are right about this one. It's a MAJOR flop, but unlike a lot of flops, it isn't even enjoyable on any level, not even just to make fun of. It's just one boring cringe-fest after another all the way through.<br /><br />I had been warned. I didn't listen. I am a fool.<br /><br />Don't be a fool, don't waste time and money on this pile of trash.
The original story had all the ingredients to make a thoroughly gripping Film. But failed miserably in this version as even Cherie Lunghi was a pale imitation of what she was to become - so much so that I suspected that she must turn out to be an accomplice right to the end. Sherlock Holmes was turned into a warrior quite unlike anything every suggested by Sir Arthur Conn Doyle ? In fact it was Doctor Watson who showed what little common sense that was going. The boot blacked midget from the Andoman islands looked as though he could not fight his way out of a paper bag and what the villain was doing taking tea in Baker Street for a denouement was beyond anything that the old Scotland Yard could ever have dreamed up. So consign this TV Film to their Black Museum please.
What was this, a Zucker brothers movie? I don't mind a little humor in my Holmes (I'm a big fan of Billy Wilder's "The Private Life of SH"), but this version of "The Sign of Four" feels like a Grand-Guignol-esque episode of "Murder, She Wrote" (right from the opening credits, that are of the worst possible kind: a montage of scenes from the movie) as directed by Mel Brooks. Ian Richardson is a fine actor, and certainly looks the part (he's a dead ringer to those drawings from The Strand!), but his interpretation of the character is all wrong and overly humorous, from the silly smile he frequently sports (I thought the drug Holmes was into was cocaine, not weed) to his expressions of comical stiffness in the carnival sequences. Not to mention that when he disguises himself as an old man, he is so over the top that despite the fine makeup we instantly recognize him. David Healy is an unmemorable but, given the circumstances, acceptable Watson, and is not too much of a buffoon... at least not more than the rest of characters. Cherie Lunghi (Excalibur) plays Mary Morstan in an exaggerated ingenue fashion straight out of a 1930s vaudeville.<br /><br />Story-wise, there are some pointless additions (like giving Tonga vampire teeth, an appetite for raw meat and a carnival pit as a place to live, turning him into a reject from Island of Dr. Moreau), and we are even denied the pleasure of discovering the mystery alongside Holmes, as we are well informed of everything way before Holmes finds out. And this is full of tired clichés: not only we get the infamous catchphrase "Elementary, my dear Watson" (which, as any Sherlockian will know, Conan Doyle never ever wrote), but we are exposed to such blatant commonplaces as having Hindi music pop out of nowhere when Holmes goes to see a white guy in Hindi clothes.<br /><br />Bottom line: In Britain, in the eighties, two rival TV companies attempted to create a long-running series of Sherlock Holmes adaptations, and produced initial TV-movies as potential pilots. One of them starred Ian Richardson, the other starred Jeremy Brett. Thankfully, the one that got its way through multiple episodes was the good one!<br /><br />3/10. Travesty.
I've seen about a half dozen of the low budget poverty row B westerns that Ken Maynard made in the 1930s, and I am consistently amazed at how poor an actor he was. How did he ever get to be a leading cowboy actor? They say that he could ride pretty well back in the silents, but he doesn't do anything particularly impressive in these later sound films. Still, maybe he got the leads because he was big and could ride.<br /><br />Phantom Rancher isn't as bad as some of the other Ken Maynard films I've seen, but it still isn't much. Some of the other characters refer to him a couple of times as a "young fella," where it appears to me that he's just as old as the other older actors.<br /><br />And if that's not silly enough, there's a rather significant script problem in this film. At one point, one of the characters makes a remark about how the phantom had prevented the poisoning of a well, something that hadn't happened yet. Just a couple of minutes later, we then see that particular scene. No, it wasn't a flashback. At first I thought perhaps that when Treeline Films was doing the DVD transfer, they might have reversed two of the reels. But in those days film reels contained approximately 11 minutes of film, and the whole reversal only took about 3 or 4 minutes tops. Everything else was in a logical order. So, it looks like that was a genuine continuity problem in the original film. Maybe that's one reason why Colony Pictures didn't last very long.
This movie earns its 3 for lousy writing, poor technical merit and continuity problems. Some people have given this movie a 10--and perhaps that is okay if you are simply scoring it for its fun factor. However, technically this is an inept movie serial from start to finish--produced by 3rd-rate writers, actors and crew. That really was true of nearly all the serials because they were meant as low-brow entertainment particularly aimed at the kids. And there's nothing wrong with that, but "high art" it ain't!! Spy Smasher earns a lower than average score compared to other serials because it is of even lower quality and has MAJOR continuity problems--even for a serial. It was common for a serial to have a "cliff hanger"--i.e., a moment at the end of the episode that looked as if the good guy dies but miraculously survives when the next episode began. BUT, in this film, it's much hokier and ridiculous. You would literally SEE the hero die in the last episode, but in the next, they re-shot the scene and showed he actually DIDN'T die (even though they clearly showed him buy the farm in the last one)! Again and again in SPY SMASHER he seems to die but in the next episode they show it from a different angle and he somehow avoided death--even if he fell 1500 feet into a river, fell into a buzz saw or whatever.<br /><br />Watch this movie not for its quality but either for a good laugh or to learn what it was like to go to the movies on Saturday mornings decades ago.
20th Century Fox's ROAD HOUSE 1948) is not only quite a silly noir but is an implausible unmitigated bore of a movie. Full of unconvincing cardboard characters it is blandly written by Edward Chodorov, who also produced, and is surprisingly directed by Jean Negulesco from whom one would expect a great deal more. Miscast is Ida Lupino in the leading role! Lupino, a lady who was capable of exuding about as much sex appeal as a blood orange, is here under the illusion she is Rita Hayworth playing the part of a sexy bar-room Torch Singer. Handsome Cornel Wilde as her lover is as wooden as usual and totally wasted is the talented Celeste Holm who's role is little more than a bit part. Then we have Richard Widmark who has the most ludicrously written part in the picture! When we first see him he is a nice O.K. guy who runs a thriving Road House. Then suddenly - and for reasons that are not sufficiently made clear - he becomes insanely jealous of his manager (Wilde) when the latter tells him that he is about to marry Lupino. You see Widmark wanted to marry her himself but - 1) He never proposed to her - 2) They never had a relationship (they don't even have anything that resembles a love scene together) and - 3)without telling anyone (including Lupino) he has obtained a marriage license. Wow! So how Widmark was to achieve something like wedded bliss with Lupino after such a "courtship" is anybody's quess. Huh? Well, when Widmark goes to pieces over the whole affair so also does the movie I am sorry to say. From here on the Widmark character turns unintentionally comical! His losing his marbles so early in the proceedings is totally implausible and unconvincing. He finally goes over the edge, becomes completely deranged and with a few Tommy Udo sniggers, he laughably goes gunning for poor Cornel Wilde before biting the dust himself.<br /><br />And if that isn't enough of a mess of a movie for you - the picture is also marred with a constant use of studio sets and indoor exteriors. There's not a single outdoor shot in the entire movie! Added to this - 95% of the film takes place at night.<br /><br />Besides an interactive press book and a photo gallery the extras also includes a featurette "Widmark & Lupino At Fox". Whatever prompted such a documentary is beyond me! As far as I know they were never before together in a movie at Fox or anywhere else! However this featurette is hosted by such heavy hitter know-alls as Robert Osborne, Eddie Muller, Rudy Belhmer and a few others who amazingly heap praise on this wearisome and cringe - inducing affair. All I can say then it must be me I guess. But "Road House" up to now was a forgotten and buried Noir and as far as I am concerned it should have remained so.<br /><br />Fox would do better if they issued DVDs of superior and thus far elusive Widmark movies like "Down To The Sea In Ships" (1949) and the colourful "Red Skies Of Montana" (1952).
When you're used to Lana Turner in the Postman Always Rings Twice, and compare it to this low budget, low talent, low quality film, well, I was just embarrassed for Ida Lupino's 'singing' (more like talking) and non-piano playing scenes. When the first non-singing scene started and all the people just stared flatly at her, I was positive they were all going to roll their eyes and start leaving or at least talking among themselves (She stinks, c'mon let's get out of here). The actors are flat - emotions are deflated. And Ida is a real spoiled bi-otch throughout - just a 100% turnoff. This was like Betty Boop on conscious sedation meets a gas station attendant in nowhere's ville USA. The story was flat, the music was flat, the acting was flat, her chest was... no never mind. I felt sad for the rest of the actors. Perhaps if the right actress was to have been given the lead role, and the men actors had more emotion, then the film could have had a chance. Sorry for offending those of you who thought it was out of this world. I wouldn't have minded if it stayed out of this world.
Pretty dreadful movie about several unbalanced young people in a car starts off reasonably well but becomes more bizarre and hard to swallow as it progresses. Rachel Leigh Cook is the sole highlight in a tender and sexy performance, but I would recommend this film only to die-hard fans of the actress.
An "independant" film that, from the back of the box, promises twists, adventure and an emotional adventure we will never forget. This film also fools us into watching it by flaunting Rachel Lee Cook with a starring role. After the first twenty minutes, you realize that this movie is going to give you NOTHING. The story goes on aimlessly, revealing nothing new or important to keep us interested. All three "disturbed" characters have only small grains of back story to force us to care. Just as you reach the end, everything about the story is altered and instead of helping the audience catch up, you are left with no idea, and more importantly, no interest in "why". The director, who also thought it would be a good idea to co-star, seems to come into the film with no prior experience or knowledge of useful filmmaking. The entire piece looks like a college "art" film crafted by a freshman film student trying to hide a lack of true talent.
I saw the episode about living on minimum wage. It went as far as an Oprah Winfrey's appearance for the said episode. It's bad enough people struggle making ends meet week to week. Then having this hypocrite exploiting the problem. I didn't appreciate the constant complaining from him or his significant other, throughout. Queston is how any people have the power to pay their medical bills from the ER? sure he shows that the bill is high, but he paid the remaining balance(from his own pocket) after-wards from his "harrowing" experience. How many poor people have that type of privilege after 30 days to pay off their bills. Instead they are starving and "robbing Peter to pay Paul". Complaining throughout the episode isn't a humbling thing for him. The movie and restaurant scene is appalling. Another privilege he has that poor people don't.
I have only seen the minimum wage episode yet i have no intention of watching the others, how can that be? Morgan starts theatrically complaining about his awful situation living on minimum wage right at the beginning of the episode and the complaining never stops. Ever. Luckily for the viewer, his skinny girlfriend is just as annoying as Morgan (if not even more annoying).<br /><br />And then to top it all, they go to the movies and buy bottled water for 2,50 and after that go to a restaurant to eat out all the while they naturally *drumroll* complain about being poor.<br /><br />I don't care if the other episodes may or may not be better than this. No one should be forced to watch this crap.
This video has audio that is meant for someone to hear during their sleep. And the same can be said for the video.<br /><br />Morgan and his wife pretending to rough it at minimum wage jobs? With a camera rolling? And his little wifey-poo complaining? Give me a break. They are both rich. They are sitting in their fake $350/month apartment filming this with their $1,000/month each video crew of 12.<br /><br />I used to respect Morgan, but now his "30 days" experience is nothing more than trying to fool any volunteer viewers who are willing to be fooled.<br /><br />C'mon Morgan, you are being filmed doing a $6.00 an hour job and you are being paid by naive employers who don't see those big cameras filming the whole thing?? And we aren't to think they aren't paying you under the table?
Altman is very proud of the fact that people in his movies talk over each other, because, he says, people do that in life. Well, people also cough, burp, go off on tangents, etc. The point is that just because people actually do something doesn't make it compelling cinema. That's one issue.<br /><br />The bigger issue is that this just isn't a very clever or direct or hitting or relevant satire, in 1988 or 2004. Garry Trudeau is still living in the 1960s and thinks everyone except a small core of Republican elected officials is a 60s-style hippie liberal. I mean the guy still trots out Zonker in his strip - a character that is a complete anachronism, yet Trudeau still employs him as if he is representative of a large stripe of American youth.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong. I am a conservative, but I'm not saying that this is bad because it's got a liberal bent. It could take a liberal tack and be funny and relevant, but it's not. It is mainly a vanity piece with a bunch of prominent celebrity liberals (including the odious, repellent Ron Reagan, Jr.). At times it feels unscripted, and the rest of the time it has a snarky air of self-importance and "aren't we oh-so-clever?"-ness.<br /><br />Someone said that this show insists it has a cult following. I think its cult status is more wished-for than actual. I'm certain there are two or three people out there who taped all the original episodes in 1988 and still have them, but if that is the standard, then every show ever aired is a cult classic to some degree. If Tanner didn't have the names Altman and Trudeau attached, it would be another forgotten HBO production from the 1980s. Instead, it's presented as hard-hitting, incisive political commentary from guys who are at the top of their game. The reality, however, is about as far from that as possible. Pat Paulsen's presidential satire is more relevant than Tanner ever was, and he's been dead for a decade.
I watched this last night on Sundance. Altman must be the most hit or miss director of note ever. This show, despite its "star power" is utterly non-compelling, and its political insights--which I as a proud liberal in no way disagree with--are shallow and clunky, and seem ripped from the headlines of USA Today, despite the fact it's coming out of the mouth of someone as esteemed as Mario Cuomo. The drama, as such, is not very dramatic, and the comedy is not funny. The only points of interest, really, are seeing how New Yorkers live their lives, and the loyalty of a cast and crew to reassemble a show that keeps insisting has some cult following from 1988. Sometimes it seems like Altman's sole contribution to cinema has been the art of having all your actors talk at once, the effect of which is one feels depressingly like they're a stranger at a wedding.
This pointless film was a complete disappointment. None of the characters is likeable in the least, so you watch what befalls each without really caring. What was worst was renting this movie at a gay owned establishment only to find that this story of male hustlers was filled with homophobic young men engaged in plenty of scenes of straight sex and not one single scene of gay sex.
It has a bit of that indie queer edge that was hip in the 90s and which places an explicit sell-by date on the visual style. Characters are uniformly apathetic and farcically deadpan. Street hoodlums in Greece wear new clothing out of the box without creases or stains. They all appear to visit the same marine hair dresser. All uniformly exhibit the same low IQ when making their dispassionate underground business deals. When things go wrong its all because they aren't real Greeks - they're pastoral sunshine boys caught in a strange night city world. Makes a big whine about disaffected immigrants but never bothers to actually investigate the problems with Russian/Kazakh/Albanian cultures. If Giannaris had the proper perspective on this project it might have made a wonderful Bel Ami production. The fleeting glimpses of toned boy-beef is the only spark in this generic small-time mobster programmer.
Let me tell you a story.<br /><br />One day on the streets of Athens a film director bumped into a male prostitute and decided that the world just HAD to know his story because...you know... he's deprived...and he takes his shirt off a lot and...so on.<br /><br />This film is the result of his revelation. Repulsive, depraved, homophobic, misogynist...but of course filled with pretty guys with their chests showing. If this is your idea of a good film then enjoy, if not avoid it like the plague.<br /><br />It's put me off ever going to Greece that's for sure.
At last. Here's a movie that does as much for the reputations of the men of Greece and Russia as "Gigli" did for the those of Mr. Affleck and Ms. Lo. FROM THE EDGE OF THE CITY details the sad and sordid lives of some young Russian émigrés who live in and around Athens and spend their time burglarizing cars, getting laid, pimping woman émigrés and prostituting themselves ("But we're not gay because we don't do, you know.... And if we do, it's only once or twice. With the same guy.") There is hardly anything here you have not seen before and better; only the Athens locale adds a little novelty--even then there's but a scene or two that's scenic. Writer/director Constantine Giannaris ("3 Steps to Heaven") offer a relatively generic 95 minutes, in which the standout moments involve how stupid, sexist and (from the looks of things) pretty much irredeemable most of these guys are. (Interestingly, the gayer the guy, the more redeemable he appears.) What really rankles is the treatment of the women. Greek and Russian males would seem to give the Italians a run for their money regarding that famous madonna/whore complex. Has life in Greece improved much for women since the time of Plato and Socrates? One has to wonder.<br /><br />If I seem to be equating Russians and Greeks in this review, I apologize, but even the non-émigrés pictured here (the cab driver, for instance) are creeps. According to another review on this site, the film (a hit on its home turf) was actually submitted by Greece for an Academy Award for Best Foreign Film. What this says about the state of Greek movie-making, I hesitate to ponder.
Me being one was probably having a brain fart at the time for renting it. Anyone who actually buys it, will enjoy using this as a coaster. Perhaps a frisbee? This is a dvd I actually found up front where the kids could get to it. Since dvd's don't seem to be in the position to be put in that tell tale back room with all the big box vhs tapes are, I find it rather annoying they stuck this up next to a disney film. Yep, going from Dinosaur to Erotic Ghost has shown what we all think of Disney right? I havent' stooped that low just yet. There's no acting in here. The only thing interesting is the old 1973 movie trailers for ollllld ancient erotic films that I'm amazed have escape from being burned to hell.<br /><br />1/10 (if imdb allowed zero's it'd be 0/10)
I think this movie had really bad production value. The lack of acting makes me think they should mark it as an early docudrama. It may have had no money available for its making. I feel bad that it was a ruff ride into the Major League for Jackie Robinson.<br /><br />I believe he was much better than many of the white players of his day. He had to be really great to break the color barrier of the time. No getting around that this was a really bad movie.<br /><br />Wish there was more info about its makers. They may have been limited by the quality of actors that were willing to take on the project. Maybe no money to get good people.
This film is bundled along with "Gli fumavano le Colt... lo chiamavano Camposanto" and both films leave a lot to be desired in the way of their DVD prints. First, both films are very dark--occasionally making it hard to see exactly what's happening. Second, neither film has subtitles and you are forced to watch a dubbed film--though "Il Prezzo del Potere" does seem to have a better dub. Personally, I always prefer subtitles but for the non-purists out there this isn't a problem. These DVD problems, however, are not the fault of the original film makers--just the indifferent package being marketed four decades later.<br /><br />As for the film, it's about the assassination of President Garfield. This is a MAJOR problem, as Van Johnson looks about as much like Garfield as Judy Garland. In no way whatsoever does he look like Garfield. He's missing the beard, has the wrong hair color and style and is just not even close in any way (trust me on this, I am an American History teacher and we are paid to know these sort of things!). The real life Garfield was a Civil War general and looked like the guys on the Smith Brothers cough drop boxes. Plus, using some other actor to provide the voice for Johnson in the dubbing is just surreal. Never before or since has Van Johnson sounded quite so macho!! He was a fine actor...but certainly not a convincing general or macho president.<br /><br />In addition to the stupid casting, President Garfield's death was in no way like this film. It's obvious that the film makers are actually cashing in on the crazy speculation about conspiracies concerning the death of JFK, not Garfield. Garfield was shot in Washington, DC (not Dallas) by a lone gunman with severe mental problems--not a group of men with rifles. However, according to most experts, what actually killed Garfield (over two months later) were incompetent doctors--who probed and probed and probed to retrieve a bullet (to no avail) and never bothered cleaning their hands or implements in the process. In other words, like George Washington (who was basically killed by repeated bloodletting when suffering with pneumonia) he died due to malpractice. In the movie they got nothing right whatsoever...other than indeed President Garfield was shot.<br /><br />Because the film bears almost no similarity to real history, it's like a history lesson as taught from someone from another planet or someone with a severe brain injury. Why not also include ninjas, fighting robots and the Greek gods while you're at it?!?! Aside from some decent acting and production values, because the script is utter cow crap, I don't recommend anyone watch it. It's just a complete and utter mess.
Predictable Unmotivated Pointless Caricatures Contrived Actors did what they could Actors clearly indicated they were embarrassed to do this Not one emotional connection REAL SEQUENCE FROM FILM "Who you callin?" (sic) "The police"(sic) "You can't do that, Stevie. Hang up the phone"(sic) "Jesse got a sh-t load o' drug money, you can't go involving the cops"(sic) "I'm not so sure stealing money from criminals is a crime. Even if they arrest him at least he'll be alive"(sic) "Listen to me, Stevie, this ain't handled right, Jesse's gonna end up dead. Now hang up that f-in phone." (sic) Best Friend starts to load up guns Brother, "Hey, what're you doin'?" No answer. "Hey, I got a family to worry about." (Keep in mind his child is sitting right there watching-ish all of this) Then more and more and more exposition<br /><br />Notice how in the above sequence, at no time do the police on the other line say, "Hello? Hello? Uh, we can hear everything you're saying. We're sending someone over there right now." <br /><br />Embarrassment for all. Oops.
Piece of junk, would've given it a 0 if I could have. Animation is good, but not quite good enough. Storyline is absolutely THE most ridiculous I've ever come across, and that's saying a lot! This 'movie' tried so hard to be interesting, but failed miserably. It's almost as if the writer started one story, then got another idea, and attempted to mesh the two together. Don't waste your time on this; believe me, you'll be as ticked off with yourself as I was. The only actor of any note in this was James Woods, and his part was peripheral at best. I'm all for doing stuff that is edgy, that pushes the envelopes, but this simply didn't cut it.
Ordinarily, I love these "Stranger Within" thrillers. Some good examples are "Fatal Attraction," "Single White Female," and "Audition." Done well, they can be a lot of fun, and worth an hour or two of solid shocks and scares. Of course, the opposite can be true: done poorly, they can be tedious and stupid. "The Hand that Rocks the Cradle" is one of the latter.<br /><br />The Bartels, Claire (Annabella Sciorra) and Michael (Matt McCoy) are welcoming another member to their family. But busy Claire is persuaded by Michael to hire a nanny. One day, a woman named Peyton Flanders (Rebecca DeMornay) shows up, and because she seems perfect, the Bartels hire her. Of course, once she shows up, their idyllic life is slowly unraveling...<br /><br />This film suffers from a plethora of problems, but the biggest one is the handling of the villain. Peyton is never believable. Part of this has to do with how she's written, and how she's acted. The things that she does that are supposed to put us on edge are so contrived that they're laughable. De Mornay doesn't help much. She portrays Peyton as two different people. While it's true she's supposed to be the perfect nanny while hiding her psychotic tendencies, De Mornay's performance creates a divide between the two facets of her character.<br /><br />The other actors are good, however. Annabella Sciorrra is terrific as the asthmatic Claire. Sciorra is very natural in the role, but unfortunately, the script lets her down. Matt McCoy is almost invisible. However, Julianne Moore is delightful as Claire's friend Marlene. Moore is a firecracker, but unfortunately she's only on screen for a total of five minutes.<br /><br />Curtis Hanson is a good director, but you wouldn't know it from watching this dud. The film has a few decent shocks, but it's poorly paced, and the climax, while generating some tension, is actually kind of laughable. That being said, he's working with a script that at best, could charitably be called pathetic.<br /><br />Trust me, when it comes to nannies, stick with Fran Drescher. This one should have gone to the direct-to-video bin.
I know that many people will/have automatically given this film a rating of 1, just because it doesn't have the huge budget and top-of-the-line special effects that they are used to. I, however, knew what I was getting myself into when I popped this into the VCR.<br /><br />I don't think we get much more low-budget that this, unless we are filming a family reunion. The lighting is awful, sound quality is at times incomprehensible, and the acting is ultra-bad by almost all involved. BUT, this is still a fun movie and the plot is interesting enough. It centers around a fellow named Tom Russo (Asbestos Felt), who has been down on his luck with his job. He is very protective of his wife and does not allow her to work, putting even more pressure on himself. As he begins working more hours, we see him slowly transcend into madness and obsession and he becomes suspicious that his wife cheating on him and begins to brutally murder the various men (most repair guys) that he feels are responsible. <br /><br />I must say that the gore effects are extremely cheap, but fit with the overall tone of the film.. The brutal ways that Tom Russo comes up with to murder these men gives us an idea of just has mad he has become. The pacing of the film is also very good and there is rarely a boring moment. The ending really doesn't follow the rest of the plot of the film, as it seems to want to go from a psycho-slasher film, to a "Dawn of the Dead" wannabe, but it is entertaining nonetheless and I must give Tim Ritter credit for wanting to use an unconventional ending. <br /><br />I can honestly say that I enjoyed this film, but it is by no means a good film, if that makes sense. It's budget is its main stumbling block and the consequences are almost too much to overlook. I DO NOT recommend this to people who are totally spoiled by the big-budget movies and who can't have an open-mind to ultra-low budget films. You simply won't enjoy it. For others, and fans of gore--I say give it a shot. You will find at least SOMETHING redeeming in it! <br /><br />My Grade: D
Emotionally insecure Tom Russo (Asbestos Felt) reads the secret diary of his sexy wife Leeza (Courtney Lercara) and is dismayed to discover that the love of his life has apparently been sleeping with every bloke she meets; this shocking revelation sends poor Tom off his rocker, and he proceeds to wreak bloody revenge on the men who he believes have been rogering his old lady.<br /><br />In my experience, really, really bad films can often be as much fun as really good ones, and no film featuring a decapitation by machete-enhanced ceiling fan should ever be considered completely worthless; but even though Killing Spree very occasionally manages to entertain with its inventiveness and cheap and cheerful gore, I found that the terrible direction, awful production values, ugly cinematography, muffled sound, dreadful lighting, mind numbingly tedious and daft narrative (which includes a really dumb plot twist that is telegraphed from the beginning, plus a pointless zombie finale), nasty synthesizer score, inane dialogue, and thoroughly amateurish acting all served to make this effort from writer/director Tom Ritter a virtually joyless experience.
Is this supposed to be serious? I hope not. This is one of the most pathetically hilarious movies I've ever seen. Given that I picked it up for a buck on the "Bad movies" shelf, it sure lives up to its spot in the shop. What can I say, the gore effects are spattered (pun-intended) all over the place, some looking quite real, some looking like a teddy bear that's had an accident with a bottle of tomato sauce. The music is some of the most horrible I've heard, the acting is one of the most amusing elements... must I continue? Don't bother unless you've seen every other pathetic horror movie in the shop and this is all that's left.
I understood before watching this film that it would be a low budget gore film. But even by those low standards this film doesn't cut it. <br /><br />The problem isn't so much that the filmmakers had a low budget or had bad acting, writing, directing, sound, music and editing. I expected all of that to be bad, and it is.<br /><br />The biggest problem with this film is that it didn't even do a good job on the guts and gore. Most of the 'action' takes place off screen and all we get to see are the after effects, which look very fake -- even by the standards of low budget gore films. <br /><br />There really is no excuse for the gore being so poorly done. Peter Jackson made the equally low budget 'Bad Taste' at about the same time and he somehow was able to make much more convincing guts and gore than was shown in this film.<br /><br />A failure on just about every level, I can't recommend this film to anybody. Steer clear of it.<br /><br /> <br /><br />
I was initially interested in this film after reading a synopsis and seeing a few striking screenshots, and the promise was there for a gripping horror film of the Dario Argento style. Admittedly I must say that Argento's films have occasionally been rather incoherent, and some feel like a handful of visually impacting set pieces loosely strung together with a vague connecting plot.<br /><br />Since Argento is credited as writer for this, I have to say, I'm not really surprised. Even his masterpiece Suspiria, when examined, exhibits the same tendency to string along sometimes unrelated scenes purely for the aesthetic impact. However, Suspiria also had the benefit of a singular main character and clear antagonists, as well as scenes that contributed ultimately to the eventual resolution.<br /><br />The Church, on the other hand, has none of these things. It has no main character, no protagonist whatsoever; it furthermore has no real plot to speak of, and no crescendo, no climax, no denouement, and no resolution. It is a completely hollow, incoherent work that views as if Argento sat down and thought 'hey, that would make an interesting scene visually...let's do it!' The film is a series of these scenes.<br /><br />Initially it might be interesting, and Soavi's direction is excellent, I must say. Soavi cannot be faulted for the material, as it is made as compelling as possible. However, such good direction calls attention to the horrible failings of the script, and there is absolutely no sense in it. The attempt at a central unifying plot is nothing more than plagiarism of Carpenter's film Prince of Darkness. Events happen solely because the script wishes them to, and reactions to those events are completely implausible. The narrative flow is irreparably damaged after a point, simply because there is no ability to suspend disbelief; it's too ludicrous. Added to this are numerous factual errors that are so glaringly showcased that it becomes embarrassing.<br /><br />If it had been more overtly artistic and edited down into a different work, it might have been chilling or tense. If it had been fleshed-out into an actual cohesive narrative, it might have been gripping. But it was none of these. The best it managed was confusing and, at times, infuriating. Plots are introduced but never followed. Characters are forgotten about and altered arbitrarily. No logic is ever applied to any situation. It might have been scary or interesting, but to elicit that sort of feeling takes more effort on the part of a screenwriter...much more.<br /><br />All in all, The Church is not worth viewing for anyone but total enthusiasts of Italian horror that is more style than substance. This is Argento's style at its worst, and it is a strong justification for the usual criticism.
Master of Italian horror Dario Argento is called a lot of bad things by non-fans. And is deserving of absolutely none of the backlash. In fact, every time I hear something bad about Argento- I think they're really talking about Michele Soavi. He just doesn't get the same amount of attention because his films were never as successful in theaters. In fact, his best film - 1994's Cemetery Man - was probably his least successful. Or just didn't get the attention he felt it deserved, because after that, he left film and went into directing television. He's never gone back. So people really don't know how inferior his other films are because by the time they've seen them, they're already fans of the Italian horror aesthetic. Which means you have to accept the fact that they make almost zero sense and are usually very unattractive films. This is where The Church stands out from the pack. Because visually, it's so cheap and ancient-looking, you can smell the dust. But it has its' charms too, though they are few. The camera-work is truly arresting and the music score is hugely elaborate and grand.<br /><br />Since Argento is the reasons people have seen Soavi's work all, I don't know anyone who caught The Church before Argento's Suspiria and Deep Red. Soavi is a bit of a hack. Sort of like an Italian Mick Garris- the utmost example of a director preferring style over substance. The flaws of The Church are constant and plenty. The film opens with a somewhat interesting prologue showing knights on white horses charging through a peasant village akin to those you see in any Robin Hood adaptation, in some long-ago century. These scenes are intense enough, energetic, and get quickly to the point. Then, we cut to the present, where the film's style takes over. Yeah, the movie is okay to look at. And for about 35 or so minutes in the present, 1980's wherever-Italy, the movie is just interesting enough to get us to the slowly revealing horror elements. So now we know the purpose of the film is the build up of it's horror. And it's a decent build up, for the most part. But as the movie approaches the halfway point, we realize the movie's driving by, and... nothing is happening.<br /><br />The plot is very simple. I think. Two people working in a church, one as a cataloger of books and the other as a restorer of the building's wall artwork, discover a scroll / scripture that the man thinks will lead them to some kind of buried treasure or priceless artifact that he can sell and get rich off of. So he follows his 'map' only to uncover a force underneath the church that has him hallucinate, while he's slowly becoming a demon who will make everyone else hallucinate. So while he is doing his demon-work, someone he passed the force onto kills himself in a manner that traps everyone in the church while the demon 'contagen' spreads onto everyone, leaving a Black preacher and the little girl who sneaks out of the church every night to go clubbing as the only 2 people who can stop the plague from spreading beyond the church walls. That probably sounds action-packed and Soavi's style is far more lethargic than Argento. But never before have I seen an attempted surrealist film this agonizingly boring. I kid you not. Absolutely nothing happens in the entire film! I've seen expressionistic (or impressionistic, I'm no film school super-grad) films before, but most of them actually show things happening (John Carpenter's Halloween for one).<br /><br />It follows pretty closely in the footsteps of Lamberto Bava's Demons films (since Argento co-produced). We're shown to a location where a bunch of people gather, one turns into a demon, all the others are isolated, that person infects everyone except a couple survivors, then the demons either get out- infecting the world, or the survivors get out when the demons die. This film puts all those same elements in place. Except, unlike Argento's work, nothing happens. Okay, a few things do happen. But only one bizarre sequence has the panache of Lamberto's much more fun Demons films. A random woman's neck is impaled by a demon using a section of fence he rips out of the floor. What's bizarre about that, you wonder? It happens in front of about two dozen people. What do they do? Nothing. She dies, her head trickles blood in closeup. But all those people don't even notice, though it happens in plain view and no less than 8 feet away from them. Maybe 4 people notice the demon running up to stab anyone he can as he runs toward her, so they duck out of the way. She's killed and in the shot after she dies, everyone is just sitting around, being quiet while a boy plays a saxophone. I kid you not. That's what happens. That's more than logically incoherent- it's plain stupid.<br /><br />The scene is suggesting that the woman just sort of disappears and no one saw her death. They all just up and forget about it. And this 15-second thing is absolutely the only event that takes place in the movie. I'm not saying it's the only violence, gore, or murder we see. It's not. It's just the only thing we can tell is happening. For example, in one scene a beautiful woman sees herself in a mirror looking old and ugly. She starts clawing the skin on her face off, but when she reappears minutes later- no scratches. People are devoured by fish and their faces are squashed by subway cars. But later they turn up as totally unharmed members of a possessed cult, in a scene that commits the ultimate horror heresy- copying a famous scene from Roman Polanski's 1968 masterpiece, Rosemary's Baby, the greatest horror film ever made, shot for shot. Even if Argento did that, I would be furious!
Let me get this straight... "The Church" has a safety "lock-down" mechanism to keep the spirits from leaving but the ultimate solution is bringing it to the ground?! LOFL! Maybe I'm missing the plot. Maybe this guy is from the Ed Wood school of film-making or something. This movie is about as useless as the church itself. Hey... maybe that's the point. That whole Rosemary's Baby-esq segment was hilarity. I can go to my corner Halloween costume shop and get better drag than that. The entire film needs to be remade. Properly. There were so many things that were played down... so many things that could have made me jump out of my seat and through the ceiling. I'm not sure if the fault lies with the writing or editing but what I saw should not have this high of a rating.
I had always eyed Italian horror maestro Dario Argento's efforts as producer with a certain suspicion and these were only confirmed after my fairly recent viewing of Lamberto Bava's terrible DEMONS (1985); the fact that this was supposed to be its third installment did not sound promising at all but I decided to give the film a rental regardless now that we're in full Halloween swing. I checked out the theatrical trailer on the Anchor Bay DVD prior to viewing the main feature – the undeniably striking visuals had me intrigued to be sure but, then, the film proper (which makes no more sense than what's presented in that frenzied two-minute montage and, in retrospect, can be seen to have wisely compiled most of its highlights) proved a definite let-down!<br /><br />Opening promisingly enough with a medieval prologue straight out of Alexander NEVSKY (1938), it goes downhill fast because it relies too much on surreal imagery at the expense of narrative. Consequently, several characters randomly take center-stage throughout – with the insufferable male lead succumbing to the dark forces early on, the sinister-looking Bishop (Feodor Chaliapin) resulting a mere red herring, the mysterious black priest gradually assuming heroic qualities, the leading lady is for whatever reason preyed upon by a goat-shaped demon (culminating in a sexual rite conducted in front of the other cultists lifted all-too-obviously from ROSEMARY'S BABY [1968]) and a reasonably impressive 13-year old Asia Argento as the rebellious but likable sacristan's daughter (who emerges as the only survivor by the end). Incidentally, the older Argento also co-wrote the film's story and screenplay along with director Soavi and (under a pseudonym after they apparently fell out with Dario in the early stages of production) original helmer Lamberto Bava and prolific genre scribe Dardano Sacchetti (whom I met at the 61st Venice Film Festival in 2004).<br /><br />The extremely muddled second half of the film, then, sees a group of people – including the inevitable teenagers but also a doddering English couple (whose constant bickering is given an amusingly nasty punchline) – similarly shut inside a building in the grip of evil spirits (the church being the burial ground of a satanic cult)…not that this horror outing is likely to dispel memories of Luis Bunuel's sublimely surreal THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962) you see! In the end, the film is all the more disappointing (though Sergio Stivaletti's gruesome effects, at least, are notable) given that I had thoroughly enjoyed the only other Soavi title I'd watched – CEMETERY MAN (1994), which I own via the R2 SE DVD. That said, I'd still like to catch his debut feature – STAGE FRIGHT (1987) – and the director's follow-up effort to THE CHURCH, entitled THE SECT (1991)...
In the same way Lamberto Bava was a substandard facsimilie of his father, Mario (who was an extremely overrated director anyway), Michele Soavi is a substandard director in the Dario Argento mold. "The Church" has at least one thing to recommend it--the incredibly detailed art direction--but absolutely nothing else. The film is long-winded, filled with one-dimensional characters, and almost put me to sleep several times. There's a fine line between 'art' and 'pretentious crap,' and while "The Church" isn't completely worthless, you'd be better off watching something else.<br /><br />3/10
I have a lot of respect for Mr. Argento's work, but this film lacks many of the qualities that make his films really unique. The opening to the film is great, and sets you up for the possibility of a really scary horror film. What occurs for the rest of the film lacks structure or purpose and does not build into much. There are some good performances, though, and a lot of great atmosphere. The end of the film is weak considering everything this builds up to. Where there should be some grand climax of huge proportions you instead get a very typical conclusion that too many other bad horror movies use, making it feel like they just needed to wrap it up. A couple of scenes are very memorable for their imagery, but in the end the film does not gel to make a really good movie. Unless you feel you must see everything this director made I suggest passing on this one...
Once again, the posters lied to me.<br /><br />The marketing of this flick was deeply at odds with the content; 'explosive'? When I read the synopsis for this movie, I was expecting to see a townful of grotesques, every man-jack of them bloodshot and bloated by alcohol, peppered by heroin needles and bent double with chronic masturbation; into such a "den of vice" would come the clean-shaven hero, shining Gabriel. Instead, the movie was the complete opposite of what I was led to expect.<br /><br />The first few minutes of the film showed us that Middletown is a simple little place full of poor people doing the best they can, whether fiddling a little to make ends meet, drinking to forget the pain, or watching cock-fighting (chickens, not penises) to while away the boredom. In other words, the townspeople were desperately ordinary.<br /><br />The only (deliberate?) grotesque in the piece was Gabriel, the brainwashed Presbyterian preacher played by Macfadyen, whose face is built in such a way as to suggest a permanent air of bewildered fury. If I were kind, I would suggest that the Paisleyite rantings of the preacher were a witty comment designed to make us despise Gabriel and his faith. Unfortunately, Brian Kirk is so inept a film-maker that you quickly despise everyone in the movie, leaving the audience to fret their way through eighty-plus minutes of dark, hackneyed tedium. My only respite from this waste of celluloid was a game of "guess the accent" broken up with rounds of "spot the location." Are we surprised that Gaybo ends up stealing his brother's child and suffocating his father? Of course not; he's a bible-bashing preacher and therefore psychotic. All the townspeople stand around looking shocked at the end of the movie, but I suspect that they've just realised what a turkey they've put their names to.<br /><br />The Northern Ireland Film and Television Commission have a budget to spend, but there are better projects than this feeble enterprise. The only kind thing I can say in favour of this movie is that it has managed to replace "Superman Returns" as the worst film of 2006; one hell of an achievement.<br /><br />v1:20061114 v2:20080107
The film is visually stunning: from the dusty interior of the church with the lighted stove, through the drizzly street and the run-down garage to the blaze that is the climax of the film. It also has a wonderful sense of time, both 1950's (the film's opening) and 1960's. All of the performances are top-class, especially Mathew MacFadyen as the psychotic preacher and Gerard McSorley as the father who finds his own intolerance terrifyingly magnified by his son. What a pity, then, that the story is so ridiculous. For a start, in concentrating on the relationship between Gabriel (McFadyen) and his family, it utterly fails to show how he has managed to hold so much influence on the community. In the church, we see five or six of the main characters at the front, and another two or three at the back, but the rest of the congregation might as well be mannequins: they show no sign of hearing him, heeding him or dissenting from him; at the cockfight, nobody says yea or nay when he disrupts the proceedings, but neither does anybody applaud or condemn when Caroline throws a pint over him; a situation that results in a stone thrown through the pub window is mysteriously resolved by the onset of labour pains. Secondly, Middletown (which isn't actually a town, but a tiny village) seems to lack some essential services, such as police and fire service: murder can only be dealt with by a family member with a crowbar; residents watch an inferno that threatens to engulf the whole town as though they were at the cinema. For that matter, everyday things such as telephones and newspapers are conspicuously absent, the rural community is strangely devoid of farm animals or wheat-fields, and most puzzling of all for a 'typical' North of Ireland setting, there is only one Christian community - not even a couple of Anglicans to season the mix. Even if you're willing to suspend disbelief, the story itself is pretty threadbare, a pale imitation of an A.J. Cronin melodrama. And the music? Well, it's beautiful for the first two minutes, but when the same four chords are repeated non-stop for 90 minutes it gets more than a little irritating. My advice: watch this with the sound off.
For a country that has produced some of the world's finest dramatists and has such a rich musical heritage it has always been a source of bewilderment to me why so much of Ireland's home-grown cinema has been so appalling. Perhaps because, by its very nature, those talented in the field of Irish cinema have been quick to abandon their native shore for careers in Britain or America, (Colin Farrell is a recent case in point), and that the really successful Irish directors that have continued to work in Ireland and with Irish subjects have made their films with international money and an eye on the international market. I am thinking particularly of Jim Sheridan and Neil Jordan who alternate between films with an Irish setting and projects filmed abroad.<br /><br />"Middletown", however, is very much an Irish film even if two of its principal actors are English. It's certainly well-made of its kind and might have bucked the trend that Irish films aren't really very good; (Paddy Breathnach's "I Went Down", written by the brilliant young playwright Conor McPherson, is a crucial exception). Unfortunately this tale of fundamentalism set in a fictitious Irish town, presumably in the North of Ireland judging by the accents, (Mid-Ulster Bible-Belt, if you ask me), and presumably in the recent past, (the fifties? the sixties?), is so over-the-top that it really is quite ridiculous.<br /><br />Nothing in the film rings true and you can't help feeling it's writer, Daragh Carville, has been strongly influenced by Flannery O'Connor and that the whole thing might have made more sense had it been set in the American bible-belt and not in Ireland where even the most extreme Protestant fundamentalist was never quite as loony as this. It's all meant be to be grim in a grand guignol kind of way and it certainly is, though I was more prone to giggles than frisson's at the right Reverand Matthew Macfayden's antics. He has the Ulster accent off pat and there is nothing wrong with his acting or indeed that of Daniel Mays as his brother, Gerard McSorley as his father or Eva Birthistle as Mays' wife but the script is so appallingly derivative that good acting can do nothing to save the film. So rather than a step up the ladder for Irish cinema "Middletown" is, I'm afraid, just another nail in its coffin.
This was supposed to be set in the "Bible Belt" of Northern Ireland. Well, as someone who grew up there,and was a child in the era depicted in the film it just didn't ring true! The accents were all over the place - anything but County Antrim/Derry. The church didn't resemble any I have ever seen. "The Church of God" is a pentecostal denomination but the one in the film was certainly not pentecostal! The elderly minister at the beginning was dressed in the robes of the Church of Ireland (Anglican)- and no C.of I. would call itself "The Church of God". The minister was often addressed as "Reverend" - they may do that in some parts of the world but I never heard it when I lived in that area. Ministers were addressed as "Mr ......"<br /><br />This film was very badly researched and cast - fairly typical of Irish cinema - annoying! A film can have a great plot, but if it doesn't look authentic, it is rubbish.
Poor Shirley MacLaine tries hard to lend some gravitas to this mawkish, gag-inducing "feel-good" movie, but she's trampled by the run-away sentimentality of a film that's not the least bit grounded in reality.<br /><br />This was directed by Curtis Hanson? Did he have a lobotomy since we last heard from him? Hanson can do effective drama sprinkled with comedy, as evidenced by "Wonder Boys." So I don't know what happened to him here. This is the kind of movie that doesn't want to accept that life is messy and fussy, and that neat, tidy endings (however implausible they might be) might make for a nice closing shot, but come across as utterly phony if the people watching the film have been through anything remotely like what the characters in the film go through.<br /><br />My wife and I made a game of calling out the plot points before they occurred -- e.g. "the old man's going to teach her to read and then drop dead." Bingo! This is one of those movies where the characters give little speeches summarizing their emotional problems, making you wonder why they still have emotional problems if they're that aware of what's causing them. Toni Collette (a fine actress, by the way, and one of my favorites if not given a lot to work with here), gives a speech early on about why she buys so many shoes and never wears them, spelling out in flashing neon the film's awkward connecting motif. At that moment, I knew what I was in for, and the film was a downward spiral from there.<br /><br />Grade: C-
I saw this film shortly after watching Moonlight & Valentino with Elizabeth Perkins, Gwyneth Platrow, Whoopi Goldberg and Kathleen Turner. There are a lot of similarities between the two films. They both have great casts and good acting. They both have stock characters of sisters who are very different, an offensive stepmother, a woman friend/confidant, an emotionally unavailable father, a dead mother and a surprise lover. Both films have the characters experience life-changing realizations and both films suffer from a kind of 'love conquers all' sentimentality. They both add a little titillation with Cameron Diaz in black underwear and a partial back shot of Gwyneth Paltrow naked.<br /><br />Both films seem contrived, as if the writers of the works the films are based on did market research and said, "Ok, there's a market for stories about relationships between women, so I'm going to write about two sisters with an offensive stepmother…" In other words, instead of the drama emerging from the truth of the relationship, the relationship is invented to fit the dramatic situation. It seems forced, the characters don't seem real, the relationships are unbelievable.<br /><br />The resolution of the tensions between the characters is simplistic with simple apologies completely whisking away years of acrimony leaving everyone feeling warm and fuzzy ever after. It's just not real. Romantic fantasy.<br /><br />The characters in In Her Shoes are a little more overblown than Moonlight & Valentino, especially the stepmother part. Sydelle Feller is so evil that it is difficult to believe that the father would stay with her, or even marry her in the first place.<br /><br />If you liked Moonlight & Valentino you will probably like In Her Shoes as well. Enjoyable performances in both, in fact, the actors bring depth to their parts that goes way beyond the contrived sentimentality of the scripts.
'You're in the Navy Now' is painfully bad: very likely the worst movie Gary Cooper ever made. It's supposedly based on a true story, but the incident which inspired this film doesn't seem to have enough plot to sustain a feature-length script.<br /><br />I saw this movie on local television while I was house-sitting for my mother-in-law in Long Island, New York. There was a raging blizzard outside, and I was literally snowbound. If I'd been able to get out the door, I definitely would have stopped watching this movie.<br /><br />There are some interesting names in the supporting cast, notably Charles Bronson (under his original name), Lee Marvin, Harvey Lembeck, Jack Webb and Jack Warden. Forget it. Everybody stinks in this movie. Even the usually reliable Millard Mitchell is awful. Lee Marvin and Jack Warden are onscreen so briefly, there's no point in your watching for them.<br /><br />Gary Cooper plays an obscure naval officer who is assigned to command a ship which is powered by a new, experimental steam turbine: basically, the whole ship is a giant teakettle. Cooper realises that the assignment is not a prestigious one: if it were, it would have gone to a better officer.<br /><br />Cooper was a good actor in dramatic roles, but he simply had no ability for comedy. He made several bad comedies, and this one is his worst. Jane Greer has always bored me, and she bored me more than usual here. This ship went down with all hands, and sank without a trace. Have I mentioned that this movie stinks? I'll rate 'You're in the Navy Now' one point out of 10. Toot! Toot!
The beginning of this movie had me doubting that it would be little more than a typical B sci-fi flick. But, as it progressed I began to get interested and I saw the whole thing through. The premise is interesting, original, and has the makings of making a classic. Alas, it instead ended up a mediocre movie, done in by the usual factors which turn a potentially good movie into a bad movie (bad acting, low budget etc.). I'm interested to see how this would turn out if it were remade with good actors and a big hollywood budget.
This movie had an interesting enough plot about clones and organ usage, but it fails as the lead actor is so annoying and whiny you want him dead. Not that anyone else is very good in it either, but when you hate the character that is supposed to be garnering your sympathy the movie just fails to work. Funny enough, it looks like a movie is coming out in the near future that has a plot that mirrors this one with more action and a better cast, still though I won't be able to think of anything else, but this film if I were to watch it. This movie has a super dumb clone that is somehow smart enough to figure something is wrong with his camp where people bicycle at one mile per hour and wrestle for no reason. The counselors tell them that when they are ready they go to America, but our "hero" has his doubts so he snoops around and learns the awful truth which sends him on the run from the bad guys who shoot and hit the guy repeatedly. He goes on the look out for the man he was cloned from. Peter Graves is in it and so is Dick Seargent, but they add nothing to this movie which looks like something that was made for television. On the plus side though when "The Island" comes out the makers of this film can proudly say "we thought of it first".
This is a great premise for a movie. The overall plot is very original,interesting, and something to think about. However poor production, an obviously small budget, crapy acting from the main character, and several side actors really detract from this would be classic. An up and coming producer should try to resurect this story and give this basicly half hearted atempt a proper release.
Like most other people, I saw this movie on "Mystery Science Theater 3000." Although it received some well-deserved barbs, it's one of the better films to be featured on that show.<br /><br />The premise is better than even your average Hollywood blockbuster these days; it poses some interesting moral dilemmas. Although the score is sometimes obtrusive, it also provides a few lovely moments when Richard is walking by the river. Watching the movie, you can see where a lot of plot developments probably looked very good on paper. Richard's discomfort in modern society is an interesting problem to ponder, and the ending probably would have been a nice '70s-style mindfuck if the preceding affairs hadn't been so goofy.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the movie is visibly cheap, making the flaws all the more obvious. The "clone farm" is very obviously a college campus, and a beer can serves as a major plot point. Lena and Richard have zero chemistry -- we are supposed to believe this is a meeting of kindred minds, but there doesn't seem to be a brain cell between them. The "cranky old couple" schtick also gets real old, real fast. There are also some mistakes that can be blamed on bad directorial choices, such as the decision to hold a climactic conversation out of reach of any audio equipment whatsoever.<br /><br />In all, a noble effort, but is nonetheless best viewed on MST3K.
The premise of this film is the only thing worthwhile. It is very poorly made but the idea was clever, if not entirely original. It's a shame the other aspects of the film weren't better. The acting is especially bad.
I have now suffered through Parts, The Clonus Horror.<br /><br />To have the word horror in the title of this movie is an insult to real horror.<br /><br />The story was about a cloning-central owned by the "The man" They grow Clones for harvesting organs from the clones later on for the original humans in need of transplants. One clone escapes, The government gets angry and kills all involved, but the story somehow leaks out anyway.<br /><br />It is Truly Shameful how a movie with potential is destroyed by amateurs such as Fiveson. The only thing he genuinely succeeded in doing was to weave in the concept of human rights and the very philosophical aspect, what makes a human a human, and would it be OK to grow clones for organic harvesting? Sadly, mediocre actors have been chosen and the plot has left town, until the very end in where a pathetic attempt is made to sum it up.<br /><br />But!! What disturbed me the most was the introducing of new characters lacking actual relevance for the plot. Despite that, Fiveson feels the need to kill them off in a bad explosion which only Sir Coleman Francis Himself would be proud of.<br /><br />The setting was interesting. How Fiveson thought that pulling out sheets of plastic and running water over them would make a believable river is beyond me, but I guess if you were to compare the setting to Coleman Francis' gray pasty oatmeal of a setting, this film would win.<br /><br />Perhaps Coleman has changed what bad movies are for me. 3/10
I have never seen this movie on its own, but like many others who have already commented, I saw it as an episode of MST3K. Really terrible 70s television schlock. But someone saw its potential because it's just been turned into a $125 million flop called The Island.<br /><br />And to the person who asked whether there were ANY good movies made in the 70s, I want to remind her that it was a golden age for American film with directors like Robert Altman and Martin Scorcese first coming into their own. Not to mention little things like Star Wars (1977). Just a reminder that the 70s were far more creative than the 21st century has been so far.
The movie was actually not THAT bad, especially plot-wise, but the doughy (and hairy!) actor they chose for the leading role was a little chintzy in the acting department. I would have chosen someone else. The idea of "going to America" was very ingenious, and the main character questioning everything that he'd ever known made him somewhat likable, but not very much so when there's a pasty blob for a leading actor.<br /><br />The storyline was interesting. It brings about the question of how the subject of cloning will be handled in the future. Certainly cloning wouldn't be allowed for the purposes in the movie, but it's still a valid argument even for today. Clones ARE still people... right?<br /><br />The movie wasn't particularly special, but it still is a lot better than some of the cheese released during the 70s. Let us not forget the "Giant Spider Invasion." I give it a 4, since it didn't TOTALLY stink, but the MST3K version makes this movie a 10. (I still like Dr. Super Mario!) You'll like this movie, but it won't be your favorite.
This film is a mediocre, low-budget flick. I've seen much worse on MST3K, let me assure you, but this is still a pretty crappy film.<br /><br />The film is about Clonus, a top-secret government facility in which clones are used to give organs to politicians. It's an almost Orwellian society, actually: almost (but not quite) effective.<br /><br />The film starts to roll downhill when the head clone (Tim Connely of `Emergency' fame) falls in love with a female clone (Paulette Breen, who appeared in this and at most four other films {and this was not her first film}). They begin to suspect something. After finding a beer can in the nearby river, the plot starts to unravel. The clone receives no answers from either the head scientist (Dick Sargent from `Bewitched') or the `Confessional', a computer which supposedly knows everything, so he breaks into the main Clonus building and (in a scene hilariously destroyed by Mike and the Bots) finds out the truth (including a clone video which, eerily, shows the exact same method that was used to clone Dolly five years ago . .. and this film was made over twenty years ago . . .) about Clonus. He breaks free, pursued by two guards. He has one hell of a time breaking through the two-foot high fences, though he has a considerably harder time climbing up some boulders. From there it continues to slide. Also appearing are Peter Graves (`Beginning of the End', `It Conquered The World') as the Presidential candidate and Keenan Wynn (`Dr. Strangelove', `Piranha', `Once Upon A Time In The West') and Lurleen Tuttle (`Ma Barker's Killer Brood', `Psycho') as the elderly couple who help Clony after he escapes.<br /><br />The MST3K version was priceless; one of the best episodes ever.<br /><br />Four stars for the film;10 for the MST3K version.
...in a TV-movie 70's kind of way. It's one of those movies that show up in the wee hours, but rarely because more modern late-hour schlock movies bump it off. It has likeable performances by Graves and Wynn. Generally, it's just a harmless little piece of nothing that doesn't offend too badly. Nothing good, a lot that's mediocre.
Parts: The Clonus Horror is a horror all right. There are of course the bad fashions of the late 70's. There's the really bad acting from Dick Sargent to Peter Graves. And then there's the clones themselves. Their days mostly consist of running, jumping, cycling, and wrestling with each other. When they're not doing that, they learn about America. Not the band America, or the song by Neil Diamond, but an America where they go on to become part of a greater society. But they're given some strange drug then they have all their bodily fluids drained(General Ripper was right!) and they are placed in the freezer and await Thanksgiving or Christmas when they will be thawed out and roasted at about 450 degrees or so. Oops, that's not what happens, but it would've been a lot more interesting than what's shown. Mario, of Super Mario Brothers fame, makes a delightful cameo as a doctor who bickers with Dick Sargent.
I'll say this first...the film would've been a 70s sci-fi classic if it had been executed a lot better.<br /><br />That said, let's examine the plot...it starts with Peter Graves (or is that Clarence Oveur?) running for President, then cuts to a goofy college campus-like environ full of authoritarians in goofy trucker caps and headsets and retarded athletes who all act like they're perpetually age 8. It then shows one guy apparently going to America, having a party, then taken to a medical lab where he is drugged, wrapped in a plastic bag and then prepared as if the doctors were bagging vegetables for steamers packs...okay, actually he's being put on ice so the doctors can extract the organs they need.<br /><br />It then cuts to another dopey man thinking the place he's living in is a bit strange after a beer can (of all plot devices possible) he finds in a river makes him look suspicious (damn those beer cans!). He and some equally stupid love interest of his feel they need to get to the bottom of it all, so he makes her stay behind as he escapes through what is basically a large college administration building with some evidence he discovers on the way about cloning...and how he's a part of it.<br /><br />He escapes his controllers after being shot some and an old reporter guy helps him find his 'father'--the man he was cloned from. It just so happens he's a clone of the brother of Peter Graves. After debate about what to do with him and his evidence, he goes back to the facility to find his girlfriend (who has been lobotomized in the meantime to be even more stupid, harmless, and ready to host a talk show according to the SOL crew). He is captured and put into cold storage just like his Nazi-build retard friend from the beginning of the film.<br /><br />Meanwhile, a confrontation at Graves' brothers house results in several deaths, including Graves'. The reporter guy and his wife are killed in the middle of an exciting conversation by a bomb. It seems the conspirators have won to some extent...<br /><br />Then, Peter Graves turns out to be able to survive being run through with a metal poker by the miracle of cloned parts, and giving another 'vote for me' speech just as reporters confront him about the cloning thing.<br /><br />Definitely MST3K fodder, but on the low end of the spectrum as far as overall badness goes.
The only reason I'm even giving this movie a 4 is because it was made in to an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. The horrible direction is only slightly overshadowed by the characters complete inability to act. The lead is an actor i have never seen in anything else and it shows. No chemistry with the love interest and so bland you almost don't care what happens to him. Dick Sargent was not convincing as a villain least of all this guy was suppose to be super evil...he was more annoying then anything. Peter Graves was the only person the movie that wasn't awful, his part was small and even he couldn't compensate for his co-stars lack of talent. In 2004 someone tried to make this mess all over again it was called The Island...I personally didn't see that movie but from what i understand its the same movie. If you want to laugh at this movie get the MST3k episode its really funny...full of bewitched and biography references it makes this movie finally watchable
Parts: The Clonus Horror is not that bad of a movie. I have the MST3K version of it on tape and it is hilarious, but its still not the worst film the have ever done. I would go so far as to say that it was better than 80% of the movies they have made fun of. The concept could have worked if they had a better script, more money and decent actors. It could have become a classic if it was not so boring and had a bit more excitement. Sadly it was botched in production and ended up on MST3K.
SLOOOOOOOW, tepid, poorly produced 70's schlocker made moore cowvincing because of today's headlines; nonetheless, this film is worthy stink-fodder because of uncowvincing acting, absent direction, and silly 70's clothing(sadly, the MooCow remembers when Adidas clothing was all the rage...). This has the same sort of feel to it that some better 70's sci-fi moovies accowmplished, namely "WestWorld" and "Logan's Run". While the premise interesting(rich people clone themselves to keep a ready supply of body parts to keep them alive theoretically forever), the film makes the mistake of saddling us with Richard(Tim Donnelly), a clone who is at once both boring and irritating. Hollow acting by Donnelly doesn't help, but fits right in with the rest of the cast. Even such B-illuminaries as Dick Sargent("Bewitched" tv series, "Ghost with 1,000,000 Eyes), Keenan Wynn("Dr. Strangelove", "The Dark", "Laserblast"), and Peter Graves("Beginning of the End", "Killers from Space", "It Conquered the World")provide only the moost tepid performances. Produced, directed, and edited by a bunch of nobodies, it's no surprise that "Clonus" fails to horrify anyone in the least, much less keep anyone's attention! Truth be told, there's nothing in the feeble flick that even schlock-fans would love - wanna see some realllly bad, funny 70's films, put on anything by Greydon Clark. "Clonus" is no bonus; the MooCow says even the MST3K-version is a yawner, so proceed at yer own risk! :=8P
This film was sourced from my friends mum who worked in a charity shop. She gave it to us along with a load of other unknown cassette tapes. The film itself is a bit rubbish. There are a few notable bits to laugh at like the bit when his girlfriend gets her head drilled into, but in general the film is bland. Interstingly when I saw the trailer for "The Island" I couldn't help noticing the similarities. Clonus may have been the inspiration for that film? All in all don't bother watching this film as it is dull and boring. We enjoyed it so much when we were 16 that we named our band after it. Another sign this film is a bit crappy is the shots on the back of the video case don't actually appear in the film? weird
"The Danish Bladerunner" is boldly stated on the box. Are you kidding me?! This film is a complete drag. When I'm thirsty and go for a soda in the kitchen, I usually pause the vcr, so I won't miss anything. Not this time. I actually found myself looking long and hard in the fridge, just so I wouldn't have to go back. Why the hell is there not ONE sciencefiction-scriptwriter out there who has the vaguest clue about how computers work? It's mindboggling. One of the premises of film, is that our hero (who's a hacker), has a little computerassistant to help him (the Microsoft Office paperclip finally caught on in the future). When he loses the assistant in the movie, he's helpless and can't get into any computers. HE'S A HACKER! It's like saying, that you can't drive your car, if you don't have your lucky "driving-cap" on. I won't even go into the lightning-effect when he recieves electroshock...
If you really loved GWTW, you will find quite disappointing the story. Those who may think this is just about a romantic story and the south, will be probably satisfied with this decent TV production (altought I consider an important miscast the choice for Scarlett). But, let me say that considering the novel, nothing good could came out of this.<br /><br />I've read GWTW more than 20 times and I can really appreciate the adaptation Mrs. Mitchell did for the film. It took me some time to understand how good the ending was: Scarlett knew for sure she was going to recover Rhett, since she always got what she wanted. But there was no kiss in the end.<br /><br />Then Alexandra Ripley came to "fix" this by showing us exactly how perfect and mighty Scarlett could be, and of course, describing in detail how exactly she gets Rhett back even when she had an important affair with someone else (nothing could have been further from Mrs. Mitchell mind, I am sure).<br /><br />The story between these points is in my opinion just a long and boring ride made up to tie ends, showing off costumes and scenarios just to give us an obvious and totally unnecessary ending.<br /><br />If Margaret Mitchell could came to live again, she would die one more time at the very moment she'd find out what Scarlett became after GWTW.<br /><br />Sure it's not fair to compare this to the original but this is not GWTW fault. Isn't it? Is it any good if I don't compare it to the original? Maybe. Sorry to say I don't really care.<br /><br />I would expect little more compromise to continue someone else's (suberb) work, otherwise don't even try.
As everyone knows, nobody can play Scarlett O'Hara like Vivien Leigh, and nobody can play Rhett Butler like Clark Gable. All others pale in comparison, and Timothy Dalton and Joanne Whalley are no exceptions. One thing that I really couldn't get past was that Joanne has BROWN eyes. The green eyes were the most enhancing feature of Scarlett's good looks, and in this sequel she has been stripped of those.<br /><br />The movie, as well as the book, had several lulls in it. The new characters weren't all that memorable, and I found myself forgetting who was who. I felt as though her going to Ireland did absolutely nothing whatsoever. It could be that I'm only 11, but I saw no change in her attitude until the last say, 10 minutes when Rhett told her she had grown up. If Rhett hadn't told her that, I would have never guessed that there was any change in her attitude. She really loved Cat, her baby. She likes this child best because she had it with Rhett, her only loved husband. Still, if you've read Gone With The Wind, you would see that children make no difference in Scarlett's world. <br /><br />Quite frankly, it seemed to me like there was way too much going on without Rhett. All anybody cares about is whether or not Rhett and Scarlett get back together, and Scarlett took way too long to get to that. It is virtually nothing compared to Gone With The Wind, but then again what isn't? If you have read the novel, you will like that better than the movie.<br /><br />I would watch it, just because it is the sequel to Gone With The Wind, regardless of whether or not it's worthwhile. It may not satisfy you entirely, but it will get you some of the way there.
I've read the book 'Scarlett' and was expecting a good movie the first time I saw it. I'm afraid to say that I was disappointed. The movie did not follow the book and made many changes that I did not like. <br /><br />One of the changes that I did not like the way that Lord Fenton was portrayed. It made no sense to make him out to be a bad man. The way that things ended between Lord Fenton and Scarlett was a lot different and their whole relationship was too intimate. <br /><br />There was also a lot less confrontation between Scarlett and Rhett in the movie than was originally written in the book. The movie sent the two in two completely opposite ways and they did not seem to cross paths often enough to make it seem like there still could be love between the two. A fine movie, but I believe that it certainly could've been better than it was, had it more true to Alexandra Rippley's book.
As an avid Gone With the Wind fan, I was disappointed to watch the original movie and see that they had left out many important characters. Luckily, the film on its own was a wonderful piece. When the book Scarlett came out, I read it in hopes of following two of my favorite literary characters farther on their journey together. While the book lacks any true quality, it remains a good story, and, as long as I was able to separate it from the original, was and still is enjoyable. However, I consider the six hours I spent watching the "Scarlett" miniseries to be some of the worst-spent hours of my life. Discrediting any of the original character traits so well-formed in Margaret Mitchell's book, this series also turned the story of the sequel into one of rape, mistrust, murder, and misformed relationships that even the book Scarlett stayed away from. The casting for many of the characters refused to examine the traits that had been so well-formed in both the original novel and film, and even carried through in the second book, and again leaves out at least one incredibly crucial character. In the novel, Scarlett O'Hara Butler follows her estranged husband Rhett Butler to Charleston under the guise of visiting extended family. After coming to an "arrangement" with Rhett, she agrees to leave, and proceeds to reconnect with her O'Hara relatives in Savannah. Eventually, she accompanies her cousin Colum, a passionate leader of the Fenian Brotherhood, to Ireland, to further explore her family's "roots that go deep," and is eventually named "The O'Hara," the head of the family. While her duties as The O'Hara keep her engaged in her town of Ballyhara, Scarlett ventures out into the world of the English landowners, and instantly becomes a sought-after guest at many of their parties. She, having been scorned by Rhett time and time again, eventually agrees to marry Luke, the earl of Fenton, until Rhett comes along in a clichéd "night-on-white-horse" - type of a rescue. The "Scarlett" miniseries fails even to do this justice. Raped by her fiancé and scorned by her family, the series shows Scarlett thrown in jail after she is blamed for a murder her cousin committed.<br /><br />I heartily advise anyone considering spending their day watching this to rethink this decision.
...But not this one! I always wanted to know "what happened" next. We will never know for sure what happened because GWTW was Margaret's baby. I am a lifelong fan of Gone With the Wind and I could not have been more repulsed by the movie. I did compare "Scarlett" to the original GWTW because any film worth following GWTW needed to be on the same quality level as the first. Rhett was cast beautifully, although NO ONE will ever compare to Mr. Gable. I am also a strict Vivien Leigh fan!! She WAS Scarlett. She fit the bill. Not another actress in this lifetime or another will ever fit the same shoes but with "Scarlett" the job could have been done better. Not enough thought went into finding the proper Scarlett, that was evident.<br /><br />Overall, something to look to but if you want to know the what happened to Scarlett and Rhett, I suggest writing it yourself or finding fan fiction. This movie is not worth the time.
I am insulted and angry over the idea that a sequel to 'Gone with the Wind' should EVER have been undertaken. Having expressed that, I have no problem with the quality of the acting or the actors in this film. The performers are talented people whose talents were wasted on this piece of garbage. The hype surrounding this book and film just happens to be an exercise in futility. I think it will go down as one of the misguided films of Hollywood. I don't believe that the beloved characters created by Margaret Mitchell should have been soiled by the ideas and interpretations of another writer. The film and the book should be on the list of worst ideas conceived in the world of publishing and film-making. The sad thing is that people actually made money off of this tripe.
Alexandra Ripley wrote a horrible sequel to Margaret Mitchell's masterpiece book published in the 1930's. Margaret Mitchell's heirs sold out their rights and for big bucks allowed Alexandra Ripley to write a piece of junk book even worse than Barbara Cortland romance novels. I was a huge fan of Margaret Mitchells book and the fake sequel by Alexandra Ripley was written just to cash in for money.<br /><br />Although I always admired the acting talent of Joanne Kilmer and Timothy Dalton, this is a really terrible film. The script is horrible and full of clichés. Ann Margarets cameo as Belle Watling is so awful I wanted to slap her.<br /><br />The only worthwhile thing in the movie is Sean Bean who gives a masterful bravura performance as the sexy, feral villain - Lord Fenton. Sean Bean's performance is along the lines of "The Man You Love to Hate" and portrays an unsafe sex symbol.<br /><br />But Sean Bean is only in the first half of the movie so you then have to be tormented with watching an incredibly long 6 hour movie with an insufferably boring script.<br /><br />Don't waste your money on this film, unless you are a hard core Sean Bean fan and just watch it for his wonderful performance.
Margaret Mitchell spins in her grave every time somebody watches this mess! Fine costuming and sets can't even begin to overwhelm lackluster performances by Joanne Whalley (as the title character) and the ever-bland Timothy Dalton (as Rhett). Even worse than the acting--and perhaps partially explaining it--is the script, which is astoundingly cliched and predictable. Add to that hellishly bad script a score that'll have you cringing, and you've got a disaster I wouldn't wish on any viewer. SCARLETT is just amazingly lousy, and I can't imagine how it ever got made, much less made it to video.
This movie was NOTHING like the book. I think the writer of the screenplay must have wanted the job of writing the sequel to Gone with the Wind and been turned down. This was his or her way of getting their ideas in anyway. The only similarity between this movie and the story it was portraying was the names of the principle characters and the location of the main action. None of the events that are shown in the movie happened that way in the book. For a Gone with the Wind fan (of both the book and the movie) this was deeply disappointing. If you loved the book Scarlett, don't watch this movie hoping to see it played out on the screen. They only share the title in common.
<br /><br />Summary: Not worth the film<br /><br />As an avid Gone With the Wind fan, I was disappointed to watch the original movie and see that they had left out many important characters. Luckily, the film on its own was a wonderful piece. When the book Scarlett came out, I read it in hopes of following two of my favorite literary characters farther on their journey together. While the book lacks any true quality, it remains a good story, and, as long as I was able to separate it from the original, was and still is enjoyable. However, I consider the six hours I spent watching the "Scarlett" miniseries to be some of the worst-spent hours of my life. Discrediting any of the original character traits so well-formed in Margaret Mitchell's book, this series also turned the story of the sequel into one of rape, mistrust, murder, and misformed relationships that even the book Scarlett stayed away from. The casting for many of the characters refused to examine the traits that had been so well-formed in both the original novel and film, and even carried through in the second book, and again leaves out at least one incredibly crucial character. In the novel, Scarlett O'Hara Butler follows her estranged husband Rhett Butler to Charleston under the guise of visiting extended family. After coming to an "arrangement" with Rhett, she agrees to leave, and proceeds to reconnect with her O'Hara relatives in Savannah. Eventually, she accompanies her cousin Colum, a passionate leader of the Fenian Brotherhood, to Ireland, to further explore her family's "roots that go deep," and is eventually named "The O'Hara," the head of the family. While her duties as The O'Hara keep her engaged in her town of Ballyhara, Scarlett ventures out into the world of the English landowners, and instantly becomes a sought-after guest at many of their parties. She, having been scorned by Rhett time and time again, eventually agrees to marry Luke, the earl of Fenton, until Rhett comes along in a clichéd "night-on-white-horse" - type of a rescue. The "Scarlett" miniseries fails even to do this justice. Raped by her fiancé and scorned by her family, the series shows Scarlett thrown in jail after she is blamed for a murder her cousin committed.<br /><br />I heartily advise anyone considering spending their day watching this to rethink this decision.<br /><br />
Breaker! Breaker! has Chuck Norris as a truck driver and a karate master, talk about juggling two disparate careers. He gives a load he can't deliver to his younger brother Michael Augenstein and then when the young man doesn't show up, Chuck goes looking for him.<br /><br />What young Augenstein has got himself into is a speed-trap run by Judge George Murdock who comes from the Roy Bean school of jurisprudence. Of course Norris deals with matters in the usual Chuck Norris way and when he gets in trouble, the call goes out over the CB for all the truckers to come and help their good buddy. This speed-trap known as Texas City has a bad reputation and the drivers are only too happy to help a pal.<br /><br />Chuck's of course quite a bit younger and with no facial hair in this one. He's got the tight lipped look of a man who realizes the Academy won't be looking at this gobbler. George Murdock is overacting outrageously as the Judge Roy Bean wannabe.<br /><br />This one is strictly for the fans of Chuck Norris.
I've always been a fan of Chuck Norris for what he's accomplished and his movies. For while I had been meaning to watch this film, but for whatever reason didn't have chance. Apparently I didn't miss much. This has to be one of Chuck's worst films. So this trucker, Billy Dawes (Augenstein) is given the chance to make his delivery, but on the way he is detoured and forced into a jerkwater town where a foolish local corrupt Judge Trimmings (Murdock) who runs the whole town, has him arrested and phony charges brought up on him. He denies the charges and makes a run for it. The local hick cops beat him and he disappears. But now his brother JD John Dawes (Norris) another trucker goes looking for him. He soon finds that the town is run buy the loser judge and that his brother is nowhere to be found. Not long after he begins to beat off just about everyone in town. In the meantime the female of the film calls on local truckers on a CB radio, and they all come rushing into town demolishing it. LOL with there big rigs. Eventually Norris finds his brother and beats off more thugs.<br /><br />This movie was pretty bad. It actually starts off OK and you feel great when Norris starts to smash some of these local corrupt cops, because there such losers. But there is virtually no story, the acting is bad, and the ending …..well it doesn't really have one. The Judge has his house rammed into by a big rig and you never know what happens. Does he live? Norris never even gets to trash him. In the meantime Norris takes on some thug cop at the end. Who cares? Norris also manages to take on everyone in town, gets his hand broken and shot in the side and goes on to keep fighting. Come on! This movie was apparently made to cash in on the CB craze of the time, why there was one is beyond me. They barley even use the CB's in the movie. Adding to this, the movie near the end seems to drag on and you wonder why it's not over yet. This movie is bad, but if you're bored and need something to watch it will pass the time. As far as Norris he went on to make much better films than this. 3 out of 10.
Save some very early Norris, "Breaker, Breaker" has nothing to offer which can't be found ten fold better on any broadcast channel. A pathetic attempt at film making, this is one of the worst films I have ever seen. In spite of that, I did watch it, thumbing the fast forward button, because the acting was so awful it was comical. Of course, the film is supposed to be an action/drama but turned out as a treatise on how NOT to make a movie. Everything which could be wrong with film is on screen in this "dog". If you happen across it, give it a peek. It's so bad, it's funny.
Saw this used DVD cheap, and got it for a chuckle. I had recently also found "The Octagon" on DVD and bought that one to reminisce, having seen it in the theatre as a pre-teen, and loving it at the time. The problem now with "going back" to these American karate films, is that I've since then seen so many Hong Kong and Thai action films, in which the fight scenes are long, fast and jaw-dropping. I'm thinking particularly of fights like Jackie and Benny "The Jet" at the end of "Dragons Forever", or Tony Jaa's circular-stairwell fight from "The Protector". The Hollywood kung-fu offerings are just not "filmed right", and even make someone of certified skill, such as Chuck, look awkward at times. And what's worse than a fight going into slow motion? Then you know it looked crappy at normal speed, so they slowed it down for effect. It really highlights how ridiculous an opponent looks as they stand and just WAIT to get kicked in the chest.<br /><br />Poor Chuck, he just has no intensity in this film, nor does he project any righteous menace. Compare that to his former co-star Bruce Lee, who had charm and attitude to burn. When Bruce would square off against some opponent(s) you could nearly see the air around him crackling with what was about to happen. In "Breaker, Breaker" Chuck seemed to accidentally be kicking people, with complete nonchalance. When the judge comes to see him in jail, and sentence him to death, Chuck is staring off with a sad look, and I thought "OK...he's doing that 'third eye' focus thing and is going to grab the judge by the throat and get out of this", but he does nothing except look up with a doe-eyed stare. Terrible. And while the DVD case gives you hope, listing a run time of 1 hour, 5 minutes, it's actually 1 hour, 25 minutes, so there's 20 more minutes of viewing pain. <br /><br />For great fight action, go watch Jackie Chan in the first "Police Story"....the fight in the shopping mall at the end is pure gold......
In terms of quality movies, this isn't one of them. It's actually the first Chuck Norris movie I've seen and I was left pretty underwhelmed. The fight scenes are slow and don't have a lot of variety. Norris just uses a lot of roundhouse kicks on all the bad guys coming after him which makes the fights pretty boring. The movie also is quite short, but for some reason the movie doesn't even seem finished when it ends. It's a pretty anti-climatic ending. All the same though, I've watched a lot of bad movies, and this isn't one of the worst that I've seen. It's worth a watch, I'm guessing especially for Norris fans. There's also nothing like seeing a group of rigs hurtling down the desert which in my opinion was the highlight of the movie.
I caught this movie a few years ago one night, and it was one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. However, since it is supposed to be an action movie, I cannot give it more stars since the humor was unintentional.<br /><br />Chuck Norris plays a truck driver who comes home from the road to see his family, and within the first five minutes the conflict arises which leads Chuck to seek vengeance for the rest of the film. Good thing too, 'cuz the sub-par acting by everyone involved was starting to get old very fast. Actually, the judge was pretty good, but I can't really describe what makes him work, you'll have to check it out for yourself.<br /><br />And the custom van Chuck Norris drives is hideously classic!
Ok with this film there are a number of ingredients at work:<br /><br />First put in loads of hillbilly truckers--good ole boys who have secret desire to take law into own hands. Second put in evil hillbilly cops controlled by a Texas bred outlaw. Third put in karate fighting trucker played by Chuck Norris. Fourth put in a chump teenager as Norris's nephew captured by evil hillbilly cops. Fifth show Chuck Norris fighting in slow motion.<br /><br />Now mix all together and what have you got?<br /><br />You guessed it...one very mediocre movie!
Ever want to see a movie where Chuck Norris takes the bad guys aside and calmly discusses with them the errors of their ways until they see the light and, with tears in their eyes, they shake hands, right the wrongs of the world together in peace and harmony and forever end the reign of evil in the world?<br /><br />Well, forget it, Jocko. <br /><br />"Breaker! Breaker!" instead goes right for the drop-kick as our truck-drivin' man Chuck steers his big rig into the small backwoods town where his little brother is being held by a corrupt judge and his even-more corrupt law-men. <br /><br />Chuck karate kicks, chops, slices, juliennes and crinkle-cuts every baddie in sight until not an evil-doer dares raise his head. A lot of fights are in slow-motion, for excitement purposes, but just help pad out the movie to fill 86 minutes.<br /><br />And there's a lot of fights here, which leave just about 15 minutes for plot development...and that's about all the plot you get. But what did you expect: calm discussion?<br /><br />One star for "Breaker! Breaker!"; and that's a small 10-4, good buddy.
I work in an office on weekends, and there is a TV that only gets ONE channel. So, I don't have the option of turning to something better. I keep it on, though, because it provides a little background noise. Sometimes, I get a decent movie/show. Not today. Today, I got "Breaker Breaker." The city looks like a third rate set (which, of course, it is). All the actors and bad guys look like they just graduated from stuntman school. I have seen better dramatic enactments at a carnival. The special effects (flames at end of movie are more fake then Michael Jacksons masculinity). Even the horse at the end of the movie was a terrible actor... A badly acted, badly shot, badly written movie.
I bought this Chuck Norris DVD knowing that it was one of his earliest films, and it shows. We all know that he will never win an Oscar for his acting, but that's not what we watch him for. Although there have been a few earthquakes in California since this movie was made, there never was any desert or hills between Hwy.99 and I 5. Billy was supposedly crossing over from 99 to 5 along 120, a distance of less that 15 miles. I wish that the writers, producers and directors of these movies would, at least, look at a map. As a truck driver who spends a lot of time in California, I could tell right from the start that the geography was wrong. However, there are worse ways to spend an hour and a half. So grab your Doritos and an adult beverage and enjoy a trip back in time.
This is a Very Very Boring and uninteresting action film, and without Chuck Norris it would have been unbearable!, plus the low budget shows big time!. Some of the fights were good, but the story is laughable, and there no menacing villains at all.The dialog was laughable I had some trouble finishing this film, but Chuck Norris, made it somewhat bearable. I really have nothing more to say, since i was only paying half attention,because it was so incredibly boring however it did pick up a tiny bit towards the end. The Direction is terrible. Don Hulette, does a terrible job here, with lousy photography, an awful pace, and overall the film looked dull!. There is no gore. The Acting was terrible. Chuck Norris is very good here, he kicks that ass, and he made the film almost bearable(Chuck rules!). George Murdock, is terrible as the main villain, and very unconvincing. Terry O'Connor, is decent here, and had okay chemistry with Chuck. Michael Augenstein, is decent as Chuck's brother. Overall It's quite simple AVOID! * Out of 5 (Chuck saves it from the BOMB rating).
This is definitely one of the best Kung fu movies in the history of Cinema. The screenplay is really well done (which is not often the case for this type of movies) and you can see that Chuck (in one of his first role)is a great actor. The final fight with the sherif deputy in the bullring is a masterpiece!
I couldn't even...I mean...look....okay...<br /><br />Wow.<br /><br />Not even a bunch of my drunk friends trying to make fun of the movie could enjoy themselves in the least bit.<br /><br />I can only think...how. How do independent film makers everywhere go years without getting noticed (or even their lives) and con-artists like the guy who made this get a DVD on a shelf? It seriously looks as if some guy with a home movie camera went out with some guys he met at Subway and made the worst thing he could think of.<br /><br />"Hey guys, give me some ideas. Start with a corn-field and work backwards." "Well, you've gotta have actors straight out of high school, and some broken corn stalks with shreds of clothing attached. And boobs." Thanks, guy, I'm sure that you and Windows Movie Maker will be side by side on your next anxiously awaited project.
No. Just NO. That's all that needs to be said.<br /><br />Summary: A random guy is in a cornfield. For some reason, I'm not sure, but it's his duty to run around inside. The next great thriller?<br /><br />A five year old could make a better movie just filming an anthill, or even just grass growing. Seriously.....<br /><br />You can't say it has bad acting, because there is NO acting. You can't say it has bad writing, because it has NO writing. You can't say it has bad cinematography, because there is NO cinematography. You can't say it's a bad movie, BECAUSE THERE IS NO MOVIE! If you don't believe me, go watch it. Just don't say I never warned you.....
I rented Dark Harvest (the first one) because it looked like a cheesy monster-on -the-box type of thrill ride. Scarecrows also freak me out. The movie had an effective title sequence, but what followed was pretty lame (flat, bad lighting, acting, editing, direction...). Recently, I noticed that DH 2: The Maize had a pretty extensive ad campaign. I thought maybe the first one was marginally successful, so they upped the ante on this one a bit, possibly delivering some bigger budget scares and fx from the killer scarecrows. Well, there are no scarecrows in the video... Not a problem. The problems start in DH 2 with a title sequence that looks like an unfinished concept, with strange shapes and bars wiping away titles and whatnot. As far as the actual photography... every time the sun shines in a shot, you'd have all these blown out whites, confirming that you're watching some ultra-low budget mini-DV project that some Midwesterner filmed at his Uncles farm. The acting was not acting at all. The cheap rip-off of The Shining twin girls was below freshman film student standards. The editing was extremely amateur and lazy. The sound was jarring and choppy. (e.g.- every time the editor would cut to a new shot, you'd here the sound change perspective with it). It's as if someone gathered their friends and family (actors), took a video camera out in a cornfield for three days, put a light on top of it for the night sequences (no joke - that's what they actually did), burned through some tape, stuck the footage in their computer, cut a (very) rough version, tossed in some music, bypassed any imaginative sound work or mixing, burned it directly to DVD, and threw it on the video store shelf. Any horror fan should be insulted by this type of direct to video work that is void of ANY skill or style. Just because a person owns a video camera and is able to get somewhat of an image on tape, doesn't mean it should be released to the public. If I could give this a rating lower than a ONE, I would.
This is absolutely the most stupidest movie ever produced in front of a camera. I cant believe I was gullable enough to rent this piece of junk. I have seen some bad movies in my time, But this takes the cake....Ice cream ,,,, and Chips Too. Omg, I still cant get over how bad this thing was. The acting was a Joke.... The Plot was Non Exsistant..and the camera work had to be done by a 3 year old child. I have never seen a movie take so long to go Nowhere. I mean the whole movie could have been shot is less than 30 minutes. I guess this guy had some extra time on his hands.... ( Like 3 Hours. ) And an extra 60 bucks in his wallet, and decided one night...( Hey ..Lets go make the stupidest movie ever made. ) And they did just that. Give me a break.I'm heading back to the video store right now to get Demand my money back.Anyone else who has watched this piece of trash, should do the same.
A guy, with the unlikely name of Shy Walker, looks for his two daughters in a cornfield for an hour and a half. That's the entire plot...with across-the-board bad acting, of course. Walker wanders around a corn maze (maize? I get it! HAHAHA...not funny) and yells "Girls? Where are you?!?" about 1000 times. For some reason whenever he runs by a pumpkin, a chipmunk-sounding voice laughs (as if the pumpkin is laughing at him, yeah OK...). His daughters scream for most of the movie...even when there is no reason to scream (maybe because they are still stuck in this awful movie?). Twin girls straight out of 'The Shining' show up every now and then. Most of the corn maze looks the same so Walker's search gets very old very quickly. The filmmakers realize there is NOTHING going for this movie (even the music is repetitive) so they try to make things interesting by spinning the camera around really fast, filming upside down, inserting smaller pictures of the same shot at different angles, using red lights to make the corn look scary, and rotating the camera 360 degrees (at least I'm assuming these were done intentionally but it's likely just examples of incompetent film-making). More often than not, when Walker is wandering through the maze, you can't see his face. I guess the kid holding the camera can't look up that high... This movie gives you a new appreciation for the original 'Dark Harvest' (which doesn't have anything to do with this movie except for the fact it also features a cornfield). Don't be fooled by the R rating. Walker says the F word three times and now we have "an R-rated horror movie", ugh. The scarecrow on the cover doesn't even show up in this movie...and when you are wishing that those cheesy scarecrows from the first movie would come back, you know things are bad! Instead we get a guy in yellow boots chasing our hero around (unfortunately he is dressed similar to Mr. Walker so I didn't even realize he was being followed for a while). I figured out the identity of the guy in the yellow boots long before Walker did (the movie is almost over by the time he puts 2 and 2 together, natch). The end of the movie drags on and on...and just in case it isn't slow enough, there's some slow-motion! The last sound you hear (besides your own laughter) is very poor sound-dubbing. In case you can't tell, this is the worst movie I've ever seen. At least they didn't end with the promise of another sequel!
Besides the comments on the technical merits of the production, or lack thereof, the acting is absolutely horrible. What is really scary about this movie is that I actually OWN a copy of it, of course, it was in a bargain bin and had been renamed as "Dark Harvest 2", and after having seen it, I can understand why it was in the bargain bin - they should have paid me for taking it out of their inventory.<br /><br />The majority of the movie, if you want to call it that, is spent by a frantic father running around a corn field maze looking for his daughters because he has a premonition that something is going to happen to them. I suspect that the camera that the girls were playing with at the beginning of the film was probably one of the production cameras for this fiasco. In the maze, he runs into the ghost of some children, which are poorly done, and the movie goes horribly south from there.<br /><br />I can see why they renamed this movie, otherwise, they would never have gotten rid of them. Absolutely one of the worst movies I have ever had to sit through, and it wasn't worth the $2 I spent on it.
Completely agree with other review.<br /><br />I watched this movie for about 5 minutes. I looked up the one review on another site and found that it wasn't even a real sequel. This was after I slowly backed away from the TV with remote in hand, jaw dropping lower and lower. <br /><br />The quality of the filming is beyond low budget. It doesn't even look like a freaking movie. If I were watching 'home video' footage from a documentary I would expect it.<br /><br />In summary: Avoid, avoid avoid. Boooo Lion's Gate!<br /><br />Completely ashamed of myself for watching 5 minutes and I hope that I've saved others from renting or owning it.
Anyone can make a movie these days. Budget, production value, or experienced crew don't have to stop the self described "director" from "realizing their dream" these days.<br /><br />Respect for the craft of film-making, or even just respect for any film aesthetic are no longer prerequisites for actually executing a film.<br /><br />Director Bill Cowell must have thought he struck gold when Lion's Gate decided to market his original film as a sequel to a film he had nothing to do with.<br /><br />I personally find Lion's Gate far, far more in error than Cowell in regard to Dark Harvest 2 being made available to the public. Lion's Gate's deceptive marketing of this film should be investigated by the state attorney general's office and Lion's Gate's officers should be pickled in sulfuric acid and kerosene for their utter disregard for film, film-making, and good sense.<br /><br />As for the film itself, it's not even worth commenting on.
This IS the worst movie I have ever seen, as well as, the worst that I will probably EVER see. I see no need to rehash what all the others have said previously, just be forewarned...<br /><br />This IS NOT one of those bad movies you think you want to watch because you want to be able to make fun of it, its just plain BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD.<br /><br />This movie is the equivalent to having a "pet rock" as your friend. You wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait for something to happen. Unfortunately, it never does. At least with a pet rock you knew what you were getting into. Lion's Gate completely deceives on this bombshell... No...this is a disaster. After watching this film, you would swear George W. Bush had his hands all over the making of this film... yes its that idiotic.<br /><br />Stay away, unless of course you just want to watch the worst movie of all time. Its probably how Lion's Gate figured it would make some money off this piece of tripe.
Only adding to the chorus of people who deemed this to be 'unredeemable' I will state the following without repeating the obvious FLAWS plainly stated by some of the other commentators: The "film" is shot on video (what type of camera I don't know) but the cameraman had it on AUTOFOCUS(!) all the time, so that any slight movement makes it go In and Out of focus. In many of the scenes the actors themselves go OUT of focus for their scenes. This alone screams "Amateur".<br /><br />I also noticed that out in the 'middle of the cornfield', you can hear the sound of the gasoline generator that is powering the lights ... loudly.<br /><br />Also what is with that single lighting source that follows (and many times 'leads' the actors) when they walk around. It looks like a newscaster with that 'on camera light' that follows the people around like a spotlight. There was no 'credit' for lighting design/DP and I know why. The 'filmmakers' saw no need to have someone who actually knew what they were doing lighting this picture (note I didn't say "film"). So be prepared for a SINGLE glaring spotlight as the sole source of 'cinematic lighting' for most of the movie. UGhhh!!!<br /><br />This is probably the most technically inept production I've ever seen commercially released. I "bought" this title because I like bad cinema. Usually it's so bad that you can laugh at it. This is just so bad that it's unwatchable. Plan Nine from Outer Space is "Citizen Kane" in comparison to this title.
This movie was so bad I don't know where to begin, apparently neither did the filmmakers. It starts off with a guy in his mid thirties to late forties watching TV. The news tells of a corn maze that's open for Halloween. He has a "vision" of God knows what and rushes off the save his kids who are walking into a cornfield maze and are somehow linked to this "vision" How you ask? I don't know, and as I said before neither do the filmmakers. They're simply visions of people's feet. How did he get these "visions"? It's never explained, we're just supposed to go along with it. He enters the maze to find his two daughters who are lost inside, and twice the girls he's looking for walk right past him, one time they actually run into him. What does he do? Does he chase after them? No. He stands there like an idiot calling for them when they just ran past. Do the girls stop? No. They run off then ask "Was that Dad?" Then someone dressed as demon jumps on the "star" (the Dad character) he beats him up in a pathetic fight only to find out he's a worker at the haunted maze. The police are called and after finding the "star" (which is a really bad term to use) they cuff him. They cuff his hands in front of him, so that he can find something to pick the lock with, which he does. First off, anybody who's ever been arrested knows that cops cuff your hands behind your back, and secondly why does this "average guy" seem to know how to pick the lock on handcuffs? Well he eventually gets away from the cops who give up and leave after a the "star's" wife sets off the siren in the police car as a distraction. By the way, it's now night time and all the workers running the maze have seem to have left once the sun went down. Leaving a man who attacked one of their workers and two missing children in the maze. Considering it was a slow night that these are their only customers, why not. Besides the cops apparently have better things to do as well. By the way, the "star" who goes by the name of "Walker", we figure out it's his last name, a name in which his wife even calls him by. Somehow he knows there is something buried in the middle of this cornfield maze and starts digging. I say 'somehow' because I couldn't figure out why he started digging in the first place. He finds a locket, what does it mean? Nothing to anyone who watches this, but to him it's some sort of clue to a crime. Somebody killed their kids in his "vision" and I guess that's what he's going on, real detective work. And by now he knows there's a killer loose in the corn maze, one he somehow knew was there from the start of the film, which is why he's looking for his girls. Every time we see the killer, or rather the killer's feet, we hear a weird robotic sound, like a sci-fi reject toy that changes a persons voice to sound mechanical. Why do we hear this sound? Is it in anyway related to...anything? Again, who knows? Certainly not the filmmakers. The peak of all the bad acting and bad dialog was when "Walker" yells out "Hey you, Mr. Bad Man...I'm gonna get you." Another time his wife is attacked by the "Bad Man" at the entrance to the corn maze, which like I mentioned before is oddly empty of any employees or policemen. The "Bad Man" calls "Walker" on his cell phone to tell him that he plans on killing his wife and kids and him as well. "Walker" can only reply with "Hey. HEY!" before dropping his phone and running off. With no one on the other end to talk to, the killer drops his phone too, he drags the wife a few feet then leaves her alone for the rest of the film, losing the first opportunity to hold true to his treats. If this script wasn't written by a child I'd be surprised. Opps it wasn't. It was written, directed, and produced by the same guy. And not only that, he also did so much of the crappy camera work as well, where we get random shots of feet walking through the muddy maze and meaningless shots of the cornfield, that waste 90% of the film time. In the end "Walker" uses the cuffs to cuff the "Bad Man", who also seems to know how to pick locks with the same metal object that "Walker" had picked it with. Apparently there are lots of small metal objects just laying around this cornfield. But after the killer insists he's still going to kill the kids "Walker" kills the "Bad Man", and everything is right with the world again. Now in reality this makes "Walker" a murderer, he's killed a man who "Supposedly" murdered his own daughters and was trying to kill his. He knows this, not because of proof, but because of his visions. He never found a body, nobody else knows this guy was even in the maze. And the locket? He gives it back to the ghosts of the two dead girls. No proof. So he kills a man without any tangible reason. I can't imagine what the filmmakers were thinking with this one. It must have been a way to cover up a misappropriation of funds for the production company. I would rather watch the Blair Witch Project five times than see this film again. The actors should be ashamed. The director/producer/writer/cameraman should also be ashamed. In fact the entire production company should be ashamed. If there is anyone associated with this film, please reply. What were you thinking?
This is by far the worst ever 'horror' movie, no, make that any movie, I have ever watched. Shame on Block Buster for even carrying this type of crap. I never ask for a refund on any movie, but I think this will be a first.<br /><br />The movie is so bad that I had to stop after just 15 minutes of watching it.<br /><br />I had more fun watching any of the fuzzy YouTube movies than watching this piece of dropping.<br /><br />The marketing dude for this movie must have some type of silver tongue to move this thing into an establishment as Blockbuster.
My spoiler is in my pants because thinking about this movie made me so angry I crapped myself.<br /><br />Once you finish watching it, you stare at the TV set in confusion and horror. Then, there's a soft tap on your shoulder and a voice hisses, "You will die in seven days." You turn around, and one of your best friends is standing there with a look of absolute hatred for the one that suggested this movie when you were in Blockbuster.<br /><br />I won't lie: this is the worst movie on the face of the Earth. I saw it with 5 of my friends all 18-year-old guys, and these were our reactions: -One person actually began crying and punching himself -One person screamed and passed out -One person stood up and staggered out the front door to reappear more than an hour later -One person simply blacked out (this one was me) -One person started babbling incoherently, as if he had both cerebral palsy and Touretts' Syndrome -One person went into a sort of catatonic trance and did not respond to our voices for more than twenty minutes<br /><br />The movie really is that bad. There's one part where the retarded cameraman actually trips (while holding the camera), but the producers decided to leave it in. Seriously, you can hear him grunt and swear when he hits the ground. There's only one special effect, and it's special in the same way that a retarded kid trying to solve a Rubix Cube is special: the camera rotates so that the on-screen action (action, n. Some dumbass lost in a corn field for 80 freaking minutes) does a barrel roll.<br /><br />Under NO circumstances should it be watched, and the movie itself even warns you of this fact. Do you know what the tagline on the back is? "Some warnings should not be ignored." I honestly think that the release of this movie to the public is a sick practical joke on the producers' part. That's not to say, however, that you should pass it by if you see it at the movie store - it would then sit on the shelf for some other poor sucker to see. Rather, buy every copy of it you can get your hands on and mail them to people that you hate.
Well, shuck me sideways. I haven't seen a home movie this bad since the abysmal 13 SECONDS or HALF CASTE. Someone should take away this guy's Sony Handycam! This movie proves that just because you can make a movie on your camcorder for $20, doesn't necessarily mean you should.<br /><br />I remember that one of the things that Robert Rodriguez wrote in his book, "Rebel Without a Crew" was that when you set out to make a no budget feature, you have to use whatever assets you have at your disposal. Rodriguez says that you should take an inventory of all the locations and props that you can beg, steal and borrow from your friends. Robert Rodriquez was friends with the Mayor of some town in Mexico, so the Mayor let him shoot all over for free. What you got in EL MARIACHI was a movie that looked like it cost much more than the actual budget.<br /><br />I'm sure that the director of this movie has a copy of that book, and he took that advice to heart. In this case, he was apparently friends with a guy who owned a cornfield where they put on a haunted house every year. Seems like a pretty good location for a scary movie, but it's hard to keep a cornfield interesting for 90 minutes. Not a single installment of the CHILDREN OF THE CORN series spent more than a few minutes in the cornfield. Hitchcock only spent about ten minutes in one in NORTH BY NORTHWEST. Take a hint, fella... cornfields don't make for riveting cinema. It would have been good if the director would have had more friends with more locations, because this thing gets pretty tedious after the first 15 minutes. This movie looks like it cost about $30. (or whatever it cost in admission to the cornfield maze).<br /><br />Apparently he couldn't even find anyone to act in his movie, so he cast himself. Big mistake. Here's a thought, if you really want to make a movie, get an actor. So, as far as assets go, it seems like the cornfield maze is the only thing the poor guy had. Maybe he thought that was enough. In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I KNOW he thought that was enough because the movie, before it captured the coveted honor of being the sequel to DARK HARVEST, was called simply THE MAIZE: THE MOVIE. Maybe this he's already planning THE MAIZE: THE MUSICAL or even THE MAIZE: THE MINI-SERIES.<br /><br />Our Jack-Of-All-Trades (and yes, the Master of Nothing part of that saying is definitely appropriate here) plays a psychic dad who can tell when bad things are going to happen. Think of the character from the DEAD ZONE, but not anywhere near as good an actor as Christopher Walken or even Anthony Michael Hall. Psychic Dad has a premonition that his two daughters, who are at the corn maze with mom, are going to be killed. He rushes to save them. From that point on, the whole movie is spent watching Pyschic Dad run around in a cornfield, looking for his two daughters. He finds the two little girl ghosts from THE SHINING, and he helps solve the mystery of their murder.<br /><br />Shot on a $200 Handycam. The director cast himself. Edited on iMovie. Improvised story. If that's not enough to keep you away from this a-maize-ingly corny catastrophe, consider this as a final warning... The WHOLE MOVIE takes place in a cornfield, boils and ghouls. Here's Ghoulie Guru's tip on how to save some money and still feel like you've seen this movie. Next time you see a cornfield, stop the car. Take a flashlight and go run around in there for like 90 minutes.
My friends and I have often joked about movies being in real-time. But this movie really is... They will literally show 4 minutes strait of nothing but a guy digging in the dirt with his hands. It has no-plot, and an incredible amount of gratuitous screaming. I honestly don't believe that it won an award for it's alleged suspense. If you are like me and saw the first film and loved it for it's horrible acting, accidentally hilarious one liners, and all-around low budget"ness", it won't matter; this is so bad it's bad memories might even rub off and taint any good memories you have of the original. You would be more entertained if you were staring at a blank screen.
This movie was horrendous it was sorta like accidentally watching a gay porn waiting for the girls but they just don't come....I waited for almost 2 hours for the damn scarecrows....they just don't come...instead it's just some dumb ass wandering through a dead cornfield with a camera it's a mix of Blaire witch and some bad episode of the twilight zone. And the best part is that as of October 23 2005 they started filming a sequel please don't be fooled by the box even though it looks exactly the same as the first dark harvest it's not lions gate bought the rights to the Maize:the movie and had the brilliant idea to release it as the sequel to the original dark harvest;which i thought was funny........the only thing they had in common was they were both shot in a cornfield....This Movie WILLLLLL not scare the crop out of you like the first one so just stay away!!!!!
Just above the box i am typing in now, i was required to pick a number between 1 and 10, and rate this feature film. Unfortunately there is no option for a number less than zero, and i have to put something. If i had my choice i would just put nothing, no number, because there exist no digits that express the worthlessness of this movie.<br /><br />If you do decide to watch this film even after reading all of these horrible reviews, make sure there are no sharp or blunt objects in the area, this will help prevent you from trying to kill yourself in the middle of the film.<br /><br />I don't know how this film was released to the public, it should be locked up and guarded 24/7 somewhere in Fort Knox. I am angry that this film was even available for me to watch. I feel cheated by humanity, i had no idea humans could be this cruel. Stalin, Saddam and Hitler got nothing on this douche bag Cowell.<br /><br />Do not be fooled by the movie's cover. 1) There are no scarecrows, no one knows why there is a legit looking scarecrow on the front. 2)None of the characters on the back of case are even in the stinking movie! 3) The tag line says something about "new moon, more victims", there were no frigging victims no one even died. We don't know if the dam cop died, and i'm assuming the killer didn't die because it sounded like he was being hit over the head with a frigging whiffle ball bat.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and stay away from this movie, it wasted about 4 hours of my life. That's right four, it took an hour for me to watch it (i fast forwarded thru the 4 minute zooming scenes that reveal nothing in the plot), i stared at the television for about an hour after it was over, contemplating my life and the direction it was heading after watching this crap, and then i began to cry for the next two hours because i know someone out there will unfortunately see this movie and there is nothing i can do to stop it.
This...thing. oh god this thing. i can't even call it a movie. a movie is something that does something. goes somewhere. has some semblance of a plot or SOMETHING. i don't know how i'm doing it. i really don't. first i say dark fields is the worst movie ever. and i thought it was. then pirates of ghost island proved me wrong. and now, third time in a row, another film goes above and beyond the call of duty to prove me wrong.<br /><br />(sighs) OK. Dark Harvest II: The Maize. lord this is awful. Let me break it down for you. Man senses daughters are in danger through some magical psychic powers he got from his Act II popcorn apparently and races to find them in a corn field. Of course this is the hugest cornfield in all of existence, being the size of the cornfields from Jeepers Creepers, Children of the Corn, and Signs combined. the main character, whose name is Shy (awesome name btw) then runs through a corn field....finds some ghost girls, talks to them, and...runs through a corn field. digs a while...and runs through a corn field. and the incredibly sad thing? i'm really not leaving anything out. That pretty much IS the entire movie. The only thing i may be leaving out is how he gets chased by two policemen who want to arrest him for... i don't know. pretending to be an actor. i didn't care by this point. He gets away and the police are -somethinged- by the killer offscreen. holy crap there's a killer? apparently yes there is as he's introduced nearly 4/5 into the movie. but wait! then he runs away for a while and there's, you guessed it, more running through the corn field and digging. Then there's the ending where he saves his daughters. huzzah.<br /><br />The biggest problem with this movie is, it's boring. it's INCREDIBLY, INHUMANLY, TREMENDOUSLY boring. I can't explain how atrociously dull this thing is. nothing happens, the characters are as appealing as a root canal, and it's just an hour and a half of NOTHING. the ONLY good thing that came out of this movie was that me and my friend may have found enlightenment due to the near nirvana state this movie put us into after the effects of the drugs in our brain had to kick into overdrive to keep us alive. During the ensuing insanity, i found hugging a wall much more enjoyable and my friend found a new passion for laughing hysterically while flopping all over the floor as if he having a seizure. This is the sort of insanity this movie brings. it's not just bad. it's bad for your health. The cover looks awesome with a picture of an AWESOME scarecrow killer that i would totally consider dressing up as for a horror con, but this was THE most misleading box ever. DON'T LET IT FOOL YOU TOO! do NOT watch this movie. watch a better corn movie. ANY movie about corn is better. just don't let it get you! don't! a 0 out of 10
After sitting through the trainwreck that was the first Dark Harvest movie, I couldn't leave bad enough alone. Upon seeing that there was a sequel (or rather what I believed to be a sequel)I had to increase my pain level. Seeing that this had nothing to do with Dark Harvest, that should have been a good thing. We didn't get any killer scarecrows in this one, instead we got a jackass walking around a cornfield screaming out little things like, "Girls!" and "Can you hear me?" every so often. Plus we got two (four if you include the two girls that the director wanted the same effect as the twins in The Shining) obnoxious little girls who couldn't act. And the cherry on top of this mess would have to be the Corn Cop. I should have known this movie was going to be terrible when the dog got an opening credit. How I managed to stay awake through this movie, I'll never know.
The first DH wasn't that great, but I really didn't expect it to be. But this horrible movie was just beyond criticism. I really try to look on the bright side and give movies like this a chance, but I just could not find a real good thing about this one. I appreciate what Bill Cowell was trying to do, but this movie was just soooooo boring. The story of the movie really isn't that bad. In fact, it's somewhat original. But the movie form is really as bad as a lot of people say. In my opinion, this one ranks right up there with "The Off Season", and "Dracula 3000". I know a lot of people really trash and put down movies like this, but I really can't think of any other good things to say about it.
This has to be one of those times you come across a movie with a neat cover, my first impression, sweet, full moon, crows, a scarecrow holding a scythe. OK my impression (I had watched scarecrow on TV a weeks ago) perfect, a nice slasher film to start the evening with. ................... wrong, absolutely wrong I think 5 mins in I was gonna take it out, but thought I wasted 3$ on this so Ill finish it wheres the scarecrow, well Im guessing its the legs of the fisher man wearing heavy duty rain boots. you see that every so often. I was watching this thinking.... OK when are those brats gonna run into this dude, at one point I thought they died. but no.... I mean frig, their still alive. I only chuckled at a few parts cause of how badly staged they were. one was the zoom in part at the start. the director/actor/writer says, "remember I had that feeling, well I have it again" and it was either a zoom in or zoom out, to hell I'm checking back. but I guess the scene was supposedly shocking, I mean whats more shocking is his wife had the same shocked look.... OK... she believed him??? Im sorry but YEAH.... i didn't know he was psychic until I read the movie box to make some sense out of what I witnessed. not only that, they used pictures to make you think this movie is at least clear. <br /><br />the other thing that made me laugh a bit was the, scream in the camera, to make it scary....... OK............... filming a girl close up screaming into the camera for 5 mins.......right..... I laughed cause of how pathetic it was these kids cannot act like the rest of the people in the movie.<br /><br />to top things off the scythe must have got lost or something.... cause seems the bad guy had just a stick. not even an ax, someone should axe the dam production film<br /><br />Don't fall for the picture, this movie is a piece of sh*t. I watched the trailer and guess what it has<br /><br />GIRLS WHERE ARE YOU TALK TO ME and CORN
If you want to enjoy the money you would spend to rent this money, go buy a bag of ice and watch it melt. That's more entertaining than this movie. <br /><br />Bill Cowell, shame on you. <br /><br />Or if you wanna see this movie plot, go in a corn field, bring two of the most annoying little girls you can find, run around for a couple hours having the girls scream as loud as possible. Then send me the couple bucks you woulda spent.<br /><br />I enjoyed the first Dark Harvest, after watching the sequel, I'm going to cry myself to sleep.
If you are looking for the feel-good hit of the summer, Dark Harvest 2 might just be your ticket. The production values of this movie are extremely high (looks as if it were filmed with a Sony Handicam and edited using iMovie), especially the sound effects -- they sound straight off of a "Spooky Halloween Sounds" CD! The scarecrow from the cover, although he doesn't appear in the movie and otherwise has no relevance, is terrifyingly realistic! From beginning to end, you'll watch as a man aimlessly searches for his daughters through a, pun intended, MAIZE! At the climactic ending of the movie you'll see, well...you'll have to watch for yourself.<br /><br />What I'm really trying to say here is, don't come within 1000 yards of this movie. I rented it because I thought it would be a campy sort of "Troll 2" funny, but it's not. I cried after I watched this movie, because I realized I had spent money on it (and I found the $4 I spent on renting it). I actually fell asleep for 20 minutes and still knew what was going on.
My friend Zac rented this movie free of charge since his mom works at a rental store. I still feel ripped off, since I won't ever be able to get those 100 minutes of my life back. Having watched the first "Dark Harvest" the night prior to this viewing, I expected to at least see a crappy remake of the first film. Wrong.<br /><br />There isn't a single scarecrow in the movie (unless you count the one of the cover of the box), nor are there any real death scenes. The movie got its R rating from an 8 year old girl screaming "god d**n" at her father.<br /><br />There is no amount of tequila that could make this movie bearable. Believe me, we tried.
This movie was horrendous... It had absolutely nothing to do with Dark Harvest. And the DVD was very misleading because it showed a scarecrow and a scythe, neither of which appeared in this movie.<br /><br />The beginning was a jumble of random scenes that, most of which, had nothing to do with the movie, except that they sort of show that the man is psychic... but not too well...<br /><br />After the first 10 minutes of the movie there is an hour of just the man character looking for his daughters. It gets vaguely interesting when the daughters meet two girls who died the year before. But that's the extent of it.<br /><br />And why, might i ask, was this movie rated R? There were two drops of blood and 4 curse words. And how on earth did it get into a video store?? This movie was poorly acted, poorly filmed, poorly written, and overall horribly executed.
This movie was really funny even though it wasn't meant to be! The acting was stupid and so were the voices. Pretty much all it was was some guy walking around a corn maze for an hour and a half. They threw in this stupid super natural thing that made it even dumber. It wasn't even like a normal movie, this weird creepy music was playing almost the whole way through the movie. What is it with corn maze horror films? Children of the corn was really scary I thought and I thought this would be something like it, but really it was just stupid. The main character guy just walked around aimlessly yelling for these two little girls. And then at the end he like kills someone or something. It's worth seeing if you're with your friends because it's really funny how bad it is, but if you're looking for a horror movie then don't waste your time
The idea for the movie wasn't too bad: a horror film shot in a corn maze on Halloween. The bad part was the shoddy camera work, the ten million shots of puddles and corn, and the hour and a half long walk this guy took in the maze. Oh, I'm sorry, the "maize." I picked up this movie because it reminded me of a corn maze near where I live, and I thought it was a cool idea for a movie. But taking everything into consideration, it seems that your average Joe could take the same idea and run much further with it. Bill Cowell's acting wasn't too bad, in fact, I would say it was pretty good. But the lack of talent from his co-stars didn't help his efforts. Here's to hoping his next movie will be easier to swallow.
What can be said about THIS? Truly one of the most mind-numbing experiences of my life. Your brain will attempt to shut-down as part of a primal impulse of self-preservation. I was left shattered from the experience of watching this 'film' and I took a good two hours to fully recover. This movie now joins Revenge of the Boogeyman and Zombiez as part of the hellish trinity of horror films. I certainly do not mean this distinction in a good way. I mean this in a terrible way. A terrible way.<br /><br />This film has no redeeming features. Everything is appalling. Artless camera-work endlessly presents us with the ugliest setting imaginable, i.e. lots of corn, lots of mud. The story is beyond stupid. The script is…was there a script? The villain is severely unscary and wears yellow wellington boots. The kids are annoying. The lead man is charisma-free. And it has the audacity to go on for 100 minutes. Utterly without merit on any level, this is akin to torture. Normally such a statement would be an exaggeration meant for comical effect. Not in this case. I'll even say it again – this is torture.<br /><br />At the end I was in a state of paralysis. This was brief thankfully. But once I recovered I decided I had to watch the 'Making Of' featurette. I had to understand. Maybe there would be a reasonable explanation for this atrocity. Was it all an elaborate joke? I watched the first 2 minutes of the 'Making Of' featurette and discovered that the writer/director was, to put it mildly, somewhat misguided. I also discovered that because I had taken time out to watch the first two minutes of the 'Making Of' featurette of Dark Harvest 2 that I was an idiot. Not a pleasant voyage of self-discovery. Life sucks.<br /><br />Highly unrecommended.
Apparently this was an award winner. Apparently someone had a gun against his/her head and was force to nominate Maize: the Movie.<br /><br />Or this must have been a mistake.<br /><br />This is the most unwatchable movie ever made. The screening and the editing is the biggest horror of this movie. Two little girls get lost in a cornfield and get stalked by someone who can be heard laughing under his rubber mask. The little girls run into their hero dad, and then runs away from him, W.T.F.? The hero dad in the movie keeps losing track of them in the few minutes of watching this.<br /><br />The girls obviously weren't trained actors, and had no common sense to them. They were so annoying and so infantile in the movie, it not even remotely comedic. Hearing them scream over and over again like a broken record was the reason why I got up and left. You can't even listen to this movie without nearly going into convulsions.<br /><br />I can puke a better award winner than this garbage.
Apparently I am swimming against the tide of the glowing comments on this film. I have not seen it since I was 4 or 5 years old but there is one thing I remember distinctly...<br /><br />The Bunyip was TERRIFYING!!! Nightmare inducing terrifying. With the creepy music and the little girl and kangaroo running/hopping away for their lives...<br /><br />As a kid I also remember the animated Hobbit... no worries. Watership down? Didn't blink an eye. Dot and the Kangaroo? It still haunts my dreams. And I have several friends the same age who also think it was massively creepy. Maybe we can get a group rate on therapy.<br /><br />In short: one freaky film for its time.
Code 46 is one of those scifi movies where the government controls who you are allowed to love, and in fact will punish you if you try to procreate with the wrong person. The haves and the have-nots live in completely separate territories, the powers that be can remove your memories, etc. We've seen this stuff before, but that's OK- no movie is 100% original. This kind of premise is always fun to contemplate. Unfortunately, just imagining such a future is more interesting than actually watching Code 46. The characters are boring and rarely say anything interesting. Maybe that's commentary on a dehumanized future, but it's still dull to watch. It's sloooow.<br /><br />At times the imagery is nice, but usually (coupled with its "evocative" soundtrack) just looks like a glorified perfume commercial. Code 46 also sometimes uses the kind of television camera-work that I find annoying. You know, two characters talk as the camera artlessly "floats" on one side. Two seconds later it's floating on the other side of them in a vain attempt to keep your attention.<br /><br />My friends liked this movie. If they tried to get me to watch it again, I probably would not do so unless they agreed to pay me $50.
Bad dialog, slow story, scenes that drag on and are absolutely pointless. I can't believe this much money was invested in such a poorly written film. The directing and acting couldn't save this bomb either.<br /><br />50% through the movie and you're still waiting for it to start. They lay the foundation with the opening preface and then spend the next 40 minutes setting up NOTHING. You watch 40 minutes of footage that is absolutely directionless in an attempt to do what, I have no idea.<br /><br />Much of this film is like watching a really bad french movie where nothing ever happens and the characters are just sort of dull, lifeless and egocentrics living without purpose or care.<br /><br />Avoid this film at all cost. Anyone that recommends it is setting you up for disappointment and you will undoubtedly question their taste and depth.
Interesting concept that just doesn't make it. I watched the whole movie, but had to read IMDb comments to find out what Code 46 meant. If/when it was explained in the film, I must have been in a coma, or possibly brain-dead by then. I only watched it for Tim Robbins. The fact that I did not know any of the other actors should have been a tip-off. We all have to start somewhere, but this film should not be it. As to the 'anti empathy virus virus'-Holy Utility Belt, Batman! Where were The Joker, The Riddler, etc? Also, why are the women all so damned ugly? If I want to see less-than-plain stick-figures, I'll just walk down the street. The best part of the film was the car crash. It was totally believable, and not over-the-top like most movie crashes.
I found Code 46 very disappointing. I thought the concept was good and therefore had great potential as a movie but found that it didn't deliver. Code 46 lacked thought and structure and the storyline didn't flow well. I thought that Tim Robbins character wasn't well developed, for eg. I thought there should have been more info and thought put into his family life and not have it completely ignored as i felt it was. When they were first in violation of a code 46 it was suggested that they were not to know that they may have been genetically linked but all the technology was available to them, he took her fingerprint and therefore genetic details when he was investigating the fraud. I constantly found myself waiting for something to happen and the story line to develop and yet it never did. I felt that the film had great potential to be intellectually stimulating but turned out to be the opposite. Code 46 tried to be too clever and in the end just ended up lacking imagination.I would not recommend this film to anybody, the only good thing about the film was that it was relatively short.
This movie was released in all major cinemas in Australia. I watched the movie on the weekend of 7th AUG and I thought is was absolute nonsense (and I am using that word extremely litely). How it got released to every major cinema no idea. The plot seemed simple enough about the world being divided into subclasses and people needed identity cards and the actor Tim Robbins playing an investigator who goes to shanghai to investigate a employee stealing ID cards, which turns out to be the actress Samantha Morton.<br /><br />You think from that summary the rest of the story should intertyne but it doesn't it just confuses the audience even more with different storyline that don't relate.<br /><br />If you thinking of seeing this movie let me save u the trouble DO NOT GET THIS MOVIE.
I was initially excited about this movie and fully expected it to be a combination of Equilibruim and Farenheit 451. Unfortunately, I was continually disappointed in the lack of depth and interest of the plot and subplots. Midway through the movie, I divulged into poking fun at the characters and sets to avoid having to turn it off. I did enjoy the premise of a future with merged cultures and separation of the have's and have nots. What could have been an artful and intelligent look at the future is morphed into a plodding, semantic SciFi channel midnight flick with horrible acting, cheap sets and a final gratuitous shot of Tim Robbins vagina. Maybe he should stick to his socialist political ranting - it has all been downhill since Shawshank.
The film disappointed me for many reasons: first of all the depiction of a future which seemed at first realistic to me was well-built but did only feature a marginal role. Then, the story itself was a weak copy of Lost in Translation. The Middle-Eastern setting, man with family meets new girl overseas, karaoke bar, the camera movements and the imagery - all that was a very bad imitation of the excellent Lost in Translation which had also credibility. This movie tries to be something brilliant and cultural: it is not. I wonder why Tim Robbins even considered doing this film!? The female main actress is awful - did she play the precog in Minority Report? And why do you have to show the vagina in a movie like this? Lost in Translation didn't have to show excessive love scenes. R-Rated just for this? This movie isn't even worth watching it from a videostore!
I just finished watching this film and think it is one of the worst films I have ever seen. It was so boring that I found myself zooming through it at X2 speed and finished it in less than 30 minutes. I was not just disappointed, but angry that I had wasted my money to rent it. It ranks within the top five of the worst films I have ever seen, and I've seen thousands of movies! The plot was very confusing. Had I not first read the DVD sleeve cover, prior to renting it, I would have been totally lost throughout this film. I would not have thought that Tim Robbins, after having made such good films as "Shawshank Redemption" would have agreed to appear in this film.
If you are a weirdo who thinks it's "romantic" and wonderful to have sex with a woman who is the genetic equivalent of your mother, get her pregnant, and then have sex with her again once she's had an abortion AND not tell her that she is related to you, then you would like this movie.<br /><br />Nevermind the fact that the guy is married and has a son at home - it makes it even more disgusting and deplorable that he has no conscience as to what he's doing. He can't do right by his job, his family, OR Maria. He's a loser. There is nothing romantic or positive about this movie - it is vile and incestuous.<br /><br />It moves slowly and it leads nowhere for over the first half of the movie. I couldn't even finish watching this pathetic excuse for a 'romance'. I'm glad we didn't waste our money in the movie theater on this one. 0/10
We're in a not so distant future, globalization seems to have reached a high point, languages mixes with each other (although English prevails over the rest), races have merged, human clonation is a fact, and all the territory seems to have been divided in two zones: the one for the valid and the one for the non-valid... a brave new world (in Aldous Huxley's style) in which people are genetically filed and blood relationships are strictly forbidden (for health reasons –that's the Code 46 of the title-). In such environment two souls that are destined not to meet fall in love with each other.<br /><br />Winterbottom had an important story, with quite a big potential. A nice recipe that he ruins giving it a so slow rhythm, narrating it in a so weary way, removing any emotions... Coldness, that's all Code 46 transmits. Coldness and boredom. Not even the presence of Samantha Morton and Tim Robbins (both of'em play their roles wonderfully) , nor the visual and sound power of some sequences can do anything to save the movie. What a pity.<br /><br />Code 46: what could have been and never was.<br /><br />*My rate: 4/10
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS***<br /><br />I saw this movie last night at a screening. I started out already liking Tim Robbins and loving sci-fi. The first third of the movie was very cool. The score was good, the cinematography was interesting, the film maker's vision of the future was realistic yet starkly interesting nonetheless. I remember thinking to myself: "this is the most intelligently done sci-fi movie I've seen in a while". Then they just couldn't keep it together.<br /><br />Although from the outset, there were a number of more "rough around the edges" issues with this film (namely the editing, and later some of the writing/plot development), these issues were forgivable. They became unforgivable once the movie sort of lost all momentum around the half way mark, and then the film just got tedious when you realized that it wasn't going to go anywhere at all. <br /><br />Robbins could not breathe life into his character, but did the best he could. His female counterpart (her name escapes me now) was good in her role.<br /><br />The main reason for the meandering of the movie seemed to be that the film makers could not decide whether or not to do a sci-fi movie or a futuristic love story. They ended up with neither.<br /><br />Good:<br /><br />Some of the cinematography: grainy, it felt like "21 days later" some times.<br /><br />Very fitting for a futuristic movie like this.<br /><br />I dug some of the location shots.<br /><br />The music was cool.<br /><br />The film makers vision of the future was realistic but still cool and interesting.<br /><br />I liked the interactions with the other minor characters in the movie.<br /><br />Some of the writing was interesting (early on). <br /><br />The girl who played Maria Gonzales (name?? can't recall), she was good.<br /><br />***SPOILERS BELOW***<br /><br />A few questions/comments:<br /><br />I felt that a lot of the futuristic things in this movie were convenient to fix a patchwork story. Namely VIRUSES. Obviously the virus they gave her at the end of the film that made her physically 'afraid' of him was just there so that they could stick in another sex scene and then she could uncontrollably report him for Code 46. Then they take him away and erase his memory and the movie ends. Classic 'dream sequence' cop-out ending if you ask me. ties up all the loose ends very neatly if you just make it all a dream right?<br /><br />Was Robbin's character naturally good as intuition or was it the virus?<br /><br />Why didn't they explore the myriad of issues surrounding the girl being a clone of his mom? That could have made some interesting story.<br /><br />At first I like the salutations from across the globe in everyone's speech. But it became intrusive especially since their accents were not convincing. I get it, the future will undoubtedly be racially and culturally more androgynous, but it started feeling like an AT&T Global Networking commercial by the end of it.<br /><br />If they were 'outside' how could they have gotten busted for Code 46?<br /><br />'Cover' was never well defined. Sometimes it seemed as trivial as a Visa, and other times it was as vital as life or death. Again, loose definitions allow them to use it for gluing disparate parts of the plot together.<br /><br />Okay, I'm starting to get to negative about it, so I'll stop. There were some cool scenes, and interesting things about this movie, but that only gives it a 4/10
I thought this film was a poor effort by the British film council - fell flat as hey, come on, Tim Robbins is an old guy and here is this beautiful young woman who falls straight for him as well. Like lost in translation its really hard to suspend disbelief in this context. It's a good looking film but lacks punch. When Tim Robbins is pretending to be psychic it looks like he has a small migraine. He looks uncomfortable and life less. The part where he is screening suspect employees at sphinx is laughable. If an investigator came to my factory the last thing I would do is tell him about my freckle fetish. It's obviously over-intellectual. Clumsy. The city is as it is, a convenient backdrop. They obviously picked the most futuristic city they could (shanghai) as a backdrop but the city never really comes out and effects the characters as in for example blade runner, where the characters of the city often intersect the story. slow as a wet week. No chemistry, real dramatic high points, so so plot.
There is nothing worse than science fiction crafted by folks who don't have a feel for it. Grasping at a concept which wouldn't be so terrible by itself (a future where cloning is common enough that it is necessary to make it a crime for you to breed with someone too close to you genetically) the screenwriter proceeded to allow his ill-suited imagination to run wild.<br /><br />When Tim Robbins' character was able to guess a security guard's computer password simply by getting her to tell him one thing about herself, I knew I was in for trouble. This ability was later revealed to be due to Robbins having taken an "empathy virus", viruses being used to grant instant (or nearly instant) skill upgrades to their users. Robbins' love interest complained about her own experience with such a virus -- a Mandarin Chinese language virus, which allowed her to speak Chinese, but as she complained, "she couldn't understand what she was saying." Okay, first off, empathy, no matter how intense, isn't ESP. Without incorporating some sort of true mind-reading aspect (like an empathy virus which actively releases virions into the vicinity, infects nearby people, picks up bits of their memory, then departs for the original host -- which is, as you can probably tell, a smidgeon on the impractical side) you can't justify being able to determine a specific detail like someone's password just by "listening to the things you didn't say". Nor can you acquire the ability to speak a language without understanding what you're saying -- the virus can't infect your vocal cords and translate for you on the fly, because a virus can't *think*. To give you the power to speak Chinese, such a learning virus would have to modify your brain. It would have to encode the knowledge among neurons, and once it's in there, it's *yours* -- you certainly understand what you're saying, because you have to. To use your own brain to perform a task, you must understand that task (for the most part). Unless, of course, they movie is suggesting that the virus was deliberately designed to put in place some bizarre multiple-personality mental schism where some sub-personae of yours functions as a built-in, one-way translator.<br /><br />The mélange of languages spoken by the characters is decent enough, although nowhere near remarkable enough to warrant all the love other reviewers have given. What's more, all the multicultural insertions in the world can't make up for a simple, frustrating fact: The dialog stinks! It's slow, it's plodding, and it's unnatural. Again, I'm sure adherents have convinced themselves that the dull strangeness is simply the result of an inspired genius creating a truly futuristic (and therefore subjected to linguistic drift) form of speech. I disagree. Good dialog is good dialog in any era -- and the same goes for tripe.<br /><br />Lastly, I'll revisit the central concept of the movie -- the banning of sex with yourself. Widespread cloning is a nice, classic sci-fi topic. So is global warming leading to ecological devastation (which Code 46 also incorporates). Unfortunately, the two don't go together! If you have an ecological disaster cutting down severely on the available living area, you don't run around cloning people! You have population problems enough as it is -- you don't add to them by cranking out re-issues. Regular, old-fashioned sex-and-birth provides all the population you need, and cloning of any sort would be ruthlessly suppressed.<br /><br />To be fair, the movie wasn't all bad. It had some nice cinematography. Perhaps if I had watched it muted, I could've enjoyed it.
I like to think that I can appreciate a movie that is a bit out of the ordinary, and I certainly love a good movie that makes me think.<br /><br />If you like out of the ordinary movies that make you think, then look elsewhere. This movie is so bad and so disjointed that the only thing you will be thinking after it is over is how it is possible you wasted 90 minutes of your life watching this.<br /><br />A movie of this kind needs a driver to get buy in from the viewer. Why are we interested in the main characters? What motivates these characters through their existence? Why do they make the decisions they make? This movie makes a very weak attempt at doing these and fails in the process. There is no chemistry between these two actors, both of who are superb in their ability to be comfortable in any role. So why did they fail here? I strongly feel that they didn't know what their motivations were either, and when an actor doesn't know, their audience can't follow.<br /><br />In sum, I have seen macromedia flash videos that offered more in the way of provoking thought, at least I have more interest in the morphed hamster who likes the moon than why this married family man would risk it all for a "Code 46" violation.
Many times the description "full of sound and fury signifying nothing" is used and is right on target. Unfortunately "Code 46" lacks both sound and fury. A bit of fury would have been greatly appreciated. Tim Robbins character (William) is so lacking in passion that the idea of his falling instantly in love with Maria (Samantha Morton) seems almost absurd. These folks are so passionless that one begins to wonder if perhaps the water supply of this future world has been dosed with thorazine. There is a "Brave New World" sort of atmosphere to the film that is helped along by every scene being shot about 2-3 stops overexposed. Unfortunately this technique gets tedious and rather hard on the eyes. The cutesy mishmash of languages also grows tedious when there seems to be no apparent reason for its existence. Many futuristic, scifi films are criticized for being all flash and no substance. This film has neither flash nor substance. Its a code 6 all the way.
If I guess your "palabra", will you let me go through?- Asks William Geld, a Tim Robbins that keeps on acting like if they told him a fantastic joke and he is attempting not to laugh.<br /><br />He is trying to get to a forbidden area. The woman stopping him continues blabbering: -Your "palabra" is Carrefour.<br /><br />-How did you know?- the lady asks, surprised. He answers, in the name of Wisdom: -I was hearing when you weren't talking. :/<br /><br />Yes, this defines the movie. This precisely. It doesn't matter if Carrefour is "road conjunction" in french, or if the Future is coldly bureaucratic and mixes languages. Or if Samantha Morton has nothing, nothing of Spanish (Maria Gonzalez being her name in the film) with her Irish, Scotish whatever tone.<br /><br />It's boring and dull. If you fall in believing there are multiple symbolisms, you will buy the most bizarre, sickening love relationship ever, set in a future that may well be in seven seconds. I can guess this movie's palabra: it will be "painful".
An Epic Story of Hope constrained by budget and limited artistic ambition. Seeing as Terrence Malick produced this, I expected something haunting and lyrical. Instead, we get a typical Norwegian co-production ("Revolution" with Al Pacino, anyone?), where - quite possibly - good intentions are scuppered by a dreadful screenplay, and where many of the characters are reduced to stereotypes. The "me-Tarzan-you-Jane" English dialogue between the non-English-speaking protagonists is particularly cringeworthy – one could speculate whether Nick Nolte and Tim Roth ad-libbed their own, as they almost sound like real people. The story is loaded with implausibility: we are expected to believe that Binh can speak a smattering of English after having spent his entire life living as a peasant slave (his vocabulary, but unfortunately not grammatical command, increases impressively in the Malayan refugee camp, without the benefit of night classes). Coincidence is rife; I wonder whether an hour or two has been edited from the first third: he tracks down his mother in Ho Chi Minh City almost immediately - after bumping into his thirty year younger half brother, who nonchalantly recognises him! Mum gives him a gold locket (or something similar of great value) as they part, but this is never referred to again. His relationship with "Me Dead Inside" Ling is supposed to provide the obligatory "love interest", but feels as artificial as Leonardo and Cameron in "Gangs Of New York". <br /><br />The voyage in the rust bucket of a boat does convey a sense of the appalling conditions that human trafficking entails. Indeed, the only time the film is remotely exciting and unpredictable, is the jerky, hand-held footage shot from the bridge during choppy weather conditions. (Incidentally, a boat cruise from Malaysia to New York via The Cape Of Good Hope and the African coast, without stopping for fuel or supplies, is certainly an epic journey). The beautiful shot of the New York skyline echoes Malick's use of magic hour, but I want to know why the Coast Guard didn't show up. Perhaps they were watching the Super Bowl, or something. Of course, Binh manages to track down his blind old Dad on a remote farm in Texas, with the same navigational flair he displayed in Ho Chi Minh City. I was impressed at how Nick Nolte could wander around digging fields and feeding horses on a large ranch without the aid of a guide dog or white stick. For demonstration of how a story about the travails befalling refugees could be structured and shot on a small budget, check out Michael Winterbottom's far superior "In This World".
"The Beautiful Country" is a big disappointment. It doesn't come up to my expectation. Bihn, a tall muscular guy, is a son of an American GI and a Vietnamese woman during Vietnam War. We were told that that he was treated "less than dust" in Vietnam in the early 90s, so he fleeted to America to seek his American father.<br /><br />Sounds like a heart broken material? Maybe, but showing in this film. I find myself having a hard time to connect to Bihn emotionally, because the film is full of cliché and I simply don't understand or believe him. The writing of this film is a total failure. The plot is full of holes. It grabs some events on a needed basis trying hard to stir the emotion of the audience. We are not that stupid and it doesn't work that way. Let's see what the film is trying to do. So, you don't feel Bihn's boat trip (yeah, he was on a boat!) is hard enough, let's have a storm over night and let the ship shake a little. Still not touched? Fine! Get a little kid to suffer the heat, the hungry, the sickness, the violence with the adults on the boat, hopefully that will do the trick to touch the audience. Still not touched? You heartless SOB, let's... OK, I don't want to give any spoiler of the film, but you get the idea.<br /><br />The film is really long and slow. It never tell us why Bihn didn't go to find his mom and dad, until the moment in the film when he left to look for his mom and dad. What has he been doing the 20 some years before he went to Saigon to look for his mom? And guess what? He has the luck and everybody will tell him where to find the person he is looking for, and he will find anybody without a scratch. I really think the Department of Homeland Security should hire those Vietnamese who helped Bihn. The beautiful country? Which one? Both Vietnam and America seem hell to Bihn.
Thursday June 9, 9:15pm Egyptian Theater Saturday June 11, 2:00pm Uptown Theater<br /><br />Being loved and belonging is essential for most children. Those born to Vietnamese mothers and GI fathers often found neither. The Beautiful Country is the story of one such child, Binh, rejected by his rural village then struggling to find his American father. The film begins with green and wild country but descends into grimy sweaty ugliness and boredom. The considerable talents of Tim Roth and Temuera Morrison are wasted in pointless and ill conceived roles aboard the rusting freighter carrying Binh and is dying brother across the ocean with what appear to be stock shots of stormy seas. New York City offers slave labor and cliché characters. While very uneven from it's start the great curiosity of this film is the final segment. Nick Nolte is given top billing among the cast. I jokingly suggested he would probably be in the final scene only and was not far from the truth. As the journey brings Binh to Texas and his father the film takes on a serene and austere simplicity. A tenuous cohabitation knits these two men together into a family of father and son. The ninety odd minutes of garbage we have just watched is rewarded by a profound and subtle performance from Nolte as they slowly interact. The credits rolled and I was surprised to see the names of Badlands executive producer Edward Pressman and West Texas native Terrence Malick.
My wife and I never got into the movie.We thought it was way to sloooowwww and to many subtitles.I understood they needed them for Vietnam,but took to long to get out of Asia.She wanted it off I said it's going to get better.It never did yes they had a tough time trying to get to America,but I wanted to see him looking and finding his dad.Not at the end but forming a relationship.Did I mention it was slllloooowwwwww.I love to watch a movie to feel good not sad at the end.I know they don't make many good movies now days.I think action movies are the only ones to watch.I have been renting a lot from netflix and now blockbuster,maybe 20% are worth seeing.I don't kneed realism or facts just a movie thats fun and makes you feel good.Gary
An Epic Story of Hope constrained by budget and limited artistic ambition. Seeing as Terrence Malick produced this, I expected something haunting and lyrical. Instead, we get a typical Norwegian co-production ("Revolution" with Al Pacino, anyone?), where - quite possibly - good intentions are scuppered by a dreadful screenplay, and where many of the characters are reduced to stereotypes. The "me-Tarzan-you-Jane" English dialogue between the non-English-speaking protagonists is particularly cringeworthy – one could speculate whether Nick Nolte and Tim Roth ad-libbed their own, as they almost sound like real people. The story is loaded with implausibility: we are expected to believe that Binh can speak a smattering of English after having spent his entire life living as a peasant slave (his vocabulary, but unfortunately not grammatical command, increases impressively in the Malayan refugee camp, without the benefit of night classes). Coincidence is rife; I wonder whether an hour or two has been edited from the first third: he tracks down his mother in Ho Chi Minh City almost immediately - after bumping into his thirty year younger half brother, who nonchalantly recognises him! Mum gives him a gold locket (or something similar of great value) as they part, but this is never referred to again. His relationship with "Me Dead Inside" Ling is supposed to provide the obligatory "love interest", but feels as artificial as Leonardo and Cameron in "Gangs Of New York". <br /><br />The voyage in the rust bucket of a boat does convey a sense of the appalling conditions that human trafficking entails. Indeed, the only time the film is remotely exciting and unpredictable, is the jerky, hand-held footage shot from the bridge during choppy weather conditions. (Incidentally, a boat cruise from Malaysia to New York via The Cape Of Good Hope and the African coast, without stopping for fuel or supplies, is certainly an epic journey). The beautiful shot of the New York skyline echoes Malick's use of magic hour, but I want to know why the Coast Guard didn't show up. Perhaps they were watching the Super Bowl, or something. Of course, Binh manages to track down his blind old Dad on a remote farm in Texas, with the same navigational flair he displayed in Ho Chi Minh City. I was impressed at how Nick Nolte could wander around digging fields and feeding horses on a large ranch without the aid of a guide dog or white stick. For demonstration of how a story about the travails befalling refugees could be structured and shot on a small budget, check out Michael Winterbottom's far superior "In This World".
As a child of the 80's like so many of the other reviewers here I hated the original V and V: the Final Battle. I own both on VHS and never hook up the VCR to watch them. I do remember not liking this short lived series very much, but I couldn't remember why, so I rented the first disc. By the third episode I had my memory refreshed. It's terrible. The writing is beyond horrid. It's not even FUN. They had a lot of material to work with here, but it seemed like they just didn't know what to do so they turned it into 'Days of our Lives with lizard aliens'. How cool and full of potential is the concept of Elizabeth the Starchild? All they could think of to do is grow her into a whiny, boring teenager to compete with her mother romantically? Marc Singer looked less embarrassed to be in Beastmaster II than he did when he was trapped in this drivel....point is, whether you're one of the younger folk who's just discovered V or one of us older sci-fi fans looking to rediscover some old fun, spare yourself and SKIP THIS!
Relesed from Troma (which is my favorite movie company)Unspeaksble is a messy horror film that can be interesting but very dark and twisted.<br /><br />Unspeakable starts with a family in a car, they get into an accident which leaves a daughter dead and a mother deformed. the father eventually goes crazy and slashes prostitutes. He sees his daughter in other people. He kills for her. Meanwhile his now deformed wife is being raped by her orderly. These are sick people! <br /><br />Unspeakable tries to be sick and disturbing and it does manage to do that as a good horror flick this is not. Most Troma movies have a sense of humor to them but however this one doesn't.
I really wanted to like this movie, because I love Troma and loved the trailer and loved "Ghouls," another of Ferrin's films. It did have some almost-good moments, like the oldies love song playing over the car crash scene, and a scene near the end where the protagonist gets some closure. But on the whole, it was just boring and mildly unpleasant.<br /><br />The "unimaginable" shocks that Ferrin came up with were really predictable and worn-out. Poop, murdering prostitutes, incest. Could have still been good, but poorly done. Unsure whether it was trying to offend, amuse, or both. Ultimately did neither.<br /><br />IN conclusion, we watch Troma movies because we want films with heart. This film did not consistently feel like it had heart. There were some good scenes, but ultimately it was dull and unpleasant.
I cannot believe that this is a film that I did not like. . . I usually find that I am open minded about all sorts of stuff. . . but this flick is just, well, bad.<br /><br />I could deal with the subject matter if the script and story were better. I could deal with the acting if the camera work was better or if the characters were better established. . . I think it mostly boils down to script and direction though.<br /><br />it was just bad.<br /><br />i want to give this the lowest rating, but . . . I don't believe in that, at least this guy got off his tail to make a movie. . . so he gets four stars (just above the average rating which this has so far)
Unspeakable starts in Los Angeles with Jim (Roger Cline) & his wife Alice Fhelleps (Tamera Noll) arguing as they drive along in the pouring rain, unfortunately Jim crashes the car & his daughter Heather (Leigh Silver) ends up dead while Alice is turned into a wheelchair bound vegetable. Devastated by the death of his daughter Jim starts visiting prostitutes, he then kills them because of voices in his head. Erm, that's it really.<br /><br />Written, produced & directed by Chad Ferrin I hate Unspeakable as a film. There are some films you occasionally see that move the 'goal posts' as it were in regard to everything you watch thereafter, some films are so brilliant that all other's will be judged by it while other's like Unspeakable for example are so bad that it sets a new cinematic low. This is truly one of the worst films I've ever seen & I am seriously surprised by the largely positive comments on the IMDb although I'm not surprised the the low overall rating on the main page, I not sure if I missed something but for a start Unspeakable has no plot, it has no story & a lot of it seems almost random. There was nothing in Unspeakable to maintain my interest or entertain & as a result became a test of endurance to get through to the end. The film tries to be shocking with some limp scenes of sexual abuse of a rent boy by a priest, there is a scene in which a disabled person craps herself, it splats on the floor & her dodgy male nurse starts feeling her soiled genitals, legs & underwear. If anyone can find such crap entertaining then I'll just cut my wrists now, the character's are some of the worst I've had the misfortune to know, the dialogue is hilariously bad with some it sounding like it came straight from some dirty faggot porno of the worst kind. It doesn't work as a horror as it's not scary in the slightest, it's absolutely hilarious & frankly insulting to claim that it is trying to be a serious drama about someone suffering a great loss & attempting to cope with it & overall I just think it's a pointless, rubbishy, badly made piece of crap from Troma.<br /><br />Director Ferrin films like some badly made documentary, the special effects are terrible & are of the 'let's pour tomato ketchup on our actor's face & the audience will be convinced that they died a gory death' variety, there is no graphic violence at all apart from a suicide where someone sticks a knife in their own mouth. Considering the amount of prostitutes in Unspeakable the nudity levels are kept to an absolute minimum...<br /><br />Apparently Unspeakable had a budget of about $20,000 & all I can say is where did all the money go? Oh, a quick note to the filmmakers, if your going to record sound live make sure you don't have your actor's deliver their lines next to a main road that half of Los Angeles seem to be driving up... The acting sucks, period.<br /><br />Unspeakable is, in my opinion, total crap. It's probably not the worst I've ever seen but it's right down there & I can't remember seeing such a awful film recently. One to avoid unless your a masochist or insomniac.
I didn't want to write this movie off on the reviews and critics in the western world, I mean how wrong have they been about Asian cinema that has now become a staple diet of the Hollywood remake monster? Plus Jet L is pretty damn cool, and he's made some interesting movies in Asia. So with an open mind I was surprisingly averaged out by this movie.<br /><br />There are good points. The story is very clever, using M-Theory as a base to bring forward the plot that there are multiple universes each with their own versions of worlds, and most likely you. Each time one of you is destroyed the rest share the energy and power amongst them. The idea that someone might try and purposely become the only version of themselves in all the Universes to find out if they become a God.<br /><br />There's also Jet Li, and he's not a bad actor and pretty nimble as a martial artist, plus Jason Statham who is an all round good actor. As for the special effects, some of them are really cool, a mixing of bullet time, and slow motion with normal speed, very cool to watch in places.<br /><br />The bad points? Well Statham's accent is appalling, and some of the effects aren't as comparable as others, so it's quite apparent that money was spent on some of the main shots and not on others that were probably deemed as too short on screen or they just plain ran out of budget.<br /><br />A big sore point for me is the close cropped camera action that Hollywood has long favoured, something that Jackie Chan has often talked about. Filming fight scenes close up serves two purpose. It gives greater emphasis on a single punch or movement, making it look harder and more real than it really is, and it also hides what is going on around the camera lens. For example people holding a fake arm or the face of a stunt double, etc.<br /><br />What Chan always said was that he tried to open out the camera and show the audience what was going on, let them see the people fighting properly rather than a close up of a face and a fist, cutting to someone falling into frame. Showing the whole picture is more effective, and it's more impressive.<br /><br />So the close cropped shots were just more annoying than anything, you failed to see the impressiveness of Li's fighting skills, and you found it hard to see some of the action. Slow the cuts down and pan out the camera Hollywood Directors! The biggest problem was the story though, despite having such a strong base on which to build, they seemed to loose the sense of the plot and concentrate on the action scenes. There are some serious plot building and explanatory moments that are just totally overlooked and covered in the space of a few sentences, yet these could have formed some excellent and complex character development.<br /><br />It just all held together too weakly, and not enough was made of the story. All in all, not a great movie and it's potential was badly spoiled.
I wanted to dog this movie, but somehow I can't find it in myself to do that.<br /><br />Exhibiting a duality of fighting styles, it's Li vs. Li in a somewhat decent battle for supremacy.<br /><br />This is one of those movies where the story carries the performances. Li's acting is extremely amateurish, hesitant, and stiff for most of this movie...right up to the very end. At first I tricked myself into believing he was just doing that for one of his two characters. You know, to show a difference in personalities. But it appeared to be inexperience or a lack of talent. It did get a bit better, more relaxed, toward the end. But that wasn't enough to save his performance. Jet Li's acting does improve as his career moves forward. I don't hate his acting. I just hated him in this.<br /><br />I also have to say that the effects were very "B" class effects. What effects there are.<br /><br />The story itself had great potential. It was uniquely creative, daring, and fresh. Unfortunately, either the budget was not ample enough to accommodate better lighting, effects, film quality, and some acting lessons, or the director just did not care enough to bother with these little details. He also did not bother with the SCIENCE in the science-fiction. A fact which was a great detractor to this film.<br /><br />The fight sequences were a bit one sided, as he seemed to give more to one character and little to the other. But all in all the story line made for a very enjoyable attempt.<br /><br />As enjoyable as this was, I couldn't help but think, all the way through, that this was just one of those movies that you can't help but watch it for what it SHOULD'VE been, rather than what it is.<br /><br />It rates a 6.0/10 on the "B" scale.<br /><br />That's a 4.2/10 (on the "A" scale) for having a good plot, from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.
This movie was a thorough diappointment. There was no development of the story. Viewers were thrown into the story without explanation and left to fend for themselves in trying to work out what was going on. The action sequences were okay but confusing. They weren't The Matrix and they weren't Crouching Tiger. This movie is best left to cable tv where you don't have to pay to see it or convincing a friend that they should hire it and then go over and watch it. As a huge Jet Li fan, I expected more. How can someone involved with Once Upon a Time in China put his name to this one???
Post 1988 after the disaster GJS Amitabh's films lost the quality they had earlier <br /><br />Barring MAIN AZAAD HOON released in 1989 which was a great film rest all films were craps mostly except HUM(1991) later in 1991<br /><br />This is another of the crap Amitabh films people rejected in early 90's<br /><br />The film he did like a friendship token to Shashi Kapoor who directed the film and he didn't take a penny The film also had Rishi and Dimple(again not paired opp each other after RANBHOOMI) <br /><br />The film came in 1991 when Bachchan had 4 releases and 3 flops amongst them INDRAJEET, AKAYLA, AJOOBA <br /><br />Ajooba came 2 years after TOOFAN and JAADUGAR both supernatural films which were rejected This is another type of crap Bachchan wears a mask and a Krissh type outfit and performs magic changing 1 person to a donkey.etc Of course being 1991 you can excuse the special effects but the film is too bad to be watched<br /><br />Direction by Shashi Kapoor is not good Music is bad<br /><br />Amongst actors Amitabh had become too old by 1991 and looked tired, his acting is okay but not on par with his best Rishi is okay Dimple is alright, rest are forgettable
If there's one word I can associate to this movie, its 'embarrassment'. It must be embarrassing to everyone associated with the movie, to actually watch it in a theatre. Everything - the script, screenplay, dialogues, song lyrics, direction - shoddy, lousy.<br /><br />Saw this movie when I was a kid. Liked it then, mainly because it was a fantasy, a superhero-movie. Its a not-so-explored genre in Hindi cinema. The attempt deserves credit, but that's all there is to it. Sashi Kapoor seems to have been in a great hurry in making the movie. Can't understand the reason behind casting foreigners as Hindi-speaking characters, who can't even get the sync right (nothing to say about the dubbing). The screenplay is terrible. The editing even more. If one follows the dialogues closely, one can detect grammatically-wrong sentences (which completely alter the intended meaning). Nothing special about the music.<br /><br />The biggest embarrassment must be for the Censor board. There are a couple of nip-slip scenes in the movie, one of which is absolutely clear (so much so that I can't even think of a metaphor). The director missed them. The editing team missed it. And the censor board missed it too. So much for the no-indecent-exposure-on screen motto. The officials probably fell asleep while watching the movie.<br /><br />Can't think of why Amitabh went with the role. It might be because he was a good friend of the Kapoors. But the role hardly has anything for him. With wonderful roles in Hum and Agneepath behind him, he couldn't have followed it up with a worse one. There are a couple of heroic scenes, really worthy ones. But otherwise, they're embarrassingly unbelievable (arrow-catching for instance.. it probably could've been better with CGI, but it was '91..).<br /><br />Dimple and Sonam do not exactly set the screen on fire. Shammi Kapoor and Rishi Kapoor give an inspired performance, but their scope is limited. Amrish Puri is his usual self in the role of a fairy-tale villain (letting out the villainous laugh every now and then).<br /><br />On the whole, an interesting concept. Could have been a lot more better.
A complete zero out of four. One worst sums up Ajooba: awful. Actually, more words come to mind: ridiculous, third-rate, and terrible. This is one of Amitabh's worst movies ever, he prances around in a cheap leather jacket and equally cheap tinsel foil Zorro-style mask with what appears to be wings on the sides.<br /><br />The movie is set in ancient Persia or Arabia and is characteristically un-historical for an Indian movie. As stated above, a leather jacket from K-Mart with velcro straps did not exist 400 years ago, unless all my history teachers were wrong.<br /><br />Rishi also does his patented cross-dressing in this movie. Far from being funny, it is very embarassing to watch. What could possess the son of the legendary Raj Kapoor to flay the memory of his house like this on screen?<br /><br />On the plus side, if you want a real laugh, go ahead and watch this film. The glaring inconsistencies in the plot and costumes are no match for the awful dialogues and shoddy acting.
How pointless, hideous characters and boring film. Saved by brief sex scenes, mad witch, gorgeous desert island and Brooks body. The plot is tenuous, the characters are shallow and unlikeable. Having said that I did manage to watch it all, mainly because I was totally transfixed by the jiggling and kind of hoping that her character would come good in the end. The film was well shot, well directed but perhaps the casting let it down in some ways. Disappointing. Really summed the review up in the first line but this website dictates that you need to write 10 lines minimum. It would be better to spend the time watching another film.
A holiday on a boat, a married couple, an angry waiter and a shipwreck is the reason to this films beginning.<br /><br />I like boobs. No question about that. But when the main character allies with whoever happens to have the most fish at the moment, mostly by having sex with them and playing the role of the constant victim, my anger just rises to a whole new level. Take two guys (a husband and another man), put a pure bombshell woman in the middle of them, ad a deserted island, subtract all her moral issues, ad a whole bunch of moral issues to the men and mix it in a big bowl of arguments, fish and a zippo lighter and you will come up with a piece of junk movie like this. <br /><br />The acting is, I would say, good. There are some bloopers but not many as far as i could see. The main female character makes me sick. This is due to her lack of moral values. The man with the most fish get's her attention. Even though one of them is her husband, she sees no problem with being unfaithful with (Manuel) the other man because "I must do it to survive". How can you justify having sex with another man for fish when your husband is 30feet away? And he won't even benefit from it? The female character has absolutely no problems to justify anything that she does. If she doesen't get approval for her actions, she's a victim.<br /><br />I recommend everyone to see this movie. This is the kind of movie that will make just about everything else you see this year a pleasant movie experience.
I can only assume the previous posts came from execs at the production company...<br /><br />Attended the UK premiere last night. Zane and Brook attended (they probably knew I was gonna be there) and are undoubtedly stars, but what a turkey of a film. I felt sorry for them at times, when the audience erupted in laughter at what were serious 'thriller' scenes.<br /><br />But perhaps I was missing the point. Perhaps an element of tongue-in-cheek was intended. If so, pure genius. If not, career genocide.<br /><br />On the plus side, Zane always shines, and Brook can actually act a little. As the other half said (as we ran out the cinema, avec broken ribs), they can be forgiven for this film as they both seem like nice people! The scriptwriter, however, should be marooned.
Yes, bad acting isn't only one thing to mention. Bad script,not so bad music. Unfortunately.<br /><br />Nice girl and nice boy with perfect bodies and super teeth just isn't enough for me and for you too.<br /><br />First thing in the morning after crash they go to swim to the sea, to have some fun !!! Smiling ...<br /><br />They find everything in the sea. I mean things like fishing-net, knife, scuba dive things, ropes, bottles, husband ...<br /><br />Woodoo stuff , are you kidding. Stupid. They are so happy on the island, they are going to die, and they are happy. Love, peace. Love. Just stupid.<br /><br />Terrible, skip this one please.
did anyone notice?when miss brook went skinny dipping,she left the water wearing white bikini bottoms and yet had previously taken it all off to join cabin boy.this could have been a good film without miss brooks phony accent and a year on the island please.how come that Kelly looked always clean and ready for a FM photo shoot.what started out with premise turned in to soft porn.and billy Zane come on,you cant be that hard up for film offers.check out dead calm.also when the people took her away ,how come she scoffed her face and after all that time didn't feel like throwing up.i suggest billy find decent scripts,Kelly stick to photo shoots and cabin boy play the son of Zorro in a future sequel.
If you make a suspense movie it is kind of important that the "villain" not be more sympathetic than the "victim". And this fails miserably. It was so terrible and frustrating to watch that I was actually moved to register and comment. OK, so the husband is rich and cocky. There are worse vices, and the cabana boy and wife display plenty. The husband is a jerk because he - um, didn't approve of the cabana boy physically assaulting that woman - the witch one which had absolutely nothing to do with the plot BTW. The cabana boy threatens the husband and repeatedly attempts to seduce the wife. He then forces himself on her - which the woman finds so hot she stops thinking rape and starts thinking she wants him. Uh huh. The misogynistic, inferiority complex thoughts the director displays are just revolting. It is one thing when a fine film like American Psycho deliberately tries to get us to empathise with the villain but in Survival Island I felt like I was watching a movie about Ted Bundy but the director failed to make him unlikeable and instead made us hate his victims. What was he thinking???
It is playing on SHOWTIME right now but is going to be released as a movie called THREE or has been released for 2006. Mess ups include a supposed nude body comes out of the waves with her bottoms on. You can have fun finding the others. It was a decent stranded, hungry, cold, crazy person video but that is about it. And of course what would a movie be without sex. The lady has a nice body and the men are pretty, but the story is the same as Swept Away or A Savage is Loose type with some blood. Wonder if the movie studios know they made a big booboo and already released this show and now gonna release it as THREE. Billy Zane should have worn a top hair piece or shaved his head completely. Juan Di Pace is awesome and there is a couple good sex scenes. There is a voodoo woman that loves the character Di Pace plays and in real life her name is Di Pace too. Not aware of any connection but probably kin or married.
What the heck is this about? Kelly (jennifer) seems to drop all moral behavior as soon as she arrives to the island. She finds this Juan P (Manuel) existing and exotic, though she witnessed when he slapped his ex in the face, which he also justify later on in the movie, right or wrong? These two guys are the first to find each other on the island. Kelly are totally lost in every sense and the great Juan P can fish and built a somewhat house. Mr handyman. They seem to have a great time. Then Billy Zane (Jack, Kellys characters husband) shows up and of course, two days without knowing what his wife has been doing whit this gorgeous Juan P, he is a little bit jealous. Billy Z is the stereotype rich guy and maybe not the nicest man in the world. He dislikes Juan P (for hitting his girlfriend at the pier, who can blame him? Hes also is arrogant, but he paid loads of money to rent that boat and Juan P who is the waiter/everything cant even fetch him a beer whit in 20 min. Wouldn't you be upset? Yet Billy is probably the guy you want to punch in the face if you meet him. But at the same time, he is, not to be blamed for, suspicious about the scuba goggles Manuel has. Kelly and Billy just lost some dear friends! How convenient he just happens to have them, no matter what!). However, for some strange reason Kelly likes this girl hitting Manuel and starts to hate Billy for being jealous. OK, Billy is overreacting, thats for sure, but Kelly isn't doing much to convince him either. She spends more time with Juan P and even wants him to sleep with them since hes been so nice (and even though Manuel yelled at her and calling her things for asking him some intimate questions. But Kelly is SO forgiving...). Yeah right. And then she starts to have sex with this Juan P. It should be said that Kelly and Billy seems to have a working relationship before this island incident, at least, they have intimate sex on the boat and talks like people do when they like each other. Now, you can think that this scenario is possible. But for real, is it? Are you cheating your husband after two days on a coconut island just because hes jealous and acts like a drunk in the bar? (i wouldn't disagree if there relationship was really bad but the director doesn't give much hints if thats the case). For Christ sake, Juan P hasn't really shown himself being a good person. Catching some fish and built a wood house to get into someones panties, is that showing a good side? Not trying to befriend Kellys husband in anyway (which would be very simple by letting them be alone most of the island-time, simply be respect) He doesn't care about their relationship (and Kelly cant figure that one out), he just want to have sex with Kelly. Kellys character is just not trustworthy (if she was stranded with Billy and another attractive girl, wouldn't she be upset or what?!). Or maybe she is? Billy Zane plays a not very nice person, and Juan P isn't actually much better if you really think about it. And poor Kelly is so confused, and believes having sex with Juan P will solve everything because her husband is so strange and so aggressive towards poor Juan P? So... for all of you who reads this... What do you think about it? If you where the Kelly character, would you consider cheating on your husband, knowing one day you'll be back in real life, and all of a sudden Billys maybe not that horrible person after all. Hes just too jealous. And if you where Billys character, what do you say, is he totally wrong in his behavior? And Juan P character what do you guys really think of him. One thing is for sure. Manuels exist! Ps... The voodoo thing is so totally wrong here! What the heck was that about?! Seriously! Anyone tell me?
Thankfully I watched this film alone, enabling me to fast-forward through the worst scenes (aka most of the film, actually). OK, some of it is not all bad, with partially good photography (even some of the under water scenes) and at times not too bad directing. But it still doesn't save the incredibly poor script and way worse acting. Additionally, when I don't find the movies "hottie" to be all that, even the wannabe-sexy love making scenes get dull. Really dull! And for the drama: You know it's always a bad sign when you get to dislike all of the characters so much you really don't care who lives and who dies.<br /><br />If you still haven't gotten tired of the reality series Survivor, you may find something to your liking in this movie. If not, stay well clear!
"Three" is a seriously dumb shipwreck movie. Masquerading as a psychological thriller, it's closest relative is the monumentally superior "Dead Calm" (also featuring Billy Zane). "Dead Calm" provided well drawn characters to root for in the form of Sam Neil and Nicole Kidman's grieving parents attempting to re-define their relationship on an ocean cruise. They end up being terrorised by Zane's adrift psycho-killer. It provided sharp, increasingly ratcheted suspense, a scary feeling of claustrophobia in open seas as the cat and mouse game of life and death unfolded.<br /><br />"Three" suffers from poorly drawn characterisation (the audience doesn't care what happens to any of them), a stupid and unnecessary voodoo plot device, a total lack of suspense or excitement and some thudding, hammy performances from the principal players. Zane in particular goes way over the top in an irritatingly mannered fashion. In "Dead Calm" he was menacing, wired and seething with barely controlled sexual violence. Here he is bombastic, petulant slimy, and unravelled. And where does he get his seemingly inexhaustible supply of dry cigarettes and cigars? And how come his lighter stays full of juice for over a year? Ms Brook is very picturesque, stunningly pretty, but both her chest and rear appear to have been wildly over-inflated by some sort of life-raft pump. They do, however, succeed in acting with more skill and conviction than the rest of her. Dramatic actress, in the purest sense of the term, she is not. The guy playing the voodoo-hexed Manuel, the third component of this sorry triangle, could have been replaced by a lump of driftwood - no one would notice. In fact, judging by his complete lack of ability to deliver dialogue in any meaningful or dynamic way, driftwood represents a potential improvement in the casting stakes (excuse pun).<br /><br />Plus sides: the scenery is nice and the cinematography (above and below the water) is credible.<br /><br />I'm guessing this had a very limited (if any) theatrical release or went straight to rental and retail DVD. The reason for this is it's not very good. If you want something decent along these lines, get "Dead Calm." It was made by people who knew a bit about cinema.
First off, I just watched a movie on SHOWTIME called Survival Island. It says it was a 2006 movie with Billy Zane and since I like him and couldn't sleep I thought I would check it out. Looked interesting. Watched it, and decided to look up on the IMDb who was this new face Juan Pablo Di Pace and OMG I could not believe it, this movie has been renamed THREE and will be a new movie?? It is playing again in 1 hr and 30 mins on Showtime Channel again and this date is May 28 and EDT or Florida time. You can check your showtime listings by title and see it. I wont get into details so you can see the movie but at one point there is a lady in a white bikini that goes into the water taking it all off, you see her naked body.... when she runs back out of the water you see her bottoms on. Funny, there are a lot of other mess ups too. I can't believe by coincidence I decided to look up this movie... Go figure! Wonder if the people renaming it sold it to some movie studio to put out but it is already playing on Showtime, ha ha. Good laugh. I give it 1-1/2 stars. C-, D+ movie.
How much do I love this film?! Now I'm not a fan of bad films, but I do love a film that is so bad it's good. This is one of those. Juan Pablo Di Pace has a great butt, looks fab on screen, and definitely doesn't make a bad turn at his acting debut (I believe). Billy Zane is suitably mean and moody, though I still constantly feel that there is something more in him. I felt it in Titanic, the look on his face when La Winslet spat on him for example, totally broken, shocked, and put-down ... fierce! Kelly Brook is a pretty face ... no seriously, I think that's it! It's worth catching this to see one really hot guy, some big bra fillers from Brook, nasty growling from Billy, laugh at the dialogue, revel in the scenery and madness of the whole affair ... I'm gona go watch it again now - yes, I bought it!!!
By far this has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. I watch practically every movie that is on at night (either showtime, hbo, cinemax, etc). "Three" AKA "Survivor Island" keeps you in as much suspense as watching paint dry only to let you down even more miserably. If you want to feel like you just wasted what seems like an eternity on the worst film ever created then by all means watch this movie. I must have screamed at a minimum 900 times from the idiotic twists. If I had 4 hands I'd give this movie 4 thumbs DOWN.<br /><br />In my personal opinion, I believe the only people who would like this movie are those with terrible morals.
this is the worst film I've seen in a long long time, never mind the fact that so many useful things keep appearing on this island "how convenient!!!!", the acting is beyond poor from the outset, its like one of those really badly scripted soft porn films on channel 5, a complete waste of time, and i cant remember the lead actors name but i cant believe he still gets work!!! I've never seen him act "I've seen him in lots of films... But I've never seen him act. here are a few of the blaringly obvious errors, apparently petrol lighters still work even when they've been soaked in sea water!!! also according to this film you can walk into the sea naked but come out wearing bikini bottoms (I'm guessing the camera man and editor were students)there are plenty more errors but I'm ranting now, besides its no so much the errors as the cast the script and the whole film avoid at all costs
In a nutshell, skip this movie, it's that bad. In short, this movie is about a weapons factory where secret weapons are being developed. Because they make bad things, they aren't popular so to speak. A new female CEO comes in to clear things up, and make sure the reputation of the company will be improved. She does this by leaking company confidential information to the press... Do you believe this? Furthermore she starts to fire people she has never seen. Incredible uh? A pacifistic group tries to destroy the company's mainframe, because there are the blueprint located of those secret weapons. This mainframe is located in the bottom of the building hidden in a kind of vault. Of course the movie would not be complete without the mad scientist and a robot which is the ultimate killer machine, which resembles like an 'Alien' from the Alien movies. The mad scientist likes the female CEO.<br /><br />The mad scientist instructs the robot to kill everyone, and so protects his job, rise in chain of command, and make the movie interesting. The pacifists team up with the CEO and another person of the board of directors to escape from the robot. Further down the line they agree to blow up this evil computer mainframe, whilst avoiding the robot. They also discover that the factory was developing a part man, part machine soldier. They can erase a persons memory and replace it by a veteran soldier's one. One of the pacifists is transformed in such a soldier and will hunt the killer robot. I guess the mad scientist also wrote the script of this movie. This super soldier looks and acts much the same as Robocop, though not as funny.<br /><br />It boils down to this. People are running, being chased by a killer robot, are hurt by it, but they do not seem to troubled by that, besides limping a bit, and of course the female CEO is the leading character of this movie, and cannot be killed, i.e. survives every attack, explosion, you name it. I won't bother you by the chase, let's skip to the end. They have lots of weapons, yes the pacifist too and they know how to use them. When they're at the roof of the building they empty all there weapons upon the killer robot. They step into an elevator which is used to clean outside windows. And then the female CEO knows some magic as well, at the roof she was complaining about being out of bullets, and like magic the gun is reloaded. This way she can shoot the cables and let the elevator plummet 70 stories or so, and let it stop right above ground surface by pulling the brake. And to top it all off, the police is waiting there for them. The robot jumps after them, and kills the cops. Hilarious no? The robot chases them down the vault where the mainframe is, and when finally the robot is so close to her, that he can touch/kill her, it stops. Because the mad scientist did not want her to be killed. A better name for this guy would be the idiot scientist. Although he is the one who made this movie watchable. At this moment I was already pulling for the killer robot to finish them all of, so the movie would end.<br /><br />I cannot believe that this movie rates this high, and this is why I wrote this comment. Avoid this movie like the plague. It's a monster, and I'm not talking about the Death Machine.
i just got done watching this movie and i have to say, it was a good film, i loved some of the good guy's and i loved the killer robot but the movie had some hole's in it.<br /><br />the name's of the people in it was kind of..stupid..i think people should of sued the maker's of this movie for how lame it was at the end..the first half hour was good but then it just dragged on and on then i was happy..it was over...but still loved the the killer robot and some of the movie's good guy's in it.<br /><br />i think it was the best two buck's i have ever spent because i do like stupid b-movie's like this one and come on..it is a b-movie everyone.
Maybe the subject was good, but put down to a script it fails in pace. Maybe the author was trying to obtain something slow-paced like Alien, but instead of being haunting, this movie turned out just boring. Technically good, anyway, a pity for the lack of tension.
This film promised a lot, so many beautiful and well playing actors but with a plot that had virtually NOTHING to say. So many potentially promising conflicts between the family members that could have been developed and elaborated but it was all dropped and not taken care of. There was no story to be told, just a show off of acting, technique, beautiful scenes - that were all EMPTY. But again, the acting was excellent so many of the individual scenes were entertaining, but as you became increasingly aware of the lack of underpinning ideas, even the acting lost its sense. So from the promising start you became increasingly disappointed as the non-story went along.
Tedium as only the French can do it. I checked my watch for the first time 7 minutes in, and with 143 minutes left, I also considered walking out. I won't even try to discuss the incoherence of the "plot" or the inability of the characters to be personable because at about 1 hour in, I realized none of this mattered. It was not merely self-indulgent or pretentious, it was a vacuum. A soul-sucking vacuum. This film has no saving grace, no enjoyable character, nothing funny, and nothing sad. It isn't smart enough to be drama and there's no moment that's in the slightest bit farcical. The most intriguing thing about this movie is how it has managed to get mostly glowing and positive reviews. I was tricked by those reviews, but you don't have to be, gentle reader. All I want for Christmas is my three hours back.
I can't remember the last time a movie was so boring that I walked out. The Weatherman and The Island were both so bad that I thought about it but I even stayed to the end in those. This movie was incomprehensible, not funny and just went on and on and on. Like some other commentators, I wondered if parts were just French humor that I didn't get or if the characters were serious. I finally just gave up and tried napping because I didn't want to disturb my husband if he was enjoying it but he noticed and let me know that it was OKAY if I wanted to leave and out the door we went. He would like to know how it ended...if Denevue lived or died etc...(I don't even care).
What a waste of great acting talent. This is a shame because with Catherine Deneuve, Mathieu Amalric, Emmanuelle Devos, Chiara Mastroianni, and Melvil Poupaud (not to mention others less well known in America) that's a lot of acting talent to waste. This film by Arnaud Desplech was a terrible disappointment. After having enjoyed his "Kings and Queens" and this film left me completely bored and frustrated to the point where I actually left before the movie ended. The movie wandered around its central storyline (involving Catherine Deneuve's illness) getting sidetracked by every peripheral storyline and supporting character that appeared on screen. The movie also gave us too little character development to understand why the different characters disliked each other so much (this was a story of family dysfunction) so that the dearth of coherent narrative became even more critical. Finally, the soundtrack (which ranged from hip hop to Bach to Mendelhson's Midsummer Night's Dream) was at odds with the emotional temperature of the movie and further obscured any emotion the viewer should have been feeling at the time. The photography (the director often began scenes with a mainly dark screen, where our only sight is through a small opening, making feel as if we are watching through a peephole, that then expands) was also pretentious and inscrutable.
Time travel is theoretical, so I can give the script some leeway.<br /><br />I also understand the concept that by changing just one variable, you can potentially change the way history unfolded.<br /><br />What I cannot understand, however, is the way the change in time unfolded. We are subjected to a series of "timewaves" which progressively retrograde planetary evolution. While this is a convenient plot device, as it allows our heroes enough time to resolve the problem, it makes no sense whatsoever. Surely, if you change a variable, and that variable has significantly, or even completely, altered planetary evolution, then by the time you come "back to the future", the evolutionary process has already been established and there would be no need for waves? After all, why would a change that happened 65 million years ago need to wait until now to be effective? The fact that the moth was projected forward in time may give it some credibility, but the life of that moth 65 million years ago was significantly altered, ergo, any change to evolutionary history would have begun then, and not be dependent upon a return to our current time.<br /><br />To solve the problem, the team goes back in time to prevent the change in variable from ever happening. By doing this successfully, we see that the changes to evolution never happened, and that no-one even remembers the events! Surely, what works for the solution should work for the original change? I like a good rollicking sci fi adventure, but unless it is set "in a galaxy far far away" it needs to have at least some grounding in theoretical possibility to make it truly entertaining.<br /><br />Good premise, bad plot, reasonable acting and, in all fairness, just a twist on Jurassic Park.<br /><br />Not on my "watch again" list.
Yeah sure, the movie its visuals already did looked horrible and not very promising but the premise and the cast looked good, so I still sort of expected to be entertained by this movie. This however unfortunately wasn't the case. The premise is good but the story is filled with improbabilities and is logically flawed.<br /><br />This movie is potential flushed down the toilet. The main plot is interesting and somewhat original. It's good enough to make a good adventurous movie out of would you think. This movie however fails to entertain and I think that that is this movie biggest flaw. Perhaps it takes itself too serious and a little bit more humor certainly wouldn't had done the movie any harm. Instead it now is nothing more than a lame and cheap looking movie, filled with the one unlikely event after the other, that also steals a bit too much from other, more successful movies. Mainely "Jurassic Park" obviously.<br /><br />The characters also don't help to make the movie any more compelling or at least interesting to watch. I still think that Edward Burns did a fairly decent job as the 'heroic' main lead. The rest of the characters however really get muddled in into the movie and they get very little interesting to do. The movie rather relies on its visual, which are extremely poor. Catherine McCormack also plays a very irritating character. Basically all her character does is complain and talk about how right she was and the rest oh so wrong. Her character just isn't a likable one. And the rest of the characters...well I already have forgotten their names, I think that that is saying enough about them. It certainly is true though that Ben Kingsley's performance alone makes this movie worth watching. He is really excellent in his sort of villainous businessman role but from the moment when he disappears out of the movie the movie really goes downhill rapidly.<br /><br />Visually the movie is extremely poor. It has some dreadful looking CGI effects and they couldn't even get the more simple 'blue-screen' effects look convincing in the movie. The sets are also awful and cheap looking, like they can fall over and break down every moment.<br /><br />The movie never gets tense, exciting or adventurous since the story is brought in the least interesting and engaging way possible. It's a very distant movie with distant characters that fails to impress. There are plenty of action sequences but all of them are so ridicules looking and far from believable that they never get tense or good enough.<br /><br />So basically this movie is lacking in everything that is needed to make a genre movie like this one a good and successful one. It's sad to see how low director Peter Hyams has sunk to the last couple of years, after making some good movies in the '70's and '80's.<br /><br />4/10
In a future where an industrious travel agency uses time travel technology to send wealthy clients back in time for explorations to the age of dinosaurs, the future is inexplicably changed when one of their clients breaks the cardinal rule not to stray off the path. In an attempt to fix the damage done, a seasoned time scout (Edward Burns) teams with the inventor of the technology (Catherine McCormack).<br /><br />The premise is pretty good and engaging. It may have a few flaws in it but it could still make for an interesting movie. Unfortunately, A Sound of Thunder fails to really hook the audience in. It suffers from a number of problems and it takes itself way too seriously so it's hard to actually have any fun while watching the movie. Personally, I thought the script was the film's biggest problem. The were more plot holes than expected and the movie was kind of lazy in explaining things. I was hoping for a more in depth look into "the butterfly effect" but the film was more escapist fun than anything else. That's okay with me since 90 minutes of mindless fun is still a nice way to spend an evening. However, all the fun this film offered was unintentional and lame. There were a few scenes that kept me entertained but I was pretty bored.<br /><br />The acting isn't much better since most of them seem more interested in a paycheck than anything else. The only person that gave a good performance was Ben Kingsley. He kept the first half of the film enjoyable and he seemed to be having the most fun as well. Edwards Burns was pretty pale and bland. I don't think he has what it takes to be a leading man. However, he could make for a decent supporting actor. Catherine McCormack was just really annoying and not very believable. I haven't really seen her in anything else but she could have potential. The rest of the actors also give bad performances though most of them are relatively unknown so it shouldn't effect their careers too much.<br /><br />Looking at the message boards, most people are complaining about the special effects. There's no way to sugarcoat them and they are terrible. All the dinosaurs look really bad. The Gibbon-lizards (part monkey, part dino), while a creative idea, become stale after awhile and they are most likely to encourage laughter rather than fear. The green screen work just looks awful and unprofessional. I was really wondering what director Peter Hyams was trying to accomplish here. He fails to deliver the suspense, action and thrills and makes this movie a long sit. For the most part though, the film is pretty harmless and it's far from the worst movie of 2005. Hopefully they will remake this film in the future. There is potential in this project but for now this is the best we got. In the end, unless curiosity gets the better of you, there is no reason to see A Sound of Thunder. Rating 4/10
Ray Bradbury, run and hide! This tacky film version of his short story from the 1950s about time travel and the effect it might have on de-evolution is not well known from the theatrical run (did it have one?) and exists now as a DVD on the shelves released during a slow week.<br /><br />What looks to be a fancy sci-fi thriller form the opening scenes quickly fools us as the computer generated graphics are re-run unaltered throughout a film that is supposed to be about different 'trips' back in time where a major company sells macho guys in 2055 the chance to hunt dinosaurs by paying exorbitant fees to travel back in time to prehistoric jungles. One slip of the foot/butterfly while on one of these ventures and the course of evolution is altered with resultant time waves rolling over the planet changing everything to man-eating plants and beasties. Of course there is a pretty damsel who knows how to reverse the process and a hunky man to risk his life to act on her orders and everything is eventually OK.<br /><br />Yes, that is the story...and the most surprising fact about this poorly scripted, abysmally acted mess of a film is that it attracted some fine talent to portray the comic book flat characters. Edward Burns (all buff and hunky) is our hero du jour, Ben Kingsley is the requisite bad corporate guy sporting a ridiculous white wig, Catherine McCormack is the know-it-all woman creator, and Wilfried Hochholdinger as an evil one - all are superb actors and should have known better than to align with this flop. And the saddest thing is that for those who like this genre of sci-fi monster thrillers the creative department sold out with some of the corniest animation to hit the screen in a long time. A must miss. Grady Harp
Man, I went to this movie because of the great preview. It looked like it had a great story and nice special effects.<br /><br />Boy was I wrong. I wanted to walk out of the theater because of those horrible special effects. A cartoon dino, of cart board would do even a better job then this. The story was fine, if it would have been taken on by a big movie producer. Who would trow in some more money to make the effect more life like. The only thing I liked about this movie where the plants that pop up everywhere.<br /><br />Even worse where the cars, in one scene 2 characters walk along the street. If you watch those cars you'll see the following: Taxi, car, motorcycle, tri-pod, big bus. And about 4x in a row!<br /><br />And then there is the "butterfly death" that would set the whole "evolution changes" in to progress. If that guy didn't step on the butterfly, the next dino would have eaten it anyway! So that's absolute bull. Then, if you change something in the past, the future will be different in the same instant. Not in those "time waves" they made. But hey, if the future changed in a split second, the movie would be even worse, but more realistic though. This is just one of those movies you should see when you want to have a great laugh. I spend way to much money on this movie in the theater. And then they tell me this movie had $80 million dollar budget. WHERE DID ALL THAT MONEY GO????
I'll start by admitting that I enjoy many movies that have low ratings on this site. I find that if I can see what the creators were trying to do I can find appreciation for their work. Sound of Thunder was a story that interested me. I wanted to see what angles the filmmakers would attack in telling the story. By and large they attempted to create an entertaining movie. The plot was contrived, but most action movie's plots are. Ed Burns doesn't know how to carry a rifle, but still holds his own well as an action lead considering he isn't asked for much. The main problem, !destroys the whole movie!, is the horrible CGI. It is totally unacceptable for the animals and backgrounds to look soooooo very fake. Aside from that the animal conceptions could have been really good, as could the action scenes but failed because the production failed. This could have been a really memorable film if they had only finished it. It really looks like they meant to go back and fix all the horrible CGI but ran out of money and still released it. Save your money because someone failed this movie. I give it three stars because it really could have been good but was totally failed somewhere I can't say it enough.
This movie reminds me old B movies, but not in a good way.<br /><br />When I saw the first scene I thought it was going to be a spoof of one of those early SF films. The terrible acting, the plastic props and the noticeable visual effects gave me that impression.<br /><br />But no, the movie is really that bad. The story is a complete nonsense, the effects are below the level of a TV production; even the editing is a mess.<br /><br />The only thing that kept me in the theater was that I wanted to know the end of the story, although I was pretty sure it was going to be silly (and it was).<br /><br />There are better ways to spend your time and money.
(Synopsis) In the year 2055, the rich are able to travel back in time and hunt a live dinosaur for a huge price. Sonia Rand (Catherine McCormack) has developed a machine that can take people back in time. Charles Hatton (Ben Kingsley) has taken this technology and opened a business know as Time Safari. Anyone with the money can travel back millions of years and shoot a dinosaur. Dr. Travis Ryer (Edward Burns) leads his team together with the big game hunter on a floating walkway to a spot where they can kill the dinosaur. The trip protocol is that they must stay on the walkway and not disturb the land or anything creature around them. Unfortunately for the human race, one hunter steps on and kills a butterfly. This insignificant act causes major impacts to the earth's climate and creates new species of animal life. The course of evolution as we know it is now being changed by time waves. Travis and Sonia try to stop the changing process before it becomes permanent, and man becomes extinct.<br /><br />(Comment) The movie was a little slow and the concept of going back in time and changing things was a little overdone. The death of a single butterfly causing the tremendous changes in the world's atmosphere and evolution is simply ridiculous. They changed the skyline of Chicago to look modern, but the new cars of the future were silly looking. You can wait to see this fantasy on DVD. (Warner Brothers Pictures, Run time 1:43, Rated PG-13)(4/10)
I wish I could use the time travel machine to jump back to the moment I considered seeing this movie and make other plans instead. I saw a free screening of A Sound of Thunder, so I can't complain about the price, but I wish I could get my 103 minutes refunded. The acting was mediocre, and the special effects were deplorable. People shouldn't make movies about dinosaurs if they can't afford to make the prehistoric creatures look as good or better than those in Jurassic Park. Spielberg spoiled us. Edward Burns as Travis Ryer was the movie's only saving grace. I noticed that females under 18 rated the movie the highest, and the only explanation is that they ogled over Burns the whole time. The whole long 103 minutes. This movie should have been over in about 80 minutes. It just dragged on and on and on. Don't waste your time or your money on this far-fetched flick.
The acting was terrible, the cheesy, fake, CHEAP green screen effects were ridiculous, and the creatures were absolutely retarded. The only good thing about this movie was the concept, and the laughs I got from watching such a bad movie- then I became pretty angry because I realized I wasted 4 bucks on renting it. Why would a movie like this ever be in theaters? I know this movie came out almost 5 years ago, but does anyone put any effort into making movies anymore? I am just writing random things to fill up space- because I need ten lines of text in order to publish this review. This next line should just about do it. Annnndddddd there!
A SOUND OF THUNDER. One of the greatest short stories ever written. By one of the grandest Grand Masters of Fantasy, Ray Bradbury. What a great story.<br /><br />But what a vomitous movie! <br /><br />In Bradbury's science fiction short story, a company called Time Safari offers big game hunters the opportunity to go back in time and kill dinosaurs. Rule Number One is: Stay On The Path, a floating metallic walkway that ensures no interaction with the prehistoric environment. During a hunt, a man steps off the path and inadvertently crushes a butterfly. When the hunting party returns to the present - the world as they know it has drastically changed. Though there are paradoxes in any time travel story, Bradbury's tale was a quick jugular stroke, a parable of the ripple effect.<br /><br />A Sound of Thunder was published in 1952 (according to Wikipedia, the most republished science fiction story of all time), and illustrated Chaos Theory, Darwinism, and The Butterfly Effect (which would only be coined in the 1960s by Edward Lorenz). In Bradbury's story, the wonder of time travel was overshadowed by corporate greed, in turn overshadowed by the mortal danger to humanity's existence itself.<br /><br />While in the movie, A SOUND OF THUNDER (directed by the uneven Peter Hyams, CAPRICORN ONE, 2010: ODYSSEY TWO), a clutch of bad actors goes through the time portal again and again to try to rectify their mistakes, like an excrement version of BACK TO THE FUTURE. The movie has nothing to do with Bradbury's powerful tale, except the initial jolt of the time traveling prehistoric hunting party. Egregious liberties are taken with Bradbury's story - baboon-faced reptiles, plants overrunning Chicago's concrete, time waves rippling through the city, CGI insectoids - for which Bradbury should sue the pants and underpants and ass-hairs off the filmmakers.<br /><br />Novice writers Thomas Dean Donnelly, Joshua Oppenheimer and Gregory Poirier should start a Big Balls Agency, for thinking they could actually add elements to a Ray Bradbury story that would improve it. How do these guys walk in a straight line with balls this big? Ben Kingsley is the corporate owner of Time Safari, with a hairpiece so bad it looks like a hairpiece, Edward Burns is his lead hunter, Travis, and Catherine McCormack (who was Murron MacClannough, in BRAVEHEART) is the scientist with the best breasts.<br /><br />I can't possibly relate the hundreds upon thousands of egregious stupidities and asinine pieces of dialog, but here is just one, spoken by David Oyelowo as some kind of "scientist": he refers to the Pleiades star cluster, "The Seven Sisters, they look like stars, don't they? But each of them is a whole galaxy." Uh, no, idiot scientist, they're actually, uh, stars.<br /><br />Those three morons who rewrote Bradbury's story forgot they didn't know anything about physics or astronomy. Or writing.<br /><br />Best part of the movie is Catherine McCormick's chest straining against her disheveled one-size-too-small blouses.<br /><br />--Review by Poffy The Cucumber (for Poffy's Movie Mania).
Bloody awful! There's just no other way to put it. In fact, it's **SO** bad that the only reason I'm wasting words on this is to warn off other reasonable viewers who want to be intelligently entertained. You'll lose I.Q. points watching this. Come to think of it, it's not even suitable for mindless viewing because of the irritation factor. There's no guilty pleasure in watching something this incompetent.<br /><br />Reasons to avoid it:<br /><br />1) Horribly scientifically inaccurate, to the point where this isn't sci-fi anymore, it's just mindnumbingly sloppy, lazy fantasy.<br /><br />2) It sports FX that are cheesy beyond belief. Not even cheesy-kitsch that's a wink and a nod, like vintage Doctor Who, but just cheap and shoddy to the point of being insulting. The FX are so bad they're not even laughable. They spent about a dollar-fifty on this, not more.<br /><br />3) The direction is so weak and mindless that the only way the actors could make it through to the end of shooting without becoming terminally depressed was to sleepwalk through their roles, although Catherine McCormack made some effort anyway, probably on principle and despite the director. Moreover, this isn't Peter Hyams's only bad film: his flubs vastly outnumber any barely salvageable ones, of which Timecop was the last such, and that was 15 years before this writing. he's had nothing halfway decent since (End Of Days was just as slapdash, Arnold was the only draw, and he needed much firmer direction than Hyams provided). Hyams just keeps making it more and more pointless for anyone to consider giving him more work.<br /><br />And finally,<br /><br />4) Ray Bradbury's stories deserve far better treatment than this. Refusing to watch this film sends that message, not that Hollywood is particularly listening.<br /><br />Watch at your own risk. If you do and it turns you off movies altogether, you've only yourself (and Hyams) to blame because you've been more than adequately warned.
This movie was really bad, plain and simple. How a movie like this gets wide release is a wonder to me.<br /><br />It's a decent idea, but it just didn't flesh out. Edward Burns is a decent actor though. I liked his small role in Saving Private Ryan.<br /><br />Let's get down to the big issue here.<br /><br />The visuals were so incredibly bad, I thought I was watching an old "Dinosaurs In 3D" CDROM point-and-click adventure demo on Windows 3.1 I mean, I've seen cut-scenes in console games from pre-2000 that have better looking dinosaurs than this. I mean, heck... the original Tomb Raider T-Rex looked better than this one.<br /><br />The lizard-monkeys were laughable. I thought they were some sort of ripoff creation from "Killer Instinct" I've seen better sock-puppet monsters now that I think about it.<br /><br />You know, there's a ton of made-for-TV movies that are better than this. How does a gem like Scifi Channels "The Shining" get such a small audience, but this load of "CGI, easy to make 4 Kidz" gets put out in the open? I don't care if it's a Ray Bradbury story. Lameeeee
I don't want to seem too much of a nitpicky spoilsport, but if the accidental death of a butterfly by a time traveler caused such an enormous change in the timeline, how could that be since the butterfly would have been incinerated by the pyroclastic blast of the erupting volcano anyway? And, how could time travelers keep going back to the same moments and not keep meeting up with their prior and later selves who were also at those same few minutes in the timeline? It seems there would have been quite a large crowd standing in front of that dinosaur charging.<br /><br />While i can accept the idea of a time wave, i seriously doubt the wave would have caused only a few changes. As the wave passed, all changes that would have happened, would have happened at once during the passage of that wave. So, scratch the idea of the city starting to become overgrown with jungle. And why jungle at all? The location of the city would have still been at the latitude and longitude it was before and would have had vegetation appropriate to its geographic place on Earth.<br /><br />And an endless list of other illogical inanities.<br /><br />Bwahahaha! This flick is a weird combination of some fairly decent production values and totally ridiculous plot holes and factual errors.<br /><br />Too bad. A terrific story idea that was botched up with silly science.<br /><br />Sigh... why, why, why, why? Why spend all that money on production and not even bother to proofread the screenplay to see if it made some sort of actual sense?
My friend recommended this movie to me.Is should have known not to watch it because my friend is kind of a video game nerd. But the name and the cover made it look good for some reason. I was so wrong. I mean first of all, what is up with their suits? And the acting! It seems like they got the people off Barney. Except for Ben Kingsley. And why was he even in this movie? Did he think it was a comedy! But I have to say the special effects were pretty good. But that was like the only good thing in it. I mean seriously, the movie is worse than Pearl Harbor. And thats actually an understatement. Everyone must have thought "oh I am getting paid so it doesn't matter if its the worst movie in the world." I would understand why someone would make this kind of movie if they were directing, acting, producing, writing, and getting their hopeless life best friend to do filming and editing. Probably one of the worst sci-fi movies ever. One truly jacked up film
I generally won't review movies I haven't seen in awhile, so I'll pop them in or rent them to give a full and fresh take on the film. In the case of 'A Sound of Thunder,' I remembered my vow of never seeing this movie ever again, so I'll just go on memory. In fact, I haven't thought of how badly made this movie was until I read someone else's review and remembered the experience I had back in 2005, when I actually saw this in the theater. My movie buddy forced me to see it, though I wasn't interested, and wow. (Later on, I forced him to see 'Basic Instinct 2' in the theater, reminding him he made me see this crap. So, I guess that made us even.) I certainly had my share of deep laughs (at the movie's expense, of course,) which didn't make him happy as he really wanted to see it. The time-travel/butterfly effect film had so many bad graphics, the loudest chuckles from me was whenever they showed the dinosaur (God, I loved seeing that dino and them actually being scared of it – it was hilarious!) or just simply, Ben Kingsley. It's great, Kingsley can remind us on how human actors can be: going from 'Gandhi' and 'Schindler's List' to, uh, this. (Even a Meryl Streep can do a 'She-Devil' from time to time, so they're forgiven.) For months, I pulled an MST3k with my buddy, consistently referencing this movie to any low-rent sci-fi film or Kingsley flick. Yes, the movie would be a great movie to see drunk (or otherwise inebriated): horrible over-the-top acting, "special" FX that even the Nintendo64 would turn away and ridiculous plot twists. The biggest disappointment was that the Razzies didn't even nominate this film for any award.
What could have been a good story was destroyed by the ludicrous time travel scenario. If something was altered in the past that changed evolution and humans never developed, the time machine would never have been built. If something from the past was brought into the present, it would have no effect on the past.<br /><br />I really wish film producers would run their ideas past an actual scientist before finishing the script. Even if you suspend reality and assume time travel is possible, you have to stick to logic.<br /><br />OTOH, Ben Kingsley seemed to be having a great time with his over the top performance. All of the other actors seemed to be doing the best they could as well. It was the writing that left them twisting in the wind.<br /><br />"Back to the Future" handled it better.
This is a pitiful movie. What makes it even more pitiful is the time, effort and money put into a super predictable script and action.<br /><br />It's about some kind of monsters, by the way, and some kind of insects. Don't expect an explanation of the plot. There is none. That might work, if there was something of interest, or characters we could care about. There isn't. Everything that happens to any person is as predictable as the other movies Sci Fi channel does.<br /><br />Don't try to understand what some of the characters are saying. They speak gibberish, especially the annoying lead woman, whose accent is a sort of thick British that is harder to understand than any old British movie you may have seen. She's unintelligible.<br /><br />A lot of money is spent on some great sets and scenery, and that is the major crime of this movie, because it just isn't worth it.
This picture is a bad and blown up rip off of the Michael Pohl short film EXTINCT from 1995. While Michael Pohl's idea was original and perfect for a short film setting, A SOUND OF THUNDER's plot was poorly adapted from Pohl's story and not fit for a full length feature film one would expect from a major Hollywod studio. The tragic flooding situation that ruined the sets in Prague was just one bad link in a long rusty film production chain in this case. For a studio to release such a product... it is a shame. Especially for Warner Brothers, a studio which broke new effects grounds with shows like BABYLON 5 in 1993. On TELEVISION. Visual effects for television shows pioneering CGI in episodic television in the mid nineties were way more sophisticated than what is brought to the screen in this picture. In cases like this, sad as it may be: Can the film.
Although I enjoy Steve Carrell's work, Evan the Almighty, like so many other overdone films turned out to be a lot worse than I hoped it would be.<br /><br />This turned out to be a cheesy family movie, the kind that employ famous comedian to improve their image, but ultimately fail to deliver.<br /><br />The usual Carell's dorky humour is almost absent from the movie and though he did make me chuckle a few times, there was nothing hilarious about him in Evan the Almighty.<br /><br />His 3 kids, although were probably somehow important for a biblical character, were really quite useless in the movie and terrible actors. Even his wife, was somewhat of a third leg for such a simple storyline.<br /><br />Spending so much money on making a comedy was a huge mistake. Although, Carell's career might profit from this movie, there's no real reason to go see it.<br /><br />If only there was a little less of his family, a little more of Carell, Molly Shannon and maybe some other SNL cast, it could have actually been a lot more entertaining.<br /><br />4/10 for a few chuckles here and there.
One hundred and seventy five million dollars is a hell of a lot of money to spend on even the biggest summer blockbuster. Not even Michael Bay had a budget that big for Transformers, so exactly how Universal Pictures spent that much cash making Evan Almighty is a mystery. They certainly didn't spend it on the script for one thing as the film is not so much a classic comedy as it is Christian flag waving and bar one or two quiet chuckles, you're most likely to spend the duration wondering where the budget went or why Steve Carrell felt the need to slum it in a decidedly average movie at the exact moment when his star profile has begun to rise.<br /><br />A sequel to the Jim Carrey comedy Bruce Almighty, this film sees former supporting character Evan Baxter (Carrell) moving up the ladder into the main player slot. The story opens with him leaving the news desk to become a public official and moving to Washington with his wife and three generic sons (slightly weird primary school moppet, spirited middle schooler and sulky teenager). Evan's bid to change the world through politics however gets a spanner in the works when God (Morgan Freeman) appears and asks him to build an Ark.<br /><br />In other words, it's an updating of the old Genesis story, with Evan fighting off cynicism and naysayers to build the immense boat. Unfortunately, while the premise is reasonably promising, it sadly does not provide many laughs. There's a bit of fun to be had in the early going where Evan's straight-laced MP tries to juggle the demands of public service with the unwelcome packs of animals that follow him around and a beard that resists all attempts to shave it, but as soon as he accepts his divine mission, the film takes a nosedive.<br /><br />From this point on, it turns into a message movie. Evan begins preaching with alarming regularity and Morgan Freeman keeps turning up to offer kind wisdom, while gently prodding his chosen in the right direction. Without Evan's resistance though, the only trace of comedy left comes in the form of a few rubbish animal-feces jokes and John Michael Higgin's role as Evan's exasperated right-hand man. Higgins may show the same rich comic potential that he did previously in Arrested Development, but his enthusiasm cannot save the sinking vessel, especially seeing as Carrell has all but placed his formidable improv skills on the back-burner.<br /><br />In some respects, it's slightly similar to the Passion of the Christ, but unlike Mel Gibson's movie which encouraged everyone to believe in God through blood letting and guilt tripping, Evan Almighty tries a more gentle approach. The movie simply tells us that we should have faith in God, because He has faith in us. Unfortunately, this movie is just as likely to make you laugh as the Passion is. Carrell is on autopilot, the jokes don't exist and Wanda Sykes makes a bid to become the most annoying person on the planet. It might be sweet, but somebody just tossed $175 000 000 overboard.
Well, for this abomination of a film, I wasn't expecting anything good. I find Steve Carell annoying, and Bruce Almighty was pretty good but there is absolutely no reason for it to have a sequel. Somehow, this film was even lower than my expectations, even when I didn't have any. <br /><br />Does anyone remember the Disney movie Noah with Tony Danza? Well, let's just say that Evan Almighty completely ripped it off in way too many ways for the movie to remain justifiable. Actually Evan Almighty was had the EXACT same plot outline as Noah, with the exception of a few technicalities, it was nothing but a carbon copy of a far-superior movie that was actually FUNNY. <br /><br />Another thing, did anyone get sick of Wanda Sykes' stupid, unfunny, redundant, one-liners that were literally in every single scene? It was completely ridiculous and just dragged the movie down more and more. <br /><br />Despite the fact that I basically had already seen the film ten years earlier(Noah), Evan Almighty has to be the most predictable movie I've ever seen. I figured out the entire movie from beginning to end within the first five minutes and eventually realized that it was ripping off Noah left and right. <br /><br />In conclusion, if you're a little bit unsure of whether or not you want to see Evan Almighty, and are already sick of Jonah Hill playing the same role in every single movie he's in, liked Bruce Almighty, and don't want to see a predictable, dry, unfunny movie with Steve Carell trying to act like Jim Carrey, then please, don't see this piece of garbage.
A sadly inferior precursor to "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" this film drags on and on, occasionally reviving your interest only to put you through more selfindulgent maundering and obvious but patently overdone plot points.<br /><br />It may list as 111 minutes but feels like three hours of painfully wasted time.
Decent action scenes, but the movie is saddled with a slow, convoluted storyline, nearly non-existent dialogue that leads to minimal character development, and a seriously horrible storyline...<br /><br />Did I mention that the storyline made no sense? But, in its defense, the action scenes were impressive enough, even if they leave you scratching your head as to why they just happened.<br /><br />There's not much else to say about the movie. It's a slick, mindless action adventure that makes no sense whatsoever. It's like watching a worse version of the Matrix and skipping all the storyline and dialogue.
I and my brother are very big Asian movie fans, so when finding this movie hidden in a shop, I bought this one on DVD, because it sounded very promising and I couldn't wait to watch it. So I watched this movie with my brother and I must say, in the beginning it was very promising. Both of us really loved this brutal ball scene in the first scene. But i guess that was all. There are some interesting fights, but it is not a action movie, as it claims to be. Instead it's a love movie... with the cliché of love so extremely played over the top, even Shakespeare would vomit on this title. Sorry for my language. By the way: The characters act like being picked up from the street and given 100€ for playing in this movie.<br /><br />Well, I and my brother watched it to the end, because we thought, it can only become better. But, heck, it never did. This movie challenged place #1 on my and my brothers "worst movies ever seen"-list, only followed by "Fantasy mission force" - do not watch this either.
It's a pity to throw away such a good idea. The main idea of the movie is travel into past lives which - fortunately - is not a time travel but a journey inside man which has nothing to do with the past or the future. (Maybe they shouldn't be called past lives at all in the film now that I think of it... Another minus, I guess). It's all in the present, in a different space... Very interesting without causing much religious distress.<br /><br />However, the music is totally repetitive, melodramatic, sentimental and out of place (not to mention "western"!). There should have been more variety and more thought on where there should be music and where there shouldn't. The flashback romantic scenes take a lot of space and running time and are totally unnecessary. The acting is not bad although the language has kept me from understanding better.<br /><br />I believe the idea needed a little more thought, developing and unfoldment. The inside scenes could have had better background settings because in many cases they seem unreal. As a whole, I would say that this movie leaves a lot to be desired...
i had no idea what this movies was about, it jumps from plot line to plot line erratically linking incoherent ideas with one another. it simply doesn't make sense. <br /><br />the chopped up time line doesn't help either. we start in present day get a flash back to the past and then return to the future only to go back into the past.<br /><br />this movie is also filled with horrible sappy lines and cliché themes such as princess and the pauper, "you cant have me even in my death" lines, "you don't even love me enough" line. cliché to the max!<br /><br />fighting scene were horribly corny, lighting was constantly misplaced which offset the CG with the actors (meanning you could tell some of the backgrounds were clearly CG). <br /><br />Although the society in di moon was quite interesting.<br /><br />i wouldn't really recommend his to anyone, avoid if possible.<br /><br />if you found this comment hard to follow, the movie would be equally as bad.
Not "confusing" in the sense that, "Gee, this movie is really complex, and thus hard to follow!" But confusing in the sense that, "Gee, this movie really has no idea what it's doing!"<br /><br />DREAM OF A WARRIOR is a Hong Kong/South Korean collaboration, but it's all utter nonsense. A movie about parallel universes mixed in with time travel mixed in with love story mixed in with silliness.<br /><br />The film has the type of concept that boggles the mind. Again, not boggles the mind because it's so great and complex, but boggles in the sense that it's so ridiculous and one can't conceive of anyone ever coming up with such an awful premise to begin with.<br /><br />Nothing in DREAM OF A WARRIOR makes sense, and that's because the whole movie should never have been made. It is quite awful. The only saving grace is the actress who plays the female warrior (not the female lead).<br /><br />3 out of 10.
The producers of this film should be sued for the misrepresentation of copyrighted materials, namely the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Players' Handbook. Fear and ignorance breed the sort of mindless propaganda that inspire garbage like this film. If any of you have any doubts about the innocence of Dungeons & Dragons, why don't you go to your local hobby store and see about sitting in with a gaming group, so you can see for yourself that D&D is nothing to be afraid of.
Normally, I wouldn't even stoop to viewing trash like this, but since role-playing is a dear hobby to me, and such was the subject of the film, I did. It was garbage in so many ways that I do not know where to begin. I would rather sit through the "Plan 9 from Outer Space" marathon than watch another minute of this vomit. At least Plan 9 didn't have an agenda. How the media could capitulate and irresponsibly represent extremist agenda as fact is beyond me. It is a scary time when a whole group of people can be unceremoniously trounced with no defense and no real facts presented. I know this commentary went more social, but it couldn't be helped, as this movie begged it. Imagine a pro-nazi film being reviewed strictly on film merit. Won't happen. As it sits, the people who made this film are facists themselves, and should perhaps move into a communist enclave where propagandizing is accepted.
'This Life' is truly as bad as it gets. Its cast of mercenary, lascivious, ruthless, duplicitous, shallow characters are intended as a reflection on its post-eighties setting and I have to admit in this regard it is an accurate creation. Unfortunately, it leaves me nothing to sympathise with or care about and I regard it as just another step toward the television premium-rate phone in scams; astonishingly bad, cheap, reality and 'celebrity' saturated television; and other cut and run attitudes that have destroyed this medium and, indeed, much of British society. Sounds exaggerated? I don't think it is. In this regard programs such as 'This Life' have indeed been as influential as they are often called.
A cheesy "B" crime thriller of the early '50, the story is droll, the characters wooden, Allison Hayes and Abbe Lane are the only two sexpots that make it an eye-catcher, but one short shot, only a few frames long, shows an "el" train crossing the river on the State Street bridge, of the 6000 series Pullman-built cars painted in their original 1950 paint scheme, as they were delivered when new in 1950. For traction fans like me, that one short take makes the picture worthwhile. I think films like this one, Ulmer's DETOUR, D.O.A. with Edmund O'Brien,THE FUGITIVE with Harrison Ford, and others of the film noir genre, (big city crime dramas) make it interesting if for nothing other than the fact that I know Chicago and San Francisco intimately and recognize most of the street locations. Other wise it's a really droll boring film!
This is a pale imitation of the Die Hard franchise that just sucks. The low ambitions of the movie are clearly on display when the terrorists hold the Vice-President hostage and he has to call the White House to beg them to transfer some money. In most movies of this genre the President is kidnapped or held hostage because after all he (or she) is the most powerful person in the country with finger on the nuclear button etc etc. Would most Americans have really been worried if Dick Cheney had been kidnapped? The honest answer is- probably not. Why the terrorists would choose a Stanley Cup final to carry out their operation and why, despite many explosions around them, the audience inside the hockey stadium is oblivious to the situation, are unanswerable questions. Let's just say this film is really hokey, not hockey. Those who liked the film and found it to be exciting should get a life.
The only thing in "Sudden Death" that outdoes the amount of non-stop action is the incredible number of plot holes. What with that, and the sheer amount of contrivances, one could hardly call what's left a storyline. To say the screenplay has borrowed from the "Die Hard" premise would be to make the world's most blatant understatement!<br /><br />Here we have a troubled hero working in the huge Pittsburgh Indoor Ice Rink as a fire Marshall. On the night of the seventh game of the finals series he gets tickets so he can treat his estranged children to the deciding game, and of course spend a little time with them. Also catching the match, but for political reasons, is the Vice President of the United States (Raymond J. Barry). When a bunch of incredibly well organised mercenaries capture the V.P.'s box and demand hundreds of millions in government money, our hero Darren McCord has his plans more than slightly put out.<br /><br />Each time a new one of these formula flicks is made it seems that all we get in the way of innovation is nastier bad guys, and more and more spectacular and gruesome ways in which the good guys dispose of them. Director Hyams and his screenwriter have gone over the top (not that this is an original sin) in trying to make us loathe the wicked terrorists. The horrible baddies go about shooting the secret service, the security and the civilians (both old and young) with gay abandon, and with scant regard for the relative threat of each victim.<br /><br />Van Damme engages in plenty of fisty-cuffs and gunplay, heroics and death defying stunts. The script asks little of the musclebound European. Almost everyone else has walk-ons apart from Powers Boothe, who seriously overdoes his under written, shallow role as the cruelest, meanest old ring leader there ever was.<br /><br />There's a lot of clever cinematography, and enough explosive special f/x to keep anyone awake. But really, that's all this action flick has, action. Though there are some nifty sequences, nothing could be called outrageously brilliant.<br /><br />Saturday, February 10, 1996 - Greater Union Melbourne
A clever overall story/location for a story. Action is respectable. The children are annoying and their motivation is unclear. The leading villain was a nice change but could have been better. "I Love You" was more overplayed than "you complete me" but at least Van Damme got a chance to show a little tenderness. One of Van Damme's better movies.
Don't pay any attention to the rave reviews of this film here. It is the worst Van Damme film and one of the worst of any sort I have ever seen. It would appeal to somebody with no depth whatever who requires nothing more than gunfire and explosions to be entertained.<br /><br />Seeing that this is directed by Peter Hyams it has made me realise that Peter has no talent as a director, but is very good at filming explosions and the like. However, movies need other elements as well; for example, a story. This one didn't have one. This might explain the awfulness of some of Mr. Hyams' more recent films, hardly any better than this one, really.<br /><br />One can't help wondering how some people ever were put behind a camera.
Okay, here is a really short review: this movie blowed. I wish I could just have a review that stated this simple principle, but I must bore you with more bad review type words like 'horrible' 'clichéd' and 'unwatchable.' It's the type of film you watch when you are drunk or are stuck on a desert island with nothing else to do. Here's the premise: the vice president is captured by a terrorist group at a play-off hockey game and only Van Damm can stop the madness. Truly, truly terrible, but then again, I didn't pay to see it the first time around and only my dad felt the absence of girth in his wallet after this movie. I hate the fact he is a Republican and all, but then again, he did spare me the horror of paying for this piece of garbage. Okay, that is now enough space to be recognized as a review, so I bid adieu.
Talk about a bore-snore. This 3rd rate biker film was putting me to sleep as soon as the opening credits came on the screen. The shame is that the cast included many fine actors, among them-George Kennedy, Karen Black, Leo Gordon, Richard Lynch, Lance Henriksen and William Forsythe.<br /><br />A take off of the Western classic, High Noon, this is basically the story of a former U.S. army green beret (Henriksen) trying to get someone to help him rid a one-horse town of a gang of creepy bikers.<br /><br />Everyone tries, but the script is on grade-school level. Sad to see academy award winner Kennedy in such a comedown from his out-standing performance in Cool Hand Luke. <br /><br />If you have trouble sleeping at night, this would be a perfect movie video to rent..........you'll be sleeping in no time!
Ben Stryker an ex-green beret stops off at a little town called Agua Dolee to visit an old friend Tick Rand. Soon after riding into town on his Suzuki and settling in. A motorcycle gang known as 'The Savages' who's led by tyrant Pigiron invade and finally take over the place. Stryker doesn't want to get involved, but that changes when he friends become the actual targets.<br /><br />Is there anything good to say about this scuzzy item? Tough call, as the only fundamental reason to watch this low-budget car wreck is for the tremendous b-cast the crew managed to get hold off for this project. While I don't think it's a complete botch job, it's not terribly good either. Now what a cast! Lance Henriksen (being the main character, he strangely doesn't have top billing, but the final one), Karen Black, George Kennedy, Richard Lynch, Bill Forsythe, Mickey Jones and Leo Gordon. Now what went wrong with this scummy low-budget bungle. The shallowness of the material is too one-dimensional that it heavily borrows ideas from better movies (namely Mad Max) and comes up with a complete mess of ideas that just don't gel and could have been better thought out. The clichés that are used can be manipulated into a good viewing, despite being predictable, but "Savage Dawn" seems to let it skimpily rush all by without letting the viewer soak it all up. The cast are mostly wasted in nothing roles. A bleached-blonde Henriksen is capably solid and even with his commending presence that provides an enigmatic glow to his character. He doesn't get up to hell of a lot and sometimes goes missing in action. Too much sideline action, but when he did kick some bikers' ass, the good times flowed. Karen Black's hissing performance is a very odd one and is all about the screaming and cursing. Although she does get into one memorable catfight with Claudia Udy's flirtatious vixen character Katie. A wheelchair bound George Kennedy roams around aimlessly until the final assault and Richard Lynch looks embarrassed as a wayward priest / town mayor in a very redundant role. An on edge Bill Forsythe simply chews it up as the head honcho of the notorious biker pack.<br /><br />The junky story (written by William Milling and Max Bloom) has that cheesy comic book getup and very much is influenced by the western genre. Just look at the villains for that. How they came up with their names is mystery. Maybe they drew them out of a hat. It's pretty second rate material that more often moves onto one lacklustre scene after another. Unfunny comical elements are chucked in and as well a bit of sleaze. Tacky exploitation that doesn't get gritty enough and the deaths are quite laughable. A clumsy script is filled convoluted details and unbearable trite. Simon Nuchtern's spotty direction was by the numbers and tepidly laid out. One or two intense scenes can't makeup for its tortoise-like pacing and many cack-handed stunts. The cardboard sets had down 'n dirty look, but lack that organic sense. The gravel-like cinematography by Gerald Feil was better handled when the main focus wasn't on the town, but on the desolate backdrop (like the beginning and ending climax of the film) with some neat camera touches. Pino Donaggio's clunky music choices are drowned out by its own incompetence.<br /><br />"Savage Dawn" is a forgettable quickie midnight movie that's a definite misfire for most part. There are better and more convincing exercises of the same ilk out there.
The evil bikie gang in this movie were called the Savages, hence the title, but Minor Nuisances would have been a better name for this sorry mob of weak actors trying to look dangerous. Whenever they wanted to kill someone, they generously rode their bikes very slowly so that their intended victim could easily avoid them or push them off their bikes. Their leader had a bad limp, but still thought he could take on the hero and win. As for Karen Black, she didn't seem to know where she was for most of the film.
The auteur of "Prince" manages to take an excellent cast, a decent story, a mediocre script and carefully assemble them into one boring, monotonous, amateurish mess. In spite of a strong central performance by Frank Nasso, the Prince, this disjointed film wanders aimlessly from scene to scene, painfully disintegrating into hash. The result brings a sigh of relief at the end where the tears of joy should be. A sad waste of time and talent and a good example of how NOT to direct a film.<br /><br />
Prince of Central Park (2000) is so utterly bad. It was a pure waste of my time and I can't believe I actually watched the whole thing. Please do not watch this movie, if it's the last thing you do!
Shameless waste of my time as a viewer. This is one of the worst films I've seen in ages. Please do not rent it as you will regret doing so! Guaranteed! I wonder how Kathleen Turner ended up in this! She is a legitimate actress and people would perhaps be attracted to this film because of her. But it really is better to act as if this title was never made! It should not have come into existence!
This film has an amazing cast. MGM took some of its finest character actors and starred them in a film with the usually adorable Margaret O'Brien. Lionel Barrymore, Edward Arnold and Lewis Stone star as three greedy old bachelors who live in the same home. While they have amassed a fortune over the years, they also have been selfish jerks. One of them has an idea to donate some property in order to buy themselves a good name (sort of like Carnegie) but it turns out the property they want to give away actually belongs to O'Brien. And, since she's an orphan, they volunteer to be her guardians so they can give HER property away and look like great philanthropists.<br /><br />There also is a goofy subplot involving fairies--led by the wonderful character actor Henry Davenport. And, since O'Brien is Irish (as evidenced by her outrageous accent), she and the little people make up much of the plot. Frankly, I absolutely hated this portion of the film and wished they'd just dropped it entirely. Instead, the story could STILL have been about sweet Margaret melting the mean old men's hearts--this would have worked. But...the "little people"?!? Sheesh! Overall, the actors try very, very hard but the silliness of the plot and the deadly earnest way they tried made me cringe. I noticed a lot of people liked this film--I guess I'm just an old grouch! I found the film horrible difficult to watch.
Imagine watching a slide show where the projector lingers on every slide long enough for you to completely memorize it three times over. Now imagine that the images in the slide show consist entirely of mundane scenes – a small park; and empty tennis court; a piano. Now imagine that the people running the slide show are having a frustratingly slow, semi-lucid conversation about events that only occasionally relate to the slides they're showing you. Great – you've just imagined the entirety of the film `India Song.'<br /><br />The film is an agonizingly slow montage of images that do little except to simply scream out `Look at me! I am PROFOUND!!' with such blatant self-importance that the images themselves and the movie as a whole are rendered not merely bereft of profundity, but COMICALLY bereft of profundity. The visuals could easily have been replaced by a series of static images as described above, since it is so rare that there are actually people on screen, and even when they are, the people actually move only slightly more often than the furniture. They never speak or interact in any meaningful way – they just stand there looking at each other, and occasionally crying. The most energetic moment in the entire first hour of the film is when three people walk across a parking lot in slow motion. In fact, the visuals could easily have been left out entirely, as the story is told completely through narration. The story is about a woman who hates India because it's hot, and hates people don't hate India because it's hot (this point is covered several times). It is also about a man who feels that he is entitled to sleep with the aforementioned woman, since she will sleep with anyone who asks her to, but he doesn't get to sleep with her simply because he never asks, and he's very upset about this. So he stares at her as a single tear runs profoundly down his cheek. Later on, he stares at his bicycle, as a single tear runs profoundly down his cheek. Actually, you don't get to see the single tear running profoundly down his cheek when he's staring at his bicycle, but you know it's there anyway, just because that's the sort of film this is.<br /><br />At best, the narration becomes background hum, serving as a perfect compliment to the coma-inducing visuals. Simply staying conscious through the entirety of this film would require a supreme act of determination. To watch it and actually come away with a serious and meaningful idea of what it was supposed to be about would induce the same sort of migraine as trying to read lengthy technical documents in the dark. This film is perhaps the greatest monument of pseudo-artistic pretension that man will ever know.
Extremely boring..I don't care how many avant-garde bones you have in your body, this baby sucks...and don't go and see it because I mentioned that, save it for Warhol's "Empire", it's far more entertaining!! I have seen other Duras films that were far better, so I am dumbfounded why this is considered a "Masterpiece". As an Art Historian, I have had to consider radical works by Marcel Duchamp, Chris Burden, and Damien Hurst, and in these artist I can still see artistic intent , even quality, and an entertaining aspect in the rendering of their art. As for "India Song" -it's not even soft-porn- Anias Nin was almost here - G-rated slide show of sex- and a voice-over that does not relate to the slide show / movie......pure crap and not even campy...sadly just a bore and a waste of 2 hours. To add insult to injury, the print I saw was faded and scratched to hell!!! (Harvard Film Archive), If I want to see "entertaining boring" I watch Bunuel!! Yes "India Song"- hold your head high to late modernism and be truly bored!! Watch a 70's porn film with all the good parts cut out and turn the sound down, you'll get "India Song" but with better cinematography and none of the annoying music or the screams of the Vice Consul!!!.
I felt as though the two hours I spent watching this film may have been better served by perhaps going to the local used bookstore and looking for old fashion magazines and Halston ads. Or perhaps by watching paint dry. Those two employments would have at least engaged my mind a bit more than "India Song." The most frustrating part of sitting through this was that I could see what moods/atmospheres were trying to be created and the notion of these could have been interesting if they had been fleshed out more. Instead, what happened was a presentation of an incoherent, silly chain of nonevents - with the same scenes rehashed over and over to beat some sort of point into our senses.<br /><br />I was loathe to devote more time to this film by writing any sort of review, except to perhaps warn other folks against this waste of time.
Look, some film has got to the be worst ever. I suggest it may be India Song. When I saw the film in 1976 it was playing at the Carnegie Hall Cinema, a place frequented by people who care a lot about film. From about the halfway point, people were simply flooding out of the theater. My girlfriend wouldn't let us leave, but by the end, the theater was virtually empty. I kept telling people as they left that "the good part is still to come." And it was. The good part was the screen at the end that said "fin." It was the only good part. I am still annoyed by this film 24 years later. It was pointless, stupid and derivative (Marienbad, part 2). See it only if you want to spend an endless two hours learning to distinguish between merely bad and simply awful.
If at all possible, try to view all five of the Universal "Mummy" films in order, not so much for the continuity between films, but for the very evident lack thereof. Of course it goes without saying that the original Boris Karloff classic "The Mummy" really shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as the so called "sequels", all of which come off as campy or cultish. <br /><br />This time around, it's revealed that the mummified remains of Princess Ananka have made their way to the United States. And once again, as your eyes deceive you, Kharis the Mummy didn't really die for the second time in "The Mummy's Tomb", but is alive and searching for his lost love Princess Ananka, with the help of the rhetorical nine tana leaves brewed during the cycle of the full moon. To complete the mythology, Kharis needs a caretaker, ably filled by a gaunt John Carradine as Yousef Bey, entrusted with the task by George Zucco's Andoheb, high priest of Arkan. <br /><br />Kharis and Ananka are to be returned to their final resting place in the hills of Arkan in Egypt. But as we've seen before, being entrusted with the duty of a high priest is a sure bet to end in failure, with Carradine's character falling for the reincarnation of Ananka, Amina Monsouri (Ramsay Ames). It's shocking to see Yousef Bey and the PO'ed bandaged one come to blows over the gorgeous Amina. <br /><br />Riddle me this - in both "Tomb" and "Curse", Lon Chaney portrays the Mummy with a limp right arm folded helplessly across his chest. When he encounters the fainted Amina, he lifts her up in both arms with no problem; as soon as he puts her down his right arm returns to it's crippled position once again.<br /><br />The ending of the film is most notable - the monster gets the girl! But it's a short lived victory, as the Mummy and his kidnapped bride succumb to a swampy grave, an ancient Egyptian curse is fulfilled - "The fate of those who defy the will of the ancient gods shall be a cruel and violent death".
Perhaps the weakest film in the "Kharis" series, despite the presence of John Carradine (miscast as an Egyptian high priest) and George Zucco (as his predecessor, hilariously afflicted by a bad case of Parkinson's Disease) supporting Lon Chaney Jr. as the titular creature - if indeed it was him under the bandages, as his contribution is negligible at best! It's a watchable 60 minutes in itself, I guess, but the standards have considerably lowered when compared even to the two previous entries, and the end result is strictly routine and not at all memorable. Just about the only interesting feature here is the fact that the female lead happens to be the reincarnation of Princess Ananka, mentioned a great deal in earlier films but never actually seen.
Lon Chaney Jr returns to lumber along as the mummy Kharis seeking his mate, Annanka whose soul now resides in the beautiful host of descendant Amina(Ramsay Ames). Andoheb, High Priest of Arkan(George Zucco)leaves Yousef Bey(John Carradine)in charge of Kharis to continue their evil-doing ways. Tom(Robert Lowery)must find a way to save his beloved Amina from certain future mummy terror.<br /><br />Routine, predictable entry in the Kharis series proves that nearly every film follows a specific format/formula. The city is threatened by a skulking, one-armed corpse masked in wrapping who seems to have been gifted with superhuman power to choke the life out of able-bodied men who are restrained with relative ease by a mere chokehold from Kharis. Frank Reicher, who saw Kharis in action..and knows a great deal about Egyptian history..in the previous film(The Mummy's Tomb), proves that anyone who happened to survive a previous encounter with the mummy is sure to die if he returns in the next flick. Well produced, but lacks originality that would set it apart from the other films in the series. Sadly, Carradine sleepwalks through his role as the evil Yousef Bey. Embarrassing script mistake has Kharis, who is known for donning a crippled, lame right arm, carrying an unconscious Amina with both arms for long distances with no ill effects. One aspect, the shocking climax where Tom's attempt at heroism doesn't go according to plan as Kharis holds his damsel-in-distress hostage, lifts the film from the doldrums slightly.
SPOILER AHEAD! The mummy (Lon Chaney Jr.) is on the loose in a New England college town searching for a college student (Ramsey Ames) who is the reincarnation of his beloved Princess Ananka. Dull, slow (even at 65 minutes--it moves slower than the mummy!), indifferently acted, but the ending is worth waiting for. The mummy gets the girl (!!!!!) and she ages rapidly as the both slowly sink in a swamp. This is (I believe) the only time in a Universal monster movie that the monster got the girl! That aside, this is stricly amateur night. Probably the worst of the mummy sequels--and that's saying something!
I can't believe that I actually sat thru this entire film. A friend rented it because the jacket made it sound good. In it's defense, the jacket was correct; there was a supposed haunted room that someone slept in overnight. From the jacket, it sounded like this was on par with Freddy, Jason, or maybe "The Shining." It couldn't be farther from the truth.<br /><br />If you are a fan of minimalist and/or surrealist films, you may enjoy it. If you're looking for a good fright movie, or a couple of thrills, go rent Jason vs Freddy IV -- you'll have a much better night.
This movie is watchable, but nothing special. Four girls on a road trip to Vegas foolishly decide to pick up a hitchhiker (because he is cute). They all end up staying the night at a motel in the middle of nowhere, and the hitchhiker's psychotic issues with women become apparent.<br /><br />The characters are clichés--there is a married, responsible woman; a slutty party girl; an unsure bride-to-be; and a man-hater who just got dumped. The hitchhiker is genuinely nice until he goes crazy.<br /><br />There's not nearly enough gore, and way too much rape. I enjoy slasher horror/thrillers a lot, and this one did nothing for me. The ending was just as lame as the rest of the movie.<br /><br />On the positive side, the actors did a great job with that they had to work with. The dialogue isn't awful, and overall I was impressed with the cast, having never seen or heard of any of them before. And the plot wasn't out of the realm of possibility (although I really doubt any woman in this day and age would pick up a hitchhiker--no matter how attractive he is), so I wasn't groaning that things didn't make sense.<br /><br />Overall, "The Hitchhiker" was well-acted and made sense, but wasn't very interesting. There are a lot of better movies in the same genre that I would recommend over this one ("Rest Stop," "The Devil's Rejects," "Texas Chainsaw Massacre," even "The Hitcher" remake). Do yourself a favor and skip it unless you don't have any other options.
First, the current IMDb plot description seems to be misleading, the movie is about a group of girls who pick up a misogynistic hitchhiker, who plans to kill them all. They stop at a small motel, where he holds them hostage, but develops an intense attraction for one of the girls. Violence ensues.<br /><br />I picked this up by mistake thinking it was the other 2007 movie "The Hitcher". Not that The Hitcher is any better, and I was looking for a crummy movie to watch anyway, but this was almost unbearable at times. I think I could have vomited on a piece of paper and come up with a better plot than this.<br /><br />I can't even count how many movies I've seen with virtually the same storyline, so this was almost painfully predictable at times, but what really made it awful were a few scenes that ... well let me give an example. At one point a door is covered in (what is very obviously) blood, and two police officers, at the scene because of a 911 call, are looking at it from 30 feet away, see a man, also covered in blood, walk out of the door, agree that it looks suspicious, but decide to not investigate further.<br /><br />But, however ridiculous it may be, the movie was never boring, was well produced, directed, and acted, complete with good special effects, gratuitous nudity, and violence. I probably would not recommend actually spending 90 minutes of your life sitting down to watch this movie, but it turned out to be perfect to have on while I cleaned my basement. Also highly recommended for fans of crummy movies, and would be a good movie to watch with friends when you plan on doing more talking than watching.
OK I went to this website before I watched this movie, read the comments, got pumped, - cause they where all pretty good for a B-flick - watched it and was completely disappointed. The main characters wannabe lone rebel straight out of the mid-west act was sickening to the stomach, and don't even get me started on the two cops, I mean there's a bloody door right there in plain view, check it out! The plot was completely predictable, the editing was rather limited, I swear the editor was even dozing off near the end when he was cutting this movie, and the direction was clouded by bad cinematography. Now please don't get me wrong, I love B-flicks, some are really good.<br /><br />Want to watch a good B rated flick???<br /><br />Dave recommends<br /><br />" High Tension "<br /><br />http://imdb.com/title/tt0338095/
This movie was disappointing for at least one of two reasons. The suspense created disappeared because of horrible acting or lack of direction from the director.. I don't know.. it was like a tasty bubble gum that seemed to run out of flavor yet you continue to chew on it because it once tasted great. Like most thrillers The Hitchhiker had promise yet failed to deliver when it had me bright eyed and ready to turn the volume down(I was watching the movie alone.. in the dark) This so called thriller simply came apart like it was made of Lego transforming into something else. It simply ran out of gas and left me staring at a made-for-TV-like style movie with one exception.. it was probably rated-R.
About the spoiler warning? It's not "may contain", it -does- contain spoilers. Readers beware. <br /><br />Okay, first I need it to be known that I'm not bashing the actors. They're just working with what they're given. The problem was the script. It was horrendous. There was NOTHING believable about it at all. Sure, when you have a movie based on a murderous hitchhiker, there's going to be the bad mistake here and there that puts you in the terribly horrific, movie-worthy situation. But these girls just made stupid decision after stupid decision. The only girl smart enough to ever try and call the police was the girl added towards the end because he'd already killed one and hit another with a car. Speaking of hitting her with a car...why the hell did she try and outrun a truck rather than run to the side like a normal person? Also, does the one who wrote the script honest to god believe cops are not going to investigate a door covered in blood? Frankly, it wasn't suspenseful either. The only suspense I was feeling was the frustration at just how retarded the girls were. Well, this rant has gone on way longer than I meant to for such a bad movie, so I won't bother to touch on the end besides the fact it's unrealistic and lame.
This is total swill. If you take The Devil's Rejects and suck all the good out of it, and add a lot of twisted, kinky bondage parts, a few rape scenes, and like one or two sincerely horrifying scenes, and you'd get this movie. People are calling this a ripoff of '86's The Hitcher, but I don't see that at all. Even the worst Hitcher ripoffs are still better than this. The main problem on display here is that there's really nothing here besides a few of the director's fetishes being showcased like circus exhibits. Is all you need out of a movie shots of girls being abused and tied up, cowering in fear? Well, then rent this movie!<br /><br />However, I'd rather just watch a good movie, which this is clearly not. The sad thing is, there are some really good thrills waiting to be uncovered here, but only a few. For instance, the suspense at the beginning before the bondage nonsense started...pretty damn good if you ask me. And the scene where the hitchhiker kills the nympho girl (can't remember names) is chilling, very brutal in a way, challenging even The Devil's Rejects for unbridled fury. How come the rest of the movie can't be that good? Huh? I really need to stop renting stupid crap like this. Closing message: Just let this gutter trash die and forget it forever. Not recommended.
Opie, Tom Gilson,was my brother,so I went to see the movie and I never looked at it again in all these years. Sorry! it was bad. I'm told I have to write 10 lines so I'll put a little trivia in. Tom and Tuesday Weld were to be " introduced " in this picture and Tom was told to take Tuesday to the premiere but Tom said no he was going with Joan Collins, and he did and because he did only Tuesday Weld was Introduced. I found this very funny back then and still do. The movie, while the concept was a funny one, and the actors in it were impressive but some how it just did'nt come out funny.The continuity was abstract, at best,it was like I was watching 2 different movies at the same time,each running into the other. Sorry, Bob Gilson
I have read the other user comments and I am happy someone has compared it to the original by Kamal called Perumarzhakalam released in 2004.<br /><br />The original had a tight story and no loopholes as described above about the Indian Govt not having proper records, or even bad shoots and bloopers.<br /><br />The story is great and a touchy one and well described by others. But sadly Nagesh taking credit for it as his own story is a sad thing and amounts to nothing other than plagiarism.<br /><br />I guess he has been affected by Bollywood's so called "inspired" syndrome.<br /><br />He must at least give credit where it is due.<br /><br />I liked some of his older movies, but now I suspect if any of them were originals after all.<br /><br />Here is a link in IMDb for the original masterpiece. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425350/#comment I recommend everyone to see the original, even with subtitles if needed, to know what class direction and class acting is all about.
This is one the worst movie I've seen and certainly worst movie Nagesh Kuknoor has made. I can't believe person who has created movie like Teen Deewarein can create utter crap like this. <br /><br />Plot of the film itself is really faulty that Zeenat has to search Meera and get her clemency to help her husband avoid death penalty in Soudi Arabia. Common logic says if Zeenat cannot search Meera easily so won't the Soudi Government, so Zeenat can safely forge Meera's signature or thumb-print and produce it before the Soudis. Another silliest thing is Shankar has given incorrect address in his passport, so Indian government officials cannot get to the address but after sometime Meera gets Shankar's suitcase through Soudi government. Wow! Doesn't it make Soudis well networked in India more than Indians?<br /><br />Nagya makes a slightly more than cameo in the movie with role of Chopra, who is eyeing Meera and seeks Meera's Father-in-law, Girish Karnaad(this guy is just wasted)'s help to get her as a keep. <br /><br />Nagya cannot speak Hindi and he has been assisted by other guys to translates the English dialogs he writes, in Hindi. This time, it seems that his aide was in serious intoxication, when writing dialogs like "Imaan ki Chalaang" (leap of honesty). Within minutes, to our worst nightmares, Meera not only takes this honest leap, she taps her feet to do "Imaan ka Naach" (dance of honesty).<br /><br />One of the only bright spot movie has is its cinematography and really nice hues. But since Bollywood has learned the thing called Post-production, almost all the movies have vibrant colors and nicely blended backdrops, so no big deal.<br /><br />Conclusion is that making a cheesy movie is not limited to Chopras or Johars or Barjatyas, Nagyas and all are ready to get affected.
What a clunker!<br /><br />It MUST have been made for TV or Cable.<br /><br />Look: forget the screenplay - forget the bunch of forgettable actors. Excuse me? Continuity? The NSA/NIA/whatever or whoever he is (an agent) takes-off in an F16 - is shown in an F18 chucking his guts up and, later, the aircraft shown taxiing is an F4 Phantom! Oooh, wish that I could be so cavalier.<br /><br />Apart from the male actors(!?) The women are WASPS: blue-eyed and long-legged and, eventually, get to cry about the heroes who save them. Even when a solid weld could save most of the cosmo- astro-nauts, the blond drops the welding tool. Duh!<br /><br />As an SF movie one out of ten. As a movie per se: 1/2 (that's a half point). They should have ditched the space station and headed for Mars.<br /><br />Major raspberries.
Admittedly, you can put a model airplane against a black background and call it sci-fi, and thats enough to get me interested, so if you are like that, Black Horizon will at least get you interested before you watch it. The best part of the movie is when they rehash some actual footage of a shuttle launch.<br /><br />The movie plays like the Naked Gun series, spoofing cop dramas with bad clichés and bad acting. Unfortunately, i don't think they meant to be funny, the actors really are made of cardboard, the dialog really does suck, so well just have to laugh at them, and not with them.<br /><br />On a side note, it is rare to see a movie that takes place half in outer space, half on earth, and doesn't mix in the expected extraterrestrials and supernatural events. I really do ache for more realistic drama based on our space endeavors.
The Russian space station 'Avna' with a crew of four Russians and two Americans is threatening to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere in a matter of days. Russia asks for NASA's help in rescuing the stranded crew and NASA scrambles the space shuttle Atlantis. The NSA also have an interest in the 'Prometheus', a prototype microwave power source being tested aboard 'Avna' and organise for one of their men to be placed on the mission.<br /><br />That's the plot. Onto less important things. The space station and the shuttle are the same, blatantly obvious models used in 'Fallout', 'Memorial Day' and 'Dark Breed' (and a handful of other films, I suspect). The model effects are so obvious throughout the entire movie and make the film look very 1960s. The sets are a little better but are far too '80s for what is supposedly a brand new station built by an American company (which later comes in as part of a conspiracy to destroy 'Avna' and the 'Prometheus' and claim the insurance. The script has a few good moments (including Yuri's farewell and the little spiel at the end) but is otherwise fairly bland and sub-standard. The acting is okay; the only real standout performance comes from Alex Veadov who offers up some of the film's better dialogue. Michael Dudikoff is, surprisingly, one of the best parts about this film. Ice-T is Ice-T. 'Nuff said. The film offers a few surprises, though, that I don't wish to spoil.<br /><br />Certainly one of the better low-grade, contemporary-set sci-fi films of the last six years, but not the best. The film is watchable but the special effects and plot will probably put a lot of viewers off. Rent the other 'Stranded' sci-fi film instead.
I knew it was going to be awful but not this awful!!, as it's one of the most boring movies i have ever seen, not a damn thing happens!. All the characters are dull, and the story is stupid and incredibly boring!,plus The ending is especially lame!. The only reason i rented this piece of crap because i am a big fan of Michael Dudikoff, however he is wasted here, and looks extremely bored and shows no emotion what so ever!, plus i cheered out loud when the movie was over!. It's like the movie had no plot and it was all about nothing, and Ice-T is god awful(even though he is OK in some stuff), plus Dudikoff and Yvette Nipar had no chemistry together at all. There's one scene that the director tried to make emotional but he fails miserably as Yvette Nipar didn't really show all that much emotion, however there is a decent Car chase scene, but that's not enough for me to recommend this god awful film!, plus the dialog is atrocious. Avoid this movie like the plague not a damn thing happens, please avoid and trust me on this one you may thank me afterwords. The Direction is horrible!. Fred Olen Ray does a horrible job here, with shoddy camera work, laughably cheap looking set pieces, terrible angles, laughable use of stock footage, and keeping the film at an incredibly dull pace. The Acting is terrible!. Michael Dudikoff is nowhere near his usual amazing self, he looks extremely bored, and shows no emotion what so ever, his character is also extremely dull, as i can't believe he signed on for this piece of garbage, he also had no chemistry with Yvette Nipar(Dudikoff still rules!!!). Ice-T has barely anything to do and also looks bored, and he didn't convince me one bit. Hannes Jaenicke is not very good here, he had somewhat of a wimpy character, i didn't like him. Yvette Nipar is pretty but was really terrible here, she didn't show much emotion, and had no chemistry with Dudikoff, and as a result i didn't give a damn about her character!. Art Hindle,(Owen Marsh),Kathy Harren(Katharine Marsh), and the rest of the cast are bad as well. Overall Please avoid like the plague!, Fred Olen Ray and Steve Lathshaw should be ashamed of themselves!. BOMB out of 5
I rented this movie because I am a huge Dudikoff fan. I figured it couldn't be that bad. Boy was I wrong! At the 15 minute mark , I was begiing the others to let me rip the DVD out and fling it back to the rental store, but they refused. They swore it had to get better.<br /><br />They were wrong! This movie was lacking everything. The actors delivered their lines with as much emotion as a comatose rock! The plot was ridiculous and I was offended that Hollywood assumed people were dumb enough to enjoy it. None of the characters interacted very well with each other. Ice-T gives one of his worst performances here.<br /><br />After watching footage of the wrong plane, bad guys standing up to get shot, and clips being emptied and missing everything, I wanted to scream and bang my head on concrete. The movie hit its plateau of ignorance when the people on the space station used an elevator to travel. Space suits are not needed and there is gravity in space regardless of what real astronauts may say.<br /><br />I didn't finish this movie and hated it. I don't want to finish this movie. This is slow suicide. I could feel my cerebral cortex planning to avenge the torture I put it through.
I really should have learned more about this movie before renting it. It was one of those movies where you keep watching it figuring it's got to get better. Then, when it ends, you feel stupid for having wasted precious time in your life that you can never get back. Ice-T did his bad guy thing and, well, that was the highlight of the evening. The pictures of the shuttle looks like it was done with a little toy inside of a box and the spacewalking scenes were funny because you could see the strings attached to the space suits. The script was lacking and the car chase scene with the guy bleeding and going unconscious was incredible because he drove better than I could have on one of my best days. All in all, I have seen worse but this sure isn't one I'd recommend or want to remember.
Rented this tonite from my local video store. It was titled "Black Horizon." I guess someone felt this was good enough for a 2004 re-release...<br /><br />Micheal Dudikoff is unfortunetly not a ninja in this movie, one of the major flaws of this film right off the bat. Another major flaw would be that Ice-t's action scenes are stolen from other movies, particularly the first scene of his rescue, which is directly from the Wesley Snipes movie "The Art of War," with Ice-T edited in. I hope they paid for that footage.<br /><br />The plot is awful, the special effects had little effort put into them (love those wires holding them in space), the acting is wooden (also love those New York/Russian accents). Ice-T being in the movie is pointless. These guys also forgot the fact that there is no gravity in space, but I guess they weren't worried about it.<br /><br />Micheal Dudikoff should go back to doing what he's "good" at and make American Ninja 6.
Poorly acted, poorly written and poorly directed. Special effects are cheap. Best performance is by Yvette Napir, but that's not saying much. Story is a confusing mess about corporate greed leading to sabotage of a space station and an attempt to rescue those stranded aboard.<br /><br /> There is little suspense and even less action. There's one car chase that's not bad, but the rest of the movie is simply a waste of everyone's time.
Ed Wood rides again. The fact that this movie was made should give any young<br /><br />aspiring film maker hope. Any screenplay you might have thought of using to<br /><br />line a litterbox or a birdcage should now not seem that bad. Do not watch this movie unless you have a healthy stash of Tylenol or Rolaids. Watching this<br /><br />movie made me realize that Boa vs. Python was not that bad after all. It probably would have been better to do this movie in Claymation as at least that way no actor would have had to take credit for being in this film. It is understandable why this director has so many aliases. There is a bright side to watching this movie in that if you can get someone to bring you a bag of chips, then you can eat your way out of the cocoon of cheese that surrounds you enabling you to<br /><br />make your toward your TV set's cocoon of cheese that surrounds it.
As much as we might welcome a film that deals with people who have different challenges in the area of romance, I cannot shake off the feeling that this movie was intended as a direct-to-video grade-C porn movie in which either A) the actors backed out of doing the explicit scenes or B) the producers ran out of money to hire for the inserts (an amazing thing if it were true).<br /><br />I had to go back to Blockbuster to figure out why on earth I had rented it, which was due to an admittedly amateurish gullibility regarding the cover blurbs, which seemed to imply a seditious John Waters-style humor-fest with a sexual theme. Okay, I laughed a couple of times and it definitely has a sexual theme (although most of it can't be described as stimulating in any way). But, on some movies you might rewind to make sure you heard the dialog correctly--on this one, you fast-forward because you already know what they're about to say. But there's nothing to fast-forward to, so just fast-forward past it on the shelf.
I cannot see why anyone would make such a movie. From start to finish this film is really, really bad.<br /><br />The characters are all very shallow, terribly acted and downright annoying. There is absolutely nothing going on below the surface at all with either characters or plot.<br /><br />The 'humour' if you can call it that is aimed at an adult audience ( I presume from the language and nudity) although it comes across as mainly toilet humour and would have problems even drawing a smile from a half-witted 16 year old.<br /><br />I would recommend avoiding this excuse for a comedy. It has nothing whatsoever that would appeal to a film fan. Non-existent laughs and a plot that barely exists lead me to ask "Why has this film been made, why, why, why?"<br /><br />I expect in the fullness of time to see this film topping the top 100 worst films.
Wow. They told me it was bad, but I had no idea.<br /><br />We've started a tradition. We found one copy of this movie, and we just pass it from person to person. Whoever has the movie watches it, and then passes it to someone else deemed worthy of seeing this unique, creative, horrible movie. Hopefully it'll travel 'round the world a few times.<br /><br />It's painful. Really painful. It's even beyond so bad it's funny. Well, okay, sometimes it's so bad it's funny. But most of the time it just gives you that feeling that there's something sucking at your brain from the inside.<br /><br />Wow. Watch it, then pass it.
I found this movie at the flea market for cheap. I was so psyched because I thought it was a skateboarding movie. I got home put it on, the previews rules and the opening scene with the old guy rolling down the street on the skateboard was awesome. At that moment I realized it was a post-apocalyptic movie but I still had high hopes for it. This movie was awful. A friend of mine was stoned out of his mind when we watched it and even he thought it was horrible and a waste of being high. I kept falling asleep during the movie because it was so boring and the music was utterly awful. I don't know if during the apocalypse all the good music, and all the music that is only kind of crappy is destroyed and everyones memory of how to play it is wiped clean but I think I would rather die than have to endure that crap. Also what the hell was up with the TV studio? I can only assume that this movie was adapted from an old Greek play, with the names and title, but some plays are not meant to be adapted into a futuristic sci-fi setting. Or at least not by the people who were involved with this movie. If you are forced to watch this movie, I can only suggest bringing a hand gun and finishing yourself off before the end. It would be a good movie to kill yourself too, everyone will understand why.
I don't see the sense in going through so much trouble to make a movie like this, and then throw the history book out the window. There wasn't a single accurate detail in that movie other than the fact than Richtofen died, which I was grateful for at the end so I didn't have to watch any more. Movies like this are an insult to anyone who knows anything about WWI aerial history.<br /><br />I'll skip the obvious, that they were flying Fokker DVII's in 1916, because the Blue Max did that too, or that 209 squadron was flying SE-5's, and will attack other parts. For one thing, they call the Pfalz D-III an 'old Albatross' at the beginning. For another, they have Voss, Goring, and Wolff all in Jasta Boelcke. The only one who was in that Jasta was Voss, and he joined after Boelcke died. Richtofen wasn't held to blame for Boelcke's death...Erwin Boehme, who collided with Boelcke, had swerved to avoid a British plane that Richtofen was chasing. When Richtofen received his head wound, it was while attacking a FE-2d two-seater, and he did not crash into the trenches and have soldiers fight over him, and NO..Werner Voss did not die that day. He died September 28th in one of the most epic battles in WWI.<br /><br />Manfred was short, not like the actor who towered over everyone else. His brother Lothar was never in Jasta Boelcke either, he joined the squadron when Manfred was in charge of Jasta 11.<br /><br />There's so many other glaring errors in historical fact that I'll let them go except perhaps the worst one, the death scene. In the movie Manfred is out-maneuvered by Brown and then shot down, making a perfect landing. Brown got off one burst at Richtofen while Richtofen was chasing May, and the facts amassed over the years overwhelmingly show that Richtofen was killed by ground fire, not by Brown.<br /><br />The only value in this movie was the chance to see the flying scenes themselves, which were as good as 'The Blue Max', other than that I won't watch it again and I paid $30 for the tape!
As a flying and war movie buff, this ranks at he bottom of my list. It is historically completely inaccurate and the cast sounds and acts like they just stepped out of a high-school play. The acting, script, direction, production standards and casting are all garbage. The only saving grace is some of the flying sequences. If the people they portray were fictitious, I might rate it a 2, but if there is one thing that annoys me more than anything else in movies, it is pretending that this is history and that the great people they are trying to be, actually did this! Its almost as if they tried to write in as many notable WW1 personalities as possible.There are many good WW1 flying films and this is NOT one of them.
Took a chance to see if perhaps a really good WWI film had slipped my notice--this isn't it. John Phillip Law and Don Stroud are both stiff in their acting and miscast for their roles. The dialogue is dumb or non-existent; the flying sequences are okay but pretty repetitive. Compared to the terrific "Blue Max" this movie should never have been made. Watch George Peppard,James Mason, and Usula Andress in the BM and you get why that movie is one of the best war films ever made and this isn't. Recently released on DVD Richtofen and Brown is presented as some great 'lost classic' from the 70's, I resold mine the day after I bought it. Don't waste your time or $.
I have just written a comment to "ACES HIGH" (1976) and that remind me of this film which I watched as kid when it was released; since then I have watched it only once and that was more than enough. As Kevin well says "it is a complete waste of time". Apart from the dog-fights which are nicely done the rest is a sequence of badly patched scenes with actors struggling with a lousy script and equally lousy direction. I do not remember the silly German accents mentioned by Kevin in his comment, but that is another pathetic mistake; if Corman tried to make more convincing the characterization of the German pilots why didn't he use German actors or have those parts dubbed? On the other hand is good example of the appalling Hollywood-style of film-making with their "villains" so clearly identifiable, not only by their cruel actions but also by their grotesque accents.<br /><br />Talking about "cruel actions" the ridiculous scene were Lieutenant Hermann Goering murders English nurses during an attack on an airbase is an absolutely disgusting piece of propaganda done with "historical hindsight". If you want to a see a factual, moving, very well acted and directed film about the air war during WWI watch "ACES HIGH" (1976) or that wonderful classic "THE DAWN PATROL" (1938) you shall not be disappointed.
"The Yoke's on Me" is undoubtedly the most controversial film in the Stooges' 23 years of shorts. The reason is understandable; by today's standards, this film can be considered racist. For this reason, it is rarely shown, if ever, on television.<br /><br />Let me just state that, for the record, the Japanese seen in the film were not soldiers; they were Japanese-Americans sent to a relocation center during World War II. They were treated and shown as the evil enemy in this film. By all accounts - including the US government, who made an apology and reparations in the 1980s - Japanese-Americans during World War II were as loyal and hardworking as any American. Their imprisonment during this time is a dark blot in American history.<br /><br />There are some Stooge laughs in this film, but the memories of how Japanese-Americans were treated during this time sullies the entertainment value. Let's not confuse the loyal Japanese-Americans with their representation in this film as evildoers. Loyal Japanese-Americans and the World War II-era evil empire of Japan are not synonymous. 2 out of 10.
I saw this as a kid, before it had been yanked from the rotation, and even then it left a bad taste in my mouth. There were some competently worked out gags, but making slapstick villains out of American citizens who'd been interned in camps strictly due to their race was amazingly tasteless. <br /><br />Moe himself might have wanted this one buried. He was a liberal guy. In his autobiography he told of visiting a town in the segregated South, where he saw a black man get off the sidewalk to avoid passing too close. Moe stepped into the street to show it wasn't a problem, and the man then got back on the curb. Then off again. Finally, the man told Moe nervously that if Moe didn't stop trying to share the sidewalk with him, he might get them both lynched.<br /><br />Another thing: There are exploding ostrich eggs but no oxen in the film, so the title should actually be (if anyone cares) "The Yolk's on Me."
Great actors, good filming, a potentially interesting plot, and what should have been good dialog. Nothing else is good about this movie. Perhaps the writer or director thought they could make a thought provoking film out of annoying characters who are as deep as a cup of coffee. <br /><br />Within 10 minutes I disliked the portrayal of Kim by Caroleen Feeney so much that it became a distraction. While Kim is supposed to be an unsympathetic character, I am not sure I was supposed to want to commit acts of physical violence upon her. The first (of many) bizarre things that happen is that Wes (David Strathairn) goes from "I am missing $50.00" to "She stole 50$" in about 3 seconds. It was quite implausible, since she (Kim) never had access to his wallet nor was she a master pickpocket-- there simply was no rational reason to suspect her. Most people have lost/misplaced money and assume just that... we LOST it. Same goes for Kim later. All very unrealistic behavior in what is supposed to be (I think) a look at real people. The character of Kim was, at minimum, suffering from a BiPolar disorder. Wes had huge inadequacy issues, Nancy was just boring, and Matt was delusional (particularly about music). I actually turned this off about 2/3 of the way through. However, to write a valid comment, I forced myself to turn it back on hoping that something would come together in this movie. No, sorry, it was still bad. Make it a point to miss this one.
First, I must point out that the role Wendell Corey played was exceptional. Usually, Corey was relegated to supporting roles but here he is what helps carry this very limp film. Without him and the character he played, the film would have been a lot worse--hardly meriting a 2 or 3.<br /><br />So why did I hate the rest of the film so much? Well, one of my pet peeves is when characters act "too stupid to live". You can't base major plot points on the assumption that your major characters are completely stupid (unless having a brain injury is part of the plot, of course). But this is exactly what happens in this film. Wendell Corey is a crazed man who has murdered three innocent people and they know his next target is Joseph Cotten's wife. So what do they do? Yep, they provide really inadequate police protection and a plan that makes no sense at all (no marksman and guys with shotguns that are so far away they probably WON'T stop this madman). And if this isn't bad enough, the marked woman inexplicably runs away from her hiding place and walks right into the WORST possible place she could be! Is anyone THAT stupid?!?! Arrrggghhhh---I hate when movies have such dumb characters. In fact, I found myself rooting for Corey since I felt the idiots deserved to die for their behaviors! In addition to these clichéd characters, there was also a bit player who fainted. Sure, seeing your husband shot MIGHT cause someone to faint, however in real life this is a rare occurrence--people rarely faint unless there is a medical reason. So, combining this with the above character problems is a real nightmare for people who are looking for realism--something Film Noir movies MUST have.<br /><br />All these serious problems are even more infuriating since Wendell Corey's character is amazingly well-written and conceived. It was his chance to shine as an actor--too bad the rest of the movie was so limp that Corey and the basic plot idea are sunk. This is one film that could really use a remake--but this time without brainless characters.
Respected western auteur Budd Boetticher is woefully out of place with this choppy modern day cops and robbers story that suffers from a strong lack of emotional believability. Boetticher seems to have waived rehearsal time and settled for the first take as leads Joe Cotton and Rhonda Fleming put little effort into their roles, delivering lines flatly and without energy. <br /><br />Mild mannered employee Leon "Foggy" Poole works as an inside man on a bank job that goes bad and gets his wife killed in the process. He escapes from prison and immediately sets out to kill the wife of the detective who killed his. Hundreds of cops are mobilized to keep him from getting to the home of the intended who has been moved to another location but wouldn't you know in the films final moments we have Foggy trailing feet behind the victim (who thought somehow that taking a bus back to the house was a sound move) while a company of cops observe and bicker over what action to take. Sound preposterous? You should see it. It's all of that and more. <br /><br />Lucien Ballard's camera work does a decent job of bringing noir to the suburbs but the editing is lackadaisical and shapeless and it drains the film of its suspense and pace. As Poole, Wendell Corey is the best thing in the film managing to evoke great sympathy as he transitions from gentle soul to murderer. These attributes aside Killer uniformly fails in construction and execution making its message clear. Go Western old Budd.
The only thing that makes this one watchable is Corey's performance as the lunatic killer on the loose. What remains is a most impossible tale of revenge and matrimonial discord. During the walkie-talkie scenes I had the feeling that Cotten was squeezing a sweet potato and not a communication device. Another interesting thing about this one is that Alan Hale (the Skipper from "Gilligan's Island") is not yet so fat, and he can still lower his arms below his waist. Other than that there isn't much to recommend here.
Terrible psychological thriller that is almost painful to sit through, every aspect being awful.<br /><br />The combined talents of top actors Kevin Bacon and Gary Oldman are totally wasted, and though they give good performances, one wonders why they bothered. The script from Mark Kasdan is a complete mess, and Martin Campbell has the narrative jumping all over the place, but if you're unable to follow it, take it as a blessing. There are far too many pointless, crazy scenes that just don't make sense. Jerry Goldsmith's music is not much help either.<br /><br />Even if there was potential in the plot, director Campbell's approach has utterly ruined it. Avoid at all costs!<br /><br />Monday, February 26, 1996 - Video
In this film Gary Oldman plays a defense attorney, who was formerly a prosecutor. He is a bit tormented, but is more or less playing a regular guy rather than some sort of figurative or literal monster. Funny thing is, he doesn't quite pull it off. I guess you can't quite get to normal from there. Kevin Bacon was sufficiently creepy. The scene in the park was way too long with way too many false scares. And the odd sex scene with Oldman and Karen Young seemed to have come from a different movie, although the rest of the time Miss Young did just fine. This film suffers from oddness trying to cover up the predictability. And failing. Don't bother.
The blame of this terrible flick lies with the director, Martin Campbell. After viewing a few of his credits in later years, this must have been one of his first directorial gigs. He had a more than decent cast to work with but unfortunately he had no idea what he was doing. There were scenes that made absolutely no sense at all. Where was his head...............was he on drugs? I was looking forward to this movie just because of Oldman & Bacon. Maybe it was a short shooting schedule and Campbell just had to "bang it out". I can't imagine that the story that Campbell directed even came close to the story that the writer wrote. Oldman & Bacon, along with the rest of the cast, must have slid under their chairs if they went to the screening. As one poster pointed out, Karen Young did do a pretty good fight scene with Bacon. She really did 'let loose'. It's unfortunate that I have to fill in more space just to stay within the guide lines of what the IMDb requires because I really don't have anything more to say about this uninspiring film. One does not have to be forced to be a 'windbag' when criticizing a terrible flick and wish that the IMDb would change the amount of words to fill up a critique.
4 out of 10<br /><br />A somewhat unbelievable storyline with some haunted-house type "shocks" that really don't fit in.<br /><br />Gary Oldham's performance is very erratic...not so much the quality of the performance but the consistency. His character does not behave in a consistent manner. Sometimes calm/relaxed/methodical/thoughtful, sometimes violent/loud/almost crazed. It's just not believable. <br /><br />Have many 80s movies dated badly? Will they be more enjoyable 20 years from now?<br /><br />
Man kills bear. Man becomes bear. Man/bear meets bear. Man/bear stays man/bear after meeting bear. The End. Seriously, that is the entire plot to this movie. Yes, I simplified it to an extreme, but you get the picture. I just wish I maybe had not have seen it.<br /><br />The 'man/bear' alluded to is a Native American Indian that kills a mother of a cub. And while that can be touching, it certainly lacks to really draw in on the potential conflict between the two parties. Plus, there was a certain misuse of the two moose in the film. But that is beyond the point.<br /><br />Overall, very much under par. Certainly needed a lot more to be entertaining. Maybe more laughs from the secondary characters and more drama between the two main bears. Thats what separates bad films from the good ones. "D"
Recycled and predictable plot. The characters are as memorable as the story line. We came in few minutes late and only saw the end of the opening scene which turned out to be a good thing since it was too intense for a 3 and a 4 year old. Overall a disappointment.
The animation is great, I'll concede to that. But Disney perpetuated every stereotype we Alaskans have been trying to overcome for the last two generations. And the names, I mean, come on...Sitka, Kenai, Tanana & Denahi (cheesy takeoff of Denali)?! Those are real places where real people live! And the real people these real places were named for are probably struggling out of the Earth seeking vengeance over this trite little flick. Disney, you're based out of California & Florida, right amidst the rest of the states that still treat us like a foreign country. If you can't stick to what you know, at least hire and/or work with people who know what area you're trying to caricuture. Maybe then it wouldn't be so insulting! :(
Being a great fan of Disney, i was really disappointed when i watched this garbage.The animation was pretty,and the backgrounds were amazing,but i believe that good animation does not make up for a weak script,and weak story. I'm gonna have to disagree with the people who say it is not suitable for children.Yes there are some deaths in the movie but isn't death something that children should at least be exposed to? But i digress. The script is riddled with bad puns and lame jokes...the kind i could expect from most dreamworks movies. The music was soppy,the morals forced(and forced without any charm whatsoever.)and the characters would burst into song at totally inappropriate times.The characters were also cold,and i really couldn't muster up any form of emotion towards them(bar irritation). I am a great fan of jungle book,Aladdin,and emperors new groove, but this Disney movie was a total and utter waste of time.....do not watch it!!!
As an avid Disney fan, I was not totally impressed by this movie, certainly not motivated enough to catch it in the theaters. I am, however, so glad that I caught it on DVD and watched the special features.<br /><br />You MUST check out the "Moose commentary": the entire movie can be viewed with commentary from Rutt and Tuke, the comic relief moose of the story, who are voiced by Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas. Two veterans of the famous Second City comedy troupe ad-lib - in character - for an hour and a half about a movie that they are clearly fond of. I laughed the whole time. The enjoyment I got from this commentary completely made up for the tepid reaction I had to the film itself. Do yourself a favor and listen to it!
Here is another low quality movie from the "Disney" company. There is no more Disney spirit. The story is boring. All emotions are fake. It is not cute or moving. Disney company was at a time a sort of magic company which provided dreams for children. It is now all about making money. Shame on the people who exploit Disney name for their personal benefit. It is the fall of an empire. And, by the way, Pixar is NOT Disney !
for everyone who has read this book, Fanny Price ends up maturing into her own woman, a beautiful woman...with a brain. Le Touzel looks like she is on medication. Terrible acting, she just ruins it! Henry is a little tall for his character. He is also too effeminate. Mary Crawford is brilliant. Edmond is a little too old. Mrs. Norris is hysterical- OK, this casting decision works. Rushworth is also perfect. Yates looks too effeminate also. But, Le Touzel is simply horrid. This is not a good character for her. Poor Fanny! I would recommend this movie only because it includes an almost complete textual account of the language Austen uses in the novel. The 1999 version is much more fun but terribly incomplete. If they could redo this version with a better suited actress for Fanny it would be fabulous!
This version of Mansfield Park, while being extremely accurate to the novel lacked the compassion I felt for Fanny which is crucial and central to this Jane Austen story. This was due to the total lack of acting ability by the actress, Sylvestra Le Touzel. She had no appeal and at times appeared to be either lost in space or out of her depth. The scene she has with her uncle where she breaks down in hysterics was hysterical. She badly overplayed that crucial scene and I actually felt sorry that Henry Crawford ever cared for her.<br /><br />The polar opposite is the portrayal of Mary Crawford by Jackie Smith- Wood. What a wonderful actress, in a very difficult part to make that character witty and self-centered, selfish yet vulnerable to love.<br /><br />I have always loved Fanny. She is mild mannered but with an implacable sense of what is right, and who she thinks is worthy of respect and admiration. The Fanny in this adaptation is too meek and subservient with hardly a thought of her own until near the end of the series. As much as I wanted to like this Fanny....I just could not. <br /><br />I suggest skipping this version of Mansfield Park for the real thing...the Novel. Fanny will not disappoint...you will Love Her!
The whole exercise is pointless. Why make the film at all? The lighting is ghastly, but the sound is just a joke. Like a high-school production. Whoever put the budget together for this film should be drawn and quartered for allowing it to be made without the proper budget for soundmen with equipment fit for recording.<br /><br />So much dialog is unintelligible due to losses in echo or the lack of proximity to the mic. Economy should have been made on any other area. The whole production is lifeless and just LAME with such amateurish half-arsed production. It lacks warmth, clarity, and has no design to it.
Okay, I haven't read the book yet but I have to say that the lead character was miscast. How can I say such a thing haven't read the book you ask? It's simple. As a viewer of this miniseries, I grew irritated by the mannerisms, gestures and look of the lead character, Fannie Price. It's one thing to be a good person but it's quite another to be a stick in the mud creature who disdains from looking anyone in the face or otherwise meeting their gaze. Apart from the overdone "Susan B. Anthony" profile, she seemed resolute in refusing to look at another person. The scene where Edmond is pouring his heart out to her, she is looking straight ahead the whole time, forcing him to do the same. As a result, it was just awkward and I just couldn't fathom anyone being in love with her let alone both Henry and Edmond. Many have said it was true to the book, if that is the case I find it hard to believe that Jane Austen would create such a character as her lead heroine. It's possible to create a character who has been put upon by others and succeeds in earning their trust and endearment but the portrayal of this character in this miniseries just didn't do it for me.
This movie is about a young girl who goes to live with her rich cousins falls in love with one of her cousin, and reject the advance of a amoral suitor who brings trouble on the family. After seeing the 1999 version and reading the book, I decided to watch the older version. I found it did stay true to Fanny character in the book, but it was also boring character. Fanny character played by Sylvestra Le Touzel was lackluster; she often appeared to be about to faint. I also did not like Robert Bourbage who played Henry Crawford. I could not imagine him being interested in Fanny or her cousin Maria. Jackie Smith Wood who played Mary Crawford was okay but the wig she wore was so ugly. I lost interested in her acting and I kept staring at her wig. I kept expecting it would drop off her head. I could also see a slip of her real hair under the wig.
This is a big disappointment. The main problem is the acting. Sylvestre le Touzel is pretty poor as Fanny, and the rest are not much better, everybody is very stilted and unnatural. Also the camerawork is very 1980's ie cramped and jumpy, compared with the likes of 1995's P&P, for example.<br /><br />The script is, if anything too faithful to the book, and there are some cringe worthy expressions that should have been cut.<br /><br />In every way this is far inferior to the recent film version, which though it took huge liberties with the book, seemed far more faithful to the spirit of the book and was far more enjoyable.
I always try not to be harsh while criticizing something that I didn't like, but after watching this mini-series I was so disappointed that could not help my irritation. On the one hand, it is true that series stayed faithful to the novel and of course I found that very nice, but on the other hand terrible casting, poor acting, especially of key characters – like Funny Price, impression of stage play, I mean theatrical way of acting makes you irritate from the beginning to the end. I am sure with this budget, even if it was low, could have been done something much better and worthwhile. it is up to you to watch this series, but personally i don't advice you to spend your time on this disappointing ecranization.
total crap.<br /><br />I was kind of excited to see this as it is the only film version I have seen of Mansfield Park. I suffered through the first four episodes but when it came to the proposal scene between Henry and Fanny I snapped and had to turn it off. Whoever employs this Sylvestra Le Touzel lady has got to be both blind and deaf cause the woman is the worst actress I've ever seen in my life. The whole thing is just bad, bad, bad. I don't know. I just don't know why people who write Jane Austen screenplays seem to be incapable of giving her work the respect it deserves.
OK enough already. this is a terrible piece of television. the camera work is appalling (do i have to remind you of the crunchy gravel so loud you can hardly hear the actors speak) lady bertram has the most annoying voice in the entire world. anna massey is 'acting' in such an unbelievable fashion. and the lack of chemistry between fanny and edmund is beyond beyond. also the bertram girls aren't pretty enough, and the guy playing henry crawford is awful. to say the camera work is dodgy is an understatement. i watched this adaptation over Christmas, and i think under any other circumstances i would not have been able to endure this, and certainly would have not been able to justify the wasted time.<br /><br />i am a fan of faithful to jane adaptations. so i could not bear the film adaptation or the recent pride and prejudice movie. but see any other adaptation instead, even emma is better than this.
This horrible action – sci-fi movie is a crap. I have just spent 90 minutes of my life watching one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The story does not make any sense, there are lots of flaws in the screenplay, the characters are badly developed, the unknown cast is horrible, the lead ham actor seems to be too old for his role. I was induced to buy this VHS, which has a magnificent cover, and see this crap due to the illogical IMDb User Rating and some "ten stars" reviews. I have just checked the authors, and each one of them has just one short review (of "L.I.N.X.") issued in IMDb, and nothing else. Why are they promoting such a garbage? My vote is one.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "L.I.N.X. Conexão Letal" ("L.I.N.X. Lethal Connection")
Keep away from this one. The worst thing is the appalling story. There seems to be an intent to convey some subtle spiritual/love/friendship message but it is so pathetically devoid of any substance you can't help but cringe. In addition, the majority of screen time is a far below standard story of thieves, criminals and our hero(es) dealing with some alien time travel artifacts. I know you are asking for trouble when dealing with time but the story is more full of holes than usual. Also you have: cheap sets, bad acting and some of the worst music arrangements in the history of the moving picture, overpowering, cheap, abrupt and disjointed. All I can say is "Man alive ! This film is bad !"
I find the critique of many IMDb users a little harsh and in many cases find that they crit the movie from a very professional viewpoint and not that of the guy on the street that wants to sit and watch something just to GET AWAY from it all.<br /><br />In this case however I have to say it was BAD. I am a SciFi junkie and there was NOTHING in this movie that grabbed me for even one second.<br /><br />There was no proper storyline. I may be an idiot but I still do not know where the GOVERNMENT was that was so worried about these pieces.<br /><br />The pathetic attempt by the main character to put together these 3 pieces is scary. Half the time the two pieces were already in place and he simply had to add the third. A 3 year old kid would have been able to put them together.<br /><br />This movie was BAD.<br /><br />Dominic
The worst thing I have ever watch.<br /><br />The movie is pure trash. All the things is bad on this movie. The direction, screenplay, arts, cinematography, cast or anything else.<br /><br />May I say more?<br /><br />The main character is an boy. It has to have 20 years of age approximately, but the actor who plays the role looks like 30 years old, in addition he is an very bad actor.<br /><br />The editing tries to save it, but with that very bad material in hands they can't do miracles.<br /><br />As I said, the cast is poor, the text is poor, that it doesn't help the actors.<br /><br />I learned how to "do not" make a movie.
There is nothing wrong with showing an old man falling in love with a young girl. Lolita did it. American Beauty did it.<br /><br />But. They did it subtly. They did not make it so apparent from the start that the director is gearing them up to make them fall in love with each other. Not as naturally as two people would (Age no bar) but forcing them to be around each other as if they were SUPPOSED to fall in love.<br /><br />All in all, there should have been chemistry. It would have solved the biggest problem. People with reservations against the subject would also have been engrossed and perhaps convinced. It would have become the perfect love story, no matter the impracticality.<br /><br />I found it difficult to believe Jia's character at times. What I found more difficult to understand, is why Vijay - a photographer and an artist, who seems serious - would have had an interest in a girl so frivolous. Unless he himself has some frivolousness hidden in himself, which did not come out at all.<br /><br />There is a lot of use of Dutch angles or angles in which the frame is tilted. It is generally used to show something unnatural or something that might lead to something that is not right. So RGV is himself calling the relationship unnatural.<br /><br />The camera angles, background score, editing, and even the juxtaposition of shots and symbology emphasises and overemphasises their relationship. Is the Indian audience so dumb that we need to be told something in 10 different ways for us to understand? Especially when the two of them were dancing together... it was apparent what was happening. What was the need of slowing the scene down with dramatic background music? I feel the subject was very well chosen. But Verma should not have made the film with the fact in mind constantly that this is a controversial subject. If it is, then handle it delicately, why don't you?
This movie did not give Mr. Bachchan justice. He is a great actor and I was very disappointed in the movie and there was not much plot to it. Matter a fact this is the first movie I have ever been disappointed in with him in it. It starts out with her coming to his home with his daughter and he is a photographer. He takes pictures of her in the garden has she's hosing herself down. He is a sixty year old man that has nothing to do but to take pictures of this girl. The movie makes no sense. The whole movie is about her chasing him around and her telling him how much she cares about him. Then his daughter falls and he has to take this girl around places so she is not bored and is daughter finds out. I just didn't think this movie was up to Bachchan's standards. He is better than this movie. I always pictured him as an upstanding person and then I seen him in this movie and I couldn't picture him in this movie. The movie didn't hold my interest at all. I couldn't wait until the movie was over. And you won't either.
Good attempt at tackling the unconventional topic of May-December romances. However, the treatment is totally unrealistic. Sure, sixty-year old men can and do fall for younger women, but they're usually adult women with whom they share common interests and values and viewpoints ... not neurotic, immature near-underage girls. Of course there are exceptions, and they come close to being called pedophiles! Sorry RGV, but it's not credible that a sane and accomplished sexagenarian would throw away a comfortable family life and become a joke to his peers ... all for an 18-yr old that doesn't have a practical thought in her head and that behaves like an unstable escapee from a mental institution. You don't have to have a PhD in Psychology to see that Amitabh's character is seduced by sex, and that the young woman has unresolved abandonment and daddy issues.<br /><br />As for the recurring scene of Vijay perched on the edge of a cliff, contemplating suicide, that's about as close as he comes to having anything in common with Jiah, by behaving like a smitten teenage boy.<br /><br />On a positive note: the actors did a good job, and cinematography good.
Amitabh and Jiah Khan, raised great expectations, by their press conferences, though it was quite easy for the critics, and the fans too, that after all, this much hyped, Ram Gopal Verma Factory product, is going to fall flat on it's face, in all the probabilities ! Why, because Jiah was so immature and childish, and Bacchan, mixed up guilty, and unsure . they themselves didn't know, what the hell they were talking about, to the press, keeping up with the tag line, that some love stories are not to be understood, or some such rubbish ! Why the title is Nishabd ? Ramu needs to refresh his knowledge of Sanskrit, as Vidhu Vinod needs to study Mahabharata, tagging in line, another glorious flop of the year, Eklavya ! Comparison with the Sweet hearts, and Lolit's is inevitable, as the so-called plot line is supposed to have inspired by them. but sadly, Ramu has hardly made any serious effort, to delve deeply into the psyche of the aging, and the young ones. is lolly pop sucking the ultimate indicator of the innocence ? and contrary to that streak of childishness, the leg show at the dining table, with a Vijay, that is Bacchan in that role, bursting into squeals of shameless laughter incessantly after wards ? this girl, is in fact at her seductive game, luring poor Vijay to think, she is in love with him. the legs,too are skinny enough, and that act of putting the water hose through the legs, is down right obscene. it's beyond any one's understanding, how can a girl , coming as a guest to some body's house, can be so brazen, brash, and over powering ? and why the hell that stupid wife, played by Revathi, remarkably well, though scripted poorly, and characterized unrealistically, encourages her own husband, to dance with a sexily saying young girl ? that part of Vijay, trying to gain some refreshers to his humdrum life is absolute bullshit. because, apparently it seems that he is happy as he is, with a well settled life, and a hobby to recreate. This reminds of Blame it on Rio, the older daddy, and his young love, superbly played by Michael Caine. Bacchan looks terrible in close ups, and over all, where as kevin spacey and Jeremy Irons looked debonair and handsome, which is why the young chicks some times get attracted to older men, for their charming persona, compared to the vulnerability of young boys of their age. only good thing about this movie is those green , sprawling land scapes , winding roads, and pleasant cinematography. no substance, or even any sparkling show of emotions, drama , or even intriguing, stormy sex like in Lolita, this shallow movie has no wonder, fallen flat on it's face, and had to be wound up from the screens during first weeks ! next time round, before mindlessly copying any such theme from Hollywood, Ramu should do his home work, and Bacchan should think twice ! you can not fool all the people at all the times, Mr. Bacchan!
And the worst part is that it could have been good. But something horribly wrong. First thing first, they should not have cast Amitabh Bachchan in this film at all. He is too much of an Icon to tackle such a delicate and controversial topic let alone the role itself. <br /><br />Secondly, Ram Gopal Varma ought to be ashamed of himself for taking the classic story of Lolita and turning it into a pathetic predictable slut-fest. His Lolita is named Jia (played by newcomer Jiah Khan) and when we meet her, she is devoid of any inkling of stolen innocence or that delicate naivety that one would normally associate with the complicated tale of the original Lolita who in the original story, gradually becomes nymphet. Varma's Jia is already a whore with her eye on the prize even even before the camera meets her. And he exercises no chastity in the way his films his leading nymphet. From constant panning shots of her crotch to fixations on her vulgar gestures and mannerisms, Mr. Varma makes sure he has left not one person in the audience less than uncomfortable with his voyeuristic pedophile camera angles. <br /><br />Oh and let's not talk about the non-existent chemistry between Jia and her so-called friend Ritu (Bachchan's character's daughter). These girls are supposed to be best friends yet look like worst enemies even before anything goes wrong between them. Nothing they do together is believable until they become enemies. Maybe Mr. Varma should have worked on that aspect of his script rather than focusing on destroying any credibility Amitabh Bachchan might have had left as an actor. <br /><br />The worst part of the movie is perhaps the subservient portrayal of the character of Bachchan's character's wife. Her role was so underwritten and ridiculously wooden that it's impossible to actually feel any pity or concern for her. I actually felt like reaching into the screen slapping her for not reacting like any normal woman would. Instead she just stood there looking Irritated and Helpless, as I imagine much of the viewers of this film might feel after watching this train-wreck of a film. Watch at your own risk.
this is by far the most pathetic movie Indian cinema or any cinema has come up with.it is totally a piece of crap.the story line odes not hold any water. it is shameful that such a respectful actor has stooped to such a low on making such a disgraceful movie. the little respect he had is lost forever. he should have retired longtime ago instead of making a fool of himself and loosing all the self respect. i would not recommend this movie to any one. furthermore i would suggest that Amitabh should retire already. I wonder how IMDb has given some recommendations to this movie. there are no movies so horrible that any recommendations could be made. seeing such movies as Devdas in the same line as this movie does a grave injustice to a decent movie. its overall i could say shameless.
This movie is stupid and i hate it!!! i turned it off before it reached half i hate this movie. Amitabh sucks in this movie i wanna throw eggs at the person who directed this movie. This movie is stupid and i hate it!!! i turned it off before it reached half i hate this movie. Amitabh sucks in this movie i wanna throw eggs at the person who directed this movie. This movie is stupid and i hate it!!! i turned it off before it reached half i hate this movie. Amitabh sucks in this movie i wanna throw eggs at the person who directed this movie. This movie is stupid and i hate it!!! i turned it off before it reached half i hate this movie. Amitabh sucks in this movie i wanna throw eggs at the person who directed this movie. This movie is stupid and i hate it!!! i turned it off before it reached half i hate this movie. Amitabh sucks in this movie i wanna throw eggs at the person who directed this movie.
Nishabd means wordless. This must be the condition of the script before the shooting of this film started and therefore throughout this film cries for content. What you go for is an unusual love story between a 60-yr old man and an 18-yr old girl and what you get are very usual, very common events that neither excite nor surprise. So what we are left finally is with picturesque locations of Kerala shot brilliantly by cinematographer Amit Roy and camera friendly histrionics of newfound Jiah Khan. This does not cover up for lack of a concrete script. Producer-Director Ram Gopal Varma who has such a good track record of films needs to pull up his socks. As far as Mr. Bachchan goes, I don't want to discuss him in context of this film.<br /><br />While reviewing, I am feeling loss of words. I am left speechless rather wordless !<br /><br />Personal Opinion : This film can be compared with an equally bad film released some time back called BLACK. I don't see the difference between the histrionics of lead characters in both the films. What did you say just now- That was a world-class cinema blah blah, and I don't have any taste. Well, take a walk. No I don't mean literally but actual one to the theaters showing this film. Because in that case you might find this film an Oscar-level material.
Good cinematography, good acting good direction...cannot justify a story that is not and cannot be acceptable to any society. Amitabh has often used the media to make this junk sell able by saying that -- if such an incident happens...then what? I would like to ask him if such a thing happens for your own child or your grandchild (say girl child) then what will you do? I think every parents will have to take special care before interacting with any 60 year old neighbor if you have one -jia- with you. Such films should be banned and discouraged otherwise you inspire more more Nithari cases. Such acts are villainous and villains in films are punished..that should be the moral of the story and not glorify their act or them.
The production year says it all. The movie is a marauding mess of politically correct leftwing feministic selfappreciating drivel, of a so heavyhanded symbolic variety that comes across as ridiculous today. Every scene has the purpose of shedding light on one of the burning issues of society, mainly the role of females in the working community, the role of women vs men, women as sex objects, consumerism, politics, war, etc. Every scene is commented upon by the inner dialogue of one of the main actresses, or by turning the scene into a surrealistic joke. I have no reminiscence of any plot, or who the main characters actually were. It is the sort of movie, where consumerism is mocked by having a couple make love in a furniture store sales window while the sales agent delivers his speech, or where a revealing interview of a stage actress turns into a fullblown striptease act, for "of course" the offensive gentlemen of the press is the equal to a raunchy club audience. Then we move swiftly on, as we need to see war erupt in a peaceful forest, we need to see multiple inflammatory feministic public speeches being drowned in the (male) blowing of cars horns or rioting crowds, and of course we need to see cinema newsreels of Stalin and all the other usual suspects. You get the idea. But all this does not matter at all. The movie is an unsurpassed piece of eyecandy for any (male) Ingmar Bergman aficionado. A movie boasting leads Bibi Andersson, Harriet Andersson and Gunnel Lindblom at the height of their beauty makes this reviewer surrender completely and just drivel – and also delight in watching them so generously use their acting skills in a movie I had never heard about before today. It is hard to believe how especially the face of Bibi Andersson owns the screen every single time she appears. The cinematography is gorgeously orchestrated bw, often revelling in an overexposed (?) dimensionless whitishness, and you just never grow tired of watching the performers. How absurd, that a movie made with so much consideration for the feministic agenda, tirelessly advocating that women should not be viewed as merely an object of desire, has nothing better to offer the 21st century viewer than a parade of stunningly beautiful babes. As mentioned, I am not complaining. I could rewatch it tomorrow.
Mario Racocevic from Europe is the only user who has posted a comment so far and covers the major points to the film.Yet again another difficult film to purchase in the UK.I had to go through "Midnight Video" who have a Swedish branch.I went to the post office and bought by mail order this and a similar title at only SKR30 a title.<br /><br />This film goes under many "a.k.a's" depending on when and where it is marketed.I had previously purchased "The Bloodsucker leads the Dance" (which you will find if you search on Imdb under "people" and input "Krista Nell").The actor who plays the Count on his private island in the latter film had his words dubbed from Italian into English by an actor with an unmistakably mournful and rather tired sounding voice.I smiled when I heard this same voice dubbing on the English soundtrack as the police inspector who is investigating the murder of the prostitute killed in the copse in the subject film.My choice of course was to see another outing by the delicious Krista Nell.<br /><br />There are quite a few rather inconsequential sub plots in the movie involving blackmail/extortion, sleazy affairs with girlfriends' mothers, a motor cycle chase resulting in a gangland hit, a gangrape by a "client's" motorcycle friends, sleazy photography, cross dressing by transvestites etc. which give a flavour to this film summarised in a word - SLEAZE, (but artistic sleaze).The aforementioned contributor liked this film but the lowly rating suggests other Imdb fans did not albeit without explaining their "wheres and whyfores".Personally I thought there were too many subplots and not enough put into the main story and the relationship of these subordinate characters to the central plot and the development of their screen characters.Also a professional film editor was sorely needed as some of the scenes appeared to last far too long, having made their point, so that the film appeared to drag in places; e.g. the scene of the dancing transvestite.Krista Nell appears in one fruity scene with a client but this too is but a vignette and I was left wanting more from her, the director and the screenplay.<br /><br />I love the political incorrectness shown in older films (this is 30 years from its making) e.g. smoking in offices and the way some characters react to each other in the office!I would suggest 4/10 as a more realistic rating and I have awarded it as such.
That was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Why would someone make a movie about getting away with murder!?! Mr. Allen again plays the only type of character that he's able, the sexually stunted man who can't get the girl. Get a clue, Allen, there's a reason that's the only character that you can successfully portray. Stir clear of this movie! It's a waste of time, unless you want to know how to successfully murder someone. I feel sorry for the actors who say 'yes' to Woody Allen. Look at his cast, and tell me how many of those people are still working. My respect for all of the actors, who work for him, immediately goes down, because they chose to participate in the film.
I don't see why everyone loves this film so much. True, it does have good intentions and meaning, but you cannot compensate for such a poor script. Woody Allen is a brilliant filmaker, but I'm afraid this is just a piece of garbage. It's extremely predictable and the subject matter is all too visible. I happen to be a huge Woody Allan fan and love most of his work, but this I cannot recomend.
A few words for the people here in germen's cine club: The worst crap ever seen on this honorable cinema. A very poor script, a very bad actors, and a very bad movie. Don't waste your time looking this movie, see the very good "mutantes verdes fritos anarquia radioactiva", or any movie have been good commented by me. Say no more.
A family of dirt-farmers moves out west.<br /><br />The head of Walnut Grove's newest motley brood is named 'Charles'. He works at the mill sawing lots of lumber, though who in hell he thinks he's cutting all that wood for is a mystery, because none of the folks in all of township have enough money to buy a splinter, much less a two-by-four.<br /><br />Running the town is the 'Olsons', a rich but stupid clan that relocated to these parts in order to rake in all that dough they make selling eggs for eleven cents a dozen. They have two children, a boy, 'Willie', and a girl, 'Nellie', whom between them, have only one saving asset... Nellie is hot and it's fun to spy on her when she takes a bath in the crick.<br /><br />The town preacher is also the village idiot because he thinks he's really something special to this backwoods covey of country dillweeds, when in reality, they can't stand his boring sermons and the only thing they pray for on Sunday is for him to fall off the nearest cliff as soon as possible.<br /><br />The town doctor is a dinosaur who saw his better days about 20 years ago, but he hangs around anyway so he can give free breast examinations to the old hags that live in town. Unfortunately, the only time these ancient hot mamas get down on their knees is to pull a loaf of bread out of the oven to give to the Doc for his services. But that's OK with Doc because he knows these old wenches give good bread.<br /><br />Bringing up the rear of this colorful collection of country cow-chips is Charles' wimpy wife 'Carolyn' and their three girls, 'Mary', 'Carrie', and 'Half-Pint'. Mary is another hot chick who all the guys sneak a peek at whenever she takes a shower or a crap. Carrie is an annoying little kid, but stick a cookie in her mouth and you won't even know she's there, in fact, where is she?... oh, there she is... she's in the yard playing with a pack of cigarettes... how cute! Half-Pint is the town's youngest screw-up. She may not have a brain or any kind of a body to speak of, but she can spit farther then any boy in the whole freaking school.<br /><br />It's a great town, Walnut Grove, where someone is always falling off a roof or getting run over by a wagon wheel, and it's beautiful, too, made up of one building... the church/school-house/town hall/pool room. Ah, it gets a little hairy on the prairie, but that's OK, especially when Mary is taking a bath in the crick... that's when you can see how hairy it really is.
Some people like to tell you that Deep Space 9 is the best of all the Star Trek shows, because it stresses character development and continuity, and features a more complex background and ongoing plots. In some ways this makes it more satisfying, but in many ways the show fails entirely.<br /><br />The series starts out as a soap opera on a space station, with two entire seasons of generic science fiction stories balanced with banal subplots about the characters. The characters are a good bunch, and most of the actors are decent, but I think the writers tried too hard to make them "normal". By "normal" they actually mean "ordinary and tedious".<br /><br />At the end of Season Two we are introduced to the Dominion, who hang around menacingly for a while before finally going to war with the good guys in Season Five. This is the main "story arc" of the show, but it only takes up a fraction of the entire series. We still get lame stand-alone episodes, heroes still get stranded on weird planets for forty-five minutes, and there's an awful lot of low-brow comedy featuring the greedy, goofy Ferengi. A lot of episodes are merely dull, and some are unwatchable.<br /><br />The Dominion, DS9's main villains, are bent on galactic domination for the convenient reason that, well, they just don't like anyone. The entire war is presented with a naive lack of moral complexity and imagination. Impressively pyrotechnic space battles appear with great frequency from Season Three onwards, but these are carried out in ludicrously simplistic ways, such as two huge fleets of super-advanced starships flying right at each other and blasting away. The writers of DS9 (including the talented Ronald D. Moore, later of "Battlestar Galactica" fame) spiced up their monotonous show by starting a war, but at heart it is still a pedantic soap.<br /><br />DS9 remains a very frustrating experience. The continuous story is too flat and obvious to be really gripping, and the characters never truly develop in interesting ways. "Babylon 5" and "Battlestar Galactica" both fulfilled the promise made by DS9, and did everything much better. For Star Trek, stick with the original and the Next Generation.
I didn't like watching DS9 compared to other Star Treks even Enterprise, but I didn't like Babylon 5, and now I know why. They are the same show. I just read the old news that Paramount stole the idea from the creator of Babylon 5, but they chose not to sue for a reason I don't know or care, but seeing as a Star Trek series is based off another even nerdier show is just to much to bare, now I will condemn anyone who even mentions the DS9 when talking about the series. Original, TNG, and Voyager are my favorites in that order. Before I didn't understand why everyone thinks DS9 is great and I didn't, but know I know. It's also because the captain has a real anger problem, and I hate people that act cool, but freak out, out of no where; and he seems to on every episode.
Although normally my preference is not for romantic dramas, seeing this film left me a little short.<br /><br />It had promise, the characters and relationships could have been explored much deeper than they did, yet the story seemed not to understand the direction it wanted to take.<br /><br />The comparisions and parallels within the story, especially the three generations of women in the family, had a lot of potential, but somehow didn't fully extend itself. It could have made the film much easier to relate to and attach to which is the aim of any film about lost-love and life regained.<br /><br />IMHO, I think the film suffered from a lack of direction in the writing, although Harry Connick Jnr and Sandra Bullock did try desperatly to breath a little life into otherwise flat character outlines.<br /><br />It's not that this is a bad film, some parts leave you understanding the reasons for various plot developments, its just that this film is underdone, and a little flat overall.
Everyone I know loves this movie, but I am afraid that I don't. I hated this film so much that I had to turn it off mid-film because of the repulsion. Way too much time is spent on weepiness and emotional bedlam, the point of the Bullock character being devastated by her divorce is jackhammered into the viewer's head excessively. Enough already!! And why didn't we hear more about her ex-husband? He is portrayed as nothing but a suit who comes by once in a while. Something must of made her want to marry him, what was it? What is it about him that makes her so devastated upon their divorce? More time could of been spent on that rather than yet one more shot of Bullock lying crumpled on the bedroom floor. The dialogue is stilted, cliched and terrible, much like one of those corny "ABC Afterschool Specials" or something. There is no imagination or creativity about anything in this film, it is all very predictable and therefore boring. This movie also goes into overdrive on the cutsiness factor, very stupid and not funny like it was supposed to be! This is just another one of those horribly done "I am woman, hear me roar" films, much like "Waiting To Exhale". If you want to see "I am woman, hear me roar" films that are truly entertaining, original and well-done, then see "Gas Food Lodging" or "Ruby in Paradise". Skip this crap!! I give "Hope Floats" 3/10.
Hope Floats with Sandra Bullock is a real disappointment. The story starts off ok. Her husband cheats on her and she finds out on national television. So she has to rebuild her life. Here it could have gotten interesting or built up in a story line, but you become so bored with it. She moves back with her parents and Harry Connick Jr. who plays Justin begins hitting on her. The two have no real chemistry at all, yet your supposed to get the impression that Justin is in love with her. The movie ends the way you figure it will but you wish it hadn't ended like every other kind like it. They had a good start with this movie and could have turned it into something watchable but instead its a movie that you definitely want to miss.
This movie was a dismal attempt at recreating a crucial time in English history. The film version of Cromwell's growing involvement in the War is marginally accurate but the overall historical accuracy of this movie was way off. This film implies that the war was started over religious differences but the Civil War was in no way Catholic versus Protestant: both sides were Protestant. Cromwell was never present at the battle of Edgehill, nor did he ever "save the day". The royalists did not win, the battle ended in a draw.<br /><br />As another reviewer has noted, Cromwell was certainly not one of the "Five Members" who were to be removed from the House and arrested. <br /><br />Overall, this movie was decent. The producers tried WAY to hard and it didn't turn out so great. <br /><br />definitely could have been better.
Throughout the 1950s and into the 60s, 70s and even into the 80s, a slew of war films were produced in the former Yugoslavia, glorifying the heroism of the "Partisans" – civilians who turned out to fight a guerrilla war against the invading German forces. Hajrudin Krvavac, who's generally only known in Eastern Europe, directed quite a few of these "partisan" stories; unfortunately, only a handful of them were ever exported to the rest of the Europe and the United States. "Battle of the Eagles" is a rare, low-budget look at the formation and exploits of the Partisan Air Force.<br /><br />Marshal Tito decrees that a Partisan Air Force must be formed to combat the German Luftwaffe in the skies over Yugoslavia. A group of former pilots join forces with two small biplanes and begin raiding enemy bases and convoys; over the course of several months, more pilots and planes join the ranks, eventually forming a formidable air force. Maybe it's history, or maybe it's fable – whatever it is, it sure isn't convincing, but a cast of great actors sure try to make it work.<br /><br />The film opens strongly with a well-shot German air raid on defenseless partisans. The nuts and bolts of the plot come together almost immediately, and for a short while the audience is treated to a rather patriotic series of scenes. Then the action starts, and this title quickly becomes yet another low-budget, by-the-numbers adventure. All of the characters are familiar clichés: Major Dragan (played by a well-meaning Bekim Fehmiu) is our typical patriotic, heroic leading man. He blasts away at strafing planes with a machine-gun and even has an aerial duel with the villainous Klauberg (Radko Polic), a completely predictable and corny climax with an equally predictable outcome. The rest of the partisans are familiar: Ljubisa Samardzic ("The Battle of Neretva") is a Zare, a hotshot playboy; Bata Zivojinovic ("Hell River") is Voss, a veteran flyer who comes out of the woodwork now that his country needs him; and Rados Bajic ("The Day that Shook the World") is Dalibor, a young messenger boy who moves up through the ranks, eventually becoming a seasoned combat pilot. The characters and their stories are familiar to any war fan, and Krvavac doesn't try to build upon these stereotypes. The cast does a fair job, and despite the two-dimensional script, every player is engaging and fun to watch. Bajic, in particular, has some great moments – when he's going to take his first flight as a gunner, and later, when he is forced to land a plane after the pilot is killed. The plot merely consists of a string of air raids against the Germans, and subsequent retaliatory acts.<br /><br />Krvavac handles the action sequences competently with a mix of actual footage and miniature effects. Unfortunately, the miniatures are so cheap and false-looking that the transitions between actual aerial photography and toy planes are jarring and laughable. Some of the strafing and bombing scenes look shockingly real, while dogfights involving scale models, complete with action figure pilots, are just plain pathetic. Sometimes smoke puffs from the "machine-guns" are so big that the smoke engulfs the entire model plane. Worse, the editors often superimpose shots of fighters over real footage. Although the aircraft are usually in proper perspective, they're surrounded by a distracting glow which hinders any attempt at realism. All of this action is set to an incredibly familiar and annoying score by Bojan Adamic.<br /><br />"Battle of the Eagles" also suffers from a very poorly edited English-language release. To begin with, 28 minutes of footage is missing – cutting the film from 130 minutes to a mere 102. The missing segments were carelessly excised, and the cutting looks very sloppy. Music cues are abruptly cut off and scenes are abandoned before they are resolved. In the last third of the film, the story falls apart, and only some badly-needed action scenes can try to save it from total incomprehensibility. Then, there's the dubbing… all of the scenes revolving around the Partisans are dubbed in English (rather poorly, however), yet several lengthy scenes remain in German, without the benefit of subtitles. The film might have made much more sense had the German-language sequences been excised instead of crucial scenes revolving around the Partisans.<br /><br />On the plus side, Krvavac handles the outdoor footage quite well. There is never a moment where the audience feels like they're on a soundstage. In particular, the German Luftwaffe bases are expansive, complete with dozens of Messerschmitt fighter planes and extras costumed in leather flying jackets. The scenery is fresh and green, and Krvavac isn't afraid to shoot scenes with extremely wide angles or from far away simply to convey the scope of a battle or long trek. A German ambush of a partisan unit early on in the picture stands out, as does a sequence where Zare and Dalibor escape from an enemy base.<br /><br />As it exists on home video, "Battle of the Eagles" is just another of many stories about the Yugoslav Partisan movement. There is nothing to set it apart from the rest of the crop, and the terrible special effects and drastic editing put it a notch below acceptable. Try to avoid this one unless you can find a full-length copy.
It really amazed me to see that someone would take so much time to assess such a bad movie. The beginning (of the film) had some truth in it. The Partisan "AF" was started in 1943 when two communist pilots from the Croat Ustashi AF deserted, together with their observers, in Breguet 19 and Potez 33, respectively. The aircraft saw some action in strafing and hand-bombing, but didn't last very long. One crew was killed and the other survived, the pilot being killed later while flying a Spitfire Vc. The real Partisan squadrons were established when RAF detached two of its (Yugoslav) squadrons of Spitfire Vc and, Hurricane IIc , respectively, manned by Ex Yugoslav Royal Airforce pilots, and allotted them to Tito's forces on the Island of Vis. Even those were never engaged in air-to-air activities, but strictly for ground support. So the film was one giant cow manure, to put it mildly, and the lowest point for its, otherwise not at all bad, director. By some quirk of fate I was present on the filming of the last sequence of the movie, when dozens of German aircraft were destroyed (Yugoslav 522 trainers, used also in the flying sequences) on the Mostar military airport. The pyrotechnics were impressive, and the Scotch served lavishly by the film crew was even better. Otherwise, the film was a shameless lie was and frequently joked about by the contemporary audience.
Playmania is extremely boring. This is the basis of the show. Mel or Shandi ask extremely easy questions that a 2 year old could answer at an extremely slow pace. This show lasts for 2 hours and they probably only play about 10 games in that period. People may like this show because the hosts are eye candy, but they're hotness completely is destroyed by the fact that they are so friggin annoying.<br /><br />During the show they mention that we need more players a million times. The top 5 surveys that they do probably takes about 20 minutes out of the show. This show is probably one of the worst game shows ever made. One of the reasons they probably don't have callers is because the show is so cheap with the money. The most money I've ever seen them hand out was $210. I wouldn't be surprised if this "game show" is canceled by the end of 2006.
The female hot numbers on this show are breathtaking. They can also talk like there's no tomorrow. Otherwise, this show would go into the toilet quickly. How much money do they make on all the people who text in, with that hope to be called back to win, $100.oo, or whatever. Boy, now that's a scam!!! Can I buy stocks in this money maker??? Let's face it, with the technology of now, thousands of people could be calling every minute. And, with ten thousand channels and nothing worth a crap on, thousands of people watch this show. "Oh, I know this answer!", is probably a super common line among the listeners. With these super hotties constantly saying the 'lounge' needs callers, I think it's a bunch of B.S. Frequently, someone who does get through, sounds amazed that they're actually talking to the host. Many of them sound depressed and worn out by probably waiting so long and trying so many times to get on and score some pocket change. Wow, the producers must be just raking it in. No wonder there are so few commercials. Commercials are only on to give time for more (primarily losers) to text in and wait, and hope, and dream, and fantasize about--- what? --- winning enough money for a tank of gas and a dinner at Mc..something? I only watch it now & then on my brothers TV, because he likes to watch it when he's on the computer. I'll sit there for 15 to 20 minutes and look at Mel (one of the tastiest looking women on TV) and laugh at the scam that's in front of me. Then, I have to leave; even if I don't! People who have an active life, can only take this show in extreme moderation. Mel, get yourself into the movies, or TV sitcoms, or something. Many of us are infatuated with you! Even with the super cu-ties, I'm amazed this show is still on!
This show can most accurately be described as TV Bubble-Gum: It's chewing, it has a good taste to it, and it lasts a long time. But, like Bubble-Gum, it can leave a bad taste in your mouth after a few too many chews.<br /><br />This show features very simple questions that take the form of simply games, like Hangman, guessing a simple phrase or guessing items on a short list. Callers are the contestants, and anybody can play.<br /><br />The questions, though, are terribly easy. There's some techno music pumped into the background that's fashioned into a continuous loop. It never seems to get old, but it never adds much to the show anyway. The hostess, however, regardless of which one that it, is extremely personable, pleasant enough to watch and can make some very amusing facial expressions. I rather enjoy that British woman.<br /><br />But there's nothing to this show. It's simplistic and uncompelling, although it can be entertaining if absolutely nothing else is on.
First, a warning. 'How to Marry a Millionaire' comes prefaced by an apparently random five minute orchestral performance of 'Street Scene', a Gershwin-lite piece treated with the full pomp and ceremony of, well, Gershwin. Sitting through it takes some patience. If you have the DVD, rest assured, you can skip forward. You won't miss anything.<br /><br />The film itself is one of the perpetual disappointments of 50's Hollywood, a movie so bolstered by major star-power, opulent mise-en-scene and perfect high-concept that failure seems inconceivable. The title alone is perfect. Generation after generation, however, are forced to ask themselves - how is this so limp? The script is an albatross about the production's neck, a dead, smelling thing that chokes everything and everyone before they can really spark to life. There are no comic situations, just isolated moments that play for laughs. Whenever an actual comedy scene threatens to develop, the movie quickly moves on to other, less interesting things. A case in point - the scene where the three leading ladies each bring a date to the same fancy restaurant. One of them, short-sighted, refuses to wear her spectacles out of vanity. One of the dates is married. A classic Hollywood farce set-up, surely, complete with mistaken identity, angry wife, and probably a pie in the face for somebody? Well, no. Instead, we cut between the three dates as the ladies react 'comically' to things their partners say. Hit the punchline, and cut to the next limp joke. If in doubt, have Marilyn walk into a wall. Where's Billy Wilder when you need him?<br /><br />The three stars are almost a perfect diagram of the life cycle of the classic Hollywood screen goddess. This was one of Marilyn Monroe's breakout films, and the camera just eats her up, even though the script gives her nothing to do. She's so luminescent she almost seems newly hatched. Lauren Bacall, on the other hand, had been a major star for nearly a full decade, and she knows how to dominate the screen even when in frame with Monroe. She gets the only thing passing for a real role, and delivers the few good lines with a cynical snap - given the right material, she could have brought this thing to life. She's a curiously ageless actress - when she lies about her age in the film and claims to be forty, it isn't instantly ridiculous - and far less girlish than her co-stars, giving her a convincing authority. Betty Grable was far from ageless, and had a good eight years on her co-stars, putting her near the end of her Hollywood career. There's an air of desperation about her at times, stranded on screen with nothing but a toothpaste smile and a few scraps of comic timing, unable to play her real age but fooling no-one as a contemporary of this new, sharper generation of actresses, relying on the same old schtick that had served her throughout her career (for Marilyn-doubters, seeing the two juxtaposed in this movie helps to throw Monroe's subtlety and - yes - intelligence into sharp relief). She's also lumbered with the dead wood in terms of male co-stars (although all of the men - even the great William Powell - are guilty of lazy performances); she's unable to strike any comic sparks off them. Better to have given her role to the under-utilised Monroe, who could be funny all by herself, and left Grable with the repetitive Mr. Magoo routine.<br /><br />That the movie is as enjoyable as it is can be put down to the luscious Hollywood production, the sort that renders even the twee likes of 'By the Light of the Silvery Moon' watchable. But somewhere, buried beneath the flabby jokes and professionalism, lies the rough outline of a sharp, cynical comedy about the business of marriage that Bacall could have made sing - and new generations of movie viewers will sit down with 'How to Marry a Millionaire' in expectation of that movie, ready to be disappointed all over again.
Maybe in its day this movie was special. But five decades later it seems quaint, just another cinematic relic of the dreadful 1950s. Stereotypes abound in this fluffy story about three female gold diggers who set up shop in a Manhattan penthouse, in an effort to attract wealthy husbands.<br /><br />I don't mind the shallow theme. But the film's premise is lame. And the execution is worse. It's a romantic comedy, but I found little to laugh at. The plot point about an extremely nearsighted bimbo is about the only clever element of the story. Overall dialogue is flat, and so too is the delivery. And the script structure is disconcerting. The plot keeps jumping back and forth among the three ladies. It's as if the writer couldn't quite blend the ensemble roles. The result is a plot that seems choppy.<br /><br />Marilyn Monroe was a good choice for her role. But Lauren Bacall was too old for the role she played. And Betty Grable, with her squeaky voice and awful hairdo, was just plain annoying.<br /><br />Color cinematography is conventional. But there were lots of shots using rear screen projection, contributing to a dated look. The visuals are made even worse by costumes that reek of cheesy 1950's "glamour"; they are just awful. Viewers must endure a fashion show, a plot point that amplifies how the film's director was smitten by those trashy glad rags.<br /><br />And then there is that orchestra. In what is arguably the worst film opening in cinema history, the first part of the film has an orchestra playing some dreary-sounding tune. At first, I thought I was watching the introduction to coming attractions. But no, it's actually part of the film. And the orchestra plays on, and on, and on. It has nothing, absolutely nothing, whatever to do with the story. What were they thinking?<br /><br />I enjoyed Marilyn Monroe, with her breathy voice, as she bimbos her way through the plot. But the film would have been far better if they had dumped the other two ensemble roles, dumped that orchestra, enhanced the comedy dialogue, and downplayed those gaudy, cheesy costumes.
The premise of the movie had much going for it, however, despite the novelty of models selling off someone else's furniture to live the high life, this movie has nothing going for it. The characters are cardboard. The dialog is so painfully scripted, it's hard to sit through, and if there were any jokes in the movie, I missed them. Marilyn Monroe's walking into walls because she doesn't want to wear glasses is completely unbelievable & not funny. Grable's stupidity is also too ham-fisted to be believed. Bacall's gold-digging is so forced, it's annoying to listen to. Why anyone would want to sit through this is beyond me.
This two and a half hour long film was shown recently at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) at a 10 PM show. There was a scheduled 1 AM show after that, but wondered if anyone was going to stay awake to see that until 3:30 am. The opening scene is of a man walking in a field, and it lasts four minutes of movie time. It is an ominous sign of what's to come: a good 144 minutes more of pretty much the same. There is a scene of a man and a woman against a wall, standing in the sun. It is repeated 15 times, with very sparse dialogue. Occasionally, these very long slow sequences are interrupted by shocking stills, such as a close up of female genitalia, shown for one full minute of film time (audience crowd laughing in the last 20 seconds, as to say, "what's the message?"). The story resembles Dostoyevsky's novel "The Karamazov brothers", in which a cretin falls in love with a woman of easy morals. In one of the rare instants in which the crowd was laughing (more in desperation to try to justify having been there already a full two hours to see nothing happening) was when the statement by a british tourist that he couldn't see things clearly since the Eurostar train was traveling at 180 miles an hour, was translated by the translator with automatic switch of units of measure from English System to Metric system to "they couldn't see things clearly since the train was traveling at 300 kilometers per hour". What was amazing about this movie is that the quality of cinematography reveals that alot of money has been spent on it. This was no film kitchen 8-mm experiment. It was carefully planned, structured, acted, montaged. Yet, I got so little out of it. Some comments indictated on the excruciating detail, such as the minutae of a dandling key chain on a door just opened. Okay, it was noted, but what was the purpose? Some corageous people in the audience walked away after the first hour. The rest remained out of curiosity: there must be something happening at the end. There never was. And maybe that's what the film is about. All the movies at the theater are action-packed. This one wants to be different. There is nothing happening.
The director infuses this film with false depth by repeating a gimmick throughout the film. EVERY single shot in this movie is 3 times longer than it needs to be. You could easily cut out 1.5 hours of this agonizingly long 2.5 hour film without eliminating: one word of dialogue, one image, one event, or bit of movement.<br /><br />This was one of the most gratuitous wastes of film I have ever seen. Other reviewers have called it pretentious, which is an understatement. L'Humanite is pseudo-intellectual trash designed to be anti-Hollywood so that the Cannes judges could assert their independence from the Oscars.<br /><br />The IMDb reviewer states: "Unlike Hollywood movies - which usually force the audience into overdrive - this forces the audience to slow down and look at some of life's tiniest and most mundane features in great detail." You would have to be catatonic to stare at some of these images this long and move as slowly at these characters. This isn't real life unless you are heavily medicated.<br /><br />Finally, I felt that Schotté's portrayal was a sad rip-off of Peter Sellers' masterful "Chauncy Gardner." He uses the same facial expressions and postures. He even gardens! In many respects there are parallels between these two movies. The main difference being that "Being There" moves along and doesn't rely on shock and gimmicks to create a meaningful experience while questioning various things we take for granted in life.
European films may be slower-paced and less plot driven than American films, but this takes it way too far. It also show a whole bunch of incompletely drawn characters doing inexplicable things. It's not fantasy, it's not even surreal, it's just awkward and bad.<br /><br />What's the message here? That people in France are pensive and gaze morosely a lot? That they like to watch other people having sex? They they spontaneously scream or touch a stranger on his neck? Do not wear a watch when seeing this film, as you will be astonished at how little is explained or learned over huge stretches of time.<br /><br />This is the story of a "police superintendent" who is deeply troubled by the brutal murder of a little girl, though actually he seems troubled before then. He is not merely upset at his own personal tragedies, but apparently mentally quite slow, behaving very much like a learning-disabled six-year old child. He stares blankly a lot, walks with arms rigid like a little kid, speaks in meek, simpering, tones, behaves quite oddly in all of his interactions (though no one seems to notice or care, even when it is supposed to be police business). He's not a troubled cop, more of an outpatient. Picture Andy Kaufman's Latka character on Taxi, but without the humor. He is not only not believable as a policeman he is not believable as an adult. That he won an award for this interpretation of his character is truly amazing -- unless he was playing the part exactly as written and the fault lies with the weirdos who scripted this thing. The plot is clearly secondary. Do not expect to see anything remotely like what police would do if a little girl was found murdered. This not that important, though the implausibility of their behavior is sort of insulting. The problem is that the rest of the film makes no sense either. That leaves the long lingering close-ups of fields, vegetable gardens, people's faces etc. The ending struck me as especially ridiculous -- totally unsupported by the events leading up to it -- unless you think, "What's the worst way this film could end?"<br /><br />There is lots of sex and nudity, which is supposed to mean something. You want vaginas? You'll see vaginas. Not to worry, it's art. It has deep meaning, what I am not sure. And the protagonist, despite his innocent weirdness, seems to have some sort of homoerotic neck or jowl fetish.<br /><br />Finally, the subtitles are in white and frequently appear on a white background -- very hard to read many of them. On the other hand, there isn't much dialogue, so this isn't a big problem. There is also very little sound -- not even ambient sounds you would expect to hear -- in the film, contributing to the emptiness of the whole experience. The old Woody Allen would have had a field day parodying this work.<br /><br />That this is an award-winning film is sad. I would hate to see the losing films.<br /><br />Enjoy.
I saw this film at the Edinburgh Film Festival, and would not recommend it. It is two and a half hours long, during which nothing much happens at a wading-through-porridge pace.<br /><br />The main characters are gormless and totally lacking in charisma or personality. No-one smiles at all during the film (neither would I if I had their lives), and although Domino seems to have a healthy sexual appetite she doesn't seem to enjoy sex at all.<br /><br />The whole experience is depressing and ponderous, the director lingering over each scene in a way that drove me crazy rather than striking me with the beauty of his technique.<br /><br />Too many questions were left in my mind: why does he sniff the Algerian man's head? Why does he levitate? What is he looking at over the allotment fence? Why does he kiss Joseph? Why did we go and see this rubbish rather than ordering another bottle of wine in Bouzy Rouge?
A trio sit at a restaurant table and stare wordlessly into space. Later, they lean on a rail and stare across the Channel at England. A man works a hoe repetitively in his garden, only his head and upper torso visible on the screen. A man and a woman watch another man peeing against a stone wall. Each of these silent shots lasts for roughly one full minute. Absolutely no information is imparted that could not be given to us in about one quarter of the time. The editor must have been half asleep. I know I was.<br /><br />The movie open with a startling shot of the raw vagina of an obviously dead body. One's gorge rises. But then the policeman (Schotte) exchanges a few words with a neighboring couple and begins to tag along after them and the case is forgotten for the next half hour while Schotte and his friends trade unfunny insults with each other and with strangers. Eventually the thread of the case is picked up again but proceeds slowly, almost aimlessly, following the stylistic pattern already established.<br /><br />Sometimes in movies like this, the location shooting provides a kind of atmosphere that compensates for the dullness of the story, but not here. The houses of the French village are attached to one another in long rows. The house fronts abut the pavement directly, with no steps. The fronts show virtually no decoration and are pretty much indistinguishable. The flat farmlands are featureless. What might have been one of the more interesting episodes -- a visit to a stone fort on the coast -- bores the trio until they begin behaving like snots and are asked to leave.<br /><br />The acting is minimal. Nobody seems particularly anxious to say anything. No jokes are made. Nothing amusing happens. The policeman has a face almost as interesting as Randy Quaid's. The babe, a tall hefty blonde, looks like the kind of shot putter on steroids that the East Germans used to field at the Olympic Games.<br /><br />I sat through more than an hour of it before giving it up. Maybe I'll take a crack at it some other time. Unless I've missed something or unless it turns into some deranged Monty Python routine towards the end, I don't think you'll get much out of renting it.
The main character, Pharaon, has suffered a loss of his wife and child in the pre-film past. He deals with with by just shutting down emotionally. Too long a movie, too much time spent on Pharaon's inexpressive face, too much "road time" (one of the banes of TV: filling time with moving cars, trains, etc.) Long scenes of him doing trivial - sometimes totally inexplicable, nonsensically trivial - actions with neither reason or emotion. His best friends Joseph and Domino are not much more, their relationship based on sex (this film perhaps gives new meaning to the phrase "gratuitous sex"); Domino and Pharaon's mother are the two characters who display some emotion, but not much. It is hard to tell with all the characters in this movie: is it indifferent acting, indifferent writing, or simply indifferent characters portrayed by good writing and good acting. Characters in this film talk very little to anyone; it's little wonder their emotionally isolated, which is all the more bizarre because it's clear they live in a neighborhood where the people are friendly and know each other.
I can't remember when was the last time I have been so terribly disappointed by any movie. Probably I expected too much happening (in a way you can expect action in dogma style movies of course). But there is just nothing going on in here. Luckily I was watching it at home and could switch channels whenever the silence and dumb/numb faces started to kill me. And that was very often! It really isn't too much of a pleasure watching ugly people who don't talk and move slowly, stroke pigs and french kiss men, not to mention ugly bodies having explicit sex. If only it made any sense... the whole murder situation is ridiculous; seems like it was only created to show one more vagina since zero characters are capable of actually solving the crime. Having only four pseudo developed characters and a movie going nowhere it is pretty soon obvious whom the director picked as a killer. And that makes no sence either. Despite all the boredom and suffering I must admit that it somehow touched me in an unexplainable way. Maybe you should check it out yourself though I don't recommend it.
Just had the misfortune to see this truly awful film.<br /><br />Think of that scene in Magnolia at the end with the slow pan in on that woman. Now, remove the pan, add breathing and unshaven men to the mix, and you have what the entire 2 and a half hours of Humanity was<br /><br />The Inspector is a true dolt, not even a dolt, just a dim witted, slow moving simpleton. How they ever solved a crime is beyond me.<br /><br />Obligatory sex scenes are awful, and gratitious.<br /><br />Eventual villain of the piece (he raped and killed an 11 year old girl) is signposted very early and no surprise unless your are similarly dimwitted.<br /><br />Uninspiring camera work.<br /><br />The director was there saying that it is up to the audience to provide their own interpretation on the proceedings. I assume he also meant provide their own dialogue (there is bugger all - adding to its boredom level), inventive camera work (just static shots, totally stripping away the obvious beauty of the landscape the film is being shot in) and plot!<br /><br />Truly awful.<br /><br />0 out of 10.
This French film is supposedly about a creepy, dim-witted cop who investigates the rape and murder of a young girl in a small town. However, the film is really about nothing and it takes forever to say nothing. If it takes a character ten minutes to walk from Point A to Point B, the film spends ten minutes showing this walk, and these are the "action" scenes. There are also static shots that last for minutes, making the viewer wonder if he accidentally hit the pause button on the remote. The script has enough material for a 20-minute movie. The movie lasts seven hours or so. You do the math. The actors were apparently amateurs and it shows. Note to self: never see a Dumont movie again.
Although this movie has a slow, dream-like, almost mesmerizing pace, and an interesting, though possibly not entirely accurate, description of a rural French constabulary's criminal investigation practices and personnel, I find it, ultimately, impossible to recommend. I think this movie is simply a setup piece to advance one person's -- the director's, one presumes -- disgust with heterosexuality. Certainly, human sexuality in all its forms can have their revolting moments, no denying that! But to choose the bad uniformly at the expense of the good, as this film does at every turn, suggests a warped sensibility at work. In short, if you enjoy watching homo-eroticism masquerading as compassion, and the depiction of heterosexual lovemaking and the female form in a hideous and degrading light - then this movie is for you. I don't , and it wasn't.
L'Humanité is a murder mystery. These movies tend to be popular,<br /><br />and the 6.9 rating it currently has suggests that it has been, too.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this movie has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.<br /><br />A few non-spoilers, for instance, include a 5-minute scene<br /><br />wherein the main character eats an apple. And another 3 minutes<br /><br />where he breathes.<br /><br />In case you were wondering, this is not, in fact, art. Neither is it a<br /><br />commentary on humanity, which from the title it seems it is trying<br /><br />to be. It is, in fact, boring. There are numerous attempts in this<br /><br />movie to say something about humanity. One might think to<br /><br />onesself, "How would I comment on humanity?" And the most<br /><br />obvious and boring answers will of course be sex, love, and death.<br /><br />Not that these options are uninteresting when done well - just that<br /><br />they are the canonical options. For sex, this movie does its best to<br /><br />make it unattractive and disgusting. In your first five minutes -<br /><br />hence this is not a spoiler - you will see the bloodied vagina of a<br /><br />murdered 11-year-old girl; it's a murder mystery, remember? Later<br /><br />on, a few people throw themselves at each other and have what<br /><br />the director would like us to believe is "raw" sex, but in reality it's<br /><br />contrived and overly symbolic - but worse yet, uninterestingly so.<br /><br />I enjoy being disturbed by movies. This movie showed me why:<br /><br />Disturbing movies usually show something inside of someone,<br /><br />their humanity, which they did not know existed and are a bit<br /><br />scared of. L'Humanité tried to do just this and failed, and I walked<br /><br />out of the theatre not disturbed, but disgusted, thinking that I had<br /><br />wasted my time in the theater, despite having seen the movie for<br /><br />free.
I think the cards were stacked against Webmaster, because right from the start there was this itchy feeling, like something was wrong but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. Then it hit me. Dubbed. For a little while, they managed most of the lines either as voice over or off screen, with just a little hint here and there, until it became painfully obvious. This is the kind of dubbing that grates on the nerves, with nothing even remotely funny about it. I hate dubbing, but at least, however misplaced, martial arts films badly dubbed tend to have a sense of humour about it.<br /><br />What I wanted was a film about a hacker doing actual hacking and stuff like that. Maybe like a reverse side of the table of the movie Hackers (being about the person trying to keep them out instead about the people trying to get in). What I got was some poorly written, nonsensical at times murder mystery with a ton of bad chase sequences, a supposedly inept hacker who was neutered without his little ego, and a director who obviously didn't know how to handle a camera. I just wanted to reach in there, grab the camera from the guy, and shoot the dang thing myself. The editing wasn't much better. The acting? Well, I guess if the lead guy didn't have such a bad script to work from, he'd be at least watchable. The main bad guy was OK, too, but pretty much everyone else was a joke. Dubbing didn't help, but the acting was pretty bad even taking that into consideration.<br /><br />Before I get into more bad, let's perk up to a few good things. Well, one or two. Despite the rudimentary graphics, I rather enjoyed the cyberworld stuff, what little there was of it, and would have much rather watched a movie mostly about, in, and around that than the tepid surroundings outside in the 'real world'. The falsifying thumbprint thing seemed kind of cool, but ended up being rather useless in the scheme of things. The heart gadget, which reminded me of Guillermo Del Toro's Cronos, was interesting, though as a plot device ripped directly from the pages of Escape from New York, it was horribly conceived in the long run. There's one point where the bad guy is unconscious and our hero is right there. Why didn't he try the bad guy's thumb print then (since the heart device was thumb activated)? Nonetheless, some interesting gadgets and cyber stuff, if only they could have been utilized better.<br /><br />Now, who here dares compare this movie to Blade Runner? Both films take place sometime in the future and there's some kind of off kilter type of romance in it, sort of, in both films. There's the investigation of a murder, but I've seen many a film with a murder at its center that are nothing like either Blade Runner or Webmaster. Identity, for instance. That's about where the similarities end. Period. There is no comparison, just as there wouldn't be between Blade Runner and Hackers. Ridley Scott is a brilliant director with a great mind for art direction and knows some fundamentals of film-making, like where to put the camera. Webmaster is cheap, and not just because of the budget. It's cheap because of bad writing, and because it more often than not takes the easy way out (like writing in a character who barely appeared in the first place to save the girl in the end to get her to Point B by herself without the Hero, so that he could do his thing. Very convenient. Or, the attempted sympathy factor for a character we have no reason to care for. Or, inane things like the car set up to stall them just enough for someone to get away.).<br /><br />It tries to be hip, it tries to be exploitive, it even tries a twist ending that's not the least bit surprising, and it tries to be thrilling. But a bunch of near identical chase sequences, bad writing, editing, horribly shot, bad acting, etc. does not a thrilling movie make.
A desperate attempt to make a "film-noir" sci-fi thriller, but the movie falls short. It has no believable plot, some of the key actors were a joke (NOT Lars Bom, he is cool!). I did like the "access restriction by bandwith maximizing" though. I finished it on principle, but went home with the feeling of having lost two hours of my life...
The only thing romantic about this movie is the pain and anguish of romance. If you are expecting this cinematic adaptation of another Nicholas Sparks novel to follow the surefire formula of previous films, such as "Message in a Bottle," "Nights at Rodanthe," and "A Walk to Remember," think again. Nobody dies from an accident trying to save somebody else and the romance here doesn't transform these characters. If anything, it makes them even more miserable than they were.<br /><br />A soft-spoken Special Forces Army Sergeant, John Tyree (Channing Tatum of "G.I. Joe"), has a memorable two-week fling while on leave from the military with an impressionable college girl, Savannah Curtis (radiant Amanda Seyfriend of "Mamma Mia"), who is spending spring break in South Carolina. Savannah doesn't drink, smoke, but she tells John that her head is filled with profanity. Inevitably, John and Savannah topple madly in love with each other and launch an endless exchange letters of love letters that are sleep-inducing by any standard. Tyree is off in the world serving the military in some godforsaken corner of the globe while she is away at college perusing his letters in class. Just as they are getting hot and heavy between them, suicidal terrorists crash planes into the World Trade Center. John reenlists along with his buddies in a wave of patriotism without discussing the option with Savannah.<br /><br />Meanwhile, another guy, shaggy but likable family friend Tim (Henry Thomas of "E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial") who has a motherless, autistic child named Alan becomes the object of Savannah's sentiment. She is the kind of girl who helps build houses for the less fortunate and wants to start a summer horse ranch for autistic children. She delays what seems forever before she finally contacts Tyree with the eponymous letter. Indeed, she dumps him for a man with a disease! Later, she confesses to John that she knew the sound of his voice would have broken her resolve to marry Tim, so she doesn't make that fateful call. Predictably, John agonizes over Savannah's lack of communication. During a routine mission, our hero takes a couple of terrorist bullets in the back and winds up in Germany. While all this is transpiring, Tyree is trying to come to terms with his own coin-collecting father, Mr. Tyree (Richard Jenkins of "Step Brothers"), who suffers from Asperger's Syndrome. It seems that his father is on his last legs after John gets out of the hospital. The lead female character lacks a shred of respect and her betrayal of Tyree amounts to a pretty low blow. Tyree, his father, and Tyree's commander, Keith Robinson, are the only sympathetic characters in this long distance epistolary romance. <br /><br />"Dear John" gives new meaning to lethargic love stories. Yuck!
I had high hopes when I went into the theatre-- having seen the trailer I was as hyped as the next person to see great talent participate in the making of a story with a beautiful premise.<br /><br />However, it's disappointing to see this talent laid waste by the poor composition of songs-the words are chunky and cheesy, probably because it was composed with a more western theme. I wouldn't find it difficult to imagine the same melodies with French or English lyrics. In Mandarin, they just sound strange.<br /><br />The musical items were also cut together badly-- far too quickly to be enjoyable, and the shots of the actors looking anguished lasted far too long.<br /><br />The special effects are the next disappointment. Suffice it to say, it is highly obvious where the special effects start and stop.<br /><br />It's not Moulin Rouge, and it's not In the Mood either, inspite of the occasional (and very similar) slow waltz theme. Altogether, and hour too long to tell a simple story.
I was truly looking forward to this title. It sounded and looked fun. The idea of someone making a cheesy 50s monster movie could have been worth a few laughs, but instead this title only bores. First off, there is almost no Froggg in the entire movie which is the biggest disappointment. I have to sit through 75+ minutes of lame drama and dialog to get a few glimpses of the Froggg humping a bare breasted chick. Why? On top of that the film lacks any sort of fun plot. I mean give me something thats a bit more interesting than just a bunch of talking heads. I wanted to see some hot chicks search for the creature in the swamp, I wanted to see some cuties dragged off to his lair in desperate need of rescue (Creature from the Black Lagoon stuff), I wanted to see a few goofy action scenes of the Froggg going on a killing spree, or it maybe escaping a silly trap. Something exciting! Geez, have fun with it, be creative! Who wants to sit through endless and tiring dialog scenes in a creature flick? My advice to the filmmakers: Keep going, your concepts are good, but your execution needs to be a lot more inspired. Have some fun with the creature, put the humor in the action and most important...put more creature in a creature movie!!!
Talk about your wild life. Barely a B-movie, but what the hay...corny Sci-Fi and lesbian sex. From the mind of writer and director Cody Jarrett, a cheesy slice of fun. A chemical company is dumping waste that is causing mutants in a fish farm. The hot Kristi Russell stars as Dr. Barbara Michaels, an EPA agent sent to investigate this environmental dilemma. She just happens to enter a lesbian relationship with bartender Trixie(Ariadne Shaffer)and their love scenes are about as good as this film gets. A man-size frog incites chaos; causing a car crash, raping the chemical company boss's daughter, raping a girl under the bleachers at a football game, stiff-arm tackling a runner in the football game, raping a nun...all before being shot twice in the chest after an antidote was found all ready. The special effects...well, not special; a guy in a rubber frog costume without the genitalia to prove himself. Tough tadpoles, do you still want to watch it? Go ahead, but bribe any witness to secrecy.
This was one of the worst films I can remember seeing. I am sure I have seen worse, though, if that mitigates me slamming it.<br /><br />The humor isn't funny, there are stupid stereotype jokes that, again, aren't funny. I was a captive audience on a plane and viewed this film. It was a complete waste of time. I enjoyed Martin in earlier films, but not this one. Same for Queen Latifah, she was excellent in Chicago and in Set it Off she was good too, but this role was horrid.<br /><br />I mostly credit the failure to the bad writing of the script. I feel strongly you can't save a formulaic, unfunny script with decent actors, this movie as a case in point. Still, all involved should have been wise enough to not participate in this film. I am just amazed that something so bad can get greenlighted, made, released theatrically, and promoted.
Steve Martin looks like he's had a face lift. Something very strange about his face. I usually like anything Steve does, but this movie comes off as trashy not funny. Didn't think Charlene encouraging him to be rough with his wife was a good message to be sending out to teens watching this film.
Hollywood will stop at nothing to make money on a film even if they have to keep dragging out stereotypes and putting them in the most impossible and stupid situations. This effort is a clear example of that and I really do believe in my heart that a film like this is racially irresponsible. Story is about a divorced lawyer named Peter Sanderson (Steve Martin) who has been chatting with a lady on his computer and when he finally meets her she turns out to be the opposite of what he was expecting. Charlene Morton (Queen Latifah) is a stocky black woman who has no intentions of dating Peter but instead wants him to look at her case where she was convicted of robbery. He wants her to leave for good but she keeps popping up at inappropriate times and to save his job he reluctantly agrees to look at the facts involving her case.<br /><br />*****SPOILER ALERT*****<br /><br />Peter has his kids staying with him and Charlene turns out to be helpful in raising them but suddenly a news bulletin announces that an escaped convict named Charlene Morton has broken out of prison. Peter tells her to leave when the FBI comes snooping around but he figures out that she is in fact innocent when her old boyfriend shows up and threatens him.<br /><br />This film is directed by Adam Shankman who keeps things moving at a nice pace and it is a good looking film technically speaking but the script is just so improbable and every character is a stereotype to the point that a 1970 film called "The Landlord" is clearly more in tune with race relations than this mess. I have always been a big fan of Martin and I think he's one of the most talented persons around but he loves to work constantly and at times just seems to pick any script handed to him. On the other hand, I've always had a problem with Latifah and the way she barges into the life of Martin is so over the top that she instantly becomes ingratiating. Basic premise that Hollywood loves to use is the hip black person showing uptight whitey to loosen up and then pass on some street logic that will help them with their lives. That's basically what the story is here but of course they have to let Martin dress black and overact like a retarded Eminem because Hollywood knows that this is what viewers want. Well, I was pretty much insulted by everything in this film and it's not because I don't have a sense of humor but unfortunately (For Hollywood, anyway) I use logic and common sense when I watch a film. Yes, I enjoyed Eugene Levy's talking jive but are we really suppose to believe that he would be instantly attracted to Latifah? I guess weirder things have happened and how many times does a main actor get shot only to be saved by something in their pocket? Wouldn't a cell phone shatter if struck by a bullet? Even if your the most die hard Martin and Latifah fan I wouldn't recommend this. I know I've said this before but this isn't an attempt to make a good film, it's an excuse to try and make money!
4 out of 10.<br /><br />This film was neither funny as a whole nor was it even worthing investing any kind of emotion into the characters. Eugene Levy is probably the most funny.... The rest of the cast do their jobs, but the story never really gets very deep and there are a lot of holes in the plot that never get filled. This just wasn't very much fun, despite being funny at times.<br /><br />
Steve Martin has always had my respect for being a very funny comedian and a pretty good actor, and I loved "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" and "Bowfinger" --- but "Bringing Down the House" definately isn't one of Martin's funniest works, and it doesn't even seem as if it's trying to be, which is just plain sad...<br /><br />I don't know; maybe I didn't like this movie because of the fact that I rented it along with "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" and "Phone Booth", both of which are excellent films, or maybe it's because I'm used to so much better from Martin, or maybe it's just because I'm in a frickin' bad mood today...Regardless, this film just wasn't very funny or entertaining, and I never managed more than a smile or a weak chuckle at the film's gags, which is really a shame, since the previews of this comedy were SO promising! I was expecting "Bringing Down the House" to be an all-out comedy bash, and I certainly expected more slapstick comedy and inter-racial laughs from Martin. Instead, we're 'treated' to seeing Queen Latifah jiggle all over the screen, trying to do her best with her totally uninspired character. The funniest thing in this clunker is Eugene Levy, but even he doesn't get the screen-time he deserves.<br /><br />I would've really liked to enjoy "Bringing Down the House", but I didn't and I'd find it very difficult to recommend it to anyone but the most die-hard Steve Martin fans. Skip this one and rent "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" instead...<br /><br />You'll have a much better time.
C'mon, let's put aside the sophomoric humor that we can find in racism and be honest...it isn't funny. I was appalled at the fact that the two main stars would agree to do a film that was so offensive and so detrimental to race relations, and I'm not referring to the obvious black/white commentary in the movie, but to the slams towards other ethnicities, such as Betty White's characterizations of the hispanics. Should we just chalk up her agreeing to do this movie as a sign of senility...is she too old to distinguish comedy from stereotypical trash? Or is it the fault of the writers? How about the third assistant makeup person??? Nope, the fault is with us for perpetuating this kind of crap (in the guise of comedy), that hollywood will continue to feed us until we have the decency to say enough is enough...racism is for real and it isn't a laughing matter. We're all different, let's celebrate that diversity, not poke fun at it and promote divisiveness.
(very serious spoilers)<br /><br />this movie was a huge disappointment. there are so many problems i dont know where to start. so, i'll talk about what is good about the film.<br /><br />the cast was great. steve martin delivers a really funny performance of a middle-aged, upper class, uptight white guy. queen latifah plays a big, beautiful, urban, black gal. and eugene levy, well he pretty much plays himself. add betty white and jean smart and you have a great cast - everyone played their parts really well. and if watching these guys for 1.75 hours is worth $8 to you, then you wont be disappointed.<br /><br />but the movie makes a lot of serious mistakes. first of all, there are enough racial stereotypes and racial jokes to offend everyone. all the white people are uptight bigots. all the black people are ghetto ebonics-speakers. the blacks are hip, cool, with-it and poor. the whites are nerds, stiff, and rich. (except eugene levy, he is clearly taken with queen latifa and "speaks the lingo" - so latifa nicknames him a "freak". so - if you're a white man and you like black women and you know street slang you must be a freak). the movie is littered with overt racial slurs towards the black cast members and in return the whites are depicted as morons and boobs.<br /><br />putting the race card aside, lets look at the major flaw in the film: they destroy latifa's character. she comes to martin's home under false pretense, but martin takes a liking to her anyway. she's supposed to be wrongly accused of robbery, martin takes up her cause. 3/4 of the way through the film we find out latifa's character escaped from jail. so, our sympathy for her goes out the window.<br /><br />there is no real plot. the movie plods along from scene to scene with latifa showing up in some place where she's "not" supposed to be (like a country club or martin's house) and martin trying to hide her. thats the running gag. then in the last minutes of the film they decide that they're going to finally deal with latifa's assertion that she was wrongly accused of bank robbery. martin goes under cover as a homeboy to extract a (let's face it, unusable) confession from latifa's ex boyfriend, and everyone lives happily ever after.<br /><br />finally (but there is a lot more wrong with this flick) this movie appears to be a hodge-podge of clips from other movies. the premise is clearly borrowed from another martin movie "the house-sitter". where goldie hawn comes to live with martin and shakes up his stodgy middle-class life. martin and latifa meet online - ala "youve got mail". the whole "quirky nanny fixes rich man's life" goes as far back as "the sound of music" and "mary poppins".<br /><br />i wouldnt see this movie again for free.
The previews were so funny that I couldn't wait to see this movie. I just got home and I have to say I couldn't have been more embarrassed at this movie. Yes there were times where the jokes were funny, but the stereotypical roles were painful. Joan Plowright is a fine actress but the scene with the "negro spiritual" was just in poor taste. Needless to say the laughs were few and far between in the movie house for a largely white crowd (I was one of a very small handful of blacks).
Being a long-time Steve Martin fan, it hurt to see him in a movie with such a cliched script. The screenwriter must have just rented some videos and taken a piece here and a piece there - it certainly is about the least imaginative movie I've seen in a long time - I knew exactly what was going to happen in each scene as soon as it began. The African-American stereotypes and slave references are pretty offensive as well. But the thing that was the worst for me was to see Martin in a movie without a trace of wit. He probably is one of the most intelligent actors and here he totally sold out to a totally dumbed down script. He must be behind in his alimony to be in such a lame effort.
After seeing the previews awhile back, I looked forward to seeing Steve Martin in a comedy that I thought might be a keeper. Unfortunately, I was wrong. Problem was, the previews were the only funny parts to the movie. The rest of the movie was pretty much a bunch of junk, scenes that have been done to death and characters we've all seen a thousand times.<br /><br />This movie was proof positive that if you put enough cash on the table, you can talk anybody into anything. Steve Martin is a favorite of mine but this one was a big clunker. The only actor in the movie who was worth watching was Eugene Levy; he was the best of a mighty lame group.
Title: Dracula A.D. 1972 <br /><br />Director: Alan Gibson <br /><br />Cast: Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Stephanie Beacham <br /><br />Review: Sometimes movies can be time capsules that transport you back to any given time. In this case...our time capsule is Hammers Dracula A.D. 1972 which transports us back to a time in which Austin Powers would have felt right at home.<br /><br />The story is about these group of kids (were not a gang! were a group!) that love to hang out at a café shop called "The Cavern". One day, Johnny Alucard (hmm strange last name...wait...it spells Dracula backwards!) a new member of the group offers the group a new way to get their kicks. He offers them a night of black mass and black magic. To which they also say "sure why the hell not, it could be fun!". So in no time flat, the find themselves resurrecting Count Dracula from the ashes.<br /><br />This movie opens up with a swinging party at some rich doofuses home. He knows non of the people at his party, yet there they all are partying the night away in his house. Doing drugs, making out and dancing on top of tables. The filmmakers made sure that this sequence was completely engulfed in whatever young people considered cool at that time. Everyone says words like "way out" and "groovy" and they finish many of their sentences saying "all that jazz". So yeah, its pretty evident that this is the 70s. To top it all off, there's a band that sounds something like "Jefferson Airplane"...I mean you'll be drowned in all things 70s. And as I watched this I kept asking myself "how the heck is Dracula with his black cape and get up going to fit into all this?" And thats exactly what happens. Old Dracula feels out of place amidst all the partying and the rock and roll and drugs. Many of the scenes in the film are great....but sadly the music they decided to add to the proceedings doesn't fit at all and completely takes you out of the mood of things. Something horrifying or scary will be happening on screen and suddenly a bunch of loud trumpets and congos start to beat and your just completely taken out of the horror element. That sucked out the atmosphere right out of this movie for me.<br /><br />But all in all, putting all the distracting 70s music aside (an illness that Satanic Rites of Dracula also suffered) the movie was pretty good. But I will mention this. The story was just a re-hash of what we had seen before in Taste the Blood of Dracula. In fact the story is damn near identical. Lets see...a young lad inherits Draculas ring and ashes...check. He then decides to bring Dracula back to life with the help of some people who know nothing about what they are getting into...check. Black Mass to bring Dracula back in a desecrated church...check. The list of similarities goes on and on. So this movie ain't very original if you ask me.<br /><br />There are a few things that make this movie worth while though. For example the fact that the movie is a time capsule to London in the early seventies makes the film entertaining. I kept giggling and laughing every time someone spoke in 70 jargon. I couldn't believe some of the clothes these people wore and the cars they drove! It made the movie fun for me, but we are here to get spooked, were here to see Drac kill a few virgins and take his revenge on the House of Van Helsing. Did we get any of that? Well yeah. There's a few good sequences squeezed in there to satisfy old school hammer fans. First off, there's the Black Mass sequence which was above all things satanic! They mention the name of many a demon and lots blood is spilled. That sequence was awesome but it was messed up by the music in its most crucial moment. Then there's Draculas actual resurrection which Ill admit was great from a visual standpoint. Some mist comes out of Draculas grave and slowly but surely Christopher Lees silhouette and face emerge from the fog. Cool shot! I loved it! We have a Cushing and Lee face off at the end. And I couldn't help to laugh at one point when Dracula hurls a piece of furniture through the air. I laugh because he has done this in every single film since Horror of Dracula. Its this Hammer tradition where the characters start throwing candle sticks and chairs at each other. And I think to myself, aren't their more exciting things to show then a bad guy throwing a candle stick at our hero. Oh well, anyhows, Draculas demise in this one is very similar to all the other Hammer Draculas before it, vampire gets slaked and then we cut to a series of frames until there's only ashes left.<br /><br />All in all, an unintentionally funny Hammer Dracula film. Its trapped in the 70s and though that makes it a fun watch (and its not as horrible as Satanic Rites of Dracula) it still doesn't gel well with the Dracula universe we had come to expect from Hammer.<br /><br />Rating 3 1/2 out of 5
In this desperate and thoroughly silly attempt to keep Hammer's Dracula franchise alive despite having lost most of its power long time already, our legendary vampire is brought back to life in the swinging London of 1972. Exactly hundred years after he was destroyed by his archenemy Van Helsing, an occult disciple named Johnny Alucard (get it? get it?) gathers his flamboyant friends in an abandoned church, among them Van Helsing's great granddaughter Jessica, and performs a satanic ritual that resurrects Dracula in a haze of smoke. Dracula's only mission is to wreak havoc upon the entire Van Helsing lineage and fragile Jessica is the ideal victim to achieve this. This is probably the only 70's film that goes immensely over the top in trying to look like…a 70's film! Considering the previous six Dracula films were all set in the Victorian era, director Alan Gibson really wants to stress the fact we're in the 20th century now and thus he stuffs his film with insufferable hippie-characters, hideous 70's fashion trends and awful 70's music. Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing seem hopelessly lost in this setting and their performances regretfully show it. The opening sequence (a flashback) and the showdown climax are fairly enjoyable, but everything in between is painfully boring and the complete opposite of scary. The greatest elements in this series of films have always been Dracula's dark castles and the exhilarating coach races and, obviously, this installment lacks all of that. Luckily for the fans, Hammer Studios contemporary released other films revolving on vampires that are much better ("The Vampire Lovers", "Twins of Evil", "The Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires"…). Not recommended.
Film starts off great in 1872 with a violent, bloody fight between Dracula (Christopher Lee) and van Helsing (Peter Cushing). Dracula is impaled and dissolves to dust--van Helsing also dies. Somebody gathers Dracula's ashes and buries them in the grounds of a church. Cut to 1972--here's where the film falls apart.<br /><br />We are instantly hit over the head with loud, bad 70s music, HORRIBLE fashions and silly dialogue. When this was made Hammer was losing money and decided to try anything to get a hit. Putting Dracula in the 1970s was NOT a good idea. The fashions, music and dialogue date the movie horribly. We're introduced to a bunch of annoying kids in their 20s who decide to have a Black Mass--"for a giggle". Naturally they have it at the church (now abandoned) and naturally revive Dracula. It's a good thing a descendant of van Helsing is around...but Dracula goes after his niece (Stephanie Beacham) in revenge.<br /><br />Lee and Cushing are great as always in their roles and whenever they're on screen the movie gets a much-needed shot of energy. The opening and ending battles are the highlights of the film (although the ending is spoiled a lot by playing lousy 70s music). Also the main ringleader of the kids is named Johnny Alucard (Christopher Neame)--a truly stupid name that dates back to the 1940s. The film also has scream queen Caroline Munro looking absolutely great. The film is well-directed and pretty well-acted but the plot is stupid, the constant barrage of 70s fashion, dialogue and music gets annoying real quick and I was basically bored silly.<br /><br />Most Hammer fans agree--this was one of the worst Dracula movies--it's followup (Satantic Rites of Dracula) was THE worst--and the last Hammer Dracula film. This gets a 2--just for Cushing and Lee.
If you first saw this movie with Mary of the Fourth Form, then it's perhaps possible for the haze of nostalgia to encourage your charitable side. If not, it doesn't stand a chance. The young things' hipspeak is complete nonsense, people may have used the occasional word you'll hear here, but not huge batches of them in sentence after sentence. It doesn't so much date Dracula AD 1972 as blow it to pieces, from the moment anyone under thirty opens their mouth it's impossible to take the film seriously and as for it being a laugh, it's not even a smile. The idea of throwing Dracula into modern times is a good one and worthy of a far stronger script than Don Houghton can provide. The River Thames and Chelsea Male are no match for puppet bats, model castles and terrified extras, but you can't help but feel that with better writing it would have been so different.
The idea of bringing Dracula to contemporary times isn't bad--after all, it might revive the series a bit by injecting a new story element into a series that Hammer has all but exhausted in a long series of generally excellent movies. However, because the present day turned out to be the crappy early 1970s, the results were pretty silly and looked more like LOVE AT FIRST BITE (a deliberate comedy). Seeing Christopher Lee in a film filled with 70s hip lingo and electric guitar chords and laughable rock music just seemed beyond stupid. To make matters worse, the acting is much more over-the-top here--with an intense and silly performance by "Johnny Alucard". I also thought it was really funny that it took Van Helsing's grandson to notice that "Alucard" is "Dracula" spelled backwards--no one else figured this out for themselves! Wow, what cunning!! <br /><br />So because so much of the movie was bad, why did it still earn an almost respectable score of 4? Well, when the story came to the expected showdown between Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) and Drac (Christopher Lee), it was exciting and ended very well. Additionally, and I know this will sound very sexist, but if I had to watch a bad film, at least Stephanie Beacham's character wore some really nice outfits that revealed her ample...."talents", so to speak. So at least it was a pretty film to watch.<br /><br />By the way, the film ends with the phrase "may he rest in FINAL peace" at the end, though this was not the final Hammer Dracula film with Lee. He returned for "The Satanic Rites of Dracula" just a short time later and it was in many ways even worse than this dud of a monster film.
Veteran British television director Alan Gibson's "Dracula A.D. 1972" qualifies as one of the least appetizing entries in the Hammer Studios series about Bram Stoker's immortal bloodsucker. Actually, this represented the first time since Terence Fisher's memorable "Horror of Dracula" (1958) that Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing fought each other as mortal enemies. They would reprise the same roles a few years later in the final Hammer Dracula: "The Satanic Rites of Dracula." Further, it was the second-to-last Dracula for Hammer in which Lee performed as the infamous fangster. For the record, "Dracula A.D. 1972" was the seventh Hammer Dracula.<br /><br />The exciting prologue from 1872 prepares you for something vastly different than what the rest of this disappointing horror flick yields. Eternal rivals Count Dracula and his nemesis Professor Lawrence Van Helsing are literally at each other's throats atop a runaway carriage in London's Hyde Park for a vigorous opening scene that makes everything else look comparatively anticlimactic. The carriage crashes, and Dracula emerges hugging half of a wooden wheel with its shattered spokes embedded in his chest. Of course, Christopher Lee has to grip this broken wheel against his body, but the imagery is striking enough in its own way to pass muster. The Count expires and so does his opponent Van Helsing. However, one of Dracula's disciples snatches the Count's ring and scoops some of the vampire's ashes into a vial for safe-keeping.<br /><br />Don Houghton's screenplay hurtles the action ahead a hundred years to swinging London in 1972. We meet a smarmy young man, Johnny Alucard (Christopher Neame of "No Blade of Grass"), who loves to raise hell with a group of hippies that crash parties and drive the British police with their antics. Alucard happens to be the descendant of one of Dracula's servants. Now, Alucard has the Count's ring and a vial of his dehydrated blood. Alucard chooses the sight of a desecrated church to arrange a black mass. He invites his trendy friends, among them Laura (super sexy Carolina Munro of "The Spy Who Loved Me"), Gayner (Marsha Hunt), and Jessica Van Helsing (Stephanie Beacham) to attend this black mass because it offers them something different. Not surprisingly, they resurrect the Count, and the evil bloodsucker sets his eyes on Jessica. Meanwhile, after Laura's body is discovered drained of blood, Scotland Yard Inspector Murray (Michael Coles of "Doctor Who and the Dalkes") solicits help from Van Helsing's modern day offspring Lorrimar (Peter Cushing). Dracula wants to exact revenge on Van Helsing by taking the latter's granddaughter as his bride. Lorrimar tracks down Alucard; they fight in his Chelsea apartment, and the young vampire drowns in a tub of water. Remember, running water is just as lethal to vampires as sunlight and crucifix. Van Helsing finds Dracula in the deserted church with his daughter awaiting the Count. Van Helsing and Dracula tangle. Van Helsing flings Holy Water into Dracula's face. The vampire falls into an open gravesite with a stake awaiting him and he decomposes again.<br /><br />The chief problem with "Dracula A.D. 1972" is that we don't get enough of Lee as the Count, though we do get considerably more of Cushing as Van Helsing. Furthermore, scenarist Don Houghton keeps Dracula confined to the ramshackle church and never allows the vampire to venture out into the city. Despite its low budget, "Dracula A.D. 1972" could have been a lot better. The scene where the contemporary Van Helsing has to jot down Alucard and spell it backwards to get Dracula seems almost laughable. You'd think that he'd know about this backwards spelling trick. Unless you are afraid of horror movies, this one will make you yawn. Occasionally, Gibson presents us with a superb close-up of Dracula with his bared fangs and blood-shot eyes, but this is about as scary as this chiller gets, and that isn't saying much.
Though I had sort of enjoyed THE SATANIC RITES OF Dracula (1974), I knew I shouldn't expect too much from its even more maligned predecessor! Surely the least of the Hammer Draculas (Marcus Hearn on the Audio Commentary for THE CREEPING FLESH [1973] even goes so far as to call it the studio's nadir!), the film really flounders due to its totally unhip - and now embarrassingly dated - updating of the myth (the modern-day setting actually suited SATANIC RITES rather better)...even if, truth be told, it's still vastly preferable to dreck like Dracula 2000 (2000) or VAN HELSING (2004)!<br /><br />Despite Christopher Lee's vociferous bashing of the film, he still cuts an undeniably striking figure as the undead vampire (even if he appears very little and is inexplicably confined to one setting); likewise, Peter Cushing delivers his usual committed performance. The only other noteworthy acting job in the film is that given by Christopher Neame (son of director Ronald) as Johnny Alucard(!) - even if that's only because of how unbelievably hammy it is! Unfortunately, the two best-known female members of the cast (both of them horror regulars) - Stephanie Beacham and Caroline Munro - can't rise above their physical attributes.<br /><br />The camera-work is by Dick Bush (who had shot THE BLOOD ON SATAN'S CLAW [1971] and, for Hammer, WHEN DINOSAURS RULED THE EARTH [1970] and TWINS OF EVIL [1971] - but is perhaps best known for his longtime association with Ken Russell) which manages some nice atmosphere throughout, especially during three crucial sequences: the carriage-ride scuffle at the (properly Gothic) beginning; the hysterical Black Mass sequence, followed by the resuscitation of Dracula; and the final confrontation between Lee and Cushing's Van Helsing.
Being too young to have experienced the Hammer films when they were fresh and new, I am discovering their hallowed horror films as I find them on DVD. I know it was almost a decade and half between them but it's hard to see much of the magic in the original Hammer Dracula in this late entry to the Christopher Lee series. The original Hammer vampire story had lots of atmosphere and a terrific story to get involved in. Lee was a great Dracula, a vibrant vampire if that possible, in the early outing but here he is nothing more than a cardboard character that mostly stands around and looks threatening. The modish young people talk like cartoon characters (even though my aunt lived in England during the 1970s and she says people actually talked with those awful clichés). I had no interest whatsoever in who lived or died amongst the younger crowd. They were all pretty terrible characters anyway. I did enjoy seeing a young and charismatic Caroline Munro; but she leaves the story too early. Lee and his historic nemesis Peter Cushing add an air of authenticity to the film but they can't draw blood from this empty film. It's D.O.A.
Proof, if ever proof were needed, that Hammer should have left their vampires firmly in the Victorian age. After all, vampirism is all about repressed sexuality, so the concept is irrelevant in 1972's London, with its thirty-something thesps pretending to be randy teenagers.<br /><br />Remember, by this time, Hammer was floundering badly. The public had tired of the drawing room horror of the 1950s and 60s, so the studio was trying everything to bring them back, including ample nudity (LUST FOR A VAMPIRE, et al) and updating their characters - neither of which apparently worked as Hammer was pretty much resting in it grave just two years later. Shame ...<br /><br />But I still have a great fondness for the classic Hammer period from 1957-1965.
Of all the adaptations of books by Alistair MacLean, I feel that this qualifies as the worst, but don´t blame MacLean!. It would appear that all that this film shares with the novel is the same title. We have no suspense, no sense of foreboding of mystery, no chance to really empathize with the main characters. We spend the entire duration (or at least I did) waiting for Charlotte Rampling to shed her clothing (for Charlotte, this appears to take a remarkably long time!). Still, a glimpse of Charlotte Rampling´s tits really can´t save this disastrous film. MacLean has once again been kicked into the gutter to endure the sniping of those bitter hacks and nit-pickers who would appear to blame him for all the ills that befall attempted filming of his books. Poor old Alistair must have crawled into a corner and whimpered when this one came out. At least "Bear Island" - which also uses the Maclean name but apparently none of his novel - was a LITTLE exciting. The excitement here is in waiting for the final credits.
It's a shame that such a lame plot should be hung on such picturesque locations, with some documentary style reportage shoved in for extra length. A shorter film may have held the tension a little more, and a more charismatic lead may not have mangled his lines so much. The female lead also, was not allowed to do enough resulting in a pretty but boring affair. It builds towards the end but the lead actor's own redemption is too little too late and should have been revealed earlier in the film. Not awful, just a pity. Unexciting but nice enough to grace TV schedules of the early hours.
A lot of Alistair MacLean's books have made it onto the big screen. Some of them (The Guns Of Navarone, Fear Is The Key, Where Eagles Dare) have been translated rather well; some (Breakheart Pass, Ice Station Zebra, The Secret Ways) have been passable enough; a few (River Of Death, Bear Island, The Way To Dusty Death) have been pretty rotten. Caravan To Vaccares is another movie based on one of MacLean's perennially popular bestsellers, but alas this is yet another that deserves adding to the "rotten" list. Peopled by uninteresting characters who get into uninteresting situations and escapades, Caravan To Vaccares is an absolute failure, both as a thriller and an entertainment. Its only semi-redeeming qualities are: a) that it is filmed on very attractive Provence locations, and: b) Charlotte Rampling looks utterly ravishing (with fully nude scenes to boot) as the main female character.<br /><br />Disillusioned American drifter Neil Bowman (David Birney) is travelling aimlessly through France when he meets British photographer Lila (Charlotte Rampling). They decide to accompany each other, and during their wanderings make the acquaintance of mysterious nobleman Duc De Croyter (Michel Lonsdale). The Duc persuades the pair to aid him in protecting and escorting Hungarian scientist Zuger (Michael Bryant), who is sought by various shady parties because of some information that he is carrying in his head. Kept secret from Bowman and Lila is the fact that Zuger has discovered a secret formula for using solar power as cheap, economical energy. The Hungarian needs desperately to get his formula to New York, but hired guns have been put on his trail to capture him – presumably so that he can be taken back to some ruthless criminal lord and tortured into revealing his priceless secret, which they can then sell on to the highest bidder. Bowman and Lila find themselves and their terrified fugitive on the run in the French countryside from their deadly adversaries.<br /><br />The film seems terribly cheap and amateurish, almost like an ultra low-budget independent film made by a non-professional cast and crew. Yet a fair sum of money was actually thrown at the film, and all those involved have, at various points in their careers, done much better work. Therefore, one has to assume that the film is bad simply because it has been written, acted and directed with a distinct lack of care and interest. The pacing is deadly slow, and the plot points become so laborious that the viewer has to put in too much unrewarded effort to keep up with the story. Birney's performance is uninvolving, and Rampling only creates a stir due to her nude scenes – the character itself is an absolute bore, and the actress looks rightly bored by it. For those who manage to stick with the film right to the very end, there is an unusual scene featuring some deadly rodeo clowns and a fierce bull (!) which, while not particularly exciting or well executed, is at least different to the norm. Caravan To Vaccares is a very disappointing film in most respects, and once more a strong novel by the prolific author has suffered during its transition onto the screen.
It's weird, this film; you get the impression that the makers of this snooze-fest spent more time in the local bars than on set. In fact, it's a surprise not to see Harry Alan Towers' name on the credits; it certainly has the flavour of one of his tax-shelter productions but here the motivation behind the project seems to be for all involved to enjoy a prolonged stay in Provence. Despite the fact that the film is supposed to take place all over the region, Les Baux and the area around it stands in for almost everything.<br /><br />David Birney makes for a spectacularly colourless hero - as Michael Lonsdale says at one point "you're a walking cliché". What Lonsdale is doing in this is anyone's guess. For some reason, the most interesting character, played by Rampling, is sidelined, whereas, regardless of the book, she should have been the central figure because she clearly has the skill to carry the movie (which would have been dull anyway, but at least we'd have got more of something pretty to look at).<br /><br />All in all a pointless affair that is only worth watching to see how action-less an action movie can be.
This must rank as one of Cinema's greatest debacles. I was wandering Europe at the time and had the misfortune to stumble upon the crew making this movie in what was, even then, one of the world's idyllic, unspoiled settings. I was enlisted as an extra, and what followed was an exhibition of modern day debauchery. Forget all the accusations you've ever heard of Peter Mayall's intrusions on this rare piece of French life- Geoff Reeve and his cohorts embarked on a level of revelry at the restaurant at Les Beaux that left the Maitre'd slack-jawed in disbelief. They were, quite simply, awful, uncultured and undeserving of French hospitality.
A man comes to the office of the psychiatric Dr. Sammael (Joan Severance) claiming to be the demon Asmodeus (Kane Hodder), the torturer of the 13th level of the hell, and he would like to tell weird things. He tells that he had made a deal with Lucifer to become human again. He should knock-up his virgin sister Mary Elizabeth (Alison Brie) on the day that their mother died and she should kill six people and deliver the Anti-Christ, and then he would escape from the pit and reborn. When Mary Elizabeth gets pregnant, her stressed and abusive sister Catherine (Denise Crosby) does not believe that she is virgin, but their father and former obstetrician Albert Martino (James Callahan) examines his daughter and sees her intact hymen. Meanwhile the Church discovers the truth about Mary Elizabeth's pregnancy and sends the priest and former military Father Anthony (Eddie Velez) to spy Mary Elizabeth. She is dominated by the fetus and forced to kill a truck driver, Lars (Jorg Sirtl), who is the lover of her tenant and friend Jennifer (Azalea Davila), and Jennifer herself and eat their hearts and drink their bloods, but she believes that she has nightmares. However during the ultrasound, she realizes that she is carrying a monster and she asks her father to stop her pregnancy. But it is too late.<br /><br />The awful "Born" is a B-movie (actually a Z-movie) that believes that is a great movie. The result is a pretentious and disappointing production, with an incoherent and absurd story without humor and terrible acting and direction. The plot is a complete mess: there is a priest that is a hit-man and former soldier; a demon in existential crisis going to a psychiatric; a father that examines the virginity of his daughter; two female-demons (succubus?) that stand naked like a statue with both hands covering their sexes; a character that is a slut, and only exists to expose her beautiful body. There are many scenes with free and cheap nudity. But the worst is the acting: the unknown lead actress Alison Brie is histrionic, with ridiculous voices and grimaces. Sorry, Ms. Alison Brie, but I hated your annoying performance. I have not recognized Joan Severance, who has a good performance, since I still had the image of her youth. Denise Crosby performs a hateful character and like everybody, she got older but she is still a good actress. I believe that if the writer and the director had included some dark humor and assumed that this movie is a B-movie, the story might have worked better and better. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "O Anti-Cristo" ("The Anti-Christ")
I just watched that movie, and was pretty disappointed. I didn't expect much to begin with as the premise of the movie doesn't suggest greatness anyway. Sadly, it doesn't even manage to deliver just as stupid entertainment. The main problem is probably the acting. While I've seen far worse actors in far worse movies, the story would require some people to act out as violent maniacs, some others as people caught a in really stressing predicament, and they fail to deliver that. Although I watched the German release I watched with the original audio, so it's definitely not just bad voice-overs or anything like that. Added to that, the German DVD release seems to be cut, the killings are all pretty much left out, meaning that except for a few semi-gory scenes closer to the end the German release doesn't deliver as a movie for "gore-hounds", either. Can't comment on that for other releases of course. The plot has some stupid moments thrown in here and there and the beginning is just hilarious (ever heard of a demon visiting a psychiatrist?). Too bad the movie takes itself far too seriously, if it was filmed as a horror-comedy and changed a bit here and there accordingly it might have worked better. The ending is just a huge disappointment.<br /><br />If you've got really nothing better to do and just can't stand the boredom anymore you might (and it's really a weak "might") consider this movie. If there's anything else available to watch or do: Pick that alternative.
Just to save you money and time I will go ahead and tell you that this movie is absolutely not worth the match and gas it would take to burn it. Don't waste your time. As a matter-of-fact you would be better off forgetting you ever thought about watching it. I have seriously seen better B movies in a language that I can't understand. Who ever gave permission for this to be made needs to be sewed. The only positive thing I can say for this movie is that with a new script and the right director and actors it could be a great story. Let me break it down; A virgin gets pregnant by a demon, the baby while inside her womb wants to feed on people. They try to make up for the fact that this is possibly the worst movie ever made with cursing and pointless nudity. All in all Totally not worth the dollar it took me to rent it.
This movie was by far the best ever... I think whoever shot it with the Sony hand-held camera was a genius and the special effects were spectacular especially the chicken breast heart...thank goodness this movie only cost me a dollar to rent.. Also the green toxic boob discharge was amazing......I could have shot this movie with my friends in high school. .................................................................... I would not recommend this movie to anyone ... you might want to kill yourself instead of watching it..... I also feel like this was a move for porn stars trying to make it into the legitimate movie business............give it to her Larz
Seriously, all these Satan comes to Earth movies always involve the Catholics. Why doesn't Lucifer ever mess with the other denominations.<br /><br />The plot is that Asmodeus (Played by former Jason Vorhees Kane Hodder) has a plot to become human (but wasn't he always a demon) by getting this young girl who is his sister pregnant with his child. Except maybe she isn't his sister. The plot isn't clear on this, and they inter-splice these scenes where he is seeing a shrink about his problem.<br /><br />The lead girl gets pregnant while still a virgin, with an incredibly creepy scene of her father giving her a gynecological exam to prove her hymen is still intact.... Eeeewwwwww. Her sister (played by a washed up and looking much worse for wear Denise Crosby) concludes that this is a sign from heaven. Praise be! <br /><br />Well, the demon baby takes mom's body for a joy ride and picks off, in order, a truck driver, her friend's boyfriend and her friend, all being watched by an ex-military priest whose mission is to kill the baby when it is born. We discover that Asmodeus is actually a Catholic Cardinal who is running the whole thing.<br /><br />The ending is pretty much incomprehensible, and if you could make it that far straight through, you have a stronger stomach than I did. (I paused the film a couple of times, it was so awful.)
Wow. I thought, Eskimo Limon was the most awful and embarrassing first-sex movie ever. But I had forgotten that Germany always tries to compete. In this case, the well-known German film producer Bernd Eichinger was successful in producing even worse crap. Harte Jungs is stupid, not believable and predictable, and above all: not funny. It's almost a tragedy that so many kids went to see this in Germany (and, I'm afraid, also Austria).<br /><br />Tobias Schenke, 19, looks too nice to have no girlfriend and too ripe to be 15, and his character is too dumb to be true. Schenke tries real hard to make us believe that he doesn't know ANYthing about sex, but that doesn't help. Harte Jungs seems to be made by someone who watched Al Bundy and took him too seriously.<br /><br />The best actors in the movie are Sissi Perlinger and Stefan Jürgens who play Schenke's semi-liberal parents. Perlinger and Jürgens are stand-up comedians who are not particularly talented in movie acting. Still, their performances are the `best' and `funniest' in comparison.<br /><br />A complete failure.
In a up and down career with all sorts of movies, this is Altman's one try at science fiction, and it clearly shows that it's not his forte.<br /><br />The film is practically incomprehensible. It seems a disastrous combination of experimental theater pretentiousness and a major studio trying to jump on the post-Star Wars bandwagon (not that this film is at all modelled after that one, but you can imagine that the studio signed on hoping for a much different Paul Newman sci-fi film). The story is nonexistent, the characters remain strangers to us all the way through.<br /><br />Altman has packs of dogs feeding on dead bodies throughout the movie, obviously straining to make some sort of POINT. But since the movie is so poorly thought out, starting with the lack of plot on up, it really isn't about anything at all.<br /><br />The production designed is confused, the photography is undone by the blurs on the edges, and the score is terrible. However, "Quintet" does have one redeeming feature. Not only is the movie clearly filmed out in the snow and ice, but the interiors are kept cold as well. You see the actors' breath in every scene. You really FEEL the cold.
Altman's Quintet has to be considered more than just flawed: As so many other reviewers have pointed out, the ideas behind the film, even some of the choices in depicting those ideas, ought to work--and yet very little in this difficult film does. The partially fogged camera lens--I remarked to my wife that it has to be the most distracting directorial conceit I've ever seen--never allowed me to get "into" the film's world.<br /><br />In general there are serious problems with the mise-en-scene employed here. It's clear that no small amount of thought went into factors like costume and production design, but neither is very effective in evoking a believable world. Perhaps it is a matter of scale; the film is so stage-bound that I laughed out loud once it was mentioned that "five million" people lived in the city. (Yes I understand the constraints of the film's budget. Matte paintings here and there might have helped.) In all the most disappointing Altman film I've ever seen. Great ideas and grand metaphors do not always come through in art--it's just part of the game.
Watching QUINTET is not unlike watching a group of people playing a word game in Portuguese, or some other language you do not understand. You get the idea that they are playing a game, and if you watch closely enough, you may just begin to understand the rules. But, why bother, since it is clear you can't join in and you wouldn't want to if you had the chance.<br /><br />Director Robert Altman is not one to beg an audience to like his films, let alone understand them. Sometimes he lets you slip into the picture to be a part of the crowd, like in M*A*S*H, NASHVILLE and A WEDDING, films so full of hubbub and orchestrated chaos, one or two more bodies in the scene wouldn't make much of a difference. And other times, he seems to resent the fact that someone might even be watching his film; as in IMAGES or THREE WOMEN, where the stories are almost personal monologues made for an audience of one, Altman. With QUINTET, Altman seems to purposely dare anyone to become involved with the narrative. <br /><br />You can't depend on Altman to do the logical or the expected, which is sometimes the thing that makes his films so remarkably iconoclastic. But sometimes doing the unexpected isn't daring, just dumb. For instance, in QUINTET, we are introduced to a young woman who is apparently the last person on earth capable of getting pregnant, and she is, indeed, with child. This last ray of hope in a decaying society is almost immediately extinguished; Altman doesn't even wait until the end to play his last depressing card in this elaborate nihilistic and pessimistic tale. He lets us know how empty and meaningless life is right off the bat. Brave? Maybe. Stupid? Definitely. Devoid of a purpose, he tries to build a story on a rapidly melting iceberg, all the while reminding us how pointless the effort is. <br /><br />For the record, QUINTET, can at least claim to be prophetic. The story is centered on a treacherous game played by the various bored characters. It is a form of TAG (the assassination game): a handful of people target each other for elimination, each as a would-be assassin and each as a would-be victim. Two or more can form alliances to kill a third. As they die off, new targets are assigned. Whoever lives, wins. All of this happens at some exotic, inhospitable wasteland. It is, to a great extent, an extreme, sci-fi version of "Survivor" -- minus the commercial plugs and faked "reality."<br /><br />It is not a bad concept for a sci-fi epic. A post-apocalyptic setting, a microcosm of the world (the cast is pointedly multinational), a game where no on can be trusted or least not for long, and where no one really wins. Literally a cold war. A steely eyed director with a taste for dark humor and violent invention could have a field day. The mystery in QUINTET is not in the game or how it is played, but in why it exists it all. If the game "Quintet" is a metaphor for life, then Altman, seems to see nothing in the material but a chance to show life to be an empty, meaningless game -- a conclusion as obvious as it is untrue. Given the lively, albeit cynical nature of the rest of his diverse films, I don't believe that Altman believes in QUINTET either. And if Altman has no faith in his material, why should we?
This movie was sooooooo sloooow!!! And everything in it was bland, the acting, the plot,etc. It was such a disappointment, since the description looked so good! Do not be fooled! This movie is not worth the time it takes to watch it!!!
The earlier review is pretty much on target, which Altman was NOT with this film. I haven't seen it since its original release but I have seldom spent two hours in a theater feeling as miserable and disappointed as I was with this film. If some pretentious community theater attempted a sci-fi version of a Ingmar Bergman film, it might come off like this. I can't bring myself to give anything Altman has made a "1" but this is probably the nadir of a career that has had some remarkable highs and lows. I would have walked out, but as a paid film critic I couldn't. (Think about that the next time you envy movie critics.)
Robert Altman's "Quintet" is a dreary, gloomy, hard to follow thriller where you finally give up after awhile because it's so complicated.<br /><br />I remember seeing this at my local twin on opening weekend with a full house. By the time the picture ended it was less than a quarter full. Never have I witnessed such a mass exodus without there being an emergency to drive people out. That should tell you how bad it is. I believe it to be the worst film ever made involving such major talent in front of and behind the camera.
"Quintet" is definitely not a film most people would find amusing or even interesting for that matter. There is no scene, dialog, acting or plot development that would light a spark. The icy world is one thing, but muddled plot is something you really can't bear. The characters are not only three-dimensional, they're not even one-dimensional, there is no emotion and there is no sense in anything that goes on. There is a world encased in ice, where nobody is doing any meaningful work, except playing Quintet, and the rules to the game are never even hinted. The homes are not heated, even there is electricity, but who and what produces it? There is wood, but there are no animals, except dogs, so where do clothes come from, or shoes for that matter, since, apparently there is no industry, and everybody is dressed as in 16th century Europe, which is in odd contrast to not so futuristic pavilion backdrop. The entire movie seams to be stuck inside Altman's imagination, and he never bothered to share his ideas or his vision with audience. Desolation or hopelessness have nothing to do with lack of appeal to this movie, the world of George Lucas's "THX1138" is no brighter place and characters are no more fun, but the story has it's path. In Quintet, there is no obvious or even hinted path, and in my opinion it doesn't even provoke thinking about the idea behind it all, as, for example, similar film, John Boorman's "Zardoz". It's not even done in Altman's unique style, so it doesn't appeal to his fans,either, and I'm one of them. All in all, Robert Altman had a dream, and he woke up without telling anybody what it meant, not even to him.
The things that I find irritating on screen, the things I nitpick about and annoy the people who try to watch movies with me are those moment where the writer, director, set-designer, on screen caterer, or whoever, doesn't think it through to the end and, by a single act of omission - or commission - undoes all the other work done by everyone else who has worked on the movie. That moment of "Wait a bloody minute.... What just happened?" that stops the narrative dead in its tracks. (Not that this film's narrative needed a lot of stopping, because anyone who has ever seen it will know that Quintet's narrative drive has pretty well frozen solid before the end of the opening shot.) There are several of those moments in this movie. And you get so long to think about them too. The film is two hours long and the scripted dialogue probably ran to five pages. There's a lot of time to ponder its deficiencies.<br /><br />The movie is set in a frozen Earth. Another ice age has set in and the whole world is dying. It's cold. Very cold. It's actually very cold on the screen. The movie was shot in Canada in winter and there are icicles and real snow and people's breath misting from their mouths in every scene. Time and again we are reminded how fecking cold it is. People wear big hats and layers and layers of clothes and waddle around like over-dressed Weeble people. Must have been a horrible shoot. My nitpick comes in a sequence when our hero checks into a room of a hotel. Woken up in the middle of the night by voices coming from the room next door, he overhears a conversation of vital importance to the meagre plot through an large grill in the wall dividing the two rooms. I'm not questioning why there is a convenient grill in the wall between the two rooms. What got me annoyed was the fact that the grill had not been blocked up by the long term tenant with the noisy visitor. If you are trying to keep warm the last thing you need is a huge gaping draughty hole in your wall that leads into an unoccupied unheated room. Trust me. I live like this, I watched this film sat on my living-room sofa under a duvet with a hot water bottle. My breath was misting as much as the actors'. If that whacking great hole was in my wall I'd block it up with something. Maybe not the best choice of movie to watch in an unheated room in midwinter but boy did it make me notice the lousy insulation in the film.
The best thing I can say about "Quintet" is that it's not quite as bad as I remembered it being on my first viewing.<br /><br />But that doesn't mean it's good.<br /><br />This weird, sci-fi thriller is not quite like any other movie I've ever seen, which I guess at least gives it the stamp of novelty. But it's a borderline disaster of a movie, and one of the worst Robert Altman ever made. On the DVD special feature about the making of "Quintet," it's clear that even Altman didn't know what the hell the movie was supposed to be.<br /><br />It's set in some distant future when the world is in the grip of another ice age. The film was shot at the abandoned site of the Montreal Expo '67, and I do have to admit that this gives the movie some interesting production design elements, even if much of it looks like it's being filmed in an iced-over shopping mall. Paul Newman, looking zonked out and absolutely disinterested in anything going on around him, and Brigitte Fossey, play drifters who wander into this futuristic city looking for Newman's brother. Soon Newman is caught up in a deadly game of "Quintet," which all of the bored inhabitants play for lack of anything better to do, and the rules of which are never made clear to the audience. All we know is that the object of the game it to kill everyone else you're playing with and remain the only person alive. This gives these nihilistic inhabitants their only thrill, because as one of them says at one point in a psychobabblish soliloquy, only by being near to death can one appreciate being alive.<br /><br />The movie is slow, ugly and actually uncomfortable to watch due to its unrelenting gloominess. It's almost as if Altman was purposely setting out to make a movie no one would want to sit through. There aren't characters -- oh sure, actors walk around speaking lines, but none of the lines really means much and the impressive list of international actors Altman assembled for this register not a whit. Only Bibi Andersson gives the closest thing to a memorable performance as could possibly be found in a movie like this. But nevertheless, it does succeed in establishing an atmosphere, even if that atmosphere is one of pure awfulness, and it is oddly fascinating in the way that watching a man slowly starve himself to death would be fascinating.<br /><br />Altman really hit a dry spell after nearly a decade of superb films. "Quintet" followed close on the heels of the atrocious "A Wedding" and was followed in short order by the not bad but mostly forgettable "A Perfect Couple," the by-all-accounts terrible "Health" (which I've never seen because it's not available anywhere TO see) and the disastrous "Popeye." Thank God he rebounded.<br /><br />Grade: D-
Quintet marks the only venture of both Paul Newman and director Robert Altman into the realm of science fiction. It was said of Newman that he could not do comedy, but he tried until he finally scored a real success in that genre with Slap Shot. But the failure of this film left him gun shy and he never tried it again.<br /><br />This is one of the biggest downer films I've ever seen. It's a futuristic ice age, brought on by who knows what, but presumably it's a nuclear winter. Even during the ice age of thousands of years ago, the equatorial parts of the earth still sustained animal and human life, but apparently not here. Seals have survived and Paul Newman is a seal hunter on the outside.<br /><br />But hunters do need a little R&R and Newman goes to a futuristic city where things are so boring the natives have some kind of game played with six people and it's a kind of Russian roulette. To win you have to kill five other participants in your game.<br /><br />It's a sad turn to see what man has come down to. Which is one of the reasons I just could not get into this story. The atmosphere is bleak, the story is bleak, the people are bleak, it's all so bleak. No wonder this thing came up short at the box office.<br /><br />It's a film that just about everyone thinks is never going to be on the top ten list of Paul Newman films, including me.<br /><br />This is man's future, what a bummer.
Legend has it that at the gala Hollywood premiere screening of 2001: A Space Odyssey, about 20 minutes into the film Rock Hudson yelled out "Would somebody please tell me what the hell this movie is about?" Well, I have Rock beaten by about 19 minutes, 59 seconds. This movie made absolutely no sense at all. Who were those people? Where were those people? What were the rules of the game called Quintet? Are there any rules to Quintet? Were Robert Altman and his cohorts making the movie up as they went along? What was Paul Newman thinking when he signed on to this? Maybe ol' Fast Eddie saw Zardoz and thought "Well if Connery can get involved in a futuristic film that makes no sense, so can I." Maybe the good stuff is on the cutting room floor and all we get to see is the incoherent stuff. Also, did all the cast get to keep their individual funny hats? You never saw such bizarre looking hats all in one place in your life. Quintet just confirms what I've always thought: when Altman's good he's superb, but when he's bad, he makes stuff like Quintet
I supposed I was actually expecting a Bollywood remake of "The Fog", from the title, but this is actually more of a Bollywood remake of "I Know What You Did Last Summer", with some elements of "Scream", kind of, sort of, and not a very good one either. Apart from a couple very entertaining song & dance numbers, this is pretty terrible. It's obviously got a decent budget & yet it's wasted on reheated leftovers that weren't that tasty to begin with. A young woman is threatened by a creepy guy to not enter a beauty contest, because he wants his sister to win (she, thankfully, doesn't look as creepy as her brother), but she enters anyway and wins, and of course the creepy guy comes after her, and is killed, after which comes a rousing game of "hide the body". Of course, the body disappears and no one seems to know why, but someone knows, and they're waiting for the end to reveal a ridiculous plot twist. Interspersed with all this tired rehash are a few nifty dance numbers, especially the celebratory dance number at the party for Simran, the girl who won the beauty contest...it's highly colorful, it's well done & downright fun, and utterly wasted in this terrible film. I would much rather watch an old Ramsay brothers movie than this piece of crap, although someone has deemed that these don't need to be made available, for the most part, which is a crime in itself. But not as big of a crime as this film. I took one for the team watching this one, so take my advice, don't bother. 2 out of 10.
To call this film a disaster will be an understatement. I don't even know where to begin! I have questions though, and lots of them. I would like to know who conceived of this script? Who gave them money to make this film? Who was in charge of casting and costuming? They should all be sued! I saw this film in my local library's catalog and I thought "Hey! great!" I had just seen the two FOG movies that Hollywood had produced and then realised that Bollywood had a version. Unbeknowst to me, that it would turn out to be a total and utter crap-fest! <br /><br />Dhund - the fog, is a film about four friends (actually just one of them but you should know that there are four friends), one of them is a beauty queen (played by India's 1st Mrs. World, Aditi Govitrikar) and the director spares no expense at letting you know this. The script even claims that she (the character's name is Simran) has Aishwarya Rai eyes, Kareena Kapoor lips and Rani Mukherjee hair. Feel free to barf if you want to, at least at this point you haven't seen the film, unlike poor me. :*(<br /><br />Anyway, Simran receives a death threat one day from one of the contestants' uncle, who tells her to drop out of the contest so that his niece would have a better chance of winning, but Simran's boyfriend doesn't allow her to do this and thus she participates in the pageant and wins. This causes the crack-cocaine-sniffing uncle of her former college classmate Tanya to come after her. But with the help of her cousin Kajal, Simran drowns the culprit and they enlist both their boyfriends in the task of getting rid of the body. It's tough but they eventually get around to doing it.<br /><br />In a scene that borrows from Hollywood's film Diabolique, the pool where the dead body is hidden is drained only to reveal that the body is missing and this begins a conundrum of Whodunit and Where-is-it? By the time the film is over, the film successful steals scenes from 'I know what you did last summer, I still know, Scream 1, Scream 2, Scream 3, Murder she wrote episodes and not to mention, Columbo and Scooby Doo'! Shameless, I tell ya!<br /><br />Inconsistencies and problems within the film include but are not limited to: <br /><br />1. A scantily clad Simran answers phone-calls three times from her would-be-killer, the camera shows her drop the phone off the hook yet the phone is able to ring again each time and she picks it up to answer. <br /><br />2. Tanya tries to kill herself because she doesn't win the beauty contest? WTF? Even Aishwarya Rai who is ten time more beautiful did not attempt suicide when she didn't win Miss India!<br /><br />3. In the pool scene, the kids who come to retrieve the ball that has fallen into the pool conveniently disappear as soon as the police arrive. And the ball disappears too. <br /><br />4. The cliché blue contacts lenses of the killer change from blue to brown in the drowning scene, yet when his corpse surfaces again, his eyes are blue. <br /><br />5. Nobody who dies in the film is mourned (strange, especially for Indian society).<br /><br />6. When Vikram jumps into the dirty murky pool, an underwater camera shows us his actions and miraculously the pool is transformed to Olympic size and is clean and clear as day. <br /><br />7. Sexy belly-dancer performs a pseudo-orgasm drenched song and dance number about coming of age. That would have been cool for some bachelor party, but they were celebrating Simran's pageant win! Hello!!!! <br /><br />8. Kunal, Sameer, Simran and Kajal can neither dance nor Lip Synch properly. But don't blame them, just accept that there was no choreographer for the dance numbers.<br /><br />9. Nothing within the film was choreographed, it was like they just told the actors to show up and do whatever the want. <br /><br />10. The film played out like there was no script. Either that or the director was high and drunk when filming this junk!<br /><br />11. When Simran's picture was published without her consent in a magazine, she flew to the police headquarters to have the photographers arrested, yet she receives death threats and never bothers to alert the police.<br /><br />Just to mention a few of course. This film was a painful experience for me and I advise everyone to skip it by all means necessary and possible. Bollywood should be terribly ashamed of this kind of film-making.
Ramsay – the kings of comedy (or was it horror, whatever) wake after years of hibernation. And yes, I did get scared. No not because of the horror element (of course I am not that squeamish) but because rats were constantly dancing on my feet in the khatmal-chaap theatre (where else do such movies run).<br /><br />So check the plot. A man is repeatedly stabbed, choked to death, stuffed in plastic and dumped in a pool. But he still returns to take revenge. Now was the film a thriller or a horror? That itself is the suspense for you to discover. And the end turns out to be another mask mystery. Remember those trademark Ramsay undercover agents – men wearing some stupid horror masks. Only here the mask is of a human. I suppose, no more detailing is required to skip this flick.<br /><br />Amarr Upadhyay tends to get over-dramatic and theatrical, forgetting the difference between cinema and TV soaps. A cheaply and skimpily dressed Aditi Gowitrikar in her typical pink lipstick looks like ….. (Uh! you know what).<br /><br />The background score is a straight lift from Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho. Not a single department of the film, whether technical or creative, is worth commenting. Novelty lacks both in story and execution.<br /><br />Dhund certainly fogs your senses.
When I think Bollywood. I think of lite feel good musical dance numbers, with gorgeous outfits on the men and women. And catchy tunes. Horror, Thrillers, Mystery and Suspense, don't come to mind though. And this, to my Western eyes, is like an abstract comedy. <br /><br />I think it would have been a better movie, shorter even, if the writer and the director had made a definite choice. Either gone for outright Thriller-Horror, Comedy-Mystery, Supernatural-Suspense or Musical-Romance, instead of an awkward mixture of them all. <br /><br />I'll have to say more than once I thought the director must have seen "I Know What You Did Last Summer" and tried to give it a Bollywood twist. My first film was Bride & Prejudice. Which I thought was acted well. <br /><br />This seemed like what a Western Audience would consider a straight to video cheese fest.<br /><br />The acting was over the top, at times it felt like they were intentionally trying to parody western thrillers, but when you saw them try to inject the dramatic crying, screaming or fear, it felt out of place. <br /><br />The viewer was left wondering when one of the actors would wink at the camera. More than a few times when the audience was supposed to be horrified, we could only snicker a the absurdity. <br /><br />I watch a lot of foreign films, and even though I don't know Hindi, I have to say they did a poor job subtitling the film. Sometimes it was difficult to read the white lettering against the bright background. <br /><br />The villain was particularly amusing, at least to me, because he came with his own mood music. The supposed surprising twist, actually felt like a cop out.<br /><br />The lead couples were handsome/pretty enough, and the musical numbers made it worth my rental fee. I'd suggest it to someone as a musical- comedy, but I'd tell them to just fast forward the rest of the movie, because it wasn't worth the effort of reading. If you're determined to read a whole subtitled Hindi flick, then check out the superior Romantic Drama 'Namasteay, London'. <br /><br />But I was not scared..unless that's really what they think is horrifying in India. 1 out of 10 for what it's being touted as. 6 out of 10 for it's unintentional quickness & ability to illicit lots of laughs, and it's musical/dance numbers. Enjoy :)
This tatty am dram adaptation scrambles soulessly through the plot of Dickens' wonderful book, replacing the emotional impact with hurried transitions and any exterior locations with drawings. It's not the fault of the actors and the production team that the budget is so low, of course, but you have to question the point of making this in the first place when there's neither the time nor money to do it justice. Michael Hordern's Scrooge is far too gentle at the outset, making his transformation lack power, and this isn't helped along by a lack of reaction from him as he watches the visions. The other actors range from acceptable (Clive Merrison, Paul Copley), to non-committal (Bernard Lee) to seeming like they're about to forget their lines (John Le Mesurier). It doesn't even score points for effort, to be honest.
I watched part of the first part of this movie, and tiny little bits of other parts. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't think this movie is really worth watching. The odd characters and happenings does catch your attention and is rather interesting, but there are bad things in it as well, and some gross things. The magic and mythical side of it turned me off, and for most Christians this movie would not be very suitable or worthwhile to watch.
Director Lo Wei was known to read the racing papers and take naps on the set - tells us something about his "approach to film-making, huh? The reviews I've read fall into two categories: 1) this is a film so bad it is funny, or 2) this is a film so bad it is boring.<br /><br />So let's get to the point we all agree on - this film is really bad.<br /><br />I vote for category 2). The story is almost incomprehensibly complex, and it is further shredded and twisted by the remarkably poor camera work and editing. Yet Lo Wei was so in love with it that he slows the pacing so we can all have a long look at it, whether we want to or not.<br /><br />Maybe Lo Wei was upset the day (or two) this film was made - he just wanted to make everybody suffer, cast, crew and audiences alike.<br /><br />Spare yourself the agony.
Early Jackie Chan film where there is no sign of the Chan persona we know. This is Chan in a full on traditional revenge tale of the sort that was cloned and re-cloned by countless producers and studios all through Hong Kong Taiwan and Mainland China. Its a very serious story that shows none of the humor and warmth that would catapult Jackie Chan to super stardom. Its also clear from watching this that had he not reinvented himself odds are we would never have known him because his career would have been painfully short. As a film on its own merits this is a good looking but pretty unremarkable movie. I was watching it, in the midst of an all day marathon of martial arts films and it would have blended together with every other film that I watched that day had I not noticed Jackie in the film. Honestly I don't think the film is really worth bothering with (there are too many other better variations) except if you're interested in seeing where Jackie Chan started.
Yet another Lo Wei production to completely waste the talents of a young Jackie Chan, To Kill With Intrigue is a strange mix of wuxia, melodrama, supernatural action, and plain old-school kung fu fighting that is pretty dull despite featuring several surreal WTF moments and lots of laughably bad dialogue.<br /><br />In an effort to protect his pregnant girlfriend Chin Chin from the Killer Bees, a gang of ruthless killers that are about to attack his home, Cao Lei (Jackie Chan) pretends to be a heartless cad, driving her away, and thus saving her from danger.<br /><br />During the attack, Cao's relatives are all killed, but he is left relatively unharmed by the gang, whose leader, a scar-faced woman, seems to have the hots for him. Cao then goes in search of Chin Chin, whose safety he has entrusted to his close friend Chu Chuk.<br /><br />During his quest to find his true love, Cao befriends the head of a courier company whose precious cargo has been stolen by the leader of the evil 'Bloody Rain' clan. Eventually, after being injured in a fight against members of the nasty clan (a fun scene with lots of silly weaponry), and then nursed back to health by the scar-faced Killer Bee (who shows her love by burning his face!), Cao ultimately learns that he is a lousy judge of character: his friend, Chu Chuk, is none other than the power hungry head honcho of the 'Bloody Rain' clan, who has plans to marry Chin Chin himself.<br /><br />Cue the drawn out climactic battle, with Cao getting kicked in the face repeatedly before eventually choking his traitorous ex-pal to death with a scarf.<br /><br />Even die hard Chan fans will find this one a chore to sit through, with only the final fight managing to showcase some of the star's amazing acrobatic abilities. Fans of general Asian weirdness might dig the spooky appearance of the Killer Bees at the beginning of the film (with one character inexplicably demanding back his severed hand!), or the moment when three men float through a window to attack our hero, but, for most, this film will have very limited appeal.
As many have detailed here with a level of seriousness that I find amusing, this is *not*: <br /><br />A FILM. (cue dramatic music) <br /><br />It's just a so-bad-it's good, totally surreal, Jackie Chan stunt-for-all. The women fighters are totally kick-butt and Jackie is definitely put in his place. <br /><br />This is the movie you want to see with some good friends on a Sunday afternoon -- surrounded by munchies, ready to roar with laughter, cheer on the good guys, boo the bad guys, and continually yell, "WHAT?" when something totally bizarre happens. Great fun!!
I found this film to be a bit too depressing. I don't mind dramas, but this was a bit too much for me. Luckily, there does seem to be somewhat a decent outcome. I suppose it was well done. I'd watch it again, but it's nothing to rave about.
This movie is a waste of time. Though it has actors who have the potential to do something decent, the acting in the movie is sub-par, and has a cliché point. "You never know what's going to happen tomorrow, so live your life to the fullest and do what makes you happy." That sentence saves you from wasting hours of your life on this movie. People who like this movie are the same people who would enjoy sitting for two hours before finding that the entire movie was a dream sequence. If the most important part of the movie isn't even going to happen, at least make it enjoyable to watch and captivating. There's a reason this project didn't make a theatrical release, and though indy films can turn out very good, this one does not even come close.
"Stealing Time" actually dates back to 2001 when it was mysteriously titled "Rennie's Landing". Which explains how director Marc Fusco was able to afford this cast of now established television/movie actors in what is obviously an extremely low budget production. About ten minutes into the film you understand why this thing never got a theatrical release after it made the film festival rounds several years ago. <br /><br />Its recent distribution by Franchise Pictures probably reflects a perception that the rising popularity of certain cast members can be milked to recover some of the modest production costs. Although not a great addition to anyone's resume, young actors have done worse things when they were desperately seeking acting work of any kind.<br /><br />Peter Facinelli, Ethan Embry, Scott Foley and Charlotte Ayanna play college friends who do an early "Big Chill" reunion and compare war stories about the failure of reality to measure up to their dreams. <br /><br />Unfortunately nothing else happens, absolutely nothing. Yes Alec (Facinelli) dreams about a liquor store holdup and a bank robbery, which are then "cheaply and lamely" staged to completely inappropriate music. It is the least suspenseful bank job since W.C. Fields was the guard in "The Bank Dick". <br /><br />If anyone can point to any moment in "Stealing Time" where something "actually" happens I would like to know about it, because as far as I can tell, not a thing happens in the whole film. Perhaps Fusco, through incessant visual reflections, is trying to say something profound about taking control of one's life before it is too late. Like "St. Elmo's Fire" the movie is littered with every profound thought ever uttered by a young adult who has left the ivory tower to experience the real world for the first time.<br /><br />I felt Fusco was going for a kind of Howard Hawks Young Professionals in Action "Only Angels Have Wings" motif. Then again, I'm sure I was reading much too much into the film. After all, things actually happen Howard Hawks films.<br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
This film is a hodge-podge of various idiotic cliches. For instance, boy-meets-spoilt-rich-girl and gets her to fall in love with him by harassing her in college (an over-used backdrop in recent Indian commercial films). A male chauvinistic glorification of sexual conquest. The climax is predictable (having been used ad nauseum in several other films). As with many other recent commercial Hindi films, the film abounds with the incongruous insertion of songs, which probably contributed to the film's success more than anything else.
The breadth & height of the scale of this movie overwhelm me. About a week ago I posted a commentary on the 1926 silent epic MACISTE IN HELL referring to it as "staggering". Then I encountered the Pollonia Bros. BLOOD RED PLANET. Wow ...<br /><br />It's all about the scale of the thinking behind it. The Pollonia Bros. and colleague John McBride were thinking so big that the musings of Arthur C. Clark & Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODESSEY is lucky it was released thirty-two years before this sweetheart. As a matter of fact, Kubrick had it easy with modelers, a budget, actual actors and major studio backing for his little "Star Trek" ripoff, and all that Arthur C. Clarke had to do was write the damn thing. What's so hard about muscling around a typewriter? The Pollonia brothers on the other hand had to think radical, outside of the box, and quickly. They recruited a half dozen of their friends & colleagues -- including a hot lookin' chick -- bought a bunch of colored lightbulbs, raided old office supply dumps for every keyboard, monitor and hands-free phone headset they could find, got everybody identical black turtlenecks, made off with every cupcake tin in the county, learned enough 3d modeling & texture skinning to animate a couple of space ship fly-bys, spent a couple hours drumming up a script, executed what is easily the most frightening space monster puppet since that horrible little monster Jabba the Hut carried around with him was fried by R2D2, spent literally days working with a VHS camera and an Amiga to shoot & edit their film, and came up winners. This is the best D.I.Y. direct to home video fan movie space epic I've ever seen, and in proportion to the amount of talent & resources at the disposal of the filmmakers dwarfs even LOGANS RUN or BATTLESTAR: GALACTICA (the original series) as being a chilling look at our future, right down to a newscaster wearing a mis-matched, ill-fitting 2nd hand suit. As a species, we are doomed.<br /><br />Seriously for a minute, though, it is a vast improvement upon such later epics as THE DINOSAUR CHRONICALS or PREYALIEN: ALIEN PREDATORS, which is funny since it was made before either of those masterpieces. Somewhere along the lines the Pollonia's started taking it easy on themselves: This film is executed with a certain conviction that gets you to believe that you really can breathe in a vacuum wearing a dust mask and two biker squirt bottles. And the scene where the alien beast consumes a miniaturized crew member made me immediately think of where I'd seen that before: GODZILLA VS. THE SEA MONSTER, where the giant rampaging monster crab skewers two canoers and eats them on camera. That made me cry when I was a kid.<br /><br />This made me cry as an adult because here I am wasting my time trying to be some sort of critic or writer or writer/critic and these guys get to have all the fun, actually making a real feature length sci-fi epic with lots of cool colored lights, a hot chick and a talking slide projector named KAL. One of the flight crew even gets to wear his black space baseball cap backwards & glower with his goatee like that clown from Metallica. Is this supposed to be a joke? No. It is an epic statement about humanity, from humanity and for humanity that deserves to be seen by anybody who has the capability to not take any of it too seriously. Look for it on a 2 disc box set called GALAXY OF TERROR in your favorite discount retailer's cutout DVD bins, which is probably where it belongs, but how many of us can say "Yeah, they have a couple box sets of our movies for sale at Best Buy." <br /><br />4/10: Anyone lacking in a sense of humor might want to try SILENT RUNNING or maybe TRON. But someday an alien civilization on the other side of the galaxy will intercept a transmission of this movie and decide that we actually are not to be messed with. Good work, guys!!
Occasionally funny but generally boring. I did recognize Robert Hegyes from Welcome back Carter (aka Epstein) as the ex-celebrity criminal. There is a knee slapping, gut busting scene with the French lady having a bad reaction to American food. S. Baio, S. Kellerman, and Tom Arnold are billed but have only minor roles. You never get to know the characters and it's hard to care what happens to them. Not recommended.
"Bar Hopping" seems to be trying to be about the stereotypical bar tender and lay "shrink" serving up pearls of wisdom followed by example vignettes played out by the cast. However, this turkey is a jumbled mess with a script full of simple-minded cliched nonsense: Hard to follow, herky-jerky flow, unsatisfying, and not worth the time. (D)
For me it's a case you'll never understand if you didn't live it.. so read this to know why would i have such unlimited anger..<br /><br />I heard a lot about (Bruce Lee).. my father loved him.. my mother who hates any minor shot of violence loved him ! and how she talks till now about his " The Big Boss" aka "Fists of Fury" , and the experience of watching it at the Egyptian movies 1973 with all the gigantic success.. further to that I watched a real good movie about him (Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story - 1993).. so I found myself crying : where are your movies Bruce ?!! <br /><br />I went to the video store.. and it was dumb move.. (you'll know why !).. and waw.. I found a lot of Bruce Lee movies.. I selected one named (Bruce Lee in New Guinea) <br /><br />I did it to myself and watched that one.. OH GOD please forgive your servant.. I harmed myself but with no intended decision.. I wouldn't do it if I knew its evil damaging !! its mythical level of hideousness !! <br /><br />After that I didn't understand at all what's the big fuss about Bruce Lee as a great immortal star ???.. why anybody would care whether he is here or there.. this hero (whom I've watched !) is not that gifted and not that genius and of course is not that sexy ??? <br /><br />Until my father saw THIS star and he asked me to pause at any of his close ups and after he examined his face a little.. he told me in a very definitive way "this is not Bruce Lee" ! so I became too confused to ask : who's this silly guy anyway ??!! <br /><br />It was 2001.. 2 years after my first entry to the IMDb database.. therefore I tended to it immediately to know who the hell is that man.. and I discovered the truth.. he isn't Bruce Lee.. No my dear friends.. he is Bruce Li !!! <br /><br />And what a huge.. so huge difference !! I just want to know who can love that bad clone ?? Or god forbid .. love his repulsive movies.. I watched 2 of them and couldn't bear finishing the third ! <br /><br />After that I ignored all our video stores because its cheap cunning (writing on the posters that THIS IS Bruce Lee !??).. and I've got the original.. The one and only Bruce Lee who is such a great star indeed and Oh BOY he certainly had the right to immortality.. and no less.
After looking for this Bruceploitation for months, and then accidentally buying it cheap, it was disappointing. I heard about it on a DVD-R site, and it sounded crazy.<br /><br />But no, what I got was a pretty bad martial arts movie. The kung fu-ing wasn't too bad, but the rest of the movie was pretty awful, and made the movie seem really, really long, much longer then it's 85 minute runtime.<br /><br />On a positive note, the ape was funny for a couple of seconds (especially when I think they took the only close up of it's face from another movie), and the black guy who pops up half way through was funny because of the one line he said, which singlehandedly made all black people look like complete simpletons.<br /><br />But it wasn't enough, sadly.<br /><br />4/10
There are a number of movies that my high school friends and I used to joke about. They are mostly the campy works of the 50's that showed up on television on the late show. This was one of our favorites. The soul of a fallen native being brought to life in a tree stump with a scowl on its face. Now my friends claimed that if you looked carefully, you could see the thing had shoes. I never saw this. What is most striking to me is that the natives seemed to be white men with black grease paint on their faces; some looked sort of Italian. They also spoke with the strangest timbre that didn't seem to fit their situation. Like the mummy movies, the mobility of the thing didn't seem to offer much of a threat. In a confrontation, one should only have to walk fast; I guess it's the old element of surprise. If you see this, don't take it too seriously. Be happy that we have a battery of old horror movies that gave us such joy.
Huge, waddling, grimacing tree trunk menaces fake "natives" on a "Pacific Atoll" (looking suspiciously like Southern CA...), reaking havok and revenge. Unlike the silly stumps in "Navy VS The Night Monsters", the Tabonga is actually a full-grown man-tree. Well, grown in 2 days: moost have od'ed on those Miracle Grow spikes...Anycow, it comes not from Hell, but from the grave of a fake native, Kimo(Greg Palmer, "The Zombies of Mora Tau"), murdered by the native elders for hanging out with those awful American scientists. The scientists include Dr. William Arnold (Tod Andrews, "Hang 'em High", "Beneath the Planet of the Apes") and Professor Clark(John McNamara,"War of the Colossal Beast"). Rounding out the cast is Linda Watkins("The Parent Trap") as the obnoxious Mrs. Kilgore, the obvious comic relief spurting out an obvious fake "cockney" accent. A stellar cast indeed!! Anycow, because his doughy, vacant wife, Korey, played amateurishly by Suzanne Ridgeway("Love's A-Poppin'"), helps set him up, Kimo declares his revenge on her and all of the elders. Then, the dopey American scientists uproot the tree, bring it back to life "in the name of science", & allows it to SLOWLY amble about the island, killing off everyone who has done him wrong. Of course, we all know that evil monsters carry off fair maidens, so the Tabonga grabs plucky female scientist Dr. Terry Mason(Tina Carver, "Hell on Frisco Bay") & waddles off with her. Vine-ally, a good shot with a Remmington hits a knife lodged in the Tabonga, and it falls over dead into the quicksand. This laughably foolish cowncept is one of the all-time cheesy howlers. The Tabonga is arguably the slowest monster in moovie history, right up there with the clanky, over-built robot from "Robot Monster vs the Aztec Mummy" and the perversly slow carpet monster from "Creeping Terror". Try not to laugh as you watch the Tabonga toss fake natives down hills & into quicksand, dodge spears, and lumber slowly about the "island". Shady writing, wooden performances, and sappy direction all point that this pulpy fertilizer has far mooore bark than bite. This tepid pile of wood chips was the last hurrah from long-time editor-turned-director Dan Milner, who quickly vanished into well-deserved obscurity following this film. You herd it through the grapevine from the MooCow first: "From Hell it Came" is a compost classic!! :
I saw this movie one time at a kiddie matinée at the North Park Theater in San Diego in 1959 when it was released and I was 11. It was one of three features that were shown that day.<br /><br />I have not seen it since but have wanted to because I am a film buff and appreciate the terrible along with the great, good and average films.<br /><br />What I remember most vividly is that the more sophisticated audience members, consisting of children between 8 and 15, howled with laughter at the tree monster.<br /><br />A triple bill at a theater showing 3 adventure films is something an 11 year old does not forget, but I can't remember the names of the other 2 films. (One did star George Montgomery and David Farrar.)<br /><br />UPDATE: The other 2 films in this triple bill were much better. They were "Watusi," 1959, with George Montgomery and David Farrar starring and "The Angry Red Planet," 1959, with Gerald Mohr and Naura Hayden staring. Ms. Hayden has written a couple of books on health and fitness also.
Native Chief's son is wrongfully accused for the death of his father. The evil Witch Doctor orders to execute him. He then comes back as a murdering tree(!), Tabanga. Well, what can you say about such a "film"? If it was intended to be a horror film, there obviously was some sort of bad judgment involved. And for a comedy, it still isn't funny enough. I don't know why people make films like this. I guess you have to be in a really silly mood to watch it. Or you might want to see the incredible "monstrous" tree, which gives a new dimension to "a slow death". Or maybe you want to check out the great acting skills by all involved. (Ms. Kilgore!) Or the dialogue and screenplay, which were strangely ignored at the Academy Awards that year.<br /><br />"Shouldn't we try psycho-analysis on that tree? Maybe its mother was afraid of oaks." 2/10
I know it's not original, but what the hey? What else can be said about it? I feel unutterably silly just paying any attention at all to "From Hell It Came". The movie makes the important political and social issue of fallout from atmospheric atomic tests seem a matter for joking and dismissal, not the concern and alarm being raised by scientists all over the world at the time.
**May Contain Spoilers**<br /><br />A luckless South Sea islander is executed by other (Caucasian-looking) natives after he befriends visiting scientists Tod Andrews and Tina Carver. The meddlesome scientists dig him up and find that he has taken the form of a humanoid tree. He comes to life and goes on a rampage and sure enough, that Fifties boogeyman, the A-Bomb, is blamed for this aberration. To state that this particular monster walks like it has a stick up its a** would be redundant. Suffice it to say that the critter lumbers along, like the film itself, throwing his enemies into some handy quicksand and giving the main characters one more thing to make stupid comments about. Paul Blaisdell created the tree-man suit and it's hardly his best work. Over the years this flick has been sujected to many comments like "To Hell it can go!" Personally I think it's the best walking-tree movie I've ever seen.
How many monster tree movies can you see in a lifetime?Well I'll go out on a limb and say one.This movie is better watched late at night,with a 12 pack of beer, the sound off and you and your friends making up the dialogue.<br /><br />On a Pacific Island a young man is sentenced to death for consorting with the "evil Americans".(Seems his loving wife has been sleeping with the witch doctor and they set him up to die so the doc' can be king).Well he vows to come back and wreak revenge.<br /><br />Before you can shake a stick the goofy natives run to the American scientists' hut screaming"Tobanga come!"<br /><br />It seems the young corpse has done just that as Tobanga, the walking tree monster. Yes his revenge is terrible (and so is this movie).It seems that these natives cannot run from a lumbering tree so he tosses them in quicksand,rolls them down hills etc.Pretty soon the new king wants to trade his woman or kingdom for an axe or a chainsaw.<br /><br />General problems with this movie are numerous. The comedy relief is an obnoxious woman with a Cockney accent (like this movie needs comedy).You want her to die upon her first appearance.The leading lady is whiny.The leading man is a boor.The acting is wooden (pun intended).The dialogue is stiff and lumbering.The natives have Brooklyn accents.The monster suit is pure giggles.<br /><br />While this is a bad movie it still is fun to watch.It gets a 3 on unintentional laughs alone.Your dog may rate it just a bit higher but only if the tree wasn't mobile.
Did I waste my time. This is very pretentious film. In the beginning you will think there's something going on but by the time some 30 minutes go by you realize nothing is happening. I waited for another 20 minutes and by then i was so frustrated that I started reading reviews on IMDb and realized that the director has wasted precious time of so many people. <br /><br />Unbelievably boring pointless film. Stay away. So many good soundtracks. I will give one point for the police inspector joke because that worked for me. I laughed for a long time but otherwise a very bad film. Stay away.1 on 10.
It's not plot driven, OK; it's not a character study, fine; there's no action, alright; there's no point, hmmm...<br /><br />Maybe it's supposed to represent the boredom and absurdity of living in Palistine and parts of Israel these days in a state of violence, petty disagreements, deep rooted hostility, etc. But mostly it's long, long scenes of nothing happening - or things which look like they're dripping with meaning (a checkpoint tower crashing to the ground, an Arafat balloon floating into Jerusalem, a crouching tiger women deflecting bullets into a halo) but when you try to derive some meaning, there's no there there.<br /><br />Bonus: you can watch this film in fast forward and it will make absolutely no difference except that it might be slightly less boring.
This was one of the most dishonest, meaningless, and non-peaceful of the films I have ever seen. The representation of the other, of the Israelis, was racist, backward, and unfair. For one, the song played on E.S' car radio when pulled up alongside a very right-wing Israeli driver was "I put a spell on you" by Natacha Atlas. The song's style is quite Arabic, but it was released on an Israeli compilation CD, and I have even heard it on the radio in Israel. Many Israeli songs (as well as architecture, foods, and slang) are influenced by Arabic culture, and there is no reason an Israeli Jew would be offended or angered by a nearby car playing that song. The way E.S. appears so calm and collected with his sunglasses and cool glare, via a long, still shot, is meant to force the viewer into seeing the Jew as haggard and racist, and E.S. as noble and temperate.<br /><br />I have traveled all over Israel, and I have never seen an IDF recruitment poster, since service is mandatory. But in the film, not only is there a recruitment poster, but it depicts a stereotypical image of an Arab terrorist and the words "want to shoot?" This is an extremely inaccurate depiction of the mentality of the majority of Israelis as well as Israeli soldiers, and such an "advertisement" wouldn't even exist on a random Israeli highway. In including it, the director aims to convince the audience that Israel is a society of anti-Arab racists hell-bent on murder.<br /><br />The ninja scene was gratuitous and needlessly violent. A Hollywood-style action scene involving Israeli soldiers shooting Palestinians would be just as unwelcome in an Israeli-directed film as the ninja scene should have been. But for some reason, images of an unrealistic, non-comic, and violent scenario manage to elicit applause from the audience since the director has smeared the Israeli side so much beforehand, that any shot of Israeli soldiers being killed would be welcome. The director shows absolutely no attempt at building bridges, portraying the "other" as human, or working towards peace; violence is made to be the only solution. This is furthered by scenes of exploding tanks, falling guard towers, and other random acts of destruction. One of my best friends serves in the Israeli military, and the targets in firing ranges are never Arab women dressed in black, or any other quasi-civilian on canvas. Soldiers at checkpoints are instructed not to fire at the head of an approaching Palestinian unless it is clear that their own lives are in danger; the method, according to my friend, is to provide a warning shout, fire into the air or around the area, and then if all else fails, shoot in the leg and then interrogate and hospitalize. Arbitrarily targeting a woman in the head, as shown in the film, is not the proper procedure.<br /><br />Besides these inaccuracies, the directing style was also poor. Repetition became repetitious, and no longer captivating. Symbols, such as the balloon with Arafat drawn on it, are forced outside any plot structure or effective integration in the setting; the balloon is Palestine penetrating and regaining Jerusalem, and it is created for no reason by E.S. The ambulance being checked for permits by Israeli soldiers followed by subsequent Israeli ambulances flying past the checkpoint is an overly-overt claim of an Israeli double standard by the director. The attempt by the director to show life in Nazareth as dreary and pointless is done with overkill; showing the routines of random people over and over again, even with a slight change each time, and emphasizing that not one member of the cast ever smiles and is minimalist in dialogue almost screams out the purpose of such scenes, the dreariness of life, without allowing much room for personal interpretation. By contrasting one "section" of the movie, daily life in Nazareth, with the second section, the checkpoint between Ramallah and Israel, the director subtly blames this dreariness on Israel, but never provides any direct evidence as to why such blame can be properly argued.<br /><br />I spent hours trying to figure out why music ended abruptly and began abruptly, and why many modern fashion-show-like and metal-action tracks were included in the score. I still cannot come up with an answer. I felt that the music was out of place in this film; the contrast between more silent scenes and intense scenes was actually annoying and not affecting or thought-provoking. I can understand if the director intended for the music to provide some comic aspect to certain scenes, but I found that there was nothing comic to be found in Israeli soldiers shooting at targets or fighting a ninja, or a woman having to suffer another walk through a checkpoint, albeit defiantly. In fact, I was tempted to close my ears during intense scenes, and annoyed by the lack of a score during quiet scenes. Whatever the director's intent, it provided only an audial displeasure throughout the film.<br /><br />This film has no legitimate political message because it provides an inaccurate and extreme representation of the other, and neglects to actually address any issues. It is a propaganda film, because the director intends various symbols, styles, and scenes to draw sympathy for the Palestinian side, while displaying the Israeli side as cruel and inhuman without exception; the vibrant atmosphere of an action-packed Hollywood scene or of intense music is displayed in every act of violence by Palestinians against Israelis, such that the almost inevitably positive and thrilled feelings the music and cinematography elicit from the audience are directed to one side. There is no thought, reflection, or deepening of the understanding of the conflict by the audience; emotions are simply pulled to one side, and kept there, in a "good vs bad" cliché scenario. I believe this film lacked the depth, quality, and power of other Palestinian films, such as "Paradise Now" and "Wedding in the Galilee."
I really wanted to like this film for all sorts of reasons -- the subject matter is inherently interesting and is probably the major issue facing the world today and has thrown up fascinating works (e.g. Linda Grant's When I lived in modern times)usually from the Israeli side of the fence. Also, a bloke I like told me he thought it was the best film he'd seen all year, so with such a recommendation...<br /><br />HOWEVER I actually found myself nodding off at points! Admittedly i was tired and the cinema seats comfy but I found it too much hard work trying to identify with the characters. Once I'd got my head round the idea that it was a series of vignettes, I went with it, but this made it disappointingly like a sketch show rather than a film. I liked the concept of a restrained, almost silent mise en scene contrasted to these utopian moments - the sexy girl, the red balloon and the ninja Muslim fighter. But personally i think the film has been over hyped. I'm not saying narrative and plot is everything (it's definitely not) but even a little more dialogue would have helped.
I was very concerned about this film, it was scheduled to play at a Jewish Film Festival, and was reported to be very hostile to Israel, while using clever humor and irony.<br /><br />I was relieved that the film was not a diatribe, however as a work of film it was deeply disappointing. The film was full of random events, some of which eventually connected, most of which did not. Some of the events were very clever and funny, but some were merely random and pointless.<br /><br />There are repeated scenes between two lovers where they sit in a car, wordlessly, and play some handholding game. Perhaps in some cultures this is erotic, but it's like watching thumb-wrestling. After the third time, it really became tiresome.<br /><br />I have always found David Lynch to be gratuitously bizarre, using strange stories and images to cause audiences to think that he is SO sophisticated that they don't grasp his work; in fact, there is nothing to grasp. The same is true here, the stories do not add up to anything, and there is not much of a political point being made (in one scene a boisterous Israeli soldier humiliates Palestinian drivers at a checkpoint. That's news?)<br /><br />I don't understand why this film has garnered controversy, nor why it has garnered attention. It is an inferior work and seeing it was a waste of time.
A Brazilian cable television is presenting "Yadon Ilaheyya" this month in its "Cult" channel. I saw the trailer and listened to the advertisement, and decided to see this movie. Indeed it is an absurd boring pretentious dumb pointless disconnected crap about the conflict in the Middle East, and together with "Soultangler", they certainly are the worst movies I have tried to see. I really wasted forty-three minutes of my life watching the first half of this crap, highly indicated for torturing enemies. How can this movie be awarded and nominated to prizes inclusive in Cannes? My vote is one (awful).<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Intervenção Divina" ("Divine Intervention")
This is like a school video project and a propaganda film that puts the whole class as well as the teacher to sleep.<br /><br />Utterly boring long silent(yes, silent) strings of unrelated video clips.<br /><br />Instead of this movie watch the paint dry or the grass grow- it will be more interesting unless you enjoy seeing Arabs being malicious to everyone around them.<br /><br />Sulieman (the Director) should be embarrassed of this lame waste of film.<br /><br />It deserves a one for the movie quality, a zero for the ridiculous propaganda message and a negative number for the script (or lack thereof.)
<br /><br />Won't be long on this movie. The first half an hour was one of the most boring i have had to face since i've started watching movies. The story didn't advanced, nothing was explained about any of the characters. It felt like a non-movie. (A lot of people had already left the audience at this point).<br /><br />A lot of the scene were totally unjustified and unexplained.<br /><br />The director should have studied film a bit more to know that each sequence, each scene, has to make the story go forward. He never did that.<br /><br />The supposedly funny moments were contrived, and only a few people laughed (people with a weird sense of humor, i guess).<br /><br />Prize of the Jury in Cannes 2002.....don't know what the jury was thinking about....probably the "politicly correct effect".<br /><br />I would have loved to love it, the disappointment was therefore even bigger.<br /><br />You have to see it to believe it. But wait for the video.
The Palestinian situation is fertile and as-yet largely fallow soil for film-making. 'Divine Intervention' tries hard, and gives us an insightful peek into the almost surreal life of those caught up in the troubles, but the film amounts to little more than a handful of (admittedly lovely) visual jokes thrown onto celluloid, while the links between them become increasingly obscure as the film progresses. A missed opportunity to say something more coherent about a very topical issue.
National Lampoon's Dorm Daze is easily the worst movie I have ever seen, and I've seen the movie Kazaam. Anyone reading this who thinks this movie was good in any way, shape, or form has no idea what a good movie is, and should never watch another movie again because they are indeed so stupid.<br /><br />Its hard to name everything wrong with this movie. First off, the plot is all over the place and can't follow all the multiple "misunderstandings" very well at all. The acting is awful to say the least, and the whole thing was poorly made. Any and all who worked on this movie should not be in another movie of any kid Ever Again!<br /><br />It is too hard to sum up this movie in just a paragraph or two, because it is so bad, but for anyone out there reading this please DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!! If you want a good movie to watch, go turn on anything else on television. Even U.S.A. has better movies than this.<br /><br />_friend.
jeez, when i heard this movie was a NATIONAL LAMPOONS i thought it was going to be awesome, but i really got a say it was a rather disappointment. I have seen the most movies they've made, from Christmas vacation to van wilder, and this movie is the worst movie in their name,, really bad actors and a to much intense movie. this movie is probably good to watch if you are watching it with a crowd of worked up people and the ability to laugh at it, but if you are into good comedy's like i am, i do not suggest this movie, i would much rather watch van wilder a second or third time, than to watch this movie... you have been warned.
This movie can best be described as a very long episode of a very bad sitcom. How many vaguely humorous misunderstandings can you cram into just one movie? Notes are misplaced, bags are switched, conversations are misheard, people get mixed up, situations are misinterpreted, and somewhere along the line people are supposed to laugh about something. The writers are really struggling to keep everything going, which makes the dialogues feel really forced. If anyone in this movie acted like a real person all this would be resolved in around two minutes or so and everyone could go back to their lives, but they have to keep the misunderstandings going. At times this movie also tries to go for some juvenile laughs, but all those do is remember you about how funny "American Pie" was. The scene with the nerd telling the hooker (who he thinks is a foreign exchange student) to "eat his sausage" goes on forever, not one second of it is funny. I've got to give this movie some credit though: because of the subplot about stolen money, it's not as boring as it could have been. It also has a laugh here and there, but then sadly goes back to yet another character misunderstanding stuff. Overall this movie is just way too lame.
This has to be one of the biggest misfires ever...the script was nice and could have ended a lot better.the actors should have played better and maybe then i would have given this movie a slightly better grade. maybe Hollywood should remake this movie with some little better actors and better director.sorry guys for disappointment but the movie is bad.<br /><br />If i had to re-watch it it would be like torture. I don't want to spoil everyone's opinion with mine so..my advice is watch the movie first..see if u like it and after vote(do not vote before you watch it ! ) and by the way... Have fun watching it ! Don't just peek...watch it 'till the end :))))))))) !!
Worthless movie. A complete waste of time and nothing what I expected it to be. The packaging makes it seem as if it is of the American Pie genre (it isn't). rather it is a ridiculous stringing together of coincidences that makes the movie seem more like a writing exercise (let's try to see how many mix ups we can write in to make what should have been a bad SNL skit into a full length feature presentation). What is remarkable is that the director's (based on their commentary on the DVD) take themselves completely seriously. I have been a huge fan of the movies that National Lampoon lends its name to, up to and including Van Wilder. With this one, I feel completely cheated. In fact, I FEEL DUPED. I was expecting a Van Wilder like farce to relive my college days but instead was served an hour and a half of garbage. What lead to my ultimately unmet expectations? Well, for starters, the fact that the cast all appear naked (with an enormous sausage covering what must be covered) on the COVER of the DVD. Add to that the imagery on the back of the case as well as the description and you mislead people into thinking this is a movie that it is not. To make matters worse, the movie starts off as one might expect it too with half-naked drunk college students feebly trying a photo stunt, but ultimately this has nothing whatsoever to do with the movie. In fact, I didn't even realize that the people in that opening sequence where supposed to be the characters in the movie until I was told so by the directors in the commentary. Don't get me wrong, I love plot twists and being surprised by movies, but I hate the fact that this movie tries to pawn itself off as something it is not. Ultimately, it does itself a huge disservice (artistically, though most likely not financially) because it sets its audience up for confusion and disappointment simply because it neglects to deliver what it advertises. <br /><br />In short, do not rent this movie based on what you see on the case. It is not your usual National Lampoon movie. The only thing funny about it is the fact that many of the actors have appeared in other movies and TV shows that make their involvement here entertaining.
When i went to the video rental shop to get a movie i saw this one and i immediately thought it would be funny. The picture made it seem like a classic comedy type involving teenagers (such as road trip)which i thought would be worth watching. When i turned the move on i was disappointed as the jokes were awful and cheesy. The only bit which the director may have thought would be funny was somebody slipping over on a wet floor. This is not a joke and would not make people laugh. I actually considered turning this movie off coming to half way through. I was annoyed with this movie as it was just a waste of time and money renting it out. Not enough care was taken making this film and not enough time and work put into it. I found the acting to be quite bad as well. The only time i laughed was at the extremely bad 'jokes'or actions done which were really not funny!!!. I rate this film a 1/10. I hope you found this comment useful.
Me and a buddy rented this movie the other day. At first look, it seemed to be another teen movie, which was also what we hoped for, being fans of simple horror and comedy.<br /><br />It seems that the movie is designed to disappoint the viewer as much as possible. It quickly accelerates into something that holds a lot of potential. Unfortunately it never quite leaves the ground. We had watched it for something that seemed like 1 hour, when I finally, half-sleeping, managed to say :"Dude, this movie sucks" It was only 35 minutes actually... Dude agreed.<br /><br />The problem is: the movie is simply not funny. It was undoubtedly supposed to be funny, but it failed. It failed in a way that made me sad. It kind of reminds me of myself. I had the potential to be anything I wanted, and instead i ended up watching cheap horror/funny movies all the time. I pity the makers of this movie from the bottom of my heart. Its so sad. All that potential.. and nothing.
I have little to no interest in seeing another awful movie, that totally lacks anything new creative or funny, abusing the National Lampoon tag. How ever something caught my eye in the cast of this movie. I see Danielle Fishel's name i'm a big fan of boy meets world! But the movies shes in are awful. More so as a fan i'm not rewarded by seeing her terrible movies with the treasure of bare breast. So this is where my question comes in.<br /><br />Has anyone seen this movie? And if so Does Danielle Fishel get naked in it? Would save me the 2 hours of my life i would never get back watching this terrible movie. Thanks a lot
This movie actually hurts to watch. Not only did I not laugh once, I ended up getting a serious headache. At times, I felt so sorry for the actors involved. The best way to sum it up is to note that among sex comedies, it is probably the least funny and least sexy of all time. I'm only sorry I can't give it a vote of less than one. To give this a rating of one is an insult to every movie that scores two or better.<br /><br />Now I see that they're filming a sequel. Hearing that someone is actually paying these people to make another movie convinces me that there's just too much money in Hollywood. RAISE THEIR TAXES!!! Making a sequel to this movie may very well constitute a crime against humanity; perhaps an international tribunal should be convened, or U.N. sanctions applied to the filmmakers.<br /><br />In short, it's a really bad movie. Really, really.
The box is why I originally picked up this movie and the back is why I rented it. But I soon learned that I had been duped. I had thought this movie would be something like a Road Trip/Eurotrip/American Pie deal. But I was wrong. This movie is one of the dumbest I've seen in a long time. The unrated version teases you in to watching but will completely disappoint you. The acting was terrible and sound effects just gaudy. It appeared very low budget with the entire setting taking place in the same building. Go out and get Eurotrip or Road Trip instead. I can't believe National Lampoon put its name on this. DON'T BUY IT, DON'T RENT IT. Don't waste 2 hours of your life on this.
A stupid teen supposed comedy that revolves a serious of misunderstanding including (but not limited to) a hooker being confused with a foreign exchange student, girlfriend beating, a girl loving a gay guy, and the straight guy that loves her, and bitchy gossipers. None of the following is funny or even amusing. Nation Lampoon's use to be hilarious back in the day. Now the name is sadly synonymous with crap. And this one is NO exception. I use to think Topenga was kinda cute when she was on "Boy Meets World", but it seems she let herself go (and yes I know she has a name, but into she does ANYthing else worthwhile, she'll stay as Topenga) <br /><br />My Grade: D<br /><br />Eye Candy: Kati Lohmann gets topless; Boti Bliss relies on a body double (BOOOOO!!!)
Look at the all the positive user comments of this movie, then check to see how often each one posts user comments. They post once. It seems companies are probably paying for services which post junk pro-movie comments on IMDb.<br /><br />This movie was awful. The plot was stupid. The acting was poor. The jokes weren't even funny. The movie included minor nudity from what looked like porn actresses but none of the other characters.<br /><br />It was clear from the first 15 minutes that movie wasn't funny. There was some slapstick here and there but most of humor was supposed to be derived from the characters talking behind each other's back and spreading rumors. This isn't even done well. Every joke is obvious and you see it coming.<br /><br />The movie is worthy of fast forwarding or better yet not watching.<br /><br />I regret watching this movie and if I could charge the studio and distributor for 1.5 hrs they stole from me I would.
This was the worst movie my wife and I have ever seen. The only concessions is that we did not pay to see it at the movies as we rented this on DVD from the video store. Simply - No plot worth mentioning (I only watched it 5 minutes ago and already I have forgotten), annoying characters played poorly by two-bit actors and if this was suppose a comedy I am still waiting to laugh. In fact the only laugh we got out of the movie was that we joked with each other that we agreed it was truly awful.<br /><br />Put simply this movie was quite utterly pathetic and I warn others to not waste their time. A travesty of the National Lampoon name , Rating 0/10.
This movie was like a gathering of people that had been in other movies and they decided to make a really bad movie. It had a dude from "Detroit Rock City", a girl from "The Cosby Show", that dork that kissed the chick and bought that sausage was in "Sorority Boys" and there was more. OK that doesn't make a bad movie in itself, that was just something I noticed. The whole thing with the hooker and the french girl having the same name was dumb and the thing with 37 people writing these notes and if you think they are going to get mixed up.....shocking enough.......you called it. And the purse thing, that was just plain stupid. It was so bad that I watched the movie in two parts and still only made it to the 50 minute mark. If you are watching this and expect "Van Wilder" or a movie like that......Don't.
I love movies in this genre. Beautiful girls, toilet humor, gratuitous nudity. So why didn't I like this movie? No movie like this should add even the slightest confusion to the plot. Who's who, where is the money, it's not SE7EN, just make me laugh. Maybe it's me, but i never felt this frustrated watching American Pie movies or any other more modern National Lampoon's movies. This movie has no flow that keeps me smiling, waiting for what's next. Instead, I find myself stopping to think, "Why did they keep that scene?" I do not recommend this movie. If you are expecting Van Wilder, think again. The only fun I had watching this movie was guessing what movies the actors were in when they were kids. 2/10 generously.
If anyone at National Lampoon is reading this PLEASE STOP THE CRAP YOUR PULLING OUT OF YOUR BUM, really now! Why the hell are you doing movies like these? They're not funny and watching it for the sexual content is a complete waste of time, really. It is such a horrible movie you may want to shoot yourself while your watching it. I am serious here, guys, it makes Harol and Kumar go to blah blah blah look like an actual good movie (and we all know that H&K is one of the worst movies ever made) It really sucks, it REALLY does. How bad it is? Well, even losers that actually like National Lampoon shall hate this movie...they'll want to murder the director, I swear to God. I hate you, National Lampoon, die already. Die.
When I was young, I was a big fan of Chuck Norris. I just begun getting out all his old movies on video so I can see them through adult eyes. I remember that I really liked this one in particular, and thought it was one of his best. Now that I'm a little older, I can say that although it's thoroughly average, I still consider it one of his better films. In an acting stretch for him, Norris plays a cop haunted by his participation in the arrest and capture of a dangerous serial killer movie. Serial Killers are all the rage nowadays, and people would like to think of them as a wholly 90s invention. In contrast, it's good to see where the current infatuation has sprung from, most obviously, action movies (as well as stalk n' slashers) of 70s and 80s. While Norris attempts at both humour and any form of human compassion are ham-fisted and laughable, nobody could kick someone in the head quite like Chuck. Being a big fan of Steve James also, I can recommend this film, ditto for genre legend Billy Drago, as well as seeing Mitch from The Blue Brothers in a supporting role. Not great, but it's better than anything Norris did in the 90s.
I picked this film up from the local Family Video on sale for $1.50, which was probably the first sign it wasn't going to be good. Watching it with 2 friends, neither of them even wanted to finish it because of how awful this movie is. I, strangely, couldn't stop watching it. But this film is definitely a textbook case of how not to make a movie.<br /><br />The plot is simple enough and sounds great: Chuck Norris has nightmares about a serial killer he put behind bars. The serial killer escapes and his nightmares begin to become reality once more. Serial murder, Norris, roundhouse kicks... this sounds like a great film.<br /><br />And some of it is pretty good. The flashback scene where a man breaks a ladder with his teeth is intense, a scene where a van cascades off a cliff and gets crushed is amazing -- and I learned how to break out of prison using nothing more than Chapstick, gun powder and dental floss. But there is plenty wrong with this movie.<br /><br />One: the editor is a moron. When making an action or suspense film, you have to keep the energy moving. There are far too many scenes that are not crucial to the plot left in this movie, slowing it down and distracting from the overall story. At least 10 minutes could have been cut and the pacing would have improved and the film would be slightly better. Two: The sound guy is a moron. Apparently somebody tried to film most of this movie in an area where you can't get decent sound, so most of the dialog is voiced over, killing the stereo and not lining up with mouths. Also, the music is far too dramatic in some scenes. Three: The casting director is a moron. They cast Billy Drago as a psychiatrist. Billy Drago is a great cult actor (from Brisco County, the Hills Have Eyes, and others) and would have made the proper serial killer or some sort of villain. His character is so vanilla that Drago's skills are wasted. Four: The writer is a moron. Two plots are in this film - the hunting of a serial killer and the romance between Norris and his pregnant girlfriend. Every time I saw that woman on screen, I wanted to claw my eyes out. And sure enough, she never figured into the other plot, making her story completely pointless.<br /><br />Will I ever watch this again? Maybe. But unless they remaster this film at least a dozen times, you never should. Not recommended.
"Hero and the Terror" is a fairly dull thriller - a la: no real character substance, predictable plot, and... Boring. For a thriller I found this movie slow in working up to its pitiful climax, as it just seemed to drag along until Chuck's wife's baby is born... and then it drags on from there until it reaches the end - which I can hardly remember already even though I only saw the film 10 minutes ago.<br /><br />I give this film 3 out of 10 - for the first 10-20 minutes.
This is simply another bad Chuck Norris movie. Norris plays a cop on the trail of a twisted serial killer of women. He put the guy away three years before, but the guy somehow gets through the bars in the nut house he's in by using what looks like dental floss. Then the killer escapes in a cleaning van and drives it over a 400 foot cliff and survives to spend time around a theater undergoing renovation. Irish Jack O'Halloran is the best thing in this movie, but like in Superman II, he doesn't say a word. Somehow that's supposed to make him more menacing. Ron O'Neal of Super Fly fame and Steve James are wasted playing the city's mayor and Norris' sidekick respectively. The film also contains the idiotic subplot of Norris and his girlfriend having a child out of wedlock; it's so 1980's. When coupling Norris' "serious" acting turn with over-the-top musical cues signaling every forthcoming scene in predictable fashion, the film becomes a chore to sit through. The build-up while searching for the killer in the theater is interesting enough with Norris crawling through the shadows to discover the hideaway, but the end fight is disappointing after beginning in such a promising way. It's yet another disappointment from Cannon Films, and it plays like a movie made for television. * of 4 stars.
For a Norris movie this is pretty tame. For an action movie it is kind of dull, and as far as predictability goes my friend and I almost had every turn of this movie nailed. It was nice that the killer's every moves were not telegraphed by the cliche's of 80's action movies, but come on, the only non-predictable move defies the plot and the set-up of the editing. Mainly, it is said rather early on that the killer (Jack O'Halloran, whom is one of the few slightly known actors) only kills women. YET, he all of a sudden stops his M.O. and kills men, huh?. I guess it can be construed and rationalized some way, but why is the movie edited to show that he is going to kill women?? <br /><br />Yet again, I'm sure that there is a reason (i.e. to build suspense), but why spend the time watching it when many other suspense movies are vastly superior.<br /><br />Fans of "Renegade" may enjoy the small cameo by Branscombe Richmond as Victor, but his brief appearence cannot save the movie and even a vote of 4 seems generous.<br /><br />
Well, the Hero and the Terror is slightly below average in my opinion. Yes, Chuck is a real martial artist and kicks some butt in this film but it is rather slow and the acting in my opinion is for the most part subpar although I think Steve James does a decent job. Like my friend Ryan, I was confused as to why the psychopath chose to go to the theatre at the end of the film rather than to go after Norris's girlfriend. Until than, the killer had only killed women. Oh, well, I guess it wasn't as predictable as I thought. Definitly a film you can pass on.
Well, the Hero and the Terror is slightly below average in my opinion. Yes, Chuck is a real martial artist and kicks some butt in this film but it is rather slow and the acting in my opinion is for the most part subpar although I think Steve James does a decent job. Like my friend Ryan, I was confused as to why the psychopath chose to go to the theatre at the end of the film rather than to go after Norris's girlfriend. Until than, the killer had only killed women. Oh, well, I guess it wasn't as predictable as I thought. Definitly a film you can pass on.
This was painful. I made myself watch it until the end, even though I had absolutely no interest in the plot, if there was one. My patience was not rewarded. The ending was even worse than the rest of the film. Chucky walks into the hospital with a priest and his concubine says "I do". How vile can one movie be?
This film could cure sleep disorders, thats how bad it is. The story dragged, and the bad guy is not that scary. You will not even see this one on TBS reruns. This film made me wonder about Chuck film choices. He work on a real dog with this one.
Chuck Norris stars as Danny, a cop who took down a hulking serial killer however when said killer escapes, Danny knows he is the only one able to stop the terror. However Danny harbors a secret, he knows that it was sheer luck that got the terror arrested and even more luck that Danny survived, now a final battle is waged but is Danny ready? Right there in my description tells what the problem of this movie is. Norris is playing a wimpy hero who still suffers from psychological trauma. In the hands of a better actor, this concept would be interesting and could make for a great thriller. In the hands of a Norris thriller it just makes it ridiculous and hopelessly unheroic. Also on board is American Ninja's Steve James and Superfly's Ron O'Neal but any attempt at character development is defeated by the atrocious script. Also there is hardly any action and I always preferred a Norris movie with more fighting and less talking. Given the rating on this website, I must not be alone.<br /><br />* out of 4-(Bad)
Cops Logan Alexander and Debbie Rochon escort five black juvenile delinquents cross country and end up stranded out in the sticks when their van breaks down. After a deadly run-in with a racist, white trash bitch with a shotgun (played by the director), the survivors take refuge in the house of a blind voodoo priestess. One of the teens senselessly uses a spell to call up Killjoy, who finally shows up about midway through this bore in a subpar make-up job and bigger, greasier 'fro that looks like it could slide off his head at any moment. He then proceeds to kill off the stupid characters while spouting some of the worst one-liners heard since Hee Haw was canceled.<br /><br />The acting from the "teens" is terrible, the dialogue even worse, the FX stink and it looks a lot cheaper than the first film. Although I enjoyed him in his earlier Troma films, Trent Haaga (trying to imitate Jim Carrey here) is awful and no match for the hyperactive overemoting of Angel Vargas in KILLJOY 1 (which at least had a few dumb laughs).<br /><br />Yet another nail in the coffin for Full Moon studios, whose reputation as a fun direct-to-vid franchise has completely vanished since the TRANCERS/PUPPET MASTER days.
I really don't know why I agreed to watch this movie, but like a complete fool I did and for that I deserve to be shot! I had seen the original Killjoy, well I say I have seen it.... I started watching it but found it that bad that I ended up watching it in 4x speed to get it over with and get rid of the annoying dialogue, but I said I would watch it and I did even if it was in 4x speed.<br /><br />To cut a long story short Killjoy 2 kicks off where Killjoy left off. By this i don't mean the plot, I mean the complete and total bag of dirt known as acting and cheapness. I have nothing against low budget movies, in fact I kinda enjoy them, they are something different from Mega budget blockbusters, but this film is just terrible! The acting is diabolical and the script... well i think you could of given Stevie Wonder a pen and paper, and he would of produced something much better! This movie is just annoying, not to mention the annoying laugh the clown has which is so obviously dubbed! I didn't make it through this movie anyway, about three quarters of the way through it was time to turn it off and throw it through the window. It may of been a rip off to buy as a DVD but as a frisbee it was a mega bargain! <br /><br />Please for the love of mankind itself DO NOT watch this muck, it is possibly the worst thing I have ever seen and considering some of the muck I've seen thats saying a lot! <br /><br />My rating on this movie would be.... Nailgun to the head/10
Killjoy 2 is the same as killjoy 1. Bad acting, bad characters, annoying clown, bad lines, you name it. Honestly, I'm not all that surprised that more people haven't seen this movie. The only reason I watched Killjoy 2 is because I wanted to think that the filmmakers learned from their mistakes. They didn't. This movie is just as bad, if not worse, than the first one. That clown.... that goddamn clown.... I hate him! I hate him so much! And I don't hate him because he is a good villain... I hate him because he is annoying beyond belief! I hope that the filmmakers realized after trying and failing again that this movie is unrepairable. The last thing we need is a Killjoy 3.
One day I thought to myself....what is the worst possible thing that could happen today? I answered my self with a simple," Oh, it already happened. I rented Killjoy/Killjoy 2" on DVD. Well, what is there to say? The budget was not large enough to rent a police uniform, the movie cuts out sex scenes and death scenes. There is one funny line that I can remember, and the acting is far worse than the first one. There seems to be no lighting on the "set" (the woods somewhere) and the killer clown known as Killjoy (who makes Leprechaun look like The Exorcist)is less than spectacular. This time, he is not portrayed by Angel Vargas and is completely changed as a character from a crazy irritating clown to a different kind of crazy irritating clown that says "CHILD" a lot. Somewhere between Freddy Krueger and a blade of grass... lies this version of Killjoy. Somewhere between a pile of dirt and a pile of s---t lies Killjoy 2. It's badness is underrated. This movie does not have any redeeming qualities, except the song at the very end over the credits... which at leas provides some enjoyment. Killjoy 2 is not even really a movie, so much as an exercise in tension. Killjoy 1 is at least good enough to be considered as the worst movie I have ever seen. MINOR SPOILER######### Let me describe one of the supernatural kill scenes. A girl is locked in a wood shed of some sort (maybe an outhouse?) when Killjoy peers in through a hole. He has some small chattering teeth (like the ones you can buy at Spencer's Gifts) and he does something with them (maybe winds them up?!). Then he holds them in his hands and says a terrible line (which can't be written on IMDB). From what I gather of this scene (not from what is shown by the movie) the teeth went into the outhouse and killed the girl in some interesting, but unshown way, and then came back to Killjoy. If I were those teeth I would have run. Run far from Killjoy so he could never ever get his hands on me again. Killjoy 2 is hopefully the last Killjoy we will have to endure. Even as a fan of movies others would say are very bad, I think that this "film" could unify the human race and create world peace if it were promised that this film and anything reminding us of it would be destroyed. I give it 2/10 - simply because the creators succeeded at making the pictures move.
I have never seen the first Killjoy film, and I have also never heard a good thing said about it. So I see Killjoy 2 in the local Blockbusters and pick it up and look at the back. Starring Trent Haaga and Debbie Rochon it boasts. Now being the massive Troma fan that I am there is no way I'm not going to rent this film out, how can it possibly be bad with these two in it? Oh how wrong I was. Even Trent and Debbie cant save this excuse of a film from being as bad as it truly is. Trent quite frankly stinks as Killjoy although this probably is more the fault of the writers giving him some of the worst one-liners in the history of film. Debbie does put a solid performance in but it isn't enough. The kills are terrible as are the gore effects. For example check out when the guy is supposedly impaled on something or other. And just to top it all off the ending is just amongst the worst I have ever seen in movie history. The film doesn't even work on a so bad it's good level. Avoid like the clap.<br /><br />2/10
I have never seen the first Killjoy film, and I have also never heard a good thing said about it. So I see Killjoy 2 in the local Blockbusters and pick it up and look at the back. Starring Trent Haaga and Debbie Rochon it boasts. Now being the massive Troma fan that I am there is no way I'm not going to rent this film out, how can it possibly be bad with these two init? Oh how wrong I was. Even Trent and Debbie cant save this excuse of a film from being as bad as it truly is. Trent quite frankly stinks as Killjoy although this probably is more the fault of the writers giving him some of the worst one-liners in the history of film. Debbie does put a solid performance in but it isn't enough. The kills are terrible as are the gore effects. For example check out when the guy is supposedly impaled on something or other. And just to top it all off the ending is just amongst the worst I have ever seen in movie history. The film doesn't even work on a so bad it's good level. Avoid like the clap.<br /><br />2/10
It would be wrong and reprehensible of me to advise you to watch Killjoy 2, you must have better things to do, washing the car, throwing stones in a stream, but at the same time it's nowhere near as awful as you probably think it is. It's almost a proper film, which a lot more than most straight-to-DVD sludge can manage. Killjoy 2 is helped a great deal by Trent Haaga's manic turn as the eponymous clown, he throws himself into the role with such fevered abandonment that he almost tips the scales in the movie's favour, but, of course, it takes more than one man in big shoes. Tammi Sutton gives the most entertaining director cameo since Roger Corman in Creature from the Haunted Sea and the whole thing is nearly destroyed by the rushed, sugary ending. All over the place and almost good fun.
There is a fantastic song in Killjoy 2 that goes on about how clowns are usually really nice and fun but Killjoy is a killer. I don't recall the song in the first movie but when singer Olimpia Fernandez sings 'Killjoy, yeah Killjoy 2' is sounds like the 2 may have been added in for this dire sequel. The film is much worse than the first movie and that was really bad. This time the cast, including the usually excellent Debbie Rochon have given up trying and director Tammi Sutton creates no tension and presents merely a dull and steady film. Full Moon pictures produced this during their 'Urban' phase, none of which was very good but none so bad as here.
some would argue this is better mainly because of the acting; but it is indeed far worse for reasons that outweigh the improvement.<br /><br />the source from which all the problems stem; the story. aside from one of them people being shot point blank, with a shotgun, in the chest and surviving for hours without medical attention, there is a bigger problem. Nic, the gangsta with the golden heart is willing to do anything for the friend he just met that day; and that includes asking an evil spirit for help. Ce-Ce, who comes out of nowhere with a past in voodoo, is willing to summon Killjoy, so long as Nic can "hook her up." the acting, while improved, is still horrid. these people couldn't convey emotion out of a paper bag. the script doesn't help them either. stupid lines, and i can only assume no direction from the director. this script was read like Shakespeare in high school with a teacher whipping them as they went.<br /><br />while this movie (if you can call it that at its 80 min. run time (thankfully)) is perhaps even funnier than the first because of all these things, it is definitely more painful to watch. 1/10.
I am sorry but this is the worst film I have ever seen in my life. I cannot believe that after making the first one in the series they were able to get a budget to make another. Not that the budget could have been much - this is the least scary film I have ever watched and laughed all the way through to the end (actually I can't believe we watched it to the end) but I think it is because we couldn't quite believe it.
<br /><br />This movie sucked! The first one was way better. No one from the first has returned in this dumb sequel and in some way that is a good thing because of the bad acting but the characters in this film are not even better. Killjoy in the woods? Come on! Give me a break! I'm suprised killjoy's friend the Blair Witch didn't show up to make a cameo. Bad acting, bad story and just plain out silly and boring. DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME!
Both Killjoy 1 and Killjoy 2 stunk, but the first was better. The special effects in this movie were not special at all. Even though the killings were better in this installment, they were not anything to brag about. One thing that was worse in part 2 were the characters. They changed emotions suddenly, and some of their lines were just dumb. For instance one character quoted, " You better have some R.E.S.P.E.C.T. or you'll find out what is means to me." Once I heard that line I figured it was of the worst I've ever heard. Another thing that I hated about this movie was the fact it was too short. A successful movie has to go more than one hour and twenty minutes, like Killjoy 2. If Full Moon makes part 3 of Killjoy, that would be stooping to the lowest level they can possibly go. Overall, 1 of 10.<br /><br />
...the first? Killjoy 1. But here's the review of Killjoy 2:<br /><br />(contains spoilers, so beware readers)<br /><br />Oh my. Oh, my, my, my. I'll start off with telling you that I had no hopes in the least bit that this movie would be good. Considering that Killjoy (the first movie) is without a doubt the worst movie ever made, the sequel didn't have much promise.<br /><br />As expected, it didn't deliver.<br /><br />The deaths were even lamer than in the first movie. There was absolutely no eye candy whatsoever, and every single prop looked so fake that I wouldn't be surprised if they had a kindergarten class make them.<br /><br />Look, I don't even know where to begin. Hm, for starters, the movie wasn't even feature length. It was only an hour and eight minutes long (68 min.), but then again, ending it early was actually a reprieve. In fact, that's the only reason that this movie wasn't as bad as the first, because the first was longer.<br /><br />Usually, I don't give spoilers in reviews, but since I don't want any of you to go through the torture of watching this waste of film, I'm going to spoil away. Not that there's much to spoil.<br /><br />Let's start with the ending. KILLJOY IS THE PUSSIEST KILLER EVER. It takes explosions, firebombs, guns, etc. to kill all of the normal serial killers in horror movies. Guess what it took to kill Killjoy? A F***ING GLASS OF WATER. No lie. In the end, a girl picked up a cup of water and threw the water on Killjoy's face. Then Killjoy started screaming, and they tried to make it look like his face was melting by putting dried rubber cement on his forehead. Then he laid there, and the people went to sleep.<br /><br />Now let's hit the acting. VERY TERRIBLE. Not even one person was believable in the least bit. I don't even know what to say, other than it looks like they just hired a few hobos living on the streets to act in this film.<br /><br />Seriously, I honestly doubt that they spent any more than 100 dollars total to make this movie. They had nothing. Most of it took place in the woods, which wouldn't have cost them anything to film on. The actors weren't giving in any effort whatsoever, so it's blatant that they were probably "working" for free. They didn't have any kind of special effects or nice props, and they probably used ketchup for the blood. Hell, who am I kidding? They probably didn't even spend 100 dollars. They probably spent $3.29 on a bottle of ketchup and that was it. A f**kin' movie made with a budget of $3.29.<br /><br />For Bob's sake, they couldn't even afford to rent a cop uniform. In the end, after Killjoy dies, the girl wakes up and says "Where is he?" and the main woman replies, "He's gone." Then, suddenly, some fat goofy guy with scars on his face pops out of nowhere with a cell phone saying "You have a phone call." The girl answers and says "Oh, hi mom!" and smiles. Then the fat goofy guy walks along to reveal that it's a police officer. However, he's wearing khaki pants, and a regular button up green shirt, with a lame badge on the front pocket. Hell, it was probably the badge that the director got when he was in safety patrol in 3rd grade. Then they all got into a tan blazer and drove off as the credits rolled. They couldn't even get a police cruiser so they just got a tan blazer. F**kin' lame. Killjoy didn't even have the ice cream van that he had in the first movie.<br /><br />Killjoy is without a doubt the most flamboyantly gay slasher EVER. If there was a slasher that wore hot pink spandex and carried a rainbow flag, he STILL would not be as gay as Killjoy. Killjoy isn't funny either (and believe me, he DID try to be).<br /><br />The only good thing about this movie is an extremely lame threat given by one of the delinquents. Somebody makes a comment to some boy about not passing third grade, to which the boy responds, "I'll show you third grade!" in a threatening manner. That has to be the absolute worst threat that I've ever heard. "I'll show you third grade!"<br /><br />This movie doesn't even work on a "so bad, it's good" level. It's filth. Unless you did something bad, and you are feeling so guilty about it that you want to punish yourself severely, DON'T watch this movie.<br /><br />Just remember; if a flaming homosexual clown with a huge black afro tries to bore you to death with gay jokes (and attempt to kill you at the same time), just throw some water at him. Case closed.<br /><br />FINAL RATING: .1 out of 10
Thats not saying much. This Killjoy film has better cinematography and is more professional looking than the last. That doesn't mean it's more professional sounding. That horrible last film was about gangsters killing a kid and then being haunted by a voodoo clown. I thought the guy that played Killjoy in the last one was a bad actor, but wow!!! This Killjoy is honestly the downright worst actor I've seen in any movie, and I've seen a lot of movies. Thed last movie the clown came in about 15 minutes in, this one's shorter and the clown doesn't even come in until 40 minutes in, and it's only 65 minutes long!!! I give it a 2 because the acting from some characters is OK.
Suburban kids meet the forest. Killjoy is better in this part. He is more wicked and stronger as well. Nevertheless, most part of the acting is bad as well, like in the first one. Sometimes the characters say things to each other that do not make sense and are not convincing. I made an error to watch this one sober. You'll probably enjoy it more if you are not ;-). If you did not already stop loving clowns after the first movie, you definitely will after the second.....;-)<br /><br />Problem kids and their watchers are on their way to a camp in the forest. And what a coincidence, their car broke right in the middle of a forest and.....at night? That's just their luck. They find a house and one got shot, one of the watchers stays behind (why I do not know) and the rest eventually finds another house. In that house a voodoo priestess lives.....but she is not responsible for the resurrection of Killjoy. Who is it then? Well, you better watch the movie and find out for yourselves....
I really hope the makers of these "movies" read these reviews so that they know that people just dont want their movies. They are just trash and an embarrassment to the killer clown genre of horror. whether or not this was better than the first doesn't matter cause theyre both just plain terrible. I'm surprised they didn't learn their lesson from the first movie. Stop Now!! Warning to horror movie watchers, DONT WATCH, RENT OR LOOK AT THE BOXES OF "URBAN" HORROR FILMS, AND ABOVE ALL, DON'T BUY THEM!!!!
Killjoy 2 surpasses the first movie by just a little bit.The stuff that improved in here was the acting,the Killjoy make-up,and story.This one is more of a gore fest,it doesnt have the supernatural elements like the first one did.In this installment,Killjoy kills his victims in more normal ways,he doest set them on fire,and he doesnt shoot them with bullets that were in his mouth.The only thing I didnt like about this movie,was that the ending was a little half assed,in fact it was half assed,they killed Killjoy in a very cheap way.I would strongly recommend this to anyone who like horror movies.Seriously,the first movie was good,but the second is better.9 out of 10.
It is extremely rare that I see a movie from 1955 that I don't love. Noir, JDs, Sci-fi, Drive-Ins; I dig it all the most. Robert Aldrich is a director who has done plenty of excellent work, and most of this cast has fine performances under their belt. So what went wrong?<br /><br />When I used to work in the Independent Film world, we used to talk about something called "actors' movies." Actors' movies are movies that are unwatchable to anyone but other actors. Actors like "actors' movies" because they get to see ACTing - which is to say completely over-the-top melodrama. Actors love to be given the chance to totally let loose "give it all they've got" and they get a great satisfaction from watching other actors do so. In many interviews with actors they say "he was a great director, he never interfered with me in any way." Actually that's the opposite of good directing, because the whole POINT of having a director on the set is to keep the actors from making fools of themselves (which, given the chance, they will always do).<br /><br />Apparently Robert Aldrich forgot that on this project. Or maybe he was ill. Or maybe he thought there was no hope for saving the script in the first place, so what the heck? Whatever the case, here is an example of a lesser-known movie that is best forgotten. The characters gesticulate, pontificate and generally ham it up all the way through. One thing I can say is realistic: it's set in Hollywood and everyone acts like their petty problems are the most important thing in the world. Doesn't make it fun to watch, but it is realistic. What isn't realistic is that a producer so desperate to keep his star under contract is going to go out of his way to antagonize him in almost every conceivable way - including requiring him to engage in illegal activity. But this and other plot contradictions merely carry along the melodrama, increasing the opportunity for hand-wringing and shouted accusations. <br /><br />I did manage to get to the end of this film, which makes it no worse than a "3" out of 10 in my book. But, why test your own endurance when there is so much else available to rent?
The quality you're likely to remember after viewing The Big Knife is how claustrophobic it is. It's pacing is sacrificed to a uniform texture of dialog. It's talky in the extreme. Modern viewers will feel every point has been made (and then some) but the movie will still not move on, or do the viewer a favor and change the scenery. It's very inert. At the 45 min mark I was sure I had watched two very slow hours. My beleaguered response was, "Good God, where is this going?" It feels like Odets was paid by the word...<br /><br />This is a good place to note the decline of drama from it's high point in the 40s through the conceit-laden projects of the 50s and 60s until actual filmic merit was rediscovered in the 70s, only to vanish again. Here we get show-offy, conventional, emotional outbursts from Steiger, Lupino et al. and camera moves pre-arranged to meet over-practiced blocking. This is due to the rise of the Method; the regrettable trend of sacrificing every other merit of film, to grant actors their most selfish wishes. "Great acting," ho-hum, has killed thought in movies.<br /><br />Jack Palance's forehead & pompadour retract and thrust forward every time he reacts to something. It's disturbing.<br /><br />This is awfully boring stuff.
I've tried to watch this film 3 or 4 times, but I just can't get past the fact that everything about it is just awful. I'm sure it was a courageous move by somebody to cast Jack Palance as the protagonist, but there is not one single fiber of my being that believes that he could act at all, much less act against type.<br /><br />Yes, I understand that Clifford Odets was a brilliant author, but it's not evident here. This odd and forced mish-mash of 50's hipster dialog seems to obfuscate any genuine meaning, which explains why none of the actors, even the good ones (Steiger, Ida Lupino, Shelly Winters, Everett Sloane) seems to know how to deliver their lines - it's as though they don't understand the meaning of what they are saying. And in the meantime, Wendell Corey and Palance stage a terrific contest to see who can be more stone-faced.<br /><br />The direction is amateurish and completely overwrought. The physical interaction between the characters is as stilted as the dialog.<br /><br />And can we discuss that hideous set? It's so busy, ugly and contrived that it adds to the robotic, disconnected quality of the characters, the dialog and the portrayals.<br /><br />This film seems to suck the energy right out of me. It looks like everybody took an overdose of Valium each morning when they arrived on the set. It takes a pretty lousy movie to make Rod Steiger and Shelly Winters look bad, but this one succeeds.<br /><br />I can see that it might have been effective as a play on or off Broadway, where intellectuals and beats could have congratulated themselves for appreciating the power of the plot and the artsy flourishes of the pseudo-hip dialog.
The Big Knife, a movie about the dark side of the Hollywood motion picture industry, is ironically far more like a filmed play than a film itself. Apart from a few very brief expository scenes, all of the action takes place in the living room of the film's hero, played by Jack Palance. He's a movie actor who wants out of his contract with his studio because of the lack of redeeming qualities in the films they put out. His on again, off again wife (Ida Lupino) is also fed up with the studio, not to mention her husband's philandering ways. Unfortunately for them both, the head of the studio (Rod Steiger) is a real bastard. He has blackmail material to force the increasingly tortured actor to sign a new contract. But it's only a matter of time before he pushes the man too far.<br /><br />This film is not, I repeat NOT, a film noir. Rather, it's an exceptionally theatrical sitting-room melodrama. The plot proceeds at a snail's pace, and is so intricate and confusing that it is in violent disharmony with the static setting and carefully contrived blocking of the actual scenes. The acting is overwrought in the extreme, and veers sharply between out and out histrionics and softer, but no less unsubtle, soliloquies that are obviously meant to be poignant but come across as pretentious twaddle, especially in the hands of the woefully miscast Palance. Aldrich was obviously going all out for a stylized "something" here, but I doubt even he knew what it was, and certainly the audience never does.<br /><br />I think the main lesson here is that films and plays are very different mediums. What might have worked in a play did not come across as even remotely natural or plausible on film. The result? A big waste of time. There's little to enjoy here.
This is the slowest "film noir" film I've ever seen. Very weak script only provides opportunity for Jack Palance and Rod Steiger to deliver exceptionally well, lines that were made for an acting audition. Palance and Steiger both affirm they are indeed serious actors who can portray their respective roles with power, emotion and drama. The story itself moves at an incredibly slow pace, mostly taking place in a living room. The director obviously moved the actors around in a rythmatic circles as they delivered exhaustingly long lines, to keep the slow pace from becoming noticeable to the audience. The action doesn't pick up until the last ten minutes of the film. If you're one who's looking for more depth in a crime drama, this one's not for you!
An excellent cast who do their best with an awful script, inept direction, and some of the worst score that I have ever heard. More TV movie of the week than serious drama. Which is sad when one considers that the source material is very serious and very real. The film makers decided that instead of building drama and character, it was better to just show the most graphic and violent bits and hope that the audience would be shocked into sympathy and caring. In my opinion, one the most blatant forms of cut and paste film adapting.
The idea behind this movie was great. The story of a little girl facing abuse (both emotional and physical) and trying to deal with it and survive. What makes the movie fall apart is the terrible use of voice overs and the corny dialog. The actors have to point out the most obvious things over and over again. Also, there is very tedious, almost funny, overuse of metaphors in the voice overs. The high point is the acting of the little girl. Nice try, but this one's a stinker.
Perry Mason: The Case of the Glass Coffin finds Raymond Burr defending David Copperfield/Rick Blaine like magician Peter Scolari from a murder charge involving one of his assistants. A trick involving a suspended glass coffin in midair goes awry and the body of Nancy Grahn comes a tumbling out.<br /><br />Nancy was one of six female assistants who work with the act and we learn two things about her. First in a moment of drunken weakness, Scolari got seduced by her and she claims she was impregnated. Secondly she is living under an assumed name and had a secret from her past.<br /><br />Billy Moses who probably never thought he'd be doing such rough stuff back in law school gets to tangle with a couple of good old boys when goes seeking the truth in Grahn's home town. A little more action than usual for Ken Malansky, he almost gets himself killed. <br /><br />One big flaw in this mystery is simple forensics. The medical examiner's report should have provided concrete evidence that the victim was killed in such a way that Scolari could not possibly have done the deed. The police should have been looking in a different direction for the killer. <br /><br />When you see who the killer is you won't blame the individual, but you'll also see how the investigating officer James McEachin got it wrong from the start. It kind of spoils this particular Mason film.
In Los Angeles, the alcoholic and lazy Hank Chinaski (Matt Dillon) performs a wide range of non-qualified functions just to get enough money to drink and gamble in horse races. His primary and only objective is writing and having sexy with dirty women.<br /><br />"Factotum" is an uninteresting, pointless and extremely boring movie about an irresponsible drunken vagrant that works a couple of days or weeks just to get enough money to buy spirits and gamble, being immediately fired due to his reckless behavior. In accordance with IMDb, this character would be the fictional alter-ego of the author Charles Bukowski, and based on this story, I will certainly never read any of his novels. Honestly, if the viewer likes this theme of alcoholic couples, better off watching the touching and heartbreaking Hector Babenco's "Ironweed" or Marco Ferreri's "Storie di Ordinaria Follia" that is based on the life of the same writer. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Factotum – Sem Destino" ("Factotum – Without Destiny")
I have waited a long time to see this movie. IFC finally ran it one night. I thought it would be something like "Barfly" from Barbet Schroeder. Wrong. This film doesn't recreate that underworld of chintzy, dirty, smoke filled, character filled bars you associate with his stories. It also fails to capture that Bukowski attitude that Mickey Rourke did so well in the above mentioned film. That natural smart-ass attitude. Fans of Charles Bukowski will enjoy seeing scenes from his books on screen but those unfamiliar with his books could get the wrong impression about his works. This film looks like just another 'Movie Of The Week" about a drunk and his relationships. If you want to get a better idea about Charles Bukowski's world watch "Barfly".
Clearly this film was made for a newer generation that may or may not have had an inkling of Charles Bukowski's work. The autobiographical Henry Chinaski character in Bukowski's stories was brilliantly portrayed to perfection by Mickey Rourke in 1987's 'Barfly', also starring Faye Dunaway. Anyone who has seen 'Factotum' should certainly see 'Barfly' to get a better look at how Bukowski wrote his character. 'Factotum' lacks the greasy seediness of Bukowski's screenplay and the fearless hopelessness of his loner hero. The inadvertent humor that bubbles through in the dark desperation of Chinaski's misadventures doesn't work for Dillon as it did so admirably for the overweight filthy blood-soaked Rourke. Rourke's character makes the pain and pleasure of the previous night's misbehavior a place-setting for yet another grueling ugly day in the life of a drunken misanthropic unknown writer. Dillon's character misses these marks in favor of a strutting, handsome, relatively clean-looking wanna-be writer that scarcely passes for any moment in that of Chinaski's story. Dunaway's sleazy heroine Wanda is the perfect complement to the ne'er-do-well Henry. The women in 'Factotum' can't hold a candle to Dunaway's 'distressed goddess' and the use of more profane sexual subject matter in 'Factotum' proves to be more of a crude distraction than a tip of the hat to Bukowski's raw and unapologetic portrayals of dysfunctional relationships. I was stunned at how many of the exact same scenes were used in 'Factotum' (Marisa Tomei buying all the stuff and charging it to the old man is an exact rip-off from 'Barfly').<br /><br />If you want to see the best Bukowski stories on film, see 'Barfly' and 'Love is a Dog From Hell' (which also goes by the title 'Crazy Love').
This movie has some good lines, but watching Dillon's less-than-masterful Rourke impersonation just left me wanting to see the original. I like Marisa Tomei but she's no Faye Dunaway.<br /><br />Also, in my opinion, the number one movie rule is to make the lead character someone you care about. You might not LOVE the character, but you should care what happens to him. This is achieved in Barfly with the hilarious running gag about the fights with Eddie the bartender. The main fight in Factotum is when, completely unprovoked, he stalks up to the Lily Taylor character in a bar, punches her to the floor and calls her a whore.<br /><br />The whole thing just didn't work. Again, some great lines -- some laugh-out-loud funny -- but as a movie overall it's a fail. Mediocre attempt at reinventing something that was brilliant, and you can't get past that. Next? Let's remake Breakfast at Tiffany's with Kate Hudson.
doesn't mean this movie is good. i was really frustrated by it on many levels. it's kind of the tip of the hat to bukowski. hey, i've read that guy in college--let's see what matt dillon does with him. and i like matt dillon. i thought he came close to looking a little like hank, but mostly just the ruddy cheeks. i have to care about a character, though, and there just wasn't much here to care about. i think time might be cruel to bukowski, and that bothers me a lot, because the writing was solid in a sort of post counter culture time. hard to sit through, scenes that went nowhere, and a soundtrack that made me want to vomit. i ask for very little, got less.
A boring movie about a miserable loser...that's Factotum in a nutshell. Matt Dillon plays Henry Chinaski, alter ego of author Charles Bukowski upon whose novel the film is based. As we meet Chinaski he may be a writer but he's certainly not a successful one. He floats through life, getting fired from one menial job after another and not caring a bit. The fact that he's always drunk may have something to do with his not caring. He meets a woman, Jan, played by Lili Taylor and a relationship ensues. Chinaski moves into Jan's apartment and now instead of getting drunk by himself he can get drunk with somebody else. Good times. Eventually he's had enough of this relationship so Chinaski strikes out on his own. Unfortunately he still can't hold down a job so soon enough he's broke. At this point Marisa Tomei shows up and for some reason her character, Laura, decides to rescue this miserable drunken loser whom she doesn't even know. We soon meet some of Laura's acquaintances and the film veers off into a sort of bizarro world with this rather eclectic bunch. Soon enough Tomei and friends are out of the picture and once again we're left with Chinaski and his drinking and his miserable little life. There's some more time spent with Jan but mostly there's just time spent being a drunk, unemployable loser. And then the movie's over and not a moment too soon. 94 minutes of absolute monotony and it seems infinitely longer as the movie drags on. Nothing happens. Nothing ever happens. If you want to spend an hour and a half of your life watching Matt Dillon drink then this is the movie for you. If you're looking for a compelling story, well developed characters or any entertainment value whatsoever then you've come to the wrong place. Dillon's performance actually isn't bad at all. Too bad the movie which surrounds him is in fact rather bad.
Some twenty or so years ago, Charles Bukowski was a hero of mine. I blindly accepted the image that was created by intellectual types and seen in various films. Of course, I never got to meet the intellectual types that prescribed Bukowski as a hero. They usually could be found safely behind the counter at hipster video stores and record shops. These people hardly talked and when asked a question, usually sneered and nodded in some vague direction. They were useless when it came to locating a specific title, but their shelves were always stocked with strange and unique titles. To be inducted in the secret hipster club, I believed I had to shed my bourgeois up-bringing and espouse the counter-culture.<br /><br />My introduction to Bukowski started with the movie Barfly, the late 80's film that starred Mickey Rourke and Faye Dunnaway. I was a fan of Rourke at the time. He also embodied a sort of modern male fantastical anti-hero, a brooding intellectual type. At the time, this appealed to me. Barfly's hero scoffed at convention. A mid-30's tramp, who lives life with no ties, answers to no one, --Oh--and to be recognized as a genius by a hot female literary snob, icing on the cake. Afterwards, I read Post-Office and Hollywood, the later being Bukowski's take on his experience with the film.Now, allow me to fast-forward to the latest film based on Bukowski's book Factotum, one which I read and enjoyed. Bukowski takes the form of Chinaski in this novel. I often wonder where Bukowski ended and Chinaski began. 20 years after Barfly, the fictional movie Bukowski is still the same. I have watched about an hour of the movie and I have yet to see signs of the facade cracking. Here is why Factotum Bukowski was my hero. Chinaski is handsome (played by Matt Dillon). He has clean neat hair, styled, but not over the top. When Dillon smokes and writes, he looks cool. Chinaski goes from job to job, ignoring and/or fighting with various bosses. He screws two floozies, one of whom he lives with, walks out on, only to return to with little repercussion. Chinaski is his own man and we never see him emote. He's a sterile, one-dimensional, 30 something, James Dean archetype. Factotum lies to the viewer. It does so by haranguing the idea of a man (a writer) without consequence. A poor man, who's suffering for his art. What could be cooler than that? Now, let's say there are some truths to Factotum, in that the events took place. What the audience is missing is the pain that shrouds Chinaski's existence. Maybe the point of this movie, and most movies, is that for 80 mins., we need to escape the world that's filled with consequence and pain and take-up vicariously with an anti-social womanizer, that smokes, talks, drinks with detached coolness. One who rejects conventional behavior of job and family. My hero used to be Movie Bukowski. Long ago, that would have worked. It was easier then. Now, I have yet to claim a hero. Things are not as easy. Hipster logic and movie renditions of counter-culture icons offer no solutions or even ask questions.
After Matt Dillon's phenomenal performance in CRASH, most will probably rush to pick up a copy of FACTOTUM to see if Dillon is for real or simply got a lucky rebound from a great script.<br /><br />Well, Factotum certainly has its moments, but the plainness of ...everything will most likely turn viewers off. However nothing should be taken away from Dillon. His performance is wonderful and full of excellent deadpan humor, proving he's a solid actor with significant chops; it's just a shame about the directing and script.<br /><br />The story is about Henry "Hank" Chinaski (Dillon) and his refusal to conform to anything resembling normalcy. He quits or gets fired from jobs in mere minutes, only to find himself back in a dreary pub meeting even drearier women while trying to write a nonconformist novel. We never really know what the novel is about except that it involves "everything" (cancer, movies, you, me).<br /><br />Skipping from workplace to workplace and constantly returning to Jan (Lili Taylor, THE HAUNTING), a loser girlfriend who's just as dispiriting as himself, Hank tries vainly to discover what his life is supposed to hold for him. Whether he ever learns what that is is up for interpretation. Some may say that he never does, while others might argue that his life is simply a path to obscurity.<br /><br />Regardless, there's not much substance to Factotum even with Matt Dillon's fine performance. The story meanders through Hank's life without much thought given as to where to take the audience. And that's a shame. Dillon's performance would've shone even brighter if given a decent script.
Rented this from my local Blockbuster under the title SPECK - that may be the way to look for it if you still feel the need to see it after this review.<br /><br />It's a movie about the serial killer Richard Speck, who killed several nurses in Chicago in the sixties. Watching the movie, one gets the feeling that it follows the crimes to the letter. Unfortunately, that doesn't make for a good movie.<br /><br />Another problem I had was the near-constant music letting us know that this was a SCARY MOVIE, and some god-awful narration letting us know what's motivating Speck. The acting was average for this type of film; to give credit where credit is due, the movie is very beautifully photographed for my taste. Your mileage may vary.<br /><br />Over all, if you're interested in the subject matter, it may be worth your time.
I watched the unrated version of this movie and as a person who has studied the life and crimes of Speck closely, I must say this movie is a flawed but ambitious take on the real story. While capturing the true horror of Speck and the murders this film makes the following factual errors. 1. Speck did not inject drugs at the crime scene as depicted in the movie. In fact he was mainly an alcoholic and pill popper who rarely took drugs via syringe. 2. The Asian nurse who survived Speck's massacre did not squirm her way down stairs and under the couch in the living room as depicted in the movie. This would have been impossible. In real life she hid under a bed while Speck methodically eliminated his 8 victims. 3. The movie depicts Speck as being violent and brutal with the women as soon as he meets them. Not true. In reality Speck was at first calm and gentle, reassuring the women he wasn't going to hurt them. This is how he was able to tie each of them up. 4. The real Richard Speck was not the deep thinker the movie depicts him to be. FBI profiler Robert Ressler interviewed Speck in the 80's and said that Speck not only DID'NT know why he committed the murders but that he wasn't interested in learning why nor could he shed any light on why. Speck was known to be of below average intelligence and not the philosopher king who narrates this movie. If the story wasn't so tragic and horrifying, the voice over would be laughable. All in all, Doug Cole's performance is adequately menacing and cold-blooded even though I don't think the real Speck was so forward in his violence. No doubt he was a very violent person when under the influence but he was also known, after all, for being a fairly slick con man who was able to put people at ease before victimizing them. Beverly Ann Sotelo's performance as the surviving nurse is the finest in the film. She is a very good actress. If you are at all squeamish, do not see this film. It's very graphic and disturbing.
Where to start with 'Speck' the true story of Richard Speck, a killer of eight nurses in the 1960s. Director Keith Walley has worked on a few of the extremely low budget Full Moon Releasing movies (such as Birth Rite) and here works from a script by (at the time) Full Moon regular Don Adams. Unfortunaly whilst the film seems like a accurate portrayal of the horrendous crime the script isn't great, perhaps because the real Speck's ramblings were not terribly interesting!? Despite the care that has been taken to make this authentic it wreaks of a cheap cash-in of the acclaimed cinematic serial killer movies of the same period (such as 'Ed Gein'). Filmed in a dirty brown, not quite sepia, for the most part and narrated by star Doug Cole the film fails to present the horror of the crime because the narration is irritating, the colouring distracting from the story and the crime, though gruesome and upsetting to watch, is merely that and no editorial work seems to have occurred on what is pretty much a very poor quality camcorder viewing on the events. There is no examination of the motivation or of Speck's life really, just a cheap shot at a gruesome crime. Released by Full Moon there is little evidence of Full Moon's better output here, Charles Band ignoring his own rule that his films feature fantasy killings (e.g. dolls, monsters and so on) and not quite knowing what to do with this new reality. Incidentally Band introduced a special label for these films called 'Shadow Entertainment'. Band has said that he regrets the period of Full Moon output alongside Tempe Entertainment (whose Creator J.R. Bookwalter and regular Danny Draven also speak very badly of Charles Band). The Tempe era features uniform Apple Mac editing and brutal hand-held camera filming, very much like a home movie. Speck retains these qualities and whereas Witchouse 3, for example, managed to use these well, Speck is merely boring and gross.
"Speck" was apparently intended to be a biopic related to serial killer Richard Speck. There is, however, not much killing to be found in this movie, and none of it is explicitly shown. The most disturbing scene in the entire movie is perhaps when Speck stomps one of the eight unfortunate nurses to death in her own bathtub, yet even this is merely implied, and not shown, save for a few unconvincing downward thrusts of Mr. Speck's leg. The most entertaining part of this movie is most likely the voice-over, which should be a testament to the mind-numbingly boring nature of this movie. Every aspect of this movie is horrible. Unless you have a fondness for boredom, don't bother. This movie only clocks in at 72 minutes, but it feels like an eternity.
This movie is terrible. A true hockey fan would have to assume that the people that appeared in and produced this movie never played or watched a real hockey game. I got this hoping that it would be a "guy movie", but the only people that would probably enjoy this movie are females between the ages of 13-17. The hockey scenes are terrible, defensemen playing like they're 5 years old, goalies diving at shots that are 10 feet wide of the net, etc. It's so difficult to predict the end of this movie, though!! For those who have seen it, who would have guessed?? For those that haven't seen it, don't waste your time!<br /><br />I figured it out less than halfway through the movie. To call this movie a drama is ridiculous!!
I should know better. I've seen too many of Rob Lowe's early work to expect anything good from this movie, even if it is about Hockey.<br /><br />Here we have, yet again, another tired sports theme. Kid has potential for greatness, has the apparent to go far if his cocky attitude doesn't screw things up. And, boom, he comes out of it as that helluva player kind of champion. Is that all that can be said of sports movies? Surely, there must be other feats that athletes undertake.<br /><br />Nonetheless, this movie has got to be one of the biggest cheeseballs. Everybody's interactions are just downright silly, and not in a stupid-funny kind of manner. And I can't think of any ancillary qualities that could enliven my position. Not the actors (certainly not Swayze who plays Lowe's reluctant mentor), not the story, not the music, and very little from the skating sequences. <br /><br />Normally, I'm a sucker for 80s movies, even if they do tend to be a little fishy (i.e. North Shore, the Karate Kid), but this doesn't even make for good 80s trash. For a good 80s sports movie, check elsewhere. There's plenty of them out there.
Give me a break. How can anyone say that this is a "good hockey movie"? I know that movies tend to do a pretty p***-poor job of portraying hockey to the general public. And yes, this was made back when the U.S. hadn't embraced our sport to the extent is has today, but really. I have played hockey all my life and have watched even more, and this my friends is sheer lunacy. The scenes on the ice were stupefyingly bizzare... the particular instance to which I am referring is the "sword fight", er I mean the "stick fight" at the end of the film... during which everyone is just standing around and watching, not with fascination that this is actually happening, but in wonder as to who will win the duel between Youngblood and his nemesis Rakkie. Yes the story off the ice is a little better, I do stress LITTLE.<br /><br />I don't know, maybe there is no point in going on... I mean let's face it: the film is right. Hockey is just one big battle on ice... oh yeah with a little piece of vulcanized rubber bouncing around- occasionally into what is loosely termed a "goal". Youngblood is either appalling or hysterical, I can't figure out which... maybe someone else will have more luck.
Another awful movie about hockey. I if never watched hockey and saw Hollywoods version, I would hate the game. This movie doesn't make Canada look that great either. I can laugh at it and not take it too seriously. All the same this movie is awful, with every thing you can put in a 80's movie. In the end don't even watch it on TV. 4/10
The game of hockey I play and watch has something called "speed" which the actual hockey scenes in this limp movie never even come close to capturing. Add to that a storyline that is cliché, predictable and stupider than stupid with some of the lamest '80s music numbing your senses in every scene and you have "Youngblood". Oh, Keanu as a French Canadian, yeah, whatever. Gimme Dunlop, Braden and the Hansons anytime... ONE out of TEN.
This film goes into my "Worst Films Ever Made" file. I have a copy of this film which I watch when I want a good laugh, and this isn't even a comedy. I am disappointed that such great actors agreed to be in such a piece of garbage. This film is inaccurate (in its portrayal of hockey), offensive (to Canadians), and I wasn't even all that impressed with the acting. Even the story was a bit weak. If you have never seen this film, you're lucky. If you have, I'm sorry.
THE PLOT: A trucker (Kristofferson) battles a corrupt sheriff (Borgnine) by getting his fellow truckers to band together and form an unstoppable convoy that stretches for miles and soon creates a national media frenzy.<br /><br />THE NEGATIVE: The film's setup is weak and the ending even weaker. It has all the good-ole-boy/trucker clichés without adding anything new in the process. It ends up making SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT look brilliant and inspired. Kristofferson is much too laid back for a leading man role and cannot carry the picture. Borgnine's character is portrayed awkwardly. At the start he is made to look like a real jerk of a sheriff who overacts to a minor contrivance that starts the whole thing rolling. Then at the end he is made out to be a little more sympathetic and even secretly siding with Kristofferson, which doesn't work at all. In either case Jackie Gleason is a much better actor for this type of role. The worst part about the movie though is director Peckinpah's attempts to throw in a 'serious message' into this silly action flick that does nothing but slow it down and bomb in the process.<br /><br />THE POSITIVE: The only good scene in the whole film is the fight sequence inside the truck stop restaurant. Director Peckinpah puts a funny spin to his trademark 'slow motion' violence and the result is amusing. Unfortunately he starts putting all the action into slow motion during the rest of the picture until it eventually becomes tiring. McGraw is always a pleasure to look at, but unfortunately she is given very little to say or do.<br /><br />THE LOWDOWN: If you've read the synopsis than you have essentially 'seen' the movie. The song that this movie is based on is pretty good, but the movie adds nothing to it and should never have been made. This is all very uninspired stuff for such a maverick director.<br /><br />THE RATING: 3 out of 10.
Like another user I got this cheap - I thought. 85 kroners (£8). Although not worth that amount of money it is a total classic that I - like the other users - first saw when I was a kid and was looking forward to seeing again some 20 years after. The story is amazingly thin (which is why it might have worked for kids), but all the radio language and trucker stuff makes up for it. It'll look good on my DVD shelf in years to come. First viewing (1980): 10/10. Second viewing (2002): 4/10
They have taken a story dear to the people of Edinburgh's heart, a true story and changed it as Hollywood has done before to many a tale. The end result is a movie however well done for those how do not know the story yet totally different and inaccurate. The original movie of this tale that Walt Disney himself oversaw used the right breed dog that is crucial for this tale and did not make that John Grey was anything special he was a poor Shepard who died in poverty at the inn. If you like the story, watch the Disney original for a better heart- warming story. It's a Shame the cast and the potential was there for a terrific remake of a classic tale. Read the book for an accurate occurrence of the story. And if you really like it, you can visit the real Kirkyard in Edinburgh.
But like the Disney film of two generations ago, this film fails as well in the accuracy department. But at least Disney used a Skye Terrier.<br /><br />Is the true story to mundane for movie producers? I don't think so. There is ample documentation to accurately portray they true story instead of the fictionalized accounts we have had to suffer through. <br /><br />Some day, a movie will correctly portray Bobby's owner, John Gray, as the Edinburgh Policeman that he was, and correctly portray Bobby's license a being paid for by the Lord Provost. When that happens, I'll be at the theaters.
Greyfriars Bobby was NOT a westie - Bobby was a skye terrier. A highlight of my childhood day trips to Edinburgh was to go to the monument to Bobby. I grew up with the story of the valiant and loyal little dog, as every child in my generation did, and I remember lining up with my mum outside the cinema - with many, many other Dundee children and their mums - to see the wonderful Disney film. How could a movie based on such a wonderful story have been made using a Westie, for heaven's sake. That's like making a movie about the life of Robert Burns, for instance, and portraying him as an Englishman. I say,give Bobby back his breed!
Living in Edinburgh, and have a great thirst for history, I was very put off by the "libertys" taken. Wrong breed of dog for a start!! Bobbys owner Old Jock was an old single man, who came to Edinburgh and died a pauper in lodgings, not like in the film at all. For anyone coming to Edinburgh and hoping to see sights of the film,you will not find the graveyard in Princes St Gardens!! There were a few moments were a tissues would have been great. The actors were fantastic at padding out a rather flimsy script. I don't feel the poor wee Bobby actually got enough screen time, possibly due to being "lost" at one point. All that said, the film was fine and any 8 yr old will enjoy.
Just saw the film tonight in a preview and it's a film for kids only. It does not improve or add to the original Disney film in any way. There is a corny Scottish pastiche style throughout, not helped by weak writing (where motives are lumped in by the spadeful) and acting that is uneven and often unengaging (despite what reads like a decent cast). I have no problem with the wee dog - although there is a certain "Skippy the Bush Kangaroo" (see below) quality about his shots.<br /><br />* For those that don't know, "Skippy" was an Australian kids' TV series from the 1960s where the kangaroo would be an essential part of all the stories. It is said that to get poor old Skippy to "act" they stuck an elastic band round his muzzle that he then tried to get off with his paws - sort of appearing to be communicating with the human actors!!! Bobby has a similar range and you just don't buy his series of heroic rescues at all.<br /><br />Advice would be to take kids aged 8-12. Below that, they might be scared. Above that, if they or you love it, good luck to you, but this is strictly cardboard cut-out film-making for the undemanding. It's a missed opportunity since there is real pathos and cuteness in the story of Bobby and this film fails to deliver it.
Enough talent and sincerity went into making this film that I wish it turned out better. Everyone is clearly doing their best to be true to an intriguing premise, but it's too deep a vision, too involved attempt at disentangling mental delusion to survive a transition to the screen. It is an attempt to capture the dimensionality of gossamer patterns on celluloid -- the result is muddled and slow. I give it a 10 for effort, but a 5 overall.
This movie defines the word "confused". All the actors stay true to the script. More's the pity, because the acting is fine, but the script is a confused pastiche of pseudo-psycho-analytic random ideas. The pacing is mind-numbingly slow, and the soft-focus-lens cinematography gets on the nerves quickly. I give it 4 out of 10.
I had the misfortune to catch this on a flight recently. I had the bigger misfortune of having it played on my RETURN flight as well. Obviously Demi's attempt to get some "arty" cred, the movie is a shambles because of her lousy acting ability. A better actress might have made this work, but a simple look at the face of Moore shows the emptiness within. At least she's not ruining American literature this time out.
I went to see "Passion of Mind" because I usually get a kick out of the genre of alternate reality romances, i.e. "Sliding Doors," "Me, Myself, I," etc. <br /><br />But this was the worst one I've ever seen! I had to force myself to sit through it. I didn't even stay through the credits which is unheard of for me.<br /><br />The magical realism was completely missing because Demi Moore was grim and the lovers she was two-timing were guys who usually play villains, though each was kind of sexy and appealing.<br /><br />There was actually a psychological explanation provided for the dual lives, with a distasteful frisson of The Elektra Complex; maybe the magic shouldn't be explained for this genre to work.<br /><br />(originally written 5/28/2000)
Before I speak my piece, I would like to make a few things clear: 1)I am a chick who's not into chick flicks ("Kate&Leopold" and "Someone Like You" are EXTREME exceptions- Hugh Jackman's ass). 2)I only picked this one up because I am a Fichtner fangirl who looked forward to see him in a bathtub. 3)I am not a Demi fan, though I think her performances in "Immortal" and "A Few Good Men" were sublime and have earned places in my vid library- also I think she's a little crazy (no way is she NOT still sleeping w/Brucie).<br /><br />If this is a character study of an unfulfilled woman living dual lives of independence and happiness, then I'd say we have one narcoleptic melodrama. Marty: Literary agent. Makes 6-figure salary. Lives in an upscale Manhattan penthouse. Easy for her to read several hundred manuscripts and fall asleep at her desk for some highly suggested nocturnal escapism. Or perhaps stepping through an interdiemsional portal? She has the career, the looks, a cool car, a great pad, now where are the man and kids? In steps our boy Aaron- some real escapism. What are architects? They're artists who can do math, dreamers that make real money. Aaron gives Marty the dream of security and fills a void where she, obviously has no self confidence.<br /><br />On the other side of the coin, there's Marie, still living out her schoolgirl fantasies while she muddles through motherhood. Her children are her career and life. But what about Marie, does she only exist through her children? In waltzes William, a Parisian stranger who helps her focus on the one thing she has lost touch with: herself.<br /><br />A supposed journey of self-discovery and late a coming of age thrown in some with angst and some resentment to Marty/Marie's own mother. This gets a 3/10. All I could say is thank God for the BPL multimedia division, I wouldn't waste my $2.99 at Blockbuster on this, put it toward a Harlequin Blaze title.
The year still has three weeks to go but unless a really horrendous turkey shows up before then, Passion Of the Mind may be the winner of my lousiest movie of the year contest. An interesting idea badly executed. And, for that matter, badly acted. Demi Moore is very good at curling her lip and smoking cigarettes, but is that all she does? And why so many cigarettes. Did Ligitt and Myers or one of the other bad boys of nicotine have some of their illicit profits invested in this production. It's confusing, silly and moves at the frantic past of a arthritic earthworm. I gave it a 3. Should have been a 2!<br /><br />
I love oddball animation, I love a lot of Asian films, but I didn't love this particular product of Japan. The Fuccons are supposedly an American family (they're all mannequins) who have moved to Japan, and they're somewhat a 50's sitcom type family, with slightly more modern sensibilities at times. The DVD features several very short episodes (like less than 5 minutes each?) and I did not find it to be either funny or entertaining, not even in a weird way. I'm not sure what the appeal is of this. I did pick up on some satire here and there, gosh, who wouldn't, but satire is usually somewhat humorous, isn't it? And nothing I saw or heard rated even a little smirk. I picked this up used and it certainly SOUNDED appealing, but I guess either I'm missing the point or it's just plain LAME. The box even says it's Fuccon hilarious, right there on the front, but I beg to differ. 2 out of 10.
I wouldn't call myself a big fan of the genre inventive silliness, so i might not be the best audience for this show. Although, being a critic i do have a sense for what i personally like and dislike, this being the later.<br /><br />Lack of humor is a big turnoff when it comes to comedy, things can be catchy, cool and perky for about 4 minutes and after that you start getting bored unless its the badger animation from a couple of years ago (?) This is the exact opposite, with a stiff script and all overacted voice-overs its just plain silly and very very boring to be subjected to. Unfortunately, since it did have a big market ahead of itself, and a lot of potential.<br /><br />A waste of time.
I watched Cheats a few years ago with my friend. He hyped it up as a great funny film that is one of the best comedies ever. I think he was on crack or something. I just recently learned that this film was not released into theatres, I can understand why perfectly.<br /><br />THe basic plot involves a group of guys who cheat on pretty much all of their assignments in school to get good grades. That is the main problem of this film is that the morals are all bad. There are other teen comedy films where students do bad things but it is most often stuff that does not take place at school. So I think that the concept of having a whole movie that basically has kids cheating on everything is pretty bad.<br /><br />I did not like the characters in this film either. The main character guy is a completely smug arrogant idiot who is not a good protagonist. Actually I am not sure if you could say that there is a protagonist due to the fact that they all are cheating at school which is wrong. THe other supporting characters were not funny at all and basically the cast blows in this film.<br /><br />This film has a bad message and even worse acting and characters. There are other teen films that are way better than this film. So you do not have to see this one and that is a good thing because I do not recommend this film at all.
Andrew Gurland's "Cheats" is his fictionalized "true story" about four high school friends who maneuver to cheat on tests. The quartet are: supercilious school-hating Trevor Fehrman (as Handsome Davis), his likewise good-looking pal Matthew Lawrence (as Victor), their chubby school-hating chum Elden Henson (as Sammy), and crooked geekster Martin Starr (as Applebee). The adults include high-strung North Point principal Mary Tyler Moore (as Mrs. Stark) and pornography-loving father Griffin Dunne (as Mr. Davis). The high jinks begin with Mr. Fehrman and Mr. Lawrence supposedly urinating on a teacher's grade book. Put this one at the bottom of the pile; and, be thankful it doesn't go on anyone's permanent record.<br /><br />*** Cheats (2002) Andrew Gurland ~ Trevor Fehrman, Matthew Lawrence, Elden Henson
I'm generally not a fan of high school comedies, they rely heavily on humor in bad taste and rarely stray far from clichéd story lines and characters and downright dull dialog. However, I've had my share of guilty pleasures, particularly when I was still in high school myself. Seeing the oh-so-recognizable teacher figures get their butts kicked always cheered me up and an occasional laugh could also be the case. These movies only work if at least one of the characters is an instantly likable one, this was not the case in 'Cheats', especially not the protagonist. Of course, it didn't help that the actor in play was one of the most irritating, no-talent, arrogant kids I've ever seen in a comedy.<br /><br />To act in a comedy is no joke, it's hard to be funny: the delivery has to be just right or the material goes to waste. In this case there wasn't much good stuff to begin with and the jokes that were half-funny were screwed up professionally by the cast.<br /><br />This movie felt 3 hours long, the director never heard of pacing obviously. Stay away from this one, there are many other enjoyable teen comedies out there such as 10 Things I Hate About You, Who's Your Daddy and Superbad.
Totally un-funny "jokes" that fall flat, amateurish acting (with one or two exceptions), boring characters and dialogue that's, at best, mediocre. After watching this movie, one must wonder how on earth a producer could come across a project like this and think, "I MUST make this film." No wonder it couldn't get a theatrical release.
So.. what can I tell you about this movie. If you cheated a lot in high school, you do recognize some cheattips...<br /><br />This is the best thing i can tell you about this film!<br /><br />If you like American-teen movies, maybe you also like it!<br /><br />But i don't see this kind of movies as something funny.. sorry to say but if you are older then 10 years, i shouldn't advise you to watch this.<br /><br />Because there is one shot with a couple of beautiful women (girls.. in this movie) i'll give it a rate of: 2!<br /><br />so.. deal for yourself! good luck
I figure this to be an "alternate reality" teen flick...More precisely a Ferris Bueller type character as the leader of a cheat ring . Yeah, I know it's not meant to compared to Ferris Bueller, at least not in a "oranges-to-oranges" way, but it will none-the-less.<br /><br />Bottom-line: It's galaxies away from even being even a minor classic. It is watchable, though only if you're not expecting very much. That said, the main character has some charm, but the premise wears thin because the writing just isn't clever. The movie just did not deliver enough laughs, twists, or tension to keep my interest. <br /><br />To be honest I did continue watching...Watching with hopes to see if anything suddenly clicked. It didn't. So, stylish as it is, I wouldn't recommend this movie. BTW, it seems odd to see Mary Tyler Moore as the principal. She's truly miscast, I hope the paycheck was inordinately big.
Thought I just might get a few laughs from this long drawn out film, but was sadly disappointed. This film is all about losers who spend most of their time trying to get a passing grade with out even trying to open a book or accomplish anything. The film also portrayed teachers and the principal, Mary Tyler Moore (Mrs. Stark),"Labor Pains",2000 as complete idiots. I know this was suppose to be a comedy, but it never made me laugh and I thought the entire film was a COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME! However, all the actors gave excellent performances and had the hard task of trying to make this film an enjoyable and entertaining FILM! Just plain studying and getting good grades for college is the only way to GO!
I usually love teen/high school genre flicks, but this film was really lacking in originality. The only premise this film has is four friends cheating their way through high school and the strain it puts on their friendship. There's just not enough depth in the story or the characters to keep the viewers attention for the full length of the film. The acting isn't all that bad although the actors don't really have much to work with as the dialog is tripe and cliché'... After watching this movie, one must wonder how on earth a producer could come across a project like this and think, "I MUST make this film." No wonder it couldn't get a theatrical release. Andrew Gurland is a hack, avoid or burn.
This is an old-dark-house movie. A young couple creep around a weird mansion said to be run by Satan, where they run from and into one after another of an ill-assorted crew: a lady in distress, an ape, an ape-man, a midget, various odd-looking people, and (for some reason) two Chinese. They end up in a throne room where the hero is required to play a "Price Is Right" sort of contest involving a climb up seven steps with seven illuminated footprints; hence the title. For my taste it's too much of the same thing. The creeping around fun-house corridors is amusing for a while, then becomes repetitive. By comparison with Harold Lloyd or Buster Keaton or Laurel and Hardy doing the same bit in two reels, it isn't truly funny. It's not frightening either, and apparently wasn't intended to be: the household is too absurd. Most films in this genre balance the comedy with a genuine threat, and usually two--one that the characters are led to believe is real, and another for which it's a cover. Here the cover isn't to be taken seriously, and neither is what covered. A few moments of fun emerge from the mix, but it's rather heavy fun. The novel on which the film was based was a straight thriller and I think could have been played straight to better effect--and still could be.
I guess if you like watching dudes get "pumped up" to outrageous sizes,this is right up your alley.Otherwise,it's an exercise in ego. I don't need to do either.Anyhoo,it's of historic interest,I guess,to see how these muscle positive and brain negative chumps got that way(before/after/and in between steroids)-but otherwise,this isn't going to influence many guys and,as for women,well,I'm not one so I can't say....
This old stinker makes the Flash Gordon movies look sophisticated. It's so terrible I love it, and I wish I could find a tape, but none of the catalogs I've checked list it. The rock band leader who calls himself Commander Cody must have loved it too, because he named his band after it.
The comments for Commune make it sound like a very interesting film, one that I would be deeply interested in. Unfortunately, the producers didn't see fit to include closed captions for the hearing impaired and deaf. That leaves me and countless others like me, who depend on closed captions to follow a movie, completely out. <br /><br />This is inexcusable for any film produced in the year 2005. In a world where all manner of handicaps and disabilities are accommodated, it's infuriating and ironic that the ever sanctimonious entertainment industry fails to demand that all productions and movie theaters be closed captioned.
Ugghhh!!! This is exactly the sort of Pre-Code film that could incorrectly convince the viewer that films from this time period are lousy--and they are NOT--it's just that this particular film is horrid. Horrid because while the film tries very hard to be "hip" and "adult", it also is so hopelessly old fashioned, dull and hokey that I was torn between laughing at the film or just falling asleep!! This is a unique combination, to say the least.<br /><br />So why, exactly, did I hate it so much? Well, the film is incredibly sleazy but has no style and the film is meant to shock but lacks subtlety and takes too many ridiculous turns to be believable. The film begins with a cliché--a hooker with a heart of gold. Dorothy Mackaill is a prostitute and she appears to accidentally kill a man! Shortly after making her escape, she meets up with an old boyfriend who insists on marrying her (he doesn't realize her profession). Seeing this man's innate goodness, she determines to change her life and stop living the wild life. This is tough when she hides out on a fictional Caribbean island. Here, alone and waiting for her man to return, there is nothing to do and the place is infested with super-horny and totally unappealing men. In fact this portion of the movie is so dull, that the audience might have a hard time staying focused. The men on the island are so inflamed by the presence of Mackaill that they perpetually seem on the verge of raping her--only to be rebuffed because she isn't that sort of girl any more. Frankly, I got very tired of all these salacious scenes--there is simply too much eye rolling and tongue-wagging to make it seem anything other than a very bad film. And looking at all these ugly horn-dogs was just annoying and stupid.<br /><br />But wait,...it gets a lot worse. The man she THOUGHT she killed shows up on this tiny island (what are the odds?!) and he tries to rape her as well. However, he's not to be dissuaded and she ends up shooting to save her new-found virtue. While the jury on the island is about to acquit her, she rushes back into court and lies--telling them she meant to kill the man and it was premeditated (?) because even if she's acquitted, she knows the evil jailer will have his way with her when she is sent to jail for a gun possession charge. Given that the jailer himself gave her the gun to set her up, her rushing into the court and saying she was guilty seemed really, really silly. Why didn't she just tell them the jailer's twisted plan?! Supposedly she did this in order to preserve her virtue but to admit to killing someone so people will think you are a virgin?! So, in order to avoid a short jail sentence (and, once again, the threat of rape), she doesn't consider telling the court that he is trying to force her into a sexually compromising situation (the jailer has promised to rape her when she is locked up). And, just before she is taken to the gallows (in order to avoid the rape), the boyfriend shows up in time for her to send him off and the credits roll.<br /><br />Impossible situation and coincidences abound--coming so often that the film is just dumb. Combining this with all the sexual innuendo, this makes for a bad AND sleazy mess of a film which will only appeal to the most die-hard fans of Pre-Code films. All others, beware, this is very sticky and silly from start to finish!
I am in awe of the number of people who consider this film to be decent...much less great! Do the majority of people even have basic standards for a film they watch? I just don't know anymore.<br /><br />This "commercial cinematic product" doesn't really deserve the respect of being called a film. To call Dean Cain talented is a gross injustice to anyone who actually has talent. I have had a lot of respect for Lori Petty but most of that has gone right down the tubes. At least her role was extremely small. Maybe she had a bill that desperately needed to get paid.<br /><br />The ignorance I saw while viewing "Firetrap" was amazing. Let me start out by getting this off my chest: if you can't show fire realistically then don't show it at all. Okay?!! It's an embarrassment to all involved when you show lame effects that don't even come close to simulating an actual burning building.<br /><br />Some interesting tidbits: 1. A janitor opens the door to a large storage closet and finds the entire room engulfed in flames. What does he do? He tries to put out the fire with his broom! 2. The same janitor (who knows the building is on fire) later comes across a door marked "HAZARDOUS MATERIALS". His brilliant mind tells him that it would be a great idea to open said door. Big mistake! 3. A woman is giving a fantastically generous donation of $100,000 to a greyhound rescue fund but...she's wearing a fur coat to the charity event they're holding! (Wouldn't people who care about animals kinda frown on that sort of thing?) 4. Several of the people in the movie are forced into a vault of some sort with massive steel walls that even an electromagnetic pulse(!!) couldn't penetrate. Yet they have a spacious air vent leading right into the back of the thing that anyone could crawl through. That sure seems like a lapse in security.<br /><br />I could go on and on but I have grown tiresome thinking about this lame movie. Our "hero" whom we are supposed to be cheering for is a career criminal who early on tries to kill some police officers. What a swell guy! If the general public wants to waste their minds away on this drivel then more power to them. I just wish I could have it erased from my memory. 1/10
Another stinker from the PM Entertainment group, and thankfully one of their last.<br /><br />'Firetrap' is effectively a very low budgeted remake of 'The Towering Inferno' I don't mind Low budget B Movies as long as some effort is put into them - there is no effort whatsoever in 'Firetrap' is stars Dean'Superman'Cain, who is an absolutely terrible actor, seriously he has all the acting abilities of a porn star, but he turns out to be the best actor here and that's saying something, the rest are just a bunch of no hopers given the boot from various daytime soaps. The special FX are just rubbish, shots showing the burning building from the ground are among the worst I've ever seen, the fire looks like someone scribbled an orange pen at the front of the camera. on top of that there is not one character you actually root for - you hate everyone and hope they all die well before the 90 minutes are up.<br /><br />The script is embarrassing - The red herring's are signposted well in advance, someone else has mentioned this but 'The scene where the janitor fights off a blazing fire engulfing the building with his broom....hilarious, or same janitor going into a room marked 'Hazardous Material', Were these scenes supposed to be tongue-in-cheek? somehow I doubt it<br /><br />The one good point and only one good point was there was a fair bit of action in amongst the daytime soap dramatics which kept my attention, but so little care was given to everything in the film, I can't recommend it - Watch 'The Towering Inferno' instead<br /><br />3/10
This film was so bad it became enjoyable. If you want to see a soap opera cast decide to do an action film, this is for you! Overacting, irrelevant incidents, implausible dialogue - it has it all. The main character has a split personality and can not make up his mind whether he is thief, a loving father or a hero who will risk his life for others. He is plausible in none of these roles. This sets the standard for many of the other characters. The boss of the company whose building is set ablaze displays the same unpredictability, and so does his wife. And the punch line - who has taken the "chip" - beggars belief. I found myself laughing heartily and for that reason, I recommend you watch it.
Dean Cain, the one time Super-Man, plays Max Hooper the super-thief. He can break into any company and steal any thing for the right price. Unfortunately his latest heist ends him up in a high-rise in which someone else has set a fire to hide their own attempts to steal the product. Now the thief finds himself having to be the hero rescuing everyone in the building. Unfortunately the other thief is still in the building and the F.B.I. & C.I.A. are outside waiting for Max.<br /><br />The movie is barely passable. Dean Cain is a fun actor and has done much better with more improved material but here he is saddled with a weak script and pretty poor direction.
Firetrap is yet again another bad action film about a guy who- yada yada yada- and happy endings and fire, and burning, and overacting, and bad suspense, and predictable, and ------------------- just don't see.<br /><br />(Dean Cain got stuck playing Superman on Lois and Clark and can't get any good roles anymore. So i don't know if he is a good or bad actor.<br /><br />This isn't good.<br /><br />Why can't anybody stop that bad people who keep making these things? AI swear they just s*** them out on a conveyor belt and hope they are good. They need to make a guy whose job is to just burn the movies that look bad, just have a bucket of carosine next to him and dump the cases in. Then at the end of each day light it and go home.
This might very well be the worst movie I've seen in my life. Normally I don't watch movies like this, however I was forced to watch this at school. What a torment!<br /><br />The story is as average and boring as it can be: Boy meets girl at the Spanish coast, boy and girl fall in love, but the love between the two seems impossible and everyone and everything is against their love. At the end of the movie the film becomes some kind of weird kung-fu movie were the guys in white fight the guys in black. Awful!<br /><br />The action is so bad that it makes you laugh. The dances in the film that I think are supposed to be cool are so simple and laughable that even I can do them! And Georgina Verbaan is possibly the most irritating person i've ever seen on screen.<br /><br />Johan Nijenhuis is on his way of becoming the Dutch Ed Wood. His movies are so bad that they make you laugh.<br /><br />Victor Löw however gives a surprising good performance and Daan Schuurmans also acts OK.<br /><br />So please for your own sake don't watch this movie. However if you like watching soaps this might be very well worth your time.<br /><br />Yuk!<br /><br />2/10
Ok let's start with saying that when a dutch movie is bad, it's REALLY BAD. Rarely something with a little bit of quality comes along(Lek, Karakter) here in holland but not often. Costa! is about 4 girls going to Spain to go on vacation, party, get drunk, get laid (u know the drill). It's also about the world of Clubbers or Proppers. Pro's who're trying to lure the crowd into their club.<br /><br />I'm not sure how long it took to write the script, but i suspect somewhere between 15 minutes and 20 minutes because you're watching a bunch of random scenes for 90 minutes long. Nothing, and i mean nothing is believable in this movie. It's almost too riduculous for words what happens with the storyline. Suddenly the movie transforms into a sort of karate action thing. With a one-on-one fight with 'the bad guy in black' and cliche car chase scenes trough a watertank-car (can it be more cheesy). Also the words character-development and casting are unfamiliar to the makers.<br /><br />After having seen "Traffic" 3 days before this, i fell from sheer brilliance, from a piece of art to this. This is film-making at it's saddest. And don't start about low budget. Because even with a low budget you could write a better script. It almost seems that the film-makers were too busy partying themselves to make a decent movie.<br /><br />Anyway the chicks in the water at the end made it up a little bit, but for the rest of it, don't waste your money on such garbage.
Proud as i am of being a Dutchman, i'm truly shocked by flicks like these. Why? why this cheap acting? Why this storyline that just sucks? why a dozen sequels? why o why? they add a lot of hot Dutch chicks in an effort of saving this movie from redemption, and guess what? all the underaged breezergirlies in Holland go and see it. I was forced to watch it at a party. all the girls were going crazy when Daan Schuurmans entered the screen, all the guys took a another beer and grumbled... But the thing that really bothers me, is the fact that this kind of flicks are the only sort of movies Dutch filmmakers can produce... (apart from "Van God Los" and "Lek") This doesn't prove our superiority to other countries.. It doesn't add anything to our imagination... It just F**ks up the brains of little 13 year old girls... Johan Nijenhuis, I hope you will burn forever!
If you like soap-series, you might like this film. I recommend this film to fans of Dutch soap-series like GTST, Westenwind or even American stuff like The Bold & The Beautiful. If you don't like that stuff: stay away from this movie. It has the same kind of visual style, the same quality of acting, direction and writing.The film was a big hit at home territory, but wasn't sold anywhere else outside Holland and Belgium. Pretty strange for a commercial film like this.<br /><br />Maybe it says something....
This has to be one of the WORST movies I have seen. I tried to like this movie but they managed to mess up practically every individual aspect that pertain to this film! Cheap dialogue, no character development, no tension, not enough story to pull you in, no action apart from some REALLY cheap scenes. It seems they tried some things on the set and said to each other "hey this looks rather cool, why not put this in there" after which the director probably said "Yeah....YEAH this is genius!" and got back to snorting coke or something. When it comes to acting I think the only person that TRIED to make the movie worked is Daan Schuurmans but in the end it is all for nothing. Cause this movie SUCKS!! 2/10
The combination of Dan Haggerty (Elves) and Linda Blair (Exorcist) is enough to make any horror fan excited about this movie. And once you see the cover art to this film of a frozen zombie coming out of their cryogenic chamber, you'll think you were in B-Movie Horror Heaven. At least that's the way I approached this film. But boy, was I in for a shock<br /><br />I love horror movies. I love B-Movies as well. Nothing makes my day more than a cheesy little film about zombies, monsters, murderers, that sort of thing. But to say that this movie was lacking, is an understatement. This movie was pure trash. You'd think the zombies would look somewhat like what the cover-art of the box displays, but instead, you get actors with masks that are clearly sold at any Halloween display counter. Furthermore, the script is beyond pitiful. Our main character, Joseph, suffers the loss of his wife and son and seeks solace in the warm-hearted Mary, played by Blair. Not once do you see any sign of sadness or discomfort on the part of Joseph's character. Instead, we see the head of the cryogenic labs, a man named Dr. Miller, eager to get the dead bodies and experiment with their organs. There is no emotion or anything to make you believe you should give a damn about anyone in this film.<br /><br />All and all, very disappointing. All the elements to make a great horror film were there. You had your zombies, your decent actors, and your story. But the lack of good writing and little if any sense of direction screwed this one up royally. Overall, 4 out of 10
When I decided to try watching a movie about cryogenic zombies ("cryonoids"), I wasn't expecting a whole lot. That's exactly what I got, and then even less. Aside from a shortage of special effects (squibs?) and a severe lack of any acting talent, "The Chilling" also sports the absolute worst script I've ever seen made into a movie. I had to stop the tape numerous times during the first 45 minutes in order to repair the damage done to my intellect for witnessing such atrocious dialogue as there is found here.<br /><br />Furthermore, the collection of characters is so formulaic and one-dimensional it's ridiculous: the corrupt doctor; his assistant, played by Linda Blair (we know she's his "assistant" because he repeatedly refers to her by that title); the recently-widowed businessman with a heart of gold who develops a romantic interest with Blair's character; his criminal son; the Blair character's alcoholic, abusive, unemployed boyfriend, whom we are introduced to in the most contrived use of a flashback; and, of course, the rough, tough, bearded security guard who becomes the hero.<br /><br />Apparently, the preserving fluid which some cryogenics lab uses on its bodies is highly conductive, naturally resulting in disaster when all of the lab's containers end up outdoors in a remarkable sequence of events during a lightning storm (on Halloween night, no less). As for the zombies themselves, if you enjoy watching people in green latex masks walking around in aluminum foil suits, then "The Chilling" is the movie for you. The zombie action is very weak at its best; the zombies' primary killing method seems to be grabbing people by the shoulders and shaking them to death. The businessman and the security guard do most of the zombie fighting, including a highly suspenseful scene of re-freezing the undead with liquid nitrogen. Let me tell you, the steel mill scene in "T2" has got nothing on "The Chilling" in portraying an enemy getting frozen in his tracks like that.<br /><br />How Linda Blair ended up stuck in the middle of this piece of dreck is indeed a mystery. True, her career didn't exactly skyrocket during the 80s (sadly), but this movie is an embarrassment for her. The script doesn't even have the decency to put her to any good use. The most that her character is given to do is shriek out things like "Here they come", "Do something", "Hurry!". The only thing I can figure is that poor Linda was compensated for her work on this film in rations of food. The hero is played by Grizzly Adams himself, Dan Haggerty. In this picture, he faces stiff acting competition from his beard and the security dog, and he does his best to outperform them both.<br /><br />The only frightening part of "The Chilling" is the introduction which brings up the factual elements of cryogenics and suggests that "the film you are about to see could happen in your own community". As I was counting the number of times a few of the names are repeated in the closing credits, I was floored to suddenly see Lucasfilm get credited. Fortunately, it was only for the movie's sound production. 1/10.
I'm all about the walking dead, but my mind is still unsure of the walking, frozen dead. Sadly, THE CHILLING didn't help me make up my mind. This is really slow with nothing happening for the first 45 minutes, making me hit the "film enhancement" button several times. By the time the well designed zombies show up, it is too late and the director (two are rumored to have filmed this) has no idea how to shoot them. Haggerty, Blair and Donahue all look tired/embarrassed/recovering in some fashion. I will give the film credit as it predates the T2 ending with villains being frozen by liquid nitrogen. The Shriek Show DVD offers an extended promo reel from back in the day that runs 8 minutes long and I would actually recommend that over watching the flick in its entirety.
As to be expected, there's a pretty good reason why this film is so obscure and unknown in spite of dealing with the always-popular premise of zombies and starring the 80's B-movie queen Linda Blair, namely: it sucks! "The Chilling" is trying enormously hard – way too hard – to be a story with depth and factual background, whereas it should have just been a light-headed and gore-packed horror flick about frozen zombies. It takes an incredibly long time before anything remotely interesting or significant happens. There's a lot of drivel about cryogenics, which I learned in my physics class is the study of products and their behavior at extremely low temperatures. So naturally, in this film a bunch of people are studying the behavior of human corpses when deep frozen. Needless to say this is extremely boring, until two dim-witted night watchmen decide, during an electric power failure, that it's a good idea to put the metal-constructed cool cells outside at the heights of a thunderstorm. The coolers are struck by lightening, obviously, and the bodies spontaneously defrost and come to live to go on a murderous zombie rampage. "The Chilling" is a boring and surprisingly (for a late 80's effort, at least) gore-free horror film that doesn't even use up a quarter of its potential. All the painful attempts to build up an atmosphere of suspense and eeriness fail tremendously and I can't think of any reason why the zombie-attacks had to be so bloodless. Even in spite of the low budget available, they could have done better. The set pieces, make-up effects and costumes are pitiable. The research lab, for example, looks like a proper apartment flat whilst the zombies couldn't look less menacing with their green faces and foil-wrapped outfits. How Linda Blair managed to get involved yet again in such an embarrassing low-budgeted horror flick is a complete mystery. She's attracted to lousy B-movies like bees are to honey.
Woof! Pretty boring, and they might as well have shot it in black and white, it was so colorless.<br /><br />The movie starts with rolling text explaining cryogenics, and asking whether god or Satan is behind it. There are some protests outside a cryogenics lab. Some people rob a bank, and many of the robbers and guards get shot. The father of one of the robbers (I think) arranges to have his son frozen. There's a lot of jumping around in the beginning from scene to scene introducing characters without us knowing how they relate.<br /><br />There's a power outage, and the cannisters containing the frozen people get struck by lightning, and they emerge as zombies. They're all wearing silver mylar-like suits, and their skin is dark green and wrinkled (no idea why they look so bad - being frozen evidently didn't preserve their looks), and they have silver eyes. They go around killing people, sometimes lurching like zombies, sometimes moving like normal people.<br /><br />Linda Blair keeps showing up every once in a while, to what purpose I'm not really sure. I think her character works at the cryogenics lab, but she's not very important to the plot, and her role is very small.<br /><br />The movie ends with some freeze frames with text captions that tell us what happened to the characters next, which are pretty silly.
"The Chilling" directed by Deland Nuse and Jack A.Sunseri is one of the worst zombie flicks I have ever seen.Why Linda Blair("The Exorcist","Witchery")appeared in this stinker is beyond me.The plot is really dumb:the frozen bodies at a cryogenic lab are revived after lightening strikes and turned into cannibalistic zombies.The characters are completely one-dimensional and stupid,the zombies look horrible and there is no gore.Avoid this cheap piece of trash like the plague.My rating:1 out of 10.
Well, I like to watch bad horror B-Movies, cause I think it's interesting to see stupidity and unability of creators to shoot seriously good movie. (I always compare this movies to - for example - some Spielberg's works and again-and-again don't understand the huge difference in what I see.) I like Ed Wood's movies cause it's so inept it's very funny. But people!!! "The Chilling" is not funny and is not even "interesting". It's EXTREMELY BORING horror movie without ANYTHING what makes even bad movies watchable. There's no acting, no screenplay, no direction, no thrills and not even blood. It's extremely inept amateurish film. It's definitely the WORST movie I had ever seen (and I had seen a lot of "worst movies" - believe me). I warned you !!! 1/10
Really for a short film that looks high budget this is just a candy coated piece of cr*p. It tries so hard to be hollywood. But even hollywood stories have an okay story (sometimes). Money wasted on an effort to be hollywood. Waste of almost a half hour of any viewers time. For the short film buff, look elsewhere...
This short film doesn't get there. Cliche' and not very funny attempt at dark humor. Humor isn't funny enough to get you interested and the protagonist isn't likeable so you really don't care about what happens anyway. Producer spent some money on this flop and it shows in the production value which is the only saving grace.
Anyone who sees this film will notice that the makers threw a lot of money at this film. It's interesting they titled it "The Hole"! The production values are good for a short film. The hole tries to look big budget and does in some ways but is hampered by the video format it was shot on. I speculate if this was shot on 35mm it would look incredible and would elevate the content somewhat. Many hollywood movies look good and that's enough for an audience regardless of story and content.<br /><br />My honest opinion, 3 out of 10 for this effort. Maybe Ishimoto's next film will deliver.
This was an awful short film that tries to be funny in a dark way but wasn't funny at all. Say at a film festival in Chicago. It really is what the title says and I simply wasn't into it at all. The bad storytelling was what did it in. If you re-wrote it and re-shot it, it "might" work. This attempt fell in "the hole". Horrible filmmaking.
Comedy is a hard beast to conquer. Ishimoto fails on all accounts, as a writer and director. Some things, like making movies that are funny, just need to be left to the professionals. 1 out of 10. Awful. It wasn't funny. I tried to laugh but it just wasn't funny. I wasn't the only one, no-one else at the Chicago festival was laughing either, at least at the showing I saw. Simply very bad, sorry :(
Directed by the same Jin Ishimoto that put Neoedision and flixer.com (a once promising online film community) temporarily out of business and off the net because of his directorial style and method of filmmaking on his next film GIRL'S BEST FRIEND.<br /><br />THE HOLE suffers from this "look at me, I am a filmmaker" style of filmmaking that is becoming the near standard in today's hollywood, to the detriment of content.<br /><br />THE HOLE actually starts out with a unique concept but that concept and the promise of captivating content soon is destroyed by the "look at me" directorial style of filmmaking.<br /><br />There are some funny moments that still shine through the pretense but it is a painful short to watch.<br /><br />How sad it is when the new breed of "filmmakers" choose not to be a servant to the story but rather try and dominant on and off screen. Heck, they don't care, as long as they get their studio deal, house on the beach and a new car, content and presentation are secondary issues.<br /><br />The real sad part of all this is Hollywood embraces the "look at me" attitude so much that the whole aesthetic of filmmaking is changing. Rather than present a story in a straightforward way that puts the story first, today's directors are getting "experimental" i.e. "look at me".<br /><br />Is it me or am I the only one that was really put off by Sena's opening minutes of SWORDFISH. That movie went on to rise above Sena's directorial attempts at "look at me" filmmaking, Unfortunately this short film by Mr. Ishimoto does not.<br /><br />3 out of 10 rating from Elec Tv.
It is sad what they are letting into film festivals these days. I had to sit through over twenty minutes of this dreary short that wasn't funny at all to get a good seat for a feature film that I wanted to see at a local film festival. The festival planners paired this horrible short with a great feature. I am just glad the feature was good, otherwise I would have not been a very happy camper!<br /><br />For a comedy short film it got no laughs. The title says it all.
This film had some funny moments. Louie, the main character was well cast along with some other decent supporting characters. The opening shot of the movie set the tone but the direction and story went downhill from there. Aside from a twist at the end (interesting and funny also), I wish this film had better direction and a more developed story. Without giving any of the plot away, the whole idea is better good! I just wish it was executed better in this short film. The potential was there but it just didn't deliver the goods.
Poorly directed short "film" (shot on hi-def or betacam it appears). It screams student film/video all the way. The premise is limited in scope and the short actually feels a lot longer than it runs. Some interesting acting moments and some decent production value, but not enough to lift this film from "the hole" it has fallen into.
This is a poorly written and badly directed short film, pure and simple. What is interesting and keep me watching, to some extent, was the production values. Shot on video it appears, with a bad script and bad direction, one would think it would also have horrible production value. That is what the viewer expects when they watch a film that is terrible and shot on video. BUT Not in this case, they spent some money and it shows. It keep me very mildly interested to see what was coming next, just to see!<br /><br />Probably the worst short film I have seen that looked big budget hollywood even though it was shot on some sort of video format.<br /><br />Instead of spending the sum of money they must have spent for some rather impressive set design, it would have been nicer to see a better executed story with some good direction. But then again how can we expect new filmmakers to do this when even hollywood won't.
<br /><br />After the wit and liveliness of Highway 61 and Roadkill I expected this movie to shine, but it was as bloated and self-deluded as the hard-rock stars it parodied. The pace dragged, not helped by an over-long hallucination sequence, the characters were flat and unmemorable, and Art Bergmann is no Jello Biafra. I had to poke myself to stay awake.
The audience sat in silence through almost the entire film, with only a few, rare, occasional chuckles. The character of Maxwell Smart was so inconsistent, I felt whip-lashed. When it is convenient for the plot, Smart behaves like a master spy. At other times, he acts like an imbecile. They lift many classic lines from the television series, but they don't work in this version. The classic "missed it by this much" is funny if it is spoken with attempted braggadocio by someone who is an obvious failure - but it loses all humor when spoken by someone who is qualified. To a slightly lesser degree, many of the other characters move at a dizzying pace from skilled to cartoonish incompetent. Siegfried, the main villain, would seem to be intelligent, but he makes decisions that make no damned sense at all. Still, none of the characters in the film is as incompetent as the writers of this mess. I am utterly depressed that so many IMDb users think this was good.
This movie sucked. The problem was not with the cast. I think the cast was great, lots of good talent, lots of great acting. But the script was TERRIBLE! It seemed to be mostly just a frame work in which Steve Carrell could do his improv. And that is what he does best, but it just didn't work here. The script was hard to follow, the story was non-sensical, and scenes were random and lacked direction. Also, much of the action was extremely contrived and poorly thought out. It was a good effort, but as Max says, they missed it by THAT MUCH! I am shocked to see how many glowing reviews there are for this stinker here on the IMDb. Obviously, the movie producers are getting people to write lots of positive reviews on their movies and fill up the entries on the IMDb. If you read the positive reviews and compare them to the negative reviews, it is pretty clear which ones are genuine reviews from normal users.<br /><br />This movie was full of problems and jokes that just didn't work. I loved Steve Carrell in Anchor Man, and I like his comedy and style. But I will tell you that I never once laughed while I was watching this movie. Yes, I had a couple of light moments, a couple of chuckles, but no real laughs. Nothing that struck me at all.<br /><br />Spoiler Alert! One ridiculous scene was when Max had his hands binded on the airplane and he goes to the bathroom to try to escape. He uses his special Swiss Army knife...but instead of just using THE BLADE OF THE KNIFE, he tries to SHOOT the binding with his miniature crossbow. And as the crossbow miss-fires and shoots little arrows into him over and over again (almost putting out his EYE), Max doesn't give up or try the blade instead...no, he just keeps shooting himself with the crossbow. What was he really expecting to do with that crossbow? It seemed to be THE WORST option on the knife to try to remove the bindings. It just made absolutely no sense.<br /><br />That is a good example of the typical circumstances in the scenes that made up this movie. They were ridiculous, poorly thought out, poorly motivated, and made of pure nonsense. And that was truly distracting.<br /><br />As I said, this movie was a big let-down, and I recommend you avoid it. A note to the IMDb: You should do something about these phony reviews that people are leaving. It degrades the authenticity of the site.
In yet another miserable attempt to make a quick Hollywood cash-in of one of televisions greatest masterpieces, Peter Segal has created a monster. Taken out of context, if one did not know Brooks' work before viewing, the movie would be a lame big budget film that isn't sure if it wants to be fat joke and stupid comedy, or just an ordinary action film with nothing to move on. However, as a young generation Y'er who just recently spent two months obsessing over the five seasons of Get Smart, the 60's TV show, this movie pained me from the moment I entered and saw Steve Carell dumbing down the part. The backstories, agent 99 getting plastic surgery and 86 as an analyst who was formerly morbidly obese, shames the complexity of the original duo and paints a flat boring reevaluation of them. It seems the screenwriters, unable to be truthfully funny in both dialogue and situation, fell back on lame set-ups for Don Adams famous lines, flashbacks to fat camp, references to Carell's part in the office in the interview style camera angles they have, and a female chauvinism that falls flat on its face.<br /><br />For those who have seen the original, the writers of this movie thought they'd include some memories. They mention Herbie, Fang (now a worthless tiny furry dog that Carell covets), the shoe phone, the cone of silence, and his classic red car and the doors and phone that intro'd the show. The classic music is back, but now everything is updated, generally for the worse. Cone of silence is now some weird blue telekinetic force field, control headquarters are right under a museum that preserves Control's past. The movie lacks any creative random tech, and replaces it with crossbows in swiss army knives. Lots of the "humor" in the movie is Carrel hurting himself, or another character being hurt, whether it be carrel spending two minutes shooting himself accidentally with the crossbow, or getting punched by security guards, or throwing up in airplanes. In the original, Smart would insult a big foe, attack him with no success, and try to buddy up with him before getting pulverized. In this one, he attacks without success and gets pummeled. It seems the screenwriters didn't understand the humor was established with the dialogue and not the pointless violence. It's like they took the names from the show, and cut out all that made it good in the first place.<br /><br />The poster hides Carell's face beyond that of Hathaway's. The movie likewise, shies away from anything that could make it good. They intertwine the classic music with the over-dramatic action and romantic music in big-budget films. Whereas the original fed off a campy feel, this one replaces quality with massive doses of cgi explosions and pow sound effects. I was really looking forward to this, as I finished the original series just two months ago and it ranked in my top five shows of all time. However, this was a massive disappointment. The credits say they collaborated with Mel Brooks and Buck Henry, but in all the things I've read on the internet, they were largely left out of the writing process. In conclusion, if you want to waste your money on a cash-in with little value and no respect to its namesake, go for it. But be prepared that the ride is not how you remembered it.<br /><br />PS: I almost forgot the George Bush humor. They mention "Nuculor", falling asleep at fine art, President's working for their vice pres, and appreciating tackles over solving real problems. If you're into hearing the same jokes you heard 3-4 years ago in big budget movie form, chuck your money here.
This movie is in the same league as Ishtar. Lots of wasted talent. Who let this bomb escape? When Sigfried says an example has to be made, in reference to a nuclear bomb, I said "Please let it be this theatre!" Don't waste your time. Not even worth a free rental! And where did they get these shills to fill the comments section on IMDb? I can't believe that anyone who has ever seen the original series enjoyed this stinker. Steve Carell is not a physical comedian. If they removed the "comedy" and made it a straight action movie, it could pass. What the heck was the purpose of the dance scene? Also, the fat jokes and references were tasteless. This movie never missed a chance to go for the lowest common denominator and scenes just ended, it seemed, as if no one thought them through. Just awful! Save your time, if not money and give this movie a pass!
Don't believe the hype. If you have high hopes or have anticipated this movie to any degree, you may be disappointed. Even the hilarious and talented Steve Carrell can't save this poorly written, over-long silly spy flick. For the purists (fans of the original TV series), this movie bears little resemblance to the original characters and influence. Agent 99 and Maxwell (except for their names) are simply not the same characters. There are several isolated references to the original, but not enough to convince this fan that it is anything more than a poor shadow of the TV version. For those not familiar with the original TV series, you may not be disappointed but chances are you will be bored. There are a few cheap Hollywood political shots as well (really pathetic and oh so typical for an election year). We left after the first hour and weren't alone. Some left after 20 minutes.
Yet another TV show becomes a movie. Steve {The Office} Carell plays dimwitted agent Maxwell Smart in a movie that's so bad, it makes the worst movie you ever saw become the second worst movie you ever saw. The seventh rate story- if you can call it that has a megalomaniac trying to take over the world. It is so unfunny, it is absolutely pathetic. About the only thing Anne Hathaway does as agent 99 is look good-she seems incapable of doing anything else. Bill Murray has the fine sense to limit his screen time to about 90 seconds, and a few faces from the TV series turn up in very small roles. Movie is supposed to be part thriller and part action film. It is neither. Even though I really was not a fan of the TV series, at least it was light years ahead of this piece of -hit. All this does is drag it through the dirt and cheapen whatever good memories we had of it. Thank God Don Adams is not here to see it. Keep it up Hollywood! Keep making crappy movies like this and keep sendin 'em to the multiplexes on a weekly basis. No wonder the film industry is going down the tubes. This movie is so rotten, it's NOT even good for laughs. If this movie were a newspaper, it could be used to line the bottom of a bird cage. There is absolutely no reason to see this movie. A root canal is more enjoyable than this.! Rating- zero minus five stars. Unless you are a Masochist, STAY AWAY. Better still, do what the title says- Get Smart and save your nine bucks. You will be able to buy about 2 gallons of gas with it. Put it in your car and be thankful you did not waste it going to a multiplex to see this bomb!
What a sad surprise.<br /><br />Being a die-hard fan of the original series (starring Don Adams) I was really looking forward to this. Poor fool me. This is sillier and more brain dead than a monkey's bottom.<br /><br />To say it was bad would be a severe understatement. It is/was the worst movie (well first 30 minutes of one) I have seen for a long time. I couldn't stand more than the first half hour, preferring to watch my hard drive de-fragment.<br /><br />I can tolerate bad... bad is O.K., sometimes even cute. BUT up with contrived Hollywood crap (and this has to be the worst in many years) I will not put. This movie is a gross insult to the collective intelligence of humanity! My five year-old daughter could have written better - and she is not even dislexic!!! I'm really tempted to try watching the rest of it, but I'm afraid I have better things to do... like making pizza dough and watching it rise.<br /><br />What a sad disappointment. No... I'm buggered off! What a swindle! As Mel Brookes once said; "Piece of shirt!"
I have never seen the TV Series or the previous movies. Probably that's the reason why I didn't enjoy it much. Boring and just not funny, sums it up nicely.<br /><br />Considering the budget the movie seemed to have, it's embarrassing they couldn't do an even passable job.<br /><br />We went to the cinema with no exceptions' at all and the hope to see a somewhat funny movie that wouldn't be too taxing on the mind. My friend fell asleep halfway through the movie and I spend the next 2 hours hoping that it would finally pick up. A hope, which died with the end credits.
Get Smart should be titled Get Stupid. There is not one funny line or gag in the entire film. This film is so bad it makes the Austin Powers films look Shakespearean. A few more films like this and Steve Carell can kiss his career goodbye. As for Anne Hathaway, what is she doing in this film? She's a good actress but is just plain terrible.<br /><br />The writing is pathetically lame. There is not one funny, clever, or witty line. There is not one good sight gag.<br /><br />The directing is terrible. Comedy relies on timing. Someone should tell the director that. Every line that is supposed to be funny (and isn't) is delivered with absolutely the worst sense of comic timing I've ever seen.<br /><br />0 stars
There is the thrill of low-budget film noir. And there is the frustration of meandering, uninteresting movies made on the cheap. This one falls into the second category.<br /><br />The Spot is the name of a nightclub. The film is about a policeman whose father has been killed by gangsters. He heads out to track them down.<br /><br />Maybe it was the bad print. Maybe it's me. But I felt I'd seen this a hundred times, most of those times better than it is here.<br /><br />It has promise, too: The cop is fascinated with a woman who plays records she introduces over juke boxes. They then meet. Now, though this was made well before I was born, I have seen that kind of juke box. And it is incredibly fascinating: When I was a teenager, I wandered into a bar that still had such a device. I always liked juke boxes, in bars or diners. But this one was different. You talked to it and a sultry sounding female voice talked back to you! That is addressed here but dropped into the general, uninteresting stew.<br /><br />The movie has one thing going for it: In a small role, it features the very young Anne Jeffreys. What a beauty she was, and doubtless still is!
Wow, even American Idol and So You Think You Can Dance have more adult stuff now than WWE ( at least the auditions has a number of people abusing the judges) and here is WWE, plodding with one of the worst moves in TV history, by changing itself into PG. Now when I switch sometimes to see what's going on, this is what I get:<br /><br />1) Hornswoggle, the ugly midget sharing his space with the main eventers for apparently no reason except for thrilling the young fans and of course beating Chavo Guerrero, a capable wrestler, in every match<br /><br />2) A guest host (arghh....!) every week to spoil the teaspoon of fun which was otherwise present. All these host are cheap B-grade celebs trying to catapult to fame again, by cracking horrendous, 5 year old jokes and making silly references.<br /><br />3) Cryme Time and a female wrestler (forgot her name, most probably Eve) giving lessons on various "street" words (sob) which are neither street nor cool. They were fun before, stealing stuff and being loud mouths.<br /><br />4) The divas are clad in unwatchable outfits, tying their best to look "sexy, smart and powerful (by the way, I hate this catchphrase) Remember when Torrie, Trish and Sable were there? Those were the times. Plus these divas are bad wrestlers, which adds to the misery. I have seen some old matches of WWE in Vintage collection and the divas over there were "professional" not amateur.<br /><br />5) PG move restricts so many things: almost no blood during matches, DX being terribly irritating, John Cena doing even more of his patriotism act, crowd containing many children (who are so annoying), almost no "heels" etc<br /><br />6) And yeah, why keep PPVs so often. One in every month, have they lost it? No actual feud or rivalry is ever created and the ones that are done look fake and just-till-the-PPV-gets-over ones.<br /><br />7)Vintage Michael Cole and a few of his quotes:<br /><br />" Ladies and Gentlemen, you are watching the longest running television show in history" (every week"<br /><br />" The BRUTAL and VICIOUS assault by (he doesn't use it for anyone else) Randy Orton/Legacy"<br /><br />" A vicious attack on Stephanie McMohan, Triple-H's husband!!!???"<br /><br />WWE is now almost towards its demise. Hope Vince gets up from his slumber and does something ( bring back the TV-14 or attitude era) 2 out of 10 for the current state of WWE.
This is absolutely nothing like the WWF and the 'Attitude Era' of the WWF. I have always been a dedicated WWF fan and I never took a glimpse of its competition. Now, I rue the day that I wanted the WWF to take charge. At the least the WCW would try something new and radical all the time instead of keeping up as a mask of the actual intentions of the show and this holds true to ECW as well. The WWF has always been about Hulk Hogan, Andre The Giant, and other old wrestlers like so and the 'Attitude Era' only happened to catch up with the radical ideas of the competition. The WWE is the same trash as it was before the Attitude Era only dumbed down and demoralized. The wrestlers are terrible, the brand split is mind scrambling, and the story lines and stipulations are non-existent. The WWE is so bad that it ceases to even be a former shell of itself by pushing characters and wrestlers into the main event suddenly and by retaining barriers of creativity. Sure, the show shakes the brains of sweet, innocent, and easily brain-washed children and meager, lousy, pariah, stupid people of the Internet Wrestling Community that actually consider the company anything good. Anybody that even shudders and rests on the thought that this show and product is good can go straight to hell.
Why does this piece of film have so many raving reviews? <br /><br />This is amateurish, unfunny and annoying.<br /><br />The only memorable thing here is the corny title song. <br /><br />The production values are low and the "comedic" (if you want to call them that) ideas are weak, they seem like leftovers of leftovers from SNL that even they would not dare to have put on the screen.<br /><br />I'm beginning to thoroughly mistrust IMDb ratings. <br /><br />This is light years away from Kentucky Fried Movie - not even in the same Galaxy.<br /><br />It's not even possible to write 10 lines about it.<br /><br />OK, another good thing: ugly street scenes and ugly people - something one doesn't get to see a lot in todays TV and Movies.
I found my tape of this long forgotten 'show'. Besides the Theme song 'DISCO BEAVER FROM OUTER SPACE'. This show is barely watchable. You will be flipping through channels,just like the couple flipping through the TV channels. This is a parody of TV.<br /><br />The beaver is cool. The homosexual Dracula, the chick discussing her Peria experiences and the lady with the overly big lips discussing homosexuality show us everything that is wrong with TV. It is all BAD. Just like the beaver from outer space who seems to be lost in this new world, you will be too. *** out of *****
This is truly abysmal. I just got a copy of "Disco Beaver From Outer Space" after hearing good things about it, and I have to say, this was just so incredibly unfunny and bad, it will leave you numb and mystified how this ever got made.<br /><br />I mean, what was it? Is it that this is typical late 70's humor? I don't think so. This is just so bad, and believe me, I don't mean "so bad it's good" either. This is a collection of extremely unfunny skits as if you are watching cable TV. Sure enough, this was an HBO program, and to think this may have been considered groundbreaking is scary.<br /><br />There is one somewhat pretty girl in it, and there is some old NHL footage of the NY Islanders hockey team, which is fun to see even though I am a lifelong NY Rangers fan. But they even mess that up, as they try to get some humor out of two hockey players scuffling on the ice as if they are "dancing" and, even worse, reverse the videotape of two hockey players fighting to make it look like they are having sex. Oh, how funny! In one slight bit of cleverness, there is an interview a hockey player named "Chico" who resembles NY Islander goalie Chico Resch, but they even blow this by having him wear a Rangers jersey! Well, maybe that was intentional, who knows.<br /><br />The bottom line is, "Disco Beaver" is just so blatantly horrible, so unbelievably bad, you will definitely feel cheated after watching this and wasting almost an hour of your life. You'll wonder what possibly made the makers of this garbage think they had something funny here, and you'll also wonder why these skits can't even come close to the worst Saturday Night Night slop. Incredible. Just incredible.
The only good part of this movie was the ending. You know the part of the movie where the lights come on and you leave to go home. No no that may be a little harsh - the dancing in the film was sensational but unfortunately that is where the plot ended. As long as the cast was dancing and not talking the movie went along well. As for Chayanne's debut - not too bad but hopefully his next film will have a little more depth. As for going to see the movie wait for the rental or TV. Do not make the same mistake I did and pay 8.50
Chayanne is beautiful enough, Vanessa is beautiful enough, I liked the storyline. But I went in with the expectation to see lots of energetic hot salsa dancing, I was disappointed. There needed to be more dancing, especially salsa.
As a devotee of Ms. Frank, I remember being so excited that the play was being re-made for TV. That is, until I saw it... This film is a prime example of how IMPORTANT casting is, and how directing plays such an important part in creating the sense of purpose. The casting of any CENTRAL role is CRUCIAL to a production of this sort...shows like AUNTIE MAME and MAN OF LA MANCHA are totally dependent on the charisma of the lead actor. And in the cast of this movie, the whole thing is destroyed by the atrocious casting of Melissa Gilbert in the lead role. There is not ONE SINGLE MOMENT that Ms. Gilbert even comes close to inhabiting the sensitive, mature spirit of Anne- Ms. Gilbert is "white-bread" throughout the movie... the only time I was close to tears was during the reading of Anne's most haunting line: "I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart"- this is spoken by Ms. Gilbert so rushed, so lacking in conviction, that she might has well burped and achieved the same effect. Film and dance legend Marge Champion was the dialogue coach for this production- she should have refunded her salary! Despite Ms. Gilbert ruining DIARY, other performances are satisfactory for the most part- special kudos to Joan Plowright as Edith, Scott Jacoby as Peter and Clive Reville as Mr. Dussell. Maxmillian Schell does not have the deep-rooted soul and spirit as Otto as does the creator of the role on stage and film(Joseph Schildkraut), but he's okay. Doris Roberts and James Coco as The Van Danns are relatively superficial in their parts- they're shrill and bombastic, but again, only on the surface. This COULD be due to the fact that the pacing of the project is way too rushed(as noted in previous postings)- this film clocks in 45 minutes shorter than the film version- the difference owing to the pauses for dramatic effect, which apparently is necessary to propagate the appropriate MOOD for the story. This is NOT mandatory viewing, especially for youngsters learning about Anne Frank for the first time- stick to the original film version, and or even better, the TV production of ANNE FRANK: THE TRUE STORY starring Ben Kingsley, which is the CLOSEST thing to capturing the heartbreak and reality of Anne's situation ever filmed! Note: Especially appalling is the fact that Melora Marshall, who plays Anne's sister Margot, is NOT included in the opening credits along with all the other members of The Secret Annex... she's listed in the post-credits along with the actors playing Miep and Mr. Kraler. If I was Ms. Marshall, I would have SUED!
I saw and have the original 1959 black and white that stars Shelley Winters and Millie Perkins and no matter how many times I watch it, I can't help but not to cry.<br /><br />This version was (obviously) a set, like the 1959 was, but there were so many mistakes in layout. Spiral staircase? Items that did not exist in that time period existed in the film. Doris Roberts, sad to say CANNOT play drama, she a comedic actress and that will not change. James Coco was a horrible Mr. Van Daan and Mr. Dussel resembled a college professor of mine rather then the dentist he was supposed to play. In the original film, Anne walked the "gauntlet" to go to Peter's room, that seemed to take her more then a minute. In this crappy remake, it took her under 10 seconds. The first reviewer was correct... This remake is just that, a remake. What was the director thinking casting comedic actors in a drama role like that. I'm sorry but James Coco cannot play drama. Max.. Schell was better in Deep Impact then this movie. The cranky Mrs. Frank was just that cranky, I couldn't stand her. Referencing and comparing to the 1959 version, I like her better, she did a better job of being the overwhelming mother. Out of 10 stars, I give this remake 3. Don't waste your time, get the 1959 version and a box of Kleenex.
This is truly a re-make that should never have gotten out of the stable. It has two casts that are acting in entirely different strata. At the top of their game are Joan Plowright and Maximillian Schell. Every nuance of the Franks is in plain sight. at the rock bottom are Melissa Gilbert and Doris Roberts. I cannot imagine how Schell and Plowright manage to play so well when Gilbert and Roberts are working their anti-magic. Gilbert ruins every scene she's in. It's like Father Knows Best in the Ghetto. She's Ann Frank light. Her run at Helen Keller was thin but not awful. This is sacrilege. Doris Roberts makes Mrs. Van Damm merely annoying. She is a completely inappropriate choice to play the sexually hungry woman whose flirtatious, dissatisfied presence caused so much trouble in het Acherhuis. This needed to be played by a woman who could convince us that she at least remembered what it was like to voluptuous. Her weight is not the problem. Joan Plowright could have played this part beautifully. Roberts was on a career high when this was made, getting lots of press and many opportunities. Her performance here displays her weaknesses as an actress shamefully.<br /><br />James Coco and Clive Reville, have most of their scenes with Gilbert and Roberts , and , strong though they are, they are completely incapable of undoing the damage done by their partners. Reville is a wily actor capable of the kind of iconic performance given by Ed Wynne in the original film. He gets no support from Gilbert . She drain the color out of every scene. <br /><br />I've read with dismay the comments by those of you who grew up watching this version, filled with attachment to these performances. It's a lesson in how the version you see first attachs to you. It makes me reconsider my attachment to some inferior products I loved in my childhood. I encourage you to watch the original. It has very few weak spots and it's head and shoulders above this mess.
Rarely have I seen a work of literature translated so badly to the screen. The hysterical cast of b-movie and sitcom extras simply make the characters seem like bad Jewish stereotypes. The worst of all is Melissa Gilbert, who you hate from scene one and never develop any sympathy for. Performances like this should be noted and used against actors who wish to work again. All in all, a seedy, low-budget made-for-TV film of the sort that gives made-for-TV films a bad name.
Ik know it is impossible to keep all details of a book in a movie. But this movie has changed nearly everything without any reason. Furthermore many changes have made the story illogical. A few examples: 1) in the movie "Paul Renauld" really meets Poriot before he dies (in the book Poirot only gets a letter), telling him he is afraid to be killed. This is completely stupid because if Renaulds plan would have succeeded, Poirot would have known that the dead man would not have been Renauld.(Poirot was in the morgue when Mrs Renauld identified the victim). 2) The movie has "combined" two persons into one! "Cinderella" has been removed by the movie. The girl Hastings falls in love with and the ex-girlfriend of Jack Renauld are one person in the movie! Why for god's sake? 3)Hastings finds the victims cause he is such a bad golf player. Totally unfunny and stupid. 4) The movie tells secrets much too early (for example at the very beginning). So you know things you shouldn't know. 5) The murderer gets shot at the end by a person who doesn't exists in the book. Perhaps because the person ("cinderella") who stops the murderer does not exists in the movie. 6)The book is very complex. The movie takes only about 90 minutes. Sure it is difficult to include all the necessary details but it is impossible if you include stupid things which were not in the book and have no meaning (e.g. bicycle race).
Victor Buono as the Devil? Surely somebody must have been drunk when that casting decision was made. That's not the worst part of this silly mish-mash of sundry haunted house devices but it gets my vote for being the funniest part of it. While the film is by no means terrible it doesn't even approach other 1970's "haunted house" flicks like Amityville Horror, The Changeling and The Legend of Hell House. The Evil can be entertaining in spots, but don't expect to be scared. It's better approached as what it is: a silly horror film made all the sillier by it's over-serious approach.
This is a by-the-numbers horror film starring Richard Crenna and Joanna Pettet as a psychologist duo who purchase and old mansion and invite a small crew of friends and patients to help clean the place up. Unbeknownst to them, the mansion harbors a cellar door - the gateway to hell. If you are in the mood for a clichéd horror film, then look no further, but if you want something inventive, then this little film won't appeal to you.<br /><br />VIOLENCE: $$$ (Rather subdued, albeit the scene where a guy cuts his hand with a saw - rather gruesome mind you. Fans of inventive deaths scenes will not like this as every character seems to be electrocuted in some fashion).<br /><br />NUDITY: $ (Nothing to speak of. Mary Louise Weller adds the good looks but her character was underdeveloped).<br /><br />STORY: $$ (Cliched, but view-worthy nonetheless. This offers nothing new to the genre but the casting of Victor Buono - who is about as menacing as a department store Santa - seems to have attracted a few viewers).<br /><br />ACTING: $$ (The best performances are by Crenna and Pettet with the other actors simply "phoning-in" their roles. The screenwriter fails to develop any characters outside Pettet's character and seemed to have forgotten about Mary Louise Weller (Animal House) who disappears for about twenty minutes and only resurfaces to be electrocuted like everyone else in boring fashion).
I actually saw THE EVIL on the big screen. I saw it as part of a double feature during the early 1980s (don't remember the other film) when I was in my mid-teens. The film is bad, cringe-worthy bad. Embarrassingly bad. The effects are atrocious (you can clearly see the cable pulling the black girl across the floor). There's absolutely nothing scary about it. In fact I laughed throughout the film.<br /><br />The story tried to create this big built up for the climax, when we're suppose to finally see who's responsible for all the evil goings on and we see greasy Victor Buono, who's as scary as an overstuffed Twinkie. Seriously, what where they thinking? Buono, who was a villain on the Batman TV series, is one of the hammiest actors ever to grace the big screen and I just cannot imagine anyone being remotely terrified of him.<br /><br />THE EVIL is all but forgotten now (for good reasons)but it's actually a very funny film and I wish I could see this turkey again, just to see that black girl being pulled across the room by an unseen force with that very visible cable.
The Evil is about a big house where a bad spirit is foolishly unleashed to torture all inside. What a washout of a movie! There's not a single scary scene. Not one! Richard Crenna overplays a nothing role. There's some animated ghosts, a disfigurement by power saw, and a ghost-rape. After nothing special happens for almost the whole movie The Evil gets personified into...Victor Buono. Great! Where did the filmmakers get the idea that Buono is scary. He looks like he was on the bum for a guest starring paycheck to pay his liquor bill. By then its too late to turn it off, because the damn thing is over. I felt like throwing the videocassette out the window. Please avoid this junk! Hopefully it will never see the light of DVD and will fade into obscurity.
Sorry, folks! This is without a doubt the worst film I have ever seen. Sometimes when a movie is really bad you can joke about it and have a good laugh (like Plan 9 from outer space), this movie is so bad you can´t even enjoy it on an ironic level.
yeesh,talk about craptastic.this thing is brutal.horrible voice dubbing,even more horrible acting and no discernible plot.apparently there are some great chase scenes,but the problem is,you have to get to that point first,and i just couldn't.the 20 or so minutes i endured felt more like a root canal than a movie.i suppose i could have fast forwarded it,and i recommend you do the same,unless you have very extreme pain tolerance or your a masochist.i don't fall into either category.i still have a migraine from this thing so i'm about to perform some dental surgery without anesthetic just relive the migraine.bottom line,horrendous. 0/10
Having been a Godzilla fan for many years, Gamera was to me a cheap knockoff to capitalize on the success of Toho's #1 kaiju star. ATTACK OF THE MONSTERS was for me at the time (1975) an almost painful viewing experience.<br /><br />Last weekend, I attended the annual Godzilla fest, known as G-FEST, where Carl Craig, one of the stars of GAMERA vs. VIRAS, made an appearance. Of course, they featured this movie. It was one of the most hilarious bad movies ever made. Of course, you have to be in the right frame of mind to watch it. In one scene, for example, the boy scouts held prisoner on board the alien space craft manage to escape by distracting the not-too-bright aliens. When they realize they"ve been duped, one of them says, "That's funny...I think those kids lied to us." Not even PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE can boast that kind of dialog.<br /><br />This may not be GODZILLA or even GAMERA 3, but this one is a decent enough time waster, if you watch it in the right frame of mind.<br /><br />However, if you want top quality kaiju entertainment, check out the recently released GAMERA 3.<br /><br />Rating: **1/2 out of *****
"Destroy All Planets" winds up settling for 'destroy all Tokyo' by film's end, as a space monster resembling a giant squid falls to the reptilian furnace known as Gamera. Actually, Gamera is saving Earth right from the get go, knocking out Varian Space Ship #1 even before the first set of film credits roll. The scene switches to a Japanese scout camp where we meet a pair of meddlesome young heroes, Jim and Masao, who take part in Gamera's exploits after being kidnapped by the aliens and beamed aboard their ship in an electrified bubble shield.<br /><br />It's pretty startling to see the boys convince a scientist to let them operate a newly invented submarine that might be defective. Previously boy genius Masao had wired the unit to run in reverse direction of it's controls, but Dr. Dobie didn't think about checking that out as a possibility. At least that prepared the boys for interfering with the alien space ship's controls by playing switcheroo with a bunch of triangular blocks.<br /><br />When boss alien Viras says 'Activate the Videotron', hang on to your seats for rehashed footage from earlier Gamera movies where he battles Barugon and Gyaos. These take up quite a bit of screen time, but are no match for the fast forward button if you want to get on with it. For the longest time Viras addressed an invisible crew, and when they finally appeared, they were Orientals who could fly - imagine that!<br /><br />Seeing as how these movies were made for a juvenile audience, it's surprising to see how gruesome some of the scenes are. Gamera drawing blood comes to mind, and how about the pair of space crew members being decapitated. When squid tentacles started emerging from the headless bodies I made a connection to the 'Alien' films; having the individual units merge to form the giant Viras was a neat device.<br /><br />I guess the appeal for young kids might reside in identifying with the two young heroes who make friends with a giant monster, move around pretty freely on an alien space ship, and get to have whatever they want with the help of alien telepathy technology. Seeing as how the movie was presumably made by adults, it could have been a simple case of wish fulfillment.
Gamera vs Viras was made lazily and much of it suffers as a result.<br /><br />Space Aliens try to take over Earth and are stopped by Gamera. So they send another ship that manages to kidnap two young boys. The aliens then take control of Gamera and get him to attack mankind.<br /><br />First of all I must say that I really enjoyed the monster fight at the end between Gamera and Viras. Viras looks like a big squid with a beak. He has no energy weopons and does not shoot any rays out but he can close the apendages on top of his head to make a sharp pointy weopon. SO overall this is not a bad monster for Gamera to fight and is decent. Viras really injures Gamera badly by stabbing his underside of his shell with his pointy head and I am surprised Gamera was able to survive this.<br /><br />Unfortunately Gamera vs Viras decided to use footage from previous Gamera films to fill time for this film. They re show the battles between Gamera and Barugon and Gamera and Gaos when the aliens look at Gameras past battles. However when they show Gamera's battles with Gaos they show the battle between Gamera and Gaos in the city first, then they show the final battle between the two. After they show re used footage of the final battle between Gamera and Gaos they show the FIRST battle between Gamera and Gaos!!! Talk about showing the battles in non chronological order. THey did not even need to show the first battle they should have just stopped after they showed the final battle between the two.<br /><br />Another issue is that they decide to re show footage of Gamera attacking cities when the aliens order him to attack Tokyo. So they show the scene from "Gamera vs Barugon" where he destroys the Dam. After the show scenes from "Gamera The Invincible" which is a huge issue for me. Mainly due to the fact that "Gamera The Invincible" was in BLACK AND WHITE!!!! Using stock footage from a black and white film in a COLOR film is really lazy and that is not a good thing.<br /><br />Also the dubbing is bad once again. The two little kids are not that annoying but it would be nice to see a Gamera film that did not involve little kids.<br /><br />So the over use of footage from other Gamera Films is a deterrant to this film. The final fight is awesome so basically I recommend skipping to the final ten minutes and watching this film. The rest is something that has already been seen before.
More of a Frisbee like turtle with fangs that go up like a wart hog. More battles with people in bird suits that look like people in bird suits. A ping pong ball space ship. Two naughty boys who know how to do everything, including getting on board the space ship. More tiresome music. More "Gamera is the friend of children" stuff. I remember when Godzill and Rodan came out. The movies were a lot of fun because the monsters were actually a threat to people. Now they are just a parade of silly costumes with very little behind them. The adults are all ridiculous and moronic. Like in American sitcoms, the kids are the bosses (when in reality they couldn't think their way out of a paper bag). These monster movies must be the Japanese means of partonizing these little snots. Above all, however, is that after seeing three of these movies (with the same plot over and over; check the stock footage), the ultimate conclusion is that they are boring. If you haven't see this one, don't bother.
It must be remembered that the Gammera movies, like many of the first-series Gozilla films, WERE in fact aimed squarely at kids. Little Kenny and his cohorts are living out the daydreams of the kids in the audience: they get to run around and play with top-secret stuff while the adults stand by and allow it; they get to cavort with monsters, and even when the bad guys enter, they are never in any real danger.<br /><br />Perhaps the first Gammera film is an aberration because the child DOES get punished and IS put into danger, but the rest of the series is pure wish fulfillment.<br /><br />As one critic said, these aren't failed adult movies but successful kid's movies.
The photography is accomplished, the acting is quite good, but in virtually every other department The Greek Tycoon is a dreary bore. Taking its inspiration from the real-life love affair of Jackie Kennedy and Aristotle Onassis, the film is a glossy but absolutely empty soap opera of the kind that can be found on TV all day long. Viewers who embrace the whole "celebrity magazine culture" (paparazzi photographs and gossipy stories about the rich and famous) will undoubtedly find much to whet their appetite here. But those who prefer films with a bit more substance and craft and quirkiness will find the 107 minute running time a butt-numbing slog.<br /><br />American president James Cassidy (James Franciscus) and his beautiful wife Liz (Jacqueline Bisset) are in Greece on official business. A ridiculously wealthy Greek shipping tycoon, Theo Tomasis (Anthony Quinn), catches sight of Liz at a party at his elegant manor. Despite the fact that both of them are married to someone else, there is an immediate attraction between them. Later, at a private party aboard his yacht, Tomasis makes his desires known to Liz. Some while later, President Cassidy is assassinated whilst out strolling on a beach. Liz is shocked and saddened by his death, but it isn't long before she seeks comfort in the arms of her Greek lover Tomasis. Eventually the two of them are married and their love affair becomes a favourite talking point for the world's newspapers, magazines, photographers and wags.<br /><br />It is somewhat amusing to note the vigour with which the producers of this film denied that it was a dramatisation of the Kennedy-Onassis story. They wanted the film to be seen as an original story, rooted in fiction. But anyone with a brain can see from where the movie is drawing its inspiration. Even Aristotle Onassis himself knew The Greek Tycoon amounted to his love-life getting the Hollywood treatment (if rumours are to be believed, he actually had a hand in approving Anthony Quinn for the Tomasis role!) J. Lee-Thompson isn't really the right sort of director for this type of movie – he's better suited to action fodder like The Guns Of Navarone and Ice Cold In Alex – but he marshals the proceedings with an uninspired, professional adequacy. Quinn is very watchable as Tomasis; Bisset looks lovely as the object of his desires; Franciscus uses his toothy smile and a façade of integrity to make for a believable politician. Their performances are good on the surface, but there's little for the actors to do on any deeper level. Similarly, Tony Richmond's photography gives the film an elegant surface sheen as it moves from one exotic locale to the next, but the merest of scratches proves that there's nothing behind the film's glossy exterior.
I saw The Greek Tycoon when it first came out in 1978. I found it extremely boring. I thought it was no better than a travelogue except for one thing: For the first time in my life I realized why it would be good to be rich. Seeing the scenery off Aristotle Onassis' yacht and getting my first real peek into the lifestyle of the rich and famous opened my eyes. To paraphrase Martha Stewart: It was a good thing. Funny, I don't remember the sex scene. I hadn't seen the movie since it was on the big screen and found the lovemaking session with the mistress memorable this time. Maybe because I was younger and single back then, it was no big deal.
I am ashamed of myself that I actually went to the theatre to watch this movie when it was first released. While I suppose its thinly veiled depiction of the Aristotle Onassis and Jackie Kennedy story is well enough done, it's a movie that should never have been made in the first place; hence, my low rating.<br /><br />The film chronicles the tale of a wealthy Greek business shark called Theo Tomasis, who woos and wins the lovely young widow, Liz Cassidy, of a slain American President. Sound familiar? Yes, everything except the names.<br /><br />The cast is not to be faulted. Anthony Quinn plays the Greek tycoon to perfection, and at least it's some consolation, having just read that Ari himself requested Quinn for the role. Jacqueline Bisset is of course beautiful and sophisticated in the part of (for all intents and purposes) Jackie, and James Franciscus has the all American good looks of the President.<br /><br />I haven't seen this movie since it came out, nor do I wish to see it again. I seem to recall a fair bit of bad language and some general crudeness. Otherwise, I suppose it's a sensational and supposedly intimate glimpse into the jet setting lives of the rich and famous, frolicking aboard their yachts, beaches, pools etc. Yes, the scenery of the Greek islands is spectacular, the best part of the movie.<br /><br />Of its type, it's okay, I suppose. There are no end of TV movies about the Kennedys, which I confess to occasionally tuning in to, and not to my credit. This is basically just another. Far better to allow Aristotle and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis to rest in peace.
This movie serves up every imaginable Greek stereotype. In one particularly galling scene the tycoon says "I'm just an ignorant peasant." As the grandson of Greek peasant immigrants who passed on a legacy of wisdom and love to their children and grandchildren, I found this movie contemptible and odious.
The action scenes was quite good. But the plot of the movie, I would have to give it a score of 1 out of 10. It seems that the producers and director of this movie didn't thought about it carefully?<br /><br />It doesn't give much value and values to it's viewers except for it's violence. The entire story was about revenge. A boy witnessing a rape and murder. I would even recommend it to be banned. Those who watched it, you've just lose some money. If you're thinking of watching it, watch something else. I would ask for a refund if I was on a movie theater. So for you guys and girls out there reading this article. Please don't waste time.
May Contain Spoilers.<br /><br />An innocent trailer park or maybe 'Compton' LA white kid witnesses a terrible childhood tragedy relating to drugs and violence. An unprofessional but dedicated police partners try to take down a 'sophisticated' high end club drug ring only to be fired and chewed out by the the drug lords high priced attorneys. The plot thickens as more people come back to seek vengeance and justice with a predictable ending. The only memorable part was a walk-on by Ron Jeremy.<br /><br />If I was in a movie theater I would have asked for a refund. I feel sorry for the poor actors in this movie. It was just awful and painful to watch. The worst part was the cinematography were the director kept flashing back within the same scene so the sound would not quite match. And NO it was not a codec nor DVD problem but an intentional technique. Ughh. Two Stars.
I suspect this board will soon be full of comments from over-emotional people praising "Dear John" as a "pearl" and a "rollercoaster ride" and all the other vacuous words this film's target audience typically employs.<br /><br />I am most definitely not this film's target audience, but I do not dislike romantic dramas either, as long as they are well made, so here is my objective take on the flick.<br /><br />It is not good.<br /><br />It's not a bad movie either. But the plot meanders, development stagnates where it should've been moving forward (right around the middle, to be precise), and as for the ending...it almost felt as if they had run out of ideas so they suddenly said, "Hey, let's just film a last scene real quick, put some sentimental string soundtrack over it, and end it that way." Even Amanda Seyfried's beauty could not save this. Channing Tatum too gave a good performance, but you can only do so much with a flawed script.<br /><br />Speaking of the music, it is unbearably predictably and kitchy. From the smokey voiced, irritatingly high-pitched female folk singer schtick (surely chosen to appeal to the majority of college-age girls that will go see this movie) to the overused "shimmering strings and piano" combo, it only annoys anyone paying more attention to the film as a whole rather than to his own "feelings." The film has a good beginning and the major conflict that launches us into the second act were all promising. So was part of the second act itself, as the story unfolded. Then the film just dropped the ball. Beyond that, I'd have to give spoilers.<br /><br />"Dear John" is not a bad movie, but it doesn't work as it should either. If you want to see a truly moving film about prolonged love waiting to be reunited, go watch "Notebook," which was truly superb.
The movie starts in spring 2001. A soldier named John Tyree (Channing Tatum) falls in love with college student Savannah Cutis (Amanda Seyfried) while on break. Within the space of two weeks they fall madly in love with each other (!). But he has to go off to war and she has to go to college. They do but keep in touch by writing to each other. Then 9/11 happens. He wants to reenlist--she wants him to stay home. What will they do? <br /><br />Hysterically bad romantic drama. The leads ARE attractive--Tatum is certainly a handsome man with beautiful green eyes and a hot body (he's introduced walking shirtless out of the water after surfing)...but he can't act. Seyfried is a beautiful woman and she tries...but the dialogue here is horrible. When I saw it me and a friend of mine were fighting hard NOT to laugh out loud at some of the "romantic" dialogue at the beginning. It was just HORRIBLE. For the first hour or so I was either bored by the ridiculously predictable drama or amused by the horrendous "romance". Then, after that first hour, tragedy kicks in and, I must admit, had me in tears. However the filmmakers go out of their way to make sure that you're crying with death, funerals and meetings with people breaking down in tears. How can you NOT cry? This would have worked if the acting were better. Tatum's face never changes expression--not ONCE! He always had a blank look on his face. Seyfried was a LITTLE better but not much. To make it worse Tatum and Seyfried had no sexual chemistry on screen at all! They barely looked like they liked each other let alone love each other. There was some beautiful photography of the Carolinas but this is a boring and stupid romantic "drama". A 1 all the way...and I usually love silly romantic dramas like this!
Having read this story a while ago I was very excited to see the movie. I read the book again. It is one of my favorite Nicholas Sparks books. What I think what makes the story is the relationships. That was the down point for me in the movie because I think the relationships were poorly expressed in the movie. I have no idea what the point of changing main characters roles (Tim's and Alan's characters). The movie didn't at all capture John and Savannah's relationship. Maybe if you haven't read the book you might like this movie, but I thought it was so dull compared to the book. I thought Channing was a great pick for John,but I had a feeling he was going to bring all young adults out to watch it, so I think it was more geared towards them. The ending cuts the whole point of the book out so I was also unhappy with that. I was hoping the movie was more like the notebook or a walk to remember and the way they captured the books. I do feel like I wasted a Friday night out and 10 bucks on a sappy love story, not at all the story I was expecting to see.
This movie had the potential to be a very good movie in my eyes, Nicholas Sparks is a great romance author and this movie had every chance to be just as great as The Notebook but whats sets the two apart is the notebook had a dream team of leads in McAdams and Gosling but here the balance is thrown miserably off by the inept acting of Channing Tatum<br /><br />I felt a lot of the scenes were uneven purely because of his performance, a lot of the emotion in various scenes is lost because he cant act, leaving an awkward and uneven situation, Amanda Seyfried given a great performance only to have Tatum drop the ball and the mood is lost and the scene cant recover.<br /><br />This story deserved to be cast right, but what it got was a pretty boy who cant act. Tatum should stick to what hes good at, movies that are more about his physical ability, albeit horrible, like GI JOE, step up, and Fighting. The less he talks the better.<br /><br />Try not to think of me as a jaded hater of Channing Tatum I went in to this movie with an open mind, because I've been surprised many a time by the likes of Adam Sandler in Reign over Me. I gave the same chance to Tatum I didn't view him here as the sum of his past roles, purely just by his performance in this movie, which sadly was a letdown
I was looking forward to seeing two bright young actors appearing in "Dear John," but it was very slow moving; and I felt that both the screenplay and the direction hampered the flexibility of the principle performers. I usually do enjoy film adaptations of these novels. Ironically, I did think the movie did an excellent job of depicting realistic military action.<br /><br />The cinematography was very good at segueing through love letters, focusing just enough on a key word or phrase in each letter. I felt that Channing Tatum became bogged down in what became a very "hang-dog" series of expressions in response to loss.
The only reason I rated this film as 2 is because Channing Tatumis beautiful however the whole film lacks emotion and was boring to watch. Usually I adore a good romance but this was just a waste of time, I didn't shed a tear despite it containing sad content it just wasn't acted very well at all. I'm no film critic but I just advise girls to avoid this really unless the only reason you're watching it is to see Channing Tatum lol the rest of the film is rubbish and if he wasn't in it (not that his acting was any good) I would have stopped watching much quicker. It's a shame really because if the right actors were chosen for this film it could have had the potential to be a real tear jerker. .. If you're looking for a good cry or a film for a girly night in...give this one a miss!!
I was talked into seeing this by a girlfriend..John was a good guy, sweet, sensitive and looks great with no shirt on!! I thought it was a love story about both of them but it was mainly about his reactions to her letters. Savannah was a likable character at the start of the movie but once she dumped him I lost respect for her. She said it tore her apart being away from him and it was hard - he was the one a million miles away, he was killing people and the only contact he got was through her letters!!! She didn't have it hard, she had family & money and he had a tour of duty!! I was so frustrated at the ending when he forgave her - he was too much of a sweetheart. I would have waited the 3 years and welcomed him home with open arms.
After reading the reviews I am so relieved to know that I am not the only person who was very disappointed in this movie! I am a HUGE Nicholas Sparks fan, have read ALL of his books, most of them more than once. Of course I LOVED The Notebook and A Walk to Remember...I haven't yet seen Message in a Bottle or Nights in Rodanthe so I can't comment on those...<br /><br />But I did go see Dear John this past weekend and I was terribly upset! The movie was not good at all! When looking at the movie alone, and not thinking about the book at all, it was still a terrible movie. I did not get the rush and range of emotions from this movie that I have got from other movies I enjoyed, especially The Notebook. I was not smiling and laughing and crying and worried and scared...ever! From the very beginning all I could notice was how they changed everything! The only thing about this movie that is similar to the book is that there is a guy named John who is in the military and a girl named Savannah who is not....the part about his Dad being obsessed with coins is about the only other part that went along with the book. Everything else was totally off!!!! First of all, in the book, Allen was Tim's little brother, NOT his son! WHY they had to change that, I don't understand. It made a lot more sense how it went in the book when Tim was just a little bit older than Savannah and they grew up together and Allen was Savannah's inspiration for wanting to work with horses and autistic children....that didn't happen in the movie....ugh...And in the book they spent a lot more time together than just those initial 2 weeks and then the 1 night...why did they leave those times out??? I could go on and on and on but then I would run out of space! So basically, if you are a great fan of Nicholas Sparks, don't waste your time or money on this movie...just read the book again...because it's terrible and nothing like the book!
OK, let's start with the good: nice scenery, Channing Tatum is easy to look at, Amanda Seyfried has nice hair, that's about it. How much of this movie went on the editing room floor? Probably the plot, action, good dialogue, and point. Terrible acting, horrible choppy dialogue. Let me tell you how bad it is: my friend who always cries at movies got to the part that was meant to evoke tears, and she laughed so hard we thought she was crying! The movie seems to want to take a stab at too many issues- war, loss, autism, cancer, but fails so miserably to cover any one topic satisfactorily. Make sure you have something to munch on and your cell phone to return text messages!
Today, being President's Day, my wife and I had "The Notebook" DVD, checked out at our local library. It's a movie released in 2004 that fell beneath our radar, as we are big movie goers. I'm a published author with hopes of screen playing my first book. I'd noticed references to "The Notebook" in reviews of other movies which is why I brought it up about us watching and this morning provided the perfect opportunity. We both really liked it. It made my wife cry; we could relate to many things in it with our own, continuing love affair and even I fought back choking up.<br /><br />This afternoon, after lots of chores, yard work and eating, we decided to actually catch a matinée. When we got to the theater, having seen most of the current batch of films playing, we elected to see "Victoria Day" which for some reason was not at the theater, even though both IMDb and my phone movies showed it playing there. So, instead we looked at the poster for "Dear John" and that it was written by the same writer as "The Notebook", making it the obvious choice as we enjoyed 'TN' so much.<br /><br />What a disappointment! First, the characters did not have the same believability or sense of empathy as 'TN'; and we kept commenting throughout all the similarities -- two dozen or so -- quickly causing us to realize this movie was nothing but, as another reviewer commented, "a poor man's Notebook!" It had a real 'cash cow' feeling, meaning the Sparks simply threw a story together, based on the exact template of 'TN' simply to make a quick buck. Not only that, after the 'bug-eyed' trollop improbably 'Dear John's-John' for the wimp cancer patient, we ridiculed the movie with each, passing soapy stupid line all the way through to the end. There were only about 6 of us in the theater during this 4:45pm Monday matinée and my wife even told me to keep it down so I wouldn't ruin it for the others...it was so bad.<br /><br />Seeing this on the heels of 'TN' ensured that the rip off similarities were vividly recognizable and Sparks blatant, cheap attempt at template writing painfully obvious. We only wish we could've seen "Victoria Day" instead...no matter how bad it might've been after seeing this poor entry to cinema. And oh..., for the last 30-minutes, I kept saying "...don't give that cow the coins ...don't give that cow the coins?"
i was extremely excited for this movie! my expectations were under control because i read the book first sooo i expected differences. what i didn't expect were how great the differences were. Starting off by the characters physical appearances...like Channing Tantums lack of tattoos n Amanda Seyfried not being a brunette lol but i let that go...the character developments were not there at all...you didn't have time to love amanda seyfried character and you couldn't feel for her or for john when they first separated...i thought the two weeks were rushed and i hated that she left first then him...it took the emotional separation away...and why did they change Tim from the book...why did they make him a dad instead of a brother and why did they make him sooo old looking and the movie lacked that intense moment when they find out what happens at the end (didnt want to spoil it lol but for those who watched it u know what i mean) and whhhyyyy ooooo wwhyyyy did they change the ending...in the book it was heartbreaking and emotional and it emphasized on Channing Tatums character's decision whhyyy did they twist it...it just made it look like a rushed ending...it was terrible...thats what disappointed me the most...the ending of the book should have been exactly the same :(
OK, it's watchable if you are sick in bed or have nothing else to do. The suspension of disbelief required to get through this movie is significant though. First, in today's modern society do you believe college coeds get THAT committed to someone in that short of a period of time even if you are a "virtuous" Habitat volunteer who likes autistic kids? And the 2 week romance blossoms into a letter exchange that leads to John's "conflict" of whether to re-enlist right after 9/11/01...REALLY? He asks her what to do? Every guy we know was NOT gonna be sitting on the sidelines after those Towers came down(my husband was one of them and I love him and am proud of him for going) John's character is so flat. He's nearly expressionless the entire movie. He's good looking but not Spec Ops...he seems unsure not confident, quiet instead of a hell-raiser, no tattoos, gets into a "fight" with the preppy boys that is nothing more than a pushing match really...walks around without a cover on his head nearly the whole movie...and there are military technical flaws everywhere (epaulets upside down?). The war scenes are dumb...John and another guy heading off on their own...huh?, then other guy gets shot and John drags him 10 feet and starts giving buddy aid before securing the area or back-up arrival or even having their backs against cover...it's a gunfight for God's sakes, you don't stop fighting until its over...heck I wanted to shoot John in the back. Back home, when the truth is revealed and she spills the wine...we hated her for removing her shirt in his presence...WTH? break his heart and THEN tease him into adultery? She's a head case trollop. Best part of the movie is when he drives away from her...at least he had some self respect and honor there. Overall unbelievable story and we generally did not care about these characters or their love. Dismal!
If you are a fan of either of the two origin franchises (Aliens & Predator...duh...and even if you liked or disliked AVP flick in 06) you WILL hate this movie. The innumerable plot holes, flakey and unbelievable human characters, terrible special effects and even worse directing and fight scenes make this one of worse films I've EVER seen.<br /><br />***SPOLIER*** One of the HUNDRED huge plot holes included the Pred/Alien hybrid going from chest burster, to full-grown bad-ass in seconds (it takes off on an onboard Predator-ship killing spree and wipes out a ship of Preds before the ship even breaks Earth orbit.) AS IF. In the first AvP we saw a ship of Sr. Pred hunters drop off three juveniles hunters going on an "earning their stripes" hunting party, and then in the end saw them picking up the "honored body" of the juvenile that was left over at the end of the flick. Are we expected to believe that the single chest burster hybrid killed all these Sr. Hunters before the ship even broke orbit? Also, (and this was EXTREMELY cheap production value on the director/producer's parts) jars and jars and jars of face-huggers somehow magically appeared aboard the Pred ship, even though the entire temple complex and queen Alien were destroyed in the AvP flick. These face-huggers end up playing an intregal part in movie...of course. And how about all these face huggers becoming full-grown Aliens in a days time? What a joke. Although there were many many more plot holes, I don't think IMDb would appreciate me filling up their servers by writing them here.<br /><br />On the flakey and unbelievable characters, well, where should I go boys and girls? Where to start...almost all of these goof balls are cliché people from other films or TV shows. The town bad-boy who left to avoid jail time but shows up just on the day everything happens to save the day??? Where did I see that? Oh yeah, last season on JERICHO!!! Then there's the 20-something town sheriff (a former trouble maker himself) who was best-friends at one-time with the bad-boy. Where did we see that? Oh yeah, JERICHO and Walking Tall! Then there's the generic soldier (WITH NO RANK) coming home from some generic war-front that isn't met like a long-missed loved one and hero at the airport or bus station, but at her OWN front door by her daughter and husband. And who is this soldier? What did she do in the Army/Air Force/Marines/Navy/Coast Guard? We DON'T KNOW because the movie NEVER TELLS US. But ... dunh, dunh, dunh...she was some kind of soldier/airman/Marine/sailor/coasty that knows how to drive a Stryker Infantry vehicle and ...magically... A HELICOPTER!!! This character is just a generic copy of every "coming home" service person...except that she brings home a set of night vision goggles to her daughter that cost SEVERAL HUNDRED dollars. These are things soldiers have to sign for and don't just "bring home." UGH!<br /><br />THe special effects and fight scenes are what pi-sed me off the worst though. These are the things I enjoyed the most in the first movie...watching Preds and Aliens go at it! The way this was filmed though, the action sequences were so dark and filmed so close up that you couldn't tell what was going on. You couldn't see who was doing what and what was going on as they were fighting it out. All in all, these hundreds of items are going to kill this franchise and the fanchise. No one is going to care anymore about seeing their favorite sci-fi movie monsters, and can only guess that the series will go down from here as producers won't like dump millions of dollars more on a sequel.
This is the worst movie I've ever seen, and it takes the price of the rotten movie of 2007 (which is made by me), anyway this movie misses every single ingredients of a good movie, I mean come on the actors had a bad performance, the story is just crap. I'm really, really disappointed they could have done better stuff, than this piece of junk. I've just wasted my time and my money on this movie. I wish that the production company could give back my money. Anyhow I'd high expectations on this movie, and I've got disappointed. I don't recommend anybody to watch this. so if u wanna waste ur money on something do it on some thing else than this piece of junk.
Where to start?? I think only three other films have led me to post a review on IMDb, and all of those were positive. As for this..?<br /><br />Mind-blowingly, hideously, tragically, embarrassingly, catastrophically, stupidly, irritatingly, completely and utterly beyond awful.<br /><br />I am STUNNED this got made, never mind given a theatrical release. I think I am literally in shock.<br /><br />I'm no "snob". I didn't expect beautiful film-making or intense character-depth, but this is truly beyond a joke. We simply MUST demand more from the films we see.<br /><br />Avoid. Like the Black Death.
Holy crap, the beginning picked up where the first one left off (good start). Then it goes downhill from there. You it looked like as if you were watching TV and you keep on switching between this teenage soap opera, a Predator movie, and some crappy detective show. The characters that are introduced in the first ten minutes don't have anything to do with each other until the final 45 minutes or so (the characters of the teenage soap opera and the actual Alien story).<br /><br />Then for the end the producers were quickly running out of money and decided to end the movie so they decided to drop a nuke on the city.<br /><br />P.S- What the crap is the deal with the cameras being so zoomed in you can't tell what's going on? Seriously, movie makers, do a good job with fight scenes and make it to where we can see the fight.
If you like me enjoy films with plots and convincing actors then Alien Vs Predator- Requiem is probably not the way to go. In summary, alien lands in typical American town, Predator lands in American town, both have a bit of a fight, US government blows up town, some people get away.....I'm sorry I think I might have spoilt the ending. Its easy to criticise someone who's being critical; people cry out, I bet you couldn't do any better! I bet I could ! Having made this film,watched it and then turned to congratulate each other with a pat on the back and a job well done; there must surely have been the spectre of lunacy in the room.
Mmmm, a previous summary says "if you like aliens and predator you will enjoy this film" i could not disagree more, this film pays no respect to its weighty lineage and has reduced two of the best loved sci fi strands to little more than a teen horror slasher movie, it has none of the tension or foreboding present in previous alien or predator movies and there is no discernible lead character, i really did not care about any of the characters and i positively yearned to see the stereotypical cast die as soon as possible in the vain hope something better would replace them, it really takes super human incompetence to have two of the most fearsome creatures ever invented positively fail to make a gripping thrilling movie, only watch this if you want to see how NOT to do it.
Against my own better judgment I went to see this film today, and God I wish I hadn't. Awful. The first AvP film looks like a classic compared to this, it's THAT bad. These guys actually make Paul WS Anderson look like a master storyteller. In fact, this is what I'd expect an Alien and/or Predator film to look like if it was made by Uwe Boll! This movie actually offended me, and Lord only knows what would transpire if Ridley Scott or HR Giger were ever forced to watch this piece of crap. I can't understand how any fan of either franchise could like this film.<br /><br />Truly I don't know where to begin. I mean, the first AvP was poop, but it at least a semi-interesting story and setting, and occasionally some genuine tension. It didn't take itself overly seriously and it could at least be semi enjoyed on a purely "leave your brain at home" basis. But this one, it felt to me as though the people behind it thought they were making the next horror masterpiece. One after the other was a contrived 'suspenseful' scene in a dark room or corridor with creepy music playing, essentially bashing you over the head saying "be scared NOW". As James Cameron once said, you can't be told to be scared, you can only have your own senses heightened. The guys that made this film obviously weren't paying attention because they tried everything in the book to force you to be scared rather than letting you come to that level yourself. It's a cliché for internet nerds to say "God, I was so bored from this movie and felt like leaving", well this is exactly how I felt, even in the middle of the action scenes. They took this film totally seriously, which removed any possibility of enjoyment. Even the gag about how governments don't lie to their people was played without a hint of irony.<br /><br />As for the characters, I knew going in that the human characters were going to be completely pointless to this film but seriously if they're going to be on-screen at least have them doing SOMETHING that is relevant to the story. I don't care about this guy being beaten up by his dreamgirl's boyfriend, I don't care about the mother who's "own daughter doesn't even know her, boo-hoo!" (a pair of night-vision goggles for a present? Give me a break!) or the released criminal just trying to make a decent living and set an example for his brother, what a guy. Hell, even the obligatory hot-chick-in-panties moment was more contrived than usual. I get the feeling they expected the audience to be so shocked at the ending, as well as seeing chestbursters come out of kids, expectant mothers being raped and the like, that that would make up for everything. I don't think so.<br /><br />Then we move onto the stars of the film, and again very little to write home about. Were the aliens well-designed? I wouldn't have a clue because you can never see the damn things. All you see is one of a mouth, a head, a tail or a really dodgy cg outline climbing a wall, and barely enough to actually process that it is in fact an alien before Mr "I cut Marilyn Manson and NIN music videos, think I'll do the same thing here" Editor goes at it with the slice tool. Also, notice how hack action directors always set their films at night and in the rain? Hmmmm. The Predator could've been fighting giant sea monkeys for all we knew! Yes, the Predator was more impressive this time around, and I did think some of the new weaponry was cool, but that was about it. Also, since when does a Predator sound like a dinosaur from The Lost World? There were a couple of things that I kinda liked though. One was the use of sound effects and music from the original films (I also giggled a little bit at "Get to the chopper!"), although other references were stupid (The main character's name being Dallas, give me a break). I also liked the visual FX for the Predator's vision, as well as how the hybrid alien looked (certainly beat the one from Resurrection). But really, those are the only positive things.<br /><br />Overall I found this movie inane, pointless, insulting and above all else offensive to the vision of the original creators of both creatures. That they've left the door open for another one leaves me almost depressed.<br /><br />If they had any decency they'd remove Dan O'Bannon, Ron Schusett and HR Giger from the credits of this film. They've done nothing to deserve this.
This is not the true story. It is the darkest possible fiction derived from the events. It endorses suicide, morose obsession with death, a totally gratuitous sideswipe at organized religion in general (and the Anglican Church, in particular) and generally provides a nihilistic, pointless world view from which filmgoers, I suppose, are intended to walk away, richer in their poverty and more hopeful in their hopelessness.<br /><br />Utter trash, though attractively performed by a capable cast. That anyone would suggest this is a true rendering, however, is very much false advertising. You want the real story? Rent 'Fairy Tale'. That's the real story. See if you can find any correspondence between the facts presented in either case. I only found one: the girls who made the original photographs were pre-pubescent.
Oh, how I laughed during those first couple of scenes. This silly little film about an 11 year-old who carries a gun, steals cars, robs stores, burglars houses, extorts money from other kids, burns houses, shoots rats, buys drugs, distributes drugs to his mother and his friends, and then kills a guy. What a great comedy! But it wasn't intended to be a comedy. It was intended as a social drama. How can this be? The events in this film are absurd and ridiculous. The characters are all stereotypes right out of a 4 year-old's comic-strip-induced immature imagination. The dialog is laughable; people talk like morons. It's a very dumb film.<br /><br />The first scenes are indeed very funny, for all the wrong reasons. But the unintentional hilarity of the idiotic premise runs out after a short while, and after that the laughs come only rarely; by that time the viewer can't believe what he is seeing and is alternately amazed and bored by what follows (if he has at least half a brain cell).<br /><br />A short film, but feels like an eternity. The film actually IS a seriously-intended attempt to show the world of a young degenerate, while imitating movies vastly superior to it, like "Fun". There is just such an air of phoniness about everything; the kids, the adults, everyone lacks credibility both in their actions and dialog. The kid in the lead mugs his way through the film as though he had seen all the Jimmy Cagney movies at least a hundred times. And, typically enough, the kid isn't portrayed as a reservoir of evil, but, instead, as a misunderstood little artistic talent. But of course. Every young hooligan is misunderstood - society made him bad. Poor child.<br /><br />The film is embarrassing; a collection of stale, occasionally hilarious clichés put together to make a movie that lacks intelligence and meaning. The intellectual level of the film is zero.
This is another notorious Mexican horror film: however, while the original Spanish-language version is quite tame, all sorts of gore and nudity were inserted for the English-dubbed variant (prepared by Jerald Intrator - who did similar duties on THE CURIOUS DR. HUMPP [1967/71] - and, like the U.S. version of that film, had previously been available on DVD through Something Weird/Image)! <br /><br />I watched the original first and, while no great shakes, it was fairly engaging - especially with a plot as familiar as this one was: a doctor goes beyond the call of duty in attempting to save the life of his terminally ill son; he even has a hulking, game-legged assistant (played by Carlos Lopez Moctezuma, who had essayed a strikingly similar role - though in a more sinister vein - in THE CURSE OF THE CRYING WOMAN [1961]). I know that several Mexican films mingled horror with the "Lucha Libre" (Wrestling) genre but I had never watched one myself; this element is present here - in fact, the heroine is a wrestler - but the two styles are, perhaps thankfully, kept apart (that said, the wrestling sequences are competently done, with some of the moves proving highly amusing).<br /><br />The doctor's son is transformed into a monster (looking like The Incredible Hulk with mud splashed over his face!) after having had an ape's heart transplanted into him - but, then, when this is replaced with that of a comatose female wrestler, he stays this way and grows a pair of fangs to boot (shouldn't he realistically have turned into a transsexual...though I guess that wouldn't have been very interesting)!! The climactic rooftop sequence in which the monster kidnaps a child and meets his demise at the hands of the police is reminiscent of THE GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN (1942). My favorite unintentionally funny moments in the film, however, occur when the doctor, trying to comfort his son, tells him that he'll soon be cured - only to turn his back soon after on the verge of tears - and also the impatient look he gives his crippled assistant (as the latter staggers slowly into the car) when they're about to chase the monster who has escaped from the lab.<br /><br />The alternate nude scenes work for the film (these were actually done by Cardona himself for a racier Mexican version entitled HORROR Y SEXO) but its reputation is largely based on the added material showing over-the-top violence, such as an eyeball being gouged out of its socket, a scalping and even a person's head being torn off. There are also several graphic operation inserts which, however, give rise to a goof: while it's made clear that only two people are involved in the operation, we see a third pair of hands constantly holding an oxygen mask to the patient's face! <br /><br />The film is also said to be a loose remake of Cardona's own black-and-white horror film DOCTOR OF DOOM (1962) but, since I haven't watched that one, I can't say how much of it was actually pilfered for NIGHT OF THE BLOODY APES...
The following "review" is one from the wrong side of the tracks, meaning two things: You will hear nothing but praises coming from me and don't be fooled by my rating. I also could tell you that this review contains no spoilers, but technically... that's a lie.<br /><br />Well,... Screw the review. I'm just going to ramble a bit. It has been a while since I had so much fun with such a bad film. And if you cannot enjoy this piece of utter drivel, then you simply have no sense of humor. First off, this movie was meant to be taken seriously, and that's the main aspect were the fun is coming from. The story? A doctor's son is terminally ill. Daddy-Doctor decides that a hart-transplant must be the only way of saving his son. So, in true mad-doctor-style, he decides that the heart of a gorilla will do the trick. Of course, the gorilla-heart is "much too potent for a human", so sonny-boy transforms into this hideous Ape-Man that immediately breaks free and goes on a killing and raping spree (because that's simply what any horny beast would do, isn't it?). The make-up of our Ape-Man is hilarious. There's simply no other way of putting it: The guys' face looks like a turd! I'm talking human excrement here, the solid brown kind! Beautiful! The gore in this flick is wonderful too: Aside from real footage of an open-heart surgery, we also have incredibly fake (but quite nasty) looking blood & gore effects: a decapitation, an eye-gouging, a throat-ripping, the scalping of someone's skull,... It's hilarious, and indeed it's quite incomprehensible why NIGHT OF THE BLOODY APES ever made it to the notorious UK Video-Nasties list, because all of the nasty things portrayed in this film are simply too ridiculous to be taken seriously. Oh, and there's only one bloody ape running around in it too, by the way. So, needless to say that LA HORRIPILANTE BESTIA HUMANA is a much more accurate title for this terrifying and convincing tale of science gone horribly wrong.<br /><br />When not trying to shock with poorly staged acts of bloody violence or random portrayals of female nudity, this movie manages to be highly entertaining with ingredients like nonsensical dialogues, cheap cardboard sets, plot stupidity and incredibly bad acting. Just a few random examples, maybe? About the sets: One can clearly see that the set-designers just used the same walls, doors, windows (etc.) over and over again to be build various different interior sets (e.g.: One side of the hospital room - the window side - where the unconscious wrestling girl lies, looks suspiciously similar like the window side of the basement-laboratory from where Ape-Man escapes; The set-designers also took one of the side-windows from the laboratory, made it a bit larger and just placed it in the conference-room of the hospital; All the walls in any building are the same grey-ones;...). Then there's the setting of the park. Clearly shot in a studio, you can see (on several occasions) that the grass is loose. Whenever there's some struggling/fighting/raping going on, the grass just shifts and shuffles and you can see the grey concrete from the studio-floor beneath it.<br /><br />Just a few random lines that come out the actors' mouths: <br /><br />-- In the conference-room where all the doctors are debating the disappearance of Unconscious Wrestling Girl (a disappearance that would of course mean bad publicity for the hospital), Daddy-Doctor intelligently utters "We find ourselves in a situation that is difficult".<br /><br />-- During that same debate a colleague-doctor cleverly remarks "A sleepwalker! Any sleepwalker gets up.", hereby providing a solid excuse for the disappearance of Unconscious Wrestling Girl.<br /><br />-- After our investigating detective, through the amazing process of his own logical deduction, concludes and tells his superior that the murderer must be a half man/half beast, his superior answers that it's absurd, adding the line "It's more probable that of late, more and more, you're watching on your television many of those pictures of terror"... Truly one of the best lines of the movie.<br /><br />Other sources of laughter: <br /><br />-- The two scenes were Daddy-Doctor and his Igor-like assistant kidnap the gorilla from the zoo and Unconscious Wrestling Girl from the hospital - these well thought-out acts of abduction are like taking candy from a baby.<br /><br />-- Daddy-Doctor speaks to God a lot, doesn't he?<br /><br />-- Sonny-boy calling Daddy-Doctor "Papa" on more than one occasion.<br /><br />-- An old lady screaming "Aaargh!!! A dead man! A dead Man! A Dead Man!! A DEAD MAN!!!".<br /><br />-- The plot periodically stops to wallow in scenes of women wrestling, only to go on again and do nothing with that concept. Sure, Daddy-Doctor replaces Sonny-Boy's gorilla-heart a second time with that of Unconscious Wrestling Girl, but do you think something spectacular happens after that? Like Ape-Turd-Man growing breasts or something, trying to rape men this time? Our leading living wrestling beauty (Norma Lazareno) doesn't even go into a climactic wrestling contest with Ape-Turd-Man near the movie's finale... But Ape-Turd-Man does start to show some motherly love near the end... almost (and I say "almost") in true KING KONG-style (i.e. the top of a building and people on the ground pointing and screaming).<br /><br />Okay, I think that's enough now. I chipped in more than my two cents here. Vomitron's Rational Rating for this sleazy piece of hilarious dreck: 2/10. Vomitron's rating From the Wrong Side of the Tracks: 8/10. Go see this film, people. It is well worth it!
This film was a Mexican made horror film from the late 60s. It's not that good, but really not so bad either. There is plenty of schlock and it is padded pretty heavily with nudity and violence, but it had a plot and at least tried to keep to it (even if the plot was the same damn Frankenstein inspired "don't tamper in God's domain" b-movie fare). There was some padding mixed in with the female wrestling, but it was made in Mexico and wrestling does seem to be popular in Mexico.<br /><br />The plot is that a doctor wants to save his son, who is dying from leukemia. The other doctors have given no hope for the poor guy, but dad has the idea of transplanting a gorilla's heart for his son's to save his life (I don't know, I'm a lawyer not a doctor). The transplant works, but sonny-boy ends up becoming a man-ape who terrorizes nude women and kills anyone who gets in his path. There's also a subplot involving a cop and his girlfriend who is a wrestler (this really didn't add too much, but if they wanted to throw in some masked female wrestlers here's a good reason to do so).<br /><br />The film was kind of cheap, but not too bad for a b-movie of the day. The plot was basically just recycled and there were a few things that weren't tied in that well. However, this film is kind of fun in its own way (I don't know why, maybe because it's a Mexican horror film and sticks out in my normal bad movie diet). I guess it may be because it's a mix and mash of some very weird things.<br /><br />Watch it if you like cheesy foreign films, nudity, and female wrestlers.
Dr. Krellman wants to save his son Julio who's dying of heart disease. He decides a heart transplant with an ape will cure his son (no--I'm not kidding). He does the transplant and (somehow) his son changes from a frail guy into a muscle-bound man with a dime store mask that (sort of) resembles an ape! Naturally he gets out, kills men, tears the clothes of women and wreaks havoc. This is all inter cut with the boring romance of police lt. Arturo Martinez and lady wrestler Lucy Ossorio. We also get pointless female wrestling sequences that add nothing to the plot. It all ends by copying the end of "King Kong"! This is (obviously) a pretty stupid movie. The plot makes little sense, there's the gratuitous female nudity (a staple of any exploitation film) and VERY graphic gore that looks laughably fake (except for the open heart transplant). Still this does have merit. The whole cast takes everything dead serious and actually aren't too bad as actors. Also the dubbed in dialogue was (for a film like this) well done and interesting with surprisingly good dubbing. Also I saw an excellent DVD print with bright strong color (which helps). We're not talking a classic here but an OK exploitation movie.
Acclaimed Argentine horror director Emilio Vierya directs a script from Jack Curtis and Antonio Ross. Cheesy and ridiculous are in the mix for the method to the madness. A doctor's son is nearing his early death, until his desperate father transplants an ape's heart into his chest. As expected, things are going to get weird; when this young man turns into a mask wearing monster and roams the beaches scouting out nice looking party girls to make his slaves. When heroin is injected, his beauties become zombies. The monster summons his dazed minions with strange organ music. So bad...well...it's just bad. In the cast: Jose E. Moreno, Alberto Caneau, Mauricio De Ferraris, Gloria Prat and Gina Moret.
Cult purchasers are unquestionably familiar with the term "video nasties". This was a notorious British list containing all the films that could bring 'damage' to society if viewed by irresponsible audiences (dramatization). For gore buffs, this is an excellent checklist as it contains inhumanly cruel and disturbingly realist movies (Faces of Death, Cannibal Holocaust, Driller Killer) as well as outrageous and ultra-sick horror films (The Burning, Nightmare City, The Toolbox Murders). Keeping this in mind, it's quite unusual to see "Night of the Bloody Apes" listed among the other "nasties". It sure is gory…but the blood and violence are so poorly presented I can't imagine anyone would be offended by it. And the silly plot (about a desperate doctor transplanting a gorilla's heart into the chest of his dying son) isn't exactly what you would call disturbingly real, neither. All that remains is a fairly amusing pulp-horror flick with awful acting and pointless sleaze. The man-ape make up effects are laughable and there's no tension or atmosphere to detect anywhere. Enjoyable only if you're in the right mood, in other words. The few sequences showing detailed matches of lady-wrestling (which one of the lead-actresses does for a living) are very cool.
Aside from the gunfight scene, I felt the movie was a waste of celluloid. Robert Duvall, Kevin Costner, and Annette Bening could have played those roles in their sleep. The dialog was marginally tolerable (and there was plenty of it--no one sat together quietly in this movie), the plot was all over the map as if they could not decide how many themes to cram into the story, there was no subtlety at all--foreshadowing hit you between the eyes and they led you by the nose through most of the story (I think they added all the dialog to make sure you didn't miss anything), and the editing really needed tightening up (each actor's screen time was more quantity than quality--again, too much dialog).<br /><br />The entire story took place over the course of a few days, but everything that happened took on epic proportions, much like how day-to-day happenings seemed HUGE to you in high school, but in the grand scheme really weren't THAT important. Yes, the bad guys beat up and killed Mose, they beat up Button, they killed the dog--all things which would get Boss and Charley's blood up. But the importance was diluted by all of the "deep, meaningful" conversations which dominated most of the movie. These guys worked together for 10 years and they're just now talking about this stuff? The only time there wasn't much dialog was in the gunfight scene--which is probably why I liked it.<br /><br />Finally, someone give Annette Bening a hairbrush! The wispy strands of hair around her face that were (I suppose) to make her look a bit more romantic actually made her look a little deranged. If she worked outside the home, it would have made more sense. Plus, why WASN'T she married already? There seemed to be several "kind and gentle" (her words) single men in town aside from the marshal and his cronies. In fact, none of the bad guys seemed to want her either (a usual plot device in other movies). She stayed cooped up in the house most of the time and really didn't seem to have much connection to the people in town. Makes you wonder......<br /><br />In all, the movie was entirely too long, too chatty, and too contrived for me. It felt like a star vehicle with lots of screen time for the big stars, but not enough character depth to interest me, despite all of the dialog.
this film is what happens when people see like in this particular one blair witch project and say hell people running around with cameras, acting slash documentary themed no problemo i can do it and start out with a lame idea make up a terrible script and get a bunch of talentless actors and start shooting a film. plot is that in africa there a halfcaste a breed of man like animals who hunt and kill humans, the locals think that it's a demon or a evil spirit but our wild bunch are in africa to get some proof of there own. no need for more words on the plot this movie get's a 1 out of 10 and i am trying to find something good to say about this movie but after a long time thinking nothing nada zero null.
In this horrible attempt at a Blair Witch mockumentary, a bunch of people go to Africa to investigate a creature called the Half-Caste. It's pretty obvious that there was no script to speak of, and that everything was improvised. That can work if you have good actors, which this film didn't. <br /><br />This movie tries to gain points for originality by exploring a more obscure myth and an exotic culture. As a result, there are a lot of scenes out in the bush where characters do "quirky African stuff" like eating elephant dung. There is also some pretty good footage of lions eating (from a National Geographic perspective) but there's not a single scare in the whole movie. <br /><br />If you've seen Cannibal Holocaust or the Blair Witch Project, this movie will hold no surprises for you, and you can probably watch better lion footage on the Discovery Channel.<br /><br />Definitely a Half- Aste effort. <br /><br />A note to the filmmakers: guys, do us all a favor and next time save the "How I spent my African Vacation" home movie for your family and close friends. Nobody else wants to see it.
You know those movies that are so unspeakably bad that you have to laugh? Half-caste wasn't one of them. Which sounds good, right? But no, it's not. It's not a bad attempt at a horror movie that's fun to watch because it's lame, or not well acted, or has bad special effects or anything else like that. No, Half-caste is just plain boring. They don't even make an attempt to be scary until the last 20 minutes are so. It's just kids running around in the African bush country and getting high off of elephant dung for the first 75% of the movie, and it's not even funny. The last 20 minutes, though, are HILARIOUS. I have no idea what happened, but it was really fun to watch that CGI leopard rip out the throats of all of those white guys I couldn't tell apart anyway. If you're in the mood for a bad horror movie, don't rent this one, because you'll go to sleep before they get to the fun stuff. If you do accidentally rent this movie, I'd recommend fast forwarding to the end, and skipping any scene that happens in daylight. You won't miss anything. You won't have any idea which character is which or exactly what is going on even if you do watch all of the back-story.
I swear, I had never seen such a bad movie as Half Caste is. Not only because it just makes no sense, is a huge piece of egolatry and self-confidence that makes me puke.<br /><br />Sebastian Apocada (in Spanish Apocada has a similar pronunciation to "apocado" which means "out of life and happiness") makes here a one man army movie thinking he is Sam Raimi or the boys who directed the Blair Witch project. This is the Blair Kittie project, with an expensive low budget.<br /><br />The story, a couple of American Filmmakers that go to Africa to make a documentary of the Half Caste, is just no-sense. The way of filming, inserting high speed shots with slow motion shots, just revolts your stomach more than the stupid lines (what the hell is that dialog about Bestiality?) or the lame performances. By the way, I don't believe this cast (or caste?) is American, they all look European to me.<br /><br />To finish this, just say that the filmmakers made an intelligent move about selling the movie. They put a fake award achievement (as most original film) and a nice cover (in Spain the cover had the Half caste image in negative), so I feel now unhappy, because I can't demand my 14 Euros back.
This movie was a big disappointment. The plot sounded great, about a half-human, half-leopard creature in Africa that becomes the subject of a documentary by young American adults. When many of the crew members are found dead, the 2 survivors are taken into questioning. I wouldn't even call this a horror movie, since most of the movie is actually about the (mis)adventures of the aforementioned, narcissistic 20-somethings, which include sex and smoking animal dung to get high (isn't as entertaining as it sounds--trust me). You rarely get to see the creature, and the main actor (who also happens to be the director, screen writer, editor, and producer!) is incredibly annoying.<br /><br />I was finally so annoyed by the never-ending dialogue that I fast-forwarded to the end. I had guessed the ending in less than 10 minutes into the movie...and I was right. Thus, this awful movie is utterly predictable, too--as if it wasn't bad enough. Moral of the story: avoid movies that are acted, directed, edited, produced and written by the same nobody. And avoid this movie, unless held at gunpoint.
Probably the worst movie I have ever seen. It is so cheesily filmed, the focus is not even on this supposed "real half-caste", it is more on the crew coming from Hollywood to make the movie. No cinematic significance whatsoever, and if I could take back the almost 1 1/2 hours that I spent watching this film, I would feel much better.<br /><br />At first, it starts out giving you the impression it will be filmed somewhat generically, like an actual Hollywood production. However, then they go into the narration of the story, and it's filmed so f***ing terribly. It's supposed to be a take on "Blair Witch Project" really, since they pretty much use what you would think is 'real camera footage', it's not, don't be fooled.<br /><br />Worst movie I have ever seen . . . on the positive side, it has like one semi-scary scene in it, and the visuals of the half-caste weren't too bad looking at all. DON'T RENT
I remember seeing this at my local Blockbuster and picked it up cause I was curious. I liked movies about mythological creatures. I like movies about werewolves, vampires, zombies, etc. This is based on half-caste, a half-human half-leopard creature that preys on the people of Africa.<br /><br />The movie is horrendous! The actors are terrible! There is no script whatsoever! It's all improvised! The whole thing is filmed at night because they say that is the only time you ever see it. It's obvious bull*bleep*! They film at night to make it scary. But, they have failed to scare me. After the first person was killed, I put this back in the case and took it back to Blockbuster. One of the most boring movies I've ever seen.<br /><br />Now you are probably saying I have no right to review a movie if I haven't finished it. Well, this is one of the films that didn't deserve to be watched all the way through.<br /><br />1 star out of 10. This is really BAD!
An annoying and talentless American documentary maker learns of a legendary<br /><br />South African monster, the Half-Caste. Tradition says that it is a half-human, half-leopard creature with the closest parallel being that of the werewolf of European tradition. Rather than focus on the creature, the film follows the meanderings of the film crew. There is little action or suspense until late in the film. This problem is exacerbated by numerous irritating characters generating a ceaseless amount of even more irritating talk. The basic premise is wasted since it is sidelined by the inexplicable focus on the documentary crew. <br /><br />Perhaps the director was influenced by the approach of The Blair Witch Project (1999) or The Last Broadcast (1998). Regardless, the film fails on most levels. Avoid at all costs.
Terrible acting, terrible script, wholly unrealistic. The Bumblebee Flies Anyway exemplifies the cliches and sentimentalism that movie studios love to cram down viewers' throats. Elijah Wood is unimaginably bad in the primary role, and the plot points are contrived and sappy. Cook's and Wood's relationship is laughable at best. But the worst element of Bumblebee is the script. This is some of the most mind-numbingly bad dialogue I have ever had the misfortune to hear. Bumblebees actually crawling inside my ears and stinging my eardrums would be preferable to hearing Elijah Wood robotically spit out his pseudo-profound lines. I wish a "Bumblebee Project" would be performed on me, so I could mercifully have no memories of this stinker.
I rented this movie because Elijah Wood has done some good work and I thought this might be an overlooked treasure. It was not a treasure. I don't know if this was straight to video, but it should have been straight to the dump.<br /><br />Elijah Wood fans will like the fact that he appears shirtless in a much-too-brief shower scene. But, no sane person would like this script. Imagine Memento played by teen actors, but ten times more confusing and a hundred times less plausible. Case in point: Janeane Garofalo plays a caring psychologist (apparently `keeping the chain of mediocrity alive').<br /><br />As if false memories syndromes and mind-over-matter medicine weren't hokey enough, the movie also hinges on one of those unexplained psychic twin bonds that keep the plot moving and the audience baffled. This same twin bond creates a few too many contrived love scenes between Wood's character and the girl from She's All That, who plays the saintly sister of Wood's angry cancer-victim friend.<br /><br />Adding to the triteness of this screenplay, Wood's other friends are a mentally challenged cancer victim and Kidney, a young black boy afflicted with a mysterious kidney disease. Kidney's dying wish comes true when Dr. Garofalo gives him his own Walkman. This character's hackneyed function in the story is matched by his on-again, off-again relationship to walking. Usually bound to a wheelchair, Kidney has several inexplicable scenes showing him pushing others around in it.<br /><br />Kindey's characterization may be one small detail, but it is indicative of this film's many other flaws. The Bumblebee Flies Anyway is definitely bumbling, but it never flies.
There ought to be some kind of prosecution to punish producers from financing screenplays this stupid. I feel that some kind of criminalization of bad film might prevent more films this idiotic from being made. Sure it has an interesting cast of characters, but I don't think I've ever seen a more cardboard performance from an entire cast as in this uniquely crappy piece of crap. That director ought to be punished somehow for not eliciting at least some kind of performance out of these people. So detachment is a theme, (no really, they'll beat you over the head with this one), it doesn't mean every character has to recite their lines as if they on NPR. Did I mention this movie was crappy? Lastly I'm not sure what connection one's memories would have with terminal bone cancer, but I'm reasonably certain if you were totally brain dead your cancer would continue to grow regardless. This movie is an insult to cancer patients, medical professionals, and non-retarded people. Oh, and lastly, bumblebees fly because they produce a sufficient amount of lift for their mass by beating their wings just like every other flying insect. I absolutely despise people presenting false knowledge as fact. Next time do a little research before using an imbecilic misconception as a premise for an entire freaking movie. JUST KIDDING BELIEVE IN JESUS!
I know...I know: it's difficult (if not paradoxical) for there to be such a thing as "believable" fantasy. But, to me, there is also such a condition wherein TOO MUCH UNbelievability interfere's with, or distracts from my overall opinion of the movie. The latter was the case for me with regard to Goliath Awaits. Not only did I have too many unanswered questions concerning the storyline, but some of the acting, too, I thought, was a bit over-the-top. (Maybe, though, it was the writing: asking them to recite too many trite, predictable, cliched (over-?) reactions.) Others have said enough about the plot. I just wish that it was done - and, I think that it COULD have been - more convincingly. P. S.: This is a FRESH comment about this film - I just finished watching it a couple of minutes ago; not a recollection from years ago.
I just finishing watching Goliath Awaits that I ordered from my library. I remembered it vaguely from years ago and wanted to watch it with my son. Anyway, the movie was less than 2 hours running time and I thought it was much longer when I first saw it. The back of the VHS box states that the Goliath "emtombs a Nazi file whose secrets could destroy the free world forever." The divers were supposedly on a covert mission to retrieve the demonic document. There was nothing even spoken about retrieving this document. Also, the box says that the "bestial ship's insatiable boiler feeds on human blood." That would make this a horror movie and there was also nothing revealed in the movie about this. I can't remember the details when I watched this years ago on TV...but could the back of this box actually be true? Maybe the 3 hour movie revealed more details??<br /><br />Just wondering if anyone knows anything about this.
Well, Dude Where's My Car might be at least a novelty as one of few Hollywood films that seems to have been written, cast, filmed & edited in less than a day. I honestly can't believe this got made (or that I allowed my friends to make me sit through the entire thing). The jokes are too stupid and predictable to be "dumb-funny", and the actors involved don't seem like they would be capable of pulling off any kind of funny had the script actually provided it. Oddly enough, unlike most mindless slapstick comedies, this movie actually has TOO MUCH plot - every scene seems to introduce a new moronic and uninteresting subplot. Of course, they were obviously going for moronic, but it doesn't work on any level whatsoever...There is only one aspect of this film I enjoyed: Donkeylips from the old Nickalodean show "Salute Your Shorts" has a very small role. This is the role that will turn him into the next Richard Gere though, you just watch...
There no doubt in one mined that this movie is stupid and unfunny joke, but tell the truth it is quite entertaining (if you re first time viewer and try not to analyzed anything) Over all the movie have a very good ideas but badly written.<br /><br />The story of the two losers, waking up to find out that they can't remember what happen to them the day before. Only to find out later that they are after by the angry twin girl friends, aliens, transsexual stripper, Aliens nerds and some gangs members. <br /><br />Isn't it like The Bourne Identity? Yeah yeah, I know - how can I compare the two movies, but what the hell? They both have no memories; peoples were after them and so on. <br /><br />Anyway the movie is stupid and is only for the viewer that like stupid movie. <br /><br />Reason To Watch: · Loads of young talented actors, · Very stupid (after all you know it a stupid movie, why not make it extreme)<br /><br />Reason Not To: · If you like to analyzed, then forget it, · Talented Young actors turn bad, · Good plod turn really bad<br /><br />Rating: 4/10 (Grade: E+)<br /><br />------------ ------------ ---------- ---------- --------- --------- ----<br /><br />'Dude Where's My Car' -wait, what do you expected from Ashton Kutcher's movie. I think almost every people got the same answer for this guy - 'A really stupid movie'. Apart from 'That 70s' Shows' this guy really has nothing to offer his fan. (He should thank the series for his reputation). 'Dude Where's My Car', is one of his trademark -'stupidity'. Somehow his film is even worst than Adam Sandler's movies, (can you imagine that). The movie is really non-sense, no story line, and no nothing. Mara Sokoloff, Jennifer Garner, Alison Sweeney and S.W.Scoot should not have wasted their talent on this garbage. They even came up with 'Seriously, Dude Where's My Car'. This shows how the movie companies are dying of making money rather than quality.<br /><br />Max: 4/10<br /><br />Recommendation: Borrow it from your friends or just forget about it
Well, I am SO glad I watched this on HBO instead of paying for it in the theaters or video store. The movie has some points, but, if you want to make it a worthwhile movie, I suggest that you become what the main characters are called...stoners.<br /><br />2/10
SO THIS IS where Columbia's head of their Short Subjects Unit got his Directorial start, eh? Yeah,it's none other than Mr. Jules White who is credited (or is it rather, "exposed") as the Director of this entry into MGM's DOGVILLE Series. Given co-credit as co-Director is one Zion Myers; whose name is heretofore unknown to us. Mr. Meyers was, no doubt, the guy who controlled the four-legged thespians and was responsible for training and "acting". In short, he must have been the Dog Trainer on the set.<br /><br />THE TITLE OF this comedy short is no doubt a play on the MGM feature of the same year, THE BIG HOUSE; which starred Chester Morris, Wallace Beery, Robert Montgomery and a stellar cast in support. We must plead ignorance in regards to this title; not having seen it up to this point. (Sorry,Schultz!) But there are many of the doggie gags that relate to what we've read about the movie*; not to mention some particular character specific gags. For example, we observed a canine convict who st-st-stuttered and deduced,correctly, that the bow-wow actor was mimicking character comedian, Roscoe Ates. We later cross-checked with the cast of THE BIG HOUSE and presto, his name is there! (Brilliant deduction, one fit for Holmes & Watson!) <br /><br />THE PRACTICE OF lampooning popular features was already a tried and true practice in the realm of the comedy short. It was one that seemed to draw no objections from the producers and copyright owners of the major films; but rather quite contrarily received heaps of tassive approval. After all, imitation is said to be the sincerest form of flattery; besides, any producer would welcome even some seemingly irreverent parodying.** AS FOR THE movie, itself, we found it to be interesting in a sort of perverse manner. Seeing so many of "Man's Best Friends" being so artificially animated into one, long and boring sort of anthropomorphic gag seemed very tiring to we, who make up the audience. I mean just how many pooches were made to bark, needlessly, in order to achieve the illusion of 'talking'? <br /><br />WHEN IT COMES to pets, or "Animal Companions" as the Politically Correct crowd prefers, we are quite eclectic; favoring not only dogs; but also cats, hamsters and parakeets. We don't enjoy seeing any animal exploited in such a non-funny,extended play format.<br /><br />AS INCREDIBLE AS it may seem, the step that Mr. Jules White made from MGM's Shorts to heading up Columbia's 2 Reeler production would seem to have been not only a $tep up in the area of finance$; but al$o in the Arti$tic Content. We never thought that being Producer-Director for the likes of such luminaries as the 3 Stooges, Andy Clyde and Hugh Herbert, as well as some who certainly had seen better days, such as Charley Chase, Buster Keaton and Harry Langdon; would be a step up cinematically.<br /><br />IN CASE WE haven't made our point yet; we're officially panning this one. So, view it at your own risk. We warned you! <br /><br />NOTE * We read excellent accounts of both THE BIG HOUSE and the Laurel & Hardy send-up, PARDON US (Hal Roach/MGM, 1931) in both MR. LAUREL & MR. HARDY by John McCabe (1962) and THE FILMS OF LAUREL & HARDY by William K. Everson (1967). Both books have our most enthusiastic endorsement.<br /><br />NOTE ** The Prison Picture became a Genre of its own; all owing a debt to THE BIG HOUSE. In PARDON US, Laurel & Hardy, Hal Roach and its Director did a first class spoof,the first of many; for a Prison comedy became a required theme for so many a screen funny man to come.
Five years after the US Civil War, western folk are more concerned with the age old war between homesteaders and cattle ranchers. The cattlemen herd their wares, from Texas to the trail town of Abilene, Kansas. There, the cowboys find not only big money, but also big confrontation, with homesteaders. Tall in the saddle Marshal Randolph Scott (as Dan Mitchell) tries to keep peace in the town. Mr. Scott has experience mediating between trail hands and saloon patrons. He also juggles the town's finest looking women: sexy saloon singer Ann Dvorak (as Rita) and pretty church lady Rhonda Fleming (as Sherry). Boozy county Sheriff Edgar Buchanan (as Bravo Trimble) offers more comic relief than sharp-shooting assistance.<br /><br />"Abilene Town" begins with some promising symbolism and contrast: gunshots interrupt Scott and Ms. Fleming singing a hymn in Church; then, the camera switches to Ms. Dvorak sexily singing her saloon number, which causes a man to fire his gun in pleasure. After that, it really becomes quite a standard western; it is somehow duller than it should be, but not quite awful. Young Lloyd Bridges appears as one of the homesteaders. Dvorak's leggy costume is the film's greatest asset; in it, she is a real mover. <br /><br />**** Abilene Town (1/11/46) Edwin L. Marin ~ Randolph Scott, Ann Dvorak, Edgar Buchanan
this western/musical/comedy is not one of the best of the genre i have seen.i found it much too slow.it just plodded along to the inevitable end.i also found it disjointed.i couldn't wait for it to be over.Randolph Scott is the headliner here,and Lloyd Bridges also stars.but for my money money Edgar Buchanan is the best of the bunch.Buchanan appeared in many westerns in his day,many times providing comic relief,as he does in this picture.i also liked Ann Dvorak as Rita.otherwise,though,i can't think of much to recommend this movie.the movie is based on a novel by Ernest Haycock,who also wrote the novel Stagecoach,which was mad into a movie of the same name in 1939,and remade in 1966 and again in 1986.The 1939 version of Stagecoach,is in my mind,one of the best movies ever made.anyway.as for Abilene town,my vote is a 3/10
It seems incredible that the same decade which brought Star Wars to the silvery screen disgorged such unutterable tripe as this and many other 'adventure' movies. I am reminded of the similarly lavish, but equally wretched 'Ashanti' outlined elsewhere.<br /><br />Whatever motivated A-list actors to sign-on for such wastes of celluloid is frankly beyond this writer. They must have been very, very desperate. To be perfectly candid, Roger Moore's appearance in any movie is the kiss of death. Although extremely handsome in his youth, his entire acting career has been predicated upon an ability to raise one eyebrow. Every emotion from A to B is conveyed by this simple stratagem. His were the dog-days of James Bond. Lee Marvin on the other hand has featured in some very worthy outings, perhaps most memorably 'Paint Your Wagon' and 'The Dirty Dozen'. He has a comic streak, but he is much better when he plays it straight.<br /><br />The excellent Ian Holm is a throwaway, hardly recognisable blacked-up as a mute African. Everyone else just turned up for their pay-cheques.<br /><br />The only plausible and watchable element is the German cruiser. It looks like a very large model. But it is believably massive and appears authentic - as do its crew. The rest isn't even hokum. The childish comedy jars with the brutality and violence in a story that meanders clumsily about, as if the script itself had had too many whiffs of Lee Marvin's gin. Here is a director who simply doesn't know where he's going. There are hints of 'The African Queen', a snatch from 'The Pride & The Passion', 'Gold', and one or two other rip-offs from movies who's titles don't come readily to mind.<br /><br />Strangely, I have seen it 3 times, each occasion it has been shown on television when I have been laid low with a cold or the flu. Perhaps that is influencing my judgement - but not much.<br /><br />Compare it with any Indiana Jones movie and you will see what I mean.<br /><br />I have given it two stars; one for the battleship and the other because it finally comes to an end, though heaven knows it takes long enough to do that.<br /><br />Time for another Lemsip, I think.
This film had all the ingredients of a good adventure movie, but it revealed incompetence at almost every level.<br /><br />The presence of Roger Moore in the cast list is usually a sign that the movie is not going to be anything more than mediocre, because Moore always has lead roles and he can't act. But this movie also had Ian Holm and Lee Marvin in it, and was based on a Wilbur smith book, so I thought I'd give it a chance when I saw the DVD for sale in the bargain bin...<br /><br />It was a mistake. The opening scene appeared to start in the middle of a reel, with sound suddenly appearing as if the first second of the soundtrack had been truncated. The scene showed a dreadnought at sea with a German crew. This bad editing was a sign of things to come, but the scene with the dreadnought was interesting enough to keep me watching. The special effects were good, and the crew wore the proper uniforms and spoke in German, indicating that the director at least paid attention to historical detail. I was surprised. <br /><br />So I kept watching, and then Moore appeared and my supicions were confirmed. Bad acting, clichéd lines, clichéd cinematography and cheap humour...but worst of all, there is a disastrous attempt to blend the light-hearted feel of the film with serious drama and tragedy. It just does not work.<br /><br />The film ends as suddenly and as badly as it started – in the middle of a reel.
I liked Half-Life. I am still it's fan. It was frightening, intelligent and challenging. I don't tell any news it is one the best FPS ever made. Maybe I'm too hardcore Half-Life fan but the so called Half-Life 2 is not Half-Life 2.<br /><br />And I have a question: is THIS the next chapter of Half-Life? Maybe the creators -Valve- thinks so but I don't. Where are the intelligent enemies? Where is the frightening atmosphere? Nowhere. I believe they wanted to make a bit different Half-Life (instead of another research station story), but they didn't just made a very different one, they made something that has to do with Half-Life like for example Quake does to Doom. The entire game so unsightly and unreal that it's almost forlorn.<br /><br />Though the physics are truly great and there were a few good level to play, the idea to make a revolutionary physic-driven gameplay has utterly failed. When you get the Gravity-gun, that can move objects, you can expect with rights to use it as a weapon- that would turn the schematic FPS gameplay upside down. The truth is, you can't use Gravity-gun as a real weapon. Why? Because the best you can do is throwing boxes and barrels that don't do much damage. If you want to keep an object in front of you to protect it can fall from about 3 shots. If you want to throw an exploding barrel to your enemy it can explode in your own "hand". The gravity-gun doesn't work as a weapon. The best usage is solving some physic-puzzles. I ask Valve: Why? The truth is you must use your boring, schematic FPS weapons to the end(except for last level) Weapons are not that made original Half-life a classic. If Gravity-gun would be always like at the last level -a real weapon- I'd admire what Valve did. But not this. This is disappointing.<br /><br />So if you want Half-Life then you are searching at the wrong place. Maybe you will enjoy it but I repeat: it is everything but not Half-Life and even not a faithful continuation of that. This is the greatest disappointment of all time. Valve have shown they can make awful games too. They have managed that.
I just got back from seeing, "Comedian". It was...alright. It kept me looking at the screen. Its just not the type of thing I like to go pay $7 to see.<br /><br />Now don't get me wrong, it'd make a great HBO feature. If this were something I was watching on TV, i'd be hooked right in. It gives an amazing look at what comics go through before and after getting on stage. It will interest anyone who likes watching comics.<br /><br />But when I go to the movies, I like to be entertained. I'm not there to be educated. Now I know what its like for Jerry Seinfeld before he goes out on stage....great. But truthfully, I'd rather just laugh at his jokes than worry about any of that.<br /><br />One more thing: With the bad attitude Onry Adams has; I'd expect to see him taking my order from Burger King before I see his HBO special. He wasn't funny. He's the kind of person that you love to hate.
The IMDB plot summary erroneously makes it sound like it is Noah Taylor's movie, when Fairuza Balk is the central character. It is unbelievable how such a cast of established actors could have been in such an amateurish, pointless, non-movie. Balk breaks up with Boyfriend Taylor, sleeps with the Devil (I guess - played by Dempsey), and accidentally kills Taylor -- who follows her about for the rest of the movie as a ghost. May be the worst movie I have ever seen.
This flick, which is a.k.a. "Life In the Fast Lane" is easily one of the least entertaining movies I've seen in a long time. I think it was made in mind of the sick, twisted and jaded L.A. women who represent about .00000001 of the population in the States. The characters are all one-dimensional, even the lead. After she stabs her boyfriend in the head with some scissors, a cheap laugh is attempted (and unsucceeds) by sticking a cork in the boyfriend's skull to stop the bleeding. Oh, clever! Patrick Dempsey (whose movies are almost always a class act --sarcasm) plays this "devil" who changes her life - but from what we've seen, her life was this series of vignettes to begin with. No emotion, no laughs, no story. The only reason I give this a 2 is that Jeffrey Jones is ok as the priest and there is a bit of style (albiet zero substance) in the camerawork. Otherwise, one of the 5 worst films I've seen. Grade 2 out of 10 AN F! I think that even the most drugged out junkie who would laugh at a toilet seat falling would dislike this film. I can't stress enough how much you should stay away.<br /><br />
1st watched 12/26/2008 -(Dir-Eugene Levy): Corny comedy murder mystery with very few laughs. The movie appears to be based on an earlier Italian movie according to the credits but was re-written by two fairly popular American romantic comedy writers. But this one by Charles Shyer & Nancy Meyers does not cut it compared to their other efforts. The story is about a couple of down-and-out traveling Americans, played by Richard Lewis and Sean Young, who stumble upon a lost dog and hope to make a fortune in reward money after seeing an ad in the paper for the dachsund's return. Upon trying to return it, they see a hand sticking out of a garage door at the lady's residence that they believe is attached to the rest of the dead body of the woman who is supposed to give them the money. They freak out and instead of contacting the police and telling them the truth they make out like runaways from the scene expecting to be framed for the murder. The other characters in the film are met on a train prior to this and hang around a Monte Carlo gambling resort doing various things to be pulled into the story. The other cast members include character actors John Candy, James Belushi, Cybill Shepherd, George Hamilton and others. After the police find out about the death, they start questioning the main characters and, of course, they have to work thru their goofy lies to figure out what really happened. None of the character actors mentioned earlier can bring this movie out of it's mediocre state despite some funny moments mostly provided by the Belushi/Shepherd couple. This isn't a horrible movie, it just isn't that good. There are plenty of average movies out there and this is just another one for the pile. Try it, maybe you'll like it, probably you won't.
First, IFC runs Town and Country, and now this. The difference between that stinker and this Pink Panther rip-off is that Town and Country was watchable. This isn't.<br /><br />I can only surmise that the cast signed up for this so they could goof off in Europe on somebody else's dime. Belushi is especially irritating. His scene with Candy (doing a Z-grade Dom DeLuise) was torture. Speaking of torture, five minutes of the talentless Shepherd, and I bet the prisoners at Gitmo would crack like walnuts!<br /><br />The real "Crime" (besides this being green-lighted) is Shepherd's character: a mousy wife who takes a Monte Carlo casino for a half-million bucks! If you buy that, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona you might be interested in!
Esther Williams plays a romantically unattached water-skiing secretary who longs to stop "walking on the water" and be some man's wife; Van Johnson and Tony Martin are her potential choices for a husband. Despite fine aquatic sequences filmed at Florida's Cypress Gardens, this romantic comedy is awfully stale. As helmed by plodding director Charles Walters, everything here is made to seem intentionally innocuous, which doesn't lend the picture much staying power. Even Esther's big moments in the water are not quite up to the mesmerizing leaps from her other swimming vehicles, though they are preferable to the asides with the men, both of whom are colorless. Carroll Baker, in her film debut as Martin's disgruntled ex-girlfriend, is the liveliest of the bunch. Flimsy stuff, indeed. *1/2 from ****
Not many people remember "The Carey Treatment", and I can't say I blame them.<br /><br />Blake Edwards did this during his lean years (i.e. - between "Pink Panther" movies.) and for a story of a doctor turned detective (Coburn) working to solve a murder in his hospital, it's actually pretty forgettable.<br /><br />Coburn is dependable as always and O'Neill is beautiful as always but there just seems to be something missing from the proceedings. The story twists and turns aren't very involving and even the climax, which is supposed to be nerve-wracking, is gut-wrenching instead.<br /><br />A missed opportunity altogether, and an unfortunate one at that, since it was based on a Michael Crichton book. <br /><br />Oh well, at least Crichton didn't write a sequel to it.<br /><br />One star. "Carey" on, Coburn.
Hip, distinguished doctor James Coburn (as Peter Carey) arrives to accept a position as pathologist at a Boston hospital. Almost immediately, Mr. Coburn beds beautiful nutritionist Jennifer O'Neill (as Georgia Hightower). While sleeping with Ms. O'Neill, Coburn is awakened by an emergency involving a botched abortion - the fifteen-year-old who bleeds to death happens to be the daughter of the hospital's big donor, Dan O'Herlihy (as J.D. Randall). Coburn doesn't believe the man arrested, doctor pal James Hong (as David Tao), committed the crime; although, Mr. Hong admits to performing illegal abortions on the side. While trying to clear his friend, Coburn wades through a thickening plot… <br /><br />**** The Carey Treatment (3/29/72) Blake Edwards ~ James Coburn, Jennifer O'Neill, Michael Blodgett, James Hong
What a terrible movie this was! I made it about 50 minutes into it and started skipping chapters until the end. The plot is nothing special, and the dialog from the movie deviates from the main story so much that your head will explode out of rage. Many useless minutes wasted just listening to characters jabber on about something irrelevant to the plot, AND/OR something that could said in a shorter amount of time. The camera work is shaky, and grainy. It seemed Mr. Milligan needed to take his finger off of the zoom button! I noticed also that at some points during this movie it seemed that Andy was having seizures, and would uncontrollably shake the camera. The splices between scenes were jumpy and didn't flow. The murder scenes were nothing special - incredibly, and laughably fake. Barely any gore, as the title suggests. This movie runs about 1 hour 20 minutes and the murder scenes take up about 1 minute TOTAL of the whole movie - if that. What a wretched piece of garbage this movie was. Andy Milligan is in fact probably one of the worst directors to plague mankind with his talentless directing, and camera-work. Usually, I can make it through really bad horror movies, and laugh about it later. BLOODTHIRSTY BUTCHERS, however, I can't. I am just angry I wasted an hour and a half of my life watching this (what I wouldn't do to gain it back). Take my suggestion, and DO NOT see this movie unless you plan on falling asleep. TERRIBLE.
For the uninitiated, almost any Andy Milligan film is a shock, but despite the fact that I've seen many of his films, this one still takes the cake for sheer shoddiness.<br /><br />This is, of course, Milligan's take on the Sweeney Todd tale, done with period costumes (but not necessarily period hairstyles, in some cases) and the usual headache-inducing camera-work & grainy quality. As for the gore, well, the version I saw may have been cut some, for there's not a lot, for a film with "bloodthirsty" in the title. The best indication of subversive film-making here is a meat pie consisting only of some poor victim's tit.<br /><br />So, while I will still treasure this piece of, uh, work, on my video shelf, it's definitely somewhat of a letdown as far as content though. Recommended for only the foolhardy & morbidly curious. 3 out of 10.
You know the story of "Sweeney Todd" now, most likely thanks to Tim Burton's recent movie. You probably don't know it though, from this take on the old tale from Andy Milligan-that notorious sleaze merchant that gave Al Adamson and Ted V. Mikels a run for their money.<br /><br />It had to happen eventually. In my years of watching horror and exploitation from the 60's to the 80's, I'm finally reviewing an Andy Milligan movie. You see, from 1964 to 1990, Andy gave us many an exploitation and horror movie-none of which was any good, and barely watchable. "The Bloodthirsty Butchers" is no exception.<br /><br />There is dialog and well, there is talk, and that's one of the things you will find here-lots and lots of talk. The movie reaches almost "Manos The Hands of Fate" levels at times, as you wait tirelessly for something to happen. While I love cheap looking gore effects, the violence is too few and far between, and in spite of it's reputation, the "breast" scene isn't that shocking. <br /><br />I love cheap and sleazy exploitation as much as the next trash cinema devotee, but "Bloodthirsty Butchers" is the kind of bad that MST3K would tear apart mercilessly. Sadly, Milligan would die of AIDS in 1991, and if there is any movie of his I'd say I sort of like, it would be the delirious "The Ghastly Ones." This is no "Ghastly Ones" though-it's just bad.
When I bought this film, I expected to get a fun, 1970's exploitation film. Instead, I got this bore fest by amateur auteur Andy Milligan. Ah, Andy Milligan. With his tight editing, breakneck pacing , and wonderfully well known actors, you'd almost think you're watching...one of his home movies! Seriously, I couldn't even stay awake the first time I tried to watch it. The scenes of boring people dragged on an on, and whenever someone got killed, the film would slow down. Sometimes it would speed up too, making the characters voices sound like chipmunks, which was probably the best thing about this film. The script actually seemed a bit better than the film, and seems more well suited to be in a soap opera than in a grainy 70's sleeping pill where the actors constantly stumble over it's lines. The cover said "Their prime cuts were curiously erotic...but thoroughly brutal!" Trust me, there is nothing "erotic" about this film. Oh, we do get to see characters that resemble extra lumpy cottage cheese making out, but that's about it. And as far as "brutal", well, the viewer is brutalized the most with this here film. And another thing...
The word "boring" gets thrown around way too often when referring to exactly how bad a low-budget Horror movie might, or might not be. I've seen many a B-movie. Many horrible, terribly inept B-movies. Some with a production value of a few hundred bucks. Does ineptness, lousy acting, worse continuity, and embarrassing budgets really make a movie unwatchable? Some would no doubt way yes. Most of which are probably huge fans of The Matrix. Well, I hate big-budget movies, so I say no. Bad can sometimes be funny (Blood Freak), sometimes even mind-blowing (Troll 2), but Boring will always be unwatchable... Hey, kinda like Bloodthirsty Butchers, which reminds me, I'm writing a review for this pile of garbage... Uh, yeah, anyway. This is one of late British director Andy Milligan's many alternatives to sleeping pills. This one is based on Sweeney Todd... Great. Milligan takes a boring story, and still manages to "butcher" it. Hey, that's pretty funny, I said bu... sorry, I keep getting distracted. This isn't exactly easy. On second thought, I'll make it easy. No gore, no scares, no entertainment, just unlikeable, annoying people having incoherent conversations. that's Bloodthirsty Butchers. Oh yeah, and something about a barber killing people, and something or other about meat pies. I don't know, it's not important.<br /><br />For something a little more rewarding from Andy Milligan, there's always the only other one I've seen, The Rats Are Coming, The Werewolves Are Here. Yeah, you heard me. But hows about we forget about this Milligan guy all together, and pick up something sweet like Sick Girl or Teenape Goes To Camp. Whatever you decide, just know, Bloodthirsty Butchers sucks, possibly even more than any other version of this already lackluster tale. And that, B-movie fans, is really saying something. 2/10
This is awful, you just could't believe it. The score is annoying, the filming is bad, for example, sometimes you see the shadow of the cameraman appearing on some actors faces. The quality of the movie is ultra bad, seems like it was made in the 20ies. It's terrible. There is a bit of blood in the beginning and through the movie but always too dark filmed. No gore no effects. The director made some better one like Blood Rites. But out there there is a following of the man, 'cause searching to find this cheap flick isn't that hard but you have to pay hard earned cash for it. Surely this will get in my top ten of worst horrormovies ever, I don't know if I would call it horror. There is too much talking, you will get bloodthirsty after watching it
....is the boob in the pie. Every thing else in it is an abortion, a malformed failure of a film. At least you can SEE and HEAR what goes on in an Ed Wood movie (usually). High schools drama clubs do better than this on a routine basis. Once you've you've seen the breast pie bit, you can turn it off and go watch "Hannibal".
As I write this user-comment, Tim Burton's interpretation of the Sweeney Todd tale is making big money at the box office and the film even earned a couple of Oscar nominations if I'm not mistaken. I haven't seen it yet, but I sincerely hope Burton didn't look for inspiration and/or stylish trademarks in good old Andy Milligan's "Bloodthirsty Butchers". Yes, even though the title distinctively mentions butchers, the main characters in the plot are a barber (the infamous Sweeney Todd) and a female baker. Together they form a vile alliance where he kills the customers in his shop and she processes the bodies into her famous London meat pies. In other words, an Andy Milligan premise at his most typical, derivative, delirious and amateurish. I think the IMDb rating for this film speaks for itself. Although the actual story definitely isn't the worst I've ever seen, Milligan somehow inexplicably attracts sheer ineptitude. The production is one gigantic mess, with an incoherent narrative structure, truly hideous photography, poor lighting, lousy acting and directing, laughable gore and zilch tension or atmosphere. More than half of the footage is pure padding and words fail to describe how BORING the film is, even with a running time of a mere 80 minutes. Ed Wood, Ted V. Mikels and Bruno Mattei; you guys need not fear as none other than Andy Milligan is – hands down – the worst director ever, but I don't think he cared. Maybe if you dispose of a really high level of tolerance, "Bloodthirsty Butchers" is worth one viewing.
Andy Milligan, the independent movie maker from New York, directs this little "treat" as his version of the Sweeney Todd legend. Sweeney slits the throats of customers in his barbershop and his cohort Mrs. Lovett turns them into meat pies. Thankfuly I was well-informed of the plot prior to seeing this film travesty. Milligan, for my money, has to indeed be running in the lead of worst directors of all-time race. Ed Wood looks like Orson Welles in comparison. This movie is so bad in oh so many ways. Let's take Milligan's direction for starters. The film quality is grainy. The sound quality is grainy. Many scenes look as if Milligan was using a camcorder to film. The credits say "Photograped and directed by Andy Milligan." He wants to take credit for ceilings showing up after a death scene? How about the atrocious musical score selected for the film? The film cuts with one poor transition after another. Little logic is used in the creation of the plot. The story has little to do with the actual legend of Todd. The murder scenes are plentiful but not horrifying in any way. Hands, legs, and other appendages are cut with the skill in which the editing was done: choppily! And let's take the breast in the pie scene. Yes, it is in there. The pie maker didn't know that an entire breast with nipple filled an entire pie crust? Later we hear from our characters that they "have been careful not to get caught" for the 200 plus murders they have done. Obviously they are a couple of boobs not able to keep abreast of what is going on(sorry it was too tempting). The actors are not too terribly bad to be honest. Some even have glimmers of talent, and all seem to be genuine English articles. Many non-erotic nude scenes are forced throughout. Milligan seemingly has some issues regarding sex. Plot strands are left untied. The ending is almost unwatchable due to poor camera work. I could go on and on. Did I like anything about the film? Not much to be truthful. I have a high level of acceptance for films of this ilk in terms of low budgets and marginal talent, but this film lacks any real purpose other than to be crude and sick.
I have recently become a huge fan of Patton Oswalt. I think he's the most deliciously original comedian to come along in ages. He is refreshing and fearless in his routines, which run the gamut of topics from how much Bush sucks to the sleazy exploits of 1970s producer Robert Evans. I'm a longtime fan of Maria Bamford and her wide-eyed innocent/schizophrenic routine. Whenever she effortlessly switches her naturally high-pitched voice to one that is clipped and throaty, I can't help but giggle. I liked Brian Posehn long before I even knew he was on "Just Shoot Me", and there is something so innately funny about his aging nerd persona. All three of these talented, unique comedians headline "The Comedians of Comedy", a Netflix documentary about their U.S. tour. They truly deserve to be stars, and this tour gave them the recognition they so richly deserve. I thought,no, I KNEW I'd like this movie...<br /><br />But I was wrong. Instead of the three comics each getting their own routine segments, "The Comedians of Comedy" is bogged down by meandering and dull documentary scenes that contain no humor, no insight, nothing of real interest. I think there is a total of 30 minutes of intermittent stand-up routines total in the 109 minute movie. What a rip-off! Come on, is anyone really interested in seeing our stars banter in their RV? Where's the humor in seeing Posehn in an arcade and a comic book shop? Does anyone find random diner scenes particularly funny? If this movie couldn't have shown our comics strutting their stuff, at least make it about what life is like on the road. It's not even about that. Worst of all, the comics never appear to be having real fun. Oswalt admits how bored he is doing a radio interview, Posehn sheepishly admits to how much he sucks at giving a tour of his home, and Bamford nervously improvises every time the camera is pointed at her, and her humor there is only sporadic.<br /><br />Sheesh, these guys deserve a chance to show the world their unconventional, amazingly crafted humor that is a refreshing change of pace from the brainless entertainment of mainstream comics like Dane Cook. Instead, we have to sit through their mundane, everyday routines on the road in a substandard bore of a movie whose quality could easily be surpassed by any student film. If you can locate any of Oswalt's, Posehn's, or Bamford's performances on DVD, by all means do. Their talent should be a joy to behold, not a chore like it is here.
The use of the term 'comedy' with relation to this documentary is an insult to the art of comedy, and worse yet is the pain that is inflicted on the viewers of this production. Almost nothing was funny.<br /><br />This documentary followed a small group of stand-up 'comics' on the road as they travel from town to town to perform in small clubs.<br /><br />It's interesting to note that their conversations and behavior off-stage and on-stage are indistinguishable, but sadly, equally unfunny.<br /><br />It's possible to understand the self delusions of grandeur which the featured 'comedians' possess, but it's harder to grasp the sounds of laughter heard from their audiences. Perhas these are the same audiences for whom the lame sitcoms on TV are intended.<br /><br />This was possibly the worst film I've ever watched in my 50+ years of movie viewing.
The name of Bad Company's greatest hits album is called "10 From 6". You could have just turned up this album and cut the sound on this movie. Most of the songs played in the movie were from this album. I guess oldsters during the 1970s were probably tired of all the period pieces made then about the 1930s and 1940s. That's how I feel about movies made about the 1970s. The characters in the movie looked like they were auditioning for Danny Terrio. Why is it that movies have to exaggerate the 1970s. The only good period piece I liked was "Freaks and Geeks". They cut that television show. It was exactly like things were in high school when I was there back circa 1980. I was old enough to remember the 70s and no small town was like this. It was totally youth dominated. There were no reactionaries talking about the hippies and about the inner city of Philly. That was more the 70s that I remember as a kid. This movie was very dull and cheesy. At times, I was falling asleep. I don't know why an actor who was acting during the 70s, appeared in this one. He was probably trying to lend it some credibility. Walken didn't even show up until the second half. I guess the only true thing about the movie was the "baby boomers" were/are a spoiled lot. All the kids in the movie were spoiled brats. I don't know what they had against their father.
File this one in the `How do movies like this get made?' column. A seventies-drag indie version of `Macbeth,' adapted fairly faithfully (but pointlessly) in a conventionally unconventional black-comic style. The cast gives it a shot, with Christopher Walken phoning in the eccentricity as McDuff, and with Maura Tierney rising above the dull script as Pat McBeth. The other actors are wasted, as is the audience's time. Knee-jerk fans of this brand of quirk may like it, though. 4 out of 10.
The cast played Shakespeare.<br /><br />Shakespeare lost.<br /><br />I appreciate that this is trying to bring Shakespeare to the masses, but why ruin something so good.<br /><br />Is it because 'The Scottish Play' is my favorite Shakespeare? I do not know. What I do know is that a certain Rev Bowdler (hence bowdlerization) tried to do something similar in the Victorian era.<br /><br />In other words, you cannot improve perfection.<br /><br />I have no more to write but as I have to write at least ten lines of text (and English composition was never my forte I will just have to keep going and say that this movie, as the saying goes, just does not cut it.
As a Scot I find the idea of "Macbeth" shifted in Time and Space to America totally moronic.I am sure this doesn't apply to broadminded IMDb Users,but why are so many Americans unable to relate to ANY film concept that isn't set in their Country ? This attitude does Americans no favours in the Big Wide World out here.<br /><br />It was bad enough that "The Wicker Man" was remade and set in the USA ,totaly stripped of its Cultural context, and with a Polticaly Correct gender change for a leading Character.<br /><br />One wonders what next,Robert The Bruce as a New York cop ?,Mary Queen of Scots as a "Soccer Mom" juggling ,kids ,a career and relationships ?<br /><br />Come on Hollywood, open up to all the other Cultures on the Planet!
I saw this film last night.<br /><br />And I'm worried I'm turning into one of those left-wing liberals they rightly make fun of in South Park. Because I found it hugely offensive. Am I being ridiculously sensitive? Firstly, there's the old staple that is America being the only country in the world that is physically capable of anything, ever.<br /><br />Secondly, and chillingly, there is the early meteor strike hitting some (unnamed – why do they need a name?) Asian country. The reaction to this is to look at it as a warning. As in "my god, imagine the tragedy that *could* happen". Because, you know, it happened to Asians. It might happen to white Americans, and *that* would be tragic.<br /><br />Then, later on, a bigger meteor hits Paris. Our cast on the ground are irritated, because this might mean our boys have less time than they thought. Not much upset in America. No mention that a lot of people have died.<br /><br />Then there's Michael Clarke Duncan. A wonderful actor, wasted. Never has a black man been so token. Among a team of hardcore drillers, his job seems to consist of standing in the back, occasionally saying "Hey, you da man." Really. Why did they even bring him? It's not like he's petite - he weighed down that shuttle for nothing! Not once does he lift a tool, steer a space ship or even help fix anything that blows up.<br /><br />Even if you ignore the Russian Cosmonaut (Peter Stormare, another great actor wasted in a pointless role), who seems drunk most of the time and hits things with spanners instead of fixing them because "Dat's how we do dese dings in Russia", it's pretty horrific.<br /><br />All cemented of course by the site of blond, blue-eyed American children all celebrating in corn fields at being saved and everything being all right. Because all the death and destruction to the rest of the world is irrelevant.<br /><br />You expect the bad script, the dodgy acting, the implausible plot (fat, middle aged men being trained in 12 days to be astronauts? Including one who appears to be retarded?). But I couldn't believe the racism and xenophobia implied in the film, and the callous disregard for the lives of anyone not corn-fed American.<br /><br />It's a chilling indictment of the attitude of a section of Western Society to the world.<br /><br />And it's a crappy film too.
Half of the movie is is flashing lights and shaky camera. The rest is made up of predictable characters (think science vs. government, 'know-how' vs. authority, etc.) <br /><br />What is the worst aspect about this movie? Is it the cars being thrown around in the first 5 minutes, is the horrible 'Russian' accent of the 'cosmonaut', is it the uninspired characters, the poorly integrated Top 40 hits, or the "US will save the world" vitriol? No. It's the fact that regardless of the "sad" ending - there is very little suspense in this movie - we basically know what's going to happen.<br /><br />The one good part of this movie: "American components, Russian components: all made in Taiwan!"
I like action movies. I have a softspot for "B" flicks with bad dialogue and wooden acting. So, I've been wracking my brain to come up with one of my guilty pleasures that was worse than this blockbuster. I can't. You'd be hard pressed to put together a bigger piece of cr*p than this Bruce Willis vehicle.<br /><br />Armageddon is the story (and I use that term loosely) of a team of "Super-Drillers" flying off to destroy an asteroid before it destroys the Earth. Realistic? Not really. But who cares? It's an action flick. I'm not blasting the premise.<br /><br />Minor spoilers:<br /><br />The movie begins with a couple of scenes designed to introduce the threat and the characters. Bruce Willis is the tough-as-nails leader of the team, and spends his first bit of screen time chasing around Ben Affleck with a gun for the unforgiveable act of sleeping with his daughter. For some reason, that didn't make me laugh. It was forced, like everything in this movie.<br /><br />The team is called in because they're the only people in the whole wide world who can drill the asteroid. Okay, I'm prepared to accept that premise if it gets us to the action - the supposed meat of the movie. More attempts at humor, with each character going out to do some crazy, nutty thing before blast off. Again, lame. Finally, they take off. Here's where the movie really pi**ed me off. They arrive on the rock, and set to work. Would you believe it, nothing works right and everything has a suspenseful countdown!!! Whoah! Ten, nine, eight... one - Oh, surprise surprise we saved the day again!!<br /><br />And don't even get me started on the jerky camerawork. When I saw it in the theater I thought I was going to be sick. I can only assume they were trying to cover up the gargantuan holes left by the insipid performances by cutting away to a different shot every few seconds (and this from someone raised on MTV - Mr short attention span himself).<br /><br />Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse... wait - there's a manufactured tearjerker ending that was so tacked on it made the rest of the film a virtual Citizen Kane.<br /><br />Summary: The witticisms weren't witty. The plot - well, I said I'd let that one go. The acting was bad. Really bad. Even Billy Bob couldn't rise above the script, which was worse. Camerawork - again, bad. (I didn't even mention the dumbest love scene in the history of motion pictures - think animal crackers).<br /><br />Rating: 1 out of 10. (I'm giving a half point for Steve Buscemi, who makes me smile against my will and another half point for the times I was able to look at the lovely Liv Tyler and attempt to ignore her acting performance) This is far and away the worst movie I've gone to see in the theater... ever.
spoilers<br /><br />This movie is not action packed; it's slow and boring. It's not funny or exciting, it's predictable and plays on cheap sentimentality and vague patriotism. The special effects are not imaginative or impressive. They are noisy and uninspired.<br /><br />The acting talent is wasted on hopelessly stupid one-liners and clichés. These are spouted by characters they ought to just be called `gentle giant black man,' `eccentric genius who is about to crack,' `square jawed hero coming of age,' `by-the-book coward,' `luckless gambler who lives by a code of honor,' `impulsive princess' and so on.<br /><br />And the writing! How many undramatic countdowns did they think they could fit in this thing? Does a scene where people have to defuse a bomb by cutting one or another wire even count as fiction anymore? The drama of the last 15 minutes of the movie depends on the audience caring if some jerk can put aside his personal differences with Ben Affleck and say bye bye to Liv Tyler in time TO SAVE THE EARTH. All the work is done; we just have to wait a couple more seconds for Harry Stamper, the jerk, to toss off a few cotton candy lines. I know Bruce Willis is a generally charismatic guy, but his Harry Stamper character is an obnoxious bore. I thought he earned the Golden Razzy he was awarded for this role.<br /><br />Since the movie is so long, the plot so obvious, and the dialogue so disposable, one can't help but notice the lame inaccuracies, inconsistencies and plot holes. 800 feet into something the size of TX is less than a pinprick. Try walking 800 feet into TX and see how close to the center you are. After all the discussion about the artificial gravity on the Russian station, it appears to be arbitrary once inside. Actually, gravity comes and goes throughout the movie. Does it make any sense that anyone besides Michael Bay would give these morons a couple shuttles and send them to blow up an asteroid threatening the earth?<br /><br />The sentimental phone/insurance/cola commercial style montages were revolting.<br /><br />I do like action movies. Really. This one is boring, stupid and really stuck on itself. It deserves hatred and scorn because it's everything Hollywood's most expensive efforts have become - a bunch of cheap cliches running from one expensive explosion to another. Oh yes, the whole thing is permeated by a Neanderthal conservative outlook on sex, politics and so on.
I remember thinking that due to the cast, the subject matter, and the director, I was going to love this movie.<br /><br />Stepping into the theatre and taking my seat, I was like a giddy schoolgirl as my anticipation for the opening scene built.<br /><br />I was not disappointed with the opening and felt that I was truly going to love this movie.<br /><br />If you haven't seen the movie and feel that anything that gives away scenes might be seen as a spoiler, please stop reading. I'm not going to give away anything really important, but it might be seen as such, so that is the warning.<br /><br />Spoiler may be included below, beware.<br /><br />I think that the first scene that really hit me as just utterly ridiculous was the Russian space station scene. I mean honestly, refueling a shuttle with no real prior warning, and then to simply show the station as being so fragile that a simple little mistake can cause the entire thing to just explode.<br /><br />While all of this is possible, it seemed to me to be way over the top. I'm not sure if it was just the situation or if it was the cheesy acting, the silly view of the Russian technology, or just the campy attitude of the scene itself.<br /><br />It only got worse for me after that because then we endure what seemed like 2 hours of constant super loud explosions in space...you know, that place where there is no sound because it's a vacuum.<br /><br />But the coup de grace for me, honestly, was the gun scene. (spoiler possibility) - Earlier in the movie, we see Bruce Willis tearing apart their land vehicle (the vehicle that they will use to drive around in when they get there and to help them drill) when he is told that this is what they will be using. He is taking pieces off and complaining about it because much of what's on it is heavy and not required for what they are doing.<br /><br />So then, as we are wandering onto the asteroids, we see that they have opted to add a massive gatling like gun to the vehicles...you know, standard NASA fare is to have heavy weaponry on all space missions in case, you know, aliens or something.<br /><br />I could have taken the explosive 2 hours, the silly Russian space station refueling scene, the cheesy love scene near the end, the Bruce Willis character being nothing more than most of his other past characters, but the Steve Buscemi going mad and shooting the space vehicle's gun all over the place and causing havoc/damage, well that threw the entire thing over the top for me.<br /><br />Save your money and time and avoid this movie. If you want a good meteor movie, see Deep Impact, if you want a fun space movie with awesome special effects, see Space Cowboys, but no matter what, avoid this flick.
Like many people in my general age range, I remember going to see this movie as a kid in '98 and coming out of the theatre practically in tears. It seemed, at the time, to be one of the most important, awe-inspiring cinematic experiences of our generation. At once riveting, action-packed, funny, heartbreaking, and truly inspirational, Armegeddeon really did have everything going on, right down to the catchy Aerosmith theme song and sappy tear-jerker of an ending.<br /><br />Sweet Jebus. What were we smoking? I watched it for the first time in years last night on one of the movie channels, and... I cannot even describe it. This is, truly, one of the worst movies ever made. Where to even begin? Leaving aside the plethora of LAUGHABLE scientific errors ('personnel trackers' on astronauts? yeah, sure, thanks for that, Billy Bob), I'd have to say the worst thing about it was the remarkable - dare I even say unmatched - way in which it combined crappy writing with crappy acting. There are too many examples of this to even begin listing here, but one in particular springs to mind - the scene where Bruce Willis is telling the Feds exactly where to go to track down each of the oh-so-charmingly-roguish members of his oil drilling team ('check every bar in New Orleans', 'the craps tables in Vegas', 'the only black guy on a motorcycle in Sturgis'... all to the tune of 'Come Together'... it reminded me a bit of the "NEWS TEAM! ASSEMBLE!" scene from Anchorman, except serious). Ben Affleck proves, once again, that he is by far the most overpaid actor in Hollywood, having less depth, range, and overall talent than anyone else in the business. Not that Bruce Willis, Liv Tyler, OR ANYONE ELSE IN THIS GODFORSAKEN PIECE OF GARBAGE was much better.<br /><br />(I have to say, though, I got a kick out of seeing a pre-stardom Owen Wilson get killed off half-way through... is this the only movie where his character dies?) <br /><br />Peter Stormare is perfect as THE MOST STEREOTYPICAL UNSHAVEN Russian COSMONAUT YOU HAVE EVER SCENE. (Then again, Peter Stormare does seem to have a talent for playing over-the-top Eurotypes.) It really was quite amusing how, almost IMMEDIATELY after the Americans dock with the Russian Space Station (which is actually called that in the movie), Ben Affleck succeeds in singlehandedly causing the whole joint to explode in spectacular Hollywood fashion. I also love the fact that, in the end, Paris is the only place on Earth to get destroyed, and that absolutely no one seems to care. And on top of all that, it at points literally turns into simultaneous ads for Lockheed Martin AND Kerr McGee. Oh how proud I am to be an American.<br /><br />There's plenty of other stuff to rant about, but I won't... suffice it to say that this is a really, really, REALLY terrible movie, that I feel ashamed to have ever genuinely liked.<br /><br />I give it two stars just for the mockability factor.
First of all. I do not look down on Americans. I know lots of people that are intelligent people from the USA. But this Movie is so utterly bad, that i just had to comment on it.<br /><br />First of all...Movies are mostly far from the truth. This movie is no exception. Lots of scene's are so incredibly false. For example the departure of the 2 space ships. You see them drop off the full tanks in space. Just a small distance from each other. Remember what caused the space shuttle to explode in the past ? Just a tinsy winsy part that came off. In here it is just common to drop fuel tanks that are as big if not bigger then the whole ship. What idiot would let 2 spaceships lift up and do that at the same time ??? Second of it is that the Russian station is a piece of (s)crap. I hate to bring this up to you, but astronauts nowadays go to Russia. Since their equipment is much more reliable then NASA's. The Space Shuttle is retired. And NASA uses it just to pay off the bills. And there is no better alternative for it. And the list of whoppers goes on and on. This is truly an insult to people that do take space travel serious. And i know half as much as these guys do. But the most annoying part ( read: the whole movie ) is the Propaganda and patriot crap that u get choked with. MY GOD !!!! I thought i was looking at a CNN business commercial for like an hour. The actors solve their petty problems by shooting at each other, giving the middle finger to everyone they come face to face with, start up fights, ignore the police, etc, etc... But when it comes to their love for their country and sacrificing their lives, suddenly everyone stands in line to commit suicide for it ( bomb detonator ) ?? Maybe i lack the feeling of being a true "Patriot", that can sing the national anthem backwards in Swahili. Whilst riding with George Bush behind the steering wheel of a golf cart, driving in circles until the battery is empty. But this movie was too much for me too handle. And when i finally got hold and pulled the flag pole and fabric of the American flag out of my hiney. I realised that i was glad this movie was finally done. I do not know why so much good actors participated in this narrow minded, stereotyping, propaganda movie. But i pity them. This represents a country where you can get away with murder if you have money or power. As long as "Uncle Sam" thinks you are a good patriot. Where everyone is happy as long as it is another country that has been devastated, no one cares.
<br /><br />I used to like some of the Hollywood action blockbusters of the 80s. They had icons such as Arnie and Sly but I think the action movie in the '90s has plummeted to new depths. The worst of these, I believe, was Armageddon.<br /><br />The plot is shamelessly contrived and pulls off the worst cliches as it seeks to excite viewers. The melodrama is so cringingly saccharine and awful that you actually cannot wait for Bruce Willis to disappear from the screen. Liv Tyler, who had acted admirably in several fine independent features directed by such masters as Bernardo Bertolucci and Robert Altman, regrettably decided to jump onto the commercial bandwagon. This movie symbolises the new Hollywood aesthetic of grand special effects and precious little good dialogue or authentic melodrama. That is the norm these days and I begin to wonder if there is a role in Hollywood for screenwriters. It seems as though they just employ hacks and committees to write the facile scripts. The rest they leave to technology. There is not a single piece of grand, heartfelt human emotion in Armageddon. It just feels empty and bland. I can think of only one good aspect of this movie and that involves Liv Tyler's dad who doesn't even make an appearance in the film. Steven Tyler's band Aerosmith provide a theme song for the movie - a ballad that really soars and at least tugs at the heartstrings a little when the end credits come up.<br /><br />I weep for Western civilization if people like this predictable, cumbersome movie. It stands for shallowness, lethargy, and a decline in the human intellect. I would even prefer to watch the eighth Friday the 13th.
I can't remember when I've seen a worse movie. The acting was overwrought, the dialog trite to the point of being painful to listen to, the special effects second-rate and the overall story laughable.<br /><br />I've never wanted to walk out on a movie more, and if I'd been alone that's what I'd have done, about 30 minutes into it, and saved myself nearly ANOTHER TWO EXCRUCIATING HOURS of nausea-inducing dialog and a plot with more holes than a swiss cheese "the size of Texas." I just can't overemphasize what a miserable experience sitting through this collosal waste of perfectly good celluloid was.<br /><br />
This movie has bad writing and bad editing. It is difficult to follow what is going on because nothing any of the characters do makes much sense. Some major calamity occurs every 30 seconds. As a result, none of the "action" sequences are at all interesting. The movie is two hours worth of "throw away" scenes which are connected merely by the fact that they share common actors. This movie doesn't even have enough of a sense of humor to be a good "bad" movie.
Two movies: "the fifth element", "armageddon". The same subject: to save the world. The same main actor: Bruce Willis. One difference: "Armageddon" is very inferior to Luc Besson's film. Some spectacular special effects don't succeed in hiding a labored and globally conventional screenplay. Several parts of the movie are showing it. I think about the president's speech and especially Willis' relationship with his daughter, "Grace". At the beginning of the movie, he tends to neglect and overprotect her and this makes her weary. Then, at the end of the movie, it's true love and understanding that shine in him. On another hand, the movie falls in the following trap: Michael Bay takes his subject too seriously. Of course, the movie tries to be funny but the result doesn't work as the humor introduced in the movie is often crude and pretty low-level whereas in the "fifth element", the humor was zany, involuntary and enabled to overlook the serious side of the action. The movie suffers from two other handicaps: it often falls into the ridiculous (the Russian astronaut) and almost all the actors are bad used. Bruce Willis is all the contrary of his "fifth element"'s character. He plays the he-man, he hams it up and sometimes, he's unbearable. The other actors are barely credible in their own roles, particularly, Willis' sinking crew. It seems that this crew is here just for having fun. One of them is taken for being very qualified but he looks like a fool. And poor Liv Tyler! She's at the NASA just to be decorative.<br /><br />When the movie was released in France in August 1998, Bruce Willis expressed is weariness of saving the world. His weariness was probably justified by this spectacular but poor movie.
The acting was horrible. The special effects, while exceptional, dominated the movie. The writing was pathetic, and the dialogue was unbelievable. And the silly little love story between Liv Tyler and Ben Affleck was out of place.<br /><br />But the worst offense of "Armageddon" was the total lack of scientific reality. "The asteroid is the size of Texas," says Billy Bob Thornton. Er, that's 800 miles wide! No one in NASA even sees the asteroid until a midday meteor shower wrecks havoc in New York? Suuuuure. NASA hires a drilling team to join the astronauts and trains them in a week? Yeah, right. Someone brings a sidearm on the Space Shuttle with them? Yeah, that's realistic. And Bruce Willis blows up the asteroid with three seconds to spare. How Disney-esque!<br /><br />How bad was this movie? I rooted for the asteroid!
Being an unrelenting non-stop over-the-top explosive melodrama, this movie is one of the worst action flicks ever produced, and utterly unbelievable in every way. The pace is constantly fever-pitched, and all the action and the actors are gripped by total hysteria. It is nigh unwatchable, and a stain - nay, a blotch - on the careers of everyone involved.<br /><br />The wildly exaggerated attempt at excitement undermines itself, resulting in a movie where you just go "Come on!" all the time. The setting and the events are impossible to take even remotely seriously. I can only rate this abomination a 1 out of 10.<br /><br />If you want to see a good asteroid movie, see Deep Impact, which is intense, sensitive and thoroughly engrossing. Everything Armageddon is not.
Dear Readers,<br /><br />I've found in my studies of movies that whenever Michael Bay makes a movie, people pan it and hate it, yet they still go to see it and it makes somewhere around 100 million dollars. Why? Because Michael Bay is one of the top five directors of all time. Standing alongside Ridley Scott, Spielberg, Kubrick, and Miyazaki, Michael Bay has cemented himself as Hollywood's best action/adventure director. That point is proved with his most panned film, Armageddon.<br /><br />An Asteroid the size of Texas is hurtling towards the planet and the only way NASA can think to take it down is to land a team of men on the asteroid, drill to its core, and drop a nuclear warhead inside then blow up the asteroid. Only one person is qualified enough to do it: Bruce Willis. Willis portrays Harry Stamper, a grizzled hardened oil driller trying to keep what's left of his family together. Not helping that fact is his daughter, Grace (Liv Tyler), having an affair with his best driller, AJ (Ben Affleck). Hired by Dan Truman (Billy Bob Thornton), the head of NASA, Stamper and his team of roughneck drillers train to become astronauts and save the world.<br /><br />Armageddon is a two part movie. First there's the funny parts where we meet the gang and wackiness abounds. Then they get into space and all the comedy gets sucked out the window and is replaced by mind-blowing special effects, cool music, and great serious acting. Murphy's law goes insane in the second part, meaning that everything that can go wrong, does in fact go wrong, increasing the tension of the film to outstanding levels.<br /><br />With a cool cast and crew (Michael Bay as Director, Jerry Bruckheimer and Gale Anne Hurd as Producers, and J.J. Abrams as one of the scriptwriters.), tons of special effects, great humor, awesome music, plus an intro done by Mr. Ben-Hur himself, Charlton Heston, Armageddon rocks big time.<br /><br />Signed, The Constant DVD Collector, Matt Macleod<br /><br />Parental Warnings: This is not a film for kids. The F-bomb is used a few times and lots of other swear words are used as well, plus there's a Strip bar scene and the extremely intense second part might be too hard for a kid to handle.
I watched this movie about six years ago and I recently did so again. If I remember correctly I did not like it at all the first time and I appreciated it slightly more this second time.<br /><br />This movie is obviously on a big budget. The effects are mostly top notch (except for one or two "impacts") and the cast is impressive. However, there are some elements that destroy the overall impression of the show.<br /><br />Firstly, whoever decided that Peter Stormare should act as a crazy Russian astronaut should be fired. Being a Swede and a fan of Peter, I'm pretty sure he can play a Russian character well. But his performance in this case is plain stupid, both with respect the lines uttered and the acting. So... something must be wrong with the script. I'd like to see Peter as a professional Russian astronaut instead.<br /><br />Secondly, the action scenes that take place on the surface are so intense that it is nearly unbearable to watch. It is a total chaos that lasts over thirty minutes with too few moments to catch one's breath. In addition to this, the events that unfold are simply not credible. I'd like to see a much more sensible and stripped down version of this part of the movie.<br /><br />Finally, the scenes that involve flying space shuttles are too action-biased. The shuttles are maneuvering like if they were a couple of MIGs, at zero safety distance, while bouncing off car-sized ice blocks like ping-pong balls. The director should watch Apollo 13 to learn the limitations of spacecraft like these.<br /><br />I like the music score because it is dramatic to a degree making it very touching. The overall performance of the actors is great. Apart from the things mentioned above the story is interesting and quite easy to follow.<br /><br />With some minor changes this would have been a 8/10 movie. I'm sorry it isn't!
This 'schlock-buster' should carry a government health warning. If you play it in your DVD machine, you are in serious risk of opening a rift in the space-time continuum and disappearing without trace into it - so bad is this 'movie'.<br /><br />The fact that this movie was so successful is evidence of the true desperate state of modern Hollywood cinema, and the continual commissioning of films that appeal to the 'lowest common denominator' - although I truly dread to think of the 'lowest common denominators' that this film actually appeals to!!<br /><br />I think Hollywood were just conducting some kind of proving trials when they made and screened this film! I can imagine the executive boardroom meetings at the studio ... "Just how bad a film can we actually get away with making - and STILL make loads of money!??! Holy cow, I didn't realise we could go THAT bad!! Woooo hooooo!!"<br /><br />The only films worse than this that I can think of (and trust me it is close) are Die Another Day (RIP the Bond franchise as I knew it) and Independence Day!<br /><br />AVOID - AVOID - AVOID!!!!
I have to say that I had low expectations for the movie before viewing it. All the people around said it was great, but I perfectly knew what they like. They like Aerosmith's song which is indeed great, they like the amazing special effects which had coasted a lot, they like the comedy side of the movie and of course many girls who love Affleck who according to my opinion is a really bad actor who tried not to be one, failed and now he is nothing. And all these things plus the reviews and the ratings I read in internet, gave me a clue the movie would be a huge disappointment since I am a big disaster kind of movies fan. Well, I've been right, but at least I was prepared.<br /><br />The movie is really commercial. It's been said, but I will say it as again. We have over #100 million budget, we have a romance between Hollywood stars Ben Affleck and Liv Tyler and many other famous actors, who are popular with the fact that they rarely agree on becoming a part of the cast of a commercial movie if their names aren't written with big letters on the screen. Such as Billy Bob Thornton and Steve Buscemi which are highly respected actors that I also like a lot. They could play many characters in many different kind of movies. They could improvise, they could turn tasteless lines into hilarious jokes. On the whole, they could turn small movies into really interesting, funny or dramatic motion pictures, people love and will always love. Such as Fargo in Buscemi's case or A Simple Plan - Thornton. And to be honest, I am really disappointed they took part of Armageddon. Thornton plays a smart and refined man involved in politics if I remember correctly. Buscemi is one of the members of the deep core drilling team which is sent to save the world by destroying the asteroid which is about to vanish the world.<br /><br />What I didn't like - well, I guess I've been already understood. I pointed out bad factors. The story is dull, artless and silly. It is so obvious that the movie depends on the effects and the dramatic ending that it's ridiculous. At least movies like Deep Impact and Godzilla have something special that might be considered as art. At least it ain't that obvious that the movie is made of financial purposes. Other than that, bad performances from all the huge stars. The jokes ain't funny, the lines are absurd and sometimes, they doesn't make sense at all. In fact, I recently read that on the stage, Ben Affleck has asked Bay whether it would be easier if they teach astronauts to drill, than drillers to becomes astronauts and Bay's reply has been simply "Shut up!" which is a really funny story which perfectly shows the creators's desperation.<br /><br />And enclosing, I'll give an explanation why I give 4 to the movie. Well, I like "Don't Want to Miss a thing" and I was impressed by the special effects which are obviously the only good thing in the movie. The first scene is memorable. These are the the only 2 good things I liked about the movie. Michael Bay is an average director, but The Rock and both Bad Boys were hundreds of times better than Armageddon which was, is and will always be one big bad movie.
I agree with Jessica, this movie is pretty bad. I'm surprised anyone took it seriously. Characters are one-dimensional, even the good guys and especially the bad guys. The only merit here is that it's so lame it's funny. Actually for me, there is the added benefit that it was shot in a state park not far from where I live, so seeing some local sights on the big screen is a hoot.<br /><br />The lead character is a off-duty cop, and makes a big point of lecturing a good guy that vigilante justice is not just a bad idea, it's against the law. Imagine how long that lasts ...<br /><br />Most of the movie's Northern California characters are blown-dried Hollywood cheese-balls, looking like they've never actually been in a fight. The story line is totally predictable. This film is ripe for a MST-3K lampooning. CAMP value only. I'm pretty forgiving of films in general, but seeing the old positive reviews I had to speak up. This is a dog. I give it a 3 out of 10, and then only for laughs.
Like its near contemporaries "The Great Race" and "Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines", I always associate this film with my childhood especially at New Year. On New Year's Day we'd visit my granny and after lunch, while the adults talked, the kids would watch TV where invariably one of these three crazy race films would be on.<br /><br />For that reason alone, I really wanted to mark "Monte Carlo Or Bust" well but I fear I can't, the child not being father to the man on this occasion. By which I mean I can see all too clearly its faults and while I was tempted to smile occasionally, in truth I really wanted all the competitors to get to the end of the race long before they actually do.<br /><br />Of course it's dated by its stereotyping of nationalities and woman as the weaker sex and I also didn't much care for one or two stray, admittedly mild vulgarities which occasionally surfaced. More than that though, the cast, despite hamming it up outrageously just don't sell the film enough. Tony Curtis, in a trial run for his "Yank Abroad" turn in the TV series "The Persuaders", seems too old to be playing the young gallant, Terry Thomas just isn't dastardly enough, Eric Sykes is unbelievable as a dirty-minded Lothario while Gert Frobe as an overdone Teuton, is just weird doing camp comedy when you remember he was Bond's best villain Goldfinger. If anything the Englishers come off best - Susan Hampshire is at least engaging as a "bright young thing", suitably gamine as a posh flapper and although chained to the leash of the script Pete and Dud offer the most amusement as stiff upper lip army types, although even then the "Carry On" team did this so much better in "Carry On Up The Khyber Pass".<br /><br />Director Annakin tries everything to evoke the "Golden Silents", with lashings of slapstick, mistaken identity capers, speeded up camera shots, would-be dramatic stunts and some light romance, but there's no real tension for such a famous race and anyway the race-off at the end seems like another swizz.<br /><br />Actually I'd have given it another mark if they'd stuck to the alternative title "Those Magnificent Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies" but in truth the animated series "Wacky Races" did this so much better.
A Lassie movie which should have been "put to sleep".... FOREVER. That's how I'd describe this painfully dreary time-waster of a film. So mediocre in every aspect that it just becomes a dull, uninteresting mess, this is one of the most forgettable movies I've seen. It isn't even an achievement as a "so-bad-it's-good" or "so-bad-it's-memorable" movie. The idea of Lassie turning bad is intriguing but so little actually happens, and so slowly, that you feel your life slipping away while sitting there, watching the non-actors read their lines off cue cards waiting for their measly paychecks.<br /><br />It's an empty, hollow shell of a movie. Seriously, it's not worth wasting your, or your kid's time on. Unless you're both heavily medicated. That's all I have to say.<br /><br />Avoid, avoid, avoid! It will drive you barking mad! Hahahah, get it? BARKING! Hahahahahahaha! <br /><br />Sorry, I've had a rough week.
Pretty bad. This film about a grizzled(and frankly rock stupid) old prospector and his dog'Shep' i.e., Lassie, as well as an annoying kid whose name I can't recall at the moment. At the beginning of the movie, the old prospector has DELIBERATELY buried himself in some sand so that the poor dog will have to dig him out. Why? Did he hate the dog? Anyhoo, somehow or other this idiot has managed to strike gold, and goes to tell his partner. But the man has died, and his sleazy other partner is happy to assist old Jonathan in digging up the gold. The geezer tries to leave is dog with the dead guy's son, but not even the retarded mutt wants to stay with this kid. There's quaint old preacher(for quaint read smelly), and the oily guy finished off the old guy(surprise, surprise) and tries to steal all the gold. Plus he poisons the dog and tries to kill the kid, too. So I suppose its okay that a devilish and crazy Lassie..err...SHEP does this the guy in at the end, although its pretty disturbing in what is basically a children's movie. There are extremely stereotypical(to the point of racial slur) 'Native Americans' who speak without using verbs(as in, Me Make Camp Fire type speech). And that's pretty much the extent of the cast, because apparently Lassie's salary was too big for them to hire anyone else. Kind of dull. not very interesting, and a tad too dark. Not a great movie in any way.
All but the youngest Americans are probably familiar with the iconic call of "Laaaaaa-sie!" from little Timmy, or whatever the kid's name was, wailing his little tow-head off for his border collie friend. These same Americans may or may not be familiar with the fact that Lassie made the leap from television to movies (or was it the other way around? I'm clearly too lazy to do any research here), and The Painted Hills is one of those. It is irresistible to make a "this movie has gone to the dogs!" pun, so I won't (even though I technically just did). But in a way, it has. Lassie (playing Shep, man's best friend) gets top billing. THE DOG GETS TOP BILLING. Now, I'm not familiar with how actors or their agents negotiate contracts, but here's how it plays out in my mind: <br /><br />MOVIE MOGUL: Okay, Lassie, in the credits, it's gonna be, "and with Lassie as Shep!" LASSIE: Rrrrowf! Grrrrrrr. MOVIE MOGUL: Ha, ha, kid, calm down, calm down! LASSIE: Rrroo rrrrooo roooo. MOVIE MOGUL: Okay, I think I see. Co-lead billing? LASSIE: Rawrf! Rawrrrrff rawrf! MOVIE MOGUL: Oh God! Let go of my arm! Top billing! Top billing for you, now let go of my arm!!! <br /><br />So, the dog gets top billing, and with the rest of this shell-shocked cast, I suppose it's understandable. We get lovable old grumpus Jonathan the prospector, his young, whiny and apparently orphaned friend Tommy, sketchy loser Lin Taylor, and lovable old religious grumpus Pilot Pete. The meat of the plot here could be summed up in a few sentences, so I'll save you the actual pain of watching the movie. Jonathan is a prospector with a dog named Shep, and his partner dies while he is at his claim. He gets a new partner named Lin who becomes obsessed with the gold, and Jonathan for some reason gives Shep to whiny little crybaby Tommy. Lin kills Jonathan, Shep sees it, and Lin tries to kill Shep. Then Lin tries to kill Tommy. Then Tommy whines, it gets cold, and Shep carries out an elaborate plan to get revenge on Lin, which he (or she?) does. The end.<br /><br />Unless you have a deep, unsettling need to see a Lassie movie (even then, there's got to be a better Lassie movie than this), just avoid The Painted Hills. When it's not dragging on, marveling at Lassie's limited ability to 'act' (similar in style, perhaps, to Keanu Reeves - always the same facial expression, only the body moves), setting up the obvious using several minutes of film, or insulting Native Americans everywhere with its white-actor-in-facepaint "Ugh! How! Me Running Bear!" stereotypes, The Painted Hills is fit only for Lassie fetishists or people who have some kind of connection to prospecting through their days as a grizzled old prospector lookin' fer that consarned vein of glittery gold!
Along with his turn in the super-sleazy 'classic' THE TOOLBOX MURDERS (1978), this is considered the ultimate bad Cameron Mitchell horror effort. It's a little too slow-moving for my tastes, has zero likable characters in it and not much action until the very end, but Mitchell's dedicated central psycho performance as vengeance-minded whack-job Vincent Rinard is fun. Not Anthony Perkins good, mind you, but definitely fun enough. As a spoof of the shallow conceit that is Hollywood, it's only so-so; as a horror movie it's also only fair. And even as just a simple vintage exploitation picture, it's just OK. I'm a big fan of the unnecessary gratuitous dance sequence, so I was also thankful for the appearance of the Gazzarri Dancers, who just rule. Five of them do a crazy hair-thrashin', floor-slidin', hip-shaking' go-go dance routine to "Don't Cry, Look For the Rainbow" by the T-Bones. Watching these ladies bounce around with huge smiles on their faces in their fringe-covered bikini top and parachute pants ensemble is a defining reason why I give this a slightly higher rating that usual.<br /><br />Former movie make-up man Vincent Rinard ("The best since Lon Chaney!") goes after people at Paragon Studios. A flashback shows how Max Black (Berry Kroeger), a jealous and drunk studio executive, flung wine in Vinnie's face right when he was about to light a smoke. He's engulfed in flames and dives into a pool, but not before scarring up one side of his face and losing an eyeball (not to mention his sanity). Now employed by the "world-famous" Movieland Wax Museum in Buena Park, California, Vincent uses a special serum (described as a mixture of truth serum, nerve medicine and special "vitamins and minerals"... Watch out Centrum!) to paralyze victims. They disappear and the dense detectives on the case (headed by Scott Brady) act baffled as new 'statues' are put on display in the museum. Vince talks to himself ("I'm a terribly nice man!"), chain-smokes, mumbles, hisses and describes how he gets "excited" by the sound of a woman's scream.<br /><br />He also has to deal with a bunch of back-stabbing scumbags and self-absorbed witches, most of whom will deserve what's coming to them. There is also Nick (Hollis Morrison), a boozy, inept museum tour guide who sees a 'statue' blink, but doesn't go to the cops. Aside from Max (a real Grade-A jerk... who doesn't even die!) and the stupid cops, the other two lead roles are women and both are pretty atrocious. Marie Morgan (Anne Helm) is not your typical innocent heroine; this tramp has been engaged to no less that five different characters in this movie (!), including Vince, Max and two of the wax dummies/missing male stars (I guess she never had time to make a go at the one missing girl). For some reason, she also begs and pleads in her irritating baby-voice for Vince to give her a 'replica' of the head he's designing of the newest missing actor (and fiancé Number 5) Tony Deen (Phillip Baird). She doesn't know that Vince has already jabbed a syringe in the back of his neck, but I love it when Mitchell dryly agrees with her demands "so you can completely retreat for reality." He also wants her to 'pose' for him, which means she's eventually held prisoner in a box. Unfortunately, the box has a hole where her head sticks through so we have to continue getting aurally assaulted by her high-pitched whines.<br /><br />The other "woman" is Theresa (Victoria Carroll), one of the aforementioned go-go girls. She's first seen proving she is thoroughly rhythm-deficient by jiggling on stage in a lime-green fringe bikini. Theresa is tolerable before she talks, but when you realize her grating presence combines the abrasiveness of Lorraine Bracco with the airhead mentality of the Landers sisters, you wish Vincent would inject her with the serum as soon as possible. Unfortunately, we're first subjected to a scene of her making endless demands to the studio head honcho and running around in the museum trying to avoid Mitchell. She and the rest of the characters are completely unsympathetic, but function as a way to poke fun at the Hollywood system in general, I guess. And I'm probably giving this movie more credit than it actually deserves. The pluses are few and far between, but include (other than Mitchell and the dance routine), colorful, slightly stylized lighting and a bizarre ending that seems to suggest that Rinard will be severely punished for his crimes by spending the rest of his life in his own personal hell... Married to Marie!... Yikes, now that is scary.<br /><br />Also in the cast are director John "Bud" Cardos (also the production manager) as a police sergeant, James Forrest as a film director, Virgil Frye as a statue, Rini Martin and Kent Osborne as a bartender. Many of the people who worked on this one (including executive producer and script-writer Rex Carlton) also worked on the Al Adamson movie BLOOD OF DRACULA'S CASTLE and other atrocities.<br /><br />My Score: 4 out of 10
Definitely not a good film but nowhere as bad as some would paint it to be. Nightmare in Wax tells the story of a man, having had his face disfigured in a typical flashback scene, wreak his vengeance on those directly responsible and those indirectly for the losses in his life - most notably the love and companionship of a beautiful young actress. Cameron Mitchell plays the artist with his typical flair, albeit limited flair. Actually, I thought he gave one of his better performances. What exactly does that mean? Mitchell wears an eye patch, endlessly smokes cigarettes, wears a motley tunic, and talks to his creations in wax. They are not your ordinary wax dummies, but rather people still alive controlled by some serum that makes them lose control of all neurological function. They become zombies in effect. I thought the premise here was inventive if nothing else. It has some ludicrous explanation, but does serve the plot. This is a film of the 60s to be sure with some psychedelic camera-work by Bud Townsend and company. The acting is mediocre but Mitchell, Scott Brady, and Barry Kroeger give interesting turns. The wax figures of Hollywood's bygone era are done very effectively and most of the location shooting was very credible. The end of the film dissipates into something not quite real - either another example of 60s cultural cinema or the end of the scriptwriter's creativity. I'm banking on the latter. Despite its many flaws, I enjoyed the film. The opening scene showing an actor being needled was effectively done as was a police chase on the waterfront.
This is a treat for fans of Z-grade movies. Here you will find writing and acting bad enough to rival anything Ed Wood ever produced. Veteran bad movie actor Cameron Mitchell is a former makeup man from "Paragon Studios" who, after a nasty acid-in-the-face incident at a social gathering, becomes an embittered Mad Scientist (tm) with a rubber scar on his face who takes revenge by kidnapping Paragon actors and turning them into living statues in his Secret Laboratory (tm) handily located in the local wax museum. Or are they zombies who do his bidding? He's not sure. <br /><br />Happily, many of your favourite movie clichés are here. Check out the villain's lab! Are those mysterious steaming vats of liquid? Test tubes of coloured water with no explained purpose? Yay! And what ho, do we see spare arms and legs arranged kinda casual-like on a wooden rack? You betcha! Marvel at the bumbling detectives acting with straight out of Plan Nine! Now, enjoy a stupidly tame car chase, and hear more dizzy bimbo screaming than you could possibly want. Raise an eyebrow at the screwy plot line, made even more opaque by the totally meaningless ending that seems to have no connection to the rest of the movie. <br /><br />Cheesy trash and much fun for the bad movie connoisseur.
Legendary Cameron Mitchell turkey about an actor/makeup man who is burned by the head of a studio when a drink is tossed in his face as he is lighting up a cigarette. Reduced to a scarred mess and wearing an eye patch Mitchell works at the Movieland Wax Museum . He also kidnaps and kills people using a solution which paralyzes them so he can turn them into displays. Genuinely bizarre bad movie that defies description. Watch as the various wax figures try not to move, watch as the entire tobacco out put for several Southern states is consumed…watch as things just get weirder and weirder. Its an awful train wreck of a movie and you won't be able to take your eyes off the screen. A classic bad movie that will amaze you even as it leaves permanent scars on your psyche.
Cameron Mitchell plays an actor who is dating a young actress who used to date the head of a movie studio (she's too young for both of them!). At a party, when he's lighting his cigarette, the studio boss throws a high alcohol content drink in his face, and he catches fire. In the hospital, his face is entirely bandaged and he still lights up a cigarette! He becomes the resident sculptor of the Movieland Wax Museum and Palace, where he also lights up cigarettes!<br /><br />Mitchell recovers, more or less, having really poorly done burn makeup on one side of his face that looks like gray spackle and tape, and an eyepatch. When Mitchell isn't smoking, he's killing people. Well, he only kills people sometimes, since he prefers to inject them with something that puts them in a sort of waxy coma. If he doesn't administer it regularly (and he never seems to remember), they start to move again a little, although they're in a sort of hypnotic zombie state. Not all his sculptures are people, though. He evidently does have talent as a sculptor.<br /><br />The ending, which seemed to have been struck from a much poorer print than the rest of the movie, is really absurd. They seemed not to know what to do, and went back to the title for an idea. Apart from the oddly grainy final shots, the rest of the movie is in fairly good shape, except for the audio in some scenes which sounds like it was run through a blown speaker. Definitely not one of the better wax museum movies.
The movie opens with beautiful landscape shots of the Northwest countryside. Fenceposts jutting out from soddy earth, a freight train crossing fields of hay in the distance, billows of clouds, small structures by the side of the road, a motel or a diner in the middle of nowhere. Over this plays a languid but mysterious Twin Peaks piano arrangement and it's all adequately moody and atmospheric in an American Gothic sort of way. Through this however director Jon Jost keeps interleaving awkward frames, blocks of letters, opening credits with annoying swooshing sounds, color frames that announce "BLUE", numbers that count towards the "12 Steps to a Conclusion" announced in the opening credits. It's obvious by the first couple of minutes that, though Jost is more than capable to capture landscape and ambiance, he doesn't care for it. He has neither the affection for Pacific Northwest open expanses that Terrence Malick does in Badlands and neither the time or inclination of Twin Peaks David Lynch to weave mystery and intrigue around a given location.<br /><br />The rest of the movie is more Jon Jost frustration with experimental tricks that serve their own purpose. The use of split screen is interesting, I like in particular how we get the first image of Ricky Lee split in two, one is recounting childhood memories that matter only to him, the other is cursing and banging his head against the wall, and over the course of the movie the second Ricky Lee prevails, the macho laid-back hipster with the shades who is hopelessly self-involved and stupid. On the other hand the stop motion animation and choice to play most of the movie in voice-over narration does not work. It does at times because Jost writes as good as he shoots static shots of the smalltown American Nowheresville but Beth Ann's monologues, delivered in the most flat nasal monotone imaginable, a voice that sounds like Stephen Hawking's computer speech program crossed with a horse whinnying, are so grating to the ear it kind of defeats the purpose of trying to pay attention.<br /><br />Each of the couple relate to us their past experiences, their small triumphs and follies and doubts and past relationships that went nowhere. They say very little to each other and what they say they say with blank faces. But they hump like rabbits. That seems to be their only channel of communication left open, perhaps the only one they can trust with any safety. Jost clearly picks his main characters in Frameup among the naive and delusional, those baited by an American Dream turned sour, but he doesn't place himself above them. He's not condescending or smug in his portrayal. They may be misguided but they are graced with moments of humanity, awkward though they may be. We're called to empathize and show affection rather than point and laugh. This is the most successful Frameup becomes; the movie's characters come alive even when their expressionless faces do not, even when Jost gets in their way with his stilted framing and obtrusive camera games.<br /><br />Then we go back to angry rants about the destructive effects of money played over an inserted shot of a dollar bill, we get a weird psychedelic sequence where Jost's camera glides under big leafy trees that soon turn beetroot red as Beth Ann repeatedly muses about the "redwood trees" in the voice-over, we even get a sudden about-turn towards plot and genre as the couple of Beth Ann and Ricky Lee, smalltown losers with nowhere to go and nothing to hold them back to their dead end lives, arrive in California and decide to rob a 7/11. The movie doesn't soar to an emotional crescendo in the aftermath of the botched 7/11 job such as one might expect from a 'couple-on-the-run' road movie, it slowly screeches to a halt and you look out the window to see it hasn't really got anyplace in particular. Parts of the ride have been hypnotic and parts almost touching and funny, but everything else has been mostly annoying.
Well, I've read the book first and thought: wow would this be cool to see in a movie, than I started searching and found there was already a movie made of it... I bought the movie a week ago on DVD and watched it.. they did it awfully wrong! at first this kid Hapi,who isn't any character in the book, then the mix between the two books ('the river god' and 'the seventh scroll') than Nicolas needing funds while in the book he himself is actually the funder, the whole thing about the Hyksos is wrong also.. Taila is supposed to have invented the lightweight-chariot.. the whole thing about the tomb is also very wrong.. there is supposed to be a channel that has some kind of vacuum-suction around it.. the tomb itself was made in a maze with only a possibility to pass if one knows the rules of the ancient boa-game. There was nothing in the movie about Nicolas being English and Royan was a Coptic-Christian in the book, not a Muslim..This list is endless.. There were only a few things good about the movie, the actors which played Royan, Nahood, Taita, Boris, Mick and Tessay were well-chosen, the rest were just parodies of the characters in the book, Rasfer was the worst, it didn't get even close to the character that was in my head while I wrote the book.. It is such a shame that such a great book is mutilated in such a bad reproduction... I wonder why Wilbur Smith ever gave his permission for this..
After reading both _River_God_ and _The_Seventh_Scroll_, I can't begin to express how disappointed I was with this film. While I agree some poetic license may be admissible, this movie is at constant variance with the books, doing an incredible injustice to the exciting, plausible and wonderful stories written by Wilbur Smith. I can only believe that the writers, director and producers of the movie have never even heard of Mr. Smith, let alone read his work. Smith's vibrant characterizations are converted into wooden stick figures, all historicity is ignored or discounted, the realism of the books has been changed to include phantom monsters more appropriate to a cartoon. And why is an Egyptian henchman speaking Spanish? Geesh, no wonder the movie was made into a TV miniseries! Did Wilbur Smith have any input into the making of this movie? I can't believe that he did. Terrible, terrible movie. If you've read either or both of the books, don't waste your time or money watching this money. You will be sorely disappointed, I assure you.<br /><br />Only a moment of supreme generosity persuaded me to give this movie a ranking of '2', and that only because of the beautiful, sometimes spectacular, photography.
It is a truism that it takes a lot of effort to make a bad movie - this one is no exception.<br /><br />I am no lover of yanks but their amazingly simplistic view of the world and their ability to reduce everything to black and white as well as make events (even fictional ones in novels) fit an agenda that bears little or no relationship to complexity of any kind is irritating in the extreme.<br /><br />Wilbur Smith is descriptively verbose but weaves intricate tales that deserve more than has been delivered by this awful mishmash of a movie.<br /><br />Sad really for those who will never read Smith. They will be left with a less than decent portrayal of his Egyptian series, which has to be said is gigantic in its exposition.<br /><br />The Indiana Jones movies were snappy. To attempt to replicate that by manipulating Smith's novels into this production misses out by a country mile.<br /><br />Pathetic except for the photography and Art Malik.
I know that Full Moon, or any other film studio for that matter, could never recapture the fun and cheesy sci-fi feeling that was the original `Trancers.' And with the last two entries in the series having Jack Deth in medieval times instead of futuristic Los Angeles, it became quite obvious that there really was little hope in reviving the Trancers series. Breathing new life into a film is one thing, but taking our main character out of his element and putting him into the past, well, it didn't work! So now with Trancers 6, Full Moon has breathed so much new life into the series that we don't even deal with Jack Deth any more. We now deal with his daughter, Jo. Jack is in her body and must go into the past and fight the Trancers one more time.<br /><br />*MINOR SPOILER: FIRST SCENE OF THE FILM REVEALED*<br /><br />	To prove how bad this movie is, you only need watch the first two minutes of the film when the original Jack Deth appears on the screen. But it's not actually Tim Thomerson. It's clips of him and sound bytes strung together (trust me, you can tell they're strung together) horribly to provide the viewer the last of the true Jack Deth humor. And from this point on, things only go down hill. Having this girl, Jo Deth, as our main character while Jack Deth is supposed to be in her body, is the worst idea in the world. Having this cute young woman act as a rough and tough man isn't the right track at all! It doesn't work and it really comes off as foolish.<br /><br />	I'm not going to go into the aspects of special effects and makeup because most reading this know what Full Moon has become: A really, really, low budget enterprise. I don't know what to say about this movie, except I really wish Full Moon could be like it was in the days of Demonic Toys, Puppet Master, and Trancers 1. Back then, while the special effects weren't great, the story telling was. They made serious b-movies for serious B movie and horror fans, and that just doesn't take place today with the new Full Moon Studios. I yearn for the good ol' days, and truly hope, that Full Moon can pull itself out of this horrible slump that they're in right now.<br /><br />	Trancers 6 gets a 2 out of 10.
Okay, granted, I am a fan of low-budget horror, which along with it, does come the occasional piece of garbage that even the most diehard fan of campy flicks can not bare to stand witness to...TRANCERS 6, directed by DEMONICUS's Jay Woelfel.<br /><br />First of all, the TRANCERS series, started back in the mid-80s by Charlie Band and his Empire Pictures, is basically the franchise that it is because of Tim Thomerson and his excellent portrayal of Trancer hunter Jack Deth. Well, low and behold, due to the sinking budgets of Full Moon features (which, despite what people have said, have actually brought along very high quality features, such as HELL ASYLUM and DEAD & ROTTING), Thomerson did not return for the sixth installment.<br /><br />Full Moon writer Courtney Joyner returns once again and delivers another below-average screenplay, which features Jack Deth (played by Thomerson...in flashbacks, which are extremely poorly inserted...he has a different hair style like every time he is shown, and some `shemp' laying on a table) going down the line into his daughter's body. Well, from here on out, you have "Jo Deth" acting like Jack...but its a shame that she really doesn't give off the same screen presence as Jack Deth did.<br /><br />The film, shot on 16mm, is, simply put, an embarrassment to the TRANCERS name...no offense to anyone at Young Wolf Productions. I mean, I respect you guys for actually wanting to jump forth and do a TRANCERS film without Tim, but with a little more time (despite it being filmed since December of 2001), it could have been better.<br /><br />However, check out Full Moon's DVD of it, which is a double feature with the original TRANCERS, and features trailers for the last 10 plus Full Moon features.<br /><br />Overall, I would probably have liked the feature more if it wouldn't have the TRANCERS name, but like anything, you can judge it by someone's opinion and you must check it out for yourself!
This movie was terrible...How can somebody even think that this movie was like the ones back in the "good old days" when Tim Thomerson was not even in it. And to make things worse, they used clips from old trancer movies. Thats just terrible. NO trancer movie is complete without Tim Thomerson.I love Fullmoon films, and i have been watching them since i was 4 years old. I have been through everything they have done and this movie almost made me lose it. Now i got a couple of lines to fill so i will keep going. Their way of breeding new trancers is completely stupid as well as way to send Jack back in time. What happened to the TCL Chamber. AND finally! What happened in the end of trancers 5 where lina says and i quote "Jack Has given me something special" AND her and some other broad looks at her stomach. I don't know...maybe a BABY is in there. There were so many other places of going to, but fullmoon S'd the Bed
Another Day - this movie requires you to watch it another day to understand it. I thoroughly enjoy watching Shannen Doherty and I was quite interesting in seeing how well Julian McMahon and Shannen appeared together following the roles they played in Charmed. I can certainly PRAISE the acting skills throughout the film, even the directing - but the plot...what happened? I am at a loss for words because I am still confused. I have to stay loyal to the actors who really did a good job considering the madness of the plot. I also have to recommend you watch it because despite the plot-madness I would still watch it over and over again.
The new celebrity deathmatch is terrible. They kill off the popular people and make the low budget celebs win. I mean...Andy Milonakis? Lil' flip? Lil flip and Lil Wayne should of both died.Lil' flip sucks. the fight between Lil' Jon and Lil' bow wow and Lil flip was MAD corny and short. They should of just kill off all of them. Why did Tobey lose to Jake and Christian lose to Adam? they are better actors and superheroes. They also spend too much time on talking rather than fighting which can bore the viewers. Everything seems rushed for some reason, they can't just make a long fight? the old deathmatch is way better.
World War I gets a glossy, sepia-tinted makeover in Jean-Pierre Jeunet's relentlessly whimsical "A Very Long Engagement". Jeunet's trademark style consists of mechanical, almost clockwork-like narrative construction garnished with lavish, chocolate box production values and seasoned with faux-naive humour. It's an approach that worked pretty well with his previous picture, the romantic fantasy "Amelie", thanks in no small part to the inimitable contribution of Audrey Tatou in the title role. Applied to vastly more sombre material, Jeunet's method backfires rather badly.<br /><br />Tatou crops up again here in a variation on the same sort of sweetly off-beat character as Amelie. She's Mathilde, an orphan who lives quietly with her aunt and uncle in an idyllic rural setting, determined to trace what became of her child sweetheart Manech (Gaspard Ulliel), several years after he went missing in the War. Manech was one of five soldiers court-martialled for self-mutilation in 1917 at 'Bingo Crepuscule', and sent over the top into no-man's-land as a punishment. He's presumed dead by all but Mathilde who cherishes the hope of finding him. The film follows Mathilde's dogged quest to find out what really happened, and as she delves deeper she uncovers a sad, even shocking story of high-ranking corruption and inhumanity. Mathilde must filter the facts from the fictions that arise from various conflicting, overlapping or incomplete accounts of what seem to be Manech's final hours.<br /><br />All this should be poignant and gripping, but it's more often simply confusing thanks to the visual and verbal clutter with which Jeunet pummels his audience. There's simply too much going on at any one time, including an intrusive narration that adds precisely nothing to our appreciation of the story and characters. Without a moment's respite from informational overload, I felt denied the space to reflect on Mathilde's quest or the room to engage with it on my own terms. Jeunet's unceasingly busy camera spirals and swoops and circles, caressing every surface contour of his exquisitely designed production, but it singularly fails to penetrate to the soul beneath the story's skin. The result is deeply uninvolving, and worse, grotesque. The First World War was a particularly dark hour in human history. Imagine it re-created as one of those picturesque commercials for a well known Belgian lager, and you have the measure of this film.
This movie has been advertised for over three months in Greece as the biggest Greek production ever. Well, it could be, but... When you hear of a big production you expect to see something new, something different. What you get to watch here is a movie with no reason of existence. George Corraface looks like he didn't really enjoy making this movie. His acting is so simplistic, that looks almost amateur. The sound, especially when some of the Turkish actors speak English (dubbed?), is full of hiss. The, thankfully few, special effects showing Istanbul and Athens in the late 50's and early 70's are more like digital paintings than computer graphics. Finally, we see the same boy from 1959 (age 5) up to 1968 (age 14), but in a miraculous way he becomes a teenager five years later.<br /><br />So much for "the biggest Greek production". At least one would think that there would be some kind of interesting script to qualify for such an expensive production. And all one gets is a love story between 7 year-olds, who meet again 40 years later. Oh, there is a political side, too. A couple of ironic remarks about the Greek "junta" of '67-'74, so childish that seem almost forced.<br /><br />There are, of course a couple of good things in the movie: most of the actors are great, mainly Ieroklis Michaelidis, the very good scenery and the magnificent music by Evanthia Remboutsika; but they are so few for such an expensive production.<br /><br />Bottom-line: Is it so bad a movie? To tell the truth I don't know. I just know that in no point does it justify its huge (for Greek standards) budget.
Here's example number 87,358 of Hollywood's anti-Biblical bias, so typical of them.<br /><br />Early on, Ray Liotta's wife has did and women are being interviewed for the position of housekeeper. The first interviewee is an old-fashioned-looking (dress, mannerisms, speech) who immediately lays down here strict rules, stating that "there will be two hours of Bible study ever day."<br /><br />This is said, of course, to make it sound like reading the Bible is the worse punishment you could ever inflict on someone, especially a kid. Once again, the Bible is equated with stuffy, mean-spirited people. That woman, of course, is dismissed immediately.<br /><br />Naturally, the liberal black woman (Whoopi Goldberg - who else?) is the one who is hired and, voilà, saves the day! <br /><br />Yawn.
Not bad performances. Whoopi plays the wise/warm role quite well. Still, the storyline and situations can not be believed (forced PC stereotypes). At times it is good Jews and Blacks vs. the evil White Christians (ho-hum). A typical Hollywood fantasy. The film does have its moments, but it is not one that I would recommend to go out of your way to view.
I saw this movie and was bored out of my mind! I am a fan of Peanuts, but I can't understand why Charles Schultz let this disaster be made! Spoilers ahead.<br /><br />I can't believe Snoopy would let his friends sleep on the ground outside in a dangerous situation and go out to a bar and swig a few cold ones without standing watch! The story was complete nonsense, even for comic strip characters. It takes them toooo long to get to France, plus once they get to France I had a feeling that the writer (I still can't believe it was Schultz) didn't know what to do once they got there.<br /><br />Peanuts is best made in 30 minute episodes, not 80 minute movies.<br /><br />Go home Charlie Brown, you are at your best there.<br /><br />
I'm rating 'The Decline of the American Empire' just about below average since it wasn't terrible, but also not great. I liked the very open conversations from people so incredibly selfish and ugly inside and out. That was probably the most original aspect – a dialogue-laced sexual small film with people who are extremely far from models. That aside, it seems ironic that these French-speaking Canadians have a movie about a neighboring society that, well, is in 'Decline' when their own actions are their own demise. A group of women friends and male friends spend half the movie laughing it up on their infidelities and acceptance of such behavior and the other half "intellectually" speaking of how powerful they are for their speech and actions. These are the normal targets in typical sitcoms the main characters make fun of at parties occupied mainly by college professors. Sadly, it's not their "intelligence" or mastery of "history" that disturbs me. It's their pedestal made of ego and mightier-than-thou attitude that pushes me away and not one character could I relate to, nor like. When one cries, I couldn't care less – it's your bed. When one complains, I barely flinched. What made me skirmish was one character, uh, peeing red. (Another example of playing with fire.) Sure, I understand it happens to some people, but it was hard to watch. And I sincerely hoped the he washed his hands as he had no problem going right back to cooking for everyone. On the complete opposite end of the noses-up educators, they introduce a stereotypical nomad. This made me cringe as no one seemed real; everyone was as shallow as their laughter on society. Unfortunately, with no one left to root for, you're left as empty as these character's souls.
History and experience over the past couple of decades has shown us that intellectuals talking about sex is about the unsexiest and unintellectual thing anyone can do, but this wasn't quite as obvious back in 1986. Basically, the idea in this film is that these characters insatiable drive to find comfort, security, and pleasure in sexual acts is actually the unhealthy motive that makes them so unbearable to themselves--which they hide from themselves with more sex. This drive is linked to "the decline of the American Empire", as expressed in an early interview within the movie.<br /><br />So the idea is that relatively detestable people talk about sex, and that that talk is supposed to reveal how detestable they are as people. Arcand at least keeps giving it drive and momentum by doing interesting things with the camera such as isolating most of the characters in single frames, revealing their ultimate loneliness, and cutting rapidly between them, showing how they are more at war with each other than they are at agreement. And to give Arcand credit, this is pretty much what intellectual life is, a constant struggle with other intellectuals to stand out, even when everyone knows that standing out means standing alone.<br /><br />But yeah, the characters and action are unsexy and kind of pathetic. I think this film is much more an aspect of its time than it is something meant to last, which makes it kind of dated. It's also the exact type of mental buffing in dialog and references to people like Susan Sontag that makes art-house films so unpopular around the populist entertainment moviegoers. In all, I'll take it anyway--it has its place basically among the exact type of people the characters are--it's just that it's not really interesting or important to anyone who isn't those characters.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB
A lot of people in the cinema enjoyed this film, but it only made me feel misanthropic. If smug "intellectuals" bantering about their irritating sex lives, sounds ok to you, watch it. I felt bored, but glad I did know people like that. The premise of the film was that, as with all societies or great civilizations, they are eventually doomed to fail. According to the female historian character, who bores us with this fact, America is showing signs of it's decline (Admittedly she goes into greater detail than me). The next part of the film is concerned with the vacuous, fatuous and asinine behaviour of her friends and colleagues, and the various miseries caused by their libidinous behaviour, with a vague attempt at humor. A lot of people liked this movie where I watched it. I could not relate to it.
A movie that tries hard to say something and generally fails. Like the fatuous academics that populate the movie, it meanders aimlessly, substituting endless (it seems like forever listening to it) conversation for some action or plot direction.<br /><br />Sadly, it's one of the best examples of canadian cinema I've seen.
Sex is a most noteworthy aspect of existence. It is perhaps the most interesting activity there is between birth and death. LE DECLIN DE L'EMPIRE AMERICAIN studies human sexuality in a dry and boring manner. Actually, worse than being simply boring, seeing nude 40-year-olds is, well, unpleasant.<br /><br />I guess there is some shock value in having adults as old as our parents talk about sex, but after twenty minutes, this stops being interesting. Perhaps if the characters were all 20 years younger, the film would be more visually captivating.<br /><br />LE DECLIN DE L'EMPIRE AMERICAIN is not worth the time.
I had a VERY hard time sitting through this film. Unless you really are very pro-adultery and like to hear people ENDLESSLY talking about their sexual exploits, I can't see how you could enjoy this film. Geez--most of the main characters behaved like rutting weasels and their bragging about their MANY infidelities grew tiresome. About the only element of this I appreciated was the DISGUSTING scene where the one character was urinating and blood was splattering everywhere because he'd picked up an STD---BIG SURPRISE!?! Hmm.<br /><br />If you want a GOOD film, watch the sequel, Barbarian Invasions. Despite the general unlikable nature of many of the characters, the sequel is VERY involving and more realistic--well worth your time.
THEIR PURPLE MOMENT <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.33:1<br /><br />Sound format: Silent<br /><br />(Black and white - Short film)<br /><br />Two luckless nightclub revellers (Laurel and Hardy) are unable to pay their bill, provoking violent retribution from a hot-tempered waiter (Tiny Sandford).<br /><br />Typical L&H scenario, less substantial than some of their best work from this period, but worth a look nonetheless. Stan takes center-stage this time round, caught up in a financial dilemma after holding back part of his wages to fund a night on the town, only to find out - too late! - that his aggrieved wife (Fay Holderness) has replaced his stash with worthless coupons. Some of the prolonged closeups of Laurel as he slowly becomes aware of the unfolding disaster reveal his genius for characterization and mime. 1920's morality is represented by Patsy O'Byrne, playing a hatchet-faced busy-body who takes great joy in alerting L&H's respective spouses (Holderness and Lyle Taho) to their husbands' bad behavior. The ending fizzles, but the movie still has much to recommend it. Directed by James Parrott.
I saw this on the Sci-Fi Channel so I knew it would be bad to start with but I was surprised at how much worse it was than expected. The CG effects on the dragon were terrible, even for the Sci-Fi channel and the writing was pathetic. I couldn't tell if this was supposed to be that stupid as a joke or if it just came out that way. The only redeeming quality of this movie is that it's so terrible it's almost funny, especially the part where Patrick Swayze's knight character goes home to his Knight father who has retired after losing his legs and is now bed-ridden in his armor for the sole purpose of letting the audience know he was a knight. The majority of the movie focuses around an enormous dragon egg that hatches into a not-so-enormous baby dragon with some of the worst CGI I've ever seen. This was just awful.
This movie starts out great, and sucks you in. Most acting is good until Patrick Swayze (with his Texas Twang- everyone else sounds British-like even the Muslim) shows up, and proves that he can't act. You can live with that until the first fight scene where all they all fall to pieces. Why does Patrick Swayze fight baddies with an ax when he just stuck his sword into the ground 5 minutes ago.<br /><br />There's further misplacing of swords a few minutes later, and people knowing about other people they shouldn't know about. Other reviewers mentioned "Troubled Production" and it shows.<br /><br />At the end I just didn't even care about the fight scenes, sure, the CGI Dragon was weak, but the storyline was the biggest letdown.
This movie started with some promise: big name cast, good looking sets, but then it fell apart.<br /><br />Most of the time it can't tell whether it's a serious movie or a comedy. One minute they're talking about how there's no joy in killing and the next there is a fight scene set to funny music and funny banter.<br /><br />Some of the acting is pretty bad, mainly from Patrick Swayze and Piper Perabo. She also gets some groaner lines like, "When I marry, it will be about love." Ugh.<br /><br />But the worst thing about this movie is that it's just boring. Not enough action, not enough humor, not enough plot, not much of anything really. Just a lot of clichés and cheesy moments.<br /><br />Also, a movie with "Dragon" in the title should contain a lot more dragons than the few (and pathetic CGI dragons) that appeared in this movie.<br /><br />Can't the SciFi channel show *any* good movies?
Wow! That James Purefoy looks exactly like Thomas Jane!<br /><br />That's the most profound thought I took with me after having seen the rather underwhelming George And The Dragon. For a fantasy comedy, the story was very dull and the effects unspectacular.<br /><br />The problem wasn't the acting. James Purefoy makes a good knight, and his various side-kicks are not bad characters. I even thought Patrick Swayze in this role was a pretty good idea, too. Flat-chested Piper Perabo also had some nice potential. I even liked the kid.<br /><br />But the story and everything that happens, and the *way* it happens, was just "eh". Not interesting. Compared to another recent fantasy comedy, Ella Enchanted, which was actually funny, this movie comes up terribly short. I'm sorry for the decent actors who were in this yawn-inducing trudgery.<br /><br />4 out of 10.
This is the one movie that represents all that is bad in the movie business. The actors are pathetic and the script is awful. The special effects, if there are any, are so badly done that it would have been better to do it with cartoons instead. Besides that it's great! I think the creators of the movie meant it to have humor, but the only time i was laughing was when I saw Patrick S. with long hair and the colorful costumes that every one had. The scenes at the end were good but they were not a part of the movie. In the end you will ask yourself "why did I waste my time and money with that crap when I could have watched the plants growing or the clouds moving". I don't think that I am some critic or anything but this is a truly lame movie! DO NOT WATCH! DANGER OF STUPIDITY OVERLOAD!
I want to believe all new horror films coming out of Japan these days are edgy and make for enjoyable watching.<br /><br />Spider Forest is neither.<br /><br />It is seldom that I finish watching something and end up teed off for the waste of time, but Spider Forest was an exception in this regard. I was very teed off. The makers of the film succeeded on one level; throughout the film I could not stop because I wanted to see the answer to the mystery spun by the storyline. I could not stop watching. That's why I was so angry when the film finished... they dragged me all the way through 2 hours of tedium for this POC? WARNING: Spider Forest is another one of those Japanese "ghost" stories, though you don't realize that going in.<br /><br />I never want to see a Japanese ghost story again. They're phony and contrived. "It's a ghost story" has become like a big rug under which to sweep any and all unresolvable plot holes you have in your story-telling.
I have an affection for these twists on British social norms and it is rare that one loses me. But Our Betters did lose me a bit. It's a tale of social climbers and their joy at breaking the rules but personally I found it a little dull. <br /><br />I liked the duchess though she whines a little too much and Constance Bennett amiably fills the role of Lady Greyston, a role that Bette Davis could have played backwards.<br /><br />But the movie comes the life in the third act when Ernest joins the party. He is so lively and fun (and in truth probably wears more makeup then Lady Greyston). He gets the last line of the film and it's a gas!
This is not great cinema. The film is cliche ridden and in many places it is a copy of the original Carrie. The parallels with the original film are striking but with an added improbability about the telekenetic powers being congenital.<br /><br />I can't say that I disliked the film because it at least passed a couple of hours ... but these were passed as one would read an undemanding book on a long train journey. That book would not be great literature but would absorb one for a while and be forgotten soon afterwards in that it would blend in with the numerous other cliche ridden books. Likewise the film was okay whilst it lasted but is perhaps forgettable. At least I think it is. I cant remember much about it now!!
**Could be considered some mild spoilers, but no more than in anyone else's review of this film.**<br /><br />I knew that nothing could conceivably live up to the absolute brilliance of the original "Carrie," which was more of a film about social criticism than it was about setting the gym on fire. Carrie White was "victim" epitomized, and her story conveyed the helplessness that the truly exploited must feel.<br /><br />Whoever conceived the "Rachel" character for "The Rage" must have completely missed the subtleties of "Carrie." For the audience to genuinely share the victim's rage, s/he must be a sympathetic character-- a true outcast who is more a victim of circumstance than of his/her own vices. Rachel is entirely too unpleasant to convey any sort of the emotional depth and connection of Sissy Spacek's "Carrie." And she looks and acts like she should be right along-side the 'attractive and popular brigade' that she ends up torching. She, like the rest of them, has a soul that is every bit as corrupt, whereas Carrie was a complete innocent.<br /><br />It just doesn't work. There's no satisfaction in seeing the pretty children-- not even the "Home Improvement" boy-- getting offed in this movie's climactic scene. And it's so unnecessarily gory! There was no actual bloodshed seen in the burning gym! <br /><br />And there is one person in particular that this movie should NOT have had the audacity to kill off... but I won't say who it is. If you've seen the original "Carrie," it's the sort of character who dies unjustly.<br /><br />At least they DID create the connection to Carrie appropriately; it's explained as it should have been. But that, and the arm tattoo, which was done rather nicely, is just about the only thing this movie has going for it.<br /><br />Yet another hideous "Scream" knock-off, and it taints the reputation of one of the most compelling films ever made. <br /><br />Rating: 1 out of 10. I wasn't expecting much, but I was still horribly disappointed. An unsympathetic character, a series of irritating pop-culture references thrown in for no good reason, and an ending scene that pales in comparison to "Carrie"'s gravestone shocker.
One of the scariest movies I have ever seen was Carrie (the first one!). Now, as with other movies, they have totally ruined the Carrie franchise with The Rage: Carrie 2. From the beginnning, the movie plods along like geriatics in a beat-up van. There are hardly any scares and this movie is chock-full of all the various high-school sterotypes (i.e. the football jock, the bitchy cheer-leader, the followers and of course the black nailpolish wearing misfits). Another sad thing about this show is that you know what's going to happen the moment you see the opening credits. Sure, sure, girl gets humilated thourghly and then turns into crazed psychic murderer...yawn...<br /><br />Been there. Done that.<br /><br />Even the actors look like they were forced into doing this movie. Emily Bergl is as frightening as a cabbage patch doll while Jack London... let's just say i didn't pay to see wood act. Apart from the actors, the flasbacks serve more to irritate than to link up with the first movie.<br /><br />Bottom line, If you can beam objects around like Carrie, then for the love of God beam yourself out of that theatre......
I'd never walked out of a movie before this one. I'd entertained the idea a couple of times, but this time I did it, snuck in to see the end of another movie, but had to come back and see the end of the Rage while I waited for my friends. They told me I didn't miss much while I was gone, either. I was generally offended by the entire movie, in such a grand way that I can't even describe it. My gut instinct told me to get myself out of the theatre. It was a visceral reaction to a horrible movie. The plot centered around the cruel actions of some reprehensible teenagers against vulnerable and troubled others. There was no ray of light, no resonsible or likeable person to provide contrast. I found that even the "good guys" of the movie did nothing for me, were silly, stupid, whiney, or just plain ineffectual.<br /><br />The repetitious, graphic suicide imagery was way overdone, unnecessary, and disgusting. (Not in a "I'm easily grossed out" way, but more in the portrayal of disregard for humanity way). And besides the repetition of that scene, in slow motion, from so many angles, the other visual aspects, (interesting camera work, etc) had potential, but just became annoying sometimes. I am a person who loves movies and tries to find good things about them. Usually I can find some good things to counterbalance the not-so-good of any movie. I'm not saying that this movie had nothing good, but I am saying that, whatever that may have been, I can't remember it with all the other crap that drove me mad. I'm really sorry about that, too. Maybe the best parts were the clips from the classic original.
The ending made my heart jump up into my throat. I proceeded to leave the movie theater a little jittery. After all, it was nearly midnight. The movie was better than I expected. I don't know why it didn't last very long in the theaters or make as much money as anticipated. Definitely would recommend <br /><br />
Ok, I did think that it would be horrible. But when I saw it.. I was proven wrong. Emily Bergl did a superb job as did Jason London. Sue Snell was under-used and under-written. The meanies were ok, Dylan Bruno and Rachel Blanchard are definitely the stand-outs. As for the things the teens do and how people claim it's all wrong. Whatever. My friends and I use the term "swank" a lot and I have driven a car and had someone steer as I changed. It's pretty much all there. I've just never been at a after-game party in a house that big with it's very own light show.. The deaths are good. The best involves a pair of glasses, a spear gun and a pool.. all in that order. I must say, there will be people who hate it.. but I'm not one of them.
Following up the 1970s classic horror film Carrie with this offering, is like Ford following the Mustang with the Edsel. This film was horrendous in every detail. It would have been titled Beverly Hill 90210 meets Mystery Science Theater 3000, but both of those shows far exceed this tripe. This film was scarcely a horror film. I timed about 3 minutes of gore and 90 minutes of lame high school hazing and ritual. Wow, what a surprise, Carrie's weird friend commits suicide! Wow, Carrie misconstrues her love interests affections! Wow, the in-crowd sets up Carrie! Wow, the jocks have a sexual scoring contest! What this film needed was way more action and far less tired teen cliches. This film is totally unviewable.
If this awful film moved at a snails pace it would at least be moving.Watching grass grow would be more interesting. It was painful to sit through and I only stayed in the theatre to see how all the cruel teens would die.Where is Brian DePalma????
<br /><br />I thought that this movie lacked the building dramatic suspense the first movie had. This is hard to accomplish when the film takes place over a week. The original movie lead up to the final climatic scene over a period of a year and it still was less violent than the sequel. One good thing about this film was the movie went by relatively quickly, because the plot seemed rushed. When Rachel's best friend died there was no funeral mentioned in the movie. Another bring down was the involvement of Amy Irving. All her scenes brought down the movies pace. The dialog in this movie was terrible. It in no way reflected the way kids talk. In conclusion this movie could have been a hit but fell apart after the opening scene.
The most enjoyable parts of this film were the clips from the original movie. The acting was poor and the premise of sexual scorecards was revolting. The effects were marginal at best. There were no stand out performances, Amy Irving was put in this film to try and get a part of the Halloween H20 audience. The original was much more enjoyable and gratifying. I am sorry to say that this is not going to be one of the years 10 best...so far it is at the bottom of my list. Don't bother with this one folks!!
Be warned by the line on the back of the box that promotes a story involving "over sexed jocks". There isn't a thing redeeming about Carrie 2. The plot is absurd, the acting terrible, and the ending all too predictable.<br /><br />I wasn't expecting a masterpiece, but I was expecting to be entertained. I wasn't. The only way I could rationalize watching this movie was because I was at a relative's house while waiting for my car to be fixed. Unless in the same predicament stay well away from this film.
I would have given this movie a 1, but I laughed so hard, so many times, that I had to give it a little credit, in the off off off off chance the film was Supposed to be funny. A movie so bad you'll think chimps wrote it. You'll wish chimps had written it. Dialogue so canned that only it and the cockroaches will survive the coming nuclear holocaust. The movie Exaggerates its awfulness by intersplicing scenes from the Original Carrie (a really good film) into scenes from this one. Like intersplicing scenes from Taxi Driver into Baby Geniuses. Do not rent it alone, as you will NOT enjoy the experience. You will need someone next to you to confirm the badness of what you are viewing. Worst actress of the Millenium goes to poor poor Amy Irving as the stone-faced, monotone, disastrously wooden school counselor. Worst movie of the year so far (see also _Arlington Road_). --FRINK-3
Would you be surprised if I told you this movie deals with a conspiracy? No? How about if I told you the ringleader was a shadow puppet. What? You don't believe me? ... OK. Yes, I made that up. It's too bad, this movie could have used a sense of humor. I understand Charlie Sheen doing this at the time - another movie equaled more money - as for Donald Sutherland and Linda Hamilton ... why? Don't even get me started on Stephen Lang. He was so much fun as the Party Crasher in 'The Hard Way' and now this junk.<br /><br />Ah no matter. Everyone involved should feel ashamed. If you aim to make a bad movie and succeed - it's twisted - but I seriously doubt that was what they were aiming for here. Flat out, the story stinks and we're actually supposed to take this yak seriously. Makes you wonder if this movie even had a glimmer of hope. Seriously, I doubt it and in an industry so tight with the purse strings how this got green lit in the first place is beyond me. Maybe even more scary is how this dog pile made it's way to theaters!?<br /><br />Oh ... Sam Waterson, how great you are in Law & Order. Why are you here? Demoting yourself to the role of the President of the United States who might I add gets to be shot at by a remote control biplane controlled by the gonzo assassin. Then again this is a masterpiece of work from George P. Cosmatos who's "directing" credits include Rambo: First Blood Part II amongst other gems. Hmm.... case in point?
Funny thing. Charlie Sheen, Donald Sutherland, Sam Waterston, and Stephen Lang have all had incredible performances. Who can forget Sheen as the callow naif in Wall Street, or Sutherland as the the cynical Korean War surgeon in MASH? Waterston and Lang have both also had successful TV and film careers (Law and Order, Killing Fields, De Niro's Tribeca, etc). So what in the world would any of these fine actors be doing in a stink bomb like this?<br /><br />Shadow Conspiracy's plot of a Washington coup d'etat is not really that bad, unoriginal maybe but not that bad. Sure it's been done (Seven Days in May - a fine film!), but with a little tweaking, it could still have been entertaining. <br /><br />Shadow Conspiracy's main problem is in the execution. Early in the film Sheen, political strategist extreme, ridiculously and implausibly resolves a potential public relations gaffe by blackmailing a Congressman. Later, gunplay with Lang's mute hitman tearing up half of what is supposed to be Georgetown is explained on the news as "gang wars". Has anyone remotely associated with this film ever lived a day in Washington? Sheen is about 20 years too young, way way too young, to be so senior in a White House Administration. Sheen's response to avert a political crisis is so ladened with false machismo, he looks as though he attended the David Hasselhoff school of acting. And when was the last time gang wars spread to Georgetown? We're talking about a section of Washington where citizens voted against having a Metro stop so that they could maintain their exclusivity.<br /><br />I agree with another reviewer that this film would have been unbearable without the fast forward button. I taped it off HBO a year ago and then took 3 separate viewings to plod through it.<br /><br />In summary: Don't buy this film. Don't even rent this film. If you see it at Blockbuster, run away as fast as you can.
I would have liked to put 0.5 but unfortunately I can't. Who can write so bad scripts (I saw the movie five seconds and knew the "bad boy" would be Sutherland - needed to pay his taxes, when you see how good he was in Redford's movie, "Ordinary People" and others ! -).<br /><br />Though I don't like it, but I had no choice, I saw the movie in French, but I know that hearing the real voices of Sheen, Sutherland and Hamilton would have not change things, except maybe making it more pitiful.<br /><br />What makes me sick is that people earn their living making this bad stuff (I forgot to speak about Mr Waterson, far away from the Woody Allen's movies he once used to play in).<br /><br />We had another movie on another French channel : a silly James Bond with Brosnan (I am not talking about the real Bonds with Connery(please it's the end of holidays, wake up !).
I clicked onto the Encore Mystery channel to wait for the movie I wanted to see, Island of Dr. Moreau. I caught only a few minutes of Shadow Conspiracy. An old man runs to meet Charlie and grabs him by the arm. Suddenly, an Assassin in a bright rain coat taps the old man in the head (with a side arm) from across the street. After waiting for "C" to turn around and look, the "A" tries to shoot "C" and clearly misses. "C" was a much easier target, the old man couldn't have run far. Duh! There is a chase and "C" is on an elevator "A" is on the roof, so he tries to shoot the cable, which is parallel to the "A". He hits and severs the cable, impossible. Later, this time with a specialized rifle, the "A" lines up on "C" from maybe 50 meters, but is to stupid to notice a motorcycle coming up and taps the rider instead. How does Charlie get his parts? Does Daddy go to the producers and say "Look, my kid needs work..." It reminds me of his stupid Sit - Com. All the actors are good except, yup ... you got it. I usually have to endue 2 or 3 minutes of that waiting for C.S.I. to come on. Let's see, what can I do for the next hour. I know, I'll trim my toenails! Much better use of my time.
This film was reeeeeeallyyyy bad! Was it meant to be a comedy as I couldn't help laughing the whole way through it? what a waste of two hours! Donald Sutherland was wooden not that he was alone, everyone else was just as bad...and how miscast was linda hamilton???
This 22 minute short, short of a precursor to the later much better "Rock and Rule", features two folk singer mice who are going nowhere. The female mouse, Jan, signs a deal with the devil to become a hit rock star. So it's up to Daniel Mouse to save her soul. Made in the late '70's this has all the trappings of said decade (crap music, crap clothing and hair style, awful folk tunes) This cartoon is featured on the Second disc of the 2-Disk Collector's Edition of "Rock and Rule", it also comes with a Making of that runs almost as long as the show itself.<br /><br />My Grade: D+
I have to say that this movie was really quite awful. the acting was average the pacing of the movie was terrible as well as the soundtrack and cinematography.i found that i was bored in most parts of the movie and the cliché lines did nothing for me. the two boys that played the main roles looked terrible at times and did'nt pull off the emotion that was needed in the movie. the little girl was creepy at times and looked like a doll which was scary. the ending wasn't satisfying although the movie to be over the ending didn't make me feel anything for the characters. this movie was boring and did nothing for me, I recommend this movie to no one.
We don't know if Darlene loves all three gentleman, certainly they are wary of one another, yet they live together. Viewers might surmise that the feelings of rivalry between the gentleman and the feelings of all of them toward Darlene might make for an unbearable home life.<br /><br />In the eerily beautiful rural Brazilian landscape (emphasized by the frequent use of polarization and the use of Kodachrome stock), anything might happen, and the alternatives for any one of them. save perhaps Ciro, may not be alluring enough to encourage them to change their circumstances. They seem to bear the intolerable because it is familiar-the unknown frightens them into complacency toward a fate which is more challenging than their characters can utilize. Thus it crushes them, rather than strengthening them. The web in which they are caught is made of the sanguine filaments which bind us all. Perhaps the sadness I felt after watching this movie has to do with it's portrayal of the inevitable fading of our youth's bright colors in the unforgiving light of time. The three children will enter the world fated to relive their parents lives to one or another degree. Well filmed and portrayed, the story is tragic in it's essence. Walt Disney it ain't
Although this film has had a lot of praise, I personally found it boring. There are some nice Brasilian sunsets and the characters are believable, but the story of how they interrelate, even if very unusual by our standards, is not interesting enough to sustain a movie this long. The central woman takes up with one man after another in a close knit way and putting the interests of her children first. As the tolerance of the various men is stretched, we see their characters develop. The story unfolds with dignity and aided by excellent acting. It is a rare glimpse into the Brasilian hinterland, far from the city, but hardly exciting enough to keep one's eyes open for.
This program would be useful for training hardened felons basic human emotions. Beyond this purpose, the show has no value other than to fill bandwidth that would otherwise go unutilized in the electromagnetic spectrum. I feel a greater sense of suspense and anticipation listening to a computerized voice chip endlessly droning out the products of a random number generator. Fortunately, the helpful and frequent music cues will tell viewers how they're supposed to feel, in case they are unable to fully internalize the predictable and shallow plot line. I did find Amy to be a superficially positive character, as she is a role model to young women that they can serve in traditionally male fields. Unfortunately, her totally subjective approach to the law is guided solely by whatever capricious personal guidelines Amy elects to employ, resulting in Amy's trials more closely resembling appeals to the personal mercy of a tribal despot than a true administration of justice. This show is unpalatable in any amount, although this is to some extent mitigated after two episodes by the brain's god-given filtering processes, by which the show will thankfully leave the same imprint on the viewer's memory as a television tuned to a dead channel at maximum volume.
This game is from a genre of games that tried to capitalize off of the whole Myst-inspired trend--walk around, talk to people, solve puzzles. The puzzles themselves are absolutely horrible, but I'll stick to the acting itself, which is only slightly better. If you're looking for a convincing performance from any one character, you won't find it here, but this game is worth buying if only to witness the truly hilarious performance of Christopher Walken. His acting is so horrible in this game that it seems like he's imitating someone who happens to be impersonating him. He's a caricature of himself.<br /><br />So buy this game if you're masochistic, a Walken fan, or simply want to hear the F-word a lot.
I kept waiting for this film to improve, but, alack, this is the worst kind of escapist movie: a spun-sugar confection that sinks under the weight of its own ponderous self-importance. The pace stumbles on like a legionnaire stranded in the Sahara. The absence of good dialogue leaves the appealing stars with little to do other than look good in white linen. Irons plays yet another moneyed charmer who's had a touch of the sun. Kaas is a pleasing singer but not much of an actress. Luckily, the script does not often call on her to emote away from the jazz club microphone. All the enviably relaxed, pretty, unnecessary characters take turns masticating the scenery with an air of weary sophistication. The whole exercise comes across like an interminably long Ralph Lauren ad. <br /><br />If you're past forty and believe Francophilia is the key to sophistication, you may well mistake this piece of cardboard for a baguette. Well, if you liked this movie you probably felt smart for appreciating Godard's leaden Éloge de l'amour, and you may even have sat through Le Divorce without cringing.
I do not see what is the whole deal about this movie. Patricia Kaas sings, yes, and that makes the film charming, but singing is not enough. I mean, if you want to get all benefits of this one, go buy Patricia's CD and enjoy! The plot is simple (if to omit the "dreams"); the main characters seem to love each other instantly, and as well instantly forget their other acquaintances. Relationships appear almost "mandatory", and the little "detective story" thrown in just makes things worse. What at first appeared to be a perfect movie ending, is first screwed up and then comes out as just a dream. I measure movies by how well I would remember them, and for this one, I already started to forget the details.
Well...I like Patricia Kaas. She is a beautiful lady and an extremely gifted and versatile singer. Her acting in this film is more than competent and from my point of view about the only redeeming feauture of this film. She very gently captures the essence of the lonely singer with a very serious helath problem. However what I tremendously dislike about the film is the shameless product placement for a well known French chain of hotels. The other thing is that the story seems to meander for way to long without really deciding what the film is about and what it wants to be. On a positive note you may argue that the film is not predictable but you could also say it's plainly boring because of the lack of cohesion. There are some nice shots in the film bujt you can't help thinking that all the parts just don't add up to anything at all. It really is a pity bevcause Kaas really shines in this film.
This is the type of film that makes you question your past admiration for a particular director before you stop and remind yourself that there are very few people whose body of work doesn't contain a few clunkers.<br /><br />The casting in Lelouch's films is of utmost importance because he puts the viewer into such intimacy with the characters. The actors have to bring real screen magic to live up to the intensity. Otherwise it is just hollow. <br /><br />None of the actors in this film had any of that screen magic, in my opinion.<br /><br />Jeremy Irons and Patricia Kaas fell far short as the leads. Irons is a talented actor but he was wrong for this part. Lovable rogue didn't suit his strengths. His brand of charm also hit a false note for me here. Iron's persona is too decadence-tinged to fit into a Lelouch love story.<br /><br />Although I would hesitate to pass up any opportunity to hear an English accent, I also think an American actor would have worked better in this role. So many of the songs that Kaas sings are so closely identified with the Americanness of the particular lyricist that it seemed kind of discordant to then have Jeremy Irons playing the love interest -- even though logically it really didn't matter. It still screwed up the flow of the movie somehow. At least for me.<br /><br />Of course, it would have had to have been the right American. I think George Clooney would have been great in the part. And he would have brought the screen magic in spades. Brad Pitt could also have done a really good job delivering his particular combination of charming and edgy.<br /><br />I was also very disappointed with Patricia Kaas. In reading about her, I've learned that she has a hugely successful career as a singer and many fans, so what do I know, but I found her screen presence as a singer very boring. She was actually a much better actress in her speaking scenes than she was a singer in those scenes in which she had to interpret and sell a song. Nothing she sang moved me. She was pleasant but bland.<br /><br />In contrast, someone like Kate Hudson, who is not a professional singer and has only voice-coach French still would have handled this part a million times better. Not to mention all that stunning French talent out there that could have been tapped into. It was wrenching watching Patricia Kaas take up screen space when there are so many charismatic French actresses who could have been cast instead. <br /><br />The music was so important in this film, it could not really work without the music working. And since Kaas delivered so poorly in this respect, the movie never really had a chance.<br /><br />Lelouch sealed the fate of this movie when he cast Patricia Kaas. JMO.
I saw this film while I was in France and I must say that it confused me. It is a story of a jewel thief and a young singer who each end up in Morocco at the same time, run into one another and form a connection. Simple enough? Well, the problem is that this is the sort of film that has ambiguity in both chronology (the film is not played entirely in order) and in reality (did what i just saw really happen, or was it only a dream?). Given those parameters, as well as the film being bilingual, it was really hard to follow, and I was not sure as to what happened at the end. I imagine some deep artsy types could understand this film better than I could, and it may require more than one viewing to understand.
I didn't hate this movie as much as some on my all time black list, but I consider it a total wast of film. Jeremy Irons, Iron Jeremy, Ron Jeremy. Think about it. Scene one is very good, all the rest are crap.
I had never heard of Dead Man's Bounty when I saw it at the DVD store a few weeks ago, and I thought I had stumbled upon an unrecognized gem, since it had Val Kilmer in it in a truly unique role. Sadly, it wasn't more than ten or fifteen minutes into the movie that I realized that this is a disaster of epic proportions. The first clue you will see of how genuinely awful this movie is comes near the beginning, when you have a bunch of dirtbags in an old saloon laughing like a bunch of hyenas in a scene that goes on about five times too long. It's unbelievable how bad it is. And sadly, it doesn't get any better.<br /><br />Val Kilmer is featured prominently on the movie's cover box, maybe to trick you into thinking that he has a role in the film, but unfortunately his bizarre role as a dead man is overlooked in favor of focusing on a bunch of half-wit crooks and the most inept conceptualization of a unique town sheriff that I've ever seen in a movie. He's played by Boguslaw Linda, who is unable to or uninterested in covering his Polish accent, immediately making it impossible that the movie is meant to take place in the American old west. <br /><br />Does Poland have this type of frontier past? I don't know. My knowledge of Polish history is not my strong point, but I can tell you this, The Sheriff, as he is known in the movie, is the worst representation of law enforcement that I can ever remember seeing in a movie. He is introduced in a truly ridiculous scene where he is wearing some kind of blindfold and a roomful of men take turns punching him in the face. Before they start hitting him, he explains that they can each hit him once, and then, after the first round, they will each hit him again, and if he can identify who is throwing the punches, they lose. What the hell is this crap? I am completely at a loss to explain why a scene like this would ever be put into any movie. <br /><br />Throughout the movie, the Sheriff continues to appear more and more beaten and bruised and drunk and battered, until ultimately he does nothing but show up occasionally, stumbling on screen and mumbling "not…without...the law…" You see, there is a lot of talk and preparation for a hanging, the details of which are as meaningless as the rest of the movie. <br /><br />It takes place, by the way, in a town that consists of nothing more than two ramshackle wooden buildings facing each other across a flattened bit of dirt that is more of a path than a road. My understanding is that it is a part of Poland that is supposed to look acceptably enough like the American southwest, where none of the characters, except maybe the dead guy, could possibly have come from.<br /><br />I have heard that Val Kilmer accepted the role because he was intrigued by his unique role, and also by director Uklanski's minimal use of dialogue in favor of a reliance on cleverly timed juxtaposition of images in unique visual montages. <br /><br />Yeah, whatever. <br /><br />Seems to me that Kilimer was unable to overcome what must have been the truly satisfying feeling that he must have gotten when he was offered the role. Personally, I would really feel that I had reached quite some level of success if someone approached me and offered me probably a few hundred thousand dollars to come and lay still for a while. I like to think that he didn't even read the script for this mess, because if he did I am at a total loss to understand why he accepted the role.<br /><br />At any rate, the movie opens with a man bringing in the corpse of a man, played by Kilmer, seeking the reward. Soon he finds himself embroiled in a ludicrous love story involving the town prostitute, the alcoholic Sheriff, and lots of mayhem involving a series of stupid, stupid characters. <br /><br />There is also a extensive and preposterous lack of understanding of American rituals. In one scene, a man cuts a cherry tomato in half and squishes the halves into Kilmer's eyes (for what reason, I can't imagine), and then later, a man makes a short speech over Kilmer's corpse, in which he explains that he was "one of the finest men we ever had," and then he proceeds to lop his head off with a shovel. What the HELL?? <br /><br />Not convinced yet? Here are some more reasons not to watch it. In one scene the Sheriff appears to be covered with ash, except for the perfectly clean areas around his eyes and what can only possibly be described as bright red lipstick. A man gets a head wound that drenches his head and body in blood. In a daze, he cauterizes it with gunpowder. Smart. Near the end, the Sheriff appears to have a broken arm. Sitting at the bar, he puts a rope around his neck and connects it to his injured arm, and uses his good arm to pull on the rope, lifting his shaking beer glass in his bad arm to his mouth, rather than using his good arm to drink. Also smart. <br /><br />Why doesn't he just use his good arm? I have no idea. That, like everything else in the movie, makes no sense whatsoever, like the title. Summer Love? Are you kidding me? Avoid this mess at all costs. <br /><br />In the meantime, here's something for the IMDb Goofs page – <br /><br />Errors made by characters (possibly deliberate errors by the filmmakers) : This movie got made. HA!
I wish I would have read more reviews and more opinions about this movie before I rented it. A waste of money. A waste of time. Very little dialog. The dialog was hard to understand in every way. The storyline and plot were both weak. The only thing that was nice at all was the cinematography.<br /><br />The characters were interesting. At the same time you will spend so much time trying to figure things out, because of the lack of dialog, that you will be rewinding the movie a lot. <br /><br />Do not watch this movie. It was a mess and will leave you feeling like a mess.<br /><br />You will say, what the heck was that, when the movie ends?
As most of you, I've watch a lot of great movies; In between those we often either voluntarily or mistakenly also find those movies that are so pointless that we think of reasons as to why anyone would make it. This is exactly what I can say for Dead man's bounty....<br /><br />The very least I can do is try to "warn" some of you. If you enjoy being entertained by a motion picture because of the story, acting and intensity than you might want to chose something else. Now, it's not all bad.....In fact, if all you want is creative film editing, and unique angles along with original music ambient than you might think it's OK. As someone that values movie plots, acting and being entertained by a film, the truth is I thought this movie was so terrible beyond words. I could easily find a spot for it on my list of worst movies seen in a while. <br /><br />As for having Val Kilmer in this, the truth is he was casted probably as a favor to the director; As a fan of some of Kilmer's films, I can't understand what his motive for this was. The movie seems part western part romance.........In the end, I'm sure most of you can agree with me that it simply is a rude waste of our time. In case you haven't seen this movie, my recommendation would be to avoid it completely.
Sure, you get to see some boobies, but if that's all you're looking for in a film, you get more mileage from youtube. I just paid a dollar from redbox because I saw Val Kilmer's name. Bad move. Plot didn't thicken, dialogue was shoddy, characters undeveloped at best. Somebody said cinematography was alright but don't expect too much. This movie moved very slow and ended without grace. Blacklist. I spent much of the movie wondering if some event or color scheme of things was symbolic. I never actually rewound to figure it out because nothing was ever explained in the end. No twists. It also left many questions that as it turns out, I had no desire to hear answered. One of the worst movies I have ever seen.
I mean, come on! Now my countrymen have started to make westerns! Is it not enough that our cinema sucks already? Now you need to infect English-language movies with Polish acting and no sense whatsoever? Please, stay away from this movie, do not waste your eyes on it. A 5-year-old baby could make a movie that makes more sense. I am from Poland and I am ashamed this title might actually be watched by you. Please, I am begging you, do NOT watch this movie and if you do, do NOT judge Polish people and Polish movies based on what you see there. We had some good movies in our history and we had some bad ones but this one - it is like nothing worse that I have seen in my entire life. Keep away!!!
This is said to be the first Polish western and is written and directed by Piotr Uklanski. Known in the U.S. as DEAD MAN'S BOUNTY, this film uses some strange visuals to tell a story that is short on dialog. Val Kilmer plays a corpse and some scenes are through his dead eyes. Some awkward visual situations are actually comical in a sick way. My favorite is a young man building a gallows chops off one of his own fingers and actually hangs himself testing the strength of the rope. A cowboy known only as 'the stranger'(Karel Roden)finds a dead man(Kilmer) that he thinks is a wanted man. He takes him to the nearest town to collect the bounty. He ends up losing the corpse and the potential bounty in a gambling game with the town's drunken sheriff(Boguslaw Linda)and has the few townsmen turned against him when he has a dalliance with the barmaid(Katarzyna Figura). He manages to escape sure death and leads the small posse on a dangerous 'wild goose chase'. One scene has the stranger tending to a scalp wound by cauterizing with gunpowder and a match. The corpse rots chained to a hitching post as the sheriff finds out that there is no bounty to be had. This movie also known as SUMMER LOVE has a haunting theme song sung by John Davidson. Nevertheless this western is like watching a train wreck. There is just something that tells you not to look...but you do.
The only reason I rented this movie was that Val Kilmer rarely stars in a bad movie. There is of course a first time for everything. In many ways, this movie proves that oaters aren't as easy to make as we think, especially by foreign directors. The only one who got by with it was probably Sergio Leone, but even his movies lacked that something indefinably innate to our American psyche and panache. American actors in Clint Eastwood and Henry Fonda did help . I can see now why they changed the original title from "Summer Love" to " Dead Man's Bounty". That itself tells me the producers and director didn't have any core understanding about a western other than those standard shoot'em up scenes and violent themes. I suppose we can say the same about American directors attempting to make a Polish movie while failing miserably in the process.
Dead Man's Bounty (the film's American title) has the look and feel of a classic Italian western. The cinematography, costumes, and sets look great. The cast is rugged, not a pretty face among them. At the beginning I was preparing for a pretty cool movie but what I eventually witnessed was an absolute disaster.<br /><br />The script was perfectly dreadful. There was no suspense whatsoever and very little action or worthwhile drama.<br /><br />Despite looking great, the cast spoke (English) with heavy European accents that were often unintelligible.<br /><br />The final nail in it's coffin was the broad streak of pretentiousness that paints most of the picture, focusing heavily on the character of the barmaid who's featured in a couple of very awkward sex scenes. Also her speech near the end was pretty repugnant!<br /><br />The only novelty comes from the stunt casting of Val Kilmer in the role of the dead man, continuing his recent string of DOA performances!
I do NOT understand why anyone would waste their time or money on utter trash like this... Don't get me wrong -- I LOVE a good Western -- Notice I said "GOOD" -- this is just trash<br /><br />The acting is horrible -- Val Kilmer must know someone or owed a favor or something for them just to use his face and name in this ridiculous piece of crap...<br /><br />To those of you who enjoyed this movie, I am making a list of you're names to ensure I do NOT watch anything you suggest -- our tastes are definitely different, yet it is your right to voice your opinion, no matter how far off base it is.<br /><br />I gave this movie a 2 just in case they do throw out all of the one's and not count them.... Just bad in all area's...
And also a wonderful beginning, a real quick start. It keeps you yearning and waiting for is about to come. Unfortunately the high adrenaline dries off quickly, but most certainly after half the movie is over.<br /><br />And it's a shame, because this movie has really good ideas and explores many of them thoroughly. But that is also one of it's faults. By exploring too many things, it get's mixed up into to many things, so in the end you're too confused to follow any plot or characters. It's very dark and moody, but that doesn't help much, if it's also genre hopping just to try to fit any- and everything in it's story!
and it's only January, still I'm sure of it!<br /><br />By far this is among the worst Swedish movies I've ever seen and to be honest Swedish movies ain't that good in general. It have been claimed to be "original" and perhaps it can be seen as that for people who never seen a English speaking movie, for us who have been to the cinema the last 10 years it can't help but to feel like Måns Mårlind and Björn Stein have been sitting down one weekend going through the most successful movies from the last years and tried to squeeze it all together in to one Swedish package. What can I say the outcome can just be...poor. First of all the story is just weak to begin with, even worse when it's not just a poor story it's a wish to combine to very poor stories - first a failed try to make Swedish action á la Matrix and then combine it with a really bad moral story. And if you thought it could not be worse you'll notice all the "cool stuff" that just have been thrown in there for absolutely no reason at all more than in a bad way trying to show that Sweden also can do Hollywood movies - which we can't nor should try to. For example the main plot is tried to made deeper by letting youths play a computer game called Storm having absolutely nothing at all with the story or for example how there is a internet side about "Storm" while all the sudden it just is the main characters consciousness - really I don't think even Stein or Mårlind can see a point with three quarters of the movie, more than just trying to show off poor extra effects. For the actors, I've got to admit Eric Ericson does a pretty good job except he does the same job the whole movie through, even tough Storm tries to be a movie about the personal development of DD he does not change one bit in his way of acting. Jonas Karlsson, well to be honest I thought he was a fairly respected actor but judging by Storm... really he just have to be ashamed of this movie, his character and his scar. Lastly Eva Röse is just beyond critic, both her character and her acting. The only reasons Storm succeeds of not getting a 1/10 is for Eric Ericson and, what can I say, at least it tries..
What offends me most about the critics following this film is the mentioning of 'originality'. This film does not contain ONE innovating element. If, by 'originality' you refer to pathetic action scenes, overacting, gluttony in violence, blunt humor and a script beyond intellectual belief. Then, 'originality' is something Swedish film can do without.<br /><br />How Röse and Karlsson can agree to 'act' in this poor excuse for a film is a mystery to me. And how Eva Röse after the making of this film can be seen at breakfast-TV promoting it just disappoints me.<br /><br />This film doesn't contain a story, the script is illogical, stiff and last but not least, just plain bad. These two young directors have put together a quite disgusting boy-fantasy containing violence, comic-strips and trivialized psychological portraits. I wouldn't be surprised if the scene of DD masturbating in the kitchen over a micro-wave dinner actually is put there to describe the everyday life of these two overgrown cinematic nerds that pose as directors.<br /><br />I wouldn't show this movie to my worst enemy.
I happened to catch this on TV, and wanted to watch because I remembered the Spin magazine article upon which the movie is based. I was very disappointed. First, if James Belushi is the lead actor in a movie, it should be a sign that it's not exactly an A-list production. Gregory Hines was a world class dancer, but sadly not a great actor.<br /><br />In fact, all of the acting in this film is either flat or hammy, which can only be blamed on the director, who is this film's weakest link. Charles Carner seemed to be trying to ape Oliver Stone's "JFK" in portraying the alleged conspiracy to cover up the "real" child murderer(s), but without the benefit of a good script, an A-list cast or, it must be said, the talent. It just doesn't work.<br /><br />It's a shame that such a worthy topic for a film did not get better treatment.
Actually, I am not narrating the main plot in this comment but with just 2-3 sentences I can make it a spoiler. OK here are these- <br /><br />Speed is just a 85% conversion of Hollywood flick Cellular into Bollywood by using the software Vikram Bhatt. Title has no match with the story, only it goes in the thriller direction. Just that!! It doesn't deserve even a single star for its imitation, imperfect casting, poor standard and predictable story. Undoubtedly now I can say that Viram Bhatt is slowly vanishing away from his director status as no any matured audience will appreciate his recent works including this. Beside him, Aftab Shivdasani too making his outlook as cartoon-comic type. Who knows how long will he last in the film industry more? Sometimes the standard in the performances and cinematography look like lower than a C-grade movie. But most supportive role was played by Zayed Khan which was somewhat identical with Chris Evan's role as Ryan in Cellular. With innocent face Sanjay Suri has no contribution in the movie as he has nothing to impress. That's why those who have already watched Cellular I advise you never to waste your time again with this imitation sack.
This is a rip-off from Cellular. <br /><br />Bad casting... <br /><br />Bad direction... <br /><br />Bad Music...<br /><br />And the list goes on...<br /><br />well there was no direction since story, scenes and setting were lifted straight off of other movie. <br /><br />Even fight sequence is copied. One with the mace was from Kill Bill and another one with fire hose was from either a Jet Li's or Jackie Chan's movie (i am not able to recall the name of this movie)... <br /><br />Stay away from this cheap imitation and try to see the real thing... <br /><br />Cannot expected something original from any of the Bhatts any more!!!
Wait till you watch this one.... I mean even after reading this review. No other movie till date has sucked more than this one.... One thing i wont understand is that, when you are ripping off some English flick why to add your own creativity? With the amount spent for making this movie the producers should have considered buying rights for "Cellular" to be dubbed into Hindi and released the movie. They might have gotten some profits that way i guess. If there was a chance to rate this movie with a 0 i would have done it and the most pathetic performances come from Tanushree Datta and the girl who played the sidekick to Aftab. I don't know if my problem is that i have seen Cellular much earlier than this movie..... but that cant be a reason to support this movie... i could go on for hours but neither i have the time to discuss about this useless crap of a movie not i want to remember those awful scenes from the movie.....<br /><br />please stay away from this flick.
Welcome to the world of Vikram Bhatt, the man who was once successful and got several hits with small actors like KASOOR, RAAZ and also the multistarrer AWARA PAAGAL DEEWANA and his one film with Aamir GHULAM<br /><br />One sneak peak about this films are that all are Hollywood remakes and some decent ones like the once which worked<br /><br />SPEED is a remake of CELLULAR and that too a terrible one <br /><br />A look at the stars, we have the once saleable but now out of work Urmila and Sanjay Suri, then we have the flop Aftab, Ashish Chaudhary, Zayed Khan and others<br /><br />The film could be a decent thriller but many problems are there The storytelling has several cringeworthy scenes like Zayed hijacking a Mobile Company and many more and the stunts too are laughable while the twists in the end are too laughable The film also took a long time to reach the theatres which looses it's spark<br /><br />Direction is awful Music is outdated<br /><br />Zayed Khan screams, makes faces.etc what he does always Urmila is good in her part, Sanjay Suri is not that convincing Ashish Chaudhary tries hard in a negative role and he is okay Aftab is horrible and he makes you laugh in a negative role Surprising the same director gave him his only solo hit KASOOR Sophie is horrible Tanushree is a non actress
Speed which I believe is direct copy of the Hollywood movie Cellular (I haven't watched this one) gives an impression of a test match which is very exciting in first four days, but then gets in a very boring draw at the end. I have watched this movie today on 12th January 2008 on rented VCD. It's release date is 19th Oct 2007. But still fortunately for me I didn't know or heard much of this movie before except that it is a flop at box office. So in this situation when I watch the movie, I feel that this movie could have been a very good movie, but then the director again falls in the trap for Bollywood traditions and has wasted a very good chance.<br /><br />Off course as a Bhatt movie it must be copied from somewhere else. But now days it doesn't matter for me, if I haven't seen the original movie. I just found the main theme much similar to 'Nick of Time' and 'Badshah'. In the movie Sanjay Suri is shown an intelligence agent, but his wife thinks that he is a chef. This brings back the memory of 'True-Lies'. The only new part was the use if the phone. But that too I found out now is taken from movie Cellular. So when a movie is made with the mixture of so many other movies it's future is quite clear.<br /><br />The things I like about the movie is its pace. As the name suggest the things really happens fast, and there is not much time to think about in between the scenes. But this breaks in the last 20 minutes of so where the movie goes in traditional Bollywood style of Dhishum dhishum.<br /><br />The plot of the movie is also quite interesting. Three stories going parallel, one after the other. One of the kidnapping of Urmila, the other of the Zayed trying to help Urmila, and then the plan of murder of prime minister. These three stories gets mixed up naturally with each other as the movie continues.<br /><br />But then the very ordinary acting and unnecessary extra style has killed the spirit of the movie. Except Sanjay Suri, none other makes any impression. This goes even for Urmila, who is always promising in RGVs movies. Due to this ordinary acting some scenes doesn't really convey the feelings that director wanted. E.g. the scene at the end where Urmila leaves all hope and cut the phone, should have made a good impact. But instead we just wait for the end of that scene.<br /><br />Other than acting, some unnecessary love for style demoralizes the movie. Showing so cool villains is good for Hollywood movies not for Bollywood The background of London is also only for making style and not much intelligent advantage of this background can be seen. Especially at the end, all those dhishhum- dhishhum were utterly unnecessary. May be director has an impression that the climax in Hindi movies must have such fights. They look unrealistic, increase the length of the movie and make sure that the people are leaving theater before the movie ends.<br /><br />Over and all, I find the movie once watchable. If it is coming on TV or you can get it on rent its OK. But then again make sure that you have the remote and forward button handy. Next time, when the movie is on TV, you can safely watch other channels.
I've watched this film about thirty years ago and it stuck in my mind until now. When I came across it on DVD, I didn't hesitate too long, even more, because I have a predilection for early Belmondo flicks. But what a bad surprise! Some movies should be allowed to resign from public exposure, to preserve a certain memory, and not to shock audiences.<br /><br />Widely hailed as one of Chabrol's rare cynic works, the only lasting impression I got from re- watching it is... boredom. Some movies really do not age in style. But what about movies which didn't have any sense of style at all?<br /><br />The flaws in the script, uninspired acting - presumably due to the lack of direction -, a sort of production design, which doesn't deserve its name, less than mediocre photography and, last but not least, the worst editing job I've seen in ages, make this one truly hard to stand.<br /><br />My impression was, that there was a bunch of people with too much money and equipment but obviously, no idea or any skills at all. It really comes as a surprise, that this one didn't abruptly end Chabrol's career. Don't blame it on the overall bad taste of the 70s, this one is crap in its own right and a worthy contender for the most useless waste of celluloid ever.
It must say something about the state of our nation that this programme is one of the most popular currently screened. <br /><br />The 'square' is peopled by such a miserable, untrustworthy, amoral, spiteful, unrelentingly dour group of characters as can be imagined. Everyone is stabbing someone in the back, everyone is attempting to commit adultery, everyone is trying to cheat someone. That, or they are being stabbed, cuckolded or swindled. Nobody is cheerful. Nobody laughs. Nobody has a blinding stroke of luck or a really nice day. It's hell, with cockney accents.<br /><br />I suspect this programme must be sponsored by The Samaritans. It's perfect viewing for the depressed. It doesn't cheer them up; what it does do is present a whole community of such terminally despondent sad-arses that viewers are moved to believe their lot really could be worse - they might be living in 'Albert Square'.<br /><br />Apart from the above; as a representation of London's east end, it is pure hokum. The programme-makers have evidently never been across town. The first thing you encounter on the Mile End Road is a colossal mosque. And this pretty-well defines the racial majority of the population. White British Londoners are a dispersed and rapidly diminishing minority. A large advertisement hoarding presently near the Bow Road flyover, and sponsored by Tower Hamlets Health Care boasts that 'Eight out of ten members of the community can now see their doctor more quickly'. Ten healthy, smiling faces beam down at the observer in confirmation. Eight of them are dark-skinned... <br /><br />What's more, I used to work with a bunch of Anglo-Saxon - dare I say 'pukka' - cockneys a few years ago. And I can tell you that a more obnoxiously racist experience I've never had. Each day was like an Oswald Moseley rally. They couldn't pass 5 minutes without denigrating some other race or nationality than their own, and in terms that were repulsive and obscene. 'Fackin' Pakis' and 'fackin' Maceroons' were the small change of conversation. In fact their entire (and extremely limited) stock of adjectives fixated upon sex-organs and their application. Alf Garnett was a paragon of liberal virtue in comparison.<br /><br />Any programme that purported to represent London's native east-end Caucasians in their true nature would be completely unfit for broadcast - even after the 9 o-clock watershed. Imagine a Ku Klux Klan script written by Quentin Tarantino and you'd be somewhere near the mark. But when they weren't being inveterate bigots they were at least extremely cheerful.<br /><br />I don't know how such a soap-opera came to be. This imaginary castaway island of white misery has absolutely no bearing upon real culture whatsoever. And if you're of a comparatively sanguine disposition, it will quickly reduce you to tears of grief. Comparatively ordinary actors pretending to be comparatively ordinary chronic-depressives with cockney accents - what's the point of that?<br /><br />Dull, dreary, unrelentingly disillusional, and ethnically preposterous. The most popular programme of an apparently diseased and dying nation.<br /><br />Avoid it like the plague.
I don't know how people can watch this - the only people who enjoy watching this are those who have no feelings and emotions and enjoy watching people die, houses burn down, car crashes, babies die, and cast members being killed off every week. Its the most absurd thing on television and i still don't know how it pulls in the ratings. Its so depressing. I can imagine the writers sitting down and saying - 'so who shall we kill of next week then' or 'whose house shall we torch in a months time?'<br /><br />Its the most depressing, absurd and most stupid thing on TV at the moment, and i cant understand peoples motives for watching this depressing pile of crap anymore
I think this programme is a load of rubbish. All they do is argue and slap each other across the face and they call this acting?! These people get paid lots of money for this and most of them can't even act to save their lives. Also, the story lines are awful and after watching it for a few minutes, I am bored with it. I like the way that Harry Hill takes the mickey out of it on his TV show 'TV Burp' e.g. the weak joke "The Princess and the Pea isn't exactly Shakespeare is it?" that had Sonia and Naomi in stitches. I don't see how that is funny. I think this is a waste of everybody's money for their TV licence so this can be shown 4/5 days a week. Isn't there anything better than this?
This soap is worse than bad: it's poisonous. Of the many television shows that have had a corrosive influence on British society over the past twenty years, Eastenders is the prime example. For two decades this show has celebrated the oaf, the thug, the wide-boy, the tart, the gobby, the violent, the sexually-incontinent, the criminal, the ignorant, the unambitious ...<br /><br />How many times has someone or other remarked that Eastenders "mirrors life"? Life on which planet, exactly? <br /><br />It's written about "working-class" characters, as imagined by middle-class people who have taken a course in creative writing. Eager to show to their middle-class peers how familiar they are with the "working-class" they dream up the lumpen rabble that is the citizenry of Eastenders.<br /><br />This has a toxic effect on some minds less well-equipped than others to handle fiction, and so we find members of the real population assuming the attitudes and demeanour of the inhabitants of Walford.<br /><br />Thus, it came to pass that Eastenders mirrors life; but only after life had been hoodwinked into mirroring Eastenders.<br /><br />Other soaps have followed in EE's footsteps, filled to their stinking gunwhales with ugly, potato-faced, shaven-headed, pot-bellied characters, scowling at each other and issuing threats constantly. This is the proletariat as perceived by the writers who produce this trash. The writers will grow rich on the proceeds of such output, and will go on to enjoy the finer things of life in their rarified enclaves. Meanwhile, the burgeoning number of new, TV-induced drones will proceed inexorably toward cultural bankruptcy.<br /><br />And there you have the new priests and the new creatures of the early 21st century. Much of this is due to the immeasurable power of that illuminated boxful of dancing pixels in the corner of your living-room. It's your fault, gentle reader: that's what you chose as the only window through which to look out from your prison.
If this is classed as 'real life' of London, then the producers must be on different planet.<br /><br />It is the most depressing, suicidal, dark, dingy, dross on TV.<br /><br />Everyone is fighting, everything has nasty under tones running through it, nothing is done for genuine reasons.<br /><br />If you want a real life picture of people in London or the UK, then this programme is by the farthest from reality.<br /><br />There is not one good word I can say about this programme. The only certainty is that will be a great big fight over Christmas dinner.<br /><br />Even the characters are totally unbelievable!
The other lowest-rating reviewers have summed up this sewage so perfectly there seems little to add. I must stress that I've only had the Cockney Filth imposed on me during visits from my children, who insist on watching the Sunday omnibus. My god, it's depressing! Like all soaps, it consists entirely of totally unlikeable characters being unpleasant to each other, but it's ten times as bad as the next worst one could be. The reviewer who mocked the 'true to life' bilge spouted by its defenders was spot-on. If anyone lived in a social environment like this, they'd slash their wrists within days. And I can assure anyone not familiar with the real East End that it's rather more 'ethnically enriched' than you'll ever see here. Take my advice - avoid this nadir of the British TV industry. It is EVIL.
Licence fees to watch this trash, And pay for it with hard-earned cash? Humourless, no hint of laughter, God knows how it won a BAFTA! <br /><br />We've now been subjected to "Eastenders" for twenty years. When, oh when is the Great British public going to see this awful soap for what it is? Crass Pap! This programme no more depicts reality in the East End of London than everyday life in Beirut, and never has done.<br /><br />The Eastenders I know (the real ones) are kind, courageous, hardworking and loyal. And one of their greatest attributes is humour. It was the Eastenders who went through the worst of the London blitz and still stuck two fingers up to Hitler. And what do we see on our screens for five days of the week (including an omnibus)? Nothing but a bunch of moaning, wailing, "dead from the neck up" wimps, who seem to do little else than sit in a pub all day sniping at each other. What a great advert for Britain that is!! Do the writers actually believe this garbage they're pumping out? Obviously the woolly-minded section of the public does, but then I've heard that apparently anyone can be brainwashed into believing anything.
Young Quaids fake accent was difficult to accept at times.<br /><br />The show was billed as mystery/suspence but should have been listed as a romance.<br /><br />Don't rent this one if you are sleepy, it will knock you out.
New Orleans is nothing like how it is portrayed in this<br /><br />debacle of a film. Quaid's attempt at speaking with a cajun<br /><br />accent (by the way, hardly anyone speaks that way in New<br /><br />Orleans) is terrible. Plot = elementary and mindless. This<br /><br />picture refers to itself as a mystery, but a mystery involves a<br /><br />gradual process whereby a viewer is given clues and twists throughout a film. There's none of that here. "Big<br /><br />Easy" tries to get by on trite New Orleans stereotypes. <br /><br />Don't be fooled - the real Big Easy is nothing like the town<br /><br />that Quaid & Barkin bumble their way through.
As a native of New Orleans, I can state that almost everything in this movie, from the atrocious N'Awlins dialect to the highly creative "manipulation" of Crescent City geography, is horrible. This is another one of those Big Hollywood movies that decides to stereotype New Orleans as: 1. A city full of French-sounding idiots 2. A city full of people who sound as if they've just returned from Blanche Dubois' summer home 3. A city of drunkards, where every day is Mardi Gras 4. A city of deep mystery, where almost everyone practices or is a victim of voodoo (I admit that maybe we are a city of drunkards; although every day is NOT Mardi Gras). "The Big Easy" is one of the worst films about New Orleans. I wouldn't recommend it to anybody.
Totally brain-dead actioner made in the Philippines. This belongs to the mode of Filipino movies which tried to pass themselves as American films on the international market. After a rather dull beginning, the movie takes off and never disappoints again. It is actually a rip-off of the worst movies Chuck Norris ever made : an American prisoner in Vietnam is brainwashed by the soviets who implant a microchip in his brain so he is programmed to kill the Pope, then the President of the USA. One of his old buddies (played by B-movie stalwart Max Thayer) is sent to stop him. Utterly ridiculous action scenes, putrid acting (Nick Nicholson's performance as the evil soviet commander is a must-see!)and implausible plot make up for one of the cheesiest action pictures ever bestowed in the general public.
This movie is the worst thing ever created by humans. You think manos is the worst movie ever? It doesn't even come close to this garbage. I dont even know where to begin. The "russian" commander and the rebel chic are the worst "actors" ever to appear in a movie. They make the sister in troll 2 look like Meryl Streep. The goofy faces the chic makes while she's in kung fu training have to be seen to be believed. Then there is the oompa music during the prison break, the totally out of place love scene, the stupid song that plays during the out of place love scene, the fake castro, the fact that everybody has either a headband and/or a bandanna on some part of their body, the goofiest rape scene ever filmed, and the worst acting ever put on film. This movie deserves to be more well known among bad movie fans. Definitely the worst movie ever made.
Addle-brained stupidity that the cartoon "Bullwinkle" made fun of a quarter-century beforehand, NO DEAD HEROES proves that you can rip off a good movie (THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE) without copying a single sliver of quality from the object of your plunder. The acting barely registers on the cable-access TV scale, the plot is less nuanced than an old "Sgt. Rock" comic, and only Boris J. Badanov-style "bad guy" mustaches are missing from the Commies. This movie achieves the unusual feat of being too bad, too stupid to be enjoyed by anyone with opposable thumbs.
With No Dead Heroes you get stupid lines like that as this woefully abysmal action flick needs to be seen to be believed. William Sanders is saved by his buddy Harry Cotter during an extraction in Vietnam but gets himself captured by the enemy. Fast forward ten years and Harry is now a brainwashed Russian operative with a mind control microchip implanted in his brain. His new Russian superior is Ivan played to the obscene hilt by Nick Nicholson who might I add not only doesn't attempt once to speak with a Russian accent but resembles more a gas station attendant in Kentucky with his stained teeth. What is even more absurd is the fact that he was also the dialog coach for this film. Soon William is re-recruited by the CIA to hunt Harry down. He teams up with Barbara, a freedom fighter who has infiltrated Ivan's El Salvador camp and soon the both of them are blowing up half of South America. Some scenes are so jaw droppingly awful that it's a wonder why this film doesn't have more of a cult following. One such scene is the sudden lovemaking in the jungle by William and Barbara accompanied by the most inappropriate catterwalling background music I've ever heard. Who would strip completely nude in the middle of a South American jungle? There is a rape scene that uses the end theme from Blood on Satan's Claw as well. No Dead Heroes is the magic bullet movie champion of all time as one shot leads to multiple kills. In one scene Harry strafes his rifle from behind a rock and kills seven guys. I had to rewind it and count. Hard to find film that has recently gotten the full HD treatment by MGM. Track this movie down and watch it for the sheer silliness that ensues.
Makes "Invasion USA" look like "Apocalypse Now". This one can only be recommended to US skinheads, John Birch supporters or militia members. The message is very simple : let's shoot them all - gooks, commies, latinos, everything that isn't American.<br /><br />Besides, this is badly acted, badly scripted, badly interpreted, incredibly stupid but no fun at all. This movie could be used as a toorture device by CIA torturers. oops, sorry, there can't be any US torturers because they are the GOOD
Why? Why? Why on earth no one tells the truth about this horrible, HORRIBLE movie? I still wake up in the morning and ask God why He didn't stopped me from seeing this revolting "comedy". I cant believe I PAID to see this offense to my cinematographic taste. I'm starting to think that the 5 stars it has is because of Martha Higareda 's nudity and all the men who cant buy a porn film and avoid seeing this ... I will call it "thing" cause call it film is an insult to the Mexican film industry. The characters are a huge cliché, the acting causes involuntary laugh and the script is... well, I cant believe a human being wrote this. And just when you thought you've been tortured enough...the last half hour is so painful that I wished to ripped my eyes out. The only good thing I can say about this abomination is that it only last 90 minutes (that would feel like centuries, but still). Really, AVOID THE PAIN!!!
Niñas Mal is not a movie is a bad episode of a cheesy badly conceived soap opera. <br /><br />The acting is not a bit better of that in soap operas, I guess the writer and director has seen too many Mexican soap operas and can't conceive anything remotely different. <br /><br />Give it up, go back to your soap operas so that you have an audience to please. <br /><br />Stop waisting our time and money and giving a bad name to the once respectable Mexican film industry. <br /><br />It is NOT an OK or good movie, it's a mediocre soap opera!
I can't believe I actually bought this movie! It sucks! ... Where I live Mexican movies Mexican movies are never advertised, or even available ... you can't find them in the regular rental places... so I had to buy it ... I really like Mexican movies! They bring me closer to my roots, and my people, and they are way different that what your normally used to... but this one was soo predictable!!! Your could guess what was going to happen... I'ts not a horrible movie! It just wasn't worth what I paid for it! jaja... but if you have time and are truly bored then yeah u should watch it.. but if you love Mexican movies, and love theater itself then don't watch it it'll be painful! lol
Adela is a rebellious teenager with the attitude that she is right and everyone else is wrong. She needs to be the center of attention and she'll act stupid to make it so. With her attitude she gets sent to charm school.<br /><br />There she meets the typical characters in today's cinema; the nerd, the clumsy one, the stepford housewife and the sexual minority. Things happen and in the end Adela "learns her lesson" so to speak. The plot tries to carry a deeper meaning to the state Adela is in, but utterly fails to deliver (at least I didn't buy it). So what you are left with is superficial interaction within the same stereotypes you've seen in a million movies before. Plus the director seems to have a breast fixation, Adela flashes her boobies a few times too many, at least I can't see that they are relevant to the story.<br /><br />So the film is OK, but if you are like me and don't like to watch a teenager pissing people off and making a behavioral U-turn in an instant, which I found very unbelievable, think twice before watching.
When I first saw this movie, I said to myself, "Hey what the heck it sounds like a good movie, why not rent it?". So yeah, I rented it and went back home to see it. When I inserted it in my DVD player I was shocked.<br /><br />Well FIRST of all, no one told me it was a Mexican movie and was spoken in Spanish, good thing it had subtitles.<br /><br />SECOND, it was nude, nude NUDE! Since I have no background whatsoever in Mexican movies, you could see my shock when I saw it. *GASP! Covering virgin eyes, NOO*<br /><br />THIRD, predictable to say the least, but actually being it predictable was no excuse to me in liking movies, because I don't seem to care if it's predictable, unless it's way over the top. <br /><br />FOURTH, how Heidi and Kike were reunited, so cheesy. <br /><br />FIFTH, how the movie ended. It was a BAD, BAD ending. How Mr. Van der Linde's sudden approval to the mayor's election was because her daughter, knew how to throw the party... BLAH, Blah. I was hoping that he wasn't that easy to accept it, the director might have just rushed it. <br /><br />After all of this bashing of the bad stuff, the good stuff's are here to come. The movie was actually quite hilarious at some point with Maribel being clumsy in the kitchen and all, Heidi's attitude, Valentina being poetic with words. What I really also like about it was the song that Valentina made with her girl friend. That's all, and for the other stuffs that I haven't mentioned they were just so-so.
I'm a massive fan of prison dramas which is reflected in OZ being my all time favourite American TV show . I guess the appeal lies in a type of smug voyeurism of wanting to see bad things happen to bad mens' bottoms , but I found Don Siegel's RIOT IN CELL BLOCK 11 to be rather disappointing . Okay I knew since it was made in 1954 it would be devoid of bad language , graphic shankings and gang rape but even so it's a rather weak film compared to prison portrayal in earlier movies like EACH DAWN I DIE and WHITE HEAT . The problem lies in the preachy tone of the movie with riot leader Dunn being something of a prison reformer . Yeah that sounds ridiculous since he's a violent anti hero rather than some limp wristed tree hugging do gooder on a salary , but that's what he is in essence , he wants to see prisoners rehabilitated to rejoin society rather than being made to suffer . There's also a problem of making a B movie with such radical themes ( Quite ironic that Siegel would later make DIRTY HARRY where the only good criminal is a dead one ) and that is the cast isn't very good with Emile Meyer as the warder being especially irritating in his performance . like i said a disappointing movie
While it was nice to see a film about older people finding each other and falling in love and the performances by Andrews and Garner were not bad, this picture poured on the sapp and schmaltz at every turn. Every curve in the plot was in view from a mile away!
It was only the second year of the Academy but already they were voting politically - Jeanne Eagels' brilliant performance in this creaky early talkie had to make do with an Oscar nom and the statuette went to the worst performance ever to win - Mary Pickford's in COQUETTE. The only existing print was a work print without music or final editing, but wherever it's shown, Eagels stuns and captivates with her beguiling, powerful performance. She is so convincing on the witness stand that while we know she is lying through her teeth (we did after all SEE her kill the man), we in the audience find ourselves, like the jurors, believing in her innocence, before we suddenly catch ourselves. THAT is GREAT ACTING. The film needs to be made available on video so that the world can enjoy this terrific performance again. (One silent of Jeanne's exists in archive print - MAN, WOMAN AND SIN - and her only other talkie, JEALOUSY, is "lost," so this is the only document we have of her. Run to see it (when it first came out of the archives to be shown in NYC in the early 70s, the Village Voice printed a full page review, worshipping the Eagels performance).
Virginal innocent Indri finds herself at a house of prostitution run by ruthless pimp MG. Indri winds up incarcerated in MG's private prison after she refuses to make love to him. Of course, Indri and worldly top con Helga join forces and plan to escape. Maman Firmansyah's blah, uninspired direction and Piet Burnama's dull, talky script thoroughly undermine any trashy vitality this flick needs in order to qualify as a pleasing piece of babes-behind-bars exploitation junk: the sluggish pace painfully drags throughout, there's no gratuitous female nudity whatsoever (the girls don't even show any skin during the obligatory group shower scene!), the expected torture and degradation are both extremely tame and tepid, the moderate crummy gore likewise fails to impress, and even a ridiculous catfight sequence ain't nothing to get excited about. Thomas Susanto's pedestrian cinematography, the laughably lousy dubbing, the excruciatingly overlong 102 minute running time, the sappy theme song, and Gatot Sudarto's cornball score add further abject insult to already appalling injury. Only some decent last reel break-out action offers a little relief from the otherwise overly abundant stultifying tedium. A complete yawn-inducing dud.
While it's one of two movies on Tales of Voodoo Volume 1, there's no voodoo or anything supernatural in it! The box labels it "Hell Hole" but the screen title is Escape from Hell Hole. The title is confusingly similar to Hell Hole (1978) aka "Escape from Women's Hell Hole" A group of women bathe in a river and seemingly the worst thing they have to worry about is a peeping tom, who they easily overpower. No nudity in this or any other scene, however.<br /><br />A woman named Cardena drives up in a car and seems to be known and liked by all the women. She invites Indri to come and live in the city with her and her uncle M.G. Once they get there, it becomes clear that M.G. wants to take Indri's virginity. M.G. runs some sort of house of prostitution, and he's either in charge of a corrupt branch of the military, or runs a paramilitary outfit, or prefers for his guards to all wear military-style uniforms.<br /><br />The women who refuse him or otherwise make trouble get put into a prison. Indri gets sent there. The women get tortured and sometimes possibly raped by the guards.<br /><br />Various unsuccessful attempts at escape or rescue are made, but inevitably fail despite the obvious advantages the women have: they outnumber the guards vastly, and relatively few of the guards have automatic weapons - most have semi-automatic rifles or handguns.<br /><br />WIP genre enthusiasts may like it, and the fact that it was made in the Philippines gives it some novelty, but otherwise... eh.
I obtained this little piece of scuzz on the VideoAsia "Tales of Voodoo" DVD label. Quite where the voodoo is supposed to fit in, I have no idea. Indeed I would not usually connect voodoo with Indonesia anyway (let alone with WIPs).<br /><br />I know and love WIP movies. I have seen most of them. I could not therefore resist this little known gem from the description given to it on the cover.<br /><br />It is APPALLING. You cannot have a WIP movie if the women keep their clothes on (even in the shower!). Although it gives a nod to the exploitation genre, WIP without nudity is like a Big Mac without the beef.<br /><br />As my gym teacher used to say, on the whole, I'd rather be at the disco....
This is the kind of film that I am wondering why anybody would have considered doing it from the beginning. This is the kind of movie that I cannot understand how people put money in it, how the rental store can put the DVD on its shelves. This is the kind of movie I blame myself for having rented it. <br /><br />There are good class-B movies, and I do not reject the genre. When they are good, they catch the interest with the action, they have characters written well enough, and acted well enough so that you can care about them. The effects in some of these movies support the film in many cases, and you may like them for the originality. Almost nothing is true in 'Coronado'. The subject and the script is at the level of cheap comics - just a cliche. The effects are cheap - and I do not care that the film is low budget - you can do a lot with low budget, but you need some talent. There are so many continuity and other directing errors as in ten other films. You do not care for the characters, you do not laugh, and at the end of the film you are left wondering if the parody was intentional or not. The only quality I could find is the scenery, there are some good locations, worth a much better film. <br /><br />2/10 on my personal scale. The worst film of the year so far.
If you are 10 years old and never seen a movie before, maybe this film may be entertainment for you, but if you've seen several movies, this one will be a silly fully-cliched cheap and predictable for you. Don't waste your time with this.
The bipolarity of this movie is maddening. One moment it's making fun of Latin Americans, American tourists and banana republics in general, the other it wants to be touching, with burned villages and orphans. Even the serious revolutionary hero, becomes a parody of a revolutionary at one point. But the comedy parts aren't even funny, because it's so obviously stolen from Star Wars. Yes, Star Wars, the "hero" is basically a rogue with a heart of gold. Add to this stereotypical sounds effects, Latin Americans who speak English with one another, and a villain that just disappears from the story. And whats the point? It's basically revolution propaganda with no resolution, and no planning (because, there is just no way these people can lead a country). The US government are bad guys, but who'll make money producing this? Not some poor farmer, that's for sure.
Just saw Coronado... Around here the only line they came up with to sell it is "from the FX team behind Independence Day". I think that says a great deal. No talk about writers, directors, actors...<br /><br />It's a cute little adventure story set in a banana republic in Mid America, but the storyline is thin.<br /><br />All the way through the movie I kept thinking about how much this movie looks like the cut-scenes from some action computer war game. Although the FXs are nice, they all too often are visible. Much like the cut scenes in CGs style like Command'n'Conquer.<br /><br />You almost instantly know that that particular truck, backdrop, bridge, castle, or jet fighter never existed. The look is smooth and nice, but not up to the standard we have come to expect of Action Adventures today. The movie is lacking a lot of obvious on-location filming.<br /><br />The acting, storyline is below average and the FXs are nice but not up to feature film standard. I am not surprised this thing went straight to video/DVD.<br /><br />
I went to see this film over Matchstick Men, in fact buying the tickets to Matchstick Men and going to the other, because it looked like a fun movie with action, romance, thrills, jungles, and exotic locations. They had all that but so do a lot of movies with a conception of story.<br /><br />All I can say is WHY WHY WHY WHY did they not just make it a straight narrative instead of some sappy flashback story.<br /><br />Here is all the movies from what I've seen the film was derived from: Of course, Indiana Jones and Romancing the Stone, but also True Lies, Proof of Life, that old 80s Tom Selleck movie, Bananas (Woody Allen), and Hero (from the use of digital extras).<br /><br />PS the only scene in the movie that was cool is when the central character finds her room blown up.
It didn't feel like a movie, and was thankfully short (under 90minutes), it felt more like a commercial of possibilties in computer graphics: Most of the special effects are great, to be sure. But that cerainly don't a great or even a good movie make. Not saying it's absolutely worthless viewing, since it's possible to see what are the possibilities in CGI or GCI, or what ever it's called.<br /><br />As I read somewhere, "You can't fix it in the cutting room", a bad story and non-directed actors, can't be fixed in the cutting room or even with the most magnificent special effects! Things can be improved in the cutting room if they have a real director and material to work from.<br /><br />However they thought this could be sold in USA is anyones idea, since USA is the crooks.<br /><br />And isn't it sooo typical of low budget stories, they have to create an imaginative country south of Mexico??<br /><br />Well Well I gace it 2! Just because of the special effects, the rest is absolute trash!
So we're supposed to find it funny that this woman travels all the way to the jungle - to the warzone - just to find out why her fiancée didn't travel to Switzerland? Or are we supposed to take it seriously? It's not even remotely funny, clever or entertaining - it's stupid - and so is the movie. The lead actress is one of the most annoying characters I have ever seen in a movie - even worse than Jar-Jar Binks. Dialog tries very hard to be funny (almost all the time) but it never is. The number of funny jokes is somewhere between zero and nothing. And as for the plot - did they even once bothered to explain to us what are the rebels fighting for (other than being anti-government)? I guess that didn't matter to anyone - neither to the rebels nor to the characters who just blindly flew to the battlefield. Don't waste your time. "Coronado" is neither funny nor entertaining.
This movie is just as bad as it gets. If you like logic (or the lack of it) á la National Treasure and bad acting as well, then it could be a movie for you.<br /><br />Otherwise spend your time in the sun and your money on a beer.<br /><br />Actually it looks like a bad produced promo or demo picture to promote the people involved (ie. actors, special effects and so on). Accidentially they produce really bad exposing of their lack of talent.<br /><br />In a case like this the film company should be ordered to pay back money to the costumers that are not satisfied with the product.<br /><br />It is really lousy.
Infamous for being "brought to you by the digital effects team behind Independence Day," Coronado is even more of a spectacular failure just from being juxtaposed with ID4. This ridiculous mess of a film starts off with a brainless premise and goes completely downhill from there. A wealthy, soon to be married couple in Beverly Hills are the subjects of this idiotic story. Claire's fiancée has taken off on a business trip right around Christmas, so she decides to spontaneously fly to Switzerland so they can spend the holiday together. I especially love that her initial reason for wanting to go was because he had left some documents at home that she thought he might need. She grabbed them up and yelled after him while he drove away, concluding that her best bet would be to fly to the other side of the planet rather than call his cell phone. I refuse to believe that a couple living in such a cavernous mansion as theirs were unaware of the existence of mobile phones.<br /><br />So up until this point, the movie is unbelievably bad, but check this out, THIS is where it starts to get bad! She gets to Switzerland and when she can't find her husband she gets some cake and calls her friend to whine about how unfair it all is. This woman is not an action hero, and she is DEFINITELY not a German Indiana Jones, for crying out loud. She is an overgrown cheerleader, a pampered sorority girl whose outdoor experience is probably limited to digging her spike heels out of the ground when she gets tipsy enough to wander onto the lawn during a wine and cheese party out on the bluffs.<br /><br />She gets a tip that her fiancée is in South America, so she, like, totally flies there to get him. Once there, this moron thinks she's going to go into the jungle by herself, sniff out the enemy base and rescue her poor helpless boyfriend. She laughs off a comment about the danger of going in there, then freaks out later because she finds out that there are battles going on. "You never said anything about battle!"<br /><br />There is one point where Claire and some journalist that she met up with drive this huge truck across a bridge that is hundreds of feet high and hundreds of feet across and suspended by two by fours. Literally. There are thousands of thin pieces of wood tied together with twine, and these morons decide to drive over it. Not only does it crumble under the weight of the truck, but Claire manages to fall off of it, falling hundreds of feet and landing on her back in the shallow river below. Later she recalls the event, laughing it off like, oh maybe it was only a hundred. At least she wasn't twirling gum on her fingers.<br /><br />What is truly sad about this catastrophically bad movie is that they even managed to coax a terribly performance out of the tremendously talented John Rhys-Davies, a REAL Indiana Jones veteran. There is a lot of nonsense about an uprising at the end of the film, where we meet an extremist rebel leader who, when we first meet him, has such a thick accent that he rolls his r's like he thinks he's in a Ruffles commercial, then later he talks like some guy they pulled off the streets of Venice Beach. Unbelievable.<br /><br />The special effects are negligible. The team that brought you Independence Day, by the very fact that they were involved with ID4, was simply going through the motions, throwing together some matted and blue screen shots, I have to believe because they just had nothing better to do. The story is astonishingly bad, and Kristin Dattilo, who many other IMDb users cite as the only reason to see the film, doesn't put the slightest effort into her performance. Maybe she thought the digital effects team behind Independence Day could superimpose some meaning into this mess.<br /><br />And given how far they've fallen, maybe they thought they could, too.<br /><br />They could at least have tried.
Another awful movie from Hollywood. This time a female helps the revolution in a central American country. yeah yeah yeah. Hey lets make a movie without any sense of realism AT ALL. I am so sick of movies like this one. The actors and actresses are lousy, the effects are cheesy and the dialog horrible. And suddenly i see John Rhys-Davies as the evil president. From Gimli to Hugo Louis Ramos. I bet he is very proud of this. Well i shouldn't have expected much of this movie and i didn't. And i am glad cause this sucks bigtime. I wonder what kind of people who like this movie. My guess is younger people aged 12-16. And i guess some people like because of Kristin Dattilo. Well i am in neither of those group and i hate it. Rating: 2
Have you seen all the big adventures of last few decades? If you have don't bother with this one as you've already seen most of the scenes already - and I can guarantee that those scenes were originally in much better movies.<br /><br />The story (I'm sure that true storytellers will never forgive me) is childish and stupid (stupid in a way that making it play in a mortuary would result in a bunch of angry walking dead). Every character is based in a cliché and... well, they're nothing but the cliché. And yes, again all you need to be a hero is to be American.<br /><br />At least in Finland they advertised this to be the kind of movie the DVD was made for. Maybe I should sell my player then...<br /><br />1/10
Other than cop rock and that show where the kid dies from eating a spoiled hamburger he found under the bed, this has consistently been the worst and dumbest show to survive prime time. If not for Jason Lee's unjustifiable success in film, this show would have never made it out of conception if pitched with a relatively unknown as the lead. <br /><br />The concept is TERRIBLE. Moron redneck hick spends his lottery winnings to redeem himself with the white trash of his past. Is it funny? periodically but not consistently. Is it stupid? Each and every single episode. <br /><br />I've seen a lot of great shows come then go before their time yet this blunder has survived longer than I ever could have imagined. The dialog is incredibly unfunny as are the episode themes. Every episode for someone with an IQ over 100 is an absolute struggle. And the icing on the cake? Jason Lee's annoying voice narrating each episode. If it weren't for the state's Southern culture and rednecks of the south, this show wouldn't have an audience.<br /><br />If you're a moron and need a show completely lacking humor yet overflowing with bad taste, bad dialog and dimwit characters failing at life...well then you're probably an actor on this show.
I agree with the comments regarding the downward spin. The last view shows have been a little better, but surely the writers need some more direction. I think the characters are still interesting, although sometimes they spin into the "white trash" things a little too much. Subtlety and nuance goes a long way on shows like "Office". I would think the target audience is somewhat similar being they are both on the same night and lineup. One would think that Karma and the whole eastern religion thing is a big enough topic to bring some different and interesting shows, but they only scratch the surface of the subject. In my opinion it shows the contempt that many people have in Hollywood about the level of intelligence of the masses. We can handle more heady content. It has been proved before in many other shows.
With the plethora of repetitive and derivative sitcoms jamming fall, summer, winter and spring line-ups, it's nice to see a show that sets itself from the lot in more than one area. <br /><br />'Earl' takes an unusual approach. It's not about the "daily musings of an eccentric family" (zzzz..) nor about the other boring stuff you see everywhere in sitcoms. The show is about this small-time white trash thief (Earl) who scratches off a lottery card and scores big time. Right at that moment, 'Karma' took it away from him. Overtime, he learns that that unusual incident was probably because of all the bad things he's been doing, so he sets off on a mission to right every wrong he ever did and he's got all his deeds on a paper.<br /><br />This is a brilliant premise for a sitcom. Thankfully, it landed in the right hands. The execution of the show produces extremely satisfactory results: you get an innovative comedy that is genuinely funny and really touching at many times. You can't help but fall in love with Earl's sincerity and steadfastness, Randy's simple mind, good heart and observations on life, Joy's wild, flamboyant personality and Darnell's mellow, chillin' demeanor that really endears him to you very easily.<br /><br />When you combine the show's innovation with its genuine humor, good heart, interesting characters and well-written dialogue, you really have a keeper. With shows like this (and the incomparable "The Office"), NBC is obviously on to something. Did they finally free a cubicle or two for quality assurance? Let's hope so. And let's hope for more quality shows like these will occupy the line-ups; shows that'll make both us TV viewers and NBC executives stop crying over the long gone days of NBC's golden days (Frasier, Seinfeld, Friends)
After I couldn't ignore the hype about the show, I started watching season one and it struck me as really good and I was hooked.... for about 5 episodes, then it started to spiral downwards. Why? First, Ethan Suplee is scripted to act as a complete idiot confirming that very obviously by spewing out semi-random stuff in great expectations of it somehow becoming the next best joke.<br /><br />Jaime Pressly's got stunning looks, but if she thinks stretching lips to explore parts of the face to which they normally never go to and making strange grimaces to accentuate everything she says is hilarious, she's way off track. Maybe she thought her character would be too flat, faded and she wanted to make it colorful and spicy, but made a flood of colors, overkill of spices and screams out loud for attention and it hurts my eyes, ears and intellect.<br /><br />I really, really wanted to love this show, like I said, the premise is great, (comes from the same shelf as The Fabulous Destiny of Amelie Poulain) and Jason Lee is doing a pretty good job here, along with some of the other actors but there is no way no how I would get 'sucked in' and forget that this is just a show, because Pressly's and Suplee's surreal, extreme characters abruptly wake me when they show up. It's worth to note that their characters and acting would be fine if this wasn't a 70 something-part series and if they didn't get that much screen time.
It seems like people are attracted to shows that showcase pathetic lives that have no purpose what-so-ever. To me i give my sincerity to NBC for their dire efforts to make new changes in television, making laugh track free shows. They seem to always find big success, like The Office. When I first started to watch it seemed to me that it could have potential to be a smash hit. But after a couple of episodes, I really felt like going to church and donating every penny in my entire bank to pathetic people showcased in these lowlife, poor, disgraceful areas. And the end where they show Earl and the brother in bed together, it just seems to me that this show is trying to show the bad side of life, like street beggars or people who struggle to pay the rent and have no sense of what the real world of normal people in society are like. I just seem to always be disgusted when I watch the filth the people in this show live in. It's like Venice Beach in California, beautiful but so many hobos. Believe me I'm no rich guy, middle class, and not a clean freak either, a bit sloppy, but it just seems to me that the show just can't seem to get off of all the gruesome, schmuck people out there who have one leg. I just wish that they would show a little more class, not all filth and poorness and trailers and just below average life, it just seems to depress me. To me this show is nothing more than a showcase of what not to do in life, what not to be. It also shows me that education is the most important thing you can have because apparently these two don't have an ounce of smarts. This is a schmuck-u-mentary.
My Name is Earl(2005) <br /><br />Review:......For I have seen this.<br /><br />This is something else. First off, how is this rated so high? I cannot understand that. This "show" is filled to the top with either annoying people, stupid people, or just plain unlikeable. The "gags" are hideous.<br /><br />I saw one episode where the wife of Earl's brother wrapped and washed herself with dead fish. Not kidding. That wasn't funny, that's repulsive. Then she and Earl's extremely stupid brother(and I mean stupid) then had sex. I nearly threw up.<br /><br />This has to be one of the most desperate attempts at comedy in a long time. Jason Lee is a talented actor, but is trapped in a helpless role in this horrible "comedy".<br /><br />Earl is now in jail for this current season. Let's hope he gets the chair just so this show gets put out of it's misery.<br /><br />The Last Word: This show would be funny to people who think Larry the Cable guy is funny. To the rest of the world, NOT A CHANCE. Avoid like the plague.
I watched the first 10 minutes of this show I think I'm gonna barf now! One worst shows on TV. It's not even funny. It's so lame it's disgusting. I gave it a second and third change couldn't even make it through five minutes. Don't waste the time. This is one of the many shows that need to go bye bye. Speaking of regular night time shows that need to go. All the shows on CBS. All the Shows on ABC. All the Shows on FOX and Joe Buck. All the shows on the new CW network. All the shows on NBC.(Accept The Law and Order series). All the Morning and Afternoon talk shows. All the Court TV shows. And every reality show out there!! Every stupid game show. period the end! All the Home improvement shows! And all the Media News. all it is.Is a 24 hour loop of bad news. Yes,I do have Favorites Monk,The law & Orders thats it for me.
I saw this movie with very low expectations. I didn't know a lot about it so I wasn't sure if it was going to be worth it.<br /><br />The story did an OK job of getting you curious about these ruins they travel to. The suspense continues when the Mayans show up and force them to stay at the ruins.<br /><br />Then the movie turns from somewhat suspenseful to pointless. The amount of gore found in this movie did not balance out compared to whether it was truly necessary or used more for shock value.<br /><br />The fact that they didn't make any attempt to fight the vines from hell. They had fire and didn't try to burn it nor did they try to cut it with a knife to see if they could destroy it or not. They quickly jumped into a victim role and their helpless attitude was not real. It reminded me of the old horror movies where the people just scream and yell and don't have half a brain to try to fight back.
God! Where do I begin? From start to finish, I could not help to hate this movie. Vines? Vines that make cell-phone noises?! Oh yeah, I'm so scared - I'm going to rid the weeds of earth! Come on people! The plot went nowhere, When the group discovered the ruin, and the village people (no pun intended) came to warn them and brandished weapons in front of their faces, don't worry, Amy (Jena Malone) was there to take pictures! That whole scene really had me wondering why she didn't take pictures of her beau, Jeff (Johnathon Tucker), sawing off Mathias (Joe Anderson) legs. When the idiots first threw down the rope after Mathias, how the rope was at least ten feet from the ground, but how it eventually was able to be a mere two to four feet from the ground. I cannot begin to cover everything that was wrong about this movie, there is just too much to cover. I will say the graphics as far as the gore were terrific, but it amounted to nothing since the acting and script were so terrifically bad.
This movie was really awful. It was not in the least bit frightening, or even startling. I went to see it with a bunch of friends and by the end of the night we were saying "The Ruins ruined my night." <br /><br />I would not recommend seeing this movie in theaters, renting it or even watching the movie on television by accident.It is an absolute waste of an hour and a half. <br /><br />The plot was nearly non-existent, the characters were horribly underdeveloped, and they gave no back story whatsoever for anything that was happening, and then left it completely open at the end as if preparing for a sequel.
The scariest thing about freshman director Carter Smith's new horror movie "The Ruins" is the closing credits that list comedian Ben Stiller as one of the executive producers. What was Stiller thinking when he sank his bucks into this chiller about cursed carnivorous undergrowth that creeps up on its victims and devours them. Oscar-nominated scenarist Scott B. Smith of "A Simple Plan," adapting his own bestselling novel, sticks steadfastly to the standard clichés and conventions of all twentysomething scary sagas where reckless youth do everything but tote signs begging the forces of evil to eat them. Were cretinous characters not enough to contend with in this nihilistic nonsense, we're treated to yet another film where American tourists find themselves in jeopardy simply because they are Americans. Furthermore, unlike really good horror movies that explain why the monsters have a need to feed, "The Ruins" provides no explanation for the supernatural shenanigans of its villainous vines. <br /><br />The set-up for "The Ruins" resembles the 2006 horror movie "Turistas" where slimy South Americans trapped brainless American backpackers and harvested them for their internal organs. Indeed, "Turistas" generated some legitimate thrills and chills. "The Ruins" spawns nothing in the way of either thrills or chills. A malicious mastiff that suddenly lurches on-camera to snarl at our heroes is as close as it gets to a thrill. <br /><br />The rest of "The Ruins" borrows from another movie: "The Descent," a superb, 2006 chiller about a bunch of babes plunged into a nightmare experience when they get lost in warren of caves inhabited by albino mutants with a blood lust for murder. A couple of other movies that served either intentionally or unintentionally come to mind, too. They are the straightforward 1968 Hammer horror classic "The Lost Continent" about murderous vegetation that menaces innocent bystanders in a sea of derelict ships and the Roger Corman cult class "The Little Shop of Horrors" (1961)about a New York florist that grows a man-eating plant in his shop.. <br /><br />"The Ruins" unfolds in the scenic, sunny Mexico where four frolicking American college kids, Eric (Shawn Ashmore of the "X-Men" movies), Stacy (Laura Ramsey of "The Covenant"), Jeff (Jonathan Tucker of "Sleepers") and Amy (Jena Malone of "Pride & Prejudice"), are wrapping up their tequila-soaked spring break. Stacy loses a prized earring in a motel swimming pool, but a helpful Teutonic, twentysomething tourist, Mathias (Joe Anderson of "Copying Beethoven") recovers it, and the group embraces him as newest best friend. These people live to party, and they have already made friends with a trio of Greek tourists. Mathias tells them about his wayward brother who has accompanied a cute female archaeologist to a remote Mayan pyramid that isn't listed in any guidebooks. He offers to take them with him and they accept. <br /><br />First rule of horror movies: if nobody knows about the place where you're going, you'd be well advised to avoid it. Since they have only one day left, and they haven't done anything adventurous, our two couples along with their Spanish-speaking Greek friend, Dimtri (newcomer Dimitri Baveas), decide to follow Mathias and check the pyramid out. They catch a bus into the interior of Mexico and look for a taxi to take them on the next leg of their journey. A cabbie glances at their map and warns them to stay away. Second rule of horror movies: when the natives warn you to steer clear, you steer clear. A crisp twenty dollar bill helps him change his mind, and he hauls them off to their destination and then he skedaddles in a heartbeat. <br /><br />No sooner have our heroes found the mysterious Mayan pyramid covered with undergrowth that looks suspiciously like a variation of Mississippi kudzu in the jungle than superstitious natives appear. They know that the pyramid is haunted, and they kill Dimtri without a qualm when he tries to dispel their fears. The remaining protagonists scramble to safety atop the pyramid while the paranoid natives surround them to prevent them from escaping. Eventually, the vines slink out to greet our heroes and eat them. At this point, "The Ruins" turns into "Bug," the recent and ridiculous Ashley Judd schizoid movie about insects that get under your skin. Before long our heroes are carving each other up in a futile effort to extract the vines from under their skin. One particularly gruesome scene shows the Americans lopping off the German guy's legs to save his life. By comparison, it makes the tortures of the Spanish Inquisition look tame. <br /><br />"The Ruins" ranks as just another vine mess with nothing to redeem it.
I have to say that this movie was not what i expected. Even though i have not read the book the fact that plants can one bait and then wait for a killing to happen only to have it drag off a corpse for lunch is about the worst scenario anyone has come up with. With the title ruins you would think that out of 3000 years that some kind of deity or ancient animal or god would be the culprit. This is like another movie primeval where you would think it was something strange that villagers fear the most, but not a crocodile. Either way this film was like that, it entices you to think about ruins of Mayan or Inca folklore resulting in awakening and old god or the people had another agenda for sacrifice or something to that effect. But plants?.... come on, is there nothing else producers can come up with to wow a crowd?. As for this movie it will hit the 'b' list in no time. I have to say that some of the gore was excellent to see, but it didn't make up for the rest of the film. And a plant mimicking a cell phone sound or peoples voices is just too much to be believed. I am a fan of horror films but i am not a stereo typed fan who relies on just gore or mechanical effects. I do rely on great suspense and whats the next scene going to bring for more suspense. The thing had a better story line than this did. Even the ring had me jumping for more, but the ruins is just that..... ruined for using a plant to coax victims into killing or be killed by the villagers. The premise was alright for the villagers to keep it at bay with salt and such but still a simple blow torch and lots of napalm can easily do the trick to end those pesky plants with a flesh eating disorder.
When I saw 6.0 on IMDb, I was rather impressed and excited to watch this movie, as a 6 for a horror movie should be rather entertaining. At first I thought it was going to be some disturbing, unseen evil force (having not read the book) to terrify the audience -- but it turns out to be something rather mundane -- killer plants. Regardless, I am a rather open-minded individual when it comes to movies so I thought perhaps the movie would bring some kind of breakthrough spin on carnivorous vines.<br /><br />Unfortunately, it failed to meet my expectations due to the excessive amounts of cliché and lack of any originality. To top it off, the female lead character continues to annoy you off with her stupidity. Unless the movie is intentionally a bad B-rated movie that is entertaining in the hilarity of badness, no movie should ever ever ever have a main character irritate you if one expects the audience to care about the character. Such roles should be reserved for secondary characters. Characters were undeveloped, the monsters (plants in this case) left unexplained, and clichés were dripping all over.<br /><br />The only thing that is mildly effective are some of the bloody/gory scenes, although the gore pales in comparison with movies like High Tension or Ichi The Killer. Consistently failed logic (such as why would a character not watching the top of a rope during a second attempt at descending into the ruins when it just snapped and almost killed someone), even if minor, adds up and just continues to anger the audience. The movie could've saved itself by using characters or some kind of story device to reprimand or "redeem" idiot characters who just did something stupid (or at least let the character recognize or regret her own mistakes). But to continue to allow idiocy to preside will certainly cause the audience to abandon all care for the character, in turn taking away the terror of the movie.<br /><br />Overall this is a poorly done movie. An example of a well done movie involving pretty twenty-something's getting killed is the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake (and the prequel too) that certainly instilled fear and had much less character logic flaws. In summary, if you have a lot of time to kill, go watch it if there's nothing else. Otherwise, don't waste your time with this sub-par flick and go see something actually scary and highly satisfying like The Hills Have Eyes remake.
Plants in an ancient Mayan pyramid structure killing all who come close. Yes it is weird, as the travelers do not figure it out until everything starts doing crazy. And in a movie like this, I just wished it went absurd and had marching bands being attacked by plants wielding machetes.<br /><br />Anyway, a group of people from America vacation and go into the mountains with a couple of other newly made German friends who know about the place. When they get there, Mayans began shouting at them and hide on the structure. And when there, thats when the plants decide to take them out, mimicking cell phone noises, humans, and ancient Mayan dead people.<br /><br />Nothing was really scary about the movie and was not even entertaining. Not even the weird ending could save this piece of crap. I kept looking for something really good to happen, but nothing. Oh well. "F"
The movie started off o.k. A couple of tourists on vacation in Mexico having a good time decide they should go on a hike. They uncover some hidden trails and end up and this huge temple like fortress. Angry villagers show up and try to deter them from climbing it, but because of the language barrier people get shot and the tourists end up climbing the stupid thing. Turns out the plants are evil blood-thirsty things that the villagers won't go near so they guard the temple so the tourists can't get off. There are a couple of scares in this movie, but nothing really makes sense. I mean they're PLANTS! Don't bother buying or renting the d.v.d. Wait till it comes out on cable.
I was REALLY disappointed with this movie. I had heard some great reviews about it and unfortunately missed seeing it in theaters. As a result of this, I was really excited to see it when it came to DVD. I thought that it was going to be a high-paced horror movie with a lot of scary surprises but instead it was a snail-paced predictable movie. It dragged and dragged without a climax in it and after all the difficulties that those people went through to try and escape, the ending was completely frustrating. I gave this movie two stars for one reason. This is not your typical horror movie with one central bad guy slashing a bunch of people to death. The story makes this movie unique and provides a change for people who watch a lot of horror movies. Even though I don't like this movie, I recommend that all horror fans do see it at least once. You may surprisingly like it. As for this horror fan, all I can say is that I hope there ISN'T a sequel to this forgettable movie.
It had potential...it really did. But there is so much about the movie that was ridiculous and laughable. I'm a horror movie weenie and I thought it was stupid; as did my 13-year old! I was expecting to be at least creeped-out. And, yes, the gross-factor of the vines squirming in the people was there; however, the lead-up to getting to the ruins is just dumb, dumb, dumb.<br /><br />I mean really who goes on a hike...in a jungle... with a total stranger... with a little water and a few snacks...IN FLIP FLOPS, NO LESS?! Puh-lease! Better still who goes to a foreign country and leaves the tourist area without an interpreter or being able to speak a bit of the language? Are these people complete morons?<br /><br />The German's brother isn't heard from and he doesn't call for assistance? Who doesn't do that? He just finds some Greeks and Americans to go on a little search and find?
I have not seen such a stupid,dumb movie since quite a while. It absolutely has no logic, no horror- doesn't scare you, no suspense, not thrilling.. I mean I didn't find even one part of the movie appealing..<br /><br />I don't know what they were thinking when they made the movie.. You watch the whole movie to find out that, there is a plant that can walk around, drag human dead bodies and eat human flesh. Not just that but it can also talk i.e. imitate sounds, like a cellphone ringing or human talking... so its like, the plant makes the noise of a cell phone ringing, so they go after the cellphone and find out its a plant... how intelligent of the plant to setup an ambush. <br /><br />This clearly is the creativity level of a primary school kid... Bad!!!
The ruins is to Turistas as Deep Impact was to Armageddon, a worse version of a mildly entertaining movie, except much much worse. One of the characters is supposed to be going to medical school, so why are they all retards? "you can't keep cutting." -best line form this movie. This is an awful movie. I like horror movies, but fully appreciate that most of them are terrible, but had a bit of high hopes for this movie after seeing the reviews on IMDb. The situation they are in is stupid and how they handle it makes them stupid. It is awful, the one thing that makes it somewhat palatable is its cool Australian backdrop, despite the fact that they spend the vast majority of the movie in one place.
If you value your life in any way, shape, or form, you will do yourself a courtesy and pass by this seemingly "interesting" movie on the DVD rack.<br /><br />I know what you're thinking, "I saw the preview and it looked GREAT!" However, buyer beware, I fell into the same trap. One of my friends expressed certain reluctance to watching this movie, but I forced her to sit it out. Oh, how I regret that decision.<br /><br />Like most horror movies, the movie starts out cheerfully in a sunny Mexican resort where two couples are lured to an ancient Mayan Ruin by a fellow resort-goer. Upon arrival, they are disturbed by the appearance of two jungle people who are all but oblivious to their greeting shouts. As if this isn't ominous enough, the tour group casts aside large plant growth and declares an unused path consumed by wildlife a perfect route to their destination. I guess it wouldn't be much of a movie if they utilized rational decision making and turned around just then, but, well, this wasn't much of a movie anyways.<br /><br />After some hiking, the sixsome (the resort goer brought a friend) stumble upon the ruins and at once their doubts are dispelled by its beauty and history. That is, until frantic tribal people emerge from the jungle armed with a vengeance for no reason in particular, shouting in an indecipherable language. Since when are brutal verbal assaults assuaged by calm, patronizing language - don't ask me - but nonetheless, the cast tries anyway, to no avail, obviously. Suddenly, the sixth trail member, Dimitri, is punctured with several arrowheads from the Mayans and all hell breaks loose. A gunshot finishes the job and the horrified travelers retreat quickly up the ruin.<br /><br />Now, if there was ever a plot to this movie, it ended here. The introduction took at most 20 minutes and it was unfortunately the best 20 minutes of the movie. On top of the ruins, the now fivesome realizes they are stranded by murderous locals and proceed to make countless good decisions, one of them being to use a withered rope to lower one of their members into the bowels of the ruin. Needless to say, the adventurer is seriously hurt and then trapped within the ruins and the two girlfriends are gravely injured trying to rescue him.<br /><br />The rest of the movie continues plotlessly, with no real horror, only only blood and gore, as displayed when one girl yanks a plant growing within her out, gushing torrents of blood and then again when somebody's legs are cut off, only to have the same plat from within the girl strangle him later.<br /><br />My only satisfactions in this movie were observing the very attractive Jonathon Tucker, playing Jeff McIntire, grow increasingly more frazzled and distressed and sitting long enough to ascertain that almost all of the cast dies a horrible, gruesome death. Their simulated pain seems an adequate compensation for the time suck that was this movie.<br /><br />Supposedly, the storyline goes that the ruin is an ancient house of of dangerous spirits with an evil, flesh eating plant to ward off and consume unlucky visitors. Unfortunately, I got no such warning from screaming bloodthirsty plants and the only evil thing relating to this movie that I am truly horrified by is the script writer.
My review is divided into questions that you really should ask yourself: <br /><br />1. Plants eating people have been done HUNDREDS of times. It's been used by Nintendo in everything from Mario to Zelda to Metroid Prime. It's been used in plenty of low-budget 50's movies, on par with the lowest of the Godzilla franchise. And this brings it to a whole another level of cheese with plants that TALK. I've known no one who walked out, but I know a lot of people who absolutely broke out in hysteric laughing during parts of this movie. I was one of them. Doesn't the horror genre deserve something a little better than this pile of laughable crap? <br /><br />2. The characters easily could have been copy/pasted from Hostel or Wrong Turn or Wolf Creek or any other movie with collage kids with bad luck. Yet it's called "characterizing" when the movie takes hours of your time to tell you clichés that hundreds of characters before have had? Don't you ever wish a movie had characters that weren't just forgettable pieces of meat with legs? <br /><br />3. This was not gory. A guy cuts his skin off. Oh, my! (Not.) A guy gets his legs broken. Oh my! Gasp! (Not.) I have shown movies like this to my mother who hates everything to do with horror because it makes her sick, and she said: "I've seen PG movies worse than that! Why was it rated R?" So, why was it rated R? <br /><br />4. Here's the only plot the movie/book has: collage kids drink, have sex, get naked, cruse, bleed, and eventually die. This is possibly the most typical example of a cheap, thoughtless horror movie, yet people call this "mature"? What the . . .? <br /><br />5. I do not think I have ever seen something less original sense I watched A Beautiful Mind. <br /><br />Haven't you ever sat there and wished the horror genre, easily the most diverse genre out there, would do something . . . well, diverse? Something truly original?<br /><br />I just wish more horror movies would have actual horror, not just cheap collage parties put on film with a few splatters of fake blood tossed around.<br /><br />1/10
First off, I saw another reviewer said this movie was "fantastic". Well nothing could be further from the truth! This movie is complete garbage!!! A moronic horror comedy that is NOT even slightly funny!! Don't take that mean that it's so bad that it's good because it's not. It's a total waste of time and money!<br /><br />Here's what I see in this waste of a DVD. A group of friends get together on a weekend, get drunk and then decide to make a backyard video. They grab Mom and Dad's video camera and start coming up with scenes on the spot. They all get a big kick out of watching themselves mug for the camera. They figure, if they think it's funny then everyone will think it's funny. Well, they're wrong. This backyard home video is garbage. The "acting" and comedic gore effects are lousy but I guess that's to be expected since this is nothing more then a home video.<br /><br />On the bright side, I guess the fact that this crap got out there gives hope to anyone out there who wants to make a movie. If these people could get their movie made and released on DVD then anyone can!<br /><br />0/10-- Save your money.
I've watched a number of Wixel Pixel and Sub Rosa Extreme movies lately, and have found a lot to like about them.<br /><br />This SRE movie seemed a lot more slight than all the others I've seen. Perhaps that's because this is a comedy/horror movie rather than straight horror, and perhaps it's also because the humor didn't register with me very well.<br /><br />It's a little less than seventy minutes long, and the credits begin as the last ten minutes are beginning. There are some outtakes, goofs, and behind the scenes stuff going on while those credits roll.<br /><br />SRE movies do tend to be short, and tend to feel padded out in spite of that. This is no exception, with some scenes that tend to go on too long.<br /><br />The story involves a poor kid in Christmastown, California who'd been picked on by all his classmates. He'd had one shoe stolen, and unable to replace it, he was dubbed "Oneshoe McGroo." Due to an obsession with pirates, his parents gave him an eyepatch for Christmas with a Christmas tree emblazoned on the eyepatch.<br /><br />Many of the classmates are killed, and the few who remain gather together to decide what to do. They're picked off one by one by McGroo, who stalks around to the sound of sleigh bells ringing.<br /><br />The characters are pretty much all broad stereotypes, like the nerd named Dorkus, etc. There's an odd scene in which a kinky couple has sex; the woman is handcuffed and blindfolded, the man wears a large paper watermelon slice over his head. This reminded me of some of the stranger sex scenes from director Rinse Dream.<br /><br />The picture quality is good, and there are a lot of extras. But basically a pretty silly movie.<br /><br />Oh well, I guess you can never have too many Christmas horror movies. Still, there are a lot of other needy holidays.
While this isn't one of Miss Davies' very worst films, it is pretty bad. And it's sad that in a revisionist fashion, recent IMDb raters have deliberately over-inflated the scores on some of her films to make up for her being slighted in the past--or so it seems. For years, conventional wisdom has been that Davies was a terrible actress and only got the roles she got because her beau, William Randolph Hearst, bought her way into Hollywood. This certainly is the image created in Orson Welles' CITIZEN KANE. It is true that Hearst did use his considerable wealth and clout to build Davies' career. With all this money, it's not surprising that she made some excellent films and it isn't surprising that people got snippy due to all the extra attention she got. Sleeping with the man who finances your films is bound to get noticed. However, despite this edge, she also made a decent number of bad films and I think we really need balance when it comes to the scores of her movies. After all, no rational person could believe that as of today (1/5/08), PEG O' MY HEART and two other Davies films recently shown on Turner Classic Movies (THE FLORODORA GIRL and MARIANNE) deserved the exceptionally high scores--ranking them higher than such films as HIGH NOON, BEN HUR, THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES and ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT!! In fact, MARIANNE would now rank as the fifth best movie ever according to IMDb with a score of 8.8!!! Considering most people out there don't even know who Marion Davies was AND most of her movies were financial disasters, this is a serious problem!! However, she was a much better actress than CITIZEN KANE implied and initially broke into films before she began sleeping with Hearst.<br /><br />What sets PEG O' MY HEART apart from these two other movies, is that MARIANNE and THE FLORODORA GIRL were pleasant little films--while PEG O' MY HEART is in some ways just terrible. Much of the reason was the terrible miscasting of Marion. While her French accent in MARIANNE was cute, in PEG her Irish accent just sounded bizarre--not particularly Irish. Plus, and perhaps I'm mistaken, but her continual use of the word 'ye' makes her sound like she should be doing Shakespeare, not a film set in 1933 Ireland! Also, there was a bizarre insistence that Marion should be the consummate multi-talented star--so they had her not just act but dance and sing. The singing actually fit the scripts in some of her films, but here it seemed out of place and seriously detracted from the film. It just seemed like you could almost hear Hearst shouting out "see--she IS a great actress---look at her sing and dance". Sadly, Marion just looked uncomfortable and out of place in many of these scenes. But for me, the biggest problem was the idea of having 36 year-old Marion playing such a youthful role. It was obvious that the character she played at the beginning of the film was supposed to be like the ones Mary Pickford played in the teens and twenties--complete with the pig tails and plucky attitude. Miss Pickford COULD carry off these roles even though she, too, wasn't a girl any more. But here, Marion had put on a bit of weight and looked at least 30. No offense--she looked fine for her age--but she DID NOT look like a teen! <br /><br />Oddly, with the millions that Hearts spent on Marion's career, he never realized that the most important thing he needed to spend his money on was a good script and one that fit Marion's talents. Believe me, I have rated several of her films very high (I especially adore SHOW PEOPLE), but here she just couldn't help but flop--this film was a turkey.
Just watched this today on TCM, where the other reviewers here saw it.<br /><br />Sorry that I was the only one to find Davies a weak actress, with a truly awful attempt at an Irish (Irish-American or otherwise) accent. As she's the star, it was sort of hard for me to get past that -- especially as the other reviewers have said that this was her finest performance.<br /><br />Another particularly terrible Davies performance was in "Marianne" (1929), which I also watched today. In this film, given a 9 of 10 rating here, her accent switches from that of a (correct) French woman to an odd combination of Italian and Swiss.<br /><br />Interestingly, in TCM's one-hour bio of Davies -- "Captured on Film: The True Story of Marion Davies" (2001) -- film historian Jeanine Basinger claims that "one of the things that you note about Marion Davies in her sound work is how good she is at doing accents." Of course this bio also includes commentary by fans (make of that what you will).<br /><br />Davies was a very attractive young woman, and by all accounts a terrific comedienne in real life.<br /><br />And because a part of her anatomy added immeasurably to the real-life answer to Joseph Cotten's character's search for the meaning behind Kane's final word in the opening scene of the great "Citizen Kane," she's earned her spot among the great stories if Hollywood's history.<br /><br />But I think Welles & Mankiewicz got it right for the most part with the "Susan Alexander" facsimile of the real article.<br /><br />Don't bother voting as to whether you agree or disagree with this post as I really couldn't care less.
Bob Clampett's 'The Hep Cat' is a distinctly average cartoon only really notable for the fact that it was the first colour Looney Tune (previously Looney Tunes were all black and white while Merrie Melodies were in colour). The tale of a singing, dancing cat's attempts to woo a lady cat and a dog's attempts to catch the cat, 'The Hep Cat' lacks the trademark energy and pace of most Clampett shorts. To be fair, Clampett doesn't have a great deal to work with. Warren Foster's script is embarrassingly thin and, while he has spun straw into gold with other cartoons, Clampett doesn't manage it with 'The Hep Cat'. It's often said of Clampett that you can't mistake his cartoons for anyone else's and it's generally true but 'The Hep Cat' is an exception. There's flashes of Clampett genius, such as the chase scene in which the cat stops to ask the dog "Hey, are you following me". When the dog confirms that he is, the cat simply says "Oh" and the chase immediately resumes. Unfortunately, there's very little of such brilliance on show here. Knowing who directed it, 'The Hep Cat' is a bitter disappointment. We all have off days and this was clearly one of Clampett's!
This movie is about a group of people who are infected by a powerful man-made virus. They are pursued by government men into the desert.<br /><br />The premise of the film is quite interesting but is hampered by the fact that the delivery is extremely boring. At no point does the film engage with the viewer on any level. Granted, the miniscule budget is a problem but is not the reason for the film's failure. Much more at fault is the very po-faced delivery. There is a great deal of narration but, unfortunately, the narrator has an annoyingly over-dramatic voice. Very little seems to happen to these people and well before the end you will be rooting for the government men - the sooner they kill the protagonists the sooner the movie will end. A much better title for this film would have been Four People Run About In The Desert With Some Stock Footage Of A Helicopter. Overall, very tedious.
The movie starts off promisingly enough, the use of imagery and simple short clips convey the bigger story, which would normally need a considerably higher budget than the one here. However it did start to worry me as it continued, combined with another overly husky Max Payne type voice over the movie was starting to look not so good. I hoped it was just the introduction to the story.<br /><br />The story is what really caught me and took me to this movie. The idea that a research scientist has created a virus that actually protects the cells it infects from other infection was an interesting scientific idea. Then that subjects who had the most bizarre disorders sought out the scientist and offered to be his human experiments made me think this could be one very good small movie. Yet the introduction hadn't gone well.<br /><br />There did seem to be a change of pace as the movie turned to recorded interviews with the four main characters in the movie, the test subjects. Although the acting wasn't superb, there seemed to be a lot of scope for character development throughout the movie, and the recordings were done quite well with a varied mix of characters. However these faded through the movie. They weren't used again after a few brief clips and I did feel that there was a missed opportunity to provide some great character development by reflecting back to them, however it wasn't to be.<br /><br />The imagery becomes increasingly disconnected from the story, often repeating to represent something that is still happening. This disconnection and repetition is reflected in the annoying and distracting commentary. It began reciting words one after the other. Short, meaningless sentences and reciting none too relevant or interesting scientific ramblings. If there was something to be described, four or five words would be used, it was too long, repetitive, circular, looping,...you're getting the idea.<br /><br />Now this could have been to reflect the confusion and of the character, slowly becoming caught up in his own thoughts, rambling due to lack of food and water. What it actually did was to cause me to totally switch off to the voice and by the closing stages of the movie I found that I hadn't been listening to some of the ramblings.<br /><br />A number of times that an event occurs the camera shows all the characters one after the other for their reaction, which seems to be somewhere between confused and thoughtful. There are repeated fades from the same scene to the same scene, for instance a character sleeping fades to black, then fades back in on the character sleeping again. Look, we know the character is asleep, we know time has passed, please move on. Overall there are just too many atmospheric cuts and long, hanging shots to fill time.<br /><br />The acting was not bad, and the characters were okay, but not exploited and developed. When they were interacting there were some truly cringeworthy moments. For example when one of them asks if they are hungry the camera looks to each of them and returns to a group shot, they pause, look to each other, turn back to camera and say slowly "No". It raised a snigger or two. Their dialogue was slow, glossy and either it was missing altogether or totally unnecessary, there seemed to be no middle ground where the dialogue hit spot on.<br /><br />However, there were some good scenes, but they were really hard to find unless you viewed them in isolation, and this is what it almost looks like has happened with this movie. The film has been looked at as a series of scenes and not as a complete story.<br /><br />Nowhere is this seen more than in the main storyline. The characters are infected with the virus that has been killing the animals, the one that was being engineered for them. We're told that it develops in stages to something dramatic, and so that is what we expect. What we get are the characters eating loads together, all throwing up once together, water pouring from their mouths in unconvincing streams, then they all fall asleep, these are the phases which all happen really early in the movie. Then, they all say "Good" together when asked how they are, and that's it. That's the virus done, nothing else happens.<br /><br />There could have been so much more done with this movie, so much more developed with the virus and it protecting them from all manner of harm. It could have explored a serious change of these characters as it infected and took over them, it could have developed these characters, shown them making decisions and doing things that connect back to their character shown in flashbacks to the interviews.<br /><br />The ending isn't even confusing, intriguing or thought provoking. It just shows something that happens and that's it, although in the long, drawn out style with the irritating voice over above it. I really struggled with this movie and watched a number of Press members walk out (including one famous TV critic leaving within the first twenty minutes), I stayed, but regretted the lost time.
If you suffer from insomnia then Radiant would be the best way to send you into a 7-year coma. The film is so preposterously overwrought and mundane that it's hard to imagine that director Steve Mahone could overlook such obvious dullness.<br /><br />The story has an exiled Doctor (who we never get to see) move out into the desert to create a vaccine that will cure all diseases by filling the hosts full of antibodies that can combat any infection (yes, just like that episode of Futurama). The vaccines don't work and the human guinea pigs become infected with a virus that kills within 48 hours.<br /><br />Not wanting to be caught by the Government guys in masks the group head into the desert for cover, hoping that the sunshine will kill the virus. All of this is narrated by Michael, the only one of the quartet immune to the infection. And it's the most boring narration ever. They could have cast someone with an interesting voice but instead we get someone with less vocal personality than Clive Owen.<br /><br />On top of this the editor insists on fade-cutting more than half the movie, giving it a weird dream-like feel and increasing the audiences desire to go to sleep. It's no surprise that half of the audience walked out of this, I was not one of them for some reason. But I bloody well should have.<br /><br />The ending is supposed to be shocking and clever and foreboding. But it's plain and simply not. A relief yes, but not dramatic in the slightest.<br /><br />The utter cheapness of this production and muffled sound that renders a lot of the dialogue unintelligible cripples what could have been an interesting sci-fi story if it had better actors, cooler locations and a sense of urgency. As it is, Radiant is a snoozefest.
This movie is simply rubbish. I have to say I am an expert of rubbish movies. I reserve the "1" rating for movies that are rubbish but funny, but this film is just tedious and certainly not crappy in a funny way but crappy in a crappy way. It gets a "2" so those of you out there can distinguish between the ones that will make you laugh and the ones that will make you fall asleep. There are scenes in this movie where the actors are looking at something, their expressions are of amazement and there wide eyes and slack jaws tell the audience that what they are looking at is going to be profoundly amazing, this simply isn't it's just a cupboard or even more desert. It has to be pretty god damn awful for me to walk out, let me tell you, I walked out and so did quite a few people.
Susan Slept Here turned out to be Dick Powell's swan song as a performer on the big screen. Of course he directed some more films and appeared frequently on television until he died. It's a pity he didn't go out with his performance in The Bad and the Beautiful.<br /><br />Frank Tashlin has done so many better films, I'm still not sure whatever possessed him to do this one. The premise is absolutely laughable. <br /><br />Dick Powell is a screenwriter who's looking to do more serious stuff than the fluff he's been writing. He had an idea for a film on juvenile delinquency so two friendly cops in Herb Vigran and Horace McMahon deposit 17 year old Debbie Reynolds on his doorstep. She's not a really bad kid and they don't want to put her in the system. So they give her to Dick Powell at Christmas time.<br /><br />I mean is there anyone out there who doesn't see a problem? The term jailbait comes immediately to mind. Additionally Powell has a girlfriend, the young and sexy Anne Francis. Why Debbie Reynolds is any competition here is beyond me.<br /><br />Susan Slept Here got one Oscar nomination. The song Hold My Hand, sung by Don Cornell in the background, was nominated for best song, but lost to Secret Love. <br /><br />Powell and Reynolds do have some funny moments together and Alvy Moore as Powell's factotum and Les Tremayne as his lawyer also get a few laughs. <br /><br />But it's not enough.
A ridiculous comedy given an arms-flailing direction. I love one of the comments here: "Couldn't be made today". Well, neither could "The Philadelphia Story" without a car chase or two. Nonetheless, does that mean the picture is worse for the wear for being old-fashioned? I don't think "Susan Slept Here" was good for any generation and it should fester peacefully in the memories of Debbie Reynolds-buffs. There is no sparkle in this story of a screenwriter who latches onto a much-younger girl for 'script research'. Dick Powell makes his farewell screen appearance in what must have been an embarrassment to him. Reynolds is pallid. Produced by one Harriet Parsons--who gives her famous mother Louella a number of inane plugs. *1/2 from ****
This frothy romantic comedy is based on the kind of story I loved as a teenager, but now find rather distasteful. In the case of May-September attachments, doubtless what is on the mind of the elder party is either lust, or an inability to face the reality of aging, or both. And the younger is most likely looking for the kind parent that she (or he) lacked as a child. These underlying agendas seem more pathetic than romantic to me now; there is also something rather predatory about them.<br /><br />Dick Powell looked a bit embarrassed--as well he should--at playing the elder lover in this silly story. He was, at fifty, attempting the role of a thirty-eight-year-old man romancing a teen-ager. But young Debbie Reynolds was a knockout--pretty and saucy and full of vinegar--as a misbehaving seventeen-year-old presented as a kind of "gift" to the morally upright and honest screenwriter, as a subject for him to study. Her spirited performance wrung from me a better rating than this film would otherwise deserve. Anne Francis was cast as Powell's beautiful, but brittle fiancée, and handled her small role deftly.<br /><br />Some of the dialogue was quite amusing, too, so it's not a total washout.<br /><br />5/10
From what I understand, Fox was embarrassed they released a PG-13 Alien/Predator movie not so long ago. It was not well received by any means.<br /><br />Not exactly sure where to go next, seeing as they thought Anderson was the best director for the franchise and they had produced a true sci-fi gem, Fox turned to it's small, but knowledgeable group of monkeys for answers.<br /><br />These monkeys were by no means veterans of writing sci-fi flicks, but had seen Burton's Planet of the Apes remake and House of the Dead. <br /><br />Their first task: hire actors. Fox gave them a reasonable budget but the monkeys wanted to save the money. They hired fifteen TV actors shortly after.<br /><br />Now, the script. The monkeys wanted to save more of the budget so they wrote the movie themselves. Leaving out important aspects of the two franchises was the easy part. Thinking of great new lines for the general audience to remember years down the line - that was more difficult. They butted heads awhile and came up with a truly award-winning screenplay equipped with cliché characters, idiotic decisions an gaping plot holes.<br /><br />Fox was pleased thus far with the results but wanted to see what was to become of the centerpieces to the film - the aliens and predators. The monkeys again wanted to save money in the budget so they decided to trash the great robotics used in the otherwise terrible AvP original and go with the man-in-the-suit Alien seen in the old films. The actors playing the aliens had trouble fitting into the suits as they weren't properly sized by the monkeys so they jiggled their plastic heads throughout the film with honor. As for the predators, the monkeys decided one predator was enough this time around (again, saving budget) to fight the hordes of aliens that seemingly come out of nowhere. <br /><br />But what about the effects, you ask? Come on now, people. They may be monkeys but they clearly knew CGI would play a key role in the film. Without diving into the budget, the monkeys used a standard Final Cut program and cut and pasted some very nice fire and spark effects throughout. Putting red and green filters over the camera lens provided some excellent Predator visions.<br /><br />The setting was something the monkeys thought long and hard about. If this was to be on Earth, in Colorado of all places, they needed to make it realistic. This was where they admitted they might have made a mistake. See, the monkeys didn't have proper training in this department so they thought turning the lights off in the city and having the movie play out in the dead of night and in the rain was the right thing to do. They simply forgot people like to see the creatures instead of looking at shadows and rain the whole film. To add insult to injury, the monkeys accidentally filmed all the fight scenes incredibly close so no one could see what was fighting or who it was. But again, rookie mistake.<br /><br />The rating. Fox told the monkeys to make the movie R-rated. That was easy. Without showing how many of the injuries or deaths actually happened, the monkeys made a habit of showing the carnage after the fact. It was simple: the viewers got the gore they desired and the monkeys didn't have to film the majority of action shots involving that violence.<br /><br />Some of the actors originally had questions concerning the screenplay. Why does a blue liquid the Predator has endless amounts of magically disintegrate whatever he wants it to and nothing more than that? Why is an ex-convict driving around in a police car the entire movie? Why did the monkeys forget to show a full body shot of the Aliens? Why does a clock play a more memorable role than any of the main characters? The list of questions just kept growing but the monkeys ignored them and finished their masterpiece. <br /><br />Fox was thrilled with their work. So thrilled that they opened the movie nationwide on Christmas Day and even spent a few bucks advertising it the week before it came out. The monkeys had successfully made another installment in these cherished franchises.<br /><br />But some ask, what ever happened to the budget the monkeys forgot to use? They put it towards their next film: Aliens vs. Predator vs. Hulk Hogan. They knew the general public would be upset with the title but they have since released this statement:<br /><br />"To the people- do not worry about our upcoming film. It will be rated R and will have violence."<br /><br />And everyone lived happily ever after. The end.
I love B movies, but I like to be aware from the beginning that I'm watching one. I can't believe someone could mess up a movie about aliens and predators so bad. <br /><br />Aliens and Predator are AWESOME. This movie made a big joke out of them. The creators didn't take this movie seriously at all. I am throughly disappointed in how the Strauss jerks handled this film. They made a mockery of amazing characters. It's like they were trying to be serious in the beginning, then their writers got high and gave up. Almost nothing was continuous, the main characters were awful and were NOT Aliens or Predators. I am so ridiculously sad that no one takes Alien and Predators seriously anymore. These characters are icons of American pop culture and the creators of this movie showed no respect to the original films. They should not be allowed to cash in on the names of the previous films and they should be ashamed of themselves
I really, really don't understand how that movie could get a rating bigger than 4 here on IMDb. It's simply a huge mess, and I have to admit that I actually liked AvP 1: Close to no story, okay, I can live with that, but at least they got to the point pretty much at once. AvP 2 does not. After the stupid premise has been presented there is well over half an hour of stupid and unfitting teenager clichés, dumb as hell dialog and close to nothing else, except for a few Alien scenes that feel like an excuse to have that first half of the movie and Predator scenes that make you ask yourself whether those guys making the film even watched any other Predator movie or just didn't care enough to be bothered.<br /><br />After that, that crap-fest finally gets to the point where the Predator starts attacking the Aliens, or at least pretends doing so. And boy, is that Predator stupid, blind and deaf. It's awful. How he even managed to earn that stuff he has is beyond me. He misses with almost every shot, only notices Aliens when they're right in his face or if it's absolutely necessary for the script, so that he can move where he has to be. He even gets caught on surprise by puny human teenagers and deputies all of the time. What's that guy supposed to be? After the first hour of that abomination I was more or less constantly shaking my head at every scene. Close to no scene in this movie passes by without unbelievably stupid dialogs, stupid Predator actions or stupid lack there-of or stupid actions from our "heroes".<br /><br />Then, that thing finally ended. To my surprise not only me and my friends didn't know whether to laugh or to cry, but everybody I overheard leaving the room was half-crying, half-laughing about those 1 1/2 hours they just wasted.<br /><br />Don't watch. Never.
The review on the main page admits that the movie is horrible but that you should forgive it because it is nicely violent. No you shouldn't. There are spoilers at the end of this review but how I can "spoil" this rotten movie I have no idea. Even if you are a die hard Alien/Pred fan like I am wait for the DVD. It isn't worth a 3.99 rental either but you'll be much less inclined to truly hate this film if you pay that than 12 bucks or better per person plus concession purchases at a theater.<br /><br />In the theater I watched AVPr there were exactly two laughs, both by a girl sitting next to me. Other than that there was total silence throughout. No ooohs, or "that was bad ass!", nothing. Imagine being a patient on an operating table and just being given the anesthetic. Now you know what you'll feel like in the theater after the opening scene of AVPr.<br /><br />What was the budget on this movie? Like War of the Worlds, MI 3, and other f/x driven movies the director seems far more involved in what the CGI people can come up with than developing characters or a plot. Spielberg has tried and failed at this several times, usually with Tom Cruise. Sure the movies make money but should they? War of the Worlds and Minority Report had the budget to pay for a decent script, Tom Cruise et al, and SS himself but were still awful. I'm sure AVP wasted 90% of their budget on CG and had no choice but to hire any actor that would say yes even though the casting agent would have done better by going to the supermarket and picking actors at random.<br /><br />There is no tension developed in any scene so we are never close to being surprised. Who cares who gets killed? We didn't know any of them, we all know what happens when the lil aliens make their corporeal exit, we all know the blood is acid. In Alien, Aliens, 3, Resurrection, and even AVP the directors make use of the fact that the Aliens can think, can hide and can lay traps. This director decided that the Ridley Scott, James Cameron, and others were idiots for developing characters you actually want to see either live or get killed. In this installment you will never care who lives or dies, not a kid, a parent, a pregnant woman. The characters serve only one purpose in this movie, to die. The opening scenes establish the fact that the movie is going to be a predictable joke. The character development scenes mix clichés, bad humor, and bad acting and numb the viewer to the point where we really don't care if they get killed so long as they die in never before seen ways. But they don't. The director tried to make something different from those who preceded him in the Alien franchise but only succeeded in discarding the good parts of the first films, the human protagonists, and stealing the rest from other recent sci-fi films.<br /><br />There is not one original use of the either the Alien or Pred characters. The Pred actually has little trouble killing Aliens by the dozen even though the last movie led us to believe that Pred revered the Aliens as such a deadly foe that they used the killing of one as Rite of Passage. The AlienPred is never really developed as a fearsome creature. Its ability to inject parasites into a host is ripped from several different movies most recently probably was Hellboy where Samiel's dismembered tongue injected eggs into Hellboy or Doom where the mutated creatures would leave their tongues behind after they speared a victim's throat.<br /><br />Simply put we aren't given reason to care about anything in this movie. There is violence but it doesn't shock or surprise and is nothing that hasn't been seen in any of a hundred slasher flicks. The CG is OK and both species of alien are made to look and move as they have in movies past. But since the characters are never developed and the acting is so bad we kind of hope that they all die. The little girl was probably the best actor of the bunch but sadly we aren't made to care whether or not kids, women, or anyone else lives or dies. We just want the movie to end. Eventually it does but not before another stolen plot line from Resident Evil 2 has a nuke aim Gunnison's way to wipe out the "infection". And not before yet another stupid scene that is supposed to open the door for further sequels but does it? In a movie filled with bad scenes the worst may have been saved for last.<br /><br />Sorry for the repetition but everything bears repeating: bad script, no plot, unoriginal action scenes, uninspired direction, abysmal acting, decent f/x that were wasted because of the many flaws.<br /><br />I don't mind going to an indie film and being disappointed. The actors and directors and crew are probably getting their careers going and working on a shoestring budget. For a movie with this type of budget and hype I feel cheated along with disappointed. This movie is a painfully boring waste of time from the opening scene to closing credits. Sad to say that a preview of Hellboy 2 was the best part of AVPr and HB2 didn't even look that good.
This entry doesn't contain a spoiler. It doesn't have to. The movie is as predictable as the sunrise. The element in the first Alien movies was the suspense that something COULD happen. This was so in the first two Predator movies, though less prevalent. Requiem has totally removed the element of suspense and replaced it with blood and gore. You know people are going to die (well duh, it is a AvsP movie), but you know WHO is going to die and WHEN they are going to die, AND WHERE they are going to die before it happens. The directors should take a lesson from Hitchcock who said, "Suspense is not a time bomb going off under a table. Suspense is a bomb NOT going off under the table". What's the sense in going to a movie when you know exactly what is going to happen and when? If you really, really want to watch this movie, wait until it comes out on video and then RENT IT, but by no means would I ever buy it.
The production value of AvP2 can be described by one adjective: AWFUL<br /><br />The script is ridiculous, even in the fictional area of AvP: What are the facehuggers good for on the Predator's ship? Why is the Predator cleaning up all signs of his influence and than wasting precious time with eviscerating and even presenting the body of an insignificant human cop? Why is the Predator alone? Why is the Predator equipping himself only on earth but on his home planet? Why does the Predator make his job so uneasy for himself by hunting down the Aliens rather than bombing the whole countryside like the humans do in the end? Why is the Predator dropping more & more of his few weapons rather than collecting them to keep them together after using one. In the end he is even dropping his armor before fighting the Predalien in hand to hand combat: what a bad plagiarism of the first predators final fight between Arny and the Predator. The Predator's gestures are so exaggerated that he is moving more like a Japanese sumo than like highly skilled extraterrestrial-safari-hunter. As one can see immediately the whole story is a mess. But it gets even worse because this botched-up job is filled up with boring patchwork of senseless interludes like a lengthy pizza ordering episode or some detailed information about the criminal past of the two brothers (Dallas & Ricky). The Sheriff is of course the friend of these two criminals who he puts regularly behind bars. (not convincing & absolutely superfluous for the plot).<br /><br />In addition to that the cast of actors is horrible. Compared to the high class of directors & actors of the former Aliens or Predator movies AvP2 is an embarrassingly bad piece of crap.<br /><br />At last the action of the movie is really poor. There is not a single scene of action combat in which the audience can see the whole set. Each and every fight is filmed in short & shaky bursts with close up zoom at nearly full darkness. That results in an atrocious experience for the audience because one can mostly see nothing but a dark shaky screen.<br /><br />I suggest the two directing brothers Strause to buy themselves a steadycam and get a lesson in modern CG so that the next film contains some visible action of visible figures and might not need to disguise their bad directing abilities in such a manner.<br /><br />I would advise anybody (even die hard AvP fans) against watching this film: prefer the first one or the original Aliens or the original Predator films but avoid disappointing yourself by wasting your precious time on this failure.
There was a time when the Alien series was a success with even the third installment, Alien 3, showing promise under the guild of a fresh and young David Fincher. The first Predator was a box office hit mainly due to its story, "in peak" star Arnold Schwarzenegger and director John McTiernan (Die Hard). The films Alien, Aliens, Alien 3 and Predator were all highly successful and created massive followings among general film fans and science fiction fans alike. Arguably Predator 2 and Alien Resurrection should have signaled the end for both franchises, but studios were undeterred and saw the opportunity to pander to the rumours among fans and combine the two. Step in Paul W.S Anderson, Alien Vs Predator, and now the Brothers Strauss (visual effects graduates, not even directors or writers). The problem was that by allowing such profound and revolutionary creations of the Sci-Fi genre to fall into the hands of firstly a mediocre director and now directorial newbie's has led to nothing more than profanity, epitomised by incompetence. Upon witnessing Alien Vs Predator Requiem (AVPR) die-hard fans will feel sick to their stomachs that this series could have got any worse.<br /><br />One example of the cinematic deterioration of this franchise is in the opening scene and is likely to cause nausea among fans. The film begins with an Alien making its way onto the Predator ship, spurting from the predators chest, growing in to a full grown Predalien and bringing down the Predator craft (which now seems to have far less Predators on it than it did at the end of Alien Vs Predator) and all this occurs with the ship still in Earths atmosphere. Once the ship has crashed AVPR quickly resorts to cheap plot methods and basic narrative conventions, it makes no venture at utilizing any of the twists or subversions served up in the two original films. The wearisome plot progresses with tedious pace, punctuated only by the near rousing conflicts of Alien and Predator and when that runs the risk of boring us we are treated to either an alluring blonde in a bikini or rapid gunfire. AVPR is plagued by an endless array of continuity errors and plot holes with little or no narrative elucidation i.e. members of the public outwitting an elite military unit or the Predator not adhering to laws established in previous editions. This is a film that has a complete disregard for its predecessors, it breaks some of the most fundamental rules of a sequel and in doing so one gets the feeling that it is trying to set itself up as a stand alone feature. Independently the film has no heart, no conviction and no soul and with reference to the other films lacks even the most basic continuity. This is exemplified by the over arching narrative of the film as it undermines the basic premise of the first Alien. Because if the species had been encountered before then those in the first Alien film would have been more proficient and not so ill prepared when encountering them.<br /><br />On a cinematic note the film is close to being dire, I felt urged at some points to shine a torch at the screen, the lighting was so bad. Through utilizing such gloomy and dark effects the audience may feel as though they are being cheated out of some the action – which is ironically its purpose and also indicates the films lack of budget. As with all science fiction one scene normally surfaces as being the most memorable, in this instance it is probably the hospital impregnation scene as it ever so tenuously draws on the themes of the original Alien by literalizing it. The directing is poor, performances weak and the script rotten. AVPR is the product of a conveyor belt system of film-making in which ideas and techniques are assembled by ineffective people and then the finished product distributed among cinemas. This is personified by the absence of gory death scenes and drawn out blood battles because the certification will not allow it – a lower certification achieving a larger target audience. AVPR was purely a business venture and nothing more.
I'm sorry to say that this movies was one of the biggest disappointments of the year. Following one of the biggest disappointments in movie monster match up history you would think that they would learn from the mistakes of the previous incarnation. The sequel falls into many of the same traps, the plot line was completely forced, the dialog was so bad that the film might be better on mute, and the action was contrived and far from the heart pounding brilliance of each monsters original films. The best part of AVP-Requiem is in fact the trailer, which as you go through the movie end up realizing that almost every single death and every really cool shot in the movie was already shown in the trailer which leaves little to be revealed and little to be excited about. I gave the movie an extra star for letting see the extra hot female in the almost nude. the movie played out like a color-by-number sci-fi monster fest which also played into the fact that nothing was a surprise when it happened, because you'd seen it a thousand times before. the main failing with both these movies is that the creators thought that setting the films in our time would make us be interested in the story more as if it may one day happen to us. but what drew people in when they released the arcade game back in the day was that it kinda took place within an over the top futuristic version of the ALIEN trilogy time line which allowed more of a suspension of disbelief. this is where the future movies need to draw inspiration from. because to be honest, seeing a waitress killed by the ALIEN we all have feared since childhood just really doesn't do it for us. lets take the series back to its roots. learn from the former masters and don't mess with a winning formula by trying to make a 'bold new vision' we liked the originals for a reason, we want to see that again. Lastly, the ending is the real WTF moment of the whole film, *SPOILER* after the big climax, the survivors are ambushed by Special-Ops soldiers who justify their horrific actions by saying 'we were following orders' and then turn on a dime and start acting all nice and are turned into saviors. then after the long pull back with one of the survivors looking ominously into the heavens, we cut to the most bizarre cliffhanger I've ever seen, with characters you never saw in the rest of the movie (Save the Government Dude) then with all the subtlety of a punch to the face they reveal that there will be yet another film with the hint of a plot line that would make a sci-fi channel original movie blush and turn up its nose. So, in summation, if you have to choose between this movie and doing any other activity on the face of the Earth, skip the movie and do the other thing instead.
I was only fourteen when I first saw the Alien movies and I immediately came to like it. Original, terrifying and classic. Sigourney Weaver was the perfect choice for the female hero character and she would have deserved a statuette for her act. In 1979 something everlasting was born than the immortal series continued with a nothing less legendary movie than the first. Alien3 was a different point of view but I think this part was the most stressful and unique of all, this was my favourite. Unfortunately the last one was a failure in many ways. It was strained, illogical with full of meaningless massacres. I didn't like it at all, but I never thought that a worse part would ever be made in the future. Well as it turned out in 2004 I was wrong. Alien vs. Predator was a bad break, and it should have been directed by a more talented director or should have never been made at all. But when I saw Alien vs Predator Requiem I was totally shocked moreover devastated. When I sat down and decided to watch it with full of doubt, even than I had never thought that such a bad movie could be made. Without a screenplay, without a director and without actors I don't understand how can a film be made. Because this film misses these three terms. What you get is a nice massacre show without a story but with a lot of annoying and boring dialogues. Waste of money and waste of time. This movie is rather impudence, than honor to the fans of the both sides (Alien/Predator). Shame!
With this movie I was really hoping that the idea was to make up for the hashed together ineptitude of the first AVP, and yet to my horror: Requiem is far worse than I could have imagined.<br /><br />My hopes were up in the opening moments of the film inside the Predator ship, and I almost breathed a sigh of relief when we finally saw the Predator home world (a throwaway digital matte painting, but still nice to finally see it) and then of course, the humans (if such poorly written characters can be referred to as such) are introduced...<br /><br />One must wonder why it seems to be impossible for Fox to make a good film out of Aliens and Predators. At the very least the supposed filmmakers could have done their homework.<br /><br />Characters are set up in the same manner in which we would expect from the worst Friday the 13th Sequel. The pizza delivery scene was cringe inducing as was every other scene of character interaction that followed it. Bimbos and teen non actors do not make for a REAL film, they make for a cheap flick, and Alien 1-3 and the Predator movies were good because they were produced above the concept (remember that the 1st Alien is a "B" movie done as an "A" movie) The Strause brothers really missed an opportunity, that could have been rectified by simply knowing their Alien+Predator roots: In both the Alien and Predator films we are introduced to characters that are part of a larger group (Alien: Refinery workers, Aliens: Marines, Alien 3: Convicts and in the Predator films we generally follow a main hero part of a unit; Predator, Arnold--Special forces, Predator 2: Danny Glover, Police) and it's easy to see where the filmmakers of both franchises started to go wrong: in Alien Ressurrection we have pirates...or something, AVP we have...explorers?...with guns?? and of course in AVP-R we have teen slasher clichés. What is there to identify with here? In concept the idea of a convict returning to a small town and a war vet returning seemed a set up for a First Blood type of action hero, but like many things it was never paid off.<br /><br />The Film-making is equally devoid of rhyme of reason. There is no sense of forward momentum to the action, just small sequences that build the most minuscule levels of tension or interest only to cut away just when they're getting interesting...taking the audience out of the movie at every turn. The action scenes themselves, though much ballyhooed in the trailers, are so darkly lit, it is literally impossible to tell what is going on during the fight scenes when they finally occur. Basically, the movie is hindered from many levels. Bad actors combined with poor direction and an atrocious screenplay (which as a screenwriter myself I noticed, seemed to hit every wrong note and cliché that only the most untalented writer devoid of ideas could have hashed together) The WRITING, if it can be called that, is not even direct to video quality, nor does it demonstrate a shred of respect for the established lore of the previous entries in the series. Why does the Predalien all the sudden have the ability to shoot alien embryos down a pregnant woman's throat to use her as an incubator for chestbursters? More than likely because the brain dead screenwriter needed a way to have more aliens for the predator to fight (and given the accelerated growth time even more so than the first AVP: as quickly as possible. Why must meaningless small talk between cardboard cutouts on sticks (meaning the supposed characters)substitute for real character development? (Remember a character is defined by what they DO, not SAY). Why is the Sheriff leading civilians to a cache of guns? (isn't he an officer of the law?) How does the bimbo of all people know where they are? Why does the Predalien wait for the Predator to VERY SLOWLY remove his mask before it attacks? Why are the aliens still falling into that nasty series-post-Alien 3 habit of hissing all the time to let their prey know to run? How on Earth did this series devolve to a character saying "People are dying...we need guns!" (how this writer even works is beyond me, and reflects badly on Fox's already destroyed artistic reputation. It's like everyone involved in the making of this film suffered from a mental impairment or really are that inept at every level of the film-making process. <br /><br />The EFFECTS are pretty lousy this time around. The Aliens look like men in suits and ADI is just getting lazy with their creature design. The Aliens look like modified leftovers from Alien Resurrection, with that same bulky musculature around the arms as if they did not learn from that movie that it was not a good design, nor a good one to recycle. Again, everything is shrouded in such a state of darkness not to create mystery or atmosphere, but simply to hide how bad the creatures look. And just like in AVP, Stan Winston is sorely missed when the fake looking Predator face is revealed.<br /><br />There are too many faults to list so I will just say this: Do not waste your money on this movie. Fox is beyond caring about the fans, as this cheap and trashy film is clearly evidence of. I felt bad having taken my girlfriend to see it (though it was free) and apologized to her profusely after. This is one die-hard fan who is done with the franchise.<br /><br />Note to Fox: What we really wanted wasn't a mindless slasher flick, it was a film adaptation of the original Darkhorse Comicbook, which was better than anything you've produced for this franchise post 1993.<br /><br />Signing off.
Starting where the last AVP left off, an Alien "chestburster" emerges from a dead Predator on a Predator spaceship, and causes the Predator space ship to crash into modern day Gunnison Colorado, where it breeds several more Aliens which start to cause havoc. The Predator race sends down a lone highly experienced and armed Predator to "clean up the mess". Our human characters are caught in the middle of the intergalactic battle.<br /><br />The biggest problem with this movie is the pacing. This movie moves along way too fast. The opening credits have only just rolled and already the Predator ship crashes into the Earth after the Alien grows to full hight, a hunter and son character are introduced but before we even get to learn their names they are both killed, then we see the Predator home-world and the lead Predator flies off to fight the Alien infestation, and all this happens within the first five minutes. This unnatural pace does not let up for the entire movie; the National Guard comes into town but within two minutes are all killed without even getting a good look at a single ones face, the manager of a pizza store gets one scene of character development only to be killed off the very next time we see him once again without even learning his name, random hobos, a coffee shop waitress and chef are killed again without learning their names. One moment our main characters are at home, the next running around town, the next in a gun store , the next in an APC, and this random set jumping over and over just doesn't ever let up leaving the audience no time to settle in leaving them grasping for straws.<br /><br />Another problem is the settings and time frame. The movie is set in modern day Gunnison Colorado. Every other Alien and Predator movie was shot in enthralling settings, such as industrial space ships, guerrilla war zone rainforest's, alien planets, and underground labyrinths. Now comes along AVP-R, set in a small modern day American town, with set "highlights" including a sporting goods store, parking lots, Pizza Shops, and little girl's bedrooms. I mean, were they actually trying to make the movie look as dull, drab and uninteresting as possible?! It's hard to perceive these monsters as frightening creatures when they are standing next to a shelf full of Reeboks, or hiding in the bushes outside little girls bedrooms.<br /><br />Continuity is a big issue with this film. The Alien series was set in the future, no human had even heard of an Alien before the first film, and the Aliens not only had never been to Earth, but if they ever did reach Earth, humanity would be destroyed. This movie ruins that entire concept by being set in modern day, with Average Joes seeing the Aliens all over the place, and by the end of the movie, humanity is not destroyed, not even suffering what could be considered minor losses. It pisses all over that entire concept of the other movies. Attempts to maintain continuity are made with massive Deus Ex Machina's. The Predator just happens to carry around a bottle of unlimited magic blue liquid that's just to melt away any bodies with just a single drop, the army at the end of the movie just happens to go to overly drastic measures and drop a nuclear warhead that just conveniently erases all evidence of the Aliens existence despite the fact there were many survivors of the incident who are witnesses, and many more bad attempts are made at filling up impossible to cover plot holes.<br /><br />Also, for a "Verses" movie, it has unrelenting bias in favor of the Predators. For the majority of the film, a lone Predator manages to kill dozens if not tens of dozens of Aliens, all at mêlée range while barely gaining a single scratch, while the Aliens just get slaughtered left right and center like clay pigeons, merely waiting their turn to be killed by the Predator without putting forth any effort to defend their selves. This movie should not be called "Alien vs. Predator", as much as it should be "Predator massacres Aliens". I mean, how can you have two species battle it out with suspense and tension, when one is portrayed as being vastly superior to the other? <br /><br />The characters in this film are amongst the biggest flaws. Not only do they pale in comparison to the characters from the previous Alien and Predator movies, but even as a stand alone movie they are bland, dreary, and even at times cringe worthy. The characters in this movie consist of I kid you not, horny couples wanting to get laid, pizza delivery boys, blonde bimbos, high school bullies, children, and a blatant copy and paste job ripping off Ripley and Newt; the worst and most cliché possible ideas for characters. Not only that, but all of the aforementioned characters are acted by teenagers. While the casting of teenagers is an obvious attempt to pull in younger audiences, its only effect is to make the movie look and feel like a typical teenybopper slasher-porn movie, with actors who are too young to have learned how to give a convincing performance, with them mostly having completely blank facial expressions delivering monotone dialog. Not only this, but these characters do some of the most cinematically retarded things ever, such as using Predator guns, commenting the powers out when it has been for hours, following dumb plans to get out of town rather than just walking out of town somewhat quickly, and just so many other idiocies that the movie actually had the audience in my theater sighing out of frustration.<br /><br />In the end this movie is just a horrible B movie, something deserving of the direct to DVD category. The fact this movie was a theatrical release astonishes me, as every part of the movie just ranks of amateur work.
If only I had read the review by Alex Sander (sic) on here rather than looking at the rating of over 6 from a select choice of the ignorant viewing public I would not have seen this desecration. Alien was a fantastic, dramatic and well made horror/sci-fi. Predator was a great sci-fi/action mess-about. I do really have only myself to blame though as I saw 'Alien versus Predator'. It too has an average grading of over 6 stars from the connoisseurs of film that frequent this site.<br /><br />STOP READING NOW IF YOU HAVE ANY FEAR OF THIS EVER SO SUSPENSE RIDDEN PLOT BEING RUINED FOR YOU.<br /><br />Right from the beginning this film was ridiculous. No explanation was offered for the Predator ship overrun/not overrun by Aliens. OK so maybe they were again going to throw aliens down to Earth to hunt them and something went wrong but how did this result in an Alien/Predator hybrid and why did the rest of the crew not realise sooner despite their great technology? The start was actually the most coherent and interesting part of the film because we had some idea of who was who or what was what and perhaps why. From then on it gets really ridiculous. I always leave my disbelief strictly suspended above the door of the screen before entering and collect it on the way out. I couldn't here.<br /><br />A father and son are hunting in the woods. The damaged ship crash lands to (from the view given) I would calculate at the very least 10 odd miles away through thick woodland. The man and boy track there alone and find the ship and get face hugged. Even at this point you feel very little for them mainly because the face huggers are almost comical rather than scary in their movement and actions and the father seems like such an irresponsible, dumb redneck muppet.<br /><br />An edgy, thriller-type scenario is introduced with an ex-con returning to the town near the crash site to be met by his somewhat emotionless, dull now cop friend from the bus. When I say introduced I mean a feeble attempt with crap actors and no feeling is played out. A slasher/horror element is then introduced with a sexy girl and the usual supposedly nerdy or somehow undesirable cute guy who gets beaten up by the over protective, crazy, nasty Jock type (American sportsman not a Scottish man). Oh the cute/not cute boy is the ex-con's brother by the way. Yes they're clever these director brothers whose name I will research in order to avoid any other shite they put out again. Then a modern role reversal oh so boring attempt at PC, Ripley credential type character introduction comes with a female soldier returning home to her husband and child.<br /><br />Guess what happens next? I won't tell you much more about the actual (smiles sadly to himself about the demise of storytelling in the large majority of recent films) plot just in case you have got this far and are not the brightest star in the Alien-ridden universe.<br /><br />The Predator is stupid for the reasons stated by the previous poster whose post I read too late. The Aliens are boring. The Predator-Alien is ridiculous. The action is at times exploitative, gratuitous, disgusting nonsense. The hospital scene with the pregnant mothers?!?! Oh I was shocked alright. Shocked at how low some people will go to get what? A scare? Some shock? To titillate the perverse? What? If you really wanted to shock, titillate and scare people who are not pregnant or expecting fathers or who have no souls why not just have the Alien/Predator shagging the saucy women and teenage girls rather than killing them? The characters have no depth and neither does the plot. It's filmed and paced badly. It's acted by disinterested people not that I can blame them. It further tarnishes two rather interesting and good sets of sci-fi characters. This film was rubbish and if you gain enjoyment from it I really have to worry about you. If you haven't seen it then well please make your own decision.<br /><br />PS Did I even mention the way that trained soldiers are all killed in about 20 seconds while amateur civilians survive throughout?
This film and the 1st AvP film both all over the whole Aliens and Predator franchise.<br /><br />They are awful films, badly acted, badly scripted and terribly directed. They just seem like someones desperate attempt to make money off of the good name of the original aliens and predator films but instead of delivering a well thought out, quality production, they came up with the predaturd.<br /><br />The original Alien/Aliens/Predator/Predator 2 films were great, they redefined the horror/thriller genre by inventing these insane (and yet still believable) creatures who took the role of the 'serial killer', as opposed to a human. <br /><br />These films are just milking the franchise and do nothing but darken its name.<br /><br />The Aliens vs Predator comic books were brilliant and had a great story. They were true to the Alien/Predator mythology, didn't crap all over the original stories etc... Why didn't they make the comic book into a great film? Because Hollywood are idiots, thats why.
Turd Pie:<br /><br />* Take x2 franchises * Par-boil for 5 mins * Stir in mixed cardboard characters (non Actors work best) * Add 2 tons of clichés then bake in Your Plot-Hole Microwave until bored. * Serve with a Sprinkling of Dawson's Crack (not a Typo)<br /><br />Voila! - Money spinning Brain Rot for the Emo/World of Warcraft Generation <br /><br />Looking for the keys in drain was the best bit (?) <br /><br />Aside from the first 5 mins, its one of the worst films ever made. <br /><br />Utter, Utter, Nonsense.
When I saw Alien vs. Predator a few years ago, I have to say as stupid as a sequel it was, it was still somewhat enjoyable. Now, there are unfortunately a shortage of good movies out in the theater lately, so my boyfriend and I decided to just go ahead and see what AVPR: Aliens vs Predator - Requiem was about. So we saw it a couple nights ago and I have to say that there was absolutely nothing thrilling about this horror sequel. It took a completely different turn from the first AVP movie, it's not a bad idea that they took Alien and Predator and put them in the up class suburbs, but from the idea of the first one explaining their reasons for existing, this was just an average and predictable horror sequel. Not to mention a story that keeps introducing new characters every scene where I wasn't sure who to keep in mind on who was the main character and why, so I couldn't really keep up with the story.<br /><br />From what I've gathered, of course the Predator and the Alien are up in space having to deal with the stuff of typical sit com neighbors, they're just beating the lights out of each other and they decide to why not? Go ahead and take it out on some Earthlings. So they crash and Alien is taking over the suburbia utopia. But teenagers, including a troubled couple who look like Ken and Barbie, a female marine and her daughter, among others, are going to make sure to kick some space butt, that is if the predator doesn't get there first. Because he is ticked off at the Alien, I guess for starting the party without him, lol, just kidding, actually for killing some of his friends.<br /><br />AVPR: Aliens vs Predator - Requiem isn't the worst movie by any standards, it's still pretty cool with a lot of the visual effects and the fight sequences between Alien and Predator are so cool to watch. Like the first sequel of Alien vs. Predator, the cast is the thing that ruins the film and just seems like they were not well developed, I know it's horror, but the original Alien and Predator films had characters, that you cared about and wanted to win. But it was a semi-decent sequel that I would say is worth a look for some fun, especially for Ken and Barbie's sake.<br /><br />4/10
My qualifications for this review? I own all the Alien and Predator movies & I have and have read almost all the books I can find that are related to this series.<br /><br />I can safely say, this movie is a Stinker. Save your money & don't waste your time. If you like mindless action, mindless gore, no plot to speak of & like being taken by Hollywood, see the movie.<br /><br />If you are a serious Alien series fan, send a message to the over stuffed, over paid suits in Hollywood & 20th Century Fox & don't give them a penny.<br /><br />This movie has so many plot holes in it you could sieve pasta through it. Read the other negative reviews to get the big picture, it has all be said accurately, so I don't have to repeat them.<br /><br />The characters in this movie are cardboard. You want them all dead. And, the movie doesn't disappoint, almost all of them die. Even the hot, bubble headed blond. Do you feel sorry for her? Nope. No plot, no character development....who cares. The Predators are now idiots too. They scan everything but their own dead warrior. They are suppose to be a high technology society, right? In the Predator movie, they scanned the soldiers and the girl to determine who was armed. Trophy kills. In AvP, they scanned Charles Weyland and let him go because he had Cancer. Major Plot hole!<br /><br />Also, the R rating is because they have kids in the movie that get a face hugger, lots of gore and violence and there is one hospital scene where a very large pregnant women is injected with chest bursters. She is implanted by the Hybrid Alien with 4 or 5 eggs in a mouth-to-mouth love scene-orgy and they all hatch in, say, 30 seconds. Sensational gore a plenty, nothing more. These scenes are laughable, not serious. It is almost like the violence happens and the Alien looks at the camera and waits for applause, a thumbs up or a nod of some sort.<br /><br />The Aliens in this movie are all on performance enhancing drugs. They develop fast and spread quickly all over the town, tons of them, everywhere in record spawn time. Pathetic because it does not stick to the series story line and adds nothing to the Aliens, Aliens Predator continuity.<br /><br />I have noticed the positive reviews are written by people who love the gore. Laughable. As a movie, as a continuation of the Aliens franchise and the development of the Aliens vs Predator franchise, this movie is a cheesecake cliché at best. If you have faithfully followed this series, all the rules are broken and the Aliens and Predators are reduced to comic book characters.<br /><br />There is not one fantastic, memorable action scene. There are almost no special effects worth remembering. There are no brand name actors. The plot is as thin as onion paper that ultimately ends with a, "We have two choices to get out of this mess...The Hospital or the center of town!". I just about wet myself. The center of town means everyone is going to get nuked by Big Brother who somehow knows the town has been infested because they have an AWAC in the air that can see the infestation on a radar screen in special effects Red Spots. I just about fell out of my chair. Special effects red spot alien radar on an AWAC over middle America. I am splitting my gut laughing.<br /><br />Having to get to the Helicopter Pad made me choke on my popcorn. Has anyone played a game called ZOMBIES!? You have to get your playing pieces to the Helicopter Pad to win. I almost wet myself laughing.<br /><br />The ending is enough to make you shake your head in wonderment. Who did 20th Century Fox hire to write this script!? OH, OH, ask me.... a Grade 5 student. There really can't be any other answer. Oh, yes there can be another answer... Low Budget Cheesecake Sci-Fi.<br /><br />The ending? "Col. Stevens takes the Predator pulse rifle to Ms. Yutani (Francoise Yip). She tells him that the earth is not ready for the technology it represents. Col. Stevens knows Yutani doesn't want the technology to use on earth." You are kidding me, right? Ms. Yutani? Who is Ms Yutani? (forshadow:Weyland-Yutani: The Corporation) She is in the movie exactly 2 seconds and yet, in her infinite far east wisdom, she says the world is not ready for the technology. Seriously??!! The Brothers Dweebs (Strause) as directors? Who is responsible for this hemorrhage-abortion of a movie? They are the Doug and Bob McKenzie of directors and yet Fox entrusted the flailing Alien franchise to them. They are touted as special effects experts and yet the movie is all low budget special effects. Hmmm, I see a pattern. Laughable.<br /><br />This movie is only made to empty your wallet. It serves no other purpose. It has no plot. It has no main characters worth mentioning. It is disjointed. It does not adhere to any of the character principles established in previous movies. It does nothing to advance the franchise. The special effects are lame, minimal and low budget. And, it has no ending to speak of. It is low budget and strictly designed to take your hard earned money. Nothing more.<br /><br />Save your money. Either watch it on TV where it will very quickly end up. Buy a bootleg or miss this bleeding ulcer altogether. There is a reason why Fox did not Preview this movie to the critics. The critics would have eaten this mess alive and no one would have gone to the theaters to see it. JR Giger, the original creator, is at this very moment, leaning over a toilet spilling his lunch.<br /><br />20th Century Fox, this movie is a stinker. It is as bad or worse than Alien 3. You insult us. <br /><br />Flush now...
Ed Wood is rolling over in his grave. He could have made a hundred cult classics for the price of this waste-hole. The worst script in memory (it makes "X-Men 3" sparkle like "Citizen Kane"); the most amateur directing; pre-K cinematography; the cheesiest "special effects" (I'm talking about "Friday The 13th" sequel territory); and throw in a pointless, revolting, deeply disturbed, maternity ward sequence. The lack of any talent or sensibility that put this garbage on-screen is astounding. That the "industry" might reward anyone involved in this celluloid cess-pool with future projects ought to be cause for serious alarm.
this movie made me watch Paul W.S. Anderson's AvP1 and enjoy it! I am not even going to dream of comparing Requiem to any of the Alien or Predator series' movies,this is a HORRIBLE TEENAGE B-HORROR FOOTAGE SET IN AN American SMALL TOWN NO ONE CARES ABOUT.<br /><br />AvP1 at least had heaps of handcrafted art carved into the movie sets,it had bags of eye-candy not previously seen in any of the original movies - but was ruined by unconvincing characters/acting.<br /><br />Requiem takes bad acting to the lowest imaginable level,and it also lacks in every other department just as much...it's a sacrilege to include alien and predator suits in this kind of rubbish.
I loved the blood and gore. The kind of violence is what Alien and Predator movies are about which is no one is spared. This truly answers the question of how it would be like if aliens were on Earth. The answer to that is simple. We are screwed. The effects were beautiful. How ever there are some real problems with it.<br /><br />1) The acting was horrible on the part of the Human characters side witch almost put me to sleep because of how dry and boring it was which really interrupted the flow of the movie and was very annoying. The writers could have done SOOOOOOO much better. The good part was the Alien and Predator acting which I thought was done very well for the most part.<br /><br />2) The size of the Predator ship was much smaller then how it was in the first AvP movie. This I scratched my head on <br /><br />3) Predators having their mask on while still in the ship. This upset people and I cant understand why. Its not a plot hole like most people make it to be. So I say to you people calm the hell down. Its no big deal. If it will make you feel better, remember, they did have face-hugger's on bored in storage so that could be a good reason why.<br /><br />4) Predator firing its plasma caster inside the ship. I thought that was rather stupid on the Predators part. But then I began to think if it was a younger Predator that panicked.<br /><br />5)The hunter and his son almost instantly arriving at the crash site after it fell several miles away. At least they didn't bore us by showing them run through the woods for 30 min. so be happy about that.<br /><br />6) Why did only one Predator go? I thought this was odd. But then I thought that it was because he thought it was only one Predalien that he was dealing with and not an outbreak.<br /><br />7) Why didn't the Predators in the ship self destruct? Well if people were paying attention one did, but he was killed before he could completely activate it.<br /><br />8) The unlimited blue melting goo. I thought that was rather dumb.<br /><br />9) Predator hiding evidence with the goo but skins a cop. That was also dumb.<br /><br />10) The black out. Well come on people, an Alien and Pred did fight it out at a power station.<br /><br />11) Predalien being half face-hugger/queen. This really ticked me off. I am an Alien and Pred fanatic. I know for a fact that Aliens DO NOT DO THAT!! Just like they don't give birth like a human does like they showed in Alien4!! Out of all the comics, games, books, and the movies 1,2, and 3, CLEARLY shows their behavior. They need a queen to lay eggs, the eggs hatch into face-hugger's, face-hugger's infect host, the parasite pops out and kills host and grows into a drone if it infects a human, a Predalien with a Predator, and Runner with any kind of four legged animal. And then after living for years upon years then they molt into a Preatorian (a mini me queen that does not lay eggs) I can go on and on but I wont. But that scene alone nearly ruined the movie for me. If the directors are smart they would go back and edit that by making a face hugger infecting the pregnant women.<br /><br />Any way if you are going to see this movie, just go see it for the Aliens and Predators. And when the scene comes up where the Predalin infects that pregnant women... Close your eyes so you don't have to see that insult to the Alien and Pred universe.
AVP2 is an awful movie. The dialogue was pointless, the acting was pathetic, it had virtually no story line and you can't really tell what the hell is going on half the time due to the continuity errors and plot holes.<br /><br />BUT! You will love it anyway. Because it pushes the boundaries on gore, violence, death, destruction and chaos. They EVEN kill children, newborns and unborn babies in this movie. You will be sitting there thinking "Oh my God, that is disgusting" And they surprise you by killing the 'sexy chick who always makes it out alive' when the predator and aliens are fighting in the hospital.<br /><br />It's like the movie industry has said "We know what we did in the first Alien Vs. Predator movie was was bad, so we're doing it again but this time we're getting help from psychopaths with vivid imaginations" It's predicable, moronic and down right pointless....but you will be thinking about it for a while after you see it.
Anyone who watched "Alien vs Predator" must've known that the conventions of the "Alien Quadrilogy" were not exactly adapted for the film. Amongst some of the unusual elements, the rapid growth of the Aliens over seemingly a matter of minutes, Aliens with extremely long tails, and so on. However the idea of the Predator species providing the impetus of city and temple building to create a hunt for would be warriors sounded so appealing that I couldn't resist.<br /><br />I had hoped the end of the film would not be the impetus of this sequel, and unfortunately I was wrong. For those who forgot how the first film ended, the dead Predator had an Alien burst through his chest which carried the traits of both species'.<br /><br />For this film, I'm going to just go through a list of "good" and "bad" traits.<br /><br />The Good: Lots of gorgeous people, especially the men. <br /><br />The Bad: Lots of gorgeous people get munched by both the mutant Predator/Alien, and the Predator.<br /><br />The Good: An interesting idea of the Predator planet. <br /><br />The Bad: An inconsistent scale of a town. Its a small town without many opportunities, but with a very sophisticated (read: big city) sewer system, and homeless. Is it a small town, or a city? The police force is one Sheriff and three Deputies, or so I counted.<br /><br />The Good: Um.... <br /><br />The Bad: Why do these mutant Aliens/Predators grow so fast? In a matter of five minutes, they seem to grow to their full size. I mean, c'mon...what are these things...Chia Pet Aliens??? And while we're on this subject, why is it that an Alien inside a Predator's body mutates, but an Alien in a human's body doesn't? Does that make sense?<br /><br />The Good: Still thinking... <br /><br />The Bad: Why would only one Predator come? And why does it pour acid over all the remnants of the "Aliens," but it decides to murder a cute deputy, and then skin him and hang him upside down. I mean, so much for being incognito!<br /><br />The Good: Ah...I'm stuck. I guess there's lots of loud sounds! <br /><br />The Bad: How do these mutated Alien/Predators procreate? Apparently they find a pregnant woman and in a kiss type of motion, they deposit several offspring into the woman's body. Yeah, just what you'd like to see, eh? Pregnant women having their bodies explode into mutant aliens- as if the previous way wasn't gross enough!!!. I mean, there isn't even an Alien Queen.<br /><br />The Good: Did I say that the guys in this movie are gorgeous? <br /><br />The Bad: When a nuclear device blows apart buildings, how does a helicopter manage to survive the blast? And how tacky is it for one of the passengers to mockingly chide the pilot "I told you not to crash!" I mean, given the nuclear fallout, when he wakes up in the morning, he'll have no hair left!!!<br /><br />I could go on and on, but I think you get the message. Mutated Alien/Predator bursts through dead Predator's body, grows over the matter of a couple of minutes, kills all the Predators and manages to get crashed on earth. More mutant Alien/Predators are created, while ONE measly Predator comes to earth to destroy this new mutant species. Predator kills humans. Mutant Alien/Predators kill humans. Humans kill humans. Sucks to be a human in this movie, eh?<br /><br />If you're impressed by lots of bangs and bumps, you'll love this movie.<br /><br />If you liked the first, I suggest you skip this sequel.
I am not even willing to vote a single star for this crap but IMDb does't have zero as rating option... worst movie i have ever watched.. Story of the movie 1. Predator ship crashes on earth 2. One alien and some face huggers are released and they start killing humans. 3. One predator arrives on earth and he starts killing aliens and humans. 4. Then one human jet drops a bomb and kills human, aliens and predator. 5. Some humans find the shoulder canon of the predator. 6. The End Directors should consider refunding money back to the viewers. If still you want to watch this movie, download from some torrent site and say thanks to me for saving you money.. all the movie has been filmed in some dark corner of the earth, you see just dark shadows even in action scenes.. too much violence.. I didn't expect it from a fox movie
When I first became a father about 5.5 years ago, I was prepared for many of the sacrifices I'd have to make. I knew I'd have to change diapers and take them to swimming lessons and attend many a freezing Santa Claus parade, but I wasn't ready for the kind of sacrifice I made last night. This, in my humble opinion, is cruel and unusual punishment.<br /><br />Underdog is bad. It's not quite Karate Dog bad, but it makes The Shaggy Dog feel like Pulp Fiction. If Underdog were a television show, I'd recommend flipping on by. Not even the presence of Puddy and the voice of Banky Edwards can save it. Bow. Wow.<br /><br />It was also just about the best 80 minutes I've ever enjoyed. James was seated to the right of me and Michelle to the left, and I spent more time watching their reaction to this talking, flying mutt than watching the screen. At 5 and 3 years old, they were the target audience, and this movie nailed the target. There's a scene where Underdog belches loudly in another dogs face and Michelle thought it was the funniest scene ever captured on film. When Underdog was flying into outer space, James was literally at the edge of his seat, mesmerized. The kids absolutely loved Underdog, and that's why I was there. That's what last night was all about.<br /><br />Unless you're accompanying someone under the age of ten, you have no business wasting a second of your life watching this brutal film. But if you are looking to kill 80 minutes with your four year old, I won't judge. I had a blast.
They did it again: ripped off an old show's title, then destroyed the nostalgia with boring "re-imagined" stuff. The '60's cartoon was one of the funniest of its time, a good-natured satire of super hero comic books. The character was drawn as 1/2 way between animal and human, the way Mickey Mouse is. Here they use a real beagle; that's about the same as making a Mickey Mouse watch with a real rat. <br /><br />Most of the clever schtick that made the original show funny is missing from this film. Instead, we get a clumsy ex-police dog who's even dumber than Cad. And some pet owners who add nothing to the story. Cheesy effects (the dog-talking animation is embarrassing). Poor scripting. A stereotyped dwarf playing Simon Bar Sinister. The gravelly noise box guy they hired to voice Underdog is painful. You'd think they'd at least gotten a voice impressionist to approximate Wally Cox's humorously distinctive voice for Underdog. But no. There are, at least, a few affectionate references to the source material (such as the rhyming lines), which lift it to a 4. <br /><br />Only small children that love dogs may enjoy this. Everybody else should get a DVD of the original cartoon series. Watch this only in desperation.
Let me start of by saying that I never wanted to see this movie in the first place; I had to watch it one day, and I figured that I guess I can lighten up and enjoy it for what it is, and it might turn out to be entertaining. What I got going in with that expectation was one of the worst movies I have ever seen, bar none. First of all, there was nothing humorous in the least bit. The creators expected humor to be laughable/passable if they include sarcasm in every line that comes out of Underdog's mouth and use scene after scene of bland, played out aspects to "charm" the audiences light-hearted side, while still making them "ooh" and "ah" for more with boring action scenes and insipid, lackluster performances that made me want to yell at everyone in the audience that was enjoying it. The acting was dull, the humor was tedious and the characters/plot felt like they spent about 10 minutes creating their entire personalities which gave the uninspiring actors/actresses no range on how to portray their characters with the least bit of depth. This movie is plain and simply awful in every field and really only kids under the age of 10 will be able to enjoy it, which even though that's what age range it was aimed at, that does not excuse it for being so poorly daft and causing me to feel so penitent. Parents, spend your money on Up, Wall-E, The Spiderwick Chronicles, The Water Horse or Hotel for Dogs for the best, recent family/kids flicks, or even Alvin and the Chipmunks is better than this filth!
When Underdog the cartoon debuted in 1964, at the age of 7 I was hooked immediately. He was Top Dog (pun intended) in my book-(that is, until Batman premiered on ABC a year or so later). Even when it was clear that Disney was going to make a live-action version of the once popular Saturday morning cartoon, it was equally clear to me that it was going to be a piece of crap. Even reading the reviews in the papers seemed to confirm this. However, I made it a point to: a) never attempt to write a review unless I have seen the movie from start to finish; and b) never to spend one red cent on a movie that I'm almost certain I will hate.<br /><br />Thanks to YouTube I: a) am fully qualified to write this review; and b) it only cost me 84 minutes of my hard earned time.<br /><br />It also proves my point, namely, that this movie is not merely a piece of crap. It's a steaming pile of dog droppings. It resembles the TV series in name only, even though they almost got it right with Simon and Cad.<br /><br />All in all, Underdog is a huge waste of time- and money, which thankfully, I didn't have to spend.<br /><br />Rating: 1/2* out of *****
Story of the creation of Underdog and adventures battling Simon Bar Sinister in a live action format. First we have Showshine picked up off the street and brought to a science experiment lab where Simon Bar Sinister works. He fights back when Sinister tries to inject him with a chemical and accident occurs, he gets superpowers and the lab blows up wounding Sinister. On the street Shoeshine runs afoul of Riff Raff, another dog and gets picked up by Jim Belushi who was a guard at the lab. Belushi's son discovers that Shoeshine has all these powers and eventually Shoeshine becomes Underdog, who will once again battle Sinister.<br /><br />Once you decided that under dog was going to be a real dog you've sort of limited yourself as to whether the film was going to work or not. For me the film half works and half doesn't. The part that doesn't is all of the stuff where you see Shoeshine, the dog, as a dog with his master. Some of the repartee is funny, but it just drags on and on as we get introduced to Sweet Polly and her mistress and we go through all the typical lets see what you can do stuff. Its a deadly 20 or 25 minutes and effectively kills the film. Its painfully dull and feels like it takes forever to get through it, which considering the film is say 75 minutes sans credits, is something you don't want to do.<br /><br />The parts that are good are anything with Simon Bar Sinister (Peter Dinklage is a blast) and anything where Underdog goes into action. Some how somewhere they managed to find a way to be both twistedly true to the spirit of the cartoon and to update it. Of course I could be wrong since the middle section is so dull, but I think not, since I do look forward to catching the end of this again on cable.<br /><br />As a whole its probably as awful as some people have said, but if you can wait for cable where you can stumble on the good parts, this is an okay cartoon to film adaption. (But wait for cable-really)
I didn't like Underdog!I mean it was really unnecessary and needed a big face lift and then it would have been maybe passable but for the main part i didn't like it.This wasn't like any other kid movie its one of those movies that wanted parents(who grew up watching the cartoon)to come with there kids to come see this,i am neither of them so the film didn't appeal to me in the slightest.I had some problems with it like i don't think Jason Lee was the right voice for Underdog it made it him sound sloppy and really unintelligent.Then it was really predictable which makes you feel tired and mad.The humor was really what made me mad it was just to unfunny and somewhat pathetic.The one thing that bothered me the most thought was how almost everything out of Underdog's mouth was sarcastic or rude.The acting was passable but needed a little improvement.If you have kids they might enjoy it, but if your not a kid by all means see it you might like it unlike me. 3.4 stars out of 10
Jason Lee does well to give this doggy movie fleeting promise, but it's not enough to distinguish it from any other bland family comedy<br /><br />This live-action, CG-enhanced adventure sees a shamed police dog (Jason Lee) transformed into a super-dog via an accident in the lab of scheming scientist Dr. Simon Barsinister (Peter Dinklage). Underdog sets about saving the city while attempting to keep his identity secret - a challenge given that he can both talk and fly.<br /><br />The odd gag raises a smile, but Underdog's human sidekicks (James Belushi and Alex Neuberger as father and son) are as dull as the predictable storyline. One for kids too young to have seen Superman. Or Spider-Man. Or even Shaggy Dog…
Starring: James Belushi; Peter Dinklage; Alex Neuberger and Jason Lee Underdog is a true hero's tale. Here is the story of Shoeshine, a regular, playful little beagle. When he is dog napped by a megalomaniac midget hell-bent on destruction, something freaky happens.<br /><br />Our quirky little neighborhood pooch gains extraordinary powers. He can run as fast a cheetah; fly as fast a superhero and has the power of thunder. He is no longer Shoeshine; he is Underdog – the best crime-fighter in the animal kingdom. The city cannot sleep until Underdog rids it of the evil midget Dr. Simon Barsinister and his cronies.<br /><br />If you fancy some really light-hearted entertainment with all the clichés of superhero action flicks, then this one is for you. As for quality entertainment, this one is strictly for the juniors. Those of you hoping to enjoy the comedy of the fast-fading star -James Belushi - a word of caution: this is not one of his finer works.
God, I never felt so insulted in my whole life than with this crap. There are so many ways to describe this piece of crap, that I think that if I said everything that came to mind, I would get banned by this site.<br /><br />How do I begin? Well, for one, it doesn't take knowledge of the original series to know that this movie is a slap to the face of people who've seen it. The biggest butchering of a theme song ever made is here, from a metal version, to a freaking RAP VERSION, what were they thinking? How does Underdog and a electronic-heavy musical style match? The story is so basic, that I will do something I don't usually do and not even give a summary. Just think this: A dog gets superpowers, fill in the rest. That's how predictable this movie is. And then comes the jokes....please kill me now. This style of humor that might not even get the kids laughing, it's that bad, well, expect that punch line after the sneezing. That was slightly funny.<br /><br />But what surprises me the most is why Jason Lee(Ny Name Is Earl), Patrick Warburton(Emperor's New Groove), and Jim Belushi(According to Jim) are all here. In the shows/movies I mentioned, the actors, in my opinion, do a good job, and, excluding Lee, are the best actors in this movie, but that says very little. The rest deserve Golden Rasberry nominations for this crap. I am very sad to see such good actors buried by this disaster.<br /><br />All in all, this is just as bad as Doogal, which I reviewed as well, and again, my head would explode if I saw anything worse than this.
Good things out of the way first:<br /><br />Underdog's voice acting was FINE. But Jason Lee being awesome himself, that really is no surprise.<br /><br />Peter Dinklage (Barsinister) also did fine, for what trash was given to him. He acted the part shockingly well. And so did Patrick Warburton, the moronic assistant. Now, it was idiotic character but he acted so extremely well, I actually liked the character better than the protagonists. The lines given to him were childish but witty.<br /><br />However. Alex Neuberger did awful and hope he never acts again. His "Scream" was so disgustingly fake. Silence. Silence. "aaahhhhhhh". In the scene where he hears the dog talk, an "oh no, impossible!" would have sufficed in place of the pathetic fake scream.<br /><br />And then there was the girl and her female dog that chased Patrick's character Cad on the roof. At first this makes sense, she's a "Reporter." A school reporter but still an inquiring mind regardless. But why, WHY the HELL did she carry her dog around? That was worthless and the damn dog didn't even say anything other than a heartless "oh, underdog!" Her presence was extremely unnecessary.<br /><br />Overall, the script was pathetic. The only reason I give this movie a 3 is Barsinister, his assistance, and underdog's voice.
I remember seeing the very first trailer for Underdog back last March, I also remember at the time smiling to myself ever so slightly. Sure it was a cheesy idea, but I genuinely thought at the time the concept might work, hell it couldn't be any worse than the disappointing Cats and Dogs could it? Then by December and I suddenly remembered the film I realised how likely the film was to suck, the fact it had been delayed in the UK made it seem inevitable it would be terrible, but the horrendous reviews just made me realise it was nigh on impossible for the movie to be any good. Still I swallowed my feelings and went to see the film with a friend today, as I entered my screen I was mortified, it was the very first time I'd be seeing a movie with a friend and being the only two in the screen! Little did I know for what I was about to endure. Underdog to put it blunt is horrendous, it really is. Imagine how bad you could think this movie is and then prepare yourself for a movie even worse, that is just how pathetic the movie is. While it aims to entertain kids it just seems an embarrassing mess that seems to insult kids rather than allow them to enjoy the movie. Matters cannot be helped by the fact that the story is beyond lacklustre, the acting is generally poor, and the movie just feels like an over-long, tired and downright boring Saturday cartoon! After a brief five minutes where I thought the movie might be passable the movie just suddenly seems to die and then limp on towards the already sign posted finale. I'm just amazed the movie was actually ever released, it's an embarrassment to Disney, hell half their straight to video sequels are better than this! What's even more terrifying is the fact the ending leaves room for a sequel!<br /><br />So lets get onto the acting (cracks knuckles). Okay let me be honest Jason Lee is decent, his voice suits the canine, and had he have been given a decent script he might have made the performance work. However, with such a dodgy script he just seems to flounder. In many ways it reminded me of Bill Murray in Garfield, Murray did what he could with what he had, but what he had wasn't enough to make it passable. Then we get onto the human actors, and well the majority of atrocious. Alex Neuberger plays the friend of Underdog, Jack. My biggest concern is that anybody would even take him seriously in an audition. The scene where he gets to fly with Underdog is perhaps the most cringe worthy scene in the past few years just because his acting is so poor. Not once did I believe he was a real person, in fact part of me is still convinced he was a robot made specially for the movie! James Belushi seems half dead in the film, he has nothing to work with, no decent lines, he just seems to wander around the set waiting to become relevant to the plot, which the writers try to do towards the end but do it in such a poor way its laughable. Thankfully Peter Dinklage is the one redeeming factor of the movie, he is great as Dr Barsinister and seems to be having a laugh in the role. He steals every scene he is in, although that's hardly difficult when he shares screen time with the extremely annoying Patrick Warburton. The rest of the cast are even worse, especially Taylor Momsen, she just needs to end her acting career right now!<br /><br />Underdog also fails dramatically in terms of delivering anything like a funny scene. When the funniest scene involves Underdog biting a can and causing dog food to explode everywhere you know there is something drastically wrong. This could be easily ignored if the movie had decent action or a good story, alas the movie is even worse in both of these terms. The effects are so ropey that any scene where Underdog flies just seems absurd, and the dog uses his powers to such little effect that you frequently forget he has superpowers. What's the point in making a film about a super dog if the damned dog never appears super? The final fight also verges on embarrassing purely because its ten minutes of nothingness, the dog flies, other stuff happens, some stuff gets chucked about, all of this is irrelevant as this stuff is happening for the sake of stuff happening. The script as well is dodgy at best and downright pain inducingly awful at worst. When someone says "Look its a plane, no its a bird, no its a frog...", yes you read that right, I just wanted to burst into tears there and then. Actually I wanted to walk out by remained compelled to see whether it could get any lower than that point, this happens near the end so it doesn't thankfully.<br /><br />Overall Underdog becomes the worst movie of 2008 at this early period, and is actually just as bad as last years Epic Movie. Luckily for Underdog, Meet the Spartans arrives over here soon and I expect that to be even worse. So in case you didn't get the point of my review, avoid the film at all costs, if you want to see a movie with a dog then watch Cats and Dogs, buy a real dog if necessary, just do not see this!
I was browsing through the movies on demand and saw Underdog for free and it was only 82 minutes long so I decided to watch it. I wasn't expecting much but it exceeded my expectations of being awful. Everything about the movie was cringe worthy. The dialogue was atrocious including many terrible puns. The jokes were also terrible. I found myself yelling and flipping off my television screen while I was suffering through this trash. It hit its target audience very well but I don't see how anyone else could enjoy this film. It made me very angry and nearly cry because of everything terrible this film had going for it.<br /><br />The only enjoyable thing about this movie was being able to give it a 1/10 after viewing it. I beg you to avoid it at all costs. I understand the fact that its made for kids but there is nothing likable about it at all.
Only three words are really required for this review: Piece of crap.<br /><br />If you enjoyed watching the cartoon as a child, you will find this movie to be a complete waste of your time and money. The best thing about your two hours in the auditorium will be your feet sticking to the floor.<br /><br />Yes, they do use all of the names and catch phrases. The even name the dog "Shoeshine" (in reference to the dog being "Shoeshine Boy" in the cartoon). They name the love interest Polly, but she isn't Miss Sweet Polly Purebred.<br /><br />My wife and son drug me to see this. They should have drugged me to see it.<br /><br />The original Underdog was voiced by Wally Cox, the ultimate nerd. This one is voiced by someone with a "smart alleck teenager that knows more than all the adults" attitude.<br /><br />As a stand alone movie, it is awful. As an homage to Underdog, it is even worse. It is not an homage. It is not a retelling of the story. It is not an updating of the story. It is purely an attempt to cash in on a known title and create merchandising. The next time I go to the store, I fear that I will see Underdog toys, pajamas, towels, sheets, clothing, etc. McDonalds and Burger King probably fought over the kid's meal rights for this.<br /><br />The worst part of this movie, however, is the soundtrack. THEY DO THE UNDERDOG THEME SONG TO RAP (read that with a silent "C" at the beginning)! Great, now that we are going to destroy something, let's go all the way.<br /><br />I knew that it would probably be bad before I went. My fears were confirmed when I arrived at my local 12 plex and found that they opened it for the first day and first showing in their smallest auditorium (and one of only four without stadium seating). Even the theatre people knew it was going to be garbage! Save your money on the tickets and invest it better by going out and buying the original series on DVD. It will be more entertaining and have better production values.
When I heard Disney had the rights to "Underdog",I figured at the very least it would be a cool Pixar partnership affair,and we'd get a great Adults & Kids film like "The Incredibles". Alas...I forgot how Disney must dumb down classic material for today's dumbed down youth. What were they thinking? "Underdog" was a product of the 60's,your Prime Fanbase is in their 40's and 50's,why would you refocus it to 5 year olds? It should have been done ala "Roger Rabbit",half animated half real. Instead we get characters like Riff Raff ( a WOLF!! ) dumbed into another dog."Underdog" can't have an "energy pill",as we're now so "enlightened" it would obviously be a steroid or drugs reference.The only good casting was Patrick Warburton as "Cad" because he actually sorta resembles the cartoon version. Otherwise,old school "Underdog" fans should avoid this like the plague it is. What next? A live action version of "The Go-Go Gophers" disguised as a re-visionist history lesson? ( My advanced apologies if Disney jumps on this! )
And now for another point of view: I didn't like it. I didn't finish it in fact. I know that "Unforgiven" is ranked by some as one of the greatest Westerns ever made. I know that it stars and was directed by Clint Eastwood, one of the icons of American cinema. I know that it won a bunch of Oscars. Still, I didn't like it. I don't like Westerns, and that's clearly a matter of taste, but I also don't admire Eastwood's acting. He is not and never has been a leading man. He is no Burt Lancaster, no Paul Newman, no John Wayne. In this film alone he is dwarfed by Richard Harris and Gene Hackman; they are both actors. No, Eastwood is a tall guy with a reedy voice who usually plays tough guys. Here he plays a retired tough guy. When I see him on screen, I see a man laboring at his acting. Then there's the anti-Western Western plot. It is too obviously intended to inject contemporary values -- a respect for the role of women, blacks, native Americans, and single parents; a disrespect for violence and drinking; the wholesomeness that comes with marriage, including interracial marriage, and small adorable children -- into a century in which those values weren't necessarily accepted, at least in these ways. By promoting those values, the movie comes across as mannered, if not preachy. Then there are the hoary movie stereotypes -- prostitutes with hearts of gold, the kid who can't shoot straight, the city slicker new to the wild West, the sage brush shimmering on a summer afternoon with a musical accompaniment in major chords. Finally there is the pacing of Eastwood's direction. I gave up after an hour. Eastwood was still riding north, chatting with Morgan Freeman and the kid who couldn't shoot straight, sixty minutes after the plot driven by the slashing of a prostitute was set in motion. It was way too slow. Somebody had to find these elements uncompelling. I am afraid it was me.
Unforgiven is Clint Eastwoods last tribute to the once great west. But whilst i thought this was going to be good and raise the bar for future westerns to come i was sadly mistaken. Unforgiven, though simple in plot it falls flat on characters and emotions and i would certainly say that Unforgiven is Eastwoods worst film to date. Eastwoods himself seems too old to play the part of acting and directing which also adds a downfall to the overall look of the film.<br /><br />All the characters seem rushed and ragged around the edges especially Eastwoods character. The acting doesn't seem to flow and contribute to what the characters are feeling. The direction is poorly misled by quirky shots. So overall Unforgiven is not Eastwoods best and by far one of the worst westerns around.
This movie was an all around uninspiring film. It was a non-moving story that definitely does not get you thinking anything other then where is all the strong moving material the other critics say about the film The 3 main actors are good, and there is a few laughs but once again it becomes another movie that you keep watching in hopes of it getting better and it just doesn't. I watched this movie last night and wished that we hadn't wasted our precious time (while baby is sleeping) watching this film. <br /><br />I plan not to recommend this to my family and friends, as well as obviously anyone looking to rent it. I was pretty much non-impressed with everything about this film.
I started watching this because I was looking for a nice 'background' comedy for my Sunday morning. Then I noticed that this was going to be a road-movie and I decided to actually watch this.<br /><br />First 15 minutes were awful, but I wanted to give this a chance, because I never judge a movie without watching it throughly. Then things started to get little better. This seemed like a nice road-movie about friendship.. But then the movie started to get horrible predictable cliché-twists and when the movie was over it left you feeling like you had wasted your time. Did this have anything to say? Why did they even make a movie like this? And I wasn't expecting a modern Citizen Kane, but still, I have several ideas how this movie could have been improved.<br /><br />So take my piece of advice; leave this alone and go watch a real road-movie. There are many of those. I won't make the directors of those movies seem bad by putting their names on this review.<br /><br />1/10
Now that's it's 2008, who really has a care in the world about a guy like DB Sweeney, even back then he wasn't a big deal.<br /><br />Two Tickets to Paradise is an outlined story that's well and true where three friends hit the road under each of their personal circumstances. Again, a proved plot. The problem with this film, other than it's 'so bad it's compelling' title, is the script.<br /><br />Cliché after cliché three guys do the same things you've seen in every other road movie... and blow up vanna white's house.<br /><br />John C. McGinley's acting job is superb, especially compared to that of the late DB Sweeney's. (His career is dead, hence the late. though i hear he's moving to TV, good for him). Also, John C likely has the least awful character in the film.<br /><br />The score is so generic it actually feels like you're watching a third rate film from 1993, or Jeff Anderson's movie Now You Know (also set me back a few years, but at least that was more entertaining.) I mean, yah, i guess i enjoyed parts of it. But, the nerdy guy is annoying, DB tries to be this cool failed guitar player (with some rough influences, like some of the worst of classic rock) who has some strange relationship with a stripper, and John C is a gambler who's wife and kid leave him after the death of his father as well as a visit from one of his bookie's henchmen.<br /><br />I keep thinking up ways to make this movie better. But i think burning the script would have been a healthy start.<br /><br />But, as i've hinted this whole time, it's not the worst movie ever. And any chance i have to see McGinley in a starring role, i'll take it. Hopefully he starts getting some better projects.
I love the Jurassic Park movies, they are three of my all time favorite movies.<br /><br />And I hate this game, if there was one game I wish I never own for the Super Nintendo was this one.<br /><br />How can a game based on a classic movie be just too awful? And to make it worst, I was scare of this game when I was a kid.<br /><br />How dumb was that but then again I was a kid when this game was first out.<br /><br />The game play in this game is just odd. One minute it's a action game and then it's a shooter. What in the world is wrong with making up your mind when making a video game.<br /><br />The Sound in the game is just terrible to listen.<br /><br />The music is just too sick to listen to.<br /><br />The Controllers in the game don't work most of the time.<br /><br />Jurassic Park the game is just a waste of time and money and won't be a classic.<br /><br />Avoid at all cost
Back in 1993 Sega released a dull, lackluster video game of one of the biggest films of all time. Quickly realizing their mistake they hashed out a different version of the game, claiming it would be bigger, tougher and better.<br /><br />Neither were. Both were slow, boring games.<br /><br />You can choose to be either Dr. Alan Grant or...a Raptor. Both have their problems. Why would Dr. Grant go around killing all those army guys (just what are they doing in the game)? And why a Raptor be killing other Raptors? Weird.<br /><br />Obviously not learning from their first mistake Sega really dropped the ball on the original release and the so-called Rampage Edition. One of the slowest, sluggish and dullest platformers I have ever played.
I saw the trailers of this movie and found the cinematography and what was presented interesting. I saw the IMDb rating and 6.8 confirmed it to be an above average movie. Thus went to see it.<br /><br />The story is about Mandy Lane (Amber Heard) – a beautiful girl in high school who is a subject of male sexual desire. Mandy's friend Emmet's (Michael Welch) provocation to another fellow student to show his love for Mandy, leaves the fellow student drunk and jump down to death. Nine months pass and Mandy is invited for a summer weekend to a secluded ranch by her teenager friends – three girls and three boys go there! There is a security guard Garth (Anson Mount) who works at the ranch. During the first night itself the killings take place – one by one the members of the group are killed. Who is behind the killings? I wont tell here to spoil sports… Did I like the movie? NO. After usual interesting opening – the movie takes a downward turn with every unfolding of event. By half-time when the killer is revealed, one looses all interest in the remaining proceedings. There is a last twist in the tale to shock viewers, but rather it made me shake the head in dis-belief and laugh! All this for suspense? Huh…! Amber Heard acts and plays her role well as a shy and conscious girl – who is aware of her beauty and men's desire for her. The remaining cast are usual – nothing to say about. There are so many movies made of teenager boys and girls going to a secluded place and slowly someone killing them one by one – that it does not interest me anymore.<br /><br />Director Jonathan Levine tries hard to make the movie interesting by using contemporary chat talks of teenagers, loaded with sexual overtones, but does not allow the movie to rise above the mundane.<br /><br />The only and the most appealing saving grace of the movie is its cinematography by Darren Genet – who captures beautiful picture perfect images! (Stars 3 out of 10)
I finished watching Mandy Lane about an hour ago, and felt the urge to come straight home and get up here to warn anyone that's about to spend money on the DVD - DON'T.<br /><br />The supporting characters are shallow, the failure of acting is higher than that of Matthew McConaughey movies, and up until the end twist, the plot is everything but obvious. In nine out of ten, you can see the next scene coming 5 minutes before it starts. The whole movie is more or less without motive or message, and the half-way revealing of "the murderer" just plain out kills what little interest you might have left at that point. What could have saved this shallow, tedious movie is some decent splatter, or at least gore worthy of the genre "Slasher" - It fails there as well.<br /><br />If you need a background movie to a party that you can jump in and out of without missing anything, I recommend buying All The Boys Love Mandy Lane.<br /><br />If you're looking to sit down and actually concentrate your eyes on the screen for more than 15 seconds, I don't.
How could this get a 6.0 rating? Are we as horror fans so used to horror films being so utterly bad these days, that when one comes along that has some, and i repeat 'only some', redeeming quality's, we get much too excited and give a rating that is just a wee bit too high? The director has a certain visual flair. No doubt about that. But in between some decent shots he forgot a good story, mood or scares. It had a very slow first act, lazy killing scene's, annoying and flat characters and a very stupid and very unbelievable twist. And what's with the portrayal of American teenagers in so many of these kinds of films? Do they always have to be this stupid, irritating and so godd#mn superficial. I don't remember teens being like this when i grew up here in Holland. All things considered, in can't give this film anything more that a 4 out of 10 rating.
All the boys seem to be sexually aroused by Mandy Lane. All the girls seem to be jealous of Mandy Lane. But, nothing seems to become of it, and this viewer wonders why? Mandy is beautiful and a magnet to every boy she meets, but we never get to know Mandy or any of the characters in the film. Mandy accepts an invitation, from her student friends, to go to a secluded ranch. Three boys and three girls drink and drug. In the film, the teenagers drink booze like its water, and take drugs to experience a psychedelic trip. And, there is absolutely no sex. In the meantime, the teenagers disappear one by one. But, the others are all drunk and high. Nobody, including those watching the film, cares or is at all concerned. Nobody, including the audience, seems to give a damn. Emmet, a fellow student, is the instigator of the entire event. There is a security guard, Garth (dashingly and handsomely played by Anson Mount), who guards and protects the ranch. Midway through the film, the killer is revealed, the tension is suddenly released like air let out of a balloon. The events are completely predictable, and the film just completely fizzles out. Mandy meets her match, but we don't ever know why--and, at the end of the film, there is still no sex. Does Mandy hypnotize the boys, or does she simply bore all of the boys and girls to their deaths? This absolutely-confused viewer can only conclude that Mandy wishes to get rid of the female and male competition--by killing off the manipulative girls and the nasty boys.<br /><br />Is Mandy worth all of the attention? The director (Jonathan Levine) seems to think so, but this viewer does not. The able cinematographer (Darren Genet) provides some stunning images but, in fact, his focus seems to be on Garth, who is quite the stud. Not all of the boys love Mandy, or do they? If you want to be bored enough to find out how this film winds up, my advice is to sleep midway through film, until you see the temptress Mandy and Garth's bulging crotch. But, don't wait for anything to happen. Yep, you guessed it. Mandy remains a virgin, and there's still no sex. I rank this film a 3 out of 10, but not because of Mandy. Why? Because all of the girls love Garth, and all voyeuristic eyes seem to be on Garth in a compromising position. But unfortunately, girls and boys, this film never seems to get beyond a disappointing and incomplete sexual fantasy. Mandy goes to a secluded ranch, and nothing sexual ever happens. The audience is led to horror on a ranch--and cannot help, but wonder why?
I was only cautiously enthusiast when renting "All the boys love Mandy Lane", as I instantly remembered hearing & reading a wide variety of opinions – both positive and negative – in the short period of time between its brief cinematic release and the distribution towards videostore shelves. Supposedly this was the most ingenious and refreshing new horror film in years, with non-stereotypical teen characters and unpredictable plot twists for a change. Okay, the basic concept may perhaps sound reasonably innovative but inevitably the screenplay quickly reverts to the same old and irritating slasher clichés, and once passed that point even the nifty stylistic trademarks can't save the film from dreadful mediocrity. The opening sequences are indeed terrific and literally bath in a moodily melancholic ambiance, which actually makes it all the more painful to witness the film sink towards the "ordinary" level of rudimentary slasher flick. After the sublime intro, showcasing a drunk macho kid miscalculate his jump off a rooftop in order to impress the titular beauty, "All the Boys Love Mandy Lane" turns out to be just another textbook and uninspired horror movie about a bunch of idiotic kids getting stoned and horny on a secluded ranch before getting killed off by a not-so-unidentified maniac. The film's entire pretentious set-up collapses faster than a ramshackle house of cards: we never get a proper explanation why Mandy herself behaves so frigid and haughty towards all her admirers (because she grew up an orphan, perhaps? Oh, boo-hoo), the boys soon enough illustrate they'd settle for sex with any random bimbo and not exclusively with the "divine" Mandy and the final twist – albeit undeniably offbeat – is just plain senseless. The middle section of is rather boring and doesn't even offer any genuinely horrific excitement (shotgun killings? Please!) or authentic rancid sleaze. My generous rating 4 out of 10 entirely goes to the grainy and unsettling 70's filming style (with faded colors, bizarre but beautiful photographic images…) and the surprisingly marvelous soundtrack. Director Jonathan Levine opted for the classic Bobby Vinton song "Sealed with a Kiss" to play during the trailer and end-credits, whereas I initially was convinced the film would inevitably feature Barry Manilow's cheesy love-song "Mandy".
I read about this film on-line and after seeing the generally positive reviews it has received, and viewing the trailer, I decided to check it out for myself. What a disappointment! It starts out well enough. the opening scene was actually pretty tense, but from there it's all downhill. I can see that the filmmakers were trying to do something different with this movie, but by doing so, they took all the enjoyment out of watching it. Those choices combined with the "C.S.I" editing, use of music and montage, lack of suspense, scares, or humor really drag this film down. There's too much foreshadowing and to many "subtle" clues, so when the first twist arrives early on, you already know how the movie is going to end. I gave the movie three stars because I think the cast did a good job, other than that I can't recommend this movie.
Looking at these reviews and seeing all these high ratings leave me to believe that large amounts of red corn syrup will please just about any brain dead idiot. This movie is beyond useless. All the cliché's of a slasher film without any substance. I am sure I could go in to details about the movie but why bother when you can sum it up? Obviously everyone wants Mandy Lane and she apparently wants none of the guys. Throughout the movie you will see this.<br /><br />When she stops being friends to the typical boy trapped in friend-zone loser, he goes ballistic and when she goes on a road trip to the middle of no where (of course) he begins to hunt them one by one. Sounds decent so far right? But what made this movie suck beyond belief is when you find out that not only is her loser friend the killer but she is as well.. The plan was beyond ridiculous. Lets together kill all our friends and then kill each other. They give no reason why they wanted to do this and given Mandy Lane's "Goody Too Shoes" demeanor it makes you scratch your head even more as to what is actually motivating these characters to do anything they are doing. It's sad.. this movie had lots of potential but the director or writer apparently can't relate to the audience in anyway.
Think of this film as fan service, a wet dream for the slasher genre admirer. We start off with a gory prologue which is pretty much unrelated to the rest of the film. Flash forward nine months and the real meat of the plot begins: The virginal Mandy Lane is coveted by every jock and nerd in her school, and gets invited to spend a weekend at a ranch by three guys who think they can get lucky, and two bimbos obsessed with their weight and boob size. So.. you have a bunch of young students in a house in the middle of nowhere on a dark night, who want to do nothing but have sex, do drugs and drink booze. The only other company is a hunky ranch-hand who may or may not be suffering from Gulf War Syndrome. Hmm... potential future suspect maybe?<br /><br />So as you're probably ascertained by now, all the house-guests end up being slaughtered in a variety of bloody ways, and for a change the black man ISN'T the first to die. There are some conventions that still hold up though, like the scantily clad babe being chased by a car in a field. Or the lights going out mysteriously in the evening as our 'heroes' unwisely separate to tackle the problem. Even down to the so-called shocking twist at the end, the movie is like an old 80's horror updated for the noughties, and on this score it succeeds.<br /><br />Unfortunately, it also inherits a lot of the problems of the films of that era too, namely the paper-thin characters and the predictability of the whole enterprise. People get cut up, shot, bludgeoned etc but because of their innate hatefulness to the audience and stupidity in getting themselves in these situations, it's hard to care as the bodies stack up. Someone gets murdered, one of their friends goes out to look for them alone, BANG they're brown bread. Rinse, then repeat. Maybe one day we'll get a screenplay with plausible, intelligent, likable characters who make rational decisions but still end up being outwitted by a genius killer. Until then, we have to tolerate teenagers with the I.Q of pond-life being picked off by a deranged hoodie. Oh well.. 4/10
I am a German student so sorry for eventually mistakes (I'm working on it ;) )<br /><br />The stylistic very interesting converted and with effective sound effects accentuated platitudinous action of the drama deflect in no way from the horrible bad actors (insincere and unnatural moves and expressions of feelings) and makes so the relatively weird and senseless story less better. Just the typical slasher-genre with in this case very odd action. Many by-plays destroy partly the main story and let the viewers up to the end into the dark, create weirdness and let surmise the senses of actions and the point mere hazily. For sure its an hit for slasher-fans but not for me. But although the interesting style of cinematography and adeptly use of light is turned out well.<br /><br />So not the best one...
With my two stars I will probably make it to the head of the IMDb „hated it"-list for this apparently tremendously popular TV series.<br /><br />Not least because of the enthusiastic comments on this website, I decided to purchase a DVD edition of the series. Because I usually find British humour suits me just fine. I gave up in the middle of the second instalment – and according to other comments the „funniest" bits were already through.<br /><br />So now I know, according to another comment, that I definitely lack a sense of humour. But then I had to laugh like crazy while watching (and re-watching) Fawlty Towers to which Black Books is – albeit faintly – thematically related. Why the different reactions? It might be a mere Generation Thing, and yet the differences can be pointed out.<br /><br />Both Fawlty Towers and Black Books are set in businesses which are meant to sustain their owners financially. Both businesses are not successful but seem – by a miracle – to survive. Fawlty Towers is funny because the protagonists have to deal with situations they cannot cope with. The funniness lies in the fact that they make a serious effort to succeed and while laughing one also feels sorry for them. Black Books has no situations, it's just there and the owner passes his time feeling sorry for himself. If a situation threatens to arise, it is quickly shooed away. It is remarkable how fast and how often a subject is dropped and the protagonists turn to something entirely different to produce an additional joke. Telling jokes – and not very good ones - seems to be all Black Books is about. Why a bookstore? A hardware store would have done the job just as well. <br /><br />No, stop, wait. It's a bookshop because below the veneer of rudeness, vulgarity and arrogance the protagonists are supposed to be delicate and CULTURED. They are not some lowbrow gorillas but bumbling semi-intellectual losers. Hey, they are like you and me. The manner in which the series makes that claim is the only way I can explain its success. There is nothing remarkable in the protagonist's actions, what's special about them is their economically unrealistic living conditions many viewers maybe envy them for. That protagonists that narcissistic and vapid convey a sense of belonging and companionship seems to be a trademark of the time the First World is presently living in.<br /><br />Recently I watched Tittybangbang, also a fairly new British TV comedy show. I found it uproariously funny. It is often quite tasteless or xenophobic – but always with a purpose and hitting the bull's eye in its social criticism. The humour is mainly created by situations or by characters with a purpose. The low ratings in IMDb might indicate that this brand of humour is not in keeping with the times, but I am glad it's still alive and kicking and hope it will continue to do so.
It's dreadful rubbish. I liked 'How Do You Want Me', 'Father Ted', 'Green Wing' and Bill Bailey's standup act but I file this with 'Hippies' and 'Planets Of The Apes' (the re-imagining) under 'Great Pedigree, went badly wrong'. My guess is that it appeals to the same people who like 'Withnail and I'. It's overwritten but to little end, a luvvie-ish air pervades it and Bernard Black is simply a less camp Withnail. And I thought it was self-indulgent even *before* Dylan Moran became the writer. But the set up raidiates such comic potential that for the first 2 episiodes I didn't even notice that it wasn't in the slightest bit chortle-worthy.<br /><br />The things they are saying/doing *should* be funny but somehow they don't manage to register as more than mildly amusing or "I can see how someone writing this down might have thought that this would be funny". What I am trying to say is that the situations/remarks are mildly humorous and yet too mundane/gentle/self-consciously surreal to be worth creating for and depicting in a sitcom. <br /><br />Life is too short. Avoid.
From the point of budget 2.5m CAD isn't very much when you look at the animatronics, puppetry in this film, that alone being the reason for the 9 week shoot. I was really keen to see this film and had hoped to catch it when it came out, instead got it on DVD recently. My main problem is it's just not funny at all, it's better than Tenacious D which hasn't got a funny bone in it's body. But this was a truly disappointing film.<br /><br />Trevor Matthews is a very strong physically performer, but his acting sucks! Rachel Skarsten gives what is possibly one of the most irritating and none funny performances I have ever seen. The only really BIG star in this is David Scott who's artwork for the monsters is fab! His special effects work is the main reason this film is worth watching, loved the Cyclops and Troll and and the Prof Monster was straight out of the Henson library.<br /><br />If you watch this it won't be the biggest waste of time, but if you are looking to see this for a great Horror Comedy Romp... Don't bother.
I've seen many horror, splatter, monster movies in my life. And of course also a lot of monster movies from the 50's and 60's. When I first stumbled over this one I thought this is from the 60's until I recognized it's from 2007.<br /><br />In fact the character of Jack Brook is interesting and the acting all in all is for a splatter movie quite good, but.... I expected a splatter movie and not a drama story about a aggressive plummer. The movie runs 80 Mminutes and I think the first kill is after 65 minutes. Although it takes hours to explain the story the reason where are the monsters come from takes at least 3 minutes... the we have another 20 minutes boring dialogue and finally a, in my opinion, not that well managed splatter sequence. Although we have Robert Englund starring here I only recommend this one to real hardcore horror fans.
Jack Brooks (Trevor Matthews) is a college student with some severe anger issues. His family was brutally murdered when he was a child by a monster, and now he takes out his anger on everything and everyone.<br /><br />So when his professor (Robert Englund) begins to show signs of monsterism, he learns he has to control his rage and use it for good instead of evil, and fight the creatures that have been haunting his nightmares ever since that fateful night.<br /><br />Truly earns its B-rated rating, but what was cool about it was that it didn't focus on crappy B-rated CGI graphics. In fact, 0% of the film was CGI. The monsters were actually decently put together, and although the storyline was lacking, it was somewhat watchable...if for only one time.
it's embarrassing I had like 3 minutes on my way to a job to stop at the video store and it was 2 for 1 night and I was really intrigued by the half nekkid pic of the 'star'. <br /><br />I guess this film shows what the new york film school and sir daddy's fortune - judging by the bio of this clown in the lead - can do for you and you and you cause that's about what we have here and in addition a photoshopped pic of the lead "actor" with someone else's body in a still image that doesn't happen anywhere in the movie. it's weird cause in so many ways it had money thrown at it obviously low budget money buckets but from the outset when all the extras are laughing in their scene of terror it doesn't bode well would have maybe had some charm if it had been done for 2 cents! in short order I skipped scenes and fast forwarded to see the image on the box that was all I really cared about. strange, why don't I just rent a porno or something? but wow there is bad acting that's funny I guess and bad acting that's just bad. robert englund is pretty pathetic in this along with everyone else. it does make you appreciate the more not so straight to video horror that's out there. . . blah most of which I wouldn't bother with. shoulda watched uh hellraiser 3 if I wanted to see an 8 pack! I would imagine horny old gay guys with 2 minutes in the video store are going to be the principle renters of this and they ought to start a class action suit!
If there's one thing I've learnt from watching George Romero's Creepshow, it's that if you stumble upon an mysterious old crate that someone has obviously gone to a lot of effort to hide, just leave well alone: there's probably something nasty inside.<br /><br />Obviously, Professor Gordon Crowley, Robert Englund's character in 'Jack Brooks, Monster Slayer' isn't a Romero fan, 'cos he busts open the old wooden box he finds buried in his yard, only to discover—surprise, surprise—an ancient demon that possesses his body (initially causing him to eat and vomit rather a lot).<br /><br />When the demon eventually erupts from Crowley's body during chemistry class and begins to transform the students into hellish, flesh-tearing beasts, it's up to plumber Jack Brooks (Trevor Matthews) to try and stop the foul creatures, armed only with a length of pipe and fuelled by a lifelong hatred of all things monstrous!.<br /><br />The DVD packaging for Jon Knautz's low-budget monster flick promises one hell of a fun ride, offering cheesy thrills and spills of the kind one might expect from your average 80s creature feature (toothy critters, rubber monster suits, gruesome gore, and absolutely no CGI!)—and for the last 15 minutes, that's exactly what viewers get: non-stop splattery effects; a silly, tentacled Jabba-style demon thingy; and mucho macho monster mashing!<br /><br />It's a shame, then, that the rest of the film's running time—a massive 70 minutes or so—is mostly spent following Jack as he goes about his boring, everyday business: plumbing, visiting his shrink, going to chemistry class, and upsetting his girlfriend. If you think you might enjoy a film that focuses primarily on coping with childhood trauma and anger management, buying spare boiler valves from a hardware shop, and the chemical properties of Sodium, then this is the film for you; but if it's a massive dose of monster mayhem you're after, then I'd advise looking elsewhere!
Though a fan of shock and gore, I found this movie disappointing to say the very least. The effects and puppet work were impressive, yes, and the humor was well-timed, but... something was missing. See, the first act of the film is spent establishing nuances of Jack Brooks' character, despite the fact that everything we need to know about his aggression is delivered within minutes of the first title cards. As for the narration and many of the flashbacks: needless.<br /><br />The pacing during the second act was tedious. Most of it is focused on Freddy Krueger eating, then vomiting, then eating some more, then flailing his arms and saying something snappy or rude. All the while, the schlock is punctuated with brief scenes of Jack discussing his rage problems with a therapist. (Definitely the entertaining scenes in the film -- excellent dialog worth plenty of laughs.) Then, without warning, Jack decides to kill a few monsters. And then it's over.<br /><br />All in all, as a throwback to 1980s horror movies, Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer has loads of potential but is purposeless and plods on without conflict or adequate resolution.<br /><br />Hopefully, these issues will be addressed before Jack Brooks VII: Jack Goes to Hell or Jack vs. Ash go into production.
Jack Brooks' quirks are, at first, somewhat charming and lend to the deliberately campy feel of the beginning of this movie.<br /><br />I found myself getting angrier and angrier as I was duped into seeing this one through to the end, in hopes that the payoff would be worth the super-tedious wait.<br /><br />The climax can't begin to make up for all the setup time.<br /><br />Normally one might expect shallow characters from this genre. But the fact that the wait-time-before-action index is so high, should mean that the meantime would be devoted to some interesting character development.<br /><br />Not so.<br /><br />While not without its initial charms, this movie ultimately infuriates, and disappoints.<br /><br />Wish I could get all that setup time back, to reinvest it into something that pays off.
I fail to understand why you would give this film anything over 4... Fair enough it does take me back to the 80s and to the 'good old days of horror comedy' but that genre has not got any better since then - it is still so 'LAME Low budget - low tech - bad acting - bad story line - not at all scary and not funny enough... in fact there is not much good I could say about it. The so called monsters are just hideously bad! I mean we have gone back in time to when they used to make the monsters out of plasticine and shoot the scenes fame by frame... I really fail to understand why someone would invest any money in order to make this script to a film - but I guess it might have been almost OK if it had been a bigger budget film.<br /><br />Recommendation would be - please do not make the mistake of wasting your time on this unless if you wish to get tips for a bad Halloween make up! Personally I enjoy independent films and anything outside the box but this just did not do it for me in the least.
After viewing "Still Life", a short film directed by Jon Knautz, I was genuinely excited for his feature film debut, "Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer". "Still Life" had perfectly captured the essence and feel of an episode of "The Twilight Zone" and I was eager to see what Knautz could do when taking on the horror-comedy genre. The campy nature of the name and promotional materials suggested something along the lines of "Evil Dead" or "Army of Darkness"; a fun, gory, 80's style horror flick with lots of monsters. While that was what Knautz was going for, he utterly fails at capturing any of the fun or entertainment value these movies had.<br /><br />The problem with "Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer" is that it completely lacks an understanding of what made these horror-comedies, that it tries to evoke, so great in the first place. Two-thirds of the running time is primarily devoted to the film's hero, Jack Brooks, a plumber and college student, as he goes to class and attempts to deal with his uncontrollable bursts of anger. There's nary a monster in sight for the greater part of the film, barely even a drop of blood or the slightest attempt at anything horror-related. Even if "Evil Dead" or "Dead Alive" had subsequent amounts of the gore cut out, they'd still be entertaining. "Jack Brooks" isn't. It's plain boring, which is the worst thing a film of this nature can be. Jack Brooks himself is not all that interesting, at least not enough to warrant the amount of screen time he's given. All one needs to know about him is revealed in the films first ten minutes and from that point on, whenever he's not beating the pulp out of a monster (and he rarely does), he's not worth watching. The movie goes nowhere, following him around on psychiatric sessions and scuffles with classmates.<br /><br />Eventually things do pick up. Jack Brooks battles a few monsters, some heads are crushed, a few humans are slaughtered, and then it's over. Just like that. All within the span of about fifteen minutes. It is a good fifteen minutes. The monsters are all fairly inventive (and done entirely in camera) and there's some great gore gags (the best being a zombies head crushed in), but after sitting through seventy-five minutes of pure tedium, fifteen minutes just isn't going to cut it.<br /><br />That's really all there is to it. I could ramble on about the acting which is fairly well done (especially horror icon Robert Englund in a non-traditional role) and how the creature prosthetics are a nice throwback to the days when films didn't use CGI, but it really doesn't matter. "Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer" is utterly boring and while Jon Knautz obviously does have the talent to create a good film (once again, the last fifteen minutes are killer and "Still Life" was amazing – check it out), "Jack Brooks" completely misses the mark. It has its successes (acting, make-up), but those don't change the fact that it's not very entertaining at all. The screening I caught this at had the director and cast in attendance. One piece of information I picked up was that a sequel was in development and that this time, it would focus more on fighting monsters as opposed to "the creation of a hero". My advice: skip this one and wait for the sequel.
I don't know why this has gotten any decent reviews as it could be the weakest horror comedy I've ever seen. Englund is just in it for a cameo and his performance is as unnecessary as most of the lame attempts at jokes (and scares). The direction is terrible and the acting is worse. It seems like every year producers are trying to make another Evil Dead but these weak unoriginal attempts are just stepping on the memory of a true horror classic.<br /><br />Whether its filmmakers saying,"this isn't a remake but its an 80s throwback (which is just as unoriginal in my opinion - Hatchet) or people trying to plug this with other horror classics, Its still misleading and wont make up for the lack of scares, horror, comedy, or even a decent movie for that matter.<br /><br />AVOID AT ALL COSTS!!!
I was just watching a Forensic Files marathon on Court TV. The episode was identical to the plot of this movie, right down to the incest secret and the affair-with-the-sister subplot. I don't recall any Based on a True Story disclaimer, but the case does have MOW written all over it. Apparently it chronicles the real homicide of Ruby Morris by her husband Earl, sentenced to 25 years to life for her murder. Just goes to show you, truth can be stranger than fiction, because I thought the Lifetime plot was contrived and a more than "a stretch" insofar as believability goes. I'm with the other posters who said the acting was bad. I didn't notice it with all of the players, though. It was really the lead character, the daughter, whose performance was bad.
This is a terrible film. Angie Dickenson is a class act and always does well, but she does not get many roles any more and she must have needed some money to do this film. By the way, she is on screen less than 10 minutes. Oooh, wait, there is one redeeming feature in this film: Meg Foster has a small part in this film. Now, Meg has been on the screen for 35 years and is not particularly great but she has the scariest eyes of any actress I have ever seen. By name, you probably don't know her, but one look at her eyes and you will recognize her. To summarize: the acting is horrid, the story bad, and even the filmography is dreadful. A screen going to black every time the director wants to change scenes is pretty moronic. Watch any thing else but this, even Mr Ed reruns!
This was intolerable. (SPOILER #1) Protagonists avoid the pointless disclosure of agonizing truths to their loved ones, lest they surrender said status and assume the roles of Antagonists. (SPOILER #2) The writers would have us believe that the exposure of multiple transgressions, by the transgressor, presents a threat to, and provokes a retaliatory response by, the primary victim of the transgressions. (SPOILER #3) Until the final 15 minutes, I was anticipating a score of 6 to 8 out of 10; instead, it was kind of like discovering that Lieutenant Columbo's dog is the REAL murderer. The story just wasn't credible, and I don't think the world's best director could have saved it without massive editing.
I know this is a made for TV movie, and the acting in made for TV movies is usually sub-par, but it's absolutely horrendous in this film. Sometimes acting gets so bad it's laughable, but in this case, it's so bad it's sickening.
I'm watching this film as I write this. It's about 45 minutes into the film and there's been so much back and forth and empty drama, I don't quite see where it's going. No facts, just enough to leave you making assumptions. The acting of main daughter is painful. How did this ever get made??? Not the best of Lifetime films.
Come on? FANTASTIC DRAMA ON SCREEN? Are you joking folks? I wouldn't put horrible Molly Gross to play even in school play! Where did these people learn acting? Borrowing some papers from their neighbors actor? Terrible plot, awful acting. Heh ... why do you take us for an imbeciles? What can I say more. I understand this is an TV production and the acting is not supposed to be the one from Citizen Kane. But nevertheless they should try it harder in order to earn their money. And apart from that what can be said IN 10 LINES for a simple movie like this? U wanna article in the morning paper? To say what? Worse film in the decade? OK, you want it - you got it!
I'm very disappointed. First of all, the German synchronization is bad. Maybe in the original version (with subtitles) it would have been better, but the whole movie looks like if the director saw Luna Papa and Black Cat White Cat and tried to produce something in this style, too. But failed in every aspect. It's an incongruent mixture of a weird unbelievable story and very childish gags. No atmosphere, no life. Extremely primitive sex-humor. I voted 2, because 1 is the worst, and the other point for 'Sybilla', she's really cute. Sorry - I like 'eastern' movies, but this one is really superfluous.
In order for a thriller to elicit fear, suspense or any emotion the story must be believable. There is nothing believable or realistic about this film. The protagonists have several opportunities to escape or turn the tables but manage to screw it up every time. The antagonists who supposedly plan this out and customized their shuttle specifically to trap people sure left a lot of improvisational weapons laying around. There is actually one scene where the "smart" girl has a gun to the head of the main bad guy and decides to scold him instead of pull the trigger. This was a thoroughly predictably, brainless "thriller". Every character was one dimensional. The "victims" were the usual gutless, brainless sheep that deserved to be slaughtered. Is there anyone on this planet capable of writing an intelligent thriller?
Don't pick this one. ****Spoiler Alert***** The plot of this aggravatingly bad movie is four friends are talked into taking the shuttle from the airport by a very zealous driver. On the shuttle with them is a rather milquetoast looking business type. <br /><br />Shortly into their trip the driver of the shuttle takes an off-ramp and some lunatic driver tries to run them off the road. The end result is they get a flat tire. The driver gets one of the people on the shuttle to help change the tire and the jack slips and the guys fingers are crushed between the tire and the shuttle. It's at this point that the driver reveals himself to be a kidnapper and he has taken all the people hostage. <br /><br />Now the movie gets extremely slow and tedious, as the characters do one lame thing after another. One of the men is killed trying to escape -- even that lacks any suspense. Finally it is revealed that the milquetoast business guy is in cahoots with the driver when milquetoast guy kills the other male friend by slitting his throat. <br /><br />There are a couple of attempts to escape by the women. Milquetoast is beaten over the head with a tire iron -- yet he survives. <br /><br />The driver is also beaten and somehow survived a head on collision with a fence at high speed while kneeling next to the steering wheel. Somehow he didn't go through the window or even get seriously injured with a collision with windshield. Yet the woman driving the shuttle is knocked unconscious -- yet she had a steering wheel to protect her and he had nothing between him and the windshield.<br /><br />He is eventually able to subdue the women and get them to an underground garage that is a front for human trafficking. One of the women is killed. The other one stabs the driver in the leg with a good sized piece of broken mirror and shoots/grazes him in the head, yet he is able (in what should be a severely weakened state -- severe blood loss, two head injuries and a large leg gash) to drag her out of the shuttle, drag her to a large crate, throw her in and get it locked, all the while with her fiercely fighting him.<br /><br />Now some people admire the message of the movie about human trafficking and how it is going on today. This is a serious problem. But, making an extremely boring movie about the topic does not entitle it to a higher rating.
I found 'Shuttle' an incredibly frustrating film to watch. It starts quite well and moves along briskly until the first 'injury' (which is a doozy). After that it becomes very lazy and underwritten as a story. It was the case of the plot driving the characters and not the characters driving the plot. If you hate film where you can't understand why characters do what they do, you will loathe 'Shuttle'. Particularly, the last act is odd and seems to occur in a world without common sense. Also at the end one of the characters confessed a past misdemeanor to her friend, rather than generating sympathy from the audience, most people started to giggle. This was probably because the 'heroines' of the story was a complete idiots. Finally there is an ending which just seems tacked on to be 'shocking' and comes from the horror cop-out school of 'people are bad, audience, so just accept it without any explanation'.<br /><br />'Shuttle' is neither good or bad, but mediocre. And annoying.
Hi, today i looked this film because of the medium (5,6) IMDb rating. I thought it would worth viewing. Also the comments here were quiet good but after start watching this movie i quick realize that this movie isn't anyway near a 5,6 ! Its just boring. You can describe the movie with some words also its just the standard horror movie story with all the standard horror movie scenes. I don't know why people still like those films or why they vote such films better then a 1-3 in IMDb. Just some examples <br /><br />Bunch of people arriving from somewhere or going / driving to anywhere. They meet somehow on their journey strange people but hey maybe they are just nice so hang out with them. Then a very important scene for every horror movie "Oh my cell phone isn't working oh oh mine too .. is that strange but we don't need them so enjoy our ride ..." uhhhhhh our strange person is a strange psychopath better we all sit back and scream a while till he starts cutting parts from us or killing some of us. After a while the bunch of victims get a weapon or chance to escape ofcorse they never think about running away or even kill the psychopath if they got the chance they just talk about what to do until the psychopath got his weapon back with any of the handful of standard tricks they got in those films and all running back as usual ... screaming ... some more to kill ... oh and in the end it gets really exiting sometimes the bad guy wins sometimes some of the victim can escape wow great movies. ... OK if i never ever saw a movie of that kind i would say it is a movie which can be watched but if anyone ever saw any movie of its kind it should be just a boring waste of time because nearly everything in the movie you know before you even watched it because it every time runs like the standard horror movie shematic. .... mmm maybe there is a windows program out there? Horrormoviemaker 2.0 ? You can just pull some adjustment buttons and get the new Shuttle, Saw45674, Jeepers Creepers kind of movie.
OK this will contain spoilers. Now I have never seen such a large pile of poop since the laxative/feed mix up at the elephant enclosure in the zoo! It has more plot holes than moth eaten lace and as for the 'realistic' plot line. Well sexual slavery is a dreadful and very real world wide problem and this pile of bilge utilises this plague as a plot device to titillate and tease, shame on everyone involved for that piece of questionable judgement. But back to the film, if you were going to kidnap people from an airport, some of the most secure and camera happy places in the modern world by the way, then why plant a stoolie on the inside of the van who does bugger all until the plot needs a twist. Just wait until you are out of the airport, pull the gun, handcuff the passengers, drive calmly to the warehouse and kill the guys, job done. On the passengers side, on at least three occasions the good guys have the bad guys incapacitated and are armed, WASTE THEM! Once in a movie it can just be acceptable not to put a bullet in the bad guys skull, but COME ON three times! And after he's killed most of you. Also the guy is willing to put down the gun to stop a scarred cheek but kills a girl for a yeast infection that could be cleared up with $20 dollars worth of drugs. I could go on and on about the amount of holes in this but I won't waste any more of my time. Suffice to say that I have rarely been so insulted by such a dreadful piece of drivel and as for the real problem of sexual slavery, girls go voluntarily to new 'jobs' in distant lands and are abused, raped, and often killed by the gang master who meets them off the boat/plane and takes their passports and freedom. This s**t is an insult to anyone whose life has been affected by this! Do not waste your time!
"Shuttle" is an indie thriller about four young adults who get a ride late one night on a shuttle bus from the airport to find out that the driver is a sadistic psychopath.<br /><br />Although some of the sequences of scares and it's unconventionally interesting plot work, some aspects just don't. The bad dialogue and unlikeable characters gives a good reason to not care for them. But, often the suspense works and asks you the question of "What would you do?" and usually what you WOULD do isn't what these idiots on the shuttle do. <br /><br />If you're expecting a mindless, bloody horror film, you'll be mistaken. This is a film that causes you to use your mind, but, unfortunately, not until the end.<br /><br />Four out of ten.
PERHAPS SPOILER !! well, i ve seen it at the film festival in cologne and i have to say it s ridiculous ... sorry author and writer and ...whatever but it is the worst try making a good movie i ve ever seen ... if u ve got 5000 times the possibility to get away from your enemy and u don't do it .... its getting boring ... there are szenes in the movie witch gives u the impression that they are forgotten e.g. a szene in front of a security cam, they are asking for help and a somebody sees it and calles the police ... than there is a cut and .... NOTHING ??!!! ... the killer gets a shot in his head and 50 secs later he is behaving like nothing happened ... no its no zombie movie ... and finally the final ... the BIG END which we were promised .... hmmmm, lets say take a little guy who always wanted to give the world one of the best endings in history so badly that everything goes wrong .... im not going to vote "1" because the actress is beautiful ... ;)
Brainless film about two girls and some guys they meet in an airport getting on the wrong late night shuttle bus and ending up in a whole world of trouble. Great twists and turns are totally, and I do mean totally wasted, in a film with a plot so incredibly stupid as to defy description. What is going on in a general sense is okay, I mean the idea of a guy kidnapping unattended girls for nefarious purposes is a good one. The problem is that the details are so beyond belief that I would be shocked if you don't turn off the film in utter disbelief. Gee, a guy who is suppose to be taking you home doesn't go any of the ways you know, and you stay on the bus? It get worse from there, think of every bad choice and this film has the characters make it, even to the point where they could just walk away, but never do. Whats annoying is that some of the twists and turns might have worked if there was something intelligent before it, but there is almost no intelligence anywhere in this film. Okay, maybe there is, the end, the end is clever. The end is the sort of thing that should freak you out. it should be the "oh #$*@!!!!" moment and become a classic of horror cinema. Instead it just lies there among the stupid ruins of a stupid movie. One of the most brainless films of the year.
I had a hard time sitting through this. Every single twist and turn is predictable. You're sitting there just waiting for it ... waiting for it ... and yes, there it is! Just as you predicted at the very beginning of the movie. Or 10 minutes out. Et cetera. <br /><br />Smart writing? No. <br /><br />Torture porn? No, there's no nudity. Other reviews calling this torture porn are most likely written by people on heavy drugs. Unfortunately there's no torture and no nudity (yes, no nudity).<br /><br />There's no suspense at all in this "thriller". The only good part about this movie is the ending, but I'm not going to spoil that.<br /><br />I'm giving it a 2/10. A 1/10 would be a horrible B-movie. This movie had better acting.
The beginning was decent; the ending was alright.<br /><br />Sadly, this movie suffers from complete and utter shallowness of the characters, unrealistic confrontations/fight scenes, lack of anyone intelligent outside of the shuttle. This makes for an awful middle screenplay. <br /><br />Stuff to look for: overly obvious foreshadowing, fast-healing cuts, overly smoky fires, fun seatbelts, delayed reactions.<br /><br />I did give it a 4, not a 0, because the start of the movie had some nice elements of happiness and basic character development. The relationship between the main, dark-haired girl and her fiancée is touched upon briefly, and the placement of the blond friend's impact on that relationship is present, though awkwardly so. The business discovered at the end is becoming more mainstream and decently done, though, as another commenter pointed out, not unexpected. <br /><br />~viper~
I hate guns and have never murdered anyone, but when even half of the events that take place in 'Shuttle' happen to you or close ones and you find a gun, YOU SHOOT YOUR ATTACKER. THREE TIMES. FIVE TIMES. Whatever makes the pulse stop on them and increase on you. I think even God would say, "Good call." In a very 'Hostel'-type film, but more realistic – as this really could happen to anyone, well, if you're a pretty young woman, that is – 'Shuttle' was a decent film, though on the long side. A few good shocks (always call AAA even just to change a tire), basically just one surprise but for the most part, you could see things coming. And aside from the typical "tie him up" instead of the previously mentioned shooting him, the most annoying part was the revelation towards the closing from one best friend to the other. Getting past those, it's enjoyable for what it is. Basically, we have two unsuspecting females traveling alone from Mexico home (wow, that's original) and one lost her luggage preventing them from leaving the airport until late. And after an obvious foreshadowed sign-language scene, they enter a "too-good-to-be-true" half-price shuttle ride. Clichéd jocks, previously introduced, con their way on the shuttle, to join what appears to be Alan Ruck's stunt double from 'Speed.' From here, it's obvious what happens (I did mention it was a 'Hostel' knock off) but still, I didn't find too much horrible, yet nothing spectacular. Though, it would've served the audience better with roughly 15-20 minutes deleted, I would recommend if you have almost 2 hours to kill and are into sick horror.
This movie is stupid, made by stupid people. The plot I suppose works well enough for a Horror movie, but the actions these characters take is insanely STUPID! Like, incredibly non-sensical stupid to the Nth degree! Basically the whole movie consists of these 4 idiots being captured, repeatedly, despite having many, many easy ways and opportunities to overcome their captor. It does not make one lick of sense and is not entertaining whatsoever. Stabbing yourself in the eye is more is more rational, and probably more fun than watching this.<br /><br />****SPOILERS**** The ending is hilarious!! The only good part of the movie! I nearly died laughing at the end! That whole stupid movie, and it ends with the dumb girl getting shipped off in a crate to white slavery in Asia!! Hilarious! I thought it was a totally awesome ending to a really sh!tty movie.
This is about as stupid as it gets.<br /><br />A classic case of two-dimensional characters who always act exactly contrary as to what a sane person would do in the same situation. It reminds me of a scene in "Scary Movie" where Carmen Electra flees from the killer. There are two signs, one marked "to safety", the other one "to sure death" (I am reciting from memory).<br /><br />And just like in Scary Movie, the characters always run into the direction marked "Sure Death". <br /><br />Why oh why did the girl start the fire in the teller booth AND HOLD THE DOOR SHUT ??? Did she prefer to die in the fire instead being killed by the guy? Why oh why, after cutting and overpowering the driver did they sit him in the seat and have him being watched by the wounded guy instead of plain shooting him or at the very least knocking him out? He was running over their friend and killing him a minute before, yet they have scruples ?? Why oh why a hundred things more ... <br /><br />If this movie were a road, you could not drive a single yard because of the holes. Everything is so far-fetched, it's starting to physically hurt at times.<br /><br />Add mercilessly overplaying "actors" and a small budget to that and here's what you get. Looking at the rating and the comments, I get the feeling those people have been watching an entirely different movie.<br /><br />The one thing missing really, is the infamous red toolbox from "While She was out" - a movie that is about similar in unrealistic plot and stupid behavior of the characters.
"Shuttle" is/was more than a boring movie that had an interesting start, but after half an hour it ended in the worst imaginable way I ever could imagine. This movie has lost its story, if you can call it a story? ... after half an hour. All the next scenes are totally out of proportion. The driver is some kind of superman because he survives every attack with gun - knife etc.. even after stabbed in his leg he was able to put her in the box. But what a coincidence that there was a box in that garage. I really felt sick and misled when the movie ended. It could have been such a great one if the story was far more better. In my opinion even a kid would make a better story. And why shipping the girl with water and food. I quit with counting the plot holes about halfway through. And when the movie reached its almost admirably sick over-the-top final twist, I had completely given up (better say "throw-up). The worst thing about Shuttle is actually that it can not be even more worse that worse. Maybe writer/director Anderson will learn from this lesson and provide us with a decent thriller next time. Think the better he'll move to a different genre. I Keep my fingers crossed. But from now on I will read the comment on his future movies first before looking. A waste of time.
Just saw this film at the Fantasy Filmfest BERLIN. i am not impressed.<br /><br />As far as the story goes. Too girlfriends return from their Mexico vacation. While waiting for their luggage they get to know a couple of boys, who then take the last and of course wrong shuttle bus to the city. On board is also one other older man, so weirdly portrayed that you instantly guess that he is one of the bad guys. The other one is the driver.<br /><br />The shuttle takes them into industrial wasteland and then one after the other goes done, a little blood, some cut of extremities, some violence, mostly playing with the fear of the girls In the end after some ups and downs, heres and there's, some not too new scary moments, everyone is dead but the driver and the girls. the girls end up in some garage, where one of them is killed, after confessing that she had slept with the other girlfriends boyfriend. The other girl, which is the conclusion, is sold by the left-over kidnapper (yep, weirdo got killed) in some cargo box to asia (a freight harbor being the final picture.) First. Story. Tons of loopholes, questions you ask yourself, loose ends, and a conclusion that is not a good revelation, but a total disappointment. I can't see how such a unprofessional looser is supposed to have abducted dozens of women (as is indicated by a drawer full of drivers licences...aha) Second. Acting. Mediocre at its best.<br /><br />Third. Scare Factor. OK. but I AM BoRED by torture as a means to nothing but itself. Trade with humans could be a good reason for a horror flick, but it's not used as one, just as a background.<br /><br />Fourth, Music and Sound. Some nice tries, but the sound possibilities of the industrial landscape, warehouse garage, and truck sounds have not been really explored. Music? Would have been worse without it, but apart from that. Some pseudo moving synth string theme for emotionality when the girls reach their final destination. OK, I guess.<br /><br />Verdict: AVOID IT!
waste of 1h45 this nasty little film is one to avoid, its like a cheap badly plotted cross between saw and a few other recent films about kidnap, why the writer wrote this is obvious..he has no soul and did it to try and me some money. The twists were obvious, when those in peril could escape they did the obvious and didn't etc.. only good thing about it is I've discovered 1 new actress worth watching..peyton list, don't watch shuttle though, there are too many better nicer films to watch rather than this that will make you miserable and think less of the world. Spend your time more wisely watch good films, do some exercise, cook a nice meal..anything but waste your time on rubbish like this
May 2nd: someone clicked 11 NOs, and then proceeded to do 15 more on my previous 15 comments: almost as funny as this turkey!<br /><br />May 1st: <br /><br />As I write this, I'm still very much under the impression of what must be the funniest thriller I've ever seen. I've got a major case of the giggles, but I'll try and calm down. (It's kind of hard to write when your nose spills snot and the mouth ejects sporadic drool onto the keyboard.) <br /><br />A pair of young women who just returned from a vacation take a ride on a shuttle bus. A couple of young guys join them. But the bus isn't really a taxi service: it's a kidnapping vehicle. (Don't snicker!) Its driver has been part of an organized "white slavery" gang who snatch young women from airports, and they've been doing it for FIVE years. (Don't laugh.) Five years on the SAME airport, without the police or even the FBI ever getting any wind of it. (No giggling, please.) Apparently, dozens of women go missing on in the same exact place for years and years - and yet no-one notices a trend. Is the FBI that incompetent? The world of "Shuttle" seems to consist of three types of people: easily kidnappable blonds, dumb/comatose/invisible FBI agents, and omnipotent psychotic gangsters (who hate sexy blonds with tattooed behinds).<br /><br />The driver has barely stayed alive on this one mission, and yet he's done this for - I repeat - FIVE years, without being killed or losing one of his limbs. (Stop laughing...) Did I mention that the driver is immortal? Need I mention it? We all know that movie psychos have immortal DNA. You can stab them, bounce them against the walls of a bus repeatedly, caress them softly with a hammer, prick nine-inch nails into their ears... Hell, you could stick a hand-grenade into the average Hollywood psycho's mouth, and he'd still escape with only minor scratches. No, the driver is not Satan or even a minor demon, but just a regular Hollywood psycho with better survival abilities than the biggest, meanest sewer cockroach.<br /><br />The basic plot outline: A guy loses all the fingers on one hand in a silly scene. (A magical bus that reads and obeys minds!) The passengers try to escape. They fail. They get hurt. They sulk. They argue. They try to escape. They fail. They get injured. They argue. They try to escape. They fail. They get injured. They try to escape. They fail. They try to escape. The kidnappees manage to snatch the gun from the driver! Alas, they do not kill him because the Golden Hollywood Rule Of Gandhi-like Pacifism prohibits them from doing it. (No giggling.) One of the other passengers turns out to be part of the gang! (Stop laughing.) He is played by an actor who studied in the Rob Zombie/John Travolta School Of Over-Acting & Silly Mugging. He threatens rape. Later on, one of the gals hits him with a crowbar over the head, about a dozen times... very hard. Only seconds later does he regain consciousness. Yep, he survives. (Immortal, remember?) He gets killed a little later. (No idea how, though! He is not supposed to be killable.) The kidnapees argue. They try to escape. One of them escapes! Alas, the psychos are just far too God-like in their powers not to re-capture their prey. The game starts all over again: the passengers try to escape. They fail. They sulk. They stare into the void. They get hurt. They try to escape. They fail. They get hurt...<br /><br />You get the picture.<br /><br />Frankly, I believe that a drugged, heavily disorientated, inebriated snail would have escaped these nincompoop captors with ease. There were so many opportunities. At one point these bumbling psychos (remember: FIVE years!) even send one of the kidnapees into a grocery store! She leaves a message to the police. However, yeah... you guessed it: this fictional fairy-tale U.S. city has no police.<br /><br />And just as you thought the movie couldn't get any dumber - not even if Luc Besson and Brian De Palma joined forces to lend a hand with the script - it does. The girls are kidnapped in order to be sent to some remote island(?), and this is achieved by transporting them as cargo. Apparently, this fictional America has no FBI, no police - and no border customs either. It does however have immortal criminals with more luck than twenty lottery winners. One blond had her billionth chance to kill the driver, and yet she failed. How is it that victims in these dumb thrillers NEVER try to finish off their immortal adversaries once they have them down on the floor and injured? I guess I answered that one myself: they're immortal! So why bother trying, she must have thought...<br /><br />So why was one blond gassed to death and the other one boxed and shipped alive (complete with a kitty-litter box, and the funniest photograph since Demi Moore's primary school pictures)? Could it be the tattoo? I think they killed the prettier one, but that's just me. Was her tattoo that ugly? <br /><br />Could it be that I don't care? Why should I search for logic in a movie made by imbeciles (for imbeciles)? Besides, how can I even think straight when I'm laughing so hard half the time?!<br /><br />Naturally, this being a 21st-century horror/thriller, the mobile phone doesn't work... Perhaps this invincible gang control not only the FBI, the police, and the customs, but satellites in space too.<br /><br />Do I have to spell it out? There are far easier ways to kidnap people. And far more intelligent people who should be making movies. Give an idiot a camera and he'll lay an egg every single time... That sort of answers the eternal riddle of which came first: the egg or the bird-brained director.
This show demonstrates the depths to which UK TV pre-watershed drama has sunk. With these dull scripts, mediocre acting, poor plots, awful dialog, one is forced to watch a DVD of any old ER episode to see excellent hospital drama.<br /><br />None of the actors employed on this show seem to be able to actually act!<br /><br />If you want low quality but easy to absorb soap opera style TV, this is the show for you. Personally I like something with more meat on the bone. Sadly as with all other UK licence payers, I'm funding this dross.
Creakiness and atmosphere this film has, but so unfortunately does the print I just viewed. Raymond Massey provides a laid back Sherlock Holmes, almost comically so in early scenes in his bathrobe, which he trades in for a laborer's garb to investigate the creepy mansion of Dr. Rylott (Lyn Harding). What wasn't clear to me was why Rylott would have wanted his stepdaughters dead. If as in the case of Helen (Angela Baddeley), he didn't want her to run off to get married, he would have accomplished the same thing by having her dispatched.<br /><br />Other curiosities abound as well. After setting an early wedding date with Helen, the fiancée is no longer heard from for the rest of the picture. The presence of a band of gypsies at the time of Violet Stoner's death provides merely a diversion, and what could have been an interesting murder tool, a poisonous snake, is diluted by the fact that it was not a cobra, the musical renderings of the Indian man servant notwithstanding.<br /><br />Athole Stewart competently portrays Holmes' aide Dr. Watson, though he takes some getting used to if Nigel Bruce is more your cup of tea. As Rylott, Lyn Harding is sufficiently menacing, a trait that would be put to good use as Holmes' nemesis Professor Moriarty in two later films - 1935's "The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes" and 1937's "Murder at the Baskervilles".<br /><br />With repeated choppiness and an unsteady camera, it's surprising that the story line isn't more disrupted than it is. It's integrity is generally maintained, even if one stretches a bit to fill in the gaps. I guess that would be my main complaint with the film, as mentally bridging some of the jump cuts in the picture proved to be a real pain in the asp.
The fact that a film is on DVD doesn't guarantee that its quality is very good. The fact that a film's quality is threadbare doesn't mean you shouldn't buy it. This review actually applies to 2 films paired on a single DVD.<br /><br />The plots of these films are of little consequence. They are of interest only to people who collect Holmes films … anybody who merely wants a few of the better offerings would do well to purchase some of those made by Jeremy Brett … or, in a pinch, Basil Rathbone. There are a few other very good Holmes films featuring good actors on a one-shot basis – such as "Seven Per Cent Solution" or "Private Life of Sherlock Holmes". In any event, these films are considerably less estimable.<br /><br />Here we have a pair of films featuring some of the best actors to do Holmes, even if the results tend toward disappointing. This appears to be the only disc with these films on it (although "Deadly Necklace") appears by itself in the same version on other discs.<br /><br />"(Sherlock Holmes and) the Deadly Necklace" dates from 1962, although it neither looks it nor sounds it. Some who have seen this may be surprised to learn that it was produce by Hammer Studios. Not that Hammer hasn't turned out some really schlock stuff, but where Christopher Lee was concerned, they usually did a better job. The print a direct transfer from a rather worn 1:1.33 copy in black-and white. The quality of the color suggests the original may have been in color, and the snipped ends of the film's aspect suggest it may originally have been 1:1.66 or more.<br /><br />The film is set in the early 20th Century – not improbable, since Holmes was still working then (and didn't actually die until 1957). However, the script is not adapted from any actual Doyle story. It involves an Egyptian necklace, and Professor Moriarty shows up as a world-famous archaeologist as well as the Prince of Crime. The plot is melodramatic and banal.<br /><br />The biggest defect of this film is that – for whatever unfathomable reason – Hammer filmed it in Germany. It was nonetheless filmed in English. It was then dubbed in German and then re-dubbed in English. So what you hear isn't Lee nor any of the other original actors, but a bunch of unknowns – not that, outside of Lee, I doubt anyone would know any of the other actors. This is too bad, since Lee (see his "Hound of the Baskervilles") makes a quite decent Holmes. As it is, his voice double is condescending and plain as bread pudding with no raisins nor cinnamon.<br /><br />The music for this film is primarily jazzy, in a possible attempt to be "period". Too bad nobody thought of ragtime. As it is, the music doesn't relate to what's happening on the screen, and often is at odds with the action.<br /><br />The other film is "(Sherlock Holmes and) the Speckled Band" from 1931, starring a young Raymond Massey. The quality of the picture and sound is fully up to that of the 1962 effort, and in fact a bit better. Massey makes a quite respectable Holmes, although he certainly doesn't own the rôle in the way Rathbone did and Brett does. The other thespians who take part in this production are unlikely to be of interest to modern readers. The acting – as is true of many films of this period – owes a lot to the post-Victorian stage and to silent films.<br /><br />It should be noted that, while "The Deadly Necklace" is available on DVD by itself, "The Speckled Band" is available only with the former film.<br /><br />There is very little else to be said of this film. The settings seem to be an odd combination of the 1890s (horse-drawn carriages) and the 1920s (electronic devices such as a primitive dictaphone). Taken altogether, it's an interesting curio and a sufficient inducement to buy the DVD with the pairing rather than a DVD with "Deadly Necklace" only.
Movies just don't get worse than this. Horrible plot, terribly timed, pathetic characters and effects and yes this is using "B" standards.<br /><br />And for the guys: nothing, this movie is a terrible let down, couple scenes that could have been great but you get nothing but build up with no delivery.<br /><br />This movie appeals to no one, horrible movie,it had bad; plot, acting, "B" flavor, special effects and everything else. Plus no nudity or erotics for guys or the girls.
There isn't enough space to explain the many ways this movie is a disappointing mess. Silly special effects and an incomprehensible plot are the least of this movie's problems. The film looks like it was conceived in the mid-eighties and just stewed until it could finally be made in the early nineties. The mullet-headed "hero," (complete with fashionable "Miami Vice" three-days shadow beard), the ham-fisted slams at Ronald Reagan, it would be funny if it didn't take itself so seriously. As it is, the movie is just pathetic. I actually feel sorry for the poor actresses who wasted their fine nude scenes in this awful movie.
Well, at least this was the last sequel that I could find at Blockbuster, because this movie was just downright horrible. I mean, I can understand how hard it would be to get rid of an evil house. We're talking starting a horrible fire, bulldozing, flood, etc. But a mirror? How hard could it be can it be to get rid of a mirror?! This was the most horrible movie that could've put the title of Amityville into the picture! <br /><br />Well, a group of friends who are pretty much from the start, are a bunch of freaks. One of them is a photographer of some kind and buys a haunted mirror from a homeless creepy guy, teaching me a valuable lesson, don't buy things from homeless creepy guy. Of course, the horrible deaths and chaos ensues this group, though I can't imagine anyone missing them.<br /><br />Please, skip Amityville: A New Generation, I've already got a few complaints about my generation, so I think this was a premonition. Not to sound so crazy. :P But believe me, this is horribly acted, not well thought out, and not even scary! I feel so bad for the original writers of The Amityville Horror, they must be crying every time person witnesses this film.<br /><br />1/10
'A New Generation' is the third Amityville entry to base its plot around writer John G. Jones's premise of an item taken from the Long Island house that causes spectral misery and death for its new owners. First a lamp, then a clock, and now a mirror. However, this is also the first Amityville since 'The Possession' to directly tie in to the real- life events that started the whole series. This time around, Keyes Terry (Robert Partridge), an artist, is given a macabre-looking mirror by a homeless man one day. Soon enough, people around him start to die, eventually leading to his discovery that the mirror once hung in the Amityville house - indeed on the very night a man named Franklin Bronner (Sonny Montelli in 'Amityville II') murdered his entire family. Unfortunately for Terry, his discovery of the mirror isn't entirely coincidental, and he soon learns the truth about his past a truth he's kept buried since childhood.<br /><br />This 7th installment in the often worn-out franchise is something of a disappointment for me. Things were starting to pick up with the silly and uneven, yet entertaining 'It's About Time', and given how much this film tries to draw upon its roots - not the first episode, but the source material itself - it should have been better than it was. <br /><br />However, three trips to the same well with yet another evil artifact from the Amityville house with yet another explanation for the malign paranormal visitations is wearing on me, to say the least. One of the biggest weaknesses of the Amityville franchise is the steadfast determination by each set of producers to completely ignore every other episode in the series. On the one hand, it's perfectly reasonable that they don't want to be tied to someone else's continuity, but at the very least, they could maybe acknowledge story lines that have already been done and just possibly *not repeat them over and over again*.<br /><br />There's also something rather plodding about the way in which the story unfolds, doubtless due to the inevitability this repetition-fest brings. Since you already know what's going to happen, the carefully-paced build-up is simply slow and tedious. Or maybe it's just tedious anyway. Director John Murlowski probably could have done more to heighten the tense atmosphere associated with the mirror rather than simply having it flash red and emit chattering 'evil' voices, which lacks any kind of subtlety. There were times when characters seemed fairly unfazed by its otherworldly qualities. If they don't take it too seriously, why should we?<br /><br />Which is a shame, because 'A New Generation' has a more-than-capable cast. I was going to hold off on watching this until I saw the name 'Julia Nickson' in the credits. She captivated my attention just as she always does, and if anything, I was annoyed her part wasn't more extensive. Terry O'Quinn was equally charismatic and again, underused. Partridge himself in the lead role clearly fits the early 90s over-coiffed lumberjack-shirted square-jawed hero type, and while I'm not sure he really gave it the gravitas needed, it's not as if anyone here is performing Ibsen.<br /><br />The sets are also worthy of note, from the dramatic artwork filling Suki's room, to the claustrophobic corridors featured in flashback/supernatural sequences. Getting the look of these right is especially important given how certain sequences are repeated throughout the film to simulated fragmented memories. Clearly, Murlowski is more of a visual director rather than either an actor's director or one of horror. Unfortunately, it is meant to be a horror film, after all.<br /><br />'A New Generation' sees the same race being run for the third time in 4 years. Add to this the lack of direction where it was really needed and the whole effort fails to stand as tall as it should. However, it should be acknowledged for its strong ties with the source material and some good actors in not necessarily their finest hours. Honestly, the ideal person for this is someone who hasn't seen any of the sequels past 'The Possession', for whom the story won't be such a massive deja-vu trip.
Oh dear. This sequel has a mirror, this time, which houses the evil spirit of a psychopath which murdered an entire family with a shotgun in the Amityville home. The mirror captured the entire ugly incident of the horrified family who had no time to prepare for their uninvited guest. The mirror is given to a photographer, Keyes(Ross Partridge)by a bum(..who just so happens to be his lunatic father, and the man responsible for killing the family)and it's evil soon terrorizes those in a loft(..such as Keyes' painter pal Suki, portrayed by Julia Nickson-Soul)where he lives when they look into it. Soon Keyes is having nightmares, looking through the eyes of his father as he guns down the family in cold blood, worried that he might follow in his footsteps. Soon he sees other occurrences through his father's eyes like that terrible day pops bashed his mother's head against the floor of an institution or experiencing a moment inside the cell as doctor's administered a drug to immobilize him.<br /><br />Pretty solid supporting cast who deserve better than being stuck in junk like this, such as David Naughton(American Werewolf in London)as the proprietor of the loft with which Keyes lives, Richard Roundtree as an eccentric sculptor/artist, Terry O'Quinn as a psychologist-detective, and especially Lin Shaye as a hilarious ditsy, rather strange secretary-nurse in the asylum(..the one which held Keyes' father) soon to be closed down.<br /><br />Rounding out the film, the sexy, leggy Lala Sloatman as Keyes' supportive girlfriend, Barbara Howard(Friday the 13th:The Final Chapter)as Naughton's betrayed wife(..he was on the verge of starting an affair with Nickman-Soul), Jack Orend as the sadistic fiend who attempts to provoke his son into killing innocent people as he did, and Robert Rusler(A Nightmare on Elm Street 2:Freddy's Revenge)as a rejected lover(..of Nickson-Soul)who meets an unfortunate demise while ripping apart paintings as a revenge for his dismissal.<br /><br />This film is a poor special effects movie merely using the Amityville title as a cash-in. The franchise has never been that great to begin with, but as each sequel was green-lit, it grew worse and worse. After the third film, furniture from the infamous house become "possessed" items tormenting folks. The cast try hard, though, but the material(..a mirror causing chaos and murder through supernatural means)is lacking in quality..and the rather mediocre special effects don't help matters. O'Quinn, as little as he has to work with, shows why he's such a great actor, he can even shine in excrement such as this. All's not lost, you get to see Sloatman always wearing super short skirts(..or her man's shirt in panties), showing off her legs throughout..hey, you have to find a silver lining somewhere. Believe it or not, AMITYVILLE:A NEW GENERATION was the seventh film in the franchise! Coolest part of the film were the portraits of demons painted by Nickson-Soul's artist, perhaps inspired by the evil mirror after looking into it.
At the rate these movies are ploughing through the artifacts from the Amityville house it won't be long before we get down to the floorboards, but for now it's a mirror that's causing problems for more cardboard characters in this sixth entry in the series. A homeless man hands it over to artist hairdo Ross Partridge, who then has strange visions and discovers some unpleasant revelations about his past. This mundane horror trundles along at a dull pace, leaving us waiting for a build up that never comes as the various 'spooky' goings-on lead to a dumb finale. Bland and lifeless, with ropey acting and Partridge's huge hair not helping matters.
Not a good one. -Not at all.<br /><br />This installment revolves around a descent of the original murderer inside the Amityville home who must face his past to rid himself of the nightmarish terror of Amityville itself.<br /><br />It's basically nothing. My bet is that this film was made for some extra fast-cash to buy a boat or something... because this one's just ridiculous... Thankfully, it doesn't kill or ruin the series, but it just has no effect on the series at all.<br /><br />I'd have to say that just the fact that it is constantly referenced to the old, infamous house is probably the only thing that makes this one slightly more bearable than "The Amityville Curse".
What movie is this??? A horrible movie with the old boring concept of infidelity which has already been achieved by the "Bhatt camp". The movie starrs EMRAAN HASHMI, UDITA GOSWAMI AND DINO MOREA. The movie has "No Base". It just goes like this... Dino an Udita are married and living in a rich mansion. However Dino doesn't like Udita to the heart as he wants only her wealth. He loves someone else (Tara Sharma). So he bribes Emraan to have an affair with Udita so that he could catch them and finally split up with Udita.. How BORING!! However Emraan falls in love with Udita and vice versa. Lastly when Udita gets imprisonment for killing Emraan, Dino pretentiously tries to save her showing his false love to her. Udita on the other hand does not understand this and feels that he loved her truly. So she lends all her wealth to Dino. Finally Dino comes out of the police - station and goes with Tara with all the wealth. What a fraud!! The songs are good and are the only thing good in the movie. Now the individual ratings: (Out of 5) Emraan: * * Udita: * 1/2 Dino : * 1/2 Overall acting: * 1/2 Direction: * * Story: * Music: * * * 1/2 Final rating: * 1/2 Poor performances and poor casting....... Music: Good... I rate the movie: 1.5 / 10 (Dont waste your time !!!!)
I often wonder how movies like this even get made, and the most shocking part is that people actually pay to watch them.<br /><br />With Aksar it appears as though the director made up the story as he went along, adding twists and turns when he liked, no matter how ludicrous they were. The script was non existent with inane dialogs such as "Jo Sheena Roy pehenti hai, wahee fashion hota hai" and "Yeh Versace hai Madam" (yeah right).<br /><br />Every one of the characters was shallow and underdeveloped. Acting was awful. Constumes (lycra for Udita and awful suits for a stocky Emran), locales (the numerous houses that were used for interiors did not even vaguely resemble a Victorian mansion), screenplay etc etc, just one word- rubbish.<br /><br />For those people who love Hashmi and his movies, watch it. As for me, I'll never get those two and a half hours back. The only redeeming factor was some of the music which was decent.
Aksar is an awful movie. The script, the story, the acting are all simply laughable. Dino Morea plays a man who pays Emraan Hashmi to seduce his wife. Yes, this is as ridiculous as it sounds. Both Morea and Hashmi offer incredibly and unsurprisingly bad acting. Udita Goswami plays the aggressive, capricious and angry wife. She is good-looking but has zero acting talent. The film has one hit song called "Jhalak Diklaja" which is composed and sung by Himesh Reshammiya. I never could understand the hype around this song as I never found it particularly good though it is catchy. The film is supposed to be a thriller but instead it just looks like a comic strip thanks to the terrible direction and writing. Avoid this cheapo at any cost.
Emraan Hashmi post MURDER did some good roles in Bhatt films but other director just made use of his kissing and naughty image<br /><br />AKSAR is one of them and it came after AAA, JAWANI DIWANI in a row and I was already fed up of him and such roles <br /><br />The film has a nice twist at the start i felt like an Abbas Mustan film but then it turns into a routine film with sudden love, sudden jealousy and a bad climax<br /><br />Anant Mahadevan makes a terrible film Music is saving grace Camera-work is fabulous<br /><br />Emraan Hashmi just repeats his act of his earlier films and has 2 expressions throughout Dino looks stiff, talks as if he is practicing Hindi and does okay in some scenes Udita is expressionless and irritates
weak direction, weak plot, unimpressive music, i wonder why Udita Goswami is there in the movie world in the first place ? she tried to reveal a lot of her talent (mostly skin) but failed to impress.<br /><br />music wasn't that impressive as well, only one song "Jhalak Dikhlajaa" was worth listening to..... <br /><br />Aksar, the title ? well they tried to justify the title of the movie in the end, but it didn't make sense..<br /><br />there were many unwanted twists and turns in the story, which made it more boring. however if someone's a Dino Morea fan, please go ahead and watch it.
Independent film that would make Hollywood proud. The movie substitutes good looks for good acting, a cryptic plot for a good story line, and self-absorption for character development. May be I missed something, go see it for yourself.
This film is a third rate attempt at a compelling, moody thriller and fails miserably on all three counts. It just about managed to keep my attention as the protagonist was seen slowly and predictably breaking all the life rules he had conveniently set himself at the beginning of the film.<br /><br />But it's in the last 25 minutes or so that things really start to spiral. A vaguely plausible plotline (and that's being generous)becomes completely rediculous as suddenly new characters appear from nowhere and random and bizzarre events are never explained.<br /><br />This wouldn't be quite so bad if the scripting wasn't so cheesy, the acting so wooden (despite a strong British cast) and the direction so uninspiring. This is not an example of good British film making nor indeed should it make Tarantino bat an eyelid, at least not in comparison to his earlier work.<br /><br />My advice in this case, if it's hard to get hold of, don't waste the effort. If you're a Brit like me and it's in your local video shop, steer well clear. Perhaps head to the video entitled "American Beauty" - now that's an example of great British direction.
[Warning contains spoilers]<br /><br />I felt no sympathy for any of the characters, incl the main one, who gets over the death of his girl friend v.quickly, (but it's OK as he shacks up with an ex prostitute from the casino he works at). The main character is portrayed as this wonderful intelligent writer who gets drawn into a web of deception, all the while there is running his monologue of the book he is writing. I can't say I would buy the book, a much better premise perhaps would have been if the voice-over (which annoyingly cuts in to narrate any bit of the film that you might not have understood, via his book) would've had 52 different personailties... to represent each card in the deck, but I digress. In the end there was a twist, whereby the main character has been setup by someone close to him, but as I disliked his character so much by this point (I found it impossible to like anyone in this film, the characters are all one dimensional zombies) that I really didn't care, and was glad the film was over.<br /><br />Plus points: The English actress from ER doing a dodgy south african accent Minus points: An irritating film
This was one of the most contrived, tedious and clichéd films I have ever seen... and, yes, I've seen Pearl Harbour. Even the likes of Gina McKee couldn't act their way out of the appalling dialogue. It has been described as 'art-house', this can only be a euphemism for dull, dreadful and, quite frankly, artless. Why is it that when a film is devoid of plot, critics feel it deserves to be called art? But far more baffling, why did America love it? Without you, this film would have remained on the shelf where, perhaps, it belonged.
I respect Mike Hodges, and liked Get Carter immensely for it's bleak outlook, but The Croupier just seems like a particularly dull ITV drama.<br /><br />The reserved, cold acting isn't just the preserve of the lead character, it's spread to the entire cast, meaning there is nothing to contrast Owen's character with.<br /><br />None of the characters evoke any kind of feelings at all, except boredom. The ending of the film is also untidy at best.<br /><br /> The camera work etc is fairly good, but if you want to see Hodges best watch Get Carter, don't bother with this uninteresting, unimaginative trawl through emotions he covered better 20+ years ago
This low-budget film about a writer who goes to work in a London casino has an awful script, wooden performances, and not much to recommend it. Of course it will appeal to highbrows for whom "mainstream" is a curse word, and who automatically add 20 IQ points when they hear a British accent (apologies to Jeff Foxworthy).<br /><br />The script is full of holes (has he written a book yet, or not?), cliches (relationship trouble: she works days, he works nights), and provides so little insight into such basics as character motivation that it requires a voice-over narration just to move the story along.<br /><br />In an attempt to keep the audience from dozing off, it includes a street fight scene that is about as realistic as a high school production of Julius Caesar.<br /><br />If your idea of scintillating dialogue is "I'll see your ten, and raise you twenty", then RUN to see this movie. Otherwise, save your money.<br /><br />
Hideously bad movie purportedly about a croupier who wants to be a writer and the incidents that make up casino life. Moves at a snail's pace. Dull, dull, dull! Virtually everything about this movie is amateurish and unconvincing - with one very notable exception: the performance of Clive Owen, who is like a Rolls Royce purring through a slum. Advice for the casino sequences were allegedly provided by a professional but judging by the way in which they are handled they were completely ignored by the director. While casino staff may very well be a different breed to the rest of the world they are nowhere near as witless and booooring as the characters presented in this script. Odds and ends are thrown into the script in an attempt to provide it with convincing background but would appear to have been jotted down in a list on a cocktail napkin. For anyone who makes a living in the casino business (as this writer has for the last FORTY years!) this is a poverty stricken depiction of their world which even in the farthest and most obscure reaches of England has NEVER been this wanting! An appalling, insulting mess of a movie that plods and plods and plods along to an idiotic and unconvincing ending. American critics loved it.
After some internet surfing, I found the "Homefront" series on DVD at ioffer.com. Before anyone gets excited, the DVD set I received was burned by an amateur from home video tapes recorded off of their TV 15 years ago. The resolution and quality are poor. The images look like you would expect old re-recorded video to look. Although the commercials were edited out, the ending credits of each episode still have voice-over announcements for the segway into the ABC news program "Nightline", complete with the top news headlines from the early 1990's. Even with the poor image quality, the shows were watch-able and the sound quality was fine.<br /><br />To this show's credit, the casting was nearly perfect. Everyone was believable and really looked the part. Their acting was also above average. The role of Jeff Metcalf is played particularly well by Kyle Chandler (most recently seen in the 2005 remake of King Kong). The period costumes were very authentic as were the sets, especially the 1940s kitchens with vintage appliances and décor. The direction was also creative and different for a TV show at that time. For example, conversations between characters were sometimes inter-cut with conversations about the same subject between other characters in different scenes. The dialog of the different conversations was kept fluid despite cutting back and fourth between the different characters and locations. That takes good direction and editing and they made it work in this case.<br /><br />As I started watching this series again I suddenly remembered why I lost interest in it 15 years ago. Despite all the ingredients for a fine show, the plots and story lines are disappointing and confusing right from the start. For one thing, the name of the show itself is totally misleading. When WWII ended in 1945, there was no more fighting so obviously there was no longer a "homefront" either. Curiously, the first episode of the show "Homefront" begins in 1945 after the war had ended. That's like shooting the first episode of "Gilligan's Island" showing the castaways being rescued. The whole premise of the show's namesake is completely lost. I still held on to hope with the possibility of the rest of the series being a flashback but no, the entire show takes place from 1946 through 1948. Additionally, this series fails miserably in any attempt to accurately portray any historical events of the late 1940's. By the third episode, it becomes obvious that this series was nothing more than a thinly veiled vehicle for an ultra left-wing political agenda. The show is set in River Run Ohio, near Toledo. However, the show's ongoing racism theme makes it look more like Jackson Mississippi than Ohio. Part of the ensemble cast are Dick Williams, Hattie Winston and Sterling Macer Jr. who portray the Davis family. Much of the series shows the Davis family being discriminated against by the evil "whites" to the point of being ridiculous and totally absurd if not laughable. The racism card has been played and over played by Hollywood now for over 40 years. We get it. We're also tired of having our noses rubbed in it on a daily basis. The subject of racism is also unpopular with viewers and it is the kiss of death for any show, as it was for "Homefront". The acting talents of Williams, Winston and Macer were wasted in their roles as the stereotypical "frightened / angry black family". The wildly exaggerated racism in this series makes it look like everyone in Ohio was a KKK member or something. The racism issue could have been addressed in this show in a single episode with a simple punch in the nose or fist-fight in which a bigot gets a well deserved thrashing, and leave it at that. Devoting a major portion of the series to the racism thing gets really old really quick and its just plain stupid.<br /><br />In yet another ridiculous plot line, the big boss of a local factory (Ken Jenkins) is portrayed as an Ebenezer Scrooge like character who is against pensions and raises and is unconcerned about acid dripping on his employees. The workers revolt and take over the factory in a blatant pro-communist propaganda message to the viewer.<br /><br />Personally, I think this series had great potential. The writers could have easily placed the timeline in 1941 – 1945 as the title suggests and shown the hardships of food and gas rationing and working 14 hour days at war factories. Of course the loss of brothers, sons and husbands fighting overseas would have also added drama. The situation was also perfect for writing in special guest stars as military or USO personnel passing through their town during training or en-route to Europe or the Pacific. The possibilities for good story lines and plots are endless. But no, the writers of Homefront (David Assael and James Grissom) completely ignored any relevant or interesting plots. Instead, they totally missed the point and strayed into a bizarre and irrelevant obsession with racism and left-wing politics. It would be unfair to the actors to condemn the entire series but the plots and situations in which they were placed are total garbage.
It's important to keep in mind the real meaning of the phrase "Inspired by a true story" when watching Pride. It's sort of like "You could save up to 50%," which can quite literally be translated to "You can't save more than 50%." It all sounds great until you realize that the lower part of "up to" is "zero." Similarly, "inspired by a true story" means that someone heard a story and it made them think of this one. The only certainty is that the real story and the one you're about to see are not the same thing.<br /><br />There is a real Jim Ellis that began coaching the swim team at the Philadelphia Department of Recreation in the early 1970s, but I have a feeling that the real Jim Ellis must not have been able to conceal some feelings of disappointment at the way the movie turned out. Clearly, it takes wild liberties with the story of his life, and I just picture him responding to the strange looks of his friends who wonder why the movie is so much different than the man they know.<br /><br />At any rate, one thing that he will surely be proud of is that he is portrayed by Terrence Howard, one of our finest actors, who starred alongside Bernie Mac who, despite the lack of an original and powerful story, still gives a heartfelt and moving performance. <br /><br />The movie takes place in 1970s Philadelphia, a time and place where racism was the norm, not the exception, and the educated and professional Jim Ellis, who is also an accomplished swimmer, is having trouble finding a worthwhile teaching position, until finally relegated to a falling apart recreation center, which he is assigned the task of cleaning up before its demolition. We can certainly understand his feeling of belittlement. <br /><br />When we first meet Elston, the maintenance man (Bernie Mac), he is a disillusioned grump who sits in his office surrounded by piles of junk that touch the ceiling and watching daytime TV on an old, dusty television set. Needless to say, when Jim shows up to start cleaning the place up and clearing it out, Elston is not exactly friendly with him. He knew his rec center was being closed, and all his anger about that transferred quite smoothly onto Jim. <br /><br />Given his past as a college swimmer, Jim takes a special interest in the pool, which he cleans and fills and brings to top shape. A group of black teenagers who play basketball just outside the rec center take interest in the pool when their basketball rim is taken away and the heat remains stifling, and soon the group have a developing swim team on their hands, which they enter into a citywide swim meet. To call them underdogs, of course, would be something of an understatement. They're unorganized, unprofessional, insufficiently trained, and have no idea how to behave at a swim meet. <br /><br />That doesn't matter, of course. The movie is your standard underdog sports story, so the first athletic outing is totally unimportant as anything other than a learning experience, a catalyst to drive their much harder and much more focused training that will lead up to the final athletic outing, the one that matters. By now, the only thing a sports movie has going for it is that the protagonist(s) do not have to win at the film's climax, we only have to understand the meaning and significance of their effort. <br /><br />Sadly, the movie has all of the character development of an old Seagal movie. The good guys are the good guys because they're just supposed to be, and the bad guys are the nasty white swimmers who laugh and jeer and make racist jokes at our team. Oh, and there's one scene where one of the white guys kicks one of the black guys underwater while in the middle of a race. I didn't know it was really possible to kick someone underwater like that, but you get the idea of how deep the character development is.<br /><br />We understand that this is the group of kids that Jim Ellis turned from kids hanging out on the streets doing nothing with their lives and into an organized and competitive team of swimmers, but other than that we don't really get to know anything about who they are.<br /><br />But the biggest problem is that the only real statements that the movie makes are that effort and organization lead to success and racism is bad. Both of these are so obvious that when a movie is made with them alone it ends up feeling empty and unnecessary. Racism was so much more powerful in America in the 1970s that it feels like an enormous loss that the movie dealt directly with that issue but didn't really say anything about it. It's sort of a feel- good movie, but when it's over and you realize how much it should have said is much bigger than what it said, the feel-good sensation turns into a sad disappointment.
Inspired by a true story tale is full of 1970's feeling but is disjointed in the telling. This is the tale of a black college swimmer who ends up in Phillie at a closing rec center in a bad neighborhood and somehow puts together a swim team. The film staggers around blindly for the first half hour until Terrence Howard, as our hero, gets the kids into the pool.It picks up at that point by becoming somewhat engaging, though it still staggers about. There is a good story in this and its clear why Howard and Bernie Mac took part in it, but the script is poor and most of the direction seems intent on making it feel like 197something instead of making us feel anything for the story.<br /><br />Not the disaster that some reviews made it out to be, it instead suffers by all of the recent sport true stories-Coach Carter, Invincible, Glory Road, etc, which at least knew that you have to at least work with the story to make a movie as opposed to just letting the audience suffer because "its true".
To start, I'm not a person to rate movies that I haven't seen, nor am I a person that rates movies 1's when they don't deserve it. This movie was really that bad. The basic plot was extremely formulaic, and while it wasn't great, the plot deserved about a 5. The part that really bothered me was anything referencing swimming in the film. I compiled a short list of things wrong with the swimming aspects of this film.<br /><br />1. No character development. 2. No sense of time. 3. Completely inaccurate swimming scenes, which include: a. A team of six swimmer going to something called both "Nationals" and "regional" with no mention of how they qualify. b. This same team going to whatever the hell this meet was without swimming a real meet at any point in the film. c. The rival program goes from being a high school to a club team back to a high school and then a club team again. d. In the scene where Ellis is interviewing for a job the banners show high school state wins and placements at nationals, yet the team consists of anywhere from 5 to 12 swimmers depending on which of the 3 meets are happening. e. A team of 5 guys and a girl win nationals/regions whatever. f. Said girl wins a men's 100 butterfly event. g. In this race, said girl beats two guys from a team that the previous year was in the top 3 in the nation. h. The announcer changes a race from the 200 breast to the 100 breast back to the 200 again in the span on about 45 seconds. i. In the final relay, the 4X100, which is being swum in a 50 meter long course pool, one swimmer is seen doing two flip turns. j. In this same relay, the teams anchor swimmer freaks out and steps off the blocks, prompting an inspirational pep talk, which lasts for about two and a half minutes, or about 3 times as long as the leg would take at a national caliber meet. k. The movie begins in the month of July or August, assuming that Ellis was applying before the school year started, and the pool was to be closed in 3 months, so assuming these things both hold true, the swimmers went from not being able to swim to winning nationals/regional whatever, in less than two, as the pool had to be cleaned and the kids didn't start practicing for a while. l. I'm sure there are a couple hundred more, I'm just trying to block them out of my memory. 4. Throughout the film there is not a single mention of a swimmers time. 5. If you're going to have a movie about swimming, it would be a good idea to hire extras that know how to swim well. 6. The scene where the kid is kicked underwater is physically impossible.<br /><br />That being said, all the swimming scenes were way too slow, swimmers had horrible technique, and the idea of being able to qualify for a national meet within three months of learning to swim is just insulting to swimmers everywhere.<br /><br />OK, if you still don't believe me, let me say that this movie is one of the 5 worst films i have ever seen, and this is coming from the guy that owns Gigli, Soul Plane, Manos: The Hands of Fate, Skullduggery, and any number of other total piece of crap that have been put on film. Please don't go!
It's a shame Barry Humphries infamous Sir Les Patterson character had it's film debut in this under cooked spy/comedy.<br /><br />This film reminded me of the Beatty/Hoffman stinker, Ishtar (1987). Humphries should have learned from the mistakes that film made - if your going to change gears on a concept DON'T USE SPIES! Like Ishtar, the first 20 minutes or so offer a promise of something different. It would have been great to see the anachronistic and boorish Patterson sleazing around in the world of Australian politics. One of characters even point out that Patterson is of date with the current times - you'd think Humphires could of had a field day making commentary on the Hawke government (I can just picture a scene with Patterson and Hawkie in a drinking contest). But instead of a film that might of been clever and even a biting look into that world, we get Patterson running around the world as James Bond trying to save the world from bio-chemical weapons that runs out of steam before the half way mark.<br /><br />Disappointing.
The brilliant Australian comic genius Barry Humphries had a rare failure with this uneven, and occasionally distasteful comedy, which was snatched back from release after only a few days. Drunken, lecherous Australian diplomat Sir Les Patterson accidentally sets an Arab potentate on fire at the UN and is posted to his tiny country as punishment, arriving just as a palace coup puts a new leader (American soap star Thaao Penghlis) on the throne. Sir Les, with the reluctant help of Dame Edna Everage (Both played by Humphries) almost accidentally foils a scheme by the new leader to release a deadly, disgusting, AIDS-like virus on the Western World. Joan Rivers has a cameo as the female President of the United States, her desk plate reading "President Rivers"! Extreme bad taste mingles with slapstick and Humphries' usual scathing satire in a film which is more enjoyable in it's many funny parts, than taken together as a whole. Dame Edna's TV fans may be puzzled by the presence of a different Madge Allsop, sadly, one who lacks Emily Perry's wonderful drab comedy magic in the role. The film was written By Humphries & his third wife, Diane Millstead, and directed by the Mad Max man himself, George Miller. For die-hard Humphries fans like myself, essential. All others, beware.
Arguably the most disgusting thing to come out of Australia since Vegemite... Predictably distasteful comedy with Barry Humphries in a dual role as boozy Australian diplomat Les Patterson and undercover agent Dame Edna! So many bodily function gags that even the Farrelly brothers would have been sick, and several gross-out moments, especially the effects of the horrible H.E.L.P. virus. Only for fans of extreme toilet humor. Oh, and that´s the "NeverEnding Story II", NOT the "Mad Max" George Miller, who directed... *½<br /><br />
When one considers that Carson McCullers is one of the foremost literary figures of the 20th century, it seems that it needs a very great lack of talent to be able to ruin one of her stories, but this movie shows it can be done! How do actors ingratiate their way to becoming directors? Wooden, unatmospheric, unsympathetic, totally out of sync with the poetic compassion of McCullers' writing, my jaw dropped with horror and disbelief that such a mish-mash of a movie could ever have found finance and backers. The only redeeming features are some moderately good acting, (although that said, Vanessa Redgrave seems to permanently render much the same performance whatever character she plays), and some good cinematography in places, but otherwise it is a bitter, bitter disappointment, and it could, and indeed should, have been a contemporary masterpiece. Simon Callow should hang his head in shame and stick to acting!
How do you make a totally unappealing movie out of a story by one of America's most famous authors? Watch this film and find out. Maybe I am overrating author Carson McCullers, but I was impressed by "The Heart Is A Lonely Hunter" and was hoping for something memorable here, too. Forget it.<br /><br />Vanessa Redgrave looks like a man with her short haircut and clothing. I never found her much to get excited about in almost any movie, anyway. Rod Steiger as a preacher? How insulting is that? Unlikable characters, one after the other. Well, maybe that's the book, too, and I am being unfair to this film. I am not familiar with the story other than what I saw on screen and this was so unappealing a movie that I could never recommend it to anyone.<br /><br />It's just one backwards person after another in a backward town. Outside of some nice cinematography here and there, there is nothing to recommend. How anyone could sit through 100 minutes of this is amazing.<br /><br />I didn't even go into how bad this is directed. There is good news: this was the only film Simon Cowell directed.
"The Ballad of the Sad Café" worked hard at its image, but when it came down to crunch-time, it was left standing in its own self-created dust.<br /><br />One cannot image saying this out loud, but if Vanessa Redgrave's Amelia were to fight John Wayne or even Clint Eastwood, my hard-earned dollars would have to go to Redgrave. Her portrayal of Amelia was as close to perfection and consumed with more detailed dedication than most actors are willing to give to any multi-million dollar contracted persona. Redgrave gave Amelia this soulful drawl that was a blend of her own unique voice and a hard-earned woman from the south. To the average viewer, this could be construed as annoying, but as the film progressed it became her – Miss Amelia transforming this stage beauty into a roughneck. It was Redgrave's performance, as well as her interaction with the other characters, that made this film stand tall – but not the tallest. The others following her performance were needed, but not stellar. As we moved past the murky cliché image passed on by every set designer hired for the post-Depression South job, the minor characters felt like poster board. The image was needed to set the scene, but the characters of the town had no other purpose. Take for example Rod Steiger's vision of some old, wild spoken preacher. His scenes alone will make any viewer question the validity of this off-the-beaten-path town. The main two players who surrounded Amelia battled with charm for the admirable top scene-stealing moment, but due to the lacking direction – it just seemed faded. The most absurd of the two (albeit both rank high among the questionable sanity line) is Cork Hubbard who plays Amelia's "cousin" who shows up randomly one night. His character is never quite defined, he lacks true motive, and his loyalties remain uncertain. He plays no vital role in this film outside of forcing us, the viewers, to question his sanity and honesty. Can you create a character simply by sticking out your tongue, flicking your ears, and punching your chest and head? Finally, there is the other end of the absurd – Keith Carradine. Callow's close-ups of this tormented man build character, but our lack of understanding between him and Amelia causes his purpose to flounder. These were the characters, as cliché Southern as they were – some stood forward and attempted to create an absurdist period piece, and I cannot argue that they failed.<br /><br />Where "Ballad of the Sad Café" failed to rise above mediocrity was in the cinematography and narrative. This film was about Amelia, and her need for other souls in her life. The audience's level of comfort with the arrival of her midget cousin was entertaining – one couldn't help but wonder if he was honest or merely a confidence man attempt to leech off a warm heart. Cork Hubbard's character is never quite understood, but we do accept him with brief shots of him and Amelia doing small things together. It is his idea that transforms from a recluse businesswoman to a bona-fide café owner. The problem is that director Callow never quite takes us to that dramatic take level between Cork and Redgrave – is the man crazy or does he represent all of Amelia's family? I needed something from Callow that brought these two out of the David Lynch-esquire relationship that they had. Then our pool gets even deeper with the addition of Carradine as Amelia's "love interest". Using the technique of a flashback within a flashback, we see the two wed, but never consummate their love – which Amelia's anger against their love drawing him into the world of madness. Why was Amelia so angry? Why was there no connection between Carradine and Redgrave? Why was this even in the film? With the lack of focus towards these characters's connection, the eventual scenes between the two made no sense – throw in Cork's choice and it just gets completely discombobulated. While there were a few beautiful choreographed scenes that Callow created, the inability to transfer his characters from point A to point B. I lost focus, interest, and my care for the characters plummeted when I didn't understand the ultimate question – "why"? <br /><br />Overall, "The Ballad of the Sad Café" began with a bang, but ended with a very small crack of a firecracker. My emotional feel of this film swung up and down, up and down, and eventually stayed further down mainly due to the lack of understanding of the motives of the characters. Redgrave did a phenomenal job as Amelia, and while the other characters (outside of the random Steiger) tried their best, I just didn't quite understand who they were. Their motives were so muddled that when the emotional ending finally occurred, I was apathetic. Director Callow seemed to have been lacking importing connecting scenes that would allow us to understand the dynamic relationship between all of our main players. Callow created some beautiful scenes where faces seemed to overlap the scenery, which allowed us to focus on Amelia – or Carradine, but nothing was explained or developed. The film played out with anger, discover, happiness, flashback, anger, anger, anger, fade out. Without the comparative connectors, this transformed from distinguished period film to actors playing parts in front of camera. It was a shame, because "Sad Café" had the promise, it just couldn't deliver.<br /><br />Grade: ** ½ out of *****
This movie was ridiculous from the start. Let me save you all time from watching this movie. A woman who sells corn liquor to the locals takes in her cousin or nephew and he convinces her to open a café downstairs from her home. She does and she and the cousin become close. There is a scene later where she is locking lips with him. Later, the woman finds out an old boyfriend is coming back from jail and its tense between them, leading to a down and out fist fight in the café. The woman's cousin/nephew is enamored by the man. The ending was awful, the story was awful, and if I could get back the time wasted on this movie, I would appreciate it. A definite skip.
I have to say this, this is the first movie I'm reviewing on here I didn't finish watching. I mean.. I COULDN"T CONTINUE! No matter how adamant I am for watching things until the bitter end, 'The Ballad Of The Sad Café' proved no match to this viewer. Vanessa Redgrave stars as the Strange Woman in Town who does things like walk through the river with a full set of clothes on. Anyways,. A long lost relative comes to visit, he's a midget and… well, that's as far as I got. What the heck was the point of all of this? I didn't even bother to wait for Michael Carradine to come on, as I was already pummeled senseless by the combination of the slow script AND having to deal with a midget in a dramatic role. I call this coffee table cinema. The type of cinema that appeals to just a scant few of you, but the others just STAY AWAY.
Looking and sounding like a cheap porno without the sex, this is the first in an impressive string of stinkers from producer (or in this case director) Geoffrey Reeve.<br /><br />And it's a doozy. Laughable on just about every level.<br /><br />Some government agents (I think) are "professionally murdered" in Amsterdam and a considerably less-than-charismatic, block-of-wood Interpol agent (who I assure you is not named Louis Salinger) is sent in to investigate by walking around a lot to ensure the tax-dodge financiers get their money's worth for the plane tickets to shoot on location.<br /><br />The wannabe-hard-hitting attitudes to drugs and depiction of prostitution must have looked laughably outdated even before the celluloid dried, but the script at least is very obliging in that it explains exactly what's happening regularly in horribly contrived direlogue ("Were you followed? Oh no of course not. No one outside Washington even knows you're here!") yet despite this the plot somehow remains confusing. By the time a sinister Vladimir Putin lookalike Priest (no less than Kronsteen from From Russia with Love) swaggers up to his pulpit to deliver a sermon your brain will have switched off, which is unfortunate because you'll miss our hero - pinned to the ground during a fight - struggling to reach for a plank of wood only to later realise he is in fact sitting on a loaded pistol, and him shouting "You bastaaaard!" at his friend's murdered corpse, and the leather-bound, moustachioed go-go boys, the morris dancing and the hilarious torture sequence - all of which provide ample laughs. Only the climactic boat chase impresses. It's an exciting, well-directed sequence that really has no place in this movie. Such a glaring anomaly is explained when the credits roll - Reeve had nothing to do with that sequence! Thankfully everything goes back to business as usual for the ridiculous, spit-out-your-drink twist and warehouse shootout.<br /><br />Unless such a wretched thing as a Geoffrey Reeve completist exists - and you're one of them - I wouldn't bother with this instantly forgettable nonsense.
Storyline drags. Drug smugglers a Beautiful women and a determined cop. Nothing not already done a hundred times before. The boat sceen will be well worth the wait Amsterdam is the perfect city to pull it off. The canals and waterways put you on the edge of your seat. I would say the same as did the car chase in Bullitt, very intense!.
Ruggero Deodato is often credited for inventing the cannibal subgenre with JUNGLE HOLOCAUST in 1975. But director Umberto Lenzi, usually acknowledged as a Deodato rip-off, directed THE MAN FROM DEEP RIVER 3 years earlier in 1972. Is it a worthy start for the genre? Well....not really.....<br /><br />A photographer accidentally kills a man in self-defense and while retreating into the jungles of an Asian country, is captured by a native tribe who hold him captive, force him into slave labor, and eventually accept him when he marries the chief's daughter. Throughout the whole film, I never felt this was a horror film. It was more reminiscent of a drama, like A MAN CALLED HORSE, which I liked better. Ivan Rassimov is pretty good as the photographer, but it is Me Me Lai as the chief's daughter who is memorable and great. I have always been a Me Me Lai fan ever since her breathtaking performance in JUNGLE HOLOCAUST and she is never given credit for her acting chops because she hardly speaks in her films. She is still very talented and charming. Lots of real animal mutilation is the one thing about DEEP RIVER that could make it a horror film, but even that doesn't execute well.<br /><br />THE MAN FROM DEEP RIVER is good to see for those who want to see what started the cannibal subgenre, but as an entry in the genre, is easily eclipsed by Deodato's entries and even Lenzi's own later entries. Recommended only for completists and Me Me Lai fans.
No shortage of female flesh but still not interesting! Lenzi at least is capable of so far greater probably peaking at Spasmo and starting with Kiss Me Kill Me<br /><br />The Hard Gore R2 DVD release may be cut at 86 minutes, but this movie contains one act of cannibalism and one victim - a scene with a native girl who is brutalised and disembowelled by the cannibal tribe we are warned of and who later set fire to some huts. Arsonist Holocaust? Firestarter Fernox anyone?<br /><br />Certainly not a cannibal flick but was there ever a decent one made? Avoid.
I purchased this one for a couple of dollars at the local video store, as they cleared out their tapes in favour of DVDs. I doubt they'll be replacing this one, somehow.<br /><br />I couldn't say that it's one of the worst movies I've ever seen, but it's very dull. No real cannibal scenes. Me Me Lai is not naked enough of the time (only about 4 or 5 times). And she's not the Thai goddess that I expected, either. So two of my reasons for watching this movie were knocked out.<br /><br />There is some severe animal violence here for those that enjoy that sort of thing. A great fight between a mongoose and a large snake gets quite bloody. Animal torture, as well, some of which is real and some fake. Thankfully the fake is somewhat funny, but the real is just a little sickening.<br /><br />Generally speaking, it's a 70s film - overly long, under-developed, not as deep as it would have liked to have been. But it's something different, right? ONE AND A HALF STARS!
From the late teens to the 1920s, Stan Laurel was a solo act in films. During this time period, Laurel was definitely NOT among the upper echelons of talent and his humor isn't nearly as good as contemporaries such as Lloyd or Keaton. However, for second-tier short comedies, he did create a decent niche. As far as the quality of the films go, they varied wildly. Some, such as DR. PYCKLE AND MR. PRYDE, were terrific, whereas most were of average to below average in quality.<br /><br />FROZEN HEARTS is an odd film. Like many of the films he made for Hal Roach and distributed by Pathé during this period, the costumes were absolutely first-rate and the film looked very nice. However, despite this and having support from the likes of James Finlayson, one thing they forgot to include in this film was humor. None of the jokes seem to work and the film looks almost like a drama, not a comedy. Only the really silly intertitle cards betray the type film it's supposed to be.<br /><br />My advice is try to see all his Laurel and Hardy films and then see the solo films. In addition to DR. PYCKLE, try seeing THE SOILERS and MUD AND SAND--two of his more tolerable solo shorts.
I am testing myself to watch 3 bad movies in a row to find out if watching 3 bad movies in a row could give me amnesia I have a dubbed to English version of this movie. Now let me go down the points Music Score: bad quality but at least it suits Story: it's about a guy who goes to a town and he meets his sheriff brother and they fight for farmers land from a major and he allies with mexicans to drive them out and Trinity and his brother try to teach them to defend it - The final climatic fight scene will confuse anyone about who the #### are the good guys Conclusion: better than I thought but I need to continue with this I am next going to watch the Dolph Lungren and Jean-Claudde Vanne Damme movie "Universal Soldier" pray for my sanity
Very interesting to find another reviewer who had the exact same reaction to this movie as I did: It was a heck of a lot better when I was 10 or 11 years old.<br /><br />Seeing it more than 30 years later, it's still okay, but it only mildly held my interest. What seemed hugely funny back then was only mildly amusing.<br /><br />Also, things that were astonishing to me as a 10-year-old came across as just silly. For example, in one scene Trinity is walking along and fires his revolver behind him and kills two men without even looking. In fact, he doesn't even bother to look and see if they're dead, because he knows he hit the mark. Um, yeah, right.<br /><br />In addition, a lot of the dialogue sounds quite wooden. Sorry, but 35 years later, it hasn't really aged that well.<br /><br />Although it's been a long time since I've seen that one as well, probably a better Terrence Hill film than this one would be My Name Is Nobody.
This movie is overrated, to say the least. It's not good as a comedy, and it's not good as a "serious" film either. The pacing is far too plodding for the former, and there is too much lame slapstick for the latter. The only laughs come from some of Bud Spencer's reaction shots when he becomes exasperated by his brother's behavior. The dubbing is excellent but the full-screen framing is appalling. (*1/2)
I think I win the "bargain" contest for this movie, since I got it as part of a "Martial Arts Movie Classics" DVD collection with 50 movies for 20 bucks, which means I paid something like 50 cents for the chance to watch the "Black Fist" version of a movie that was released as "Bogard." <br /><br />For a basic "revenge" flick, "Black Fist" isn't too bad, even though it is obviously hampered by a low budget. One of my informal "rules of thumb" for watching a movie is that if the lead actor is better than his production and screenplay, the movie automatically gets at least three stars. That is certainly the case here; Lawson has some presence and some charisma, and probably deserved a better film career than he got. <br /><br />The street fight choreography (the ostensible reason for the film) really won't to impress anyone who has ever sparred in a martial arts school or even just been punched in a schoolyard fight. I only spent about two years learning basic kung fu, but even I would never fall for the front "stamp" kicks, arm drags, and roundhouse punches on display here. But the atmosphere is good - dust and blood and shouting crowds, and the actors put some feeling into the fight scenes. <br /><br />Less believable is the plot. Dawson's character "Leroy Fisk", is portrayed as a street-smart, sharp young man who goes looking for work as a pick-up fighter in illegal, unsanctioned street matches. Yet he is surprised and indignant when he has to pay off the cops? Excuse me, but I was raised in small town Iowa and even *I* knew (from watching "Hard Times" with Charles Bronson) that the cops have to be paid off for this sort of action, and that the guys who fight needed the fixers in order to get their matches, and that the fixers were worth the money. So you have to watch this movie with a sort of willful suspension of your critical faculties in order to accept it as a "black brother being repressed" movie. (Most of the other non-black fighters in the stable get punched in the face for the same deal too,yes?).<br /><br />The movie suffers from a short attention span. The director obviously didn't have the budget to film some of the scenes he needed, so he had to fill in the gaps with some fairly ludicrous exposition scenes (The "I wined him, I dined him, and then I killed him" scene just doesn't work) along with voice-overs and montages that are clumsy and unconvincing. This is especially true with the whole romance angle which seems to have been filmed as if it were an afterthought. This is a little shoddy when you consider that the death of "Fisk's" wife's death is supposed to fuel his drive for revenge.<br /><br />But, once the movie switches all the way from "young fighter rising through the ranks" to the revenge theme, it picks up a little steam and plays with a little more conviction. I'm not sure that the final payoff is worth the buildup - Roger Ebert calls this sort of thing "a long drive for a short day at the beach"..but it does tie things off in a reasonably satisfying way. <br /><br />If Sylvester Stallone had made this film with a real budget and the same cast, slicker sets and costumes, and himself as the hero, people would have hailed it as the next "Rocky", which goes to show you how circumstance and chance can play havoc with would-be filmmakers' dreams. <br /><br />Worth seeing once for various decent shots and lines and to watch Dabney Coleman embarrass himself in a role that is beneath him.
I saw Bogard when it was released in the 70s. It was one of those pictures that received an X rating for violence. We snuck into our local grindhouse, and saw it anyway. Pretty good picture. Lots of blood from the street fights, although the cheap sound effects for the punches took something away from it. And lots of sex. I remember one of the early scenes when Bogard meets this pretty brunette in an apartment she is showing him. Without saying a word, he picks her up, puts her in the windowsill and nails her. From what I remember the picture sailed from that point on. So, when I found out Bogart is also called Black Fist and was available on VHS, I ordered it online. I was very disappointed. Black Fist is Bogard edited for television. So many of the scenes I remember were missing, I wondered if indeed, this was the same picture.
I got this movie in a bargain bin, hoping for an amusingly bad flick. Boy was I disappointed. (except for avon.) You see, the movie is indeed horrible, but so horrible, it isn't even laughable. The plot, oh wait, there is no plot. I suppose you could say it's about the main character rising up in the ranks of street fighting. At the end of the movie, the directors decided to either not make any more sense, or, more likely, died and had a monkey finish directing the movie. DON'T READ IF YOU DON'T WANT THE ENDING SPOILED! although the ending doesn't really spoil anything. The main character somehow ends up in a room filled with mirrors, a la Enter The Dragon, and then gets real angry, has stupid flashback, and hits a mirror. The end. Wheeee.<br /><br />The only redeeming factor of this movie was Avon's scene. He's talking to the rival street fighting boss and says something along these lines, completely deadpan: "Do not worry about him anymore sir. I have killed him in a sophisticated manner. I wined him, I dined hm, we went to a disco. We was havin a lot of fun. And then I killed him." at which point the boss says "good work avon. You're number 1." And avon says "Number 1! Alllriiiiight! Alriiight!" The scene continues with avon continuing to say "alllrriiiight!" over and over. The next scene is of a dead Avon floating in a pool. Intelligent? I think not.<br /><br />Lastly, I own the "Homeboy" version of this movie, meaning the title on the box I own is "Homeboy." It shows a huge guy holding a giant gun and screaming. This never happens in the movie. This man is never in the movie. High quality.<br /><br />Note--I am new to this reviewing, but hell yes I am going to keep it up.
This is a really mediocre film in the vein of "Buckaroo Banzai." The cast runs around like "Mad Max" wannabes, and they seem to be sharing a joke that they do not want to share with the audience. Wheeler-Nicholson is one of the those guilty pleasure actresses you are delighted to stumble across in films, but she isn't worth the price of rental. Space Maggot starts an electrical fire, and burns a vote of 4.
After seeing this film, I did not want my money back. I wanted my TIME back. I wanted that hour and a half back in my life - it was the most amazing, hideous torture to know that I had squandered precious minutes of my life on this dreck. I am scarred for life, and ever since this "film" entered my life I have had trouble sleeping. I am trying to suppress the memories, really I am. . . but they make me want to burn things.<br /><br />
Where do I start. Lets list the good things about this movie first.<br /><br />1. Mikael Persbrandt is great as the Gangster Thomas. This is the only character you will actually care about, and he's a bad guy! (allthogh never does anything bad, and is generally a pretty likable guy) 2. Kjell Bergkvist is always great. He's a bit toned down here, but he is quite funny still 3. The movie looked pretty good by Swedish standards, good use of depth of field and lights.<br /><br />Now the bad. This is by far the worst script to make it into the big screen ever. The acting by everyone else was pretty bad and over the top. The direction was horrible. A totally meaningless story, totally unrealistic characters and events and 1.5 hours to long. During emotional scenes pretty much everyone in the theater laughed. People just started walking out during the course of the screening. <br /><br />There's no way to actually summarize the story into something coherent, so I wont even try. Every cliché ever conceived is in there, and in all the wrong places. I'm sorry to say this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my entire life. <br /><br />Watch it for a good laugh, but try not to pay any money for it ;)<br /><br />.R
This movie features several well known actors which I usually like, so I had at least modest expectations when I rented this on DVD. I was highly disappointed. In fact I walked off for some snacks somewhere during the last half hour and somehow I ended up in the kitchen rather then going back to the TV. The actor performances where poor pretty much all across the board and none of the atmospheres in the movie felt very convincing. Virtually all scenes had that "just a movie" feeling to them, I just sat there waiting to hear the director calling "CUT!" followed by the crew having a little chat about the scene before moving on to the next.<br /><br />Since the movie is about gangsters most characters are tough and mob-like, the problem here is just that this whole bad-boy attitude is played out so poorly that it just feels like a joke. The constant guitar-drilling soundtrack really tries to emphasize this atmosphere too, but when the same track is played the 18th time it just adds to the already strong feeling of the whole thing just being fake.<br /><br />Maybe it was just a really really bad script, maybe it was just poorly executed. I'm no movie critic, in fact I consider it rare to see something that's REALLY good, but this was just plain bad no matter how objective and forgiving I'm trying to be. NOT recommended, not even as a rental!
This movie is not worth seeing, at least not at a cinema. The story is hard to follow and understand (it starts with 10 minutes of something happening 3 years earlier). It's hard to know if this movie is trying to be a comedy or just is so bad/weird that it sometimes seems like it. American sirens and lights on Swedish police cars is just one example. The acting of Persbrandt and Bergqvist is good as usual, but I think Jenny Lampa acting as Jasmin acts very poor. Zara Zetterqvist acts pretty well, she's not been seen as an actor in Swedish movies for a long time. If you still want to see it, wait until it's released on DVD or is shown on TV.
I just saw this on a local independent station in the New York City area. The cast showed promise but when I saw the director, George Cosmotos, I became suspicious. And sure enough, it was every bit as bad, every bit as pointless and stupid as every George Cosmotos movie I ever saw. He's like a stupid man's Michael Bey--with all the awfulness that accolade promises.<br /><br />There's no point to the conspiracy, no burning issues that urge the conspirators on. We are left to ourselves to connect the dots from one bit of graffiti on various walls in the film to the next. Thus, the current budget crisis, the war in Iraq, Islamic extremism, the fate of social security, 47 million Americans without health care, stagnating wages, and the death of the middle class are all subsumed by the sheer terror of graffiti.<br /><br />A truly, stunningly idiotic film.
MST3K fodder. It's so bad it's actually worth seeing just for that reason. There are some hilarious things in it, such as the mysterious device the bad guy is seen working on for the whole movie, that turns out to be this tiny helicopter that flutters around carrying and firing a machine gun without so much as a wobble, but is brought down by a bag of balloons (the kind they release at political conventions). Many other wonderful touches of that sort. Stars Charlie Sheen. There's one scene where he spends five minutes recording a conversation, only to drop the microcassette in the Potomac River by accident. If they'd cast Emilio Estevez in the part that never would've happened.
They make everything too easy in this film. It sort of reminded me of Indiana Jones where he hides on the outside of a submarine during an ocean crossing. Everybody knows everything that's going on, it's just real easy to get anyplace you want in the White House. I don't even know why I watched half of it. Because I like Charlie Sheen and Donald Sutherland. I expect the usual ability to dodge bullets from every angle, and be able to run faster than a motorcycle (usually it's faster than a car in a garage or a allyway). It was silly, mostly, and I didn't even know then had a ten-story elevator in the White House. Anyway, anything conspiratorial is always interesting.
1st watched 2/25/2002 - 4 out of 10(Dir-George P. Cosmatos): Predictable action thriller where any frequent movie goer could guess what was coming next. Charlie Sheen is the good old boy to the President who just happens to be not liked by the rest of the presidential staff. Of course, he gets involved in a situation where he's framed over and over again and he has one friend in the White House, played by Sutherland, who naturally doesn't stay that way for very long. His other friend is a reporter played by Linda Hamilton(who has very little to do or say in this meaningless role), and of course his biggest and bestest friend is the President himself(Sam Waterston) who stays his pal till the end despite everyone else being killed around him. Brainless yet action-packed meaningless trife despite loads and loads of acting talent(all pretty much wasted.)
This movie is filled with so many idiotic moments, that you wonder how it ever got made. For example, they get into the sewers from the Capitol and while they're in the sewers you can see signs pointing to various government buildings, and then they come up in the middle of the street! I highly doubt that government buildings would provide public access through the city sewer system. Anyways, I gave this a 2 instead of a 1 just because of its comic value. I laughed the whole way through at the idiocy of everyone involved in this movie.
This film is bad. It's filled with glaring plot holes, characters who are ruled by stupidity, bad acting and above all, a poor script which has been done before in many, many films, only better. I feel sorry for Donald Sutherland, I just hope he had to do this film rather than wanted to! Miss it.
My Take: Routine political thriller with mediocre action scenes and predictable twists. <br /><br />A rarely seen political thriller, which made a very poor box-office response, I managed to catch THE SHADOW CONSPIRACY on TV just now, and while I was glad that I satisfied my curiosity to see this rare film, I didn't exactly feel this film was all special. Considering the box-office response to it, SHADOW CONSPIRACY is not all quite as bad as critics and the public reacted to it, but still ain't very good to begin with and everything, from script to direction, is pretty predictable. Charlie Sheen plays the presidential assistant who finds himself caught up with assassins and chases (a lot of them) when he discovers a deadly conspiracy which lurks amongst the White House staff. After a professor is murdered, Sheen aids the help of ex-flame reporter Amanda Givens (Linda Hamilton) to uncover the traitor and unlock the conspiracy of the title. <br /><br />But this script, written by Adi Hasak & Ric Gibbs, are pedestrian as they come, not much differing from other White House conspiracy thrillers as in ABSOLUTE POWER and MURDER AT 1600. Some considerable talents (Donald Sutherland, Ben Gazzara and Stephen Lang) try their best on a routine script, but rarely saves it from predictability of the script. Not to mention a ludicrous scene which involves a toy helicopter, which seems far too silly and out-of-place in this "serious" political thriller. THE SHADOW CONSPIRACY has its moments I'm sure, some of which are much to under-appreciated (director George Pan Cosmatos serves up some decent chase scenes), but none of which lifts this routine thriller of which there's not much payoff or surprises. <br /><br />Rating: ** out of 5.
This all looked quite promising. An up-and-coming Presidential adviser is framed for a series of murders, as he has been tipped off that a conspiracy is going on within the White House. It stars the excellent Donald Sutherland among several capable actors. Yet very few people have a good word to say about it.<br /><br />The whole thing really needed some depth. You can pick up the idea that the President is being too left-wing with his ideas, and some within the Government want him dead to stop those ideas being carried out. Conrad appears to simply want the country to be Governed his way, rather than the way of the elected leader.<br /><br />However, the action scenes had a few logic holes - the sewers and elevators already mentioned, and the rather haphazard assassination method - and Linda Hamilton's character is completely uninspired. Her 'the President's my Father' 'diversion' was ludicrous - that would make the President about 10 when that happened. Worse still was her predictable final scene with Bishop.<br /><br />They could have made a challenging, inventive political thriller, but either bottled it or failed. They could've gone to town on special effects, but the good ones were wasted. They could have achieved so much more in general. This was barely worth the £1 it cost me.
This film starts with a pedestrian setup before blundering into the standard sort of suspense action where an office worker keeps beating up trained secret service men etc.<br /><br />I couldn't say the acting was bad - there were some good "surprised" faces by Hamilton and Sheen - but then I really wouldn't have to. <br /><br />Risible finale did at least give me a good laugh for my pains. Still, if my life was flashing before my eyes, I think I would fast forward this 90 minutes.<br /><br />I have to write two more lines of text just to get this thing published. Yes, very resistant suit that sheen wears. I made a special promise to myself never to watch a film this bad again.
I still wonder why I sat through this entire thing. It only had about 3 minutes of actual entertainment, the rest of it was just a total bore. The acting isn't that great and the action scenes are soooo cheesy it's not even funny. I kinda wish I could say something good about this film but I can't think of anything right now. There probably was somethings in it some can enjoy but the ending of it is gotta be the dumbest idea ever. What type of person would get a little toy remote controlled helicopter with a burned in machine gun in it to assassinate the President? This idea could have never been done in the first place let alone have anyone dumb enough to try it, I guess the writer must have been to obsessed with the toy car scene in The Dead Pool but actually tried to make this look serious.
Rarely have I seen an action/suspense movie that was so boring. None of the action scenes are exciting the story line is nothing special and except for a couple of actors the acting is bad. Charlie Sheen (Platoon, Major League) stars as the White House Chief of Staff, who gets himself in the middle of a conspiracy that wants him and more people dead. Donald Sutherland (A Time to Kill, Fallen) plays a friend who he tells everything he can and Linda Hamilton (Linda Hamilton, Terminator, Dante's Peak) plays a reporter who gets involved in the situation. Charlie Sheen is OK as the star, Donald Sutherland is a good actor who gives a good performance. Linda Hamilton gives a poor performance. With a bad movie, I can actually like it if it has a good ending, but this movie has a very cheesy ending with some almost laughable stuff.
After watching this movie, I felt as if I had just eaten a box of stale, chewy cracker jack only to find no prize inside. This movie has real promise: porn stars in a skinemax feature! Unfortunately, someone forgot to tell the producers that WE LIKE SOME T&A IN OUR T & A FLICKS!!! Sure, we get a few quick flashes and a couple of "bathing in the creek" scenes. But where's the sex? How can you have four girls, "sorority girls" no less, in this type of movie with only one, pitiful 5 second lesbian scene? Good night, USA Up All Night provides more titillation! Look, we don't watch this type of movie for great cinematography, screenwriting or action. We want to see some kink! What a letdown.
Bare Wench is another softcore parody of the Blair Witch project (I think there's about two dozen of those things out there). It has 5 very attractive women (which includes Nikki Fritz, Julie Smith, and Julie Strain), and one dorky guy whose only purpose is to provide comic relief.<br /><br />Okay, so I'm thinking "Cool. Great looking women, having softcore lesbian sex with each other very 10 minutes or so. This should be real good."<br /><br />Unfortunately, the producers blew it. There is nothing in this video that actually qualifies as a sex scene. There's a couple of false starts, but the majority of the action is just the women posing for the camera. I guess once the producers had spent their money on the women, and spent more getting them to remove their clothes, they didn't have any money left to get them to actually do anything. And I guess they also used up all their alloted nudity time too early, because towards the end of the video, there is a huge amount of pointless dialogue that is obviously being used for no other reason than to pad out the run time. "You're a liar! No you are! You go into the cave! No you go! I think we should go home! Well, I don't!" This goes on and on and on forever.<br /><br />There's way better stuff than this.
What can you say about a film that makes "The Erotic Witch Project" look like "The English Patient." Again, the plot and characters are secondary, but the plot is almost an exact copy of "TEWP."<br /><br />Four buxom sorority sisters and a goofy male guide enter a forest to look for the bare wench, and the women become sexually charged. The bare wench leaves porno devices and a blow up doll, just like in "TEWP." They get lost, the doofus gets lost, and the girls find their way back to their hotel. There they reenact the end of "The Blair Witch Project," as cameras are dropped and the guide is seen playing hopscotch, a game integral to the thin plot.<br /><br />At least three of the sorority sisters here have unnaturally large breasts full of dimples and stretch marks, along with the rather obvious surgery scars. The one "natural" gal here is humiliated by the director. In a very unfunny, and overlong, end credit segment, outtake scenes where she could not get a line right is played over and over again ad nauseum.<br /><br />Julie Strain shows up in a fright wig to play the bare wench. This one scene seems to be added later, since no one could possibly be credited in the cast with shooting it. In the background, as the women cavort and stroke, you can see someone's picket fence. This may be director Jim Wynorski's backyard.<br /><br />This is just bad stuff. The lesbian love scenes are kelvin degrees cooler than "The Erotic Witch Project''s. Most of the lovin' consists of the four women mashing their eight collective breasts together. I think they are trying to form a silicone based lifeform that would rescue them from this bad career decision. No such luck. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then the makers of "The Blair Witch Project" should be really really mad.<br /><br />This is unrated, and contains mild physical violence, strong profanity, female nudity, sexual content, and sexual references.<br /><br />
Looking all of 29 years old, Rob Lowe is a detective in charge of a murder investigation.<br /><br />When the husband of a society woman (Leslie Hope) is found dead, police suspect the rich chick might have something to do with it. Enter Rob who immediately falls for the pretty widow even though he claims that he's just trying to be 'helpful'. Rob is such a good cop, he is able to sneak some of her incriminating love letters into his coat pocket before he accidentally throws them into the fireplace. Monotonous murky drama with an endless drone of background music.<br /><br />This is a good substitute sleeping remedy if you've run out of Sominex.
This movie is exactly the same as Ridley Scott's, "Someone To Watch Over Me", which is a classic. It stars Tom Berenger and Mimi Rogers and the bad guy from the Fugitive. It's a quality movie, with good direction and great acting. This movie is the polar opposite. It's the same plot, just minus any good acting and adding TV movie direction. I do have to say I like the interaction between Lowe and the woman. She's hot and their romance is believable on many levels. Unfortunately, that alone cannot save this carbon copy of the classic Ridley Scott film.<br /><br />Usually crappy TV movies have some redeeming quality that makes them watchable at the very least. I think for me, this film's redeeming value is that Rob Lowe and the lead female have chemistry. That and I was able to watch and compare the plot to another quality film.
There was absolutely nothing in this film that hadn't been done better in a hundred other films. It was barely worth the trouble of watching through to the end. Even the bad language sounded tired. Tom McCamus, a very fine actor, was particularly disappointing here.
Orson Welles' 1974 documentary "F for Fake" examines trickery and fraud, mainly focusing on two men who have been exposed as frauds themselves. Clifford Irving is a biographer who wrote the allegedly fraudulent Howard Hughes autobiography, yet, at least it seems, purports his innocence. The other main subject of the film is artist Elmyr de Hory, a man who has spent his life painting fakes of famous masterpieces, sometimes selling them to museums as real works by the original artists. Interspersed among these stories are bits where Welles does magic tricks to illustrate points, etc., and he also addresses the fact that his career began as a fraud when he first lied on his resume and then created a radio sensation with "War of the Worlds".<br /><br />I really wanted to love this film and find it profound since I am such a Welles devotee, but I couldn't bring myself to do it. Part of the problem lied with the fact that it was not just non-linear, it was completely scattered. While I appreciate stylish editing and quick jumps and zooms, particularly when used in an unusual format such as a documentary, there was simply too much of it going on in "F for Fake". They created a distraction as opposed to lending style. If the story had been more clear and comprehensive, I think that the editing probably would not have been as annoying. The scattered storytelling was made all the more obnoxious by the fact that these were truly interesting subjects, particularly Elmyr de Hory. His artistic fakery brings up the topic of fraud in the art world, and who is truly able to determine the authenticity of certain works; and if the works are not authentic, what does it say about those who admire the pieces in museums? This is one documentary that I would say to at least give a shot, but don't be afraid to turn it off if you're not enjoying it. It is certainly the most discombobulated documentary I have ever seen; it is a cross between a documentary, an art film and experimental film, none of which is properly represented or isolated. I don't have any lesser opinion of Welles after seeing it, but it certainly, in my opinion, doesn't stand out as a glowing specimen in his oeuvre. 4/10 --Shelly
that Welles said was that he's been in decline his whole career.<br /><br />There was an interesting story here. Unfortunately, Welles seemed completely incapable of telling it. Instead, he was trying to tell a bunch of different stories, about Elmyr, about Clifford Irving, about his pompous view of critics and experts, oh, yeah, and trying to jump start his current girlfriend's career by giving her unneeded screen time. (Oja, honey, when they told you to sleep with the director, they didn't mean one washed up like a whale on a beach!) <br /><br />Welles was probably trying to cash in with a bunch of footage of Clifford Irving as Irving was becoming a household name with his role in the faked auto-biography of Howard Hughes. Unfortunately, it means the subject of his film, Elmyr, didn't get the time he deserved and he was probably the more interesting story.<br /><br />The great tragedy of Orson Welles was that he peaked early, and then spent the rest of his career sputtering, finally doing wine commercials and awful documentaries...
When I typed Savage Intruder into the IMDb's search engine one of the options it came up with was Savage Garden: International Video Collection: The Story so Far (1999), the only reason I mention this is because I'm a huge Savage Garden fan & you should do yourself a favour & check some of their music out like Affirmation or To the Moon and Back rather than bother with this average pot-boiler, sorry I just wanted to say that. Anyway, Savage Intruder starts with a bizarre montage of what looks like MGM musical & premiere footage & a few spinning portraits which have no meaning whatsoever in the long run. It's late 60's Hollywood & amid the glitz & glamour a serial killer is at work selecting ageing actresses, killing them & dismembering their bodies. A young man named Vic Valance (David Garfield as John David Garfield) hops off a tour bus looking for employment when it stops at the house of a now retired actress, Katharine Parker (Miriam Hopkins) who was 'one of the biggest stars of the motion picture' but now lives in a big house with an elderly housekeeper named Mildred (Florence Lake), a personal secretary Leslie Blair (Gale Sondergaard) & a young maid named Geta (Virginia Wing). Katharine has recently broken her foot & needs a personal assistant & gives Vic the job. Slowly Vic charms his way into Katharine's affections & more importantly her large wallet. Vic starts to turn Katharine against the other employees, but Vic isn't what he seems. Vic is a drug addicted loon who gets Greta pregnant while still having sex with Katharine. Greta threatens to tell Katharine & spoil Vic's devious plans but she has a close encounter with an axe, no one in the house is safe as Vic brings drugs, sex, rock 'n' roll party's & gardening to the Parker mansion while his sinister plan starts to become more & more apparent...<br /><br />Written, produced & directed by Donald Wolfe I thought Savage Intruder was a bit of a mess but a mildly entertaining one at the same time. The script is all over the place & it can't really decide what it wants to be, Savage Intruder suffers from an identity crisis! The film starts with the discovery of a severed head & limbs, straight after another woman (Dorothy Kingston) is killed by a mysterious unidentified figure but then it completely ditches the slasher film elements that it has just built up never going back to them. Savage Intruder then becomes a sort of feel good film as Vic befriends Katharine & shows her how to enjoy life again & having an implied sexual relationship with her, it's actually disgusting to think about as she's old enough to be his Grandmother. Katharine stops living the life of a recluse & gives up the alcohol as Vic appears to make her happy as they go to party's together & hold banquets for Katharine's friend like she used too. This part of Savage Intruder wouldn't look out of place in a Disney film! Every so often the tedium of the feel good stuff is interrupted by Vic shooting up & having silly hallucinations about his Mother (Sybelle Guardino) & chopping her hand off with an axe, he has sex with Great at one point as well. Then, after Greta has been murdered, Savage Intruder becomes a bizarre horror film as Vic is revealed for the loony that he is. Savage Intruder just doesn't flow properly as a film in my opinion as it mixes various genres with little success. Similarly the murder mystery elements don't work & are frankly a bit of a puzzle, why go to great lengths to conceal the killers identity during the murder scenes but then make it perfectly clear who is committing them throughout the rest of the film anyway? Vic as a character didn't work for me either, one moment he's a cool, calm, clever & devious con man & then next he's a stark raving loony! Why kill all his other victims but with Katharine try to con her? What makes her so different? If it is because she has money why not go after her to start with? So many questions & so few answers... Some of the 60's dialogue is pretty funny to listen to these days like when Vic offers Greta a painkiller, in reality hard drugs, & Greta says "what do I need a painkiller for?", Vic helpfully replies "because your a pain" wow this guy knows how to charm the ladies! Or when Katharine suggests that Vic do some gardening & ask's "do you have green fingers?" he replies "no, but I'm good at grass!" There isn't much gore in Savage Intruder, some severed limbs & a couple of decapitated heads. There is also a fairly impressive shot when someone has their hand cut off with an axe which is probably why it's repeated three or four times. The silly looking drug hallucination scenes need to be seen to be believed. Technically Savage Intruder is OK, the location filming in the grandiose mansion & Hollywood hills probably give it a better look than it deserves, the acting is average as is the rest of the production. Overall I'd say Savage Intruder feels like it tries to be a murder mystery that unfortunately gives the killer away & as a result just doesn't work. It's a mildly entertaining one-time-watch at best & a complete mess of a film at worse, you decide which!
Every once in awhile I'll remember that I've actually seen this bizarre fiasco that's a cross between "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?", "Sunset Boulevard," the Lana Turner LSD movie "The Big Cube" and the Manson murders, which also took place in 1969 but maybe before this so-called "movie" was made! There are some descriptions of the plot already here, so I won't go into it. But it's worth noting that Miriam Hopkins plays a parody of herself: a chattering, ego-maniacal, fading actress. Perhaps she thought she was making a movie that would be as successful as one of the Bette Davis horrors. The old gal Hopkins never stopped working, so you have to hand it to her. She shows a little too much flesh in this movie, something Davis and Crawford would never have done. And there's a scene with Miriam in the actual tacky Hollywood Boulevard Christmas parade, which must have been filmed Xmas, 1968.<br /><br />Gale Sondergard is old, old, old. It's just shocking how wrinkled and awful she looks. John Garfield, Jr. looks a bit like his father, but not as interesting. I think one of the Three Stooges is the tour guide at the beginning. If it's not one of the Stooges, it's somebody.<br /><br />I was astounded to come across this thing in the form of a commercial videotape given to me by a friend who knows all about junk like this. It's amazing!!!
From the brilliant mind that brought us "The Exorcist"...and "Cruising." "Rampage" is unfortunately more like the latter. It's an overall messy movie that has a major made-for-TV vibe going for it. The whole film pretends to hinge on the question, "What if the 'Boy Next Door' was a serial killer?" but instead it winds up being an uninspired courtroom drama and meditation on the the insanity plea and death penalty that makes little sense. The movie is very loosely based on the Richard Trenton Chase case, culling a few facts here and there to make a fake character and a different outcome. One of the main points of the film seems to be that ending the life of a terminally braindead child and ending the life of a murderer are somehow analagous. "Sometimes you just have to choose," says the lead character. Yeah, sometimes you have to choose to pull the plug...on your TV!
Man this thing bites! I am sorry I ever sat down and watched it! Friedkin was insane for making a film attempting to win over the viewers sympathy for this lunatic If it were up to me I'd have made the audience hate that low life instead of getting all misty eyed over him! He killed people! Quite grizzly I might add too! And Friedkin wants you to feel sorry for him because he's "not right"! I say Friedkin can forget it! I hate the guy this movie is partly based on and hope they did wise up and give his sorry butt the juice!!! In a nut shell, don't waste your time! It's sick and perverse!
When I first heared that there was going to be The World is not Enough video game for the Nintendo 64, I was so excited. When it finally came out, I was one of the first ones to rent it. I rented it for 7 days, and I got through the whole game!!! The game was to easy and gave out too much hints. A majour dissapointing sequel to GoldenEye. Take my advice and DO NOT RENT THIS GAME.<br /><br />Sure the guns and gadgets are cool, but one gets tired of a watch lazer that looks like it was taken right from GoldenEye with the exception of being a red color instead of a blue color, a poor excuse for a dart gun, horrible stunner and a stupid grapple hook that can only attach itself to things that are yellow and black.<br /><br />I think that RARE should of made this game instead of EA who should stick to games there good at making, like sport games and should stear clear of first person shooters and let the masters do the work.
when i first read about "berlin am meer" i didn't expect much. but i thought with the right people, the right locations, the right music and fashion you could at least make a trivial movie about the hip berlin everyone seems to be talking about. but eissler failed, it's so ridiculously unauthentic. it's a complete misrepresentation of what it is going on in berlin's so called scene. of course it's not all about hippness, but you should expect more from a movie that's being sold as "the definite berlin movie".<br /><br />and apart from all the credibility stuff, it really is a bad movie. mediocre acting and a rather boring plot. interestingly some of the actors have proved in other movies that they are actually quite talented. so it really must be poor directing skills.<br /><br />don't bother watching "berlin am meer" unless you are 17, come from some small town in western Germany and want to move to the big city after you finished school. then you might actually find it enjoyable and totally cool.
I was prepared for a bad movie, and a bad movie it is, so I guess I shouldn't complain. Twentysomething Tom (gay poster boy Robert Stadlober) has so many issues he doesn't know if he's coming or going. I wouldn't have stayed but for the pretty girls: Serious Mavie (Anna Brüggemann); no-nonsense Angie (Emma Daubas); Sarah Baumann as the star of the movie within the movie. And then there's Tom's soul mate, wild-eyed Margarete (Jana Pallaske). She reminds me of Béatrice Dalle and Gina Gershon. If you've got to remember, these are fine memories. She looks good even in the most ridiculous outfits, and I mean ridiculous, even by Berlin standards. I wonder whether I'd have liked this movie when I was the characters' age. My guess is I wouldn't. Watch out for indie idols Oli Schulz and Max Schröder of "Der Hund Marie" performing as street musicians, feeling no pain.
While I have seen and enjoyed similar movies to this one that were silent films about the Russian Revolution, such as POTEMKIN and TEN DAYS THAT SHOOK THE WORLD, I did not particularly enjoy this one. This was mostly due to the annoying and "artsy" way that the director chose to shoot the film. While POTEMKIN excelled in its editing style, this movie used similar techniques with a lot less finesse--in some places, the editing seemed very choppy and amateurish. Plus, and this was truly annoying, the use of zombies throughout the beginning of the film and late in the film really was over-the-top. What I mean by "zombies" is that to illustrate just how depressed and oppressed the Ukranian peasants were, the people stand like mannequins in many scenes. And, they stand like this, unmoving, for a VERY long period of time, while the "evil" Capitalists and exploiters of the masses walk by. Gimme a break! This movie is a wonderful example of style over substance--and it's only a movie for those who enjoy or can overlook the overindulgent direction.<br /><br />By the way, the DVD for this film is improved, somewhat, if you leave the audio commentary on. This makes the movie easier to follow and gives a few interesting insights.
The film itself is only a compilation of scenes which have no inherent meaning to someone living outside of Russia. I won't deny that some of the images and techniques were quite revolutionary at the time (filmed 1928) but the problem with the film is that it has no interest to the intellectual or common man. We are merely watching an arranged form of pictures, ranging from a one arm man beating a horse, to a toothless soldier in the war. Everything in between is awkward, haphazard and quite unnecessary. It would have been possible to invent a forum which kept the viewer interested but this would not be it although the method of the director is quite brilliant.<br /><br />In all, one should view this if they are an art student, on hallucinogenic drugs, or a student of pre-Tarkovskian cinema.
This was a very nice concert by the one and only MJ. The choreography was excellent and the costumes were decent. The vocals were okay. i have to admit that his vocals were crap on Human Nature and Billie Jean. You couldn't hear him half the time. The other songs make up for the singing. The Highlights of the show are: Jam Smooth Criminal I Just Can't Stop Loving You She's Out Of My Life Thriller Billie Jean (The Dancing Not The Singing) Black or White Man in the Mirror The concert was almost perfect. If it was anybody but Mj it would have been a 9. It is a must see. I wish I was born then so I could have gotten a ticket to the best concert of 1992.
this is the 1990's TV show,not the movie from 1979.it looks to be three episodes totaling just under 90 minutes.before watching,i thought it was one of the movie versions,and i noticed right away,it had a TV show Feel to it.i didn't care for it too much.i just felt the story wasn't there,and there wasn't much in the way of excitement or drama.i was looking at the time elapsed on my DVD player frequently,as i was really bored.i also thought some of the dialogue was,to put it politely,not good.plus, i thought the acting left a lot to be desired. but that's just me however,it is good clean,wholesome family entertainment.there's certainly nothing offensive here.kids will likely enjoy it.for me,The Black Stallion is 4/10
River Queen attempts to pack a complicated, sweeping, historical narrative into just under two hours. There are some breathtaking battle scenes and the Wanganui scenery is beautifully captured. However, the film did suffer from some poor leads - Samantha Morton (Sarah) especially came across as unconvincing. There seemed to be an indecisiveness about how the role should be played - as a helpless waif tossed by fate or as a strong, determined character with a clear view of her destiny. Kiefer Sutherland's character - Private Doyle - seemed to be pointless and for the most part - unintelligible. Keifer's Irish brogue needs a little polishing. On the other hand, Cliff Curtis, Temuera Morrison and Rawiri Pene (as Sarah's son "Boy") were well rounded and believable.<br /><br />The last 20 minutes of River Queen came across as particularly compressed and rushed. It seemed as if they decided they had to tie up all the loose ends before 120 minutes were up. E.g. How on earth did Wiremu know how to find Sarah and Doyle? No explanation and very unsatisfying.<br /><br />I did go to this movie with an open mind. I hadn't read or heard anything much apart from its troubled production. What I experienced was a mish mash of New Zealand history, beautifully photographed but ultimately disappointing.
As the above suggests, I was ultimately unimpressed with this movie. It is lovely to look at, the scenery is lush, but the detail of the story, in particular the characters, are totally unbelievable. Films don't have to be believable, but films like this, with a political edge and social commentary do. <br /><br />Similarly, I have no problem with commercialism as such, but once again, films like this shouldn't be making casting decisions purely based on box office draw. This is absolutely the case with Sutherland, who is frankly rubbish as Doyle. His accent was far from authentic, but he fell into the biggest trap of all, his accent IS his performance, and we end up with a caricature of Irishness with no personality outside of his nationality. I find it totally implausible that anyone involved thought he was the best man for the job. All in all, this is a clear case of commercial interest over quality and when you're trying to be The Mission, this kind of thing wrecks your chances of success.<br /><br />Speaking of accents, there were a couple more problems, one being the striking modernity of Boy's accent which acted to dispel the feeling of being transported to another time. More surprising was Samantha Morton's much lauded Irish accent, which was variable to say the least. Her voice meandered between strong north and soft south, even in the voice-overs, where I would've expected any such discrepancies to be picked up.<br /><br />However, these are minor gripes compared to the motivation and actions of Sarah. She never seems at home with the English, and almost instantly at home with her son and his tribe, the dilemma between the life she knew and the life she if offered just seems like a no-brainer. Perhaps a lot has been lost in editing, perhaps this was meant to be a three hour film or a mini series where these things could've been fleshed out, but I can only judge what I've seen.<br /><br />Now the biggest problem, Sarah's (Morton) relationship with Doyle (Sutherland) is incomprehensible. The fact is that her affection for him is not conveyed in any way until her having to choose between him and her son, the conflict she goes through at this point was frankly ridiculous and killed the movie for me. <br /><br />As you may have guessed. this movie didn't work at all for me, but it is top notch to look at, you really won't see anything more stunning in terms of scenery, there are some good performances and my wife liked it.
Set in the mid 1800's when the British is clearing New Zealand outback wilderness to establish colonies. The daughter of a British army surgeon, Sarah(Samantha Morton), falls in love with the son of one of the Maori leaders. The Maori is an indigenous tribe and a dangerous people for the Europeans to deal with. By the time Sarah's child, which she calls "Boy", is born, his father is dead. By the age of six, "Boy" is kidnapped by his father's family and Sarah will begin her search for him with a man(Kiefer Sutherland),who is deeply in love with her.<br /><br />Two-time Oscar nominee Morton is definitely the star of this movie. Sutherland is a total waste. Also starring are: Cliff Curtis, Stephen Rea, Temuera Morrison and David Rawiri Pene. This movie is rated R for some sexual content and violent battle scenes. I find the title RIVER QUEEN very misleading and the DVD cover with Sutherland only and making you believe he is the leading star should be a crime.
Reading through most of the other reviews, I tend to agree with most of the comments. The one thing that I would add is the disjointed way the movie has been Directed and Produced. I think that some of these new wave movie makers think that they are being clever using unusual (sometimes jerky) camera angles, and flitting from one scene to another. It goes down well with these movie festivals, and with some of these Indie type critics, but it spoils the movie for me. I noticed in the reviews, one comment saying that none of this movie makers films have become blockbusters. This would maybe prove my point, as the film has that 'rushed to finish' feeling that makes you wonder why such a beautiful film appears to be lacking a smooth flow. As for the comment about Kiefer Sutherland being a big name to put on the poster, I would bet he cringed when watching the final cut. This is a story with real potential, spoilt by trying to be different in it's production. Worth watching, but not many would come back for a second view.
With an interesting premise (in the conflicts between Europeans and indigenous peoples sometimes the battle lines were not so clear), this should have been a good film. But the story is sabotaged by the director's overriding infatuation with his own cleverness twinned with a very poor script.<br /><br />Yes, the natural setting is beautiful and, yes, the movie is authentic to its 19th century historical setting. But the filmmaker keeps gilding the lily over and over again, adding layer upon layer of over-the-top musical accompaniment, not to mention a completely unnecessary voice-over, to the soundtrack, that ultimately overwhelm the viewer and, by calling attention to themselves, take away from the story.<br /><br />To me, it was clear the director, with his microscopic closeups and the endless recurrence of the musical motif of "Danny Boy" (of all things!) was trying to make a New Zealand version of an epic Sergio Leone film, something on the order of Once Upon A Time In The West. But given the earnestness of the story (most of Leone's westerns were tongue-in-cheek), not to mention that it's no longer 1968, he succeeds in making a parody of one.<br /><br />Too bad.
This was one of the dullest movies I have seen in some time. I'm in my late 40s, and watched it with my son-in-law (early 20s) and son (17). The scenery was beautiful, but the story was a bust. We watched about an hour of it and turned it off. I spent more time on my iphone during the hour that we watched it than I spent actually watching the movie. I gave it a 3 because I enjoyed the scenery and cinematography; otherwise I would have given it a 1. I'm sure there are people who are really into the "art" of it all who will find my review appalling but we're all entitled to our own opinions, right? I couldn't figure out if this was supposed to be a "chick flick" where the focus was on the mother, or if it was supposed to be a movie for guys, with the focus on battle and adventure. In my opinion, it didn't succeed in either.
A good example of reversed, politically correct racism where white men are presented as senseless brutes who're only there to be massacred and their aboriginal adversaries as noble heroes, superior both in their appearance and abilities. Apart from making the story overally dull, this also prevents the neutral viewer to identify himself with one or the other side - it's just too simplifying. The repetitive score is incredibly annoying (as is the voice-over), the characters lack any depth and the viewer is soon lost between questions like "who is this character" and "what the hell is that supposed to mean". Photography is wonderful, though, and on the whole there's a lot of atmosphere to it but nice shots of misty landscapes alone don't save this movie. The DVD box uses Kiefer Sutherland as an eye-catcher. In fact, his character could have been played by anyone else because it's basically just an empty shell (like most non-Maori characters), and disappears anyway around halfway the film. But if you are eager to see Jack Bauer in a kilt, that's your kind of movie...
I was really looking forward to this movie but sadly it didn't live up to expectation.<br /><br />A good movie has the audience identifying/empathising/sympathising with the main actor. Unfortunately this was very hard to do with Samantha Morton.<br /><br />The storyline seemed very disjointed and didn't flow as it should/could have done.<br /><br />Keifer Sutherland appeared to be little more than window dressing and made me wonder why he agreed to play what appeared to be a bit part. Beautiful scenery and the acting of Tem Morrison and Cliff Curtis was about the only plus.<br /><br />Maybe by being a kiwi I set the bar higher for locally made films. Maybe the change of director/ supposedly hard to work with main actor has biased my opinion.<br /><br />Maybe I'm just trying to make excuses for a movie which could have been great.<br /><br />A lot of maybes which still does not explain why this movie just lacked anything special.<br /><br />It could have been great, it wasn't.
Wait... wait... wait... wait... wait... wait..... WHAT!? This movie is terrible, absolutely terrible. 1. The only reason Kiefer Sutherland is on the cover is to sell it to Kiefer fans, only to have their hearts broken. He kills one guy, gets shot, and dies before half the movie is over, not to mention he was only in the first 10 min and then disappeared until the point which he died...WHY put him on the cover if his character BLOWS. 2. Where are the EPIC battle scenes promised in the preview on the back cover? 3. It was way too confusing, i mean whats up with the girl? She had to narrate the movie to TRY to get our attention, she failed! 4. If Kiefer dies in a movie..... it fails. Now I am going to go watch 24..... THIS MOVIE FAILS!
For weeks I had been looking forward to seeing this movie only to find myself hugely disappointed after wards. In my opinion, the only good thing 'River Queen' had going for it was the amazing scenery used as backgrounds. The story line was all over the place, Samantha's character Sarah was very difficult to understand and what on earth were all the many close ups of her face for? It brought absolutely nothing to the story-if there was one at all!A better actor for the part of Boy could also have been selected, to me it sounded like he read his lines straight of the script while shooting his scenes.Overall, a real shame as it could have been such a good movie.
This is by far one the most boring movies I've ever seen! And if you don't believe me go ahead and watch it for yourself.<br /><br />The movie starts of slow, the storyline makes no sense at all. People fighting doesn't make any sense. I could not make sense of what they were talking during the movie (in most cases I didn't even bother) It does nothing to keep you watching the movie, the only plus point would be the cinematography. New Zealand looks awesome. Everything else just plain sucks.<br /><br />The actors try their best to keep us awake, but unfortunately you will go to sleep instead.<br /><br />Do us all a favor, even if this gets on "On Demand", Don't WATCH IT!
wow, i just got one watching this.<br /><br />How CRAPPY post production is on this movie.<br /><br />I kid you not, I literally could've done a better job myself.<br /><br />ALL of post production is flawed, all of it. Whoever cut this film should be banned from the film industry.<br /><br />That aside, the script was a trainwreck. absolute rubish.<br /><br />Not to mention Jack Bauer and his Patchy the Pirate in Spongebob accent. WTF is his character doing there? But to me, the biggest flaw of all was character development, intereaction, dynamics, dialogue. WOW. I cant believe how bad it was.<br /><br />I give this movie a 2 out of 10. 1 for Samantha, who is a great actress, too bad the production made everyone look like amateurs out there.<br /><br />the other 1 goes to cinematography, which was indeed good.<br /><br />Other then that my friend, this is one bad movie.<br /><br />I don't even feel like making an elaborate post on this, it was just horrible production. Poor actors, didn't know what they were getting into...
River Queen's sound recordist should have been fired, in this day and age there is no excuse for poor recording on the set. Mumbling voices was the end result, and the cinematography was average to fair at best. The story had potential and I feel sorry for the overseas actors who must have known they were on a turkey shoot while they were filming. Its obvious that the movie was suffering from el cheapo budget syndrome, and the scene where Temuera is procreating inside the house while a battle rages outside is just too stupid for words. <br /><br />I noticed a few shortcuts taken on the Maori protocol side of things, but this was probably due to movie length time restraints etc. All in all I wasn't impressed with this movie, the Whanganui river has many beautiful spots but this movie gives us a cold, drab and claustrophobic image, with none of the beauty. The movie needed more sunshine and better camera angles, less on screen confusion, better sound recording, and more thought needed to be put into what the movie goers would be seeing on the big screen. <br /><br />Hats off to all involved though for completing what must have been a very difficult shoo. I have the utmost appreciation for anyone who can make a feature film, sadly I did not enjoy this one.
Apart from the beautiful imagery thanks to New Zealand cinematographer Alun Bollinger, this film is not worth seeing.<br /><br />The storyline is so fragmented and lost that it's hard to know what is going on at any given time, and just when you think you're following then the direction changes again, like a lost bi-polar puppy dog.<br /><br />The musical score is awful, relying too heavily on extremely emotive pieces that try to force the audience into feeling a certain way, as if the instruments were acting as an emotions queue sheet — 'feel sad here'; 'feel shocked here'; 'feel scared here'. On top of that, the repetitive samples used over and over again leave the audience on the verge of laughter.<br /><br />Gone are the days of silent film, where musical instruments were the sole portrayal of voice — but you wouldn't think so while watching River Queen.<br /><br />The voice-over was so over-utilised that one has to wonder if this film really even needed any accompanying imagery. It could have easily been a radio play although even then it would be hard to follow the story.<br /><br />And the stolen ideas from Jane Campion's The Piano are too obvious to overlook. Not only are the beach and forest shots almost identical to those in The Piano — perhaps some of this comes down to Alun Bollinger's camera work on the latter — but the voice-over feeling and levels too are strikingly close. And who could forget when Holly Hunter's character has her wings clipped, in the form of her index finger being cut off by Sam Neill. Does it remind you of when Wiremu has his 'trigger finger' amputated, and surprisingly too with an axe? I thought so.<br /><br />All in all I cannot recommend this film for viewing, unless you wear some ear-muffs and just go with the scenery in mind.
**Warning - this review may contain spoilers ** <br /><br />The idea behind the character of Danny (Jet Li) is a good one - young boy is taken by hoodlum and raised to behave like a vicious pitbull, controlled mainly by whether his collar is on or off his neck.<br /><br />However, the writer did not know how to deliver this idea within the constraints of believability.<br /><br />He has Danny meeting a blind pianist, Sam (Morgan Freeman), who has to be the most trusting fool a man ever was - along with his nit-wit, endlessly babbling, rather unattractive step-daughter, Victoria (Kerry Condon). I was stunned, by the way, when I learned Victoria was supposed to be 18 - she looked 25 or 30 to me.<br /><br />Amazingly there is no romance between Danny and Victoria.<br /><br />When Danny turns up again, wounded, what does Sam do but take him straight home. Danny is out for 2 days, but do these nit-wits take him to a hospital? Nooooo. I don't know if they even called in a doctor.<br /><br />Now Danny is obviously not a mentally stable person, this is apparent from the get-go, yet Sam takes him into his home, where both he and his step-daughter could have been seriously harmed or even killed by this rather strange, young man.<br /><br />Why Morgan Freeman took this insipid role in this asinine film I can't even begin to guess. Surely Mr. Freeman is not that desperate for a paycheck.<br /><br />Then we have Bob Hoskins as Bart, the gangster who "owns" Danny - now you talk about a son of a gun that's hard to kill. The car Bart is in gets riddled with bullets that would have rivaled Bonnie and Clyde's demise. We think he's dead, but no.<br /><br />Then we have another car accident - and yet again, ol' Bart escapes unscathed.<br /><br />In addition to that, we also have Danny fighting half a dozen tough guys at a time, plus a scene where Danny has decided he doesn't want to fight any more. I don't care how much a person doesn't want to fight, when it is down to the wire of you fight or you die, I think anyone would fight.<br /><br />As I said in the subject heading - this film is about 40 miles outside the boundary of reality as we have come to know it. It's not just a case of suspending belief - it's completely beyond that.<br /><br />Furthermore I never did understand why Danny's mother who turns out to be a nice lady, rather than the prostitute Bart claimed she is, became mixed up with Bart and his gang and got shot. Maybe that was my fault, I got distracted right about the time that scene came on--but it seemed highly unlikely she and Bart would have ever crossed paths.<br /><br />4 stars out of 10 - and that's being generous.
I though that it was hard, if not impossible, to watch, and not because of the horrors it depicts but by the way they were depicted. Imagine what Costa Gavras could have done with this true horror story. What I object to is the idea the need to denounce, which I subscribe to, is enough. What about showing it to us with the power of powerful cinema. I feel that the eagerness of the filmmaker, maybe even the justifiable anger, didn't allow him to see it clearly from a cinematic point of view. Or, if this was a cinematic point of view, I mean, a choice, then, I didn't like it at all. I was more disturbed by the way the movie was shot than by the movie itself. Well intentioned I'm sure, but, unfortunately, that's not nearly enough.
It may have been thrilling for an audience in 1946, but the movie is now a bit boring. I had a hard time sitting through the whole thing, and it was very predictable: I mean, we know from the beginning of the movie that Welles is the nazi war criminal, and I'll give you one guess as to whether he is caught and appropriately punished in the end.<br /><br />Not worth watching. It's sad that Welles only made three movies worth seeing in his long career: Kane, Ambersons, and A Touch of Evil.
This is the award that made me lose all respects for the Hugos.<br /><br />If such a "distinguished" panel can't see or care about the obvious story-telling problems of Battlestar Galactica, then what worth is their award? The answer: not much.<br /><br />Award-winning shows should be examples of creativity and excellence, neither of which are in evidence in BG, in this episode or any other that I've seen.<br /><br />Shooting in drab video is not "artistic", it's just cheap. Shaking the camera is not "creative" it's vomit-inducing and lazy as can be.<br /><br />All BG has shown is how corrupt most award-giving "academies" really are and how easy it is to buy awards with a lot of PR money.
Frankly I'm amazed to see that this movie is getting relatively good reviews. I'll be completely honest and say that the only reason I even got through it is because of Ryan Phillippe, and not for reasons particularly connected with his abilities as an actor, though I think over the last years he has proved himself to be a better actor than his first major roles in the late 1990's indicated.<br /><br />As far as action/suspense movies go, this movie fails in nearly every respect. The acting is OK, I guess, but the script is absolutely horrible and makes very little sense, a fact which the filmmakers try to cover up by adding absurd references to Chaos theory, as if it would convince anyone that the film is actually 'clever' - but then again, judging from other reviews, some were. Don't be fooled: the script is a boring, derivative mess and no other element of the movie makes up for it. Wesley Snipes has probably never had a less interesting role in a film, and Statham is a thoroughly dull actor.<br /><br />Not recommended.
those people,who told me"this movie is good"-shame on them!this film is for an audience,who has no problem to watch everything{especially when it's all about tough guys,guns,chasing&heists}.i 'd compare this movie with"The Inside Man"{the same loss of time}. i'm tired of copy and paste movies.and i'm discontented,but what can i do?fans of that types of movies are much more.... if you want to watch good movie from that type ,i will recommend to you "Lucky Number Slevin". i'm not mean, i just dislike this movie{weak actors,weak script,weak action}.probably someone else will like it.many people-many tastes.HOWEVER FOR ME"CHAOS"IS TASTELESS!
Seeing the names of the starring actors (Statham, Snipes and Phillippe) I thought that the movie should at least be decently funny or interesting. Instead all I got from it was not just boring 92 minutes, but the frustration of knowing everything that was about to happen, and hearing tons of lame and shabby "bad cop" phrases.<br /><br />The main problem is that the movie doesn't have a good story to begin with. And when you have that, than no one can help you, not Statham, not Wesley Snipes...not even John McClane could save this movie :-) It could be cool for the kids, if they aren't over 12 years of age, because they don't care so much about the story, and there are some big explosions in the movie.
I went to see this because of snipes / statham, but honestly, Chaos is terrible. This movie has absolutely nothing going for it - it should not have been made.<br /><br />Don't read this review if you don't want to read spoilers, cause I'm going to address a lot of plot-holes here.<br /><br />First of all - the opening scene. It's the great big event that made the two semi-lead characters (Statham and Snipes) turn crooked. But it's boring and mundane. Only at the very end we get to see what really happened and by the time you won't care anymore. Also - this whole event, where one bad guy and his hostage get killed is hardly big enough news to fill hundreds of newspaper articles, as referred to in the movie.<br /><br />Then the bank job - it doesn't get off the ground for any second. The bank robber makes some un-needed references to chaos theory (which has NOTHING to do with the whole story, by the way). The way Statham gets summoned is very 'Die Hard With a Vengeance', but more boring. Then the things that happen in the bank are strange and pointless. -What's with the safety deposit box. There seems to be some plot unfolding there, but then, it doesn't. -Why go through the trouble of stringing up two people, when it leads to nothing? It involves a lot of preparation and it's used for nothing at all! -Why doesn't the SWAT leader listen to the officer in charge when he tells them to stand down?<br /><br />And this is only the first 10 minutes. It keeps getting worse and worse. <br /><br />-The whole romantic / love interest story (with the 'he wasn't just a better cop, he was a better man' remark to finish it of) is painful to watch. It's just pointless -Why would Statham's character point out the change in camera position in the footage reviewed from the bank. This essentially leads to finding the 'virus' that will get him all the money. -Why go through the trouble of forging some guys signature and killing him, but then NOT kill the guy that can identify you.<br /><br />I could go on for ages (really), but it's like this movie is... pointless. The whole script is a mess. The 'smart' references to chaos theory are really laughable and quite pathetic. The plot 'twists' can be seen from miles away and the lead characters seem to be making mistakes all the time. It is really painful to watch a movie like this, where the audience is taken for granted as dumb popcorn crunching people, of which the director hopes they won't see all the plot holes and the over-all ridiculous script. The 'explanation scene' at the end only adds to insult. It is really, really not a good movie. In any way.<br /><br />People who come to see an action film don't get what they come for. People who come to see a cop-buddy movie don't get it. People who come to see a smart thriller don't get that. In essence, everyone gets the same - a huge disappointment and a waste of time and money. Do yourself a favor and skip this one.
Obvious tailored vehicle for Ryan Philippe. It seem the studios were hoping he could play a lead tough cop and not look like he's eternally 16 (he can't).<br /><br />Heavyweights Jason Statham and Welsey Snipes serve as bookends to Phillippe, but when they're not on the screen Phillippe flounders; his shallow acting style has nothing to bounce off of.<br /><br />The script is a typical late 20th century potboiler good cop/bad cop with a ridiculously predictable plot and dialogue lifted out of 1970s TV cop shows, such as "The Streets of San Francisco." Snipes reprises his role as the eternal black-hat villain, playing a slightly less crazed madman than his Demolition Man role. However, there wasn't much for Snipes and Statham to chew on. Statham's character announces he'd given up nicotine and caffeine - something this movie badly needed injections of.<br /><br />Truly forgettable moment: Ryan Phillippe expounding on Buddhist dogma: Galloway: Are you a Buddhist? Dekker: No. It's just something I picked up along the way.
I have just watched this movie on DVD late this morning and was so disappointed that even thought it was a good joke for the audience. In other words - the creators planed to make comedy not drama. Howsoever, at the end I realized that Mr. Tony Giglio was earnest about this movie. It's a pity because: the dialogue is ridiculous, the acting is poor and lifeless, the story is a fishy tale! Poor Ryan Phillippe - despite of his efforts his character in the movie remains probably his worst performance! What to say for Jason Statham - lack of all kinds of skills to develop the role which is an imaginary fiction... For this reasons I vote: 3/10
The film "Chaos" takes its name from Gleick's 1988 pop science explanation of chaos theory. What does the book or anything related to the content of the book have to do with the plot of the movie "Chaos"? Nothing. The film makers seem to have skimmed the book (obviously without understanding a thing about it) looking for a "theme" to united the series of mundane action sequences that overlie the flimsy string of events that acts in place of a plot in the film. In this respect, the movie "Choas" resembles the Canadian effort "Cube," in which prime numbers function as a device to mystify the audience so that the ridiculousness of the plot will not be noticed: in "Cube" a bunch of prime numbers are tossed in so that viewers will attribute their lack of understanding to lack of knowledge about primes: the same approach is taken in "Chaos": disconnected extracts from Gleick's books are thrown in make the doings of the bad guy in the film seem fiendishly clever. This, of course, is an insultingly condescending treatment of the audience, and any literate viewer of "Chaos" who can stand to sit through the entire film will end up bewildered. How could a film so bad be made? Rewritten as a novel, the story in "Chaos" would probably not even make it past a literary agent's secretary's desk. How could (at least) hundreds of thousands (and probably millions) of dollars have been thrown away on what can only be considered a waste of time for everyone except those who took home money from the film? Regarding what's in the movie, every performance is phoned in. Save for technical glitches, it would be astonishing if more than one take was used for any one scene. The story is uniformly senseless: the last time I saw a story to disconnected it was the production of a literal eight-year-old. Among other massive shortcomings are the following: The bad guy leaves hints for the police to follow. He has no reason whatsoever for leaving such hints. Police officers do not carry or use radios. Dupes of the bad guy have no reason to act in concert with the bad guy. Let me strongly recommend that no one watch this film. If there is any other movie you like (or even simply do not hate) watch that instead.
Bank heist / Cop thriller sounds OK right?<br /><br />Chaos looks good: nicely framed, good production values, high concept action heist... <br /><br />But...<br /><br />The plot has the unique achievement of being both smart and incredidly, blatantly implausible in the "how we actually got the money" mode and overcomplicated in the "who done it and why" section at the same time...<br /><br />In addtion, Ryan Philippe shouting is NOT, seriously NOT either tough or scary...and he is especially not tough or scary when throwing a tizzy fit. Honestly, his great outburst is the only really funny scene in the whole film. Must make him thrilled that he turned down the role of Anakin Skywalker and is now doing this.... <br /><br />Stratham is normally good as the tough but silent hard nut with the self-deprecating humor, but here, the extra relationship lines are so laughably bad that even he looks uncomfortable saying some of the clichéd mush required. More silent seems best? <br /><br />Snipes is actually OK in a typecast way, but another nail in a talented actor's coffin: he needs an actor's role not an action hero rehash. Perhaps that business with his taxes will allow him to break that mold and the public and critics will let him on the sympathy vote. It would be good if he wasn't so typecast all the time.<br /><br />The lines these guys speak when they're not doing the plot development and detective work can be summed up in one word.... pheeeuuuh.<br /><br />The film feels all out of whack and it never gels: I found it irritating for the first 45 minutes, and the tighter last part was passable. It should /could have been good but it just can't redeem the awful lines, the overwhelming score, and the general level of irritation with the levels of plausibility. <br /><br />Overall I nearly didn't make it through: incredibly irritating, and Ryan.... please, please, please get rid of the goldilocks....
How? I wondered why I hadn't seen this in theaters, or even a single commercial for it, and then after I saw the movie, I realized I was duped HARDCORE. I am a big Transporter fan, and a big Blade fan, so when I saw this I imagined some killer fight scene between two badasses, lots of gunplay, a whole bunch of stuff. Instead, I got the Ryan Phillippe movie with a brief cameo by Statham and Snipes. The guy that does the audio and video in the crime lab got more screen time than Wesley. It was like renting a Jackie Chan movie expecting a bunch of kung fu and getting Erin Brockavich. I expect bad movies from Hollywood, but actors like Snipes and Statham should treat the fan base better.
How much can you really say about a condom with teeth? The plot was really out there, but it was something campy to see on a Friday night. The story has a lot of unexpected twists, and it's a great way to offend all you're conservative friends!
Yet another "gay" film ruined by asinine politics. Luigi's final speech just about sent me running out of the theatre with its bumper-sticker epigrams. Read the comic book it was based on for a much more entertaining experience.
I'd love to write a little summary of this movie's plot, but...there simply isn't one! If you just take a look at the plot keywords for this title, you pretty much know the entire content of the film: sex, breasts, exploitation, female frontal nudity and women's prison! 80 minutes of pure sleaze and nothing more. "Escape of the Island Women" (an alternate title that isn't even listed here) clearly wanted to become another notorious and controversial woman-in-prison classic, but it totally lacks the brutality of one. WIP-flicks are meant to blend graphic sexual images with shocking violence, but the violence here has just been replaced with more sex. Director Erwin Dietrich surely can't compete with specialists in the field, like Jess Franco or Joe D'Amato, and he should have sticked to making ordinary soft-core flicks. The only aspects that slightly look like cult-cinema are the resemblance of the tyrant-president with Fidel Castro and the group-rape of a (minor?) girl by soldiers. The girls are ravishing, though, and the Ibiza filming location looks very enchanting.
Another example of the women-in-prison genre. This is not exactly a genre known for quality films, but this is a notch below most. A bunch of women are taken from the bordellos where they work to a prison on a rocky island. Once there, they are subjected to lots of poorly directed sex and atrocious "dialog." For a film with an astounding amount of sex and nudity there is really nothing erotic about any of it. The sex scenes are awkwardly acted, and some scenes, like the shower scene, seem to drag on and on. That said, there are at least some minimal production values. On the W-i-P scale I would put it above Frauen fur Zellenblock Neun, but below Chained Heat.
I've come to realise through watching this sort of film that I don't like them very much. Caged Women is yet another 'women in prison' film, and like the most of the rest of the genre; the plot is completely forsaken in favour of simply showing nude women. Now don't get me wrong; I love nude women, but I also like there to be some sort of plot thread to go with the nudity, and since this film has only the basic 'women are in prison' theme running through it (aswell as the essential escape, of course), I got a bit bored before the end. The film is good because there's barely a moment in it where the women are wearing clothes, but that's about the only positive element. Director (and writer, ha ha) Erwin C. Dietrich delights in showing close-ups of the naked female body, but it's never very erotic. The director was the producer on a number of trash flicks, including some directed by Jess Franco. In my opinion, he should stick to producing as his writing talents are non-existent, and he doesn't seem to know how to film a sex scene. This sort of material is rather dry a lot of the time, but I reckon Franco could have made more out of it. Overall, this might suffice for people that are really into this sort of stuff; but I can't say I enjoyed it.
Much like Tinto Brass ("Caligula"), the people who made this movie can't tell the difference between explicitness and eroticism. No build-up at all, just throw naked women on the screen; no, it doesn't work that way. If close-ups of female genitalia aren't your thing, prepare to be looking away from the screen at many points (I often did). The "all women are whores at heart" mentality of the movie is offensive, and the "story" is by turns absurd and boring (the escape is the most boring part!). But halfway through there is a random scene that pops out of nowhere and involves one of the (female) prisoners and one of the (male) guards in a nude wrestling match, which she wins with a couple of judo moves. Although the choreography of the fight is bad, the whole scene is undeniably memorable. In fact, that scene and the nice cinematography are the only two reasons I give this film * out of 4, instead of 0.
This music is totally out of touch with the film, showing up now and then as wagnerian bombast and Lone Ranger hurry-up, otherwise nonexistent. The acting, outside of the two principals, is nonexistent. It would have been an excellent student film. The Russian soldiers are just models trying to act. The constant interruptions with wow-explosive-camera angles and monocolor clips of pieces of people were quite irritating, but that's just a personal feeling. The story line isn't worse than others, actually not worse than most, completely ignoring logic and reason and reality. At least nobody walked in front of a machine gun for three minutes without being hit. The three top-level bad guys were campy.
I admire the effort of trying to reach out to the rest of the world with this tragic story. However, the movie is done SO BADLY that most people I know couldn't sit through it. The movie was relevant to me since I lived in Estonia when these events took place, but it is written horribly and fails to capture the attention of someone who knows nothing on the matter. The music choices do not flow well with the movie, it seems as if someone just turned a CD player on in the background to put the actors "in the mood". The acting... well, what acting? The only people acting are Jürgen Prochnow and Donald Sutherland, even though Prochnow seems uncomfortable in this role. As far as the relationship development goes between Erik Westermark (Jürgen Prochnow) and Julia Reuter (Greta Scacchi), it is like watching a train wreck. There is absolutely no chemistry and it is painful to witness their "sincere moments." This is not a good movie. There is a difference between trying to get a message out (could've been a documentary!) and trying to make a good movie. This is a failure and anyone here who says otherwise makes me wonder if they are trying to promote it. As a matter of fact, as a native of Estonia I am offended by this miserable effort. This tragedy deserves more than just a homemade low-budget ghost chase excuse of a movie. This could have been much more!
Controversial German journalist Jutta Rabe who herself got divers to the Estonia wreck, put this silly "thriller" together to save her investment.<br /><br />Donald Sutherland is of course always watchable - but he's only in three scenes. He delivers his material perfectly - as you can ask from a professional. Also, the main lead, Jürgen Prochnov, is at times very good.<br /><br />The rest of the cast is, however, bad. The actress that plays the Swedish minister secretary (or whatever she was - she seems not listed in the cast) is EXTREMELY bad.<br /><br />The script has some nice ideas, and the story is actually kind of interesting. The final screenplay should have been re-written a couple of more times though. Some scenes are plain ridiculous - especially the end scenes.<br /><br />The film is almost 2 hours, which is about 45 minutes too long. Presented as a 60 minutes TV-film, this could have been really interesting. As a two hour feature, it's pretentious, boring, stupid and plain out silly.<br /><br />Jutta Rabe might be a good journalist (her ideas about governments using Estonia to transport military items from Estonia to Sweden have been concluded as true recently, when the Swedish military officially said that they actually used the ship Estonia for this), but as a film producer she sucks.<br /><br />The director, the writer and the actors suck more.<br /><br />I give this film 3/10. I would've given it a 1, if it wasn't for the fact that the story is quite interesting at times, Donald Sutherland is in it and it has real stock footage.<br /><br />But we don't even see the boat sink! What kind of movie about a ship that sinks is that? Like a werewolf movie without werewolves...
I have to admit, I picked this movie just for the cast, and while Sutherland, Scacchi, and Prochnow were - as usual - great performers, the rest of the movie was such a let down. It feels like it was put together by a team of adolescents with low level scripts, that is, scripts lacking any depth, awful photography and editing, and hilariously lousy score! I can't believe I was able to watch this seemingly long movie until the end... the sad thing is, this could have actually been a great political thriller given the interesting plot. All the potential was there to make it a hit; that is, two main ingredients are there: a great story of national conspiracies, and a great core cast (even though many other actors are pretty much soap opera quality). But maybe I'm missing something; until then it's still not worth more than a 3 in my opinion.
Clossius says that "Baltic Storm" is banned in Sweden. That is not correct! Instead you can buy the film almost everywhere, like in gas stations, shopping malls, internet (of course) and so on. Often to a very low price because this movie is so BAD and nobody wants to see it, despite all the tricks to keep up the interest. The movie only appeals to conspiracy theorists, psychos and other persons living in la-la-land and those who "knows the truth". <br /><br />Working on a museum with the Estonia disaster as a theme I have meet them all! I have heard about every theory that exists like cocaine-smuggling, weapon-smuggling, biological warfare, nuclear smuggling, red mercury, aliens, the Russian- the American- the Estonian- the Swedish- and the Finnish intelligence, often in different combinations.<br /><br />Some normal persons have asked why we don't show the film? A question only asked by them who haven't seen this terrible nonsense movie. <br /><br />Once again, "Baltic Storm" is not banned in Sweden. It has some entertaining qualities but what a hell is Donald Sutherland doing in this movie?
This is a really obnoxious show. It is in fact an example of how low television has fallen since 'reality' got in style. Tanya is pretty but she is also extremely rude and has awful taste. Is a house show the place for sex appeal? Apparently some males like the show because they find Tanya attractive. The other boss is not pretty but he's fully as rude and also has awful taste. It is unfortunate that so many houses have to be shown while someone is still living in them. Most of the people who are allegedly viewing these houses before changes are made should be moving into brand new houses or completely empty ones so they will not be insulting anyone. Most of them ..like the 'crew'..need to be taught manners. I can imagine how awful the British show is since the British reality shows tend to be even worse when it comes to manners and taste.<br /><br />What happened to the Arts and Entertainment channel? When it started out (and for some years afterward) it was filled with treats. Now it's one big trash machine.
Angel-A is a change of pace for Besson; monochrome, mawkish and rather mediocre. It is well photographed on location in Paris, although subtitle-readers should note: quick-fire dialogue AND good cinematography may make for frustrating viewing.<br /><br />This film is no "Wings of Desire" or "Wonderful Life". Despite its shared themes (heavenly intervention averts suicide, angel/mortal relationships ensue), Besson does nothing to enlighten or inspire us. Even the well acted, teary moments, rapidly descend into toe-curling sentimentality.<br /><br />The film's flawed ideology irritates; an Angel whose message of love and respect for self is constantly undermined by her own violent and promiscuous behaviour; a "happy ending" which negates the hero's supposed journey from helplessness to self-esteem and independence.<br /><br />Verdict: Quite nice to look at but confused moral and philosophical messages tarnish the film precisely where it should shine. 4/10
Having spent the six years previous writing and producing, Luc Besson returns to the directors chair with Angel-A. I'm a huge fan of Léon, and quite liked the prospect of a black and white French film from the same chap.<br /><br />André is a liar and gambling addict, owing money to almost every loan shark in Paris. Unable to repay his debts, and fed up with being held over the edge of the Eiffel Tower, he decides to kill himself. He happens to do so at the same time as a mysterious woman, who he decides to save. Determined to thank him, she begins to help him fix his own life.<br /><br />The film starts with some laughs, which run well throughout. The visuals are quite nice and work well with the sights of Paris. But that is it. That's all the film has got going for it. And these mere two facets can do nothing to hold back the torrent of terrible film-making the movie unleashes. Though I can't hugely fault the main character (his inconsistencies are close though), the eponymous one is ghastly. A terrible screen presence and bitterly annoying. The plot is ridiculously inconsistent itself, and at times bizarrely silly, particularly the ending; an ending which completely bloodied the fledgling redemption engendered by the scenes immediately prior to it. Perhaps the most ridiculous scene I've had the ignominy of observing, it is stupid, indulgent, melodramatic, and considerably too awful to be "so bad it's funny". The overall premise of the film could conceivably have once held potential, but it is brutally massacred by the unendingly terrible implementation of its ideas. The film really was a task to watch, and one which had me screaming at the screen the whole way through.<br /><br />Massively and immeasurably flawed, Angel-A is just plain bad. Though its occasionally fun dialogue manages to draw out chortles at rare intervals, by the end it is clear that this film is nothing more than repugnant.
Mr. Moto's Gamble has a fairly straight forward plot - when a boxer is murdered in the ring with a mysterious poison, it's up to the even more mysterious Mr. Moto to solve the case.<br /><br />I'm shocked at the number of positive reviews for Mr. Moto's Gamble on IMDb. Because to me...well, I found it extremely disappointing. I enjoy Mr. Moto and I enjoy Charlie Chan, but I can't say I cared for this mish-mash of the two. For those unfamiliar with the story behind Mr. Moto's Gamble, it was originally intended to be a Charlie Chan film. But when Warner Oland backed-out, some of the scenes and action were rewritten for Peter Lorre and Mr. Moto. As I indicated, the end result left me underwhelmed. Mr. Moto is not Chan. He's more mysterious, he's more athletic, and he's more exotic. So trying to put Moto in a Chan film is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole - it doesn't work. And listening to Lorre/Moto try to deliver one of Chan's trademark euphemisms just ends up sounding silly. Add to that the fact that almost 10 minutes of the already brief 72 minute runtime is made up of boxing scenes (something that I never seem to enjoy) and you end up with a movie that I couldn't help but dislike. If I have to say something positive I would point to the performance of Keye Luke. But even he's not near enough to save Mr. Moto's Gamble in my eyes.<br /><br />Sorry, but a 4/10 is about the best I can give this one.
This isn't a dreadful film, merely insipid. The plot is deeply flawed and implausible. It tries to be a number of genres and fails at each. It fails as a comedy, as a suspense thriller and as a horror movie. It almost succeeds as science fiction. The direction is uninspired and Katie Holmes, cute cherub face that she is, should be modeling teen clothing, not acting. The only thing that keeps this movie from being a 1 out of 10 is Helen Mirren. Her performance is fabulously nefarious and is (almost) worth suffering through the rest of it. Her ability to transmute from imperious to faux sympathetic to deviously manipulate and control her prey shows masterful range. Other than Marissa Coughlin's delightful Exorcist rendition, Mirren is the only reason to see this movie. A solid 3.0.
Sorry for any spoilers that this contains. But if you want to read on anyway: I really wonder why so many people are so high on Kevin Williamson. Let's just take a quick look at his work as a screenwriter, shall we? There's Scream 1 and 2 (plus the story for the next one), which I think are pretty funny but very overrated. Besides, by making Scream into a franchise, it ceased to become a parody of horror movies and simply became another one. Then there's I Know What You Did Last Summer, which is essentially the same movie again. He co-wrote Halloween: H20, but even he had the sense not to take credit for what he did on that monstrosity. Then comes The Faculty, which I can only say was god-awful. (Lots of fun to make fun of, though). Don't even get me started on the ridiculous, soap-operatic Dawson's Creek, I could rail about how bad that is for hours. So then we get to Teaching Mrs. Tingle. First of all, there are tons of little implausibilities in this one. For example: in most high schools that I know of, the valedictorian is NOT the only one who gets to go to college! This idea that Katie Holmes's character would never go anywhere unless she was valedictorian was absurd. Haven't you ever heard of financial assistance, damn it!? Also, I don't think you get expelled from high school or don't get into college because of cheating on one test. There are a bunch of other ones, but I'll skip to the big one now. The ending really bothered me: they committed a crime, but it was ok because the teacher was a bitch. Great. Do you know how many of my teachers I could kidnap based on that logic? I'm sure the police never took any statements to find out the whole story, either. That sure wouldn't be necessary. Helen Mirren was good, she added some nice flair to a character who (as a previous commenter noted) had NO reason for anything she did. And has anyone else noticed that Katie Holmes absolutely can't act? Her self-righteousness became incredibly annoying. "You wanted me to fail. Blah blah blah." Her last two scenes with Mrs. Tingle were the worst. The only reason I don't regret losing $8.25 on this disaster is because she got beaten up a bit. No, wait, I do regret losing the money: it wasn't real, and she survived. Mr. Williamson, if you're reading this, you've made the same movie (some violence and/or scary stuff offset by wise-ass kids who make sarcastic jokes and references to other movies) just a FEW too many times now (I count 6 so for, not including Scream 3 and whatever follows it), and I would really appreciate it if you would stop. Otherwise, I might just have to kidnap you and threaten YOU with a crossbow. Ok? :-)
History teacher Mrs Tingle seems to have it in for student Leigh Ann Watson, who has her heart on achieving a writing school scholarship. She receives another low grade from Tingle, which doesn't help. When one of her classmates Luke steals the paper of the final history exams and pops it in her bag, Mrs. Tingle finds it sticking out. She threatens the three that she will go to the principal about it, but he's not available. So before she reports it the next morning. Leigh, her friend Jo Lynn and Scott head to her place that night and try to convince her not tell the principal. However due to Tingle's stubbornness, that find themselves reverting to drastic measures to stop this getting out.<br /><br />Wasn't fan of it when I first saw it, and after another viewing, I'm still not one. Writer Kevin Williamson was on a roll after penning the successful contemporary teen horror films; 'Scream (1996)', 'I Know What You did Last Summer (1997)', 'Scream 2 (1997)' and 'The Faculty (1998)'. He was riding the success (also not to forget the TV show 'Dawson's Creek), but this project would be the final bump. The difference there, compared with this entry was other then writing the screenplay, he was also making his debut in directing. The strange thing though, was that I found his direction to be competently done, but material he stormed up to flavourless and tired. It seemed to get caught in playing both a black comedy and straight-out thriller, without making it gel. The script is cluttered with quick-wit, on-going gags, trivial stretches and gimmicky references towards other films, but the problem is that it's too watered-down with so many contrived developments and sappy moral currents disrupting the flow. The fractured script had to be more strong and potent, since it's a small-scale production that feels like you're watching a stage show because of its mostly confined sets. It tries to play mind games with the characters, but these moments are there to only serve the story's poor progression into a puddle of stupidity and senselessness. The film's ending takes the cake. Williamson's polished direction is sound, but more so in a pedestrian way and therefore it lacks suspense and the pacing even with its taut surroundings can really plod on. You eventually feel it after the halfway mark, and it shows up how minor the story is. The performances are tolerable enough, although if it weren't for Helen Mirren's classy, icy portrayal of manipulative prowess as Mrs. Tingle and a buoyant Marisa Coughlan, we would have been stuck watching a vapid goody-to-shoes Katie Holmes. Barry Watson is modest in his slacker part and Molly Ringwald has a lesser role. The soundtrack packs enough energy, but I found it terribly overwrought and shapeless in its choices.<br /><br />Watchable, but mechanical all round.
I heard this movie was bad…They even warned me it was terrible, but for some reason (probably Katie Holmes) I still watched it when it came on national TV. Watching Kevin Williamson films means torturing! His scenarios aren't funny, definitely not scary and not the least bit creative. Teaching Mrs. Tingle breathes the same irritating atmosphere as his brainless series `Dawson's Creek' and it's probably meant for the same target group as well. Before the credits even started, 5 people already wanted a hug and they stated that eerie `I love you'-sentence. It doesn't get any better as the soundtrack is filled with annoying pop/rock and the storyline is ultra-thin. Three students on the verge of graduation get caught cheating by the wickedest teacher in school. Every high-school has a teacher like that, you know… To save their skin, they try to convince Mrs. Tingle that it wasn't their intention to cheat but this attempt goes horrible wrong. The typical high-school humor is completely lost on me, the overdose of sentiment is pathetic and the acting (with the exception of Helen Mirren) is abominable. I'm sure Katie Holmes can act – that's a fact proven by her role in `the Gift' – but she urgently needs to stop accepting frumpish girl roles. As said before, the only positive comments goes out to the brilliant casting of Helen Mirren as the shrew. It's like Kathleen Turner in `Serial Mom'! The role suits her perfectly and you can't imagine anyone else playing her. Other than that, this is avoidable teenage nonsense.
This absurd movie was about a "Goodie-two-shoe," teen-girl that really wanted to be Valedictorian but finds her obstacle in a teacher name Mrs. Tingle. Katie Holmes, who plays this "goodie-two-shoe," is faced with "the biggest dilemma of her teenage life" when this classmate guy of hers comes along with the final exams sample that should help them nail Mrs. Tingle's test. Mrs. Tingle comes along, catches Holmes, the classmate guy and her best friend with the sample of her final exam. Convinced that the three of them planned on cheating on here exam, Mrs. Tingle enthuses on her opportunity to ruin Holmes once and for all with allegations that can take away any chance of Holmes passing her class. And the classmate guy, who apparently has his eye on Holmes, always wondered why she never gave him the time of day (he's an idiot)? Feeling desperate, Holmes and her friends visit Mrs. Tingle in the middle of the night to try to dissuade her in believing that Holmes was planning to cheat. It all backs fire somehow when the classmate guy points a bow and arrow at Mrs. Tingle, threatening her to make things right for Holmes. Mrs. Tingle fights back but ultimately ends up as Holmes and her friend's captive.<br /><br />During Mrs. Tingle captivity under Holmes, they do everything from tying her up and gagging her in her own bed to blackmailing her with false pictures that they took of the unconscious Coach in bed with Mrs. Tingle. I found myself cringing when the kids were making themselves at home in Mrs. Tingle's house, eating up her food and going though her private work. At one point, Holmes found Mrs. Tingle's grade book and purposely changes the grade in her favor, decreasing the grade of her challenge for valedictorian. The end played out like a childish attempt to bring back the comedy that was sparingly in the beginning of the film, resolving on pure irony, slapstick and absurdity.<br /><br />This has to be the most unlikable and wickedly evil character Holmes would ever play in her entire life. I wanted to help Mrs. Tingle get free to really dig a grave for Holmes. She was manipulative, selfish and conniving. She even slept with the classmate guy despite her best friend's overwhelming interest in him...and she didn't like him. From attempting to ruin her challengers grades by seizing Mrs. Tingle's grade book to taking her best friend's man, you would think that Holmes would get what she deserves in the end, right? Unfortunately, she obtains everything her heart desires, showing that being wicked, manipulative, selfish and whining can get you what you want.<br /><br />Mrs. Tingle was suppose to be the character you didn't like. They didn't bring me to that point once to believe that she was this woman that needed to be "taught this lesson." She was like every other strict teacher who even gave valid reasons for her resentment of the next generation. Personally, I felt that her opinions about young people were validated with Holmes and her friend's actions every time. I kept hoping she could get free to call the police and nail Holmes. They kept her tied up in bed, ate up her food like a bunch of pigs, drank up the woman's wine, messed with her personal belongings and we're suppose to believe that she didn't deserve to take a bat to each of their heads? And the classmate guy has to be one of the most disliked characters in the history of film. Forget idiot, we need a new word for him that isn't in the Webster's dictionary. He brought the major trouble into Holme's life then made things worse when he came into Mrs.Tingle's house, uninvited behind Holmes, and corners Mrs. Tingle with a bow and arrow. I was thrilled every time Mrs. Tingle had a chance to slap fire out of him, or choke the wannabe actress best friend.<br /><br />If you're a teen out there and want to see when a teen's manipulation and wrong doing can get him or her the world, see this unfunny, caricature filled, unintentional film noir.
I made it about halfway through this movie, and at that point realized that I absolutely didn't care how it ended. It is basically a bland teen comedy that I only watched because I like Helen Mirren, who is in fact very good as an impossibly cruel teacher.<br /><br />The basic idea of the movie (or let's say the first half of the movie, since I don't know - or care - how the second half goes) has been done before, most notably in 9 to 5, and a comparison between the two shows how thoroughly Tingle gets it wrong. You need to feel things are spiraling out of control in a way that makes you feel events are inevitable, and you need well-defined, interesting characters who you care about, and you don't have that. Not the worst movie I've ever seen, but it never grabbed me for a second.
You know, I'm getting really tired of all the generic music being used in these type of movies (see Jawbreaker, Disturbing Behavior, etc). Every scene of genuine tension here (and there is some) is immediately undercut with some cheesy pop tune, completely diluting the suspense. Why do they do that? To sell some soundtracks, of course, but in this case, mission unaccomplished - did anyone buy the CD?<br /><br />And yeah, Ms. Mirren attacks her role with zest and relish (with some cheez-wiz to add kick). But what are Molly, Leslie and Vivica doing here? Their roles (they're so underused that I cannot use "characters" here) have no purpose in the storyline, so I can't figure out why three well-known actresses had been cast.<br /><br />Oh, and the ending is so unbelievably hackneyed and irresponsible. The kids get off scot-free and act as if nothing happened - all smiles at graduation. They're criminals, people! No consequences for their actions (kidnapping, assault, grade tampering) - nothing.<br /><br />Little things too - was Tingle's tale about her husband true? What's with the crossbow? Would the virginal Katie character loose her cherry on a whim like that? (Great message, guys.) Why did McKean go to her home? How did Kate's academic nemesis walk through the door at that exact moment? How do students even obtain teachers' home addresses? WHAT'S WITH JEFFREY TAMBOR?? On what basis did McKean fire Tingle? She's bloodied, battered and held hostage by students, fer cripe's sake!<br /><br />Oh well, I'm spending way more thought on the script than Mr. Williamson apparently did, so I'll stop here.<br /><br />3/10
The only reason I watched this movie a second time, was to learn the name of the "second banana" girl playing opposite Katie Holms. Her name is Marisa Coughlan. Never heard of her before. She is lovely. Captivating. With an animated face, and cute bod, she is highly watchable... She's got real, "Poisenality"... More than a passing vibe of Grace Kelly... with youthful exuberance. I think she is Irish in gene pool, (my favorite female DNA) so it makes some sense that she would resemble the most beautiful Irish American. The movie is unremarkable, Katie Holms is classic beauty in the flesh. But Marisa Coughlan is the one you follow with your eyes. In 1999 when this movie was made, she was around 25 years old, in her prime. This reminds me of another silly, worthless movie with the only redemption being the Pretty Girl in it. It was "Career Opportunites" with the first time I saw Jennifer Conoly. Or "Grease II" the first time I saw Michelle Pfeiffer.
It is such a shame when actors and actresses of high quality get involved with pure crap, probably because they were offered a great deal of money. Not one of Helen Mirren's better career moves. The acting of the "teens" is simply appalling, not helped by a script that is in parts simply inept.<br /><br />Most of Kevin Williamson's work is above average box office dross, but this is really below par. <br /><br />This is the sort of movie that you watch on TV when there is nothing better on and you have had half a bottle of wine to drink and are waiting for the Pizza to be delivered so you can drink the other half.
Ridiculous thriller in which a group of students kidnapped their bad and neurotic teacher (Mirren) just to prevent her action against them. Interesting premise could render a good movie but this one is just lame and far fetched. Boring with an ending embarassing, just to say the least. Mrs. Mirren tries to give some dignity to this misfire but even she - a good actress, no doubt about it - could save this garbage. I give this a 4 (four).
Going into Teaching Mrs Tingle, all I wanted was a fun, enjoyable teen comedy that would entertain me for it's running time. Despite a rather good first half hour, the film quickly subsides into a dull, clichéd mess that's about as entertaining as pulling out your eyelashes with pliers. Rusty pliers, at that. 'Scream' writer Kevin Williamson wrote and directed this movie, and proved that Scream may well have been a fluke. Most of the elements of this movie have been seen a million times already in other films; and while it was OK for him to steal elements from other movies in Scream, due to the fact that it's meant as a slasher tribute; here, it just looks like he's completely ran out of ideas. The plot follows the cleverest girl in school, played by Katie Holmes. After being caught cheating along with two of her friends; the three decide to take the teacher that caught them hostage in her own home. However, this isn't just any teacher; it's Mrs Tingle, the meanest bitch in school. She isn't taking being tied to the bed lying down either, as she begins to play mind games to turn her captors against each other.<br /><br />The plot is very similar to the 1997 flick 'Suicide Kings', and a whole host of earlier films. It's actually not a bad idea for a movie, and if Williamson could have populated the film with interesting characters; it could have worked really well. The character of Mrs Tingle is the most interesting in the movie, but she's massively one dimensional, and like all the other characters in the film; is merely a caricature. The acting is largely diabolical, with the exception of Helen Mirren in the title role. She's suitably evil in the role, and while she doesn't have a lot to get her teeth into; she clearly enjoys herself playing the central figure. The teenage cast isn't worth mentioning, with only Katie Holmes standing out; and that's only really because of her star profile, not her acting talents. Williamson has draped nearly every scene in dull soft rock music, which would be really annoying if the film wasn't absolutely terrible anyway. Honestly, this movie does have a few moments that are rather good; but basically, if you want to see a good example of the teen comedy - this isn't the movie that you want to see.
I don't think I'm spoiling anyone's experience of this film by telling you not to see it if you have anything better to do, like clean under the stove. It gets dirty under there and you've gotta clean it sometime. <br /><br />I think the movie suffers from a lack of sex and violence, though there is one car chase stunt that looks so dangerous it could only have been filmed in a country where life is cheaper than beer. "Gargoyle"'s heart is in the right place, but its aspirations are conservative. It is at least not pretentious. But I had a great time acting in it, playing the perennial idiot in the horror movie who says "What's down this hole?" and dies for his hubris. Plus I got to meet Michael Pare. Every film junkie should work with a B-movie staple at least once before death. And Romanians are the loveliest people I've met. Literally the loveliest. Walk down the street in Bucarest: if 7 of every 10 women aren't absolutely beautiful, you're walking down a street I didn't come across; and be consoled by the fact that at least 5 of the 10 are available for drinks.<br /><br />Part of the film was shot in Casa Radio, an abandoned, unfinished Classic Communist Bloc-cum-Georgian Nightmare edifice originally intended to house KGB propaganda ministries, i.e. Radio Not-so-Free Europe. The building's five stories tall and takes up a city block; best of all, while its facade radiates Big Brotheresque state solidity, it resides near the city center like a post-apocalyptic ruin in a jungle of burdock and hemp peopled by dozens of Gypsies and scores of wild dogs. Construction on Casa Radio was suspended when Caucescu and his wife were executed on TV in 1989, and still there are gaping holes that drop from the sun-baked top floor (offering surreal vistas of a modern quarter-mile stretch of concrete roof, decorated with jutting rebar and old car parts, overlooking a crumbling ancient city) all the way down to the damp, creepy sub-basement (which doubles in the film for the Gargoyle lair.) No American-style guardrails or warning signs for Bucarest. <br /><br />Since the demise of the Soviet Union, Casa Radio has hosted several non-union film shoots, including "Highlander III". It is attractive to producers because it's a cheap location, massive in terms of scale and available space, bizarre looking, and free of insurance headaches as it's still state property. Plus no one complains if you don't clean up after your production: anything left onsite is interpolated into the resident Gypsies' construction of their shanty town in this actual urban jungle. <br /><br />An assistant director was bitten bloody by a wild dog during the shoot of "Gargoyle". The apples provided by catering were pressed into service by cast and crew as projectiles in order to keep the prowling dogs at bay. I too was bitten by wild dogs in Bucarest, once in a bar (!) and once in a city park. I also survived two car wrecks in two weeks, both in taxis and neither of which was seen by the drivers involved as grounds for stopping the cars.<br /><br />GEEK NOTE: The Sci-Fi Network or Channel or whatever was one of the backers of this film (the smaller the budget, the more producers on set), so it's a little weird that nobody had a problem with the original title, "Gargoyles", until it was almost time to show it on the network, even though Sci-Fi already had an unrelated series of that name. The title was changed sometime relatively close to release, as I have a color-corrected copy labeled with the former title.
This is just one of the hundred million movies where the directors try to shove too much drama into a movie that's not dramatic at all. Like in the beginning, the part where the monk dude shoved the arrow into his own hand, then shot that same arrow into the gargoyle five minutes later--no sense whatsoever.<br /><br />The only thing worse than the plot line is the CGI, which would be greatly rivaled by a homemade flash movie. The actors look like they're doing their hardest to portray a bunch of 70's robots; the dialogue makes so little sense it's not funny.<br /><br />Many things just HAPPEN with no explanation as to how or why, such as a lady suddenly wandering around a zoo that had shut down hours ago. And when she sees this THING flying towards her, her first reaction is to take a picture, rather than what she does a full ten minutes later---power-walking (not even running) like her life depended on it--which, obviously, it doesn't.<br /><br />Overall, not recommended. Makes me wish they still did new episodes of MST3K.
You know that mouthwash commercial where the guy has a mouth full of Listerine or whatever it is and he's trying really hard to keep from spitting it up into the sink? That's a great metaphor for this movie. I kept watching, even though it was really difficult. But keeping mouthwash in your mouth will leave you with a minty fresh feeling. This movie left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I should have spit it out when I had the chance.<br /><br />The premise is corny enough to be fun. For the first time in like a thousand years, Gargoyles have returned to Romania, and all of the priests who knew how to fight and kill these things are long dead. It's up to Michael Pare and some other secret agents to get to the bottom of things before the Gargoyles run amok. Unfortunately, the premise is completely lost in bad dialog and less than enthusiastic acting on the part of the human leads. The best acting is done by the CG Gargoyles.<br /><br />In the end, this movie feels like a poor man's Van Helsing. If you check your brain at the door, this might get you through a dreary Monday night. I gave it 3 out of 10 stars.
Gargoyle starts late one night in 'Romania 1532' as a peasant girl (Daniela Nane) travels along in her horse & cart minding her own business when from the moonlit clouds above a living Gargoyle swoops down & attacks her, she manages to escape the Gargoyle & happens upon a castle of some description where an angry mob of local villagers & a Priest are able to put an end to the Gargoyle, or so they think... Cut to present day Bucharest where two CIA agents Ty Griffin (Michael Pare) & Jennifer Wells (Sandra Hess) are about to negotiate the safe return of the son of a rich American ambassador from his kidnappers. In pursuit of one of the kidnappers Griffin loses him on the roof of a building but finds a large pool of blood & no visible signs of what happened to him. Meanwhile Dr. Christina Durant (Kate Orsini) & her colleague Richard Barrier (Jason Rohrer) are renovating a church when the church labourer Gregor (Mihai Bisericanu) informs Richard that he has found some ancient relic, the two investigate & find a cave with lots of slimy cocoons & one very angry & very much alive Gargoyle who wastes no time in killing them both. Griffin & Wells are on the case when they are reported missing & soon realise that local legends of monstrous Gargoyles are true with a local priest named Father Soren (Fintan McKeown) planning to flood the world with them...<br /><br />Co-written, co-produced & directed by Jim Wynorski under his usual pseudonym Jay Andrews Gargoyles is yet another masterpiece Wynorski can add to his credits, not. The script by Wynorski, Ion Ionescu, A.G. Lawrence & Bill Munroe is crap, is unexciting, dull & is as simplistic as you can get. For a start I would like to know if there was only one Gargoyle left who laid all those eggs because I'm pretty sure it couldn't have made itself pregnant. How did it survive in that hole for 500 years? What did it eat? How did the priest know it was there? Why has no one else ever figured it out? Why did the priest want to flood the world with them? To rule it? The Gargoyles are hardly going to take over the world & then let some priest just rule it like a king & if they did what would be left to rule? Much like the guys who wrote Gargoyle I don't think he thought it through that well did he? Whichever way I look at it, whichever way I approach it, from whichever angle I try to figure it out from, no matter how many times I try to square the circle Gargoyles just doesn't make any sense & they story has huge plot holes, lapses in logic & isn't that great to start with anyway. The character's are dull & clichéd, the action repetitive & unexciting while the film as a whole is a real bore to sit through. People do illogical things & everything that happens is far to convenient like when the priest is try to convince Griffin that Gargoyle's exist & one just suddenly shows up & attacks them. The cave full of cocoons is such a rip-off of Aliens (1986) it's embarrassing & the ending was lame. The bit on the large Ferris Wheel at the fair was funny though when the guy mocked the boys fear of heights & forced him to get on it.<br /><br />Director Wynorski cuts costs & steals footage from other films, in fact the best scene from Gargoyle is a car chase through Bucharest but it was taken from the Jean-Claude Van Damme action film Maximum Risk (1996). There are no shocks, scares or atmosphere. The special effects are terrible, the CGI Gargoyle looks like it belongs in a computer game & has little interaction with any living cast members, there are lots of scenes of people looking up to the sky & trying to appear scarred. There isn't even any worthwhile gore to make the thing watchable, there is one awful decapitation & that's it.<br /><br />Technically the special effects are awful but otherwise it's passable, the Romanian locations look suitably Romanian. Gargoyle went straight-to-video & it shows with a pretty cheap look & feel to it. The acting isn't up to much, personality bypass victim Michael Pare makes for the dullest of dull heroes.<br /><br />Gargoyle is a crap film, it fails at everything a decent creature feature should strive to achieve. A total waste of 90 minutes as far as I'm concerned, one to avoid.
This movie is like porn with all of the good parts removed. It's like all of the porn stars that didn't want to fulfill their obligations banded together around this awful, trite, useless piece of gargoyle abstinence.<br /><br />This is a helpful movie if you're in the mood to torture a loved (or no longer loved) one. It's important that, if you choose to use this movie as a method of torture, that you put in earplugs and put on a blindfold to keep yourself from going insane.<br /><br />If I had a choice between this movie and The 700 Club...I'd choose Girls Gone Wild.<br /><br />Overall, better if you've been drinking. But only because it becomes a drinking game of epic proportions.
The acting was flat (at least none of the actors sounded like they'd just got the script that morning) and the film and sound quality made me think of the 70s movie of the week bombs. The only thing that told me that it was indeed not a 70s movie of the week was the reference to DNA testing. But for me, being Eastern Orthodox, the most egregious thing about this....film.....was the total Romishness of the religion. Romania is 88% Orthodox but you'd never know that from this movie: Father Soren is Irish. And I'd have known this even if I hadn't seen the actor play the Irish pub keep, Michael Sullivan in Star Trek: Voyager's "Fairhaven" episodes. The Bishop was wearing Roman vestments (and for the record not even Orthodox bishops wear their vestments unless they're saying the liturgy, especially if they live in a monastery). About the only non-Romish paraphernalia I saw was the 3-bar cross on the door of the church, and even then I had to squint to see it. The first reviewer said the producers had done their research. Well, if that's true they messed up on the religious aspect of the film.
there is only way to describe this movie.<br /><br />so bad its hilarious.<br /><br />the acting is so bad i laughed my ass off throughout. The male lead in this movie trying to use a gun is so ridiculous you would think he was trying to copy a toy action figure, i know this sounds ridiculous but when you see it for yourself you can't help but agree.<br /><br />the monster looks like a cgi guy trying to recreate the clay monsters you get in old Sinbad movies.<br /><br />in short this movie is good for only one thing a really large laugh at how bad movies can get.<br /><br />If you want to see bad acting bad script and special effects gone wrong<br /><br />THIS IS THE MOVIE FOR YOU
I will not spoil your surprise by mentioning any of the hideous plot lines, I'll just say that this movie suffers from poor animation, over acting, obvious tag lines… these are some of it's good qualities. if you are deserted on an isolated island and the only link to civilization you got is this movie throw it to the fish. I can't tell you how much I'm sorry I saw this horrifying ghastly movie. Speaking of which, this movie supposedly a horror movie cannot be classified as such for the simple fact that the only horror in the movie is the playing capabilities of some of the actors.<br /><br />Take care.
To this day, Malcolm McLaren is telling anyone daft enough to believe him that the Sex Pistols were his idea and that the band members were his puppets to be used to make him money. There is a good reason for him doing this, namely that he is a liar.<br /><br />Here are some real facts.<br /><br />* McLaren was actually approached by the band to be manager, not the other way round.<br /><br />* The Pistols were a proper, organic band and not created by McLaren or anyone else. Jones and Cook were childhood friends. Rotten and Vicious went back a long way too. This is something that has led to unfair criticism of the Pistols down the years as they have been likened to manufactured boy bands.<br /><br />* The band and no one else wrote the songs, recorded them, played live, created the publicity and gave the interviews.<br /><br />* McLaren did not instigate the Bill Grundy incident. The Pistols only appeared on the programme because Queen had pulled out. According to the band, McLaren was cowering in the back in case arrests were about to be made.<br /><br />* Johnny Rotten walked out of the band. He was not sacked.<br /><br />* Far from outwitting the Sex Pistols, John Lydon (Rotten) actually successfully sued him in the 1980s for control and a considerable sum of money. Some of the evidence used by Lydon's lawyers was from McLaren's boasting in 'The Great Rock & Roll Swindle'. This would suggest that McLaren is none too bright despite his affectations.<br /><br />* The sackings and subsequent pay offs from A & M and EMI were, again, not engineered, it was merely the way things panned out.<br /><br />* McLaren boasts about the money he made from the band. If he had been competent, he could have made a great deal more. It seems he coudn't even organise gigs properly.<br /><br />* McLaren's claim at the start of the film that he invented punk rock can be disproved in about ten seconds. The Pistols were not the first punk band, merely the most high profile.<br /><br />This is a terrible film. The only parts worth watching are the genuine footage of the band, later put to much better use in 'The Filth And The Fury'.
Not only is The Great Rock N Roll Swindle thoroughly inaccurate, but when it comes down to it, not much about it is interesting or even entertaining. Malcolm McLaren apparently squandered the majority of the Sex Pistols earnings on this waste of film, which makes it that much more obnoxious. The intention, from the beginning, was to create a monument to the "genius" of McLaren, who to this day takes full credit for creating punk music, creating the Sex Pistols, and at times even writing all the songs. Viewers follow McLaren to various settings, where he tells his story to his sidekick, a female dwarf, and simply takes credit for one thing after another. One particularly irritating scene has McLaren in an abandoned airplane hangar, waiting for a plane, being hounded by reporters and giving them their "big story". The most entertaining elements of the film are the animated short pieces, however, even these reek of McLaren's overbearing self-importance.<br /><br />Even as a farce, this film doesn't work. Little about it is entertaining, except for Steve Jones, who is surprisingly decent as a pseudo-detective type person. 20 years later, Julien Temple, who wrote and directed this film, also directed the Sex Pistols documentary "The Filth and the Fury". While that movie is much better and more interesting than "Swindle", it still is full of Temple's "artistic flourishes" that just don't work, like interviewing band members in shadow, as if they are some kind of crime witness trying to hide their identity. An interesting bit of trivia: Film critic Roger Ebert was one of the original scriptwriters for the movie "Who Killed Bambi?", which eventually became "Swindle".
From the epicenter of the cultural globe, four working class teenagers attempted to change the world through music and fashion. It was the final attempt to do so last century, and they failed. Before the dust had cleared, band manager and SEX shop proprietor Malcolm McLaren spent the money The Sex Pistols had earned to make a "mockumentary" about his own role in their success. The film was called The Great Rock 'n Roll Swindle (take the hint) and consists of very little footage of The Sex Pistols actually playing music, and quite a lot of footage of McLaren effectively calling the audience idiots.<br /><br />Cod-surrealist nonsense in which guitarist Steve Jones is a detective on McLaren's tail, soon dissolves so he and drummer Paul Cook can jet off to Rio and spend time with "great train robber" Ronnie Biggs. Ready yourself for the spectacle of three very unappealing men dancing naked to a hideous irony-free version of "Belsen was a Gas" (a song about killing Jews for gold in Bergen-Belsen concentration camp), and another song sung in Ronnie's tone deaf whine which includes the lyrics "God save Myra Hindley, God save Ian Brady" (lyrics that Johnny Rotten would have considered distasteful). The Sid Vicious scenes are few and idiotic. Jumping out of bed in a thong with a swastika over the testicles to sing some bad boy biker song from the '50s. Playing into to the "Punk's a joke" theme of the movie, in an attempt to turn Sid into James Dean. I'm surprised McLaren doesn't take credit for Siddy's death too. The redeeming scenes are those of Sid in Paris and the infamous performance of My Way. The punk rock zeitgeist right there. Mocking an adoring audience before shooting them all. No need for an entire film, just watch that clip on YouTube.<br /><br />From Julien Temple's far superior (and more enjoyable) 2001 documentary followup, The Filth and the Fury, we were given a more balanced/honest view of what transpired in '78. But there were also a number of scenes that I would have liked to have seen in Swindle (as Fury was basically a reediting of the same material). One was an animated Sid complete with Sid's voice acting; "You f*cken betta wat'ch out, alright, or I'll slice you open" - a still of which appeared on the cover of the Something Else 7 inch - a snippet was shown in Fury, but I don't know what context that originally appeared. Was it in original prints, but removed after Sid's death? Was there more? Fury also shed light on the film Who Killed Bambi, which would have been the mock Hard Day's Night movie McLaren was originally intending to make. It starred Sting(!) as a member of a gay New Romantics group, and looked a damn sight more entertaining than Swindle.<br /><br />Sod Swindle, t'is a swindle. If you must, rent The Filth and The Fury and revel in music's failure as a world changing polemic.
The brief existence of The Sex Pistols and the making of this film after the controversial, groundbreaking English punk band's break-up both happened before I was born. However, I started listening to their only album, "Never Mind the B*&%@#&s, Here's the Sex Pistols", in 2003, when I was a teenager, and quickly became a big fan. I didn't see "The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle" until 2006, but saw it a couple times that year, and thought it was pretty good (certainly not great, but pretty good), even if I could only remember bits of it, and didn't see how it all connected. Seeing it a third time, nearly three years after the second, I didn't care much for it at all. I'm not even sure what I found so good about most of it in the first place (can't remember now).<br /><br />This film is a mockumentary, in which Sex Pistols manager Malcolm McLaren tells his side of the story of the band and its members; guitarist Steve Jones, credited here as "The Crook"; drummer Paul Cook, credited as "The Tea-Maker"; bassist Sid Vicious, credited as "The Gimmick"; and John Lydon (a.k.a. Johnny Rotten) credited as "The Collaborator." McLaren claims that he created the band (and even the genre of punk rock) as a scam to make money. He tells much of the story to Helen Wellington-Lloyd (a.k.a. Helen of Troy), in various places where they go together. It's basically a hodgepodge of McLaren talking, Pistols songs, live footage of the band, fictional scenes (often silly, strange ones), several cartoon sequences, etc., all put together in one film, to tell the Pistols manager's side of the story in a bizarre way!<br /><br />It has been well proved that McLaren is a liar, I know many have already pointed this out, including band members themselves. He was NOT the driving force of the band, he didn't create them (nor did he invent punk rock, and The Sex Pistols weren't even the first punk band, though they were unique). The band members were the ones who made the band what it was. "The Filth and the Fury", a much more believable film about the band from Julien Temple, who made this film, is told from the point of view of the band members, who contradict McLaren's claims. However, the dishonesty of "The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle" is not my biggest problem with it. If it were actually entertaining (which I used to think it was to a certain extent), I would be able to overlook that, like I obviously used to be able to do. During my third viewing, apart from Sex Pistols songs, some live footage, and at least one mildly amusing cartoon sequence, it was pretty dull! I found the "Who Killed Bambi" song mildly amusing at first, but it got tiring very quickly.<br /><br />Is this mockumentary worth watching for Sex Pistols fans? It seems a good number of fans would say it is, not to learn about the true story of the short-lived but groundbreaking 70's punk band, but for entertainment. That was once my opinion on "The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle". After the first time I watched it, I couldn't remember a thing McLaren said, and by the time I saw it the second time, I was aware of what the Pistols manager was using this film to imply, but could still barely remember anything I heard him say! Obviously, other aspects of the film were what I found impressive. Now, after my third viewing, I can definitely remember some of the things McLaren says, but it still wasn't 100% clear. Like most of the film, I guess his words are not that memorable, probably because of the way they're presented. If you're a Pistols fan, I guess it wouldn't hurt to give "Swindle" a try, but to me, for the most part, it's just an incoherent, boring mess that tries to be funny but fails.
This appalling piece of tripe was (conveniently) loosely based on a true story that involved two family members of mine (played by Jack Thompson and Jacqueline Mackenzie).<br /><br />This film is offensive; besides the fact that it wasn't a particular good film anyway, it does not in any way capture what it was like to lose such a close family member and completely omits those who were really affected by the true-life tragedy.<br /><br />As for the director; he managed to cash in on a family's misfortune for the price of a Porsche.<br /><br />If I could have given this a zero I would have.<br /><br />Avoid this film at all costs.
Well its ten year's on since this film was released and the sands of time have not improved it one bit, again like the other comments made the Aussie film makers should have a little more drama rather than middle class aussies riding around beautiful places on there bikes with not much in the was of dialog. middle class is not funny nor is rich. there is also a mish mash of cast. why is a young woman going to marry a man old enough to be her father, it escapes me. It's such a shame about this film, looks like a wonderful place to holiday thou. Anyway its an hour and thirty mins of my life i will never be able to get back. lifes to short to watch this movie.
I turned this off within the first five minutes. It's very sick and disturbing, the moment I turned this off was when the beautiful white horse was let into the slaughterhouse and it's skull was punctured by a small tubed instrument. This creature was lying on the floor in a state of shock before it died. The narrator said the animal dies instantaneously, it didn't. I don't agree with graphic realism towards animals, insects or any living creature. I was very disappointed as I had just watched 'Eyes Without a face' which was a brilliant movie and this short film was attached, which spoilt my night - as I couldn't hurt a fly, never mind watching this savage documentary.<br /><br />reading other reviews on this page, I had noticed they used words such as aesthetic - this is not art or beauty. I can imagine that the documentary would be very articulate and profound but not aesthetic.
I saw this film yesterday on TV. I had just finished reading the book in which the movie was supposedly based. In the opening credits it said "This is a free adaptation of Eça de Queirós' novel". I should have turned off my TV at that moment.<br /><br />Vera Sacramento's idea of "free adaptation" is turning a story about Church's influence over people and the hypocrisy of people claiming morality at the end of the 19th century into a story about sex. In fact, the only thing she adopted from the novel was the sex part, which was only mildly referred in Eça de Queirós' novel. And, of course, the name of some characters.<br /><br />As of the characters, in the novel, Amélia and João Eduardo were victims of church's influence. Amélia was seduced by Father Amaro and all the time she was controlled by him. João Eduardo, her fiancé, was excommungated by the priests, because he dared to criticize them. In this movie, Amélia seduces every one she meets and Father Amaro is just another victim. João Eduardo is a dealer of drugs and illegal weapons.<br /><br />Vera Sacramento has turned a novel which criticized moral costumes of an epoch and turned it into just another movie with lots of (bad) sex. Even worse, her story was completely empty of ideas. Two wasted hours! Eça de Queirós surely did not deserve this.
I was not making big assumptions on the fact that this for sure was a very, very free adaptation from the work of Eça de Queiroz, and I must say that this free adaptation form the book as a lot of possible good ideas and characters. The problem is the way that is done, without any care, without any taste, just a rumble of bad taste clichés everywhere. The script is so fake and the characters so unreal that's makes petty seeing nice actors as Unas, Bryner, Morgado, Lagarto and others, lost themselves in a net of whatever except cinema or storytelling. For my surprise the newcomers Jorge Corrula and Soraia Chaves bravely stick in their performances, but you can see them lost like a drifted boat without any direction. And talking about direction, this seems to be something totally missing on this movie…where's the Director? Everything is bad taste; the frames are whatever, and whenever, the use of hand camera without any justified reason, the light design that should build environments doesn't exist (and no excuses that the all point is a dark real story). The problem overall in this "trying to be" film is that as no taste, or very, very bad taste. It's sad to see Jorge and Soraia melting away in such fake and gratuity sex scenes, painted here and there trough out the movie like closing narratives holes or used as fakes transition motives. Maybe Carlos Coelho da Silva should see the 2002 Carlos Carrera adaptation of the same book of Eça and get the felling of how to build a true movie.
As you might not know Eça de Queiroz is one of Portugal's most rightfully celebrated writers. He was witty, he spared no one in his critics and must now be rolling in his tomb. And that's not due to this movie being bad, which it is, but as a result of the treatment dispensed to one of his masterworks "O Crime do Padre Amaro". It's treated like cheap, throwaway trash.<br /><br />When it was publicized that this was to be a "modern and urban" take on the book I feared for the worst, normally modern in these contexts means taking the liberty to take the p**** when doing an adaptation, to half arse it in the shoddiest possible way. And so the moral and social dilemma of a priest having a secret,forbidden affair are substituted by extra-long passages of people dealing drugs and singing hip-hop for no particular or pertinent reason to the plot. It's just there like it might very well not have been.<br /><br />Oh and there's lots of sex so you can at least be counting on that when you put this on. Remember how every movie in the 80's, no matter the genre or the tone always found a way to sneak in some nudity? If it was a thriller and they had no need for it they simply found a way that when they were capturing a felon he "happened" to be in bed with a woman that would prance around screaming (naked of course) when the cops barged in. Ahem, gratuitous is the word I think. Not that there's anything wrong with nude scenes but here they make the creators of this movie look desperate simply because there's nothing else to the movie, it's totally devoid of what do you call it dramatic content.
The film is nothing else than an exposition of nudity. Has anyone noticed that all three main female characters appear naked? It looks like the only winning bet for Portuguese filmmakers is to include some (if not a lot) of nudity of the local stars, together with slang which otherwise, in the nowadays Portuguese society, is repulsed with horror. If you watch advertising for Portuguese films at Portuguese TVs, they all have included a "hot" scene from the movie. I'm not saying, by any means, that Portuguese society is alienated; just that the movie industry does not seem capable of finding others ways of success. Going back to the movie... There is nothing left from the spirit of the book, which is a masterpiece. The film could have been a good one, had there been emphasized the real idea of the book (of actuality at any time) and not the strictly erotic part. It had almost all the ingredients... but the "chef" was awful...
Will there be please coming an end to hyping movies that are dealing about social conflicts or other human disasters? Okay "Care" is about childabuse, "Care" is about perverts misusing boys in a school and how disgusting it might be, if it's a movie with a poor script and made with bad playing actors then it stays a bad movie. "Care" is a movie that could have been, but is it because it was a tvmovie I don't know but everything seemed so limited that it comes over as some cheap movie that will be seen by some housewifes and fathers who decide not to go to bed. There are so many unanswered things in this movie...the relation with his mother for instance or the death of some abused boy from which we know nothing more. "Care" should have been much much better.
Oh man! This series has to be the worst possible anime I've ever seen in a while.<br /><br />It started out new, exciting and fresh. And I really liked it then. Kagome was a good female role model for the show. And Inu-Yasha was funny and hot-headed.<br /><br />Then, it just kept falling more and more downhill as the series progressed... and I'll tell y'all the reasons why. (Warning: SPOILER ALERT!!)<br /><br />Okay, they basically destroy Inu-Yasha's relationship with Kagome early on, by reviving his 50 year old dead girlfriend, who's drippy, sappy, and a total waste of time.<br /><br />They introduce a pervert named Miroku, who's supposed to be a sort of religious figure for the show. (Which really bugged me,'cause it was out of place and stupid.) Then, they introduce a demon slayer named Sango, whose only purpose in life is to try (and fail) to save her brainwashed brother.<br /><br />The big bad of the show, Naraku, while starting out as a really good bad guy, lost his touch after a while. (He got pretty old pretty fast. And it bothered me that he was the only baddie in the show who did anything.)<br /><br />The characters all became wooden, and unemotional. And then, the ending of this terrible series was a disappointment to any anime fan out there. Nothing happened. Naraku never got killed or defeated. Kagome and Inu-Yasha never fully fell in love ('cause he was still all in love with his 50 year old dead chick.) Plot holes were left open. The animation got worse and worse as the series progressed. And nothing changed in the plot. (I mean,they dragged it out to over 150 episodes, and nothing changed in the plot... at all.) And they expected me (as well as other fans of the show) to be satisfied?? I was disenchanted, disgusted, and annoyed as crap. I at least had high hopes that there'd be a good ending to the series. Instead, all I got was a dragged out commercial for the manga.<br /><br />Seriously, if you wanna see a good anime about swords and stuff like that, I strongly recommend "Rurouni Kenshin". That show progresses and goes somewhere, plus it has really good animation too.<br /><br />But stay far away from this bland excuse for anime, as best as you can.
Let me state this right from the start. I do NOT hate this show. I actually quite like some aspects of it. In fact, when i first started to watch it, I quickly became hooked. I was just starting to come out of the whole "anime is for kids" stereotype, and the mature elements of the show had me intrigued.<br /><br />Unfortunately, after seeing the whole series through and a few of the films, I can say that my overall disposition has changed, and it falls into almost all of the pitfalls that plague "bad" anime. Seven or eight friends and myself started watching this series on TV. By the end, only one friend and I were still watching and neither of us liked it.<br /><br />Allow me to explain the plot for you. You can skip this paragraph if you don't want to know. Kagome is an average high school student, who one day falls into a magical well near her family run shrine. When kagome comes out of the well again, she has been transported back in time to the feudal era of japan. She meets up with many other characters and they form a group of five or so companions who set off on a journey of revenge/justice/groping in one characters case =). Overall, they are trying to recover the pieces of the sacred jewel shard which enhances the power of demons who use it.<br /><br />While there are many, MANY side stories and story arcs, there is no were near enough material to occupy 167 episodes. The only story arc that is interesting enough to watch is still sort of dull (the band of seven). After the half way mark in the series or maybe even before, it becomes painfully obvious that the plot is frozen in place and whoever made the series decided instead to put in dozens and dozens of filler episodes. <br /><br />These episodes have little to no impact on the story, and rarely even on the characters. In some cases, some characters who had an important role in the story will disappear for dozens of episodes at a time. Many episodes follow the exact same cookie cutter patterns as the stories before it. Inuyasha shoots wind-scar at enemy. Windscar deflects. Characters gasp in horror. Enemy turns out to have barrier. Characters spent three episodes trying to kill enemy before Kagome finally fires sacred arrow at him and he turns to dust. <br /><br />Also **MAJOR SPOILER: THE CONCLUSION WILL BE REVEALED** the lack of any conclusion makes it seem like you have waisted 83 hours. <br /><br />**MAJOR SPOILER OVER**<br /><br />The animation itself is above average, and in some cases excellent. Even so, reused animation cells plague most action scenes, and it is very hard to ignore them when it is clear that the exact same boulder has flown past a character five or six times in a row.<br /><br />On the brighter side however, all of the characters are very well developed and the romances between some of the characters were truly captivating. Also, the character designs (appearences) were brilliant and at times among the best I have seen, particularly with the band of seven. There is definitely no shortage of Cosplay opportunities here. Even so, I found myself hoping that a character would die just so there would be some sort of movement in the plot. And some of the humour in the show between characters is used again and again. One particular joke (sit boy) is found within the first five episodes, and you can literally expect it to be used again and again for the remaining 162 episodes.<br /><br />Although there are some good aspects of the show and it is easy to see why it has a huge following, the series seems to be dominated by obsessed fan girls who drool over Sesshomiru and InuYasha.<br /><br />Bottom line: Definitely worth checking out, but not worth watching the whole series. The first 30 episodes are very clever, original and enjoyable for anybody. But after that, it simply becomes dull and tedious. Watching a TV show should never feel like a chore, but somehow this series accomplishes just that. Don't expect much from "InuYasha", because you will only feel let down.
Rossini once described rival composer Wagner's work as having "some wonderful moments...and some awful quarter-hours". Inuyasha, it seems, can also be described this way. It has many great episodes, but in between them are countless filler episodes. The entire series consists of about 175 episodes, of which I'd say at least 125 are filler or some sort of subplot (I didn't bother to count and I wouldn't be surprised if that number were in fact higher, though).<br /><br />Some of these filler episodes are actually quite enjoyable, though many are quite silly or dull. Nonetheless, the constant digressions start to wear thin after the first few seasons as the plot ends up progressing at a labored crawl for most of the series. Character development, too, slows down greatly and by the later seasons, the cast has become quite unchanging, resulting in increasingly stale jokes (particularly those concerning the monk, who's ironic traits start out as mildly humorous but grow tiresome when the jokes associated with them appear repeatedly).<br /><br />However, all of that isn't to say that Inuyasha is a bad series. It just isn't a great series the way Neon Genesis Evangelion, for example, is generally considered to be. As something to watch at the end of a hard day, it is nice, but it could never be confused with high art.
May or may not contain spoilers. <br /><br />Inuyasha is not a good anime. It's actually very overrated. Why? There's absolutely no story line, no plot, and the show just drags on... and on... and on... That's because there are more side stories and fillers than episodes that make the plot progress. And the fillers are just the same stories being repeated over and over again. The same episodes seem to go with the same plot: Kagome sensing a jewel shard, a worm/slime/tentacle demon thing pops up, Inuyasha says "Wind-Scar", "Iron Reaver Soul Stealer", etc. and kills the demon, they get the jewel shard, and then we just repeat this scene 160 or more times.<br /><br />Besides the repeating of episodes, there's the repeating of comedic devices, and they're not funny anymore. Wait, they never were. Sexual harassment is NOT funny. Viz rated the series Older Teens, 16+. I have no idea why they rated it that. There's nothing bad about it except for the so-called funny sexual harassment, which is kind of suggestive, and that could get you arrested these days.<br /><br />Now, this is how we know Inuyasha is overrated. The videogames. They all sucked. Especially the Mask game. I played that at my friend's house. It wasn't anything interesting. The game was slow, boring, and it had Nintendo 64 like graphics. In a magazine, it got a rating of 4/10, saying "...this role-playing game is slower than milkshake moving up a cocktail straw." Then, there's all these stupid Inuyasha toys, action figures, trading cards, stickers, and coloring books. COLORING BOOKS! We thought Inuyasha was 16+! Maybe not... But after being a member of Inuyasha groups on MSN, about half the people on there were 10 to 13. I guess Inuyasha is a little kid anime after all. (I think that just a small bit of editing done to this show, it could be shown on Toonami.) There are over 40 manga volumes. I can only help but wonder how many miles of forest that have been cut down to make them. Sad...<br /><br />Then there's the music. The music is so annoying. We hear the same 5 songs every episode. After 10 episodes, the music gets really annoying. In other anime, they have music to fit the mood and we don't hear some songs very often. There are about 15 different Inuyasha soundtracks. Don't waste your money on that garbage!<br /><br />And how do you think I know all this? Because I used to be a fan of Inuyasha. I feel ashamed of myself. I'd rather watch Kim Possible or Pokemon instead. Sadly, those two shows have more romance between the two main protagonists than Inuyasha will ever have...
To be entirely frank, the popularity of this show saddens me. Inuyasha is certainly not terrible - it has a few good moments, the occasional flash of clever humour, and, unlike so many animes, dignity. However, it is utterly lacking in the essential elements of a worthwhile story. From the start, its premise dooms it to be stereotypical. The main plot centers around collecting the pieces of a shattered jewel before they can be possessed by evil, and is, as one would suspect, a totally generic epic fantasy affair. The story follows a familiar pattern of fighting off various enemies for pieces of the jewel, and is thus quite predictable, lacking in complexity, and easy to lose interest in. But as so many animes have shown, a poor premise can be rescued by deep, realistic characters. Sadly, no one rescues the story of Inuyasha. Kagome, the main character, is the stereotypical anime heroine (and far too reminiscent of Akane, the main character of the original comic author's previous work Ranma 1/2); she is kind to other females, but treats many males, especially her love interest, with unfair, unabashed, unjustifiable brutality. Inuyasha is a tough-on-the-outside-but-sweet-on-the-inside type, and Miroku is the lamentable stock character of "the pervert".<br /><br />The flaws continue with what happens to this plot and these characters - namely, nothing. Despite constant action, the story does not progress. Despite regular romantic moments, neither does the main relationship. Despite ample time, the characters never really change. And to add a cherry to the sundae of mediocrity, all this stagnation is stretched into approximately 150 episodes.<br /><br />My final criticism of this anime is the animation. While certainly not ugly, it displays almost disrespectful laziness on the part of the creators. The animators seem to take joy in long scenes of Inuyasha jumping through the air with wind whistling in which they have little to do but move a background.<br /><br />In short, with all the beautiful animations of the world at one's keyboard-perched fingertips, there is absolutely no reason to watch Inuyasha.
Don't kill me fans but I have something to say about this.<br /><br />Pros: Well, the most mildly interesting season that I've watched out of all the seasons that are out there of Inuyasha just has tobe the Shichinintai arc. Unlike the rest of the seasons, I personally think that this one has more of a real plot line and those mercenaries; good god they're such likable characters. Shame they were killed off. Of course, I would write a 15 page essay one why I like the Shichinintai so much but that would be boring for some of you. So this series actually does have some likable characters. I'll miss Bankotsu... poor, poor psycho little boy.<br /><br />Cons: Outside of Shichinintai arc, the series was overall boring, repetitive and some of the characters are extremely irritating. Kagome for example: She overreacts too much to my taste; she acts like Yuka from Elfen Lied. Inuyasha: He's a loud mouth dog demon with a huge sword. What's so unique about him? He has ADORABLE DOG EARS! Tch. Sesshomaru is all talk, no action and very cocky. Naraku has just got to be the wimpiest villain that ever existed in the anime world. Miroku and Sango... they have some color but they just seem to stand on the sidelines too much. But what bugs me the most if the fact that they have absolutely no COMMON SENSE at all. Rumiko Takahashi has done a LOT better then this. I've seen it before.<br /><br />If you like series with a lot of action, no annoying love triangle, no over repetitiveness, this is not for you then.
"Inuyasha " was awful . This show was incredibly over -hyped but this is nothing but a tedious bunch of anime clichés. The characters are annoying and lifeless ,the story line is boring and endless .I think that it could have be something interesting if it have a better writing, but it seems that the writers of the show have more intentions in show Inuyasha and his stupid friends fighting with some monsters and then crying for his tragic love triangle with Kikyou and Kagome and a lot of circles around the same thing again and again . The script is cheesy and dumb and the animation is poor .The character design it 's very ugly ,I don't know why everyone love it ,all have the same face ! : Big eyes , tiny noses , a line as the mouth and the typical anime haircuts . I find "Inuyasha " incredibly boring and dumb . This have to be one of the most over -rated animated shows ever made .
First off I want to say that I lean liberal on the political scale and I found the movie offensive. I managed to watch the whole doggone disgrace of a film . This movie brings a low to original ideas. Yes it was original thus my 2 stars instead of 1. Are our film writers that uncreative that they can only come up with this?? Acting was horrible , and the characters were unlikeable for the most part. The lead lady in the story had no good qualities at all. They made her bf into some sort of a bad guy and I did not see that at all. Maybe I missed something , I do not know.He was the most down to earth, relevant character in the movie. I did not shell out any money for this garbage. I almost wish PETA would come to the rescue of this awful, offensive movie and form a protest. DISGUSTING thats all I have to say anymore !
This film is totally unbelievable. The only way a girl would perform this act on a dog is if she had serious mental health issues or had a long history of sexual abuse or was under duress. Yet we are asked to believe that an otherwise 'normal' healthy female just got a bit bored and 'made a little mistake' and oops had a sexual encounter with a dog. What's more it never had any detrimental affect on her ever again except when she tells someone.<br /><br />Not she was raped by a dog or the dog did something she couldn't resist - she actively initiated oral sex and completed this activity with a pet dog of her own choice. She wasn't on drugs or anything she just 'felt like it'.<br /><br />The rest of the film seeks to put this action in a light of 'hey it could happen to anyone she's only being honest'.<br /><br />But really for this to be believed we have to believe that this is a woman who is capable of doing absolutely ANYTHING if she 'just feels like it'. Think about it - could she have considered the rights and wrongs of this action before carrying it out? If she had she would have stopped in her tracks. Human beings have instinctive boundaries for reasons. If we are now to start considering bestiality as a 'cute' little aberration, what is next? Child abuse? Yet the 'heroine' is portrayed as a hard done by, nice girl who had one moment of aberration. If she had been forced to carry out this act by an abuser - the story might have made more sense and I would have been able to accept the storyline. But there is no way that anyone carries out the prolonged activity required and referred to even once - if there is not some deep, disturbance that requires a great deal of psychiatric help. This is NO WAY a one off happening in an otherwise perfect life.<br /><br />I know this is just a film, but it is through normalising behaviour such as this via the media that society becomes desensitised and more and more awful realities become possible.<br /><br />I could imagine an abuser showing this to a child to persuade them that it isn't such a big deal and then moving on with their agenda. It could also be used by an abuser to underline to a child not to tell about the abuse - because look how people will react to you if you do.<br /><br />This is not about truth. The director WANTS people to think it's about truth. This is about degradation and how easily people (the viewing public)can be manipulated into accepting the most appalling concepts if wrapped up in the right way. The watching public are being manipulated, degraded and laughed at.<br /><br />This is a film in which the actors and the viewers are being humiliated and made fools of in a very sophisticated way by a clever but extremely disturbed film writer.<br /><br />This film appears to me to be being used as a vehicle for the creator of the film to get off on the excitement of playing with your mind in an abusive manner. I don't know whether it is conscious on their part - but it is the most classic example of Mind F***k that I have ever encountered.<br /><br />I hope that this doesn't offend anyone too much. But if you watched this film - I don't think there is any room left to be offended by anything any more.
Not a bad concept.I just wish they had taken it in another direction. Its a movie that tries to be interesting by shocking you with bestiality to begin with, which works for most people(prudes with weak stomachs).But besides this there's not much to this movie. Its not funny nor is it romantic so please somebody change that label , and since i already knew that bestiality is actually legal most places and a million dollar industry, i wasn't really shocked. But most people do not know this and i thought that how the movie evolved after the secret came out was just disappointing because it could have been one of those shocking eye opener movies that would teach the ignorant about a fetish that is very much a reality for(yes i did my homework)hundreds of thousands of people.So if you like watching bad movies that you can daydream about how you could make them better while watching them than sure,have fun doing that.
Bobcat Goldthwait should be commended for attempting to do something different with this surprisingly heartfelt film, a cautionary tale about the pitfalls of being honest about everything. Melinda Hamilton stars as Amy, a girl who has had oral sex with a canine in the past on a lark. She struggles with telling her fiancé, John. Of course the truth does rear it's shaggy ugly head. The film deals with the fallout of said escapade. The movie is well-acted by all, save for perhaps Jack Plotnick as Dougie, who never really felt like he mashed well with the picture. And the film while solid enough seems to miss it's mark a few times. Every single person in the film struggles with massive hypocrisy and all our a tad hard to relate to. Bobcat should be commended for doing something different, as I said before, but different does not always equal good and this pales ever so slightly not to Goldthwaits own directorial debut, the criminally misunderstood "Shakes the Clown"<br /><br />My Grade: C-
I am not so old that I can't remember laughing at Bobcat Goldthwait a couple times. But some where in all his years of drug abuse he lost his sense of humor as well as his brain cells.<br /><br />From the moment this film opens you can have no sympathy nor empathy for the female lead. Neither will you find anything remotely funny after hearing the opening line. Goldthwait obviously hates himself so much that he needs to degrade in order to feel better- even if it is his own imaginary characters he degrades. <br /><br />If you ever saw Shakes the Clown you know how unfunny Bobcat was 15 years ago...this movie is worse. It was not even funny by accident It is sad, pathetic and a total waste of time. May Goldthwaits' hands be rendered paralyzed so he can not write another script. Strike his tongue so he can not dictate another unfunny scene. He is sad and pathetic and needs to make room for a new talent dying to get into Hollywood
If one wants to have a character in a movie have a disturbing sexual encounter that would shame that character in later life the only thing left that an audience would see as shameful was bestiality and now it has been done. Judging by some of the other comments even that did not succeed that well. I cannot remember one funny scene though I have to admit, I had to turn it off before it was finished. I did watch a part of the director's commentary and it appears he was as surprised as anyone that the movie was doing well. If you want to get the same feeling you get from this movie but only cheaper, stick your head in a pile of manure and breath deeply.
This movie was such a waste of my money. it was disgusting as well as disturbing. honestly, i would never recommend this movie to anyone. who thinks of a movie where a girl blows her dog?? seriously... it was a waste of my time. i kept watching the movie, hoping it would get better and a plot would emerge but that never happened. i'd rate the movie an F-. This movie should have been rated R for its disturbing nature. I would never let children of any age see this movie. this movie sucks. this movie is horrible. this movie was a waste of my time. i could have spent the night doing some worth my time instead of renting this movie. this movie was a waste of gas money to get to the store and definitely a waste of two dollars to watch it. pretty much, no one should watch this movie. this movie should be banned and burned.
This movie was on the pay channels today and I had nothing to do so I had it on. This has to be the worst football movie ever made. This has to be one of the worst movies period. The premium service on the cable system has a rating system, and they gave 2 stars out of 4. This movie isn't even a half a star. Bad acting, Scott Bakula sinks as usual, Larry Miller?? Sinbad, couldn't act if he tried. Rob Schneider's one liners completely stunk. Fred Thompson should be embarrassed that he was even in this movie. The only saving grace for this movie was the hope you would see Kathy Ireland nude in the shower, not even close. A complete waste of time and of film. If we could give a negative number, minus 9.
this movie is allegedly a comedy.so where did all the laughs go.did the forget to put them in,on the version i watched.as a football movie,it is mildly entertaining,i guess.maybe'm just a stick in the mud,with no discernible sense of humour.or maybe this movie just isn't funny.it is also annoying,with that way over the top "you're a winner"musical score.and the odd thing is,the team sucked through most of the season,only winning the last two games,and the last game meant nothing since they were not in the playoffs.so what is the point? are they celebrating mediocrity?I don't see it.if anybody knows,please let me know.anyway,this movie isn't great or even very good.i'm giving it a low 3*
Necessary Roughness (1991) was a bad comedy/ drama that tried to hard on every level to be a serious film about college football. A lot of current and former superstar athletes appeared in this production during one of the film's comedic highlights. Other than that it's a very mediocre movie. They should have just stuck to making a straight out comedy filled with no realism. Instead the film makers try to play both fields and they end up on the short end of the stick. When will somebody make a decent film about college football that's funny and realistic?<br /><br />Not recommended, unless it's for free on t.v.
I attempted to watch this, and was highly disappointed. Don't expect intelligent and insightful humor ala Amy's brother David amidst this dreck... it is the polar opposite. But if you're into poop, fart and boner jokes, you'll be in seventh heaven. This is bathroom humor aimed, I assume, at those who've had several bongs, which can only explain why many ecstatic reviewers have heralded this crap as "the best television writing ever." I assume that those who hate such simpleton humor were unable to watch long enough to care to submit a review, but I am just sending out a warning shot to those unaware viewers who are looking for high-end comedy. The characters overact. The shock factor is set to 10. And the laughs are set to zero (unless, of course, you seek juvenile, low-brow humor.) <br /><br />I made it through 40 minutes, praying the whole time it would turn the corner toward worthwhile entertainment, but alas, it just got worse and worse. And beware of Amy's ever-present and hammy overbite expression - it will set your eyes rolling. It was nice to see cameos by recognizable comedic actors I enjoy, but I can only assume they agreed to participate as a favor to the Sedaris family.<br /><br />To those who loved it, I'm sorry... this is my opinion. It was so bad it inspired me to write my first review.
Strangers with candy overacts in all the wrong context, the situations are just not funny with the cheesy voices and bad low brow comedy timing, the clear attempt at dry/black/dark humour is obvious and it fails to deliver on all elements of a good joke.<br /><br />With a high cringe factor and low laugh ratio I was shocked this show went pass the first season, I personally like Scrubs, The Office, 30 Rock, Trailer Park Boys, Pulling, Peep Show, Simpsons, Family Guy and I know what your thinking, these shows aren't weird at all, so some other good shows I've seen are Jam, Garth Marenghi's Darkplace, The Book Group, Asylum and Snuff Box which are original with dry/black/dark humour/satire and are all at least 5/10.<br /><br />Garth Marenghi's Darkplace especially is cheap looking, overacted and weird, however the context is thought out and works to make it really out there and entertaining too.
"Curacao" is a foreign intrigue drama set on the title Caribbean Island which involves a retired sea captain and bar owner (Scott) and a demoted CIA field operative (Petersen). The film has numerous bad guys, foreign agents and thugs, skulking about the pair of protagonists all coveting something Scott has which they want and are prepared to kill for. A lukewarm low budget tv flick, "Curacao" is spiced up with a couple of babes and use some Carnival street parades as window dressing. Little more than fodder for the bored couch potato. C-
What is wrong with CURACAO ( Also known as DEADLY CURRENTS though what the reasonn for the name change is I have no idea ) can probably be summed up where a woman says to her lover :<br /><br />" Keep it down baby , I'm trying to sleep " <br /><br />It's not the dialogue that's the problem or the way it's delivered , it's the fact the actress has has a Central European accent . Nothing wrong with that until it's revealed her character is from Philidelphia in the United States ! This what struck me about this thriller while watching it - The way accents don't match their characters . Apart from the Philly woman with a German accent we see a South African with an English accent , a local police chief who sounds like he's an Irishman impersonating a Gestapo officer and worst of all George C Scott playing someone who's either Dutch or British with an accent that sounds like it might be American tinged with South African . You soon give up following what's on screen and end up concentrating on what nationality a character might be due to the strange way they speak . It's interesting to note that this site hasn't given this movie a country of origin . With so many different actors from different countries you do feel that this was produced by the United Nations <br /><br />Even if you're not curious about accents or dialects you'll probably have to give up following the action anyway because CURACAO is plot less . Things happen like a boat exploding , and a hostage situation and the hero being recruited as an agent for South African intelligence but you're left scratching your head wondering what the heck this is all leading to . I was lost
It is is very sad to see someone of the calibre of George C Scott in a low budget thriller which would have been better if the original novel was written by Graham Greene and directed by someone somewhat more experienced in the genre. NOT TO MENTION A BETTER CINEMATOGRAPHER. There are so many missed opportunities with the scenery and carnival merely glossed over, rather than captured to locate the movie solidly in the exotic setting of the novel.<br /><br />Elsewhere in the viewer comments on this site, one very astute observer complained about the variety of diabolically bad accents in this film. Ever since I saw George C Scott as Rochester in Jane Eyre, I have prayed for him NEVER to ever accept again a role which required him to assume a British accent. Just every now and then, he could just possibly pass for British or a very British sounding South African played obviously by an American actor. I can stomach Meryl Streep's extraordinarily laboured accents (both British and Australian) - at least she gets it right even though with every utterance, she demands that we marvel at her skill. Well, I am sorry that Mr. Scott is no Meryl Streep, and it just destroys the illusion - like having Michele Yeoh speak excruciating Mandarin with a strong Singaporean accent in Crouching Tiger etc.<br /><br />Peterson acts no differently than what we see on CSI. Except he is still very handsome and more or less slim in this movie. He is the Harrison Ford of TV. Same old expressions for every emotion, every situation. No on second thought, Ford has two - perplexed/pained and happy. I have never seen a smile on Mr. CSI!
Ugh. Yes, it's exactly like the McMartin mess, or the horrific arrests in Wenatchee, Washington. In the movie, the mother keeps aggressively questioning her little boy, over and over and over, until he finally tells her what she obviously wants to hear. The court investigators and "therapists" repeat the pattern. The questioning itself is sexually creepy, a relentlessy repeated assault in its own way.<br /><br />The moviemakers throw in a doctor talking about physical evidence of abuse, maybe to justify the film's point of view: that two- to four-year-olds never make "things like this" up. Well, they will if every adult they know is asking them to. The way this piece endorses such discredited interrogation techniques makes watching it an exercise in frustration for anyone who knows what it takes to get a successful prosecution in real life. <br /><br />(They also add a special arrest incident towards the end to "prove" their case -- no parallel to this fictional incident ever occurred in real life. Can't say more here without turning this into a spoiler, but you'll know it when you see it.)<br /><br />Yes, children are abused, sometimes by paid care providers. But to watch a movie which affirms the ludicrous, hysterical accusations against so many totally innocent people, to watch re-creations of the trials that ruined the lives of countless children as well as the lives of the accused -- I didn't think I'd last until the end. It's just too sad, and made more so by the writing team's seeming endorsement of the abusive, paranoid, obsessional questioning techniques that started -- what can we call it? The bonfire of the sanities? <br /><br />No one I know has ever been accused of child abuse, thank heaven, but my 12-times-over-great grandmother was accused of witchcraft and killed for it. Mobs filled with what they think is holy anger are just as dangerous now as three hundred years ago. Sensational drivel like this -- "These accusations of Satanic abuse are cropping up all over the country, there must be something there!" "So tell the jury that!" -- just eggs them on. <br /><br />And whoever thought it was a good idea to have kids under ten, some of them under five, play these roles? It's traumatic to watch them delivering their lines; how much more traumatic was it to act these parts? The moviemakers' commitment to fight child abuse apparently doesn't apply to themselves. And what were the child-actors' parents THINKING? "Melinda" (uncredited, at least in the version on the A&E Network in 2005, but I think it was Cassy Friel) and "Teddy" (Brian Bonsall) were terrific. Professionals or not, though, they were too young to be exposed to this material, much less to be paid to act it out. Despite ruthlessly exploiting these real-life children, "Do You Know The Muffin Man" got an Emmy nomination for directing -- which just goes to show how crazed things were, back in 1989.
This movie was total cheese. It stank. The only thing good about it was the acting. Other then that, nothing noteworthy at all.<br /><br />Big Time Spoilers Coming up! Don't Read Anymore If You Have Not Seen It!<br /><br />This movie is centered around a family whose happy and wonderful lives have been shattered as a result of their younger son and later as they find out older son have been molested by their daycare providers. Although, they are called liars in court and the defense attorney is a real prick the jury finds them guilty and convicts them.<br /><br />In the end all I can say to the director is: "The next time you wanna make a movie like this, do it differently".
This movie was terrible. It was so very terrible.<br /><br />Most annoying was the way the trial was conducted. The defense attorney is allowed to ramble on and on when questioning a witness without the prosecution making any objections. He attacks the children brought to give testimony with cruel ferociousness and repeatedly yells at them that they're lying. These just aren't things that they subject children who have been sexually abused to. The trial is silly and it ruins the whole movie...(Law & Order has spoiled me for courtroom accuracy-ness).
This movie was beyond disappointment. Well acted story that means nothing. The plot is ridiculous and even what story there is goes absolutely nowhere. It truly isn't worth a nickel, buffalo or otherwise..pun intended!
I'm not sure what the appeal of this movie is, but I couldn't find it. It's a really long, barely credible, hardly lucid conversation between three guys on one set. <br /><br />It doesn't move anywhere, the characters are just totally bizarre, the underlying plot equally so. It's lost on me, definitely a walk out movie.<br /><br />The one thing that keeps you from walking out is the ever unrealized possibility that it might have some kind of point or meaningful climax, and the fact that, all irritation aside at the banal personalities, they're acted quite reasonably. But you have to brace yourself for endless dialog, wishing on many an occasion that Teach would just shut the %*&* up for a moment.
Zombie movies are hot, I love 'em. Can't get enough. Why I would purchase a film of this caliber goes without explanation, I just really love zombies. Surprise, this really isn't much of a zombie movie; low-budget I can handle, being duped just irritates me.<br /><br />A group of horror-film clichés hold up in a warehouse/lab/who-knows-what to escape a fire storm outside. Panic, yelling, low-light, and (eventually) zombies ensue.<br /><br />I kind of feel bad for the film makers, as it is obvious that they really thought they were putting together something good; a serious, scary horror film. It isn't, far from it, it's a boring mess of wooden acting, cheesy FX, poor lighting, excessive dialogue, and over editing.<br /><br />Things first go awry when it takes a good 10+ minutes for the characters to ever sit down and start to figure out what is going on. It gets worse when another 20 minutes go by and they are still sitting around trying to figure out what is going on. All of this is littered with non-acting and bad dialogue.<br /><br />Finally some one gets attached (not by a zombie though) and hope flickers just a touch before the characters are again lounging around whining (the only emotion any one every generates) about how much this sucks. Me too guys, me too.<br /><br />Finally zombies are in the mix, but no one watching cares any more. I think there was some blood and gore tossed in, but I was too busy praying for the credits to roll to notice. And when the screen finally did fade to black I felt even more cheated by the pointlessly 'Cube' inspired ending.<br /><br />I will give credit for trying very hard, even if it failed miserably. That and the punk chick was very hot if totally under used.<br /><br />Can't really recommend this to anyone, save for film students looking for 'no-no' pointers.<br /><br />4/10
OK - I gave it a "3" just because they obviously had no money to make this film, but I feel it might deserve the "2.3" rating it had when I got here. I'm actually helping to raise it's rating, despite being bored for the last hour and a half. I will save the "1's" and the "2's" for the higher budget pieces of crap. At least the makers of "Rise of the Undead" didn't waste that much money. They did manage to waste 90 minutes of my life.<br /><br />The movie is too claustrophobic for me. The entire movie takes place in the same building, in dark rooms and hallways. With a setting like this, there should have been more action or character development, but there is just a lot of meaningless talk. I didn't get to know any of the characters. There is a schoolgirl and a Goth chick but we never find out much more about them. None of the characters seem really likable.<br /><br />Terrible movie made on zero budget. No scary special effects. No suspense. Really nothing interesting at all here, folks. I admit I downloaded this from the net. It was free but I am throwing it away.<br /><br />Sorry to the filmmakers. Better luck next time. This one is more like a soap opera than a zombie movie.
So, you've seen the Romero movies, yes? And you've seen Jacob's Ladder, right? And the later Hellraiser movies? Okay, now let's make a movie out of all three, only let's just jam everything together and make a whole big mess of it, sounds like a good idea?<br /><br />This movie is terrible. Absolutely god-awful. Yeah, it's an indie flick, who gives a crap? Is that a pass to make filmic excrement? The film attempts to establish credibility by focusing on character interaction, that much is evident. Unfortunately for the writers, they're not good at character interaction. This isn't Night of the Living Dead; the characters are nonentities shouting their inane lines at each other in a vain attempt to be caught by the microphones on set. The dialogue is never interesting. For a movie that focuses so much on character interaction, you'd think the characters would have something more to say than "WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO" "I don't know" "WELL WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING" "Well what are we going to do?" "I DON'T KNOW." "We should leave." "LET'S JUST ACCEPT OUR FATE." "No, we've got to leave." "WELL LET'S LEAVE THEN." "No, maybe we should stay."<br /><br />This isn't exaggeration, there are exchanges in this film that reach that level of redundancy and inanity.<br /><br />The worst thing about this movie? Half of it is a dream, and it really has zero purpose. Nothing in the dream has any relevance to anything in the rest of the movie. The writers couldn't decide whether to make a zombie movie or a monster movie and so they just made both. It's patently ridiculous, the cheapest trick in the book, and it's maddeningly insulting, especially since I'm pretty sure they ripped off the idea from Jacob's ladder, which handled the concept a hell of a lot more competently than these jokers could ever hope to do.<br /><br />And then there's the editing. Years of watching MTV and playing horror-themed video games must have inspired the filmmakers, but it's surely a sad thing they didn't realize what made the choppy editing and obfuscation in those pieces of media effective in the first place. In this film, you will be confused often, and not in the good, David Lynch way, but in the bad "Wait I thought she just got killed, no? Then who the hell was that? Wait, who is that guy? Where did he come from? How did they get here?" kind of way. It's constant and consistently bad.<br /><br />This movie is a laughable piece of trash and should only be sought out if you want to get trashed with a few friends and laugh at it.<br /><br />And as a final note: as for the "comedy" people in other reviews are talking about, it's all unintentional. There isn't a single intentional piece of comedy in this film. It's all supposed to be a big serious character study, because the filmmakers want to have credibility in their horror-concept. Sadly, their pretensions don't match up to their ability.
Hey, I'm a fan of so-bad-so-good movies but there's nothing so-bad-so-good about Rise Of The Undead. It's just so-bad and that's it. No redeeming cheese, no unintentional humor, nothing! - boring apocalyptic Zombie (The "Undead" : a few people with hardly any make up) nonsense with lame special effects (if you can call those effects), dumb plot and annoying actors. They also have the nerve to rip off and quote from other (better) movies (Resident Evil, Dawn Of The Dead & Night Of The Comet) and managed to put me to sleep on the side. However, it was Rise Of My Eyelids once the end credits rolled though. My advice: save your money. It's not even worth a rental, unless you want to p*ss off and/or put some people to sleep then go ahead and give it a spin. You've been warned ;)
Do not be misled. This is NOT a zombie movie. Take it from a guy who loves zombie movies, and who rents them all: the good, and the horrendous. Yes, this movie has an extended zombie sequence, but it's basically an artsy-fartsy exercise in existentialist dread, which is a long way of saying it's boring. If you've worked hard all day and want to spend a couple of hours being entertained, rent something else.<br /><br />"Rise of the Undead" has cheap special effects, mediocre acting, and crummy dialogue. All of that is understandable in an indie, low-budget film, and I can forgive such flaws as long as a movie has an entertaining story to tell. Unfortunately, "Rise of the Undead" hardly has any story at all. Moreover, the acting is not laughably bad so much as non-existent. All of the actors seem to have studied at the Buster Keaton School of Wooden Faces. Would it have killed them to show some emotion? (And no, yelling does not equate with emoting). The one character who actually had some pizazz was killed off first. Granted, there was another character who briefly held my interest. He looked and acted like Kyle McLachlan channeling Norman Bates, but it was too little, too late.<br /><br />The filmmakers seemed to have forgotten a tiny detail: film is a VISUAL medium. That means lighting your scenes well enough for the viewer to actually view what's going on. And all those artsy jump cuts and close ups might have seemed cool at the time, but all they did was make watching the film jarring and confusing. There is nothing wrong with telling a story in a simple, clear fashion -- just look at George Romero's low-budget "Night of the Living Dead" to see how it's done superbly. And I know these folks had a small budget, but if you can't hire the equipment and technicians necessary to actually make the dialogue audible, then just go ahead and make a silent movie (then those Buster Keaton wooden faces might actually work).<br /><br />I will say this for the film: the zombies were creepy. Unlike most zombie movies where the undead are shown in all their decomposing glory, the grosser the better, the zombies here were just shuffling, bloody-faced people. It actually worked to make them more like us, and therefore, scarier. That's the reason I gave this movie 2 stars instead of 1.<br /><br />The sad part about all this is that despite all of its flaws, "Rise of the Undead" does not insult your intelligence. The filmmakers seemed to have actually wanted to make a smart, scary, original movie, and it's a shame that they failed so miserably. If they could just forego the too-fancy editing, buy a few extra lightbulbs, crank up the dialogue, and come up with a real story that actually goes somewhere, then I think they have the talent to make something really good.<br /><br />Trust me: do not waste your time on "Rise of the Undead."
I can't give it less than a star, I tried. At this moment, Im not sure if Im halfway through it or not, but I stopped actively paying attention around the time part of it was revealed to be a dream. Or not. Or maybe it was. I think viewers who posted a comment that didn't include the descriptions "horrible" or "awful" or "made me want to swallow a bullet" are probably being nice because it is an indie film. Don't listen to them, listen to me- there is no nudity in the movie, skip it. I needed ten lines to submit this warning, so I will also say that the goth girl that some users have described as "hot" is fat. She has fat elephant legs.
With the Terrible acting, the awful dialog, the multitude of bad humor, the crappy plot and over terrible film. This has to be the worst film i have ever viewed in my life, and i'm the king of finding bad movies. For the effects, they just threw fake blood on people and things, didn't spend the time to create wounds and make special effects worth anything. Most people making low budget horror flicks at least do something like clads of tissue or something to make a gashing wound. The dialog was far from even decent and the acting was without direction or effort. They just threw some actors on a set and said, have at it. I swear i've seen better films from my film I class at school. How did this ever get a DVD release?
Rise of the Undead starts as some huge nuclear type blast rips through an unnamed American city, a few people survive in a building by leaning on the door so it'll stay closed & keep the nastiness out(!). They argue amongst themselves for ages, then a monster thing arrives from seemingly nowhere & begins to kill them of one-by-one...<br /><br />Written, produced & directed by Jason Horton & Shannon Hubbell one has to say Rise of the Undead is terrible. The script takes itself very seriously but makes little sense, the first thing I asked myself was if there's this huge nuclear blast type thing going on outside destroying the entire city why are these people I'm watching still alive? Why is the building they are in still standing? Then I asked myself when was something actually going to happen, the entire first 20 minutes is set in one room, actually that's a bit generous it's more of a corridor as the main character's argue. Then it turns into some Return of the Living Dead (1985) rip-off with a Government created virus which turns people into zombies before one of the most abrupt, pointless & seemingly random plot twists I've ever witnessed which renders most of what has just happened a complete waste of time. Then for the final 30 odd minutes Rise of the Undead turns into some strange sci-fi type thing as something which resembles a ball of energy floats around killing everyone, was I the only asking what this floating ball of energy thing is & where it came from? Getting back to what was happening outside what was the reason again? Oh that's right we are never told. Rise of the Undead is a mess, the character's are awful & aren't even given names, the twist about halfway through will have you tearing your hair out in frustration, the dialogue sucks, nothing is explained & there's virtually no story here. The final 10 minutes (maybe a bit more) of Rise of the Undead features no dialogue whatsoever & the film just suddenly ends.<br /><br />Director's Horton & Hubbell were obviously working on a low budget, the entire film is set in about two rooms & three corridors! The photography is awful, they use annoying colour filters seemingly at random & sometimes it really does look like Rise of the Undead was shot on a camcorder. There's no special effects, there's some fake blood splashed around but no actual make-up effects to speak of. There are some CGI shots of the city being engulfed in flames which look alright but the floating ball of energy creature thing looks terrible. There is one baffling shot early on where two people are sitting against a corridor wall & talking, for some bizarre reason their heads are cut off at the top of the screen! Just their lower bodies from the neck down are seen yet nothing else is happening in frame, they are not moving & there's no else there but for some strange reason their heads are cut off the top of the frame as they talk to each other! It's quite an odd thing to watch actually.<br /><br />With an ultra low budget of about $10,000 & according to the IMDb shot in two weeks I have to congratulate the makers for getting Rise of the Undead finished & distributed but that's where my congratulations stop because otherwise this has awful production values & is set in about three corridors which are located somewhere in New Orleans in Louisiana as that's where Rise of the Undead was shot. The acting sucks so I won't dwell on it.<br /><br />Rise of the Undead sucks, it sounds like a zombie film but in all honestly it isn't, everything about it is sub par & I know the filmmakers were working on a low budget but that's not really an excuse as far as I'm concerned. Definitely not recommended.
This is the worst movie I've ever seen. Boring, illogical, terrible. Don't waste even a minute in your life to watch this crap! I hope the directors won't make any other movie because this movie bankrupts them. The movie seems to be created in one or two days with some friends of the directors (if we can use this word for these 2 guys). They use only camera in hand. Many scenes are in darkness and nothing can be seen. Lots of scenes (80% of the movie) are with conversation only. ! There are movies like Vampire vs. Zombies which you can laugh on but this one is simply bad, no point to making such movies. Please, stop Jason Horton and Shannon Hubbel. Don't make more movies!
"Beowulf" is like a very bad game : no characters, no story, no real dialogues, bad fights ... It's probably the worst movie in the history of cinema. It's deadly boring, a lost of time. I'm really sorry for Christophe Lambert, who visibly doesn't know how to choose a role. If someone suggests you to see "Beowulf", believe me : run like mad.
Christopher Lambert attracted me to this movie. What a waste! The plot has more holes than my string vest the special effects were not very good, it did not take much to figure out who the creature's mother was and the creature owed more than a little debt to Predator. Anti-climatical this movie could have been done a whole lot better. It does raise one interesting point however. When is Hollywood going to discover the rich vein of European folklore out there just waiting to be mined?
GOOD: Technomusic accompanying medieval swordplay. Also, the movie looks sleeker than most b-movies, but let's face it: Quake or Doom has more atmosphere.<br /><br />BAD: Unintelligent plot, no acting and totally unbelievable universe. I am usually able to see the potential of even very bad movies; heck, I love a good B-movie like "Split Second" and the likes. But this one has has nothing but boredom and cliché to offer... Totally predictable from start to end. Oh, and I forgot the lousy special effects, they look more like an old Playstation game than anything out of myth! The use of a classic poem to sell this sucker offends me!<br /><br />CONCLUSION: Quite simply boring. If you want to see Lara Croft, buy the game, it's way sexier!
Another B-movie for teenagers, based mainly on CGI-effects, industrial soundtrack and some medieval imagery. It's a pitty that the legend for Beowulf is used in such uninspired manner. I am a fan of Christopher Lambert, but I have to admit that he is getting worse as an actor and his movies too. Rent it if you are teenager only.
Without doubt, this is the worst movie I've ever seen.<br /><br />Poor acting. Poor script. Poor direction and poor production.<br /><br />Why did they even bother? This entire movie was total nonsense. Suspension of disbelief can only carry so far, but this pushes the limits completely.<br /><br />For a movie with no humour content, the audience laughed disturbingly often...
Once I heard that the greatest and oldest preserved Germanic heroic poem was transformed into a film it almost became my obsession to see it. The first glints of its appearance I caught never disappointed me. A futuristic interpretation With Lambert our favourite highlander and Mitra, tomb raider to be,in leading roles seamed appealing, though some doubts came to life (an important female character in Beowulf?)... Two hours ago I saw the film. After I had read the director's name my world fell apart. As I said - from that point on, there was not many surprises. First and foremost, the film has NOTHING to do with the original Beowulf if we disregard a couple of violently and pointlessly stolen names. If they had not stolen the names and declared it to be a new story, it might have passed as an f-class action stupidity with nice costumes and scenography. This way it is simply a crime! An attack on a legend and its ideology as well as on common sense. Ok let me be positive for a second... apart from the general electro-goth atmosphere which is nice it also has good music. That was it for both the positive part and this comment.
<br /><br />I've seen this movie during a festival here in munich with a huge crowd of real fantasy fans. At about the middle of the movie one part of the audience was sleeping and the other part was booeing. Boring dialogues, badly choreographed fighting sequences, a terribly dumb story and even worse special effects. Well, at least the actors hadn't much to do, except for looking concerned or (in case they were female) showing their breasts in the right light. Even Götz Otto, who was among the audience admitted afterwards that ge could understand the disappointment of the viewers. Be warned, folks, of the cheapest fantasy movie ever........
This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen! The only advantage seeing this movie is that the next movie can't possibly be worse. It's childish as hell (but Children aren't allowed)
I like Christophe Lambert as an actor. He has played in several good movies (Highlander, Subway, Greystoke, ...). But I can't even think he has played in that movie. The story is nearly nothing, the special effects are very bad and the actors also. To resume the movie, I have only one thing to say : it's the first time that I go to watch a movie and want to leave after 10 minutes.
bad acting , combats are very awful , 3-4 second between each text , bad music , bad effect and always the same plan during the movie. if you want laugh go it 2/10 ( for the fool laugh)
Christophe Lambert once said he was still making movies only to make good and easy money. When I see his latest releases, I can believe that.<br /><br />Beowulf is, all in all, in the "good" part of the crap movies : there are some good thrill scenes, indeed. The actors themselves aren't too bad. But the plot is silly, the "Mortal Kombat"-like music has nothing to do here, the ending is really s****y...<br /><br />Really, the only good thing about it is that me and my friends could laugh about how uninteresting it was. I even wish I wasted my money on something else.<br /><br />
Took a very good book and completely butchered it. Nothing was as it should have been. Some of the best parts of the book were missing, including the major point of the whole book. Simply the worst adaptation of a Stephen King novel ever. This movie made the mini-series for IT look good.
After the lush, inspiring aerial shot in fast motion in the opening of the movie, this slipped into utter boredom and a one tone note right till the end.<br /><br />Where to begin, well I'll start with the characters. I really enjoyed them in the book, here they all were types and one dimensional morons that either had "Victim" or "Asshole" written on their foreheads from the get go. How any one didn't see through the store owner Lealand Gaunt (in a hammy and out of place performance by Sydrow)is beyond me.<br /><br />This film lacks in thrills, suspense, and in some sense yes, entertaining values. It stretches itself for far too long with not a lot of pay off. Why introduce too many annoying should-die-quick type of characters and then forget about half of them half way through? In the book practically everyone that went into the store met a grisly fate. Here, besides one of the only decent scenes that translated well from the novel (the fight between Wilma and Nettie), was a letdown and didn't have much balls. I'm sorry but after, one off screen death,a boring shoot off, and some bickering and then a couple explosions just didn't do it for me. The brutality and mean spiritedness from the book was sadly missing. The explosion of the church scene was so over the top and badly executed, all of sudden the entire city was in a brawl? It made no sense and characters that weren't introduced all the way through suddenly are, who are these people and why should I care?<br /><br />The story is all over the place and none of the scenes had momentum. I thought Ed Harris and Bonnie Bedeila were good actors in this, but the movie gives them not enough substance for me to give a damn. Amanda Plummer was credible but too pathetic to really be sympathetic (in the novel she was a sad and depressing character)here it was a too one note. J.T. Walsh was entertaining, but the role was far from interesting or layered. Too predictable. <br /><br />The soundtrack was too classy for the material it was supporting. It stood out like sore thumb. Easy there buddy, easy. Something a little less theatrical I'd assume would have worked.<br /><br />I will admit some of the gore it did manage to have was good enough I guess, The director seemed to hold back a lot of the times though. If your going to make a movie that reaches the 2 hr point be sure to have far more going on then this disaster of a adaption of on of Kings better novels.<br /><br />I often found myself laughing at scenes that were suppose to be taken seriously (Ed Harris speech at the end, or the character Hugh Priest in general), and was bored and uninterested most of the other time. Personally the director should have done so much more with this story, his approach is too tame and hides behind too much crisp cinematography to ever come off as a decent movie. The movie looks good, but not the look I think this story deserved. I mean, this dude helmed ALASKA,not a good sign. <br /><br />I'd rather just read the book, as you should too as if it is far more entertaining,layered character development, grisly violence and mayhem, a nasty sense of humour, and far more oomph. This is a butchered version, that has not much to offer. <br /><br />** out of ****
** May contain spoilers ** Horrible. Just horrible. I loved Stephen King's novel, and this is just a horrible adaptation of it. They change the ending. They change the plot. They changed Alan Pangborne's character from a grieving husband to a happy fiancé. If you are a fan of Stephen King's novel, stay away. Even if You are not, stay away.<br /><br />The book was awesomely dark, even for Steve King. An 11 year old kills himself in the novel. A middle school principal is found with child pornography in the novel. THis is nowhere near as good as the novel.<br /><br />This movie is my least favorite film of all time. I hate this film with a vengeance.
Reading the book I felt once again drawn into Castle Rock (Needful Things being the final part of the Rock trilogy), and the plot was a variant on the "demon comes to small redneck village" type story King likes to tell. The characters were all described in loving detail, and it made both a good psychological and gory horror. The film on the other hand is awful. Gone are the character interactions and clever plot, and replaced by a story that tries to be exciting but misses by a mile. If you haven't read the book then you might enjoy this, else avoid at all costs, as with most films of King's books.
Needful Things was one of my favorite Stephen King books. But this movie is one of the worst book to film adaptations I have ever seen they changed so many things around that it made me sick. Even the concept of the book being deception, things not always what they appear reminder throughout the book was not shown in the movie. Althogh it was enjoyable as many Stephen King films are, but as many Stephen King films this one did not follow the book and became a piece of Hollywood trailer trash. 2/10
The book was one of Stephen King's best. The movie was pure rubbish. It was painful to remain in the theater until the ending, which wasn't even the same as the book. I guess that this is the result when you try to cram 10 pages of story into every minute. There is no good reason to watch this movie.
STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits <br /><br />Based on another of Stephen King's lengthy novellas, this takes place in the sleepy little New England town of Castle Rock (also the name of the film's production company!), where a new antiques store, the titular Needful Things, has opened. The owner and proprietor, Leland Gaunt (Max Von Sydow) hides, you might say, a devilish secret. There's an item in his store that everyone in the little town wants-a small cash price upfront is first required, before a far more sinister price is asked for. As suspicion, hate and madness tear the town apart, it falls to police chief Alan Pangborn (Ed Harris) to restore order and save the town from a terrifying end...<br /><br />I read the novel of Needful Things earlier this year, and was eager to watch the movie adaptation again to compare them (like that was going to be any contest!) But it had been deleted on video and DVD and I couldn't find anywhere to rent it from. So I was happy when I finally found it in a flea market whilst on a shopping trip...<br /><br />It's one of the cruelest ironies that King novels are generally the best to read but when they get adapted to screen nine times out of ten they are complete junk, as is the case here. The material that makes his books great simply doesn't translate into a movie script very well, for some reason. And I suppose there's always the question: why bother watching this when I could be reading the book again instead? <br /><br />I appreciate that some are simply too lengthy (i.e. It, The Stand) to be made into a complete screen work with all the situations and characters included, but there's no reason this one couldn't have included all the material from the book. As a result, a lot of key characters from the book (i.e. Ace Merrill) are not included at all and we have some terrible character development that means we don't care about the characters that are involved since they are so stripped of depth and motivation- for example we have one character from the book, Danforth Keaton, who murders his wife toward the end yet we were shown no build-up to hint at any reason that he didn't get along with or hated her and so it has no impact when it happens, unlike in the book where there was a lot of depth invested and it really involved you to find out what happened to the characters involved. All the material in the script to fill in the cracks, if you like, is really stupid and corny and the typically goofy stuff that gets included in King adaptations like this.<br /><br />Most of the film's problems are that it deviates so far away from the book but there's also some terrible acting from a cast that obviously can't feel for the daft material they're being asked to perform. In the 90s, a lot of King's work started skipping the cinema and just being made into made-for-TV/video territory. Rubbish like this must surely hint at why. **
This movie is based on a Stephen King novel in which mysterious new shopkeeper Leland Gaunt (Max Von Sydow) offers each citizen of Castle Rock the item he or she most desires - but there is a heavy price to be paid for these transactions. Local sheriff Alan Pangborn (Ed Harris) is soon forced to deal with a variety of brutal deaths and suspicious circumstances.<br /><br />Below average for Stephen King cinema: I can see why some people would think it was boring. It plods along without offering genuine scares and forces the viewer to spend time (yet again) with a bunch of repulsive losers whose hatred of each other is spooky.<br /><br />I do enjoy the novel and don't believe that this lackluster movie does it justice. There are too many unfortunate changes from book to screen.<br /><br />Von Sydow makes Gaunt much too charming. We're supposed to be SCARED of Gaunt at the right times, not amused by him. I also hate it that the sheriff's primary deputy (Ray McKinnon) is written and portrayed as such an annoying, Barney Fife-type moron. Star Ed Harris looks as if he was forced into doing this picture by his agent, but professional that he is, he really sinks his teeth into his dialog. Bonnie Bedelia (as Pangborn's love interest Polly) and Amanda Plummer (in one of her standard mentally unbalanced roles) come the closest to creating characters who are likable.<br /><br />Yet it is also foul and mean-spirited.<br /><br />Although I'll be darned if it didn't feel a little cathartic watching a bunch of unlikable movie characters tear each other to pieces. The climax has some good explosions.<br /><br />I often give movies a better rating than they probably deserve, but in this case I feel I should really be honest and just say: 3/10.
Based on a Stephen King novel, NEEDFUL THINGS provides the intrigue and eeriness to keep you in your seat. A mysterious man(Max von Sydow) comes to town and soon becomes the most talked about citizen. Could it be that the devil himself has set up shop as an antique dealer in a small town in Maine? von Sydow is masterful and dynamic in this role that dominates the screen. Also starring are Ed Harris and Bonnie Bedelia. Harris is steady and Bedelia is deserving of your attention. Also in support are J.T. Walsh and Amanda Plummer. Not the best, nor the worst adaptation of King's horror on the screen.
I am a fan of Ed Harris' work and I really had high expectations about this film. Having so good actors as Harris and Von Sydow is always a big advantage for a director but if the script is bad what can you do? I really think that Needful Things is the worst movie of Harris' filmography and that getting involved with it was a huge mistake. Anyway, I've seen much worse movies in my life but Needful Things was a disappointment because of the waste of acting talent. The story as an overall seems too unbelievable and fake. I don't know if that is because of the book, 'cause I haven't read it. But if the script was so bad, I can't see the reason for filming it. Maybe it was the commercial success of King's books, or the need for low-quality movies for the VHS era of the 90's. Whatever the reason was, though, this movie was a very bad choice for anyone involved.
Wow, this is anti-Christian bias big-time! This is based on a Stephen King novel and he written this kind of bias before and then Hollywood exaggerates it even more. In this film, we see a Protestant minister and a Catholic priest BOTH act like fools and be profane at the same time. Of course, the Devil has taken over the town so maybe his influence is into these guys, too, but they are typical Hollywood portrayals. They never show a minister who talks and acts like Billy Graham, or your local minister or priest. And - another "given" - they make the Satan character the most interesting of the film. <br /><br />Max Von Sydow plays the Devil and makes him a likable guy. Ironically, Von Sydow has played a number of these roles after portraying Jesus in the 1964 film, "The Greatest Story Ever Told." You wonder why actors are so screwed up? They don't know if they are God, Satan or anyone in between.<br /><br />Ed Harris, who played a lot of unlikeable roles up until the last few years, is appropriately cast in this story. He and the rest of the mean-spirited characters in this film do NOT make it fun to watch.<br /><br />From what I've heard, King's book is even darker and more sick than this hate-filled movie but better constructed. Frankly, who cares. King and Hollywood deserve each other.
I gave this movie a rating of 1 because it is by far, the worst movie I've ever seen in my life. This movie was made in 2003 and I've seen movies made in the 60's with better special effects. I wish I could go into detail, but words can't describe how crappy this movie was. I could have done better with a home video camera and $20! I pray that Chuck Norris never makes a movie again. Now If you think I'm downing this movie because it has a Christian theme, you're wrong. I like the fact that IL' Chuck decided to make a movie that at least attempted to make God look good, but why would he make poor viewers like me suffer through such a crappy movie? This whole film can be summed up in 3 words: RE DAMN DICULOUS.
This is quite possible the worst movie ever made. I know people talk about how horrible Ed Wood movies were (Plan 9) but this movie makes Plan 9 look amazing.<br /><br />Chuck Norris makes a cameo, for what reason I have no idea. Perhaps to ruin his movie career. Aside from Chuck Norris, the movie's cast consists of extras in daytime soaps and Mike Norris... that's right, Chuck's son.<br /><br />This director doesn't even have a resume and I have no idea where the plot or screenplay originated. This must've been green lit by a horrible Southern Baptist minister that somehow had a 3rd cousin that owned a studio (which I'm sure has since been shut down).<br /><br />I don't really know what else to say about this movie. I would like to give you a plot summary but I'm lost. There is something about Jesus and Satan... some eternal battle. Other than that there are Indians. And a bunch of freaky kids that don't know how to act... they're just awkward and should not be on camera. I don't know what was going on most of the time but I know the movie was a great laugh. Mike Norris pushes his daughter (on her bike) into the street somehow... but in the shot he's in the middle of the park. So somehow she learns to ride her bike with speed equivalent to that of The Flash and gets hit by a car or bus... I don't know. But she's dead. This is actually the funniest scene in the movie. I know that sounds sick but once you see Mike raise his hands in victory and then hold his head and scream in terror... you'll understand. It doesn't show the daughter getting hit or anything... you just have to assume she got hit by some vehicle. But, the movie's not clear. So maybe it was completely unrelated and she died from cancer. Anyway... after that the movie gets really confusing and I have no idea what really happens. I am a Christian and I have no idea why this movie was made. I don't see any value for this movie in a religious or non-religious sector. This is probably the first thing they show students in Film-making 101... this is what you DON'T want to do.<br /><br />Just see it... you'll hate it and me for suggesting that you see it.
I recently had the idea to make a short film featuring a man who is hit by a car and wakes up thinking that he himself is Chuck Norris. This meant that I would have to do extensive Chuck research, and find out as much as I could about the man. I later find out that he is not in fact a man, but an angel sent from heaven. With a face like that, who could ever doubt it? I have watched more Chuck Norris movies in the last four months than any one person should. I am proud to say that Bells of Innocence ranks pretty close to the top of the all time worst list. I spent most of the film wondering if I could return my copy to the local Wal-Mart without the receipt, which I had been biting down on to keep myself from swallowing my own tongue. The biggest reason why I chose to purchase this film was that it not only had Chuck in it, but his son Mike. I was anxious to see if Mike was a chip off the old can't-act-his-way-out-of-a-wet-paper-bag block. I came to the conclusion a long while ago; the Chuck Norris is one of the worst actors in cinematic history for one simple reason. The only character he ever plays is himself, Chuck Norris. No matter what movie, no matter what situation, he is always Chuck Norris. The one thing that he holds over his son is that he is consistent. Mike doesn't seem to understand how human emotions work. In the scene where he is talking to the little girl about his dead daughter, he seems to be extremely happy! Maybe this is because he actually pushed his daughter out into traffic, as depicted in one of the oddest flashbacks of all time. His actions confused me throughout the film, making it very hard for me to focus on what little plot there was. The other two lead actors were just as painful to watch as the son of Norris. The guy, who constantly wants to eat or tell a stupid peacock joke, was simply one of the most annoying characters that has ever graced the Direct-to-Video screen. The only thing I remember him being in other than this movie, was an episode of Walker Texas Ranger, in which he plays an equally annoying character. Maybe Chuck owes this guy something. The other guy, which is the only name I can think of because he was so forgettable, was your average Christian fanatic. I don't have anything against Christians, in fact I am one, but this guy was just too much for me. To round out the story, you have a multitude of townspeople who love to call people "friend", and a couple of villains who don't seem to be able to decide which one of them is in charge. Not to mention the creepy kids who remind me of the dollar store version of every other group of creepy kids in movies. All in all, the movie is possibly one of the biggest failures of all time, on more levels than Chuck Norris can kick people's asses. Despite being one of the worst actors of all time, I still can't get enough of Chuck. Maybe he really was sent from heaven...
OK, I'm 26 so I've been thru all the action heroes 80's hype, and Chuck Norris along with Seagal, Van Damme and the rest of the guys were my childhood heroes, fighting the bad guys, shooting dozens of bullets from one round only;) I saw the advert of this movie on TV a couple of days ago - Chuck Norris was throwing some fireballs from his fingers. WHOA! 'That is a must-see crappy movie!', I said. And indeed it was. Only a lot lot worse. It is very difficult to see all the movie - stuffed with some religious thoughts, ridiculous zombie-like monsters, who serve Satan, all the idea of a plot set in some forgotten community, which represent whole mankind - it is a load of Christian fundamentalist's wet dreams.<br /><br />I've nothing against Christianity, even in the movies, but this one lacks taste, it lacks almost everything that connects with a common sense, c'mon, Chuck Norris playing an ANGEL, whose job is to look after little town, where Satan lives?!?! The whole plot is so damn straight and boring, not mentioning its silliness (yes, it's not stupidity anymore, we're talking silliness like... like a retarded child's joke) make altogether terrible movie, made as far as I suppose for elder people very much devoted to Catholic Church, because young viewers laugh at almost every scene. Technically it's incorrect, the fx are worse than the ones you've seen in early 90's in TV series, the plot seems VERY stupid, actors could be easily exchanged to cardboard stands, not mentioning the music which as far as I've heard was played on a childish toy piano. I've seen a lot of movies, even the worst ones (the ones from the IMDb bottom list) like 'Space Mutiny' or 'Manos - hands of fate' BUT believe me nothing compares to this ridiculous, terrible, horribly acted quasi-movie which brings some students' prank movies to my mind rather than regular production. Avoid it. At all cost avoid it. There's even nothing to laugh at. Chuck Norris has officially finished his movie career.
Normally, I don't like Chuck Norris films. I appreciate his work as a martial artist, and his fight scenes are usually fairly well-choreographed. Chuck is undeniably one of the martial arts greats. So, in my local used bookstore, I found a film I hadn't seen before and took it home.<br /><br />While the acting in this movie was worse than most Chuch Norris films, I was hoping to see at least one fight scene. I quickly began to realize that this wasn't a typical Chuch Norris film; rather it was a Christian film, destined to illustrate the "good will win out" paradigm.<br /><br />There is really nothing on the packaging to indicate that this is a Christian film, with the exception of the label ... Goodtimes Entertainment, which I had never heard of before. I'll certainly keep that in mind the next time I see a film from that company.<br /><br />I don't have a problem with Christianity ... I do have a problem with sneaky proselytizing. If someone is going to make a religious film, at least have the good sense to indicate to the viewer that such is what they will get. The only redeeming part about the exercise is that I spent only $3.25 to spend 97 minutes to watch a great martial artist not fight. At least it was during supper-time, and I spent some of that cooking and eating.<br /><br />In short, if you're looking for a mediocre martial arts film, and not hoping for much, don't bother with this film because it doesn't even offer that.
This is by far the worst movie I have ever seen. What were they thinking. Stop preaching to me already! This is why all of us watch Walker Texas Ranger and wont admit it to our friends. Terrible acting and a extremely phony plot. While the movie is unfolding the story stops and the actors start preaching to the audience. The director somehow believed the two meshed well. It looked like crap! When I saw the title at my local blockbusters it looked interesting. Their should have been a warning on it saying it was religious instead of the false advertisement of an action / adventure. First time in a long time I stopped a movie and couldn't tolerate finishing it.
OK, Chuck Norris has shown up in many an entertaining movie over the years. This is not one of them. I won't even bother trying to get into the plot about a Bible shipment gone wrong. The "acting" of the main characters is so wood like, Pinocchio would have done a better job! The synthesizer based soundtrack is even worse than the one in Deathstalker. Whereas traditionally low budget spooky movies are often trying to catch their audience by adding plenty of graphic violence, this one is trying to catch an audience by throwing religious mambo jumbo at the spectator. The plot boils down to different versions of the Bible.
When you watch the making of with this DVD - they tell you what is attempted here- they are retelling the bible story of good versus evil & trying to preach it to a main stream movie audience. In a modern society such as ours, this is where the film fails. There are way too many sheep depicted in this movie. People are too empowered for this type of preaching today.<br /><br />As far as the acting, directing, & technical functions, they are done OK. Chuck Norris actually is OK as an angel as the unpredictable appearance of Norris as an angel is no more absurd than Tommy Smothers was in the 1960's sit com.
Boring, rank nefarious plot, some of the worst direction I've ever come across, inane acting and horribly clichéd. The movie ends with one of the main characters waking from a dream. WHAT's WITH THAT? Even JR from Dallas couldn't survive that lame twist. <br /><br />You have what can only be described as an inappropriate relationship developing between a main character and a young girl, which is ostensibly meant to be fatherly, but which comes off as perverse. You have freshman community college movie school special effects with loopholes the size of the Kimberly Hole. This is like Children of the Corn meets Passion of the Christ imposed on an endless loop of government administration training video - by the end of it, if you aren't contemplating ending it, you have no brain.<br /><br />Don't bother.
This is another one of those fundamentalist Christian movies that hit you over the head with religion like a sledgehammer. You know you are in trouble when the setup of the story is completely ridiculous. Three men are flying to Mexico to deliver Bibles. This makes no sense since the church is Protestant and most Mexicans are Catholic. Protestant and Catholic bibles are not the same. The Catholic bible has books in it that are not in the Protestant bible. I also find it difficult to believe that churches in Mexico would not distribute bibles to them. I can understand if they were going to a place where Christianity is in the minority. But Mexico is far fetched. If you cannot believe the setup of a story, then you don't the rest of the story either. A movie about religion can be entertaining, but not this movie.
my friends and I are always on the lookout for chuck norris films to just bash and make fun of. One of our favorites so far is Lonewolf. i went to a wal-mart Christmas shopping and i came across this movie in the 5.99 bin. i had to get it. i had high hopes for this movie and although being absolutely hilarious at times, we agreed that bells of innocence is the worst movie we've ever seen, made, produced, thought up, etc... who the hell would think this is a good idea. not only is it confusing at times, but the acting is just hard to watch. the man who plays oren has acting i can compare to my own vomit, and chuck took a dive on this one, he's not the greatest actor, but this was terrible. and what kind of names are oren, conrad and jux........ jux. come on people. if you honestly thought this movie was at all watchable, great for you because it was hard for me and i seriously had a headache and stomach pains after watching it. I'm telling you now if you haven't seen this movie, DON'T!!. For the love of god please do not subject yourself to such a horrible 90 minutes of your life.
(Chances are, I'm gonna spoil Valuable Plot Points while writing this and because I can't determine and don't really care what YOU think is a Valuable Plot Point, then if you are thinking of watching this film and have an issue with learning such things, then I suggest you hop right on to the next review.) You know, I don't mind the cult films being filed under the "cult" section. And people who believe it can go there and get their fill of the "reality". I mean, is it too much to ask that the overtly pseudo-Christian propaganda films be filed with the other Special Interest movies? <br /><br />I couldn't have been more flabbergasted had Pat Robertson made a porn movie. (or would that be "flubbergasted"?) <br /><br />It was bad enough that there was an egregiously insufficient count of kicking and punching in this. It was bad enough that the same story has been done repeatedly in much better ways. It was bad enough that it wasn't filed under Special Interest, with other cult films. It was bad enough that it somehow is receiving nods for being "realistic" as if we live in the world where towns get possessed by the "debbil" and the really profound and nasty evil ISN'T done by human beings -- usually in the NAME of religions based on the god of Abraham. It was bad enough having to simply shut the thing down because people were complaining so loudly that it was awful.<br /><br />No, the really BAD part was when one of our guests stood up after we finally had to just turn the damn thing off, and declared "I for one would like to see something really violent or pornographic now, just to get that OUT of my head. Preferably both, if you have it." And we had just MET her.
This is an admirable attempt from first time filmmaker Ham Tran, offering little-glanced perspective dealing with Vietnam war victims struggling for liberation, but plays out as a glorified history special. With clunky, self-consciously informative dialog and sub-par acting, even a relatively impressive budget with attention to detail will not spring to life this sagging, albeit historically worthy, melodrama. Paying no mind to the often distracting disconnect with the actors to the reality of situations on screen, and you should be left with an informative, if somewhat impersonal educational lesson in Vietnamese post-war history.
I saw recently saw this at the 2007 Palm Springs International film Festival and I can't believe that this is Sweden's official submission to the 79th Academy Awards to be considered for best foreign film. Producer Anna Anthony last year also had Sweden's official submission for best foreign film with Zozo. I wasn't personally a fan of Zozo but at least it had some production value to it. This could have been shot as a high school film project. As a short film it may have worked but as a feature film it is as lost as it's characters. This is a story about five twenty something friends who live in a small Swedish town and have no goals or hopes or ambitions for the future and like to live in the past of their long gone childhood. Actually Falkenberg isn't like some remote northern Swedish village. It's a popular summer resort with a population of city and townships of almost 40,000 and lies between two major southern coastal Swedish cities of Götborg and Malmo. The characters are likable enough guys but if they were high school age kids with a bleak or confused attitude about what they plan to do with their lives I would undoubtedly care about them more. They are however long past the point where they should be making plans to deal with adulthood. If they want to stay in Falkenberg forever than certainly there must be some jobs in the tourist or fishing industry instead of just riding bicycles, drinking, smoking pot and occasionally painting a house. Maybe if they hung around with a girl or two in their circle of friends, of which girls are absent from this film altogether which doesn't make sense. Jesper Ganslandt makes his directorial debut and co wrote the film along with the cinematographer, of which I use the term loosely, Fredrik Wenzel. the acting isn't too bad. I would give this a 4.5 out of 10 but despite it's submission for consideration for the Academy Awards I would not recommend it.
How on earth were these guys given funds to make this movie? The lack of script is one thing, but the cinematography makes you want to weep. A hand held camera can be of great value to the look and feel of a movie but in that case you need a photographer who knows what he is doing. I am well aware that the actors are amateurs but it's of no defence since the director might be the least talented one ever directing in Sweden. It would be a shame for the industry if he (or any in the team for that matter) is given money to make a film ever again. This movie simply provides fuel to the argument that too many movies are made in Sweden each year.
Director Nico Mastorakis has made a cynical cash-grabber (by his own admission) that is too cynical to impress anybody but a sophomore genre fan.<br /><br />The most extreme, confronting genre pics, to paraphrase a character in VIDEODROME, "have a philosophy"; that is what makes them dangerous.<br /><br />ISLAND OF DEATH's philosophy is to throw many "shocking" elements into a cinematic mix and stir slowly. The result is a dish with no taste but an ugly appearance.<br /><br />Not to be confused with Serrador's brilliant WHO COULD KILL A CHILD? (sometimes called ISLAND OF DEATH), Mastorakis's effort is set on a Greek island which is a stage for various forms of slaughter, a little bestiality and some wholesale perversion.<br /><br />Everything moves at a snailish pace and the violent set pieces are poorly directed.<br /><br />Touted as "The movie that the censors didn't want you to see", I'd hazard a guess that the censors never saw it, they simply read the presskit until their knees jerked upwards.
Island of Death is not really a good movie, by any standard, but it is a curious one. Imagine if Natural Born Killers had been made 20 years too early, as a Greek Eurotrash porn film. That's what you get here - the quaint story of a young, sociopathic British couple cutting a deadly swath through the population of a lovely little Greek island.<br /><br />I'll spare you a detailed breakdown of the plot; it's not really important except to set up increasingly perverse or violent sex scenes followed by disturbingly brutal murders, often lovingly photographed for posterity by our charming young couple. It could have been brilliant, in its own sick and nasty way, but instead...<br /><br />Instead, I found myself impatiently checking the run time and chapter index to see how much longer the parade was going to last. Sluggish pacing and listless, bland acting turn even vilest perversities into pablum, and connecting scenes into an eternity of dull plodding. Ah, well. You can't win 'em all.
Nico Mastorakis's banned movie was quite disappointing in my opinion. The movie is about a couple, who go to a Greek island to kill of all perverted people (apparently). You know you got something pretty sick when one of the first scenes include a guy having sex with a goat and then killing it off.<br /><br />But things only get worse from that point as all scenes pretty much look alike. They meet some people, so they either kill or have sex with them (preferably both).<br /><br />The ending is OK allright when the couple turn out to be brother and sister and she is just letting him rot somewhere but overall one would have expected more. No substance here I'm afraid.<br /><br />3/10.
I'm a big time horror fan, and I bought this movie from all the hype it was getting on the message boards. Well, let me tell you I don't know whom was giving it all the hype, but let me speak on a few things.<br /><br />First of all this film is "not" a LOT of things. It is NOT scary, NOT suspenseful, NOT overly gory, NOT overly sick (except for one season MAYBE) NOT beautifully scored.... AT ALL.<br /><br />The premise of the movie is that a couple flee to a small island in Greece because they have done a little naughtiness in London. We don't even know what they did, but it is presumed that they killed someone. <br /><br />**spoiler alert**<br /><br />The male lead kills a few people out of his perversion of "cleansing the island of perverts" oddly enough. The killings are cheap, the characters are cheaper and the effects suck.<br /><br />There is one part when he rapes a goat because his wife wont give him any in the morning, but even that is done without any care for how it is shot. <br /><br />end of spoilers<br /><br />The end of the movie is about the only thing that isn't totally predictable. I especially enjoyed when the "herder" farts on the husband. Anyway, if you can rent this and have 2 hours to waste go ahead. It's nothing better than a processed cheese sandwich on moldy bread.<br /><br />3/10
I kind of liked the film, it's just that the characters run around with no real point to their craziness. As I was saying, poor goat. The goat was nahing while the guy was pretending to grind on it. I would have liked the rape scenes to be more graphic (not the one with the goat though). Jane Ryall who played Celia only did this one film. She was very nude throughout. This crazy couple who killed and tortured many people ended up in their rightful places. I almost forgot about the gay transvestite couple who are also picked out for being sinners. If you like crazy off the wall stuff, then this is your film. 3/10
I believe that this was supposed to be shocking or something.... All that I can say is....POOR GOAT!!! This flick is so poorly done that the parts that "should" shock and revolt you come across as laughable at best. The characters are so lame and 2....wait....1 dimensional, that I applauded each sick death.....all except that POOR GOAT.<br /><br />
****SOME SPOILERS****<br /><br />There's nothing in this movie that you haven't already seen browsing the net. Nothing is shocking about this film. In the film a man sodomizes a goat, there's a bulldozer decapitation, and a lesbian's face gets burnt off. All of these scenes of "extreme violence" are so fake, it makes one wonder why anyone would even want to resurface this piece of trash. I simply cannot believe I spent hard earned money on what certainly has to be the worst film ever made. Don't let reviews fool you, this film would be a shame for ANYONE to own...except maybe prisons who want to torture inmates. For a REAL exploitation classic, look to Bloodsucking Freaks or even the more recent Doom Generation. Island of Death sinks to the bottom of the movie toilet and needs to be flushed out of existence.
As a huge fan of the original Operation Delta Force, I thought I'd pick this film up. I figured it couldn't be too bad. However, here's a list of things I learnt from watching Operation Delta Force 4: Deep Fault.<br /><br />- The Delta Force, despite being the elite in American armed forces, are mostly mildly-overweight men in their late 30s and early 40s.<br /><br />- The Delta Force, despite being the elite in American armed forces, carry standard police issue pistols or AK-47s on their most important missions.<br /><br />- The Delta Force, despite being the elite in American armed forces, haven't learnt that during stealth missions, wearing bright red ski jumpers and running around in open spaces aren't exactly going to keep you out of sight.<br /><br />- When you drop a Molotov cocktail into a tank, it explodes externally like a grenade.<br /><br />- When you get hit by tank fire, you can run away, although the smoke caused may present minor difficulties for breathing.<br /><br />- You can die from one standard gun shot, but you can also live despite being hit multiple times by a sniper rifle, and a few times by an AK-47.<br /><br />- In hand-to-hand combat, members of The Delta Force, despite being the elite in American armed forces, are regularly pummeled by railroad attendants.<br /><br />- If bad guys are approaching you while on a slow-moving train, there's nothing to worry about - between the 4 of them, they can't manage to figure out how to get an automatic weapon to fire automatically, let alone hit anyone from 5 metres (16 feet) with at least 50 attempts between them.<br /><br />- If you're short on actors, just recycle them - the bad guy from Operation Delta Force 1 plays a good guy called Mac in Operation Delta Force 4, and the guy who played Mac in Operation Delta Force 3 now plays Skip Lang, a different good guy.<br /><br />- It's not OK for The Delta Force to shoot an unarmed terrorist, even if he's attempting to reload his weapon to kill you.<br /><br />- Grenades explode on impact with the ground when thrown by members of The Delta Force. When thrown by non-Delta Force personnel, they explode at exactly the point where the Delta Force members have thrown the grenades back at the bad guys.<br /><br />- Tanks can drive faster than standard trucks.<br /><br />- Militias and personal armies use the exact same chopper that the UN used in Operation Delta Force 1.<br /><br />- When a chopper arrives, a bad guy in that chopper cannot see you if you lie face-down.<br /><br />- Shooting someone multiple times in the chest will cause minor damage. Stabbing that person in the knee will kill them inside 5 seconds.<br /><br />- The Delta Force steal cars from old people to get around when in foreign countries, because the US Military do not provide them with any means of transport. This may also explain why they caught public transport.<br /><br />As you can see, this is not really the finest moment in film-making, but it's good for a laugh.
This is an awful movie from just about every point of view. Since much has been already pointed out in previous reviews, let me just focus on "Serbs" and "Delta Force" guys in this movie.<br /><br />1) The uniforms that "Serbs" wear are not Serbian. And helmets are wrong, too.<br /><br />2) The actors who play "Serbs" are not speaking Serbian, not even a language close to Serbian, unlike in "Behind enemy lines" where the Czech actors did their best to speak the language and add at least a bit of credibility to the movie.<br /><br />3) The gray-bearded "Serbian general" looks and acts like a moron, firing his gun whenever US soldiers call his name: <br /><br />- US soldier: "Gravic! Give up!"<br /><br />- Gray-bearded moronic general: (fires his AK47)<br /><br />- US soldier: "Gravic! Come out!"<br /><br />- GBMG: (fires his AK47)<br /><br />- US soldier: "Gravic! You're surrounded"<br /><br />- GBMG: (fires his AK47)<br /><br />- Prop guy: "Excuse me, Mr. gray-bearded moronic general, see, we're out of blanks and I sent the boy to buy some more, but he's not back yet..."<br /><br />- GBMG: (click)<br /><br />4) Since when does the Army issue AK47s to the Delta Force? I guess they couldn't find enough working M4s in Bulgaria, but there were plenty of old AK47s and practice blanks ;) Maybe they should have went for some airsofts, they are cheaper and wouldn't have hurt the credibility of the movie anyway...<br /><br />5) In the scene where a DF officer is hanging on a rope while talking to a rocket scientist, he is holding his finger on the trigger all the time. No sane person with any weapons training or just plain common sense would ever do that. I guess the actor figured that his coolness level increases the longer he holds the gun that way. <br /><br />This movie is such an insult to common sense..
Proof if ever more was needed, that an action movie, irregardless of its budget, can LOOK better with more setups (or cameras), closer shots, and many more cuts. The 'Martini' generation has moved on to John Woo. Deep Fault could be better for a work over in the cutting room. Ray
Since I am required to write minimum of 10 lines, and this garbage deserves not only a single one, I'll start with the following: 1. I voted AWFUL for this dreadful so called "movie".<br /><br />2. Let me explain why these turkeys Mr. David Varod produces are shot mainly in my beautiful homeland, Bulgaria (just in BTW, for the illiterate people around - this country is IN EUROPE, based north to Greece and has absolutely nothing to do with Mexico and Uruguay) Some years ago, NU Image has invaded our country and started making crappy mostly direct-to-video releases. Why here? Because here they pay derisively low fees to the Bulgarian crew and to the Bulgarian actors (most of them distinguished ones) which are, in many ways, better than most of their American colleagues. Personally I am ashamed of that fact. The reason is, of course, the greediness of the Americans involved and their wish to get most, if not all of the profit. Actually it would't be so bad if only the production wasn't so filthy and pale. There hasn't been a good picture shot here for years. At present NU image is being sued here over the very questionably purchasing of our national cinema production centre called Boyana Films. No doubt about it there has been corruption, there has been deceit, there has been a lies in this recent purchase. The Bulgarian cinema is dead. Long live the Bulgarian cinema!
I was pleasantly pleased with the ending. I just saw this movie yesterday, and was going to turn it off, but changed my mind. It was not at all the direction I thought the story would end on. Thats about all positive I can say about this film. All of the actors are nobodys, especially the lead. While she is an attractive young woman, she'll never make it big. The writing, direction, and acting are wooded, sort of like what you would see on daytime soaps. The filming locations were very clever in making you think it could be anywhere, instead of blatantly tipping off it was in Canada. As this was shot entirely in Canada, I'm assuming the entire lot was Canadien, which is not entirely bad as some recent Canadien TV productions: "Cold Squad", "Stone; Underover" are quite well done.
Yes, dumb is the word for this actress. I know many have mentioned her beauty, but this viewer found her empty headed and boring to watch with her bleached hair, lip gloss, and not so perfect body. Watch her walk away in those jeans, showing a rather large butt. Her butt spreads beyond her shoulders. What does that tell you? As for the leading man, played by gorgeous Mark Humphrey, he was perfectly cast. A charmer. However, he and Lancaster just didn't match. She was out of place opposite this good looking guy. Good acting by Susan Glover as the sister. Angela Galuppo had a small role and was okay. But the film's director Philippe Gagnon, wasted too much footage on Lancaster. After a while you got tired of looking at her and watching her dull acting ability. And what a bitch of a wife she was. Snooping on her husband, being obnoxious to him and just a plain spoiled brat. Was happy to see her hit with the dart gun. I thought it might be the end of her. But alas, the script tells us otherwise. After torturing myself and watching this loser again, I still came up with the same criticism. Lancaster is boring to watch. This time around her hair, folks. Her hair constantly in her face, constantly tossing it back, became annoying. I question the writer, Alexandra Komisaruk's reason why a good looking wealthy man like Philippe would even bother with the likes of a bimbo like Allison. When there were so many attractive intelligent women, with class, to choose. He picks this nothing. Is this the Rochester/Jane Eyre thing? Oh well, it's all a matter of taste, I guess. This Sarah Lancaster is not my cup of tea, folks.
I feel conflicted about this film - it is one of the most beautiful films I've seen, and provides insightful looks into a lost culture. There was an early scene of men in caps and moustaches sitting around a table, with a woman serving, and an accordion playing, that brought tears to my eyes, just because of the way it captured a way of life that must be incomprehensible to many today. It presents the lives of the characters as being inextricably bound up with the life of the village, another lost concept in today's world. Symbolism is always fun but it seemed a little dated. The fatal flaws of the movie to me were the lack of any compelling dramatic drive, and a total lack of humor. I never felt like I knew any of the characters beyond very basic universal things like grieving over the loss of a loved one, etc. The people were stick figures in the director's tableaux involving natural disasters, war, etc. The film was just one beautiful tragic scene after another, with no involving narrative thread and no humanity. As a result, it seemed very abstract, irrelevant to the lives of real people. In the end, I was too bored to finish watching it.
This must be one of the most annoying, arrogant, poser films I've ever seen. What a waste of budget and actors. Angelopoulos has reached new levels of pretentiousness. It is clear there is virtually no plot, even if this part of Greek history is material for great movies. He simply had some supposedly symbolic (actually shambolic) scenes in his mind and he built a whole movie around them. Death is the main theme and is repeated ad nauseam, along with litanies, processions and the like, which should only be a vehicle for the movie but unfortunately it is the movie itself. A totally incoherent result, which can only leave you saying "huh?" or "oh dear" every two minutes. <br /><br />There is no character development at all, nada, zilch. I'm usually complaining about some movies having two-dimensional characters, but oh boy, he managed to create one-dimensional characters. This is irritating for us and degrading for some of the actors. He even managed to make one of my favourite Greek actors, Giorgos Armenis, seem wooden. <br /><br />And going to the core of Angelopoulos film-making: No we're not idiots. We do not want chewed food. Please someone tell this guy symbolism has to be subtle. Theo do you really underestimate your audience so much or you're simply incompetent? Personally, I think he tried to make a Greek "Underground". No matter how he tries, he can't reach Kusturica.<br /><br />Only saving grace: Photography, costumes and the music.
Had I known to what I was submitting myself, I would have fled from the theater. The film is dreadful, in the literal sense of the word. Despite striking images, intriguing locales, and a subject matter that might have been fascinating, the film is dead.<br /><br />I was unfamiliar with this period of Greek history, and prepared to experience a great film. The filmmakers's hand is heavy. it is not enough to see a train going by; we must watch it from afar, we must watch it car by car, we must see the smoke, we must see it slow down, and we must see it stop. The director's approach is didactic. Likewise, the characters that he creates never develop, they never change. They are so stereotypic that we wonder, are they meant to be Everyman? Everygirl? Everyoldmusician? Is there some point to this allegory? It is the most pretentious film that I have seen in a long while.
I can pretend no knowledge of cinematography or Mr. Angelopoulos. But I know Greece and I love her people. In July my 14 year old son and I traveled to Cappadocia, Turkey in search of some remains of the neighborhood where his great grandfather Iordanis lived until the great exodus of Anatolian Greeks in 1923. Reading the summary of the film (refugees from Odessa) I thought that perhaps I might learn something more about the forced migrations of modern Greeks. If I did not have a home in Rhodes, had I not been to Greece 28 times in as many years, were I not familiar with dozens of islands and cities in Greece and if I had never enjoyed the friendship of these ebullient, life-intoxicated people, I might have believed that this lamentation had something to do with modern Greece. As a professor at a New Jersey State college, let me assure you that I am familiar with the history of the period covered in the film. Indeed, my wife's uncle was murdered by the communists during the communist grab for power. My mother-in-law lived through the Italian invasion and German occupation...barely. These characters on the screen speak Greek, they listen to Greek music but who are they? No, they are not even vaguely Greek. Of course they are not people at all but simply allegories. They are that which the artist invents when life does not entirely fit or is inadequate to his perception of how it was or should have been. All represent some aspect of post WWI Greece that greater outside forces consigned to a fate they didn't deserve. As we joked in the late 70's in America: "The Revolution didn't happen." For an ideologue/artist, this is no joke. It's in fact grounds to put us through two and a half hours of torment. And it's all because the various Powers (Eleni's soliloquy of "guards" in different colored uniforms) didn't allow the generation after the "aristocrats" of 1919 (Spyros) to follow the call of peace and freedom (the music of Nikos and his fellow musicians, i.e., the Movement, the Cause). This dark, surreal revisionism smears the true and heroic efforts of the Greek people to sustain their lust for life through the tragedies of the 20th century, to achieve more than any of their Balkan neighbors, to have become so politically evolved and globally integrated.
While the film has one redeeming feature, namely some striking shots e.g. the shot of the sheep hanging from the tree, the scene of the funeral procession on the raft, or the scene of the boats leaving the village (which seemed influenced by the scene when the warships approach in the fantastic "Fellini Satyricon"), these were more photographic than cinematographic, and would have been better appreciated hung on a wall in an art gallery than embedded in a painfully slow-paced film that comes in at a whopping 162 minutes and suffers from terrible dialogue, extremely poor character development, over-acting, uninspired symbolism and heavy stylisation. This is the first film I have seen by Angelopoulos, and his reputation having preceded him, I expected a lot better, but can honestly say that this is one of the worst films I've ever seen, and I won't go out of my way to watch any of the director's other work in the future. The four friends I went to see it with agree.
I saw this film 2 weeks prior to going on a snowboarding holiday, so for me it was really just to get my mind in mode for my holiday. The film boasts some sweet snowboarding skills, throughout the films in the action scenes. These moments were great, a bit like watching extreme sports channel. Sadly the story was quite honestly awful, the acting was generally alright, with a fairly small cast. This film is apparently comedy, at least it tries to be comical, but it seems like the comedy and the storyline was written by a teenager. The story lacks any depth or purpose and the comedy struggles to be anything more than a small snigger a few times during the movie. It might be worth renting just to see the snowboarding action, but then again there are plenty of movies out there that are totally devoted to snowboarding stunts and don't feature a UN-funny badly written story.
Ewe, The opening screams zero budget. The titles whooshing in look like my grandson was let loose with iMovie. The DVD box gives the impression that you'll be treated to the old days of '80s boobie movies. NOPE! Hardly any nudity from a flick that stars Traci Lords! This movie really did need the nudity too. Instead you get a lot of Lords perkies pointing through a shirt, however they seem to be activated by hot steam. That's odd, in my world the headlights go on in the COLD.<br /><br />The plot is pathetic, the blind guy is just is a joke, and not a funny one. His antics are so forced and predictable. He trips over stuff and you see him bracing for the fall. He needs to work on his physical comedy.<br /><br />Most of Frostbite's nudity comes from a hot tub scene that looks like it was shot months later and inserted in to get a distributor. And the nudity is not worth it.<br /><br />NamoiBucks; it's just a matter of time before Starbucks sues over that. Not even funny. As Billy arrives in town for the first time they come across Namoi Bucks, He comments "Wow they have these everywhere." This leads you to believe it's a parody on Starbucks, but surprise, behind the counter of this location is Namoi herself. Apparently she loves coffee so much that the owner of this huge chain decided to work in a tiny cold town.<br /><br />The only thing this movie has going for it is the Warren Miller snowboarding footage. Yep this is all Warren's stuff, so if you want to see great action, get a Warren miller flick. Leave Frostbite alone.<br /><br />There is nothing good about this movie. There is no reason to rent it or buy it, and if a friend offers to loan you a copy for free. Hit him and end the friendship.
The movie starts out with its most intelligent joke, and goes downhill from there (pun intended). After that there's lots of potty humor and sexual situations. The beautiful women were the best part of the movie. Swear-word puns are not meant to be central idea jokes, but they try it here. The battle between the two groups in the local town (richies and poories) is an old tried and true setup, so how could it go wrong? Well, there is no reason to envy the "richies" nor any reason to feel sorry for the poories, so we can forget the central plot. The situational humor is all toilet or sexual aimed at teenagers, but only garners giggles, no true belly-laughs.<br /><br />The only thing that salvages the comedy for this movie is the character humor, with the blind man providing some rehashed, but seldom used setups, and the black bar owner providing the formulaic "street" or "hood" humor. <br /><br />OK, forget the jokes, there has to be some killer snowboarding shots since this was a commercial enterprise. Unfortunately, there was only 4 seconds of backdrop action that might be inspiring. The rest was all "B" grade tricks or worse. The big moment, where the main character rides "the goat", a man-killer ski run, did provide one shot where a small avalanche eats the stuntman. This was the best of the boarding in this movie. Any serious snowboarding fan will be disappointed with the quality of the stunts in the movie. <br /><br />As for the technical aspects of the movie, the soundtrack was average, which surprises, as those snowboarding documentaries are regularly filled with quality tunes. You can catch a lot of editing mistakes and even though it was shot on a ski mountain, the majority of "scenery" shots failed to convey any sense of true size. <br /><br />Overall, it MIGHT be worth watching if you have managed to turn your brain completely off and you like silicon breasts. Even then, you wont remember a thing from this one two days later. <br /><br />Snowboarding is still waiting for it's definitive comedy, you'd do better to watch a snowboarding documentary for sure.
About 20 minutes into this lame excuse for a movie, I realized it reminded me of one of those annoying people at work who're always telling really lame jokes or doing extremely unfunny things, because they think it's funny and are trying to entertain everyone. <br /><br />This film is billed as starring Traci Lords, she's not that bad of an actress, but her lines aren't funny and SHE'S NOT THE STAR<br /><br />The acting is some of the most god-awful I've ever seen, except for Lords, the girl who plays Casey, and maybe the Colonel-who seems oddly out of place. I can't imagine why a retired military Colonel would want to start a SNOWBOARDING ACADEMY. Do those even exist?<br /><br />The budget would've been better spent coaxing these women into doing a full length porn feature. <br /><br />"Freddy Got Fingered" currently has a 3.5 score, "Frostbite" has a 2.7. I'm baffled these two movies are within a 1.0 to each other, FGF is "The Godfather" compared to this garbage.<br /><br />1/10 stars
on this quagmire of mediocrity? You are SO much better than this.<br /><br />Simply put, Frostbite is worthless. Bad acting (and I use that term loosely), minimalist "plot," sophomoric humor, and lackluster snowboarding. There's not even a sufficient display of feminine pulchritude to spark the prurient interest of socially inept, but red-blooded, males.<br /><br />Top Gun had spectacular flight sequences to goggle at. Days of Thunder had heart-pounding racing action. Even Point Break had skydiving scenes to its credit. Frostbite has none of these. It's not worth your time, my time, Traci Lords' time, Carmen Nicole's time, nor the time of anyone involved with this destruction of celluloid that would have been perfectly usable on something worthwhile had it not been wasted on this fodder for the recycling center.<br /><br />The world will be a better place when we forget that Frostbite ever existed.
I guess if you like snow boarding you may get some enjoyment from watching some nice scenery and some nice tricks. but that is all the film has to offer. the story line is non-existent, and any jokes that may have been in the film were not funny, even on a sympathy level. I also disliked the characters, the main actor (Adam Grimes)tried his best, and for a comedy like this that doesn't have to be much, but when surrounded by so many other bad actors he had no hope of making this film good. but i shouldn't be too harsh on them, for all i know they might have great skill, but with a script that i could have written in ten minutes, what ever skills they had were ran and hid for fear of appearing in this film. my advise is don't watch it, i wish i never did!
After watch this movie I was surprised that someone had like it!!!! I think this is the worst comedy I ever seen....ever!!!! If you think you had already seen the worst comedy made wait for watch this crap!!!! Not funny at all( OK one or two laugh maybe.......but you have to be really high), the acting is terrible and the story doesn't exist. Even if you like snowboarding ( and I really do) you will hate this movie. OK, OK you can see some nice babes , some nice snowboarding tricks and some beautiful mountains but that's all!!! Watch a porno set in the mountains instead because the acting and the story line might be better!!!!! Sometimes in IMDb I read bad review about some movie and at the end they are not so awful....but this one, believe me,is pure trash!!!! Don't waste your time and money in this one.
What makes this movie so damn bad? Is it the lame sub-par juvenile humor? Could it be the horrid "trendy" suck ass music? Perhaps the uninspired go nowhere story? Or maybe even the fact that Traci Lords gives her worst acting performance ever and to add insult to injury keeps all her clothes on throughout the length of this steaming turd sandwich. Regardless no matter what the reason this film sucks, the fact remains that it really REALLY does. I have never wished I could be watching a movie with Dean Cameron in it instead of what I was watching in my life, but "Ski School" is a masterpiece of comic genius compared to this travesty.<br /><br />My Grade: F <br /><br />Eye Candy: Nikol Nesbitt, Buffy Tyler and Suzanne Stokes all unleash their Tupperware tits<br /><br />Where I saw it: Starz on Demand
I can't actually think of one good point in this film. The story is absolutely terrible. THe acting is as blunt as a carrot, and the script is so bad it makes you want to kill yourself. OK fine if you love (and you have to love it to understand) snowboarding you might enjoy it microscopically better, as it has large mountains and some cool moves but apart from that it is terrible. It has some absolutely stupid ideas and it is racist with both black and white people insulting each others races. The only time you will laugh is when you are laughing at the stupidity or you are feeling embarrassed for the film. I have seen a lot of films and i have to say that this is the worst film i have ever seen. If you have this film i would suggest you take it back to wherever you bought it from and get you money back.
This movie is just downright horrible, the movie was only an hour long and for about 25mins of the movie was just useless random snowboarding clips that don't even connect to the movie. The storyline is completely "retarted", my 5 year old cousin could probably write a better script. I don't understand how someone could fund the production of a film like this ... horrible. This is definitely the shittiest most horrid movie i've ever seen in my entire existence. I think the casting director just took some random kids from off the street to act in this movie. The directing, acting, producing and writing for this film are all really bad. I feel bad for the people who wasted money funding this garbage. U couldn't pay me to watch this crap again.
After a while I realized it was just my IQ slowly dropping. Frostbite is one of those pathetic movies where no one, and I mean no one, is even trying. I rooted for the dorky hero to die inside that trashcan (how did he even manage to fit in there, anyway?), Traci Lords, the queen of B movies, was horribly unfunny and ripped me and my friends off by not showing her boobs a single time.<br /><br />The "characters", though I use that term loosely, are people so exaggerated and one-dimensional they might as well have used cardboard cutouts. The "jokes" (I use this term loosely as well) are simply hilarious. A guy's fart causes an earthquake. Roflcopter! Our "hero" gets a butt acupuncture by Traci Lords. Oh God, I can't breathe! The blind guy uses the F word repeatedly! This is too much!!! <br /><br />Say what you want about the acting but I thought Adam Grimes did a pretty good job at playing a mentally challenged snowboarder. Apart from that the sole source of entertainment value here is boobs. I think I counted three, maybe four pairs throughout the entire film, scattered over maybe five minutes of screen time. That's five minutes worth watching out of 83 minutes of unfunny trash. Don't watch this. Watch Barb Wire with Pamela Anderson - at least there was plenty of nudity and action in that trashy flick!(r#26)
This movie is beyond Horrible AVOID AT ALL COSTS!! I want my hour and 20 minutes back!!!<br /><br />Not funny AT ALL, you can watch this movie without laughing or even smiling once. Swears spill out of the speakers like a waterfall, each one getting more annoying as the last, and not contributing to the comedy OR plot (general comedy - not this movie in general!).<br /><br />All in all, its a lame-a$5, watered-down -typed- "Out Cold"ish movie - But Tremendously Awful. The movie focuses around two groups of a city Poories and Richies (how obviously dumb is that?), where the two opposites have snowboard battles with each other. (story is much like a 4-year-old's bed time story without all the swears and stupid jokes)<br /><br />MOVIE - 1/10 - because you can't give any lower scores
The Motion Picture Association of America has seen fit to advise potential viewers and this is particularly useful to parents and guardians that this film which is hereby titled "Frostbite" is given a "R" rating.The "R" rating has specific information which allows any person who not knowing anything about a film to know something about what this film provides.The "R" was instituted for Sexual Content including Nudity and Perverse dialog,language, crude sense of humor and drug use.There is no reward in viewing such a film though it would be useful to know if this could be removed as a possibility at all I would as this reviewer remove such a possibility.This is a film whereby merely a 1 was not the equal to a number as it did not qualify as a film to be counted,in fact such as this purpose is with this film so should such a purpose be with this films place at all.This is a unwholesome and undesirable offerring that should of been given a much stricter interpretation because at no point is conduct or language suitable for viewing and this kind of film may wish for a Blacklist rather than a stricter definition as to its content.It is suggested hereby that the stricter definition would allow,it is hereby put forth a criminal charge.It may any way irregardless of its rating.This is a unsavory world which would damage any persons viewing this film as its purpose is to commit an offense.It is an offense and it is offensive in its purpose.There is no sense of humor in the film but a depraved and indifferent purpose as to its undesirable underpinning.Without reservation this is a do not see list and perhaps not entirely necessary to say to any adults considering but to any whose interests concern the environment to which there children grow up in,do not allow nor provide any young person the viewing of this film it is unfriendly.Society often sends the wrong message when these kinds of problems are in the public domain let this not be one of those times.
'Rise of the Footsoldier' follows the unrelentingly cruel journey of gangster Carlton Leach and his associates through drugs, violence, sex, violence, guns, violence and did I mention violence?<br /><br />Protagonist Carlton Leach (Ricci Harnett), member of the I.C.F (Inner City Firm); a group of football hooligans turned professional gangsters, guides the audience through the events leading to the 1995 'Range Rover Killings', in which three gang members fell victim to particularly vicious professional 'hits'. Leach's success as a doorman and talent for locating aptly violent friends to control unruly punters at a local nightclub launches him into the company of notorious drug dealers and gangsters, profitably benefiting from the 80s/90s rave scene and drug culture.<br /><br />Opening with brutally realistic shots of the dead men, the viewer is left thirsty to understand what happened, but left wholly unsatisfied. The next 2 hours meander through a series of countless character introductions. Each of these basically establishes yet another typical 'hard man', shows him assaulting usually undeserving victims, before probably coming to an even nastier end. What little emotional understanding the audience is allowed to form for a few of the characters (for example a family man blamed for missing drugs) is quickly destroyed when they are either anti-climactically killed, or their storyline left unresolved. The hints of a plot introduced in the beginning are inadequately concluded with vague impressions of how the murders occurred, as the events are slotted into place with little reward for persevering with the hazy muddle of previous events. <br /><br />This film has been made with a standard formula in mind, for an audience who prefer violence and 'ard nut' slang to an actual storyline. 'Rise of the Footsoldier' borrows too much from 'Football Factory', leaving out the good bits, demonstrating no moral ramifications of hooligan subculture or establishing empathy with the protagonist. The violence, although brilliantly shot, seems excessive and implausible because no one is around long enough for the audience to form an emotional attachment. The implication that the gangs are untouchable by the police is fair enough, but machete-wielding doormen regularly committing blatant murder in public places pushes the imagination of even the most willing viewer. The audience are left bewildered as to the relevance of many key events and developed characters that had no knock on effect on the eventual conclusion. Attempted 'gritty-realism' is further destroyed with a substance called 'Truth Serum', which the Turkish Mafia use to coax honest answers from unwilling individuals. This is NOT the genre in which to invent psychologically unrealistic drugs, and renders the interrogation almost absurd.<br /><br />The actual scenes of violence (before becoming repetitive) hold some tension, spliced with rapid flashes of colour or the end of a film reel. Seamlessly choreographed brawls coupled with obligatory but effective shaky hand-held camera work saves the film, but unfortunately the plot (or lack there of) limits it to a niche demographic.<br /><br />In essence, the events this film is based on aren't deservedly represented, and an adequately sequential storyline is sacrificed for stereotypical characters and an unoriginal plot. This film has a place in the market, but if you like a bit of brain with your brutality this one isn't for you. <br /><br />http://www.obsessedwithfilm.com/
This movie could have been great. It is not in my opinion. The storyline is fragmented, the editor appears not to be able to choose between a Guy Ritchie-style of storytelling and a more straightforward one. There is a great emphasis on excessive violence, including torture. Too much so if you ask me. The characters are very shallow and stereo-typed, I would have liked to see more depth there. It is hard to identify with the main character. As a result the movie remains shallow as a whole.<br /><br />The movie says it gives the spectator an inside view of the British criminal underclass, more in particular the Essex underclass. Football-hooligans, steroids, cocaine, heroine and violence, lots and lots of violence. Violence resulting from paranoia and fear in general. In this movie no-one seems to use his (or her) brain, we're looking at a bunch of animals in clothes. Like I said, there is not much of a plot and the storytelling leaves a lot to be desired. <br /><br />If you're a male below 30, like gore and hardcore violence and think that's entertaining, than this is a movie for you. If you're looking for a movie portraying real people with a well developed storyline, suspense and depth, well... you can skip this one.
Blame Guy Ritchie. The late 90s success of Ritchie's cliché-ridden Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels triggered a series of pitiful gangster movies from which the genre never really recovered. Sadly Rise of The Footsoldier - the true story of Essex hardnut Carlton Leach - isn't likely to reverse that trend. Despite a decent lead performance from Hartnett, the film falls victim to all-too familiar East End stereotypes. They're either busy blowing someone's brains out or shagging a scantily-clad blonde.<br /><br />From fearsome football hooligan in the eighties to a key figure in the criminal underworld during the nineties, Footsoldier charts Leach's rise through the ranks of thuggery. Leaving the terraces for nightclubs, Leach becomes a bouncer where he's given carte blanche to kick the crap out of anyone. Here he gets in with notorious gangland leaders Pat Tate (Fairbrass) and Tony Tucker (Stone), and begins to realise gang-warfare ain't what it's cracked up to be.<br /><br />There is fun to be had deconstructing writer-director Julian Gilbey's laughable join-the-dots yob patois, as every sentence seems to start with an, 'I'm gonna fackin'…' or 'You fackin'…' or, on occasion, 'So then I only went an' fackin'…', typically concluded with a mandatory 'caaaant!' The direction, too, smacks of sadism, especially the obvious glee Gilbey gets from filming violent scenes in close-up and, in the case of the bloody shotgun-to-the-face denouement, in triplicate.<br /><br />Director Gilbey's use of the classic rise-and-fall gangster narrative isn't what will condemn Footsoldier to big screen obscurity. Nor is it the fact that half way through, the film annoyingly sidelines Leach in favour of the events culminating in the infamous shooting of Tate and Tucker. It's Gilbey's sickening appetite for scatter-shot violence that ruins the film; whether it's a brick in the face or axe in the head during a vicious attack on a train, it's all unnecessarily prolonged. Footsoldier doesn't so much pack a punch as leave you feeling violated and more importantly, robs you of two hours of your life you won't get back...
This is possibly the worst of the cockney gangster genre that has blighted the British film industry since Mockney Guy Ritchie unleashed Lock stock and two badly acted barrels. This "True Life" story of Carlton Leach (who?) has everything that is wrong with this genre, a truly awful script that consists of people screeching "Cant", "Fahcking Cant" and "I'll kill ya, ya fahcking cant" ad nauseum. The acting is uniformly dreadful with the two most recognisable cast members being two former soap stars quite visably out of their depth. For some reason the film assumes we have heard of these people and i can assure you anybody north of Essex hasn't, and that we should be interested in some low lifes story. Why? This isn't Goodfellas despite the blurb on the DVD cover. The story centres around a football hooligan turned bouncer turned gangster who's friends end up getting shot. Boo hoo. The fact that these people are totally unsympathetic is the only minor plus for this film. In all of the action scenes it seems that the camera was tied to a piece of string and whirled around while people pretended to fight and the story of somebody most people have never heard of and nothing really interesting happens too is a complete waste of time. People talk about how violent the film is as though it's the sign of a great film and, although many great films have violence in them, this is just an excuse for the FX man to show what he can do. Overall this film is a reminder of why the British film industry is defunct and the sooner we stop funding these pathetic abortions the better.
I am a big fan of British films in general but especially gangster movies. Unfortunately this film was shockingly bad. I think its pretty depressing that this film is getting any good customer reviews. The idea that this film is gritty and realistic is laughable. I have read and heard fist hand quite a lot about the real life events shown in this movie and they have nearly all been glorified with over the top violence etc. The only gritty true to life event in the whole film was the Range Rover murders where some overblown bouncers got rubbed out for messing with people they could not handle. This film is a disgrace to British cinema! It has no plot and no decent acting and just relies on being violent( gritty and realistic as some people like to put it) The sort of people who made this film should not be allowed near a budget or film camera just as the sort of people this film is about should not be given the opportunity to tell this pathetic violent little tale of no consequence.
Watching this movie all I could think of was, maybe it gets better, but after 20 minutes I couldn't watch it any second longer. I don't want too wast to many lines about this, but really its a complete wast of time. All the actors say is c*nt this cont that. If you are still going too watch it, don't say I didn't warned you. Maybe if you are an hooligan or something, you might think its a tribute to your hobby. again.. Film is a term that encompasses individual motion pictures, the field of film as an art form, and the motion picture industry. Films are produced by recording images from the world with cameras, or by creating images using animation techniques or special effects. .
Having had more than a few mates suggest i check Rise of the Footsoldier out, i eventually got round to it last night. Undoubtedly the story Colton Leach has to tell (and did so in his autobiography) is a compelling tale of one mans ascent from Terrace boot boy to connected underworld villain. This film sadly compromised in quality by miscasts, appalling accents and woeful acting.Ricci Harnett in the lead role of Leach does a reasonable job of conveying the transition from thuggery to serious criminal but his accent is all over the place. As his voice provides the stories narration it is something that after ten minutes was driving me nuts. Terry Stone as Tony Tucker provided the unintentional comedy with an ill fitting wig (or the worst Barnett going)dialogue that was so expletive riddled it bordered on juvenile and an over the top vehemence in line delivery reducing Tucker to parody.What troubled me most about this film was that the events leading up to the shooting in Rettenden, Essex and the formative years of Leach are of genuine interest to crime fans and fans of football hooliganism so, to have this story sabotaged by a lack of credible accents and acting left me feeling an opportunity had been missed. Roland Manookian and Frank Harper provide the films only source of authenticity. On the positive side some of the films pacing and construct flowed well and kept the attention. The violence was well choreographed and aside from an over reliance on projectile red syrup for blood spatterings was on the whole realistic. If you enjoyed the film then it is worth checking out Essex Boys telling a similar tale from fictionalised viewpoint and also featuring Billy Murray.
Oh dear, just what we need another Essex -Cockney garbage effort chronicling the rise of the UK footy hooligan/ rave gangster who did of course follow West 'am (East Londan/Essex style). Didn't anybody tell you that they won the world cap!? And then of course the inevitable decay into UK rave culture underworld. Blah blah blah. Why how and who would want to fund a film like this i do not know but lets pray that it was from Private financiers (lets see ex drug dealers, merchant bankers -we all know what to call them, and the rest of the mockneys) rather than publicly funded means. Hopefully with the recession we will not see the like of this again. If we do we will be calling the death knell for British films and of course we will all be able to blame Britains number one Mockney Country gent wannabee gangster Guy Ritchie.
First off i'll give this movie a low scoring 4 out of 10! It was nothing more than a wannabe film. I felt very let down watching this film. I was lead to people it would be more drama and more facts about the true story it's based on. Instead i spent over an hour watching middle aged mean break the law and take drugs.<br /><br />It's abit like football factory but with no real storyline and not a good ending. After watching the film i was left wondering "What was that film all about?" If you like films with no real storyline and a lot of drug taking and swearing then this is the film for you.<br /><br />I'm a BIG fan of mob and gangster movies but this film did not live up to the hype. I can see where the writer was trying to go with the film but it never reached it's destination.One of the worst British films that i have ever watched. If only the movie had more of a storyline this would have bad an excellent movie.
There is no doubt that the Kokoda Trail depicts a truly great event in Australian Military history the brave defence of Australia against the cruel barbaric Japanese Army.Howver this film fails to take into account the story of the "Fuzzy Wuzzy's" or the New Guinea natives that The Australians used to help them carry out there military operations. The film also fails to give a credible account of the Australian soldier and his behaviour in this event. It is more like an uninformed contemporary view of what is was like.<br /><br />Again the Australian film industry has failed to give this important chapter in Australia';s history the film it deserved. This is film making at its worst with arbitrary cinematography , bad scripting and dialogue , no character development and cliché jungle warfare scenes.<br /><br />It fails to imbue the audience in any meaningful perspective other than the Japanese Army were ruthless and cruel murderers of an ill-equipped and badly trained group of Australians fighting in a jungle.<br /><br />The film failed as most Australian films do to attract a significant Australian audience in fact they stayed away in droves.<br /><br />I am not going to join the usual parochial garbage of saying its great because its an Australian film. I say either do a great job or just leave it to some one who knows how. This government funded film is just another failure by Australia's wealthy and spoilt rich kids.<br /><br />I am giving it zero stars because its an insult to the descendants of these truly great Australians and their enormous sacrifice. What a shameful waste and disrespect and I know this review will provoke more negativity from the Movie Show crew and most reviewers but I have a right to my opinion and that's what Australians fought for OUR FREEDOM and that includes freedom of speech and the right to express an opinion.
Kokoda was inspired by events on the Kokoda track during WW2 when Australian militia slowed and ultimately stopped a push by 10,000 Japanese soldiers to move overland and capture Port Moresby. What they really mean is that the movie is set in this time period but is fiction and everything that happens is just a jumble of standard scenes from other war films. The first hour is just one cliché after another. Some of the scenes are simply there to be able to draw us into a feeling that this conflict was horrific beyond compare, when there appears to be little evidence of this. Both sides fought hard to control the track and no mercy was shown by either side. Both sides suffered from logistic shortages and the terrain was a great leveler in this conflict. As the Japanese got closer to Port Moresby their supply line grew and this ultimately led to their downfall. On the other hand as the Australians retreated closer to Port Moresby their supply line decreased. Some of the scenes appear to be straight out of the handbook on standard scenes to include in any war film. The film was misguided and highlighted the youth of the production team. At a time when Australia could have done with a great film about one of Australia's best moments the film Kokoda is a shallow disappointment.
From all the bad comments about this movie and add them up I feel the same way. It may look like the Australians are weaklings instead they were brave soldiers. In this film it was very terrible and too graphic. I didn't see enough heroism just more cowardice which is ashame because its nothing from what I read. We don't need the extremity of violence like that we can use our vivid imagination of what they went through. It's like saving private ryan where the nazi is pushing his knife slowly in the soldier. For example Mel Gibson is a over extreme director for his movies not because of the violence but for the level of historical inaccuracy. Letters of Iwo Jima was one of the war films that was close enough to history (although I could be wrong) except Flags of our Fathers and Bridge of the River Kwai. You're better off reading it its an insult to the victims and the fallen if you don't tell it right, and the movie drag on for too long there was nothing interesting about the dialogue and not enough retribution from the aussies to kill Japanese soldiers. Just read history on the internet, mags and in books. Movies always kill the sense of realization. What they did to POWs in Singapore and the Philippines was just dreadful escpically to civilians. It just makes me feel proud to see goodies beat the baddies but movies like this ruin it.
This was like watching the trailer of a up and coming movie, except that there was no movie coming up. The film is so unsatisfying and obviously unfinished as to be almost laughable. The subject of this film is over a very short time frame and frankly, nothing much actually happens in the 90 odd minutes of screen time. I was hoping for the definitive Australian film about our soldiers in WWII and how they fought against incredible odds in awful conditions.This is most certainly not it. <br /><br />Having said that, the acting was great and locations authentic. This could easily have been a great movie given a lot more money and time, instead it isn't even mediocre and I cannot recommend it at all.
A totally pathetic attempt at movie about sacrifices of Australian Soldiers during the New Guinea Campaign. Total waste of money even if you only see it on DVD. Thankfully the video store provided a free weekly hire with the DVD else it would have been a complete waste of money. Probably made by arty types and full of the symbolism that today's Chardonay socialists seem so into. Frankly this movie is an insult to the memory of the brave chaps that never came back. Somebody please provide the funding to make a decent movie at least the equal of Saving Private Ryan. Hopefully the RSL will put as much distance between itself and this movie as possible. The story needs to be told from all sides the Australians, the locals & the Japanese - Although getting the latter to tell the truth about anything that happened during the second world war is highly unlikely. Basically its rubbish, don't see it, don't buy it. Walk away
For all its wonderful images, for all of its good intentions, this just comes off as yet another disgustingly one-sided, over-glorified, self-promoting propaganda.<br /><br />The message is simple, "All Japanese fighting on the Kokoda Track were sadistic, malicious f*** sticks who enjoyed gutting every last Aussie troop, cutting their throats before beheading them." Not only does Kokoda pick up on "Gallipoli"'s only flaw (that the enemy are faceless, nameless, and apparently inhumane), but manages to prove quite the opposite to Weir's masterpiece. Instead of giving us a perfect film with one flaw, we have a horrible mess with one redeeming feature.<br /><br />Let's start off with this: we're, without any comfortable adapting to the characters, introduced to these apparently quite laid back, two-dimensional people who we never... EVER get to sympathize with. We're kept at such a distance that even when we could so easily relate to the characters, they find a way to keep us away. That alone is a sickening feature, as it drives us from the very plot, helps the horrible pacing to leave us with a lasting impression, and makes it so much easier to see the contrast between an overtly sentimental ending and an otherwise lackluster body of a film.<br /><br />In other words, it drags us through a painful journey (not just for us, but apparently for them) and just as it should end, we're thrown into another eye-roller of a skirmish that ends faster than it began. So, for the as yet STILL uninformed: when it should end, it starts up again, only to end when we expect more. S***! It's just a confusing and agonizing pace!<br /><br />Which brings me to the ultimatum: this is meant to educate us on the events of the Kokoda track. It doesn't come close. Not only does it detail a very small, insignificant part of the campaign (sprinkling a little "mateship" on top in an attempt to make it relevant), but it succeeds in doing the one thing a film as important as this should be does, it makes us NOT care.<br /><br />Honestly, my eyes were constantly glued to my watch the entire time. The audience around me, all proudly Australian, bickering as they came in about how great the film is going to be, groaned, moaned, and whined in disappointment as every one of the painful ninety-five minutes droned on (for a short running time, it felt like Apocalypse Now: difference being that Apocalypse Now was a good film and deserved the three hours it got) and on to the point where suicide could wholeheartedly be an alternative should it be mandatory for this film to be watched.<br /><br />Though, considering how much the TV has been advertising this trash, I'd say it is mandatory, in a subliminal sense of the word.<br /><br />Watch if you like pretty images. Though you'd do better watching The Constant Gardener or Gallipoli anyway, since they have superior cinematography and ACTUAL plots.<br /><br />Overall: *
I saw this movie today on the big screen and i can honestly not believe some of the comments made by people on here. I was really hoping to be touched by this film, but wasn't.<br /><br />I'm ex Australian Army and very patriotic towards this great country, but I feel this movie no way does justice for us and those soldier who fought at this battle.<br /><br />The movie is poorly filmed. I thought the acting was terrible, they were not believable and they didn't give me any reason for me to care about them. People are saying this movie was graphic, there were a couple of graphic scenes but I found most part very weak. The war scenes were very short and only last a couple of minutes.<br /><br />Overall a weak film that doesn't do these soldiers any justice.
What was the aim here...I started to have a look at it but then I realized that it had no aim...poor acting...no action and no story..i ended up listening to it while i was surfing the web reading about David Beckham's $250 million dollar US soccer Galaxy contract. Do not rent this Don't borrow this NOT WORTH A DOWN LOAD i've seen so many films that I could sense that this was going to be crap from the get go.<br /><br />War films should be accurate and if possible have some artistic merit and actually not feel like Christian melodrama...This film pales in comparison to any that i've seen before.I must say that Iam truly disappointed at this film..
It's great to hear the 3 or so comments, that point out what 'Footballers Wives' signifies for women. The title alone, washes away any supposed equality women have in the media industry or society, reducing them to two dimensional cartoon caricatures of how men think women should behave . It is a post modern moronic farce. It might as well be called, 'Footballers Wifey who stays at home and knows her place'.<br /><br />On one hand, it could actually be some sort of parody on the U.K.'s, gutter trash press representation of celebrities and the role they have in maintaining a patriarchal society. So women can undermine stereotypes by acting like those stereotypes and own the image that has been created for them by mens desire. Nah, that would be to ironic and clever. I also sound like I should be praising it.<br /><br />Zoe Lucker is simply too camp and over the top to be taken seriously. Just like an even cheaper Cruella De Ville. She just needs some maniacal, condescending, yet at the same time, self appraising laugh to show off her true acting range. Oh she does? Right. Anyway, it just about sums up whom this is aimed at. Either 'clever clever' journo's, who think its an up-roaring send-up of vaudevillian proportions, or people who think its 'real'. "Finest actors"? OMG!! Stop watching this afterbirth of a pantomime and get a life.<br /><br />Its utterly sexist and is of such low quality, that maybe those who enjoy it think they are "in" on the "joke". Do the actors really care or understand what they are communicating? Its so demeaning to women and men. They are not all self centred, selfish, football loving materialistic jerks, who think women are nothing but another trophy to be put on display for the public. It's so humiliating. I am sure Ms Lucker would easily stand up to them in her "real" life, and twist them round her finger as so easily done in 'Footballers Wives' .<br /><br />But of course, its doesn't really matter. I mean its only a T.V. programme after all. So please let it stay axed. It's dreadful and will only be looked back on in the same disbelief that 'Prisoner Cell Block H' was so fondly remembered for.<br /><br />How did it come to exist? It sure ain't subtle or complex. It could only come from the same mind set who read FHM magazine, and think its "alright" to look at soft-porn, and "do" as many women who bow to their "will" and chant patriotic and racist comments whenever "their" football team losses/wins. It's totally crass.
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Thank God I saw it for free. I would have hated to waste my money on it.<br /><br />First off, there isn't a character in the movie that is in any way likable. Michael Caine comes close, but even he is pretty flawed. The rest of the "commandos" are made up of disgusting ex-cons. There are the two gay Arabs, and three guys who try to rape a red cross nurse, and the "leader" who has no trouble sending his men off to get killed so he can escape.<br /><br />The "mission" is anything from suspenseful. They are to blow up a fuel dump. Sounds exciting, right? Well, the footage follows them through endless sandstorms and fixing flat tires. Yes, you read that right. The "suspense" is whether they will run out of spare tires. We actually WATCH them change something like 12 flats on the way. That's how incredibly exciting this movie is.<br /><br />They get to the fuel dump to find that it is a decoy. So, nothing to blow up. And at this time, for some very convoluted reason, the British army decides that they don't need these guys anymore, and radios their whereabouts to the Germans to kill them.<br /><br />So, now at least we'll have an exciting race to freedom? Nope, instead, they decide to blow up a different fuel dump, to create a diversion. But, when they get into the place, they set off a trip wire, and the Germans come to get them -- calling out their names over a loudspeaker.<br /><br />Really weird. If the Germans knew where they were and where they were going, why did they let them get all the way into the dump before springing the "trap?" Instead, they wait until they get into the fuel depot, and set all of their charges. Yeah. Right. That would happen.<br /><br />So, they blow the dump, the leader sells out all of his men -- except for Michael Caine, since he's been offered $2000 to bring him back alive.<br /><br />OK... so, the men are all betrayed and killed, and Michael Caine and Nigel Davenport survive. The British troops come in with tanks, and they decide to go get rescued. Since they are wearing German uniforms (they wore them to blow up the dump) they tie a white flag around a stick and walk out into the road.<br /><br />Some British guy walks up behinds them and machine guns them to death. Credits roll.<br /><br />Yep. The two "Heroes" of the movie die due to a random act of violence.<br /><br />It's almost like the movie suddenly ran out of budget and decided: "That's a wrap. Kill them off and we'll go home." I wasted 2 hours of my life watching this tired, unimaginative and totally unrealistic movie that ended with a gracefulness of a bomb.
I should've realised it was a sign of things to come when the trailer for this film bored me.<br /><br />Having watched several "indie" films on the strength of the reviews on here, and subsequently finding that my view is completely opposite to those other reviewers, I began wondering if it's possible I am watching completely different films from these people, or are they perhaps friends/family etc of the film makers trying to 'big up' their work? Hmmm.<br /><br />Are you interested in seeing an amateur's homage to Pulp Fiction and 11:14, except done with worse actors, a silly score (undermines various scenes) and unbelievable jumps in logic? If not, then skip this film.<br /><br />Here is my open letter to two of the players in this film.<br /><br />Alfonso Morgan, please, please, please, stop trying to 'be' Samuel L Jackon a la Pulp Fiction. No-one can do what he does as well as he does.<br /><br />Director, please come up with something original. It does you a disservice to churn out this stuff pretending to be Quentin Tarantino.<br /><br />Simply dire, and I really cannot see how anyone could say this is a good film. It is a disgrace that people have somehow managed to put a score of 8.5 on this, the same as films like Pulp fiction or Goodfellas. It is no-where near these movies; a 4 or 5 would be a more reasonable average rating, I give it a 3.
Honestly, people who gave this movie a ten would have given 100 for pulp fiction. This is the level that we are dealing with here.<br /><br />The movie isn't bad but no way is it like "OMG, the best movie since Pulp Fiction!". Some people have incredibly low expectations for movies, even those of indie variety. Personally, I found my interest in the movie waned after the half-hour mark. The plot defies logic and belief. You have got to hear the part about why the wife did what she did in order "to save her husband". Yeah, right. I guarantee that you would walk out of the theatre thinking, "hmm, now that doesn't make sense at all." This is one movie in which you really need to suspend all logic and belief.<br /><br />Those who said that the music score is good were probably listening to their MP3 players. It absolutely killed the movie in some parts.<br /><br />In conclusion, watch the movie only if you have nothing particular important to do. I give this a three because there is one long sex sequence in the motel which is decent.
Worst movie ever!! Its not clever or funny or thought provoking. 84 minutes of bad actors doing their best with an awful script.<br /><br />Acting was so bad that you can see the dead people breathing.<br /><br />Maybe the writer/director combination believed they were Quentin Tarantino or something (you know make a movie about nothing still cool) but failed miserably.<br /><br />I hope the writer never makes another movie EVER!! not everyone is born a writer, sometimes we need to count our losses and go back to being a bathroom attendant or whatever.<br /><br />Please don't watch this movie, even on mute with the stereo going its still a painful 84 mins.
The Nest is really just another 'nature run amock' horror flick that fails because of the low budget. The acting is OK, and the setting is great, but somehow the whole film just seemed a bit dull to me. The gore effects are not the best I've seen but are fun in a cheesy sort of way. The roaches themselves are just regular cockroaches that bite people. The Nest reminded me of a much better film called Slugs. If you liked The Nest then Slugs is a must-see as it's ten times better. Also worth noting is that Lisa Langlois who plays Elizabeth was in another 'nature run amock' type film called Deadly Eyes (aka The Rats), which is about killer rats as you may have guessed. <br /><br />If you enjoy these types of horror films then you may want to give this a watch, but you'd be far better off seeing Slugs which is far more interesting and gory.
This movie features roaches as super flesh eating killers. This may have been the first movie where roaches were the primary killers, though not the first movie where roaches are killers. "Damnation Alley" featured a scene with killer cockroaches and "Creepshow" had a story that had them. In this one they are the star. Not as good as it could have been this one doesn't have all that many kills in them. I could be wrong on that point, however, because I have not seen this one in quite some time. The roaches have gone killer and this very strange research lady is in town to study them. Yes, she is quite strange as at one point she has her hand in a box on the killer roaches and she is like "They are biting my hand", and she says this in almost a state of ecstasy. There is also one super big roach near the end of this one, like in so many insect films. Not a great movie, but worth checking out on a night you are bored out of your mind.
The story has little to do with Jack London's original novel. I thought the acting was very unnatural, the dubbing was done very sloppily and the story itself contains a fairly large number of inconsistencies and loose ends. Apart from that, the pace of the movie was horrendously slow at some parts.
My mother took me to this movie at the drive-in when i was around seven years old, which is thirty years ago. She had no idea a family movie would be so violent. My clearest memory was of the boy's father's face of pain as he was stabbed in the stomach and killed. This image haunted me for weeks. I had learned that I lived in a world where a person might stab my father at anytime. How could I stop them? How could my father protect himself? You must realise that this stabbing is not fantasy to a seven-year old. It is as real as witnessing an actual event, and has no place in a child's innocent mind. It is sad that we still do not understand the impact that bringing violence into the lives of our children has both on our children and our society. If only parents would protect their children from images of violence with the same vigor that they protect them from images of nudity and sex.
I'll say one thing for Herman, USA: it will probably always play well to Minnesota audiences. I can't imagine that there's another place in the world where a reference to the fast life of Bemidji or a line like "I knew there was something wrong with Iowa guys" would bring down the house. I actually quite enjoyed the first hour or so. Basically, a bunch of lonely country boys take out a personals ad and find their town beset with willing female suitors (is suitors a gender-specific word?). It ain't progressive, to be sure, but it's sorta charming in its own right. Pity that the filmmakers felt the need to tack on a contrived subplot about a conniving golddigger and her violent husband. Overall it's just too cloying for its own good, but you've got to give some props to a film with the guts to give a guy with Kevin Chamberlin's build a nude love scene. I will always applaud the depiction of people who don't meet the usual standards of beauty as sexual, caring human beings, but that's not enough to redeem Herman, USA. To paraphrase Jello Biafra, it's nostalgia for an age that never existed.
The story of the bride fair is an amusing and engaging one, and it is to the filmmaker's credit that he sets out to portray rural Minnesotans with the same respect ordinarily reserved for Coast-dwellers. It is weird, though, to find an independent movie, the brainchild of a single person, that is as unambitious and cliché-ridden as a committee-brewed Hollywood potboiler.<br /><br />The portrait of rural people is intended to be affectionate, I think, but these characters don't ring true to me--I have had quite a few meals in small-town diners, but never overheard a debate on the merits of different nineteenth-century English novelists. One might suggest that writer/director Semans has no more experience with rural culture than the Coen brothers, and considerably less satiric verve.
No, it's just a cheap 1940s serial using the Cap's good name. If you are a fan of the comic book, you will be greatly disappointed. They have radically changed the character. No shield, no Bucky, no fighting the Nazis, no wings on the side of his mask and most importantly: Captain America is now a District Attorney and no longer a GI.<br /><br />Dick Purcell as Captain America? Don't look too closely when he changes into his costume. It is pretty obvious that he was not in the best physical shape when he made this serial(can you say flabby?). It is also VERY obvious that a stunt man is performing most of the action here. Almost every chapter has an obligatory fist fight that is shot and performed in exactly the same way. The villain is rather bland and although he uses an alias (The Scarab), he doesn't wear a disguise of any kind. The story is repetitive and very simple. The effects are laughable and the action is average. On the plus side we have sexy Lorna Gray as the D.A.'s assistant and the good Captain gets to ride on a cool looking motorcycle in one early chapter. Overall OK but nothing special.
This movie started out cringe-worthy--but it was meant to, with an overbearing mother, a witch of a rival, and a hesitant beauty queen constantly coming in second. There was some goofy overacting, and a few implausible plot points (She comes in second in EVERY single competition? ALL of them?) Unfortunately, the movie suffers horribly from it's need to, well, be a TV movie. Rather than end at the ending of the movie, an amusing twist in which the killer is (semi-plausibly) revealed, the movie continues for another twenty minutes, just to make sure that justice is done. Of course, now that the killer is revealed, she suddenly undergoes a complete personality shift--her character gets completely rewritten, because the writers don't need to keep her identity secret any more. The cheese completely sinks what otherwise could have been a passably amusing movie.
A `Wacky Chick' flick. A beauty contestant winds up dead and the Usual Suspects are rounded up. Another entry in the vein of the Texas Cheerleader, this is an average example of its type.<br /><br />Yasmine Bleeth turns in her usual wholesome girl performance, and Jill Clayburgh does a good job as her stressed-out slightly obsessed mom.<br /><br />Some mildly funny moments listening to the vapid self-serving PR coming out of contestants' mouths. (`I'd like to own a restaurant so I can give left-over food to the homeless.')<br /><br />You have to ask yourself what people are using for brains when they think a cheerleader spot or beauty crown is worth killing for!<br /><br />
*****Spoiler Ahead*****<br /><br />I suppose that you shouldn't expect much of a made for TV movie, but this one was especially bad, the plot was a good idea, but badly done, the acting wasn't especially good. And the ending of the film was just terrible. The main character was perfectly normal all the way through the film, and then suddenly when we find out that she was the killer she just turns into a mentally challenged psychopath. It's completely pathetic.<br /><br />There is only one reason really to watch this film, Yasmin Bleeth, although haven't we all seen her in a swimsuit before ? Don't bother even watching this waste of time, if you want a film about the world of beauty contest then watch "Drop Dead Gorgeous" instead, it's only an infinite number of times better.
Primary plot!Primary direction!Poor interpretation.
During production, this LWT series was titled 'Rocket To The Moon', a title that everyone on set at the time thought was cheesy enough. Then word came through that it had been retitled 'Reach for the Moon', as if this the addition of this new word would evoke heavy metaphorical meanings involving the relationships and aspirations of the characters. This same heavy handed lack of subtlety and understanding is clear throughout the very fabric of the entire series, and the same tired and boring love-triangle storyline is actually stretched out over 7 episodes! Any television program that decides to use the 'love-triangle' storyline for even a single episode is pushing it, but to smear it over seven episodes is unforgivable. There are reasons to watch however, with the scenery of the Isle of Wight certainly providing a beautiful setting, and the seemingly effortless performance of Lynda Bellingham hitting all the right comedy marks. This, however is not enough. A number of performances are noticeable , especially when placed against the static and emotionless wasteland which Jonathan Kerrigan refers to as his face. I have already mentioned Lynda Bellingham in the role of 'fussy mother' (yes, thats as far as character development and back-story goes), but I was impressed by the actor Maurice Roeves (who is by far the most experienced actor in the cast, having appeared in everything from classic movies such as Richard Attenborough's 'Oh What a Lovely War', and 'The Eagle Has Landed', and TV including Baywatch, Holby City, The Bill, Eastenders, Cheers, Doctor Who in the 80s, Star Trek, and even going to Hollywood with Sylvestor Stallone in 1995s Judge Dredd) whose performance reminded me very much of actual teachers I have met - often incapable men, whose lives are tinged with a very sad streak. It is refreshing to see that Roeves is still getting work, having also appeared in the 1998 British film 'The Acid House' and even more recently alongside the wonderful Maria Bello and Sean Bean in 'The Dark'. The standout reason to watch this series, even though his appearances are very few. Another actor who tries his hardest to elevate the program, is Ben Miles, in the role of the sex-mad 'typical man' brother (once again, what an original character!). As with Roeves, the CV says it all. After elevating this, Miles has since appeared in the Hollywood movie 'V for Vendetta', and the 2001 star studded film 'The Affair of the Necklace', alongside Brian Cox, Adrien Brody, Christopher Walken and Jonathan Pryce. Unfortunately the fairly capable actors I have mentioned are resigned to relatively small roles in comparison to the dramatic driftwood that is Kerrigan and Saira Todd, both of whom seem to have been in Casualty for too long, and haven't yet learned to act. Even the tolerable Frances Grey is made to suffer in the presence of such theatrically fetal mannequins, and unfortunately for her, the lasting memory I have of her from the set, is of the AD asking for another take of a relatively complex shot because during the take, she subconsciously 'pulled her knickers out of her crack!'. Familiar faces appear in each episode - child actors from CBBC programs, and dramas such as '2 Point 4 Children', and other regulars from commercials such as Mr Ben's ("they'll remember me for this"), Lynda 'the Oxo lady' Bellingham, and others that I don't even want to remember. Each episode halfheartedly tries to 'deal with issues' such as teenage pregnancy, disruptive pupils, and rocket building(!)... things that Grange Hill was doing better when my parents were young! Overall, this series was a disappointment, and a wasted opportunity to craft a genuinely interesting and well developed drama series. Unfortunately, for them they took the easy route, both in the writing and (for the most part) in the casting. I would recommend both 'Waterloo Road' and 'The Street',to fans of good drama - the latter in particular which managed to achieve this. If you like the Isle of Wight, don't 'reach for the moon', reach for the holiday brochure instead - it probably contains more character development!
This well-meant film falls just a bit short, and unfortunately in too many areas.<br /><br />The scenery is gorgeous, with vistas of north-central Vermont providing the setting for this mid-century tale. Quebec Bill endeavors to go back to his whiskey-running past in order to save his farm.<br /><br />Going back and forth between scenes of magical realism and straight-forward action, this film rarely hits its stride.<br /><br />Kris Kristofferson as Quebec Bill seems pretty stilted, or else it's his lines; or else his cross of Yankee and Quebecois accents. Anyway, he just comes off as a low-key blow-hard. His dialogs with Gary Farmer's Coville character do sparkle, though. William Sanderson's Rat Kinneson is solid. Charlie McDermott shows some real potential as young Wild Bill; but his part's not large enough to carry a scene and he never steals one. Luis Guzman shows up on Lake Memphramagog (with a fine stand-in performance by Lake Willoughby) as a monk with a boys'n'the hood accent: who knows? And then there's Bujold's Cordelia: an oracle like her namesake, she channels Yoda as she intones lines like "You will marry a Quebec woman!"?!? Just too weird and nowhere near enigmatic enough.<br /><br />The end gets really choppy. Again a bad mix of magical realism and the concrete. And Yoda never provides an answer we can understand.
Could possibly be the worst film ever made. At least plan 9 From Outer Space was funny. I can't believe they talked someone into actually putting up money to make this thing. Complete waste of celluloid. Before I saw this crap I had some respect for Kristophersson. I guess somebody needed a tax write off. Please, in the name of all that which does not suck, stop whoever made this, before they suck again!This movie should be avoided by all people who are not on LSD, or my crazy cousin that insists we're part Native American.If you are in the woods, and an owl starts talking to you, see a psychiatrist. It is not necessary to make a movie about it.
The movie plot seems to have been constructed from a disjointed dream. There is not enough realism to hold the viewer's interest. The Vermont Farm scene was a failed opportunity to show the way farms were set up and farm families lived which would have been interesting and entertaining. There was little if no research into the whiskey bootlegging trade of the period. The costumes of the Canadians looked like something from the French Revolution, totally unbelievable. The fiddle playing was good and of the time period but Chris's motions while supposedly playing were unbelievable. The owl's appearance was a never explained mystery and the train disappearing into thin air was too much. I couldn't understand how a live trout got frozen into the ice and why two men in the wilderness without food would release the trout, a good food source.
OK... so... I really like Kris Kristofferson and his usual easy going delivery of lines in his movies. Age has helped him with his soft spoken low energy style and he will steal a scene effortlessly. But, Disappearance is his misstep. Holy Moly, this was a bad movie! <br /><br />I must give kudos to the cinematography and and the actors, including Kris, for trying their darndest to make sense from this goofy, confusing story! None of it made sense and Kris probably didn't understand it either and he was just going through the motions hoping someone would come up to him and tell him what it was all about! <br /><br />I don't care that everyone on this movie was doing out of love for the project, or some such nonsense... I've seen low budget movies that had a plot for goodness sake! This had none, zilcho, nada, zippo, empty of reason... a complete waste of good talent, scenery and celluloid! <br /><br />I rented this piece of garbage for a buck, and I want my money back! I want my 2 hours back I invested on this Grade F waste of my time! Don't watch this movie, or waste 1 minute of your valuable time while passing through a room where it's playing or even open up the case that is holding the DVD! Believe me, you'll thank me for the advice!
I watched this movie so that you don't have to! I have great respect for Kris Kristofferson, but what was he thinking? He did this for scale? <br /><br />At least the film's title practices truth in advertising, since people and objects routinely disappear throughout the film, adding to the confusion. Kristofferson mentions this in his commentary that even he wasn't sure if Genevieve Bujold's character really existed. This does not bode well for the viewer being able to follow the story!<br /><br />The "making of" feature was far more interesting than the movie itself. It explores the difficulty cobbling together funding for an indie, even as the film is being shot.<br /><br />To it's credit, this movie is visually pleasing and doesn't in any way look like a movie made with just slightly over 1M. Too bad the money wasn't spent on a better project.
Like the previous poster, I am from northern Vermont, and I was inclined to like this film. However, not since "Red Zone Cuba" have I seen such a confusing plot. The things the people to bootleg make no sense. Two of the gang paddle across the border send a second party across in a car. Uhm, why? Then they meet two others, and drive up at night in to the bad guy's hideout in a luxury Packard. --Wouldn't just two people in a flatbed truck make more sense? Then, parked outside the garage that holds the targeted hooch, the four fall asleep! When they waken in the morning and and start hauling the whiskey out, of course they're spotted and shot at, losing some of their precious cargo in the process. Then two of the smugglers put the whiskey in a boat and float it over the border. Again, why? I am told by someone whose great uncle really did smuggle in the area, all one needed was to drive a vehicle that could outrun than the U.S. Canada Border Patrol, which back then had a fraction of the resources it has now. <br /><br />And don't get me started on the last half hour, which made no sense whatsoever.<br /><br />The only good thing I can say about the film is that Kris Kristopherson has actually grown some charisma with the years.
I just finished watching Disappearances at AFI FEST 2006 with about 30 other people in a mostly vacant 1000 seat auditorium. The festival programmer, after seeing the lack of audience, started his opening comments with, "Well at least a few of those attending the festival have good taste in film". Well Mr. Programmer, after watching this film I must answer back "No we don't, and either do you!" This "back-woods" period piece follows young (not so) Wild Bill as he and his mystic family dangerously run illegal Canadian whiskey across the border during America's prohibition. The old-time outlaws (Kris Kristofferson and company) not only need the money to save their ramshackle Vermont farm but want to introduce little Wild Bill to the virtues of manhood.<br /><br />Although handsomely photographed, this adventure story lacks what makes films of this sort good, "tension" and believability. Kristofferson's lackluster performance and dry monologue reminds me of a dream I once had where Al Gore was playing the role of Willy Wonka. I just didn't care and when Wild Bills mystic grandmother appears out of thin air to give him advice it just didn't fit. Yes, I almost fell asleep more than once.<br /><br />Gary Farmer does do a good job as the Cameron Frye in Ferris Bueller character; brother-in-law of Big Bill while the teenage Chris McDermott does uses those piercing blue eyes to his acting benefit.<br /><br />But overall expect to see Jay Cravens Disappearances playing at a Block Buster $2 Bin near you.
Forgettable pilot that never really explains why Nostradamus is really important to the plot of this movie, but Rob Estes plays a a hunky cop who happens to be Nostradamus for some reason and who battles time-travelling Medieval monks that run around with guns and set people on fire to start the apocalypse. Oh yeah, there's also a sexy FBI agent who happens to be a pyschic and is trying to get Rob to believe everything before it's too late. Too bad they couldn't predict a better plot. Yawn.<br /><br />
Hmmm, started well, like a hybrid of X-Files & First Wave, unfortunately, if the mere notion of Da Vinci's lost time machine is preposterous to you, then the final 'battle' between one man with a pistol and 4 16th century monks armed to the teeth with automatic weapons will seem positively ridiculous equalled only by poor acting, poor script and screenplay, or, in other words, giggle factor 5 captain.
This movie has good intentions, at least in the message "don't be afraid, no matter how tough it can be. Fear will kill you in the end" It's a good message, but the container is so flawed that the message gets squashed by bad acting, complete lack of credibility in the feelings, dialog that's delivered as if it were read out loud, stereotypes instead of breathing, living people.<br /><br />It abuses from effects such as slow-motion to compensate for a complete lack of credibility in the acting and thus, a lack of emotional force...<br /><br />The suicidal part of it still reminds me of a low-budget film from the pre-90s, when lesbians seemed to have (at least on celluloid) an utter incapacity of live good, happy lives, and a tendency to get caught in over-the-top dramas that often involved separation, death, or prison. <br /><br />Had it focused on the rewards of living life according to how we feel it (and not according to how others think we should live it), it would have being less dramatic, more inspiring. But it doesn't, it focuses of pain, on loss and leaves the message at just a theoretical ideal.<br /><br />I can't see how this movie can be an inspiration to anyone to come out or overcome fear and rejection. <br /><br />If you're looking for a really good movie that talks about overcoming fear and daring to live what you feel, go back to the magnificent "Desert Hearts" (even better: read the novel!)
Yeah, I made it all the way to the end. It was pretty hard though.<br /><br />Sometimes I was wondering if there was even a director on set. The acting...well, I don't even know what to say. I thought the girl who played Emily tried her best with the boring, sometimes wacky and sometimes predictable dialog. <br /><br />I know that it was low budget but the hollow sound and the lighting unfortunately made it look and sound like a 100-minute-long audition tape. <br /><br />I'm not even going to talk about the ending...<br /><br />The best thing about the movie was the music.<br /><br />That being said, I do not recommend this movie to anyone. Even for lesbians who don't have many movies to watch overall, this is nothing to waste your time on. If you're looking for a sad lesbian themed movie, check out The Children's Hour, Lost and Delirious or High Art. Those will all leave you depressed and gloomy but you won't have to suffer cinematic hell in the process.
OK, I don't want to upset anyone who enjoyed this film but it was a really bad movie. Just the way the scenes were edited and the acting, it made me cringe at some points. I really tried to enjoy it but it was like a student film, they must have had the smallest budget. I really liked the story line to an extent and the characters were likable but the film on a whole was just awful. Also, why is it that in almost every film with lesbian characters one of them has to either commit suicide or die or turn straight?!?! This is so sending a wrong and unrealistic message. I gave it 3 stars and everything considered I think that was very kind of me. Only watch this film if you want to laugh at how bad it is.
I loved Heavenly Creatures and make it a point to catch it whenever it is on.<br /><br />So, imagine my delight when I discovered Love & Suicide while browsing NetFlix. Echoing Heavenly Creatures, an easy choice, to the top of my queue it went.<br /><br />I watched it last, made myself comfy, and waited. What I thought was some crappy preview of a stoned high school student's prank film project (I laughed out loud once or twice, thinking "that just lowered the bar of straight to video") turned out to be the movie. Horrible acting, amateur direction, weak dialog. I usually enjoy low budget films, there is something tangible and real about them because they cannot afford the superficial stuff to distract from the "meat" ––the acting, the direction, the plot, the story. I would liken it to a student who hasn't studied for an exam goes in knowing he is going to fail and just puts his head on the desk and sleeps.<br /><br />In someone else's hands the plot would have serious potential.<br /><br />Do not expect magic or even a cult classics like, say, Divine's Polyester, or Showgirls, at least there you learn to expect bad acting.<br /><br />Love & Suicide went from bad, to worse, to the WORST movie I have ever seen.
My friend and I rented this movie for 3.99 at blockbuster. If I'd have known how absolutely horrible this movie was going to be, I wouldn't have paid a cent. I had no warning for this bs. The acting can't even be called acting, the inevitable sex scene is awkward, and you can tell that both girls feel completely uncomfortable doing it, and the male villain... god, who couldn't tell he was going to attack emily And the musical cues... my lord. This movie makes me want to cry. Never rent this. In fact, if you happen to look upon it, gauge out your eyeballs. This movie isn't of God- it's from hell. I'm just gonna take the last couple lines to write blah blah blah shiz cause I really don't want to continue on with this review.
This movie obviously had good intentions. At the end there is a dedication to someone named Kellie who, as a viewer, I can only assume found herself in a situation similar to the one the movie depicts. Perhaps she made the "wrong" choice. That dedication is the ONLY redeeming quality of Love & Suicide.<br /><br />The movie becomes unbearable from the opening sequence. Once the viewer is already that irritated only about five minutes into the film, it's pretty much going to be downhill after that...which it was. I know the film was low budget and the camera shots were actually pretty good...unfortunately, everything else was horrid. The acting, the plot, the sound quality, the picture quality...the acting. I'm sorry but the acting is horrible. Beyond horrible. It's as if the actors are trying to act like people acting. That's the only way I can think to describe it. As I watched, I actually pictured the script with the stage direction in my mind. None of the movements were natural and none of the characters' reactions to one another fit. In short: the timing is WAY off. The timing of the entire film is way off. I'm no director so I know the limits of my knowledge but I really feel there had to be SOME way to convey the passing of time...until they explained about graduation not being too far away I was under the impression that the first portion of the movie had taken place over the span of a week...a month at most.<br /><br />All that being said, it's really a shame. This movie truly could have been powerful with a little tweaking. All the moments in the film in which we are supposed to feel something are obvious but only because the set-up is obvious (which is a bad thing). The moving scenes totally fell flat. For instance, when Kaye's brother takes his hat of his head and puts it on hers, we should feel the understanding he has for her, the innocence and protectiveness of the love of her brother...somehow it just doesn't come off that way. There are so many more scenes like this (for example: ALL of the fight scenes) and all they do is take away from the movie. All these things put together, Love & Suicide comes off as one long, cheesy, low-budget commercial.
I registered with IMDb.com just so i could comment about this movie. My god what a steaming pile of horse crap this was! It shouldn't even be touted as a real movie, this is very deceiving. this is a 15 year old's film project at best. The acting is terrible. But even good actors could not save this. The dialog is probably the worst part of this movie. Who the hell wrote this crap? And that constant joke coming from the chubby lesbian about Kaye being a "damsel in distress" got old real fast. God i'd rather have a camel take a wet dump in my ear than watch this crap again. Do not rent this movie. If they gave you the movie for free do not watch it. smash it with a hammer. Even if smashing this video caused you to lose your Hollywood video or blockbuster video account it would be well worth it. this is an abomination. I suppose i have said all i can about this without being redundant. any questions....email me.
SPOILERS, BEWARE!!! Flashdance is a fair movie, in my opinion. Some things do confuse me about it (e.g. Jeanie asks Alex how long it took for her to get so good at dancing; Alex replies "About 25 years," isn't Alex supposed to be 18?) and some things do fascinate me about it (I LOVED the spins!). Overall, though, it intrigued me. When this movie was made, I wasn't even born. I didn't really experience the eighties (I was born in '85) and I have to wonder: sometimes Alex would just run in place a bit, or throw herself all over, not really dancing, just banging in to things, tossing her head back, and waving her arms-was this considered "dancing" back then? If it was, I'm not sure I could've standed it. The spins, the flip, the fluid movements were great, but some of it-my neighbor's toddler could've done better! Also, if Alex is a welder during the day, wouldn't she be tired after a hard day's work? When she doesn't go to work for nearly a week, wouldn't she be laid off? Living in a warehouse-I can almost see it, but not quite. It doesn't seem right that she's a welder, owns a warehouse house, AND is trying to get into ballet. None of it really makes sense. I shouldn't be too judgemental considering my own background, but please. Maybe Jennifer Beals is too feminine for me to see her as a welder, I don't know. But either way, they could've picked a better actress. The actors were fine. I even liked the romance. You make your own decision. But mine is-rent it once, don't see it again-it isn't worth it.
I was a sophomore in college when this movie came out and I had never actually seen it until last night. I finally decided to watch it because I like good dancing and because the movie had such cultural impact. After seeing the movie I am completely baffled by how it had any effect other than putting people to sleep.<br /><br />The story is pretty preposterous when you think about it. Does anyone actually buy the idea that that beer joint full of gnarly old steel-workers and teamsters could keep their clientèle with the high concept dances that those girls were doing? They would have all been over to Zanzibar faster than you can say "performance art". Can you imagine the reaction of the real life versions of that audience to that bizarre TV watching No theater dance thing that she did? Please.<br /><br />It seems plausible to me that there could be a woman that worked in a steel yard and was also a dancer--after all both are physically demanding jobs. But I didn't buy for a second that THAT girl worked in a steel yard. And I didn't buy for a second that I was looking at a real steel yard. Steel work is dangerous. You don't keep your work area looking like a junk yard and not end up loosing a limb. I love some of the inane shots like when two welders are sitting in the big corrugated tubes welding. What the hell are they doing in there? Or when she is cutting six inches off of a rusty steel bar with a cutting torch. She was obviously board and just started cutting random things up.<br /><br />But story holes like that can be overlooked if the movie is fun or at least stimulating in some way. Flashdance doesn't offer anything to balance it, however.<br /><br />The dancing horrible. It is the spastic twitch-and-pose style that ruined American musicals until...well are we really over it yet? The sensuality that the movie tries for is ruined by Jennifer Beal's complete lack of personality. I mean I am a 42 year old male and when she was supposed to be eating lobster my only reaction was to think that she should get a lobster bib.<br /><br />You can't really get behind Alex and her dreams because her character is so stupid and shallow. The dog had more going on than she did.<br /><br />The love affair is flat. It comes across as nothing more than a boss with the hots for one of his workers. Zero passion.<br /><br />Even the final scene where she dances for Orville Redenbacher and some other stiffs is unsatisfying because the panels reaction is so unbelievable. What serious dancers wouldn't roll their eyes at Alex's lame cheerleader routine? In short the movie had nothing but leg-warmers and large sweatshirts. Oh, yeah, there is a good chunk of nudity when Alex "rescues" her friend from being a useless erotic dancer (a laughable bit of hypocrisy). Other than that the movie is a waste of time. I wish that the MST3K crew were still in business. This would make good fodder for them.
Flashdance is one of those awful, stupid movies that you actually kind-of enjoy, just because they're so crap. I just watched it on TV & my friend and I were amazed at how dopey it was. It's true that Don Simpson and the other producers came up with the idea of a fairly cheap, lowbrow flick with lots of sweaty bodies to help sell a soundtrack of (admitedly catchy) pop, so Flashdance is an odd sort of pioneer: the first MTV movie. Adrian Lyne started out in advertising and it shows because Flashdance is almost a commercial for itself. You've already decided to watch it but the movie has this weird, panicky undercurrent, as though it's frightened that you might change your mind at any moment. It keeps selling itself to you over and over, all the way through, using slick commercial-style editing and glossy close-ups of jiggling breasts. The story is wafer thin (I honestly can't think of another film I've seen with less plot) and it never makes much sense, but its a very contrived, calculating movie, so it feels consistent. People say it's dated but Flashdance was always rubbish. Viewers in the early 80's knew it was just cheesy T&A but it does work in its own silly fashion. There's soppy romance for the chick-flick crowd and stacks of oily, writhing female bodies for their dates, all set to a pumping disco beat. How could it fail? It helps that the dialogue is pointless, so you can grab a popcorn without missing anything major and, if this sort of thing isn't your cup of tea, you can always laugh at the 'interpretive dance' on display. The scene where a stand-in for Jennifer Beals convulses/'dances' on stage in front of a TV with a fan in it and a face full of white clown make-up had us in stitches. A genuine guilty pleasure.
When I first watched this movie, in the 80s, I loved it. I was totally fascinated by the music, the dancing... everything. However, I recently watched the whole thing again on DVD, and I was completely struck by how extremely stupid the storyline was - how it contained holes, inconsistencies and - frankly - a whole lot of crap - and how horrid the dancing was. I mean, in a realistic world, she would NEVER have gotten into that ballet repertory... The whole thing was quite pathetic. The character developments also lacked in depth. I think that this was, very much, a product of the 80s: the film does not hold up today!
I'm a dance teacher and was looking forward to some good dance routines in this film. How sad to have been subjected to such a painful experience. <br /><br />I had major problems with Jennifer Beals and her character. I found Alex extremely repellent. Beals' face is so young, sweet and innocent, and this very incongruous with Alex's very disturbing lewdness, especially in that disgusting restaurant scene. She also has the temper tantrums of a toddler. It is very difficult to believe that Nick would keep coming back to such a moody teenager after her frequent rantings and ravings, especially after she opens the door of a moving car and chucks a stiletto at him, opting rather to walk home - in the middle of the road - with only one shoe!!!. And what about after her idiotic behaviour after the night at the ballet. In fact, the whole romance was very disturbing - the 30 something year old man going after a girl who looks about 16. Yuck. <br /><br />As for the dancing, I'm afraid this 80s style is totally dated. What on earth was that TV dance sequence about in the club? Who was supposed to be dancing? I wasn't even sure if it was a woman or a man in drag! And even that famous final sequence is pretty disappointing, especially given the context of an audition for a ballet company. The camera shots of her leap actually ruin it's effect because you can't see what she's doing. And what on earth was she doing when she went past each of the panel pointing at them? And as many other comments have pointed out, she would NEVER get into a ballet company on the strength of that audition - perhaps that's why they don't actually say at the end whether she was successful or not, the closure is the fact that she overcame her fear in the end. Of the 'Flashdancers', I actually thought the best sequence belonged to Cynthia Rhodes (Penny in Dirty Dancing). You could see that she was a real dancer, and her acrobatics were very impressive. This is of course if you can get past her appalling costume and makeup. <br /><br />There were two good bits in this film - the ballet dancers stretching when Alex goes for the first time to apply for an audition - they look so lovely and classy, and at least this helps to underline the difference between her current dance career and the one she aspires to. The other good scene was the break dancing in the street. I also liked the ice skater's parents, they were funny.<br /><br />Some other random points - who was Hanna and how did Alex get to know her? What was an 18 year old doing living in a converted warehouse all alone? How did she afford that lovely barre and all the furniture?Where were her family? Was that scene in the 'nude' club really necessary? The person who wrote in their comment that it was something like a Disney film needs their head examined. And anyway, what happened to the ice skater? <br /><br />Many people said the film was poor but they liked the message - don't give up hope, keep on trying, and your dreams will come true. Watch "The Little Mermaid" instead.
This movie was Jerry Bruckheimer's idea to sell some records . No seriously it was . The thinking behind it is that if you made a film full of pop songs you could stick the tracks on a LP , sell it and make even more money for the studio . You could also release a few tracks as singles and intercut the promo video with clips from the movie so that when MTV play a track you're actually getting free advertising for the movie . This is a good business deal but an artistic disaster because many of us still have nightmares about Hollywood movies from the 1980s and I rate the mid 1980s as the poorest time in artistic terms for American film making and FLASHDANCE opened the door to this " Let's make a 90 minute pop video instead of a movie " type film making<br /><br />Jennifer Beals plays Alex Owens a dancer who works as a welder to make ends meet and right away logic disappears with this career choice . Welding is a fairly sophisticated trade , it's not something you walk into and learn in five minutes . There's other gaps in logic like ballet dancing and " flashdancing " being somehow similar . ie if you apply to be a ballet dancer and do some hot , dirty flashdancing the male judges might want to meet you after the audition but you won't get the job . it's kind of like saying that screen writing , novel writing and play writing are somehow the same when they're not <br /><br />But I guess none of this mattered to Jerry when he asked director Adrian Lyne to make the movie . Actually Lyne almost makes a very sexy movie , JenniferBeals is very sweet and innocent looking . Fortunately I sussed out why her face is brightly lit in close up while her silhouette is darkly litin long shots except when the camera cuts to close ups of her heavenly toned body . That's because a body double is used most of the time and frequently the body double is a man ! I bet there's a few naughty boys who are feeling guilty not to mention slightly disgusted to know that
If it wasn't for the terrific music, I would not hesitate to give this cinematic underachievement 2/10. But the music actually makes me like certain passages, and so I give it 5/10.
I give "Flashdance" a lowest rating of 1 out of 10 because it's nothing more than a series of music videos with a movie short surrounding the music videos, in order to clock in as a feature length film. Since when does that count as film? Jennifer Beals plays Alex Owens, an aspiring 18-year-old dancer, who, incomprehensibly, has a job as a welder in a Pittsburgh steel factory. Not a line of work most older women find their way into, much less 18-year-olds fresh out of high school. Meanwhile, at night she works as an exotic dancer, who never actually takes off her clothes, in a greasy spoon bar called Mawby's. Yet looking at the well choreographed and well polished dance routines the girls do every night at Mawby's, you would think they were working at the best casino on the Las Vegas Strip.<br /><br />Alex ends up having a predictable romance with her boss, Nick Hurley (Michael Nouri), who is about twice her age. After resisting Nick's advances, because going out with the boss isn't a good idea, she wastes no time in going all the way with him after their first date. Alex and Nick make no effort to hide their relationship on the job, which makes no sense given how it is likely to look to Alex's co-workers.<br /><br />When Beals isn't being doubled for the many dance sequences in the movie, her character spends most her time throwing temper tantrums. Alex's dream is to get an invitation only audition at the prestigious Pittsburgh Conservatory of Dance. Inexplicably, when her boss/boyfriend helps her get the audition she's been dreaming of, she's throws one her tantrums. She angrily tells Nick she isn't doing the audition because of his intervention, and then gets out of his car in the middle of a busy tunnel. This is just one scene that leaves you wondering what the hell the makers were thinking when they were making this.<br /><br />Of course, Alex does eventually get her audition at the Conservatory. She puts on a dance routine before the Conservatory board that is so ridiculous that you would think it was in a movie marketed to the MTV generation. Oh yeah, it is a dance routine in a movie marketed to the MTV generation.<br /><br />I don't think I can judge whether or not Beals can actually act well on the basis of what I saw in "Flashdance". This is because the character she is forced to play is so poorly written, that I don't think it is a fair litmus test of her acting abilities.<br /><br />You have to hand it to the makers of "Flashdance" though. This movie is proof that the poorest film making can be covered up by a slick marketing campaign. In this case a best selling and award winning soundtrack and music videos for said soundtrack in heavy rotation on MTV. If they had devoted more of their energy to the writing of the script, then they might have been able to come up with a plot and a story with characters that I cared about. Instead what we get are stock characters put in ridiculous scenes any viewer with a functioning brain can't take seriously. A truly forgettable "film".
Well, this may be one of the worst movies ever, but atleast there are some nice t*ts in it. The movie is a very bad spoof of The Blair Witch Project, and should be watched only by those wanting to see some t*ts, and NO point other than to flaunt them.
Wynorski films are always excreble. This is just another case in point. Out of the five naked women shamelessly flaunted here, MAYBE one has real breasts. And that's a strong MAYBE. No humor, no gore, just boobies, boobies, boobies. And some tepid softcore lesbo action. But know what? For fifty cents less than this video rental, I could have rented legitimate porn. Do I feel cheated? With Wynorski, always. So I prepared myself for a letdown, as one must always do.
I have to agree with the other two comments. I waited over a month to see this great new show A&E had been hyping. What a disappointment!!! The show is pretty much all about Ryan Buell. His voice-overs are campy, not creepy. It sounds as if he is talking into a can. As of the second episode, which is roughly 30 minutes or so (if you take out the commercials) he is being chased or followed by something that he knows is demonic. He can't say the name, anytime someone needs to convey that name, they write it on a piece of paper and hand it to someone else. Not particularly informative or entertaining or believable for the rest of us. Why can't he say the name?...supposedly it would give the demon more power. Funny, I always thought demons wanted to hide their true identities. If you know the exact name of the demon, doesn't it make it easier for you to cast them out. Now the next episode, which airs in just a little while is titled "exorcism". So is Ryan in need of an exorcism already? Not to say that it couldn't happen but the show so far has not given any evidence or proof of anything. I can tell Ryan that if I were a small child, hell if I was an adult, and someone gave me a little bottle of holy water to chase away something that was terrifying me, I would look elsewhere for help!!! Besides which, if you don't use holy water & blessings, etc. in the right way don't you risk just further infuriating whatever is already mad at you? I will probably watch tonight but if these episodes are as ridiculous as the first, it will probably be the last time I watch it!
I initially tuned in to Paranormal State because I (more or less) find the paranormal search genre to be interesting TV, if nothing else.<br /><br />I really enjoy Ghost Hunters because well over half of their investigations result in total debunking, and find Most Haunted to be hilarious with its use of mediums and frumpy British women with Paris Hilton day-glo eyes fainting from fear/demonic presences all shot in lovely night-vision green.<br /><br />Paranormal State has none of this appeal. It feels like it was cobbled together from "leads" that Ghost Hunters rejected. The episodes ranged from trailer trash families and single mothers with emo adolescents sitting around and scaring themselves, to an "interview" with a 5 year old about the monster who lives in his room (the monster goes RAWRRR, we are told). All of these people calling upon a college club to solve their problems. The whole show is about Ryan and his partner, his enormous ego. He leads his troupe of doe-eyed coeds around, except when a case is deemed "too extreme" and orders them to remain at the hotel HAHAHA. Better leave it to the pros, ie himself.<br /><br />The unwitting comedy of this show is all in how gullible the participants are. Ryan spins his tales of being hunted, followed, etc by a demon that he first encountered when the Catholic Church recruited him to assist on a case. Sorry, but the Catholic Church has people who can do that, they don't need the day-shift manager at Quiznos to chip in his 2 cents.<br /><br />This show is awful, shame on A&E for bankrolling this silliness, trying to follow in the footsteps of some much better paranormal-themed shows. It's almost unintentionally funny, except that Ryan is so arrogant and devoid of charisma that watching the show long enough to mock it isn't worth the trouble.
For awhile I was hooked on shows like Ghost Hunters and Destination Truth and stuff, even though I thought they were full of crap I found them interesting and entertaining, and that's why we watch entertainment TV. It's fun to turn off your brain and believe that every shadow caught on camera is not just some shadow, but some insane asylum inmate's tormented spirit or something, so long as you can snap back to the real world later.<br /><br />That being said, enjoying Paranormal State requires more than merely shutting your brain off, it requires you to consume lead in large doses on a regular basis during your childhood, then suffer repeated head trauma, then take up huffing paint in your teens. Then you have to get high/drunk and watch.<br /><br />Paranormal State is beyond the pseudoscience (which I can enjoy with a degree of critical thinking) that you'll find on Ghost Hunters (which I still find to be reasonably interesting and entertaining program), it's pseudo... everything.<br /><br />The show follows the adventures of a group of students from Penn State University (not to be confused with University of Pennsylvania) lead by Ryan Buell as they take it upon themselves to exorcise demons and spirits using ceremonies from whatever religion seems most dramatic at the time (ranging from Catholic exorcisms performed by college coeds to Wiccan spells cast by socially awkward goths, to Native American cleansing rituals. To their credit, these are performed by Native Americans). If you believe in Wicca or you're Catholic or a follower of a traditional Native American religions, I think you'd want their cleansing rituals performed by someone who... isn't a maladjusted college student with some free time. I don't remember the scene in the exorcist where the priests threw up their hands and said "it's no use! Call up an after school club from the state college. This one is too much for us. They've probably read the Wikipedia article on exorcisms." The show is frankly insulting to the intelligence to the viewer. The show's opening title sequence has Ryan talking about PRS (the Paranormal Research Society), saying that when he came to Penn State (notice you don't see any shows where the host says the same thing, but instead of Penn State he says "When I came to MIT" or "After I got my theoretical physics degree...") he found other people with similar interest in the paranormal. He says they are sometimes "warriors." I remember when I used to pretend I was a warrior and I fought ghosts. I was six. Then the emotionless Ryan brings out the flamboyant and obnoxious Chip Coffey, who pretends to go into trances and become possessed by cussing at the cast. Awesome. I thought people had learned some sense about how ridiculous the idea of psychics and mediums is after "Crossing Over" went off the air. The show takes itself way too seriously, as this small group of societal misfits pretends they are battling against some ancient, cosmic evil. Production values are low, stories are boring, and, unlike Ghost Hunters, which will occasionally catch something anomalous (although likely explainable, but interesting nonetheless) on their equipment, PS requires you to believe that the noises and creaks that they hear are evidence of demons, ghouls, and possibly leprechauns. The only thing scary about this show is that there are people out there that take it seriously. The only thing paranormal about it is that the people on it are able to make each episode while keeping a straight face.<br /><br />Call me jaded, but I feel like the great mysteries of the universe and the afterlife are too great to be solved in a half-hour TV show by a journalism undergrad at a state school.<br /><br />All that being said, I highly recommend that everyone watch this show at least once, if for no other reason than the sheer entertainment derived from watching a truly terrible movie or TV show. Or you can make a drinking game out of it. I think the second would be preferable.
When this show first aired I will admit to being intrigued by the premise and the setting. With an open mind I watched the first two episodes and naturally dismissed it as being destined to run for a half-season at most. I happened to be watching A/E recently and witnessed an ad for this garbage and I could barely contain my surprise. I truly hope people are watching this for a laugh and not taking it seriously. The characters are truly some of the most ridiculous and outright laughable on television, scripted or otherwise. It's obviously generating ratings so I must give the creators credit for establishing and maintaining a fanbase, but I seriously hope no one is watching this under any pretense of seriousness.
This show is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, of course its fake. But it is agonizing to watch. I personally know more creative film influenced minds that could "make" this seem real. The young lead male couldn't be more unconvincing. He line-reads everything he says. Are we really suppose to believe he knows what he is talking about? There is a plethora of ways to Blair-Witch this show up. Fear does not breed from what seems "cool" and computer generated. Nor does it generate from such proverbial lines as "What was that? Did you hear that?" Also, There are real convincing psychics out there that don't just "Want to be on screen". Another DUH-Factor is... how do these producers think we are actually going to buy that paranormal activity will just magically happen within the 2 possibly 3 days (if we are lucky) they film. I don't think so. A 2 + week at one site would be more convincing. It is also disarming that they think including "Nasa radar checks" and computer's that show fancy bs really make us scared. AND IE: Exorcisms should not be staged like the film "The Exorcist". When are they going to get it right? Possession of the Devil or other evil spirits influence people differently. They don't just snarl and lower their voice like Linda Blair or fallel around like Courtney Love on a drug binge. As stated better concentrations on "psychic ability" would aid this show greatly. We want to see and hear EVERYTHING that supposingly flashes before them. Not cut-away to other story bs. On a final note- Shooting Stars do not generate interest when you showed fake pictures of UFO's ahead of time. Might I stress again the young dark haired man that hosts this show is absolutely down-right awful. Avoid this show. For fright: watch old Unsolved Mystery episodes... not the new ones (the recreation got it oh-so wrong). But that is for a different blog.
This show, Paranormal State, has an almost "Blairwitch Project" feel to it. As in, you're watching a 'documentary' that's actually just a scripted movie, made to look and feel like a documentary.<br /><br />My biggest problem with the show, is their 'go to' outside advisers of the Warren's, who were made famous for their 'investigations' of the Amityville murders, which were shown to be completely fraudulent, just based upon the police reports of the family's deaths! (such as the eldest daughter actually having been involved in the entire thing, to the point of possibly even helping with some of the deaths!) Then there's the way they constantly jump to blaming demons for everything. Not to mention how haughty the group is about what cases they take. They don't want to help those who need it most, they just want the weirdest cases, that will get them the most press and attention.<br /><br />They're complete frauds, plain and simple.
"Paranormal State" is an interesting show for most paranormal believers. I enjoy watching what the "team" has to say and what they "find", however, I know that the entire show along with it's build ups and story lines are completely set up. They go to real haunted locations and I suspect that they speak with actual witnesses. I commonly feel as I watch it that I am not watching non-fiction but an actual movie that is contradictory to reality. I personally would not advise or recommend anyone to watch this show unless you are a basic scare seeker. <br /><br />Interesting show. Stick to "Ghost Hunters"
The atmosphere in this show is great. There's plenty of excellent buildup, but thats where this show fails. There's way to much build up for nothing. You will constantly see a creepy set up that makes it feel likes something really freaky is coming right out of the corner and then....nothing. Over and over again nothing. You hear plenty of stories of people talking about freaky events but you see none. They show up at these peoples doors, talk about their deep and emotional pasts, set up lame equipment and find nothing! there is nothing on this show thats leads me to believe in anything paranormal. I laugh every time they need to exercise a "horrible spirit" that we as an audience have seen nothing of. They get rid of the spirit that never was and everything is put in a neat little package. A show that looked so freaky and had such great potential leads up to one thing...Nothing!
There really are no redeeming factors about this show. To put it simply, its just terrible. Absolutely dreadful. It's just a dreadful "reality" show. Not only that, it's dreadful fiction.<br /><br />Imagine this: A bunch of overly-imaginative teenagers get together one night and go "Hey! Let's make a paranormal show just like "Ghost Hunters" and whatnot!" So they grab a camera, harass local residents and film random landscapes behind a painfully "trying-to-be-dramatic-yet-failing-misreably" monologue. This show is basically a bunch of teenagers running around with a home movie camera trying to make a really bad horror documentary. The only difference is this show actually has a budget and writers. A wasted budget and terrible writers.<br /><br />Oh, the problems, how do I count thee? Well, first off, let's talk about this from a personal level. I am not a total skeptic when it comes to the paranormal. I am willing to believe in whats paranormal and whats not, and I'm sure there are a lot of people who feel the same. So, if you're going to do a show about the paranormal, you have to do a good job convincing the viewer that what they're seeing is either paranormal or not, because the viewer can easily believe otherwise. I hate to compare, but I don't see why not at this point. Take "Ghost Hunters" for example. In "Ghost Hunters" you can tell that the cast is leveled with the audience. They're not totally skeptical, yet they're still willing to keep the possibility of any paranormal anomalies in mind. They have to look at something and be willing to say "this is possible that its simply nothing". And, with that in mind, they set out to try and prove themselves wrong. They use technology and several other gadgets along with constant moderation to determine what is paranormal along with bearing the fact that what they may be monitoring could be nothing in mind. Not only are they trying to convince themselves what is real and what is not, in the process they are trying to convince you. That element of doubt is not present in "Paranormal State". Strike one.<br /><br />In "Paranormal State", the cast simply says "there's this spooky place, and its HAUNTED, so we're going to find some SPIRITS!" And immediately you know and saying to yourself "Okay, convince me otherwise". The cast is not professional in their interviews. In fact, sometimes it seems like they're just harassing local residents of these so-called "haunted" areas. They have no real evidence to back up their claims besides assumptions and theories, and the best they can must up is somebody who "claims" they can contact the dead, with no one ever backing up who this person is and how valid they really are. They could have easily just picked some random person off the street and said "pretend you can contact spirits for our show" and went at it. In the "Mothman" episode, this just happens. Without any convincing evidence towards the end of the show, they bring this sort of individual out where he does a random, painfully scripted "reading" of a supposed area of how something is "haunted" in order to convince its audience. Very, very poor effort. I feel that one of the main problems with the show is that it feels scripted. During one of the episodes, the cast gets attacked by one of these "paranormal anomalies" at times in an attempt to be dramatic. These sort of dramatic sequences would make any skeptic laugh and even those who are on the fence realize what they're watching is just a bunch of tabloid-esquire trash. If the show's aim was to try and convince their audience that these "paranormal" events are real, they're doing a horrifically poor job at doing so. Strike two.<br /><br />However, there is always the counter. Just one last viewpoint to see if the show is actually worth something. What if the show isn't trying to convince you that these paranormal events are real and are simply trying to entertain you with good fiction? It even fails on that level as well. If the show's creators were trying to craft fiction to entertain its audience, the writing is too poor and even on a fictional level, it fails to convince the audience that its cast members are really experiencing the unknown in all its full, horrifying glory. The writing is simply not compelling and even, dare I say, boring. Strike three.<br /><br />So what remains of this show is simply a bunch of teenagers who are too willing or too gullible to believe in the paranormal simply because its simply much more amazing than reality who set out with a camera, a bad script and bad actors to generally just make a really bad horror documentary. Thats all the show is at this point. There is no reason to see it, not even for the entertainment factor, and there's no reason to care about it. To be blunt, its lame. There are absolutely no redeeming factors about this show.
I was excited to see this show when I started seeing the promos on A&E. I've been fascinated with ghosts and the paranormal since I was a kid, and love catching "Ghost Hunters" when it's on (SciFi Channel). I've tried to watch three episodes of "Paranormal State" and only use up my time commenting on it because it's so bad and perpetuates the notion that anyone who believes in the paranormal is a gullible freak. "Paranormal State" is beyond cheesy. Cheesy "Director's Log" voice-overs that will leave you wishing for Captain Kirk. Cheesy teasers going into commercial breaks that are taken completely out of context. Everything paranormal on this show is automatically assumed to be "evil" and the work of a demonic spirit. Then come the exorcists, demonologists, psychics ... like in "Poltergeist" you almost expect the team to leave and say "This house is clear." I very much appreciate the "Ghost Hunters" approach, where they go in to disprove claims, then take away what they can ... and they are almost always reassuring to the client (if they find anything) that haunted does not equal evil. "Paranormal State" is not "so bad it's good" ... it's just plain bad. Didn't A&E used to stand for "Arts & Entertainment"? The art part has long been gone, and the entertainment factor is now waning as well.
I was very excited when Paranormal State first came on A&E. I thought that it may bring some more interesting ghostly evidence. The production value looked good and I really love the logo. Then, after about few episodes in, I started to feel that this show may not be looking for evidence but had a strong religious agenda.<br /><br />It seems like every case they investigate has some big powerful evil demon that can't even make a teacup move on camera, yet everyone is terrified. Then comes some power of Christ ritual that saves everyone.<br /><br />Also, there is very little focus on other members of the team. The entire show focuses on Ryan and he feels like one of those people that hands you pamphlets about his church on the street.<br /><br />Has paranormal phenomenon and demons become the new missionaries of Christianity, scaring people to convert? Really, this should be on a Christian network. I was very disappointed.
I am a fan of the paranormal and I love Ghost Hunters so when this show first came out I decided to give it a try. I could barely sit through one episode. The show is so obviously staged. I mean come on, every single episode involves someone being possessed or involves a demonic force trying to kill the family. Another huge flaw is that these guys never debunk anything. When I watch Ghost Hunters they find evidence and try to disprove it and if they can't then it is evidence. On this show they find a voice or a piece of video evidence and they are very quick to call it a ghost. This completely ruins their credibility unlike TAPS and Ghost Hunters who actually know what they're doing. Honestly if you're interested in the paranormal and want to watch a show about it watch Ghost Hunters.
Even if Ryan wasn't such of an annoying person, this would still be bad, i said even if, where do we begin? "directors log" You will have the urge to snatch his tape recorder and pound it with a hammer or punt it into a lake, a haunted lake of course. Oh how i wish "dead time" was more literal as opposed to what they refer to it as, but alas, no death, maybe a pillow out of place or a "humming noise" oh wait thats the cat. I actually expected to see some sort of evidence or at least something to verify their escapades, don't worry you wont see anything you that you would not see on a normal day.<br /><br />An entire season and what do they have to show for it, um nothing. No in fact they have less than nothing, they have a waste of time. They took my challenge, the do something for the paranormal challenge. Now in this you actually do something for the paranormal, you could say go on camera and say "i love the paranormal so much I'll draw stick figures of ghosts" or " I love the paranormal so much I'll film hot co-eds pretending to be ghost hunters" you would be wasting film, but wasting it for the paranormal. Or you could say "I'll mess with a demon" but don't say it's name you might get hurt, and you know god doesn't like that, that would be quite a thing for god but he wouldn't like that so don't do that. So i asked them to waste time for the paranormal and they followed suit, they went into an old building looking for "mothman", it was a waste of time, it made no real difference at all, it had no effect, we learned nothing new, it was a waste of time and film.<br /><br />There amazing detective work is just so uncanny, "well we found your problem" a cat died here so were going to psychically communicate with that cat and tell it to move on, kind of throw some catnip at it, and it'll be OK......directors log...." Captain log star date 541.2 ...oh i mean " directors log, i just brought on a few new investigators, a couple 8's and 9's but this chic is a 10....um yeah....we have a new case... strange things happening.... .......focusing on one of the children.....were going to investigate.." Now we will bring is a psychic, we haven't told them anything this is TV trust us,
I give this nonsense a 2 instead of a 1 because there is a worse show called Haunted Homes. But this kid and his buddies conduct their investigations like total idiots. They assume that there are ghosts from the get go and if they ever find rational explanations behind the experiences they have to be drug kicking and screaming into admitting it. But beyond that, the show's whole format is incredibly annoying. Even though a lot of it seems scripted, the college educated kids who make up the the cast can barely speak English but still insist on trying to use "big" words they obviously don't understand. And head investigator Ryan's ridiculously self important voiceovers make me just want to throw the TV through the window. (and he looks stoned all the time). In short, this group make the guys from TAPS on Ghost Hunters look like MIT scientists!
This show was rushed, and relied heavily on surprise cuts to commercials (When it came back from commercial, the noise or "surprise" was something simple like a mouse) This is a pure rip-off of Ghost Hunters and it attempts to go "beyond" them, and fails miserably. Also, what is with the Directors log thing? Is this star trek? It just ruins the novelty of this show, which wore off quick. The only reason it's been watched is that people want to laugh at the pure anti-climatic nature of it. They never find anything, and most likely never will. Funnily enough, they always point out something that is the thing they are "hunting" and guess what?! It's the local radio station's tower light that is blinking red!
Let me first off say that I am a believer of ghosts, and I do indeed know they exist. I have had enough experiences with them to know they are there.<br /><br />What I hate is the people who bring the Bible and Religion into all of this. People forget there is more than one "Bible", thousands of religions and beliefs, and different ways to interpret what is said in the Bible. Not everyone believes in God, and not everyone believes in stereo-typical religion. <br /><br />Religion does not make everything fact, one of the things I should mention in the Bible that many do not know is that even the most rampant Bible thumper is breaking the very rules written within....you are supposed to never wear more than one fabric at one time, slavery is OK, and you may murder your neighbor under certain circumstances. None of this, "Oh that was the Old testament, and now we have the New Testament." If the Bible is the word of God, and cannot be changed..there should be no changes, or versions. Religion is full of misinterpretations, mixed facts, and people who so blindly follow it that there, "Is no other way." The excuses these said blind followers use are either pathetic, or they themselves cannot explain the discrepancies properly, and instead use excuses handed down to them from either their Pastor or teacher. <br /><br />But anyhow, onto the review. I am a decent fan of "Ghost Hunters" and when I heard this show was coming soon, I was pretty excited and thought it had some potential. As much as I like watching "Ghost Hunters", I do not like some of their members, and I do not like the way they can dismiss a place as being haunted, yet cannot explain anything that is going on. Just because your investigation equipment does not pick it up, does not mean the camera filming the show did not. I am glad they are skeptical, but it's like they do not understand that just because you did not get anything on your recorder and film does not make the place haunted or not. If Ghosts were that easy to capture, it would be known as a fact, not a belief. It's more of a "right place at the right time" kind of thing, as well as if there is something there, what makes you think it's going to "perform" for you? This show is kind of silly. It's usually boring, and there is lots of talk, lots of psychics, yet hardly anything happens. The main guy's filtered narration is usually either boring to listen to, or is basically not needed.<br /><br />Also, the reliance on psychics is too abundant, as I believe VERY few of them are actually gifted. Silvia Brown is one I definitely believe in, but most are sometimes hard to believe.<br /><br />I really wanted to like this show, but of the few I have seen I have yet to be terribly impressed.
Can anyone give me a reason why only one American dies in this movie, and when he does, it is supposed to be a very emotional scene, yet when the Operation Delta Force team kills hundreds of Russians, in slow-motion action scenes, or thousands of Arabs, also in slow-motion action scenes, you are supposed to cheer and say "Take that, you non-American monsters!". I know I used "slow-motion action scenes" a lot, but that is because every action scene in this movie is in, you guessed it, slow-motion. Every last one of them... And this squad should be called "Invincible Slow-Motion Bullet-Dodging Force", since they seem to have supernatural powers that help them to dodge bullets. And if this supernatural power fails, they have some kind of regeneration superpower, which is all they need to kill the complete non-American army that stands between them and victory. By this point, nobody cares since they have been put to sleep by another laughable slow-motion action scene... That is if they are not laughing out loud at the bad acting, cheesy dialogues and incredibly poor story. Which is what I did... The cast is made of unknown actors, which will probably remain unknown since they don't even play characters. They are just playing guys with guns(and, lets not forget, superpowers)... The only quality is that the special effects are surprisingly not that bad(although they are in slow-motion) for a TV movie... But it still sucks... and at the same time is so bad it's good... OK, maybe at the end it gets a little too repetitive...<br /><br />25%
Bad sequels.....this one's a real one! When the first movie was very very bad, you have to be fool to make a sequel.....Worse actors, worse scenario,worse special effects,worse movie!!! This is history! Bad history! I give it 0 and a half (for laughs) out of *****.
What can you say after watching this movie? That is, if you had the interest and concentration to see it to the end. I was left speechless, due to the amazingly dull story, annoying situations where one American equals that of a fifty or more Iraqis, and boring dialogue. I think that if this movie has something to teach, it probably goes like "Don't screw with US, or we'll come and kick your butts". Plus, this film truly encourages and votes for killing masses of foreigners, in the name of war. I got the image of tackling chess pieces out of the playing board. Except, now it's fast and there's not so much thinking. And on top of that.. no character there has any spirit; then, how can you care at all what happens to any of them. Excluding war movie fans with no taste, I wouldn't recommend this to anyone. There should always be something more interesting to do.
Normally i would applaud a movie that tries to do something different or original in a genre. It is obvious that this movie is some sort of parody on ninja movies. And i really did my best to enjoy the movie. But I just couldn't. The jokes aren't funny enough! (I've seen my share of Japanese movies. And most of the times I like and understand the humor used in those movies. "Red Shadow" is just silly!)The characters that are portrayed in this movie know that this isn't a serious movie and show that all is about the fun. Look at the characters from parodies like "Hot Shots" or "Scary Movie". Everything they do on the screen is done with a straight face and never fall out of character! And because of this, certain scenes become funny and hilarious. In "Red Shadow" the actors never achieve that. The shadow ninja's supposed to be very skilled and deadly. Sadly the actors don't do their best in convincing us of their talents. They don't do things with a straight face. The jokes would have worked better if they did! The bad choreography of the action scenes also damaged the viewing experience for me. I like humor in martial arts movies as long as the action is good. "Red Shadow" just fails in that department. So what is left to be enjoyed. Well,the music (techno) was uplifting. It had to be as the action it self never is exciting. And there are some short dramatic scenes that are good but simple. The use of humor,lack of story and depth make me think that this movie is meant for children. But I do wonder if children actually would like this movie. Waste of time!
This is the worst kind of film.<br /><br />The plot is ludicrous, the characters are unrealistic stereotypes who never look like they believe it themselves. Are white people such monsters that they will continue to call two white child rapists in their 20s "good boys" and need to be persuaded that this might be grounds for provocation? Are black people universally inspiring? Do the Ku Klux Klan really stand outside court rooms shooting at lawyers with nobody intervening? Do judges really think that a fair trial can be conducted when the jury can hear a mob outside shouting "Kill him"? Do black people really stand shoulder to shoulder with the Klan waiting to hear the verdict? Do wives really take several months to realise that their husband might be defending a man from unfair hanging because he knew might have done the same thing? Do juries really acquit people of murder because they feel sorry for them? Do lawyers really use a defense of sanity in order to persuade people that their client was temporarily insane? <br /><br />Worst of all, any high-minded principles of this film were lost to the completely exploitative and gratuitous use of sexual crime to titillate the audience. Was the subject of rape, let alone child gang rape, really in competent hands here? Is it really a subject that belongs in Hollywood hands? And if so, why the completely gratuitous kidnap and stripping of Sandra Bullock? And the completely pointless statutory rape charge against one of the witnesses? Seems like the director didn't feel THAT strongly about sex crime after all.<br /><br />This was taking the excellent plot of To Kill a Mockingbird and making a crass, shallow, tasteless money-spinner from it. Shame on them.
A Time To Kill is based on John Grisham's first novel, the one he wrote before he was famous, and the one that didn't skyrocket him to fame. (That would be accomplished by "The Firm"). That's why this movie didn't get made until much later, after Grisham was off churning out meaningless books with the movie dollar signs fresh in his head. Unlike most of those, this book was actually about something. It had meat, it had weight, and it had heart.<br /><br />But it also had a fatal flaw, and this fatal flaw gets translated into the movie. Namely, "A Time To Kill" sets you up.<br /><br />Here we have a black man (Jackson), on trial for the murder of two white men who brutally raped and tortured his 10-year-old daughter. We have an underdog lawyer (McConaughey) battling the big bad system to save his client. And oh, by the way, the whole thing is set against the backdrop of racism in Mississippi, complete with hooded KKK men burning crosses.<br /><br />In other words, we're supposed to sympathize with Carl Lee Hailey. We're supposed to believe that a father who loves his daughter is justified in killing the men who raped her. We're supposed to feel the injustice of a system where a racist all-white jury could judge a black man who was just trying to avenge a brutal crime. We're supposed feel like we're standing alongside the people chanting "Free Carl Lee".<br /><br />But the racism issue is a smokescreen, and the whole thing is contrived. Carl Lee Hailey was a vigilante. Yes, there were mitigating circumstances for what he did, but the fact remains that he wasn't innocent. This would have been true no matter what his skin colour, or the skin colour of the assailants of his daughter, the judge, the jury, or anyone else.<br /><br />And what's so heavy-handed about this film is that it paints anyone who believes Carl Lee should have been convicted is a racist. The message seems to be that if you believe that the law shouldn't be taken into people's own hands, then you might as well be burning crosses on a lawn somewhere wearing a hood.<br /><br />This isn't the first time a heavy dose of sentimentalism is inserted into a story like this, and it won't be the last. As a movie, A Time To Kill stays pretty faithful to the book, and the acting isn't half bad. But it played the hand it had been dealt, really. Even a good cast can't elevate bad source material.
There are other reviews here expressing similar views, but I still feel impelled to add my comments. The film is generally well-made from a technical point of view, apart from possibly being too long. The acting is mostly very good, although Kevin Spacey isn't given much space to explain his character's motivation (apparently ambition rather than racism), and Sandra Bullock's only function seems to be as eye candy, which she admittedly manages very well.<br /><br />At a fundamental level the film's heart is in the right place in being opposed to racism, and I get the impression that it tried to set out to be some kind of definitive treatment of racism, perhaps why so many famous names agreed to be in it. However, it seems the writers bit off far more than they could chew (I haven't read the book, so I don't know how much of that is down to Grisham). The biggest problem, as many others have said, is that it ends up advocating vigilante justice. Aside from the fact that I don't agree with that position, I don't think that such a view actually helps the anti-racist cause at all - it's more likely to be applied to acquit white defendants who kill black victims. At the end the prosecutor invites the jury (and the audience) to imagine that the raped girl was white - but follow that through and imagine the defendant to be a white man who murdered black rapists ... in the end the message seems to be that it's OK to kill someone as long as you hate them enough. It's also convenient that the man killed was presented as totally evil and his guilt was in no doubt, which removes any of the moral ambiguity likely in a real case.<br /><br />Samuel L Jackson gives an excellent performance, but unfortunately this also undermines the plot - he comes across as someone with considerable integrity, but it's hard to believe that he would be willing to hide behind an insanity plea (and indeed he doesn't, when push comes to shove). We're presumably supposed to think that it's because he faces the death penalty, but in fact at one point he's offered a plea of manslaughter, although if you blink you might miss it. Why not take it, given that he must know his chances of acquittal are slim? Or if he wants to make a stand in court, why plead insanity?<br /><br />There are less serious flaws too. The medical experts, on whose testimony the case supposedly rests, are jokes - both are discredited for highly implausible reasons, and neither of them offers any real psychiatric diagnosis. The message seems to be that expert witnesses will say whatever they're asked to say, and shouldn't be believed. The fact that the injured policeman supports Jackson is moderately plausible, but still a bit convenient (and what if he had died?) I find it hard to believe that the KKK would march down the street in broad daylight. Other apparently serious crimes (riot, arson, kidnapping, attempted murder) go by without any visible attempt to detect or prosecute them. And the scene where the dog comes bounding back is ludicrous.<br /><br />My final reaction is to be left feeling rather dirty - as though I must be a racist because I disagree with the resolution. It may be that the film intended to explore different viewpoints and leave the audience to decide, but if so they seem to have forgotten it by the time they got to the end. The film did make me think about my views, read what other people thought here and add my own opinion, so at some level maybe it succeeded - but I worry that it may have re-inforced highly illiberal views in some people, which I hope is the opposite of what it intended.<br /><br />Final thought - try watching Law and Order, it covers issues like this with much more depth in about 38 minutes of screen time!
First things first - though I believe Joel Schumacher is at best a mediocre director and more often (as here) downright bad, the lion's share of the blame for this ugly travesty of a film must go to John Grisham whose novel this is based on.<br /><br />Set at an undetermined point in time (the 50s? the 70s? now?), the film opens with the rape and murder of a child by rednecks so caricatured that their purpose seems to be to reassure racists that "at least we're not that bad"… Cut to the bad guys arriving at the courthouse when the girls father, Samuel L Jackson, fearful they will get off on some technicality, guns them down in cold blood before the trial. <br /><br />The setting is a 'deep south' that probably never existed - the few black characters live in shacks and seem to pick cotton, the dyed-in-the-wool racists (Kiefer Sutherland is a cartoon version of a Klansman) are laughable in their villainy. The set-piece is the trial: for the defence, are the "good guys" - a milquetoast lawyer played by Matthew McConaughey as though in a coma, his assistant played by Sandra Bullock's breasts (she doesn't seem to serve any other narrative purpose) and Donald Sutherland as the requisite drunk-lawyer-who-sobers-up-to-fight-the-good-fight. For the prosecution, Kevin Spacey goes through the motions of being demon spawn, while in the town at large, crosses are burned, witness are intimidated and the local citizens don't seem to care… <br /><br />Some of the reviews here claim the film immoral, since surely Samuel Jackson is a killer and should trust to the forces of the law rather than get off on a feeble heart-tugging piece of oratory by Matthew McConaughey. To be honest, objectionable though the underlying message "Vigilante justice is good" might be, everything about the movie stinks: the characterizations are pitiful, the acting leaden, the direction plodding, the screenplay and the dialogue almost verging on parody. Peter Menzies lush, 50s Technicolor cinematography is pretty but derivative. <br /><br />And it goes on for nearly two and a half hours!! <br /><br />What's left to say? This is a waste of 141 minutes of anyone's life, it is tedious, vacuous and hammy, and, almost as an afterthought, it is morally repugnant.
I have not read "A Time to Kill" by John Grisham, and perhaps that would have helped understand the film better. But perhaps not. I hear this is the most faithful Grisham adaption yet, and if that is true, I can see why so many publishers turned down the novel when Grisham introduced it as his first work.<br /><br />"A Time to Kill" is one of those films that is seriously confused and wants to do too many things at once. It wants to be a suspenseful crowd-pleasing thriller and, at the same time, a film dedicated to exploring certain social and moral questions. Let's face it, those two types of films do not go together in Hollywood, which is why "Dead Man Walking" had to be made independently.<br /><br />The story involves a young lawyer named Jake (Matthew McConaughy) out to defend a black man named Carl (Samuel L. Jackson) from murdering two hillbillies that brutally raped his young daughter. The day before the rapists' trial, Carl hid in a closet in the courthouse and when the rapists were brought through the building, he charged out and shot both of them dead. To help out with the defense, Jack accepts the help of a former law student (Sandra Bullock), who proves that her role in this film was totally unnecessary, and put in the film only for marketing purposes.<br /><br />Meanwhile, one of the rapist's kid brother (Kiefer Sutherland) was angered that a black man killed his brother and decided to act out a revenge. All of this leads to a shooting in front of the courthouse, a kidnapping, a brutal beating, and race riot. I'll admit that all of this held my attention greatly throughout the film, in addition to the courtroom scenes. What I later objected to was the film's handling of ethical questions and its use of formulas in the plot.<br /><br />The main question that the film constantly asks, over and over again, is whether a black man gets a fair trial from a white jury. Sure they can, but that doesn't mean that the man has to be acquitted in order for the trial to be fair. This film, however, doesn't seem to think so. Besides that, there several gaping holes in the plot used for conveniences. For example, there is an unknown character called Mickey Mouse, who is a member of the Klan, and, for reasons unknown, is helping the members of the defense team escape from serious dangers of the other members of the Klan. After Bullock is kidnapped by Sutherland and company, and left for dead in the wilderness, this unknown person comes and saves her---and we NEVER find out who he is and why he is helping out the people he should be terrorizing.<br /><br />And speaking of the Sutherland character's reign of terror, it's amazing how witless the police and the Bullock character are in stopping him throughout the film. There's a scene when Sutherland becomes a sniper from a building across the street from the courthouse and tries to shoot Jake as he comes out, shooting one of the guards instead. Now you'd think since there are dozens of police around, it would be easy to surround and capture the sniper. No such luck. From what we could see, no one seemed to even care that a sniper was still on the loose. Even after Bullock, was rescued by Mickey Mouse, she never, ever mentioned who her kidnapper was, nor was it even questioned. Why was this? Simple. The Sutherland character was needed throughout the film to add continual suspense, although logically, he should have been out of the picture.<br /><br />Besides Bullock's character, there another thankless character. He is Jake's assistant played by Oliver Platt. There seems to be one reason for his character to be in the movie--to supply a number of one-liners for the audience. In my opinion, one-liners show a major weakness in "serious" films when used. It demonstrates that the filmmakers are not confident that the story and dialogue alone are enough to keep the audience's attention, and so use them to make the audience laugh to reassure everyone that they are watching an entertaining film.<br /><br />But enough of the film's many minor problems. What about the film's message here? It is clear that Carl is indeed guilty of murder. We saw how he planned for hours to murder the men who raped his daughter. The lawyers argue that it was temporary insanity, etc that caused him to kill. In desperation, Jake asks the jury to close their eyes as he recounts the rape in detail as part of his closing arguement. After describing everything that took place, he adds on one final line..."The girl is white". We then see members of the jury with tears in their eyes.<br /><br />In the very next scene, a girl comes out yelling "He's free! He's free!". Wait a minute! Do juries base their verdicts on their emotions or on the facts? Most of all, why weren't there any scenes that showed the jury deliberating and what they were really thinking after their emotions worn off. I'll tell you why. They couldn't show the delibertion because NO JURY could acquit a man of such a crime, no matter how much the defense's closing arguements touched their hearts. What is the message? That someone is justified in killing if it is a form of revenge for a previous crime done to them?<br /><br />This film should have had the courage to say that murder is NOT OK in this situation, because in reality, there would not be an acquittal. But since dollars were at stake, the filmmakers were more concerned about sparing the audiences' feelings than they were about presenting a responsible message. If people start killing as a form of revenge, the makers of this film should be held responsible. What a socially irresponsible film this is!
This movie endorses self-justice! It grants freedom to a black man who killed the men who raped his daughter and in the end he gets of scat-free! Despicable enough as this may be, there is also adultery in this film. The Connaughey character has the hots for the Bullock character and the film has some of those stereotypes of trial films (like the important news brought to the court in the nick of time)that make every aesthetically demanding film-goer such as me sick! I really cannot believe that someone liked this junk. It is a film so bad and holding up false ideals that I am unable to put my critic in an eloquently pleasing way. When will the American people wake up and find out that they are being manipulated 24/7 by films like these that turn reality into some BS where there is justice for all if only they take it into their hands. This cowboy attitude just makes me sick and in my eyes it represents everything that is wrong with America!
Regardless of whether the predominant social message of this film - that vigilante justice is acceptable - is justifiable, I was more insulted by McConaughey's closing statement. In a courtroom drama, the closing statement of the defence attorney is pretty much the crux of the film, and when the issue is as difficult to resolve as this one, the statement is really being delivered to the audience as well as the jury. This basically implies that the audience consider the rape of a white girl to be a more horrific crime than the rape of a black girl. I for one find this very insulting. As for the rest, I found the acting reasonable, with the exception of Sandra Bullock, who seems to be playing her usual bubbly self (doesn't really work in a courtroom drama), but what's the point when the film's message is as poor as this one. It tells you that vigilante justice is fine, and accuses you of racism if you disagree.
So many great actors, so little worth watching. But with a script that misses so much of what made the book special, I don't hold it against anyone on screen. Though flawed, the book was one of Grisham's only that I truly liked, especially how it captured the flavor of a deep south small town, a slightly different world to a coastal urbanite such as myself. I also loved the matter-of-factness, naturalness of what occurs in the book. In the movie characters are given a "nobility" of personality that seemed so stilted. The villains and foils are flat and 1 dimensional. But as with so much of Joel Schumacher's work, genuineness and authenticity are conspicuously absent, and every point must be delivered via sledgehammer to the midsection. So preachy, stilted, and superficial about so horrendous a tragedy, I wish someone would do a remake and get the story a little more right.
Chip Foose is an absolute genius and the end result of the projects are truly amazing. The co-hosts do a good job. I particularly enjoy watching the "project" come together. The end results are much better than when they came off the assembly line what with the mechanical and cosmetic advances of today. However, I do get annoyed somewhat at the fact the "projects" seem to be the property of the already rich and/or famous. It's too bad the ones getting overhauled can afford the undertaking. Let's see now, Vince Neill of Motley Crew gets a car make over for his buddy. Hello! If he (Neill) were a true friend he would have paid to have his friend's car restored. What a joke! Another episode shows a middle aged seemingly well-to-do gal getting her '56 caddy named Betsy done. The husband of 30+ years was behind it all. The couple looked like money was not in short supply. What a shame. I guess the lunch pail guys like me will have to save for the day that will never come. I happen to own a '53 Ford project Chip. Will somebody pick me?
I have just wasted my Saturday night watching this crap! I saw the names of Chris Noth (Mr. Big, from "Sex & the City"), Robert Patrick (from "X-Files"), the decadent Elliot Gould, Colm Meaney and Mercedes Ruehl on the credit; a very reasonable IMDb Rating (5,6); and many good reviews in IMDb. For my total surprise, the film is horrible: the characters are badly constructed; the story tries to be funny, but it is totally silly; the character of Mercedes Ruehl is amazingly stupid for a professor of Princeton. So, I decided to investigate the credibility of the good reviews, and I found that most of them are made by IMDb Users with only review, therefore relatives or friends of the cast and crew, or people hired to promote this garbage. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Sem Retorno" ("Without Return")
Could someone please explain to me the reason for making this movie? Sad is about all I can say; this movie took absolutely no direction and wound up with me shaking my head. What an awful waste of two hours. Noth should be ashamed of himself for taking money for this piece of garbage.
This started out slow, then got worse. The best parts of this were all seen in the previews.<br /><br />Bad Apple has the feel of a pilot - if that's the case TNT should save their money.
As a writing teacher, there are two ending I never allow my students to use: "Then I woke up" and "Then I Got Run Over by a Truck." I am now going to add, "Then I got a bump on the head." I feel it's utterly unfair to use these tricks to cover up a lack of imagination. The whole issue of transmigration could have been handled with some intelligence and craft, yet, in this film, they either couldn't or wouldn't do that. I'm not saying it's totally worthless, but it is so predictable in its progress, except for the stupid ending. There are even gangsters who go to the police to get help from this guy. They should have done him in immediately. It's just a forgettable, borderline horror/sci fi film, with nothing new to offer.
"A young man, recently engaged to be married, is the victim of a traffic accident and dies as a result of his injuries. His father, desperate to revive his son, agrees to let a scientist friend try his experimental soul transmigration process to save him. After the young man returns to life, the father and fiancée notice a dark and violent change in the young man's behavior, leading them to believe something went horribly wrong in the revival process," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />At one point, Edward Norris (as Philip Bennett) is asked, "What do you think this is, Boys Town?" Mr. Norris should know, since he was in "Boys Town". "The Man with Two Lives " is more like "Black Friday" minus Karloff and Lugosi. You do the math. This film might have been a contender, with a re-worked script; it does feature an intriguing final act. After a tepid "shoot out", hang in for the drama to pick up with a well-played scene between star Norris and pursuing detective Addison Richards (as George Bradley).<br /><br />**** The Man with Two Lives (1942) Phil Rosen ~ Edward Norris, Eleanor Lawson, Addison Richards
"Black Friday" did this plot so much better, which is why it is remembered and "The Man With Two Lives" is just a forgotten potboiler. "Shed No Tears" was it's working title and it would have been a better one as he was a thoroughly evil character for most of the film.<br /><br />Philip Bennett is newly engaged when he is involved in a traffic accident. Dr. Clark (Edward Keene) has been involved in some experimental operations on animals - bringing them back from the dead. His colleagues urge him to try his operation on Phillip, who has died. As he is operating , a dangerous criminal, Wolf Panino, is going to the electric chair and trans migration of the soul occurs. When Phillip awakes from the operation, he has the soul of Panino. He is a changed person, he is rude to his family and starts to hang around Panino's old haunts. He takes over Wolf's old gang - going by the name of Philip Bennett, he also romance's Wolf's former girlfriend - who smells a rat. Bennett, as Wolf, is determined to even up scores and starts to eliminate his enemies.Bodies pile up, including the girlfriend and a policeman, then his own family begins to fall victim.<br /><br />But - I HATE those "bad dream" movies - you always feel let down. This film would have been better if he had stayed in character as Panino and had a final shoot out. Eleanor, his fiancée, would have ended up sadder but wiser with his brother. <br /><br />Edward Norris, the star, had a big career mostly in B movies.<br /><br />Not really recommended.
Well, it is a Monogram quickie from the dreaded period of the '40s when poverty row studios put out a good many "horror" films that are almost unimaginably dull... So I was expecting the worst. <br /><br />The story concerns a doctor who has been working on a way to restore life to the dead through the use of a room full of non-utilitarian electrical devices which spark nicely. There is a dog's heart hanging under a bell jar and twitching fitfully, which we are informed is proof that his method is perfected.<br /><br />A brief discussion of the metaphysical implications and mention of an important plot point precede the inevitable death of a young man who is revived in a rather undramatic sequence - undramatic even with the sparks. The important plot point is that a convicted murderer is being executed just at midnight, which turns out to be exactly when the young man is revived. It is no surprise that the young man is very different after his experience; apparently amnesiac and with a strange desire to visit the haunts of the underworld and become acquainted with certain gangsters...<br /><br />It's hard to explain why this all is not completely unwatchable, but perhaps it suffices to say that it's mildly interesting and contains several murders and a couple of interesting characters. Towards the end it even begins to move along with a bit of real tension and a confrontation that is downright Hitchcockian. SPOILER<br /><br />I have to warn of a very, very bad ending. A tagged on unnecessary, pain in the ass sorta ending. After the plot resolves rather effectively...<br /><br />You know the sort of thing... It's all a dream. Never happened.
I've been watching a lot of Asian horror movies lately, but this one has to be the worst so far. It started out interestingly enough, but lost momentum after the first 15 minutes of the movie. The added "drama" scenes, flashback sequences and serious plot holes left me hanging. What really happened in the tunnel? Just "something terrible"??? Who started all the killing if it wasn't the ghost? What did she want returned to her????? No answers whatsoever! Overall, not very scary at all and the movie makers need to come up with a lot better ideas than this...<br /><br />One positive was the cute actress, but that's about it.<br /><br />Not recommended.
Oh gosh,I'm really fed up with all these generic Japanese horror films about long-haired female ghosts and ghostly kids."Ghost Train" is no exception.It is clearly influenced by "Ringu","Ju-On","Shutter" and "Pulse".Two years ago I was into such modern ghost stories,because they usually managed to give me some goosebumps,unfortunately there is nothing fresh or interesting in "Ghost Train".In fact the film is really boring.Noriko goes missing in a subway tunnel-like an elementary-school classmate-Nana must investigate a mystery of multiple disappearances,with the help of a youthful train conductor and another "disappeared" child's mother.The film offers some mildly creepy moments,however the CGI effects are laughable and the climax is illogical.Skip it.
Oh noes one of these attack of the Japanese ghost girl movies... i don't even remember how many i've seen. maybe it sells... but not to me. not scary at all. the japanese horror movies are have been very similar since the first one of these... also the pulling of the kid. i have seen that pulled under scene so many times in so many horror movies. cellphone scene is also nothing new... the dramaticness of the guy getting hit by a train kinda sucked... i mean it lacked all dramaticness... OK this is for kids 14-16 who listen to japanese rock and think they are so unique... we'll let me tell you. there's a million of you =D this is one of them. 3/10 i've seen worse but you won't be missing anything by NOT seeing this!
Before "Miracle on 34th Street," Maureen O'Hara and John Payne made this, this, this film. I was going to describe it, but can't find words for how badly this film turned out. The subject matter of adopting a child and Maureen's illness are both very serious and sensitive issues, but that notwithstanding, this could have been done a whole lot better than it was. It was so extreme in its portrayal that it didn't come across as real at all. Probably its problem started with a weak script.<br /><br />Another example of a screenwriter taking a novel and writing a weak movie. (See my review of "A Stranger in My Arms.") The beautiful O'Hara was often saddled with clunkers like this, another being Forbidden Street (Britannica Mews,) which I may review eventually.<br /><br />If you have any emotional ties to this from childhood, you'll be kinder to this rather lifeless, colorless, and lackluster film. But for something along the lines of this, maybe you can find its TV-movie remake. It has to be better. It has to be.
Maureen O'Hara is always beautiful and appealing. Here she plays an actress terminally ill. We don't know with what.It is a bit of a precursor to "Love Story" in that respect.<br /><br />William Bendix is good, as is most of the supporting cast. John Payne is meant to be grieving but he seems to sleepwalking. The girl who plays the child he and O'Hara adopts does her best with a contrived plot device: Of course! Adopt an orphan. She will live on after the passing of your wife. It's a sweet movie but it doesn't feel sincere.I was hoping to be moved. I was, by O'Hara's gentle performance. But I don't like to feel manipulated.
Try not to see this one. I thought it was going to be good because I'm a fan of cheesy 80's films and I've enjoyed quite a bit of Linnea Quigley's work. I was wrong. I should have said "no" and watched Gigli instead, which is probably a far better film. I guess my biggest problem with this film was its attempt at humor. Nothing about it was funny or even close to funny. The acting is bad, even for the queen of cheesy 80's films. There is no story, just random clips. I guess I shouldn't hate it so much because it was just made as a fun and silly piece but I didn't have any fun and I wasn't entertained once. I even had to fast forward to the ending to get through all of the crap. I'm sorry, but I don't find zombies doing aerobics funny.
This 'documentary' sheds absolutely no light on what it would be like to be backstage during the Hard Knock Life tour. Granted, I wasn't there, but watching this film didn't make me feel like I was. And for a film like this, that's not exactly a compliment. The whole time I watched it, all I could think was, "What are they leaving out?" When it's all over, the only rapper you feel like you have some insight into is DMX, and that's mainly because he just talks about his dogs. A waste of time.<br /><br />3/10
This movie is bad as we all knew it would be. Most times i usually love the bad 80s / early 90s trash-can comedy (haha no pun intended). I list Ski School, Career opportunities, Hot Shots, Summer School and many more made around this time. This even has the classic yet forgotten comedy of Dean Cameron (aka.. ski School section 8 instructor and Party Maniac for Summer School). But this movie is just to slow. It takes almost 30 min to get going and we have to sit through pointless dialog between to half-wits the Sheen boys (E&C). And yes i can hear the bloggers dieing to trash me with "obviously you don't watch 2 and 1/2 men). Well Charlie was not at the level he is now during this flick...not that he's anything worth watching now. Charlie only shines when his co-stars support him and Emilio isn't anymore than an overused wonder bra offering little support. Actually, this movie was written by Emilio and it shows. It has no real ending (come on Emilio, even the Ski School 2 writers barfed out an ending). No idea how any issue brought is solved, no hot babes, no swearing to lighten the bad plot, characters, acting... I'm now tired of this tirade. Just save your time and watch the movies i listed above. You'll enjoy them much more.
This is one of those movies that I watch every time it's on not because I like it, but because it's so bad I can't take my eyes off it (like "Battlefield Earth" or "3000 Miles to Graceland"). The first time I watched I kept waiting and waiting and waiting to laugh and didn't get my chance until about 3/4 of the way through the movie when they strip the harassing cops to their undies and handcuff them in the park in a unflattering position. Beyond that, the jokes aren't funny, the characters aren't funny, their mishaps and missteps aren't funny...add it up, it's not a very funny movie! Not even at a slapstick level! And what's with the reggae soundtrack? It's a movie about two white garbagemen and the music is all reggae. Seems out of place, don't it? If you like a good trainwreck, this is for you. If you like a good comedy, look elsewhere.
I was duped into watching this by the many friendly reviews here. Boy, are they way off mark! To give this 9 to 10 points and call it "one of the best movies of the 1990ies" is just unjustifiable. The big problem here is lack of pace and a paper-thin plot. It's like slapstick on Prozac. Everything trundles along predictably and listlessly. The plot is weak to begin with -- two garbage men peep on their foxy neighbour, witness a murder and unravel a waste disposal conspiracy -- and the movie never manages to go much further. There are some amusing situations and decent acting, but that's not anywhere near enough to save this jalopy of a movie.<br /><br />It's simply a comedy that doesn't get its fat ass off the ground, so why waste your time?
Writer-director Emilio Estevez shows a definite lack of talent here with this un-redeemable, supposed comedy. The script is completely hopeless, let alone the fact that it is unoriginal and badly worked. The comedy just does not work. When Estevez isn't using poor taste sex jokes, he is borrowing used gags and re-doing them very poorly. You would think the teaming of Estevez and brother Charlie Sheen would be cool...but...it isn't.<br /><br />The entire cast is uninspired and unfunny, never managing to raise a laugh, and barely coaxing a smile from their audience. Do yourself a favour and leave this one on the video shelf.<br /><br />Thursday, June 25, 1992 - Video
I know i loved this movie when i was 12-14 years old. Now that i am 24 i watched it again, and i wished i hadn't. Because all the things i laughed at when i was younger, is no longer funny. so this is an hour and a half without fun. For me the jokes were lame, not funny or just too childish. So the same thing i loved about the movie when i was a kid, is now the things i don't like about it. Besides not being funny it is not actually believable at all. The evil character is very poorly done but i guess that is the kind of movie it is. And the last 20 minutes of the movie is pretty lame with bad fighting sequences and so on... But if you are young you will probably love it. I rate this movie 4/10
I thought I had seen this film before as the plot summary sounded familiar. However, when I watched it one afternoon (in need of some mindless-but-amusing entertainment), I didn't recognise anything - if I had seen it before, I must have blocked the horror of it from my memory.<br /><br />This film is dreadful, and it shows its age. In fact, it looks older than it is: more like a mid-80s moronic comedy. Whilst I am a fan of toilet humour and can see the funny side of many things, this is "comedy" at its most puerile and homophobic. The plot is as thin as a Supermodel, which wouldn't bother me if only the film were funny.<br /><br />There is only one amusing line in the whole film, spoken by the character Louis: "Looks like somebody threw away a perfectly good white boy!" In fact, Louis is the only likable character (and that's not saying much). James and Carl are the type of irritating, immature men that a sensible woman would run a mile from, their practical jokes about as humorous as the war in Iraq; the character of Susan Wilkins is colourless (looks like Julia Roberts, but lacks her charisma) and there is zero chemistry between her and Carl - though it may be unfair to blame the actress, as I don't know what she could have done with such a poorly written part; and the villain is neither funny nor scary nor memorable.<br /><br />There is good trash and bad trash. This is trash that definitely should not be recycled.
One of the dumbest movies in the history of cinema. Wait, I take that back-- this movie can't be included in any category related to "cinema"; it belongs in categories like "waste", turds, or similar categories. Ironically, it's even _about_ two garbagemen. The movie is "Men At Work", a lightweight crime comedy starring the Estevez (Sheen) brothers from 1990. Setting aside the asinine and implausible plot line, bad acting, bad dialogue, poorly executed stunts and slapstick, continuity errors, and high rate of no-name actors never to be seen again, all in all it was a pretty bad movie anyway (at its core, I mean). It was the kind of movie that might be good for one thing: you can watch it about 200 times, learn every line, and in a campy kind of way repeat them back and forth in public with your *wasted* friends, thus securing your status as the biggest dorks in your tenth grade class.<br /><br />To make matters worse, I actually submitted an IMDb trivia entry (along with this bad review) to the movie's IMDb web page, if only because I spotted a silly little punk music joke that apparently nobody else spotted yet(about the Butthole Surfer statue). I'm so conflicted about why I should even *waste* my time submitting what looks like a supportive trivia note, when what I really want to do is blow up Emilio's acting career (no, wait, he's already done that himself. Thanks, dude!) I'm so glad I *wasted* only time on this, not real money. For that matter, can I maybe have at least one tenth of their budget? Anyone other than this director (Emilio) could have made two or three much better movies with just what they spent blowing up cars, carefully placing bikini-clad bimbos in the background, and beating up useless extras (henchmen) in haz-mat suits. I'd mention Emilio's writing credit, but it would be a stretch to call this screenplay "writing" -- it's more like crayon-scrawled cartoon ideas. And Charlie Sheen, if you're reading this, I assume M.A.W. must have been made during the part of your career in which you were a coked-up, hooker-loving Hollywood brat who had not grown up yet. (Oops! Sorry, I guess that part of your life isn't over yet. Get well soon, you "half a man". Such a promising talent, so *wasted*… oh look, there's that word again.)
Unfortunately, Koontz seems doomed to die without seeing a decent adaptation of his work. Whispers follows the original book very closely, seemingly until the production company ran out of money. All of the sets in the first half of the movie were meticulously recreated from the book - something which has been lacking in many other Koontz films. Despite its other (numerous) downfalls, I continued to watch in anticipation of some really great scenery. Wrong. By the time the detectives show up at the crack head's apartment (in the book), the movie is out of funds, and one of the most suspenseful scenes from the book, is ruined. Where the book offered grisly discovery, a search and a chase through the guys apartment, the movie offers the backseat of the guys car.<br /><br />Let's face it - Koontz writes without a budget in mind, because imagination is free. If a Koontz novel ever gets made into a decent movie, no one will go and see it, because they have been let down so many, many, many times before. This is why Dean Koontz's Frankenstein is now just Frankenstien - if you had seen your work butchered that many times, you'd get out early if it looked like happening again!
I actually saw the movie before I read the book. When I saw the movie I was upset because I wondered why Dean Koontz had made such a bad book/movie. The movie was confusing and didn't have a flow at all, it was choppy and made me want to throw a rock at the TV. I couldn't connect with the characters at all, so i didn't care about what happened to them(normally I love the characters because I can relate to their personality or problems). Then I read the book and loved it. I often re-read the book, and the movie is collecting dust. I wish someone would make a Koontz movie that follows the plot of his books, then the movies wouldn't suck so much. DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE UNLESS YOU NEED TO WASTE MONEY!
Just ONCE, I would like to see Koontz's work given to a decent screenwriter, director, and producer! JUST ONCE!<br /><br />This is a good attempt by Jean LeClerc and Chris Sarandon, and an even better attempt by Victoria Tennant, but everything else is pure unadulterated garbage. The screenwriter should be shot for bastardizing Koontz's work this way and the director...please.<br /><br />The story is a well-written story, but the screenplay is quite dull, unbelievable and horribly executed. The only elements which work are the performances by LeClerc, Sarandon, and Tennant.<br /><br />On a personal note, I really wanted this to work. I adore Koontz's novels, but they have never given them the attention, backing, and talent they deserve. If they put the same money into Koontz's work that they shovel by the barrels-full into King's, Koontz would quickly rise above. But alas! Without powerful people who believe in his work, I fear he will never get the chance.<br /><br />As an adaptation to the novel, this movie was a total suck-fest. As a stand alone movie, it wasn't that bad, though extremely weak in many places with huge plot holes and terrible, stiff, unprofessional dialog which never should have made it to the final cut. This movie failed miserably to live up to its potential. Had they followed the original work by Koontz, a bit more closely, and invested a decent amount of production money, this could have been a far better endeavor.<br /><br />However, all I can manage to see in this, is how good it could have been, and wasn't.<br /><br />It rates a 4.3/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.
A terminally dull mystery-thriller, which may sound pretty sound theoretically but plays out very poorly. The ludicrous script is full of (MINOR SPOILER) people dying and then coming back to life when the plot requires them to, and the director doesn't seem able to work up any energy and suspense. The gooey sequence that kind of "explains" the film's title is the only halfway memorable one in this tiresome film. (*1/2)
The 1977 animated-live action hybrid version of Gulliver's Travels (or rather 'Travel,' since he only gets as far as Lilliput) didn't get much of a release, and it's not too difficult to see why. Michel Legrand comes up with some catchy tunes, but they merely inspire lyricist Don Black to the likes of "One simple fact remains/No-one here suffers from growing pains.' Richard Harris once again over-indulges in his passion for excessive makeup, toning down the eyeliner for far too much foundation this time in an effort to hide the fact he's at least 25 years too old for the role, but at least he (perhaps inappropriately) reduces his larger-than-life tendencies for a performance made up mainly of patronising whispering. The Belgian animation looks only slightly better than early morning French children's TV, but Peter Hunt's film is not nearly as bad as it sounds – the use of real model sets for the animated characters harks back to Max and Dave Fleischer's 1939 version while a couple of moments of Swiftian satire do remain - although it's definitely aimed at the youngest of children.
I had watched this on Italian TV as a kid and recall being fond of it – in view of its mixing live-action with animation; however, it was universally panned at the time…and, catching up with it again after all these years, I have to admit that the critics were right! <br /><br />What must have seemed wondrous to a child's eyes is actually very poorly done, not to mention boring for a fantasy-adventure; fatally, both star (ex-'Angry Young Man' Richard Harris) and director (action expert Hunt) are ill-suited to the material! At least, Michel Legrand's score (with lyrics provided by scriptwriter Don Black) is serviceable – if not exactly inspired. By the way, a number of well-known personalities are featured among the voice artists on this British-Belgian co-production (Julian Glover, Bessie Love, Murray Melvin, Robert Rietty, Vladek Sheybal, Graham Stark and, this being his last film work, Michael Bates).<br /><br />While the essential plot points of Jonathan Swift's classic novel ('giant' Gulliver becomes the pawn in a war between the little people of two neighboring countries and, on escaping, ends up in a land of real giants) do emerge here, it's done on a strictly kiddie level (with stereotyped characters though, thankfully, little intrusion of the comic/romantic variety) – which renders the whole venture somewhat pointless, outside of its intrinsically experimental nature, since Max and Dave Fleischer had already done a splendid feature-length cartoon version of the book way back in 1939!
Peter Hunt started out as a very gifted film editor and got his first stab at directing when he helmed the James Bond film "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" (considered by many Bond fans to be the best of the series). Other titles in his filmography include epic scale adventure movies like "Gold" and "Shout At The Devil", both adapted from Wilbur Smith novels. "Gulliver's Travels" is an odd one on his list of films; it seems strange that a director of Hunt's style and expertise would choose to direct a film of this kind. A half-live action/half-animated retelling of Jonathan Swift's classic satire, the film looked twenty years out of date even when it was made, and in all honesty it simply doesn't work. And there's not a damn thing that Hunt (with his usual eye for fast-paced action), or star Richard Harris (who can usually enliven the most stilted of roles) can do to rescue this one.<br /><br />Lemuel Gulliver (Richard Harris) is a brilliant medical student living in 17th Century Bristol. His father (Norman Shelley) wants him to go to London to make his fortune; but Gulliver prefers the idea of receiving rather less pay but a heck of a lot more adventure as a ship's surgeon aboard a ship called the 'Antelope'. During a voyage, the 'Antelope' is blown off course during a storm and hits a reef. The ship sinks and everyone is lost, apart from Gulliver…. who finds himself washed ashore in the kingdom of Lilliput. When he comes round, Gulliver finds that the strange land where he has washed ashore is populated by incredibly small humans, no taller than his toe. To them, he looks like a giant. They persuade Gulliver to help them in a war against another race of tiny people who live on an adjacent island. But Gulliver doesn't like being manipulated for purposes of war and devastation, so he makes plans to escape….<br /><br />Harris is left to carry the entire film here. His first couple of scenes involve other actors, but once he is shipwrecked in Lilliput he spends the rest of the film striding over knee-high sets and acting alongside his animated counterparts. The idea of mixing live action and animation was not new at the time, but it certainly hadn't been done a lot. A few Disney movies like Song Of The South, So Dear To My Heart and Pete's Dragon had tampered with the idea, but it was still pretty much in its infancy. "Gulliver's Travels" is not an especially well-animated film, but the scenes showing interaction between Harris and his cartoon co-stars are at least competently done. Occasionally the film tries to be true to its satirical origins (there's one scene where we learn that Lilliput has gone to war with its neighbour because of eggs !?! - and the point seems to be that wars can begin over the most ridiculous of things). But at its heart, this is very much a kids' film and the satirical overtones are barely dwelled upon. Everyone involved has done better things during their career – "Gulliver's Travels" might fill an otherwise empty afternoon, but apart from that it is a forgettable and underwhelming experience.
This was painful! Recently given away as a free DVD with a British newspaper, this British-Belgian co-production from 1977 (could've fooled me, it looks ten years older than that at least) is quite deservedly obscure and if you make it past the half-hour mark, consider yourself a trouper. The combining of animation and live action is ropey at best and downright dreadful at worst, which makes you wonder why it was decided to even attempt making the film in this manner when clearly the technology wasn't really there. Harris is no more than a human prop and the animation is some of the most flat and lifeless I've seen, with the obligatory 'trippy' moments (especially where the animation of the brainiac-type Subtracto character is involved) that rendered countless cartoon features from the late sixties onward instantly dated. The screenplay by Don Black provides a convincing argument for the usually resilient lyricist to stick to what he does best, and the pace is so slow that even the very young will be bored. As for adults, stick to Jonathan Swift's original novel.
Blindingly stupid guff from the formerly talented John Hughes, who'll soon be making a film with the sperm from 'Look Who's Talking' if his stars get any younger. He recycles the 'Home Alone' formula yet again to produce this idiotic comedy, in which a baby makes his way around Chicago while inept kidnappers Joe Mantegna, Joe Pantoliano and Brian Haley try to catch him, along the way enduring much tiresome slapstick. If Mantegna and Pantoliano can't find a laugh somewhere in your movie then you're in trouble, but the laziness of the movie is most glaring in the scenes where crowds of people fail to notice a baby crawling around on the pavement. Utter nonsense.
Get Shorty was an excellent film. It was funny and had the perfect balance of highly comical acting and a serious plot. Be Cool is like some cheap knock-off trying to pass for a sequel. John Travolta as Chili Palmer seems to have forgotten that he was ever in the mob. He plays it like he's a bored movie exec, rather than a bored movie exec who used to be a Shylock. Uma Thurman, great in nearly every role she's ever played, comes off as strained and confusing. Is she supposed to be ditzy or clever? The chemistry between her and Travolta is strained and uncomfortable. Other than that, just add every movie cliché you can think of. A well-educated rap producer by Cedric the Entertainer, an inept gangster wannabe in Andre 3000, the girl with heart, soul, and a good set of pipes in Christina Milian, a gimmicky black dude wannabe in Vince Vaughn, and a stupid celebrity cameo by Stephen Tyler. The only funny part was the Rock, who invents his own new cliché as a gay Samoan bodyguard actor wannabe. Probably the biggest crime is the plot: IT MAKES NO SENSE. Get Shorty was clever with Chili playing one group against another and coming out on top. But this film tries that with about a million different characters. And even Chili doesn't seem to know what's going on. Fans of Get Shorty be warned: this is a very different, very worse movie.
Back in 1995, Barry Sonnenfeld directed a movie that ended up on many critics best of lists by the time the year's recaps were being printed in entertainment publications. The movie was Get Shorty and it gave lead star John Travolta his second big hit in as many years after Pulp Fiction put him back in front of the paparazzi's lenses. Based on a novel by Elmore Leonard, the film focused on wise guy Chili Palmer (Travolta) and his attempts to break into the movie business. I, for one, was completely captured by the diverse characters and crisp dialogue of the original. So much so, that when I heard there was going to be a sequel, I seemed to forgo my usual shivering that occurs when a studio tries to rehash what was a good idea over ten years later. The sequel, also based on a novel by Leonard, is this time directed by F. Gary Gray who's Italian Job in 2003 was one of the years highest grossing films. Couple that with the cast now expanding to include Uma Thurman, Harvey Keitel, Cedric the Entertainer, The Rock, Vince Vaughn and James Woods and you have all the makings of a great continuance in the exploits of one of the more interesting characters of the 1990's. This time round we pick up as Chili (Travolta) is leaving the movie business after being disappointed in both himself and the industry for participating in the making of a sequel to his successful first film. Thanks in small part to his friend, Tommy Athens (Woods) and the misfortune of his death, Chili decides to look into the lucrative and dangerous music industry. This first leads to the famous Viper club where Chili meets singing sensation Linda Moon (Christina Milian) who as lead of an upstart trio, can belt out tunes like Whitney Houston (that is, the Whitney before Bobby Brown started bringing home the small packages of sugar). Linda is under contract with Raji (Vaughn) who, with his overly apparent gay bodyguard Elliot Wilhelm (The Rock), plan to ensure Linda fulfills the final five years of her contract even if that means putting Chili on ice. So with Linda's future in the balance, Chili weaves an interesting web which will include a record producer (Thurman), a gangsta sound mixer (Cedric), the Russian mob, the police, Aerosmith's lead singer Steven Tyler and a whole lot of angry gun pointing. Woo-Wheee! That sounds exciting. So why wasn't it? Be Cool tries too hard to, well, be cool. But the result is a film that unlike the original, has no heart and no soul. Be Cool feels instead like it was directed by a Saturday Night Live producer as there are individual scenes or skits that don't string together over a whole movie. Take for example the scene where Travolta and Thurman dance together for the first time since Pulp Fiction, as Black Eyed Peas performs live in the background. The scene is forced and should have ended up on the cutting room floor. Instead, it is coupled between two other needless chapters that do nothing to push the story forwards with any real thrust. The Aerosmith concert, and The Rock's trip to a boot shop are also prime examples of individual moments that don't amount to much of a movie when put together. But those aren't the only issues with the sequel - which could probably be renamed Product Placement with the amount of 2-Ways and Diet Pepsi's that seem to stare at you more intensely than Chili's serious look. The story contains just about every stereotype imaginable and each one has just enough screen time to become slightly offensive or embarrassing. Whether it is the gangsta entourage or the gay muscle guy that has a movie poster of Sylvester Stallone's Rhinestone on the wall, no characters is above offering us anything we haven't seen many times before and in much better films. With the magic all but gone from the first film, we end up with an inferior product that is the second film in the past six months (Ocean's 13 being the other) that cram a bunch of stars onto a marquee only to end up as a movie that no actor would bring to an open audition. Be Cool was a major disappointment. I so wanted it to be the Get Shorty of the new millennium and I ended up with a film where the outtakes must have been a gas, but experience left me with a stinker.
I laughed twice watching this movie and in case you were wondering, I wasn't having a bad day nor was I subjected to anything else that would've skewed my opinion while watching this cinematic bowel movement. This movie is bad. I wanted to enjoy it and I just couldn't. With all of this talent, you'd think this would've been at least watchable, right? Wrong.<br /><br />Let's play Sucked and Didn't Suck! John Travolta- Very likable. Though obviously buried under too much makeup, I found him to be enjoyable to watch. Didn't suck.<br /><br />Uma Thurman- After Kill Bill 1 and 2, the girl deserves more than this atrociously written character. This character's big moment was showing someone how to operate a T-Mobile Sidekick. Sucked.<br /><br />Vince Vaughn- The done to death role of white guy who thinks he's black goes to Vince "Money" Vaughn. Is this character template still considered to be funny? I love the guy but I want to see him in something better than this. It felt like he was slumming. Sucked.<br /><br />Cedric the Entertainer- This guy is good. He delivers a great monologue after being called a racial slur (you can probably guess as to what it is) that was probably the best part of the movie. He was funny and truly elevated the material he was given just with his presence. Didn't suck.<br /><br />Harvey Keitel- Sucked due to a phoned in performance.<br /><br />James Woods- Sucked but not his fault. Actually, yes it was. Reminded me of his role in Casino for some reason. I don't like manic James Woods, I like slow burn James Woods. Victim of bad writing, maybe? Andre 3000- Sucked but he went down swinging. I think he has potential, as long as he's not being directed by a hack on his next picture.<br /><br />Christina Milian- She's absolutely beautiful and obviously talented but this movie isn't going to make her a star. Didn't suck but needs a better vehicle for her talents that isn't directed by a hack.<br /><br />The Rock- This should have been the role that catapulted him to movie stardom but as directed by F. Gary Gray, winds up sadly mishandled. In this movie, the Rock projects this charisma that makes him so likable that I wound up feeling sorry for him. He tries really hard and while he doesn't succeed completely, he gets an A+ for effort from me. This guy is not afraid to embarrass himself and go completely against type, playing a gay bodyguard with his eyes on stardom. I really want to see him make it big. He has what it takes as long as he's not being directed by a hack.<br /><br />Which brings me to what I feel was the weak link in this production. I might as well just come out and say it, right? F. Gary Gray's direction was about as solid as really bad diarrhea. Wow, it was bad. Who had the bright idea of letting this guy direct? The Negotiator was good but what else on his resume convinced people that he was the man for the job? Between his direction and the atrocious writing, I'm willing to chip in for both culprits to get a nice lead salad to the knees. Wanna see John and Uma dance? I might be able to think of another movie with those two that I could recommend watching instead of this. Not worth the ten dollars and fifty cents it cost me to get into the theater.<br /><br />This movie could've been okay and it wasn't even "just okay".<br /><br />RATING: * out of *****.<br /><br />P.S. Fergie from Black Eyed Peas is noteworthy to mention. Sizzling!
John Travolta reprises his role as Chili Palmer, Hollywood gangster, who now turns his eye to the music business. Using his "negotiation skills," he tries to run an independent record label with the wife of a murdered friend, played by Uma Thurman, and try to get his young singer (Christina Milian) a hit record.<br /><br />Before I saw this sequel, I had heard that it was a terrible film. However, Be Cool is still an enjoyable comedy even if it's not as good as the original. The movie focuses on the music industry this time around instead of the movie industry. The music business is portrayed very poorly in the movie and they use a bunch of lame stereotypes. I can't tell if this was the intention or not since Get Shorty did a nice job of spoofing the movie industry. The same can't be said for the sequel and the attempts just come as lazy.<br /><br />An impressive cast is what saves the movie from sinking. The best performance is given by The Rock and it's nice to see him in a different type of role. Vince Vaughn also gives a funny performance though he started to get annoying before the end. Surprisingly, Uma Thurman gives an average performance and I was expecting more from her. John Travolta returns as Chili and he does an okay job. His performance is kind of dull though. Christina Milian gives a horrible performance and she's also not that good of a singer. Cedric the Entertainer gives a good performance though he isn't in the film for very long. There are also a bunch of cameos including Steven Tyler and James Wood.<br /><br />F. Gary Gray directs and he does a poor job. He just doesn't handle the film very well and the movie is kind of a mess. There was also a ton of product placement and it got annoying after awhile. Also at 118 minutes, the film is too long and there are a lot of slow spots. The film needed to be edited badly and it clearly wasn't. Fortunately for the film, the actors are able to rise above the weak direction and script and they deliver some funny scenes. Sometimes, the film tried too hard while other times it was actually pretty funny. Compared to the original, the sequel doesn't measure up well. However, Be Cool is a fairly harmless and forgettable comedy. In the end, Be Cool is worth a rental and that's it. Rating 6/10
I'm a fan of Get Shorty. This is the sequel for the movie that needed no sequel.<br /><br />Chili is back but Rene Russo is gone without a peep. Unfortunately Chili's game was played out in the first movie and rather than find an interesting personal arc for him, they just have him stand around repeating lines from the first movie. It's pretty tepid. Travolta looks old here. It's like they move people around him because his bones are getting creaky. His pink lip gloss and the blue eye contacts are very weird. The 2nd bad role is Edie (played by Uma Thurman). She's a music producer, a role that requires her only to be the female Reuben Kincaid. ("Hey these kids have a great new sound.") In any scene she strikes the wrong pitch motivationally or emotionally or both. It's painful to watch. Despite it's plentiful problems, Be Cool gets better after a very unpromising start.<br /><br />I certainly got my laughs out of it (Vince Vaughan running around on fire, Cedric the Entertainer, Ludicrous, the Rock, a t-shirt that says "widow" on it), but it offers no great memories after it's over. It's a helium-light love fest from the first frame. There's no one as pricelessly idiotic as Gene Hackman in the first movie. It's just about doing good in the world, for a couple of kids who deserve a chance (Beyonce & the Rock). Ho-hum. The first one wasn't preachy.<br /><br />Working in (repeatedly) gags & lines from the first movie is annoying as is the dumb concession to the Rock's wrestling fans (he raises his eyebrow twice) as are the droll inside jokes: Steven Tyler saying "I'm not the kind of singer that make appearances in movies" ar ar.<br /><br />The all-star spectacular line-up is part of the problem. The first movie wasn't burdened by "stars."<br /><br />For a buck rental let's call it even.
The first 10 minutes of the movie makes fun of sequels and pg-13 movies. These are the 2 reasons the movie is so bad. They constantly reference a movie called "Get Leo" which is the movie-in-a-movie version of get shorty. Every time they do this, you will be really angry. Travolta isn't very cool, neither is Keitel. However, The Rock and Vince Vaughn are hilarious. They aren't the kind of funny you would expect to see in an Elmore Leonard movie though. If you haven't seen get shorty, you will probably like be cool. If you liked get shorty, you will leave the theater wanting to kill the director and screenwriter. Wait for the DVD.
That movie while slightly flawed was entirely entertaining. About half an hour into Be Cool, I started to have Hollywood Homicide flashbacks. But guess what? This is worse. Even the dance number is bad. I like most of the cast in this movie, so that makes me feel bad about writing a negative review of it but I feel obligated. The Rock, Andre 3000, and Vince Vaughn were in a comedy. No one else seemed to decide what movie genre they were acting in. I feel bad for Travolta because he brought the same Chili Palmer from Get Shorty to this movie. He was totally consistent in the role, but this movie is so different from the original that the character sticks out like a sore thumb. I was going to give this movie 4/10 because I like the actors so much but there is a conversation in the movie about a certain song that is so asinine I couldn't believe the performers actually said it. If you want to go to the movies this weekend there should still be some Oscar contenders out there. That would be a much better way to spend your time.
I rarely give ratings less than 5, but in this instance I must weigh in. Elmore Leonard is a great writer with many wonderful, complex books, original characters, crisp dialogue, invigorating plot twists. Films based on his books go way back to Hombre (Paul Newman), Mr. Majestyk (Bronson), and Out of Sight (Clooney / Lopez) among others. Even when done so-so the films at least have some measure of story essence coming through. This one, .... it is simply not a worthy addition to the catalog.<br /><br />The acting is bad (I do not know why, because these are very capable people here) and the story is handled with stupidity. The characters are re-arranged, the chemistry is missing, the actors and actresses are mis-cast.<br /><br />Since Elmore Leonard is a really great story teller, I would hope that anyone who does not know his work would be dissuaded from reading his books because they saw this disappointing rendition of one of his stories.<br /><br />The story is a sequel to Get Shorty. If you have not seen that film, do not watch this. If you have seen Get Shorty, do not proceed to this.<br /><br />I saw Be Cool a few years back, and tonight have been re-visiting the vid. The first time must not have made such a negative impression because I had forgotten how dismal this sequel was.<br /><br />Fortunately, I think no less of those who appeared in this film for having done so. They probably expected something more. Get Shorty was original and great fun. Travolta I nearly always like, but he is so much better in Tarantino's Pulp Fiction and in the preceding Get Shorty. He was clearly unable to enjoy whatever was going on here.<br /><br />And I hear Freaky Deaky,another Elmore Leonard book, is in pre-production for 2008 release. Hopefully they can pull it off.<br /><br />Read the books. They are almost all great.
If pulp fiction and Get shorty didn't exist this might be an OK film.When i say this i mean that nothing from this film is it's own unless it's another bit of terrible dialogue or a cliché full scene.All the lines like 'i won't say more than i have to if that' from Get shorty seem to appear in this rubbish sequel, all the cameos like Steven Tyler's are acted terribly and are not needed and as for Christina Milian, man, don't get me started.Sadly some of the coolest actors and actresses like John Travolta and Uma Thurman seem like they are trying to be down with the kids and hip and have nearly ruined there reputation because of this film and frankly i think the best acting is from The rock who plays alongside one of my least favourite actors, Vince Vaughn.The man tries to be funny throughout with him taking the mickey of how apparently rappers talk.Cedric the entertainer and Andre 3000 play another terrible double act {i personally think the background actors were better than Cedric and Andre} and the only funny part of the acting of Cedric,Andre and the rest of there gang do is the way there trousers are down to there knees so you can clearly see there boxers and the only reason i find this funny is because lots of people actually do that.So in conclusion this film tries to be funny and fails miserably, it doesn't have any new material, comedy or coolness throughout as it copies every other film and finally the only reason you should see it is if you want to compare how bad it is to it's brilliant predecessor Get shorty.Oh yes i forgot to mention there is a BIG cliché at the end.
Sometimes when I hear an A-list cast will be bunched up together for 2 hours in a movie I hope, and pray that it is good, not for the sake of my 10 bucks or 2 hours, but for the sake of these actors' careers. In the case of "Be Cool", everything went to waste.<br /><br />In the beginning of the film John Travolta (aka Chili Palmer) and a music executive played by James Woods are driving in a car talking about movie sequels, and how most aren't good. If you look passed the fact that this scene was shot the same way Quentin Tarrantino filmed his car scene in "Pulp Fiction", and listen to the dialogue you can't help but ponder whether this is 1) a disclaimer to the audience that this movie is going to suck, or 2) an attempt to get the audience laughing at the sheer humor of 2 people talking about sequels in a sequel. Oh the irony! (In case you were wondering, choice 1 is correct.) The cool and slick Chili Palmer from the first and good film "Get Shorty" is revived to play a mobster gone music business pro. He steals a young hot singer (Christina Milian) from her ghetto pimped out Jewish manager (Vince Vaughn), and turns her into a singing sensation. Of course a movie about an ex-mobster can never be complete without new mobsters causing havoc. This time around the mobsters of choice are Russian, played by American actors who cannot act Russian if my entire family hit them upside the head with their Russian bare hands.<br /><br />As a Russian I wasn't so much offended by the way this film portrayed Russians, but instead as a writer I was more offended by the horrible dialogue. This film tried too hard to get the audience to laugh. It turned potentially good lines into a redundancy. The Russian, black, and gay jokes were the same ones only reworded a couple of hundred times. After calling The Rock's character a f***** (he plays a gay bodyguard to Vince Vaughn), and Cedric the Entertainerer's character a n***** (he played a black rapper with an entourage who threaten those who don't play his tracks with guns) I wanted to walk out of the movie theater, because it was painful to sit through. If this was "Get Shorty" none of this would've even needed to be in the film to build up drama, or a really bad laugh.<br /><br />What lacked in this film that didn't in "Get Shorty" was Chili's hot spicey attitude. He's a completely different person in this sequel. For one thing the old Chili would've had more dialogue. John Travolta doesn't have more than 20 speaking lines in "Be Cool", because he is out staged by the repetitive lines, and the hundred and two cameo appearances by the most random celebrities. I won't ruin the shock by revealing all of the cameos for those who actually plan to see this movie (PLEASE DON'T!!!), but I will say that it will forever amaze me that these people agreed to be in a film of such inanity.<br /><br />What was even more stupid was the very lame dance sequence with Travolta and Uma Thurman (she plays the widower of James Woods who LUCKILY gets killed in the first 10 minutes of the movie). Tarrantino never made Pulp Fiction for an idiot like the director of "Be Cool" to mess around with. This dance number was boring, long, and just plain throbbing. The Black Eyed Peas playing in the club with a total of 10 people didn't make the scene any memorable.<br /><br />There were so many plot holes that I left the theater asking myself WHY?! Everything about this film was a big question mark. I just didn't understand the point to anything. I couldn't even explain to you why the Russians were after everyone, or why this film was ever made, because I'm baffled. All I took out of this movie was that everyone in L.A. has a sidekick, and the only way this movie was probably funded was through all of the advertisements by Diet Coke, Yahoo!, Honda Insight Hybrid, T-Mobile, Trimspa (even the spokeswoman herself is in the movie) and the Bad Screenwriters Guild. Plot holes, stupid dialogue, too many random cameos, horrible acting (even by the pros), and a not-so-entertaining attempt to mimic "Pulp Fiction" makes this film the worst movie of 2005, and it's only the third month of the year.
I saw a 12:45 a.m. show last night, and I would've walked out 20 min. in, but there was nowhere to go! Blatant product placement, juvenile script, so much talent gone to waste, gay-bashing...what didn't they do? The movie is also insanely long (we got out at 3). As a person who rarely pays full price at the movies, imagine my chagrin doling out $22 for this self-indulgent, mean-spirited nightmare (plus $2 parking). I woke up today still feeling depressed, and haven't been able to shake it all day. I love Vince Vaughn, and he seemed straight up lost in this thing, as was I. When Cedric the Entertainer is the high-water mark (a man so un-entertaining that he has to call himself "the Entertainer" so you'll understand what it is he thinks he's doing), you have a serious problem. Also, the appearance of Robert Pastorelli is down-right creepy, since he died almost a year ago (March 10). This should give you an idea how long they've been polishing this turd. This movie is mean to the bitter end. We stayed just to make sure they didn't give Robert an "In Remembrance", which they didn't. Save yourself! Save your money! Save your soul!
Chili Palmer is tired of doing movies and know wants to do some success in music. Being half mafioso half expert negotiator, he wants to rise in the music market. However, know everyone is like him and making the good singer Linda Moon to record a hit will be harder as expected. The first part is funny and filled with irony, this one falls into the easy jokes and has many less good moments. Only the two women (Uma and Milian) are decent in their part. Most of the film is done with histrionic character, excessively exaggerated (a little is OK, too much is disgusting) and the only one that one could save is the gay bodyguard, who, at least is coherent, the rest, are too much idiot. The most surprising thing is the fact that the movie is not boring, everything happens so quick and there are so many things happening that you do not have time to get bored, if you want to follow the movie. It may insult your intelligence (a lot!), and the movie is bad(yeah!), but, well, it's not boring.
OK I was bought this a few Xmas' ago by my brother in law, who took me to see "Get Shorty" in the cinema, which the both of use were "uber" impressed with. And watched both get shorty and be cool one after another. I have read reviews of people that had not seen get shorty and thought this film was quite good.... I just think its another way for film companies to cheat the paying customer. All I have to say about this film is WTF? After nearly 10 years and Chili Palmer had become a pussy.... The script was basically the same, they teamed up Travolta and Thurman after their success of Plup Fiction, threw in a couple of big stars(plus a shed load of nobodies) and thought that it was going to be good..... Vince Vaughn's character was just annoying, despite me being a fan of both him and the Rock both of the actors were way under utilised and unrealistic. Basically I am glad that this was bought for me as a present as if I had paid money for it I would have been super annoyed.
This movie was an embarrassment. Ulma Thurman looked like she had some kind of disease and John Travolta looked like he was walking in his sleep. I was expecting this to be a so-so sequel to Get Shorty not a half-baked remake of the exact same movie (except that some of the character's have different names and clothes)<br /><br />I would not recommend this to movie to my worst enemy. I feel like I was ripped off and Hollywood has once again tricked me into seeing another horrible sequel ( I also suffered through Alien Vs. Predator).<br /><br />The best thing that I can say about this movie is that it has my vote for the worst movie of 2005!
Although I think the reviewers who hated this movie have encapsulated exactly what it does wrong (everything!), I had to add my two cents. If you'd like a long version of how terrible this movie is, please read the review by coinlightning.<br /><br />Here's the short version: shameless use of the actors' NAMES to propel the plot as opposed to using their talent (no one brought their "A game" to this), blatant commercialism (I guess Pepsi can afford to stick an advertisement - or 40 - into a movie now), and a plot (???) that was so convoluted with "rock star" clichés that it was totally ridiculous.<br /><br />Let me put it to you this way . . . I was thinking of 'Wayne's World' the whole time I was watching this movie, but I wasn't laughing! Anytime you try to throw in Steven Tyler (Aerosmith) to help your movie plot along you've got SERIOUS problems.<br /><br />PLEASE, warn your friends and family - this movie sucks.
I really liked Get Shorty, but this movie was completely disappointing as a sequel. First of all, Travolta does not in any way resemble the Chili Palmer from Get Shorty. He merely half-assed this performance as he has done in all of his more recent movies. He totally isn't smooth or have the mobster presence about him that makes you kinda root for him throughout the movie. It just seems like Travolta rolled out of bed and decided he was good to go for acting in this movie. The plot just wasn't exciting or clever, there really aren't any highlights that happen, the only thing that resembled entertainment was watching Christina Millian perform and The Rock was funny. But anyways, long story short, this movie was trash and I had to force myself just to get through it.
Uma and Travolta were very good together, but - unfortunately - when they left the screen, the movie was nothing but a bunch of very boring and wordy secondary characters wrapped in some extremely bad writing. Occasional glimpses of greatness like the dance scene between Uma and Travolta quickly eroded when the likes of Harvey Keitel and similar uninteresting thugs came on. And the white dude who tried to act black got VERY, VERY tiresome after way too much exposure in the picture. He weighed down a fairly good performance by the Rock, the only secondary character who you couldn't wait to see leave the screen. Bad, dumb plot. The writers clearly couldn't figure out if they writing to Generation X or the 12-15 year old rap crowd, and the combination turned into a film that kept me staring at my watch!
"Get Shorty", "Out of Sight", "Jackie Brown" (and even "52 Pick-Up")--folks were finally getting Elmore Leonard right, making good movies out of his work. So, despite my students' warnings about how bad this movie would be, I couldn't resist renting it. I thought, How bad can it be? Oy, what a mistake, especially right on the heels of reading the book, which was lame (and too circularly self-referential, too) relative to the rest of Elmore Leonard's books. Still, the book was better than the movie. Leonard again trumps the weak and unskilled screen-writers who try to take over his book. The dialogue written for Steven Tyler was painful to watch. And the lyrics to the character Linda Moon's first song? My middle-schoolers write with more depth. Sad, sad, sad. Why even give it a star? Because Harvey Keitel and Uma Thurman are still fun to see on screen, and Andre 3000 didn't make a complete fool of himself.
Travolta and Thurman deserved a better movie. This one is very secondary in all aspects, not a single fresh idea. But the biggest problem is this film's ridiculous philosophy. A gang of black rappers after all their criminal activities and even killing people are becoming almost positive Mickey Mouse-like heroes performing on stage and giving away awards at the ceremony. Perhaps this matches the real life. But showing it as a quite normal "happy-ending" is beyond my imagination.. "What's wrong with shooting a couple of bad Ukrainians if they are not politically correct?" - the show must go on! That makes me think that Hollywood writers have a big problem with separating good and evil, even if the genre supposed to be a "black comedy"..
Despite John Travolta's statements in interviews that this was his favorite role of his career, "Be Cool" proves to be a disappointing sequel to 1995's witty and clever "Get Shorty."<br /><br />Travolta delivers a pleasant enough performance in this mildly entertaining film, but ultimately the movie falls flat due to an underdeveloped plot, unlikeable characters, and a surprising lack of chemistry between leads Travolta and Uma Thurman. Although there are some laughs, this unfunny dialog example (which appeared frequently in the trailers) kind of says it all: Thurman: Do you dance? Travolta: Hey, I'm from Brooklyn.<br /><br />The film suggests that everyone in the entertainment business is a gangster or aspires to be one, likening it to organized crime. In "Get Shorty," the premise of a gangster "going legitimate" by getting into movies was a clever fish-out-of water idea, but in "Be Cool," it seems the biz has entirely gone crooked since then.<br /><br />The film is interestingly casted and the absolute highlight is a "monolgue" delivered by The Rock, whose character is an aspiring actor as well as a goon, where he reenacts a scene between Gabrielle Union and Kirsten Dunst from "Bring It On." Vince Vaughan's character thinks he's black and he's often seen dressed as a pimp-- this was quite funny in the first scene that introduces him and gets tired and embarrassing almost immediately afterward.<br /><br />Overall, "Be Cool" may be worth a rental for John Travolta die-hards (of which I am one), but you may want to keep your finger close to the fast forward button to get through it without feeling that you wasted too much time. Fans of "Get Shorty" may actually wish to avoid this, as the sequel is devoid of most things that made that one a winner. I rate this movie an admittedly harsh 4/10.
I really wanted to like this movie. The previews looked marginally funny but I figured they put most of the funny stuff in the previews. In this case, they not only did that but they twisted the clips so that they appeared much funnier than they were in the real film. I like John Travolta, Uma Thurman, Vince Vaughn, The Rock, Cedric the Entertainer, etc. so I wanted to like this movie but it just never seemed to do anything.<br /><br />I saw Get Shorty and did not particularly care for it. Too slow and unfunny for me. This movie is certainly no better and, if anything, is worse. There were a lot of opportunities for some good comedic moments but it took none of them.<br /><br />The acting was okay but even John Travolta seemed toned down. Cedric was okay but he was too reigned in to be really funny. Vince Vaughn and the Rock were pretty good and ready to be funny but they just let it all pass them by. I wish they had been given a chance to follow through with the funny things they set up but instead it just kept going back to the same old thing and back to just setting Vaughn and Rock up to be funny (though never allowed to really deliver that punchline or comedy).<br /><br />Overall, this was a very disappointing movie and I am glad I only saw it on video. At least it was cheaper than the theater.
This movie is such a waste of talented people and Hollywood budget. It made me think everyone in the movie was paying off a favor by being in it because they were all out of place and wasted talent in this horrible trash pile of a film. It's a contrived plot that is just pathetic, unrealistic and not even close to fun or interesting. The only thing that kept my interest was the numerous big names in the movie that kept popping up for no apparent reason and who had no acting or good lines to contribute to the mess of a film. I kept expecting it to have some good stuff since all of these people had been cool in other films. But it never came through. This film should be shown in prison as punishment, but that would be cruel and unusual. You will be shocked to see so many recognizable faces parading around such a horrible pathetic script with flat lines and horrifically bad acting. This movie reminded me of another complete waste of time with lots of recognizable faces BIG TROUBLE (2002), which also went off the readable scale on the suck-o-meter.
I went to the cinema slightly apprehensive, I came out seething with anger at the garbage (passing for a film)I had witnessed. The actors, particularly Travolta, should be ashamed of themselves for their participation in this. Clearly the only thing in their minds was the pay cheque, never mind the debasement of their talents and us . Travolta needs to go back to doing some more "Look who's Talking" movies as he has sunk back to the level of his pre-Tarantino work. It comes to something when the L W Talking sequels are better than this one. Travolta is no longer the King of Cool but the King of Corn. Michael Caine himself admitted to doing bad movies for the pay cheque, Trvolta should follow suit if he has any self respect !
Travolta, Thurman, The Rock, Vaughn, Keitel and so on. One should think that this star parade of great actors could really heat up this movie, but no. Travolta takes on the role as Chili Palmer again, but this time we have already seen the gangster who tries hes luck in the hard world of movie making, its not funny anymore. This is a typically problem in Hollywood, they think that if the first was good, the second will be twice as good, NO, the first was original, the second cant be, Hey Hollywood try to understand originality cant be duplicated, you got to give us a new twist, not just the same movie again made with a bigger budget. I constantly found my selves Hardly laughing when I was watching this movie, but still it got a lot of cool actors like Harvey Keitel, James Woods, Vince Vaughn and The Rock and for that and that only! <br /><br />4/10
I enjoyed the beautiful scenery in this movie the first time I saw it when I was 9 . Dunderklumpen is kind of cute for kiddies in a corny way. It reminded me of HRPUFFINSTUFF on sat mornings, Its Swedish backdrops make it easy on the eyes . Don't expect older kids to be interested as the live action/animation is way behind the times and most older kids will get bored.This is definitely an under 10 age set movie and a nice bit of memories for those of us who were little kids in 1974.
If there was justice in the cinematic universe, director Lewis Schoenbrun would never be allowed to set foot on a movie set again. It would seem inconceivable that anyone who spent two full decades in an editing room, where LS started his movie career, could be so utterly devoid of any sense of pacing or dramatic staging, but this film is damning evidence.<br /><br />As bad as it is, it is fascinatingly so. From the opening scene, where a nurse is clad in a costume appropriate only for a porno film or a skit on a Mexican variety show, the viewer is compelled to see just how low it can go. The answer isn't far away, as in the next scene we move to a funeral parlor, where the next stunning fashion statement comes in a sexy off-the-shoulders black dress worn by one of the mourners.<br /><br />Aggressively inappropriate costuming isn't the film's only flaw. The dialog is a treat for connoisseurs of bad writing. "You turn my tears into wine," is a sample gem. The actor deserves an Oscar for delivering that one with a straight face.<br /><br />The director reinforces every cheeseball scene with what is possibly the schmaltziest soundtrack score ever recorded, which veers from embarrassingly maudlin in the dialog scenes to cheesy groovebox wannabe rocknroll in transitional scenes.<br /><br />The script introduces characters with no rhyme or reason and story beats are doled out as if with a broken ladle.<br /><br />Let's not forget this is a "horror" film, though. Our characters find themselves in a forest wherein lurks Dr. Chopper and his two "scary" henchwomen, who are supposed to be some kind of Frankencreatures but look exactly like Valley Girls with fake blood dabbed beneath their Supercut shags. I've honestly seen scarier make-up on eight-year-olds out trick-or-treating on Halloween.<br /><br />And again we get a whiff of the costume designer's malodorous handiwork, as Valley Ghoul One prances around in a pseudo-Victorian polyblend smock while her buddy wears a nondescript ensemble that might have been almost fashionable in less hip corners of the 1980s.<br /><br />Dr. Chopper makes the big fashion statement though, looking like a Crisco cowboy who got lost in the woods on his big black Harley, clad from head to toe in zippered black S&M leather.<br /><br />If this sounds intriguing, by all means check it out. There is plenty of side-splitting and belabored dialog (like the precious "elephant's graveyard" scene or the "intellectual" discourse on Ginsburg).<br /><br />To be fair, the cinematography is good, considering what was put before the camera, and the actors strive (with wildly extreme results) to make something from a scrap heap of clichés and inanities. You do have to wonder if they were really really stupid or just blindly desperate, not to walk off the set after catching one glimpse of the ridiculous-looking villains with their 99 Cent Store weapons.
20 years ago Dr Chopper(yes, he is driving a chopper as well as chopping people up) disappeared when the police found dead bodies at his clinic. Since then people have been disappearing around Lake Tanoka(or something) and dead bodies/parts of bodies has been found all over the place. Turns out Dr Chopper needs body parts to stay alive and has been taking them from strangers, like pair of lesbians and 5 sorority girls on their initiation(you get the picture) traveling through Lake Tanoka. When a bunch of teenagers decide to go camping they are bound to clash with the doctor.....<br /><br />Well, if you wanna waste some time this is the right choice. Acting varies from really bad to mediocre with the girls tripping and falling all the time for no apparent reason. Every chance of showing skin is taken but without actually showing anything at all. The same goes for the special effects who are pretty pathetic with every slash filmed in an angle so you cant see it but there are a lot of body parts in the movie all drenched in blood(probably to cover up how sad they really look ). The plot is pretty faulty and dialog rather sad. Only time I laughed was when Dr Chopper said: "Howdy!" when trying to be scary. Don't watch this one if your not a hack'n'slash freak. Even then I would recommend you to watch something better.
I started watching this because i thought it was a really shitty porno. As i kept watching the only thrill i got from this movie was finding out what the name of it was so i could look it up and rip on it. I just finished it and have considered ending my life knowing that someone actually made this movie.<br /><br />For the people who commented on this movie as having a good script and great acting, my words of wisdom for you are that you probably have no friends because you were in the movie. You are probably wishing you had all that time back of your life that you wasted on making this movie.<br /><br />There is no way that this is a serious movie. There was an old guy that gets stabbed and it doesn't even hurt him at all. And when everyone else gets stabbed they drop dead.<br /><br />It was probably important that these people killed random people and ate them and also hung out with an 80 year old man that wanted to put the parts into his body.<br /><br />My favorite part was when the old man found the "hemoglobens" or however you spell it because that made the movie seem very intellectual and probably helped to reach the older crowd.<br /><br />What really blew my mind that they decided to throw in that random scene about the college girls going into the woods looking for fake skulls.<br /><br />If you do attempt to see this movie, you should probably fill up your bathtub and drop your hairdryer in it and be ready to jump in.<br /><br />THIS IS A MUST SEE!!!....for anyone who believes there life could not get any worse because this will help you realize there are people out there(the makers of this movie) who are even more pathetic and are going no where in life.
Dr. Chopper starts shortly after teenager Nicholas' (Robert Adamson) mum has died, he is still cut up about it but every cloud has a silver lining & in this case it appears that his mum owns a log cabin at Lake Tatonka the self proclaimed 'friendly place for happy people' that she didn't tell him about. So Nicholas together with his girlfriend Jessica (Chelsey Crisp) & three friends, Jimmy (Butch Hansen), Reese (Chase Hoyt) & Tamara (Ashley McCarthy) head out there for a fun weekend. Unfortunately things don't go according to plan, the cabin turns out to be little more than a run down shed & their neighbours turn out to be Dr. Chopper (Ed Brigadier) & his two nurses who go around killing anyone they meet to use them in horrible experiments...<br /><br />Going straight-to-video/DVD Dr. Chopper was edited & directed by Lewis Schoenburn & this film seems to be having a hard time here on the IMDb with some pretty harsh reviews, while I think Dr. Chopper as a horror film is pretty worthless I don't think some of the criticism I've read is entirely justified. The script which takes itself very seriously is credited to Ian Holt (whether he likes it or not...) who has a role in the film as Detective Crocker according to the IMDb cast list although I can't remember any character of that name, maybe he was one of the cops at the start? Anyway, the basic story is alright I suppose although it's a tad dull & lasts for too long, it's typical slasher fare with some sort of evil character running around bumping off our annoying American teen cast, you know the drill by now. Besides some brief & undeveloped nonsense about Dr. Chopper using body parts to replenish his own deteriorating body there's not much story here & the script seems to exist solely to invent situations for girls to take their tops off, there's the inevitable sex scenes, there's a sequence where some girls have to complete a sorority house initiation topless & there's even a couple of lesbians here as well one of whom is seen without her full compliment of clothing. Oh, & when I say topless I mean they aren't wearing any tops but they all keep their bras on so you may want to bear in mind there isn't any actual full frontal nudity in Dr. Chopper at all. So there you have it really, it's an average story that has a mildly surprising twist at the end which is wasted, is populated with poor clichéd dumb character's that exist only to showcase some cheap gore scenes & girls in bras. To be honest I expect a little bit more from my films but then again maybe I'm just being picky.<br /><br />Director Schoenburn does OK actually, this is by no means the worst looking film I've seen although it still looks cheap. There's no style here, I didn't think it was scary & there's no atmosphere either. The gore is restrained & restricted to some dead bodies & severed limbs, there's nothing new here or any particularly convincing special effects. Dr. Chopper is also one of those films where character decisions & motivations are ridiculous.<br /><br />Technically this is a little rough around the edges but is reasonably well made on what was probably a really low budget, the forest locations are suitably isolated although the cops office looks like someones front room & the two nurses outfits at the start look like stripper outfits. The acting is alright, it could have better but I've certainly seen worse.<br /><br />Dr. Chopper indeed features a doctor who rides around on a chopper motorbike but unfortunately that just isn't enough to satisfy me, despite it being a reasonably competent production the lack of any real gore, nudity or a decent plot sinks it without trace.
The acting was very sub-par, You had Costas Mandalar acting like Triple H's dumber forest ranger brother, a Scott McMahon look-alike as his depute who I guess your supposed to care about but there is no emotional involvement anywhere. You have the Stupid lesbian, Not that I have any thing against lesbians, i don't just stupid ones who keep running around in a punisher like shirt and a grunge like hat who keeps asking if anyone saw her dead lover.<br /><br />The Villain could be scary and there is a morality tale somewhere about trying to fight age and death but it is lost in this movie. Costas Hurst Helmsley points out to the soon to be victims the way back into town, while obviously there are city lights behind him.<br /><br />Also A mispronunciation of Ed Gein but pronounced it Gine. As a citizen of Wisconsin. We have had our share of Monsters Gein,Dahmer, and McCarthy, but if your going to use it pronounce it right.<br /><br />God Why do i watch all these terrible films. Oh yes I am a glutton for punishment and I watch these so you don't have to.
This movie is by far one of the worst B-movies I have ever seen. There are no plot twists at all. Though the acting is decent, the storyline is terrible. There are also many mistakes in the movie, and it was bothersome to watch. For any of you who like horror movies, slasher movies, or even B-movies, I don't recommend this to anyone at all. Most of the movie is focused on pointless killing, in ways that aren't even worth discussing. This movie could very well be compared to a crappy remake of Jeepers Creepers, which, too, wasn't that great of a movie. For anyone who wishes to spend a day at home, watching poorly made movies, this one takes the cake.
Possibly one of the best, most horrible b movies ever, as in it's so bad and random,it's kinda hilarious and i don't know how to feel about it..reminds me of Cabin Fever..there's just something about that kid jumping off the porch doing karate and yelling 'pancakes' that's intriguing. Since a lot of people have already outlined the plot and everything all i'm going to do is sum up the quality of the movie with one quote: "I'm the park ranger who's going to f*ck you up". yeah, enough said?. If you're looking for quality or a really scary movie, i don't recommend it. but if you like these sorts of films then I guess you would enjoy it..I don't know how, but I guess some people would.
i paid $2.00 for this piece of crap, i want my money back. it is a d grade horror movie that isn't so groovy<br /><br />There are many MANY floors in this film, including the acting, the lack of actual horror, the lack of nudity (which besides the starting Nurse (porno outfit) and the still breathing nude corpse flash, there is none.<br /><br />The sound track maybe is the best thing because it has some upbeat sorta guitar riffs/tracks.<br /><br />There are your usual typical characters, the jock, the jocks woman, the nerdy guy (who looks more like a jock), the rookie cop/ranger (who has the biggest gap in his teeth i wanted to slip a few dollar coins into that gap..or go for a field goal) the mysterious fella and the Pure girl.<br /><br />The make up was pitiful with side views of dr chopper showing a clear "make up line"and natural skin tones, the cover art to the DVD is clearly photoshop/enhanced to make the cover more enticing as Dr chopper looks like an old "plopper" The scraggy women that hang around Dr chopper are not explained and or look convincing like the rest of this movie.<br /><br />The plot twist was VERY predictable and the abundance of bad looking FAKE limbs was laughable, what did they think,.... um throw some limbs around and some fake blood and you have a horror film.<br /><br />Dr chopper himself is the most stupid character created I've seen in a while, though original i believe that the creator of this film was strained for ideas and possibly tried to use the rhyme Doctor and chopper (bike) and thought "bingo" ill make a crappy movie about that.<br /><br />I've seen worse before..... but this is just plain bad.. everything about it is bad... the lack of suspense...the lack of actual horror or character development... the lack of a decent storyline ...the only thing good about this film was when it finished. This film doesn't fall into the category ïts so bad its good" for me either/<br /><br />Overall 2/10 the director/writer/editor should know better.
Ugh, bad, bad, bad, but I have seen worse which is why I gave it a 2 instead of a 1. Just got finished watching this movie and I thought it was about as rotten as the flesh on Dr. Chopper's face. The worst line of the movie had to be "I like to introduce you to someone... meet my inner b*tch" which consisted of the lone survivor of the fantastic 5 group throwing a trash can at Dr. Chopper and then falling on the stage. Second worst line, "I'm the park ranger that's gonna f*ck you up" What, this freak ain't even a cop????? Did anyone else notice how everyone instantly dies from the magic gut stab (no one dies that quick from a gut stab, I know this cause I see them frequently in the operating room) except super park ranger. Dude had like a bucket of blood poor out of that wound, writhes around on the floor some, and then comes in for the finale to take a parting shot at Dr. Chopper while inner b*tch lies cowering on the floor. And if that don't beat all, he doesn't even have the decency to die then like everyone else. Inner b*tch helps him limp outside and proceeds to tell him not to die while she runs for help cause he's like her only friend left alive now. Since when did these two become friends? I don't think a frantic meeting in the woods where he tells you to head for the city qualifies as getting to know you time but whatever. <br /><br />Only watch this movie if there's nothing else own and you have nothing else to do with your time.
First of all, I'm upset there's no choice of a "0" out of 10. <br /><br />I was bored tonight, and while flipping through the channels, I see Dr. Chopper. With there being nothing else on, I decide to watch it, expecting it to be just another crappy horror movie, with a similar plot to Cabin Fever. <br /><br />Man was I wrong...Dr. Chopper made Cabin Fever look like it should have won numerous Academy Awards. May I remind you, Cabin Fever contains a scene of a little hick boy doing roundhouse kicks off of a porch screaming, "pancakes!!", characters who leave their dying friend in a tiny shack to bleed to death, and Shawn from Boy Meets World mistakenly fingering a hole in a girl's thigh.<br /><br />So needless to say, Dr. Chopper was a big, smelly pile-o-crap. It wasn't even funny crap. It reminded me of a horror movie I had to make in 8th grade, called "The Campout". Except for the fact that "The Campout" had a better script (we wrote it about an hour before filming), better actors, plots, bloody scenes, and camera work. I was hoping to get some laughs out of a poorly-made horror film, but instead I could only watch in astonishment as I thought to myself, "Was this made by 8th graders?". <br /><br />The acting was horrible, the events and different little subplots were thrown together and didn't make sense, and the gore and violence was very minimal. I liked how that from a small stab wound, people died instantly, and the only weapons the killers had were small pocket knives...if you're going to make a horror movie, at least give the killer(s) an insane killing device.<br /><br />Also, what the hell was the point of the sorority girls hazing their pledges? Good way to bring in some scenes of girls running around in their bras, even if they have no relevance to the story whatsoever. And I must say, my favorite line was when the blonde says to Dr. Chopper, "I'd like to introduce you to someone....my inner bitch." Her "inner bitch" then proceeds to grab a garbage can, throw it at Dr. Chopper, miss, and back up in terror of the killer.<br /><br />Wheww....well that was a long one, but I felt that I needed to express my feelings on how absolutely horrible this "movie" was. I know that everyone has their own opinions, but if anyone rates this movie higher than a 2, they should be shot to Hell...<br /><br />...seriously.
This movie sucked on so many levels! Ever seen the Dentist? This movie made The Dentist look like a masterpiece. I do not recommend this movie to anyone, unless of course you are really really really really really bored, then maybe. It was SO corny. The killer reminds you of the grandpa from the monsters, except he has goggles on. When Jessica said "I want you to meet someone, my inner bitch, I thought she was going to kick his butt, however all she did was throw a frig-gen trash can at him. I was very disappointed. And when the ranger had the crying scene about his wife, I SO felt the pain behind his tears.........NOT!!!!! So before watching this movie, grab a blanket and a pillow, get comfortable because it is very relaxing.
Stupid horror film about five 20 somethings (3 guys, 2 girls) going to this place in the middle of nowhere. What they don't know is Dr. Chopper and his female assistants attack and kill anybody who ventures in their woods. They use their body parts for some experiments...or something. Also five college girls and two lesbians are thrown in to be killed off and show some cleavage.<br /><br />Pretty desperate. The story is confusing and boring; the gore is laughably fake; Dr. Chopper and his assistants overact TERRIBLY; there's some dreadful black "humor" in here and people just stand around while their friends are being attacked or just stand there and let the people kill them.<br /><br />This was pretty insulting. There are a few pluses. A twist an hour in was pretty good and the five young actors are actually good! Chase Hoyt is great as Reese; Butch Hansen is OK as Jimmy; Ashley McCarthy is also good as Tamara and Robert Adamson has his moments as Nicholas. Best of all is Chesley Crisp as Jessica--she was excellent! Some of the dramatic scenes between these five were well-acted and interesting. Unfortunately the dialogue wasn't really there for them. I'm giving it a 4 for their performances--but nothing else here is worth mentioning. Hopefully these actors will get roles worthy of them.
Low budget "films" like this just give me hope as an aspiring screenwriter. In other words, if there are people out there who are willing to finance a piece of schlock like this, than there's certainly much more than a glimmer of hope for someone like myself who can actually write stories. This film is right up there, or should I say "down there" with the Ed Wood's of the world. The story, if you can call it that, and the dialog, not to mention the sophomoric acting, is a travesty toward the genre itself. Someone should have driven a stake through this stinker while it was still just on paper. It follows that since literature has pretty much been killed off, that film should follow. In order to have a good or even just passable movie, you must have at the very least decent writing. The legendary Curt Siodmak springs to mind. They used a lot of his stories for low budget films way back when but they still come off today as good, serious entertainment, i.e. "Donavan's Brain". The cast for this "work" should seriously consider going back to work at their respective hamburger joints or shoe stores and forget about any future feeble attempts at appearing in front of a camera. Avoid this one like the plague itself!!!
I have seen many - possibly too many straight-to-video, no budget slasher films and have developed a taste for the "good ones", or the ones that are less sucky, as ridiculous as that sounds, hahaha. DR. CHOPPER, is what I kindly like to refer to as... absolute crap. Nothing about it is enjoyable - the acting sucks, the characters suck, the killer sucks, the gore is minimal... and sucks. It is about a group of college friends who drive out to a newly discovered family cabin, owned by the parents of one of the kids. It is meant to be a relaxing retreat, but little do they know that a deathly ill former plastic surgeon-gone bad, along with his two female assistants, search for usable tissue to save the doctor. His name is Dr. Chopper since he rides around on a motorcycle and of course, chops. This is just a terrible movie, not worthy of anyone's time. Enough said.
This film is terribly bad. Kevin Spacey is a really great actor, he shines in LA Confidential, American Beauty, Usual Suspects, 7 etc.. But this is truly rubbish, he came nowhere near a decent Irish accent, maybe he should have practiced it with Kate Hudson while she was doing About Adam. To Irish people this film is laughable and even worse, its quite irritating for several scenes. I think the producers made this film hoping the target audience (non-europe)would had never seen or heard of the 'General' or Martin Cahill and be enthralled in an intriguing and entertaining story. Total crud!!
The German regional-broadcast-station WDR has shown both "The General" and ODC. On Saturday I've seen "The General" and I thought, it wasn't very bad, but not very good too. But yesterday I've seen ODC and I switched it off after about an hour. Although Kevin Spacey was the main actor the movie was totally confusing and seems restless. "The General" told the story straight and ordered, but ODC just wanted to be cool. There is a reference on the Guy Ritchie Movies "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" and "Snatch", but doesn't have the Coolness of these movies.<br /><br />So, in the end I would rate it 3 of 10!
I'm a big fan of Kevin Spacey's work, but this is a sub-standard film. If you think it looks interesting, or you saw it and liked it, go and check out John Boorman's "The General". It is basically about the same guy, but is far superior in every way (and doesn't suffer from the Hollywood glorifications).
an oirish film not made for an irish audience. with fiorentino, baxendale and spacey each incapabable of a half decent oirish accents the powers-that-be had but one choice - force the irish actors to adopt equally bad oirish accents, reducing the whole thing to the lowest common denominator.
Kevin Spacey is without a doubt one of the best actors of the 90s. After his performances in The Usual Suspect, Se7en and American Beauty, you expect more and more from him. That is why Ordinary Decent Criminal is a huge disappointment.<br /><br />Michael Lynch is the most artful criminal in Dublin who is never in a bad mood. His next heist becomes an obsession when his partners start questioning Michael's ability to plan everything perfectly, although this is the only thing he does when he isn't playing good father at home.<br /><br />I guess, it's partly my fault for not paying enough attention to the thousand plot details which sadly turn out to be the "essence" of the film. I gave the movie a chance by calling it a parody and.... well, parodies are always funny, no matter what they spoof or how they do it. So, it wasn't after all a complete parody on purpose. It's just a different con movie that desperately tries to be funny and fails.<br /><br />Unlike some of his "colleagues", Ordinary Decent Criminal depends too much on story development and logical continuity, forgetting what's the main reason, the viewer has picked this kind of movie - to be entertained. This is definitely not entertainment. It includes one of the most ridiculous scenes ever - the introduction of Michael's TWO wives. I don't know whether it's some kind of a mindless metaphor or strange, dark humor, but the chicks are sisters. Remember, Spacey's character has kids.<br /><br />Ordinary Decent Criminal is complex and confusing. You are not waiting for a funny scene. Instead, you carefully follow the dialog, because there is a big possibility of losing yourself into the boring, pale universe, the film has inhabited.<br /><br />Let's go back to Spacey. I wonder in what condition he has been, signing for that movie. It's not miscasting, but something much worse. An insult to his work in American Beauty, released an year before Ordinary Decent Criminal. The character Michael is eccentric and talkative. Spacey is almost pathetic at times. The only cure for this, is thinking of Lester Burnham and Roger Kint.<br /><br />Writer, Gerrard Stembridge should definitely re-consider his screen writing abilities and be more objective this time. Because, the dialog is very weak and the scenes are often pointless. And we are still talking about a comedy.<br /><br />Ordinary Decent Criminal is a really bad crime comedy which does not deserve your attention.
Kevin Spacey is my favorite actor of all time, he is without a doubt on other's lists as well when it comes to great actors. He even pulled off a good Irish accent in Ordinary Decent Criminal as well. But Kevin Spacey, as a Mafia leader? Or even a burglar? I'm not so sure he could go that far. The movie to me just didn't make any sense and the some of the story just didn't feel solved to me.<br /><br />I know once again that IMDb is going to make me write ten more lines. But I'm not so sure on what I could say about this movie because I am still trying to figure it out. Silly, isn't it? But I'm pretty sure that more than a few of you IMDb users have been in the same predicament as I am in right now where you just want to say a line or two about a movie, but now you have to do ten lines? Wow, that should do it. :D <br /><br />3/10
Well,<br /><br />First of all, as many reviewers have pointed out - this is a rip off of the Martin Cahill story - first represented by the BBC and by the John Boorman film "The General" - which is a great film and far, far superior to this one.<br /><br />Speaking as a native British person, the supporting cast to Kevin Spacey was really good in terms of British and Irish acting talent, especially Peter Mullan - but it was totally wasted. The characters were c**p! And as for Kevin Spacey - didn't come across as a loveable rogue but as nothing really substantial or significant.<br /><br />Not a lot to redeem this film. The best bits are the gags and tricks nicked from the other films it rips off. Compare notes on this film and "The General" - I'd be interested to see what others think.<br /><br />
After the general, a film that romanticized the life of Dublin gangster the general to such heroic proportions that it made the average Dublin person sick, along come Kevin and his attempted portrayal of Mr. Lynch or martin Cahill, aka the general, the acting is so bad that this crime drama becomes a comedy for the native Dub, and a tragedy for the Kevin Spacey fan. in short, is the movie worth a look.... No, unless u like bad acting with hilarious 'proper Irish accents, ah sure to be sure to be sure'. The story is ripped off from the commercially successful 'The General' which, despite is glorification of a well known Dublin animal in Martin Cahill is still worth a look, on a domestic scale because it shows real working class Dublin, and on an international scale because of he true Irish acting and killer cast, including John Voight. All in all, 'Ordinary Decent Criminal' is anything but a decent film. Avoid.
"Ordinary Decent Criminal" is sort of based on the exploits of Martin Cahill, already the subject of John Boorman's 1998 film "The General". Cahill had a rough upbringing in a slum area and graduated from petty crime to armed robbery with honours. He justified his criminal career by pointing out his poor background at every opportunity. This is a common excuse for criminals that conveniently overlooks the thousands of slum-dwellers who don't turn to robbing post offices and selling guns in order to make ends meet. Cahill made fools of the police and local authorities, not to mention the IRA, which earned him a sort of "Folk Hero" status as well as making him many enemies. However, he was basically an amoral, self-serving thief.<br /><br />My primary problem with "ODC" is that the protagonist is made out to be a lovable Irish rogue. Kevin Spacey does a good job portraying Michael Lynch with a blend of oily charm and quiet menace, but the character is too amoral and selfish to be seen as any sort of hero, even an anti-hero. <br /><br />The film is well shot and well acted by a fine cast, but what lets it down is the script. Writer Gerard Stembridge can't make up his mind; is he writing an Irish "Lock Stock" or a grittier treatment of Martin Cahill's thieving career? That's the problem when a writer bases his central character on a real person. <br /><br />It's also unfortunate that "ODC" followed the cinema release of John Boorman's "The General", which was a more accurate portrayal of Martin Cahill's story. Cahill was a cunning thief who knew the value of good publicity, so it's not surprising that his exploits got the movie treatment.<br /><br />What IS surprising is that a studio was prepared to take Cahill's story and give it a happy Hollywood-style ending. Kevin Spacey's charismatic-twinkly-bigamist-thief Michael Lynch gets to ride off into anonymity on his motorcycle in "ODC". In the real world, Martin Cahill was executed by the IRA, just to prove that no-one makes fools of an out-dated, sectarian and corrupt para-military organisation and gets away with it. <br /><br />The real Cahill would never have walked away from his notoriety because it bolstered his "Man of The People" self-image. Having Michael Lynch give up everything to avoid death in "ODC" is a cop-out ending to a weak and shallow movie.
one of the worst excuses for an irish accents i've heard. from a truly great actor too. its a bad irish accent not to mention a dublin accent (which is completely different) anyway the film is loosely based around the story of ganglord martin cahill and its done much much much better with brendan gleeson in the title role in THE GENERAL
I was really looking forward to watching this film. It had all the ingredients of a great tongue in cheeker, but it just didn't come together AT ALL. Kevin Spacey's accent was tolerable except that sometimes he forgot to use it and I would rather NOT have had to listen to Linda Fiorentino's pale attempt. She and Helen Baxendale were totally lacking in charm and personality, thankfully their screen kids had loads, so you could find at least some members of his 2 families endearing. You could have strained spaghetti with the plot and I'm sure that the script was written by some adolescent schoolboy in a high school English competition. That said, when I wasn't cringing, I was smirking so it wasn't a totally wasted 90 minutes. I did find the superimposing of Kevin's face on the painting very clever and quite funny. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh but I was expecting a bit of quality viewing and it just never came.
This film is really quite odd. Clearly certain *events* portrayed identify the main protagonist as the Dublin criminal known as "The General" but almost everything else is just wrong. We are not talking of a distortion of ancient history...but a complete distortion of irrefutable, documented facts. The question indeed is why? The garda are shown as latter day Keystone Cops, his gang as non-menacing, and the man himself as..well Kevin Spacey. Almost pure fiction anyway, why bother to try to give a semblance of realism? Having said all that, it is a poor exercise *any* way you want to look at it. Not worth a second of anyone's time.
"Ordinary Decent Criminal" is sad because it is obviously trying to succeed and equally obviously hasn't a chance in hell of making it apparently owing to the absence of a clear sense of purpose. A abysmal failure at droll Irish comedy with Spacey as a thief who enjoys outsmarting the cops and his competition becoming a sort of folk hero in his own mind, this flick manages to be mildly amusing when it's trying to be funny, slightly more than boring when it's trying to be interesting, and forget sentimental or poignant or endearing though it takes shots at those qualities as well. "Ordinary Decent Criminal" has a clumsy screenplay, naive direction, journeyman execution, thin story, poor casting, mediocre acting, and eventually becomes lost in itself and sinks into a mire of hopeless mediocrity. Pass on this one. (D)
To keep from being bored during "Love and Sex," first I tried to think of all the movies this was imitative of: "Breaking Up" with Russell Crowe and Salma Hayek (though that had a more original ending), "About Last Night" with Rob Lowe, and a lot of TV shows. <br /><br />Second was admiring just how gorgeous Framke Janssen is so I couldn't believe for a nanosecond that she could have a problem getting a date. She is certainly in line to give Julia Roberts a run for her money, literally-- and wasn't Julia in some movie with this same plot or other? <br /><br />Third was trying to figure out why the writer/director bothered to give Jon Favreau's character the Jewish name of Adam Levy; he even refers admiringly to eating a ham sandwich.<br /><br />Fourth was trying to figure out why some critics had given this a good review which is why I was in the theater.<br /><br />(originally written 9/2/2000)
Kate is a jaded young woman who has trouble meeting and dating guys. Throughout the movie, you get to meet several of her loser boyfriends. And throughout the movie, you are subjected to Kate's cynical negative outlook on love and relationships. This negative viewpoint is continued throughout and presented as Ultimate Truth. I had a real problem with this. Why would anyone want to be taught about love, life, and dating from someone who is obviously so messed up? It would work if that was the joke, but it is not. For the jokes in the movie (which are neither funny nor original) to work at all, you have to believe what Kate is saying: that all relationships inevitably end up with bad or no sex, that the highest level a relationship can evolve to is when you are able to fart in front of your partner... You get the idea.<br /><br />There is no movie in recent memory that comes close to upsetting the stomach as much as Love & Sex. Why did the filmmakers waste their time on such trash? Every joke in Love & Sex is something that I have experienced in another movie or in my own life. There is NOTHING original or creative about the story, the production, or the style. It is cynical, dumb and pointless. Mind numbing!
This film has a really weird mixture of genres - toilet humour and action in one. It doesn't really pull it off - it should have stuck to one genre. The best thing I can say about the movie is that the dog in it is cute.<br /><br />The most disturbing sequence is in the middle of the film when Moses (Sandler) and Carter (Wayans) decide to stop off at a hunting lodge/motel. I'm not quite sure what the point of this sequence is - it just seems gratuitous in the extreme. The proprietor of the hunting lodge ("Charlie") is a very nerdy looking guy. For some reason, Moses starts a conversation with Charlie about porno, jacking off, homosexual sex, sex in a threesome... Charlie's photo of his "wife" appears to be Charlie dressed in drag. There is no reason for this really juvenile dialogue and scene. Anyway, the whole scene seems to be directed to the moment when a naked Moses ends up with Carter's gun up his butt and Charlie sees them through the window. It all reeks of school boy humour about homosexuality - horrified and titillated all at the same time - which I don't find funny at all.<br /><br />I have a friend who is always raving about Adam Sandler movies. This is the first one I've seen - after this, I'm not sure I want to see any more.<br /><br />BTW, this is my husband's account - he's seen Happy Gilmore, and he tells me it's quite good - maybe I should give Sandler just one more chance.<br /><br />Countess Skogg
My age: 13<br /><br />Keats, played by Damon Wayans, and Archie Moses, played by Adam Sandler, are the best of friends and have been for a year. What Moses doesn't know is that Keats is really Jack Carter, an undercover cop, who is waiting for the right time to bust Moses and Frank Colton, a major criminal who Moses is involved with. When Colton and Moses find out that Keats is a cop, Colton wants to kill Moses, but he gets away after shooting Carter in the head, which does not kill Carter. Moses is found by the cops and is taken for proof of Colton's wrongdoing. But when the cops, including Carter, are about to escort him across the country on a plane, all the other cops are killed and Moses and Carter are alone in the desert. Carter has to stay alive as well as take Moses in.<br /><br />A fairly average action-comedy, Bulletproof has a fair plot but a lot of the film is just plain stupid. For a comedy, I found most of the jokes entirely unfunny. But as an action movie, it has a few fairly good action scenes. Not being a good fan of either Adam Sandler or Damon Wayans, I found the acting and therefore, the characters, well below par. The climax isn't really great, and the film is so unrealistic. It is not entirely bad, but also not too good, and it is far too short. Running below 85 minutes, I though there was another 15 minutes left before it ended, but there wasn't, and the film felt too short. Overall not a complete waste of time, but I still wouldn't recommend Bulletproof.<br /><br />Australian Classification: MA 15+: Medium Level Violence, Sexual References, Medium Level Coarse Language<br /><br />Rating: 56 out of 100
Drug runner Archie Moses introduces his friend Rock Keats to his boss, drug kingpin Frank Colton. Unknown to Moses, Keats is actually an undercover police officer. During the bust on Colton's factory, Moses accidentally shoots Keats in the head. He survives the wound & later arrests Moses. Dodging Colton's hired assassins, the duo must overcome their mutual hatred to survive.<br /><br />Adam Sandler's films are usually a hit-&-miss affair, with his comedies either loved by his fans or hated by everyone. This one is not as stupid as his other films, but still cannot overcome a lazy script. The direction is incredibly patchy, with fast-paced action sequences giving way to slow comic exchanges between Sandler & Damon Wayans. Some of the action scenes – flying a plane with no engines, a car chase at night through a forest – are quite absurdly contrived. The acting is the standard for this genre, with Sandler & Wayans making a good pairing. In short, the film is dumb but fun to watch.<br /><br />Grade: C+ Review by M. K. Geist
Bulletproof is quite clearly a disposable film. The kind where bullet riddled good guys and bad guys are splatted everywhere, so much so that you really aren't supposed to see them as human. The yawns between the lines from Wayans and Sandler are extensive indeed. They try hard but , alas and alack, persona itself does not a good film make. Jimmy Caan plays a nifty villain but he's always had that redneck edge at the ready. My favorite's scene is the repeated clips of a TV ad in which Caan reveals the virtues of America can be shown to the world by having 2 cars in every garage. Aside from that it's a buddy movie with guns for brains. Pass on this one.
I haven't for a long time seen such a horrible film. I hoped that at least Adam Sandler could be funny... hopeless. Seems, like some teenager have written it's script and he's daddy pushed this so far, that someone agreed to shoot it. (Movie)World could be better place without this, whatever it is.
I saw it on video. Predictable, horrid acting, film flubs. What more can be said, this movie sucks. The actors are annoying to say the least. This was suppose to be a comedy, but there was only one funny moment, other than that is was painful to watch for me.<br /><br />1 out of 10. PASS!
This movie came highly recommended, but I am not sure why. I am not really and Adam Sandler fan though, apart from in 50 First Dates where he departs from his usual angry man routine. Damon Wayans is an undercover cop and Adam Sandler is the guy he pretended to be friends with for a year in order to bust him. Naturally Sandler is rather angry about this betrayal. Cue angry shouting and silly facials from the king of variety. They end up on the run and of course they become friends again after a big misunderstanding (involving Sandler shooting Wayans in the head - he survives thus he is Bulletproof). Need I go on? You will work out what is going to happen if you do watch it anyway. When our DVD player kept pausing (hey it was $80 from the supermarket OK?) it was commented that the player knew the film was boring and was refusing to play it.
im sure he doesnt need the money for a life saving operation or transplant. in all honesty i think this review qualifies as a better movie than 'bulletproof'. thanks for listening.
We screened this movie in a club as an example of how classic literature can become twisted into some of the most awful movies of all time. Just the fact that the back of the box proudly proclaimed the plot to be set in the "techno-futile" future should have been enough of a hint. I think that word describes the movie itself, because no matter how much technology they tried to use to save this movie, the effort was completely futile. Not to mention that our club advisor told us that it allegedly couldn't get a distributor for two years.<br /><br />This cinematic failure is littered with cheesy, cliche dialogue that's worse than angsty teen poetry. Beowulf's character changes halfway through in a way that is in no way credible, and whenever he's in an action scene, he's constantly flipping like a hyper gymnast. There is even, as they say, a "token black guy" whose attempts at humor are completely out of place. And, of course, the daughter of the leader of the outpost Grendel is terrorizing is a total vixen. A vixen whose breasts are exposed throughout the entire movie. A vixen who wants to fight the creature, yet she never puts on armor. And her weapon of choice is a little carving knife. And despite their dire situation, she still dresses up for dinner, in a dress with a see-through skirt that exposes her short-shorts underwear. There are a couple scenes that could pass as soft core pornography, and in the second scene they even reuse footage from the first. I thought the portrayal of Grendel was bad enough, but then came the end of the film, which featured a display of CGI that might be decent for the 80s, but is totally ridiculous for a late 90s venture. I could go on, but you all should watch this film for the fully laughable effect yourselves.<br /><br />The other club members and I did manage to have fun watching this by taking a cue from MST 3K and mocking it the whole way through. I'm still reeling from an extra's weapon: a perpetually spinning pizza cutter on a pole.
I've heard many things about Beowulf, maybe because i'm from Romania and a good part of the movie was filmed here, in my country. And i expected a lot from this film. At the end, i was disappointed. It is not as horrible as other users said, but it's definetely bad. It's all about a monster killing people in a 6th century castle and Lambert the one who comes to kill him. Lambert is good, as he is in all his roles, but the rest of the characters suck, and the action isn't too good either. Plus maybe the only thing that could've saved this film, the special effects, are also very bad, the monster looks awful (not scary, but awful). Oh and another bad thing: the music. The movie tries, and manages to create the 6th century atmosphere. But all the action sequences are presented on rock music, which is very very bad. I mean action on rock works perfectly on a movie like Charlie's Angels - where that's the perfect way to shoot your action. But here, that was a very bad idea.<br /><br />Vote: 4 out of 10.
The future of fantasy never looked so dark! Christopher Lambert gets to fight the evil demon Grendel in this grim looking trashy fantasy-epos. "Epos" I said? Er... there's only one location, so you can't really call it an epic adventure, can you? The location is a medieval/futuristic 5 inch tall castle, so how did they manage to cram in all the actors? Oh, I get it, those where special effects. A miniature. Silly me.<br /><br />Here's some reasons why you might want or NOT want to watch this motion picture:<br /><br />- Lambert gets to do his sword-swinging tricks over again like he did in Highlander.<br /><br />- The sets and costumes are amazingly cool (if you're a 12-year-old).<br /><br />- Rhona Mitra has a voluptuous pair of knockers which she likes to show off through-out the whole movie.<br /><br />- ...er, Christopher Lambert has white hair...<br /><br />- Every time they start fighting, this over-the-top raving techno-soundtrack gets going. So why are these medieval slayer-dudes fighting while they should be dancing.<br /><br />- They don't have electricity in this castle but they do have speakers installed which seem to work fine. So where's the amplifier? I guess they borrowed it from the techno-dj who delivered the soundtrack.<br /><br />- Watch it for the climax in the end which features an outrageous demonoïd CGI creature coming straight out of any Playstation 2 survival-horror game.<br /><br />If all this got you interested, then go watch it (at your own risk), but don't tell anyone I told you to. I strongly suspect Pinhead visiting the set while shooting, because this movie has no soul. Anyway, if you want to see beautiful Rohna Mitra really show some skin, then watch Paul Verhoeven's HOLLOW MAN.
What. Uh...<br /><br />This movie is so dissociative and messed up that I literally lost a bit of my sanity after it was over. I will never be the same person again. I'm trying to put my finger on what, exactly, is so completely insane about it... It's not just the hilarious techno music, or the "outside of time" medieval/Blade Runner/wild west/Highlander setting, or the weird CGI "Grendel" monster that looks like a man made out of animated sausages, or even the "Grendel's mother" monster, which looks like some Alabama table-dancer who grew claws and tentacles when she stayed in the tanning bed too long. All of those things are weird, but what's really the strangest thing in this movie is the acting. I simply can't explain. This script is obviously, hellishly silly, but the actors exude deadly seriousness through it all. Lambert is always weird, and usually kind of boring, but for this one he's gone into Dolph Lundgrin territory: I can't help but just start laughing every time he talks.<br /><br />I will give this movie some credit for being completely scatter-brained and crazy as opposed to conservative and boring. I'll always take a bizarre disaster of a film over an utterly mediocre one.<br /><br />Warning: if you are planning on watching Christopher Lambert as Beowulf, be prepared to spend several hours thereafter wandering the streets in some kind of nightmarish, hyperactive-catatonic daze. It's true. When I was done with my Beowulf spirit journey, I woke up in the middle of the Siberian tundra in a puddle of blood and milk. There was a dead wolf lying next to me, and I later found I had a handful of human teeth in my shirt pocket. My VHS copy of Beowulf was sitting on a hastily-constructed stone altar nearby, enshrined with candles and wilted flowers. The tape told me to walk. I rose and I walked.
Ha ha! First of if you've never seen a "Dimension Film" your in for a real treat! Known primarily for SUPER LOW BUDGET Horror/Slasher films, "Beowulf" was no exception.<br /><br />However, this video was more in the style of ultra-cheesy. I missed the K-R-A-F-T label on the side.<br /><br />Consider the Anachronisms! (something out of place and time)<br /><br />We had: candles, armour, swords....<br /><br />Yet we saw: telescopes, Soled Shoes, Cigarette lighters, Loudspeakers, Electricity, Body Bags, aluminum foil tins,, and spoons/forks. <br /><br />Not bad for something that takes place in like the 8th Century!<br /><br />This is not a horror film, is a horrible film. Its very laughable. Its really a comedy made to look like a horror film! I couldn't stop laughing!<br /><br />Christopher Lambert ("The Highlander Series") -- must have really taken a tumble in his career if he's working for "Dimension Films."<br /><br />I've learned my lesson though. I'll be looking at the film studios on the videos, a LOT more closely now.<br /><br />RATED NO REELS OUT OF FIVE. If you want a good laugh though, its hard to pass up on this piece of work!<br /><br />This move had some cleavage in spots -- I especially liked the blonde bimbette!<br /><br />Wayno<br /><br />
This movie is painful. That's probably the best way to describe it. It's 93 minutes of your life that you will never be able to get back. Well, actually it's more like 86 minutes because there is no way anyone would want to sit through the credits in this stinking pile of dog feces. Immediately you can tell the movie is from the producer of "Mortal Kombat", due to it's thumping and annoying techno soundtrack. This drains the few laughably enjoyable moments this movie can give you. The rest is drained by the completely uninteresting and annoying characters, the "Freddie Prinze, Jr. School of Acting" acting abilities of all involved (including the miscast Christopher Lambert), and the non-existant directing. Did I leave anything out? Of course I did. Let's not forget about the suicide-inducing script, with it's unitentionally (??) funny dialogue. Oh, yes, and let us also talk about how they shamed the original poem with this sad and useless futuristic/medieval translation. The costumes and weapons (were those giant pizza cutters I kept seeing?!?!) are just plain stupid, that's the best way I can describe them. And the last culprit of the night is the always awful CGI. When will filmmakers learn that CGI sucks? When will we see the wonderful effects used in the 80's? Probably never, but films like this and "Star Wars, Episode 1: The Phantom Menace" make us wish that they would bring them back. In closing, avoid this movie like the newest Freddie Prinze, Jr. movie. Then again if you like Freddie Prinze, Jr. movies then you deserve to sit through this horrid excuse for filmmaking.
Renting this direct-to-video film, I was not expecting an amazing piece of cinematography. (Not to say just because a film is in cinema it will.) Only very loosely following the story retold in the epic poem, this film provides a unique take on the tale of monsters and super humans. The general photography can be summarized as conflicted, with its mixture of mediaeval and post-apocalyptic (reminiscent of Mad Max). With a rock and techno soundtrack to boot, one comes away feeling a bit off. The fight scenes, though unbelievable, are entertaining, and Christopher Lambert possesses some of the most interesting weapon combinations I have ever seen on film, though often a tad unfathomably inefficient. The special effects used for the monster Grendel are surprisingly effective and are one of the few highlights.<br /><br />Christopher Lambert delivers an average performance as Beowulf. It will be nowhere near as memorable as Highlander, but at least it wasn't as poor as Fortress. The supporting cast is rather neutral.<br /><br />If you're looking for a good action-adventure story with a complex and engaging plot, I would not suggest this film. However, if you want a flick that is of little substance, full of campy battle scenes, and a somewhat predictable plot, find a copy of this.
The original review I had planned for this movie was perhaps a little over-harsh, so I'll preface with the good: Sleepy Hollow is a perfectly acceptable beer-and-pizza or sleepover movie, the kind you watch with a good group of people when the mood is light and no-one's really focusing on the movie. The visual elements are beautiful, and it is kinda fun, in parts. But horror, my friends, it is not. I made the mistake of watching it expecting something to shiver at with all the lights off. If this is your intention, send me a personal message and I'll offer you a list of alternate recommendations. (That's a serious offer, by the way. True horror fans deserve better.) Now my complaints, complete with SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS Why bother even making a movie "based" on a classic story if you're not even going to attempt to stay true to the sense, feel, tone, or theme of the original? Listen carefully between the lines of ill-written dialogue and you'll hear the slow churn of Washington Irving rolling over in his grave. I will even accept the Big-City Detective bit, but... Ricci drawing warding-hexes around the bed? Come, now. Not only is there nothing even vaguely like this in "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow", but it's historical BUNK. I don't care what neo-pagan axe you have to grind, but in the 18th century, "witchcraft" meant selling your soul to the Devil in exchange for diabolical powers; this whole fluffy white-witch goddess-worship "an'-it-harm-none" approach to witchcraft dates back, historically, about as far as the British Invasion. (Parties interested in real old-school pagan practices are referred to James Frazer's "The Golden Bough", if you don't believe me.) This creates such a discordant element thrown into the context of the film that the very framework of the Sleepy Hollow legend is shattered. So we wind up with a totally different story altogether. If that was Burton's idea, I wish he'd warned us in advance. Also, I wish he'd come up with a better story than the rather pedestrian one witnessed here. And he might as well have dropped the Irving pretensions altogether. And, at any rate, the movie isn't scary. Not once. Not at all. The warped tree came close, but was more than counterbalanced by the laughable effect of the Hessian's farce-comedy bellowing. And finally, yes, I too wanted Christina Ricci for Christmas, but God clearly never meant her to be a blonde.
surely this film was hacked up by the studio? perhaps not but i feel there were serious flaws in the storytelling that if not attributed to the editing process could only be caused by grievously bad, criminal indeed, writing and directing.<br /><br />i understand the effect burton wished to achieve with the stylised acting similar to the gothic fairytale atmosphere of edward scissorhands, but here unfortunately it falls flat and achieves no mythical depth of tropes but only the offensive tripe of affectation. ie bad acting and shallow characterisation even for a fairytale.<br /><br />finally not that scary, indeed only mildly amusing in its attempts. the use of dialogue as a vehicle for plot background was clumsy and unnecessary. the mystery of who is the headless horseman would suffice, no need for the myth about a german mercenary, although christopher walken did cut a dashing figure but not that menacing - seeing the horsemans head makes him seem far friendlier that a decapitated inhuman nine foot tall spirit as in the original legend.<br /><br />no real rhythm or universal tone was ever established and not a classic in burtons oevure. stilted and clipped as my parting shot...
Several things become apparent after the first few minutes of this film. First, the scenery and special effects are incredible -- the best, and if everything else worked as well, its austere presence might have made it a great film.<br /><br />But as soon as the actors open their mouths, you suddenly realize that you are sitting in your den watching a movie. The story itself is full of cleché and melodrama, and the dialogue is some of the worst I've ever seen. And as if that weren't bad enough, they made a fool out of the protagonist, and in my experience, you don't want to do that unless the film is a comedy.<br /><br />Bottom line: I had a hard time getting into it, and I wouldn't recommend it.
this film had a lot of potential - it's a great story and has the potential to be very creepy. but of course tim burton doesn't really do creepy films, he does wacky cartoonish films. and i usually like tim burton's stuff. but i thought this film was really weak. the best thing about the film (and it is actually worth seeing just for this) was the art direction - the film has an amazing intangible quality to it. the script was not good. it was boring in parts and confusing in other parts, and there was no building of characters. i never really cared that people were having their heads lopped off by a headless being. i thought johnny depp had a good thing going with his approach to the character, but given that the script was weak he couldn't go too far with it - and i was very irritated by the attempts at a slight accent on his and christina ricci's parts.<br /><br />anyway, it is sadly not a great film and not worth seeing unless you are interested in the art direction.
I have in the past loved Tim Burton. I loved Ed Wood, Edward Scissorhands, and even Mars Attacks. But I hate this movie. The costume drama scenes in the beginning were the sort of poorly done, stodgy things that used to plague historical drama 25 years ago. Then there were all the head-cutting scenes, which just left me cold, and that's the sort of thing that ought to mean something, I would think. Yes, there were some nice bare trees and foggy evenings and the horseman jumping out of the tree was a nice special effect, but on the whole the movie was just boring and pointless.
Adored by fans for his unusually charming creativity and by Hollywood for his softball, user-friendly movie-making techniques, Tim Burton tipped the scales too far in formula's favor with his new upset of a cinematic legend, Sleepy Hollow. Following the quest of Ichabod Crane – played by Johnny Depp, delivering this dreary film's only shining point – to the heart of the mystery surrounding a town's seemingly random and gruesome murders by a fabled headless horseman, the story plays out as if it were purposely trying to be repugnantly predictable. Contrived as a children's bedtime story, humdrum character introduction is laced with intended-upon exciting non-engaging chase scenes which, with undeveloped characters fleeing for their lives, produce about as much fright and thrill as The Nightmare Before Christmas.<br /><br />Toss in an endless bundle of old trees for ambience and a wide-eyed, big-busted blonde love interest (Christina Reechi) and Burton has himself a movie that takes the age-old legend of Sleepy Hollow and succeeded in making it like a Disney movie without the charm or captivation. Dialog was choppy and ridiculous, severed heads were aplenty, and there were enough plot-revealing monologues to embarrass the likes of James Bond. Even with the backing of Emmanuel Lubezki, the most sought-after cinematographer in Hollywood today, the wonderful acting of Depp and Burton's astounding name-recognition, Sleepy Hollow is nothing to lose your head over.
A movie this dumb should never see the light of day. The acting is lame, the violence is just all over the place, the sneaking ending is just plain stupid.<br /><br />It's all about a lawyer who saw a murder done by the R.I.C.C.O. squad. No one has never seen him, not even the hit men themselves. So he and a beautiful lady are on the run trying to find the leader of this R.I.C.C.O. squad, before they find them.<br /><br />Then the movie goes on to a romance, gun shooting, and voodoo. Now how in the hell did voodoo come in this. Never see this film if your life depends on it. Trust Me!!!!!!!!
R.I.C.C.O. is the STUPIDEST film ever made. I can't believe my father bought this crap. This film should da never got made. If this film was wide known, trust me it will be on the #1 spot for IMDB's worst.The acting is horrible it's scary,which it is why it's horror. This piece of s*** had no horror in at at all. It's an urban action,which is funny, because I could of swore it was a comedy. When people got shot I couldn't help but laugh. I am the only person who reviewed this and I hope that I am the last. With this vote only I hope it make it to the #1 spot at the worst!!!!!!!
I went into this film really wanting to like it - it headlined a film festival earlier in the year, and boasted an all-star cast. But (and you could tell there was a "but" coming) it's a failure of a film. Outstanding character acting by Sarandon and Walken is destroyed by editing and the antics of the supporting cast. Turturro's performance is lackluster, and most of the comedy is overplayed. The recurring puppet shows are pointless, and a few scenes are completely out of place.<br /><br />That said, there are some wonderful moments sprinkled in the film. A genuinely touching stage moment, several of the seductions, and a few of the comedic color actually work out. Unfortunately, they're overshadowed by the diffuse, incoherent script and some bad acting.
While I'm normally a big fan of John Turturro's work as an actor and director, ILLUMINATA is a great disappointment. Although the film has some charming moments, overall it falls flat. Worst of all, the film is confusing. Where is the movie set? Italy or an Italian troupe in New York? Why bother making a historical film if it fails to convey a setting? If you want to see a well-made, inspiring historical film also about theater, go see Tim Robbins' THE CRADLE WILL ROCK. This movie has many pluses, including a fine performance by John Turturro.
Best around the middle, when most characters get horny and go after someone they haven't had before. It is around this point that we get to see Susan Sarandon's majestic breasts (even if through a veil). Strangely enough, Beverly D'Angelo who isn't shy about nudity doesn't show any at all, while Aida Turturro – of all people – does. On the other end of the spectrum, the less said about Walken playing a homosexual the better. The film itself has little plot; the dialogs from the theater play and the "normal" dialogs cross over often and that's not the sort of thing I'd consider a good idea. Life in the theater: who cares? Occasionally the dialog has something going for it, but the film drags in stretches.
I don't mind the odd artsy film. But when they are larded with arcane symbolism and murky dialogue and when it's obvious they were done for the filmmaker's ego rather than the viewer's benefit, I get upset. I'm not a stupid person yet I simply didn't understand what this film was trying to say. Or do. Film is a magnificent form of human communication. Why do some filmmakers use it instead for obfuscation?
It's partly bad luck for "Illuminata" that it comes out after "Shakespeare in Love" as it deals with virtually the same themes of life as art, art as life and the Magic of the Theatre and the same archetypal Foibles of Theater Folk, but a whole lot more ponderously.<br /><br />There are scenes that come alive, as a play develops and gets reinterpreted by a writer's life, but there's a whole lot of Orson Welles-ish ego in this produced by/directed by/lead acted by John Torturro as a vehicle for his wife Katharine Borowitz (with an adorable cameo by their son).<br /><br />Each actor gets his/her moment literally in the spotlight, but there's so many "masques" or set pieces that seem like 19th century parlor games. Bill Irwin Talks. Susan Sarandon gets to be a diva. Christopher Walken gets to be a different kind of villain - a gay critic. The women have to disrobe unnecessarily because this is an Art Film.<br /><br />The art and set direction are marvelous, though quite dark. This should get an award as the Best Use of a Jersey City Theater as A Set Ever In a Movie. (originally written 8/21/99)
This movie treads on very familiar ground -- the confusion of art and reality in the life of actors. It does not have anything particularly novel or interesting to say on this subject and is in fact rather dull. The final scene in particular is interminably tedious. Seeing the audience crying at the "moving" acting they are seeing on the screen made me ask "who do they think they are kidding?"<br /><br />Nevertheless there are some good performances and interesting scenes, particularly from some of the minor characters. Ben Gazzara plays an old and slightly touched actor, who gets a whole posse of policemen clapping his performance when they come to arrest him.<br /><br />Christopher Walken again plays an over-the-top wacko. Remember his character "The Continental" on Saturday Night Live; an aging eurotrash satyr chasing a young woman around the furniture and trying to get her into bed? He does an identical turn in the film, chasing his young (male) prey around an antique table and plying him with champagne.<br /><br />Overall this film was both enchanting and irritating, but mostly irritating.
'Illuminata' has expanded the limits of John Turturro's mediocrity from second rate actor to third rate director, writer and producer. This film was dreadful. It is disjointed and flits from scene to scene with little flow or meaning relevant to the main story line.<br /><br />We are served with a smorgasbord of fragmented scenes, each a non sequitur to all the others. The only thread that seems to run through them is that they occur in the lives of the members of the same theatre repertory company. The few scenes that do matter to the plot are so convoluted that you frequently can't tell if the dialogue is from the story or the actors running their lines for the play within the story. <br /><br />If this story were a person it would be a schizophrenic with mulitple personality disorder. It couldn't decide if it was a drama, a romance, a comedy, a tragedy, a sex farce, or a parody of theatre. It came closest to being bearable as a sex farce.<br /><br /> Turturro was lifeless and impassive as Tuccio, supposedly a complex and passionate writer whose play gets its big chance when the currently running show needs to be cancelled due to the illness of the lead actor. Susan Sarandon gave a good performance as the aging actress trying to seduce Tuccio for a role. Unfortunately, she found it necessary to go topless which only goes to illustrate that the hardware of aging sex symbols is much better left to the imagination. Christoher Walkin gave a delightful performance as the uppity theatre critic who makes impassioned overtures to a member of the cast. Beverly D'Angelo and Ben Gazzara also had minor roles.<br /><br />I gave this film a 2. Other than Walken's vignette, there is really not much to recommend it except that the puppets used in the opening and closing credits were phenomenally lifelike and beautiful. Avoid this movie like the plague that it is.<br /><br />
The story is: a turn-of-the-century troupe of actors, along with producers and theatre-owners, have very complicated relationships. A resident playwright has written a psychological drama. He wants to get a good production on stage, but can't unless he convinces a pariticular reviewer to revisit the production, and give a positive review. If his production does not go on, then the troupe will put on The Doll House, recently written by Ibsen. Many different relationships among the principals are explored; none of them interesting. But the involvement of the characters with one another lead to giving the play by the resident playwrght a second shot.<br /><br />This movie is purely an excuse for the director and his friends to get together and put on a movie. The story lines are incoherent to anyone who isn't a buddy of one of the stars. The only reason I didn't leave the theatre after about a half hour is that a fat lady was resting a full meal atop her stomach at the end of my row.
I liked all the Lilo and Stitch movies. The TV series weren't that great, but I put my opinions of the series aside when I watched this movie. And I must say... It was bad.<br /><br />One thing I found disappointing was the animation. Yes, you heard it. The animation. I found its quality greatly degraded since the first movie. Its quality was only as high as the TV series', something which I did not expect at all. If you're looking for eye candy, don't expect anything much here. Also, the animation failed to portray any serious moods. Even in the supposed sad scenes, I didn't feel anything for the character, another downgrade from the first movie.<br /><br />The next, was the absolutely horrible voice acting. I found it very, very unconvincing, and wondered why, Disney, with all its riches and glory, couldn't afford voice actors with real talent. The voice actors' skill were just as annoying as the one in the series. I tolerated the one in the series because, hey, who wouldn't be tired out when made to voice act for so many episodes? Heck, I don't even know how many episodes there are (Theoretically, there are 624, but I just can't believe that). However, I thought that the voice acting would improve in the movie, and I was put down in the face by the truth, that what they could do in the series was already their best.<br /><br />Next, was the horrible script. It was cheesy beyond redemption, and the writers just try too hard. They try to put some jokes in, but I just found them annoying. Maybe it wasn't the voice acting, but the cheesy dialogues that ruined the sound section. (On the upside, the soundtrack wasn't too bad, and matched the mood quite well.) <br /><br />Fourthly was the problem with the storyline. I predicted everything, and the storyline was what made the characters so unoriginal and unlikeable all of a sudden. You have the aliens get new positions and responsibilities inouter space. After the initial hype, they realize that they actually didn't like it and miss their old life. <br /><br />Meanwhile, the evil villain gets broken out of jail after a very 'action packed' action scene and breaks in to Jumbaa's lab to steal his experiment. The experiment was then cloned into 100 others and the hamster wants to conquer Earth. When the main characters find out, they try to stop the evil hamster but gets confronted in some cheesy final showdown against the experiment and owns him in an extremely lame excuse for trying to make the series to look cool. The characters then give up their new privileges and return to Earth to resume their life. Seriously, how many other movies has used that ending already? The that storyline was extremely short and formulaic, so don't expect too much from it.<br /><br />So Disney has failed in sound, graphics and storyline. The only charm of the series was the original characters, and how they managed to retain the 'feel' of the characters, but even that wasn't able to save the movie. I tried to like it, I really did, but I give it a rating of 4/10. Another Disney failure.
I have now seen quite a few films by Pedro Almodóvar, but this would have to be the most disappointing so far. This film seemed to lack the zaniness that is usually everywhere in his films, and the story just never got me interested. Many Almodóvar regulars appear in this film, so it's not like there was a lack of on-screen talent, but this film just seemed more serious than his other films. If there was a comedic edge to this movie, I certainly couldn't find it, and it made for one surprisingly weak movie.
This is my first Almodavar film. I'll confess we chose it mainly because we knew this had the enticing prospect of Antonio Banderas in gay sex scenes.<br /><br />Unfortunately, that is about all that this film has to recommend it. I consider myself a fairly sophisticated viewer, I like European films, "art" films, and I am generally able to recognize a quality film even if it is not to my particular taste.<br /><br />But this film was a complete blank to me. The plot was ridiculous, the characters lifeless, the box called it a "hilarious comedy" but I didn't laugh once. Loosly and awkwardly constructed, with a lot of pointless dialogue. I don't get this at all-- it seems like an amateurish effort. Can someone enlighten me?
Remember when Rick Mercer was funny? 22 Minutes was a great show when Rick Mercer was on it and Made In Canada was a great show once too. Talking To Americans was such a funny special too. But like my friend said "Rick Mercer woke up one day and wasn't funny any more" I think that day was when Rick Mercer Report went on the air. What is the point of this show? Rick Mercer reads wacky fake headlines, shows pictures of bad sheds that people mail in and then spends about 20 minutes of the 30 minute show going somewhere and just talking to people hoping to say something witty or clever enough to get on TV and maybe even make somebody somewhere laugh. We're supposed to be interested in seeing Rick Mercer visit a gymnastics team and then try to do some of their moves, and then suck at it on purpose while trying desperately to be "funny". Rick Mercer got old or just lost interest or just ain't funny any more. Even his classic rant bits have lost all their bite and humor. You can say that about CBC comedy in general though because how many years have they been sticking Air Farce on TV to deliver the same kinds of useless jokes?
The comments already left for this show are way more funny than the show itself and they are all accurate. I feel exactly the same way, that I am very disappointed at how far Rick Mercer has fallen when he used to do some really great things on This Hour Has 22 Minutes but now he is just clowning around, going places and talking to people. He does some bits in the studio about things going on in the news but they are never funny at all, just really sad and predictable jokes about headlines. Most of his show is him going somewhere to talk to people, for example this week he is going to a rodeo and the video pieces are all of him making funny faces and acting scared of the wild horses, etc. He used to be funny but has gotten way less funny since leaving This Hour Has 22 Minutes and that show is also not funny at all any more. Now that Air Farce is off the air (finally thank goodness!) Mercer and This Hour Has 22 Minutes have got to be next in line for the axe, just old tired predictable comedy that almost nobody finds funny any more. It's sad really considering Rick Mercer used to be the funniest man on Canadian TV!
It's 2 stars only because they put a lot of work in making this game look good. I played plenty of good and bad games and I think this game has the dullest story I was ever forced to listen. The best thing they could have done is to let you skip the conversations (but no, you must listen to them talking for 10 minutes) and just continue doing the same things over and over again. Climb the building, save the citizen, go kill some dude. IT'S ALL THE SAME! Ubisoft should really hire someone with some imagination.<br /><br />I'm a huge fan of Prince of Persia series (first 3). The story was good and you wanted to know what happens next all the time. I don't even hate Prince of Persia 4. But I think anyone who was in charge of developing the story for Assassin's Creed should be banned to write another thing for the rest of his life.<br /><br />Boring story and same missions over and over again! If just one of these two things was good the game would be worth playing.
This is hands down the most annoying and frustrating game I have ever encountered. Every time you turn around the game takes control of your character or creates invisible walls that you can't walk through. The cut scenes leave you in control of your character's movements, but only to a slight degree. Also, you have to play the game for about 2 hours just to get past the intro/tutorials. It's terrible! I am afraid if I play this game any more I will end up breaking something. This game sucks. The graphics are good, but nothing special, the game play, however, is awful. To say I hate this game would be a huge understatement. I got it on sale, but I want my $20 back. What a waste!
This game was terrible. I think they worked too hard on the visuals and didn't do much with the gameplay, which is the most important part. I mean, the visuals look incredible, but is the game really "fun"? NO! I mean it's like "hey let's jump off buildings" and all I'm doing is holding up and A/X. The game play just isn't there, and I don't agree with what Ubisoft did, because they had this hot girl (the producer of the game, Jade Raymond), and they were like "OK we've got this hot girl, let's pimp her" and if you go to gaming websites, you're not gonna see gameplay stuff of Assassin's Creed, you'll see her face with a microphone and it'll be like "We interviewed Jade Raymond about her favorite cookies!" It's like man, shut the F*@K UP WHO CARES?! Apparently...a lot of people do, because they bought the game and like it...I mean compare this game with Super Mario Galaxy. A Wii game that really doesn't abuse the Wii Remote, but STILL is very innovative and delivers in the most important part, GAMEPLAY! They were able to do a bit of everything with Mario Galaxy, the graphics were still stunning, the music in the game was orchestrated and sounded amazing, and THAT'S a game that deserves game of the year. NOT Assassin's Creed, man, it doesn't even deserve to even be a NOMINEE for Game of the Year. The hype around this game where it was like "oh it's the next generation of gaming"....really? I think not! So let me get this straight here, because I think the people liking this game are only liking it because they're Jade fans, so I'll tell you guys, JADE WILL NOT MAKE OUT WITH YOU OR ANYTHING IF YOU LOVE OR DEFEND THIS GAME! If you want a REAL game on the PS3, get Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, if you want a REAL game for the Xbox 360, get Call of Duty 4 (and a ton of other games too), and if you want a REAL game just in all the systems? GET SUPER MARIO GALAXY! I know this comment will be hated by many, but seriously, pressing two buttons for doing all this cool stuff, is that REALLY a fun game? The only reason why other games make it more complicated is because after it'll end up being more innovative and fun. And this game just isn't it.<br /><br />1.3/10 A LIVING HELL!
This could have been the best game ever!! But the game makers just screwed up after 3 assassinations and the ending!! This is a combination of Prince Of Persia, Hit-man, GTA and Age Of Empires II (Saladin).<br /><br />Yes these four games mentioned above are considered to be one of the greatest games ever made.<br /><br />You combine the four and you get this game!! It has all the good aspects of the four games like acrobatic skills, stealth assassinations, open world and the HISTORY!! For the first 3 assassinations you feel this game is greatest!! But after the third, things seem to get so repetitive, that you only hope for the GAME to END.<br /><br />I have played this on a PC and the PC version is horrible with glitches and the stupid side missions are senseless.<br /><br />MY advice to all. This is a good game but get it EITHER for the XBOX360 or PS3. DON'T get it for the PC.<br /><br />Lastly, this game came from the creators of Prince Of Persia. Surely the producer is hot, but the game is not hot and it is NOT better than the four games mentioned above!!
Sure, the concept had already been done with Alf and the Charmings: thrust modern society onto one or more out-of-place characters. But I loved both shows and watched them religiously until they ended in 1990. When I learned about Scorch, I was actually very hopeful for something new, as new TV in the 90's so far hadn't impressed me (but at least Star Trek: TNG and the Simpsons were still going).<br /><br />What I got was a big disappointment. The acting was awful, but considering the ridiculous dialogue and wholly unbelievable writing, I can't blame them too much for what they had to work with. There were a few humorous moments, but most of the deliberate jokes seemed forced in their delivery. The whole production work on the show seemed too low-budget for what was on TV at the time. In the 80's it would have fit right in.<br /><br />Still, it was the first episode and had to introduce the characters and establish the entire premise of the series, so I gave it the benefit of the doubt. The second episode wasn't as bad, and I started to get my hopes back that once it got into its stride, the show would improve. Sadly, my VCR ended up not recording the third episode aired, I never got to see it, and the series disappeared from the TV listings after that. All I have now are the first two episodes recorded off the air onto a VHS tape.
This should have been a moody, gritty, movie which lingered in the memory as an exposition of relationship where the dominant personality only survives because the personality being dominated sees no hope of change.<br /><br />The acting was intense and skillful, the dialogue worked but the movie was irritatingly ineffective: too many distance shots that suggested lack of focus rather than a broader picture. Poor flow. The first 5 minutes could have been missed out altogether.<br /><br />I suspect that, with a different edit, this movie could have been compelling.<br /><br />In its current form it is flat, formless and tremendously disappointing.
This filmmaker wanted to make a movie without having a story to tell -- and did so. Really awful jumble of unlikely/unexplained coincidences and unidentifiable plot line, all without character or clear motivation.<br /><br />We get cliché snapshots instead of characters. One in particular is the diminutive and beautiful crime boss, who projects an overdone "tough guy" persona and casts a cartoonish shadow of intimidation over the actual tough guys who have been brought in to work for her. Nothing much startling to look at in the film except for one shot when the boys hit the road and one of them carries a tiny suitcase (as in, the smallest from a complete American Tourister set) in a bright, sky blue, without explanation or apology. Otherwise it's standard visually -- one other exception is a compelling shot of a beautiful bridge in CT.
My, my, my: Peter Cushing and Donald Pleasance must have been desperate for work to have lent their talents to this turkey. A horribly muddled story about satanism in modern day Greece, Land Of The Minotaur (aka The Devil's Men) is a misfire on more-or-less every level imaginable. It has precious few scares (always a slight flaw for a "horror" movie, don't you think?); weak performances; countless scenes where characters foolishly wander off alone or turn down the opportunity to remain in the safety of a group; and some rather irritating editing techniques which add nothing whatsoever to the proceedings. I got prematurely excited at the prospect of Cushing and Pleasance working together 17 years after The Flesh And The Fiends - but this film isn't worth getting remotely excited about; it's a huge let-down and rather an embarrassment for its much worthier leads.<br /><br />In a remote region of Greece, outsiders such as tourists and archaeologists keep going missing, and local priest Father Roche (Donald Pleasance) suspects that something sinister is afoot. He writes to his friend, New York private eye Milo Kaye (Costas Skouras), asking him to fly out to Greece to help him get to the bottom of the mystery. In the meantime, three more visitors - Beth (Vanna Reville), Ian (Nikos Verlekis) and Tom (Robert Behling), who are all personal friends of Father Roche - go missing while snooping around nearby Greek ruins. Milo eventually arrives in Greece, but is initially dubious about Father Roche's beliefs that the missing people have been snatched for satanic sacrifices. Milo and Father Roche are also joined by Laurie (Luan Peters), the girlfriend of missing man Tom. Together, they uncover the activities of a Minoan devil-worshipping cult headed by creepy Carpathian exile Baron Corofax (Peter Cushing). These crazed cultists have been busily sacrificing their victims to a statue of the minotaur. Furthermore, they seemingly cannot be killed by normal means, so Father Roche has to use a variety of religious artifacts in his fight against them.<br /><br />Land Of The Minotaur should have been much better than it actually is. The plot is so wacky and improbable that it has all the hallmarks of an enjoyably goofy cult/camp favourite. But the handling is just awful. Director Costas Carayiannis has no idea how to link the narrative together cohesively, so the whole thing progresses like it was being made up on a day-to-day basis. He also has no idea how to coax convincing performances from his cast, so they are left to embarrass themselves in either dreadfully hammy (Pleasance, Cushing) or dreadfully amateurish (Skouras, Peters) performances. What's worse is that the narrative makes no sense. Why would Father Roche seek help from a private eye who is utterly flippant about his beliefs? How does Roche know that the sacrifices only occur during a full moon? How can the minotaur statue speak? Why is one one of the sacrificial victims instructed during a vision to stab Father Roche, only to herself be stabbed a few scenes later before getting a chance to carry it out? And - most baffling of all - why does Father Roche drag Milo halfway around the world to help him when all he needs is a crucifix and and some holy water to dispose of the bad guys? These questions - and more - will pop into your mind during Land Of The Minotaur.... but, alas, there are no answers to be had. Frustrating, dumb and disappointing!
The Devil's Men represents what turned out to be one of the last gasps of the occult obsessed horror scene of the 70's shortly before Halloween came along, tore up the rule book, set fire to it and kicked it screaming through a plate glass window.<br /><br />To cut a long story short a couple of enterprising Greek film makers fancy their chances of nailing together a new film franchise featuring the unlikely double act of womanising, wise talking American investigator Milo and stuffy but kind hearted priest Father Roche. An exiled nobleman is mixed up in some satanic jiggery pokery - offering up tourists as sacrifices to an extremely unfrightening effigy of the minotaur and only Milo and Roche can stop him! <br /><br />Or something like that.<br /><br />The reality is however horribly dull, frustrating and loaded with wasted opportunities. I strongly suspect that the fledgling film makers blew most of the budget on getting Donald Plesance, Peter Cushing and Brian Eno (for the soundtrack) onboard and hoped that would be enough to sway audiences in the English speaking world.<br /><br />It isn't. The Devil's Men looks beautiful with assured, camera-work and fantastic locations. Eno's score, though basically just a one chord drone that he probably cranked out in an afternoon is suitably atmospheric and the movie is laden with cracking 70's crumpet including that Austrailian sort from Fawlty Towers and uber hottie Jane Lyle of Island of Death infamy. But there the positives end. Cushing sleepwalks through it, looking like he has a corn cob up his bum and Pleasance fusses about trying his best, but never quite getting things right. To make matters worse the character of Milo is appallingly flimsy and unlikeable.<br /><br />Okay, so it doesn't look that good. But from there the film simply refuses to go anywhere. There is an insinuation that the local villagers are possessed, but to be fair to them, they never really do anything very much other than shuffle about looking glassy eyed. Perhaps they were just tired? Just when you are sure things will come to some kind of a head Milo and Roche interrupt the Baron's satanic party with laughable ease, sending him on to meet his maker. The statue of the minotaur falls silent and hey presto! Satan is defeated.<br /><br />Yeah right.<br /><br />The inane optimism that The Devil's Men might be the first of a series of films is hammered home by Father Roche's final line mere seconds before the ridiculously rushed ending. <br /><br />"Who knows Milo? Perhaps one day I may call upon you again to help defeat the Antichrist." <br /><br />I'm sure you'll be putting that call in any day now Donald.
Donald Pleasance and Peter Cushing united in one horror film; that always sounds like a terrific plan. Two of the most versatile cult actors of their generation, who previously already starred together in terrific genre outings like "The Flesh and the Fiends" and "From Beyond the Grave", pairing up in a mid-70's satanic themed exploitation flick. How can this possibly go wrong? Well, unfortunately, it can. To my deepest regret "Land of the Minotaur" can hardly even be called mediocre, and that in spite of the cast, the exotic setting, the appealing title and the potentially great sounding premise. In a remote little area in Greece, more particularly near an archaeological site, multiple tourists vanish because Baron Peter Cushing and his docile followers keep feeding them to a fire-breathing Minotaur statue. Cushing, who never looked more bored and uninterested in any role he played before, owns a giant medieval castle and apparently in Greek this means you also own the complementary archaeological ruins and an underground network of caverns. That is of course quite handy if your hobby is the kidnapping of random campers and amateur archaeologists. When three of his young friends also mysteriously disappear in the same area, Father Roch - the priest of a couple of towns before) - decides to investigate. "Land of the Minotaur" is a boring and extremely slow-paced horror effort that never really undertakes any major attempts to generate a satanic atmosphere and doesn't bother to elaborate on all the potentially fascinating elements and pagan trivia details. The titular Minotaur, for example, is an intriguing creature of Greek mythology with the head of a bull and the body of a person, but for some inexplicable reason the script never deepens out the significance. Instead, the film focuses on tedious and overly talkative sequences and loud inappropriate music altered with experimental noises. The only reason to even consider giving this major disappointment of a film a chance is because of Donald Pleasance. His portrayal of rude, bossy and old-fashioned priest who criticizes everything that represents modern youth is powerful and reliable as always.
Peter Cushing and Donald Pleasance are legendary actors, and director Kostas Karagiannis was the man behind the successful Greek Giallo-esquire thriller Death Kiss in 1974; and yet when you combine the three talents, all you get is this complete load of drivel! God only knows what drove the likes of Peter Cushing and Donald Pleasance to star in this cheapie devil worship flick, but I really do hope they were well paid as neither one deserves something as amateurish as this on their resumes. The story focuses on a group of devil worshippers that kidnap some kids, leading another group to go after them. The pace of the plot is very slow and this ensures that the film is very boring. The plot is also a long way from being original and anyone with even a passing interest in the horror genre will have seen something a bit like this, and no doubt done much better. The obvious lack of budget is felt throughout and the film doesn't manage to overcome this at any point. This really is a depressing and miserable watch and not even a slightly decent ending manages to up the ante enough to lift this film out of the very bottom of the barrel. Extremely poor stuff and definitely not recommended!
How can you go wrong with a film that mixes the sophistication of Peter Cushing, the determination of Donald Pleasence and the bust of Luan Peters? Easy, you give them a terrible script to work with.<br /><br />Peter Cushing, in an evil role, leads a Satanic cult that has captured a couple friends of Donald Pleasence. Donald plays a determined but aloof priest that desires to locate his friends but needs the help of Fred from Scooby-Doo to locate them. He summons the help of a New York bloodhound, who dresses just like the hero of the cartoon, in his task. Meanwhile, the girlfriend of one of the missing people, Luan Peters, joins the search. If all this sounds interesting, then you, like myself, were mislead.<br /><br />It doesn't take long for the trio to sniff out the baddies but their methods of bringing the bad guys to justice are foolish. Also, women will find this a crapfest. Every time they get on the bad guys trail, our two male heroes tell Luan to stay at the hotel even though she can handle herself better than the squeamish priest played by Pleasence.<br /><br />STORY: $ (The script really lets us down. No tension is built. No worthwhile dialogue is given the stars and you'll need both hands to count the number of times Luan Peters is told to stay behind and let men do men work. If you're interested in seeing a minotaur on film don't bother. We get a statue of a minotaur that spits flames).<br /><br />VIOLENCE: $$ (There are some attacks and a few sacrifices, but those of you who drool for gore will be letdown).<br /><br />ACTING: $$ (Even though there are three of my favorite actors in this film, there is nothing redeemable here. Peter Cushing doesn't have much screen time, Donald Pleasence is clearly aware that he is on the set of a stinker and Luan Peters is ill-used. This should have been much better given the talent involved, but then again, the Yankees lose a game here and there too).<br /><br />NUDITY: $ (Luan Peters takes a bath but you see next to nothing. She isn't as obliging here as she was in The Flesh and Blood Show).
Low budget junk about bloodthirsty cultists in Greece headed by Peter Cushing. Its up to priest Donald Pleasance to stop them. Crown International released this crap in 1978, and it was "dog-of-the-week" on one of the episodes of Sneak Previews with Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert. I forget which of the two "dogged" it, but I see the point. Crappy movie has the worst Peter Cushing and Donald Pleasance performances I've ever seen. There is a monster on the video box. No such beast exists in the movie. Instead you get a statue, but at least its atonomically correct. (Woo hoo!)<br /><br />The cultists look like the Klu Klux Klowns...if a group could exist. Skip it.
While walking to buy cigarettes, the professional dancer Daniel (Tom Long) is abducted and forced to have kinky sex along many days by three hooded women. When he is released, the director of his company Isabel (Greta Scacchi) has already replaced him in the play and his girlfriend gives a cold reception to him. The disturbed and humiliated Daniel leaves the dance company and travels obsessed to seek out the abductors. Daniel has sex with many women that he suspects that might be the kidnappers. <br /><br />"The Book of Revelation" is a weird movie with a promising beginning that loses the initial power and becomes a sort of too long erotic soap- opera or soft-porn chic. The production is classy, the cover of the DVD is awesome but the characters are not well-developed and the trauma of Daniel seems to be excessive since most of the men would fantasize with the dream-situation that he was submitted – to become sexual object of three sexy women. The melodramatic development with the illness of Isabel does not add any value to the plot; the open conclusion is very disappointing and there are no explanations for the motive of the women or the title. It is very clear that the screenplay about a man's feelings was written by a woman. It was good to see the still beautiful Greta Scacchi again and her make-up in the end is impressive. There is a saying in Portuguese that could be translated to English as follows: "If the rape is inevitable, relax and come." Daniel should have done this and spared me of watching almost two hours of a pointless story. My vote is four. <br /><br />Title (Brazil): "O Livro das Revelações" ("The Book of Revelations")
Here's a couple of paragraphs out of an essay I wrote for university about TBOR.<br /><br />"The Book of Revelation is an erotic thriller about sex, power and a talented dancer's struggle to regain his sense of self after being unfortunately raped by three cloaked women. The three women that violate him all have distinctive marks on the bodies; one has a giant birth mark on her buttocks, another has a butterfly tattoo on her lower stomach and the ring leader has a small circle on her breast. So he lives his new life in search of these markings, and to find them on these intimate places he does what any sane man does when he needs to see as many naked women as possible to solve a mystery, he has sex with them. An hour and ten minutes into the film and you feel like he has almost had a piece of every woman in Melbourne.<br /><br />The film is a giant chunk of pretentious celluloid; it is like grandiloquence drips from every frame. At only one point towards the films final climax does Kokkinos give a scene the same energy and strength as her debut feature Head On had in droves. As like many films funded by the government bodies the film takes it self way to seriously, the script and its execution appear to be chores rather then gifts and unfortunately for the talented thespians, their brilliant performances (particularly Tom Long as the fractured protagonist) are stuck within the confines of a pompous wan k fest."
Many questions arise about the making of this film. The first of which is: Why make a film that plays out as little more than an awkward female fantasy? It's one thing to leave an audience with issues to discuss about a film's intent, it's something entirely different to go into the process of writing a script which fails to adequately address real human issues before they are rendered on the screen.<br /><br />Why the outrageously melodramatic and often comical soundtrack? Why the excessive and frequently clunky dialogue? Why is the lead character's girlfriend one of the hooded abductors? What purpose is there to turning the lead character's freedom from abduction into a joke by having him complete his "mission"? (This is a classic Little Aussie Film moment. Resort to quirky comedy at the most inappropriate moment.) Why so many scenes where absolutely nothing happens? (This accounts for approximately 15 minutes of the film, which is at least 30 minutes too long.) Why, if a man is imprisoned for so many days, does he not endeavor to make a serious attempt at escape?<br /><br />The Director, who co-wrote the script, has failed on many counts to deliver a satisfactory story. <br /><br />Dave Garver, Australia.
Sure, I like some indie films. A lot, actually. I don't always understand them, and that's okay. Not all of them were meant to be understood, especially by mainly main-stream people like me. I'm probably showing my ignorance, but I'm still puzzled why 'Book of Revelation' is called that. I love those end-of-world stories and the only thing I could see similar to the end of the world and this film was the torture it took to get through this. I'm not talking about the subject matter; perhaps I've been subdued from all the other torture/porn I've seen. It was just the incredibly slow story, one hour 15 minute material stretched for nearly two hours. (Major spoilers lie ahead) Hetero-man dancer gets abducted, seduced and raped six ways from Sunday, or in this case 12 days, by three hooded women. Upon his release, after his somewhat distraught dancer/girlfriend barely flinches (other than dropping a glass) after wondering which she missed more: him or the cigarettes she originally sent him for upon abduction. Still in a state of reasonable shock, he refuses to talk, and she goes on to work without so much a hug as if nothing happened and he takes a well needed shower. Problem. As much as he's tormented through the flashbacks to his, uh, "attacks," he's as equally aroused. Granted, I haven't been bound and used as a plaything, but I doubt I would really "be in the mood." Oh, I forgot, and how does he try and solve this crime? Sleep with as many women as he can to try and spot the birthmarks or tats the criminals had. I see where they're going with it – show a gang rape from the male POV. Fine, twist notwithstanding, you could never feel for this guy. Only saving grace was the good acting of the LifetimeTV Dancer/Cancer Instructor. But even she couldn't save the film.
Book of Revelations starts very well. Daniel, an egomaniac dancer is kidnapped, abused and sexually raped by three masked women.<br /><br />After that, nothing else really happens. There is some hint of rediscovery but the movie gives nor explanation nor a real ending. Daniel reactions after the abuse are very basic. He quits dancing, has sex with every women around and finally starting a relation with very simple and common woman.<br /><br />I have seen a good share of art-house movies but this has something missing in it.<br /><br />The main leads are fine; but some characters does not seems to be completely defined.
Well it certainly stunned me - I can not believe that someone made another Australian film that's even more boring than Somersault. The story is implausible, the characters, with the exception of Friels' and Mailman's characters, are unlikeable and wooden, Tom Long possesses a VAST array of facial expressions: happy and not happy, and the "sex scenes", which could have been very confronting and disturbingly erotic, would have been at home in a low-budget porno flick.<br /><br />This is the first movie I have seen in 30 years of cinema-going that has had me on the edge of my seat....ready to get up and leave.<br /><br />The best thing about this movie is the promotional poster.
Firstly, the title has no relevance whatsoever to the movie. It started off fine with good development but got annoying when he couldn't tell his girlfriend what had happened to him. Even his attempt to tell the police failed, which just added to the annoyance value. There were too many pregnant pauses in the movie that seemed more like filler than anything worthwhile. The plot never revealed who did this crime to him although a good plot would have allowed disclosure. The ending was nothing short of "hey we've run out of budget let's stop it here NOW!!"...If I'd written a novel that ended this way I'd top myself. TRASH TRASH TRASH!!
I have to agree with what many of the other reviewers concluded. A subject which could have been thought-provoking and shed light on a reversed double-standard, failed miserably.<br /><br />Rape being a crime of violence and forced abusive control, the scenes here were for the most part pathetic. It would have been a better idea to cover short glimpses of what was happening and let the audience imagine the deed. And the victim's laugh with the cops, when he aborted his police complaint, seemed as genuine as that of the cops. No awkwardness, no hesitance to merely join in. I don't know if this was bad acting and or bad directing but someone missed the point entirely. As for his half-a**ed supposed search for his attackers, pathetic. They should have skipped most of the sex scenes - another monumental failure in themselves, and had him meet Colin Friels when he first went to the police. The story could have then been drawn forth with good dialog and the occasional flashback - and saved by the superior acting and presence Colin Friels - the only reason I watched this movie - brings to any project he does.<br /><br />The only concrete revelation of this movie, is, it was crap.
This looks like one of these Australian movies done by "talented" students and funded by the government. It is chock full of smart shots of colors and shapes and verbal excursions into Freudian psychology to be appreciated by art students and teachers alike, but in general it is perceived a stupid mockery of good cinema, good storytelling and generally good taste. This what happens I guess when art students become so obsessively indulgent. "Pink Flamingoes" is miles ahead one the same subjects. Some porn movies from 70s are far more watchable and inspiring. Book of Revelation is not entirely without merits, but as an overall experience it is well below average B-grade.
I was also disappointed with this movie. For starters, the things that happen to him don't seem too terrible to me (Sorry male chauvinist PoV). As is pointedly said by one of the lady captors: "Most men would _pay_ to be in your position". To which he replies "But this is not _my_ choice". OK, OK, fair point, so how bad was it really? Please let us know. But now the kicker: He does not let _anyone_ know, until after the movie-end (unseen). Not his girlfriend, not is mentor, not the police, not anyone. In stead, he comes up with the brilliant plan of f*ck*ng every girl he knows, so he may recognize the tattoo (or something) of one of his captors. I thought he'd just had enough unpleasant sex during the 12 days of his captivity? Isn't it time to take a little break from all that? For me, his, to put it mildly, ill advised actions broke the "suspension of disbelief" of the movie. I took out a book while watching the last half hour out of the corner of my eye.
Anna Kokkinos' success with' Head On' now begins to look like it depended totally on the script and Alex Dimitriades great lead performance. The degree to which this latest, "The Book of Revelation" is both derivative , pretentious and utterly unoriginal ( except for Tristan Milani's fine cinematography) seems to bear this out. . <br /><br />Alas, there have already been quite a few Aussie movies dealing with such themes , some reviled for 'sexism' (and/or explicit sex scenes) in the 1970s and 1980s and beyond and maybe they're worth looking at again after this piece of fluff. Of course, setting the whole thing in the world of ballet and making it all achingly slow (and in its choreography, like a 1960s Dutch Ballet experimental number) does suggest Great Art if you've not traveled around much-and then only if you never progressed beyond Art Theory 101.<br /><br />Add to the pretension, appallingly arch dialog ( "you will do as we command...") and the whole shebang falls onto its well funded face. Then there are the 'sexy' bits : straight from Dario Argento.<br /><br />Given the lovely but truncated performance by Colin Friels - how about a real city primeval thriller ?<br /><br />All in, all ,with 'The Book of Revelation' , the feminist project has been set back yet another decade - and with the willing and deeply imitative (of male writers like Henry Miller, William Burroughs, even Bukowski) collaboration of some collective in Melbourne, Oz, suffering from a form of educational -and ideological- amnesia! No revelations await us here.
I'm shocked that all the "hated it" ratings are sixes and sevens, still above average. To me, this seems a case of "the emperor has no clothes". I understand this film was produced on a very low budget in the early 70's...Regardless, it became a struggle to sit through and watch. The DVD I saw did have some subtitles, but about 75% of the speech is not subtitled. Some of it is hard to understand. The Jamaican patois was cool to hear, but you struggle not to 'tune out' after awhile. Some of the shots were nice, and the realism was there, even if some of the performances were not great.(Jimmy Cliff did a good job) The plot is not bad, but quite predictable. In the 1:43 film, the highlights are Jimmy Cliff(Ivan) singing for a scene, and a couple of shoot-outs and a fight. Probably 15 minutes or so. The rest is pretty boring. BTW, near the beginning of the film, there are some weird cuts with the Ivan character that seem like a editing mistake, which made me laugh for a bit. One reviewer said this film has been cut so many times, that there are few copies of the original 1972 theatrical version out there. The ending was kind of interesting, showing how the media from a young age influences people, it could also be a general comment on the white man's/colonialism's influence on Jamaica. Other main themes are poverty, corruption, church, ambition... In closing, the soundtrack is definitely worthwhile, the film much less.
TV director uses astral projection to kill people taking the form of the blue man.<br /><br />Dull uninvolving horror film that kind of just sits there before your eyes and makes you wonder why you are watching it. I sat through the film to the end and I really can't give you more than a cursory account of what the film was about because I kept finding my attention diverted by other things.<br /><br />I can't really recommend this. I think my feelings are best summed up by the fact that I paid a dollar for the DVD as a double feature and I feel kind of ripped off.
The use of "astral projection"(wandering soul), to exist outside of body, with the result inflicting horrible death(..crushing the insides of victims leading to broken spine and ruptured organs)on those close to the one with such ability, is the threat of ETERNAL EVIL, providing Karen Black(..as Janus) with another "unique" character to fool around with as a woman who influences a commercial director, Paul Sharpe(Winston Rekert) tired of his waning marriage and dull career. In actuality, she's dying and needs his body, her spirit potentially harmful to his wife and son(..his son has a "special friend" who talks him into things, even poisoning himself at one point). A detective, Kauffman(John Novak) investigating the unusual homicides concerning those killed by the benevolent spirit, links Paul to the deaths and through him uncovers Janus. Soon both realize that Janus must be stopped or she'll simply move to another human host. What Paul doesn't know is that his new secretary is Janus' lover, both were actually older intellectuals featured in his documentary of astral projection called WANDERING SOUL.<br /><br />Director George Mihalka(My Bloody Valentine)certainly creates a weird atmosphere with this movie which contains a rather bizarre premise. It seems that Paul's boy can see the spirit moving in the shape of a "blue man", manipulating the kid into disorderly conduct. Black, despite the star treatment, rarely is shot close up taking advantage of her face which can produce the type of malevolent evil her character warrants. Instead, she's shot from afar, her voice dubbed, and she never quite establishes herself with the proper menace which is an opportunity lost, in my opinion. For some reason, despite the intriguing(..if oddball)idea of astral projection causing a spirit to kill folks from within, the film just never takes off. The soundtrack is very "Yanni-ish" and the lighting(..and sound), while at times moody and effective, often is quite murky. The pacing is a problem, also, as the story mules along. The cast is rather limp, especially Rekert in the lead, his performance erratic, at best. It doesn't help that there are few characters(..except Paul's wife)we could care less about, and what really hurts is that Paul himself isn't exactly the most lovable person in the world..he can be quite difficult and moody, his unfulfilled career a reason for such behavior. Black should've been a more prominent figure in the film, yet remains mostly in the background, talked about in dialogue between Paul and Kauffman, but rarely does she get a chance to amuse us with her histrionics, which is a shame.
"A bored television director is introduced to the black arts and astral projection by his girlfriend. Learning the ability to separate his spirit from his body, the man finds a renewed interest in his life and a sense of wellbeing. Unfortunately, the man discovers while he is sleeping, his spirit leaves his body and his uncontrolled body roams the streets in a murderous rampage," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />The synopsis isn't entirely correct, as it turns out.<br /><br />Anyway, the movie opens with a dizzying "out-of-body" example of handsome director Winston Rekert (as Paul Sharpe)'s newly discovered "astral body" experience; it also foreshadows an upcoming dogfight. Young Andrew Bednarski (as Matthew Sharpe), being a kid, draws pictures of "The Blue Man", as his murder spree begins. Handsome detective John Novak (as Stewart Kaufman) discovers the victims are connected to Mr. Rekert. Mr. Novak's investigation leads to the supernatural; a prime example of which is Karen Black (as Janus), with whom Rekert fears he is falling in love.<br /><br />Several in the cast perform well; but, "The Blue Man" winds up tying itself up in a knot. Aka "Eternal Evil", its unsatisfying story tries to be far too clever for its own good.
This is a good plot concept, so why-o-why is it such a poor film. The acting is terrible and every shock is signposted so far in advance that it is almost laughable by the time it reaches you. Spend your time and money elsewhere, this is not worth watching.
I never figured out what the attraction of Karen Black was. She always had those beady eyes and kind of an odd look about her. She seemed to often be eccentric or cast as the "other" woman. In this one, she is the psychic adviser and expert on the occult to a crummy producer of bad commercials as he learns astral projection. He is a mean sucker, even without the new baggage. Apparently this is the avenue to immortality, because if you get good at it, you can inhabit the bodies of future generations. I believe Star Trek had a plot like this with Jack the Ripper hanging on for several centuries. Anyway, this guy is really dangerous. He has a nice family and makes them miserable. He begins to murder friends, just because they have an unkind comment for them, or he doesn't like them. You can see the ending coming from the back row in left field. It's a very harsh, humorless movie. Most of it must be taken as truth. Why are some called but few chosen? I found it long and not very satisfying.
AALCC informs us that 14-year-olds can be pretty obnoxious and vicious. To those who don't know that, the film performs a public service. Otherwise, it's a lot of flashy videography with little or no reason for being. I will allow that the camera-work is sometimes striking, but also that it can be madly self-indulgent at other times. The actors occupy screen space and screen time, but do not compute as compelling human beings. I suppose the e-mail that flashes across the screen throughout means that you have to figure out which character has which moniker, but I simply couldn't tell enough differences to do so, and really didn't care anyway.
I wish it were "Last Dumb Thriller". But thrillers are like that. They are like children: numerous, illogical, and often annoying. They want so desperately to be taken seriously but what is there to take seriously about a child's behaviour or a thriller's plot? Having seen this particular child - I mean... thriller - I understand why reviewers refer to it as "a hitchcockian thriller"; they might as well have called it "idiotic" for that's what "hitchcockian" means in the movie dictionary (look it up, if you don't believe me). Even the soundtrack is old-school Hollywood which is a mistake: it doesn't fit a late 70s film and makes it look phony. Besides, how dare they steal De Palma's idea of stealing from Hitchcock?! The story is absurd. Scheider's wife is killed, and her killers are never an issue. Instead, first his former employers follow him around, and later decide to kill him. Why do they decide to kill him? No explanation. Perhaps because the FBI is a dark, dark organization ("X-Files") which is very trigger-happy about knocking off its former employees for pension-funds reasons. Or perhaps because it's fashionable to want to kill Scheider in this movie; everyone seems to be after him. And while the poor unsuspecting viewer is trying to figure out the mystery by logically assuming that there is a major conspiracy, in reality the killer is... Janet Margolin! Yes, the woman occupying Scheider's living quarters; the one that briefly hinted she was "depraved". Why does she go after Scheider at precisely a time when his wife was murdered and he is feeling paranoid - and followed by his own ex-employers - and not a few years earlier or few years after the wife's murder? A pure hitchcockian (look it up again in the dictionary, in case you forgot what it means) coincidence. And how about that brilliant motive of hers...! Her grandmother was forced into prostitution when she was a fresh-off-the-boat 15 year-old virgin in NY, and then syphilisized by a bunch of horny Jewish men, one of whom - tah-dah! - is Scheider's grandfather. As a result, Margolin has been playing a hooker in her spare time (among other things) in order to kill off all the descendants of the men who so cruelly syphilisized her once-virginal grandmother. How hitchcockian (look it up) is that? The finale then shamelessly rips off the Mount Rushmore scene from "North By Northwest", except that the love-interest is a killer and she doesn't get saved.<br /><br />The movie also offers some dubious/off-kilter dialog and some not-so great acting. Check out the silly and obvious way in which Napier follows Scheider at the cemetery. Let's also not forget the moronic plot-device of Napier reaching for his jacket and holding his hand very suspiciously - but it wasn't a gun! How brilliant! Napier in the tower: now, there's another string of illogical behavioural patterns. J. Demme was, is, and always will be a director without style, without flair, and the man who directed "Philadelphia". Let's give him another Oscar!
Jonathan Demme is such a character-oriented director that, to see him pulling a Brian De Palma (which is to say, aping Hitchcock), it is nearly predictable when he fails to work up much suspense within this tepid mystery. Working from a screenplay by David Shaber, from Murray Teigh Bloom's novel, Demme attempts to strike a chord somewhere between Alan J. Pakula's paranoia dramas and Hitchcock's dangling-participle thrillers. Roy Scheider stars as a retired Secret Agent mourning the murder of his wife who is now busy dodging bad guys who are out to kill him. Takes off right away, but the script is full of flimsy threads and any excitement dies out quickly. There's a visually impressive climax at Niagra Falls, but Demme gets little out of his cast, and even less out of this bummer of a story. ** from ****
Congo is another multi-milion dollar adaptation of Crichton's works. Like Jurassic Park, The Lost World, Sphere, etc, the film raped the book of its true meaning and essence. I'll make this short and to the point. The scenery is beautiful. The actors, well it's the best they can do. The script? Try congesting hundreds of pages into an hour and half movie. You get a mess in the end but how neat of a mess is what counts and Congo falls somewhere below that. There were some silly moments, like why did the killer gorillas decide to jump into the lava? And Amy, raised by humans, surrounded by humans, yet can intimidate dozens of killer apes around her? What sort of twist of common sense is that? Which brings me to this. If there was an annoying character in every movie, Amy ranks of one here. You see Amy is this naive little female ape who can talk with a special backpack and harness strapped to her. Neat idea, but it gets annoying after awhile hearing her talk. Congo is worthwhile to see, and not deplorable, but certainly not a memorable film either.
It's hard to tell if this ham-brained B-movie adventure is a spoof, a homage or just plain bungled, but it doesn't work whichever way you look at it. Based on Michael Crichton's so-so novel, it's a nutty mixture of lost cities, giant hippos, monster monkeys, naff visual effects and corny dialogue. The first thing that scuppers this tosh is the gorilla that can communicate in sign language, and needless to say the film doesn't get any better from that point on. Making all this old rope somewhat worthwhile are Tim Curry, turning in a feverish slice of ham and sporting a bizarre accent that defies identification, and Ernie Hudson, who also seems to know that this is all a load of old rubbish.
I'm really not too sure why people are being so complimentary about this odd movie. Having said that - I did actually sit through the entire 2 hours and can't say it wasn't entirely un-entertaining.<br /><br />I think the key problem is that Frank Marshall is not a true director and this is clear in the film - he is an experienced producer, so will have seen a movie made many a time, and will understand what goes into the process. But I think this is quite different to being able to truly direct a movie - the direction was competent, but somehow flat and direction-less. Marshall has more experience as a unit or second director, and this came through, I feel, in the finished product - it appeared to be a group of sets that failed to really have any continuity in its feel or its character.<br /><br />Fun, watchable, but good? No.
This is just one of those movies that continually make you groan and that I wished was over. The problems are many and the good points are few. I feel the main problem with this movie is that it has what amounts to a cheesy plot and they try to make it out to be a epic movie, which a movie about super evil monkeys and smart ones that sign just is not epic, it is cheese. When you have cheese you make the movie more fun. Granted, the final scene with the monkeys and that laser was very nice to watch and more of things of that nature was needed. Instead the actors are doing such a serious job that you feel the movie just has a corny plot amid all the serious tension the movie is trying to set up. The plot revolves around a woman trying to find what happened to her missing ex-husband while also searching for some sort of legendary diamonds. She uses these two guys who trained an ape to do sign language and now wish to return her to the wild as cover to get into the country and begin the mediocre adventure of a lifetime. The only things that make this movie somewhat tolerable is Ernie Hudson's character and the laser attack at the end.
It is a shame that such a great book was turned into such a terrible movie. I could not wait to see this movie after reading the book....it really did not do it justice.
Poorly acted and poorly directed, "Congo" unsuccessfully tries to recreate the feeling of "Jurassic Park". But the truth is, the book wasn't all that great either. Still, the movie's first problem is that Tim Curry's character was added; the second problem is that the talking arm was added; the main problem, though, is that the cast members don't create realistic characters. I guarantee that this movie will not make you think that there are killer gorillas anywhere on earth. Also starring Laura Linney (happy birthday, Laura!), Dylan Walsh, Ernie Hudson, Grant Heslov, Joe Don Baker, James Karen and Bruce Campbell; I'm guessing that they don't wish to emphasize this movie in their resumes.
As an avid cinema go-er i felt that whilst i was ranking my favourite movies i felt it only fair to rank my most hated films.<br /><br />I'm afraid i really have nothing positive to say about this movie. It is in fact one of only two films that i have ever walked out on. In fairness I went back and watched the movie again to give it another chance and sat through it only to wish that i should have stayed away.<br /><br />The sad thing is the movie has a really decent cast and crew...but then even the brightest stars in Hollywood cant bring a dead duck of a script to life.<br /><br />Stay away...Save yourself from this truly woeful 'film' 1/10
A group of people goes deep into the jungle for various reasons, and finally find a lost city (where apparently King Solomon's Diamonds are) and a race of super-gorilla's... Now, you know you're in trouble when you put fine actors like Linney and Curry in one movie that stars... a talking gorilla, and that is just the beginning. Okay, what else...?<br /><br />For an action/adventure movie the film is... well, lacking just that. The first hour (!) of the movie they aren't even in the jungle, just trying to get there, with subplot after subplot (something about a local military regime, whatever), and when they finally do... it's just no fun anymore.<br /><br />The effects of the movie are only so-and-so (and really bad compared to the earlier Jurassic Park movie).<br /><br />Now, the ending... The father not caring for the death of his son, but just interested in the diamonds? Uh-huh... only in the movies folks, only in the movies.<br /><br />A complete waste of talent, this Chricton (Jurassic Park, Twister, ER) adaptation. 2/10.
After a string of successful 'a man and his monkey films', which included the seminal "Every Which Way But Loose", "Every Which Way You Can" and "Peter's Friends", the genre fell on hard times. In an effort to rejuvenate this once celebrated area, director Frank Marshall brought Michael Crichton's acclaimed novel to the big screen.<br /><br />Think 'Gorillas in the Mist' meets 'Tron' minus the box-office clout of Bruce Boxleitner. This is one mans doomed love affair for his talking monkey. Not helped by bad accents (Tim Curry struggles with a Romanian), a baboon of a screenplay, hungry hippos, skydiving primates and Bruce Campbell. Ape-Sh*t.
publicity got me to the theatre<br /><br />advice will take you away from this waist of time.<br /><br />very bad everything.<br /><br />do you really want to see a monkey talking with a technological device?<br /><br />X
I'd give this film a zero if I could. How anyone could rate it any higher is beyond me. Until I saw Rollerball, this was my pick for worst film ever from a major studio with a real budget (claiming Mangler 2 or Leprechaun in the Hood as the worst ever isn't really saying much, those are supposed to be bad)<br /><br />Tim Curry's mom must have needed surgery or something for him to agree to this non-sensical garbage. I'm really not sure what happened here. The novel was great, the director Frank Marshall had a solid track record with Alive and Arachnophobia (perhaps they should have changed the title to 'Africa'), the cast was good and the budget was there. You'd think someone would have bothered to read the script.<br /><br />You'd be better off watching Battlefield: Earth again than wasting your time with. Congo makes you long for the return of MST3K
"Congo" is based on the best-selling novel by Michael Crichton, which I thought lacked Crichton's usual charm, smart characters and punch. Well, sorry to say, but the same goes for the film.<br /><br />Here's the plot:<br /><br />Greed is bad, this simple morality tale cautions. A megalomaniacal C.E.O. (Joe Don Baker) sends his son into the dangerous African Congo on a quest for a source of diamonds large enough and pure enough to function as powerful laser communications transmitter (or is it laser weapons?). When contact is lost with his son and the team, his daughter-in-law (Laura Linney), a former CIA operative and computer-freak, is sent after them. On her quest, she is accompanied by gee-whiz gadgetry and a few eccentric characters (including a mercenary (Ernie Hudson), a researcher with a talking gorilla (Dylan Walsh), and a a nutty Indiana-Jones-type looking for King Solomon's Mines (Tim Curry). After some narrow escapes from surface-to-air missiles and some African wildlife, they all discover that often what we most want turns out to be the source of our downfall.<br /><br /> The actors in this movie were not talented. Dylan Walsh acts like a pathetic crybaby, especially at the end; Ernie Hudson is unconvincing (is it no wonder he went on to star in TV films?) and Laura Linney is nothing special. I think I can safely say the only talented actors in this film had very small roles: Joe Don Baker and Tim Curry, an always enjoyable actor (although sometimes scarred for life by constantly being reminded of his "Rocky Horror Picture" days).<br /><br /> This movie also had some other problems, including awful direction style, cheesy dialogue and a just-plain-boring plot, which was completely hashed when compared to Crichton's novel.<br /><br /> Not even Stan Winston's creature effects could save this movie from being a disaster. I am deeply disappointed in this movie; there was not even a campy quality to redeem itself with. It was just plain awful, cheesy, boring and ridiculous, and proves to be one of the worst Crichton book-to-film productions.<br /><br />2/5 stars -<br /><br />John Ulmer
Let's see: there's a civil war, a lost city, a talking gorilla, some regular gorillas, a previously unknown species of killer albino gorilla, the most powerful laser ever known to man, a *lot* of diamonds lying mined and loose in the sand, attack hippos, an active volcano, and a hot air balloon packed in a suitcase in a downed plane. That's not too much, is it? I've had more coherent fever dreams ("... and then the Romanian guy picked up a bunch of diamonds, because this was a lost city that he had been looking for or something, but then the mean gorillas that we had seen before came out of nowhere and ate him. Now somehow the talking gorilla was back from visiting the regular gorillas, and, as a kind of earthquake or volcano started, the woman industrialist/doctor built a gun using a laser and this big diamond she had just found in her dead fiance's hand..."). It's a blast if you're looking for more ammunition against the pernicious influence of Michael Crichton in American entertainment (and hence world entertainment), and if you keep firmly in mind the extent to which this cynical and half-hearted attempt fell on its face at the boxoffice. But, sadly, the men responsible -- Crichton, sceenwriter John Patrick Shanley, director Frank Marshall -- probably never lost a dime. Shame on them, and I mean that. 1/10
The book, while not particularly great, was decent, but this movie completely changes it. A lot of the elements of the story are consistent between the book and the movie, but Dr. Ross' character goes from a creatively written character who lives for money and ends up causing the volcanic eruption with her greed to a heart-on-her-sleeve damsel in distress who won't do anything if she even catches the slightest hint that it might be less than noble. When movies change the book that much but keep the same name, it should be a crime.
Anyone who has seen the piece of steaming smelly poo called Congo understands my title. And I feel for you. This movie wasn't just bad. It was painful. The book was stupid, the script was even dumber and the cast was terrible. Dylan Walsh? Rumor has it Julia Roberts dumped your ass cause this movie blew so bad. Huge diamonds? Killer gorillas? Talking gorillas? Hmmm. Sounds like a hit! OH! Tim Curry's accent is so bad in this movie I would prefer being deaf! I recommend this movie to bulimics looking to purge after a heavy meal or Kavorkian patients who just need that one more reason to die. If this is faithful to the book, I would say lets have us a good old fashion Footloose book burning and destroy every copy. If future generations look back and find this garbage, how would we explain ourselves? Listen to the others who hated this movie! Don't watch it! Run away! DO NOT WATCH this movie! If you think it is full of action or suspense or cool effects, YOU ARE WRONG! If you think it blows more cock than Nicole Ritchie, you'd be right. So if you still are going to watch Crapo..,.I Mean Congo, I say do it after you just took 50 Tylenol PM.
I love bad movies: Showgirls, Plan 9 from Outerspace, so on. And this movie fits right in. Don't believe anyone who tells you this is good film. It's downright awful. Tim Curry's accent moves from German to Portuguese to Hungarian. There's a person in a gorilla suit who is supposed to be able to communicate using a glove that interprets the ape's sign language. There is a scene with a killer hippo that moves around a river like a Great White Shark. There are people hopping up and down Mt. Kilimanjaro as if there were escalators installed on it. This thing is laughably ridiculous. So ridiculous I was rolling on the floor. It is totally implausible. I loved every minute of it.
If you can make it through this flick without laughing out loud at the screen, you are a better filmgoer than I.<br /><br />Count the logic lapses, common-sense leaps, and credibility stretches... betcha need more than two hands!<br /><br />P.S.: If one more film uses a location that is clearly UCLA, and claims that it is a different university (in this movie's case: Berkeley), I'm going to lose it.
This was a highly-hyped movie prior to its release, but turned out to be a dud. I never talked to one person who ever liked this movie. I agree: I didn't like it, either. Perhaps one big reason it wasn't a box office success was that it had nothing but unappealing characters in the story.<br /><br />For awhile there - I don't know if this is still true - I hadn't any movie in which Laura Linney or Dylan Walsh played anything BUT annoying characters.<br /><br />That, and a stupid story, make this film a big disappointment, especially considering that big buildup. Did the filmmakers, with dialog this dumb, really think this was going to be a hit?
CONGO is probably the worst big-budget movie of the 1990s. It is so bad that it is watchable over and over again. A bunch of folks with different agendas probe deep into darkest Africa, where they encounter a temple of riches just like in KING SOLOMON'S MINES -- but with cannibalistic gorillas guarding those riches. On their side, the humans have a "talking" gorilla named Amy who helps save the day at one point or another. So much for the plot. The dialogue throughout is witless, the acting almost uniformly atrocious, certainly campy (Tim Curry and Ernie Hudson are both on hand to assure the ham factor), and the special effects abysmal. Wait until you see the cannibalistic gorillas. And the lava! Oh yes, did I mention there's a volcanic eruption to top off the big finale? Laura Linney of all people is along for this bumpiest of rides. What could she have been thinking? This is right around the same time she appeared with Richard Gere and Ed Norton in PRIMAL FEAR, a movie that helped guarantee her stardom.
I just watched Congo on DVD.In most cases I love these kind of movies but this one is different. It made me write my first comment for a movie on IMDb. I was amazed how such a team of experienced filmmakers could come up with this movie as a result. You can see there was a lot of money for this production but you can't make a good movie if you don't have a good script. And as a producer Frank Marshall gave us plenty of great movies to watch; he never should have tried to become another Spielberg. This one shows how hard it is to make a good movie, maybe you've got all the ingredients but if you can't cook stay out of the kitchen. If Can make a suggestion don't spend your money on this one. If you want to see it watch it on television first and make up your own mind.
This is one of Crichton's best books. The characters of Karen Ross, Peter Elliot, Munro, and Amy are beautifully developed and their interactions are exciting, complex, and fast-paced throughout this impressive novel.<br /><br />And about 99.8 percent of that got lost in the film. Seriously, the screenplay AND the directing were horrendous and clearly done by people who could not fathom what was good about the novel. I can't fault the actors because frankly, they never had a chance to make this turkey live up to Crichton's original work. I know good novels, especially those with a science fiction edge, are hard to bring to the screen in a way that lives up to the original. But this may be the absolute worst disparity in quality between novel and screen adaptation ever. The book is really, really good. The movie is just dreadful.
Oh God. Why is it that Nickelodeon has such a hard time producing even a half-decent movie? I mean, this movie might have been good, but it was:<br /><br />A. Too short B. Rather superficial, stereotypical, and insulting to some C. Ultimately pointless<br /><br />First of all, the "dress up the nerd to look cool" thing was VERY consumerist, VERY superficial, VERY pointless, and VERY insulting. It has the stereotypical nerds-stupid faces, glasses, never kissed, vacations with his mom, etc. Well maybe the reason that guy has never kissed a girl is because he's gay! Does that mean that all gays are nerds? And what's wrong with being friends with your mother?<br /><br />The worst part, by far, was the ending. The whole drama of the movie revolved around Zoey finding out Chase loved her, and blah blah blah, and then, when Chase finally decided to tell her, <br /><br />A. he didn't tell her in person because right as he was about to the typical distraction came along B. he tried to text message her, but her PDA fell into a fountain and died before she got the message.<br /><br />The End.<br /><br />HOW LAME IS THAT????? I mean, why is it that cartoonists just can't change anything in the series? So many of us would like to see these two get together. Why can't we see it? I mean, are the producers really that uncreative, that they can't think up new problems to go with changes in the series? So they have to stick with the same plot and outlines, and make as many episodes as they can just using those? After a while, it gets dull and frustrating.<br /><br />I WANTED TO SEE SOME ACTUAL ROMANCE IN HERE, DARN IT!<br /><br />Okay. I'm done with my rant.
Ughh this movie is awful. The script is stupid and of course chase doesn't tell zoey he doesn't love her!!! Like every episode...ill never understand zoey 101 (the show) Also , why the heck does Logan's dad act SO retarted. And its only about zoey and chase what about the other characters. Its always the same in every episode Quinn makes and invention something goes terribly wrong with the invention and zoeys brother always gets involved in it. If you haven't seen it don't waste an hour watching this cuz you'll be wasting your time!!SMaybe this may be interesting to an eight year old well 8- 10 but i cnat imagine any1 older watching this retarted film. But what can you expect from nick???
Oh My God, this is so idiotic. Completely pointless, offensive, and repulsive. Why do the writers have such a problem with actually getting Zoey and Chase together we all want them too! in normal shows, there's actually MORE THAN ONE plot conflict in the show, wow, what a concept. also, you cant even tell the Zoey 101 episodes apart from each other because the same thing happens every time. Quinn exploits Dustin for some weird thing, Nicole is giggly and stupid, Zoey is just kinda there, Chase slobbers after her all the time but she amazingly fails to notice, and Logan is a jerk. repeat. Quinn exploits Dustin for some weird thing, Nicole is giggly and stupid, Zoey is just kinda there, Chase slobbers after her all the time but she amazingly fails to notice, and Logan is a jerk. repeat. it's like a shampoo bottle. and the end of the movie, omg again. so pointless NOTHING HAPPENS. it's like they specifically designed it so that the movie could fit between any two episodes of the show and the show would go completely unchanged after the movie plot.
I can't say I was surprised at this atrocity when I watched it a couple months or weeks ago (can't remember). I saw it as a two part episode of Zoey 101, because that's how they showed it here in Canada.<br /><br />I was incredibly annoyed at the Makeover a Nerd thing, it's just an example of how unaccepting, unappreciating, superficial, negative, biased, and stereotypical the people in the entertainment business is and frankly I'm extremely peeved. It wasn't at all funny. A nerd is a stereotype and it makes people very offended.<br /><br />Secondly, the people in Zoey 101 don't have real problems. Logan has a big house, he has a famous dad, he has everything and Zoey is rich too. They never have to deal with the things that today's tweens and teens have to do deal with such as peer pressure, and stereotype problems. Also, the actors are horrific. Jamie Lynn Spears doesn't deserve to be in a television show as successful as Zoey 101 (what is wrong with the world?), she doesn't have any talent as an actor. In fact, she's worse than Britney! The Chase and Zoey thing was incredibly predictable, I mean how could the show go on with Zoey and Chase dating? What other problems could they possibly have? Except for the fact that Chase doesn't get the girl he wants, everything is perfect! The absolute worse 48 minutes of my television watching life. Ever. 0/10 (and that's being generous)
There's not really that much wrong with Crash of the Moons. Basically it's a few episodes of Rocky Jones, Space Ranger merged into a film. It is extremely dated, however. Winky's treatment of Vena is a good example of this. One has to remember that it was geared to be shown to children in the 1950's. In this respect, it succeeds. If you like children's sci-fi from the 1950's, go ahead and take a look at it. You'll see John Banner in a pre-sgt. Schultz role. He does a pretty good job in it. All in all, I'd give it a 6 out of 10. Not great, but not bad.
By all appearances this serial could have been made any time since the mid forties. The cardboard sets, the moon kings with lightning bolts sewn onto their aprons, you know the drill. This one is a Rocky Jones adventure, featuring the space cop's dealings with the insufferable Bitch Queen of planet Offeecious, a commie planet that won't join the United Planets. When the noble messengers of intergalactic reason announce that Offeecious is on a collision course with this other, vaguely Slavic planet, Bitch Queen decides to blow the other guys up rather than evacuate her land. This introduces a moral to the effect of "The greatness of a nation is not in its land, but its people," which is hammered home five or six times in the climactic talkfest. The BQ's constant nasal ranting about "OffEEEEcious" provides relief from some seriously wanting space effects, is this a TV show?
I bought this movie for a couple of dollars at a "Clearance warehouse sale" one day when just looking around. The cover looked pretty good, (in colour), but the movie is B&W, (I wish they wouldn't try to trap us with coloured covers on B&W movies, but it's a common thing to look out for!).<br /><br />When I watched it I was pleasantly surprised. It turned out to be better than I expected. I was disappointed that it was a B&W, but the effects are pretty good, certainly better than, say, "Invaders from Mars" which has crappy effects, and it is great to see John Banner in something else apart from Hogan's Heroes.<br /><br />Overall, this movie isn't too bad for a B grade, and certainly worth the two dollars from a nostalgia point of view. It isn't my favourite sci-fi, but it's not my worst either. It's o.k.
Oh boy! I really trashed Manhunt in Space. I think this flopper deservedly rates worse than Manhunt. It goes nowhere and fungi growth was more exciting than this tripe.<br /><br />Poor Cleolanta. She's so misunderstood. Smug Rocky struts around and thankfully, there's no mention from Winky about his "gay nightlife". There's a lot more talking, a really awful (to watch) space marriage on the rocks, and crappy space effects cut-outs. Then, there's Bobby. You decide who's more annoying: Bobby or the Winkster? Personally, I'd jettison them out of an airlock into a black hole not before first subjecting them to killer flesh eating alien mutants.<br /><br />At least there's Vena. She's just a cosmic girl!
TANDEM is an odd slice in the Japanese pink genre-as it has the requisite sex-scenes and misogynistic tone that is all but required for these types of films-but also throws in a disjointed drama/dark-comedy storyline that seems like it'd have been better suited for a different type of film. <br /><br />The film starts with two lone guys at a restaurant-each daydreaming about a previous sexual encounter. One is a mutual subway groping, the other a pretty typical (for this type of film) semi-rape scenario. The two pervs meet and start talking after one lends the other a cigarette. They hang out for an evening and talk a bit about their respective sex- lives. The film is inter-cut with flashback scenes of both of the men's interactions with the women that are central in their lives. The two men have a falling out and the film ends on a weird but predictable note... <br /><br />I really don't know what to make of TANDEM. It sorta comes off as a soft-core, 'odd couple' type of anti-buddy-film, but doesn't really explore the subject-matter to any satisfying degree. There's also not much of the typical extreme sleaziness often so prevalent in these types of films-so I can't really figure out what the point was. I also cant quite tell if the film was supposed to be funny, depressing, or both.  I think that TANDEM could have had some potential as a more serious drama film with a dark-comedy edge- but as a soft-core sex film that tries to be too 'smart' for its own good-it just doesn't work.   Can't say I hated this one-but can't say there's anything notable about it either. 4/10 
This film is BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, and BORING!!! It's not the worse film I ever saw, on the contrary, but.......how shall I put this.......IT'S BORING! There is some very nice scenery and some clever dry wit but that's about it. If it was advertised as a travelogue I would rate it a 7 but it's supposed to be a film with a plot, some drama, and for god's sake a point or a satisfying conclusion.<br /><br />I read some of the comments on this board about this films and I wondered if they saw the same movie as I did.<br /><br />See this film (yawn) at your own risk........one thing for sure- it really is rated correctly= G RATING! (Which most stand for GOD AWFUL BORING!)
One of the worst movies I saw in the 90s. I'd often use it as a benchmark when viewing other films; "At least it wasn't as bad as Caro Diario." Three absolutely pointless segments, all featuring the director playing himself -- and he's not that interesting. A whole segment about this hypochondriac going to the doctor. Another that features him riding around the countryside on his scooter. For three interesting minutes and another fifteen torturous ones.<br /><br />The only redeeming factor was that the scooter scene was set to Keith Jarrett's 'Koln Concert'. Prompted me to go home and rediscover that marvelous album. The best thing you can say about the director/actor/egotist is that he's got great taste in music.
Wow. I thought, Eskimo Limon was the most awful and embarrassing first-sex movie ever. But I had forgotten that Germany always tries to compete. In this case, the well-known German film producer Bernd Eichinger was successful in producing even worse crap. Harte Jungs is stupid, not believable and predictable, and above all: not funny. It's almost a tragedy that so many kids went to see this in Germany (and, I'm afraid, also Austria).<br /><br />Tobias Schenke, 19, looks too nice to have no girlfriend and too ripe to be 15, and his character is too dumb to be true. Schenke tries real hard to make us believe that he doesn't know ANYthing about sex, but that doesn't help. Harte Jungs seems to be made by someone who watched Al Bundy and took him too seriously.<br /><br />The best actors in the movie are Sissi Perlinger and Stefan Jürgens who play Schenke's semi-liberal parents. Perlinger and Jürgens are stand-up comedians who are not particularly talented in movie acting. Still, their performances are the `best' and `funniest' in comparison.<br /><br />A complete failure.
This was so bad, I want God to give me an extra two hours of life having had to sit through it.<br /><br />First off, the acting was uniformly bad. There was barely a plot, unless "Shaggy dog story with a guy in a rain poncho and skeleton mask instead of a dog" counts.<br /><br />The editing was was all over the place, and the slow-mo shots of the "gore" (red corn syrup flying through the air--doubtless flung using a spoon) got irritating after the tenth time, and infuriating after the hundredth time.<br /><br />I like Michael Rooker. He's done some good work. This was not good. This was less than good. And by that, I mean that it sucked. Hard.<br /><br />For god's sake, don't watch this movie.
This movie tries to rip off Predator, but that movie is much better. This movie has truly terrible special effects and a mindless plot. The team that enters the forest to find the cause of the disappearances of military and scientist is a combo of rough and rugged male delta commandos and pretty but tough female rangers. None of them are too bright. All the characters seem to be more than willing to run off into the forest alone and headfirst into a spear or sword and their death. Some of the pyrotechnics are very big and must have cost a bundle. But the close-ups of the creature are laughable as are most of the death scenes. Every cliché that the writers could think of was used. If you're looking for a mindless slaughter fest, this may fill the bill. The night I watched this was very slow so I sat through the whole thing. I have to admit that it's been a while since I watched something this bad. There is very little to redeem this movie. I'm amazed that junk like this gets produced.
Where to start? Some guy has some Indian pot that he's cleaning, and suddenly Skeletor attacks. He hits a woman in the neck with an axe, she falls down, but then gets up and is apparently uninjured. She runs into the woods, and it turns out there's the basement of a shopping center out there in the woods. She meets a utility worker and Skeletor attacks again. Luckily, like any good utility worker, he's got a gun and shoots at the guy. Doesn't work, everything starts on fire.<br /><br />Cut to some people walking through the woods. Even though they've been hiking together for some time, they sit down and introduce themselves to each other. Wouldn't they have probably done that when they first met? Anyhow, they're "undercover" Delta team members (undercover, I suppose, because that way they don't have to pay to dress them in uniforms). The cute girls are various things such as a sniper school instructor and, oh, I can't remember the rest. It doesn't matter. Eventually they all take their guns out and immediately start aiming them at various things. ? Anyhow, they meet an old Indian who is sitting out in the woods. He wants beans. You know, like pork and beans? He mumbles some stuff, I can only assume that it's the premise of the movie. I relied on having heard the premise from the commercials, because you can't really understand anything he says.<br /><br />So, they walk around the woods some more. All the dialogue is a load of quasi-military, macho BS. I mean all of it, as in every single word. Like "This reminds me of when we were in Kabul" or "This reminds me of when we were in Laos". Skeletor attacks again. Let me give you a rundown of a basic attack. One of the female characters is crouched behind a tree and she aims her gun at the approaching guy on the horse. For some reason, she doesn't fire but yells several times for someone else. Then as Skeletor approaches, she jumps out from behind the tree so that Skeletor can stick her with his spear. Then everybody starts shooting. The bullets cause sparks to fly from the trees. Apparently the folks who made this movie never shot a tree with a bullet. They don't make sparks.<br /><br />Then Casper Van Diem is all of a sudden driving a semi-truck, trying to run over Skeletor. He misses, and the truck slides to a stop. Van Diem is injured, apparently he slid across the seat and bumped his hip on the window crank or something, so he crawls out of the truck and it explodes. Later he's in the woods dying and everybody says a bunch of quasi-military, macho BS. They meet a couple guys in the woods and blow their "undercover" status by immediately identifying themselves as being from the Army. They beat on the guys for some reason, then they go away.<br /><br />Some other stuff happens, people mumble, the camera shakes, etc.<br /><br />I think it comes to an end eventually.<br /><br />My theory is that the Sci-Fi Channel is getting a little annoyed with everyone bashing their movies, so they put this out to remind us all how bad movies can really be. Like, you think our movies are bad? Well, you haven't seen bad. HERE'S BAD!!! Okay, now that we've got that out of the way, the rest of our movies are pretty good in comparison, right?<br /><br />Well, it's just a theory.
Wow, where to begin with this one. Well, if you enjoy laughing at the utter failures of filmmakers, then this one is for you. I bought this movie for 5 bucks because I never pass up an opportunity to laugh at B-movie God Casper Van Dien's blunders, and boy was this one of them. It may have been enough that this movie contains the single most lame movie monster ever. This thing, which is supposed to be an Indian ghost, looks more like a plastic candy bowl skeleton that you put on your front porch on Halloween. He dons a cape that is clearly a garbage bag, complete with what appears to be a bucket-shaped bonnet over his head. At some points this is a man in costume, at others it is clearly a plastic prop placed on top of a horse. This monster has the uncanny ability to see with "predator" vision, a clear rip-off, and can miraculously appear after throwing his spear. Sometimes the spear cuts people, sometimes it doesn't. This thing also manages to down a helicopter with a single arrow. Wow, this makes a much sense as when the kid blows up a spaceship with a firecracker at the end of "Critters." This creature is impervious to bullets, but somehow dies at the end of the movie. At the end of his killing spree, which we never really find out why he is on, he gets blown up. This is an incredible feat, for we had already seen this thing blow up 3 times in the film. But, I guess this last time was the charm. <br /><br />And don't even get me started on the lameness of the other characters. First of all, what Delta Force unit employs women? Last I checked the military still disallows women into combat situations. Also, this unit is "undercover." Why? What possible reason would they have to be undercover? And they're not even good at it, I guess no one would realize that they were military if they didn't have on uniforms, BUT THEY WERE ALL CARRYING MACHINE GUNS (which incidentally change sound effects throughout the film, at some points sounding like air rifle BB guns, and at others, canons). There is one part when the Skeleton Man throws some construction workers from a catwalk, and you can clearly see the pad that they fall onto. At another point. Michael Rooker falls down a hill that is clearly flat ground. They tilted the camera slightly to give the appearance of an incline, but he is clearly pushing himself along in this looooooonnnnnggggggg fall scene. Then when he is helped back up the hill, the rope is flat, and when it shows the woman at the "top" of the "hill" the rope goes upward from her grip, not the way it would look if she was pulling someone up a hill. Rooker actually has a line that says, "I'm not going after him, I going after it." What? That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard, and I watch these bad movies as a hobby. The saddest part about this quote is that you can tell that everyone involved in the writing/production of this film thought that it was so bad-ass. Believe it or not, compared to the rest of the dialog, this is good. <br /><br />The acting, bad. The makeup, really bad. These characters either had scars or wounds that liked to change sides of their face. Maybe these are alien scars that like to run around on your face. Yeah, I think I'll make a movie about that, "Attack of the Alien Scars that Move Around on Your Face." That villain would be more intimidating than the Skeleton Man, and the film would probably be scarier.
Thank God for DVR and the high speed of it's fast forward. Even with that I couldn't sit through any more of that travesty. When they came across the old Indian asking for beans I gave up and erased it. Is this the best that SciFi Channel can come up with for Saturday nights? How about some old classics instead? The idea of a coed special forces unit was bad enough. It seems like they wanted to save money by having everything filmed out in the woods. What more can I say? It was so awful that I don't think I can come up with enough lines to qualify for space to review it. But, it looks like one more line will do it. Save your time, let alone your money on this dog of a film.
To be honest, the movie was SO HORRIBLE that I loved it. Never in my life have a seen such a TERRIBLE movie. I was in shock. I mean, i don't even know what to say.<br /><br />The characters couldn't even keep their own guns, one minute a guy had an M16 and his friend had an MP5, then in the next scene they switched guns. (Don't ask, trust me I know my guns)And i will never understand how they got from a place that looked like Vietnam, to an Arizona highway, to my backyard, and then to a chemical plant in California, that is what i took from it.<br /><br />Why would you be afraid of a guy in a Halloween mask wearing a trash bag for a cape and shot plastic arrows at you? How is that frightening? I wanted to swallow arsenic halfway through the movie. I love how the "skeleton man" randomly decided to go on a killing spree at that particular day. But hey, whoever made this movie should be shot in the knees and fed to a mound of fire ants.<br /><br />Good day.
My wife and I enjoy bad science fiction movies. Some movies are so bad they are good. Mansquito was one of those. That one was bad but it had some redeeming qualities. It makes you wonder how a self respecting actor approaches lines like "Hey! Mansquito!"<br /><br />This one is so bad it has now taken its place as our standard for bad. It isn't just a bad movie, it really stinks. There was the coed strike force, the "Indian" that rode around in a black cloak and used a SWORD for crying out loud. He shot down a helicopter with an arrow!! <br /><br />We tried to laugh at this movie but there were no points at which it didn't rise above pitiful. We couldn't come up with any redeeming features except for one. Those were the words "The End"<br /><br />There seemed to be no plot, no character development, and no point to the movie. Someone in Hollywood needs to be fired.
If you like to get a couple of fleeting glimpses of cleavage on some attractive women, there may be a second or two of enjoyment from this film. If you enjoy seeing poorly conceived and executed "action" scenes, there are plenty. If you are both blind and deaf, I still advise you to not have this film on in your presence. It is surely the worst or very close to the worst film I have ever seen. And it does appear that there was some money spent on it. Talk about throwing money away! As an editor, I would hope that the "editor(s?)" of this "movie" never again be allowed to edit a film, book, or even a post-it note. As a writer, I would hope that the author(s?) never again be allowed near even a broken crayon. You would think that I am not recommending that you view this movie. NOT so. Tape it (so you may stop your pain when you need to) and educate yourself as to how bad a movie can be.
Although Casper van Dien and Michael Rooker are generally relegated to B movies, even they are above this movie. It fails to convey even the slightest sense of excitement, fear, or dread -- unless you count the dread of sitting through the rest of this garbage. The direction is amateurish with annoying cuts and jerky movement that hides the fact that the killer is no where near the victims when he attacks. And what a killer he is: a cheap skull mask and a black hood. I liked him better when he was fighting He-Man. This is one of the laziest jobs of character design I've ever seen. I mean, it's Skeletor! And he's on a horse! This is supposed to be some scary, supernatural creature? How are we supposed to take this seriously? All we get is scenes of this dude riding around the woods on his horse -- which he can barely stay on -- interspersed with scenes of soldiers shooting randomly into the woods, thinking they can shoot a ghost. Occasionally, Skeletor will shoot someone with an arrow or ride by and stab someone, revealing how corny the effects really are. I generally enjoy Sci Fi channel fare on a basic cheese level, but this film is too inept for any level of enjoyment. Where's Dolph Lundgren when you need him???
This ranks up there as the worst movies of all time. No research or thought at all went into this movie. Action scenes were thrown in at random intervals which made no sense in the context of the movie. Items appeared and disappeared at random, etc. It's obvious that this was directed by a "stunt coordinator", who should go back to his old job. The Skeleton Man rode a horse throughout the movie, which amazingly, could change color at will. Either that, or someone thought the audience would all be colorblind and not notice. Blood would be on the actors in 1 scene and the very next, miraculously disappear and then reappear. Seems that everyone connected with this movie forgot to check for inconsistencies.
As I write this, no user reviews are in yet, but there are 17 votes with a 4.8 average, so apparently some people thought this movie had its moments. I didn't notice any, and even if I had I don't think I could have stopped rolling my eyes for long enough to appreciate them.<br /><br />A common debate among movie buffs is whether major mistakes in science, police tactics, and the like so common in B movies should detract significantly from one's enjoyment. I tend to fall into the "Yes, that's a reasonable reaction" camp -- especially when the mistakes are central to the plot. With this movie, I look forward to reading how anyone can defend this mess. They completely botch pretty much every aspect of military tactics and strategy, police tactics, weapons, science, folklore, common sense, and human behavior (outside of B movies, that is.) In short, I can't think of any non-trivial thing they got right.<br /><br />Any movie would have its work cut out for it when its central premise is a supernatural spirit, impervious to all small arms, able to disappear into another dimension at will, and yet apparently vulnerable to simply a bigger explosion. (They don't make ghosts like they used to.) Combine this premise with every detail being wrong and you have a memorably bad movie.
The scientist Charles and his wife (or assistant) Marissa receive some objects and a skull from an ancient Indian cemetery, and while cleaning a vase, they are attacked and murdered by a mysterious being, the Skeleton Man. Then, a military squad commanded by Captain Leary (Michael Rooker) seeks out two groups of four soldiers each that vanished in the jungle. They face the Skeleton Man, shooting him while he kills each soldier. Then the Skeleton Man goes to a power plant, and Captain Leary explodes the facility destroying the supernatural being.<br /><br />I bought "Skeleton Man" on DVD expecting to see a funny trash, but I found an awfully boring, annoying and senseless crap, with shoots and explosions. The imbecile story is totally disconnected and does not make any sense, and the military team is composed of imbeciles, insisting in shooting the supernatural Skeleton Man until they are totally slaughtered. Their leader is also the most stupid, with the blow-up of an entire facility in the end to destroy the supernatural rip-off of the extraterrestrial warrior Predator. On DVD, it is possible to use the fast forward button along the movie and reduce the suffering of the viewer. My vote is two.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Skeleton Man"
I have very few to add to what all the other reviewers already made more than clear! This movie is awful! Beyond awful... In fact, so insufferable that they have yet to come up with a term to describe the awfulness that is "Skeleton Man". In case you expect your movies to feature a minimum of logic and plot, you should stay as far away from this as humanly possible. Sure, loads of people are getting killed by this skeleton-puppet wearing a ridiculous cape, but nobody ever bothers to properly explain what he is, where he comes from or why he's so angry with the world. He looks like a crossover between Skeletor from "Masters of the Universe" and the horseman from "Sleepy Hollow" and runs amok in some godforsaken wilderness. The setting of "Skeleton Man" is another totally retarded aspect! For nearly half an hour, I assumed that the movie took place at a small isolated island, but it simply plays at the mainland where fancy highways cross the forest and power plants are located at the end of the woods! Huh? Why does everybody pretend to be trapped when there are like a million escape routes? Anyway, after a couple of totally random killings, a special commando squad, led by poor washed-up Michael Rooker, arrives to come and hunt a monster they don't know anything about. Really hilarious is how every member of this squad introduces him/herself as the expert in a certain field (we have a sniper-specialist, a tracking genius, a drill instructor...), yet they ALL die before any of them is able to demonstrate their supposedly masterful skills! The horror Gods must really hate Casper Van Dien, as he's present again as well, portraying an heroic soldier who steals a truck for no apparent reason, crashes on the highway, but somehow gets catapulted back to the middle of the woods to die there. Right, that makes sense... Furthermore the characters steal cool one-liners from "Predator", the bonehead's horse constantly changes colors, helicopters are brought down with bow& arrows, ordinary bullets cause trees to explode and completely pointless Vietnam flashbacks haunt Michael Rooker. I say we all combine forces and vote this pathetic flick into the IMDb bottom top 100 ASAP!
As a helpful warning for others, I believe "Skeleton Man" is actually worse than "Raptor Island." I have been using RI as an example of the worst original movie presented on the Sci-Fi channel, but SM is the most laughably incoherent and wretchedly designed movie I have yet seen. Yes, I did watch almost the whole thing, coming into it about 35 minutes into it. It drew me in with its pure ineptitude. What was Sci-Fi thinking? Once Skeleton Man and the surviving platoon leader (or whatever he was--I'm not good on military unit terminology) reached the chemical plant, the movie moved into a zone of impossible nonsense that was almost mesmerizing. I had the same idea as another viewer who wondered if more than one movie had someone been edited together to make one terrible whole.
A whole lot of the people that have seen this are confused, obviously. The original title of "Cottonmouth Joe" would've put things into better perspective for much of the viewing audience. I have personally experienced the condition of cottonmouth (often accompanied by a really bad hangover after a weekend bender) and it is indeed a lot like the movie Skeleton Man -- a dry, scummy film that provokes regret for recent choices and begs for a hot shower.<br /><br />It is unfortunate that the choice of "Skeleton Man" for the title was finalized by the distributor (probably the work of some meddling Hollywood no nothing studio exec who just didn't get it) and not "Cottonmouth Joe." Those of us who have seen the film know that the Skeleton Man is actually Cottonmouth Joe (a skeletal-manish apparition, not a true Skeleton Man). The deception of the folks marketing this film is unforgivable, and for that alone, I cannot give this film a high rating. Imagine this: when future filmmakers get together to create the true definitive Skeleton Man movie and need a title, they will be totally screwed and we are all, as serious fans of the genre, diminished for that.<br /><br />Cottonmouth Joe could've become a horror movie icon right up there alongside Madman Marz, Black Claw, Mansquito, Humongous, "Nature Boy" Billy Conners, Morty the wooden doll, the Boogen, Eegah, The Moon Beast, Bloody Bill, the Driller Killer, Mickey Rooney, and so forth, but he will always be remembered as a sword wielding-caped-tackle dummy skull face-tied to the side of a horse-skeleton man wannabe.<br /><br />That's too bad.
I saw this on Sci Fi, and in retrospect, I'm not sure how I actually managed to watch it all the way through. This is utter trash. It's not a B movie, it's a "D movie" at best.<br /><br />Basically this grim reaper looking thing on a horse (and sometimes not on one) goes killing everything in it's path somewhere in the mid west of America. A load of people are missing (infact murdered) and a bunch of mismatched spec op soldier types go looking for them. The best part of this movie, I'll tell it now, is there's some really cute girls. Let me now spoil this by telling you that all but the least cute one get their heads either chopped off, slashed apart, or hit so hard with a mêlée weapon that the head explodes off. That's no spoiler... The gore in this movie is over the top and really grotesque. It serves no real purpose, either.<br /><br />Here's what's good: The sets look OK, the actors sometimes act OK, The outfits and props, some of them, are decent.<br /><br />Everything else that you can think of, sucks. A lot of the badness is in the editing. Some times it just switches over from a rapid action scene to a real quiet and dormant scene. Sometimes the characters do non-understandable things, and they're always splitting up, but not even in a way that the viewer can follow. Looks like they get split up without realizing it amongst themselves but they also all seem to know that they're splitting up all the time and are OK with it even tho they're in a really dangerous situation and there's bodies all over the place and people are dying right and left. Nothing in this movie is the least bit plausible, most of it is incoherent and confusing, and I don't really get how this immortal, indestructible bad guy killer was able to be stopped in the end, and frankly, I don't care. Too much stupid, hilariously bad nonsense happens during this movie and I don't really care to list it all here. And they're all so serious throughout the whole ordeal when it's almost laughably bad... just awful.<br /><br />This movie is a complete waste of time. There's no excuse for watching this, unless the only channel you happen to receive is SciFi and you're bound to a chair in front of the TV. But if you're not bound, you're better off doing a crossword, throwing a Frisbee, or even just thinking. There's lots of much better B movies that you can watch.<br /><br />My senior year in high school my friend and I, in visual communication and deign class, made a long movie trailer type deal for our own movie (There was no full movie, just a really long trailer) and we did a better job of filming and editing the piece with premiere. It was better work than this movie. That really says something about this and I'm puzzled and troubled as to why Sci Fi would show anything like this when there are so many good low rate movies they can show.<br /><br />The only movie that I've ever endured that was worse than this is Raptor Island (another brilliant SciFi work)-though it had smoother and more followable flow than this movie- but this comes very close and is definitely 2nd on my list of worst movies I've ever seen.
A Delta Force Army unit, assigned to find a batch of missing Green Beret bad-asses not known for going completely missing, will be in a fight for survival against a cloaked skeleton man, the supposed spirit of an ancient Indian warrior who was revived when archaeologists disturbed his grave. The Skeleton Man rides a horse and has the ability to propel to and fro using a type of dimensional portal, and seems unaffected by bullet-fire and explosives. The Skeleton Man's horse leaves no hoof prints and he can ride from behind and around his prey silently. The film's point-of-view through the Skeleton Man's eyes looks at his prey with a different color. In other words, he's not seemingly human, so how can Captain Leary(Michael Rooker, as grizzled and intense as ever)and his gang of would-be commandos stop this menace? For some reason, the Skeleton Man murders employees of a nearby chemical plant. What are the Skeleton Man's motives for slaughtering endless human beings? And, why is a blind Indian living in the forest our commandos inhabit spared if the Skeleton Man, as a human, slaughtered his entire tribe to prove himself? <br /><br />As completely stupid as it sounds. Just unbelievable horrible. This is the kind of film that can deaden brain cells. Casper Van Dien gets second billing in the credits just under Rooker, yet is saddled with a ridiculously underwritten character who exits the film quite early. Rooker deserves better than this. If I were an actor, I wouldn't want this movie in my resume. The Skeleton Man is a reject Templer Knight from a de Ossorio film. He has a spear which can merely knock certain people down while exploding the head of a woman on impact. An arrow shot from the Skeleton Man's bow actually destroys the propeller of a chopper plane. For nearly 99 % of the film, bullets are shot at the Skeleton Man and he can go in and out of that portal thingee yet, at the end, all of a sudden, he becomes vulnerable to attack. Oh, and the horses also change as the Skeleton Man freely moves through the forest from that portal.The film is written and edited by clowns. The attack scenes are poorly constructed and the characters, who are supposed to be experienced pros, make really bad decisions throughout this film. The mind boggles with this film. Good for some laughs, and some gore scenes make this hunk of pure crap watchable as a trash movie.
Was this supposed to be a comedy? The black cape and skeleton mask are hilarious. There is like zero plot. The movie starts out with an archaeologist and his assistant. They make a small mention of their dig site being cursed. And then, lo and behold......in drops Halloween Costume Man, dressed in the shiny black cape, with a skeleton mask face, holding an axe. So, he kills off these two people. Then we cut to the woods with a bad imitation of Predator, only the commandos are being hunted down by Halloween Costume Man who is now riding a horse! More commandos show up, but these people are supposed to be disguised as a hiking group. Yeah, production probably ran out of commando costumes. Can you say, low budget? Anyway, they come upon a lone old Indian guy sitting in the woods. He's just too funny. And he starts babbling about something, but you really don't know what he's mumbling about, so they flashback to some Indians getting killed. None of it really makes sense. And then we go back to our commandos where more of them get killed. And that's really basically the plot. It's so laughably bad, you just can't really look away because you want to see just how low it sinks. You could make the same movie with a camcorder, a Halloween Costume and a bunch of your friends with fake guns. Don't see this thing if you want a horror movie. If you want a comedy, maybe? Or just skip it and get something like the real Predator.
This may contain ***SPOILERS***<br /><br />Where to start on this particular empty wasteland? Well it would have been nice if they actually had a plot. Acting talent, decent dialog, suspense, humor, hey even gratuitous sex would have helped this flick. Unfortunately there was only a lot of gore, (even that wasn't done well), shooting automatic weapons and missing.<br /><br />There seemed to be no reason to attach the basic premise, a Native American cursed to protect the bodies of the tribe he murdered, with his being tracked down by a Federal Special Ops team who dressed in civvies(?). Most of the time involved violating one of the basic rules of conduct in a Horror movie, separating from the group so you can be picked off one by one. You'd think this team would know better, especially because they are actually the third team sent to investigate, the other two teams disappearing without a trace. When they finally realize they're being picked off they make one of several stands and fire their weapons only to hit the trees a whole lot. Tree shot scene repeats endlessly in this movie to save money.<br /><br />When they're not shooting trees they're tracking this spirit who leaves no trail, (who knows how they're tracking it), and spouting a lot of macho BS. By the way, did I mention that most of this team are women? Interesting listening to them talk tough. Not very entertaining, but interesting.<br /><br />All in all, You can find better movies in the bargain bin at Kmart.
"You got any beans? Beans is good. You just eat them and you go." I couldn't help but laugh at that bit of dialog. Beans are the musical fruit, you know. The more you eat them, the more you go toot, toot, toot.<br /><br />Hmmmm... OK, i can understand why the actors were in this because they needed paychecks to pay their bills with, but i'm not really too sure what the intentions of the director and the writer were. Even after watching the making-of documentary in the DVD extras.<br /><br />Mike Rooker gave this a performance it really didn't deserve. I've seen him in other movies MUCH better than this one. What would have vastly improved this movie was to throw everything out, keep Rooker and instead made another entry into "The Substitute" franchise. Rooker would have made for a terrific substitute teacher who instructs naughty and morally-impaired youth regarding the error of their ways and how they can become more useful and productive members of society.<br /><br />Casper, you really shouldn't be just pushing through the undergrowth like that as you could get poison oak. Whoops. Never mind. I guess poison oak is the least of your worries now. Well, at least this time your croaking wasn't done by the tail of giant python. There are few things more embarrassing than being skewered through the chest by a giant snake. At least the death scene in this movie had a bit more dignity to it. As well as a more liberal smearing of karo syrup and red food dye. Nothing says sad and tragic death like the liberal use of karo and red dye!<br /><br />First time i've seen a monster wear a shiny rayon cape with a fur collar ruff. First time for everything, i guess. Just to be nitpicky, though, if this was an Indian ghost, how come it looked exactly like a monster out of European culture and folklore? Wouldn't the monster have been more sort of more indianish?<br /><br />While i did watch this all the way to the end credits, i don't realistically believe that i could in good faith recommend it to others.
SKELETON MAN was okay for the first 5 minutes but as soon as the so-called "Special Force Agents" hit the screen, it went down hill faster than a fat kid on a sled.<br /><br />The opening makes us think we might have a corny, yet fun, horror flick on our hands but no...the film makers ruin any hope of that when the "Special Force Agents" show up. I wish the screenwriter took a different route and had the "Skeleton Man" chase down some dim witted teenagers until one of them finally gets the upper hand. Instead, the "Skeleton Man" chases down some dim witted "Special Force Agents" and offs them until their Captain finally gets the upper hand.<br /><br />I know the whole "stalking of dim witted teenagers by a killer" thing as been done before but it would of been more suited for a movie like this.<br /><br />When the "Skeleton Man" finally does meet his "so called" demise, in a building that blows up, the Captain of the "Special Force Agents" is asked the following by a police officer outside of the building: "What the hell happened in there?" My answer to that question: "Who the hell cares?"
I got this in The Horror Six-Pack from Echo Bridge Home Entertainment. This one is not the worst movie ever made, but it still sucks. In fact, this movie sucked so hard, I don't know how I'm gonna write this review, especially since 1. I popped it out of the DVD player because I couldn't even watch another second and 2. Hurricane friggin' Ike is coming and God knows how long 'til it take for me to get this review done. <br /><br />The movie starts off with a scientist and his wife. The scientist receives a valuable artifact and examines it when this supposedly Urban Legend known as the Skeleton Man kills him, and later on his wife. Then... <br /><br />I'm sorry, but there's really not much else I can say about this POS except don't bother. I'm currently using the disc as a coaster, and if you see this, you might want to do the same. Casper Van Dien and Michael Rooker must have needed cash...BADLY! <br /><br />PS. I'll pretty much be reviewing the movies in the boxset and might do a new review on Ghoulies IV.
Oh, God! Why didn't you give this money for charity? I thought I saw the lowest crap by now, but I was wrong! Who did this script, anyway? A retarded? Who did this cast? I can't believe that there are people that spend money and time to do garbage like that! I was under the impression that I'm watching a porn movie, only without sex scenes, that bad was the so called acting. Onestly, did this film have a director? I believe not and I'm convince that everybody had upon them a page with some lines and red it in front of the camera. I can't explain myself how all the characters in this garbage died without a fight. Nobody can do lower than this! Please, erase it even from IMDb! Bleah!
Like many, this dung heap caught my eye while I was channel surfing. It's a horror film, set in the woods, it has a stupid title, but hey "Michael Rooker" is in it, and he has been a part of some great horror flicks, I know he wouldn't steer me wrong.... Ugh! The most insulting part of this, is that I actually watched it. I see director Johnny Martin is a stuntman, well this stunt simply sucks, and how he got some of the actors to do this watery bowel movement is the biggest mystery of all... I can understand Casper Van Dien, but shame on you Mr. Rooker. Your good name in the horror community has been forever tarnished, and your agent should be fired immediately. I'm sure this nugget of fecal matter is available on DVD, but if you enjoy the .99 cent menu at McDonalds, you'd get more for your money there.
Dear SciFi Channel: How have you been? How was your summer? I've been OK, but I feel like our relationship isn't the same anymore and we're growing apart. I don't understand why you don't love me anymore. I've just finished watching your SciFi Channel Original "Skeleton Man" and, once again, you've shown a blatant lack of respect for my feelings by KILLING OFF EVERY HOT GIRL IN THIS MOVIE!!! I mean, I understand that you're just in this for instant gratification. All you care about is producing a movie where people get sliced and diced by a homicidal Indian spirit/creature/legend/whatever. So you really don't have time to put some thought and effort into anything else -- like finding a costume for Skeleton Man that doesn't make him like the gay lover of Skeletor from "He-Man." Seriously, his robe looks like a satin blanket sheet and his skull is smooth as a baby's behind, he almost looks like a killer Halloween-costume-for-a-6-year-old as he marches through the wilderness on a homicidal rampage. So we throw you a bone, because we're not looking for Oscar-winning performances, intriguing plot or realistic character reactions to the situations at hand. Because we realize that even though Michael Rooker, Caspar van Diem and all the girls are supposed to be trained Special Ops agents, they are all mysteriously transformed into Keystone Kops who can't shoot or see straight whenever Skeleton Man appears. And we also fully expect that nothing -- bullets, explosions, electrocution, nothing -- can kill Skeleton Man until there is one minute left in the movie and we need to find a way to tie things up neatly. We expect to see blood and guts. But you have a knack for taking the least attractive actress in the entire cast and making her the only female who survives. And quite honestly, I think you do it just to antagonize me. Because this movie, as silly as it is, has the potential to be a "so-bad-it's-good" classic and just killing off all the hotties ruins everything -- and forces me to lower its rating. All I ask is that once, just once, you take my feelings into account and let the sexiest girls survive the movie. Please.
I, like so many others on here, bought this movie at my local WM in the "Two for $11.00" cheap-o bin. I love cheesy B horror and sci-fi movies, and this one definitely fits in that category. Pretty much what everyone else on here said is dead on. Yes it was bad, but that was to be expected. The "main" problem I had with this movie is that it was just basically BORING. I mean serious yawn-o-rama. The acting was bad, the costumes (K Mart Skeletor outfit circa 1982) were worse, and the editing was awful. No continuity whatsoever. Mr Skeletor ultimately dies in an explosion of sorts...uh, although he encountered multiple explosion throughout this move. I guess the last one just took its toll on him. Apparently earlier encounters with this "military" group (cough) took its toll on his horse....it would change from red to black throughout this crap fest. Even for a B movie, do yourself a favor and skip it. The only good it serves me now it to add to my DVD collection. Hopefully no one will recognize it when they look through my movie collection. Thumbs down, big time.
Most of the other posts beat this movie up, and deservedly so. I've just got to chime in on the technical ineptness of the film makers. It would have been nice if the director had at least had lunch with someone who knew what a gun was, because he had no clue.<br /><br />SPOILERS AHEAD!!! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!! <br /><br />Stupidity: <br /><br />Spec Ops team assembled from various military units whose members have never met each other before.<br /><br />Maybe two people in the unit had weapons that used the same magazines, parts, ammo, etc.<br /><br />The sniper school instructor uses a sub machine gun (pistol caliber) as opposed to a rifle which we would assume she would be more proficient with.<br /><br />One poor team member's night vision optics weigh more than the rifle does. You can tell when he handles it, that it is SERIOUSLY top heavy.<br /><br />The team leader sends out a team member to "challenge" the Skeleton Man when they first confront him. Challenge a 200 year old reanimated Native American skeleton with a long spear and an attitude riding an undead war horse with a severe nosebleed? I think not, Bubba.<br /><br />Bullets do not spark when they hit trees, Mr. Director. (a couple of people have already mentioned this.) <br /><br />The teams "air support" consists of a ubiquitous "black helicopter", only this one has a couple of sidewinder missiles slung underneath. Someone forgot to tell the helo crew that the Skeleton Man doesn't fly, and they are over the American heartland where there won't be any enemy aircraft. They should have carried some air to ground missiles instead.<br /><br />The helo's air to ground ordnance consists of a door gunner with a semi-auto AK-47(or 74?). Needless to say he only hits dirt. Should have brought a belt fed light machine gun.<br /><br />Door gunner later finds out that a grenade launcher is pretty useless as well.<br /><br />A wooden arrow from a freaking recurve bow does not down helicopters, Mr. Director.<br /><br />I pretty well could not take anymore after this point (about 30 minutes) and gave up. You seriously need a morphine drip to make it through this flick, it is just that painful.
It was definitely worth viewing, I don't regret that. But also it was kind of ordinary. Something, that I would expect from a movie titled like that. Love story was nice to watch. Humour was involved, but nothing surprised or spooked me. Shooting, "tough guys" etc. ain't worth it any more.
This film may be great, but it is a complete ripoff of Bill Forsythe's Comfort and Joy. c&j is one of the sweetest films I've ever seen without becoming diabetic.<br /><br />It's OK if you do like it, but realize that EVERYTHING in this film is a direct rip-off.<br /><br />The original is http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0087072 I can recommend almost anything by forsythe - Local Hero, Gregory's Girl, That Sinking Feeling. I better go rent some tonight. Local Has a young Peter Capaldi, and an old Burt Lancaster.<br /><br />Unfortunately he's given up film-making after some really crappy Hollywood treatment. Sad.
I hadn't heard of Soap Girl but I saw a poster with a five star review from Film Threat outside the theater so I figured, how bad could it be? Well, I soon found out. My god this film was awful. The most wooden acting I have ever seen outside of a porn flick. Absolutely agonizing dialogue. I just can't understand how this was made and why anyone agreed to be a part of it. And I find it completely unfathomable that this was actually being shown in a theater and money was being charged to see it. How did this happen????? And most importantly WHAT THE WAS THE GUY FROM FILM THREAT THINKING?!?!?!?!
The worst movie I've ever seen in my life. From the amateur directing to the porn-quality acting, it looks like a home movie somebody decided to shoot becuase they had nothing else to do with their time.<br /><br />Unless you have no hope left in life, absolutely avoid this crap.<br /><br />
i recently went to a free screening of soap girl where the filmmakers were present. before the movie they strutted around, laughing, taking pictures. i was excited to see them dressed up in real life, and couldn't wait to see the movie on the big screen.<br /><br />during the movie, the audience errupted with laughter. it was clear to me then that they weren't laughing with the picture, but at the picture. this is purely a grade B movie with no logic behind it. throw in some nudity, some blood and whala! you have a movie!<br /><br />after the movie i approached a bunch of the filmmakers and asked them why they wanted to make this movie. they all acted so serious, like they were serious filmmakers. they each told me something different: to make a controversial movie, a funny movie, an uplifting movie, a socially responsible movie. everybody mentioned something different. it was clear to me that none of the filmmakers knew what kind of movie they were making, and they were now trying to recoup their money by publicizing this movie any way they could to get people to see it.<br /><br />Let me warn you: don't buy into the hype! unless you seriously have nothing else to do, it might be worth a film student's time to study how a film should not be made. otherwise you are better off saving two hours of your life.
From an artistic standpoint, the movie fails to entertain or provide any moral resolution. The plot is hard to follow, if there is one at all. The acting is tough to stomach. The dialogue is cliche and clearly written by somebody who doesn't know English. Only the cinematography was worth watching in this movie, although you can still see flaws in the picture.<br /><br />As an Asian-American female, the movie angered me because it proved how narrow minded people can be. Politically speaking, putting Asian women in such disgraceful roles should be outlawed. Perpetuating stereotypes of Asian prostitutes is not only bad for the self-esteem of Asian women, but also to the country as a whole. I feel for the lead actress who played Maya and the exploitation she must have faced in playing such a role.<br /><br />As Americans, please avoid this movie. Art should be used to develop our tolerance and respect for one another, not hold it back.
I enjoy films of various kinds and qualities. Whether it's your typical standard Hollywood action movie or your Oscar season tear-jerker, movies that meet a certain standard will almost always be enjoyable for me.<br /><br />In Soap Girl, I received nothing but confusion. First, we meet Maya, a massage parlor worker who seems to attract all the customers in the parlor. A virgin poet named Harry comes in one day and they fall in love. After that, there are various twists and turns thrown into the plot which seem to lead nowhere.<br /><br />Although many have commented on the controversial issue of an Asian prostitute being exploited by the white man, keep in mind that this film was made by an Asian director who wanted to bring light to the issue. But whether he succeeds or not does not matter, for the issue at hand is whether the movie is enjoyable or not.<br /><br />For me, Soap Girl fails to meet the standard I expect from movies. It was hard for me to get involved emotionally with this movie, given the loose plot and the mediocre acting. Worse, it seems as if the director wanted to make a drama, when the tone falls more towards comedy.<br /><br />A movie such as Soap Girl which fails to trap me into the magic of cinema will always leave me bored. Throughout the movie, I couldn't help but think, "What is this really about?" A movie has to answer that question before it is made. If not, what you'll end up with is an empty push to captivate the audience.<br /><br />Grade: D+<br /><br />
I agree that this film wasted my time and my money. The poster mislead me to thinking it was a different type of movie. I should have known given the unprofessional look of the poster. Someone should sue for false advertising.
The director has no clue. I know ... That is the obvious comment. Maybe, we should delve into the story ... the relationships ... how about the quality of the actors?<br /><br />The story is ... well, idiotic would be a simple yet honest answer.<br /><br />The actors are ... they tried very hard. Can they be faulted for the director's choices?<br /><br />All I can say is ...<br /><br />Why was this made? <br /><br />Well, isn't this an embarrassment to the Korean-American film industry? <br /><br />Should we be selective about who we support? <br /><br />Am I being too harsh? Check it out for yourself.
Why???? What a disgusting joke of a supposed movie...from the poster it looked like a cute movie.. what a disappointment.. who the heck is the male lead? He looks like an old retarded retired reject cop... I am a cop and I can tell.. the man can't act... go back to being a cop..no screen presence.. why did they show his bare ass so, as if he is Mel Gibson,, hell no... put the filmmaker out of business.. this guy has no business making a movie... I seriously doubt women or gay men find him attractive... whoever cast the film is a no talent hack who cast no talent hacks in the lead.. it's great that us white guys are alway getting the Asian women but why an ugly white guy why not Dean Cain or Brad Pitt as the white boyfriend.. why to Asian women like ugly white guys or black guys in what I see??? Don't get it.. must be low self esteem..<br /><br />The only hot girl who can act in the movie was the Kate Holliday..why was there one hot white chick among all the rest of the ugly Asian chicks who think they are hot and can act???<br /><br />Only two actors in this movie the Host of the Poetry at the end of the movie and the one hot white chick in the massage house.. TL Young and Kate Holliday should have been the leads in the movie..<br /><br />The Asia Character was ridiculous looked like she was trying too hard to be some kind of ghetto/sexy black girl...key word here is "trying"..<br /><br />Gina.. you can't act and you are not hot enough physically for this kind of role.. you need to play character roles and be more humble in your self presentation..<br /><br />I think the actress is Gina Hirazumi... I looked her up on the IMDb and she is a great Asian Actress???? if that is the case I don't want to see what the bad Asian American actresses are..<br /><br />. No wonder Hollywood doesn't have Asian American Actors!!! if this is the best they got!!! they were supposedly winning some kind of Asian film award?? give me break...it looked like they just made a movie for the sake of putting a bunch of Asian girls in them.. they aren't even hot..Gina...you are not hot.. stop trying..play character roles and improve your acting..you are not a leading female type...<br /><br />If this movies makes money pigs can fly..sorry for being so blunt but I feel that these actors/ actresses need to either get better or work on their craft: for the exception of the two actors I mentioned who should have played the leads.. I say this in love for all the Asian lead girls in the film please do what your parents say and go and be doctors/lawyers/and engineers...and do acting on the side for fun..hopefully that is what you are doing now.. I am not trying to be mean but hoping this will be read and push you people to either get better or go do another business.. there was not even a message ethically in this movie..<br /><br />I would not be surprised if "Soap Girls" was secretly funded by members of the Ku Klux Klan special department of Asian American hate propaganda of the Klan<br /><br />.. Otherwise Asian people must hate themselves..seeing this film makes me as the viewer grateful that I am not Asian..you folks are pathetic..have some self respect you Asian people.
Like another ticket buyer I saw a nice cute poster about this film, it's five star review, and awards won. Thought what the heck, let's by a ticket for myself and my two sons. BAD IDEA. The movie was not a family film, it was gratuitous, and it contained nothing worth watching.
Okay, sure, this film will never win an oscar. Citizen cane this film is not... BUT why does every film have to be scrutinized? when was the last time you saw a film that was funny not becuase it was good, but because it was goofy? doesn't anyone remember roger corman, king of exploitation?<br /><br />well, I had fun. I liked the cheese. just go in not expecting to think, and prepare to throw popcorn at the screen.
I am a pretty much a sucker for those Ghost Hunter shows. From the Cheesy mockumentaries like Discovery Channel's "The Haunting" to Scooby Doo Reality shows like "Ghost Hunters". When I saw promos for A&E's "Paranormal State" I knew I was going to watch. Especially when "Paranormal State" was juxtaposed against a weak Monday Night Football game.<br /><br />By the end of the pilot of "Paranormal State" when the main "character" in this reality dance macabre gives a Creepy Kid a bottle of Max Von Sydow Holy Water and reassures him by telling this boy that he, too, had a unspecified bad experience as a child with things that "came out of the closet" and the (Catholic) Church gave him a Holy Water to fend off the Things Coming Out of the Closet I knew I should have given Monday Night Football another shot.<br /><br />The shtick behind "Paranormal State" is a group of Penn State students all got together and started their own Ghost Hunting club. Or Society. Or Super Adventure Club. And they run around Pennsylvania researching the most terrible hauntings and the lost plot to an M. Night Shymalan Movie.<br /><br />The "They" is kind of a misnomer. Really Paranormal State revolves around a Nittany Lion named Ryan Buell who would probably be running Penn State's yearly Anime Convention if it wasn't for this show. He is often accompanied on "investigations" by hot co-eds and some other people seen in the credits but rarely caught on camera. Hey, are they ghosts too? <br /><br />This is Ryan Buell's show. Paranormal State is his "vehicle" as we like to say in the Biz. And, oh, what a dull ride in a vehicle he can be.<br /><br />Did I mention Ryan narrates the entire episode of Paranormal State in a star date-less "director's log" voice over? Almost immediately that gets annoying because the obvious intention is to give Ryan's ghost hunting some gravitas, but his filtered monotone does nothing but provoke grunts and laughs. Seriously, every serious intonation sounds like the radio chatter from a Call of Duty video game.<br /><br />The "investigations" -- the plot that each episode revolves around -- are interesting on the surface. No haunted Inns or Restaurants to be found in "Paranormal State". This is a show about fearing the unknown like a good Catholic Boy and by god they give you stuff to fear. <br /><br />Small children are harassed, things loom in the dark, voices encourage the living to kill, and the Aleister Crowely in me rubs my hands. Of the two episodes I watched each revolved around violent, nasty hauntings tied to violent, nasty deaths. <br /><br />Maybe.<br /><br />Maybe not. <br /><br />Everything in "Paranormal State" is short-handed into half hour, "Dog the Bounty -- er, Ghost Hunter" blocks. Every time there is an interesting, verifiable shred of evidence -- the murder of a family in a farmhouse in the 1800s -- the proof is waved in front of the viewer like a con artist trying to convince you a stack of papers currently under your nose is proof of that ten million coming from Nigeria and then yanked away before you can get a good gander. <br /><br />At least with Sci-Fi Channel's "Ghost Hunters" there is a somewhat over-exhaustive need to trot out every possible shred of evidence and present it to the viewer. EVPs that could be a rat farting, cold spots in a drafty house, and "orbs" that even the Ghost Hunters themselves discount as dust. It is a sort of Scooby Doo like approach that makes "Ghost Hunters" ... almost believable.<br /><br />Whereas "Paranormal State" claims to have EVPs but gives the viewer a ten second video clip of a wave file in Garage Band with no audio. Yep, see, an EVP, right? People are claiming to see dark figures in the basement... Well, we will just go and see about that... while leaving the night vision camera on an enthralling stationary shot of the living room. Ryan, the intrepid leader of this pack of Penn State Graduates, is claiming to see "visions" of a demon's name he knows and that might be involved in a paranormal haunting... But he can't tell us, the audience, or his team of gothed out undergrads, because... He can't. You never say a demon's name out loud, Ryan informs the wide eyed Co-Ed who dare inquires.<br /><br />Well, how very very convenient for you. Especially since this is a Television Show where the audience cannot read your mind.<br /><br />"Paranormal State" is all Turn and no Prestige. The audience gets told what is supposedly happening but you never see an ounce of proof that the creepy kid is seeing Dead People. Not even grainy video of a chair moving, or a black blob running between prison cells. Nothing. You are just told what happened by Ryan in yet another mechanical voice over.<br /><br />If you are going to try and spook me dress it up a little. If you are trying to sway me, show me a orb or a blob and have the fat chick who works days at Hot Topic tell me why that black orb is really the spirit of an ax murderer. And if you want to make me watch a ghost hunting show give me something besides trotting out Lorraine Warren by the second episode.<br /><br />"Paranormal State" is weak sauce. Not really worth watching unless you are hard up for TV time, or just have that thin of a DVD collection. Or unless you want to know what really happened in that closet with the Holy Water.
I suppose I should be fair and point out that I don't believe in ghosts. That said, I'm very interested in the subject and I enjoy a scary story as much as the next guy. I am a fan of Ghost Hunters because they at least try to give their investigations a scientific angle. Even early episodes of Most Haunted had a camp entertainment factor to them. Paranormal State has neither of these qualities. The cases themselves have the potential to be interesting, but as with so much "reality TV" these days, it suffers from overproduction, poor acting and silly scripts. The makers of the show freely admit that writers "guide" the stories. I hear they are even going to shoehorn in a romance subplot to appeal to the young female demographic. The show has many other flaws too. As others have stated, the narration quickly becomes like nails down a chalkboard. Over the top visual and audio effects quickly become just as irritating. I'm willing to suspend some disbelief for the sake of entertainment, but this whole "demon with a vendetta" story arc is just ridiculous. Given that the producers of this show are also responsible for brain dead fodder like MTV's Laguna Beach and Newport Harbor I suppose this is really no surprise. If you are a die hard fan of Ed & Lorraine Warren or a big "reality" show junkie I guess you'll find much to like in Paranormal State. For the rest of us....I recommend you avoid.
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />Unorthodox journalist Mike Sullivan (Vinnie Jones) flits away his time winding up the local constabulary and trying to romance a member of police personnel. But everything changes when the landlady of the Thames side pub he frequents is found murdered and a transcript of an unpublished novel cum confession by legendary writer Charles Dickens is found. As he digs deeper into both mysteries, he is plunged further into mystery and danger than he bargained for.<br /><br />In 1998, former footballer Vinnie Jones shot out of nowhere and took everyone by surprise with his gangster cult classic Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Okay, no one was blown away by his acting ability, but his presence as a hard man looked set to ensure a decent career as a movie tough guy. But it all proved to be a one hit wonder, and all he really achieved after this was supporting role status amongst far more acclaimed actors in films like Gone in Sixty Seconds and Swordfish, before descending into the realm of straight to DVD hell, the latest being this muddled and labourous thriller, which might have been okay had he not taken other acclaimed and promising new talent stars like Derek Jacobi, Julie Cox, Vanessa Redgrave, Jason Flemyng and Mel Smith along with him. What caused him to fall from the dizzying heights of success so quickly (apart from maybe being a one trick pony) is anyone's guess (a dodgy personal life being a possible guess) but here he is.<br /><br />A script as far fetched and incomprehensible as this would have been a task in anyone's hand, but with a miscast looking Jones in the lead, it's even more of a task to fathom. Jacobi's juxtaposing roles as a former thesp tramp and Dickens himself talking directly to the camera through-out are obviously hints building up to something and the script is predictable in other areas too. Add to this cheap looking production values through out and debut director (also writer) Brendan Foley has made a bad first impression.<br /><br />What exactly did I expect with something that came free with The Daily Mail? *
THE RIDDLE was written and directed by Brendan Foley in what appears to be an attempt to pull the mysteries of the Charles Dickens' novels into a contemporary story, but that attempt is thwarted by electing to use the two periods of time format in which the 'riddle' is unraveled. Despite a cast of well-known actors, trying their best to pull off this direct to DVD movie, the end product is a long, tedious, amateurish mess that can only be considered as entertainment if viewers are fans of the cast as remembered from other films. <br /><br />Mike Sullivan (Vinnie Jones) is a journalist confined to reporting on dog racing events while he dreams of important reporting assignments. A series of similar murders happens to include an old friend of Mike's - Sadie (Vera Day) who runs a pub on the banks of the Thames, having just discovered an old valuable unpublished manuscript by Charles Dickens, and has a heart of gold, giving sandwiches away to such pathetic creatures as an old tramp beachcomber (Derek Jacobi). Sadie's murder attracts Mike to the role of detective journalism and with the help of policewoman Kate (Julie Cox) he begins to tie the investigation to clues he finds in reading the Dickens manuscript. Disrupting the flow of this rather simplistic story is the use of flashbacks to Dickens' time as Dickens (again Derek Jacobi) narrates a rather personal story of peculiar murders. The parallel between stories and the cross casting among actors may have worked in another's hands, but the finessing of this kind of venture escapes writer/director Brendan Foley. He draws his story to a close (at long last) with a tired Hollywoodesque ending. <br /><br />In addition to Jones, Jacobi, Cox, and Day, the film somehow attracted the attention of Vanessa Redgrave, Jason Flemyng, PH Moriarty and Mel Smith: their contributions are minimal but happily distracting. This is a flimsy bit of treacle leaving the viewer wondering how films of this quality ever find funding. Grady Harp
SPOILERS FOLLOW - and I haven't even seen it.<br /><br />Let me guess... the murder is related to the evil property developer wanting to develop the riverside, and Dickens was murdered because he was trying to uncover a similar dastardly plot. If anybody who's seen it could let me know if I'm half right, you'll have saved me the time it might take to watch something worthwhile and the rest of us will know to steer clear of both this film and its enthusiastic reviewers. On the other hand, it *sounds* intriguing; but if it was any good would it *really* be given away with a Sunday rag? And what sort of track record does Foley have anyway?<br /><br />...So, as a public service, I managed to sit through it. It's worse than 'Swept Away'. Really. I've read stories by eight-year-olds with more drama than this. Truly awful. And I was half right.
Famous as the British film so bad it had to be given away for free with a newspaper, the quality of this sub-Children's Film Foundation "thriller" can be guessed from the abnormal number of 10/10 votes it gets and the large number of rave reviews from posters with no posting history and no other reviews to their name. The regulars know what this mean, the gullible might be conned. If they do dip into the waters of this one they won't last long before it drags them under. Technically inept with the boom mike getting into shot or the reflections of the crew visible it just goes on forever in a forgetful sub-DAVINCI CODE on $5 a day way. The end is just insulting but don't worry. It's not as if you'll get that far!
ultra cheezy soundtrack. vinnie tries really hard. very tiring script that flashes between past and present. cheap editing... saw the boom twice. don't bother. ultra cheezy soundtrack. vinnie tries really hard. very tiring script that flashes between past and present. cheap editing... saw the boom twice. don't bother. ultra cheezy soundtrack. vinnie tries really hard. very tiring script that flashes between past and present. cheap editing... saw the boom twice. don't bother. ultra cheezy soundtrack. vinnie tries really hard. very tiring script that flashes between past and present. cheap editing... saw the boom twice. don't bother.
Let Freedom Ring was probably made with the best of intentions, but it sends out a curious mixed message in the final product.<br /><br />The folks at a western town where the railroad is coming through are overwhelmed by the arrival of immigrant railroad workers, working on the railroad being financed by robber baron Edward Arnold. There are a few ranchers and farmers whose land stands in the railroad's path and these folks are dealt with summarily by Arnold's hired men. One man who won't give in is Lionel Barrymore whose son is coming home from Harvard a lawyer and ready to take up the rancher's cause.<br /><br />Only Nelson Eddy decides the best way to fight is to go Zorro on the bad guys. But other than Charles Butterworth no one knows he's the Wasp (a very interesting choice of names by the way). <br /><br />What Arnold's done is used the tried and true methods of the political bosses of the east, getting the immigrants to vote. Nelson's idea is simple, if the immigrants only knew the truth about what a bad guy Arnold is, they'll vote with the original settlers and knock out the alien urban political machine in their midst. He kidnaps newspaper editor Raymond Walburn and takes him and the press to a mountain cave where some subversive newspapers are printed and distributed.<br /><br />The railroad workers are a real mixed bunch of immigrants, not the Irish working west or the Chinese working east as history has it. It's a real United Nations working on Arnold's railroad. The workers are kept in line by foreman Victor McLaglen and Nelson has the unenviable task of beating some sense into him like John Wayne did in The Quiet Man.<br /><br />Of all the films that starred Jeanette and Nelson and they certainly have come down in history as a duo, this was the worst of what they did at MGM. Nelson is about to be hanged along with Barrymore for crimes that are undefined at best, but certainly nothing worth being hung for. And Virginia Bruce who plays the Nelson's girlfriend saves the day with a rendition of My Country Tis of Thee that the immigrants join in with. In the face of a revolt by his paid for immigrant voters, Arnold quite rationally packs up and leaves town to build his railroad somewhere else.<br /><br />I kid you not, that's the ending here. Just what is the message, vote with the settlers and lose your jobs with Arnold? But somehow you'll get by here? <br /><br />I do wonder some times if 20 years from after the incidents of this film take place and the town as settled into a sleepy backwater of the west while some towns where the railroad has come through that are now cities, that the good citizens of that town haven't rethought about what Nelson Eddy did. If they did they're probably running him out on a rail.<br /><br />Nelson is of course in good voice and has a variety of concert and popular pieces to sing including a ballad to the immigrants written by Sigmund Romberg, Where Else But Here. The song is a heartfelt tribute from an immigrant who did make good in his adopted country. Too bad it didn't have a better venue.<br /><br />The almost platinum blonde Virginia Bruce I'm sure is dubbed here. And I'm sure Jeanette MacDonald was just as happy she wasn't accompanying Nelson on this trip west.
What an atrocity. I am not one to demand total verisimilitude from a movie, but the plot and screenplay of "Killing Zoe" are so artless that I found myself wincing through the entire (mercifully short) ninety minutes of the film.<br /><br />Readers of these reviews will by now have figured out the plot: Zoe, a call girl who falls in love with American safecracker Zed, is also an employee at the bank that Zed will help rob in a high-stakes Bastille Day heist.<br /><br />The film strains one's credibility from the get-go. Zed and Zoe's night of magic is highly prosaic, and Zoe's claims to have experienced the orgasm of a lifetime would seem to reflect the screenwriter's lingering teenage fantasies more than any actual on-screen chemistry. Zed's complete indifference when his friend Eric throws Zoe out of the hotel room hardly sets the stage for their later strong attachment.<br /><br />In act two, Eric's band of bohemians--drug-addled losers leading a marginal life of petty crime--prepare for their big heist with a night on the town. Here Roger Avary's main goal seems to be to prove that he knows something about drugs. A secondary thread involves convincing us (by endless repetition) that Eric is really, REALLY glad to see his old friend Zed again. Really glad. Eric's devil-may-care, over-the-top flamboyance and affection for Zed isn't even remotely believable--check out, for example, his phony bemusement at discovering a dead cat in his apartment building. Development of the characters who will accompany us through the rest of the film is an afterthought.<br /><br />The heist is a disaster--understandable, since the plan is laughable and the criminals are complete amateurs. This is where Avary continues to pay tribute to his idol Quentin Tarantino by showing that he can be more violent than violent. In reality, though, he's just more boring than boring. To build up the excitement, there is an extra security guard hidden inside the main safe. This was boring in video games, and it's boring now.<br /><br />Zoe is taken hostage during the heist but despite our expectation that she'll play a pivotal role, she just sits pretty. Or more precisely, Avary fails to do anything with her. In literally the last five minutes she springs to life, breaks the hostage situation and saves the grateful, but still dazed Zed from suffering any consequences of his crime. Why she doesn't mind his involvement in the crime--or why she gives a damn about him at all--is impossible to tell. After all, she's had no chance to see that he's any more decent than the rest of the gang.<br /><br />Throughout, the dialogue is stilted and phony. Much of it is in French. As a native speaker, I can certify that it doesn't ring even remotely true. Eric's sugary-sweet discourse, rapidly alternating with tough-guy boasting, is meant to be at turns charming and scary, but is instead just grating. Meanwhile his scaredy-cat accomplices are more Scooby-Doo than Thomas Crown. When Eric is gunned down in a ludicrous example of excessive force, we can all breathe a sigh of relief: like the bank hostages, we will soon be freed from this miserable ordeal.
I have seen this film 3 times. Mostly because I kept thinking while watching it, "have I missed something here?". Is there some reason this film was made? Was it trying to say something and I just missed it? Well after 3 viewings I failed to come up with an answer.<br /><br />I guess the worst thing I can say about any film is that it bored me, and I did not finish it. I will admit there is plenty of eye candy and fast editing and hip music to keep my attention all the way through but is that all a movie should be? <br /><br />I am not against extreme violence, it is almost non-stop, but it seems there should be some sort of inspiration. Something that is highlighted by it. The word gratuitous comes to mind but it is worse then that somehow. In the first part of the film we are all given insights into the motivations of the characters. And yes the 3 principles are very good in their roles. But the roles are completely unbelievable. So in the first part we get to know the characters, and in the second part most of em die and use sadistic glee in killing others. That seems to be the whole movie. And the first part has nothing to do with the second.<br /><br />For example. How could a nice smart guy like Zed agree to join a bunch of junkies and amateurs to do a job like this? It makes no sense. He is portrayed as smart, yet he goes ahead with this suicide mission. The fact that he survives is totally inconsistent with the rest of the hyper-real violence and mayhem. So what are we watching here a Hollywood romance with a happy ending or a super real, super violent blood bath? I recall having the same reaction to two other films this director was involved with: True Romance and Reservior Dogs.<br /><br />Needless dreck!
Quentin Tarantino's partner in crime Roger Avary (co-writer on "Pulp Fiction") ventures out on his own (Q.T. goes exec. prod. this time) for this over-boiled French thriller.<br /><br />Eric Stoltz is Zed, safe cracker extraordinaire who has drifted over to France from the U.S. at the request of an old friend. There he teams up with a motley crew of drugged out hippies who, with little or no planning, think they can knock off a bank vault full of gold bullion on a French national holiday.<br /><br />Avary has reworked the robbery gone wrong theme that Tarantino developed so well in "Reservoir Dogs", only "Killing Zoe" is not good enough to survive on the strength of this alone, so Avary has thrown in a rather beautiful distraction. Julie Delpy is Zoe, a student come call girl who entertains Zed on his arrival in Paris. A stunning distraction she certainly is, but nothing more.<br /><br />I guess our director wanted to add a different angle to this basic theme, but sadly the move did not help to add the depth his shallow plot so desperately needed. There was never a story in this idea, which was nothing more than that, an idea. Even the surreal journey into the seedy dives of Paris is uninspiring. I figure one would have to concede that there was never much of a movie in the story of a bunch of gangsters shooting each other up over a botched jewellery heist either, that is until you add intricate characters and snappy dialogue. "Reservoir Dogs" had it, "Killing Zoe" did not.<br /><br />Stoltz's strong interpretation of the doubtful Zed and Jean Hughes-Anglade's mad portrayal of the obsessive ring leader do nothing to lift proceedings. In short, Avary has unsuccessfully attempted to conjure entertainment out of nothing.<br /><br />Friday, September 15, 1995 - Astor Theatre
Another film to punish us for the crime of enjoying "Pulp Fiction."<br /><br />If you like watching people get killed by machine gun fire for an hour and a half, this'll probably fit the bill. Fans of the debut episode of "Aeon Flux," wherein the title character slays literally thousands of seemingly faceless soldiers single-handedly, will really go for it.<br /><br />Otherwise, it's not exactly a clever movie. In fact, all it is is an excuse for a bunch of young people to act rude and shoot people. Sometimes an entire scene goes by, and the only thing that happens is, you guessed it! someone gets shot. Or, to spice things up, twenty people get shot. First, they're just sitting there, the next minute, they're sitting there dead. Yahoo!<br /><br />Rough plot: A young American goes to Paris (An American in Paris, get it?), hires a prostitute (the ethereal Julie Delpy), gets in touch with some old French buddies, one of which has AIDS, they plan and attempt a bank heist. Of course, movie convention states that no bank robberies on film go off w/o a hitch, and this hitch takes up about three-quarters of the running time (it's like "Dog Day Afternoon" without the Sidney Lumet's wit, patience, or humanity). While at the bank, things go wrong (surprise!), and the Parisian with AIDS, goes wacko with his Uzi several HUNDRED times. No spoilers here, but suffice to say that you're at such an emotional distance from these characters that it's not likely you'll care who lives and who dies by the end of the film.<br /><br />Some have called it stylish. Perhaps it is, but it's someone else's style, it's a movie that's already been done, and "Killing Zoe" is trapped by convention. Nowhere in the course of the movie does the director (Roger Avary, co-winner of the "Pulp Fiction" screenplay Oscar) do anything really original, stylish, funky, or outrageous. Unless you consider the fact that no movie that has taken place inside a bank has had such a high body count, there isn't anything else to set this one apart from the multitude.
If you watch the documentary extra, you'll note that the director is totally inexperienced and was actually a co-worker bud of Quentin Tarantinos in a video store. Put two and two together and you realise Quentin is doing a favour for his old bud, despite the bud being rather talentless. Was that harsh? Well see this film and you'll realise it isn't. Too slow in the beginning, too nonsensical in the middle, and too slow to end. That about sums it up. Eric Stolz & Delpy were the only two showing some charisma. And Kemp actually put in an OK performance. But the rest was real bad. One instance of plot stupidity was when "lead robber" accidentally leaves his mask off during the raid. So what happens? Well the other robbers decide they may as well remove theirs too! What great thinking. The violence was relentless and insane. But not in a "cool" way. Rather in a farcical way. I wondered if this was meant to be a comedy. More fool Tarantino for having his good name connected to this garbage. More fool me for watching it.
Who wrote this flick? An uninspired 15 year-old?<br /><br />Could have been written by one of the kids who did the Columbine shooting.<br /><br />Totally nonsensical, not funny all, boooooooriiing...<br /><br />Plus this: the French do not put their flag everywhere. You do not walk into a French bank and see the tricolore flag displayed like that. Even on Bastille day.<br /><br />I have nothing against the blood bath thing. It's just that none of this is either credible or funny. Or parodic, or anything like that.<br /><br />Ok, those who liked this flick will tell you I must be some type of fascist, so forget about my comment.
with this film being directed by Roger Avery and Quentin Tarantino doing the screenplay i was sure this was going to be a gem. i was wrong. i don't hate this film but in no ways do i like it.<br /><br />i love Roger Avery because of his amazing direction in rules of attraction and his screenplays to pulp fiction and silent hill but he made a mistake making this. do i really need to comment on Tarantino, we all know hes a genius.<br /><br />this movie is just set around a gang robbing a bank but fails due to silly people participating in the robbery<br /><br />i'm disappointed in Tarantino and Avery for doing this film but doesn't change my mind on how amazing they both are. everyone makes mistakes......... 3/10...........j.d Seaton
This is one of those movies that go out of print and are very expensive on eBay. This movie is a little-known, fairly amateurish flick that has the strong advantage of being the only movie that Shannon Doherty appears in multiple nude scenes (looking very seductive, I might add). It also has the minor advantage of being popular in the fetish Shannon Doherty and smoking fetish arenas. It's a fairly mediocre attempt at a horror/drama/whodunit movie. It tries a little misdirection, but you can see what's coming a mile away. Shannon does a decent job with her role, but the woman playing her sister is straight out of amateur-night, as is Shannon's husband character. Avoid, unless you're one of the groups I mention above. Now, let's hit eBay and see if we can unload this thing. 8)
This is the type of late-night cable flick usually associated with Andrew Stevens or Shannon Tweed. Though unlike most of Tweed and Stevens' T&A fueled vehicles, this is lethally dull!<br /><br />Let's cut to the chase. The real reason for watching this non-thriller is to see Shannon Doherty's breasts. Anyone who states otherwise is a LIAR! However, most of her steamy sex scenes appear to be all smoke and mirrors.<br /><br />Notice that all the shots where her head and chest show at the same time are quick peek-a-boo flashes. The frames where the camera lingers on her nude body, there's little or no face attached or she's behind a dripping, wet shower door.<br /><br />All you boob-watchers out there know what that means - Body double!<br /><br />I must admit though, that the finale where Doherty is bound, blindfolded and menaced with a knife, provided a certain fetishistic thrill.<br /><br />If you find a VHS copy anywhere, buy it! As all involved are probably too embarrassed to ever let this come out on DVD!
I for one was actually expecting this movie to be pretty good, maybe my expectations were a bit to high, but the fact is I love Judd Nelson. In fact he is the only reason this movie is worth watching and really his role isn't all that great. The main highlights of this film are raunchy sex scenes and boring dialog. If those are the highlights I'm sure your getting a pretty good idea of what kind of film this is. There is definitely a reason this was a made for television film. Only see this one if you have nothing better to do on a Friday night or just like to waste money on video rentals. Save your time and rent The Breakfast Club!
Despite a great soundtrack and the presence of the ever amazing Rappaport and Woods, this is another one of those moronic comedies where New York throws itself at the hero in an effort by the writer and/or director to show what a zany place it is. Yeah there's some other stuff in the movie that sucks too, but that's what's important. The trend for New York independent filmmakers seems to be "I don't need to be talented, I have NEW YORK!" Okay, to be fair, the movie has its moments. The flashback bit about why the one guy is called Wacky Jack was pretty amusing. The script isn't a story or a plot, it's a bunch of not-good scenes tied to each other by featuring the same character.<br /><br />One of the worst things is that there's no motive behind what the characters do. Uncle Sam has the kid deliver the drugs, why? If its so important why didn't Sam do it himself? Then the lead character lies his ass off in scene after scene with absolutely nothing to gain from lying. The guy falls in love with a flight attendant with neither of them having any reason to fall in love. The characters are a bunch of pawns for the writer to move around to see if he can get anything zany to happen.<br /><br />If you're easily amused or like watching bad indie movies because they make you feel smarter than watching bad mainstream movies, watch this. If you want to see what a GOOD light hearted crime movie looks like, watch Takeshi Kitano's "Brother". "Kicked In The Head" is the perfect example of why so many people hate offbeat indie movies: A LOT OF THEM SUCK. And a note to the director: Don't be afraid to excite, amuse, enlighten or entertain the audience now and then. Being boring doesn't make you a better filmmaker than the ones who can interest me.
"Kicked in the Head" is all about the Corrigan character, a twenty something man on a quest to find himself, and his involvements with a handful of quirky characters. This thin and ambiguous story, which was written by Corrigan, has a make-it-up-as-you-go feel and a screenplay which smells like an uninspired low budget indie. In spite of that and some annoying Hindenburg scene interjections, the film has an off beat, quirky kind of charm which may appeal, in some small way, to people with a similar sense of humor. Not for everyone, not for most, but maybe fun for some. (D+)
This movie was made because the concept translates well into a two sentence summary that can be used to lure investors. That is, the premise is interesting and sellable. I mean, I rented it based on the synopsis. The problem is there is nothing beyond the initial concept. There is no coherent plot, no fully fledged characters, no real comedy, no interesting scenery, no surprises, and no good performances (except Jon Herder, he does something with very little). It's as if the people who green lit this thing never read the script but only the synopsis. And if there were enough people like me, it may even have made money.<br /><br />To the prospective viewer: don't waste your time, there is nothing funny or interesting to see here. To the creators of the film: hey, you got your film made, so what if its not that great. Most people never get to see themselves or their work up on screen.
Rutger Hauer helps along a film that basically can be summed up in the young person finding themselves category, and rather obviously so, so it needs a lot of help.<br /><br />The beginning holds a lot more promise, of a film that could turn into Michael Clayton or Stranger Than Fiction. It's too bad because I really got hooked into the beginning. Then, like the opening soundtrack, it went from great and intriguing to basically nowhere.<br /><br />It's fun enough with plenty of curiosities and interesting characters acted well. I'm sure that will be enough for many people. The problem is it all feels contrived and empty which, ironically, is supposed to be the main discovery for the character's self realization. Not the film itself (it's not a self aware film), but that the character is supposed to recognize his own life is contrived and empty.
This movie had so much potential to be hilarious yet moving but fell way short of either. It had a great story line, it just was not executed as good as it could have been. The weird "hallucinations" during his sleep scenes made absolutely no sense and definitely was not needed, they made no impact nor did they enhance or lend any understanding of what was to come or happen.<br /><br />Jon Heder's character was OK but could have been expanded upon more. He played the crappy part he was given at his best. The character was funny, but again, it fell short of what could have been.<br /><br />Mila's character was perfect and her performance was spot on.<br /><br />In closing, the writing was horrible and more often than not, made no sense and his hallucinations did not fit with the movie at all. This movie, with better scripting and directing, could have been a contender to National Lampoon's Vacation as far as funny, bad things happening to a person on a trip across America.<br /><br />Instead, it was only worthy of a second "flush". If I would have seen this at the theater, I would have demanded my money back and boycotted the film.<br /><br />The only thing that this film did was waste an hour and a half of my life. It also managed to make all those involved in the movie look bad, simply because the movie was a stinker.<br /><br />I do not recommend this movie to anyone! Ever!
If only the writer/producer/"star" had the slightest inkling of the limits of his acting range, and the way he is perceived on-screen (wearing glasses and a side-parting is not enough to make you look gawky and quirky if your face and teeth have been sculpted by various medical professionals to conform to American ideals of generic, characterless symmetry, erroneously perceived as beauty in this obsessively superficial society) he would have cast John Heder as the main character instead of attempting to pull a Good-Will-Hunting and create a vehicle to showcase his... his... well, himself.<br /><br />The excellent supporting cast (Lord knows, they must be having problems to agree to this) is wasted in an agonising perpetual struggle to react convincingly to a main character incapable of delivering even the simplest line with appropriate intonation, and believe me, he is not short of simple lines to choose from, as the dialogue appears to have been composed by a five-year-old. Ah wait... it's the same person pretending to be a writer as pretending to be an actor. It's not often that I don't see a film through to the end, but this ejaculation was irredeemable from the outset and showed no signs of improving after the first hour. Excrement.
Romantic comedy movies are definitely the most fertile genre for "bellow from average" movies and source of frustration for viewers. This one is a perfect example of this and got a place in my "top ten worst movies".<br /><br />History is far from creative and jokes are weak. I found no reason for a single laugh during all the movie! Characters are plain and the performance of the actors and just good. History develops slowly, it's tedious and foreseeable. Ending is also foreseeable and sugar-coated.<br /><br />This is one that movies you watch in a rainy Saturday afternoon when you have nothing better to watch in my humble opinion.
Simply put this movies is without any substance whatsoever. Just take my word for it and save yourself the time it is a complete DUD!! I would say the characters are one dimensional but that would imply there was some sort of character development. I thought Eric Roberts was going to jump out any second it was so close to B-Movie status. <br /><br />The girl from That 70's is beautiful...but unless you are a stalker type fan of hers this movie has nothing for anyone. <br /><br />Avoid..Avoid...Avoid<br /><br />This movie was straight to DVD for a reason...that being...it is a train wreck!!!
Rutger Hower fans Don't BE FOOLED - he only plays a cameo in this movie and that's IT. This movie loses an extra point for that scam. I think Rutger Hower has a total of about 2 very short scenes and 2 very short voice-overs.<br /><br />The female lead for this film is way above this poor material in looks and talent-she's great, this movie is a dog and she's wasted on it. The story is of a Lawyer hoping for that partnership one day at the firm getting suckered into having to cart the Boss' niece across country. They have several encounters on the road with various oddballs and that is the vehicle for a variety of skits and the dude that played Napoleon Dynamite is thrown in the mix as a side character for good measure.<br /><br />This is a road-trip where extreme circumstances put our repressed hero to the test and he slowly winds up loosening up a little bit by the end of the movie, ah isn't love grand, yadda yadda..<br /><br />Only watch this film if you want to see a hot chick be annoying to a dork in a truck for an hour and half.
This movie was really bad. I mean really really bad. The scenes were like from a parody and special effect sucked a lot. And it was filmed in 2003!!! i think this was a great waste of time and money and Michael Shanks with his 'Shaggy from Scooby Doo' image just made me laugh. Never waste your time with this picture... I really don't know what the director was thinking after seeing the final cut of this movie but the fights were so unrealistic that it hurt my eyes to look on them. The 'latex cat women' fighters were like sheep just rolling around the scenes and looking frightened around like they had no clue what to do on the scene... I think this is a beautiful example of Bottom 100 picture.
I watched this out of curiosity. I enjoyed Stargate SG1 and I've watched many of the other TV shows and movies that the principal characters have worked on.<br /><br />My expectations weren't high, so I was surprised to be so monstrously disappointed.<br /><br />The acting throughout is appalling, and the script is worse. <br /><br />Zero research into the bad science that is spouted throughout the movie, or into martial arts (which several cast members engage in throughout the movie, despite clearly having no martial arts training (baton twirling does not a warrior make)) training makes the already implausible plot even less credible. The same weapon (carried by Michael Shanks), when shot at the side of a mountain, causes extreme damage, but when shot indoors at the wall made of wicker, creates a small fireworks effect without damaging the wicker structure - OK, I suppose Michael Shanks fans will be sued to seeing that in Stargate SG1, where a staff weapon creates either a surface burn on a main character, or blasts a hole in a section of castle wall as required), but still... A bad CGI snake 'god' eats one of the faithful in the way a dog would eat - snakes just don't behave like that.<br /><br />The basic premise of an amazonian warrior cult on a distant planet is silly at best. Matriarchal societies have always been based on a lack of understanding that men are required in the process of propagating the species - for instance, the Picts, who didn't figure out the role of men in sexual reproduction until the ninth century - at which time, the balance of power moved from the women to the men. They carry technological weapons and demonstrate some knowledge of science - particularly of medicine, so the idea that a matriarchal society could exist with this level of scientific knowledge is based purely on the original author's wet dream. Of course, the few references to stellar science made in this movie demonstrate that the author knew nothing about that either (except for a few keywords that he must have heard in other movies). Still, it could have been done better - like 'She' in 1965 for instance, which showed matriarchal society with a certain reverence, far more believably, and even after 45 years it seems fresher than this fetid exercise in stupidity. Marching a few women around in 'armour', pouting aggressively, and spitting out their lines like a kiddie looking for a fight in a nightclub ("Come on then! I'll do ya!" style), seems to be over-simplifying the complexities of a matriarchal culture.<br /><br />The cultural references are so simple - 'all hail the snake mother' pretty much sums it all up. Even the tiniest hamlet shows more cultural variation. <br /><br />There is nothing clever, thought-provoking, interesting, visually exciting, or remotely entertaining about this movie. The soundtrack is of similar quality.<br /><br />I can only assume that the few, overly-charitable positive reviews this movie has received are from blinkered Michael Shanks fans who will give a thumbs up to anything he's involved in. Don't be fooled. Low budgets are not a reason for a film to fail - cheap B movies can be brilliant. This isn't one of them, and there's no reason to inflict this movie on yourself.
What a production, what a waste of screen-time and money. Here is what some european so called producer think, of a scifi movie. Take former model, Alexandra Kamp, pair a with an US c-class actor and get one of film business most notorious producer Harry A. Towers. Towers then finds some obscure munich based prod. house, Tandem communication, Rola Bauer, and then mix it all up with no script whatsoever and you'll get "Sumuru" - a priceless gem among the worst movies ever done! Get a live people, and do something else, whatever you do, no movies please!! To top everything, producers went to South Africa for filming, what you see on screen is one giant sand hole, where the "action" takes place, between extremely bad actors and extremely bad fx that any film student would do better.
Pretty.<br /><br />Pretty actresses and actors. Pretty bad script. Pretty frequent "let's strip to our undies" scenes. Pretty fair F/X. Pretty jarring location decisions (the college dorm room looks like a high-end hotel room - probably because it was shot at a hotel). Pretty bland storyline. Pretty awful dialog. Pretty locations. Pretty annoying editing, unless you like the music video flash-cut style.<br /><br />This one isn't a guilty pleasure - this is more an embarrassing one. If you must watch this, pick a good dance/techno album and turn the sound off on the movie - you'll see the pretty people in their pretty black undies, and probably follow the story just fine.<br /><br />The cast may be able to act - I doubt that anyone could look skilled given the lines/plot that they had to deal with.
DeCoteau has to be one of the worst "directors" working today in any genre, and it has nothing to do with his movies usually containing homoerotism and having guys run around in their matching boxer briefs. Remember... anyone in tight black underwear is satanic and evil and want to suck out your blood/soul... such deep symbolism here). I just sat through The Sisterhood to give him his fair shakes, I try to watch every horror movie I can and this one had Barbara (FROM BEYOND, RE-ANIMATOR) Crampton in it (I had previously been sucked in to the world of DeCoteau thanks to Linnea Quigley, Adrienne Barbeau and several other actresses I like).<br /><br />Lemme tell you what about The Sisterhood... Like the other reviewer pointed out, the supposed plot involves lesbian vampires on a college campus. But never has a parade of hot young babes ("actresses" if you want) running around dressed in bras, panties and bikinis been so boring. The movie has no plot, no gore, no nudity and the dialog is ridiculous and seems like they made it up as they go along. Parts are put in slow-motion and repeated many times to push the running time up. About ten minutes of this one consists of characters just walking around on campus (oh, the excitement!) that looks more like a hotel resort than any college I've ever been to. And the acting is the absolute worst. The only thing these girls do well is lean forward and bend over to show off their bodies. The cast were so devoid of talent that I'd be shocked to see any of them get a one-day walk-on role on Passions in the future. Ditto for the guys. Yeah DeCoteau squeezed more hot guys in underwear in this one, too... Guys who should be in some K-Mart brochure instead of trying to act. Do these people actually have to audition or just show up in Dave's office and take their clothes off? I think the answer is obvious.<br /><br />I am willing to give any movie a chance if 1.) it's intelligently written, well directed, original and competently acted (or hell, even ambitious and stylish)... Or 2.) it is chock full of gore, nudity, assorted trashiness and/or it's unintentionally hilarious. David DeCoteau's movies deliver NONE of that and they do it on better-than-usual production values for direct-to-video flicks. What a waste! So what is the appeal, especially with the advent of porn of the soft- and hard-core variety that's easily accessible to anyone with a computer? I simply cannot answer that.<br /><br />DeCoteau is a gay horror director and could use his resources to put a unique spin on the genre. Instead, he produces mind-numbing drivel without an ounce of talent or intelligence shining through. Ironically, when you think about it, his films are anything BUT pro-gay. They actually make homosexuality seem seedy, secretive and sinister. The obviously gay characters in his films are always trying to corrupt, seduce and/or kill off the innocent, sexually-confused leads. There's no shading here to make things interesting. The protagonists are naive and seldom prove themselves to be strong, assertive or confident in who they are. I would understand this plotting if Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps or Dr. Laura starting making direct-to-video horror films, but from a gay director, it just goes to show that he puts almost no thought into these beefcake cheese-fests.
I don't honestly know what legal or illegal substance they - the writers - were on when the wrote this horrid piece of tripe!<br /><br />The cast - sucks The plot - sucks The editing - sucks The whole premise of the movie is that a girl with psychic/telekinetic powers comes across a lesbian vampire sorority, you just have to be totally out of your head to watch even 1 minute of this.<br /><br />The only reason I had to watch it - it was on the here! network as part of a two-picture purchase and the movie that came on after it was the real one that I wanted to see. I fast forwarded through the whole thing and was just amazed how stupid this movie was in double speed!<br /><br />Do not rent, buy, or watch this movie....the vampires in the movie don't suck as much as the overall movie and production does!<br /><br />If you want a good lesbian vampire movie - The Hunger with David Bowie, Susan Sarandon & Katharine Deneuve - excellent movie to watch/own/rent in place of this piece of pure sh*t
I wasn't expecting "Citizen Kane" but I was hoping for some extreme guilty pleasure! The script is bad, but the school exterior shots were obviously done with the same 5 extras on the same day & the dorm exterior shots were easily shot during a hurricane.<br /><br />The wardrobe was swapped around so much, I hoped the wardrobe mistress had some good strong soap to wash the panties. I know the budget's time but do you think they could have bought a couple of DIFFERENT styles of underwear? What oversexed up vampiric hot chick would wear boy-leg panties under latex trousers? I was relieved to see one appearance of thong in the penultimate scene.<br /><br />Good points: the actors were all *very* attractive, and the girls had natural boobs. Too bad they never took the bras off.<br /><br />The special effects were neither effective and could only be describes as special, if they rode the short bus to the edit bay. The final scene in particular is horrifically, laughably bad.<br /><br />-Lizzzzzzzz
OK if you are looking for a fun lesbian romp. This is NOT the movie If you are looking for a fun movie with hot sociopathic characters (in the vane of 'cruel intentions' or 'wild things') This is NOT the movie if you are looking for a classic vampire lesbian seductress's movie. This is NOT the movie.<br /><br />However if you are looking to wast an hour of your life, this is your movie. It is badly written, badly directed,badly scored, badly filmed.It had bad special effects...i mean really bad special effects. I think that you can actually generate the same special effects in imovie lol.<br /><br />IT REALLY IS A PRETTY BAD MOVIE.<br /><br />The actors were classic starlet beauties however look more like porn stars. it is shot like a soft core porn however you never get the money shot and the actors all look bored out of their brains. the 'girl on girl' scenes, which suck btw, were so LAME that there hardly worth mentioning. go watch the 'almost sex scenes' on youtube cos that's the only reason you would want to watch this movie and even there not worth it.<br /><br />A WAST OF MONEY AND TIME!!! don't even pick it up, go watch 'Cruel intentions 2' instead - same movie without the bad special effects, bad storyline,bad writing,bad dialog and bad acting. actually i might go watch it now just to purge my mind
This was made in 2004 for gods sake, what happened to our state of the art special effects? What happened to our rough around the edges but still good actors? The actors in this movie were unbelievably horrible, there was one or two that weren't bad, but the rest, biggg thumbs down. Couldn't stand listening to the badly written dialogue, I mean, who the heck wrote that script? Please don't ever write again! Special effects? Don't even get me started on the special effects. SURELY they could have come up with better then fully fake looking green balls of light in the eye sockets. It looks so old and..lame frankly.! Even the easiest thing to make look real..the teeth, THEY looked so fake and stupid I would almost wipe a tear from my eye in annoyance. Come onnnn I cant believe this was even shown to the public.!
After seeing the movie in a class of mine and having a talk with the filmmaker, I found out exactly why the film bombed the way it did. The creators of the movie had no intention to call the film "8MM 2." Originally, the film was called "The Velvet Side of Hell" but was changed at the last minute by Sony Pictures to 8MM 2 without letting the filmmakers have any say in the matter. By doing that, it screwed them out of theatrical releases and doomed it to a straight to video release with minimal advertising.<br /><br />Again, this is from the filmmaker's mouths, not mine, so I really can't say what is truth, and what is hype.<br /><br />If you look at the film as "Velvet Side of Hell," it isn't THAT bad. It isn't great, but it is not god awful. It would basically just be a B-movie that likes to show boobs. But as a sequel to "8MM," the film fails terribly.
Sure, this flick set in Eastern Europe is filled with sexy, but it absolutely has nothing to do with the Nicholas Cage flick "8mm" An ambassador's daughter and her fiancée mix it up with a local woman in a threesome that ends up being taped. The tape is used for blackmail and the stakes get higher and higher as the couple try to work it out themselves instead of going to authorities.<br /><br />The sex comes and goes -- and would be the only reason for renting it, I suppose if you like this sorta thing -- and is quite gratuitous towards the middle when we cruise along the porn scene looking for the "other woman." I definitely question how it got into Blockbuster even with a Youth Restricted Sticker considering how just a hint over the edge of soft core it is. (Oh that's right, it's the double standard. Actual art-house flicks like "The Dreamers" and "Y Tu Mama Tambien" get castrated R versions, but Straight To DVD crap like this get the UNRATED banner proudly attached. Whatever.) <br /><br />The acting is horrible, the plot is mind numbingly unoriginal, but really the worst offense is the idea that this is a sequel to 8mm. I'd give the flick a D for a grade and be nice, but considering they tried to trick me, it gets the F it frankly deserves.
1st watched 2/9/2008, 4 out of 10(Dir-J.S. Cardone): Sexual political thriller that doesn't really succeed in any of these areas very well except early on where there are some interesting soft-core scenes. The movie starts off portraying a couple exploring their sexual fantasies amidst their work environments or wherever and whatever suits their fancy. The couple takes an excursion to a retreat and bathhouse where they run into a woman that's willing to be a part of a three-some and fulfill some of their fantasies. At this point, we only know that this couple is well off but we don't know until they return that the fiancé is part of a well-to-do political family. The man hopes to be on the rise to the point of possibly getting a congressional seat after the marriage. They then receive a package in the mail from an anonymous source with explicit pictures of their encounter at the bath house and their qwest begins as to how and why they were filmed, who sent the package, what they want, and how to clear their names before any of this gets out. This qwest becomes an obsession that leads them deeper into seedier worlds and takes a lot of their time, to the point where their friends & family wonder what they're doing all day and why they look rundown all the time. This movie is interesting at times but drifts into ridiculousness as they personally seek out the problem instead of getting the police involved early on because of their pride. This mistake, of course, keeps the movie going. The performances are fine despite the no-name cast but the lunacy of the situation overrides and the movie starts to become ho-hum about ½ the way through. And of course, they throw in a twist at the end that defies and challenges everything that happened prior(as is the norm these days when they don't know what else to do to spice up the movie). This doesn't help this movie one bit, though.
First off, the first thing that came to my mind after I finished this film last night was "Why the title of 8MM 2?", because I saw the first one obviously, and what did this have to do with the first movie's plot? The only thing that was similar was the fact that the couple had to go into the porno industry and that wasn't even needed in the plot, because after you see the ending that I will not spoil, it just didn't make any sense.<br /><br />A diplomat and his fiancée are in Hungary and notice a woman who is swimming naked in the pool area, she's very attractive, so when they see her at a club, they decide to have a little fun and have a steamy threesome. But things get extremely intense when the diplomat is mailed pictures of them all having the affair, fearing that it might go public and jeopardize his career, they pay off the guy who sent the pictures, the diplomat freaks out and "kills" the guy, leading into a murder case. He and his fiacee decide to find the girl they had the affair with, but things just get deeper and darker as they go further into what they got themselves into.<br /><br />What could have been an alright thriller, turned into an unexplained and not well thought out movie, which was sad. Like I said, the title really has nothing to do with the first one, so don't fall for it. It's just a sexual thriller that makes no sense, but it's good for those nights alone, because quite frankly this is one of those films where it's so close to porn that it might as well be labeled as soft core.<br /><br />4/10
Why was this film made? What were the creators of this thinking?!?! The first 8MM film at least had a plot that made sense and was potentially interesting. The first film was about the snuff film industry. This sequel is about... hold on... the porno industry!! Yes, as if the snuff film industry, an industry in which people are supposedly killed on film for entertainment, were at all in the same league with the adult film industry, an industry in which people film other people engaging in unstimulated sex acts and situations for eroticism. The idea alone should warn you about how poorly conceived the idea for this film alone is. It isn't helped by a lack of plot, character, acting, direction, script, logic, theme, or even sound design. This is a remarkably boring film that never once held my attention. Literally nothing works. Why would a mystery thriller film about the porno industry involving assassination and betrayal work anyway? I don't have much of an interest in adult films, but I certainly have watched them before. Why would somebody make a film about the evils of it and that they would make it in a sequel to a film about snuff movies? I don't even know if there is an industry involved in snuff film making, but I hope it doesn't. The idea of a snuff film alone is horrific and only people who are truly sick and bad would be a part of it. I don't think that the adult film industry revolves around murder and torture. I'm pretty sure that a lot of people make pornographic films for good intentions rather than to hurt and kill people. It is never okay to hurt another human being. The adult film industry isn't about hurting people. It's about creating films that are, to me, a diversion and a waste of time. What is this film trying to say? It doesn't work.
I believe the production value is OK..probably deserves a 4/10 or 5/10.it's traditionally filmed,featuring good looking people with model quality and a little class..<br /><br />but the premise let me annoyed..a decent woman would do such dirt? I mean she is gonna marry a man who would have sex with another woman? <br /><br />and what's more serious she is also active in the behavior...... only in de Laclos's mind....the film also have many aspects that makes Eastern Europeans seem immoral<br /><br />after all, it's just movie, if it doesn't intend to degrade women in general, I will give one more point..but obviously, it does<br /><br />conclusion: a nasty piece of crap with a little taste
This is another one of those movies I just knew I would hate, but it ended up not being as bad as one would expect.<br /><br />It has a lot of T&A in it and even the DVD menu is chocked full of women's breast. The first few scenes of the movie has a lot of sex and nudity and I was beginning to think there would be no story at all just exploiting nudity for the sake of making money off a popular prequel 8MM.<br /><br />As I continued to watch there was just more sex and nudity and main characters that I could care less about, but then the story started to unfold and I started to see a point to it all, and it was a tad better.<br /><br />It is about a man who's fiancé is the daughter of an Ambasador and they all have a promising future until nude photos of a menage a trois sex act shows up and blackmail is in the senders cards. The man and his fiancé must now get to the bottom of who sent the pics and how to shut them up.<br /><br />The movie first of all is nothing to do with part 1, it doesn't even have anything to do with 8MM's, its about a sex video though so I can see the similarities, as small as they may be.<br /><br />The acting is neither good, nor bad, its just nobodies playing parts anybody could do. The films production value is middle of the road and its pure drama yawn.<br /><br />I did enjoy going along for the ride getting to the bottom of the blackmailers motives. I was anticipating answers which is way more than I could say for the first one which I consider garbage. This movie has some nice twists too which are always welcomed.<br /><br />It's not great, and it is very slow started, but it does ultimately entertain. I wasn't on the edge of my seat and I won't rave to my friends that this is a must see, but hey if you watch a lot of movies and always seek something new, this might entertain you for 90 minutes.
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />David (Johnathon Schaech) and Tish (Lori Heuring) are a couple in Budapest, on business commitments and staying at a luxury hotel. One night, they meet an attractive woman at a nightclub and invite her back to their place, where they end up in a threesome. All is well, until David receives some negatives in the mail and he and Tish end up being blackmailed. But when some people involved in the deception are found murdered, things get messy and they are forced to enter the seedy underground world of pornography and hardcore bondage to track down the woman who may hold the key to everything.<br /><br />Whereas the original film dealt with the concept of snuff films, this straight to DVD sequel deals with the more wholesome (!!!) theme of threesomes and sleazy sex. It plays like a porn film, a cheap piece of titillation with plenty of hot T/A action going on. If this sounds like your idea of a good film, you'll probably like it, but you'd probably be more at home in a porn shop than a video store.<br /><br />This tries to copy the original film's dark and voyeuristic feel, but while it does a pretty good job of this, it still can't hold up to that of the original's. It has an apathetic story, with a dodgy narrative flow. And compared to Cage, Schaech comes across as interminably wooden.<br /><br />Better than I thought it'd be, I suppose, and better than your average one of these DVD direct sequels that seem to be coming out a lot these days, but really, haven't we seen enough? **
I'm so sorry, but I have to tell this film was the most terrible I have ever seen before. I thought that it will be a good film after 8mm. WHAT A SELL!!! There were nothing interesting in it, except the beautiful Hungarian women. Everything might be known forward. It's a miracle I didn't sleep trough all. I don't understand how might you let make it!! I'm so sorry, but I have to tell this film was the most terrible I have ever seen before. I thought that it will be a good film after 8mm. WHAT A SELL!!! There were nothing interesting in it, except the beautiful Hungarian women. Everything might be known forward. It's a miracle I didn't sleep trough all. I don't understand how might you let make it!!
Wow, what's this on the video rental store's shelf in front of me? Nothing other than a questionable "sequel" to 8MM. It wasn't a very good sequel to a movie that had a very definitive end and an abundance of emotional depth far greater than this movie.<br /><br />Basically, from the plot outline verbatim, an American diplomat, David Huxley, and his fiancée, Tish Harrington, venture into the sordid underworld of sex and pornography in Budapest, Hungary to find out who is blackmailing them with a porno video taken of them with a prostitute, Risa. The entire story is based around the various characters who make up these various sex clubs and strip joints throughout the city. The mystery is solved when, in the end, Tish finds out that the ransom money for the video and (essentially later on in the story) her fiancée which came out of her trust fund money is basically going back to her future husband as the story unfolds til the bitter end.<br /><br />I didn't like how this had nothing to do with the original 8MM at all. The only thing close to the original is the type of thriller that it was, the fact that David ends up with some kind of bondage contraption over him to keep him prisoner looks like the kinky world of the first film, and the fact that the entire movie has sex emblazoned throughout almost every key scene. Otherwise, its a totally different movie. It made for a lousy love story, even before the end is known, which makes the ending more of a possibility because I didn't believe the words coming out of David's mouth the whole time. But we were warned that he was a liar about most things that might get him in trouble.<br /><br />There were ridiculous nude scenes in most of the "shocking" moments of the film, which were trying to stir emotions in the audience to cheer for Tish to figure out the plot so she can leave this "hellish" sex debauchery. I counted at least 11 ridiculously filmed sequences when there was nothing but sex to be shown. Even the menu screen on the DVD is nothing but film with naked women on it to make the DVD seem totally provocative.<br /><br />David was no heroic person throughout the film. You could guess he was the main problem long before the end. The actors who played each role were all new to me, which might explain how they got so many of them to strip down to gain acting "respect." There were plot holes (How did David and Richard finally impress Tish's father by getting the lease they wanted when David was so wrapped up in this damn investigation to try and find a prostitute?) There were cheesy technology moments (like the talking email program dressed up like a bondage queen), and a gay brother character which did nothing but show how the director was trying to get a Joaquin Phoenix knockoff to play this character. The tag line featured on this profile for this video is complete BS, too, because it wasn't even about a last breath. Nobody really dies. But they did have a good car crash sequence that came out of nowhere...but that was a good 10 seconds long out of an hour and 3/4 long movie.<br /><br />Go rent (and maybe buy) the original. It's one of Joel Schumacher's better and more original films. It has everything better about it from this film. I wouldn't recommend seeing this unless you want to compare apples to oranges.
I'm sorry, ELO fans, but I was disappointed with this concert at the CBS Television City in Los Angeles. It's decent music-wise, but the presentation is simply boring - big-time. Most of the songs sound the same and lead singer-writer Jeff Lynne is about as animated as a store mannequin. He has a pleasant voice, but he isn't much to watch. He just stands in one spot and sings for an hour and 40 minutes. The songs all sound like 1970s-1980s bubblegum stuff: pleasant but not exciting.<br /><br />Lynn is accompanied by a very pretty woman, Rosie Vela, but she isn't too animated, either. The only song - out of 23 - that creates any excitement is the last one: "Roll Over Beethoven." Now if only some of the other 22 songs had that excitement to them, this could have been a much better concert DVD.
I rented this film for $5 and felt sorry I did it...I wouldn't give a 5c for it if I knew.This is the worse movie ever...None of the filming locations was in former Yugoslavia,map at the beginning what the...???English actors are trying to speak Serbian eg. pretending they are Serbs and they did it terrible bad.My first language is Serbian and I could not understand what they were mumling about.They drove a big jeep in a country where 3 sides (Croats,Serbs and Muslims) are in war and they wrote on it peace 4 Sarajevo???Ha,ha, how stupid was that...Don't know why English are making stupid films about war like this one...or even if they do why they are blaming Serbs for everything,when there was another two sides in a war too.And we all know they were killing too,not just sitting and pretending innocent,so they should at least show the whole truth.This film also Harrison's flowers,Behind enemys lines,The hunting party and few others were total bullshit and that's proved eg The hunting party was biggest loser in 2007/08 spent 20 mil 4 it and they earned 800.000 ha,ha, what a crap...The truth will come out sooner or later.Proud to be Serb!!!
6 out of the 8 comments on this subject rated this film as worth watching, so let me redress the balance.<br /><br />If this is the best that British Independent film makers have to offer then they need to pack away their cameras right now and find jobs in another industry. Unfortunately for me that was 82 minutes I'll never see again and hopefully I'll save some of you from wasting 82 minutes of your own. <br /><br />Whilst the idea behind the film is interesting, it is not developed enough to keep the viewer attached. The student characters are bland and uninteresting and quite frankly you won't care about what happens to them. The soldiers are practically caricatures of every baddie ever seen in film, I kept waiting for Captain Markovic to twirl an imaginary moustache. Some of the effects were quite good and showed some imagination, but these were ruined by the shockingly bad acting, poor script writing and patchy camera work. The budget may have been better spent sending the "actors" (and I use that term loosely)to acting classes or the Thomas Brothers to film making school or maybe on a spell checker because the subtitles were incorrectly spelt. The fact that the mis-spellings were not picked up on and rectified speaks volumes about the immaturity of the whole production.<br /><br />I can only assume that the positive comments are staged by the film makers, either that or they were watching a completely different film. I implore the Thomas Brothers to never give up their day jobs for if they continue in this field, they will surely starve to death.
The positive reviews on this page are planted by the filmmakers and their friends. This film is amateurish in terms of direction, acting, in fact in every aspect. If the IMDb are gonna allow filmmakers to dictate what is written about their films then that is a very sad thing. This film has a marketable premise but it is absolutely horrifically made.<br /><br />Film is subjective so everyone has their own opinion. But this film is on a par with the work of Ed Wood, but without any of the charm. To think otherwise shows bad taste of the highest order.<br /><br />This is not a personal thing. I don't know anyone associated with the film. I'm just a film lover who feels that the reviews on this page are completely inaccurate and therefore I felt the need to address the balance and give a more accurate view of the film. It's very poorly made and the direction is below even film-making by the numbers. The acting is the worse ever committed to film. The best thing about this film is the poster and DVD cover art. Beyond that it's not worth the time.
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The highlight of the movie is a comparison between the smell of natural gas and a dirty vagina. <br /><br />The acting is pathetic. I know acting is hard work and stuff, but that's why it should be left to real actors. Watching these people act is like watching Michael J. Fox perform brain surgery. It's shaky at best. <br /><br />One of the other comments would have you believe that the movie is saved by the acting talents of Dan Gordon as Chris. Only Dan himself or maybe his mother could believe that was good acting. <br /><br />The special effects in this movie were terrible. The worst special effects were for the gas explosion in the lighthouse. It looked like someone was shining an orange light up from the bottom of a model constructed from a refrigerator box. Sure there was a little bit of computer animation layered over top, but it didn't help. I suspect that the special effects on this movie were created and rendered using a single Amiga computer from the late 80s.
It's incredible how a movie can take so much time and effort and still end up being abominable. For those of you who appreciate painstaking special effects and inconceivable detail in every shot you will watch this film in awe. Simply because Predator Island contains none of this. It is a redundant remake of every horror monster movie in the last two decades. Now I appreciate bad horror films, they have a certain flare for humor in the most dramatic of circumstances. However, if your goal is to create a memorable work that will thus be engulfed in the Cult Hall of Fame then my first suggestion is to find some imagination/creativity plus get some talent. Oh, and a few extra bucks to put into your picture.<br /><br />One horror film tradition has been to shock the audience with violent deaths and gore. However, shock doesn't deliver for more than a few seconds. To really evoke a satisfying reaction from paying crowd there should b development of characters, some identifiable traits. I know, you're probably saying this guy is not providing anything intelligent to the filmmakers, he's just stating an amateur remark. Well, that goes to show you how amateur these filmmakers are.<br /><br />Despite having to go through the horror of watching this movie, there was a silver lining. The performance by Dan Gordon as Chris is splendid. He is given nothing to work with in a script and yet he is able to come out of that film looking like a star. Out of all of the actors he is the only who believes in what he is reciting. He not only provides the audience with someone we can identify with but we also have someone we look forward to watching so we can get through the rest of the film. Gordon shows genuine talent and the ability to pull off quality work and overcoming a huge obstacle, that being the rest of the cast. Dan Gordon is going to be a star, hopefully sooner than later. That is to say if he can get away films like this that will hold him back.
The kind of B-movies from the 1950's that were schlocky yet so much fun are to what Predator Island pays homage. Filmed in Connecticut, Predator Island is set on an island called with a lighthouse Hell's Beacon which is inhabited by only the couple who tends the lighthouse. In typical 1950's sci-fi fashion after a half dozen young adults crash their boat into the island's rocky shore hideous creatures from outer space invade the island after a meteor hits nearby. The creatures start both inhabiting the bodies of their victims as well as devouring them. Lots of cursing and lame comebacks are the primary form of dialogue in this movie. It is so hokey that you just have to laugh at times. If you are looking for a movie that is stupid, but in a fun way, then this one fits the bill. <br /><br />Interesting note: I appear in the film as a dead body in the far background of the final scene. During filming they needed about 50 extras, yet around 300 people showed up for the opportunity. They eventually used nearly 200 of them.
Once in a while it is good to see a really bad film like this, just so you know how decent an actor Keanu Reeves is by comparison. The premise of this story is good: teenagers go out on a boat, meteor lands in water, aliens kill teenagers. What's not to love about that, if you're into scream thrillers? But I should have known something was up when I read it was only 75 minutes long. I thought, "I hate judging movies by how long they are. Who says a movie has to be 90 minutes?" But once I took the DVD home from BBuster, I was shocked at the awful production quality, acting, directing of this completely amateurish piece of garbage. The only reason I watched it to the end was because I don't have cable TV, and I already paid four bucks for it. However, there was one ray of light: the actor who played "Chris" is actually decent, and far outclasses this dreck. First of all, the special effects were cheap and unconvincing. Then the aliens--the costumes seemed interesting (rubber suits) but since most of the film takes place in the dark, you don't really get to see them! And hardly any of the actors were convincing enough to suspend disbelief. Finally, I must say that the DVD jacket was made with much higher production standards than the film itself, which felt like a rip-off, so beware of that when you rent other DVDs. Save your $4 and buy a pint of beer.
From the opening shot of the meteor falling towards Earth, you know you're in for something special.<br /><br />This is an ultra-low budget shot on video movie about a group of teens stranded on a lighthouse island with some monsters. The story is unremarkable and nothing you haven't seen a thousand times before. The acting isn't great but isn't completely horrible, however the special effects - of which there are a good deal - are laughable at best. In fact, if you can read this sentence, chances are better than 50% that you could do a more credible job creating the video explosion and compositing effects in this movie than the filmmakers.<br /><br />The movie's saving grace - if you're in the mood for a grade Z turkey of a film - is that there's always something happening and it never gets boring. And if you like making fun of bad movies with your friends, you might just find this worth a dollar rental.<br /><br />And I must say I appreciated the opening joke, "that is the dumbest name for an island I've ever heard." Probably the best moment in the movie.
Predator Island starts as six friends, Eric (Tom Dahl), Chris (Dan Gordon) along with Heather (Iris McQuillan-Grace), Kim (Iana Baker) & Denise (Melissa Roby) get invited to spend sometime on Kevin's (Michael Wrann) father's boat partying in the open sea. What could go wrong with such a super sounding idea? Well for starters a big green meteorite could crash into the sea near your boat & an alien life-force could emerge from it & try to kill all of you, then again that's just a ridiculously stupid idea, isn't it?<br /><br />Co-edited, written & directed by Steven Castle I thought Predator Island was crap & it's a simple & straight forward as that really. The script is of the worst kind, you know the sort of abomination that's full of highly annoying teenage character's who do & say the most stupid things, it's full of clichés & is utterly predictable, it makes next-to-no sense, things just suddenly happen without any build up or explanation, it's boring even at only 70 odd minutes & it has virtually no entertainment value whatsoever, not even unintentional laugh value. The film doesn't really have much of what I would call a plot, there's no explanation given as to why or how this alien creature can take over people's minds or why it can be selective in the sense that one moment the person will be 'normal' the next, when the story calls for it & with no apparent cause, they suddenly get green glowing eyes & a sudden urge to turn cannibal. There's not enough horror in it, the so-called action scenes are pitiful & I really don't want to waste another second thinking about Predator Island let alone wasting my precious energy typing these words...<br /><br />Director Castle doesn't do anything to make this thing watchable & the 'special effects' are absolutely terrible, this alien creature dude wouldn't even get into a 50's sci-fi film. The filmmakers even play some blooper footage over the end credits but this has to be the least funny collection of mistakes ever, I mean they can't even get it wrong right if you know what I mean! Forget about any decent gore as there isn't any, there's a bit of cannibalism & some intestines placed on the unfortunate actors stomach so another unfortunate actor can pick them up & pretend to eat them.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $150,000 I have to concede that the filmmakers were working on a seriously low budget, that's still no excuse for making such a poor film. The whole thing looks very cheap & the acting is pretty bad.<br /><br />Predator Island is crap, I'm sorry but that's the way it is & I just fail to see what anyone would get out of it. In my humble opinion this probably one to avoid.
I carefully checked if there's another movie named as this one, and there isn't ! But I really don't think we all saw the same movie ! There's no way ! How can you vote more than "1" for this movie ?! The idea of this movie let's say it's acceptable. Oh, and the acting of Dan Gordon (Chris) is quite good. But those are the only two things acceptable in this project. The others are... awful ? It's a very delicate word to describe the acting of the other actors, the directing, the (so said) "special" effects, even the way that the crew was filming ! I don't even like the way that the camera operators were moving to record the scenes ! This may be the most miserable film I've ever seen. I really don't remember a movie lower than this one... Maybe there is, but... I don't think so... Ehh, what's done, it's done... That's the movie and there's too late for anyone to change anything. I've voted "1", but my realistic vote starts with a "-" (minus) in front....
I like to think I have seen it all. SS DOOMTROOPER. The one about a family of sabertooth tigers. The one about a family of pteranodons. GOAT EATER. DEMON CHILD (a nonanimated child's rubber doll with horns glued on its head. Several SASQUATCH flicks, none of them good. A couple of giant spider/insect flicks. Endless HELLRAISER sequels. Endless LEPRAUCHAN sequels. Endless JASON sequels. A kickboxing scarecrow. AX 'EM, which is actually about an urban street parade recorded on someone's $199 camcorder. And so on. I watched part of an STV the other night about folks stranded on a desert island kickboxing to the death with a group of badly animated totems. I have even sat through DREAMCATCHER, as recently again as last night -- well, I should say I sat through parts of it, having seen it in all of its awful glory years ago. But nothing compares to PREDATOR ISLAND, about a group of youths trapped on an island during a storm, forced to do battle with aliens that arrive in a meteorite. The meteorite looks like it came out of a SUPERMAN cartoon from the 1940s. So do the aliens, for that matter. The photography and acting and directing and writing are all equally bad. I turned it off halfway through. Good luck.
This has got to be the WORSE move I've EVER seen!!!!! It was not only boring, it was "gag me with a spoon" dumb. Where'd ya find the actors ... on a street corner? Who did the special effects...Maaco? For God's sakes I could have made a better movie with my CELL PHONE. And if that wasn't bad enough, you even had extras at the end of the movie so we could see just how stupid the actors are in real life. Who ever did the makeup for the aliens...must have spent $5 at your local used costume store and called it a day. And who in the world wrote up the movie description on the back of the DVD case should be shot. PUHLEEZ!! It's not even 1/8 % of what it is described as. That description is just to suck people in to buying, renting or paying a ticket to see it. No wonder there was never a trailer to it....ya would have drove them all away!!!!!!!<br /><br />Bad Actors...$5 <br /><br />Special Effects...$5.50 <br /><br />Fake Fire....$1.89 (cigarette lighter) <br /><br />Time Spent Watching This Movie....total waste! (I should sue ya for my time watching it)
this movie is so bad. but its so bad that i was laughing my ass off. for people that like movies, do not watch this one. for people who like movies good and bad, i recommend this one. the story lines shaky,the script is horrible,the acting is horrible to mediocre. the soundtrack throughout the movie was corny but i loved it. the cool catchphrases were a plus tho. ha ha. "if it can bleed, it can die". the fight scenes cracked me up. it seemed to me like they spent more time on those parts than any other cuz the fight scenes for the most part were pretty clean. i almost feel like this movie could have been good if it weren't for the f/x....no it would have still been a crapshoot. the eye thing was corny. and how the chick was eating the guys stomach in the kitchen,they coulda done something where shed be actually eating something or at least put more of the fake blood on her face. and the lighthouse explosion disappointed me. i thought they might have gotten real fire instead of crappy computer synthesized stuff. and the ending was so predictable, which surprised me when they actually did what i though they might do. so overall. id say this is a classic as far as crappy movies go. its in my bottom 5.
I see that the majority of the comments so far have been if not overly positive, then at least positive. I can not understand that. The only explanation I can find is that the people who commented had something to do with the film, because this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. It makes "Boggy Creek II" and "Mutant" look like masterpieces of horror. The acting is shaky at best, and awful for the most part. The entire movie is almost pitch black, probably so they could shoot it all in the same location. The monster looks like something from one of Roger Corman's worst films. And the plot...well, the less said about it the better.<br /><br />One to avoid at all costs.
Rented(free rental thank goodness) this as supposedly filmed in CT where I live....could have been filmed in a tunnel for all that matter! Dark ninety percent of time, and just an awful attempt at a low budget flick, which can be good if done right. In a nutshell about a bunch of young adults who witness meteor fall, and subsequently fall prey to aliens on a lighthouse island, assisted by keeper and wife. Analysis:<br /><br />- acting = dreadful<br /><br />- writing = uninspired<br /><br />- story = done a million times before with different settings<br /><br />- production values = okay (lighting) for budget<br /><br />- effects (creature, digital, other) HORRIBLE,VERY CHEAP LOOKING<br /><br />So, you get the gist of it. To add insult to injury, end credits has bloopers of filming - really now......who cares! Distributed under a Universal company, shocked they would even do so after viewing.<br /><br />Finally as alternative, try "CREEP". Low budget, but well written, well acted, and fairly, well, creepy!
Wow. So my boyfriend and I went to the movie store to rent a film. I like dumb horror movies, so I browsed the variety of terrible films they had to offer while he went off in search of Michael Moore's 'Sicko'. So then I found the worst of all of them (as I would soon find out). It looked good on the cover and the description on the back seemed decent enough. The fact that there was an IMDb quote on it as a review was proof that it would be bad in a good way. So the next night, we put it in the DVD player and from the first five minutes, we were so incredibly confused.<br /><br />The movie is utterly incoherent, with badly placed time-jumps from past to future that leave you asking a major 'WTF?' The plot has no sort of coherent story -- other than the vague allusion to a local myth about a murder, but this only actually comes into play in the movie in the last twenty minutes of it. So pretty much for the first hour you have this: random, confusing time jumps; incoherent plot; parents who don't age; bad acting; bad dialogue; a boy who magically changes hair colour; and a host of obnoxious characters for you to get bored with!<br /><br />The movie moves so slow that it's a chore to actually sit there and watch. I'd rather be scrubbing the toilets, honestly. Don't bother with it.
I only watched this because I saw a couple of good reviews for this, so I was expecting at the very least a half-way cheesy movie. Toybox doesn't even deliver that. There are so many problems with this flick, that I don't even know where to start, so I will list a couple of main issues (Once again, spoiler warning. Just read them, it'll save you the trouble of watching this later).<br /><br />One, this movie starts out with, and often mentions, the mythical folklore of both Celeste Noir (A witch, who the main character claims she is the reincarnation of), and the mid-folker (or something like that, an evil man with a big smile who cuts people open with hooks and sells their innards in pies). I liked that, it was a cute concept, anything to do with pies is simply enjoyable. But then you watch the movie and it's all about this idiot girl and her boyfriend (And what was the deal with him? Was he psychic? Did he have powers? Why did he keep seeing visions that even the so called 'Witch' didn't notice??), and them meeting their insane family. Not really insane, they just argue a lot. That's what most of this movie is, arguing, and they barely touch on the supposed myth ever again except in a couple of confusing scenes that you can't make heads or tails of.<br /><br />In one scene, Berenice (The main witch-related character) wanders off and does some sort of ritual by candle light. It seemed rather important, but absolutely NOTHING happened after she did it, it just wasted more of my time.<br /><br />And who the hell was that guy with his dog? You see him walking towards the house from the very start of the movie with that evil red-eyed dog, and then he finally gets there and gets killed? What the hell?? Was he the mid-folker? Was his dog possessed? Did someone kill the dog? They never really showed that. Also, any scene involving the Vicar was completely pointless and only served to weakly explain the lame ending. It was like they had all these interesting character ideas and they all went nowhere! The boyfriend, who obviously had some sort of powers but never explains them. The grandmother, who appeared to also have some sort of witch powers, but never used them. The Vicar, who...OK, never mind, there really was no point for his existence at all. And then there was Berenice and her stupid amulet. Could she really do magic, or did she just use it to reflect light and blind people? This was a complete waste of time, and the only reason I give it two stars at all is because a) Berenice is kinda cute, and b) It mentioned pies. Save yourself the money of renting this and dear god don't even think about buying it, unless wasting money is a new fad.
I really wanted to like this movie, because it is refreshingly different from the hordes of everyday horror movie clones, and I appreciate that the filmmakers are trying for something original. Unfortunately, the plot just didn't hold together and none of the characters were likable enough for me to really care about them or their fates.<br /><br />Visually, The Toybox was pretty interesting. The director took a lot of somewhat risky moves, like adding in little bits of (Flash-looking) animation in parts and really cheesing up some of the special effects (such as the light from a certain amulet). Sometimes this worked and sometimes it didn't, but he deserves kudos for the attempt, and the cinematography was generally of high quality.<br /><br />Unfortunately, when this same approach of throwing lots of things at the wall to see what sticks was applied to the plot, the results were not very good. The film never really finds a tone that it likes, moving schizophrenically from black comedy to family soap opera to 80's witchcraft flick to childhood nostalgia to embattled-family slasher. Taken on their own, bits and pieces of each of these elements work fairly well, but nothing ever coheres into a satisfying whole. Besides that, large bits of the plot are never really explained. I'm not one who likes to have everything spoon-fed to me, and I like movies that leave things up to the audience to decide, but the parts that are left out from The Toybox just seem like they either ran out of money before they could explain them or they didn't really think things through to begin with.<br /><br />I look forward to the director's next project, since I think there is a lot of talent lurking under the surface here, but I can't really recommend The Toybox on its own merits.
Really!Here the French cinema hits rock bottom ,and compared to it, the least appealing of the American adolescent horror movies,the likes of "Friday the thirteenth" "Freddy" and co are masterpieces of the seventh art.<br /><br />It's all the more infuriating as there were exciting original elements :the forêt de Brocéliande and its legends ,the druids and King Arthur ,all were splendid assets for a dreamlike fantasy and horror film.Alas! Filmed ,as an user aptly pointed out in a fake forest,near Paris ,the movie is fake horror,fake Celtic history,fake vestiges -you should see the professor (Wilms who was a wonderful M.Le Quesnoy in "la vie est un long fleuve tranquille) scream for the "invaluable scrap" -which the production probably bought in a dime store-fake characters ,fake excavations...<br /><br />The boys disguised as druids are unintentionally very funny ;so are the girls who seem to be experts in martial arts.And what can we say of the professors? of the monster? A ten year old would write a better screenplay than this grotesque farce.To think that people can spend money for such drivel when artists are still waiting for a producer!<br /><br />Word to the wise:Maurice Leblanc wrote a marvelous story dealing with druids and old ceremonies in his Arsene Lupin saga called "l'île aux trente cercueils" .A miniseries was made 30 years ago.Avoid this "Broceliande" garbage and try to see it instead.
In the early 00's, production companies had a short-lived craze for supernatural genre movies in France after "The Crimson Rivers" and "Brotherhood of the Wolf" turned out to be hits, so several movies were green-lit or saved from their "direct-to-video" fate. However, France, as opposed to the US, UK or Italy, has little tradition of fantasy B-movies and it turned out quickly that "Samouraïs", "Bloody Mallory" or the "Crimson Rivers" sequel were ill-advised attempts at recreating a kind of magic that had never existed in French cinema in the first place. As they flopped, producers have gone back to their usual fare: derivative farces or the umpteenth self-referential tribute to French New Wave by a former critic from "Les Cahiers du cinéma".<br /><br />"Brocéliande" could only have been green-lit during this short window, as it serves no other discernible purpose. It's your by-the-book slasher movie mixed with vague mythological element and horror references and you'll find bimboesque female characters, a French University looking like a US campus and plot twists so lazy you don't even care because you had guessed it by yourself an hour before, even before the movie started.<br /><br />These elements make all the fun of a 70's or a 80's B-movie and you expect them in a 70's or 80's movie. However, we're not in the 80's anymore and nobody warned director Doug Headline, as this tribute to the slasher movie genre is nothing more than a derivative slasher movie. Headline himself is no rookie and has been writing as a critic about this kind of pictures since the early 80's but as a first time director he shows a lack of skill and ambition that makes "Brocéliande" a bore.<br /><br />When you put together clichés from a movie subcategory and hand them to a skilled and inventive director such as Wes Craven or Quentin Tarantino, you get a "Scream" or a "Death Proof", movies that are imitations from old guilty pleasures but also magnify these clichés and add a great deal to them. That's called "talent" and that's why you can't confuse these recent movies with their original inspirations shot decades ago.<br /><br />"Brocéliande" takes the lazy path and only reproduces the worst elements from past movies (unfortunately for the male viewer, the gratuitous nudity is mostly missing). There are very strong similarities (presumably unintentional) between the plot of "Brocéliande" and the reviled "Halloween 3: Season Of The Witch", as both deal with supernatural Druidic evil rituals and some silly attempt at taking over the world on Halloween night. As even the plot of "Halloween 3" makes more sense than this one, it means that something seriously wrong went with "Brocéliande".
The actresses are cute and the sets, while simple, quite OK. Apart from this, there is nothing to save from this movie. Incredibly bad acted, dumb to tears dialogues, all-too-expected plot, a lot of goofs and inconsistencies (for instance, a pretty young girl gets hits in the head by a morning star and not only she survives, but barely with a scratch !)... To make it short because it does not worth more, even the fans of the genre can avoid it.
After a few misfires, we are still waiting for THE French horror movie that the critics will certainly vilify, but will launch a new trend. Not this time. Doug Headline can't be accused of not being knowledgable in the genre (He is editor of a high-class fantasy imprint, has worked for legendary magazine Starfix.), but why a scenario that uses EVERY cliché in the book (except maybe the Odious Comic relief) ? Why make it so predictable ? Even the nods towards Argento fails flat. It's not even an euro-teen movie like the German "Anatomy", much better, just a compilation of scenes that barely seems to have any relation one with the other and features LOTS of plot holes. The whole "Celtic" aspect is barely touched. And, after a "revenation" painfully predictable, the screenplay offers us a boring, endless chase in a subterranean necropole which seems bigger than Parisian catacombs. I really wanted to love this film. Really. But even a mother would not. Oh, and writer Valerio Evangelisti was supposed to have a cameo, but I vainly looked for him.
I HATE THIS MOVIE!!!!!! I have never seen such utter, complete trash in my life!!! I live in France so it turned out that I was in the front line to watch this awful movie. At first, it seemed cool, kind of like something about a cursed forest that chomps people. Unfortunately, it turned out it was something QUITE different: a good start with a girl that meets a guy and all that whatnot, then the girl gets threatening messages in the form of ravens shut up in her bathroom closet(ludicrous), from that bit and on, the movie starts to slide downhill very quickly with a lot of desperate thrashing in the process. The movie ends with sacrificial druids galore and ancient ugly, stinky creatures coming back from the past to kill a few people. Many questions were rushing around my head by then: why the heck did they bring back that scummy monster? Do druids look like maniacs dressed in bedsheets? Why did they even bother making this movie?? The "climax" of the movie was so goofy I laughed all the way through it: the "awful" stinky monster does battle with the two young women(who appear to be expert kung fu masters) and the professor gets sliced in two or something. What surprised me was that the monster was so slow and ungainly in battle, wasn't it supposed to be a god of war or something? Anyway, the movie in it's death throws was a pitiful sight. A brief condensation of the contents of this movie: Kung fu mayhem+druid stones+mysterious murders "à la thriller"+ancient prophecies+shabby ravens+old clumsy boneless war god+nutty professor=complete and utter, diseased, boneless, worm eaten, GODFORSAKEN, GODDAM, RECYCLED, FAKE, WANNABE, LUDICROUS SH*T!!!!!!!!! Things I learned from this movie: -Ancient war gods are lousy at kung fu. -All young women who study archeology at university in France are kung fu experts. -Professors are so resistant they can survive being sliced in two by a saw-mass-whatchamacallit without any injuries.
What should i say? I only saw this flick for curiosity, and this is truly a shame... I grew up in Brittany with stories of celtic legends, and spent 5 years in Rennes, the town in which this film is said to take place... Shame that not any actor nor camera from this flick ever arrived in Rennes. They could at least have chosen a likely town, or a likely forest, but nothing even SEEM like Brittany nor Rennes... And calling it a film about celtic legends is really making a fool of the audience. Besides those details, it could have been a good film, but it's crap. Silly scenario, silly characters and no originality. Definitely to avoid.
Yes, absolutely dreadful, And this coming from someone who loves bad movies - but there's a limit. I enjoy all sorts of horror/suspense films, and have seen some wonderful work from European film makers. Broceliande is sadly not among those those wonderful pieces of film-making. The camera work is worse than amateurish. Not the fashionable, shaky MTV "cameraman needs Ritalin" type of camera work so many film-makers use to camouflage their lack of talent. This is simply bad frame composition and terrible image composition. The acting is farcical when it is not entirely two-dimensional. The dialogues are stilted and unnatural - even more so than your usual run-of-the-mill horror/suspense film delving into pseudo-mysticism. I think that what put me off the most was the horribly choreographed fight scenes at the end of the film. These were bad to the point of being ludicrous. I've seen what a small budget can do, and it can do wonders. This was just bad film-making. Very, very sad.
Another try, another miss. France may be doomed for not being able to produce a good horror movie. I mean... the least they could do was to shoot the movie in the forest of Brocéliande, but even the forest is fake ! It was shot near Paris ! The subject is useless, the actors are really insignificant and the text makes you wish you were deaf. Nothing could save it.<br /><br />Bad... to the bone. I wasn't warned. I want my money back.
This is a stupid movie. Like a lot of these karate movies it is badly written, awkward, and sometimes just stupid. The action really isn't all there and the movie overall leaves much to be desired. Everyone here is talking jive, doing bad karate and doing a very bad job of acting. <br /><br />Watch for Scatman Crothers in a small role, he is too good for this movie overall. Jim Kelly is good at karate, but he is a terrible actor. Gloria Hendry is real bad. All of them are, there are just so many parts to this film that make absolutely no sense. The supposed love/running away scene with Hendry and Kelly, what the hell was that? They destroyed that man's guitar, for no reason! <br /><br />And then there was the mandatory girls on trampolines!!! Now what was that? They were in the movie for five seconds, then you never heard from them again!!! Then there is the whole racially charged element of the movie, which is cool and all, but in this movie it goes absolutely nowhere. Like I said, this is good for a laugh one time, but don't watch it again.
This is a parody. That means, there are no characters as such, they are all plain stereotypes, and the movie relies completely on the quality of the jokes.<br /><br />Well, there ARE quite some good jokes in this movie. Unfortunately, they are hidden in a mass of real stupid ones. If one expects all dialogues to be absurd, the fun wears off.<br /><br />You see, there is American Pie 2, my all time favorite teenager movie. It contains a lot of real original characters. Maybe the jokes are tasteless, but all the people have some kind of live. For example, they feel embarrassed if something embarrassing happens. That is what makes the jokes themselves actually funny !<br /><br />Not so this movie: every scene is clearly arranged as a pure parody, so there are no characters at all, therefore there is really no room for any sympathy. Too, if you know the original movies, you know whole scenes in advance. Add the fact that many jokes are not funny at all, and you have this movie.<br /><br />The only thing that saved me from getting completely bored where in fact the comments from some teenagers in the cinema where I was watching the film.<br /><br />Ah, and my personal highlight of the movie was the very short appearance of Melissa Joan Hart in one scene. Sigh. She is just too cool, she can't be real. Hmm, worth a whole movie ?
Of course, all this nonsense begs the question 'Does a genre as self-referential as the teen comedy really need another parody movie?' The woeful 'Scary Movie' (I and II) took the formula about as far as it could go - 'Not Another Teen Movie' really doesn't have anything either intelligent or shockingly excessive to add.<br /><br />The plot, essentially based on fairyfloss teenflic 'She's All That', walks a shaky line between parody and homage ('John Hughes High School'). Everything from 'American Beauty' to 'Varsity Blues' is mined for references. The result is ultimately an unfulfilling viewer experience. The downside of giving us a carbon copy plot of 'She's All That' is that we all know where its going anyway. And if we didn't then the jokes would be meaningless.<br /><br />There's extremely little to recommend here. The token gross-out scene (an erupting toilet) seems badly out of place here amongst all the 'feel-good' references. There are moments of humour - the song is funny enough and the odd good line is send the audiences way. It stinks, don't watch it.
This movie is not a remake of She's all That ( 1999)?<br /><br />Where is the renewal of the american movie? This was probably the worst movie I saw in the last 5 years. This and the last movies of Schwarzenegger.<br /><br />
OK i have seen Hershall Gordon Lewis movies before but this one really takes the cake,its really gory and gross,not to mention disgusting the way the strippers are done in,I'm talking bad acting that makes plan 9 from outer space look like hamlet,the only saving grace is the late great Henny Youngman as the strip club owner,yeah take my wife..., please.the stripteasers are real sexy for 1972,i believe they used this same plot again in the Roger Corman movie;stripped to kill in 1987.i did enjoy the earlier H.G.Lewis flick 100 maniacs,which was a mini masterpiece of sorts,but bad acting,no awards here,but be aware this is a splatter movie that paved the way for Friday the 13th,and saw.in one disturbing scene a half naked stripper has her butt spanked with a meat tenderizer.ugh!morbid stuff here.H.G. Lewis strikes again. 2 out of 10.
Some might remember if having seen the film Juno a scene where Ellen Page has a moment of praise for Dario Argento's Suspiria, her favorite horror film. Jason Bateman's character then asks if she's ever seen a Herschel Gordon Lewis film, and to wit he has a copy of a movie (I forget which at the moment) and shows it to her. At the time I saw Juno I had seen Suspiria and a few Argento films but not Lewis. Now I can see that it's not just another one of Diablo Cody's pop-culture "in" references, but something that actually is an indicator on the tastes of the characters and, maybe more subjectively, how to judge them based on their tastes. In other words, Herschel Gordon Lewis's reputation is maintained some many years after he ended making his gore films - and it's that of a schlock-Meister, no more no less. Actually, less.<br /><br />It's interesting then to take Argento as a basis of comparison, because both filmmakers approach, at least in the case of The Gore Gore Girls and, well, any given Argento picture, similar material. Where Argento is extraordinarily conscious about his craft, getting an audience wrapped up in whatever little story there is by the power of the movement of camera and music and style, Lewis takes the easy route to get at an audience, which is with an immature script and (putting it lightly) lackluster direction. The Gore Gore Girls reveals a filmmaker who isn't interested in entertaining his audience in an actual compelling way as a horror film, but as a side-show or a brothel. He can't direct actors worth a damn, he lights like it's a porno movie, and for every one possibly clever or funny one-liner there's ten that either totally stink or are too clever by half or not clever nearly enough.<br /><br />That being said, perhaps as the best substantive thing to say about The Gore Gore Girls, a mystery movie about a detective (2nd rate Sherlock Holmes guy played by somewhat amusing Frank Kress) and a newspaper reporter (dummie Amy Farrell) investigating a series of murders of go-go dancers, is that it serves as the template for countless more Troma-style pictures. Perhaps this is faint praise, however, and really the best thing that can truly be said is that Henny Youngman- "Take my wife, please!"- has a few scenes and steals every one of them without having to try much. It's sad, since it could be the kind of picture that could entertain on an awesomely-bad level. But even on that score one may laugh more out of embarrassment for the production, some of the actors (i.e. that guy who plays the cop, my God) than out of some guilty pleasure enjoyment.<br /><br />Even the gore itself is somewhat of a letdown. At first one thinks that Lewis is at least delivering on this end, showing these women being murdered in crazy and vicious and exaggerated ways. But with the killings it all goes on longer than necessary; I don't mean this in terms of shock value, for that it's fine. But there needs to be something else to really make it "stick", that showing women's faces dissected and eyes gouged is fine if you're 12 and seeing this as one of you're first 'horror' films. It becomes, dare I say it, dull. Dangerously dull for such a "daring" so-called movie.<br /><br />This was Lewis's last film until 30 years later an apparently worthy swan song came with a sequel to a film he made earlier brought him out of his retirement from movies and job in writing books on how to make it in business. However, whatever experience he had coming up to this one doesn't show. It's not a failure, but it could have been, and it's just simply... schlock. Take it or leave it.
what a lousy movie, took me 3 times to finish it. The thing i disliked the most was the infantile sense of humor. jokes made by a 10 years old child. not funny. pretty annoying actually, for example when the detective cant get a place at the bar he yells "she's taking it all off" and then they all run "fast foreward" slapstick kinda' rush. so stupid. and also a guy sitting at the bar smashing fruit to work out his post traumatic stress disorder. on the bar! and the bartender is supplying him with more and more fresh fruit. thats supposed to be funny? and i mean ... i love good ol' exploitation gore flicks, and saw a lot of terrible movies, but his one is plain bad. and also the "gore" is not that exciting. don't bother. i wouldn't recommend it.
Aside from Frank Kress (who played Abraham Gentry), an appearance by Henny Youngman and the last seconds of the movie, there really wasn't anything particularly good about this film. Why it is currently rated 5.3 and adored by some reviewers is beyond me--the film is 99.44% crap...and exactly what I would have expected from director Hershell Gordon Lewis. In the 1960s and 70s, Lewis was known for making a string of incredibly low budget exploitation films, such as BLOOD FEAST and MONSTER A GO-GO. However, in recent years he's been christened "the father of gore" and he has many, many fans--fans who ignore the ineptitude of his work and only focus on how groundbreaking some of his films were. But apart from the liberal use of fake blood and real guts, at heart, his films are pure crap--and don't believe scores of 9 and 10 for his films. This would be like putting a velvet Elvis painting in the Louvre!!<br /><br />The film is about a string of very grisly murders that happen to strippers. When I say gruesome, it's very bloody and sick for 1972--though by today's standards the special effects look amazingly lame. So, while some very deviant and cruel murders happen in the film (I'd rather not explain them--they ARE from a pretty sick mind and show a particularly sick disregard for women), at least they won't nauseate you because they were done so poorly. It's obvious that in many cases they are cutting apart rubber dolls and mannequins. But to have them doing some of the sick acts, even if unrealistic, is pretty nasty and shows a lot of misogyny.<br /><br />The only hope in the film, as the police are all idiots, is a guy named Abraham Gentry--whose mannerisms and style of speech are very close to the stock actor, David Lochary, from the early John Waters films. While his acting is bad, he is so flamboyant and funny that he kept my interest. He could be pretty funny and oddly this is the only film he ever made!! It was also odd that so many women wanted him--especially because they just didn't seem like his type.<br /><br />As for the rest of the folks in the film, they are cretins and idiots who could not act. In fact, I was kind of hoping MORE would be killed--they really had it coming! None of their acting was the least bit believable and apparently the director NEVER re-shot a single scene--as most of the scenes in the film were worse than any of the ones in Ed Wood's masterpiece, PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE. In fact, for many of the women in the film, the only prerequisite for their appearing in the film is that they be willing to take off their clothes. Now I know this will sound pretty mean, but most of them were incredibly unattractive and looked like drug addicts who strip to get their next fix. When these ladies take off their clothes, men in the crowd give them money to put it back on (wow--Henny Youngman SHOULD have said that in the film)! But, considering Lewis' budgets, these were probably the best "actresses" he could get.<br /><br />Overall, a sleazy bucket of bile that manages to be worse than most of the director's other films...and that's saying a lot! It's violent (yet dumb), anti-women (treating them like meat and things to be mutilated) and is thoroughly incompetent from start to finish.
I love camp movies, believe me and the usual technicolorian gore of Gordon Lewis don't bother me at all, but this is just one of his most stupid movies, even more than BLOOD FEAST, i'm not kidding. THE GORE GORE GIRLS is about a mad person who kills a lot of go(re) - go(re) girls of a night club. A detective and a reporter tries to find out the big secret. Maybe the performances here are slightly better than the usual average acting H.G Lewis films, but that is not saying much. The camera work is even dreadful.<br /><br />But at least is kind of watchable with the go go girls acting ... you going to pass a good time with it, and the killings are just absurd in a very, very bad way: A girl is killed with a wooden hammer punching in her butt (!) and just don't let me talk about what it does with the nipples. You going to laugh like anyone with this. But the better of all this mess is a scene that i only love of it's campness: the go-go girl before being attacked by a lot of feminists dancing in a very American way. Though is important to note that this was one of the first films that got an X rating because of it's violence.<br /><br />ONLY if you want lo laugh and pass a good time (But only with a lot, A LOT of beers).
I debated quite a bit over what rating to give this one because it's my least favorite Herschell Gordon Lewis film so far other than The Gruesome Twosome, but it has the best acting I've seen in a Lewis film. However, we all know that's not saying much. Once the movie was done, I was happy because it felt like I had been sitting through a 4 hour movie, though it was only 82 minutes long. I'm trying to see all of HGL's films and that's probably the only reason to see this one.<br /><br />The gore is good as usual, the one thing that Herschell seemed to get right. The acting is just as bad as usual with one exception. That exception is Frank Kress. Now, would I say that he's a good actor? No way, but he's good compared to everyone else. The story is boring and flat and goes no where and by the end, I didn't care what happened just so long as it ended. I know this is a cult classic but I didn't enjoy it very much at all. I hope you will.
Say what you will about cinema's "Wizard of Gore," Herschell Gordon Lewis, it must be conceded that from his first films (1963's trashy "Blood Feast" and 1964's crackerbarrel massacre "Two Thousand Maniacs") to his last (1972's "The Gore Gore Girls"), the man remained faithful to his muse, gleefully chopping up the bodies of young men and women for the delectation of the camera. In "Gore Gore," for example, someone has been mutilating the pasty-faced and pasty-clad strippers at the Tops & Bottoms Club, and obnoxious ex-detective Gentry is hired by a hotty cub reporter to assist on the case. The film features remarkably annoying and repetitive background music, terrible lighting, abysmal acting, repugnant characters, problematic sound AND, of course, some of Lewis' patented gross-out scenes. Thus, one of the strippers has her face shoved into boiling oil; one has her head ripped open; another has her face ironed and her nippies cut off; and still another has her bum paddled with a meat tenderizer until her entire backside is covered with what appears to be Buitoni tomato sauce. (I could be wrong here; it might have been Ragu.) The film also throws out some fairly lame humor, although some of the lines ARE pretty funny. For example, we learn that the real name of slain stripper Suzie Creampuff was...Ethel Creampuff! A bottle of acid says "Made In Poland" on it (don't know why, but I thought this was funny). And some of strip club owner Henny Youngman's lines are, of course, amusing. Still, this is NOT the movie to show to Aunt Ethel or Sister Agatha. It is one of the sickest you'll ever see, with only one surefire, crowd-pleasing moment--the title card at the film's conclusion that reads "We Announce With Pride: This Movie Is Over"!
Low-budget schlockmeister Herschell Gordon Lewis reaches a new low (even for him) with "The Gore Gore Girls," a 'film' (snicker) that possesses all of his technical trademarks: badly-recorded sound, poor lighting, and OTT gore. This would be tolerable, even a bit charming, if the film at least had an interesting plot ("Blood Feast," in all its ridiculous glory, is a fine example), but "Girls" is a total snooze. Completely unlikable pompous-ass private investigator Abraham Gentry (Frank Kress) is recruited by a newspaper reporter to find out who's been murdering out-of-shape strippers (you'll stop caring who the culprit is long before these two are wrapping up the case). As before, the appeal isn't the plot, but the creative methods of bloodletting (including a girl's fanny being tenderized with a wooden mallet) and the occasional flashes of then-risqué skin...but this just isn't enough to elevate the material above tedium.
Well, this stripped my nerves raw, they got that right. I first rented this movie back in the 80's, when my friend opened a video store that carried every rare movie he could find. He also carried all the shock, horror, and exploitation movies he could dig up, and I went through almost of all them. Previously I had seen Blood Feast and 2000 Maniacs, and the Wizard of Gore. They were gruesome (especially for the time period), and the Wizard of Gore got pretty nasty. The Gore-Gore Girls, however, was the one I remember as being the most disgustingly gory.<br /><br />I rented it on DVD a little while ago because I wanted to hear the commentary, and thought it might have some cool dancing and clothes. I forgot that it was made in the early 70's, so fashion had kind of gone downhill by then. I also realized this was a movie I didn't really need to see more than once. It had amusing parts, but gaaaah! It was much more disgusting than I remembered. I'm very jaded to movie gore but a couple of times I just got too grossed out and had to look away. This wasn't a good choice of movie to put on DVD all crisp and cleaned up with better sound and picture quality. The commentary is amusing in parts, and interesting (I think HG said the budget was $6100.00) Maybe HG Lewis wasn't feeling well that day, but he sounded tired overall and also had the nerve to get offended when the interviewer from Something Wild compared him to Ed Wood Jr. Sorry pal, but you're not exactly Martin Scorsese yourself.<br /><br />The extremely thin plot is about a series of murders of topless go-go dancers in strip clubs. A cute reporter and a really unattractive private detective team up (sort of-he can't seem to stand her) to try to solve the crimes. Henny Youngman owns a strip club. A bunch of really ugly murders happen.<br /><br />I'm going to apologize in advance because I don't want to sound like I need to lighten up, but this movie was so misogynistic it p***ed me off more than "Company of Men". Mainly because the main character's and the director's extreme dislike for females- and the audience- just oozes from every frame. It's not just the murders. The highly unattractive detective goes out of his way to treat the female reporter like dog dirt at every opportunity, for no apparent reason, (he's not exactly a threat to George Clooney, like I said) and she still follows him around like a puppy. She faints upon seeing a horribly mutilated body and he looks distastefully at her, then pours cold soda from a can onto her face to wake her up. Later he calls the police to report the crime- "No...no hurry...she just seems to have...lost face." This guy is THE HERO. You can imagine how the other characters feel about women. I could go on and on but you get the idea. Please note that I am making this movie sound much more politically correct (and much more fun) than it actually is.<br /><br />Most of the cast are the type of actors you pray will never take their clothes off- not too easy on the eyes, so don't watch the movie just to see the nudity unless you're not too picky. The go-go dancers all look like they desperately want to have the scene end so they can get their $10 or whatever the going rate HG paid them was and get their drug fix. OK, it's not quite that bad, there was one dancer that looked like she might have been a pro and also one other cool dancer with a huge afro that didn't look as miserable as the rest, but still not too thrilled. The only slightly entertaining things were a couple moments of brief unintentional humor, such as when a policemen in charge at a murder scene angrily yells "Get outta here before I have you all arrested!" not to a bunch of reporters but to some other policeman calmly going about their work (they mutter and stroll off, though). Henny Youngman is kind of funny though, like Lewis says, he said his lines so fast that they almost needed subtitles (I'm sure he was trying to get the whole day over in a hurry so he could get paid and get the hell out of there, though he doesn't look like he minded watching some naked chicks).<br /><br />Might be worth seeing just out of morbid curiosity- for the era the movie was made, it was probably the most gruesome thing on film at the time- or if you're really big HG Lewis fan and find him or low-budget film-making by anyone fascinating. Otherwise, if you've seen it once, you've seen it and can move on to other disgusting but much more entertaining low-budget movies from the early 70's...this movie doesn't even come close to, say, "Pink Flamingos" when it comes to the skip-the-popcorn factor. If you've never seen an HG Lewis movie, I recommend you try "Blood Feast" first instead, you'll have a much better time.<br /><br />
Give H.G. Lewis points: He managed to incorporate beefy exotic dancers, gallons of his notorious fake blood, and Henny Youngman all in one movie. "The Gore Gore Girls" was Lewis's horror film swan song, and ends with a head being squashed by an automobile. Oh... Henny plays a surly night club owner whose girls are falling prey to Lewis's standard butchery.
This sequel to "In the Heat of the Night" will suffer in inevitable comparisons to its infinitely better predecessor. Instead of looking like a theatrical movie edited for television, "Mister Tibbs" looks suspiciously like a TV movie edited for theatrical release, with grainy photography, cheesy opening titles, and sets that look like they're made of plywood. The murder sequence has a glaring continuity error: the camera shows two hands choking the girl, then a shot of a hand reaching for a statuette, then a shot of the girl being choked with two hands again, and finally the statuette coming down for the fatal blow. Solving the case should be easy: find the only guy with three hands! But the shoddy production values can't completely obscure this film's considerable merits: namely, Sidney Poitier's performance as the cool detective determined to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, even if it implicates a friend. Martin Landau is also convincing as the do-gooder preacher-activist suspected of brutally murdering his prostitute girlfriend. In addition to being haunted by the case, Tibbs is conflicted about his home life, but the issues of race and Tibbs' barely concealed sense of social outrage are absent here. So is the complex murder mystery that made "In the Heat of the Night" so compelling.
Academy Awarding actor Sidney Poitier of "Lilies of the Field" reprises his role as Lieutenant Virgil Tibbs from the 1967 Oscar winning Best Picture "In the Heat of the Night" for veteran director Gordon Douglas' tired, uninspired sequel "They Call Me MISTER Tibbs," with nobody the equivalent of Rod Steiger with which to swap dialogue. Clearly, both "Bullitt" scenarist Alan R. Trustman and Robert D. Webb of "Cape Fear" were off their game when they penned this predictable police procedural potboiler. The dialogue is drab and none of the characters are interesting, not even the chief suspect. Absolutely nothing remotely exciting, suspenseful, or surprising occurs in this tame whodunit. Meanwhile, things have changed considerably since Virgil was last seen in "In the Heat of the Night." He worked as a homicide detective for the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Police Department. In "They Call Me MISTER Tibbs," our hero works for the San Francisco Police Department. Moreover, he has a wife, Valerie (Barbara McNair of "Change of Habit"), and a family, a young rebellious son, Andy (George Spell of "The Naked Kiss"), and a younger doting daughter, Ginger (Wanda Spell of "Hickey and Boggs"). Tibbs drives a medium blue Mustang and his wife holds down the house and hovers over their two children since he doesn't have as much time to spend with them. Literally, there are no surprises in this pedestrian murder mystery. Indeed, the best thing about "They Call Me MISTER Tibbs" is Quincy Jones' terrific orchestral soundtrack with a memorable opening theme, more memorable than this forgettable crime thriller deserved.<br /><br />Everything begins sensationally enough with a struggling prostitute, Joy Sturges (Linda Towne of "The Adventurers"), being bludgeoned to death in the bedroom of her downtown apartment by an unseen assailant. Apartment handyman Mealie Williamson (Juano Hernandez of "Intruder in the Dust") enters Joy's apartment and finds her strewn on the carpet dead with a bloody forehead. He picks up the statue briefly and then puts it back on the floor and reports Joy's death to the superintendent of the apartment, Rice Weedon (Anthony Zerbe of "License to Kill"), and Weedon gives Mealie and fistful of dollars and sends him packing. Afterward, Weedon anonymously notifies the SFPD that popular minister Logan Sharpe (Martin Landau of "Nevada Smith") beaten Joy to death and was seem leaving Joy's apartment. Captain Marden (Jeff Corey of "True Grit") assigns Tibbs to handle the case; it seems that both Tibbs and Sharpe have known each other for 18 years. Naturally, Tibbs' wife Valerie cannot believe that the well-known, politically active evangelist could have committed such a crime. Just to give the movie context, it should be noted that when Tibbs and the police study the crime scene, they mention the word 'semen,' no doubt a controversial term to mention in an early 1970s movie.<br /><br />Tibbs questions Weedon whom he suspects is either a drug pusher or a pimp. Weedon explains that he has no records on Joy Sturges because she was subletting the apartment from another realty company. Tibbs visits the realty company and realtor Woody Garfield (Ed Anser of "JFK") flees and drives off, essentially doing an O.J. Simpson until he crashes his car after a lengthy but tame pursuit. When Tibbs proves that Woody didn't kill Joy, he allows him to leave, with his disgruntled wife, Marge (Norma Crane of "Penelope"), prepared to file for divorce after the revelation that he paid a hooker to stay in an apartment.<br /><br />Tibbs tracks down handyman Mealie and clears him of the crime, and then he goes after Weedon. Luckily, for Tibbs, our hero catches the evil Weedon in the middle of a narcotics transaction. One of Weedon's henchmen assaults Tibbs, but Tibbs dispenses with him briefly before he embarks on a long foot chase after Weedon. Eventually, he corners Weedon in an underground parking garage and they shoot it out. Guess who wins.<br /><br />The scenes in the Tibbs' household are more interesting than his investigation. Andy runs rampant, striking his sister, and smoking in the garden. Our hero wants him to clean up his room. When Andy refuses, Tibbs pops him three times on the jaw. These child rearing scenes could probably never be handled today as they were back in 1970. At the end of the movie, as if to solidify the family sequence, Tibbs is seen walking off with his wife and kids. There is on confrontation between Valerie and Virgil about the welfare of their children and how his long hours at work has affected them.<br /><br />Director Gordon Douglas directs in competent fashion. Surprisingly, for a film released in 1970, the filmmakers never play the race card. In one scene, when Tibbs searches a billiards parlor owned by an African-American, we see a mixed breed of races scowling at the hero when he finds Mealie and leaves with him in tow.<br /><br />Altogether, "They Call Me MISTER Tibbs" is a poor follow-up to "In the Heat of the Night." Mind you, Poitier delivers another fine performance with nuance, but everything looks prefabricated. All of the sets look fake and there isn't much physical violence: one underground parking lot shoot-out that doesn't last long and a fight. Beyond Jones' seminal jazz score, the only surprise—and it really doesn't qualify as a major surprise more like a convenient contrivance—is the ending. Donald Medford's "The Organization" followed "They Call Me MISTER Tibbs" as the second, more action-packed sequel.
Pumpkinhead was in itself a decent 80s horror flick. No classic by any means, but an enjoyable piece of fluff. Why then, have we now been treated to a fourth film in this franchise is beyond me. As in previous sequels, there's nothing here to really connect the films except for the monster, the witch and Ed Harley (Lance Henriksen). This time out we follow the feud between the Hatfields and the McCoys. Part of the film is a Romeo And Juliet romance as a young McCoy boy and his Hatfield lover decide to run away to be together. Soon, however, they are torn apart and the boy's sister is killed. The boy escapes to the woods and gets the witch to resurrect Pumpkinhead for some vengeance. The acting is passable at best, amateurish at the worst. The titular demon doesn't even really show up for almost forty minutes and when it does its a pale comparison between it and the original design. Overall, Blood Feud fails to impress. It may be worth a watch once, but certainly not an addition to the collection.
Well they've done it again a new pumpkin head film, the first pumpkin head film was perfect for its time, a dumb, gory, and clichéd monster flick. so heres how it goes, some one loses their loved one, goes to the witch in the woods, gets her to raise pumpkin head and have it murder everyone responsible. unfortunately the film makers have deemed it irrelevant to try and do any other than this, for the films fourth outing, deeming it far more suitable to add some lame romeo and Juliet sub plot, involving an idiotic family feud (over a car!!!!) and surprise surprise some gory pumpkin head slayings, so far so formulaic, but it doesn't stop there the acting talent in this flick is dire...oh so bad half of them can't even keep up a southern accent without slipping into their native and often posher accents. Lance henrikssen is on board so surely he would bring some gravitas to the movies proceedings...but no lance merely ambles on screen lets the words fall out mouth with absolutely no emotion or seemingly direction, and walks off again, i honestly think he just turned up for the money, then went off to his trailer to drunk and reminisce about aliens.<br /><br />this film is utter cack there is no redeeming feature other than it ending credits which signal its all over.<br /><br />despite the failings of ph:bf...if you want a no brainer that'll make you laugh for all the wrong reasons watch it.<br /><br />if you want something with abit more meat and originality avoid.
Writer/Director Michael Hurst's Sci-Fi Channel sequel to Stan Winston's classic horror tale of revenge gone awry has its moments and some decent gore, but ultimately falls short in comparison to the original.<br /><br />I'm pretty sure the filmmakers weren't trying to make a comedy, but I caught myself laughing throughout. A family feud started over a car accident is the basis for this entry into the franchise. The Hatfield and McCoy families live in a backwoods town with dirt roads, drive pickup trucks, drink moonshine, and kick each others asses every chance they get. Just when they thought it was safe to hate each other and live happily ever after, Jodie Hatfield (Amy Manson) and Ricky McCoy (Bradley Taylor) decided to fall in love causing the fit to hit the shan. One night the two lovebirds decide to head out into the woods for some quality time while Ricky's sister plays lookout, but it just so happens that on that very night some of the Hatfields accidentally kill Ricky's sister and catch him and Jodie together. You know what happens next. Ricky finds his sisters body and decides to pay a visit to Haggis so that he can exact his revenge through the mighty Pumpkinhead. Ye Haw! Also, Harley (Lance Henriksen) is back to warn potential damned souls against using Pumpkinhead to ease their pain. Which really put a kink in the story because Harley is supposed to have called on Pumpkinhead years before this story takes place, but the setting and characters look like dirty Pilgrims that somehow traveled through time in order to bring the pickup truck back to Plymouth. Then there's the Sheriff (Rob Freeman) who has his own ties to the demon and looks like he belongs in a 70's revenge movie instead of a made-for-cable horror flick.<br /><br />Some of the gore and special effects were cool, but instead of sticking to the man-in-a-suit way of thinking Hurst used some terrible looking 3D shots for certain scenes. One particularly embarrassing shot shows Pumpkinhead jumping from tree branches like a badly rendered 3D monkey. The cinematography was exceptional and elevated the quality of the movie quite a bit. The acting was pretty decent also, with the exception of a few poorly executed accents.<br /><br />Family feuds never end well, especially when the families involved in the feud have to deal with Pumpkinhead. I didn't enjoy every minute of this flick, but it was much better than most of the movies the Sci-Fi Channel spits out. Maybe it's a sign that the Channel is trying to bring the quality of its movies up to match the quality of its original series'. I wouldn't waste any coin on a rental, but if you get the chance to catch a rerun of it on the boob-tube I would say to check it out. It's a not-so-killer-film but it rises slightly above the level of trash that makes it onto DVD these days.
I realize it's a small statistical sampling (8 votes as of this posting), but 5.9 out of 10? I'm giving this movie a 3 and even that's generous. I've tried to watch this movie three times now (the Saturday night 9 p.m. premiere on SciFi Channel, and the Saturday night at 1 a.m. and Thursday night re-broadcasts) and I've fallen asleep all three times before the movie ends. Which leaves me with a laundry list of unanswered questions. For example, is Lance Henriksen that strapped for cash that he has to keep playing supporting roles in these god-awful "Pumpkinhead" sequels? Is Henriksen contractually banned from doing any non-"Pumpkinhead" movies? Can't the creators of this franchise do better than a monster that looks like a geriatric, emaciated "Alien" who walks like he has a stick jammed up his a**? When are the hick characters in these movies going to realize that handguns and rifles don't hurt the "Pumpkinhead?" Why don't they try jamming another stick up this thing's a** instead? And, lastly, are the writers of this movie so creatively challenged that they couldn't come up with names for the two feuding families more original than the Hatfields and the McCoys? While you're at it, why not write a screenplay about a fictional president and name him George Bush? Someday I may have the mental stamina to watch this movie all the way through without drifting off to sleep. Until then, if somebody has the answers, please let me know.
I loved the original P.H. and was somewhat satisfied with Bloodwings (II)and Ashes to Ashes (III), then I saw part IV. Oh boy..... As a Pumpkinghead enthusiast, I did my best to give part 4 as much credit as I could, but it's pretty bad. The wedding reception fight right at the beginning of the film is a horrendous mess for one thing. The Hatfield and McCoy storyline is incomprehensibly stupid and cliché. How did the producers get away with using that tired family feud storyline? Wow, unbelievable. The acting, besides Henrickson, is below average. The plot and script are mind-numbing. The actual editing and cinematography are average, as is the directing. I mean, the movie isn't a total loss. As always: I really enjoy watching Pumpkinhead, I love seeing Haggis the Witch, and like watching Harley's ghost in action. But all three characters had WAY too much screen time. I thought Haggis and Harley would wind up going out to a supper club for an evening bite to eat and drinks, the way the were being so buddy buddy in her cabin. The bottom line is.... Is that I wanted all the characters in this puke fest of a plot line to be dead within 20 minutes of the start of the picture. Where does Sci-Fi get these so called "film production professionals" from anyway!? I could do a better job writing a script stone cold drunk. I'm sure there was a limited budget and everything, but come on! See it if your a fan of the other three, but just once. And then go back and stick to the original two. Shame on you Sci-Fi!!!!
I just wanted to leave a quick comment as its not listen on here ,but i have just seen this movie,the version I just rented was released in 2005 as far as I know and it was actually called "Don't go into the attic" I only realized it was the same movie as Devils Harvest upon searching for some of the actors who looked familiar in the movie. Anyways I'm in Ireland so maybe this has only been released over here and in the UK now,but thats what its called over here..........not really like it matters because I would not recommend this movie.The only words that spring to mind watching it are CHEESE CHEESE CHEESE!! My one mark out of ten is purely for the one little jumpy bit :o)
The artist Daniel King (Chris John) and his mate Laura Peters (Lara Clancy) are invited to move to an old house in Cornwall, in Great Britain, by his childhood wealthy friend Natasha Carlton (Carol Kentish). Natasha has a crush on Daniel, who is an ambiguous man regarding his sentimental life. While alone in the house, weird things happen and Laura is startled and scared. When Laura meets the old insane priest Gabriel Norton (Brian Blessed) on the road, she is advised to immediately leave the house, since evil lived there. But the couple stays and has to face tragic consequences.<br /><br />What a messy screenplay and awful and cheesy movie this "Devil's Harvest" is! The cinematography and the camera work is not totally bad, but the amateurish performances of Chris John and Carol Kentish and direction of James Shanks, together with the terrible story, ridiculous situations and dialogs make this movie one of the worse I have ever seen in the genre. I have occasionally seen in YouTube a couple of shorts from cinema college that are better and better than the pointless and dreadful "Devil's Harvest". In the end, it is not a horror movie but a horror of movie. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "A Colheita do Diabo" ("The Devil's Harvest")
How in the name of decency did this film ever get made? <br /><br />One presumes the subtitles merely say 'awful' on every single frame of this truly dismal effort.<br /><br />Horrendous acting, woeful dialogue and the lack of talent from everyone involved in this nightmare make for an excruciating 90 minutes.<br /><br />Overall impression? <br /><br />A bunch of excitable drama students got lucky with a lottery grant and proceeded to make one of the most painful films ever made.<br /><br />This makes Hammer Horror TV shows look like Oscar material.<br /><br />And don't for a second think this falls into the 'so bad it's good' category. It's not even that bad.<br /><br />But the fart lighting scene is probably worth another look.
So this ugly guy with long, nasty hair and his girlfriend end up in this house and they argue and argue about his old girlfriend. There was suppose to be something scary in it but I didn't see anything scary at all. There is some mention of a demon from the sea but that doesn't go anywhere at all. I wish it did because then it would've taken the tension away from the jealous love triangle. The title of the movie makes it look like it would be a scary and exciting movie but it is so far from it that I couldn't believe it. I waited and waited for it to end and was so happy when it did. It did not live up to the title like it should have so boo hoo hoo. The cover had a cool picture but I shouldn't judge a cheesy movie by its cover.
The Gun is probably the worst film I've ever saw. The comedians direction is very poor, the dialogs sounds like they were written by a 13 year old teenager, the plot (what plot?) is another "suspense" in which it is very hard to get into. Finally, nothing in this movie is any good. A big thumbs down to everyone involved and particularly to the Montreal film festival who presented this movie IN COMPETITION!
I was quite excited when I saw this film in competition at the Montreal Film Festival. Along with Elephant and a few others, I thought the issue of American gun violence/culture would be treated intelligently and in a fashion compelling for film-goers. The press-release promised (in not so many words) a `Red Violin' for the gun-violence crowd, something to make us ponder our NRA-shoot-em-up mindset in this country.<br /><br />After waiting until after 9:15 to be seated for a 9AM screening (what technical difficulties they would have encountered is beyond me), we were finally let into the venue to see the film on DV (where did the advertised 35MM print go?). I think I just answered my first question.<br /><br />The result is an abhorrent mess. We get the "gun", in a vignette with the most unrealistic "biker' I have ever seen (and I do know more than a few). The film then lapses into irrelevant "character development" only because the characters are either a. stereotyped, b. losers, c. stereotyped losers, and/or d. racial caricatures. It takes another 30 minutes to get to the plot movement, and once we are there, we wish for the inane conversations between the couples and/or the bikers and pawn brokers.<br /><br />The film finds it's conclusion, but not without leaving any cliché untried. I didn't care for the white-trash characters who came in contact with the gun, and the depiction of the minority characters should have the NAACP crying foul immediately. All these people WOULD chase after a gun, because they are at the bottom of the societal trash-heap, and would look for an opportunity wherever it was found. Placing the action a level up would have at least provided some soul-searching on the part of the characters.<br /><br />The biggest problem is the promise unfulfilled. The plot outline was great. In the hands of a P.T. Anderson or Gus Van Zandt, it could have been a powerful piece. But due either to bad screenplay, direction or both, the thing is an unmitigated mess that needs to be ignored at all costs.<br /><br />My bigger question is who at the MFF thought this was competition material. Better bury this on Showtime at 3AM.<br /><br />Art Blose
Wakayama Tomisaburo's portrayal of fugitive ex-Kaishakunin Ogami Itto felt entirely natural. His demeanor, his voice, his appearance- all of it spoke to dislodgement. When he entered a space I, as well as characters on the screen, could feel he didn't belong there and that his determination to be there spelled trouble.<br /><br />I read somewhere that Mr. Wakayama actually took Kendo (Japanese swordsmanship) training and that would explain his comfort with the katana, which showed magnificently in every cutfest. If you watch the movies, from the moment he draws to the moment he sheaths the sword you feel as though you were witnessing something inevitably ugly. He'd even spin the katana quickly to flick off the blood before sheathing it and it would happen in an effortless instant.<br /><br />Nakamura Kinnosuke's rendition comes across as a rendition. It feels as though he were trying too hard to be someone else or tell someone else's story. As a result, every time I tried to engage I'd lose my grip because HE didn't seem to have a firm grip on the role, himself. As though it were awkward for him.<br /><br />The swordsmanship in the TV series was entirely old-school Hollyweird, too. Camera cuts to disguise Mr. Nakamura's awkwardness with the katana, slow action, targets sitting still, etc. Extremely bad, from a viewer's perspective. There was a moment in the episode The Castle Wall Attack when Mr. Nakamura drew his sword like a child. It was embarrassing. He handled it as though it were heavy! I almost fell off my chair.<br /><br />And let's be frank: The story is about an excellent swordsman. Period. Swordsmanship is an issue.<br /><br />Realism isn't, however: the swordplay in the movies was excellent and manga-like, as was intended, I'm sure. (The baby cart was outfitted with a cluster of automatic, rapid-fire muskets operated by a 3 year old? Yes...manga-style.) It's how the story seamlessly weaves historical cultural accuracy into, basically, superhero fantasy that makes the movies captivating. (Read Yoshikawa Eiji's Musashi [%historical legend]%!) I couldn't really sit through the TV series episodes. They just felt cheap. See the movies first and you'll know what I'm talking about.
This is a very interesting acquaintance! "Two-fisted tales" contains three foolish and childish episodes - genre isn't actually horror or action, more like something in between. Where's the suspence? Where's the fun? Where's the common sense? Definitely not in here but if you don't expect to get it, you don't necessarily miss it.<br /><br />First segment is called "Showdown". It's a violent, absurd western. I failed to understand the whole idea of it. "King of the road" is a stupid story starring Brad Pitt. At the time of "Two-fisted tales" he was just a pretty face who really didn't know how to act yet. Luckily he learned the skill later and now he's a fantastic, talented actor - one of the big ones of the younger generation. Story is almost ok in all of it's stupidness. Final episode "Yellow" is the only segment that's almost entirely successful. It's foolish but funny. We have to thank Kirk Douglas for that.<br /><br />This movie is something to watch when you sit in an easy chair and eat popcorn. (I should know, that's what I did) If you loved "Tales from the Crypt", you'll love "Two-fisted tales" too because basically it's all the same. I understand these three episodes are actually extremely rare "piece of art" and very difficult to find anywhere. I have the whole package on VHS but I don't think it's a big privilege. You'll have to be a fanatic Brad Pitt fan to search it out. Otherwise don't bother, it's not worth the effort. Silly crap.
Corny and horrible, I was not surprised this short lived show didn't make it. I remember fondly when Tales From the Crypt tried reusing these corny episodes like they were actually scary. Coupled with bad acting and lousy music, I was surprised this crummy showed was ever conceived. It never showed up again, and one can only be thankful for this circumstance.
I'm so glad I only got this movie for $5. Anime is expensive, no doubt about that. I've had my eye on this one for awhile and finally I saw it on sale. I grabbed it immediately and took it home only to hang my head in disappointment. This movie sucked. I've heard people talk about how gory and violent this movie is. It's really not that gory or violent. I've watched it three times, and I think I've wasted enough of my life on this. The demons get a point for being unique and kinda cool at times. The sex gets a point since it's almost non-stop. The horny old man gets half-a-point for being horny and still having the sex drive. And the main character (who's name I've erased from my mind) gets half-a-point for the cool design of his gun. I saw major connections between this movie and Demon City Shinjuku. Both have same style animation, that's obvious because of the director, both have lame soundtracks which suck like the Antichrist, and both have terrible endings. Avoid this movie unless you're into anime sex.
Victor Jory never became a major star. He is better known for later character roles than for his early leads. But he was very handsome and an excellent actor.<br /><br />His love scenes with Loretta Young in this romantic adventure thriller are passionate. Their kisses look very real. And very modern.<br /><br />Vivienne Osborne is a standout here also. She plays a woman with a reputation. But the character has a good heart.<br /><br />The print I saw was not clear. But what a joy that rare movies like this are turning up! And they are, in some sort of watchable condition, still intact. This is nothing truly special. But if one is willing to sift through movies of its era with similarly intriguing titles, one is likely to find some suprtb movies.
...but memorable because it includes an actor I actually recognize! James Horan is, by these types of movies' standards, Lawrence Olivier. He's given some decent performances on stuff like Highlander and various Star Treks, so it's kind of amusing, if mildly depressing, watching him degrade himself here. Okay, yeah, there's a plot. Horan's character and his wife are fighting, he's having an affair with a movie reviewer while trying to do his "masterpiece" film, and their guest decides to enjoy the wonders of stripping. But watching Horan is really the only enjoyment to be found here.
The problem with making a movie like this, though, is that the finale, the crème-de-la-creme of the movie, the battle between the two souped-up ships, must be done well. Disappointingly, this scene in Ironclads is obviously done completely with little model ships in an overgrown tub. There's no tension, little explanation of what exactly is going on and what the timeframe is of the stand-off.<br /><br />The film takes quite a few liberties with the surrounding story, as all true stories do when converted to a movie, such as the Union traitor and most notably that of Betty Stuart (Madsen), a Virginia belle.<br /><br />It resorts to making a possibly-decent movie involving an interesting story on the ironclads to preaching about the evils of slavery. It was out of place in this historical drama, and was a cheap ploy to bring in the women viewers. It only succeeded in lessening the positives about the film.
Well now this strange movie. It was listed as a comedy but I certainly found nothing to laugh at. Actually I am struggling to find anything positive to say about this film. Oh here I go. Alex Ferns is not bad in the lead role and I did not pick the ending for a change, but apart from that this has no great direction solidly two dimensional characters and is not funny enough to be a comedy or serious or dark enough to be any form of decent drama. I would really avoid ever having to watch this movie again and think it does nothing to benefit any of the working class characters it is attempting to portray. I found it hard to empathise for any of the characters and was not given enough information on the lead character Jimmy to believe his motives. Best avoided.
This is so poor it's watchable.<br /><br />The plot deals with a grizzled spaceship crew happening upon a drifting, apparently abandoned Russian craft.<br /><br />In the empty vastness of space, the two craft accidentally collide (!) - and 'Alien'-esque fun ensues as a cyborg from the Russian ship menaces our crew.<br /><br />The spacecraft interiors are clearly a dolled-up factory set (metal walkways, boilers, piping). In this entirely unconvincing setting, 'Kody', 'Snake' and the rest of our hero crew grimace, grunt, run about and continually and repeatedly rack their shotguns without firing them.<br /><br />The continuity gaffes are what define this movie, and they are nothing short of amazing:<br /><br />Stuff appears and disappears. The shotguns are racked. A cigar gets longer by being smoked. The shotguns are racked again, just to make sure. Content of a bottle increases by being drunk from.<br /><br />The film progresses through the usual clichés by way of intense ham acting, poxy camera work and Ed Wood quality props to a showdown climax.
As other reviews have said, another of the countless number of Alien clones, this time with a great wodge of The Terminator thrown in, add a bit of the classic SF Story "Who Goes There?", and a insanely stupid plot device lifted from The Andromeda Strain (apparently flashing red lights make rampaging killer 'droids unable to detect scared people standing three inches away from them).<br /><br />OK, the story: after a sequence of people running around in a space ship and killing each other we get a caption. <br /><br />"25 years later". <br /><br />The crew of a relay station orbiting Mars, due to be relieved in 48 hours, detect a ginormous space ship on a collision course. It's The Siberia, the ship we saw in the opening sequence. Not a good time to have taken everything useful off-line on the relay station to do some repairs then. The approaching ship doesn't deviate from its course and is broadcasting a "Do NOT under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES Enter This Ship!" warning. After a lot of shouting at each other, the crew of the relay station patch something together and get the station out of the way just in the nick of time. But the ship changes course and rams them any way - impaling one of the crew on a stick-outy pointy crew impaler thing. The satellite starts to "loose integrity". Bits de-pressurise. Lots more shouting and running about in which only two crew people are sucked out into space backwards. (Why are they ALWAYS sucked out backwards?). <br /><br />After a few keystrokes the wheelchair bound techy (who is called 'Wheeler' - the only only detectable joke in the whole movie) deduces that the Siberia is draining them of all their power and they need to go aboard her and switch off its engines. They all go on-board and take their helmets off. "Do NOT Enter This Ship!" obviously means get on board the ship and expose yourself to possibly fatal infectious diseases. One team head for the Main Computer room where they find a dead frozen guy clutching what looks like an American Express card but turns out to be a minidisc. The other team find some switches. Amazingly the dead bloke turns out to be the father of the attractive female crew member voted most likely to survive an encounter with a rampaging alien. They switch the engines off but this means the ships reactor will explode. A spooky Point of View Shot starts killing people. There's some guff about the Siberia having discovered an new ore, a petential power source worth millions, which mean the more venal members of the crew immediately thrust themselves into danger to get hold of it. The POV shot returns with whoosh! whoosh! walking noises on the soundtrack. Unfortunately these give you the idea the killer is wearing corduroy trousers and the effect is wasted.<br /><br />After that it's all just running around and getting killed in order of ugliness and acting ability, until only the obvious survivors survive - along with the cute dog which had managed to lead at least two crew members to their deaths. Just why space hardened veterans wander into the jaws of certain death looking for their pets cats and dogs has long been a mystery of this kind of movie. Other stupid highlights include everyone forgetting to act the falling levels of oxygen until reminded by the voice of the on-board computer (not that the low levels of oxygen in any way dampen any of the impressive fires this load of idiots start). If the Killer Droid id so clever it can steer the ship in a tight curve and have another go at ramming the relay station why didn't it turn off the "Do NOT under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES Enter This Ship!" warning signal.. I'm sure if it was looking for more people to kill then yelling GO AWAY! was not a good way of going about it.<br /><br />Musetta Vander is the only person who gets to do any acting - everyone else just flares their nostrils all the time while baring their teeth and shouting and pointing guns at each other. It that sort of script; full of exclamation marks - the only thing that kept me watching till the end was the hope that the script demand she take all her clothes off, or get wet while not wearing a lot. Unfortunately it didn't. One of the things wrong with this movie (apart from it having more cyan put on screen than in any other movie ever) is that there was no gratuitous nudity.
Each year the company called Nu produces couple of "action packed", "full of suspense" movies. This little nugget, called Shadowcaster III(Until I visited this site I wasn't avare this is a whole trilogy), is a great example of the good job the company is doing. Frank Zagarino is as mean as always and does a great job as almost undestructable(?), schizophrenic(??) android. I won't waste any more words since I don't want to reveal the terrific plot and ruin you a couple of great laughs.<br /><br />Rating 2/10 (Revard for those hard working tehnicians. Man, putting together this kind of rubbish must be nervewracking.)
"Happy Days" was produced and broadcast from the mid-1970's to the early 1980's and seems to get more ridiculous with age. At the time of its broadcast, most viewers who grew up in the 1950's were in middle age with families, and the scenes at Mel's Diner probably brought an artificial nostalgia to them. The Fonz was of course the coolest of the cool (although the actor Henry Wrinkler to this day has never learned how to ride a motorcycle). Richie Cunningham was the all-American blond-haired kid who would probably be elected student body president. Potsie was Richie's best friend--the star of the show has to have a best friend, I guess. And Ralph Malph was the bumbling sidekick to the Fonz, if not the entire group. I loved it when the Fonz would beat up on poor Ralph Malph. And there was Mel, the middle-aged lug who ran Mel's Diner. And of course who could forget the appearance of Mork? Was this really the 1950's? Ironically, films produced during the 1950's, such as "Rebel Without a Cause" and "The Wild One" have gotten better with age and portray the period more honestly than this show which was produced 20 years after the period it portrays.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the TV show "Happy Days" is not in the same league as "Rebel Without a Cause" or "American Graffitti" for that matter. "Happy Days" may have captured some aspects of the 1950's with its burger diner, juke boxes, cool cars, and tacky plaid shirts, but it is more a nostalgic idealism done strictly for laughs rather than an honest portrayal. "American Graffitti" had something to say about young Americans in the 1950's whereas "Happy Days" seemed more about what middle-aged people of the 1970's wished the 1950's had been like. The result was a kind of watered down fabrication that really has nothing to do with the 1950's. "Happy Days" is, at best, a comedy-fantasy with some of the artificial culture of the 1950's as its backdrop. As pointed out by another reviewer, the all-American kid Richie Cunningham would probably have been chastised for befriending the likes of a drop-out like Fonzie. And Mel would probably forbid Fonzie from entering his Diner.<br /><br />A quick history: "Happy Days" was originally a pilot called "Love in the Happy Days" that was rejected for broadcast. Comedy pilots that had themes concerning sex and romance that did not make it to pilot airing sometimes appeared on the infrequently broadcast show "Love American Style" which was often aired in place of baseball games that had rained out or other unexpected programming cancellations and/or alterations. In short, "Love American Style" was a throw-away show that contained all these one-episode comedy pilots that never made it to a slotted debut. "Love in the Happy Days" did appear as a "Love American Style" show sometime in the early 1970's, but at the time TV executives could not foresee how a show about 1950's young people would be popular, particularly during the hey-day of comedy shows centering around middle-aged people, such as The "Mary Tyler Moore Show" (and its subsequent spin-offs such "Rhoda"), "The Bob Newhart Show", and "All in the Family". (How things have changed since now most TV sitcoms are about young people and the industry avoids most shows about middle-aged people like the plague!) <br /><br />Subsequently, one of the young stars of "Love in the Happy Days", a child actor from "The Andy Griffith Show" named Ron Howard, got the chance to star in a film about young people taking place in 1959 called "American Graffitti" directed by the relatively unknown George Lucas whose previous "THX 1138" had bombed miserably at the box office. Even when it was premiered to movie executives, again the studios could not see how a movie about young people in the 1950's could become popular because it didn't "fit" with what had been popular in the past, although they didn't realize that much of the movie-going audience had been young in the 1950's. As everyone knows, the movie was a huge hit, and studio executives recognized that they had completely misjudged their audience. Somewhere during the theatrical run of "American Graffitti", TV executives realized they had a comedy pilot in their vault that was a lot like "American Graffitti". They brought it back with the original cast, plus Henry Wrinkler as "The Fonz", re-titled it "Happy Days" and the rest is TV history as it became one of the most popular shows of the 1970's.<br /><br />"Happy Days" now seems ridiculous. The characters are flat and cardboard, never being more or less than what they superficially are. The issues they deal with are trivial. And their reactions appear mindless and even silly. Nowadays, the character of the Fonz seems to be a caricature of, well, The Fonz. Was the idea to be a kind of parody of Marlon Brando's character in "The Wild One"? Looking on the show with fresh eyes, I feel the producers really missed out on a great opportunity to present the 1950's with depth and realism that still could be fun and entertaining. Instead the producers decided on cheap laughs for quick bucks. This is definitely a show that has not withstood the test of time. "American Graffitti" has many of the outward appearances of "Happy Days" but it had an edge. It had an honesty about the characters and their issues. "Happy Days" took the look of "American Graffitti" but failed to take its heart.
HAPPY DAYS was one of my favorite shows when it aired in 1974. But the critics were quick to show their ignorance combined with a total lack of a sense of humor by slamming this show because they thought it was a cheap attempt to cash-in on the success of American GRAFFITTI.<br /><br />There were some similarities between American GRAFFITTI and HAPPY DAYS.<br /><br />Both opened with "Rock Around the Clock" by Bill Haley & the Comets. Both took place in a bygone era and both featured Ron Howard as one of the leading roles. But there were also some major differences. While American GRAFFITTI took place in 1962 California and centered around a group of newly graduated high school students about to take that big step into adulthood, HAPPY DAYS took place in Milwaulkee, Wisconson and centered around a group of teenagers in high school, dealing with the joys and tribulations of adolescence.<br /><br />HAPPY DAYS originally opened with the juke box playing the original version of Bill Haley & the Comets' ROCK AROUND THE CLOCK. But when oldies became hot, thanks to the success of American GRAFFITTI, , and the original 1954 version of ROCK AROUND THE CLOCK, entered the Billboard Hot 100 and became a hit again in 1974, royalty payments went through the roof. So a "remake" of the song (the correct term is now "new stereo recording") was quickly substituted.<br /><br />The current theme song for HAPPY DAYS was then introduced for the second season if memory serves me right.<br /><br />Fans and foes alike agree that this show is escapist. Liberties were taken and details overlooked, making this show less than completely authentic.<br /><br />This is perfectly fine. HAPPY DAYS is supposed to be a comedy, not a history lesson. But occasionally the writers did sometimes stick their necks out by hitting on controversial topics. One episode centered around the Cunninghams building of a fall out shelter. Another episode was about a divorced woman moving into the neighborhood with a dream of starting a new life. The topic of prejudice was addressed when Howard was invited to the wedding of an old army buddy who just happened to be black (in an era when prejudice and discrimination was sadly an acceptable part of the American way of life). The issue of the draft even came up on a later episode!<br /><br />The show as originally set in 1955. One problem that was dealt wisely was with the cast. Most of them were teenagers and as each year passed, it was obvious that they grew older so the series aged with the cast, moving the series out of the safe waters of the Eisenhower years into the Age of Camelot, all the way with JFK and then into the turbulent later half of the 1960s. That, along with the writers running out of ideas, and later, cast members like Ron Howard leaving the series, wisely quitting while they were ahead, left me wishing that they had all done the right thing by pulling the plug on this show and quitting while they were ahead. That, along with the idol worshiping studio audience who just couldn't control themselves every time the Great Fonzie entered the scene, began to wear very thin very fast.<br /><br />This show originally portrayed the Fabulous Fifties as we LIKE to remember that era. Time heals wounds, you know. Everything has its place and though I would prefer hearing the "original hit versions" over those "new stereo recordings", those "new stereo recordings" worked very well on HAPPY DAYS. And this is where I find myself regretting my buying the DVD! Unlike the complete first season DVD, the original music on the complete second season, has been replaced with different music. While it is great that the original episodes were digitally restored to digital perfection, the removal of the original music destroyed what it was that made this show so much fun to watch!
Oddly enough, it's Fred MacMurray who plays the more "screwy" part in this screwball comedy. Carole Lombard shows a fine performance combining lighter moments with and undercurrent of drama and seriousness.<br /><br />As usual, Fred MacMurray remains a mystery to me. The camera is no fan of his, he's not that attractive, and he doesn't have the style and panache to pull off this very Cary Grant-like role.<br /><br />Ralph Bellamy is excellent as the kind friend coming back to life through his relationship with Lombard's character. One can only wonder why her character wouldn't want his gentle, reassuring love instead of the almost certain doom of MacMurray's ineptness. But that's Hollywood!<br /><br />The picture almost works but misses the mark, primarily due to MacMurray's performance. It would've been lovely to see Grant or even Clark Gable in his role. Lombard and Bellamy are largely believable and likable; MacMurray is stiff and makes you want to keep him at arm's length.
The acting is excellent in this film, with some great actors. It was fun to see Fred McMurray as a young man. This is not a comedy. It's a drama and the apparently comedic instances are pitiful. This is not a comedy. It's a drama and the apparently comedic instances are pitiful, and some of them appear forced and contrived. It's in the script, though, not the fault of the acting.<br /><br />The 10 line requirement forces me to write some more...Hmmm. Loved Carole Lombard's My Man Godfrey, because it is a comedy and, while the acting is wonderful, the story line and the script itself, wins the day. Carole Lombard is pretty and a wonderful actress. I will try to watch Fred McMurray's features.
Cheaply pieced together of recycled film footage, music and ideas, this film cannot really be called "well". But for me, when I watched it as a teenager, it was quite amusing. (I didn't know BATTLE BEYOND THE STARS before.) In retrospect it has got something nostalgic, regarding the SF wave of the early eighties and the special effects of this time. Its trashy old-fashioned look and its naivety provide a certain attraction. To enjoy this movie I recommend to concentrate on the paternal relationship between the characters of Vince Edwards and David Mendenhall. In addition, I liked the idea that a bunch of scoundrels discovers its heroic qualities after been unwillingly confronted with the challenge to take care of a child.
If there were an EPA for film, then this movie would get their most sincere approval. If we all recycled our "stuff" to this degree, we'd never run out of anything.<br /><br />Funny how I was reminded of this movie when I first saw Starwars I: The Phantom Menace. At least Lucas didn't recycle his old footage.<br /><br />This is a dud. But it's a nice dud. Cute in spots (I liked when the kid said, "damn rocks"). And, if you like explosions (even recycled ones) you will get your fill.<br /><br />Actually for an obviously "no budget" film, it makes out fairly well. Acting is weak, but there is a little characterisation here and there. Story is predictable, but will lead you along anyhow.<br /><br />This is an "everybody chases the kid" type of movie which probably will appeal mostly to younger audiences. I gave this one a 2 out of 10.<br /><br />I dug up my old VHS copy of this film. I don't think it's on DVD.
This one hardly compares to the space adventures of its time. Those being Star Wars and Star Trek. And while I am no fan of Star Trek, I recognize that this film pales in comparison to the series Trekkies ooze over. In fact, I would place Back to the Future in better light in terms of space and travel.<br /><br />The story is of a boy who is captured by space raiders (pirates). In a obviously fake and unentertaining battle, the captured boy befriends the pirates and even helps them. And slowly, one by one, those raiders die off. In the end, the boy gets to return home and the last remaining pirates escapes gravely wounded.<br /><br />The acting wasn't that great. But what really is obvious is the total lack of interesting dialogue, effects, and storyline. How they even got 80 minutes of this is beyond me.<br /><br />If you want to take a shot at it because it involves space, go ahead. But be warned. "D"
It took me a few years to hunt down this title, a major staple of my childhood. Almost every trip to the video shop I'd pick out Space Raiders and watch it three times every time my mother rented it for me. It was, I suppose, my Star Wars.<br /><br />It's a shame then that it's such a stinker. My memories were so hazy that it offered nothing in terms of nostalgia so I had to take it at face value. A crew of space pirates accidentally kidnap a pretty annoying little kid and spend the rest of the movie trying to get him home.<br /><br />Aimed squarely at the under-tens it's got unwelcome slapstick, very shoddy costumes and make-up, recycled special effects, wobbly sets and poor acting. But even with the unintentional comedy it's no fun to see it as an adult, where I can pick out not just the technical faults but wonder at how spectacularly the writer and director managed to botch an endless stream of no-brainer fun/powerful moments that have been seen in a million other sci-fi movies and in the hands of anyone remotely competent should have been successful.<br /><br />I imagine as a kid I probably found it quite empowering - there are lots of "I can't do this, I'm just a kid" "Sure you can kiddo, you just have to try!"-type exchanges; the kid drinks beer, etc., but even by low budget 1983 sci-fi standards this one's pretty awful, with a real snoozer of a "finale".
As several posters have "hinted," this is a sorry "Star Wars" ripoff. Now if you're going to rip off "Star Wars," at least do it right; "Battlestar Galactica" did, and there were a few other space operas that didn't do a bad job of it, but this is definitely not one of them. David Mendenhall, the juvenile lead, actually isn't too bad, though he goes overboard on the "cute" factor every so often. Vince Edwards hasn't improved much as an actor since his "Ben Casey" days; if anything, he's even more wooden than he was ten. The other performances are nothing to write home about, either. Even worse are the special effects; the best you can say about them is that they're lousy. It's glaringly obvious that the "aliens" are simply actors wearing rubber masks with a little foam or latex slopped on them, and the "battle" scenes between Edwards' raiders and the aliens are poorly staged and badly shot. A very weak effort from Roger Corman. Skip it.
A Roger Corman rip-off assembled for what appears to be virtually zero budget. All of the special effects were originally used in "Battle Beyond the Stars", and I suspect a fair amount of the props, costumes and sets were re-used from other sources as well. The story seems to have been written around these elements, so this isn't really a movie as much as it's a recycling project. Third-rate "Star Wars" junk wasn't needed then or now.
This movie is a desperate attempt to ride the skirtales of the success of the Star Wars movies. The film uses recycled footage from "Battle Beyond the Sars" which is another Roger Corman Sci-Fi Turd, but atleast this one is better than "Battle Beyond the Stars" - there is no real acting in this film (but its a Roger Corman film-What did you expect)again the entire soundtrack was done on a Keyboard/Synthasizer, the sound effects are recycled from "Battlestar Galactica" - there are no special effects because they were recycled/rearranged space scenes from another movie, the costumes look like something right out of 1981 salvation army salvage. --ironicaly, the little boy in this film gives one helluva performance, and he'd resurface again to star in the Sylvester Stallone movie "Over the Top" - I give this movie 3 stars out of 10
I've been trying to remember the name of this movie for years (not consecutively, of course). I saw it at the local dollar theater when I was 11, and it was so atrocious I almost walked out; I think I didn't realize one was allowed to leave before the movie ended. Anyway, it stuck in my mind as just about the worst movie I saw growing up. I can finally give it the rating it deserves.<br /><br />1/10 (that was strangely satisfying)
Truly awful. Obviously an attempt to cash in on the Star Wars craze, but there's no excuse for this insipid piece of garbage. The storyline gets lost before the middle, the characters are forgettable and the kid is such a non-talent that all he does is pose for the camera. An alien planet they land on is actually the Naval stockyards in Long Beach, California. <br /><br />This movie actually made me physically ill watching it.<br /><br />Roger Corman has made some good, some bad movies in his career, but there's no excuse for this one. <br /><br />0/10 - IMDb won't let you score a zero.
OK, no one will confuse this with Citizen Kane but you've got to love a movie where the women are always topless. There are a few catfights and some kinky sex as well. On the other hand I hope they didn't overpay the guy who wrote the dialogue. Here's a prime example. After one of the captive girls dies: <br /><br />"This is terrible. It reminds me of the day Zenobia died" "A relative?" "No, my favorite cow." I guess they saved some money on the script and blew it on great special effects like that plastic crocodile. I will say that it took me three sittings to make it through this fine work of art, never a good sign. I guess that's what happens after a while when everything looks the same. I hope the folks waiting to rent it next didn't get too impatient. Don't worry folks, it's on it's way.
I am a fan of Jess Franco's bizarre style, and a lover even of his trashier films, and my personal opinion is that he has, besides several very entertaining movies, also created a few masterpieces, such as the brilliant "Paroxismus" aka "Venus In Furs" of 1969, for example. It is, however, an undeniable fact that the 180+ movies this highly prolific filmmaker has directed in his career, also include a bunch of big time stinkers. "Sadomania" of 1981 certainly is one of these stinkers, just an utterly bad and plot less movie with the ability to bore the hell out of you in spite of constant sleaze and nudity.<br /><br />Sure, the constant nudity will keep you entertained for 20 minutes, but since it keeps going on and on like that one is pretty likely to get bored after a short time. The only thing that really kept me watching this was the intensity of the sleaze which is, generously spoken, slightly amusing.<br /><br />After couple of newlyweds get lost in the desert on some island, they are stopped by a bunch of topless women carrying guns, wardens of a local prison camp. While the husband is banished from the island, the wife is taken to the prison camp, a place of torture and sexual humiliation, reigned by the sadistic nymphomaniac Magda and an extremely perverted governor. The prisoners are, of course, entirely hot chicks, most of them blondes, the wardens are entirely topless women carrying rifles.<br /><br />The plot, if one can call it that, is extremely stupid of course, but who is going to watch this for a good plot anyway. The (only) interesting thing about "Sadomania" is the high level of exploitation, even for a 'Women In Prison' film. There are probably two short scenes in the movie where we see a woman actually wearing a top, the sleaze contains all kinds of sexual perversions from rape to bestiality, and some of the torture scenes are really nasty.<br /><br />It is amazing that a film with this extreme level of sleaze, however, can still be so boring. The sleaze will keep you watching in the beginning, but after the first 45 minutes I actually had a hard time not to fall asleep. It also makes me wonder why, out of all pornstars, Jess Franco chose Ajita Wilson, who was, according to most sources, a transsexual who had been born a man (well, maybe for exactly that reason). If you really want to watch this, make sure you have enough beer at home to sit through it and watch it for the sleaze and exploitation only (and maybe for the slight unintentional fun factor). Don't expect to be highly entertained, however, it is almost unbelievable how a movie with such a high sleaze level can be so boring. I am a Jess Franco fan and I always will be, but "Sadomania" is just bad. 2/10
Jesus Franco is pretty hit or miss on his films & I'd say this was a miss, that is, unless you're into total sleaze. I will say that the man has an eye for a good shot, even if it involves topless women with machine guns silhouetted against the ocean. This is overall pretty ridiculous and the acting is horrible, but the acting is the least of what this is about. And what is it about? Well, it's about 102 minutes of lesbianism, women picking and shoveling in the hot sun for no apparent reason, and just about as much sleaze as you can stand and maybe then some. Most notable (?) is a scene involving one young woman who is tied to a chair and an apparently amorous German Shepherd, and while what's going on is merely implied (thankfully) it is probably a scenario that I could have done without. I'd rank this up there with Tender Flesh as one of the Franco films I'd rather not have in my collection, although the music is jazzy and fun. 4 out of 10, yecch.
I can't help thinking that this is Franco's 'hamage' to the Marquis de Sade's "One Thousand Days of Sodom". People (in this case women) abducted to serve as slaves to a privileged elite? Check. Kinky sex? Check. Torture including whipping? Check. Victims chosen at random to be killed? Check.<br /><br />Thank goodness Franco didn't go the whole hog and introduce cinema audiences to the delights of coprology (and indeed coprophagy), another perversion that crops up repeatedly in de Sade's tediously long and disgusting saga.<br /><br />I rather hoped that this film would fall into the 'so bad it's good' category. But even the acres of naked flesh and numerous sexual encounters didn't make up for the dismal dialogue, dreadful acting, elusive plot and - just to put the tin hat on it - dubbing AND English sub-titles (a belt and braces approach missing from the women's costumes). The Alsation gave a very professional performance though.<br /><br />Of course I could be wrong about the de Sade angle. After all, I failed to realise that the actor playing the head warden at the 'prison' was a trans-sexual. I must pay more attention to the size of people's hands in future.<br /><br />According to another reviewer, the film was banned in the UK. Well it clearly isn't any more, though I fancy that the nipple-needling scene was cut to satisfy the censors. On the DVD I watched, it was only clearly visible on the Spanish trailer (which, in case you're wondering, I watched to compare it with the English one).<br /><br />The DVD also features an interview with Jess Franco, though you'll need better Spanish than mine to understand it. Unless I'm much mistaken it's neither dubbed nor sub-titled. And it points out that the person sodomising the character played by Franco is Ajita Wilson disguised using a moustache. Kind of ironic, given that (s)he had had the requisite appendage surgically removed.
Generally speaking, I'm a an admirer of Jess Franco's film-making but, for some of this movies, I really have difficulties understanding the motivation behind them or even their reason of existence. Like this sick puppy, for example. "Sadomania" has absolutely no cinematic value, it's poorly made without any sort of plot and featuring some of the most ill-natured sleaze footage ever captured on film. This is another filthy women-in-prison film where rape, lesbian-action and violent torture games are daily routine. The guards are crazier than the prisoners and the institution is protected by an impotent governor who only gets sexually aroused when he spots a girl having sex with a dog (!). The girls are all very beautiful and naked throughout the entire film, yet you can't really enjoy this sight with all the perversion going on. The dubious highlights include a barbaric hunting game (you can guess what he prey is), a duel-to-death between a guard and a prisoner and the image of a poor girl having a needle injected all the way through her nipple. Auch! Avoid this sick mess and you'll save yourself the trouble of taking TWO baths in order to wash the filth off.
this movie is the worst EVER!!! sorry but this was a total waste of good hours. quasi-psychology and b-actors makes a baaaad horror movie. you can say that if you are into bad movies you will adore this one. and the "hot chick" wasn't all that hot. there is absolutely no climax to the movie, and the worst part is the ending song. some homemade thing with these words "its in awful condition the world is a mess. when heads fall of bodies and girls wont stay dressed. the cops they are clueless, eating donuts in their car. newspaperflash next morning: headless body,topless bar." Jesus! sorry guys, but milks gone bad with this one.
My mate and I chose to watch this obvious piece of junk purely based on its tagline… After nearly 30 years of lousy and rudimentary teen slashers, I can't believe that only just now some nerdy horror brainiac come up with the brilliantly witty slogan "They Axed for it"! Other than that, "Miner's Massacre" is just as random, annoying and forgettable as all the rest out there…. Perhaps even more! The script contains all the typical clichés and features all the dreadfully stereotypic characters you wish a horrible and painful death to. The gore effects are computer engineered and thus beyond pitiable and the obligatory "big" stars (Karen Black, John Philip Law and Richard Lynch) are entirely wasted in spite of their top billing. Cursed mines and abandoned ghost towns form an ideal horror setting – the creators of "My Bloody Valentine" already figured that out in the early 80's – but his dull film simply hasn't got any innovative ideas or even remotely surprising elements to offer. Bunch of greedy twenty-something losers, which refer to themselves as friends even though they clearly can't stand each other, desecrate an ancient mine in search of the gold that is allegedly hidden there. Of course they unwarily resurrect the zombie miner this way and he just 150 years of rest in order to prepare for a massive teen massacre. Yay! The cast is exceptionally irritating in this one. The girls all have impressive racks but refuse to show anything. Instead, they all prefer endless whining and the taking of needless risks. The dim-witted blokes clearly just serve as screen fillers. In her barely five minutes of playtime, Karen Black still manages to make an utter fool out of herself by depicting the most prototypic and hysterical local nut woman ever. The zombie has a stupid and very unconvincing face, but he looks okay and reasonably menacing when shown in the distant shadow of the moonlight whilst swinging around his pick-axe. Since the best thing about "Miner's Massacre" concerns the aforementioned tagline and you can read that on the box in the video store itself, there's very little else to recommend here. Director John Carl Buechler scored a few modest hits during the eighties, like notably the original "Troll" and a fair "Friday the 13th" sequel, but it's obviously time to retire now.
This was bad enough. I really hope that there is no sequel. Maybe that is giving away part of the plot to let you know that it is open to the possibility, but no, it really isn't.<br /><br />There is really not at all special about this movie. Well, the special effect were fairly good, but nothing to write home about.<br /><br />There were some hot babes in her, especially Elina Madison and Alexandra Ford, but nothing to see folks. PG-13, definitely not an R. That also tells you the slasher aspects were less than spectacular. The shovel to the head was the only thing that was unusual.<br /><br />Tame scare fare.
Director and FX man John Carl Buechler doesn't have to do much in order to terrify me; the sight of his name in the credits alone is enough to strike fear into my heart.<br /><br />His lamentable straight-to-video output in the 80s sat on the bottom shelf of the horror section at my local rental shop; twenty years later, and his DVDs occupy the same space. It seems that the more things change, the more they stay the same. You can rely on old JCB to serve up dreck, whatever the format and regardless of advances in movie-making technology.<br /><br />In this contemptible offering, a bunch of friends travel to a remote town where they discover the secret treasure hoard of Jeremiah Stone, AKA the forty-niner—an evil, claim-jumping, cannibalistic miner who caused havoc in the mid-1800s. Before his death, Jeremiah cursed anyone who should find his gold, and it's not long before the pick-axe wielding killer is back, bumping off the hapless treasure seekers.<br /><br />With its dreadful script, unimpressive make-up effects and Scooby-Doo style villain, 'The Curse of the Forty-Niner' is par for the course for Buechler. Only genre stalwarts Keren Black, Richard Lynch and John Phillip Law lend this movie any credibility whatsoever, with the rest of the cast giving performances ranging from bad to awful (although I'll forgive Alexandra Ford, who is a complete hottie).<br /><br />Even fans of bad schlock horror will be disappointed since most of the women keep their clothes on, and a lot of the deaths occur off-screen (which is probably not such a bad thing since the on-screen deaths are pathetic).<br /><br />'The Curse of the Forty-Niner' is another in a long list of duds for John Carl.
The monster will look very familiar to you. So will the rest of the film, if you've seen a half-dozen of these teenagers-trapped-in-the-woods movies. Okay, so they're not teenagers, this time, but they may as well be. Three couples decide it might be a good idea to check out a nearly-abandoned ghost town, in hopes of finding the gold that people were killed over a scant century-and-a-half before. You'd think that with a title like "Miner's Massacre" some interesting things might happen. They don't. In fact, only about 1/10 of the film actually takes place in the mine. I had envisioned teams of terrified miners scampering for their lives in the cavernous confines of their workplace, praying that Black Lung Disease would get them before The Grim Reaper exacted his grisly revenge, but instead I got terrestrial twenty-somethings fornicating--and, in one case, defecating--in the woods, a gang of morons with a collective I.Q. that would have difficulty pulling a plastic ring out of a box of Cracker Jacks, much less a buried treasure from an abandoned mine. No suspense, no scares, and a couple of embarrassing performances. Somebody forgot to tell the writers that "Fool's Gold" refers to the genuineness of the gold, not the people who are looking for it. 3/10
Return to Frogtown was a hard film to track down. Well, I accomplished that mission and it had been sitting on the shelf for a good while. Wish it was kept that way! First, Sam Hell is of course not Roddy Piper. He is replaced by a dude with a large face, less charisma, and this poor actor is very soft-spoken for the part! Sam Hell is supposed to be rebellious and awesome. Here, he gets captured THREE times! What kind of a hero is that?! Spangle is replaced as well here by another actress. Why did we not get different characters here? This was stupid! Lou Ferrigno stars in this film and he is not even the hero. Common sense says let Lou be the hero of the film! Bad effects, poor acting, and just a forgettable film. Funny as they take shots at Ninja Turtles 2 with the whole concert scene in this movie. At least Ninja Turtles 2 was funny and not a bad movie! I really wanted to like Return to Frogtown, but I just cringed when the fight scenes would commence. This film makes Turtles 3 look like gold! Avoid this or you will be the one singing "meaner, greener, talking turtle TV dinner!"
Hercules wound up falling into the same category as many promising television productions that could have been a really great classic, only to become a sad joke.<br /><br />I really like Kevin Sorbo and his supporting cast, but I didn't care for the direction the show took since their movie equivalents either. I believe the show would have had a much more successful run if they had kept the same format they did for the movies.<br /><br />I watched in the beginning and lost interest along the way. I did encounter the odd episode afterwards, but my attention span towards it was lucky to make it to commercial break.
This Game is a good looking First Person Shooter. -----------Hang on......<br /><br />But of course a story must be put around this genre, so a quite innovative plot about soldiers now driven by drugs to save the world and kill the terrorist, Nectar is the drug of choice which creates a super soldier. <br /><br />Great, now just give us some fun, challenging missions, throw in some great new weapons and free terrain vehicles that can be driven at our leisure and I will be quite content.<br /><br />NO!!!!<br /><br />The maker's of this game decide to create a propagandish, military driven game, that tries to make sense of our fears of terrorism and embracing democracy. The game has twisted ideals that just re-enforce morals that we learned when we were in primary school, nothing new is told to us, but "Drugs are bad...mmmkay". Then pushed in a type of ....Yvan eht Nnnioooojjjjj! (join the navy) of how standing up for the common good, given rants on normality and abnormality, right and wrong....GOOOOOOOOOOD WE GET IT! LET's KILL SOMETHING!!!!<br /><br />NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />You can't, You are forced to endure extremely long gaps of completing BULLSH!T objectives such as "Run to Helicopter"......."Go to group of Troops" .....Then once this is completed.........CINEMATIC takes over.........You sit there for at least half of the game watching little scenario's played out by the characters, one's you CANNOT skip, but sit and wait, sometimes when people aren't even talking, we sit and wait for a helicopter to land! <br /><br />Bad game, by a laughable group of programmers! Don't bother making another because I will rather see the movie!
For many months I was looking forward to this release. The previews looked good, early reports on the net were encouraging, and golden eye and Timesplitters were excellent shooters (by the same people). It turns out I was greatly misled! Haze had the potential to be up there with Call of Duty 4 and other next gen shooters, however it looks, plays and feels like something from 5 years or so ago. I played Haze on a 1080 TV and was initially disappointed that the game's developers had limited the graphics to 720. The Haze universe lacks detail and atmosphere, the feeling of "they must have really rushed to finish this" is always there.<br /><br />The controls are sluggish and cumbersome, and i have yet to find an adjustment for x/y axis sensitivity . There are many parts of the single player game that are very dark (visually), to the point where you can't actually see where you are going. Why not add a torch function like in Halo? or even better, night vision? The use of the performance enhancing drug "nectar" is interesting, however just as you get used to it you switch sides and don't use it again! why bother? I could go on with many more Haze faults, but instead i'll just say Don't BOTHER! wait for killzone 2 or play call of duty 4 and try to unlock the gold AK!
At the beginning of 'Loggerheads', we're introduced to three pairs of seemingly unrelated characters. To make matters even more confusing, we're informed (via titles on the screen) that the action is taking place in three separate time lines (between the years 1999 and 2001). It takes a great deal of time but eventually we come to see how the three pairs are related: Mark Austin, a young man in his 20s, gay and HIV Positive is estranged from his conservative parents, Elizabeth and Rev. Robert Austin. <br /><br />Mark is now a drifter and arrives in Kure Beach, North Carolina, a seaside town, where he meets George (sensitively played by Michael Kelly), a gay motel owner and they eventually become involved with each other. Meanwhile, Mark's birth mother, Grace (played by Bonnie Hunt) has come to the point in her life where she has decided to find the son she gave up for adoption when she was 17. Similarly, Mark's adoptive mother, also has decided to track her estranged son as she misses him (despite the misgivings of her homophobic minister husband).<br /><br />'Loggerheads' we're told is based on a true story and that perhaps is its Achilles Heel. Director/Writer Tim Kirkman tries too hard to create scenes fraught with dramatic tension where there is very little to be found. Take Mark and George—they're both sensitive souls who have little to disagree about. There's some slight tension when Grace faces off against an Adoption Agency Director who is forbidden by law to give her any information about her lost son as well as a slight conflict with her mother who denies that she disapproved of her when she became pregnant as a teenager. No sparks fly either between Elizabeth and Robert since the good Reverend has adamantly insisted from the beginning that he has no intention of reconciling with his son. <br /><br />'Loggerheads' is similar to 'Brokeback Mountain' in that the gay couple are the good guys and the straight males (for example, the Kure Beach cop and the Reverend) are the baddies. The biggest letdown of the movie is that there is no interaction (and hence no dramatic conflict) between Mark and either one of his 'mothers'. Mark is already dead before either the birth or adoptive mother has a chance to reconcile with him. <br /><br />Kirkman's theme is both a plea for tolerance and an exhortation for family members to express their heartfelt feelings before it's too late! Kirkman's sentiments are for the most part well-intentioned but they do not make for good drama. Loggerheads moves along at a snail's pace without providing any new revelations (or suspense) regarding such topics as AIDS, Adoption and Homophobia. Ultimately 'Loggerheads' fails due to a lack of originality.
Well, now that all of the director/ productions company's friends and relations have posted their shill reviews after seeing this at various festivals, I guess it's time to show reviews written by people who actually paid 10 bucks to see it.<br /><br />Like the director's "Dear Jesse" (the only other one of his films I have seen), "Loggerheads" suffers from a lack of focus and too many ideas crammed into an indie budget. I swear, this guy might have better luck doing miniseries. I kept waiting for the various plot threads to come together, but they only intercepted at points blatantly forshadowed in a way obvious to all but the most dense viewer. It was like watching a season of Lifetime made-for-TV movies crammed into one, long (did I say LOOONG) sketch on the old "Carol Burnett" show. Maybe an enterprising male suitor could take his girlfriend to see this and then exclaim "Hey...remember all of the chick flicks we went to last year...the one about the adoptive mother...the one about the gay guy...the one about the Christian housewife. We went to THREE Chick Flicks last year; so now we have to go see Terminator 4!" I guess one has to do anything to cast a familiar actor to get funding, but what oh what is Bonnie Hunt doing in this flick? She isn't exactly known as a dramatic actress, and this attempted "performance" won't be sending Mr. Oscar to her door. I mean (speaking of Lifetime Original Movies), wasn't Valerie Bertinelli or Farah Fawcett available? Ms. Hunt has always come off to me as cold, maybe she should have played the other mom? I wish I would have chosen "Capote" to fill my weekly Gay-themed Indie Allowance..oh well, maybe next week. I think there is a good reason why Capote is playing at tons of theatres all over the NYC area and this one is playing at only one; let the distributors faith in this flick assure to to run in the opposite direction if you don't trust this review!
A wallflower is tossed into the sea and dreams herself into a pirate fantasy as a damsel in love with a pirate's apprentice. Energetic and good-natured, perhaps, but a shoddy enterprise; a failed musical send-up of "The Pirates of Penzance" with a cheap, backlot feel, wan bubblegum songs and constant, leering overacting. Kristy McNichol's film career took a real hit after this, while leading man Christopher Atkins cannot get a grip of any particular emotion, his voice wobbling about in search of an appropriate tone. You have to wonder, if that's the best title they could come up with, what's the level of wit going to be in the actual script? The movie's "Grease"-like affection for musicals doesn't gel with its penchant for slapstick a la "Airplane!", although McNichol works overtime being effervescent and nearly makes the limp handling look endearing. For the most part, it is an embarrassment. *1/2 from ****
First off, I would like to make it clear that I voluntarily subject myself to the viewing of terrible movies. I have seen what I thought were the worst of the worst. In my mind, movies could not get any worse than the likes of D.E.B.S., Leprechaun 6: Back 2 Tha Hood, and Terror Storm. Until I saw this movie.<br /><br />The Pirate Movie, without any exaggeration, is the WORST MOVIE IN THE WORLD. I was informed prior to watching that the movie was, indeed, awful, but I did not believe the allegations. Believe me when I tell you that this movie is simply an abomination to film.<br /><br />It starts out with a 3 minute clip of a boat of pirates apparently in the middle of a battle with themselves. "The End" splashes across the screen. Unfortunately, it is not the actual end of the movie. The movie is about an unpopular, awkwardly nerdy girl named Mabel, who carries around a ghetto blaster and is attracted to ambiguously homosexual pirate boys. She drowns and has a overly drawn out hallucination in which she stars as a scantily dressed skank who falls in love with Frederic, who happens to have just crawled out of the ocean. He might actually be homosexual. The Pirate King has a ruby and diamond studded codpiece. It honks and squeaks when he squeezes it.<br /><br />There is singing in this movie. You might have the impression that this is a hilarious musical. It isn't. Trust me. They are the worst songs that you've ever heard, and by the end of the first original tune you will be searching for objects to pierce your eardrums with.<br /><br />There are "references" to other movies in here. By references, of course, I mean "obvious rip-offs." The inclusion of Indiana Jones, Inspector Clouseau, and the lightsaber were, in fact, anti-hilarious.<br /><br />The dialogue is, in its better moments, painful to hear. The direction is flat out awful, and at one point you can see the stunt pad in the scene, which isn't very well hidden at all.<br /><br />In conclusion, if there is even the shadow of curiosity in your mind about this movie, get rid of it. There are times when people want to see how bad something really is, but this movie is not worth it. Put it completely out of your mind and never think about it again. If you cherish your mental capacity then I beg of you, NEVER EVER WATCH THIS MOVIE.
Phoned work sick - watched this in bed and it was so awful I would have went back to work if I could have gotten out of bed. The dog ran off with the remote so I was stuck.<br /><br />I'm positive Hammer was grooming the eldest daughter to become his beeeatch.<br /><br />Horrendous to watch - made me vomit more than what I was doing anyway. So there you have it - this would be the film that they play in the waiting room of Hell before you go in. Or maybe your stuck in the film for all eternity with the Hart kids. Just remember to take a gun with you....
Man, did this film stink! It's obvious this film helped spurn Hollywood's need to churn out tired sequels to appeal to the masses. First of all, it came out too quickly, and second of all, it just didn't have the same hipness which made the original film so successful. No new ground was broken, and it turned into a rather mundane effort.
Slayer is a mindless vampire movie with a few twists on an ancient plot. Special ops team is sent into south America to hunt down blood sucking natives. Their leader is a real old man who has aged well. There's an environmental twist as the vampires are attacking villages because their rain forest and old diet of wild animals is disappearing because of the greedy corporations and farmers. Lost of fighting and so much blood they just never bothered to wash off the cast for the whole film. It looks like they slept in the bloody clothes and caked on blood. While each member of the cast brought their own talents, it really didn't all click as a film. The effects were OK, except for the vampires dangling from the buildings on wires. If you're looking for lots of blood and violence, this is for you.
This is about some vampires (who can run around out in the sunlight), that are causing some problems down in South America. Casper Van Dien is sent in with his team of commandos to investigate. The movie opens with Van Dien & Co. walking through the jungle, and there's this huge black guy who just absolutely, positively cannot act. He speaks all his lines as if he's reading them off the cue-cards for the very first time. His voice is also so low that, well, it's positively hilarious. Great way to get the movie started! Anyhow, they run into some of our vampires, shoot them (this causes them to appear to die for about 20 seconds), and then of course they come back to life. Van Dien notices that one of them was impaled across a tree limb, and yells to his buddies to kill them with wood. The stunt work must be seen to be believed - the vampires are on wires that pull them up trees, which is supposed to make them look like they can climb really easily, but it just makes them look like they're bouncing around on bungee cords or something.<br /><br />Yeah...anyhow, later on, the huge black dude is down in South America with some guys (Van Dien not included), and they're attacked by more vampires. It's really too bad these guys never heard of a crossbow, because it would seem to be the perfect weapon to kill the little bloodsuckers with, but instead they use big old wooden stakes that they try to impale the vampires with by hand. The big black dude ends up getting captured and he eventually becomes some big powerful vampire leader. Van Dien ends up battling him later on. It doesn't help that all through the movie, everyone forgets that if you shoot a vampire, they are knocked out for 20 seconds or so, which would enable a person to stick a stake in them fairly easily. They just try to stick stakes in them in the middle of hand-to-hand combat. Yeah, not exactly brilliant tactics.<br /><br />There's a hot babe (remember Veronica from The Lost World TV show? Yes, it's her!) who also happens to be walking around in the middle of Vampire County on some sort of research mission, and she also just happens to be Van Dien's ex-wife. Hey, what are the odds? It's a shame she's not in the movie a whole lot more than she is. Will her and Casper get back together in the end? Will Van Dien defeat the huge black dude who can't act? Will the circus performer vampires make you laugh through all the numerous action scenes? Will we hear the three stooges music when somebody does something funny? Has even Lynda Carter forgotten how to act in her small cameo (she's more convincing in her Sleep Number Bed commercials)? These questions and more will will be answered if you make it all the way to the end of the movie.<br /><br />I don't know, it might score some points on the so bad it's good scale, but that's about it. Eh, it's a bunch of goofs running around in the jungle, I guess it's kind of entertaining.
This is a relatively watchable movie (+1). After watching UKM: Ultimate Killing Machine, this one looks good, in comparison. There are no obvious technical gaffes, although the vampiric teeth look odd.<br /><br />The story line makes no sense. Let's see. An American GI fights vampires. Comes back to the states and is rehabilitated for seeing... Vampires. His commanding officer is the aunt of his ex-wife. Who happens to be doing some research on the biodiversity of the South American area where the vampires are. Huh! Don't pile on too many coincidences. Who cares about the head vampire? Or, his daughter? Or, any one in this film? The only originality in this is that most of the myths about vampires (allergic to crosses and garlic, can't come out in the day, etc.) are wrong. But, they can't be killed except by beheading or a wood wound in the heart. Yeah, right. It's obvious they just didn't want to film a dark movie, since this is a made for TV film.<br /><br />It would have been nice for the viewer, if they had hired some actors. Oh, they've got Lynda Carter (TV's Wonder Woman), and a big, black dude with a tremendously deep voice, who snarls appropriately in order to show off his vampire teeth prosthetics. But, otherwise, you would never know they had actually paid people to read these lines.<br /><br />There is more than enough fight scenes, and some vampire-biting-neck blood, but no real violence.
Slayer starts in the South American rain forest where Captain Hawk (Casper Van Dien) & his men are attacked by a bunch of Vampires, they barely manage to escape with their lives. Jump forward six months later & Hawk is called to see Colonel Weaver (Lynda Carter) who informs him there has been other reported sightings of Vampires & that his ex-wife & her Goddaughter Dr. Laurie Williams (Jennifer O'Dell) has gone out there on an expedition to study beetles, worried she ask's Hawk to take a squad of soldiers back to South America & officially provide back up to Captain Grieves (Kevin Grevioux) & his men while at the same time unofficially look for Laurie & not get killed by the Vampires who have decided to venture out of the caves & into the civilised World...<br /><br />Edited, written & directed by Kevin VanHook this is yet another poorly made Sci-Fi Channel original which just isn't very good in any respect. The humourless script has nothing going for it as far as I could see, it's one of those modern Vampire films which decides to pick & choose the 'traditional' Vampire film lore rules it wants to use like these Vampires can be killed with stakes through the heart & have fangs but at the same time can freely walk around in sunlight & they don't sleep in coffins. The film moves along at a reasonable pace but it's all very dull, bland & lifeless. The story is poor & just rather stupid, the character's are terrible, the dialogue is forgettable & there's very little here to recommend. Slayer also tries to have some sort of ecological message as the head Vampire claims they are only starting to kill human beings because of their systematic destruction of the rain forest where they have lived in secret for centuries, unfortunately there's no conviction there & is more like a throwaway line to fill the time than a serious statement. There isn't enough exploitation content & is a rather unsatisfying way to spend 90 minutes of your time. The makers don't even do anything with the jungle setting, hell I didn't expect Predator (1987) but I hoped for a bit more than this.<br /><br />Director VanHook has made several horror films all of which I have seen have been equally poor, I'm sorry but he does nothing here & turns in a throughly forgettable looking & feeling film. There's no atmosphere or tension & as for genuine scares forget about it. The gore is restrained, there are some bitten necks & a bit of spraying blood but it's nothing we haven't seen before or has much impact. There's also a huge Vampire monster creature at the end but it doesn't look that impressive & it gets itself killed far too easily.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $2,000,000 this actually had a decent sized amount of money spent on it but it's still a rubbish film, it's reasonably well made but nothing special or memorable. The acting sucks, I'm sorry but that's the way I saw it.<br /><br />Slayer is yet another poor, stupid & boring made-for-TV Sci-Fi Channel rubbish that I simply can't recommend. Not to be confused with the rather fine one time British 'Video Nasty' gore film The Slayer (1982) which is 100 times better than this so track that down & watch that instead.
I like vampire movies, I like B-movies, I love B vampire movies. But this one has nearly nothing going for it. Some of the acting is horrible, especially by 3 of the male leads. The story is not particular interesting. At a relative short 88 minutes it still seems too long and you'll find yourself fast-forwarding quite a bit. There are an awful lot of kung-fu vampire attacks. Sound cool? It isn't when it's done on a low budget. It gets repetitive very quickly. There is some minor blood and gore, nothing to get excited about. There some good wire work where you can see the wires. It has some good landscapes being filmed in Puerto Rico. <br /><br />Not worth the rental
I suggest that in the future, any movie made by the Sci fi channel and subsequently released on DVD must say that it was indeed made by such channel as I would not buy this stuff if I had known this fact. Not that this was all bad, but when you have fade out for commercials in the middle of your movie it just ruins the flow of said film. This in turn makes the movie rather more boring. This one had an interesting story however the light hearted and extremely generic soundtrack distracted one from the film as did most of the bad actors with the exception of Dien and Linda Carter. The story, vampires are on the attack in South America, of course the rules of vampire movies are not in effect, which the usually aren't in any of the movies about vampires I have seen lately with the exception of the Blade trilogy. Group of soldiers are sent down to battle said squad another team is sent to meet up with the team and to track down the ex wife of one of the soldiers...why she is not just his wife, who knows as this part of the plot really goes no where. Still we get an interesting boat ride some nice jungle scenery and a lot of blood. This fact, however, does not save the film from being way to jerky in its presentation and really dull seeming at times. I don't know maybe it was the cgi blood, and smoke and whatever they have to make cgi now even though old effects look better and don't cost that much more. I mean cheap Italian zombie movies could do a bullet hole without cgi why can't we now?
This proved to be a rare case of a poliziottesco made with British funding; unfortunately, the result is undistinguished (except by its exceeding unpleasantness and borderline-camp approach) despite stars and director. The former is led by a wooden Franco Nero and an ultra-hammy Telly Savalas as a couple of would-be robbers (if anyone is able to believe either actor – who generally exude cool – as a duo of bumbling crooks, he's more gullible than I am!).<br /><br />Their 'job' goes awry (ending in murder and saddled with cases of cutlery instead of jewels!) – however, the mismatched criminals see an opening to their dilemma when they inadvertently 'kidnap' the son of a British diplomat (a miscast Lester, who even gets to kick trigger-happy Savalas where it hurts at one point). Still, they never actually ransom him and their sole intent is to cross the border into France; tagging along with them is Nero's girlfriend (a wasted Ely Galleani): soon enough, though, she's had enough and decides to run away while the others are sleeping; the crazy Savalas notices this and, following the girl, kills her. In the meantime, Nero and Lester have woken up – the former thinks his accomplices may have double-crossed him, so he goes on the lam with the boy in tow; after a brief spell at a rich old lady's country estate (which features totally gratuitous rear nudes by both Nero and Lester!), Savalas catches up with them. They continue their trek, where the trio run into a family of German campers: the situation degenerates to the point where Savalas shuts them inside their trailer and tosses the lot into the river – though he's badly hurt in the process himself; typically, it all ends with the 'heavies' getting killed just as they're about to reach the border.<br /><br />The film, therefore, contains most of the genre's typical elements – sleaze, sadism, violence, chases (the aftermath of the opening robbery when the getaway car causes havoc in the city's narrow back-streets and even disrupts a funeral procession is downright farcical), etc.; one mildly interesting aspect to it is that, by the end, Lester himself is seen to have been definitely (irrevocably?) marked by the experience – coming to feel excitement when an act of violence is committed.
I actually went into this film with some expectations, not because I thought the film sounded particularly good, but because I'm a fan of Italian exploitation flicks and with a cast that sees Franco Nero and Telly Savalas starring alongside Oliver Twist, I figured it had to be interesting at least. Well...RedNeck does have one or two positive things going on, but for the most part; it's a dull, lifeless film that is as ridiculous as it is pointless. The plot simply focuses on two criminals (Nero and Savalas) who kidnap a young kid (Oliver). The twist in the tale is that the kid realises that he'd have more fun if he gets accepted into the 'gang'. Telly Savalas and Franco Nero are two actors that have proved they can carry a film on their own on numerous occasions, and they do have some memorable moments in this film - although really for all the wrong reasons. Savalas in particular gives a silly portrayal of the 'bad' criminal. The plot doesn't flow badly, but since nothing interesting happens, that's not really a positive point and doesn't save from the film from being mediocre. Overall, I can't recommend this film; it may appeal to some for its cult value but it didn't do anything for me.
Definitely not your typical Polizia, Redneck just never worked for me. The movie tells the story of a jewel heist gone wrong and a young boy who is inadvertently kidnapped in the process. In their attempt to get away, the robbers leave a bloody trail of death in their wake as they hatch a plan to ransom the boy. The plan is never carried off as the robbers are more intent on getting to France and the boy is intent on staying with them. While I could cite a number of problems I had with the movie, I'll focus on the most obvious – the character Memphis played by Telly Savalas. From his work in The Dirty Dozen and Kelley's Heroes to other Italian films like Crime Boss to his most remembered role as Kojak, Savalas was a winner. I've always thought of him as one uber-cool customer. Unfortunately, Savalas is almost unwatchable in Redneck. Did the director turn on the camera and instruct him to act as psychotic as possible? It might not have been too bad had his actions been done within the context of a plot I cared about, but here he seems to be acting bizarre for sake of being bizarre. It's appears to be random lunacy. And what's with that accent? Savalas might have been a lot of things, but Southern isn't one of them. He sounds completely ridiculous even attempting the accent. Beyond that, I found little of interest in the rest of the movie. As I indicated, the plot never drew me in. I just didn't care about what was going on. And the notion that the boy is so quickly attracted to the criminal lifestyle doesn't ring true. As for the other actors, Mark Lester is almost as bad as Savalas and the usually reliable Franco Nero isn't a whole lot better. Three "name" actors and not a good performance between them. To make matters worse, I believe the director filmed many of the night scenes with nothing more than the glow from his watch to light the shots. I couldn't tell what was going on. Characters I hate, a plot I don't care about, and a production values that failed – little wonder I've given Redneck a 3/10.
I know a lot of people would claim certain films as 'the worst of all time' but I think Redneck stakes a claim for this prize. A combination of quite dreadful acting from both Mark Lester and Telly Savales and plot progression that defies belief.<br /><br />On Telly Saveles: was he drunk when he acted in this? He seems to play a slurring, laughing lunatic with no sense of conviction. Maybe he mixed his medication with his whiskey, I don't know.<br /><br />On Mark Lester: A performance more wooden than a carpenter's workshop. His clipped British tones don't belong in this film; and his transformation from sheltered teenager to gangster's apprentice in 24 hours is mad. And the strip scene with Mosquito does not have any relevance to the plot at all; perhaps the director likes this sort of thing.<br /><br />Plot logic: when Memphis and Mosquito ambush the car at the beginning, why doesn't Mark Lester's mother do or say anything to get her son out of the car, before the loonies drive it off? She just lets them all go, without saying a word!! On the other hand, Redneck has to be seen - you won't believe how bad it is otherwise!
sdiner82 had clearly not seen the film in decades, and his memory is appalling. His attempts to paint the Mark Lester shaving scene as suspect are utterly erroneous, as are his incorrect comments about the bad guy "sneaking peeks at the kid's body". Lester is clothed for the entire time the man is in the room, and the man barely gives him a glance.<br /><br />The scene is a crude attempt to show Lester's innocent curiosity about the man's body.<br /><br />Like everything in this film, it's badly done, but nothing more.<br /><br />Even sdiner82's comments about Savalas' character who "casually sent a German family to their deaths by nudging their trailer off a cliff" is nonsense (it was a single woman, she was already dead, and she was in a car).<br /><br />I suggest that sdiner82's review says far, far more about his own, far from liberal mindset, than it does about this valueless film.<br /><br />The only reason I even bothered to look it up, was out of curiosity to see if it was made before or after Kojak.<br /><br />The film is a worthless piece of 70's trash, but sdiner82's review of it is the worst kind of slander. He wraps up his review in pseudo-intellectual "facts", but the only fact is that he is plain wrong on almost every "factual" matter he discusses.<br /><br />I can only assume that sdiner82 saw exactly what he looked for, which is disturbing. Now he can return to burning copies of Catcher in the Rye.
In the mid-1970s, my NYC apt. building was finally wired for cable-TV and since Showtime (instead of HBO) was the only premium channel offered showing recent movies, I signed up for it. Being a writer and night-owl by nature, I soon discovered the channel was showing movies late at night and until the wee hours of the morning I'd never even heard of--most of them American independent films and foreign films that had never been given a U.S. theatrical release. Many of them had recognizable "star" casts and respectable directors, and thanks to Showtime, I discovered many first-rate films I (and other Showtime subscribers) would never else have had the opportunity to see. Most of these cinematic mongrels were indeed "dogs" but often so bad they were unintentionally hilarious. One night, Showtime unveiled a little Italian-made gem called "Redneck" (filmed in 1972, given a limited European release in 1973). Even though the movie had never been released in the U.S., the MPAA rating was listed as an 'R'. Since the director was one Sylvio Narizzano (the director who made his name with the glorious "Georgy Girl"), and the three leads were Mark ("Oliver") Lester, Fabio Testi and Telly Savalas, I decided to give it a try. And found myself nailed to my TV screen in disbelief for 89 minutes. As I recall, Savalas and Testi played two criminals, the former a raging maniac who, in one stomach-churning scene, casually sent a German family to their deaths by nudging their trailer off a cliff, thereby plunging to the wilderness depths below. So far, so bad. Then, out of nowhere, Testi (as the "nice" psycho) and Lester (all of 14 when the movie was made) are seen, both nude, in a men's room, Testi sneaking peeks at the kid's body while shaving, and poor confused Lester fixated on close-ups of Testi's naked butt. As a not-yet-jaded member of the movie industry, and a card-carrying liberal (I was as much against censorship then as I am today), the entire movie made me queasy (and, being the early '70s when I thoughtI'd seen everything in the anything-goes movies of that liberated era--including the uncut version of Altman's "That Cold Day in the Park", a real jaw-dropper until it was trimmed for an 'R' rating and would have spelled The End for Altman's career had he not next come up with something called "M*A*S*H"), I still wonder if anyone else except me ever saw "Redneck" and was appalled as I was. Trashing the actors and movie-going audiences is joy maladjusted filmmakers have been merrily indulging in since the beginning of time. But leeringly exploiting a highly respected and talented child actor (Mr. Lester) at a time when he was beginning to make the difficult transaction from child to adult actor (and I'm sure his film offers had thereby dwindled to meretricious junk like "Redneck")...Mr. Narizzano, you should be hanging your head in shame. (Incidentally, I was soon to make friends with actors who had appeared in Narizzano's future, undistinguished efforts. They both despised him. Surprise?)
Have just seen this film for the first time after purchasing it on DVD<br /><br />It comes across as a cheap attempt to cash in on the two Conan movies.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this film didn't appear to have the same budget as the Conan films and hence some of the sets and effects aren't as flash and some scenes seem hurried. <br /><br />Nielsen is OK to look at but unfortunately she couldn't act if a gun was put to her head. <br /><br />Arnie's supporting role looked like it was done as a favor to director Fleischer, who also directed Conan the Destroyer. Maybe Arnie wasn't confident that he would go on to headline films like Predator, Total Recall, T2, etc.<br /><br />Some of the female guardians of the talisman early in the film looked like they were struggling to lift their swords and the looks on their faces suggested they were having great fun making this film. I couldn't be so jovial if I was fighting for my life.<br /><br />All this aside, this film required very little concentration to watch and was mildly entertaining. I've seen a lot worse. Two stars.
Sometimes intentionally campy, at other times unintentionally silly (like in the opening scene, where a woman is "informed" that she has been raped and that her family has been slaughtered, just for the sake of exposition), this film is ultimately neither funny enough nor competent enough (as a straightforward adventure story) to be really enjoyable. I'll leave you to decide which may be the highlight, but the low point is probably the fight with a silly metallic dragon. Brigitte Nielsen was a good choice for Sonja, with her fresh face and her firm, slightly muscular body (and I think that her dark-red hair suits her perfectly), but Schwarzenegger gives one of his few colorless performances as Calidor. (*1/2)
It is sad that Schwarzenegger was the best thing about this production, especially considering the fact that he had not yet come into his own, and was still as stiff as cardboard in his dialog delivery.<br /><br />Actually, this isn't as bad as some critics say, but it isn't good, either. It IS amusing, and DOES play like a poor country cousin of the Conan line, making it a conflicted, uneven, poor work. And speaking of poor, the quality is terrible, due to the era in which this was filmed, but that is not the only reason.<br /><br />The story herein is inferior, even to the Conan line, but moreover, it loses itself in the "Red Sonja must be dominated by big strong Schwarzenegger" ploy, and entirely forgets its purpose, if it ever had one.<br /><br />It's entertaining, but in a low-budget, guilty-pleasure "B" kind of way.<br /><br />It rates a 4.2/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.
Red Sonja is a career-step-in-the-wrong-direction for Arnold Schwarzenegger. Having made a couple of sword 'n' sorcery films (as Conan) he had moved onto slightly more serious acting roles in films like The Terminator and Commando, only to make a mystifying return to the sword 'n' sorcery genre for this 1985 debacle. It's hard to figure out why he bothered, as this is weaker than both Conan films in every conceivable department. Allegedly, this was to have been the third Conan film, but for one reason or another the emphasis was shifted onto the leading female character, the titular red-head, leaving poor old Arnold to play an incredibly dull supporting role. Spare a thought, too, for director Richard Fleischer who had given the world classics like 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, Fantastic Voyage, The Boston Strangler and 10 Rillington Place. In this - his penultimate film - Fleischer also has taken a gigantic career step backwards.<br /><br />Evil queen Gedren (Sandahl Bergman) wants to rule the world, and she needs a priceless and powerful talisman to do so. She and her brutish army storm a keep populated by priestesses and steal the said talisman, massacring the helpless priestesses as they go. One of the dead priestesses has a sister named Sonja (Brigitte Nielsen), a fiery red-headed warrior, who upon hearing of her sister's death swears revenge upon the evil Gedren. Sonja rides across the land in search of Gedren's lair. Along the way she picks up travelling companions in the shape of a boy prince, Tarn (Ernie Reyes Jr) and his bodyguard Falkon (Paul Smith). She also meets the muscular warrior Conan - sorry, I mean Kalidor (!) - who offers to join her in her quest. Initially Sonja doesn't want the help of Kalidor (Arnold Schwarzenegger), preferring instead to prove that she can confront and defeat her enemies alone, but eventually she warms to him and accepts his assistance.<br /><br />Red Sonja is a staggeringly poor film, all the more so when one muses that it was made in 1985 when the sword 'n' sorcery genre was close to its end. It seems so simplistic and amateurish that one could easily mistake it for an early example of its kind. The performances are poor on the whole, ranging from Bergman's embarrassingly OTT villain to Reyes' unbelievably irritating spoilt brat to Schwarzenegger's wooden and unenthusiastic hero. Nielsen is slightly better as the heroine - presumably full of enthusiasm at the thought of being in her first starring role - but she is let down very badly by the stupidity of Clive Exton and George MacDonald Fraser's script. The film is riddled with goofs, including a scene where Schwarzenegger is seen in close-up hacking down bad guys but in a long-shot in the same sequence there isn't a corpse in sight. Technically it is very inept too, with sub-standard special effects and appallingly mechanical monsters. There are a few compensations, such as Ennio Morricone's enjoyable music (Morricone spent a great deal of the '80s providing good music for awful films, e.g The Island, Treasure of the Four Crowns and Hundra). Another compensation is Giuseppe Rotunno's lensing of the locations - in fact, much of the time it's a hell of a lot more gratifying to look at the lovely scenery than the actors standing in the foreground! There were very few sword 'n' sorcery films after Red Sonja, so in some ways it might go down in history as the film which destroyed its own genre.
"Red Sonja" is flawed, weak and lacking. Even the camp-ness isn't good.<br /><br />There are only two good things about "Red Sonja"; The costumes (even though the Red Sonja costume is ridiculous. It's ironic that a girl who is even afraid to be touched by men, because she was raped, still choose to wear so few little clothes, even when it rains.) and the music by Ennio Morricone. Still the movie is somewhat watchable but certainly not recommendable.<br /><br />The story is extremely simple and they didn't even bother to make it interesting. The story could have been forgotten if there had been some good action sequences and some humor, both are present but are seriously flawed in many ways. The movie takes itself too serious and tries to impress but fails completely.<br /><br />Brigitte Nielsen is an horrible leading lady. I don't know who's accent is worse; Hers or Arnie's and on top of that; She can't act. There is also absolutely no chemistry between the two characters which makes the love story totally unbelievable. Even worse was Sandahl Bergman as the main villain who acts more poorly than a paper bag. Ronald Lacey was somewhat good in his role, but my God he looked horrible, he changed so much since his (only well known) role in "Raiders of the Lost Ark". Maybe it had something to do with his illness which claimed his life in 1991? And by the way, what was with all those "Raiders of the Lost Ark" actors in this movie? Next to Ronald Lacey, Pat Roach, Terry Richards and Tutte Lemkow appeared in a role, it seemed like some kind of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" reunion.<br /><br />The only times when the movie gets a bit interesting is during the (sword)fights even though some of them are needless and weak.<br /><br />Only really watchable for the fans of the fantasy-genre.<br /><br />4/10
I watched this movie, or part of it, in hope that it would be fun to laugh at how bad it was, but it soon became clear that this was just plain silly. For one you have the worst acting EVER! The lead "actress" Birgitte Nielsen is terrible, uninspired and hardly even attractive. And she certainly do not look like the female warrior who could easily kick some veteran warrior kings butt, but she does. And whats with the feminist attitude, it's plain hypocrisy. For one her family was killed by a women, then she joins some warrior school or something so she can learn how to fight men. She then joins up with a fat servant and his child king, whose city was destroyed by Gedren. Those two characters are just plain stupid and destroys the little of atmosphere that the movie managed to create. After this i could not take any more of Nielsen painful acting, and the stupid clichés and lack of some real action.<br /><br />Schwarzenegger as Kalidor was the only part of this movie which actually made it remotely watchable. <br /><br />I liked the Conan movie, but this is pure crap!
I figure the company that made this movie wanted people to think of the Conan movies, but unfortunately for the ones who made this one it does just that. You will be thinking, man the Conan movies were pretty cool...this one is totally boring and sucks. The story, who cares? It isn't going to help you like this movie more or less as it just seems like a really cheap film. Arnold, doesn't look like he belongs in this one, why he agreed to play the role is beyond me. Well probably for the money. I just love the monster in the water that turns out to be a machine. Lame! This movie is just plain and simply terrible.
This, in my opinion, is a very poor movie that advertises Arnold Schwarzenegger as starring (despite him being the co-star) only to sell more copies. Obviously taking influence from the similarly themed ‘Conan' movies, this film fails to prove as enjoyable and eventually fails to entertain at all.<br /><br />Bridgette Neilsen stars as Sonja, a beautiful woman who has been given unbelievable strength by a ghostly figure after her village was pillaged, her family killed and she herself raped by the soldiers of Queen Gedran (Sandahl Bergman). Gedran is a tyrant Queen who wants control over the barbaric world and seeks out a talisman protected by Sonja's sister to do it. After discovering what has happened Sonja sets out for revenge and at the same time she must save the world from the wrath of Gedran. Kalidor (Schwarzenegger), the master of the talisman, sets out to protect her whether she wants him there or not.<br /><br />The first major problem with this movie is the beginning. The events leading up to the point where Sonja receives her powers could have easily made a good ten to fifteen minutes of enjoyable film. However, the beginnings are rushed into what seems like a quick one-minute `Previously on….' segment from a television show. Had they actually made these events part of the story and cut out some of the filler later on they may have been able to start redeeming this movie but unfortunately they didn't (I wonder why director Richard Fleischer has only currently directed two movies since Red Sonja).<br /><br />This film also features some of the most annoying characters in history like Tarn (Ernie Reyes Jr.) who is a stupid character and just adds an over abundance of camp to the movie, which sometimes works but in this case fails miserably. He was quite obviously written into the movie for some comic relief but with the overall absurdity of the film anyway this was another costly mistake for ‘Red Sonja'.<br /><br />For all it's faults there were some good fight scenes involving both Neilsen and Arnie which are worth noting but these are nowhere enough to save this turkey. The acting is about as good as it gets for movies of this quality and even Arnie didn't seem too bothered about his performance. I don't recommend this film at all; to me it's a waste of an hour and a half. My rating for ‘Red Sonja' – 3/10
This film was released soon after the Conan films, a sort of female Conan, Red Sonja played by Sylvester Stallones ex-wife Brigitte Nielsen. She's not a very good actress unfortunately as proved in Rocky IV and Cobra. The whole film feels cheap, but strangely Arnold Swarzenegger appears in this film but not as Conan, although he looks, acts and fights like Conan from the two Conan films, I don't know what thats about. Anyway he only appears about every twenty minutes and doesn't hang around for long. Maybe Arnold filmed this in his time off from filming Conan the Destroyer or something? Anyway the film is way to slow and boring for an action film, skip this and watch Conan the Barbarian instead.
... when dubbed into another language. Let's face it: Neither Nielsen nor Schwarzenegger are really good actors when it comes to dialog. And given the campy lines they are supposed to utter this is a loose-loose situation. Any type of voice-over is sure to be an improvement (and it actually is - at least in the German version).<br /><br />But that is only a minor point. The acting is bad. The speeded up combat sequences are pathetic. Nielsen couldn't use her sword to fight her way out of a wet paper bag. This becomes painfully obvious when compared to the fluidity of motion exhibited by the kid (who has had some martial arts training, no doubt) and to the athleticism shown off by Sandahl Bergman.<br /><br />Schwarzenegger does his Conan thing - nothing new here.<br /><br />Some of the visuals are nice, I'll have to grant that. The dragon skeleton bridge looks cool. But more often than not the plaster is all too evident.<br /><br />Overall the movie isn't worth seeing. Even 'Conan the Destroyer' is better than this (although only marginally). I would have much rather seen Bergman as Red Sonja as she was originally supposed to be, but I doubt that that could have saved this movie - oh well.<br /><br />3/10
Recap: Since the warrior queen Gedren raised and slaughtered most of Sonja's family, she has trained in the art of sword fighting. Now, Gedren has taken a very powerful talisman, that threatens to destroy the world if not destroyed, killing Sonja's sister in the process. Now Sonja is out for revenge, and to save the world. Along the way, she meets the very Conan-like (but not Conan, no!) Kalidor, the child-prince Tarn and his bodyguard Falcon. At first Sonja declines all help, but is later forced to accept it, and together they go to save the world.<br /><br />Comments: When you watch a movie like this, and you think that it is the story that the is the best element in this movie, the movie is in big trouble. Because 1) a movie like this should draw its strength upon good swordfights and effects, and 2) the story is really, really bad. It is simple, and uncomplicated and really offers nothing in way of character development or even suspense. It is predictable and boring, and the obvious couple, Sonja and Kalidor, has no chemistry at all. And the kid is just annoying. And most of the scenes is drawn out so long that they become boring. Though the movie is not very long, it has not material enough to fill its time. And so back to point 1). The fighting is slow, uneventful and really bad. It clearly shows most fighters clearly blocking the opponents strokes far ahead of the opponent has even begun to strike. In my honest opinion, I believe most kids, fighting with sticks, creates more exciting fights playing knights than this movie did. All in all, this is a really bad spin-off, that should be avoided by all who liked the Conan-movies.<br /><br />2/10
Okay, I admit I like Brigitte Neilsen in an unhealthy way, I just have a thing for 6' tall women with swords. There I said it.<br /><br />What's wrong with the movie? Just about every mistake you can make was made. You take a successful movie series (conan) and you drag it through the mud with a bad script, bad casting, bad effects, and the worst thing of all...you put a cute kid in there for comic relief. This kind of thing almost killed the Indiana Jones series ya know. Cute kids are for Disney movies, not real movies. Neilsen at least took the movie seriously, even though it seems nobody else did. The plot had Schwarzenegger repeatedly pulling Red Sonja's fat out of the fire and that undercut her character considerably. A warrior woman doesn't need a dude to get her out of a mess, thats her job! To not re-use the Conan character in this movie was a crime. Kalidor? Sheesh. The movie never set the proper mood and its pacing was rather disjointed and sloppy, unlike Conan the Barbarian which had multiple story lines that flowed gracefully. When it comes to fantasy movies, its okay to have cheesy costumes, its okay to have harryhausen style animation, its okay to have silly exorbitant sets that make no sense, but to have a horrible script is unforgivable.<br /><br />This movie could have been a classic, but the script felt like it was written by a 12 year old.
Honestly, this movie is weak. Very weak. Only capital character can something. She's work like supercharger on bad engine...so, if you like red-haired Valkyries - see that. But better find picture of Brigitte as Sonja and put it on desktop. It will save of disappointments. Well, Arnold also do his deal...but it definitely not best his role. Other characters - bad is not that word. Sword fights? Monsters? Ridiculous. Plot is really shame. Why was necessary rape she? Especially, we don't see it.<br /><br />Anyway movie is weak. Though worse movies exist...Without main characters it would be just ******. And if somebody even discusses it, maybe...
I remember the trailer for this infamously weak spin-off of Conan. I saw the movie years later and laughed my head off. Unintentionally! Poor Briggite Nielson. Her career never had a chance thanks to Cobra and Red Sonja. The plot of the movie is this: Sonja(Brigitte Nielson) hails from a tribe of female warriors who were killed off by an evil queen Gedren(Sandahl Bergman). Queen Gedren steals the orb the female warriors were protecting and uses it to destroy each town she passes by. Sonja goes on a hunt for Queen Gedren and later finds out that Gedren killed her parents. On her quest she reluctantly joins Kalidor(Arnold Schwarzenegger), an arrogant prince named Tarn(Ernie Reyes Jr.) and his bumbling idiotic servant, Falkon(Paul L. Smith). Together they go on a hunt for Queen Gedren and the orb. The acting is sub par and the action scenes are soso. I mean Briggite Neilson looks so emotionally distant. For someone who lost her whole family as well as her female comrades, Sonja doesn't look fazed at all. Arnold is playing his usual stoic role and Ernie Reyes Jr.... what an annoying snot-nosed brat he was in this movie! The moronic manservant Falkon had more personality than these guys. The action scenes are the only redeeming moments of the movie even though sometimes they fall flat. The scene where they fight the mechanical sea creature made me laugh till my ribs ached. The dialog is a hoot also. Its as if the screenwriter thought that nobody was going to take the movie seriously so he gave everybody stupid lines to work with. I can only recommend this movie to you if you like your epic movies extra campy. Anyone else don't bother.
Possible Spoilers As Peter Jackson has so brilliantly shown in his `Lord of the Rings' trilogy, it is quite possible to make good films, even great ones, within the heroic fantasy genre. The genre has distinguished literary antecedents, dating back to the mediaeval chivalric romances, particularly the Arthurian legends, upon which Tolkien and other authors have drawn. `Lord of the Rings' apart, however, it is difficult to think of any other sword-and-sorcery films which are any good. I would agree with the reviewer who said that the best of a bad bunch was Ron Howard's `Willow', and even that achieved little distinction other than that of being a merely mediocre film as opposed to a positively bad one. `Red Sonja', however, cannot achieve the even more modest distinction of being simply a bad film as opposed to an appalling one.<br /><br />As with `Willow', many of the plot-elements in `Red Sonja' are derived from `The Lord of the Rings'. An evil ruler seeks to gain control of an artefact with supernatural powers in order to achieve an ambition of world domination, but is thwarted by an assorted group of heroes. The film, set in the Hyborian Age, a barbaric era in the earth's remote past, starts with the villain of the piece, the wicked Queen Gedren, making unwelcome sexual advances to the heroine Sonja. When these are rebuffed, Gedren (not a woman to take no for an answer) reacts by murdering Sonja's parents and brother. (In 1985 it was presumably still considered politically correct not only to make the chief villain a woman but also to make one of the main motives for her villainy frustrated lesbian lust).<br /><br />Gedren's next move is to capture the Talisman, a sort of fluorescent green soccer ball with magical powers, by slaughtering the whole of the scantily-dressed female priesthood charged with protecting it, just as they are about to destroy it because they feel its powers have become too dangerous. Among the dead is Sonja's sister, her sole surviving relative. Sonja herself, however, has not been idle, but has enrolled in a martial arts academy from which she graduates summa cum laude, and sets out to avenge herself. Along the way she teams up with Kalidor, a heroic wandering swordsman-king resembling Tolkien's Aragorn, Prince Tarn, the spoilt child-ruler of a kingdom that has fallen to Gedren's powers, and Falkon, Tarn's loyal servant. The rest of the film is fairly predictable, as Sonja and her allies try to overthrow Gedren and prevent the destruction of the world threatened by the out-of-control Talisman.<br /><br />Just what is it that makes this film so bad? Well, the acting, for a start. Arnold Schwarzenegger as Kalidor gives the sort of typical wooden, poker-faced performance that became his trademark, at least in the early part of his career, complete with heavy foreign accent. Compared with Brigitte Nielsen as the heroine, however, he looks like Laurence Olivier. Miss Nielsen seems to have had even worse language difficulties, delivering every line in the mechanical, toneless voice of someone who has just completed lesson three of a `teach-yourself-English-by-correspondence' course. One wonders if she was hired for the role just to make Arnie look good by comparison. The other characters, while not conducting their own private struggles against the English language, are simply cartoonish caricatures, especially Prince Tarn who must be one of the most obnoxious screen youngsters ever.<br /><br />An even worse fault than the bad acting, however, is the film's almost complete lack of imagination. This is a particularly glaring fault in a fantasy film, as films of this genre need to rely on their imaginative power in order to persuade the audience to suspend the natural feelings of disbelief that would be provoked by a fantastic plot. When we watch Peter Jackson's masterpiece we can persuade ourselves, at least for the next three hours, that we are in Middle-Earth, that elves, wizards and hobbits do exist, and that the fate of the world really does depend upon the destruction of a magic ring. When we watch `Red Sonja' we are persuaded of nothing except that we are watching a bunch of actors with bad accents fighting one another on a hillside for possession of a lime-green football.<br /><br />This lack of imagination even starts with the film's title. The British science-fiction author Brian Aldiss, when challenged about the exotic names given to his characters, replied that there was little point in creating a fictional alien society with its own distinctive culture if you were going to spoil the effect by calling the hero Joe. (Admittedly, Tolkien was able<br /><br />to get away with giving the name Sam to one of his main characters, but that was because Hobbits were supposed to be reassuringly familiar, the Middle-Earth equivalent of tweedy, pipe-smoking Englishmen). Similarly, giving the heroine of a tale ostensibly set in a long-gone barbaric age a common girls' name like `Sonia' (which is how the name `Sonja' is pronounced) is about as appropriate as calling her `Betty' or `Mary-Jane'.<br /><br />The film seems to have been made on a very small budget, which makes me wonder why they bothered at all. Fantasy needs to be done convincingly, or not at all. It was obviously shot in a remote mountain area, with little or no attempt to suggest a distinctive culture. The few buildings we see, such as the temple of the Talisman or Gedren's palace, are obviously cheap sets. We learn that Tarn's capital city has been destroyed by Gedren using the power of the Talisman, but we do not actually see this event; all we see is what might be a thunderstorm taking place on the other side of a hill. At first you wonder how Sonja intends to overthrow an entire kingdom with only a few allies, but when you see how small an army Gedren has at her disposal it becomes more understandable. When an earthquake threatens to destroy the palace, you wonder if this is the Talisman at work or merely a crew member inadvertently leaning against the set. If we can enjoy this film for nothing else, we can at least enjoy it for its inadvertent humour; a fine example of the so-bad-it's-funny school of filmmaking. Ed Wood would have been proud of this one. If it had been shown on Californian television the night before the recall election, Gray Davis would still be governor. 2/10.
After a long hard night being partied away at the Walkabout in Islington, I needed a pick-me-up. My throat hurt, my wallet was empty and I ended up chatting to a drug addict at a bus-stop trying to sell me some petrol. Today, I watched "Red Sonja" and I can honestly say that I felt much better last night than I do right now. Brigitte Nielsen leads a bunch of ass-kicking warriors in various shapes and sizes to recover a green rock from some evil queen whose motives are never fully explained. Yep, it's that good.<br /><br />"Red Sonja" isn't in a genre known for great films until Peter Jackson came along with a certain Oscar-winning trilogy. In fact, the best swords-and-sorcery film I could think of before "Lord Of The Rings" was George Lucas's kiddie-friendly "Willow". Perhaps, in view of this, one should go a little easy on this film. But I can't - it's poorly written, badly acted (with the exception of Paul Smith, who's just average) and dreadfully put together. The film is as convincing as an episode of the Flintstones, with costumes and scenery seemingly lifted straight outta Bedrock. Considering the comic-book source material, it is easy to forgive the various plot inconsistencies. Why Sonja insists on saving the most annoying kid, in this world or that one, is bewildering. His personality seems to flick from spoilt brat to polite gentleman at the flick of a switch. Schwarzenegger displays less charisma than a field full of cows and just goes through the motions, a perfect actor for his breakthrough role in "The Terminator".<br /><br />It's simple to kick a film when you're down but the fact remains that this is not a good film, by any stretch of the imagination. When Nielsen mourns the death of her sister and Schwarzenegger tenderly places his hand on her shoulder to comfort her and then blurts out, in that distinctive Germanic accent, "she's dead" then you know you're in for a rough ride. A few smiles were raised at inappropriate points, such as the priestesses of a temple who, when sent plunging to their deaths in a hole in the ground, seemed to enjoy the experience - at least, judging from the orgasmic moans that seemed to echo around the place. If you have to watch an Eighties fantasy film that wasn't porn, watch "Willow" (but never take that as a ringing endorsement). For the real thing, take yourself to your local multiplex and show Peter Jackson what a great job he did with "Lord Of The Rings". Trust me, 11 Oscars really does mean it's a great film - unlike bloody "Titanic".
Corny and some really bad acting but for a Golan-Globus film about right on par. Saw this movie back in 1985 mostly because I liked sword and sorcery films(what was i thinking?). Arnold is in it playing a high lord trying to make sure an ancient talisman is destroyed before it blows up the world.Brigitte Nielsen is the title character who at the time was Sly's girl and a pretty bad actress.Movie producers like to cast Playboy type women who cant act in low budget B movies. Brigitte cheeses it up as Sonya and Arnold acts wooden as Lord Kalidor.There is also Sandahl Bergman(who was in the original Conan movie as Valeria)here she plays the evil Queen Gedren,an obvious camp to her Conan role. And then one of the most irritating child actors onscreen(ernie reyes)as Prince Tarn who should have been slapped hard and sent to bed.What a little irritating scut. Some of the swordfights arent too bad but the music really sucks. Special effects are cheap and look very 70's ,like the explosion of the evil queen's castle at the climax of the movie. <br /><br />Overall a very low par film but b movie film buffs might like it for its campiness.
You know that this film is in SERIOUS trouble when the BEST acting job is the support role played by Arnold Schwarzenegger. While this was still relatively early in his career and he wasn't the best actor, compared to Brigitte Nielsen, he's Sir John Gielgud. In fact, this film proves that the only reason she got much of any attention were her boobs and because she was involved with the incredibly self-destructive football player, Mark Gastineau. So, instead of this being her "break out film", this and a Beverly Hills Cop movie mark about as high as she went in her one-note career. It was obvious, too, that the financing wizards gave up on this movie as well, because the supporting cast (aside from Arnold) is pretty lame and the script is dull, dull, dull. Fans looking for another CONAN movie would no doubt be very disappointed in this slow and uninvolving film.
It's nice to see Julie Andrews trying a straight dramatic role here--something she hadn't done in awhile--but her character of Judith(wise they didn't try to pass her off as a 'Judy')has the old refined manners and tomboyish hairstyle of yore, and Andrews enacts 'grown-up' as any other actress would interpret frigid. It's a surprisingly bland drama set in Barbados involving Omar Sharif(not the liveliest leading man around--not even in 1974!)hoping to make Andrews a spy while also slowly leading her into the proverbial bedroom. Unmemorable outing does have some camp value: the James Bond-like credits at the beginning are a cheesy hoot. As for Julie: she's quiet and contemplative, but that doesn't do much for the audience, or for the film. Blake Edwards paces the freakin' thing like a funeral. * from ****
Honestly, buying this movie was a waste of money. It's one of the most boring movies I have seen in my life. The only part I liked is the ending, but it's so slow that not even the fantastic ending can save this movie.
What's up with this movie? Does Mr. Lyne and his writers think that a sado-masochistic fling between two screwed up Yuppies can carry a feature length movie? Maybe if it had some comedic elements (which is doesn't, at least intentionally), or there were some additional dramatic elements (which there are not), or maybe if it was hardcore. No, it's simply the history of the affair; a chronology of a bunch of R-rated trysts. Ho-hum, who cares? "Nine ½ Weeks" deserves every Razzie nomination it got. It's a loser.<br /><br />And by the way, what's up with Roger Ebert and his rave review? Where was his head back in 1986?
This is high-gloss soft-porn; a boring soap opera concentrating on one thing: sex. They actually made sex boring, sad to say, because I defy you to watch this casually and tell me what the storyline was. What this is, is an excuse for Kim Bassinger to show off her great body and for Mickey Rourke to smirk a lot. That's it. Rourke's smugness is so bad it's sickening and Bassinger, despite the great figure, looks cheap more than beautiful.<br /><br />Kudos to the photographer for some nice closeup shots and some wonderful color, but the story is so weak - no character development and no plot - it's unable to compensate. Let's face it: this movie was made for only reason - to titillate male viewers. On that level, it probably succeeded. If I recall, it's why I gave it a look being a fan of Bassinger's looks, but I actually expected a story, too.<br /><br />Those trying to pass this off as "arty" and something deeper than soft porn are only fooling themselves.
Kim Basinger and Mickey Rourke star in this controversial story of a wall street exec and an art gallery employee who hook up and begin a very experimental sexual relationship.While the acting by Rourke and Basinger is ok, the flim doesn't allow their characters to truly form. Allegedly there was a lot of film left on the cutting room floor that delved deeper into the characters and the effects of the relationship on them - Basinger's character considering suicide - that would have made the characters more involved for the viewer. As is it is a glossy, well produced, with MTV style editing piece of soft core voyeurism. 4 of 10
The only reason I bought the DVD was to satisfy my curiosity about the scene when Liz (Kim Basinger) strips to the music of Joe Cocker: You Can Leave Your Hat On! That was the best part of the whole film. Not because the scene was any good; only the song. I am not saying it was a terribly bad film just not that good. Disappointingly so!<br /><br />Especially when the exploration of male and female sexuality could have been expanded upon. Instead of expanding on the dangerous side of lust, obsession and infatuation and where it can lead to it drags its heels obscurely from one idea to the other. For example when John (played by Rourke) is able to leave her on the top of the Big Wheel, Liz (Kim Basinger) is unconvincingly rattled at the bizarre experience courtesy of John's sense of humor but less rattled at his sexual exploits involving the ever willing Liz; and like one reader mentioned, that for a woman to enjoy sex she has to experience the dangerous side is unconvincing. This "dangerous" side is not exploited enough in the film and one gets a sense of anti-climax from the view point that it all could go horribly wrong. The theme of bondage makes an appearance often but only just takes one to the brink of danger and then all goes well.Is the film sending the message out that this kind of "foreplay" is FINE! If the film was making a point about the pitfalls of bondage and by extension the ugly ramifications of sad-masochism then maybe it would make a good moral point. Instead the film awkwardly jumps from one "sizzling" scene of Rourke feeding Basinger and blindfolding her to another. In a film that could have been good it falls flat on its face because it does not expand and extend the themes the film is MAYBE trying to relate; thus for me it doesn't have a plot nor a theme just a mixture of ideas.
I can't really see how anyone can have any interest whatsoever in seeing this movie. A woman meets a man, he wants to play games, she too, but only until she realise what she's missing. She leaves, and that's it really. It took 9 1/2 weeks before Elizabeth (Kim Basinger) left John (Mickey Rourke). She should have left him after 30 minutes and ended our misery.
A woman who deals in art starts to have a passionate love affair with a man named John. They make love everywhere they go and they play sexual games. The problem I had was that was all they did. There was no plot at all to this movie or I just didn't see it. The hot erotic passion was the best thing about this movie but I wanted something else to happen. Perhaps he could have been a serial killer or she could have had a secret. I just needed something and all that there was was a bunch of love making scenes. Not that's it was bad or anything, I just wanted more things to happen in the movie. Perhaps a coworker was sleeping with him too. Anything! I was greatly upset that this was all that there was. Mickey Rourke was so hot back then. I wonder what happened.
The main character is a whiny, irresponsible study of how to throw yourself a pity party. She loses it at the drop of a hat, acts pathetic, is schizophrenic, and left me wondering why on Earth she doesn't understand why these 'friends' of hers haven't called her in three years. (Get a clue, sister - you're a juvenile mess!) I couldn't stand her or the friends. I never felt connected to any of the characters. To make the entire movie even more unbearable, someone went far out of their way to put the world's most hideous collection of crocheted and knitted hats in existence on film for all of eternity (this alone should warrant someone be put on wardrobe probation for a decade!)<br /><br />The acting wasn't awful, but not really believable either, and in the end the only thing that I DID care about was the two hours I'm never going to get back. Don't waste your time - go catch up on a dentist appointment instead!
Before I begin, let me get something off my chest: I'm a huge fan of John Eyres' first film PROJECT: SHADOWCHASER. The film, a B-grade cross of both THE TERMINATOR & DIE HARD, may not be the work of a cinematic genius, but is a hugely entertaining action film that became a cult hit (& spawned two sequels & a spin off).<br /><br />Judge and Jury begins with Joseph Meeker, a convicted killer who was sent to Death Row following his capture after the so-called "Bloody Shootout" (which seems like a poor name for a killing spree – Meeker kills three people while trying to rob a convenience store), being led to the electric chair. There is an amusing scene where Meeker talks to the priest about living for sex but meeting his one true love (who was killed during the shootout), expressing his revenge for the person who killed her – Michael Silvano, a washed-up football star who spends his days watching his son Alex practicing football with his high school team (and ends up harassing his son's coach). But once executed, Meeker returns as a revenant (or as Kelly Perine calls "a hamburger without the fries"), whose sole aim is to get his revenge, which basically means making Silvano's life a misery.<br /><br />Let me point out the fact that Judge and Jury is not a true horror film. It is a supernatural action film, with Meeker chasing Silvano, using his ability to change form (which amounts to David Keith dressing up as everything from an Elvis impersonator, a French chef (with an accent as bad as his moustache), a drag queen, a clown & a stand-up comedian), a shotgun which fires explosive rounds & an invulnerability to death (although that doesn't stop Martin Kove from shooting Keith with a Desert Eagle), to pay Silvano back for killing Meeker's wife.<br /><br />Director John Eyres does not seem interested in characterisations, instead focusing solely on action scenes, which the film has plenty of. But that is the film's main flaw, since there's nothing to connect the action scenes together. The acting is surprisingly good, with Keith delivering the best performance, supported ably by Kove, as well as Paul Koslo, who plays the washed-up cop quite well. Kelly Perine is annoying as the cabbie who tries to help but makes the situation worse.
If this is not heavily featured on every list of "what not to watch", it should only be because those keeping that particular list are not aware of its existence, which, as long as that remains so, is the acceptable alternative. I'm not kidding you, this is a *bad* "movie". Joseph Meeker returns from the dead, with various vague, undefined supernatural powers, the most employed of which would seem to be appearing in new, increasingly comical-looking and ridiculous(and never scary or creepy... in general, when this goes for the latter of those, it winds up just being bizarre, and attempts at the former just don't work, period) outfits and stereotypes/archetypes, and he is portrayed by David Keith(whom I respect in... well, at least Daredevil), doing a more often than not terribly inconsistent(which could also have to do with script) and often over the top performance. A character or two have personalities so unbelievably irritating that they're painful to watch. The editing thinks it's considerably more clever than it really is(and what on Earth was with the red tint for the flashbacks?). Cinematography... oh, dear. Framing, coverage, effective use of angle(that one could be attributed some to editing, too, perhaps), please, guys, stop me when I say something you've ever heard about the existence of. As far as the technical side goes, this is a pretty lousy excuse for something more worthwhile to put in the projector than unexposed film. But why stop there? The plot is just poor. The basic idea's been done, and it's been done so much better than this(The Crow would be one). The way it's told is gimmicky, and while there is some explanation behind the flashbacks, it still doesn't satisfy. Pacing is about non-existent. The lead is distinctly unlikeable, and there's more personality in a barn door, not to mention that those are also considerably less wooden. Kelly Perine and Thomas Ian Nicholas? What in the name of all that is good and just(pun intended) are you doing in this? Perine, you were already funny before this, on The Drew Carey Show, Nicholas, well, I haven't seen you in anything preceding American Pie, but if nothing else, you *were* funny later on, and in those productions, the amusement was intentional. Dialog is... the less said, the better. Language is unrestrained, and tends to be stupid. The violence is shoddily done, and they don't even seem to care to try to hide it(hinting at it might have been the smarter strategy). Characters, don't get me started. Why spend so much energy on portraying unexciting, at times utterly illogical, events? The more you think about this, the worse it gets. It's not even passable as a "bad horror flick", or a B movie(it may very well pass through the rest of the alphabet, and go further still), it couldn't scare you on the scariest day of your life if it had an electrified scaring machine. I recommend this only to people who want to disprove how bad this is, and don't say I didn't warn ya. 1/10
So much for JUDGE AND JURY, which lives up to its nonsense title. What good is there? The lighting is terribly foggy! Another horror movie you ask? Well, that's perfectly explainable. David Keith actually does pretty good at disguising clowns, chefs, and other shenanigans while being the killer who escaped death row. But overall, despite some new twists, it's reasonably stupid. Unapix has been putting out some ludicrous productions recently, and this one only means so much. We, the jury, find this film guilty for its indecent exposure to many of us sitting around believing it's a total waste of our time!
I rented this thinking it would be pretty good just by the cover of the movie case. Judge and Jury started out pretty good killer chasing the man who killed his wife on a bike with a cool gun, but this movie got progressively stupider as it went on. David Keith is awesome actor especially when he plays a role like this too bad the movie was a piece of crap it really wasted his talent. Judge and Jury was well plain dumb I gave it a 3 should have gave it a 2, I gave it an extra star just because David Keith's gun was cool.
It`s funny how instinct warns you of something . For example as soon as the company credits read Nu Image I knew instinctively I`d seen a really crap film by them somewhere before but couldn`t remember where . Nevertheless I just knew JUDGE AND JURY was going to be crap and it was . Maybe I`m psychic ?<br /><br />!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!<br /><br />The opening is rather violent with several people getting blown away for no more reason than being in the wrong place at the wrong time . I don`t know about you but I`m geting slightly fed up with exploitive violence onscreen nowadays along with bad language , especially if it`s spouted by actors as bad as the ones in this movie . Anyway the plot revolves around the bad dude getting executed and coming back to reek revenge on the man who shot his wife . Oh did I mention the bad dude and his wife murdered a couple of people on their wedding night ? Yeah he`s a serious badass mofo . In fact he`s so bad ( And I don`t mean the acting - I`ll get to that in a moment ) that he`s impossible to take seriously and this is before he`s executed only to return as Elton John , Elvis , a French chef etc . I wonder if Keith David got paid for this ? because he looks lke he`s having so much fun on screen that`s the only reason he`s playing the role . What a pity this reviewer didn`t have any fun whatsoever watching JUDGE AND JURY . Hey maybe the producers could send me Keith`s fee ? Gawd only knows I deserve it.<br /><br />I disliked this movie a lot as if you hadn`t guessed and my main beef isn`t with the stupid plot or the cheap production values but with its attitude to violence . If like me you`ve had a wine bottle cracked over your head or been kicked in the ribs very hard several times you`ll know violence is an obscene painful thing , but JUDGE AND JURY will have you believe that if you`re thrown through a window , crash through some bannisters and fall twenty odd feet onto a table not only will you be unhurt but you`ll be able to outrun a couple of rabid devil dogs . It could of course be argued that any film starring Sly , Arnie or Bruce also suffers from this same dishonest showing of violence but with JUDGE AND JURY it yanked my chain
This movie has EVERY cliché of every terrorism or airliner crisis movie.<br /><br />However, it is not entirely unwatchable, thanks to good performances by Rowland, Loken and Smallwood (and maybe Enberg).<br /><br />What IS amazingly bad, though, is the computer animations they try to pass off as live action scenes. Boy, oh boy, the CGI scenes in "The Last Starfighter", filmed in 1984, are better than these (filmed 17 years later). The feeling of cheepnis really sends shivers down your spine.<br /><br />A pity, this could have been a much better movie with a little more budget and taste.
It must be a long time ago that I have seen such a bad movie. I have to say it is really hard to make a good and/or realistic movie about air disaster but this movie was such a waste of time and money. Also I think this is an unofficial way trying to get a bad reputation on Airbus. First, the cockpit look a lot like an Airbus cockpit, second you got a stick, third using computers to control rudders/elevators/aileron via "fly by wire". When I saw this movie I thought like the intention of the film was "don't fly with computerized airplanes like Airbus, use Boeing instead they have a direct connection of steering and rudders."<br /><br />All I can say: Bad story, horrible acting (most of the actors), worst film trick ever...
I rented this movie because I love Kristanna Loken and I've watched her on many TV shows and since she's having her 15 minutes of fame nowadays with her new T3 movie I wanted to check out what other movies she has been in.<br /><br />She's just OK in terms of acting. Not good and not bad either. She makes up for everything by being extremely gorgeous. YUMMMMM<br /><br />Rodney Rowland was quite a surprise as the hero. He provided the only solid good acting in the movie. He's a very good actor and should probably be an action star.<br /><br />Besides Kristanna being OK and Rodney being really good everything else about this movie is garbage in its purest form.<br /><br />A computer hacker hacks into the system of a plane from the ground and using a joystick he tries to slam the plane into a nuclear power plant ..... or something. And of course there are the heroes who stand in his way and ruin his game.<br /><br />This is one of the worst scripts I have ever seen and no wonder it was a low budget flick.<br /><br />What's shocking is that this movie was made in 2001 and it has way too many similarities to the September 11th tragedies.<br /><br />Why do they make movies like this in the first place?<br /><br />Panic * - one star (a waste of too good actors) (also a waste of time) (also known as Air Panic)
It amazes me that someone would actually consider spending some money on a movie like this. Really. Let's forget for a second that the plot doesn't even give a single hint of originality... Most of the movies today are based on other movies' stories, so a "simple" lack of originality is not that big a deal. <br /><br />But I can hardly believe that none of the guys involved in the movie had never even got on a plane before shooting this. Because, let's be honest, that would be the only excuse to come up with something so ridiculous. To be sincere I think a 6-years-old child with a fake camera could have come up with something technically much more believable. Some examples following.<br /><br />The scene that really drove me crazy is when the engines turn off when they regain control of the plane. When they have to turn them on again the guy on the radio says something like "Ok, push the 1 and 2 buttons on the dashboard". Now, those are not buttons. They should not be pushed, they should actually be pulled up and toward the pilot. That's something only plane-addicted would know, you say? Wrong. The next scene you can see their fingers pushing the "buttons"... And of course the so called "buttons" don't move at all! Not even a single millimeter! (And note that I haven't even mentioned the fact that aircraft engines are not like cars engine, that you just turn the key and the magic happens... You have to do quite a complicated procedure to turn them on...) Come on guys! You could have faked the movements at least!! Not to mention the hilarious final impact, where the plane crashes against every single thing along the runway (Light poles along the runway? What where they thinking?!)... And the wings don't even get ripped off! It happened to me too, once... Except the plane was made of Lego! What about the flight attendant? She's actually so skilled that she perfectly knows where the "aux 1" and "aux 2" fuses are, in the middle of the wires behind the cockpit. Should we mention, then, the guy that can drive an ambulance _and_ fly a plane behind the ambulance using his computer? And how did he turn the other airplane engines on?<br /><br />Really, I could go on hours with this stuff. This is the dumbest movie I've ever come across, and I'm including garbage like Alone In The Dark and other stuff in the list. Want to do yourself a favor? Don't watch it.
normally,i would say i loved this movie.not for acting,although that was OK.not for the script,which was so-so.the reason i would have normally loved this movie is for the intense action,which starts from the get go and doesn't end until the final credits roll.but,the problem with this movie,and i felt it was a big problem,was the horrible CGI.it looks like they ran out of money and couldn't complete the the effects shots. a lot of the effects look lime they are in their very roughest form.since it is obvious they didn't have enough money to finish the movie,they should not have released it.i actual found the effects insulting.it seems obvious they didn't care about making a decent end product for the consumer.if it weren't for that,i would give this movie a much higher rating.my vote for Air Panic is a 3/10
So it's a space movie. But it's low budget. You ask, "what about the effects?" The effects are at times good, and at times really, really bad. I mean bad. And notice I started with the effects.<br /><br />There's a story here, but it's told in what I think is the wrong order. I don't mean a Tarantino style wrong order. I mean, it's told in a completely nonsensical arrangement. Most of it's about a mother (in the future, because you know, it's sci-fi) as told by her daughter, which is mostly exposition done in narrative from the daughter's perspective. Only once you're through the first hour and hear Paul Darrow's voice as a computer do you realize how much more tolerable the constant narrative would have been if he'd read it. This narrative is so constant and inclusive, that the actors on screen hardly say a word for the first hour.<br /><br />There's also a lesson here for you up and coming filmmakers: if you're not doing 2001 and want to have some action (this one does), then PLEASE hire a good fight choreographer. Otherwise, your fights will look like, well, what's in BATTLESPACE. And notice the title has the word "battle" in it. Ugh.<br /><br />I think this might be the classic scenario of trying to make a movie based on nothing more than a concept. And some effects. My biggest surprise is seeing the IMDb listing this film as costing $1.8 million. When you compare it to something like PRIMER, which did better with a budget of a few thousand, you realize in low budget film-making, it's all about the story. I wasn't expecting much - but I was STILL disappointed. Two out of ten stars.
I made it through half of this, but was not enough of a masochist to see it all. The first half of the film had next to no dialog ! Almost everything was voice over commentary to carry the story. The scriptwriter forgot that sometimes less is more and tried to explain several millennium of detailed history in the voice over. At the same time he forgot to do any character development. Most science fiction fans don't require huge amounts of character development, but it would be nice to know why the two main characters who survived the destruction of the space fleet together ended up fighting each other. <br /><br />There are some good things going on in the film. The soundtrack was well done. Some of the computer generated graphics are very good, but others were just mediocre.
I am willing to tolerate almost anything in a Sci-Fi movie, but this was almost intolerable. While a few of the special effects are very cool (landscapes) this is no 'battlespace' rather a disjointed weird mother/daughter relationship with sci-fi concepts thrown in. The acting (wooden), framing and shooting (kindergarten film school) and with "hand-to-hand" combat scenes funnier than any Hong Kong chopsocky movie, this film bores. The plot line is convoluted and the devices used to move the plot along (narrator), unexplained scene jumps and plenty of deus ex machina reinforce the idea that writer cum director is not a good idea. Save your love of Sci-Fi for something else instead of losing a bit of it here.
Today I had a real craving for a sci-fi movie and so I decided to check out Battlespace. Sadly, that was one of my biggest mistakes this year.<br /><br />I see that the director, Neil Johnson, has directed over 500 music videos, and I suggest he goes back to that. Music videos are a perfectly good form of entertainment, and not everybody can cut it making movies.<br /><br />The worst part of this movie is probably the voice over. And that says a lot since the special effects are appalling at times. Voice over didn't work in Blade Runner, and it doesn't work here. The first hour or so is spent watching the main character walk through the desert, while her daughter tells the story. I think the story could have made a great movie, but not like this.<br /><br />The second worst part are the effects. They are simply bad and they don't blend into the rest of the picture at all, so you simply don't believe in them. And absolutely all the frames in the movie has been filtered, and not in a good way. Filtering used as an effect is good. 90 minutes of it, bad.<br /><br />And what is it with all the gadgets talking all the time, and not shutting up!?!? If I had used technology like that I would have gone mad. I was just waiting for the guns to blurt out with: "I am awfully sorry, but I seem to have run out of ammunition." No, stay away. This movie is just not worth the time.
You see a movie titled 'battlespace', what are you going to think? Space battles with cool as heck explosions and everyone shooting at each other. What do you get with this movie? Well, you do get SOME space battle goodness, but for a great majority of the time it's just stupid people wandering around doing almost nothing. NO ONE TALKS!!!! What is this nonsense?! We get a narrators, and a ton of British computers, but thats about it. The main protagonist must be the worst one I have ever seen, as she doesn't even have any dialog, and sleepwalks though scenes (literately!). Some of the things happening are just stupid, like they use a rocket (like to go to space) for basic transportation planet side, why not just use one of those nifty space ships? In any case, the music is almost non-existent, with a few boring dull lifeless samples, but the main thing you will notice is the Atari sound effects the ships use...you have got to be kidding me. I can also tell that the budget was low, because everything looks fake, which is not what you would expect from a movie, especially what should be a super cool space battle movie. I seriously think the budget must have been in the double digits it is so bad, making you laugh more than you should at how plain bad it is. I am starting to think that they paid the actors based on how much dialog they had, because their is very little here (if you can't tell already that is my main gripe here, as I probably said that like 3 times already).
In a world where humans can live forever you spend the entire movie wishing they would die. First off if you insist on watching this movie do two things first put it on mute, don't worry you miss a plot, hell they don't even talk for the first 70 min of an 87 min movie, after putting on mute you must now hit fast forward till the main chick dies don't worry even if your paying attention you won't know why or how she died. Once you get to the "good part" take it of mute. Oh, how will you know the good part, wait for an elevator scene with two morons in space suits with WWII weapons. These weapons won't seem like much till you realize that the first protagonist had a laser tag pistol and a bandoleer of CO2 cartridges. The only remnants of a plot take place between a glowing ball and a semi hot chick who looks like she was attacked by Wolverine. After listening to the "plot", you will wish they went back to not talking. Of the four people that are in this movie none of them can remotely act, not even a little bit, you will have better luck witnessing acting at a kindergarten theater.<br /><br />To comment on the special on the special effects, let me just say "Wow", no really you will spend the entire movie saying to your self "Where did this movie's 1.8 million dollar budget go!" Seriously it will leave you in aw of the magnitude of ineptness. The best "sets" are basically windows wallpaper backgrounds. The Ships are basically flying wrenches, Wait some are barges that kinda look like whales . I have never heard so many made up words in my whole life. They have buttons on their wrist(large pedometers) that can put them in "fight mode" and super runing mode (makes them super blurry). This will seriously drain their power reserves but they find bits of wires to chew on to regain their strength. The explosions were less impressive than my fourth of July, I only had sparklers.<br /><br />So the plot as far as I can figure goes something like this "mother" is a space ship captain and goes to the desert for a while rides a rocket dies. Then her daughter 6000 years in the future ( no I am not exaggerating) recalls her mother's memories through some sort of capsule. Anyways they jabber on for another 10 min and then the cause a big bang. Yes the Same "Big Bang" that started our solar system. It's explained how she goes back in time or something, it does not really matter it happened i guess. Roll Credits Seriously the whole script was mercifully on one sheet of paper, unless that actually detailed any of the dreadfully fight scenes.<br /><br />After watching the credits I have now laughed more than I did the entire movie, the jobs the created like catering supervisor "galactius sarcophagus" and then the special thanks to George Lucas was just the best.<br /><br />I really wasn't expecting that much for a movie I paid 99 cents for but seriously some body owes me for this. Most frequent comment heard after the movie "I want my life back". You have to admire that some but put time and effort in to this movie but seriously, why ?
Let me break down this film for you...<br /><br />The first fifteen minutes are a showcase for terrible special effects. I'm not one to nitpick about special effects, but what you've got to understand is that if you can't afford good special effects, you shouldn't anchor your film around special effects. Starships fire blobs of color at each other, flaring into stock explosions, and careening past moons with polygon counts low enough to count with your fingers. You will have no idea what is happening. It will not make sense.<br /><br />The second act involves a woman walking in the desert. At this point you will be treated to drab scenery, and illogical, boring fight scenes. Nobody speaks. Nothing interesting happens. The protagonist's goals are unclear, and are not very compelling. This goes on for about 45 minutes.<br /><br />Then in a five-minute montage, she sneaks into an enemy base, straps herself to a rocket, tries to destroy a doomsday weapon, fails, and dies.<br /><br />None of this has any bearing on the eventual direction of the film.<br /><br />In the last twenty minutes, basically the chick's memories get transferred to her daughter, who goes into stasis for a very large number of years, learning the secrets of mankind. After this, we see the first, and last five-minute segment of human interaction in the film, then the new heroine is forced to choose whether she wants to become part of the material that causes the big bang or not. You know. Because when the universe is collapsing, you get to decide if you want to be a part of it.<br /><br />She chooses yes. BUT THE MEMORIES OF MANKIND SURVIVE IN A CAPSULE. Maybe we won't make the same mistakes again, huh? If you like movies with characters, then this is not a good movie for you. The lead roles could have been fulfilled nicely by any old wind-up toy capable of staying right-side-up while walking through sand. All of the story is told through painfully dull narration.<br /><br />The film tries to seem deep by throwing together a whole bunch of undeveloped science-fiction ideas. There are enough concepts here to fuel a number of films, but as it stands, it's bloated with completely irrelevant details. Two-thirds of this film could have been reduced to a 45-second montage. Instead, the narrator fills in a novella's worth of backstory without ever giving us a reason to care what happens to the characters.<br /><br />There are good ideas in here, but nobody watches films to see ideas ineptly explained. People watched films to be entertained. This film does not entertain.
OK, please believe me when I say that this is a terrible, terrible, sci-fi movie. Its done so poorly that much of the film plays out as unintentional surrealism and its absolutely a 100% waste of time. Awful, but somehow also deeply unfunny. I watched this as a double feature with "Recon 2020: The Caprini Massacre" and although "Battlespace" WAS an incredibly superior film, that's not saying much. The plot of "Battlespace" is so completely convoluted that its impossible to follow. The narration is cryptic, often nonsensical, seemingly endless, and thoroughly exhausting. Literally half the film is duplicative scenes of the female lead, who looks like Brian Bosworth, walking through the desert. The movie actually starts out pretty cool, but then nosedives into pooptown and somehow continues to deteriorate, minute by minute. Absolutely horrible and truly an Absurdist Endurance Test. Zero stars. ---|--- Reviews by Flak Magnet
The film begins with a 30 minute explanation about the war, the human cyborgs, battles, history, and then dumps 2 actors into a gravel pit. They run around this gravel pit/desert area for about an hour shooting at each other. That's it. Must have cost about £10.00 to make, with change. Avoid.<br /><br />Marks out of ten: Acting -9 Sets 1 Costumes -9 Direction -50 Production 1 Titled intro 4<br /><br />I think to improve this film would be to: Lose the commentary. (Let the watcher decide what's going on). Remove some of the awful CGI. Add some techno rave music to it. They might just rescue it.......
I knew it would be a bad movie when I rented it but I hoped for a good bad movie. Oh well, had fun making fun of the endless sand trudging, eating camel dung (well, actually eggplant) and weird grimacing acting from I think it was about five actors. The DVD needs a director's commentary so that I can find out what he was thinking...or if he was at all. I can't believe they actually went to England, Austrialia and wherever to film this...could have been done ANYWHERE. Would have been better if they had managed to get her naked. The best line of the movie? "He waiting for his upgrades." "Yup, still waiting". Now that WAS FUNNY! If anyone had more than 3 pages of dialog (beyond the narrator....SHUT UP ALREADY) then I'll watch it again.
This movie was rented for free, I had no misconception about this being a very bad movie. I rented it for Thanksgiving because we eat turkey and then the family watches an awful movie. So you ask, what makes this movie so bad you gave it only 2 stars? Dialog. The lack of dialog makes this a movie perfect for a deaf audience. In fact if you rent this, just turn the volume down to zero and pop in any heavy metal CD from your favorite artist. I know you will enjoy it better. The plot of this holiday turkey was so encumbered with tech and geek speak you need a translator for the narrative. Now for all you people who enjoy good sci-fi effects... eh, they are not much better than video game trailers or cut scenes in cases worse. The actors, um both of them, are not much to look at either. They say nothing much through out the entire movie. Many of the technical aspects will make you laugh like the scene where the hero straps herself to a missile and fires it at the city 70km away (it never showed how she landed). The scene before that we see a robotic sentry fire at her with a cannon from 12 feet away and he misses multiple shots. Also we are told that the political division between the antagonist and protagonist is bio-tech (genetically enhanced humans) vs cyber-tech (machine enhanced humans) but both seem to be cyborgs or enhanced humans. What told me this was a bad movie at the rental store was the cover that looked like a video game cover art and there was only the one copy, good new releases have many copies available.
I have no idea what these people were thinking when they made this film. No plot, very limited action, and what is with the 3rd person commentary throughout the film???? Instead of running around the planet to shoot on all of these locations, they should have spent some money on script writing and actors. What acting there was, was lousy. This was 90 minutes of my life I will never be able to get back. I should bill the director for the cost of renting this film. To the director and the writers of this film....please quit now. This film should have a tag on the front of it saying beware of boredom. The only good thing I can say about this film, is the computer generation. It's OK as generation is. This movie should never have a sequel....ever.
I watched the first 10 minutes and it bored me to death. So, I fast forward all the way through the end. This movie must be the worst of all in the low budget sci-fi movies category so far. Bad acting, cast, directions, Lara Craft custom imitation, story, plot, everything! Through out the entire movie, I think that there maybe only 6 to 7 people in the entire cast, but ONLY two of them started in the entire movie. I was expecting something like the Starship Trooper, but it was nothing close to it. I was fooled by the movie title and the picture on the DVD cover. Don't waste your time watching this boring and bad movie. Come to think of it, I wonder why did they even bother to put out bad movies like this one?
I'd never heard of zero budget "auteur" Neil Johnson before seeing "Battlespace" on DVD at Hollywood Video. A few minutes into the movie I realize this isn't a bad thing. Like many straight to video Sci-Fi movies, this is a film dominated largely by overused bad special effects and a constant parade of pretentious sci-fi concepts that fail to create a story.<br /><br />Viewers are tortured with a religious sounding text introduction, then a spoken introduction followed by a narration by the main character's daughter. To me this seemed like a smoke screen to mask a film with militantly ugly visuals and zero character emphasis. Some people on here seem all too ready to take this film seriously and swallowed it's seemingly new age messages hook line and sinker. These favorable reviews must come from the same kind of people who can delude themselves into thinking that things like "Battlefield Earth" was a brilliant movie, or that Shasta is just as good as Coke.<br /><br />Those who were lured in by the cheesy cover art can look forward to lousy acting (in small doses, spaced with long blocks of people not talking), rotten computer animated effects (in extra large doses), and irritating talking computers. What you won't get is excitement, emotional stimulation, memorable dialogue, or a good story.<br /><br />"Battlespace" is impenetrable bull and the constant irritant of the narration proves it. Real science fiction, hell, real film-making, is about characters and their dialogue, not special effects and dull predictions. This is right down there with similar direct to video sci-fi like "Cl.One" and "Recon 2022". If the boredom of "Strange Horizons" and "Alien Visitor" is something you seek out, by all means, watch the crap out of this. If you enjoy good storytelling and hate fake lens flares, you're better off with a real movie.
First i have to say that i don't like since fiction movies at all so much! But there are some movies i liked really. This is one of the others ;) I've the same opinion like some (most)others here. The Film is still going on in my back, but the few effects are really not enough to watch the whole time....I think what they have done well are the animated sceneries with 3 suns and 4 Moons, but its the only i liked. There are no intelligent dialogs (are there???). But its a Great Film for everybody who loves Lara Croft or some other Girls in HOT-PANTS... ;)<br /><br />For the directors: " Stop to try again, PLEASE!!! "
...and that's saying something. No matter how bad a movie gets, I'm normally able to sit through it so I can judge the full movie. Through this one, I made it about 20 minutes.<br /><br />Maybe it was the DVD, or maybe it was my laptop, but I could not hear the dialogue, even with the volume turned all the way up. Sound effects were fine, so with the volume turned up to hear the dialogue, I was blowing out my eardrums with the effects. As much as I wanted to see this thing through, I wasn't going to sacrifice my hearing for it.<br /><br />From what little I could tell about the plot, the movie was one big flashback by the main character's daughter. It seems the mother, a military pilot, had to flee her ship because the one person on her ship she trusted turned out to be one of the enemy and now he is pursuing her across a desert planet.<br /><br />The only thing I liked about the movie was the look of the main character; there was something I liked about her hairstyle.<br /><br />Oh well, looks like this one is going into the dumpster...
Nothing to spoil here at all but this could be a SPOILER so beware.<br /><br />Special effects were on the level of a video game -- about five years ago, or perhaps of the original Star Trek. The acting was just pathetic -- some cheesy looking blonde treking across the desert while a voice in the background droned on. And on. And on. This was the trek and drone half that I actually made it through. Progress is interrupted by a few fights. Ships blow each other up for no real reason that is apparent episodically. Again, it's not that there is a real fight that you would expect from a movie, more like a cheap video game. Boi-ing! Boi-ing! Ship explodes. Next ship. Apparently some of the ships are looking for the blonde. Here in the far future, ships must be nearsighted and astigmatic because many of them pass directly overhead of the stylishly dressed futuristic babe in black but never see her. <br /><br />Then there are a couple of choreographed fights that look like something put on by high school kids. Again, the crude video game mentality is prominent. The combatants shift to "Fight Mode" by flipping something on their wrists, and a loud computerized voice echoes and flashes "Fight Mode". That must be a dandy design if you are trying to sneak up on somebody. Then you go to a big power station which looks just like a current day power line tower and plug in to charge back up. LOL, I'm not kidding, you can't make this stuff up, it's like watching a freaking video game from about 2000 only the acting is better in the game.<br /><br />More trekking. Then she shows up at "The City". (Lame sound trek gets even lamer here.) She gets into a fight with a mech robot of the future who cannot hit her with his big gun, even though she runs right in front of him, about five feet in front of him. Obviously robots of the far future are about as useful as toaster ovens in a fight. She throws sand in its eyes and beats it to death by throwing rocks at it. rofl, I was at about 95% of tolerance by that point, my nausea circuits flashing red.<br /><br />In the next scene she ends up strapped to a rocket with some rope. I kid you not, tied right to the outside of a rocket. This is supposed to be an advanced form of transportation. At that point I bailed. <br /><br />This movie is an utter disgrace for a movie made at the present time. Just a freaking disgrace. There was a drippy story but the movie distracted from it -- somebody droning on about "mother" constantly. <br /><br />I gave it a two because there were a few scenes which displayed some pretty nice artwork of a science fiction nature as background. Unfortunately the plot, acting, action, cinematography, and narrative distracted from this artwork and degraded it. No kidding.
You just cant touch NRFPTP! The new crop is just awful. The jokes are not funny. Some of the troupe make me want to stop watching TV all together. Lorne - you have let your creation go down the toilet. The guests sometimes are good, the bands are mostly garbage. Weekend update, Seth has to tell the audience when to laugh.....Seth would get a proper reception in a Baghdad cafe though...Make sure Andy goes with him... The show has about 10 jokes in all and they just keep rehashing them over and over. Even the segments that are obviously not funny. Offending people has become the name of the game, but they cant even do that right. Just offensively. I am so disappointed with what has happened to the show, but now I also know it is safe to go OUT on a Saturday night!
I was a huge "SNL" fan back in the days of Chevy Chase, John Belushi, Dan Ackroyd, Gilda Radner and many other memorable stars. But every time I've tried to watch it in the past more than ten years I've been very disappointed and sometimes even disgusted with it. Ten years ago I believed the show couldn't possibly survive, since it had become so utterly bereft of the sort of humor I could understand, and yet it kept plugging along, which I've always found dismaying, wondering how in the world anyone could possibly find its lame humor at all funny. Whenever I've tuned in over the past decade I've never once been glad that I did. Indeed, I've always been annoyed at myself for staying up and wasting my time. For me, the absolute low point came several years ago when a popular young male actor I liked a lot was the guest host. At one point that night he played a big star, perhaps himself, and in the skit, the character "Mongo," I think, played by Chris Kattan, again I think, ended up in the backseat of a car with him. What followed was Mongo being forced up and down and up and down on the actor's lap, with him screaming hysterically as he was presumably sodomized. The audience was laughing their heads off and I'm shaking my head, amazed that they could find that remotely funny, amazed that NBC would even broadcast such a thing. In the years since then I've repeatedly tried to approach the show with an open mind, hoping that it might regain the sly sense of humor I adored for so many years. But, up until just a week ago, for me, it hasn't done so. Not even close. One exception: During the 2008 presidential campaign, I thought that Tina Fey was fantastic, and she was the one performer who kept me tuning in. But those Sarah Palin skits, while hysterical, were still not enough to save the rest of the 90 minutes and I would always regret not turning it off as soon as I heard the familiar "It's 'Saturday Night!!!'"
This show was an amazing, fresh & innovative idea in the 70's when it first aired. The first 7 or 8 years were brilliant, but things dropped off after that. By 1990, the show was not really funny anymore, and it's continued its decline further to the complete waste of time it is today.<br /><br />It's truly disgraceful how far this show has fallen. The writing is painfully bad, the performances are almost as bad - if not for the mildly entertaining respite of the guest-hosts, this show probably wouldn't still be on the air. I find it so hard to believe that the same creator that hand-selected the original cast also chose the band of hacks that followed. How can one recognize such brilliance and then see fit to replace it with such mediocrity? I felt I must give 2 stars out of respect for the original cast that made this show such a huge success. As it is now, the show is just awful. I can't believe it's still on the air.
I just spent about 1.5 hours waiting for the movie to begin. It didn't. The story is vague and uninteresting, the speed in the movie is absent and the voiceover irritating. I can't understand why movies like this one are even distributed.
Beats me how people can describe this adolescent exercise as film noir. True there's a gun & a bottle & a dame & the lead is a private eye, but that ain't what makes the genre, folks. This thing plays like reheated TV cop show stuff - lots of bloody beating & lousy continuity - with a dash of Chinatown memories thrown in. Pretty hard to watch beyond the first 10 minutes. You want contemporary feel, watch anything by John Dahl.
This show is based on the concept that loud + obnoxious + repetition = funny. The comedic writing is non-existent, in fact I face serious repercussions by even comparing it to entertainment of any sort. Here is the premise. Two girls accidentally get their shenanigans posted on the internet and hilarity ensues after their initial success, they contrive the idea that they should make a web-cast to showcase their brilliance. <br /><br />OK, so where should I begin? Let's start with the laugh track, the oft used but never successful reminder that, we the viewing audience should laugh. According to the foley guys, this show is the funniest thing on the planet. We should all be dropping loads into our pants because of the brilliance of the humor placed before us. The laugh track seriously goes every few seconds. It quite possibly usurps Scooby-doo for the king of laugh track over-use. <br /><br />Then the in-your-face-shout-at-the-top-of-our-lungs-the-craziest-grouping-of- words-to-seem-silly trick is also employed with little to no success. Whoa and let's not forget creating new words to sound funny trick. That is web-o-licious and poop-tastic? What the hell... <br /><br />Finally, the acting. I can't entirely complain here. The actors are young and inexperienced, but this should and can be corrected by good professional help. Because of the inexperience nick should be helping the actors define their craft. Instead, in usual nick fashion, the actors are placed in front of the camera and told "act". Which for the most part is robotic recitation of lines, missed timing and overall epic fail.<br /><br />The lack of anything in this show makes it a disgusting representation of how not to be funny. Don't waste your time. This show is debasing to all of humanity
Look, I've practically lost all hope in Nickelodeon after watching their newest "hit," The Naked Brothers Band show, and "ICarly" is no exception! If you haven't noticed, ICarly is now the #1 hit tween sitcom on television right now! After hearing this, I decided to watch a few episodes myself to see what the hype was about! I have one word to describe this show in general..."EFFORTLESS!!!" I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT DAN SCHNEIDER WOULD GO THIS LOW AND MAKE SOMETHING THIS CRAPPY!!! IT'S HORRIBLE!!! Let me give you the details...<br /><br />The ICarly cast starts out with a girl by the name of Carly Shay, played by Miranda Cosgrove! Carly, unfortunately throughout the episodes, doesn't really have a personality so to speak of! I guess she's supposed to be the average girl in the show!(because a LOT of people have an Army veteran for a dad, an artist for a brother, and a popular teen web show taped and produced with thousands of dollars of equipment!) and to say the most about Miranda, HER ACTING IS PATHETIC!!! She sounds like a 3 year old girl with Tourette's syndrome on a sugar-high half the time! <br /><br />Next, we have Sam Puckett(good GOD where do they get these names!?) played by Jennette McCurdy! Sam is the "CO-HOST" of Carly's web show!(Wait a minute, if Sam hosts the show with Carly, shouldn't the show be called "ICarly and Sam?" I bet Sam feels like she's been ripped off!)Sam is supposed to be the bully in the cast!(Yeah, because EVERY girl bully wears girly skin-tight shirts and pants with blonde hair extentions!) She also, I think, is supposed to be a Tomboy, too. I would find this a little funny, but it's her Cliché PUNS THAT RUIN IT!!! The "Give me a bucket of fried chicken" pun is overused WAY TOO MUCH!!! GIVE THIS GIRL A SCRIPT!!!! and GIVE HER A COFFEE because, don't get me wrong Jennette's acting is okay, but, throughout half the episodes, she looks like she's about ready to fall asleep!!! <br /><br />Next we have Freddie Benson, played by Nathan Kress. Freddie is the technical producer for Carly and Sam's show! There's not much to say about Freddie other than the fact that he's a techno geek and has a crush on Carly, which never works out! HERE WE GO AGAIN WITH THE Clichés!!! DOES IT NOT STOP!!!? Nathan's acting is also okay, but seems to get excessive sometimes! HE'S TOO BORING!!! <br /><br />Lastly, and my most favorite, we have Spencer Shay, played by Jerry Trainor! Let me make this perfectly clear; IF IT WEREN'T FOR HIM, THIS DIRT CLUSTER OF A SHOW WOULD BE MUD!!! Spencer is the one who keeps the show alive! Spencer is the older brother of Carly! If you had a little 5 year old who was both on a Caffeine high and constipated, you would have this character summed up! Spencer also earns money from being an artist!(hmmm... I wonder...) You would think that a professional artist would make promising sculptures... yeah, I just love sarcasm! HIS ART IS PRETTY MUCH UTTER CRAP!!!! I mean, what kind of sculpture name is "MERRY SNIFFMUS!!?" WHAT!!? THAT'S ABOUT AS MUCH CREATIVITY AS A HILLARY CLINTON SPEECH ON DRUGS!!!! IT'S STUPID!!!! <br /><br />THE PLOT SETTINGS AND MORALS ARE EFFORTLESS BAGS OF POOP!!!! These shows are now telling kids that stealing, lying, and being an asshole to your parents is a GOOD THING!!! IF THESE ARE THE KINDS OF AWFUL CRAPPY SHOWS THAT THEY'RE THROWING AT KIDS THESE DAYS, THEN I DON'T WANT TO TAKE PART IN WATCHING ANY OF THEM!!!! THIS IS BIGGEST PIECE OF CRAP I'VE EVER WATCHED ON TV! BAR NONE!!! NICKELODEON, "I'M THROUGH WITH YOU!!!!" END OF STORY!!!! 1/10
Yes, we all know about Dan Schneider's odd little fascination with making shows with young kids and iCarly is no exception. See young girls wiggle their toes and stick their tongues out for the camera and wear skimpy clothes and bikini's. Yes, it makes you wonder if these shows were made for teens or for some older degenerate crowd. Either way the show isn't that good when compared to Dan Schneiders other shows like the far superior Amanda Show & Drake and Josh.<br /><br />The show is about a brother and sister (Carly and Spencer) living alone and having to get by on their own while their father is off in the Army and their mother is strangely absent from their lives. Carly has a mean spirited friend named Sam and they do a very well produced, award winning web show called iCarly with their little school friend Freddie. The episodes deal with their lives in and around the web show and their hi jinx at school.<br /><br />Carly Shay is a young, all knowing web personality/ business woman/ producer played by Miranda Cosgrove, a young actress who relies on talking very very loudly and fast to get her point across and making odd faces. Her brother Spencer is a somewhat mean-spirited, dim-wit and eccentric artist played by Jerry Trainor, who tries a bit to hard to be like Jim Carrey and whose comedy style seems to be aimed at the young male audience who'd like this type of Joey Gladstone humor. Then there's Sam Puckett, an unlikable, mean little, lying thief of a brat who needs an attitude adjustment played by Jeanette McCurdy who clearly wears hair extensions as you can see them disappear then reappear from scene to scene. And finally there's Freddie Benson the web shows nerdy cameraman and technical adviser, who has a major crush on Carly but will obviously get nowhere with her who's played by Nathan Kress.<br /><br />Other secondary characters come and go such as Freddies mother, Carly's grandfather, annoying teachers and many of their annoying little school friends to round out the cast. Most of the comedy is mean spirited, like blowing up Lewbert the Doorman as a gag, throwing a water balloon at a teacher and knocking over the table of young girl scouts selling cookies. All of the adults come off as complete idiots while the children are all knowing, and certain main characters have absolutely no morals. Lying, cheating, stealing and violence all are acceptable in this children's show created and written by Dan Schneider, Yes... it's a children's show! What more could the young viewers ask for?? Well, with Dan Schneider we can expect to have the young girls dress in tight clothes and bikini's and do some odd things like sticking their tongues out for the camera and eating banana's.<br /><br />Shows like this are just what the young crowd likes though and I guess no worse then any of the other garbage Nick shovels at its young crowd. There's always fans to be found for anything seen on TV, at least this is a bit better then most of the stuff seen on Nick like that horrible Naked Brothers show.
I won't say the show is all bad, because there are some funny parts, like Spencer, and a few random incidents. But other than that, let's face it, it's just another dry sitcom that kids are buying into.<br /><br />Miranda Cosgrove was cute and funny as Megan on Drake and Josh. Honestly, she is mediocre in ICarly and is just not as funny as she tries to be. The actress who plays Sam seems to be half-asleep most of the time, and her antics are so clichéd that I would think of them. They're not funny, just annoying. And Freddie is okay, but not that interesting.<br /><br />Of course, the situations are unrealistic, but it's not all bad. Some are bothersome, though. Here are a few: <br /><br />1. The girls are 14, and have a web show that gives away too much personal information, with a weekly audience of 27,000(WTF), with little to no advertising, and they can still go on about their lives not being attacked by crazy people <br /><br />2.Their web show gets too much praise ($100,000 yearly to advertise sneakers, a free trip to Japan, Plain White Ts performance, and so on). Honestly, anyone over the age of 6 would not find their "comedy" entertaining.<br /><br />3. How is it that they are so "average", yet they own a three story loft, Spencer does hardly anything and can still afford many basic luxuries, and they have all the equipment for a web show? 4. All of the adults are idiots. ALL OF THEM.<br /><br />5. No 5 foot high girl, no matter how obnoxious and tenacious, can take down trained cops, unless she's muscular. Sam is skinny and petite.<br /><br />6. No one can fall down 9 stories in an elevator and live.<br /><br />7. Kids can handle finding out about criminals better than cops.<br /><br />The show is stupid. Really, it seems harmless, but making kids think that they can be obnoxious to their elders, live alone in Seattle when they're only 14 with an irresponsible moron, and give out personal information is just wrong.<br /><br />I'm disappointed to say that my cousin, who is 3, enjoys the show. What happened to the cartoons when I was her age?
I... No words. No words can describe this. I will try for the sake of those few brave people who stick knives into their toasters... after watching this show.<br /><br />This... Cosgrove person... Her acting is like watching a female gorilla dance upon the nest of highly agitated insects. Perhaps I exaggerate. However, I have a feeling that the description fits a regular day of writing this show.<br /><br />The characters in this repulsive pile of raw sewage are as useless as a small piece of space rock that flies into the sun on any day of the week. Though heart attacks have not been experienced while watching them act like fools on the cheaply built sets, I have no doubt that it will happen eventually.<br /><br />The main plot of this *belches loudly into the faces of the actors* is that of a foolish girl who hosts a live weekly web-cast on the creatively titled iCarly.com with her brainless friends, one of which owns equipment that the producers of this show probably couldn't afford. Her legal guardian is some kind of moron who is apparently her older brother.<br /><br />I haven't watched all of this show for fear of developing cancer, or perhaps a cold, but some of the plot points I have seen involve the brother getting stuck in an elevator, the doorman of the apartment almost dieing, and the world's fattest priest coming for a visit. No, really.<br /><br />Avoid this if you are over the age of unborn or if you have a history of joining mysterious cults due to mental trauma. If you do decide to watch it, laugh when the laugh-track tells you to, as this will drown out the repetitive noise that will eventually put you in a coma if you listen to it for too long. <br /><br />The show receives a one star rating because the IMDb inexplicably has not adopted the use of negative numbers.
If you think Hannah Montana or the Suite Life are at the bottom of tween sitcoms then you've obviously never watched iCarly. iCarly is without a doubt the worst show I've ever seen. From the lifeless acting to the low budget sets the show reeks of cheapness like last week's Chinese takeout left to simmer in your overheated car.<br /><br />The show revolves around a pretty, perky, and "supposed to be" funny girl named Carly, as she and her friends make a live web show called iCarly. Carly lives alone with her older brother who seriously needs some counseling or something, because he's a few cells short of a brain.<br /><br />The plots of the shows are highly ludicrous and unbearably annoying. But having to watch Carly and her friend, Sam, do their little iCarly show-within-in-a-show is even worse. They basically show weird pictures and stick things up their nose as the laugh-track plays over and over. I mean seriously, every two seconds the laugh track seems to come on for no reason.<br /><br />So, what's the point of this review? you may ask. Just to ridicule iCarly? Well, yeah, but I'm also warning you to beware of this show. Because seriously, if I had to choose between watching iCarly and Barney? No questions about it, I'd choose Barney.
First off, I just want to say that this show could've done well, way better than it's doing now. What brought it down was certainly the acting. Miranda Cosgrove, who acts as the main character Carly, looked almost worthy of her own show when she was on Drake and Josh. Unfortunately, iCarly was a big let down. Not only can Miranda not act convincingly enough, but she's incredibly stiff when she moves. She looks as if she's not sure how the character "carly" would move or stand. In the very first episode at the end when she throws the hat up, her arm doesn't ever leave her side from her elbow up. even when she was dancing she looked like a stick in the breeze. And the singing? The theme song was great, only because Drake had been in it, the music was pretty good and Miranda's voice sounded fake. I have to admit, the plot and settings are good, unrealistic, but hey, that's Nick. They're practically known for stupid lines and characters. But wow, is iCarly the worst of them all.
Again, like many other TV Shows, a certain actor/actresses in thrust into the limelight, in this case Miranda Cosgrove, having built up her reputation in previous Movies/Series (especially by Nickelodeon and Dan Schneider. She is now the star of the show, gets to sing the soundtrack ( which she DID NOT WRITE and thus gets even more fame from that). Wonderful? It creates as much imbalance in popularity vs her other co-stars, especially Nathan Kress, who is continually thrust into minor rolls in each episode, except iDont Want to Fight. Cosgrove's music would never have met the charts without this show and her singing the main theme song (which was not written by her) and other covers such as About You Now and Stay my Baby. Let's not forget that she lip sync/sings her song live too. Is that how you create vocalist nowadays?<br /><br />Back to the show, Cosgrove reveals more physically by acting scenes in a bikini, Hawaiian hula type bra and mentioned bra many times through out. Bras and seen in many cases (though not of the other actresses). Wedgies are mentioned, panties have been mentioned once. Og let us not forget "Oh My God" a come phrase (are any of the scriptwriters/actors Christian?) Granted that the show is not meant to be just for kids, I'm surprised at the multitude of mentions of the female undergarment, especially in the first episode, where the phrase "pointy boobs" were mentioned. I'm not sure whether kids would thus refrain from saying that at home/in school afterwards. <br /><br />It's not that I'm against the mentioning or showing of female undergarments (which girls will wear), but for a show from Nickelodeon, the people in charge should have realised that kids would get the exposure to such stuff. I doubt that other Nickelodeon shows have such content in them.<br /><br />As mentioned is other reviews, the laughter track is extremely annoying and unnecessary in many parts--for example, when the character Sam cries, how on earth is that a time to laugh? It distracts people from getting the joke and is used almost in every sentence.<br /><br />As mentioned, Cosgrove is made the star of the show and thus gains the utmost fame and support from die hard fans, who even scolded a hotel staff when she is told to keep her noise level down (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk0gtfUk98U). Jennette McCurdy is the second star of the show but she faces competition from Cosgrove in the music industry (compare the popularity of her new single vs Cosgrove's covers). As noted, the third co-star Nathan Kress is the least noted of the lot. He is portrayed as a atypical boy who suffers the brunt of bullying by a girl and other boys but somehow a wizard at technology. His height in early episodes make him a cute actor but unusual given his character's crush on Carly/Cosgrove. Beyond that, Kress isn't breaking into the music industry and as Cosgrove's fame grows with each episode, Kress falls behind. I would bet that he is the least paid of all the three actors.<br /><br />The content of the show is of course fictional, but also lets one wonder how it fits into a comedy series at certain times (thus the laughter track is used).It also contains several continuity errors (how can your father be and Air Force Colonel on a submarine? US Special Forces have their own branches, and the Air Force doesn't use US submarines--that is for SEALs). A unique feature is that of allowing viewers to submit their own videos to be shown during or after the episodes, but again the videos somehow do not meet the theme of comedy.<br /><br />Once again, it is a show that is riddled with mentions of the female undergarments, exposure of skin, and over used laughter tracks. It is a series which thrusts a teen actress so far into the crowd such that her songs/actions are excessive supported by her fans, leaving her co Stars behind.
this show is just plain awful. I liked to watch Drake and Josh, which was great, and before that The Amanda show, also funny, but this is just AWFUL. in my opinion watching this felt like watching those --- movies from Seltzberg, painful and uncleaver. this is about 3 dumb@$$ kids who make a crappy web-show (while stealing the hole Ithing) while their retarded brother is making sculptures (he has no life). the cast is crap, Megan from drake and josh is carly (AHHHHHH!)a ugly b!tch is sam and some kid they pulled off the street plays fred. all i saw from this (ugg) are random "jokes" that include the brother making a clay-mation film, he also played an arcade game called PAC-rat (genious), Sam and Carly being retards on their web show, and Fred being a dork. the only episode a saw (cant remember the title) where Fred gets bad luck by not forewarding an email.i find videos on youtube funnier than this junk. and why the hell do they get youtube jack@$$ fred, get AVGN to cancel the show with his potty mouth. just skip this show.
Out of boredom and vast curiosity, I decided to check this show out today since my four year old niece loves it. I should have known that it was a show that only a four year old could like. The show was pretty bad.<br /><br />First of all, the show just wasn't funny. The laugh track went off at the most inappropriate times which was very annoying, especially since none of the jokes were funny. The laugh track went off at some point when the one kid who's the cameraman said "I'm going to go polish my lense". How the hell is that funny? The parts in it (like meat drumming) that were supposed to be funny was just stupid to anyone who's over the age of eleven.<br /><br />Now, I have a feeling that four year olds are not the target audience. However, since I have a four year old niece who watches it, this sort of thing concerned me while I was watching it: It doesn't show very good behavior. In the episode I was watching, it shows Sam stealing Carly's sandwich and pushing her down to the ground, just so Carly can stand up and do the same thing back to her. I would not want to see my niece acting that rude. I also don't like the idea of two young girls having a web show where they give out personal information... If this was real, there would be freaks all over her.<br /><br />This show would probably be good and funny to someone who's eleven or younger, but anyone older than that, just stay away from it. I'll give this two stars since I guess I can see how it can be funny to a kid.
I watched the Halloween episode...oh my god I wanted to die. The acting was just awful. The lines were uttered with absolutely no conviction. Its a bad idea for a show as well, I mean who would watch some web show like that in real life? Miranda Cosgrove was great in a supporting role in Drake and Josh but doesn't have the force of character to anchor her own show. I'm even more upset because her leaving is a major reason why Drake and Josh ended. She was approached with her own show...she jumped ship on Drake and Josh. They then decided that maybe they would do a thing with Drake and Josh moving to college, thereby explaining the loss of Meagan as a character but Drake had already had thoughts of moving on to bigger and better things and he figured if Miranda did it why couldn't he. The best part of the show was the theme song... a catchy, good tune in a mire of mediocrity. Of course Drake Bell was dubbing Miranda's voice for the whole thing and wrote the tune...
Ever went on Youtube? Well, the definite question to that is YES. Do you see the boatloads of ICarly and Nickelodeon rants? No definite answer.<br /><br />Many people think ICarly is a dull and idiotic program, and others think it's the best program on the face of the Earth. I have seen many of the loads of reviews panning ICarly in the head and some giving it a bouquet of roses. In my opinion, Icarly is for the kiddies, but the show is just awful.<br /><br />If you did not read the last review, here are reasons 1-8: #1: Steryotypes #2: Goofed-up drama #3: Everything is silly(taco truck for example) #4: Carly thinks she's nice but she's mean #5: Anyone over the drinking age is stupid #6: Sam is petite but strong? #7: No real companies #8: Mean teachers<br /><br />#9: The webshow overuses 3DFX. Just look on the webshow to understand what I mean. #10: The webshow also spills personal information. #11: Almost every famous thing is insulted. Icarly insults the Japanese race, Solitare, Mercades-Benz, and Pac-Man, to name a few. #12: There are too many reoccuring jokes(Sam's obsession of meat, Freddy's computer, Gibby pulling his shirt off, etc.) #13: The video games based off the show suck. #14: Freddy has a lack of masculinity. Why? It's getting unoriginal. #15: The show is targeted towards a female audience. I also hate shows directed to a male audiences too, so I prefer Icarly to be for both genders. #16: The words "nub" and "no chiz". #17: The overuse of laugh tracks.<br /><br />Part 3 coming in early Spring! Just in time for Spring break!
iCarly is about a teenage girl named Carly Shay (Miranda Cosgrove) who lives with her artist brother, Spencer in a loft in Seattle. Carly has a web show that gets millions of views and makes tons of money a year, so much money she "doesn't even know its a real number". Her best friend is Sam (Janette McCrudy) who's as predictable as they come! She says "normal" things and beats up Carly's neighbor, Freddie who is in charge of all the technical things for their web show. Carly shouts every word and looks like she doesn't have emotion. Sam chases Freddie around and Freddie screams. In one episode Carly and her friends shoot Lewbert (the doorman) down in elevator and he survives.<br /><br />I would not recommend this at all, unless you like teenagers shouting, hurting people and making fun of stuff.
The first time I watched this show it was OK. There were some funny moments and I laughed a couple of times but this show is getting worse and worse. Carly and Sam's web show is NOT the least bit funny. They play a stupid video from the internet, scream at the camera and make some very bad jokes. And then the laugh track goes off?! One problem with the show is that none of the main characters are funny. Carly is not funny. Miranda Cosgrove's acting is lackluster at best. Her acting in this show is nothing like her acting from Drake And Josh. Her friend Sam is very rude and crude and the show is written in a way that makes her look like some kind of hillbilly. I mean they make jokes about her mom driving a rusty old truck, her mom smashing an old TV with a bat, and then there's the jokes about Sam failing in school, getting detention all the time and running from cops. None of that is funny at all. Then there's Freddy who is a computer geek. He isn't too funny unless his Mom is treating him like a baby. The show's only somewhat funny full time character is Carly's brother Spencer. He makes some funny jokes and does some pretty funny things like pretending to drive a space ship while making spaceship noises, knocking over a girl scouts' cookie table for revenge as they did the same thing to him. His material is the only thing worth laughing at. Aside from the characters other things make the show bad too. Like the fact that a couple of kids doing a local web show from a Seattle apartment is a worldwide hit and got them a free trip to Tokyo? Another thing is that how can a 26 year old single guy with no real job can pay for a 2 level apartment in downtown Seattle and raise his 13 year old sister and pay for a room full of camera and sound equipment including a remote controlled projector and a green screen and an HD camera? This sounds like it was written by a 10 year old. The worst thing is that the show contains some pretty questionable content. There are a couple of times when Carly(remember a 13 year old girl) appears on her internet web show in a bikini top. WTF? Then I saw an episode where Freddy tells Carly and Sam that he "slept in JUST his socks the night before." I mean WTF? Then there's an episode where Carly's rival Nevel blackmails her by taking her website rights and agrees to give her the website back in exchange for a kiss. Creepy! And I just saw an episode where Carly meets a boy who just moved into their apartment building and he has some kind of back injury and he takes off his shirt and Carly stands there drooling over him. I can't believe Nick even lets them show that kind off stuff and I can't believe that this was created by the same guy responsible for Drake and Josh. This show is not appropriate for kids under the age of 12 and that's even questionable. iCarly is just another addition to the long list of awful Nick programming.
First Off Acting Is So Terrible Except For The Actor Who Plays Spencer. Mirinda Cosgrove Does Not Deserve Her Own Show She Should Have Stick With Drake And Josh.The Only Person I Like Besides Spencer Is Nevel Hes Super Bad@$$ He Kicked Carlys Crews @$$ And I liked It<br /><br />The Episode I Hate A lot Is Imyourbigesstfan I Hate That Young Icaly Fan She Made Me Almost Kill Myself Fake Is A Well Word To Describe This Please Don't Watch This Nothing On TV Is Good Go With Classics Like Family Matters Good Show Ban Icarly Lets All Go Back To Doug Nick Version Only Please Don't Watch I Hate Icarly Oh Also Nathan Kress Is A Wannabee Fredie Highmore
The actresses bra in a changing room--well I guess they are preparing young children for changing room time? (Boys you must close your eyes at that scene A humongous bra (34C which definitely neither of the actresses size) dangling and supposedly talking--oh don't worry if your son takes your bra then Stripping boys (a girl pulls down a boys pants) to reveal his boxers--kids try that at home and in school Beating a girl with male briefs--nothing wrong. The show likes to show underwear--panties next?? Actress--at an age below 18 in a revealing bikini--mom can you buy me one when i reach puberty? So many sexual innuendos to learn:eg: "Don't doubt my ball skills."<br /><br />"I like to dance. With my shirt off."<br /><br />"Wet and sticky is very icky. Sticky and wet make Mommy upset."<br /><br />"I just wanna stick my face in this pie and go 'bbbbbbuuuub.'"<br /><br />"I come up with my best ideas when I'm wet."<br /><br />"He sliced my banana!"<br /><br />"Come on boy, let's do it"<br /><br />you'll never guess where I found this fish"<br /><br />"I'll leave you two to do..it"<br /><br />"Carly (about Sam): She just ditched iCarly to go play with Jonah?!"<br /><br />"You won't get respect if your back's not erect."<br /><br />"How's it hanging"<br /><br />"What can I say, I'm a great ball handler"<br /><br />"Watch me spank your daddy!"<br /><br />Spencer: That's big. Freddie's mom: Thank you<br /><br />"Hey! Could you keep your hands off my equipment?"<br /><br />Freddie: Oh, and last night, slept with my socks on. Sam or Carly: So? Freddie: JUST my socks<br /><br />"They wanted no part of me or my fudgeballs"<br /><br />"Freddie, you know how I feel about you handling tools!"<br /><br />"You don't even wanna know where the batteries go"<br /><br />"It's like she stuffs waffle cones in her bra!"<br /><br />Spencer: "Well, it spread...to places." Freddie: "Where?" *Spencer motions for Freddie to come near, then whispers in his ear.* Freddie: "Ugh!"<br /><br />"Wow, it's just that you've always seemed . . . so willing."<br /><br />"I have to take my daughter to a special doctor"<br /><br />"I send a lot of guys, a lot of places"<br /><br />"Yeah, you've been having all kinds of fun this morning."<br /><br />"I'm looking for some 'cheap entertainment'..." <br /><br />(mom I learn how to say **** indirectly today!!) All in all very educational for young children. Lesson to be taken: if you want to know more than where babies come from kids, watch this show!!!
Nickelodeon has gone down the toilet. They have kids saying things like "Oh my God!" and "We're screwed"<br /><br />This show promotes hate for people who aren't good looking, or aren't in the in crowd. It say that sexual promiscuity is alright, by having girls slobbering over shirtless boys. Not to mention the overweight boy who takes off his shirt. The main characters basically shun anyone out of the ordinary. Carly's friend Sam, who may be a lesbian, beats the snot out of anybody that crosses her path, which says it's alright to be a b**ch. This show has so much negativity in it that nobody should watch it! I give it a 0 out of 10!!!
First of all, I'd like to say I am a teenager so this is all marketed towards me, and I can safely say that iCarly very poor programing, and the fact that it's accepted among both genders baffles me. It contains some of the worst attempts at comedy I've ever witnessed with mediocre acting to boot. The supposed humor within the show is all based on saying someone's lines again with poor sarcasm, poor sarcasm, saying bad one-liners, and, well, you get the picture. Also, I should mention that I do still watch Spongebob, which I know I'll get a negative backlash for, but that's quality programming with some honestly funny moments in it, less we forget something iCarly's missing; WIT. The show's about a young girl, Carly, putting on a web-show with her friends, which I can say is without a doubt a nicer version of the internet. That's fine, but the show's just...well, not funny at all, as previously stated. If this is what children's programming has come to today, parents, show them something that's ACTUALLY funny; Spongebob or Rocco's Modern Life would work.<br /><br />Also, compared to it's brothering show, Drake & Josh, it's terrible, which was implied. Seriously, please watch something worthwhile. Even for a children's show it's poor.
First off... I have to say acting isn't very good. Miranda Cosgrove is the main character but is not such a good actress quite frankly. Spencer, her brother is a way much better actor. Spencer is easily my favorite character because he probably is the only one that knows how to act. Carly on the other hand tries to act her heart out but... sorry, it just isn't good. Sam doesn't even get credit, I mean come on... ICARLY... pretty self centered eh? Freddy isn't bad, I don't have a comment. I must add that Carly and her puppet Sam change their attitude whenever they go to film a web cast, they go shouting out all their lines.It's sorta bad influence in a way because Carly has a web show and if kids will copy this, they might be giving their own information and that not pretty safe.<br /><br />The only nice things is that it has SOME funny parts of the show which makes it entertaining. At least this show isn't boring, it has nice plots, pretty strong. Many kids will like this because they don't look for flaws.<br /><br />Overall this is a bad show but it's not boring.
Nickelodeon has gone down the toilet. They have kids saying things like "Oh my God!" and "We're screwed"<br /><br />This show promotes hate for people who aren't good looking, or aren't in the in crowd. It say that sexual promiscuity is alright, by having girls slobbering over shirtless boys. Not to mention the overweight boy who takes off his shirt. The main characters basically shun anyone out of the ordinary. Carly's friend Sam, who may be a lesbian, beats the snot out of anybody that crosses her path, which says it's alright to be a b**ch. This show has so much negativity in it that nobody should watch it! I give it a 0 out of 10!!!
iCarly is all that's wrong with the world. All the main characters but Carly's brother and Freddy are morally bankrupt.<br /><br />Sam damages other people on whim. She breaks a kids locker and he is forced to pay a 100 dollars to fix it, and all she says is "Tough luck" and moves on to smash Freddy's cellphone. She just caused at least 300 dollars worth of damage and she is more focused on getting some food. What the hell?. The only time she's every felt guilt is when she made fun of Freddy on the show. And that's only cause Carly nagged the crap out of her.<br /><br />Carly is the "I'm perfect, everything I do is nice." type of girl. Everything she does is for her own benefit and she is often shown only having remorse for herself. What's worse, she encourages Sam's crap. Sam ruins some of Freddy's clothes? She laughs. Sam ruins a kids grades? She shrugs it off.<br /><br />Don't even get me started on the humour. The laugh track is played at every moment.<br /><br />Sam: He's not that hot Carly: Yes he is Sam: Yeah you're right *INSANE AMOUNT OF LAUGHTER*<br /><br />The shows humour consists around degrading others and saying obscure words and occasionally bantering on about trivial matters using similar sentences.<br /><br />Not to mention all the 'super cool special techno effects' they do can be done in Windows Movie Maker.
Miranda Cosgrove is known for her debut in "School of Rock" with Jack Black and her role as Megan in the show "Drake and Josh" and she has become a fan favorite amongst the Nickelodeon public, so it isn't a surprise that Dan Schneider would create a show just for her. Unfortunately, it ends up being as bad as, if not worse than, "The Amanda Show".<br /><br />"iCarly" is about three friends, Carly, Sam, and Freddie, who have become idols in the junior high community through a webcam show called "iCarly". Carly and Sam are the hosts and Freddie shoots and puts it up on the internet. Carly also has an older brother named Spencer, acted by the hilarious Jerry Trainor who is known for his work in "Drake and Josh" as Crazy Steve.<br /><br />Well, let me tell you this. Don't believe the 8.3 out of 10 this show received because it is pathetic in nearly every aspect. Dan Schneider probably went through about 5 minutes of studying teenage interests because all I see is him saying "iPod? iPhone? iHome? Aha! Teenagers love anything beginning with 'i'!" and a majority of gigs that were used in "Drake and Josh", if not, then they are just really dry and forced jokes that don't even count on a generousity chuckle, such as "You want me to turn up the AC to 60 degrees?" "No. We want you to turn it up to 60 pickles!" Not only that, but if you look closely, nearly all the sets in the shows were used in "Drake and Josh" and "Ned's Declassified" that were simply spit-and-polished with random stuff to try and make it look different.<br /><br />The scenes where the show is showing a broadcast of the iCarly network is just as terrible as the entire series itself. The dialogue in them is atrociously bad, which may be accepted by some since it IS just two friends playing around in front of a camera, but what's the deal with the really odd, humorless antics they do like "Random Dancing!"? And it just gets worse from there.<br /><br />In terms of acting, Miranda and Jennette aren't at their best, by far. Nathan Kress, who played Freddie, isn't believable at times, but he does an okay job. The person who really steals the show is the humorous prowess of Jerry Trainor, who fits in his "protective older brother" role very well and his wide-eyed loud-mouthed acting can make for some pretty funny segments. Too bad they aren't frequent, because that might have given the show an extra star in my opinion.<br /><br />Dan Schneider must have made this show for the sole purpose of giving Miranda Cosgrove her own cable-born playground to hop around and spew unfunny jokes and pathetic cue-card lines in every direction, because everyone else has exceptional talent buried underneath the poorly-done script and weightless acting. Dan Schneider did a great job with "Drake and Josh" so it's a real disappointment that "iCarly" is such a failure. Jerry Trainor's acting saved this show from a 1 out of 10 rating, but he alone can't save "iCarly" from being as horrible as it is.
Nickelodeon has gone down the toilet. They have kids saying things like "Oh my God!" and "We're screwed"<br /><br />This show promotes hate for people who aren't good looking, or aren't in the in crowd. It say that sexual promiscuity is alright, by having girls slobbering over shirtless boys. Not to mention the overweight boy who takes off his shirt. The main characters basically shun anyone out of the ordinary. Carly's friend Sam, who may be a lesbian, beats the snot out of anybody that crosses her path, which says it's alright to be a b**ch. This show has so much negativity in it that nobody should watch it! I give it a 0 out of 10!!!
Flatland is one of my favorite books, thus I was looking forward to this film. Unfortunately, the film is absolutely horrible. The dialog is so bad it sounds like improv half the time. The new storyline makes me think they took the book and a couple of newspapers, threw them in a blender and used what came out for the screenplay. It's a disgrace to the book and independent film making. The only reason I even managed to get all the way through the film was my hopes that it'd get better. Unfortunately, it only got worse, climaxing in a really retarded ending.<br /><br />That's not to say EVERYTHING about the movie is bad. The CG is acceptable, in a 1990's "Reboot" sort of way which I assume is what they were going for. And I suppose you can't go wrong with "people" getting chopped in half and gushing blood all over the place.
Well, I got and saw this movie based on the rather high score here (7.1 now), and some of the good reviews. Usually IMDb is a good guide when it comes to score, though in this case I was very much deceived.<br /><br />The movie is a present-day detective story, with Vinnie Jones as the investigator journalist, who investigates the death of a construction worker. Mixed with this is a made up Dickens' novel (called The Riddle, set in the 18th or 19th century), which also deals with a murder story. Both story lines are connected through the discovery of an unpublished manuscript.<br /><br />Sounds interesting? It could have been, however this movie horribly fails in a number of areas : 1) Acting. Mediocre at best, but it is watchable. No worse than your average UK sitcom, though for a movie one expects a little better. Especially with a score of over 7. 2) Music. The music used is simply horrible, it distracts and it is annoying. Especially the pub music, and the music which plays in the journalist's apartment. 3) Storyline. This is a big joke. There are gaping plot holes everywhere and even the obligatory love story is so unrealistic that it's almost funny. Furthermore, without going into any detail, I can safely say that the ending is absurd, and one of the worst pieces of acting and storyline of the year. 4) Camera-work. At times camera positions and views are distracting, and serve absolutely no purpose to the "story".<br /><br />I'm a bit of a movie fanatic, and watch on average 1 to 2 movies a day, but this is easily the worst movie I've seen in months. Don't waste your money or your time on this rubbish.
What more can I add? This is without doubt one of the worst films I've ever seen. Terrible acting, a daft script, tediously slow pace - even visible microphones dangling from the top of the screen. I could go on, but I really can't be bothered. I watched this for 90 minutes before the sense of losing the will to live became too great for me.<br /><br />I can only assume that the first set of comments and votes were from people associated with the promotion of this insult to British film-making.<br /><br />And worst still, I had to buy the Mail on Sunday to get it :-) The only reason the DVD hasn't now been redeployed as a coaster is that it now takes pride of place in my Top 10 Worst Films Ever collection.<br /><br />Definitely one to be avoided.
Words fail me for this appalling waste of two hours of anyone's life. The story is contrived to the point of complete incredibility. <br /><br />The acting is leaden and so much of this is laughably dreadful. Vinnie Jones - so wonderful in Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, is unbearably awful and unbelievable as Mike Sullivan, journalist.<br /><br />I honestly can't ever remember seeing a worse film. It's only worth watching for the appalling continuity lapses. After Jones is handed a huge beating he emerges without a scratch on him. His girlfriend upends a drink over him and he chases her, emerging from the pub bone dry. It's quite dreadful, made all the worse by the talented actors who appear in it.
A pretty awful film, I'm amazed the likes of Derek Jacobi & Vanessa Redgrave agreed to be in it, it's like an overlong episode from a poor TV detective series. <br /><br />The biggest flaw has to be Vinnie Jones, he simply can't act, whoever had the bright idea of casting him as a leading man wants their head examining unless he put his own money into the project? He should stick to playing thugs, looking menacing & NOT speaking! <br /><br />Also was central heating around in Dickens times as there were three big radiators behind his desk??<br /><br />No wonder they gave this away free with a newspaper as no one would pay to see it.
Ever notice how so many really bad films attract so many 10/10 votes? Not much of a Riddle how that happens, but this is not much of a film. There are two ways of looking at it being given away in the Mail On Sunday.<br /><br />1. It's free, so you can't complain about it to much. 2. It's free, so it can't be much good.<br /><br />My vote is number 2. The free DVD in the Sunday papers things is a recent trend and some great old movies have been given away. They're ones that have been out for ages and have made most of the money they'll ever make, so it's a case of anything else is a bonus. It's the last stop for old films, not the first for new ones, so you can guess how bad this must be to skip TV and DVD rental.<br /><br />The plus points are that Vinnie Jones does try hard and Derek Jacobi is good as Dickens. The minus points are a longer list. Trying isn't the same as succeeding for poor Vinnie and Jacobi's other tramp character is talkative ham that's gone off. The story is very weak. The Dickens story does not have anything to do with the film's murders and feels like another movie slapped onto the script to make people think it's a British Dan Brown without the religion. The supporting cast are either there for the money (Vanessa Redgrave must be really hard up) or because they are friends or girlfriends of the filmmakers. It is also very, very long for what it is.<br /><br />Vinnie taking his priceless Dickens story with him in his jacket pocket everywhere is good for a couple of laughs, but that's it. Not funny and very not good even for free.
The growth of tax funds and sale-and-leaseback schemes has led to a raft of unsaleable films that are gathering dust in laboratories and vaults all over the British Isles because they seem to be made purely because they fit the financial criteria rather than had any potential audience. A lucky few get a week at a small screen in London before going to budget DVD, but The Riddle distinguished itself by completely bypassing cinema, TV or even the rental market to premiere as a free gift DVD in the Mail on Sunday.<br /><br />It's all too easy to see why this ended up being literally given away. Aside from a couple of glitches (a boom mike is clearly visible in one shot) it's not particularly badly made, and while Vinnie Jones comes over like modern British cinema's version of Freddie Mills Mills as the greyhound reporter who wants to move up to the crime desk and the supporting cast veer from ham to vaguely passable, nobody's distinguishing themselves here by being either outstandingly good or outstandingly bad: mediocrity is more the norm here. The real problem is that like so many sale-and-leaseback tax fund films, it's a 'soft' film - there's no reason to watch it. It exists because the circumstances existed for it to be made, but it lacks pace or forward momentum. It seems to be aiming for the Sunday teatime telly audience (despite being shot in Scope) but doesn't cut it. There are a couple of okayish ideas in this determinedly inoffensive tale of a unpublished Charles Dickens manuscript and a couple of suspicious deaths in modern-day Limehouse, but the mystery element is so painfully obvious - as is the last-minute supernatural twist (you'll never guess who Jacobi's literate tramp really is. What, you guessed?) - that you're almost expecting the Scooby Gang or the Double Deckers to turn up to solve it.<br /><br />It's a very misconceived film for all kinds of reasons: a few cast members are playing double roles when they shouldn't even be playing one, and the whole shock reveal of the truth of the Dickens manuscript is completely bungled because it's all narrated in the first person by Dickens rather than the supposed character of the novel. The main murder in the film is clumsily integrated into the main plot, with characters suddenly reminding Vinnie that he's forgotten about that one already, heralding an increasingly desperate final half hour that sees wicked developer Jason Flemyng's secretary puts some Rohypnol in Vinnie's drink so she can have her wicked way with him and leave incriminating photos behind "to make you look a git with your girlfriend," leading to him having a dream where he talks to Charles Dickens ("You're Charles Dickings" "What's in a name?"), who offers the somewhat less than likely suggestion that "You read too many books." But all that's as nothing compared to the finale, which falls into utter absurdity, with logic and common sense going completely out the window as it plays like some bizarre Jacobean revenge tragedy with handguns on the banks of the Thames, with two-day guest stars Flemyng and Vanessa Redgrave looking like they'd much rather be somewhere else (Mel Smith turns up in a one-day cameo, so it's clear that the film's 'names' are mainly there for an easy $10k or to meet their alimony payments). The film's final image is so utterly absurd and pointless as to almost make it worth watching, though.<br /><br />One curiosity is a fairly prominent role in the first third for Vera Day, a sort of prototype Liz Fraser and one-time mainstay of 50s British films - the barmaid in Hell Drivers, the barmaid in Quatermass II - here promoted to pub owner, while standup comedian Kenny Lynch turns up briefly to give the best performance as an old school gangster. Oh, and the late Gareth Hunt makes his last bow as - oh the irony - a coroner...<br /><br />Just to round out the package, the freebie DVD also included a trailer for the director's other film with Vinnie Jones, Bog Bodies, a naff-looking British horror with transAtlantic scientists and Vinnie in Elmer Fudd duck hunter outfit terrorized by a reanimated 2000-year old sacrificial victim from the nearest peat bog ("Be wewwy, wewwy qwuiet: I'm hunting dwuids"). I can hardly wait...<br /><br />The one thing I can guarantee, however, is that every indie producer in the UK is going to spend the next few weeks trying to find out exactly how much the Mail paid for the license to press the DVD (they paid Prince £250,000 for his new CD). With so many British tax-shelter indies on the shelf and with money so hard to find at the moment, this could become an interesting fallback market for British flicks.
The riddle as a concept is an interesting idea, but i'm afraid is miscast, Vinnie if given the Hard man role is his element as in Lock Stock and Snatch. In this movie Vinnie plays a Newspaper sports writer (greyhounds to be precise),who during the course of the movie is easily is beaten up with ease and bundled over a balcony by a man who 10-15 years his senior. I'm sorry Vinnie is tough looks tough and has so to cast him like this is foolish. Trying to investigate the double murders of a friend and a drug addict found near the Thames. He takes on the role of policeman, whilst the real police are bit part players, interceeding with flashbacks from Charles Dickens.<br /><br />When Vinnie is on screen his reputation precedes him he looks tough but does'nt in this part need act tough, snarling at the camera in parts. If you watch the Mean Machine, he is perfectly cast, and believable and does a very decent performance. <br /><br />Getting back to the movie what confuses the matter somewhat is the flashback to Charles Dickens who is narrating a different story with characters who are also appear in present day, these two stories are it appears unrelated apart from the same actors are used. <br /><br />The sound on the movie especially from Julie Cox is inaudible at times, and not really fleshed out what her role in the movie is short of Vinnies Love interest, she starts the film as a Detecive, but quickly becomes the Girlfriend.<br /><br />The Death of the Prostitute is sort of answered but yet/not answered . Strip out the Charles Dickens stuff and you may have a decent movie.<br /><br />Vinnie, is slowly becoming Britans Steven Segal, stick to the supporting actor role, your'e quite good at it.
I could not believe the original rating I found when i looked up this film, 9.5? Unfortunately it looks like I am not alone.<br /><br />The film, is slow and boring really, one of the sad things is that if the film had been given a realistic rating of around 5 or 6 then the expectation would not have been so high.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this was not the case, so when watching the film, and seeing the poor story and acting, I am left giving it a 3/10 score.<br /><br />Vinnie Jones is superb in Lock stock, and also Snatch, and he plays a great hard man, however, he should stick to this role. Its a bit like when Stallone and Schwarzenegger have done comedy films, they just don't work.<br /><br />Neither can he play lead actor, he plays better as supporting or otherwise. When he plays lead, his acting talents are too 'in view' and shown up as not really very good. Mean Machine is another good example of this.
It doesn't surprise me that the makers of this hopeless movie couldn't find a UK distributor, and then had to release it as a free DVD with a Sunday newspaper. The distributors could clearly see what the film-makers and the Sunday newspaper couldn't, that this was one movie that just wasn't going to recoup its costs.<br /><br />Since it's a thriller about riddles, it would have helped if they'd picked a lead actor who could enunciate properly, rather than the mumbling Vinnie Jones who appears to pronounce "riddle" as "riell". And it would have helped if the dialogue hadn't been swamped by noisy locations or scenes flooded with distracting and inappropriate music. The plot is ludicrous: The lost Charles Dickens story supposedly helps our hero solve a series of modern murders, but so would a copy of Herge's Adventures Of Tintin, since the link between Dickens and Jones is more non-existent than tenuous. And we have the ridiculous premise that a would-be investigative journalist who lays his hands on a previously undiscovered Dickens manuscript, would take several days to read it, just so that flashbacks to Dickens can continue to be played throughout the movie, as if they had some connection to it. Which they don't. I mean, if you found a new Dickens manuscript, wouldn't you just go somewhere quiet and read it ? The film ends with one of those surprise revelations that have become mandatory since The Sixth Sense, but in this case it doesn't so much surprise you as insult your intelligence. If the film is suddenly going to turn supernatural at the twelfth hour, then revealing that Vinnie Jones is a robot might have been more acceptable. It might not have seemed so turgid if the film had been stylish, but it isn't. And in several places it appears decidedly amateur: There's a scene where a table is laid with a 60's jump-cut technique, but they haven't made sure that the person actually laying the table is completely out of frame between the cuts. Consequently, you can see things changing at the edge of frame, when you're really supposed to be watching things changing at the centre of frame. A good rule in movie-making is: If you don't understand how to do a technique then try something else.<br /><br />The real riddle is why anyone thought it would be a good idea to make this movie in the first place.
The only Riddle in this film was how it ever got made. the British film Industry needs to make films people actually want to watch and not look to get Taxpayers money (a'la BBC) to keep Luvvies in their life style they have been accustomed to, with doing nothing for it.<br /><br />the Film was every thing wrong with British Films it relied on stereotypes, it had to be about a London were people were either Posh and corrupt, Gangsters, Luvvies or gawd blimey jellied eel types, the story script was just pathetically weak, to the extent when the Police man pulled out his phone and the ring tone was the "Sweeney " theme I just expected it. The whole film was a happy shopper sweeney / Minder rip off.<br /><br />the priceless manuscript I noted got left behind and lost on a few occasions and is something even I with my limited street wiseness wouldn't carry around in my breast pocket every where, to the beach and fights etc Saying that Vinnie Jones is likable which is about the only thing in the film, poor bloke.<br /><br />When Derek Jacobi walked into the water at the end because he was Dickens, oh my god, what a load of crap, and I am being positive here
Its No wonder this was free with the Mail on Sunday, slow going, poor acting, and filming (camera flare, near start of movie, is not even artistic) = Straight to video, but not in this case, why not recoup some of your (Film production costs) by releasing it free with a UK Sunday newspaper, at least this way you get a captive audience, and recover some costs.<br /><br />I have not given this film a 1 out of 10, due to the effort to pull some old actors out their shell, it was nice to see some old faces (Vanessa Redgrave,this an't no Blow –Up), but Vinnie Jones as a lead, and I think he was better in Gone in 60 seconds when he did not speak.<br /><br />This Film is dropping in Ratings every day,i think this will find its true mark at the 3-4 out of 10,in the very near Future
As I'm listening to my parents watch this (after I gave up 10 minutes into the film), they have absolutely no idea what is going on. When "Charles Dickens" stared into the camera, I half expected him to turn into a demon (yes, he looked like one). Unfortunately, that didn't happen.<br /><br />This movie had various reasons I did not finish it: one, it was unbearably slow. I mean, seriously, it was SLOWW. You can only understand 10% of what is said, and the characters were poorly introduced.<br /><br />If you have an English accent and you like a LOTTT of talking, no action, terrible acting, cheesy laughs, and the same music/sound effects played over and over and over, then this is THE movie for you...<br /><br />1/10 - completely horrible.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs.
Come on now. How did all of these talented actors/actresses end up in this mess? Was it some sort of blackmail/lost bet situation? Vinnie, you are a muscle man. Be what you were born to be.<br /><br />The hot tub scene? The Scrabble scene? I was expecting to hear the "needle dragging over the record" sound at any point. <br /><br />And what was up with him carrying around the priceless Dickens manuscript with him? Let's see, I'm drunk at a bar, why not pull out the priceless Dickens manuscript? I'm going to meet some questionable thugs down on the edge of the Thames, why not take my priceless Dickens manuscript? <br /><br />Crapola.<br /><br />Terrible. Avoid.
Whoever saddled this piece of drek with a title like Riddle deserves some kind of Award; there are dozens of riddles here like who conceived such a dire project, who funded it, who cast it, who persuaded Vanessa Redgrave to share even ONE scene with Vinnie Jones and so on. The most sane voice connected to the whole schmeer belongs to the person who decided - very, very wisely - that this was unreleasable and not even good enough to go straight to video/DVD which throws up yet one more riddle, why - if we rule out serious payola - did the Mail On Sunday get involved and deign to give it away. This has Golden Turkey written all over it and smacks of being shot in two days in somebody's garage and cobbled on to some library footage of London except somehow you KNOW that someone actually DID shoot this on location when it would have been kinder to shoot him/herself. Vinnie Jones and Julie Cox are not even cardboard cutouts more like tissue paper and I swear Pete Doherty and Kate Moss couldn't have done worse whilst Derek Jacobi is a grotesque joke and the plot moves with the speed of the Irish team sliding UP the Cresta Run. Apart from that ...
I didn't know anything about this DVD when I hired it. Had a quick look here at the comments but decided to keep an open mind. Obviously an independent film and low budget but that didn't worry me. I will watch anything with Derick Jacobi and as always he played his part well. What a pity no one else did. I had watched 'Atonement' a few weeks ago with Vanessa Redgrave and she was sublime. In this she seemed to just turn up to read the lines. In my opinion the main mistake was in casting Vinnie Jones. To be honest I saw his picture on the DVD cover but didn't notice that he got top billing. A sticker was strategically placed over his name! It was watchable and I quite liked the Dickens story alongside present day. Maybe with a more capable actor playing the lead this might have worked better. Still it was weak.
The fact that this film was distributed free with a certain national newspaper which I do not care for did, to a degree, put me off of watching it, but as I had come across a copy that a local charity shop was giving away for nothing I felt I could watch it with a clear conscience.<br /><br />The film does have its moments, the evocation of the Thameside location is nicely done, but it does suffer, I feel, from a few too many faults. Firstly, Vinnie Jones is simply not convincing as the journalist. Whilst Vinnie himself is an interesting character, the truth is that he simply does not have the range of acting ability to pull off a role like this.<br /><br />Secondly, who would carry around with them a lost manuscript that they have been informed is "priceless"? It seemed that everywhere Mr Jones went this manuscript went with him! Thirdly, the whole Dickens aspect of the story, whilst appearing to be important, gets in the way of what could have been an interesting film of corruption in high places. Maybe I'm just a bit thick, but I really could not see the point of the story-within-a-story Dickens style. This added nothing to the film, and only served to confuse matters when things started to become interesting within the modern day story line.<br /><br />The one bit of praise I will give the film makers is that at least they did attempt something a little different. I am all for British Independent films that try to be 'out of left field', but this is not a 'Red Road' or 'This is England'. What it is is a bit of a mess, and an over-long one at that. Yes, it entertains in part, but in the end it felt like two films merged together to make a whole, and failing both by doing so. (Also, I can not help think that I have seen something similar done recently on TV by Ian Banks, set in Edinburgh with a story concerning Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes).
What a shame that some good talent was wasted. This is a tedious and overly self-conscious movie, that could tell its story in half the time. Is that Derek Jacobi under that beard doing two roles? Gosh, who would have guessed.<br /><br />The emotional payoff a the end was weak and unsatisfying. Certainly not worth enduring the padded length of the movie for. I felt quite let down.<br /><br />The sound was dreadful. First, they used stock music. Second, it was so loud during some of the dialog, that the words were hard to make out. Only three sound crew, and a trainee? There were more people listed in the credits for either the accounting or the legal.<br /><br />Some of the camera work was quite good though, and the actors did a good job with a mediocre script.<br /><br />Not a good use of viewing time, at least for me.
This movie must have looked when it was being pitched at development stage and getting a Redgrave and a Jacobi on board must have excited the money men. All I can say is that they clearly did not have anything on that week. Jacobi camps it up in the way that only Jacobi can do and I thought that he seemed to more of the actor that he parodied in his cameo role in Frasier a few years back. Vinnie Jones is not exactly bad, he is just clearly out of his depth as a leading man. He is really quite amiable throughout and if this was a pilot for a TV series, it may have just got picked up. However, the scipt and the camera work were appalling. Quite why this "jounalist" and a press officer from the Met would ever work together is never explained. It certainly cannot have been because of the sexual chemistry, of which there is none. There is nothing wrong with a ridiculous and far fetched plot that you can pass off as original, but the whole thing is just so contrived that the two stories just do not make sense at all. It was like two stories confusingly edited in to one just to make up two hours. Go watch some paint dry for a couple of hours. You life will be more fulfilled than watching this rubbish
This film was pure trash. Not the worse film ever. If it were to be broken down, the acting was good enough to get the job done but the script was SO out there and so stupid that one was left thinking, "Where did my life go?" Even Vanessa Redgrave~ whom I love (and is the reason I watched this) was wasted. Utterly wasted. She didn't even leave an impression. The directing was so distant that non of the characters left me much of anything, but to see Redgrave leave nothing. Her part was nothing. She was good as a mean boss but that was it. Do depth and she's given depth to small roles~ see Venus and Atonement. I would not waste my time and was upset to have spent the $5 on this movie...I wanted it back. No returns. Skip the film. It'll only bring you grief...and boredom.
At the least some of the sitcoms that churn endlessly out of the US are honestly bad. This junk, however, portrays a "heart warming" parenty side to a clothes horse. Acting laughably "learnt" with glances and phrases delivered in the "I'm SO important and thin and beautiful" fashion. In the episode I just sat agog through, someone's "job" was at risk simply because a colleague had "placed" a phone call, slagging her capabilities off ... !! Really, this is the lowest of the low. What kind of damage does this foist on the watching masses, seeing only glitzy glam-puss people parading around "working". Utterly sick making. When the titles rolled, I thought, oh well, it provided jobs for the boys. You know who you are.
Baby boom was bad enough, basically making a series of every straight mans nightmare is worse. Yeah watched a few always made me feel better after a bad day, it reminded me it could be worse. Guy was rich successful, single(smart man), and dating celebs from singers to actresses, then his screw up of a cousin dumps his biggest mistake on him. In reality it would have been straight to foster care I'm sure, this was definitely a chic series. Oh and what's all the wining about the baby change, most the time it's probably a doll besides at that age it's nothing more than a prop anyways.<br /><br />Any case I'm glad it didn't last more than a year.
This is an extremely competent movie technically. The camera work and direction are excellent and the acting is fine as well--especially the fine acting by Daniel Auteuil as the Marquis. I really thought there were no problems at all with these aspects of the film. Instead, I was a bit annoyed by the way the Marquis was portrayed, as it didn't seem all that honest and seems to be a very revisionistic view of history. In fact, in recent years, the Marquis has undergone a bit of a transformation to a defender of freedom with great insight, not the fat sado-masochist rapist he really was. In a way, this is highly reminiscent of the whitewash given in THE PEOPLE VERSUS LARRY FLINT--where these men are elevated to hero status. Even if you don't think that the Marquis' perversions weren't all that bad (they included rapes and extreme violence), his portrayal in this film as a "sexual social worker" in this prison seems pretty silly. Instead of the violent and selfish Sade, he spends a lot of time carefully grooming a young virgin and slowly helps her to explore her own sensuality. What a nice and kind man. In fact, now that I think about it, this performance reminds me of the man Maurice Chavalier played in GIGI (but without the singing)--a cute older man who loves the ladies. I strongly doubt the real-life Marquis de Sade would have recognized this character at all!<br /><br />The film, surprisingly, doesn't have a lot of nudity, though what it does show is extremely explicit. Only a maniac would let their kids see this as this is a very adult drama. It's very well-made and pretty entertaining--just not all that truthful. The director admits that the film is largely fictional in the interview among the special features on the DVD I watched. So go ahead and see the film if you'd like--understanding it just isn't very good historically. During the 18th century, sexual libertines were quite accepted in France as they were pretty broad-minded, so despite what the movie implies it wasn't SEX that was the issue, it was the violence and rape that was (and still is) the problem.
The title is a misnomer:the movie depicts barely one year of the so-called "divin marquis" .Twas a hard time for him 'cause he was threatened by the guillotine :the quiet joys of the reign of Terror .<br /><br />Historically speaking,the background is rather sketchy: "the fête De l'et re supreme",Robespierre's failed attempt to create a secular religion,his downfall ,a heaven sent opportunity for showing Doctor Guillotin's sinister machine at work (full speed).<br /><br />As far as Sade is concerned ,it's a downright mediocre affair :he's waiting in a former nunnery with other nobles ,a golden cage if you compare it to ,say,Marie-Antoinette's or scientist Lavoisier's fates,and he exchanges futile conversations with a young virgin about death,love and other trivia.There's the obligatory "daring" scene but you've got to be patient because it's a long time before it comes on the screen.And anyway ,by today's standards ,can we call that risqué? Cy Enfield's "De Sade" ,which enjoys one of the lowest ratings of the IMDb ,is at least entertaining ,and Keir Dullea was a more credible marquis than the aging Auteuil.And it featured John Huston.
I was expecting to this to be hilarious and it was mediocre at best, the only funny character is, believe it or not Andy Dick. The timing was just horrible on most of the jokes & gags and the writing was bad, I mean I know its supposed to be like blaxploitation but it just did work. besides this whole genre has been beaten to death already, with all the austin powers movies & undercover brother, it just seems old, it also just feels like a rip off from undercover brother (which also wasn't hysterical, but a lot funnier than this). Also, for an comedy/action movie the direction was kind of bland. I don't know if this is going to be released in theaters, but it definatley is made for TV.
The Hebrew Hammer is a clever idea wasted, as the execution is weak. As if often the case with iconoclastic humor, it relies overly on outrage to generate laughs, which simply isn't enough. Poor-taste humor has two elements -- poor taste and humor -- and both are needed here, but the humor is pretty scarce. As a result, it is often painful to watch, all the more so because of good attempts on the part of the performers, particularly Adam Goldberg as the HH himself. The Shaft references are funny, though, but only to those who know those movies, and they certainly don't carry The Hebrew Hammer.<br /><br />Another problem is that many of the jokes rely on knowledge of American Jewish culture, and many in the audience will simply not understand the jokes.
This film is dreadful. It has absolutely zero laughs. Hebrew Hammer (Adam Goldberg) sets out to save Hannukah from Evil Santa (Andy Dick). Perhaps a promising enough basis for a plot, in actual fact the film does not progress beyond this premise. While there are some (far and few) nice touches and the plot is relatively coherent, it is laboured, hackneyed and ultimately, mindlessly boring. This despite the fact that Goldberg, Dick and Greer (Hammer's client/love interest) all have quite considerable screen presence. Despite being played for what might be described as whacky over-the-top gags, this film is consistently middle-class middle-of-the-road muck. DO NOT waste 85 minutes of your life on this. (note- the music was good..!)
I saw the *star* of this movie on The Daily Show, and thought I might tune in (the movie premiered on Comedy Central, Then went into theaters). Oh Vey!<br /><br />This makes "Shakes the Clown" look like "Citizen Kane"! Avoid, avoid, avoid at all costs. Not one laugh, not even a grin. This movie will make your face come out in pimples and your eyes burst like the last remants of "Raiders". I can't even think of a worse movie, be it "Manos" or "Ishtar". As the Pythons beckoned, run away, run away! Why did anyone green light this unless they used their own money? The horror is that there is not ONE good line, not ONE good joke, and only ONE bad thing...the making of this movie.<br /><br />I feel that, if made properly, this would have been hilarious. As it is, I need a new pancreas for retching so loud. Damn anyone involved in this travesty.
I picked up this movie because it caught my eye as movie with a Jewish comedy focus - something I had not seen before. <br /><br />I approached this film with an open mind, and was interested in the way it began. The opening is well put together, and the first half of the film gave me many reasons to laugh, and this is good.<br /><br />However, the humor soon became repetitive, the plot became confused and strained, and I realized I was no longer enjoying the film. I have tried to avoid saying this, but the movie became rather "cheap" - not a bad thing for a comedy if the humor holds up, but it didn't. I confess that I may have missed some of the humour, not being Jewish myself, and having little experience with Jewish culture. However, considering how heavily telegraphed the bulk of the humour was in this film, it's unlikely I missed much.<br /><br />The idea is a good one, and perhaps if a little more thought was put into it the film would have been watchable all the way through. I wish I could give the movie a higher rating, but strictly speaking it would have been better as a TV series or as a series of skits. There was just not enough worthwhile fresh material for a full-length movie.<br /><br />One thing to say about the casting - the lead role looked as if it had been designed with Ben Stiller in mind, but I don't think the movie would have been any more worthwhile if he had been in it.
Technically speaking, this movie sucks...lol. However, it's also hilarious. Whether or not it's intentionally funny I don't know. Horrible in every aspect, it also is the only movie I know of that has 1) a fat kid being played by a slim actor in a (very obvious) fat suit, 2) an attractive 30-something actress playing a character who's supposed to be in her late 60's, and 3) the most compliments for plastic yard daisies ever. Don't take this film seriously, just watch it for laughs....a great party movie.
You can see that if the flick ain't directed by his brother, this is the best he can do. And sad to say, his best just doesn't cut it. "Ice Cream Man" is a very bizarre horror film, that's a real blast to watch if you're in the right mood. In the wrong mood, it has been known to cause people to lash out violently at loved ones, so please, watch with caution.<br /><br />Clint Howard stars (Does anything really star Clint Howard though?) as the "evil" "psychotic" "bizarre" (Yes all in quotes, he's not quite any of these, but he's getting close) ice cream man, who tortures the local children with bomb pops that are really melty and ice cream that has chopped up humans and dogs in them. Ick.<br /><br />Anyway, the plot's really just an excuse to show of the...well, the...um, well it's a plot. Oh wait, I know! It's an excuse to show off all the loser actor cameos! There's Jan Michael Vincent and Lee Majors II (The sequel?) as cops tracking the elusive man o' ice cream. And even Doug Lleyweln appears as a supermarket clerk.<br /><br />Even better than that, are some of the bizarre goofs in the film. I really like the fact that for some reason, instead of hiring a fat actor to play the unhappy "fat" kid of the group, they just make this one kid wearing padding under his clothes. And the entire premise that anyone would by scoops of ice cream from a ice cream man. Who buys ice cream scoops from the ice cream man? Then there's the entire psychiatric ward scene, in which Jan Michael Vincent's acting ranges from mildly interested, to bored beyond the state of consciousness. These are the cops who also scour the Ice Cream Man's place for clues but manage to complete gloss over the ice cream truck (where, of course, the various bodies and such are kept). Oh well, better luck next time troops.<br /><br />Howard himself overacts like he's making sure people two towns over can see and hear him. It's all just plain dumb. And fairly fun to laugh at in the fine tradition of The Pumaman or Gymkata. You'll have a GOOD laugh with the right sense of HUMOR. I love that one.<br /><br />
The only good thing that this movie created was that it made me hungry for ice cream, minus the dead body parts in it. The movie is one of the most cheesy I've seen in a long time. When the "Ice Cream King" dies in the beginning, I was laughing so hard because the kid took the ice cream from him and started eating it. His mom asked him to say something and should should have said "Leave me alone and let me eat the free ice cream so I can watch my acting career go down the drain at a young age." That seems about right for a line. Then I wondered why the ice cream prince was behind the bars of his ice cream truck. Was someone going to rob him of his twenty cents? I've never seen bars on a ice cream truck window. It seemed pretty stupid. You might as well forget about the acting because it is just awful. Forget about this movie and go down to dairy queen and get an ice cream.
A conversation about how Jan-Michael Vincent is a lush led me to foolishly re-visit this mid-90s DTV entry. A kid is traumatized when he sees an Ice Cream man gunned down in the 1950s and he grows up to be a psycho Ice Cream man (Clint Howard). Something happens and people disappear and end up in the ice cream. Blah, blah, blah. <br /><br />Director Norman Apstein (credited as Paul Norman) made a career of doing porn before this and went right back to it afterward. That is what you get for having all murders happen off screen. And for casting a skinny kid as a fat kid and making him wear a fat suit. Just cast a fat kid! Also, there is a scene where Vincent stoically reacts to a group of escaped loonies surrounding him. He was either totally drunk and was frightened for his life or the filmmakers captured his "Have I really sunk this low?" shame full on. Despite being low budget trash, this did line up a few good names including David Naughton, Olivia Hussey, David Warner and THE PEOPLE COURT's own Doug Llewelyn. How you can make a boring slasher with that cast is beyond me.
Clint Howard, brother of more talented Ron, stars in this abysmally awful horror comedy about a mental case who serves ice cream to children and kills people. Striving to be a movie that's of the 'so bad that it's good' variety, this film misses that mark by a good mile and instead has to be seen as 'so bad that it's...well...BAD'. Wheter it's the constant 'shoe ad' cinema, the pillow stuffed 'fat kid', or the sleep inducing 'horror' that soured me on the film, i don't know, all I know is I loathed the film (and this from a guy who has a soft spot for B-horror films). Paul Norman choose to continue making films in the porn industry both before and after this, his only 'mainstream' film. A wise choice indeed as horrible acting, nonsense storyline, and ludicrous dialog are much MUCH more palatable while seeing a porn starlet do her thing. Funnily enough this turkey has absolutely NO nudity (another reason to steer clear) <br /><br />My Grade: D-
I bought this movie at a thrift store. Months before, my friend told me about it when we were talking about dumb movies we've seen. Once I spotted the cassette, I knew I had to have it. I watched it that night. I could tell it was going to be very cheesy and cheaply done. . . That's what drew me to it. I popped it in and I laughed the whole way through. I recognized Gregory (The Ice Cream Man), but I didn't recognize his name and I couldn't remember where I saw him. Later, while watching the Andy Griffith Show, Clint Howard (Ice Cream Man) was featured as an extra since he is Ron Howard (Opie Taylor)'s brother. I saw the credits and I gasped. I turned to my mom, who was also watching the show, and said, "That's the Ice Cream Man!!" She, too, gasped. This movie is great, but only for laughs and criticalness. It is the perfect example of a cheesy horror flick. If you feel like laughing as well as poking fun at low-budget movies, rent this video.
First of all, this movie is gross to the point of nauseating, and my advice is to avoid it at all costs if you ever want to eat ice cream again. I tried watching it because it looked like it might be funny, but it soon became quite disturbing with the ice cream made out of body parts and surprisingly graphic effects. It opens with a boy named Greg witnessing the gruesome murder of an ice cream man (Greg subsequently goes crazy and grows up to be the title character) by what appear to be mob assassins. There is no explanation for this murder, making it the biggest WTF moment in the entire movie. Other, lesser WTF moments include the surreal asylum Greg goes to (featuring evil clowns), a woman speaking in tongues because she has been possessed by the Holy Spirit (what this has to do with anything I don't know), and the fact that Olivia "Holy crap has her career tanked this badly" Hussey is in it.<br /><br />None of these are good enough reasons to watch it. The only reason is for the character Tuna, who is a skinny kid with pillows stuffed under his shirt so that he looks like a fat kid. For some reason this struck me as hilarious. I stayed up far longer into the night than I should have watching this movie just to figure out if there was some reason they couldn't use an actual fat kid for the role. Although I fell asleep before the end, I've gathered from other reviews that Tuna ends up losing the "weight." Okay, so they didn't have the budget to pull this off realistically. Suggestion to the director: how about making the character... not overweight? <br /><br />That's it; if the prospect of Tuna has not interested you enough, there is no other reason to acknowledge this film's existence. If disgusting horror movies about ice cream are your preferred source of entertainment, check out the far superior "The Stuff" instead.
This is one of those movies you find when you stay up too late and only have basic cable. It's hard to believe this movie was made in '95, considering it looks like something out of the late 80s. Plucky youngsters with varied home problems face a demented ice cream man who's on a mission to make the best flavor ever: Soylent Cream!!! <br /><br />This movie is extremely demented and is only scary in how creepy and absolutely, ridiculously gross it is. Actually, the really scary thing about this movie is the nature of the problems these kids face at home. The fact that these kids have no escape from their silent suburban sufferings makes any random loony loose in the neighborhood seem like a walk in the park.<br /><br />The most laughable part of this movie is the fact that the stereotypical "fat kid" is so obviously a slim pre-teen with a mountain of padding under his baggy sweatshirts. I guess that either a) they hadn't invented/ couldn't afford a fat suit, b) the casting director was too lazy to find a pudgy child star or c) we are honestly supposed to believe that this child is starving and has an enormously distended belly. <br /><br />So if you're up at 2 am and need something ridiculous and disgusting to rip on with your intoxicated friends, go ahead and take a look. Personally, I'd rather be sleeping.
It is often hard to decide what the best film is that you've ever seen, since this may vary by genre, preferences for actors/actresses, or even the mood you're in on a particular day! Having said that, this movie is by far, in my opinion, the WORST movie I've ever seen!! I thought the acting was terrible (was there any?), the plot was just idiotic, and the props were totally fakey. Could a lower budget production be created without being an amateur production? I don't think so. Even the friends I watched the movie with agreed that it was the worst video we ever rented, and to this day we still joke about the night we saw this movie.
After reading other reviews on this site, we weren't sure if we were going to be able to critique this movie because it didn't sound bad enough. However, 2 minutes into the movie, we knew we were in for another flop. No summer is complete without ice cream, but this movie served up a melted, sour, broken-bottomed ice cream cone (you know, the kind that leaves you sticky and dirty and looking for a wet-nap). The biggest problem with this movie was the plot. What was it? It appeared to be a psychotic ice cream man driving around the neighborhood. That's it. Nothing else happens. First of all, what are the qualifications for becoming an ice-cream man in this crap town? 1. Spend several years in the most ridiculous mental hospital known to man. This hospital was plagued with clowns, graffiti, fake plastic sunflowers, and oversized syringes to the head. 2. Have extremely poor hygiene and a mutant face to scare the kids away. 3. Make sure your truck is stocked with severed body parts, roaches, and don't forget the eye whites!<br /><br />The actors in this movie are pure B-Movie caliber. Mixed in with a bunch of unknowns is, who other than....a trailer-trash version of Macaulay Culkin!! Even his bratty charm couldn't save this kick in the pants. There seemed to be no rhyme or reason for any of the murders in this movie. The whole concept of the movie reeked! Who would kill an ice cream man in a drive-by shooting? Gangsters? Fiends? Vanna White? Who? We are still struggling with this question.<br /><br />Whoever was in charge of the wardrobe for this movie should be immediately blacklisted from Hollywood. Did they honestly think a pillow under a kid's shirt would make the audience believe that he was really fat? Did they forget about the arms, face, legs, and all other body parts? Second of all, this movie was made in 1995, yet the wardrobe seemed to be picked from a lame 80's movie, evidenced by the big brother's white, crotch-hugging high-water pants.<br /><br />While we were watching this shotty production, we both developed severe cases of ADD. We found ourselves leaving the room to walk around aimlessly. At many points it the movie, we found that staring at a blank wall behind the T.V. set was more entertaining than the actual movie. We were stunned that this movie didn't make it to the Bottom 100. Afterwards, we took the tape out of the VCR and left it on the black top to melt like a sub-standard ice cream cone.
This abomination and the sequel ONE MORE TIME (no thanks) and the hideous Jerry Lewis disasters like Don't RAISE THE BRIDGE LOWER THE WATER (why not just flush instead) drove cinema owners to close their doors rather than be forced to run these films. True: in the 60s block booking of films was still enforced on hapless suburban and country cinemas... this means that in order to get a good film the cinema was forced to run woeful timewasters like these: I remember well in 1974 keen to screen FIDDLER ON THE ROOF or something good like that, I was bailed up in the United Artists booking office by some sozzled salesman who waved a sheet of flops before me and squinted, bellowing: "Now before we get to that one, lemme see ya date these ones first". which basically means: "book these duds and we will give ya a tired hit". This is how and why so many cinemas closed, forced to screen and annoy their waning audiences with these assembly line failures with lame comedians and bored talent. Cinema owners, exhausted with arguing simply closed, sold to a petrol station and saw the cinema demolished. These days the same type of films (eg: I NOW PRONOUNCE YOU CHUCK AND LARRY) get banished to the 20 seat cinema 99 in a mega google plex instead. Not much has changed. FREDDY GOT FINGERED... anyone?
I bought this DVD for my young son who loves the ToyStory movies. I never expected it to be in the same league as the Toystory movies but what I got was just another lazy Disney cartoon, way below what I expected from Disney/Pixar. The story is unoriginal, the characters are dull and two dimensional, the animation is below par, even Buzz isn't that great. The movie could have been so much better. I especially hated the paint by numbers storyline. I know it's meant for kids, but even kids know when something stinks to this level lameness.<br /><br />Although I did enjoy some aspects of the movie, I really liked the opening section of the movie, with the slag mutant monster, it just went downhill from there.
Man were do I start,everything about this Cartoon from the Episodes,to the Stories,Script, an Animation is to me the Stupidest,Dummest and Most Annoying Cartoon that Walt Disney Television Animation ever CREATED and MADE ,Im so glad that Both Toon Disney (2006) and Disney Channel to Stop Airing it in the U.S. as Of This May 2008.<br /><br />Believe me it's A wise choice to skip this out cast and black cloud of A cartoon,if you watch it don't say I did not alert an warn you.<br /><br />Your in for A Boring and Down right Dull and Confusing Time,I wish and pray I never even saw 1 Episode of this Cartoon Buzz Lightyear Of Star Command. If I could I would have the Part of my Brain removed that Remembers watching it,yes it is and was that Bad.
We sat through this movie thinking why is this or that scene in the movie, what does this have to do with the plot? We hoped that by the end everything would be slightly more clear. It was not to be.<br /><br />I think the director in a fit of pique threw the script up in the air and then some minor (and vengeful) underling reassembled it randomly with no regard to the scene being filmed (possibly with scissors and glue-stick).<br /><br />The film's motifs include: Communism bad? Nihilism bad? Poor parenting bad? Threesomes bad? TV bad? Coherent scripting bad? Deconstructionism good? It's really not clear.<br /><br />Finally, no German water taxi would EVER have an unchained staircase that would let passengers fall in to the water. The abundant quantity of "achtung" signs everywhere is testament to this fact.
To begin with its a rip off of the Japanese film Battle Royal except it's missing the one thing that made BR unique, balls. It's a weak satire at best and as far as the real TV phenomena it attempts to comment on well everyone knows how warped and stupid that genre can be so why was this film made?
This is possibly the single worst film i have ever seen - it has no good features at all.<br /><br />It looked as if it was made in about 20 minutes with the other time filled with title graphics.<br /><br />The lead male transformed from deaths door to superman - eh you what<br /><br />Other than that totally predictable and not at all interesting.<br /><br />I left the cinema feeling cheated.<br /><br />Needless to say i could not reccoemnd this film to anyone
This is possibly the single worst film i have ever seen - it has no good features at all.<br /><br />It looked as if it was made in about 20 minutes with the other time filled with title graphics.<br /><br />The lead male transformed from deaths door to superman - eh you what<br /><br />Other than that totally predictable and not at all interesting.<br /><br />I left the cinema feeling cheated.<br /><br />Needless to say i could not reccomend this film to anyone.
*Spoilers ahead, but that shouldn't matter since i hope you wont see this one anyway*<br /><br />If you planned to see this one i have to strongly advice you not to. Because this was one of the most wasted 1½ hours I've experienced.<br /><br />First of all, this is an complete rip-off of the great movie "Battle Royale". It is as stupid as watching any lame American TV-show like "Cops" or "Candid Camera".<br /><br />The plot are totally predictable. One challenger pregnant and another is a nurse, anyone doing some logic thinking understands in the beginning what should happen between those.<br /><br />The concept is ripped as mentioned before and the movie lacks the violence necessary of making this movie enjoyable. I mean, the preggo shoots a guy in the back and no blood or not even any trace of the hit in the back.<br /><br />I could go on forever without finding anything good about it, so take your money and get a copy of Battle Royale instead of watching this piece of crap.<br /><br />1 out of 10, too bad i couldn't rate it lower. Almost makes Scream 3 a masterpiece..
Despite the potentially fascinating premise, Series 7 is weak attempt at attacking reality television. Aside from its bargain basement production values, which present an eyesore 10 minutes in, the overall tone of the film is misguided. Several reviewers have attacked the acting in the film, but I think the real problem is this lame attempt to make the film into a farce. Aside from the fact that the jokes are not funny (a pregnant woman swears a lot, a young girl gets a bunch of guns), it doesn't gel with the overall tone of the film. Had the makers actually made Series 7 to bear a striking resemblance to actual reality TV-colorful yet hollow edits, lame sound effects, sweeping camera motions-maybe their point would have been more solid or at least more palatable. Instead Series 7 meanders through the already harried world of death and game show. You can just imagine the director slapping himself on the back for stating the obvious
I turned this off about 50 minutes into it! Whoever the moron was who decided to steal the idea of Koushun Takami's book(Battle Royal), & make it into a pathetic reality TV show scenario, deserves to be shot!<br /><br />It has done the Film Industry a good turn though. Now Directors like William Malone(Fear Dot Com) can say "well at least it's better than Series 7" This piece of crap & Dracula 3000 tie for first place in the worst 100 movies ever made! <br /><br />Be warned this is not a 'So bad it's Good'Flick!<br /><br />This is a disgrace to Film Makers everywhere! <br /><br />Never see this movie!
the people who came up with this are SICK AND TWISTED FREAKS how the hell can you exploit people like this? tricking people into thinking that this is real? which i probably don't doubt that it is... i saw this thing for the very first time today series 7 and it made me sick to my stomach i almost threw up. i just couldn't stop crying my eyes out for these poor people and if that woman really did have that baby you SHOULD ALL BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES!!!!!!!!!! i have a 4 month old daughter and it is just absolutely appalling that would put a "real" pregnant woman in SO MUCH FRICKEN DANGER! you people are bloody ANIMALS and should be locked up for life allowing something like this to put on t.v. if this so called "reallity show" is for real then why isn't anyone being put in prison for allowing people to die and not doing a god damn thing about it. YOU ALL DESERVE TO BE FRIGGEN HUNTED DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I saw this film last night, a satire of the reality style programs that seem to be making the rounds at the moment.<br /><br />What can I say. I absolutely hated it. About as interesting as watching paint dry and with maybe one or two only slightly amusing moments.<br /><br />Maybe it had something to do with me definately not being a fan of the Survivor and Big Brother type shows, but if this had been a video/DVD or if I'd been watching at the cinema on my own I would have definately not endured more than the first 5 minutes.<br /><br />
This film is little more than an ersatz Verhoeven. The filming is supposed to be tele-realistic, but is simply sickening. The parody disappears after about 15 minutes to be replaced by a story which seems to take itself seriously. The Brechtian pauses for non-existent advert brakes are tedious, and even painful; undoubtedly there was no actual intention to render this film Brechtian, it was just an accident which happened like that. If you want to see a parody of reality tv, watch Celebrity DeathMatch - it's funnier and wittier, and most importantly shorter. I have rarely felt so much pain whilst watching a film. To be avoided like a rabid rabbit.
This film coincides with Mike Allred's comic book mini-series, "Red Rocket Seven" and tells the story of an alien who escaped to Earth to wait for "Astroesque" which ties into the book of Revelations and the apocylpse. This is only part of a bigger story (if the movie confuses you, read "RR7" too). You can easily tell that Allred is used to telling stories with pictures. The direction is very good and the effects aren't bad for a $500 budget. Unfortunately, Mike used many friends to play the roles and probably didn't have the heart to say that they couldn't act. Also, Mike is not showing his writing skills in this movie. His dialouge spoon-feeds the plot to you and doesn't let you enjoy the characters. This was actually disappointing considering his tremendous writing ability shown in his comic books. 4 out of 10.
ASTROESQUE (2 outta 5 stars)<br /><br />I have no idea what the title is supposed... even less of an idea of what is supposed to be going on in this movie half the time... yet, it still kept me sort of interested. This is low, low budget film-making along the lines of "El Mariachi", filmed in 16mm... and, for what it's worth, the shots are very well-composed and visually stylish. Directed, written by and starring comic book writer/artist Michael Allred... I guess it's no surprise that the film looks good. Unfortunately, some of the acting is beyond bad... and the rest is competent at best. Allred himself comes off the best... but only because he doesn't actually speak much. He just strides around looking cool most of the time... or running from crazed rednecks who are trying to kill him. The sound is also pretty bad... almost as if it was unfinished in places... maybe they couldn't afford to pay for the music they'd planned to use? Strange, vaguely science-fictiony plot... similar in tone to "The Man Who Fell To Earth"... but most of the film boils down to a standard run-from-the-bad-guys and kill-them-before-they-kill-you plot. Ultimately too oblique to be successful but not without interest for adventurous movie watchers.
Michael Allred's comic book stories, particularly his work on Madman, usually are a great deal of fun. "Astroesque," Allred's no-budget indy film, is the opposite of fun.<br /><br />Worst acting ever coupled with truly horrible dialog makes for a brutal cinematic experience. Pretty certain Allred understands WTF's going on, but he's the only one. Daring you to watch the entire mess isn't enough...defying you to watch the entire mess is more on target.<br /><br />"Astroesque" is some kind of movie tie-in to Allred's "Red Rocket 7" comic book, which, ironically, is mostly unreadable. So if your "Astroesque" experience isn't terrible enough definitely track down the over-sized comics and continue the fun.<br /><br />Felt sorry for Allred, who was totally out of his depth attempting a film. Also felt sorry for myself, what an incredible waste of my time and money. Please buy my VHS copy, which is available right now on eBay. Hurry up.
I don't know if I'm wrong or everybody els'es that says this movie is good are, sincerely I just wanna do a favor to people that has doubts about seeing it, renting it or even worse buying it(don't do it really!).<br /><br />The trailers and very early previews might seem fun in some way or another but its not funny at all, it gets to fall in a series of you're-supposed-to-laugh-here scenes that tend to get in really bad jokes, bad very very bad acting, tasteless scenes, cheesy effects; this movie has it all, all wrong that is.<br /><br />As final comment the movie would have been funny due to the basic concept, but believe me is really way far from that.
The commercials for RAT RACE made it look too juvenile for me to enjoy, but since my boyfriend adores this movie (and the soundtrack), I finally relented and watched it with him tonight. I make him watch David Lynch films and all sorts of obscure indie stuff (I recently forced URBANIA on him), so I felt I owed him an innocuous Hollywood product.<br /><br />I didn't want to hurt his feelings, so I saved my bitching for y'alls. Yeah, RAT RACE has its moments, but a great deal of it irritated me. Let's start at the beginning. RAT RACE was marketed as a "family film," so I was a little surprised to discover that the first scene centered around a porno movie. (I can hear it now: "Mommy, what does AFRO WHORES mean?") This scene has no purpose in this movie other than to cram some naughtiness into a PG-13 movie.<br /><br />And while we're still on the segments in the casino, it's pretty convenient that all the characters happened to play, within the same time frame, the slots that held the gold coins. What would have happened if they didn't? Would those millionaire gamblers just sit around and wait? And how did they get those gold coins in the slots in the first place?<br /><br />But I'm belaboring a plot point that's necessary for the movie to exist, so I'll press on. About Whoopi and her long-lost daughter: they're meeting for the very first time, yet throughout their whole ordeal they don't discuss with each other anything about themselves. Why make their relationship such a presumably complicated one? Couldn't they have just been, say, a mother and daughter on vacation together? Why the business concerning a long-ago adoption? And why portray the daughter as a hard driving career woman chained to her cell phone who never again needs contact with her business? Did the screenplay just forget about this subplot and character trait?<br /><br />This illustrates the main weakness of this movie - the characters are inconsistent and interchangeable; it's exhausting when everyone is equally zany and with no identifying traits. And another thing - the events aren't plausible. Oh, sure, the characters can do some quirky things, but the characters themselves have to be believable. Take THE NAKED GUN (another Jerry Zucker movie) for example. Frank Drebin has some pretty exaggerated moments, but everything he does is, in theory, possible in his world. (Jane is also funny, but it's a different kind of funny, which makes all the difference.) A character in RAT RACE defying natural laws by leaping onto a speeding train destroys any plausibility the movie may have; these clearly aren't real people, so why should I care about them?<br /><br />Another problem I have with RAT RACE is a moral one. The characters obtain their modes of transport almost totally by theft. I know, I know, this is just a silly comedy, and the same actions didn't bother me fifteen years ago when I saw MILLION DOLLAR MYSTERY, but there's a lot of lawbreaking in RAT RACE, and it bothers me now. And I won't delve into the whole airport-sabotage sequence other than to wonder if the screenwriters didn't consider the real-life implications of such an action; was that scene funny before 9/11?<br /><br />I'll skip over the distasteful bits concerning the heart, the drugging of one's family and the Nazis (whose buildup and payoff worked better in an episode of "Seinfeld"), and move on to complain about the acting. Rowan Atkinson started out annoying and ended insufferable; I don't know when I liked a comical character less. And the three Oscar winners need new agents. Whoopi came off best, but she didn't have much to work with (loved the copper perm and purple lipstick though); Kathy Bates' part was shrill but mercifully brief; Cuba, was...oh, man. Cuba, babe, please fire your agent! Following INSTINCT and CHILL FACTOR, this is your third strike (be glad I haven't seen PEARL HARBOR or SNOW DOGS) - it's time to give your '97 Best Supporting Actor Oscar back to its rightful owner (Edward Norton, for PRIMAL FEAR). An actor of your stature has no business running half-naked through the desert and being checked out by a transvestite Lucille Ball impersonator. Do you even read the scripts to your movies anymore, or are you reaching into a bag and pulling your next project out at random?<br /><br />There's other small points that bother me (how did Grisham and the hooker get to the loot so fast?), but, basically, RAT RACE amounts to little more than your basic batch of character types being hindered by arbitrary obstacles on their way to a rather underwhelming and inexplicable ending. They give the money to charity? What kind of ending is that?!? Yeah, it's the "noble" thing to do. Never mind the probability of cross-promotion/licensing whores Smash Mouth (do they ever say no to selling out?) putting on a benefit concert in the middle of the New Mexico desert, but who would honestly do such a thing? Yes, they say it's the journey, not the destination, that makes a trip worthwhile, but there's no journey without a destination. If there was ever an example of a "wrong happy ending," this would be it. What a bummer end to a movie that, despite my nitpicking here, I did enjoy parts of (I confess to enjoying the bit with the cow and some of the Lucy stuff along with the character with the tongue piercing - at first I thought his indecipherable speech would run me up a wall, but he grew to be my favorite).<br /><br />But as far as my boyfriend knows, I found RAT RACE quite funny and charming.<br /><br />
If you are a fan of slap-stick that has terrible writing, awful acting and cliche after cliche this one is for you.<br /><br /> There is far too much to list for the reasons why this movie sucks. In a brief synopsis, people with a combined iq of 100 journey to New Mexico on a race for 200 million dollars. And yes they are all apparently super heroes, as they can do many things such as jump onto trains that are traveling 80+ mph, survive numerous car crashes, and endless instances of outright cartoonish roadrunner and coyote antics.<br /><br /> If you are a teen, or dont want to think for a movie, this one is for you.. Not one actor outside of Lovitz is believeable at all.. Lovitz saves the movie from a 1 with the Hitler bit.<br /><br /> 2/10 (save yourself the 2 hours of pain and $4)
This movie received a great write up in Blockbusters 'coming attraction' I was looking forward to the release date,08/07/02. The plot sounds reasonable, the cast alone should have guaranteed a side-splitter, but whoa there; apart from the 'off the wall betting events' this was quite a bore.<br /><br />This will never become a comedy classic, and I'm afraid it has done no help to the fine comedy reputation of John Cleese. Rowan Atkinson, now he was quite funny, in a Rowan Atkinson sort of way!
SPOILERS THROUGHOUT:<br /><br />Not good. The movie differed completely from the book(Not that the book was exactly a classic but it really was very good.)<br /><br />I guess Demi Moore was OK. Actually, I don't really remember to much about her performance one way or the other. However the big disappointment wasn't with Ms. Moore.<br /><br />WHY did whoever did the rewrite decide to suddenly make the millionaire have a heart? (I'm referring to him as "the millionaire" because he also had a different name in the movie then the book version-just another change.)<br /><br />People who didn't read the book obviously won't know anything's different but in the BOOK version this guy is much more ruthless as well as complex overall. He is also fascinating. The fact that such a big change was made in the movie alters the whole plot. It was almost like seeing a completely different movie.<br /><br />I know MANY movies vary widely from the books. But I also thought Redford's character was a bit of a wimp. This ISN'T Redford's fault(He's a great actor and could have played ruthless well) but without those qualities he becomes just another dazzled man in love hence the story becomes just another cliché love story involving 1 woman and 2 men. That wasn't really the point of the book.<br /><br />This could have been a lot better. Even if I hadn't read the book version I wouldn't have liked this all that much, but changing so much around definitely takes it, for me, a few points down.
Demi and Woody are married, but they're poor. They meet Robert Redford, and he's REALLY rich. He takes a fancy to Demi, and since he's a gambling man he makes the couple an "indecent proposal:" one million dollars for a night with the little woman.<br /><br />At this point you need watch no more of the film because you can put the details together in your sleep. Of course Demi is going to accept the offer. If she doesn't there's no first half of the movie. Of course it will affect Demi and Woody's marriage. If it doesn't there's no second half of the movie. And of course everything will turn out okay by the time the credits roll. If it doesn't, there's no happy ending for the sake of box office.<br /><br />The absolute best thing you can say about INDECENT PROPOSAL is that Demi Moore looks good in a black dress. As for the rest... The script is incompetent, the direction amateurish, the performances negligible. I suspect Redford, Moore, and Harrelson blush and change the subject every time the film is mentioned. Do them--and more importantly yourself--a favor. Unless some one offers you a million... Miss It!<br /><br />Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
Only saw this movie late last night. I remember the hype of it's release and to be honest had I viewed it back then I maybe wouldn't have been so generous. I hate hype, it can ruin a movie. I think the movie glossed over the characters and put too much emphasis on Woody. He was good too - although kept wondering if he was stoned the whole time. It never went too deep. Redford was dark but not too dark and his character let me down in the end. To me he should have been more confrontational with Demi - throwing her out perhaps or telling her that she was paid for. After all he would have investigated them before he made the proposal - that's not shown in the movie, but no one in his perceived position would have made an offer to just anyone. He was cruel to the point of breaking them up and the last straw was the house and yet Demi fell for him? The passages giving an insight to Demi and Woody's relationship were the best part of the movie. There was a keen deepness that outshone the shallowness of John Gages character. He really could have been a lot stronger and as other people have alluded I think the movies draw-card was Redford and they didn't want tarnish his "image". I say what the hell Robert was old in this movie! Woody and Demi's characters were naive in a sense, but I think that was very intentional to draw you to their plight and champion their decision. But the reality is, they were losing their dream home and where did they go? Las Vegas? to gamble what little they had left and then accept a proposal from an insanely rich billionaire. I found their naivety when Redford was seducing them a little too unrealistic. The movie could have been so much more and other actors would have made a difference, but having said that on late night TV - it was enjoyable and I if you don't think too much - also palatable
This story had the potential of a good film. The difficult choice of love versus money and the angst and regret of making the wrong one. However the movie was ruined by the horrible miscasting of Robert Redford as the villain who offers $1,000,000 to sleep with Demi Moore. Like Redford has to pay for it. Redford's boyish good looks and All American charm just don't cut it as an unlikeable, threatening, boor. Redford's acting skillls are insufficient to make his character menacing. I can see it now, $1,000,000 to sleep with Robert Redford. OK says the lady but you will have to give me some time to raise the money. Jack Nicholson would have been perfect as the sleazeball.
A good example of the differences between American and foreign cinema can be seen in a film I recently watched on television: Indecent Proposal.<br /><br />Indecent Proposal's two protagonists, David and Diane Murphy are played Woody Harrelson and Demi Moore. I'm not sure if it was their total lack of chemistry or that they were not acting well, but why we should care so much whether these two stay together was beyond me. Love, affection, playfulness, attraction – none of these materialized on screen in their interactions together.<br /><br />Since I knew that eventually Robert Redford would show up, it was clear from the beginning that the good part, the meat of the movie, would be the scenes between him and Demi Moore. Poor Woody Harrelson just could not muster any emotion at all for the film. He seemed to be holding back, preoccupied with his receding hairline.<br /><br />OK, so fast forward. What idiots these two (Diane and David) are for thinking they can win back the $50,000 they owe by gambling. No acting faux pas there, just hideously bad, lazy, unforgivable writing. Of course they lose all their money. Surprised? I know I wasn't. Enter Robert Redford (John Gage in the film) – a romantic, perhaps emotionally frigid man, an updated Gatsby. A very good role and though not a great, great actor, next to those two, Redford looks like Olivier. He immediately falls in love and lust with Diane and we the viewers for once FEEL it. This is how to love a woman! Not David's way, trading gum mouth to mouth with Diane on a slimy pier. (Did I see that right?) As Gage, Redford wears a suit and tie in every scene. Yes it's meant to instruct the seemingly brain dead audience that here is a Rich Man, but he also looks damn good and by this point the brain dead audience appreciates it! Other wardrobe symbolism includes David's now-ironed shirts at the end of the film, signifying resolve, getting it together after a long interlude of forlorn wrinkled shirt wearing.<br /><br />And what is it with California garden parties as depicted in Hollywood movies? Suddenly everyone appears British, complete with lacy dresses, three piece suits for the men, hats (HATS!) and of course the parasol. Yes Diane, her transformation to Rich Man's fiancée now complete, is there at the auction daintily twirling a parasol. Though she insisted that she couldn't be bought, she succumbed at last to the sexual tension. Here is where the film branches off into pure Americana. I mean, of course David and Diane will end up together, my question is: WHY? Diane was bored with David, why not let her ride the Robert Redford wave? And I mean for a good long while? How can she pull herself out of the sexual-romantic thrall of this sexy older man so easily just because Woody Harrelson brings his receding hairline to the garden party, sits himself down and looks Demi Moore in the eyes. That's just not how it goes. He was so WEAK.<br /><br />But we must have our happy ending. We have to swallow the Moral Lesson. We're not sophisticated enough yet to have it otherwise. Director Lyn tried to make a Fatal Attraction for the juvie set, the young'uns.<br /><br />In addition to garden parties in which there's nary an SUV, tee shirt, or baseball cap in sight, such films also feature a reliable public transportation system that connects far-flung California cities and municipalities. How else to symbolize the return to middle class or working class life?
This was one of the biggest pieces of crap I have ever had to watch. I mean, seriously. How would anybody else feel if they were in Woody Harrelson's shoes and your wife was even CONSIDERING it would be a good idea to sleep with the other guy even for a million bucks. After all, she was the one talking about it in bed and saying how it would be good for them since he can build his house or whatever with that money. Woody never fully agreed to it until she talked him into it. How CAN you trust her? Who the hell would actually even consider that if they were married? I don't care how desperate they were. That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life. Then, he flips out on her. Apparently, he had no right to mistrust her, other than the fact that his wife just slept with another dude who is extremely rich and handsome. Oh and wait, then he's supposed to apologize to HER after she files for the divorce so she can be with the guy she slept with. Of course Woody has no right to say anything to her or mistrust her especially after she still has Roy Hobb's card in her wallet. Then, at the end of the movie, she's apparently so in love with Woody still and misses him so much, that she was not going to leave Hobbs until he made some ridiculously stupid story up to try to hint to her to leave, and she bleeping thanks Hobbs???? Are you bleeping kidding me? Was she under contract as his sex slave or something?? I mean what the bleep?? Oh and wait it gets better. She bleeping kisses him passionately before she gets out of the car. Yea, she's not a whore. Oh, thank you for letting me go, let me go make out with you one last time for good ole' sake. Smooch smooch, smooch even though I'm still married to a guy I left for a rich guy. I have never seen such a piece of crap in my life. How the hell are we supposed to feel good after that horrible ending? What was this movie supposed to represent? NOTHING CAME OUT OF THIS! This was the most pointless movie I have ever seen in my life. Two pathetic desperate people. If I were Woody, I would tell her to go drown herself in that body of water they were near. Apparently, he had no self respect. What the hell was Roy Hobbs thinking by taking this horrible role. I feel like puking after watching this. This movie was so bad, it was seriously laughable. I want those two hours of my life back that I wasted watching this piece of ****.
Mind-numbingly boring, utterly predictable and in the end simply laughable. That pretty much sums up the disaster that is Indecent Proposal. Starting with a decent premise the whole thing just unravels and becomes a complete mess. Basically the story boils down to the question, "would you let your wife sleep with another man for one million dollars?" Here of course the answer is yes because otherwise we wouldn't have a movie. Quite frankly, we'd have been better off if we didn't have a movie.<br /><br />Our married (and financially troubled) couple are played by Woody Harrelson and Demi Moore. They go to Vegas to get rich. Yeah, that'll work. Anyhow, a billionaire, played by Robert Redford, takes a liking to the wife and makes the million dollar offer. For one night with the wife he will give them financial security. The aftermath of that one night is what the movie is really all about. Unfortunately nothing in that aftermath is the least bit entertaining. The script is so predictable you can say the characters' lines before they do. The performances leave much to be desired. Harrelson would be better off sticking to comedies as this attempt at serious acting completely misses the mark. Anguish is not something he seems capable of portraying. And it is quite safe to say that Demi Moore will never have to clear space in her home for any Academy Awards. Why is she a movie star again? In a part that should be full of emotion she conveys none. Only Redford escapes mostly unscathed. He's appropriately slimy yet suave and clearly the best actor of the bunch. But he can't save this film. Awful script, lousy acting, plodding pace, zero entertainment...Indecent Proposal is downright awful.
Obviously, a number of agents didn't see beyond dollar signs when they signed up their clients for this 117-minute *omage* to the courtesan complex.<br /><br />Sure, the film could have been alright, had the $1 million been left out of it. Seriously. The amount of the check doesn't matter,prostitution is still prostitution and no amount of "love conquers all" can change the fact that no marriage vows ever meant to imply "for richer for poorer, for pimping as in fidelity". Picture the story otherwise, though: 2 kids, flat broke, borderline "desperate" and completely stupid. They collide with wealthy business man. Kids' marriage is strained by imperfect times and the fact that the husband is something of a loser. Enter Mr. Tuxedo, oozing charm and stability -- a virtual magnet for the ticking biological clock -- and with him the wife's temptation, tensions, suspense. Whom will she choose? Maybe, under those conditions, I could actually care. As-is, frankly, Redford's selfish and manipulative playboy winds up the sympathetic character. A woman who will sell herself is just about what a guy deserves who will pimp out his wife. The indecent proposition makes the husband a TOTAL loser, deficient in every positive male characteristic, and makes the wife a cheap strumpet seduced by money rather than confused by another potential love, a woman devoid of moral center and self-respect.<br /><br />All the impressive talent (acting, directing, cinematography) wasted on this film -- and it was an impressive amount -- couldn't save it from its splashy-but-too-trashy $1 million pitch line. If I see this turkey at one more bridal shower, I'm going to roast it! (Or maybe cross it with Titanic and pitch the tape in the ocean!)
This film has a premise that is good enough to get anyone talking, and a sure-fire conversation starter. 'Would you sleep with someone you dislike or don't know for one million dollars?' While the film had lots of potential, poor execution turns it into a b-grade soap-opera. The film has a great lead up, and after the proposal is made, we are really into the film, but then it falls dramatically. The last 3 quarters of the film is spent by characters whinging, complaining and regretting what they have done! The ending was so cliched it had me in tears! This has a very similar premise to 'honeymoon in vegas' which is far better. See that instead.
I'm no slouch at finding "redeeming social value." Whatever book or film people want to suppress, from Huck Finn/Heart of Darkness to, I don't know, Deep Throat or the latest hostage beheading, I sincerely wish they wouldn't. I'm not a lover of porn or of violence-as-entertainment, but what of them I chance upon I tend to see camera angles, cuts, pans, lighting, rhythms, nearly to the exclusion of fear or titillation, sometimes even missing filmmakers' or actors' intent. Even from footage that reasonable people may argue should never have existed, I always imagine there's something to learn. I wonder more at how a film does than about what it does. Maybe that's wrong of me. Wiser but harder than deconstructing unpleasant cinema, might be to see cuts, pans, etc., at one with and inseparable from no matter what content. I ask myself what horror filmmakers and church architects have in common. Add in political filmmakers, fascist and not. All manipulate with light, space, and sound in order to alter perception and mood. How different are their goals? How different are the goals of those who film real atrocities for use as propaganda? <br /><br />When the original All Night Long (ANL) trilogy appeared on my shelf, I left it unwatched for nearly year. Curiosity had made me buy it. I sampled a few minutes of "1" the day it arrived, up to the awkwardly sound-effected street corner stabbing that seems really an attack on film viewers' sensibility, found it inept but effective. I'd have to come back to it, certainly, but didn't relish the prospect. Clearly this wasn't the sublime horror of Kairo, Cure, Angel Dust, Lain, the rawer but still traditionally framed horror of the first Evil Dead Trap, the overtly political work of Koji Wakamatsu, or even the brilliant crudity of early Cronenberg.<br /><br />Maybe that word "attack" is key. Matsumura attacks not his characters, but his viewers. I can't watch these at this point in history without thinking of both Abu Garib (some of which I think I recall was evidenced on video) and the hostage videos, but also about Godard's torturers (in Le Petit soldat?) to whom atrocity is just a job, a fraction of a person's workday. And then there's the prolonged Northern California news story whose details I barely remember but can't entirely forget because it too entails "cinema," a duo of serial killers notorious, if suggestion isn't playing games with my memory, for having videotaped themselves torturing victims.<br /><br />All three ANL entries are revenge cinema, vigilante exercises, but I'm attaching these notes ANL3 because it's the most ambitious and may constitute a turning point for director Matsumura. (I haven't seen the entries that followed ANL3.) Through the first two offerings, I imagined a camera fallen into the hands of one of those fringe kids from middle or grammar school who obsessively draw war scenes or other atrocities. (Or as if one of Matsumura's revenge-crazed characters had turned writer-director. Anyone watching these who hasn't seen Michael Powell's Peeping Tom would do well to see it.) But ANL3 seems to aspire to mainstream. Matsumura's protagonist grows carnivorous plants, allowing for some typically Japanese cool close-up nature shots. There's also, for the first time a Matsumura film, a traditionally erotic sequence: Kikuo's female boss sneaks up and begins to caress him while he's peeping at the love hotel's customers. Kikou finds himself unhappily sandwiched between. He's a middleman voyeur. The brief thrill comes from the layers of voyeurism. There's even a philosophical/poetic garbage sifter, a garbage voyeur who somehow makes me think of the poem repeated in Wakamatsu's not-at-all-what-it-sounds-like Go, Go, Secondtime Virgin.<br /><br />I'm getting nowhere with this, and it's getting in the way of my commenting other films. Can't escape the suspicion that a few years on I'll walk into a Matsumura retrospective at my local film archive, maybe hosted by some learned character who's caught onto something I'm missing.<br /><br />How much does it matter whether the director is or simply "gets" his lethally muddled protagonists? Does he even have to understand them? Maybe a director's job is just to spew it out, then let critics, sociologists, and the rest of us hash things out. Maybe directorial or artistic responsibility is a bogus notion.<br /><br />My final struggle with this thing had me wondering what on earth a woman thinks watching these overwhelmingly male exercises. We put women through this over and over, from Star Wars to et cetera and et cetera and on and on and on and on, but is anything quite as male-skewed as the All Night Longs?
This SOFT soft-core/sci-fi B-movie is what you'd have if you took an early Fred Olen Ray film and took out the fun. Or conversely, it's like an Uwe Boll 'movie' but without as much ineptitude. A young nubile chain-gang convict (C.C. Costigan) agrees to pose as a space marshal in order to stop wacky Kim Dawson's plans of...having everyone have sex with everyone else apparently (that vile fiend). Anyone who went into this film looking for serious science fiction, well you got what you deserved for not doing any homework on the film at all. First of all when did Kim Dawson EVER star in anything other than soft-core Skinamax level crap. For that matter take a look at the resume's for Costigan and the Director before you take a hissy fit saying you expected something else. Don't get me wrong, for a space/action/soft-core/titillation flick, this film is STILL not good, but if you expected something along the lines of "Contact", I DO NOT pity you.<br /><br />My Grade: D- <br /><br />Where I Saw it: Starz-on-demand (Available until December 8th, 2005)
I like science-fiction movies and even, low-rated, made for TV, bargain bin, movies I may still find interesting. Well, I found this one in a bargain bin and brought it as a selection to a movie night with a group of friends.<br /><br />I was, literally, *emabrrassed* that I brought this movie.<br /><br />Right from the beginning, the acting is bad, the story is bland and the plot is almost non-existent. All this leads right to what the movie really was: A soft core porno graphical movie.<br /><br />The movie started with a woman prison where the prisoners are all sexy women working in some sort of mine. First clue that this movie is NOT serious: attractive women in a prison being forced to do physical labor. Yeah, right! Whatever. :P Once the "plot" continued, it was overshadowed by pointless scenes of people having sex. Halfway through the movie, my friends and I stopped watching, it was so stupid. The next day, I thought that I would give the movie another chance and watch the rest. I watched about another 15 minutes and gave up again.<br /><br />If you are looking for a decent, science-fiction or even a sci-fi monster movie DO NOT watch Lethal Target! If you want to see a low-budget, soft core porn that is light on plot, then see Lethal Target.
Terrible movie. Just terrible. The start of this movie is like something out of a bad women in prison movie. Then it moves on to being a B-movie version of Aliens. B-movie in this case meaning the addition of gratuitous sex-scenes and women in lingerie. Oh and a lot of the footage is the exact same as used in two other movies by the same company (including the women in prison schtick). The only thing saving this movie from a 1/10 is that I have actually seen worse movies. Not many, and not much, but worse.
I challenge you to watch this film and deny the above statement. That is, IF you can stop looking at her practically flawless face. She also does a bit of fighting and a bit of shooting, but not nearly as much as I was hoping for. The film is extremely slow-moving and low-budgeted, though at least they tried to find an excuse for the spaceship being so underpopulated; nearly the entire crew is on "suspended animation", and the ship moves on auto pilot! And the heroine doesn't rescue any of them, or bring anything useful back "home"; it seems that tricking that evil lady into traveling through space was the only part of her mission that couldn't be more easily accomplished by the missiles that blow up the ship at the end. There are also some long but rather tame soft-core scenes, and a couple of "Alien"-rip-off monsters that kill about 2 people. *1/2 out of 4.
Its a space flick, or at least i think it is. you got half-naked female prisoners in a space prison and a monster on a space station using a virus to infect humanity through sexy encounters. Its Friggin Hilarious. The acting is so bad that space nuts looks like an Emmy award winning film. The story is simple. Space prisoner gets chance to reduce sentence by investigating a space station that lost contact with humanity. She finds a doctor "experimenting" with women and a angry of alien. She fights them, so on and so forth. Its a movie worth seeing it just to wet your pants with laughter. If you like Real sci-fi flicks its a no-no but its a great mood setter for the amateur film maker because i can guarantee their film is better than this.
This was one of the worst movies that I have ever watched. The story was about a woman prisoner sent into space to try and save mankind but what it actually turned out to be was that the prisoner was actually put on board a space ship with a nymphomaniac lesbian commander. All the story was about was having sex over and over again. There was no need for all of this footage - only to create a soft porn film. Of course we had to see the heroin of the movie having sex for about 2 minutes. I don't know what all this had to do with the actual plot of the movie -except I assume to get men to watch it. I gave it 1 out of 10 only because there was no other rating lower. Don't waste your money or time- it has nothing to do with science fiction but rather a movie for young adolescent boys to watch to see t&a. The creature was shown only more than half way through the movie and looked like the alien in the movie with Signorney Weaver. Poor excuse for entertainment.
I come from Bangladesh, and here, C.C.Costigan is a goddess of awesome sex. All kidding aside, a friend and I were awake in the middle of the night, watching movies on the Encore: Action channel, when we came across a series of sci-fi-esquire flicks. There was RoboCop 2 (not bad,...not bad at all) ... then Judge Dredd, (Stalone almost ruins his career) then a movie called Lethal Target. One would think the title "Lethal Target" could only be awarded to a really cool, and really cheesy Rambo knock-off. But nay, what is delivered is what I would like to call a "Semi-softcore, semi-pseudo action, semi-sci-fi film" ... actually, I think I can say that this isn't even a film at all. If it wasn't for the main character's sheer hotness, my friend and I would've turned off the movie as the opening credits rolled.<br /><br />I have a few questions to the people (I wouldn't even dare say "professionals") who made this film. -One, In the future, why are they using the weaponry we used in 1999? Oh, wait, I get it, it's all that they could get their hands on,... right???... well then,.. why is the main character wearing what looks like a normal everyday linen shirt and a vest, kinda like what people wore in the late nineties? .... oh ... I get it ... in space, it MUST have been a fashion statement.... well, then... WHY,OH, WHY does the main character pull out a 3.5 floppy disk at one point in the film so that she can upload some bullshit ?! wtf !? ...we've progressed so far that we have space travel, but we still haven't progressed past 1.44megabytes of space..?<br /><br />I guess I'm just asking for too much.<br /><br />Question two, Let's just say...that yes... this is a softcore porn. Then why is there only ONE real sex scene, and why does it last for 2 minutes?<br /><br />I mean, you're taking the REASON people are staying up in the middle of the night to see this crap (dare I say 'movie' anymore?) ... and whittling it down to 2 minutes. Hell, they should've just taken that sex scene and sold it to another porn movie, and they would've STILL made more money off of this "crap" than they did.<br /><br />C.C.Cortigan is hot. And no offense to the actress, but she acts about as well as I do. and I'm mentally retarded, and only have one testicle... (C.C. Cortigan,...e-mail me ...we'll have lunch) I would write more, but I've run out of space.
Everyonce in a while,4kids brings new shows to it's company. For the past few years, they brought pure gold like Kirby: Right Back at Ya! or Mew Mew Power. But Recenetly, 4kids has been off. CatDog is one of the examples.<br /><br />It's hard to write a negative comment without bashing the show, but in truth, Weekenders is pure garbage. It revolves around A group who with an over active Brain. The catch though is anything he thinks up comes bad. It may sound good on paper, but after watching it, you'll realize how far from good this show is.<br /><br />The Pizza Guy is an extremely dumb character. He's very 1-dimensional, there's really not much to him. He's hyper-active, end of story. Though many feel all the character are a rip off of the South Park, I think just the contrary. Mechazawa from cromartie High-School is an interesting character, and he's able to make me laugh. Tino fail to do either of the two.<br /><br />The cast for the show isn't any better. Like Tino's Mom they suffer from lack of character. They only stick to one characteristic and thats it. The only redeeming quality is the fact that the show can cause you to smirk. Whether it's that the scene may actually be funny, or you may just smirk because how stupid it is.<br /><br />Thje Weekenders is a very crappy show from Disney/4kids. Though it does seem to love some fans, it should really be left to the kids.
Final Draft - A screenwriter (James Van Der Beek) locks himself into his apartment and succumbs to psychosis in an attempt to write a horror script. Not a terrible premise, but the execution is awful. This feels like a first year direction and writing job, and probably is. The director jump cuts the hell out of everything. It's meant to be disorienting. What it IS is annoying. So much so that small chunks of film are incoherent. The writing is predictable, and doesn't use follow through on most of the ideas it offers (bag of oranges). It's like they ran out of time and slap-dashed it together for the Toronto Film Festival.<br /><br />This film is not jaw-droppingly "oh my god it's so bad it's good" bad. It's boring bad, and irritates you for a long time afterward. James Van Der Beek is not a terrible actor, and keeps the ship barely above water. But he's too normal for the kind of psychosis the film tries to offer. He is merely a withdrawn guy who one day sees people and hallucinates things, then decides to act mildly deranged. Cause follows effect. Maybe there's something in the water. Now Darryn Lucio, who plays his "friend", is a terrible actor. He shares the likeness of Chris O'Donald and is even more annoying, a superhuman achievement.<br /><br />The atmosphere the film provides is good (dull gray and somber), but as it's the only thing the film achieves it means nothing. This film wants to be Jacob's Ladder or The Machinist. It isn't even Secret Window. It's the preppy girl in class deciding to turn goth.<br /><br />Not irksomely terrible, but the sheer stupidity of it will ebb at you. I've already put more thought into this critique than the filmmakers did for this.<br /><br />D
Very silly high school/teen flick about geeks trying to prove themselves better than the rich brats. Sound familiar? This television movie from director Rod Amateau ("Uncommon Valour" and some "Dukes of Hazaard" episodes believe it or not) says nothing, does nothing, and surely will entertain very few.<br /><br />Notable for its "who's who" of television cast, including Michael J. Fox, Bob Denver ("Gilligan"), and Todd Bridges ("Different Strokes"). This lame effort barely limps over the line. Also stars Anthony Edwards ("E.R.").<br /><br />Saturday, September 5, 1998 - Video
All in all, this is a movie for kids. We saw it tonight and my child loved it. At one point my kid's excitement was so great that sitting was impossible. However, I am a great fan of A.A. Milne's books which are very subtle and hide a wry intelligence behind the childlike quality of its leading characters. This film was not subtle. It seems a shame that Disney cannot see the benefit of making movies from more of the stories contained in those pages, although perhaps, it doesn't have the permission to use them. I found myself wishing the theater was replaying "Winnie-the-Pooh and Tigger too", instead. The characters voices were very good. I was only really bothered by Kanga. The music, however, was twice as loud in parts than the dialog, and incongruous to the film.<br /><br />As for the story, it was a bit preachy and militant in tone. Overall, I was disappointed, but I would go again just to see the same excitement on my child's face.<br /><br />I liked Lumpy's laugh....
I saw Winnie's Heffalump a couple of days ago. A nice story based on well known characters created by A.A.Milne. Although Winnie, Piglet, Tigger and Rabbit are all present in this animated feature, the main character is Roo this time. He befriends with scary Heffalump who proves to be not scary at all and shows everybody that friendship knows no boundaries and everybody wants and deserves to be happy. I love this film and I would love it even more were I 10 or 15 years younger. Alas, I would like to become a kid again to enjoy this Heffalump story much more but all I am left with is a sense of sadness at the loss of a sort of childishness and innocence of which this movie is full… I was glad to hear Carly Simon sing, Joel McNeely provided great score.
First of I should point out that I used to love Winnie The Pooh as a child and I really enjoyed The Tigger Movie even though I am in my 20's.<br /><br />But this movie was so bad I was ashamed to have been a fan in my youth.<br /><br />OK, OK I know this is a movie for kids and isn't aimed at people like me anyway but this is my thoughts on the movie for other people of my age.<br /><br />The main downfall in this film is the heffalump itself, it has to be the most annoying character I have seen in a child's movie (possibly even more annoying then the young child in Monsters Inc). It has the most annoying voice and prattles around singing stupid things and making even more stupid comments, I know Pooh movies aren't exactly high brow but this was insulting to even a 2 year old's intelligence!<br /><br />Secondly - where was the story? Previous Pooh outings had a least a point to the story- yes I can see this was about accepting people who are different to you into your hearts - but really it ended and I felt like I had watched a 5 minute cartoon on kids TV.<br /><br />I don't have children of my own but when I do I fully intend to show them quality children's movies like The Tigger Movie, Toy Story and Finding Nemo (even though they are too childish for me these days I can see how they would be of great appeal to young children). Not so with this appalling attempt at a movie.<br /><br />Oh and one more thing - NOT ENOUGH Eeyore! He should have his own movie!
I don't understand the many good reviews, here. I found the photography and scenery beautiful, and the two lead actors appealing, but there's little else here to recommend this movie. Most annoying are the fake Southern accents and badly written dialog. These do not sound like real people to me. Although it's refreshing to show men exploring various forms of sexuality without the usual labeling and stereotypical character traits, most of the story is without motivation or logic. The only thing that makes very much sense is the responsibility Griffith feels toward his mentally ill Aunt, grossly over-acted by Karen Black. Lee is an interesting character who would have been more compelling had the dialog he was made to speak been more natural and his motivations more clear. Yes, I understand that he's a drifter, but his actions as the movie draws to a rushed conclusion make no sense at all. This movie is worth a look, chiefly because it has a nice atmosphere about it, but it's slow moving and deeply flawed. A serious rewrite and better editing might have saved it, as the premise and story outline are promising.
I think Purvis starts out to do a gay "Gone With The Wind" If so, sorry, Tag, it didn't happen. It also didn't happen as a gay "sexploitation" flick. I guess I'm confused; what are we trying to do here? Much as I'd like to, I simply can't get to where I care even a little about these characters. This movie is effective in capturing a taste of the decadence that lives in the South; it does nothing to explain, enlighten or advance my understanding of a gay relationship, or the conflict the protagonist seems to be grappling with.
Close but no cigar! - that's what my opinion of this film is! TAG PURVIS both wrote and directed this script which should have gone through a re write before shooting. At times, laughable because or a corny script, this film's shining star is Dan Mongomery Jr and the Director of Photography. Both of these talents are ones to watch out for in the future. My recommendation is to wait until it hits your local cable station and use the rental money on a classic!
Terrible direction from an awful script. Even the DVD looked muddy and out of focus. Laughable accents all over the map. Unlike most of the other commenters I had no idea this was about boys in love in the mud, but that fact became immediately obvious from the opening scene and all the lovingly drawn-out shots of nude or scantily-clad young men, usually wet or glistening with sweat, looking longingly at each other.
I saw this film at our crossroads film festival, and was looking forward to it because it was filmed in mississippi and starred karen black. I was severely disappointed by the clumsy script which never flowed and the apparent lack on the effort of the actors and director to understand anything about the culture they endeavored to portray. How did lee and griffin become such deep friends in five minutes? Which of the two were f***ing the girl under the tree? It was unclear. And, There seems to be some law in hollywood about southern accents, and rarely do you hear anything remotely approaching the everyday sounds of the south., despite the awful, "this must be how they sound, just soften the "r"" approach to dialogue, so many times the actors lapse out of it altogether. Aleksa especially sounded like a new york street tough during "emotional" scenes, and nobody sounded mississippian at all. Walt Goggins' character was supposed to have been from Morgan city, Louisiana yet sounded nothing like that city's blend of new orleans and cajun accents. The other bothersome point seemed to be an urge by the writer to make us all feel that every man must have homosexual urges inside him. Before I start a firestorm here and am accused of homophobia, I've enjoyed many films with gay love themes, notably "punks" "when love comes" and "b monkey". But this seemed to be some man's wish about all young men. Well, Tennessee williams has already covered this ground, and did a far better job of it. So, I wonder, if the coen brothers can get regional accents and culture dead on in films set in Minnesota and in Mississippi, why can't anyone else? What a waste of my time.
Thank God this has not been renewed by ITV.<br /><br />This series, while popular (God knows why) has a very simple - 'Look I've found another body behind the flowers/bushes/trees/wherever they are working - for the sixteenth time this series' plot. The dialogue is so simple it's as though this has been written for children - talking down to the viewer and explaining every plot point.<br /><br />They just 'happen' to be around when someone does something out the ordinary - and no-one notices them.<br /><br />Every time they look into and investigate someone's murder, they get in the way of everyone else - messing up the lives of all - including those completely innocent.<br /><br />They break and enter into people's homes, stealing items and evidence (even firearms) being nosey and getting into people's lives, spying on them and going through their stuff. They never apologise, never get caught or arrested (and if they do they can talk their way out of it, even though another character who does the same gets put in prison!!!).<br /><br />They always come up trumps. Now I know that this is an easy going series, but I think that realistically this should not have made it past the first few episodes! Put simply, it's unrealistic.<br /><br />I think that they have found enough bodies in the undergrowth both here and on the Continent (where they are every other week), so I do hope it never comes back.<br /><br />ITV should get some action on the screen instead of all the years of humdrum - 'someone's been murdered at the village fair - again' type series.
This show makes absolutely no sense. Every week, two ladies go to an estate to do some gardening, and every week without fail, they somehow stumble upon a murder. Because everyone who owns a big house with a large garden is involved in a murder, right? But even if they did somehow happen to stumble upon murder after murder, wouldn't the smart thing to do be to tell the police? You know, the people who can actually do something about it... But every week, these two fools go around, polluting evidence, committing crimes of their own, and, in some cases, causing more murders. Once they do miraculously solve the murders, there is no way the murderer could ever be convicted. All the evidence has been sabotaged. And you'd think people who are covering up murders would think not to hire these two, wouldn't you? Yay! We've solved the murder! Now like every other week, let's go and confront the murderer ourselves and, with no back-up, tell them that we know about it. There is no way we could get ourselves into any danger, is there? Rosemary and Thyme is one of the worst shows on television, and certainly the most ridiculous.
This is the story of a news investigator who hates his job - which prove why actors - even as weak as Tom Cruise and Denzel Washington - are on the big screen and your neighbors are not!<br /><br />I'll say this though - the better moments show some basis for being really funny (not just wacky), to keep trying, maybe taking some classes, and using the time to keep learning how to make a good movie. ("Dude, Where's My Car" and the "Scary Movie" sequence have it all over this ... college attempt.)<br /><br />The lighting wasn't; the production wasn't; and the script had moments (the conversation from space - very nice try unconvincingly executed). (This reminded me of "Dark Star" - which is about being "lost in space" - but this movie is just lost.)<br /><br />The talent was the bartender (he said 'dog' so annoyingly that I knew he had to be acting... wasn't he? ... now THAT's acting!), the Mark Hammond guy, and Marty. I guess I gave the movie a point for each one of them... 3/10.<br /><br />-LD<br /><br />______________________________________________<br /><br />my faith: http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/jbc33/
I'm a huge lover of really bad B movies. And I especially love alien/scifi movies. I say the cheaper, cheesier, and campier the better. A low budget and a hokey idea are fun enough for most bad B movies, but this movie is so bad that I really felt embarrassed for the people who made the movie and for the schlocky ad-lib actors. First off, there's no real plot, it's all sort of situation "comedy" (if it can be called that). The "comedy" in this movie is more about characters saying, in essence, "look at me, I'm in this crazy situation! Isn't this funny?", but it's only pathetic because nothing anyone's doing is that funny. There's no comedic acting skill, nor any kooky plot to carry all the very un-imaginative scenarios through this dreary turd.<br /><br />The bad comedy and lack of anything remotely comical is only worsened by the bad ad-lib acting, actors saying really stupid things over and over again (perhaps trying to ape for catch phrases, perhaps just b/c everyone in this is so bad), really unattractive women being played off as hot chicks, and people barfing and passing out in bathrooms.<br /><br />There was one middle aged actor toward the end of the movie who I could tell had some acting chops and was kinda' convincing in his role. He was as out of place as a solid BM in a weekend detox unit's bathroom. Corey Feldman was filmed for about 3 minutes in total (thankfully we didn't have to put up with him any longer), and he was filmed off site -- probably outside his apartment on the way out somewhere. He said a few really un-funny things about aliens and having sex with aliens and that was the extent of his appearance.<br /><br />If you value your life and the 90 minutes (and years of pain in remembering) you'll lose by watching this garbage, avoid it. If you do a lot of drugs, like Adam Sandler's comedy stylings (and thus have no standards whatsoever), and are considered mentally slow you might like this movie. <br /><br />P.S. I think the people who raved about this must work for Troma or something, b/c I can't believe people can be so lame as to actually enjoy this movie. (Do drugs really ruin your judgment that much?)
If you are looking for a movie with beautiful shots of Mount Everest, then you may enjoy this movie. Just skip ahead to the views of the mountain.<br /><br />(Spoiler Alert) However, if you, like me, believe that lives are precious and not to be wasted then this movie will leave a bad taste in your mouth. 6 people died, 5 Sherpas and a member of the Japanese party just so that one man could attempt to ski down Mount Everest.<br /><br />The question is raised in the movie about whether the continuation of the expedition to meet his personal goal was still worth the cost in lives, and he answers an emphatic "Yes".<br /><br />The part about skiing is in the last 15 minutes. He skis for a short time, then falls the rest of the way until he comes to a stop in the snow.
I saw this film when it came out. Let me see now--this guy who had earlier skied down Mount Fuji manages to accumulate the funding and hire personnel to document what sounds on the surface like a bold and daring act---to ski down the world's highest peak. Well--AND HERE COMES THE SPOILER--what happens, see, after a large crew of people manage to help him get near the top--and a life is lost in the bargain--he gets on his skis, manages to make it down a very very short way, at which point his PARACHUTE OPENS...and that's that. And instead of burning the footage to hide this amazingly anticlimactic ending to an embarrassing debacle, the guy goes ahead and releases it. SPOILER ENDS I do admire the amazing courage and effort it must have taken the film crew to get some of the stunning shots they got. ANOTHER SPOILER--Oh yes, one of the Sherpas is killed by falling into a crevasse. The narrator, who is quoting the "daredevil skier, casually remarks that, according to the Sherpa religion, since this man's body cannot be recovered his soul will roam the world forever and never know rest. Is it worth it, the narrator muses. YES he answers--because it served the purpose of letting this clown "ski down Everest." I can't remember ever seeing a more meretricious piece of celluloid. This is one to miss at all costs.
I found this gem in a rack the local video rental store had of tapes which are exchanged among various rental outlets. 'The Man who Skied Down Everest'. Hmm... never heard about it. The box reads of some Japanese fellow who always wanted to ski down Everest and actually did it. Sounds interesting. I rented it. As expected it was documentary style. The first part can be summarized so: "I always wanted to ski down mount Everest". This is followed by some footage of preparation for the event. LOTS of preparation footage. OK, I suppose it takes a lot of preparation. Then we are treated to a protracted piece on the skier, Yuichiro Miura's philosophy on life etc. More filler follows and I begin to wonder where the skiing fits in to this show. More preparation is shown and they begin to make the trip to the mountain. More philosophy is shown. At last they arrive at the mountain and maybe perhaps he will get around to skiing down the friggin' thing. Lots of climbing footage later there is a description of the parachute device intended to slow Miuras' speed on the steep slope. Finally he straps on the skis and gets ready to go.<br /><br />He's off... He skis about twenty feet and his skis shoot out from under him, he deploys the parachute and tumbles in an inglorious bundle for some distance down the mountain and that's that. End of story. What the heck was that?<br /><br />OK I can buy that he always wanted to ski down Everest, made extensive preparations and actually tried it with camera crew in tow. It didn't work and he ended up tumbling down and almost killing himself, so what egregious hubris would inspire the man to release a film of it and call it skiing down Everest? Perhaps the title,"The Man Who's Feet Shot Out From Under Him and He Slid On His Ass Down Everest" was just too long for the tape box.
I adore Hedy Lamarr. I think she was vastly underrated as an actress during the 40s. She was the Nastassja Kinski of that era, and critics didn't take her seriously. Having said all that...this film is a BORE. When I watched it for the first time, I was shocked at the lack of continuity, not only in story, but in makeup and costumes. Hedy's makeup changes from shot to shot. So does hair length and style. Reason: This thing had so many writers and underwent so many stops and starts it's amazing they ever released it at all. Her "Lady of the Tropics" began filming AFTER this one began, yet it was released before "I Take This Woman." In fact, at the time, it was known in Hollywood as "I Re-Take This Woman." That should tell you something. I'm a Spencer Tracy fan as well, but he is AWFUL here. I've read in various film histories that he absolutely despised Hedy Lamarr, and that looks perfectly obvious on film. NO chemisty whatsoever. The story wanders around for reel after reel and finally just rolls to an end very strangely. I can't recommend this one at all.
Hedy Lamarr who may have been kept by more men on screen than any other actress, is again the kept mistress of Kent Taylor, society playboy and general all around rat. On a boat from the Yucatan after Taylor's given her the brush she tries suicide. But Doctor Spencer Tracy saves her from drowning in the Caribbean.<br /><br />Tracy's quite the all around medical fellow. I guess he never heard the word specialist. He runs a clinic in Manhattan for the poor and his trip was a sideline into medical research. Lamarr and he marry and she tries to introduce him into her world and he even becomes a partner of society doctor Louis Calhern. Of course Kent Taylor reenters the picture and the Hollywood inevitable happens.<br /><br />Watching I Take This Woman it seemed to me that the writers were very much influenced by Tracy's Oscar winning Boys Town. Unfortunately his role as Doctor Karl Decker ain't a patch on what he did as Father Flanagan. Maybe they were trying to give Father Flanagan a little romance in his life in this film so to speak.<br /><br />Tracy and Lamarr did not get along too well. In fact this film was dubbed I Retake This Woman because the original director Joseph Von Sternberg walked off the film, presumably because Lamarr was not working out for him the way Marlene Dietrich did. She did Lady of the Tropics and then MGM went back to filming this with their contract director Woody Van Dyke who was known for the speed of his productions. And a whole new supporting cast was brought in.<br /><br />Fortunately both Spence and Hedy had better roles in store for both of them.
I fully agree with the previous reviewer. There's no chemistry between Spencer Tracy and Hedy Lamarr, and the focus of the film is on their relationship. Hedy Lamarr isn't at her best, and Spencer Tracy appears to be naive, simple and overly-hopeful -- both in love and life; an idealist role that played out best in 'Boys Town'. If you can make it through the ridiculous crowd scene by the train station...whoa...it's rather slapstick and not worthy of any actor in the cast. Not the best acting on anybody's part. Miscast and mismatched. Story is empty and various and disenfranchised input is apparent. Hedy Lamarr is her absolutely stunning herself, which is truly the best part of the film. Spencer Tracy can't match the sophistication of her beauty and wardrobe, and the film doesn't come off as believable for at least that reason.
It's hard to know exactly what to say about this ever so bland and dull little film. The story is predictable when not completely laughable. It's all a matter of "dutiful gestures" which, as presented here, carry absolutely no conviction. Yes, the MGM "production values" are gorgeous, and yes, Ms. Lamarr was exquisitely beautiful, but she and the great Spencer Tracy have absolutely no "chemistry" together - and that's the only thing that would have made this parade of cliches at all effective... It's my understanding that this movie received poor reviews when it was originally released; the passage of time has not improved it.
This movie is on the level with "Welcome Home Roxy Carmichael" for biggest pieces of garbage that have ever hit the silver screen. If these guys weren't Adam Sandler's gay friends, this script would have ended up where it should have: as some big time movie exec's toilet paper. I hate this movie, it makes me want to injure people. I will admit that I have high standards, but honestly I'd rather watch Step Up 2. The ultra sad part was when I logged onto IMDb and read that you pieces of trash actually gave this movie a 6.9 rating. This is a testament to all of the retards in our society that will go watch terrible movies that are just hour and a half long dick, fart, and weed jokes with little to no originality. After seeing this rating, I would like to suggest "Tyler Perry's House of Pain" to all of you guys who enjoyed this film; you'll see some high quality humor there on about the same level of this abhorrent abomination.
Creating a comedy is like walking a pretty thin tight-rope. It either works, or it does not. Grandma's Boy is one of those movies that does not work. It may have a few very funny parts, but for the majority, it's just a terribly unfunny comedy from the usual supporting characters in Adam Sandler films (sans Sandler himself, he's just a producer).<br /><br />Alex (Allen Covert) is a game tester. He's 35, and is the best tester and game player at his otherwise kid-filled workplace. He ends up getting his apartment and his stuff taken from him for not paying the bills (as it turns out, his roommate had just been spending the rent money on Philipino hookers and not paying the landlord). Desperate, he moves in with his grandmother, Lilly (Doris Roberts of Everybody Loves Raymond) and her two roommates.<br /><br />That's the basic plot of the film, thrown in with subplots about a hot new girl named Samantha (Linda Cardelli, unrecognizable from her days as Velma in Scooby Doo) trying to get the testers to complete a new game as fast as they can, a robot-like game creating prodigy J.P. (Joel Moore) who works with Alex and wears much of the same clothes as Neo in The Matrix, and of course, all sorts of sex and drug related jokes. That's it.<br /><br />The problem with the film, besides the fact that the real conflict in the film occurs and is resolved within the last fifteen minutes of the film, is that it just is not funny. It is totally mind-numbingly boring, and only sparingly funny. Nothing really happens at all. No emotion, no real sense of direction, and a whole ton of intense swearing. You find yourself maybe laughing at a few funny quips that the actors say, but otherwise sit in complete boredom, wishing you had not even bothered with the film. How this film was greenlit and how Fox thought it could make money will always remain a mystery to me.<br /><br />There's just no entertainment value to come from it. None of the actors are actually putting in good performances, they are just acting like idiots for the camera, and hoping for the best. Stoner comedy has been done before multiple times, and on occasion, actually works (Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle and Dazed and Confused come to mind). Here, it just makes for making the film even less funny than it is already. The random inclusion of a monkey and a pair of bare breasts really does not make the film any better either.<br /><br />Other than a few funny one-liners, this movie should just be out-right missed altogether. It's not very funny, the entire plot is silly, it's boring, and it just makes for one horrendous film. Avoid it like the plague.<br /><br />1.5/10.
Honestly, this may be the worst movie I've ever seen. And I've seen Spider Baby, and Not of This Earth. Heck I've even seen 200 Motels. Having just discovered the Freaks and Geeks series and being surprised at the acting ability of Linda Cardellini I checked out the reviews here and decided this was worth a try. That is the LAST time I will ever rely on a review at IMDb. I didn't realize that MORONS were writing IMDb reviews while they were waiting for their calls to be answered on AM radio. <br /><br />This movie is so far beyond bad that mere words cannot express the wretchedness of its vomitous state. Seriously. <br /><br />Watch this movie if you think Will Farrel is really really really funny, if you think Adam Sandler is a comedic genius. Watch this movie but PLEASE DON'T BREED!
What could be expected from any Adam Sandler-produced comedy, Grandma's Boy is predictable and so dumb it is sickening. Allen Covert stars as Alex in the film, a 35 year old pothead who works as a video game tester and has had to move in with his grandma and her two roommates after losing his apartment. Some usual plot turns occur: he has trouble adjusting to his new living situation, which in turn makes him have trouble at work, which is particularly bad because he is trying to nail one of the office's new consultants. Throw a weird boss, almost alien company star, really nerdy best friend, a few scenes at burnt-out pot dealer's place, a really big party scene, and an original video game Alex is trying to finish by himself into the mix you have Grandma's Boy in its entirety. Allen Covert does make a marginally good lead, Linda Cardellini is cute enough for her role as the just-one-of-the-nerds office consultant Samantha, and a few scenes do manage to squirt out a chuckle or two but none of that makes Grandma's boy worth much of anyone's time. Most of the supposed funny "jokes" or "gags" or whatever you want to call them are nothing but "humor" that would make anyone at National Lampoons embarrassed to watch, Joel Moore is incredibly unfunny in his role as video game mastermind J.P., and the entire film actually manages to be boring on top of not funny or substantial. Well, at least Grandma's Boy did something for someone: Adam Sandler was able to get a few paychecks to his out-of-work friends David Spade, Kevin Nealon, and Rob Schneider.
Positively ridiculous film.<br /><br />If Doris Roberts, Shirley Jones and Shirley Knight persist in these kinds of films, they can submit their retirement papers and collect social security full-time.<br /><br />While the idea that a 35 year old swinger, who works on video games, loses his apartment and his forced to move in with Grandma Roberts and borders Jones and Knight, this is foolishly dealt with. Imagine the 3 bags getting high on stuff that grandson Alex has left in their home and Jones going to bed with someone who may qualify as her grandson!<br /><br />The video game sequences are as foolish as the rest of the film. The assortment of characters that Alex works with is beyond belief as he enjoys his weed habit along with the others.<br /><br />Terrible best describes this miserable film.
There's an underlying current in all the positive reviews of this movie - it's just a brainless comedy, don't take it seriously. Chillax dude!!! Well that's one point of view. The other would be - why are we accepting exactly the same script, the same formula and the same unfunny people in all these "comedies".<br /><br />What you get is a slacker who, through some totally unreal circumstances, has to change his life (always a he), overcome a set of circumstances which would only pose a problem to a raccoon or a teenager, beat the equally stupid bad guy who is trying to steal the gal he met two days earlier and triumph by remaining a slacker but with more money/self-esteem. On the way somebody does something gross but very illogical. This means you the viewer can call someone after the movie and say something like "you won't believe it maaann. This guy finds the otter drowned in the bucket of diarrhoea the other guy left after he ate laxative brownies. Then he shines his shoes with it". Hilarious.<br /><br />Most of the usual names turn up. David Spade and Rob Schneider do unfunny shtick but they're crrrazzeee characters - a Russian and, I'm holding my sides, a waiter in a vegan restaurant. Adam Sandler, the king of the brainless unfunny, illogical comedy co-produces and some talentless nobody called Dante shows up, yet again. The US will have to explain to the rest of the world what this guy Dante is famous for cos we are clueless. Allen Covert plays a 36 year old which got the biggest laugh of the night from me. He was 42 and looked years older.<br /><br />Did I laugh? Yes, but no more than I would at a TV sit-com and I don't have to pay a penny to watch them. Please stop making these movies.
Call me old fashioned, but I like movies with plots. I thought "stoner comedy" was just a way to more specifically describe a comedy in which lots of weed is smoked and the people watching it are more apt to enjoy it high. "Grandma's Boy," however, has decided this is a full-blown niche and that stoners represent a piece of the comedy pie that need to be reached. Apparently, Allen Covert (star and producer) and the Happy Madison gang were right, but that doesn't make "Grandma's Boy" any less boring and unfunny. They might be completely stoned -- but the characters are mostly half-baked.<br /><br />Alex (Covert, a longtime supporting player for Adam Sandler, first-time star) is a mid-30s professional video game tester whose roommate has gotten them evicted. He could look for a new apartment, but then we don't have a movie. After trying a couple friends, he ends up living with good ole Grandma Lilly (Doris Roberts of "Everybody Loves Raymond"). She wakes him up a 6 am and has him do chores and soon he's falling asleep on the job and so the new video game sequel might not get done on deadline.<br /><br />Like most people, Alex deals with his frustration and eradicates boredom by either playing video games or getting high or both. His friends/co-workers all do the same thing. Most of them are virgins that live at home in addition to loving video games. They're all awkward and all with the exception of Nick Swardson and Joel Moore (only at times) their characters aren't funny. Funny if you're blazed ... sure, i suppose, but I can't say from experience.<br /><br />Maybe all we loser guys like is getting high, playing video games and awkwardly ogling women with specific attention on their breasts, but even so, it shouldn't be the driving force of an entire film. Neither should old women getting high on accident (saw that one coming) or being the but of gross-out sex jokes -- but that's what happens when a film isn't about anything. No conflict occurs until the last 20 minutes outside of the slight problems of being out of pot, Alex trying to get the hot girl (Linda Cardellini) to like him and the guys scrambling to finish their levels for the video game deadline.<br /><br />Characters can be the saving grace for these meandering stoner flicks, but aside from a lovable Doris Roberts, the aforementioned Swardson as the virgin friend who lives with his parents and calls them his roommates and Joel Moore's skill at making robot noises, there's little character ingenuity. Covert is a run-of-the-mill main character with no comedic dimensions, his dealer friend Dante is an inept actor and waste of screen time and Jonah Hill and Kevin Nealon are written so far into the periphery it doesn't matter.<br /><br />If you like movies about nothing and watching them in a state of mind and body that enhance that nothingness, "Grandma's Boy" will likely be just what you're looking for. Those who need a little more talent and wit to get on board with a comedy will be left unaffected. The most I can say for "Grandma's Boy" is that it's watchable despite its pointlessness. It won't feel like a total waste of time but you'll wish you did do drugs so you could at least have made the most of the hour and a half.<br /><br />~Steven C<br /><br />Visit my site at www.moviemusereviews.com
First of all, I'd like to say that I really enjoyed this movie. However, that said, I can't say that it was a "good" movie. I went into the theatre with pretty low expectations (something I've learned to do). I'm glad I did, because the plot and development wasn't stellar. The jokes were low-grade humor. But, I was in the right mindset to enjoy them.<br /><br />I wasn't the only one. In fact, the entire theatre was laughing out loud. I didn't hear anyone complain after the movie came to a close. I even saw one guy fall out of his chair laughing! But again, I have to warn you, Grandma's Boy is NOT a top-quality film. It is a funny (albeit low-brow) movie, and if you go with the right mindset, you'll really enjoy it. Oh, and don't take kids to it.
Alright, how someone can actually think this movie is awesome, is so beyond me... I can't even comprehend how someone can find this movie remotely funny, the only character it has going for it, is the evil super nerd game designer, and that gets old after a while. This movie is so predictable, the punchlines are not funny they're forced, you see better acting at the red light district, and the story sucks it's so predictable, you know EXACTLY what's going to happen. Even the characters do not react like they should, try going to the hot chick that is your boss at work and telling her that you're banging 2 crazy chicks that you live with at the same time, her response wouldn't be (smile) "ok let's get back to work". I didn't laugh once during this movie, and I wish I had never seen it or spent 3$ to rent it because that's not even worth it. Adam Sandler produced this movie, I have lost all respect for him. All his movies are the same, his comedy style got old ever since The Waterboy came out, if I knew Adam Sandler had produced this before I rented it...there's no way I would have wasted my time on it. This movie is as bad as it can possibly get from every aspect... ace ventura wasn't a smart comedy movie, it didn't have a killer plot...but it was original and it was hilarious. I'm not knocking the movie because it has 'low-level' humor, i'm knocking it because it sucks, it's a piece of Hollywood crap. If this movie was presented to a production company and din't have "ADAM SANDLER" behind it, it would be thrown in the garbage quicker than a used condom. If you want a good movie about pot-culture watch Cheech and Chong, or Whitecastle. If you rent this movie all you will get is a generic comedy that targets 14-17 year olds, with loud rock music at every possible cut, acting that will make your eyes squint and your stomach turn, and comedy that is equivalent to watching your stoned friend eating mcdonalds for an hour and a half. Don't do it.... for the love of God...this movie sucks, treat it for what it is and look past all the Hollywood glory behind it.....Hercules in New York used to be the worst movie I had ever seen, but it's actually so bad it's good. This instead was a very expensive movie that sucked just as much, if not more.
this movie has NO plot. it was SUPPOSED to be that a guy moves in with his grandma, and everyone thinks hes a loser and he has to redeem himself. but what happens after everyone finds out who he's living with? they have a big pot party at grandma's house. the climax of the movie didn't even relate to the rest of it. that whole plot was introduced within minutes of the movie's end. i can see how it COULD have related to the supposed story - that Grandma's VG skills redeem him - but that just wasn't there. <br /><br />However, the movie was funny as hell and clearly relied heavily on the jokes. <br /><br />"Her pussy smells like the great depression" "He just sucked his first titty...yeah for 13 hours" "It's for you...i think it's the Devil"
I must say I was really excited about this film before renting it as it was an Adam Sandler "Happy Madison" production and I am usually attracted to that type of silly humour.<br /><br />There were a few funny moments at the beginning of the film, but this film lacked everything that makes a good movie. I realize that many filmsthat are not realistic can still be quite funny, but this film was unrealistic and not funny at all. The acting was horrible, the cinematography was very poor, the plot made no sense at all. I cannot get over the fact that 3 classy older ladies would even work for such poor writing. Overall I was very unimpressed with this film and I do not recommend wasting 5 bucks on renting it.
I can laugh at just about anything, but unfortunately there is not a single one to be found in this stink bomb!!!!I honestly watched this movie from beginning to end, and did not even crack a smile. I am shocked that Sandler, Schneider, Spade etc., would put their names on this piece of crap. Worse than the worst that ever came out of the worst that ever came out of former SNL players. What more can I say? How could such tasteless, extremely unfunny drivel come from such a pool of apparent talent!! Maybe I have lost my sense of humor, (not likely), but I cannot remember a movie that I have disliked this much in a long time. What a waste of 2 hours I will never get back.
If a movie has an unimaginative, hackneyed story and bland characters it needs to make up for it by being really, really funny. You can get away with a lot if you're funny. But while there are a few amusing moments scattered here and there in Grandma's Boy, they are so far and few between that they cannot begin to make up for the hack work the film displays in such abundance.<br /><br />The movie certainly doesn't aim to surprise anyone. When Alex hides marijuana in his grandma's house in a tea tin you know what's going to happen later on and it does. The movie appears to have been written by a committee who did a study of mediocre comedies and grabbed any gag that appeared in more than one of them.<br /><br />The most interesting thing about the movie is its somewhat unusual setting. The game takes place in a video game development company, which should be an interesting source for some clever comedy. But don't be fooled, this is not a movie about video game developers. This is basically a college frat house movie in which all the frat boys have been shoved into a big room to play video games.<br /><br />The way the movie completely fails to think through its setting and use it for original laughs can be seen in the character of J.P. J.P. is I think more-or-less conspired by the creator of Doom, John Carmack. At least inspired to the extent that he's an odd genius who makes games.<br /><br />In the movie, J.P. is a weird, obnoxious geek who is despised and jeered by the company game testers. That makes no sense at all. If you are one of the most significant people in the history of video games (as J.P. is supposed to be) then even if you're quirky and obnoxious, people will still admire and respect you on some level. If Stephen Hawking is obnoxious his associates still aren't going to make jun of him to his face.<br /><br />Also, game testers are just as likely to be geeks as J.P., but in the movie they are basically frat boys. It's a fun normal guys against the obnoxious dweebs movie. And while that formula has worked, very occasionally, in the past, it is absurd in the setting of a game company. If you decide to use an unusual setting for a movie, you don't simply cram in all the conventions of movies from different settings into that one. Unless you're a hack.<br /><br />About two thirds of the way through the movie I gave up. Something happened that I knew would result in a series of painfully predictable events. And I realized I hadn't actually laughed at anything for the last half hour anyway. So I stopped (although I did fast forward just to make sure I was right that they would follow the most predictable clichés, which they did).<br /><br />Normally if a movie's bad I just say it's bad and then run out of things to say, but this movie is such a phenomenally shoddy production that it deserves a long diatribe.<br /><br />Shame on the movie for luring a good actress like Linda Cardellini into it, then surrounding her with talentless nobodies. I'll give the movie 1 point for giving Shirley Jones the chance to be the anti-Shirley Partridge though.
Sadly, this movie did have potential with such a willing cast, but everything was so poorly thought out and poorly executed. I don't think I've ever seen any film where every scene just falls flat with a loud thud, as it did here. Also, I don't think I've ever seen a "stoner" sex comedy that didn't provide at least one laugh, but this vortex of pain provided nothing but groans and misery. The last time I was this stunned at how un-funny a comedy can be was with the awful "Big Momma's House." Scene after scene, these movies will turn your brain into jelly. Silly and stupid can sometimes be funny, but here, silly and stupid are used as a torture device against the viewer. An absolute, rock-bottom dud.
In the last few years of Ron Miller's (son-in-law of Walt Disney cum Producer) reign he churned out live-action crap on a stick often starring the very boring Dean Jones, whose entire career was based on that kind of light, empty-headed fare. Other horrible films from that same period include Pete's Dragon, the Last Flight of Noah's Ark, Unidentified Flying Oddball and the dreaded Condorman. I'll not mention Tron because I thought it ambitious and Miller was only the executive Producer on it, so he had little to do with the actual production. However he was in full force when this god-awful piece of human junk was expelled from the bowels of creativity. Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo. Second sequel to much- loved Love Bug tale finds Herbie in love with another car who has a brain and heart too. There's a race, some lame bad guys, a diamond and Barney Fife. Shot in France, the film actually is nicely photographed and the countryside is lovely. But one gets the idea the film was made so all involved could have a three month vacation in France. The rest of film is a wreck. Prat falls, bumbling thieves, wicked German racing competitors and a pretty bouncing feminist all fall under the category of stock supply. The biggest insult of the film: trying to further develop Herbie's lover personality via shakes, beeps, flashing lights and movements indicative of a horny seventeen year old, Disney's writers do an injustice to our cute little VW. Then again I would think it'd be tough for anyone to top Helen Hayes driving Herbie around a skyscraper ledge in the second outing.
Even Disney are guilty of the cash cow disease, after the roaring success of The Love Bug in 1968, the house of mouse cashed in with Herbie Rides Again, Herbie Goes To Monte Carlo, and Herbie Goes Bananas. Neither sequel capturing the charm and inoffensive appeal of The Love Bug back in 68, in this one we find race driver Jim Douglas and his sidekick Wheely Applegate, entering Herbie in the Monte Carlo Rally. Naturally things outside of the race start to take over priorities, they get mixed up in a diamond robbery and Herbie falls in love with another car!. The car stunts are of course pleasant and easy on the eye, and it would be churlish of me to really vent venom on such a friendly piece of fluff, it's just that the film goes nowhere fast and personally now i can see it for the coin motivated piece of work it is. Still you get to see Herbie take a bath, foil the baddies and of course dance for the lady in his life, so something there for everyone i think....................4/10.
If you thought Herbie trying to kill himself by driving off a bridge in 'The Love Bug' was daft, wait 'till you see him acting horny in this bewilderingly silly second sequel. Dean Jones is back as the driver who competes in the Paris to Monte Carlo rally; this time his sentient VW falls in love with another car in the race, a Lancia driven by Julie Sommars. By this point in the series the energy and charm is lacking even more than in 'Herbie Rides Again'; the movie is overlong and threadbare, although it's watchable thanks to the return of Jones's typically likable performance, a few funny bits, and the cast's frantic mugging.
This movie made my face hurt. I don't understand it...things just happened, inexplicably, and they usually resulted in someone bursting into a song and dance number. I don't understand how people can laud this film with praise. There are B-movies, and then there are B-musicals, and then there is Rockula.<br /><br />The songs made me want to run headlong into a wall. The only saving grace is that one of the musical explosions turns out to be a musical video, which eases the pain, yet still fails to justify why it needed to exist. The most frightening section of the film is Toni Basil's creep-dance that accompanies her weird song. But on the bright side, she can manages to find the notes that she is looking for, unlike pop music sensations Rockula (aka Rapula) and Mona...wow, can we say tone deaf. So if you want to question life for about 90 minutes, see this film. If you hate your life, then buy it.
As a CA resident, I'd like to see the jackholes who were shutting down the electricity plants to raise the prices get some jail time too. <br /><br />I thought the movie was pretty good and has some very informative pieces. While they stuck to how Enron rose and crashed, I found it really interesting. However, when the movie focused on it's anti-Bush slant, it made me wonder if they were really being accurate. <br /><br />It's fine to point out any connection the Republicans had to Enron, but the monster was created while Clinton was president. The CA energy crisis happened under Davis's watch. Both were in office during Enron's abuses, but neither are held accountable in any way. Rather, many minutes are spent on how Bush was friends with Lay. So what? Lay played golf with Clinton and spent the night in the Lincoln bedroom. Why are Democrats given such a free pass in this film? I think most politicians are a waste of our taxpayer money so I'm not partial to either party but I hate feeling like I'm subject to someone's political agenda when I watch a documentary. Yes, politicians deserve some blame, but I really doubt that the only guilty one's have Rs after their names. I found no value in portraying the Bush's as Kay-lovers when Democrats received just as much Enron campaign money as Republicans did. Like I said, it weakens the rest of the film for me because it makes me suspicious of the rest of the facts they lay out.
I learned little of significance from this film that I did not already know from CNN and The New York Times. (And I did not follow the Enron case obsessively as did some others.) The film did a very poor job of explaining what "business" Enron was in that might actually have been on the up-and-up before it started hiding its debts in the entities created by Andy Fastow. It also significantly underplayed the role played by Arthur Andersen and Vinson & Elkins in validating practices that were afterwards found to be illegal. Nor did it go as far as it might have in exploring what the "investors" -- all those prominent bankers -- thought they were doing. With the 24 hour a day cable networks, the Discovery Channel and the History Channel, documentaries have proliferated. I've seen many in the past year that were better than this one.
Oh, man, I hated this movie. Granted, the site locations were great, but that's about the ONLY positive thing I can say about it. Now, I'm going to state right at the beginning that I am VERY critical of the way weapons, especially firearms, are both portrayed, and handled, in movies. Being a war flick, portrayal was fine, but the shoddy weapons handling in the movie would have NEVER been tolerated by a real SEAL Team. The acting was more wooden than my first sailboat, the equipment carried (or lack of it) was laughable, and the dialogue was, shall we say, lacking in ANYTHING interesting. Well, with the exception of the journalist, which was actually prescient. Watching this movie was comparable to watching "Palmetto" with Woody Harrelson, where each scene was so bad you just couldn't turn it off, because you had to see if they could get worse with the next scene. Like Palmetto, they certainly did. The scene in the water, where, after shooting the first of the enemy, they BLOW THE DAMN BOAT UP, thereby having to face possible drowning, made me laugh so hard, that for a millisecond, I almost thought it was worth waiting through the movie for. Then Charlie Sheen decided to drag the surviving enemy down to the depths of the ocean (the way it was filmed, with the many camera cuts, it looked like they went down about 80 feet. Nice continuity there....) before slashing his throat was so damn stupid, I was stunned. Then again, so was the whole damn movie. I enjoy action movies, but not this one. NOTE: The version I watched was a TV version, pan & scan. I can't imagine that made a difference, except for making the whole thing blessedly shorter!
Someone commented that Charlie Sheen's character should be court martialed for doing whatever he wanted. You may be right, but that is how SEAL's truly are. I served for several months with a SEAL team out of Norfolk, VA. Actually, I should say they used our ship to deploy themselves around Europe for a couple of months. I was the postal clerk on board and everyday these guys would try to get their mail. Since only one person was allowed to pick up the mail each day we issued one pass to one person. Each day a different SEAL would come up pretending to be someone else. Well, after the third time I said no to them until I had proof who they were. They went NUTS!!! I thought they were gonna bust through my cage, gag me, and then steal the mail. Luckily I had not only the President on my side (The Navy), but the Federal Government (US Mail). That was the only time I saw the SEALs stopped from having whatever they wanted. They were allowed unlimited shore leave, where we had to be back on ship at a certain time. They killed and tortured a woman in France and the two SEAL's only got a 1 week detention on ship, whereas a Seamen was caught stealing a bottle of wine from a French wine shop and he got a court martial. Is it any wonder why the SEAL's retention rate is over 85%? As a SEAL you are god. So this movie does a pretty accurate job of portraying how a SEAL acts and thinks... unfortunately it is so unbelievable to normal people that it comes off as being fake.
The contemporary chapter of the U.S. Navy's elite underwater demolition team is called to do.... whatever they want, apparently.<br /><br />Charlie Sheen was made an officer. Already the storyline is unbelievable. Michael Biehn is his immediate C.O., but he keeps Charlie on a rather long leash and one of the guys pays for it early on by getting killed thanks to Charlie's patented stupidity. The rest of the team spends their spare time committing courts-martial offenses. Mostly an exercise in random gunfire and paper-thin ethics, these particular Seals might be better suited to serving as crash-test dummies.<br /><br />Some good action scenes counter the goofy proceedings.
Top gun without the in-house animosity. Or class. Or money. Or Cruise. An excuse for an upwardly mobile cast of next-big-thing actors to market their ability to lead a matinée this doesn't really have anything anyone can get their teeth into. It's a shame because the opening shot of Charlie Sheen opens out with great promise which is squandered almost straight away with a preposterous wedding set piece. Barking.<br /><br />Dennis Haysbert is a changeable actor for me but in this film he is fine, particularly the action sequences. Michael Biehn is a first-class action hero but not a leading man: Charlie Sheen is, to all intents and purposes, the leading man but never quite an action hero. There's a stunt cast of hundreds who are also mentionworthy. 3/10
Note to self. Never ever ever again watch a serious movie with Charlie Sheen in it. Great comedian, horrible seal. This movie makes Navy SEALS look like a reckless group of rangers when, in fact, they are the most elite form of military in the world. Charlie Sheen helps destroy the Navy SEAL reputation. Thank you for making such an incredibly select group of individuals look awful in one of the worst action movies I have ever seen. This is a great story which could be made into an amazing action movie, but why Charlie Sheen? There are possibilities for a very passionate story here, but Sheen decides to wreck them with "funny" comments.
Navy Seals is an ignorant, racist and complacent movie which thoughtlessly uses the Middle East conflict as the backdrop for an action flick concocted for a comfortably sheltered American Mid-West audience. The conflict, as well as those involved, is used simply as cannon fodder to glorify the photogenic young Americans who proudly kill Arabs for the good of 'freedom'. But what is worse is that the film's action scenes are sloppily handled and unexciting, which prevents Navy Seals from working even as a mindless shoot-'em-up.<br /><br />Charlie Sheen's character (Hawkins) is disgusting, obnoxious, ignorant, reckless and, above all, racist. He refers to the Middle East as a 's**t-hole' and to its inhabitants as 'rag-heads'. Throughout the film, the Navy Seals' characters are glorified through the use of the Lebanese natives as cannon fodder. They indiscriminately massacre these people with a consequence-free attitude. There is even the tasteless murder of a young Lebanese boy who is shot by Hawkins; Hawkins makes fun of his language before shooting him whilst making another humorous quip. Besides being tasteless, this should be unacceptable. The film's extreme (though predictable)pro-American stance is also revolting. This can be seen when the Lebanese-American female journalist informs Hawkins that terrorists cant be made to talk because 'they are religious zealots.' Hawkins then retorts with 'yeah, and we are the Navy Seals!' The implication is obviously that zealots are meaningless next to American military might. Moreover, even after insulting this journalist's racial heritage and treating her like a sex object, the script demands her inability to resist this disgusting thug and she still ends up sleeping with him - because he is an All-American Navy Seal. This marginalizes the journalist's character by making her submissive to the 'superior' pro-American attitude of Hawkins despite his insulting behaviour toward her. Beyond ethics, this plot twist also has little credence as drama. <br /><br />The screenplay is also amateurish. Most scenes are simply strung together without any thought for mood, plot or character development. The 'music video' scene at the golf course, for example is just shoddily edited eye candy. And the two scenes where Charlie Sheen plays the reckless hero are also pointless. In one he jumps off a bridge from moving car just to show his mates how tough he is, and in the other he chases down a tow truck on a push bike and drives his car-off it. Neither scene has a follow-up anti-climax, both are highly improbable, and neither has any bearing on the plot as a whole. They are just candy designed as a vehicle to showcase Hawkins' cheap all-American heroics, and are poor substitutes for character development. Most of the other plot development scenes are also badly filmed and poorly scripted as - in fact this affliction affects the entire movie. Apart from the African American Navy Seal and his wife as well as the characters of Michael Biehn and Charlie Sheen, every other member of the team seems unknown to the audience, so that when the climatic scenes roll around there seems to nobody to root for and anybody's death to lament.<br /><br />In such a film, the action sequences can potentially rescue the production. But here they don't. These are badly directed, badly lit, and showcase badly performed stunts. In fact, their direction is so poor that they are almost incoherent to the viewer, resulting in not only the scenes being incomprehensibly hard to follow, but also in a complete lack of fear and suspense. Poor lighting only adds to their impotence. The explosions look fake, gunshot wounds unconvincing and one of the more daring stunts, involving crashing a Mercedes over a tank, looks just like a stunt which has been staged on a backlot and then poorly edited.<br /><br />The ending of Navy Seals places the coins firmly on the eyes of this production. First there is the obligatory slow-motion 'running-away-from-the-big-explosion-that-should-have-killed-me' scene with Sheen carrying Biehn on his back. This was obviously the default scene intended to be the star of the movie's trailers. Then there is the ending itself when the remaineder of the Seal team, wounded and floating in the ocean, are rescued by a submarine. This submarine had in fact turned for home long before, but of course it had miraculously returned in the nick of time. Topping it all of, despite the Seals' violent and stressful ordeal, and despite the fact that numerous of their colleagues had just been killed, with a number of them still bleeding acutely, they all manage to laugh heartily while blessing America vociferously. Predictable? You can just imagine this ending while watching the opening credits.<br /><br />This movie indulgently uses the Middle Eastern conflict as a vehicle for the macho All-American tendencies of the movies' photogenic young leads. Arabs are treated condescendingly and dismissively, and their slaughter in the movie is used as a fulcrum to glorify the use of American military might against an 'inferior' minority group in a consequence-free environment. The events of 2001 have pointed out that such smug and overconfident trivialising of the conflicts of such minority groups is certainly not a consequence free passtime. The Middle East can no longer be written off as a s**t-hole full of rag heads knocking each other off (to quote Charlie Sheen here); it is now a place in which involvement can lead to severe consequences. Today we are reminded that the consequences of such arrogance can manifest themselves quite close to home. Therefore, in the very least Navy Seals looks pretty foolish these days; but this is to be kind. This is a highly ignorant movie, whose production values and professionalism are equally suspect. Navy Seals is, ideologically and artistically, a complete insult to the intelligence of its audience.
I'm a fan of good, plausible, action movies. And I'm a huge fan of the elite military units such as the Navy SEALs. Finally, I'm a huge fan of Michael Biehn. Sadly none of those allowed me to really enjoy this movie at the time. I gave it another chance more recently when I bought the DVD. Here's the problems with this movie in a quick list: 1. It's a poor mans top gun, for example including a virtual music video of the SEAL team playing golf with a soundtrack of "The Boys are Back In Town", which concludes with Charlie Sheen doing an inane chase to get his towed car back.<br /><br />2. This is quite simply a Charlie Sheen movie, when Sheen was trying to be famous before he started doing stuff like Hot Shots. Reports I've heard indicate that Sheen was a baby on the set and it affected the roles and Direction the rest of the actors in the movie got.<br /><br />3. Biehn is the head of the SEAL team yet Sheen seldom obeys him. Any SEAL showing the lack of discipline that Sheen's character does, or who endangered the team as he does, wouldn't even have made it through BUDS training let alone gotten on a team.<br /><br />4. SEALs are cross trained on weapons. Yet in one part of the movie a SEAL has to "figure out" how to use a U.S. Stinger Missile.<br /><br />There are a few good scenes in the movie. The assault entry at the beginning, Bill Paxton as "God", and some of the footage in what was supposed to be Beirut at the time. Overall though this movie is a loser.
This movie is absolutely terrible... Definately a bull***t story and even worse acting. Too bad Charlie Sheen is involved in something like this since he is a decent actor and has done a couple of really good movies.<br /><br />The special effects are 'A-team'-standard with the classical car gets shot and then flips over with a little fireball under the hood.<br /><br />Of course the enemy are portrayed as total idiots and die as fast as they can say '-Die evil Americans'.<br /><br />Unless braindead movies are you game, don't spend 113minutes of your life on this rubbish. Pick up 'the Platoon' or 'Apocalypse Now' instead.
Be very afraid of anyone who likes this film. They probably inhaled too many paint chips as a child. Its so awful I refuse to relive a plot. O yeah, there wasn't one! This movie is a true definition of what Hollywood creates for people who don't want to think at a theatre. Do the bad guys win? Do the good guys win? Who cares!
Alexandra Maria Lara: A very beautiful and enticing woman, but not a good actress. In all the films I've seen her in, she appears to me as the exact same character. Whether it be in THE DOWNFALL, NACKT, VOM SUCHEN UND FINDEN DER LIEBE and now WO IST FRED! She always is (plays?) the young, good-hearted woman, who is a little naive and doesn't know how to handle the things happening to her. She disposes of a repertoire of probably five different facial expressions that she works with abundantly. I personally have a hard time believing that she could play a mysterious and slightly obnoxious character because it just isn't in here. So she's typecast as the nice girl next door, which she is, but, once again, she ain't up to snuff when it comes to acting. Til Schweiger: Same thing! The film: Downright stupid. As it was an American movie it would have been a great role for Adam Sandler who I don't like either. I wasn't offended by the fact that this is a film with handicapped people in it, I just thought that the jokes resulting from this weren't funny at all. I chuckled twice or three times but when I was halfway through it, I was just bored and annoyed and wanted this flick to end.
Seen this one in a Sneak Preview yesterday and must say it was terrible. After the credits I thought: "Hey with this cast it'll probably be pretty good". Didn't at all turn out that way. <br /><br />Lame predictable groaners, terribly simply drawn characters (maybe except a little Ms. Lara's) and an ending one could foresee 10 minutes into the movie. And worst of all, it misused a delicate theme (handicapped persons) for low level and mostly tasteless jokes without ever touching anything but the surface of the issue. The handicapped person the film sympathises with the most is the one who is just faking it. What kind of message is that? And the film doesn't have a thought through ending at all, it basically comes down to: "I love you, doesn't matter that you acted like a prick."<br /><br />To sum it up: Great cast that must have been terribly bored to sign up for a terrible flick.
(There Are Spoilers) Usual slasher film with the story taking place in and around this God-forsaken mine outside the almost deserted town of Sutterille. After receiving a letter map and gold nugget from her brother Jared, Shadrach Smith, Clair and her husband Nick Breman, Carrie Bradac & Sean Hines, drive to the village together with four other friends and armature gold-prospectors Alx & Tori, Steve Wastell & Sangie, and Hayden & Rox Ann, Rick Majeske & Elina to stake their claim. <br /><br />It later turns out that the fact that Jared disturbed the long-forgotten gold mine caused the ghost of the notorious Jeremiah Stone, Vernon Wells, to come back to life and with that restart his reign of terror. Stone, or 49er, is about the most ridicules slasher/killer in motion picture history. Stone looks like he was buried for years under a few tons of coal runs around with this hook slicing people in two. After doing in almost the entire cast local hermit Aunt Nelly, (Karen Black), who's daughter Eve (Alexandra Ford) was also one of Stone's victims, tells those still alive that unless they return the gold back to the Stone mine the crazed miner will never rest until he kills all those who still have it.<br /><br />Aunt Nelly is given just enough time to tell her story before she's turned into a human torch by Stone and ends up jumping into a nearby stream.The movie goes on endlessly with the killer miner on the rampage looking like he's about as scary as burnt toast and just as dark. Even those in the film seemed to show no real fear of him. In one scene when he broke into Aunt Nelly's house everyone inside all charged, instead of running away, him causing the ghost miner to lose his right arm; Stone spent the rest of the movie with a miner's pick attached to his "stump". <br /><br />Besides Actress Karen Black the film "Miners Massacre" also has veteran actors John Phillip Law and Richard Lynch as the town Sheriff Murphy and Old Man Prichard. Passable stuff but nothing special the movie has a predictable ending with the entire gold mine going up in flames. The audience given a hint by the makers of "Miners Massacre" that the end to this mindless lunacy is nowhere in sight and may very well resurface in the very near future in a possible sequel, God help us all!
A group of douche-bag teenagers go up to an old mining town in hopes of finding gold nuggets. The one hitch in the hair-brained scheme is that the ancient supernatural miner whom the gold belongs to doesn't wish to part with his treasure so easily and so begins to dispatch the interlopers accordingly. <br /><br />Literally cliché-sprouting dialog, horrible acting, some insanely terrible 'southern dialect' and a lame unmemorable killer who resembles Jeepers Creepers (without the aforementioned's predilection of young boys naturally) combine to make this stinker just about unwatchable. Even cult legend actress Karen Black in a small role can't save this aberration.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Elina Madison shows (badly lit) T&A <br /><br />My Grade: D- <br /><br />Where I saw it: TMCX
Seeing the cover of this before I watched it, my expectations weren't high, especially since it was amongst those other crappy horror movies at blockbuster (alongside films like Junior).<br /><br />Alright, not only does this movie have the brainless stereotypical characters (the rich douche bag, the bitch, the sheriff, the localer that knows what's going wrong in the town, and so forth), but has such god-awful dialogue, acting, directing, and cg effects. The Jeremiah Stone dude was hilarious. (*SPOILER*) I'll never understand why he bit his finger off out of nowhere when he was holding that chick up hostage.<br /><br />The premise for the movie is just as atrocious as the other flaws. From what I could get from it, Jeremiah Stone was a gold digger during the Gold Rush, and a notorious outlaw. He had a crapload of gold, (*SPOILER*) and put a curse on anyone who went after his gold before he was gunned down by the locals after he killed some girl, but not only did he survive, he bit off his own finger and ran off. So, present day, a group of clueless morons find out about this gold mine, and of course, they are warned by locals about "The Curse of the Forty-Niner". And what do they do? As expected, ignored the warnings and greedily sought for the gold. They get the gold, and all sorts of s**t goes on. Thankfully, (*SPOILER*) the bitch gets her head cut off.<br /><br />That's about it. Looking at the cover of the film, you can tell what kind of movie it's going to be. It's just so terrible it's hilarious.<br /><br />1 1/2 stars out of 5.
The monster will look very familiar to you. So will the rest of the film, if you've seen a half-dozen of these teenagers-trapped-in-the-woods movies. Okay, so they're not teenagers, this time, but they may as well be. Three couples decide it might be a good idea to check out a nearly-abandoned ghost town, in hopes of finding the gold that people were killed over a scant century-and-a-half before. You'd think that with a title like "Miner's Massacre" some interesting things might happen. They don't. In fact, only about 1/10 of the film actually takes place in the mine. I had envisioned teams of terrified miners scampering for their lives in the cavernous confines of their workplace, praying that Black Lung Disease would get them before The Grim Reaper exacted his grisly revenge, but instead I got terrestrial twenty-somethings fornicating--and, in one case, defecating--in the woods, a gang of morons with a collective I.Q. that would have difficulty pulling a plastic ring out of a box of Cracker Jacks, much less a buried treasure from an abandoned mine. No suspense, no scares, and plenty of embarrassing performances give this turkey a 3 for nudity.
And unfortunately, so did I. ANY movie that relies on a bad pun as its tagline or its title should be relegated to the $2.00 bin, but we decided to try a second consecutive bad movie for movie night. We had a winner in "House of the Dead"--go with that one if you want a laughable flick.<br /><br />Some witch jumped into the water after being set on fire by Mr. Miner. Some guy took a dump in the woods. And that same guy grabbed a new girlfriend right in front of his old one. I don't remember much else. The last third of the movie was utterly insipid, and we were all waiting in agony until the end.
Oh dear oh dear. It really gets on my nerves when a low budget, pointless horror affair tries to look interesting in the credits by having a bunch of good names pop up in the cast, only to involve each one in the smallest, most pointless possible roles. In this film, we have Richard Lynch in one scene, a momentary appearance from Martin Kove, a brief spot for Vernon Welles, slightly more time on screen for John Philip Law and a little time for Karen Black. This bunch of random cameos does not really add up to much though Richard Lynch and Karen Black do raise some of the few smiles of this film with their appearances, and its quite painful really, as none of the main cast are much good at all. I couldn't help but think that if more scenes were filmed with any of the b movie veterans above the film would be a whole lot better but as it is there are just a few tantalising glimpses of good entertainment without the film ever actually attaining much entertainment value. Of the main cast the only charismatic or likable performances in my opinion were Steve Wastell, as Axel and his girlfriend who I believe was played by Elina Madison (never heard of her before but she has some measure of screen presence and is a good looker). The plotting in this one is simple, evil undead miner goes after those who eek to steal his gold, and it should make for good slasher fun, especially given that it is directed by John Carl Buechler, who has done special effects for many of these sort of films, including having worked on all three of the major slasher franchises (Halloween, Elm Street and Friday 13th) and such small gems as Mausoleum. Unfortunately, the film is sadly lacking in suspense, likability and satisfying gore. There are one or two mildly gory moments but nothing worth the effort of watching the film, I wouldn't say. In fact, aside from the above mentioned cameos this entire movie is really quite stale and turgid with characters that couldn't get offed quick enough for my liking and an unfortunate lack of any real interest. I didn't even find it fun in a laughable bad movie sense, which is rare for me, since I love a lot of pretty crummy films. I'd say, avoid.
A group of friends receive word from a pal who has found gold in an old mind shaft nearby an ancient abandoned western town of Suttersville. Despite warnings by the local sheriff, Murphy(John Phillip Law), Old Man Prichard(Richard Lynch)a bedraggled hick who swindles tourists with supposed collectible Wanted posters, and kooky superstitious Aunt Nelly(Karen Black)to stay out of the mine due to it's notorious legend(..that an evil coal miner who sold his soul to devil and murdered a priest's(Jeff Conaway)daughter will return from the dead to kill those who remove the gold from his shaft), these people only see the green, not the blood red which could potentially ooze from their slain bodies. Finding the gold of Jeremiah Stone intact, they line their pockets and carrying cases, prepared for the bright futures that supposedly lie ahead. But, when you do not heed the warnings of those you consider backwoods loons, the obvious result will be gruesome death. Jeremiah Stone, as we see, is lying merely a skeleton near an alter containing skulls lined next to each other as the candles on top of them light up, the pickax underneath awaiting it's master, with dust particles returning him to a grotesque corpse with demonic exposition, his eyes aglow with wrath. This hapless group, hoping for some fun around the campfire with gold providing them with warm prospects for life ahead, will fall prey to the vengeful ghoul and his mean pickax. Another victim will meet the nasty end of a shovel thrown through the windshield of her vehicle, directing it's path straight into her neck. Another failed attempt to retreat has Stone causing a frightened victim to drive his car into a tree, his body engulfed in flames as he fails to escape without harm. Another, a local girl searching for her new friends, worried about their well being, receives the pickax buried into her stomach. Aunt Nelly informs those still alive about the Forty-Niner and the curse on those who raids his eternal stash..and pays the price for relating such information. Will anybody survive? Or, is the entire group fated to perish at the hands of the zombie miner?<br /><br />Make-up effects artist and monster creator, John Carl Buechler directs this supernatural slasher without worrying about logic or strong story-telling, opting instead to allow his zombie miner to destroy anyone and everyone who happens to be in his path. He provides just enough back story, and this is feeble at best, for the killer allowing special guest star, Karen Black(..oh how her career has sunken into the abyss)to explain to the viewer about him. The story given to us has the miner holding a priest's daughter hostage, threatening to execute her as the Suttersville authorities warn against such an action. Startling enough, Stone plants that pickax right into her back, with the opposition unloading their guns with little effect because he sold his soul to Satan. Retreating to his domain, the mine shaft, Stone sends out a warning against anyone even attempting to take what's his, the loot. Typical of most slashers in general, this bunch of twenty-somethings are your garden variety victims, with little development other than some banter and exchanging of words provides as filler until the undead maniac pops onto the scene to slaughter them. They are the usual group, from the city, trespassing unto unfamiliar territory, resurrecting an evil that should remain dormant. Like many of the later 80's slashers, a good deal of the violence is off-screen. What is on screen, the minimal gore, is rather mundanely presented and happens rather quickly. The ghoul make-up for the killer is only shown occasionally;he's mostly shrouded in darkness, the victims' horrified faces as he catches or chases after them are given more credence than the method of destruction. One thing's for certain, stunt men were set on fire many times. At least three times, a character is burned alive by either a lantern or flaming vehicle. Martin Cove has a minor cameo as Black's former husband, Caleb, now living with a much younger, and dense, honey. Vernon Wells(..of The Road Warrior and Commando fame)has the back story role of Jeremiah Stone as a human, still capturing the same type of menace he specializes in. John Phillip Law seems to be enjoying himself as the rather polite and hospitable sheriff, welcoming the outsiders to his neck of the woods. Buechler has quite an attractive cast of actresses, all wearing tight pants and smallish shirts, showing off their sleek and athletic figures, especially Elina Madison as easy-lay Roxann, always willing to remove her clothes for greedy jerk, Hayden(Rick Majeske). Stephen Wastell(The Ghosts of Edendale) is Axl, a rather clumsy foil, used as a butt of many jokes including his "dump in the woods" scene and current unemployment status.
Certainly expected more after seeing the cast list, but WOW!<br /><br />I think a first time director could have done a better job with this project, and the fact that a veteran like John Buechler made it, puzzles me to no end. Somehow, the budget allowed them to secure a bevy of D-List actors, whom they succeeded in embarrassing for an hour and a half. The unknown actors were just plain awful, less Steve Wastell who does a decent job as Axl. The story is so bad, that it really needs no mention. The overall production value seems standard, with some above average camera work, if you can make it through the God-Awful "slo-mo" scenes and the painful "person on fire" sequences. I knew it would be dumb, I just had no idea how dumb, and unfortunately it's time spent that can never be returned to me. I suppose if you enjoy really bad "B" films, this might work for you, but if you value any story at all, this one is simply dreadful... A complete waste of time.
And believe me that's a pretty stunning accomplishment. Take "Jolly Roger: Massacre at Cutter's Cove," change the killer from a pirate to a prospector, change his obsession from buried treasure to old gold, and his color from puke green to deep blue. You now have "Miner's Massacre." The problem is, at least "Jolly Roger" was entertaining enough -- albeit in a so-bad-it's-good way -- to keep you watching it for the whole two hours. There's no strip-joint-murder scene or any bizarre killings. I can't tell you how many times I lost interest in "Miner's Massacre" and started doing dishes or cleaning around the condo. And, the ending is absolutely silly. The 49er dude just randomly re-appears out of nowhere to kill the local sheriff, while the lead actor and actress are sitting in the sheriff's cruiser, screaming. A truly horrible movie.
how does anyone keep on seeing horror movies after this one??? really this one it's so bad that makes me sick!! and love horror movies but come on....... who could had remembered to do such a awful movie? It as no history!!it's only a men who chases a bunch of teenagers because they take something from him !!! and what have they took?? gold....it's typical.... The movie is boring from the beginning until the end!! And what is Karen black who is a great actress doing in such a ridiculous movie like this? but what can I say ?? I think everyone should see it because my opinion is my opinion!! may be you would like??? I don't think so but.....
The storyline is a ticked off claim jumper made a deal with the devil to find gold, and is forced to protect it forever. A bunch of friends find the gold and gets talked by the old miner and they're forced to blow the gold to smithereens in order to send him back to hell.<br /><br />I mean seriously...how did this film NOT win the Oscar for movie of the year? What a compelling storyline of late 20 year olds running from a claim jumper straight out of the 1800's. I love how in other movies you can't kill the monster but they can knock it out...this movie they write the monster as completely indestructible.<br /><br />The opening of the movie clearly rips off Nightmare on Elm Street part 4 but what the hell, not like that movie was a 5 star classic either.<br /><br />Highlight of the movie is when we're introduced to a girl who's never been to school, never been out of the town, never learned to read or write....yet speaks perfect English, is smoking hot and wears the latest fashion. How did the Oscar's miss THAT? <br /><br />OK I'm done with the bad jokes, this movie is pure crap and only watch it if u have nothing better to do and all the spices on the spice rack are in alphabetical order already.<br /><br />2 out of 10
Let me start out by saying I LOVE horror movies. Big budget, low budget, big name actors, no name actors, it doesn't matter. And when it comes to judging movies I am very forgiving. This movie however, is pretty bad.<br /><br />The actors show little or no emotion when delivering their lines and the acting is worse than many lower budget horror flicks I've seen. As the actors get killed off, you could care less. There is very little gore (I have no idea what film other reviewers watched when they say there is good gore in this one, because there isn't) and the special effects are substandard at best. They steal so much from so many better horror movies (Jeepers Creepers, Friday the 13th, Leprachaun) and it still doesn't help.<br /><br />Luckily I saw this on Showtime and didn't have to actually pay any extra money to see it or waste a spot in my Netflix queue on it. There are so many better horror movies out there and I recommend you see those instead of this big letdown.
I am shocked to see that this movie has been given more than two stars by some people. They must either be kidding or be totally blind for the art of acting, directing and other flaws of the movie.<br /><br />I must admit that I just could not force myself to sit through the whole movie, it was just too bad.<br /><br />The three first characters, not including the "digger" were just awful actors, and I mean AWFUL! Maybe the director didn't care, or may be he is a worse director. It was like watching a bad school play. The movie was of course filmed with a video camera (lowbudget - not real film), and the light settings were not very good either. In addition, the sound man (if they had one) must either have been a newbie or a drunk as the sound were amateurish. Even in one of the first scenes from the kitchen (AWFUL acting btw) the sound from the dialog was pretty bad. For example, when the woman moved her head while speaking, you could hear her voice disappear and come back. It sounded like they had tried to correct that in post-production by turning up the volume a bit when she turns her head. In addition, you had the ongoing irritating buzzing sound from either camera equipment or other sources in the kitchen. <br /><br />All these squeakers in the first 5 minutes or so. Need I say more?<br /><br />A good school project or fun project for friends to watch, but should never have been released for a real audience, especially not for a PAYING audience. THIS WAS A RIP OFF unless you have a very low standard regarding movies, or just bad taste. You are WARNED! SB.
This is an embarrassing nth rehashing of the same plot in the nth bunch-of-idiots-young-adult-in-peril-because-they-are-idiots slasher movie of the early millennium: this time we get the story of a crazy miner who comes back from the dead to retake his gold from the hands of the usurpers. We have almost no thrills, almost no bare flesh (even if the girls are really hot only one of them goes showing her bare ass for a few seconds), the usual bunch of sunset boulevard horror stars in cameo roles (this time Karen Black, Richard Lynch, John Philip Law, Jeff Conaway), lots of fake blood, only the crazy miner resurrected as a zombie is cool enough to leave you stuck - well not exactly - to the screen till the end. Don't waste your time if you are not a completist.
A group of friends discover gold deep inside an old mine. But by taking the gold and thinking they've hit it big, they awaken a long dead miner who's Hell Bent on protecting his treasure. "Miner's Massacre" is a chintzy b-horror movie in the extreme. You've got all your familiar clichés, your group of intellectually-impaired teenagers, characters going off on their own to investigate strange noises, a few pop-scares, the mysterious sheriff, the old lady who everyone thinks is nuts (Played by top-billed Karen Black no less), and so on. Nevertheless, it's done in an amusing, non-pretentious fashion that makes the film mindlessly entertaining in a "so bad, it's good" kind of way. The characters and dialog are what you'd expect from this type of film—familiar, routine and unoriginal. The actors all do a decent job though, considering—I've actually seen bigger-budget films of it's type with worse acting (I know what you did last summer, anyone?) and add a bit of credibility to the film itself. The villain in this film (The 49'er) is obviously derived from the creeper from Jeepers Creepers, all the way down to the brown overcoat, the hat and the long white hair. Like the creeper he never talks, and is butt-ugly to boot. The gore is somewhat disappointing in my opinion. There are a couple of fairly gruesome moments, but too much is off-screen and the death scenes are often laughable (Spoiler ahead!). There's one truly hilarious moment where a girl gets decapitated by the said villain, and to achieve this 'effect', the filmmakers hid the actress's body beneath the villain's coat, with her head poking out, and put some fake blood on her neck. Seriously, you could see the outline of her shoulders! I think they could have done a little better there, even if the budget was low (And I'm sure it was, but, still…). The special effects are cheap but sufficiently effective and for the most part, moderately well done for a low-budget film. Either the effects guys or the director seem to have a thing for explosions and fire. Almost every scene towards the end of the film has at least a couple of characters being burn to death (Always filmed in slow motion) or SOMETHING exploding, be it a car or an old mine cave. Seriously, hasn't anyone ever heard the term; "Stop, drop and roll"!?!?!?<br /><br />"Miner's Massacre" (Or "Curse of the forty-niner", what ever you want to call it) is cheesy and dumb, albeit entertaining, and as long as you don't have expectations through the roof, you'll be sufficiently entertained. <br /><br />I'm feeling generous, so I'll give it a 4/10.
"Curse of the Forty-Niner" doesn't really deserve a long and detailed review, so I'll just make some random observations about it:<br /><br />- Cool opening credits.<br /><br />- No plot.<br /><br />- Is there anyone who's ever seen a horror film before and can't guess, within the first 20 minutes, who will survive and who will not among this group of walking stereotypes?<br /><br />- Hey, that newcomer (Alexandra Ford) is pretty hot!<br /><br />- Richard Lynch (made-up to look about 100 years old) and John Phillip Law have fun, tongue-in-cheek cameos.<br /><br />- Karen Black has a bigger role, but she's not fun - she's rather embarrassing.<br /><br />- Martin Kove is on-screen for about 40 seconds, but still got his name on the video cover. Did they pay him for this appearance or was it the other way around? <br /><br />- I hate cheap computer-generated effects in horror films.<br /><br />*1/2 out of 4.
this movie absolutely terrible ..not only was the acting awful but so was the sleep got while this movie played..this movie achieved the all powerful goal of crap ..i watched this movie thinking my 5$ wouldn't b in vein .but i was very wrong ..i guarantee u r better off just reading what i have to say about this unbelievably horrible movie b4 ..puttin yourself in the way of this dignity depriving movie ..i give it a negative 1 for trying..but no please no don't watch this movie..i had friends who joined me for this film..shortly after they were no longer found this movie actually will make u end your life please please don't see it i beg of u. if u see this movie make sure u destroy all copies because this movie is a spawn of Satan.
The monster will look very familiar to you. So will the rest of the film, if you've seen a half-dozen of these teenagers-trapped-in-the-woods movies. Okay, so they're not teenagers, this time, but they may as well be. Three couples decide it might be a good idea to check out a nearly-abandoned ghost town, in hopes of finding the gold that people were killed over a scant century-and-a-half before. You'd think that with a title like "Miner's Massacre" some interesting things might happen. They don't. In fact, only about 1/10 of the film actually takes place in the mine. I had envisioned teams of terrified miners scampering for their lives in the cavernous confines of their workplace, praying that Black Lung Disease would get them before The Grim Reaper exacted his grisly revenge, but instead I got terrestrial twenty-somethings fornicating--and, in one case, defecating--in the woods, a gang of morons with a collective I.Q. that would have difficulty pulling a plastic ring out of a box of Cracker Jacks, much less a buried treasure from an abandoned mine. No suspense, no scares, and plenty of embarrassing performances give this turkey a 3 for nudity.
this movie really SUCKS, SUCKS REALLY REALLY HARD, this movie should be in the Bottom 100, but it is so bad that almost nobody has seen it to vote for her so many times that it should be at the same time of "Manos - the Hands of Fate." I should have him position 1 (awful), but the reason for which I put him 2 was for Eve, the girl of the town that, besides some scenes of nudity, besides, I thought of voting for 3, but like they killed Eve, I returned at 2. it is that movies like this they should not be financed by anybody, since not even they took to the fame or other productions to the actors main, great falsehood, jaja, the history of a mining ghost that kills to "mansalva" and after they put an end to their misdeeds, it reappears, because with the end they shitted it very ugly. <br /><br />FINAL SCORE (VOTE): 2 (for the nudity and the performance of the beautiful Eve)
What's the point? Hasn't this been done before, better? And again? Why is Werner Herzog wasting his good talents and time with junk like this? Shouldn't he be shooting a movie somewhere--I mean a real movie? <br /><br />It all felt fake from the beginning. Werner Herzog would never have sought to make a film about the Loch Ness myth--at least not on such a small scale surrounded by losers--so the plot was not believable from the beginning. The actors who are supposed to act like they're not acting were obviously acting. The story was not interesting, the "everyday people" requisite in every mockumentary were invisible, the personalities were stale, the jokes were not funny, the effects were unconvincing and the ending was nowhere to be seen.<br /><br />I just don't see the point. It's a fake movie about a fake movie. Hah, hah. Perhaps if those who thought up such a movie sought to make one that mocked people who really were out to find a real Nessie, now that could have had some potential. But Herzog is not a believer and never claimed to be. A mockumentary about the cryptozoologist crowd would have had so much more fuel.<br /><br />It was a miss.
Had she not been married to the producer, Jennifer Jones would not have been the most obvious choice for the leading female role in this tragic tale of an affair between an American soldier and an English nurse, set against the backdrop of the First World War. Her British accent is not perfect, and in the fifties it was unusual for a big romantic lead to go to an actress in her late thirties, even one as attractive as Miss Jones, especially when she was several years older than her leading man.. There were a number of beautiful young British actresses in Hollywood around this time, such as Audrey Hepburn, Elizabeth Taylor, Jean Simmons and Joan Collins, any of whom might have been more convincing in the role, but Miss Jones had one important attribute they all lacked, namely a marriage certificate with David O. Selznick's name on it. In the event, the film turned out to be such a turkey that they were doubtless grateful not to have it on their CVs. <br /><br />The film tells, at great length, the story of the romance between Frederick, an American volunteer serving with the Italian Army as an ambulance driver and Catherine, a nurse with the British Red Cross. After the Italian defeat at the battle of Caporetto, Frederick is wrongly accused of being a German spy and sentenced to death. (The film paints a very harsh picture of Italian military justice; it would appear that Italian Courts-Martial had the power to pass the death sentence after a trial lasting all of thirty seconds without hearing any evidence and without allowing the defendant to be legally represented or to speak in his defence). Frederick manages to escape and to cross the border into neutral Switzerland, accompanied by the pregnant Catherine. <br /><br />Hemingway's novels have not always been a great success when filmed. Howard Hawks succeeded in making a good version of "To Have and have Not", a film that is considerably better than the book on which it is nominally based, but that is because he largely ignored Hemingway's plot and turned the film into a remake of "Casablanca", set in Martinique rather than French Morocco. Like the 1943 version of "For Whom the Bell Tolls", "A Farewell to Arms" is overlong and fatally slow moving. It is also miscast. Jennifer Jones never makes Catherine come to life. As for Rock Hudson, his assumed Christian name could be unfortunately appropriate. He could be as solid as a rock but also as impassive as one, and in this film his Frederick seems an impersonation of the Great Stone Face. Despite the passion and emotion inherent in Hemingway's plot, the emotional temperature is always far too cool. The picture has little going for it apart from some attractive picture-postcard views of Italian and Swiss scenery. It is hardly surprising that it was not a success and that its failure ended Selznick's career as a producer. 4/10<br /><br />A goof. Shortly before the battle of Caporetto, an Italian officer states that Russia had already concluded a separate peace with Germany. That battle started in October 1917, at a time when Kerensky's Russia was still fighting alongside the Allies. The Russian Revolution did not take place until November; it was only the "October Revolution" by the old Julian calendar. The new Bolshevik regime signed an armistice with Germany in December 1917, but a separate peace was not signed until the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918
This film should be called adventures in Cinemascope. It is like the screenwriter and director tooks the Cliff's Notes page 3 outline and decided that this would be a great vehicle for a film about the Italian Alps. Rock Hudson is pretty good here, but the dialogue bears no resemblance to Hemingway at all. This is a made up version of Hemingway. Hecht, the screenwriter, is a hack. Watch the 1932 version with Gary Cooper and Helen Hayes. That is great cinema and was made by someone who understood Hemingway and the war in Northern Italy. Gary Cooper is very, very good compared to his performance in For Whom the Bell Tolls where he is stiff as a board and thinks he is in a western.<br /><br />Anyway, if you are a Hemingway fan, do yourself a favor and do not watch this film. Your best bet is to get the unabridged audio CD and just listen to one of the greatest novels ever written.
Terrible adaptation of Heminway's low key love story. An American soldier (Rock Hudson) falls in love with a British nurse (Jennifer Jones) in Italy during World War 1. What's wrong with this? Virtually everything. Hudson is WAY out of his depth here. He could be a good actor but not in this movie. Jones is far too old for her role (she's 21 in the book--here she's 38...and looks it!). Also her acting wavered between overdone and underdone! They took a simple low-key love story and blew it all out of proportion. The film is fatally long (a little over 150 minutes), self-indulgent and padded to a ridiculous degree. It seems producer David O. Selznick thought he was doing "Gone With the Wind" again. Some of the scenery is truly stunning (even on a small TV screen) but there's not enough of a story to match the images. <br /><br />SPOILER!!! The ending where Jones dies is supposed to be tragic but the bad acting and overblown theatrics had me fighting not to laugh! <br /><br />To make matters worse actor Vittorio De Sica overacts to a truly embarrassing degree. Overblown, self-indulgent, badly cast and slow. Pretty terrible. This was (understandably) a financial and critical bomb and ended Selznick's career as a producer. You might want to tune in for some of the scenery at the end but it's really not worth it. I give this a 3.
I managed to avoid reading Hemingway in college. From what I could tell, along with his reductivist verbiage, he offered reductivist story lines. This film-transfiguration of AF2A into a simplistic, hoary, belabored narrative, does not disabuse me of my suspicions: A guy who barely sees action on the European battlefield (Hudson) falls in with a nurse (Jones), and they conspire to spend time together. Hemingway's big contribution to narrative was the romantic travelogue? Who knows what these two lovers have in common? They're so utterly generic. The movie never even brings up the utter irresponsibility it takes to abandon the front in favor of a lovers' adventure. The two have a season on the Alps, straight out of a J. Crew catalog. A number of better scenes are undermined by corny, conventional melodrama elsewhere. The movie keeps piling on tiny, improbable, unspecific details that fight the epic treatment. The cavernous hospital that Miss Barkley works in is virtually empty, so that no secondary plot line can possibly distract from the flimsy main story. Complicated, it is not. <br /><br />The camera work is better than average, with some amazing location photography. Director Charles Vidor (or maybe Huston?) does striking things in the first hour with an on-location, wide-screen camera... there are no second unit cop-outs. Vidor shows massive, panoramic tableaux, pans over a line of hundreds of soldiers trooping through the mountains; and then with a 90 degree swivel of his camera catches up with Hudson's ambulance barreling down on him. <br /><br />Hudson looks great. He's a better actor than he gets credit for, but with unshaped material like this, he can become very mechanical. Mercedes McCambridge plays a one-dimensional shrew. Jennifer Jones is puffy and miscast in the lackluster female lead. The movie is best when she's off screen. The love scenes are about as affecting as a coffee commercial.
For producer David O. Selznick, no one director would ever do. Hence, on "A Farewell to Arms" (1957) we get two – Charles Vidor and John Huston. Though both men were quite accomplished in their own right, neither could make head or tail of this disastrous remake of Hemmingway's magnum opus. Hemmingway in general has never translated well from book to screen. But under Selznick's zeal to transform it into his next 'Gone With The Wind' the excursion is both punishing and exhaustive. At this point in Selznick's career, he was no longer the titan who could take "box office poison" and transform it into Gone With The Wind. Tired, frail, minus his studio, and, with an impending sense that his second marriage to Jennifer Jones might have been a mistake, Selznick handed the creative reigns of this flick over to Fox Studios – but he kept enough of himself in it to become a damn nuisance on the set.<br /><br />By now one is, or should be familiar with the bittersweet tragic love story of a nurse, Catharine Barkley (Jennifer Jones) and her soldier hero, Lt. Frederick Henry (Rock Hudson). Their passion is supposed to serve as the stabilizing force for what is essentially a war correspondent's tale with romanticism thrown in for good measure. But the chemistry between Hudson and Jones is both turgid and dull. In the final reel, Jones' facial contortions during child birth are so bad I am surprised that neither director opted to cut them from the general release. Part of the problem with Jones is that at thirty-eight she's far too wise to play the optimistic Catharine with any great conviction. Yet, older actresses have frequently managed to make an audience forget discrepancies in age. Not so with Jones. One is painfully aware that she doesn't fit the bill in either acting chops or years invested on this planet. Hudson's laconic charm is hopelessly out of touch with to stoicism of an army soldier whose heart is broken but head remains strong. The supporting cast is peppered with such luminaries as Vittorio De Sica and Mercedes McCambridge, but these are wasted bits of nonsense that in no way reflect upon the formidable talents of either actor and best made evident elsewhere in their canons of film making.<br /><br />The anamorphic picture element for "A Farewell to Arms" looks good enough, though there's just a bit too much film grain present in certain scenes for this reviewer's liking. Overall, colors are subtle and muted, though balanced in accordance with the DeLuxe color processing employed at this time. Some fading is evident. Flesh tones don't appear very natural. Contrast levels are a tad weak. Blacks are generally solid. Whites are almost clean. There's not much to recommend this film sonically. It's essentially a wordy picture with gun shots as a backdrop. There are no extras.
This is by far the worst Hemingway adaptation ever. Rock Hudson was badly miscast and entirely unbelievable as a hard-bitten soldier/adventurer drawn to war. Jennifer Jones was far too old for her part and Vittorio de Sica seemed to think he was acting in some other movie altogether. They tried to make a large-scale epic out of a low-key romantic novel and the result is terrible. As if that were not enough the whole thing is so slow, overlong and dated that it is practically unwatchable. Rock must have kicked himself for turning down "Sayonara" and "Ben Hur" in order to make this ghastly crap.<br /><br />0/10. To be avoided.
Being a huge Laura Gemser fan, I picked this up at a rental outlet just to see another Emanuelle film. Boy, did I make a mistake!<br /><br />EMANUELLE IN EGYPT has nothing to do with Emanuelle. Laura Gemser is in it along with her husband Gabriele Tinti, but that is the only connection to Emanuelle. Here, Laura plays "Laura" (original, huh?) a beautiful supermodel who goes to visit her wealthy friend Pia (Annie Belle) in Egypt. In tow are her a**hole photographer Carlo (a haggard-looking Gabriele Tinti) and some blonde woman who is never named. Also living in Pia's mansion is Horatio (the sexy but dumb Al Cliver), a mystique who speaks nothing but nonsense. Arriving for the weekend are Pia's two daughters, one a short-haired lesbian and the other a brunette. Lots of sex is implied, but hardly shown. One good-looking actor plays Ali, the Egyptian servant, who gets lucky with three of the women in the mansion. Laura has sex with the lesbian, the lesbian has sex with Horatio, Pia and the blonde have sex with Horatio at an Egyptian orgy, Laura drinks goats' blood and is possessed during an Egyptian ceremony, Carlo rapes Laura. It all happens with so little flair that EMANUELLE IN EGYPT is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Far from erotic, even the actors themselves look bored during their sex scenes.<br /><br />Considering there were two famous couples in this film (Laura and Gabriele & Al and Annie), the number of available sex scenes are uncountable. Instead, a film that offers a top-notch Eurocult cast and never delivers the goods will piss every viewer off, except the hardcore Laura Gemser completist. Otherwise, steer clear of EMANUELLE IN EGYPT!
overrated, poorly written, badly acted. did the academy even watch this? i guess not. the political content guaranteed it an Oscar nomination -- indo -pak border -- a little boy , terrorism. anything with the word "terrorist" gets attention in<br /><br />this post 9-11 world. its like holocaust movies that are guaranteed an Oscar nomination irrespective of their merits. <br /><br />and please cinematography does not mean shooting landscapes which are pretty in the first place. you have to be a rotten shooter to screw up making the desert pretty. at least this didn't win the Oscar. they got that right at least. would have been a travesty.
This film truly was poor. I went to the theatre expecting something exciting, and instead was afforded the opportunity to hone my "guess the next plot twist before it happens" skills. Seriously, the plot was written with an extra thick crayon so everyone could see. Nothing was truly shocking. In fact, even the gore was met with such complete suspension of belief that it really didn't add up to much.<br /><br />The excessive wise cracking and cops talking shop at the crime scenes made it seem all the more phony. And the scene where Lambert's character is struggling with the clues and reaches his "investigative epiphany" goes to great lengths to indicate the level of intellect expected from the audience - little.<br /><br />Probably the most annoying aspect of the cinematography was the "X-Files" treatment: Every building in the film, whether it's the precinct building, or a house at noon, or a hospital, was suffering from a lack of any discernible lighting (not to mention a lack of 'patients' in the case of the hospital). I don't recall a single scene when someone flipped on a light switch. It sure would have been nice.<br /><br />Mr. Lambert really isn't an Oscar-grade actor, so I suppose you have to take this film for what it's worth. In the end, I've reached the conclusion that the only thing that would make this film seem more entertaining is to watch it after watching "The Warriors". Otherwise, you're left with an effort that is dull and unoriginal, and nowhere near the equal of films of the genre such as "Silence of the Lambs".
OK. First said, I just wanted to check whether this movie has an average rating below or exactly -1. But 5,9. This is sicker than any of the killers' proceedings -,- . That made me curious what people wrote here.. which in the end made me set up an account to give my 2cents of truth into this "well of delusion" i find here.<br /><br />How dare you guys even MENTION this movie in the same sentences as e.g. Seven? The only thing they got in common is that they show various crime-scenes. That-is-it. And "Best thriller of 1999!" ? have you even watched another movie form that year? Or any other movie in your life at all? 1999 is not a year which people are reminded of by RESURRECTION... what's with actual MOVIES like 8mm, Eyes wide shut, Arlington Road, Double Jeopardy? (Theyre actually more a "thriller" than this one could ever be..). Resurrection does not even deserve to be dedicated to A SECOND of 1999.<br /><br />Really, you guys can't be serious. I watched that movie yesterday with my girlfriend, highly recommended by a friend of her. A "great film with Christopher Lambert"! ...which I had not yet seen? Hmm.. <br /><br />Well, first look on the Covers: OK, nothing special. At second glimpse you don't need to have supernatural powers to be aware that they simply mirrored Lambert's head, clipped his nose 'n this&that, then made a fancy negative pattern on top of it, to get the killers image on the COVER. You could even think they had some apprentice eat a gallon of marshmallows just to caption that creepy (booooh! -.- ) mouth.. whatever. Turned it around and the plot starts with.. "it's raining in Chicago... blabber blabber". Come on, a six year old could have made that snippet sound more exciting. Now, with this enormous excitement coming from the movies terrific presentation -.- , you absolutely wanna start watching it. Because it can't be that bad, it still is Christopher Lambert. That assumption of mine was proved wrong. WIth "proven wrong" i mean it was brutally executed by a deadly mix of the worst imaginable acting ever known to mankind (every actor, but the tops are the "i can do 1-Liners!" police chief, Prudhommes Wife __ actually a better detective than Prudhomme when she recombines several incidents to a yet ABSOLUTELY UNKNOWN hint in the case!!!! -.- __ and .. yes.. Prudhomme himself) featuring a squadron of inhuman fake feelings, logic errors in a 1-minute-cycle, light-years far-fetched conclusions which in my point-of-view represent an insult to any thinking human being and last but not least a camera-man who obviously was a hyperventilating kangaroo. Oh well, and if you do not completely shut down your brains (these aren't premises to watch it) then you should know who is who and what is what after max. 30minutes, simply because you know ANY scene after the first. That is thrilling. Thrilling because this movie almost makes you think you can tell the future. <br /><br />The bottom line: This is BY FAR the worst movie I can remember. Trust me, I've seen many horrible movies which in some way were at least only bad attempts or bad copies of another movie. Resurrection however, is the best example on how to fail in every aspect possible. It was so bad that after being shocked by its unimaginably low quality in e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g, I laughed more often than in any recent comedy, simply because I was fascinated by the crew's brazenness to publish such an -extraordinary- film strip. Good thing for Lambert he was in Highlander:Endgame a year later, thus he can be pardoned. ;^O<br /><br />Anyhow, I DO recommend watching this movie to EVERYONE. In the end, we had great fun watching it :^D. I guarantee you, after you completely watched Resurrection (be brave, you can do it!) , you will worship the level of acting in any given daily soap. <br /><br />Or just go 'n watch highlander one more time... that's what I'm gonna do.
A bare-faced rip-off of Se7en and not fit to clean its shoes. The word 'predictable' must have invented for just such an occasion as this. Lambert is wooden, as always (his moments of 'emotion' are laughable, as is his accent). The 'climax' is not that at all as we've had so many signals, and by the end we're simply immune to flesh, rotting and otherwise. Altogether a real mess.
If I didn't know any better, I would have thought Resurrection was made in the late 80's/early 90's, when crap sold as film in Hollywood.<br /><br />I don't understand why people like Christopher Lambert. He speaks like he's reading off of cue cards and turns into a fountain whenever he has to emote. He was easily the movie's weakest aspect. The other actors were OK, nothing horrible.<br /><br />It's easy to see where the majority of the budget went: the special effects. The killings look pretty professional, but hardly make up for the film's dullness.<br /><br />I wouldn't go as far as to say Resurrection is a carbon copy of Se7en, but it certainly bears a certain resemblance to it. Centering on a religious-minded murderer on a modern crusade, the detectives investigating his work have to rely on Bible passages and Christian history to piece together the killer's puzzle. Resurrection, however, is bereft of Se7en's clever storytelling, cinematography, acting...well, everything that makes it good. Instead, Resurrection lies to the audience and uses the Scooby Doo method of mystery to surprise it.<br /><br />In conclusion, Resurrection was about as bad as I expected it to be. I almost feel bad for criticizing this movie since I knew it would be bad going in, but...sue me.
Predictable, gory, over-gimmicky, mediocre. Don't waste your time - there are many much better movies out there. <br /><br />Resurrection starts out OK but the plot quickly becomes repetitive. My interest level fell off steadily. By the end of the movie I was just glad it was finally over. The characters never fully developed. The cinematography is muddy and the quick change POV rotations - while impressive in 1999 perhaps, presently merely serve to label the movie as attempting to substitute gee whiz flash for plot and character substance. The film shooting gimmicks serve some purpose (convey tension and anxiety) but are constantly overused and ultimately become counterproductive. A shame overall - the film/story obviously had potential and the producers/directors and actors obviously have technical skill. A disappointment.
I normally love Jackie Chan movies but this one was terrible. There are only 2 or 3 fight scenes all of which are up to normal standard more or less. The bad thing about this movie is it focuses a lot on car chasing/racing. The car chase isn't so bad (though not as exciting as fighting) but the car racing at the end is exceptionally boring. Basically it takes all of things that make a Jackie Chan film a Jackie Chan film and leaves out everything except Jackie Chan. Even the traditional outtakes at the end lack their usual humour.<br /><br />I suppose to a certain extent it was made worse by the fact I saw one of those horrible dubbed versions. I usually try to see the subtitled version...I wish I could understand Chinese.<br /><br />I've only seen one Jackie film worse that this one and that was one of his early forays into Hollywood films that didn't turn out so well.<br /><br />Avoid unless really curious or a lover of motor sports.
"Thunderbolt" is probably Jackie Chan's worst movie since "The Protector" in 1985. Yes, I know that nobody watches his movies for their stories, but the plotting of this one is unusually lame, even by his standards, and while the fight choreography IS up to his standards, the fight scenes (the whole two of them) are ruined, as others have mentioned, by the frenetic, distracting camerawork. Even the most serious Jackie Chan fans shouldn't really bother with this offensively haphazard, stunt-and-plug-filled garbage. Anita Yuen's cute and perky performance is one of the few redeeming virtues. For a good "serious Jackie" movie, I recommend "Crime Story". (*1/2)
I just cant see what everyone sees in this movie. The acting is just awful, the choice of music is, mildly putting it, peculiar, there arent enough fighting scenes, the plot is non-existent and whatever small entertainment one could get from this film is ruined by the annoying way some of the movie is filmed and gives you a splitting headace.
Jackie Chan movies are typical examples of how offer is bigger than demand.Well,to be honest,which demand?In this one Jackie Chan is whatever his name is in this one,I doubt if he even knows,and he is some kind of race car driver.Well,he drives 10 miles an hour and then the footage is sped up,that way I can do all the stunts myself as well.During the great finale,in which Jackie Chan wants to arrest the bad guy by beating him in a race,we finally get to see how shoddy this production really is.Chan's fighting,especially in the casino scene is decent,but when we're talking about special effects,dear Lord.And must everyone crash in this race?That's just stupid.And here it's really not safe for the drivers,there's not even a concrete wall in the neighborhood.And don't get me started on what kind of awful story this has,I mean,it's Hongkong,it was probably written at gun point by eight-year-olds,but still,what a mess.I like Chan as much as the next guy,perhaps more since I saw "Rush Hour",but his agent's retarded cousin really needs to pick his projects better.
Potential viewers be warned, the current IMDb viewer rating for "Tomorrow at Seven" is an anomaly of low voter turnout. It has an interesting premise, a killer leaves an Ace of Spades calling card at the scene of his crimes, while alerting the victim in advance. The execution falls flat however, and to say that the movie has it's share of plot holes would be to imply that there actually is a plot.<br /><br />Chester Morris portrays mystery writer Neil Broderick, weaving elements of actual murders by the Ace of Spades killer into his latest novel. Broderick intends to interview a wealthy businessman for his book, but first he has to get past the man's eccentric secretary - "If you line his relatives up, you'd have enough nuts to hold a Ford together". That line unceremoniously endears him to the "nut's" daughter Martha (Vivienne Osborne), who offers to make the introductions.<br /><br />Broderick meets Thornton Drake (Henry Stephenson) just as the latter is about to complete a jigsaw puzzle delivered by a courier that morning. The only remaining pieces, as we learn in the following scene, form the bold, black shape of the Ace of Spades containing the words "At Seven Tomorrow Night". Now what person putting together a puzzle doesn't use the pieces with contrasting colors FIRST! <br /><br />Initially I was intrigued by the appearance of Frank McHugh and Allen Jenkins in their roles as a pair of police detectives summoned to the Drake residence. Generally, their characters are colorful enough to offer genuine comic relief, but here they're just plain annoying. McHugh's Clancy in particular winds up shouting objections to inane comments made by his partner Dugan, and both usually head in the opposite direction when real trouble might turn up.<br /><br />Now here's a question - in light of the identity of the Ace killer, why would he have invited a novelist and a pair of cops that he just met, on a flight to his Louisiana plantation? Especially when at seven o'clock, all parties would be a captive audience aboard the plane when the first murder is committed. It's not Drake however who's dead, but his secretary Austin Winters (Grant Mitchell). The early suspicion falls on pilot Henderson (Cornelius Keefe) following a lights out scene, but Henderson still hasn't reported the murder to his supervisor until well after he arrives at Drake's plantation with everyone else. Can you imagine anyone trying to get away with that today, unless your name was Ted Kennedy?<br /><br />With the cause of death yet to be determined, the local coroner is called in, but the first one that shows up (a Broderick accomplice) is a phony. Yet, when the real coroner shows up, he simply disappears immediately after! In a second dark out scene, a letter from the murder victim Austin Winters is about to be read. It winds up missing when the lights return, and because it may point to the murderer, it becomes a clue that must be retrieved. So where was the letter? Winters' daughter Martha grabbed it and placed in on the mantle of the living room! How much thought was put into this?<br /><br />Obviously, the entire affair is so inane that Morris' character solves the case rather easily. Even though the film comes in at just about an hour, it becomes almost a chore to watch with all the nonsense going on. There's really only one humorous moment worth repeating; while aboard the plane, the detectives have this exchange: Dugan - "Hey Clancy, how often do these things fall?" Clancy - "Once!" <br /><br />Except for McHugh and Jenkins, I can't say I've seen any of the other players in films of the era, though I'm a fan of most "B" grade mystery movies from the '30's through the '50's. Fortunately, the pair fares much better backing up Humphrey Bogart in a goofy 1938 gem - "Swing Your Lady", where the laughs are intentional. The best I can offer about "Tomorrow at Seven" is a quote from Martha Winters about midway though this turkey - "This is just a silly waste of time".
The first twenty-five minutes stand out as possibly the worst in modern British film. Director/adapter William Cartlidge has treated Wilde's original with such reverence that he seems to have completely ignored the needs of a cinematic audience. Thankfully the quality of the direction and editing improves significantly after the first half hour, but by then the damage has been done. Of the actors, Prunella Scales and Robert Hardy wipe the floor with the rest of the cast every time they are on screen. The other exceptions are Jonathan Firth's Arthur and Karen Hayley's Mabel, who are given enough latitude to deliver their lines with the true comic sense which Wilde intended. The ostensible leads, James Wilby and Trevyn McDowell, are in comparison lacklustre and wooden. In an obvious attempt to eke every penny out a meagre budget, the play has been nominally updated to the 1990's, but in conjunction with the original script the effect is more of a badly script 1970s TV drama. True moments of comedy are few and far between, but when they arrive are highly amusing - a sign, maybe, that more judicious pruning of the rest of the play might have led to a better paced, more even film.
This should have rocked. VH1 moved away from the traditional divas (Whitney Houston, Celine Dion, etc.) that had made the 2003 show so stale. Sadly the move backfired. The show had no MC keeping the show together. Queen Latifah did a fantastic show at the 2003 Divas. The show kicked of with a horrific rendition of Lady Marmalade featuring Patti Labelle, Cyndi Lauper, and Jessica Simpson. Okay in the studio with some control they can all sound great. <br /><br />However, when they are competing with each other (why?) it just sounds torturous! Jessica Simpson has the most bizarre facial expressions when she sings that i've ever witnessed! Cyndi Lauper also performed Girl Just Wanna Have Fun. That wasn't as bad but it was hardly impressive. The worst was yet to come! Cyndi and Patti Labelle teamed up to perform Cyndi's hit 'Time After Time'. It was acoustic, and didn't fit in with the rest of the show. Still it could've been okay if they both hadn't insisted on squealing like mamed animals. It was just dire.<br /><br />Debbie Harry (from Blondie) is always cool. She has a style of her own and although maybe she can't compete vocally with a many of the divas although she certainly can sing very well. Debbie came out and performed Blondie's #1 hit 'Rapture'. With some lovely vocals. She really hit the notes perfectly. She looked stunning. Rapper Eve provided a new, but sadly inferior rap. It was good. Debbie's next performance was a team-up with newcomer Joss Stone. They performed the Blondie hit 'One Way Or Another'. I think Joss misunderstood the style of the song and just shouted over Debbie. A rather sad bit was when Debbie tried and failed to match her shouty style which spoiled it a bit. She should've just let Joss get on with her totally inappropriate warballing. The whole of Blondie performed this track. The final track Debbie performed was Blondie's massive hit 'Call Me'. It was pretty poor. Not Debbie's fault because you just couldn't hear her. The sound was atrocious all the way through the show.<br /><br />Joss Stone also performed a few songs on her own. They were quite well done. Ashanti also showed up to perform two inexplicable cover versions. Firstly she did Diana Ross' 'I'm Coming Out', and then Chaka Khan's 'Ain't Nobody'. She is not a diva! She can sing to an extent but she has no presence whatsoever. Why not just get the real singers in. Chaka was even interviewed on the show....<br /><br />Gladys Knight showed up and did a medley. It was very good. She was probably the best bit of the show. I don't know much about her other than she is a seasoned performer in Las Vegas and her experience and class really shone through. Patti Labelle fitted in another performance this time her 80's hit 'New Attitude'. It was the finale and it was okay but it was too little to late. This was one big dud. Better luck next time VH1.<br /><br />The version I saw was a heavily edited 55min version which was shown on VH1 in the UK. If these were the best bits.....
I like the most of the Full Moon Pictures so I ordered this movie from the USA, because in Germany you can't get it anywhere. I thought it would be so nice and amusing like the Subspecies or Puppetmaster Series, because they were full of atmosphere.<br /><br />I was glad when the movie finally arrived.<br /><br />But after watching this cheesy movie, I was very disappointed. The actors ( I think you can't even say actors) are boring and untalented. The story was a poor performance and even the set and the monster were very cheap and lousy.<br /><br />I hope no one ever make a sequel or remake of this terrible movie. :-)
The creature? Yeah, it and the movie it stars in. Hell would seem infinitely more frightening if the damned were forced to watch this for all eternity. Six college students shack up in a condemned hospital to save money and end up victims of an ancient monster who must claim five victims before it returns to "the shadowy world from which it came!" Other than having major logic and coherence problems (plus the fact it appears to be unfinished), this disaster is terribly acted, written, edited (by J.R. Bookwalter) and directed, and the make-up FX are almost nonexistent. It's also significantly shorter than it claims (at only 80 minutes), but I'm not complaining. It's the worst movie I've seen from executive producer Charles Band's Full Moon productions and boy is that BAD!<br /><br />To note, I almost didn't bother with a review, but this has gotten inexplicably good reviews on here and I figured a varying opinion was in order. Proceed with caution!
Hunk of trash only the Full Moon Studios could make has a group of college kids, staying for free in an old hospital with no one knowing, as a demonic creature with two faces(barely visible the entire film because of incomprehensible lighting)passes through walls killing each member who has a certain sheet of paper with ancient markings. Someone amongst them(it won't be too hard to prove, but a slight twist is so uninspiringly revealed and limply executed you'll just scoff)is the mastermind behind who the beast kills and must be revealed before it kills everyone.<br /><br />Cheap, badly acted mess has a "That's it?!" kind of weak ending that'll have you exasperated at why you just wasted your time. Tanya Dempsey, who couldn't act her way through a wet paper sack, has the heroine duties as the newest member of the college rooming bunch named Clark. Oh, and the title refers to the sound the beast makes before it attacks it's next victim.
Sometimes Full Moon makes entertaining movies. This isn't one of them. Full Moon is like a low-key Troma. Their movies aren't as violent or off the wall, but they're usually just as devoid of talent. The acting in this movie isn't terrible but the script is pretty bad, and overall it's pretty boring and it doesn't even contain any nudity (like many Full Moon movies) to somewhat redeem it. Skip this one, and go rent "Head of the Family".
I don't believe I've seen a horror movie this bad since...hell, I don't believe I've ever seen a horror movie this bad. The acting alone was enough to make one cringe. The bad acting went way beyond horror film cheesy. It was just plain awful. And did you check out those god awful special effects? When the demon (which looked more like a cheaply constructed puppet) came out of the wall I couldn't tell if I was supposed to be frightened, or laughing my ass off. As a huge fan of the horror genre, this film was more than mildly disappointing. I couldn't help but notice the director is from Portland, OR, which just happens to be my own hometown. I must say I'm deeply ashamed. If I could, I'd give this film a negative 500.
The best thing about Shrieker is the dialogue. Like Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer, this movie is cognizant of the conventions of this type of horror movie and manages to come up with a few good lines and scenes that play on those conventions. Unfortunately, Shrieker is just boring. The plot is your basic Ten Little Indians whodunnit with a monster controlled by one of the suspects/victims. You know from the beginning that each of the characters will get bumped off until only the hero(ine) is left to defeat the evil. And this is exactly what happens. Absolutely no surprises and no tension. Production values and acting were ok, but I had no motivation to watch to the end (although I did) because I already knew how the end scene would play out. The ending did surprise me a bit, because it managed to fizzle out, literally, instead of throwing out a bucket of special effects. Maybe the special effects budget had been spent up by the end.
SHRIEKER is a Full Moon production. I knew what to expect (very little quality) but I didn't expect this to be as painful as SHRIEKER was to watch.<br /><br />It's just awful. Bad acting, confusing script and direction. Annoying characters I wanted to kill. The whole thing was probably made in one week. I've seen episodes of CHARMED that were more complex and convincing than this cheapie.<br /><br />It has the look and feel of an orphaned episode of a badly conceived TV series no one has ever seen. It was a chore to watch and I could feel my mind getting dimmer and dimmer by the minute. Watching a movie shouldn't be this much hard work.
This film did entertain me with lots of laughs at the actors who kept the film moving along in all types of crazy directions. If you like suggestive language and sexy looking gals they were all in the picture and gals and guys all looking burned out before they even graduate from high school. There is one scene where the teenagers drive their car into a very fake deer and then proceed to throw it out into a lake or ocean, which is repeated over and over again. There is no horror to this film except the word Horrible for the entire picture and Arnold who plays a plastic cop is really one sick character. Please don't waste your time viewing this film.
I lived next door to the author in 1980 when he first moved out to Portland from Downer's Grove, Ill. with two of his high school buds. He seemed like a normal-enough guy, though he had a lot of artistic pretensions. Within a few years, he jumped into Portland's post-punk music scene with buddy Phil and a few others, and a band that definitely wasn't headed anywhere, although it got him a lot of action, including a fling with Courtney Love in her Portland groupie days. He seemed to think his musical prospects were good enough to move to San Francisco, then N.Y.C.<br /><br />I was surprised to hear that he got a publishing deal in '95 after the band crashed and burned. Courtney Love's name seemed to be the clincher. I have no idea how the movie came about, especially with this cast, but I doubt that Gus Van Sant was involved. Anyway, the reviewers here seem to be unsure whether the lack of narrative focus is intentional or not, so I would just say that this is the work of a fairly intelligent guy who wants to be a writer, or artist or something, but doesn't have anything to say. Like Kerouac without the Benzedrine.
If this is the author's and director's idea of a slice of life, they are clinically manic depressives. A sad, moody film at best, with ubiquitously aimless and unhappy characters who negatively interact with disastrous results. This film is billed as a comedy. What was so funny about losing your home to an allegedly premeditated arson or the drug induced, forcible rape of one of the main characters. Is this art imitating life? Jack Black was mildly amusing as the mountain man, weed farmer. However, even this segment of the film was rife with pathos. What was the point of living in the middle of nowhere with an entourage. If Black's character was so paranoid, why was he doing acid with a group of people right out of Woodstock? Is there no end to disconnected relationships, a plot less script, and scene transitions lacking any cohesiveness or logical chronology.
It starts out looking like it may be going somewhere, then quickly leads the main characters into a three-ring circus of remarkable stupidity which permanently destroys any likability of the characters. I'm a huge collector of stoner movies, but this is something I would not consider a valid addition. Bong Water is trash from the very deepest regions of the dumpster, and I wouldn't be caught dead with this on my shelf. I'm actually convinced this movie was created by a Partnership for A Drug Free America. If you're a Jack Black fan then I would say that you may think 5 minutes of the movies is OK because Jack Black continues his legacy of singing songs for retards. I really can't say enough bad things about this movie.
There is nothing in this that the viewer could point to and call "good". The acting was dull and sedated. The sets and cinematography look like they were developed by someone grew up in a Starbucks and tried to make the perfect Gap commercial. Characters have no drive, motivation, or reason for us to care about them. There's such a lack of interest and tension that it's hard to follow the banal action and dialog. And the plot... if anyone finds it, I'm sure it would be as boring as everything else.<br /><br />This isn't funny, it's not romantic, it doesn't reflect on the human condition. If you want a good stoner comedy, watch Half-Baked; if you want a good stoner drama, watch Trainspotting. The only reason I gave this 2 stars instead of one is because it's kind of fun seeing some familiar faces in the mid-late 90's cast. Which is a shallow reason to give the film even one star, but, then again, this is a shallow movie.
It's hard to believe that with a cast as strong as this one has, that this movie can be such a dud. It's such an incredibly horrible film. How was it ever made? How did so many good actors wind up in such a terrible film? Don't waste your life. Don't watch even one moment of this film.
What a waste of a great cast. Figured I'd check it out because it looked like a good stoner comedy with a lot of fairly well-known actors. What it turned out to be was a pointless collection of boring intertwining stories about several characters with minimal connections with each other. Characters who start off looking like decent people but end up with not a single likable or interesting characteristic among them. Calling it a comedy was a stretch as well...the only thing that made me chuckle was Jack Black's song, which was basically Tenacious D. I waited for something big to happen but ended up with nothing more than 97 minutes of my life wasted.
absolutely nothing about this movie is funny, interesting, or relevant. besides two characters getting together at the end, nothing is ever resolved, and there is no plot. and by the way, what is the deal with the cover of the dvd? it has a female ass in daisy duke shorts... where was that scene in the movie? no one ever wore daisy dukes in this film! surprisingly enough, almost all of the acting in this film is good, and jack black plays a full song (could be a tenacious d track... don't know though)... those are the only redeeming values, though. overall, it's just a waste of time.
About 5 minutes into the movie you're thrown into this brutally tepid cat and mouse romance between the two main characters and it just gets worse from there. The biggest problem is the characters and how completely unbelievable they are. This is what 50 year old producers and out-of-touch Hollywood script writers think stoner life is like, as if they gave the cast of Friends some pot. Bland, dull, annoying and completely unrealistic. I despise this movie.
This Film Was One Of The Worst Films I Have Ever Seen. This Movie Drags On and On and I Almost Turned It Off, But I Gave It A Shot. I Wasnt Expecting Anything Great, But I Was Expecting More Than This. Good Thing I Work At A Video Store and Saw This For Free, Because I Would'nt Spend One Dime On This Movie. I Gave This Movie a 2, Only Because I Have Seen Worse. If I Were You I Would Stay Away From This, Very Far Away.
The title leads viewers to believe that this is a fun movie to watch and probably much better when watched under the influence, but it is not good at all. One 15 minute sequence with Jack Black beautifully playing one of his songs and tripping on acid while venturing through the woods does not save this movie at all. Every actor in this movie has gone on to do better things, except for the main girls I could not think of one movie where I had seen them before. I hate to bash movies but I also hate not being able to find something decent in movies. The film is sad, not very funny and had such potential with its awesome cast. If it were redone and written over it could be awesome. If you want a good movie to see stoned, watch Grandma's Boy, or Half Baked or Dazed and Confused, but this is not a movie to be seen at all.
Movies like this give independent films a bad name! This simply a boring compilation of vingettes, with no structure whatsoever. I wouldn't be surprised if the screenwriter was completely stoned. If you want to see a good stoner comedy, watch "Half Baked." It's no award-winner, but at least it made me laugh. The film was obviously made on a micro-budget. Every scene either takes place in someone's house, someone's apartment or some outdoor location. If the writing was good and the dialogue was interesting, I would've ignored the film's budget (like in the case of Edward Burns' films), but obviously that's not the case this time around. <br /><br />I quote Robert DeNiro from "A Bronx Tale" when I say, "There's nothing in the world worse than wasted talent." Everybody in the cast is talented. Luke Wilson, Alicia Witt, Brittany Murphy, Jeremy Sisto--all talented performers! And they all have been in much better movies. The actors give it their all, but they couldn't go too far with such a lame script. The only scene I found interesting was Jack Black's cameo, where he sings a song about being in the woods. And of course, there was the brief strip club scene at the beginning, which I also found appealing. <br /><br />The characters are uninteresting and the story barely exists. Many movies are awful, but at least you understand their intentions. What was "Bongwater's" intention? The world will never know. <br /><br />My score: 2 (out of 10)
When Exploiters become evangelist, they still exploit in the name of poverty! <br /><br />My first reaction after seeing the movie is – God Bless me that I am not eating fish or any non-vegetarian products! <br /><br />The documentary is about Lake Victoria of Tanzania where numerous varieties of lovely fishes used to live, and one day during 1960s somebody came and injected the mighty fish Perch, who became the exportable commodity for Tanzania to European and Japanese markets. The consequences were severe – firstly all local small and big fish were extinct; secondly the plane that came to take the fish could not travel empty because it does not make commercial/ business/ capitalist sense, so it is filled with arms and ammunition (that is what Europe can give this world); thirdly the pilots (as all migrants and traveling population like truck drivers) has to survive their sexual needs by flourishing cheap local African prostitutes for them; fourthly the brokers, dealers, middle men in the chain (mainly Indian origin business people) get richer and Tanzania's poverty remains the same; fifth poverty drives the children to crime, drugs etc.<br /><br />The premise to make this documentary was excellent. But has the Director Hubert Sauper succeeded in making a good documentary? It is a big NO. <br /><br />I say the reasons: Like in India, it requires a higher caste Brahmin to stand up and project to the world, Indian poverty and untouchables; similarly it requires an Austrain born European documentary maker to tell the world the story of Tanzania and its crumbling and ruining economy and poverty. It is the pathetic motive of unaware breeding of that rich class (who have never seen poverty or known poor), who survives, live, earn and fame like pest hanging on to projecting poverty to the world as soon as they see it. There is nothing more but despise by poor people in African and India who see such images of their.<br /><br />The intention and motives of the Hubert seems totally lop-sided. The images, characters, locales, interviews are too grave and murky, dark and disturbing. He uses exaggerated ignorance as a voice to present his case. What we feel in the end is pity and sadness for Africans. We also start considering the Tanzania government and people as villainous. May be some westerners sitting in their air-conditioned rooms would find time to discuss and debate about the pathetic living conditions of Africans, but there would be nothing more than that.<br /><br />The director restrains to show himself even once on the screen – so as not to be identified among the Europeans who exploit this poor country.<br /><br />This Director Hubert can only survive being exploiters themselves like today's CNN and BCC media giants. Hubert did not have guts or common sense to talk to any Europeans who eat or companies who import these fish products. A totally lop-sided flimsy effort! But I understand the reasons of the same – Hubert just wanted to rake his fame, sitting and smiling with awards in his European comfort.<br /><br />No more words to spare for this pathetic effort. I hesitantly give the documentary a higher rating 3.5 Stars out of 10, just because the theme was correct; but was pathetically exploited and blown away by amateurish ill conceived director made solely for un-intelligent western audiences! (Stars 3.5 out of 10)
I'm sorry to say that, but this is actually one of the worst documentaries i have EVER seen.<br /><br />Due to its name "Darwin's Nightmare" i expected a documentary on problems relating to the Nile perch in Lake Victoria.<br /><br />What I actually saw in this "documentary" is a loose accumulation of individual stories, most of which have no relation to neither fish nor lake. And for a large part you can hardly call them stories - it's more like some accumulated scenes that lack a meaningful connection...<br /><br />Why does this movie waste time on: - Showing us non-relevant information on the families of the Russian pilots (several minutes are wasted for example on their private digicam snapshots of wives and daughters) - Mourning the death of an African child who got bitten by a crocodile (as if that could not have happened without the Nile perch) - Showing us about 100 times how planes land and start at the airport - Showing us strange religious events for several minutes - Discussing in detail the life and death of a whore at the airport - Talking to kids about their mothers, fathers - what they work and/or how they died (well, guess what: some died of HIV - who would have guessed that?) Those are just some examples, i could go on for several pages...<br /><br />This movie is absolutely unfocused, and does not know at all what it wants to tell the viewer. If you have never heard of Africa and have no idea that this continent has Social/Health/HIV/Violence/War problems then this movie might be right for you. If you haven't had your eyes closed for the last decades 90% of what this movie shows won't be new to you - and the way it's presented here will try its best to make you fall asleep.<br /><br />Perhaps my expectations on this movie were to high, but i really didn't like it even though this is a topic that I would generally find interesting. If this movie wants to show how the poverty is related to the Nile perch, than it perhaps should have spent some time on discussing that matter...
The title of this documentary is very misleading. At no time during the documentary do they show how the introduction of the Nile Perch fish into Lake Victoria has cause any of the problems facing the town of Mwanza, Tanzania. The film tries to place the problems of Tanzania on an environmental cause but the truth of that matter is the problems stem from a parasitic outside force. The documentary is very slowing paced with no narrative what so ever. Instead it relies on small blips of text between none related segments to display bits of information that do little to add or expand of the subject matter. There are only two attempts to discus the environmental effects of the Nile Perch fish. One is a small segment about 10 seconds long where they interview the factory managers where the fish is processed and he briefly mentions how 50 years ago the Nile Perch was introduced into the lake and it consumed the other fish species. The film maker makes no attempt to follow up on the matter or go deeper into it. The second attempt is when within this documentary they film the showing of another documentary that is discussing the environmental impact the Nile Perch has introduced, and again no real attempt is made to expand on just how devastating the problem has become. <br /><br />The subject matter that this documentary does delve into has nothing to do with the Perch fish itself and more to do with the problems facing most African countries. The film tries to link the introduction of the Perch fish with AIDS, Poverty and Pollution in Tanzania but never makes a direct connection. As any intelligent person well read with problems in Africa, the problems shown here are not unique to Tanzania but affect most of Africa and have nothing to do with the fish. It would have been great if the film makers would have shown how the local economy or life was before the fish was introduced and how it has been negatively impacted by the introduction of the fish but they don't. The fact of the matter is that many of the people they interview say that the fish has provided jobs and opportunity for many. Yes things are BAD within the town of Mwanza but they are far worst in other parts of the country and continent for that matter.<br /><br />A weak attempt by the documentary makers to link the fish to famine problems in Tanzania is quickly discredited by the documentary itself. First off Tanzania is a very large country and Lake Victoria is only a small portion of the country. Many of the individuals interview actually say that they can to Mwanza, the fishing town on the lake, to find a job and feed their families because things were so bad in other parts of the country. <br /><br />This documentary is very weak, has no narrative and makes no attempt to actually link anything they display to the Nile Perch. It plays on people's emotions by displaying images of the devastation of poverty, famine and AIDS making no attempt to show you how any of this is unique to the Lake Victoria region of Tanzania or directly related to the Perch Fish. The fact is most of the problems have more to do with War, Globalization and Christianity than and environmental effect of the Perch fish itself.
This documentary was boring, and quite stupid.<br /><br />I mean... the documentary maker obviously does not even know what how Darwinian evolution works? It is a theory, and the name is just plain dumb. Reading a college biology text-book could have told the documentary maker what Darwinism really is. Darwinism is a good theory, but evil if it is done as politics.<br /><br />Also there was no real evidence in this documentary just interviewing some people... no expert testimonies, and shady leads...<br /><br />The documentary was also boring. I mean it could have been edited down to 35 minutes, and then it would have been lots better.<br /><br />There are a lot better documentaries than this... this was not worth watching... you can get better information from Wikipedia =D DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY AND TIME!
After having watched Darwin's Nightmare, one must have the impression of Tanzania being a living hell, with its population being quasi-slaves delivering the finest fish to the well-fed Europeans while leaving the fish bones to the starving population. In exchange for the fish they get western-made weapons, which the mainly unemployed population eagerly awaits to use, because being a soldier is their only source of income.<br /><br />So everything is all dark with trade as the incarnation of evil and source of all misery? Not quite. Fortunately Darwin's Nightmare shows the dark sides only and completely spares the positive aspects. In fact, the documentary hardly tells anything about the economic and ecologic importance the victoriaperch has for the region.<br /><br />For the countries around lake Victoria the victoriaperch is the second to third most important source of income. The wages in the fishing industry are way above average. Tanzania has banned huge trawlers to secure the jobs of thousands of fishermen. The adjacent states have met agreements to keep fishing on a sustainable level. Cities at the lake are benefiting from the taxes the fishers have to pay for each kilogram caught fish and the taxes on the factories' exports and profits. Furthermore Tanzania has banned exporting the local traditional fish, which still play an important role feeding the local population.<br /><br />By ignoring those positive signs the documentary deters the badly needed western consumers and investors and thus threatens to aggravate the African's situation.<br /><br />For further reading I can recommend two articles the German alternative-wing newspaper wrote on the subject: http://www.taz.de/pt/2006/09/02/a0013.1/textdruck http://www.taz.de/pt/2005/03/17/a0151.1/text
My mom and I went to see this film because my brother is serving in the U.S. Peace Corps in the same region in which it's set. Halfway through the film, I decided that given its failure to measure up to what it pretends to accomplish, the title is pretentious. The subject it deals with could have made for an excellent documentary, but because of its poor execution, it left me far less educated about the issue than I had hoped to become. I agree with laura-jane from Canada ("Powerful Message but Lacks Focus."). I also agree with the user who commented that this filmmaker's narration-free style is the opposite of that of Michael Moore, but I don't agree that it presents varying points of view and invites the viewer to decide for him- or herself. I do agree with one user's comment that "a lesson is better learned when we draw the conclusions ourselves"; however, our conclusions can't be anything but poorly founded if we are presented with little relevant information from which to draw them.<br /><br />The main points of the documentary seemed to be that 1) The African people who live near Lake Victoria are very poor and suffer greatly. 2) The introduction of perch to Lake Victoria, inflicted by Europeans, ruined its ecosystem. 3) The communities surrounding Lake Victoria are financially dependent on the perch economy.<br /><br />The best things I can say about the film is that it attempted to relate the perspectives of the average people in sub-Saharan Africa, which, unfortunately, is an anomaly among films, and that it attempted to portray poverty as the result of a dysfunctional economic system rather than a universal, inevitable phenomenon. I liked the irony it captured in the massive amount of fish leaving the country in the face of a famine. I appreciated the portrayal of how out of touch the U.N. team assigned to the region was with the people. Like almost all documentaries that don't have the word "women" in the title, this film fails to do a good job representing women's voices -- the majority of the talking done in interviews is that of men.<br /><br />Maybe I need to watch the film a second time in order to catch some key points I might have missed, but I failed to detect Sauper's theory of the relationship between the introduction of perch to Lake Victoria and the unjust living conditions for Africans living near the lake. Furthermore, I could be wrong, but it struck me that Sauper could do well to improve his interview skills. Not only did the questions he asked and the responses he included seem to be arbitrary, but he seemed to have a real knack for making interviewees awkward and uncomfortable.<br /><br />The most compelling development in the film is the suggestion that the exportation of perch now functions to mask the importation of arms and that the real economy screwing over Tanzanians is that of war, not fishing. Sadly, Sauper shies away from conducting a thorough expose of the idea (or at least extending the interview with the reporter who seemed to know what he was talking about in regards to the weapons importation) and cops out with a "decide for yourself" approach.<br /><br />If Darwin's Nightmare was meant to dispel the myth that first world exploitation of the third world gives them "a chance for a better life," it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to depict how the weapons manufacturing industry in the U.S. and Europe is responsible for much armed conflict around the world, it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to portray what drives people to prostitution, it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to cast light on the inability of the U.N. to carry out its mission, it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to say that meager income Tanzanians earn from the perch isn't worth the human cost of tinkering with mother nature to create a profitable product, it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to imply that Tanzania would be much better off had Europeans never come, it didn't do a good job of it.
I think the movie was one sided I watched it recently and find the documentary typical of western movie makers that was biased without substance. The fact is prostitution do exist everywhere in the world not in Tanzania alone and not because of this fish business, there prostitutes were there way before the Russian and other business people arrived in Mwanza. Poverty is indeed endemic in Africa let alone Tanzania and this is not because of fish fillet business, in fact the fish industry has helped millions to support their families on their daily life. This movie just tarnish the good image of this peace loving country. As for the arms trade the film could not substantiate if there is any truth in that indeed looking critically at the films one is doubting the authenticity of the film maker, it seems that their trying to prove their point by using a few characters which can be done for anything really. Yes Tanzania is a poor country yes there are prostitutes and street children but they are not the product this business, it is just a common scenario in most poor countries indeed the world over even in the western world...What a load of rubbish.<br /><br />The pilot themselves are talking of sending weapons to Angola which is more than 2000km south of Tanzania and the war was in DRC also miles away from Mwanza, the director could not give evidence how these weapons were transported from Mwanza to DRC!<br /><br />In short the films lacks focus and respectability, it is quite easy to find the character anywhere in Africa and has nothing to do Darwin's nightmare or fish fillet...What a load of rubbish!<br /><br />The truth is the Nile perch has not decimated all other species in the lake contrary to what the movie portrays and also less than 25% of all catches from lake Victoria are exported the rest is consumed locally so lets get that one right.
If this film was just outrageously poor would be fine, the problem is many take it seriously. To make it short, a few points: <br /><br />- There is no story, no focus, no lead whatsoever and all the questions raised fail to find an answer. Overall, the film is extremely repetitive and boring (I have been in war-torn African countries several times and found all the lingering on local misery and hopelessness very painful to watch but still having no sense).<br /><br />- Questions raised are pure manipulation and the truth is that they are no questions but statements.<br /><br />- I am no doc filmmaker, but what's the point in raising, for example, the question of weapon smuggling, if the only element brought to the audience is a local reporter's statement? The director doesn't even bother showing us at least a sequence where he would be waiting near the airport trying to spot heavily loaded trucks leaving the area right after a plane landed.<br /><br />- The story of the fish takes up less than 5 mn, and is only supported by a sequence where the director films a documentary shown during a local conference. Did this guy do any work at all???? <br /><br />- Abject poverty is shown all the time in endless sequences but where's the point? One can go almost anywhere in Africa with a hand cam and shoot the same images unfortunately. Where's the big news? <br /><br />- Filming the prostitutes watching and crying over images of their assassinated friend and fellow prostitute is worth the worst emotional manipulations one can see these days on thrash and real TV.<br /><br />- The parallel drawn between the famine devastating the country with over two million starving and the exportation of fish is absolutely pointless, dishonest and makes no sense but to manipulate viewers in typically anti-globalization and anti-western feelings.<br /><br />There is an interesting debate in France after an academic published a very detailed comment on the film, which brought number of journalists working in Africa for decades to investigate a bit further about several details. It turns out that: <br /><br />- The fish waste shown drying in the sun and collected by some local people is not at all meant to be eaten by human beings but is collected to be exported for reasonably good money for animal-feeding purposes. I think I am not the only one having had the impression that the director suggested the exact opposite.<br /><br />- Arm smuggling is a reality (but there again, where's the big news??), but not the way this film explains the issue. If the empty planes landing in Mwanza do participate in smuggling, they actually unload their shipment in a different location in Africa, then go to Mwanza to pick up fish in order not to make the trip back empty (meaning that they do actually land empty in Mwanza...).<br /><br />- People do eat fish locally, contrary to what the film suggest (around 40-60% of what is taken out of the lake) and thousands of people make their living with it. Good for them! It's private business of that kind that will one day take African countries out of poverty and not western moaning and endless foreign assistance.<br /><br />I cannot tell how shocked I am seeing the success of this film!
I saw the movie in original Italian. It must be said that the acting and interpretation is most heavily polluted by the TV-generated trend to speak in a severely muffled voice, not moving lips, straining tones, as emerged in the "That's real life"-productions and "Let's-raise-our audience-with-a-few-tears"-screen-playwriting. The late Massimo Girotti towers upon the other characters for intensity, clarity of expression and intellectual honesty. The movie has some good hints, but (as in another comment before mine) it lacks a focal point and dribbles away in many plot-lets of lesser and lesser relevance, another trend dragged in from the TV productions, well known to Italians. A few drops in style could be spared to the public, such as the patisserie drag (Charm and aesthetics of cooking plus sensual payload of sweets, see Chocolat, Babette's lunch, Vatel etc.) Hammam and the Fairies are definitely more truthful, seems that Ozpetek has learned the tune of Italy in the early 2000s and is humming along... I'll give him a last chance though...
I really liked this movie. Number 5, the star robot of the movie gets hit by lightning and some thing happened to his circuits. He act and thinks more like a human.The robot repeats commercials he learns after watching TV. He then applies these sayings to his circumstances. Number 5 is quick witted and funny. The character imitates voices of stars, tries to dance like John Travolta in Staying Alive and a lot of other things. He has a saying for most of his circumstances that he memorized. The actions of the robots is really good. Number 5 wants to drive, cook and please Stefany with all the characteristics of a human. The way the robots move and line up is really hysterical.I am disappointed that the writers could not keep this clean for all viewers. This movie has a surpris ending something you would not expect. I hate movies that have swearing in them even though I like them I give them a lower rating. This movie had swearing words. Jesus Christ was used as swearing word which offends me it is used a least 3 times. G-d D-m, Bull sh_t etc. It could have been a wonderful movie with out all this offensive language. There is no sex in this film, some violence like robots blowing up cars and machines.
This movie is a complete and utter waste of time, one of the worst films I've ever seen. And coming from me, that is definitely saying something. In fact, I wish I could have given it negative stars instead of just rating it as a pathetic one-star awful.<br /><br />When I rented this movie, I had an open mind. I find the legend of the chupacabra interesting and I have a fondness for cheesy horror flicks. But I draw the line at this one.<br /><br />The acting sucked. The lead male gives one of the worst performances ever, looking and sounding unnatural as he delivers his poorly written lines. The lead female gives a slightly more palatable performance, but that really doesn't take much.<br /><br />The chupacabra... well, considering how low budget this movie must have been, the creature was tolerable. It does, however, look exactly like someone in a mask and body suit. The mask is fairly detailed and might look cool in person, but not so on screen.<br /><br />Speaking of on screen, you'd think they could have at least used a better camera. It looks like it was shot with a camcorder for crying out loud. Not a very good one, either.<br /><br />I don't know what whoever wrote this abomination was thinking. The dialog sucks and just... I can't describe what I feel about it. At least not without getting in trouble with the site.<br /><br />My advice? Avoid this at all costs. It's just not worth it. If it comes on TV and you have nothing else to do or watch, then *find* something else to do or watch. Read a book, listen to music, *anything.* Just don't subject yourself to this. If you do, you cannot say you weren't warned. And for Lord and Lady's sake, don't rent this sucker. It is not worth it, even if you get the chance to rent it for fifty cents. Trust me, I know.
According to this masterpiece of film-making's script (pun intended), Charles Darwin was full of nonsense when he presented his evolution theory, because he made absolutely no mention of any alien intervention. For you see, aliens sent Chupacabras to the earth and they form the missing link in the evolution theory. However, the rest of the film clearly seems to emphasize that Chupacabras are a typically Puerto Rican phenomenon, so I don't really know where that fits in. Are they saying all Puerto Ricans are aliens? Whatever, it's all pretty irrelevant anyway. The only thing you need to memorize is that "El Chupacabre" is an utterly cheap and imbecilic amateur B-movie, lacking tension, character development and any form of style. Several duos of people are chasing this goat-munching monster (remotely resembling the midget version of the Pumpkinhead demon) through the streets and ghettos of an ugly city. We have an untalented dogcatcher and a nagging female novelist, a pair of obnoxious cops and the supposedly evil scientist with his dim-witted accomplice. Since they all are extremely incompetent in what they do, the monster can carelessly carry on devouring all the Latino immigrants of the neighborhood. The monster itself looks okay and the make-up effects on his victims' leftovers are acceptably gross and bloody. The acting performances are irredeemably awful and headache inducing. Particularly Eric Alegria is pitiable in his first and only lead role as the overly ambitious employee of Animal Control. Yes, it's an incredibly stupid film, but surely you have struggled yourself through worse and less amusing low-budget garbage.
Boyle Heights, Los Angeles: legendary South American goat-sucking vampire, El Chupacabra, is on the loose, feeding on anyone unlucky enough to cross its path. Animal control officer Navarro (Eric Alegria) and Chupacabra expert/author Starlina Divide (Elina Madison) attempt to track down the creature, but find their progress hampered by a pair of dumb cops, money hungry locals keen to capture the beast for a fat reward, and a couple of nefarious scientists who want the monster for their experiments.<br /><br />Stinking higher than a two-week-old taco, El Chupacabra is an incredibly bad horror movie that even fans of incredibly bad horror movies might struggle to sit through. With its dreadful script, awful direction (by not one, but two talentless hacks—Brennon Jones and Paul Wynne), laughable dialogue, and some of the worst acting this side of a porn flick, I recommend this film about as much as I do drinking the tap water in Mexico.<br /><br />As Navarro and Starlina proceed with their investigations, viewers are treated to some incredibly weak gore, the worst designed book jacket in history, the most unconvincing dead person I've seen since the blinking corpse in Dr. Butcher MD, and a high-tech computerised security system consisting of a keyboard nailed to a post.<br /><br />To be fair, for a guy in a rubber suit, the monster itself is fairly creepy (hairy, with big claws, and a face like a particularly ugly bat), but its appearances are few and far between, with more screen time spent on the tedious trials and tribulations of whiney Officer Navarro than on the killer antics of the titular creature (just how many times is it necessary to see Navarro handing in paperwork to his bitchy boss?).<br /><br />If, like me, you make the mistake of wasting your hard-earned cash on this dreadful latino bilge (in my case, it was a whole 50p), consider using the disc as a coaster for your tequila rather than actually watching it.
This is a great example of what could have been a great film and a great idea but turned out to be really bad in the process. I was mainly tempted to get this because of the DVD cover, stupid me, but I did anyway and I was blown away, in a bad sense. This movie is essentially about El Chupacabra wreaking havoc around Los Angeles and it's up to a local animal cop and a writer to save the day, before two corrupt cops and two evil scientists bring them down. The main reason why I did not enjoy this film was because of big continuity errors that were hard to not notice. Along with some bad acting, okay lighting and nothing scary, this movie did not hit me as much as is it probably should have. However, compared to other Chupacabra movies, this one certainly tops the charts, just barely.<br /><br />First off, the continuity in this movie is way off and I mean off the shoulders and into the ditch. There were so many points were the characters said or did something and then in the next shot, they aren't doing it or the change never occurred. Case in point: the main character has a gun, the Chupacabra attacks, he whips out a flair from nowhere and distracts and the gun in missing. The girl runs while he defends here with the mystery flair and she had no gun, then the main character is running with the girl and has the gun. Where did the flair come from and what happened to the gun. The time of day gets screwed up. One minute it is sun set and you can still see the sun and then the next minute it looks like midnight. There were some plot holes as in, why was the Chupacabra there, what were the scientists doing, what happened to this guy and why did he shoot the animal and it still lived? These things bugged the heck out of me and none of the questions were answered.<br /><br />Next on the list is the acting. Boy was it wooden and bad. The main character Navarro, played by Eric Algeria, seems a bit too calm at points and too dedicated to finding out what killed a few dogs and when a tragedy hits, his emotion was just not there. Elina Madison, who played Starlina, did a fairly poor job. She was the author of a bestselling book about the Chupacabra and she just didn't seem into her role or her performance. Her acting was kind of laughable and a poor. Even for an author she knows too much about that thing, and knows how to disable a high security defense system in a hidden laboratory. Tony Criss was okay, but he seemed a bit to calm for some of the stuff that was going on. The movie reminds me of a bad reenactment to murder for some crime solving show, where the actors and actresses aren't really that committed to their work.<br /><br />I rarely don't get this anal when it comes to lighting or editing, but for this movie, I could not help but be harsh on the lighting. It took me out of the movie a number of times because the lighting was so poorly directed. There were times when they were trying to be creative by adding color filters to the scene to make it more "comic bookish," but it backfired. The worse part is at night when it is pith black outside, but the scene is so oversaturated with light, it seems like its day. They keep switching from high intensity light to soft light for random scenes, and the lights seem so bright that the actors were squinting. It shouldn't be that bright that there are dark shadows at night. During the sunset when the lighting was perfect, that's the only time when the light was good, other than that it was terrible.<br /><br />There were not scares in this film. There was only one time where I did jump but other than that, it wasn't scary. There were points were it probably could have been scary but it was so damn light out, you could see the Chupacabra approach the man, but if it was dark, it would have been better. Even the creature design for the Chupacabra was poor, it looked good but it was a short man or kid in a jump suit. They didn't hide his face; they showed him with no sense of mystery or any enigmatic appearance. There was a fair amount of gore, but it seemed unreal. This movie just wasn't scary, that's all.<br /><br />Overall, they did Americanize a great South American legend into a blood-thirsty human eater, which the Chupacabra isn't. In fact, it was scared of people and it only killed goats, sheep, dogs and deer because it was said that it hated the smell of humans. But, then were would the story be? I did not enjoy this film for any reason, but I will give them credit for trying to make a good film with good intentions. I would not recommend this film to any horror fan, but if you like indie or B-movies, you should check this out. Also, if you are easily tempted by cult-classics, you'd enjoy this film. I didn't, I won't see it again, but in some deep sedated way, I enjoy these kinds of movie just to see what the other side of Hollywood is making.
The back of my DVD describes the plot of "El Chucabra":after his capture in the wilderness,the legendary bloodthirsty creature Chupacabra escapes into the city creating mayhem and panic.As they pursue the deadly beast,an animal control officer and scientist Dr Starlina Davide realize that a vigilante with his own suspicious plan is also tracking the elusive killer for a mysterious research facility run by the diabolical Dr Goodspeed.This putrid horror flick is somewhat amusing,if you watch it under the influence of alcohol.The script is completely silly,the acting is wooden beyond belief and the direction is amateurish.Two rubber Chupacabra suits are easily the best thing about this movie.3 out of 10 and that's being extremely kind.
You want the worst horror movie of the 21st century? El Chupacabra is it. "Manos:The Hands of Fate" is THE worst movie of all time, but El Chupacabra certainly is the worst movie of this century. It also has to have the distinction of having the absolute worst leading actor ever. Eric Alegria, the actor in the lead role, has never done another film other than El Chupacabra, gee - I wonder why.<br /><br />Apparently the monster is attacking people, but everyone that is attacked moves really slowly and is really stupid. And, there are no cops at all in this town just two idiot detectives - Hello! Cops show up on the scene of homicides first, then the detectives come! And, apparently the monster only attacks in one person's backyard, and some deserted area by the docks. Or...thats the only places the filmmakers could get access to film.<br /><br />This 'film' is the reason why IMDb must allow us to give negative stars. This easily deserves -10 stars, or at least 0. They should allow a 0 rating.
OK, so i have recently been collecting a lot of vipco and hardgore titles on DVD and i have to say that this one is one of the most disappointing ones. A more recent film compared to other titles in the Hardgore catalogue this was a straight to DVD release. i've always been interested in the myth of el chokeberry ever since i saw a documentary on it as a teenager. however this film is a terrible let down shot on tacky dv the storyline and acting are terrible, it took me three goes to watch this film all the way through. While cheap 80's and 90's horror films are good because of their cheap budgets and comedy this film is not.<br /><br />check out some other titles in the hardgore series first, boneyard for example is older but much much better.
One of the latest (disaster) movies from York Entertainment, "El Chupacabra" excels in making its viewer want to die after having wasted two hours watching it. This movie appears to have been filmed with a spare camcorder normally used for birthday parties. The only reason I could tell that it wasn't was because of certain scenes where the cameraman's shadow is in the frame.<br /><br />Just about every aspect of cinema is plagued by this movie, and I'm sure that it has set the film industry back another ten years. The actors are borderline retarded, often pausing while they wait for the off-screen cue-card to change. The actor that plays Navarro not only slurs and skips word in his dialogue, but stumbles through the swiss-cheese plot line with a squinting and confounded look on his face. Other actors break the forth wall and overall show the acting skill of a twelve-year old kid doing a science project in his backyard.<br /><br />My friends and I purposefully search out the worst possible movies, and this one gave us more than we bargained for. The humorous parts are unfunny and the rest is riddled with horrible clichés and plot holes. As one friend so humbly put it, this movie is the aborted fetus of the industry. I would highly suggest this film for people like me that purposely search for these movies, but for all others, beware!
SPOILERS<br /><br />This movie was rented as a joke, and what a joke it was. The film is based on a dog catcher who is looking for El Chupacabra. The dog catchers outfit is so ridiculous. It looks like he sewed the patch on his hat and for some reason he shows of his "muscles" by rolling up his sleeves. Throughout the movie, mostly at night, you can see how bad the lighting was. They are in a car which is brightly lit and they are driving in pitch black. Often you can see the camera man's shadow on the ground. The costumes are terrible, the lighting is terrible, and the acting is terrible. This is a good movie for a laugh...maybe.
Where do I start? The box should have been enough to keep me away from this attempt, but I'd been taught early on not to judge a book (or movie) by its cover, so I ignored the disgusting graphic quality of the box and rented it anyway. But common sense should tell you that if they can't do a single still image properly, then how dismal will the moving ones be, later? Yeah. They were pretty awful.<br /><br />The actors in this flick appeared totally unaware they were being filmed, as just any expression seemed to do fine, regardless of the situation the characters were in or what they were reacting to.<br /><br />However, a good story can offset the downfalls of low budget productions. Good dialog can carry a poorly-funded attempt at times. Unfortunately, this was not one of those times, as the story was as weak and nonexistent as the other required elements of good cinema.<br /><br />There simply aren't words for how bad this was. <br /><br />Perhaps you can get the idea from my rating of -2.3/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.
There is a reason why the world forgot these creatures: they are dull. This is a Hammer Production which means that whoever made this movie should be struck with a hammer, several times if possible - and where it most hurts. Most people put more thought into taking a dump than these idiots have put into making this movie.<br /><br />Seriously now… The movie begins with some cavemen hunting an antelope-thing. Now, antelopes must have evolved a lot from those pre-historic times because they actually attack and kill people here. After that, it's time to meet the rest of the tribe: more bearded men, some fashion-models, and even a couple of very old, grey-haired grannies and grandpas. These old geezers obviously never heard about cave people not surpassing the age of 30; they refused to bow to the will of both logic and pre-historical records, so they remain alive. One of the cavemen isn't bearded; he is clean-shaven. Not quite as clean-shaven as Tarzan, The Lord of the Humanoid Clean-Shaven Ones Roaming the Jungle Since Childhood And Without a Razor, but thereabouts.<br /><br />What follows is the obligatory earthquake/molten-lava destruction sequence which causes a lot of our not-so-hairy friends to meet their doom. It is interesting to note that before the earthquake the fashion-models showed their breasts more. After it, they must have gotten shy or something, because they covered their chests for a while (maybe they were covered by ash so I mistakenly thought they were covered). More action follows in the form of two fashion-models wrestling in the sand; the next-best thing to female mud-wrestling, I suppose. After a good deal of the desert has been crossed, our black-haired tribe meets - how else could it be - a blond tribe. Yawn.<br /><br />More spellbinding stuff follows. There is that redhead fashion-model who is bothered by seeing a cave-teen kill a hedge-hog-thing. There is also the scene of a woman dying at birth: those cave-fashion-models are so frail. Eventually we get to meet an even darker -haired and -skinned tribe, i.e. an evil tribe. One of them becomes a WWF champion after he actually beats(!) a huge bear-thing in a wrestling bout. 1,2,3... and it's done: the bear is the loser. We also witness a jealous caveman miraculously recover from two major injuries: first he gets stabbed with a big spear into the thigh, yet he walks away from that as if it were but a scratch. Then he gets thrown off a cliff - onto a big rock - by the blond goodie-two-shoes caveman, yet he walks away from it as if he were thrown onto a giant sofa. It's unclear in the end whether he dies from falling off an even higher cliff or from that voodoo doll being crushed. Oh yes, voodoo was used in pre-historic times by white tribes that live in the desert and whose females were fashion-models. It's always important to learn from movies.<br /><br />The message of the movie is as insightful as it is educational: cave people liked to fight for local power and they loved their fashion-models, too. As if any self-respecting caveman would fight to be leader of such a sorry bunch.
This film has got so much in it. Prehistoric society, adventure, romance, true brotherhood, violence, sex, religion; all depicted abundantly..without a single word uttered!!! And how come it sucks so bad? This film will make you rethink the origin of humanity. If this were the product of anthropology, you would rather defy Darwinian theory and Hegelian synthesis all together. You cannot bear to watch this even with your brain shut down. And now you are thinking, "I've got to see this." I warned you. I take no responsibility whatsoever should you regret spending over an hour staring at this piece of art. Well, I did warn you. This should be forgotten and buried for ever.
Awful, Awful, Awful show. "Real world" issues dealt with blatant unoriginality. Stereotypes galore. What the hell is going on with the African-American (black!) guys eyebrows? Tyrone power! Awful, Awful, Awful, Awful, Awful show. The fact that it lasted three seasons beggars belief. This show truly is swill for the brain dead accepters of mediocrity. <br /><br />Saved by the Bell almost seemed humorous compared to this. Well, upon hindsight, no. It's of the same banal ilk and therefore equally devoid of intelligence. The only thing that it's missing so far is the Jesus is GOD message. The mentality and deliverance is the same, yet somehow feels evil and soulless. You can almost hear the TV executives sprouting buzz words at each other. In fact I felt so incensed at this shows excremental existence, I felt compelled to comment. <br /><br />Awful, Awful, Awful show.
I cannot believe I actually set up a 'season pass' on my TiVo for this, apparently they had a good preview or something .. I can't imagine it though. After seeing about 5 minutes I thought to myself.. why am I watching this.. It is definitely not reality, and some of the worst acting I have ever seen on television.. I am a total addict of reality TV and there is nothing real about this. THE ACTING.. (if you can call it that) is awful.. The only ones that are almost 5% decent are the girls that are meant to draw viewers to the show.. although they would need to be a lot prettier to save this train wreck.. if they would have more lines they would probably change my mind as they probably have no talent either. This is obviously a very low budget production with 'actors' who are apparently very cheap. There is no way they could get a job in anything else. Someone needs to direct these people to a job in food service.. Maybe they could do that. Oh and by the way, Parco P.I. no longer occupies any space on my TiVo or TiVo's season pass list. Definitely the worst show I've ever seen.
I totally agree that the reenactments kill what could otherwise be a great show. I'll admit that I'd seen 1 or 2 episodes last season and was not clear at all that it was all reenacted. But when I caught one episode recently it suddenly jumped out at me BIG TIME and I lost interest immediately. Then I noticed the disclaimer at the start before an episode that followed. Has anyone followed the show closely enough to tell me, did they actually make the "acting" and reenacting parts more artificial on purpose, or did I just not notice before. I'm usually pretty good at sensing this stuff, but the recent episode was so obviously artificial I practically tripped over it. Now I have no interest whatsoever in watching and have given up entirely on it. It just doesn't have any real value if it's all scripted and acted. And at least lately, it seems VERY poorly scripted and acted. The comment above that says who cares if it's all reenactments, I do. Without visual truth, this is just a bunch of "you know what happened, one time this guy" heresay. It's info better read in a book.
Just finished watching this movie. I couldn't imagine watching this on VHS, as there were scenes where I needed the subtitles to hear through an accent or sound effect, even though the scene itself was in English.<br /><br />Visually, the movie is pretty appealing. The few CG effects were very obvious insertions, but the prosthetics/creature effects weren't bad. Not perfect, but photography and editing (which were pretty good) made up for a lot. Acting was generally bad, though how much of that can be blamed on the director I couldn't say, having never seen any of the actors before. The exception, I think, was M. Gomez (Uxia). She stole every scene she had a part in, and not just because of a very pretty face, but there was something akin to an urgency to her performance that none of the others had. The writing could have been a lot better - the plot was still unmistakably Lovecraft, and plenty of Lovecraft details were written in, but I personally could have done without most of the dialogue.
Anthony Perkins and Sophia Loren are absolutely gorgeous in this ca. 1840 "Western". That alone, however doesn't help a ridiculous story, with countless historically incorrect elements.<br /><br />Byrl Ives is convincing as the 70-something tyrannical patriarch, an egomaniac who swears to see his 100th birthday. His wild dancing at a party he gives for his neighbors will make anyone take notice (this guy is SEVETY SIX?). Always mumbling Bible verses, he demands respect, while driving sons and friends away with his self-righteous rantings and emotional cruelties.<br /><br />The love affair between Perkins and Loren at first appears absurd, but becomes believable near the end. There is plenty of drama, but not enough to feel good about. Clearly written for the stage, this story was dated even when it was filmed. Perkins whistles "My Bonnie" in the 1840s, although the song wasn't composed until 1882.<br /><br />Critics knocking Sophia Lorens "command of the English language" are rather petty. I found her English flawless and completely audible. As a Neapolitan, Loren speaks a distinct dialect that often had to be dubbed into "proper Italian". Her "accent", however, hardly affects how she speaks English. As a first Generation German American, I can appreciate the efforts of those who learn English as a second, or even third or fourth language.<br /><br />"Desire Under The Elms" is a drama (or even a tragedy) in the Classic Sense. For my enjoyment is was missing a logical story and an overall "pay off" for the time invested. Fans of the stars won't want to miss it, others, however, tune in at your own risk!
In fact, everyone responsible for this dreck ought to be whipped, dragged, and hung! IF this is what great Eugene O'Niell drama is like I never want to be victim to viewing it ever again. There are so many things WRONG w/ this feature where does one begin? First, Elmer Bernstein's bombastic score is present thru out the entire film even in the quiet scenes where background music subtracts from the character's motivations. Second, these characters are NOT pleasant people and while some reviewers might enjoy that I personally disliked every scene in which Ives ate up the scenery, but that was the way his characters was written: to be disliked. W/ Loren it just never is made clear whether she's good or bad … and all her babbling about how she's going to change things back to the way they were before the baby arrives … well, I saw what was coming clearly. Perkins is miscast and then he plays the role like a warm-up for Norman Bates (which he played two years later) even wanting to take blame for the murder at the end. Hokey! Third, this film is a studio sound-stage production and it suffers because of it. The story would have benefited from location shooting to develop a sense of "place" regarding the farm (which all the main leads are fighting over). As it is filmed there's no sense of value to the property because the film has a studio sound-stage feel to it that isn't convincing. This is a really awful film.
Tom Selleck plays an absentee son to senile "pop" Don Ameche and weary mom Anne Jackson, making up for his indiscretions (one presumes) and taking them in after Ameche has burned down his mobile home; meanwhile, Selleck's job is vanquished by the F.B.I., his assets are frozen, his wife and kids leave him and his obnoxious sister and her brats have come to stay. Brightly-painted comedy-of-ills is as out of touch with reality as Ameche's doddering old coot. Perhaps a serious first draft (with scenes such as Ameche walking out into traffic with two toddlers) was incorporated into a sillier second or third version (with Selleck getting poked, bumped, prodded, and eventually losing a toe and a testicle!). Either way, it's a painful experience, and Selleck's sudden dedication to his father makes little sense; he hobbles around and howls in pain, but retains his heart of mush. This movie is mush. * from ****
Folks! is a "comedy" about a man whose parents beg him to kill them because they're going senile and want to be put out of their misery. Several times he tries to kill them and then changes his mind, saving them from his death-traps at the last minute and losing one of his body parts each time in the process. The movie seems to hate its main character, which makes it all the more painful to watch. There's also the usual tacked-on love-interest and predictable ending.<br /><br />This movie was also the first time I'd seen Tom Selleck without a mustache, and I remember his shaved upper lip looking weird and making me feel slightly slick. But this might have been just because of the terrible premise and lame execution of the movie.
My father insisted I should watch this film with him and I regret that I wasted my time watching--I want that approximate hour and a half back! The "funny" little film concerns the elderly Don Ameche staying with his son, Tom Selleck. It turns out that Ameche isn't just "forgetful" like he's been told, but has dementia (it seems a lot like Alzheimers). And, because Dad is so frequently "out to lunch" he gets into so much trouble again and again--almost like the adorable tyke from BABY'S DAY OUT. The problem, though, is that you know BABY'S DAY OUT is all fantasy and the baby is going to be fine. Plus, you aren't laughing at the baby for having a deformity or illness. But, in this case, you are being encouraged to laugh at a man who is slowly losing his mind--and where's the humor in that?! If this film had been more successful, would the producers have then made films making fun or people with Cerebral Palsy or a Flesh-eating Virus?!?! There are a lot of people who should have felt ashamed at having made this film.
Recap: A band of five young American men, all that is left of a platoon hit hard during the Ardenne offensive during the WWII get the assignment as a forward outpost and to look for enemy activity. They're in really bad condition, both physically and mentally, and think they have struck gold when their outpost is in an abandoned but once plush mansion full with food. But after a while there is some enemy activity, and it is very odd. Not hostile, but odd. It seems like there is a German squad out there, in equally bad condition, that want nothing more than to surrender.<br /><br />Comments: Based on a novel and my guess that the novel is much better but the story doesn't seem to translate very well to the big screen. Indeed it is a different war movie, much more about the mental pressure during wartimes than fighting and battles. But I can almost feel that scenes that must have been full of suspense, full of uncertainties and unknown elements, just fall flat in the movie. It is not suspenseful, just different and in many ways absurd. Many times people just act insane, and the reasons are unclear or at best hinted at.<br /><br />So when this mental pressure fails to come through, the main building piece of the entire story, I thought the story fell through. It wasn't good, it wasn't interesting, it didn't keep me on the edge and it didn't really send a message. Actually it did nothing.<br /><br />The cast is interesting, many young actors that then turned into stars in beginning of their careers. The acting is good, but not stellar, and a few characters also fell through into the absurd zone. Much of that too I feel is due to that this story, these characters need the time, space and pace given in a novel, that they can't be given here. And going halfway definitely isn't good enough.<br /><br />4/10
"Midnight Clear" has a great premise. A group of over-educated, overly bright GI's are sent out by incompetent leaders on a vague mission to patrol around an isolated farm house on the eve of the Battle of the Bulge. The GI's encounter a group of battle-weary German regulars, and it becomes clear that they don't want to fight anymore.<br /><br />Therein lies the problem. It's really pretty simple. If the Germans want to surrender, they do so and that's the end of the movie. If the Germans want to fight, they do so and that's also the end of the movie. So instead of doing either the GI's and Germans play games with each other, even throwing snowballs at one point. Interesting for one or two scenes, but it soon becomes very annoying. After all, these are GERMANS. The enemy. Nothing in this film makes me think they should not be either taken prisoner or shot. The film does noting to make them more human. In fact, much of what the German characters did made ME want to shoot them, including one scene where the German officer refuses to deal with a Jew or to surrender to a mere enlisted man! Why should I care about such characters? Just shoot them and let's move on to the Battle of the Bulge. It's much more interesting, anyway.<br /><br />One good scene: The GI's are returning from a recon of the German position, where they had the Germans in their sights but did not fire. While walking across a clearing, they realize a group of Germans have their Mausers leveled at them. The Germans are about 100 yards away. The GIs then do something I've NEVER seen any GI's do in any Sillywood movie. They throw down their rifles and throw up their hands! Unusual as this may be in films, it is an entirely sensible reaction to having a rifle aimed at you from that distance. Though it seems far, in reality it's point-blank range for those rifles. I'll lay odds that someone working on this film was a cruffler!
This film captures the short moments between a mother and son in rural Russia, as she lays dying.<br /><br />I am so torn between being nice to the film or declaring it a test of patience. On one hand, the film is beautiful, with the sparse dialog capturing the essence of their feelings. There is really nothing to say, because everything that needs to be said is conveyed beyond words. The son shows so much care, love and patience towards his mother, that I think it is a celebration of unconditional love towards one's family. It also cruelly reminds me that I could be in a situation like this, stuck in a joyless place, having to take care of a very ill person. "Mat I Syn" is cruel reality.<br /><br />On the other hand, "Mat I Syn" moves really too slowly. Do I really need to watch a train passing by the horizon for over 1 minute? With my previous experience of "Telets" and "Aleksandra", I am so tempted to put "Mat I Syn" among them as a total bore.<br /><br />I guess one has to be in the right state of mind to appreciate this film. I surely see the beauty of it, but maybe I am not in the right state of mind.
I loved this movie! It's the finest parody of Russian cinema to date. Who else but Sokurov could lampoon Tarkovsky so brilliantly. You thought "Stalker" was slow? Well, step up to the plate. "Mat i Syn" makes "Stalker" look like "Raiders of the Lost Ark". By no means should you miss this film! There's no excuse - even if you live a busy life, you can still enjoy this film to its fullest by holding down the fast-forward button on your VCR. Sokurov has given us the first feature length film that can be appreciated in 12 minutes.<br /><br />I suppose the next great masterpiece of the form will come when someone has the vision and courage to exhibit a film that consists of no sound or image at all - 45 minutes of a black, silent screen (wasn't this already explored in "In The Soup"?).<br /><br />Apparently the filmmaker (and fans) have forgotten that "motion" is the first word of "motion picture".<br /><br />!!!MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!!!<br /><br />Want to reach the heights of genius that this film achieved? Here's a step by step guide:<br /><br />1. Find a talented photographer.<br /><br />2. Find some subjects and a suitably picturesque landscape (think Tuscany!). If you need inspiration, watch some luxury car or perfume commercials.<br /><br />3. Shoot about 3 rolls of film.<br /><br />4. Photoshop the results to play around with saturation, blur & aspect ratio.<br /><br />5. Now just get out your movie camera, film 40 of the best pictures and have your "actors" mumble their lines off-screen. Don't worry about writing it ahead of time - just let the actors say whatever they want (lines like "Do you want a drink?" and "Let's get something to eat" are really all you need to fill up 8 minutes or so). If you can't think of enough dialog - no problem! Just have them repeat what they say a few times. If that still isn't enough, just let the camera run anyway.<br /><br />Congratulations, another masterpiece! As a bonus, if you want to distribute it over the internet, no problem! The static images will compress down to nothing with standard mpeg encoding - a 73 minute movie would probably be about 2-3 megabytes, even at the highest quality levels.
The film shows relations of the dying mother, and the son, who is very attached to her, and definitely loves her. What does it show? It shows their living in very poor conditions. It shows how tenderly they "walk" (really he is bringing her). But what do we see further? After their promenade he walks alone at the same places, where they walked together. It is not possible. A person, who love and care about another dying one, would do everything to make the life of this one better. He would not have a free minute to ponder, to be alone with oneself, and if he finds a few minutes a month for that, he would run away from the places where he has usually to be. Another thing. The author devoted this film to Andrey Tarkovsky. We see he learned many Tarkovsky's visual effects. But in Sokurov's film they are only effects, they do not support any senses or mood. Someone has compared this film with "Mirror" ("Zerkalo"). There is nothing common except these visual effects. "Mirror" is a great film and this one is just poor imitation.
If Andrei Tarkovsky had been a hack, he would have directed Mother and Son instead of Mirror. This is the single most pretentious film made anywhere in the world, I am convinced. A son, without a name, takes care of his mother, without a name. They love each other, I guess. No, they don't, I'm sure. These aren't characters. They aren't even actors playing characters. At least it could be pretty, but even the nature seems ridiculously touched up and changed wherever it was necessary with a Macintosh computer. And could Sokurov have come up with a technique as hackneyed as a distorted aspect ration? You would have to have been born yesterday to buy this garbage. 1/10.
Maybe being a government bureaucrat is not the most glamorous way of making a living but it's still a way to make a living. However, after watching this movie, one may come away believing that every government bureaucrat is a lazy, bloated, conceited, paper pusher who lives exclusively to partake of his next lunch break. Not exactly a pretty picture, but this is the picture that the audience has to endure when watching what is nothing more than another tedious, noisy, overacted action movie. Just what the doctor ordered ... right? How many more of these movies has Hollywood made? One thousand? Two thousand? The formula for making these movies is so beaten into the dust that by now it should be completely unrecognizable. The locales change but the plots remain the same, and with the same shallow character development and the equally shallow acting as trained performers are asked to devolve into pseudo-cartoon characters and act accordingly. This movie seemed to run-on interminably. "When will this movie end?" I repeatedly thought to myself. Leonardo DiCaprio was totally unbelievable as a CIA operative, but what has to be one of the great gaffs of miscasting, an overweight Russell Crowe plays a CIA bureaucrat. Please note that in this movie the on site operative is "lean and mean" while his desk jockey supervisor is fat. This is called stereotyping. What was the casting director thinking? Why not have Jack Nicholson play an overweight office clerk? Or Nicole Kidman play a frumpy department store saleswoman? And the story was so fantastic that no amount of literary license could afford it credibility. An obviously non-Arab American (Mr. DiCaprio) trying to pass himself off as an Arab ... speaking fluent Arabic ... concocting all kinds of hair brain schemes that are doomed to failure ... trying to out think and outfox real Arabs who are completely unfooled by his laughable Arab masquerade ... trying to romance a Palestinian woman while in the middle of conducting a highly sensitive and complex espionage mission ... etc. By now you get the point. Next time try casting an actual Arab in the role. Not even the most naive movie goer can believe all that. There should be a rough balance between the protagonist and antagonist. In this movie the protagonist is so transparent and incompetent that it leaves the story in shambles. Next stop for this movie - DVD land and oblivion. And one other thing. Don;t let this movie discourage you from working for the government. The pay may not be great, but the fringe benefits are excellent, a critical fact that this movie conveniently omits.
After two terrorist attacks in Europe, one in London and the other in Amsterdam, the prime suspect is the leader Al-Saleem (Alon Aboutboul). The CIA agent Roger Ferris (Leonardo DiCaprio) that operates in the Middle East is assigned by his superior at Langley Ed Hoffman (Russell Crowe) to keep a "safe house" in Amman under surveillance, and he associates to the Chief of Security in Jordan, Hani Salaam (Mark Strong). Roger does not disclose the whole operation to Hani, and it fails due to the intervention of Ed. Meanwhile Roger has feelings for the local nurse Aisha (Golshifteh Farahani) and he gets close to her family. When Roger plots another scheme to catch Al-Saleem using the innocent architect Omar Sadiki (Ali Suliman) as decoy to lure Al-Saleem, he jeopardizes not only the safety of Sadiki, but also Aisha that is kidnapped. After the execution of Sadiki, Roger tries to negotiate the release of Aisha with the terrorists and proposes to deliver himself to save the nurse.<br /><br />"Body of Lies" is a disappointing pyrotechnical tour through Europe and Middle East despite the names of Ridley Scott, Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe. The IMDb User Rating indicates that there are many viewers that like this type of fast paced movie of espionage using high technology, satellites and all sort of lack of respect to the sovereignty of other nations in the name of oil that gives no time for thinking, but that is not my case. It is boring and ridiculous to see the fat Russell Crowe with a cell phone like a family man while his partner is risking his life in a dangerous operation. The rich character performed by Leonardo DiCaprio is poorly developed and in my opinion this great actor is miscast as an operative agent in Middle East due to his biotype. But the movie never explains his connections with the Middle East. The rescue of Roger Ferris alive is also very stupid and corny. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Rede de Mentiras" ("Network of Lies")
Based on the 2007 spy novel by David Ignatius, Body of Lies tells the story of a CIA operative Roger Ferris (DiCaprio) who is sent to Jordan to track down an Al-Qaeda mastermind, all the while treading a narrow tightrope of loyalty to his Jordanian hosts and his manipulative American boss Ed Hoffman (Crowe).<br /><br />Anybody who's seen the trailers could be forgiven for thinking the story revolves around double-agent action and the betrayal of Ferris by Hoffman, but the actual story is much more mundane. Instead we are served a tepid broth of ridiculous subterfuge as white pretty boy American Ferris moves with virtual impunity through the teeming streets of Amman Jordan with nary a worried look over his shoulder or the attraction of attention from the locals. Only during a scene where Ferris takes his new-found Iranian sweetheart out for tea does reality intrude as the couple are bombarded with glares from Jordanian men.<br /><br />Compounding the film's problems are plot twists and turns which seem designed as nothing more than padding. Ferris flies to Jordan, Ferris gets expelled from Jordan, Ferris flies to Washington, Ferris flies to the UK, Ferris flies back to Jordan, Hoffman flies to Jordan, Hoffman returns home to take care of his kids – an on it goes. This is the sort of stuff you expect to see in an episode of The Amazing Race, not a spy thriller.<br /><br />In body-punishing loyalty to his craft, Crowe gained an impressive 63 pounds of flab for the role of portly Ed Hoffman, thus joining the small select club of actors consisting of Robert De Niro and Christian Bale as thespians who've subjected themselves to massive weight gain or loss for their roles. It's too bad that everyone else involved didn't share Crowe's level of dedication to quality, for if they did, we'd have a far better film on our hands than this sub-par mess.
I first read about the Left Behind series a few months ago and made a mental note to check it out since I have an interest in the way religion is used to control people in our ever more hate filled world, so imagine my surprise and joy when I found a copy of Left Behind : World at War in my local library, nestling innocently among the big budget action movies.<br /><br />Now as a movie it's extremely poor. The acting is straight out of an elementary school production and the "special effects" would have looked dated in the early 90's. Being the third part of a series the story would be unintelligible to anyone who hadn't seen or read about the other Left Behind movies, and even with my prior knowledge it was still pretty laughable.<br /><br />On the religious front, I don't think anyone who wasn't already filled with the spirit of the lord would find anything in the movie to convince them to change their ways. How are you supposed to fear the Antichrist when he's got a comedy Russian accent, and the worst of his powers are some pitiful CGI?<br /><br />However, my main problem with this movie is the blatant attempt to try and dupe people into believing that it's a big budget action movie. Upon picking up the box and reading the spiel I immediately noticed something odd...nowhere on the packaging was there a mention of the true nature of this film. To someone not in the know it would appear for all intents and purposed that Left Behind : World at War was no different from the latest Tom Clancey. Nor, on the copy that I rented did it say anything about it being the third in a series.<br /><br />Considering the whole premise of the series is that the Antichrist has deceived the whole world, I find it extremely hypocritical that the film makers tried to deceive me TWICE before I even got the to counter! If you're so firm in your beliefs then why not be honest about it?<br /><br />The simple fact is, had this not been a "Christian" movie with the built in fan base that goes with it, I seriously doubt it would ever have seen the light of day. If Cloud Ten were hoping that I'd see the error of my ways and give myself to God, I'm afraid to say I would have died of boredom and/or laughed myself to death before I ever had the chance.
As with most viewers of this film, I'm an avid reader of the books. The first 2 films have Buck, Ray and Chloe as the main characters but in this the second sequel they play second-fiddle to Louis Gossett JR's Presidential effort. World at War is based on the meeting he has with Buck in the book series.<br /><br />The problem is - this film is as awful as the first two. Amanda appears just from nowhere and suddenly has a significant part to play (I won't reveal it in case anyone hasn't read the series). Other illogical parts feature. I really really want Cloud 10 to make a good Left Behind film but sadly this is similar in all the bad ways to the first 2.
Lou Gossett, Jr. is an excellent and captivating actor, but to have him take the role of a "president" and then have him act like he's James Bond, running around carrying a Gun and entering a warehouse to uncover a plot to kill Christians, and then being able to Escape the supposedly High Security Facility to live another day, does Not do him Justice - this movie has so many Unresolved Issues<br /><br />I will attempt to list just a few: <br /><br />1 - what was the purpose of "stockpiling" a Vaccine if no one is Vaccinated? - for example, the preacher could have been Vaccinated if the "tribulation force" already had Vaccine on hand - later, buck Williams' wife goes to be with the sick preacher and she herself becomes sick; so, was the Virus, therefore, Contagious? - IF it was Contagious, then why did Ray and his wife go into the church without Proper Protection? - why didn't they become Sick too? - and when Chloe drank the wine and was "cured", how did she suddenly know the wine was the "antidote"? - was it California wine, ordinary Red Table Wine? - could Red Grape Juice been adequate - and,if the preacher had received "communion" at least every time he preached, maybe he would have had anti-dote flowing through his body already? - buck and Chloe got a "heavy" box of vaccine that was never used - what mysterious message should we see in that? <br /><br />2 - the presentation of "evil" forces who are working with the Anti-Christ Nicolai to destroy the world, as being Russian, Chinese, etc., is really a Relic of the 1950's and the early James Bond era, and shows an Ignorance of Modern Society and of Humanity - are we to believe that Russians and Chinese are perpetually trying to destroy this Planet? - and for what Purpose, mere Destruction? - this was such a Narrow-Minded view of this world and was so Cliché as to be Laughable<br /><br />3 - the main purpose of this movie was the scene near the very end where Kirk Cameron and Lou Gossett, Jr. are proselytizing the non-believers in the audience (by showing Kirk proselytizing Lou) - it was a movie with no meaningful storyline, too many disconnects with reality, and a completely inappropriate plot for a great actor<br /><br />I, therefore, rank this as a 1, since Zero is not available
In the 3rd installment of "Left Behind" the makers did not care to put ANY KIND OF CONTINUITY into the plot. Although all weapons on the planet have been confiscated by the United Nations, World War III suddenly begins at the snap of a finger. Within a few split-seconds the ex-lover of one of the main protagonists moves from passionately seducing him to outright hatred to a melancholy confession of love without any trace of direction. <br /><br />But foremost this film is really an irony-free zone. After the president of the United States accepts Jesus as his savior he immediately becomes a suicide bomber and blows up a skyscraper in the middle of the city. Osama Bin Laden will be very jealous when he sees this film!
Kudos to Baxley's DP for making this look like a real movie, the first time that's happened in this series (with the notable exception of the F/X scenes). In moving closer to movie production values, however, it lost most of the entertainment value of the first two. They were very much in the 'so bad they're good' category of horrendous film entertainment. Can an argument be made though that the 'believers' were simply trying to make a generic action film with praying in it? There are so many times in the film where they discard their own belief system as to be annoying. If everything that happens is according to God's will and they are simply his instruments, than the people who are infected with the virus have that happen as a part of his plan, right? Apply that to every situation where someone of faith doesn't submit to God's will, and you get a fairly hypocritical little movie from the director of 'Action Jackson'.
This movie was OK, as far as movies go. It could have been made as a crossover into secular movies. However, it had little to do with the Left Behind books that it was supposedly based on. Major story premises were removed, and new major story premises were added. <br /><br />What disappointed me most was how Nicolae was portrayed. He was shown with supernatural powers that he did not have at this point in the books. Antichrist is not Satan, is not omniscient and not omnipotent. <br /><br />Faith and beliefs were portrayed in weird, surreal ways that seemed to make the movie just silly.<br /><br />Non-believers who watch this will have more ammunition to mock Christian beliefs.
Purportedly this is the final film of the Left Behind series which is fundamentalist preacher and novelist Tim LaHaye's idea of what we can expect in our future in the final days of Planet Earth. If this is the case we can expect an activist presidency in every sense of the word if Barack Obama becomes president next year.<br /><br />The Fantastic Four of Revelation are all back with one cast change, Arnold Pinnock who most would know as the guidance counselor in Life With Derek, is now the minister taking the place of Clarence Gilyard. Brad Johnson as the anti-Christ's pilot by day and Christian by night is there as his daughter Janaya Stephens and ace investigative reporter Kirk Cameron. These are the only four people on Earth who have divined the true nature of UN Secretary General Nicolai Karpathy and once again are throwing sand in his machinery.<br /><br />This time they've got as an ally the President of the United States who is played by Louis Gossett, Jr. He's having one hell of a rough time, especially the guerrillas launch on RPG attack on a presidential motorcade killing Vice President Charles Martin Smith. That's right, the Toad is Vice President. Somebody really messed up bad here because everyone including those who would do them harm know a President and Vice President NEVER travel together. <br /><br />It takes all of them the entire film to convince Gossett exactly who Karpathy really is. Once again the best one in the film is Gordon Currie as Karpathy.<br /><br />We may yet see another Left Behind film yet, the door was left open though people assure me that they've run out of source material from Tim LeHaye. I suppose as long as they make money and these players can't get jobs in the mainstream film industry. And there are some unresolved plot issues involving Brad Johnson and Chelsea Noble who is Mrs. Kirk Cameron in real life. <br /><br />One of the Fantastic Four does die in this film, so will it be the Fantastic Three or will they get another fourth. Stay tuned.
Sometimes I think that somewhere in the "Lifetime" Channel's office complex there is a room where the writer's hang-out, with a large wheel on the wall - sort of like the Big Six ones in casinos. The latter have a lot of spots where you win even money, and fewer for higher amounts, until there are perhaps a couple which pay bigger bucks.<br /><br />But I picture the channel's wheel having about six different genres on its wheel, with two of them, appearing the most, labeled "The Psychotic Neighbor," or "The Spouse with a Hidden Past or Secret or Both." "Lifetime" movies have a few repetitive story lines, and these two seem to be the most ubiquitous.<br /><br />The "Spouse..." category can have a spouse of long-standing, but some person appears, or an event occurs, exposing that the good wife was once a hooker, one of the couple was involved in some nefarious act long ago, or that something else in one of the background in different than presumed -- etc., etc., or, as in this flick, one of them has entered the marriage with the most nefarious of aims.<br /><br />One constant, in all of their genres is that the husband or other males are usually clueless, vacuous, and slow to have any idea what in the hell is going until the climax, or at best, very late in the proceedings (unless the male is the miscreant). Not the case here.<br /><br />Whether the referenced miscreant might be the "neighbor," or as in this offering, "the wife," it is always fascinating how easily, successfully and effortlessly they proceed with their dastardly deeds. They manipulate many of the others, whack them as necessary, assume various poses, and juggle more deceptions than you can count - with unfailing success until just before the end.<br /><br />The lead actor here, like many in this channel's movies, is an old hand. I noticed that another film in which he starred was titled "The Perfect Neighbor."<br /><br />Finally, the vengeful "perfect wife" in this flick dispatches those in her path with more expertise and ease than the most experienced and competent "button man" in Don Corleone's family could muster. And I couldn't help but imagine that Jack Nocholson's Melvin Udall character fro "As Good As It Gets," with his massive OCD affliction, could provide counsel to the anti-heroine to assist in dealing with he obsession which was the basis of this opus.
Yes, Lifetime has a habit of making the male species look stupid. And this soap opera ain't kidding when they make Perry King, supposedly a well renowned medical doctor, unable to see the evil surrounding him. Puts your trust in doctors, huh? How can anyone not see what's going on? Is he that stupid? And the evil wife, with a face like a horse, goes around killing off his entire family without a trace. How does she acquire all the drugs? That isn't explained. How does she get off being a secretary in a hospital without any credentials? I guess the director, Don FauntLeRoy asks us to just believe it. I didn't. I kept yelling at the screen at the stupidity of King with all right in front of his face. If the wife was that attractive, maybe, just maybe, I'd accept it. But she's not even that. Shannon Sturges is the perfect wife and I tell you she has the face of a horse. I wouldn't cross the street for her, yet our perfect husband does and quickly. After everybody in the cast get knocked off, I wasn't satisfied with the come up pence given to our villainess. She deserved more than she got. William Moses plays the doctor's brother who unfortunately you know his outcome from day one. Pleasure to at least see one pretty face in this clinker. That of Lesley Anne Down. She gives the film a 2 count just on the relief of seeing someone fetching in this mess. Perry King deserved his fate. What a jerk.
I have to say, its not very good. Polly Bergen is fine in this film.The rest are so so. I'm gay and honestly , there are so many cliché's for this time in history that its just sad. We started watching it then turned it off, then decided it would be fun to make fun of the rest of the film. But all said, the basic idea of the film is good. If it was re-written with less contrived lines and better acting it could have actually been prety good. Over all i would not recommend it. IN additon the this is coo coo thinking line is so lame. On top of that the fight in the hair salon is funny because its so bad. The lesbian sister in the room with them while they are trying to get it on is so weird its sad.
An example of all of the worst gay stereotypes all in one movie.<br /><br />And Charles, why do you speak in that weird pseudo British/high-brow accent, and insist that the kid speak that way too? Did anyone else notice that all of the soundtrack music is exactly the same? You should stick with the good old Hollywood camp drag stuff that you are so good at! Die Mommy Die II, the Sequel!! I don't see the value of spending time and money on a project like this; there are so many REAL life gay youth stories to be told and we should be seeing those, not this garbage. Sheesh, what a waste of time. Embarrassing example of gay cinema.
Team Spirit is maybe made by the best intentions, but it misses the warmth of "All Stars" (1997) by Jean van de Velde. Most scenes are identic, just not that funny and not that well done. The actors repeat the same lines as in "All Stars" but without much feeling.
I really liked the idea of traveling between dimensions, and I even liked the Wade/Quinn tension in early episodes. Some of the worlds they created gave the main characters extremely interesting backdrops for their stories. However, as the show went on there were more silly disputes among the friends and less of a true bond. There was less wonder and excitement when they were involved in other worlds and more condescension. And every world had one of the characters falling in love. The writing just got boring and everything was way too over the top. Too bad it would've been nice to have a closely knit band of friends (a la Star Wars) traveling to different dimensions on TV for several years, rather than a tired band of knit pickers.
I mistakenly thought that this neo-noir effort from the Buffalo - Niagara Falls area might be something different. Unfortunately I was incorrect. There are are many problems with "The Falls", that really have nothing to do with it's low budget video production. Immediately one has to question why all the constant narration? My feeling is that if you have a decent script, the audience will follow along, without having to be insulted with voice over storytelling. The acting is very amateurish, which is not unexpected, but simply adds to the problems. Finally, the entire thing is annoyingly shot like an MTV music video, which I found to be totally unacceptable. The narration, bad acting, and annoying video effects are all good reasons why this should be avoided. - MERK
I'm only going to write more because it's required. However, the summary I put at the top is way too wordy for what this film was. You pretty much know who's in on it from the beginning. In spite of its attempts at plot twists and turns -acting 'talent' trying hard to have looks of shock and dismay when a twist happens-, you never really need to wonder 'whodunit' in this 'mystery'.<br /><br />The more I write, the more I feel bad that I have to write so much in order to have a comment, but rules are rules. I really feel bad about saying this, but this is the lowest I've ever rated a movie... I think. It makes me wonder what I'm saving votes of 1 and 2 for. However, I thought this film deserved a 3, since I believe there was some talent in the film. Johanna Watts (or is it Watson) did a pretty good job. She was crying and distraught in one part and I thought she conveyed that emotion well. The man who played the character that was 'the drummer' did well, too, for his short part.<br /><br />Many of the actors did an 'ok' job. But the lead actor, David -forget his last name (terrible with names)- was pretty bad. I think he must have thought he was doing dramatic displays for 'The Young and the Restless' or 'Days of Our Lives'. If you try, you can just picture him in a white lab coat, playing a doctor with multiple personalities on 'General Hospital'. It doesn't help that the movie is even shot like a daytime soap. Although, I'm pretty sure I could shoot this same movie with a camcorder; though without the obvious and soap'ish sound editing.<br /><br />First time I ever thought the money to rent this movie was wasted. Though, I wouldn't watch it again, unless I was paid a large sum of money.
I thought this movie was awful. I understand it was shot on a small budget but the acting was terrible and the movie itself was just plain dumb. The plot was predictable and the central character was an unsympathetic moron. In fact, all of the characters were unsympathetic and none were fully developed at all. The audience relates to no one in the movie. It was supposed to be suspenseful but if you don't care about the characters, it's hard to get "into" the movie at all. I felt like an outsider being forced to listen to someone tell me a stupid story. All the plot twists at the end were just a little too much - I was actually laughing when I guess I was supposed to be "shocked." All in all, I thought it was really just a bad movie.
I'm a collector of films starring Ms. Weaver, so I bought this only because of her being in it. I find it really odd that her early career is filled with so many awful movies. She started with incredible promise in Alien but then had a slew of bombs. These bombs include this movie, Deal of the Century, One Woman or Two, and Half Moon Street. She also appeared in The Year Of Living Dangerously, which was not a bomb, but her performance was less than notable. In the time between Alien and it's 1986 sequel, Aliens, the only movie she did that was worth anything was Ghostbusters. before the release of Aliens, I'm sure everyone thought this woman was on her way out. Luckily she wasn't.<br /><br />Back to Eyewitness though, the film is boring. It doesn't create any suspense. William Hurt seems like a cardboard stand in, and the atmosphere is just to dry. Sigourney is decent but nothing worth remembering.<br /><br />Watch this movie if you must but don't go in with any expectations of a decent movie. Watch better movies with these two stars like Accidental Tourist and Working Girl.
Peter Yates film from the pen of Steve Tesich is a relatively low key "thriller" that doesn't really manage to get off the ground. Story concerns the mysterious murder of an influential Asian business man and the subsequent implication of a pathetic Vietnam veteran (James Woods) who, the police believe, may have taken revenge on his ex-employer. As the "Eyewitness", William Hurt never believes his friend is capable of such an act.<br /><br />Hurt is well below his usual strength, and one finds it hard to sympathise with him or an uninspired Sigourney Weaver. James Woods and Christopher Plummer do a little better in their support roles. Worth noting is the appearance of Morgan Freeman as Detective Black.<br /><br />In retrospect Steve Tesich's story is only an unlikely romance dressed up as a mystery flick. The plot is far too contrived.<br /><br />Friday, October 17, 1997 - Video
In the 1930s, Hal Roach Studios was on top of the comedy world with such stars as Laurel and Hardy, Charley Chase and the Little Rascals. Most of these films are exceptional and have withstood the passing of time. However, a lesser-known Roach product was the pairing of Thelma Todd and Zasu Pitts (later, Todd was paired with the equally untalented Patsy Kelly). Try as I might, I just can't stand these pictures--they just aren't funny. Plus, unlike Laurel and Hardy, there was not an ounce of chemistry between Todd and her two co-stars. Before you just think I am a crank, understand that I have seen and reviewed several hundred Roach films as well as many other early comedies, so I am well acquainted with the genre and within the genre, this team is among the worst. Part of the reason I think I am right about the team is that as a lower-tier team at Roach, they were given all the scripts no one else wanted. If Stan or Ollie hated a given plot idea, it was often given to Todd and Pitts/Kelly--and usually it showed.<br /><br />In this film, however, the team is at their absolute lowest. It's hard to imagine a comedy with less laughs and a more contrived plot. The film begins with Zasu in the jury and Thelma as a defense lawyer. As for Zasu, she's a completely annoying moron. NOT the lovable type moron (like Stan Laurel or Lou Costello), but just a totally annoying and grating person who is pushy and obnoxious. As for Thelma, as usual, she's the rather bland "straight man" and as such has little to do but react to Zasu's boorish behavior.<br /><br />The plot involves Thelma defending a client who is accused of selling exploding diet pills. Considering that the pills are highly dangerous, when the attorney asks Zasu to try swallowing one it just seems dumb. And, while they were called "pills", they were more like giant black blobs that were larger than golf balls. Swallowing them only seemed contrived and made no sense--even for a low-brow comedy. When they find she has swallowed the pill and it really is explosive, everyone panics and runs about like idiots until the film ends.<br /><br />As I said, I am not a fan of this team. However, even for those who want to like the film, there isn't one legitimate laugh in the entire short! When I talked over this review with my wife (who also saw the movie with me), she thought my score of 2 was overly generous!!
This takes place in 1920s Harlem. A black owned nightclub has to deal with gangsters and corrupt policemen.<br /><br />Terrible vanity project for Eddie Murphy. It tries to mix comedy and drama and fails at both. The comedy simply isn't funny and the drama is boring and badly acted. You think a film with three comedy legends--Eddie Murphy, Redd Foxx and Richard Pryor--would be great but it isn't. There's nonstop swearing and the OPENING scene has a young boy shooting a man to death (this is shown as being OK). Also we have the beautiful Della Reese degraded into playing a madam. One of the "comedic" highlights has a long, unfunny and terribly vicious fight between her and Murphy. A boring, offensive and stupid mess. Not the worst Murphy movie but pretty close. A 1 all the way.
Produced at a point in his career, where he had the juice to do whatever he wanted, Eddie Murphy took on the task of producing, directing, co-writing and starring in HARLEM NIGHTS, an expensive-looking but ultimately empty gangster saga about a group of black nightclub owners/gangsters running a ritzy club during the 1930's, headed by a wisecracking hot shot (Eddie Murphy)and his adopted father (Richard Pryor) and their attempts to avoid being overrun by white gangsters who think they are taking over turf that, it seems, they think is rightfully theirs, simply by virtue of their color. This was an idea that probably looked great on paper but it definitely lost something in the translation. This was a vanity piece for Eddie and I think he spreads himself a little too thin here trying to be the whole show here. Admittedly, it was a pleasure seeing Murphy and Pryor together on screen, but the rest of the large supporting cast, including Arsenio Hall, Redd Foxx, Della Reese, Michael Lerner, Danny Aiello, Jasmine Guy, Thomas Mikal Ford, Stan Shaw, and Eddie's brother, are really given precious little to do (though I will admit Murphy's fight scene with Della Reese is hysterically funny and probably, the movie's best scene). Murphy clearly poured a lot of money into this film and a good deal of it shows on screen. The art and set direction are impressive and the breathtaking costumes should have won an Oscar, but this one was a big miss for Eddie as he definitely tried to wear too many hats.
by Dane Youssef<br /><br />I was kind of looking forward to this one. I enjoy Eddie Murphy and I love it when a star hand-makes a vehicle for themselves or when someone who writes decides to mark their own directorial debut. But when the star's head gets too big for the rest of his body, there's always a danger of a big-budgeted Hollywood vanity production.<br /><br />Will the filmmaker keep it real… or will he just waste amounts of money (the studio's, ours) and time (the studio's, ours & his own) patting himself on the back for an hour in a half? Sadly, it's the latter here.<br /><br />Another thing I really like is when someone breathes new and fresh life into an exhausted and dried-out genre. None of that here. The warring nightclub movies have become so worn-through that even the parodies of it are dreary and done to death. <br /><br />Murphy does neither. He does the most clichéd: He plugs into a routine conventional formula gangster picture and plays it as seriously as if it were "The Godfather." It's like a script where the next draft, they put in the jokes and the new ideas. But it seems like someone with clout just looked at it and went: "No… this is fine."<br /><br />Probably Murphy. He is credited all over this. In the opening shot of beautiful white satin sheets, his name headlines across the credits about five times.<br /><br />THE PLOT: A young orphan saves Pryor's life and Pryor adopts the little ragamuffin. <br /><br />20 years later, Pryor's dump has become a first-class hot spot. They're pulling down big money and a gangster wants their action. He's even got a dirty cop in his employ. But Pryor comes up with a scheme, a la "THE STING." <br /><br />Murphy's screenplay plays like an unfinished first-draft that nobody had the pair to call him on. The actors aren't really allowed to stand-out much, if at all. Even the almighty Murphy seems to be on auto-pilot. <br /><br />Pryor shows class and gentlemanly manners as Sugar Ray (perhaps it would have been better to name his character BROWN Sugar Ray—further evidence that this one needed a polish), but everyone here is basically just on vacation. <br /><br />The Oscar-nomination the movie received is richly deserved (Joe I. Tompkins' Best Costume Design), but the production values are the only part that makes the '30's feel authentic. <br /><br />Some sets look somewhat fake, but this is supposed to be a comedy of sorts. It's rare one movie gets nominated for both a Razzie and an Oscar (unless it's one of Lucas' new "Star Wars" chapters).<br /><br />It's 1938 and everyone is talking like it's 1988, particularly the comedians. This is a prehistoric white man's formula. And with all these black comedians and satirists, you expect them to skewer the genre or at least bring new life to it. Nope. Murphy is pretty much just coasting here.<br /><br />The great Roger Ebert summed it up perfectly when he remarked in his review: "Murphy approaches his story more as a costume party in which everybody gets to look great while fumbling through a plot that has not been fresh since at least 1938." <br /><br />Jasmine Guy is perfectly cast and seems to be indulging herself in her role and Michael Lerner has all the looks, evil and mannerisms of the prototypical mob boss down pat. And there are moments where Pryor gives you an idea of what a more interesting leader and authority figure would sound like. He gives every scene he's in a feeling of dignity.<br /><br />Would it have been too much to ask that Della Resse sing? Or at least quit embarrassing herself with all her "Kiss My Ass talk?" <br /><br />And the late Redd Foxx doesn't get to leave much of a swan song here. He has some back-and-forth with Resse which could have been some great stuff. Nope. Murphy wastes another opportunity again here.<br /><br />Murphy's Quick is charismatic and likable. But those moments are few and far between for sure. Murphy has never looked better and never been duller. His character made me laugh twice throughout the whole movie.<br /><br />Stan Shaw's boxer with a horrible speech impediment isn't just painful and embarrassing, it's annoying. There's more to comedy than simply showing something unpleasant. You have to incorporate some kind of light touch and funny situation. Watching him strain even the some of the easiest words just makes us feel sorry for him and annoyed with Murphy.<br /><br />Can Murphy write a screenplay? Well… there was "Raw," but that was really stand-up material. He wrote the outline for "Boomerang" and "Coming to America" for sure. But her didn't have the last word there. Maybe a team of ER-like script doctors could've revived this one.<br /><br />Murphy's direction is so slow and quiet, you'd swear he was asleep at the wheel some of the time. He has too many static shots and doesn't seem to know how to build and release suspense. On some level, I think Quick is the real Eddie Murphy. Angry, young, hot-headed and ambitious. But occasionally charming. Now if he were only funny sometime.<br /><br />There's a scene in which Murphy has a femme fa-tale in bed who plans to make love with him and kill him. You can probably guess how it turns out. Like everything else in the movie, this could have been better, but… <br /><br />"Surprisingly," Murphy has not directed another movie since (he got a Razzie nomination). And he no longer writes the finished draft for his films either (he WON the Razzie for writing this!) <br /><br />It's great to look at and the music is beautiful, and there are a few really nice scenes. But that just falls under the category of "gems among all the junk." Not enough of them.<br /><br />Couldv'e been. Shouldv'e been. Wasn't. Oh, well.<br /><br />by Dane Youssef
This is truly one of the worst movies ever made--and I don't mean in a so-bad-it's-good kind of way. Eddie Murphy is a great comic, and it is a testament to how bad this movie is that it nearly killed his career. The writing and direction are inept, the sets and staging about as imaginative as a Brady Bunch episode, and the acting shows just how bad a great cast can be when they have absolutely nothing to work with. If it weren't for the costumes--which, aside from Eddie Murphy's ego, seem to account for the major part of the budget--you would swear this thing was slapped together by a bunch of high schoolers wasted on peppermint Schnapps. That anyone could find this travesty in any way funny or entertaining is mind-boggling. It's probably no coincidence that the misguided souls who are praising this stinker are barely literate. But if your idea of hilarity is Della Reese getting her "pinkie toe" shot off, then by all means, put aside your drool cup and go rent this movie.
1989 was already a year in where Eddie Murphy wasn't that longer hot and started making movies that soon would be forgotten. Funnily enough, it was also the year in where Murphy directed his first film, but it also would be the first and last experiment. "Harlem nights" wasn't exactly what you can call a success even if it was great to see the two best black comedians together namely Murphy and Richard Pryor. Don't blame it on the actors as they all played their roles like you expected them do, even if you have to face (again) the typical Murphy-laugh. The worst thing from "Harlem nights" are both the scenario and its terrible decors. Everything is set in the roaring twenties and everybody has their profit from the forbidden clubs. Sugar Ray (Pryor) and his adopted son Quickie (Murphy) are gathering easily 10000 dollar per day but of course soon the mob and the corrupt police come around the corner to claim their part of the cookie. Sugar and Quickie aren't guys who give their money for free and have their own plans. You can watch "Harlem Nights" that's for sure, but if you puke from the moment you hear the name Murphy you better avoid as after all this movie is nothing but a lame excuse to see some good jokes.
Just read through the other comments here, and was a little surprised to find that no one had said anything about the acting or plot.<br /><br />Richard Pryor and Eddie Murphy can both deliver an amazing Stand-up comedy show. Great actors they are not. Enough about that.<br /><br />As for the plot? Oh man. Every time the movie tries to "fool" you into believing the good-guys are going to lose, you know those scenes: "What? The good-guys loses? Oh.. I see, it was just a trick", it's done so terribly bad, you can spot it a mile away.<br /><br />It had 2 or 3 funny moments, but not enough to save the day.<br /><br />It's a little silly that these comments has to be 10 lines now. A lot of people will fill it up with crap, for it to be eligible. Being brief is an art.
I wasn`t expecting much with HARLEM NIGHTS but I wasn`t expecting it to be as bad as it was . Without doubt the worst aspect is the obscene language , it really is awful the amount there is in this film and before anyone accuses me of being a wimp let me point out two things...<br /><br />1 ) Amongst my fave films I would include GOODFELLAHS , PLATOON , RAGING BULL while my favourite movie of all time is APOCALYPSE NOW<br /><br />2 ) My all time favourite American television show is the HBO prison drama OZ <br /><br />so you see films and television shows with massive amounts of swearing don`t normally bother me but the problem I had with HARLEM NIGHTS is to do with the fact it`s supposed to be a comedy but it seems the production team came to the conclusion that an audience laugh everytime someone ( Especially if that someone is black ) says a rude word and decided to subsitute funny situations with swearing all the way through the film hoping to get a laugh. Well I thought I`d never start laughing and I didn`t
Eddie Murphy and Richard Pryor team up in this would-be comedy about nightclub owners being squeezed by organized crime. Eddie Murphy wrote and directed this obnoxious ego trip, and therefore has no one to blame but himself for its failure. This is a genuinely bad film, so completely devoid of energy and humor that it serves only as a example of Murphy's contempt for his audience. It would be remarkably easy to continue beating up on this movie, but I will show it more mercy than it showed its audience and stop now.
Eddie Murphy put a lot into this movie by directed wrote starred and produced this story about two nighclub owners in the 30s who try to fight mobsters and corrupt cops from taking over their club..a great cast in Murphy Redd Foxx, Richard Pryor, Danny Aiello, Della Reese, and a gorgeous Jasmine Guy that would make it worth seeing on its own..but the story just doesnt hold up interest or give the great cast enough to work with.. on a scale of one to ten..a 4
This movie i totally not funny, and I would imagine to be pretty offensive to Jewish people. (and I am not Jewish) Why? First, the whole movie portray the protagonist Zucker as a lier/cheat running shady business and deals, while his son is gay, his daughter is lesbian, and his niece is a slut. Then there is the incestuous relationship that happens in the family, first his daughter with his Joshua and Jana, and then his son with his niece. Two incestuous relationship running in family. I am surprised they didn't add the plot of having a mentally disabled in the family...Now, that would really complete the Nazi ideal sub-human! (gay, lesbian, Jew...)<br /><br />Totally disgusting film. I am surprised this film gets no response from any Jewish community.
It was praised to be a fast paced screwball comedy and the best German movie of the year, so I gave it a try, even though I've already seen some films by Dani Levy - or at least parts of them.<br /><br />I got what I had expected: no comedy at all, unless you think that heart attacks are funny. It's a fine example of sloppy screen writing, with an implausible plot and characters, loaded with clichés that might be true, but surely are not funny either.<br /><br />The most annoying character is that of Zucker's wife, played by Hannelore Elsner. She has to behave incredibly strange to keep the plot moving. For example: She doesn't know a single thing about Judaism, but by reasons most likely unknown to even herself she gets the idea to play the charade that she and her family are Jewish laws obeying Jews for her husband's family, who really are, and of the very orthodox and self-righteous variety. To make it a bit more complicated, she invites the four of them to stay at her city flat, because they arrive from Frankfurt in Berlin without having booked their hotels in advance, something no 60 years old business man, actually no grown-up German would ever do. This gives the viewer a lot to swallow, but still fails to produce any jokes.<br /><br />Zucker and his brother Samuel haven't seen each other for forty years, but it turns out that his daughter - now a lesbian - and Samuel's son - now a militant orthodox - were once lovers, and he's HER daughter's father. Samuel's daughter - a nympho - goes after Zucker's gay son. Is this supposed to be a somehow humorous parody of Jewish incestuous tendencies? Probably it's just a thoughtless way to add some "love action turbulence" every screwball comedy needs. And of course is also fails to produce any jokes.<br /><br />The praise for this movie is purely political. Therefore only people who enjoy watching movies that are supposed to be "politically important" will enjoy this one - even though "Alles auf Zucker!" quite clearly has no importance of any kind.<br /><br />For all the rest: Don't watch it without a "Fast forward"-option. I really missed it.
This movie starts with the main character lying in a coma in a hospital ward, attended by two orderlies. The unconscious main character is heard in a voice over, saying that the orderlies are gay. The orderlies kiss. I watched this in a DVD version and I have the suspicion that this is supposed to be funny – it said „comedy" on the DVD case, after all and it goes on like that. Had I seen this in a movie theater I probably would have heard part of the audience roar with laughter, because it is so funny – and because they are supposed to sit in a comedy. While it is fascinating to think about what it is funny and what isn't, this movie unfortunately only delivers arguments about what isn't.<br /><br />Brilliant brains can MAKE anything funny, people like Ernst Lubitsch, Billy Wilder or Mel Brooks have proved that fact. But you have to know the „mechanics", I suppose. Director and co-scriptwriter Dani Levy does not bother about those mechanics, he thinks that certain things simply ARE funny, the fact that two orderlies are gay and kiss over a man in a coma, for example. Do not get me wrong, some people can MAKE that funny, Dani Levy can't, not for me, anyway.<br /><br />The main problem I have with this movie is that I can't see a reason behind the way the main characters behave. I could not understand why the two brothers, one an orthodox Jew from West Germany one a third class carbon copy of Fast Eddie Felson from former East Germany so strongly disliked each other. They are both rather bland characters. Their children are boring apart from the fact that they are sexually attracted to each other (well, one is a lesbian now but raises the daughter she has with her cousin). But even these incestuous relationships – if anything they are embarrassing - just come through as an excuse because the scriptwriters could not come up with anything better.<br /><br />The acting is not bad, Udo Semel I actually came to like quite a lot although he reminded me more of ex chancellor Helmut Kohl (a lighter version) than of a venerable Orthodox Jew. The direction in itself is not really bad either, but maybe Levy should stick to directing movies, leaving the scriptwriting to someone else. Now I heard he did a comedy about Hitler. Oi, Vai!
Robin Williams is excellent in this movie and it is a pity the material is not enough of a match for him. This may work if you buy into the "U-S-A! Number One!" mentality but story wise nothing much happens. Quite a shame really since the movie is really trying to say something, and says it sincerely. It just doesn't pack enough emotional punch.
This movie could have been oh so much better. It is a beautiful story set in very trying times, and yet it was so poorly executed. The leading actors have in the past done excellent jobs, and for the most part they do an adequate job in this film. Although at times their dialogue seems stilted and forced. The directing could have been more concise. The bulk of the criticism should go to the writers, who took a good story and made it tedious. In short, there are thousands of MUCH better ways to spend 2 hours.
It is not generally my practice to review movies that I dislike to any great degree. However, one or two times a year, I temporarily set aside my rule to only comment on things I like to give a word of warning. I find it more enjoyable to comment on something I like and boost it than I do shooting at bad movies. But some "movies" cry out for the razor.<br /><br />Bilitis is one of them. The cinematography isn't the only aspect that is blurry and out of focus here. An almost indiscernible plot (certainly incoherent, if there even is one) bad acting, cheesy script and awful pacing. Those are its major problems.<br /><br />Understand, I firmly believe that not all movies are created equal and films should be judged according to their category. It is not reasonable to judge, say, Beach Blanket Bingo against Gone With the Wind. I judge Bilitis against other movies in its weight class. Measured against movies like Emmanuelle or Secrets of a Chambermaid, it comes off very badly indeed. Even eye-candy has to be entertaining and Bilitis most definitely is not.
When it was released this film caused a sensation. I watched it and was thrilled. Beautiful, usually young, naked women filmed in the classy style we knew so well from director Hamiltons photography. His photographs never become porn and the same is true for this movie. Today I saw it again and was bitterly disappointed. The soft core in extremely slow paced scenes, all filmed with some Vaseline on the lenses, actually is all there is. There is no real story, the characters remain beautiful and beautifully filmed bodies, but they are not real creatures with a soul. Actually nothing happens. It is like Hamilton is photographing using moving pictures rather than stills. And this gets so boring after a while. I even didn't watch the whole thing the second time, for I fell vast asleep. That is all that remains of this masterpiece: it is a very good sleeping pill. And you will never become addicted to it!<br /><br />Back then 7 out of 10, now 3 out of 10
It's dreadful, but ...<br /><br />Cat Stevens fans are given the opportunity to see the woman who inspired the lovely song "Lady D'Arbanville" on his album "Mona Bone Jakon", before Cat turned into a fatwa-supporting religious zealot.
I was so let down by this film. The tag line was something like 'The story of a girls sexual awakening'. You can only imagine how disappointed I was. I was seventeen at the time and I took my girlfriend to see it. I thought we were going to see a sexy movie that would leave my girlfriend gagging for it. Sadly that was not the case. I guess we just weren't ready for a deep and meaningful movie that required an element of sophistication that we just didn't possess at the time. I'm not so sure I possess it now, and I have long since parted company with that particular girlfriend (pity really... my first love). We left the cinema half way through the film, my friend, who should have known better, stayed for the whole thing. I still got the required result with my girlfriend, the film just didn't help much. It would be interesting to see it again so that I can make a more informed critique, though I feel the experience has left me scarred for life.
I rented the DVD in a video store, as an alternative to reading the report. But it's pretty much just more terror-tainment.<br /><br />While the film may present some info from the report in the drama, you're taking the word of the producers - there's no reference to the commission report anywhere in the film. Not one.<br /><br />The acting, all around, is pretty bad - pretty much all of the stereotypes of 'hot shot' bitchy foul mouthed government agents, each thinking they know more than everyone else. There may be some truth to it, but it really has a bad Hollywood stereotype smell to it.<br /><br />IMDb's user community ratings & comments tend to be more right than wrong, and I have started to glance at the ratings before renting whenever I can.<br /><br />I wish I had on this one.
I tried. Lord help me, how I tried. But there are just some people almost incapable of creating quality. Brett Ratner, Uwe Boll, Britney Spears, and Asylum. To their credit "The 9/11 Commission Report" seems like an honest attempt by the company to advance into a more sophisticated state of storytelling and movie making. But for all intents and purposes, it comes off as another truly film in their gallery. At the opening, the disclaimer notifies audiences that all the names have been changed, but the names of the terrorists remain relatively the same. A man named Mussaui attempts to learn how to fly a plane. With a stone cold grimace that would instantly make anyone uneasy, this "undercover" agent is able to learn how to fly on a small computer. And you have to wonder, not how he was able to get into this program so easily, but on how these people didn't even ask questions; because this scene is so far-fetched in its presentation, and the actor playing this man is extremely over the top. And you can see that director Scott attempts to mimic Paul Greengrass with a bright grainy photography that's followed by an awfully dizzying and irritating hand-held direction that, throughout the entire film, attempts to take off from Greengrass's gung-ho guerrilla film-making techniques. <br /><br />You can sense Scott emulating Greengrass's technique for realism, but it becomes rather lame-brained halfway in. Meanwhile the film comes off less a "Traffic" take off, and more a take off on "Law & Order" in which we'll have the disclaimer notifying us the names have been changed, the logo almost reminiscent of the "Law & Order" logo, and then ninety minutes of the actors pumping their chests and discussing politics.<br /><br />Neither of which are ever as compelling as it tries to be. And then when the film seems as if its attempting to be an adult drama, Scott relies on his old failsafe, the sex scene. Scott's new film looks like it really wants to be thought of as a low budget "Munich" but it's not, and it manages to be underwhelming on every such occasion possible. "The 9/11 Commission Report" falls flat, and that's because its limited in its attempts to imitate other films.<br /><br />While I appreciate the ambition inherent behind the camera, this new perspective of the events leading up to 9/11 is flat, and dull. Hard as it may try to be a low-budget "Munich" it's only really as entertaining as a normal Dolph Lundgren film you'd find on Cinemax.
This documentary was very amateurish. It could have been made by college students. Assuming that it was, my grading is as follows. Content : C, Sound Quality : F ,Cinematography : F ,Acting : D, Soundtrack : F, Casting : C, Boobshot : A ......Overall Grade :D<br /><br />I found myself getting seasick as we walked down the streets with the characters,bobbing up and down with each move of the cameraman'step.My mother-in-law even changed the batteries in her miracle ear and she could not hear the muffled dialog. Extensive post production editing and CGI would not help this bomb. These students would "barely" pass my course.My advise...don't waste your time or money for the one "A".
Am I the only one who thought the point of this film was the graphic violence? I knew nothing about Leigh Scott when I rented it, and would not have done so if I had known that most of his previous films were horror films. I am not into that at all, I was just expecting an informative docudrama of the 9/11 report.<br /><br />Instead, I got an almost incomprehensible, violent movie. The only good thing about it for me, was that it made me want to read the report, to figure out what the heck this movie was about.<br /><br />I wrote this because I am shocked that we have become so immune to violence in films and on TV, that it was not even worth commenting on by the bloggers whose reviews that I read.
We'll never know The Truth about 9/11. And this shoddy movie proves it.<br /><br />I recently watched a YouTube report claiming there were no planes involved in the Twin Towers' destruction; that all the news programs were supposedly provided with same-angle shots of the Towers from a mysterious source (probably the gubmint?), and in that provided footage CGI planes were substituted for real-life MISSILES which actually hit the towers....<br /><br />It's a compelling video, and though I am not a Wacko Conspiracy Theorist per se, I am still not sure myself whether actual planes hit anything that day (the Towers, the Shanksville field, the Pentagon) - because there is no plane wreckage available. (And what about those infamous "black boxes"? None recovered.) A million other theories abound, all of them courting a droplet of Truth awash in an ocean of speculation. But you'll drown in malarkey before you find anything truthful or worth speculating about in THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT, a no-budget movie that is trying to close the barn door after all the horses and jihadists have escaped.<br /><br />Writer-director Leigh Scott is obviously a concerned American citizen who wanted to enlighten audiences on what the 560-page report might reveal. It would help if his movie had actors, instead of a guy who looks like David Duchovny, a chick who looks like Gina Gershon, a guy who thinks he's Russell Crowe and another guy who I'm pretty sure is trying hard to be Sean Bean. It would help if his camera operator didn't have Parkinson's; if the lighting director wasn't trying to save on electricity; it would help if his editor didn't have Attention Deficit Disorder, or if the soundtrack wasn't some tuneless new world order esoterica; and the looping should have probably been inserted when people were actually moving their mouths.<br /><br />We can't even call this propaganda. It's too funny. And by funny, I mean unwatchable.<br /><br />You can't squeeze an issue this complex into a two-hour film, but Leigh Scott tries anyway, including all those sexy catch-phrases we've grown inured to: bin Laden's intent to attack, purchasing weapons from Somalia, non-aggression agreement with Iraq, Mussawi attending flight school, weapons of mass destruction...<br /><br />The problem is: we know it's all retrospect, so every discussion the concerned intelligence operatives have with each other reeks of fake hindsight all crammed into a neat conversation. Like contrived reverse engineering, everything pertinent is mentioned succinctly so that we can shake our heads in wonder at how incompetently all these branches of government screwed up.<br /><br />There's a ludicrous interrogation scene with a lubricious bimbo beating up on a guy with tomato sauce on his face. Now - that would be considered torture if most guys didn't consider it a turn-on.<br /><br />The tagline is: "What if the attack could have been stopped?" By this movie's account - and, we presume, according to the Commission Report - the CIA and other underground agencies were all set to capture bin Laden and didn't. Everyone involved with the "terrorism" reports (you mean you actually read these reports?) is so concerned we just want to slap them for their bad acting.<br /><br />Yet the whole story goes so much deeper than the banal soundbytes the negligent Ku Bush Klan foisted on the American people after 9/11. We now know that even capturing bin Laden before the 9/11 attack would not have changed or achieved anything - the wheels were in motion with or without that Taliban figurehead whose involvement was the possible figment of someone's fevered imagination to unite America against a common enemy. Contrary to popular belief "they" didn't "attack us." As Ron Paul tried to elucidate, it was a case of Middle Eastern blowback - "they" were so sick of America planting their infidel feet "over there" that they brought the war "over here." So though George W. Death likes to tout the nonsensical, "We're fighting them over there so we won't have to fight them over here," in reality "Because we're Over There, the fight has been brought Over Here." <br /><br />The 9/11 attack was not so much about the intricate planning of terrorists, as it was the gross negligence of the Bush administration, who we know (without the probing of Commissions) had all the intel from the Clinton administration onwards; information about terrorist cells reaching critical mass and their intent to cause chaos. But the Oil Idiot of Texas, who refused to read his Daily Briefings and would rather vacation at his Crawford ranch than spend one extra day at work, abrogated the duty he swore an oath to perform - protect the American public.<br /><br />And then the scum who called himself president used the attacks brought about by his negligence as a political hammer against his own dumbed-down countryfolk to score a second term, shred the American Constitution and take America into a Fake War on the basis of a lie (WMD), with a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Strangely enough, the movie never treads near the Ku Bush Klan, offering no opinion or judgment, Leigh Scott wanting to remain neutral. Tell that to the raped and pillaged hundreds of thousands in the Fake War on Terror in Iraq.<br /><br />Out of pure coincidence, I realized I was watching this DVD while wearing my "Bush lied. Thousands Died." t-shirt.
It was full of plot holes, inaccuracies (doesn't the time-clock stop for injured players or loss of helmets in Texas football games?) and not so much redemption (So Your Dad Beats the Crap out of You? Well, do something right for once and then he will Love You and make it all worthwhile).<br /><br />Either make the movie about a team and its quest for a championship OR make a movie about a player within a team and his personal struggle but instead, this movie tried to do it all and came up more than a couple yards short. The book probably showed the whole story much better; the movie should have picked one element of the story and stuck with that.<br /><br />Instead, the movie jumped from one character dialogue to flashes of game play and then another character dialogue months later without actually telling you who people were or why they were important--the QB calling his sibling to take care of the mother--whatever happened with that? Because the mother was coherent by the end of the final game, does that mean she's not crazy anymore? Its one redeeming quality was the soundtrack. Buy that and then watch SportsCenter highlights while Iggy Pop plays in the background.
This movie was very disappointing in that several elements of the book were wrongly done. The main story is the same but there are several flaws that hurt the movie.<br /><br />1) Boobie Miles gets injured in the beginning of the story in a preseason game at Texas Tech. This means he won't get anything done during the season at all and Chris Comer comes up sooner on the team.<br /><br />2) The game against Marshall was lost at Marshall. The team depicted as Marshall was actually Midland High one of Permian's main rivals and here is the proof- Marshall High is the Mavericks colored Scarlet and Silver, Midland High is the Bulldogs colored Purple and Gold. Look at the jerseys and you will see who it is. Also the real Marshall High's football roster is overwhelmingly Black, the team shown was racially mixed like Midland High. <br /><br />3) Permian only loses to Midland Lee by one point in district play. Midland Lee loses to Midland High and Midland High loses to Permian. These are the teams that set up the coin toss as such.<br /><br />4) Boobie comes back on the team as a reserve to Chris Comer and after not getting any playing time in the Midland Lee game, he quits the team completely at half time and never stands on the sideline or goes to any games again. <br /><br />5) Brian Chavez was a Tight End and Defensive End who wore #85 not a Tight End and Strong Safety. In addition, Boobie wore #35 and Ivory Christian wore #62. <br /><br />6) The coaches end up liking Chris Comer as a player more than Boobie because he has a better lifting ethic and runs more straight up plays the way the staff prefers him too, this is in part why Boobie quits the team. <br /><br />7) Dallas Carter is played in Austin at Darrell K. Royal Memorial stadium where UT plays in the state semi-finals not the state finals. Carter wins the state title but is forced to forfeit due to an ineligible player.<br /><br />The acting is done pretty well but if you read the book, you will see these flaws are pretty true. I am also tired of hearing all the PC hypocrites out there complain about the depiction of Dallas Carter's football team. The team according to the book is as large, monstrous, talented, and black as the movie shows. People say it is a racist depiction but reading the book, you see a true depiction of the team. The story is very altered giving this movie a score of 3.5/10.
I honestly expected more from this movie. That may have been the problem. There was not one time when the camera was still - ever. On close ups, the camera shakes, the subjects move, and I get a headache. The cuts are so often and so fast, that the viewer often finds himself/herself wondering what just happened. (LOOK OUT, SPOILER ALERT) And at the end of the movie, when you expect to have a happy ending after being put through so much useless thought to comprehend what is going on, they end up losing. To me, this was a basically terrible movie, wrecked by a camera man with ADHD, and lack of a meaningful meaningful plot.
I just saw this movie last night, and after reading all the reviews I expected a good, emotional sports film. What I got was something clichéd and boring. Yes, I thought it was boring. I saw the all-star getting hurt long before the game. I figured maybe they'd wait for him to collapse until, ya know, the game before the "big one" but I guess the first game is good enough.<br /><br />The parental relationships were also very clichéd, with the dominating drunk father (I will say McGraw impressed me, however), and the boy who wants to stay and help his (ailing?) mother.<br /><br />I especially liked the random girls (Melissa and Maria) who were in the movie for all of 5 minutes, and placed there simply to get the football boys some action off the field. I thought "ok, now how does this work into the plot again?" Maybe I missed the point, beyond "Well they play football in a town that loves it so the girls throw themselves at their feet" point.<br /><br />The sports action had some good points, but most of it was so rushed! I think the first game lasted longer than the montage of the entire playoffs! And I wasn't so sure about the continuity of the winding-down clock in the final game.<br /><br />I guess I could see this movie winning the ESPY for best sports film if it was the only one released. Honestly though, I found it to be a boring movie full of people sickeningly-obsessed with the pigskin. For a better football film, see Remember the Titans.
Having been born and raised in Odessa, and having graduated from the "other" high school in the late 70's, Odessa High School, I had mixed emotions about this movie. I no longer live in Odessa, but will always be a Texan at heart. I didn't like the way that this town of 80,000 plus was portrayed as a dirt poor small town. If I'm wrong about this, please feel free to correct me, but I believe OHS also plays in the town stadium, and the "Home of the Permian Panthers" sign that was shown at the stadium used to be at the practice field at Permian. I would have liked to have seen a little acknowledgment about the cross town rivalry of the big game in town every year, OHS vs Permian. I am curious why the outcome of the game was altered though, I think it would have been just as dramatic if the real outcome was portrayed. Overall, the movie was okay, made me a little homesick, remembering the "good old days" of MOJO.
I'm at a loss. This entire movie made absolutely no sense. It was like watching a Soderburg film for football. The camera cutting, the pace, all so copied. I thought the subject was too not serious for them to treat it like it was. Yes, we all know Southerners like football and beauty pageants. Must we be inundated with it as an audience? I watched because of Lee and Jay. I was expecting young talent assembled in the style of Dead Poet's Society or similar to Remember the Titans. I was completely put off by the film. You didn't get the characters. It was character driven, but you didn't understand anyone's motivations or their actions for the most part. The one kid who's mom is obsessed with him being a football player. Why is he so silent? What's his deal? Did we really need the scene with him "proving" his heterosexuality? Why should we care? The movie gave us insights into these kids lives, and offered no pay-off for caring. It just made no sense. <br /><br />And why show a movie about a team that lost? I know it's real life, but who makes movies about losers? Give us some pay-off for these guys working as hard as they did with all their "conceivable" problems, darnit. We got nothing. We got a little blip at the end of the film telling us that Mojo won the next year with the 3rd stringer (Lee). Why didn't you follow that story? What were we to get out of this one? The movie led you along, but didn't lead you anywhere. I just felt like something was missing. It felt like a bad genetic cross between Varsity Blues and Remember the Titans. At least those two movies led you somewhere. Friday Night Lights was about a loser team that lost their star player early in the movie. The actor who played him was great. You were completely annoyed by him, which was the point, but at least you understood why. They made sure you understood him, but he couldn't play, so why make sure we get his issues? <br /><br />And the other team in the play-offs...are we to believe those are high school teens? Those men looked like college seniors or professional player in their 30s. Who were they trying to kid? I know the other team was to look intimidating, but that was crossing the line a little. I liked the gritty element of them negotiating with the black team, but again, how did this fit into the overall theme of the film. Nothing pieced together. The characters knew more about each other than we did, and that settles weird with me. Jay's characters had absolutely nothing to add, but he was showcased. It was all just a mess. Not worth a movie ticket or a rental fee.
One: your screen will be filled with beautiful effects and colours. These do nothing for the story, but they will keep your lazy eyes occupied for some 50 minutes. A good example is the eternal use of a computer screen that shows each fingerprint from the database as that print is compared with the one they want to find out about. Yeah, right.<br /><br />Two: these guys being like real professional Pros, they will engage each other in intriguing Pro talk: "Look, Grissom, these are what we call fingerprints. Everybody has them, and they are different on each person. So, with these fingerprints we can actually find...".<br /><br />Yup! Exactly like real pros would talk to each other if there wasn't a completely uninformed and stupid audience around.<br /><br />However, not everything about this show is bad. Some stories work to some degree, and the colours _are_ really beautiful. They use red, blue, green, yellow... all of them colours I've loved since kindergarten.
My ratings: Acting - 3/10 Suspense - 2/10 Character Attachment - 1/10 Plot - 2/10 Character Development - 2/10 Overall - 2/10<br /><br />This show sucks very much officially. For me, CSI Miami is the best, CSI NY 2nd and CSI 100th. I don't know, in the other CSIs you get into the episode you're watching. But in this one, you just can't get into the episode, no matter how much you try, so in my opinion, this show is not worth watching. I know people have different opinions, and I respect that, but for me, this CSI ain't good enough. So if you like suspense, real acting/performance, good plot, direction, character development/attachment and you an overall good show, I suggest you to watch CSI Miami.
I like the concept of CSI, but the show is spoiled by some seriously wooden acting. The Medical Examiner has the best lines and delivers them in an arch, offhand manner that livens up the story. Unfortunately he has little screen time.<br /><br />Also, why does Jorja Fox always look and act so utterly unhappy? I know that forensic investigation is a very serious business, but the characters, for the most part, seem to confuse seriousness with humorlessness and a complete lack of personality. I can't imagine dating either Sarah Sidle or Catherine Willows; what would you talk to either one about? I'm waiting for the episode when, at the end of a shift, Catherine picks up a remote control, points it at Grissom, shuts him down, and wheels him into a closet until the next day.
I had the privilege of seeing this powerful play on Broadway with Kathy Bates in the lead. I only saw one other play in the 1970's-1990's that had an emotional impact like this play did. I really looked forward to the play being made into a movie but was very disappointed when I learned that Kathy Bates wouldn't reprise her role in the film--she wasn't well known off Broadway at the time and the producers must have wanted star power I suppose and cast Sissy Spacek instead. Sissy did an adequate job in the lead role but did not measure up to Kathy Bates in any way. I love Anne Bancroft but she seemed too young for this role. The movie plot was true to the play. Anyone who ever contemplates suicide should have to watch this movie to realize the devastation on those who are left behind.
************* SPOILERS BELOW ************* "'Night, Mother" is the story of Jesse (Sissy Spacek), a divorced epileptic woman who calmly announces to her brash mother (Anne Bancroft) that she's going to commit suicide. This is a fascinating premise that is drained of all vitality and excitement. The brilliant hook turns out to be a cheat- the story that follows is lacking in substance, gravity and revelatory value. Where are the shocks and surprises as mother and daughter have what may be the last conversation of their lives? Where are the secrets revealed, the confessions and fantasies and regrets? They're here, but they've all been painted the same dull color that keeps emotion in the background and celebrates the 'genius' of playwright Marsha Norman at the expense of everything else. The result is not a film but an exhausting endurance test.<br /><br />Let me preface my comments by saying I find Sissy Spacek to be one of the greatest actresses in the history of motion pictures, a woman so magnetic, so natural that she continues to surprise and amaze me after twenty years of stardom. She brings a touch of class and magic to everything she does, and I've seen her rescue more than one film from the recycling bin with her angelic face and vulnerable eyes, her soft voice and sweet smile. It was because of the great Spacek that I watched this film in the first place, and for one of her movies to be terrible it has to fail in a significant way. This film fails in two.<br /><br />First and foremost the film is adapted so faithfully from the Pulitzer-winning stage play that it is claustrophobic and repetitive. The entire movie is a two-woman dialogue between Jesse and her Mother. What worked on stage- a middle-aged mother and daughter argue for two hours in small house- dies on film. A play, no matter how great, needs to be *adapted* for the screen… it is self-indulgent and arrogant to believe that the dialogue is so perfect that not of a word of it can be altered. The screenplay for this film could have been shortened by thirty to forty pages, and a knowing screenwriter would have given the brilliant Spacek and competent Bancroft some *physical* sequences, some facial reactions, something to break up the wall-to-wall yak fest and prison-like single-set. It is no wonder that the screenplay was adapted by the original playwright Marsha Norman, who may know theater but reveals herself here to be clueless in film.<br /><br />I cannot over-emphasize the effect the stage-play script has on the film. Watching Jesse and her Mother argue about Jesse's impending suicide is redundant and dull. The women walk from the living room into the kitchen into the den and back into the living room, where they start all over again. A tiny Midwestern house is not the ideal location for a single-set film, and the director never tries anything clever or original, never tries to break up the monotony with an exterior shot or cutaway or a flashback or *anything*. There's no music, no other characters, no other stories... just two women covering the couch cushions and arguing their opinions. The reverence given to the play is sickening… even Shakespeare's most solemn classics get shaken up for the screen. The commitment to the original play seems almost spiteful… it's as if the film was made only to document the dramatic treasure that was the stage play, with the audience an afterthought.<br /><br />The other reason the film fails is Anne Bancroft. She may be a good stage actress but on film- where presence is 80% of performance- she rarely seems to fit. She certainly doesn't fit here, playing a Midwestern grandmother but looking more like Mrs. Robinson before her morning coffee. She chases Jesse around the house, looking more aggravated than astounded, and seems extraordinarily unsympathetic, even when her lines convey a loving- if flawed- woman.<br /><br />Sissy Spacek is great as she always is, honest and open and so good that you actually understand and agree with her character's choice. Sissy lets us see that Jesse is a flat tire, a wrong turn of a woman who has had every bad break and made too many wrong choices. She's never had control of her life, and her suicide will be her way of finally saying "No more- this is where I get off." That's how she puts it anyway, and when Spacek speaks… you listen. She proves in all her films that a good actress doesn't have to behave like a man, doesn't have to be all bluff and bravado and borrowed testosterone. In this and in films like "Coal Miner's Daughter" she quietly demonstrates a soft strength and quiet depth that is as impressive as it is hypnotic… you can't help but fall in love.<br /><br />That's why it was so hard for me to watch "'Night, Mother." Spacek is wasted in a stilted stunt of a film that never serves to engage or even distract. I would not recommend this movie to anyone except die-hard fans of Sissy like myself and even then you'll be disappointed. I do give the film an entire letter grade bonus for the ending, which is courageous enough to let the lead character do what's right for *her* and not pander to a hackneyed happy ending. GRADE: C
This film is likely to be a real letdown unless you understand the circumstances under which it was made. The Marxes were chosen to be cast in the film version of a play that was not originally written for them. They are sort of force-fitted into the roles. Ironically it might have been funnier if it had used different actors who did not have such high expectations placed upon them. Instead, it has been forever enshrined as part of a canon to which it really doesn't deserve to belong.
Picking this up along with the rest of the Marx Brothers box set, I found myself disappointed by most everything beyond A Night at the Opera. This stinker is prolly the worst I've seen of them so far, with the clever lines left out and the characterization is woeful. The playwright is so obscenely stupid in this play it's hard not to tackle the television and try and strangle him.<br /><br />As it is, the Marxes seem to do better as outsiders brought in to wreak havoc, and are much much better when they have a good gag or two at least. The material here is all obviously written for anyone, and it really wastes the Marx's talent. Avoid. <br /><br />Rating: 3/10
Jumpin' Butterballs, this movie stinks! It's a dull and listless drag that never lets up. It's a wonder anyone even bothered to make Groucho up in his bizarre trademark eyebrows and mustache, as he has nothing witty or outrageous to do or say throughout this bore. Chico must have been so disinterested that he forgot to use his Italian accent.<br /><br />Only Harpo provides a grin or two, and there's precious little of that to go around here anyway. Figure in a loudmouthed hotel manager and another obnoxious co-comic in Frank Albertson, and the road gets even bumpier. <br /><br />A real misfire.
Army private Gene Kelly, who's also a talented trapeze aerialist, comes under fire for doing daring stunts without a net and alienating his high-wire cohorts; meanwhile, there's an elaborate 'camp show' to put on for Army soldiers and personnel, and the whole studio of M-G-M has shown up to join in the fun. Mickey Rooney plays M.C. (unctuously), introducing acts like Kay Kyser and His Orchestra, Bob Crosby, Benny Carter, and the M-G-M Dancing Girls (who appear to be dressed as vegetables). Red Skelton does a cute bit with Donna Reed and Margaret O'Brien, but the other comedic bits suffer from an apparent vacuum between the performers and the allegedly-live audience (they're awfully silent until the editor cuts to them for exaggerated reaction shots). Judy Garland sings an inappropriate song about a jumpin' night at Carnegie Hall (improbably accompanied by classical pianist José Iturbi, whom Judy calls 'hep'). The production is glossy, but the manic energy feels false, fabricated. ** from ****
I spotted the DVD on a store near my home, and since I'm a "cheesy horror movie/alien flicks" addict, I wondered how good it was. It even had two award mentions on the cover (I don't remember what festival it won) so I figured "Hey this might be good". So I bought it (for five euros) and I came here to IMDb to check out some reviews. Here, either people bashed the movie to say it was bad, or people said the movie was a wonderful feat in indie movies bla, bla. I then played the DVD, not thinking about any review I had read, with an open mind, and not expecting anything at all.<br /><br />Man... I don't' like being this critical, but the movie was genuinely bad... OK, I'm just going to give out some pointers of what I thought:<br /><br />1-Acting/dialog: The acting was so confusing... sometimes the actors did a decent job, but there were scenes were I could spot no effort at all from them! The dialog was even worst... I think it was probably the aspect I most disliked in the whole movie. The talking in between characters seemed... off. Not just bad, but far away from the actual happenings in the movie. The monologues of the female character, although well delivered, became boring and annoying in a little while... But of course the most ridiculous aspect was the... "aliens" or the "infected"... I wont even comment on that one, just going to say that it was absolutely ridiculous and took the entire mood away from the picture; 2-Visuals: the strongest aspect in the movie... if you forget the awful FX and light flashes they used to simulate explosions or what the hell they were supposed to be. The "camera in car" aspect was quite cool actually, but they didn't even used the environment to inspire fear or dread. They left that to cheap sound and video FX and the three "infected" characters. The movie becomes boring in so many scenes...; 3-Sound: Talk about editing... this movie has no problems in showing how weakly edited it was. From computer sounds imitating the forest animals to the "alien dialog"... ah...<br /><br />So what did I like in the movie... (SPOILERS) the only thing I really liked and it was actually quite scary was the succession of two scenes where the car is still and you spot something/someone walking in a distant. At first I really thought it was me seeing things, but when the character realizes that the "figures" coming towards her were her own reflection, I was surprised! Pretty creepy idea done well! Apart from that... I had an awful time.<br /><br />And I don't recommend this to anyone... not even "teen get together" because you can't even laugh at this...<br /><br />I give it a solid 2. Only some technical achievements worked here... apart from that... yeah... nothing
Okay, first I should say that I assume this was just made by a group of friends with a limited budget. With that in mind, it really shouldn't be compared to blockbuster features and my rating would be higher. But still...<br /><br />After giving it a chance, it still violated some basic film-making rules to such an extent that both the viewer and the amateur director in me cringed. A LOT.<br /><br />Think: Blair Witch in a car but REALLY boring.<br /><br />Think: You left your camcorder on the dashboard and recorded yourself getting lost in the park at night for an hour, then making your friends watch it.<br /><br />The scariest part (POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT... IF SPOILING HERE IS POSSIBLE) was at one point the picture rewinds and you might think you will have to watch it all over again. SCARY.<br /><br />Silliness aside, this is a pretty good idea for a low-budget lets-go-make-a-movie-tonight film. But the concept walks a fine line between being really good and really bad, and let's just say it wasn't really good. There were just too many parts where nothing happened. At first I thought that was the director's plan -- you were supposed to be lulled into a sense of security and then really scary things would start happening. But...no.<br /><br />I kept trying to find good things to say about it (and I had plenty of time to think), and I'll say the music was kinda cool. And I have to give the female lead credit for standing around by herself looking scared for a really, really long time. But that's it. The actors playing "infected" people looked as if they were making fun of zombie movies. Or they got their motivation from the Bug wearing his Edgar suit from "MIB." Chances are, if for some strange reason you're going to watch this movie, it's on DVD or Tivo, so you can fast forward it whenever waiting for something to happen gets too difficult.<br /><br />I hate to be so critical of something, but at the same time I've watched a lot of similar movies and nothing has ever been this painful. If they just chopped a half an hour out of it and added some scary stuff, it might be decent. Maybe that'll be the director's cut...
Here is a fantastic concept for a film - a series of meteors crash into a small town and the resulting alien infection is caught on a deputy's single camera dash cam as the town slowly taken over. Leave it to Albert Pyun to screw that up! Don't get within 100 feet of this flick! Holy crap, what a bomb...it might be Pyun's worst yet! The crazy thing is there is the germ of a creative idea in here - an entire of an outbreak told from the POV of a dashcam. When I heard that a while back, I imagined the car smashing into stuff, people getting run over, and infected types breaking the windshield and surrounding the car in chaos. That would be cool right? Instead, we have the lead driving around in circles for the entire time in a wooded area, occasionally running into the three infected types who just stand there. The last bit is literally a 15 minute shot where nothing happens in front of the camera, just noises are heard offscreen. Stay away!!! On a somewhat relieving note, I think I am officially calling an end to my Pyun watching...only took me 20 crappy movies to realize I have better things to do.
Jesus Christ, what the hell happened here?. This is one of the most boring movies I have ever seen, how is it possible that they screwed up such a nice idea for a movie. To tell you the truth I was so hyped for this, I though it was like Blair Witch but with actual alien creatures chasing the camera guy. Goddamn it, I have been reduced to fast forwarding this pile of sh*t, and I never do that while seeing movies. The high rating here on IMDb makes me believe that actual aliens are giving 10's for this piece of crap.<br /><br />Invasion is about well, an invasion. The movie starts by saying that everything you're about to see is real, blahblahblah. Then they go and tell me about a special camera system used in cars, as if I need to believe their bullsh*t to enjoy this movie. Next thing you know I'm seeing the most boring car driving ever filmed, in a forest at night mind you. Is this a movie, or a Disney theme park ride? The first 20 minutes is all boring dialog between cops while seeing grass and one straight road with a flashlight. Where the hell were the aliens?! They were sleeping of course! Then we learn that bad acting is not only reduced to high school plays, as the cop behind the camera goes out of his car to look for a missing man who was 'nightfishing' and had stumbled upon a mysterious meteorite. I wonder what happens to him? Out of nowhere, we see the 'nightfishing' guy walking like a zombie. The cop is apparently too dumb to notice that something is wrong with this man. Apparently he was indeed dumb, as the zombie/alien guy injects in the cop's ear some sort of alien parasite, thus changing him into an alien. Then the cop/alien goes back into his car, looks for a young couple that were having sex a while back in the forest, gets to them, changes the guy into an alien, and then the girl runs to the cop's car and escapes. If this quick plot introduction didn't get it in your head that this movie was bad, then the following 40 minutes will. Watching this movie is as painful as stabbing yourself repeatedly with a plastic fork. The script, while it may sound interesting on the back of the DVD box, is badly directed and sadly, we are left with another boring straight to DVD atrocity.<br /><br />The only thing that kept me awake were the constant flashing and loud sound effects (lamentably). If seeing the same forest trail for 63 minutes is not enough, we must endure crappy flashing techniques to "scare" the viewer and constant wailing of a bad actress that gets old and annoying pretty quick.<br /><br />If you feel you must rent this, I say to you, why? There are better SciFi/Horror films out there. Even the dreaded remake of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers is more entertaining than this. For the love of all things good, don't bother with his crap. My eyes bled, and for the first time, I wanted suicide. A 1/10, avoid this like a disease.
Before going any further, I have to admit that I only saw the first episode of this show. If I had the time, I might have considered watching it every week, if only to see how the season played out. However, it was very clear to me from the beginning that Martha Stewart's version of "The Apprentice" just doesn't "fit in." Martha Stewart made a career of being a happy homemaker, a domestic diva of the likes of Oprah Winfrey and Julia Child. It was only since her scandalous legal troubles and subsequent incarceration that her public image began to reflect the true roughness of her character. Sure, she was compelling for a while, and this entire series poses the interesting question of what it means to be a woman in business. Does she have to come off as cold and tough? Shouldn't she?<br /><br />But the truth was, by the time Stewart came out of prison, her attempts for a public comeback, though certainly warranted, were never going to seize viewers' interest for very long. Perhaps a true comeback would have worked had she returned home peacefully and waited a year or so after her often mocked ankle bracelet was removed. Instead, she frantically dove into overkill with 2 series at once, the other being her syndicated daytime series Martha, much like her old show, but more mainstream, with famous guests like Bette Midler. Of course, even at her peak Stewart was never mainstream, so it's too much to ask that American audiences immediately accept her foray into reality TV. Maybe America wants Stewart to make a comeback on her own rather than be the basis for it.<br /><br />The show was basically a tired retread of Trump's "Apprentice," which still holds my interest, depending on the tasks, the cast, and Trump's firing decisions (often controversial - likely for that reason). The letter bit was certainly not cliché but obnoxious in the least. The fact that Stewart never says, "You're fired!" - mentioned in the message board on this site - is particularly distressing. Producer Mark Burnett should be admired for dealing with Stewart's jail time honestly while trying to make her a hero, but the truth is that anyone watching can tell that she's basically trying to put on a show of being this nice businesswoman. Again never mainstream, Stewart lacks the agreeability and identifiability of Oprah Winfrey and the admirable, charismatic "toughness" of Donald Trump. Yes, this can be a gender-biased assessment of her character, but I mean it to be more about the nature of her business.<br /><br />It comes as no shock that Stewart has been fired, but I wonder if they really always intended it to only last for one season?
Oh boy, oh boy. This movie is something for the lovers of "real" cineatique art. It really does not make ANY sense at all. It is totally boring, especially because of the "anti-climaxes". All people behave more than strange, and unrealistic. Sometimes it feels like sitting in a theatre, because in dialogues the actors tend to face the camera (and therefore the audience) instead of each other. Like I said before, if you are in to those more artful movies, shown in Cannes - go for it. If you are not, better leave this movie alone, because you will be more than disappointed, and in the end know that you have wasted your time - like I did. Two thumbs down... :-(((
This is the second adaptation of Charlotte Armstrong by Claude Chabrol for the screen:the first was " la rupture" (1970)(from novel "the balloon man" )and it's really a pity no one cares about it.It's Chabrol's sleeper,and I urge any of his fans to see it.<br /><br />"The chocolate" cobweb was not that strong a detective story to begin with.I read it 20 years ago and forgot all about it.The movie promises some good things at first,though,then finally disappoints to a fault.This is a confusing Chabrol movie,mixing elements of the heyday (circa 1969),and a lotta tongue-in-chick stuff coming from the eighties ,the likes of 'poulet au vinaigre",not one particularly memorable work.<br /><br />Part of the disappointment comes from the cast:this is a distressingly poor gathering:Jacques Dutronc plays like a zombie,Isabelle Huppert reveals herself a somewhat limited actress,finally rather vulgar .It worked in "une affaire de femme",it does not here.They are not supported by the young couple :both are bland and unremarkable.Actors from the past,say,Stephane Audran or Michel Bouquet(both in "la rupture") were brilliant and contributed to Chabrol's then unique atmosphere.<br /><br />The story itself is undistinguished:beginning as some kind of "serious" "la vie est un long fleuve tranquille " (besides,a character hints at Etienne Chatilliez's very funny movie),the movie drags on and on as a laughable psychological drama afterwards.We will not congratulate the young female pianist ,who,after all she learned about her wicked hostess,agrees to drive a car along a dangerous road.<br /><br />Because he makes too many movies,Chabrol frequently releases turkeys.One wonder why people who wants to watch one of his movies should choose this one among all his stuff up for grabs.<br /><br />It seems that Chabrol's bourgeoise satire has finally given way to leniency.In "la rupture" the first Armstrong adaptation-an average detective story which Chabrol completely transcended-,you should hear Audran say "they have so much money!".Here ,Chabrol has lost his bite,his strength.
I did not like this film at all: The scenario is boring - and after a while, its primitive predictability really gets on your nerves. Even if you give Chabrol a high bonus for not being a beginner, I did not manage to find anything specially interesting on his characterization of Mika neither.
The beginning of the film is promising. When Jeanne Pollet(Anna Mouglalis) hear the story of the incident that happen on the day she was born that raise the possibility that she is the daughter of a famous pianist, André Polonski (Jacques Dutrone), she set to find out whether it's true or not, and giving the fact the she plays also the piano that's not such a remote idea. Jeanne meet André and his wife "Mika" Muller(Isabelle Huppert) and their son and on the way uncover the fact that there are some secrets in that family as much in her own.<br /><br />O.K. we have seen this before and it has been done in a more interesting way than here.The character of "Mika" Muller is left with out us understanding her motives to her action and she is not interesting enough to care for her. The piano scenes look fake and the whole piano sub-plot doesn't add anything to the character's insight but serve as to make the film longer than it should have been in the first place.<br /><br />In short a very disappointing outing from Chabrol, who can do better than this
The French either make pro-Marxist films or anti-Marxist films - with a few in between. "Merci pour le chocolat" is the latter of this genre. From the opening credits telling the viewer what music is going to be played and by whom it was who composed you know that you are going to be swathed in middle class pretension. It is an old man's film with an excess of 40's plus people. It is also directed by an old man along with an old crew who have nothing to say about life to the viewer. The plot is not only banal but preposterous. How many films reveal the plot through dialogue only to repeat the same message via flashback some five minutes later? Maybe the director and actors had a low retentive capacity? In truth their is no tenable plot at all. It is riddle with holes like a good piece of French cheese.<br /><br />Whether intentional or not, it is a film about the bourgeoisie. At least a third of the film focuses on the piano and the pretentious twaddle espoused in each scene. I concede it has some well framed shots though they couldn't have used a steady-cam in this film - it would have woke them all up! Other than it being a nonsense story, the film allows the upper middle class to parade their values and vanity in a very comfortable Swiss location. A telling line of the film is when Rodolphe Pauly tells Anna Mouglalis that she need not lock her car while in the resort! Oh dear me.<br /><br />On the DVD, Miss Huppert makes a comment about shedding a false tear for a scene. Smirking she says: "Like they do in the American Actor's Studio!" I think Miss Huppert and the rest of the cast could learn well from the Actor's Studio.<br /><br />If there is one statement that stand out in my mind it is when Huppert remarks 'we are having friends for the weekend and all the servants are away'. No doubt they had all escaped from the mind numbing set lest they be associated with such an appalling film.<br /><br />Safety Medical Note. In the film they show a hot water scald being covered with ointment and a bandage. This should never be done. Only cold water should be used.<br /><br />Minus 10 marks.
The dominating conflict is between a couple of fine actors (Huppert and Dutronc) and the horrible script. Evidently, the actors lost, since the director/screenwriter Claude Chabrol eventually forced the leading couple to follow this worthless piece of sick imagination to the letter. Fortunately, the powerful performances by Huppert and Dutronc dramatically improve the overall quality of the movie, which miraculously gains the depth and humor. As for Chabrol's persistence in keeping the film bland and illogical, it reaches the climax in the final scene, which is so incredibly poor that you will wonder which pills he was taking himself while directing it.
Something does not work in this movie. There are absolutely no energies between the actors. In fact, their very acting seems frozen, sometimes amateur. Also, the script is not convincing and not reliable.
I think it is very interesting this movie is called a thriller. It is anything but thrilling.<br /><br />Most of the time you hear piano sounds. Then you hear piano sounds. Then some people talk about facts which do not concern anybody.<br /><br />Then again piano sounds.<br /><br />To be honest, this movie was the reason for me to register at IMDb, because I think this movie is one of those which humankind has to be warned of.<br /><br />Spoiler: By the way, the most action-like part happens when a can of hot chocolate is spilled.<br /><br />Also very interesting: The "actors". Yes, the quotes are intentional, as you can think, because they do not act. They play piano and do smalltalk, but it's not acting they do.<br /><br />I think before this movie I never left a cinema and felt angry. Really, this film made me angry. Angry for the time and money I spent on it.
This movie was a waste of time. It looks nice, pretty settings, nicely acted, appears earnest and seems to be leading somewhere so you stay tuned awaiting a meaningful payoff. It doesn't happen. <br /><br />It surprised me that so much effort could be put into a movie, it was clearly very professionally done, and have an outcome that seems nothing short of a b-movie.<br /><br />Save your precious time and see a good french film like Les Visiteurs (funny), Jean de Florette or Manon of the Spring. I can't recall the language in Europa Europa, but that's another Great film--heavy but very worth viewing.<br /><br />This film appears to promise a lot but delivers nothing.
For any wrestling fan, this is the wrestlemania to forget. No logic to the matches, some garbage gimmicks (doink the clown, and the Giant Gonzalez) this was a forgettable PPV something rare for the WWE(F). The logic of Hogan winning the world title at the end made no sense, and many people feel that alone help put the nail in the PPV. From the meaningless gimmicks of the roman soldiers, to simply some real bad wrestling (doink vs Crush being the worst match) to simply bad match making (Scott "Razor Ramon vs Bob Backlund, how can you have one of the greatest mat wrestlers, making a comeback, and working his first wrestlemania, face a power wrestler who was undefeated at the time), this is a PPV that even the WWE has since admitted, was way below what the expected. just all around a stinker
I liked the whole set up with Ceasar's Palace, the Roman guards, and announcers in togas. This event also marked "the passing of the torch" as far as the voice of the WWF goes. Gorilla Monsoon who had done the play by play for every WWF PPV up to this point opens up and gives the typical introduction making it look like he's there to announce another PPV. But then introduces Jim Ross who is making his WWF debut and JR continues to do the WWF commentary to this day. But outside of that, this event is pure garbage. Good ol scientific wrestling has been thrown out the window and enter the birth of gimmicks. This to me was the event that the WWF started to go down the toilet, and didn't recover until the attitude era of the late 90's. Here's a review of the event.<br /><br />IC title match: Tatanka (Challenger) vs. Shawn Michaels (champ): An okay opener, but given what Shawn is capable of, it was very disappointing. I have no idea why the WWF was hell bent on putting Tatanka over. They should of realized that Shawn was the future and Tatanka was just some hyper wrestler in an Indian Gimick. The ending of the match itself was very lame. Shawn grabs the ref and pulls him out, then gets called for a count out. While it was fun watching Sherri get beat up afterwords, this match just was forgettable. Shawn had to carry this match and had trouble doing it.<br /><br />The Stenier Brothers vs. The Headshrinkers: Steiners get the win via a Franknsteiner. This match had it's moments, but the crowd just didn't seem into it. There was no heat behind it, I think it was a match just to throw two tag teams in.<br /><br />Crush vs. Doink the Clown: TERRIBLE! TERRIBLE! TERRIBLE! This match completely sucked. Two very lame gimmicks. A clown and a Hawaiian dressed in bizarre colors. The ending caught everybody by surprise. In the upcoming months, Crush turned heel and Doink turned face, but none of the fans seem to care. Sadly, this was not the worst match on the card.<br /><br />Razor Ramon vs. Bob Backland: You got a brand new heel that is very over going against a wrestler who was forgotten about 10 years ago. The fans snicker and laugh when Backlund comes out. And like Hogan/Rock in WM18 and HHH/Owen in WM14, the heel wrestler gets louder cheers in the face. Thankfully this match was short. The right guy won, but I wish they had Razor totally beat the crap out of and squash Backlund rather than winning by a small package out of nowhere.<br /><br />Tag Team Champion Match: Ted Dibiase and IRS (Champs) vs. Hulk Hogan & Brutus Beefcake w/Jimmy Hart I still would like to know the full story on what happened to Hogan's eye. Oh well. The crowd was really into this match, but it had no flow to it what so ever. Hogan and Beefcake were clearly suffering ring rust given that both wrestlers had been on the shelf for at least a year. Dibiase, being the great technical wrestler that he was, did help to carry the match from being a complete waste. The ending was a surprise with Dibiase and IRS getting the win via DQ. But to please the crowd, Hogan and Beefcake did their usual playing to the crowd at the end like they had won the match.<br /><br />Lex Luger vs. Mr. Perfect: The best part of this match was the four hot chicks that accompanied Lex Luger to the ring. Other than that, this was completely forgettable. The Mr. Perfect gimmick was born for a heel role and he just lacked the heat as a face. And Luger is just a waste of time no matter what gimmick he's in. Luger wins via a backslide despite that Perfect's feet were in the ropes. Then Perfect spends the post match getting his butt kicked. First Luger knocks him out with the running elbow. Then when Perfect regains consciousness he goes back to the dressing room to find Luger only to get the crap beaten out of him by Shawn Michaels, setting up an HBK/Perfect feud that had the potential to be a classic but the WWF misused.<br /><br />The Undertaker vs. Giant Gonzales: ABSOLUTE CRAP!! What was the WWF thinking bringing in such a horrible wrestler as Giant Gonzales. Sure he had size, but I'd rather watch the Brooklyn Brawler in a match than him. This isn't even worth commenting on.<br /><br />WWF CHAMPIONSHIP MATCH: Bret Hart (champ) vs. Yokozuna (challenger) You have one of the greatest technical wrestlers of all time going against a guy who's only advantage is that he's a gigantic lard ass. Bret was able to carry the match, but a rather predictable ending with Mr. Fuji throwing salt in Bret's face.<br /><br />POST MATCH: Yokozuna vs. Hulk Hogan Pure crap right here. Hogan comes down to the ring for no apparent reason and Mr. Fuji challenges him to a match after Yoko just won the title. Even the die-hard Hulkamaniacs find this to be total BS.
1993 was a time of change in the WWE but for this Wrestlemania they decided to wind back the clock as Hulk Hogan returned, along with his good friend Brutus Beefcake, who had been out of wrestling since a paragliding accident in 1990.<br /><br />This was not a great event. Only two matches had any real build and the whole thing came off as being rushed. The in ring action wasn't great and the twist at the end, which I'll discuss later, really wasn't the earth shattering moment the WWE hoped it would be.<br /><br />This forgettable night started off with Shawn Micheals defending his Intercontinental Championship against the undefeated Tatanka. Tatanka had beaten Michaels a couple of times leading into the fight. Michaels had a new manager, Luna Vachon while Tatanka was accompanied by Michaels' former manager and future WWE Hall of Famer Sherri Martel. Tatanka won by DQ. Michaels kept his title and went straight back into his feud with Marty Janetty, which had been put on hold just for Wrestlemania. Why, I have no idea.<br /><br />Next up saw the Steiner Brothers (Scott and Rick) defeat the Headshrinkers (Samu and Fatu) with Scott scoring the pin after hitting Samu with the Frankensteiner. Good match.<br /><br />Doink the clown needed help from another clown to win his match against Crush. A second Doink distracting Crush when he was in complete control and allowing Doink to get the pin and the victory. Doink was an entertaining gimmick character, who got old rather quickly.<br /><br />Razor Ramon easily defeated the returning Bob Backlund in the next match.<br /><br />This brings us to the first in our double main event. As the Mega Maniacs Team of Hulk Hogan and Brutus Beefcake, with the newly turned good guy Jimmy Hart in their corner, took on Hart's former buddies Money Inc (Ted DiBiase and Irwin R Shyster). This was a fairly sketchy finish. Beefcake, as mentioned, had been in a paragliding accident requiring full facial surgery and had wrestled the match with a face mask on. Shyster ripped the mask off him and beat Beefcake to a pulp. The ref went down, Hogan grabbed the face mask and knocked out DiBIase and Shyster and then Hart, who was wearing a referee shirt, counted the three. Another ref came down and reversed the decision, declaring Money Inc winners by DQ.<br /><br />Next up Lex Luger or the Narcissist as he was also known at the time defeated Mr Perfect. This match came about because Luger was being managed by Perfect's old manager Bobby Heenan. Perfect had is feet on the ropes when he was pinned, but the ref missed it.<br /><br />The Undertaker picked up a lacklustre DQ victory in a pretty poor match against the Giant Gonzales. THe Undertaker had earned the ire of Gonzales' manager Harvey Wippleman in 1992 and Taker had defeated his big monster Kamala at Survivor Series. Wippleman vowed revenge and took it at the Royal Rumble as Gonzales attacked Taker, costing him the match. Gonzales dominated Undertaker in this match, but was DQ'd for choking Taker out with chloroform. Weird finish to a bad match.<br /><br />This bought us to our main event as WWE Champion Bret Hart, seriously challenged as champion for the first time, put his title on the line against Mr Fuji's unstoppable monster Yokozuna. Yokozuna controlled the early going, but Hart resisted and then took control. He had Yokozuna in the sharpshooter, surely he would give in and Hart would be established as an heroic hero after taking out the big monster. But Fuji had other ideas, throwing salt in Hart's face, rendering the Canadian helpless as Yokozuna got the pin.<br /><br />What a downer ending. But wait here comes Hulk Hogan. He's checking Hart to make sure he's OK. Suddenly Fuji challenges Hogan to a WWE Title right then and there. Hogan accepts. Fuji throws salt towards Hogan, but hits Yokozuna instead. Hogan hits the leg drop and wins the match and the title. What did I just watch? And so, what most fans thought was going to be the night we either saw Hart establish himself as a giant killer, or Yokozuna establish himself as an unstoppable monster, we instead saw Hulk Hogan pick up a meaningless title win. A title that he would not defend for three months. As a matter of fact this was the only match Hogan wrestled for the WWE before the King of the Ring PPV in June 1993.
UGH!...this is the worst Wrestlemania hands down....no good matches.....Hulk Hogan rears his over tanned bald head yet again in the main event, the spot light hoggin scum!....not one thing note worthy on this tape, oh..I take that back...this is Jim Ross's first WM...but other than that....it has nothing worth seein....a major bust...<br /><br />1 out of 10 stars WOOF!!!
The worst Wrestlemania ever.<br /><br />This had no must see bouts and many crap ones at that. This took place in Las Vegas and WWE made it's employees dress up like Egyptian gods! They even changed Howard Finkels name to Finkus Maximus, which probably doesn't mean anything. The sight of seeing Jim Ross in that terrible gown still gives me nightmares to this day and I'm 21 years old, so you could imagine it when I was 7 years old! Bobby Heenan was funny though.<br /><br />Matches included The Undertaker vs Giant Gonzales in a p*ss poor match, The Headshrinkers vs The Steiner Brothers in a useless match, Doink vs Crush in a comedy match and a boring match featuring Razor Ramon vs Bob Backlund. Hulk Hogan teamed up with Brutus Beefcake to battle Money Inc. You could clearly see Hogan had a black eye. In storyline purposes Ted DiBiase and IRS beat up Hogan while he was playing poker or something like that in the casinos, which is a poor storyline, but in reality, Macho Man Randy Savage hit Hogan because Savage thinks he's like The Hulk (no pun intended) no not the wrestler but the film character.<br /><br />The main event consisted of Bret 'Hitman' Hart facing off against Yokozuna in a very boring main event match. Mr Fuji threw salt in the face of Hart and Yoko won, but not until Hogan came down and squashed Yoko in 21 seconds.<br /><br />Overall Grade - E
These writers are trying to re-create the characters they have on "scrubs" in a different occupation however the characters they are stuck with have no charisma or acting ability not to mention the writing seems poor and effortless. These guys are trying to create something that would be good if the writing wasn't so disgusting which is leaving the shows only lifeline to be two attractive teachers that that are barely keeping it alive. The humor in this show seems like it is trying to target an audience with an I.Q. of 40 or below. Another reason why this show is becoming a failure could be that the writing on the show "scrubs" is excellent and this show has to follow it up leaving the viewer in an odd position not knowing whether to cry or to just lose hope in new sitcoms all together. This is just my opinion but i think these guys should stop now before they humiliate themselves anymore than they have already.
I love how everyone treats this show like it was the next great American sitcom. I watched five episodes of this abomination, and the only person that came close to an actual teacher was the old guy that sort of loved and hated his job. The rest of them were just pretty people trying to read the lines written by people who never actually went inside of a real classroom. I loved how every episode consisted of the two idiots (one who got laid and the other who didn't) getting into some form of zany trouble that indirectly involved their students. The British girl who thought she found an likable quality in the main idiot, but in the end was somehow shocked that he turned out to be a jackass. The hot chick that was there for the particular purpose of being hot, and the principal and her lackey that served to somehow move the almost non-existent plot forward. I loved how almost all the teachers on this show were very young, but I ask you to think back to your high school days and remember the teachers that you had . . . did they look like that? Or did you go to the high school that had middle-aged people teaching in it? That is the high school that everyone else went to. The show lacked any form of research into what goes on in schools. In public schools, principals do not have the power to higher and fire teachers, the school board does, but in every episode that I watched the principal made threats to fire her teachers. Think back to your history class . . . . . or think of any history class, did you ever see an incredibly hot British chick teach an American History class? No. Did you ever see a teacher's lounge that is so huge that you could actually play basketball in? No.<br /><br />Teachers could have been a great show had it actually of based itself in some form of reality. What makes teaching funny is the stories that you get from interaction with students, and the teachers find it funny because they deal with the students day in and day out. The overemphasis on their lives outside of teaching just made it another four camera sitcom that had unrealistic people in an unrealistic environment saying unrealistic lines, and I'm sorry, I just didn't buy it. The show could have modeled itself after other currently successful sitcoms and used a single-camera format, and it should have centered more around the teacher's relationships with their students and not with each other.<br /><br />It gets a star for trying and a star for the hot chick (she was really hot).<br /><br />In the end, it was a failed sitcom that will go down in history as a hacks attempt to understand a profession. I only hope that if they make another sitcom based on teaching that they learn from their mistakes so that a monstrosity such as this never touches the television screen.
I was watching TV one day with a friend and we caught the last twenty minutes of "Going Bananas." Believe me when I say it was enough to get a good judgment of the film. The first scene that I saw was the monkey, the kid, the fat guy, and the black guy who looked like Dave Chappelle, flying around in a crop duster thousands of feet in the air. While everyone else was solemn about the journey, the monkey seemed to be on some kind of drug binge where he kept shouting something that resembled the English word faster. They then landed on a twenty yard long dock in Africa. After a heart felt goodbye where the monkey cried (Hahahaha), the "villains" of the film appeared. They were tearing complete ass in their vintage Cadillac when the evil monkey took an Air Jordan leap form the dock onto the boat that was sailing away a clean 40 yards away and made them sink their beautiful car into the Pacific Ocean. After seeing this film, I have a new purpose in life; to find the midget who played the monkey and stab him in the eye with a fountain pen.
A good friend of mine one said: "A monkey is funny, anytime, anywhere." There is one exception to this: GOING BANANAS. It is quite simply the WORST MOVIE I have ever seen. It's worse than PLAN 9, worse than THE BEAST OF YUCCA FLATS. It is TERRIBLE. The talking monkey gag gets old after about three minutes, and believe me that's all there is. Make sure you have a bunch of people around to revive you after you go into TOXIC SHOCK from GOING BANANAS, the worst movie ever.
I somehow failed for a few years to see this film, although it has been quite successful and generated a lot of discussions in Israel. I am sorry that I did not postpone indefinitely seeing it.<br /><br />The theme of 'Kadosh' is a very real and painful one for those who know the Jewish religious world - the place of women in the orthodox family and society. The basic situation that sits at the premises of the film is possible, the problem is that the way it is brought to screen and the 'solution' that the conflicts described receives in the movie is wrong. Gitai does not seem to have too much sympathy for men in the religious world, but his approach of picking characters that are either fanatic, or unable to express their human feeling makes the whole story seem simplistic. Neither does he a much better service to his women characters, although here at least he shows more sympathy and he also enjoys the participation of two beautiful and gifted actresses in Yael Abecassis and Meital Barda. Overall Gitai's vision is too one-sided, his cinema means are too basic, he focuses on the technical details of the Jewish religious life, which may be interesting for people who do not know them but are really not relevant at all in the context of the whole story. Starting from interesting premises what we get here is a boring film which seems longer than it is, with a very static way of acting, obsessive use of music that plays in the same register not only from a musical but also from an emotional perspective and a very inconclusive if not even confusing ending. What difference between this film and 'Ha Ushpizin' inspired from and describing the very same social landscape and which succeeded to transmit human feelings on the screen. In 'Kadosh' there are both too little cinema and too little human emotions.
The one line summary is actually the punch line of a very old joke that begins "what is a Jewish porno film?"<br /><br />While this film had its interesting moments, it was far too slow moving and did not do enough to explain to those of us in the audience unfamiliar with orthodox Jewish custom, exactly what was going on and why? How many people who came across this film would know that the bathtub the female characters were washing in is in reality called a "Mikveh" which is a ritual bath used to cleanse spiritual uncleanliness? The same question might be asked of why the bride was walked around the groom a dizzying number of times while her face was covered just prior to the marriage vows being performed. These two examples are but two of a large number of such moments that remained completely unexplained to the uninitiated audience.<br /><br />This film does have its touching moments along with expressions of great love and emotions. The characters are presented very authentically right down to the number of garments an ultra orthodox Jewish male must wear as well as the religious rituals he must engage in upon awakening in the morning to begin his day. The attitudes orthodox Judaism has towards women in general and wives in particular is both intriguing and at times maddening. This is another reason why more explanation is needed if this story is to be understood in context.<br /><br />I recommend this film to people who are familiar with orthodox Jewish tradition and ritual as well as those who might be interested in getting a brief peek at what the lives of people who practice this way of life is like.<br /><br />The story itself about two sisters who in their own ways rebel against "the system" is of moderate interest at best.
Here is a film which clearly banks on being marketed as exotica to audiences unfamiliar with its subject matter.<br /><br />An attempted hybrid of fiction and document, "Kadosh" clumsily falls in between the chairs. As a documentary, on the one hand, it is neither accurate nor insightful. To realize its sloppy handling of detail, one needs to go no further than the opening scene where it is quite obvious that the ultra-orthodox protagonist does not know even so much as how to properly put on his t'filin. More generally, the tedious rote-style presentation of details (in this case of Jewish ultra-orthodox ritual) is the role of a manual, not of a good documentary; the latter should provide an organizing principle (a gestalt, if you will) for the viewer, so that she may emerge with a better understanding of the viewed. This clearly does not happen here, as ultra-orthodox ritual is being made even more enigmatic. The director seems to have done a decent job explaining it all verbally during the film's release campaign; cinematically, however, this is a severe case of stuttering. As a fiction-feature, on the other hand, it suffers from flatness of character, simplicity of plot and bluntness of message. At some points I felt I was watching a cartoon. (e.g. the wedding night consummation scene - without going in detail into angles, positions and dimensions ... well, technically this could not possibly be a realistic portrayal of human sex, savage as it may be.)<br /><br />There are no subtleties in this film. The clever manipulation of hints, stimulating the viewer's imagination and thought into taking an active part in the cinematic text, which I believe is a mark of a good feature, is completely absent. On the contrary: watching the movie I felt, at times, as being force-fed again and again with the same already chewed-up and way-too-obvious content. It is, indeed, as director Gitai himself put it in an interview, an architectural "shifting objects in space", and then coloring the scenes with the appropriate emotions when called for and advancing the plot on its appropriate and predictable track; but the spark, that creative, duende-like dark, inarticulable spark (let's not forget "Kadosh" is supposedly a tragedy), that which casts on a two-dimensional screen the spell which turns it into an extension of the viewers world, is missing without a trace. Perhaps a work of a visual-engineer, perhaps of an unsophisticated ideologue; definitely not of a true filmmaker. What I saw was a passion-play for animated issues rather than flesh-blood-and-complexities real people. The acting, by and large, failed to transcend this directorial flatness of an idea forced (at times even tortured) into film. One notable, though relatively minor, exception was that of the mikve-lady and the mother, both played by the excellent and seasoned Lea Koenig.<br /><br />It takes more than strict adherence to a winning formula (namely, a serving of exotica, plus heart wrenching yet simple melodrama, plus a popular agenda, preferably politically correct) to tantalize my interest buds. The bottom line here, all being said, is that for a considerable portion of the movie I was simply bored. In spite of the novel, perhaps even pioneering achievement of using an ultra-orthodox neighborhood as a movie set, for which Mr. Gitai and his crew deserve all praise, I found "Kadosh" way too Nadosh (Hebrew for "trite").
As a writer and a lapsed Orthodox Jewish woman, I was let down tremendously by this movie. The dialogue is hackneyed and wasteful, the characters, too engaged with lines ranging from the wrackingly prosaic to the stunningly melodramatic, aren't allowed to expand into genuinely textured individuals. The one-trick musical score tries to make up for the blandness, swooping portentously into the silence to jar the viewer and the script out of protracted catatonia.<br /><br />Like an adolescent revolutionary on a self-righteous tirade, this film is blown away by the wisdom of its revelation--patriarchy is wrong--and thoroughly squanders its energies, hammering on this point. The resultant artistic crime is a complete lack of imaginative development; the moral crime is the reduction of human beings to caricatures: martyrs and grotesques.
The film is a gross misrepresentation of Orthodox lifestyle and practice. NEVER will a Jewish court enforce a divorce between childless couples. Although the concept exists in Jewish law, the conditions are too numerous for it to actually ever take place. Childless couples do find it difficult to cope with their childlessness in a community where children are a very important part of life, but nowhere are they "rejected" by their community as depicted in the film. They are treated with extreme sensitivity. In fact, many great Rabbis have lived their entire lives without children and never considered divorce.<br /><br />The depiction of Yosef, a horrible human being, is meant to - perhaps subconsciously - show the behavior of a typical orthodox male. In reality, it is as typical as a violent drunkard rapist is typical of secular society. Both exist in their own worlds and both are despicable.<br /><br />It is surprising that so many people form their opinions about a society based on a MOVIE (by someone who is personally biased against a community). I have always thought that it is only the Orthodox, because of their narrow-mindedness and insular lifestyle, who judge all secular people based on the violence and immoral conduct they read about in newspapers or see in the movies.
My mother told me not to go to see "Kadosh" -- but who ever listens to one's mother? <br /><br />I was so turned off by it while I was watching I thought I must have lost my feminist credentials on the way into the theater, so I checked with card-carrying feminists the next day. No, they also thought it was much more an anti-Orthodox screed than a pro-feminist statement, painting the Orthodox as equal to the Taliban.<br /><br />While this Israeli movie is careful to show that the sect the story is about is the ultimate ultra-Orthodox Messianists, it is so nasty as to be unbelievable (plus that the non-fanatic Orthodox rock-'n'-roller(!) one of the sisters is in love with is incredibly sexy--even in Israel that must be fantasy).<br /><br />The theater was quite crowded, so there's a pent-up curiosity to see Israeli movies; too bad this vicious movie is the one getting wide distribution. This was almost enough to drive me back to insipid Hollywood romantic movies. <br /><br />(originally written 4/29/2000)
I don't know what Chasidik movement was this film about?I saw this film a year ago.I am an Orthodox woman, living in an Orthodox Chasidic? community And I can tell you I was offended by this movie!It's so far away from the reality, it's scary ! The director could at least hire a Chasidik Rabbi for a brief consultation, before making a "Realistic" movie about ultra -orthodoxs! For example Meir's Davening (Morning Prayers)! Or a Jewish wedding, or a Mikveh ( ritual bath ) customs.<br /><br />Movie is loaded with technical inaccuracies..but it's not them that bothered me. It's the spiritual side. Orthodoxs are portrayed next to Taliban. Woman are powerless, while men are the ultimate rulers ! Please!No one can force a Jewish girl to the Chuppa against her will ! We ,Orthodoxs,also, live by the law (Halacha ) which clearly states man's responsibilities towards his wife.No beating and no raping,also!And no man ( even Rabbi)is allowed to peak at the woman in the Mikveh.And Balanit is not to place a hand over woman's head,while she's taking a ritual bath, the idea is to immerse the whole body at one time! Director was clearly trying to bash Ultra Orthodoxs ! But could he do so at least in a nice and more educated manner?<br /><br />Love story? Cute ! But not credible.Dialogs are long and boring.The ending sucked totally.For all that drama I was at least hoping for a nice ending ,for all that sitting I felt I deserved it! Obviously someone was trying to make a nice consciousness soothing movie for less observant Jews, or for Non- Jews, perhaps..(look at those Fundamentalist, they are so evil and mean...)and they succeed! Long thing short: Was hoping for a nice Europien (Kane level ) movie, got instead a tradition bashing, unrealistic,mistakenly guiding junk. I mean , today,we live in a time of a free will as never before. Everyone has a right to choose. Malka chose a rock singer.Rivka made her choice.Meir made his. Many people from non observing backgrounds are choosing Orthodox Judaism these days.Because,in this mad world Religion might be a nice gateway !
The movie opens with a scene that simply could not be. A man wakes up and while his wife remains in bed, he begin his morning prayers in his bedroom while his wife sleeps peacefully. Morning blessings are recited, but only the ones Gitai finds controversial. the rest are conveniently omitted. then while in philactories and a tallis he kisses his wife good morning!! This is not an accurate depiction of jewish prayer in any home, let alone a chassidic home. Amos Gittai is not interested in accurately portraying chassidic life. He is interested in adding to his ever growing list of melodramatic and empty films. The mikka (ritual bath) scenes are far from accurate and his jewish wedding was laughable as it does not even approach the atmosphere of a chassidic wedding. I have many problems with the chassidic way of life, but i have no use for Amos Gittai's commentary on these issues. He would have you think that the chassidim are all dense comformists with severe bouts of depression. I may not agree with the chassidic lifestyle, but i acknowledge that chassidic life has many layers. Amos Gitai is blinded by his own secularist pseudo-intellectual stubborness and is therefore, incapable of portraying an accurate depiciton of chassidic life. Aside from his poor research and unbalanced portrayal of chassidic life, Gitai fails in other aspects as well. The plot is full of holes, the dialogue loaded with silence, the soundtrack is too repetitive and the acting while at times powerfull was too often loaded with melodrama. The movie drags on and on and the ending is not worth sticking around for. watch if you must, but be warned. If you want to learn about chassidic life go to the communities and talk to chassidim. Do not rely on Gittai's film!
<br /><br />This movie is best enjoyed amidst a large audience with the giggle-fits.<br /><br />Very frequently the characters in KADOSH are seen staring ahead intensely at nothing. Very intense unhappy faces, very pensive, very serious. During these moments there is very serious sounding music just to make doublely sure the viewer realizes that the scene being watched is not about fun and games.<br /><br />The more entertaining portions of this film come in between the many pensive stares. We learn that the women of the KADOSH community have two duties. One is to breed as many male babies as possible for their husbands. The second is to stay employed so to free their husbands from having to work. What do these men do with their ample free time? They pray. And we learn that at home they pray out loud, "I give you thanks for not creating me as a woman." And at their place of worship they pray to give thanks for possessing functioning male genitalia.<br /><br />Along with the praying there are many scenes of frenzied antics, screaming, and endless head bobbing and bodies rocking back and fourth, and mixed in with everything are many intricate and bizarre (or simple but just as odd) ritualistic activities.<br /><br />The cream of the unintentional comedy comes from the sex. The imagery of an hot and bothered man actively exchanging body fluids with his wife in bed while attempting to keep his beanie from falling off his scalp is unforgettable!<br /><br />Every sex scene is funny, but one that stands out is when a husband rubs his face against his beautiful wife's (Yaël Abecassis) feet. Oh yes, we are finally entering the land of sensuality... but NO! The feet rubbing stops before anything happens and the husband begins his autistic looking head bobbing and body rocking until the scene ends!<br /><br />There are three attractive females in near states of undress, however KADOSH contains absolutely no nudity. Technically, there is some interesting imagery and pleasing uses of light and colors by the director.<br /><br />For a more believable, educational and entertaining treatment of the plight of being an unclean female unworthy of holding a book in a world where respect is measured by the speed by which a man can cite a phrase from ancient writings, I suggest Barbra Streisand's YENTL.<br /><br />
It is apparent that director, writers and everyone else knows nothing about their own religion or the people who practice it. This movie is endlessly flawed and overall a complete crock.<br /><br />For instance, there is a scene where the rabbi enters the woman's ritual bath while a naked woman is bathing, puts his hand on the head of a woman there and blesses her. This is complete mockery of the laws, in this scene alone some of the laws broken include: Modesty, a rabbi would never enter a ritual bath house while there are woman in it.<br /><br />Improper contact, a rabbi would never put his hand on a woman's head, not to mention that it is not the way a blessing is given.<br /><br />The woman from the ritual bath is dunking a naked woman by pushing her head under the water, the laws regarding ritual bathing require the entire body to make direct contact with the bath water; this means nobody should be in contact with the person bathing, certainly not pushing them under!<br /><br />There was more just in that scene alone, like dunking 13 times (where does that concept even come from?) not to mention the rest of the movie was a total fallacy. It is scary what ignorance can concoct!
And again, Columbia Pictures decides to merely make "hash" using the original version with Curly and without any of the gags or jokes to boot! Toward the end of this pitiful flick when Joe gets stuck riding the bull, the studio didn't even make much of an effort to re-record the sound for if you listen carefully you can still here Curly going "Woo woo woo woo". Also, when Moe and Larry throw the darts in order to "slow the bull down so he can get off", that's lifted right from the original because you can actually see Moe and Larry "magically" appear 15 years younger. Why oh why did Moe allow all this to happen? It's a burning question that probably can never be answered because as far as I know, in real life he was quite sensitive to any type of criticism and had rather high standards for his work, as also did Larry, Curly and Shemp. Don't waste your time on this one.
This short subject is a remake of the Three Stooges' 1942 film "What's the Matador?", about the boys' trip to Mexico and their bullfighting adventures. Although the original short was made during the Stooges' peak period, it isn't that memorable and I believe it is one of the more mediocre films with Curly Howard.<br /><br />Having established that, I believe that "Sappy Bullfighters" is just pathetically awful, like all the other shorts with Joe Besser. Moe and Larry never should have hired Besser, because his whiny, almost feminine character was completely wrong for the violent comedy of the Stooges. His 16 films with Moe and Larry marked the nadir for the team, and those shorts are embarrassing to watch. This short was released in 1959 and was the team's swan song with Columbia. Maybe Besser was a nice guy, but he was all wrong as the third stooge.<br /><br />I won't review any more Besser shorts, because I would just be giving the same scathingly negative review over and over. Do yourself a big favor and don't watch this. Instead, try to catch "In the Sweet Pie and Pie" or "Hoi Polloi".
The Three Stooges are arguably the greatest comedy team in film history. For that reason alone, they deserved a much better ending at Columbia than they received with this short.<br /><br />"Sappy Bullfighters" is just not good. Granted, this is not all Joe Besser's fault. I personally feel that some of his shorts are fun enough, simply because of the departure from the Stooges usual fanfare that they contain, and for the fact that Larry is sometimes showcased more. However, this short just will not do. And the fact that one knows that it is their last short that was ever shown, well that just adds to the overall disgust.<br /><br />This film just epitomizes how short subjects were on their last dying breaths during this time and how little effort went into making them. This short is so sloppy. It is a simple re-make of a Curly short, "What's the Matador?", filmed years before. As if this fact wasn't bad enough, the studio actually threw in footage of Moe and Larry from the original (which was filmed nearly 20 years prior). Are these things not obvious? Laughable or sad? You be the judge.<br /><br />Another part of this short that makes it miserable is the fact that it is basically a Joe Besser showcase, with him showing that all he is (at least in this film) is a Curly-wanna-be-gone-completely-wrong! Moe and Larry have little to do in this short. As a Larry fan, I also must say that I feel it a bit disgraceful to have Besser get to use the joke that Larry originally popularized in the short "Ants In The Pantry". To see Besser say "I can't see, I can't see!" and have Larry say the simple "Why can't you see?", while Besser gets to quip "I got my eyes closed", is just wrong on all levels.<br /><br />The two brave soldiers who stuck it out for all those years, Howard and Fine, have so little to do in this short. There are hardly any funny bits with them. The only thing that qualifies is Larry hiding under the bed of a jealous husband, attempting to be "Pepe", his dog.<br /><br />One can't blame the dynamic duo. Larry and Moe give it their all. No matter how ridiculous things could get (and I'm sure they had their opinions by this point in their careers) Howard and Fine never gave anything less than their best. Their efforts do not pale from 1934-1959.<br /><br />I often enjoy many shorts that some will dismiss as horrible. I'm all for their more "experimental", unusual shorts. At least those contain new ideas. However, this short, I think everyone can agree, is just not good.<br /><br />Thank goodness TV later discovered the boys after the shorts department closed. Had they been forced to go out in THIS fashion, well that would have been a gross injustice to all the years they invested in making audiences laugh.
How pointless, hideous characters and boring film. Saved by brief sex scenes, mad witch, gorgeous desert island and Brooks body. The plot is tenuous, the characters are shallow and unlikeable. Having said that I did manage to watch it all, mainly because I was totally transfixed by the jiggling and kind of hoping that her character would come good in the end. The film was well shot, well directed but perhaps the casting let it down in some ways. Disappointing. Really summed the review up in the first line but this website dictates that you need to write 10 lines minimum. It would be better to spend the time watching another film.
A holiday on a boat, a married couple, an angry waiter and a shipwreck is the reason to this films beginning.<br /><br />I like boobs. No question about that. But when the main character allies with whoever happens to have the most fish at the moment, mostly by having sex with them and playing the role of the constant victim, my anger just rises to a whole new level. Take two guys (a husband and another man), put a pure bombshell woman in the middle of them, ad a deserted island, subtract all her moral issues, ad a whole bunch of moral issues to the men and mix it in a big bowl of arguments, fish and a zippo lighter and you will come up with a piece of junk movie like this. <br /><br />The acting is, I would say, good. There are some bloopers but not many as far as i could see. The main female character makes me sick. This is due to her lack of moral values. The man with the most fish get's her attention. Even though one of them is her husband, she sees no problem with being unfaithful with (Manuel) the other man because "I must do it to survive". How can you justify having sex with another man for fish when your husband is 30feet away? And he won't even benefit from it? The female character has absolutely no problems to justify anything that she does. If she doesen't get approval for her actions, she's a victim.<br /><br />I recommend everyone to see this movie. This is the kind of movie that will make just about everything else you see this year a pleasant movie experience.
I can only assume the previous posts came from execs at the production company...<br /><br />Attended the UK premiere last night. Zane and Brook attended (they probably knew I was gonna be there) and are undoubtedly stars, but what a turkey of a film. I felt sorry for them at times, when the audience erupted in laughter at what were serious 'thriller' scenes.<br /><br />But perhaps I was missing the point. Perhaps an element of tongue-in-cheek was intended. If so, pure genius. If not, career genocide.<br /><br />On the plus side, Zane always shines, and Brook can actually act a little. As the other half said (as we ran out the cinema, avec broken ribs), they can be forgiven for this film as they both seem like nice people! The scriptwriter, however, should be marooned.
Yes, bad acting isn't only one thing to mention. Bad script,not so bad music. Unfortunately.<br /><br />Nice girl and nice boy with perfect bodies and super teeth just isn't enough for me and for you too.<br /><br />First thing in the morning after crash they go to swim to the sea, to have some fun !!! Smiling ...<br /><br />They find everything in the sea. I mean things like fishing-net, knife, scuba dive things, ropes, bottles, husband ...<br /><br />Woodoo stuff , are you kidding. Stupid. They are so happy on the island, they are going to die, and they are happy. Love, peace. Love. Just stupid.<br /><br />Terrible, skip this one please.
did anyone notice?when miss brook went skinny dipping,she left the water wearing white bikini bottoms and yet had previously taken it all off to join cabin boy.this could have been a good film without miss brooks phony accent and a year on the island please.how come that Kelly looked always clean and ready for a FM photo shoot.what started out with premise turned in to soft porn.and billy Zane come on,you cant be that hard up for film offers.check out dead calm.also when the people took her away ,how come she scoffed her face and after all that time didn't feel like throwing up.i suggest billy find decent scripts,Kelly stick to photo shoots and cabin boy play the son of Zorro in a future sequel.
If you make a suspense movie it is kind of important that the "villain" not be more sympathetic than the "victim". And this fails miserably. It was so terrible and frustrating to watch that I was actually moved to register and comment. OK, so the husband is rich and cocky. There are worse vices, and the cabana boy and wife display plenty. The husband is a jerk because he - um, didn't approve of the cabana boy physically assaulting that woman - the witch one which had absolutely nothing to do with the plot BTW. The cabana boy threatens the husband and repeatedly attempts to seduce the wife. He then forces himself on her - which the woman finds so hot she stops thinking rape and starts thinking she wants him. Uh huh. The misogynistic, inferiority complex thoughts the director displays are just revolting. It is one thing when a fine film like American Psycho deliberately tries to get us to empathise with the villain but in Survival Island I felt like I was watching a movie about Ted Bundy but the director failed to make him unlikeable and instead made us hate his victims. What was he thinking???
It is playing on SHOWTIME right now but is going to be released as a movie called THREE or has been released for 2006. Mess ups include a supposed nude body comes out of the waves with her bottoms on. You can have fun finding the others. It was a decent stranded, hungry, cold, crazy person video but that is about it. And of course what would a movie be without sex. The lady has a nice body and the men are pretty, but the story is the same as Swept Away or A Savage is Loose type with some blood. Wonder if the movie studios know they made a big booboo and already released this show and now gonna release it as THREE. Billy Zane should have worn a top hair piece or shaved his head completely. Juan Di Pace is awesome and there is a couple good sex scenes. There is a voodoo woman that loves the character Di Pace plays and in real life her name is Di Pace too. Not aware of any connection but probably kin or married.
What the heck is this about? Kelly (jennifer) seems to drop all moral behavior as soon as she arrives to the island. She finds this Juan P (Manuel) existing and exotic, though she witnessed when he slapped his ex in the face, which he also justify later on in the movie, right or wrong? These two guys are the first to find each other on the island. Kelly are totally lost in every sense and the great Juan P can fish and built a somewhat house. Mr handyman. They seem to have a great time. Then Billy Zane (Jack, Kellys characters husband) shows up and of course, two days without knowing what his wife has been doing whit this gorgeous Juan P, he is a little bit jealous. Billy Z is the stereotype rich guy and maybe not the nicest man in the world. He dislikes Juan P (for hitting his girlfriend at the pier, who can blame him? Hes also is arrogant, but he paid loads of money to rent that boat and Juan P who is the waiter/everything cant even fetch him a beer whit in 20 min. Wouldn't you be upset? Yet Billy is probably the guy you want to punch in the face if you meet him. But at the same time, he is, not to be blamed for, suspicious about the scuba goggles Manuel has. Kelly and Billy just lost some dear friends! How convenient he just happens to have them, no matter what!). However, for some strange reason Kelly likes this girl hitting Manuel and starts to hate Billy for being jealous. OK, Billy is overreacting, thats for sure, but Kelly isn't doing much to convince him either. She spends more time with Juan P and even wants him to sleep with them since hes been so nice (and even though Manuel yelled at her and calling her things for asking him some intimate questions. But Kelly is SO forgiving...). Yeah right. And then she starts to have sex with this Juan P. It should be said that Kelly and Billy seems to have a working relationship before this island incident, at least, they have intimate sex on the boat and talks like people do when they like each other. Now, you can think that this scenario is possible. But for real, is it? Are you cheating your husband after two days on a coconut island just because hes jealous and acts like a drunk in the bar? (i wouldn't disagree if there relationship was really bad but the director doesn't give much hints if thats the case). For Christ sake, Juan P hasn't really shown himself being a good person. Catching some fish and built a wood house to get into someones panties, is that showing a good side? Not trying to befriend Kellys husband in anyway (which would be very simple by letting them be alone most of the island-time, simply be respect) He doesn't care about their relationship (and Kelly cant figure that one out), he just want to have sex with Kelly. Kellys character is just not trustworthy (if she was stranded with Billy and another attractive girl, wouldn't she be upset or what?!). Or maybe she is? Billy Zane plays a not very nice person, and Juan P isn't actually much better if you really think about it. And poor Kelly is so confused, and believes having sex with Juan P will solve everything because her husband is so strange and so aggressive towards poor Juan P? So... for all of you who reads this... What do you think about it? If you where the Kelly character, would you consider cheating on your husband, knowing one day you'll be back in real life, and all of a sudden Billys maybe not that horrible person after all. Hes just too jealous. And if you where Billys character, what do you say, is he totally wrong in his behavior? And Juan P character what do you guys really think of him. One thing is for sure. Manuels exist! Ps... The voodoo thing is so totally wrong here! What the heck was that about?! Seriously! Anyone tell me?
Thankfully I watched this film alone, enabling me to fast-forward through the worst scenes (aka most of the film, actually). OK, some of it is not all bad, with partially good photography (even some of the under water scenes) and at times not too bad directing. But it still doesn't save the incredibly poor script and way worse acting. Additionally, when I don't find the movies "hottie" to be all that, even the wannabe-sexy love making scenes get dull. Really dull! And for the drama: You know it's always a bad sign when you get to dislike all of the characters so much you really don't care who lives and who dies.<br /><br />If you still haven't gotten tired of the reality series Survivor, you may find something to your liking in this movie. If not, stay well clear!
"Three" is a seriously dumb shipwreck movie. Masquerading as a psychological thriller, it's closest relative is the monumentally superior "Dead Calm" (also featuring Billy Zane). "Dead Calm" provided well drawn characters to root for in the form of Sam Neil and Nicole Kidman's grieving parents attempting to re-define their relationship on an ocean cruise. They end up being terrorised by Zane's adrift psycho-killer. It provided sharp, increasingly ratcheted suspense, a scary feeling of claustrophobia in open seas as the cat and mouse game of life and death unfolded.<br /><br />"Three" suffers from poorly drawn characterisation (the audience doesn't care what happens to any of them), a stupid and unnecessary voodoo plot device, a total lack of suspense or excitement and some thudding, hammy performances from the principal players. Zane in particular goes way over the top in an irritatingly mannered fashion. In "Dead Calm" he was menacing, wired and seething with barely controlled sexual violence. Here he is bombastic, petulant slimy, and unravelled. And where does he get his seemingly inexhaustible supply of dry cigarettes and cigars? And how come his lighter stays full of juice for over a year? Ms Brook is very picturesque, stunningly pretty, but both her chest and rear appear to have been wildly over-inflated by some sort of life-raft pump. They do, however, succeed in acting with more skill and conviction than the rest of her. Dramatic actress, in the purest sense of the term, she is not. The guy playing the voodoo-hexed Manuel, the third component of this sorry triangle, could have been replaced by a lump of driftwood - no one would notice. In fact, judging by his complete lack of ability to deliver dialogue in any meaningful or dynamic way, driftwood represents a potential improvement in the casting stakes (excuse pun).<br /><br />Plus sides: the scenery is nice and the cinematography (above and below the water) is credible.<br /><br />I'm guessing this had a very limited (if any) theatrical release or went straight to rental and retail DVD. The reason for this is it's not very good. If you want something decent along these lines, get "Dead Calm." It was made by people who knew a bit about cinema.
First off, I just watched a movie on SHOWTIME called Survival Island. It says it was a 2006 movie with Billy Zane and since I like him and couldn't sleep I thought I would check it out. Looked interesting. Watched it, and decided to look up on the IMDb who was this new face Juan Pablo Di Pace and OMG I could not believe it, this movie has been renamed THREE and will be a new movie?? It is playing again in 1 hr and 30 mins on Showtime Channel again and this date is May 28 and EDT or Florida time. You can check your showtime listings by title and see it. I wont get into details so you can see the movie but at one point there is a lady in a white bikini that goes into the water taking it all off, you see her naked body.... when she runs back out of the water you see her bottoms on. Funny, there are a lot of other mess ups too. I can't believe by coincidence I decided to look up this movie... Go figure! Wonder if the people renaming it sold it to some movie studio to put out but it is already playing on Showtime, ha ha. Good laugh. I give it 1-1/2 stars. C-, D+ movie.
How much do I love this film?! Now I'm not a fan of bad films, but I do love a film that is so bad it's good. This is one of those. Juan Pablo Di Pace has a great butt, looks fab on screen, and definitely doesn't make a bad turn at his acting debut (I believe). Billy Zane is suitably mean and moody, though I still constantly feel that there is something more in him. I felt it in Titanic, the look on his face when La Winslet spat on him for example, totally broken, shocked, and put-down ... fierce! Kelly Brook is a pretty face ... no seriously, I think that's it! It's worth catching this to see one really hot guy, some big bra fillers from Brook, nasty growling from Billy, laugh at the dialogue, revel in the scenery and madness of the whole affair ... I'm gona go watch it again now - yes, I bought it!!!
By far this has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. I watch practically every movie that is on at night (either showtime, hbo, cinemax, etc). "Three" AKA "Survivor Island" keeps you in as much suspense as watching paint dry only to let you down even more miserably. If you want to feel like you just wasted what seems like an eternity on the worst film ever created then by all means watch this movie. I must have screamed at a minimum 900 times from the idiotic twists. If I had 4 hands I'd give this movie 4 thumbs DOWN.<br /><br />In my personal opinion, I believe the only people who would like this movie are those with terrible morals.
this is the worst film I've seen in a long long time, never mind the fact that so many useful things keep appearing on this island "how convenient!!!!", the acting is beyond poor from the outset, its like one of those really badly scripted soft porn films on channel 5, a complete waste of time, and i cant remember the lead actors name but i cant believe he still gets work!!! I've never seen him act "I've seen him in lots of films... But I've never seen him act. here are a few of the blaringly obvious errors, apparently petrol lighters still work even when they've been soaked in sea water!!! also according to this film you can walk into the sea naked but come out wearing bikini bottoms (I'm guessing the camera man and editor were students)there are plenty more errors but I'm ranting now, besides its no so much the errors as the cast the script and the whole film avoid at all costs
It's a shame that quality actors like Baldwin and Booth have to succumb to lousy stories and scripts just for the money. But, hey, it's a cruel world...<br /><br />This is just another one of a long line of assassin thrillers that use all the usual narrative twists to try to make it appear more appealing than it is. Sure, it has some nice locations, it's a slick production, there is some good camera work and editing, and it's fairly well paced, overall.<br /><br />So, what's the real problem? Quite simply, the whole premise is just totally unbelievable. However, instead of spoiling a rotten story for you, I'll let you find out what it's all about, that is, if you can get through it. I managed, but only because I like Baldwin and I kept hoping that it would get better.<br /><br />It didn't. And, it had one of the most anti-climactic endings that I've seen for a long time. In fact, maybe never...<br /><br />But, it's harmless fun, I guess, if you've got nothing better to do.
Second Nature will not go down as one of the worst tv movies of 2003, but perhaps the worst of All Time. Formulaic, derivative, and every performance phoned in, from far, far away. Everyone associated with this project should have a hard time looking in the mirror.
The movie was awful. The production company should be required to pay a fine for wasting electricity transmitting this nonsense.<br /><br />There were too many holes in the plot. Why would the DOJ send a killer out to assassinate a world leader? If they weren't the DOJ, why would they send someone they thought would not do the job? To quote Butch Cassidy, "Who are those guys?" Apparently, the director does not know either because he never told us.<br /><br />The characters were unbelievable. They did not behave in any way that seemed to fit who they allegedly were. With the exception of the doctor, none of the characters were particularly compelling or likeable.<br /><br />If you want to waste money on the electricity required to watch this movie, feel free. Otherwise, run the opposite direction.
As usual, leader Leo Gorcey (as Slip Mahoney) and "The Bowery Boys" are hard-pressed for cash. After unsuccessfully trying to sell their old jalopy, the lads look for help at the local bank. There, hapless Huntz Hall (as Sach) has his picture taken by pretty photographer Teala Loring (as Cathy Smith). But, since the shot was snapped during a robbery, it makes Mr. Hall look like the prime suspect. With pals Bobby Jordan (as Bobby), William "Billy" Benedict (as Whitey), and David Gorcey (as Chuck); Mr. Gorcey wants to clear Hall, and collect the $1,000 reward money. "Bowery Bombshell" goes through the motions, with Ms. Loring a main strength.<br /><br />**** Bowery Bombshell (7/20/46) Phil Karlson ~ Leo Gorcey, Huntz Hall, Teala Loring, Bobby Jordan
I'm always interested to see neglected movies that appear to have good credentials, but in this case the film's neglect appears justified. Evidently based on some actual incidents during WWII, the film just doesn't connect with the viewer for some reason that it is not quite clear to me. One very likely reason is that - in the print I saw on TCM, anyway - none of the scenes where the Germans talked among themselves were given titles. This interesting directorial concept - to let the non-German speaking viewer just guess from "context" what the Germans are saying to each other - is, in my book, an utter flop and helps to lock the viewer out. Also, the way the movie begins - just dropping us into a very confused situation without much setup - is disorienting. Brian Keith is pretty good here, but the reputations of "The Great Escape" and "Stalag 17" will not be challenged by this flick.
Great piece of fiction played as if factual. Tonight I was looking at the Birdman of Alcatraz. Robert Stoud was not a model meek prisoner and he was in jail because he was pimping and a customer did not pay up. Once he got into jail he was so uncontrollable he spent most of his time in solitary confinement or in the prison hospital. Killed a few people in prison too. This movie reminds me of the Birdman of Alcatraz but even worse. Robert Stroud did write books and he did contribute to society in someway. And the BOA had some hints of Strouds lunacy. BUT this guy Henry Young who Murder in the First is suppose to be about was a a known bank robber who took hostages and beat them up in more then one robbery. He wasn't some poor guy who stumbled into a grocery store which just happened to be a post office and took some money. This man was a hard core criminal. He also killed a person 3 years before he went to Alcatraz. He killed another person in jail not because of the solitary confinement which ended over a year before the murder. The real story of his life would of been more interesting. They did not even get the warden thing right. You can't be a warden in 3 different prisons at the same time. And by all accounts the warden in the movie was a pretty stand up guy as wardens go. Plus if my math is right the Warden played by Karl Malden in the BOA is suppose to be the same warden in this movie. Oh Boy. Not only that, in this movie we are to think poor Henry committed suicide. And he wrote the word Victory. Not true..he might be alive right now. He was sent to Springfield where Robert Stroud was also a medical center prison then Walla Walla for another murder he committed and then was released and jumped parole in 1972, never to be found. Maybe he is hanging out with that CB Cooper guy who jumped out that airplane in Washington state after committing a bank robbery lol. Now the acting was very good. Kevin Bacon is in that class of actors which include Jeff Bridges and Dennis Quaid, the vastly underrated actors club. Gary oldman well they just might of made-up the warden part so he could play it because he was great. Christian Slater still somehow sounds like Jack Nicholson, I am not sure if that is a good thing or not. Bacons wife Kyra Sedgwick was in the movie I think just because she is his wife. I like her though but not in this flick. For some reason I felt this movie when it first came out was suppose to be a special project for Kevin Bacon. I feel he could of taken a person who is truly a victim of the penal system, there sure is enough of them and spread some light on their plight. Other then picking a psychopath to show as a victim.
Let me begin with a personal note as a film and television buff, more on the enjoyment side of life: I love what James Woods can do and has done, and I always love Melanie Griffith, and Natasha Wagner was very good in this awful, miserable, stinking "true crime" essay.<br /><br />Whoever really wrote this film apparently never spent any time talking to real criminals with real criminal talents: yes, some thieves are junkies but they have very short careers as thieves. Truly successful thieves are seldom caught because they don't do "junk" or any drugs before going on a score ( job ).<br /><br />The James Woods character was true to this paradigm in the beginning of this film, and then the script fell apart completely. He turns into a raging, alcoholic lunatic .... nice work for a high-strung guy like Woods, maybe, but not in the least bit believable.<br /><br />Most criminals are lazy. If they wanted to work they would work.<br /><br />These people in this film are beautiful, self-indulgent, drug-addled narcissistic losers. They couldn't pull off a real score in the real world, the real world where a big and beefy security guard who beats the living hell out of a skinny kid ( as happens in the early scenes of this "DOG" ), keeps him beat down and doesn't let him up. Ever.<br /><br />How many ways did I find to hate this film ? Many. Even totally vulgar people -- like most sneak thieves and junkies -- have a larger vocabulary than these cretins. And the 'rip-off' scenes with the neo-Nazi bikers ? Puhlease. All rednecks ain't neo-Nazis and those who are neo-Nazi speed dealers just ain't that dumb !!<br /><br />This film earned a two because Natasha Wagner was extremely good in her role as Rose and because Melanie Griffith still has 'that something special,' or at least she had it for this brutal and offensively stupid film. I'm not one to sing praises of real criminals for any reason, but the reality of these criminal types in this horrible film is that they'd all be dead or in jail by Act 2, Scene 1. Watching a lousy Zombie movie would be time better spent than this .... thing ... and I hate zombies.
I find myself alarmed that people are not so critical of a work that deserves criticism. The many similarities, both structurally and literally, with 'Amadeus' aside the 'Copying Beethoven' deliberately chooses the easy path by putting audience before art. And therefore denying the world a discerning, intelligent and creative work.<br /><br />Now consider the following: Is it not possible that the real story of the creation of the ninth symphony may actually be an engaging and powerful story itself and equally so in a dramatic telling? Beethoven was completely deaf by the writing of the symphony – isn't that more interesting? How WAS the symphony conducted? Wouldn't it be great to know? So ask yourself, what possible motivation could a filmmaker have for introducing a woman as the copyist? If there was a copyist, he would certainly be a man. What was his story? (please try to be a little critical here even if you like the invention of a woman composer). <br /><br />Fantasy should be much MORE than a distortion of reality to serve a writers purpose. For those who find themselves comparing and justifying the invention of Anna Holtz with the invention of Salieri's claim to have murdered Mozart in 'Amadeus', consider that he confessing to a priest in a lunatic asylum (Schaffer uses this device to great affect in the film). 'Copying Beethoven' may have worked if Anna was a figment of Ludwig's fevered imagination. But we are meant to believe she is 'possible'... Yes and that Strauss was assisted by aliens.<br /><br />Most of the positive reviews I've read here so far are often expressions of a DESIRE for the film to be good; almost a deliberate amnesia. Remembering the film for what you wish it to be rather than what it is.<br /><br />For those who believe that fantasy justifies the means then consider you are not only accepting an inferior interpretation of real events but also sacrificing the truth for the sake of a triviality.<br /><br />Finally, a short note on the acting here that may surprise some of you. Ed Harris is NOT good as Ludwig Van Beethoven. Does that shock you? He looks awkward throughout the film, much like an actor dressed up, but off set and standing at the catering table. Most of his lines are said as cues rather than replies to Anna Holtz's lines (i.e. he is not listening to the actor). He is quite clearly an actor masquerading as the character rather than BEING the character.<br /><br />Really, how many times does Beethoven have to roll in his grave before we get it right? Just ask yourself, would Ludwig approve?
I made a big mistake going to see this film. That's the lottery of going to see films I guess. After five minutes you just knew it was going to be a clunker, and I fought quite hard to stay in my seat - the old "lose two hours of your life" kind of feeling.<br /><br />The fundamental problem is that, without even mentioning the whole "historical accuracy" thread of reviews, the script is achingly, painful, bad.<br /><br />The first thirty minutes could have been spread out to an hour to give a plausible, real, plot development. Instead, it lurched from from one undramatic "dramatic" event to the next. Having the girl cry at the start of the film makes no sense because the audience has no emotional attachment to anything at this point. And that whole walking off into the sunset through the long-grass field at the end, what the hell was that about? <br /><br />Not even the excellent Ed Harris could save this one. You could almost feel his pain at some of the lines he had to utter. The most fabulously awful one was, for no apparent reason, he stares at the girl as she copies his work in his apartment, she looks up, it all goes a bit fuzzy romantic kind-a lighting (or am I dreaming), and he says, with authority in his voice, <br /><br />"WASH ME." <br /><br />And she gets up and washes him, with a sponge. "Wash me" WTF? That's hilarious.<br /><br />And then there was the music. The long extended session when it was just Beethoven conducting and the 9th Symphony pouring out of the surround sound in the cinema and the choir waiting, waiting, standing there silently for what seems like forever. And then, finally, launching into enormous sound. It was spine-chillingly wonderful and dare I say it, it brought tears to my eyes.<br /><br />So that is where the film picked up two stars. The only part of the film where Beethoven got to say exactly what he wanted to say.<br /><br />And I believed him.
About your terrible movie copying Beethoven. As a professional musician it's my duty to watch every movie made about any composer and Beethoven is one of my favorites. When Hungarians and Americans meet, it's a terrible combination of empty over the top emotions combined with the worst taste possible. You proved it in your terrible b-movie. The only thing that carries the movie is the music. Of course you didn't bother to look further than the good but in my taste contrived performances of the Tackacs quartet, but OK I have to admit that the performances at least have quality as contrast to the movie you've made. It starts of with the dying DEAF Beethoven who perfectly understands Anna who is merely whispering. Beethoven's hearing during the movie get's better by the minute, but that must be because of some vague divine thing. Then there is the quite impossible semi-pornographic "eyes wide shut" double-conducting scene which is totally over the top with the luscious Anna and the crying nephew in the end (who also cries in the deleted scenes with constant red eyes, my GOD what a performance). And as culmination the rip-off from Amadeus, with Beethoven dictating music to Anna not in notes but in total nonsense, which she understands perfectly but no-one else in your audience even trained professional musicians will understand. Of course your reaction will be that negative response is a response at least, but I can assure you that Beethoven himself is turning in his grave because of your worthless creation and with reason. This so called homage is blasphemy and I am so sorry to have rented one of the worst movies ever made even though it's about my favorite subject. Ed Harris and others, you cannot comprehend the greatness of Beethoven in your wildest dreams and certainly not after a couple of lessons in conducting and violin playing. That's the trouble with you Americans: you think you can grasp everything even when it takes a lifetime of hard work. Yeah we can do it anyway! Remember that a good product comes with hard labor, talent, devotion and professionalism. All these you creators of Copying Beethoven lack. See you in kindergarten.
This film is the proof that a good actor is nothing without a good direction. Ed Harris is awful. How could you cast an actor built like Rambo to play the "Maestro"? He shows no credibility at all and overplays Beethoven. Most of all, long hairs doesn't look good at all on his head. The main actress is missing all the subtleties needed for its character. The camera shots are cheesy and too conventional. The lights are to close of the characters feelings. Bad casting and cheap direction. Too bad! The only scene that worth the movie is when Beeth (I hope you don't care that I call him trough his nickname?) is turning the girl's song to a joke. Any way, I hope that Harris could find his way back to true movie where he can really shows his hairless talent.
Yes, I realize that half a dozen other reviewers have called this movie "Copying Amadeus", but it cannot be said enough. Scenes seemed to have been lifted directly from Milos Forman's script with only superficial changes. You can expect to see:<br /><br />-The maestro's arrogant scene ("I am the voice of god. Everything else is meaningless!")<br /><br />-The maestro making fun of the mediocre composer's work (complete with raspberries & simulated flatulence, just like in Amadeus)<br /><br />-The mediocre composer's dialogue with god ("Why do you instill me with music but deny me the ability to compose?")<br /><br />-The musical dictation from the deathbed scene ("Common time. Begin with the violins... cough cough")<br /><br />-and the list goes on...<br /><br />The problem is even worse. Not only were these scenes shamelessly copied, they weren't even done very well. Jeepers, if you're going to rip off an original, at least you should try to improve upon it in your own creative way.<br /><br />No wait, there's something even worse than that. It's the fact that the director tried to beat the story of Mozart into the story of Beethoven. Folks, Beethoven was not a crass, vulgar slob the way this movie portrays him. Furthermore, Beethoven was not a babbling idiot who takes pointers from his copyist, a 23 year old music student. Unfortunately, films like this are responsible for butchering history.<br /><br />And another thing, Beethoven (in real life) never called it the "Moonlight Sonata" the way he does in the movie. That name was given by a confused critic some years AFTER BEETHOVEN DIED, and unfortunately it stuck. But Beethoven's original title was "Quasi una Fantasia".<br /><br />AND ANOTHER THING, when Beethoven (in the movie) yells "B-flat! B-flat! B-flat!" and hits the note on the piano, he's hitting a white key!<br /><br />AND ANOTHER THINGGG!!! Beethoven (in real life) was completely deaf for several years before the composition of his 9th Symphony. This movie shows him as having barely a minor disability (saying "what?" every other line, just enough to be annoying).<br /><br />AAAND!! ANNNOTHER!!! THINGGGG...!! The American accents...! Oh never mind. Just... never mind. I've wasted enough time on this already. Go see "Amadeus" again. Then, if you want to see an interesting biopic on the life of Beethoven see "Immortal Beloved" which takes poetic liberties, but at least they're interesting ideas. Lastly, if you want to see something on the lighter side, check out "Impromptu", a film about Chopin. But aside from those three, I've never seen a good homage to a classical composer.
I expected so much more than what I received from watching this movie. It is not that I object to literary license, (if that is what it should be called) especially when there is no overt attempt to say "based on a true story." But this movie is about Beethoven -- a real historical person who is so widely known and so deeply embedded into our musical experiences and I expected the movie to be true to history at least in the primary elements. This movie took such great exception from the historic record it could only disappoint.<br /><br />My assumption (because I had not researched the movie at all) was that it was true. Half way through, I stopped the movie to look it up on IMDb. The rest of the movie was a remarkably different experience. I was relieved that this was not accurate with history because it was so hard to believe a major portion of the story. To enjoy this movie, I was required to recognize it as a fantasy, a "what if it was like this" story. The movie lacked this honest disclaimer.<br /><br />What disappointed me most was the fictionalized conducting of the 9th symphony. The very concept portrayed in the film stretched my imagination to the point of incredulity. I ended up doubting anything was true to history other than Ludwig van Beethoven and his relationship with Karl van Beethoven.<br /><br />I really enjoyed the performance of Ed Harris - an exceptional actor who knows how to play a role and keep himself out of it and that was about it and for that I give it a 3/10.<br /><br />Those who portend that this movie is as good as or better than Amadeus have not a clue about either either composers life and are looking only for what this movie really is, for in the end it was a cheap novel of a story - pulp fiction.
Awful!<br /><br />Despite the good performance of Ed Harris, Diane Kruger, and the strong budget (the reason for the 3 stars), the movie is by far the worst I saw about a composer, and the worst edition of a masterpiece of music. I agree with some fictional stuff to upgrade a biography, that otherwise couldn't be so "charming". This was done in AMADEUS with best results, but this B copy here is a flaw. Beethoven had a strong personality, but was a sensible artist. Here in this movie however, he looks much more as Mike Tyson! I wonder also, whether despite his deafness, he heard all the whisperings in the last scenes (may be a cochlear implant?). I prefer to listen to the ninth on a CD with some nice maestro. Today most of them conduct modern Wagnerian orchestras. By the way: I gave Amadeus 10/10!
Trite and unoriginal. It's like someone watched Immortal Beloved and Amadeus and decided to mix them together and, in the process, steal other formulaic plot parts from other movies to make another one. As with most historical movies nowadays, there are some inaccuracies as history is manipulated to better suit the story, which is understandable for the most part. For example, during the remaining days of Beethoven's life, it was necessary for other people to write down what they needed to say in order for him to understand them. That, of course, would have been a nuisance to have to show on screen. The script, although filled with some quotable lines, doesn't quite capture the feel of that time period and, coupled with some bad acting, seems rather contemporary. Diane Kruger is nice enough to look at but she still has lots to improve on her craft. Ed Harris doesn't work for me as Beethoven and I mostly blame Gary Oldman for that. Overall, not a very good interpretation of the musical maestro's life. Better just find yourself a copy of Immortal Beloved.<br /><br />http://iwascalledclementine.multiply.com/reviews
I am a music lover and was excited to see this movie. Unfortunately, I was disappointed. I was ready to walk out half way through the movie. I didn't identify with any of the characters, which meant that I didn't care what happened to them and lost interest in the story completely. On the good side, Ed Harris looked exactly like Beethoven, and the 9th Symphony is always a pleasure to hear, so that made part of the film bearable. Also the parts where they talk about the bridge almost redeemed the entire movie, but it couldn't sustain me through to the end. The actors did what they could with what they had to work with, but the screenplay just wasn't adequate to make it even remotely interesting. The bit about "wash me" was utter rubbish. I wonder how many takes the actors had to do on that one (I wouldn't be able to say those lines without bursting into laughter.) Anyway, such a shame, it could have been so much better.
For a movie I was really looking forward to, I was very disappointed. I had no expectations of this being another Amadeus, but did expect a more significant portrayal of Beethovens last years.<br /><br />The performance by Ed Harris was superb, but the story line was so weak that the film simply moved from one dreary scene to the next with no continuity.<br /><br />The only enjoyable part of the film for me was the performance of the 9th, and from that point on I could quite happily have walked out without finishing.<br /><br />I left feeling very dissatisfied and still have the feeling that something important was missed.
From Kreestos: <br /><br />The dialog is terrible, awful, drivel. Acting poor. Many plot flaws. I don't recommend this at all.<br /><br />From Wikipedia:<br /><br />Artistic licenses The working manuscript of the score is attributed to two copyists [1], both of whom were male, not female as depicted in the film.<br /><br />The copyists neither contributed to nor altered the score. In fact, they were berated by Beethoven for any deviation that occurred from the original score.<br /><br />The movie is set in 1824 during the composition of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. Throughout the movie Beethoven is shown to be hard of hearing but quite capable of understanding people who speak loudly. In reality, Beethoven had lost much of his hearing seven years earlier (1817). Beethoven never experienced permanent deafness; his condition fluctuated between total silence and terrible tinnitus. The Ninth Symphony was composed at a time when Beethoven's hearing had deteriorated severely. At this point in his life, most of Beethoven's conversations were facilitated by the use of notebooks. It can be argued, however, that he was also able to read people's lips, evidenced by his insistence that people face him when they spoke to him.<br /><br />In the film, Beethoven makes an allusion to the Moonlight Sonata. This is an anachronism as the Sonata No. 14 "quasi una fantasia" was not named "Moonlight" until several years after his death.
Am I the only person who saw and remembers Amadeus. Every scene in "Copying" has its counterpart in the Milos Forman, Amadeus - from the galloping carriages accompanied by frenzied strings, to the entrance of Anna through the dark hallway preceded by the man with the key, to the very dialog of the conclusion with Anna at Beethoven's feet a la Salieri before the dying Mozart. Does no one else recall the dialog in that script: <br /><br />Salieri "Time?" , Mozart "Common time". ....."We begin with the strings..." and so it "copies".<br /><br />Remember Cynthia Nixon leaning against a door jamb, tears falling down her freckled face - same scene, just replace her with Beethoven's nephew. Even the scatological humor (fart jokes) are the same. We even have a cardinal followed around by a plate of sweet cookies which recalls Salieri in the banquet hall. Does no one else remember? !!!!<br /><br />And the scene where Anna cries to God "Why did you give me this gift?"... Salieri said the same thing!<br /><br />And beyond all that we have a juvenile script with an opening exposition that reads like the character identifications you'd find in a children's story. "I am Mr. Beethoven. I am the composer...."<br /><br />And what, after all, is the purpose of the bridge builder? Other than to juxtapose the technical against the artistic... a comparison that is not at all developed - probably because it has no meaning, especially when it comes to Beethove who was a master of the technical.<br /><br />There's only one great scene - the playing of the ninth. First, the music, which of itself takes you to tears. But then, there is the highly erotic interaction of Anna the copyist keeping time and Beethoven conducting which surpasses the most explicit sexual intimacy. So intense, it's almost embarrassing.<br /><br />But, please - the rest of the film - Where is the world's collective memory? You have seen this all before .... and better!
According to "Lucien Rebatet" in his "Histoire de la Musique" (Robert Lafont, BOUQUINS 1973 page 338) Beethoven's character was not very compatible with women. He had quite a number of "Platonic Passions" with female members of the "Vienese Aristocracy" to whom he dedicated some "sonatas". But Musicians , even composers did not qualify for Husbands of "Fine Ladies". Haydn was a "servant" of Prinz Von Esterhazy, Mozart died from drink or Poison and Bethoven was according to Rebatet a frequent customer of "street prostitutes" in Vienna. A British biographer, Newman says that Beethoven contracted syphilis, before he was 40. That he became deaf because of that, is possible, but not certain.<br /><br />The Ninth Symphony was premiered on May 7, 1824 in the Kärntnertortheater in Vienna, along with the Consecration of the House Overture and the first three parts of the Missa Solemnis. This was the composer's first on-stage appearance in twelve years; the hall was packed. Although the performance was directed by Michael Umlauf the theater's Kapellmeister, Beethoven shared the stage with him quiet.<br /><br />So what remains of this "Female Fantasy". Ed Harris interpretation and characterization are quite good, but too linear, based on the Painting by Ferninand Waldmüller date 1823. I have it in front of me. It shows a man that despises (perhaps hates) the World. With good reason.
The original Body and Soul (1947) is a masterpiece. John Garfield, Ann revere, Lilli Plmer, William Conrad, Canada Lee...and filmed by one of the greatest cinematographers to ever grace the screen..James Wong Howe. This remake is abominable. In spite of the presence of Rod Steiger, Joe Mantegna and Jennifer Beals there is nothing of value here and it is a shame this product bears the same title as the brilliant original. Only the main character's name, Charlie Davis, is the same in both films. I don't think there are any redeeming qualities in this remake. I am amazed that Rod Steiger participated. This may be the only bad film he ever made. Maybe he needed the paycheck.
After the suicide of his father, Charlie 'Kid' Davis (Ray `Boom Boom' Mancini) accepts the invitation and advice of his friend Tiny (Michael Chiklis) and travels to Las Vegas with him trying to become a boxer. On the road, they meet Gina (Jennifer Beals) hitchhiking, they give a lift to her and she becomes Charlie's girlfriend. Johnny Ticotin (Rod Steiger) is convinced by Tiny to be Charlie's couch, and the powerful agent Alex Dumas (Joe Mantegna), after watching him fighting, becomes his manager, promoting Charlie's career. This movie is so boring that it indeed does not deserve to spend much time writing about it. I do not like boxing, but sometimes I watch some worthwhile movie about this theme. But this one is horrible! Predictable, full of clichés, having an awful lead actor, a pure waste of time. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): `Corpo e Alma' (`Body and Soul')
My only question is: Why did they make this movie? Did they have a script or did they make it up as they went along? Boom Boom doesn't look like a Charley Davis. John Garfield probably turned over in his grave if he saw this.
My guess would be this was originally going to be at least two parts, and thus at least a quarter longer, because otherwise how can one explain its confused, abbreviated storyline. I was never completely lost, but I was often partially lost and usually unclear on character motivation. The movie feels as though joining plot points were dropped to squeeze it into its time slot.<br /><br />If it were longer, it might make more sense, but it still wouldn't be much good. The movie's most interesting idea is of the war between Zeus and Hera as being a war between the male and female, but the movie drops the ball on this, making Hera's followers fairly horrible while not being clear on what Zeus' followers do or believe. The movie is also interesting because you don't see the gods and there's no real certainty that they exist. So it's got a couple of intriguing ideas, but it doesn't do anything useful with them.<br /><br />Bad dialog, cardboard characters, and one interesting scene involving Hercules and his three antagonistic sons. Not unwatchable but also not worth watching.
I thought there might be some level of worth to this movie, and sat through the whole thing. I can summarize by saying it left a bad taste in my mouth.<br /><br />The movie started out OK, I think the initial characterization of Herc was true to the myths. Both as a child and a young adult he started out pretty strong but not the brightest bulb. But later on he somehow transforms into a charismatic speaker beloved by all. Huh? <br /><br />Other problem: terrible CGI. The satyr looked OK, but the rest of the critters just looked terrible, especially the hart, the phoniest looking beast in the movie. And how come Leelee Sobieski's skin was sometimes golden, sometimes normal? The worst part for me--and everyone should cringe at this--was the twelve labors of Hercules. Because the producers obviously didn't want to cover all of them; maybe they thought us primitive screw-heads watching this garbage couldn't count that high. Instead of the TWELVE labors of Hercules, we got the FIVE labors of Hercules. Yes, the five labors! WTF?!? He did't even finish the last one, so it was really the 4 1/2 labors! Just terrible. I'll take Hercules: The Legendary Journeys over this piece of crap any day of the week.
Eh. I watch this movie in class because someone taped it and brought it in. I was expecting some half hearted attempt to portray the Herakles myths, and because the commercials for it looked serious, I was expecting something that was halfway decent.<br /><br />Ten minutes into the film, I realized that it was utter CRAP. The only things in the film that are halfway true to the myth are the bare(and I mean bare) minimum. Parents, half brother, and labors seemed to be named correctly. Other than that, the rest of the film seemed to be one giant inaccuracy. <br /><br />I would say that this was not much better than the Disney version of the film. The Disney version was made for little kids, therefore wasn't too serious. This movie, with all the sex, violence, and nudity, was clearly intended for an older audience, yet the story presented in this was nearly inaccurate as the Disney film.
I don't know how expensive was the creation of this movie but the effects were awful. Half of the movie was filmed on stage in front of a movie canvas (that's sure that blue box wouldn't look so artificial). When they traveled on a boat, the background canvas was moved imitating the movement of waves but the characters weren't moving. The CGI effects: terrible (I am not sure but I guess the effect were created with Paint and made a GIF sequence of them - next time the creators should hire a professional CGI maker team). It looks like the CGI creator would have drawn on the picture strip with shaky hands. Awful, that's sure. When I first saw the trailer, I thought it was created in 1983. One of my friend told me the correct date: 2005. My jaw dropped, I was so shocked, I thought he was kidding. People, I recommend you to skip this movie, the story is also twisted, you won't enjoy it.
This is easily the worst adaptation of Greek mythology I've ever seen. It utterly fails as an adaptation of the original myth, inventing silly plot twists and reducing the 12 labours to... 3 or 4, I think. It makes up utterly needless things to try to integrate other myths in clumsy ways which bring into question the writers' having ever read the myths, like changing birds to harpies, lions to sphinxes, the Oracle of Delphi to Tiresias, and bulls to a pedantic version of Proteus, even integrating aspects, never seen outside of Sam Raimi's entertaining series, concerning his first marriage, to a woman with the co-opted name of one of the Furies so it sounds appropriate to the period.<br /><br />I could accept much of that, but it also fails completely in pure film standards; most painful is the dialogue, leaden, portentous pseudo-Shakespearean tripe. It is a poor re-interpretation of the myths, making a sad attempt at the kind of post-modern revisionism that Crichton's "The 13th Warrior" attempted in regards to the Beowulf legend, while still including the strictly mythological elements such as clear interference from the gods and magical super-strength. A sad, sad failure of an entertainment experience, who I'm sure many of the quality actors involved regret deeply.
I survived the first hour of this and came back for the last ten minutes, just to say I saw the end. If you want *real* mythology, flawlessly executed, look for Armand Assante's "The Odyssey." Great storytelling doesn't need to be tweaked - the stories are fantastic on their own. I only hope Sean Astin needed the money. And Sophocles and Ovid must be whirling in their graves - wherever those may be.<br /><br />At least with Sorbo's version, the tongue was poked relentlessly in cheek - we knew it was mostly balderdash, but perhaps enough interest was generated in the backstory to send someone to the library.I'm surprised Halmi could turn out something so amusing (the TV series), and follow it with something so devoid of quality.
Paul Telfer, who plays Hercules in this TV film, has to be the hottest thing on two legs EVER. Wow.<br /><br />But this film is a 100% distortion of the Hercules story. Just like "Troy," this film has nothing to do with the original story. Zero. What makes it especially insulting is that they actually contrived a gay character just so people could hate him, making him as dastardly and evil as any character in the history of TV or cinema. This is triply insulting since Hercules may have had a wife, since that was the expectation of those olden days, but he also had at least a dozen male lovers. So it is ironic that they should create a gay royal adversary character for this film. No, not ironic. Evil. The creators of this travesty should hang their heads in shame.
"Embarassing" is the only word to describe this laughingly awful production. From the blatant disregard of the source material (sure to infuriate anyone remotely familiar with mythology) to the predictably insufficient production value, this entire mini-series is a train wreck.<br /><br />The cast (which includes some good actors, whom I pity) delivers the illogical dialogue in the same generic "European" accent so common to bad epics. Worse is the lack of originality in almost all other aspects, from costume and set design (blurring together styles from across time and space) to the score (which seems to poorly mimic many recognizable classical tunes as well as "Lord of the Rings"). Most offensive of all are the visual effects, which single- handedly prove that if you can't afford to do them well, WRITE THEM OUT.<br /><br />It pained me to see yet another legendary tale bastardized by a cheap "adaptation." Maybe one day, someone will do it right.
I hadn't heard anything about this project until I saw that it was going to be on, so I watched it with a completely open mind. And, gee, the cast is full of strong players.<br /><br />Unfortunately . . . it's awful. I don't mean it isn't good; I mean it's extraordinarily bad -- sometimes laughably so, but mostly it's just boring. Its strongest appeal comes from having attractive people as naked as US network TV will allow, but it's all tease and no substance, and having nymphs as backup characters can't justify several hours of bad TV.<br /><br />There are two basic problems that the cast can't overcome. First, the script is *awful*. Yes, making changes to the Hercules myth (which is certainly not a single monolithic story in the first place) is traditional, but this version is relentlessly dull and much too frequently dumb (and sometimes downright head-shakingly peculiar), with terrible pacing, bits borrowed from here and there (and several parts seemingly belonging in different films), and truly awful dialogue. The dialogue is frequently unbearably bad, in fact, to the point where you feel embarrassed for the actors. Sean Astin, apparently now typecast as second-banana, seems especially burdened by one awful line after another. There's no consistency of tone or atmosphere and little cohesion to the plot.<br /><br />Second, most of the special effects are really bad. REALLY bad. There's occasionally a decent bit of CGI, but mostly, again, you feel really embarrassed on behalf of the cast. I have no idea what the budget for this project was, but it sure looks like crap compared to "Clash of the Titans" or even "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys" and doesn't even compare very favorably with the old Lou Ferrigno and Italian 'spaghetti' Hercules movies. Just painfully miserable.<br /><br />There are plenty of other problems -- the story is needlessly complex and can't keep up with itself, and Hercules himself isn't presented as a very interesting character. Almost everyone who doesn't have a European accent tries to fake one of some kind, which is not merely amateurish and dated but never really made sense in the first place: drama doesn't become better just because the actors use British accents, after all. But the terrible script and equally terrible effects sink the whole thing right off the bat.<br /><br />In fairness, "Hercules" was apparently intended as a four-hour miniseries but truncated (for this airing, anyway) to a three-hour TV movie. I don't know what they cut, but it's possible the edits made things worse. I don't think you could make "Hercules" good by adding to it, but that doesn't mean that the continuity, say, hasn't suffered from the network edits. There's no way I'll watch the USA version to see, though.
The problem with this movie is that it is trying to compile a 6+ hours movie into 2 hours. The result is clear. It seems too forced, unclear and too simple minded.<br /><br />The only plus side is the beginning. It explains well why and how Hercules was born. The rest of the movie was...just mumbo jumbo that is put together. It has a potential to be a great movie like LOTR if only it is not forced into 2 hours.<br /><br />The acting is not very convincing either. OK not all is bad. But most of them are. Special effects are stupid and look like it is made ten years earlier (although the 1st monster is pretty good) Overall, I give it 4 out of ten for the reasons I described above.
I really thought this would be a good movie, boy...was I mistaken! For a quick summery: B grade acting C grade special effects D grade for the overall movie. Don't get me wrong, the story was pretty good and not kiddish so an adult too ride along with it, the "hero" is good looking so most women will like it :-), not a total chick flick as it contains some fight scenes and some blood<br /><br />but the way it is shot... horrible <br /><br />the special effects->would be better suited for TV->on a kids show <br /><br />and lastly...send some of the actors back to acting school if they ever attended a class there.<br /><br />Trust me there are much better ways to waste 2 hours.<br /><br />You have been warned.
OK, so Herc is a hunk... but the rest of the 3 hours were wasted, wasted... oh the humanity!<br /><br />Poor Sean Astin had to follow his master up the very same hills of New Zealand that ... wait! Couldd it be? Someone in the production crew of Lord of the Rings was making home movies in his spare time! Yes that's it!<br /><br />I wish I could at least say he was promising.<br /><br />The Special effects were often laughable.<br /><br />But, Herc was a hunk.<br /><br />NH
Hercules: The TV- Movie Hercules - A very twisted and molted version of the story about the Greek superhero. Paul Telfer makes a good attempt to play this hero. Sean Astin rehashes his Sam Gamgee image by playing Lupin, a thrown in character to make the whole thing a buddy-movie picture. I almost expected his to say at one point "We're in a bad situation Mr. Frodo, uh I mean Hercules. An unexpected good performance comes from Timothy Dalton (one of the lesser James Bonds) as Hercules's father. Herucles's love interest looks like Paris Hilton, something which just turned me off right away. Unfourtunetly someone has twisted and molted the original story into somewhat of a murky and sometimes incomprehensible story. The special effects don't help either. While the Hydra scene does the original story justice, the Nemean Lion and Harpies are just....well lame. I believe the creatures and effects from Power Rangers flashed across my mind at least twice. And the Golden Hind felt rushed and very computer generated. And they took out Cerberus! One of my favorite parts of what was originally a very cool story. The movie can't decide whether it's Greek, Roman, or American. And it almost ruined the original story; a classic epic. Don't bother looking for this one on the direct to DVD. - C
Just saw it....the story, the plot, the script makes absolute no sense!! Its Samvise the brave part 2(without the RING), its characters showing up out of the blue(for no reason),its Hercules hated by everyone(no one knows why), its Leelee Sobiesky showing her true talents(two of them), its crappy special effects, its a few good actors wasting their talents(did I mention Leelee's two talents??)... do I have to say more??? ITS JUST AWFUL, even for NBC-TV standards!!! Its just the lowest....what a waste! by the way: how can you people give this mini-series so many stars????? Its beyond me!.... Shame on you! Have to make 10 lines, so this is my final word: AVOID, AVOID, if u are considering buying it!
In Chicago, four electricians leaded by Dean (Richard Grieco) come to an old building to disconnect power. They accidentally activate a portal and arrive in another dimension, where Chicago was destroyed by a Spider Queen and inhabited by mutants. The group meets survivors leaded by Crane (David Nerman) and Elena (Kate Greenhouse), and finds the inventor of the portal, Dr. Richard Morelli (Colin Fox), who has been living in this dimension for thirty years. They join forces, trying to rebuilt a portal to bring them back home. "Webs" is a watchable plagiarizing of "Sliders", only worse. Most of the dialogs seem to be written by a person who has not concluded the elementary school, so imbecile they are. Further, the story is illogical, and seems that Chicago is the only city in the world. The scientist trying to start his sophisticated machine with broken wires as if he were stealing a car is very funny. The face of Richard Grieco looks like a white version of Michael Jackson and is horrible. If the viewer shuts-down his or her brain, he or she may like this forgettable TV movie. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Na Teia do Terror" ("In the Web of Horror")
A Sci-Fi Network original. Not the best. Not far from being the worst. An electrician(Richard Grieco) stumbles onto a "key" that can open a gateway to a parallel Earth that has been taken over by mutant spiders. The mutations have been controlled by a super-sized alien Queen for the past thirty years. She has already eaten up the population of this parallel world that resembles Chicago minus inhabitants. Guess what? Now she must find another world to feed on. The electrician leads a four man team that reluctantly finds themselves with the task of saving the world. The finale confrontation is probably the best part of the whole movie. The cast also features: Richard Yearwood, Colin Fox, Kate Greenhouse, Jason Jones and David Newman. One would have thought that the Sci-Fi Network could have spent more money on special effects.
I had seen this movie just days before Halloween 2004. I noticed it around lunch-time and it was an interesting description in my menu box so I decided to watch it. Seriously only a movie only suitable for late night TV...you know, after Conan but before the infomercials sorta deal.<br /><br />Although this movie has very little to do with webs, it does have a lot to do with spiders, refer to my heading if you need a refresher.<br /><br />I found the idea behind the story absolutely fascinating. A hidden nuclear generator, a scientist and a believable portal...Would have been a good start to a cool fantasy but then it goes downhill after 15-20 minutes.<br /><br />The cast is poor with no memorable performances, poor quality queen who has had her breasts amplified...considering spiders don't carry breasts. As well as poor sound effects. An obvious low budget movie though the cast has tried.<br /><br />SPOILER:<br /><br />4 electricians stumble upon a hidden nuclear generator while on a job. They fiddle with the buttons and open a portal. 2 workers fall into the portal and it closes...scrambling to figure out what is going on, the party still in our world seeks help while the other party observers their surroundings.<br /><br />Help does not arrive so they open the portal and follow through meeting up in a parallel dimension. They encounter a race of human spiders dubbed soldiers. After a death and chase they are saved by survivors.<br /><br />Now it gets boring...they hide, talk a bit, try to build another portal then attack the hive. After losing 2 more electricians they open the portal and escape returning to our world...some 200 million years ago.<br /><br />Sounds interesting huh?
There is so much wrong with this movie. Greico with a girls wig, old man scientist time machine fixer, tough guy Jones who stays behind with a shotgun that has three rounds, Spider people with tentacle hands and bad teeth, etc. The make up was so bad and they only had a few visible spider people on screen at one time (Aliens Cameron technique could have been used) instead they chose to dress every spider person the same way...badly. The nice thing about Greico's acting is that he bobs his had at every syllable as if he is counting how many words he gets to speak in the script. It amazes me that with all of the information out there on DVD commentaries, people like this still exist who make movies. This movie could have been worse, how I don't know. Oh and one last thing. I am going on a SCI-FI movie hunt down. The people running that channel should not be allowed to procreate to further continue the nepotism that exist in Film and Television.
OK we have 4 city electricians who find a mini nuke reactor, turn it in and fall into a parallel universe inhabited by a Giant spider queen also from a parallel universe, who managed to slip through with a few of her kin to take over the earth, but alas she is the only one left? If so why did not the rest of humanity join up and hunt her down. Also what happened to the military, no way a few billion plus round of ammo could have been used up and why hide out in a basement when a lot more defensible places had to available. Also not a dig on city workers, but how is it they knew what a mini nuke reactor looked like and how if they did not have one in the parallel universe, could they reopen the rift? Sorry but there was nothing likable about the movie
Someone said that WEBS is a lot like an episode of SLIDERS, and I have to agree. Spoilers: I never liked the actors on Sliders, and rarely have seen it except when nothing better was on. WEBS is the kind of movie to see if you have no other choices. Read a book. WEBS has those kind of TV has-been actors that look like they are there as part of their PROBATION or Work Release Program. Some low budget TV movies have actors that at least look enthusiastic. The actors in WEBS look like they were getting paid minimum wage and were working on a Time-Clock. They have that desperate, "The-Paycheck-Better-Not-Bounce" look. The Queen Spider looks great, except it is rarely seen, and there are no other spiders (and no webs). The Queen Spider bites people, and they become Spider Zombies, which means that they try to keep their eyes WIDE OPEN when they are attacking the humans. The humans are all fighting among themselves over a number of different reasons, and they are not sympathetic. After meeting all the "humans" I would have recommended charm school for the characters. All that WEBS made me feel was APATHY. I was numb to the characters, and hoped for some interesting gore and special effects. The gore was minimal, and the special effects were reserved for the ugly spider queen, who looked good. If WEBS had a bunch of Spider Creatures eating humans, it would have been more entertaining. Apparently they could only budget "spider-zombies." WEBS is a sad entry into the field of SPIDER oriented movies. It may qualify as the worst Spider movie ever, because Eight-Legged Freaks had great special effects.
Webs starts in 'Chicago: Present Day' as four electricians, Dean (Richard Grieco), Ray (Richard Yearwood), Sheldon (Jeffrey Douglas) & Junior (Jason Jones) are about to disconnect the electric to an unused building scheduled for demolition. As they search for the relevant cables & stuff they come across a set of doors that according to the buildings blue-prints shouldn't be there, being nosey & all that they force the doors open to have a look & find a room full of computers & scientific machinery. As they mess around with some buttons a portal to a parallel universe opens, Dean & Junior accidentally 'fall' in with Ray & Sheldon following soon after in search of their friends. Unfortunately they've all ended up in an exact parallel Earth that has been taken over by a mutant spider thing that either eats people or turns them into mutant soldiers with which she uses to protect herself & do whatever she wants them to really. In a desperate bid for survival they team up with a few of the last remaining humans including the original inventor of the portal Dr. Richard Morelli (Colin Fox) who says that with the help of our electrician boys he might (yeah might) be able to build another portal to take them back home...<br /><br />Edited & directed by David Wu I thought Webs was pretty crap, it's as simple & straight forward as that really. The script by Grenville Case & Robinson Young is preposterous to say the least & has plot holes in it you could drive a tank through, for instance is this film really trying to suggest that a few mutant spider things no bigger than a couple of people in size took over an entire world? How did they do this? If this parallel Earth was the same as ours where the hell was the army? The police? All of our weapons? A few fragile looking spider things against literally billions of humans?! The whole flawed, stupid & downright naff concept constantly bugged me throughout the entire film. Lets not forget that there is a inter-dimensional portal to a parallel Earth in the basement of most buildings that have sat there undisturbed for decades & remain in perfect working order, right? Then there's the nuclear reactor the size of a briefcase, the fact one electrician can make it work perfectly purely by accident as he randomly presses a few buttons in a room that probably had 100's spread over dozens of pieces of equipment & what about the wonderfully thoughtful guy who sets an explosive bobby trap in his base without telling anyone, what if one of his mates had set it off & found themselves blown to pieces by their mates homemade bomb? You wouldn't be best pleased would you? What about food? Do they grow their own in little vegetable patches? I could go on & on all day long about how flawed, ill conceived & poorly written Webs is but I can't be bothered. The character's are clichéd & annoying as is the film as a whole which obviously doesn't help. The only half decent thing I can say about Webs is that it's short & it moves along at a fair pace but when all said & done it's still crap.<br /><br />Director Wu has to take a large chunck of the blame here, for a start the film looks cheap & the editing that he is credited with is terrible. There's lots of annoying inappropriate slow motion shots that come from nowhere, the action scenes are almost identical & become incredibly boring very quickly. He uses that highly annoying quick cut technique along with a bit of the old jerky camera movement, now I don't know about anyone else but I hate this editing style as it just looks a complete incoherent mess. In fact I don't know a single person who does like this sort of thing & I'm puzzled as to why filmmakers think people do. Forget about any gore, just a few shotgun wounds to the spider zombie soldier guys & they don't have red blood anyway so it doesn't relate to reality in my mind.<br /><br />Webs was made-for-TV, the American Sci-Fi Channel I think & it looks every bit as cheap, low budget & rushed as you would expect. It's all so bland, forgettable, flat & dull. The special effects are far from special & the spider thing lacks imagination when finally revealed. The acting was OK considering everything else was so poor & I still can't believe the sweater Grieco was wearing in this.<br /><br />Webs is crap, I can't really say anything good about it other than I've sat through worse films & that's the sole reason I'm not giving it 1 star & a quick glance at the IMDb user ratings for Webs confirms what I already knew in that it has more '1' votes than any other & there is very good reason why...
WEBS is a pretty odd movie, albeit slightly watchable. Richard Grieco plays an electrician who gets suck into a parallel Earth overrun by mutant spiders, or something like that. The film itself was made with a modest budget, which explains the limited locales, and the somewhat tedious screenplay that manages to do very little with quite an interesting premise. Basically a 90 minute episode of the TV show "Sliders", and nothing more.<br /><br />4 out of 10<br /><br />(go to www.nixflix.com for a more detailed review and reviews of other films in the genre)
There can be no worse criticism for a movie than the word BORING.<br /><br />Some "bad" movies are lots of fun, some "fun" movies are really bad, but to be BORING means no-one will ever buy the DVD to watch it over and over again.<br /><br />It appeared to be a movie that employed the drama class from the Antartic, they were all too busy running around to stay warm instead of acting. The lead actor, spoke is a near whisper, husky style voice, damn, it seemed that he was gonna seduce someone, and he didn't care who.<br /><br />The movie can't make money if it's boring, I hope this one dies a swift, never to be seen again, death.
Friz Freleng's 'Snafuperman' is one of the lesser Private Snafu shorts. A warning of the importance of studying your field manual, 'Snafuperman' makes it point rather clumsily. The story, in which Technical Fairy, First Class makes Snafu into a superhuman in order to help him see the error of his ways, is predictable and unfunny. Freleng's earlier Snafu short 'Rumours' had been bursting with ideas and laughs but here the director is lumbered with a rather boring topic and he struggles to make an entertaining short from it. Even at around three minutes long, 'Snafuperman' seems to drag and, unlike the best cartoons in the series, it feels like an instructional film first and entertainment second. Though they were knocked out more quickly than the usual Warner cartoons, the Snafu shorts largely maintained a surprisingly high standard. 'Snafuperman' is a reflection of the sort of quality you'd more reasonably expect from a less talent bunch of creative minds.
This good-guy-vs-the-evil-tyrant story, set in 19th century Russia, may have been an attempt to extend Steve Reeves' career beyond those "Hercules" movies. However, despite the different costumes, it's still a "Hercules" movie with the usual stilted dialog, haphazard dubbing, and cardboard characters. On the other hand, there's lots of action, the pace rarely flags, and Reeves gets to do yet another one of those scenes where he's stripped to the waist, bound with ropes, and given a vigorous whipping which, needless to say, has little effect on his defiant character.
The White Warrior is definitely one of,if not Steve Reeves weakest films. Set in 18th or 19th century Russia (??) Steve plays a cossack warrior who tries to over run a mad man Russian czar by running up a mountain side with his rebel band in a goofy looking Russian white tunic..... For the most part the great Reeves physique is hidden in a goofy, knee length tunic, with an even more sillier looking russian hat.<br /><br />The action is rather minimal, with only a good wrestling scene from the mid waist up that shows off the great Reeves physique. This is an apparent attempt by the producers to move Reeves out of the sword and sandal genre into another historic era, with poor results. The dialogue from the script is hard to understand at various points, and only commentary from the narrator allows the viewer to understand what is really happening from scene to scene. I would image Reeves regretted making this film, but in an attempt to try and get out of his toga and sandals and tribune armor it helped launch him to other historic characters such as Morgan the Pirate and the Thief of Baghdad.
Reeves plays Haji Murad, a hero in 1850's Russia.<br /><br />This is a badly dubbed movie, with June Foray doing some of the voices. Unfortunately who ever was suppose to sync the voices to the lips was blind since the words never match the lip flaps. Anyone who says that Japanese films are bad have never watched this film.<br /><br />The film's plot is instantly forgettable and so I've forgotten it in the time its taken the movie to end and for me to sit and write this down. Perhaps it has more to do with the fact that the film is one of the many that Reeves made in hopes of moving away from action to more plot driven sort of films. It may have been a good thing for Reeves, but its deadly for the audience who have to slug through nooze fests such as this, where its all court intrigue with very little action.<br /><br />In Reeves defense, he was a good actor, he just had no real luck in picking films that were any good. They all looked great, but very few of them didn't put the those watching them into a coma for the film's running time.<br /><br />This film will put you in a coma. Watch it only if you have the need for sleep and all other gentler means have failed.
this movie is quite bad, aggressive, not played well, not directed well, seems low budget, low quality,emotionaly weak and disconnected. after watching earlier comments, went to see it, but if u try to compare it with apocalypse now, PLATOON, or any others, u'r really off the tracks. this movie looks like a 60's old and purely made film with cast of grown neanderthals, not to mention (or actually do), not paying attention to details like changing rounds, low budget fireworks and all sorts of poorly filmed characteristic. is watchable though, if u'd like to see it as an early development of the movies document.. not to go back!!<br /><br />p.s - afterall, the guys are quite alright.
This has some of the stupidest fight scenes of all time. If I was a veteran of any war I would cry when I see this movie, not because I would remember being in Vietnam, but because it is a poor representation of any veteran of that war. Even though the troops are carrying M16s, that movie resembles nothing like Vietnam. The Viet Cong even uniforms look like old leftover Japanese uniforms from a WWII movie. The setting is obviously some crappy Hollywood back lot. The worst scene contains a US soldier fighting "hand to hand" like in a bad martial arts movie. After he dispatches several enemy troops he says, "hey come down here and lets kick some butt!" to a helicopter in the air. He then is shot. This movie is trash.
Very Cliched. Quite corny. Acting gets worse as the show goes on. Don't believe anything that folks say about the "realism" that this movie is supposed to portray. It's just a shoot'em up. Interesting twist in that the VC sieging the base were given a human face and weren't portrayed as evil incarnate.
This movie is not realistic at all, more of a comedy than a serious war film. Very old-fashioned too. Maybe I was just expecting it to be on a same level with "Platoon". I wonder, why 50% of the voters gave it 10? Something must be wrong.
I don't think this movie had the effect on me that was intended: seeing American soldiers shooting wounded soldiers from the other side, and punching wounded prisoners in their wounds to torture them into making them talk made me root for the other side. It certainly made the US forces look anything like "the good guys". Was this supposed to be acceptable?
This is the worst war movie I have ever seen, possibly the worst ever made. I find it incredible that some people have actually rated it as a 10. It has a stunning lack of even rudimentary traces of realism. Almost every war movie cliche appears in this film and is done badly. On the other hand, I wouldn't have watched it to the end if it hadn't been so remarkably bad that it amused me.
I also have been a wife of an abusive husband, even if in my situation the attacks were psychological, not physical. He presented a very respectable, responsible and generous personality to anyone who saw us together, which, in contrast to myself, resulted in having others treat me as dull and unstable. Initially, I was so incredibly flattered that anybody like Gus (who worked in a bank and was handsomely confident) would even give me the time of day, and I fell completely head-over-heels for the IDEA of him, rather than the person he was. If I'd had my head on straight, and gotten to know him much better first, there's no way I'd have married him. However, that's my mistake. It wasn't my mistake to be abused. I didn't deserve that, nor did I see it coming until I was embroiled in the mind games, criticism and isolation. He acted like I had no business holding an opinion that differed from his own - actually he went further. If I didn't agree, he assumed I misunderstood, and increasingly simplified his wording ... by the time I finally lost my self-respect, I was incapable of recognizing the predicament I was in, and I had to be jolted to reality by outside influence. My dad said Gus called me a bitch. Well ... it was still a half-year before the rage that began at that moment finally exploded and I packed some stuff while he was at work, and I left. .. and it was still another several months before I could grasp the fact that I had been abused, and that it wasn't my fault he was doing the things he did. ..... so please, anyone who assumes it's the fault of the victim, THINK!!! If a puppy is kicked by a cruel owner when, in an anxious situation it has an accident on the rug, do you blame the puppy? by the time the abuse in a relationship reaches an obvious violent level, the target of abuse has been so wounded and depersonalized (much like in Nazi concentration camps) that it's nearly impossible to judge the circumstance accurately, because by then, the victim believes all the horrible things spewed by the abuser. Have a heart, people. Labelling abuse victims as stupid morons is like kicking someone who's already terribly beaten. -------> and this helps how???
In fact, parts of it I liked a lot. It had some interesting twists. But it just left me with a been there, seen that feeling after all of the SAW movies. Granted the ending was different from a typical Saw, but let's face it...a group of guys, unknown to each other (or so they believe) tossed together in an abandoned chemical factory....<br /><br />But then it loses something. There's no intensity, there's poor group dynamic, there's no sense of urgency.<br /><br />Some nice twists at the end, and definitely worth a watch if there's nothing else on your plate, but it just left me empty...it passed the time, but it didn't satisfy.
I seemed to find the trailers better than the movie. They did their job and made me interested in watching UNKNOWN. The interest waned early. A simple premise laking in scenery. Five men wake up in a chemical warehouse not knowing why they are there; let alone know how in the hell they got there. Confusion and paranoia brings with it fear and distrust. The men learn that a kidnapper is on his way with plans to kill his hostages. Now the men size each other up trying to distinguish if all are victims and who may actually be one of the kidnappers. The cast includes: Jim Caviezel, Greg Kinnear, Joe Pantoliano, Bridget Moynahan, Barry Peppper, David Selby and Adam Rodriguez.
Since the characters begin with "Unknown" identities, they not identified by name, so you start with handsome James Caviezel waking up in a warehouse. He finds out the place is locked up tight. Don't ask - the windows are made with security glass, and it's impossible to get out. Four other awakening men make it a quintet - Mr. Caviezel in his "Jean Jacket", Barry Pepper in a "Ranger Shirt", Greg Kinnear with a "Broken Nose", Joe Pantoliano as a chair "Bound Man", and Jeremy Sisto shot and "Handcuffed Man". Oh, Man… <br /><br />These five men have collective amnesia. They think that three of them are kidnappers, and two are victims - but, they don't know who is which or which is who. The forgetfulness is due to a pipe leak. Don't ask - it happens. Meanwhile, on the outside, lead lawman David Selby (as Parker) sends his cops to solve the kidnapping while one of the men's wives, Bridget Moynahan (as Eliza Coles), frantically waits. But, criminal element's gang leader, Peter Stormare in "Snakeskin Boots", is also on his way to the scene.<br /><br />Like the DVD synopsis says, "As secrets are revealed and clues unraveled, (the five men) must race against time to figure out who is good and who is evil in order to stay alive." This story reads a lot better than it looks on film, unfortunately. When the secrets are finally revealed, and memories become clear, there is no longer much interest in what has happened. Simply, director Simon Brand has a great premise with Matthew Waynee's idea, but they encumber light investment in the characters holding the short end of the stick.<br /><br />**** Unknown (11/1/06) Simon Brand ~ James Caviezel, Barry Pepper, Greg Kinnear, David Selby
I Remember That Hey Hey Fuss & I Saw The Jackson Jive, It Was A Pretty Straight Forward Comedy Skit But I Saw This & It Is Free & Is Out In The Clear? Have I Missed Something? If The Black Community Should Be Complaining About Any Racist Comments In A TV Show It Should Be This & If You've Read My Earlier Comments I Am Not The Easy-To-Offend Guy. The Basic Plot Is That An African/American Moves In Next To This White Guy & They Make These Racist Comments Like The Value Of A House Will Drop Just Because Of Black Neighbours & The White Guy Makes References Like (If Your Easily Offended By Racial Slurs Do Not Read On) Nig-Nog Jungle Boy Sambo. (I Apologise But That Really Happens In This Show I Really Am A Guy Who Is Fine With The Black Community) People Might Say Hey Lighten Up But Even When You Take The Racial Slurrs Away It Is Un-Funny No New Jokes Badly Acted & I Can Swear In One Episode I Saw Someone's Eyes Focus On Something Unconnected With The Situation. All In All Horrible Comedy.
The promotions for "Clubbed" project a slick looking film based around the clubbing scene of the 1980's. What we end up with is a film with identity issues. The sub-plots end up taking over from what viewers would assume to be the main plot, so the focus on this film being mainly about "clubbing" ends up being left in the gutter.<br /><br />Boxing, depression, self-loathing, gangsters, bouncers and drug-deals, are all hastily crammed into 90 odd minutes. On no less than 4 occasions I had to check the run-time of the film, as the worry grew that this film was bound to disappoint.<br /><br />What club scenes we do see are bland and repetitive, featuring approximately 3 extras dancing in what is barely recognisable as a "club", hardly capturing the vibe of the day.<br /><br />If you're looking for a film about the 80's club scene, something along the lines of what "Human Traffic" did for the late 90's, forget "Clubbed".
This movie was an absolute waste of time. It's nothing but a wanna-be gangster movie. It contains a very predictable plot. My feelings are unsympathetic to the characters, and the dialogue is mediocre at best. Half the time you are looking for something else to do, because the movie is that boring, since you already know what's going to happen. The other half of the time you're desperately hoping the protagonist grows a pair of balls or just ends his life by jumping off a bridge or something. Also, the secondary characters are for the most part one- dimensional. There's no depth to any of the characters in this movie! No depth!
"Clubbed" is yet another 'will-this-do?' entry into the Brit fisticuffs genre and is sure to keep punters who aren't expecting too much moderately entertained for ninety minutes after a few beers. However, for anyone seeking intelligent, quality entertainment it's really best avoided.<br /><br />There are so many misnomers in the appalling script that even an actor of the calibre of Colin Salmon is left looking daft. The action is set in the 1980s, but it's never clear why, especially when they haven't been able to pull off any convincing feel for that decade - it takes more than a few 80s soul records on the soundtrack, the occasional zoot suit and a handful of 30-year-old cars. Then we see central characters studying texts such as Sun Tzu's "The Art Of War" and speaking about how violence should be a last resort, while the same characters seem only too willing to start doling out punches with all the testosterone-fuelled, unthinking abandon of a bunch of chavs fighting over a bag of chips.<br /><br />Character development does not exist in "Clubbed". Nor does irony, subtlety or pathos. This is a film which trades on fond memories of Guy Richie's early gangster films, which despite their flaws certainly had much more wit, better editing, snappier dialogue and packed more emotional punch than this limp little saga. They're a decade old now, anyway - isn't it time we moved on from trying to emulate them?
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />Danny (Mel Raido) is a lonely factory worker who tries to get by with his job and to be a good dad to his two daughters after a messy divorce from their mother (Maxine Peake.) But after an altercation with said daughters present at a Working Men's Club, he uses a trip to their dance class to take a glance at Louis (Colin Salmon) and his gang of hard men who train in the boxing gym/free weights section there and to train himself into a tougher, more assertive person. Before long he's taken the philosophies of Louis to heart and has joined him as a nightclub doorman as the 80s disco faze kicks in...but when associate Sparky (Scott Williams) tries to do a sideline in drug dealing, everything turns pear shaped.<br /><br />As Robert De Niro once stated in the film A Bronx Tale 'there's no bigger tragedy than wasted talent.' The writer of Clubbed had a good idea and a talent to make it into some sort of film...but without the ability, it seems, to put it all together into some sort of coherent film.<br /><br />As a brummie, some of the filming locations (especially a scene at the end outside the Ring O' Bells pub in Moseley!) were quite easy and fun to spot...but the dour look of the cinematography is really a downer on things. Some really poor acting, for instance lead actor Raido with an indecipherable accent that's all over the place, and a hammy script with some misfiring dialogue are bigger problems for the film though. More established actors like Peake and even telly favourite Neil Morressey are sidelined to very small supporting parts, while the disastrous Raido and Ronnie Fox's lame villain take centre stage. Williams does a poor man's Sick Boy from Trainspotting impression, leaving Salmon and Shaun Parkes seemingly the only performers left with any integrity from the whole thing, as the excessive, blood splattered violence (becoming a common trend for Brit flicks!) takes over. Truly a missed opportunity. **
Why does the poster & artwork say "Clubbed is one of the best UK indie films I have seen in a very long time. SCREEN INTERNATIONAL" when it was a quote of the French distributor REPORTED by Screen International (an influential film trade publication). See www.screendaily.com/ScreenDailyArticle.aspx?intStoryID=39811 which reads:<br /><br />"Pretty Pictures has acquired all French-speaking rights to Neil Thompson's Clubbed ....James Velaise, president of Pretty Pictures, said: "Clubbed is one of the best UK indie films I have seen in a very long time.""<br /><br />Isn't this rather misleading? The distributor is bound to say it's good. Are the other quotes real?
Mockumentaries are proliferating lately so much that the approach therefore needs an injection of fresh and creative material each time it's used to maintain its vitality. This film does not deliver anything but worn out retreads of similar stories, an aimless script, weak ad-libs, uninspired acting, and unfunny self-gratifying humor. <br /><br />The premise would seem promising enough; the legend of the Loch Ness monster is made to order for one of these goofy mockumentary misadventures, with a vast array of history and legend waiting to be tapped for outrageous satire. The film makers totally waste this enormous potential, however. We get some fool inserting a fake Nessie into the water. Gee, that's original. Another scene has one obnoxious idiot threatening another obnoxious idiot with a gun. Sidesplitting. Some gratuitous shots of a pretty girl in a bikini. Annette did that 40 years ago (and far better, by the way). Throughout the movie, somebody always seems to be yelling: I suppose this is designed to wake up the audience who have nodded off by this point.<br /><br />Worst of all, though, is the relentless salvo of those reality show type "interview comments" made by the characters. Not only do they nuke you with this tired joke every five seconds, but apparently, the actors also improvised; that's the only explanation for how humorless the jokes are. If lines like, "I've never seen anyone write a book about non-evidence" were actually scripted, then the writer should be shot on sight and fed to Nessie.<br /><br />No wonder Nessie got violent; it obviously saw this movie.
Christopher Guest is the master of the mockumentary. Werner Herzog is one of many documentary greats out there. Zak Penn isn't good at either but he could certainly take a lesson from the other two. Guest often plays around with reality and fiction but the line between the two is always clear in his films, sort of an essential with a mockumentary. Penn could also take a lesson from the The Blair Witch Project. Even though you knew it was a fake documentary going in you totally bought into the world the filmmakers created. It seems to the audience as if the whole thing is real even though you know, deep down, you're watching fiction. In other words, it was fiction successfully disguised as truth. In fact many early audiences watching it, at Sundance and other premiere audiences thought it was real. Penn, whose forte, by his own admission, is screen writing, should probably stick to that. Documentary or mockumentary film-making (and it's hard to tell where one begins and the other ends with this film) is obviously not. <br /><br />Penn sets the stage for what he tries to sell as a legit documentary on the filming of a documentary, sort of a meta-documentary. Penn, however, confuses the audience, and loses their trust, from the get-go as he enters Herzog's house before the filming of Herzog's film, "Enigma of Loch Ness" about the myth of the Loch Ness monster (a film which apparently was never finished – probably because of Penn's interference). Even though Penn is apparently the director of the film we're watching, he starts it by looking at the cameras and saying, "What is the film crew doing here?" and starts shying away from them. He does this on a couple other occasions as well. He will stop and tell the cameras to stop filming, thus forcing the camera guy to hide in the shadows to pick up snippets of dialogue between Herzog and Penn. It seems to be a gimmick, but that is never made clear, and Penn is apparently keeping us in the dark intentionally. This leaves the audience scratching its head wondering, "Who is in charge here?" If Penn is working against his own film crew what kind of a world are we a part of? This is just one of many examples of how he confuses the line between reality and fiction. <br /><br />Penn seems to only fully enter the fictional world (I think) when the crew has sightings of what appears to be the Loch Ness monster. But by the time the monster makes its first appearance we have totally exited the fictional world Penn has attempted to create, so it all just seems silly and pointless. <br /><br />This is a potentially fascinating movie and a real missed opportunity in that Penn has a chance to document a master at work, but completely loses focus and it becomes a movie about Penn and his antics instead of the filming of a documentary. Penn's presence begins to pervade and overshadow everything else in the movie. <br /><br />The Herzog interviews are convincing and we actually believe he isn't acting. We even start to wonder if he and others on his crew are being duped by Penn, much the way the audience is, but you're never sure of even that. Penn, in his interviews to the camera, attempts to be quirky and unintentionally funny, like the characters interviewed in a Guest mockumentary, but he only succeeds in being annoying. In a Guest film this effect is hilarious, while here it falls flat because you're never sure what Penn is about. As a result we, the audience, start to dislike him as much as the crew apparently does. Aside from the beautiful scenery and the superfluous appearance, out of nowhere, of a beautiful model, thrown in to give the movie spice, there is little to recommend here. Perhaps its only redeeming quality (an unintentional one at that) is that it's a great example of why the audience is important; and by completely ignoring the conventions of storytelling your doing them a disservice. For that reason alone I think this would be a good film to show to film students – sort of a "what not to do" kind of movie. I have nothing against a movie told in an unconventional way as long it's done skillfully, with a thematic base to give it substance. This film is completely lacking in that.<br /><br />I'd like to call it a valiant effort at something, but I'm not sure what it is, other than a complete mess and ultimately a waste of time. <br /><br />(As a side note: It seems like bad art always calls to mind good. This film made me think of the book "Picture" by Lillian Ross. Ross followed John Huston around during the filming of "The Red Badge of Courage" and brilliantly documented it for the New Yorker. It would make a great movie in fact. If you want a great example of meta-art, read it.)
I wish that all the mockumentaries and horror spoofs would go away. If you are going to investigate loch ness..do it for real. Enough of the bull****. Same with horror and sci-fi..if you are going to make a movie and it is supposed to be scary..make it scary..not funny. I hate when watching a horror movie and the character is fighting for their life(or running or whatever..their life is at stake) and they are cracking jokes. This never happens..cmon where have all the good directors gone? I think horror and sci-fi have really gone down the tube since the 70's. I long for the days that a horror flick was scary..all this "scary movie" crap is for the birds. This film is also for the birds. If you really would like to see a good investigation or here serious talk...don't expect it in this video.
One of my favorite "bum" actors, C. Tom Howell, stars in this tepid remake of WOTW. He runs around a lot, while a CGI-generated spider-like machine goes around killing everyone. The budget for this one obviously was pretty low. It also was one of The Asylum productions. Have you seen any of those? Yikes! I am not sure why anyone would have made this while the big-budget Spielberg version was slaying them at the box office. And if truth be told, neither version is all that hot. The George Pal version from the 1950s remains the best representation of the H.G. Wells novel, primitive special effects and all. Perhaps because Gene Barry was much more convincing in the lead than Howell or Tom Cruise.
Why does C Thomas Howell do these movies? Cruise (Howell's one time co-star) does a huge blockbuster of WOTW and Howell follows with this lame effort.<br /><br />Where do I start here? Production Values - I'll start with the good stuff. The look and feel of some of the scenes in this movie are not too bad to be honest. The set-ups are okay in spots and the direction not too bad.<br /><br />Script - Terrible. A series of clunky scenes that could have been put in any order you like permeate throughout the movie. The amount of times the scene faded to black and reemerged a second later in the same room was uncountable. Very poor storyline (but so was the Cruise WOTW) takes some blame but an abysmal screenplay kills it off.<br /><br />Special FX - Okay, I don't want to be too harsh here as I imagine the budget was smaller than Cruise's lunch bill - but in the overall context of the film the effects are badly done. Some shots are quite impressive - mainly far off destruction shots of bridges, Washington, liner. But in the main the "alien" machines and tentacles themselves are dreadful. Also the camera quality is fuzzy on some shots and cuts away entirely on others.<br /><br />Acting - I'm a fan of Howell but as he has reduced himself to acting in these low-budget flicks - he has succumbed to the "over-acting" bug a long time ago. Look at his performance in The Hitcher and compare it to this movie. There is no comparison. He overdoes his facial expressions, his flailing arms and legs (where did he get that running style???) and for a final coup-de-gras look at the scene where he loses the photo of his family. Hysterical. But after saying all that - he is still the best actor on show here. Busey is embarrassing to look at and Peter Green (Zed is truly dead now baby) mumbles incoherently through his one and only scene. I honestly could not understand one word he said - I even went so far as trying to enable the subtitles on that scene - but the DVD did not have subtitles. This seems to be a real keep-it-in-the-family affair too as Howell's son, the director's wife and the line producer all make it into the film. None of them are good.<br /><br />Direction - not bad but not good either.<br /><br />Score - Dismal.<br /><br />Overall, a lame duck effort that will do nothing for Howell in his attempt to make it back to the big time. He should take a look at Rourke and try to figure out how he made in back to the A list but if he keeps doing stuff like this, he won't have a career soon enough.<br /><br />3/10.
It is incredible that there were two films with the same story released in 2005. This one came out a day before that other one with Tom Cruise. Didn't they do that with Truman Capote the same year, and the Zodiac killer last year? Interesting.<br /><br />Writer/Director David Michael Latt didn't have Steven Spielberg's budget and C. Thomas Howell is not Tom Cruise. This is a pale imitation of the blockbuster that grossed $588 million worldwide.<br /><br />The action was minimal and most of the time we were treated to the whining of Rhett Giles, who played a pastor that was giving up on his god.<br /><br />Gary Busey was creepy as an army LT.
Do you hear that sound? That's the sound of H.G. Wells rolling over in his grave, between this version and Spielberg's cinematic abortion it's been a tough year for the classic novel. But at least Steven got a few things right compared to this crapperella. Hello, the ships weren't big insects, they had names. They were Tripods and the aliens worked in threes. The ships and the aliens were all wrong, you don't really get to see the aliens until the end. The effects and the cast work fine. But these actors are much better then this "movie" deserves. The bulk if not all the movie is the Howell character wondering through the devastation, meeting one person, they join him and he looses them for one reason or the other. There's not more then two people on camera at any given moment though most of the movie. It's like if they filmed three at once it would put the movie over budget or something. So fat the only and mean only watchable adaptation of the WAR OF THE WORLDS story is the GEORGE PAL version way back in the 1950s. THE BLACK HOLE.
I normally finish every movie or book I start, even if they're poor, just 'cause I hate giving up on them. This was so poorly made, I was in disbelief.<br /><br />I'm not just looking for Spielberg magic - I rent foreign films, and I rent really old sci-fi's (most recently Soylent Green - worth the rent). I like both Hollywood action and slower moving character development. Different films need to be approached differently to be appreciated. I could find no redeeming element to this one... The action was so wooden I wasn't the least bit on edge. The character development was virtually absent - you're not left feeling sorry for anyone, or even identifying with them. Finally, there were so many pieces that just didn't add up.<br /><br />Don't waste your time - better to watch paint dry...
Mad scientist Professor Tabani drinks a potion he has brewed up in his laboratory but is turned into a blood craving vampire instead.When Dr.Aqil pays a visit Tabani sees a picture of Aqil's wife Shabnam and,after turning Aqil into a vampire,heads for Shabnam to make her his bride.Aqil's brother discovers the grave of the vampire and his brother at Tabani's castle and kills his brother with a knife to free his soul.Tabani succeeds in putting the bite on Shabnam and once turned she tries to lure her young niece away.Aqil's brother races against time to put a stop to the vampire curse."Zinda Laash" almost put me to sleep.The plot is extremely slow but more or less follows Bram Stoker's famous novel.The suspense is completely absent as is the gore and nudity.The film is only recommended for curious horror fans that want to see the second horror film made in Pakistan(after "Madman" from 1964).
Stop me if you hard this one before, some cheerleaders, their coach and a couple guys are trapped within a cabin in the woods when an unseen killer kills them off one by one. Shame on me, after I totally wrote off Jim Wynorski after the horrid "Busty Cops" (it was a long time coming as his last truly good film was 1990's "Hard to Die"), I still for some reason got my hopes up for a supposed sequel to "Slumber Party Massacre". Sadly even my mediocre expectations were not met. This outing is not nearly as fun as even the three previous films in the franchise (and yes I'm including SPM 2, that should tell you something) Furthermore how can you have a slasher film with this little gore??? I mean Come on now!! <br /><br />My Grade: D <br /><br />Eye Candy: Ricky Ray gets topless; April Flowers and Charity Rahmer show boobs and buns in a shower scene (April gets nude again later in the film), and Tamie Sheffield gets topless and bares buns
Slasher sequel (fourth SLUMBER PART MASSACRE film) concerns a group of nubile cheerleaders stranded in a mountainous cabin in the snow, being offed by a deranged killer. Typical slasher elements for hardcore slasher fans, gore, wonderfully gratuitous female nudity, no plot. Though it wears out its welcome eventually, even at its short length.<br /><br />Original star Brinke Stevens makes a cameo, which only seems to be there for the sake of including her in the movie.
Cheerleader Massacre was supposed to be the fourth installment of the Slumber Party Massacre series; if that's what they were doing (which it is considering ONE actress from the original returns in a small cameo role), they have failed miserably and made, by far, the worst installment of the 'quadrilogy'. Cheerleader Massacre seamlessly combines bad acting, a horrible plot, a dumb killer, dull and boring deaths, boring scenery, and hideous camera work to make it one of the worst films ever made. Did I already mention how bad it was? Don't get me wrong: this cheesy and retarded excuse for a horror film is nowhere near as bad as Napoleon Dynamite, but it is undeniably a horrible movie.<br /><br />Cheerleader Massacre is an exact polar opposite of the original Slumber Party Massacre. Stay away by all means! This movie is utter garbage!
I've never expected too much from a film by trashy B-movie director Jim Wynorski: a silly premise, some cheapo effects and a bit of nudity from some busty babes, and I'm usually fairly happy.<br /><br />Well, Cheerleader Massacre delivers on the former and definitely the latter, but unfortunately is a tad light when it comes to the splatter. And when a film has the word 'massacre' in the title, and scrimps on the gore, then Houston, we have a problem.<br /><br />Wynorski's movie centres on a group of cheerleaders who, along with their teacher, mini-bus driver and a couple of guys, become stranded in the mountains during a snowstorm. They make their way on foot to a deserted mountain retreat, where they find food and shelter. And a crazy killer who wants them all dead! From the outset, good old Jim ensures that his film features plenty of scenes loaded with T&A, and includes the obligatory shower scene, along with numerous other moments in which tasty women get nekkid (including a spot of raunchy softcore sex and a very gratuitous three-babes-in-a-hot-tub scene). None of the women look young enough to be cheerleaders (and are never even seen in their outfits), but who cares about such details when they're all too willing to strip off in the name of art?<br /><br />I do care, however, about the movie's numerous lacklustre deaths. With such an extremely lurid title, I had been hoping for some inventive bloodletting to go with all of the bums, bush, and boobs; instead, practically all of the killings occur off-screen or feature next to no gore. Only a silly post-decapitation scene (achieved with cheap-as-chips CGI) comes anywhere near to delivering the goods.<br /><br />Still, if you're feeling in the mood for some titillation, or a bit of slasher silliness minus the grue, then, at 82 minutes, at least Cheerleader Massacre won't be too much of a waste of your time.
A movie like this makes me appreciate the work that professional actors do. I think movie-goers, in general, are a little too hard on professional actors and are ready to bash them for the most minuscule reasons. Just watch a couple minutes of "Cheerlader Massacre," and trust me, you'll change your views. A razzie would be almost a compliment for these no-talent actors. But then again, it's a Jim Wynorski film. Wynorski is a popular director of these ultra low-budget B-movies (having worked with Roger Corman on many an occasion). The problem with this movie is it actually tries to develop a plot. And when you have actors delivering lines like they're reading letters off an eye chart, how am I supposed to care? In Wynorski's "Bare Wench 2," he didn't try to develop a plot. He simply tried to make a softcore porn/goofy takeoff on the "Blair Witch Project." It was fun and it was titillating. "Cheerleader Masscare" is no fun. There are a couple obligatory female nude scenes, but they are few and far between. So it's not even worth enjoying on an erotic level. I must say, the worst scene is the one where Nikki Fritz walks across a bridge that's about to collapse. First of all, her character didn't have to walk across that bridge. Second of all, as the bridge starts creaking, rather than try her best to run across, she just stands there and acts helpless. And top it off, we don't actually see the bridge collapse because the filmmakers made this for a budget of 2 dollars!!! Unlike a lot of B-horror films, this one's actually boring. And that's what makes it the worst of all bad movies. One of the few bright spots was Lunk Johnson, who's probably the most natural actor in the film (though certainly no more than halfway decent). He was funny in "Bare Wench 2," and had some funny scenes in this movie too.
Hard to get in-depth with this kind of stuff since there is absolutely no existing shred of even partial reason for watching it, let alone expressing an opinion on it. I don't know anything about this - watched it for a laugh and stayed for the fake breasts. Apparently, it's an unofficial sequel to 1982's "Slumber Party Massacre", which I DID enjoy as a fun slasher. "Cheerleader Massacre" looks like a late-nite soft-core Cinemax porno! And not surprisingly, chicks like Nikki Fritz and Samantha Phillips (prolific T&A actresses) are in this. Plenty of nekkid hooters and not much else... A group of 20-something high school cheerleaders, two random guys, and the fat, stupid comic-relief slob become stranded in the country and find a house where they plan to stay the night. The recently escaped "Slumber Party" killer is in the area and begins killing them off. There's no gore or originality and I wouldn't say the nudity is a real "selling point" since this is just about as boring a slasher movie can be. Absolutely terrible...
Like CURSE OF THE KOMODO was for the creature feature genre, Jim Wynorski's CHEERLEADER MASSACRE is a straight-faced parody of slasher movies, such as SLUMBER PARTY MASSACRE. A psycho, who has escaped from his padded cell,(..he was sent to the loony bin thanks to killing eleven people)is working across the mountainous backwoods countryside of Bobcat County attacking anyone within his reach. A van load of cheerleaders, their teacher, two equipment hands, and the driver are on their way to a contest when their vehicle runs out of fuel while taking a supposed short-cut to avoid having to turn back. Luckily the group find a cabin up ahead, but fall prey to a killer who attacks each victim one by one. The psycho loose in the county couldn't have killed one girl because she was in the cheerleaders' locker room while he was elsewhere which means someone among their own is the culprit. Meanwhile the sheriff of the county and his deputy pursue the whereabouts of their psycho, while also trying to find the location of the missing cheerleader squad.<br /><br />Shot cheap on video, Wynorski does what he can with the limited budget having to find clever ways to assassinate characters off-screen without the luxury of properly effective special effects. In other words, lots of melons were stabbed, the sound effect used to let us know that certain victims whisked away into the darkness by a black gloved hand died savagely. Wynorski incorporates a scene from SLUMBER PARTY MASSACRE regarding Brinke Stevens' character Linda, her being pursued by a killer with a drill(..that killer and Linda both wound up dead, but I guess Wynorski wanted to connect his film to that one, albeit rather poorly)..still it was nice to see her, even if it was a glorified cameo. Tamie Sheffield, as Ms Hendricks the teacher of the students in trouble, has a long bathing scene in the shower soaping her naked body and fake breasts. The girls who make up the cheerleaders are a bit unconvincing, because their obviously in their twenties. Aging soft-core porn stars Samantha Philips(..as a police officer who is attacked by the psychopath she's searching for)and Nikki Fritz(..a hiker who is victimized while jogging across a dangerous bridge)surprisingly don't have to strip. Wynorski vets Bill Langlois Monroe(..as Sheriff Murdock) and Melissa Brasselle(..as a detective who assists Murdock on his case)contribute to the sub-plot of the search for John Colton's serial killer McPherson. Interesting enough, the McPherson story serves as a McGuffan as, in truth, the meat of the film is devoted to the cheerleading group and their perilous situation. I'm not sure if slasher fans will embrace this movie because it takes too long for the kills to flare up and when they eventually enter the picture, the violence isn't potent or shocking enough to satisfy.
This movie was one of those movies where it completely fooled me into thinking that it was a cheesy 80's slasher flick, based on the cover, but it wasn't. It was quite possibly one of the worst slasher films that I have ever seen. The picture on the cover did not match any part or scene in the movie; in fact it didn't involve a chainsaw. Not even the tag line fit the movie. The film is about a group of cheerleaders and two potheads who escape to a desolate cabin, in the cold woods, for a weekend getaway. However, things get extra chilly when they start to get murdered by an unknown killer. At the same time, the local sheriff's department is hunting down a dangerous killer. I'll name the problems in a list.<br /><br />1. The Acting. Boy was it cheap and horribly bad. It felt unnatural and it seemed as thought it was very scripted. None of the actors seemed as though they tried to perform with good intentions and therefore they seemed silly and tired. There was bad acting by all the characters in the movie, so I won't point out specific people, but I wills say that the stoners did a horrible job, as well as the police and the cheerleaders, which is not a surprise.<br /><br />2. The Plot. This story had set up a perfect storyline for good ol' fashion slasher flick, but instead they peppered it with plot-holes, useless and unnecessary scenes and an overall stupid back-story to the killer's intentions. There were major plot-holes including how the killer killed the last victim so quickly and yet still be there in the group of girls when it happened? The ex-con virtually served no purpose in the movie aside from being a useless plot device. There was random and unnecessary sex and nudity sprinkled throughout it, even for a b-movie or my taste it was a bit too much. As for the killer's intentions, lets just say it was stupid and it makes no sense as to why she / he is killing young girls. Plus, there was also some very predictable kills that I saw coming about 30 miles away.<br /><br />3. The Technical Side. The lighting was okay, it certainly wasn't the worse lighting that I've seen in a movie, but there were points where it was supposed to be dark but it looked more like the afternoon. The house seemed darker with the lights on, then with the lights off. The camera work was average, it didn't have any good establishing shots or amazing pans or zooms, thought it did get the job done is building some suspense with it's framing.<br /><br />Overall, this movie, in the sense of plot, character development and performance, was a huge disappointment and a waste of my time. What I thought would have been a great slasher flick turned out to be one of the worse movies that I have ever seen. The acting was really bad and wooden, there was hardly any sense in the plot and there was no emotion to this film. However, the technical aspect of this film saved it for me, because if the camera work or the lighting was bad, then I would have turned off the DVD player and popped in something else. I would recommend this movie to those who enjoy really cheesy b-movies as well as those who follow cult classics, because this movie certainly is. I would partially recommend this film for those who enjoy 80s slasher flicks. But for me, this movie was pitiful and utterly horrible.
"Based on a joke once told by Jim Wynorski"... that's what I've read at the end of the closing credits. Well, Mr. Wynorski gotta have an awful sense of humour then! This film is terrible, really. I loved the first two chapters of The Slumber Party Massacre series; the third film was quite useless, but completely watchable, compared to this piece of crap! There's not even a Driller Killer and the plot, the acting, the characters, the locations, the events... everything is boring, absurd and laughable. The only good reason to watch this turkey are the girls: if this film were a porn, I think it would have worked really much better! The film lacks gore too: the first scene (the one in the tent) could be bloodier and the scene with the headless guy knocking at the door lasted one second! Some moments of slight thrilling can't save a nonexistent plot. Buzzy (Lunk Johnson) seems to be the only real actor here: I found him the only bearable character in this movie! Oh... there's a nonsense part with Brinke Stevens, who performed "Linda" in the first Slumber Party Massacre: the police bother her to know more details about the killer; but what we get is only some footage from the first film! Not a dialogue, neither a monologue, or anything from this still-traumatized grown-up girl, who's forced to revive the worst 30 minutes of her life (as she says), giving us no clues at all about the murderer!<br /><br />Watch at your own risk.
Originally harped as a sequel to "The Slumber Party Massacre" series, this film falls flat on it's face with a new title. First off, if you are going to include the word "massacre" in your film's title, you better deliver. This one certainly does not. There is no gore, no on screen murders and no chainsaw, as the box art would lead you to believe. Instead, we get a paper thin, overdone plot about a group of cheerleaders who get stranded in an abandoned cabin on the way to a football game, only to be offed one by one. Again, this film could have been OK if the gore quotient was upped a bit. Why directors, especially those doing direct-to-video flicks, are afraid to show ANY gore is beyond me. Now, I am not a huge fan of excessive gore, but come on...why else would anyone rent a movie called "Cheerleader Massacre??" Besides that problem, the film suffers from a shot-on-a-home-video-camera cheapness. It looks cheap, sounds cheap, and the actors aren't all that good. It tries to throw us off track to who the killer may be, but even that fails. The ending ends up being a ridiculous mess. Folks, if you run across this film, walk away and go find the original "Slumber Party Massacre." 2 out of 10.
This movie was just plain bad. I can forgive low-budget films for being low budget but it wasn't funny, it wasn't smart, it had no redeeming qualities at all unless you really like looking at fake boobs. I don't know what this genre is classified as, possibly erotic horror, but if so-- well, it's neither sexy nor scary. Tying it into the Slumber Party Massacre movies was useless; I'd never seen the previous movies myself, and except for one scene that attempted to tie it together, I had no way of knowing who the escaped psycho killer in 'Cheerleader' was or why they were bothering with including him, especially because (and I don't think I'm revealing anything here) it was really obvious that the cheerleader killer in this film wasn't him. As for the actual murderer? All I can say is, lame. Really lame. When you find out why the killer is offing the cheerleading squad (and the squad's coach, and two stoners who happened to be on the bus trip they're taking, and the bus driver just for the heck of it, apparently) you will sit there and go-- WTF? Worst excuse for a murdering spree ever. The "actors" (two guesses why I added the quotes) generally looked like low-budget porn rejects, which they most likely were. Those poor people, trying to break into "legitimate" film. One of my friends had this to say about the actor who played Buzzy, the bus driver: "He looks like the guy who, you know, gets really into it, and his face gets all red and stuff." We had a good larf at that. Half of the other actors had all the skill and subtlety of the actors in the sixth grade production of "Annie" I just saw. The other half pretty much seemed bored to death (especially in the deleted scene, this one redhead...), and by ten minutes into this movie I was, too.<br /><br />A note: the DVD contains one deleted scene, which would've put the movie from R-rated to NC-17 if it had been left in. It was entirely gratuitous, and as adult entertainment goes of no quality whatsoever. The only reason to bother with it is to laugh, a lot, at the badness.
CHEERLEADER MASSACRE (2003)<br /><br />starring: Tamie Sheffield, Charity Rahmer, Erin Byron, Leonard Johnson, E. Eddie Edwards, Samantha Phillips, GiGi Erneta, April Flowers, Nikki Fritz, Tylo Tyler, Brad Beck, Summer Williams, Brinke Stevens, Melissa Brasselle.<br /><br />plot: A group of cheerleaders, along with their coach and three guys, are on their way to a game when suddenly their van breaks down and they take refuge in a nearby cabin. Soon, they drink, have sex, and are brutally murdered one by one by an unseen killer.<br /><br />the good: A few laughs, surprising identity of the killer, a Brinke Stevens cameo, my favorite scene from THE SLUMBER PARTY MASSACRE used as a flashback. <br /><br />the bad: I was excited about this film, I loved all three Slumber Party Massacre's because they were just so fun, and I was expecting a lot from this "Slumber Party/Sorority House Massacre with Scream tones), but it just sucked! They overdid it on the "We're cheesy but proud" thing and basically made soft-core porn but with a good who-dun-it.<br /><br />**
I saw this on the shelves at the rental place and I have rented everything else so I said why not. Why not is because it's one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It looks like it was shot with home camcorder. I guess thats all the budget would allow. There was less boobs in it than I thought there would be. Some people made it out to be soft porn with a few killings. The funniest part of the whole movie to me is in the extra stuff. There is a spot with deleted scenes. Well there is only one but it is the dumbest and I think it may have brought the rest of the movie down. The girls get in a hot tub and find some chocolate syrup in the bathroom. Yes it ends up all over them. Great stuff !!! This movie is very very bad. Don't bother.
Ok. I'll admit it. I'm a huge fan of b-movies. Back when Michelle Bauer, Linnea Quigley and Brinke Stevens ruled the roost. And back then, even the bad movies were still good. Unfortunately, this is a bad movie that is just plain bad. Even a small cameo by Brinke Stevens (reprising her role as Linda from "Slumber Party Massacre" 21 years earlier) doesn't help this one out. A group of cheerleaders take refuge in a fancy cabin after their van breaks down. A psycho stalks them one by one, catching them in various states of undress. Bad script, bad direction and horrible acting make this one plain bad! Skip this turkey and go rent "Slumber Party Massacre." 1/2*
Even as a big fan of the low to no budget horror genre, I couldnt find this disaster mildly amusing. With horrible acting, a painfully generic "plot" and no dimensional characters, no matter how bored and drunk you are, this one is not worth your 81 minutes. Don't make the same mistake I did. Rent something else. ANYTHING else!!!
Before I start, I need to inform you that I love horror films with a passion. LOVE THEM! I have seen thousands and rarely does one come along that I do not like. I am very forgiving of the horror genre. One of the greatest lines in movie history is in the film "Ed Wood" where Ed Wood (Johnny Depp) freaks out and yells at the overly critical producers after they comment on "Plan 9's" cheap sets and continuity problems, "You don't know anything! Haven't you ever heard of 'suspension of disbelief?!'" Well, I try to bring that "suspension of disbelief" philosophy with me to every horror film I see and it usually works. Unfortunately, it didn't work for me during the screening of Cheerleader Massacre.<br /><br />Strike One:<br /><br />The first thing you'll notice about this "film" is that it is shot on video and has that crummy hand-held-home-digital-camera style. The camera work and quality are so bad it makes daytime soaps look breathtaking in comparison. In fact, it makes Troma and Full Moon video releases look good. And, that's bad.<br /><br />Strike Two:<br /><br />Jim Wynorski. This "filmmaker" probably fancies himself a chip off the ol' Corman, but nothing could be further from the truth. Roger Corman shot fast, furious and under budget, but was able to deliver a tight original film. Though Wynorski delivers a cheap film, he cheats his viewers (and perhaps other artists) as he steals entire pieces of James Horner's "Humanoids From The Deep" and "Battle Beyond The Stars" musical scores and inappropriately drops them into Cheerleader Massacre. On the back of the box art and during the beginning credits the music score is falsely attributed to, Dan Savio (an extra in Wynorski's "Deathstalker II"). You will also notice how Cheerleader Massacre jumps from video to film and back again as Wynorski lifts entire scenes from both "Slumber Party Massacre" and "Humanoids From the Deep." Wynorski utilized this deception, fourteen years earlier, in his horrible version of "Not of This Earth."<br /><br />Strike Three (you're out):<br /><br />While Cheerleader Massacre does have some nudity, (40-year-olds playing teenagers and the grossest set of fake breasts that I have ever seen in a horror film, ugh), the murders are relatively bloodless. What the heck is that all about? The film is titled, Cheerleader Massacre, but a handful of off-screen killings, in my opinion, does not add up to a massacre. It doesn't even add up to a bad mosquito bite.<br /><br />The "film's" story is fair enough - unseen killer stalks a vanload of cheerleaders (old gals playing teens) until the van runs out of gas and the "girls" are forced to hold up in secluded two-story mountain home. I won't ruin the ending for you but this is one of those "films" where the person who is obviously the killer is not obviously the killer. Cheerleader Massacre would have been great if it were shot on film, directed by Joseph Zito and had special effects by Tom Savini. Instead it is an effect-less, shot-on-video travesty by Jim Wynorski. Ouch.<br /><br />I beg of you, please don't buy or rent this abomination. If we keep supporting these clowns, the more of this talentless video garbage they'll produce. Go out and rent "The Prowler", "The Last House on Dead End Street", "Delirium" or "The Burning" instead. You'll be glad you did.
When Jim Wynorski first announced he would be doing a new sequel for my favorite series of all time, the "Slumber Party Massacre" series, I was ecstatic. I had been waiting for a new installment for literally years. So, production began and very small bits and pieces on the shoot and the actors involved were released until the shoot wrapped. Then, the announcement of a title change. No longer would this new sequel be titled "Slumber Party Massacre IV," but "Cheerleader Massacre" instead. I was a bit disappointed, but having a different title would be a very small price to pay for a film I had waited so long to happen. I was still extremely intrigued and on the edge of my seat to see it.<br /><br />Maybe a month ago, some very advanced copies of the film were released to some extremely lucky viewers, who got to see the film months before its release date. A few reviews leaked on the net and judging by them, I began to become apprehensive on Jim Wynorski's "Cheerleader Massacre."<br /><br />Tonight, I got to see the film for the first time in full length and I am still scratching my head. As I read in another review, "Cheerleader Massacre" is definitely NOT a new installment in the "Slumber Party Massacre" series, but a slasher flick all on its own. And a bad one at that.<br /><br />Before I get into the specifics of the film, let me first state what an enormous fan of Jim Wynorski's films I am. I always thought him to be a true camp genius, with a winner almost every time. Yes, his movies are made on shoestring budgets and don't contain the most top-notch acting around, but they're fun nonetheless. They are what they are: campy movies you watch when you want to have a good time. From "Sorority House Massacre II," to "Hard to Die," to "Chopping Mall," Jim has produced the goods on more than one occasion. One of the reasons why I was excited that this film would be his latest project.<br /><br />"Cheerleader Massacre" does not (in my opinion) reflect any of the films I had seen this director/writer create in the past. Firstly, the production was extremely inexpensive and the film was actually shot on videotape, something I had never seen Jim do before. The actors were mediocre, to say the least, and the story is almost laughable. The killer is also extremely stupid and reminds you more of your cuddly old grandpa, rather than an escaped lunatic.<br /><br />Of course, the film is littered with female nudity. This is a Jim Wynorski movie we're talking about, folks. But some of the boob-shots seen here almost seem like they were done for time. There is an extremely long shower scene, containing the cheerleading coach, that seems to go on forever and it greatly reflects a shower scene in Jim's "Sorority House Massacre II." The girl even bathes herself almost in the exact same way.<br /><br />"Cheerleader Massacre" is also extremely cliched, to say the least. The opening scene is literally something we've all seen in HUNDREDS of past slasher flicks. A guy and a girl making out, on the verge of consummating their relationship when...you guessed it. They're hacked to pieces.<br /><br />Brinke Stevens, who I've never really considered to be a tremendous actress in the first place, also gives one of her stiffest and forced performances in her small cameo. We're talkin' possible cue cards here. She recalls some incidents her character endured by the killer seen here twenty years ago to the police, while footage of the original "Slumber Party Massacre" plays. Why was footage from the original film used if it was definitely not a new "SPM"? I have no idea. There is also two explosions seen in this movie that I am almost certain were recycled from other films.<br /><br />Not only does this film recycle FOOTAGE from past films, but it also recycles the scores from other films as well. Some of the music used in "Humanoids from the Deep" (which was also recycled prior for "The Coroner") can be heard throughout the entire film. There are at least two more as well that I cannot identify, but am certain have been used before.<br /><br />After sitting through this film's horrendous acting, ridiculous story, non-existent gore/special effects, and camcorder-like quality, I am having some serious concerns toward Mister Wynorski's career. Has the man who delighted audiences with films in the past finally lost his niche? Only time will tell. Oh, and let's not forget his newest film. A new installment in the "Sorority House Massacre" films, now titled "Final Exam." I think I'm seeing a pattern here...
I go to blockbuster, pick out a random movie, got this, and yeah.<br /><br />This... was a good sexual porno.. the quality kind of sucked, and it kind of gave me a damn headache. To me, this movie was good for its sexual things, but not as much for the horror and suspense. It was ... magical...<br /><br />The suspense.. not as good as I would have expected. I wanted to be at the edge of my seat hoping to jump up in fear, but instead I lay down on the couch and didn't see much.<br /><br />The quality.. not really good at all. I mean, if you pay close attention, during when the people are on the COLD mountains, their barely wearing anything. It doesn't make much sense too.<br /><br />So if your looking for a crap, not really suspenseful, and a pretty much sexual movie, you've got this.
Hmmmmmmm - cheerleader massacre. Let me think - high school girls get sliced up, except the cute one survives. Got it. Next movie.<br /><br />I was actually surprised this one was made in 2003. I really thought they quit making these movies in the 80's. This was truly your run of the mill slasher movie with teenage eye candy, dumb male horn dogs, even dumber male adult, and hot teacher. It continues on the list of dark and stormy night and abandoned cabin in the woods. We have seen it all before.<br /><br />However this one had a few interesting plot twists that places it above the normal me-too slashers, so if you have got a few brain cells to fry and 2 hours to kill - you could do worse.
Directed by Jim Wynorski (Chopping Mall, Return of the Swamp Thing), Cheerleader Massacre is the fourth installment in the Slumber Party Massacre series. Just think about it: it's the fourth chapter of a slasher series that no one really cares about! So how could this even be good? Well, it's not! But since when did slasher films have to be good? Cheerleader Massacre is entertaining, that's for sure. But in the entertainment field, we've seen better, that's for sure too! As you can see, I'm not sure about where I stand concerning this movie. Those who watch slashers only for nudity will be more than satisfied. This movie's all boobs, but unfortunately no blood, or not enough. I think I'm being generous with this movie because I had a good time watching it and I really enjoy watching slasher movies, even as bad as they sometimes are. If you want me to be sincere, The Slumber Party Massacre Part 1 is the best one and all the others are a waste of time, so I guess I have a lot of time to waste!! For more fun, watch Sleepaway Camp 2 and Cheerleader Camp.
On my continuing quest to find the worst movie of all time, my friends and I stumbled upon this little gem. It is hilarious through and through, especially if you don't know (like we didn't) that it's a semi-sequel to another horror series.<br /><br />I won't bother going into the plot except to mention that everyone complains about the horrible snowstorm that was coming (it was equivalent to the characters just screaming "FORESHADOWING!" at the camera and waving their arms), and, in some odd twist of fate, the snow storm ever occurs. Budget problems, I guess.<br /><br />Add that to a magical front door that is opened or closed depending on what scare effect the director wants to create and the electricity being cut off until the gym teacher decides to take a shower with lots of soap. I'll admit it; I had trouble breathing at points.<br /><br />The only actual decent part of this movie, as it turns out, was from the original Slumber Party Massacre movie. It's so much funnier now that I know that.<br /><br />*SPOILER* The end, where it is revealed that the slasher did it because her drunk friends stumbled in on her and a female friend making out and then the friend driving into a train or something is probably the funniest psycho killer origin ever, heightened by the fabulous use of blurring and stock footage. I'm glad all of the slasher's friends forgot the incident completely until a flashback was necessary. <br /><br />Run, don't walk, to pick this up and see the hilarity. Of course, the continuity editor should be given an award for all of this, if only they weren't stuck in that horrible snow storm...
After reading many good things about it ,i finally watched "the clearing".With a cast of great actors like Redford and Dafoe ,one would,at least, expect a decent film.After the closing credits had rolled i was still shocked by how bad and incoherent this movie actually was.<br /><br />Is it supposed to be an "art" film??I don't think so cause it is too melodramatic for that.The bad thing is that the drama seems way too forced and unrealistic.<br /><br />The truth is that the script makes absolutely no sense.First of all it never really explains the motive behind the actions of any of the characters,it just overblows their so called "personal issues".What's so bad about Redford's character's life that he has to "clear it"??The fact that he cheats,occasionally,his wife??The guy is a millionaire who has had a good life,has a great son and a great daughter,a wife that loves him(and a girlfriend that also seems to be way above the generic mistress type of woman)o and a new-born grandson.The only problem seems to be that he...has been working hard for all his life to be a successful person.So what??It seems that his hard work has really paid off and there's actually no real problems with his life.<br /><br />Then we come to Dafoe's character:here's someone who was a manager for one of Redford's companies and was fired.Why is this guy unemployed for ...eight years???It seems that he must have some kind of good education to have a job like the one he had in the first place and seems to have been a man with solid ideas about his work(as evident by his flashback of a conversation that he had with Redford when he was working for him).Why couldn't a man like that get a decent job and have a decent life??Cause he was ,once,fired??Totally unrealistic.<br /><br />The film really tries to portray these men as "tortured souls" or something and that comes off as really cheesy.In fact i would say that if the creators of this film were trying to say something about the American dream then they failed miserably.<br /><br />As for the actual events that take place during the movie ,they also make no sense at all.In fact the last 20 minutes of the film come off as an insult to the viewer's intelligence,because there's not one thing that takes place that actually makes any sense.Redford seems to have about a 1000 chances to escape ,yet he doesn't.At one moment he is ready to escape and yet he misses his chance cause he feels sorry for his kidnapper and doesn't want to hurt him!!!Then Dafoe picks up his gun from the water and the mud,which should be useless(if you fire a shot with a gun after the gun has been in the water and mud it will possibly blow up in your face)and the gun is in perfect condition!!! The way an unemployed ,useless(as portrayed in this film) and mentally unstable character,manages to outsmart the entire FBI with such ease brings the narrative of this film to "twilight zone" levels.The cheesy ending(with Redford's wife illusion) comes to finish the viewer off.<br /><br />This film pretends to be something,it's not(i.e a quality,sophisticated psychological thriller).Unfortunately it fails so hard,that it becomes a disaster and that's the word that describes this film best:A DISASTER.
I hate it when people in the movie theater talk back to the screen. It's one of the main reasons why I stick to DVD's or videos . I saw The Clearing on DVD but if I had seen it in the movies I would have had to stand up and SCREAM " HE'S NOT DEAD YET , YOU MORON ! "<br /><br />The Clearing is another in a long list of horrible movies that feature Mr.Redford . Legal Eagles , Havana , Indecent Proposal , Up Close and Personal , Sneakers , Last Castle , and Spy Game . If Robert Redford told me to invest in something I'd go the other way . <br /><br />But the worst possible thing you can do to an audience is this . Say you're being kidnapped and your kidnapper has a gun . He's holding it on you for most of the movie . You turn the tables on him and start strangling him . Whatever you do keep strangling him until he's DEAD ! Don't just strangle him for ten seconds . Stay with it ! Ten minutes at least . But Bob stops too soon , walks away and forgets about Mr. Kidnapper until ....... He gets up , finds the gun and holds it on our hero again . At this point I wanted Mr. Kidnapper to shoot Robert Redford . More than a few times . And I wanted to shoot him as well .
Now I know why this movie can be bought for so cheap at the video stores. I was curious since it had three big-name stars yet was among the 'B' movies that the video apparently can't even give away! The answer is, it is a film that would attract a very limited audience: an over-50 crowd with very Liberal sensibilities.<br /><br />Who else who watch Robert Redford, Willem Dafoe and Helen Mirren give, essentially, a basic message that "cheating on your wife is okay so long as you still love her." That's the nice "feel-good message" here, particularly at the end at the end of this strange kidnapping story. Who wrote this script.....Bill Clinton?<br /><br />I say "strange" because the kidnapper is the nicest kidnapper (Dafoe) you've ever seen, except at the end. He unties his hostage (Redford) frequently, which no kidnapper would risk, has casual conversations about family matters, etc. It's all ludicrous! Well, the L.A. Times says it's "an intelligent thriller." Ha ha. Well, that confirms what most people know of the L.A. Times. For those of you who believe that, and haven't seen it, I won't spoil it with more of the gigantic holes in this story, particularly at the end. The fact is, it's an insult to anyone with intelligence.<br /><br />Anyway, you can't fool all the people all the time, as critics have yet to figure out. Here is another film they touted that justifiably bombed at the box office and video store.
I wanted to like this film, and certainly there is room for a psychological character-driven movie which doesn't go for the cheap thrills. Yet, for the enjoyment of a movie, one requires a believable plot, some pacing and editing, and a feeling of involvement. In The Clearing, what starts out as an intriguing mystery, with a kidnapping and unknown motives, turns into a slow draggy pointless exercise. Nothing much really happens, and the so-called character-driven angles (as expressed by the director in his commentary) really don't add up to much.<br /><br />Fine actors are wasted here. Robert Redford does his best trying to engage and outwit Willem Dafoe. Dafoe brings a bit of nuance to his character, insofar as one can feel somewhat sympathetic towards him. It's unfortunate that Dafoe has been typecast as a villain, he's gone into the Christopher Walken Hall of Fame of Typecasting.<br /><br />Wendy Crewson is usually good but her character's entry into the movie was brief and contrived, and I was wondering why they even bothered to introduce her character. By far the biggest waste of talent was Helen Mirren. In the director's commentary, all I heard was how fabulous a talent she is. I agree, she's a great actress. Then why was she not used properly? Only towards the climax of this movie does she get to show herself, but by then the viewer has quit caring.<br /><br />Too bad, I liked parts of this movie, but as another reviewer wrote, once you're halfway in you know the film is not going to get much better.
How do two great actors foist off a piece of junk like this on film-goers. My only conclusion is that they and their director believe that ANY film in which they star just MUST be seen and applauded,<br /><br />Now to the film - probably the worst "thriller" I have ever seen. The actors showed minimal emotion; the plot was reasonable for a 1/2 hour time slot (not 91 minutes). The FBI agent was almost a silly parody - his partner was apparently struck dumb and spoke not one word. To paraphrase Robert Redford, the villain was a meaningless piece of crap! The film was drawn out and meaningless - the only question was whether the hero would die or not. One truly bizarre part of the story - The waiting family seemed to go on for at least several days; the hero and antihero seemed to only take one day.<br /><br />All in all - waste of time
Do not watch this movie, go see something else ... I was very disappointed, I cannot rate this movie any better than 3. The acting was quite good and I really liked William Dafoe as the villain, but I cannot see why this movie made it to the big screen. The story was old and has been shown in 100+ other movies and 1000+ TV series/movies. The main problem was basically: Nothing is happening. Take a kidnapping, let the villain make the wife of the kidnapped man deliver the money, make the police look stupid and boring and extend this to 95 minutes, you got your "Clearing" movie. The only 2 reasons I did not rate this a 1 was a) Dafoe and b) the "plan-B-ending". There are not many endings you can give a kidnapper movie ... 75% of these kind end with ending A, 20% end ending B and 1% ends with something unforeseeable. Boring, boring, boring.
It has been a long time since I have been to a movie as lame and boring as this one. It is one thing to have a slow pace where characters are being developed in a progressive way, or some aspect of the movie clearly is enhanced by such pacing (such as 'Lost in Translation"). However, there is a difference between slow progression and outright stalling, as happened in this one. I guess from the look on Helen Mirren's face she must have been distraught by the disappearance of her husband!! Surprise, surprise!! What a marvelously creative moment the meeting of the mistress and wife was.(sarcasm) And what a great way that the whole story fell apart at the end. Truly a masterpiece.
what the hell was the point of this dull movie? it looked pretty interesting in the beginning but quickly fell flat on its face. its supposed to be based on a true story but for crying out loud is there no more script writers left in Hollywood? man iv'e seen these guys in some of the best movies ever made,defoe can play just about anything and when i see he's in a movie i don't have a problem renting it but I'm starting to wonder.redford also a great actor is also slipping; perhaps their hard up or just losing their senses. the dialog was long and terribly heavy eyed,especially at home with the family.i wonder if the actors thought they had a hit going here? perhaps...uh..an Oscar?
Business Executive is kidnapped, made to wander miles and miles in a woodland for days and days exchanging dialog with his kidnapper.And we have got to listen to all the nonsense......<br /><br />Meanwhile his snotty wife and family are at home with the FBI wondering what to do...... .....at no time does she seem concerned about the fate of her husband except when it comes to the ransom..... A "love story"? Give me a break!<br /><br />The plot is ludicrous. And almost every scene is filled with an air of expectation that something significant is going to happen but it never does.<br /><br />The result of the kidnapping is predictable and stupid, and it becomes even more silly when we learn the fate of the kidnapper.<br /><br />This is garbage:<br /><br />2 out of 10.
What an atomic bomb of a movie. The story goes nowhere and comes fron nowhere. It leaves the theatre goer with ones arm up saying "is this it". What happened to Redford. He was once a fair actor. Now he thinks that he can show up on the set and make a few scenes and it's a take. Wrong. What an unemotional film. I don't mean to be so so cruel, but what crap of a movie. Unbelievable amateur crap. If I was in this movie I would be so embarased that I would not show my face. I tell you what, if I was associated with this movie, I am in big trouble. This movie will go down in the annals of movie making as the king of bombs with which all others will be compared to.
I'm sorry but i don't understand how the studio get's away with this. The movie is just not worth it. Maybe as a theater-play but certainly not as a movie! And why do they call it a thriller??? Offcource the acting is good but i did'n't expect anything less from these perfect actors. Robert Redford plays very well and Willem Dafoe is convincing enough as the softy "bad guy". Helen Mirren can play almost any role and always (still) looks beautiful to me ;). I'm also a fan of her British detectives. Still they just can't save this ow so boring movie, i'm sorry. I hope we don't get to many movies anymore from this director "Pieter Jan Brugge" cause he obviously doesn't now the meaning of the words "suspence and thriller".
I had never heard of "The Clearing" until I was really bored one day with some friends in the local Blockbuster and it grabbed our attention. The description on the DVD jacket grabbed our interest, but once we popped it into the DVD player, the boredom was only beginning.<br /><br />The story was dragged out for waaaay too long. It seemed to follow the same outline as other movies which include a kidnapping. The most suspenseful parts were in the beginning of the movie, however. After that, the outline was followed exactly and that made "The Clearing" unoriginal. The flashbacks were too many in number and the grief of the victim's family provided nothing interesting nor enhanced the nature of the film. And I also found that I did not like the ending, so that probably led to me not liking the movie at all.<br /><br />The acting was not horrible...it wasn't the greatest, though. Robert Redford has given much better performances. Willem Dafoe's tragic character was the only one I really saw develop throughout the story line and the viewer only really sees that change in the last ten minutes or so in the movie. Helen Mirren's portrayal as Robert Redford's wife was flat and sort of followed the same generic mold as other movies which include a tragic and heart-splitting event.<br /><br />In my opinion, "The Clearing" is nothing to rave about. Use your movie rental money on something else...like "Garden State," perhaps?
like in so many movies of the past, you would think Hollywood would learn this by now, makes for a very disappointing movie, not to mention, make sure the kidnapped victim is alive first before paying the ransom.<br /><br />Maybe this film wants to remind of these basic facts in case it should ever happen to one of us. Why the long walk in the woods and can a city guy really go through the woods without getting lost? Just an opportunity for some sentimental dialog that was meaningless in the end.<br /><br />I had to listen to part of the director's comments in the special features section, from the great moves that Redford has made in the past, (Sneakers for one) surprised he agreed to star in such a film. The director's comments and reasons were weak.<br /><br />The best parts of this movie was the scenery, can't wait for spring to come.
I love most Jet Li movies (with the exception of Romeo Must Die) and I bought this movie in a VERY cheap three-pack with "The Master" and "Twin Warriors". While Twin Warriors was very impressive and I was thoroughly intrigued by it, and the master was a bit "Karate Kid" but also enjoyable, I thought this movie was TERRIBLE. I'm not just saying that because I'm used to better movies. I'm saying that it was almost down there with "Kazaam". The fight scenes were terrible (blurry cameras and no real fighting) and the plot was your typical "stupid kung-fu plot". If you are going to have a plot this stupid (see 'man turns into woman to become all-powerful then falls in love with Jet Li') you best have some great fighting to go with it. If you are looking for an original HK Jet Li movie, I suggest you go rent "Shaolin Temple 2" (aka Kids from Shaolin).
I usually like hongkong - martial arts - fantasy movies but I hated this one. Once Upon A Time In China, Shogun Assassin, A Chinese Ghost Story and even Big Trouble In Little China are my favorites but this film sucked! Too much fancy tricks and stupid story.<br /><br />4/10
Whoa!Terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, did I mention terrible?You can tell just by the DVD cover not to get this movie, but unfortunately that wasn't the case for me.Well, someone brought this home for me to watch, and when I looked at it I just wanted to strangle the person, because they used my money.I will certainly be taking it back soon, but I might as well tell you about it while I have it in memory, for I definitely want to forget it.This movie doesn't deserve to even be called horrible.It's beyond horrible.Quite possibly, the worst film ever.The acting was so, so, so, so horrifically disgusting, as well as the deaths being so ENTIRELY lame and predictable.I didn't even laugh at how bad this movie was, which kind of frightens me a little.Don't see this film, shame on you if you're even looking at this movie page, and I have EXTREME pity for you if you're looking at this movie page, because you think this will be DECENT.Final word: YUCK!!!!!!!!!!
I have to say that there is one redeeming speck in regards to this "film". It firmly establishes the bottom of the barrel. Now filmmakers know what to aim above when making a movie. Other than that I regret watching this debacle. What shameless abandon the making of this "film" was. What a waste of $100,000 (that's right folks, ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND dollars). This "film" reminds me of that "Adult Video Awards" show in which of group of "industrial prostitutes" stand up a praise themselves, believing that they are real actors, actresses and filmmakers. Ironic then how I've watched blue movies with better acting, directing and writing. I also found it funny that the Executive Producer, Justin Ament, just had to be in the "movie". He plays Deputy Jake Barker. I'm sure his "acting" career has taken off... Ted Pfiffer, the writer, has a part. He no doubt was wallowing in the clichéd glory he created. It should be noted that Carrie Finklea has a lead role in the movie. You might remember her from Gus Van Sant's 'Elephant'. Though I'm not too sure that she'll want to write this film on her resume. And I'm not sure which is a more depressing point; money was spent to make this film or people are going to watch it. Along with 'Torque', 'Godsend' and 'Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow', one of the worst films, IF NOT THE WORST FILM, of 2004.
This movie is not that good at all.Its pretty stupid, pretty annoying, and very poorly done.I really only saw this film was because one of my friends said they hated this film.Although I didn't hate it as much as them, I still found it to be a pretty bad film.The only thing that is remotely good about this was that it was a little entertaining at times, and also I feel that if it had been done a little better it would have been equally okay.What I mean by a little better is that if it had been totally recast, not have had it looked like it had been shot for a film festival, and if the script had been improved it would have been a okay slasher film.Instead it isn't but instead what it is now, a crappy film.The acting is atrocious I felt as if I was watching a couple of teens act for like a Halloween show or Thrill ride or something.The kills are pretty cheap(as is the film itself), and basically everything else is low-class.Overall this film really is bad and you wouldn't be missing out on anything if you decided to skip this film.<br /><br />3.8 out of 10 stars
This is a new approach to comedy. It isn't funny.<br /><br />The joke is that this, in and of itself, is supposed to be funny.<br /><br />The story is based on a French short story, located in Paris, and the characters have French names. Louis Aubinard, for example ... played by ... Bob Hoskins? The movie also stars the equally French Jeff Goldblum and Natasha Richardson. The situations are similar to and the characters perform as if in those Carry-On movies from years back.<br /><br />I believe these are also jokes - to cast these actors who make no attempt to act French in any way, to have them cavort in the manner of broad English dance hall comedy, and to leave the whole bloomin' mystery unexplained to the audience.<br /><br />In the humour department, this is practically the Algonquin Round Table, isn't it?<br /><br />The movie tries to be charming and quirky, and I guess these characteristics are sort of funny. Not as funny as Duck Soup or Love and Death, perhaps, but funnier than The Deer Hunter or The Battleship Potemkin.<br /><br />It is an example of personal filmmaking. It makes no real effort to reach out and share with the audience, but stays true to its premise and its internal logic. Although all the situations are unbelievable, they are logical within the film's own bizarro world.<br /><br />I generally like this kind of eccentric movie, but I found this one to be paced too slowly, to be dull-witted, tedious, and to provide too few pleasurable surprises or genuine wit. It just kind of meanders in predictable and sophomoric ways, and wastes some wonderful talents along the way. It has to be the low point in the career of each of the major stars, who are all otherwise distinguished players. I found it to be the biggest waste of talent since The Betsy, and I wish I had never seen Goldblum and Hoskins in this thing.<br /><br />So, call it an interesting miss, and pass on it as a rental unless you really have a lot of time to kill.<br /><br />
Relentless like one of those loud action movies. The entire cast seems to be on speed. I didn't quite get the director's intentions if any. I wonder if she's ever seen a Stanley Donen, Vincent Minnelli or even a George Sidney musical. Structure, please! This is one hell of a mess and I loved Abba. The costumes the unflattering photography - unflattering towards the actors but loving towards the locations) The one thing that makes the whole thing bearable is the sight of Meryl Streep making a fool of herself. No chemistry with her friends (Christine Baranski and Julie Walters) think of Streep with Lily Tomlyn in the Altman film and you'll understand what I was hoping for. I was embarrassed in particular by Pierce Brosnam and Colin Firth. The audience, however, seemed to enjoy it so it probably it's just me.
There's no better way to describe the HORRENDOUS experience that's to watch Mamma Mia: Hitler must be looking up, saying to the pseudo-director Phyllida Lloyd 'You monster, what have you done?'<br /><br />Everything about the movie is wrong. Just… Wrong! Even its success, which is unexplainable. I can understand when those crappy parody movies, like Epic Movie, make their minimal share of money and turn profit just because they're cheap (of course they are!). But when something like Mamma Mia makes 450 million dollars worldwide, you think 'what the hell is wrong with the world?'<br /><br />And to think we have Meryl Streep, one of the greatest alive actresses of the world, in it? What was she thinking? 'I need the money', she could say. Well then, sell one of your grandchildren, even that would be less embarrassing. It's not that Meryl is good in a disastrous piece of, err, 'movie'. She's also disastrous! When she sings, even though she's got the vocals, it's ridiculous. Worse than her only Pierce Brosnan. He used to be James Bond. Now he's singing Abba in a purple spandex during the credits of the worst movie ever. Really? And when I mention Abba, not that I have anything against the band and their music. Though it doesn't help them when actors started singing (badly), dancing (worse) and the extras join then (They pop out of nowhere! Frequently!) to present one terrible musical sequences after the other. You wanna cry when the music starts. And I love musicals! But this is the first in the genre where you PRAY for actual silence.<br /><br />I could keep going. The list goes on forever. You could write a Stephen King novel with the complete list of mistakes in this movie.<br /><br />To sum up: go watch it! Really! You've got to witness to understand!! And since it's already a huge success, who cares if it makes a few more dollars from you? And it's not liking you're selling your soul to the devil. Meryl did that before. For the whole mankind. And now the world must end, because we've committed the ultimate evil and we must be destroyed.
Everyone knows the so-called plot, so let me cut to the chase.<br /><br />Forced frivolity. Miscast performers working hard to have fun so you can have fun. The brilliant Meryl Streep gives it a great try. Pierce Brosnan just plain embarrassing. Inexplicably set on a Greek Island. Lots of squealing, shrieking women. Lots.<br /><br />It was a silly juke box musical on stage, now it's a big, splashy, poorly shot screen juke box musical. If you like ABBA, so-so. If not, an assault on the senses and an insult to whatever intelligence you're left with when you exit the theater. I readily admit that I didn't really want to see this movie and went with some friends who did, but for the love of God. Why does my gender shriek and squeal to convey delight? Ever sit next to a table of women who have had too much to drink and are absolutely determined to have GREAT night out on the town? That's the feeling of this whole project. It just felt so good when it stopped.
I don't know where most of you were at, but where I watched the film we didn't have people singing as some have told they experienced, we had people laughing, mostly at the campy plot line, the horrible dance sequences and the singing of the likes of Brosnan. The only people in the audience who seemed to be enthralled with the film were the seventies generation folks who were some how reliving the past with the songs. I was a DJ in the seventies and even went to the ABBA concert at Northlands Coliseum in Edmonton in Sept of 79, so I did appreciate them then and I still do now. But this film should have gone the same way as their marriages and ended in divorce. The sequences were so poorly staged, the dubbing and editing absolutely horrible and this has to be Meryl's worst production. I cannot believe an academy award winner would stoop so low as to do this piece of garbage. So save your money, wait for it to come out on DVD and then maybe spend your money on something better, like cat litter.
I love musicals, all of them, from joyous Oklahoma, to Poignant Porgy and Bess, to the touching romantic "Damn Yankees." And I know most of the songs, sometimes singing them spontaneously, with a crowd or humming them alone.<br /><br />In a "real" musical, as differentiated from this vaudeville show, every song is painstakingly crafted to fit the exact moment. It is an expression of sadness, regret, love, joy or exaltation--a natural extension where mere words fail. So, in Guys and Dolls, "My Time of Day" describes the adventurous life of Sky Masterson as it is about to be compromised by the most unlikely woman. Every song in this brilliant exemplar of the genre sets a mood, or develops a character, creating a phantasmagoria of place, turned absolutely believable by the self disclosing evocations of song.<br /><br />For this lover of the Broadway Musical, and their adaptations to the screen during the last half of the 20th century, Mama Mia is somewhere between satire and a cruel fun house distortion of the genre. There, the songs of these musicals advanced the often elaborate, often delightful, plot lines. While here, the songs, simply picked up from a collection, only interfered with the shaky premise of the film.<br /><br />Perhaps most of those viewers who are making this film into a monumental success simply have no exposure to the art form of 20th century Musicals. They have no idea of the magic performed by writer and lyricist that can turn a dance hall floozy into someone whom we know and love, as achieved in "Sweet Charity."<br /><br />Let me offer an apology for the arrogance of this review. Perhaps, another day, another mood, I could have gotten into it, and not have been so critical in this review.<br /><br />But I can't help but imagining what Richard Roger, Oscar Hammerstein, Cole Porter, Irving Berlin and so many others could have done even with with this silly premise. I think about it, while the memories of seeing this film is fresh, and I can not help but to mourn the great loss.
After sitting through this film, I have decided that it is one of the WORST movies I have ever seen. I knew it the moment I was subjected to three teenage girls screaming and overacting when they (OMG!) meet again, and then watching the same thing, only done by women old enough to be my mom. And that was only the first few minutes. Yeesh. So here are my comments...<br /><br />1. Middle aged women + ridiculous dance moves complete with hip thrusts and over the top costumes = not a good idea.<br /><br />2. Pierce Brosnan could not sing his way out of a paper bag. Nor could practically anyone else in this pile of excrement, for that matter.<br /><br />3. The songs were so random. It was obvious to me that they were thrown, willy nilly, into the incredibly contrived and STUPID plot.<br /><br />4. My three year old nephew could have written a better script.<br /><br />I was either cringing or laughing derisively during the movie. And I normally really like movie musicals. Of course they are bound to be a bit corny...but this was ridiculous. What a waste of talent. I mean, you have great actors and actresses in this movie...I am embarrassed for them that this is now a part of their career. I regret wasting my money and time on this piece of crap.
This movie is pathetic not because it's poorly directed, acted, sung, danced, filmed, etc ... but because it's really difficult to ruin a movie using an ABBA soundtrack - yet, unfortunately, this is the only thing the movie succeeds in doing. The musical presentations in the movie, SouthPark, was much better than in Mama Mia. The director of Mama Mia is proof that you don't need talent to be a director - all you need are ABBA songs.<br /><br />Just to give a sample of the awfulness: An aging Meryl Streep is shot with close-ups in the harsh sunlight singing and just ruining the song with all the distracting wrinkles on her face. Why do that to one of the most talented Actresses out there?
Having avoided seeing the movie in the cinema, but buying the DVD for my wife for Xmas, I had to watch it. I did not expect much, which usually means I get more than I bargained for. But 'Mamma Mia' - utter, utter cr**. I like ABBA, I like the songs, I have the old LPs. But this film is just terrible. The stage show looks like a bit of a musical, but this races along with songs hurriedly following one another, no characterisation, the dance numbers (which were heavily choreographed according to the extras on the DVD) are just thrown away with only half the bodies ever on screen, the dance chorus of north Europeans appear on a small Greek island at will, while the set and set up of numbers would have disgraced Cliff Richard's musicals in the sixties!Meryl (see me I'm acting)Streep can't even make her usual mugging effective in an over-the-top musical! Her grand piece - 'The Winner Takes It All' - is Meryl at the Met! Note to director - it should have been shot in stillness with the camera gradually showing distance growing between Streep and Brosnan! Some of the singing is awful karaoke on amateur night. The camera cannot stop moving like bad MTV. One can never settle down and just enjoy the music, enthusiasm and characters. But what is even worse is how this botched piece of excre**** has become the highest grossing film in the UK and the best selling DVD to boot? Blair, Campbell and New Labour really have reduced the UK to zombies - critical faculties anyone???
I cannot remember a more trivial, mind numbing and shallow film in other words a real chick flick of the worst kind. How can anyone watch this film and recommend it to others ? Only if they don't like admitting they made a mistake. It seems to summarise the worst of female aspirations. No real substance to it all happy and shallow. Yeah that'll please the masses. Well not this member of the masses. What a trivial load of drivel. I wanted to leave the cinema within 5 minutes of the start. And to think I paid £7 to see this ! I think this does however represent the dumbing down of cinema as with most media these days. So I like a bit of reality in my musicals call me sad or what ?
I do not remember, at least in the last ten years or so, a movie that I have liked less than Mama Mia. From the non-existent acting to the atrocious singing, I was cringing at least once per minute. I don't believe I could even recall one brief segment that I tolerated. I do know that I will never watch this disaster again. I cannot believe that with such high expectations due to the talent - Colin Firth, Meryl Streep, Pierce Brosnan, that a movie could be such a flop. But to see the lack of acting skills shown, the seemingly drug-induced dancing, and then, horrors of horrors, to hear the singing of Pierce Brosnan(!), I cannot see how this movie will not make it into the hall of shame. Definitely, a movie that never should have been made, and just in case you missed it the first time, one that I will never watch again.
The supposed writer and director Mr.Dhawan has copied almost the whole plot of the blockbuster Hollywood movie "HITCH" starring Will Smith. Many scenes are also exactly the same. The plot was just copy pasted and some low grade humor(probably mr.Dhawan's own creation) and frequent dancing was added to increase the movie time to local standards.<br /><br />Although Salman khan and Govinda's acting did give us some smiles, however it does not suit legendary artists like them to be a part of plagiarism, specially when they themselves keep telling people to stop buying pirated discs!
The Movie is not bad in itself...till you see the original movie Hitch(2005) starring Will Smith. The movie is a straight copy with even the dialogs for most part of the movie simply translated from English to Hindi! The plot in the original is tightly executed. The Hindi version fails to keep the viewers interested. The over-the-top kind of comedy of David Dhawan seems to have gone overboard with Govinda hysterically shouting at all times...sometimes more time is spent in understanding the reason for that than the plot. :)<br /><br />If you know English, which I assume you know given that you are reading this, see the Hollywood original. At least watch "Hitch" if you have watched Partner to be able to compare. This is the least we can do to support the creative geniuses whose work, I am sad to say, is shamelessly lifted by "inspired" people like David Dhawan.
This movie was recommended to me so we went to see it together. I wouldn't call it a movie, it's more like a combination of 10 different unfinished, illogical stories, which are not all that funny. There're several characters in the movie who looked important in the beginning, and they just disappeared from the story. He's just trying too hard to fit everything in 2 1/2 hours. I left the show without wondering what happened to this and that guy.<br /><br />I think this movie is just an extended version of "Hitch", padded with a lot more characters and dancing.<br /><br />If this is the best movie that this couple has ever made, then I'm pretty sure I'm not interested in any of his previous ones.
This movie is widely admonished as being a copy of the Will Smith feature Hitch. That movie was dull.<br /><br />This movie isn't so much dull as unbearable. Govinda looks way past his prime. He is not at his best doing roles like this. It is similarly unconvincing as his performance in Deewana Mastana.<br /><br />Salman Khan is at his eye-aching "best". And that's in the few scenes where he remembers to put clothes on. It could only have been through nepotism that this eye-sore's scenes could be saved from the trash bin of any movie's cutting floor.<br /><br />Another case of Bollywood embarrassing itself with it's shameless cloning. Another case of the Bollywood audience majority embarrassing themselves by making this a hit.
First of all let us discuss about the story. It is a copy of the movie "Hitch" with an added Indian Flavor to it. One guy, who is a Love guru, and another man who is seemingly a sucker when it comes to ladies, and how this seemingly sucker becomes a charmer with the help of the love guru forms the story. Salman Khan is the love guru, and Govinda is the lame guy.<br /><br />Now coming to artists' performance, Salman Khan overacts throughout the movie, he tries to be funny, but fails big time. You can see Salman shouting throughout the movie, no real acting is seen in his performance. Govinda pairs opposite Katrina Kaif(Oh, my god, she is one heck of a girl. A real Beauty)is in real life a 50 year old dude, and Katrina is a girl in her early twenties. In the movie Govinda looks like Grandpa of Katrina Kaif. What a pity! Coming to Execution of the movie. This movie feels like a B-Movie, and a poor imitation of the movie Hitch. Where Hitch looks like a movie with a purpose and depth, this movie is shallow and purposeless, nowhere there is justification or clarity.<br /><br />Just forget this movie, for it is nothing but boring, typical Bollywood fare. Actually I give 3/10 because this is the lowest I go.
Honestly, I have to admit that I go and see certain stupid films based on the hype they have generated or are currently generating. This dumb Salman Khan & Govinda feature is one of those stupid films. Okay, by now we've all seen 'Hitch' starring Will Smith as a date doctor trying to help out odd people find true. Then why would we need to see Salman Khan re-enact this? Therein lies the $64,000 question. In case you were wondering, Govinda plays the oddball in search of the love of his life (an unreachable socialite) played by Katrina Kaif.<br /><br />Lara Dutta is along to play Sallu's Eva Mendes, and Sallu's real-life love Kaif pretty much plays her character like every role you've see her in thus far, no stretch no acting required. And for nearly three and a half hours we get tortured with spoofs of other Bollywood films and characters or better yet we get treated to low rate performances of past hit films. Rajpal Yadav co-stars. F
There wasn't a 0 in the voting option so i was compelled to use the next available figure.<br /><br />It is a sad day for bollywood when such type of movies which have star-cast actors is nothing more are than a bunch of juvenile acting, and an awful script.<br /><br />This movie is nowhere near to be called a clone of Hitch. Salman khan with his usual take-off-you-shirt theme and Govinda with his in-humorous laughs. If somebody had told 2 decades ago that I would be writing a comment on Salman (after his success with Maine Pyar Kiya), I would have written him/her off.
Talk about over acting...!!!! not just by Govinda, but also by Salman and Lara....The direction was awful. The first half hour you would pretty much want to switch the movie off..because this movie is a real stinker (mark my words. <br /><br />I liked Govinda in some o his comedy roles like Haseena Maan Jaayegi, Jodi No. 1, Akhiyon se Goli Maare and Jis Desh Mein Ganga Rehta Hai and this does not compare to any of them. And Salman Khan should not do comedy roles at all!! He sucks. He does not know how to do comedy. The only good comedy role he did was in Andaz Apna Apna, which was brilliant next to Amir Khan. <br /><br />There were so many 'overly done stupidly unfunny' scenes in this movie that make you want to take out the DVD and burn it so no one else in your house watches it ever again.
This is another Bollywood remake of a Hollywood movie. Hitch...If I'm correct.<br /><br />The film has some great moments which will have you laughing out loud which frankly only come from Govinda who has become a legend within Indian Cinema and will always bring his A game in terms of comedies. Another bonus is Rajpal Yadav; who is hilarious as the gangster who mimics 'Don', an Indian icon of cinema. Lara Dutta is a plus...I know I sound shallow but its mainly because I have a soft spot for her, she tries to be funny but its seems to be forced. Her acting is weak...but she still shines. Salman Khan is atrocious, he tries to bring the cool, charming depths but fails miserably, he over acts and keeps shouting for no apparent reason. <br /><br />'Thats not acting mate, thats called being mentally challenged'<br /><br />Katrina Kaif is just bad...not very good at anything. No charisma, no talent..and I don't see why people consider her pretty... The plot was far fetched and I had a hard time believing that Katrina's character was remotely attracted to Govinda. The only good thing is the music...'You're my love' was the best in the soundtrack.
This is not a good movie. It is a tried remake of the English movie 'The Hitch'. But it insults the original one. This is hardly a movie you expect from a veteran director like 'David Dhawan' who is credited to directing good movies like "Raja Babu", "Coolie No.1", "Hero No. 1"...<br /><br />The main theme for this movie is taken from "The Hitch" with some changes so as to appeal to the Indian audience but somehow the story and the screenplay is not convincing enough. Plus the acting from the lead roles i.e. Salman Khan and Govinda is pitiful. It seems that they need the slightest provocation to remove their shirts to reveal their bare chest. I do not consider this fascinating and least of all comic. What was the director thinking ? Added to this the viewers have to bear the case of Govinda's Over-acting. It was simply unbearable. I ADVISE THE VIEWERS TO WATCH IT AT YOUR OWN RISK. My rating of 2 for this movie could be considered to be a very generous one.<br /><br />Instead I would advise the viewers to watch the English movie "Hitch" which is a lot better.
Soon after this movie was released,Salman Khan was handed over a 6 Year Imprisonment.(Read further to know why am i mentioning this.)<br /><br />And i heaved a sigh of relief.Not that i was happy that he got jail for something which because he was a celeb but i was happy cus this meant No more Salman Khan movies,no more his histrionics and no more over hyped Acting(read Overacting).<br /><br />This movie made no sense whatsoever. <br /><br />The scene where the kid belonging to one of the family makes a rocket which was voice activated .According to the movie script it would chase anyone.But ultimately it finds only Salman Khan Bare Chested. Well this is what happened.<br /><br />The Rocked gets activated in another foolish way and you have to have an IQ of .001 to believe that. Then it chases Salman Khan ,who was on his water scooter and the chase continues unless he is done with all the possible stunts he could show to foolish audience. (In my regard all those people who have given this movie 5 and above ,unless they are paid to do that.)<br /><br />Another of breath taking ,unbelievable scene was at the end when all the arrangements about the marriage is made and Salman Khan with Govinda in Disguise comes and stall the marriage by another of those highly unwanted songs .Later on even though everything is done and ready a mere confession of govinda and Katrina Kaif to katrina's Father and Bingo . Everything is fine and Govinda marries Kartina....<br /><br />This made me wonder if convincing was so easy why did not they do that and tortured us for so many hours and wasted my Money.<br /><br />This movie is must avoid and don't even think it had any scene worth watching . The plot is way too disconnected with characters popping from no where and ultimately vanishing..for ex Choota don...What a waste of characters.<br /><br />After this movie i took a pledge that i would not watch Salman khan Movies for the rest of my life unless it wins an Oskar...(hahahah...which means i would never watch)
I just don't know how this stupid, crap, junk, garbage & good for nothing film is a blockbuster. It was so boring with a very, very weak (or no) story-line and wasn't even a jot funny. The film was about 135 minutes of only a paragraph of story about Prem (Salman Khan) is a love guru and is helping hapless & romantic Bhaskar (Govinda) to get the girl he wants. I'm not saying that I didn't like the film because it wasn't funny or anything, I will accept a movie that is not funny but has a decent story. The only two reasons why I can say it's a super-hit are: <br /><br />1. Salman Khan & Govinda are on-screen together but there first time together was in Salaam e Ishq which was a flop so it can't be. But it was a really good movie.<br /><br />2. Salman Khan's name is Prem and all the films with that name have been a hit including Maine Pyar Kiya. So it's just luck.<br /><br />I heard that it's a remake of Hitch, I've not seen it & I'm glad I didn't. Music is OK the only good songs are Do you want a partner, You're my love & Soni De Nakhre but what is the use of it in a really bad film, that too, if you have someone like Katrina Kaif who dances with two left feet? She is completely crap. Neither she knows acting, language (her voice is always dubbed for her), dance and always fails to impress. I do not like her one bit she was even disappointing in Koffee with Karan. Overall Partner is a disposable film with a disposable actress Katrina Kaif. Its better off that she is kicked out of Bollywood and never comes back again.
David Dhawan copied HITCH and such an unofficial copy The film isn't even 1/2 as funny or amusing as the original it's boring with forced stories like the Lara track of having a child and no hubby Plus there is an unwanted stupid Chota DON and David tries to choke drama too but the film looks disjointed, boring<br /><br />Songs just pop in, so does romance and everything barring some funny Govinda scenes, the dance before interval nothing else is worth mentioning The last few scenes are quite funny but there tend to get too long<br /><br />David's direction is as bad as MAINE PYAAR KYUN KIYAA, he needs to change his style or attempt something good Music is saving grace, some songs are good but the situations seem forced<br /><br />Govinda looks overweight and seems too loud and screams his lines in initial reels but he gets into the groove and gives his best in the office and the scene with Salman in his cabin and towards the end<br /><br />Salman just plays himself and his nasal tone plus his fake style of acting is a headache<br /><br />Lara is avoidable, Katrina is fake as usual<br /><br />The kid overacts
If you are planning to watch 'Partner' and are on IMDb reading reviews about it, you have already wasted too much time over this stupid, idiotic, awful movie.<br /><br />It's a horrible, horrible, horrible copy of the movie 'Hitch.' I choose to ignore all the other warnings and bad reviews I had heard about this movie, and wasted a precious 20 minutes on it - I thought that after all its David Dhawan who is making it, and it has Govinda - how bad can it be? But after 20 minutes of watching this nonsense, I couldn't take it any more, and turned off my computer.<br /><br />Overacting by everyone in the movie, stupid dialogues, total time waste - I gave it a 1-star rating because that's the lowest you can do. If I could go lower, I would have given it a -100 rating.
I didn't know what to expect when I started watching this movie, by the end of it I was pulling my hairs out. This was one of the most pathetic movies of this year...in fact, in the last ten years. David Dhawan should just give up his career as a director. I am yet to come across one original script that David Dhawan has worked on. This one was a complete bit y bit rip off Hitch. I have nothing against remakes as such, but this one is just so lousy that it makes you even hate the original one (which was pretty decent). I fail to understand what actors like Salman and Govinda saw in this script. I read somewhere, that this was supposed to be Govinda's comeback vehicle. If thats true, then only God can save his career. Salman just overacted to the hilt. Govinda who I think is an actor of very high caliber was completely wasted. Katrina Kaif and LAra Dutta had nothing to do apart form wearing designer clothes and smiling for no rhyme or reason. Please stay away form this one!
I was really geared up to watch when two of best movie critics tagged this movie as a 'laugh riot'. But the movie turned out be disappointing.<br /><br />You will be advised to watch this movie keeping your brains at home but you simply can't ignore the flaws and the shortcomings.<br /><br />1. The missile scene was total stupidity.<br /><br />2. Katrina Kaif and Govinda pair looked awful. (He's 49 and she's just 24... more than double of her age) 3. Salman's comedy is less of acting and more of overacting.<br /><br />4. Songs are good but interrupts the pace of the movie.<br /><br />5. Some scenes were deliberately attempted by the movie makers to be funny, and 6. Poor and flawed story.<br /><br />However, there are few pluses- 1. Govinda. Great Individual Performance.<br /><br />2. Some scenes are actually quite funny.<br /><br />3. Kattrina Kaif. Looks and Acting keeps on improving with every film.<br /><br />4. Rajpal Yadav's Don sequences. Though under-utilized but hilarious.<br /><br />So 4 good points, 6 bad ones.. this one gets 4/10.
I watched this movie only coz it was expected to be yet another entertainer by David Dhawan. <br /><br />Bad Bad comeback by David Dhawan.he has made lots of funny movies in past which made no sense but none of them was a crap bag!! What a waste of talent and beauty it was?Donno why actors agree on doin movie like this.<br /><br />There was not a whit of practicality in this movie.The movie is below par and not at all justifies the standard and potential Bollywood has.<br /><br />The only thing worth watching in this movie was katrina but we don't need to watch a movie like this to see her! Being a remake of Hollywood flick Hitch its clear that bollywood directors cant even make a proper remake. I consider this to be the worst ever movie I hv seen. Awful 1/10
The movie is nice Well pictured, but no originality...<br /><br />this movie is directly copied from "The Hitch" where Salman plays like a Date Dr. like Will Smith, and Govinda like some fat jerk, who is desperate to get in love with her boss by the end the movie comes to an old Indian Flimi style, the bride's father doesn't like the bride's lover and gets some other groom, and Govinda the bride's lover comes in the end and saves her from the new groom and a fancy dance and stuff.<br /><br />the comedy was real good, no doubt when the hitch meets Hindi would be more funnier....<br /><br />Ultimately worth a watch but when it comes on TV after few months...
A dull stroll through the banalities of Mormon prosthelatizing. Utterly un-funny. A testament to the widely held theory, that in order for bathroom humor to be funny, it must necessarily be vulgar; it also bolsters the claim that a close relationship with Jesus makes you not funny. More propaganda than film, don't worry about any touchy social issues coming up at the dinner table after this one. The saving grace of this movie is its accurate portrayal of young Mormon females as particularly attractive. Oh well, its your $7.50.
This movie has a look and feel of many "Fresh" directors (closeups and focus on the emotions being experienced by the actors). The point of the film was presented from many angles and expressed well by the relatively inexperienced cast. The point being "Have faith in Jesus Christ and the Morman Church" Oh, and if you read or hear anything contrary to the teachings of the Prophet, it is just Haterade. (Fuel for Hatred)
Okay, I sensed that a film by Mormons, about Mormons, for Mormons would be a disaster waiting to happen, but little did I know how so very painful it would be. A little known fact is that Mormons have always made exceptionally fine propaganda films. The Church's official cinematic campaign has produced rare and lasting gems that transcend the Mormon community, including the wonderful short film "Cipher in the Snow" which ended up making the rounds as an educational film in the late 70's. Then there's Neil LaBute's disturbingly masterful ouvre....<br /><br />However, the success of these films depended largely on the fact that they didn't focus on Mormons or any specific Mormon theology. Instead they opt to focus on a universal theme and deal with it on a basic human level. "God's Army" abandons any pretext of universality and runs headlong into the stilted and myopic world of the orthodox. While this might be enough to alienate anyone but the most devoted Mormon, director Richard Ductcher's ineptitude as a filmmaker and his juvenile approach to storytelling are sufficient grounds to judge "God's Army" unwatchable by almost any standard.<br /><br />Dutcher's own appallingly wooden acting sets the tone for his army of the least interesting Mormons you're ever likely to meet. Of course the cast's sorry performances aren't helped any by Dutcher's pathetic script. He should be given credit for not avoiding some of the more controversial aspects of the Church, but, as can be expected, he conveniently frames these controversies in a sympathetic light. It should also come as no surprise that most of the answers to the Church's darker side are addressed with little other than faith. At one point an African-American missionary is scolded by a black couple for joining a church that was segregated up until 1978 (some ten to twenty years after nearly every congregation in the most degenerate parts of the deep South had already done so). Instead of addressing the Church's actively racist history, perhaps the sorest spot in Mormon theology which even Church leaders don't defend anymore, Dutcher's troubled character instead ponders Joseph Smith's murder--an obvious and perhaps outrageous allusion to lynching. Top off this syruppy milktoast with third grader leper jokes passing as comic relief and you have a strong case for the revival of silent films.<br /><br />If you knew little about Mormons before watching this film, you might become prone to avoiding them at all costs. If you are Mormon, this film offers absolutely nothing to be proud about.
Director / lead actor Dutcher revels in this look-at-me film, wherein he attempts to gain worldly acceptance for tarnishing the otherwise very upbeat world of Mormon missionaries. Some of the acting is fair. But some roles are unrealistic, i.e. the ominous (rather than fatherly) Mission President, etc. The film does give a fair look at how some missionaries may struggle with their faith, but the actual missionary program he claims to represent is far from his concept of it, in terms of being upbeat, cohesive, and inspired. The only inspiration I see in this film is Dutcher's self-inspiration. The film is slow and boring, and the shooting and screenplay look like a college student project.
let me first just say that in the past, i have been a huge carlin fan. i think george is one of the smartest people and best comedians on the planet. what made george so great in the past was his ability to look at things in his own twisted way, and give us his unique perspective on those things. it wasn't always meant to be funny, but you always respected his opinions, because they were presented in such a clever way. but you are all diseased is just a long rant. he doesn't give us any unique perspective on anything, he just gives us a long list of stuff that he's p.o.'d at. there is no insight, no cleverness, just an old man complaining for one hour straight about things that we have all complained about. and on top of that, it wasn't even funny. you are all diseased appeals to dumb people who can't handle anything more advanced than something simple and direct. i don't mind anger fueled comedy, but george could have done so much better. i really hope that george carlin's next show will live up to the quality that george has shown in the past.
It is a movie which sheds the light on the begging of the Palestinian struggle against the Israeli occupation of Palestine but it does not show the real feelings of the people back then and how they were tricked into believing that they could return to their home soon , it does not mention the massacres committed by the Jews like Der Yassine and how they tortured and killed and destroyed the family of any Palestinian freedom fighter it lacks the credibility about the real Palestinian struggle and about anything Palestinian , however it has something about the suffering of Palestinian citizens ending up as refugees in the nearby Arab countries , the movie focuses on the story of the man in coma he is now in the present time and through his story we see the film . The movie is just telling the life of one person and has some nudity scenes which are irrelevant to the story.
Pepe le Moko, played by Charles Boyer, is some sort of international criminal mastermind wanted in countries throughout Europe, and to stay free he holes himself up in the Casbah, a mysterious part of Algiers where even the police are reluctant to go, until a senior officer is sent from Paris to capture le Moko once and for all. For le Moko, although the Casbah allows him to remain out of police custody, it also becomes a sort of prison at the same time - a place he can't leave, because the moment he does, he knows he'll be arrested.<br /><br />Boyer's performance was good, and I can understand why he was nominated for an Oscar. He captures the essence of such a character - a perfect combination of very dangerous and yet very classy at the same time. The movie itself, unfortunately, was quite a letdown. A number of parts of the story seemed inconsistent, of which I'll mention two. First was the idea that the police wouldn't enter the Casbah. That was stated pretty clearly at the beginning of the film by the local commander, and yet repeated references in the movie suggest that in fact the police did enter the Casbah fairly regularly. So, neither the suggestion by Commissioner Janvier that the police wouldn't enter, nor the statement by Inspector Slimane (also a decent performance by Joseph Calleia) that they could get into the Casbah but not out seemed to make much sense. I also found it difficult to believe that le Moko - hardened criminal mastermind that he was - could be so quickly swept off his feet by Gaby (Hedy Lamarr) to the point where he entertains the local populace by singing love songs and then leaves the Casbah to find her, essentially giving himself up. I understand the irony of the final few scenes, of course, as Pepe leaves the freedom of his prison (the Casbah) only to find real freedom in his capture (because he's shot and killed by the police.) I just found it impossible to believe that someone like le Moko would fall into such a trap.<br /><br />This is worth watching for Boyer, and to a lesser extent Calleia, but the story is disappointing and inconsistent. 3/10
Algiers is not a classic, it is a perversion of the wonderful original Pepe le Moko, directed by Duvivier and starring a much more attractive and charming Pepe, Jean Gabin. If you want to fully experience the Casbah and the characters in Algiers, I recommend you don't even watch this movie and see Pepe le Moko instead, for it is much more elaborate, more beautifully filmed, the lines are not clichéd and the characters adhere much more to reality. Furthermore, the ending is so dramatic and key to Pepe's character that you'll find the Algiers version intolerable. Although Algiers does an almost excellent job mimicking each scene, the acting falls short as does the credibility of the characters. Plus, the wardrobe is truly breath-taking in all scenes, particularly Pepe's in the last scene and Gaby's (at all times) but also when she's on the boat. Frankly, Algiers is cheap as far as imitations go.
Atmosphere and droll dialog don't redeem this overrated classic. Boyer is a French thief hiding in the Casbah of Algiers while the police try to figure out how to get him out. Meanwhile, he falls for Lamarr and tries to find a way to escape. The film is slow to get started and never really goes anywhere. Reminiscent of Casablanca in some ways, it's completely lacking any larger theme than the wanted man seducing a good woman. It's all talk-talk-talk, with endless scenes of Boyer swaggering among his idiot cohorts and Boyer wooing Lamarr in the shadows. Personally, I didn't care for Boyer's character for a minute, so the tension was utterly nonexistent.<br /><br />Stock 1930s character actors stumble thru the mushy plot as Boyer's henchmen--guys who clearly do not belong in Algiers. Sigrid Gurie is the wildly-overacting jealous girlfriend of Boyer. His brazen womanizing in front of her doesn't bode well for any future he might have with Lamarr.<br /><br />Especially bad is a long sequence in which an underling comes to tell Boyer how another henchman was captured. It sounds exciting... too bad we didn't see it for ourselves. The ending is completely anticlimactic and seems to be remarkable only because it is not a Hollywood happy ending; that doesn't stop it from being sappy.
Eric Idle, Robbie Coltraine, Janet Suzman - it should have been almost impossible to go wrong. Of course it has some funny moments - the scene in the showers when Robbie Coltraine echoes Lon Chaney Jr's ghastly werewolf line "I can't help myself" is hilarious. But ultimately the plot, script and direction are flat as a pancake and as tired as a 90 year old nun after 180 "Hail Mary"s. When I was a child, Carry On films filled this niche slightly better, which is a really sad indictment of a film with such a promising cast.
This film has been compared to the hilarious British comedy "A Fish Called Wanda", although I can't see why. The only connection I can find is the Monty Python one (Eric Idle in "Nuns", John Cleese and Michael Palin in "Wanda"). Otherwise the two are incomparable.<br /><br />Idle and Robbie Coltrane are two gangsters who want to get out of the business before they end up dead, so they decide to rip off their boss and make for Rio. When the getaway goes wrong, the two are forced to take refuge in a convent, as nuns.<br /><br />What at first promises to be a riot soon becomes a predictable, average movie with the usual tasteless sex jokes and bland humour. Once again there are the occasional high spots, but neither cast nor crew manage to inspire proceedings. An attempt at a "Wanda" type manic finish fails too, along with the effort at "men in drag" humour, which is hardly surprising. When you think about it, men trying to be women is funny, men trying to be nuns is ridiculous.<br /><br />Friday, April 22, 1994 - Video
Coltrane and Idle are members of a bank robbery gang who double cross their leader during a robbery. They hide out in a nunnery school and disguise themselves appropriately to avoid detection from the mob and the police. Alot of catholic humor and slapstick but the script is kinda thin as are the laughs.. There is a GOOD shower scene though... on a scale of one to ten..4
Does anyone remember BRAVEHEART ? It starred Mel Gibson who also directed and was scripted by Randall Wallace . The film contains over 200 errors . Does anyone remember THE GREEN BERETS ? That`s the John Wayne western where the Duke saves a homestead called Vietnam from a bunch of injuns from the commie tribe . If you watch WE WERE SOLDIERS you can`t help but be reminded of these two films .<br /><br />First of all what`s with that Scottish lament that`s played three times in the movie , four if you count the end credits ? I mean what`s the connection between Scotland and `Nam ? Maybe Wallace is using it in the vain hope that because BRAVEHEART was bombarded - Undeservedly I might add - with several Oscars then so might this film ? Whatever reason it`s included it really jars . Gibson plays Hal Moore as a cross between William Wallace and John Wayne and I was expecting him to say something like " They`ll never take our freedom - The hell they will " and it`s impossible not to notice other similarities with THE GREEN BERETS like the subplot of a journalist picking up a gun and turning into a warrior and Moore telling the journalist about guilt in a scene almost identical to the one seen in the Wayne movie<br /><br />When not reminding the audience of other movies WWS also fails to stand on its own legs , it`s based on real events in 1965 but seems to lack an integrity needed to do the story justice , it never feels like 1965 and lacks a sense of time and place probably because it was filmed in America not Asia . Hal Moore might have brushed up on the French experience in Indo-China but if that`s the case then he was unique because the American military went out of their way not to read up on the French Indo-China war , indeed when asked about the previous conflict Westmoreland replied he had nothing to learn from the French " Who haven`t won a war since the days of Napoleon " so I was confused as to the portrayal of the NVA in this movie , when in 1965 the American high command , brimming with hubris held the North Vietnamese and VC in contempt . It`s like history has been rewritten in order to show the rice farmers of Vietnam are superlative warriors . They are , but very few Americans believed this in the mid 1960s<br /><br />There`s a couple of other things that confused me like how the wives back home get telegrams telling them their husbands are dead ? No bodies are shown being flown back to base and no one on screen is seen referring to who`s been killed in the La Drang valley . Likewise we`re not seen reinforcements arrive on screen so how do we suddenly see the Americans out number the NVA ? I put these down as directorial/ editing blunders on the part of Wallace who doesn`t strike me as much of a director , and his biggest problem seems to be communicating the horror of the battle . Take the scene where the American burned to a crisp is flown away screaming " Tell my wife I love her " . This should have an emotional impact similar to THAT death scene in PLATOON but here there`s no impact . In fact I found the scene cliched and patronising , and he`s not the only character to mouth the words " Tell my wife ... " while mutilated or dying , I counted at least two other characters use the phrase . Did characters actually say this at the battle ? I`ve no idea but since Randall Wallace wrote the script I do have reservations<br /><br />I sat in shocked awe watching APOCALYPSE NOW , PLATOON and THE KILLING FIELDS made my eyes water , I laughed at FULL METAL JACKET , I kept looking at my watch with THE DEER HUNTER , and after seeing WE WERE SOLDIERS I felt totally patronised
So many people have taken shots at Platoon and Born On the Fourth of July among other calling them "leftist propaganda film." Now its my turn to take a political shot at a movie. To me this movie is very imposing on certain religious beliefs and on its political views.<br /><br />The acting and writing was a little to clichéd for my liking. Mel Gibson seems to like to play in these unnecessary violent films and proves it once again by teaming up with his partner Randall Wallace for yet another one. Throughout this movie there was this garbage prototypical "Just tell my family I love them" or "Tell Ronny to pray before hoe goes to bed" lines. The was so overloaded with this garbage retread lines that I felt like I had to vomit. How about that scene were Gibson's wife goes to do her laundry and this "no colors" applies to what to put in the washing machine. Its in the mid-sixties was she some how stuck under a rock not noticing the racism around her. Another scene is were Gibson's daughter asks him what war is and the scene is shot in such a trivial matter.<br /><br />The directing displayed this all perfectly. The countless scenes of Gibson and his family or soldiers praying. I'm fine with showing that once or twice but after a while I wonder if the movie is trying to shove something into my head. How many scenes with the American flag at its finest hour were shot with the melodramatic music on. The director also makes it seem like we won some sort of victory in Vietnam. What exactly was won their. The cinematography was the worst of it with the slowed down scenes see the American flag in the distance scenes spread throughout. I love America but movies like this seem to glorify every little thing we do.<br /><br />This may seem like a rant and maybe it is but I cannot stand it when a movie like this makes people who are not religious are not so patriotic that they will agree with anything their country does look bad. This movie to me is narrow minded and limited in so many aspects. To me it says if your not Christian your wrong. Would God or Jesus want people to kill I don't think so. To me this movie was offensive. At first this movie was funny with the countless clichés and overacted scenes but then when I looked at what this movie was trying to say or not say it was really frustrating to watch. I guess though it is my fault that I chose to watch this movie. I hope no one takes this comment offensively because I am not criticizing religion or patriotism but some of the narrow minded people who are so into both and discount everyone else.<br /><br />If you want a real depiction of the Vietnam war watch Platoon, Born On the Fourth of July, Apocalypse Now, The Deer Hunter or The Killing Fields. Even Full Metal Jacket which I absolutely hated was a better depiction. I have read a quote that in context says a true patriot does not go with everything the government or country does but questions it when its wrong. A real patriot loves their country too much to see it do bad things.
I've read all the complimentary posts on this muddled semi-noir and am puzzled at the high regard for what seems, in the cruel light of 2007, a very sloppy late-RKO assembly-line product. All that endless documentary footage of fish, waves, fish, waves has little to do with the central conflict and just pads the running time. The editing is downright careless: Scenes just end, and are followed by other scenes that have little to do with what preceded them. The dialog bears the stilted traces of the Odets origins: high-flown metaphors that never could have come from the limited imaginations of these workaday people. But what's really surprising is how horribly overacted the triangle is, on all sides. I love Stanwyck, but she snarls and contorts and lashes out wildly -- an undisciplined performance several notches below her standard. Douglas, overplaying at being lovable, then goes onto a would-be murderous rampage and is similarly hammy, as is Ryan, snarling and shouting most unnaturally. The less interesting second couple at least provides recognizable human behavior: Keith Andes, whose character is kind of a Neanderthal by today's standards, nevertheless is smooth and persuasive as Stanwyck's (much younger, one presumes) brother, and Marilyn Monroe, as his girlfriend, is natural and unaffected. On Monterey's windswept coast (and all that Monterey footage, while largely irrelevant, is interesting as a document of what the town looked like), amid all the overheated hysteria, these two are islands of sanity. A final point, and a spoiler: Perhaps the Breen Office mandated it, but does anybody believe the happy ending for a second? Stanwyck may temporarily have regressed into being an obedient wifey, but I give the marriage a month.
Big disappointment. CLASH BY NIGHT is much to talky and stagy and the dialog doesn't resonate as true coming from these characters. This is melodrama at its peak. The acting is truly over the top and very unreal. Only MARILYN MONROE and KEITH ANDES as supporting players give this film any zip. Wish they had more to do. I'm somebody who looks at details in films. Two big questions...1 Who is watching the baby the entire day when Stanwyck and Ryan are together and Douglas is working, then breaking up a fight in a bar with is father? 2. When Stanwyck is packing to leave town, why is she seen packing at her brothers place where she hasn't lived for at least two years? Also, when everyone goes to the projection room at the Theatre, who's taking care of the baby again? Such details really irritate me and cause me to give films much lower ratings. What were the writers, directors and everyone else connected with the film thinking? Nuf' said.
Ok, so I saw this movie at this year's Sundance, and I was sorely unimpressed. It took a good fifteen minutes of footage before there was an edit or a line of dialogue that made any sense, and it took another 30 minutes before the ham-fisted script gave way to a working plot that wasn't contingent on a close-up of Ryan Gosling's smile or contrived moralizing. After the first 45 minutes however, the script blossomed into a watch-able albeit not completely entertaining or thought-provoking. The highlights certainly include both Gosling and Morse's acting, Gosling being an up-and-coming star, and Morse being an extremely well-established character actor with a good feel for disparate emotions. As a sidenote, after the screening I was talking a little smack about the movie to some of my friends when David Morse walked right behind me--He looks like the nicest guy in the world, but he's a solid 6'2" and probably outweighs me by 50 pounds. I removed my foot from my mouth and promptly changed the subject.
Here's what's good about "The Slaughter Rule:"<br /><br />--Ryan Gosling, Clea Duvall, and David Morse all give great performances. Gosling is, as always, pretty darn outstanding. The locales are often breathtaking.<br /><br />Here's what's bad about "The Slaughter Rule:"<br /><br />--Everything else. The script is horribly muddled. And while I can certainly appreciate a non-"feel good" movie, this movie is just boring. Great performances can't make-up for a movie with a stupid premise and a script that is filled with throw-away lines that often don't even make it sense. Just getting through the first hour became a chore.<br /><br />I stuck with it because of Gosling, but eventually I did myself a favor and changed the channel. Spoilers on here relayed the ending to me. I didn't miss much. Do yourself a favor--if you want a good Gosling flick, check out "The Believer."<br /><br />My score: 2 out of 10.
So, as far as I gather, this episode is trying to make a statement about how real-life villains are very bad people, and this is just as scary as the paranormal. The "paranormal" imagery associated with the villain, Donnie, is purely symbolic. He's actually just a normal human being.<br /><br />The problem is that I just don't buy it. Donnie is simply not scarier than the paranormal. He's not even that scary at all. As a guy who seems confused and weird rather than malicious, likes dead girls and hair, and has only newly become a murderer, he's significantly less disturbing than most well-known real-life serial killers (eg: he's like a VERY watered-down version of Ed Gein). Which is why Scully's horror at seeing nothing but bodies with hair and nails cut off (something not too different from a normal personal hygiene routine), before anybody has even been killed or hurt at all, is completely out of character. She sees things a hundred times worse in almost every other episode and hardly flinches.<br /><br />So, as Comic Book Guy says... "worst episode EVER!"
I saw the movie after checking its rating on IMDb. Back then, it was at 8.0 and I thought, "wow! That must be a good one". I thought wrong. The beginning of the movie actually keeps what the plot promises, but then it goes exponentially down underneath its basement. I think without the character of Richie Nix, it might have been alright - although he is the reason the story line takes the course it does. The character is just too extreme for my liking, and hard to endure. Also, the journey the main character takes from the beginning of the story till its "climax" at the end is partly irrelevant and could easily have been omitted - the alternative is, I just did not understand the movie.<br /><br />Although I must admit that it is "easy watching", and I had no problems sitting through the whole movie, when it had finished I was somewhat unimpressed by the ending. All in all, rather mediocre.
Well, Killshot is not awful, but it comes close. Production values are decent and the main actors do a pretty good job (except for Rosario Dawson in a wasted role), but the story is just pathetic. I don't know if the Elmore Leonard book had such dumb characters,since I haven't read it, but I'm guessing that the book was supposed to be at least slightly humorous. The movie has no detectable humor. After the first twenty minutes, you'll be yelling at the screen, "Oh, come on! Nobody's THAT stupid!!" In a nutshell, and without any spoilers, everybody acts in a manner convenient to the plot, which makes no sense anyway. A very frustrating and unrealistic movie, which may account for it sitting on the shelf for as long as it did.
Following the whirlwind success of The Wrestler (see my review), Mickey Rourke had this "gem" head straight to video. Every copy was rented for months and I even heard some good buzz around it. So months later I caught it on a movie network and sat down to watch it. First of all...one of the locations in the film (Walpole Island) is a place I used to visit on a regular basis as a child because we lived very, very close to the reserve. Cool huh? That's about where the coolness ends with this dud. I mean the story is decent enough to warrant a four and even the direction is not bad but the performances are just awful, and downright ridiculous with some truly wasted star power and Mickey $%#@*&! Rourke playing a Native Canadian/American hit-man?!?! What in the Lord's name were they thinking?? He doesn't even resemble Native blood and his attempt at the generic Native accent made him look even more ridiculous. They could have went anywhere with this story...they could have hired a Native actor, or changed Rourke's character, how about a white man raised by Native parents? Instead they made Killshot a complete and utter joke.<br /><br />As you may have caught Mickey Rourke "stars" in Killshot, I use that term loosely. I have never liked Rourke much although his Oscar winning performance was decent enough. This shows and confirms my dislike for him. He looks bored, constantly bored, and his lame attempt at portraying a Native is bordering on insulting I would think. He makes a decent cold blooded killer but then the story never explores that part of him which is totally backwards to the story. Diane Lane, although well respected in Hollywood, turns in another drab performance. She has had her moments but overall she just usually doesn't take off in any one performance. She looks like she is going to be great but then when she isn't, its even more disappointing. Thomas Jane plays her protective husband. I've always felt Jane deserves a bigger career than he has. I think he's got action star in his blood. All said and done his performance in Killshot is actually not bad. He doesn't take things too far and he's tough and almost heroic in a way. Him and Lane manage to have decent chemistry but he doesn't get a lot in the way of his character. I have absolutely NO idea why Rosario Dawson A) did this movie and B) had a character at all. Her character is absolutely useless and had no point to the plot or story making any performance she would give equally as bad. I have rarely seen a character who is supporting so incredibly useless. The only redeeming character and performance in this film is that given by Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the deranged mini killer who wants to team up with Rourke's hit-man. Gordon-Levitt is over the top crazy and entertaining and his character is actually engaging. If this film had been entirely about him it would have been a smash. He literally saves this from utter crap. His performance is almost worth watching this drivel for.<br /><br />Oscar nominated director...whoa wait? Yes Oscar nominated director John Madden (I think the football coach could have done a better job) helms this mess. I have actually never seen Shakespeare In Love, but I remember the critical acclaim it received and it surprised me because the direction in this film and with the characters was downright awful. Screenplay writer Hossein Amini has done nothing I recognize but apparently has been slated to write the next Jack Ryan movie and after this mess I can't even imagine why they'd want him. I understand this is based on a novel and I really hope the novel is worlds above this mess. A little bit of action and some sort of hokey attempt at an emotionally charged story of a hit-man and his partner and the mess they get involved in. Unfortunately unless you're a HUGE Rourke fan or really love Joseph Gordon-Levitt then there is no reason to put yourself through this pain. I did it for you and I still feel the pain. 4/10
There are many distinct problems with the movie "KillShot". For one, there are way too many coincidences. The husband is a hunter and just happens to be hunting on the day that the main killer shows up, with someone the killer knows. Okay I will take that one. The kid calls the real estate agency that the wife works for and asks for money to be ready when he comes to get it. Okay, I will take that one as well. Before he goes to get the cash he decided to rob our killer, who doesn't kill him but decided to go with him on the job. It's starting to get real weak. Then they show up, on the same day that the husband has an interview with his wives boss. No one is there but the wife and the husband who has decided to make his way into the empty office. They make their way into the office and the professional killer just assumes that they are talking to the right guy. That is just in the first 15 minuets.<br /><br />There are a lot more holes in this movie then I care to talk about. Why the killer didn't just kill everyone at the real estate agency I don't know. Why he didn't shoot the woman on her porch, I don't know. Why he kept letting that dumb kid make all those stupid moves and mess a whole lot of crap up, I don't know. Why the girlfriend was even in the movie, I don't know. Why he decided not to pocket the gun and just leave it out on the counter, I don't know. Why they even went into the witness protection program, I don't know. What I do know is that the Casting Director did a great job, the Director of Photography did very good work, the Location Scout picked great locations, and the Production Designer was worth every penny. So my advice for anyone that is going to pick a script that is going to be so well worked by the crew, make sure that every attempt to kill someone by the hit man is not foiled by a peak through an open window.
Ugh. Even the ever-popular Diane Lane could not save this movie, and the most exciting thing about the movie was seeing if Rourke's face would move. One has heard so much "gossip" about his botched face lift, etc., so like an accident on the side of the road, we just had to slow down and see the wreck. The plot was thin. Here we have a very professional mob hit man who somehow latches on to a wild and uncontrollable punk/crook, and throughout this movie we're wondering why this guy stays with this idiot, let alone gets together with the guy in the first place. Then the crime that was not even committed has the pro to go after the witnesses. He would have popped them right then and there. But then, we would not have had a movie then, would we? And why did the realtor even agree to the extortion? There were more holes in this flick than in my colander. The acting was horrid, the entire movie predictable down to the minute, and even the ending. And so much could have been done to make this a much better movie. But if you have about 90 minutes to kill and not have to use any brain cells in the process, then this movie is just what the doctor ordered.
Truly appalling waste of space. Me and my friend tried to watch this film to its conclusion but had to switch it off about 30 minutes from the end. And i can count the films I have switched off before the end on one hand.<br /><br />The script and direction are leaden and deeply uninspiring. I wouldn't be surprised if they found the script in a pile of cast off scripts from 1983. For example the irritating scroat threatening the real estate guy from his house phone. I mean seriously. The police would be beating his door down in minutes. The scenes and events just wash by you like turds in a river. It is difficult to understand the actual thrust of the film. The narrative flicks between characters in a seemingly random manner breaking up the pathetic attempts at building the characters. Oh and what "characters" they are. The protagonist played by Rourke is dreadful. He could have just sent a cardboard cut out of himself and stayed in bed. After 60 or so minutes of the film I had built absolutely zero attachment to this character. He is neither sympathetic nor hateful. Just a disfigured dummy from a shop window blundering through every single scene. His motivation is impossible to discern from his generally mumbled and emotionless delivery. Is he happy? Is he sad? Angry? No idea. Just those same dead eyes staring out at you from a disfigured chunk of flesh. And the native American theme is just awful and pointless.<br /><br />The good guys are at best unlikeable. A dull white collar stereotype and a simpering neurotic ex-wife stereotype. Cue archetypal wife with shotgun face off with bad guy, "you aren't going to shoot me" that is both tiresomely unoriginal and annoying.<br /><br />The richie nix character seems interesting at first but soon descends into an irritating one sided psycho character. Which seems at odds with the seeming intention of making the bad guys in some way sympathetic or at least realistically motivated.<br /><br />Roasario Dawsons character starts with some promise but soon descends into a sickening and childlike parody of the gangsters chick scenes from Jackie Brown. You really want me to believe her character was SO attracted to Rourke's? Or worse she is just a floozy who sleeps with anything that moves? Realistic female characters FTW! <br /><br />In summary a complete mess of a film. Hopeless characterisations and performances. A leaden and hackneyed script along with uninspired direction. And ultimately extremely dull. Its not even comedy bad either. Laughing at Rourkes haggard face gets pretty old after sitting through the first 15 turgid minutes of the film.
I decided to watch this movie in order to fall asleep. It kept me awake, so it was interesting; however, it was pretty bland.<br /><br />The acting was good. I don't think any of the actors did a bad job. Mickey Rourke is as believable as an over-the-hill hit-man can be. The dialogue in this movie does not provide much opportunity for these actors to show off their full potential, but they still shined.<br /><br />The atmosphere was great. Music was good and colors matched the mood that the director wanted to paint for the viewers. Even the weather enhanced the mood of the movie. Everything was well done.<br /><br />The failures of this movie are in its story development. The storyline with the mafia vs. Blackbird doesn't get enough attention. The storyline for Carmen and Wayne's divorce doesn't get explained. The FBI seems to work extra fast here. Is there no paperwork for all these processes? Is it really that easy to dig up your brother's body from his grave, burn the corpse, and have it be identified as you? There are too many loops in the storyline for me to give this movie anything higher than a 4 out of 10 rating. I wouldn't recommend this movie to people unless they're really bored and have smoked some really good weed. Even if WoW is down for maintenance, go find something better to do than watch this movie.
I am so disappointed in this movie I can't express it. I was so excited when I started watching this film to see Mickey Rourke all leather faced and that kid from Third Rock From The Sun acting like I psycho. I thought, wow, this is going to be a winner, freakin' Natural Born Killers style. And it got better. The production value was great, the directing was great, the acting was great, the cinematography was great, and the plot was, well, the plot, well, what WHAT PLOT? About half way through this film I was pulling my hair out yelling "What the hell is going on?" and I mean that quite literally? Nothing makes any sense whatsoever. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Aaaaaaahhhhhhggg!!!!
Mickey Rourke hunts Diane Lane in Elmore Leonard's Killshot It is not like Mickey Rourke ever really disappeared. He has had a steady string of appearances before he burst back on the scene. He was memorable in: Domino, Sin City, Man on Fire, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, and Get Carter. But in his powerful dramatic performance in The Wrestler (2008), we see a full blown presentation of the character only hinted at in Get Carter. Whenever we get to know him, Rourke remains a cool, but sleazy, muscle bound slim ball.<br /><br />This is an Elmore Leonard story, and production. Leonard wrote such notable movies as taunt western thriller 3:10 to Yuma, Be Cool, Jackie Brown, Get Shorty, 52 Pick-Up, and Joe Kidd. This means that we get tough guys, some good, some not so good.<br /><br />It also means we get tight, realistic plots with characters doing what is best for them in each situation, weaving complications into violent conclusions. Killshot is no different. Tough, slim ball killer Rourke stalks unhappily married witness Lane. Think History of Violence meets No Country for Old Men. It is not as intense, bloody or gory as those two, but it is almost as good. If you like those two, including David Croneberg's equally wonderful Eastern Promises, you will like Killshot also.<br /><br />Director John Madden has not done a lot of movies. His last few were enjoyable, if not successful: Proof, Captain Corelli's Mandolin and Shakespeare in Love.<br /><br />Diana Lane hasn't had a powerful movie role since she and Richard Gere gave incredible performances in Unfaithful. Lately she is charming and appealing in romantic stories such as Nights in Rodanthe, Must Love Dogs, and Under the Tuscan Sun. Here she is right on mark, balancing her sexy appeal with reserved tension.<br /><br />This is a small part for Rosario Dawson. Yet Dawson does a good job with it. You see a lot more of Lane, including an underwear scene to rival Sigourney Weaver in Aliens and Nicole Kidman in Eyes Wide Shut.<br /><br />While you are in the crime drama section, also pick up Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang, and Gone Baby Gone, and Before the Devil Knows Your Dead. The last has wonderful performances by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Ethan Hawke, Marisa Tomei and Albert Finney.<br /><br />Killshot flopped at the box office. More is our luck. It is certainly worth a 3-4 dollar rental, if you like this genre. 6/20/2009
Let me first state that I rarely review movies, I only comment if I'm blown away or disappointed in something that I thought was going to be good. Killshot was a major disappointment on so many levels. The script was horrible, the acting was sub-par (espically coming from heavy weights like Rourke and Lane) and the editing and effects were comical, (blowing up cars etc. etc.) Rosario Dawson had a horrible role, I can't believe would even accept it, it was such a misuse of her talent I can't even put into words. I should have know after I saw the trailer for this movie 3 years ago and it kept being put on the shelve that their was a serious problem with this film.......... B movie all the way.........don't bother unless your really bored........
Diane Lane, Mickey Rourke, Rosario Dawson & Thomas Jane.....Not a bad cast in my opinion however they were totally wasted in this movie.<br /><br />There was no real direction, there were no unusual turns, in fact the whole movie was very predictable from start to finish. Mickey Rourke had a really annoying sidekick who did nothing but irritate you from the start. Rosario Dawson was totally wasted and there was hardly any point in even having her character in the film.<br /><br />I really do believe this is one of those straight to DVD movies that everyone will forget about very quickly which is a shame as the movie could have been so much better.
Most predicable movie I've ever seen...extremely boring, I feel like I've seen a hundred movies with the same storyline as this one. Acting is OK at best, there's no action really and there is definitely no thrills. Capable actors with terrible script i think it could have been written better by a 10th grader. Felt like more of a chore to watch because I was hoping that there would be something in this movie that was going to set it apart from all the other garbage but this fit right in on the heap. The whole movie I was waiting for something good to happen but it never came. I never rate movies and I never review movies but this movie was so bad that i had to log in here and post a review to try and save a few poor souls from wasting their time (and/or money) with this movie. I pirated it and wish I never even wasted the hard drive space. If I spent 10 bucks to see this in theaters I would kill myself.
Based on the Elmore Leonard novel of the same name, Killshot suffers from a lack of focus, direction, and creativity – all elements which the original story likely had, and negative test screenings forced severe edits, (including the complete excising of a character) resulting in a film that feels almost nothing like a Leonard story. Far too many characters populate a storyline too simplistic and straightforward (not a typical trait of the author's work) and the focus continually switches between two hit men who are difficult to like and a troubled couple who don't command our sympathy. While the story itself provides precious few twists and turns, sadly by the end of the film its appeal still remains a mystery. <br /><br />Washed-up hit-man Armand "The Blackbird" Degas (Mickey Rourke) follows a strict code during his missions that inadvertently sours his latest assignment. Now on the run from his former employer, he haphazardly joins forces with inept misfit criminal Richie Nix (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) to gain some quick cash by extorting a wealthy realtor. When struggling couple Carmen and Wayne Colson (Diane Lane and Thomas Jane) are privy to the thieves' blundered plot, they are forced into hiding as the crazed killers will stop at nothing to silence the two witnesses. <br /><br />Killshot proves that being based on an Elmore Leonard novel isn't grounds for immediate success or even a promising adaptation. The characters, situations, and even resolutions in the film are all tired and unoriginal and only very randomly hint at something more. It's not that there wasn't potential, especially when Rourke's black-garbed, calm and collected assassin perfectly executes a hit during the opening scene – purpose and principals are just continually abandoned as each minute ticks away. The style and manner in which each character is introduced is the most intriguing; visually the roles of Bird and even Wayne are fleshed out befittingly, giving immediate interest and depth to personas that typically end in a creative impasse.<br /><br />The pairing of the cold and calculating Black Bird with the irrational and explosive Richie is an enticing combination (comparisons to Fargo would be extravagantly too kind), except that each character seems to slowly lose track of the traits that kept them initially interesting. As Richie starts picking up the more experienced killer's habits, Bird loosens his grip on his own methods of murder. Regardless of what he sees in his momentary lighthearted fling with Donna (Rosario Dawson), it's hard to imagine that his final confrontation with panicky Carmen would provoke a confession of his true nature and subsequent carelessness that drastically affects his outcome. Likely or not, this is Killshot's unfortunate downfall – and little entertainment can be garnered from these characters who steadily lose their originality by continually contradicting the habits that once made them intriguing. <br /><br />- The Massie Twins
I'm sorry guys, all who thought this film could be something great, I'm afraid you would be disappointed.<br /><br />The standard, the movie wanted to set is completely ruined by some very simple plot. So simple, that the movie is not evolving until the end. I asked myself if the plot wasn't about the action but about the main character (played by Mickey Rourke), but I found that the character was inconsistent - either he is a professional killer or some guilt haunted brother. But both don't go together, because the kid he tries to guide poses him in dangerous situations where no professional killer would put himself. Now, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, is a good looking actor, but he played his character a little unnatural. I didn't believe his acting, it looked like the director tried to pull out of him some personality he couldn't provide. And he didn't have to, because his less crazy behavior was creepy enough. The only one whose acting was great, was Diane Lane. If not her, i would give this movie 1 star.<br /><br />In conclusion, I expected to see some well played movie and some interesting plot. And I completely blew it with my high expectations.
Unfortunately House of D is just awful, with a ridiculous plot, terrible writing, some mediocre acting, and in fact just about everything else about it is sub-par.<br /><br />Tom flees NYC to somehow survive as a lone child in Paris, and manages to convince the beautiful Parisian girl he eventually marries that he's French, despite a poor grasp of her language. She's shocked when years later he reveals his "secret" to her! Riiiight!<br /><br />He then "gifts" his tale of woe to his own son, and who we are expected to believe thinks that's just the greatest birthday gift a dad can give his 13 year old boy. If only such things were so easy! David Duchovny miscasts his own wife Tea Leoni in the role of his mother and strikes out yet again. Leoni makes me laugh as a comic but she's just plain wrong for this role.<br /><br />One of the problems with that is none of the characters are sympathetic. I just didn't give a damn what happened to any of them. I did rather hope that Robin Williams and his trademark "child in a grown-up's body" schtick would fall into a Village pothole, but alas, it was not to be and we had to endure his simpering performance all the way.<br /><br />Anton Yelchin and William's daughter Zelda were not bad, but I suspect the rave reviews others are giving them is simply because they weren't anywhere near as bad as everyone else in this movie. They weren't great, let me put it that way.<br /><br />There are so many silly and contrived aspects to this film - Erykah Badu, the bicycle, the Catholic school and it's staff of morons, the conveniently stupid characters, etc - that this review would go on for ever, so I'll just finish up by saying that House of D is a very poor movie, and I'm almost embarrassed for Duchovny.<br /><br />The thing that really annoys me is how I was so strongly encouraged by online "friends" to see this that I traveled a long way to do so.<br /><br />I would not have been so annoyed that this movie is so bad if I'd just wasted a couple of hours down at the local movie theater, but instead I lost a whole day, and discovered that my so-called "friends" are either stupid or dishonest, because this is an awful movie!
An American boy goes to Paris after his mother commits suicide, becomes and artist and then discovers himself and returns to the States so he can make things right with his former friends.<br /><br />I have to think that the people who are rating this movie so highly are all X-Files fans, even though there are no aliens or serial killers in it. Don't be fooled, this movie blows chunks.<br /><br />The story is incoherent, with little or no explanation of what people are doing or why. When you do get an explanation, it doesn't fit the story that went before it. What it does is bore you. For all the acting talent in the film, it just isn't interesting. I spent the whole movie wondering when sex-addict Duchovny was going to bang someone. Maybe he was doing it behind the scenes; they should have filmed that instead.<br /><br />What comes across is a story of a self-obsessed artist worrying about minor incidents in his life and wanting to make them right somehow - even though they didn't seem that wrong to begin with. There aren't any particularly interesting or shocking revelations, despite the mention of a big secret in the first few minutes. It's just a guy thinking that his life is as interesting to you as it is to him. It's not.<br /><br />I saw in the trivia that Duchovny claims he wrote the script in a week, that's entirely believable. The guy can act, there's no doubt, but writing and directing are obviously beyond his talents.<br /><br />Why Hollywood keeps greenlighting these self-discovery stories is beyond me. I discover myself in the shower every morning but I don't bother making a movie about it. Mine would probably be better than this one, though; at least there would be some nudity.
They say David Duchovny took six days to write the script for this movie. That sounds about right.<br /><br />This movie is one of the worst films I've ever seen and I've seen Gigli. It's not as bad as Gigli, but that's like saying Saddam Hussein wasn't as bad as Adolf Hitler.<br /><br />Tom Warshaw has been living in France with his French wife and 13-year old son. He has been pretending to be French all this time. He reveals to his wife that he is actually American. For some reason, this comes as an earth-shattering reveal for her, despite the fact that she always commented on her husband's American accent. Also, their son - remember, he was born in France and never knew his father was American - speaks perfect American English without a hint of French accent. That's just one of several huge plot holes in this movie.<br /><br />The main bulk of the movie is a flashback to Tommy's youth in New York City during the 1970's, as he explains to his wife why he has been hiding in France. His best friend as a boy was Pappas, a retarded adult played terribly by Robin Williams. I assume Duchovny thinks that "retarded" is someone who is just sort of dumb, because Pappas comes off only mildly slow at times, while other times he comes off as just Robin Williams. Yes, Williams actually fits in his tired improv schtick although he is supposed to play a person who is mentally slow.<br /><br />Tommy's mother, played by Duchovny's wife Tea Leoni, is a pill-popping nurse who is distraught over the recent death of her husband. Leoni does a good job, but she mainly just smokes a lot and yells at Tommy for things that don't seem to be too important. The script didn't give her much to work with. Tommy also befriends a lady (whom he calls "Lady") who is in prison and offers him advice through her jail window (this house of detention is called "House of D" for short, thus the title). Tommy has no qualms yelling his personal problems out loud on a city street so this incarcerated felon can offer him advice, and he does so many times without care.<br /><br />I don't want to bore you with the entire summary of the movie, but plot holes are abound in this film that tries way too hard to be touching but comes off as, well, bad. Real bad. Real real bad. Near the end of this train wreck, the script gets cornier and cornier and ends with a laughably crappy ending.<br /><br />Critics tore "House of D" apart and rightfully so. I can't believe some people actually like this movie. It is a painful film to sit through and I felt weak afterwards - not from emotion, but from how terrible it was.
This is a movie with a wonderful concept, but very weak writing. It should never have been released with out at least three more re-writes (assuming it got any). The story is too loosly held together, and there are too many 90 degree turns in the story to make it a cohesive movie. It would be great to see what a decent screen-writer could do with the story.
If you are having trouble sleeping or just want to take that nap in the afternoon but just can't seem to drift off, pop in this movie. The only neat thing about this movie are the electric planes. Aside from that prepare for some sweet zzzzz's. It boggles the mind how big name stars such as those in this movie can be part of the one of the dullest movies I've ever seen. Now, if you will excuse me, I will finish my nap.
This movie was strange mainly because the plot was so incoherent. The title refers to a vicious wind which renders the surface of the earth almost uninhabitable when it blows, but this seemed to have nothing whatsoever to do with what was going on. The movie seems to be an extremely poor rip-off of Bladerunner ie rogue android being chased by bounty hunter(or ruthless cop in this). Luke Skywalker turns in a surprisingly good performance as afore-mentioned rogue cop. Nothing seems to be resolved at the end of the movie, we never find out anything of any substance about the android or what his intentions are. There is one baffling scene where Bill Paxton(who has kidnapped the android) plays one particular song in his cardboard airplane for no particular reason(the song is called "Shape of things", by The Yardbirds). This happens again in a later scene where the same song is played for no apparent reason. Does this song have any relevance to the movie? Don't think so.
This film fails on many many levels. The script is the first failing, and as I understand it, if the script stinks, there's nothing that can fix that. The plot is boring, after the first 45 minutes, I'm looking at the counter on the DVD saying to myself, "how much longer?" The cinematography is pretty awful. I'm not sure how bad the transfer was to DVD, but it looked like a VHS copy. Also, the sound was bad. I realize this isn't going to get remixed for 5.1, but yikes, it didn't even sound like it was in Dolby Stereo which had been around for almost a decade when they cut this film.<br /><br />Slipstream was far too similar to both Mad Max and Blade Runner for comfort. Because of the lack of decent special effects and high quality dialog, it is extremely disappointing. If I recall, the pointer scene took place during the last 20 minutes, usually it should take place in the first 20. Most people will be totally confused as to what the heck is going on until the final 20 minutes.<br /><br />The film's music was excellent in parts, and then completely inappropriate in others. Elmer Bernstien did the scoring, but it sounds like someone else had a hand in sticking in 'other' stuff elsewhere as it doesn't match the overall good orchestral score (with some synthesizer music.)<br /><br />There were great actors cast, Bob Peck, Mark Hamill, Ben Kingsley, Bill Paxton. And they did a great job breathing the little available life into their characters. (Well, Paxton's character was pretty stupid, and the whole movie was centered on him. I'm not sure a heroic stooge is a good choice for the main character who carries the film.) Again, a major flaw with the script.<br /><br />Thank goodness I watched this from a mail order DVD service, and not the theater. Overall a major disappointment for Sci-fi fans, or fans of Paxton, or Hamill. 90 minutes of your life, you'll never get back.
The story and the characters really REALLY needed work. The world idea is kind of neat, but no one bothered to develop any of it either through exposition, or through the plot. Despite the cheesy notes at the beginning of the film, it makes sense that you wouldn't use exposition, since no one is new to this world. And yet, when Matt Owens (Bill Paxton) and Byron (Bob Peck) stray off-course and get lost, and get introduced to the wind-worshipers and the fat, lazy, rich people in the museum, we don't get any real idea of who these people are, or why we should care about any of them. Smart films have ways of developing this simply by having the characters live in the world. Simple things, like ordering a drink at a bar, or talking about something in the past -- these are the kind of things that make the film world memorable, not endless shots of crappy planes, and cheap CG effects of someone trying to do loops in an ultralight.<br /><br />If this is too difficult for you, here's a little tip -- pare down the multiple locations. If everything's becoming disjointed because you're pulling up to often, stay in one place for a little while and have the characters talk a little. All the superfluous crap should be removed. Get rid of the entire wind-worshipers scene. Get rid of the stuffy museum people. Get rid of all the crappy flying crap unless you can make the wind relevant to the story. Have the entire thing set on a big plane, or something. Just get people talking about something we care about.<br /><br />Hey, get rid of Bill Paxton. Have the film center around Tasker's character and his relationship with the robot, Byron.<br /><br />Indeed, the biggest problem of the film is that we don't care anything about anybody, because no one takes the time to either explain their motivations or delve into their characters. We don't like Matt (well, because he's played by Bill Paxton, among other things). He's a scoundrel, who doesn't redeem himself enough, except to let the android, Byron, go. And this action has even less meaning than most because of three key points: <br /><br />1. Byron is a murderer. 2. Byron is indestructible 3. Byron can leave any time he damn well pleases.<br /><br />We try to like Byron, because there's a kind of pathos there, but it's largely undeveloped. All we're left with is a whiny, glassy-eyed robot guy who's acting is subdued and wooden one moment, and practically zany the next. We don't know why or how he develops emotions, but we do know for a fact that he's murdered someone. We don't know why he murdered someone, or the circumstances of this grisly event, because it isn't developed. We can't feel pity for him if we don't know the story. All we know for a fact is that he murders people. And he likes Bill Paxton.<br /><br />We don't hate Tasker enough (partly because he's played by good-guy Mark Hamill), since while gruff and ruthless, doesn't do anything out of the ordinary for his character -- a post-apocalyptic peace officer. Sure he kills Montclaire (Robbie Coltrane) and his team, but they are drug dealers, on their way to grow poppies for heroin. And they shoot at him first. He doesn't kill anyone who doesn't get in the way, or who does not try to physically harm him first. That goes equally well for the final confrontation in the museum. He uses a smidge of police brutality against a lazy dilettante (F. Murray Abraham is wasted in this role), and everyone else draws a gun on him.<br /><br />I really don't understand what's the deal with Belitski (Kitty Aldridge), Tasker's partner. After only an accumulated 10 minutes with Matt, she's ready to switch sides, despite her shouts of loyalty, and despite Matt's trash-talking her, and punching her out. If that's love, then I'll choose hate any day.<br /><br />Really. Paxton's character is about as lovable as Simon in "True Lies", or Pvt. Hudson from "Aliens". Does anyone fall for him in these movies? No. Why? Because he's a loud-mouthed idiot, and a loser. Why put him at the helm of this film?
The quote above just about says it all for "Slipstream". I should have bailed out of this film after the first half hour, but decided I ought to be fair and give it a chance. I won't watch it again, so if anyone with the temerity to do so can get back to me with the number of clichéd lines in the movie, I'm sure it will set a record.<br /><br />Some otherwise fine and talented actors got mixed up with this clunker; Mark Hamill portrays a futuristic bounty hunter and Bill Paxton is his quarry. Paxton's character has hijacked Hamill's prisoner, an android taking his name from the poet Byron (Bob Peck). Tasker (Hamill) shoots Owens (Paxton) with a dart containing a tracking device so he and his companion Belitski (Kitty Aldridge) can keep tabs on the pair. The real question though is why didn't he just fire the device at Byron thereby cutting out the middleman.<br /><br />If you enjoy scene after disjointed scene with tedious characterization and artsy fartsy pretense, then I suppose you'll find something of interest here. But you can't convince me that the film makes sense on any level. Scenes of a futuristic Stone Age make way for high society snobbery, but the pinnacle of poor taste is reached when Paxton's character is displayed following a night of revelry with hickeys all over his torso. If anyone thinks there's some hidden meaning here, you're really stretching.<br /><br />Patiently waiting for the frame proclaiming "The End" to come into view, alas, even that was denied. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then so is understanding; this movie had neither. Yet there was a single redeeming feature as the closing credits began their run - an awesome view of a half dozen hot air balloons. Apparently the film was keeping them afloat.
Combine good casting, bad writing, good orchestral scoring, bad dialogue, and good story idea with lots of potential but is never realized then you have Slipstream. <br /><br />Just bought the movie for a buck, it is worth it, but not much more. <br /><br />Good to see Mark Hamill act again. <br /><br />There should be a decent sequel made to remedy the damage from the original. Or at least give it the proper attention it should have received in the first place. <br /><br />Berstein's score gave demanded your attention from the opening credits, however, the long shots of slipstream planes and the even longer revealing of interesting plot points mutes his attention getting score. <br /><br />It is really easy to dog a movie like this, after all it is by the producer of STARWARS and the director of TRON and a tremendous cast but it is what it is. And that ain't much.<br /><br />Favorite Line- "We're going to make it, ha-ha!...(BOOM!)"
Yeeee-Haa! <br /><br />I have seen it argued that most American Movies are cowboy movies in disguise; that Hollywood is so in love with it's only truly original creation that it keeps reinventing the cowboy myth. I'm not sure I totally buy that argument but Slipstream is evidence in support of the theory; it's a cowboy movie with aeroplanes. <br /><br />Actually it goes one better than that. It's a Spagetti Western with aeroplanes! Substitute the planes with horses, make the android a priest and this movie would be indistinguishable from any one of a dozen Italian Spanish semi-arty "shoot-'em-ups with pretensions" of the Seventies.<br /><br />The film isn't as BAD as I had been lead to believe by some of the reviews I had read here but it certainly wasn't good.
Wow !! I didn't even know about this movie until I was searching for the name of another Mark Hamill classic (Time Runner). Some things are better left unknown. Mark Hamill's role is quite ... limited. I would compare his appearance in this movie to all those appearances of Vincent Price and Christopher Lee in those bad horror b-movies of the 60's and 70's. In those movies, they appeared in the the first and last 5 minutes of the movie. Memorable acting by Mark with such great lines as "Don't try to run. You're under arrest." Did I mention he says that EXACT thing more than once. Bill Paxton fell into an Uzumaki type spiral of drugs and booze after Aliens, because he ended up in this movie after waking up on the set after a binge session. The HAIR .. the HAIR !!! .. Priceless Bill. Truly should have been "GAME OVER" for Bill .. but somehow .. he got treatment .. and went on to better??? movies. This movie blows. It is more dull and boring than The Crazies. At least that movie was crazy... this is just boring. DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE SOBER.
The film has so much potential which was not developed. Mark Hamill gives a good performance and so does Bill Paxton. The scenery is beautiful and the ultralight aircraft are neat. The problem with this film is that the story is way underdeveloped and the plot goes nowhere. The film at certain points almost puts you to sleep. I give it 3 out of 10 stars for the flying scenes.
I saw this film when it first came out in the cinema. We were all looking forward to seeing Mark Hamill relaunch his career, but we came out wishing we hadn't bothered. Many people walked out after about half an hour - I wish I had too. The basic premise seems okay, but the plot was ridiculously involved and tortuous, and runs out half way through. Its completely unmemorable, and not a film you want to have paid money to see. If you're really bored and it's on TV, then it'll help you kill a couple of hours (or help you to nod off!). 2/10
AWFUL wot more can i say i remember seeing it in the cinema (see how it sticks painfully in the memory)as a 16 yr old lad. Mark Hamill was the older generations skywalker and wasn't great at that, he was worse in this. Plus a dour soundtrack by Then Jericho AAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH. There is one film equally as bad as this i saw in the cinema Arthur 2 on the rocks. Funny how that question "What is the worst film you have ever seen is?" is easier than "what is the best film?" which incidentally varies between The Italian Job (original), Untouchables, Casino, Things to Do in Denver, Goodfellas (getting a sense of what I like??? - this will fool you!) Finding Nemo, Pirates of The Caribbean and Moulin Rouge! Please Never Watch this film or it will stick in your memory too!
But then again, what ever is? I picked this up at my local 99cent store for, you guessed it, 99 cents (plus tax). I remember seeing this on video as a teen and thinking it was a cool flick. Too bad the film and my memories don't match. Regardless, its not a too horrible way to blow a couple hours, and it is neat to see some vintage Bill Paxton and Mark Hamill. Blah.... Blah.... Blah.... Man, oh man, I CANNOT think of anything else to say about this flick... (Just filling space to meet the ten line rule...) Good golly, this is pathetic, just how bad is this movie that the best I could come up with in regards to it were five frickin'lines of text? So anyway, ten lines of text, eh? Hmmm, ten lines are hard to come by when you can't remember squat about a film you just watched.
My overall feeling about this film is that it was a slow, drawn-out, structureless wander through some of the worlds genuinely unfortunate situations with a bit of redemption and an obvious message. The film is composed mostly of fairly uninteresting video footage of the countries he visits with bad reenactments, all slow-mo'ed down to a snails pace and overlaid with depressing music. Certainly some of the materials and interviews contain some compelling stories, but unlike what the description on the back suggests, it wasn't so much the victim's story that's being told as it is the director's, Mr. Ripper, and he doesn't tell it well. This film could have included longer, better interviews with the people themselves, letting them tell their stories. Instead Mr. Ripper indulgently draws the story towards himself making it some kind of personal journey, and unfortunately it doesn't end up being much of one. I never really got a sense of any growth as he explores the subject, and he never indicates what about the subject pulled him in in the first place. He just drags us from one place to the next, brushes lightly on the situation and characters, hangs around showing too much uneventful slow-motion footage of people just walking around the streets, then moves on to his next destination. He does this over, and over, and over again without any real development. I felt like this film could have been cut down to 45 minutes but it's drawn out to close to 2 crushingly slow hours. We feel morally obliged to care about the topic, but the director's self-indulgent, meandering, uninspired delivery of his journey makes you grow numb after a while.
Scarier than any horror movie ever made because you're in controlled of this blood fest which make it more scarier than watching other people doing it on the big screen or on your television screen. This game got two CDs which make the game much more entertaining.<br /><br />Each cd contains a different character with a complete different story line which make the game much more fun. I recommend you to buy this game and the first game too (isn't as good as this game, still fun though)<br /><br />****<br /><br />
On top of the fact that Skylar is a complete douche bag and his cons are unimaginative, his schemes require way to much preparation to make any of his scams worth while. Without giving away any spoilers (as if it matters with this piece of crap) his cons are such a sham because it takes the effort of days and days of planning, and the use of multiple accomplices and an entire camera crew etc. just to scam someone into a service that would cost less than a hundred bucks.....in addition if you read in the credits they re-stage some of the phone calls etc. because they don't pan out...The whole concept of this show is bunk because all of his cons have the cost in both the crew and the effort of ten times the actual cost of the service he is trying to get for free...what is the con?
I have decided to flush this show from my memory down the toilet of bad TV show into the obscurity of forgetful, disappointing, pointless, garbage TV show hell.<br /><br />The Skyler guy who is the host/star/creator of this show is boring, uninteresting, unbelievable, not particularly good looking and not at all funny, in short why is this guy on TV and especially why is he in a comedy show when he's not funny, pretending to be a professional con man when he definitely is nothing but an obvious pretender? Others have said it here already but this guy is a total fake and fraud, if you believe any of these cons I think you should seriously consider going to get your head checked because they're all fake, and the ones that might possibly be true are so pointless, like spending all day to con someone out of giving you an average meal at a restaurant? Seriously this guy needs to go away, glad this show got canned.
What exactly is the point of pretending to "con" people out of things like ski passes and pizza? I fail to see a point. I'd not clever or original and it strikes me as being extremely pointless. <br /><br />Skyler Stone doesn't seem to be a very down-to-earth or even a nice guy. He has very little charisma and just about anyone could do what he does in this show. <br /><br />The worse thing about this piece of crap, is the fact that a lot of the phone calls are reenacted, so not only are they apparently conning the poor people on the other end of the phone, but they are also conning the audience who don't have enough time to read the "disclaimed" that flickers across the screen for about half a second at the beginning at the end of the show!<br /><br />Not only that but he also claims this is how he lives his whole life. What an lie. No one could live their lives like this and the fact he says this is not only yet another con to get his show watched, but it's also one of the most fabricated, blatant pieces of bull$hit I've ever heard. This guy is an @$$!<br /><br />What makes them think that going to all the trouble of, for example, write and record a song, get someone to pain a HUGE picture of you and two mates, get dance lessons and actually travel to a ski resort is actually worth only getting free ski passes and some food for free? What is the point of that? It's an awful lot of trouble to go to just for a few ski passes and a bit of snow. <br /><br />As far as "comedy" goes, this is bottom of the barrel stuff.
I just finished watching this movie and largely found it a waste of time with little or no redeeming factors. I really don't understand where all the positive reviews came from -- the animation is clunky and unrefined, the plot makes no sense at all from an objective standpoint, and there is no sense of intrigue or suspense in that which is trying to pass itself off as an intriguing and suspenseful film. I have never read the book so I can't say if the movie was faithful, but as with most movie adaptations, it tries too hard to cram as much information into the shortest amount of time possible. The result is a disjointed and illogical storyline that doesn't really let you understand or relate to the characters, or, actually, anything at all. Overall, I felt completely detached from the characters and the plot to the point where I couldn't bring myself to care about what happened to them, and the only way I can see how this animation could be considered beautiful is if your normal standard of animation is a Scooby-Doo cartoon.
"Blame it on Rio" is a romantic comedy 80's style, with more than an eye full of sex throughout its 101 minute running time.<br /><br />The plot concerns two middle-aged men in crisis, one of whom is sorting through his divorce, the other dealing with the possibility of that same prospect. Both good friends, they decide to take a vacation in exotic Rio de Janeiro, each with a daughter at their side. Complications set in when one of them gets involved with the other's daughter.<br /><br />This potential riot of a story is fairly funny and there are some good lines, however it never really becomes hilarious, as it could have. Any attempt at handling the moral issue seriously doesn't work either, and perhaps director Donen should have stuck to the humour of the situation.<br /><br />Not a bad film, but what really ruins it is Michelle Johnson's awful performance as the naughty little temptress Jennifer. While she uses her body to full advantage, it's the only thing she's got. Michelle's acting prowess leaves a great deal to be desired. No wonder we haven't seen her in anything else.<br /><br />Friday, January 7, 1994 - Video
All in all, don't expect much and you won't be disappointed.<br /><br />And if you want to see a movie that will take you back to 1983, this will do that for sure. The only reason I gave this movie 2 points more than it deserves is for 2 reasons:<br /><br />#1. Michael Caine<br /><br />#2. the people, the sights, the culture and the music of Brazil <br /><br />The movie is almost completely carried by Caine as he commits the seemingly impossible task of transforming it into a viable and semi-believable story. Even Joe Bologna and Valerie Harper fall short. <br /><br />Michael Caine is pure class, as always. Besides being a gifted classical and comic actor, Caine brings a blend of introspection, mischievousness and sensitivity to every movie he does ... the focus of his charm as far back as his role in Alfie...and the reason why he won the Academy Award for Hannah and her Sisters 2 years later. In this farce, he is tenderly beguiling...funny and vulnerable... melancholy and sentimental....and besides the jewel that is Rio de Janeiro, the ONLY reason to not seek out a better form of entertainment.<br /><br />Well...maybe a glimpse at the 2 lovely young actresses, Michelle Johnson and Demi Moore would be a reason. But look is all you can do at Michelle (though her look seems sorely dated)....there couldn't be a more painful movie experience than watching her "try" to act (most of her dialogue seems overdubbed, too). Demi's acting and looks hold up 100 times better and you could easily transplant her, as is, into any movie today (she doesn't really look much different to be honest). Ms. Moore is surely underused, especially considering she was the bigger star of the 2. <br /><br />Save the fact that it is a silly farce, at the end, I actually kind of like the maturity with which all these people handle this scandalous situation...that it doesn't end friendships nor marriages and that an affair, even with the underage daughter of your best friend, could be forgiven and everyone can move on. The injured parties do show anger and disappointment at what transpired, but all works out for the best....a bit unrealistic for sure, but surprisingly refreshing. Hope always is.
Not the funniest movie ever.....but I have to watch this film at least once a year just so I can fall in Love with Michelle Johnson all over again. She never looked better than she did in this film. by the way The story is good too.
This movie should be called Blame it on the Script. Directed by Stanley Donen, of Singin' in the Rain fame, this celluloid mid-life crisis is not all bad. It's got some lush scenes of Rio de Janeiro and various scantily clad extras cavorting with each other and romping around the beach to the sultry sounds of samba, but there is just something about watching fifty-something Michael Caine get it on with whiny teenager Michelle Johnson that makes you feel...well, sleazy. This storyline is a complete stretch, too. Nobody but pervy and vain old studio execs in Hollywood could have green-lit this embarrassment. Maybe they are so used to having young bimbos as arm candy that they forget it's their fat wallets that hold the key to their appeal, not their huge Larry King-style spectacles and yellow cigar-stained teeth. It's one thing for a nubile young sexpot to have a crush on an older man, but on her best friend's father who happens to be married? And then to throw herself at him shamelessly? Ugh! There's nothing entertaining about that. It's rather pathetic and grotesque. Take note of a young Demi Moore's budding *cough* talent.
I saw this in the theatre a couple decades ago, and fuzzy recollection suggests that I liked it. However, seeing it for a second time two things stand out: (1) very poor acting on the part of Michelle Johnson, and (2) very poor music throughout.<br /><br />It's not that all the music was bad. Some of the Brazilian music was fine, but the theme song and others that clanged their way in were reminiscent of the worst of '80s pop music.<br /><br />Johnson's voice seemed all wrong, possibly dubbed. This was distracting.<br /><br />On the positive side: (1) The story's not bad, (2) it's interesting seeing such a young Demi Moore, (3) Valerie Harper never looked better, and (4) Johnson did look quite fetching in various stages of disattire.
Yeah, I know the girls are hot and the scenery lovely but for someone knowing the place, it's hilarious.<br /><br />If you want some accuracy, this is not a movie to rely on. It starts with the flight from São Paulo to Rio aboard a 747. This will never happen on the 400 km flight. Smaller planes such as 737 or A-320 shuttle passengers between the two cities every half an hour. The drive from the airport home if shown on a map would reveal an intricate zig zag back and forth. Perhaps the producers tried to emulate one of the very known taxicab drivers itineraries when faced to tourists. Not that it would be a local habit as I myself got ripped off in very serious places such as Switzerland. The girls, yes. All topless. That's something an outsider will never understand. Brazilian chicks will be happy to expose 100 % of their incredible bodies at the Samba Schools parades and wear almost non-existent bikinis at beach, but never go topless. A handful beaches across the whole country will allow it. All carefully secluded and out of town. Oh, the indoor decoration; the amazing wallpaper... maybe in Disneyworld... Apart from that, it is very entertaining and, yes, Demi Moore is absolutely splendid.
Michael Caine's character has problems. He's a plain, nearsighted, insecure man in his mid-40s. He's married but his wife doesn't seem to love him anymore. He has a poor relationship with his only daughter. But his most immediate problem is that a stunningly beautiful young woman, played by Michelle Johnson, is pursuing him too ardently, kissing him, groping him, and trying to initiate sex at every opportunity. What's the poor fellow to do? <br /><br />This movie should be taken out of the Comedy section and placed under Science Fiction. Only an intergalactic brain chip can explain the actions of Michelle Johnson's character. Let's see - 3 billion men in the world - she can pretty much have her pick - she goes with an clumsy, aging loser. This goes beyond a middle-aged male fantasy into something so delusional, you just hope that everyone involved voluntarily submitted to therapy.<br /><br />There's not really anything funny here. There are some quick attempts at wit from Caine, who often seems to playing Hawkeye Pierce more than a new character. Joseph Bologna is like fingernails on a chalkboard. Michelle Johnson is no actress - she has one crying scene that wouldn't pass muster in a high school play - but she is beautiful and she does take her clothes off. So buy the DVD, skip to scenes 4 and 9, and forget the rest.
I never intended to write a review of this movie. Actually I was just on the sight looking for the name of the star of the film and then I started reading reviews... I guess I'll never learn. This movie is horrible! I'm not going to justify my comments with specific reasons because I really find it hard to believe that anyone with any taste actually LIKES this. A guilty pleasure? Okay, I guess. But a film this bad that wasted talent so good (Caine, Gelbart, and Donen) is a reason for mourning not a pleasant diversion. A low point for all involved except perhaps Bologna, who must sit up nights trying to figure out which bomb was THE bomb that destroyed his career.
This movie just arrived to Mexico and since I read very good reviews here about it I decided to go watch it with my friends and girlfriend, but i was greatly disappointed, I don't understand how people can rate it 10/10 I mean screenplay and directing were beautiful, but a great overall movie need a good story which this flick lacked altogether.<br /><br />I've enjoyed several dramatic Asian and European films but they had a good story, watch this movie at your own risk unless you are eastern European or orthodox i don't think you will like it.<br /><br />Half the people on the theater left including my 4 friends who waited outside since they were really bored so was I but I always wait till the end of the movie.<br /><br />Regarding the movie, it was extremely slow paced, with a lot of time wasting scenes, the full length of the story could have been shown in no more than 40 minutes, but they made it longer by having scenes of the monk getting coal that is like 15 minutes of the whole movie plus panoramic views and so on, until they made it a full length movie a really boring one.<br /><br />I recommend you listen to me if you still watch it come back and rate this comment as useful after wards to help people avoid this waste of money.
This puddle of derivative drivel stole from every Soviet film of note and failed miserably. I was left with an experience of everything that is wrong with organized religion in general and the Russian Orthodox Church's particular shortcomings (mind you this comment comes from a person of faith). Even the outstanding cinematography left me uninspired. I spent its most beautiful moments very aware of the masterworks that it was poorly imitating. I would not recommend seeing this movie unless you have a deep passion for the Russian Orthodox Church, its monastic traditions, miracles in the face of Communism, and Saints of the Seventies. It is a meaningless film from (and about) a narrow perspective that did absolutely nothing for me.
Maybe it is unfair for me to review this movie because I walked out well before the end. That's odd, because I usually like Shakespeare on the screen and I enjoyed Midsummers Night's Dream once, many years ago, when I saw it on the stage.<br /><br /> I think that two things did me in: that squeaky twerp with the Shakespearian name, Calista Flockhart, and Michelle Feiffer sitting in a giant clamshell. Well, I suppose you could say it supposed to be a comedy -- but when the scenery is funny and the actors aren't, I'd say we have a bad movie on our hands....
An absolutely baffling western featuring flash-forward sequences set in an insane asylum, South of Hell Mountain was one of the first films produced by the schlockmeisters at Cannon Film. Co-directed by William Sachs, who would later deliver such fan favourites as The Incredible Melting Man and Galaxina, the film tells the very dull tale of a trio of gold robbers who stumble upon a cabin occupied by two women who are hiding some secrets that aren't worth discovering. The cast (most of whom never made another film) try gamely, but are hamstrung by the screenplay, which generally makes no sense. The asylum scenes are edited in to little effect and are punctuated by ridiculous sound effects and tape loops. Ultimately, it's a lot of talk and little else.
I went into this film expecting/hoping for a sleazy drive-in style slice of seventies exploitation, but what I got was more of a bizarre pseudo western with far too much talking and not enough action. It's clear that this film was made on a budget; the locations are drab and poorly shot, while the acting leaves a lot to be desired also. The plot focuses on a trio of robbers (a father and two sons) that steal a load of gold after killing some miners. They come across a cabin inhabited by a young girl and her stepmother...and all this is told in flashbacks by the young girl, currently residing in an asylum. It's clear that directors Louis Leahman and William Sachs thought they were making something really shocking; but despite its best efforts, South of Hell Mountain is just too boring to shock the viewer. The film drones on for about eighty minutes and most of it consists of boring characters spouting off boring and long-winded dialogue. The only good thing I have to say about the film is with regards to the music; which is good in places. The ending is the only other good thing about the movie; and that's only because it's the last thing that happens. I wouldn't recommend anyone bothers tracking this down...there was much better trash made in the seventies.
Well.....horror this ain't, but.......!!!??? A terrible low low budget backwood-flic of the worst kind, sort of AND...therefore quite charming and funny to watch...at least on my tv set!!! A cross between Pete Walker, Herschell Gordon Lewis and...say....damn, I give up...just can't come up with any "prettier" resemblances for this trashy movie. Everything is soooo wrong that I just have to enlist it in my film collection alongside with....Death In Venice.....Nekromantik.....Blue Velvet and The Good,Bad,Ugly... right !!?? People with some small talent for adding gory inserts or sexy happenings to film they buy offa other people, should pick this film up immediately....sure is a fat lil' ol' goldmine waiting here, oh maaaannnn!!!!!
I have seen this movie and in all honestly was quite disappointed. And in my opinion this movie lacks heart. I frankly didn't care what happen to the characters by the end of the movie. <br /><br />There was so much there they could have done with the movie that they didn't because they were either so rapped up in trying to be obscure and make some deep comment on life, or trying so hard not to, that the characters and story were completely lost in all of it. I have seen another picture by this director and enjoyed it well enough. But I felt this film lack of the whimsy and heart of the other and I was left wondering what the point was, or if the point of the movie was that it had no point. Honestly, while I didn't feel like tearing my hair out during the movie, I did remorse the lost time on the sad little film.<br /><br />I have no doubt that some people will love this movie, but frankly I didn't.
I know Terry Gilliam is considered as a good director but claiming that this movie is good is just foolish. What was the movie about? What is it a spoof? Fantasy? Comedy? Satire? No answer there from Gilliam's screenplay. Totally confused and pointlessly hurtling from one historical age to another. I find it amusing that some people actually call this movie magical. Is it because they have to praise any movie which is vague and indecisive on what it is about?? 3 stars for special effects considering it is 1981. Roger Ebert has it right in his review. The movie is ambiguous and looks like Gilliam's romp with money just to make a vague children's move masquerading as a historical revue. The movie also tries to confuse the would-be viewer by giving John Cleese and Sean Connery top billing.
I got this movie from the library, and saw it had a lot of actors I like in it(John Cleese, Ian Holm, Ralph Richardson, etc), so I got it and watched it. I expected Cleese to have a large role since he had first billing, I was surprised to find out that he had about five minutes of screen time, along with everyone else I liked. This movie is amazingly pointless, the characters are nobodies, the plot is non-existent, and the ending is one of the worst endings I have ever seen. There were a few funny parts, but that's about it. Stay away from this movie if you want to prevent going "What?" and "Huh?", a lot. And if you don't want to waste your time. Ignore the people who say this is a very funny movie...it isn't. Just stay away from it at all costs...please.
For some reason I just didn't like it at all and felt embarrassed about how bad it was since I bought it and watched it with my family. All of us hated it with a passion. It's a nice enough kids' movie, maybe in the year it came out. However, think about it: an outdated kids' movie? What's the point? Kids do not generally like to watch such old movies anyway, and I don't see what adults are supposed to get out of this movie at all.<br /><br />Some kids' movies (like Mary Poppins or Wizard of Oz) can be enjoyed even now, but Time Bandits is totally outdated. For your reference, and I think applicable in this case, I also did not like Dr Strangelove or Spinal Tap at all. So, if you disagree with me on those similarly outdated movies, you might like Time Bandits.<br /><br />There is also a horrible case of overacting as I recall from the 'bad guys'. Think of the two stupid 'bad pirates' in the Pirates of the C. movies, except in Time Bandits they are not even remotely funny.<br /><br />Anyway, I warned you, that's all I can do. People that rate this movie high must have liked it from many years ago. If you have not seen it before, then don't bother watching it now.
This show has shown it's true colors now that Democrats are in power. It never did lead the world in IQ as anyone who thought it has intelligence has been programmed to think one way (which is a scary thing).<br /><br />Comedy Central moved this & it's spin off back to an earlier time once the Democrats took power for a reason- because now when the Democrats screw up - which is just as often as Republicans do - Stewart no longer takes pot shots at them. That is why the ratings for both this & the spin are dropping.<br /><br />Basically, most of the humor now is either lame, or lame Sarah Palin jokes - which all the ratings dropping Comedians are now telling. The facts to back this up speak for themselves. The Jay Leno show which has been doing the same kind of humor is on the verge of being canceled. The ratings for Letterman & Conan & the shows that follow them are down.<br /><br />So Emperor Stewart is not alone. Trouble is if any of them start taking real rips at the bungling Democrats in power, they could raise their ratings in a hurry because the best humor is always at the expense of whose in power. The Bush years proved that because the ratings for this show & Colbert, & Letterman & Leno were higher there.<br /><br />O'Bama has done one thing, proved these shows have to be willing to take chances & rip the folks in power if they are to prosper. Right now, the Daily Show & Stewart are sagging but maybe they can get lucky & have Palin elected as the first woman President in 2012. Then the lame Palin jokes will become ratings grabbers.
I have tried watching this show on several different occasions and each time found it to be utterly pale of humor.<br /><br />The reason, to mention one thing, is that it is solely based on ridiculing anything the Republicans have done. In short it is basically Democratic party political opinions touted as humor.<br /><br />All Mr. Stewart does is wisecrack about anything the Republicans have done and the audience wets themselves in gales of forced laughter.<br /><br />My guess is that the left is so devoid of any real substance that they have to define themselves in terms of how much they all hate Republicans.<br /><br />-LD<br /><br />_____________________________<br /><br />my faith: http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/jbc33/
Comedy works best when it relates to stuff that's true. But even as such, some effort is required to make jokes that everyone likes and even the most grumpy of viewers can crack a smile. When I look at the Daily Show, I see the whole "it's funny because it's true" thing, but I don't, however, see the effort and often times I don't if they're being funny or just trying to make a point(I notice this mostly in the interview segments). The Daily Show started off as a news parody, by definition they poke fun at how the media plays it's own news by pretending to be inept and dumb news reporters and anchormen and they tackled tons of subjects from science to movies and sometimes politics, then Jon Stewart came along...and it all went to Hell. Thr first years of Jon Stewart's reign were arguably golden, I though he was so funny, but then 2004 came along and it's where you start to notice a huge chance in the show from there on. The show's humor has gone stale, Colbert left, Steve Carell left, many of the show's best anchors left and now it's mostly about Jon Stewart and the show's gone from a parody to a semi-serious news show, essentially Evening News but with some gags here and there. For those who haven't seen the show and are having trouble finding out what to watch on cable, I'll give you a brief description of what the show's about(at least until 2009): -Bush, Cheney and all Republicans(unless they happen to embrace an opinion shared by Democrats as well) are stupid, evil, corrupt and hypocrites, anyone who stands by conservative beliefs is also evil, corrupt and a hypocrite; -people who doubt the man-made global warming theory are evil and stupid; -vote Democrat; There, I saved you 25 minutes of your time, go watch something else. At first, I though that the producers hijacked the show for their own personal political agenda, but when I actually see the interviews, it becomes crystal clear what this show's about(what I mentioned above), but I'll get to that in a moment. Frist off, the humor in The Daily Show according to Jon Stewart expects you to find a random filmed quote said by either Bush, Cheney or a random republican humorous because well, because. Jon sets up the joke, setting it in writers specific context and expects that the random quote somehow delivers the punchline. So, unless you «get» the context, it's entirely useless as bankable humor. Also the Daily Show expects you to laugh when they show a montage of one politician talking and in another separate video saying another thing, again putting into a context that the writers expect you to understand, thus making it funny,why? Well, because Jon said so. Now imagine The Daily Show using that formula countless times for years every week, and you'll start to understand of what used to be a laugh-fest that is now 25 minutes of just silent stares(yes, even in the Lewis Black segments). At first, some decent amount of effort was put into these jokes, but now much less of that is apparent. And the interview have the most odd sense of bias that I've ever seen. Jon Stewart calls Bill O'Reilly a bully, but what does that make him, when he sucks up to every single actor and democrat(John Kerry before, Obama today) that appears on the show and looks down upon respected republicans and accomplished conservative newsmen such as Weekly Standard's own Bill Kristol? He puts them in some sort of people's tribunal as if they're being charged with a crime, often times any person on the show who stands up for Bush is portrayed as delusional, as if that person's out of touch with reality and assumes he speaks for the majority of America, that's the de facto treatment for anybody conservative, unless they happen to share a similar point of view with Democrats, if so then's it's an endless love fest. But still, it doesn't matter, in the eyes of Jon you are already wrong before you walked into the show and are still wrong afterwords. That's the kind of treatment you get if you are anything remotely right-wing. Now you have to wonder what that could possibly have anything to do with humor. One wonders what'll happen if Democrats win the White House...
Jon Stewart (aka John Liebowitz) constantly rips conservatism and anything Republican. This liberal comic is anything but, as he pours his cutting "humor" down the throats of impressionable youths. I've viewed the show while stuck in a waiting room while my car was repaired and this guy borders on treason. He'll take Al Queda's side over Bush any day. He's shameless and everything he says is punctuated by a phony laughtrack. I do remember four years ago when he "interviewed" John Kerry. The two made faces at each other that seemed to preclude a makeout session. It was like, "Get a room, you guys". I just don't like smirky little traitors who peddle their propaganda. Call me shallow. The Daily Show has had a long run and there are many likeminded liberals who have a seething hatred for Republicans and Conservatism. I'm not surprised at its success, but do that many people actually watch Comedy Central? That Mancia guy makes me barf.
First of all, the title "DAILY" is a LIE. <br /><br />Every "Daily Show" program opens with an on-screen visual of the date it was made, followed by a pause and the opening announce. On the many days when they are RE-RUNNING a Daily Show, they slip-cue the tape and OMIT the date and begin with the opening announce giving the false impression that the show is a new one. That's a lie. There is no mention of it being a rebroadcast. And that kind of crap is just a small indicator of how sneaky and deceptive this show is. <br /><br />Furthermore, it's only on 4 nights a week. That's not quite "daily" - meaning Monday through Friday - another shortcoming but one I am grateful for.<br /><br />It's sad to think that many clueless young people use this fake news program as their main, often only, news source. This leaves them woefully ignorant and much worse - badly misinformed.<br /><br />Although it leans liberal-left, politically, this show can be amusing at times. However, its veracity is low. Facts and information are often cleverly twisted to fit the writers' agendas. It's often hard to tell where the facts leave off and the fiction and comedy writing begin. The result is pre-digested, reinterpreted information designed to persuade and influence. This is called "PROPAGANDA".<br /><br />The remote interviews are heavily kluged in editing.<br /><br />It really loses me when it bashes God and Christians - which it does all too often. However, you'll never hear anything vaguely anti-Semitic.<br /><br />If Jon Stewart and company attacked anyone but Christians, it would be considered an offensive outrage. The names in the credits explain the source.
Don't get me wrong, the guy's a success dynamo, but he got to the top by selling overpriced plastic toys to impulsive brats. So I get a little peeved when he looks at comic book fans as an extension of that same market.<br /><br />See, "The Invincible Iron Man" wouldn't be bad if it were slotted on a Saturday morning and geared exclusively toward undiscerning children. But it's not directed exclusively at children. Periphery characters are killed every five minutes and there's enough bloodshed and semi-nude bodies to make network censors squirm, so it isn't quite cut out for children's television.<br /><br />So what audience is this video aiming for then? It's the audience that enjoys nigh intelligible story lines about reviving a tyrannical Chinese emperor with 5 arcane rings, that's who. And I think that audience is restrictively small.<br /><br />A lot of great writers have passed through Marvel's leathery yoni over the decades. So it's a shame that Marvel would risk their pricey animation investments on so many questionable storytellers and scribes who, like Mr. Arad, are better accustomed to peddling action figures during Saturday morning cartoons. How many lukewarm receptions do Marvel have to endure before they come up with a better strategy? <br /><br />***<br /><br />Animation: just passable cels, some segments are better than others, a low budget look all throughout -- this ain't no Bakshi (Ralph) and it ain't no Bluth (Don)! CG animation's okay, but far from impressive.<br /><br />Story: a litany of clichés, all over the place, convoluted, contrived, and uninspired.<br /><br />Characters: so why is Rhodes even here if all he does is add to Stark's sexual ambiguity? Hmmm... her Dad's in a wheelchair... Tony misses his mom... Asian chicks are hot and, apparently, little else; the female lead is thoroughly objectified by the feature's end.<br /><br />Performances: can't blame competent voice actors for a bad script.<br /><br />Art: very Western musculature, very clean lines, faces are very derivative of Eastern art, very boring mattes, very bland CG.<br /><br />Conclusion: Not great, but worth a watch for the fans and those who enjoy superhero myths. A 'must-buy' for collectors. A valuable "what not to do" course for junior animators.
I am obviously disappointed so I'll be brief and won't waste your time. First off, the plot was uninspired... at least. The animation was even worse, we're in 2008 for god's sake and it looked like a shinier version of G.I.Joe. I won't even bother characterizing the actors' performance and the dialogs. Or maybe I will 'cause I just saw that in order to post a comment over here you need 10 lines (?!??!?!). Where were we? Oh yeah the performance, well it was totally flat, lacking passion and talent if I am excused. Now as for the dialogs, just like the acting, no memorable quotes, nothing that someone wouldn't expect. Let's just hope the movie will be decent ...at least.
This was something I had been looking forward to seeing. The Ultimate Avengers movies had both exceeded my expectations and since Iron Man has been one of my favorite Marvel characters I thought that this same production team would be able to do some really great stuff with an Iron Man solo title. But the final film was unsatisfying. I wasn't expecting them to spend most of the movie paying tribute to Iron Man gray armor. The red and gold armor is seen for maybe ten or so minutes all together. Not a major complaint but not what I expected from the ads and box. The worse thing however was the story, the acting and the cell-shaded CGI animation for the monsters and Iron Man armor that was not convincing. It didn't blend in well with the cell animation at all. Even on it's own it seem stick-like and lifeless. Tony Stark's character arc, as incredibly slow as it takes, is so forced and unconvincing. I wanted to see this movie because I love Iron Man but after forcing myself through the film I wondered if they couldn't have come up with something that had been as good as the Ultimate Avengers movies.
I have been collecting Iron Man comics since the early 70s and always enjoyed the character who is far far from the average clean cut hero and his many and varied enemies. There have been no less than three attempts at an animated series for Iron Man and only the original and part of the second have ever done the character justice. So I was somewhat hopeful that this newest version would be good. Boy was I wrong! The DVD art is VERY misleading and presents an image that is not the movie. Fist off the good, what little there is... The art and animation are well drawn and the writing and dialog are generally good, though with notable exceptions. Character voices are very well selected and each character is distinctive and well acted. Now for the bad... Unfortunately the writers opted to totally screw around with both Iron Man's origin and especially the Mandarin's. On top of that they decided to do Iron Man and his opponents all in CGI. Bad CGI. This makes them stand out almost as badly as live actors would in a cartoon. The CG work is often repetitive and glaring shortcuts are taken at times. The CG battles are clumsy as well, further enhancing the fact that CG and line animation do not mix well. The movie would certainly have fared better had they opted to actually DRAW all the characters. Another problem is that Iron Man is in his traditional Red and Gold suit for all of ONE battle! And its not even the big fight at the end. All this drags the movie down and it never picks up.<br /><br />************ SPOILERS (or warnings) MAY FOLLOW ************<br /><br />The movie starts off with an interestingly unusual stop motion credit sequence of machinery, welding and gears. Then we are introduced to what looks like a Chinese temple in the process of being restored, and prominent is a statue of what fans will recognize as the Mandarin. Things go strangely, impeding progress in restoring the temple. Overseeing it is James Rhodes, Tony Stark's long time friend. Seems they plan to actually raise the temple up from the earth, despite opposition by a group who insist that raising the temple will bring about a terrible disaster. Rhodes is captured in a raid. Stark, shown in a hot tub with a lovely lady, is informed of the problems and sets out to personally oversee the project and rescue his friend while in the background his father deals with Board Executives who are pushing to have Tony removed. Tony arrives only to have his armored escort ambushed and blown to pieces. Tony later awakens mortally wounded in the heart and a prisoner of the rebels. He is saved only by quick action from Rhodes and a scientist. Eventually Stark must build the prototype gray iron armor and makes good an escape, but only after some loss of life. While with the rebels he meets a troubled girl named Li Mei, and the two fall in love. The Temple is raised and four elemental beings (all done in CG) appear and proceed to start collecting hidden rings of power. Stark and Rhody find trouble back home but manage to confront the elementals without success in really stopping them, First using the Aquatic Armor, then the more classic Red and Gold Armor and finally everything returns to the temple and Stark is back in the bulky gray armor for a final showdown and a run in with what may be Fin Fang Foom (also in CG.) Here the story takes a major twist as it turns out that the Mandarin needs a host body to manifest. This leads to a somewhat tragic final battle marred by the fact that the Mandarin is little more than a ghost and isn't seen till the last 5 minutes of the movie. ugh...<br /><br />If you are an Iron Man fan then you will likely not enjoy this outing. And even non-fans may well find the movie somewhat lacking or not.
I am a fifth grade language arts teacher, and after we read this book (which the students loved), then we watched the movie. They laughed out loud! Unfortunately, it's NOT a comedy! The acting was so awful, I felt like I was watching a bunch of kids in the neighborhood putting on a play. My students were mimicking the lines and making fun off and on the whole way through. I have to agree with them, at times, it was pretty bad. Still, I would show it to students again, just for fun, and to compare the film with the book. We did a Venn Diagram (teachers know what that is) afterward, to show what was the same in both and what were the differences, so there is an educational value in showing it. I noticed that another adaptation is being filmed for 2005 so we can only hope the acting will be better!
I was in 6th grade and this movie aired on PBS during a series called 'Wonderworks.' I distinctly remember sitting on a couch watching the movie with tears running down my face at the end. In the film Jesse, the main character, forms an unusual friendship with a girl named Leslie. Due to a very simple, but careless mistake one of the pair dies. At the time, I found the story very powerful, because the fatal mistake is exactly the type of mistake a kid would make and so any kid watching the film will find it very easy to identify with and feel the emotional weight of the tragedy that ensues.<br /><br />Last year, I finally tracked down a VHS copy of the show. I probably should have stuck with my memories. Watching the show as an adult I was absolutely shocked by what a horribly made film this was. My girlfriend had a similar memory of the movie as well, and she too was pretty sad about how bad the movie was compared to her memories. <br /><br />Many adults probably have a good memory of watching this movie when they were kids. I strongly advise that these people leave their memories intact, and avoid seeing this film as an adult.
I have recently gone to the movie theatres to see the new (2007) version of Bridge to Teribithia. After, I went to the library to rent the older version to see it again without paying again. I must say that I was extremely disappointed! I found the older version to have horrible acting as well as corny lines including Jessie saying, "I know Daddy, but I hurt so much inside" after Leslie dies. It was quite horribly done and the casting was not much better in my opinion. I watched in amazement all the while saying no wonder they remade it. The story is great but trust me spend the money and see the new version, if you just see the old one you may never experience the true magic of Teribithia.
The acting is generally pretty weak. The dialog was also apparently dubbed in after the filming, so it just doesn't come across well. What do you want for a TV movie?<br /><br />Annette O'toole was OK; there were a few strong lines from the parent of the queen.<br /><br />Otherwise, these kids weren't quite up to it. Didn't impress my kids either.<br /><br />On the upside, it is only an hour long. Considering that, it got through plot and character development in a creditable fashion. The settings and cinematography are OK too.<br /><br />Some other viewers may like it for sentimental reasons.
This year's Eurovision was to me a big disappointment. I've watched the Eurovision Song Contest every year since 1986 (well, at least that's the earliest one I can remember, and I was only 2 at the time). As any other year this one contained both good, bad and horrible songs - nothing new there. However this year's show was the worst one I can remember. Only very few good (decent's probably more like it) songs and a lot of absolutely terrible songs.<br /><br />Turkey's winner song "Every Way That I Can" sounded to me like a rip-off of Turkish singer Tarkan's hit "Simarik", just sounding a lot worse. It didn't deserve to win from my point of view. Belgium's song "Sanomi", coming in second, was a no-language song. Wonder what's next? Animals singing? Nevertheless the music for the song was quite catchy, giving the song a kind of dreamy feeling, to which the "lyrics" seemed appropriate. One of the better songs, but that's not saying much.<br /><br />After one of the closest races in Eurovision history Russian duo t.A.T.u. ended in third place just three points behind Turkey and behind Belgium, with "Ne Ver', Ne Boisia" ("Don't Trust, Don't Be Afraid"). To me t.A.T.u. was one of the very few highlights of the show, surprising just about everyone by being some of the most covered up girls of all the female contestants. They let their song do the talking and if we ignore the fact that they failed to pitch a few times in the first chorus, they let the song speak very well indeed.<br /><br />The biggest surprise when looking at the scoreboard was Austria. The bookmakers here in Denmark had the biggest odds on that song - a song that indeed was beyond horrible - but ended up in 8th place. Could it be that bum of his being shaken to the rhythm of the song? That performance was the one that made me and my family laugh the most, not because it looked good, but because it looked so stupid that it was actually fun.<br /><br />Sweden did what they do the best; ABBA. In 1999 they won with "Take Me To Your Heaven", by sounding like ABBA. In 2001 they made the top 10 with "Listen To Your Heartbeat", again sounding like ABBA, and once again this year they did it ABBA-style, again ending in the top 10.<br /><br />England was finally punished for making those absolutely horrible, non-catching songs, that they've been the past years.<br /><br />Ireland ripped off the winner from 2000, "Fly On The Wings Of Love". And I could go on and on about how bad the songs were.<br /><br />I feel a bit sorry for the Aussies, who this year finally got the chance to see the Eurovision Song Contest. They deserved better than this.<br /><br />I wasn't surprised by the show though. The Eurovision from 2000 to me stands out as one of the best in recent years. 2001 was quite good, but not as good. 2002 was okay, but certainly no more. This year was quite simply disappointing.<br /><br />Let's hope it'll get better next year. If not for us, then at least for the Aussies.<br /><br />4/10. One for t.A.T.u., one for the close race, one for the butt-shaking and one for all the rest.
Tom is about to tuck into a delicious Jerry sandwich when a huge bird of prey swoops down and flies off with his snack. Not at all happy with having his sarnie stolen right from under his nose, Tom takes off in hot pursuit, determined to retrieve his mousy morsel.<br /><br />As much as I love Tom and Jerry, I have got to say that this one is a bit of a stinker: the story is rather mundane; it introduces a badly conceived peripheral character that lacks charm; and it flogs the old 'dress the cartoon character up as a woman' gag to death.<br /><br />In my opinion, 'Flirty Birdy' rivals 'Fraidy Cat' and 'Mouse in Manhattan' for the title of weakest Tom and Jerry caper thus far.
When I heard the film was to be released and the theme of what it was about, I felt very curious. But when I saw it was the biggest deception of my life. Technically speaking, the sound is poor, you can tell about man dialogs that were remade on studio that are poorly achieved in the final mix. Secondo of all, the photography is mediocre, some part of the films show some soldiers with night vision goggles, and the way the cinematographer achieves that "dark night" is by illuminated everything like if they were in an actual military base with lights, there's no reference used of the moonlight, my god! Thir but not least, most of the ac tings are really poor, it's totally not believable the roll of the wife of one of the soldier, her performance it's pretty poor.<br /><br />Great disappointing, shame of the jury who chose to send this movie to represent Colombia on the Oscars.
What a mess of a movie! If it wasnt for Eric Roberts and Susan Sarandon's performances ,this movie would be a total waste! A very muddled plot and phony dialogue.Eric Roberts debut....where did his career go from this movie on?Nowhere but down!
I didn't particularly like Sliding Doors or Twice Upon a Yesterday, so I certainly didn't this poor second-rate excuse for those films. An idea that's been done to death (what would happen if...?) and the script is shoddy and unsuccessful, not to mention the obvious attempt at adding sex/nudity simply to gain an R rating and certain scenes that just weren't necessary but were there to push the boundaries (I really don't need to see a kid urinating or a struggle with a diaphragm. Especially when they have absolutely no connection to or use in the film).<br /><br />The acting was also very poor, the only actor I found the least bit satisfying was her daughter; the rest were two-dimensional and quite unbelievable. The people I watched this with left the room about halfway through; I managed to finish it, but not without fast forwarding through part of it.<br /><br />Overall: Nothing new here, it's a generic and boring film. The few rather amusing moments are far outweighed by the silly or stupid ones. This would be dull even if it hadn't been done before. If it weren't such a rehash I'd rate it a five, but even for an Indie film this was severely lacking, and as a rehash it loses on originality as well: 3/10.
Well, this movie wasn't as horrible as I thought it would be. I was expecting to give it one star. I chose to give it three. Why? Well, for a cheesy horror/sci-fi movie, it's not all that bad. Sure the characters are tacky (as is their acting - including a young Leonardo DiCaprio), the effects cheap looking, and the monsters...well let's just say that I've seen some more effective Halloween costumes in Elementary Schools... But there was something about this movie that made me watch it till the end. A little bit of humor helped out a bit I guess. And if you ever wanted to see an alien pass gas, this movie will let you live your dream. 3/10
Basically the first two Critters movie were already silly ones but in a good and entertaining way. This movie is way more of a B-movie, that is silly but for all of the wrong reasons.<br /><br />This is the first sequel that doesn't really follows the plot of the first two movies. Basically all of the characters are new and there are no bounty hunters this time (well, as good as none, since the bounty hunter in this movie shows up far too late) and the budget for this one obviously went down again. To save even more costs, the movie got shot back-to-back with part 4, which I imaging will be just as bad, since it directly follows this movie and got made by the same people involved as with this one.<br /><br />It's just a typical B-genre movie, that doesn't really have any originality in it or brings entertainment. It makes "Critters 3" a real redundant sequel, you can easily do without. Granted that things could had been way worse for this movie but it just ain't exactly a good one either. The movie just falls flat as a science-fiction/horror/comedy.<br /><br />Also kind of strange to notice how the Critters has suddenly changed in this one. They are about double their usual size this time, without giving an explanation for that and they are even more Gremlins like in this movie than was the case in the previous one.<br /><br />The movie is only made interesting because this was the feature film debut of Leonardo DiCaprio. He was about 17 in this movie and of course looking baby-faced like he still does now. I like watching this well known actors in their early roles. It's fun to see how they act and if their style has improved and changed over the years. Of course DiCaprio got only better but he already was kind of delivering his lines in the same way as he does these days.<br /><br />Really a too silly and lame movie.<br /><br />4/10
Critters 3 starts on the open road as Clifford (John Calvin) his teenage daughter Annie (Aimee Brooks) & his young son Johnny (the IMDb list two actor's Christian & Josephh Cousins, identical twins perhaps?) are heading back home from a vacation. Suddenly the tyre on their van blows & they have to stop at a public rest area to fix it. While there Annie & Johnny meet a kid named Josh (Leonardo DiCaprio, yes that one) who in turn all run into Charlie McFadden (the films co-producer Don Keith Opper) from the previous two Critter films. Charlie tells them the story of the Critters & the town of Grovers Bend but they don't believe him. Meanwhile back at the van a Critter lays some eggs on it's underside, out of sight from everyone. Once Clifford has fixed the tyre the trio set off for their home, a run down urban tenement block in Los Angeles somewhere complete with Critter eggs along for the ride. Upon arrival the eggs hatch & the Critters head straight inside the tenement block quickly disposing of Frank (Geoffrey Blake), the caretaker. As the night draws on the few remaining residents, a fat woman named Rosalie (Diana Bellamy), a telephone repair woman Marsha (Katherine Cortez), an elderly couple Mr. (Bill Zuckert) & Mrs. Menges (Frances Bay) must come together with Clifford & his kids to fight the Critters. Josh also makes an appearance as his Stepfather (William Dennis Hunt) owns the building. But will the group be able to defeat the Critters & prevent themselves from becoming dinner?<br /><br />Directed Kristine Peterson I thought Critters 3 was an incredibly undistinguished film, but at least she can say she made a film staring Leonardo DiCaprio & not many people can say that! The budget for Critters 3 probably wasn't exactly a fortune as the whole production looks cheap throughout, there are very few characters, very few Critters & I think only 3 ever appear in the same shot at once & it does away with any sort of space angle so there are no expensive spaceship or distant alien planet special effects to pay for. The script by David J. Schow is strictly by-the-numbers & very predictable. A group of humans are stuck in an isolated situation with Critters & have no means of contacting the outside world for help, that plot scenario sounds very familiar right? Well it's same as the previous Critters (1986) & Critters 2: The Main Course (1988) & many other horror films so it should. Critters 3 does nothing with the premise, it never even tries to add anything to an already old, tired & well used storyline. Critters 3 is also very tame for a horror film with only two people actually being killed, the comedy elements are seriously lacking as well with the best joke Critters 3 can mange being a Critter eating some beans & then farting, very funny if your about 5 years old. The characters are mostly standard horror film clichés & quickly became annoying. There is virtually no blood or gore in Critters 3 at all, just a few splashes of blood & disappointingly Critters 3 in fact seems to go out of it's way not to show any violence. The special effects on the Critters are OK but they still look like static, simplistic hand-puppets that have very little movement. The acting isn't that good & Critters 3 happens to be a certain Leonardo DiCaprio's very first feature film, to be fair to the kid he's alright & I wonder if any of the other cast or crew had an idea what he go on to become. Why on Earth does that Charlie guy have to keep popping up in these Critter films? To give Critters 3 some credit it moves along at a good pace & isn't boring, it's generally well made with nice enough production values & it's a bit of harmless fun if your in the right sort of mood & thankfully it only lasts for about 80 odd minutes. Overall Critters 3 is an OK time waster but don't expect anything deep or meaningful. There's nothing really wrong with it as cheap horror film but I couldn't help feeling that I'd seen it all before. An average time-waster that isn't as good as either of the previous two Critter films. Critters 3 ends with a 'to be continued...' as this was filmed back to back with Critters 4 (1991) which unsurprisingly went straight to video, probably to save even more money. Critters 3 is a decent enough way to waste 80 odd minutes if you can watch it on T.V. for free otherwise don't bother.
Sadly, this movie is not very good. But does it really matter ? We all know the basics for the story, and this has nothing new. But I love low budget horror & sci fic camp classics ... so I forgive this one. About thew only thing that anyone remember from this movie, is that little Leonardo DiCaprio made his debut in it.<br /><br />He did OK. The part didn't ask for great acting skills, and the direction probably never gave him any chance of providing one anyway ... Little Leonardo DiCaprio was very cute ... and so was the girl. The movie is fun, if you like horror & sci fic camp classics and are experienced in watching them.
*Spoilers - sorry!* The first word that sprung to mind whilst watching the film is 'Gremlins'. It's the only critters movie I have seen from the four movies, but I enjoyed it. It wasn't too complicated as I hadn't seen the past two, but I thought it was quite a good movie all the same. <br /><br />Critters starts with a man, his son and daughter stopping off on the way to a vacation (although it turns out that they end up at their own home - which I have no idea what the hell went on) The girl meets up with a boy (played by Leo DiCaprio) and they go hang out in a nearby forest. They meet this weird guy who tells them to be careful and stuff because of the critters. He seems a bit psychotic and if I was in that situation, I would not speak to him. The critters steal a ride of the girl and boy's car and end up in their flat thing. They hide out in the basement and end up killing this lazy jerk. They then nearly kill this fat woman and the girl's dad. They are chased higher and higher up the flat until they hide in the attic. The critters eat stuff in the kitchen (Spoof of the gremlins kitchen scene???!) And I can't remember (not a good thing) but I'm sure they have to go back for something/someone. Anyway they end up getting out and saved. The psychotic guy comes back and before he kills the last two critters he is told he can't because they are endangered and so he sends them home.<br /><br />The ending was disappointing and I was annoyed that only the lazy guy died as there were quite a few annoying characters I would personally have killed off. It's a thrilling, exciting movie worth a watch. But, if you're looking for a better version of this genre I recommend the gremlins movies. Sorry!
<br /><br />As a fan of bad movies (and MST3K, and a member of MFT3K), I must say I've seen my share of them. But geez! Even the worst I've seen at least had a soundtrack. As George Lazenby stiffly wanders around Hong Kong, doing who knows what, you can guarantee that you won't be distracted by any of that background music that fills todays cinema. Or any of that music that fills elevators. I don't think anyone in this film even hums.<br /><br />Now, this isn't entirely true -- there *is* a sound track. if you listen closely, you will hear it chime in about a half-dozen times through the course of the film. Of course, the timing will be entirely inappropriate, and it doesn't last very long, but something that could be classified as "music" does occur. Your best bet, though, is to sit your toddler armed with a wooden spoon down in front of the TV with a collection of pots and pans while you watch. The rhythm and flow would be better than anything the film offers.<br /><br />Keep an eye out for Sammo Hung as a minor villian in this film. Aren't we all glad he found Jackie Chan to work with?
My first question, is NOT about the horrible acting, NOT about the horrendous writing, it is the directing. The choices that were made about the cinematography are some of this worst decisions I have ever seen. Why does EVERY single bad guy have to die in slow motion? I was about to beat myself with a rubber hose. The camera shots make it so that you can't see whats going on. I was JUST about to turn the movie off because of Jalal Merhi's accent, when it made it to the sex scene, so I thought it might get better, well it did not. If you rate special effects on an A,B,C rating scale, I would have to put it around a W or so, and did I mention the acting? Wow, was it bad!!! And the WORST part of the entire "Expect to DIE" experience, is the blatant misuse of the phrase on the cover, which is: "THE MATRIX JUST GOT DEADLIER". comparing this movie to the Matrix is easily the WORST comparison I have EVER seen. If you haven't seen this movie, Don't, unless you are looking for a good reason to beat your head against the wall.
In the wake of the matrix this travesty of a film with loose connections to VR has been reissued with the tag-line "The Matrix just got Deadler!", in a box with a very Matrix inspired cover (still called "Expect to Die" though). Due to the choice of font however the tag-line looks to all the world like it says "Beablier". Anyway.<br /><br />To complete the transformation to Matrix wannabe they have mocked up a VR fight scene with a Morpheus-a-like on the back of the box. It may be important to know that this character DOES NOT FEATURE IN THE FILM.<br /><br />Overall this film is a travesty on every level. Jalal Mehri is an awful actor and does not impress with his martial arts. However his partner Stone is played by Evan Lurie, who in this film is simply the worst actor I have ever seen. Clearly he was chosen to make Jalal look good in comparison. Worst film I have seen for a long long time.
They must be. I'll list them so that you can check them off one-by-one:<br /><br />- Police regularly leave tens of millions of dollars of cash and drugs just lying around, because they don't have evidence facilities.<br /><br />- When you get shot, you always grunt the same way, and fly back the same way, even though there's never a mark on your body.<br /><br />- Police are not able to identify the sound of gun shots, and don't think anything is suspicious when an undercover policewoman's phone call during a high-level drug-and-money deal is cut shot by that gun shot.<br /><br />- Bad guy gunmen can hit mannequins with one shot, but can't hit a big, bulky martial artist with 100.<br /><br />- If you rocket launcher a car in a car park, the next three cars in a line will blow up evenly in 15 second intervals.<br /><br />- Further to the last point, all the cheap cars are always parked next to each other.<br /><br />- The smoke that is caused from the firing of the rocket launcher is much greater than the amount of smoke caused by four cars blowing up.<br /><br />- Virtual reality games that are a long, long way ahead of anything any other gaming company can produce fit on five floppy disks.<br /><br />- Virtual reality games that are a long, long way ahead of anything any other gaming company can produce have graphics that look like Windows 3.1 screen-savers.<br /><br />- Floppy disks can be read even after they've been shot up.<br /><br />- Semi-drunk guys in bars attentively watch the news when they're at the pub, and have a deep understanding of American modern military history, Agent Orange, and the family trees of high-ranking military officials. However, they're only able to articulate their points using dialogue that sounds silly coming from anyone over the age of seven.<br /><br />- Even though fights appear to break out almost hourly in a bar, that bar has only one staff worker, who both pours the beers and handles security. Of course he knows martial arts.<br /><br />- Gold medal Olympians regularly make the simple transition to corporate CEOs of software companies in a matter of years.<br /><br />- A woman who works for a computer game company knows everything about how to beat a game she's never played, raves constantly about her competitor's great games, and can rattle off facts and figures regarding her company's rivals - but she didn't know that they overtook almost all the other companies in the field in large corporate mergers.<br /><br />- Bad guys always die in slow motion. Always.<br /><br />- Wives tell their husbands that they're pregnant by raving about their man's bravery in killing bad guys.<br /><br />- Wives do large amounts of their husband's police work; this might explain why she whines and complains so much every time he has to go to work. Although, it doesn't explain why she adores him so much every time he gets up in the morning and she can read about his murderous escapades.<br /><br />- It's fairly typical for a police officer to be involved in kidnappings, kill tons of people on three separate occasions and stop a variety of multi-million dollar illegal deals in a week.<br /><br />- When trying to lose a car that's following you, it's wise to continue driving under the speed limit. And if you're following a cop, subtlety is not important - you can tailgate him for miles, then park right next to him. He won't notice.<br /><br />- All cops are experienced martial artists.<br /><br />- It is possible to kick a guy four metres in distance.<br /><br />- People scream or grunt in pain when they are punched or kick, yet when they have their arm broken, they don't make a sound.<br /><br />- Bad guys clean their bloodied axes with their handkerchiefs, and then leave them in their pocket for many days.<br /><br />- Pieces of wood, when swung with one sharp blow, shatter sturdy ladders in six or more places simultaneously.<br /><br />- The photo, and listed special features on the back of the DVD case don't necessarily have to be on the DVD. The advertised interactive menus? Why not no menu at all! The advertised scene index? Why not have the whole thing as one scene/chapter, and not need an index! Likewise, it's OK to use The Matrix's font and title in the tag-line, and not be a rip-off in any way.<br /><br />With all of this, I'm in shock that 12 out of the 15 top credited actors never acted again.
Wow, Jeez, I don't even know where to begin commenting on this thing they called a movie. I seriously don't know what the hell David Bradley began smoking after making Hard Justice, which in my opinion, was quite a good movie after the American Ninja features. I hadn't seen any of this guy's latter movies after Cyborg Cop. Lucky I saw them on Amazon for like 5 pounds each and I can safely say the following: if I had thrown down the drain the 5 pounds I spent on Total Reality, Crisis and Expect to Die, I would have ended up happier than having to sit through the 90 minutes that each of them lasted. My God, how the HECK can anybody label these as "movies" ??? And why do action/martial arts actors fall knee-deep into the smelliest horse-dung when they've like reached their peak?? I mean, David Bradley's no Oscar deserver but his first movies were pretty entertaining. Tough, cool guy with pretty good martial expertise who delivered corny lines but at least entertained action and martial arts fans to a certain extent. But I seriously would love to know what went through this guy's head after making Hard Justice. His final 3 movies have to frankly be the WORST I have ever had to sit through. As I mentioned before, I'd love to get my money back on the 3 DVDs I bought. Crisis was the epitome of sleepiness, Total Reality was harsh but this Expect to Die is just utter nonsense. I bet the director was either mega-stoned when he made this or he was just taking the pee out of every David Bradley fan who would sit through this heap of crap. The plot circles around a doctor (Bradley) who develops some type of Virtual Reality game in which he's just killing different people off one by one. Sorry but I just couldn't take this guy seriously playing a baddie with that posh hair-do, glasses and gray slacks and doing absolutely NO physical fighting whatsoever (frankly, his best asset). The film is even worse than any of those Saturday afternoon B-movies because the acting is laughable, the directing is horrendous and the few fights in the movie, well, what can I say... The actors look like they're training with their gym buddy. We get a dumb muscular cop who starts to show off his fighting stuff like one hour into the movie and fails heavily... a french hairy version of Van Damme who just can't fight, act or speak to save his freaking life and Bradley, the supposed protagonist, playing the evil doctor who I was really happy for when he stopped making this type of expendable rubbish. I even reckon he didn't throw a kick in this movie probably due to his heart condition already playing up on him. For a B-actor, I must admit I really liked this guy, his style, physique, fighting skills... But I'm really, really glad he stopped acting after this monstrosity because I honestly wouldn't have been able to sit through another ninety minutes of pee-taking material like this one. Avoid at all costs even if you're family of David Bradley, you'll be glad you did, word.
Purchased this film for one dollar and figured I could never go wrong, my big mistake was watching it. Enjoyed the acting of Ice-T and the rapping which gave lots of class to this film about Los Angeles and the world of pimps. There is a boxer who kills one of his opponents in a practice ring and who has a career, but because of mental problems from childhood and the killing of this other boxer he retires. He gets hired by a pimp who is looking for a bodyguard to protect the girls that work for him at their trade and make sure they are not beaten up. This boxer falls in love with the boss's girlfriend and all kinds of trouble starts. This is entertaining and it then becomes a big laughing comedy.
I rented this movie from my local library and thought it might be good considering I like this type of movie and considering who was in it but boy was I wrong. The acting stunk, the fight scenes were just as bad and they got a couple of known people to be in it but didn't cast anyone with acting ability to play the lead? I noticed some people gave it a 10. Why would you ever consider giving this pile of horse **** a 10. You can say it's worth a 10 for the sheer comedy of it but when you vote on a movie that's not supposed to be a comedy you can't give it a 10 for comedy. You have to rate it on what it was supposed to actually be like and not for something the director wasn't intending. Maybe some of you voted 10 cause you thought it would be funny to have this crappy movie have a high rating so that people would go out and rent or buy it cause you think it's fun to mislead people. You're playing with peoples time and money which you have no right to do. If the movie sucked give it a bad rating if it was good give it a good rating but don't lie. I gave this movie a 4 and am glad that I was able to check this out for free from my library cause this movie sucked and really isn't worth paying a cent to see.
If you would like to watch an example of how not to make a film, then you need to watch this. I, myself, with no film making experience could do better. The script is laughable with a weak plot and there is no effort to be seen for any intelligent structure. In order to make up for this flaw, you would think the action would be decent, wouldn't you?<br /><br />As the acting, editing and overall piecing together of the film is appalling the only saving grace is the dreadful performance by the lead actor. The reason why he is the saving grace, is because he is so genuinely bad at acting, that he should win an Oscar for it. At least some recognition for making me laugh at him so much.<br /><br />Toss in a dead woman's body after an all male shoot out (where did she come from?), pull the semi automatic trigger tens of times while the soundman pulls off two gunshot effects, reflection of the camera crew in Kool Mo Dee's shades, one and only ONE music track for the WHOLE film, an unoriginal script that has no logic; is a perfect recipe for a really, really bad film. Its actually more fun spotting the errors than actually trying to find something positive. Avoid at all costs.
Last night, I got bored and decided to watch a movie called 'out kold' which I had once bought with a whole lot of other cheap movies from a videostore. Seemed like a good old action movie, so I took out the chips and coke and was ready for a relaxing evening. Well, the pain started right from the beginning. The main character is a boxer who is the nicest guy I have ever seen. As the good person he has to be nice of course, but he is just a pussy! That totally doesn't fit with a boxer that has 28 KO's and starts working for a pimp to earn some extra money. Even nice guys can still be cool. Well, then came his first fight while he was working for this pimp. Every punch was clearly missed and that became even more annoying because the sound effect weren't synchronised with the punches. Then there is this totally worthless acting of the whole cast, and you have enough reasons to leave this movie for what it is. I gave it a 1 because I have never seen such a bad movie.
Bad, a lot a crap. It copied simone, also a bad movie! Them flips when "loretta modern" sang was lame. That internet scenes made it worse. And Roscoe loves a "hologram"! Thats plain stupid! I give 0 stars! Because they copied, the plot was stupid, THE WHOLE MOVIE WAS THUMBS DOWN ALL THE WAY!
One of the worst movies I've ever seen. Completely ridiculous. The story is bad. The animations are completely childish and displaced. The physics of the holograms are hilarious from how much they are completely wrong. OMG, I even wanna believe that this film has Disney label on it. Yuck. The actresses are somewhat beautiful, but there are so many good films with astonishing actresses that are far more valuable to see than this one. Final remark, bad film. Don't bother to watch it. If you're looking for films to see with your kids consider other alternatives like Ratattuile, Monster Inc or an Enchanted Story (on theaters). Seriously.
I'm not sure who should be blamed for this debacle - in truth, the acting isn't too bad and the story isn't as terrible as some made-for-Disney movies have been. The story itself is shallow and undeveloped but that isn't surprising in a film of this type. The acting is more than a bit two-dimensional, but I give the actors credit for managing to do anything with the material that they had to work with.<br /><br />However, it's inexcusable, in my book, to base an entire storyline on the theory that they've created a 'perfect' pop star and then cast an actress who can't sing to save her life. If the girl can't sing, have someone who can record the music!<br /><br />This actress is a TERRIBLE singer - she was so flat she was usually singing in a totally different key!
This pathetic excuse for a movie doesn't have a decent structure or a sensible closure. The characters were confusing and the entire plot kept getting off track. I'd have to say that Pixel Perfect was a disgrace. This is what happens when you let Disney channel make movies.
Gene Hackman is a former Marine Corps colonel who musters a handful of private Vietnam vets to go back to Laos and rescue some Americans who have been listed as missing in action. Hackman suspects that, in actuality, the half-dozen or so MIAs are secretly being held in a remote camp by Laotians to be tormented and to provide more hard labor. Hackman is being paid by the wealthy Robert Stack, whose son, like Hackman's son, is thought to be among the MIAs. But the circumstances are such that Hackman can only manage to buy old and out-dated weapons, though he manages to pick up the help of a fervid anti-communist Loatian and his two daughters along the way.<br /><br />I don't think the movie was deliberately concocted to endorse the myth of the Vietnames still holding our MIAs for propaganda purposes. The myth was real enough. If anyone remembers, there were many bumper stickers in 1982 and 1983, BRING BACK THE MIAs. I think, instead, that the film was made partly in order to cash in on the myth. It was absurd on the face of it. Why would our former enemy refuse to return MIAs? Propaganda? Where is the propaganda value in something that's kept secret? To add the labor supply? They need a hundred extra laborers in Vietnam and Laos? The motives behind this movie -- with its triumphant music and high body count -- were scurrilous.<br /><br />But how about the movie itself? Stripped of its theme of rescuing mythical mistreated MIAs, it's a routine paramilitary actioner, no better and no worse than dozens of others that appeared in the 1980s. Gene Hackman's performance is the only one that manages to keep its head above water. He's just about always reliable.<br /><br />Of the others, this being a formulaic plot, derived from "The Dirty Dozen" among others, I kept trying to guess which of the gang would sacrifice themselves for the mission. Of the three anti-communist Asians, I figured one or more were dead meat. That's why Asian helpers appear in movies like this. (I was right two times out of three.) I also figured Patrick Swayzie as the rookie ex-officer, the youngest of the group, who'd never "earned the respect" of the others because he'd never seen combat, would also have to go in some heroic mode. Wrong. He becomes a hero, true, but survives intact. I thought there was a fifty-fifty chance that Hackman would have to go too, but he makes it out okay. The formula doesn't really stretch for originality either. Charles Bronson's claustrophobic POW escapee from "The Great Escape" is here in Fred Ward's ex tunnel rat, a claustrophobe who is forced to crawl through a drainage pipe with a snake inside it, so that he can do a recon on the Laotian POW camp.<br /><br />The title, "Uncommon Valor," is from a tribute that Admiral Nimitz made to the men on Iwo Jima -- "Uncommon valor was common that day." Nimitz was certainly right about that. Whether or not the men who fought in Vietnam were all equally valorous is remote from the point. Anyone who saw combat or even came near it, putting their lives on the line for the guys in the line next to them, were heroic enough. This movie, and the way it exploits our bitterness about the Vietnam war, doesn't really do them justice.
I know these types of films sell tickets and make a profit for the film makers but it just won't do as a film about Vietnam. Viet Nam was filled with horrors for the men who lived it day in and day out.<br /><br />This film stars Gene Hackman who is Korean war vet assigned to train a group of rag-tag Viet Nam Vets for a return trip to that country to rescue a group of American POW's held at a camp there. These men include a former tunnel rat, a crazy acid dropping sailor, a blond tanned surfer from California and some inexperienced kid (Patrick Swayze) who just so happens had a dad that was killed in Nam. They train first at some camp in Texas and once in Nam they are found out and lose all their weapons. They are able to find replacement weapons and continue on their way to free the captured men. Most of the men are found and saved but the rag-tag group is mostly wiped out.<br /><br />This movie played like a video game in which you could figure out what was going to happen next and who would pop out of behind what bush, and who was going to die and who was going to live. Viet Nam I'm guessing was not like a video game....
But to be a little more precise I do not think that it is as bad as it actually could be. Eventhough the actors (famous to semi-famous) didn't do a very great job. Directors fault? Could be the script as well hard for me to say? Anyway, if you are after a lot of cool guns and action this is not the movie for you but they do run around with a lot of ww2 vintage guns. Sort of fun :) Well I guess I could say more but it just doesn't feel as if it's worth it. If you are desperate enough or a Hackman freak see it otherwise don't!<br /><br />Live well and prosper
Maybe our standards for Vientam movies have increased since Born on the Fourth Of July, Full Metal Jacket, and Platoon. This movie has a predictable plot, bad writing, bad acting, bad directing, bad special effects, etc. Compared with other Vietnam movies this one is completely unbelievable.
It is sad to have to say that a film is truly awful and one tries to find ways around saying this. However, this is a dreadful film. Gene Hackman wastes time (and one suspects, many dollars) on re-playing his most famous, and oft recreated, role as "Gene Hackman". Otherwise, television actors are given the chance to become film stars, and successfully, resist the temptation. Patrick Swayze has a minor part and went on to greater things, for which he must be eternally thankful.<br /><br />I watched this film, as a result of someone else's review and I felt that another point of view was merited. You may not agree with my review but now, at least, you have been warned.
Disappointing comedy-drama with sentimental coating has Michael J. Fox ideally cast as a former child star who now runs a talent agency for thespian tots; Nathan Lane and Cyndi Lauper are his assistants. This all sounds as if it can't miss, however too much of the scenario is given over to strident Christina Vidal as a streetwise tyke whom Fox believes will be the next big thing. They lock quickly lock heads, and the bantering dialogue takes them back and forth to an uninteresting, formula finish. Fox and Lane are both appealing, but the energy of the early scenes gives way to treacle. Slickly produced, but ultimately stale. *1/2 from ****
This isn't a bad movie. It's fun to watch for the first time. However it has absolutely no replay value at all. When you try to watch it again it gets so boring you have to turn it off. I give this movie a 6 out of 10.
This movie was so incredibly boring, Michael J. Fox could've done so much better. Sorry, but it's true for all you people who liked the movie
This movie has got to be one of the all-time lows of Michael J. Fox's generally respectable career. I should have known how awful this movie was when I rented it and found the movie only half viewed and not rewound by the previous renter. Never a good sign! Fox plays a grown up child star who's now an agent for other show business kids. His character is delusional in that he still believes that everyone should love him for being Mikey. His big break comes when he meets Angie Vega, a talented child. Vega is abrasive and not at all likeable. In fact, the only likeable character in the whole movie is Cyndi Lauper as a Brooklyn accented receptionist for the agency. One of those movies that makes me want to stick a post-it note to the box warning others not to waste their time!
Yet another cookie-cutter movie about a hardened adult who meets an adorable, street-smart kid (Cop and 1/2, Gloria, etc). And once again, it is not funny or interesting, for anyone to watch - kids or adults. I'm sure some people might find this movie amusing, but I have no earthly idea why. Once again, I feel sorry for the poor kids who were forced to work in this movie, so that everyone else and their parents could make some bucks at the price of a cheesy cheesy movie.
Another sadistic and ultra-sleazy late 70's/early 80's revenge movie?? Wes Craven sure launched a popular trend with his "Last House on the Left" Although "Terror Express" is more like a rip-off of other rip-offs, like "I Spit on your Grave" and especially "Night Train Murders". Storywise, this movie has absolutely nothing new to offer so the only thing left to do for director Ferdinando Baldi was to multiply the sleaze-factor by a thousand! This is actually just a soft core porn flick that gets a little bit rough near the ending. On the night train from Rome are three hopelessly imbecile loser running amok. They provoke the male travelers and sexually harass the females. Things get a little out of control and a traveling convict comes to the rescue of a prostitute who keeps being screwed around by the three. This is a very tame movie and there wasn't even enough budget to buy a couple bags of fake blood. This type of movies is generally infamous for the brutal rape sequences and the discriminating behavior towards women, but the sex in "Terror Express" isn't unsettling at all. On the contrary, these 'rapists' spend more time orally pleasuring their victims then getting some themselves! The music is great, the dialogs are unintentionally hilarious and the characters are the most ridiculous ones I ever beheld. The villains are wimps and the train-passengers are so motionless they look like part of the set. If you like your exploitation as sleazy as it gets, this is your film. However, your hunger for blood and controversy will definitely not be stilled. "Terror Express" should be in the porn-section of videostores.
The unpleasant "home invasion" genre can be traced back to Wes Craven's early sleazefest "Last House On The Left", with such nasty off-shoots as "I Spit On Your Grave", "Wrong Way" and "The Visitors" soon following in the footsteps of that film. Here, in this early '80s Italian offering the same plot is regurgitated once more, with the twist being that this one is set on a continental train. "La Ragazza Del Vagone Letto" – known in English-speaking countries as "Terror Express" – starts out surprisingly well but about twenty minutes in it takes a turn for the worse, as the sex scenes start to gain precedence over the more serious action and suspense.<br /><br />David, Phil and Ernie, three rich youths who wallow in terrorising and humiliating others, board a trans-continental express in Italy. The train is full of other passengers, among them prostitute Juliette (Silvia Dionisio) who rides the train frequently and has struck up a deal with one of the porters to act as a kind of pimp, persuading the male passengers to part with their cash for a night of passion in her sleeping compartment. The three cretins quickly set about upsetting the passengers with their aggressive, drunken behaviour, but matters get more serious when they seize control of an entire car on the express and barricade themselves in from the rest of the train. Pretty soon, they are revelling in their temporary control…. a young wife (Zora Kerova) is raped by two of the youths in a cramped compartment; Juliette herself is subjected to a prolonged sexual assault; and later the odious trio force the male passengers to role a dice in order to decide which one will rape a 16 year old virgin travelling with her parents (a concept made doubly tasteless by the fact that her father is one of the men forced to play the game). The only passenger who seems prepared to fight back is a convict who is being escorted to Germany, but what hope does one man have against three armed thugs? <br /><br />La Ragazza Del Vagone Letto gets off to a decent start. Various intriguing characters are introduced, and the three hoodlums are shown to have a genuinely unsettling influence over the travellers. Though the story is clearly the stuff of exploitation, the opening scenes are built up carefully and the film seems to be rising above the usual gutter-level of its genre. Things fall apart during a horrid scene in which Kerova is sex-sandwiched in a toilet compartment by two of the thugs. The scene is gloatingly filmed, and the effect does not seem to be to generate sympathy for the victim or hatred towards the perpetrators… instead, we are being asked to feel turned on. This is sensationalism at its worst. Further humiliating rapes follow, but the rape sequences involve too much lingering camera work over acts of oral sex and the female genitalia. One sequence featuring the 16 year old girl teeters on the brink of hard core and feels particularly "wrong". By the end of La Ragazza Del Vagone Letto it is easy to forget that it was intended as a thriller, for the final hour of the film is dedicated to pornography rather than suspense. Lovers of sleaze will revel in it; others might want to look elsewhere.
I've got to say, I'm a big fan of these 'Last House on the Left' rip-offs, even the ones that most people seem to hate are often held in relatively high esteem by me; but one of these sorts of films that I didn't like much was Aldo Lado's 'Night Train Murders', and unfortunately it would seem that trains and The Last House on the Left don't mix, as Terror Express is another lacklustre rip-off. Something that this sort of film really needs is a resoundingly nasty lead character; and while Terror Express offers up three potential candidates, not one of them steps up and becomes this villain, leaving the lacking in the most important area. It actually gets off to a good start as three young men on a passenger train begin slightly irritating the guests on board. This leads the audience to believe that there is more in store, but unfortunately it never really gets going once the scene has been set. From there, the trio end up 'taking over' the train and use their new found power to terrorise the guests and rape the women.<br /><br />It has to be said that there's a fair amount of sleaze in this film, which will be pleasing to many viewers; but there's hardly any blood. Director Ferdinando Baldi seemed to think that he could get away with replacing the blood with sex scenes, and he may have gotten away with it too; if he could film a brutal sex scene. The idea that these men have taken the train by force goes out of the window once it gets to the sex, as the people that you would expect to be powerful and forceful seem all too keen to show their women a good time, and despite one very tame 'sandwich' sequence, none of the sex is particularly interesting. Since a lot of the film is taken up by these sex scenes, this becomes a massive problem. Films like this are often lacking in style, suspense and credibility; but you know you're watching a bad one when it's boring you. As you might expect, none of the acting is up to anything; and the central three in particular stand out for being rubbish. The direction is lacking in style, and there's very little tension or suspense; making it difficult to care what is going to happen. Overall, this is a pretty crappy example of an exploitation film, and I can't recommend it.
La Ragazza del Vagone Letto, or Terror Express! as it was called on the version I saw, starts as various passengers board a long distance train. Three thuggish idiots, Dave, Phil & Ernie (Carlo De Mejo) board & it's clear that they're there to cause trouble as they intimidate & verbally abuse the other passengers & staff. As the train speeds along things turn nasty when a prostitute named Juliette (Silvia Dionisio) refuses to have sex with Dave, he & his mates decide to hold the entire train hostage so they can have an orgy with Juliette &, well not much else actually happens apart from some hero cop & his prisoner who set about saving the day. Erm, that's it really...<br /><br />This Italian production was directed by Ferdinando Baldi & is complete total & utter crap from start to finish. The script by George Eastman as Luigi Montefiori could just as easily be described as a really boring porno as much as a horror/thriller. It is tediously slow, it's 35 minutes before anything even remotely sleazy happens & as a whole the film lacks the sort of exploitation elements that Italian sleaze & horror was delivering at that time. The film can be compared to another Italian production the infinitely better The House on the Edge of the Park (1980) made the same year, it's a very broad comparison though as everything that made The House on the Edge of the Park the notorious film that it is is absent from La Ragazza del Vagone Letto, there's no blood, no gore, almost no violence, there's only a couple of really tame rapes, the story has no twists or turns & as it's incredibly boring to watch. Italian sleaze & horror from the late 70's & early 80's isn't known for it's strong story lines or great scripts but this films really does scrape the bottom-of-the-barrel on all counts. The character's are awful, the film spends the first 30 plus minutes building them up & giving some background as to why they're on the train but this is all quickly forgotten & comes to absolutely nothing. I hated the lame ending as well & I don't know if I missed something but was any sort of reasonable explanation given as to why these three lamebrains would hijack a train? I don't think there was, was there? I'm sorry but because your angry at a prostitute is not enough of a reason, surely the filmmakers could have come up with something a bit more substantial & interesting if not more plausible. In my opinion this film stinks, it's as simple & straight forward as that I'm afraid.<br /><br />Director Baldi does an OK job, to be fair he only has one corridor & a few train compartments to work with so I'll cut him some slack, having said that the film does become very repetitive. There is no style & he films the sex scenes like a bad soft core porno complete with awful romantic sounding piano music. There is NOT ONE SINGLE DROP OF BLOOD SPILT IN THE ENTIRE FILM, that's right not one single drop. Forget about any gore or violence as you'll be very disappointed if you do, like I did. There are a couple of rapes but they're amateurishly staged & have zero impact, the nasty exploitation & sleaze of say I Spit on Your Grave (1978) or The Last House on the Left (1972) is not here.<br /><br />Technically La Ragazza del Vagone Letto is OK & it's quite well made on what must have been a low budget but the setting obviously helped keep the cost down to a minimum. The acting is poor as usual, although since it was dubbed the original performances have been lost. Fans of Italian horror will recognise a lot of the voices here.<br /><br />La Ragazza del Vagone Letto is a terrible film, it's just my opinion but I was bored to tears waiting for something to happen & when it eventually never I felt cheated, I want those 80 minutes of my life back. This piece of crap isn't even fit to grace the 99p VHS bargain bin in your local Blockbuster, one to avoid.
I don't understand the people here. The film is neither as good as as bad as some people say here. Except for De Kok the acting is OK. The problem with the film is mainly the script. The characters are not believable. The sex is done okay, but the psychology behind the people makes very little sense. The film doesn't look good, but what do you expect? The film was shot for very little money on video. Off course then it doesn't look as good as a normal film, duh! The one thing I do agree on is that the music is bad. Sounds like a cheap soft erotic film from the '80's. The film is not good, okay, but you have to give some credit for pulling this of without any money.
This is not a new film. It is a re-cut of 1994's "Emmanuelle, Queen of the Galaxy", and it has been significantly truncated. Warning: Many characters appear in the credits that have been cut from the movie!<br /><br />If you want to see this one in its original form, pick up "Queen" - avoid this one at all costs, as the cuts make it even choppier than it was originally.
I caught this movie on late-night TV. Honestly i saw most of it, and the whole time i was sitting in complete and utter disbelief.<br /><br />Is there any genre that's more pointless than soft-core porn? If there is i don't want to know about it. Softcore porn combines all the horrors of porn (lousy production values, abominable acting, crappy scripts) with the coyness of sex-scenes in regular movies. So the end result is arousing nor entertaining. This movie also has the rather odd approach of a science-fiction setting, and it works horribly. All the sex is performed in some sort of virtual reality setting where the crew from the future learn about physical love. And yes, it's about as confused and silly as it sounds.<br /><br />But there has to be some positive points though, right? Well, there is one... Krista Allen is amazingly hot. That's about the only thing that was less than awful in this movie. I don't know what it is about her, but she has an amazing sex appeal. The rest of the cast look like the standard porn-cast though. Rather unattractive women with poorly done fake breasts, and men that have spent far too much time in the gym toning themselves grotesque. Probably a gym in Germany as well judging by haircuts and clothing.<br /><br />To sum things up. If you enjoy Krista Allens presence on screen you can watch this for the brief moments where she shows some of her seductive potential (most of the time she tries to articulate crappy lines of dialog though). If you don't enjoy Krista Allen then you might as well stay away altogether.<br /><br />I rate this 10/10 for Krista Allens sex appeal, 1/10 for everything else and 2/10 for entertainment value since this is a unique crappy porn/science fiction hybrid that's not really like anything i've ever seen.
Okay, the only reason I watched this movie is because Krista Allen is in it. Since I admit to watching Days of our lives... I know her as Billie. Oh sure, perhaps there will be a reason to watch this movie.. that would be the soft porn area. They seem to exel at that. And little else. I would hope anyone renting/buying this movie rented it only for the sex scene's. Because if they bought/rented it for anything else, say quality tv, they may die of a heart attack. This movie involves little imagination whatsoever. While I do have a good laugh at it's stupidity, and perhaps I'll buy it myself, I am but a fool. Rent before you buy on this one. 2 out of 10. (note I have yet to give a movie a 1 star. the sensual scene's alone gave itself and up from a 1. if they hadn't a straight 1 in the pot and I want a refund if it hadn't.)
I just have to comment on this movie because I gave it a 4 rating, and in my opinion that's pretty high for a softporn smut movie. The actual plot is kind of hokey (who would expect otherwise) but Hafron is so incredibly funny, and he delivers everything in a cyborgish voice so it's easy for him. Whoever wrote the script had some wit definitely! I must have laughed out loud ten times, and that's not a reason anyone would pick up this movie. The only softporn movie I've seen which had any merit other than beautiful women (and believe me, Emmanuelle is drop dead gorgeous...just look at the cover!)<br /><br />Any movie that can entertain me considering how poor the plot was and how bad the acting is, also considering the movie wasn't made to artistically entertain, so to speak, it gets at least a four in my book. I mean, who wouldn't watch this before Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot?
If you read the plot summary for "Mad Max," you've just ruined the first 1 hour and 10 minutes of the film. You've also found out that "Mad Max" takes place in post-apocalyptic Australia, which will be helpful because otherwise you won't have any idea what's going on. The film, made in 1979, tries really hard to be Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" (1971) only that film, in all its strangeness, actually makes sense and leaves an impact. This film does neither and ends up being a car/bike stunt-filled romp that crashes like every vehicle in the film does.<br /><br />The first thing wrong with "Mad Max" is that it tries to sell itself as a revenge tale when no vigilante appears to take revenge until the final 20 minutes. If the first hour were condensed to 20-30 minutes and then the final 20 added on and then another hour added after that, "Mad Max would be a cool action film with a great vigilante protagonist. Instead, Mel Gibson has to wait around and act like a sissy for 2/3 of the film and then have a sudden epiphany to seek revenge. I've yet to watch the sequel "Road Warrior" and I have to admit I'm excited for it only because I want to know what he does next. This first film was mostly a waste of time.<br /><br />George Miller does some great action stuff here, but his over-the-top symbolism is absurd and the unbearable cheesy reaction sequences every time a character discovers something horrifying like a burnt hand or what have you completely ruins those moments. Its a terribly cliché B-movie technique.<br /><br />There is absolutely no thematic value or subtle critique of society in this film no matter what you might think. A great action sci-fi movie at least makes a point, but the gratuitous violence done by random, weird bikers doesn't say anything of value. Even the villain Toecutter feels modeled off Alex of "Clockwork" only uglier and completely unimposing. The PG violence just does not allow the violence of this gang to settle in and get a reaction from the viewer, it just cheeses it up if anything.<br /><br />I'll give credit for the amount of stuff the film crew blew up and crashed into things and Miller does a great job making you feel the intensity of the collisions. Everything else is mediocre at best and then after an hour of mediocrity, you get something good and the film ends 20 minutes later. I'm just crossing my fingers "Road Warrior" will fulfill the expectations of where this film ends, otherwise that's more time wasted. ~Steven C<br /><br />Visit my site at http://moviemusereviews.blogspot.com
Ok, where to start. I can't believe how many good reviews I read on here. I watched this (year 2004) and I had to fight to not push the stop button, I decided to continue just because of all the good reviews I read. After watching it I felt it was my duty to let the world know about this. First of all the movie seems like it is never going to begin, the plotline doesn't actually occur until about 30 minutes before the movie ends, leaving the viewer wondering, `when is this going to start' So don't ever call this a `revenge movie' because the revenge doesn't even start until over half the movie is already gone by. Furthermore, the movie tries to make you believe this is a post-apocalyptic Australia. I am sorry if showing dusty rural roads half the movie and a crooked letter on a sign didn't quite convince me of that, even for 1979 this was not science fiction. So anyways, add this on top of randomly placed homoerotic subtext and you have got yourself one crappy movie (I have nothing against gays, there was just no need for it). The only good part was the first chase scene, good directing considering it was 1979, and another good part is how he kills the last guy. So basically I recommend you watch the first 10 minutes and last 5 minutes and you will enjoy yourself much more than if you sat through all that stuff in the middle, which may lead you to gouge your own eyes out. Don't say I didn't warn you.
George Segal lives with his elderly and senile mother. There are many jokes about her Alzheimer's-like dementia and most of them aren't funny, though there were a few funny moments sprinkled in here and there (such as the nude running through the park scene and the old folks home). At first, Segal tries to kill his mother because she's tough to live with and because he's a selfish guy. Making the film sort of like a Wiley Coyote versus the Roadrunner comedy where he tries again and again to kill this indestructible gal would have been a hoot--too bad this was NOT the overall tone of the film.<br /><br />I do applaud Carl Reiner's attempt to make a tasteless film that is intended to offend everyone. I have a special place in my heart for films like ED AND HIS DEAD MOTHER, EATING RAOUL and HAPPINESS OF THE KATAKURIS--all films about death that dare to offend. The problem here, though, is that WHERE'S POPPA? has some funny moments, but it also has a lot of flat ones and the overall product is amazingly bland. Plus topics such as homosexual rape, incest and the like are really difficult to make funny. I read in "THE ROUGH GUIDE TO CULT MOVIES" that it is considered a cult film, though I just can't see anyone wanting to see this more than once.
New York attorney plots to rid himself of his senile mother after meeting an attractive, available woman. Screenwriter Robert Klane, adapting his own novel (the kind of paperback kids would buy for the dirty parts), doesn't seem to have any knowledge of mental illness: to him, it's just an excuse for prurient comedy and scatological jokes. George Segal--who, in the 1960s, starred mostly in war and espionage pictures--had become, by this time, one of America's greatest sad-sack comedians; his nutty reactions and batty responses rival only his mother's inscrutabilities. Segal is paired well with Trish Van Devere, and their moments of connection (though also played for laughs) are really the only sequences one can gravitate towards. Ruth Gordon, lovable as is she, is simply around too much--and more of her amounts to less. This is one of the worst directed and edited films I have ever seen from so-called professionals. Promising scenes which ultimately don't play out for the full effect are haphazardly disconnected from other moments which flail around endlessly, causing the crass, rickety movie to self-destruct long before it's actually over. *1/2 from ****
I was prepared to love "Where's Poppa", it features the nexus of Normal Lear sitcom character actors who, when I was growing up, felt like extended members of my raisenette-sized broken nuclear family. How fun it would be to see censor-free Barnard Hughes, Vincent Gardenia, Ron Liebman, Rob Reiner, and a pre-SNL Garret Morris.<br /><br />But alas,"Where's Poppa" drags. It's claustrophobic and plodding, and breaks the cardinal rules of farce, lightness of mood and a fast pace.<br /><br />The plot involves the efforts of a lawyer (George Segal) to rid himself of his overbearing Jewish mother, who lives in his gigantic New York apartment. Along the way we are exposed ridiculous characters and situations: a comedic group of muggers who repeatedly mug the brother of the main character, the rape of a policeman which involving a gorilla suit and subsequent gay love, Ruth Gorden pulling down Segal's pants and biting his ass as he serves her dinner. Why doesn't this work? Part of the explanation is the sense of doom engendered by the cramped, dark interiors and antique set-decoration. I absolutely eat up cinematography of New York during this era, but watching this movie felt like I was leafing through the Police Gazette in a dark bus terminal.<br /><br />The main reason though is the slow pace. Modern MTV-style quick cuts have changed what moviegoers feel is a comfortable editing tempo, but, even taking this into consideration, camera shots are held for an excessively long time. Plot developments are also very slow. There is one situation in which this works: a weird love song George Segal sings to Trish Van Devere, softly, very close to her face, and for an excruciatingly long period of time. It reminded me of those cringeworthy extended shots in the British version of "The Office", where you find yourself mentally begging the camera to cut away, and at the same time you can't stop looking.<br /><br />Sadly, most of the film is more "hurry up" than "can't look away". Which made me wonder if it's possible to have a black comedy that is also a farce. The dilemma is that the gravitas of the subject matter in a black comedy tends to weigh down lightness of the farce. Movies like Robert Altman's "M*A*S*H" and Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" prove that it can be accomplished. They do this not only through speed but also through entertaining subplots, something "Where's Poppa" neglects.<br /><br />Although the film features multiple, stereotypically-funny characters, almost all of them are directly involved in the central drama of how to deal with the recalcitrant mother. The scenes featuring Garret Morris and the Central Park muggers are as close as the viewer gets to a mental break. The muggers seemed almost Shakespearean, following the tradition of comic ne'er-d0-wells. If the rest of "Where's Poppa" had clung a little more closely to stage tradition it would have been a better film. Edgier isn't always better. It's as if all these talented actors and the director Carl Reiner, were taking a short before the creative maelstrom of the 70's .<br /><br />Random notes: After strealing Ron Liebman's clothes, the muggers mention Cornel Wilde's "The Naked Prey" (1966), a great action movie that was a stylistic precursor to 1968's "Planet of the Apes".<br /><br />As politically incorrect as he was, it's disquieting to learn about the death of an action hero as formidable as Charleton Heston. Linda Harrison, who played "Nova", Taylor's mute mate, said that James Fransicus, in the sequel seemed to be cute and tiny compared to Heston.
In the opening sequence of "Where's Poppa?", George Segal rises from his bed one morning, shaves, showers, puts on a gorilla suit and goes into his mother's bedroom, we realize later, to give her a massive heart attack that will kill her and get her out of his life forever. This is about the level of humor one can expect from most of this picture: insanity, blended with what might be taken as morbid daring.<br /><br />Segal plays a New York attorney who lives with his supposedly senile mother (Ruth Gordon), whose life is further complicated when, while hiring a nurse to care for the old bag, meets the girl of his dreams, the pleasantly prim Trish Van Devere, decked out like Florence Nightingale. His dilemma: how to integrate the lovely nurse into his and his pesky mother's life.<br /><br />Segal's performance is about the only thing holding the picture together. His frustrations, his reactions, his comic timing is almost peerless (whatever happened to that guy?); where the film fails is in other areas. Ruth Gordon's characterization is dreadful as the mother. At the beginning, you can't figure out if her character is senile or just being deliberately vague to keep her son from moving out. By the end, it's clear she's just nuts. When Segal brings Van Devere home to meet her, Gordon's eyebrows furrow and she gets a mean, sinister look. She wants the intruder in her son's life removed; she's calculating. This is not the mode of a senile person. You're not getting a consistent performance throughout the picture, which is probably the director's (Carl Reiner) fault as much as Gordon's. Ruth Gordon's old lady in "Rosemary Baby" is much more successful because with the kind of ingratiating, cloying person that Ruth Gordon generally plays, the audience responds to her as annoying. But when Mia Farrow is too timid to fight back, Gordon becomes more cloying, her fangs dig deeper and deeper and we're frightened for Farrow; this kind of imposition is genuinely terrifying. Here, we're being asked to laugh at what we'd normally find annoying, and if Gordon played it as helplessly nutty all the way, we might. But she's selfish and mean as well, and it dampens what little humor there is.<br /><br />There are a few good laughs, though. A courtroom scene with Barnard Hughes as a military officer and Rob Reiner as a counterculture punk is fairly hilarious, and Vincent Gardenia does a nice turn as a Lombardiesque football coach. There's also an inspired bit where Segal's brother (Ron Liebman), having been stripped naked by muggers on his way to Segal's place, asks him for something for to wear home- and he gives him the gorilla suit.<br /><br />But of a lot of the script is poorly conceived and simply doesn't make sense. Why is a New York lawyer with his own practice even living at home in the first place? Why does Segal, if his mother is senile, try to reason with her logically: "If you spoil this for me, I'll punch your f---ing heart out." Why does Liebman keep cutting through the park if he knows he's going to get mugged? Why does he take a taxi after leaving Segal's with gorilla suit? Why wasn't he taking taxis all along? A funnier bit would have been Liebman, as the gorilla, terrorizing the muggers. Why does Van Devere keep coming back- after her first husband was a kook, why does she want to get involved with this bunch? I suppose if I put this to Carl Reiner, he'd say, 'These are crazy people, they don't have to make sense.' Which is a convenient way to excuse a lousy script that's full of holes. The characters' moment-to-moment behavior may not have to make sense, but their motivations do, and that's where "Where's Poppa?" falls apart; the situations are created just to have the gag, and the gags are mostly one-shots, they don't build to anything.<br /><br />Carl Reiner is the most guilty in this whole fiasco. How he has acquired this vaunted reputation as a pillar of comedy puzzles me; basically, his career has been to hold a microphone in front of Sid Caesar and Mel Brooks while they talk in funny voices. His son Rob has ten times the skill and intelligence as a director. In show-biz terms, Reiner pushes buttons; a monkey could do his job. And that is most apparent in his framing of the action. Why is all of New York shot in tight and in close-ups, but the scenes in the country are all distant and panoramic? That's the mentality of Carl Reiner's direction, claustrophobic for the city, spatial for the country. In the final lunatic scene at the old folks home, the camera is so far off, you can't even make out what's going on. The abrupt ending suggests a resolution that Segal could have easily arrived at ninety minutes ago; it also suggests Reiner couldn't figure out how to end the picture. So he just cut it, as another example of "craziness". Reiner seems to think dumbness equals craziness, and craziness without logic is always funny. It isn't, and the creators of "Where's Poppa" are as demented as Ruth Gordon putting Pepsi in her Fruit Loops.
A mild-mannered NY lawyer (George Segal) is slowly going crazy. He promised his father on his death bed that he would NEVER send their senile mother (Ruth Gordon) to a nursing home. Years later he's taking care of a senile, dangerous psychopath. He meets a beautiful nurse (Trish Van Devere) and they fall in love. But his mother keeps scaring her away. Segal is ready to kill her....<br /><br />Ummmm...THIS is a comedy? I have nothing against sick, black humor but come on...there HAS to be some limits! This movie goes out of its way to throw every tasteless sick joke it can think of and rub your face in it. Too bad none of the jokes are funny. The jokes involve rape, nudity, public humiliation, senile old people, swearing and racism. Basically this is a movie that thinks it's clever by trying to shock people and thinking they'll laugh at it. I was disgusted and didn't laugh once. The movie is morbid, disturbing and (surprisingly) dull. The cast is the only thing that kept me watching. Segal and Gordon were both wonderful in their roles--Gordon especially. And Van Devere is pretty good also. But the script is against them. The only interesting thing (not funny) was a pointless courtroom scene with Rob Reiner Jr. (and try to spot his then-wife Penny Marshall as a spectator).<br /><br />Actually this movie could have been worse--the original ending had Segal getting into bed with his MOTHER and pretending he's poppa! That was (thankfully) changed.<br /><br />A real lousy, sick film. Bottom of the barrel. I give it a 1.
I was 19 in 1970 when it came out and having heard how funny it was when it came out and reading the reviews here, I finally rented it and watched it. I didn't laugh once - a very unfunny flick - and I usually love Reiner. I cannot for the life of me figure why this is seen as funny. I had not one chuckle. And I love comedies! Oh well, at least now I know what all the shouting was about. Not my idea of a comedy. Go rent The Navigator or The Love Nest by Buster Keaton - now THOSE are comedy classics! If you rent this one - have a back-up rental so your whole evening isn't a loss. Score 3 out of 10
Not being a particular fan of westerns, I watched this primarily because I wanted to see Lucille Ball in something other than an "I Love Lucy" or "Lucy Show" type of role. Here she plays Christine Larson, owner of a saloon in the Arizona Territory in 1868 who's about to be married to the unscrupulous local Indian agent (Dean Jagger.) Ball's performance was OK - nothing really more than that; she didn't blow me away. It succeeded for me in that the role was very different from what I'm accustomed to seeing her in - there was very little of the outrageous physical comedy she later became famous for, although the movie tried to maintain a gently amusing feel throughout. (A typical funny line - "there's two ways to deal with women - and no one knows either one of them!") I didn't find the story all that compelling, although I appreciated that the Indians were shown as the victims of the Indian agent. There's typical shootout action and a lot of horses - your typical western in other words. As to Christine - we pretty much can guess from the beginning how her planned marriage is going to end up; it's just a question of how she's going to get there. If you like westerns, this would be a pretty typical one with a bit of humour thrown in. If you're not big on the genre, this will be lacking. I'm not big on the genre. 3/10
Being a huge street fighter fan and thoroughly enjoying the previous film, Street Fighter II: The Animated Movie, I was really looking forward to this one!<br /><br />However, it seemed that the film had no real sense of direction or purpose. Most of the characters I could not associate with and it just lacked the intense action that made the other mentioned street fighter film so superior.<br /><br />There are some good points however, the Animation is superb!!!
This movie is based on the series Street Fighter Alpha (or Zero)! It is placed in an other setting than Streetfighter the animated movie! This movie is all about Ryu who is accompanied by Ken and Chun Li. I recognized Rose,Zanghief and Birdie! There weren't any other characters used from the video game (that i could discover)! The fighting scenes were OK but nothing really spectacular! And there were not many of them! To me this is odd! Isn't Streetfighter about fighting! Streetfighter the animated movie (1994) is far superior to this movie. It tries to be more than it really is! The use of the "Hada Power" and other supernatural elemnents have nothing to do with skills the characters have in the video game! And in this case that is a bad thing! The story is so boring that you don't really care what is happening! The action is toned down considerably! Why? And what happened to the other characters from the video game! Surely they are more interesting than the villain in this story! The main attraction of the video game are the characters with their own special skills! In this movie it is all about Ryu! That is why this anime fails!
Spoilers abound. You have been warned.<br /><br />I was thoroughly disappointed, this being my first STREET FIGHTER movie I have seen (I dare not go near the 1994 joke yet). Very little grabs your attention in STREET FIGHTER ZERO (ALPHA) as opposed to most japanimation. The fights are hilariously done over board (Shun versus Zangief was a laugher) and the dramatization is far too moody especially toward the end when Ryu has to control everything in his fight against his brother.<br /><br />The main street fighter, Ryu, has been weakening to a far darker version inside of himself. Frustrations in controlling this darkness are further complicated by the sudden arrival of a younger brother! A shady street fighting tournament is held with more than just fighting on the promoter 's mind.<br /><br />What is with the artist 's drawing of feet? Any anime drawn above the stomach is impressive. The story 's soft nature makes the STREET FIGHTER genre far too intelligent, and places far more emphasis on a character (Shun), that is not even a fighter in the video game! A character study on more than just the core stars of the original STREET FIGHTER is completely ignored. How many times did you catch Rolento? Adon? Guy? STREET FIGHTER ZERO lacks the imagination of the video game.
This movie easily falls into the category of laughable, if not beyond that to actually insulting. I mean in what alternate universe did the filmmakers and studios think that this film would play? From beginning to end we bombarded with Quaids overacting and ridiculous facial expressions, laying on the "im a loose cannon" act a little thick. Another picking point I had with the movie was the lack of a realistic story of events that would make you grow to connect to a character. I mean in one scene where Lewis is playing in a bar before making it big there is this over the top, just completely absurd bar fight that every citizen in town is apparently a part of. Then Lewis begins to play his rendition of "A whole lot of shaking'" and everyone immediately forgets their differences and begins dancing wildly as if its the most normal thing in the world. These kind of scenes, of which there are numerous, coupled with the lack of depth in any of the characters led me to actual laughter. So all in all this film is not worth viewing for anyone not interested in mocking a filmmaker and his actors decisions for an hour and a half.
This movie has some of the worst acting I've ever seen. Dennis Quaid's performance was high school caliber. While it's difficult to portray an off-the-wall character like Jerry Lee Lewis, it can be done. Just ask Jamie Foxx (although Ray Charles had more depth to his personality and musicianship than Lewis ever dreamed of possessing). The Phillips brothers portrayal belonged in The Dukes of Hazzard, and Alec Baldwin playing Jimmy Swaggart is a bit like Donald Duck performing Shakespeare. When Robert Duvall played a country preacher, I bought it. Baldwin never made me believe a single word. Wynona Ryder's part was the best, and she was mediocre. (And can anyone figure out how she was 13 when Lewis met her and still 13 more than a year later?) Some checking on the Internet reveals the essential facts presented by the film were true, at least no more fouled-up than most Hollywood bio pics. This film did badly at the box office, and it should have.
It's really just terrible. Quaid overacts more than Shatner. The part where Elvis walks in and says "You can have it all" just kills anything that might have been good in this movie that's bad enough as it is. Drug use was completely snow coated, the only thing that had anything to do with his life was the bit about him wedding his cousin. Quaid also looks nothing like Lewis and has dark roots and eyebrows. I wish this could be re-made in the future with someone who doesn't try so hard. A bigger budget wouldn't hurt and maybe more about his actual life. I was very, very disappointed in Quaid. Don't watch this movie or you will be too.
I haven't seen this film in years, but the awful "taste" of Quaid's performance still lingers on my tongue. Some have commented on how Quaid has Jerry Lee Lewis "to a tee" but the fact is he only appears to have the most extreme stage Jerry in mind. Nobody acts that way all the time, and the performance comes off as hopelessly clownish, reducing Lewis to a buffoonish caricature. The nuances of a man's life are lost in the rubble of sheer over-acting.<br /><br />The author of the book this is based on (Nick Tosches) is a good writer, who has written several fine musical bios (I particularly liked "Dino" on Dean Martin); in the books Tosches gives us a full human being, both separate from and involved in the "biz." Quaid's acting seems to imply that Jerry never acted like a human being. If people were like this, no one would bother to hang around them. As cartoons go, it is mildly amusing, but otherwise it is one of the most egregious, film-destroying performances I have had the "honor" of viewing. Terrible...
Just re-saw this last night and to put it bluntly: "Style instead of substance". We can already guess that there had to be a lot more to Jerry Lee Lewis than what is depicted here. The Jerry Lee Lewis character in this movie is not depicted as a real human being for one minute throughout the entire hour and a half plus running time, but then again, all the other characters are only one pencil-stroke from being total cartoon characters.<br /><br />Let's take the beginning. We see Jerry Lee and his cousin, Jimmy Swaggart sneaking over to the black jazz club and we see Jerry getting his inspiration. Might be possible. We see how the two cousins choose different paths in life (also possible). Then we cut to Jerry Lee playing the piano as an adult (now played by Dennis Quaid) and it's thrilling and a little scary. Cut to a scene where he first meets his second cousin, Myra. From then on the whole thing turns into a recap of certain events played out in a style befitting a news reel on high speed.<br /><br />Not that the movie is not a little entertaining and it's great to hear new versions of the songs that made Jerry Lee. Alec Baldwin as Jimmy Swaggart is also a reason why you should at least take a look at this, an indicator of his greater successes in the years to come. Winona Ryder as Myra is the most one noty character in the film. She teases, she sobs, she chews gum and play coquettish and that's about it. There is never for a minute given a reason why she ended up being the third Mrs. Lewis and speaking of wives, where are the first two? That is why this really can't be classified as a biopic, but more of a inaccurate news reel. We see Jerry get his first song played on the radio, we see his second single going into the top ten, we see his third go to no. 1 and so on. Then comes the inevitable downfall. Absolutely, no basis in reality.<br /><br />To conclude another minor quarrel: The movie takes place from '56 to '58 and still Myra says: "I am only 13" right up till the end.
I must say I was surprised to find several positive comments to this turkey (in desperate need of a feather transplant)! I'm giving it a 1 because I think the idea of making a movie about the wild man of rock'n'roll - Jerry Lee Lewis, is honorable, but it's a shame to put out such trash and the "killer" does not deserve this! It's a good thing it came late in his career... they said Elvis practically ruined his career with the movies he put out through the sixties and this could have done the same for Jerry lee, had it come out some 15-20 years earlier! It's based on Myra Gail Lewis book and that's a shame to begin with. It's a bad and inaccurate story of her life together with Lewis and there is far better books about the Killer, that could have made a much better and more interesting script. Add to this a bunch of actors who doesn't know if they are participating in a drama, comedy or a little bit of both! The otherwise fine actor Dennis Quaid is putting on what must be one of the worst performances of an actor in many a moon! He is walking around in the picture, talking about his "god-given talent" and as a spectator, you wish he'd show some of it on the screen too! Silly gestures and funny faces and Jerry Lee must have felt betrayed when he saw what had become of him in this truly awful movie! The rest of the crew is almost as bad... save for Winona Ryder, who does her best with the crappy lines given to her. It's "Grease" all over again and whenever Jerry Lee take a ride around Memphis in his convertible, having the radio on in the car, the whole town is dancing to the music from it! Everybody in this movie are like cartoon figures of the real people involved... from the wild man himself to Sun Records Sam Philips! And it's a damn shame! A charismatic and interesting artist like Jerry Lee Lewis deserves better and I hope he took the 500.000 dollars he got from the deal and told the company to go f**k themselves... twice!
Dennis Quaid is tryin' hard to prove us that Jerry Lee Lewis was a dumb guy. And he's doing too much to prove it. TV sequences are very good, like a photocopy of old black and white footages. Music is fine too, because Mr. Lewis himself is singing. But the rest is just Hollywood B-Movie style, with the fifties Happy Days complex. I think the only good thing in this movie is to see young Winona Ryder.
Great Balls of Fire is the movie you show to someone you really, really hate. It is absolute torture of the highest rank and is probably used by minions of a foreign power to extract info from captured intelligence agents. I've enjoyed some of Dennis Quaid's performances in the past, but he goes totally over the top in this film. He doesn't so much cross the line, he pole vaults over it, then comes back to jump over and over again. He struts and mugs as if on some incredibly bad acid trip. It's one of those rare performances where you wish you could enter the film and beat the man within an inch of his life for doing something so truly awful. Was he desperate to win a Golden Raspberry or some other award for bad acting? That's the only conclusion I can come up with. Thank you Dennis, you gave us a bad performance for the ages. Where was the director to reign in this guy?<br /><br />The opposite end of the extreme is Winona Ryder, she of the plastic features and plastic acting. I came across a review of her acting style that compared her to a wax dummy. That was of course an insult to wax dummies all over the earth, all of whom could have brough more humanity to the role of Jerry's underage cousin/wife. This brings up the film's mixed up message, that being it is 100% okay to marry your own cousin and have a child by the union. I fail to see what is so "okay" about that, but it looks as though Hollywood thinks that underage incest is hunky dory. Talk about "family values."<br /><br />Another problem is the format. Is it a stright forward re telling of Lewis' life, or is it a musical? I'm not talking about the music, I'm talking about the truly weird scene where Jerry drives up to the school, starts to belt out a tune and everyone starts to dance like it was Broadway musical in search of a Tony. Fantasy and reality are thrown together in a mix that does not work. But who really cares? I don't. And neither should you. You can't get back the minutes of life you would waste on this film. So don't waste your time, it's too precious for something this misguided and poor.
A romp across a disbelieving outback, this outragous adventure enchants through it's downright brazeness. Comedy from the clashing confrontation of cultural assumptions - as Drama from Crisis. Perhaps a little too Queenie for some - I would love to have watched IN a cinema audience in the outback. Shockingly good
I like all of the main actors involved in this quite bizarre film. Terrance Stamp, Guy Pearce & Hugo Weaving have all proved themselves as some of the best & most capable actors around, but I could not get into this. I don't know if it's because I don't understand the lifestyle or what, but I could not get my head around this film. Worse than anything is that the actors made some of the ugliest drag queens I've ever seen. I think that was part of the point, I don't know. I realize that is probably an insult, but I don't know what else to call them. I must say I bought the guys as the performers (the correct term?) but the story just wasn't very good or very interesting either. I will say that I can't usually appreciate costume designers very well, although I notice them when they are wrong or out of place, but I was very much impressed with these. Very creative to say the least, just not attractive, but I don't think they're supposed to be. I don't know I am definitely not the target audience and would never go see a performance done by these kind of performers, but I wouldn't go see ballet, or opera either so I don't know. If this is your kind of film then you will probably like it, but if it's not skip it because it is...well not for most of us. I just checked it won the Oscar for costume design & I will say rightfully so. I must say Ebert didn't care much for this film either, though he liked it better than I did.
Shaggy, friendly yet frustrating film has the same old message: if you want to make it in this world, being imaginative isn't enough, you have to live up to your place in society and that means living by the (heterosexual) rules that govern us. Drag queen comedy-drama from Australia is a mostly upbeat journey of three male friends traveling across the Outback in their pink bus, christened Priscilla. While not a formula film per se, there are the obligatory "road movie" sequences (bonding by the bonfire, facing down the rednecks, etc.). Writer-director Stephan Elliott follows every potentially mean-spirited moment with a little humor and sympathy, but there are puzzling gaps in his narrative, a dire subplot about a gay man's relationship with his ex-wife and estranged pre-teen son (both of whom are comfortable--and the child wise--with his lifestyle), and a third act with no energy whatsoever. It has some wicked transvestite humor and a fairly game cast, but a script that seems to have been watered down along the way. ** from ***
"Priscilla, Queen of the Desert" is always being trotted out as a masterpiece of Australian cinema. I found it quite disappointing. The lead actors are great - Terence Stamp is aging beautifully, Guy Pearce should do more comedy instead of the dour roles he chooses and I've been a fan of Hugo Weaving since I saw him play Oberon eons ago. The cinematography is great, but if you've ever been to the Australian outback, you'd know that the air is so clear and the light so brilliant that they could have shot it on the movie equivalent of a Box Brownie and it still would have looked spectacular.<br /><br />So what's my problem? Well, three things. First, there is not a sympathetic female character in the whole film. A woman who has to earn her living shooting ping pong balls out of her privates in a roadside pub deserves our sympathy. Tick's wife doesn't get much better treatment.<br /><br />Second, the scene when they sing "I Will Survive" to a group of Aboriginals is offensive. To try to draw any sort of parallel between the struggles of drag queens and trannies and the almost total destruction of Aboriginal culture, which is what I assume the scene is supposed to do, shows a level of historical understanding worthy of Paris Hilton.<br /><br />Last of all, and the greatest defect of the film is that it just isn't funny enough. Did Stephan Elliott actually talk to any drag queens when writing the film? Anyone who knows a drag queen (or three or four) knows that most of them have rapier-like wits and they're not afraid to use them. Now, I can understand that a lot of drag queen banter probably would have got the film refused classification but Elliott should have been able to gather enough "fit for the kiddies" material to complete his film.<br /><br />So, all in all, a waste of a good idea and a great cast.
This is one of those inoffensive and mildly entertaining little movies that strive to make you to like them more. But like so many others, it's material isn't strong enough to successfully fill a couple of hours.<br /><br />The pitch is promising: three drag queens drive a bus through the Outback from Sydney to Alice Springs. They run into lots of trouble - with homophobic locals, with the engine, with their pasts.<br /><br />The real trouble is with the dialogue. The leads are fine (though Pearce's continual campness becomes tiresome), but the one-liners and epithets feel forced where they should be casually thrown away. Characters shouldn't laugh at their own gags.<br /><br />Writer/director Elliott also feels the need to pile on the pleasingly incongruous shots of flamboyant drag costumes against stark desert backgrounds like so much cheap make-up. For a movie about self-confidence and just being yourself, it all seems very insecure with itself.
The costumes are outrageous and the Australian outback scenery is fun to view, but there is an edge to this story - a mean edge - about drag queens. I particularly noticed that in Terrence Stamp's character, "Ralph Bernadette Bassenger." Perhaps that was appropriate since there is nothing "good-guy- like" about Ralph-Bernadette and his group of "queens." <br /><br />Once again, we get the strong Liberal slant which says anything goes and if you're not "with it" - or in this case, pro-homosexual, then you are a homophobe. (Gasp!)<br /><br />What's really disturbing is the ending when a young boy goes off with his "alternative-lifestyle" father and embraces his gay lifestyle, not because it fit the story but because it fit the agenda of the people who wrote the script. Pitiful.
This film tries hard but fails. Perhaps to non-Australian audiences it may have appeal as a travelogue, but to the native it is merely tedious.<br /><br />Anyone who lives here knows Broken Hill is a rough, tough isolated mining town. If a couple of citified fruits turn up in drag, well it's all so predictable. Where have I come across that well-worn theme before? Oh yes -- Town Mouse and Country Mouse. Spare us.<br /><br />I kept hoping it would improve but after the Broken Hill scene I could see where this was heading and so turned off the TV and went to bed.
Terence Stamp can carry off anything, but this is still a shallow one-dimensional movie. It's nice to look at - so are the actors - and if you're into drag queens, I guess you might like it a lot, but the plot and characters are as thin as cardboard. It's one of those politically correct movies that warps everything else in order to make a 'minority lifestyle' seem warm and cuddly. It gets a lot of mileage out of bitchy dialogue, which is amusing in this sanitized form, I guess. <br /><br />Ninety percent of the action is parading around in gaudy costumes in incongruous situations. The dramatic content is a token appendage - they hardly try to get you to take it seriously.
Basically a road movie. The gay, transsexual, and other gender-bender themes are rather disturbing, particularly when the child is involved. You do have to hand it to the costume designers. As for the actors, the only one I was familiar with was Terence Stamp. I suppose it was a very good performance, out of his (or anyone's) normal range. The movie as a whole was shallow, just a vehicle for the clever, bitchy banter. All in all, I don' recommend this one.
I saw this in the cinema during its initial release and can only ask "has the world gone mad?" The seemingly overwhelming positive response is mind boggling for this poorly written, embarrasingly predictable clap trap.<br /><br />Stephan Elliot is no genius film maker as evidenced by the consistent bombs he has produced since (check out 'Welcome to Woop Woop', 'Eye of the Beholder')<br /><br />I can only assume making a film dealing with the gay/transexual culture has people assuming that to dislike the film is an offense to this sector of the populace. Aren't we smarter than that? What about an interesting script and good performances? Ok so the 3 leads do alright considering what they have to work with, but this film includes the worst performance by a child actor I have ever seen, not helped by appalling dialogue and a really lame resolution that you can see a mile off.<br /><br />This is a disappointing film and one that doesn't deserve the overblown reputation it has garnered.
I saw this video at a friends house, and it was the lamest thing i have seen ever. i lost a lot of the little respect i had for NIN. very boring, and the music is as equally interesting. dont waste your time unless you are a hardcore NIN "fan"
like i'm sure other people have said this guy isn't a very worthwhile subject. sure, our society has a morbid fascination with death, and it's funny hearing him talk about how much he smokes and how much coffee he drinks, but he's into giving himself an unworthy mystique. anyway, the bottom line is that he's a moron racist using feeble methods to try to disprove the mountain of evidence of the holocaust, and as such he should be forgotten by time. but Morris is in love with any kind of curiosities, which normally i wouldn't fault him for.
1st watched 1/1/2003 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Henri Verneuil): Sober drama about a well-to-do Doctor who gets into trouble carrying on a relationship with a younger woman, whom his family brings in to live with them, as well as being married to another in the same household. His searching for happiness is not clear, but they do bring out the reason for his unhappiness rather well by displaying the overbearing trait of the females in his wife's line. Well played, but predictable drama.
Distasteful British film from a Japanese novel about a very troubled young man who comes under the influence of a Hitler-like classmate and plots to harm his widowed mother's lover. A couple of good scenes (Sarah Miles discovering her son has been peeping at her and confronts him in anger, the pasty-faced lad trying to ensnare Kris Kristofferson to his demise by being extra friendly), but what's the point beyond provoking shock? Ugly and uneasy, it doesn't showcase anyone involved to any advantage (especially Kristofferson, whose hollow stares and usual gravelly talk is out-of-place in a psychological mishmash like this one). Coldly without any sense of its own absurdity, director Lewis John Carlino seems to believe a circumstance like this could actually happen. If he's right, that's far more shocking than anything in "Sailor". * from ****
The movie is an adaptation of a Japanese story by the respected author Yukio Mishima. It simply doesn't make the transition into a credible story about Brits and Americans.<br /><br />The story moves sluggishly, especially the part where Miles and Kristofferson are separated and the director fills in with the cliched shots of a ship's prow cutting through the waves, and the little route line filling in on the maps, while their letters are heard in overvoice. The film moves so languidly that I even fast-forwarded through the sex and masturbation scenes which, although long, are not really either passionate or erotic. The film did achieve a measure of notoriety when Kristofferson's then-wife divorced him for extra-curricular activities with Miss Miles during the filming. I guess they enjoyed the sex scenes, but it isn't quite the same for a viewer.<br /><br />There are no characters to hang on to. The sexually frustrated widow is unlikeable, the little kid is detestable. Kristofferson is amiable enough, but he just doesn't have the acting skills to bring much to the role, although perhaps we don't really want get too involved with him, considering his ultimate fate.<br /><br />As for the little kid, well, he kinda falls in with a bad crowd after his dad dies, and they help him plot some evil against the man who enters his mum's life. Now this is a really bad crowd. They don't just shoplift and smoke dope, nosireebib. They slip a mickey to a cat and vivisect it. This is shown in gory detail. But of course, this is only practice so they can do the same thing to Kristofferson!<br /><br />So the movie mostly moves slowly, with no characters to relate to, and when something does happen it is unrelentingly morbid.<br /><br />The ending is about as unsatisfying as any movie you'll ever see.<br /><br />This all might have made some sense if the Japanese locale and cultural context had been retained. As it stands, it is just abysmal.<br /><br />
KK should stick to singing- this whole movie was a big bore. I can't understand the viciousness of the boys and the romance between Miles and KK- the sex scenes were uninspired too. The ending was awful- unresolved- there needs to be reason to murder. And the whole voyeurism of the boy was weird..... the mother always wrestled with the boy- don't you think he would get some rather Freudian with her? And why didn't someone teach KK how to speak with inflection instead of monotone?<br /><br />Glad I only paid $1.00 to rent this. <br /><br />
This is just a very bad film. Miles looks as if she is in pain during the sex scenes and the acting is wooden. It also drags on slowly and never really finds a point to it all. One of the worst films that I have ever seen!
The funniest thing about Fortunes is that one of the main characters, Lewis (Urbaniak) has writer's block and apparently so did the screenplay writer for the film. This is sad, as well, as I guess by large, this is supposed to be a comedy, or dramedy, but that's the funniest thing I can remember from watching this.<br /><br />Three friends go out and drink one night. On the way home, two decide to get their fortunes told by a "gypsy," as they call her. Those two lives fall apart while the third friend stands by. Then, nothing happens.<br /><br />I hope I didn't spoil the movie there, but really, this extremely low-budget, bad quality movie had some kind of idea when it started but quickly snowballed into the depths of hell. Yeah, I'm being harsh. Honestly, it wasn't that bad, it was just blah.<br /><br />The aforementioned writer was annoying to watch, though he delivered maybe one or two of the only two funny lines. The clichéd "ladies man," the only one that didn't get his fortune told was just annoying. The only bright spot, was the remaining friend, the married dad whose fortune was told that something big was to happen to his son and he needed to be prepared. He was funny, genuine and clearly the best actor in the movie. Unfortunately, that's not saying much.<br /><br />Perhaps I'm being too cruel. Heck, they got the ambition to make a movie, went and got funding and accomplished something. Unfortunately, however, I can't at all recommend the film on the basis, there's hundreds of thousands of other independent movies that have hundreds of thousands better ideas and executions. This one was literally 10 minutes of an idea stretched another 81 boring minutes.
Poor old Robert Taylor. Other than THE FEDS, nothing much has gone his way - this almost-shocker is a wasteful ninety minutes and not much more. It's one of those cheesy detective-crime flicks with the narrative of the lead character the whole way through - usually that's reserved for comedies these days but this film takes itself way too seriously! A pity; Australian films, particularly in the 2000-01 periods, have been of exceptional quality overall - but I suppose there have got to be a few misses. Why even make a film like this, that obviously isn't going to be any good?
Wow...<br /><br />Reading through these comments, I see a remarkable socio-cultural clash theme emerging between the US and ... the Dutch! The US P.o.V. appears to be that this is quite a good little movie, Parker being a likable hero, the story a light-hearted rendition of what could be a glorified form of reality.<br /><br />All three Dutch reviewers view the world through a totally different pair of glasses it seems. They categorically and in surprisingly similar terms agree the movie is a disaster.<br /><br />Far be it from me to take sides in what appears to be a dispute between cultures, on this item as wide apart as the ocean that separates them geographically. Still, based on factual observation - I saw the movie with my very own eyes - I suspect the Dutch are not too far off the mark: <br /><br />"Parker Kane" is poorly made, utterly boring, and really not worth the celluloid that was no doubt wasted in its creation.
The perfect 6 step recipe for a boring middle of the road movie:<br /><br />1. Take one burnt-out, rogue ex-cop with a bad attitude, yet a sensitive touch as well (closet concert pianist with a pet cat);<br /><br />2. Add some "cool" retro gadgets like a beat-up Porsche 356, a roaring bike, a heavily patched leather jacket and a pair of cowboy boots with holes in the soles;<br /><br />3. Mix in a couple of "free-spirit" locations e.g. a trendy sea-side apartment and a dedicated diner booth for an office;<br /><br />4. Spice it up with "deep" socio-romantic themes such as a post-divorce-traumatized-but-finally-remarrying-ex-wife, a secretly-admiring-and-therefore-forgiving-waitress, a pair-of-former-colleague-cops-only-one-of-whom-is-really-a-complete-jerk and a best-buddy-getting-iced-over-a-suitcase-full-of-illegal-$$$;<br /><br />5. Let it simmer for about 90 minutes in a "fast-paced" though not necessarily logical or internally consistent sequence of mediocre action scenes, cheap tender moments and sluggish wise-cracks;<br /><br />6. Serve with either a comfortable pillow to sleep straight through it all or something a bit more interesting (don't worry: even the yellow pages will do!).
There were but two reasons for me to see this film. First of all Stellan Skarsgard and Marisa Tomei were in it (who are both good actors) and I had nothing better to do. While seeing the film though, I immediately thought of something better to do: SLEEP! This film is a complete waste of time. It is a standard ex-cop flick. The ex-copper is the best there ever was, but he was fired. He keeps doing stuff on his own to the dislike of his former buddies and he saves the day. All BIG surprises (NOT!!!). Go to sleep, or if you have insomnia, try this one.<br /><br />4 out of 10
"Tenchi Muyo In Love 2" is the third Tenchi movie. It seemed that its creators took elements from the first two to make this one. At the risk of giving out spoilers, Tenchi is kidnapped and the team has to get him back. Nothing new there. A past love of Yosho's is the bad guy. That was done in the second movie. The battle between Aeka and Ryoko and is starting to get boring. The movie has almost no action scenes in it and very little comedy. I personally don't know what AIC, it's makers, were thinking. I gave this movie a vote of 4.
SPOILERS<br /><br />*<br /><br />*<br /><br />*<br /><br />*<br /><br />This is Tenchi?<br /><br />This is not Tenchi.<br /><br />Practically everyone is written horribly out of character ... When it comes to characterization, the only bright spot is the friendship between Ayeka and Ryoko.<br /><br />Also, the villainess is not punished for her actions, which amount to mind-control rape. If a male villain had done to one of the women what Haruna does to Tenchi, then he would have (rightfully so) painfully bought it at the end of the movie, dying horribly, and the audience would have cheered. But not only does Haruna pay no price for her crimes, Ryoko actually FORGIVES and UNDERSTANDS her actions. No! The real Ryoko would have disintegrated her for what Haruna had done to her beloved Tenchi; the audience I saw this with, myself included, all booed audibly at this scene<br /><br />Anime fans, avoid this movie. Tenchi fans, avoid this movie even harder.
I felt like I was watching an example of how not to make a movie. I think the director filmed it in his back yard! There was no real plot. <br /><br />Terrible script.<br /><br />Terrible acting.<br /><br />The worst production I have ever witnessed. A couple of bad CG effects and then the rest of the movies was spent walking around in what looked like a junk yard.<br /><br />I don't normally write reviews to movies but was moved to warn everyone about this one.<br /><br />Life is to short to waste your time with this movie!
While it has been many decades since I last read Mr. Wells "War of the Worlds", or "The Time Machine", or any other of his works, I believe that they were all set in London, or at least, in England. This Grade "B" ("C"?) movie is set in the Eastern part of the United States as was Orson Welles excellent radio adaptation 67 years ago. However, this film exhibits none of the quality of the narrative style of the Mercury Playhouse program. Thomas Howell's emoting would not be acceptable in most high school drama clubs. I was actually embarrassed for him. His rolling around in the grass on the hill crying "My family, my family" was almost laughable, as was his reaction to the death of his brother. Of the three film versions of the story that I have seen, this was by far the worst, with Gene Barry's 1950's version the best. Additionaally, this was the first time I ever saw a "machine monster" dripping sticky saliva such as did the creature in the "Alien".
H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds by director David Michael Latt is a slightly less-than-average flick which isn't too bad if one considers the budget he had to work with - only $1 million. For this budget, the production value wasn't too bad - the best part of it is the visual effects (I was thoroughly impressed with the CGI considering the budget) and sound design. The less-then-stellar parts of this film are the story which is VERY prolonged at best (but again I think this is because of the budget they had - they had to prolong certain scenes to create the feature length 97 minutes), the acting (again it's because the actors had no story to work with), very few exceptional camera shots, and the music. However, again, I can let the negative parts go for the most part only because this film was made for a meager budget and still had good production value. Still you should,d see it for the sake of seeing how a low budget version of War of the Worlds CAN be made even with flaws. 4 out of 10.
I am not a big fan of the Spielberg/Cruise version of this film. And so I must throw in with the more humble Latt/Howel version. C Thomas Howel had more heart and more sympathy that Cruise in the lead role (at least in my opinion). Now this is hard to imagine until you strip away everything thing in the Spielberg version that cost more than a thousand dollars. There would be nothing left, no special effects, no sets, no Cruise. Because I doubt that anything cost more than a cool grand in the David Michael Latt version. So, comparing apples to turnips I guess I have to go with the turnips. At least it gives independent movies a shot at the epic science fiction disaster market.
I wish I could have given this a Zero. Sure I'll admit that I also mistakenly picked this up thinking it was the Spielberg version. A clever marketing ploy releasing it at this time and being prominently displayed at the video store. However, I was willing to give it a go anyhow - I wish I wouldn't have.<br /><br />Where do I start? I have read some of the other reviews here and have to say I disagree with anyone who thinks any of the acting was good - sorry even C. Thomas Howell stunk. None of the performances were any good. Not a one.<br /><br />Even if the acting was decent the dialog is terrible! "Ginormus" and "dick skinners" just doesn't really cut it.<br /><br />Now as for the story well - it was terribly adapted and must have been edited by a 5 year old. The main character is constantly running into situations that are way convenient - or at least appear that way due to how the film was edited together. For example he is trying to get to a place called New Hope to find his brother. During a brief break someone just randomly hands him the directions to New Hope. What the hell is that? When he gets to New Hope he just happens to stumble onto his dying brother. Then there is the part where he has been traveling away from his destination for days and just happens to come across the car his wife and son were traveling in. He was going in a different direction then they were how did that car end up where he was? He has a black back pack that randomly appears and disappears throughout the film. There are parts of the film where the characters are just waking up in the morning and then two seconds later it is night - or worse yet dusk of the next day. I also can't forget the main character and the preacher falling through the floor of a house for no reason - we don't find out until later that an alien has landed on the house. Which reminds me of the moment when they are walking and suddenly find themselves standing under an alien they didn't notice. What the hell, the aliens are like two stories tall with huge bodies and multiple legs - how could they miss it? There is one point where an alien kills a random citizen, supposedly by spitting some kind of junk at him - but you never see the stuff fly it just appears on the guys face. The special effects in general are terrible. The entire movie is like a bad "train wreck". When we finally get to the end, after this guy trying to get to DC to find his family, they just appear. No searching no asking questions nothing. Just oh there you are I am so happy - the end.<br /><br />I am sorry if my review rambles a bit but this movie was so bad I had a hard organizing my contempt. Please save yourself the time and don't watch this sneakily displayed pile of cinematic stench. It is quite possibly the worst film I have ever witnessed. I would rather have been getting a root canal - It would have been less painful.
This movie looked like the out-takes of the deleted scenes from a high school film class experiment. It made no sense! It was well acted, but I only felt sorry for the characters because they had to appear in this slop. The alien machines were created with Pentium I technology and no creativity, they were crabs! The under-lit and barely seen aliens were Frisbees with legs. WHERE WERE THE TRIPODS? The editing, done by director/writer/producer/make-up artist/gripper Latt, jumps all over the place, with some scenes repeated numerous times. Most of it seemed to have been filmed in the wake of hurricane Katrina. The next time Latt wants to make a movie, someone needs to slap him. In 2005 alone he produced 11 movies! That doesn't include the writing, editing, directing or visual effects credits on other movies. If the rest are like this snot-load, then he's just making fun of us. This was a slapped together rip-off of Spielberg's movie, nothing more. I'm looking forward to Latt's "BackBroke Ridge', "X-Man IIV", "The Hillocks have Eyes."
After watching the Steven Spielberg version of War Of The Worlds in theaters, I was hooked on the topic. I could think back to my favorite parts in the movie, people getting vaporized, people panicking, fire, explosions, it was all so great...<br /><br />So a few weeks later I enter my video store, and I see David Michael Latt's version of War Of The Worlds on the shelf. "It couldn't have come onto DVD, that fast, could it?" I said to myself. I read the back of the case and saw C. Thomas Howell, instead. "Oh, I remember him from The Outsiders!" So I thought, it might have been a try.<br /><br />I was wrong, dead wrong. As soon as I watched the opening credits, watched them take forever, I knew something was wrong. Something was going to disappoint me in this film and it did. The whole movie stunk like a cheese sauce that was left in the fridge for 10 years. From the acting, the special effects (stupid looking tripod things, when people get vaporized they turn into orange skeletons), and most of all, it didn't even come close to being as interesting as the Spielberg version, in fact, the plot was boring, and there were only 3 scenes of destruction! What the crap? I ended up being so bored, that I had to fast forward through the movie until I found something that looked even remotely interesting. And nothing was really.<br /><br />My advice: Don't even touch this movie, stay 100 feet away from it. The Spielberg version is coming out near the end of this month, buy that one! But please, please, I beg of you! Stay away from this turd before it smothers us all!
This movie is so bad they should burn the master. You cant spoil the plot because this movie doesn't have one. The graphics are less than fake, they're horrendous. Then you've got the rambling through the countryside star gazer work-a-holic who bounces between his own lunacy & the mad rantings of the crazed preacher. & when he finally makes it to DC, they don't even have the decency to kill him; the monster (which you don't know at the time) is already dieing but how ... who knows & of course it has the ultimate sappy ending... everybody else on the planet is dead or dieing but his family & a handful of stragglers survive. Imagine that! This will be the movie that C Thomas Howell will go to his grave regretting he ever starred in. It probably gives him nightmares.
My paraphrase above of the slogan on the back of the DVD box sums it up: this film was far more horrible than horrifying.<br /><br />This is the worst film I have seen in as long as I can remember. My wife accidentally rented it thinking it was the Tom Cruise version. The laughably crude special effects on the menu screen should have tipped us off. The gratuitous nudity already in the opening scene made us more suspicious.<br /><br />But as the film wore on, we were benumbed by clumsy acting -- both over- and under-acting -- non-continuity in directing and editing, trite writing, and crude special effects. We gave up after a half-hour or less; after starting this badly, it couldn't possibly get better.<br /><br />Since I despise reviews that pan a product without giving specifics, here are some examples of the film's especially awkward moments, even if they amount to spoilers:<br /><br />- The lead says good-bye to his young old son as the latter is about to drive away with his mother, the latter prickly because it's their wedding anniversary but the lead is not coming along due to sudden business. The son asks, quietly worried, "will I ever see you again?" Perhaps it's supposed to come off as a premonition, but it instead comes off as incongruous behavior for a child that age in that situation.<br /><br />- A huge alien spacecraft has crashed to earth and sits in an enormous crater. A crowd of people stands nearby, peering at it uneasily but otherwise looking generally unaroused. One woman finally says "it's gi-normous!"<br /><br />- After this craft has laid waste a village and its inhabitants, the lead and a bystander, now alone near their homes and trying to load their cars for an escape, have an exchange something like this, in a quietly puzzled tone:<br /><br />"What was that thing, anyway?" "I dunno..."<br /><br />- A crowd attempting to evacuate over a bridge is blocked by the military, since part of the bridge is destroyed. When an alien ship shoots an explosive at it, the crowd starts to run away, seemingly only because a director told them to and not because they're frightened or in any kind of real danger, let alone unusual circumstances.<br /><br />And so forth... writing about the film falls short of the experience of actually seeing it. But please, PLEASE, save yourself the bother, even if your morbid curiosity is piqued! The film is so bad it can't even be enjoyed as unintentional humor (versus, say, King Vidor's "Solomon & Sheeba" starring Yul Brynner wearing a wig). Life is too short to waste watching such nonsense. There MUST be something more productive and enjoyable to do, like walking the dog or cleaning a birdcage.
It is hard to imagine anyone making a Tom Cruise film look good; hard indeed, but this one makes him look good. Very good. Actually, it makes him look like Sir John Gielgud celebrating Very Good Acting Day with a bravura performance.<br /><br />The acting from the entire ensemble struggled to rise above the risible and failed. The fault was, in part let us be fair, that the plot bore as much resemblance to the HG Wells original as did the butchered carcasses of the human victims in the film to their living predecessors: both were bloodied and violated remnants of more attractive predecessor. But to describe a plot such as this to be a bit holy is to say of the Colander "My, this kitchen utensil has a remarkable lot of holes", unless, that is, holes are your bag; in which case this film will commend itself to you.<br /><br />The fault in the other part was that these were demotivated, jobbing, DVD actors who knew full well, one assumes, that this was their exhibition that would wind up on the $5 DVD shelf. And overpriced at that.<br /><br />So should you watch it? Why yes, of course, you should. You are a miserable sinner and deserve punishment.
Let's get one thing straight; This was BAD! So Putrid that it doesn't even qualify to be imprinted on anyone's memories.<br /><br />The ever repeating storyline (who's constant recycling of not only jokes but story lines and character appearances.) A typical storyline goes as follows; Sue (the mother) opens the episode quoting on how she loves her baby son but smells awful (As if THAT doesn't get old! har-de-bloody-har!), some Australian quasi-nationalist "bogan" -look it up- appears to say how she thinks she's awesome because she's an ozzie while everything/everyone else that isn't sucks before disappearing for the rest of the episode. (a small mercy)<br /><br />The rest of the plot revolves around the father (Gary) getting in some kind of disagreement with Sue and him talking to members of his band for advice on how to sort it out.<br /><br />The phrase "words fail me" is an old one but this is where it is the most truthful thing to say. It is so incredibly BAD! So HORRIBLE, that I would like every trace of it's existence sent to the lowest depths of the North sea and life can go on.<br /><br />It saddens me though, to see someone as good as Sally Bretton (good actress, I like her) make a prat out of herself, Ardal O Hanlon (My Hero aside) has the ability to be pretty funny - but not here - and Ben Elton, distinguished for so much good stuff somehow manages to come up with this...thing then comedy is in very serious trouble!
OK, first off there may be a SPOILER here since i don't know what constitutes giving out too much information. My subject line says it all but surely people will want to know WHY it's so stupid.<br /><br />First off, this film follows a bunch of Yuppies as they go to a sports game in Chicago but wind up taking the wrong exit and winding up in the ghetto. Scary, huh? Well, first of all, Emilio is driving everyone in the world's most overblown RV/Winnebago, tricked out with satellite dishes and crap like that on it. So these guys are GOING to a sports game (i forget which, though likely the Bulls or the White Sox since they're near the oh-so-scary ghetto), yet they can't even make it down the freeway without having an onboard viewing command center that would put ESPN to shame. Yet they're smart enough to earn livings that would pay for the stuff, but are such sports fans that they don't even know which exit to get off at on their way to the game they so love.<br /><br />I gave up on the movie within a half hour after that, but the reasons were plentiful. They wind up IN THE GHETTO, yet their main danger to their existence is DENIS LEARY. A WHITE GUY. I'm no racist, but COME ON. In anything RESEMBLING reality - and this film WAS trying to be an urban nightmare - Denis Leary would not be trying to kill Emilio Estevez, he'd be hitching a ride to get the f*** out of Dodge himself!!!<br /><br />This is easily one of the dumbest movies ever created, although I'm not familiar with much of the rest of the world's cinema. If MST3K were still on, they surely would have devoted an episode to this one.
I really liked the idea of traveling between dimensions, and I even liked the Wade/Quinn tension in early episodes. Some of the worlds they created gave the main characters extremely interesting backdrops for their stories. However, as the show went on there were more silly disputes among the friends and less of a true bond. There was less wonder and excitement when they were involved in other worlds and more condescension. And every world had one of the characters falling in love. The writing just got boring and everything was way too over the top. Too bad it would've been nice to have a closely knit band of friends (a la Star Wars) traveling to different dimensions on TV for several years, rather than a tired band of knit pickers.
Loving the Andersen fairy tails as a child and recently having seen some intriguing documentaries on this odd, though brilliant, author, I eagerly looked forward to see this made-for-TV film. Unfortunately the experience was nothing but a disappointment leaving me in anger and confusion. First of all the story/script is filled with inaccuracies and downright fantasies and in this way creating almost a completely new story while shamefully abusing Andersen's fairy tales, presumably in order to sell the crap to suckers like me. Secondly, pretty-boy actor (really... ever seen a picture of the real Andersen?) Kieran Brew manages to portray Hans Christian as mentally retarded rather than the brilliant though very disturbed character he indeed was. Though annoying and irritating like Andersen, Brew is missing the required charisma to create any feelings of compassion what so ever. Thirdly. The love story between Andersen and the fictional Jetta (whom actually should be Henriette, the wife of Edvard Collin)... Why? This man has lived such an interesting life, it should be enough as a foundation to a great movie!<br /><br />I could continue this to be a very long list but feel it safest to simply recommend all of you to spend your time and money on something else instead.
I did not like this movie. I rented it hoping it would be something like the 10th Kingdom. I was disappointed when I discovered it wasn't. I also found it just plain nervracking. The acting was bad, the characters where unbelievable and the time jumps were crazy. I only recomend this film if your in the mood to see a crazy dude running around, but I'm sure there are better films with the same thing. I can't believe I wasted my time on this one.
This script was mildly original when it was written in 1935, but the poor performances and the inconsistent quality level make it impossible to recommend. Some of the vignettes are absolutely terrible and the dialogue is never natural. A few of the plot twists were creative, but I was very surprised to see it so highly rated here at the IMDB. A few scenes are worthwhile, it's as a film that if fails completely to entertain. If you like this sort of montage, run don't walk and get "Tales of Manhattan" (1942) a marvelous film that follows the life and times of a topcoat.
This movie is by far the worst movie ever, The story line is weak and never shows what happens to the people after the 20 was left they hands. This really bugs me. It drags on and on with out any meaning, very boring. The only good thing was the cast, WOW, lots of big time actors and actress in it. But besides that it was horrible, terrible and repulsive, do yourself a favor, do not watch it.<br /><br />I gave it a 1 out of 10
There is nothing mean spirited or evil about this movie. It's just terribly dull. Dull is the photography--- the film stock appears old and faded and washed-out. Maybe it was even 16mm blown up to 35mm, dunno. Dull is the script, which is tedious and 'Jules Pfeiffer'-ish. That is, kind of 1960s bossa-nova cocktail party cool. Like our beatnik grandparents might have spoken if they were trying to appear really straight. The 'slice-of-life' characters were mostly annoying. True, they were real to life, but hey, if I wanted to see truly ordinary people doing really mundane and ordinary things, I'd just watch myself. I wouldn't trapse all the way down to a cinema and blow five quid, and an evening, watching someone else do it.<br /><br />I expected a funny, bright rom-com. What I got was more like what two intelligent and moderately talented 19 or 20 year-olds might have produced on their first day with a new video camera.<br /><br />I gave this a 4 out 10, because it appears that someone tried, at least.
This film attempts to cash in on the success of Richard Curtis movies, particularly "Love Actually" (which I loved) - a series of disparate scenes following the love lives of various couples. <br /><br />It's a great idea poorly executed. The script tries to be a little too clever and simply doesn't resonate. Most of the acting is stilted which is more a reflection on the director than the actors.<br /><br />The version I saw (on a plane) was called "Scenes from a Park", which is a more appropriate title as not all the scenes were of a 'sexual nature'.<br /><br />I was so looking forward to this movie, but ultimately it is disappointing. Don't bother.
the acting is good.thats the positives out of the way! SOSN is shallow and superficial.Almost all the characters are middle class and English.The gay men are depicted as fickle sexual predators aiming to use children in their empty lives.This film could only appeal to people who know hampstead heath and would get minor satisfaction from pointing out any landmarks.There is no time to engage with the characters and has a result you really don,t care about them,Catherine Tate at the height of her comedic fame stars as a woman seeking a divorce from her husband and on screen for about the same time as her Nana sketches failed to convince,however if she had said "what a f****** liberty" i would have agreed <br /><br />I'd rather take a walk in the Park;unintelligent rubbish!
This film is about the encounters of 7 couples on Hampstead heath in one sunny Wednesday afternoon.<br /><br />It shows 7 different types of couples: married, divorced, breaking up a relationship, homosexual, elderly, blind date and escort service. They are not connected to each other apart from the geographical location, so that is a disappointment. The film is a collage of conversations, without any discernible plot. The film jumps from a pair to another without any logic. I find this film boring and purposeless. The only redeeming feature is the great weather throughout the film. It is sad that talents like Ewan McGregor and Sophie Okonedo get wasted by this film.
If you never have read the book and never intend to read it in the future, go on and watch the movie (6/10). It is a nice fantasy movie with well done CGI, nice acting, a beautiful environment and an above-average fantasy story.<br /><br />If you have read the book like me about 10 times or more and really love it, don't expect too much (or better: don't expect anything at all). The story is totally different from the original book. This may explain that the movie is voted 1/10 from people around 40 or more (like me) and much better from people who most probably never read the book before and thus expect nothing.<br /><br />Most of the differences between movie and book are not really necessary and change the setting (in my opinion much to the worse): <br /><br />- The magic in the book works with rituals for classic magical effects. (Changing weather, creating illusions, transform into animals, ...) In the movie the magic is more like "jedi-school for the middle ages" (TM) (wooden sticks instead of lightsabers). That the devil is looking like emperor palpatine (after part III) doesn't make it really better.<br /><br />- The mill in the book is not totally cut off the world like in the movie. In the book the story is set near Dresden, which Krabat visits one time with his master and also he visits some nearby villages for festivities. (This part might have been changed to cut costs.) I also don't understand why in the movie the mill is located in the hills while the nearby graveyard is set in the high mountains.<br /><br />- The whole surrounding is the average run of the mill fantasy medieval style. Lots of mud everywhere, dirty faces, not an orderly kitchen, only very rough houses. The book never suggested such an environment.<br /><br />- In the book the master tries to make Krabat his successor but Krabat rejects. Krabat is somewhere between admiration, distance and silent rejection. In the movie Krabat rejects the master always openly like a stubborn schoolboy.<br /><br />- The movie is set in 1647 instead of around 1720. This makes it impossible for the master to tell some stories from his youth probably around 170x. OK, the stories are missing anyway in the movie.<br /><br />Also some explanations given in the book would have been helpful and would not cost so much minutes: <br /><br />- In the book all work done at day is effortless and work in the night is like normal work. This explanation is missing in the movie. Sometimes the boys are sweating and sometimes they are happy.<br /><br />- The book explains why only a few "Gesellen" try to confront the master: If the master dies by any mundane reasons, the "Gesellen" are free AND keep their magical powers. If the master dies at the confrontation, all will lose their power forever.
My Age: 13<br /><br />James Cole, played by Steven Seagal, is sent to help Detective Jim Campbell, played by Keenen Ivory Wayans, solve a series of killings in which the victims are crucified. Since Cole has arrived on the spot, he notices that the killings have changed a little, and thinks there is a different killer. It becomes personal when his ex-wife is murdered, and Campbell finds his fingerprints on the body. Campbell investigates the mysterious Cole, and finds out about a very shady past.<br /><br />I am not a fan of Steven Seagal. I enjoy action movies, but he is the worst actor I have ever seen. This film is not much fun to watch at all, incredibly dumb, and, obviously, Steven Seagal's acting performance is absolutely horrid. Keenen Ivory Wayans isn't too bad, though. The only redeeming thing in this film is the occasional good action scene, although most come round because of insanely stupid reasons. The plot in this film is absolute gibberish. I didn't care for it at all. The whole "glimmer man" past of Seagal's character was stupid, all the Mafia fights and fights in the restaurant were there for almost no reason. Give this film a miss.<br /><br />Australian Classification: MA 15+: High Level Violence<br /><br />Rating: 35 out of 100 (quite generous)
Two L.A cops track down a serial killer nicknamed "The family man" who has wiped out whole families and when one of the police officer's wife takes the deep six, questions are raised and it turns out that a serial killer isn't responsible but rather mobsters. The idea of Seagal in a serial killer movie is an interesting concept, indeed one could see Seagal play a good serial killer however making him a cop who has a ridiculous penchant for prayer beads and razor sharp credit cards comes off more stupid than likably ridiculous. Also a running joke involves Wayon's enjoyment of eating powdered deer penis and well this raunchy material is utterly out of place. Not to mention the beginning of a school being taken hostage, due to a boy's breakup with his girlfriend. After Seagal neutralizes him, the girlfriend tells the young lad that she loves him. Now there is a lesson to be learned from all of this, if you want your girlfriend back, taking the school hostage may get you back on her good side. I myself would think flowers or the old fashioned phone call might work, then again though, i'm old fashioned. Besides who am I to put a damper on somebody else's brilliant reconciliation plan.<br /><br />* out of 4-(Bad)
New Year 2006, and I'm watching Glimmer Man again. Say what you like, I find Steven Seagal's movies amusing. Like many comments, good fight sequences - I particularly liked his answering of the phone at the restaurant saying how long it would be closed for restoration. Bit like Schwarzenegger's humour in the earlier action films - although that tended to be self-deprecating.<br /><br />But the one I like here is Brian Cox. One of the most versatile actors around. Pity about his hand and foot, but so much for withstanding extended interrogation - must have flunked that class at the "farm".<br /><br />As the films went on I wonder just how the ever thickening girth of Seagal affected his movement?. Never mind, it's entertainment!.
A not so good action thriller because it unsuccessfully trends the same water as early Steven Seagal films because there is not a very good set piece. Steven Seagal plays the same kind of character that he has played since Above the Law. In my opinion the performance of Keenen Ivory Wayans is wasted in such an average film and belongs in a much better film. Bob Gunton is okay as the main heavy. The best acting in the entire film belongs to Brian Cox who is very frightening in the role of the murderer. My favorite scenes are the fight scenes with the Russian mafia. One of the film reasons to see The Glimmer Man(1996) is for the brief appearence of the beautiful and voluptupus Nikki Cox. Its too bad that there were not more scenes with her in them.
Imagine if you will an alternative universe where someone has made SEVEN where instead of a talented cast and crew they've cast a politically conscious environmentalist and a stand up comedian as the leads . If your imagination can't stretch that far just watch THE GLIMMER MAN as it's the next worse thing <br /><br />!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!<br /><br />Jack Cole is a cop with a hidden past and it's very ironic that he's played by Steven Seagal since he's also someone witrh a hidden past , but don't tell anyone because it's top secret . Perhaps the biggest secret is how someone like Seagal became a movie star in the first place since THE GLIMMER MAN continues in the vein of all of Seagal's other movies in that it's utter , utter crap . Look at the way he's introduced as his partner walks into his office " Yoi love beads man . In you're in the wrong office " Steven replies with something that is side splittingly witty , or he would if anyone was able to understand a bloody word he said because for much of the movie he just mumbles away . In fact the only time I could make out his dialogue was the scene at the school where he bursts in on the gunman holding the class hostage <br /><br />" Don't make me kill you " <br /><br />Is this what a cop would say to a suicidal gunman ? I'm just thinking that in another movie where Steven isn't the hero ( ie A good movie ) the cop would say something along the lines of " Don't kill me , I've got a wife and a couple of kids waiting at home " . So anyway suicidal gunman goes to blow his head off but Steven saves his life by hurtling them both through two sets of windows . It goes without saying that you shouldn't try this at home<br /><br />As the story progresses Steven ( I've given up on calling him Jack though credit to the screen writer for giving Steven a sensible name ) becomes involved in a case a plagiarism where someone has been stealing bits out of other superior movies featuring serial killers . As Steven finds more victims you can see him thinking " What was that movie that starred Morgan Freeman as a cop ? " as he inspects the bodies , oh and the action keeps switching back to the hero's domestic life just so we know that this guy's good as a family man , this guy's very good as a family man such a pity he's so bad as a movie star
Typical Steven Seagal fare: that is, it's crap. The plot relies on a series of incredibly improbable coincidences; there's a hefty dose of conspiracy theory which would be much more palatable if we didn't know that Seagal takes it all literally; and once again, bad-movie multi-millionaire Seagal tells us all about the evils of The Rich.<br /><br />Seagal's survival relies, as usual, on the fact that Bad Guys never fire their guns from out of arm's reach, and always like to give a little "I'm gonna kill you" speech before blowing a man's head off.<br /><br />Watch this one right after the even-worse *Fire Down Below* and note how the carpet in Keenen Ivory Wayans's apartment is more flammable than a big puddle of gasoline.<br /><br />Oh, and watch in the final fight scene for the Incredible Disappearing Forehead Wound, which is probably the most entertaining thing in the film.
Kennan Ivory Wayans was so funny in Low Down Dirty Shame that I had to see this one and it was one of the worst he has done and Steven Seagal didn't help much. It starts off with some odd religious killings that don't make much sense to Jim Campbell (Keenan). He is surprised to see a new partner waiting for him to work by his side to crack the case but Jack Cole doesn't seem to be who everyone thinks he is until Jack's ex wife is killed in one of those ritual killings that end up making him the suspect as well. It's the same thing as all of his other movies: Smoke past, CIA involvement and now trying to be a normal cop. Why does Steven dress up like he is from a Western movie? And the prayer beeds on top of that make things a little confusing.
Maybe it was the excessive weight gain Seagal had put on. Or maybe it was the horrible acting of Wayans in an action flick. Or was it the total lack of chemistry between the two leading characters? These and other considerations lead me to conclude that Seagal should have never made this acting nightmare. True, the story line was good. Yet, as an avid follower of Seagal's career and background, his physical appearance was inconsistent with his genre of clean, pure, healthy Zen Buddhist living, notably in his on screen discussions with Wayans. (Then again his real life affair with the "nanny" was inconsistent also!)<br /><br />If Seagal wants to become a more diversified actor, then he should do what a fellow action figure did in "Kindergarten Cop"...put humorous material or situations in the script where the actor has no choice but to react in a comical way. Otherwise, leave the wise-cracks and the futile attempts at humor out of it while chasing a serial killer. Seagal is not a natural humor type of guy. It did not work.<br /><br />
This (allegedly) based-on-a-true story TV movie concerns a woman on the run from the FBI and a *seriously* stupid guy.<br /><br />First, we have Roger Paulson (Tim Matheson), a "regular guy" type with a mind-numbing job, an ex-wife, a kid he hardly ever gets to see and some cats.<br /><br />Next, there is "Elaine-Lisa-you name it" (Tracy Pollan), a smart, sexy, good looking woman whose tongue would burst into flame if she ever told the truth.<br /><br />Roger and Lisa meet when she answers a lonely-hearts ad. Roger is one of these poor saps who can't seem to handle living alone, so after his wife dumped him, he places his ad.<br /><br />It doesn't take long for Roger to figure out that Lisa is *not* a good person, but he has no idea how to get rid of her. He doesn't even have enough sense to change the locks on his apartment door after he throws her out.<br /><br />Go ahead and watch this if you don't have anything else to do.<br /><br />
Although a well produced made for television movie, Dying to Love You reeks with low grade melodramatic splendor.<br /><br />The film opens up to Roger Paulson (Tim Matheson, looking much older than I remember him to be), who is a struggling businessman that leads an empty, lonely life after his wife Ruthie (who looks suspiciously like Roseanne Arnold) leaves him with the quickness. Now all Roger has is his cats....and his ad in the newspaper. <br /><br />Once his ad is answered, he calls Johnnie-Elaine-Lisa-oh it doesn't matter I'm whoever you want me to be-Lawrence. Then...they have phone sex.<br /><br />I'm not sure where you're from or when you were born, but I remember that phone-sex bit was played out by the late '80's. I'm sorry but that was trashy.<br /><br />Soon Roger and the broad hook up and have a whirlwind romance. They fall in love, visit the zoo to see gorillas, and then have some kinky sex with Roger's son in the other room. She ties him to the bed and seduces him.<br /><br />Roger is just so stupid that he does not realize that Johnnie-Eliane is just a bimbo that loves to sleep around. God forbid women only sleep with one man. Soon enough, strange phone calls begin to occur, Johnny Girl wants Roger to marry her with absolute quickness, and she keeps ranting and raving about her ex-husband who used to beat her. It's funny to see Roger believe her through all this stuff. That's until a frumpy co-worker tells him to go snooping through her belongings like a nosy housewife. He takes her crappy advice and lo and behold, he finds a suitcase crawling with fake ID cards and wigs and guns and a crossbow. He immediately takes the suitcase to the police and has her arrested. Even though all this jazz, he still loves the dumb broad. She tells so much lies, it seems her tongue will catch fire if she tells the truth once.<br /><br />Roger goes on with his life and meets an ugly woman named Angela who looks like something off of Gremlins 2. She has a child as well and Roger takes quite a liking to her. But something inside Roger's subconscious keeps him connected to Lisa Rohn (if that's even her real name) and he keeps going back to see her.<br /><br />Now Lisa is the "ex that won't go away" as she "earns" herself a get out of jail free card and shows up at Roger's doorstep and his son Matt is so busy trying to check her out, he pours juice all over the floor. IL' Rog is so stupid, he throws Lisa out and doesn't even change the locks. Boy, if all people were that stupid, I wouldn't even be writing this review. The ending of this movie is so corny, you won't believe.<br /><br />Tim Matheson is a Made-for-TV-Movie king. he just looks like such a dawm mummy in this movie. He's a little wooden and stiff. The dazzling Tracy Pollan works well with her role and her trampiness rings true. She is extremely beautiful and I do see what Michael J. Fox sees in her. <br /><br />This movie is great to watch when you're on that late night tip, but then again, you might fall asleep, considering how dull and bland it is.
Okay, so this was made way back in 1993. Directed loosely by Robert Iscove and written loosely by John Miglis, it's supposed to be based on a true story. Hard to believe anyone could be so stupid and blind to the truth. For certainly it was obvious from the beginning that this dame was after all she could get.<br /><br />Tim Matheson, looking somewhat older than I remember him, played the empty headed man who was looking for romance in his somewhat dull and empty life. Well, it came to him in the likes of Tracy Pollan, a somewhat vacant looking girl with kinky sex as her means of conquering her guys.<br /><br />Come on, phone sex, even in the 90s was old hat. Can't believe someone would fall for that old line. But Mr. Matheson seemed to buy it. And it cost him plenty. <br /><br />The hardest scene to take was when he finally threw the dame out of his apartment, putting all her junk in the hallway (IN FRONT OF HIS APARTMENT) and then had the stupidity not to change the locks. That's when I had enough of this trite movie. It made me want to wish the dame had tried it on me so I could have the satisfaction of telling her to take a hike.<br /><br />I give this chestnut a 1 out of 100. That's how bad I thought it was. I guess you can't blame the actors. But they were awful. Did they actually try to play this with a straight face?
I decided to hire out this movie along with a few other old horror movies.This was the worst,some of the killings were good and theres a bit of humour but i couldnt stand this,everytime a killing happened they would show scenes of all these old movies that the killer used to be in,i give this 2/10.
The ABC gears up it's repertory company for another unrealistic representation of rural Australia. Yes folks, it's all there Baca Bourke (Jeremy Sims,an actor of little talent) Fire hero , Lill (Libby Tanner plays Bronwyn Craig in the bush), Fifi (Nadia Townsend) town slut, preggers by Baca's brother Joe (I think). Then there's Uncle Geoff the, Big Daddy of Lost Springs. Uncle Geoff's scenes are like Tennessee Williams on speed. Only saving grace is Russian actress Natalia Novikova as Baca's loony missus. She is great. I can't understand why John Waters took the gig as Lilly's psychologist husband. Must have needed the money I expect! Still, he won't last long as Lill and Baca will be having it off toute suit. Just watch this lemon to see how bad an Aussie show can be. Frankly, I'm ashamed.
Let me say at the outset that I'm not a very artistic person and that I don't "get" new art. That being said, this film is absolutely crazy, and in my opinion not crazy in a good way. Filmed entirely in black and white with a series of very loosely connected stories, Avida is a film for those who can look at modern art and say "wow, I feel the energy and passion of this painting." The only reason I give this film a 3 out of 10 is because I actually did manage to laugh at some parts, though mainly laughing at the sheer insanity of the film. Two of the characters throwing chairs on a lawn, as to do what these characters were doing, I have no idea. I wouldn't recommend this film to anybody.
Avida is a game of words mingling life and eagerness, but I personally think this movie was overblown by its ambition and does not make justice to its title. It gathers a set of awkward characters united by unbelievable links. Furthermore, the way everything is connected at the end is, in my opinion, a bit pathetic. What remains of it was a set of images... an interesting one, but not enough to make this a good movie. <br /><br />I believe this film is supposed to be a comedy, but I surely didn't noticed! The nonsense and caricatural nature of the movie is actually the only good thing about it, but when it drags on an on and on it becomes no longer bearable. I have to say I fought hard to continue seeing it until the end, and I am still not sure it was worth it...
If you are planning to schedule your program for a film festival, do not be misled by what it says in the booklet. This is a complete waste of time and energy. I have watched Bunuel, I have seen Dali, and admired them; but this isn't surrealism, this is not supposed to BE at all. Didn't they ever think about the reputation of human race while taking this picture? After we become extinct by global warming, these will be the remainings of our civilization. What if the aliens sample this as an example of our intellectual capital? With all due respect to the effort put in this, maybe it would be a good idea to terminate all the copies of this film - or whatever it is.
Set in a post apocalyptic future, the new highlander is an effeminate little twerp named Quentin MacLeod, who is being mentored by a new Ramirez while his little sister tags along on their quest to thwart an evil immortal overlord. To do so, Quentin must absorb all the knowledge of other immortals before this overlord, Korton, does.<br /><br />In short, this is pure crap, much like the Highlander sequels. Quentin is a fairly stupid character, constantly whining and moaning and bitching in a "woe is me for I am a reluctant hero" kind of way, and he never catches on to the fact that he's an immortal and can't be killed, at least not easily. Ramirez would have done better to ditch him and thwart Korton himself.
This movie had the biggest advertising campaign any movie ever had in Russia. "Epic movie about Russian culture", "Great saga of Russian spirit", endless articles and interviews. For me this movie was the biggest disappointment. The main character played by Oleg Menshikov is a stupid immature boy ready to set up his comrades because of a woman who doesn't even look like a lady. What is there to admire? In the first part of the movie the story doesn't develop at all. People's festival scenes look like boasting about Russian audacity.<br /><br />I respect Mr. Mikhalkov for his previous works both as actor and director, but this movie just demonstrates his ambitions to be considered the "Tzar" of Russian cinema.
I saw this ego-centric "effort" at achieving a film of "epic" status in the company of several native Russian family members. Five people gave 5 different reactions, from Mikhalkov worship to my cynicism.<br /><br />I saw a movie that looked like Mikhalkov took a lot of "Canal +" money, put some of it in his (and other's) pockets and turned the project over to a bunch of film students. I counted at least 4 different "styles" in the movie. There is no way that the same director is responsible for these different scenes. Contrast these for yourself:<br /><br />·Cadets polishing shoes with a dog.<br /><br />·Train station scene (saying goodbye to Andrei).<br /><br />·Outdoor panorama shots.<br /><br />·Ormond talking through the keyhole.<br /><br />·Initial attempt on the Grand Duke and later chase scenes to get Andrei back to sing in Figaro.<br /><br />·Fencing sequence<br /><br />Julia Ormond is faster than superman. Learning about his transfer belatedly, she gets all the way across Moscow in one minute to say goodbye to Andrei.<br /><br />The Russian natives felt that the impression given of Russian life was "caricature" and not history. They called it "tourist postcard" Russia.<br /><br />They were all proud that a Russian director/producer/fixer has managed to break into the "big time" and be able to waste over 30 million dollars of other people's money while maybe putting a little into local pockets during filming.<br /><br />If you want to "think" you have seen Russia go see this movie. Drink some coffee before you go.
Most critics have written devastating about that Michalkov-movie, but I wanted it to see myself. And, unfortunately, they are right. The film had the greatest budget ever in Russian movie history, two international stars, colorful mass scenes, apparently shot quite close to the Kremlin - but in the end it appears to be a nice, sweet nothing. You would not believe, that this director earlier has made masterpieces like Urga and Burnt By the Sun. The characters in the storyline are not convincing, neither Jane nor McCracken nor Andrej. Only general Radlov worth being mentioned. It remains on the surface all the time. Politically it is to me a glorification of the army, and especially the Russian one with values like honor and duty. And, having lived at least half a year in Siberia: My Russia is much more than the one that is depicted in Michalkovs movie. Regarding "Burnt By The Sun" by the same director as a no-question-10-points-movie, one of the best I ever seen in my entire life, I was totally disappointed by that one. Sorry. Nevertheless, Michalkovs unique talent in delivering amazingly beautiful pictures is still there.
This movie suffers from the fact that for years Hollywood had no clue as to how to package Jackie Chan for the masses. His low-budget Hong Kong movies were all fast-paced kinetic thrillers that highlight his amazing gymnastic skills and talent for light comedy. His early Hollywood films stuck him in the same movies that were being packaged for Stallone or Chuck Norris. There is nothing about Chan's character in this movie that requires the character to be Asian except for his being the star. In his Hong Kong films Chan is never dull, with the movies being one rapid-fire martial arts sequence after another, but "The Protector" is lifeless throughout. Danny Aiello isn't given much to work with either and the lacking chemistry between the two probably is more a result of the script and direction than how the two actors got on together. Both have been better in worse movies. The best thing about the movie is the Hong Kong settings. The worst part is the appalling way that Jackie Chan comes off so colorless and drab. It wouldn't be until the made-in-Canada "Rumble in the Bronx" that the west would finally figure out how to make a good Jackie Chan movie.
THE PROTECTOR. You hear the name. You think, "ah, it's a crappy Hong Kong movie." Guess what - it's not Hong Kong. And yes, it is crappy. This amazingly stupid Jackie Chan film, ruined by us, yes us, the Americans (I'm boiling with anger, ooh, I think I'll jump out that window!), has Chan as a New York cop hunting down a gang, avenging the death of his buddy. Sounds cool...but it's not. Don't waste your money renting it. To prove he could make a better cop film, Chan made the amazing POLICE STORY (1985).
This is a very mediocre Jackie Chan film and one of his absolute worst James Glickenhaus ruined it!. All the characters are decent i guess, but the story is so so, however Jackie Chan is still amazing in this even if he did look bored. Jackie and Danny Aiello had zero chemistry together, and it was very boring a lot of times, however the finale was above average and managed to be fairly entertaining, and had some good stunts!. I have not yet seen the Hong Kong version, however i'm sure it's better then this dud, plus the twist is very predictable!. It's really lifeless and bland, and i don't blame Jackie for not looking happy in this, and if he didn't star in this it would have been unbearable and completely unwatchable. The opening is supposed to be memorable, but it's nothing i haven't seen before and done better at that, and i thought the whole film was rather lazy and could have been an awesome film if Jackie had control of it!, plus i really didn't root for any of the characters. This is a very mediocre Jackie Chan film, and one of his absolute worst James Glickenhaus ruined it!, not recommended even for Die hard Jackie Chan fans. The Direction is terrible!. James Glickenhaus does a terrible job here, with extremely bland camera work, bad angles, and keeping the film boring for the most part throughout. The Acting is so so. Jackie Chan is AMAZING as always, however he is not his usual energetic self, and looks bored and Ps*ed off throughout the film, had zero chemistry with Danny Aiello, and i really don't blame him either! (Jackie Rules!!!!!). Danny Aiello is OK here, as Jackie's partner, but his character is a bit of an ass, and he had zero chemistry with Jackie, he did OK i guess. Roy Chiao is decent as the main villain, but was just going through the motions and wasn't all that menacing, he still is damn cool though. Rest of the cast are average at best. Overall Not worth your time or money. *1/2 out of 5
Robert Lansing plays a scientist experimenting with passing objects through solid matter, but he goes too far one night and unintentionally makes himself four-dimensional! Atomic-age fantasy is rather charming in a very cheesy way. Perhaps it was considered a thoughtful sci-fi in its time (with psychological overtones), yet seen today the film is mildly overbaked and naive; it's a camp-fest tailor-made for TV's late-late show. Wooden performances by Lansing and Lee Meriwether barely rate as one-dimensional, though Patty Duke (playing a cute brat pre-"Miracle Worker") gets a colorful, memorable exit. <br /><br />** from ****
One of the worst films of it's genre.<br /><br />The only bright spots were Lee Merriwether showing some of the sparkle she would later bring to the Time Tunnel and Batman.<br /><br />A young Patty Duke also outshone the more established actors.<br /><br />
Charlie (George "Norm" Wendt) and Rhonda ("Just Say" Julie Brown) are a pair of cheerful, murderous aliens who become stranded on Earth and stumble upon a tiny western town. They become deputy sheriffs and dish out a deadly form of justice to speeders, murderers and others, while getting on the bad side of some of locals (led by Wayne Grace). Meanwhile, their sexy alien daughter (Anastasia Sakelaris) arrives in a skimpy/shiny outfit with her black human husband (Christopher M. Brown) to find them and TV reporters and government agents turn up to fill up time.<br /><br />From what I can tell, this is a deliberate attempt to cover every possible genre (comedy, sci-fi, horror, western...) in one movie, and what a stupid, unfunny mess it is, despite energetic acting from the two stars. The script is downright atrocious.
the real plot...<br /><br />A group of post-Civil War prostitutes seek alternative housing in FORT BOOM. Lacy Everett and a close-knit family of call girls have been eating date expired sausages for days and plan to move into the former Fort McMillian. Locals warn the women of eating more of the dated sausage. Because there is a vicious pyromaniac loose in the area and he refuse to shuttle them out to the property. When they finally arrive at their destination, they discover their stomach is full of gass after all the bad sausage. It is not long before they learn why their new home is called FORT BOOM.
This movie is about a group of women (perhaps not of the highest repute) who are heading to a small fort to take over a recently departed uncles property where they plan to set up shop. Upon arrival in a nearby city they find no one will go there (even though its only 15 miles away), so they walk. When they get there they find there are no soldiers but a good amount of people who have taken over use of the fort and built up a small city nearby. They soon find that something isn't right here and Fort McMillan (Ft. Doom as the locals call it) is in some serious trouble. <br /><br />Rather than go into the plot line I will make some comments about things I noticed about the movie. First off the acting is very flat, only a few of the people seem to be real enough to believe in. My first though was poor acting, but at the end I watched some of the outtakes and these same people became alive. So my only thought left is this is how the director wanted it. On top of the bad acting I have a great problem where the people don't react right to a given set of circumstances. Take for example no one would take them to Ft McMillan for any price even though its only 15 miles away. Yet when we arrive at the Fort we find it is well maintained by a decent population of people, all of whom must get supplies from some one, not to mention mail etc. It is supposed to take place in 1867, yet we can see the railroad car has electric lights (they aren't on at least) and a locomotive engine that is at least 30 years later, not one of the general style of locomotives so popular at that time. There are also places where you can see paved blacktop, (and maybe a car at one point, didn't want to bother to go back and look) and other anachronistic items. If they had followed the rules of the "world" they made and let the actors be actors it might have gotten a 4 from me instead of the 2 I gave it, and they rewritten it about 4 more times it might have done even better.
Alleged "scream queen" Debbie Rochon and her group of frontier prostitutes travel west to the title location and encounter grisly killings that turn out to be the work of a cult of ex-Confederate psychopaths attempting to resurrect the south through pointless massacre.<br /><br />Action and suspense take a backseat to loads of boring dialog and uninteresting character development.<br /><br />Billy Drago is good in the thankless (not to mention pointless) role of the town mortician but everything else about this wannabe slasher western is extremely poor, including the town and the fort, both of which look like modern made western tourist traps and costumes that look like they were bought at Party City.<br /><br />Do yourself a big favor and watch Ravenous instead.
An interesting premise, and Billy Drago is always good as a dangerous nut-bag (side note: I'd love to see Drago, Stephen McHattie and Lance Hendrikson in a flick together; talk about raging cheekbones!). The soundtrack wasn't terrible, either.<br /><br />But the acting--even that of such professionals as Drago and Debbie Rochon--was terrible, the directing worse (perhaps contributory to the former), the dialog chimp-like, and the camera work, barely tolerable. Still, it was the SETS that got a big "10" on my "oy-vey" scale. I don't know where this was filmed, but were I to hazard a guess, it would be either an open-air museum, or one of those re-enactment villages, where everything is just a bit too well-kept to do more than suggest the "real Old West". Okay, so it was shot on a college kid's budget. That said, I could have forgiven one or two of the aforementioned faults. But taken all together, and being generous, I could not see giving it more than three stars.
I bought this 'film' from a gas station in the 3.99 bin for one reason: Billy Drago, who is one of my favorite actors. He is terrifically creepy and good, but that's where it stops. The movie itself is a dirt cheap, gratingly awful attempt at a horror western, and manages neither, never mind a successful merging of the two genres. The acting besides Drago's is so bad I wanted to put the couch cushions over my ears, the production values are nonexistent and the script , I don't even know where to start.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs unless you are a die hard Drago fan like me.<br /><br />Terrible, shameful unforgivable.
Royal Rumble 1988 bored me pretty damn good. The rumble itself is pretty uneventful, filled with mid carders, and a winner that really had no point in winning, and why on earth did The Young Stallions Vs The Islanders main event? half the crowd left. Jessie Ventura sounds bored, through half the thing, and you can tell when he mentions he finds the development of Hogan Vs Andre more interesting. McMahon and Ventura don't have the chemistry of Gorilla and Jessie.<br /><br />Ricky Steamboat Vs Ravishing Rick Rude. Heavily disappointing match, with too many rest holds, and too much of a sluggish pace, sink this one. When it picks up like crazy in the last 5 minutes, it's too little, too late. Steamboat wins by DQ.<br /><br />2 1/2 /5<br /><br />Next is up Dino Bravo attempting to set a new bench press record, with Ventura spotting him. Horrendous segment, with no entertainment value what so ever. Ventura is not nearly enough to carry this segment, and even McMahon admitted it was boring. Controversy or not, I wasted enough time on this crap.<br /><br />0/5<br /><br />WWF Woman's Tag Team Championship.<br /><br />2 out of 3 falls.<br /><br />The Glamour Girls|C|/W Jimmy Hart. Vs The Jumping Bomb Angels. This is the best match of the night, no I'm not kidding!. Very exciting stuff for Woman's wrestling, and you'll be hard pressed to find stuff this good, now a days. The Jumping Bomb Angels were way over, and the crowd went ape sh*t for their title win.<br /><br />3/5<br /><br />Contract signing between Hulk Hogan and Andre The Giant. Hogan gets a decent pop, but there a few noticeable boo's for him, probably because its in Canada. A bit too drawn out for my liking, but it was necessary for the storyline. It got it's point across, and had some effective moments, but a lot of the times, I kept saying "Get on with it". Both sign, and Andre slams Hogan's head on the table, and pushes the table on him.<br /><br />2 1/2 /5<br /><br />Royal Rumble Match. Very weak Royal Rumble, probably due to awkward pacing, and the true lack of star power. I think Vince was testing the waters with this one, and it showed. Ventura seems uninterested, and I don't blame him. Crowd clearly wanted Roberts to win, yelling DDT almost every 5 minutes he was in there, and while Duggan got a good pop, I don't believe he was the winner they wanted, and where did this take his career? Nowhere. Bret's 1st ever Royal Rumble, and he made an impressive showing. It wasn't terrible, but it was quite lackluster, and it didn't have enough to make the show, considering this was what the show was based on.<br /><br />2 1/2 /5<br /><br />Hogan has an interview with Craig DeGeorge. Standard Hulkster interview, but not with the same craziness, and outrageous remarks he usually pulls.<br /><br />2/5<br /><br />Ted and Andre get interviewed. Andre claims he will deliver the Championship to Mr. Dibiase. Short, but effective.<br /><br />3/5<br /><br />2 out of 3 Falls.<br /><br />The Islanders Vs The Young Stallions. Crowd is completely dead for this, and half of them bolted for the exit's. It's quite dull, and had no business being in the main event. Jessie and Vince seem bored, and argue about other things while the match is taking place. Islanders win, due to taking advantage of Roma's injury.<br /><br />2/5<br /><br />Bottom line. Historically important I suppose, but there is really nothing to see here. This was just a starting cue for great things to come for The Royal Rumble, and while you can see glimpses of potential here, there is nothing on here, going out of your way to see. I usually recommend everything once for Die Hard Wrestling fans, and considering it's the 1st Royal Rumble event, I suppose I have too, but prepare to be bored a lot of the time.<br /><br />3/10
With Al Jolson at the height of his popularity and Warner Brothers's the Jazz Singer having been the highest grossing film of 1927, it was inevitable that the other studios would churn out a few vehicles for their own Jolson-esquire characters. But while the Jazz Singer was a sensation for its being the first part-talkie, the Matinée Idol lacks the singing voice of its star (the now obscure Johnnie Walker), and has to make do with just his visual antics.<br /><br />The Matinée Idol was an early directorial assignment for the renowned Frank Capra. Capra's first couple of full-length features for Harry Langdon reveal a very showy, excessive style, which made Langdon's already mediocre slapstick almost unwatchable. A couple of pictures later and Capra has learnt to ease off a bit, with some fairly regular and decent camera-work. However he still shows no aptitude for shooting physical comedy. The longest comic routine - the stage performance - seems to have a few good gags, but it's all cut up into lots of different camera angles, and there is no chance for the comedy to flow naturally from the performances. Theoretically, a good portion of the jokes are in the intertitles, but there are far too many of these and none of them is especially funny.<br /><br />Of course, Capra would eventually mature into a fine dramatic and romantic director, and you can see him beginning to develop in this respect. He cuts down the line, closing in on Walker and Bessie love in the scene where she first lays eyes on him in his Don Wilson get up, neatly establishing the wordless connection between them. Then there is some beautiful and tender framing of the couple in their scene together at the masquerade, which is all very reminiscent of the love scenes in Capra's early 30s output.<br /><br />Johnnie Walker, Columbia's answer to Al Jolson, is not an exceptional talent. His comic timing is good but there is nothing to make him stand out. Bessie Love on the other hand is a pretty good actress too, with a very expressive face. Kudos to her for getting involved with the physical comedy and losing her dignity with the boys. There's also a good role for Lionel Belmore, that rotund and jolly character actor who seems to turn up in absolutely everything in the late 20s and early 30s.<br /><br />The Matinée Idol is one of those pictures that has gained more than its fair share of attention thanks to its director later having made a handful of masterpieces. In and of itself it is a very uninteresting piece, and like most of Capra's work before he met Robert Riskin, a disappointment.
Role-reversal remake of 1942's "The Major and the Minor" has Jerry Lewis stepping into the part originally played by Ginger Rogers, but unfortunately this anemic outing is missing a lot more than just Ginger. Lewis attempts to pass for a child when boarding a train; he's successful, but the deception leads to a string of comic and romantic confusions. Sidney Sheldon adapted the screenplay, tossing in musical moments for Dean Martin (playing yet another in his stable of second-bananas) and a jewel-robbery subplot (which is dire). Diana Lynn, who played the wily teenager in the original film, plays Lewis' love-interest here. She's cute; Jerry isn't. *1/2 from ****
The movie isn't too bad, up until...<br /><br />The main problem is with the ending, so it's a pretty major spoiler...<br /><br />For the time it was made, it's a beautiful movie, and does get a lot of it right.<br /><br />However...<br /><br />In the book, Sam succeeds and lives his dream, whereas in the movie, he gives up and goes back to the city, completely destroying the "you can do what you put your mind to" theme of the book.<br /><br />This movie is a desecration, and instead of remaking classics that don't need redone, the Hollywood types who haven't any better ideas should do this one, right this time.
I hardly know where to begin.<br /><br />Huge continuity issues, bad acting, etc. For example, Sam is supposed to be far from any people yet you can see the ski slopes cut into the mountain next to his head.<br /><br />But the most fundamental problem is that the essence of the book, Sam's adventurousness paving the way to improve the lot of his entire family, is not even touched upon. Instead, in the movie, he gets ticked off at his family and leaves his wealthy parents to be by himself and, when he gets tired of it, he goes home. Where is his development? Where is the arc?<br /><br />If you have never read the book and can get through the hokey 60isms (double/triple/quadruple visions of the falcon) and terrible production quality (crackling, ahem, fire, winter winds stopping their howling for the dialog and then restarting, etc.) I guess it *might* be OK for an 8 year old. <br /><br />But compared to the sophistication of the book it is a terrible disappointment. <br /><br />Read the book instead.
This movie is one of the poorest adaptations of a fabulous book that I've seen. Jean George's novel is a fantastic book that I think is an outstanding read for any child. I can't give the same endorsement to this movie.
Ouch. This is one ugly movie. Not only is it badly acted, but it absolutely destroyed the book as well. Horrible. How you could mess up such a classic book is beyond me, but they sure did. Don't even think about even renting this.
I guess there are two ways to make a movie with kids as the intended audience. You can either say to yourself a) "Let's make a movie that kids today will love!" or b) "Let's make a movie that I would have loved when I was a kid!" The second approach explains why Steven Spielberg often make movies that appeal to a younger audience. Prime examples are E.T., The Goonies or Indiana Jones. That Darn Cat is an example of the first approach. You see these flat, unbelievable characters saying things that is supposed to be funny but isn't. The plot itself is enough for a ten minute short, but instead it goes on and on. And although I'm not a kid, I don't quite understand what in this movie is supposed to be fun for kids? The clumsy cops chased by a dog, the old lady with a tweety bird or Christina Ricci's sarcastic oneliners? One actor showed a spark of talent with his very acrobatic humour: Doug E. Doug playing the FBI agent.
I was 12 years old when I saw the original film (I lived in Italy and the Italian title was "FBI, OPERATION CAT!") That was a fun film and not just for kids. This awful remake it's pathetic even for a 5 year old! What possessed Disney to ruin their reputation and the memory of a lovely film I don't know and I just can't believe it. Even the title song in the original film (both original version and the dubbed Italian version) was extremely nice and creating the mood for the story. On this remake the title song is even worst than the movie itself. It was just nice to see Dean Jones even if for just a cameo appearance, he was a regular on the great old Disney's films. I cannot honestly see anything else positive in this remade movie.
Chris Ricci sleepwalks her way through most of this, but then quickly takes on an air of boredom and disdain - much as I did when watching it. Without her this would be no more than a cheap kids' movie, but at least she does add an air of quality. There are few, if any, more visually striking and charismatic young actresses in the business.<br /><br />There's not much wrong with it as long as you accept it for what it is - a cheap Disney re-make aimed at very undemanding children. I could watch Ricci all day so I'm probably oblivious to many of the movie's shortcomings, but unless you too are a Ricci fan, a cat-lover, or very small child, I doubt you will find this very entertaining.
The Disney studios' remake of their own 1965 slapstick classic concerns a clever feline leading an F.B.I. agent to a kidnapped woman. Christina Ricci gives a churlish, let-me-outta-here performance as the cat's owner and the fed is played by Doug E. Doug, embarrassingly over-the-top, like a human cartoon. A pair of rich neurotics (Dyan Cannon and original "Cat" cast member Dean Jones) are funny and the formula-plot still has a little juice left in it, but the handling here is so heavy and lugubrious, and the cat is so lifeless, that it's strictly D.O.A. <br /><br />* from ****
But I still enjoyed watching her, so I gave it a 3 instead of a 1. Her expressions are priceless. Some of the other cast members (e.g., Michael McKean) are really slumming, too. The cat himself is somewhat amusing. Aside from that, the movie is all cliche, culminating in a much-too-long car chase. (It's also at this point that the movie becomes unnecessarily crude, having been very "family" until then.)
This remake is entitled "That Darn Cat", but D.C. the cat is more of a sideline than the major character. Patti Randall was not likable at all in this remake either. She reminded me of one of those high school Goth jerks you read about who have been angry since the day they were born, so they end up opening fire on the rest of the school one day. The federal cop, Kelso was okay, but not as good as the one in the original. I guess Disney was trying to make Christina Ricci and Doug Doug (or whatever goofy name he has) into stars, but they don't hold a candle to Hayley Mills and Dean Jones in the original. I'm an animal lover and a cat lover and I don't blame D.C. for the remake being so much more inferior to the original movie. After all, they nearly cut him out of the whole movie. All in all, a very poor remake.
I really enjoyed the first film and when it turned up again, without thinking, or checking, I took a family of friends to see it. I was ashamed that I had enthused so much about it to them.<br /><br />Disney processed the original film just like the human body processes a delicious meal - takes in something good and turns out ... well, you know. And by having a dark-skinned person as the FBI man, the results of fingerprinting the informant were subdued.<br /><br />Taken as an isolated film, I suppose it is not too bad if one likes that weird sort of thing, but when one has read the book or seen the first film - horrible!
`It's as if this town has the power to suck your brain right out of your head.' -Patti<br /><br />Patti (Christina Ricci) is a sarcastic teenaged girl, bored with her all-too-average little town. Bored that is until a woman is kidnapped and she finds what she believes to be clues to the poor lady's whereabouts. Now, with the help of her precious cat `D.C.' and an inept FBI agent (Doug E. Doug) she must find her.<br /><br />That Darn Cat is a bad movie. It is quite foolish and it has humor that often falls quite flat. There are, however, a few buds of talent in it. Doug E. Doug was good in Cool Runnings. His performance as `Senga' was really funny. Here he is wasted as the bumbling FBI agent. He does have a good scene when he imitates the cat, though. Micheal Mckean plays Patti's father. His character must be the most understanding parent to ever live. This poor guy has his expensive cigar crushed, gets arrested for picking up his own cat, and gets bitched-at by his snippy wife and STILL doesn't get angry at his daughter for causing all of his troubles. I wish my old man was like that. The only real good performance is Christina Ricci's. She entertaining as the ever-annoyed Patti, but her occasional very bad dialogue pulls her performance down. You might also recognize Peter Boyle (Young Frankenstein, Everybody Loves Raymond), the old lady from Wings and Cliff from Cheers, in this movie. This is a movie that all these actors would probably like to forget. Even the cat isn't very good... I really can't recommend 1997's That Darn Cat. Some young children (under 8) might enjoy it a bit, but every one else should look elsewhere. If you're looking for a good Christina Ricci movie, I suggest Addams Family Values, The Opposite of Sex or Sleepy Hollow. If a fun family film is what you're after, try Snow Day, instead.<br /><br />
this movie wasn't good. i thought it'd be a cute disney movie just like the original. wrong. it was awkward for christina ricci, whom i expect so much more than this, you could just tell by watching. i think doug e. doug did the best he could. sit 5 year olds in front of the this, any older, and they might start to fall asleep.
I am really at a loss as to how anyone could give this movie a 10 (or even more than a 2!). It is full of bad lines, bad acting, bad slapstick, etc. I never thought I could see worse acting than the purposefully badly acted scenes at the beginning of UHF, but this was it. And just when you think it can't possibly get any worse, it does! Over and over again! You actually could have watched this in a theater? It wasn't worth free on TV! My 4-year-old and 1-year-old liked it some, but they wanted to see the cat more and the cat was almost never on.
The only entertaining thing that I found about watching this movie was listening to Star Wars coming through the wall of the movie theatre (yes I go to a really bad movie theatre). This movie is so mind numbingly bad that I think I would rather have my eyes scratched out by a cat rather than watch it again.<br /><br />Let's compare it to the original. One is charming, funny, exciting, well acted, and one of the best movies ever made, the other is so far from funny that all you can do is hope that your eyeballs will fall out so you don't have to watch any more. I'm sorry Christina Ricci is a fine actress but cannot compare with Hailley Mills, and don't even get me started on Doug E. Doug in a part one occupied by the amazing and absolutely charming Dean Jones. Dean Jones' tiny part in the new version is the only partially redeeming part of this movie, and it is the only reason I can justify a 1* rating (also because the imdb doesn't go into negatives).
Ladies and Gentlemen, may we present the worst of all Disney remakes. Although the name of this movie is "That Darn Cat", it should have been "That Darn Teen" or "FBI Agent". The cat didn't get any real good scenes, Ricci's character was more annoying than funny, Doug E. Doug didn't get any good lines, even Dean Jones's cameo role couldn't save this movie! The only really good characters were the town's only two auto mechanics, but their scenes were only brief. In all, I'd say that if you are considering watching this movie, go get something more intelligent like a Barney video.
This is definitely a "lesser known" comedy short from the 1920s. The only reason I saw it was because it was on a DVD by Kino Films featuring non-Laurel and Hardy shorts featuring Ollie. They are interesting and historically important, but also generally average to below average for the style film. Compared to shorts by Chaplin, Keaton, Arbuckle and Lloyd, they are definitely a step below them in quality and humor. Also, the accompanying music was pretty poor by the standards of other silent DVDs. I ended up turning OFF the sound due to the inappropriateness of the music to set the proper mood. But, despite this, they are still worth seeing.<br /><br />I've gotta be honest about this short. It was the last of 8 on this DVD and by the time I got to it, I was pretty bored with the mediocrity of 7 of the 8 shorts. So, it is possible the film might be A LITTLE better than a 4--but certainly, if this is the case, no better than a 5! The film is a pretty standard short about an incompetent bellboy. Nothing especially interesting and there are certainly MUCH better silent shorts out there.
Not too long ago I bought a cheap VHS tape entitled "Just Rambling Along" supposedly featuring Laurel and Hardy. Being somewhat familiar with their output and not recognizing this title, I made the agonizing decision to part with a whole dollar and buy it. Upon playing it, I identified the film as HOP TO IT. Of course, Mr. Laurel was nowhere in the cast, making the packaging of this product criminally deceptive. Even worse, the quality is terrible. It looks like it was duped from an 8mm film source. It did have a somewhat appropriate musical score. Actually, in all seriousness, the tape is worth a buck if you just want to get an idea of what the movie is like. In my opinion, it is a decent but unexceptional short. IMDb should add JUST RAMBLING ALONG as an alternate title for this film, which incidentally was the name of a 1918 Stan Laurel film!
On one Thursday evening at 10:00pm, my local west coast ABC affiliate aired the pilot episode of "Northern Exposure". The ABC Network usually airs "Men In Trees" in that time slot but the program was preempted for a live sporting event.<br /><br />Despite both shows are set in Alaska and filmed on location in the Pacific Northwest (Exposure in Washington state, Trees in Vancouver, BC), re-watching "Northern Exposure" (as well as few episodes of "Sex and the City") reminds me how disappointed I am with the poorly conceived hybrid "Men in Trees". <br /><br />Anne Heche can be a good actress with the right material. Unfortunately her role as a writer who ends up in a small town in Alaska grates on my nerves. Perhaps because I feel that Heche is miscast, I am not convinced of her "fish-out-of-water" character.<br /><br />I also cannot help but feel that the supporting cast fits the typical quirky stereotypes. The hot-looking local, the kindly bar owner, the bush pilot, the local police officers, the dim but well-intentioned radio DJ, etc.<br /><br />The only stereotype that may have been broken was teddy bear and veteran "ER" actor Abraham Benrubi as the local bartender in love with two different women. Considering that one of the executive producers is filmmaker James Mangold, (his movies "Heavy" and "Cop Land" had lead characters who were large men) then I am not surprised why Benrubi was cast in a non-typical role.<br /><br />Nonetheless, I can see why there are a lot of dedicated viewers who love "Men in Trees". It fits the quirky niche for television audiences. I wished the show could find its own voice instead of borrowing ideas from better shows.
I am a huge fan of Northern Exposure. Men In Trees is a complete knock-off of Northern Exposure. There's the city-folk from New York stuck in a remote backwoods town (Marin Frist / Joel Fleishman). She immediately doesn't hit it off with a local (Jack Slattery / Maggie O'Connell). The town only has one pilot who is not often available. Ther is only one radio show. And the entire show is about quirky people with sincere and odd relationships. Too many parallels. Just like Northern Exposure except one obvious demographic has been altered in each character. I'm bored. Give me something new to think about.<br /><br />On the upside, the writing is pretty good. But if this was a school project, it would certainly have earned the stamp of plagiarism. <br /><br />Perhaps people who love this show were sheltered from the dedicated creativity and hard labors of Joshua Brand and John Falsey.
This show is awesome and we have been enjoying it thoroughly. Set in Alaska, I don't agree with the homosexual content on tonight's show. I feel that you are pushing too hard to bring New York to Alaska. Its one thing to have a New Yorker struggling in the Alaska wild, but to try to turn the Alaska town into New York? This is a nice show about dainty women and true Alaska Men and to bring a same sex couple into the mix is throwing the balance way off. Alaska should be Portrayed as a man and New York as the woman. I think the first 9 shows have the perfect balance with what you all are doing. Can't we have a nice show without the imbalance of nature.
Why is Guy working for Buddy? Probably because Ari was not around in 1995. Why does Dawn want to be with Guy? For access to Buddy. Why does she stay with Guy? I am not sure.<br /><br />There are bunch of things about this movie that I am not sure about. But, Kevin Spacey is an excellent, verbal tsunami as Buddy Ackerman – and totally believable because he is a great actor.<br /><br />Frank Whaley's Guy is certainly out of his element working for Buddy – he wants to write and make meaningful movies, not be a gofer that is verbally abused for getting Equal instead of Sweet & Low. <br /><br />Michelle Forbes' Dawn, who also wants to make meaningful movies, seems way out of Guy's league.<br /><br />The ending leaves a lot to be desired.
I was recommended this movie by one of my film-making friends, and was therefore expecting something good. Sadly, I was very disappointed by the first half -- ah, a movie about a wimp taking revenge on their a**hole boss, how original -- and watched the second half on fast forward hoping to find something that would justify the 45-odd minutes I'd already wasted. But all I got was the 'shock' ending...<br /><br />The basic problem is that this is a movie which seems unable to decide what it wants to say, and says whatever it does say (hard to tell what that is) badly. Great acting does not save a bad script full of characters I can't care about.<br /><br />Now maybe if I didn't moonlight in the movie industry I'd be shocked to discover the dumb politics and exploitation going on behind the screen, but as it is my feelings are as summed up above: 'Ho Hum'.<br /><br />2/10... would have been 1/10 if it weren't for the acting and the paper cut scene.
The role of Buddy Ackerman is no stretch for Kevin Spacey. He's played version of that character many times other, better films. This is fortunate because it gives his performance a certain resonance without which Buddy would be as flat and incomplete as all of the other characters in this pointless little farce. The script leaves little time for plot or character development, resembling a porn flick in its rush to get to the "good stuff". The difference is that here the "good stuff" isn't people pleasuring each other but inflicting pain, making it appropriate viewing for young adults.<br /><br />Of course there's nothing wrong with a porn flick if you want to watch people having sex, and I guess there's nothing wrong with "Swimming with Sharks" if you want to watch people undergoing physical, emotional, and psychological torture. But if you're looking for incisive satire, interesting characters, or anything else that even attempts to engage more than your basest passions, you should probably look elsewhere.
Talk about false advertising! What was this doing in the comedy section of my video rental place? I think there was maybe one laughable part in the movie. I can appreciate black comedy, but this had only the blackness without any comedy. The movie was generally disturbing and un-funny. Yes, Kevin Spacey was good as Buddy and the rest of the cast was also good, but generally the movie falls apart because we don't really see a good enough reason for Guy (Whaley) to lose his mind so badly. The ending was disappointing as well. What would Buddy's motivation be for letting Guy get away with what he did? This isn't really explained AT ALL. Why would Buddy go for such a plan? Wouldn't it be more like Buddy to screw Guy completely by turning him over to the police? The ending didn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me no matter how I looked at it.<br /><br />Generally, I disliked the film despite the good acting. Spacey essentially chews scenery for most of the film, but towards the end he gives Buddy a bit of needed humanity. The story just wasn't as good as the cast.
There's something wonderful about a "revenge" film. Everyone wakes up in the morning believing he/she is the star of "the movie," and that anyone who interferes with one's own personal agenda is in some way the enemy. Revenge plot films work particularly well if a person has low self-esteem. Rather than fighting back in the moment, the "hero" draws upon built-up inner anxiety to engage in a single act of power in an attempt to restore equilibrium. Quite naturally, in the "real world" this type of revenge seldom relieves the tension because life is not a movie; after the revenge is enacted the actions taken have their own consequences. A good revenge flick helps people ignore this bitter pill. In the movies the end credits roll and all responsibility resolved.<br /><br />"Swimming With Sharks" is advertised as a comedy, no doubt an act on the part of the producers to figure out just how to sell this oddity. It's dark, but it isn't dark comedy ("Company Of Men" and the works of Todd Solondz come much closer). Parts of the film are so brutal they pre-date the current "torture-porn" genre everyone is so obsessed with ("Saw", "Hostel"). There are some laughs. There are laughs in "Saving Private Ryan" too, but it isn't labeled comedy.<br /><br />The intrinsic problem with this film is that it hasn't earned its revenge case. It is ostensibly about a young man who is abused by his boss and eventually takes his boss hostage to "pay him back" for all the mistreatment. The hero (aptly named "Guy") is an "everyman" so vague we know literally nothing about him...what does he do with his spare time? Does he have friends/family? How did he get where he is? What are his interests (this becomes a running motif through the film, no doubt inspired by the film's author's own struggle..."What do you want?", the answer to which we are denied by a vague, cheat of an ending)? It's very difficult to care for such a character, even if acted well (even Tom Hanks becomes a creep in the wrong roll, such as "Punchline"). Kevin Spacey as the boss, "Buddy," is supposed to be a monster but he's too charismatic as an actor. The best laughs came when he abused his assistant--he seemed almost as surprised as the audience probably is at what Guy will endure. When Kevin's character is being tortured, the view taken suddenly becomes empathy for him. Guy is suddenly filmed as a leering monster without rationality. At this point any message the author had has been lost; there's no "hero" in this film, ergo, no reason to care at all.<br /><br />It's not a stretch to assume this story is based on the author's own troubled career in the film business. I worked for a similar boss and can vouch that it's not that far-fetched. I had similar wish-fulfillment fantasies at that time and thought that I was justified. I thought you could win over the most beautiful woman in the story (actually, the ONLY woman--there seem to be all of about four people in the universe of this film) just by being your eager, naive self, that eagerness won accolades and that a boss abused you because he was a mean person. Time and tide have revealed the truth that most "monsters" are really just the demons of an individual's personal psyche and resentment is usually based in the self. As the film points out, if Guy was so unhappy he only had to leave. The film doesn't offer any denouement at all, "surprise" ending notwithstanding. We still know nothing about the protagonists, we can't even be sure anything they said was based in fact and everyone magically gets to have his cake and eat it too. In short, there was no point to this story at all other than to point out that (shock!) the film business can be pretty brutal.<br /><br />There are plenty of good films that tell solid and satisfying revenge-style fantasies, both the feel-good variety ("9-to5," "Working Girl," "The Devil Wears Prada") and not so much ("War Of The Roses", the remake of "The Hills Have Eyes"). This isn't one of them--despite a fun turn by Benicio Del Toro in the Emily Blunt role from "Prada" and some interesting work by Spacey and Michelle Forbes, this is a frustrating, mean, confused and slightly dull creation of self- indulgence from a director who has, one hopes, "worked it all out" by now...
Yes, this review may contain spoilers, but you'll thank me for it. This is the worst film I've seen in quite some time. I came to this board expecting to see the same response I had, but inexplicably, there are several people who love this film and Spacey's performance in particular.<br /><br />Some will chastise me for saying it, but I find Kevin Spacey's acting quite limited despite the world's admiration for him. I felt like I was watching a meaner version of Kevin's "American Beauty" role. His character in this film is ridiculously overacted, all the way down to his laughable insults he throws at his assistant.<br /><br />There are all-world trite and boring scenes like when Spacey is tearing into Whaley about bringing him Equal instead of Sweat and Low. Somehow, I suspected this particular scene was supposed to be funny, but by this time I was ready to hit the stop button (this is approximately 20 minutes into the film).<br /><br />What about the faux-homage to "Resevoir Dogs"? Whaley proclaims, "I think I saw this in a movie once," as if he's going to cut off Spacey's ear. But what does he use to cut him? An envelope! That's right, he's going to give him paper cuts! That has to be one of Hollywood's all-time worst scenes, and the fact that the actors and director tried to carry it out with a straight face makes it even more appalling.<br /><br />I will admit that I didn't see the end of this film (my DVD mercifully locked up about a half hour before the end), but anyone who wishes to say so could spare me the line that I missed a great twist and everything would have made sense. Well, I don't care what happened in the end, because it could never make up for all that bad acting and relentlessly over-the-top dialogue. I even got the feeling that the actors themselves wanted to get out of this film as bad as I did.
Ugly, heartless Hollywood crap that expects nothing but ugliness and heartlessness from its audience. The scenes WITHOUT Spacey reveal how truly awful the film really is. But the scenes WITH Spacey are just so entertaining that you hang on in there right to the end. Yes, he could play this part in his sleep but he does it so well, he's such a joy to watch, so believable and marvellously monstrous. Enjoy it for his performance, but don't expect anything else from this movie. If you want to see a great film about the evils of modern Hollywood, check out Robert Altman's "The Player". This sad little potboiler is not remotely in the same league.
I tried to like this movie. I love Kevin Spacey and I knew the other guy from his role as "Big Brain on" Brad in Pulp Fiction. But I just didn't care about the characters at all. Kevin Spacey is a prick through the whole movie and even finding out some horrible things that happened to him, I didn't like him. Especially the ending---that made me hate him even more. This was like watching a bad car wreck. Spacey played a prick well (he does it all well), but other than that, I don't recommend it.
Ill-tempered, verbally abusive movie studio chief runs his male assistant ragged with nit-picking requests, keeping the young man firmly under his thumb with constant threats of unemployment; after a year of office-terror, the working stiff finally cracks. Writer-director George Huang has possibly bit off more than he can chew here. His "Swimming With Sharks" isn't a diatribe against Hollywood, nor is it a tribute to the hard-working underling...instead, it's stunt film-making with a twist, a one-trick pony with tunnel-vision. The surroundings don't look or feel like Tinsel Town (perhaps due to a limited budget), and we never get a sense of this stressful environment as a movie-making entity (it could be a realtor's office in the Valley, for all we know). Lead Kevin Spacey, who also served as one of the film's producers, gives a controlled and focused performance as the power-mad mogul whose ego is out of control; he does good work, and yet the character doesn't ring true. We learn so little about him and his acquaintances that his important position and high-ranking status fail to jibe with what we do see; who does this man answer to? what drives him beyond humiliating others for sport? what projects is he juggling aside from the one script we see passed around? The film is so emotionally stunted and underpopulated, it begins to seem like a stage-play padded out for the big screen--and yet one without enough characters or motivations in it. Perhaps Huang wanted to keep things simple, but instead his movie looks like a half-baked project which needed a lot more insight, humor, and atmosphere. ** from ****
This movie was a low point for both Jason Robards and Sam Peckinpah. Major plot points are taken directly from Sergio Leone's masterpiece "Once Upon a Time in the West" (released two years earlier and also featuring Robards): A man finds a watering hole is found in the desert, being the only water for many miles in every direction, he plans to build a 'station' around the hole and to ensure there's a love interest, he falls in love with a prostitute. To this add an intemperate preacher, bad music, silly fast action shots, even sillier T&A shots - and there you go. There is little question why it failed at the box office. The real question is "how did it make it that far?".
Tug-3 is absolutely right. Although I am sure that Mr. Osmond wanted to make a sincere, heartwarming Christmas movie, this one is as cynical and creepy as they come. The religious significance of Christmas is forgotten and replaced with cute kids, clueless grownups, and dopey villains. The production values demonstrate that this was either filmed on a shoestring or by truly inexperienced filmmakers-- I suspect the latter, unfortunately. The worst part, oddly enough, really is the music. You would think someone with a long-standing musical career could do better than the title song, but you would be wrong. Even my mom didn't like this movie, and she likes the Osmonds AND sappy stuff.
This gawd-awful piece of tripe is all over the place. The script is bad, the plot is bad, the acting is bad. There are a couple of decent actors in it (Charles Durning, eg.), but the director got nothing out of them. The plot line has Santa, feeling dejected and thinking no one needs him any more, taking a little girl across country to try to get her father back together with her mother. It includes a con-man in a Santa suit with a stuffed parrot on his shoulder (played by "Isaac" from The Love Boat), the world's largest elf (played by Bruce Vilnach - a very funny man, but no actor), a hardened factory owner who works his employees overtime on Christmas eve, and a sleigh race where someone cuts one of Santa's skis trying to win. If the plot sounds bad, it's worse on the little screen. If you see this movie coming up next, run, do not walk, to your television and unplug it. You may want to boil your television to remove any remaining infection. If you accidentally watch more than 10 minutes of this, you may have to burn your television, and have the cable company install entirely new lines.
Amanda Bynes is an enormously talented actress, and I've really enjoyed all of her roles in the past, especially in the fantastic "She's the Man." For that reason alone, "Sydney White" was a huge disappointment for me. The real reason for my dislike of this film is the poor use of characters. In a good fun teen comedy, its perfectly alright to have a cast of all fairly reality-based teen characters. In "Sydney White," this idea is thrown out the window.<br /><br />Amanda Bynes makes a fine Sydney, but she is really lacking in a lot of what usually makes her sparkle as an actress. I blame this on the script, which makes her character too bland and restrained, and on the hair/makeup department, which gives her a detestable plastic look and an annoying hair style. The seven "dorks" that Sydney eventually befriends are far worse. They are so dorky that it's impossible to like them or even respect them as characters. They're essentially repulsive gag fodder. As is the story's "Prince Charming," who is completely unbelievable as a character and is about as cheesy as can be.<br /><br />Perhaps the film's biggest star-to-be (with the possible exception of Amanda Bynes) is Sara Paxton, who's actually very good as the conniving Rachel Witchburn. It's just a shame that the script-writers didn't make her a bit more gray than black.<br /><br />The plot is basically that of "Snow White." What kills it is that it is too blunt and obvious a re-imagining. The connections to "Snow White" are thrown at us so much throughout the film that they are ultimately annoying and overblown. Prince Charming is unrealistically charming, the "witch" is far too despicably witchy, the seven "dorks" are too dorky, and Sydney is just too pure of heart. Now, this is not to say that the movie is all bad. Though Bynes is forced down by the script, she still has her moments. As does Sara Paxton, who brings physical comedy to the max in her scenes. Sydney's room-mate, named "Dinky" is also great fun as a character. It's a somewhat funny film at parts that is ultimately just too cheesy and clichéd to recommend.
I rated this one better than awful because I liked seeing Jonathon from Buffy in something again -- even if it was the same role.<br /><br />First, the concept is kind of cute for a short, but not an entire movie. The writing was forced and contrived. I have the feeling that the movie suffered the most during editing.<br /><br />Second, Amanda Bynes always looks like her eyes are crossed -- even when she's not trying to do it. She's just not funny. She always plays some sort of misfit girl who triumphs by being herself -- ironic, considering Amanda seems to always be a caricature. I would actually like to see her in something serious. I really want to give her a chance, but she is always cast in these trite roles where she wiggles and makes faces and somehow that's a good thing?<br /><br />Finally, the whole "I'm a Dork" segment was ripped off from Revenge of the Nerds. There was nothing in this movie that was unpredictable.<br /><br />Shame, shame, shame.
My 15 year old daughter asked me to watch this movie with her on Cable TV. As someone who saw Revenge of The Nerds in a movie theater, I found this movie to be an extremely predictable remake of it. The Nerds were simply replaced by Dorks. I drove her crazy by being able to predict precisely what would happen in each scene. The cast was cute, especially Amanda Bynes.<br /><br />Screenwriter Chad Creasey should be ashamed for writing such an obvious remake of an early 1980's flick. The title should have simply been "Revenge of The Dorks." Perhaps the sequel will be Revenge of the Dorks 2.
It is fitting that the title character in Sydney White is defined from the beginning of the film by her awkwardness because the film, like the character, tends to begin every scene with a well-meant but inappropriate statement, then backtracks inadvertently making it worse and leaving the viewer in total confusion.<br /><br />This scenario gets old quick. Now imagine a hour and a half of this, throw on the most predictable storyline imaginable; add some vague Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs references and Amanda Bynes blinking in wide-eyed puzzlement and you have Sydney White...for more of my review http://www.helium.com/items/1433421-sydney-white-review
It must say something about the state of our nation that this programme is one of the most popular currently screened. <br /><br />The 'square' is peopled by such a miserable, untrustworthy, amoral, spiteful, unrelentingly dour group of characters as can be imagined. Everyone is stabbing someone in the back, everyone is attempting to commit adultery, everyone is trying to cheat someone. That, or they are being stabbed, cuckolded or swindled. Nobody is cheerful. Nobody laughs. Nobody has a blinding stroke of luck or a really nice day. It's hell, with cockney accents.<br /><br />I suspect this programme must be sponsored by The Samaritans. It's perfect viewing for the depressed. It doesn't cheer them up; what it does do is present a whole community of such terminally despondent sad-arses that viewers are moved to believe their lot really could be worse - they might be living in 'Albert Square'.<br /><br />Apart from the above; as a representation of London's east end, it is pure hokum. The programme-makers have evidently never been across town. The first thing you encounter on the Mile End Road is a colossal mosque. And this pretty-well defines the racial majority of the population. White British Londoners are a dispersed and rapidly diminishing minority. A large advertisement hoarding presently near the Bow Road flyover, and sponsored by Tower Hamlets Health Care boasts that 'Eight out of ten members of the community can now see their doctor more quickly'. Ten healthy, smiling faces beam down at the observer in confirmation. Eight of them are dark-skinned... <br /><br />What's more, I used to work with a bunch of Anglo-Saxon - dare I say 'pukka' - cockneys a few years ago. And I can tell you that a more obnoxiously racist experience I've never had. Each day was like an Oswald Moseley rally. They couldn't pass 5 minutes without denigrating some other race or nationality than their own, and in terms that were repulsive and obscene. 'Fackin' Pakis' and 'fackin' Maceroons' were the small change of conversation. In fact their entire (and extremely limited) stock of adjectives fixated upon sex-organs and their application. Alf Garnett was a paragon of liberal virtue in comparison.<br /><br />Any programme that purported to represent London's native east-end Caucasians in their true nature would be completely unfit for broadcast - even after the 9 o-clock watershed. Imagine a Ku Klux Klan script written by Quentin Tarantino and you'd be somewhere near the mark. But when they weren't being inveterate bigots they were at least extremely cheerful.<br /><br />I don't know how such a soap-opera came to be. This imaginary castaway island of white misery has absolutely no bearing upon real culture whatsoever. And if you're of a comparatively sanguine disposition, it will quickly reduce you to tears of grief. Comparatively ordinary actors pretending to be comparatively ordinary chronic-depressives with cockney accents - what's the point of that?<br /><br />Dull, dreary, unrelentingly disillusional, and ethnically preposterous. The most popular programme of an apparently diseased and dying nation.<br /><br />Avoid it like the plague.
My wife and I watched this abortion from its beginning. I hated it immediately but my wife became hooked on it for a couple of years.For me it just got worse and worse and the characters were all without question dreary and depressing without any redeeming features. My wife then grew tired of it and we stopped watching altogether. Occasionally I catch a clip of it or pass through it when channel surfing.There is always someone yelling at someone else or doing something dreadful. There never seems to be any lighter moments or happiness of any kind. That was always my main gripe with it when we first watched it- no humour. The writers seem to have no idea about drama - they seem to think conflict IS drama, and of course that is only one element of it. Light and shade is sorely needed and actors who can bring something to it. I am sure the actors in Eastenders are competent but they have nothing to work with. It must be the most depressing acting job in showbiz. I fail to understand why the British public watch it and love it. What on earth does it say about our psyche? I have heard it said that it is "just like real life"-its nothing like my life or anyone's life I know, otherwise we would be flinging ourselves from high buildings or under public transport. The themes it tackles are far from family viewing but still are shown pre-watershed. I love series like Breaking Bad or The Wire but I would not expect to see them at 7.30 or 8.00 in the evening. The programme is trash writ large and should be avoided at all cost.
I spent three months living in the East End of London in the latter half of 1987, when the show had been on the air for almost two years. It was considered a running joke there.<br /><br />Why? Because it had an all-white cast. Every cast member and extra in the first couple of years was white.<br /><br />The street where I lived was a long one, with over 800 houses, and to the best of my knowledge I was one of only three or four white faces living on that street. We were on the corner of the Indian and Turkish "quarters", and even if you excluded those two races the Asians and Afro-Caribbeans outnumbered the white people twenty-to-one. Plus, of course, of the very few white people who *did* live in the area, the vast majority were Scots like me - a "Cockney" accent was never heard.<br /><br />That wasn't a racist rant, just a simple statement of fact. The BBC either couldn't be bothered crossing London to do their research before writing this soap, or else they only had white actors available and decided to bluff it out.<br /><br />Either way, as I say, in the East End of the time, we considered it a comedy show. :-)
Eastenders has gone full circle from unmissable in 1985 to totally abysmal now. It's such a bad reflection of the nation this crap tops the ratings.<br /><br />The ideas for plots can consist of nothing more trivial than putting ever characters name in a hat. The first two out (regardless of their sex) will sleep with each other, the 3rd & 4th out will have a fight in the Vic, the 5th one will be arrested, the 6th develop an addiction, 7th get pregnant etc etc.<br /><br />The producers are clever though. The 30 minute show is only actually ever comprised of 3 lines.<br /><br />1) Someone will walk in the Vic & say "What's goin on?" 2) Someone else will stand up say "leave it aht" (out) 3) Then a woman will say "Doan choo come in ere 'n' insult mah fam'ly"<br /><br />That's it. That's every show. Apart from the occasional "Get it sort-id / Is it sort-id?"<br /><br />The show was once a realistic portrayal of East End folk & their way of life. The buffers came off when 1) They extended it from two nights a week & 2) The Slater family turned up. How they attract viewers is beyond me. The Kat character symbolizes everything that's gone wrong with society, treating anyone else like something she's pulled off the bottom of her shoe.<br /><br />The people who vote her the best character, in these polls, must the same as the ones that vote Jamie Redknapp 'Best Sportsman' despite the fact he hasn't played a game for 3 years.<br /><br />What I can never understand is if the show is the pinnacle of British TV why do all the biggest names leave? Ross Kemp, Martin Kemp, the list is endless.<br /><br />How long has the longest couple's marriage lasted, with them being faithful to each other? Yes, people leave, but until the script writers realise that characters, couple can be interesting & likeable without sleeping around the show will continue to deteriorate. An episode last week had 3 separate plots of exactly that. And Zoe & the doctor top even Lofty & 'Shell' as 'Most Unconvincing Couple Ever to appear on TV.'<br /><br />Yes, Eastenders is the most watched show, thats undisputed. But many external factors contribute to that. 19.30 / 20.00 is the perfect time of day to gain the most audience figures, it has an omnibus edition for 2 hours, and more than that, millions of the viewers watch it, out of nothing more than habit, but if they were completely honest to themselves, they would admit that (in 2002, more than ever), it can be absolutely pitiful.
I don't know how people can watch this - the only people who enjoy watching this are those who have no feelings and emotions and enjoy watching people die, houses burn down, car crashes, babies die, and cast members being killed off every week. Its the most absurd thing on television and i still don't know how it pulls in the ratings. Its so depressing. I can imagine the writers sitting down and saying - 'so who shall we kill of next week then' or 'whose house shall we torch in a months time?'<br /><br />Its the most depressing, absurd and most stupid thing on TV at the moment, and i cant understand peoples motives for watching this depressing pile of crap anymore
I think this programme is a load of rubbish. All they do is argue and slap each other across the face and they call this acting?! These people get paid lots of money for this and most of them can't even act to save their lives. Also, the story lines are awful and after watching it for a few minutes, I am bored with it. I like the way that Harry Hill takes the mickey out of it on his TV show 'TV Burp' e.g. the weak joke "The Princess and the Pea isn't exactly Shakespeare is it?" that had Sonia and Naomi in stitches. I don't see how that is funny. I think this is a waste of everybody's money for their TV licence so this can be shown 4/5 days a week. Isn't there anything better than this?
This soap is worse than bad: it's poisonous. Of the many television shows that have had a corrosive influence on British society over the past twenty years, Eastenders is the prime example. For two decades this show has celebrated the oaf, the thug, the wide-boy, the tart, the gobby, the violent, the sexually-incontinent, the criminal, the ignorant, the unambitious ...<br /><br />How many times has someone or other remarked that Eastenders "mirrors life"? Life on which planet, exactly? <br /><br />It's written about "working-class" characters, as imagined by middle-class people who have taken a course in creative writing. Eager to show to their middle-class peers how familiar they are with the "working-class" they dream up the lumpen rabble that is the citizenry of Eastenders.<br /><br />This has a toxic effect on some minds less well-equipped than others to handle fiction, and so we find members of the real population assuming the attitudes and demeanour of the inhabitants of Walford.<br /><br />Thus, it came to pass that Eastenders mirrors life; but only after life had been hoodwinked into mirroring Eastenders.<br /><br />Other soaps have followed in EE's footsteps, filled to their stinking gunwhales with ugly, potato-faced, shaven-headed, pot-bellied characters, scowling at each other and issuing threats constantly. This is the proletariat as perceived by the writers who produce this trash. The writers will grow rich on the proceeds of such output, and will go on to enjoy the finer things of life in their rarified enclaves. Meanwhile, the burgeoning number of new, TV-induced drones will proceed inexorably toward cultural bankruptcy.<br /><br />And there you have the new priests and the new creatures of the early 21st century. Much of this is due to the immeasurable power of that illuminated boxful of dancing pixels in the corner of your living-room. It's your fault, gentle reader: that's what you chose as the only window through which to look out from your prison.
If this is classed as 'real life' of London, then the producers must be on different planet.<br /><br />It is the most depressing, suicidal, dark, dingy, dross on TV.<br /><br />Everyone is fighting, everything has nasty under tones running through it, nothing is done for genuine reasons.<br /><br />If you want a real life picture of people in London or the UK, then this programme is by the farthest from reality.<br /><br />There is not one good word I can say about this programme. The only certainty is that will be a great big fight over Christmas dinner.<br /><br />Even the characters are totally unbelievable!
The other lowest-rating reviewers have summed up this sewage so perfectly there seems little to add. I must stress that I've only had the Cockney Filth imposed on me during visits from my children, who insist on watching the Sunday omnibus. My god, it's depressing! Like all soaps, it consists entirely of totally unlikeable characters being unpleasant to each other, but it's ten times as bad as the next worst one could be. The reviewer who mocked the 'true to life' bilge spouted by its defenders was spot-on. If anyone lived in a social environment like this, they'd slash their wrists within days. And I can assure anyone not familiar with the real East End that it's rather more 'ethnically enriched' than you'll ever see here. Take my advice - avoid this nadir of the British TV industry. It is EVIL.
Licence fees to watch this trash, And pay for it with hard-earned cash? Humourless, no hint of laughter, God knows how it won a BAFTA! <br /><br />We've now been subjected to "Eastenders" for twenty years. When, oh when is the Great British public going to see this awful soap for what it is? Crass Pap! This programme no more depicts reality in the East End of London than everyday life in Beirut, and never has done.<br /><br />The Eastenders I know (the real ones) are kind, courageous, hardworking and loyal. And one of their greatest attributes is humour. It was the Eastenders who went through the worst of the London blitz and still stuck two fingers up to Hitler. And what do we see on our screens for five days of the week (including an omnibus)? Nothing but a bunch of moaning, wailing, "dead from the neck up" wimps, who seem to do little else than sit in a pub all day sniping at each other. What a great advert for Britain that is!! Do the writers actually believe this garbage they're pumping out? Obviously the woolly-minded section of the public does, but then I've heard that apparently anyone can be brainwashed into believing anything.
Now the television schedules (in England, at least) are crammed with home improvement, bargain-hunting, house-hunting and cookery shows in the afternoons, the chances of any of the terrestrial broadcasters digging out a complete obscurity like this to occupy a couple of hours of screen time on a slow afternoon are slender, to say the least. But back in the eighties, the BBC did just that, and guess what, I watched it. And it's a testament to the overwhelming weirdness of this Hungarian-American co-production that I can still remember large chunks of it, over twenty years later. To begin with, the eponymous hero appears briefly during the opening titles, only to vanish again for at least half an hour. (Imagine AN American TAIL re-edited so Feivel is nowhere to be seen, and you'll appreciate how confusing this is.) There's a supremely bizarre bit of animation where one of the characters gets his elaborately waxed moustache tweaked and stretched, complete with a boingy sound effect that causes him to go boss-eyed. Probably hilarious if you're stoned, but to a child, quite disturbing. Speaking of which, the infamous 'hippo cull' scene is represented in an abstract manner - clouds in vague hippo shapes are struck by lightning - but it's still pretty unpleasant. In fact, this film is pretty cold and uninvolving throughout, a sad state of affairs hardly helped by the strange-looking production design, all muddy colours, wobbly lines, bloated forms and that uniquely European bleakness reminiscent of Jan Svankmajer, only not as compelling. Then, to cap it all, we get songs by the Osmonds! This isn't so much an awful film as a deeply misguided one, not so much phantasmagorical as a rather bad trip.
"War is in your blood" Rambo says early in the film, "don't fight it". Say, what? Is the scriptwriter taking the Mickey out of Sly? It is impossible for any person with a primary school education to miss the joke here. Yet, Stallone utters it without a hint of irony.<br /><br />The same lack of humour applies to the movie. Rambo IV is an over-the-top, idiotic actioner that would have been funny without intention if it weren't sickeningly violent. A redneck fantasy of the basest kind where villains are so villainous, it is not enough just to kill them – you have to dismember them with relish. Stallone stops at no blue-collar cliché to make his point. It is not enough for the chief villain to be feed-them-to-the-pigs, throw-babies-into-fire kind of sadist. He is also a pedophile homosexual.<br /><br />What is happening to IMDb? Is it taken over by the Rifle Society? How can this loathsome excuse for gross exploitation rate that high? I like a good action movie as much as the next man, but this is not entertainment – this is pornography of violence that trivializes and ultimately denigrates the real tragedy of Myanmar. The only good thing about the movie is that Sly doesn't take his shirt off. For this I will give it one star...
i hired this movie out from my local movie shop, not really expecting anything to flash or fancy. Since it was a "B" grade movie, made on a very tight budget. The opening scenes of the film were rather original and so was the plot and thats what made me hire the movie out. However the film becomes very boring and frustrating at points. The story had plenty of holes in it and the acting had its fair share of disappointments as well By the end of the film i was praying that a higher power was going to strike me down where i laid as i was extremely bored but more importantly frustrated with how the story turned out. i still don't understand what actually happened and i don't particularly care. in conclusion the devil would cry in disgust to know that Hell (his domain ) was used as a basis for such a crappy film.
11:11 a.k.a. Hell's Gate (2004) is another bad horror movie that tries too hard to be something it's not. A young girl has an imaginary play mate. One day whilst out in the fields playing with her friends, a couple of fugitives visit her parents and whack them off for no apparent reason. The young girl runs off and hides from the bad men. Years later, the girl grows up into a woman with problems. Losers at her school (looking like repressed homosexuals) flaunt their manhood in front of her when she rejected one of them. The girls hate her and life in general is miserable for her. A secret from her past returns to visit her. Who or what is it? Why does everyone hate her? What's her Guardian's problem with her? To find out you'll have to watch Hell's Gate.<br /><br />The new title makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I don't know why people are given money to make such bad movies. This film is not even good enough to make fun of. It's a head ache inducing mess that'l confuse anyone who tries to make some sense out of it. Not worth your time.<br /><br />Not recommended.
First of all, this movie is so confused that it is almost impossible to summarize it, since I myself did not understand this horrible story. Further, the unknown cast, leaded by an actress called Laura Mennell, is simply awful. The expressions and screams of the character Sara Tobias are laughable and ridiculous, confusing grimaces with acting. Last but not the least, there are many favorable reviews about this flick in IMDb as follows:<br /><br />- Top Notch- Can't wait to see more of the directors work – the author has only one review in IMDb on 24 September 2004;<br /><br />- Incredibly shot, amazingly intense – the author has only one review in IMDb on 12 August 2004; <br /><br />- Not your typical blood and gore, in fact better. 7/10 – the author has only one review in IMDb on 13 February 2005;<br /><br />- As intense as Asian horror!! - the author has only one review in IMDb on 14 November 2004.<br /><br />Coincidence? Or are they the parents, relatives, friends or people hired by the production to promote this crap? My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "11.11 – A Nova Profecia" ("11.11 – The New Prophecy")
What can be said about such a pathetic movie ? <br /><br />- Very bad acting ! The main actress seems to know only one facial expression : fear mixed with weakness. Like a poor beaten dog... The other actress (the one who plays the evil) looks like the female double of Ozzy Osbourne, with an awful red wig. The other actors are so pitiful that they don't even worth being described. <br /><br />- There's absolutely no plot. The story begins with possibilities but goes nowhere : we don't know anything about the meaning of "11:11", nor who Rayden really is, excepted the simple "she's evil" or "she's a child of Apocalypse"... which is not an explanation. We don't know why the parents have been killed, what kind of danger is growing and why Sara was chosen. As the film goes on, we just watch pseudo-scary scenes, with a bad music. Moreover, the end doesn't tell anything : we just see two possibilities as if one of them was a bonus scene or the director's cut... There's no plot, so no possible interpretation. <br /><br />- "11:11" is just full of clichés ! It is so obvious that i couldn't help laughing. For example : the deserted library or the bathroom scenes, ghost silhouettes walking with a blast of wind, ... there's even the fashionable "little scary girl" as in "Dark Water" or "The Ring". Of course, the main character is bullied at school and looks like a stereotyped Gothic girl (dark hair, red lips, skinny, black clothes). Is it an obligation to make her credible ? I don't think so. The psychology of Sara is so few developed and so typical that it doesn't make her credible, nor endearing.<br /><br />- Terrible direction : as i said, nothing original, everything has already been seen a thousand times and is used here without any real purpose. <br /><br />- There are some funny incoherences. For example, i don't know if "ghost science", "paranormal course" or whatever is taught in American universities... In Europe it is really not the case : teachers talking about negative energies or using "unmaterial" creatures sensors... ridiculous. Also : how can you watch a movie shot in the sixties with a Super-8 camera on a computer screen without spending hours of your time for a digitalization (in the movie they watch it immediately on the computer screen) AND how can you, on this old film, isolate a tiny detail then zoom in and see a perfectly identifiable face ? I wonder if the director has ever tried to digitize an old analogical film...<br /><br />Eventually, "11:11" just worths being watched if you like to laugh at silly movies, or maybe if you want to fall asleep on your couch... But it's an expensive way to fall asleep !
Well This was a complete waste of celluloid. The preview was promising but after watching the movie, it looked like the preview *was* the whole movie. No plot, no clear storyline, just some misplaced suspense. It looks like the director tried very hard to create an atmosphere of mystique and fear, but still there are gaps to be filled. Why the drugs? Why the number 11.11? (Btw. As Sarah enteres the library, the clock says 11.14) What's the connection to the murder on the parents? What's the role of this Rayden woman? Is she one of the children or not? Who are those children anyway. There is a lot of material lying around to create the ultimate cult movie like "the Omen" but the director just leaves them lying on the floor without digging into the story. Even "the Blairwitch project" was more scary than this one. All the gaps you hope to be filled like in "The Butterfly effect" stay open as the credits start rolling.. OK. Off to the next movie...
Wow, what a bad film. Not frightening in the least, and barely comprehensible. The plot doesn't hang together at all, and the acting is absolutely appalling. What's that line from a famous critic? "She runs the emotional gamut from A to B." Yup. That about sums it up. Not even good for camp value! I wasn't expecting Oscar material, but this? And gosh, her friend's a ghost? You'd have to have the IQ of particularly stupid mollusk not to see that one coming.<br /><br />This film (and I use that word loosely) is an insult to the movie-going public. If only someone involved with it knew how to string together narrative! This gets a 1 out of 10, simply because there's nothing lower. On the bright side--at least it's not a full two hours long.
The film starts well enough. It is a truly terrifying scene as a couple of fugitives on the run from the law tear apart an innocent family living in a secluded country cottage by killing the mother and father. The young daughter only manages to escape with the aid of a mysterious spectre, who kills the two aggressors while she covers in a downstairs cupboard. Then, we catch up with her 15 years later as a drug-addled student researching the supernatural, living with her promiscuous aunt and being looked after by a mysterious redhead. She has no real friends, was almost raped at a party and keeps having bizarre visions which no-one else can see. So yep, life is grand. Things get a lot more pleasant when she has a falling out with her mum's sister, who is later found dead in a bathtub under suspicious circumstances with 11 etched into her forehead. Hmm, I wonder who the police's main suspect will be? This is quickly followed by more deaths, all linked by their relation to our heroine having been on bad terms with them before their passing. Could she be the culprit, or perhaps the explanation could be something of a more ethereal nature? Clue: If you think the former, you've picked up the wrong movie from Blockbuster. Go back and get the correct one, short-sighted gimp.<br /><br />As I said, I was all ready to fast-forward to the good parts, safe in the knowledge that I wasn't missing out on anything but a mediocre suspense potboiler. But the first ten minutes grabbed me, and I decided to give it a chance. I was quite pleasantly surprised: it certainly wasn't a masterpiece but the acting was good enough and the script kept throwing up intriguing situations of which I looked forward to finding the solution to. Alas, 45 minutes in, I realised my attention start to wander during a long sequence where the main character is walking round a library, doing nothing. We then get a cheap scare, followed by quarter of an hour of goddledegook about the paranormal between her and her new hunk of a boyfriend. Things only got worse from there, as the promising beginning is thrown out the window as we get one unconvincing plot twist after another, followed by an ending so anti-climatic it's like being promised the moon and ending up with a teeny weeny meteorite instead. Pathetic.<br /><br />If it was bad all the way through, it would have been far easier to swallow. The fact that it starts at a canter and barely ends with a whimper is not just disappointing, it is heartbreaking. How can something which began so promisingly end up being so formulaic? I don't know, and I don't particularly care. I'll just give the writer and director a bit of advice for next time: Don't spend 5 weeks writing the first part of your screenplay, then 5 minutes finishing the rest. You tend to notice these things in the final product when you treat your project as sloppily as you have here... 3/10
Bad plot, bad acting, bad direction.<br /><br />It had possibilities but just didn't achieve anything.<br /><br />This film looks like someone started with an idea, googled a bit of info and then tried to flesh an hour and a half with lots of night shots and bad suspense music.<br /><br />Others had to stop watching because they were scared 2/3 of the way through - I had to take a break purely because I just didn't care anymore.<br /><br />Reminded me of an episode of Days of our Lives with marginally more suspense.<br /><br />Just bad.
I know a couple people who look just like the lead actress in this film (or, at least, like the character she portrays.) They all give me the creeps and I would be the last person to ever lend one of them a gun or even a sharp knife. She has one mean and ugly-looking expression. If you can conjure up a bit of sympathy for her, let me know.<br /><br />Of course, I might have the same expressions of concern and fear if I had an imaginary friend who had been killing off my real friends and acquaintances for the last 15 years.<br /><br />And for our European friends on the IMDb, I'm saddened to say that, yes, some colleges and universities in the US teach courses on paranormal phenomena, relying on the pathetic defense that it represents "academic freedom" and open inquiry.<br /><br />This film is not worth your while. You will have no sympathy for any of the characters (except for Aunt Lydia, who gets offed pretty early) and the plot makes no sense.
Newly released on DVD in the US; just stay far away from it.<br /><br />I usually give plenty of room for stupidity in horror films; I'll settle for nearly anything remotely suspenseful, supernatural, spooky, or even just a vaguely interesting concept. This one simply stank. I knew there was trouble when Sara's "best friend" in college, who had considerable screen time, wasn't even listed in the credits on IMDb! I wasn't surprised not recognizing any actors, but that character ("Daysha" or "Day-Glo" or whatever her name was) apparently didn't even exist! <br /><br />I'm so embarrassed that I actually paid a rental fee for this garbage; deeply, deeply ashamed...
If you see this film in the TV listings just ignore it. If you're looking for something scary you'll be better off watching reruns of the X-Files.<br /><br />Previous comments referencing the incredibly poor acting by the female lead are dead on. She is almost unwatchable. The sum total of her range includes 'whiny and scared' and 'whiny and not scared'.<br /><br />I am the kind of movie buff who enjoys a good 'bad' movie. But this is ridiculous. There is no direction. The plot is as simplistic as the set of numbers they keep throwing at you and much like that set of numbers, it ends up having no meaning in the end.<br /><br />Your time will be better spent if you turn off the TV and give your dog a bath.
Good lord! This movie needs to have a new classification on its cover "watch only if you have absolutely nothing else to do!". I am disappointed. I was looking forward to a good horror movie over the weekend...needed an adrenalin rush and that awesome tingling sensation going down my spine. But this movie didn't do it. A reasonably good story but pretty awful acting, dialogue, and filming. It was disjointed and sometimes outright silly. We had actors looking at the wrong direction of the camera, people talking out loud (by themselves) and narrating what they feel and what is going to happen, shadows of equipment in some shots, silly clichés like "I just need you to hold me" in the totally wrong places and situations. Thank you for allowing me to offload and sorry if I'd offended anybody but it was a waste of time and money.
Years ago, Sara, a young girl witnessed her parents being murdered, now as an adult she suffers from various mental ailments (did I mention she has an imaginary friend?) This film lulls the viewer, not into a sense of tension, mind you, but rather a sense of sleepiness. Deathly boring, I found it hard to sit through as I could feel my eyelids growing heavier and heavier with each endless minute of mindless prattle and supposed 'mystery'. Is Sara going crazy? or is it the paranormal? A better question would be, Who cares? And the answer to that, no one. No one at all. Skip this film, save yourself some time better suited to do other more worthwhile tasks.<br /><br />My Grade: D-
Was a college acting class exercise filmed and released as a movie? The formulaic posturing and stylized drivel of a "horror" soap opera for people who don't like horror films but wish to be able to tell that friends that, yes, they did see a horror movie. It even features soap opera music.<br /><br />Do books falling off library shelves scare you? Do doors shutting terrify you? Then this flick is for you. Have you ever been kidnapped? Yeah, most of us have. When you were raped, was it simply ignored, because the rapist was the cool kid? What's scary is not this movie but this filmmaker's view of the world. <br /><br />And then the little twists aren't even original. This is a film for people who've never seen a horror film before, who don't want to see one now, and who want to see another flick about everyone conspiring against the weird kid.
This quirky and watchable film is the story of a deluded dentist who starts out on his mission or crusade to fight tooth decay in the back and beyonds of Patagonia. Hailing from Northern Ireland, via New Jersey, the main character, Fergus, sees his crusade as a mission of mass importance and approaches it with all the enthusiasm, vitality, discipline and attention to detail one would expect from a trained dentist. Which adds to the hilarity, as his grand plans unravel and gradually fall to pieces as he goes from disaster to debacle in the Patagonian outback on the back of a customised motor bike or his, er, mobile dental unit. We never get to meet his wife, nor the rich philanthropist who is sponsoring the ill-fated mission, but, we do get a solid display from Lewis. Fans of his work will not be disappointed with his very believable performance as the deluded dentist who is gallantly adored by the, innocent but sexy, 18 year old female lead who tags along on for the *ahem* ride.<br /><br />This film is not for everyone and I can understand why it wasn't pushed by the suits. It's a low budget, sometimes charming, always disarming, mildly amusing and instantly forgettable film that sets out with low expectations and almost succeeds.
This is the worst work ever of Daniel Day Lewis..... I can not believe that in the same year he made this awful movie and My left foot..... Please stay away from this movie....this is a movie only for Argentine people as a curiosity... The plot is impossible to understand...... The writer thinks that in Argentine all the people speaks in english... Of course the Patagonia bring a very good frame for the photo shooting of the film, but that is not enough reason to see this movie.... I repeat , only if you are very fan of Daniel Day Lewis, or if you want to see the south of Argentine, part of the Patagonia, and you do not have enough money to travel yourself.......
In a word, god-awful... too many plot holes.. um, yeah... Who takes their kid to dig up a dead body in the middle of the night? and what's up with his wife stealing the skeleton.. who does that? why, exactly did the shrink stab himself in the neck? and that whole dog thing.. i mean, really! Having Sparrow narrate from the beginning also just completely destroyed the suspense for me.. i mean, if he's narrating the story, clearly he's lived to tell it, so there's no chance of him getting offed.. where's the suspense there? <br /><br />Of course, you expect plot holes in a film like this. But, there are so many I lost track of the story completely because of them. What kind of name is Fingerling? Or Toppsy? Why did the wife dig up the body? (Who does that?) or go into that crazy spooky asylum alone? and where'd all those candles come from? Why does the writer have his PO BOX in the freaking book??? I mean come on... And the book just happens to find its way to the bookstore next door to the wife's bakery?? Way too convenient... Oh and Happy Birthday Honey, here's a book about a serial killer.. What a THOUGHTFUL gift! The book is like 20 pages long, half of which are blank, and it takes him freaking FOREVER to read it. If he's truly obsessed with this book, wouldn't he have read it all in one shot?<br /><br />A bit convenient for him to bump into his future wife (carrying a cake!) about 23 seconds after being released from a mental hospital.. how old was he playing? 36?? <br /><br />Was I the only one at the end rooting for the bus to actually run the guy down? Not good when you're rooting for the protagonist to bite it in the end.<br /><br />It seems like this was written by committee.. I imagine that the first draft probably had nothing to do with the number 23... It seems as if they needed a gimmicky hook to bait the audience into thinking there was some supernatural thing going on, when in the end it really didn't seem to have anything to do with anything. I mean, I wasn't expecting the Godfather or anything, but everything about this film was a total let-down. Without all the numerology stuff, this movie could actually have been OK, instead of some hackneyed Se7en knockoff.<br /><br />Not scary, unintentionally hilarious and otherwise a total snoozer.
This movie has no respect for the viewer's time. It takes a 15 minute story and stretches it into 95 minutes. In order to achieve this, they have to use a very slow narration and have everyone run around with some implausible frantic angst. By the time this movie showed anything interesting in the plot, I just didn't care. The problem is not in the acting, but instead the pacing. The story is just weak. Jim Carrey is a capable actor, but his attempts to inject light humor into a serious role is just out of place. His style of humor is not generic, so he comes across as a watered down version of himself. The number 23 causes great grief and frustration to the people in the story, but the justification for this is never logical. At most it's just mildly interesting. Jim Carrey has far more ability in a serious role than this movie reveals. Don't waste your money seeing this in the theater. Rent this movie if you've had problems sleeping. If you are still wide awake after 10 minutes, then you liked it more than I did. I was not fond of the lighting and artistic aspects of the film making either. A lot of passive visual eye candy was thrown at the viewer with lighting or effects and it did little to enhance the already weak story.
Apparently, a massive head wound is the cure for homicidal tendencies, turning a murderous sociopath into a lovable and oafish dog catcher. Also (this ones for the ladies), it seems that the front gate of a psychiatric hospital is an overlooked hot spot for meeting potential mates. Those are just two of the approximately 23 absurdities we're supposed to accept for this movie to have any meaning. I love movies and I believed, as I'm assuming many Americans do (forgive me if I'm wrong), that Hollywood turned out the best product. I've come to learn how sadly naive and brainwashed I was and 2) how much more sophisticated European/Asian Cinema is in comparison to its American counterpart.<br /><br />I watched this allegedly disturbing psychological "thriller" the night following a viewing of a Japanese movie called Suicide Club. As the camera faded on Walter Sparrow's happy little family enjoying some quality time around a prison visiting room table (not to mention the patronizing voice-over extolling the virtue of "doing the right thing"), I suddenly had an epiphany. I had just finished watching a movie that left me feeling as though I'd just had a glass of water when I really wanted a beer. My thirst was sated, but it was strictly utilitarian. The premise was mildly interesting, but the story itself, with its innumerable "coincidences" (How do we explain her finding the book? We'll just say something like,"...Or did the book find her?." They'll buy that), gaping plot holes (why did wifey take the skeleton?), predictability, and obligatory happy ending, turned out to be just another Hollywood hack job. Additionally, the casting of Jim Carrey was just…wrong. At any moment, I felt he was capable of breaking into some shtick from one of his stupid comedies or In Living Color. Jim Carrey as a tattooed hard-boiled police detective who enjoys bondage and rough sex? Didn't buy it for a second.<br /><br />You want disturbing? Deeply disturbing? Watch Suicide Club. The story surrounds the mysterious mass suicide of 54 school girls. The film opens with a group of giggling high schoolers mulling about on a subway train platform. We then watch in horror as they line up, hold hands, and happily throw themselves in front of a fast moving commuter train. Needless to say, much chaos ensues. That's as far as I'm going to go with the story line because I encourage the reader to see the film. In fact, I'm not sure if I could outline the plot even if I wanted to. What begins as a straightforward mystery quickly descends into a madhouse of grotesque imagery. Did I understand the movie? No…not initially…like many of the foreign films my girlfriend has introduced me to. So naturally, I thought it was "bad." But this one lingered in my mind. I went to bed thinking on the film and awoke the next morning and looked it up on IMDb. I read some of the viewer comments and was astonished at 1) the insights others had derived from the film and 2) the fact that I had so thoroughly missed the whole point of the movie. I realized that I was so used to being spoon fed the "message" from Hollywood, that when confronted with a film that actually required the viewer to participate…to actually think for themselves, I was totally unequipped. It's as if I had been conditioned to "check my brain at the door" of the theater.<br /><br />Am I saying that Suicide Club is the greatest movie ever made? Of course not. It has its flaws, many of which were reported adroitly by the IMDb reviewers. Am I saying that all American movies are bad and all foreign movies are good? Again…of course not. My point is that there's a whole world of film-making outside of Hollywood…a body of work that engages the viewer; forces them to think and question…movies that don't telegraph plot twists, follow a strict linear sequence, and above all, don't insult the intelligence of the person watching. I look forward to expanding my mind while exploring this new world of film that doesn't "do the thinking for me."
This is the most stupid movie ever made. The story is laughable. His wife and kid think he's insane. Then they don't. Then it turns out he is and I think they knew it all along. There is a dog named Ned that causes some problems and I think it's all his fault...so does Jim Carey. God only knows why Virginia Madsen took this role...this is a career sinker. I think the target audience for this is 11 and 12 year olds. And that adds up to 23. Or maybe it's for 8 and 10 years olds which also adds up to 23. Or maybe it's for really dumb 23 year olds. Or maybe really dumb 32 year olds because that's 23 in reverse. Or maybe 46 year olds would enjoy it because half of that is 23. I think looking up things on the internet about the number 23 would be more entertaining than this movie, unless you wanted to see a comedy.
"Fate" leads Walter Sparrow to come in possession of a mysterious novel that has eerie similarities and connections to his life, all based around the number 23. As the story unfolds in real life and fiction, Sparrow must figure out his connection to the book and how the story will eventually end.<br /><br />The Number 23 offers an intriguing premise that is undone by a weak execution. The film just failed on many different levels which is pretty disappointing because it held so much potential. The screenplay was probably the worst part about it. It was filled with silly sequences and laughable dialog that just killed the mood of the movie. It seemed like the screenwriter had a good idea, he just didn't know how to develop it to stretch over a ninety minute running time. The second half of the film was running low on ideas, the twist was pretty obvious and the ending was awful.<br /><br />Joel Schumacher is responsible for one of the worst movies ever and he did redeem himself a little with Phone Booth and a few other films but The Number 23 reminds me that he's still capable of making a stinker. He has the movie drenched in style but he just can't get a good focus. He moves the film at a clunky and slow pace. He switches from reality to what's actually happening in the book which quickly got annoying. The actual book in the film that's titled "The Number 23" is an awful detective story and the audience gets stuck listening to Carrey narrate it which just bored me to tears. When Carrey is finally done with book, we get stuck watching him run around trying to solve the mystery. At this point, the audience has lost interest and there is no real tension. We impatiently wait for the movie to reach it's horrible ending and unconvincing explanation before celebrating that film has finally finished.<br /><br />The acting was mostly average and pretty forgettable. Jim Carrey was clearly just sleepwalking through his performance and he didn't even seem to be trying. He was either completely over the top in some scenes or just very wooden. His narration was a complete bore to listen to and he put no life inside his character. Virginia Madsen did the best she could with a limited role but she needs to pick better scripts. Logan Lerman was pretty bland as was Danny Huston. Overall, The Number 23 was an awful thriller that offered more laughs than suspense or thrills. Rating 3/10
The Good<br /><br />Carrey is good actor and he proved it in "Man on the Moon" and in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind". But hey, what can an actor do without good story and proper directing. He can do "Number 23".<br /><br />The Bad <br /><br />Joel Schumacher is poor, overrated director and he proved it in almost every movie he made. What he did with Batman is just disaster, but probably Batman movies supposed to look good. Well, they didn't. Instead of Gothic and macabre we got Disneyland. Sure "Falling Down" was great but can You ruin the film with Robert Duvall and Michael Douglas AND with excellent script? No You can't. <br /><br />And so good actor and poor director finally met and made "Number 23"...<br /><br />The Ugly (23)<br /><br />I know that it's stupid to begin with but... Fingerling's subplot (almost half of this movie) looks exactly like intro to another chapter of Max Payne2. VoiceOvers, quality of detective story itself, quality of the characters, even colors, mood and music, editing, and sound mix too! Perhaps it works for the game, but surely it doesn't in the cinema.<br /><br />Mise en scene is so bad that it becomes funny. It's not even annoying. Carrey reads walking down the stairs in park? Why? Is it natural? No, but it looks good. Why Suicide Blond covered walls in her apartment with white paper? If she just wanted to kill herself? There is no logic in that, but still it looks good. Guess what it, it doesn't look good at all. It looks unnatural instead. <br /><br />All female characters are Flat. Why is that so? Who cares, let's go on with the story.<br /><br />Who is this Fingerling? Private eye on the suicide? Hardly believable.<br /><br />Scenes when Walter Sparrow is arguing with his wife about weather book is really about him could be the best part of this movie. Instead we get Moulder/Scully routine. Disappointment. <br /><br />Interiors has no sign of people living in them, except the significant objects (shoes, photos etc.) Hard luck.<br /><br />Dialogs ain't that bad. But what about V.O.? Well that's another story. "There's no such thing as destiny. There are only different choices". Captain obvious to the rescue! "Number was coming after Fingerling. And now it was coming after me". Cliché. And so on.<br /><br />It's obvious that average housewife would break into public building in the middle of the night. Successfully and undisturbed.<br /><br />The subplot of the dog dragging main character to the graveyard. This is so old trick and so comfortable for writer, and that it should have been banned. I mean it!<br /><br />Flashbacks and editing similar to "what happened in last episode of X-files" isn't the best way to present the most interesting part of the movie. Is it?<br /><br />I wish I could say that this story deserves a better fate, but it doesn't. It makes no sense. Told in chronological order is weak and unbelievable. All the time we have undeveloped characters trapped is chain of situations which are nothing but badly written fiction. This could be fun, but - since whole movie is dead serious - it isn't. To many coincidences is just bad for every story. And the "mystery"? It's predictable and easy to guess. <br /><br />Losing touch with reality is great theme for good movie, but I never saw any of that in Hollywood's productions. If You're interested in the subject just watch "Repulsion" by Polanski or something by David Cronenberg, "Spider" or "A History Of Violence" both of that movies deals with similar problems that "Number 23" wanted to show. Wanted, but failed.
** out of **** stars<br /><br />Let's see...14 divided by 20 times the square root of 13 equals 23, which was my departed grandmother's favorite number and the year she was born, 23 minutes past the 23rd hour. Assign the number any way you choose and ooh be very scared. Be EXTREMELY scared when you throw in a brain-dead looking mutt to go with 23, and you have Schumacher's latest attempt at a dark suspense fest with The Number 23. Oh yeah, 23 is also my record in Cuervo shots at my favorite dive on 23rd street in the 23rd state in the union.<br /><br />Carrey carries the film to about it's halfway point, then we lose sight of him, not caring much. Don't look for any crazy expressions to come from the comedian Carrey, as you have seen in The Mask and Me, Myself and Irene. No. And don't expect an embodiment of a character as he did with Andy Kaufman. This role is a sad and peculiar devolvement for Jimbo. Where's The Riddler when you need him! I know, we don't need him. Virginia Madsen, like usual, is underused as the supportive, speculative and peculiar wife. Her talent, like Carrey's, is suppressed, and it's almost painful to watch her try to rescue her underdeveloped character from near anonymity. <br /><br />To give credit where credit is due, there are a couple of interesting scenes in The Number 23 that showcase some very crafty cinematography. They are arresting enough on their own without having to be convoluted within the incoherent narrative of this silly story.<br /><br />I don't know about you, (and I realize this is a work of absolute fiction) but I don't know of anyone who often reads his novel in a dank, dark basement, or spends his time at graveyards on a regular basis like Carrey does in this movie. Schumacher keeps his film dark and blood-red and gloomy and rainy and smoggy and gloomy and rainy and dank and on and on and on from beginning to end. Even Flatliners and The Lost Boys had a little more daylight in them, and we're talking about medical students obsessed with death and teenage vampires!<br /><br />If you feel like watching this film, even if it's out of mere curiosity...make sure you do it while enjoying about 23 catnaps, that way you can kill 23 birds with one stone.
What the hell was this? I'll admit there were some scenes that caught my eye such as the 23 bullshit where the protagonist sees or calculates the number 23 everywhere he goes, but that was pretty much the movie in a nutshell?! For crying out loud this was supposed to be a suspense movie and being labeled as a psychological thriller I would have expected it to have at least some catastrophic effect on the mind but instead what did we get? We just got something as shitty as an animal control guy finding himself in the middle of a mid-life crisis and his journey to redemption. Kinda like an old-man flick if you ask me. I probably should have just rented Wild Hogs, it wouldn't have made a difference. I mean who are we kidding, they should have made someone else the killer of that girl. By juxtaposing Sparrow with the protagonist of that book The number 23 they were pretty much giving out the movie to the viewers by hinting that he was the killer all along. How would that have shaken our heads? Shame on all of you voters who chose to show some generosity towards this wretched piece of work you call a movie and kudos to most of the critics who concurred with my reaction.
Not just because of that theme in the movie. Which was one of the lame excuses for something reminiscent of plot. No.<br /><br />I watched this, knowing I would not like it. I HATE numerology. Whenever someone starts going off about patterns with numbers I feel the urge to slap them. My own brain starts hurting out of empathy. And fully aware this is a movie just about that topic, I couldn't resist the urge to watch it and maybe get a good laugh. But it wasn't funny. Just exactly the dumb sort of "Isn't this totally scary and yet amazingly cool?! I can turn any crap into 23!" dialog I was afraid of. As soon as the son started to chime in, I knew this movie is a turd, no matter what happens. But I hardly ever stop watching a movie I started. I sat through it. I enjoy the pain.<br /><br />The movie pretends to mock numerology under the disguise of showing how obsession can end badly. But it rides that wave as much as it's supposed to crush it. I don't see that message. I only see characters raving about a stupid number with little plot to justify. <br /><br />Top that off with the usual "surprises" - trying to put another twist to throw you off, that makes no sense, and you almost believe it due to the quality of the narration up to there - and you get one hollow piece of movie-making. That just happens to be centered around the topic I despise. If only it did not try to be serious and rather had been some hilarious movie with actors I don't give a damn about. But I was starting to like Carrey...while it's not his fault, he is trying. It's not even good for watching with a bunch of friends and mst3k the hell out of it.<br /><br />My expectations were low enough for someone to trip on them, but this movie managed to live up to be one of the worst I've ever seen.
The movie starts good, it has a thing going for it. About 1/3 into the movie things go downhill. Carrey starts obsessing about the number 23 because he sees it everywhere. So what? Thats no reason to go nuts and start writing stuff all over your body and on walls.<br /><br />The acting by whoever is playing his son is bad. From the get-go, as soon as he hears of his fathers obsession, he jumps on the bandwagon and is hysterical about it. Totally unbelievable. I hope I never see this kid in another movie again.<br /><br />Its a waste of time watching this movie. Grab another. Boring piece of ... well. The number is killing him? Give me a break. I won't spoil the ending for you, but let's just say it is equally disappointing.<br /><br />3 / 10.
There was a time when Joel Schumacher was ranked quite high on my list of favorite directors. Back in the late 80's and early 90's, when his name was attached to several great films like "The Lost Boys", "Flatliners" and "Falling Down", he truly was one of the most gifted directors in Hollywood. Then came the stupid "Batman" sequels, unfortunately, and after that it seemed as if every potentially sublime screenplay turned into a gigantic mess in Schumacher's hands. Both "8MM" and "Phone Booth" could have been much better films and even the incredibly imbecilic concept of "The Number 23" should have been processed into a slightly more compelling and entertaining movie. Literally from start to finish, "The Number 23" desperately attempts to be a mysterious and uncanny thriller and therefore uses all the dreadful clichés from the big book of cinema history, including heavy-voiced narration, flashbacks, disorderly structure, characters with multiple personalities, numerous plot twists that grow increasingly absurd and sinister asylum settings. Nothing helps, however, simply due to the sheer silliness of the basic formula and the clearly uninspired engagement of cast & crew. As much as you try to associate with the lead character and be open-minded regarding the insane theories, this still remains a movie about a two-digit number and two-digit numbers aren't scary. Walter Sparrow (Jim Carrey in a rare non-comical role) is a bored animal trapper whose wife Agatha gives him a bizarre book on his birthday. The book tells about all sorts of devilish theories and strange coincidences that are linked to the number 23. Walter almost promptly identifies himself with the book's protagonist (a sleazy detective investigating a grim case of suicide) and begins to spot copious examples of the 23 enigma in his own private life. I did some research on Google and Wikipedia and, apparently, this whole 23 numerology nonsense really exists and certain people honestly believe that most catastrophes and accidents are directly connected to this evil number. Well, that's just … crazy! But hey, I'm not here to judge people's beliefs and fears, regardless of how demented they are, and I can only share my humble opinion on a movie that is based on an out-and-out berserk enigma. "The Number 23" is not suspenseful, in spite of several gloomy set pieces and nasty make-up effects, and never at one point manages to make you contemplate about the role of numbers in your own life. All cast members perform below their normal capacities, but it was still nevertheless a joy to see the lovely Mrs. Virginia Madsen in a relatively big production again. Definitely not recommended in case you're looking for a solid and creepy evening of thriller fun, but endurable and not entirely without merit.
One would make you believe that this game is about a man obsessed with a number. And sure, it's an interesting subject - can a person become so obsessed by something marginal as a simple number that he completely loses touch with reality and becomes hopelessly delusional and paranoid? <br /><br />Well, perhaps someone will make a movie about that sometime. This one unfortunately doesn't have anything to do with the above, never mind what the trailers (or even the movie itself) would like you to believe. I would like to say that this number is just a MacGuffin, but it isn't even that. It's pointless. A gimmick. A hook for unsuspecting audience.<br /><br />Well what IS the movie about? A dog-catcher (Carrey) who becomes obsessed with a cheesy noir crime book because he feels it somehow reflects his own life. There. Sure, the character in the book - detective Fingerling (sigh) - is (for some reason) obsessed with number 23, and Carrey himself becomes obsessed and starts seeing the number everywhere.. but it's just padding, and totally irrelevant to the story. In fact, you can cut out all the 23 references and have the main character(s) obsess about cheese or something and you'll have the exactly same story. It is painfully obvious that all the "23" stuff was written in waay after the story was already finished, rejected and sent for "rewrites".<br /><br />Which would be OK.. I guess.. if the movie wasn't dull, dull, dull. Half of the movie is narrated, for chrissakes. You aren't watching the movie, you are listening to Jim Carrey narrating the movie. About a quarter-in Carrey starts reading the book, and from then until the horribly cliché ending we are forced to watch "real-life" scenes from dog-catcher's life (where nothing happens) interspersed with narrated artsy film noir-ish "book" scenes which will either leave you snickering or just plain depressed. It's like a poor man's "Sin City" with all the violence cut out, narrated by Carrey and shown in slow-motion. Ugh.<br /><br />This is a simple case of a C-movie script somehow being filmed with an A-movie cast.. probably because of the "number 23" hook which I guess sounded intriguing enough on paper to warrant the premium Hollywood treatment. However, since - as I said already - the movie is about number 23 as much as it is about cheese production in Switzerland, one cannot feel anything but cheated.<br /><br />I give "Fingerling - the movie" 3 out of 10, because I guess it didn't insult my intelligence as much as "Forsaken" did or made me downright suicidal like "Battlefield Earth" did and the bottom of the scale must be reserved for abominations like those. But fear not, this is still a pretty lousy flick.
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I didn't go in with high expectations, but as soon as it started I thought it might be o-k. It wasn't. Jim Carrey seemed to try, but he spoke all his lines as though he were some diabolic cartoon character. The other actors all seem to try their best but are kind of wooden. The plot has a good basis, but the melodramatic lines make it dull and kind of stupid. I was laughing during the whole second half of the movie, and after five minutes of that I got tired of that. Most plot 'twists' you could see from several miles off. It's just not worth watching. I really wish I hadn't wasted my time with it.
So, this starts with at least an interesting and promising basic idea, goes on and on with tension, Carey in a good untypical role but in a less than you expected performance, weak direction from Joel Schumacher match with some plot holes, the "detective scenes" show us the luck of creativity. If you don't have great expectations (because of the negative reviews) maybe you will enjoy this . At the end they offer to us a lesson about morality (for those who remember "Falling Down") and the "Family Joy and Cure" that ruins every possibility to be kind and find the film watchable P.S. It's obvious who is the "killer"! I wonder why W.Sparrow (Carey) didn't resolve the mystery from the beginning of the film...
A couple move into their dream home, unaware that it and its neighbours have been built over land formerly used as a cemetery. The film is said to have been based on a true story, although how much of it is supposed to be true is not disclosed. The plot is hardly unique - see Spielberg's 'Poltergeist' (1982). Within a short time, they experience various supernatural phenomena: these range from the disturbing - mysterious shadows, the serious illness of the daughter - to the frankly ridiculous - toilets continually flushing and garage doors going out of control. There is little depth to the story: once it has become established that the land had been used as a cemetery, we do not learn anything more. The plot does not seem to develop. The characters are not particularly well drawn or in any way memorable, nor is the atmosphere particularly special. The film could be disturbing to some viewers. There is no sense of catharsis or any kind of positive message from it.
Bathebo, you big dope.<br /><br />This is the WORST piece of crap I've seen in a long time. I have just stumbled onto it on late night TV and it is painful to watch. Really painful. How does something like this get made?? Horrible, horrible, horrible! OOOOOO ..... The toilet is flushing by itself again! Scary toilet! Scary toilet! Scary toilet! 1992 doesn't seem like that long ago to me, but watching this makes it seem like 1952. I mean its horrible. Please don't waste your time on the drivel!<br /><br />Scary old black man telling them not to build the pool in the yard. Scary! Scary! How does this stuff get MADE???
This takes place on Fire Island back in the 1970s. A couple Peter (Craig Dudley) and Buddy (J. Will Deane) are throwing a 4th of July party at their house. Unfortunately their relationship is falling apart and they have to get ready for a house full of very strange guests. The rest of the movie chronicles the party and what happens between Peter and Buddy.<br /><br />OK--I'm a gay man but I was 8 back when this was made. If this is a true view of what gay life was in the 1970s, I'm glad I wasn't around. From the puzzling opening credits which shows kids playing in the sand (???) this movie slides slowly into disaster. There's a guru (Robert Case) who talks nonstop about nothing of any importance. I wanted to gag the guy halfway into his first LONG speech. There's the young kid Danny who is there for his first time. There's the lesbian couple (who do nothing--except one strips for no reason). There's the leather queen. Worst of all is the effeminate man named Jimmy (Jimmy Foster). We're introduced to him and his friend (whose name I never got) when they get a flat tire. They basically scream and screech for 10 minutes and have NO idea how to fix a flat. I know some people find this funny but I found it offensive and pretty sad. The party itself is full of people you would never want to know. It's like being dumped in a party full of bad actors playing obnoxious people. With the sole exception of Dudley no one can act.<br /><br />This may be valuable as a portrait of what Fire Island was like in the 1970s...but it's pretty dull viewing. This gets a 2 only for the frequent male nudity of some very nice bodies.
They give you the set up then bore you to death with a constant cat and mouse chase. The main characters are involved in one constant stand-off where they threaten each other, every five minutes or less. And I'd like to see the police force that would let one of their cops pull off the A. Garcia bit. It's like some local cop walking Charlie Manson out of prison to go get a cup of coffee. Get real!
Well the plot is entertaining but it is full of goof. To summarize things up, cop/dad badly wants to save his son from cancer but the only way is by getting the transplant from the criminal(Michael Keaton).<br /><br />well criminal agrees BUT escaped in the hospital while the transplant was going on and the police and the cop-dad is not allowed to shoot at the criminal in order to save his son. (dead criminal-no transplant-dead son).<br /><br />well, the police in this movie doesn't have a brain, in case they never heard of a TAZER to knock off the criminal without killing him. end of movie, as simple as that.<br /><br />But it when all crazy and stupid including the death of 2cops and a few doctor getting burned up pretty badly.
I really wanted to see this film - I thought the plot was really unique and intriguing. A cop (Andy Garcia) has a son who is dying and needs bone marrow replacement in order to live. The only match is a convicted serial killer, who escapes from jail. To save his son he has to track down the killer.<br /><br />Michael Keaton plays the convict in one of many disappointing aspects of the film. Keaton is a great actor at times but here he is pretty much boring. It's over-the-top to the point where you just stop caring.<br /><br />Garcia is better but tries too hard for a film that isn't up to par. Barbet Schroeder (at one time such a promising director with films like "Barfly" that amounted to pretty much nothing in the American market) directs well enough - I honestly thought the script was the culprit here...it's just a big mess.<br /><br />The film ultimately wastes a lot of good material, good actors and a good director - all because of a faulty script. What should have been a tense and thought-provoking film is just a Hollywood action dud.
I can't believe I watched this whole movie. Another "Ishtar" in that I kept waiting for it to get better, which never happened. The sound is terrible, going from too low to hear the conversations, to blaring sound in seconds. The plot is absolutely implausible, the acting is mediocre, although Keaton does his usual good job as a mental case, although being typecast in that role could certainly be considered a negative. The director knows absolutely nothing about hospitals, medications, science or anything of a technical nature. "Sociopath"???? I wonder how they came up with that diagnosis? There are so many errors, goofs and things wrong with this movie that if one were to list them all it would possibly set some kind of record. Demerol as a general anestetic? A motorcyclist on the freeway wearing a non DOT/Snell off-road helmet. San Francisco??? Paper walls move when tapped, helmets just appear out of thin air, guns point one direction but hit things in another, lighting appears and disappears and there is barely a scene in the move that doesn't contain some kind of error. My wife, who is an RN in an Oncology unit finally left the room before the end of the movie so upset over all the medical errors. I gave it a 2 only because of Keaton's acting, else it certainly would have gotten a 1.
This movie is absurd. Absolutely terrible. Michael Keaton and Andy Garcia must really have needed the work to do this movie. The plot is totally not believable! Michael Keaton agrees to donate bone marrow to the dying son of a detective, but then escapes. He manages to elude the police throughout the hospital - not believable that he would have so much knowledge of the hospital. He takes an extremely convoluted route to get out of the hospital, blowing up the power generators and a pedestrial bridge (why?). And to top that Andy Garcia (father of the dying boy) and a doctor help the criminal so as to get the bone marrow. The plot is such baloney! Maybe the worse movie I have ever see.
This is one of those movies where I was rooting for whoever could end the movie the quickest. I wanted to see the cops kill Keaton AND Garcia just to get it over with. Basically, this is the deal--Two cops have to die and a third has to get horrible burns on his face for Garcia's son to get a bone marrow transplant from convicted killer Keaton. Is it worth it? No!
Having broken into a secret database file for matching DNA serums,federal agent Frank Poo (Andy Garcia)discovers the only person who can save his son's life is a psychopath,played by Michael Keaton . However,when a serum transfer at the local hospital goes terribly wrong,a certain Mr.Poo has to do everything in his power to ensure the madman stays alive in order to make the inevitable transfer possible. By the way,his name is'nt really Poo,I just feel like calling it him. Despite the original concept at hand,this is an implausible and turgidly unexciting action thriller.I've never been a big fan of Andy Garcia,and granted his charecter here is'nt that attachable,this movie winds up all the worse.The action sequences are handled pretty disappointingly,and the ending sucks pretty bad. Having done a great villain in Pacific Heights,Keaton's psychopathic bad guy here is a let down,providing a madman too funny and charismatic to be deplored.Brian Cox is also wasted as Garcia's firm and frank superior.
This is a movie that should have been a mini-series as it tries to get too much information in too small a space. The whole story is constantly being bombarded with sub-plots, character introduction and meaningless pieces information that go nowhere. There is a underlying plot where boy meets a girl, she has doubts but gets married anyhow and then her doubts surface and she goes to see if they are real. They turn out not to be but her husband won't believe that she was not unfaithful and her almost boyfriend doesn't want her as she was not unfaithful to her husband. With that said there are no less than 1000 sub-plots and character introductions that make this plot almost incomprehensible. In the first 15 minutes you are inundated with so many things and situations that you just stop caring. You don't care about any of the confused and screwed up cast that drifts in and out of the story like vultures feeding on a corpse. Each one comes in and takes some interest away from the viewer. After a half-hour, and completely disinterested, I stayed and watched the remaining two and a half hours out of pure morbid curiosity. I couldn't imagine where it was going but like staring at a fire I just couldn't get up and turn it off. The production values are superb but the resulting movie is a waste of time; wash your socks instead.
This movie was a complete disaster for me. There is one thing that movies must have in order to be watchable, and that is *some* psychological credibility of characters... unfortunately, here, this is not the case. The main characters behave irrationally most of the time, and even if they have some reason for such behavior, it is not revealed to us by the director. Sophie Marceau's character is particularly irritating, making pictures of everything throughout the whole movie, when one could expect something more rational (for example meeting with her mother in the hospital)... and why exactly did she marry this guy? (no, this is not a spoiler) The plot at times seems like ripped off some soap-opera, and while the actors' performance is not bad, this does not help much. All in all, I just could not find a way to connect with this movie. Not that I tried too much after the first hour, though. I have never walked out of cinema during a movie, but this time was the closest in my life so far.
I have seen this movie but not in a single sitting. What happens it that it is playing on the TV, I watch for a few minutes, find that I have take all that I can take and then leave the room. During those few minutes I do not laugh once, experience no pleasure in what I am viewing, and find myself more depressed that angry. Interestingly, I am told the psychological states are incompatible, that is, one cannot be angry and depressed at the same time. This movie tests that theory.<br /><br />I think part of the problem is that I spent nearly ten years in Chicago so as I am watching the scenes I am thinking of my own experiences in that rotten town and thus I am clearly bringing a lot of my baggage to the piece. It is entirely possible, I am willing to concede, that if you are not a Chicago denizen you will find the piece amusing. If so, I envy you.<br /><br />And yet. John Hughes set his films in Chicago and those movies worked for me. I think the difference is that Hughes was a first rate writer. I think it obvious he knew how to comically balance his situations, as well as make his characters both sympathetic and believable. In a comedy (as distinguished from a farce) this balance vital. And it is not easy to achieve. If it was everyone would be making great movies and we would not have to fret as we do in the real world wondering when genius will ever appear. In "Adventures in Babysitting," it doesn't. I hated those characters. <br /><br />There is a difference, profound and real, between sympathetic and simply pathetic.<br /><br />For me every scene in this movie is a clunker. There is no humor, no humanity, no people one can recognize. Just actors reading their lines as if it all they can do to restrain themselves from screaming them out, certain that finally hilarity will ensue, this time for sure! It's like watching the antics of very bad comedians. It's embarrassing and after a while, usually at the point when I get up and leave, I start to feel pity for all concerned, which is a kind of emotional connection, I suppose. Elizabeth Shue is terrible. She doesn't act, certainly not act comically, and it's entirely possible she can't. But lord how she tries. She looks older than 17, and acts way younger like a seven-year old straining in a school play certain that this is how one gets an award. And she is not alone. It is as if everyone cannot relax and let the tale flow. As if everyone simply has no idea what they are doing. <br /><br />Now, this was an early effort for Chris Columbus and he clearly would improve and having better writers (e.g. John Hughes himself) certainly helped, so perhaps some forgiveness is in order. But the film just reeks of desperation. Yet like I said it may work for some. If any of the above appeals to you, and it clearly did some of the reviewers, then go get the DVD and knock yourself out. Otherwise, avoid this mess like you would a dark Chicago alley where as you hurry by you can only see shadows and hear muttered threats.
I would not recommend this movie. Even though it is rated G and is clearly for kids there is quite a lot of swearing (including the dreaded 'F' and 'S' words). This kind of language doesn't offend me particularly but in a kids film? Come on.<br /><br />There was also quite a bit of implied sexual content, between one of the early adolescent male characters and any willing adult woman who came along - including a prostitute! <br /><br />The acting was as good as it gets in this genre of film but the story line was very very cheesy and even my four year old remarked that it was 'stupid'.<br /><br />Despite having Elizabeth Shue, this film is definitely not worth checking out if you haven't seen it.
To this day, I have never seen Elizabeth Shue in anything else because of the stench of this movie. Poorly acted, poorly plotted and racially Neanderthal, it took place in a Chicago where every black person apparently lived in a blues club. . SPOILER AHEAD. . . . . ..<br /><br />SPOILER: Her "blues" solo was even more painful to watch than her clueless acting and the intro into it - 'Nobody leaves without singing the blues' -- was as dumb as a post. The children her character was babysitting were insufferable and well before the movie's end I was wishing for something horrible to happen to all of them.<br /><br />I have to say though, there is one special thing about this movie; it takes a lot for a movie to offend me but this smoldering piece of tripe did what Chopper, the Phantom Menace and Catwoman could not -- make me sick to my stomach.
I can't believe this movie has an average rating of 7.0! It is a fiendishly bad movie, and I saw it when it was fairly new, and I was in the age group that is supposed to like it!
There are many mysteries in life. For example: Why did any of the people other than Carrot Top agree to appear in this movie? Why did anyone distribute this movie? Why did anyone pay money to see it? I guess none of these questions will ever be answered, but one thing I know for sure, this movie is one of the worst ever made with a budget this big. It would already be bad, but the addition of Carrot Top's "humor" makes it even worse. The only entertainment one could possibly get from this movie is to burn it, smash it, or otherwise destroy it in an amusing fashion. If you were to rank it against every movie ever made, it would be right between "Problem Child" and "Biodome". Nuff said.
This movie is stupid. There's no getting around it. But so is Dumb and Dumber. Mind you, Dumb and Dumber is significantly more funny than this. However, I for one love seeing stupid movies (Tail Sting) and laughing with a group of good friends over how bad it is. Call me callous, but see this movie, and you'll find that the only way you can laugh at it is if you laugh at it instead of with it.
So I turned on HBO which I just got thinking that it would have some quality movies and I saw this. Carrot Top is so unfunny it's nauseating to watch. I've seen unfunny movies before but I think I find this one so impossible to watch because Carrot Top seems to think he's hilarious. Watching this movie is really like watching a movie designed for 5 year olds with crazy, over the top overreactions replete with ultra stupid jokes that only a 4 year old would appreciate.<br /><br />What is amazing is how some other talented actors actually signed on for this project, such as Larry Miller and M Emmet Walsh. If you've ever seen Carrot Top's absolutely horrible MCI commercials (or whatever they were) then this is more of the same, just worse. It's a slapstick fest that is a waste of a high budget that could have done something, saved homeless people... anything but this. I'm not sure it's in the bottom 50 of all time but for the $10 million spent it's a disgrace.
The humor is non-existent in this loser of a movie. Carrot Top plays a surfer dude inventor who consistently blows the rent money on his goofy, useless inventions. Then he helps an old guy broken down by the side of the road, and voila, he's inherited a major corporation. And on and on and on past the jealous relatives, humanizing the corporation, hostile takeovers, the obligatory love interest.. aargh...let's just say this movie is virtually unwatchable. What Carrot Top has accomplished is to convince me never to go to his stage shows.
"Chairman of the Board" is a ridiculously stupid film from the popular comic Carrot Top (also seen on the 1-800-COLLECT commercials). He plays a surfing inventor who comes upon a man who has a flat tire. Top helps him out and a few days later discovers the guy's died and has given his company to the comedian. Even if someone else was in Carrot Top's role, it still would have been bad. The jokes (which are constantly rigged throughout) are terrible and the idea of a romantic "plot twist" should have been discarded. DO NOT WATCH!!!
Masterpiece. Carrot Top blows the screen away. Never has one movie captured the essence of the human spirit quite like "Chairman of the Board." 10/10... don't miss this instant classic.
This is without a doubt the most poorly thought out movie in history. The invention gags by Carrot Top are some of the most awful attempts to be funny in recorded history. I am not familiar with his other work, but if it is half as bad as this then I am just going to cry. I give this movie 1 out of 30 billion stars, and may God have mercy on the souls of those responsible.
Yes, the votes are in. This film may very well be the Plan 9 From Outer Space for our generation. But whereas Ed Wood's film, for all its flaws, retains a certain charm despite it all, this film defines the word "charmless" to the nth degree. In fact, I'd suggest to the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary to cite this movie as a key example defining the that word in the next update to the dictionary.<br /><br />Carrot Top is a performer of such abysmal ability that normally rational people that I know once they hear his name become homicidal maniacs dedicated to wanting to kill Mr. Top as soon as possible. Indeed, if one goes to Amazon.com and look at customer reviews for Carrot Top's movie and other performance DVD, one will find several that could be construed as death threats to Mr. Top.<br /><br />One other curious fact about this film, I recall that Mike Nelson, the head writer for MST 3000, in his book Mike's Mega Cheese about movies, good and bad, said he saw this film and shortly afterwords couldn't recall a thing about it, including the title. Obviously Mike was suffering a classic reaction to trauma. Viewing this atrocity was so soul numbing, Mike Nelson had to block it from his mind. (Evidently, in a later chapter in his book, Mike Nelson had recovered his memeory of this film. From the review he offers, Mike Nelson was definitely not grateful for the recovered memory.)<br /><br />The only comment I offer about the film, and it is not a spoiler, it's simply God's honest truth, it's not funny. None of it is, not even a nanosecond of it is funny.
First and foremost this movie has the stupidest plot of any movie I have ever seen, and unfortunately I had to see this one. I was flipping through channels one day and stumbled upon this lousy excuse for a movie, and it confirmed what I have been saying for a long time. Carrot Top is not an actor, and IS NOT funny in the slightest sense. He acts like he's a great comedian and thinks he commands the audiences attention. Frankly he has the acting ability of a 10 year old class clown, scratch that less than a 10 year old's ability to compare them to Carrot Top would be a grave insult upon their good name. This movie tries to be funny using dull one liners which all seem to have been lifted from 50's cartoons. By the end I would have done anything to erase my memory of this movie, but sadly the memories stay with me. The only thing I can do is to warn others to never to watch this movie. However it proves the rumors true Carrot Top can't act worth a damn.
Bad Movie! Bad! Go stand in a discount bin. Carrot Top should really stick to low lit comedy clubs. It's movies like this that make old Jerry Lewis films look like Shakespeare and John Agar like John Barrymore. Coutney Thorne-Smith (a fine talent)is absolutely wasted. Her purpose seems mainly to look pretty and oblivious. <br /><br />The only enjoyable things about the movie is seeing Raquel Welch doing an Alexis Carrington type role, and Estelle Harris as a harridan of a landlady. The only way I can imagine someone thinking it would be a good idea to make this (beyond sophomoric) film, is if the producers' fourth grade child was allowed to pick the script. Well, maybe his third grader. What this film really needs is to be rubbed in the noses of its creators.
This should not have been made into a movie. Everything about it was idiotic and I don't think I laughed even once. There were bits and pieces that were okay I guess but that's about it. A lot of parts were strikingly similar to a lot of other movies which did them a hell of a lot better. There were some famous actors/actresses in this but no one did a good job, they must've just not cared. This is one of those movies that tries to have a "cute" ending but it was so idiotic that it literally had no redeeming values. Carrot Top is probably the worst comedian out there right now. Do yourself a favor and steer clear of this one!<br /><br />Final Decisions:<br /><br />Movies : NOOOOO!<br /><br />Purchase DVD : Absolutely not!<br /><br />Rental : Only if you've seen EVERYTHING else and have a free coupon but even then it's still not worth your while.
If you like stupid jokes and a terribly predictable storyline, then perhaps this movie is for you. Courtney Thorne-Smith, Jack Warden, and several other members of the supporting cast actually have talent, but it was completely stifled by the paper-thin script. This is a generally boring and joyless time waster of a movie.
Should I have expected anything other than putrid from Carrot Top? This was on of the worst movies I have ever seen. It is by far the worst comedy I have ever seen. "Chairman of the Board" did not add humor to my attitude, rather it enraged me. That's right, Carrot Top is such a bad comedian that I became enraged that this man is making movies.
This movie is terrible. It's about some no brain surfin dude that inherits some company. Does Carrot Top have no shame?<br /><br />
Carrot Top's "Chairman of the Board" and his AT&T commercials are living proof that fly-blown fecal matter is available in the color orange. Not FREELY available, however, as HBO charges for such garbage. Blehhh! The saving grace of COTB is that it surely fills suicide hot-lines across the country, perhaps providing employment for thousands of telephone therapists who lost their jobs when recovered memory treatment was discredited, although (sadly) Carrot Top probably contributes to his sponsor AT&T's bottom line with the increased phone traffic from devastated HBO viewers. I can visualize the hordes of traumatized TV viewers, phone in one hand and fully loaded .45 auto in the other hand, dialing out of last-minute desperation before walking off the plank of life to escape the specter of COTB's orange-haired monster echoing in their synapses like the agony of searing, irreversible meningeal swelling.
Or at least forceable retirement! This movie is awful, horrible, terrible, rank, rotten, putrid... well, you get the idea. Do NOT under any circumstances watch this piece of decaying garbage unless you have a death wish, because it's sure to kill you. (I only survived because I missed the first half hour.) Carrot Top is a bad comedian, and an even worse actor. I cannot BELIEVE he got anyone to fund this huge waste of time and money. It just goes to show that some people have no scruples if they think they might make a buck or two (literally... I can't imagine this made more than $2!).<br /><br />And someone please tell me what possible motivation Courtney Thorne Smith (a halfway decent actress, certainly above this at any rate) had for signing onto this steaming pile of dung. Was she THAT bored during that 3.5 second dry spell between Melrose Place and Ally McBeal? Or did she owe some kind of karmic debt to the Most Annoying Person on the Face of the Planet (aka Carrot Top)?<br /><br />I give this a 2/10, and that's probably way too high. I try to save my '1's for movies that make me vomit, and since I didn't see all of this one my stomach contents thankfully stayed contained. I don't think I'll be watching it again to find out if it's really worth a 1!
Is this a bad movie? Don't take my word for it. Consider the following press reports of people who tried to watch this movie: <br /><br />· While he was watching this movie, the brain of Mr. Harold Faber of Sandusky, Ohio, forcibly ejected itself from his skull at over 200 kph and preceded to squirm across the floor shrieking NOOOO NOOO NOOOO.<br /><br />· Mrs. Louise Robbins of Enid, Oklahoma, a 69-year-old retired homemaker, committed ritual seppuko with a butter knife while watching this movie.<br /><br />· Ms. Janine Hosmer of Columbia, South Carolina, gave birth to a severely deformed baby while watching this movie, although she had not been pregnant.<br /><br />· While watching this movie together, Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence Wells of San Franciso, California, spontaneously exploded with such force that Mr. Wells's left tibia was later found embedded in the wall of a house in Marin County.<br /><br />There have been many similar incidents.<br /><br />Of those who did not suffers more serious effects such as those detailed above, at least 75% became incurably, violently, and understandably insane after viewing this movie. Of the remaining 25%, most had already been insane before viewing the movie; the remainder were either blind and/or and deaf or in a persistent vegetative state.<br /><br />I'm not saying don't rent it, if you want to. I'm just reporting what was in the papers.
This is what they came up with for prop comedian Carrot Top's first feature film.<br /><br />A stupid surfer (carrot dude) inherits an R&D enterprise from an old kahuna (Jack Warden). Things go less than swimmingly, but get much worse when the company is threatened with a hostile takeover attempt by corrupt corporate raiders. The most implausible thing about this movie is that smart-girl Courtney Thorne-Smith would find this red-headed step-child fascinating in the least (but then, he just inherited millions). 'Classic' moments include comic Larry Miller drinking sweat from a plastic cup.<br /><br />Funny comedy? Try UN-funny toilet humor, and that's exactly where this belongs - in the toilet... flush twice.
People don't seem to agree with me that movies can be bad and good at the same time. The same type of people that see a movie with Carrot Top on the cover, surfing through a frickin office and continue to watch the movie with serious expectations. Is Carrot Top funny? Of course not. Was this movie anything special? Of course not. It was a dumb movie and everyone assumed so simply based on what they know about Mr. Top. Movies like this, or Kazaam, or Killer Klowns From Outer Space and pretty much any movie Pauly Shore has ever been in are not meant to be taken seriously and because of this, they really shouldn't be considered some of the worst movies ever made. You watch them either expecting a dumb movie that's hilariously bad or you are like six years old and genuinely think Carrot Top is hilarious.<br /><br />Please people if you ready know Carrot Top is retarded and you want to watch a serious movie and bother writing a serious review....don't watch this. Picking on this movie is like picking on a 5 year old for not knowing the alphabet.
This movies shook my will to live why this abomination isn't the bottom 100 list i don't know.<br /><br />My life was saved by the healing power of danny trejo.<br /><br />Worst movie ever, i dare you watch. It's like a 90 minute collect calling commercial, only much much worse. i rather watch the blue screen it's that bad really
carrot top in a full length movie, enough said. only reason this doesn't get a one is through my personal voting system of only one 1 and one 10, and this is no extreme ops. horrible god awful. there are some movies that are so bad they are unintentionally funny, then there are movies that make you physically unwell and then there are those that lead to serious contemplation of suicide. burn all copies of the movie, shoot anyone who had non creative input on this movie, torture anyone with any creative input and as for the star, there are only so many things that can be said online, but he should be begging for the final ten seconds of existence with a severed head by the time the work is done.
Before I sat down and watched this film on HBO, I wasn't expecting nothing but a few laughs here and there and all together a stupid and common plot. Well, that's exactly what I got out of it, except that I was somewhat satisfied at the end of the movie. I wasn't expecting it to be, I thought it was just going to be another hour and a half that I had on my hands to waste. Well, it was, but still it was somewhat worth it. The whole plot was very stupid, cheap acting, and some of the lines were very very dumb. Otherwise than that, it still had it's funny moments, even though not many.<br /><br />All in all, if you're going to rent this, don't. Watch it on television. I gave it a 4, I was generous because it made me laugh, but yet it was still pretty stupid.
There is a reason Chairman of the Board got a 2, (which is too high) this movie flat out is one of the worse movies of all time and I seen my share of rotten films. Chairman of the Board stars two of the most annoying actors/people today, Carrot Top and Courtney Thorne Smith. Carrot Top just isn't funny anymore and wasn't in this piece of trash. Courtney Thorne Smith isn't any better, just watch "According To Jim" and you will see a prime example of what I am talking about. Chairman of the Board got a 1 from me, because that is low as you can go it is that bad. I am a little shocked that this piece of junk isn't on the IMdb bottom 100 somewhere, I would put this in the top 5 on that list, but its slowly working its way there.
I didn't really get this movie because I'm not some perv like you, who is into lesbian stuff.<br /><br />The girl in the red wig tries too hard to be funny (her lips are SO silicone!), but she's really lame and insecure. She tries to come off like a surfer-guy (better than dressing slutty, but still weird and definitely unfashionable); the movie doesn't explain why she's trying to pass herself off as a man. Oh, right, to "get" the poor, dumb girl. I forgot. She makes all these dumb inventions which are not funny, and she's a really lousy actress. Plus, that waif look is so OUT!<br /><br />This dumb blond girl from Melrose Place plays(surprise) a dumb blond.<br /><br />She thinks the girl in the wig is a guy! They even make out! Ewww! I guess that part was sort of funny.
Why wasn't this voted for Best Picture of 1998? This has to be the best movie ever. It makes something like Citzen Kane look like utter crap, come on, Citzen Kane wasn't even in color! I love this movie, it has to be the best movie I've ever put money down on. I am still shocked that it wasn't nominated for ANYTHING!<br /><br /> If 10 is the highest you can give it, I give it 20!
Despite the famous cast this animated version of Dickens tale is the borest I've seen. Enough that I zapped away in he first commercial break. The characters didn't appeal to me at all and the animation is looking cheap.<br /><br />I'll give this movie a very low rating. Give me the Disney version anytime.
"Season on the Brink" is one of my favorite books of all time - an insightful unflinching look at Bob Knight and his Indiana Hoosiers. And Dennehy is one of my favorite supporting actors of all time. So I made a point of watching this adaptation.<br /><br />It disappointed on every level. Dennehy's performance was less than inspired, and he seemed unprepared to play Knight - like he had accepted the role just prior to filming. The rest of the cast isn't much better.<br /><br />And it was obvious that this was ESPN's first movie. It was poorly directed, poorly filmed, and the lack of budget was obvious anytime games were being simulated (smaller gyms, empty seats, etc.) Skip this adaptation and read the book - it holds up well to this day!
Its obvious ESPN drools whenever Knight is in the news, but did they have to make a freakin' movie about him? This was THE worst attempt at a serious dramatic movie I have EVER seen. It had it all: terrible acting, terrible dialogue, ridiculous casting, cheap sets, etc etc. It looked like it was shot on a $10 budget. Cummon, whats up with the game scenes? Were they in a middle school gym? And the lighting, well, let me just say it was ridiculous. And Brian Denehy as Bob Knight? Give me a break. Denehey looked like...Denehy in a red sweater, nothing more. ESPN lost a lot of credibility with this flop attempt. They poured millions of $$$ in advertising, then the premier was a huge dissapointment. Bob Knight is not a subject that can be covered in a 2-hour movie. ESPN blew it. Even Knight himself thought it was more stupid than anything else.
I watched this with great trepidation, and my trepidation was well founded, it seems. What was this movie about? Knight? The season? The Players? What? It was all over the place all the time. It had no tension (sorry, we all knew Bobby was going to curse and throw things) but Brian Denehy, a fine actor, comes across as mailing in the anger and delivering zero tension. Cheaply shot, like a MacGiver episode. Contrast this Thanksgiving main course with the job HBO did on the Don King movie "only in America" to show how to do sports biopics, warts and all. Notice that ESPN promoted the hell out of it and then never showed it again?
This movie probably seemed like a great idea in pre-production. "Let's make a movie about one of the greatest and most controversial athletic coaches of the modern era! And let's cast Brian Dennehey as Coach Bobby Knight!" That's where this movie went terribly wrong. Why cast an actor who bears no semblance of the man he's portraying? And then, why let this actor turn his character into not Coach Knight, but Brian Dennehey in a red sweater? As I sat watching this movie on ESPN, I didn't find myself believing this man was actually Coach Knight. He didn't look like him, talk like him, act like him, or even walk like him. I could not get past this fact, and thusly, I could not enjoy the movie. When Paul Newman and Robert Redford were cast as the outlaws Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, we didn't care if they were accurate historical models of their true characters because most of us had never even heard of these men until we saw the movie. But, with someone as visible in today's media as Coach Knight, you have to do better. When Anthony Hopkins was cast as Nixon, it was the same situation. But, Anthony Hopkins made us believe he in fact was Nixon. Dennehey didn't even try. What might have been a great movie was turned sour by this. Besides the fact that this movie tried to do for the four-letter word what "Saving Private Ryan" did for dismemberment, it stunk. Too little of the real Coach Knight and too much profanity for the sake of shock value turned this movie into a "season to turn off half-way through the broadcast." The only good thing about this is that it was television movie. I didn't have to waste my hard-earned money on this piece of trash.
This movie is TRASH from the word go. First, it gives an account of a season that took place 16 YEARS AGO! Who cares? This movie had about as much depth as a bottle cap. It makes a complex person like Bob Knight into a cartoon character.<br /><br />Swearing doesn't bother me, but I'm still amazed that ESPN showed a movie with more cursing than a Kevin Smith movie on a basic cable channel. The F-word was dropped at least 20 times before the first commercial break.<br /><br />This movie was terrible and anyone associated with it should be embarrassed. I rate this on the same level as Jaws IV - The Revenge and Everybody Wins...2 movies that are in the Crapfest Hall of Fame.
When just days away before the film's premiere, its screenwriter backs out of the project, and demands his name to be removed from the credits, you know that this does not bode well. <br /><br />The books, on which "Wiedzmin" is based on, have great potential for a vivacious fantasy film – "Geralt de Rivia is a witcher; his sole purpose is to destroy the monsters that plague the world. But not everything monstrous-looking is evil, and not everything fair is good…" But all that didn't matter, when a polish film crew, with a low budget, and no, or little appreciation for Sapkowski's work, decided to make a 13-part mini-series out of it. The two-hour film is a by-product of their actions, to maximize the profits. <br /><br />It's not hard to point out in this case, what makes people label this film as bad. Plot (incoherent, thanks to cramming it with too many stories), acting (below average, with exception of Zebrowski), dialogues (bland), editing (choppy), special effects (unbearable) and choreography (poor), add up to the film's overall bad experience. Only the soundtrack, done by Grzegorz Ciechowski, brings out the beauty of the world of "Wiedzmin", which was never brought to the screen. Even Poland's grandiose flora and fauna (where part of "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" was shot), a crucial element in almost ANY fantasy film, were not used up to their full potential. The more I think about this dead loss, the more I'm running out of words. At least, it's a comfort to know, that Marek Brodzki, the director of "Wiedzmin", has directed only one film ever since (in addition, in Germany). <br /><br />For now, we're left with top-notch fantasy stories and a fantastic computer RPG (released in 2007) referring to the Wiedzmin books. But I'm sure that one day, justice will be done for the Wiedzmin saga, and we'll be treated with an equally good film adaptation soon enough.
Well, for a start, I must say that, here, in Russia, a saga of Geralt of Rivia is known and loved. Andrzej Sapkowski - a gifted writer, or, maybe, even genius of some sort - created one of the most realistic, honest, cynical and God d@mn well written fantasy worlds in a history of literature. And when such amazing material gets in a right hands well, see RPG game "Witcher" and you will understand what I am talking about.<br /><br />"Vedmak\Wiedzmin" is an excellent example of the opposite outcome.<br /><br />Lack of budget. Lack of directing. Lack of good script.<br /><br />These three whales of Disgusting Movie Making sunken this movie, ate it alive. Acting is good, sometimes even more than good but for god sake it can not save this project. <br /><br />I still have some faith though. I still hope that someday a new Vedmak movies will be created and entire world will see magnitude and breathtaking splendor of Sapkowski's books. p.s. But before that a Uwe Boll must be eliminated. Just in case, you know
the movie is simply horrible (2/10). Although actors are trying their best (well sometimes that isn't much) special effects are ...let me put it this way it would be better if there weren't any.<br /><br />The script is based on Sapkowski's prose, so it should be the biggest advantage of this movie. Sadly it's the opposite. There is nothing left of the original atmosphere. And it's all very chaotic. Maybe they just had too much material to show in 2h time.<br /><br />Anyway if you would like to see this film I would recommend you to look for the TV series (same title, same actors, even the plot stays the same) that was made in the same time the movie did. It is so much better (9/10) and the story there actually make sense:)
Brodzki's creation is a great example of how NOT to make a movie. First there was a book written with a great humor. Book that has numerous fans who would be happy to supply help when producers for some reasons decided to employ people who hardly heard of the book in the first place. Then came a script as humorless and full of nonsense as possible. At the same time the script was written in a way to allow only those who actually had read the books to understand anything of the plot. Not that anything in this movie made much sense anyway(ex. "I'm like an ice shard. You can burn yourself" said Yennefer as a word of warning - warning that logic is something this movie seriously lacks). To add to that we have to mention that no matter the amount of money that was supposedly spent on the movie everything looks like an amateur production with two (2) computer effects one of which is a see-through dragon. Even the costumes look as if the were borrowed from a really poor theater. That is the better ones look this way. And to add to that we have a few 'naked scenes' put there only so they will be in the film because they have no explanation in what one may mercifully call plot. The movie has only one strength that can hardly make up for the rest - music is not bad. Though if I was to choose I'd prefer to have it separately. It sounds better if you don't have to look at this failure of super production.
There are three main problems with the film. Or rather there are three reasons why it isn't even a contender worthy of more serious consideration.<br /><br />Firstly, and this was always going to be true, it's not nearly as good as the books. However, at least we could have expected to reflect some of the Sapkowski's wit or depth.<br /><br />Secondly we have the production. Fantasy movies are, in my opinion, the hardest to produce well. Everything from the props through costumes, scenery, stunts and (especially) CGI is substandard.<br /><br />Finally, and this is many be very subjective, I just can't quite take the acting seriously. I wasn't brought up in Poland so I can't really judge- it may me my lack of familiarity with films in polish. All the same the lines seem very amateurishly delivered... The casting could be better as well.<br /><br />In summation, the only possible redeeming feature of this film is the remainder of the plot shining through: not unlike a diamond ring on a rotting cadaver.<br /><br />On a separate note I heard that the books are coming out in English. I haven't seen them yet but I can't imagine how one would even begin to translate them... I would ask the English-speaking reader to bare this in mind when judging the book.
a very mediocre film based on a superb series of stories and novels. I hope Somebody, someday will be able to film it the right way. In the meantime, look for the books (by A. Sapkowski), a very inteligent, postmodern fantasy. By now there should be a translation in english, there translations in german for sure.
Yes, that's true. That movie is a horrible piece of... you know what. Almost all fans of Sapkowski's books in Poland think the same. The truth is that polish cinematography can not afford producing fantasy films. It's a shame when you compare "Wiedzmin" and "Conan the Barbarian" for example. I hope no one outside Poland will ever see this nightmare.
not many people outside poland have had an opportunity to become familiar with andrzej sapkowski's brilliant writings. he's very popular in poland for his fantasy short stories ( i believe none of them has ever been translated intrto english. alas!). to make a long story short, wiedzmin - the main character of sapkowski's books - is a traveling monster slayer, a man of extraordinary strenght and skill: he's pretty much your favourite tolkien-style cool guy. unfortunately, no one would figure this out after watching the film. 'wiedzmin' the movie is nothing but a collection of random scenes, featuring wiedzmin and other characters from sapkowski's writings, but not eben remotely resembling the plot and dramatic pace of the original. event the fact that some of the shots in the film show attractive naked women does not add any quality to it. the movie gets worse and worse with every minute, and does not even meet the requirements of 'so bad it's actually good' category. if you really are into fantasdy and want to learn something about wiedzmin, read the books instead.
I grabbed La Bandara because it reunited Jean Gabin and Julien Duvivier, whose Pepe le Moko is a noir masterpiece. I'll give it a few points because Gabin is in it, but the clumsy plot, cheap sets and the ludicrous Annabella making like an Arab princess put the film on my `to sell' shelf. If you watch it, you'll find yourself asking, why didn't the idiots build the fort *around* the well, instead of a deadly few yards away from it. And why use tin roofs in the middle of the desert? But by then the sheer perversity of contrivance that makes up the script should numb you to any further contemplation.
Usually when a television biopic is released on a celebrity, its, at the very least, campy (i.e. Cybill Shepherd as Martha Stewart, Lauren BaCall as Doris Duke), this is the most horrendous, cheap, and BORING television movie ever made. If VH-1 is going to make a television film, they have GOT to spend a little more money on them. Flex Alexander--though gifted with the Michael voice--is not a great dancer, does not resemble Michael one bit, and does not even have his mannerisms down. VH-1 would have done better by hiring an actual impersonator, that way when see Michael go into get plastic surgery, he doesn't actually come out looking EXACTLY the same. Why should we be taken aback at the shrinking of Michael's nose when its exactly the same size as in the beginning of the film? The woman playing Elizabeth Taylor cannot act and looks nothing like her, and don't even get me started on the woman as Janet Jackson. Terrible script and a severe case of miscasting needs to keep VH-1 from producing any more movies. Flex Alexander would have made a much better JERMAINE JACKSON rather than Michael. Costumes? Trashy ripoffs. Neverland? Spliced together footage from news docs. Don't bother with this one....its not even remotely worth it. The one good piece of casting--the actor portraying Joseph Jackson and MAYBE the actress as Lisa Marie Presley, though she should have been more tomboy than girlie girl.
The main word that comes to mind when considering this film is "dodgy". This is a low-quality film biography of one of the most iconic performers of all time. The Gloved One deserved better.<br /><br />Before getting into the meat of my thoughts on this biopic, I have to say that there are two things I found effective. First was the use of actual fan footage and interviews at certain points in the film, especially in the scenes depicting the first set of child molestation allegations. I feel that this contributed a certain authenticity that was *severely* lacking throughout the rest of the film. Second was the sequence depicting the courtship of Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley. I will not comment on whether I believe the marriage was a sham, but by many accounts, it was a relationship where care and affection existed between the two parties involved. That really came across in this film; Flex Anderson and Krista Rae had decent enough chemistry to pull it off. These successful points are enough to keep Man in the Mirror away from 1-star status.<br /><br />That said...there was very little else here that worked. Very few of the actors looked like the people they were supposed to portray, most egregiously those playing Elizabeth Taylor, Janet Jackson, and Diana Ross. Also, the absence of Jackson's music was a huge loss. How can you effectively tell a story about him without his music?? I understand that they were unable to secure the rights to it with this being a low-budget, unauthorized production; it seems, though, that if you can't have the man's music in a film about him, you might as well pack it up and go home, because you're missing out on an extremely important part of his life story.<br /><br />This film's characterization of Jackson bothered me a little, too. I won't argue that he was troubled and may have been a few fries short of a value meal, but here, he was portrayed as something close to mentally disabled. I don't believe that Jackson, known to have been a shrewd businessman, would have been quite as naive about how the adult world works as he was made out to be in this film.<br /><br />Finally, the way this film was written was nothing short of disgraceful. Many lines or exchanges of dialogue were either extremely corny, like Michael and Janet's "Tinkerbell" exchange, or nonsensical, like the "Blanket of love" comments made by Michael. Also, the screenwriters don't exactly have a knack for subtlety. There was a lot of telegraphing of upcoming events ("What could possibly go wrong??" sorts of lines) and extremely overt hammering of themes and motifs in the film (if I'd heard the word "believe" one more time...). This is what ultimately hobbled the film as something that could be considered awesomely bad.<br /><br />Perhaps when we are a few years, or even a decade or three, removed from Jackson's death, someone will be able to bring his story to life in a more deserving film. By that time, we might have a better perspective on his life, and someone will be able to present a truly thoughtful examination of who Michael Jackson really was and what he's meant to the world of entertainment. This very dodgy biopic was not that film.
I am speechless, honestly I cannot understand how anyone could have conceded to a script like this, cast anyone in the film let alone direct it. The fact that I am writing this review feels like an insult to my fingers, this film should be thrown in to the dustbin rather than be reviewed. I am disappointed in Flex Alexander for even thinking about accepting such a POOR EXCUSE FOR A SCRIPT let alone essay the role. OMG! I think I just insulted the word "essay"...uh yeah I did. Y'know what, the less said about this mindless drivel, the better. You have been warned, nobody warned me I had to experience the horror myself. WATCH AT YOUR OWN RISK.
This movie is like so many biopic TV movies I have seen: formulaic, exaggerating, poorly acted, and most importantly, happening too soon.<br /><br />What I mean by that is the movie was filmed and, for that matter, aired before Michael Jackson's acquittal from his child molestation charges, which I think was one of the most significant periods of Jackson's life and career so far. It probably would have made a great ending to this docu-drama. However, this movie already bites off more than it can chew, cramming too many details in this overly ambitious project.<br /><br />It's no doubt that Michael Jackson has led perhaps the most interesting life so far of any musician, let alone modern day pop star, to date, and his story would probably take six Behind The Music specials to tell accurately. This movie tried to tell too much in three hours, and needless to say, it failed.<br /><br />Flex Alexander did what he could in playing Jackson, but he came off more like an SNL caricature by the likes of Tim Meadows and Amy Poehler. It would admittedly be pretty hard to find someone who accurately portrays Jackson without meeting with the King of Pop himself and studying his methods of madness. On a shoestring budget, though, one can only depend on what they see in the tabloids, and those do not necessarily give an accurate representation.<br /><br />Furthermore, the director's efforts to make Alexander look like Jackson are completely foolish. The Caucasian makeup on Alexander's face makes him look more like a reverse minstrel show, and everyone who has been in a grocery store knows that Jackson's nose is not as big as Alexander's. It's also amazing to me that the film documents Jackson going under the knife to get cosmetic surgery, yet in the next scene, Alexander still has the same size nose. This kind of suspension of disbelief that the director expects can't hold up to TV viewers in the 21st century.<br /><br />It was even more distracting when footage of the real Michael Jackson (i.e. the time he hung his infant child over a balcony in Germany) was interspersed into the movie in real time. It was a nice try, but it just didn't work.<br /><br />If this movie as it is was released into theaters, it would gain a profit only because of its tackiness. It even pales in comparison to "Mommie Dearest", and that's saying a lot. Above all, this was a movie that was probably rushed into making, like many TV movies that aren't on HBO. It could have been done a lot better if it had just told of one aspect of Jackson's life. Even if it just covered the child molestation allegations, it probably would have been done a lot better and would have even been more intriguing.
The writers and creators of this film should actually be sued... For polluting the world with this crap! "Man In The Mirror" is in fact beyond horrible! Way, way, way beyond! <br /><br />...and people, I'm not just saying that because I'm a Michael Jackson-fan! Or due to the fact that this is truly one of the most retarded depictions of his life I've ever encountered! <br /><br />I'm saying it because this is a waste of time, money and celluloid! I feel ashamed of myself just having seen all of it! That's 1 hour and 26 min of my life I'll never get back! I'm telling you; watching grass grow is literally more entertaining than this film! <br /><br />Consider yourselves warned!
Even though i sat and watched the whole thing,i must say it was not good.it was all over the place,with big chunks of information missing about how things developed and even inaccurate at some bits too.If you know nothing about Michael , you wont understand a thing.You have to rely on your current knowledge of the man in order for some bits to make sense..Acting was a bit dramatic, Flex Alexander looked nothing like Michael which was a put off for me and towards the end he literally looked grey.saying that portraying Michael as somewhat naive but highly positive, gentle and loving individual was okay even though they still made a fool out of him time to time.If you want to watch MJ's life story check out "An American dream". It is much better but the only thing is it will cover up to "Bad" era. I have no doubt that they will eventually make a big budget movie of MJ's life story, cos Michael You rock ;-) !!!!
Okay, first of all, I missed like the first 15 minutes of the movie, so I missed credits and stuff. SO when I finally got to it, I was like "Who the hell is this dude?". I found out it was Flex like hours after watching the movie. <br /><br />Flex didn't look like Michael Jackson. Not one bit. He couldn't dance like him, or move like him, the only thing he almost had was the voice. People commented on Elizabeth Taylor, but I can't really comment on that because I don't know much about her. <br /><br />The whole movie was like just plain wack. The dialogue sucked. The cinematography-if it can be called that-sucked. The soundtrack sucked. The acting sucked. Yes even Flex...I'm so upset about it though. I didn't want it to suck. I'm so sad that Flex got told he can get away with it. But the whole thing looked like dress-up. You know? It's like, nobody looked like they were supposed to except for Joseph Jackson. <br /><br />The concert sequences just sucked. I'm sorry, but Flex just can't dance like Michael. I mean, like what the hell was VH1 thinking? The makeup didn't even match like the time of whatever Michael was going through. For example, in the movie he was still dark when Neverland got raided the first time around. In real life, MJ was white as hell. There was some sort of stupid delay in his skin discoloring. <br /><br />The movie wasn't boring, well for me it wasn't. It wasn't really anything. I was just so upset about everything that was wrong with it. I wanted to see how it turned out and if Flex could redeem himself. He didn't, really. The only part I found like a bit interesting was the whole Lisa Marie thing. When they fell in love. That was nice. But I had to turn my face away when they kissed. Heh. And only two parts made me collapse with laughter. The first time was when they cut from Michael with short hair, you know the Thriller era, to Michael with long flowing hair from the Dangerous era AND HE WAS STILL BLACK! That was funny. The second time I laughed was when they showed all of the posters and memorabilia of Michael but they had Flex's face instead! It was so funny. <br /><br />Overall, this movie was cheap trash. It was simply two hours of dress-up and could have been so much better. But no, VH1 is cheap. Watch if you want. But this movie is not funny, considering the ridiculousness of it. I came out of it feeling angry. And when I found out it was Flex, I just started to feel so bad. So...watch if you want.
This is absolutely the worst movie I have ever seen. I hope the REAL family and other portrayed characters have lawyers suing the hell out of VH1 for there portrayal. The acting is horrible, the writing is worse and the portrayal of characters is scary. Its supposed to be a drama, but it was a comedy to me, you have no choice but to laugh at the bad acting. I usually like Flex Alexanders acting but this time he has completely missed the mark.<br /><br />You could argue he took this role for a couple of laughs himself, because it was so horrible. If you really want a dramatic movie for the night, DO NOT CHOOSE THIS ONE. But if you are in for some laughs over bad acting and stupid writing, Tune in. Other than that, don't waste your time.
Where the hell did VH1 find the scriptwriter for this movie??? Out of high school? This movie tries so hard to be sympathetic to Michael Jackson, but instead, turns him into a horrible, tacky caricature. All the lines are filled with clichés but surprisingly the acting wasn't bad. As usual, this is a bad movie with pretty good actors. The actor that plays Michael Jackson, jeez, I feel sorry for him! I think he did the best he could with the weak script. I didn't mind that Flex did not look like Michael Jackson, I thought he did the best he could, but later on when he had all that white make-up on, oh man, did he look yucky! The other actors that played Debbie Rowe, Priscilla Presley and Elizabeth Taylor were pretty good. Except that the actress that plays Liz Taylor looked too young and healthy to be playing Liz. The actress that plays Diana Ross didn't look at all like her and I couldn't figure out who this woman was until much later on in the movie.<br /><br />This movie does a disservice to everyone who is on the side of Michael Jackson, or against Michael Jackson. It doesn't do anything to change anyone's opinion. As a matter of fact, the only opinion anyone will have after watching this movie is, oh God, this movie really, really sucks! And where the hell is Michael Jackson's wonderful music and songs? There are none to be found in this movie. I love the soundtrack to this movie anyway and I'll probably purchase it if I could.<br /><br />On the lighter side though, this is a very funny, campy movie! It's a great time waster if you want to watch something light that won't trouble your brain too much. I'll probably watch it again, because it just is so entertainingly bad!
This is based on Michael's life from 1983/4 till 2004. Flex Alexander did a good performance but looked nothing like Michael. I feel Michael was portrayed as a stupid person which I don't believe he was (even though he trusted the wrong people at times). I thought Flex Alexander looked Chinese when they made Michael look white. I think Latoya should of been portrayed in this, she was always pictured with her brother in the 80's. I never thought any of the supporting cast looked like their counterparts. There were some things that were inaccurate Lisa-Marie Presley's son looked about 4 in the wedding scene even though he was not yet 2 when Lisa and Michael got married. Also when Michael says to his mother Katherine he thinks he and Debbie should marry if she is carrying his child, it was Katherine's idea for the two to get married.
You might suspect that the plot of this movie was written in the process of filming. It begins as a "punks versus vigilante" movie, but in the middle of the film, the plot changes abruptly when the vigilante turns to be an honest man with his honest girl and his honest gym and has to fight the corrupt "businessmen" who want to turn the gym down at any cost to build a mall or something. Then, the plot changes again, and we forget about the corrupt guys. The villain now is the friend of the leading man, who thinks he is a Ninja. The guy becomes "crazy evil" and wants at any cost to win a Martial Arts Contest. Seeing this movie is like having a nightmare with the television on.
This movie was filmed in my hometown and I was acquainted with many of the "actors" in minor rolls. Most of them were students at the local karate school and even at the time it was filmed we all knew what a stinker it was. It was interesting however to see it being made. Most of the places it was filmed at no longer exist, such as the nightclub, the pizza shop, etc. The "world premiere" was held at The Akron Civic Theatre and we all laughed hysterically at how inane it was. I personally believe it's the worst movie ever made but it brings back many fond memories for me. Watch this movie with a word of advice...enjoy it for what it is..a very low budget, poorly made , karate flick.
Yes, it might be not historically accurate(actually only 6 soldiers of 9th rota were killed there), and yes, it has some mistakes and exaggeration(bended machine gun? come on! or the that "history lesson" about how Afghanistan was never conquered by anyone - educated Russian officer would know history much better than that - take for example British campaign in Afghanistan). And yes, it does not have multi-million dollars Hollywood-style special effects, but it's strongest point in showing soldier's life there, their relationships and their feelings when the best friends are being killed in front of their eyes. In my opinion 9ya rota really does a good job showing all those things.<br /><br />Again, movie has it weaknesses, but, in my opinion, it appears to be one of the strongest Russian movie for the past few years.<br /><br />8/10
First, I'm sorry for my English. Second, the true story of this episode: 39 soldiers, operation "Magistral'". 6 soldiers were killed. Hundreds of insurgents were killed too. Within 10 years the Soviet Army has lost less than 15 thousand person and killed over 900000 insurgents and civilians. There is no insurgents without permanent help of USA The veteran of war: "Traditions. There are no traditions in this film. There is no military oath, there is no first jump, no farewell to the Fighting Banner. There is no delivery of awards and medals. There is nothing sacred. There is only a hatred to Soviet army. Being in this area on investigation, we have revealed start-up jet shells by insurgents . An exact place could not define. So gunners have asked to give easier square. Also have covered it. Through pair minutes. Here it was the reality of fights. So there was no feeling "oblivion". These feelings have appeared then. Already on other war and in other state (Chechnya). Others were children. More kindly. More humanly. And "prapors" were as fathers. Well and culmination fight - full orgy. Shooting in anywhere. Mental attacks young Ben-Ladens, not killed both not broken through. And full absence of mutual aid. That there was a main thing on this war. Even Americans accused us of inadequate application of force against insurgents. And here it is direct on the contrary. In the summer 1981 I about myself have firmly solved, that personally should fill up a minimum 50 insurgents. As a result accepted "plan" has been under-fulfilled, and on a demobilization I departed strongly contused and malicious as fig. After returning the first months there was a feeling of that I not was at war up to the end, not business there have completed all how follow. There was any vague, but an oppressive sensation of discontent with itself and caustic irritation. Such here night ideas, can be and out of place at all. Officers really in film are not present absolutely. In occasion of that, what is the time they spent with staff. On fighting-is constant. New Year on fighting. From where did they take beds? In mountains? And so on..."<br /><br />If you want a fairy tale about war, "9 rota" and "Shtrafbat" is for you. If you want truth, you must see "Come and see" or "Batallions Ask for Fire".
The main problem with 9th Company (9 Rota) is that it is not sure whether it wants to be Saving Private Ryan or Full Metal Jacket. The attempts at Spielberg sentimentalism are embarrassing, such as the burley sergeant crying in a field of red flowers!!! The training sequences have none of intensity or realism that Kubrick gave them in his masterpiece.<br /><br />A further bone of contention is that the Afghan fighters are called Ghosts because they strike and are hardly ever seen. Here they attack a Russian strong hold almost in formation with no attempt to use cover. I am sure tactics have move on since Waterloo.<br /><br />Every scene in this film has been seen before in other war movies and done considerably better. <br /><br />I have to ask: Why do all talented marksmen need to chew on a match?<br /><br />Finally, I am always suspicious of a film that starts with no narration yet needs to qualify the end.<br /><br />"We won!" ...errrr....... no you didn't.
I borrowed this on DVD from a friend the other day. I didn't really know what to expect. I haven't seen a lot of Russian movies, and i don't think i've ever seen a Russian war movie. Maybe that made me expect something different, something more along the line of an imagined Russian mentality. But whatever those expectations came from, they were put to shame as this is a quite ordinary war movie.<br /><br />The whole formula of following a few young people from their recruitment, through training, to deployment and through some battles, is well known. We have seen it done both many years ago, as well as more recently (as with Jarhead). Sure, there's a difference here because the movie is about Russian soldiers instead of Americans as is almost always the case. But in general this could just as easily have been a Vietnam-movie. I guess that just underscores my feeling that Afghanistan was the Soviet unions Vietnam. A country that should have been a pushover for a superpower made the war drag on for years with terrible loss of life both for soldiers and civilians.<br /><br />The good points in this movie i felt were good photography (there are some beautiful ambiance shots) and decent effects for what i guess must have been a rather low budget movie. What made me disappointed is mostly the story itself. It just doesn't manage to stir any emotion in me. Mostly because the character development is lousy. And to really feel something when people are gunned down you have to make them people, not just faceless cardboard cutouts. They fail to do that in this movie. Also it's overly long, and that seems to a kind of trend lately. In my opinion a movie that's more than two hours long has to have a lot to offer, and this movie doesn't cut it. Also there is a disturbing music that's put like a wet blanket over every scene. Especially in the action scenes this is highly disturbing, not that you need action-music but something more than just slow keyboard-music would be nice. Otherwise the production values were good enough, that was not where the problem was.<br /><br />I don't know how to view this movie. As a reminder of the fact that no matter where you are, war sucks? That Russian film-makers have already watched too many American war-movies to make something original? Regardless of which, this movie is rather clichéd, lacks in spirit and while it has acceptable technical qualities, it lacks in script and character development. In the end it just becomes another of all those war-movies that fails to make you think, and fails to add something to the genre. I've seen a lot worse, but a lot better too. I rate this 4/10.
"The polar Express " was an awful movie .What makes this movie worst is the hypocrisy to present itself as a innocent ,sugary and harmless tale for children about the "true " meaning of Christmas . I never read the book of Chris Van Allsburg in what it was inspired ,but the most disappointing is that it was directed by Robert Zemeckis ,the same who made the great "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?",a excellent movie where he proof that the animation could be appreciated for kids and adults equally ,while in this movie it seems that he was victim of his own ambition and he give too much importance to create impressive level of detail than a interesting story .I'm sorry to say this ,but "The Polar Express " have so much artistic level as a publicity campaign of a video -game or toy . Everything in this movie seems to be so lifeless : the characters could look like humans ,but they don't have nothing of life on them ,and they have a malevolent touch in their eyes .<br /><br />But the worst ...is the "message" in this movie .You could see it at some parts of the movie ,and believe me ,it was vile .Take for example one scene ,where one kid refuses to enter to the Polar Express . Notice that the character that looks like Tom Hanks makes a gesture like saying "you are stupid to don't accept my offering " .Second ,when the girl says that the toys are so "warm " and things like that . All the damn movie the kids keep talking about how big would be the gifts that Santa would give to them . There is even a song about the gifts !the vagabond is a irrelevant and weak character . And ,in the last scene the character seems to "discover " the true meaning of Christmas : and what would be ? what do you think ? the gifts ! many Christmas movies are close to say something like it ,but "The Polar Express " it's a ode to the materialism and greed . Seriouslly ,I refuse to call it a "children's movie " , because if is that what the kids would learn ,I don't want to think how would be our future .
This movie is awful. It creates characters not in the book, and some of them are ethnic or racial stereotypes. Including an obnoxious little Jewish boy and a politically correct little black girl. Not to mention the Yiddish speaking elves. The book was a simple story about belief, and this movie is a dark, ugly, and needlessly scary movie about nothing.<br /><br />The animation is superb, but the story has been ruined by Hollywood.<br /><br />The good thing is that this movie will take a bath in the box office and maybe producers will learn to keep from tampering with a story that needs no improvement. Hanks was overdone and i don't see why there couldn't have been other actors' voices be used.
The Polar Express. Director Robert Zemeckis, I love Back to the Future, Forrest Gump, Contact, and Who Framed Roger Rabbit (NO QUESTION MARK AFTER THAT MOVIE TITLE!!). And Tom Hanks, one of my favorite actors. The reviews of this movie were almost unanimous saying that this is an instant holiday classic. Ebert & Roeper give it two ENTHUSIASTIC thumbs up! Even Ebert's written review gave it a full four stars! Wow... OK... this I gotta see! But wait... the motion capture used looks really weird. Hmm... maybe I'm NOT so interested in seeing this anymore.<br /><br />"Well, you comin?" says the train conductor to the boy in The Polar Express. The boy is reluctant at first, and the train begins on its course without him. The boy soon changes his mind and jumps aboard just in the nick of time. <br /><br />Now, most of you have probably decided to not jump aboard this train and wait for the TV Train or Rental Express (hee hee, I'm so witty and clever). I, on the other hand was like the boy who was skeptical at first, but jumped on to see what the fuss was all about. <br /><br />I just wasted $10 and two hours of my life. <br /><br />I can't even begin to explain the pain in my stomach. The Polar Express was so painful to sit through it's not even funny. There's no story. There's no pay off. You sit there through these series of events and you wonder "is there any point to all this?" It'd be one thing if the scenes were entertaining... but they're not.<br /><br />This movie is void of any emotion, any soul, any ounce of plausibility, and most of all: any fun. This movie is NOT FUN. <br /><br />And let's talk about the way these characters look for a second. Saying that it's the same technology (motion, I'm sorry, "PERFORMANCE" capture) used to make Gollum is a real shame because Gollum was Believable!!! Photo-realism just does not translate well in this medium. You're using animation, why not design the characters to be more expressive? Or why not just film it all with real actors? They certainly COULD have. We as people know all too well how we walk, talk, interact with things. Seeing it on the screen done unconvincingly is not impressive. Caricatures done convincingly is all the more believable, as The Incredibles has proved. The result of The Polar Express now is as if they took corpses of dead children and turned them into puppets. They're moving and talking, but where's the heart? Where's the soul? That's what we're seeing on the screen. UGH UGH UGH UGH UGH! This movie is so horrible! <br /><br />There's a scene early in the movie where the boy takes a girl's train ticket from her seat because she got up and left it. He wants to give it to her but you sit there going "why??!" Just leave it.. she's coming back! He of course loses the ticket and "adventure" ensues. And then there's a boy who's stuck in the back of the train all the time, and they bring him hot chocolate, but he can't come up and join the rest of the kids? And then there's this annoying "know it all" kid with the voice of a 35 year old. It's all so very disturbing. <br /><br />Oh and there's songs! One girl goes into the back of the train where the lonely kid is. He's singing a song to himself. And then she interrupts and joins in! They end the song as they're holding hands, looking into each others eyes as if they were lovers. Very awkward. I won't even go into details about the song about serving hot chocolate while waiters dance around the train. "keep it hot keep it hot!" The one scene where Tom Hanks slides on his knees with his arms stretched up in the air has to be one of the most memorably BAD scenes in the history of bad scenes. <br /><br />I have to stop now or I'll just kill myself. I need to watch something crappy to cleanse the palette. Yes... crappy is better than The Polar Express. <br /><br />"The one thing about trains, it doesn't matter where you're going, what matters is deciding to get on."<br /><br />Don't get on this one. For the love of God, I have decided for you! This is just another film taken from a children's book stretched incredibly thin into movie form. It happened with the Grinch and The Cat in the Hat and those were horrible also. But who can blame them? I bet if I took the book, The Berenstein Bears' Too Much Junk Food, and turned that into a feature film, it'd probably be pretty dull also. But at least... there'd be a story and a point, which is what The Polar Express is so lacking of.
Much like Final Fantasy, if you look at a still shot - it doesn't look so bad. But when the people start moving, it's utterly horrifying. Uneven jerky motions, frightening lack of emotion, and lack of a feel of life in the face gives me the creeps. The characters do not even appear ALIVE/organic.<br /><br />I saw a preview screening with my daughter, who actually fell asleep! She was not at all engaged. For the record, I thought her to be easily engaged by both Pixar-esque films as well as a number of the 'bad' 2D films like Sinbad.<br /><br />The lighting is painful, giving the children the appearance of holding a flashlight under their chin at a campfire. The lip syncing is bad - worse actually than Final Fantasy. <br /><br />I also seriously question having Hanks play five characters.... this was a major distraction throughout the film. The role of the conductor is eerie - although in a way I just can't pinpoint. It reminds me of my father's fake "phone" voice when greeting clients.<br /><br />I think this is why the multiple roles are distracting - you are accutely aware that the voice is the same, but yet distinctly different. It gives each character the feel of being ACTED, as opposed to being real human characters. The illusion of reality is broken by the multiple role playing of Hanks. I've seen the technique work - a la Eddie Murphy, but Hanks just can't come close to pulling it off with a voice alone, given the horrifying animation.<br /><br />I would not waste my money on this - wait for the rental.
I know most of the other reviews say that this movie was great, but I have to disagree.<br /><br />Sure, it's a good book! It was actually one of my favorites when I was verrry little. But it's just not meant for theaters. Maybe for a little half-hour short, but I don't see how they can turn a short kiddie book into a whole feature film.<br /><br />It is a cute movie, but I would only recommend it for really little kids. Older kids will have no interest it. Adults may have a little more interest if they watch it with their young ones. But anyone ages 7-Adult will have a snore-fest.<br /><br />Sorry if you disagree with me, but this is my opinion. :)
I am not kidding: there's a scene in this movie where a hobo hits his head on a tunnel keystone and explodes (with no fireball, though) into a million pieces! It made some kid in front of me scream in terror! ...In a G-rated film!<br /><br />This film might serve to convince children that Santa Clause is EVIL! His helpers are ugly, misanthropic, over-the-top and mean! When Santa (here an anagram of Satan!) appears, all 200,000 elves begin singing "Santa Clause is Coming to Town" as though it were a Druid war chant. Then, in the reflection of this movie's "Rosebud" object (a jingle bell that whispers hints of why you can't hear it ringing: "doubt....doubt...)), old Saint Nick appears, looking like a stoic Donald Sutherland, his face glowing like Moses' from "K10C". When we hear him speak, his thundering voice sounds less like a jolly old elf, and more like James Earl Jones' voice slowed-down about 20%. Frightening!<br /><br />The syrupy music is out-of-place, boring and repetitive. It doesn't follow any emotional threads (as in "Titanic's" very effective score). It just seems thrown in at certain points in order to generate feelings of warmth and magic. It fails to stir, partly because it doesn't match the imagery of the film. There are some musical train wrecks (no pun intended) where, out of nowhere, the eerie, symphonic score slams abruptly into happy, child-voiced POLKA about the title locomotive. It just makes the whole movie sound like it was rushed into production! <br /><br />Finally, I agree with some other reviewers about how, well... "dead" everyone looks. It does seem a little macabre at times. The motion-capture technique is good for allowing the Kings Island-like roller-coaster train sequences to look convincing from a distance, but up close, "real" actors should have been used. Overall, nice eye-candy for killing time in front of the TV, but not much else here.
I do think Tom Hanks is a good actor. I enjoyed reading this book to my children when they were little. I was very disappointed in the movie. One character is totally annoying with a voice that gives me the feeling of fingernails on a chalkboard. There is a totally unnecessary train/roller coaster scene. There are some characters and scenes that seem scary for little children for whom this movie was made. The North Pole scenes with Santa and the elves could have been cute and charming. There was absolutely no warmth or charm to these scenes or characters. It usually doesn't work to make a short children's book into a feature film. This movie totally grates on my nerves.
I don't see the point. It's ponderous. The animated people are creepy (look up uncanny valley). Scenes go on and on and on for very little purpose. The plot is skeletal and must be padded out with lots of meaningless dramatic, screaming roller coaster rides, as if Disney or Spielberg were planning an amusement park ride based on the movie. Most of the characters are annoying and unlikeable. Some of them keep showing up as if they will have something important to add to a climactic scene. They don't. They just vanish with no lasting impact. Somebody summed it up as "if you don't believe in Santa Claus, you'll be kidnapped on a train on Christmas eve." That pretty much sums it up.
I like underdogs. So, 12 years after having first seen Star Trek V, and thinking it was bizarrely bad, I gave it a second watch, hoping I would find some redeeming quality which I missed the first time around.<br /><br />I didn't.<br /><br />The writing is half-baked, and although at first the quality of the acting is stable enough to keep the movie on its feet (albeit shakily), the further we get into the plot the sillier it gets. The last quarter of the film is just plain ridiculous. What was even worse, from the original cast's POV, is that this was the first ST movie to be released AFTER the franchise returned to television with Next Generation, and the average episode of Next Generation would put this to shame* - including the special effects! What an embarrassment.<br /><br />The Final Frontier isn't thoroughly wretched - I gave it 4 out of 10 - but it's so far below the standard of its predecessors (yes, including the first one) that the only reason I can think of to watch it is because you'll appreciate the other movies more.<br /><br />* unless it's an episode with Troi's mother in it.
What is it with studios like Paramount that have a proven hit film series on their hands, and figure it can screw around with the budget and formula? Paramount spent less on this film than they did on TMP, which doesn't sound bad until you realize that there's a 10 gap between when the films were made. The $40 TMP cost to make would be equivalent to about $75 million in 1989. This film is the reason that Shatner has never been given a fair chance to direct other films, as well. Every time he turned around, the studio was slashing the budget and making demands regarding the storyline. The fact that this was the one storyline that Roddenberry and Shatner could agree upon for the most part made the freshman directorial task tough enough, but after all the machinations were done, all anyone ended up with was an uneven story and a load of badly executed special effects not worthy of the original series, much less a major motion picture. The most glaring examples: - All of the Phaser effects were severely ashed out and fake-looking. - The shot of the Enterprise going into the great barrier was so obviously a still-frame shot being zoomed away from. At least the popsicle stick that held the Enterprise cut out up was successfully matted out. - God "chasing" Kirk up the mountain... Egads, they may as well have just cut in shots of Godzilla climbing the volcano at the end of "Godzilla 1985," and used thumbtacks to scratch the emulsion off of the film to make electric bolts come out of his eyes at the imperiled Captain Kirk.... Yes, friends, I have a real problem with the look of that last scene, especially.<br /><br />Thank goodness Star Trek VI was such a redeemer of a film...
I find it almost touching how Star Trek fans try desperately to like this film in spite of its unbelievable number of flaws.<br /><br />To begin with, none of the familiar characters are really in character so to speak. Scotty is depicted as a bumbling tinkerer instead of the competent engineer he was in the original series. Uhura...Gods, I can't even think about what they did to her character. All of her dialog was painful to listen to. McCoy seemed like a neurotic stepfather to Kirk instead of his trusted friend. Spock...well, let's just say that Leonard Nimoy was terribly wasted. He was given bad dialog ("I do not believe you have grasped the gravity of your situation Captain." Gravity, get it? Get it?) and made almost into a buffoon. Kirk...oh man, don't get me started. William Shatner is a hammy actor to begin with, so to allow him to direct really is to invite disaster which is what we got.<br /><br />The plot is beyond ridiculous. Giving Spock a brother is a pretty desperate story line and unnecessarily soap operaish. But hey, let's go with it. The search for God. Again, a weak plot basis. You don't think so? OK, let's go with that too. So assuming that the two aforementioned plot elements are sound, what's wrong with the script? Well, for one thing, it recycles way too much. The Enterprise, for example, is yet again, not working properly. Are we to assume that Starfleet would send a grossly malfunctioning ship with a skeleton crew into a potentially dangerous situation just because they want James Kirk to handle the situation? If that's the case, then why not put him on a better ship as an adviser? Adding to that...the crew is grossly incompetent. Scotty has the ship in pieces (and apparently is cloddish enough to bump his head knocking himself into unconsciousness WHILE there are hostiles on board!), no one seem to notice the Klingon ship decloaking at a crucial moment (despite the fact that the sensors are clearly showing the ship in weapons range) and the crew all seem way too familiar with each other. In other words, there is no sense of discipline. If this is the flagship of Starfleet, then it's a wonder that the Klingons hadn't already overthrown the Federation.<br /><br />As to the personal struggles with pain, it was crap. Lawrence Luckenbill is a competent actor, but even he couldn't save this turkey. In short no one could. Of all the people involved, I imagine Leonard Nimoy is the most embarrassed by it. I hope he is, anyway.<br /><br />Thank god the original cast didn't bow out on this cloddish opus.
This was so bad I can't even review it. So I'll jot some sentences about what I witnessed, and it'll be up to you to decide. <br /><br />Captain Kirk, with toupee and tubby gut, is rock climbing Yosemete's El Capitan. Spock meets him halfway riding on a floating skateboard-like hovercraft. Kirk falls. Spock flies down, catches him inches before Kirk hits the ground head- first. <br /><br />Later, that night, Spock, Kirk and McCoy are eating beans around a campfire. Spock likes the beans. Then, Kirk and McCoy sing "Row Row Row Your Boat", and want Spock to join in on the three-way harmony. Spock doesn't want to sing. And later that night, he disagrees. "But life isn't but a dream, Captain". Should I go on? <br /><br />Okay... A renegade Vulcan, who happens to be Spock's half brother, leads a revolt on a sandy planet - taking hostages. The crew of the enterprise land on the planet, and Uhura, pushing fifty-five and weighing two-hundred some-odd pounds, lures the natives with her bare legs. But they can't trick the brother, who claims he can find God. <br /><br />He kidnaps the crew and the Enterprise. They go to a planet where a big bearded apparition, claiming to be God, spits fire at Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Spock's sibling, realizing it isn't God - but is really a form of himself - or something - joins with the apparition in order to destroy it and... sparks fly. <br /><br />Then, after stuff happens too complicated to explain involving Klingons who resemble Lorenzo Lamas... <br /><br />The Three Amigos - Kirk, Spock and McCoy - return to Yosemite (did I mention, Kirk was wearing a GO CLIMB A ROCK T-shirt?). With Spock playing some kind of funky Vulcan guitar, they sing "Row Row Row Your Boat", this time all three harmonizing as the credits roll.
I guess that after Leonard Nimoy had been successful in directing "the Search for Spock" and "the Voyage Home," William Shatner thought he could direct too. Although he is a competent actor, he shows here that he's just not a good director.<br /><br />Actually, this movie is hard evidence to support the arguments of Trekkies who say that William Shatner being an arrogant egomaniac. For although his character, Captain James Kirk, was always arguably the most important role in the original "Star Trek," it seems in this movie that he is the heart of the movie, the two other most important characters, Captain Spock and Doctor Leonard McCoy, are just there to support him, and the other characters are just there to add comic relief.<br /><br />The plot is that some emotional Vulcan outcast named Sybok is mindmelding with people and releasing the pain bottled up inside them from that traumatic event early in life that changed them forever. Grateful, they join him in his quest to make the entire world free of pain and thus at peace. Sybok and his followers commandeer the building in which a peace conference between a Human, Klingon, and Romulan diplomat is taking place. This lures the still-being-constructed Enterprise there, since none of Starfleet's other ships have "experienced commanders" (honestly, with how Starfleet is run, the Klingons and Romulans should have conquered them years ago). Sybok adds the Enterprise's crew, save Spock (who is revealed to be secret brothers with Sybok), McCoy, and Kirk. Sybok orders that the Enterprise take off to "the center of the universe" to meet "God," who apparently every race has a word for. However, it turns out that this is only a minor entity when he demands the use of the Enterprise and Kirk asks, "what does God need with a starship." The entity is destroyed, but not before Sybok, realizing he's been lied to for years, sacrifices his life and earns Spock's respect in death after the Enterprises photon torpedos destroy the entity and inexplicably Sybok as well.<br /><br />OK, science fiction movies are not known for realism, but at some point, rationality must be enforced. Why do people follow Sybok just for releasing their pain? Why are all humanoids defined by a single traumatic event? I've certainly led a trauma-free life. Why doesn't Kirk try his crew for mutiny and treason after they join Sybok? What was the point of Sybok sacrificing himself when the torpedos were going to kill the entity anyway?<br /><br />So the plot's weak. Another problem is that Sybok, though played well by Lawrence Luckinbill, is poorly portrayed. Just because he's an emotional Vulcan doesn't mean he should act exactly like a Human religious fanatic. Shatner (who was a co-writer as well as the director) could have at least developed dialog fitting for an emotional Vulcan. I guess he feels that any emotional being talks like us. Gee, I guess that means that Klingons should say "isn't" and "don't" more often than "is not" and "do not." And the Cardassians shouldn't prolong their sentences because they like to talk (yeah, I know it's sad that I know this). Please... every ST race uses unique dialog. Why is Sybok the exception.<br /><br />The only thing to not complain about is the acting. I've always known "Star Trek" to have great actors, and this movie is not exception. Cudos also go to Leonard Nimoy, for it had to be difficult to play the dispassionate Spock in his old age.<br /><br />Some other things I didn't like:<br /><br />Shatner and the late DeForrest Kelly twice show what bad singers they are by singing "Row, Row, Row your Boat" in this movie. I guess Shatner wished to silence his detractors of his singing ability. What he did was prove their point.<br /><br />Uhura does a fan dance while wearing nothing but tree bark to draw some men into a booby trap. After all, the dreams of all us men are filled with images of middle-aged plump women dancing naked.<br /><br />Comedy's all well and good as long as it doesn't affect the nature of "Star Trek" too much, but when Scotty bumps into an object on the Enterprise and KOs himself, it's kinda goin' overboard.<br /><br />Kirk is the only crew member who can reject Sybok's offer of releasing their inner pain and see through the God imposter's deception. Not even Spock can manage either of these? Perhaps this scenes were valantines from Shatner to his character, as many suspect.<br /><br />The concept of an entity posing as God had been used in "Star Trek" before this movie more than once. Be creative, Shatner.<br /><br />Speaking of uncreativeness, I didn't purticularly care for the ripping off of the music of "Star Trek: the Next Generation."<br /><br />All in all, pretty bad "Trek" movie. If you're a Trekkie, watch it once because it's "Star Trek." Otherwise, watch "Star Trek II: the Wrath of Khan." It's way better.
... Once. "Manos, the Hands of Fate." That was worse than this, quite a bit worse: but it did have one thing: it had beautiful women in negligees wresting each other -- for about 20 minutes. This has a fat 45 year-old with 3 tits and a tail, in a cantina scene cloned directly from "Star Wars." Not to mention an obese, blue seductress Uhura, her fat legs and ass hanging out of some sort of insane bird costume, in this Method Acting Mess. She always wanted to perform before a "captive audience"? She must have meant the poor slobs who shelled out 8 bucks hoping to see another "Wrath of Khan," or at least a "Voyage Home." Captive" is right. I wonder how many people in the theaters tried to slit their wrists while crying out: "mother, make it stop."<br /><br />No question about it, "Final Frontier" is not just an unmitigated disaster, it's cruel and unusual punishment. This is Star Trek from hell. This is Shatner on mushrooms -- or maybe peyote. This is Where No Man Has Gone Before and Wished He Never Had in the First Place. Or, to paraphrase a review of "Heaven's Gate: "It's as if Gene Roddenberry sold his soul to the Devil for the success of a TV series, and Devil is just now coming around to collect."<br /><br />And don't even get me started on a drunken Kirk and a grinning McCoy singing "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" together, like they were lovers in some sort of demented gay fever dream. Then we've got the Hideous Dynamic Duo of Sulu and Chekov, hiking through the woods together... probably en route to a Barry Manilow concert. Then there's Laurence Luckinbill as Spock's brother???!!! Yeah, right! Amazing how these relations we never heard of suddenly crawl out of the woodwork when we need a new plot line. And not to forget Spock rocketing through the air after Kirk when he falls from a cliff in Yosemite. Sure. He catches up to Kirk and saves him ONE FOOT away from the ground. Where'd you get those nifty Rocket Shoes, Spock?!
The voyage here is a search for God, the big guy in the sky, the big cheese with a beard. Cunningly disguised as the thirst for ultimate knowledge. Taking over from Leonard Nimoy in the directing chair is The Shat himself, Captain Tiberius William Shatner Kirk. In an attempt at blending the fun corny aspects of the series with sci-fi histrionics {Klingon dialogue consultant, really?}, Shatner and his co-writers have only achieved what is almost an embarrassing parody of a parody. Where's the danger,? where's the brothers in arms spirit,? in fact where is our badly underwritten crew?. Star Trek humour is a wonderful thing, when it's in the right places and done with a straight lace so befitting what has come before The Final Frontier. Some light moments exist, but they do not compensate for the lack of serious moments. While do we really need another Spock revelation,? really?.<br /><br />Some nice sets and little knowingly Trek moments aside, The Final Frontier is just a bad movie experience. 3/10
Supposedly, director William Shatner had in mind a much 'darker' film when it came to 'Star Trek V: The Final Frontier' but the suits at Paramount, looking at the huge box-office receipts taken in by its humor-filled predecessor, insisted the new film have plenty of laughs too. So what we get is arguably the weakest and goofiest of the six Star Trek movies with the original cast. There are bad ideas aplenty, along with a few good ones, and if you're in a charitable mood, you could look at 'The Final Frontier' the same way you would a so-so episode of the TV series. On the plus side, Laurence Luckenbill is a fine actor and gives one of the best 'guest star' performances in any Star Trek, big or small screen, ranking right up there with William Windom's Commodore Decker. His portrayal of Sybok, Spock's half-brother, consistently lifts the film when it threatens to sink, which happens all too frequently. Charles Cooper is good too as the fat old Klingon General Korrd; too bad his role isn't as large as he is. If the story about Shatner's intentions is true, then I owe him an apology, because I was prepared to lay the blame for the incessant silliness and not-very-convincing action scenes squarely at his directorial feet. The reason is I've always felt that, of all the Trek regulars, Shatner was the least 'tuned-in' to everything that makes Star Trek work and what makes it special to its fans. Having read his Trek memoirs, it's very apparent to me that he considered the show another action-adventure series that just happened to have a science-fiction setting. He preferred the vision of Gene Coon over that of Gene Roddenberry; Coon was known for his work on the popular western series, 'The Wild Wild West.' Shatner also mentioned that a favorite Star Trek episode of his was 'A Piece of the Action,' a silly second-season episode co-written by Coon. So, finally given an opportunity to direct a Star Trek feature film, would not Shatner follow his instincts and produce an action-filled flick with lots of tongue-in-cheek humor? Well somebody did, because that's what 'The Final Frontier' ended up being. Shatner himself definitely returns to form as The Great Ham and, as Leonard Maltin points out, the film suffers from a bad case of 'the cutes.' In the opening scene at Yosemite National Park, it's hard to say which is worse, the super-cheesy special effects or the godawful dialogue. Running gags about equipment malfunctioning on the Enterprise have run all the way from 'Wrath of Khan' and by this, the fifth Trek movie, have run themselves into the ground. So has the idea of a 'skeleton crew'. One new development is an apparent romantic relationship between Scotty and Uhura and suffice it to say one does not exactly sense flames of passion burning between the two. It's a pointless subplot and adds nothing. The climactic scene where 'God' is encountered doesn't add much either; whether or not this was a good idea in the first place is debatable, but the scene itself doesn't make much sense. (The 'God' creature's abilities seem to vary according to what is needed at the moment.) Roughly half of this is a tired retread of the climax from 'The Search for Spock.' Leonard Nimoy manages to salvage Spock's integrity, even while spouting such un-Spock-like lines as "Get a grip on yourself, Doctor." And DeForest Kelley, as usual, outperforms both Shatner and Nimoy; he really came on as an actor in the final Trek films. So this Trek outing isn't terrible, it just isn't very good. There was to be one more original cast Trek movie before the baton was passed to the 'next generation,' and it was far better suited to the task than 'Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.'
When I first saw it 9 years ago, when I was 9. I thought it stunk. I'm 18 now and I still think it stinks. I mean geez no Special effects or anything, it was boring and kinda anti-climatic. My cousin watched once and George Takai (Sulu) kept talking about how it was supposed to be so much better, but they kept cutting to the budget. It would have been a great episode, but it was a terrible movie.
Leonard Nimoy directed Star Trek III, which wasn't half bad. Maybe William Shatner thought seeming as how Nimoy did it he could. After seeing this film he should have reversed that decision.<br /><br />Star Trek V The final Frontier is the worst in the series. The acting from all involved and that includes those like Shatner and Nimoy is bad and washed out and making them seem as old as they look in real life, the special effects are tacky like when Spock has to rescue Kirk on a jet pack when he falls down from a mountain.<br /><br />The attempts at humor were pitiful and story is so awful it dosen't bear thinking about which basically involves a Vulcan stealing the Enterprise to find god (seriously) I just didn't care about any of this film and oh not to mention Uhura does a belly dance to distract male guards. She looked like she was taking part in a granny competition. If they meant to make her look sexy. They were wrong. She looked grotesque.<br /><br />How this got to production or even written...well it dosen't bear thinking about. The only place good for this film is in the garbage. The worst one of the series.
Even not being a fan of the "Star Trek" movies or universe of shows and books and such, I still find some enjoyment in some of the movies featuring the old cast and in the case of "First Contact" even the new cast a bit. This one though was kind of sad to watch...it seemed to want to be so much, but it failed on so many levels to be one of the worst Star Trek movies. The plot is very far fetched seeming to want to combine three or four stories into one ultimate Trek adventure, but it ends up an unfunny when it tries to be, not tense when it wants to be and not action packed like it tries to be mess of inconsistencies. The whole movie to take a phrase from Spock is illogical. The effects are nothing special as I have seen episodes of Next Generation that are just as good, which is to say it is fine for a television show, but not a major motion picture. The plot is laughable as the gang at first tries to stop Spock's brother then joins him on his quest to find God, yes you read that correctly. The Klingons make a tacked on appearance, which actually will set up the much better Undiscovered Country movie. All in all you know it is bad when the best part of the film is Kirk, Bones and Spock singing row your boat, well Spock was not really singing, but rather questioning the lyrics.
While Star Trek the Motion Picture was mostly boring, Star Trek The Final Frontier is plain bad. In this terrible sequel, the crew is on shore leave when they get a distress signal from the Federation that ambassadors representing Earth, Romulus and Kronos (the Klingon home world) have been kidnapped by a renegade Vulcan bent on his quest to attain a starship to venture into the great barrier. There, he hopes to find God. Using mysticism and bad writing, he persuades many of the senior officers of the Enterprise to betray Kirk and get a hold of the ship. They do reach the inside of the great barrier and find a planet where they do meet a god-like alien. This one is so bad it is hard to figure out where to begin. At the core is a good idea that is never really developed. The plot goes nowhere instead of where no man has gone before. It is almost like the writers had no idea how to end this fiasco. The action scenes don't have the suspense of Wrath of Kahn, the philosophy is boring, and the humor is stale. Now I will focus most of my anger on William Shatner. When he takes the director's chair, the ego gets bigger. Most of the focus is on him, Spock, and McCoy, but does not give the others enough to do. Moreover, whereas Shatner is usually guilty of over-acting in previous movies and television spots, he is just plain bad in this one. Now Kirk is reckless, a practical jokers, and silly. One of the worst scenes involves the three leaders singing the song, "Row Row Row your Boat" in a round by a campfire. In any case, this is the worst of the Star Trek franchise. I should have given it three out of ten instead of five.
I don't think I can add much more to what has already been said about this film. However, I can offer a small recollection from seeing ST-V in the theater. In the last (dreadful) scene, as the camera is pulling out from the camping shot and it seems likely that the credits will start rolling at any second, the audience seemed to rise in unison. Normally, for a movie like this, at least -some- die-hard fans stay to watch right up until the final disclaimer. As the people filed out, I remember hearing no laughing and cheerful banter, only low murmurs.<br /><br />I remember reading a movie review in the local paper in which the critic said that it was so bad that only Trek fans would like it. What an idiot. The fans were the ones most apt to tear it apart first!<br /><br />Favorite worst scene: Target shooting on a Voyager space probe, through a periscope no less! Space must be a much smaller frontier than we thought.
I'm aware that there are some fans who might like this movie. I'm aware that the idea of 'searching for god' might appear interesting to some, to me, however, it's really boring.<br /><br />The movie is simply boring. When it does get a little bit interesting, it gets stupid. Come on... Kirk fights against god and wins? How low can we possibly get? The only good part in the film is the camping scene at the first 5 minutes, which is truly great, but after that, the movie becomes boring, irritating, with nothing more than a good music.<br /><br />Thank god we have Star Trek VI. (Oops, Kirk beat him).
No one expects the Star Trek movies to be high art, but the fans do expect a movie that is as good as some of the best episodes. Unfortunately, this movie had a muddled, implausible plot that just left me cringing - this is by far the worst of the nine (so far) movies. Even the chance to watch the well known characters interact in another movie can't save this movie - including the goofy scenes with Kirk, Spock and McCoy at Yosemite.<br /><br />I would say this movie is not worth a rental, and hardly worth watching, however for the True Fan who needs to see all the movies, renting this movie is about the only way you'll see it - even the cable channels avoid this movie.
Star Trek V definitely earns the dubious distinction of being the weakest film in the Star Trek series. Despite the good acting efforts by the actors, it suffered from a general lack of funding from Paramount Pictures. Paramount Pictures was not enthusiastic about this film at its very onset.<br /><br />The movie begins with the Enterprise crew enjoying their extended shore leave as a reword for saving the Earth from total ecological disaster. Their shore leave is cut short when a disturbance occurs on Nimbus III, the Planet of Intergalactic Peace. Captain Kirk and the Enterprise arrive at Nimbus III only to have their ship hijacked by Sybok, Spock's half-brother. Sybok brainwashes the crew of the Enterprise and sets it on a suicide mission to rendezvous with "God" just past the Great Barrier at the center of our galaxy. Captain Kirk must then figure out a way to regain control of his ship and to fend off the Enterprise's Klignon pursuers.<br /><br />The only bright spot in the film is the acting and directing. William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, Laurence Luckinbill, and the rest of the cast all give good performances. William Shatner also does a pretty good job directing this film.<br /><br />However, the film suffered from a general lack of enthusiasm and funding. First, the part of Sybok was initially offered to Sean Connery, but he refused. So, Laurence Luckinbill got the part. Second, many of the special effects were severely cut back ... reducing the movies entertaining potential. Third, the scene that depicts the arrival at the Great Barrier left much to be desired. Finally, the romance between Scotty and Uhura in this film did not make much sense at all ... considering that no such romance ever occurred prior to this point in the Star Trek universe and it was never explained how such a romance could suddenly materialize between Star Treks IV and V.<br /><br />Overall, this is a very weak film. You should probably just skip this film and move on to Star Trek VI. After all, the cast and crew made Star Trek VI partly to bail themselves out after their debacle with Star Trek V.
That's the only word I can think of to describe this movie. Not waste as in a waste of time (any time spent with these characters is never wasted), but waste as in a waste of opportunities.<br /><br />When I see this movie, I think of all the Star Trek novels that were written which would have made a much better film than the story Shatner chose. The setup was like an average television episode, while the finish felt like the climax (if you can call it that) of the first movie.<br /><br />Nimoy, in directing II-IV, focused on the character of Spock--how he faced the Kobayashi Maru outside of the classroom, and how he handled his emotional live now that he had a chance to start fresh. Shatner could have done the same with Kirk here, but he didn't. We don't know much about Kirk that we didn't know before. Again, one of the novels would have been better--try "My Enemy, My Ally" for a very interesting character study of our friend James T. The minor characters are used mostly for cute bits, and the Scotty-Uhura subplot seems way out of left field, particularly since the subtext in the original series was Sulu-Uhura.<br /><br />Even hardcore fans can't find much to enjoy here. Sorry, but it's true.
The weakest of the 'old' crew Star Trek films, this film suffers from an awful script and obvious budget constraints, particularly in the mishandled finale. The bones of a good movie are here, and the directing from Shatner is not as bad as is commonly made out, but the characters end up speaking and acting way out of the style that the previous 3 films had carefully established. Lawrence Luckinbull is convincing as the renegade Vulcan with msyterious and mystical powers to influence people and these powers are responsible for some of the best scenes, particularly for Deforest Kelley who shines as 'Bones' McCoy in this his second last movie. However, as good as those scenes are, they ultimately do not advance the plot, and end up feeling as more of a distraction. A great score from the ever reliable Goldsmith and some funny scenes in Yosemite between the main three are not enough to cover the gaping chasms in the plot, and the frankly embarassing attempts at humour serve only to alienate even die hard trekkies. All in all, a wealth of possibilities which although it fails to deliver, has its moments. Watch out for the pool table in the bar brawl scene...
Man, this would have been a bad episode of the original series. I can't believe they actually spent money on this one... I caught the second half of this on tv and, having never seen this one before, thought I would watch it... Boy, what a waste of time... More cheese than Wisconsin!!!<br /><br />
I saw this movie just recently, and I said to myself: "This movie is bad!" William Shatner is a great actor, but he is no director! <br /><br />It's not just that the acting is bad, it's terrible. And instead of a plot, we have a very bad storyline that is called a plot! What I really thought was bad was at the beginning where Kirk and McCoy were teaching Spock how to sing "Row, Row, Row Your Boat!"<br /><br />Do I have something against William Shatner? I do not. But when it comes to being a director, he sucks! This film is not one of the worst movies I have ever seen. But it is the worst of the Star Trek series! <br /><br />I noticed that after this Shatner did not return to direct another film in the series. They apparently did not want him to direct another film again after this happened! <br /><br />Overall, this movie sucks! <br /><br />2/10
Welcome to the Plan 9 From Outer Space of Star Trek movies. Come on, trekkers, admit it. This movie is so bad, so staggeringly inept in every department, it's become something of a classic.<br /><br />The Shat gives the worst performance ever committed to celluloid. "BOONES! Hi, Bones" Brilliant! This isn't just Ham - it's several large pig farms in Kentucky! <br /><br />The "Special" Effects. Should be done under the trade descriptions act for using such a term. The Enterprise is a moving piece of cardboard in this film. Really! Even the Star Trek TV show had better.<br /><br />Bones, Spock and The Shat sing! Yeah, Spock sings Row Row Row Your Boat. After struggling over the meaning of the words!!!! "Capt. Life is Not A Dream" Poor Leonard Nimoy, he must really want to strangle Shatner for this. Could The Shat not have given us his rendition of Mr. Tambourine Man, or harmonised with Nimoy on Ballad of Bilbo Baggins? Sorely disappointed.<br /><br />A Sean Connery look-a-like plays Spock's half-brother. Only cos they couldn't get Sean Connery! Uhura does a fan dance! That would have been sexy in 1966. In 1989 it's like watching your drunk granny embarrass herself at a Christmas Party.<br /><br />Cat Woman Jumps on Shatner's back! Shat twirls her around a few times like a WWF Wrestler, and chucks her off. Yayy The Shat! Seems Connery 2.0 was a bit of a Vulcan rebel. Which explains why Spock hasn't previously mentioned him in 79 t.v episodes and 4 movies. McCoy apparently mercy-killed his Dad, BUT AFTERWARDS THEY FOUND A CURE. Tell me this isn't hysterically funny.<br /><br />The 11 deck Enterprise suddenly grows another 400 decks for an escape sequence in an elevator shaft. Spock's antigrav boots amazingly support Bones and The Shat as well. Should also have used em on the humped-back whales in Star Trek IV! Shatner meets God! Or what purports to be God, but I assume is really some kind of alien being. God looks a bit like Charlton Heston in The 10 Commandments. Sean Connery the 2nd calls on God to share his pain, and promptly dies. Or something. God punishes the Shat for questioning his identity. So Spock kills God with a photon torpedo. I'd love to know what Jehovah's Witnesses made of this scene.<br /><br />The Shat, having killed God, promptly goes back to his sing-song with Spock and Bones. Altogether now, Row Row Row Your Boat.....
I have been a huge fan of the original crew of the Enterprise since I was eight years old. I watched all the movies and appreciated each one for what they retained from the old series and for further developing the characters (and the Star Trek universe, in general). Even in "The Undiscovered Country" I thought the aging of the characters was well handled and the story worthy of a theatrical release. However, having said that, "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" is easily the worst of the series featuring the original crew. I agree with many that the camaraderie of Kirk, Spock and McCoy is well handled, but the overall script, the direction -- by William Shatner -- and the special effects are not worthy of anything more than a television episode. This is a "buddy movie" and, at times, almost unrecognizable as a Star Trek movie. The action sequences are not sustained and therefore, build little or no tension. The dialogue is weak though it does provide for a few laughs, both intended and not-intended. The Klingon's seem thrown in as an afterthought. The whole "Sha-Ka-Ree" concept is just silly and Laurence Luckinbill, a fine actor in everything else I've ever seen him in, boarders on the absurd in this movie. The scene where Sybok conjures up images of Spock's pain and McCoy's pain shatters the image of the characters as we've known them. Spock would never be party to such stupidity and McCoy, trying to save his father is full of insipid, redundant dialogue and totally wastes DeForest Kelley's acting abilities. The whole scene is wasted and really shows us nothing new and nothing we want to see from these characters. I understand that Shatner didn't have the luxury of working with ILM for the special effects and that the budget for this movie was tight, but that doesn't allow for such a bad story. In some respects, I think this story does fit in with the old series, but the movies, including "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" are all much better quality than this. It's a shame that most of the other characters have so few lines and so little to do with most of this movie. The focus on Kirk, McCoy and Spock is nice, but way over used. The old crew really seems to be out of character. I liked the old Klingon General and the sultry Romulan in the bar. I liked some of the humor and the idea that Spock has a half-brother, but that's about it. If this was a TV episode, I'd be able to accept a lot of the faults. As a movie, this is just bad, uninspired film making. It's a shame too, because I want this movie to be good. Even if it was the level of "Star Trek III" I would be happy, but this movie makes all the other movies in this series seem like works of Shakespeare.
Especially if you love horrible movies. When I first started watching it, all I could say was "I hope there's a dance sequence in it." Imagine my delight when not ONLY did the two main characters dance, but the main ghost began break dancing as well. AND on top of THAT, Sherman Hemsley sings the break dance song (not to mention the theme song). It makes me a little sad that he went broke because of this movie, but I've never liked him as an actor and he really should have known better. Not even the director would take credit for this movie (and you should check out some of the other films he directed!).<br /><br />One note of warning, though, the writer seemed to really like jokes about the, um, male lower regions. For example, one of the characters discovers a book called "Groins of the Darker Species." I am not kidding. And that, to me, is the most disturbing part of the film. Other than that, find the most obscure video rental store in your town, get the movie, invite all your friends over, and laugh until you cry with Ghost Fever.
I was telling a friend of mine about the time my grandfather actually picked this horrible piece of crap for us to see one night at the theater. He never picked another one again! It was that bad! Anyway, my friend then told me that her father did some of the writing for this garbage. I thought she was kidding. It turns out, she was serious. She had never actually seen it, and she said that it put a quick halt to her father's writing career. I told her not to waste her time. But, if she did actually break down and watch it, she would see within the fist minute why this ended her father's days as a writer. I mean, even for the 1980's, this crap is bad beyond description. I mean, Joe Frazier as Terrible Tucker? And why in the world would two cops care one bit about a house full of ghosts? And the movie poster? A ghost with his tongue hanging out? What is that about? Nothing about this makes any sense. Well, I told my friend that this crap not only ended her father's writing career, it ended the careers of everybody involved. Or, at least none of them ever fully recovered from being in this garbage of a movie. Let's just say that I will forever ridicule my friend for revealing to me that her father was a writer for this movie! That alone should tell just how bad this is!
<br /><br />This movie is só incredibly unfunny it makes any man want to cry, the cliché are put on thicker than 5-year old peanut butter and in such a way that it actually sucks humour out of your heart, every single joke was badly timed and wouldn't have been funny if it were timed correctly.<br /><br />Don't see this movie, there's a real chance you'll never be able to enjoy going to comedies again...ever.
Sherman Hemsley was great in the Jeffersons and especially All in the Family. He was also very good in Amen, why on earth would he do this movie? This movie has a terrible script and is a waste of a very funny man. Luis Avalos does the best he can but this is awful. This movie was the beginning of bankruptcy for Sherman Hemsley. I think he is very funny but this is an awful awful pointless ghost story. Stick with Ghostbusters.
This piece of garbage belongs in the basement of some moldy old mansion where it will never see the light of day again. The only thing scary about this junk was the price of admission. I was only amused when the ending credits started rolling and I was free to vacate the auditorium. What an unmitigated bore; a complete waste of 1 and a half hours. When I die, I pray I can come back as a ghost and give a fever to the moron who penned this gibberish.
Another of those flimsy stories coupled with most forgettable musical numbers. Powell and O'Keefe as battling publicists are quite forgettable. However, there are two shining moments. Hubert Castle is the most incredible tightrope walker you will ever see - his "drunken walk" on the wire has to be the most spectacular piece of balancing ever recorded on film. He has to be seen to be believed. The other is Sophie Tucker doing a turn near the end of the film. Her magnetism, her professionalism, her sheer talent at being herself - well, charisma is not learned - you have it or you don't. A great lesson for all would-be cabaret artists. A sad note: W.C. Fields in his last film cameo is completely forgettable.
this movie is about people living at a trailerpark. later in the movie it gets obvious that those people are out-of-work comedians, mainly old males. well, more or less they sit around the whole movie and talk about f***ing. but never there is any action, just those people talking. in the beginning I thought it's some cool perverted redneck-stuff, but after a while it got boring. I mean, how many versions can you think of saying f***ing, d**k & c**t? for sure, this can be funny - for half an hour maybe, not 80 minutes. but it was funny to watch those people trying to act. I'm pretty sure that they often were reading their text on some sheet when playing. but it does not disturb the movie, it's cool like this. because those individuals seem so poor, f***ed-up, crestfallen a***oles that the style totally fits. their wooden, helpless reading of the texts makes quite good atmosphere, I fell in love with the characters a little.<br /><br />***SPOILER AHEAD*** later in the movie the f***ers do some comedy-shows (rhymes about f***ing) with just themselves as audience and imagined applause. then one gets an eviction-advice and so they decide to defend the trailer park and enter their roofs - armed with some weapons. then they got shoot. fin. sounds like action, but it's not. just some trashy home-camera takes. ***SPOILER END***<br /><br />but the movie is totally consequent in it's style and I'm pretty sure it's just what the movie-maker wanted to have. it's the portrait of those f**k-ups in an groggy home-camera style with characters who can not act but seem interesting personalities so they are nice to watch. but the texts about - you know what - the whole time get boring after a while.<br /><br />pretty young director who also seems an interesting person, as he played some teenager-stuff in popular movies/TV-series but now got in more horror-movies which is more his cup of tea I guess. and this, his first direction-effort will be distributed by troma now. don't know anything about a release, I got this one as an "advance screener" from this years cannes which says "for bootlegging purposes only".
The only positive thing I can think of regarding this utter piece of garbage is that now I finally have a good answer ready if anyone ever asks me what the worst movie I ever saw was called.<br /><br />It would have taken such little effort to make it more watchable...a lot more effort and it could have been brilliant even. <br /><br />Why would anyone want to produce such waste? <br /><br />I refuse to believe that a director could be so ridiculously untalented. <br /><br />Making a completely intolerable movie must have been the point. <br /><br />Anything else just doesn't make sense.
Officially the first martial arts movie in USSR cinematography featuring actual martial artists like Tadeush Kas'yanov and Russian Bruce Lee - Talgat Nigmatullin. Bad people highjack a ship in the high seas but fortunately just about everybody on board is a trained martial artist. A collectible for martial arts aficionado.
It was the first action movie made in banned in USSR Hollywood action style. It is not even close to the Hollywood action movies of that time. The plot is childish, the directing is so-so. This movie succeeded because it was first of its kind in Russia. Even though I watched it many times I have to admit it was kind of naive and I did not like it. This is not the best example of Russian action movie. This is just the first experience.
This movie has a few good performances going for it -- and that's all it has going for it. The leads, especially Pauley Perrette, are appealing. (Although some of the bit players seem to be acting from a teleprompter.) The material -- that is the problem. I feel as though the screenwriter/director watched the entire run of Felicity in one sitting, then sat down to write a script without catching any sleep. It really did remind me of Felicity -- a thoughtful young woman finding herself, finding love, with a shake-them-up-and- see-what-happens approach to the characters and their relationships. Except that while I usually enjoyed watching Felicity, this movie left me cold. The writing is just awful. It's amazing that the cast could come off as well as they did, as the dialogue is dull at best. At its worst it becomes trite, stilted and amateurish. There is nothing original here, with plot elements recycled from gimmicks that weren't so brilliant to begin with. (Angels and fortune tellers? Come on.) For the first half of the movie, I rooted for the actors and hoped to be rewarded for my patience. By the second half, I just wished for it to end already. My sympathies to the cast, who deserved a better vehicle for their talents.
The only interesting part of this movie was it's jazz and reggae New Orleans back drop. It tries to be one of those movies that has two struggles the heroine has to overcome, one from the past and one from the present which she fails to do convincingly. The acting's bad and the direction is even worse. I'm not surprised at all that this went straight to video. The end result of this film leaves no one satisfied or convinced including the actors themselves.
This low-budget indie film redefines the word "blah". It will surprise most that this word can actually be found in the dictionary, defined as: "nonsense.. uninteresting, dull, lifeless". The movie redefines the word because I would have to add to those four words: "PC crap", "pretentious on a pathetic level", and "pointless".<br /><br />The film tries so hard to be "hip" and "in touch" with contemporary beautiful-people-struggling-for-je-ne-sais-quoi behaviour and "thinking" (do they think?). There is almost no plot to speak of, though there IS one to sleep to. The phoniest and most politically-correct things about it are how a white woman is great friends with a young, black stud, the black street-sax-player with a penchant for oh-so wise council and advice, and the fat black psychic. Isn't it beautiful how the races can get along after all?... Ahhhh... In the end, the woman reads out "poetry", which is nothing more than one of her dull "dear diary" entries. She gets a standing ovation(!!!), although in real life her listeners would have more likely than not dozed off into deep slumber. But this movie has little to do with real life, even though that is where it's supposed to be happening. In real life her "poetry" reading would have gotten standing ovations only if she had the sense to include the juicy, sexual details. "And then I rubbed his huge penis against my sweaty, impatient pink little vagina..." Cheers! What's worse, the lead actress has a dozen scenes in which she either bathes or screws with someone, yet they never have the sense to show her breasts, which was clearly the only thing left to save this mess.<br /><br />The black guy and the blonde, who are separated by about a meter in height, hook up: they look like a cheap variation of Rodman and Madonna (as if the latter two aren't a cheap enough combination already). Nicole Eggert, mentioned by Howard Stern in his "Miss America" book, is the blonde. Stern writes of Eggert that she took her implants out. Yet I believe that when they took her implants out they also sucked most of the meat out of her flesh and muscles by mistake, for she looks starved here.<br /><br />The sax player in one scene develops angel-like wings; he looks like Al Roker advertising angel food cakes.
Although the film does have a fairly stylish look for an indie made on a really low budget, that's not what I go to movies for. There wasn't one character I found sympathetic, they all seemed to be absolutely clueless losers. Everything they attempt ends badly, it's all too hopeless for me. Reviews refer to the Puffy Chair as a black comedy...comedy? The brother Rhett behaves like an escapee from an institution. When Josh talks to girl friend Emily about his brother, he almost hints at Rhett not playing with a full deck. Nonetheless Josh performs a "wedding" for Rhett and a woman Rhett met just a few hours before. There were a few interesting performances by some of the characters encountered on the road. However for me the most telling thing was that people were walking out of the film...and I saw it at a free screening.
When THE PUFFY CHAIR beckons, beware of its soft, colorful upholstery.<br /><br />The movie starts out quite well. Josh (Mark Duplass) and Emily (Kathryn Aselton) are a boyfriend-girlfriend couple having a bit of a tough time with their relationship. An argument occurs one night and in order to make up, Josh asks Emily to come along on a roadtrip to his father's house where Josh plans to deliver a purplish LazyBoy recliner for his dad's birthday. Emily accepts and along the way they pick up Josh's flighty brother Rhett (Rhett Wilkins), an Amish-looking fellow more in touch with other peoples' lives than his own.<br /><br />The roadtrip quickly devolves into more squabbling between Josh and Emily, as well as a bitter feeling for The Puffy Chair (it is initially very grubby and falling apart until Josh "convinces" the original owner to refurbish it). Rhett quickly ascertains that the cause of all of Emily and Josh's problems is the LazyBoy and sets it to the torch one night ...<br /><br />And that's the last we hear of the chair, even though there are many minutes left in the film.<br /><br />The big issue is that the title of the film is The Puffy Chair, when it isn't the chair at all that takes center-stage. It is Josh and Emily's doomed relationship and how the roadtrip seals their feelings for one another. Once the chair is destroyed, there's never another mention of it, even though they arrive at Josh's parents place on his father's birthday without a gift. Josh never mentions the chair, nor does his father. There's no connection between it and the lives of these people. So why call the movie The Puffy Chair and why isn't there a tie-in with it at the end? Bad script.<br /><br />The other annoying thing is that Mark Duplass' brother, Jay Duplass, is not only the director but also the cameraman (and not a very good). Nearly every scene has a rapid zoom-in on the characters that goes grainy and out of focus before the camera's autofocus catches up and rights itself. Initially this took on a quaint and artistic feel, but rapidly became unbearable.<br /><br />The acting in the film is accessible and entertaining. All of the actors/actresses did fine jobs. But the poor production quality, stilted ending, and lack of coherency to the title caused this flick too many problems.
Most films are crappy with high production values, this one is crappy without high production values. Which sets it aside from the large pool of horrible movies. As bad as this film was I need to give due respect to Kathryn Aselton who, I believe if given the proper script, could probably turn in a pretty good performance. She plays Emily the girlfriend to perennial doofus Josh, who often refers to her as "Dude" or "Man" in a non-ironical tone.<br /><br />But heres the thing, Emily is a semi-believable character which means Rhett will soon need to be added to the cast, to counteract this almost believable character with a guy even more preposterous than Josh. When we first meet Rhett we learn that he is "deep" because he is videotaping a lizard which is PROOF that he sees the world "uniquely!" Rhett then shows the tape to Emily and in one of Emily's few unbelievable moments she acts impressed by this amateur tape of a lizard, WOW i believe is how she responds once again with no irony of sarcasm even mildly implied.<br /><br />From the opening scene you are given warning that the camera work will be crappy, we open on a shaky close up of Josh as he attempts to win over the viewers by acting GOOFY! oh how care free this main protagonist is that he will act GOOFY! haha. This film could almost be a case study in just how BAD films can be (and for that matter just how FAR bad films can get in the festival circuit, I mean by comparison of most circuit crap this film probably did appear pretty awesome).<br /><br />I believe SXSW gave this film some minor award (oh south by southwest, why do you encourage them, its only cruel). But here is where I hand this film a compliment, it is the best of the mumblecore movement. Mind you all other mumblecore movies sucked beyond belief and generally included grotesque nudity and incomprehensibly bad acting, but still, its good to be the best of something.<br /><br />I haven't seen baghead yet, but it looks like maybe they have made a few strides forward, the preview at least made it appear tolerable, where as even the Puffy Chair preview couldn't really hide the fact that it was going to suck. I've gotten off topic here, anyways Rhett is most likely not portrayed by a professional actor at all, much like Josh most likely isn't an actual actor but rather the director (or brother of director, there's some mixed messages there). I think Rhett was somebodies buddy and they said hey why don't you play this guy named Rhett in the movie, the fact that Rhett is the name of the actor and character probably means the actor and character are the same, unless I am mistaken, which I am not.<br /><br />If Rhett shaved the raccoon off of his face you would probably say he was attractive. So anyways Rhett, Emily, and Josh team up to bring the Puffy Chair to Rhett and Josh's dad. Some stuff happens along the way, more bad acting, bad supporting actors, crappy camera work, an attempt at significance. This film wouldn't have been bad if it hadnt been so shamelessly pursuing profound self importance.<br /><br />The whole thing is amateurish, if you can view this movie without paying for it, like if its on TV or for rent at the library, then consider looking at it, just to see if you like this super cheap style of film-making. I like what the duplass' are doing the whole make a movie with nothing concept, but I wish they would make a movie that someone would want to see.
"The Puffy Chair" was a supreme waste of 84 minutes of my life which cannot be retrieved and spent in a more worthwhile way (even "The Blair Witch Project" was a better use of life's precious moments). It must be called "The Puffy Chair" because only 'puffy' chairs could accommodate the extremely 'puffed-up', self-important brothers who drooled it out for public consumption; and, obviously, they are SO full of themselves that they have assumed the public would actually want to consume their drool. "The Puffy Chair" made "The Wooly Boys" seem like a cinematic masterpiece! "Valley of the Dolls," "Beyond Valley of the Dolls," "Pink Flamingos," "Texas Chainsaw Massacre," "Night of the Living Dead," "Urban Cowboy," "The Blob," -- all of these would be a better use of one's time, than viewing "The Puffy Chair." The characters portrayed are either too predictable or too lacking in normal, emotional reflexes to even come close to being likable or believable. Also, at one point in the film, while the characters are supposed to be in the same small town, if one watches closely, one can see that one part of the town is apparently in the southern United States, and the other half is located in Maine. That's some town, eh?
I'd love to sit down and write an intelligent, well thought out review however, I feel I'd be spending more time in the writing process than the filmmakers did. I live in Los Angeles and I'm sorry to say that the characters seemed just SO much like underemployed and overly ego inflated ACTORS. There was not one moment in the film when I could escape the feeling I was watching the drivel ridden conversation of unemployed actors at a hipster LA coffee shop. One of the worst "indie" films I've ever seem with so little to recommend it that hearing it won at Sundance has effectively removed any prior interest I may have had in attending, much less considering a postitive Sundance review to be meaningful. Watch at your own risk.
I saw this at my city's independent cinema - no surprise, because no mainstream theatre would want its fingerprints on this train wreck.<br /><br />The camera work is very distracting. The constant shifting, refocusing, and zooms could induce a sensitive person to have motion sickness. It looks more like a film student's project than a serious movie.<br /><br />Though well-acted, the characters are unlikeable. Josh is devious, always trying to manipulate situations and people to his advantage. Without any context to Emily and Josh's relationship, she comes off as a whiny, insecure girl who's desperate to get married. Rhett is an emotional infant, incapable of understanding the complexities of human interaction. Without any redeeming qualities, I didn't care about what happened to any of them.<br /><br />Obviously some people liked this movie, as the couple sitting behind me were laughing hysterically. Of course, they could have just making fun of it. I could hardly blame them for it.
In spite of many positive reviews this is a very slow film with three essentially good actors improvising the most banal dialog you will ever hear. This is another road movie that really goes no where. The camera frequently goes out of focus and the constant panning in some of the over long scenes is annoying.<br /><br />The three characters are attractive but note likable. The cast also sets what must be an intergalactic record for the use of the tired word "dude". (Even Howard Stern has abandoned this tired pesudo pronoun).<br /><br />The three primary actors and one supporting actor show great promise. They are clearly comfortable and bravely allow themselves to be depicted as shallow and even goofy. The character actors all seem as they are plucky amateurs who generously volunteered to speak a few lines.. Indeed they all physically fit their roles well.<br /><br />All in all a dull 90 minutes that seems more like an eternity. This is among my ten worst films of all time.
So then... this is what passes as high art for the likes of SXSW Film Festival and Sundance, eh? Well, I suppose I can relate as long as story, script, dialog, acting (save for Ms. Aselton), cinematography and editing are completely irrelevant.<br /><br />I remember telling other film-making friends some years ago that the biggest problem with digital video was that we were now going to have to wade through a future sea of crap to get to anything worth watching now that anyone and his brother (or brothers in the case of the Duplass') could run out and make a movie. "The Puffy Chair." Need I say more?<br /><br />This feature length video is yet another chapter in the dismal, ever-expanding world of "dudeology" movies; young guns armed with a DVX100A, a few thousand dollars, a hastily written, shallow script, and some friends they call actors who decide one afternoon to make a movie and voilà!, instant feature video-makers. Don't get me wrong -- I'm all about independent cinema (i.e. Hollywierd sucks). But having said that, you can't argue with some of the realities of that system. <br /><br />If the Duplass Brothers would've had to have gone out and raised a real budget and bring on real producers, its clear a script like this would never have been green-lighted! And therein lies the problem. There is no longer such a thing as a vetting process for getting films (sorry... videos) ready for production. Just grab a DV/P2 camera and off you go! And what makes it worse is that high-profile festivals like the aforementioned actually embrace and encourage this kind of nonsense. And why? Precisely because its no-budget. <br /><br />I think its important, especially in todays climate of indie films, to quit allowing video-makers to high-jack the language by labeling themselves, "filmmakers." There is quite a difference in my book. When you have to go out and actually put your script on the line, asking friends and family or business people for real money to make a feature "film", knowing the potentially losses at stake, then you will know what it means to be a "filmmaker." But dropping a few hundred at Sam's Club for some DV tapes, some soda and chips doesn't cut it. <br /><br />Oh... and by the way... I have to mention how utterly annoying it was to listen to a female being addressed as "dude" throughout the entire movie. Even Mark Borchardt reserves that intensely-overused moniker for his male friends only where it is at least endearing where his buddy Mike is concerned!<br /><br />I think its high time the indie film community started to call out these shoddy, no-budget videos for what they are, and simultaneously scold prestigious festivals for giving such casual efforts, high praise. Either that or ask these festivals to at least have the courtesy to add a new category to their festival line ups... "Dude Films."
IMDb lists this movie as a comedy. I have no idea what genre this movie falls into but it certainly isn't comedy. tragedy maybe.<br /><br />I won't say whether this is a good movie or not. All I know is it is not a comedy. I wanted a laugh tonight and what I got was some bizarre notion of someones attachment to some ugly chair.<br /><br />This movie is not what is advertised. It's film school tripe that I can only assume is intended to "make people think". I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone that I know, or even that I don't know. It's ridiculous drivel that makes no sense whatsoever.<br /><br />It made me think alright. It made me think, "I wish I had those ninety minutes of my life back."<br /><br />I'm sure the world is full of armchair critics who have a liberal bent on their world view that will make this movie something worth watching to them.<br /><br />I am not one of them.
Plot:<br /><br />- A Chair from EBay<br /><br />- Random people<br /><br />- Random people talk (" Dude, it's right. " "I'm feeling it." "Lets get married now!")<br /><br />- If you are a "hippie" then you will love this movie. (You must be high or drunk, otherwise you will question your life watching this junk.)<br /><br />This movie was clearly not thought out from the beginning to the end, and the other comments are probably the crew padding the reviews. If this wasn't aimed at my demographic, I don't know what it is aimed for. I found the plot everyday boring. It's something that I would do, and trust me it's not worth filming. Going on a roadtrip and filming half of the silence does not make a movie!
This movie is ridiculous. It's attempting to be a comedy but the screenplay is horrible. The whole movie is done in low light and you cant grasp the fact that it's a comedy. Truly is bad cinematography. You really have to sit there and watch it to realize there's a few jokes here and there going on but either way they're all inside jokes amongst themselves. This is more like a wannabe drama flick that went bad. It really is a very pointless movie.Their expressions reveal nothing but dismay and disaster which turns out that way anyway. Unless you want to be bored out of your ass, I suggest you stay away from this gag of a movie.
I saw this film at the 2005 Edinburgh International Film Festival. <br /><br />This film had been compared in the EIFF program to Sideways - which I liked - so I was quite looking forward to this movie. I also liked Garden State, Napoleon Dynamite etc... so I have had good recent experiences with slightly weird American indy films.<br /><br />Unfortunately, I found that Puffy Chair does not compare favourably with any of these movies.<br /><br />I was sitting for 35 minutes waiting for something amusing, witty, insightful or even mildly interesting to happen. It didn't - and the shaky video cam was making me sick - so I left.<br /><br />This is only the second film I have ever walked out from (the first was "Showgirls") which is slightly disappointing. I probably could have lasted the duration had it not been for the nauseating effects of the wobbly picture - but nothing within the first 35 minutes gave me the impression that I would be missing anything.<br /><br />Disappointing.
I walked out of this movie and I did this only one time before with the Australian movie Sweetie close to 20 years ago. After about three minutes I felt like killing the camera man and just couldn't believe that this film actually showed anywhere and- guess what - was nominated for two independent Spirit Awards. What???? Regardsless how realistic the dialog might be (I will NEVER use the word "dude" again!) -who wants to listen to these conversations? I don't go to the movies to be annoyed but that's all I got. The only good thing I came away with was the realization that if this movie can make it to Sundance and other festivals, anybody can. Well, wait, that might not be a good thing after all...
Starring Tomas Milian and Manny Perez – 'Washington Heights' is a low budget drama set in a Latino neighborhood in NYC.<br /><br />A young comic-book artist (Manny Perez) wants to escape his Latino neighborhood. When his father is crippled by a robber's gunshot, the young man is forced to run the family bodega.<br /><br />The movie was shot in a budget (low resolution video and poor audio) with low profile actors.<br /><br />The plot flowed well for 85 minutes but the last 5 minutes were just terrible. We don't know for sure if Perez and his girlfriend remained together and if Angel ended-up in jail for the shooting.<br /><br />4/10
Total Garbage!!! No reflection to Washington heights what so ever. If I had four arms, I'll give it four dumbs way down. Acting performance worst than storyline. Truly over rated. Hour and a half of visual torture.Rather watch Ben Aflec movies for the rest of my life. Feel bad for the films that lost to this crap. What were the judges at the film festival watching? Total Garbage!!! No reflection to Washington heights what so ever. If I had four arms, I'll give it four dumbs way down. Acting performance worst than storyline. Truly over rated. Hour and a half of visual torture.Rather watch Ben Aflec movies for the rest of my life. Feel bad for the films that lost to this crap. What were the judges at the film festival watching?
....and now I'm up to episode #7. I really was hoping it'd be over by now (not to mention canceled, once everything connected with the show -including the actors - had been dumped along with some toxic waste in the middle of the ocean somewhere, never to be seen again), because this series really is dire. <br /><br />To have this program listed under the genre of 'comedy' is at best misleading! It's so hard to believe Ben Elton could write something this bad, maybe this points to a lot of input from the other writers in everything he's been connected with before. In some episodes I haven't even laughed once!<br /><br />Oh, and I can't believe Ardal O'Hanlon actually stopped doing 'My hero' & started doing this instead, his decision making skills were obviously impaired that day - perhaps he simply can't read, and didn't realise just how poor the scripts for 'Blessed' were. Don't get me wrong, 'My Hero' is not masterpiece, but it's a million times better than this piece of junk.<br /><br />And just to annoy me even more I bet this gets a DVD release as well, when there are so many great TV series' that aren't getting released!
I watched this film with a group of friends at the 1999 Melbourne International Film Festival and no-one had a good word for it.<br /><br />I happen to love Bluegrass and Country Music so it's not as if I'm unsympathetic to the subject matter. But the problem is that at heart it's a very conservative movie- little more than a filmed Mills and Boon story. A bodice-ripper of the most simple-minded and soppy kind.<br /><br />It's not just that the love story at its heart, that between Reece and Dr. Lily Penleric is more than a tad unbelievable. (Why any male would be attracted to the nostril-flaring man-devouring Lily is beyond me, and frankly, Mike Harding as Reece seems to be just going through the motions).<br /><br />It's simply that the whole movie is too tame and well-mannered for its own good. There is precious little danger, dirt or drama. Sure there's a moment of "excitement" involving a school run by Lily's younger sister, but this whole episode is funnier than it is dramatic (it's just so poorly written and acted). And the movie betrays its conservative agenda in the manner in which this subplot is resolved.<br /><br />As for good old Reece Kinkaid (now, what's wrong with a name like Eberneezer Bumpass?) I ask you! Is the ending of this film believable? Fitting in with the character this film had earlier constructed? I think not...
Some folkie friends recommended this, but as a film it's really lacking in originality. I found the characters to be unflattering stereotypes, and the plot is predictable almost from the beginning. However, if you like traditional English/Appalachian ballads, it will keep your interest long enough to hear the next one. I've also read that the soundtrack is nothing like the music in the movie, with professional musicians filling in for the actors.
One of the worst shows of all time. The show would begin with smart ass ed comments to each other that would be totally off the wall and uncalled for. The fat computer geek was unbelievable, the bible thumper, the bad-ass girl, who are these actors??? Never heard of any of them except Cole who was totally unbelievable in the part. Every time he opened his mouth you expect to hear, "you see kids..." Pulling the plug was a mercy killing for this horrible show. The stories were as unbelievable as the actors. Lame would be the best way to describe it. Somehow this show makes a slug like Ice-T more believable as a cop, and he wrote the worst song about cops ever recorded.
I had great expectations surrounding this movie (not as it was an apocalypse now or an 8 1/2, but high enough), and when i saw it on cable, they were all shattered. Starting by the acting (poor,almost mediocre, an astonishing waste of good actors and talent) and the story itself: Since when does a 5 men squad go out on patrol on a supposed «hot» zone???To suicide??That´s one big mistake, that costs the film dearly. Very good actors do very poor acting here, like Sean Penn, that recently repeated the irritating way of talking on «I am Sam», and Michael J. Fox, that wastes a good opportunity to beat Charlie Sheen on «Platoon», performing just «average». But the most irritating character was Diaz (played by John Leguizamo, another stupid waste of fine talent by the director), that was a cheesy,scared and insecure kind of person, even more irritating that Jar Jar Binks (yes,you heard it). The battle sequences are average, the only one that really stands out is the opening sequence, with Michael J. Fox trapped by his feet on a VC tunnel.Mr. de Palma has a weak work here, and if it wasn´t for films like «Scarface» and «The Untouchables» (these ones excellent films), i would consider him a «bluff» director: too much publicity, bad filming.<br /><br />3/10
The problem with this- and with all Vietnam War films- is that they're all too biased. Antiwar films overlook the fact that the vast majority of U.S. soldiers were heroes, while prowar films overlook the fact that a lot of the soldiers did indeed commit atrocities like the one in this movie. This film sucks. It's time for a movie that is neither prowar nor antiwar, nor liberal nor conservative, but COMPLETELY UNBIASED.
This movie describes a truly horrific event, to be sure. But it all falls down from poor performances from all the cast. It is impossible to feel the emotion of almost any character, as all the emotional scenes seem like parodies of themselves. For example, a character is shot at the start of the movie, and you get the clichéd desperate, "Am I gonna make it, Sergeant?", "Yeah it ain't nothing'", but it plays out like a sketch from a Wayans Brothers movie (I don't know if they've made the War Movie yet) or something starring Leslie Nielsen.<br /><br />The sergeant played by Sean Penn reminds me of Al Bundy from Married With Children, while Fox is the greatest self-deprecating good-guy cliché you can imagine... Thank God he curses and smokes during it.<br /><br />His emotional "NOOOO!!!" is definitely more suited to comedies like Back To The Future than so-called serious movies such as this.<br /><br />To their credit, some of the "main" scenes... (without giving too much away, where they actually perform some fairly horrific acts) ...are well done and do make us take the subject matter seriously. But that is in spite of, not thanks to the acting.
I saw this cartoon accidentally on television one night when I couldn't get to sleep. It didn't help in the slightest. I found myself staring up at the ceiling, trying to forget that face. I could quite happily never see this cartoon again, simply because of that face.<br /><br />Now, don't get me wrong - I love fairy tales and nursery rhymes as much as anyone. But this twisted and terrifying rendition simply is disturbing. It is mainly the cruel laughter, and the exaggerated features that terrify me, and I still have nightmares because of it. Please, I urge you not to allow your children to see this. It is far, FAR too scary. Please, I pray you, keep it away.
In the mountains of Japan, forlorn young artist Sessue Hayakawa (as Tatsu aka "The Dragon Painter") paints magnificent landscapes. He prays "Divinity" will restore his fiancée, whom he believes was changed into a dragon, 1,000 years ago. Meanwhile, in Tokyo, an forlorn older painter, Edward Peil (as Kano Indara) laments not having a son to carry on his family line of artists. When Mr. Peil sees Mr. Hayakawa's paintings, he sees a painter worthy to become his "son and disciple." Hayakawa also falls in love with Peil's daughter Tsuru Aoki (Ume-Ko), believing she's the reincarnation of his long lost princess. But, with his love fulfilled, Hayakawa loses his ability to paint… <br /><br />An introduction notes, "'The Dragon Painter' was originally released in 1919 by the Haworth Pictures, a Hollywood-based production company formed the previous year by Sessue Hayakawa, a Japanese-born actor who enjoyed great popularity in the silent period. The film was ninth of twenty-two features produced by Haworth, each of which was tailored to Hayakawa's talents and to his stock company of Japanese actors." Fortunately, a print of this film was found, in France, and restored.<br /><br />The description, "The Dragon Painter is a fantasy-allegory of love and creative inspiration that is lost when longing is fulfilled," is accurate. "With its production, Hayakawa intended to provide a different view of Japanese culture to American audiences, avoiding the stereotyping, violence, and melodramatic conflict expected in 'Oriental' films of the period." Hayakawa was successful in that part of his goal; although, this film probably did not and will not appeal to most viewers, and is not the best example of its intent.<br /><br />**** The Dragon Painter (9/28/19) William Worthington ~ Sessue Hayakawa, Edward Peil, Tsuru Aoki
Let me say this new He-Man cartoon is not destroying childhood memories, as I didn't like the old He-Man cartoon either. I loved the action figures, but I found the cartoon to be corny and I hated the storyline (the He-Man I liked was the one from the very early, pre-cartoon mini-comics included in the figure boxes, where He-Man was a Barbarian, the Sword of Power was split in two pieces, and there was no Prince Adam, no Shazam-ripoff premise, and no Orko). Anyway, let's leave the old stuff alone.<br /><br />The new He-Man cartoon (or at least this pilot) is a disgrace on its own, s it represents both the worst cheesiness of the old show, and the worst tendences of nowadays. I watched it because I had heard the in-your-face morals of the old show were (thankfully) gone, and this one had more swordplay and character development. But I encountered an awful mishmash of the worst clichés of the genre, characters I couldn't help but hate, and the sadly inevitable Matrix-esque visual style.<br /><br />I think it was a good idea to give a bit of a background to the characters, as it was showing a pre-face-peeling Skeletor, but that's how far the character development goes, aside from the usual coming-to-age rubbish I see coming in the subsequent episodes, where this teenybopper Adam will be learning the responsibility of his new-acquired powers, blah blah. At least in the old show Adam was not a spoiled brat! I found myself hating his guts. That's what we get when they put out an adventure show aimed at pre-teens: pretty faces and wanna-be-cool-and-look-juvenile clothes. I should check new episodes to see if N'Sync make a special appearance. Man, does this show remind me to the 1996 Flash Gordon stinkbomb cartoon!<br /><br />Dialogue? Ha! It follows absolutely every cliché in the book, from the goody-lil-two-shoes Randor in the opening scene to Skeletor's immortal "Oh, and He-Man... I lied!" in the ending. And Skeletor's voice is still the same high-pitch kind than in the old series. 20 years, and nothing we have learnt.<br /><br />And sure, nowadays there can't exist something remotely action-related that's not Matrix-style. Leave Anime to the Japanese, folks, think fresh ideas. And seeing the characters' poses while fighting didn't help either.<br /><br />Of course, we have our usual dose of PCness: Evil-Lyn (now I think about it, who the hell comes up with these names?) has no yellow skin now, but grey-ish. Oh, so no Asian people will be offended. I bet Jitsu won't appear in the show either. Shades of the 1996 FG again, where Ming the Merciless was a green, toad-like alien!<br /><br />People are complaining about Cringer's lack of speech. I don't think I would have liked this more or less if Cringer spoke, he's corny enough this way. And you have your extra ration of cheese with Orko! The shocking thing is, probably many of the people who (rightfully) hated Jar Jar Binks, might be huge Orko fans...<br /><br />I watched the feature-lenght pilot, and I've had enough. Leave the series alone. 2 out of 10.
Thankfully brief mystery about a telephone operator who is discovered to be the kidnapped daughter of a railroad tycoon. The discovery brings about an attempt on her life which is foiled by Charlie Ruggles as a "crime deflector". Things take a turn for the dangerous when everyone ends up in the title location and another attempt is made on the girls life. Your enjoyment of this film will depend upon your tolerance for Rugggles and his nonsense.I normally like Ruggles but there was something about this role that rubbed me the wrong way. Actually I think it didn't help that the mystery wasn't very good so there was nothing beyond the characters to keep you watching. yes the finale on the train was exciting but it didn't make up for everything that went before. Not worth searching out but if you stumble upon it give it a try.
I watched this one mostly to see Charlie Ruggles and Una Merkel, two of my favorites.<br /><br />The plot has many a twist and turn -- it's not bad as a straight mystery aboard a train.<br /><br />But why throw in a circus train wreck and an escaped gorilla? I can mention this without it being a "spoiler" because the circus train wreck and the gorilla have nothing to do with the intricate mystery plot.<br /><br />The bad person trying to kill the good people has many tricks up his sleeve, but the circus train wreck was purely coincidental. It allows for a single scene with a menacing gorilla, but then it's back to the murder mystery!
Danny is beyond sorry.<br /><br />He keeps making the same mistakes, and is no longer interesting to watch. At first I could feel for him, as an addict myself. My heart went out to him at the beginning, and somewhere along the line he went over the line. It is almost as if he is continuing this behavior to keep the show going, and at the same time is seriously risking his life, and the welfare of his family, especially his children. It is difficult even to have pity for the poor boy. I think he needs to watch this show, maybe then he might have a chance a saving this marriage. I can't understand how Gretchen stays with him, and I keep wondering how much is just for show, and how much is love. Danny, get a life - a new one that is! ...and don't get me started on Dr. Gary. What is with him and his face? His skin looks like it's stretched to the max. Besides that, looks don't mean a thing, yet he seems not to be particularly impartial. I think, he too, is keeping this going for his own monetary gain and often not in the best interests of either Gretchen or Danny. These people are few confused and each remind me of a dog chasing its tail. sad, very sad. C'mon pull yourselves together.
I know we shouldn't expect much from a low-budget indie film. But the idea behind it is sound: an attempt to open America's eyes to the cozy relationship between the government, and the journalists that are supposed to be keeping an eye out against it. But somehow the documentary aspect of it, takes away from its drama. The protests during the 2004 Republican convention in New York were not that compelling to make a documentary about it. Those kinds of compelling protests belong to the era of the 1960's.<br /><br />It would have been better to stick to a drama format. Perhaps a slow build-up where the young journalist's eyes are gradually opened up to the conspiracy.
I caught a screening of this at the True/False Documentary film festival in Columbia, Missouri, and I was pretty disappointed. I was expecting a cool documentary into the protest and activism surrounding the RNC, but what I got was a largely flawed, bad-acted, fictitious, conspiracy ridden badly woven tale. I'd heard of its neo-documentary technique, "blending both True and False" but I expected more along the lines of a fictitious storyline developed for a better personification and to create a sense of unity between real interviews, but it was more along the lines of a terrible made-for-conspiracy theory TV movie.<br /><br />The acting overall is terrible except for Rossario, which is not surprising considering the Director at the screening said most of the lead characters had no acting training, his excuse being that he wanted them to be real. Heres a hint, real people can't act, but actors can usually act real.<br /><br />It would of been not so cornily offensive if it wasn't blatantly obvious about how keen he was to push this extremely radical conspiracy theory onto us throughout the whole movie, its especially hysterical when we get a scene where the director cameos and starts ranting on about ridiculously stupid theories and secret agendas. The movie also does a good job of laughably stereotyping every single role, it tries so hard to romanticize these street activists and stamp a big 'Good' or 'Evil' on every character.<br /><br />Skip it, maybe find yourself a nice real documentary/
Apparently re-cut episodes from the Gangbusters TV show on the big screen. While this was frequently done in the 50's and 60's because people didn't have a TV or a color TV and producers wanted an increased return on their investment (big screen ticket sales or if it went to the small screen resale of a series that isn't in syndication), the results were usually less then the sum of their parts. The only time I've ever seen it work were where multi-part stories were put together (Ala Rocky Jones or Man From Uncle) or in the case of horror anthology (The Veil and 13 Demon Street). Here the effect is to have stories of American criminals in the 20's and 30's (Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, Bonnie and Clyde, etc)inter-cut with each other as a narrator talks about how the FBI hunted them down. Its a weird concoction that doesn't quite work because its clear that there are things here that don't belong together. More than once I looked at the TV oddly because things didn't seem right. In fairness I won't describe the cheapness of the production since this was what early TV (and the series) was like. Its not bad, but its not very good either. To be perfectly honest the episodes of the series that I've seen work better a single episodes where we're not expecting as much. Given the choice I'd rent dvds of the show instead of this movie.
I was quite impressed with this movie as a child of eight or nine. The gangsters seemed very real and threatening to me, and I could see why people would have been afraid of someone like Dillinger. Seeing it as an adult, it seemed almost comical, owing to the overdone narration and jarring details like Thirties gangsters driving cars that looked like they were from the Fifties. There is a certain gritty, unglamorous reality to the way the criminals are portrayed, but the overall effect is more like a bad soap opera. The most memorable and most unintentionally funny bit that sticks with me is the scene where Ma Barker and her sons are shooting it out with the FBI and the sons are killed. The narrator says something like " Perhaps in that moment, for the only time in her life, Ma Barker became a real mother". This is meant to be a moment of great tragedy and pathos, as Ma finally realizes how she's destroyed her family out of her own greed, but instead, it provokes laughter. A very odd film that is rarely shown anywhere these days. Gangster movie buffs might enjoy it, but more as a curiosity than a real movie.
THE RAP, the book this movie was 'based' on was one of the most difficult books I've ever read. Yet I could not put it down. Raunchy, crude, foul, lewd...you name it, it had it. It also had some of the best characterizations of any novel I've ever read.<br /><br />Well, as for the flick...it was deplorable. I mean, Tim Mcintire as Wasco? Wasco was the baddest mutha...talking 'bout WASCO...Mcintire as Wasco is like casting Tim Conway as Charles Manson.<br /><br />What happened to the MAIN character in the book? Little Arv. He doesn't even exist in the movie...Fast Walking WAS NOT the main dude in the book. Why even name credit this thing with THE RAP? None of the spirit, atmosphere, nastiness, or drama of the book was captured in this movie.<br /><br />For me it was not only a disappointment, but a total waste of time and celluloid.
Yes.A real stinker. I saw this movie on the advice of my "sweet" friends who told me that this is a great "psychological" movie. This film makes every effort not to be understandable. I was aware that I was in for a stinker after seeing the first 20 minutes.I waited since I expected to see something valuable, and most important of all, I PAID for this film. The wait was unbearable. After seeing the film, I talked with my friends and learned that in the intellectual environments ( They call themselves under this title ) of Turkey this "movie" had recognised as a masterpiece. Yes, a masterpiece, but in the category of stinkers.I think that a movie must be self-explanatory. This film is just the opposite. Keep away from this thing which calls itself a "movie". Burn your money instead of paying for this "phenomenon". Rate: 1 out of 10
We chose to see this movie as an alternative to The Polar Express showing at our local IMAX theater. What a waste of time and money! First, it is not cute. The Snowman, at times, looked demonic. Other times, he was simply a zombie. He showed no expression or emotions most of the time, and his hollow blue eyes were just creepy.<br /><br />Secondly, Santa states in the beginning it's a movie about the spirit of giving. Santa and a snowman declaring war on each other is a movie about giving? I'm all for a little parody, but this just wasn't funny or entertaining.<br /><br />The idea that the Snowman's flute is his voice is different. Too bad you never see or hear the snowman play his flute...not even a "thank you" to Santa.<br /><br />The only funny parts of the movie were the "outtakes" at the end of the film. Too bad they didn't use them in the movie. It would have been better.
Some nameless aliens off on a distant ship from a distant planet have sent the giant robot Kronos to rob the world of its energy. They've got a prototype clanking around Mexico for openers and if he proves successful more will be sent. It would certainly take a lot of time for just this one Kronos to perform that task.<br /><br />For reasons I can't explain the aliens first capture the mind of leading scientist John Emery who telepathically directs Kronos to his first targets. Since Emery is killed off later and the monster seems to function well enough without Emery as a controller, why the aliens needed him in the first place is a bit bizarre.<br /><br />In any event scientists Jeff Morrow, Barbara Lawrence, and George O'Hanlon who work under Emery aren't fooled a bit about his nature. And of course they come up with a plan to deal with the raging metal giant.<br /><br />Kronos is a perfect film for the Fifties, the bad guys are never seen they're just out there looking to undermine mankind. It's a perfect film for the Cold War. And Jeff Morrow assures us we'll be ready for them in the future.<br /><br />The players look like they're having a grand old time mouthing as many clichéd lines the writers could put in the script. I get the impression that Kronos is the kind of film Ed Wood might have done on a bigger budget with a bit more care.
Jeff Morrow is Leslie Gaskell, Barbara Laurence is Vera Hunter, and John Emory is Hubbel Eliot. Along with some ancillary Air Force personnel and a comic geek, they are in charge of a super-secret underground laboratory on the West Coast. Morrow is thrilled when he discovers a meteor passing through the atmosphere but nonplussed when the meteor decides to take a dip in the Pacific Ocean and emerge as a fantastic machine on the Mexican coast.<br /><br />Nobody knows what this colossal, blocky structure is. Obviously it's some kind of carpentered artifact because it's all made up of right angles with a kind of bald sphere half visible on top.<br /><br />It turns out that the machine, dubbed Kronos, is from some far-away planet and has been sent here to rob the earth of energy. You see, here on earth, we have learned how to convert matter into energy, but on Kronos' planet they have figured out the other half of the equation -- how to convert energy into matter. And now they're running out of energy on the other planet. Are you taking notes on this? Good.<br /><br />Maybe you'll be able to fill me in on some of the scientific questions raised by Kronos' mission. For instance, if Kronos' builders can convert energy into matter and vice versa, why don't they just convert a little of their own spare matter into energy instead of sending elaborate machines to earth to extinguish LA's lights? But it's doubtful the writers could explain it either. Reversing the polarities of two antenna is described as an "anthropic conversion," which means a "towards-human change", which doesn't make sense. But it doesn't seem that any of the science makes sense for that matter. The diagram that Morrow draws on the board has the current going in the wrong direction, from positive to negative.<br /><br />There's a problem with Kronos' locomotion too. It marches along the coast, threatening "populated areas" (read Southern California), but it has no joints in its two or three legs. These stumps just thump slowly up and down, squashing some people. The film doesn't make much of these squashed people. They're shown as Mexican peasants, so maybe they don't count for too much. The USAF also drops a hydrogen bomb on Kronos -- while it's in Mexico, mind you. Nobody raises an eyebrow.<br /><br />Not much acting is called for and not much is given. Jeff Morrow has a distinct and resonant voice, great for radio or for TV voice overs. His face is less expressive. He has only one expression, no matter what the situation is -- a tight smile, as if he's having his picture taken at the Universal Studios Tour. Barbara Laurence had a fine, golden quality when she made "Street With No Name" a few years earlier. She was a slender seventeen-year-old as Richard Widmark's wife. Here, her grooming and demeanor reduce her to the level of B-movie actress, though she's still beautiful. It's always good to see Morris Ankrum in one of these movies. He's made so many, I get them mixed up.<br /><br />On the whole, the film comes across as flat, I'm afraid. (There are some nice shots of a B-47 in flight, though.) The sets reveal a low-budget enterprise. That's not necessarily bad in itself, but there's nothing to make up for the barren settings. Little tension in the script, no directorial display, and little effort put into the performances.<br /><br />You might get a kick out of it -- a relaxed high -- because this is distinctly unchallenging. It's just that there are so many better films of the genre out there.
I once heard this movie described as either you'll love it or you'll hate it. From reading some of the other reviews and the ratings, I would venture to say that this is true. I am placing myself in the hate it crowd. I have seen some truly bad movies, boring movies, and even low budget movies. This movie is bad on all three fronts.<br /><br />This Island Earth's Exeter (Jeff Morrow), returns to his sci-fi/b-movie roots as Dr. Les (minus giant head prosthetic). The doctor and his assistant Arnie (George O'Hanlon - aka the voice of George Jetson), along with Les' girlfriend assistant Vera, are tracking a meteor. This is the crux of the cast and is almost a double date. Les has Vera and Arnie has his "Susie" (Synchro Unifying Sinometric Integrating Equitensor - aka the computer). Lets just say the relationship between George and his robotic maid, Rosie, (and his relationship with "Susie") is more believable than the cold, clam-like feelings Vera has for Les (and vice versa). The object of their all their interest is no ordinary meteor, however. It is really an alien art nouveau/art deco energy storage device, which moves around like a 3 legged dog. There is also the little alien "energy" being that controls Dr. Hubbel (aka, the chief scientist there). The alien is obviously and from the get-go, malicious and evil. Is this the kind of science we are handing out? No wonder the aliens from the Explorers were afraid of us. From watching some of these movies, we shoot first. There's no need for questions afterwards. <br /><br />The whole movie is synonymous with watching some really boring science experiments, like boiling an egg or adding food color to celery. Its not the fact that this is a low budget sci-fi movie or thats its a bit cheesy and outdated. It is really, really, really boring. The whole movie is about trying to figure out what is going on. That is it. Most of the things we learn about what's going on are through monologues and self dictation. Now add crappy dialog, cardboard acting and cheap-sets and you have the makings of an Ed Wood clone (by the way, Ed has made some really boring movies as well - please avoid the Orgy of the Dead). The dialog ... oh, the dialog. Jems such as :<br /><br />"..from under 2 miles of ocean ?<br /><br />Why not ?! It came through a billion miles in space."<br /><br />or<br /><br />"Do you think you'll be able to respect a husband who's probably pulled the scientific boner of all time ?"<br /><br />This movie is obviously trying to pull a Forbidden Planet, This Island Earth, Magnetic Monster or in the same light as the Outer Limits, Twilight Zone. Namely, a low budget sci-fi movie (or TV episode) that is compelling enough to get past the technical difficulties and strange situations. At the core, these movies are enjoyable on some level (the story, the underlying meaning or the sheer comical nature of the dialog or situations). This movie has none of that. It is just 90 minutes of boredom. I couldn't even enjoy this on a Ed Wood level. I definitely recommend skipping this one and seeing one of the movies I mentioned above instead. It is so bad, that if my name was Dr. Forrester, I would never think of showing this movie to anyone ... except Frank maybe.
I first saw this movie at a Saturday matinee when I was very young. I thought it was cool and often thought about it. Well I finally resaw it on DVD. It was still very entertaining but in a different way. It has to rank as one of the goofiest, campiest, 1950's sci-fi movies. It seemed filled with stock military footage. The dialogue is stilted and effects are crude. There is one line of dialogue that had me in stitches. The line Jeff Morrow says while on the beach with the babe. Rent it if you need a movie to watch with a bunch of drunken friends. It is a classic.
This movie is standard goofy sci-fi fare from the 50s. In its favor, the plot does manage to pull off an alien invasion without actually producing the aliens themselves. But come on now, if aliens needed energy and could absorb it from sources like hydrogen bombs, why would they come to earth? Why wouldn't they just suck it out of a STAR!?!? The only credible reason for the presence of Kronos is a direct attack on Earth society, not the mere collection of energy. Nothing like that is even intimated; Kronos may have been built by a superior race but its activities on Earth are the most primitive. The end that the scientist-heroes plan for Kronos is based on nothing but pseudo-scientific gibberish. It amounts to the "reverse the polarity" gambit which has been used so much in bad scifi it has become a joke in itself. Low and behold, this causes our unwanted visitor to release its collected energy. No one in power seems to care about the impact the release of that much energy (which by the film's end includes, among other things, the entire yield of a hydrogen bomb) will have on the surroundings. And unfortunately, by the time the movie ends, the surroundings are the suburbs of Los Angeles. Whoops!
First of all, Katherine Hepburn is badly miscast as Clara. She just can't be convincing as the devoted, selfless, rather smarmy wife that the writers have created.<br /><br />But the real weakness of the film is its shallowness in the face of a potentially great piece of drama. Schumann's bipolar (manic-depressive) disorder amounts to "Oh, oh, I have a headache" and the occasional angry word. Suicide? The word is used, but there's no sign of it in domestic scenes and when we see him in the mental hospital he's calm and subdued and smiling and optimistic. A superficial treatment. And Brahms is so upright and bourgeois - no sign of his gruff humour, his love of tweaking the noses of the establishment, no sign of his tortured attitude toward sex and women resulting from spending his youth playing piano in brothels. And was Clara's long concert career entirely about promoting Robert's music, or was she, in fact, a remarkable pianist who wanted a career for herself, a female pianist carving out a place for herself in a male world? Any sort of treatment of the lives of great artists is better than none, but this is a standard Hollywood, middle-of-the-road approach, particularly disappointing because the real story is so much more dramatic, so much more interesting, so much more human.
Remnants of an ambushed Army unit hook up with a group of cowboys to fight their way through Indians on the warpath. Sounds like it could be an exciting western, but this one is dull, dull, dull. It moves like molasses, the action scenes are uninspired, the acting is pedestrian, the writing is flat, even the photography isn't very good. Eastwood, in a very early role, plays an ex-Confederate who doesn't like the idea of fighting on the same side as Yankees. That's about the only remotely interesting situation in the whole movie, but Eastwood wasn't experienced enough an actor to pull it off, and his character comes across as petulant rather than angry or embittered. A very ordinary western. Actually, a very less-than-ordinary western. Worth a look if you're a die-hard Eastwood fan and want to see him at the very beginning of his career. Otherwise, don't bother.
Geologist realizes a big earthquake is coming but no one will listen. Whats worse is his father in law had predicted the 1923 Tokyo disaster and he's been called unworthy to be his successor. Of course the big one comes and Tokyo is knocked flat.<br /><br />A poorly dubbed Japanese film that is pure soap opera for the first half. The second half- after the earthquake destroys a model city its an escape drama. There are some nice moments but the film wastes them either by undercutting the action by too many poor miniatures or by having people do unreal things. Hokey and not very good it has an ending you won't believe...
How many disaster movies can there be before we get tired of them. Come on, we can see them on the Discovery channel all day long.<br /><br />I agree with the comment that the first part of this movie is just a soap opera. The Great Predictor's grandson makes a prediction and everybody starts moaning about how he is ruining the family name. The evil mother-in-law convinces the wife to throw him out into the arms of his mistress, whom she wants to meet. Can you believe that? The wife wants to approve the new wife! At the same time the mistress' has someone in love with her that doesn't have a wife, but she sends him packing.<br /><br />Now, that the soap opera is over, the earthquake appears.<br /><br />The special effects are really good, but the dubbing is bad. That is why I like subtitled films. The actors are all very experienced and have won many awards, so you will get to see some of Japan's best in an oft-repeated story.<br /><br />But, the soap-opera story returns with a kitchy ending.
I was completely mislead by the comments on this film, mainly by someone saying they saw it at a film festival and loved every minute of it. Expecting this to be a nice run of the mill American pie style film, I was deeply disappointed.<br /><br />Firstly the camera work is awful, I don't think the director knows that cameras can move around scenes rather than stay still and having the actors move close up and far away of their own accord.<br /><br />Secondly the scenery! My god I've seen more furnishings in a bird's nest. The club was totally unconvincing with around 3 extras dancing in the back ground at any one time. The flats were bare and lacked personality.<br /><br />Thirdly the actors. Wow. The director obviously went for the typical "Reaper" character set up, a wimpy main character with a gruff "I don't give a f**k" character that takes pot shots at the main. Everything the main character said and did was a chore, so much so it made me wince.<br /><br />Overall the plot, the supposedly big revenge theme, lasted for about 30 seconds and lacked any real motivation. The characters acted irrationally and didn't seem to have any real relationship with anyone else. No character had any depth to them, they may as well have been cardboard cut outs walking past the static camera.<br /><br />A truly horrible piece, worse than a first year students 2 minute short for youtube. Advice to the director? Change your name and deny any association with the film that will probably sell one copy at a yard sale in Ohio.
Let's see how many ways you can insult my gender: 1. Of course girl #1 is a horrible skank who cheats on her boyfriend and sounds/looks like a heroin addict.<br /><br />2. Of course girl #1 sleeps with the guy on the first date after getting wasted.<br /><br />3. Of course the lesbians are butch "Germans" who are into S&M.<br /><br />4. This one was actually a surprise. Ending the movie on a note of torture celebrated by the majority of characters was sickening. Seeing a woman beaten isn't my idea of comedy.<br /><br />5. Director's commentary - talking about hooking up with actresses in the movie, just so you know, is crass and incredibly unprofessional.
This so called movie is horrible! The actors cannot act. There is no plot. I believe they need to start from scratch and film again. I hope that they can correct the acting flaws in this movie. I would like to see the trailer after they shoot it again. Maybe there is hope for it. I am not out to hurt feelings but I believe high school kids can do a better job. The wardrobe could have been much better. Sorry, but this just did not do it for me. I normally enjoy the trailers from this site but... this one i cannot find entertaining. I hope they take criticism well because i believe they will get much much more from others in regards to this film.
they should make terrorists watch this video as torture, and not just for the disturbing final scene in which tying up and beating a woman with mental problems is apparently a source of comedy. about a half hour of this would convince even the staunchest fundamentalist to spill the beans rather than sit through even one more minute of this disaster.<br /><br />This movie is awful. I rented it because a friend said it was hilarious, only to find he was talking about the blowhard director doing the commentary rather than the movie itself. I guess if you find unrestrained arrogance funny, you'll like this. It apparently is true that he goes on and on about chicks he's "banged", the most tasteless example being when the lead actress comes on screen.<br /><br />Actually CJ Stacy was the only good part of this movie - her charisma shines like a diamond in this horrid dung pile. This apparently is the only movie she's done according to IMDb, I hope she is involved with theatre or indie stuff as I think she has the talent and natural beauty to really be an asset to any production.
this was pretty bad. pedestrian work or worse. i don't think it was homophobic, just really bad. if anything it was really amateurish, like when you're 14 and first discover curse words and skin mags.<br /><br />The main point of this movie, the romance, falls really flat. I can't help but wonder if the writers ever had any serious relationships before this movie.<br /><br />plotting and pacing are horrible, going nowhere at all. one minute we're watching these guys catch cheaters, then we're at a gay club, then we're at a date. out of nowhere the girl apparently likes comics, and then they sleep together. none of this feels real, like an elementary school production of Shakespeare if Hamlet was written by a frat boy.<br /><br />the ending was some kind of creepy over the top revenge fantasy by a loser who got dumped by a girl. Unnecessary and actually kind of disturbing.<br /><br />Still, you have to watch it. Why?<br /><br />As others noted the director's commentary actually is hilarious - what kind of of professional talks about "banging" or "hooking up" with the actresses? dialogue sucked, relationships lacked chemistry. you will be on the floor laughing at this pretentious jackass.
This was obviously a low budget film. It shows in every scene. What is nice to see is where it was made. A lot of the film was shot in Columbia, CA, in the Sierra Nevada Mountains near Sonora, CA. Some of the film was also shot in Jamestown, CA, very near Columbia. There is a railroad museum in Jamestown and they used some of the old trains in the picture. "High Noon" was also shot in Jamestown, as was "Back to the Future III".
This film was actually shot and made in 1987 but it didn't hit the theaters until 1990. As I watched this film I could see the good intentions that it had but I'm afraid there wasn't much talent or experience behind the camera to make it work. Story takes place in California in the 1890's and some Italian immigrants who own vineyards are told they have to leave their land so a railroad can come through. Dennis Hopper plays William Berrigan who has offered money for the land but has been turned down. Giancarlo Giannini is Sebastian Collogero and he is to proud to leave and asks the other farmers to stand up and fight to keep their land. Berrigan grows impatient and hires a bunch of thugs to force everyone to vacate. These thugs are headed by a man named Andrews (Burt Young) and he doesn't hesitate to kill anyone who gives him problems. Andrews and his men kill Collogero one night and his son Marco (Eric Roberts) vows to seek revenge and get the land back for everyone. Marco blows up the bridge that the railroad was going to need and they also destroy a tunnel and this sets back the project for several months and Berrigan now starts to get heat from other investors. This film was directed by Peter Masterson and besides "The Trip To Bountiful" he has at best a spotty career in directing. He's a fine actor but here he seems to be in over his head. This was a film that desperately needed more attention to detail and its easy to see that it didn't occur. Roberts hairstyle is perfect for the 1980's but this is suppose to be 1890! The cinematographer is Toyomichi Kurita who ended up being a good cameraman but this was only his fourth film and he certainly had not learned everything at that time. Its not a sharp looking film at all and I noticed in several shots during the day that the sun would be glaring off of something and the scenes just don't have the crispness that would have helped the overall look. The script is just a revenge story and no surprises take place during the course of the film. We know Giannini is going to get it and it seemed just a matter of time. The cast is top notch and they do their best but the whole film comes across as uninspired. This was promoted as Julia Roberts film debut but I'm not sure that is correct. She might have appeared in a film called "Firehouse" before this.
Well now, here's the thing - for this movie to work, you'll have to accept the following - a woman who's murdered is alive again at the end of the movie, a detective stops interrogating the dead woman's fiancée because a newspaper reporter asked him not to, and that same reporter, smitten by a good looking blonde hauled into night court for suspicious behavior, winds up getting married to her in exchange for the judge letting her off the hook. Are you following me on this? I can't tell you how many times I paused and rewound the picture to repeat scenes that just didn't make any sense. In the end, the blonde (Claudia Dell) and the reporter (Richard Hemingway) remained married, but I have no idea how they came to that decision. In fact, I can't figure out how the film maker came to the decision to make this flick. Oh I suppose there's some entertainment value here for just the sheer nonsense of it all, but it would have been nice if even a couple of the pieces fit. Still, I'm not ready to add this one to my Top Ten Worst list. I think that night club scene with the feathered ladies might have saved it. But why was it in the movie? I just don't know.
Only in the Hollywood audiovisual fiction world could anybody, including FBI agents, be so unbelievably stupid. The good guys are stupid enough to pick up everything they're interested in, answer phones, go up stairways, all in search for a demolition expert who's out to get everybody. Oh yes, and then we get the Hollywood SUPERVILLAIN. He can be shot, even if he's got a vest on, and then fall down a long flight of steps and then still have the upper hand over his stupid pursuers. Every cliché you can think of in suspense movies were used. I only watched it because Yuki Amami is so HOT. Oh,,,,but yes, it's great to see how morally superior this FBI agent is, when she's pretty certain that there's a bomb in an Opera House, and she doesn't sound the alarm. Who writes these scripts????????????
I am still trying to figure out what the target of this movie was: 1) Whether to show how stupid, disorganized, unprofessional and arrogant the police is (I surely could add various adjectives here, but I think my point on this is clear). 2) Whether to show how a twisted-minded crook that does not know what he wants from himself can create chaos. 3) Whether to show if a persistent detective will solve a case just by asking the criminal the same stupid question over and over again till the criminal answers? 4) Or was it just to show that any 90 minutes of filmed material can still be called a MOVIE…<br /><br />This was one of those movies, that in a way - did not disappoint me. From the first 10 minutes I kind of figured out that this movie will not be nominated for the best movie award, and surprisingly enough – this was consistent throughout the whole time. It was stupid enough to be worth the wait to see how stupidly it will continue and end – and I was not disappointed there either. <br /><br />Was it a complete waist of time? YES. Which raises your question – WHY DID I WATCH IT THROUGHOUT? Well, I was trying to fall asleep, and I thought this was a great candidate for that, but unfortunately I had too much coffee before that…
I speak badly of G.I.J.:T.M. mostly because I think it lacked something that G.I. Joe had. Yes It had something that G.I. Joe didn't have like celebrity cameos by Don Johnson, and Burgess Meredith but I think G.I. Joe: The Movie lacked the passion for the characters that the G.I. Joe TV series had. Most of the voice over artists really sounded like they were dead pan and they were going to die at anytime now. It's a good movie but I wouldn't say that it was the greatest movie in the world I.M.H.O. :)<br /><br />Although violence is what G.I. Joe was built on I'd say that Serpentor striking Duke in his chest wasn't the very best way for Charlie Adler's character to go out. Neither was seeing Golobulus remind Cobra Commander why he was chosen to lead the Cobra forces and then being horribly mutated after he failed to deliver what Cobra-La felt was rightfully theirs.<br /><br />It wasn't the best way for the G.I. Joe series to go out but it's better than nothing. :)
For me, it just didn't seem like GI Joe at all. When I watched it as a kid, I just didn't care for it. In fact the part I liked best about this one was the opening credits. They change so many facts around and turn the story around as well. Cobra Commander is supposedly part of this stupid race of reptile people in Antarctica or somewhere that is frozen. Though I always thought he was a normal guy considering every time you saw his eyes in the series they were surrounded by normal colored flesh and not the blue his face was here. There is just too much crap in this one to try and make this a spectacular movie, but for me it just ruins what I watched the series for in the first place.
Absolutely nothing is redeeming about this total piece of trash, and the only thing worse than seeing this film is seeing it in English class. This is literally one of the worst films I have ever seen. It totally ignores and contradicts any themes it may present, so the story is just really really dull. Thank god the 80's are over, and god save whatever man was actually born as "James Bond III".
This movie is so bad there are not words to describe it. If I got a video camera of a monkey dancing for an hour and a half it would be a heck of a lot more entertaining than this. The plot is so dull and unimaginitive it is not even worth mentioning. The best part of the movie was when the credits roled and I got a chuckle out of knowing the lead actors name was James Bond III. Just trust me and stay far away from this trash heap!
I've watched a lot of TV through the years. So much, that when I start seeing new shows that basically seem like reruns of old shows, I get insulted. Luckily, I am not too sensitive because all "Hot Properties" does is updates the cast (meaning make them sexier)of "Designing Women" and drops them in New York City instead of Georgia.<br /><br />The jokes are more TV-14-ish, but it does not make the show any better. The only thing that this show has proved is that Nicole Sullivan is SO good that she could have made a show like "My Mother the Car" a classic. Her comic talents remind one of a modern day Lucille Ball--only funnier. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast is flashy and sexy which might be good for some brainless soap, but they just aren't funny.<br /><br />Fred
The Foreigner is a straight-to-video Steven Seagal film that was originally intended to be released as a theatrical feature in March, 2003, an intention which was reportedly reversed when Seagal's prior film (Half Past Dead) tanked at the box office. According to some reports, the film had a lavish $20 million budget, including location shoots in Warsaw and Paris, and was completed as part of the studio's obligation to a two-picture deal which was negotiated after the relative success of Exit Wounds seemed to indicate that Seagal still had a solid following.<br /><br />Despite the size of their investment, Sony Screen Gems probably made the right move in shelving this movie. It is nearly incomprehensible. What am I saying? It IS incomprehensible. I don't think I understood what was going on at all, except in the very broadest terms.<br /><br />Seagal is employed by a mysterious guy to deliver a mysterious package to another mysterious guy. Other mysterious guys try to stop him. Other highly mysterious guys try to kill the moderately mysterious guys who try to stop him. Other really, really mysterious guys do especially mysterious stuff, all of which which was in fact too mysterious for me to figure out. The intended recipient's mysterious wife tries to intercept the package before it can be delivered to her husband. Because he is a self-proclaimed "consummate professional" who has been hired to deliver the package only into the hands of the husband, Seagal at first defies the wife, then later gets involved in protecting her and her daughter from other mysterious guys with unexplained agendas, as well as from her husband.<br /><br />Many people have mysterious, cryptic conversations. Many people blow each other's brains out. Some guys seem to die more than once, while in other scenes gunfights end without a clear view of the result, so the audience sees somebody die, but is not sure which one of the gunslingers is headed to boot hill. Allegiances shift often, adding further mystery. Or should I say confusion?<br /><br />I don't know who was on whose side, or what anybody really wanted, and the resolution was as unsatisfying as the exposition. At the end of the movie, I just sat there thinking, "That's the end? What the ...?"<br /><br />I couldn't even figure out the credits. IMDb says that Aussie actress Kate Fischer (from "Sirens") was in this film, but I'll be damned if I know where. Either she was left on the cutting room floor or she wisely opted out of the project. She could have found some activities more beneficial to her career, like having unnecessary surgery, ripping those pesky insert cards out of magazines, or taking some community college courses in animal husbandry.<br /><br />Seagal used to be a pretty fair hand-to-hand combatant, but the action scenes didn't manage to redeem this film at all. Seagal is in his 50's now and is a very large man, so he is reduced to a mimimal level of physical exertion and even during that he is contained in a knee-length coat to hide his inchoate Brandoesque girth. He might even get a little winded removing the wrappers from candy bars, although that's understandable if you estimate just how many of those he must have to eat to maintain his present girth.<br /><br />Steven Seagal seemed to be making a comeback with Exit Wounds, but if his last film was half past dead, this one must be pretty close to filling out the other half.
When you watch a Seagal movie, you expect good action. You expect fighting, not just a lot of shooting like in this flick. And: you expect a rather simple story. OK, I can live with a more complex story even though it's a Seagal movie. But this one, this is, I don't know what to say. It's very, very confusing indeed. At the end of the movie, I had major problems figuring out what had happened. And I know I'm not the only one. The story lacks so much information and is so full of plot holes that it's nearly impossible to keep track of what's happening in the movie. There are many people in the movie, people change sides all the time, and it switches locations too often. Terrible. I just don't understand why it looks like Seagal is making a sort of sequel to this one.
This has got to be THE worst Steven Segal movie I have ever watched (even worse than eco-piffle like On Deadly Ground & Fire Down Below). I'll start with the good points..., It's got stylish direction for a DTV movie and has wonderful scenry... That's it! The story dosen't really go anywhere, it's just an array of well staged set pieces just so seagal go shoot bad guys (the body count can easily match Tarantino at his bloodiest!). The plot is needlessly complicated and confusing you forget who the good and bad guys are. The acting (I use the term loosely) is mediocre at best, seagal's usual ONE constipated expression and wooden acting I can take but the others especially the Brits were down right terrible.<br /><br />What's in the package? Why are bad guys after it? Is seagal being set up?<br /><br />WHO GIVES A S***!<br /><br />When I rented this movie at my local Blockbuster (Once i'd paid) the assistant laughed at me and said it was the worst movie in the shop I could have picked! (I felt like punching him till my arm went numb)<br /><br />Anyway, I haven't seen Half Past Dead or Out for a kill yet and i daren't go back for more humiliation at my store, but they can't be anyworse than this turkey<br /><br />The soundtrack is supposed to be young and hip - It just gave me a suuden urge for half a dozen asprins.<br /><br />All in all this is Seagal at his WORST! The guy who's gained about 100Ibs and looks well past it, he's a guy who just doesn't no when to stop, he should retire gracefully NOW! and have a go behind the camera or become a Martial arts teacher or something.<br /><br />My rating 2/10 (1 point for scenery)
Im hoping this was made before Half Past Dead and Exit Wounds because it was rubbish, Seagal wasnt to blame it was down to the crap directing when the few action scenes took place. The plot was also confusing and basically just felt rushed out, maybe it was shelved and released to capitalise on Seagals newer films??<br /><br />3/10<br /><br />He's not through yet, bring on Under Siege 3 and loose some weight!
I saw that "The Foreigner" was ranked in the "Bottom 100" movie listings here on IMDb, so I wasn't expecting much when I tuned into it on the USA channel a week back, but I did have hopes. "Belly Of The Beast" (which aired a month ago) was a mess, but it had great scenery and photography and some pretty cool moments scattered throughout, so I thought that this movie might have some of the same. <br /><br />Alas, this movie fails the standards of basic watch-ability in almost every way. The screenplay comes off as the bastard offspring of a John LeCarre novel and a Richard Ludlum movie, but done by people with none of those worthy writers' talent for plot and characterization. Instead what we got is a glum, mean-spirited, nihilistic, cryptic mare's nest of muddled motives, tangled alliances and back-shootings. And chest shootings. And bombings. And eviscerations. This carries over to the directorial style, which relies on hackneyed 'grainy shot/slow motion' shots every 10 seconds, along with wire work and hyperactive jump cuts. These filmic devices that were stale 10 years ago when MTV directors used them for Whitesnake videos, and the director works them like a punch press, hoping to inject some weird art-house techno thriller coolness into the proceedings. <br /><br />Segal himself is just awful in this. He spends the entire film talking in a hoarse, throaty half-whisper and alternating between two expressions: looking like he is sucking on a lemon while someone waves a small turd under his nose, or looking constipated. And he's so chunky (and vain about it) that he never actually takes off his knee length duster on camera. I understand that it's hard to keep the girth under control as a male actor ages (although Denzel Washington and Paul Newman never seemed to have that problem). But you deal with it by being honest about it, and by growing as an actor, not by hiding it with carefully chosen camera angles and floor length robes. <br /><br />So I can't really tell what's going on, and the movie doesn't give me a reason to care about what's going on, and the protagonist is completely one dimensional and visually unappealing. Not a recipe for a good movie experience. <br /><br />Oddly, most of the set designs and scenery are atmospheric and striking; in fact, if you were to freeze the film on almost any given scene that wasn't a close-up of Seagal, you would be struck by the care and professionalism of the lighting,colors, and composition and by how beautiful the Eastern European settings are. But dressing up a rotten egg as a Faberge egg can't make it edible. And the proceedings are rotten at heart. <br /><br />There are 'cool' movies (like "Versus"), and there are visually striking but emotionally cold movies (like "Underworld") and there are paranoia conspiracy thrillers (like "The Bourne Identity" and its remake with Matt Damon). And then there is this thing, which can't make up its mind what it wants to be, pretends to be all these things, and fails because it has no guts or soul. <br /><br />This is a movie made by professionals with an actual budget, so you can't really put it in the same class as "Manos", "Killer Shrews" or "Hobgoblins". But I'd rather watch all three of those movies back-to-back several times than watch "The Foreigner" again even once.
If I could have given this film 0/10 I would, and this is the first film I have wanted to rate so low. Its worse than awful. If I went to see it in the cinema I would want the cinema to pay ME for watching it (at least minimum wage). Some of the camera shots were quite effective, but a lot were rubbish eg. villains reflection in a mirror that separates his head and shoulders side-ways from his body (seeing is believing). Several totally pointless killings of innocent civilians. 2 murders that made me laugh out loud due to the victims actions/facial expressions when they were shot. I only watched it to the end (fast forwarding about 10 mins of the boring pointless dialogue) hoping to see Seagal in some decent hand to hand combat, but there was almost none of that (should have known that when at the beginning he threw someone while going down an elevator and it was shown in slow motion with music - end of 'action' scene). In one scene we see Seagal hand chop someones neck in slow motion which makes it obvious that his hand never even made contact). The chief villain keeps coming back to life. He gets shot in the chest on 2 separate occasions. The 1st time its with a shotgun which blows him out the 2nd/3rd floor onto the street. To sum up, this film is a total waste of time and a total joke. It looks very low budget (even for Seagal). The colour is dull and grey. I could go on and on....just like this film, but I wont. Watch this film if you've got insomnia. Its guaranteed to put you to sleep.
Since I'm from Norway (one of the top ten (or so) richest countries in the world), it was much fun to watch how we use trucks from the 50ies and live in cottages from the medieval times. And since we have very strict laws when it comes to handguns, it was fun to see how much guns there actually were in Norway during the five minutes of the shooting there. Mr. Direct-to-video even managed to bring his silencer on short notice, so he must have powerful friends in the customs.<br /><br />Please do at least _some_ research before going to an "exotic" country, dudes -- you may hurt the feelings of old fans.<br /><br />Sverre -- old fan with hurt feelings.
They actually make a big deal out of a scene in which Steven hurdles a 3 foot fence. The plot is...barely there, the acting (so to speak) is distressing and the action is catastrophically lame. This is the worst Seagal film ever, and that is saying something.
Can they possibly get any worse than this? Probably. But after all Steven Seagal gets to do what he does. Well kind of; this time instead of mortally wounding the bad guys he just wounds them. By reputation of being a bad ass agent Seagal is hired to deliver a special package from France to America. But it is not an easy task with so many people trying to intercept and foul up the mission. The fights just don't have enough bite and the big bangs are just big and that's all. Anna-Louis Plowman seems to be the only cast member not to appear wooden. Also in the cast are: Jeffery Pierce, Max Ryan and Harry Van Gorkum. Don't put all the blame on Seagal for this clunker.
I like Steven Seagal but I have not a CLUE what this movie was about. I am not easily lost with movies but I had no idea who was on who's side.<br /><br />Hopefully some of his future movies will be a little better. My wife still thinks he looks good in black jeans, however. :P
I have to say that I really liked UNDER SIEGE and HARD TO KILL.<br /><br />watching Seagal doing his funny martial arts on people. I have<br /><br />been always looking forward to Seagal-Movies and, unfortunately, I was first disappointed by GLIMMER MAN, which I found really bad. THE FOREIGNER is probably one of the worst Seagal has ever<br /><br />acted in. Horribly boring, badly edited, wrongest soundtrack and so on! Dear reader, do yourself a favor an stay away from this!<br /><br />Honestly: Stay away!
Steven Seagal's films of late have not exactly been good, but this is by far the worst since The Patriot. The plot makes no sense what so ever; it is never clear in what the relationships between the characters are, who works for who or who is double crossing who. The film is completely disjointed, each scene seems to confuse the story further rather than carry it forward. Even the action sequences are uninspired and hard to follow. Most of the blame must lie at the director's feet for not even understanding the basics of film making, but Seagal does not get off lightly, as one of the producers of this film, he must also share the blame. Oh, and I haven't even mentioned how awful the acting is, even by Seagal standards. Even as straight to video fodder, this is not worth a view even for Seagal fans. Give it a wide berth!
Imagine this...<br /><br />Whenever two people meet in this movie, one of them is shot. The plot just does not exist - it appears that someone shot some action sequences and then tried to put them together to make a movie out of it. If you decide to watch it, you will regret it.
First: I like S Segal! But in this movie, he has hit rock bottom and started to dig!<br /><br />THE PLOT What plot? Very strange and unbeliveable plot.<br /><br />THE ACTIONS WAY below Segals standards!<br /><br />THE GOOD PARTS Mr Segal is a pro. And shows it. That's it.<br /><br />SUMMARY I could write (and have done so) a better script for Mr Segal. In case you read this Stephen, mail me, I'll give you a better script to do a better movie! The only realistic part is the one where... (see spoiler part).<br /><br />SPOILER PART (stop reading here if you plan to see the movie!) - - - Gas leak? Wow. Disecting a 'Black-box'-recorder in a hotel room? I work in the industry, laughable! The bad guy 'get's away', that much is true in life!
One of the worst movies I have ever seen. Seagal has been acting in several entertaining action movies, but this time this movie really sucks. Just stupid killing and really stupid storyline. In addition, Seagul looks fat and old.
Bad acting? Yes, but it was not a surprise. Stupid story? Yes, so what?<br /><br />But why, tell me, Mr Director, why all that slow motion crap? Fight scenes were bad, really bad, because of slow motion and bad cutting. Not because of Seagal.<br /><br />"What if I just speed this up for 2 seconds and then slow down those next 5 seconds and then... Maybe I need to flip the coin to decide?" What were you thinking, Mr Director???
I usually really enjoy Steven Seagal movies. They are usually highly entertaining and being somewhat of an adept of Aikido, I usually like the way Steven incorporates these martial art techniques in the fight sequences.<br /><br />However this film is a really bad movie making effort and it seems obvious to me that the blame lies with the director and the producers who obviously have no idea how to make an action movie, let alone direct someone like Steven Seagal and to take advantage of his knowledge and competence.<br /><br />I never saw the end of this movie. I walked out before the end simply because I couldn't stand watching anymore of this bad movie. I am sure that many people also share my feelings.
I am a fan of his ... This movie sucked really bad. Even worse than Ticker! & That movie was bad. It was kind of like they popped it out in a week. Looked to be very low budget. Only like 3 or 4 buildings used, a couple of locations MAYBE, & poor hummh! Everything! It just blew.
Seagal needs to get back to basics breaking bones and kicking butt. No more of this slow motion crap like foreigner and in the shadows fighting like half past dead. Exit wounds showed more of his fighting skills with some wires which was ok but then he went back to b movie directors.
There are films that are not released in theaters but on video. This one should be allowed to age and disintegrate the way old nitrate film stock does. No story, inept violence, over acted, badly written and the sorry thing is that the star was not the only bad part in the film. And I did like and enjoyed some of Siegel's other movies.
Three words: What a pile..... Two words: Don't bother! One word: Sucked! There are zero reasons to see this movie. Even those Seagal groupies should shy away from this movie. The martial arts, the typical Aikido, are horrible. The martial arts moves themselves are fine but the cinematography is pathetic. The movie actually goes into slow motion whenever Seagal give his "kill move" to his victims. Worse yet, is shows the same move three times in rapid succession from three slightly different angles. How stupid. Seagal's acting was plain stupid, but I still give this movie a "6" for acting because of the supporting cast whose "villain" roles were actually quite entertaining.<br /><br />The plot is just dumb. Seagal plays a Federal Express agent with a license to kill. His character also has that dedicated work ethic which means all of his packages get delivered to the correct people on time - at no extra charge - and nothing stands in his way. Not assassins, political leaders, explosions, or even death.<br /><br />I expect a certain level of violence in a martial arts film, but there are several scenes in this movie of random and horrible acts of violence that lend itself in no way to the advancement of the movie or its story. There is a reason this movie went directly to video and there are tons of reasons to avoid it. No one should bother with this tripe.<br /><br />
this movie simply does not work. The action scenes were shot to look stylish but just come out looking sloppy. seagal barely fights and a lot of his scenes are shot from the back ( if you look in some of the scenes it is not even him, but a 100 lb lighter stunt double) the movie is just all around BAD!
Lord have mercy! Why was this film made? Why did Seagal and rising star Max Ryan agree to be in it? The Foreigner is so excruciatingly bad in every conceivable way that it boggles the mind.<br /><br />The film has an ultra-cheap look to it. Like a budget of a couple of bucks was far out of their reach. What's worse is that the makers know this and try to make it look slick to compensate. The result is a film that just don't look right. The fight scenes are so dull and edited 'discretely' to hide the fact that Steven Seagal is not in good shape anymore. None of them are engaging or exciting. The plot is nonsense that doesn't interest in the slightest way or have any uniqueness to it. The Eastern-Europe locations (a sly move by the producers to keep the budget down, or non-existent) look unpleasant and should not be serving as the backdrop for an 'action' film (what action?).<br /><br />And what is the deal with the title? As far as I could tell everyone in the movie was foreign. Which ONE does the title refer to?<br /><br />The DVD is in 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen and in Dolby 5.1 sound. Neither are remarkable enough to warrant even a single rent. The Foreigner is not worth one second of your time. Gotta love that tagline tho! 'If they think they can stop him, they're dead wrong.' Sheesh!
I think this movie was made backwards, first they shoot a whole lot of scenes and action, and explosions, and then the story-writers got to work trying to find a story to tie all scenes up together. this movie is without any doubt the worst movie I have ever seen, your average porn movie comes with a much better written and much more coherent script. The movie makes NO sense. Seriously, even IF you are a Segal fan there's no reason you should EVER want to see this movie, except if you're one of those folks that like to stare at accidents, because this is a horrible accident, and should never have been released upon this world.<br /><br />Boran.
Mr Seagal has apparantly lowered his (already low) standards even more and has now outdone himself in making bad movies. The Foreigner has no substance what so ever in the script. It's director has made an even worse job and the music and score is so cheezy and malplaced that you just don't know whether to laugh or cry. Already 10 minutes into the movie, you just want to turn it off. However, considering Steven Seagal's past movies, you think 'Hey, there might be some cool action-sequences at least worth watching...' ...you are WRONG! It only gets worse as the movie progresses. Everyone (with a few exceptions) seem to kill every person that they talk to, good or bad, innocent or not. The only good thing with the movie is that it that it has an end and that it has a rather short running time. Summing the movie up in two words: STAY AWAY!
Sigh... what can I say? <br /><br />Why does a horrible script such as this gets approved in the first place. Its not wrong to have a complicated plot but its not explained to the audience properly!<br /><br />To have the wife explain the plot via flashbacks is bad bad bad. To have such a tight editing for the fight scenes is bad too! Such fanciful editing only appears in trailers. It cheapens the whole look!<br /><br />And who are the Russian guys at the top of the movie? Who is the guy being tortured? Is he with the CIA? <br /><br />This film deserved not to be released in theatre. But it doesn't deserve to be produced in the first place. Its a joke to Hollywood.
"The Foreigner" is a tale of foreign intrigue with Seagal at the center as a deep cover operative who has a package which everyone wants and are willing to kill to get. The flick is uninspired with less of the usual action stuff which put Seagal on the movie map (fire fights, hand-to-hand combat, pyrotechnics, stunts, etc.) and more of a story which is convoluted, uninteresting, and full of meaningless filler. What action there is seems token and gratuitous while Seagal, looking more and more like a pork chop, meanders through this insipid flick expressionless and bored while manifesting no improvement in acting ability. Somewhere around "The Glimmer Man" or "Fire Down Below" Seagal flicks took a nose dive and "The Foreigner" is just an continuation of that trend. Nothing here worth watching except for the most die-hard Seagal fans. (C-)
I believe Cockpuncher to be the best piece of work that has come out of the Steven Seagal factory in a long time. This movie was the first one I have seen since that fine film preview. My point? He is done. Every movie is the same. Maybe he will be good in Machete because he won't be the star. We can only hope.<br /><br />P.S. Thanks for speaking to UCSB when I went to college. It was an amazing speech. You really influenced some people out there.<br /><br />So I have to write ten lines about this movie? Umm....I like the smoker guy who killed a bunch of fools. Whenever anyone smells menthol's LOOK OUT. Because there could be a killer with a silenced glock (and another loud one) who wants to kill you.<br /><br />Is that ten?
Why on earth does five US keep repeating this one? the title actually says it all: the plot is as clear as a book read in a language you never heard of and that resembles to nothing.<br /><br />You'll see ninety minutes of changing locations, most of them will be blown up later on in the movie. Right in the beginning you see a nice little farm typical for the Berry, which is in the movie moved close to Paris but then it does not survive the "transport" to the Isle de France very well: it explodes 1 minute later. there are also two gangster who have no tongues, as if that would make sense in the world of SMS and internet, let alone pencil and paper.<br /><br />It just goes on like that, nothing makes sense in this story. my only credit goes to the cameraman, the camera is excellent.
Two things are changed from then.First of all i am not a kid anymore,and second most of new Seagal movies are just terrible.This is on my opinion the worst movie ever made with Derailed starred by Jean Claude Van Damme.There is no plot in this movie,the plot is just an excuse to shoot some terrible action scenes which are painful to watch.I love action movies,but this is not an action movie....This isn't a movie...this is a group of irritating scenes which are connected in annoying way to kill the viewers love for the action movies.I am sorry but i don't have any respect for anyone who liked this movie.He has a serious intelligence problem then.I hope that Seagal will make some new good movies in the future.Good luck for him !
The authors know nothing about Russians prisons, the movie is absolutely cockamamie, has nothing common with the reality. They also don't that the foreign prisoners in Russia have a special prison so the foreigners NEVER live together with Russian criminals. The uniforms in this movie look if they were stolen somewhere in Latin America. Prisoners in Russia also don't work outside the prison. Each kill in Russian prison is a subject of investigation so the prisoners kill each other only if there some very important reasons. Playing soccer is also forbidden in the prisons, contacts between the prisoners are very restricted, no chance for bloody combats etc etc etc. So this movie has Nothing common with the reality.
To call a film boring is not something I would usually count as a valid criticism. However, when a film is crassly made of spare parts from other films that weren't that good to begin with, and it is slow as molasses with no real payoff, I think it's fair to call a spade a spade. And The Ghost is a very boring film.<br /><br />A movie that is about as original as its' name, The Ghost tells the story of a young girl with amnesia being haunted by a ghost that holds the secret to her past. Only, it's a whole lot more complicated and less interesting than one would think.<br /><br />The plot line is almost incomprehensible for most of the picture and the hook, the amnesia element, only makes things worse. It seems that no one, including the screenwriter and director have any clue what the hell is happening at any given moment. Instead they chose to do what roughly amounts to the filmic equivalent of a sitcom clip show. There are scenes taken directly from Ringu, Dark Water, Shutter, The Grudge series, and a smattering of Pulse for good measure. Making matters worse, the half dozen female leads all dress and read their lines alike, making them impossible to tell apart.<br /><br />There is just nothing to grasp onto with this film. The story isn't all that well thought out. The amnesia gimmick is lazy. The mystery element is un-involving and handled with little grace. The characters never deduce anything, all the information is just handed out through the lead remembering her past whenever it is convenient for the plot.<br /><br />The cinematography, full of reflections and shots of water at least attempts to add to the subtext, a thematic link with the amnesia and the final twist (which I won't reveal) is nice, but often overwrought. Even the score feels borrowed and cliché.<br /><br />Worst of all, the inciting action for the curse isn't very interesting and the final twist is predictable and lame. "Wait, you mean that one character who has 15 minutes of screen time but appeared to have nothing to do with the plot comes back in the end? No!" Audiences are too savvy for this kind of tripe. Anyone who has seen any of the films that this rips off will find very little to even keep them awake with this feature. I used to think Shimizu was the bottom of the barrel for this kind of crap (remaking his grudge film no less than 5 times) but even his second rate work like Reincarnation, a film I couldn't even bring my self to finish, is miles ahead of this.<br /><br />For more reviews please visit www.collider.com
This movie starts out with this creepy song that gave me some chills like the song used in "Nightmare on Elmstreet"! It immediately sets the mood! The sequence that follows also shows what to expect! We are made aware that a ghost is present! The mystery concerning this ghost is what keeps this movie together! But the structure of the plot is so complex that it is difficult to make sense of it! The ideas behind the plot are quite interesting! Only the way it is told to us is far too abstract! I understand that the director believed that he had to maintain the mystery as long as possible! The problem is that when certain matters get revealed you never get a satisfying explanation! The motives of the important characters are left out and some questions raised in the movie don't get answered at all! Since we don't learn enough about the characters it becomes hard to care for them! And as a consequence you will loose interest! Only some scares and a twist save this movie from becoming a total failure! The twist is interesting but no real shocker! The experienced viewer will see it coming! Some reviewers complain that this movie is too much like "Ringu" and is not original at all! Well it is true that some of the effects and scares are borrowed from that movie! But there is a main difference! The suspense in "Ringu" mainly was based on this one twist where the viewer finds out how the characters get killed!! In "Ryeong" (the "Ringu" like) twist is used as a creepy effect to accompany another crazy twist! "Ryeong" heavily depends on a complex structured plot and twist that doesn't contain enough scares to hold your interest! Simply put: This isn't a scary movie!
Simply put, I was amazingly disappointed. I'm a huge fan of Asian Horror, and I can watch unoriginality (I myself enjoyed "The Red Shoes" and "Phone"), but this was just poor.<br /><br />The movie has a lot of elements that are very high-quality: the photography is eye-catching, the visuals are cool, the directing is inspired, the acting is pretty good, the music is easy on the ears, and the CGI is incredible. But, since this is a horror film, we are expected to be scared, which just won't happen with this film. As with most South Korean horrors, this is unoriginal almost from beginning to end: there's the trademark long-haired vengeful female ghost, ominous clumps of thick, black hair and puddles of water, and near the end, a twist that *almost*, but not quite makes sense out of the whole thing (the twist is easily one of the best qualities). And to the viewer's irritation, when the film isn't recycling (at times, so exact that it could easily be dubbed plagiarized) imagery from other movies, it's making you jump. A lot. And by jumps, I don't mean things jumping out or anything, just VERY loud noises and screeches in the soundtrack used to make the audience jump six feet in the air (there's even a few "made-you-jump" moments that are simply infuriating). And when it is not ripping-off other movies, it's boring, and hard to sit through.<br /><br />And it's a shame, because "Ryeong" could have easily been really good, and it has everything to make it good, but its the annoying overuse of completely predictable loud noises and jump scares that eventually ruin the movie. A perfect example of how good it could have been: there's a moment when one of out characters is looking at a corpse, and without a sound, the corpse looks back. It's wholly predictable, but the use of silence in that scene is brilliant. And unfortunately, that's as scary as the movie got for me.<br /><br />Admittedly, "Ryeong" has a few good features, and even a couple jumps that aren't as predictable, and do work. There's a very good and sad back-story used to explain the events, and the twist is pretty unpredictable. Those are the only things that separate the film from any other Asian ghost/horror film. But the problem with these is, even though they do work, they have been used before (J-Horror fans will easily realize the big reveal was inspired by "A Tale of Two Sisters"), and it takes the back-story a good fifty minutes to get going.<br /><br />So in the end, "Ryong" really seems like a truly wasted opportunity. Tae-kyeong Kim hoped that the plot twist and other good features act as diversions, so the audience won't notice the huge flaws. But he failed, and well... We noticed everything.<br /><br />My rating: 4/10.
CORRIDORS OF BLOOD <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.66:1<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />(Black and white)<br /><br />London, 1840: Whilst attempting to formulate an anaesthetic solution, a dedicated surgeon (Boris Karloff) becomes addicted to narcotics and is blackmailed by local bodysnatchers.<br /><br />Riding the coat-tails of a Gothic revival occasioned by the recent success of Hammer's THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957), Robert Day's CORRIDORS OF BLOOD is an odd mixture of historical drama and Grand Guignol theatrics. Producer Richard Gordon lured Karloff away from Hollywood - where his movie career had become stalled in a B-movie rut (VOODOO ISLAND, FRANKENSTEIN 1970, etc.) - for a couple of lurid shockers in which good men are thwarted by circumstances beyond their control. In GRIP OF THE STRANGLER (1958), he played a novelist who stumbles onto a horrific secret whilst researching a series of murders from recent history, while in CORRIDORS OF BLOOD, he's a drug-addicted surgeon who falls prey to a gang of criminals masterminded by East End pub landlord Francis de Wolff. Less a horror film than a melodrama with ghoulish trimmings, the movie hedges its commercial bets by including a number of gory thrills (a leg sliced open, a face destroyed by acid, etc.), but the narrative is motivated chiefly by Karloff's altruistic pursuit of an anaesthetic formula that will alleviate the terrible suffering of patients during surgery.<br /><br />Produced under the title 'The Doctor from Seven Dials', the finished movie went unreleased until 1962 due to indifference by distributors MGM, by which time co-star Christopher Lee had earned a prominent screen credit, despite playing a small - but significant - role as 'Resurrection Joe', a sinister Cockney thug who murders carefully selected patrons of de Wolff's squalid pub and sells the remains to local doctors. Lee filmed this glorified cameo before THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN catapulted him to international stardom, which accounts for his limited screen time, though his intense performance is one of the film's highlights. Adrienne Corri (VAMPIRE CIRCUS) distinguishes herself as de Wolff's partner in crime, and there's a feast of familiar faces in supporting roles, including Francis Matthews (DRACULA: PRINCE OF DARKNESS), Betta St. John (THE CITY OF THE DEAD), Finlay Currie and Nigel Green. Superb art direction (by Anthony Masters) and cinematography (Geoffrey Faithful).
Notwithstanding that "The House of Adam" is meant to be a mainstream gay movie; that Anthony (John Shaw), who is gay curious and a major cutie-hunk and Adam (Jared Cadwell) who is openly gay, and a close second in looks; that there is a whole minute of wonderful, convincing, and naked lovemaking (sorry, no frontal) between Anthony and Adam 41 minutes into the movie (that alone may be sufficient for many of us) --- notwithstanding all that (to which I give a thumbs up), "The House of Adam" is a horrible movie by most any other movie making standard. A big thumbs down.<br /><br />Shaw's and Cadwell's acting abilities are either sophomoric or else truly suffer from the bad script, direction, and editing, or rather the lack thereof. Their lovemaking scene is nevertheless convincing, and may have more to do with their really being into each other, considering the rest of their scripting and acting.<br /><br />Writer-director Jorge Amer's (Bonus Feature) self-congratulation as to his movie making skills is off the wall.<br /><br />So, the script and lack thereof is a thumbs down. Overall, the acting is thumbs down with just the slightest exception for Shaw and Cadwell. Alexis Karriker as Nina might have been the best except for the limitations expressed above. Far and away the absolute worst, and insufferable, acting was by Thomas Michael Kappier as Albert Ross, Anthony's father having not even of elementary school acting quality. He truly represents a colossal casting failure.<br /><br />The actors playing the new cabin owners are worthy of truly bad acting nominations as well.<br /><br />If only the production, editing and post production were as good as the trailer, this movie would have been quite something else. The trailer presents well put together clips of scenes that drew me into renting the movie in the first place. That, and the hope that this gay-centered movie, was supposedly prominently played and touted at gay film festivals.<br /><br />Overall, the movie is a big thumbs down.<br /><br />Is it worth buying/renting and watching it? Only if you have an irresistible yen to see the naked love making scene, and a few minutes of semi-convincing dialogue between Anthony and Adam. Or if you truly just enjoy watching bad movies.
First and foremost I am a gay man, although do not live my life within the so called "Community", and it's because of films like this that Gay themed movies are not my favorite genre because 90% of them are crap. Like this one. f I could give this a zero I would. (I do not understand all the positive comments, unless they were all made by people who made this film) I actually stopped this at the 24 minute mark when the so called straight "Anthony" kissed Adam outside the restaurant for NO reason at all. And how is the son stealing from the diner if he doesn't even live in the town? Wire transfers? The acting was HORRENDOUS! The sound editing? (Listen to "Anthony" and Adam when they are sitting on the fence eating their lunch. Every time the camera switched between the two so called actors the sound changes, like there was not a filter on the microphone)Seriously do not rent, or god forbid, buy this movie.Horrible Horrible Horrible acting and just a stupid storyline.
Hi guys, this is my first review and I would had to have picked the worst movie to review. As I only watched 5 minutes of it but trust me you could see this movie was going nowhere. The acting was deplorable, the camera work and lighting looked as though it was shot and run by a pack of 10 year old's. No offence to 10 year olds.I just couldn't take anymore I got off my couch, took the The House of Adam DVD out of the DVD player and threw it in the garbage. Maybe if you are a Colin Farrell fan this movie may interest you, because the character in the movie, Anthony, is a Colin Farrell look a like. But that is as far as it goes, he certainly will never have col's acting abilities. I gave this movie a rating of 1 (awful) only because there were no minuses in the drop down list cheers.
I'm assuming the filmmakers heart was in the right place but, frankly, this movie is truly unconscionable. I was offended by the tone and the total cop out ending. You cannot take issues like this so lightly! Without knowing the final caveat of the movie... we watch as a guy guns down his 9 month pregnant wife and two sons and are supposed to follow him for the next 2+ hours as he tries to establish a new life?? You cannot have sympathy for a character who does this. Cannot! Not to mention, we're given nothing until the last say 1/2 hour of this unnecessarily long movie, as to why this guy is suffering so much. No flashbacks, no sudden reactions to noise or movement - stuff that real vets are suffering from. All we know is he has a pain in the ass wife and can't financially take care of her and his 3 kids. There really didn't seem to be any research whatsoever into what current Iraq vets are going through.<br /><br />Additionally, the movie suffers tremendously from a heavy handed and totally inappropriate score. Its a catastrophe. It is truly harmful to some actually good acting on the part of the male lead and at times Joe Morton. It foreshadows EVERYTHING you're supposed to feel, and sometimes gives you the wrong clues entirely! Again, this was a brutal thing this guy did, and so seeing him get a new job, meet a new blonde, struggle behind the counter making toast is NOT appropriate! And really, the ending? What a freakin cop out! How dare you.<br /><br />There are far richer films dealing with the affects of war on returning soldiers, please don't bother with this one.
Last night, I attended a screening of Badland with my cousin. We were kind of excited to learn once we got there that the director/writer, the producer (his wife), and several cast members were also in attendance and that there would be a discussion and Q&A after the movie. But once the movie was over and the credits started rolling (and the film really was not edited well enough and is too long), my cousin and I, without consulting each other, immediately got up and left. We found out once we started talking outside that we were both feeling so angry that not only did we not want to stay for the discussion, we couldn't even look at the cast and crew who had been standing near the exit and who we walked right by as we left.<br /><br />I have figured out that the roots of my anger were planted during the scene in which Jerry slices his daughter Celina's palm with a big knife so that her blood could be used to leave a fake trail. It was unavoidable to connect in my mind the physical pain he inflicted on her body with the emotional pain he inflicted on her spirit by murdering her mother and two brothers in her presence, sparing her, and taking her with him when he fled. I've sliced my palm before (accidentally); even a fairly superficial cut is incredibly painful because the palm is so sensitive, and it is very slow to heal if you don't keep it immobile because you just keep opening it up trying to go about your life. But after a very short time with only a narrow strip of cloth tied clumsily around her palm and one scene with a big band-aid, it was as if she'd never been cut. My anger reached its peak--I won't spoil this moment for you--in Celina's final scene.<br /><br />I got angry because Celina is by far the most sympathetic character in the film (the actress portraying her is a good one); I was—and you can't tell me a good screenwriter wouldn't know this—immersed in feeling both her physical and emotional pain; and the screenwriter, by treating Celina's emotional pain so cavalierly and with such disrespect, also treated me, the audience member, cavalierly and with utter disrespect.<br /><br />Sure, the script has moments of tears for Celina, and some dialogue that tells us she's hurting, somewhere, somehow. But by this time, we the audience are feeling so manipulated that we've shut down. The manipulation starts very early on in this movie, when Jerry's family's dialogue spells out for the audience that Jerry had psychiatric problems. Rule one, screenwriters: give your audience some credit. Let them do a good bit of the creative work on their own. Tell the story; don't explain to us everything we're supposed to think and feel. We don't like it.<br /><br />My cousin also knew she was having trouble with the movie early on, dialogue-wise, when Jerry and his wife had little to say to each other besides f*** this, f*** that, f*** you. Some couples do indeed find themselves in relationships so bad that the f-bomb ends up being every other word out of their mouths. But it's like watching comedians who curse a lot. Some of them are really funny; the cursing is ancillary. But some of them substitute cursing for humor, and this screenwriter, to carry the metaphor to its conclusion, is no Chris Rock.<br /><br />This husband and wife team bravely chose to tackle an awfully complex story with awfully complex characters. But they seem not to have realized that the meaning of a story, especially a complex one, will vary for each member of the audience. Successful storytelling requires paying attention to important factual details, not working desperately to interpret the meaning of the story for the whole audience.<br /><br />I worked with Vietnam veterans for five years, I've heard more stories than most, and I'm always happy to see films released that bring their stories to a broader audience. It's important, on all kinds of different levels, that we hear them. But I am less than thrilled that this storyteller decided before the film even began what Jerry's story meant and proceeded to spell it out for us with a very heavy hand. Next time, pay more attention to the details.
Badland is one of the worst movies I ever seen. Most of the time this is fine and I can go on with my life, but I feel the need to warn others in this case. As a veteran of the Iraq war I feel it necessary to say that the story, plot, acting and depiction of what soldiers go through upon returning home was pure garbage. It was as if the director/writer/whoever latched on to whatever cliché about returning soldiers and ran with it and ran with it and ran with it..Not to mention I would imagine there was absolutely no research put into this film. The "Marine" uniform looked like it was fresh off a surplus store shelf and was a pattern not used since the first Iraq war. I won't go on forever, this is a horrible movie. If you are interested in the stories of returning soldiers there are much better alternatives. I recommend going to your local library.
Being an American service member please believe me when I say that this movie in no way accurately portrays the emotional state of our Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen/Marines returning from deployments.<br /><br />That being said....<br /><br />This movie is one large steaming pile of cliché. The acting as awful (with the exception of the little girl) the character's backgrounds are weak and laughable, and plot is ludicrous.<br /><br />This movie is so bad I made an account with IMDb just to warn anyone with half a brain away from it.<br /><br />Canadian writer/director Francesco Lucente should be really, really, really ashamed of this movie. If he disagrees with US foreign policy, he should write a letter to the US government, not punish the entire English speaking world with a monumentally crap film.
If anyone thinks this is a great sports movie it is probably the only sports movie they have ever seen. There are different aspects a sports movie can take. Whether it be professional or college or high school. Examples of sports movies I liked (and I haven't seen many) are Jim Thorpe: All American, All the Right Moves, Any Given Sunday, Eight Men Out, and Rocky, among others. All of those movies had a little more than just plain sports. Whether it was a mans ascent and then descent from greatness, or a man losing out on a dream by the actions of a vindictive coach, or the effect of money on professional sports. In Hoosiers, there is not much content. It didn't even seem as though the movie had a beginning or an end. There was no character development, all of them were forced on us. I could sum up this movie, by quoting a very bad coach: "Go out and try to score more points than the other guy."
A coach who used to be good, but has had to move to a new area to get away from what he once did; a team of no hopers; the star player who has a row with the coach; the assistant coach with an alcohol problem, the little guy who gets kicked around scoring the winning basket; the whole town against the coach (all except for the leading lady). It's the old story - right out of the British comic books, where a team of speccy geeks and fatties take on the Brazilians at soccer and win.<br /><br />This film, admittedly well put together, is full of these clichés. The only part I didn't predict was when at the town meeting, the star player suddenly decided to side with the coach. No reason was ever given. It seemed like a very strange thing to do seeing that everything was going his way hitherto. Maybe he just felt sorry for the poor guy.<br /><br />Gene Hackman plays a locker room Popey Doyle. I am sure that an actor of Dennis Hopper's calibre found nothing particularly challenging about his role. The same can be said about Barbara Hershey.<br /><br />All in all, a film full of clichés that might have been done a lot better than it was.
A poor basketball movie. A gruff coach with a dubious background comes to a small Indiana high school basketball team in the 1950's and coaches the boys to victory by "breaking them down first, and then building them up."<br /><br />Not a bad subject. Photography OK. But the plot is totally predictable. No real sub-plots. Nothing added to make the movie exciting. You know what is going to happen from the very beginning. Suitable for 4th Graders.
<br /><br />I tuned into this movie not because I am a fan of U.S. High School basketball (in fact I only rarely watch NBA games) but rather because I am a fan of Gene Hackman, who usually manages to bring an impressive depth to his performances. In this case, however, I was sorely disappointed. This was not one of the bright shining stars of Hackman's career.<br /><br />In fairness to him, he didn't have a lot to work with. As Norman Dale, the new coach of a small town high school basketball team in Indiana, he wasn't called on to do much acting. Basically his performance consisted of pacing up and down basketball sidelines ranting at the referees. I didn't find him particularly believable in the role to be honest. I also was unimpressed with the requisite romance between Dale and Myra Fleener (Barbara Hershey). Quite honestly there was absolutely no chemistry between Hackman and Hershey. The romance never captured my attention, and neither did the basketball "action," which was altogether too predictable.<br /><br />There were far too many problems with this movie to make it worthwhile. I never did understand the depth of the sheer hatred that so many of the townsfolk had for Dale, almost from before the time he arrived. The character development was poor and the story itself was poorly developed. Too much basketball and not enough human interaction, in my opinion. How many shots of kids shooting baskets do we need to see to get the point that this is a basketball movie? There was no suspense: is it even possible to doubt that Hickory is going to win the big one? I realize that this is based on a true story, but I guess it proves that not every true story should be a movie. Quite frankly, it just wasn't a very interesting movie. Definitely a movie Gene Hackman would like to forget.<br /><br />No better than a 2/10 in my opinion.
This show is perhaps one of the most boring, most unfunny shows I've ever seen. While the humour was subtle, and I'm all for the subtle humour; the jokes just weren't funny.<br /><br />The show is about two Kiwis in their mid-thirties living in New York trying to start their music careers.<br /><br />I saw the one episode where Brett leaves the other Kiwi behind during a mugging. Okay, the plot idea has potential; but I got the feeling that half the episode was just filler, and the other half was actually important to the story.<br /><br />What I mean is, they kept on explaining how the one who was left behind felt betrayed and had a lot of mistrust for the other guy. I've got one piece of advice for the writers: mention it once for the idiots who can't figure it out by the way he's acting, and move on.<br /><br />And I found the characters were annoying. The character who left the other behind, Brett, came across as being overly innocent and naive, the one left behind walked around talking in this monotone and robotic voice.<br /><br />A third character, who was the band manager, was obviously incompetent, but he was the one character that I liked. He's also the one that earned the show a one-star rating.<br /><br />All in all, a show I have no intention of ever watching again.
From all the rave reviews, we couldn't wait to see this show. We love wacky humor and creative material, especially from Australia and New Zealand.<br /><br />I admit this may not be a fair review since we only saw the first 15 minutes. But we just couldn't bear any more misery - it was definitely the most boring and painful 15 minutes we've ever experienced watching a TV show - it felt like 15 hours. The songs may be (mildly) interesting by themselves, but inserted for an interminable 3 minutes each in the middle of a story scene just doesn't work.<br /><br />We're trying hard now to erase the memory. If you want some wonderful down-under humor in a delightful and engaging film, see "The Dish" instead.
The strawberry blond has a great script, But I just wish Errol Flynn was in it instead of James Cagney, he's not the person for the part. I do think Olivia did a great job. This movie is also a day dream wrap around, so it's hard to follow. I don't like the male character attitude; the way Cagney presented it was just off. I give it a 3 for poor acting by main male character. ( If you like tough ruff men that like to fight all the time and argue then this is your movie). The Strawberry blond would have been better if the main character had more of a positve attitude, and change the script so he is happy he's with Oliva.<br /><br />THis movie points out Money does not bring happiness, women right jokes. Plain and simple not the best movie, but every one must decide for themselves.
Stars: Hayden Pantierre.<br /><br />There have been so many movies that have this exact same plot, and this one is just a poor rehashing of it. Populer white girl moves to ethnic school, doesn't fit in, soon becomes accepted. Originality is nonexistent in this, and neither are the laughs. It uses so many old poorly executed jokes it's annoying. I don't know why they think it's a good idea to make made for video sequels to mediocre films, but it isn't. With that said, the positives in this are that all the people in it are fairly competent actors and actresses.<br /><br />My rating: * out of ****. PG-13 for Language and Sexual Humor.
The first two Bring It On movies were both quite good in their own ways. The first was fairly serious, the second was successfully satirical - and the third opted for the usual idiotic low-brow comedy that we always see in the utterly brainless teen movies that Hollywood has coming out of the woodwork. The entire point in this movie was that cheerleaders are total airheads who hardly know enough to carry on a common conversation, and that's the extent of this movie's comedy. Ha ha. Not.<br /><br />There is no shred of cleverness in this movie, no theme, no subtext, nothing for anybody with half a brain to be entertained by (and sure enough, I could not sit through all of it). If you're the sort of person who're entertained by fart jokes, this movie is for you. Congratulations.<br /><br />2 out of 10.
This was terrible, mean-spirited, and full of the worst clichés and racial stereotypes I've seen in a looong time. Seeing Hayden P trying to act "ghetto" was painful (hi, one pant leg up on yer sweats and some braids Downs't make you "down with the homies"). Solange Knowles pretty much grimaces through the entire movie. Most of the set sequences look like they were filmed in cardboard boxes...what was up with the finale??? And poor Rihanna was just plain exploited to get people to watch her "act", which she can't.<br /><br />Put simply, this film Downs't even deserve one star. Please put this tired franchise to rest. Or at least make the next one Bring It On IV: Cheerleaders vs. Freddy & Jason.
without a doubt, one of the most racially prejudiced films i've ever seen, with the prejudice being levelled against Hayden Panettiere as she has to move into a tough inner city school. She is constantly called "white girl" and other slurs based on her colour. Firstly would this be allowed the other way around if a black girl was the butt of all the abuse? and secondly the stereotyping of the ethnic kids from the inner city school is also a disgrace. The writers apparent desire to show they were "hip" also extended to missing the point that the inner city school win the cheerleading competition, not through talent but by intimidating their white opponents!! these overtones to the film took it away from it's expected direction of a harmless lighthearted comedy suitable for a family audience into a vehicle that does none of the participants any credit. Hayden Panettiere has star quality but I would be surprised if any of the rest of the class ever get much further. All in all a charmless film that was a waste of time.
Seriously, I couldn't find anything that constituted a rational human thought in this movie. For some reason, the writer decided to have a bunch of actors in random places grunting, groveling and yelling like Cro-Magnon bipeds. I understand that this was about gymnastics, but seriously, what's with all the roaring and human bleating ? I also saw at least five actors with overactive terrets syndrome and stage 10 syphilis.<br /><br />Although this movie has actual human acrobatics, I must say it is surprising that you can make a movie like this without having any intelligible form of human speech patterns. This is truly a milestone in the history of film-making because there was no conscious decision to make the characters express anything more than a timely Urrrrr ! or Rfff ! sound.<br /><br />Incredible.
There was a lot of hype of this movie and the commercials made it seem like it would be great. Sadly, like Bring It On 2, Bring It On 3 shamed glory of the original Bring It On. There is shameless stereotyping throughout the film. The lines given to the actors were humiliating for all the races involved in the film. The performance of Hayden Panattiere was sub-par both in terms of acting and cheerleading. There were several scenes in which I literally cringed because I was embarrassed for the cast because the scene (lines, plot, etc) were just so stupid. My recommendation to the makers of any future Bring It On films is that you should hire good cheerleaders and teach them to act because the "acting" of the cast was horrendous and their lack of cheerleading ability made them completely useless to the film. Only great character: Kirresha.
What a nasty cynical film. Apparently this sad excuse for a dramatic urban look at what 20 year olds do whilst crawling through the gutter of Sydney nightlife is supposed to be somehow connecting with its target market. Made by some Industry nobody and pals who seemingly thought they could cobble together any sleazy behavior with a young cast and pour it into multiplexes, SAMPLE PEOPLE deservedly failed miserably at the Australian box office. It is so offensive in its clichéd depictions of obvious and easy targets it was fully rejected by the very audience it was intended. Shoddy and cruel and with no attempt to offer quality or resonance to the young audience who might have been attracted by the marketing or casting SAMPLE PEOPLE might have been interesting or even informative if not botched by its exploitive view of 'what teens want to see in a movie'. The character played by Ben Mendelsohn is particularly offensive and Kylie Minogue is again wasted by poor material and untalented film makers. It is as if the producers thought teens would watch any ugly trash and just slung-together scenes and characters who were shallow and soul less. Well the were very wrong. A mini budget film made in 1983 called GOING DOWN got this topic right and is an excellent antidote to this poison.
First: The recent campaigning of this movie is a huge hoax. Judging from the cover you'd think this was some kind of scandal movie about Kylie playing a character having sex, taking drugs and whatever. This is just a cheap market-scheme. She's barely in it and does neither of the things. The marketing here is unbelievable, and I'm surprised the filmmakers hasn't objected. <br /><br />The movie itself was to me a huge disappointment. It seemed like a Sunset Beach episode directed sloppy-handed by a teenage Quentin Tarantino. And thats not meant as a compliment, mind you. <br /><br />I think the weakness of the movie first of all is the story. It seems to be about nothing. Just about cool teenagers tripping around living 'on the edge'. The characters themselves does have some personality though, but the movie doesn't use its potential. As said, there's no story of any substance here. It seems to elaborate too much on cool dialog and ends up looking like a colorful MTV ad. It definitely has that feeling. <br /><br />Still though, I guess some people might enjoy it, but I'd say there's far better movies like this around.
Missed it at the cinema, but was always slightly compelled. Found it in the throw-out bin at my local video shop for a measly two bucks! Will I now give it away to anyone who wants it? Probably! No purposeful plot, one dimensional characters, plastic world ripped off from many far better films, no decent dialogue to speak of. You know that empty feeling when you come down off ecstasy? Its that feeling right here. Sad thing is, the Australia I know is heading in this direction, minus the melodrama and simple answers. Interesting only to see the older Aussie actors (who had to ACT back in their day to get by) vs the newer Aussie actors (who have to LOOK GOOD to get by). Like some horribly garish narrative introduction to a film clip that never actually starts... Poor Kylie, started her career as an actress as well...
This was a first feature for Clinton, I was there, while he shot this mess back in Adelaide around 98...<br /><br />Although I wasn't involved directly in the production, I was witness to the typically delusional behavior, post set, that went down,: the parties, the drugs, the illusionary glamor, really an example of what not to do when making a film, but also a byproduct of young, talented people getting caught up in classic ideologies of fame & worldly position.<br /><br />I like Clinton, we had a curious friendship, he deserves to have another crack with a more mature script...there the problems lay, and I'm sure a much better job will be done, if there's a next time round.! Because, frankly, he certainly didn't do himself any favours with this on his CV and neither did the cast...but hey, it was a paying job, in country where actors regularly starve to death<br /><br />In summary, fascinating to watch 'the making of' basically, not so much fun to experience (alas!).
I got interested in this movie because somebody had made a beautiful video for Björks "Bachelorette" with clips from it. So I watched the movie. And it is indeed stuningly beautiful. A masterpiece of animation.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the story doesn't keep up. It starts out well, with interesting plotlines about people fencing for the possession of the Rose Bride, but suddenly elevators fill up with water and looses their walls, people float away, and finally for no reason whatsoever, Utena is tranformed into a car, and a highspeed chase ensues.<br /><br />I like much Anime for it's ability to make alternative universes, but this universe is just stupid. If you are gonna watch this movie, turn of the sound, it's better that way.
I got interested in this movie because somebody had made a beautiful video for Björks "Bachelorette" with clips from it. So I watched the movie. And it is indeed stuningly beautiful. A masterpiece of animation.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the story doesn't keep up. It starts out well, with interesting plotlines about people fencing for the possession of the Rose Bride, but suddenly elevators fill up with water and looses their walls, people float away, and finally for no reason whatsoever, Utena is tranformed into a car, and a highspeed chase ensues.<br /><br />I like much Anime for it's ability to make alternative universes, but this universe is just stupid. If you are gonna watch this movie, turn of the sound, it's better that way.
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />As a boy, Mark Goddard (C Thomas Howell) sat powerless as his family, including his hero cop father (Jeff Fahey), were brutally murdered by vicious criminals he'd tried to bring down. With an inner desire to punish wrong-doers festering in him as he grew up as a result of this, Mark employs tough means when bringing the suspects he's chasing down in and gets into a lot of trouble with his superiors because of this. But then he learns of 'Justice Incorporated', a secret group of men and women lead by a mysterious man (Ed Lauter) who serve to dish out punishment that fits the crime outside the law.But, then things get out of hand and getting out alive might be harder than he thought.<br /><br />The Sweeper gets into problems from the off-set, because we've seen this exact same plot done before (and better) in films like The Star Chamber with Michael Douglas and Magnum Force with Clint Eastwood. The title doesn't make any sense either. But we also have to contend with the movie's utter ludicrousness, including a scene where a daughter's headphone manages to drown out the sound of her family being slaughtered, a finale involving a chase with a bad guy that starts on the freeway and ends on a Wright Brothers plane, as well as some of the most ridiculous acting ever put on screen and a very clichéd, pretentious script. But there's some cool action sequences here and there and the movie's unintentional laughs factor certainly keeps it alive with a pulse. **
Ordinarily, I wouldn't waste the time on reviewing a film like "Human Pork Chop" (the 2001 version, not to be confused with the earlier film of the same title, which is probably better known in the West as "The Untold Story"), but since the reviews already here are quite vague as to what it actually consists of, I figured I'd best post something more detailed, so as no one actually gets tempted (as I was) into buying it because of the film's mystique. I honestly would just say STAY AWAY.<br /><br />**** MAJOR SPOILERS are contained below ****<br /><br />"Human Pork Chop", I was expecting to be like a Chinese interpretation of the popular Japanese "Guinea Pig" films. Anyone who's watched enough of that series can see where its makers are coming from. There's a strong sense of humour running throughout it - you can't watch the ludicrous "He Never Dies" without laughing and "The Making of Guinea Pig" is a fabulous turning of the whole thing on its head, proving it was just made, with some glee, by fairly good natured gorehounds. All the GP films have a punk rock, DIY, shot-on-video aesthetic, occasional flashes of genuine artistry ("Mermaid in a Manhole"), an angry political agenda and a warped, deranged zeal that sets them in a league of their own.<br /><br />"Human Pork Chop" has none of the above.<br /><br />It's shot on 35mm film (with disarmingly good production values), it's 90 gruelling minutes long and it's utterly devoid of anything redeeming. The plot tells, in flashback at a police interviewing of the suspects, of the systematic torture, death and eventual dismemberment of Grace, a heroin-addicted streetwalker who is kidnapped and brutalised by her pimp and his henchmen when she steals money from him.<br /><br />Despite its fleeting attempts at being a morality play, the film possesses a detached, inhumane feel to it and one can't help but dwell on the mindsets of those behind it. Although it half-heartedly paints Grace as an innocent victim, the mean-spirited nature of its screenplay and the protagonist's constant, vicious dialogue veers towards a shocking, utterly unwelcome "she deserves it!" point of view which makes the whole thing almost impossible to watch. Far more time is spent detailing Grace's degradation and when her captors are eventually deemed guilty and jailed, it seems like a hurried afterthought on behalf of the writers who've long since stopped caring less.<br /><br />What makes it boggling as to why anyone would want to watch such a film is that even the kind of people who do REALLY get off on mindless sex and violence in the movies would be severely missing out. The torture is just a continuous stream of kickings, slappings, verbal abuse, psychological abuse and then increasingly bizarre displays of power on behalf of the captors use Grace's heroin addiction to make her do their bidding. And when I say that, don't get me wrong, incidentally. Unlike "Guinea Pig" with it's frequent barrage of nudity that gives an almost teenage feel of mock-titillation to the proceedings in spite of the ultraviolence, "Human Pork Chop" has no such sexual overtones. There isn't any actual nudity in the film and the violence is performed purely out of malice by the odious protagonists (who early in the film are seen stuffing a dog into a bag and banging it against a brick wall - don't worry, not real, just a cheap special effect!).<br /><br />The only actual bloodshed in the film is towards the end when they dismember Grace's body and boil the bones, all very poor special FX (nowhere near "Guinea Pig" level) and, by that stage, you'll probably be already feeling too miserable and sick to even care what's going on.<br /><br />The film is depressingly bleak and uncompromising along a similar line to Buddy Giovinazzo's "Combat Shock" and I guess could even be compared, at a push. Both movies deal with the gradual physical decline of an individual who exists in a nightmarish environment devoid of any social or morally redeemable characters and both movies 'climax' in a particularly visceral manner with the individual's inevitable, inescapable doom.<br /><br />In fairness, neither 'glamourises' it's violence (whereas "Guinea Pig" could easily be accused of this) but one can't help but wonder where the place is for a film like this. It fails to many any real points in its frank presentation of such brutality and with a leaden-pace, a virtually non-existent plot line and the aforementioned lack of any entertainment value, I just can't understand what would encourage anyone to watch something like this. I only made it to the end, purely for the purpose of being able to review it fairly... which I hope I've now done.<br /><br />Overall Score: 0 of of 10. Welcome to the bottom of the barrel.
After consuming "Human Pork Chop" and properly digesting it, I felt urged and obliged to inform potential viewers, that chewing on this product is NO FUN and its substance of LOW nutritive value.<br /><br />According to the dull nature of this film, the following is gonna be a WARNING more than a REVIEW. This is the first time I wished, that there is an "I-don't-care-to-rate-this-movie"-button on IMDB, because the only reaction to this boring piece of TRASH is stasis and indifference. Every possible rating would do injustice to all the other items listed here, a "10" is out of question anyway, "1" might persuade some readers, that this is one of those cases where "it's so bad that it's actually REALLY bad and that's kewl!", and "5" is unsatisfying as well, people might think, that it's an OK-flick and alright if you wanna have some cheesy fun, which it is not... Honest to God, it's neither a "10", a zero nor a 5, it's nothing, a black hole, A FUTILE WORK CONCEIVED BY AN EMBRYO. I bought the region 3 DVD, which was cheap (7 bucks!!!) at least and of good picture-quality, I bought it mainly because of the positive and promising reviews posted below my own entry. Oh boy, was I to be DISAPPOINTED. This movie is neither shocking nor disgusting nor unnerving nor... it's not even laughable, it doesn't take itself too serious to be laughed at, but still serious enough so as not to be comic. A truly unpassionate, amateurish effort. The only sequence that I found MILDLY DISTURBING is when two giggling thugs put an ugly dog in a bag and bash it against a brick wall... but even such a cruel premise only lead to a poor execution. The further down cited TOILET SCENE is unrealistic and filmmed without any sense for suspense, suffering or humiliation - the feces look like painted marsh-mellows!!! There is a butchery scene at the end of a loooong 85-minutes where three men dressed in plastic raincoats (a setup which one finds also depicted on the front cover of the DVD) start to dispose of the female body. Reminded me of "American Psycho" and "Shallow Grave", now these flicks are worth watching and true masterpieces.<br /><br />Let's be REALISTIC for once and not rush to make a myth out of every Asian-wannabe-scary-movie, as seems to happen lately...<br /><br />If you are looking out for some eastern horror then try Danny Lee's masterpiece of the very same (English) title "Ba Xian fan dian zhi ren rou cha shao bao" (Human Pork Chop) it's from 1992 and has - not without reason I might add - been compared to "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer". There is also a similar film telling the same story by a different film crew called "Ren tou dou fu shang" ("There Is a Secret in My Soup") of the same year, sort of a rival production. It's available as a region 3 DVD and by most regarded as superior to "Peng shi zhi sang jin tian liang". I might add a few more words on the special effects... what special effects?!?... there are a few chopped off limbs, they look awful - in a wrong sense - probably "Made in Hong Kong".<br /><br />That's about all the info I can share on this subject, hopefully it will prove helpful... ENJOY YOUR MEAL!
Unlike what one reviewer said this is NOT a ripoff of Magnum Force. In that one Lieutenant Hal Holbrook put together his own little squad from Academy rookies to dispatch repeat offenders. In Extreme Justice this operation has the sanction from the higher ups of the LAPD. Just how far they sanction the exact methods used is open to question. <br /><br />This Special Investigations Squad seems to be quite the haven for the misfits of the LAPD, those that have forgotten their first duty is protection and service. Which is why Scott Glenn thinks Lou Diamond Phillips, a detective with more than his share of beefs with Internal Affairs for excessive use of force, is perfect for the squad.<br /><br />What should have sent him running from Phillips is the fact he's got a nice live-in relationship with a reporter, Chelsea Field. That one certainly threw me in this film, you'd think that Lou would be the last guy he'd try to recruit for his team.<br /><br />And what his team is, is a death squad. They target perpetrators follow them and wait to catch them in the act. Then it's open season.<br /><br />Extreme Justice went very overboard in trying to make a point. There sure would have been no harm in waiting for a gang of bank robbers to finish the robbery and taking them down outside. No civilians got hurt when the citizens of Coffeyville did that to the Daltons. Or waiting until three rapists finish the job before moving in. That's what were asked to believe here.<br /><br />And frankly I couldn't buy it. A lot of good players get really wasted in this one.
Jeff Powers (Lou Diamond Phillips, "Young Guns 1&2"), a cop with a history of roughing up criminals, is recruited into an elite clandestine LAPD division. This doesn't sit well with Jeff's newspaper reporter girlfriend, Kelly (Chelsea Field) who's looking for a story on the squad. Soon enough Jeff's conscience gets the better of him which puts him at odds with Dan Vaughn (Scott Glenn, "the Hunt for Red October" & "Backdraft"), the leader of the unit.<br /><br />This is a fairly routine, dare I say mundane, cop-action/drama that holds no surprises thanks to a cookie-cutter plot that's content to go strictly from point A to point B. The acting is all right for what the actors were given to work with however that's no real reason to watch the film. Kinda sad seeing as the six previous Mark L. Lester directed films right before this one (from Class of 1984 to Showdown in Little Tokyo) were all highly entertaining vehicles. <br /><br />Eye Candy: Chelsea Field gets briefly topless<br /><br />My Grade: D+
Okay, so maybe the acting wasn't bad, but I am typing this review as a public service to prevent anyone else who happens upon the intriguing beginning of this telefilm from throwing away two hours of their life waiting for some plot development that will never come. The chief investigator has a gut feeling who did away with the missing marine officer (Guy), and few people other than uninvolved bystanders and the accusee seem to dispute her. So what is the point of staying with this drama? Beats the heck out of me. I kept thinking (or hoping) there would be some sort of plot twist or new revelation, but none was forthcoming. In summary, I cannot think of a single reason to sit and watch this pointless TV movie, based on a true story or not.
Czech cinematography is traveling through dark times... this movie is a tangible evidence. Slama obviously wanted to make a mediocre documentary about fictive people, characteristic of their stupidity. A young and healthy boy who doesn't want to work and prefer to live in a decaying shack with a feckless alcoholic aunt. Because of the idiocy of Tonik, who's just able to announce "Dad, I'll not work in the factory" (I'd really like to know WHY); I understand the condition of his "house", but I'm really not able to digest the horrible mess around. Cramped sentimentality everywhere. Why didn't Monika escort her boy to work abroad? Young Czech couples do it very often. And take someone else's children to live in a devastated barn... that's too much.<br /><br />Irresponsible mother (badly acted by Geislerová), naive & stupid boy (Tonik), silly and confused girl (Monika)... Yes, somebody has already told it - badly directed and acted soap opera. Actors like Martin Huba, Bolek Polivka, Tatiana Wilhelmova and Simona Stasova did their best, but unfortunately it couldn't save the whole piece.
Well acted, yes. Very well, I must say, even though I don't speak Chezck. Nice cinematography. But the script is lame, really lame. A predictable soap opera, in which you know exactly everything that is going to happen. OK, maybe the ending isn't as predictable, but is it any good? It is one of those films that you have the feeling that have seen already, and forget about the day after.<br /><br />I just got a note from IMDb saying that my comment was not long enough. That's really sad, because I have no idea of what else to say about this movie, which actually says a a lot about it, don't you think? The thing is.. .It has no soul and no originality. Compare this movie with Barrio, or Riff Raff, shot more than ten years ago (or the extraordinary recently shot The Child). It's sad to see that this is a much worse film.
Norman Wisdom's final starring vehicle was a departure from his previous outings – bringing his accident-prone milquetoast up-to-date, this being a product of the Swinging Sixties! The end result is an uneasy and occasionally embarrassing comedy which mixes the star's typical slapstick (and sentimentality) with mild sexuality and even milder satire; the plot has to do with an executive on a trip for a banking conference falling for teenager Sally Geeson (who doesn't mind getting involved with him but doesn't take their relationship all that seriously either); Sarah Atkinson appears as Geeson's friend who warns Norman of her fickle character.<br /><br />The film is nowhere near as bad as Leonard Maltin's BOMB rating would have it and, if anything, is interesting for its treatment of mid-life crisis (being in many ways similar to Hoffman [1970] and 10 [1979] – both of which, incidentally, I've only just watched); towards the end, Norman even tries to bring his wife round to his new way of thinking! The Pretty Things appear as themselves performing a number of good tunes in a nightclub and Norm himself sings the catchy title track!
As I write this, Norman Wisdom is a very confused old man who spends most of his waking hours cackling and yelping old catch-phrases at his increasingly suicidal nurse.<br /><br />Indeed, by the time you read this he will probably have joined the hereafter and the obituaries will record a near 80 year career of hysterical mirth-making from the lovable funster with the crooked chequered cap. What most of these obituaries won't recall is how Norman Wisdom had already committed a form of suicide back in the late 1960s with this staggeringly poor, yet strangely compelling endpaper to his movie career.<br /><br />The signs are ominous from the off – "Tony Tenser Presents" go the titles. You scratch your head – "Where have I seen that name before..?" Well, on the titles of a lot of the cheapest, crappiest British films of the 1970s so just take your pick.<br /><br />Then it says – "A Menahem Golan Production". Oh dear.<br /><br />From what I could make out what follows is a combination of Confessions from a Holiday Camp and Last Tango in Paris. Sponsored by the Southport Tourist Board.<br /><br />Norman Wisdom is very versatile at being Norman Wisdom (or a variation of such) here. Even in trash like this, he's never off form and somehow keeps you watching through parted fingers as he paws and dribbles all over a (clearly insane) Sally Geeson. Tony Tenser and Menahem Golan were, between them, responsible for some true cinematic horrors but the bedroom scene in filmic atrocity reborn. Sally plays the role of a lobotomised sex toy very well, by the way.<br /><br />I wonder if any of the crazy young cats who populate this movie's party scenes maybe thought to themselves in a quiet moment "Umm…old Norman+sex+hippies. Get me outta this mess!!" I guess it was a payday for them.<br /><br />A do feel sorry for The Pretty Things though. They probably thought "Yeah! This'll do for us what Blow Up did for the Yardbirds" <br /><br />And so old Norman's leading man career ended. Freezing his little balls off in Southport.<br /><br />I went there once. It was a depressing place.
It's a shame that someone so idolised by many kids as well as parents should demean himself in appearing in this exploitative, bandwagon-jumping tripe. I often wonder if Mr Wisdom in his later years looked back at his excuse for a film with any pride. At least Sally Geeson had the decency to retire to doing something worthwhile after appearing in this low budget rubbish. A cameo by some long forgotten pop called the Pretty Things cannot rescue the film from it's awfulness. If you want 60's nostalgia invest in 'Here We Go Round The Mulberry Bush' instead, starring Barry Evans and Sally's sister Judy instead.
I felt I had to add a comment after seeing the breathless gushing of the other comment. I was taken to see this film as a child by my unknowing parents, expecting a normal Norman Wisdom jolly romp comedy. Instead, what you get is this insipid British sex comedy of the worst kind where Norman (Norman!) plays a swinger aiming to get off with as many 'birds' as possible. Absolutely typical of the genre - poorly filmed and acted, no semblance of a script beyond the worst kind of double-entendre, and very vague hints of 'naughtiness'. And all seemingly on that special grainy film stock that is reserved for 1960's-1970's British low budget films. About the only memorable thing is the annoyingly catchy theme tune, which still pops up in my brain after 30-odd years.<br /><br />Finally, in the last scene you also get to see Norman naked - running across the sand and looking frozen. I think so anyway- at that point my mother hauled me out of the cinema. I saw it again, many years later, and guess what, it was still dire.<br /><br />If you're any fan or take any interest in the little man and his career, you'll apply the '10-foot-bargepole' rule to this. Believe me, you do not need to see Norman Wisdom's backside.
This film gives a look at the suffering a family experiences at the death of a child, and the healing that can finally come to them.<br /><br />The family learns of the death of their son on Christmas Eve, 1991, ruining the Christmas season for them. They do not celebrate it again for many years. There is an interesting comment by the daughter that will remind viewers to consider the needs of surviving children in such a situation.<br /><br />The Matthew character makes a reference to Jesus, but I suspect that other comments he makes come from non-Christian sources. I wonder if any other viewers would recognize those comments. If so, it would be an interesting addition to the data on this movie.
I bought the DVD of this movie because I am a fan of William Devane and I was really disappointed about "A Christmas Visitor". The story of the movie is so boring and slow in the development that you just want to turn off your TV or DVD player after about the half of it. The dialogues are really bad and belong to a daily soap opera but not in a TV movie. William Devane was alright in his part and he was acting quite good, but he did so much better in other movies and projects. Meredith Baxter was horrible and couldn't really bring the warm hearted mother to the viewers. Instead she was playing very cool and wasn't better than a middle-class actress. I absolutely cannot recommend this movie. Spare your time and your money for this one.
There are so many logical errors in this show it's barely worth me stating. 1) Mystic Gohan is non existent 2) Uub is as powerful as MAJIN BUU yet plays absolutely no role in the show, somehow he is easily overpowered by every bad guy 3) The whole Super Saiyan 4 idea is retarded and it's appalling that he loses to super 17 (which is the worst idea for a DB villain EVER) 4) Super Saiyan 4 Goku is no match for Super 17 but non transformed Goku using a move he learned in a movie that wasn't supposed to happen, kills him with ease 5) Vegeta is utterly useless 6) No character other than Goku has any impact to the outcome of the battles 7) The series ends with a spirit bomb...come on 8) Goku invincible? absorbs dragonballs? lame 9) Gotenks?...better yet Goten??? Trunks??? they both suck 10) Super Saiyan 4 involves a magical transformation into an adult 11) Goku is a kid 12) Goku is a kid 13) No super saiyan level 2 (characterized by electricity) 14) No imagination with the animation of Gogeta 15) Gogeta utterly useless 16) Big Bang Kamehameha is the biggest let down in anime history (not really logical but I'm going off on a tangent) 17) Shortest character fights ever<br /><br />I could go on longer if I hadn't repressed the majority of memories associated with this show. When I make enough money I am going to fund the remaking of this series.
Eh it's not really as good as the other Dragonballs. The villains are actually rip-offs of other Z villains like Cell, Frieza, and even Majin Buu. With Baby being Frieza's clone, Super 17 being Cell's clone, and the Shadow Dragons being Buu's clone(s). The story is also very bad as it deals with Goku shrinking. SHRINKING!! It deals with him SHRINKING to like the size of an eight year old just to get it going. Let us not forget how weak the characters become. Gohan can't go mystic anymore and is even weaker than Pan.(It's sad I know). Speaking of Pan she was so cute at the end of Z now she's lost all that cuteness and become an irritating,whiny little girl whose sole purpose in this series is to get in the way. Goten doesn't even have a purpose in the series and Trunks... well I don't know what to say about Trunks. GT is just an attempt to milk the popular Dragonball franchise. If you really like Dragonball then avoid this series. It doesn't even feel like Dragonball. I will be fair though as the ending however was really good and is actually pretty sad (At least to me) and the theme songs both ending and opening are better (Japanese, not American). Might've been better if Toriyama san worked on it.
While traveling by train, a woman (Stéphane Excoffier) mistakenly gets out in a remote station when the train stops in the middle of the night. Sooner she finds that a weird lonely pointsman (Jim van der Woude) that does not speak her language is the only person in that area and that that was the last train in that track. The man lodges her in his house and they develop an unusual wordless relationship between them.<br /><br />"De Wisselwachter" is an overrated boredom, with a different but uninteresting story that goes nowhere. I like movies Off-Hollywood, but this story is too absurd and has no message in the end. The sexual tension between the two lead characters is funny in a moment but too repetitive. I saw this movie in an old VHS and the image is too dark; I do not know whether on DVD the image would be of better quality. In the end, I was absolutely disappointed with this feature. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "O Homem da Linha" ("The Man of the Line")
I understand the draw and appeal to such a different type of movie and I am a huge admirer of movies with little dialog but all the same this one absolutely terrible. I've been to the Scottish highlands and found the lack of Scottish accents in the characters disappointing. This plot was strong enough in theory but the cheap sets and lack of a single realistic character kept this film from getting off the ground. I feel the use of silence to create atmosphere only works when you have actors who can exude some sort of presence without speaking and these actors certainly cant. If you want a silent movie that captures that presence try (Le Dernier Combat). There have been very few movies that I couldn't even manage to finish and this was one of them. Absolute dribble!
I watched "Gristle" primarily for the presence of Michael Dorn, as I enjoyed his Worf portrayal on Star Trek TNG, but had never seen him out of his makeup. Dorn appears to have a nice presence, and probably has the potential for a profitable acting career. This movie, however, gave him little dramatic challenge, except to prove that he can, indeed, use the "F" word.<br /><br />It appears that this movie was made by someone who fancied himself as a forward-thinking type, with a social conscience. Yeah--- for 1965. Today, the themes are so belabored and sophomoric and cornball that even Spike Lee's dreadful "Bamboozled" looks good in comparison.<br /><br />This crime-caper flick has an intricate labrynth of double-, triple-, and quadruple-crosses, but the plot scheme is so convoluted that it collapses upon itself within the first 30 minutes. Mostly, after that point, I simply watched out of momentum, and a mild curiosity about how each scene would play out. There is a great cast here-- you will recognize virtually everyone as a character actor from much better movies. Why are they all in this? I suspect it was 1) The work, and some money, even if modest. 2) Perhaps the director knows all these actors from acting classes and social connections around LA--- you know, perhaps they participated to support him, as a fellow struggling movie guy on the third and fourth tiers of the Hollywood scene. Dunno... but the movie was half-baked--- not really "finished." I gave it a 3, although my affection for the actors involved was undiminished from my admiration of their previous work. Let's hope everybody has moved on to more professional, more carefully done, and more thorough projects since.
Words can scarcely describe this movie. Loaded with ridiculous stereotypes, a silly plot, and poor music, this movie lacks in just about every category.<br /><br />Don't be fooled by the IMDB credits. This is not a Michael Dorn movie. He's a secondary character in the grand scheme.<br /><br />Also listed in the Credit's is an actor named "Prince" - which makes me wonder if it's the same artist formerly known as.... Then again, I'm not sure this movie is worth watching just for that.<br /><br />Big summary... bunch of teams... one has kidneys... one has $35,000.... one has an "Illegal Substance".... and one has $350,000. Add some confusion and mixups as to who needs to meet who, revenge on being taken, and such, and you end up with this mess of a movie.<br /><br />Given a choice, I'd pass on this movie.
Exceptionally bad! I don't expect much from Garcia since he is one of the most overrated actors today but Keaton really should have known this movie would suck and gotten out while he could (not that I'm especially fond of him but hey, he did batman).<br /><br />In one scene Keaton is transported to a hospital chained down and wearing a Hannibal Lecter kind of face mask when two attack dogs bark at him (dogs can sense evil you know (puke)) and Keaton growls back at them making them back off and whine with their tails between their legs. Did the movie turn comedy right there? Garcia makes a fool out of himself in an interrogation scene with dialogue only a complete retard could find plausible and the kid is too annoying to feel sorry for..<br /><br />If you are gonna make a movie with as poor a plot as this you need some charm, humour, some solid action. Take Die Hard for example which is great despite its rather crappy plot.<br /><br />Even though Keatons character was a joke i routed for him all the way. I wanted to see Garcia cry over his dead kid and Keaton sipping martinis on some paradise island, however! This movie makes for a good laugh.. Watch it with a witty friend and you can have some fun as this movie begs for wisecracks in almost every scene. <br /><br />All in all its an insult to one's intelligence and a huge waste of money. Greed made this movie and thank god it bit its own ass.
This movie, "Desperate Measures", was.... I'm not quite sure how to even put it into words. Was this supposed to be a comedy? I couldn't stop laughing at how absolutely ridiculous it was. I love Michael Keaton, and I cannot actually comprehend that he did this. They did a good job at keeping my attention because I couldn't wait to see how much more ridiculous it was going to get minute by minute. I actually just registered on this site so that I could get this out. I don't review movies. I don't have time for this, but I cannot let this go knowing I haven't done my civil duty by letting people (those who have an IQ of 85 and above) know that this is no action/thriller, It is honest to goodness funny. You people that actually got thrills off of this scare me. Go watch a good movie like Million Dollar Baby. Clint Eastwood's acting is not superb, but I was balling at the end. Exercise your brain America!
This plot had more holes in it than an OJ Simpson alibi! <br /><br />I noticed two Star Trek references in the movie and, yet,<br /><br />ironically we have a lead character played by Andy Garcia<br /><br />who is the antithesis of the Vulcan philosophy of, "The<br /><br />needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or one." <br /><br />Let's just say that while trying to save his son from cancer he puts most of the rest of San Francisco at incredible risk. Michael Keaton's character is almost as<br /><br />unrealistic as well. He neglects to kill at numerous opportunities and yet is angered when Garcia foils his<br /><br />attempt to kill a bunch of cops at once. The child's doctor remains in charge of her faculties even after been<br /><br />held hostage several times in a short expanse of time but<br /><br />put her on a wide walkway 5 stories up and she loses it. <br /><br />Andy Garcia's child is something of an anathema in this<br /><br />movie. He is the most sympathetic and real character, one of the movie's bright spots. He furthermore utters a line, that must have been the result of serendipity, regarding fighting cancer that parallels Keaton's motivation to escape. All in all, the movie was not a<br /><br />complete waste (see From Dusk to Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money<br /><br />for that) but disappointing considering the talent on hand.
I haven't seen Ishtar, but I did have the misfortune of seeing Kevin Costner's Postman, This is worse. Maybe the absolute worse piece of garbage I have ever seen, and if you look at my review for Moulin Rouge? that is saying something. Bad plot, acting was substandard and even wasted (even though, yes, Michael Keaton has been in some of the worst movies I have ever seen), and this movie has no redeeming value to anybody with more than half a brain. DO NOT SEE IF YOU HAVE GRADUATED THE 4TH GRADE as you will find this an insult to your intelligence.
There seems to be a whole sub genre of cheap, tired old sex "comedies" out there, that say the same old things about middle class couples. Sort of like Friends, but with more soft porn and no wit. This film is no exception- it had situations so familiar I died from deja vu. People sat on couches, spinning out clichés about sex and relationships? Check. Monogamy versus cheating with some woman/man who would never look twice in reality at some other woman/man? Check. PORN The BADDIES!!!!111? Check. Some guy/girl in it who happens to be the only reason you're watching this rubbish? Check. The lesson seems to be- when it doubt, make a tired old sex "comedy" about people no one cares anything about, in order to make some statement that everybody has already heard three thousand times before. That'll get your film made. It'll even attract some sitcom nobody in a bad wig!
This series doesn't present the British view of the Revolutionary War, so much as an anti-American view of it. The underlying theme of the series is that a silent majority of colonists enjoyed British rule; that the founding fathers were manipulative schemers whose only goal was to draw Britain into a violent civil war; that the American supporters of the revolution and the militia were racist, violent louts, duped into the struggle. Clearly, the intent of the author, Richard Holmes, is for the viewer to extrapolate these characteristics, in a straight line, from the American population of 1775 to today.<br /><br />For example, in the episode "The Shot Heard Around the World" Holmes dredges up an obscure print of the Boston Massacre, in which he claims the skin of Crispus Attucks, a black man and the first man killed in the revolution, was purposely "whited out". Holmes claims that portraying Attucks as a black man would have been bad propaganda for the revolutionary cause. Holmes never reveals how he knows this. And there's more. Holmes goes to some length to work in a single, unsubstantiated, atrocity: the desecration of the body of a British soldier. He compares the American militia to the Viet Cong and the mujahadeen -- without mentioning any differences in the goals of these groups. The list goes on.<br /><br />Supposedly, this series was made in response to Mel Gibson's "The Patriot". It says a lot when an academic feels the need to respond to Mel Gibson on any topic. Instead of presenting the British view, it seems Holmes really wanted to give a sensationalistic, anti-American view, and, in the process, he's made himself the Roger Corman of historians -- strictly third-rate schlock.
My boyfriend and I decided to go see this movie after we heard on the radio that it was a good movie worth seeing, even up there with "Cars". Within the first ten minutes of the movie, I was horrified. For starters, the cows, which should be females, had male voices. Then I realized they really are supposed to be guys. I put the transvestite cows aside for a bit and tried to keep watching the movie with an open mind, but it was just so corny I couldn't help but shake my head. I probably checked my phone about ten times to see if it was almost over. The plot was decent, if not predictable, but it took way to long to reach its point. I was having trouble sitting through it, and I'm 19. The children in the theater were actually getting up and running up and down the aisles. I felt like joining them. But my biggest problem with the movie was that it was loaded with drinking references, not to mention that the cows/bulls actually hot wired and stole a car, then drank and drive, broke into a boy's house to push him out of bed (he deserved it though), then ran away from the cops, whom the writers of the movie made look like terrible people. This isn't the kind of thing I would want my kid to be exposed to. There's way too much of that in the real world, if I wanted my child to watch guys drink and drive and lead cops on a chase, I'd pop them in front of the 10 o'clock news. Children's movies are supposed to be an escape from reality, not an escape into ridiculousness. What happened to the good morals and happy endings that children's movies used to boast? That's why Disney's old movies, like Beauty and the Beast, Lady and the Tramp, The Little Mermaid, etc. are classics. If you want your kids to see a great cartoon with basically the same plot as "Barnyard", rent "The Lion King". You can get a great story without the awful drinking and driving and grand theft auto references. The writers of "Barnyard" were obviously trying to continue the great trend of making a children's movie that a parent could enjoy as well, but they did so in very bad taste. I would never take my kids to see this, and I suggest you save your money and watch something else.
Hello - I normally love movies. I'm 19, I have seen many and dislike only one or two. This one though, the second it finished, I had to pull my sister (who had wanted to see it) out by the arm and I burst into tears of laughter as soon as I got out because it was such a ridiculously awful movie. <br /><br />Why it was awful: - all the cows had udders, especially bothersome were the MALE ones with udders - none of the characters were unique or engaging, except perhaps the main Coyote Dag - the idea of cows keeping watch against coyotes is just ridiculous - the 'funny' moments are repetitive and become simply a sequence to out-do the last one - the themes of working together, which should have been present at the end, were nonexistent. Instead, people get the impression: Well, I'll take this all upon myself, and in this case I was lucky that my friends decided to back me up without my knowledge - all the moments similar to the lion king (as mentioned below) were beyond corniness, even for a kid's movie<br /><br />and...the worst of all... IT PARALLELS THE LION KING IN EVERY SINGLE WAY Responsible father figure who is killed by Coyotes (the Coyotes are essentially the Hyenas, with Dag, the lead Coyote, being the equivalent of Scar) The farm falls into chaos, Odis (the cow, though basically Simba) wants to play around, and is shocked that his dad died, believes it was his fault (even though in this movie, it WAS his fault), confronts the Coyotes and gets an ass whooping, after which Dag tells him to leave, and on the verge of leaving, Odis somehow decides to go and save some chickens and his friends back him up (by complete surprise of course, he leaves without knowing they will come help him). <br /><br />Other things taken from Lion King: stars moving around as signs, father figures referring to stars/signs in a mystical loving way, the obviously circularness of how the father Ben found Odis and took care of him, and how at the end Odis' love interest gives birth and he has a similar experience. Birth at the end? GOOD GOD, what the hell... and even similar type music, which seems completely tacked on at the end because it is completely different from all the previous music.<br /><br />Honestly, this is the first movie I have ever seen where I really WAS rooting for the bad guys - I never understood what other people were saying, until now.<br /><br />BOTTOM LINE: Don't waste your time to go see this. Convince the kids not to see it, and re-watch the Lion King. Either that, or take them to see the Ant Bully, which was creative and artistic.
I cannot believe the number of people referring to the lead characters as 'boy cows'!! there is no such thing people!!!! There are cows and bulls and all males in the bovine species are bulls and do not have udders!!!! There was even an actual bull but it was like it was another type of animal completely! my god this is like drawing human ears on a cat, boobs on superman, or mickey mouse with blond shirley temple curls - even in animation it just doesn't work! giving human qualities to the animals is nothing new & to be expected, but changing their actual bodies into basically a transsexual figure is bizarre for a family cartoon - how many people- editors, writers, producers, animators saw this and didn't know any better or didn't say anything- it is completely astounding! i'm no snob & I luv animation- simpsons, beavis & butthead, south park, even ice age & all the other new ones out there - over the hedge was great- but this is nuts - totally nuts- i could not accept that that many people are that ignorant & i kept hoping for a reason for the udders in the film - an explanation - none came - and at the end when they hold up this little newborn calf & half its belly is udder & they pronounce 'its a boy' i nearly choked!!!! please, writer/creator let us in on the joke!
I took my 4 year old twins to see this movie today and I would NOT recommend it for children their age. <br /><br />This movie had many fighting scenes throughout it, which I found too violent and my children found scary. <br /><br />The subject matter was way over my kids heads and the death scene was too scary for a cartoon geared towards children.<br /><br />I was disappointed because we were all looking forward to seeing this, but it just did not cut it. If you have children under 7 years old, I would not recommend this movie.<br /><br />Also, the utter thing made me crazy during the entire movie.
Words cannot describe how horrible this movie is. Well, maybe they can. I'll take a stab at it: 1 - Pitiful. Hollywood makes more talking animals set in graphics. Apparently script and storyline aren't needed anymore.<br /><br />2 - Violent. Kids movie but yet one of the characters is viciously attacked and killed.<br /><br />3 - Blatantly stupid. The movie is actually depicting the farm animals as having human abilities. In Nemo, the fish could talk, but for the most part, they are still fish. We only hear the English as a translation. In Barnyard, the animals are actually speaking English that other people can understand.<br /><br />4 - Unintelligent - No smart story line or even any smart humor. (Ok, the 13 year old dog on crutches was funny).<br /><br />5 - Culturally insensitive - The "black" cow is actually played by a black actress. The pink cow is played by a white actress. The black cow was playing a stereotypical black person.<br /><br />6 - Ignorant - No such thing as a male cow that I'm aware of. I believe we call them bulls? If we are going to expose our children to drek, it might as well have the simplest facts correct.<br /><br />7 - Boring and Borish. My 4 year old had us leave after 45 minutes. He practically fell asleep.<br /><br />I'm sure this movie will make millions, which is unfortunate, because it only proves to Hollywood producers that the American public at large is just filled with suckers waiting to pay 8 bucks just to get some peace and quiet from the kids for an hour or two. An unfortunate circumstance. Why should the producers spend real money when the returns will be the same either way.
Let's see... a couple dozen Gary Larson gags, as well as his illustration style, a possibly legally difficult wholesale appropriation of an Aardman character, a more than generous sprinkling of art direction from various Pixar films, positively Lion King-esquire villains living in what amounts to an elephant's graveyard IN THE MIDDLE OF FARM COUNTRY, oh, and a stinking' Riverdance joke ten years after any possible relevance. The kids (three and five) liked it, but boy, it was a haul for dad. Just another weak attempt from Nickelodean Films to hitch on to the animation explosion. I really, really wish they had spent a little more money on character design, on rendering, on a script, on a director.
It was so BORING! No plot whatsoever! Basically a watered-down version of the Lion King mixed in with Animal Farm. Again, no plot at all. Horrible! Worst hour and a half of my life!Oh my gosh! I had to walk out of the theatre for a few minutes just to get some relief! I maybe chuckled twice. All of the semi-funny parts are in the previews. I hate movies like that. Yeah, the movie pretty much sucked. I don't know how it got such good ratings and reviews. THERE IS NO PLOT OR STORYLINE!! If you do go see this movie, bring a pillow or a girlfriend/boyfriend to keep you occupied through out. Awful. I don't think I've ever gone to a movie and disliked it as much. It was a good thing that the tickets only cost five dollars because I would be mad if I'd have paid $7.50 to see this crap.
I can find no redeeming value to this movie. It appears to be loosely based on the Lion King school of thought. Father gets killed, son can't fill the shoes and tries to run away, etc, etc, etc. The only difference (other than being in a barnyard instead of a jungle) is that Barnyard tries to "liven things up" with club-type music. They go way over the top in trying to be cool. The problem is that it really isn't cool. It's like "that guy". Everybody knows at least one of "those guys" who are older and still hang out with the younger crowd in a futile attempt to cling onto their youth. They try to be cool to fit in but they really aren't. That's this movie.<br /><br />But hey, if you have money to burn and you feel like paying someone to suck 90 minutes of you life away, by all means don't let me stop you.
I went to see this by myself first to make sure it was suitable for my little boy to see.<br /><br />Thank goodness I did because I certainly would not allow any young child to see this. Why? The violence, death, the funeral. If you are not ready to explain these concepts to your kids then keep them away.<br /><br />Why on earth are these topics covered in a kids movie - especially one that has a tag line of "The original party animals". Might as well put a gangland execution in a Hello Kitty cartoon.<br /><br />As for laughs there were very few and far between. Speaking for myself there were none. The cows looked remarkably similar to the cows in the The Far Side comics. I guess there isn't anything original about this movie apart from the addition of ridiculous violence and antisocial activities for all the young kids to enjoy.
When my six-year-old fell asleep at the theater during this movie, that was all the confirmation I needed that this film is a stinker. It was boring. The scary parts were boring. The maudlin parts were boring. Even the funny parts -- with two minor exceptions -- were boring. And predictable. And did I mention predictable? Examples: 1) The gruff but loving Dad indulging his brat of a kid. 2) The gruff but loving Dad buying the farm (while singing a song?!). 3) The brat of a kid deciding to cut and run, but, thanks to his friends, sticking things out because they need him. 4) The brat of a kid winning against incredible odds. 5) And a sassy character voiced by an African-American actress. Gotta credit these filmmakers for that bit of originality and for perpetuating that stereotype. I did mention two funny bits. In both cases, contributed by minor characters. The mouse bouncing on the farmer's pulse was funny. The farm dog falling victim to his doggy weaknesses while vying for leadership was funny. But the rest? Painful. Someone tried to make a Hipness-Thru-Committee movie and make it even hipper by making it a computer-animated film, and this was the result. And why make the coyotes Batman-villain dumb by monologuing with their victims, rather than just eating them? Oh yeah. No blood needed in this film for kids, already concentrating on mock alcohol consumption, destructive behavior and potty humor. And the fuzzy thing-in-a-box? Just what exactly was it? A porcupine? Tasmanian Devil? What, besides a really stupid plot device to help Otis the Cow win the Mother of All Battles? Barnyard is a bomb. And I didn't even need to mention the udders.
This movie seemed like it was put together very quickly in both plot and graphics. My two daughters were ready to go 30 minutes before the end of the movie which rarely happens when we go to the theaters. This was a Nickelodeon Production and it would have been better if they had released it on the t.v. station. The animation itself in some parts was o.k. but the plot was horrible. A classic tale of a son trying to fulfill a fathers expectations is used in a lot of kids movies, but the animation or graphics need to be really good to keep a childs attention. This was not the case with this film. There were also awkward elements between the lead male character and the lead female character that the plot could have done without.
BARNYARD sucked! I saw this movie last week and it is horrible. What bull has udders? My 2 year old was asking me if all cows have udders and trying to explain to her that this is simply not true and seeing the movie only confused her more! <br /><br />In addition, the violent theme scared my 2 year old. They made the coyotes ferocious looking and this has instilled a fear of coyotes into my daughter. I know coyotes for a fact are not ferocious and are natural predators. The mother and son who were sitting in front of us were shouting, "Kill him, Kill him, yea" in a particular scene in the movie where good vs evil per say<br /><br />It is a Lion King rip off and they should stop using big name actors for a lame movie. Steve Oederek who has also done Thumb movies, such as Thumb Wars, Thumbelina and many others are so so Bad!<br /><br />If a good Steve Oederek movie ever comes out in my lifetime, I will roll over naked and swallow my diarrhea and post it on Youtube.com ...Enough Said!
...I normally hate puns, but this seems the only appropriate summary for "Barnyard". I suspect I am not the first. And I'm sure many, MANY comments focus on the idiocy of bulls with udders. It certainly bothered me right off the bat. But there's much more wrong with this movie than a fundamental lack of knowledge about how mammals work.<br /><br />Personally, if I was a parent, I would be irritated by the violent turn it takes near the end in the showdown with the coyotes. (Although for me, it at least injected a little action.) And from a conventional screen writing point of view, you might expect the coyotes to play a greater role in the conflict(Gee- you have a "widow" cow...maybe her "husband" was killed by coyotes? Nope...there's a much dumber explanation.) And what kind of a farm is this? Otis vows to protect all the animals from harm, but there certainly seems to be no threat from humans. They make reference to the farmer being vegan, but what is he raising pigs for? In all children's animal stories- Babe, Charlotte's Web, you name it...the reality of farm life is at least touched on. Perhaps our friendly farmer is running some sort of rescue shelter (there is some reference to this, but it's never explained.) But all the farmer gets in return is abuse from a horse in a scene that is supposed to be funny, but left me seriously wondering if he was going to wind up buried in a shallow grave behind the barn. And what the heck is the deal with "Wild Mike"? It was like the Gimp scene in Pulp Fiction without the ball-gag.<br /><br />Add in some truly awful attempts at emotional scenes, a nearly complete lack of laughs, and THOSE UDDERS, and you've got the worst kids movie I've seen in ages. I generally only post to IMDb to highlight a film that's not so well known- not to slam the current #2 box-office hit. But this movie ANGERED me. It was taking up space in my local theater, space that could have been used to show something worthwhile. There's been plenty of good family entertainment this summer- in fact there were at least 2 more kids films playing at the same multiplex. But I'm not allowed to see something like "Little Miss Sunshine" so Viacom can cheat families out of an extra $30. At least I had a free pass.<br /><br />I know that as a 35 year old with no children, this film was not designed for me. But there's just no excuse for such a lazy, dreadful children's film as "Barnyard" in the age of Pixar. I was bored by the "Ice Age" films, but they certainly didn't anger me like "Barnyard". "Shark Tale" was a weak attempt at street hipness, but it had quite a few laughs. For that matter, you could turn on Nickelodeon at any time of the day, and see something more entertaining and intelligent- which is why they should be ashamed for putting their name on this garbage.<br /><br />I'm giving it a 2 out of 10, only because Pip The Mouse was sporadically amusing, and Maria Bamford had a few amusing lines as the farmers wife. Well, not THE farmer's wife. Some other farmer. They didn't really explain who she was. They didn't explain a lot of things. Especially not why Sam Elliot- the ultimate "man's man"- had an udder jiggling around down there. Creepy.
I took my family to see Barnyard this past weekend. We had so looked forward to it but had my kids not been there, my husband and I would have left. Coming from a farming community we found the fact that all of the male bovine in the film having udders drawn on them was a little disturbing. We felt like we were watching cross dressing cows or something. It was just odd to hear a male voice come from a female body. After checking some of the production notes on a different website, I felt like the animators might have slipped up on this fact. I know this is just an animated, humorous show but by putting female body parts on a male, I had to suspend my disbelief so much that I just couldn't enjoy the movie like I might have. I know udders can be found funny but they were definitely over used. None of the other animals in the movie seemed to have gender specific body parts drawn on them and I would have preferred the bulls in this show to at least have the correct ones if they had to be drawn on at all. The kids however still enjoyed the movie though we took the time afterward to make sure they knew the difference between bulls and cows.
Around 1980, the name Godfrey Ho was attached to a series of low-comedy action films starring an actor with the unlikely name Elton Chong". Although no masterworks of the genre, they remain surprisingly entertaining films for those with a high tolerance for silliness.<br /><br />It is altogether unclear why Ho (or whomever) would want to make a film that would attack Jackie Chan's Drunken MAster, the film that legitimated the making of comedy-action films in Hong Kong. But that's what this is, a savage attack on the Chan film (the imitation Chan who stars in this movie learns to cause his opponents to laugh themselves to death - a pointless gimmick in any genre).<br /><br />Along with all the flaws one expects from a Godfrey Ho film of this period - no continuity, no motivation, incomprehensible plot line, irrelevant and unbelievable characters - the film suffers from two unforgivable faults that effectively make it unwatchable: the fight scenes stink, and the comedy isn't funny.<br /><br />Pointless.
"This film is great! I watched it with some friends and we thought it was proof that a film doesn't have to see commercial success to be a hit!" ...is what I would love to be able to say about this film. In the words of the film itself "you are very very bad!" I went to see an unlicensed acupuncturist once so generally agree with the moral of the film though.<br /><br />i'd include a spoiler, but the lack of plot makes this very tricky. overall, a cinematic disaster.<br /><br />quotes; 'you're not a leper at all!' 'you're beautiful, and i bet you're nice too' 'have you ever seen a naked man's body?' 'you couldn't break a piece of straw.'<br /><br />cameos in dubbing; Micheal cane x3, harold bishop, steve erwine, benjamin netinyahoo, yoda.
this is a below average martial arts films which is worth watching for the comedy value due to the part where a pair of symbols are used as weapons. Thats it really there is much to say about this film it lacks in every department because the martial arts are not that great either and with all movies of this type the dubbing as BAD
I have to admit, that out of the many many thriller movies i have seen, this has to be one of the worst. I was shocked to discover that this piece of work had a 1.5 mil budget. When it started, i thought that the opening sequence was pretty good, fairly standard for this kind of film, but pretty good anyway. But as the film progressed i began to feel distinctly uncomfortable with the lack of pace that i was seeing, each sequence seemed to take hours. The reason for this could have been that by now the film had already bored me to tears, nothing was happening other than endless accusations peppered with confusing flashbacks and the occasional fit of bad temper. Well ... after wading through what felt like a lifetime of these scenes we finally reached the big finale...an all singing, all dancing demonstration of how lack of imagination can completely ruin what could have been a good film.<br /><br />Overall i found this movie predictable and tedious and I would not recommend this film to anyone other than those people i personally dislike, but if you have a couple of hours to waste and you want to watch a thriller that is not even remotely scary, this is the movie for you.
This movie was so predictable and poorly acted. I really can't recommend it to anyone, not even for unintentional laughs. It is just plain bad. It is pure TV movie hell, the cast doesn't seem all that bad, but they act terribly. Just stay far away from this movie and rent something more intellectual, like porn.
Skeletons In The Closet takes the father-teenage son genre to new levels of low. This is a movie that serves no purpose. The plot is layed out in the first few minutes, there is no suspense, the characters are cliché and despite plot twists that try to confuse and obfuscate, everything plays out exactly as you think it will. Halfway through the movie I could no longer stand the snail pace and started fast forwarding. The movie ended exactly as I expected. Linda Hamilton is great as always and the other actors are above average considering there seems to be a complete lack of direction. If you really believe you need to see this uninspired lackluster wannabe whodunit, watch it on fast forward.
The video case for this film reads "a story of beauty, passion, and forbidden fruit". Are they talking about the same movie I just saw?! They can't be, as the film I just saw was beautiful, but there was no passion and as for the fruit, this is all hogwash meant to entice the potential viewer to see this movie. If only it did have some passion or some life to it, I would have greatly enjoyed this film. Instead, it was an agonizingly slow paced and not particularly interesting film that I would definitely not want to see again. It isn't that it's a bad film (after all it IS very beautifully filmed), but it is dull beyond belief. I kept waiting for something exciting or interesting to happen, but then the movie just ended. There was no great sense of excitement, mystery or anything--just a rather unexciting story about a young girl who becomes a servant and spends the next 10 years of her life working as a maid.
I checked out this video expecting to like it. Wanting to like it. I like foreign films, I like beautiful cinematography, I know the critics liked this film (including my favorite, Roger Ebert), and I don't mind "slow" films.<br /><br />Well, it's beautiful. That's about the best I can say for it. The plot is very thin, the shots are very long, the glances are very meaningful, the actors are very sincere, and it seems like a very long movie. I fell asleep half way though it, woke up, rewound the tape, tried again. It was a trial, but I made it to the end. I didn't like it any better for that.
I guess when people say this is beautifully filmed they are talking about the close ups of frogs and the cooking of meals. It certainly doesn't refer to the set which seems to be composed of about 3 rooms with no outside shots at all. Also all of it is filmed too close up.<br /><br />I got sick of the little boy who keeps farting at Miu or pouring hot wax over ants...also do Vietnamese spend all their time sitting on their haunches? Kind of gross looking at least the way this movie depicts it--one close up of it would have been plenty not a dozen or more.<br /><br />Then finally comes part two... a chick flick for Vietnamese girls with the perfect handsome rich man who spends all day playing the piano (He is cultured). The pretty maid steals him like the forbidden green mango fruit. Deep.<br /><br />Except for a few nice close ups this film is a dud. It is sort of a soap opera with out dialog. It is cloyed. How is it beautiful?? The set looks completely fake.<br /><br />No don't make the mistake I did and rent it because someone recommended it. I was expecting beautiful shots of the coastal mountains of Vietnam or something when I heard it was a visual gem.<br /><br />I wanted to like this movie. I like foreign movies even prefer them. But this movie is dumb and dull. It will leave you irritated that something like this won a bunch of prizes.
This movie could have been summed up in about 10 minutes. I don't know what everyone else was smoking calling this a beatiful film. I feel that a couple hours of my life were stolen from me and I want them back. I would put this in the category of a Battlefield Earth. Yes folks it is that bad. You would do just as well to watch a two minute clip of this movie over and over it would have the same effect. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME!!!
This episode has just aired in the UK.<br /><br />What a disappointment. The heavy-handed touches of humour were ill-judged, childish and detracted from what could have been a pretty good storyline. I cannot believe that Jerry Bruckheimer allowed this episode to take place. I have seen every previous episode of this show, and even the episode where Jack played his own older self was way ahead of this episode. The lesbian kiss was pathetic sensationalism.<br /><br />There was also no continuity from the previous episode. There was nothing in the storyline investigating Martin's dangerous behaviour or possible drug addiction. There was similarly nothing explicitly written about Jack's burgeoning relationship with Ann. Usually Without A Trace is pretty good at this sort of continuity.<br /><br />The next episode needs to be a considerable improvement.
i've watched this movie (movie?) casually and i've never stop watching because is so ridiculous any dog can play this act and will be better then the actors (actors?)of this bad remake of the Fatal Attraction there is no directing, no playing, only an unlucky copy of the Adrian Lyne movie if you have doubt to suicide watch this and you can choose...for "yes"<br /><br />i can't imagine people that went to cinema to see this rubbish; maybe someone that had an empty afternoon and choose the first cinema near house to stay 2 hours with some others to forget problems but it's hard to go back home relaxed
It's hard to comment on this movie. It's one of the few movies Dimension actually has not shelved (it's hard to come up with a reason why) and it was rushed into a an unimpressive 500 theaters it's opening day. Maybe Dimension was afraid of how people would respond to a swamp creature using his tow truck to pull a house apart piece by piece.<br /><br />Ray Sawyer is just a tow truck driver, until he rescues a Voodoo priestess from a bad car accident, and in return, he gets attacked by a bag full of snakes and drowns. At the morgue, Ray comes back to life, and stalks a group of teenagers who witnessed the awful crash occur. <br /><br />What brings this movie down is it's paper thin characters. I didn't care for one moment about any of them. Also, the dialog was less than ho-hum. Also, it was very predictable. Characters did the typical stupid horror movie character things, like check creaky noises, call out people's names, and trip on a rock while being chased. I also could immediately pick out who the final girl would be. And why did the camera have those quick white flashes whenever somebody died or whenever the killer was shown?<br /><br />What's good? Well, there is an impressive suspense scene where the killer walks underneath swamp waters to get to his victims and a tense sequence where the final girl must camouflage herself with bunch of other dead bodies while the killer looks on.<br /><br />But other than that, It's another August/September disappointment. I was looking forward to it, but I did not get what was expected.
I gotta admit it, I love horror films...especially 80s slasher films. Hell, I even love cheese like Sleepaway Camp and Night of the Demons. But, I didn't think much of this movie. The death scenes weren't very well done, the CGI was terrible, and the acting was ho-hum. Worst of all was the story which didn't make sense at all. I'd say save your money but chances are, if you want to see this movie...you're going to anyway. I didn't hate it...it's just not very good. Overall, it's just another bland, lifeless horror film that lacks life (it's no surprise that this one was on the shelf at Dimension for over a year after it was completed).
Overall it was a watchable movie. I didn't pause it or stop it to come back to it--a clear sign of a boring movie--so it passed the first test. Best of all, it got into the story fast, no boring unneeded back story for the characters.<br /><br />It will never go down as a great movie. Nor as a great B movie. I would recommend this movie to slasher/horror fans who don't mind straight to video releases.<br /><br />Unlike some movies of it's ilk, there is no nudity, only moderate language and rather subdued gore. There is violence though. The deaths were rather dry and unimaginative sadly. The computer special effects were actually pretty good. The way the 'creature' wielded his chains in some scenes reminded me of 'Spawn' and the 'Ghost Rider' comic books.<br /><br />A little pet peeve...It's set in Lousinia, but no one seems to talk with any accent. I had to watch the credits to even realize it was filmed in Lousinia.<br /><br />Like most low budget movies, there are small goofs in the filming. Lack of time and money would be the main factors for the goofs. For example in one scene it went from mid afternoon to pitch black in seconds...during a short car ride. The other instance was the stunt double for the 'creature' didn't have on the 'creature' makeup when falling out of the tow truck...it also looks like he's wearing a shirt in the scene.<br /><br />In summary, I didn't hate this movie but I also didn't love it. I probably will never rent it again, but if a buddy owned it, I may watch it again in a few years.
I wouldn't exactly call this a good movie, in fact it might even be a bad one.<br /><br />BUT there are at least 2 good reasons to keep watching this movie, those are the performances from AGNES BRUCKNER (Eden) and JONATHAN JACKSON (Eric) whom both deliver solid performances.<br /><br />They are much better then the rest of the cast whom are pretty bad, especially MEAGAN GOODE (Cousin Skeeter).<br /><br />BIJOU PHILIPS was excellent in the "Suburban kids goes to the hood"-drama HAVOC, but here she's far from good on the edge to being annoying.<br /><br />THE STORY is decent enough although nothing special, BUT it would have been much better since it takes place in LOUSIANNA that any of the kids actually incorporated a down south-accent, but they don't (!).<br /><br />Especially in a movie where "the monster" is actually bounded so deeply into the Lousianna folk-lore, with voodoo and such it's just plain stupidity not to include that accent into the characters.<br /><br />The only one who does this is rapper METHOD MAN, he plays Deputy Turner and puts down a pretty good accent in his few scenes, and I mean if a rapper is able to do this then why shouldn't the "proffesional" actors be able to do the same? Mister Tical aka Meth is highly enjoyable in his very VERY small role, Who know the Ticallion Stallion would ever be a cop? Even if only on the big screen.<br /><br />Anyways besides that it's a pretty stupid but fairly enjoyable Slasher-movie, but if BRUCKNER and JACKSON was as bad as the rest of the young cast this could have been really bad, thankfully they are good as usual.<br /><br />4.5 out of 10, decent BUT there are hundreds of better slasher-movies out-there.
I see this movie as a poor tribute to the old slasher movies. Because it really doesn't hold a candle to the 70's and 80's gold-era of horror, this is of course where personal taste comes in.<br /><br />This movie just falls into the category of "New generation of slashers" in my book, the cast is the typical ones 18-24 years and potential models. I'm personally quite tired of that image in horror movies, the old movies at least had some variation in people. One or more fat people, and dorks in general. Just plain looking persons, of course having a couple of good lookers is fine they always been there. But when the entire cast is just a bunch of nice racks and butts it's getting silly. I mean, OK yeah i like to watch HOT chicks. But not in a horror that is supposed to reflect some ordinary people getting hunted down by for example a knife-wielding maniac... You expect the people being hunted to look something like any random person you see on the street. I think. There are of course a few movies with just good lookers that is perfectly alright, but they aren't many. "Wrong turn" is one example of the better ones.<br /><br />Next point is the killing scenes that slashers should be all about. In this poor movie, all you get to see is 2-3 frames of sudden high pitched sound/scream and music in crescendo. And that's it. The little you do get to see isn't very graphical at all, not for people who have seen some horrors during the years. The old-school slashers compared to this had much more and better death, blood and gore. Not to mention the killers in those movies, who surpassed the one you'll get to see here.<br /><br />As for true horror fans it is more fun and exciting to watch horrors with new approaches because of the originalities that pops up, the killer in this one doesn't add anything new and fresh to the genre in my opinion. I have to agree with what someone previously stated as well, the CGI is something i hate to watch. Personally i preffere the makeups in that sense I'm conservative, (unless the CGI is really well done). But most importantly is to set a good setting of mood which allows you to "get into the movie", a good background story is one very good thing. Also revealing and explaining too much of everything in a movie to the viewers takes away all sense of mystic that adds very much of the mood, and doesn't give you much to think about. Just as an example: keeping the killers background a complete mystery for the viewer is a good move in many cases. I mean if everything about the story or the people in it has to be explained or shown in detail, then it's not much content left over for the viewer at all to ponder about... That's like watching a porno movie and hope for a great story in the meantime.<br /><br />Why the old-school slashers still works, at least for some people. Is because they are established cult movies from the era when they were a new thing, making new ones of that sort today is admittedly hard. The exception might be for people who are newer to that sort of horrors of course. I have noticed that many people does like this sort of horror movies, so there are of course not "A right taste" for horror movies.<br /><br />But for people out there that might share my opinion; here you have a frame of reference what to expect of this flick.
I never intended to see Venom, but I caught it on cable. It does have good elements. The Louisiana swamp atmosphere for one, something we will unfortunately not see so much of in movies because of Hurricane Katrina. It is based on an interesting concept, a regular man imbued with the spirits of evil. His confrontation with his son could have been interesting, as could much of the movie. But as tends to happen in Hollywood, an interesting idea goes down a familiar direction: <br /><br />Kill off all the characters save the good girl, starting with the Black guys. I'm a fan of Agnes Bruckner, but the other characters, the villain's afore-mentioned son, CeCe who must become a voodoo priestess, are more interesting. And for the love of God, just once I would like to see the virgin get killed. We all like the easy girl, why can't she live? In this case it was Bijou Phillips, and we love her.<br /><br />The ending made no sense considering what had been established about the villain's invincibility. All the carnage and atmosphere, and it leads to nothing.
Here he is. A new horror icon for the new millennium. Better than Freddy. More dangerous than Jason Vorhees. More evil than Michael Myers. Hard to believe, I know. But his time is here....<br /><br />Ray The Prick.<br /><br />Yep, the antagonist, Ray is a complete Prick. This is partly because of the naughty things he does. Also because he has a scar (oh, scary) on his face. But mainly because Ray The Prick has been milked.<br /><br />Yep, Ray doesn't channel evil. He doesn't even become cursed, not even by a voodoo spell. Nope, Ray The Prick has been milked. As DeNiro once said, "You can milk anything with nipples". And Ray has been milked. Of evil.<br /><br />How do you milk evil you ask? Snake nipples, I reply. Snake nipples.<br /><br />Why Ray you ask? Because he's a Prick, I reply. Capital P.<br /><br />Watch out for the New Line Pictures extravaganza entitled "Freddy Vs. Ray The Prick".<br /><br />Thought your new horror saviour was Jeeper The Creeper? Well not any more, cause Ray The Prick is here. And I'm frightened.<br /><br />Pity about the atmosphere-less, PG-13, unoriginal workmanlike quality of the film though, because Ray's a star.
Yes, said title line does actually appear in this movie. Why? I'm not sure. When the line was actually being said, didn't somebody in the crew filming, at some point, laugh? I would have liked to see the outtakes from this movie, mostly because I think they would be more entertaining than the movie itself.<br /><br />Helmed by director Jim Gillespie, ("I Know What You Did Last Summer,") comes a teen slasher movie that seems to assume we haven't ever seen a teen slasher movie before. Of course, he's not to be given all the blame. There are also three writers responsible, and this is somehow based on a video game that's still in production. The title of said game is "Backwater," but upon looking for information on it I came up with absolutely nothing.<br /><br />And so we begin the movie... I would like to say before I continue that I wasn't expecting this to win an Oscar. When I am in the right mindset, I enjoy a fun horror movie to pass the time. I think there exists an opportunity for an effective, original, and smart slasher movie. "Venom" is not this movie.<br /><br />There is almost no character development at all. That's fine. You don't expect a whole lot. However, instead of a well-knit cast of a few, this movie decides to introduce us to the following many horror movie cliché characters...<br /><br />1. The Final Girl: She has just broken up for her boyfriend. This means that at some point in the movie when they are in peril, they will decide to get back together again. Which more than likely means he will die and she will be the last remaining survivor of the movie. "Eden" is played by Agnes Bruckner, without much enthusiasm, I might add.<br /><br />2. The Boyfriend: He's just around to co-exist with The Final Girl until his demise. Sure, he can save her, but he's doomed and we know it. "Eric" is played by Jonathan Jackson.<br /><br />3. The Bimbos: Usually horror movies only feel the need for one of these, but here we have two. They shoplift, they steal, they might show their breasts, (not in this case,) or they might possibly be alcoholics. A staple of the genre. They also wander around in dimly lit areas all on their lonesome, usually saying things like, "Hello? Is there anybody there?" "Tammy" and "Patty," suitably named, are played by Bijou Phillips and Davetta Sherwood.<br /><br />4. The Jackass: Sure, he looks pretty, but he's the idiot in the movie that's inserted purely to be an idiot. He says stupid things, does stupid things, has obviously never seen a horror movie, and is one of enjoyable kills you watch this kind of thing for. "Sean" is played by D.J. Cotrona.<br /><br />5. The Girlfriend: She loves the Jackass even though pretty much nobody else does, and she's usually the one left alive for a while so she can scream and cry until she starts tripping and gets left behind. "Rachel" is played by Laura Ramsey.<br /><br />6. The Creepy Janitor: In this case, The Creepy Gas Station Attendant. Enough said. "Ray" is played by Rick Cramer.<br /><br />I could continue, but I think you get the picture. The remaining characters aren't so much common as they are equally killable. There's "The Gay Guy," (Pawel Szajda as "Ricky,") who definitely got robbed as far as screen time is concerned, and "The One Who Knows What's Going On." Of course none of that matters, because at first everyone always thinks that one's crazy. "Cece" is played by Meagan Good.<br /><br />There are a couple other characters, namely a deputy played by Method Man, but he and others are killed off pretty quickly and get even less character development than the following clichés.<br /><br />So, you're probably thinking, "why does this movie require such a deep analysis? It's just a summer horror flick, for cryin' out loud!" Based on that question, does it deliver the goods? Yes, and no. The acting isn't particularly convincing, even given the amount of talent involved. Bijou Phillips was hailed for her performance in Larry Clark's Bully, and Agnes Bruckner has been an up-and-coming talent for a while now.<br /><br />So, what about the gore? There's some. That's really about it. A lot of the juiciest bits are cut-aways. Namely a scene involving somebody's face and a sandblaster used to remove paint from cars.<br /><br />To the filmmaker's credit, there are a couple interesting scenes. I liked the bit where part of a house was literally ripped off so that the unstoppable villain could get to the characters.<br /><br />If this had all been centered around a smarter screenplay in which the characters didn't make the same dumb mistakes literally hundreds of horror movie characters had made before them, it might have made for a more enjoyable experience. All of the most interesting characters are immediately killed off in the first third of the movie and then it just becomes a not-particularly-interesting countdown until we know it's just The Creepy Janitor and The Final Girl.<br /><br />I suppose I must be a little jaded, but as a horror film fan, I'm left wondering why I should have bothered when I could easily have written a better screenplay myself. I won't even mention the numerous instances of terrible CGI.
In this movie everything possible was wrong and I don't know why I bothered watching it until the end. It would have been more fun watching paint dry. For crying out loud I even liked D-Tox and it was much better than this. Here is the basic plot for you: A redneck gets bitten by snakes that hold the evil of 13 murderers and becomes an undead killing machine murdering teenagers that have zero personality. During the movie I lost hope when it didn't scare me at all, when the kills were bad and there was BAD CGI blood and CGI snakes. It got worse with the cardboard thin characters killing their friend by holding her from her legs and not letting go so she got impaled by a tree and when the bad guy moved under water like the shark in Jaws. I'm still upset why I even bothered with this. I guess because I'm a horror movie fan.
this movie wasted my time. i saw only part of it and i was crying about the wasted time that i could of spent doing something productive and useful towards this earth. for everyone that has watched this movie more than once, i am blaming them for global warming as the the amount of black balloons that got entered into the earth from this piece of crap were not needed and if they came from a different movie, i would have forgiven them. robin Williams lowered his standards to actually participate for more than 10 seconds in this film and Tim Robbins, how he went from this film to the shawhsank redemption, i have no idea. please do not watch this movie for the safety of the earth. stop releasing black balloons into the earth from a film that they should have never funded or released. please burn all copies before anyone else has to watch this crap.
Here's yet another movie with dysfunctional lead characters who are totally amoral and, yet, we're supposed to root for them? Not me. No character in this film was worth a damn.<br /><br />Robin Williams plays car salesman "Joey O'Brien." The man has no class, a loser in every moral sense and a guy who thinks he can talk his way out of anything. Knowing Williams' ability to talk, he was good for this role. The women in his life are driving him loony, too. Some of them aren't much better than him.<br /><br />Tim Robbins plays a similar low-life who starts the take over the film when he, fully loaded with explosives, crashes into a car dealership showroom and holds people, including his wife, hostage. Robbins, as in normal for him, plays a disturbed and ridiculous character. I guess these nut-case roles come easily to these two actors. Gee, I wonder why.<br /><br />There is so much yelling and screaming in this the movie that it will give you a headache. Combine those two screamers with the nasal voice of Fran Drescher and you really have an annoying over-the-top cast. This is like listening to chalk on a blackboard for an hour-and- a-half. This is comedy? No, this is lame. <br /><br />In fact, for a Robin Williams film to only have a dozen reviews posted here tells you something. It's a far cry from his best movie.
Jealous husband holds car dealership hostage while Williams burdens the viewer with his worn out Mork shtick at every turn. Yawn.<br /><br />Pay channel grist. An uncommonly bad script coupled with a less than convincing Robin Williams as a slick talking, philandering Queens car salesman caught up in a hostage workplace crisis. The laughs aren't there, the message(s) or morals are just all wrong, and the film cant ever decide on whether its a comedy or drama. Pretty good cast all acting pretty badly. When a movie ages so badly so quickly, you got yourself a stinker. Not much else to be said other than maybe, avoid at all costs. Textbook mediocre movies like this are actually more tedious, and less enjoyable than the over the top bombs.
And one only, in my opinion.<br /><br />That reason is Margaret Leighton. She is a wonderful actress, on-stage as well as on the screen. We have few chances to see her, though. I think that's especially true in the United States.<br /><br />Here she plays a sympathetic role. Not only that but she is also very pretty and meant to be something of a bombshell.<br /><br />Walter Pigeon does not hold up the tradition of Drummond performers. He is always reliable but he's not much fun. He's not a rascal or a knave. Consequently, this seemed to me a talky endeavor with little action or suspense. But check it out for Leighton.
There really is very little positive that can be said about this film. Walter Pidgeon is a truly unconvincing hero and even moreso when he tries to go "undercover" as a villain who, we're meant to believe, drinks too much and knocks his wife about a bit. Margaret Leighton, as the wife/undercover sergeant is a little more convincing but it's still difficult to believe that any hood worth their salt would not have seen through their charade in less than a minute. The plot, about a bullion heist, is silly, and the action drags rather than grips. David Tomlinson, who plays Algy in the same way that David Tomlinson seems to play all his roles, is the only glimmer of light in a wholly dull affair.
Visitors is a hard, hard movie to enjoy. It's so slow and leaden in it's pacing that at times I was drifting off during the film. This was about 11AM on a hot, sunny day, I might add, not midnight on a cold winter evening, so you get an idea of just how slow this movie is.<br /><br />Strange thing is, it's not long. At 100 minutes it's only ten minutes longer than the average straight to video, and it's only fifteen minutes longer than the superior Darkwolf that I'd quite happily watched the day before. It just drags an awful lot, enough for you to lose interest.<br /><br />When it's not mistaking S-L-O-O-W development for atmosphere, Visitors is good enough at action to almost make it excusable how slowly things happen. While the flashbacks are both cheap and annoying as a way to round out Radha Mitchell's boats-woman, the hauntings/aliens/whatever are actually quite creepy and effective, especially when her suicidal mother turns up and starts groaning in the night. Full marks for not splurging make-up all over the shop too. The single person boat is a creepy place, and at times the movie uses the full power of the location and the deserted sea to scare the hell out of you.<br /><br />Still though, I find it hard to recommend Visitors. I came out of it not only feeling like I'd just watched a 4 hour film, not a 100 minute one, but also feeling like I'd been cheated somehow, as while offering many explanations as to the hauntings (Mind games? Real ghosts? Space aliens?) Visitors doesn't pick one for definite. All that watching Radha Mitchell talk to her cat and Dominic Purcell smoulder for no obvious reason about some unexplained horrific event in the past, for nothing?. Say what you like about Shyamalan, but at least he tells you what happened, however crazy/stupid you might think it. If you don't watch a lot of these movies, your fresh perspective will probably improve matters somewhat, but I found this slow, boring and highly derivative. If you want to scare yourself silly there are much better places to do it, if you want a clever thriller there are many that are smarter.
i didn't like this movie.to me,it didn't make much sense.it was hard to figure out what was really happening.i also didn't think it was scary.i did however,think it was silly,even absurd,but not in a good way.Radha Mitchell is the main character in the movie,which cam out in 2003.She was also,coincidently in 2006's "Silent Hill"which i hated.it too i found confusing and pointless."Visitors" isn't as bad,but i think it is certainly below average.there is just nothing special about it.the script is just too muddled and there are things in the movie which don't need to be there,in my opinion.I think Radha Mitchell is probably a good actress,if she has more to work with.my vote for "Visitors" is 4/10
Idea is great, spoiled big time by the judges.<br /><br />Why make fun of people? if what the inventors say is true, and as most of them say, they spent their life saving on the invention, the minimum is to reject the idea without making fun out of the people.<br /><br />also, it shows when they want to accept an idea by the crier that they added to the judges.<br /><br />The only one i respect out of the judges is the one who always sits on the right of the table, he is a respectable person<br /><br />of course the English snob who claims to be a business man, wearing a suite doesn't make you one pal<br /><br />last but not least, the big guy who sits between the English and the crier. wake up man, the is no job called and inventor for you to call yourself one. an inventor is an attribute not a job man.<br /><br />i think they wanted to add someone like Simon from the American idol, they thought it worked there, it can work here as well. the context is different and the idea is totally different.<br /><br />it is a good idea and they could have done a good show out of it if they just change the judges and remove their act and attitude.<br /><br />just stop making fun of the people.
The concept is excellent. The execution typifies the overall quality of the ABC network.<br /><br />Apart from Peter Jones it appears that the rest of the panel consist of marketing execs. rather than real entrepreneurs.<br /><br />When I realised that Peter Jones was getting together with Simon Cowell my initial thoughts were wow he's gonna take America by the balls. But it appears that ABC have come along and destroyed the concept.<br /><br />I was an absolute addict of the Dragons Den in the U.K. and was interested to see that Peter Jones had manipulated the concept that originated in Japan and developed his own show for the States. The result is neither inspiring nor informative.<br /><br />If you lack drama in your life you have a choice now… Jerry Springer or the American Inventor To sum it up: a struggling musician selling out to a media mogul.<br /><br />Idea: get me! And I'll produce a show worthy of the title
I can't believe I'm wasting my time with a comment - but this movie is weirdly bad. If 20 different directors were brought in to film different parts of the movie without having any idea of the storyline being filmed by the other directors, this is pretty much the result I would expect.<br /><br />I also think some of the scenes were spliced out of order - things don't always seem to progress in order. The movie acts like we're already supposed to know about half the characters.<br /><br />And Steve Guttenberg tries to do manic, a-la-Robin Williams comedy in this movie. Ewww. And the whole premise of putting an ex-con in charge of a bunch of kids just doesn't seem realistic in this day and age.
This movie was a waste of the celluloid it was printed on. It is a disastrous scene, much like a particularly gruesome train wreck.<br /><br />Watching this is like trying to explain the meaning of life. The main plot point is that the character played by Steve Guttenberg is a party animal who's not supposed to gamble, because that would violate his parole. The kids he befriends refuse to play with him as coach for a while, because he gambles. BUT... a few minutes later, after they've won the championship, a large sum of money saves their shelter. And where did they get the money? GAMBLING!!! Add this to the creepy scenes at the funeral home (why exactly are there BEDROOMS in a funeral home?) and the useless peripheral character
I would be one of the few people who owns a copy of this classic. But i dont only own 1, i actually own 2. Its THAT good.<br /><br />Well, when i say good, i mean bad. But i will try to do a thorough review. I even watched 'born a ninja' which one of the other reviewers here mentioned, to compare it to this. And born a ninja is actually worse, but not quite as funny.<br /><br />And is this ever funny. EVERYTHING about this movie is poor. EVERYTHING. The plot is absolutely stuffed (note the 'you'll need to keep me alive if you want to know where to find your wife'). EVERY action sequence is stuffed too. Our hero danton is more than a hero; he can stab people with twigs, take 3 bullets in the heart at 50 cm away without even bleeding, and tie a rope up to a tree which, when an enemy steps on it, ties a knot around the enemies leg, picks him up, and throws him 50 metres into a bunch of spikes.<br /><br />The acting is so bad it is impossible to comment on it, but it should have you rolling, especially dantons 'jump out of the ground and growl at the bad guy'. Oh yes, and the bad guys: somehow, it seems they resurrect themselves 5 times each in the movie. Perhaps it's just that there weren't enough actors, but in a movie of this calibre? i doubt that.<br /><br />The 'plot' is about how danton was a soldier in the vietnam war, and now his colonel is hunting real people for training for his mercenaries. The colonel just happens to pick up danton, then danton fights back. This is just the excuse for a rambo clone, with most of the movie being danton slaughtering soldiers. And i really cant explain the plot any more cos there is nothing else to the movie. It still rocks though.<br /><br />What else could be wrong you ask? Dont get me started. Hand grenades which actually go off at the actors' feet because the explosion is the size of a match.Scenes where there are 5 people chasing danton, then the camera cuts away and back and there are 7. The way that every time danton loads the grenade launcher he is against the same background even though he is in completely diffrent locations. And the worst part is when danton pushes the plastic boulders onto the enemies, and one enemy is completely untouched by the boulders, so he doesn't know what to do so he half heartedly dies without even being touched. It's ridiculous!!!<br /><br />But funny. Very, VERY funny. This is one of the few movies i can thoroughly recommend to everybody, cos if you dont find it funny, you are 1 in a million. And for the rest of us it's magic.
I remember seeing this film when i was about 10, one of my friends had it. At the time it was just a film as i was about 10ish and just thought of it as another action film.<br /><br />When i look back now as a complete film buff this is quite a shockingly bad film. Whoever produced this film i am sure had a short Hollywood career. Although the lead actor seems to have done a few films according to IMDb, albeit i haven't seen any and don't really remember him too much.<br /><br />Anyway, just to say that this film is really bad, in all ways it could be. I would love to see it again though :oD
Was unlucky enough to see this while travelling by coach across Africa. It was far and away the worst film I have ever come across. Deserves to be the #1 all-time worst ;-) No acting, no plot, very little speaking. Lots of ape-like grunting though, in this hopelessly unlikely film. An unwitting self-satire - you'll either laugh at it or cry.
I've enjoyed watching Lost from the beginning and endured a few bad actors in poorly written episodes because when Lost is good, it's really good! But this episode that features Mr Echos demise had so many drawn out scenes with lingering closeups of bad acting that I found myself tapping the fast forward button. This episode stood out so far as by far the worst. In fact, the variation in quality of Lost has been so inconsistent, I find myself often wondering how many writers they are using.<br /><br />I will continue to watch but hope things get better and hope I stop secretly wishing for the sub-par actors in the series to die off.
I have been watching "LOST" with my family since the first episode, it used to be great. The last season it was very disappointing, it seems as if they (writers)don't know what to do with the show, so, they keep trying to make it up for it by stretching one story line in a whole episode. The present season, which by the way I decided to keep watching only to see Rodrigo Santoro, and also with a tiny little hope that things would get better; has been one disappointment after another; my husband and son even stopped watching. First of all, he (Santoro) only appears for 30 seconds in each episode. But the real problem is with the story line, THERE IS NOTHING REALLY HAPPENING, each episode could be shown in 15 minutes. We watch each episode waiting for something that never happens; I am not asking that every secret be revealed at once, but how about some variation in the story lines? In the first and second seasons, we had different story lines, we saw the characters history, a little action, a little romance, now is like one big event that takes the whole episode to unveil. It is almost tiring to watch it, when it finishes you have a feeling that you lost your time. Now, it is important to note that the actors still great.I can't believe they killed Mr. Eko(Adelawale...)he was great, Jack(Mathew Fox)is still incredible, the perfect hero, so kind, magnanimous, brave. Sawyer(Josh Holloway), the "bad boy" is kind of mellowing because of Kate(Evangeline Lylli), but that's cool. I miss Sayid(Naveen Andrews), Sun and Jin(Yoon-jin Kim & Daniel Dae Kim), they are all an important part of the plot (or should be), but we barely see them. I hope Paulo(Rodrigo Santoro) will have a big part on the show; if not, why did you make such a big deal of him joining the show (Access Hollywood, etc)? Sorry if I've been rumbling for too long, but I feel cheated by this show. When I started watching it was great, I got used to it, and now it is very disappointing to see the way it is going. I'll be here, hoping for the improvements!!! Katia
Maybe it is unfair for me to review this movie because I walked out well before the end. That's odd, because I usually like Shakespeare on the screen and I enjoyed Midsummers Night's Dream once, many years ago, when I saw it on the stage.<br /><br /> I think that two things did me in: that squeaky twerp with the Shakespearian name, Calista Flockhart, and Michelle Feiffer sitting in a giant clamshell. Well, I suppose you could say it supposed to be a comedy -- but when the scenery is funny and the actors aren't, I'd say we have a bad movie on our hands....
I don't really know why but I watched this with quite a sense of anticipation. Unfortunatly it was misplaced. Firstly this is not horror, it doesn't scare and (unless it was even worse than I gave it credit for - which is possible) doesn't try to. It's a trashy comedy and the fact I smiled once means I gave it a 2 not a 1. This film ripps of Gremlins in a truly special way, I can't claim to have ever seen a film which devotes its self more. Very, Very bad - avoid.
Lame is really the best way to describe this movie. It has a real poor script, uninteresting dialog and characters and it's lacking in basically everything else as well. <br /><br />There are too many characters and problem is that you don't care about any of them. What the movie is lacking is one good and clear main character. Instead now the movie has a bit of everything, it has a bit of an hero, it has a bit of a love interest and it has a bit of villain. I wish it only had a bit less Ghoulies though, fore they are just mostly very annoying in this movie.<br /><br />Ghoulies are supposed to be devilish creatures, who murder for pleasure. In this movie however all they want to do is drink beer and watch naked college girls. Besides, someone had the 'brilliant' idea to let the Ghoulies be able to talk this time. This works out really poorly and annoying. The Ghoulie-puppets had been definitely upgraded for this movie and they are more detailed looking and are able to do more, however at the same time they are way more fake looking than the ones from the previous Ghoulies movies.<br /><br />It's obvious that the aim for this movie was more comedy than horror this time. The movie is like a lame '80's high-school comedy (even though this movie got released in 1991). It's humor is really the worst and most lame thing about the entire movie. It's so incredibly annoying and simply not funny at all.<br /><br />The story is not going anywhere with its story and the movie is just basically one big mess, that never seems to end. The Ghoulies plot line seems basically to have nothing to do at all with the other plot lines of the movie, involving the human characters. The movie is not at all about the Ghoulies terrorizing a college, with the humans trying to hunt them down and stop their rampage. No big surprise that this is Brent Olson's only written movie as of yet. He simply has no talent for it and I think that he has discovered this as well and has gone back to college himself instead.<br /><br />Even when compared to the previous Ghoulies movies; this movie is just simply terrible!<br /><br />2/10
This rubber monsters failed trying to be cool,scary or even comedians,looks like a wannabe movie of Porkys or Animals House but the sequences and history is not always clear also can't catch your attention all the movie looks cheap and with an amazing bad taste,the only thing that's makes you laugh is the awful rubber monsters who must have a cost of one dollar each,because the work or them never looks realistic,the movements and expressions make looks the Muppets as a Pixar 3D movie when you compare with this. Hope Marie Carlton is the only thing that makes supportable this awful movie,and when she dies in the movie,this turns even worst than before.A movie who only must be seen in fast forward.
Would someone explain to me when the Ghoulies learned to speak? This was a horrible film, I loved "Ghoulies" and "Ghoulies 2", but what's this? Unless you want to kill yourself, please stay away from "Ghoulies 3". On a scale of 1 to 10, "Ghoulies 3" gets a 1!!
I've had never been disappointed by a Kurosawa film, but this is probably the first. "Doppelganger" is the worst I've seen from this director.<br /><br />Tartan Films is advertising this as "The most frightening film yet from Kiyoshi Kurosawa". What? The most frightening film from Kurosawa is definitely "Kairo". And if you think this is horror, your in for a surprise. This can't be classified as horror, or thriller. This is a drama, and a pretty bad one at that. A lot of scenes that were meant to be shocking have turned out being funny, and a lot of the plot is really confusing. And since it's Kurosawa, the pacing is slow. But it's so slow that you'll lose interest forty minutes in, and feel like doing something else. The thing that annoyed me the most was the use of CGI. Now CGI, if used well, can be really cool. But if executed with little care... It can be a disaster. I think that describes one scene here that has a very minimal use of CGI.<br /><br />The only positive thing I can give "Dopppelganger" is that it has really good acting. Koji Yakusho gives a great performance, along with the rest of the cast. But that's pretty much it...<br /><br />Please, do yourself a favor, and go watch "Kairo" or "Ko-Rei" if you want to be scared. This is a bad, bad attempt at a smart drama. Which it is intelligent, but... Well, there's a lot missing.<br /><br />3/10 for the good acting.
This is a painfully slow story about the last days of 1999 when a strange disease breaks out and... I stopped caring. This is suppose to be about two people who live over or under each other in an apartment complex. There's a leak and a plumber put a hole in the man's floor so you can see into the woman's below apartment. Also since there is a crisis going on much of the dialog is actually news reports...<br /><br />Sounds promising?<br /><br />Not really.<br /><br />I became distracted and started doing other things which is deadly in a subtitled film. Basically I started not watching, which made events seem even more surreal when I did look up.<br /><br />It may work for you, it didn't for me.
Voor een verloren soldaat , for a lost soldier, is a sad example of how not to translate to film a touching, complex psychological study, of that most magical time in a man's life, when he is still a child, but starting to become a man. The novel records the real life experiences of Rudy van Dantzig, as told thru the boy Jeroen, during the waning days of WWII at age 11 as he deals with his incipient sexuality, and his deep fears of abandonment as he has been sent to the province of Friesland, north of Holland by his parents because of the lack of food in Amsterdam and has not heard from them in many months as the postal service has broken down.. The arrival of the liberating soldiers in the film, is presented in a painfully corny way, with the soldiers providing entertainment vaudeville style. Then one soldier, Walt, romances Jeroen and the pair is presented as two frolicking males.who consummate their love in a sexual experience. This taken in stride by the 11 yo Jeroen. The reality was somewhat different: Jeroen describes his encounters with Walt, 6 in all, in detail but in oblique language. But there is no misunderstanding their nature. Walt is aroused to an intense passion by Jeroen, during which he handles him roughly, so that in their final meeting, Jeroen is bruised and suffering a painful wound on the shoulder where Walt has bitten him. During this encounter, Walt rapes Jeroen, twice. Jeroen could have easily avoided Walt after their 2nd encounter, when Walt first assaults him as Walt is clearly anxious to keep his abuse of the boy from the other soldiers. Why Jeroen keeps seeking Walt out is a mystery of the human heart and not explainable, by me anyway. What the film leaves out is the aftermath: the nightmares, the dejection, the frantic search throughout Amsterdam on the chance of finding Walt, for Jeroen loved Walt, and nothing could shake that.
Read the book, forget the movie!
To truly appreciate this film you had to be there (acting?) or have been a crew member.<br /><br />Yes, I am "Selena", and at the ripe old age of 42, have serious doubts about what we were doing/did.<br /><br />It all started out to be like a "John Waters" type thing, friends acting badly in bad films. Somewhere along the line,the fun discontinued, people who were supposed to be friends didn't speak anymore, and BAD became worse.<br /><br />I regret the bad image I might have projected.(Try to fit in size one gold spandex pants,)<br /><br />Other than that, the film SUCKS so badly, I would not even make my mama watch it.<br /><br />To my director, cast and crew I say,<br /><br />"Why can't we just all get along??<br /><br />It's been OVER TWENTY YEARS, PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Three young movie theater employees are given the task of re-opening a long closed old-time theater at which many years before a shocking series of grisly murders took place. It seems many more murders have occurred since then but all of this remains unknown to these three young upstart employees hoping to finally make it big on their own. As they approach the grand re-opening night, things keep getting stranger and more unsettling with items suddenly starting to move around by themselves without any seen aid and a terrifying old man seemingly haunting the premises.<br /><br />Oh, this is truly horrible. In fact, if it wasn't for Mary Woronov's secretary character being such a fiercely independent outspoken empowered young woman who steals practically every scene in which she appears and the incredibly hot chick who played the unbelievably sleazy yet totally sexy Selina, this would be a total loss. The only other good thing I have to say about this film is some of the movie theater murders are done in truly inventive, albeit not overly gory (a preference for me but not necessarily for others), fashion. The rest just wallows in constant sleaze (so extreme the rare few may actually find humor in it) and runs through the predictable slasher kills annoying characters off one after the other routine.
I agree that Mary Woronov (Murdoch's secretary) is one of the only good things about this film. She is my favorite actress ever, every role she plays is always done so well. Her character is sly, sarcastic, clever, light hearted, funny and cunning. She really pulls this role off well and you get a good feel for what her character is all about. <br /><br />The rest of the movie is pretty bad. The music is the most entertaining thing left. One of the characters has this really strange circular radio that she brings with her while she wears her tight zebra striped tank top.<br /><br />One thing that was a little intriguing about the story was the idea that someone hires these three college-aged kids to spruce up an old abandoned theater. He gives them the keys and says - go at it. That would be really fun and I wish someone would give me that chance! Imagine going into an old abandoned theater with two other people and you get to decide how to decorate it, and fix it up. You have total control over the whole building. That would be so fun! Unfortunately, the characters do not think of this as an exciting adventure, they think of it as a big chore. They walk around with long faces and fight with each other the whole time. It's kind of a bummer. But it's fun to think about the possibilities that these people aren't even excited about.<br /><br />The movie does a pretty good job at making you feel helpless or a little spooked out by the theater itself. However, the acting (besides Woronov.. and possibly Murdoch, the boss - just because makes a really good money hungry fake smiley business man who never has any luck) is really horrible and you just end up feeling unsatisfied. Plus, the random slapstick is a little tacky and kind of ruins the reality that the film tries to create.<br /><br />Watch this if you dig Mary Woronov, funky 80's Casio keyboard style electronic beats and if you think having a giant spooky abandoned theater to yourself is at all intriguing.
The most hardcore bad film buff will be surprised by the overall ineptness of this grade-z "film". Mary Woronov, a clever actress best known for her roles as Mary Bland in Eating Raoul and Miss Togar in Rock 'N' Roll High School, is by far the best thing about this tripe. This film is almost too bad even for MST3K - honestly!
This movie was so dumb and slow was it ever slow. The only good part of the film was the girl in the tight shinny gold pants. There was no gore whatsover and what is a 80's horror movie without a little gore. Plus the killer wasn't at all scary nor were the murders. But if you like to watch the world's worst horror movie then this is for you. Don't waste your time like I did watching this.
A movie theater with a bad history of past gruesome murders reopens. Of course, the bloody killings start anew. Written, directed, shot, scored and edited with an appalling lack of flair and finesse by the singularly talentless Rick Sloane (who later disgraced celluloid some more with the absolutely atrocious "Hobgoblins"), this horrendously ham-fisted attempt at a slasher spoof strikes out something rotten in every conceivable way: the excruciatingly lethargic pacing, the painfully static, grainy cinematography (there's a stinky surplus of drab master shots featured throughout), an annoyingly droning and redundant hum'n'shiver synthesizer score, the flat (non)direction, a tediously talky and uneventful script, the groan-inducing sophomoric sense of lowbrow humor, the bloodless murder set pieces, a pitifully unscary killer (he's just some wrinkled-up old guy in pasty make-up), the uniformly obnoxious and unappealing characters, a dissatisfyingly abrupt ending, and lifeless performances from a noticeably uninspired cast all ensure that watching this schlocky swill is about as fun and rewarding as eating rancid raw eels drenched with sour vinegar. This crud totally lacks the necessary crude charm and sleazy vigor required to be enjoyable junk. Instead it's just a bland, plodding and meandering stiff that never catches fire or becomes even remotely amusing in a so-shoddy-it's-smoking sort of way. Only a smidgen of nudity and the delightful presence of the always dependable Mary Woronov as a snarky, sardonic secretary provide a little relief from the overall crumminess of this lousy loser.
The Most Fertile Man in Ireland revolves around Eamon Manley who is 24 year old and still happens to be a virgin. He lives with his mother in Belfast. He is also a very shy guy towards women. Everything has changes for Eamon when he is seduced by a woman(as far as I can remember a neighbour). It is not because he looses his virginity but he discovers that he has a super power. Despite having protection, this neighbour becomes pregnant. He is told by the doctor that he has very high sperm count. His mother brilliantly comes up with an idea which makes us see ginger headed babies all around in the end of the film. He starts helping out women in both side of Belfast to conceive babies. First voluntarily then with the help of his colleague runs a business out of it. The Most Fertile Man in Ireland has its funny moments but needed to come up with better jokes and with a better script. I couldn't help thinking that it gave me the impression of a TV sitcom rather than a movie. Kris Marshall is a different name on the silver screen but does not shine as star. It's more like the guy you saw in such and such movie. Like him being in Love Actually(I think he was very funny in that one)..Well, it was okay to watch but couldn't help dozing off from time to time. ** out of *****
Heaven, Mary and all the Saints above! A young man has got super sperm, it's miracle bejesus, call the Pope, all you ladies out their desperate to get preggers, line up out side his door and drop your marks and sparks finest! Risible retro ealing comedy type comedy, trying to bring you a bit of the auld Irish charm. Has an effect like placing two fingers down your own throat, voamitus maximus! One out of ten!
Roll up! Roll up! It's Big Gay Bruce and his Big Gay Death Cannon! Plausible plot? Unnecessary! Decent acting? Unnecessary! Respect shown to its mighty progenitor? Unnecessary! Yes it's another offensively stuffed turkey in the Butch Bruce canon.<br /><br />I mean where do you start with this film? Okay, let's begin with the woeful misapprehension people might have that this was, in some way, related to either the book or the original film, The Day of the Jackal. It's not. In fact it's so different (and so bad) that Fredrick Forsyth asked to have his name taken off it. Now I'm not necessarily a stuffy Brit who can't hack Hollywood remaking British films. Well, okay, maybe I am a bit like that, but fortunately it's a redundant point in this case. This film is so different to the original that the name and the odd reference are the only things that survive.<br /><br />Now let's move to the premise. Cheesy Russian gangster gets killed in a Moscow police raid (somehow involving the FBI although no one bothers to explain why). In revenge, brother of gangster decides to wreak vengeance by killing the wife of the US President (although again no one bothers to explain why this is a good move – although to be fair it was pre-9-11, so he wasn't to know it would have resulted in the US airforce carpet bombing Eastern Europe). Gangster hires "nasty" killer (Willis). Police hire "cuddly" killer (Gere), "cuddly" killer tracks "nasty" killer. Police fanny around and periodically get killed. "Cuddly" killer kills "nasty" killer. First lady is saved and we all realise that the IRA are just this bunch of real sweet guys y'know, who just happen to want to kill innocent people. Nice.<br /><br />Let's put to one side the distasteful Hollywood habit of playing in the troubles of Northern Ireland like it was a sandpit in a theme park (I deal with this point more extensively on the message boards). If Hollywood directors want to cast the Belfast butchers as hookers with hearts of gold, that's up to them. I, of course, reserve the right to despise them for it. It's a free country.<br /><br />More egregious, however, is the fact that the film manages to patronise and insult the Irish while trying to support them. That's not politically distasteful, it's far worse: it's incompetent. It's no wonder, for instance, that Gere still looks so damn good, given that he slept through the entire six months it took to make this piece of cra*p. The fact that Gere's accent is not only Southern Irish, but an appalling parody of Southern Irish shows that the filmmakers weren't looking much beyond America to make money from this film. Then there is that lovely scene at the end where Sidney Poitier (a complete waste of space in this film) says he's off for a coffee, offers to get our "cuddly" IRA man one, then casually says "Ah, but then you guys drink Guinness don't you". Yeah that's right Sidney; the Irish live on Guinness and potatoes.<br /><br />While we're on the subject of Poitier: why? In the original film the detective is the tracker. In Jackal, Gere is the tracker. So what does Poitier do? Well, he just hangs around and looks like a tw*at of course. He's got absolutely nothing to do apart from call in the marines at the end, and he only does this because the nice IRA man tells him to.<br /><br />While we're on the subject of Gere: why? I suppose it's only a matter of time before Hollywood remakes Gandhi with Vin Diesel playing ex-Mujahideen Commando Mahatma Gandhi beheading his way through 1940s and 50s India (he is, after all, a bit dark of hue and therefore very likely to be a Muslim fundamentalist). Let's not forget that Gere's character is a killer and therefore a nasty piece of work. And if he's not, why does he know The Jackal? If he's not, why does he know all his moves? And if he is, why is he such a limp biscuit and such a "loveable" person? <br /><br />All this goes to show that the makers of this film couldn't be bothered to (a) think about the plot (b) have the characters making decisions that were in keeping with their character(c) avoid cheesy stereotypes like having the big boss bad guy kill his own friend – I honestly thought this had turned into a Bond movie (d) give the "central" characters something to do (e) credit the audience with a modicum of intelligence.<br /><br />This film is an insult to the British and Irish killed at the hands of terrorists, it's an insult to the Irish people, it's an insult to not great, but pretty good film it rips off, and an insult to the intelligence. But most of all – and most unforgivable – it is an insult to my a*rse for having to sit through the over two hours of run time it took to finish. Honestly, you'd think with no plot, no characters and no dialogue, it would be over in no time. But they didn't even have the decency to quit early.
Amidst all the many problems that make this a dire piece of celluloid is the stupidest plot device in recent cinema history. Richard Gere determines who the Jackal's real target is through some form of revelation. He does not work anything out, it just comes to him. When in doubt "He's going after the First Lady!". This film blows chunks.
Laughably awful. One might think that all the big-name actors involved in this movie would at least make it believable, but they do not--this one is a stinker.<br /><br />Characters either sprint around without having a good reason to know where they are going, or they stand around making constipated faces when they should be running for their lives.<br /><br />Check your higher brain functions at the door if you intend to try watching this movie. Or, get a bunch of your most clever friends together and give this one the "Mystery Science Theater 3000" treatment. That's what I was doing through the second half of this turkey.<br /><br />And PLEASE don't confuse this with the excellent movie "The Day of the Jackal," a far-superior thriller from 30 years ago.
Spoilers!! Bruce Willis, the part-time Comic and funny guy plays a Hispanic assassin nicknamed after an African scavenger prairie dog? I guess all the good Hispanic nicknames like Sicatriz (Scar), Scorpion, Viper, Cobra, Snake, Tarantula, Latigo (whip), Navaja (blade), etc. were not available?? And why would some South American assassin be acquainted with a terrorist from the Irish Republican Army?? Last time I checked, the IRA is not looking to open any branch headquarters in South America. And why would some prison-tough, battle-weary Irish terrorist look like a middle-aged Richard Gere? I thought maybe this movie was going to be a spoof of "The Crying Game" when Gere's character was introduced as the person who was going to hunt down "The Jackal." What bad casting! And why would the FBI be hiring depraved terrorists in order to track down assassins?? It seems like a terrorist goes for mass destruction, and an assassin usually hits one target in a non-spectacular manner. But Gere is the only person who has ever seen Willis alive, according to the FBI. I thought this movie was supposed to be a remake of the very great film "Day of The Jackal" but this movie is just a dumber version of "Assassins" with Stallone and Banderas. Both of these movies are really dumb, and part of the dumb-ness is the fact that as the audience we are forced to watch Bruce Willis go through his routines and we should say "Wow! isn't he smart!" THE PROFESSIONAL with Jean Reno was a much better movie about assassins. "The Jackal" is just a movie about two fat middle-aged millionaire actors who could get paid for standing around looking pretty and pretending to be smart! "The Jackal" is so poor, that I expected to see Sly Stallone, Dennis Rodman, Mickey Rourke, and Jean Clod Van Dumme making cameo appearances as "other" hitmen or FBI. Needless to say, "The Jackal" has eluded the FBI for twenty-five years, but as soon as Richard Gere gets on the job, it is only a few days before "The Jackal" is kaput! I guess the positive message of this movie is, "Thanks to terrorists, our streets are safe from assassins." Overall, the "Jackal" has no redeeming qualities.
This may well be the worst remake Hollywood has ever produced, and that's saying something. I'll take it further than that and say this movie is so stunningly, deliriously bad that IT MUST BE SEEN. I don't know if I'm even capable of tackling all the things wrong with it--like the fact that the casting director appears to have pulled names out of a hat, or the mind-blower of Richard Gere's character being allowed to walk away scot-free at the end (I'm sure the people saying, "It's just fiction, who cares" would have no problem if it was a former Al-Qaeda operative who just wants to return to his home country)--so I'll just devote my review to the utter hilarity, which is mainly the scene where Bruce Willis is testing out his gun. <br /><br />In the original version, you'll recall, the Jackal practices his kill on a pumpkin. The pumpkin explodes on impact, an effect known as "understatement." In THIS version, Willis sets up a pumpkin target, but he doesn't use a sniper rifle--he uses a gigantic remote-controlled cannon which costs tens of thousands of dollars and can only be stored in the back of a huge conspicuous minivan (this man likes a challenge). He reveals the cannon by pulling away a tarp, at which point Jack Black, who is there to observe, jumps around and says, "That ROCKS! This thing ROCKS!" about 18 times (I guess Willis didn't have to disassemble it first, he just lifted it, tarp and all, out of the back of the van, despite it probably weighing several tons). The scene then turns into an Austin Powers movie as Willis misses the pumpkin and takes out a tree, then has Black run through the mud with his pants falling down, finally blowing off Black's entire arm. The pumpkin falls to the ground, unharmed. <br /><br />If I can recommend this movie for ONE non-ironic reason, it's for the Diane Venora character as a tough Russian major who becomes romantically linked to Gere despite having a facial disfigurement--a bold move for a Hollywood feature. By mid- movie I was really liking this character, so it was a shame when she had to be killed. I would have liked to see a movie about her. Other than that, this pile of crap is only useful as an objective intelligence test. 3/10.
It is hard to screw up this story. GREAT book / GOOD Film version from Fred Zinneman, yet this film is AWFUL! First the casting was terrible. Richard Gere should of played the Jackal himself as Edward Fox was a similar type of cypher and they didn't need to mess with the original script by adding so much worthless (expensive) fluff. This film reminded me of so many Bruce Willis films, as you see huge expense with NOTHING cinematic to show for it. (It is his "Conspiracy Theory") It takes some real doing to make a film this bad from such a fine original script. EVERY person from Michael Caton Jones down should be banned from making films for 10 years; such is the insult this film is to real filmmakers. Were Hollywood to go on trial for having no idea what they were doing, this film would be Exhibit A. Shame on you ALL!
The 1973 "Day of the Jackal", directed by Fred Zinnemann from the Frederick Forsyth novel, while not a masterpiece in the general scheme of things, was nevertheless quite an above-average thriller, written and carried out with considerable panache, wit, and style. It remains a pleasure to rent and watch now and then.<br /><br />In adapting that for the 1997 "The Jackal", it seems that at every turn the writers and director made the worst possible choice, making it all quite leaden, overdone, unsuspenseful, unsurprising, unsexy, and unthrilling. If we put together a catalog of all the specifics that went into this movie, big and small, I could give you a mini-essay for each topic on how the 1997 adaptation ****ed up.<br /><br />Item: the weapon. <br /><br />In the original, there is considerable intrigue over how the assassin is going to smuggle it onto the scene, how he intends to disguise it, and why it needs custom work from his underground craftsmen. In the remake, they apparently thought that today's action-flick-raised audiences wouldn't tolerate a small rifle whose point is precision and would demand the lugubrious off-the-[black-market-]shelf machine gun, which needs a minivan to transport it, and whose point is to shout Macho. The whole involved and interesting business about disguising its components, has been reduced to showing us (repeatedly, like this is a difficult point to follow?) that the joystick for his absurdly high-tech remote-control system has been in his pocket as a pen. <br /><br />Item: the conspirators and motive.<br /><br />Without resorting to dry lecture, the original still manages to give us a good understanding of the historical situation of the "pieds-noirs" [ "blackfeet"], the French-Algerian irredentists who could not accept that the century was moving away from colonialism, and formed the view that De Gaulle had betrayed them. This gives the whole plot some historical weight. The remake seems to leave it as a gangland-shootout revenge story, minimally spicing it up by making them Russian gangsters. Note please that I'm not opposed to updating: they could have done this intelligently and come up with something more current but non-trivial. Certainly Russia and the rest of ex-USSR have been through huge changes of late, and an updated story could have been situated there in a way that would make us feel that it *matters*.<br /><br />Item: the relationship of the assassin on the run and the police hunting him down; and the complex steering of the viewer's sympathies from the bad guy to the good guy.<br /><br />Above I hesitated somewhat at calling the original a masterpiece overall; but in this aspect it really was one. We follow along with the assassin for much of the first portions of the film, and having seen his cleverness and resourcefulness we begin to admire him, and not want to see his plan thwarted or see him caught -- at least, not too soon! Then we meet the policeman who gets pushed into heading up the investigation / protection efforts, and bit-by-bit we take to him, and see he is not the sad-sack his domestic troubles may have suggested. By the time it matters, we have been won over to his side.<br /><br />In the remake, perhaps Poitier could have handled that sort of development , but Gere sure can't. And the absurd "48 Hours"-derived gimmick of the con brought out to help the police should have been left in those comedies where it came from. <br /><br />The remake has the assassin and the assassin-hunter *talk* about how they 're like players above a chessboard, communicating indirectly via their moves and only able to *infer* what the other is like. That was achieved superbly in the original. But in the remake in fact they're brought into face-to-face confrontation way too soon, so they can grimace at each other, bloody the place up, and go through some fairly standard chase scenes.<br /><br />Item: photography, and "scenery".<br /><br />The remake does have some nice images, particularly in snowy Finland in the opening section. But the Washington, D.C Metro cannot really compete with the streets of Paris for interesting perspectives and bystander faces.    
I was looking forward to seeing Bruce Willis in this, especially since I remember being mesmerised by the original when I was young.<br /><br />This movie is a perfect example of how movie companies can take a very good story and dumb it down until it's just another formula ridden hype of the fabled American law enforcement system/army VS, (the Russians.... no sorry the cold war is over, make that WITH the Russians) VS the TERRORISTS, similar to probably 50 other movies.<br /><br />Furthermore it treats its audience like a bunch of idiots. The choice of weapon is well, plain ridiculous, are we seriously expected to believe that the world's most feared and experienced hit man/terrorist would select that for an assasination?<br /><br />The whole point of the original story was the tense dual of intellects between the ordinary detective who is given the responsibility and the professional who crafts a ruthless but elegant plan to reach his target and then get away. None of that survived. All we have is the tired old American CIA/FBI/army vs the evil terrorist plot, we've all seen 1000 times before.<br /><br />But of course the movie company's MBA's realised that a new intellectual angle here would lose them revenue from the short attention span gang, so the answer is ......Bruce Willis, BIG explosions and a crippled plot. They assume the American audience wont be able to relate to a threat to a foreign statesperson (where is France on the map afterall) so it has be an American!<br /><br />Another example of a movie defiled by the boardroom.
A ruthless assassin has been hired to eliminate someone at the very top of the U.S. government. Constantly changing his identity and location, he is known only as the Jackal. Everything about this hit man is a secret. Aware of the Jackal's presence but uncertain of his purpose, the FBI's Deputy Director faces the biggest challenge of his career. In order to track down this cold-blooded killer, he and a by-the-book Russian intelligence officer enlist the aid of an imprisoned Irish terrorist. These unlikely allies enter a global race against the clock to stop the mysterious mercenary before he can complete his assignment. If you are looking for a non-stop action movie like Die Hard, then The Jackal is not your movie. It´s a slow spy thriller with many cool gadgets and weapons. Richard Gere does a good job playing an impassioned terrorist who is helping the FBI for a deeper cause than just freedom. And Willis puts forth a good effort as the Jackal. OK film but nothing more.
Very shortly: a bad film. If you are looking for pure action and no brain (or brain 'illusion') or you are under 15 years old and like Bruce Willis this is THE movie. Also, don't expect the scenario to be consistent or even believeable if you think a little, so don't if you just want to enjoy yourself.
I'm normally a fan of Bruce Willis, and despite him playing the cold-hearted professional killer, I thought him the most appealing character here. That said, his character makes such a mess of his professional activity, it's incredible he hasn't been caught before. The plot is thin to the point of being nonsensical. The end was no less annoying and insulting for the fact that it could have been predicted from about 20 minutes into the movie.<br /><br />** spoilers follow ** In Hollywood morality, the good guys always win, with a few casualties along the way, and the bad guys die, or are at least heading for justice by the end. The breathtaking insult of the film is the way that our IRA terrorist, who has somehow become a cuddly, touchy-feely character, gets to walk off to a new life. As does his former terrorist playmate (who is now a loving wife and mother).<br /><br />Who's the bigger villain? The former (and, so far as we can tell, unrepentant) terrorist, or the hired assassin? I don't see much to choose between them --- in real life, or in the film.<br /><br />This is the poorest film I've seen this year.
I would ward off any temptation to view this movie, it is quite simply dull. The characters are predictable and mindless. The assassin is quite unenigmatic. There is no tension, fun, no style or even a glimmer of originality to be found in this train wreck. And the morass of Hollywood cliché's are stifling. Oh, and you have a movie that makes a hero of an IRA terrorist. Cute. And now I need to speak some more to fill up the ten lines. And a little bit more Is that enough? Not quite, how about now? No, well further confabulation should do the trick, but The Jackal is really not worth ten lines of exposition. The original was great though.
So lets say you are a producer, you have some money, and you somehow got Richard gear and Bruce Willis, so now all you need is a script...but , why bother? see, this movie is really terrible, the acting is pretty good, but the casting is awful gear and Willis did their best to play these characters they simply cant play. now, this movie has no plot, or rather, there's something that tries to pass off as a plot: there's a mean hit-man (Willis) who is cool dangerous and sophisticated (actually he's none of those things, but from some dialog between the other characters, you are supposed to get this impression), so this hit-man is on a mission to kill someone, now there's an ex-IRA prisoner who is kind and nice and very likable (gear) who the FBI release from prison so he will help them. so now the FBI is "investigating" to find this hit-man, the investigation consists of a series of unlikely information - like some random person lost his wallet and someone used his name to buy a car - which is always right on the money. since there's no real plot and the script is so crappy, you cant expect any real character development, or tension, so instead of creating them through the story, they simply add some disconnected dramatic music, which signals you that something very dramatic is going on , instead of actually creating something dramatic..<br /><br />the bottom line is that this is a very bad movie, and a complete waste of time which somehow got an incredibly high score for its level, probably because of the cast - and this is exactly what the producers where counting on.
"How many ppl know about this?"..."Lets keep it that way!" I wonder at least some new dialogues can be made or not? The movie is a real poor copy of the original. Bruce Willis probably did this movie while he was half asleep. The way he looks at Richard Gere's face with his cold-blooded stare when they meet near the port...oh my god! scared the hell out of me. Why does he kill Major Koslova and her mates isn't still clear to me. Another thing that I could not understand was the poison solution that he put on the car (what in the world was it?).<br /><br />The movie plot is haywire and climax is dull. Another funny thing was how the Russian was killed in the club. I fell off my chair laughing when I saw that scene. Also, what was that thing about the gay guy..what purpose was it serving. I think the movie is made too swift to be easily understood. You have to really think what the hell was on Director's mind. LOL.<br /><br />And the best scene after all was Richard Gere trying to hold on to the pillar between 2 fast moving trains. must have made someone loose his head if not contact with the pillar.
I could not believe how terrible and boring this Hollywood remake was.It's so dreadful. It easily lands a place in my top 10 worst films of 1998.About the only thing it had going for it was Bruce Willis,who should stick to action films,as a completely emotionless killer who'd kill his own mother for the right price.But I'd rather listen to Robbie Coltraine talk American for a week than listen to Richard Gere's nauseating Irish accent again.But this film is also implausible,unconvincing,uneven,unexciting,unimpressive and lands Sidney Poiter in a rubbish role to make a possible career comeback.One for filmroll-footie purposes entirely.
This film is mildly entertaining if one neglects to acknowledge its numerous incongruities of plot and sheer lack of believability. Bruce Willis as "The Jackal" never seems to live up to his reputation as a cunning mastermind of the underworld. Instead, he bumbles about in broad daylight, parading a mishmash of shoddy disguises. Why this man has never been captured before (or even identified) is beyond me. Not once is the audience impressed by his cleverness or daring; considering the price he demands for his services (an exorbitant $70 million), his methods are decidedly low-budget and stupid.<br /><br />As for those in pursuit of him, they are at least as ridiculous in their behavior. They show no sense of expertise, instead relying on half-baked conjecture which sends them traversing across the country at their whim. Incredibly, these far-fetched guesses (maybe he bought a boat, maybe he's in Chicago, etc etc) invariably lead them straight to the Jackal, who yet again escapes their clumsy grasp.<br /><br />Richard Gere, whose Irish accent fades in and out like a distant radio station, plays the inexplicable role of an imprisoned convict who is released from jail to work alongside the FBI. He actually makes a compatible partner, if only because his means are as amateurish and inept as his professional pals. At one point, he actually confronts the infamous Jackal, but unfortunately the FBI, although they trust him enough to leave him out of their sight, fail to equip him with a weapon or any means of communication. What kind of operation are they running here?<br /><br />The film also appears overly reliant on gruesome violence, which is entirely superfluous and provides no suspense whatsoever. The supposedly stealthy Jackal acts more like a demented and senseless serial killer, eliminating people for sport and writing on a victim's cheek with blood.<br /><br />The film's action scenes are both predictable and unrealistic, and many moments are ruined with melodrama. This movie is poorly executed on many levels, the one bright spot being the ever consistent Sidney Poitier. Avoid this movie if you are in the mood to think as you watch it.<br /><br />
When recounting these events that took place some years ago, (hard to believe this actually happened)i thought, well, there is a basis for an interesting story here. Many secrets were never uncovered, the horse never found, the main conspirators never captured etc.<br /><br />However, this film seems to be distracted by character study, and very little attention payed to the plot. Some other questions are raised though, like why on earth would Mickey Rourke be in this film? Its good to see rourkes career has taken off again, but he must cringe at the mention of this rubbish.<br /><br />If the subject matter interests you, do an internet search on the topic, you'll be more educated and dare i say more entertained. Avoid this.
Rourke does his usual bit part,as a sinister,rancorous,Neanderthalian,ferocious,evil jerk,in the same mold as in "Picture Claire","Out in Fifty","Get Carter","Double Team" and the rest of the garbage he happens to be in.<br /><br />He has very few lines.<br /><br />Of course,all this is just junk,undervaluing Rourke,abasing him,and doesn't matter for his characterization as an actor.Still ,after seeing "A Prayer ...","Johnny Handsome","Barfly","9 1/2 Weeks","Year of the Dragon",etc.,etc.,for many years I considered Rourke an outstanding,smart,intelligent man.I think he has changed since.<br /><br />He looks callous,calcined.<br /><br />"He went about with gloomy looks;/Despair inhabited his breast/And made the man a perfect pest."(Belloc,"The Example").<br /><br />I had absolutely no other reason to watch this dull movie except that Rourke was in.
This is a pretty run of the mill family move that I am sure most children will enjoy but with really no that much to please any adults viewing the movie. The premise of the film is that Belushi's cop character takes his retirement but gets drawn into a case which results in him becoming a private investigator. The movie's plot is so obvious most of the kids will surely pick the ending before it happens. But additionally to that there seem to be story arcs and sub plots that are forgotten about as the movie progresses. This coupled with a sub plot where the titular K-9 gets pimped out by Belushi. One to be avoided I am afraid.
I am sitting here watching the film, Tango and Cash. IT led to a discussion about other great late 80s movies. The ridiculous Tunrer and Hooch, K9 connection came up.<br /><br />Granted I have never seen K9PI and if I still value my life, I never will. Joshua quotes this as his movie of the year. Wow. Wow. I am utterly astonished that this movie exists. But so much more than that the fact that Joshua likes this move disturbs me to the core. I think Joshua is one interesting guy <br /><br />K9<br /><br />K9
sorry, sorry but sorry. nice, very nice production, very nice actors, also funny. But, this type of the movies with a dog (Rex German, Gery-Jerry American) with a private detectives, with a pretty rich woman???????????????????????? Hello producer, how many movies we have out there with the same plot?????????? What do u have on your minds when you make the scenes like dog having a pupu. Or any king of that dog activities????? Micro chips who can make you rich? Micro chips who wort a fortune? There is three master chips, wow? And the creator of the chips can't make the same chips again? Hello, wake up. can give us something smarter than that? Best, D
Dooley and his canine partner, Jerry Lee are together again in this 2nd sequel (?!!?) I sincerely had no clue that they made one sequel let alone two. And for a film that was only slight better than "Turner & Hooch"? This time after Dooley retires, he has to mate his dog (with other dogs, people) and wait around for Jerry Lee to poo. Real classy stuff. I mean come on now. The original had at least a few good laugh. This one has nary a one. Jim Belushi just looks old and worn out. Both Belushi brothers were great in the '80's. If John hadn't died, would he be so bad today like his brother? That thought makes me sad for some reason.<br /><br />My Grade: D- <br /><br />Where i saw it: USA network
sure this movie may have had its funny moments with the sat question people and i know the movie is not supposed to be totally believable the movie made it too outrageous for example a girl like that would never in a million years go out wit ha guy like that also people in movie had lackluster performances there acting was so bad. Also the plot bad they could have don e a better job on the scripting at least and focused more on the comedy the comedy was also a little dry and got really boring after the first few jokes, it was like 10mins was laughter then the old when is this gonna end started to kick in The bottom line if u want a a lackluster of acting mixed in with a stupid plot and a romance go ahead and watch this movie.
Utterly ridiculous movie which makes fun of the college admission process. While it is true that the SAT's is not everything in evaluating a student for admission to college, what the movie talks about is utterly ridiculous and not worth repeating nor viewing.<br /><br />College admissions officials are made to look like stupid people who have an extremely narrow view of the entire process. The film is an insult to hard-working high school students who work hard and then have to suffer through a long process until they receive that letter of acceptance or rejection from the schools they have applied for. <br /><br />This movie certainly deserves rejection on all levels.
PDQ Bach did it better. Much of "Bach"'s speaking part is letters written to various patrons complaining about the amount and speed of his payment. Anna Magdalena's diary, mostly about the death of children and sundry other family matters, is an iota more engaging. The music is disconcerting: 17th century sized chapel orchestras and choirs producing 20th century concert hall sound. The overall production quality reminded me of a junior high slide show. J S Bach was a brilliant man whose music speaks for itself. This film adds nothing. Netflix sent me 2 discs that wouldn't play, so I streamed the movie. Clearly Netflix was trying to tell me something.
"Dogmatic," as another reviewer described this film, is a fitting word. The director's idea was to present Bach without plot, acting, fun, theatrics, dialog, narrative, or drama. Mission accomplished, Monsieur Straub. "Pretentious?" Yes. "Cinematic?" No way. This is anti-cinema. No one moves. Hardly anyone talks. The camera holds static shots for 10-12 minutes at a time: very very occasionally the camera will dolly in. You may catch a glimpse of Gustav Leonhardt's fingers moving over the keys. That's it.<br /><br />If you like the idea of staring at the back of a harpsichordist's (bewigged) head for 7 minutes at a stretch while listening to Bach, this is the film for you. I'd rather listen to Bach on my stereo with my eyes closed.
Like another reviewer, I really wanted to like this movie. I went with my father who was the biggest lover and booster of classical music but neither of us could stand this movie. I wouldn't even call it a movie. A better description might be a record of a few chamber concert pieces. As I recall, the camera never even moved. Rather, I just sat on a tripod for the entirety of each piece. The only attempts at dramatic effect were at the very end of each piece when the movie would cut to trees waving in the wind or little wavelets lapping at a beach. I'm sure the director would have preferred to have used footage of some really big crashing waves but the best he could find were a few inches high at some nearby lake, and again using a stationary camera. Truly pathetic. I can't imagine how anyone could justify rating this movie higher than a five. When we walked out, my father and I were completely mystified as to how it was possible to make such a bad movie. I don't know of of any good movies about Bach. The world really does need one, but just because it doesn't exist is not a reason to see this one. Someone will make one someday. Until then just keep rewatching _Amadeus_.
Very stark, very drab, no real drama. Why not just make a documentary? This isn't exactly The Passion of Joan of Arc. The only reason for seeing Chronicles is to hear the performances. I love Bach's music and even I found it hard to sit through this misery of a film. The great Gustav Leonhardt plays (in two senses of the word) Bach. We don't get much of a sense of him as an actor, since he's given so little to do dramatically. Mostly, he gets to walk purposefully or angrily out of various rooms. Bach's life, of course, was not an Errol Flynn movie. It was indeed fairly drab and more than a little hard. This probably means that the life isn't a terrific candidate for a film. The music, of course, is another story. I recommend The Stations of Bach. Far more information, for one thing, and some insight into the music, which is, after all, why Bach interests us in the first place.
After reading the reviews I decided to rent the DVD version. <br /><br />I like classical music and wanted to learn more about Bach. <br /><br />I was disappointed. I guess I do not know enough about Bach music and the the comments were not enough for me to understand the importance or what music was being played. <br /><br />Maybe it would be appropriate with the guidance of an expert in Bach's music that can explain the film. <br /><br />I really tried and saw the whole film hopping that I would be able to enjoy at least some of it, but I did not. <br /><br />See it at your own risk.
Ever had one of those nights when you couldn't sleep and just turned on the tube to see what was on? That is how I ran across this tripe. For myself, I would have been better served tossing and turning for the 97 minutes I wasted with this film.<br /><br />In its attempt to "be real" this movie's characters come off as such gangsta stereotypes that the story should have been the premise for a Wayans brothers movie. The dialog? Please! It sounded like a white man was trying too hard to write this film.<br /><br />The editing was horrible. One of my "favorite" scenes involved a car chase down a bunch of narrow alleys. Cut to the characters being chased, though, and they are driving through a park complete with baseball fields in the background.<br /><br />When any of our "homies" get shot in this film, he bleeds miraculously through clothes that have no holes, which is more than I can say for the plot of this predictable load of....baking soda.<br /><br />Indie films can be great even if they are low on budget and effects, but they still need to have some cinematic integrity. If I could have given it a 0, I would. If you watch it, I hope it is on cable, because even the cheapest rental would be too much to pay. Actually, 97 minutes was too much to pay...
I'll give it this: I didn't stop watching, and it's not corporate, which is kind of cool. But my internal critic cut it to pieces -- I suppose I see too many movies. Wooden script, the slang just sort of clanks out of their mouths without any kind of flow. Editing, mentioned before, is hit and miss; sometimes it evokes a good ghetto feel, but mostly its irritating -- jerky, quirky angles and really dull lingering facial closeups. The actors were marginal, though Letisha had her moments.<br /><br />I'm not sure why the audience supposed to care about Curtis, he's a total screwup and the actor is entirely expressionless and not particularly funny or endearing. The directing doesn't help make you love him or hate him, even; I just wanted him to shut up and get shot already. I didn't care about his impotent vengeance when that rolled around. The completely predictable ending isn't credible at all. I'm not sure why we're supposed to believe that some erstwhile successful dealers he deposes are stupid enough to fall for his petty scams. "Oh, you just got out of jail and are on probation? Here's thousands of dollars worth of cocaine, go run it around the corner for me. Now don't steal from me, etc."<br /><br />A good sex scene in the beginning gave me hope, but it was let down in the end. Handling of a rape scene was slightly eyebrow-raising, if only mildly interesting. There are better movies in this genre that don't insult your intelligence by trying for some kind of authentic ghetto realism while more resembling a film-school offering. 4/10, an F.
We were excited to rent this one after reading a few reviews and seeing that it scored so highly here. Well, we got it home and could not believe what we saw. Its basically comes off as if its written by some hard up perverted old guy who could not help inserting his sexual frustrations and fantasies into an anime film that really lacks in plot and humor. The main character is all over the place... one moment, he is like an immature little kid, the next moment he is mature and intelligent, then heroic, then a perverted stalker.<br /><br />The worst part is all of the out of place sexual content. I have no problem with sex and dig a movie that has some good sexual energy, but this is just presented in a way that is creepy. Nipple slips, close ups of a girls crotch (many times) in white panties, or a swimsuit. It was totally out of place and it seemed as if the person who wrote it was trying to live out some fantasies through his cartoon characters. <br /><br />We were expecting something of a mature nature, but we just kept looking at each other and asking what the heck the point of this was... besides jiggling cartoon boobs and poor dialogue. If you want to see some cartoon characters cleavage and crotch's... this is for you. If you are looking for something beyond that, this movie was empty. The characters and dialogue were just plain irritating.<br /><br />
Dustin Hoffman's debut feature isn't as bad as it's reputed to be; a Spanish/Italian co-production filmed in Italy with the director using the pseudonym "Dan Ash"(!), the film is uneven but generally diverting and deals with a plethora of shady characters in search of a $1,000,000 hidden by gangster Cesar Romero (who, despite being third-billed - after Elsa Martinelli and Hoffman himself - expires before the credit sequence has even rolled!).<br /><br />Hoffman's performance, obviously, is nowhere near as nuanced as in later films but manages to dodge embarrassment by playing what basically amounts to an amiable klutz - an accident-prone American treasury agent of Sicilian descent (named Puzzu, which nobody seems to be able to get right!) sent out by his firm to retrieve the money and told to remain "inconspicuous" but, instead, is forever getting into trouble - though he ultimately proves surprisingly resourceful by finding the loot, foiling the crooks and winning the girl (Martinelli as Romero's daughter, who's somewhat wasted here)!! <br /><br />Still, the film's best moments are provided by suave gangster Riccardo Garrone: apart from his would-be hard-boiled persona and the hilarious use of dialect, he's flanked by a trio of nitwits who more often than not prove a hindrance in the fulfillment of his various schemes! Also, in view of the story being set in Rome, it's odd that the police officer investigating the case is a Spaniard (doubtless an exigency of the co-production deal)! <br /><br />Along the years, I've missed out on Hoffman's other Italian comedy - ALFREDO, ALFREDO (1972) - a number of times (I guess, mainly, because Leonard Maltin only rates it *1/2 in his "Movies & Video Guide"...but, then, MADIGAN'S MILLION gets a BOMB!); with Pietro Germi directing and co-starring the luscious Stefania Sandrelli, the credentials of that film are certainly more respectable, and I really hope it turns up again on Italian TV soon...
Warning, spoilers ahead (even if I doubt that anybody hasn't seen this yet)<br /><br />The movie starts off rather well, but about halfway through it falls apart and becomes a corny, sugary sweet, predictable and unrealistic 'harmony romance' mess. I mean, it's very obvious that there are serious problems in the main characters' marriage, but these problems are never solved but just forgotten.<br /><br />Basically, as soon as she decides to have a baby behind his back (without even asking) all of their problems magically disappear without a trace or an explanation. Given what had happened up until that moment it would have been far more logical if the marriage fell apart rather than becoming the trite and cliche' 'having a baby will change everything' ending.<br /><br />The two main characters' families and neighbours are also extremely one-dimensional, and don't seem to serve really any purpose if not to irritate the viewer, and they also mysteriously disappear from the movie as soon as the 'harmony moments' start.<br /><br />I am sorry to be ripping this movie, but given the start I would have expected something more. 4/10 for me.
In a not totally successful attempt to be taken seriously, and move into 'adult' films, Mr. Hughes gives us this film about a young married couple. True, it's got every cliche in the book in it, silly fantasy stuff and all that, but more importantly- it's got Elizabeth McGovern.<br /><br />Clearly the best actress to have ever appeared in a John Hughes film, she lends a weight to it that elevates the sometimes silly material. Kevin Bacon (and his hair) is pretty good as her husband, but McGovern steals the movie with her quiet true moments of honesty. The 'teen film' fun that worked so well in other Hughes films falls flat here- like a favorite uncle whose jokes made you laugh when you were 9, but keeps telling them when you are 15 and you wish he'd find some new material. But I keep going back to McGoverns performance, because it's truly moving. Mr. Hughes most interesting films to me have real actors in them (Some Kind of Wonderful, Breakfast Club) and when his material bumps up against a true talent, some wonderful things can happen. If only he'd trust that it doesn't have to be tarted up with the silly fantasy stuff.
In order to enjoy 'Fur - An imaginary portrait of Diane Arbus,' Stephen Shainberg needs the viewer to suspend all reality and prior knowledge of the American photographer, Diane Arbus. Paradoxically, it's the very use of Diane Arbus' name and knowledge to her life and work, that sets this film up to fail on a grand scale.<br /><br />What becomes apparent quite early on with the casting of the beautiful WASPish and glamorous Nicole Kidman as the anti-glamorous Jewish Diane Arbus, is that Shainberg didn't get Arbus or what her work was about (unsentimental realism) and seems only attracted to Arbus on a superficial level through her photographs of circus freaks.<br /><br />What follows is a kind of pretty and trivial Beauty & the Beast fantasy biopic with Robert Downey JR as Kidman's hairy fictional love interest. However, it's not the banality of the story that is the main flaw in this film, but the director's misogynistic stance that Diane Arbus, one of the art world's most singular and original woman photographers, was incapable of forming her own ideas about her work. While his previous film 'Secretary' was a study of female masochism, his continued portrayal of the female as submissive spoils this film completely - and flys in the face of the real life Diane Arbus' courage, tenacity and fearlessness in single-handedly exploring the often shady world of outsiders.<br /><br />Imagine an imaginary biopic on pop star Madonna's life with Guy Richie as her Svengali, the man behind her career, and you'll get a feel of how seriously flawed and imaginary this film is: It can only work if you have absolutely no knowledge of the subject, or just choose to ignore all the facts.<br /><br />It's a shame because once you remove all reference to Diane Arbus, this film could have stood up on its own as an interesting study on fetishism and a good companion piece to Secretary. 4/10
For anyone who cares to know something about the real Diane Arbus, or who values psychological veracity, this film is abysmal. Arbus was a brilliant, talented, restless, and troubled person, but this film depicts her as completely self-involved, and truly bizarre in her taste and judgment. Kidman portrays her as wan and vague, whereas she was someone who knocked people over with her charisma. The totally fictional relationship that is central to the film is quite unbelievable, and Robert Downey is truly annoying in his smirking portrayal of someone who seems to think he's superior to the rest of the world simply because of his affliction. The film depicts this encounter as being the source of Arbus's interest in "freaks," which is a truly banal explanation for the inspiration behind some of the greatest photographs of the 20th century. The mystery to me is why people of some talent and intelligence chose to be involved with this film in any way.
Hadn't really heard too much about this movie so I went and saw it. I realized that this movie only appeals to someone who has not lived in the real world. And even those people would think this movie moved too slowly.<br /><br />When the movie opens up, you see Nicole Kidman going to a nudist camp. Whoa. Shock. That scene, the dialouge, were all great. And then the movie went downhill.<br /><br />While I respect the vision the filmmaker must have, this movie sucked. It was too slow, too predictable, and not moving enough. Robert Downey Jr. is great, as usual, but this movie is not good enough to sit through. It tries to be shocking and abnormal but makes poor use of the talents of all the actors.<br /><br />Don't waste your money, even the sex scenes were boring.
What were they thinking when they made this truly TERRIBLE film? <br /><br />Arbus, one of the most important photographers and women of the Twentieth Century, had a fascinating and dramatic life. What possessed anyone to make this film, which explains her unique artistic vision, as being the result of an (imaginary) affair with a grotesque, yet charismatic hairy freak (played by Downey)?<br /><br />In real life, Arbus broke out of a traditional marriage and woman's role to express herself. In this movie, Arbus is an ultra-dreary Nicole Kidman whose inspiration is all attributed to a "Beauty and The Beast" devotion to an interesting man.<br /><br />For this reinvention, the film is truly shameful. Independent of that, it is also just dopey and dull.
I don't know how this movie has received so many positive comments. One can call it "artistic" and "beautifully filmed", but those things don't make up for the empty plot that was filled with sexual innuendos. I wish I had not wasted my time to watch this movie. Rather than being biographical, it was a poor excuse for promoting strange and lewd behavior. It was just another Hollywood attempt to convince us that that kind of life is normal and OK. From the very beginning I asked my self what was the point of this movie,and I continued watching, hoping that it would change and was quite disappointed that it continued in the same vein. I am so glad I did not spend the money to see this in a theater!
As an early representation of the turmoil of the 1960's that followed, Diane Arbus (Nicole Kidman) can be excused as an early flower child. The film itself deserves no such latitude. The lack of character development, motivation and justification for the character's behavior makes the movie very disappointing. I sat watching and waiting for some explanation of the bizarre actions only to find that Shainberg was letting me peek into a story that must have been someones inside joke. That the few facts presented did not match Diane Arbus' life very much did not help to clarify things either.<br /><br />The washed out Art Direction in Diane's 'normal' life was nicely contrasted with the brilliant colors in her 'awakening' life with Lionel. And the trap door stairway was a nice demonstration of Diane's attempt to inject her new life into her existing family (However, I don't see how that trap door in the ceiling of her dining room could directly connect to Lionel's apartment which was two flights of stairs up from her's).<br /><br />Maybe my analysis is a little too literal in looking for some character development and relationship understanding that goes beyond one sentence or one comment. I also would have liked to see at least one of Diane's photos as well. I won't wait for the sequel.
I could have liked this if I didn't like Diane Arbus.<br /><br />Didn't really capture Arbus unique visual aesthetic(as Stanley Kubrick did in "The Shinning", with the twin girls in the hallway, a direct homage to one of Arbus most famous photos, and one with haunting qualities none of this movies images have), and certainly none of her character(outgoing), likeness(thin and Jewish, not wasp Queen Kidman), or life, save some very superficial similarities, she was a fashion who later photographed "freaks" and "outsiders", among many things. This film focused on the "freak", as her symbol for artistic and personal empowerment, in a really shallow and predictable fashion. Outside of that, it might have been an interesting movie about middle class fetish, but I was too annoyed to care.<br /><br />Perhaps if Arbus name had been left off, this might have been less annoying, but had it not had her name in the title there would have been nothing to make me interested in seeing in this in the first place. A letdown from "Secretary".
Bizarre. This movie is supposed to be based on a famous photographer, but everything that happens in this movie is fiction. I guess it tries to explain why Diane Arbus had a fascination with oddities and made it her primary photography focus. In the movie, wolfman moves into the apartment above hers. She seemingly becomes obsessed with him and falls for him. She puts her kids and husband second over the wolfman, and even tries to incorporate him into her family gatherings. Some of the wolfman's freak show side kicks come over to visit and she mingles with them. The whole thing is very bizarre.<br /><br />FINAL VERDICT: Nothing memorable. There is just something weird about a woman who gets her jollies from shaving the wolfman. I think you can find better films out there.
Poor Diane Arbus (whoever she was). Not only was she (according to this movie) a spoiled-but-sweet-acting upper East Side brat, she was a bad wife, bad mother, awful business partner; plus there is no evidence in this picture that she was any kind of an artist -- except in the bold statement in the prologue.<br /><br />Nicole Kidman, who incredibly is more attractive today than 25 years ago and actually looks younger, indeed gives an excellent performance; but what can an actress do with a wife and mom who seeks out and falls for an incredibly weird werewolf-looking guy living in the apartment upstairs? Set in the early 1970's, Manhattan was a virtual magnet for freaks and weirdo's of all sizes and shapes, most not looking like human hairballs; so why is this affair worthy of a 122 minute movie?<br /><br />Robert Downey Jr used to be one of my favorites, but I'd say his well known and prolonged use of drugs has taken its toll. One might think he'd be disinclined to be in a movie that treats drug use as casually as it does smoking cigarettes. <br /><br />FUR has already taken a beating at the box office, but in view of those who input a score of 10 for this misbegotten slice of trash, I'd like to say, 'taint so, McGee.
This was an abysmal show. In short it was about this kid called Doug who guilt-tripped a lot. Seriously he could feel guilty over killing a fly then feeling guilty over feeling guilty for killing the fly and so forth. The animation was grating and unpleasant and the jokes cheap. <br /><br />It aired here in Sweden as a part of the "Disney time" show and i remember liking it some what but then i turned 13.<br /><br />I never got why some of the characters were green and purple too. What was up with that? <br /><br />Truly a horrible show. Appareantly it spawned a movie which i've never seen but i don't have any great expectations for that one either.
I just don't understand why anytime someone does a show about one of the largest metro areas in the country (Houston, Dallas, Austin/San Antonio etc.), they portray the average person as someone who wears wranglers/cowboy hat , talks with a drawl, has zero fashion sense, and drives a truck on his way to either the "saloon" or his next hunting trip, rodeo, skeet shooting or country music concert. I have never even seen a small town cop driving a police-truck...anywhere in Texas.<br /><br />The funny thing is this is not done for artistic reasons or comedy...they are actually serious and I guess believe the average person is too stupid to know the difference. The bad scripts and equally bad acting give that away. This show makes goofy shows in the past like Knightrider look like high-brow entertainment. At least Knightrider had the talking car.
First of all, no one with any law enforcement experience (Not ER or EMT, but real law enforcement) takes this show seriously. Walker would be drummed out of any police force in the US for his illegal and totally unprofessional tactics. On top of that, he is a comic book character---no acting ability, incredibly trite lines, no character development. The fact that Alex Cahill loves him shows just how dumb blondes really are. And Trivett is the ultimate clown in black-face. Come on---if you think Walker is a heartfelt show without bias, then explain why JT is treated as a dolt, always is the subject of Walker's jokes, never is allowed to be the one to solve the crime, and never rescues Walker, who should be dead 50 times over for the stupid things he does. While it may be true that many criminals are even dumber than the detectives who go after them (and believe me, most cops are dumber than dirt), the smart ones Walker comes up against never seem to get the point that once Walker is captured, the jerk needs to be put of his misery. But then again, Norris produced the show as well as starred in it, so how could he willingly get rid of himself or even show how stupid his tactics are. As if six guys are going to wait around to take him one at a time. What a terrible series! It is more demeaning than any of the hokey westerns like The Lone Ranger, Roy Rogers, The Cisco Kid, and Wild Bill Hickock, though I would imagine that most of you on here are far too young to remember those shows. But like those shows, in the same way as those shows, Walker TR is just as insulting and just plain silly.
The fact that this cruddy series could elicit dozens of comments (much less hundreds of 'votes') speaks volumes as to the decline of Western (or at least American) civilization.<br /><br />Read Proust, you morons!! Or at least Dave Barry or Calvin and Hobbes anthologies.<br /><br />Chuck Norris. Wrap your brains around the fact that in order to rate or write about this series you'd have to have spent minutes..nay, HOURS...viewing this poor sod treading the boards and spewing lines with less emotional impact than the gal who used to call off the correct time on your local service.<br /><br />PLEASE DON'T WATCH THIS SHOW!! SPARE YOUR FEW REMAINING BRAIN CELLS!
This show is the worst show ever! Norris and his family write it, produce it, direct it, etc etc. The only reason I ever see it is because my goofy wife likes it. How many times can Norris fly though the air from plain sight to land a kick on an obviously blind villain? No trees, no building, just whoosh.....thin air. He ALWAYS solves the case or is the best at whatever skill there is. No co star ever gets the glory. Its all Norris. Its truly apparent that Norris is awful stuck on himself and will not allow anyone to one up him in any scene no matter what the content. Terrible acting, terrible script, terrible series.
This TV show is possibly the most pathetic display of crap on TV today. Horribly predictable, obscene usage of slow motion photography, cheesy story lines. Chuck Norris is an abomination who should never have been allowed to be filmed in anything. The way he chooses to make each episode into a public service announcement is really annoying. His acting sucks so bad that it makes a person cringe with embarrassment. I will give the series some credit though...it does get entertaining at times, but not enough for it make any difference. With all the negative points this series has, i still prefer it over reality TV, it can't really get any more worthless than that.
Walker Texas Ranger is one of the worst shows produced in the past 10 years. The script for James 'Jimmy' Trivette, Walker's sidekick, is about as pathetically written of a part as Wesley Crusher on Star Trek TNG, and is played with about as much conviction.<br /><br />On this show, people don't respond the way people respond to things in real life--everyone is polarized--everyone is either a completely good guy or a completely bad guy (unless Walker himself has a 2 minute talk with them and then they change instantly). That's not how life works, that's not how people are. This show doesn't take place in this reality.<br /><br />The plot lines are about as realistic as Murder She Wrote, a show where an arrogant old lady can just walk into people's houses without them getting angry, and she can demand that police officers do what she wants and they bend over backwards for her. With Walker, everyone on the show, including the "bad guys", act like he's the sort of hero that myths and fairy tales are made of, and time itself bends to his whim. The lines that sometimes come out of people's mouths on this show are beyond ridiculous. It's as if the scriptwriter for the part of Wesley Crusher (for the "serious" parts) and the scriptwriter for Bob Saget's funniest home videos (for the "humor" parts) got together and wrote all the scripts for this show.<br /><br />This show is for people who think that good always prevails over evil. It's for the elderly. It's for wishful thinkers. It's for people who want to be guaranteed to always have a happy ending. It's for people who want to drift away into oblivion. It's for people whose drug of choice is their television.<br /><br />I cringe every time I see even a commercial for this show. My opinion is that it is THE worst show to be on television in the last 10 years.<br /><br />I used to like Chuck Norris, but this show has forever tainted him in my mind. I can't even watch his older movies without thinking of this show.
This series is formulaic and boring. The episodes are the same thing every week, simply with slightly varied settings. Some purely evil character does some dastardly deed, Walker goes after him, and it ends in a Karate match. The villains are super-cliché super-stereotypical evil villains, the good guys are all pure, honest and saintly, and the story lines are simplistic and unrealistic. After about 2 episodes, the show becomes totally unwatchable by all but the least discerning fans. Certainly not Norris's best work. His other work may be cliché but it usually does not drag on for weeks. If you enjoy formulaic,boring, repetitive clichéd snooze-fests, then this is for you.
I'd never thought that I would be caught saying this: But I think "Dog the Bounty Hunter" is more entertaining than this 90's era cop drama. Walker is very melodramatic and actually set a standard of the genre of "High Octane" cop shows such as CSI, CSI: Miami, and so forth. I'm not saying all these shows are bad, but they aren't good either. I like the karate chop action that Walker dispenses on the enemies of justice, and the diverse cast of characters as much as the science tech of the CSI series. But there are some elements that I hate in a show like this. Stereotypes/Countertypes! That's right, Stereotypes/Countertypes! Unfortunately, this is a show for the moderates of Red State America who refuse to part with the old prejudices of yore especially when it comes to crime. For example, there was an episode in which a kid with psychic powers ventures into Dallas where he encounters group of kids in Goth/Punk clothing and they start harassing him. Now! This is exactly what Middle America perceives the Goth/Punk culture. I mean come on, how often do people that dress like that rob and steal from people just minding there own business. Whenever there are Blacks and Latinos in the plot it's always about gangs in some impoverished neighborhood. Okay! Not everyone who's a minority is a desperate recruit of a gang surrounded by crime, drugs, poverty. Again, this is what Middle Red State America sees of these people. Finally, Why is the Trivette the bumbling sidekick, can't you make the sidekick an equal ass-kicker?
This has got to be the worst show I have ever seen. I always liked Chuck Norris in Films, but why do we need to make these shows politically correct by adding a black side kick who is as threatening as Shirley Temple in Little Miss Marker. I also thought the show was limited because how many times can you kick a guy in the face and make it interesting. I know an African American who looks like this Trivette guy and he gets his butt kicked about once a week he is all attitude.<br /><br />Chuck Norris is the man and he deserves all the kudos he gets, I think this show started great but lost steam as time went on<br /><br />They should have dumped Chucks side kick
As a true Canadian, I always avoid Canadian movies. However now and then I get trapped into watching one. This one is better than most, which is to say mediocre. It has many of the usual flaws of Canadian films...self-conscious acting...an excess of cinematic gimmicks and, above all, the self-effacing Canadian habit of using Canadian cities as stand-ins for American ones. I mean using the historic metropolis of Montreal as a stand in for Harrisburg Pennsylvania is just short of obscene. I was in a generous mood. I gave it a 4.<br /><br />
*SPOILERS!* When I first saw the preview for this, it looked like a good old fashioned hallmark movie. I love bluegrass music, so I couldn't wait to see it. When we rented the movie, we read the back and it sounded even better. The film was pretty boring for the first half, every now and then a song would be played. Then (i'm embarrassed typing this)a lesbian love seen came in. I that ther was something more then friendship between the teachers but I certainly didn't expect nudity and prolonged make out sessions. I was watching this with my mother and I was quite embarrassed, because I picked this movie. But besides that, it was an okay movie. The acting was fine, the actress who played Deladis was great. To be honest, the soundtrack was the best part of the movie. I don't care to see the movie again but i bought the soundtrack the day after I saw the movie. And there are continuation discs that follow. If I were you, I would skip the movie and just get the music.
This was a fabulous premise based on lots of factual history. But the serious lack of character development left us not really liking or caring about any of the characters, especially the musicologist! She did not get any sympathy; she seems like she deserved his own black cloud. The songs were great to a point, but became repetitive after a while.
Visually beautiful with some fine music, this film otherwise has a fairly trite made-for-TV quality. The romance between two characters, which spans a cultural and educational divide, is simply NOT plausible. Of course, from early on we knew our persnickety heroine would lighten up, win over the locals, and find true love, but that doesn't make it any less woeful that the movie had to take such completely expected turns. This film had lots of promise, which makes it more of a shame that the promise was unrealized. Perhaps a nice under-the-blanket on a cold night freebie on cable, but I certainly wouldn't recommend paid rental or purchase. I'm sure the soundtrack is wonderful, though.
Weak tale of an evil warlock who is searching for a centuries old satanic Bible so that he can do Lucifer's bidding by undoing creation. Hot in pursuit all the way is a 17th Centruy bounty hunter named Redfern and his reluctant sidekick Kassandra. Sound like a load of bunkum? It is.<br /><br />This drivel from writer D.T. Twohy gets the superficial treatment it deserves from director Steve Miner (who helmed that romantic nonsense "Forever Young"). Twohy obviously knows nothing about true evil.<br /><br />Julian Sands just flies around and cackles, trying to look evil, while Richard E. Grant succeeds only in wasting his rich talent. Lori Singer's career also took a nosedive with this one.<br /><br />Special effects crew has some fun, and Jerry Goldsmith provides a score superior to its subject matter.
You've got to watch this movie! It is so bad it actually is great.<br /><br />You've got your crazy but gutsy captain who of course is having an affair with his worn out used to be gorgeous copilot. And of course the mid air collision occurs when the captain's enemy and rivalis along for the ride to geYou've got your ex Vietnam Vet who is can't handle the pressure of another mid air collision and crash landing. Then you've got your old crazy Army Air corp buddy who is flying the chase plane and trying to well I can't tell you what he's trying to do. The plane keeps going up, up and well and then you've got your greedy and immoral corporate engineer and then you've got your Ice Station Zebra cold and then Lucky saves the bad guy from drowing so they can land the plane! aND IT DOESN'T END --- IT JUST GOES ON AND ON! You've got to watch this. It's great! YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING! DID THEY ACTUALLY SHOW THIS ON COMMERCIAL TELEVISION AND HOW IT WAS EVER SHOWN ON CABLE.
Although I have rarely flown myself, I am keenly interested in aviation... and this film has added to the precious laughing stock in aviation cinema.<br /><br />1. Why is the captain doing the ground checks? Why does he even measure the oil levels in the engines? With turnaround times as low as 15 minutes in commercial aviation this is not a typical pre-flight check.<br /><br />2. WHY does the captain KICK against the aircraft tire? Strange kind of pressure check. Or anger management :-)<br /><br />3. The cockpit has a crew of 3. All large, western, two-engined jets built since the 1980ies have a crew of 2 people. Now try a guess at how old the movie script is.<br /><br />4. A helicopter manages to fly alongside the crippled airliner. Must be a fast one... and the captain's words to explain the "maneuver" to the passengers are indeed hilarious ones!<br /><br />5. With arrested elevator rudders it is always possible to lower the nose of the aircraft. It happens, for example, when any aircraft moves slower than the stall speed.<br /><br />6. The elevator rudders have hydraulic actuators. After the collision with the business plane it would, most probably, have severed the hydraulic lines and thus make them useless for steering, but it would NOT fix them in certain position.<br /><br />7. The fire in the aft galley was a stupid idea. It was designed to show that only gentlemen ask for the extinguisher and fight the fire, regardless of who was actually trained to do that – the flight attendant.<br /><br />8. At the time of collision, the aircraft's elevators would have been in a neutral position. The film could have ended here...<br /><br />9. The flight engineer (the third person in the cockpit) has three bars on his uniform. In reality, flight engineers have two.<br /><br />10. Why does the captain slash the cabin casing with an axe to examine the damage behind? I thought it would have been the flight engineer's duty, as he is already supposed to perform technical checks before and after flight.<br /><br />11. In any aircraft, there is no unused space. At least commercial airplanes cannot afford the luxury of a compartment that can be filled with tons of water.<br /><br />I could go on and on... but at last I laughed hysterically about how the screenwriters imagine aircraft disasters! Woooohooo! Most aircraft disasters happen in such a short time span that you simply cannot make 90-minute flicks out of them. But you can always fill 90 minutes with mind-boggling and insane crap, irrespective of the genre.
one of the worst films I have EVER seen, but extremely funny (not on purpose though). Every scene that contains anything to do with; aircraft, romance, script or acting is badly messed up.<br /><br />I recommend this film for all pilots, it´s so bad that you should burst into laughter at some point in the film (also see Airport 79:the Concorde, for the same reason).<br /><br />Anyone else, avoid this film like the plague (except for fans of B-movies, of course)<br /><br />enjoy
What a script, what a story, what a mess!
I actually saw this movie at a cinema. At the time, I was working shifts and went there during a matinée on a hot summer day when I couldn't sleep. The cinema was air-conditioned.<br /><br />It was an early multi-screen complex and I somehow got into the wrong venue. I had intended to doze through something else. But as things transpired, there would be no sleeping. Shortly after the wrong movie began, I was additionally disconcerted by a group of female cleaners who came in and used it as their social club. I was the only other person there, and it is a measure of the movie's appeal that they habitually expected the place to be empty and asked me if I minded their presence. I didn't.<br /><br />Within about half an hour, the cleaners' conversation proved to be more interesting than the entertainment I had paid for.<br /><br />This movie oozed out of the screen with the cheesiness of very stale mayonnaise. The kind that has little dark, hairy, tufts growing on the surface. I particularly remember my senses being assaulted by strident cords of music that would blare out with very little warning, and even less meaning. The cleaners provided an anticipatory cue by putting their fingers in their ears.<br /><br />It was about some city bird going to live in the sticks amongst a load a backwood folk, putting them straight but at the same time being taught a moral lesson or two herself. Like you do. A sort of 'journey of discovery'. There was a sententious smugness about the whole production. In particular, the leading actress had an irritating habit of staring at every hick with a kind of intense beatific compassion, as if she herself were the patron-saint of thickies.<br /><br />And I believe at some stage she wrote a book.<br /><br />Long before the end, I had become fascinated by one of the cleaner's hushed and breathy tails of sexual impropriety.<br /><br />One suspects that there are some to whom sitting quietly for a couple of hours and not having to think, constitutes a meditation. The best that I can say is that I would not want to share their salad.<br /><br />I have never seen this movie advertised as showing on television, which surprises me. It is just the sort of pap that is screened in the afternoon to punish the unemployed for not having jobs.<br /><br />If you ever work shifts, be sure to get into the right theatre. Or hope for some cleaning ladies.
This was an appallingly bad film! Ashley Rose Orr was horrible, she had none of Shirley Temple's charm AT ALL! Those ghastly smiles she would do when she scrunched up her piggy little eyes in a way that I think was 'supposed' to be cute and make the audience go - "aahhhh bless!" It just made me want to slap her. She must have simpered "oh my goodneth!" about a hundred times throughout the film. Also she could barely utter a sentence without accompanying it with a fake giggle. Horrible HORRIBLE film .. If I could rate it minus 10, I would. Don't waste your money on this piece of rubbish, go out and buy a genuine Shirley Temple film!
I am a huge Shirley Temple fan. When I saw this movie, it made me appreciate what a talented child Shirley actually was. Ashley Rose Orr made possibly the worst on-screen Shirley. Imagine an 11 year old playing Shirley Temple from the age of 5. That in itself is wrong. But getting her to 'mimick' Shirley's voice? And her singing is woeful. The dancing was good, I'll say that. As previous users have said, there was little dramatic scenes, nothing to make the story interesting. Not even Amelia Earhart... I would have liked to have seen more of the world wide phenomenon that Shirley Temple created. There was too much focus on the Wizard of Oz, when in reality, Shirley was just considered for Dorothy. The film portrays it as though it is the end of the world when she does not get the role. Shirley herself said that she is glad Judy Garland got to play her. For me the star of the show was the lady who played Gertrude Temple. Otherwise, stay away! For great Shirley Temple films, watch Heidi, Poor Little Rich Girl and Little Miss Broadway.
Did we all see the same movie??? I can't believe the raves some of the others are giving this really awful bio which, believe or not, was authorized by Shirley Temple herself, based on her book CHILD STAR. Gives me the feeling that some are awfully easy to please.<br /><br />First of all, ASHLEY ROSE ORR, whatever her modest talents are, in no way, shape or form even resembles Shirley Temple enough to be cast as her in this sort of straightforward biography of the world's most famous child star. She gives no indication of why or how this child was so revered except for trying her hardest to do a Shirley impersonation which never clicks on any level. None whatsoever.<br /><br />And that is the major handicap of the whole piece. But as if that isn't bad enough, any drama inherent in Shirley's story of her climb to almost overnight stardom has been completely white-washed with insipid writing peppered with occasional song and dance moments that don't even approximate what Shirley did (as for example, "The Codfish Ball" with Buddy Ebsen which was probably the high point of Shirley's choreographed dance routines).<br /><br />Simply putting a girl in a polka dot dress doesn't make her Shirley Temple. None of Shirley's own brand of charm, warmth and appeal is even remotely suggested. All we see on display is a pale imitation of the original proving, once and for all, that there was only one Shirley Temple.<br /><br />It's worthless to write anything further about this mess. None of the others are more than ordinary in lifeless roles. My advice for Shirley's fans is to read her book--or better still--watch her movies.<br /><br />This is the pits.
I didn't think this movie was very good at all. Basically they took a bunch of one-liners from various Shirley Temple movies, threw them together, and had Orr act like Shirley Temple acted on-screen. "Oh my goodness!" was said quite a number of times. If you are familiar with Shirley Temple movies, you will recognize several lines direct from her movies. The trouble is they have Orr saying these in Shirley's everyday life. In the end, what we get is a hodgepodge of re-created Shirley Temple movies, instead of any sort of real look into Shirley Temple's life. Save yourself the trouble and rent Shirley Temple movies, it's a lot better than watching Orr try and recreate Shirley's acting style.
This movie was awful! Ashley Rose Orr, while a talented tap dancer, and singer (actually a little better than Temple was in terms of the latter), is a terrible actress. She plays the character as the Shirley that we saw on screen in her movies whether she's playing her onscreen or offscreen persona. So what we get is an overly cutesy, and wholly unrealistic (not to mention uninteresting) portrait. If one wants to see that side of her, one can just rent one of her movies. The only bright light here is Connie Britton's portrayal of Gertrude Temple. I don't think it was terribly realistic, but at least it was well acted. Save yourself the trouble and rent The Poor Little Rich Girl.
This movie could have been a lot better than it was, if hadn't been a Disney Film. I thought that the young girl playing Shirley was all right, you could tell that she was really trying to do the job right. The teenage Shirley Temple wasn't right at all. I think that they should have spent last time on her childhood, the first hour should have been about the young Shirley, then the last hour should have been about the older Shirley. This was a boring movie, and not a good Shirley Temple story.
"Mame" is a disgrace to many things--to Lucille Ball, to a story which has been told better many times over, and to the musical genre altogether. Ms. Ball does not understand her character at all and she seems to be heavily sedated. Bea Arthur is good, but it is not enough. The production is very shoddy and cheap looking, the songs are sub-par, and nearly every joke misfires. Also, Lucy couldn't dance well, so the music had to be slowed down to a funerial pace. Avoid at all costs, but DO see the delightful "Auntie Mame."
Lucille Ball's version of "Mame" in my opinion is one of the worst performances ever saved to film. After seeing Lucy in her various sitcoms more than an astronomical number of times, I can tell you that I really love Lucy, however, this movie is a fiasco of unbelievably bad casting, music and dancing. Robert Preston is the only saving grace with a part tiny enough to miss if you blink. I don't know what she was thinking, and I can't imagine how she was advised by the studio or director, but I actually cringed watching this embarrassing performance. I could be really cruel and suggest watching it for a laugh, but it's too pitiful even to qualify for that. Don't waste your money or your time.
Up until around 1970 Lucille Ball was one great comedienne. She was such a perfect clown I only wish more people could have seen her with Bob Hope in "The Facts of Life" because she could do dry deadpan, too. as well as slapstick..<br /><br />Yep, Lucille Ball was wonderful . . . until "Mame."<br /><br />Trying to see Lucille Ball in "Mame" is physically impossible because there is so much Vaseline on the already filtered lenses that you'd need Windex to see Lucille Ball in some scenes. So even if you see Lucille Ball in "Mame," you can't really see Lucille Ball in "Mame". Which is a blessing.<br /><br />That's about the nicest thing I can say about "Mame," the movie of the musical of the movie of the play (this could go on, but it started with a perfectly funny book called "Auntie Mame"). Giving this a bad rap is like beating a sponge. So it does not matter that the music is croaked rather than sung. Most of the songs weren't much, anyway. There isn't any difference in the first three. "It's Today," "Open a New Window," and "We Need a Little Christmas" are all the same song. Celene Dion should do an album with them, they're so big and dull. The killer ballad "If He Walked Into My Life Today" needs a confident gorgeous voice (Edyie Gorme won a Grammy for doing it in 1967) that poor Lucille Ball did not possess when she made this movie. (True, Elaine Stritch can't carry a tune in a bucket, either, but at least Stritch can put over a song.)<br /><br />If you still feel your life is not going to be complete unless you see the movie musical "Mame," notice how there IS dancing in it, but whenever Lucy/Mame starts to do anything beyond a palsied shuffle the camera cuts away, returning right when the number is over and the star poses with the dancers. Again, it's just as well. Jane Connell got to reprise the role of pathetic Agnes Gooch after Lucille Ball had Madeline Kahn fired to ensure no comic originality would upstage the star. Connell is a stage performer who, like Carol Channing and Ethyl Merman, can't scale down her performances for films, so she joins Lucille Ball in being embarrassing, though for different reasons.<br /><br />The lavish gowns are by Theadora Van Runkle (Van Wrinkle?) and they provide the color missing in all but one of the cast. <br /><br />Bea Arthur as the actress Vera Charles, Mame's best friend, ignores everyone and does her own fun thing. If only she was in more scenes. She's too old for her role, too, but at least she didn't maim it.
I love Lucy, but this movie is so wretchedly bad that I was squirming in embarrassment for all concerned within the first ten minutes . . . and it just got worse from there. Lucille Ball's "singing" is downright painful and the attempts to make her appear more youthful through the use of soft focus had me reaching for my reading glasses. It's bombs like this that give bombs a bad name.
This is a terrible movie, and I'm not even sure why it's so terrible. It's ugly, for one, with that trendy 1970s visual style that maybe seemed like a good idea at the time but which now enables one to instantly recognize a film from that time period as being a 70s product. The film retains the story and songs that made the stage version of the musical such a hit, but the songs sound lifeless on screen. But mostly, the movie sucks because of the wan performance of Lucille Ball, who you'd think would be able to make something of this larger-than-life character if anyone could. She sleepwalks through the movie like a terrified actress choking on her opening night, and the film sinks with her. Even Bea Arthur, who I bet was hilarious in the best friend role onstage, can't breathe any life into this stinker.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs.<br /><br />Grade: D
Lucille Ball was a mighty power in television throughout the 1950s and 1960s, but she still made an occasional film, most notably THE LONG, LONG TRAILER and THE FACTS OF LIFE. Although her television career remained strong, as the 1970s began her movie career seemed to be winding down--but Ball was determined to have one last big screen fling, and the project she selected was the 1966 musical MAME.<br /><br />In many respects the role seemed tailor-made: based on the popular novel which gave rise to two different Broadway plays, Mame Dennis is a wacky, wildly uninhibited woman who "inherits" her orphaned nephew Patrick--and leads him on a wild tour of life's possibilities, bouncing from one comic spree to another. The music, which featured such songs as "Open a New Window" and "If He Walked Into My Life Today," was among Jerry Herman's best work. The supporting cast, which included Robert Preston and Bea Arthur, was the best of the best. Expectations were high; opening night fanfare was tremendous; the film was a disaster. Critics were aghast and audiences sat slack-jawed.<br /><br />No matter what hardcore Lucy fans may say, MAME is a fiasco, so much so that it is hard to know where to start. It is badly directed, badly filmed, badly performed, and there Lucille Ball is at the center of it all, unable to dance, unable to sing, and grinning like a waxworks dummy while incredibly bad choreography swirls around her. But the disaster is hardly of her making alone; the supporting cast fares no better. Bea Arthur and Jane Connell recreate their stage roles of Vera Charles and Agnes Gooch; the former is stagey, the latter is dismal. Robert Preston manages to sing with a smile, but he's pretty much on his own and clearly none too happy about it.<br /><br />The DVD brings the film from the VHS pan-and-scan release to widescreen, but that only means there's more awfulness to see. Everybody loves Lucy, but only the least critical fan could love Lucy's MAME; while I wouldn't say it's bad enough to make you want to gouge your eyes out, you may wish you had. Not recommended.<br /><br />GFT, Amazon Reviewer
Truly I Love Lucy as well...comedic genius yes.....MAME...NEVER...she was as ridiculous as Mame...as was the film adaptation of Divine Secrets of the Ya Ya sisterhood. Both just completely missed the point. Roslind Russell was, is and always will be the first and only Mame. Perhaps as a young starlet, Ball could have pulled off a role like this, where her inherent beauty and youth could have carried her through...but this seemed a desperate attempt from an aged star to show that she was still viable in the field. The reason there are sooo many more supporters of Russell's version (aside from the fact that you cant improve upon the original) is that Russell had presence, she absorbs every scene, whereas Lucille Ball might as well be a pattern on the wallpaper in Mame for all the attention she commands in the role.
This movie was so awful, so boring, so badly miscast -- it took a lot of work to make what should have been a sure thing into such a travesty. I love Lucille Ball, but she absolutely stunk in this movie. Too old, couldn't sing, sounded like a truck dumping gravel even when NOT singing -- and the biggest sin of all -- SHE WASN'T FUNNY. EVEN A LITTLE. The studio shot themselves in the foot with this one, and for ruining what should have been a fabulous screen version of a fabulous stage musical, some other body parts deserve to have been wounded as well -- or perhaps they were already lacking those parts. That might explain it. But for Lucy to think she was right for a part that required SINGING -- well, that's the saddest thing of all. It's a very good thing to know your limitations. Even a legend can't come out of a stinker like this and still smell like a rose.
To begin with, I really love Lucy. Her TV show still makes me laugh. She was one of the greatest comedians who ever lived, right up there with Chaplin and Keaton. But, her performance in this movie is disappointing. She was too old, and the gauze filters on the lens make her look like a London fog refugee. She couldn't sing, and her voice was so froggy that she croaked through every song. Her dancing days were long in the past. Just because you are a Lucy fan, don't gloss over this mistaken, sad performance and sing it's praises. I prefer to remember Lucy in her wonderful TV series(I Love Lucy) and to draw the curtain of charity over the terrible mess of a movie called "Mame".
Lucille Ball cannot sing or act or dance. This makes the quality of her performance in MAME all the more dreadful. She's not allowed to do the low-brow slapstick that made her a hit on TV so she has to rely on building a character. Unfortunately, Ms. Ball never learned that skill as none of the tender moments have any warmth. How does she really feel about Patrick or Beau? We never really believe the words she says. That vacant stare of Ms. Ball is suppose to convince us she is emoting but there is no chemistry between her and Bruce Davidson, Robert Preston or Bea Arthur at all. For this reason every scene she's in is flat.<br /><br />Moreover, when Ms. Ball opens her mouth to sing we are immediately made aware of the reason why the studios dubbed her voice for every other musical she starred in earlier in her career. It was stated that she demanded her voice be used so this is a mistake of ego as well as leadership. It is made worse when she is singing in voice-over and she has to "act the moment" without words. Whoever thought that would work forgot who was playing Mame.<br /><br />I understand that Rosalind Russell did the role on stage and in the film AUNTIE MAME. Also, I am aware that Angela Lansbury won a Tony for her performance in the original 1966 Broadway musical. Neither of these women were known for their singing voices, but both could have pulled this off better than Lucille Ball. Why they went with her is the worst in blatant miscasting.<br /><br />The only person that gets out unscathed is Bea Arthur. She's big and wonderful, catty and common in all the right amounts. Unfortunately, you keep waiting for this movie to take off and invite you to join in on the fun. But the film never does and you can't. No one besides Bea Arthur appears to be having any fun.<br /><br />An additional bad review goes to director Gene Saks. Saks is known as an award-winning director of musicals and comedies for stage and screen, including the Broadway musical this film is based on. None of that skill and expertise is of aid here. The poor editing and storytelling quailty in this movie is beneath a director of his caliber. That glaring error in the execution of the movie is not the fault of Ms. Ball.
I am a big fan of "Auntie Mame" with Rosalind Russell. She really was the perfect actress to play that character.<br /><br />I've heard Angela Lansbury was very good on stage in "Mame" but it's hard to imagine anyone topping Rosalind Russell.<br /><br />Lucy was such a great comedienne that her comic bits salvaged her performance in this movie where I think she was miscast Really, they should have dubbed her singing voice - hearing these songs sung at a faster tempo and with strong voices really changes the whole effect. <br /><br />I just saw the stage revival in Washington D.C. and I think Christine Baranski was very good as Mame, Harriet Harris - the nasty chain smoking agent on Frasier - played Vera and she was particularly good.<br /><br />Both would be good casting for a TV movie of this show. Maybe if that production makes it to Broadway they'll consider filming it.<br /><br />Also I think Tracy Ullman would be good as Agnes.
Who the heck had the "bright"(?) idea of casting Lucille Ball in this film??? It should have been Angela Lansbury's baby all the way. At the very least Lucy should have had her singing dubbed. <br /><br />There is some compensation in the fact that Jerry Herman's score is pretty well kept intact except for "That's How Young I Feel", and we do get performances by the original Broadway cast members Jane Connell and Bea Arthur. <br /><br />I suppose Robert Preston had to be given a song, hence the inferior "Loving You". <br /><br />Overall, I think in this one the wrong redhead was cast.
In 1967 I saw an outstanding Musical at the Wintergarden in New York City where Angela Lansbury lite the stage as Mame. But did Hollywood give her the lead ???? No Lucille Ball great as Lucy was given the role. She killed the film. What a mistake There was no chemistry as there was on the stage Bea Arthur and Angela what a twosome when they sang.. It is too bad a producer does not put these two together even today
Some good set design. Good songs, though like the other guy said they aren't performed with much energy. Bea Arthur, trying her damndest to do something with the material, had an occasional good one-liner as Mame's friend Vera and helped move the song "Bosom Buddies" along. Other than that, there's nothing here that's worth your time. Slow pacing, incredibly bad cinemetography, not very good singing (except from Robert Preston), an awful script, bad acting (except from Bea), and a horrible lead actress. Who thought Lucille Ball would be good as the classy, life-loving Mame? The heads over at Warner Bros. were no doubt on crack when they decided to not use Angela Lansbury, who had done it so well on Broadway, and instead use Ball, who wasn't nearly as funny by then as she was 20 years earlier, couldn't act the part "the right way" at all, and used a painful croak as an excuse for singing. Even if (perhaps because) making the movie was painful for her to make and even if she financed it, she just isn't Mame. Auntie Mame is such a better film and the soundtrack of the Broadway musical with Lansbury sounds great. For the most part, there's nothing here that's great, engaging, or interesting at all. Forget it, unless you're a huge Lucy fan who thinks she could do no wrong. Hopefully after seeing this you'll realize she was only human.
Lucille Ball tries to look 30 years younger than she actually was in this poor excuse for a musical.<br /><br />The movie features some of the worst choreography ever seen laced with the constant threat that Lucy might break into song with her bourbon voice at any moment. Lucy's total lack of talent as a singer and dancer sinks the film before it can begin and aside from die-hard Lucy fans, no one is likely to fancy it very much. Bad costumes and cheesy set designs don't help. Further proof that Lucy wasn't good at anything except making stupid faces.<br /><br />Directed by Gene Saks.
Well, in all honesty it's beyond the boundaries of stupid, but "Killer Pussy" is still one insanely entertaining little flick. No plot, tons of oiled up cha-chas, cheesy effects, and a penis eating monster! What's not to love?! Pretty much - a couple of explorers find this creature that likes to nestle itself within a woman's beef curtains until a schwang is unfortunately... ah, thrust into its mouth. It finds it's host who is later discovered frozen in a deserted house by a group of moronic guys and their equally brainless, slut girlfriends whose van breaks down. The creature jumps from each girl as they all fornicate like drunken rabbits... There's some cheap gore, girl-on-girl "blood wrestling", KY Jelly vomit, sock-puppet monsters and lots of soft-core sex. Ridiculous but a cool waste of time...
My wife and I saw every episode in this series and loved it. However, the series was cut short without a final episode by the producers of the show. It ended with a typical end-the-season cliff hanger leaving it's fans feeling cheated. A waste of great writing and acting.
***SPOILERS*** A hot and sexy Linda Blair as the Witch Amelia Reynolds is very upset with her friend and rival Witch across town Erica Barens, Julie Strain. Amelia getting her husband Hal, Edward Albert, to get a promotion at his job at the Giger & Greengrass law-firm over the more deserving Larry Barnes, Larry Poindexter, who happens to be married to Erica has her cast a spell on Hal causing him to lose control of his car and end up almost killing himself.<br /><br />Larry finding out about Erica's attempt on his best friend Larry's life has a violent fight with her causing Erica to fall from the balcony to her death. It's when Larry goes back to his ex-wife Carol, Rochelle Sanson, that things begin to really heat up, emotional and sexually. The wicked Amelia tries to have the dead spirit of Erica take over Carol's body and end up murdering Larry who she holds as being responsible for her husband Hal's injury that left him permanently confined to a wheelchair.<br /><br />Not much of a story but lot's of cheese and soft-core action with poor Larry getting manipulated by Amelia through the resurrection of Erica who plans to kill him the first chance he turns his back on her. Amelia is a bit whacked out herself not exactly knowing who is and who isn't a threat to her. Amelia even gets her poor and innocent gardener Stan, Michael Parks to first lose him family in a bloody house invasion break-in, then his mind, by being accused by the police as being the murderer, and finally is life, by getting blasted by Ameila herself. As he's made to runs into the Reynolds' house, under her control, as mad as a hatter trying to murder both her and the crippled Hal. <br /><br />Larry Parks looked and acted so weird that you had the feeling that he accidentally walked onto the set of "Sorceress" and ended up being in the cast playing his part as Stan. Without the help or benefit of a script he improvised his way through and then slowly realized just how god-awful bad the movie really is. Stan getting killed off early in the film was a big plus for him since he didn't have to suffer,like those of us watching, through the entire brainless and mind-numbing movie.<br /><br />It becomes evident to you as well as it did to the makers of "Sorceress" that all this shenanigan's on the screen has to come to some kind of hopeful and successful conclusion and a trick ending is put in to finally end the movie. The ending is about the best thing, besides Miss Blair and the rest of the very well-endowed woman cast, that one can say about the film.
I'm just throwing in this review to show that I'm not crazy -- I like a lot of Wynorski's work -- Deathstalker 2, Chopping Mall, Against the Law are fast-paced and highly enjoyable -- just to prove I'm not blind, I have to mention this, along with some Shannon Tweed "Body Chemistry 3 or 4 or something", are the lousy ones -- I've got nothing against drawn-out sex sequences, but Julie Strain's breasts are so unnatural looking you can't help but stare at them - which may be the desired effect but I didn't enjoy staring at them -- and several members of this cast seem depressed or disinterested -- The "erotic thriller" was the worst thing to happen to low-budget flicks ever, and thank God that their day has more-or-less done.
The female cast of this movie is terrific: you've got Linda Blair (maturing nicely), Julie Strain (who doesn't get too many speaking lines - that's a good thing), Rochelle Swanson (equally convincing as a sweet innocent girl or as an evil possessed girl), Toni Naples, and the most beautiful of them all IMO, the simply stunning Kristina Ducati (how the goofy male lead, Larry Poindexter, deserved to get sexually involved with any of these women remains a mystery). However, beyond the chance to watch these beautiful and in some cases talented women, the movie has little to offer. The plot is disjointed and doesn't really get going until the last 15 minutes or so; and when Wynorski finally manages to create some suspense, a ludicrous "twist" ending comes and ruins everything. (*1/2)
This is very much overrated. I guess it carries some nostalgic value for many people. It has its moments, but every scene is heavily overacted and the plot is quite shallow. With this cast it could have been much better.
The Midnight Hour AKA: Tell Me No Lies (as found in some video stores) can be judged in two different ways. One by it's Merritt as a movie, complete with a plot (no holes), good story and believable conclusion and the other is by the skin flick it is trying to be. This is certainly no more than a B-Movie skin flick, whose sole purpose is to show every girl in the movie in an overly long sex scene at least once.<br /><br />If you try to rate this as a regular movie, then this is bottom of the line drivel. HUGE plot holes ruin whatever storyline it has going for it. For instance, if a co-worker is killed, would you call the police or head home and hit the hot tub? Judging this movie by it's skin content, it's watchable... barely. The girls, for the most part, are all beautiful but quite obviously enhanced. The sex scenes were all long and overdone, though, and that made it's only redeeming quality a little boring.<br /><br />Amber Smith could probably be a decent actress if she wanted. She was not as horrible as you could imagine or maybe next to the rest of the cast, she seemed a lot better than she was.<br /><br />Zoe Anderson, who played Detective Arraya, should not even be watching a movie, much less acting in one. She looked good though, so we know why she was there.<br /><br />Overall, I would not really recommend this to anyone. Even if you're looking for a good skin flick, there are much better one's out there. I rate this 4 out of 10
I had heard about this movie through a friend, it was supposed to be a thriller, but what I watched wasn't a "thriller". It was more like a weak attempt at one. Amber Smith was a bright spot-that may be giving her too much credit. The scenes were she was in bed with actress Erika Michels were also lame. The two actresses did not seem to click with each other at all. Amber Smith was way out of this gal's league, and it definitely showed on camera. She did not seem into those scenes at all. I was disappointed because a friend of mine-guy of course-had pumped this movie up to be something "great", but it was actually more like watching dime store porn.
I ran across Yvette McClendon in a film at the Los Angeles Film Festival and thought she was a doll. After writing my review of her film there, I wanted to see more of her! Found this movie, it was pretty bad. Not her fault, she is only in the first few minutes where she is obviously being the person to pull you in to watch this bad movie. BAD directing. Scenes are looped over and over, with all the actresses. Amber Smith has a very bad breast job yet the other actresses looked pretty good. I really like Yvette but, this was obviously a bad choice of hers. I can't believe I rented this trash to look for her. I hope to find her other movies.
It's hard to believe a movie can be this bad, but you live and learn. What's more amazing is the fact that the people who put this thing together likely had college educations. Meanwhile, the fruit of their labor bares the appearance of something a group of five eighth graders may have come up with. On the bright side, (if there is one) the soundtrack has some nice moments, which is another reason to question how the rest of the film can be so hideously bad.
I rarely shut a movie off after the first 10 minutes but that is what I did with this one. What turned me off was it was so obvious that the only purpose of this movie was to expose as much skin of as many B actresses as possible, and nothing else really matters.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong; I like pretty actresses and sex scenes, and sexploitation movies have their own scale of merits, but this director does nothing else right.<br /><br />For example, take the scene where the two cops (of course one guy one gal and OF COURSE there is all this supposedly witty banter between them) are talking over while standing over the first dead body. The camera pans between them for each line, (there's more than one screen-width between them!) and you end up wondering whether you're seasick from that or the clueless dialog.<br /><br />Well, it MIGHT have gotten better after the first 10 minutes, but I wouldn't know. I declined the sucker bet and found something better to do.
Only if you are crazy about Amber Smith should you see this. Besides her svelte body there is pretty much nothing in terms of cinematic value. She even has a lesbian scene in this one. My guess is she is trying to metamorphize into those late night scream queens ala Shannon Tweed and Julie Strain.
1st watched 6/21/2001 - 2 out of 10(Dir-Emmanuel Itier): Pretty much worthless supposed thriller that spends more time drawing us into sexual encounters with and without the star 'Amber Smith.' It tries to wrap a story around the sex scenes but as usual with these types of movies it is not done very well. I was so bored with this movie that I actually fast-forwarded thru the ending to get it over with. The video version I watched was called 'Tell Me No Lies.'
Dare Rudd (John Wayne) and sidekick Dink Hooley (Syd Saylor) are itinerant cowpunchers who can't seem to stay in one place very long. In "Helltown", the boys are headed to Montana, where they meet up with Rudd's cousin Tom Fillmore (Johnny Mack Brown), who offers them a job. It's a hoot to see the boys wearing aprons as they start out as cooks with the herd, although Dare becomes self conscious when Miss Judith (Marsha Hunt) rides into camp. Judy is Tom's girl, but the attraction between her and Dare is evident early on.<br /><br />Fillmore has a cattle herd to move, and promotes Dare to running the drive, partly to prove to Judy that he may not be up to the task. Meanwhile, bad guy Bart Hammond (Monte Blue) has his eyes on Fillmore's cattle, but when his henchmen fail to rustle the herd, he figures it's easier to win the money that Dare was paid at the end of the trail. Conning Dare into a rigged card game with his man Brady (James Craig), Dare's money begins to evaporate hand after hand. It's only when Dare fails to show up back at Fillmore's ranch that Tom goes out to find his cousin. Exposing the cheats, Tom, Dare and Dink high tail it before the bad guys can get their revenge.<br /><br />"Helltown", also known as "Born to the West", was released in 1937 by Favorite Films Corporation, a couple of years after Wayne's series of Westerns for Lone Star Productions. It only slightly alters the Lone Star formula; Wayne does get the girl at the end of the film, but here he was trying. There's a great runaway horse scene where Wayne rescues Marsha Hunt, in which Johnny Mack Brown's horse does a complete somersault spill. Syd Saylor does a nice job as the comic relief pal, doing his best to sell lightning rods to unsuspecting victims. He replaces familiar faces George "Gabby" Hayes and Yakima Canutt here, staples of the Lone Star films. John Wayne's charisma is beginning to develop here, preparing him for the leap to super star status that he eventually achieved. <br /><br />"Helltown" was based on a novel by legendary Western author Zane Grey. If you're looking for more films based on Grey's stories, try "Fighting Caravans" with Gary Cooper, "The Light of Western Stars" with Victor Jory, "Drift Fence" with Buster Crabbe, and "Heritage of the Desert" with Randolph Scott.
It is high time that American critics and fans alike start to debunk their unquestioned, sloppy veneration of films like Sergio Leone's 'Once Upon a Time in America'. The checkered history of this opulent film (and the grand, fanciful myth associated with it's production and many versions) belies its mediocrity on a narrative level. The film lurches backward and forward in fits and starts, its central figures adrift and seemingly out of place surrounded by the ersatz decadence of towering sets, the minutia of production detail and the, by 1984, cliche'd but gorgeous cinematographic confection on offer to the audience. The plot's time frame is confusing, gimmicky and laboured, leading some critics to imagine the Noodles figure's opium binging to be the antecedent of some future 'dream reality' as well as the sepia-toned remembrances. This ham handed, overly fan boy-apologetic interpretation glosses over the glaring narrative irregularities on display. Even at this full (?) running time, figures appear and disappear with alarming suddenness: the Deborah character is fleetingly established in child form, a cold and unattainable 'trophy' female, not even hinting at the gravity with which she will re-establish her relationship with a post-prison Noodles, the said re-union henceforth rings completely false. The deadening pace is somewhat to blame, certain sequences drag along stagnantly for far too long, signifying very little, hinting at a director with so little restraint and narrative economy that he often feels obligated to usurp every iota of screen time possible in order to show off his production, fatal for a film that contains figures so sullen and aloof. The trajectory of the figures' lives is presented to us as a microcosm mirroring the historical trajectory of America's teens through prohibition and its spoils, ending with the (arguable) ruin of its moribund central figures (save Deborah- a make up department fumble or intentional one wonders). This notion is commonplace, even banal. The cast of characters as imagined in the one note script (written by seven Italians no less) are flatly and awkwardly played by all but the younger actors, who at least venture a few variant facial expressions. This is understandable given the almost unworkable material. Some critics state that the characters may seem so impenetrably self-absorbed, but actively seek their own goals, assuming the compliance of others (e.g. when Noodles gets out of prison, Max picks him up and offers him a hooker without asking him whether or not this is what he desires and later makes deals assuming Noodles will comply). This explanation of their abrupt, abrasive dispositions is unsatisfactorily extraneous and merely serves to highlight the complicated ends the films unwavering supporters will go to to defend their positions regarding a film unfortunately short on sense. Although Ennio Morricone's score is much revered, it is undeniably schmaltzy and repetitive, it gushes with an emotional redolence that the scenes themselves, many violent, just do not warrant. At points it is questionable whether or not Morricone was watching the same film I was so incongruous is his work. As a paean to American Filmmaking, it succeeds in terms of mood (helped by a few strokes of masterful editing segueing between time periods) and visuals (not helped by said score) but lacks narrative cohesion and fluidity.
With such a promising cast and a director that I have heard great things about, I was utterly disappointed by this film. It started off with signs of a great epic gangster tale and turned into a completely muddled mess with many unanswered questions and some completely ridiculous and pointless scenes.(and yes I did watch the full length version). I love Robert DeNiro and as usual he did a fine acting job, but in all his other gangster films, no matter how many people he kills, I always still had respect for his character, but in this movie he was a lowlife drug-addict, rapist with no care for anyone but himself. Also, James Woods, another fine actor, had some completely ridiculous scenes written for him. I thought the parts where Robert DeNiro called him crazy and he flipped out came completely out of left-field and towards the end the writers just throw in this random comment about how his father died in a nut house and that's why James Woods didn't like being called crazy. So much was left undeveloped in this movie. Also, we never find out who the men are in the beginning that are trying to kill Noodles and we never find out more about Joe Pesci's character. It seems that the writers threw together about five different stories and never fully explained any of them. The only redeeming quality of the film was the story when the characters were young kids. The story ran smoothly in this part of the movie and the kids did a great acting job. Overall, I was thoroughly disappointed by this movie and I don't see how anyone can even compare this to the Godfather 1 and 2, or even Goodfellas. I am sad that I wasted four hours of my life watching this film
You could see the final outcome from a mile away.All the signs were there....the prom,the liquor,the fast ride,the distraction of the females.... A good commercial for seatbelt usage,and later model vehicles that sit the passengers further back from the windshield.Also,the ending is rather anti climatic,as the Ford Econoline van barely suffers a crease across its nose after hitting a bridge abuttment at high speed (highly unlikely).More damage to the van would have made it a little more believable.And why do these films always take place during/after a prom? Is it a case of once you survive the prom,you will be good for life? More than anything else,it shows the lack of policing the prom for liquor,and not keeping tabs on the MINORs who are leaving the dance for a joyride.
The film listed here as having been made in 1980 is not the film which is available from Something Weird Video in their "Driver's Ed Scare Films Vol. 5". For one thing the 1980 version is in color. SWV has on this disc an earlier version (1972) of the film made in b&w for WLWT television Channel 5 in Cincinnati. Either way this film is notorious. However, unlike most other driver's ed films, this was intended for television broadcast and viewing by the general public. Thus the level of carnage has been ratcheted down. It's still a pretty grim exercise in exploitation of bloody death for a purported educational intent. I live in the Cincinnati area and I remember this thing being shown every year around prom time on Channel 5. If you're looking for one film that demonstrates the tone of this uniquely American film phenomenon, "The Last Prom" is pretty typical - morose, hyperbolic, extremely didactic, heavy on melodrama. Whether it really affected any teenager's driving at all is anyone's guess.
This Harold Lloyd short wasn't really much; not one of his funnier efforts. Of course, I never see bratty kids as anything hilarious. That's what the bulk of this story is, Harold and his wife, Mildred Davis, babysitting his in-laws two young kids. One is a baby who is constantly crying and the other is a four-year-old terror who does everything but demolish the house. Letting the kid create havoc over and over was not entertaining to me.<br /><br />The best part was the last four or five minutes when the couple thinks that this big goon (Noah Young) is burglarizing their house. Half the time it's the pet cat scaring the couple, but overall, that segment is fun with some good sight gags, reminding me of another Lloyd short, "Haunted Spooks."<br /><br />However, the good ending doesn't save the whole picture, which I probably wouldn't watch again. Lloyd has done too many other good things to waste even 25 minutes on this one again. It just isn't that funny.
So pathetic its not even funny. From the first scene in the movie I knew I was in for a bad time. Thank goodness I only saw this movie on tv. The story line was terrible, not to mention the acting. It was horrid. Very unreal and unusual things happened in this move such as. The lady sticks a whip under the door and whips the guy a little and he just hands over the keys. I'm like, GET REAL. The creators lousy attempt to make a futuristic city even deepened my dislike for the film. To tell you the truth the only good thing in this movie at all was the fighting, which was in itself pretty lame. All I could ask myself when watching this movie was "when is it gonna go off!"
Everybody loves to see a really bad movie sometime. You watch it, take a good laughs and forget it in the next half hour. But this is not one of those. It's the worst thing that will appear in front of your eyes for a while.<br /><br />I would like to see someone to take responsibility for Dante - he's really the most stupid villain you can think of: a guy in leather pants that speaks with a voice over and has a victory laugh like a 50's Dracula. How can someone came up with this guy?? And the hero..."The Dragon" or whatever...my cereals box has better acting skills than him (maybe than all of them), it's unbelievable. But the worst are the fighting scenes where you would think there could be something in it. They're so lame, it's beyond any kind of description. There's no shame, i just can't believe how this movie was allowed by any studio. But i'm just thrilled it was. Watching this is a self-mutilating pleasure. See this only if you're in a movie quest for pain, and in that case, this one is a sure winner.
I actually liked this movie. Sure, the acting was flat, there was no plot, and the villain was the lamest that i've seen. Michael Bernardo as Dante is worth laughs in his own right, with an incredibly funny catchphrase and evil laugh. But its worth seeing, just for the WORST explosion you will ever see outside of the Power Rangers TV series. You'll know it when you see it. Honestly, this movie must have the budget of a low grade porno. I almost stopped watching after an hour, but i recommend watching through the whole thing; at the very least, there's plenty of eye candy for all to enjoy. Recommended for viewers with a high tolerance to poor movies.
Why is it that virtual "x-rated video game" women can speak through their mouths but virtual fighting game champion Dante has to use a combination of telepathy and over dramatic facial expressions? I feel that either they needed to cast someone who looked more villain-like (Michael Bermardo's big brown doe eyes don't exactly strike fear in the hearts of well.. anyone except for maybe casting directors who consistently cast him as either a villain or a heroic 'bad boy'.) OR they needed to just let him use his real voice (and move his mouth), and maybe give him a costume that would not make him stick out like a sore thumb when walking down the street. (but of course this is the future and we must assume that bad fashion taste is considered the norm.)
If movies where virtual reality characters come to life and they are all either male tough guys or female eye candy sounds good to you, then perhaps this movie may not be a total waste of film. Needless to say, the overwhelming majority of people will find this to be an absolute bore, with little acting talent, and even less of a script. Yes, Athena Massey is nice to look at, but that is the only positive thing that I can say about this disaster.
I have watched this movie on and off since it started playing about 1 hour ago, and i have to say, thats an hour of my life i wasted and will not be getting back, The acting is crap and the scripts need a serious look at, and whoever wrote them needs to be slapped, perhaps the TV will explode and put me out of my misery..... The only good thing about this movie is that for guys and girls it has some good eye candy in it, though, most of which i wish would disappear, as far as the movie is concerned, the special effects as sh*t, Dante? who thinks a guy dressed in skin tight leather pants and half a leather jacket is scary, he looks more feminine than most of the women in this movie, the voice of Dante is pathetic, nobody finds it threatening or scary AT ALL..... please TV i beg you to blow up!!!!!!!!!!
This movie has got to be the worse movie i have ever seen. I only watched about a half an hour and i just shut it off. The cars in this movie look like two geo metro's front ends smashed together. This movie isn't even good for laughs. The only time i laughed was when Dante kept saying in funny voice, "Nobody can beat Dante, Muhwa hwaa." I said holy god and shut it off. Bad, Bad movie. 2/10
Don Wilson stars as a cop who enjoys the occasional virtual reality fighting game, however things go wrong when the people behind the game decide to take virtual reality to a new level by making real people from the video game, okay actually they make the cybersex models as prototype but the main bad guy from the video game awakens and starts killing people and now the only man who can beat the guy is Don Wilson, who in the mean time falls in love with the cybersex model. Actually with all things considered my biggest confusion was trying to understand if the people brought over from virtual reality land, were robots, human, cyborgs or just some type of unidentified computer program. It doesn't matter since this is all just an excuse to watch one of the worst actors ever butcher dialog as if he were running a deli. Don Wilson's complete lack of charisma is the film's biggest flaw since one just doesn't like the guy, he's too goody-goody, his voice is too high pitched and doesn't look very impressive in the action sequences. What saves this bore-fest from my lowest rating is Athenia Massey who looks super hot in high cut outfits and who gets occasionally naked. Also on-board is Loren Avedon (A good martial artist), Stella Stevens and Michael Dorn as the main voice of the bad guy but their efforts are in vain as they are all concealed by the very bad acting of Wilson. Another flaw which is the film's biggest mistake is a lack of action, as we are asked to watch the story unfold but aside from Massey's nudity and maybe some unintentional amusements due to laughably unconvincing acting, there really is nothing of interest. This also extends to the action sequences in which are flatly choreographed, badly directed and completely drained of all possible excitement. Making this virtually unwatchable.<br /><br />* out of 4-(Bad)
First off, the initial concept of a lost fortune in gold bars discovered in a New Zealand lake, inside a downed World War 2 plane is a great opening. What follows is nothing but cartoon like drivel. Men chasing men, cars chasing men , helicopters chasing men, helicopters chasing boats, boats chasing boats, for the better part of an hour, the most boring nonsense, with absolutely no advancement to the story. Special mention must be made of the chop shop editing, as many scenes seem to have been spliced together in random order. The acting by all concerned is an embarrassment. One last thing, the picture quality and sound quality is so bad on this DVD that you will be appalled. - MERK
At the opposite end of the spectrum from RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is David Hemmings' utterly inferior adventure regarding the salvage of a World War II-era plane with a valuable cargo. Assets include beautiful New Zealand settings, Brian May's energetic music score and some dandy helicopter flying and jet boat chases. The bad, however, far outweighs the good. Donald Pleasence hams as perhaps never before; half of his dialog is almost unintelligible. George Peppard attempts an Australian (I think) accent, then gives it up halfway through. Lesley Ann Warren is at her most irritating. Ken Wahl is, well, Ken Wahl. The dialog is painful to hear and Hemmings' direction is largely inept. The script is not only obvious but terrible. Jokes fall flat, scenes carry no punch and continuity is virtually non-existent. According to the end credits, two men were killed piloting jet boats during the making of the film. What a waste.
Yeah, I know his character was supposed to be a drunk, and he may have been just acting goofy. But something tells this critic that Mr. Pleasence really was drinking a lot and was intoxicated during his scenes in the film. Basically everything he says is slurred and often unintelligible. Or maybe it was just the poor productions values... hard to say.<br /><br />Anyway, The Race for the Yankee Zephyr is a film that just doesn't work. That's a shame, too, since the film has a terrific opening and a generally interesting plot. Ultimitely the production values are just too low and the action just too sparse for this New Zealand adventure to deliver the goods. The story deals with a US war plane which is filled with gold, money, and medals, which crashes into a lake in New Zealand during WWII. The plane remains lost for about forty years or so until it somehow washes ashore and a drunk (Pleasence) literally stumbles onto it. At first he gathers up all the purple heart medals and tries to sell them in town, actually getting $75 apiece for them! Little does he know that once he sells them, the local jeweler gets on the phone and starts trying to track down info about the plane. Before you can blink, all of the attention brings a wealthy scumbag (Peppard) and his henchmen into town and they quickly try to force the old guy to give up the location of the plane since they know there is much more on it than just medals. The old drunk's business partner (Wahl) and his daughter (Warren) then race out to try and claim the fortune before the bad guys can get to it. The resulting action just isn't as fun as you'd hope it would be.<br /><br />The acting is rather awful, save for Pleasence. George Peppard tries to do some kind of (I guess) Austrailian accent, but it is hardly convincing. Lesley Ann Warren isn't too bad, but Ken Wahl is really bad. He's basically doing his best impression of Michael Pare on his worst day. And that's saying something. Hopefully he made enough money on this film to fix his front teeth which looked a bit crooked. I don't recall if he'd had them straightened by the time he was in Wiseguy. The rest of the cast are pretty untalented. Probably mostly locals who never did much else. I guess the biggest problems for me were the lack of action for much of the film, and the lack of danger. The villains are just too nice and goofy to be taken seriously. And honestly, there are NO helicopters in the film that look like the ones on the DVD cover. And none of the boats in the film have teeth painted on them, either.<br /><br />The film does have its strengths, though. The beginning which starts off as a newsreel and then becomes part of the story was a nice touch. Brian May's score sounds a little too much like the one in Mad Max 2, but he included a nice little march they play for Pleasence in some scenes. Sounds just like the one in the Great Escape! There are some neat helicopter stunts and a great boat chase that apparently killed three stunt men during filming. The scenery, despite the grainy look of the picture, is still quite beautiful. The thing you'll remember most is the drunken antics of Donald Pleasence, though. He was almost enough to save this film. Almost. 4 of 10 stars.<br /><br />The Hound.
This movie was bad but it was so bad that it may reach cult status in the distant future. A sort of film-noir meets Plan 9 From Outer Space. The story was, well, there wasn't actually a story. There is a place reserved for the Ed Woods and Russ Meyers of the world and this film proves it. "So bad it might be good" is the best way to describe it. I seriously doubt if this movie will be picked up by any legitimate distribution company therefore it is unlikely to see wide release.<br /><br />I will add that I expect to see more of actor Ron Carey. He made the best of what he had. The rest of the acting, if I can call it that, was quite forgettable. I have seen worse from big studios with vast budgets.
This movie wasted 2 hours of my time and just make me wanna scream: "LAME". Nicholas Stoller write the movie "Yes Man", but direct "this" maybe he should stick with writing.<br /><br />I am so disappointed because I heard all the great review. I was expecting something like knocked up. They say this is from the maker of "Knocked up"? why can't I see the resemblance? but this just felt like a shallow, overdone-theme kind of movie for me. I am so disappointed. Actually it's not bad if you consider it as your-average-chick-movie, but that character of the "band guy" just get on my nerves<br /><br />Maybe I was just not paying enough attention to the movie, but yeah they have some funny lines and scene, but i don't felt the originality. And the ending make the movie a little bit better. At least the ending is not some boring cliché one.
I gave this movie a chance only because it had very good reviews. After seeing the trailer I thought - what an unfunny movie full of clichés. But I decided to give it a shot because trailers often don't portray the movie very well. What a waste of time... The movie is worst than the trailer and after spending 2 hours watching it, I couldn't recall one single line that made me laugh. The funniest parts of the movie were the CSI parodies, but that also is pretty passé. I couldn't relate to any of the characters nor hope that they will be together, because I found them utterly stupid. The plot is extremely predictable and inconclusive. Unintelligent comedy for people who are either still in high school or feel that way mentally.
I endured this film just to satisfy my curiosity. It has to be one of the worst films I have ever sat through. I am amazed that this film currently has a 7.5 star rating. The acting is awful, script is non existent and the characters are so predictable and hollow. For a funny film I cannot remember even snickering once and fail to see how it could be defined as a comedy. Do yourself a favour and stay well away from this dross and check out some more worthy alternatives that would give you far greater pleasure. Check out films like the holiday or 27 dresses, these movies would offer a far more satisfying cinema experience. I sincerely hope more educated film goers vote negatively for this film, in the manner it genuinely deserves there bye giving it a more realistic rating that other film buffs could base their judgement upon. Come on folks let's be fair to everyone concerned and give those involved with this film a true reflection on what it is they have produced - an extremely mediocre picture that deserves to be forgotten very quickly.
This film is an abomination of all that is worthy in film making. The lead actor surprises his audience by not actually acting at all. We have to watch almost two hours of his bland soulless face. The jokes are all lame I never laughed once it was Saturday night there were 5 of us having a beer all up for a laugh and then we put this on and you could feel all the warmth and colour being drained from the room. The film ended and the mood was ruined so we all went our separate ways, ruined the night ! OK so pros and cons. Pros beautiful setting in Hawaii, looks good on bluray. Cons worst acting ever; you can tell everyone concerned is just thinking about payday. Predictable poor plot. Zero character development. Forced jokes which fall flat. Many shots of the guys penis which to be fair acts better than him and has more charisma. May all makers of this film hang their heads in shame and hold their flaccid manhoods cheap.
Sitting in a big wing chair with a huge book in his lap, the one and only Bela Lugosi looks into the camera and, in a dreadful vocal delivery that sounds as if he were mocking a reading of Shakespeare, intones sloooow-ly: "Man's constant groping of things unknown, drawing from the endless reaches of time, brings to light many startling things; (snicker); startling?, because they seem new (Lugosi's eyes now bulging, with raised eyebrows, and mouth sneering, he continues) but most are not new, the signs of the ages" (cue a visual of lightening, accompanied by the sound of thunder which then continues to rumble for an astonishing 86 seconds).<br /><br />And so begins what is arguably the worst film ever made. This "movie" almost defies description. Told in semi-docudrama style with an unseen narrator explaining the plot ... such as it is ... the story revolves around the vicissitudes of a man named Glen (Ed Wood, Jr.) who cross-dresses; hence the reference to Glenda. The film has no real structure. Instead, it consists mostly of a random assortment of vignettes that may ... or may not ... relate to Glen or to the cross-dressing motif. One long sequence consists of some unknown woman wriggling on a sofa, followed by a man whipping a woman in what we would today refer to as S&M.<br /><br />Then, at odd moments Bela reappears, for no apparent reason, and babbles more inane dialogue, like: "When he's wrong because he does right, and when he's right because he does wrong; pull the string, dance to that." Huh?<br /><br />About twenty percent of the film's visuals consist of stock footage, accompanied by a VO that relates to the story motif but not the visuals. Hence, we see stock footage of: bustling city streets, freeway traffic, a thunderous herd of buffalo, and a playground full of kids. But it gets worse. In a film about cross-dressing, we have 58 consecutive seconds of stock footage of a foundry furnace making hot steel, and 84 consecutive seconds of battle scenes from WWII.<br /><br />Even the simplest items are botched. In one scene we see a newspaper headline that reads "Man Nabbed Dressed as Girl". Underneath the headline, which has clearly been glued or pasted on, the article is about ... taxes. In one of my favorite scenes, an off-screen woman spouts out: "airplanes, why it's against the creator's will", in a voice that sounds like she's just inhaled helium.<br /><br />Except for the performance of Lyle Talbot, the acting is uniformly horrendous. Production design is cheap looking and drab; (but you gotta love that tacky wallpaper). The editing is sloppy. Most of the background music is suitable only for 1950 style elevators. The B&W cinematography has way too much contrast. And the costumes look like something that came from a thrift store.<br /><br />This film is so bad it makes "Plan 9 From Outer Space" look like "Citizen Kane", by comparison. I just don't know how one could make a film any worse than Ed Wood's "Glen Or Glenda". But thankfully, it's got Bela Lugosi in it. Every time he opened his mouth, and gazed into the camera with those big, bulging eyes, I about fell on the floor laughing.
I agree with one commentator who says that it's really impossible to review Glen or Glenda? objectively. If one does so, the film on its merits would have to be rated as fairly terrible given the hilarious, convoluted dialog, the generally mediocre to poor acting by the cast as well as the zero production values. Yet, such an assessment does not capture the absolutely riveting experience of watching this film as it unfolds. It isn't the fact that the subject of the film is transvestitism and that it was a controversial lifestyle choice in the 1950s. It's not even the plea for tolerance of people who embrace alternate life choices that fascinates except as an historic relic.<br /><br />No, what makes Glen or Glenda? still a fascinating film after 50 years is that Ed Wood laid his psyche bare in a way that so-called auteur directors like Hitchcock or Godard, despite their vastly superior talents, never did. In Glen or Glenda, Wood isn't afraid to reveal his own deeply conflicted feelings about being a transvestite despite the plea for tolerance for it through out the film. Indeed, the conclusion of the film suggest that Ed Wood's Glen character will be able to "kill" his Glenda female counterpart by transferring the feelings of love and affection Glen has for his feminine counterpart to his future wife, Barbara. The psychiatrist even reassures Glen and Barbara that as Glen makes that psychic transference, Glenda will disappear. So, while Wood could plead for tolerance of transvestites in general, he wasn't so sure of desiring it for himself.<br /><br />Moreover, Wood wasn't afraid of throwing everything else that crossed his mind on the screen. He did it with whatever stock footage he could get his hands on. If it didn't cohere, so what? What the viewer saw in Glen or Glenda especially was Ed Wood's imaginative world in all of its fundamental strangeness.<br /><br />The only comment I wish to add to my comment above is that my two-star rating is based solely on the objective evaluation criteria cited in the first paragraph. The oddly memeric effect the film has despite its technically atrocious qualities I don't think can be rated.
and generally speaking, you will eventually have to research this little gem. When describing I Changed My Sex, or Glen Or Glenda as it is better known, I must echo the thoughts of Andrew Smith, who so hit the nail on the head when he wrote "If you haven't seen any of Ed Wood's other movies, this one is a completely bewildering experience. If you have seen any of Ed Wood's movies, this is still completely bewildering". The film is both hilarious and tragic, yet it moves with a strange rhythm of its own that leaves one in no doubt that its author knows and means every word he is saying during its running length. Wood, bless him, had some of the loftiest ambitions as a director, wanting to promote peace, understanding, and even acceptance, in the 1950s of all times. When Tim Burton recreated a viewing of Glen Or Glenda by studio execs for his biopic, he showed the execs laughing and telling each other that this had to be a put-on. More than fifty years later, there are still people fighting just to be given the kind of respect that the "normal" take for granted, so I say it most certainly is not.<br /><br />No, the real comedy in Glen Or Glenda is the sheer ineptitude Wood displays in composing his message. Directors frequently use stock footage when they can find some that suits their purposes, and can be edited to fit with their own footage. Ed Wood used stock footage indiscriminately, and Tim Burton's biopic celebrated the fact with a scene in which Wood as played by Johnny Depp bets that he could make an entire film out of stock footage. Sadly, the real Ed Wood died before he had a chance, but Glen Or Glenda is the closest he ever came. The IMDb states that twenty percent of this sixty-something minute film is stock footage, and it is never difficult to guess which footage. Footage of busy highways, planes flying overhead, poor lightning effects, soldiers doing their thing, they're all used in a haphazard manner, sometimes repeatedly, and they often only have a loose connection to the story Wood is trying to tell. Had Wood been able to sit back and think about what he is trying to do for a while, there is no telling what kind of heights he could have achieved.<br /><br />Wood himself appears in the film as the titular character, a confused transvestite who imagines himself as a woman named Glenda. Aside from the daring manner in which he attempts to make his point, Wood makes one hideous woman. Having found myself out on the fringe of a society that thinks I am "disabled" and need to be "cured" myself, I honestly found myself hoping for the best outcome for Wood's character. In order to make his point, however, Wood weaves in short stories of two other transvestites. One of them takes the extreme step of enduring a sex change in order to become a woman, the other finds himself so disenfranchised that he fears being arrested again so much he commits suicide. The scary thing about this film is that if you edited out the transvestism and substituted such disenfranchisements as my position on the autistic spectrum or such things as schizophrenia, very little of the film would even need to be changed. That is how little society has learned since Ed Wood was a boy.<br /><br />The other significant personality in Glen Or Glenda is Bela Lugosi, whom Wood shoehorned into the film. Speculation varies upon Wood's motives, but the accepted theory is that Wood wanted to help revive Lugosi's career, and would do anything in order to achieve this. With the exception of taking his time to carefully construct a good film, that is. In Glen Or Glenda, Wood makes usage of Lugosi that was best described in Flying Saucers Over Hollywood as "bizarre". Lugosi plays a character billed as The Scientist, but comes off more as an omnipotent puppet master. People who have not seen Ed Wood films before the biopic will think Tim Burton made up the "beware of the big green dragon that sits on your doorstep" speech. If anything, Burton was being restrained about which bizarre speech to use in depicting Wood-ian dialogue. Nothing can prepare you for seeing the speeches in their original context, not even Criswell's hilarious ranting during Plan 9 From Outer Space.<br /><br />Observant types will also note the presence of Delores Fuller, Wood's girlfriend at the time. Again, Burton dramatises her reaction to seeing the script for the first time, whereas the film portrays her as being accepting and forward-thinking. I cannot help but feel that Burton's portrayal is more accurate, as Fuller looks extremely uncomfortable in her role. She only appears for about fifteen minutes, but her delivery seems so mechanical, so lifeless, that she somehow manages to seem less talented than her cast-mates, if such a thing is possible. Whether Wood's direction was better-focused in this case than usual is hard to determine, but if the ability of the support cast to leave the stars (with the obvious exception of Bela) in the dust is any guide, then it should come as no surprise that Fuller would only appear in a very small role within one other Wood film. That she went on to write a number of hit songs tells you she made the right decision to stay behind the camera. While Wood would appear before the camera again, it was never as more than a cameo, a walk-on, or a bit-part.<br /><br />I gave Glen Or Glenda a one out of ten. I generally only give this rating to films that are so bad they become entertaining as a result. Bold and well-intentioned as it was, Glen Or Glenda fits that description to a T.
"Glen or Glenda" was Edward D. Wood Jr's first attempt at directing a feature film. For this he chose a topic near and dear to his heart...transvestism, the "art" of a man wanting to dress in women's clothes. To his credit, Wood tried to deal with subject matter that was largely taboo in 1953. Unfortunately, Wood had neither the budget nor the know how to make the film.<br /><br />The story opens with a prologue by Bela Lugosi that makes little sense and then moves to the discovery of a dead transvestite Glen/Glenda (Daniel Davis aka Ed Wood). Inspector Warren (Lyle Talbot) with the help of psychiatrist Dr. Alton (Timothy Farrell) tries to understand why a man would want to live (and die) this way.<br /><br />Glen is engaged to Barbara (Dolores Fuller) and is reluctant to tell her of his obsession. And that's it. We see endless stock footage shots of anything from freeway traffic to soldiers landing on the beach, interspersed with shots of Wood walking down the same street dressed as either Glen or Glenda and looking longingly at women's clothes in a store window. Poor old Bela, who was down on his luck and befriended by Wood, keeps popping in throughout the story. I'm not 100% sure but I think Bela's scenes were added for his name value after the body of the movie was completed.<br /><br />To add to the confusion of Lugosi's narration, Farrell as Dr. Alton also provides off screen narration. Lugosi keeps saying, bevare, bevare...take care, take care, as well as, some gibberish about snakes and snails and puppy dog's tails.<br /><br />The story also deals with a transvestite who has a successful sex change operation and tries to explain the difference between that person and Wood's character(s). The dream sequences are laughable. A wedding sequence in which someone dressed as the devil appears is a good example. Wood also gives us an apparent rape scene with the actors(?) fully clothed but leaving little to the imagination, risqué for 1953.<br /><br />This film along with Wood's other "classics" were so bad that they became embraced by the public as cult classics over the years. For that reason, they have survived to this day.
Whew! What can one say about this bizarre, stupefying mock-u-mentory about Ed Wood's cross-dressing fantasies?? Well, one word that comes to mind is incoherent! Wood uses raw slabs of innocuous, incidental stock footage, and then builds a "story" around them - and what a story!! Wood himself stars as Glen, a regular Joe who just happens to enjoy lounging around in his fiancee's lingerie and sweaters. I think what Wood wanted was a plea for tolerance for all the Glens of this world by showing that Glen is just like all of us underneath, only in angora. Ummm...ok. But then, we get this very bizarre montage of some horny devil, a chick in bondage, some rude, pointing people, some moore stock footage, and finally an emaciated Bela Lugusi,playing some kind of twisted, invalid Puppetmaster. Lugosi is a howl, spouting out such rubbish as "Beeevaaare...the beeeg greeeen dragon that seeets at your doorstep: he eeeets leeetle boys, puppydog tails, and beeeeeg snails!" Um, ok, Bela... :=8/ There is a strange, twisted type of Wood logic going on here. Afterall, he does remind us that "7 out of 10 men wear hats, and 7 out of 10 men are bald". Hmmm, must be that alien/cross-dressing/habidashery cowspiracy-thang!! Glen or Glenda stars a plethora (whatever that is...) of reliable Wood schlock-actors, including Lyle Talbot, Delores Fuller, and Timothy Farrell, and Wood manages to coax every bit of wretched, amateurish non-talent out of each one. Everybody by now knows Bela's sad story: by the time Wood used him for this flic, he was probably jonesing for another fix and needed the moolah, but even for him this is depth heretofore unreached. One of the MooCow's favorite Wood mooments comes with the stock footage charging buffalo scene - it is sooo loopily demented!! The MooCow says "Puuuull de schtriiiiings", and git yer hooves on a copy of Glen or Glenda - you won't believe it! :
Let me say this about Edward D. Wood Jr. He had a passion for his work that I wish more people did have. If we all had the optimism and the commanding hope of Ed Wood, the world would probably be a much better place. Being familiar with Ed Wood's story and having seen the most wonderful biopic "Ed Wood" (1994) several times, I admire his boldness and his strives for the job he loved; I still admire his never-say-die attitude. He had a love for directing that I wish more people in modern-day Hollywood had.<br /><br />But that doesn't make his movies any more fun to watch. And "Glen or Glenda," his first and most confessional film, is probably his very worst.<br /><br />"Glen or Glenda" is a deadening cult movie about a cross-dresser named Glen (played by director/writer Ed Wood himself) who despite his love for his fiancée Barbara (Dolores Fuller), cannot seem to conquer his lust for transvestitism, in which he dresses in women's clothing and a wig and thus becomes...Glenda! Glen/Glenda's story is narrated by a doctor and he too is talked and watched over by a mysterious character called "The Scientist" played by veteran horror star Bela Lugosi. Oh, and there's also some sub-story about an Alan/Anne character who becomes a transsexual based on the Christine Jorgenson story, upon whom this movie originally titled "I Changed My Sex!" was previously to be based.<br /><br />Have I dropped your jaw yet? Well, as much as I want to warn you off this picture if you've never seen it, I would never tell a lie about a movie and there is not one word of falsehood in that plot synopsis I just gave you. Every thing in it is true. This is a movie about cross-dressers and transsexuals, a topic that does not sound very appealing to begin with and is not done in a very appealing manner. I'm sure that with a good screenplay, and a good director (it had neither) that "Glen or Glenda," despite the subject matter, could have been a very moving picture. It is a confessional movie on Wood's part, as he was a transvestite in real life as well as on screen. But once again, that does not make it a good movie...or a watchable one for that matter. "Glen or Glenda" is a jumbled, disorganized mess of a movie that sinks into new trenches in the realm of bad cinema. It makes no more sense than does its notoriously silly scene where Bela Lugosi screams "Pull the string!" over inexplicable footage of stampeding bison. The majority of the movie is narrated in a monotonous voice, reminding me of some very bad short informative films I've seen before. It's like one of those really bad short films expanded into a seventy-minute feature and twice as dull. We sit there for ages waiting for the plot that never comes. There is no real attempt to even build energy with the camera being locked down in one position for many grueling minutes and long stretches of time where nothing at all happens. The only moments that are worth anybody's time are those of Bela Lugosi who manages to bring some light into these dark trenches. I guess Lugosi is supposed to be like the deity of the film, but personally, I couldn't care less who or what he's supposed to be. I'll tell you what he was: A gifted actor who wound up making trash. But he and Wood were very good friends and liked working with each other, so good for him.<br /><br />I will always admire Edward D. Wood Jr. for his passion for the cinema, but I will never as long as I live admire his movies. A film critic once called Ed Wood's movies "innocent fun" but I think even that is questionable. Innocent? Yes. Fun? No, sir. And if "Citizen Kane" is the Mount Everest of the cinematic world, then "Glen or Glenda" is probably the Mariana Trench.
I saw the biopic of Ed Wood many years ago. Tim Burton payed loving homage to this extremely untalented but yet enthusiastic filmmaker.<br /><br />Then I saw Plan 9 and it actually tickled me to no end. A silly story, kind of bad production values but still entertaining and even funny.<br /><br />Then this. What can you make of it. Well, since Wood has been reported as being a cross-dresser it is startling to see a movie that deals with it like a cartoon. Yes, there are some stabs at teaching the audience something about the subject but mostly this is some kind of really twisted self-parody.<br /><br />One of it's problems is that it has a hundred points of view. On one hand it is a plea for tolerance. Another portrays transvestism as a disease. And finally, it tells the audience: "Okay, if you are schocked now, then wait until you see this!" The problem must have been that Wood had to compromise in order for the film to be made. You can almost sense it when you see the opening title from the producer: Personally supervised by... So, where are we. This is neither a serious subject movie or an all-out schocker.<br /><br />The entertainment value is practically nil. The wooden voice-over is mildly amusing but only because it sounds so misguided. This was made in the 50s though, so one can argue that was brave making a film that even mentioned the word transvestites. It all comes down to what the film itself is trying to advocate against. Schock. The rape scene, while mild is there simply to do that.<br /><br />So, sorry. This is a misfire but the discredit is not Wood's alone.
Considering the film’s reputation as truly the worst of the worst, I was looking forward to watching Wood’s Crappus Opus (my word); it’s not necessarily any more inept than the other Woods I’ve watched – however, being from the REEFER MADNESS (1938) school of film-making, GLEN OR GLENDA doesn’t come across as readily ‘enjoyable’ as his genre efforts.<br /><br />Also, this surely emerges as Horror legend Bela Lugosi’s nadir (his first of three ‘collaborations’ with the director): one wonders whether he was really aware what kind of film it was (considering the actor’s history of heavy medication and the sheer senselessness of his cameo). Besides, Lugosi’s idiosyncratic delivery is perhaps at its most awkward here…though Wood’s script is mostly to blame for this – given the impossible dialogue (with repeated nonsensical allusions to “puppy-dog tails” and “big fat snails”) he handed the ailing star! By the way, Wood himself plays the central role (under the pseudonym Daniel Davis) – and, being just as worthless in this area, proves to have been an all-round dog!; Dolores Fuller – his wife and co-star – was similarly untalented (she would also appear in JAIL BAIT [1954])…but, at the very least, the image where the latter finally lets Glen wear her angora sweater did give Tim Burton’s affectionate biopic ED WOOD (1994) its famous poster! <br /><br />Incidentally, the latter film features a presumably fictionalized meeting between Wood and Orson Welles – well, for all intents and purposes, GLEN OR GLENDA constitutes Ed Wood’s CITIZEN KANE (1941) given its gleeful propensity for gimmicky narrative techniques: in fact, the barest thread of plot is padded with stock footage galore (many of it irrelevant, such as the bewildering instances of S&M) and inane dream sequences (highlighted by the presence of an impish demon sporting outrageous bushy eyebrows that would make Martin Scorsese weep with envy)! The film’s sincere attempt at a plea for tolerance and psychological probing into the affliction/phenomenon of transvestism is, however, sabotaged at every turn by the sheer amateurishness of the approach.<br /><br />For what it’s worth, the edition I watched was the “Extended Re-issue Version” which included six minutes of ‘depraved’ footage (directed by W. Merle Connell) censored on original release! Furthermore, my copy went out-of-synch every so often (which forced me to rewind it slightly to get the audio back on track) – though, thankfully, this was the fault of the source conversion to DivX as opposed to the film itself.
Directed and written by the famous/infamous Edward D. Wood Jr, using a pseudonym(Daniel Davis)playing the lead role of Glen/Glenda. This is an almost radical documentary about transvestism; Wood himself being a transvestite with a fetish for angora sweaters. It seems miles of stock footage and an incoherent Bela Lugosi is used to stretch this odd and awkward film to 67 minutes. Police inspector(Lyle Talbot)seeks enlightenment from a psychiatrist, Dr. Alton(Timothy Farrell), to better understand the emotional and disposition of transvestites.<br /><br />Also in the cast: Delores Fuller, "Tommy" Hanes, Captain DeZita and Wood's sister Evelyn. Of note: Farrell also acts as narrator. And Fuller later helped write songs included in the Elvis Presley movies BLUE HAWAII, KISSIN' COUSINS & KID GALAHAD.
I just recently watched Ed Wood Jr.'s autobiographical movie Glen or Glenda for the first time after having heard so much about it for so many years. Nothing I had read or heard about this film could prepare me for what I saw. This has to be the most bizarre movie ever made. Stampeding buffalo, women in bondage, Satan prancing around and Bela Lugosi, rambling only as he can, "Bevare, Bevare....pull the string, pull the string...", it was totally insane. The acting was atrocious and the dialog was unintentionally hilarious, exactly what one would expect from an Ed Wood film. Having said all that, as horrible as this movie was, I have to give Wood credit...he was way ahead of his time. You have to remember that when this movie was made transvestites were not even discussed in public, much less the subject for a movie. I have read that Wood was a transvestite in real life, and I'm sure this movie was based on his own experiences. It was sad to see Bela Lugosi having to say the ridiculous lines he had to say for this film, but it was kind of Ed Wood Jr. to at least give Mr. Lugosi an acting job at a time in Bela's life when he was penniless and a drug addict and no one else in Hollywood would hire him. If you have never seen this film then you have to see it, especially if you are a fan of Ed Wood Jr.
As many know, this is the feature film debut of Edward D. Wood Jr. as as a writer/producer/director/actor. I have been a fan of Ed Wood for several years now. While I don't like this as much as some of his other films it was probably the largest insight that the cinematic going public gets of Wood during his life. Everybody knows that he was a transvestite. This film is about changing one's sex and how being a transvestite can create conflict in relationships with loved ones. This film is way ahead of its time in dealing with this subject matter and how it deals with it. However, the film still contains Wood's usual pitfalls of bad dialog, meaningless stock footage, and hokey special effects. Throw in Wood's usual overdose of Bela Lugosi hamming it up and you have Wood's first attempt at being a director.<br /><br />The plot is that a police inspector goes to a doctor after he discovers the body of a transvestite who committed suicide for advice on how to avoid further problems along these lines. The doctor tells him the story of Glen, who is also a transvestite. Glen wants to marry Barbara, but can't bring himself to tell her about his secret. He also tells the inspector about Alan who undergoes a sex change because he is really more suited to being a woman. Bela Lugosi plays a scientist who seems to add some kind of running commentary on what is going on (Lugosi's part really isn't well defined and proves to be most likely a vehicle for Wood to have a star in his film and Lugosi to get some cash).<br /><br />All in all, the movie shows the hallmarks of Wood's career. It was obviously shot on a very low budget and has quite a few things thrown in rather haphazardly. It definitely has the "it's so bad, it's good" feel to it. However, I do have to applaud Ed on his progressive thinking in making this film. Transvestitism and sex changes were not extremely open subjects in the early 50s. Wood took a big risk in making a film that portrays transvestites as people who are not sexual deviants and putting a more human face on cross-dressing.
Like other movies from the worst director ever, Ed Wood, this movie is very bad but because of that it is also very funny. May be not for everyone, but I laughed a lot. It is a strange thing when you enjoy a bad movie. How do you rate it? As a movie very low, as entertainment at least a little higher.<br /><br />The movie tries to explain what a transvestite is and it does this through a scientist (Bela Lugosi) and an inspector (Lyle Talbot) who talks to a doctor (Timothy Farrell) who knows about these things. The doctor tells the detective two stories and that is what we, and apparently the scientist, see. The doctor tels these stories because a dead transvestite is found, suicide, and because of a headline in the news paper about a sex-change. The first and longest story is about Glen (Ed Wood himself) who is in love and about to marry Barbara (Dolores Fuller) but he has never told her he like to dress as a woman, when he is named Glenda. The movie tells the same thing over and over again, especially the fact that a transvestite is not necessarily a homosexual. The movie almost says that being a transvestite is not a bad thing, but being homosexual is, since it keeps telling us the fact that a transvestite is not a homosexual. The second story is about a transvestite who really wants a sex-change and not just wants to dress up as a woman, but it is much shorter and less interesting.<br /><br />A couple of things make this movie very bad, and therefore laughable. How the story is presented is the first thing, the way the same things are told over and over again and the conclusion of it all are others. This is not where it ends. The acting is very bad, especially Dolores Fuller seems to be reading her lines directly from a little screen somewhere. Every thing she says is funny. The whole dialogue actually gave me quite some laughs.<br /><br />There is also a sequence where someone walks into a room. The door stays half open and we see something hanging on the wall, not completely straight. Then the door, in what seems to be the same shot although we know it is not, is a little less open and suddenly the thing on the wall hangs straight. Ed Wood didn't mind to leave this kind of continuity errors in his movie. May be a good thing, because basically it is just another laugh for the modern audience. I think you understand that it is a bad movie and I think there is a good chance you will laugh at the ridiculous mistakes as well.
There's a part of me that would like to give this movie a high rating. Considering that it was made in 1953, this is a very courageous movie about transvestites, tackling the issue fairly seriously and sympathetically (and offering the viewer a lot of information on the subject) and trying very hard not to stereotype. The movie clearly makes the point that transvestites are not homosexuals, and that aside from wearing women's clothing they lead a relatively normal life. It deals with the pain of not being accepted in society - the plot revolves around a police officer (Lyle Talbot) desperately trying to understand the issue because of the recent suicide of a transvestite. So, you have to give everyone involved with this movie credit for taking on such a controversial (in the context of 1953) subject.<br /><br />Having said all that, I'm also sorry to say that this movie is absolutely dreadful. In trying to portray Glen/Glenda's (Edward D. Wood) pain, the movie falls into silly (and at times surprisingly - again given the era - sensual) fantasies that make the story very hard to follow. The acting is wooden at best. None of the dialogue comes across as real; the actors look and sound like people reading speeches written by others. And - worst of all - there was no point to having Bela Lugosi in this movie. This was another of the increasingly embarrassing roles this poor man took on in the latter stages of his career. "Pull the strings; pull the strings," poor Lugosi's character (called The Spirit in the credits, but really coming across as more of a mad scientist) kept crying. And nothing he did really seemed to have much connection with the rest of the movie.<br /><br />For artistic merit, the movie doesn't really deserve much more than 1/10. However, for the courage involved in just putting it out, I'll give it a 3/10.
Bela Lugosi as God? Transvestites discussed in a movie in the straight-laced 1950s? By golly, this must be an Ed Wood film.<br /><br />Watching this movie, I felt a combination of guilt, pleasure, and nausea all at the same time. The story is about Glen (Ed Wood himself) and his cross-dressing alter-ego Glenda. Somehow, if this movie were made now, I could see Kevin Kline playing Glen/Glenda. Notice how all the cross-dressers' alter egos are versions of their male name (Glen/Glenda, Robert/Roberta, etc.). It attempts to sympathetically portray it as the mental disorder that it is, rather than as a graphic perversion. <br /><br />Somehow, Wood manages to sneak in bondage and S&M sequences into his initial story of Glen/Glenda. Along with these racy scenes, Satan himself shows up, obviously having a bad hair day. The dialog and pace are nonexistent, but the film is enjoyable in its context -- the weird world of Ed Wood.<br /><br />Sterno says put on your favorite lace panties for this one.
First of all, Ed Wood Jr. is not the worst director ever, Plan 9 From Outer Space not withstanding. Coleman Francis deserves that title. I present Exhibit B, Glen or Glenda.<br /><br />The first half of the movie consists of a surprisingly thoughtful exploration of crossdressing, especially since it was made in 1953. The last 15 minutes of movie are also not bad as well.<br /><br />This is not to say the movie doesn't have problems. Bela Lugosi was totally extraneous, intoning odd lines. Poor Bela looked like even he wasn't sure what was happening at times. The acting was decidely wooden, though no worse than a period Universal B movie. The long dream sequence that makes up the middle of the film was totally bizarre; more like a vaguely menacing stag film than a dream sequence. The Alan/Ann story, the supposed original focus of the film has a tacked on quality about it.<br /><br />No, Ed Wood Jr. is not the worst director ever. He was able, at least for part of this movie, to make an earnest social statement. When Coleman Francis tried to do that in Night Train To Mundo Fine (aka Red Zone Cuba), it just ended in chaos. Glen or Glenda is at least watchable without Robot help.
I approached this movie with the understanding that it was one of the worst flicks ever made. I sat down to watch it with this mindset, and was pleasantly surprised.<br /><br />It's not great. It's not even that good; in fact, it's pretty poor. However, it's not as bad as I had been led to believe, by a long shot. It's pretty inept, and, evidently as a cost cutting measure, a lot of stock footage is pressed into service, a lot of which has no apparent relation to the narrative.<br /><br />What it is, however, is an intensely personal movie made by a man who evidently did not have the skills or the funding to do his idea justice. Before you discount _Glen or Glenda?_ out of hand, examine your own artistic skills. Me, I'd love to be able to draw, but anything I try to sketch comes out like stick men. I'd love to be able to sing, but all I do is frighten young children.<br /><br />Wood had an idea, and unfortunately he didn't have what it takes to make it work. However, this was an incredibly daring movie for the puritan 50s, however exploitative or incoherent it may appear at first glance.
In order to describe what's seriously wrong with this movie it has to contain some *spoilers* so if you're going to see it and expect to be surprised, don't read this!<br /><br />I liked everything about this movie except the plot; and in a thriller like this believable plot is essential. It is well acted, if a bit slow moving, and the camera work and Portland scenes are exquisite for a low-budget, unpretentious picture. The dialog is very good. <br /><br />Mason is seriously withdrawn youth who works at a telemarketing company selling insurance. His high school buddy, Berkeley, is his employer and looks after him like a brother despite the fact that Mason is quite obviously mentally ill. Mason has nightmares which send him gasping and fumbling for his inhaler. His visions and nightmares suggest that he has had serious problems with good-looking women in his past, and the movie seems to be suggesting that he may be a serial killer of women. He meets a perky, pretty girl named Amber and he sketches her in his notebook. She takes a liking to him and poses for him so he can paint her portrait. He sees more of her and begins to awaken from his withdrawn state, almost becoming halfway human. Then something goes wrong. Amber finds sketchbooks with drawings of other girls and she begins to wonder. She becomes frightened and pulls away. We are wondering if her sudden coldness is going to push him over the edge. His behavior becomes more erratic. <br /><br />This is the setup for the revelation. In order to explain how this movie goes horribly wrong I have to explain what happens. *Another spoiler warning!* In order for this plot to work we have believe that Amber, a really outgoing, pretty young girl is going to go for a seriously emotionally disturbed young man who, at least at the beginning of their friendship, has a vacant stare and can only speak in monosyllables or doesn't speak at all. He's way beyond nerdy, he appears on the verge of total catatonia. Yes I know, girls can be attracted to all kinds of weirdos, but usually the Charles Manson type or punk rockers, guys with some kind of evil manic energy. Mason is practically a zombie, he's hardly there at all. Any perky young thing would cross the street to avoid him. It is just not believable that this girl is attracted to him. Moreover there is no credible reason for Berkeley to indulge the crazy Mason, that just isn't believable either. <br /><br />But wait, there's a revelation. Amber fails to show up at Berkeley's house for Christmas dinner where Mason is expecting her and Berkeley, his old buddy, has to tell him that Amber and all his other former girlfriends, the ones he drew in his many sketchbooks, don't exist at all! She and all the others are merely figments of his twisted imagination: he dreamed them up. <br /><br />Well, this explains why a normal cute Amber would go for Mason, she's just a figment of his imagination. This could have been the final revelation of the movie with the proper preparation and setup, but alas, it's not. At this point Mason runs back to his apartment and finds Amber there...he's enraged, he kills her. But now we are given to understand that Amber was in fact real, not Mason's imaginary girlfriend. <br /><br />In the end, after being given proof that Amber actually exists and that Mason killed her, Berkeley has to admit that he was wrong, that he misjudged Mason. This would work if Mason had been halfway sane from the beginning, but because we the audience always suspected him of being totally deranged and possibly a killer of women it is no surprise to us. We suspected what he was all along and can't understand why Berkeley couldn't see it. But then we are once again left to wonder: if she was real, why Amber would be attracted to the catatonic Mason? <br /><br />To make the ending worse, we are never given to understand whether all the other of Mason's girlfriends, the ones in the sketchbooks, were real or was Amber the first real one? And if the others were real, did he kill them too? What did he do with the bodies? <br /><br />The problem is that the filmmakers just didn't know what to do with the material. Perhaps there could have been a way to straighten it out and tell a credible suspense story, but this movie is not that.
Decent but overrated dramatic thriller, film attempts to depict the spiraling out-of-control inner demons of a tormented artist. The problem is, not a single relationship illustrated on screen is believable, and plausibility appears to have been thrown out the window. The title character is so difficult to relate to making it's rather impossible to imagine any of the on- screen characters emotionally invested in him either. The conclusion is also fairly predictable; there are certainly enough clues provided from the get go to indicate exactly where the story is headed. Choosing to entirely suspend one's belief in the situations or the relationships, the film itself is well acted (especially by the leads) and manages to create some nice tension as the story unfolds. As a metaphorical feature there is some food for thought, and had the script been stronger, there's certainly potential here that could have been put to better use.
OK, we got JP from Grandma's Boy and Chuck from, well Chuck. I thought this movie would be quite good based on the reviews, and it did start out pretty high on my movie scale, but about halfway through it was just dragging out for so long I kept losing interest. I actually got so bored, probably because you can see right away what's going to happen in the end; the story is actually quite thread-bare, I skipped over 15 minutes and didn't miss a thing! This film should have been a short work, maybe around 45 minutes to an hour max. It starts out good and finishes good, too bad the filling is bland, boring, dull, and lacks everything but time. Some people say they like it for the music; I don't care for jazz and I don't go see movies for their score, I go for the story and when that's drawn out... well, ratings drop in my book.<br /><br />Bottom Line: Good open, great close, boring filler. Story was cool, but if you don't know what's going to happen a quarter of the way through, you haven't seen too many thrillers.
As a true lover of film I must advise you to avoid this appalling effort,, God knows how funding was approved, Seriously this is one cinematic experience which delivers zero dramatic tension and plods along until nothing happens again and again and again ,, The only connectivity is two scares which at least keep you awake Possiby the worst film I have ever witnessed and the acting by the female lead is bordering on criminal intent. One blessing with modern technology you can fast forward and watch it on 12x and it will only last 25 minutes, ,, And you won't miss any of the plot<br /><br />No idea how people find this at all interesting and some are giving it high marks !
First off, this movie leaves you in a limbo mood wise. You don't know what to feel. So much so that you don't feel bad for Caines character when his son gets murdered (which was actually mostly due to bad editing). The script was too bland. None of the situations matter as you watch them. The soundtrack, or lack there of (if there was it wasn't good enough to even remember) does not help it one bit. Only good surprise to this movie was Andy Serkis' performance. It was on par if not better than Caine's. The story would have probably gone better off if Serkis would have killed him. Because quite frankly you don't feel any kind of redemption in the climax. Just a feeling of lack of feeling, if ya feel me. Basically this movie massively lacks draw. Leaving the audience alienated throughout the entire thing.
On paper this looks a good film . Michael Caine plays a tough and ruthless boxing promoter who's son is up for a title eliminator . The pity is that when the story is transferred from paper to my television screen it loses a certain everything . I had hoped we'd be seen emulating his definitive role in GET CARTER and as the film progresses it does seem to take on the qualities of a tough gritty revenge thriller but the whole tone of the film jumps around so much you'll be confused as to what genre it's trying to fit in to . For example Caine ( Who you can't believe in as Billy " Shiner " Simpson , he's simply Michael Caine ) has a laugh out line as he refers to someone as " Hattie Jacques " then in a supposedly humorous moment has his henchmen break someone's arm . Oh how I laughed . I mean it's supposed to elicit a laugh the way it plays out on screen isn't it ? But these seems at odds with the way the rest of the film plays out <br /><br />Obviously director John Irvin doesn't know what approach to take with Scott Cherry's screenplay . Irvin isn't a bad director and is well regarded for his war films such as THE DOGS OF WAR and HAMBURGER HILL but he's ill suited to this type of violent drama and one can't help but feel he might have been intimidated somewhat by a living legend like Caine . Caine does give the impression he's just doing it for the money and the well known faces in supporting roles like Landua and Cranham are basically just cameos who could be played by anyone
A vehicle for Michael Caine. Its fairly well written and there's some OK acting in it but, really, it's a mess - not funny enough, not frightening enough. It's a flaccid modern cockney thriller.<br /><br />I like the premise - that even in the refracted moral hinterland of East London people do do things for the right reasons. A surprise result to the first proper fight Caine's old-school Billy Shiner has promoted inflames his paranoia. The second half of the film has him chasing shadows to deal with the disappointment of the outcome of the first.<br /><br />MY greatest disappointment was in director John Irvin's failure to make more of the relationship between Shiner and his lieutenant/filial substitute Frank Harper. Harper's, a British Tom Sizemore, understands his role well whilst those around him seem to have ignored it. Pity. 4/10
Michael Caine might have tried to make a larger than life character to a successful degree but the whole storyline and Character's around him where not likable or interesting at all. It was all very Boring and somewhat predictable. Martin Landau , a favorite actor of mine had a nothing role.He was useless. Michael Caine got a bit irritating after a while and the film couldn't decide if it was a comedy or a serious thriller. Caine tries hard and good on him but i felt the direction and storyline let him down. Don't waste your time. It starts off well for the first 10 minutes and then that's about it. A film for Die Hard Caine Fans Only. Stay away from this One...
The emergence of Quentin Tarantino and his dubious influence on the likes of Guy Ritchie may have triggered the wave of appalling British gangster flicks we've been bequeathed over the past few years, but one of our most famous acting exports only serves to perpetuate the cycle by lending his considerable name to trash like this. I only wish he'd taken a moment to consider before choosing this project for the same reasons of personal gain he admits he often employs. It's not only stifling HIS talent, but possibly the promise of future originality from British films. <br /><br />Not one of this film's characters are likeable or even remotely realistic, and the dialogue consists of the usual empty threats and colourful language. Caine doesn't give the material any more effort than it deserves, either. If this was meant to be in the style of a tragic fall from grace a la "King Lear", it would've helped immensely had I cared about the ultimate fate of the principals, instead of just wishing that they'd get mired in the quicksand of life and dragged under almost immediately.<br /><br />
Not every movie with lesbian chicks and vampires, touching our favorite trash/cult genre is nice. Unfortunately this movie lucks of originality and the performances do not come up with the trash standards. Seem the creator's intention to make it cult it failed. Trash movies are trash movies because it happens. You cant create in purpose this kind of films.I don't know if Mr Creepo is a legend (first time i heard his name) BUT if he is i wonder the reason...<br /><br />Awful. Even the lesbian scenes are pathetic so any fans of erotic x-ploitation films will not be satisfied, as there a thousands of movies better than Barely Legal Lesbian Vampires.
Bad. Personal opinion? The folks who made it? They knew that when they made it. To star in this movie, again my opinion, you needed to meet three criteria ... #1: You had to own your own Goth style clothing and jewelry. Makes wardrobe both easier and cheaper that way. #2: You had to be able to remember and repeat your lines with out cue cards. Note that I didn't say you had to do it well. Saves on time and paper work. #3: You had to be willing to get naked. Gives an R rating and thus bolsters sales. Want to watch a better movie? Easy. Get a camera and some of your buddies together and do it yourself. Trust me, you won't do any worse. As vampire movies go, well, this one sucks. And a hint here for people like me who like to look for little oddities in movies ... Consider the link between vampires and crosses. Now, take a look at the symbols and names on the headstones in the cemetery portions of this thing were filmed in. Ed Wood couldn't have planned that kind of an accident any better himself.
I have to preface this by saying that I LOVE watching bad movies that are entertaining. This movie delivers 100%. It is hands down the worst movie I have ever seen. It is full of crappy stock footage of random stuff in a city (people walking, traffic, the skyline, etc.) that doesn't tie into anything. Then there are the overly long 'sex scenes.' These involve lots of petting and frequent rubbing of socks on each other's bodies. These are in no way erotic and are the closest thing to horror you will find in this movie. This is especially true for the shower scene where two of the so called 'barely legal' girls who couldn't be a day over 40 are spraying each other with blood but there is also a crew member squirting blood in the from the outside while one of the girls keeps smiling at him. No one had to memorize any lines for this movie, if they aren't clearly reading cards then they have a magazine in front of them they keep glancing at while they struggle through awkward dialogue. Then there's Mr Creepo. He throws Ed Wood's name around like he can somehow compare, but he is far far from anything of that quality. He walks around a cemetery babbling about random things that went wrong in the movie which really helps the complete lack of flow the movie already had going on. We couldn't stop laughing during this movie (except during the sex scenes where we were grossed out and occasionally horrified)<br /><br />I give this movie a 1/10 for going so far above and beyond all my expectations for a horrible movie.
Awful, waste of time. There is no camp or trash value in this one. Seen better amateur movies done by 10 to 12 years old kids in movie clubs.<br /><br />How on earth someone can spoil movie about vampires and lesbians? <br /><br />It's not a movie to put together a few vampire / sadomasochism enthusiast in a same room and just shoot it.<br /><br />Could not find anything good about the film. There was no plot, no real actors, no real special effects, no humor. A few overweight Goths touching each other cannot be called a sex scene. Nothing at all.<br /><br />Well, cemetery was nice but one should shot a vampire movie during dark. <br /><br />Purpose was probably good: make a trash movie in a spirit of Ed Wood. Problem is that one cannot make a bad movie intentionally. It takes talent and an effort to make a "real" movie. Ed Wood might have lacked money but he sure had effort. These guys lacked everything. Ed Wood was a genius compared to these guys.
<br /><br />In the process of boring you with the wordy, rambling storyline and the complete absence of character development, it manages to enforce a few negative black stereotypes out there. At one point I was wondering if Jesse Helms co-wrote the screenplay.
I could not believe it. This film was a total wast of time out of my life. The title is appropriate. Love didn't beat the hell out of me, this film did. I kept watching and watching and waiting and waiting and hoping for something, anything to happen. And nothing ever happened! Nothing!! Terrence Howard couldn't even save this lame piece of work called a film. It was dark, and confused and I didn't get who killed the girlfriend in the end. The tone and pacing of the film was supposed to be building to a dramatic climactic ending. This only served to confuse the audience because the movie just plodded along going no where. If you want pure torture, watch this film.
This movie isn't even good enough for the $1 bin at the grocery store.<br /><br />I only purchased it because Terrence Howard was in it. Guess he couldn't be too choosy about his roles during this time. <br /><br />The movie in itself was hard to sit through. It seemed they were grasping at straws with a storyline. The "guys night out" had to be the most boring I've ever seen. One minute they are talking and the next reciting poetry? Even the arguments were hard to follow. Most of the acting lacked any depth.<br /><br />I have no idea what they were going for with this one but they certainly missed the mark.
This was one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. They said this was the man's answer to Waiting to Exhale...All I'm going to say is that we really didn't respond at all. I couldn't believe that it was actually made. The director should choose another profession, because he can't make a movie. The script wasn't good. It made no sense and was very messy. Bet movies are much better than this was, and I was horribly disappointed to see the talented actor Terrence in this bad excuse of a movie. If I could turn back the hands of time I wouldn't go back to Media Play to never buy the movie, I would just keep it wrapped sitting on the shelf, instead of wasting my time watching it.
This is far the most worst film I've seen this year from Bollywood so far. I may not lie, my wife liked this film very much. It was not Bobby Deol or Arjun Rampal what made this film become unbelievable, but it was Amisha Patel. She performs the role of a blind woman who get in trouble when she almost fall from a mountain where (luckily for her) the hero Arjun Rampal comes to rescue her (in the middle of nowhere). It amazes me here how a blind girl is aware of danger when she is about to fall from a mountain, because she cannot see her environment. From this scene I started to watch the movie very closely and in every scene there was a flaw in the acting of Amisha Patel. The way she plays a blind girl is very bad. The only way she does that is by not to look into the eyes of the person she talks with. When I saw this film, I respected Rani Mukherjee more with her performance in the movie Black. Amisha will never reach this level in performing as an actress.<br /><br />Anyway, she falls in love with Arjun Rampal. It is the cliché story. Sudden Arjun gets killed by a man who is madly in love with Amisha. Amisha is in despair, but then Bobby enters the movie. He also falls in love with the blind girl. Bobby Deol is a great actor in my point of view, but he cannot pull the film to a higher level where Amisha Patel buries it deep into the ground. I must say Bobby deserves better roles in better movies than he got so far. Bobby grew in acting from the first movie his lovely daddy gave him. He was so bad in acting in Barsaat, but when you see him acting now, you get the shivers and believe every word he says. Only a movie with high potential like a Yash Copra film has to meet his way.<br /><br />Okay, when Amisha also falls in love with Bobby, someones enters her life. Arjun Rampal is not dead! Who believes this crap? I don't. Why didn't they give his role to one of the ugly guys from the movie family (Shushant Singh or Aryeman Ramsay) and give Bobby a role in one of the blockbusters with Amitabh Bachchan? I'm sorry if my comment sounds like a cry for an actor like Bobby to give him a great role, but he deserves so much better than a movie with Amisha (bigscreen t.v. face) Patel. This movie was so awful, that I regret buying it.
A sadly predictable, clichéd story about a woman who was no better than she should have been. Sadly, too, the screenplay is by the once-great experimental novelist John Dos Passos, from an original by French exotic potboiler Pierre Louys. This time Marlene Dietrich is Concha, a manipulative, cold-hearted Spanish beauty. Don Pasqual (Lionel Atwill) raises her from the cigarette factory, but she ditches him. He warns his tall young friend Antonio (Cesar Romero) against her, but to no avail. A duel ensues, Concha reproaches Pasqualito for trying to kill the only man she ever cared for, so he doesn't: he points his pistol at the sky, but Antonio shoots him. But instead of going off to Paris with the young victor, she goes back to the man who would have died for her. With an unexpected bit by Edward Everett Horton as a Spanish Governor. Dietrich plays the part of a Spanish woman by moving constantly, twisting at the waist and posturing and then twisting back, flouncing, tossing her head, and so forth. And she makes faces, and has a curl in the middle of her forehead. The photography is strangely crowded: no outdoor scene can be shot except through a tangle of bare trees, no interior scene can be shot without so much busy detail that it's almost impossible to follow people moving across a room, no consecutive scene of Dietrich can be shot without a major wardrobe change. The carnival scenes are so full of confetti and streamers it's almost like an underwater scene in the Sargasso Sea.
Marlene Dietrich is magnificent as Concha Perez, the temptress who drives all men to despair in Josef Von Sternberg's "The Devil is a Woman". Her performance has nothing to do with 'acting' in any conventional sense but she's incandescent, a true star in full command of her material. But she's the only good thing about the film, (she's so good she keeps you watching this dross; I doubt if any other actress could have done the same).<br /><br />The story is an appallingly lame melodrama, (surely Pierre Louys' novel was better), in which Dietrich's amoral Concha ruins the lives of two friends played by Lionel Atwill and Cesar Romero with a stiffness bordering on petrification. And for Von Sternberg it's an ugly looking movie, (maybe in keeping with its fairly ugly subject matter). Bunuel, on the other hand, thought enough of it to remake it as "That Obscure Object of Desire" with a greater emphasis on the surrealist aspects of it all, down to casting two different actresses in the same role. Neither film is either director's finest hour and while the Bunuel version may be the better film, it is Dietrich's 'performance' you remember.
This movie basically uses spousal rape as one of its main comedic devices. Now I turned it off at the point when he literally ties her to the bed and rapes her, but I cannot really imagine how that was eventually turned around into something endearing and funny. This movie not only squandered a wonderful cast and was consistently unfunny, it actually managed to be rather brutally disturbing and misogynistic. How so many people seem to find it a sweet family flick is beyond me. "I sure enjoyed canning those apricots last night" is not a funny joke when you know it refers to forcing an unwilling virgin to have sex with you in the hopes she will eventually learn to like it. Watching a peeping tom jerk off is not family fun. I honestly feel worse off for having watched half of this creepy "comedy" and am totally baffled by these positive reviews.
I never thought a movie could make me regret the fact that I subscribe to the HBO service. Now I know better! Jack is usually one of my favorite actors but not even he could rescue this part. Not that he tried. Jack plays his usual Wiitches of Eastwick type character. Unfortunately it doesn't transfer over to the American southwest. He is about as believable a cowboy desperado as Pee Wee Herman. There is no edge to the performance and for that reason the comedy fails. He is almost to goofy. The remainder of the cast was worse. Timing in delivering lines is apparently something that the leading lady had not perfected as of 1978 and the others appeared to be just happy to be there. My recommendation to those of you interested in seeing this movie is that you save your valuable time for something like watching paint dry.
For some unknown reason, 7 years ago, I watched this movie with my mother and sister. I don't think I've ever laughed as hard with them before. This movie was sooooo bad. How sequels were produced is beyond me. Its been awhile since I last saw this "movie", but the one impression that it has stuck with me over the years has been, "They must have found the script in a dumpster in the backlot of a cheap movie studio, made into a "movie", and decided that it didn't suck enough, and made it worse. I'm pretty sure that they spent all the budget on camera work and the so called "special effects", and then had 13 cents left toward the script AND to pay the "actors".
If you are a six-year-old boy who's into dinosaurs, you will love this movie. If you are anybody else, you'll be rolling your eyes about every 15 seconds. If you want to start picking on things like the acting, the special effects, the dialogue, or the absence of a coherent plot that makes even the slightest amount of sense, you'll have plenty of material. If all you want is a safe dinosaur fantasy movie for your kid, it will do just fine. That said, there's a lot of kids' entertainment out there that's much smarter, and some of it is even bearable or enjoyable for adults. Unless your child is in an uncompromising dinosaur mood, you're probably better off looking for something else.
In one sense, I kind of liked this movie because of a 'mindless', positive atmosphere it sort of conveys. I had a problem with an aspect of the plot, but more about that later. First, the characters were a little goofy and one dimensional. The 'good people' had similar physical and character traits and the 'bad people' had similar physical and character traits ... hmmm. The basic storyline was OK (pretty simple and standard) - nothing too exciting or objectionable. The main attraction was, of course, the miniature dinosaurs - kind of a nice fantasy element to have. However, they had a very minimal presence in the movie.<br /><br />Outside of that, the movie kept a brisk pace and didn't get too bogged down in any one place. I liked this about the movie.<br /><br />The problem I had with the plot had to do with the the idea of "stealing". I think this movie may not have been thought out enough - something's wrong especially if this is a kid's movie. I'll keep the next sentence abstract to not be a spoiler (skip it if you're worried). The 'good guys' do some stealing and they don't have the same info the audience has - so it's just stealing and that's kind of a bad thing for a kid's movie.<br /><br />Overall, if you have kids, because of a questionable plot aspect I'd consider passing. However, this whole movie is pretty low key anyway so it may not matter. Pass this one if you have any other interesting choices.
Eugene O'Neill's 4 and a half hour 1927 play brought to the screen in less than two hours. The play's combination of symbolic dialogue and gothic melodrama hasn't aged very well and the cast has some difficulty with it, especially Norma Shearer's Nina and Ralph Morgan's Marsden. Clark Gable as Ned Darrell comes off better but mostly because his is a gruff character not given to the philosophical musings of the others which better fits Gable's range. Once the plot settles down to the love quadrangle and the audience adjusts to the voiceover asides the film does become more enjoyable. The technique used here for the asides is another problem. On stage the action froze while the actors spoke their thoughts to the audience. Here they're done as voiceovers. You'd think that would work better but since the action no longer freezes the actors are forced to pause speaking and grimace at the camera to match the emotions in their thoughts. Plus it's difficult for any movie buff to watch this film and not think of Groucho Marx's hilarious parody version in "Animal Crackers." Added to these drawbacks are some cuts made for censorship reasons (Nina's promiscuity is soft-peddled and there is no mention of her getting the abortion that is more central in the play) and a wretched score (uncredited) that sounds like background music to a turn-of-the-century weepie. O'Neill called this film "a dreadful hash of attempted condensation and idiotic censorship," and although "Strange Interlude" is nowhere near as great as his later "The Iceman Cometh" and "Long Day's Journey Into Night," it certainly deserved better than this.
Eugene O'Neill is acclaimed by some as America's leading playwright, but for things like The Iceman Cometh, Long Day's Journey Into Night, The Emperor Jones. Strange Interlude was a piece of experimentation he concocted where the characters on stage, look aside to the audience and say what they really are thinking and then resume conversation. It was a nine hour production with a dinner break on Broadway, so you can safely assume a lot has been sacrificed here.<br /><br />For the screen the voice over regarding the thoughts is used for all the characters. It probably is a technique better suited to the screen. Sir Laurence Olivier did very well with it in his version of Hamlet. But Bill Shakespeare gave Olivier a lot better story than O'Neill gave his players in this instance.<br /><br />Players like Clark Gable, Norma Shearer, Ralph Morgan, May Robson, etc. are a lot more animated in most of their films than they are in Strange Interlude. The story takes place over a 20 year period. Norma Shearer is a young woman whose intended is killed in World War I. She starts playing around quite a bit, although that part is not shown in this version. She makes the acquaintance of Alexander Kirkland and his friend Clark Gable. She also has as a perennial suitor, Ralph Morgan, a friend of her father's Henry B. Walthall.<br /><br />She marries Kirkland, but then is warned by his mother May Robson and shown that insanity gallops in that family to quote another literary work. Since Kirkland wants kids and Shearer and Robson think Kirkland's train will slip the track if he doesn't get one, Gable is recruited for breeding purposes. Of course you can see all the complications this can cause and O'Neill explores them all.<br /><br />Gable is so terribly miscast in an O'Neill production, but he was an up and coming player at MGM and did what they told him. Shearer does what she can to lift a very dreary story, but she seems defeated at the start. Best in the film is possibly Robson who puts some real bite in her dialog.<br /><br />Strange Interlude ran for 426 showings on Broadway in 1928-1929 and starred Glenn Anders and Lynn Fontanne in the Gable and Shearer parts. Perhaps no one could really have saved the film because two years earlier, Groucho Marx lampooned the stuffings out of it in Animal Crackers. After seeing what he did, I don't think the movie going public took it too seriously.<br /><br />And since it's not the best of O'Neill, neither could I.
The movie gets a score of 3 because it dared to be so very different. It features a cast acting while you can hear their thoughts and desires! This is truly a weird film and an experience I won't forget. The only problem is that the experiment, though in some ways interesting, is generally quite dull and unengaging. In fact, it's amazing that a Norma Shearer and Clark Gable film could be THIS dull! The film is based on a Eugene O'Neill play and it really does seem quite stagy. In fact, it would have been best just to keep it as a stage production--it just didn't translate at all to the big screen.<br /><br />So this movie is only recommended to die-hard cinemaniacs and those who love Gable films so much they just have to see all his films!
A four-and-a-half-hour O'Neill play gets boiled down to a little under two, and much of that running time is devoted to actors with frozen expressions on their faces as they read their characters' thoughts in voice-over. It can work onstage, but it looks hilariously stilted in this soap-opera adaptation, which soft-peddles its heroine's bad behavior and never explains why she has so captivated so many men. Norma Shearer and Alexander Kirkland, overacting ludicrously, are outclassed by a naturalistic Clark Gable--he's the only one who makes the frozen-face technique work. It gets even funnier when Shearer's and Gable's son, a surly moppet, does the frozen-face shtick. There are also Frank Morgan's brother Ralph as an unsuccessful suitor, given to soliloquizing "poor Charlie!" over and over again, and a young Robert Young and Maureen O'Sullivan. By the time they show up, the voice-overs have largely been abandoned, and it plays as a ripe soap, with a sentimental fadeout that actually plays "Silver Threads Among the Gold" as background music. Robert Leonard's direction is stodgy and he shows little facility for reining in hyperactive actors. It's certainly entertaining--there's nothing else like it, unless you count Groucho's satirical parody in "Animal Crackers," or an old Mad Magazine satire that rendered Shirley Booth's sitcom "Hazel" a la "Strange Interlude". But it isn't good.
I can only guess that this movie was an experiment that misfired. Years earlier, it would have been moving images accompanied by music. Later, it would have been sound added to silents. Eventually it would have been Technicolor, Cinemascope or Imax. This movie must have been a misguided attempt to introduce a new element to the talking picture. During all the emotional scenes, the character stops in mid dialogue and their inner thoughts are narrated while they gaze off into the distance or appeal to the camera. This interruption is painful at it's very least. Imagine these top tier actors trying to look busy while the narration drones on. Painful. I have no idea who came up with this gimmick, but it was the only time I ever saw it used - and for good reason. In every scene the actors were forced to roll their eyes, wring their hands, or overact to such a degree, I actually wondered if this was really a comedy. <br /><br />The story is a hopeless soap opera that takes place over a couple of generations. Norma Shearer, disappointed in love, searches for a reason to live. She has a friend, played by Ralph Morgan, who worships her - but she takes him for granted. She is attracted to a doctor, played by Clark Gable, but he is self absorbed and isn't interested in her. She settles for a weakling that needs her desperately. She marries him only to find that there is insanity in his family and she can never have a child with him. Along comes the doctor who selfishly pops a bun in her oven, only to find out later that he loves her after all. The child builds confidence in her husband who becomes a success, but she realizes that it's really Clark she loves after all. Confused yet? Forget the rest, just watch a couple of episodes of "As the World Turns" and it'll all become clear.<br /><br />If your are ever forced to watch this movie, hold out for the final scene. The gyrations of the actors put Harold LLoyd to shame. It is not to be missed.
This is a piece of Hollywood product that should have never left a film can. Dialogue without a plausible thought, plot without a point, staging without skill, directing without direction, and acting without the worth of some backwater high school's freshman class play. The entire cast should have been arrested for over acting.<br /><br />But otherwise, okay!
This film is supposed to be about the frustrations of film making. It certainly frustrated me with its endless boredom. The setting is an attractive Spanish seacoast resort with his usual large cast. The script is very poorly written or maybe there was no script. Just all ad-lib.<br /><br />A far superior film about the frustrations of film making is Francois Truffaut's "Day For Night" made in 1973. It shows all the delays and how the cast can misbehave in an intriguing manner. It doesn't bore the viewer and you gain sympathy for the director who somehow must complete the film.
I have loved the book "A Little Princess" for most of my life, and was very excited that there was a movie. But I was appalled at this adaptation. Not only is the acting wooden, and the plot a convoluted mish mash of various incidents in the book, but the theme is all wrong. The real theme of the story should be that a girl can be a princess only when she behaves like one, as Sara does when she gives 5 of her 6 buns to a beggar child, even when she herself is very hungry. The theme of the movie seems to be that all girls are princesses, which cheapens Sara's actions considerably, and seems more like it should be written on a Hallmark card than applied to this story.<br /><br />There are many other things wrong with this movie- too many to list, but here are just a few of the larger ones: This story should be set in Britian in the mid 1800s, not America during the first world war. Miss Minchen is harsh to Sara from the start, making her actions when Sara is left penniless much less startling than they would be if she was syrupy sweet at the beginning, as she is supposed to be. Nowhere is it mentioned that Becky is black. Sara's father does *not* come back, he is dead. It is his closest friend, and collaborator in the diamond mines who finds Sara, and restores her to her proper place. In fact, the diamond mines are not even mentioned at all, though they are the source of Sara's wealth.<br /><br />All through everything that Sara has faced, she always acts like a Princess, giving what she can, and forgiving those who hurt her. She would never have called Lavinia a "snotty two faced bully". Such a thing is completely out of character for her, and undermines the entire philosophy that she is to be well behaved no matter what.<br /><br />This is by far the worst adaptation of a book to the screen that I have ever seen (with the notable exceptions of "Ella Enchanted", and "Anne of Green Gables the Continuing Story")The plot of the book is wonderful, and skillfully written, so I do not understand why the director felt that it needed to be changed to make it interesting. I would suggest that anyone wishing to know this story should watch the 1987 version, which is far superior. Or better still, read the book. It will be more worth your time than the hour and a half wasted on this version on the movie.
I absolutely despise this film. I wanted to love it - I really wanted to. But man, oh man - they were SO off with Sara. And the father living was pretty cheesy. That's straight out of the Shirley Temple film.<br /><br />I highly recommend THE BOOK. It is amazing. In the book, Sara is honorable and decent and she does the right thing... BECAUSE IT IS RIGHT. She doesn't have a spiteful bone in her body.<br /><br />In the film, she is mean-spirited and spiteful. She does little things to get back at Miss Minchin. In the book, Sara is above such things. She DOES stand up to Miss Minchin. She tells the truth and is not cowed by her. But she does not do the stupid, spiteful things that the Sara in the film does.<br /><br />It's really rather unsettling to me that so many here say they loved the book and they love the movie. I can't help but wonder... did we read the same book? The whole point of the book was personal responsibility, behaving with honor and integrity, ALWAYS telling the truth and facing adversity with calm and integrity.<br /><br />Sara has a happy ending in the book - not the ridiculous survival of her father, but the joining with his partner who has been searching for her. In the book, she is taken in by this new father figure who loves and cares for her and Becky. And Miss Minchin is NOT a chimney sweep - that part of the film really was stupid.<br /><br />To see all this praise for this wretched film is disturbing to me. We are praising a film that glorifies petty, spiteful behavior with a few tips of the hat to kindness? Sara in the book was kind to the bone and full of integrity. I don't even recognize her in the film... she's not in it.<br /><br />Good thing Mrs. Burnett isn't alive to see this horrid thing. It's ghastly and undeserving to bear the title of her book.
I really wanted to love this film. I have read the book to my daughters and we all loved it. The book is marvelous. This film is very far from the book. The book is splendid - this film is an awful adaptation.<br /><br />In the book, Sara is honorable, kind, strong, and NEVER does anything spiteful to get back at anyone. That's the POINT of the book! She behaves as a "princes" regardless of circumstances. An important part of behaving like a princess is to not return unkindness. It is to behave honorably regardless of how you are being treated.<br /><br />In the book, she endures much and touches the lives of others. Other people change their behaviors after they witnessed her kindness and ability to endure without sinking to spite and vengefulness. Sara does what is right simply BECAUSE it is RIGHT.<br /><br />Outside of the bakery, she comes upon a beggar girl who is more poor and hungry than she is. She has half a dozen hot buns. She is VERY hungry. She gives one bun to this wild looking little girl huddled on the doorstep of the bakery. When she sees how ravenous the girl is and watches her gobble the bun, she gives her another. She continues to do this until she has given 3 or 4 I think - I don't remember how many.<br /><br />The baker is watching through the window. She is so moved by what she has witnessed, she takes the beggar girl in and raises her as her own daughter. Other people are similarly influenced by Sara.<br /><br />And in the book, her father has died. The man next door is her father's partner - he has been looking for her. Her father did not lose his money after all - the man is thrilled to find Sara; he takes her and Becky into his home and raises them as his daughters. And Sara has her full inheritance, of course.<br /><br />Miss Minchin is not a chimney sweep. In fact, she remains in her same post at the school. But she is humiliated as Sara has told her new guardian of the cruel treatment she received. And Sara does speak to Miss Minchin in the end - Miss Minchin is trying to minimize her treatment of Sara and Sara with a calm steadfast demeanor, instructs Miss Minchin that she had been cruel.<br /><br />There is no comeuppance for Miss Minchin. She continues on in her miserable existence. It does not matter - what matters is that Sara has a home with a guardian who loves her - and her dearest friend in the world, Becky, is now for all intents and purposes, her sister.<br /><br />The book is about love and honorable behavior under the worst of circumstances. It is about self control and humility. It is a wonderful book. This film does NOTHING to capture the true story and messages of the book. My wife was so disgusted with it, she wanted to leave the theater in the middle, but we decided to stick it out. We were not rewarded.<br /><br />I cannot for the life of me think of a reason the film makes should alter this excellent book in such a bad direction. Perhaps it was the influence of the ghastly screenplay from the book that Shirley Temple acted in. I don't know - but this film is so far from the book in character and values that I do not recognize it.<br /><br />Don't waste your time - buy the book. It is unforgettable... even for a dad!
I was looking forward to this so much, being a big fan of the book. However, when it came out I remember thinking it was one of the biggest wastes of money and time I've ever spent at the cinema.<br /><br />In principle, the acting, the sets and the music were excellent, and are the main reason why I'm rating this a 4.<br /><br />In this version, Sara is a little too self-sacrificing for my taste. There is no way she would have deliberately lied to Miss Minchin just to stop her punishing the other girls; in the book she makes a point of describing lies as "not just wicked, but vulgar." <br /><br />There's also far too much of a Disneyfied ending for me; Sara's father coming back from the dead and all of them trotting off into the Indian sunset. While the book does have a happy (and critics might say equally improbable) ending, it doesn't leave you thinking, "Oh puh-leeze."<br /><br />About the only things true to the book were:<br /><br />1. Sara's father being a soldier 2. The lines between Sara and her father ("Are you learning me by heart?"/"No. I know you by heart. You are inside my heart.") 3. Sara's friendship with Becky, and her 'adopting' Lottie (although this last one wasn't developed as much as it could have been) 4. The changing of her room by adding various luxury items. That part was brilliantly done. 5. The basic core - a rich girl being flung into poverty suddenly - is there, but that's about all that is.<br /><br />People might say that this adaptation is more for the younger audience. Possibly. All I can say to that is I have two cousins - aged 7 and 12 respectively - who were big fans of this film until they read the book.<br /><br />If all you want is a 'feel-good' family film, then this delivers. If you're looking for a film that actually tells the story of A Little Princess (in fact, if you've read the book) don't waste time with this one. It's such a shame; with a cast like this, if they'd stuck to at least the basic story it could have been fantastic.<br /><br />Am I harping on about 'read the book' this and 'read the book' that a little too much? Very probably. But if someone attempts to adapt a book - especially such a classic - into a movie, then they should at least have done the same thing. Preferably more than once.
Milla stands out in this movie because of her personal sense of style and the way the clothes hang on her. I have learned to hate that crumpled little three-year-old face she makes whenever she pretends to cry. It makes any points she is trying to make as a serious actress drop off quickly. Of course, in a movie with a BALDWIN and Denise, she still shines as a mature actor person. David seemed to be doing Woody Allen by way of Howdy Doody. Not a single word or gesture in the entire movie seemed sincere or even sincerely acted. "How Harry Met Sally" and "Two Weddings and Funeral", even "Sleepless In Seattle" had scripts, locations and ACTORS. The script seemed to be a string of bad and crude gags separated by a LOT OF TALKING. The locations seemed to be within a few blocks of each other. There are only two actors in this dishrag of an indie flick, Milla and the lady who played the chick who was into the stars. I watched most of this through the first time with the sound off, just watching Milla. That subscript gag was old the first time I saw it and it's a silly rip off of a song in "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying".
Owen (David Krumholtz) and Chloe (Denise Richards) are a youngish couple living in Manhattan. Owen is a moderately successful magazine writer while Chloe is an aspiring actress. Happily for her, Chloe gets big role on a sitcom and temporarily moves to Hollywood. Missing her, Owen books a flight to LaLa Land, as a surprise. When he arrives at her set trailer, however, the "house" is shaking, as Chloe and her hunky co-star are having a little romantic tryst. The writer and the actress are through. Hurt and mad as a hatter, Owen goes back to NYC. Sympathetic friends decide to set him up on a blind date with Nadine (Milla Jovovich) to get him out of his sulky funk. But, it goes badly, as the duo mix like oil and water, mostly due to each having a strong personality and Owen's huge shoulder chip. Yet, over the next few months, astonishingly, Nadine and Owen become pals, who confide in each other and hang out. Can it turn into something more? Well, who the heck cares! This film is so STUPID that most folks will yank it out of the DVD player after the first ten minutes. The script is pathetic, dismal, and, oh, stupid, too. Then again, Krumholtz gives a very obnoxious and offensive performance as well. Jovovich is not much better but who could look good with the lines she has to spout? William Baldwin, too, reaches a career low with his crude and sex-crazy role as Owen's brother. The only cast member who is any good is Richards but she must cringe when she looks back at this one. Okay, the costumes and production values are adequate. Then, too, there is ONE clever element in that, occasionally, the characters will speak their lines but cartoon bubbles will appear above their heads with the words of what they are truly thinking. That doesn't save the film from "bomb" status. Don't be stupid, dear film and romcom lovers. Do not rent, buy, or borrow this gigantic turkey. I am the stupidest person on earth, today, for watching this THING until the bitter end.
Writer/Director Brian Burns has obviously seen a few romantic comedies, and he seems to think that he's discovered the formula for success: plenty of location shots in New York (preferably in the winter), allusions to old Hollywood films (especially musicals), enjoyable musical soundtrack. Alas, all of this is mere compensation for Burns' lack of talent as a writer. (The great mystery of many writer-directors making independent films is not why they cannot get on with major studios, but how they get any backing at all for their films.)<br /><br />Normally our interest in romantic comedy is motivated by the lead characters, but the couple in this film simply has no appeal. This is not the fault of either David Krumholtz or Milla Jovavich; their characters are just poorly written. What we respond to in such classics as When Harry Met Sally or Annie Hall or older films such as His Girl Friday are quirks and flaws of the lead characters' personalities. Lacking the ability to create individuals, Burns gives us an after-school special inspired by Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus.<br /><br />How anyone can see Burns as the successor to Woody Allen is beyond me. I did not laugh once during this film, and the screen-play is full of echo chamber dialog ("I want to paint the town red." "You want to paint the town red?"), which is the most tell-tale sign of someone who has no business writing for a living. In one of the early scenes, we see Krumholz's actress girlfriend filming a mindless TV sitcom. It's the only moment in the whole film that the dialog feels right; maybe that indicates what Burns talents are really suited for.
Seeing that this got a theatrical release nowhere around the globe, it only serves as a reminder of were the careers of those talent-free ladies Denise Richards and Milla Jovovich went. It also is a particular grating kind of movie, the kind that think they are smart, funny and original while being poor in every aspect. Full blame can go to Brian Burns, who wrote and directed this potboiler. His script takes a quite unoriginal situation and goes exactly nowhere with it. The situations develop completely without any inner logic, besides that of a desperate scriptwriter. Characters are thinner than cardboard cutouts, behave stupid and without any real motivation. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the inclusion of Mrs. Richards. We don't believe her relationship with David Krumholtz's character for one minute and the way she is brought back into play after the one-hour mark is particularly pitiful. Why would anyone fall for a egocentric, self-obsessed, arrogant b**ch like this in the first place, much less a second time? Especially after having supposedly found his..erm...true love? And if any of these things aren't enough to completely sink this movie, than the central couple is. The coupling of Krumholtz and Jovovich is only slightly more believable or developed than the Richards-one, but it is to no avail. There is no chemistry, no spark, nothing that we might loosely accept as a credible couple. Worse, these two central characters are particularly annoying and irritating, doing annoying and irritating things the viewer finally has no interest in, whatsoever.<br /><br />Overall, a very poor showing. Even die-hard rom-com fans might want to pass on this one, as there are dozens of movie made with more skill or more charm.
Occasionally on talk shows a good topical debate sparks some interesting opinions from the audience, unfortunately there is always some desperately sad person seeking acceptance who will end any interesting debate instantly by getting up and saying the proverbial "Everyone should get along and love each other" as they know they are guaranteed to get applause and affirmation, as no one would dare disagree.<br /><br />Well they are the same people who marked this film as good, why did they do that? INSECURITY. Anyway that's all I'll say on that matter.<br /><br />The Film, it starts of reasonably interestingly so you hope it will build, and if like me you've settled in with a nice couple of glasses of wine and some cheese then you will give it even more of a chance simply because you can't be bothered to move.<br /><br />But then you daydream, you wander, your mind drifts of onto other things, why? because the Director did too! he took his foot off the gas, and then he realized 'ooops' so to compensate he accelerates hard, but then he drifts again, and again so do you, the story slows, the plot thins and almost disappears, you even wonder to yourself 'so what happened again?' as you ponder your screen will show Nick Nolte running around with some supposed purpose, but you will have long since cared as to what he is doing and he will appear as nothing more than a screen saver in the background to your day dreaming.<br /><br />Michael Moriarty who plays John Converse has an amazing ability to speak without moving his lips or indeed his face, somewhat like a ventriloquist, he must have gone to the Nicolas Cage school of expressionless facial acting, or he was attacked by the Phantom Botox injector.<br /><br />Tuesday Weld was to play Marge Converse, but instead she played Mia Farrow to perfection.<br /><br />In all there are hundreds of thousands of films to see, so leave this one to one of the last, you see I've just wasted an evening watching it when I could have watched or done something else, learn by my mistake, nights off relaxing are precious so don't waste one watching this boring tale, do anything else, dust off that old game of Cluedo, practice gurning for the evening or have an argument with a loved one, trim your nose hair, get rid of unused files on our laptop, it will be time better spent what ever you should choose.
Just plain terrible. Nick and Michael are WAY better actors than this. A "C" rated flick at best. The plot was weak and the characters totally undeveloped. Even the film and sound quality was terrible. I suppose that these were all young actors at the time and this script just filled a job nitch.
Start with the premise that you will do anything to replace your lost love with a look-alike. Throw in your scientific knowledge of a deforming disease (isn't this the stuff that Leo G. Carroll contracted from the spider venom in "Tarantula"). Throw in the fact that the main character, instead of finding some way to attract the young woman, engages in heavy-handed stalking, until he totally draws attention to himself and has to hatch this insane plot: If he can make the girl's father sick, then help him recover, she will marry him. The problem is that most of the events are random and unpredictable. Anyone with half a brain would have seen through things. There's a third party, a woman that the doctor, played by J. Carroll Naish, has treated with great insensitivity. You know she is going to be a factor. There's also a gorilla kept in a cage who is used occasionally for heaven know's what. Oh well. There is so little sense to this who thing that it plays itself out and people get their just desserts.
"A scientist has developed a serum which grotesquely distorts the victim's hands and heads. The scientist decides to use his serum on a concert pianist to extort money from him for the cure as well as take the man's daughter for a wife," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. J. Carrol Naish (as Dr. Igor Markoff) plays "The Monster Maker" in the low budget Bela Lugosi mode.<br /><br />Mr. Naish's serum causes a real disorder, "acromegaly", which American Heritage defines as, "A chronic disease of adults marked by enlargement of the bones of the extremities, face, and jaw that is caused by overactivity of the pituitary gland." Ralph Morgan (as Anthony Lawrence) plays the afflicted man with some dignity. Pretty blonde Wanda McKay (as Patricia "Pat" Lawrence) is the daughter desired by mad scientist Naish; in early scenes, Ms. McKay and Naish emote hilariously.<br /><br />Watch for Tala Birell (as Maxine) in a surprisingly good supporting performance; she plays the somewhat Garbo-like, and long suffering, assistant to Naish. Ms. Birell definitely steals the film; and, you've got to question Dr. Markoff's sanity in casting her aside. Glenn Strange (as Steve) and a crazed gorilla (Ray Corrigan) add to the fun. The monster makeup (Maurice Seiderman) is very good.<br /><br />**** The Monster Maker (1944) Sam Newfield ~ J. Carrol Naish, Ralph Morgan, Tala Birell
Dr. Markoff is a mad scientist who is experimenting , trying to find a cure for a viral cause of acromegaly. When he attends a piano concert, he is stricken by the beautiful daughter of the pianist and sets out to woo her. But when she wants nothing to do with him, he infects her father with the acromegaly virus in an attempt to extort money and his daughter in exchange for a cure.<br /><br />That is the basic premise for this B-grade low budget thriller. I have to say I was underwhelmed by this movie. Not that it was terrible-it wasn't, but there was nothing particularly noteworthy about it either. It was entertaining enough for a viewing but is not one that will stay in my memory.<br /><br />The dialog is a bit corny at times and the acting is just mediocre. The story is fairly predictable and doesn't really give us anything new. Of course, I can't complain too much about a movie that has a guy in a gorilla suit who serves almost no real purpose and a doctor with a Svengali-like stare that fails to mesmerize his victims.<br /><br />It may be worth a watch if you like this sort of movie, but don't go into it with too many expectations.
(Some Spoilers) PRC quickie that has J. Carrol Naish playing Dr. Igor Markoff who's not really Dr. Karkoff but an impostor who took over his identity back in Europe. <br /><br />The real Dr. Karkoff had a affair with Dr.Markoff's wife that lead to him to murder the real Dr.Markoff and then having his wife Lenore infected with acromegaly that made her look like the "Elephant Man's" sister. This was done so that no one would ever want to look at her and he could keep Lenore all to himself; but the disturbed Lenore later got even with her insane husband by killing herself. <br /><br />This nut, the fake Dr. Markoff, then spots Patricia Lawrence, Wanda McKay, one evening at the theater where her father Tony Lawernce, Ralph Morgan, a world famous pianist is giving a concert. Enchanted by the lovely Patricia who's a dead ringer for his dead wife Lenore Dr. Markoff becomes obsessed with her and goes to extreme lengths to marry her even though she's want's nothing to do with him.<br /><br />After getting ridicules in his efforts to get Patricia to fall in love with him, by sending her flowers with syrupy love notes attached to then as much as five times a day,Tony goes to see the crazed Dr. Mankoff to tell him to stop annoying his daughter. It's then that Tony ends up getting knocked out by the good doctor who has him injected with a dose of acromegaly that turns him into a somewhat unsightly fellow. With his hands and body swelling up and not being able to play his beloved piano Tony is told by his Doctor Dr. Adams,Sam Flint, that the only one who can cure him of that dreadful disease is non other then Dr. Markoff! the person who gave it to him. <br /><br />The movie has the usual sub-plots with Dr. Markoff's assistant Maxine,Tala Birell, who's also in love with him jealous of the phony doctor making a play for Patricia. There's also Dr. Markoff's hulking butler Glenn Strange who, like his pet gorilla, is just a big clumsy oaf who can't even subdue Maxine who's less the half the size. Strange ends up getting bopped on the head and knocked out cold by Patricia's boyfriend Bobby Blake, Terry Frost. As for the Gorilla he turns out to be but a big hairy wimp when he also tries to do in Maxine and is chased away, and locks himself back up in his cage, by the pet dog Ace. Dr. Markoff in his desperation to get Patricia to marry him promises her to cure her dad only to have her father break out of his chains and in the ensuing struggle with him ends up shooting Markoff dead with his own gun. <br /><br />There is a happy ending to this whole mess with Maxine, who knew as much about Markoff's cure for acromegaly as he did, injecting Tony with a secret serum that made him as good as new. The movie ends, like it started, with Tony playing the piano to a packed and cheering house at the local theater.
No one in this movie has very much to do. This is probably the longest 65 minutes I've ever spent watching a movie. The makeup effects on the pianist with macromeglia are pretty good, but that's the only thing that keeps this from being rate a 1. The doctor's assistant goes through extreme mood swings from passivity to hysteria in seconds and then seems to forget where she was in the next scene. The director assembled a lot of the right ingredients for a mad-doctor movie, but somehow forgot the skeleton of a story to hang them on. Unless you know someone in the cast or crew, I wouldn't recommend even sampling this one.
J Carol Nash and Ralph Morgan star in a movie about a mad scientist in love with a pianist's daughter. When his advances are spurned he injects the father with a disfiguring disease so that she will be forced to come to him to get a cure.<br /><br />God this is awful.Its dull and boring and you'll nod off before the pianist gets uglified, I was on the verge. Yea it picks up once things are set in motion but this is one of those old movies better remembered then seen again.<br /><br />If you must see it come in late<br /><br />4 out of 10
Oh God, Why? I am aghast at the sheer ineptitude of this delicious blathering nonsense..as if all that makes sense. Well, like this film from bottom rung poverty row of 1940s Hollywood, nothing in this door slamming horror - made on three sets - makes much sense...except the horniness of Dr Markoff (jerkoff?) who lusts uncontrollably after some plonky piano-player's daughter who has big melons and a flouncy hairdoo. It is just terrible ...and even has a gorilla and a big dog for pointless added distractions. More Elephantine than Elephant man and that is just at 62 minutes!. ....THE MONSTER MAKER is the sort of film kids in 2005 just howl at with disbelief and wonder what the hell their grandparents saw in their youth that made them the lovable movie kooks they are today. I guess you just had to be there. In 1944 or whenever the hell this mad drivel was shown to impressionable 13 year olds in glorious 3000 seat velvet movie palaces on a wet day. Somehow. It was made for no reason, by botchville crapshooter movie scammers PRC Pictures in the war years by escaped German refugees who knew who to make a film since they got out of Europe as the Nazis advanced on UFA studios...the monster in this film, like the mad scientist is actually a Nazi nightmare.
When I watched this movie it was an afternoon after I got home from work. I love horror movies and have seen some really cheesy ones, but this takes the cake. The plot presented to the viewer in the beginning of the movie seems a little intriguing, but as the movie progresses the script makes a wrong turn with horrible cliches and bad presentation, which in turn makes the movie completely dull and boring. I don't mean to keep criticizing the script and plot, because believe me that is not the worst part. I have to say as a whole the acting was not terrible for beginning actors, and I was impressed with Taylor Locke, this being one of his first movies. The worst part of the movie was the special effects. They reeked of low budget, and really ruined the viewers entertainment, even if he had been remotely interested in the plot. I do recommend you watch this movie to understand the power of a bad script and plot. Only then can you really appreciate good writers and directors.
'Book II' isn't a film, it's a sermon. This nauseating, sickly and almost unbearably tedious misfire probably works as religious propaganda but has no entertainment value beyond a few wisecracks from George Burns. Louanne plays a little girl who is asked by (ahem) God to mount an advertising campaign that will get people to believe in him again. No really, that is the story. It's a leaden load of old cobblers that has far too much self-justifying, 'explanatory' religious waffle but barely any decent dialogue and certainly a total absence of anything even approaching magic or charm. 'Miracle On 34th Street' this ain't. Suzanne Pleshette breathes a bit of life into this rancid puddle of quick-setting concrete but the pudding-headed script and rubbish performance by the irksome Louanne quickly send this one down to the fiery depths of you-know-where.
I saw bits and pieces of this on TV once, and when a friend recommended it, I began looking for it even though it seemed no place nearby had it. I finally got a hold of it in an antique store, and couldn't wait to watch it...Oh, that I had seen it a couple years earlier and could've really enjoyed it. I was surprised that this movie was only 80 or so minutes long, and I think this is what made the plot and story so lacking. The plot really does sound like a good one, both on the trailer and the movie comments: a teenager, Angus (Jesse Bradford) and his newfound stray lab Yellow are marooned on an island during a storm on a boat trip with his father (Bruce Davison). Together, they manage to survive the wilderness and wait to be found and rescued. Still, what is never mentioned is that everything is shortened and the events of the plot are very rushed. There is a possible love interest between Angus and Sara, but they're never shown together for more than a moment. Yellow is a mischievous dog the parents are reluctant to keep, but in a few days he seems to be appreciated enough to join a boat trip. The scene of the mother (Mimi Rogers) mentioning vaguely what death is like to the younger boy (Joel Palmer) doesn't go anywhere. In no time, we learn that 9 days have been spent on the island, then suddenly it's 14, then 19. Of all the animals a castaway could be exposed to in the wild, only 1 kind - a wolf - attacks them. Why couldn't something else have been a problem instead of having the same type of animal - maybe even the same one - strike twice? There are few views of how Angus prepares food, except when he discovers fruit and roots, and when he roasts a trapped rat. If he knows so much about survival skills, why weren't more scenes with it shown? The one thing that made me blank was why the dog didn't have much part alone. When he is rescued, and the dog is left behind on the island, there is no scene showing how he survives without a human's help. I wished I was more open to this when watching it, but I did enjoy some of this. The acting was good, and the score was enjoyable. Though, I found myself wondering why the father looked so much older than his family, and why he and the main search and rescue conductor share names. This is a good movie for kids, but though the protagonist is 14, nobody over 10 would be interested with this.
I liked some of the characters, but our lead relied too heavily on a charming smile. I didn't care two whits about him. He makes bad choices and I really didn't care since he did not seem to either. He seemed rather unintelligent. There were a couple of moments that provided a chance at some human insight (the scene with the whale was interesting), but these are lost in the general malaise of the film. The love interest was acceptable and the other various characters were mildly interesting, but the plot meanders around too much and left me wanting at many points in the film. In the end, I wondered why I stayed so long.<br /><br />There are some tepidly humorous moments, but ultimately I did not care. I cannot fathom rating the film higher. - 3 of 10
Films like this infuriate me simply because they don't deserve the funding that enables them to end up in my DVD player. This movie is ambiguous in its jacket blurb and even more impenetrable in its casting choices (why is Ms. Song a romantic interest? Did they just want an Asian woman in there, or does her unconvincingly wise character actually lend this "message" movie's story a fresh perspective)? One has very little to go on in approaching this film, and even less as the story unfolds. But a good hour into the proceedings, I realized the dull casting is all the casting agent could dredge up, the unconvincing character studies are the result of writers' brain-fart, and the story is amorphous and plagued by unsubtle references to the woes of capitalism, materialism, and getting ahead in the postmodern world. Towards the end of this film, just before I nodded off and missed the last two minutes, I got the sense that "Everything's Gone Green" is a product of "connections" in the world of film - someone with very little talent knew someone with very little directorial skill, knew someone with absolutely no marketing sense (but plenty of disposable ego) and out popped this dull and inefficient attempt at whimsy and humor-with-a-conscience nonsense. And this is what is most maddening - how many infinitely better scripts were passed over in favor of this almost unwatchable tripe? Skip this film, and feel good about yourself for doing so.
This is a textbook example of how Hollywood didn't (doesn't) trust moviegoers, and panders to its big name stars. The character of Christian is completely re-written, the anti-semitism Noah faces from his own army unit is virtually eliminated, Michael's story is changed significantly, and the end result is to decimate the power and terrible beauty of the book. I almost wish I hadn't even seen it, because of the ability of movies (sounds and images) to resonate so powerfully in your brain; I would have much rather just been left with the impression of the book. The book could have been written today, it is that honest and brave. The movie, neither. My advice: SKIP the movie; READ the book.
This is a fine concept piece and the acting by Brando is a fine piece of work. Dean Martin isn't bad and Montgomery Clift is quite good as well. Unfortunately, it's a very disjointed, very long piece that really should have been edited down to something closer to 2 hours (it's almost 3 hours). <br /><br />We follow the lives of 3 men from 1938 through the end of WWII and watch as they discover who they are and what they might become as they discover both the world about them and what they're made of. For some, it's the women in their lives that brings about this realization, for others, it's the broader general circumstances. All too often however, I found myself asking what had just happened or what the import of a particular scene was.
After the book I became very sad when I was watching the movie. I am agree that sometimes a film should be different from the original novel but in this case it was more than acceptable. Some examples:<br /><br />1) why the ranks are different (e.g. Lt. Diestl instead of Sergeant etc.)<br /><br />2) the final screen is very poor and makes Diestl as a soldier who feds up himself and wants to die. But it is not true in 100%. Just read the book. He was a bull-dog in the last seconds as well. He did not want to die by wrecking his gun and walking simply towards to Michael & Noah. <br /><br />So this is some kind of a happy end which does not fit at all for this movie.
This film was strongly recommended by a friend and, being a great fan of Brando, I ordered this film from Harrods and eagerly waited for it to arrive. I have seldom been so disappointed by a film. Brando was good as a German officer but the rest of the film was simply unbearable. You never get to like or care for any of the characters (except Brando, maybe). The acting was OK. Story, what story? Maybe that's the point. It's war after all, but I've seen far better war films. (Lawrence of Arabia, Apocalypse Now, even Star Wars) It was so boring I kept checking my watch...<br /><br />Overall this is one of the worst films I have seen. Please don't waste your time and money on this. May I also add that this is the first user comment I have written, I just had to let my feelings about this film known.<br /><br />By the way, my all time favourites are: Casablanca, The Godfather 1 &2, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Pulp Fiction and Amadeus. If you haven't seen them yet, please spare the time to do so. And Amadeus MUST be in widescreen 2.35:1
This glorified discovery channel documentary, part biblical study, part treasure hunt, all misappropriated, might have sat well in it's television origins but falls flat as a feature film. Right from first glance of it's cheesy looking cover art, one may cast doubts upon the integrity behind this serious subject, shown on front case relegating the search for Jesus's tomb to a generic action font that looks more National Treasure or Tomb Raider then any informed debate and examination of the historical burial site should. Such is the underhanded way in which the entire proceedings revolve.<br /><br />More curious child then worthy researcher, Simcha Jacobovici's explorations come across as self-indulgent while his research comes across as manipulative. For all the fascinating revelations this filmmaker tries to impart on his viewers through supposed evidence, a flood of repetitious statements reiterating the same research and findings over and over proves The Lost Tomb of Jesus has very little information to back up the bloated, albeit entrancing claims. What this amounts to is a very frustrating attempt to beat the audience over the head with the same small factual evidence in support of this tomb's authenticity, which ironically detracts from it. While tirelessly linking together many of these mini-coffins found together to support the Jesus of Nazareth theory, this research forsakes a well-rounded approach to continuously pursue this romanticized archeologist's singular obsession. There may be some impressive factual data which helps shed some light on many traditional dogmatic Christian-held beliefs, but essentially the shady nature of this project made it come across as merely an exploitation piece, financed at a time when The Da Vinci Code was all the rage.<br /><br />In the end, the cheesy cover art was right. Despite my appreciation for documentary form, The Lost Tomb of Jesus takes an always interesting topic and turns it into overlong and unvaried geriatric adventure hunt, substituting any relevance and sacredness for the uninspired motivations behind this team. By the time these tomb raiders have finished their explorations, reluctantly having to stop research because of social demands, viewers are left with the sense the director was insistent on forging this mystery whether it was there to begin with or not. There are a few genuinely potent moments where the halls of history come marching through this documentary in unassuming ways, but all the decoding, exploring, and theorizing in the world still left this misguided vanity piece in an uneasy void of apathetic response.
The theatrics and the drama included in the movie is fantastic, but the facts and the research is far from solid. When quoting Dr. Bovon, where the documentary tries to establish a connection to Mary Magdalene from Mariamene, Dr. Bovon later clarifies it should be used for literary purposes (ie: fables of that time) not for a historical figure. In fact he states, he does NOT believe the Mariamene ossuary in Talpiot is Mary Magdalene. He further comments on his public letter, that he was not informed that his words would be used for this documentary but rather for information regarding Acts of Philip (a literary work in the 4th century).<br /><br />So what we have here is a director that took one clip for a 4th century Acts of Philip fantasy and used it specifically to support a 1st century ossuary inscription. A very sad stretch and Dr. Bovon calls the Jesus/Mary Magdalene connection as "science fiction" -- as this documentary should be rightly labeled.
Contain spoilers! These guys are total scam, they did the Lost scrolls of Judas, saying Judas was a huge friend of Jesus... And now this? This is clearly a tryout to destroy a religion, and should be illegal. They have no proof, it could be clearly a setup. How can we know and trust these people? What if they carved the tomb and "said so"? And at the end they SEAL the tomb forever so no one can go there investigate? How stupid they think we are, really? Are we supposed to trust that they are trustworthy people? Who really found a tomb of Jesus? And how can you stab all the Christians like this? I think this documentary should NEVER be made by a non religious man. It can ONLY be made by a Christian and I mean the DIRECTION AND SCRIPT. It should be illegal for Jews to film a Christian related documentary, specially if the documentary makes accusations about Jesus not being a "Son of God who resurrected" (nothing against this, they could be Buddhists or atheists, anything but Catholic).<br /><br />To me this is a total hoax, a pure documentary-scam. They sealed the tomb so people "wouldn't" think about checking things out. This documentary is a total failure, how stupid they think the Christian people are? And what about the Lost pages of Judas... that was a total scam as well, they seriously said at the end, something like: "We know a few people that could do a fake scrolls just like these, and no one would know it was a fake"... Oh my god, they just said it.. "Dude we might have done these"... This kind of documentary should be illegal, it is a stabbing on all Christians and catholics they should be behind bars!!! I am not a fanatic, I am an ex-Jew, now atheistic, but I have valors and will always respect others people religion, The part when Israel orders the tomb to be sealed forever was PRECIOUS!! PRECIOUS!!
I really hoped for the best with this one, but it just didn't happen. Financed at a very non-dutch manner and still looking great, with a style and pace that's very much like Hollywood. What I don't understand is how-with all these great benefits- the director,writer,producer still managed to make this film a completely horrible picture to watch. Filled with bad jokes, cheap nudity and actors that just can't really talk [act] in the english language. Kudo's for pulling it off, but what was this guy thinking!
I'm just filling this comment out, because I couldn't stand the fact that a positive comment was featured on the "complete information" page. I really think this to be the worst movie ever made in my country. This is not only because of the terrible plot, the crappy English and a tension-curve that is as flat as our country. No, it is because this was a serious attempt to make a good action movie, conform the Hollywood standard. It had to be "The European Action Movie of The Year".For this purpose they even hired Fejda van Huet, actor in the Academy Award- winning picture "Karakter", to do the job. I don't mind bad films, I can even enjoy them if they are pretensiousless b- movies. but I can't stand movies that are terrible, but supposed to be a-type movies.
I was looking forward to this movie. I like road trip thrillers. I like sex, drugs, youth, action and a great sound track. And I was especially interested in taking the movie trip across Europe to see if I recognized any of my own travel spots.<br /><br />From the first scene, however, this movie was unwatchable. What was Guy doing driving on the wrong side of the road? What could possibly have blown up the van that rolled gracefully down a shallow grassy incline? If they're such bad drivers, why would they take a delivery job? And that's just the first scene! Not even bad enough to be campy or silly. Just Horrible! Horrible! Horrible! Waste of time. Move on to something... anything else!
This is a road movie. At least the movie is in yellow anf I think that suggests a road movie (?). I can't say much positive about The Delivery. It's bad acting, certainly their English. Camera looks like it is done by a kid, there's a bomb with counter, and suddenly a Beetle is falling from the sky. Since it was so cliche we actually laught the whole time -- and that was the most fun of the movie. This movie should be released in America, but I'm not sure you should go because that might suggest that is the quality we produce. The explosions look boring. Basically everything is over the top. Everything is just too much: the yellow quality, the sound, the babe, etc. Find all the cliche part in other movies, put them together and you have The Delivery.
If this movie is coming to a theater near you, consider it a threat. I was unfortunate enough to see this movie here in Tokyo. Since I'm Dutch, I was surprised to find a Dutch movie playing in a metropole like Tokyo is. I figured it had to be somekind of special if a Dutch movie makes it all the way to Japan. So I went there with some friends, and we were happily telling the theater's staff that we were Dutch and that we were so curious about the movie. As it turned out, this was one of the most infantile, silly, dumb, worst acted, with worst spoken English movie I've seen in maybe 10 years, and I left the theater trying to avoid the staff, because feeling almost responsible for this disaster movie. Sometimes you get the feeling you know what the director was aiming for: Lola Rennt, Trainspotting kind of like movie. Instead it was more like MacGyver on drugs with outdated breakbeat music as a score. But if I wasn't feeling too annoyed, the movie was unintentionally quite hilarious once in a while, as it showed Holland at its smallest.
Help, I've ended up in cinema hell! What a completely stupid film this is. Really nothing is good about it. <br /><br />Let's spit it out:<br /><br />1) The story is incredibly far-fetched: an anti-EU terrorist group is chasing a bunch of guys who drive around Western Europe carrying a delivery of see-through bags full of xtc pills. And the worst thing is: they are serious about it!<br /><br />2) The level of acting should put great shame on all faces involved. <br /><br />3) Some money-eyed guy decided to let every one talk English so that the international market would catch on. Ugliest advertising ever! The French and Dutch native tongues talking smart make all but sense and the result is laughable. <br /><br />4) The soundtrack is totally misplaced and ill-chosen.<br /><br />5) The camera, edit and effects work is supposed to be of some post noir road movie kind of style, but is hardly worth some thing and not meant to accompany this story (read: anti- story).<br /><br />6) Hidde Maas. The hero of Wildschut never fails to convince. A true actor. Usually I would give an extra point just for the sake of him being around. But no, sorry, not this time, I would just not forgive my self...
Everything this film tried to do is done better - and superbly in "Run Lola Run". The Red Haired Hip Cutie, the critical deadline(s), The Lover in jeopardy, and the "Crime Pays-Sometimes" message. BUT, unlike "Lola", it just isn't believable or well put together. It is a labored knock off that might have worked for me if I had seen it before "Lola" - but it pales in comparison. Yes! The Falling Beetle was nice! But that was about the only surprise in the film. Do yourself a favor and see the Real McCoy - (And the REAL hip Red Head!) - in Run Lola Run!
I was in this movie as an extra in the Dallas filming in July 1975. Some of the things you see today,and take for granted in movie making, were implemented in this movie. The movie premise, the costumes, the special effects, the acting. It all was ahead of its time. It opened the door for movies such as "Star Wars," the "Terminator," the "Matrix," and "X-Men" movies. Now people look at it and they say, "Well this does not add up to this new special effects story..." It did not have any computer graphics and such as the new movies do these days. It did have a story, and a wonderful cast, and a hell of a director! The places it was filmed like the Dallas' World Trade Center, and the Zale Building,and the Ft. Worth Water Gardens were at that time the most modern and futuristic backdrops in which to film. The director Michael Anderson was very creative and he tried to show a perfect future that was flawed by human desires and frailty's. It was my first film experience, the first of six films I have been in. Just because it was filmed in Texas does not make it any less a wonderful piece of filmmaker's art. Watch it again and appreciate it more. This movie was the foundation that set the standard for many great films that we now enjoy. Well, my hand is blinking... I got to run. Santuary awaits...
This screened at Sundance last night to a receptive if mute crowd. Clearly the story is worth relating, it's powerful and true, but did the director have to cast every single role with a recognizable face? I mean, really, you spend have your time saying "Oh look, it's the guy from 'Armageddon'", or "Hey, it's Easy Rider!" and you lose sight of the story. Perhaps it's the only way this guy could get his movie made, but it's a little distracting, sort of like 'The Love Boat", or those old Towering Inferno movies, that were 'chock o' block with stars!'. I wish he's just told the story simply with less famous faces. Also, the camera work seems kind of lazy, like there wasn't any thought about where to put the camera to best tell the story. All in all, I thought it was okay, but could have been really good.
Throughout this movie I kept thinking why on earth did they make this as a "documentary," yet not include real footage of the people who were interviewed? Sure, it would have been just like any other documentary, but then it would have been up to the film makers to find the meaning for the movie to deliver.<br /><br />Using a host of well known movie stars (many of whom apparently asked to be in it) to portray "real" people gave me the feeling that there was a pre-determined message to be delivered, and the director was so intent on it that real people couldn't be trusted so actors and rehearsed scenes were used. (Yes, I know this was also a play, but a documentary should be a documentary.) I really found myself getting put off by the various stars, and kept expecting one of them to drop character for a moment and say "I'm a good person because I'm in this."<br /><br />This movie could have had a much more powerful social commentary had it been more objective or let us see Matthew Shepard and his murderers as people rather than symbols. (The much superior "Boys Don't Cry" had an unflinching view of those involved--good and bad.) Instead The Laramie Project gives an almost relentless lecture that someone's sexuality should be accepted regardless, and little else.
This film infuriated me for the simple fact that it was made only because Shepherd was gay. The men who murdered him are clearly wicked. What happened to the poor man was truly horrible and a tragedy. However, where was Hollywood when four religious white kids were executed, after being forced to perform a host of sex acts on their killers and each other, by two evil black men in Wichita just two years ago? The celebrities only mug for the camera when it serves a political purpose. Also, Laramie is portrayed in a poor light by this pseudo-documentary, which of course is hardly surprising because they are the backward hicks who must be educated by omniscient and enlightened Californians. Still, it's always a treat to see Laura Linney.
There's nothing new in this movie. Nothing you haven't thought about before, nothing you haven't heard before. The story of a gay man who is brutally murdered in a small town and the reaction of people can be broached in many ways, and this movie has chosen the most demagogic and slushy one. One of the biggest flaws in this movie is that it isn't neither a movie nor a documentary. The director has used the transcriptions of the original interviews and made the actors play them as if it was a movie. The result is weird. And finally, I read in previous comments that stated that people who don't like this movie are anti-gay. I'm pretty sure this comments come from people who consider themselves tolerant but don't tolerate that other people don't like this movie. This is a funny world.
I finally rented this video after searching for it for many months. Initially I only wanted to see it because I'm an out and out Neil Pearson fan (Patrick, boyfriend of Isobel, the lead). However, the movie stands up very well without Neil (although he handles himself very well in this movie, he is overshadowed by the three main female characters). It's an eerie, intense movie, the sort the Brits do so well - definitely a "chick flick" the house and it's isolated setting giving the movie an almost "Wuthering Heights" aura. The movie is full of tension and the ending, shocking, yet somehow inevitable. I'm glad I watched it, it was worth the wait
What a tedious turgid boring mess. This is a classic example of all that is wrong with contemporary English theater & film. About as exciting as a closet full of dirty socks. The very opposite of living film. Only the presence of Joanne Whalley gives it any spark.
Hey! The Grudge 2! What up, man? I have a friend I would like you to meet. The Grudge 2 meet Johnny's Worst of 2006 list. Johnny's Worst of 2006 list meet The Grudge 2.<br /><br />What's going on here? I was under the impression that this was supposed to be a sequel to The Grudge rather than a remake. If that's the case then why does it do nothing but rehash the original? This floater doesn't even feel like a movie. It's just a 90-minute soundtrack of the weird contortionist chick making that annoying croaking sound.<br /><br />A sound on which I'd recommend you not get me started. It was kind of creepy the first time I heard it, but I've heard it about 12,367 times since 2004, so it's pretty much run its course. And it's made even more annoying by the 20 people in the audience who thought it'd be funny to imitate the sound whenever there was a quiet spot in the movie. Sigh.<br /><br />Folks, YOU'RE NOT FUNNY SO JUST SHUT UP! I promise you, EVERY SINGLE TIME that a character was walking slowly through an empty room (which is approximately 97% of the movie), somebody in the audience would start it up, "Uhhhhkkkkkkuuuuuhhhhhkkkkkk." Yes, I know that's a horrible way to replicate the sound with letters, but you get the gist. So then some dude in the audience would giggle, and not to be outdone, deliver his own rendition. I was very close to just walking through the audience and punching random people.<br /><br />I told you not to get me started.<br /><br />There's absolutely nothing about The Grudge 2 that I can recommend. There's not a single original scare or idea in the entire film. There's not one memorable acting performance. Are you a Sarah Michelle Gellar fan? Welp, enjoy her two minutes of screen time and one line of dialogue. Are you an Amber Tamblyn fan? I hope you can deal with the fact that she's given nothing more to do than walk around looking like she's suffering from a pinched nerve. Can you believe the story (if you can call it that) is even worse than The Grudge's? <br /><br />At least the original was fairly creepy and boasted a few effective jump scenes. I didn't jump once during this lametrosity (yeah, I made the word up, deal with it). That's right. Not a single time. The "scares" are so manufactured and they are so blatantly telegraphed that there is absolutely no shock value once the "gotcha" moment arrives. Watching this movie is like playing a good game of chess - you're always four or five scenes ahead.<br /><br />There are also some weird scenes thrown in that make no sense whatsoever. One that immediately comes to mind is a scene where a girl drinks a gallon of milk and then begins to regurgitate it back into the jug. Huh? I say HUH?!?! The audience laughed. I shook my head and sighed. There was a lot of that during the movie. Laughing. Sighing. Head shaking. Falling asleep (I did twice).<br /><br />The movie even makes a 1/5th-hearted attempt at a plot "twist." Wow. It's so bad that I don't think we should even dignify it by labeling it a twist. Did they really think anybody would be surprised at the revelation of who was hiding under the hoodie? Please. It was as shocking as Elton John coming out of the closet.<br /><br />And of course the ending goes the whole non-closure "look, we might have another sequel" route. As soon as the credits rolled the audience booed. My sentiments exactly. Had the audience paid money for this turd burger then things would have most likely gotten violent, and I would've gladly led the charge.<br /><br />We learned from The Grudge that there's a Japanese belief that when someone dies in a powerful grip of rage, then a curse is left behind. Much like a Ben Affleck movie, it's a "stain" that forever becomes a part of the place where the death occurred. Well, in The Grudge 2 we learn that when a horror movie covers its budget during its opening weekend then its sequel will be rushed out, and more often than not it will be as bad as this and will leave a stain on any theater where the movie shows.<br /><br />THE GIST <br /><br />If you're a total wimp and never saw The Grudge then this might provide a few cheap scares. But I strongly recommend saving your money, otherwise, there's a good chance you'll be the one walking out of the theater with a grudge.
Okay, first the good thing : If you saw the trailer then you know about 100% of the "scary/jumpy" moment of the movie. And yes, it's a good thing because you should just stick to the trailer and not go see the movie.<br /><br />I now understand why Sarah Michelle Gellar did not stay alive in that movie for very long, she did not want to associate her name with this production. I wish her the best for "The Return".<br /><br />You have to follow 3 different story in this movie, and they are all disconnected (in time and meaning) until the very end. And even then it's a very bad climax. And god forbid even open the door to another sequel.<br /><br />Yes, in this movie, "The Rage and Fury" is on the move. No need to visit the house anymore, just be close to someone who when inside and you're done. It's not a curse anymore it's kinda like a virus. Go inside the house, get scared, return back to USA and spread the joy in your apartment building.<br /><br />It's not that difficult to follow, but you just don't really care about anyone. The plot line is slim to none and you have many scene in this movie where you just laugh and shake your head... Milk anyone?? I saw Ju-On 2 at the Fantasia movie festival last summer, different story completely but much better than this dud. It's not a remake, but this time, maybe they should have simply done a remake....<br /><br />If you must see it, wait for the DVD.
In Pasadena, Mrs. Davis (Joanna Cassidy) sends her daughter Aubrey Davis (Amber Tamblyn) to Tokyo to bring her sister Karen Davis (Sarah Michelle Gellar), who is interned in a hospital after surviving a fire, back to the USA. After their meeting, Karen dies and Aubrey decides to investigate what happened to her and gets herself cursed in the same situation, being chased by the ghost of the house. Meanwhile in Tokyo, the three high school mates Allison (Arielle Kebbel), Vanessa (Teresa Palmer) and Miyuki (Misako Uno) visit the famous haunted house and are also cursed and chased by the ghost. In Chicago, Trish (Jennifer Beals) moves to the apartment of her boyfriend Bill (Christopher Cousins), who lives with his children, the teenager Lacey (Sarah Roehmer) and boy Jake (Matthew Knight). On the next door, weird things happen with their neighbor.<br /><br />"The Grudge 2" has scary sound and visual effects, with the creepy woman and boy, and I have startled a couple of times while watching this movie. However, the complex screenplay with three subplots is totally confused, making the entwined story a complete mess. There are too much characters and situations, and in a certain moment I was completely lost with the disconnected and fragmented narrative. In the end, I was completely disappointed with this confused, but also spooky film. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "O Grito 2" ("The Scream 2")
The Grudge 2...Let's see. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Japanese Horror Film or Horror or Grudge basher. I loved the first one and the Original Ju-On. I feel that much more justice could have been done for this one. Aubrey only existed to fill in what needed to be 'discovered' in the ending, (which if you've already seen Ju-On before this, you already know the whole movie) all it was really was a complete remake of Ju-On, just more closely followed than The Grudge. Though everyone may have thought that it's coming to America was a bit interesting, it was expected as the house burning in the end of The Grudge left the 2nd hungering for a new plot. <br /><br />Save your $6.50 and wait for this to come out on DVD, rent it, watch it, then decide if you want to buy it. This movie is good for a fall asleep at 2 in the morning film. But overall, I'd say a 4 out of 10. Sorry Grudge fans, it's just...They just failed at this one.
What a horrible movie. This movie was so out of order and so hard to follow.It was so hard to follow and was just confusing. The whole time I was watching it I was wishing it would end!!I felt like I wasted 2hours of my life that I will never get back. Save your money and don't rent this movie. I now see why Sarah Michelle Gellar was barely in the movie. The first movie was great but this was just sucked. I would never recommend this movie to anyone. Save your money and watch the trailer because that is about the only thing that is worth seeing with this movie. This movie had no real story to it either. I am still wondering what I watched.
Hollywood movie industry is the laziest one in the entire world. It only needs a single hit to flood theaters with the same old crap re-invented over and over again. Take superheroes for example, for each X-Man and Spiderman, there are Daredevil, Elektra, Ghost Rider and Hulk. Japanese horror remakes are even worst. It only took The Ring, which was pitch-perfect (mostly because of Mr. Gore Verbinsky), to bring a ton of look-alike creepy-woman based horrors, e.g. The Ring 2, The Eye, Dark Water (which was fine, but pointless), and the grudges.<br /><br />The first Grudge wasn't entirely bad. It was scary most of the way, which is what one could expect from it. Plus, the plot had some brains mixing narratives. Grudge 2 is exactly like the previous; this could be a good thing, but hey, what boy Men in Black II? Was it a nice thing to xerox the entire screenplay and just change the villain? For the Grudge 2, the critic goes the same way.<br /><br />Tired scares, bad acting (except for Amber Tamblyn), and clichés all over the place. Three stories take place, on different places and time. There is Aubrey (Tamblyn) investigating what drove her sister Karen (Sarah Michelle Gellar) to death; Allison (Arielle Kebbel) who is taken by colleagues to visit the house where the incident depicted in the first movie took place; and finally, an American family that witness strange stuff happening on the apartment next door. Glad to say (and I mean it) that everything is tied up at the end, but one must not rely on the end to make a good picture, when everything else is simply tiresome and dull.<br /><br />The chills are all over there, a girl alone in the lockers, someone who shouldn't enter a house, others that dig too deep. Meanwhile, ghosts keep killing and killing and killing, which seems even more deadlier than ten world wars or the Ebola epidemic. Hey, doesn't that seem just like another bad Japanese remake, something called Pulse? Yeah, day after day it's getting easier to hold a grudge... against Hollywood bullshits.
Aubrey Davis (Amber Tamblyn) travels to Tokyo to investigate the mysterious disappearance of her sister Karen (Sarah Michelle Gellar) and gets caught up in the same mysterious curse that has killed so many people. With a group of others, she tries to solve and end the curse for good.<br /><br />The Grudge 2 rehashes everything from the first one and it produces only a couple of scares. The first Grudge was an average movie at best. The premise was decent but the acting was wooden and some of the scenes were really ridiculous. The Grudge 2 is even more silly and less scary than the original. Also, Scary Movie 4 has made it nearly impossible to take these films seriously and I had trouble keeping a straight face during the "scary scenes" which should encourage laughter more than fear. How Takashi Shimizu messed up his own franchise is unexplainable yet he succeeded at creating a decent atmosphere. Unfortunately, he kept the film at a slow pace with a bunch of dull characters and lame scare tactics. Clearly, he did this movie for money and I'm glad it failed.<br /><br />The screenplay was pretty bad, mainly because it made no sense and they didn't develop the characters at all. In the movie, there were three different stories going on and each of them were somehow related to "the grudge". The connections were weak and a bunch of people were killed without a real reason. They don't explain the rules of the curse very well and it ended up being a bit of blood bath because of everyone dying although the PG-13 rating kept things from getting interesting so even some of the death scenes were pretty lame. The dialog was weak and none of the characters were likable or developed well enough to truly care about.<br /><br />The acting was on par with everything else and it was a lot worse compared to the first one. Amber Tamblyn was annoyingly wooden. She moved on screen very slowly and all of her emotions seemed fake. Sarah Michelle Gellar was okay although she just had a cameo. Jennifer Beals gave the best performance, she had a few good scenes and was kind of effective. Arielle Kebbel was okay, a little bland. The rest were either horrible or just too forgettable to mention. Overall, The Grudge 2 was a disappointing sequel. It lacked a lot of things and it's not worth watching. Rating 4/10
I would not deny that I have quite enjoyed watching any Japanese horror films, but everyone must get quite fed up with them after you have seen the same thing over and over.<br /><br />The film follows the story of the Grudge. Audrey, as requested by her mom, is going to get her sister back. But when she arrives, something strange happens to her sister and then her sister is killed. She wants to find out the truth behind the curse and later a photographer (Eason) joins her. On the other hand, there's also something happening to a family and three girls, but they seem to realise it too late...<br /><br />In fact, I can't see the points for the three girls from international school to appear in the movies as they're not (quite) related to the story. The reason why the woman holding the grudge keeps killing people is still not very clear (it seems to me they're just telling the same things I saw in the grudge). And the sudden appearance of Audrey in front of the boy is undoubtedly odd, which I suppose is an attempt to make the story about the family related. The killing scenes are absolutely the mixture of those in the Ring and Shibuya kaidan. The acting would be another bad point. As a Hong Konger I would really like to support Edison Chen's first effort in Hollywood, but as a film lover I really can't find any point to support bad acting. Other actors like the father , though he just appears in a few scenes, should also have done better. What is kept good is the atmosphere of the film, especially when I watched it in the middle of the night alone.<br /><br />If you have time, really enjoy any horror films and have seen all the possible horror films except this, like me, you can go for it to kill some time. But if you really like Japanese horror films of this kind, you should spend some time watching the Japanese version of the Ring.
I liked the first The Grudge. It really creeped me out and it had something to it that made me want to see it twice. That something was missing from this sequel. There was no creativity, nothing new or original, nothing that really sticks to your mind. It's people dying because a scary ghost comes out of the shadows and says boo. And most of the time, it wasn't even all that scary.<br /><br />Plot-wise this movie is a dead end. Amber Tamblyn is a good actress, but she was given nothing to do, and Karen's death seemed really unsatisfactory because it came so quickly. I was also disappointed in the Kayako's mother subplot. I was thinking that she might provide some way to fight the Grudge, but she dies in the hands - hair? - of Kayako. That was such a stupid twist. All in all, it's difficult to feel for characters that you know from minute one are going to die. All in the same way. And there's nothing they can do. It doesn't feel like a cruel destiny awaiting them. It's just boring, because you know what's going to happen. If they had anything to fight it with, that would have added suspense, even if they failed. If there was any hope, it would make the scares more justified. Now you're just waiting for them to die.<br /><br />Kayako was really scary in the first movie, but this time we saw her too many times and that took away some of it. I was still scared during some scenes, but I actually got used to the huge eye and blue face. The makers obviously realized this would happen as they added other scary ghosts. Yes, I was scared at the school psychologist scene - even if I knew where it was going as soon as she said "I've been to the house". A nice touch. Toshio, however, was not scary at all in this movie. I was much more creeped out by the non-blue Toshio with black eyes and a blank stare that sometimes appeared in the first movie. A blue boy sitting in the corner does nothing for me.<br /><br />Some of the characters seemed really unnecessary - the notorious milk-scene with the girl whose name I can't even remember comes to mind. I wasn't scared, it was just "Huh?" I'm not sure if the schoolgirls were even really needed. Karen could have brought the grudge to the US with her. It could have killed people related to her life, everyone at the funeral, or something like that. Even so, it would have been dull to watch them all die, but being introduced to so many unrelated people really felt annoying. Hated the "I won't call you mother" scene. Aubrey's mother issues were equally dull. The little boy was a touching character, though.<br /><br />The Ju-On sequel was much scarier than this one. It had some new twists - dreams and reality blurring much more, for instance - and even if it left me feeling quite down, I was also somehow satisfied. I got to think a bit and be left wondering. This movie only provided cheap scares.
People may say I am harsh but I can't help it. The movie is so bad I was absolutely stunned. The first movie was bad enough if you ask me. It was greatly exaggerated and silly but this one, despite the creepy scenes, has a seriously ass-stupid story. They actually went deep into investigating Kayako's past and found out that she had a mother (Who miraculously speaks English) who was an exorcist and "fed" evil spirits to her daughter. Stupid? Yeap. OK, it started out with Kayako who was an ordinary housewife who had an affair with some bloke and got herself dead. This part is still OK. Because of this moment of rage, she became a vengeful spirit who kills anyone who enters her house. Acceotable. Now, her killings began to stretch a little where she actually had the opportunity to travel throughout Tokyo just to finish her victims. (Her victims were travelling, weren't they?) This struck me hard. Now if a ghost could actually do such a thing like travelling throughout a country without paying public transport fares, I wouldn't mind being. Ask someone to come kill me then *snorts*. And to crown things all up, the ghost who was once depicted as a very vengeful one (In Ju-on: The Grudge, which was way better than this trash) is now depicted as some spectre who truly enjoys herself and felt that it is her mission to finish of people. Things became worse (For me, the viewer) when the ghost became coming in forms of large strands of hair. I mean, ??? If a ghost had such power, I seriously dun mind being one. I never really liked movies depicting ghosts as MONSTERS cause they're not. The overall results is just plain bad. Like The Grudge 2. With a better storyline and less exaggeration, this show would have been better
Let me start off by saying that I loved the original Grudge. It was bar none one of the scariest, most hair-rising experiences I've ever had in a filled movie theatre. I'm not kidding. Being a self-declared japanophile also made the flick look better in my eyes (if the setting had been changed to some American suburb I probably would've ended up hating the film).<br /><br />That said... this movie is a complete mess! I won't say it sucks, because A) the movie does have some good points, B) "it sucks" is the lamest put-down in the history of lame put-downs. So what does the movie have going for it? Well, for starters it has a pretty cool look: through filters and the use of bleak, washed-out colours, Takashi Shimizu almost recreates the downbeat, angst-ridden atmosphere of the original. A few scenes are genuinely shocking and unpredictable. Unfortunately, the rest of the film is just plain bad. Period.<br /><br />The story is all over the place, needlessly told Tarantino style, i.e. the scenes are out of chronological order. This technique is pointless in the case of this movie and it merely makes things more confusing. Frankly, a straightforward plot would've worked better. The original was also lacking plot-wise, but it did make sense and the film more than made up for its thin plot with lots of scares and a genuinely tense atmosphere. Grudge 2 has none of these elements and is just a waste of time.<br /><br />Let's not forget the TV-show acting skills which make the cast of the original Grudge look like Emily Watson and Katherine Hepburn. Simply put, the movie doesn't work. It's too slow, too dull, and just not scary enough to make up for the confusing plot (which adds nothing new to the story, by the way, so not even Grudge fans will be pleased).<br /><br />Oh, and what is it with the old man playing Japanese peek-a-boo on the bus?? Is this supposed to be comic relief? Artistic statement? Or what?
That was a waste of 9 dollars. the movie was terrible. all the "scary" parts were pointless and sadly repetitive. Seemingly all of the tense parts could be completely predicted, and did not seem to hold any bit of the audiences attention. Also, the plot line didn't advance at all during the entire movie, and it was all just a big setup for the grudge 3. When it seemed like the movie was about to make a big plot advancement, it turned out just to be a pointless scene. these directors need to follow Hitchcock's example: every scene has a point. Porbably 90% of the scenes in this movie could have been left out with no change of the plot. Final opinion: Don't waste your time, energy or money!!!
This "remake" is a complete disgrace: so mediocre, cheap and prosaic, it wouldn't deserve more than a couple of spiteful lines.<br /><br />It's also a cheat, with a laughable script served by such contrived and amateurish "acting", you're always aware there's a set, a camera, a fake, no direction, no suspended reality whatsoever to allow you delve into the story.<br /><br />The claustrophobic, stifling tension of the small spaces and rooms in the original Japanese masterpieces (Ju-On 1 & 2) is all but lost here in overblown sets and spaces.<br /><br />But worst of all, the moral enormity and unbearable suffering, which both imparted a ruthless logic to the original mother and child victims turned into relentlessly vindictive ghouls, is completely ruined by utter nonsense and hollow boogie-man style scares.<br /><br />If American audiences aren't willing to read subtitles and rise above the lowest common denominator, preferring to swallow this kind of patronizing hogwash instead, they fully deserve this pathetic curse: the movie itself.
Don't waste your time or money on going to see or even renting it. It is by far the worst move I have ever seen. Its two hours (WAY too long) of your life you're never getting back. If you're looking to be scared, go see something else. We went with someone who still has nightmares about the Gremlins and she wasn't scared in the least.<br /><br />There are so many things that make this movie an incredibly poor attempt at making money. Now before I begin, let me say that I loved the first Grudge! However the second one is something of a different story. The plot is very in-depth and intricate. However in the end you are wondering "what the heck was this or that all about." The acting would be considered poor in a B list pornography film. I could site several examples but I don't want to spoil it for those that are glutens for punishment, but I can sum up two horrible hours in two simple words.... it's spreading.
All the way though i was thinking to myself "Oh god why!" At the very beginning i thought "Right it might be average," but the acting and plot on most parts was atrocious.<br /><br />Every part in it was so predictable, even though the first movie seemed to bare a large resemblance to the ring, it was a half decent movie, but this just seemed to take all the good things about the first and made them terrible. Some bits made everyone in the audience wet themselves, Eg. The part were Geller falls off the building had me in stitches. My girlfriend had to keep telling me to quiet down i was kept commenting on what was bound to happen next, and more times than less i was right.<br /><br />Why does going into the house make her come after you, it doesn't make sense. It was a poor excuse for a lot of killings, and no really depth was seen at all.<br /><br />You can see everything coming, which just left you feeling that there was no point in watching. Oh shes behind her ... didn't see that one coming *yawns*.<br /><br />Surely these people must have thought to... oh i don't know, carry a knife round or at least try and fight back, instead of being eaten but someone hair? At best during the movie i was very mildly scared (and i mean mildly), i was just crying out for the credits, as they rolled i exhaled a short "Oh thank god." If you haven't already, don't waste your' time and money on this; pointless, plot less, sorry excuse for a sequel!
This film was utter tripe. Possible that it is in fact a pollution. The subtle tense atmosphere of the original remake are no where to be seen. Sarah Michelle Gellar is given nothing to do, even in her death sequence, but still she is the best performance in this film, and the her death is the best thing about it, even though she did deserve a better death. Its the sign of very bad writing and directing. I'm guessing she did this film to end her connection with it as its turning rubbish.<br /><br />Not scary. Not tense. Not funny. Makes no sense at all. And as said above Sarah Michelle Gellar gives the only reasonable performance out of the entire cast.
I went into this movie with very little in terms of expectations. I went with my girlfriend and two friends, and none of them could explain the story of the Grudge 1 to me. Well, if the first one couldn't leave an impression on them to explain the plot, then I doubted this one would be any better.<br /><br />Let me summarize what the trailers let you know: The Asian lady is back and so is Sarah Michelle Gellar. Luckily for her, she isn't around very long. That decision may have saved her career.<br /><br />The movie has three story lines, and none of them make sense. And even worse, none of them are developed. You almost start to understand, and then someone dies and the story gets left behind. Okay, killing people could be scary, but I was left more confused over the attempted plot development than I was frightened. They jump back and forth between all three story lines, which aren't related... OR ARE THEY?!?! *SOUND EFFECTTT*~~~ The timing of the three stories are displaced, and you can tell right at the start that the movie is going to have a twist at the end. BE PREPAREDDD. Oh Wait. Sorry, this isn't a Fight Club or Vertigo quality twist, you could see this one coming from miles away. And probably envisioned a MUCH better twist in your head... they should've hired me. Instead of the girl making her "SURPRISING" appearance, maybe it could've been Michael Jackson instead? That part of Scary Movie 4 scared the crap out of me.<br /><br />The killing sequences were terribly done. Unlike horror movies of the past, where a killer pops out of nowhere, a closet or behind a door for example, and everyone in the theatre jumps (and subsequently the fat guy behind you spills popcorn down your neck)- this lacked any frightening pop ups. They zoomed in on where the random Asian woman or kid would show up, and you knew exactly what was coming. Instead of having the music get really loud, then quiet, then a pop out to psyche you out, the music actually gave you timing for the scary scene. If I know it's coming, it won't scare me.<br /><br />The movie began with explaining what the "Grudge" is; when a person is killed during a fit of rage, a curse is placed on the location where she was killed. So why does the Asian lady being cursed by her mother have any significance to the story? And why is the grudge now moving countries? This movie was absolutely terrible.<br /><br />All it did was leave me begrudging my friends for making me go- we should've seen one of those animated Pixar movies. It would've been scarier.
I am a huge fan of the first four Ju-on projects. I own them, and watch them every few months. I lend them to co-workers and friends just so they can get a good scare from quality Japanese film making. I think Takashi Shimizu created a great story, and presented it very effectively in these four installments.<br /><br />I was somewhat excited about The Grudge 2 opening in theaters. I saw the first American Grudge before watching the four originals. The Grudge was actually pretty good. Of course, the originals are better, but I got a good Halloween scare from the 2004 American Grudge.<br /><br />The Grudge 2 started off badly, and went down from there. I kept waiting for it to get better, to make sense, to show Shimizu's talent - nothing like this happened. The thing that's great about Shimizu's Ju-on work is the story. True, it's usually told in a disjointed style that you have to think about to connect its components, but it is still a great story. There was no story in The Grudge 2. It was a series of gratuitous deaths from characters that you never had time to even start to care about.<br /><br />The editing was atrocious. Disjointed (as in the Japanese originals) is one thing, but the complete randomness of scene sequence was exhausting. I just kept thinking, "This is so stupid," and, "No - he didn't really sell out this much did he??" It made me want to walk out of the theater, run home, and watch the original work, simply to reassure myself that Shimizu has not always made this dumbed-down, generic, boring, non-sensical, thrown-together tripe.<br /><br />If you really have your heart set on seeing this movie, I suggest you wait the 2 months to rent it. Really. Two of the five people in the theater with me walked out about 45 minutes into it. I debated on whether to do that myself. Going home and cleaning the house actually sounded like a better way to spend my time at that point.<br /><br />I am truly shocked at how bad this movie was. Let's pray Sam Raimi doesn't put out more cash to make The Grudge 3. It's just not worth it anymore. Sigh.
The original GRUDGE (the original American remake) surprisingly pulled off just about everything you could do right with a ghost flick. It had suspense, dark and moody atmosphere, some good jolts, and some genuinely creepy images. THE GRUDGE 2 attempts all of these techniques, but ultimately fails, only showing us the same old stuff we saw in the first movie, as well as a messy storyline constantly switching from Tokyo to California. It begins in Tokyo with some schoolgirls who wander into the house, now heavily blocked by one strip of police tape. One of them comes face to face with a similar wide-eyed ghost girl while trapped in a closet. She gets out, screaming frantically and they all run out of there. Next we cut to America where Karen's sister is sent by their mother to Japan to find and bring her back home. We eventually find ourselves following a very familiar concept involving a curious guy and girl investigating the history of a mysterious house. We cut back and forth to the girls from the beginning who are disappearing one by one as well as a young boy hearing strange noises in the next apartment at night, all leading up to a very unsatisfying ending. The "scare" scenes are dull and ineffective. Like The Ring 2, avoid this god awful sequel...
The Grudge 2 is one of the films that makes me wish there were more synonyms for "terrible" in the English language. With a plot replete with more holes than a trawlers net, this film fails to make compulsive viewing for a fan of even the most inane films, which I am. I felt compelled to remain in the cinema until i had extracted £5.70p worth of entertainment from it, though i feared that I would be there for some years. A better film could be made from the out takes of the first installment of The Grudge, though I am not altogether sure this isn't the result of such an exercise. As expected, what passes for a plot in this dire example of wasted celluloid, finishes with no resolution whatsoever, thereby leaving the producers with the option of inflicting 'The Grudge 3' upon the public when the time comes that they feel yet another pang of true hatred for civilisation.
To start off, I didn't bother seeing The Grudge. The previews for that movie didn't make me jump, didn't scare me, and didn't entertain me. But when a group of friends asked me to go see The Grudge 2, I accepted the invite, a little curious as to how this movie would be. I mainly went because of my friends. Not even 5 minutes into this movie, I realized I threw away $7.50. The acting from the get-go is horrible. The schoolgirls in the beginning look as if they have never acted in their entire lives. Then, the movie plot takes over. Let me tell you, I could not stop laughing this entire movie. It is just so stupid. I'm pretty sure they tried to not make it scary. They don't make anything jump out or anything. It shows the kids, then shows them "attacking". It builds up to it, it's not an "all-of-a-sudden" thing. And even in the middle of the movie, the core of the movie, the acting is still horrible. It leaves so much time in-between the dialog for someone to add in their own comments. This movie is honestly one of the funniest "horror" movies I have ever seen. Poorly written, horrible acting, horrible script, horrible "unable to act" cast, and a horrible concept. The movie blacks out and changes situations more times than you can count. Each part eventually plays out and then ties up at the end of the movie. I would never again pay to see this movie. I wouldn't even watch it on cable, for free. This movie is a joke. Please DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY ON THIS MOVIE!!
I loved the first Grudge, I watched it in an empty theater,and in all honesty, I was freaked out. Never before had I heard the unique audio of chilling sounds, it truly was gripping.<br /><br />The Grudge 2 however, had a couple of good jumps, but the story line was real messy, and not entirely believable, and all over the place, with a couple of scenes, (like a female urinating herself out of fear, or another one of a young woman drinking a jug of milk then vomiting it all up again) which really made no sense, and did not help to enhance the creep factor of the film. During these scenes, and a couple of others, people in the sold out audience actually laughed out loud. That was a good indicator to show how this film lacked the thrills, chills, or creeps. The acting was decent, the emotions portrayed were believable, so hats off to the actors, but the cluttered storyline and its lack of direction was something I couldn't shake throughout the entire movie. I was annoyed more than anything, same old grudge gagging noises, a couple of quick unexpected scenes to make me jump, but overall, I was very disappointed.
All I can say about this movie, is it is absolutely boring. The intro to the movie is quite possibly the worst intro to a horror film I have ever seen, I mean a angry chick hitting a guy in the head with a frying pan isn't at all frightening which is what I assume the director was aiming for, but in fact it was "mildly" funny. <br /><br />The acting in this picture was beyond pathetic; a note to directors, if your making a horror film, please hire some good actors, not some popular teen soap star who has no idea how to act.<br /><br />The death scenes in this movie were beyond boring... no gore, and i'm sorry but horror movies without gore, or good suspense are just cheesy. I mean this girl gets killed by hair wrapped all around her in the middle of Tokyo, and not one person sees it happen, they just declare her as "missing", wow thats awesome!<br /><br />In conclusion if you and your friends want to see this movie, make sure u bring some sleeping pills, because I guarantee you won't make it to the end.. Me and my friend walked out cause we didn't even care what happened at the end.<br /><br />Cheers
My best guess is this piece of work will come out on DVD sometime before Christmas.<br /><br />This movie was terrible. The time line jumps all over the place. This wouldn't be so bad if it left some suspense for the end. It was entirely predictable. Bitch girls pick on outcast, outcast wants to know why they hate her so much, bitch girls die a terrible death, outcast girl goes home and looks crazy. Outcast girl brought evil spirits with her, makes neighbors go crazy and kill each other. Creepy kid understands what's going on. Oh, and the younger sister not being good enough for Mommie, sick mother sending younger daughter to bring the golden child home. <br /><br />To be fair, there were some great moments here and there. First of all, Sarah Michelle Geller's character dies in the first few minutes. Definite plus. Didn't see that one coming. I didn't expect the wife to pour bacon grease on her husband's head, either. If the movie had kept up those kind of thrills, I would have loved it. The beginning showed so much promise. <br /><br />I was disappointed because I enjoyed the first one. It made me jump, I didn't expect most of what happened, and though I questioned some of the movie, it was still a fun watch. I didn't watch any previews for this the sequel, because I wanted to be surprised. I was, but in the wrong direction.
Spoilers ahead JEEEEEEEESUSSSSSSSSSS.... I have a saying: "Insecticides kill insects and Moronicides kill morons..." The "ghost" in this movie kills morons. Several of the people who get killed in this movie are actually ASKING to get killed, by running into abandoned houses, going after ghosts, etc...<br /><br />On a strictly cinematic aspect, this movie sucks real bad. The three story lines are shown to be parallel and suddenly, we learn they are separated by at least a few days. It's a cheap shot...<br /><br />Also, the "thrills" are so cheap, they are laughable. Even "Nightmare on Elm Street" didn't sink so low as to show someone being attacked by his own sweater... it's pathetic.<br /><br />Save your money, stay home, and you won't have a grudge against the filmmakers..
Not well done at all, the whole movie was just the Grudge going around and killing random people out of nowhere. Random people that have nothing to do with the story get killed, like the 3 school girls for example.<br /><br />The family at the beginning has nothing to do with the story either, I believe them to be a random family that never went in the house, and never had anything to do with the killings of the Grudge.<br /><br />Did not impress me at all, I was not scared, I didn't jump at any parts, and the whole movie was just a random piece of crap to get more money off of. Makes the Gridge 1 look like crap also, which was actually an alright movie.<br /><br />I believe that The Grudge 2 is like a leading movie to The Grudge 3, if they ever make one. They shouldn't have even called this the Grudge 2, they should of called it the prologue to the Grudge 2, and you will see if you watched it, because I am not going to spoil anything. Not that it would have mattered anyway.<br /><br />1/10, not scary, bad story, and is just completely random.
Mr. Brento wonders if this movie was produced by the same who produced the Dragonball Z TV series. Of course not.<br /><br />This is a Hong Kong real action movie based on the first episodes of the Japanese original cartoon (which was also based on a comic book series). And I really don't know if it was produced under the license of the Dragonball creators...<br /><br />However, the story of the monkey-boy with special powers is an ancient tale known all over Asia (in Japan, the name of the boy in the tale is Songoku; in China, it is Sunwukong; in Korea it is Sonogong; etc) and the story in Dragonball has much to do with that tale.<br /><br />By the way, as I said, this movie is based on the first episodes of the Dragonball series (which was followed by Dragonball Z, although I think the US version had a different airing order). And all the scenes related to sexuality were also contained in the original cartoon series (without so much overacting and so much insistence on it!), but because of your comments I may suppose they were completely removed in the American dubbing.<br /><br />Anyway, I agree with you about the overacting in the film and about how poor this adaptation of the original cartoon is. But maybe because of that nobody can forget it after watching it...
Just an hour ago I finished watching this my friend. As a fans of Dragonball we think that this movie is so bad that is good. We will say one thing : without a sixpack beers there is now way you can survive through this movie. This movie should be watched with a many Dragonball fans to laugh their ass off. The best character in the movie is the lord Horn, his makeup, his laugh, and behaviour crates the unforgettable experience. What we liked in this movie, was the fact that the island of Turtle Man was the same as in cartoon version. We believe that the only character similar to the one in the cartoon is the Turtle Man. He is also a sex maniac and kind of idiot too.
When you first sit down to watch this movie, keep in mind that you are about to see something you've probably never seen before. Keep in mind that this is a movie where they obviously spent INSANE amounts of cash on explosions and not enough on acting or anything else for that matter. The crazy thing I noticed is that every character is completely over-portrayed, and it seems (most of the time anyhow) that the film had been 'sped-up' to make the characters move faster! (I wonder if the Hong Kong version was dubbed too?) I understand the cartoon had this, but it doesn't work for live-action. It just looks odd... as if the camera crew decided to act because they couldn't afford real actors.<br /><br />The English version is horribly dubbed, and the character's words do not match the mouths at all. I would have preffered subtitles, but since this is a kids movie, and since some kids cannot read well, I'll let it go. But there is something extremely odd about this movie. It's supposedly a kids movie, but there's a lot of material about SEX, RAPE, and STRIPPING which isn't exactly for young Western audiences. (In the Orient, they have different laws and sexuality in children's movies is much more accepted). But parents be warned! There is a scene where two characters talk about rape, multiple scenes where people say 'sex maniac' and a scene where this insanely young japanese girl does a sexy dance for one of the 'sex maniacs' and shows him her breasts! Who was this movie made for anyway?<br /><br />Oh, and the special effects are laughable. You can tell the spaceship-like things that bomb the village are cardboard cutouts (or animation, I wasn't sure) that look unconvincing, even to a kid. The makers of this movie left out a lot of cool things from the cartoon, simply because they couldn't budget the kind of money they'd need. I didn't like how the names of all the characters were changed... it made me wonder if this movie was made by the same people as Dragon Ball Z.<br /><br />I don't really recommed this movie to anyone. Kids, adults, or Dragon Ball Z fans. It's just a poor representation of the cartoon, and obviously, one will be able to tell that this movie was rushed and no care whatsoever was put into it. I won't even get into the camerawork... just wait until the end credits at the still picture that sits there for 2 minutes... most of the shots are not framed correctly AT ALL and the movie just seems made by amateurs. Grainy film quality too.<br /><br />Just all around horrible!!!!<br /><br />
Live action version of Dragonball via Taiwan.<br /><br />Evil lord comes to earth to get the seven magic dragon balls...er pearls which when brought together will cause a dragon to appear and grant your wish. Lots of action and bad comedy ensue.<br /><br />What can I say that "the best way to watch this film is with lots of drunk but witty friends" doesn't? I don't know. This is a really bad but funny in the way that really bad movies can be. Come on this is one of the few martial arts films I've ever seen where you actually see the wires. Its a live action cartoon and not so far removed from what I've seen of the show that it makes me fearful for the big budget American version now filming.<br /><br />If you have some drunk friends and feel like picking on a movie see this film. If you're going to see it sober (like me) avoid it.
A low-rent, cheaply made police thriller that's kept bearable by some fair humorous bits, the nice chemistry between the two leads and, especially, by James Remar's satisfying turn as a narcissistic, psychopathic (and, naturally, indestructible) villain. Obviously a low-quality picture, both visually and dramatically, with a rather resigned Burt, but not unwatchable. (**)
I was sick one day and was skimming channels and I came upon this terribly rank movie. The plot and even the subplots (if you can find one) have been done to extinction. BUT, as bad as the story was, I reserve a special comment for Liza Minelli. Her character was absolutely one of the most annoying characters I have ever has the misfortune of seeing on film. Her only two competitors in this category are John Leguziamo in "The Pest" and Julia Stiles in anything she's done (or half-done). Maybe she performed exactly as the script suggested or maybe (groan!) that is the limit she has to her acting range. Either way, they should have had a rewrite and killed her off in the first 30 seconds of the film (eg. Like the girl that fell off the balcony in Lethal Weapon (I) (but at least she had nice breasts))<br /><br />Most Humbly Submitted...Douglas Neidermeyer
This 1988 movie was shown recently on a cable channel. We wanted to see another film, which supposedly was starting, but because a mix up, Rent-a-Cop, was shown in that time slot. Never having seen it when it was commercially released, we took a chance at it. Bad decision.<br /><br />One wonders what possessed the people behind the picture to go ahead with "Rent-a-Cop", or how they sold it to the studio behind the distribution. It appears this movie misfired big time. This film doesn't add anything new to its genre. It's totally predictable, as once the basic premise is shown, we know how it will end.<br /><br />Burt Reynolds plays a wooden Church. This actor can do better, but who knows what was going on behind the scenes, or perhaps the direction given to him by Jerry London, had the opposite effect. Mr. Reynolds has one expression throughout the movie. He just doesn't register any emotion at all.<br /><br />Lisa Minnelli, as the hooker who witnessed the original slaughter at the Chicago hotel, makes no sense at all. The romance between her Della and Church seems phony from the beginning. She and Mr. Reynolds play one dimensional characters.<br /><br />Don't waste your time with this turkey.
Being a fan of Marlene Dietrich's films, I was very anxious to see this "documentary." I also got sucked in by reading rave review after rave review from the national critics. That should have tipped me off.<br /><br />The movie is just plain boring and obviously extremely overrated. You don't even see Dietrich. She is heard in the background, discussing her movies and this video. She does almost nothing but complain about everything. What a drag! <br /><br />The filmmaker, Maximilian Schell, constantly complains himself and pleads with her to be on camera.....all to no avail. She just keeps refusing to cooperate. After awhile, this sort of thing gets really tiring. With her attitude, why would Schell continue with this project? He should have just told the prima donna to "shove it."<br /><br />Regardless of what you read, do not waste your time with this.
My poor Tank Girl, they ignored everything great about you. Why does it have as little to do with the comics as possible? I would have loved a movie that followed the plot, or at least had the characters right.<br /><br />WHY WAS TANK GIRL American? She's Austrailian, dammit! And she's not living in a post apocalyptic war zone either, she lives in the outback with Booga like a savage. She does it because she wants to live that way, not because she has to because Malcolm Mc Dowell is acting the git. And why's she looking after those kids? The only children in the comics end up violently being choked by her, it's terrible that they made her into a lame mother figure.<br /><br />And my poor Jet Girl and Sub Girl! In the comics, Jet is a sarcastic wisecracker and Sub girl is... another sarcastic wisecracker with a weird sense of humour. In the movie Jet is this mousy little thing and Sub is this ditzy middle aged hag. And Booga doesn't look or act anything like what he's meant to be either. Though maybe hot roo/human love was too much for the USA box office? The humour was so lame too. Whatever happened to all the stuff about the Smiths and that brilliant slang they used all the time? What sort of line is "Will this take long? I don't wanna miss Baywatch."? Even programmes for tiny children can come up with better material than that.
The film is very fast-moving, bizarre and colorful, it's like Mad Max on speed whit tons of colorers and make-up. Also very Cartoonish, as that said; cartoon sequence pops up here and there. The plot is also very saucy, but I'll believe it's meant too be. The thing that really drives me crazy in this movie, is the characters, they are painfully irritating, especially Rebecca played by Lori Petty, she's really annoying (I'll believe she is the most annoying creature I've ever seen). The editing is also annoying, very MTV stylized. Another thing that's missing from Tank Girl is an exciting adventure. The humor isn't much funny either. It has some nice visuals though.<br /><br />However a lot of people love this film, most of them are women, and that's not weird at all, because this movie is all about girl power.. Tank Girl this is a real chick flick, and the best example of an hate/love film.
I made the mistake of buying this since I collect comic book inspired movies. Even at 6$ it was too expensive. I thought there might be some campy fun in it, a "so bad" it becomes good vibe perhaps, I was wrong. I had watched it once long ago and didn't remember any of it. Now I know why. I was bored out of my mind and was looking for distractions to do something else. I'm all for grrrrl power, punk attitude and absurd humor but Tank Girl does not work on any front. The script is bad, you don't care about the characters and the humor is mostly lame except for a few amusing one-liners. The special effects or locations are poor or often replaced by comic panels or animations that are just too jarring compared to the live-action. It's like they didn't have the money to shoot the cool stuff and so resorted to drawings, however cool they might be (an uncensored animated feature would be way better for Tank Girl now that I think about it). The action scenes were cheesy but not in a fun b-movie way. The tank itself was far from impressive or dynamic although it was interestingly decorated. As a matter of fact, the best action scenes involving the tank were in animation. <br /><br />It does have some interesting songs by known artists such as Bjork, Hole and Portishead but instead of improving the atmosphere, they just don't fit most of the time. Once they even break into a ludicrous song and dance number that was just senseless and horrible. I think that's when I totally tuned out. I suppose Tank Girl, played by Lori Petty, looks the trashy punkette part but beyond her "attitude" and sometimes barely amusing retorts, is more two-dimensional and superficial than the worst comic book characters. Jet, played by Naomi Watts, is probably the only saving grace of the film and it's amazing how such a good actress was involved in this mess. Malcolm McDowell wasn't too bad playing his usual villain role. It might be a cult movie for some but please consider that it's really different from the original independent comics and the original creators were disappointed with the movie themselves (check out the entry for Tank Girl on Wikipedia). <br /><br />Rating: 3 out of 10
Maybe it's because I'm no fan of the comics (but if the comics are of the same "quality" as the movie, it's hard to believe there are any), but this has to be one of the worst movies ever made. Non-existent plot, laughable acting, dumb dialogue... This movie is so bad that it hurts. A lot. That some people actually gave this one 10/10 is an insult to any good or at least mediocre (or at least bad) movie. If you hate yourself, then watch Tank Girl! On another thought, if you hate yourself THAT much, maybe you should just commit suicide... My rating: -34/10
This film doesn't know what it wants to be: is it making fun of action movies in general? Is it satirical? Is it supposed to be a black comedy? This is truly one of the worst films ever made.<br /><br />Lori Petty is annoying. There, I said what everyone else is thinking. It's bad enough that she's such a terrible actress (Route 666, Bates Motel), but she doesn't even qualify as a mediocre b-movie actress. Her screechy voice, strange mannerisms, and poor comic timing dot this film from start to finish, until you just want to put your head in a vise and end the pain.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and avoid this movie at all costs. You'll be glad you did.
Sometimes a movie cannot easily be classified. Such a film is "Tank Girl", part cartoon, part comedy, and part action flick. I'm sure somewhere there is an audience for "Tank Girl', but it is extremely small, perhaps punk comic book readers. Most viewers will be looking for an early exit or living with the fast forward button. The only redeeming quality are short bursts of humor "find me a microscope and a pair of tweezers", but these tiny moments of comic relief are far outweighed by the sophomoric action sequences. There is no character development, which is not surprising, since the source is a comic book. Do yourself a favor and avoid, avoid, avoid. - MERK
Why Lori Petty was cast as tank girl, I'll never know. Her acting performance is lack-luster. Her voice is grating. It's almost impossible for me to put into words how bad this movie is.<br /><br />There are several "modern-pop" references in the film, which I found to be very strange, given that the movie was supposed to take place far in the future. It wouldn't have been hard to make this premise interesting either. Some better writing would have helped loads.<br /><br />Naomi Watts makes an appearance in it as a mild mannered techno-geek. I think they should have probably switched roles.<br /><br />I'll never know why anyone would like this movie, unless they were a Petty fan.<br /><br />Try not to see this movie. Total waste of time.
"Tank Girl" was, I suppose, meant to be the "Buckaroo Banzai" of the 90's and was marketed as such. The comparison is, admittedly, appropriate; both movies have so many things going on in any given frame of film that, as impossible as the story is to sort out, it certainly isn't boring.<br /><br />"Tank Girl" is a fun enough ride if you turn your brain off before the movie starts. Otherwise you'll end up with a skull-cracking headache like me.
It's as if the editor and screenwriter only had 40 minutes of real running time. This is supposed to be a remake of a Chinese film, which is obviously far superior to this trash. It's clear that some brainless Hollywood suit or writer decided that this movie would be mano a mano, man against man, instead of just letting the story play out with the personalities of the characters that were built in the first 40 minutes. At this point in the film, the characters just don't act like regular people and not even like their own personalities. It makes little sense. It's quite clear why this film flopped. It's just not believable at all and that's too bad - it started out with promise. Don't be fooled.
On the scale of 1 to 10, I gave this a 4. I thought the film was not very good, with too much violence and not one character to like.<br /><br />On an erotic scale, I give this a 6. Many of the sex scenes were tinged with an underlying ugliness. I always enjoy nudity, and Nancy Travis and Faye Grant come through, but the sex scenes were more humiliating than erotic.
This has to be one of, if not THE greatest Mob/Crime films of all time. Every thing about this movie is great, the acting in this film is of true quality; Master P's acting skills make you actually believe he is Italian! The cinematography is excellent too, probably the best ever. This movie was great; and I have the brain capacity of an earth worm.
This is one entertaining flick. I suggest you rent it, buy a couple quarts of rum, and invite the whole crew over for this one. My favorite parts were.1. the gunfights that were so well choreographed that John Woo himself was jealous, .2. The wonderful special effects .3. the Academy Award winning acting and .4. The fact that every single gangsta in the film seemed to be doing a bad "Scarface" impersonation. I mean, Master P as a cuban godfather! This is groundbreaking territory. And with well written dialogue including lines like "the only difference between you and me Rico, is I'm alive and your dead," this movie is truly a masterpiece. Yeah right.
When I saw this movie I think I was a freshman in high school and I still feel like charging Master P for the hour & 20 mins or so that he took from my life that I'll never get back.<br /><br />The guy who already posted is completely right. Master P is a wannabe mobster. He, like all the other rappers in this country made his millions off of selling rap cds to young impressionable white kids in this country. It's widely known that the mob was not a black thing and blacks were not allowed to be part of it. Unfair as that might be rappers can't deal with. This movie paints Master P as a mobster named Nino? The script is terrible with the acting to match. Completely unbelievable. While searching I came up with a link or something that said he was planning on making another movie called "The Black Sopranos"!!!!<br /><br />Please spare us that and stick to Nickalodeon. You are not a white mobster, your not even a good actor Master P, please stick to your music for the sake of whoever listens to it these days...
This movie rips off of every mobster/gangster film ever made. MP Da Last Don has a reference to every movie. The acting was by far the worst i have every seen. Who the hell is John Mario anyway? His acting was by far the worst I have ever seen. He makes bad actors look good. As far as Master P goes, he's selling out quicker than an N*sync concert. I really wish I was there to tell the whole production company: WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING WHEN PENNING THE SCRIPT?" Obviously these people are so fixated on the gangster image that they decided to make a movie and live out their gangster lives for real in their minds. One thing I do know is that there wasn't anyone who wanted to distribute this film so it seems (and how predictable) that the guys at NO LIMIT had to start; NO LIMIT FILMS. I've said enough! This movie is terrible and it does not deserve to be called a movie!
Well, I don't normally think there's such a thing as a HORRIBLE movie, but this is pretty damned close! The best acting performance in the whole thing was Snoop Dogg, who has one line in a 10 second scene. I agree with the "glad it was short" review. The music videos at the end were cool though.
The moral of this show is that bad eating habits give people bad hair, bad taste in clothes, bad posture, bad jobs, and on and on. They are obviously miserable and loathe themselves. However, if they learn to eat broccoli, they will be wealthy, successful, and attractive. <br /><br />TLC ought to be ashamed of themselves for this blatant exploitation of parental fears and guilt. If nutrition is really that important, they should be able to develop a show using honest and truthful methods. If they really believed in their computer simulations, I'd like to see them do a double-blind test by finding some 40-year-olds, finding out what their eating and exercise habits were as children, and age-progressing the kids' photos. Then compare to the real things. Hey, that sounds like a project for Mythbusters! Discovery Channel--are you listening?<br /><br />TLC must stand for Tabloid Lies and Cons.
Last time I checked, the Nazis didn't win the second world war - not that you'd sodding notice. After all, the Third Reich was pretty big on issuing orders and demanding cold, robotic obedience from the populace, and that's pretty much what we're saddled with today. But the way the orders are delivered has changed. Instead of being barked at in a German accent through a loudhailer, they're disguised as concerned expert advice and floated under your nose every time you switch on the TV or flip open a newspaper There's a continual background hum, a middle-class message of self-improvement, whispered on the wind.<br /><br />"You eat too much. You eat the wrong things. You drink. You smoke. You don't get enough exercise. You probably can't even *beep* properly. You'll die if you don't change your ways. Your health will suffer. Have you got no self-respect? Look at you. You sicken me. I pity you. I hate you. We all hate you. God hates you. Don't you get it? It's so sad, what you're doing to yourself. It's just so bloody sad." That's the mantra. And it goes without saying that the people reciting it are routinely depicted as saints. Last year, the media dropped to its knees to give Jamie Oliver a collective blow job over his School Dinners series, in which he campaigned to get healthier food put on school menus. Given the back-slapping reaction, you'd be forgiven for thinking he'd personally rescued 5,000 children from the jaws of a slavering paedophile.<br /><br />Anyway, the series was a huge success. In fact in telly terms there was only one real drawback: it wasn't returnable. After all, when you've saved every child in the nation from certain death once, you can't really do it a second time. The only solution is to find a new threat, which brings us to Ian Wright's Unfit Kids (Wed, 9pm, C4), a weekly "issuetainment" programme in which the former footballer and renowned enemy of grammar forces a bunch of overweight youngsters to take part in some extra-curricular PE.<br /><br />It's essentially a carbon copy of the Jamie Oliver show, with more sweating and fewer shots of pupils mashing fresh basil with a pestle: an uplifting fable in which Wrighty shapes his gang of misfits into a lean, mean, exercising' machine - combating apathy and lethargy, confronting lazy parents, and attempting to turn the whole thing into a nationwide issue that'll have Range Rover mums everywhere dampening their knickers with sheer sanctimony in between trips to the Conran shop. Oh isn't it simply terrible, what these blob-some plebes do to themselves? Not our Josh you understand: he eats nothing but organic spinach and attends lacrosse practise six hundred times a week.<br /><br />Bet he does, the little sh1t yes, it is heartwarming to watch flabby, inconvenient kids transforming themselves with a bit of simple activity... but there's something about the underlying eat-your-greens message that really sticks in my craw, in case you hadn't guessed.<br /><br />What happened to the concept of CHOICE, you *beep* So a bit of jogging might increase your life expectancy - so what? That just equates to a few more years in the nursing home - whoopee do. And besides, I'd rather drop dead tomorrow than spend the rest of my life sharing a planet with a bunch of smug toss ends trying to out-health one another.<br /><br />In episode two, video games and the internet are singled out as villains in the war on flab: they make kids too sedentary, you see. Oddly enough, TV, which is equally sedentary, and unlike those two activities, actively encourages you to let your mind atrophy along with your physique, escapes without a rollicking. Funny that.<br /><br />Well listen here, Channel 4 - instead of forcing kids to eat bracken or do squat-thrusts, how about teaching them to think more expansively, so they reject the sly, cajoling nature of programmes like this? Or would that be a campaign too far?
In trying to keep up with the hipness of youthful audiences as the 70s approached, OaCD,YCSF was the product of odder and odder material selected for musicalization. Here it's past life regression, ESP and hypno-therapy... pretty loopy! The real problem with the concept (music or not) are the extraordinarily low dramatic stakes; just where can a movie go, and what can happen, when a man falls in love with a previous incarnation of a girl he can't stand? It can't go any place new, but strangely, it can't even go any place old! Indeed, if it could, audiences would still have no interest in the union of Yves Montand (playing a much older, arrogant, French ass) and Streisand. (a much younger girl). We never become invested in them, their situations or outcomes. Montand is miscast and his strong accent makes many of his lyrics unintelligible.<br /><br />It's all been given a shallow 60s veneer that makes it eminently disposable; despite efforts here and there from Minelli that are respectable. It's not even adapted from a non-musical story that met with any previous success... that's just too passe! Streisand occasionally has some funny business to offer, as when she's trying not to fall asleep on her roof and improvises an energetic dance. But she over-relies on her ingratiating (translation: irritating) kooky, Jewish girl shtick. She can however sing very well, at both the "gentle" and "powerhouse" ends of the range. Amidst a score of musical dross, she gets 3 or 4 amazing songs* of much higher caliber than anything Fanny or Dolly had to offer. 'He isn't you' is a sweet trifle as sublime as Lorenz Hart's 'My Funny Valentine,' but the movie isn't able to realize any impact from it; because the lyrics don't seem to be referring to anything in the movie, and nothing remotely suggests a great love is blossoming between Chabot and Melinda.<br /><br />The only cut we can view is a poor hatchet job of a much bigger film. Strong research shows a longer, better-explained and more decorative, but not necessarily a better film at: http://barbra-archives.com/films/clear_day_streisand_2.html. You can be sure there's be more Babs in that version but more importantly, there'd be more thoughtful work from Minelli.<br /><br />In the end Montand sends Babs off to sing the title song, after she discovers he's a total dick who feeds her a self-esteem homily to allow himself off the hook. And she takes the bait. So, uh... hooray for that.<br /><br />(*Hurry it's lovely up here, Love with all the trimmings, He isn't you, & the title song)
"On a Clear Day You Can See Forever" is nothing more than a New Age update of the "Pygmalion" / "My Fair Lady" story: A professor attempts to turn a common girl into an upper society woman. This time, however, instead of using language skills, the professor tries to do so by hypnotism and past life regression.<br /><br />You know a musical has problems when reviewers constantly mention the sets and the costumes before they mention the plot and the music. The songs are instantly forgettable. (No "Get Me to the Church on Time" here, I'm afraid.) And the plot goes nowhere. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, there is no "there" here. The characters wander through the story without ever getting from point A to point B. Professor Chabot claims several times that he will get to the root of Daisy's troubles, but he never seems to do so.<br /><br />All meaningful conflict is avoided. For instance, there comes a time when Chabot's university demands he either stop his research into reincarnation or resign his position. Now there is conflict! Will he give up his career for Daisy? Alas! Nothing comes of this development. A scene or two later the university changes its mind and tells Chabot to continue on with his work. So much for conflict.<br /><br />The talent was certainly assembled for this movie: Directed by Vincente Minnelli. Written, in part, by Alan Jay Lerner. A cast of Yves Montand, Bob Newhart and Jack Nicholson. And, oh yes, starring Barabara Striesand who was nearly at the top of her game at this point in her career.<br /><br />But it all falls flat. Lerner's attempt to reincarnate his greatest success, the previously mentioned "My Fair Lady," is as doomed to failure as Daisy's attempt to revive the greatness of her own past.<br /><br />If you enjoy movie musicals, there are far better choices than this.
Just listen to the Broadway cast album and to the voices of Barbara Harris and John Cullum, who do wonders for the wonderful Lerner and Lane score. Then, with that beautiful cast recording fresh in mind, watch the movie, with Streisand as Streisand, and Yves Montand reading his lines with such a heavy French accent that a chain saw couldn't cut through it. The best part (for those who need something to look forward to) is what Montand does to the introductory part of the title song. Listen as he sings/says: Could anyone among us have an inkling or a clue, what magic feats of wizardry and voodoo you can do? (That one part sums up the problem that results from casting "name stars" in movie musicals instead of the appropriate talent for the various roles.) I can just see Rex Harrison entering that scene and suggesting Montand, too, could learn to do justice to the beauty of the English language.<br /><br />
This is another of Hollywood's anti-communist polemics of the golden 1950s. Stalwart American Gene Barry, lovely Englishwoman Valerie French, and three others are kidnapped by an alien and given clamshells containing fantastic--and fantastically vague--power. What will the Earthlings do with such power? Toss it in the sea or use it to wipe out all of mankind? Anybody who knows American cinema circa 1957 knows the answer to what the commies will do, but the story gets ripe when the Americans actually test the things in the middle of the Pacific. Then one scientist, alone with the ultimate power in the universe, comes up with his own theory and uses it! His smarmy attitude afterward is nauseating, and the cheery disposition of everyone else is appalling.<br /><br />Here's the spoiler for this dog: the capsules inside the clamshells have a mathematical code that tells the prof that they kill only "confirmed enemies of freedom"! That's right--don't worry about the ethical conundrum of killing everyone that an alien pill decides is an enemy of freedom; just do it! Hurray! No commies! Silly female--and you threw yours into the sea! Ha ha! Kiss me, baby!
I made sure to see this film because it is a 1950s sci-fi film--one of my favorite genres. Unfortunately, while I was looking forward to either bug-eyed aliens or power-mad conquerers, the aliens in this film were a MAJOR disappointment! First, you only see one very briefly at the beginning (and he looked pretty ordinary) and you also only got a tiny glimpse of a spaceship! Second, the alien was neither the evil conquerer or the benevolent friend of mankind--but a real odd-ball. And finally, the plot itself seemed so dumb, preachy and heavy-handed that it elicited more yawns than thrills.<br /><br />As the film begins, five people from five different parts of the world (Germany, Britain, Russia, China and the USA) are kidnapped by an alien. The alien gives each of them devices by which they CAN destroy all life on the planet if they so choose--because, the alien admits that HIS race of people would love to inhabit the Earth but they themselves won't kill to get it. Then, he returns them all. While it's 100% obvious that no one would WANT to use these devices, the alien then announces on TV the identities of the five without telling that the weapons are THAT powerful! So, all the militarists in the world want to find the five and force them to reveal how the weapons work. Much of the rest of the film consists of some of the five going into hiding and one being tortured to get him to reveal how the device works--as the Soviets want to use it!!! This part of the film just seemed pretty silly. Sure the USSR was an evil and corrupt nation (sorry, but it's fact--especially under Stalin), they never would have thought of using it like they did in the movie! Later, one of the five (the German scientist), somehow figures out that the devices can also be used to kill only all the EVIL people who hate freedom. So, he uses it to wipe out all the evil Commies and presumably others who were anti-freedom and the world then becomes a paradise!! Preachy, silly and full of plot holes--this movie just isn't worth your time, though it is an interesting relic simply for the way it addresses Communism--in particular, the tensions between Nato and the Soviets.
An intelligent summation of Cold War era mutually assured destruction policy, up until the conclusion: it's a gasser! All Russians and Chinese are obliterated from the face of the Earth! Saw this one at the 27th Annual CWRU Science Fiction Marathon, January 2002.
This is quite possibly one of the worst movies ever made. Everything about it--acting, directing, script, cinematography--is dreadful. The alien (a human in sparkly suit) claims to be from a nearby universe; one assumes the scriptwriter meant "galaxy" but didn't bother to get a dictionary to check his terms. A better title for the film would be "It Came From the Planet of Plot Contrivances." The plot is excessively silly and nearly nonexistent. The humans are all given magical MacGuffins that conform to a tortuous series of unlikely restrictions just to move the bare plot. Any thought to the passage of time is ignored. Now it's a couple days after meeting the alien, then BAM! all of a sudden there's only a couple hours left until zero hour. Do yourself a favor and miss this movie. You will make yourself stupider for having watched it. The ending is particularly silly, and should have been accompanied by someone going "Ta-Da!!!!" as the scriptwriter just pulls something random out of his butt. I think the real alien plot is that this movie sucks so bad you'll get cancer watching it. If you can watch the last 10 minutes without crapping yourself ("enemies of freedom"--honestly) laughing, you're retarded.
This movie has lots of action and little heart. Let's forget for a minute that it gets just about every aspect of the Russian Revolution wrong - after all we only have only under an hour here to tell our story. In fact, the czar abdicated after World War I proved a disaster for the country, and a provisional government tried to rule as a pseudo-democracy until the Leninists took power nine months later, mainly because they promised to immediately withdraw Russia from the war. Now, back to our story.<br /><br />Here we have the revolution being "rumored" in Russian newspapers in what appears to still be a functioning country until violence erupts suddenly and upends the life of nobleman Baron Nikita 'Nikki' Krasnoff (Douglas Fairbanks Jr.). He flees his home with his former servant girl Tanyusha (Nancy Carroll) in tow, and they start to make a new life in Constantinople. Before the revolution the Baron made a regular habit out of making a play for the girl, not out of any real passion, but out of boredom as a diversion of sorts. The revolution doesn't change this, and he continues to try to take advantage of what is obviously a very simple girl. It certainly doesn't make the audience like this guy to see him toying with her so. Tanyusha follows the Baron because she literally has no place to go after the revolutionaries take over the Baron's home, and she has known no other life other than waiting on Nikki hand and foot. Once in Constantinople, Nikki quickly wearies of life as a penniless laborer, and that is when he meets up with his former lover, Russian aristocrat Vera Zimina, who has a plan for getting them to Paris where the Tsarists have congregated after the revolution. Unfortunately for Tanyusha, Vera's plan does not include her.<br /><br />This film manages to completely waste the considerable acting talents of early talkie actress Nancy Carroll. She does a good job with what little she is given to do, but that is not much. Lilyan Tashman is the standout here, even though she has only a small role as Russian vamp Vera. Lilyan was so often given supporting roles just as she is here, but her earthy voice and glamorous looks make her the center of attention in every scene in which she appears. Guy Kibbee even shows up in a humorous bit as an American tourist who is curious about the Russian royalty that has been forcefully ejected from their homeland.
Scarlet Dawn casts Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. as a Russian baron rudely displaced by the forces of the Russian Revolution and now has to fend for himself in a world not terribly hospitable to former aristocrats. He's also not terribly suited for any kind of real work. <br /><br />Doug might have been caught by the Reds but for the fact that his former servant Nancy Carroll didn't give him away. Nancy's got a big old crush on Doug and they do marry once arriving in exile in Istanbul which throughout the film is referred to by its former Christian name of Constantinople. They marry and settle down with Doug now reduced to washing dishes.<br /><br />But Fairbanks's former mistress Lilyan Tashman who's always playing bad girls of a sort on film spots him and offers to have him get back into somewhat the style he was once accustomed to as part of a swindle against father and daughter American tourists Guy Kibbee and Sheila Terry. <br /><br />Good thing this film has the incredibly short running time of only 57 minutes, usually those were given to B westerns because it's both tedious and melodramatic. The ending is rather unbelievable. Doug knew he was in a Thanksgiving special and really overacts to cover up the defects of a unbelievable story.<br /><br />What I didn't understand was that Fairbanks was trained in the military profession, why didn't he just become a mercenary soldier after leaving the new Soviet Union? That didn't make sense to me at all.<br /><br />I'd only see this if I was a dedicated fan of any the main players.
Am not from America, I usually watch this show on AXN channel, I don't know why this respected channel air such sucking program in prime time slot. Creation of Hollywood's Money Bank Jerry Bruckheimer, this time he is spending a big load of cash in the small screen. In each episode a bunch of peoples having two team members travels from on country to another for a great sum of money; where the camera crews shoot their travels. I don't know who the hell gave this stupid idea for the show. It has nothing to watch for, in all episodes we see people ran like beggars, some times shouting, crying, beeping, jerky camera works..huh it's harmful to both eyes and ears. The most disgusting part in the race is the viewers finally knows each of the team members can't enjoy their race/traveling experience. Even though, to add up the ratings the producers came up with the ideas of including Gays in one shows, sucking American reality show.<br /><br />It's nothing to watch for, better switch to another channels.<br /><br />The Amazing Race = The Disgusting Show.
As a documentary, this is laughable in a campy sort of way -- a schlocky collection of re-created Biblical tableaux mixed in with solemn interviews of so-called "experts." Think of it as an infommercial which pushes Jesus instead of thigh-masters. <br /><br />However, the detailed crucifixion scene is, in terms of historical accuracy, superior to similar scenes in such widescreen Hollywood extravaganzas as "Ben-Hur," "King of Kings," and "The Greatest Story Ever Told." Rather than dragging his entire cross to Golgotha, for example, John Rubinstein simply carries his crossbeam strapped across his shoulders to his outstretched arms. Nails aren't driven through his palms but instead through his wrists. His feet aren't nailed separately but one is placed over the other so that just one nail need be used. Incidentally, Rubinstein's flogging prior to his crucifixion ranks 35th in the book, "Lash! The Hundred Great Scenes of Men Being Whipped in the Movies."<br /><br />Of course, Rubinstein and the two thieves wear modest loincloths, which probably isn't true to the shameful reality of Roman crucifixions, but allowances must be made. Curiously, the "good" thief is positioned on the left hand of Jesus, which goes against a long-standing tradition. Just why this thief is played by a pudgy, overweight man is, however, a mystery, especially in view of the fact that the "bad" thief is something of a "hunk."
The biggest problem with "In Search of Historic Jesus" is that there is very little search to it at all. Shick-Sunn produced these "documentary" films in the 1970s and just into the '80s, which featured interviews with "experts" and discussion of "science" and "facts" to make a case for whatever the title of the film was looking to cash in on.<br /><br />Sadly, "Historic Jesus" is really little more than a third-rate dramatization of the life of Christ. Unlike Shick-Sunn's more superior "In Search of Noah's Ark" which spends the majority of its running time discussing the possibility that the ark is resting on the earth today and where that might be, this film is basically the story of Jesus with no effort made to prove or disprove his existence. The famed Shroud of Turrin is mentioned, but little other detective work is given much screen time.<br /><br />For fans of these quasi-documentary films like "Jupiter Menace" and "In Search of Bigfoot", etc., this movie doesn't offer much.
This had the promise of being an interesting film. The subject matter was certainly a promising one - the excesses of the Catholic Church during the counter-reformation. However, not only was this not developed (other than a two paragraph introduction), many things were not explained - i.e. the gypsies, the Anabaptists, the inquisitors and their relationship to the one true church. Nor were the politics of the time explained, i.e. the relationship between the Catholic church and its supporters like the Holy Roman Emperor. Though these may have been apparent to an Austrian audience, the lack of explanation makes it confusing for Americans.<br /><br />But perhaps it's a good thing that they didn't emphasize the history since what they showed was pretty inaccurate anyway. Instruments of torture, bloody executions, witch and heretic burnings, big shiny swords and pretty golden reliquaries are the stars of the film. It could have just as easily been one of those Conan-type sword and sorcery movies, only with period costumes...
I saw the film yesterday and stopped it at half time because I felt it was a waste of time. The idea to make a film through the eyes of a headsman - one of the "evil guys" throughout most fantasy and medieval films - is great and offers plenty of possibilities but... the film couldn't catch one of them. I was not feeling for any of the characters, the plot was all too predictable (to the point that I followed it)and the second leap of time in the storyline made me quit. Those who expect a deep insight into the emotional situation of a headsman in the middle Ages, a social outcast to that time, might be disappointed.
STAR RATING: ***** Unmissable **** Very Good *** Okay ** You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead * Avoid At All Costs <br /><br />The tale of the titular Adam (Mark O' Halloran) and Paul (Tom Murphy), two heroin addicts in the slums of Dublin and their daily amblings about in their meaningless lives searching for the next fix that will make their day. Along the way they try and reconcile with close family and friends who they've managed to let down and destroy over the years.<br /><br />I know a lot of Irish people like to drink, but it seems some of them have problems with heroin, too by the looks of this movie. I know there is a bit of a drug problem over there, like there is in many parts of the world, so another humorous take on the subject matter is not an entirely unexpected thing.<br /><br />I don't recall the last Irish movie I saw (the film is shot in a style that makes it stand out from any film I've seen lately!) And, judging from that, obviously I'm not as enlightened on their humour as I could be. The film is rather funny in certain parts, but it's obviously another comedy that isn't afraid to raise near-the-knuckle laughs. The scene in which the mentally disabled boy is robbed down the back of an alley is certainly true of what a pair of junkies might do to feed their habit but is nonetheless utterly despicable and I'm not sure if it was meant as dark humour in any way but it certainly didn't put a smile on my face! It's also in stark contrast to their previous actions where they're seen showing their soft side rocking a baby to-and-fro. In light of this, some may find the ending sad, others may see it as just desserts.<br /><br />Overall, I just failed to see the point to the film. I didn't see any motivation in the 'story' it was telling. It just seems to amble along without really involving the audience in any way. Unlike Trainspotting (which dealt with similar themes!) it's an unsuccessful effort for the most part that had me on the verge of nodding off despite it's very short 83 minute running time. Really no more enjoyable than following two real life junkies around for a day. **
i am working at a video store so i got to see this one for free- thank god, had i paid for it my review would be less forgiving.<br /><br />well, the major idea of the film (geeky girl takes bloody revenge) isn't all that original, there are several parallels to "carrie" (playing a mean practical joke on a loser, except for one nice girl that is actually sorry for her, tamaras and carries bad family background). i still think it's a fun idea for trashy teen horror flick unfortunately they didn't take much advantage of the potentials that are here and rather put an emphasis on all the wrong things.<br /><br />what worked: i liked the actress that played tamara. she looked great (when she was hot) and her catty lines were fun ("Sean can't come to the phone. he's f**king patrick!").<br /><br />what didn't work: the whole wicca thing was silly. i generally prefer rational explanations (she could have ploted the whole thing with her teacher or one of the boys to get her revenge). there were a lot of logical wholes and the gore looked really bad (when the boy is cutting of his ear and his tongue- please!!!)<br /><br />the whole idea wasn't bound for Oscar buzz, but i just think they wasted the comedic and the suspenseful potential they had. it was bearable but far from good!
I saw this movie, and I do like horror movies.<br /><br />I did not know what to expect, but as soon the movie was on his way it was nice to watch it. The idea was pretty original and the acting was nice. Especially Jenna Dewan as the exciting/evil Tamara.<br /><br />The hardest thing about horror movies, is to make a good ending. But there the movie failed. For a change, a end-scene in a hospital, where suddenly all employees are gone. First you see doctors and nurses running around, but then they all went home?<br /><br />No cries for help while being chased by Tamara, Escaping to the roof (also a smart move...not) and off course a kind of open ending.<br /><br />No....the movie started great, the main part was nice to watch, but they really messed up the ending using all clichés from bad horror movies. Jeffrey Reddick failed in my eyes with this movie, after making some really quality movies like Final Destination 1 and 2.<br /><br />If you like a good horror full of cliché endings, Tamara is a good movie to watch. For me, I like movies which surprise me.
"Tamara" just felt like another teen oriented knock-off of the "I Know What You Did Last Summer" trend and is painfully dull. A high school outcast, who is heavily into witchcraft and black magic, is accidentally killed during a cruel prank carried out by a group of bullies who secretly bury her in the woods, vowing to tell no one. The next day, the supposedly "dead" Tamara, arrives at school with a completely new image and seduces her would-be killers and has a little revenge... This is basically a combination of "Carrie", "The Craft", and every other straight-to-video, teeny bopper turkey that hits the shelves these days. The actors are absolutely atrocious and look about ten years too old to pass off as high schoolers. There IS some gore, which is actually nothing all that interesting since the movie is so boring and I couldn't wait for it to end. If you like modern garbage than I insist you seek this one out, otherwise don't bother...
Teenager Tamara (Jenna Dewan) has it rough. She's ridiculed by all the popular "kids" for being shy, bookish, frumpy and because of her interest in witchcraft. All of the football players and cheerleaders are especially angry at her for writing an article on steroid abuse for the school paper. On top of this, her dad's a drunk, her mom's not around and she's secretly in love with her supportive English teacher (Matthew Marsden). The popular kids set up a cruel prank to humiliate her, accidentally kill her during a struggle, bury the body in the woods and make a pact to keep silent. To their shock, the very next day Tamara walks back into the classroom looking seductive and, uh, dressed to kill. Yep, back from the dead and ready for supernatural revenge against everyone involved. She also takes time out to make her sexually abusive pop eat a beer bottle and tries to seduce her English teacher away from his wife (Claudette Mink), a guidance counselor at the school.<br /><br />Acting and writing are strictly mediocre. You can also tell the people responsible for this have seen such movies as CARRIE (1976), HELLO MARY LOU: PROM NIGHT II (1987) and THE CRAFT (1996) because it borrows wholesale from all three of those superior films. There's some gore (a guy cutting off his ear and tongue and then stabbing his eyeball probably being the best bit), a nasty vomiting scene and a few campy/witty one-liners. Not an awful film by any means, but not much originality went into it either.
OK, fans, it's out on DVD. But the only reason to watch this is 1) to say you did (due to its notoriety), or 2) if you're a hardcore Bill Paxton fan. I am not a hardcore BP fan but he was fun to watch and it was the only thing that kept me from turning this off from sheer boredom. It's a shame, because this could have been a good movie with some script work and if made by someone with some intelligence (and with a cast led by someone besides the totally miscast and talentless Judd Nelson). Sure it's gross, but it's BAD, and not in a good way. If after reading all the comments on how bizarrely revolting and dystopianly filthy this movie is you are still interested, do yourself a favor and see some GOOD bizarre revolting dystopian filth instead. Films by John Waters, David Lynch, Peter Jackson's "Braindead", Henenlotter's "Basket Case", etc., all come to mind. There's lots better out there.
This film was such a mess I actually reimbursed my friends who I dragged to see it. The only reason I went to see it was that my friend was an apprentice editor on the shoot.<br /><br />I'm sure that this film was meant to be campy, but the approach was so heavy-handed and self-reflexive it turned out really flat. Judd Nelson stars as an obsequious garbage man who is a hack comedian on the side. His life is hell and made worse by his obnoxious and overbearing companion Bill Paxton (who I feel embarrassed for - this was a really tasteless role for a talented actor). A freak accident alters Nelson's career course and mayhem ensues.<br /><br />The attempts at humor were corny, predictable and often base and tasteless. Wayne Newton in the cast as a talent agent is a novelty but he adds nothing - comedically or otherwise.<br /><br />Overall, it's a very weak and uncreative attempt at camp humor that goes over like a lead balloon. At least you could laugh AT Plan 9 From Outer Space. This one just makes you wonder who thought this was a good enough idea to finance and film. One of the all time worst bombs you'll ever witness.
I was invited to view this film at a small art museum screening. I had no clue what to expect. I was initially optimistic in the opening credits to see Judd Nelson, Bill Paxton, Wayne Newton, James Cann, Rob Lowe, and Lara-Flynn-Boyle listed. However after some very disturbing grossed-out scenes (that did not add much to the story advancement), this film quickly became a weapon of torture. The gimmick of the vestigial growing arm storyline is never really developed. I patiently kept waiting for this film to cash-in. There was a small payoff in the end, but having to invest and sit through the the endless gross, crude, sexually-perverted, in-your-face screaming, unfunny gore cost too much for me (even for a free viewing). What were these established actors doing in this awful film? The art direction was very convincing and creepy. At the very minimum, it should only be a 75-minute film. This is a film that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld would embrace.
A friend warned me that this was the worst movie he had ever seen. I was curious, because it had developed a bit of a cult status. I like a lot of odd indie cult movies so I gave it a shot. I have to agree with my friend. It is a steaming pile of dung. I am sorry to the people who love this movie, but I can recommend much better stuff if you want to watch a twisted indie cult film. Try Peter Jackson's Dead Alive (aka Braindead), Cemetery Man (aka Dellamorte Dellamore) , or Modern vampires.
This movie has no heart and no soul; it's an attempt to whomp up a cult film out of the leavings of other, better, directors, principally David Lynch and Tim Burton. Rifkin seems to think that if he overloads on a kind of rotted visual style and fills the street with crud and garbage, he's making a statement. But it's not a statement ABOUT anything -- except the director's shrill shriek of "HEY LOOK AT ME! I'M AN ARTIST, TOO." But he doesn't have the imagination of an artist, just a good memory for things that worked -- such as some of the actors trapped in this -- for other directors. All of this would be almost acceptable if this movie was not a turgid, boring chore to sit through.
. . . and never, ever see it. Now, I've been watching bad scifi movies for years. I love watching bad scifi movies. I think that was the only reason I could watch this movie the whole way through. I was toughened up by "Nukie," "Indian Superman," and that awful "Fantastic Four" movie, just to name some examples. Usually, I have to beat my head against the wall after I've seen a bad movie to make some of the pain go away. No, not with this one. With "TDB," I had to hit myself in the head with a shoe in the middle of the movie. Temporary fix. I can't believe I wanted to see that. I cried. When it finished, I cried. It was horrible. It was worse than when I saw *shudders* Wil Wheaton in his underwear in "The Curse," which, by the way, never watch either. Aside from the fact that Wesley Crusher's in his tighty whiteys, it's just sooo bad. But this review is about "TDB." The worst part about it is that someone wrote this movie and said, "This deserves to go on film! It's great!" and Wayne Newton, Rob Lowe, and everyone else in the cast said, "Oh, this is what I want on my film history!" I'll watch "Indian Superman" until the cows come home, but I am never going to see this steaming pile of dren again.
i have had this movie, in the back of my head sense i saw it. i have wanted to tell people about it time and again, but never remembered. now i found it. now finally, i can tell people precisely what the absolute worst, most crappy movie i have ever seen in my entire life, bar none is.<br /><br />this movie is complete trash, and is unfit for a garbage dump. all prints and other copy's of this movie should be rounded up loaded into a large rocket, and launched into the sun. only the purifying heat and pressure of the sun might be able to purify the materials this movie is stored on, so that they can be useful to the universe again.<br /><br />i like movies. i like bad movies. and yes this is an opinion. but this movie was pure trash, filth, and excrement of some beast that should never be seen let alone named by man.<br /><br />i would rather watch a Uwe Boll Movie marathon than watch this movie. and i hate Uwe Boll's films.
This movie starts with interesting set design and a promising premise, but fails to provide the cult-movie goods. Set in a gritty parallel universe where everything is owned by the "Blump" Corporation, it concerns a horrible stand-up comic who finds success when he grows a third arm out of his back.<br /><br />All the potential for great cheese is here -- washed-up 80's star Judd Nelson, Wayne Newton, offbeat visuals and strange plot digressions, obese women in skimpy lingerie, necrophilia -- but it never pays off.<br /><br />The pacing is the main problem. Each scene is excrutiatingly slow. Nelson's stand-up routines are supposed to be funny because they're pathetically not funny. But each performance drags on until it's not even tangentially funny, just boring.<br /><br />Imagine someone telling you the longest, weirdest joke imaginable, full of smirky self-congratulation for how funny and weird he thinks it is. Imagine after a stultifying two hours of this, you never got a punch line. You've just saved yourself the trouble of watching The Dark Backward.
This is a cheapy biography of a star of the black and white minstrel shows, a certain Dixie Boy Johnson. Whether this person ever really existed I don't know, but considering the cast lists a certain "Lee Lasses White" and Roscoe Karns playing said character as well, I assume the man did exist and that this is a white-washed (pardon the pun) version of his career. The plot, such as it is, follows Dixie Boy from career heights to depression at the death of his wife in childbirth, his abandonment of the child to friends, and his return at his daughter's sixteenth birthday and stage debut for reconciliation. Another forgotten man, Benny Fields, plays Dixie Boy. The man has a lovely baritone voice but no acting talent whatsoever and is a boring lump on screen. Gladys George valiantly tries her best to enliven the works to no avail. Judy Clark does the best impersonation of Betty Hutton I've ever seen although I believe she thought she was being herself. The scoring replete with many musical numbers for its short running time of 70 minutes earned a deserved Oscar nom. Worth a look.
No one is going to mistake THE SQUALL for a good movie, but it sure is a memorable one. Once you've taken in Myrna Loy's performance as Nubi the hot-blooded gypsy girl you're not likely to forget the experience. When this film was made the exotically beautiful Miss Loy was still being cast as foreign vixens, often Asian and usually sinister. She's certainly an eyeful here. It appears that her skin was darkened and her hair was curled. In most scenes she's barefoot and wearing little more than a skirt and a loose-fitting peasant blouse, while in one scene she wears nothing but a patterned towel. I suppose I'm focusing on Miss Loy's appearance because she is by far the best if not the only reason to tune in to this creaky antique and to keep watching. You sure won't be attracted by the dialogue, which is hopeless. In one typical passage, Nubi gazes out the window at the departing caravan and waxes poetic: "Always the gypsies, they sing. Weird and sad. When the big sun have breath of fire that burn, and when the pale moon look from behind cloud and breathe air cold as death, they sing." Poetic, or what? Lovers of purple prose will have a field day. I can't help but wonder, though, if in her later years Miss Loy preferred not to recall her involvement with this project.<br /><br />Like so many early talkies this one was an adaptation of a recent Broadway success. The stage version opened at the 48th Street Theatre in November of 1926 and ran for over a year. The play provoked a famous episode involving the humorist and theater critic Robert Benchley, who was known to have an aversion to characters who spoke in thick dialect or pidgin English. According to a much-repeated anecdote Mr. Benchley squirmed uncomfortably through the opening portion of this show. The Spanish village setting (moved to a village in Hungary for the movie, for some reason) gave the actors leeway to practice their accents with varying degrees of success, but Benchley's patience reached its limit when, during a family dinner sequence, a door burst open and an actress dressed as a gypsy girl dashed into the room shouting "Help! Help! He keel me!" She then threw herself at the feet of the mistress of the household and exclaimed "Me Nubi! Me good girl! Me stay here!" At that point Mr. Benchley rose and announced to his companion: "Me Bobby. Me bad boy. Me go now," and left the theater.<br /><br />The film version offers numerous examples of unintended humor but never comes close to Benchley's level of wit. The melodramatic plot concerns the Lajos family: father Josef, mother Maria, and son Paul, a student at the nearby college. We would consider this prosperous family "upper-middle class" as they are landowners with servants and all the comforts of life, but their comfortable existence is abruptly thrown into turmoil when a gypsy caravan arrives in the village and their home is invaded by, yes, Nubi the nubile gypsy girl. She arrives at their door during the storm of the title-- symbolizing stormy emotions, I daresay. The girl is fleeing an abusive relationship and begs for sanctuary. After considering the matter the Lajos family agrees to hide her from her angry lover, who shows up shortly afterward but is turned away. Nubi becomes a servant in the household. Kindness motivates the family's decision to take her in, but soon enough that conniving little good-for-nothing Nubi has paid them back by seducing every able-bodied male in the vicinity, starting with the Lajos' servant Peter, then working her way up to son Paul. Nubi breaks up Paul's relationship with his fiancé Irma (played by Loretta Young, still a teenager), causes him to flunk out of school, and then prompts him to buy her jewelry by stealing the savings of the family's maid Lena (ZaSu Pitts). Lena, for her part, is still mourning the loss of her own fiancé Peter, seduced and tossed aside by Nubi when she turned her attentions to Paul. Ultimately Nubi sets her sights on the pater familias Josef, and I suppose if the running time had been longer she also would've gone after Uncle Dani, Maria, the village priest and God knows who else.<br /><br />I guess it goes without saying that a scenario like this one easily lends itself to parody, but during its first half THE SQUALL nonetheless exerts the undeniable fascination of a daytime soap: we watch, hypnotized, as the Bad Girl works her spell on the men-folk and wreaks havoc like an irresistible force of nature (almost like-- a storm! Ah-haa, another metaphor!). But as the plot machinations grind on the campy fun fades. During the later scenes Nubi is de-emphasized and the focus switches to the dysfunctional dynamics of the Lajos family, and after awhile these people get to be a real drag. The son in particular behaves like an absolute heel, yet the parents never acknowledge this or face up to their own shortcomings; everything, we're told, is the fault of Nubi, that no-good tramp.<br /><br />The men of the cast are dull. Aside from Miss Loy the only actress who can handle performing in talkies is ZaSu Pitts, terrific as usual. The mother of the Lajos household is played by Alice Joyce, a longtime silent star who was out of her element with speaking roles, and who retired soon after this. Loretta Young's fresh prettiness provides a nice contrast to Nubi's dusky allure, but her line readings are so awkward it's kind of endearing. No, there's only one reason to watch this flick, and that's Nubi herself. I can't think of another actress who could've played this silly role and managed to come off half as well. I'm not an objective observer, however. I have a desperate crush on Myrna Loy and will watch her in anything, even THE SQUALL.
Some of the early talkies survived to become classics. 1929's "The Squall" is a classic all right, but not in the way it was intended. Melodramatic in story and acting, today it seems ludicrous, particularly the casting of Myrna Loy as Nubi, a seductive gypsy. Imagine Nora Charles breaking up a young couple and driving a young man to steal. Outrageous! However, as many people know, when Loy first came to Hollywood, she did quite a few of these exotic seductress roles.<br /><br />Based on a play, "The Squall" concerns the aforementioned Gypsy who in the film is now in Hungary (Spain in the play) running away from her cruel master and inviting herself into the home of the Lajos family (Richard Tucker and Alice Joyce), basically by appearing at the door. One by one, Nubi seduces the men of the family and the farm talking her pidgin English ("Nubi not bad! Nubi do nothing wrong!") and dropping hints about nice presents. The son in the family, Paul (Carroll Nye) is engaged to the beautiful Irma (Loretta Young) and can't wait to marry her. He loses interest when he meets Nubi.<br /><br />With the exception of the lovely Alice Joyce, Zasu Pitts as a woman who lives in the household and the stunningly beautiful Loretta Young, the acting is uniformly awful. Loy is stuck with the hallmarks of her character - bad English, whining and hysteria. With her darkened makeup, peasant getup and curly hair, she is not only beautiful but right out of the 1980s - quite modern, though Richard Tucker's putting the back of his hand on his forehead reminds us we're just emerging from the silents.<br /><br />Robert Osborne on TCM commented that this film is one of his secret pleasures. While it is deliciously bad, it's not deliciously bad enough to sit through again. It's just bad - but a great example of how far we've come and, had someone not picked up on Myrna Loy's sense of humor, how limited her wonderful career might have been.
Into a happy household comes the gypsy girl, played by Myrna Loy. With her amazingly wild hair and voice that sounds very high-pitched and weird, it's hard to believe this is Loy!! She bears no similarity whatsoever to the refined and funny character Nora Charles who she played in the Thin Man movies. Instead, she overacts so badly that you'd almost expect her to be in an Ed Wood movie. What a huge difference a few years made in the quality films she got as well as her acting ability!! On top of the horrendously silly character, the film also fails because it just isn't interesting or exciting--just very, very stagy and stupid. The only thing good about it is the Vitaphone sound system--making the sound quality of this turkey about the best I have heard from 1929. Heck, it was even better than most 1930 films, so the sound technician at least has something to be proud of--all others, forget it.<br /><br />This is a movie that even the host of Turner Classic Movies referred to as a "guilty pleasure" because the movie is so bad! And, after having seen it I disagree...slightly. The movie is simply bad.
I like a lot of Myrna Loy movies. This film was produced before her character actor personality was developed. It would be an okay short film but seems to go on forever in it's complete form.<br /><br />Myrna Loy it seems is told what to do with her acting and does the job. That is about all you can say about her.<br /><br />Her gypsy character is shoddy and the film has many flaws, such as the jewelry shop scene.<br /><br />This film will probably be interesting to Myrna Loy fans but even as such is something of a disappointment.
It didn't take too long after Halloween had kicked off the slasher boom for the category to be cursed by continuous mediocrity. As early as 1983 the genre was already struggling to release more than three decent offerings per year and by '88 the stalk and slash flick had become pretty much the whipping boy of horror cinema. By that time major studios were all aware that repeating the tired formula was no longer a lucrative direction, which left it up to independent and mostly inexperienced filmmakers to continue the legacy that John Carpenter had created. Although there was still an impressive number of features hitting shelves in 88, most of them were weakly produced and taken as a whole they were eminently unappealing. With that said there were a couple of gems amongst the rubble. Scott Spiegel's Intruder in its uncut form was a superb gross out classic, whilst Evil Dead Trap proved that the cycle had not yet completely run out of style and panache. William Lustig's Maniac Cop was successful enough to launch a franchise and two years later Dead Girls and Mirage proved to be the last beguiling breaths of life in the ailing category.<br /><br />It was the continual release of schlock like Berserker, Blood Lake and Rush Week that cursed the slasher movie to eight years of obscurity. It finally took the big budgeted flamboyance of Wes Craven's Scream to provide the necessary resuscitation. Having not heard anything about Demon Warrior before I came across it unexpectedly, I instantly assumed that it was part of the low brow trash that led to the downfall of the slasher phase. But with that said the movie boasts an intriguing premise that sits comfortably beside Scalps and Camping Del Terrore as another welcome addition to the Native-American influenced catalogue.<br /><br />A truck pulls up on a woodland road and out step two laughably dramatised rednecks. The hillbilly lumberjacks are only on screen for around for ten seconds and then they are murdered by an unseen menace. Next we meet a troupe of five young adults that are heading to the same location for a spot of shotgun-target-practice on some of the local wildlife. The area is owned by Neil Willard and has been passed down through three generations of his family. His Grandfather stole the land from an Indian medicine man that was rumoured to have left a curse on the property. According to legend, every ten years a Demon Warrior with an extreme hatred for mankind stalks the forest reaping revenge on those he deems responsible for the pilfering of the tribe's home. It wouldn't be much fun if those myths were a falsehood, so regular as clockwork a maniacal assassin turns up with a taste for blood. Will the kids be able to stop this phantom killer…?<br /><br />Demon Warrior is best described as a bigger budgeted (but still woefully cheap) re-imaging of Fred Olen Ray's Scalps. The bogeymen from both films are virtually identical and the director even throws in a scalping sequence to confirm my suspicions. Things start promisingly with some crisp Friday the 13th-style first-person cinematography and a couple of shock-jolts that were composed with finesse by director Frank Patterson. Thomas Callaway did a good job with the photography and the tribal-drum score makes a refreshing change from the more traditional late-eighties synthesizer rubbish. Flourishes of suspense are juxtaposed with a couple of credible directorial embellishments and there are even a few attempts at humour. The killer looked successfully creepy in demon attire and the inclusion of a bow and arrow as the main murder weapon was a deft touch from the director.<br /><br />Fred Olen Ray's notorious slasher was notable for its stark and credibly unsettling atmosphere. Unfortunately despite being produced on twice the budget, Demon Warrior never comes close to the film that it so desperately emulates. Rumor has it that the majority of the actors were drafted from the Texas Baylor University and were not even paid for their inclusion in the feature, so of course it goes without saying that the dramatics are appropriately abysmal. I especially enjoyed the hilarious John Langione – an 'Italian' Native American (don't ask) that portrays about as much emotion as the trees in the forest that surrounded him. Warrior started with some credible glimpses of panache from the director that actually led me to believe that this could be a welcome inclusion to the slasher index. Unfortunately, the poisonous cocktail of heinous acting and an ending plucked directly from stupidsville seriously changed the initial plan I had in mind for a rating. It's a shame that the dramatics were so scraped from the bottom of the thespian barrel, because at times Demon Warrior showed flashes of potential.<br /><br />All in all, Patterson's movie is a mixed bag of ideas – some of them were good, but mostly they were staggeringly mediocre. Because this was released at a time when the slasher genre had been watered down to avoid the scissor happy censors, there's really no gore worth mentioning. Even the scalping sequence is relatively tame compared to Olen Ray's graphic depiction. Demon Warrior has the odd moment of credibility, but not often enough to warrant a purchase. Not as bad as the aforementioned Berserker, Blood Lake et al, but not really THAT good either…..
When I was 13 or so I was lucky enough to find this film. It was part of an endless Danish series of really cheesy stuff. This however was the cheesiest I ever owned - but I guess I sold it, too bad. Well what to write... Better than "Manos: the hands of fate" and worse than "Critters 4". But it's definitely worth an hour and a half since this was made by people who wanted to make it. The acting isn't that terrible compared to several other eighties trash - in fact I kind of like the old man even though he did'NWT look that Indian to me. But I guess you can't have everything... Do yourselves a favour and look this up...
One of the most pleasant surprises of this early 3-strip Technicolor short was that a ballet dancer that appears here was named Maria Gambarelli! I half wondered if Blake Edwards was naming the character played by Elke Sommer in A Shot in the Dark after this now-forgotten performer (though the spelling of the Sommer character's surname was actually Gambrelli). I watched this on YouTube mainly to see an early Judy Garland appearance as we watch her in profile with her two older sisters singing "La Cucaracha". That was the highlight for me which otherwise showed some dances (like that of Ms. Gambarelli) that were enjoyable and some lame comedy between Andy Devine as a great bull-fighter (yeah, right!) and Buster Keaton as a bull owner who provides one that is obviously a man in animal costume. Only funny part of those two is when they cry-with Buster providing handkerchief to "bull"-during the sad part of "La Cucaracha". Also lame was seeing Ted Healy without his stooges dealing with a crasher who keeps mistaking Healy for other movie stars. (Healy himself didn't know Zeppo had left The Marx Brothers since he puts "Four" between "The" and "Marx"!) Speaking of a Marx, it was interesting seeing Harpo without his wig though he is wearing a hat to hide his bald head. Also interesting was seeing Ida Lupino among the cowgirls in the beginning though I also recognized Toby Wing from her part in Murder at the Vanities last year (at least when announcer Pete Smith identified her). Oh, and Smith himself wasn't funny with his wise-guy narration. Other famous stars you may or may not recognize are also in cameos and not all are M-G-M contract players either! So with all that said, La fiesta de Santa Barbara is worth a look for anyone curious about Judy Garland's early film appearances or the early use of 3-strip Technicolor.
'Nuff said. An undercover cop from the state capital is sent to a small county where moonshine running is rampant. He ends up getting run off the road by some local hicks who have no idea he's an undercover cop (so they just drive away as blissfully dopey as ever). He is soon being taken care of by a woman and her three daughters who all wear low-cut tops and short shorts (gotta luv the '70s). He falls in love with one of the girls but in the meantime he still has to find out who's making all the moonshine and driving it to all the local bars and restaurants. He also has to contend with a fat sheriff and his incompetent deputy who think he's the moonshiner 'cause he's new in town.<br /><br />Life in small town America, 70s style. YEE HAAAAAAAAAAA.
The film's title makes it sound like a porno but it's not even a sex comedy. Instead, Hot Summer in Barefoot County is about an official sent from a southern state to a small town to locate and arrest moonshiners. The moonshine though is coming from the farm of an old woman with three beautiful daughters. Almost anyone can guess what happens next but oddly, the film is very tame. It hardly even qualifies for a PG rating. What's more, the low budget is obvious in pretty much every shot and the acting is sooooo amateurish. This film was probably intended for the drive-in crowd but it's unlikely that it satisfied them, even in 1974.
My brother was working at a movie theater when I saw this movie; I saw it for free and still walked out. I have seen a lot of movies in my time but this was the worst. When people ask me what the worst movie I have ever seen was I mention this movie in less than one second. This movie is bad because it goes from one lame plot set-up to the next, it encourages stereotypes about blacks that are sickening and the flow is awful. If you want to see how to make children cry and vomit at the same time then study this movie. Okay, this movie is not good "bad" but terrible bad. If you are like one of those people that watch horrible movies for fun, like me, you will not even be able to make it through this very short film. Please for the love of God destroy all copies of this movie.
This movie should have ended as soon as the joke about Bebe's Kids is told in the opening. I liked Robin Harris and most of his comedy but the really funny routines were not meant to be something the whole family could go see. Liken it to taking the point of one of Jerry Seinfeld's jokes and attempting to squeeze the joke for as long as you can in order to turn it into a movie. This movie had to be self-serving because I can not find anyone who found the settings or antics familiar. Whats most funny about this movie is the gumption of the writers and producers to pass it off as something of value. 1/10 stars because there is no half star.
USA's AZN TV purchased the rights to this film and the network is showing it using the English title THE PICKPOCKET.<br /><br />1997's THE PICKPOCKET takes amateur home-movie style movie making to amazing levels of unpleasantness. The movie depicts a long-winded series of boring wanderings of an uninteresting, confused guy. This lead character, Xiao Wu, does not simply walk about aimlessly. Viewers will unfortunately soon realize that Xiao Wu has an unsurpassed talent to seek out, and remain dormant near the most obnoxious noises to be found in China. Clanging empty tin buckets being beaten with a stick -- he is there. Every old motor in China clunking in agony -- he is there. A crying baby? Yes, you guessed it, he is there! According to THE PICKPOCKET, China is the most irritating unpleasant sounding place on planet Earth.<br /><br />The only element worse than the sound of THE PICKPOCKET is the photography. The camera shakes, shakes and shakes some more. Finally, the camera stills, but then it falls to the actor's knees and just stays there until someone in the crew realizes the mistake and begins to shake the camera again. Most of the shaky film is framed in distant, long, long, long shots. The few times when the camera gets somewhat close, nothing compelling ever takes place to connect the viewer with what is happening.<br /><br />The photography is murky, faded and often blurry. The use of color is -- well, there is no sign of intelligence controlling the use of color. Most every shot is held 20 times too long. Few movies are so painful to sit through. This film is painful to watch, and painful to hear. And then it simply ends.<br /><br />John Woo fans might enjoy being able to hear part of the soundtrack to DIE XUE SHUANG XIONG (THE KILLER) as the lead character is hanging outside of a video store for many minutes. Anyway, be warned -- THE PICKPOCKET will steal away your good time.
This is a case of taking a fairy tale too far. The Enchanted Cottage delivers Dorothy McGuire as a "terrible ugly" spinster and Robert Young as a disfigured pilot. Long story short: Scarface marries Spinster, after which their love transforms them, miraculously (lighting, cosmetics and the removal of fake scars), into beautiful people—a magical change that they attribute to the enchantment of living in a seaside cottage that has been the abode of generations of honeymooners.<br /><br />If the story stopped there, fine; it would be a fable with a proverbial message: beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But it lurches ahead, reaching for reality. When Mr. and Mrs. Scarface greet their public, it comes as a painful shock to them that they're still homely. You see, they only appear beautiful to each other– a situation which the audience is well prepared for because all the secondary characters have been sermonizing that ill-favored people really need to lower their expectations, and find other ways to be happy. You know. Take up hobbies. Spinster does woodcuts, for instance. Scarface considers collecting driftwood.<br /><br />The original playwright (Arthur Wing Pinero) and the filmmakers have zero faith in human nature. Their message is: You're either ugly or pretty, and no pretty person would ever love an ugly one. What's even worse, ugly people evidently need to imagine their lover as pretty. Reality just won't do.<br /><br />One wonders what Elaine Mason saw every day when she looked at her husband, Stephen Hawking.
I hadn't seen this in many years. The acting was so good as I began this time, I thought, "Great! Another movie I misjudged as a foolish young man." But then the theme started to be clear and I felt the same way.<br /><br />This was Hollywood, the seat of glamor; so the concept shouldn't be a surprise. But it is so condescending a concept I feel as if I need to take a shower after watching it. In brief, it tells us that even physically ugly people can seem beautiful to each other and even feel attractive.<br /><br />Dorothy McGuire is likable as the homely heroine. She seems to have been filmed wearing minimal make-up. Robert Young is injured in the war and feels scarred. His parents can't bear to look at him either. He seems to have all his faculties and in part, the notions of disability are outmoded.<br /><br />Herbert Marshall is on hand as a blind pianist. His character speaks is hushed tones and is omniscient.<br /><br />The best performance is given by Mildred Natwick as the owner of the title residence. She is bitter and dour but not made of ice. Her story is much more interesting, and believable, than that of McGuire and Young.
Before the days of home video, Stan Laurel's pre-Hardy comedy 'Kill or Cure' was known -- to the extent that it was known at all -- only because a few sequences were included in Robert Youngson's compilation film 'Laurel and Hardy's Laughing 20's'. Youngson knew what he was doing: the best gags in 'Kill or Cure' were brought intact into his compilation, while the rest of this only mildly funny comedy remained on Youngson's cutting-room floor.<br /><br />Laurel portrays a commercial traveller, hawking a patent medicine cried Professor I.O. Dine's Knox-All: that name is the funniest joke in this movie, which ain't sayin' much. I should point out that this movie dates from 1923, the shank of Prohibition. During Prohibition, quite a lot of Americans purchased patent medicine if it had (ahem!) 'medicinal' properties, so -- if Knox-All contains alcohol -- Stan's job in this movie is less desperate than the one which he and Ollie famously had in 'Big Business', selling Christmas trees in the summer. Too bad for this movie that it's not nearly so funny as 'Big Business'.<br /><br />We see Stan (but don't hear him, in this silent film) delivering a spirited sales talk to a man who seems to be paying attention ... until we learn that they're standing outside a deaf-mute institution, and this man is deaf. A haughty woman emerges from the gates: Stan quickly tries to engage her attention by wiggling his fingers at her. Of course she's not deaf, and she promptly whacks him with her umbrella. I found this sequence offensive, NOT because it involves deaf people (the deaf aren't the butt of the joke) but because it abets the very widely-held misconception among hearing people that they can communicate with the deaf by merely waggling their fingers randomly and performing Charades without actually learning the highly complex grammar of sign language.<br /><br />More amusingly, a spinster in this movie has a pet canary named Rudolph (as in Valentino), and there's a gag involving trick photography to enable a man to hide behind an object that's narrower than his body. I've seen this device in several cartoons and live-action movies but 'Kill or Cure' is, I think, the earliest movie to use it that I've seen so far.<br /><br />Stan Laurel, an under-rated actor, does one bit of physical business here that's worthy of Chaplin or Keaton, in which he conveys his emotions -- and a change in his demeanour -- while walking away from the camera with his back to us. Still, Laurel never really became a first-rate comedian until he united with Oliver Hardy to form the greatest comedy team ever. 'Kill or Cure' barely rates 3 out of 10.
My wife and I watched this movie because we plan to visit Sicily and Stromboli soon. Fortunately (or unfortunately) the landscape and seascape (complete with tuna) are the only believable members of this cast. We expected reasonable well-written and well-acted movie, but were disappointed. Its only redeeming grace is an extended and remarkable fishing sequence full of authenticity: thrashing tuna, nets, wooden boats with long oars, and passionate, if superstitious, fishermen.<br /><br />The movie's sequencing is stagy, its dialogue stilted, and the acting ranges from stiff to completely "over-the-top." One scene, in which Bergman stresses out as her macho, native and naïve husband sics his ferret on an "innocent" (but apparently already deceased) rabbit would be perfect grist for a Monty Python skit.<br /><br />When the volcano blew we hoped for a merciful end to the suffering (ours and the casts'). Unfortunately, the movie continues to flail on, staggering finally to a melodramatic and absurd ending. Unless you're really into old-time tuna fishing, pass this hokey effort by.
Why bother to see this movie? It probably rates an award for being the worst career move of a major movie star since Clark Gable's laughable playing of an Irish patriot in Parnell.<br /><br />It's inconceivable that Bergman would choose both this movie and its director over a lucrative Hollywood career where she could choose among the finest scripts and directors being offered at that time. To begin with, there was no script to work with except a few notes. Then we are supposed to believe the polished Bergman as a poor refugee willing to do anything to be released from a refugee camp, including marriage to a poor Italian fisherman she doesn't even love. I read where Anna Magnani was the original choice for this part. If so, that made a lot more sense than to cast the luminous Bergman in such a proletarian part. But since she was in love with her director, common sense flew out the window.<br /><br />So she goes to live in this poor village where the men must toil to extract a meager living from the sea. A place she obviously hates to be and where she doesn't fit in.<br /><br />Her only friend is the village priest who knows she's not suited to the life of a poor fisherman's bride, but tells her that for the sake of love she must repress her true feelings of revulsion, and accept the poverty and despair she encounters each day. On top of all of this, there's this volcano always on the brink of erupting and drowning them all in hot lava. But like a true heroine, Bergman revolts against her misery by declaring war on just about everyone else in this dreary film. She even goes as far as trying to seduce the village priest, in a scene that would generate laughter if it were not so pathetic. Since her poor slob of a husband must lock her in a room to keep her from running away, she's forced to use her body to bribe a married man to take her off the island. To her, no sacrifice is too great; no man unapproachable if he is willing to help her to escape the island and her misery. I won't bother to tell you how this all ends. The no-script movie ending is as plausible as the rest of STROMBOLI. I even remember (from seeing it on late night TV) that it had two different endings! So be warned if you should feel brave enough to sit through this king-size turkey and catch the miscast Bergman. It led to her downfall in Hollywood for the next seven years and she was condemned for sleeping with her director while still married to Peter Lindstrom. None of the movies she made with this director(whom she later married) are noteworthy except as proof of a career gone berserk. I kid you not. It's pretty embarrassing.<br /><br />- - SoundTrack
It's really a shame there was so much controversy surrounding this picture (in other words, the infamous affair between Ingrid Bergman and Roberto Rossellini), as this drew a lot of attention to a very forgettable film. The story is incredibly slow, cheap looking and uninteresting. And, to top this off, the film is stuffed to the brim with amateurish actors who can barely speak any English. I really would have preferred subtitles--it would have made the experience less exhausting. Back to the rotten acting. The Neo-realist movement was big in Italy at the time this film was made. Many of these films are absolute masterpieces (such as De Sica's Umberto D., The Children Are Watching Us and Miracle in Milan) because they got so much out of the non-professional actors. They behaved like normal people, but in Stromboli they act like normal people TRYING to be actors and come off very badly--like kids in a school play. <br /><br />By the way,...if you are hoping the movie has a good ending (thereby making your time commitment to the film worth while), DON'T bother. The plot was just totally uninvolving and silly--so much so, that I really found that I could have cared less about the characters. Like the island they all inhabit, the film is desolate and without color or life.
Can u believe a college professor made this film?????<br /><br />The same man who made DHOOP<br /><br />The film is horrible and has some of the weird scenes ever<br /><br />The main message is nice but presented badly<br /><br />The film looks like a collage of amateurish scenes, miscasts.etc and bad performances<br /><br />Direction and everything is poor<br /><br />Music is okay<br /><br />Emraan's naughty streak works and he does well Tusshar is bad Tanushree and Isha are bad Paresh annoys when he looks at the mirror
Wow. As soon as I saw this movie's cover, I immediately wanted to watch it because it looked so bad. Sometimes I watch Bollywood movies just because they're so bad that it will be entertaining (eg. Koi Mil Gaya). This movie had all the elements of an atrocious film: a "gang of local thugs" that is completely harmless, a poorly done motorcycle scene, horrible dialouge ("Congrats son, I am very proud that you are a Bad Boy"), actors playing basketball as if they are good, atrocious songs ("Me bad, me bad, me bad bad boy"), unexplained plot lines like why are the Good Boy and Bad Boy friends??? And why is the hot girl in love with the nerd?? I've never seen such a poorly constructed story with such horrible directly. Some of the scenes actually took 30 seconds long like the one where the Good and Bad Boys inexplicably ran over the "gang member's" poker game. Congrats Ashwini Chaudry, you are a Bad Director. If you want to watch a good movie, watch Guru, if you want to watch a movie so bad that it's actually entertaining, then watch Good Boy, Boy.
If you have plenty of time to kill and the DVD was given to you by your friend for free but still it may require lot of courage to watch this film which does not have good script or humor for that matter.<br /><br />On the acting front imran is frozen in time/acting, Tushar Kapoor was slightly better than Imran in this movie Paresh Rawal was good at comedy was usual. <br /><br />The story revolves around a college campus where Imran is a bad boy n Tushar is the good one, they pretend to be the opposite of respective nature and so the story goes on.....<br /><br />Watch it only if you don't have any thing to do and the film is running on your local cable TV.
Oh mY God That has got to be one of the Most USELESS BRAINLESS STUPIDEST Comedy Ever Made!! What has Happened to Subhash Ghai, Even Apna Sapna Money Money Was Worth Watching<br /><br />Eww! GOD This Movie Stinks<br /><br />Do Not Watch it Save your Money Bad Movie Bad Cast Bad Jokes Bad Acting, even this movie is an Example of Shoe Polish being Rubbed on a Face<br /><br />Trust me This movie does even make you smile, Vulgar Jokes, Cheap jokes,A Really Stupid Movie with No concepts<br /><br />Rating 0 on 10<br /><br />AWFUL Movie those are the two hours im never getting back....<br /><br />Syed Shabbir Aly Naqvi of Pakistan
I am an Indian residing in the United States. Why India continues, like a dumb animal, to emulate everything American is beyond me!! The main problems with the movie aren't so much the inane plot and dumb comedy. It is that this movie has a lot of sex, touching, women dressing like strumpets in the streets, and a lot of cursing that doesn't belong anywhere on T.V.<br /><br />To the producers and directors of this movie, I have this message: You continue to weaken our nation's strong family values by making this sort of junk. You continue to let young women think it's okay to have a feminist attitude and have no morals. You continue to make dance songs that belong in the lowest of adult clubs and bars. I am ashamed to be an Indian after seeing movies like this.<br /><br />In 2003, the United States government suggested that the best way to destroy Iran is to 'send miniskirts' there. There is no need to do that for India. We will destroy ourselves with rubbish like this.
Two escaped convicts step out of the woods and shoot two campers in the head. That's the first scene, and it made me wince, fearing what was in store. But by the end of the first half hour I was all swept up in the flood of images. Not because I cared in the least about any of the characters but because I was aghast at how execrable the film was and was curious to see how truly low it could sink.<br /><br />Frank (Remar) and Red (Woolvett) are the ex-inmates. After murdering the two innocent campers they plow through the woods and wangle their way into the isolated cabin of Dean Stockwell and his two sons, the attorney Keith and the estranged homosexual Behr. The escapees at first pretend their car has broken down and they need to use the phone, but they gradually reveal their identities.<br /><br />Well, it looks like familiar territory so far. "Desperate Hours," or "Funny Games" maybe. But -- hang on -- the gay son is in cahoots with the two. It seems that Stockwell, upon discovering his son in flagrante delicto with another man named Billy, kicked Billy around and threw him out. Billy went on to die and Behr now blames his Dad for the death. And, indeed, Dad is something of a Neanderthal when it comes to paraphilias, the fact that he was just found cohabiting with a secretary notwithstanding.<br /><br />The grief-stricken Behr just searched and searched, looking for someone else who had known Billy, someone with whom he could share his despair. It turned out to be one of the escapees, and now Behr is determined to see them to their freedom.<br /><br />It gets all twisted after that. People talk. They talk and talk. They talk continually. And NOT about the two mad killers who just can't wait to put one between their eyes. No -- the dialog goes something like, "You were just so scared of something inside yourself that you even drove away your own SON." That's Behr, the young gay guy, talking to Stockwell. It's as if an afternoon domestic drama had had its genes mixed with a killer thriller in some kind of transformational device or cocktail shaker.<br /><br />The only real performance is given by James Remar as the more talkative and ominous of the two escapees. And that's mainly because of his gruff but fluid baritone, which sounds like Lance Henrickson's, and his wide guppy-like lips. He's easy on the eyes and ears.<br /><br />Dean Stockwell has given decent performances, including his inestimable bizarro turn in "Blue Velvet," in which he was my supporting player, but here laziness, advancing years, or slack direction has shaped his every move and every utterance into a stereotype. It's as if he were reading stage directions -- "Look surprised" and "shout angrily" -- and following them literally. There's not a surprise in a cartload.<br /><br />If the gay son, Jason Behr, ever blinked, it must have been while I was blinking at the same time because I missed it. He has a long neck and just one expression in his instrument. Woolvett as the secondary villain fades into the pine-knot paneled woodwork. The attorney son is Robert Glen Keith. I hope he didn't quit his day job.<br /><br />The direction is pedestrian, the staging functional without being in the least innovative. Sometimes it's confusing. I lost track of where everyone was supposed to be as the killers are circling around on the cabin's porch and the family has locked itself inside with a shotgun. I also couldn't understand how Stockwell could put a blast through the cabin's door, hit Remar, and knock him in a back flip off the porch, and then Remar could simply stand up, dust himself off, and come up with a cranky riposte like, "Okay. Two can play that game." But why go on? See it if you must.
If you've seen Atlantis 1, then you'd know that what made that film truly great was brilliant animation and a good script. This movie was SO sloppily drawn and animated. The story is also dopey. I was so disappointed in this half-baked drivel that I couldn't make it past the first hour, and MAN did I try! The one thing this film had was that it expanded the "mole" character, making him both more sympathetic and three dimensional. Take it from me, judge this junk from the cover on the video box. The cover is poorly drawn Disney schlock, clearly grabbing for an easy buck from an unsuspecting parent. If this was a stand alone flick, it wouldn't be so bad, but riding on the coattails of a brilliant piece like Atlantis makes it utterly inexcuseable.
I will not say much about this film, because there is not much to say, because there is not much there to talk about. The only good thing about this movie is that our favorite characters from "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" are back. Several of the bad things about this movie are that it has horrible characters, it has horrible comedy, horrible animation, and James Arnold Taylor trying to copy the wonderful, one and only Michael J. Fox as Milo James Thatch. The reasons for my criticisms are that all the characters are changed into something that they never were, and never should be, animation that has been downgraded to the lowest extent possible, and finally, why would somebody who did wonderful voice-over work for Obi-Wan Kenobi in "Clone Wars" want to copy Michael J. Fox? I happen to have an answer to this. Because they are the same person who thought he had to copy Eddie Murphy from Mulan in Mulan II. Yes, sadly, it is true.<br /><br />.
Because Disney more often than not, ignores the animation quality and a need for a good plot in their sequels, this was actually a nice surprise. I don't know why Disney does not pay more attention to their sequels. The graphics quality is always inferior; no backgrounds worthy of the name Disney, inane plots, and worse dialog, with little or no attention given to the actual story, and the caricature drawings are almost always worse than Saturday morning cartoons in detail and quality.<br /><br />The animation quality is still poor when compared to Disney originals, and the dialog is quite trite, the story line and overall execution was really quite enjoyable. <br /><br />While it is not as captivating, it does not completely fail to capture the charm and/or mystery from the first. There is some hint of it, tucked away here and there.<br /><br />The children will like it, at any rate.<br /><br />It rates a 4.5/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.
When I put this movie in my DVD player, and sat down with a coke and some chips, I had some expectations. I was hoping that this movie would contain some of the strong-points of the first movie: Awsome animation, good flowing story, excellent voice cast, funny comedy and a kick-ass soundtrack. But, to my disappointment, not any of this is to be found in Atlantis: Milo's Return. Had I read some reviews first, I might not have been so let down. The following paragraph will be directed to those who have seen the first movie, and who enjoyed it primarily for the points mentioned.<br /><br />When the first scene appears, your in for a shock if you just picked Atlantis: Milo's Return from the display-case at your local videoshop (or whatever), and had the expectations I had. The music feels as a bad imitation of the first movie, and the voice cast has been replaced by a not so fitting one. (With the exception of a few characters, like the voice of Sweet). The actual drawings isnt that bad, but the animation in particular is a sad sight. The storyline is also pretty weak, as its more like three episodes of Schooby-Doo than the single adventurous story we got the last time. But dont misunderstand, it's not very good Schooby-Doo episodes. I didnt laugh a single time, although I might have sniggered once or twice.<br /><br />To the audience who haven't seen the first movie, or don't especially care for a similar sequel, here is a fast review of this movie as a stand-alone product: If you liked schooby-doo, you might like this movie. If you didn't, you could still enjoy this movie if you have nothing else to do. And I suspect it might be a good kids movie, but I wouldn't know. It might have been better if Milo's Return had been a three-episode series on a cartoon channel, or on breakfast TV.
What the (beep) is going wrong with Disney the last years? Are there totally run out of good ideas? Where is the magic? Where are the good animators, the good songwriters, the good directors, the good... Okay, i know, Walt himself and the famous "nine old man" can't come back. But is this a reason to crank out countless of those cheap sequels and slowly but surely destroying the ideals of Walt Disney? I never rent or bought a Disney-sequel of what movie however. Because i had read much enough about its (absence of) quality. But "Atlantis: Milo's Return" was aired today on TV in Germany and so i watch it. It confirmed my doubts about sequels. It was absolutely boring. Flaw animation, primitive color-rotation, simple characters, some unsuccessful tries to simulate the famous Multiplane-Camera with CGI, mediocre music and a patchwork of different, simple stories. It looks absolutely not like Disney! Not like Disney i know! It looks like one of the countless, cheap and simple animation-series like "DragonballZ", "Beyblade" etc. that aired every day on TV for children.<br /><br />My first reaction after showing this crap, was to load "Bambi" in my DVD-Player, to see Disney's immortal magic, depth, spirit and charm again, to see Disney on its climax again, to see the awesome art of handmade animation again. "Bambi" was the first (and until today the only) movie that i give 10 out of 10 stars. But "Atlantis: Milo's Return"? No magic, no depth, no charm, no spirit... It deserved only 3 out of 10!
i wish i could find some good things to say about this animated sequel(but not really a sequel)to "Atlantis:The Lost Empire"but this would be a very short comment.the magic that the first one had is nowhere to be found here.the animation is pretty poor all over,the characters themselves are not very well drawn.the backgrounds and the foregrounds are also not good.there's very little attention to detail here.and instead of a compelling and engaging story,we have 3 short stories which are boring and don't make a lot of sense.i swear,even the characters sounded like they were bored,and would rather be somewhere else.which says that the voice actors were bored and wanted to be someplace else,at least that's the impression.some of the same actors return for this dismal effort,but an integral par of the success of the first one was Michael J.Fox as the main hero, Milo Thatch.i get the distinct impression this movie was just thrown together to capitalize on the success of the first one,without much thought or care.but at least Cree Summer returns as the voice of "Kida".that's probably the only good thing about this movie,and even she doesn't seem to have her heart completely in it.mind you,i guess you couldn't blame any of the cast for not giving their all,considering what they had to work with.or rather not work with.this is a straight to video movie(and i use the term loosely)which should have went straight to the nearest landfill.anyway,shame on Disney.consumers deserve much better than this.this one gets a 0/10 and a well deserved one at that.p.u
This movie was horrible, and it doesn't even deserve to be called a movie. The way I look at it, it's more like three mediocre day-time Disney cartoon episodes strung loosely together to make a single video that pretends to be the sequel to the first Atlantis movie, which was way more well-made and enjoyable. And where do i even begin with the problems of this DVD? The story? The characters? The pictures/animation? To me they're all bad and unwatchable. Firstly, the story in this direct-to-video DVD is ridiculous and pointless. The only good thing about it is that it is consistent--that is, consistently bad, from the beginning to the end. After the film's over i still don't know why Milo has returned and how the incidents occur in the three small stories are related to each other or to Atlantis itself. And all I could remember about this movie was how bad it makes me feel after seeing it. The characters feel wooden and lack personality, and the drawings look a lot different than that in the first. You can tell they're obviously not from the hands of the same animators from the first one. As the DVD played on, i found myself caring less and less about what might happen to the characters and just hoping the film would end soon. Besides the story and the characters mentioned above, the picture quality is poor in this one too, probably one of the worst in those direct-to-video products that Disney has ever released. As a fan of the the original Atlantis: the lost empire, I couldn't be more disappointed in Milo's return, which is a total waste of time and money. Thank goodness I rented it first instead of buying it. Even so, I still wish I'd never seen this crap or even known its existence.
My main criticism with the movie is the animation. I totally agree with everyone else it was very poor. Some of the characters seemed to have darker skin tones than they did in the first film, which is much better. Also the background colours looked rushed and somewhat static. It is also a shame that Michael J.Fox didn't voice Milo, he did such a good job, and James Arnold Taylor wasn't sure whether he was supposed to sound like Milo or Aladdin. I have also taken into consideration the lack of a good storyline. the third story was confusing and clumsily told, and the second story suffered from poor scripting. To make things worse, the first one I can't even remember, other than a fishing village being haunted or something like that. However, there was some nice music, and good voice talents from John Mahoney, Cree Summer, Clancy Brown and Tom Wilson, that saved the film from total disaster. All in all, a disappointing sequel to a surprisingly good film. 4/10 Bethany Cox.
I am finding that I get less and less excited about Disney's sequels to movies. Yes, I do understand that the budget for the direct to video movies are not the same, but these movies don't even try. Some examples are Hunchback II and Tarzan and Jane. If anyone has seen the previews for Stitch-The Movie, you will see my point. But I digress, this movie reaffirms my point. The animation is sloppy, the story lines resemble Saturday morning cartoons, and not all of the original voices are there. I was very disappointed not to hear Michael J. Fox's voice. It was so glaringly obvious that the person doing Milo's voice was trying to sound like Fox, but didn't come close to succeeding. <br /><br />If it says anything, my children ages 10 and 6 didn't even sit through the whole movie.
Hi there. I watched the first part when it came out, and I don't remember having left such a bad impression on me as this one.<br /><br />First, the animation is choppy, wooden, not worked on, lacks naturality - I understand the drawing style was to be of some 'atlantean' kind, but, it could be done with the usual Disney finesse... see "Tarzan" to see what I mean. If I didn't see the DISNEY logo in the beginning, I would never say it was a Disney movie.<br /><br />Second, the plot was more like a PC game style, like a good old quest. Not that it was bad, but it lacked a story that binds the viewer to the characters and their goals. It was inconvincing, at least. The film was meant for children, but this was waaay to childish at times.<br /><br />Third, the music... I would say it was improper, but it just fits the whole scene with the plot and animation...<br /><br />Overall, I think this was some kind of an amusement, just by-the-way kind of project by several apprentice animators, just to fill in the count for Disney movies. Sorry to hear that from myself, a big Disney lover...
I'm sorry to say this but I didn't enjoy this movie at all. It was just too boring. So boring that I couldn't watch the rest of it. It's not as interesting as the Lion King or Aladdin. That's why I hate this stupid days because these days are just not what they used to be. The movies that Disney have released lately really sucks! I miss the old days when they used to produce good movies like the Lion King, Aladdin, Pocahontas, Cinderella, The Aristocats, and Robin Hood. This movie is really awful. I really tried my best to be interested in this movie but I just couldn't. I don't think I could recommend this film to anyone. I would recommend the ones that I just mention above.
The only reason this show did not get a 0 is because one is not available. This show has gone from informative news to sensationalized claptrap. I tried to support this show in its decline, because I like human interest stories and Primetime used to have some very good ones. Unfortunately, April 21st has forever changed my mind about this show and the unethical newscasters that participate in it. ABC actually recorded a brutal case of child abuse and then refused to show it until the statute of limitations had run out and the parents could not be arrested on the charges they should have faced. What made it worse was how ABC swept the whole incident under the rug; instead of taking charge and seeking true professional help for these disturbed individuals, they had some pop psychologists send stern warnings TO THE AUDIENCE about how they shouldn't judge these poor angels too harshly. I was truly sickened. I hope this review stops one person from watching this investigative trash in the future. If it does, I will be happy. These days, all you can expect from Diane Sawyer and the good folks from Primetime Live are butt-kissing sessions with A-list celebrities and criminal acts covered up and praised to the stars. Don't waste the hour of your life; you'd be better off watching an old sitcom on Nick at Nite.
HANA-BI has many quiet moments and fairly slow pacing. Unfortunately, during the many thoughtful interludes the viewer is left to ponder about the recent scenes just watched and many questions surface and annoy.<br /><br />For example, why didn't the wheelchair guy drown in the ocean when he was stuck in the sand and the tide came up around him? There was no rescue seen or hinted at.<br /><br />Can it be true that Japanese police are so inept and unskilled at arrest procedures as to not first remove the suspect's ability to reach for a weapon? These detective-level Japanese police seemed to have no experience dealing with a suspect.<br /><br />Why doesn't the right eye of the lead character blink? Having one eye blinking was distracting and it went unexplained.<br /><br />What exactly was the lead character spending all his money on to have to borrow so much from loan sharks? He was not seen gambling. Being a non entry-level government employee his wife must have had full health insurance.<br /><br />What was the single man doing all by himself in the middle of nowhere in the nature park? What was his reason for being there?<br /><br />How in the world could the gangsters find the lead character and his wife up in the far off nature reserve? It made no sense.<br /><br />And again, how could the gangsters later find the lead character and his wife up in the remote Mt. Fuji resort? There were absolutely no clues available for these gangsters to even know which country the lead character and his wife were in, let alone the correct specific location at the correct specific time!<br /><br />And a third same question, how could the junior detectives know which few feet of the Japanese coast line to find the lead character and his wife? The Japanese coast line must be vast. Were all of these characters supposed to have psychic powers?<br /><br />Two final questions: The cute girl trying to fly a kite on the beach -- WHERE did she come from? She seemed to have no transportation or companions with her. And why in the world did she still keep attempting to fly what was left of her kite after it was ripped in pieces?! This was weird. Unintentionally Python-esque.<br /><br />On the positive side, I loved the background music. It was dramatic and flowing and added much to this movie. The photography, imagery and art were pleasing to the eye.<br /><br />One final point, the wife was overly pleasing to the eye. Not once did she ever come close to looking like a dying sick person. She looked very healthy. If anything, these people seemed depressed and mentally ill and not physically sick. The husband treated his wife as perhaps a newly outed gay man would treat a respected wife... a love of friendship, but not close tenderness.<br /><br />A mixed movie for sure.
So, it has come to this. In the top-rated comment on this flick, somebody says "Nishi is an honorable man". Really? This is a guy who mainly kills and maims people in the movie. He takes a short break to rob a bank. Honorable? How would you like your kids to go to school with the kids of someone who calls that honorable? Wait, there's more! The person also says "we can tell he's constantly thinking." How can we do that? Well, do you know that joke "How can you tell when a CEO/politician/lawyer is lying?" ... "His/her lips move." Well, Nishi's lips never move, so I guess that means he is thinking.<br /><br />Of course, this is existentialism to warm the hearts of the cult of victimization. Existentalism supposedly stresses that an individual take responsibility for the consequences of one's acts. Not Nishi. Borrow money from the yakuza. What, they want it back? Kill them. The cops find out. Kill yourself and your wife.<br /><br />Really honorable.
I really don't see how anyone could enjoy this movie. I don't think I've ever seen a movie half as boring as this self-indulgent piece of junk. It probably would have been better if the director hadn't spent most of the movie showcasing his own art work, which really isn't that noteworthy. Another thing I didn't really like is when a character got punched in the face, a gallon of blood would spew forth soon after. I don't know how folks bleed over there in Japan, but I hope they have plenty of blood donors.
Infamous horror films seldom measure up the hype that surrounds them and I have yet to come across a worse offender than Wes Craven's The Hills Have Eyes. Having held back from watching this for years, I was really pleased when I got it for Christmas and waited for an evening when my girlfriend was out to settle down and watch it - knowing her extreme dislike for anything genuinely horrifying. I needn't have bothered.<br /><br />After a promising - if familiar - start, that firmly sets the film in the 'Desolution USA' world of survival horror, things rapidly go to pieces when the protagonists and antagonists meet in the deserted wasteland.<br /><br />Looking like it was shot on a budget of $5, with the cannibal clan's costumes hired from a dodgy fancy dress shop that specialises in faux caveman and Red Indian attire, the story follows an annoying bunch of unsympathetic WASPs who take a detour on a road trip to California, to look for a silver mine in a nuclear testing zone (!). When they break down they are set upon by the local family of flesh-eaters and have to fight to survive.<br /><br />While hoping for another Deliverance, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Wrong Turn or Devil's Rejects, I actually realised I'd stumbled across something that should have remained dusty and unwatched in a backstreet video store's bargain bin.<br /><br />With gallons of tomato ketchup for blood and a couple of gruesome wound close-ups, I can kind of see how an 18 Certificate (in the UK) is justified, but with those close-ups trimmed this wouldn't have looked out of place as a Saturday afternoon thriller on ITV.<br /><br />The whole silver mine/nuclear test site subplot is just a McGuffin to justify pitching the 'civilised' family against the primitives, but given how easily the savages get their asses whupped it stretches credibility to think that they had survived for a generation preying on passers-by.<br /><br />And then there's the ending ... or lack thereof. The Hills Have Eyes seems to be missing either a third act or, at the very least, a satisfying denouement. Instead, I was just left wondering: "Yeah, and ... ?"
This movie was recommended to me by several people, and after reading all the positive comments from this site I went ahead and bought a copy of the film off ebay. The acting in the film is average and a bit hammy, especially by the family of cannibals, one sequence comes to mind when Jupiter is ranting and raving to the burnt corpse, speaking right into the camera. Its one of those performances where you just cringe and feel bad for that poor actor. Its also evidence of some of the worst editing I've seen, theres a terrible jump cut right in the middle of his "speech". There are a few creepy moments though, and at times the music works well...but overall the film isnt that great and I dont know why people think Wes Craven is that great of a director. Thus far he hasn't showed me anything that I believe to be brilliant, the only thing that improved with Cravens films, production to prodution was his budget.
Tagline: the lucky ones died...before watching this.<br /><br />I've never watched a Bulgarian movie from 1920's, so I can't say this is the worst movie ever made, but it surely is the worst movie I've ever watched. I can't almost remember it.<br /><br />All I can recall is a family of stupid people who don't do anything right. Their car has one wheel out of four stuck in the sand, so they decide that there's nothing to do and prepare to live the rest of their lives there. Then there's an old man who is aware of the existence of a band of cannibals in the whereabouts but has never considered the idea to report the fact to the police.<br /><br />And, speaking of the police...if those freaks have lived around there eating humans for years, lots of people must have disappeared...how come the sheriff didn't suspect anything?<br /><br />But I gave up asking questions after the first five minutes or so. The rest is bore. An hallucinated unbelievable bore.<br /><br />I will be merciful and won't speak about the dialogues. And the acting. And the effects.<br /><br />I will only mention the final scene, where the freak girl eliminates a snake (the snakes! they come out in the end, what the hell do they have to do with the story?) with a sniper-precise throw of a stone, demonstrating the full disregard of Mr. Craven for reality and for things that happen on planet Earth in general.<br /><br />I believe there have been riots when the film was first released in 1977.<br /><br />Even being eaten by a cannibal wouldn't be a fair punishment to the director for this attack on intelligence.
the hills have eyes is not a great film by any stretch of the imagination.for one the villains look almost normal,not what you would expect deranged lunatics to look like.for another the pacing is very slow at times and there are many scenes of the characters repeating themselves.by that,i mean there is a lot of filler in the movie, with a lot of running around aimlessly.the film didn't have a clear direction.the plot of the movie is hardly original,even for its time.the Texas chainsaw massacre came out a few year earlier and is a much more effective film, as far as horror goes.the film has little in the way of scares, and the pounding soundtrack just served to be both grating and distracting all at once.i suppose the music was used to cover up the fact that not much happens through much of the movie, though it failed in its intended purpose.i basically kept looking at the time every few seconds hoping something would happen or it would end .when something finally did happen any promise the film had was ruined by mere chaos and loud noise.i sat through it because i like to give a film the benefit of the doubt.yes, there is some loud screaming,and yes people die,but who cares.much too slow getting to any sort of pay off,if you can call it that.my buddy enjoyed it, so at least one of us got something out of it.the hills have eyes isn't the worst film we could have watched, but i doubt i will watch it again.this film was remade in 2006 and i will also have review of that version.anyway, this movie was painfully slow at times, while other times was chaotic and repetitive.unless you like watching paint dry, occasionally interspersed with someone running around your block, screaming their head off, stay away from this movie.a better bet would be the original Texas chainsaw massacre(1973)1.5* out of 10* which is being generous
I have never really been interested in cannibal movies before and up until a couple of months ago i had avoided this genre of movie.<br /><br />I recently had to undergo knee surgery and found i had a lot of time on my hands as i was unable to work, so i decided after seeing almost every horror movie our local video shop had to offer i would take a chance on this.<br /><br />Christ was it a mistake! I have never seen a movie this bad in all my years of being a movie addict. This is just a pile of s**t pasted to a D.V.D disc and sold as a horror movie.<br /><br />I have a lot of respect to other horror fans who can switch their brains off long enough to enjoy this crap, They are more brain dead than i ever will be and that is some achievement! 0/10 and thats generous.
Flipping through the TV and saw that The Secret Life of was on; gave George Duran a shot at being the host. I know that Jim O'Connor was very energetic and that nobody could be as much as him, but George was well dull. He really didn't seem to want to be hosting; his voice-overs were monotonous, didn't get involved with the guests. It seemed like he was interviewing guests for Unwrapped, and he just happened to be in the shot. I don't know if George is going to get "better" hosting this show, I doubt it because he has hosted his own show now. The show did seem to pack more info in, but only because we saw less of the host. The formula of this show was very delicate, and I fear it has now been disrupted for good.
Lord, this sucked. There's a particular sort of sexual revolution flick from the 60s that manages to confuse sexual assault with sexual liberation. This film is an example. I lost track of how many times women are slapped, hit, whipped, or spanked in the film. And then there are all the times that women in the film fantasize about being slapped, hit, whipped or spanked (you know they want it, right?). Sometimes it is ostensibly part of safe fetish play-acting. Other times it plainly isn't, but you will wait in vain to see the heroine report to authorities that she has just been raped. Instead we get to hear her being lectured by her rapist about her inability to "let go".<br /><br />Every scene of this film reeks of misogyny (speaking as a straight, white, married man in his late 30's, not a teenage lesbian women's studies major with a chip on her shoulder, lest you get the wrong idea).<br /><br />Perhaps the one good thing about this film is that it provides a stark reminder of just how bad things really were for women only a few short decades ago.
I decided to watch this ultra-low budget film from the "Poverty Row" studio, PRC, because it co-starred the exciting character actor, Lionel Atwill—plus I really liked the title. Even though Atwill often played in these cheap movies, his excellent style of acting always made the films seem a lot better, as his screen persona was great (his real life is also quite interesting—sort of like a bizarre soap opera). The reason I use the term "Poverty Row" is that this was a nickname given to the very cheapest and worst production companies of the era. Many of these weren't even real studios, but production companies that rented space and sets from the major studios at night! Yes, there is a good chance this was filmed after normal working hours—a common thing for such studios.<br /><br />The story begins with Lionel Atwill telling his friends a story about something that he was involved with years ago. A doctor falls in love with a lady but he's afraid to tell her about himself. That's because his job is putting people to death on Death Row—not exactly a glamor job! The Doc asks his friend (Atwill) for advice on how to break it to her, but regardless she won't have the man. Later, you realize it's because her own parents were criminals.<br /><br />Later, a man is killed and the lady is implicated—though it's obvious to anyone with a brain that her sister was involved (and is a bit of a nut) and the evidence against the lady was poor. But, apparently the jury was filled with brainless people and she was convicted and sent to Death Row. Even more brainless is that her old boyfriend was the man who was responsible for her execution. Don't you think someone else might just be able to handle this case?! Until this fateful hour, her friend (Atwill) spends much of the film trying to prove her innocence—and prove that the flaky sister knows far more about the case than she'll admit.<br /><br />Overall, the movie is only mildly interesting and a bit silly. While it is watchable and Atwill is good (as usual), the rest of the film never really rises above the mundane and some of the acting is pretty shabby. It's sub-par and about what you'd expect from such a low-budget flick—and nothing more despite the cool title.
Finally, I can connect the dots between Return of the Jedi and Phantom Menace. We see here where Lucas lost touch with what made the original Star Wars films great and began to descend into the plot less tripe that ruined episodes 1-3. This film is more like one of those cheesy low-budget 80s swords and sorcerer films than anything worthy of being associated with the Star Wars saga. As with the Jar-Jar character, this seems targeted at children (and the toy market). The battle scenes are particularly bad. It was depressing to see Sian Phillips' incredible talent go to such a waste, after her classic performance in I, Claudius.
What a stupid idea. Ewoks should be enslaved and tortured. Utterly useless as a species... Fine you want ten lines of text regarding my unending hatred of Ewoks? Fine, here it is, fool. First of all, they are an inferior race that would be slaughtered en mass had Lucas not pussified the entire series with their foul presence. They're little bears with large asses, and they probably smell like donkey crotch. Yeah, I said it, donkey crotch. They have little to no technology whatsoever, resorting to using sticks as makeshift weapons. I'm surprised they even had access to fire. Their guttural language makes my skin crawl. Can't...suppress...anti-Ewok...RAGE! AHHH!!!
I have officially vomited in my own mouth, thanks to this movie.<br /><br />I expected the absolute worst with this movie, but I expected a heartwarming and pleasurable absolute worst. This is just terrible. Absolutely terrible. Terrible like Nazis spreading the black plague. Let me explain: Ewoks are speaking English. It's horrible.<br /><br />The villain girl looks like she travelled from the future set of Power Rangers. I really really want her to rise up from the ground and say "At last! After ten thousand years I'm free! It's time to conquer Earth!" The putties... er, I mean the big bad whatever the heck they are... they growl a lot. Many of them look like an even lamer version of the Cryptkeeper. The Cryptkeeper was pretty cool, but these guys were not.<br /><br />The only merit to this movie was Paul Gleason. This movie might have been better if he'd went to the bad guys and said "If I have to come in here again, I'm crackin' skulls." It would have been even better if one of the Ewoks was played by Judd Nelson, who mouthed his words as he said this.<br /><br />Also, that speedy little creature is pretty badass. Word to that.<br /><br />No word to the movie, though. I want to give this movie a two. I want to, so badly. There's a passage I have memorized: The path of this movie is beset on all sides by the inequities of terribleness and the tyranny of spin-off awfulness. Blessed is nothing, for this movie blows.
This movie is awful. At first I thought it may appeal to children, due to the cuddly Ewoks, the fury little people from Stars Wars. After sitting through this monstrosity of a movie, I am certain that not even a 4-year-old would find this movie interesting. The special effects are by far the best of this movie and compare well for other 80ies TV movies. The script is bad, the actors, especially Aubree Miller and unbelievably bad and the flick is so predictable that I still can't believe I was able to not touch the forward button on my VCR. However, I came close to switching this mess off more than once.
What the hell is this!? That was my first reaction to this film (actually, my first reaction contained more swearing). This isn't Star Wars! Star Wars is space battles, this movie has none. Star Wars is the Force, this movie only has a retarded witch with a magic ring. Star Wars is lightsaber battles, this movie hasn't got any battle worth mentioning. Star Wars is humor, this movie isn't. Star Wars is a galaxy far, far away, this movie has HORSES in it!!! Besides all of this, how did Lucas get the insane idea to let a five year old baby do the leading role !? Big, big disappointment. Do you like Star Wars? Don't watch this! 1 out of 10
Honest to God, the Outline pretty much says it all. The planet Andromina (not to be confused with Aunt Jemima) is represented by a cheap L.A. stripclub. There's no strippers, so the most recent male visitors go off to recruit strippers.<br /><br />The men get mistaken for kings or arrested for spying on women (although despite the fact its a planet of women we only get two women who participate in any girl-girl sex scenes), and eventually, as always happen in science fiction cliche movies everywhere, the women become convinced that men are good for something. Well, not the men who made this movie, at any rate!<br /><br />But boy, do we get to see a lot of that something, in prodigious amounts of softcore sex and nudity. This one has less plot then usual for such flicks, so change the channel if you don't like this kind of movie, and grit your teeth if you're into this kind of thing.
What can I say about THE PLEASURE PLANET that I haven`t said about umpteen other tedious soft core porn films ? Very little . It`s just another movie with a very weak plot used to set up very unconvincing set scenes between male non actors who spend too much time in the gym and bimbos who have obviously had silicon implants . Actually the sex scenes in this movie are somewhat less convincing than you usually see in this type of film as the cast members grind their hips together giving pained expressions like they`ve got constipation or something . No wonder a lot of people claim sex is over rated , they`ve probably watched too many of these films on late night cable stations
In short, this movie is a declaration of artistic bankruptcy.<br /><br />Almodovar is easily the most important European film maker of the 80s and 90s. No other living director has shaped the style and contents of present-day European cinema more than him. It is therefore not easy to say that his latest effort is not just another disappointment after two lackluster films, but rather a complete and total disaster confirming that he has run out of ideas, out of humour and, worst of all, empathy for the characters he creates.<br /><br />That is not due to the complexity of the story. All Almodovar films are almost impossible to summarize. This time, in fact, it's rather easy if you are familiar with his earlier work. "Broken Embraces" is a remake of "Law of Desire", only this time the director is straight and the jealous jilted lover is a millionaire.<br /><br />For those of you not familiar with that film, I'm doing a summary. If you don't want to know too much, please skip this paragraph. A blind man, who used to be a famous movie director, seduces a sexy buxom woman reading a paper to him after a chance street encounter (yes, really, that's how it starts). Just then he gets a visit by his agent and best friend. He mentions to her that he has learned from the paper that a certain millionaire has died, which takes the story 14 years back. He can still see and is about to direct his next film. He stars the inexperienced mistress of the said millionaire as the lead, as he is instantly smitten with her. The millionaire discovers their affair via silent videos made by his gay son, which he has lip-synched by an interpreter (a few great scenes: Cecilia Roth). After violent quarrels, the mistress escapes with the director to a seaside resort where he learns that the millionaire, who produced the film, had it released in the worst possible edit, destroying the director's reputation. The couple decides to return, but has an accident in which the director turns blind and the would-be actress dies. Back in the present, he learns that his agent has preserved the film's negatives and starts to reconstruct it.<br /><br />As in "Bad Education", there are various sub plots to beef up this rather thin story, and as in "Bad Education", the result is more confusing than satisfactory. For instance, the agent's son, who works as a DJ, has an accidental drug overdose - which is completely unnecessary for the plot, and also interpreted rather badly.<br /><br />Mostly, however, the actors are not to blame, but the way their characters are written. Blanca Portilla as the agent has so many skeletons in her closet that not even a brilliant performance can save the character from ridicule. Lluis Homar is an old man's dream of a protagonist, living in an artificial world where an English alias and a few sweet words can seduce any super model. And Penelope Cruz is the embodiment of this old man's sexual fantasy. Her character is completely lifeless. It remains thoroughly incomprehensible why she would go from one old man, who at least helped her family, to a slightly less old man, who isn't charming enough to convince as either a romantic hero or a passion fuse.<br /><br />But all these shortcomings wouldn't make this film so awful. However, Almodovar does the worst possible thing of a director (or any type of storyteller) running out of ideas: he quotes himself, something he has increasingly done, and to very little benefit. The film-within-the-film, which "Broken Embraces" uses as a plot-driving device, is actually "Women at the verge of a nervous breakdown" (1988), only this time it is called "Chicks and Suitcases". This rather unimaginative title may give you a hint how this beloved classic is treated here: while the dialog making up the final ten minutes of "Broken Embraces" is a frantic, over-the-top exchange of screwball one-liners in the original film, here it is a stern, colorless, pesky business encounter.<br /><br />In conclusion, this is the D.O.A. brainchild of an exhausted creator of past marvels, pretty much as awful and disappointing as the last Indiana Jones feature. Maybe not so many people would agree with that, because Almodovar used to be such a genius. I'd rather offer my respect to his accomplishments by humbly asking the reader to watch "All about my mother", or "Tie me up", or "High Heels", or "Matador", all of which bear witness to Almodovar's unique and unmatched talent. A few more film like this, and his legacy may very well be destroyed for good.
I've never been a huge fan of Almodovar, but, generally, I've always found something to enjoy in his films. Unfortunately, I had more trouble finding something to enjoy in Broken Embraces then I would normally think I would.<br /><br />I find the biggest failure in Broken Embraces to be the characters and the lack of depth they display. The film is essentially a love story, one that is tragic, and one that wants to involve the viewer in their stories. I found this problematic from the beginning.<br /><br />In the opening scene, our 'hero' the director/screenwriter, Mateo, is having sex with a very attractive young woman whom he just met. His agent comes in as the woman bashfully leaves.<br /><br />In the opening scene, our 'hero' the director/screenwriter, Mateo, is having sex with a very attractive young woman whom he just met. His agent comes in, and rolls her eyes, as the woman bashfully leaves. Mateo babbles something about needing to enjoy life as the only thing he has left. Having been blinded in a tragic car accident that also killed his 'true' love Lena, played by Penelope Cruz, the viewer might buy into to this notion except the rest of the film really never illustrates why Lena was the love of his life or any depth to his character or any other.<br /><br />Cruz plays Lena the mistress to an industrialist named Ernesto Martel. From the outset, their union is rather a pathetic one, as Martel clutches jealousy to Lena, and Lena avoids uncertainty of being on her own by staying with the much older Martel. To skip ahead, Martel finances a film for Mateo so he can keep tabs on the star of the film, Lena. Naturally, without any back story, Lena and Mateo fall in love. And, in Almodovar's world it really is that simple. Mateo, in the opening scene, has sex with a sexy young woman, now Mateo falls in love with Lena, later it's revealed he had a son with his agent after their love affair. Her son responds to this information with a laugh and an, "Oh, well." Again, no depth, no understanding for any of these characters, it all just happens. From the beginning of the film to the end, I got no depth of emotion from Mateo. He is flat, and doesn't act much different from one scene to the next.<br /><br />The one scene I did enjoy was when film producer, Martel, is watching video footage his son recorded under the guise of doing a documentary of Mateo. There are nice a moment of Martel watching obsessively as a lip reading confirms his worst fears. Later, Lena confronts Martel as he's watching the footage and speaks her part out loud matching the video footage of her lips as she talks. Some quite brilliant moments. Rather contrived, but still really fascinating.<br /><br />Unfortunately, for me, the rest of the film left me rather bored. I couldn't care about these characters or their situations, so no amount of cleverness on Almodovar's part can make up for this lack of depth. I think if you're a fan of his work you'll enjoy this movie, but if you're like me, in between, then you'll find it lacking.
Roy Rogers (as Roy) and sidekick Raymond Hatton (as Rusty) join Teddy Roosevelt's "Rough Riders". Soon, they get suspended in order to "Round-up" the killer of partner Eddie Acuff (as Tommy) along the Mexican-U.S. border; they discover creepy gold runners in the process. Notice how, even suspended, Mr. Rogers is able to get the Rough Riders to join in his Round-up! <br /><br />This is not one of the better Roy Rogers westerns. The fighting scenes look like choreographed dances. Rogers sings/yodels "Ridin' Down the Trail", one of two relatively ordinary songs; and, a stand-out moment, overall. <br /><br />** Rough Riders' Round-up (3/13/39) Joseph Kane ~ Roy Rogers, Raymond Hatton, Lynne Roberts
A giant praying mantis is awakened from its sleep in the artic region and heads south causing havoc. Boats, planes and trains meet their match with the flying creature. Before unleashing its full wrath on NYC, the mantis meets its doom at the hands of the armed forces in a New York tunnel. The special effects are of course crude by todays standards, but for a ten year old boy in 1957 this was very memorable.<br /><br />Starring are William Hopper, Craig Stevens, Alix Talton and Pat Conway.
Something strange is happening in remote areas of the Arctic. An Air Force weather station is found wrecked, its occupants missing. An Eskimo village is destroyed. A fishing vessel disappears. Curious spoors are found in the snow. A four-foot piece of a living organism is found near a destroyed airplane. The piece looks like half of the claw of a giant Alaskan crab. The military (Craig Stevens as an Air Force officer) and its experts are baffled. A distinguished scientist (William Hopper) and his pretty assistant (Alix Taltan) are called in from New York. Hopper deduces from this flimsy evidence that they are dealing with a monstrous praying mantis. He's right. The pretty assistant happens to look out the window of the office and sees the hideous face with its bulging eyeballs staring in at her. She drops what she's carrying, claps her hands to her cheeks, and screams in horror.<br /><br />The mantis begins flying South along the Gulf Stream, pausing now and again to attack major population centers like Washington and New York to overturn buses and eat people. Military weapons don't affect it much but finally Stevens crashes into it in his jet fighter and mortally damages the beast, which comes to earth and occupies the "Manhattan Tunnel" linking New York and New Jersey.<br /><br />Stevens, having survived the collision, leads his team into the tunnel and kills the big bug with "3RG mines" despite its fierce appearance, threatening behavior, and earth-shattering roars. Stevens and Taltan kiss in front of the body while Hopper chuckles and takes their picture.<br /><br />Ho hum.<br /><br />Like the deadly mantis itself, the formula by this time was panting and gasping for air, flopping around, seeking as its prey not human beings but anything at all in the way of a fresh or original idea. As it is, they overlooked one cliché. Hopper should have hurriedly had to invent a Super Duper DDT that, alone, could defeat the insect. That's what the 3RG mines should have been filled with, rather than ordinary explosive.<br /><br />The model work is pretty good, considering what the budget must have been. Not much money could have been spent on anything else because everything else is pretty routine. Craig Stevens is bland, a face and style made for a TV series. William Hopper looks right -- tall and silver haired -- but his instrument has only one note. The pretty assistant is rather plain, considering her role. The part calls for Joan Weldon or Laurie Nelson. They couldn't act either but carried with them slight but distinct intimations of molestibility. Anything would have helped this fagged-out movie.<br /><br />I wish the deadly mantis hadn't roared so loudly and so often because you can't roar -- you can't even whisper -- if you don't have lungs. I didn't mind, though, when the monster met its demise in the tunnel. A praying mantis is a graceful insect in its own spindly way and it's great to have them in the garden because they eat caterpillars and whatnot. But when you get right down to it, they aren't really very appealing. The male mantis is smaller and weaker than the female, as in humans, and when the couple are just about through copulating, the female bites the head off the male, also as in humans. But at least human males know when to stop. The male mantis keeps on copulating for several minutes even though he is now without a head. We humans don't have mindless males copulating with goal-driven females. Do we?
This movie starts by showing you a map and then explaining radar and it is quite awhile before you ever see the deadly mantis. Probably a better movie in the 50's this dated piece is a bit to slow moving and the pay off in the end isn't very good. Though it has its moments like when the guy from Perry Mason argues with an old man and when he says "I have narrowed the possibilities to one" excuse me, but when you narrow something down you have a couple or more possibilities not one...if you get it down to one you haven't narrowed it down, but you have in fact figured out what it is. The monster is standard 50's sci-fi fair, better than say the grasshoppers in the Beginning of the End. Acting is sub-par and the heroine is the most unattractive...in fact in some shots she does look like a guy in drag. You see plenty of fighter plane stock footage and other things, but you won't see much at all of the deadly mantis.
Other commenters have described this movie as "classic 1950s SciFi" with clever use of stock footage and documentary footage, and clever character interaction.<br /><br />Nothing could be further from the truth.<br /><br />Yes, this is classic 1950s SciFi...but 1950s SciFi at its most blindingly stupid worst.<br /><br />Consider that the Mantis's first prey is a radar station shown first from the air, then on the ground... but the station is (from the air) pictured as on a mountaintop, with snow on one side and semi-cleared dark ground on the other side, but when (on the ground) investigators visit the site, it's suddenly on a flat, evenly white plain, miles from the nearest mountain.<br /><br />Consider also, the ludicrous pseudo-scientific babble of the highly-recommended expert who is brought in to examine a huge claw. He says "Well, we know one thing... it can't have come from an animal, because every known species of animal has a bony skeleton. Even reptiles and birds have bones." He then goes on to say that some creatures ...snails, shellfish, insects... do not have bony skeletons. Excuuuuuse me ? Let's define "animal", here. Not even in the 1950s could anyone over the age of six take this man as an expert in biology, since he clearly doesn't know what an "animal" is, nor have the ability to name several broad categories of animals who lack bony skeletons (sharks, rays, jellyfish, insects, mollusks, arthropods, gastropods, sponges, arachnids, echinoderms....you get the idea.) The characters are cardboard, 2D stock types... scientist, sidekick girlfriend, big bad monster. Nothing here shows any sense of creativity. No pulse, no life signs.<br /><br />There're no witty dialogs, the special effects are silly even for their time, and the stock footage is employed with a reckless disregard for continuity. This is B-movie making at its dead worst, with a production crew that clearly couldn't be bothered to try even halfheartedly.<br /><br />Use sparingly, as sleeping medicine or punishment for small children who're easily offended by bad science.
THE DEADLY MANTIS certainly won't scare any one, but as sci-fi programmers go it is better than most. A volcanic eruption at the south pole thaws out a giant, prehistoric preying mantis at the north pole. Military men go missing. Dr. Ned (William Hopper--Hedda Hopper's son and best known as Paul Drake on television's PERRY MASON) is called in to i.d. the creature--but by this time the creature has eaten up several Eskimo and is en route to the Washington Monument.<br /><br />About a third or more of the film consists of stock footage: old government educational films, military men in radar rooms, air planes--and would you believe Eskimos putting out to sea? Which explains, of course, why a tribe of Eskimo is attacked in the movie. ("Hey, Guys! Think we can work this in?") Mix in some negligible special effects, some clunky dialogue, and some sexist attitudes and you're good to go. Not as original as THE MONSTER THAT CHALLENGED THE WORLD, but fans of 1950s "big bug" schlock will enjoy it--and the kids will have a good time throwing popcorn at the screen.<br /><br />Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
I got hold of a discount copy of this. I had seen it several years ago. My only recent experience had been "Mystery Science Theatre" where it was soundly spoofed. One never really gets a chance to get into these movies because of all the byplay. I love the beginnings of fifties horror movies. They give us a pompous lecture on the defense systems near the Arctic. These were there to protect us from the expected Soviet invasion, but they should come in handy, given the threat of very large insects. <br /><br />This particular one flies. For some reason, despite its exoskeleton made of the stuff grasshoppers are made of, they can still fend off air to air missiles and disable fighter planes. <br /><br />Anyway, it's more fun--first, the obligatory deranged case who saw the flying thing, cooling his heels in a hospital (it just teaches one--see an insect as big as a house--keep your mouth shut). I wonder if the poor guy got to go home after they found the bug.<br /><br />Otherwise, this is a pretty ordinary effort. It follows the usual efforts to come up with a way of dissuading the stubborn bug--and leaves us open to other possibilities--the Russians next time. I still get a kick out of these films and this one is serviceable.
So you're a giant mantis and you've been hanging out in the arctic for a while, and you're tired of Eskimos hitting you with snowballs. What's a giant mutant insect to do? Head for the big city, of course! See the sights, maybe catch a show on Broadway. But wait! Just when you find a nice cozy tunnel to call your own, some pesky humans start attacking you!! Argh! Time to smash!<br /><br />Anyhow this movie is one step up on most other giant bug movies, because it has pretty decent FX for 1957. But that's about it. Avoid unless you really need to see another big bug smash things, or see another Perry Mason actor in a B movie.<br /><br />4/10
Thirty per cent of this movie appears to be the prototype for the Map Channel. You see a giant map for about ten minutes, then they unleash the stock footage big time while droning(droning, get it?)on about radar. Apparently there's a lot of radar stations in the far north, protecting North America's borders from attacks by deadly polar bears. The bears never show up, but a giant Mantis does. It was frozen in the ice for over a million years or so, until it was released by an earthquake somewhere else in the world(yeah, right. For my money, it was released by global warming). It is a huge prehistoric insect, and it needs lots of food. Since there aren't any cows in the frozen north, it decides to feast on the most bovine-like creatures it can find up there. I.E., human beings. It starts attacking radar stations, probably because the humming from the radar dishes was getting on its nerves.<br /><br />Enter Col. Joe Parkman, the resident smarmy guy of the film. He's investigating a plane that went down, and is puzzled why there are no bodies in the wreckage. The only thing he finds is one of the claws of the Mantis. Apparently it decided to trim its nails while it was snacking on the plane's crew. Parkman takes the claw tip back with him to be analyzed by a thousand year old scientist.<br /><br />Grandpa scientist can't make heads or tails of the claw, mostly because he's missed his naps so his mind isn't functioning too well. So he calls in a smug paleontologist played by the guy who was the P.I. in Perry Mason. He and his friend, a transvestite photographer, fly north because he's decided that the claw must have come from a Praying Mantis. Just one the size of a commuter train.<br /><br />It's Luke warm love at first sight when Col.Parkman first sets eyes on the she-male photographer. The men at the base, obviously having been deprived for many years, think she's the hottest thing to come along since Granny Clampett. Smug science guy and smarmy soldier guy start working together to track the path of the Mantis, which has devastated some stock footage of an Eskimo village. It comes to the base looking for an after dinner snack, and crushes some cheap sets quite effectively. Then it flies south and disappears.<br /><br />Now comes the tense hours when the civilian ground observer core are called on to sweep the skies looking for anything large flying overhead. I doubt that in reality they would have been told that they were looking for a giant flying mantis that eats human beings, since that would haver caused a panic. Probably they were told to look for a giant 727 that was painted green and hummed because its engine was out of tune.<br /><br />Col. Parkman goes up in a plane to try to shoot the Mantis down, and botches the mission. The Mantis lands in New York City, probably because it wanted to take in a show on Broadway or visit Sex World in Times Square. The army corners it in the Tunnel, and Parkman and his men don stupid suits that they borrowed from the Orkin Man to go in and try to blow the Mantis up. Success! Well, almost, since the Mantis is still twitching enough that it almost kills the mannish Eve Arden photographer lady. There's a tepid love scene at the end, and the paleontologist takes a picture of the dead mantis because Colonel Hair Grease and Ms. Gender Unspecified are busy smooching. So kind of a nauseating ending.
Watching this film made me wonder, just why was Universal putting out films like this? They had a wonderful string of films with all the classic horror films. The dawning of the atomic age brought on an onslaught of giant creature films. Spiders, ants, praying mantis'. With The Deadly Mantis, we have a giant praying mantis flying around the arctic, scaring eskimos, and being hounded by the armed forces. The bug reaches a tunnel in New York where the soldiers eventually destroy it. Of course, this is all made much more watchable by viewing it on MST. Who thought it was a good idea to start the film out by showing a giant map?
And I am afraid that I cannot imagine why. It really is a genuinely dire and exceptionally boring film. In some ways it is reminiscent of early science fiction when every set had been knocked up on a Hollywood back lot out of whatever was lying around. From the minuscule and unconvincing set (snipers seem to be about ten meters away) apparently made of plaster, to the actors who are also apparently made of plaster with "amusing" stereotypes painted thinly on top, to the oddly warm pool in a frozen cave, to the survival of the cast uninjured when medium artillery shells burst a few meters away on open ground, and finally the awful script that reads like a training manual more than a film.... I really cannot say how dull this is. Even the opportunity to see whether the young James Dean survived wasn't enough to keep me watching for more than an hour. This really is one to be avoided at ALL costs.
I don't think the number of blunders militarily and strategically contained in this turkey can be beaten. Everything in this mess was done on the cheap and made soldiers look really stupid. Examples: at the start the 2-star General is given strategic advice by a Lieutenant and accepts it unquestionably. The map used by the Lt. shows enemy positions but they apparently have only a single narrow valley to use in advancing on the battalion (even though the map showed a dozen more). The rear guard takes up position from which they are clearly spotted by the enemy and exposed. They pound our heroes from high ground but this superior fire power makes little difference. An single enemy tank advances near the end (at the beginning referred to as armored division), proceeded by a solitary infantry point (!) who moves extremely slowly without cover scouting the area, then waives the tank on when he deems it save to proceed - a most bizarre scene. The soldiers take cover in a cave. All around them is ice and deep snow but in the cave not a yard from the entrance is a deep puddle through which they all wade repeatedly - their feet would last mere minutes before they freeze off. Later the survivors wade pathetically slowly and chest high through a river to return to their unit. Remember it is deep winter and the ground is frozen. Yeah right!<br /><br />And on and on it goes. They yell commands to positions on higher ground, they lay mines near their own position and warn each other not to trample on them (!) At the start, credit is given to some soldier who had been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. Was he blind, or did Director Fuller just ignore him?Truly the most inept soldiers I've ever seen. <br /><br />One of them pokes around in his own wounded leg with a bayonet and eventually pulls out a piece of shrapnel, without a wince or a moan. He announces that that should qualify him as a surgeon. Now that was funny.
Although my exposure to world cultures is limited, I do try. This was a film that I tried and hated. Worst of all, after hearing so many people decry the shallowness of typical Hollywood fare and its stereotypical caricatures, I saw characters too outrageous for "Eastenders" being paraded as realistic.<br /><br />Clint wants out of the drug life and to do this he aspires to be a waiter. Aim high, I always say. Brad Dorif, or a faxed photo of him, or quite possibly a curly wig on a stick, it was hard to tell, offers to hire Clint if he gets a pair of shoes.<br /><br />Clint, and a huge entourage, apparently wander the whole of England trying to get him some shoes. Eventually, they end up at a suburban home. Whose isn't clear. Mum helps a girl shoot up. Oh, now THERE'S some realism for you! Mrs. Brady may have been a ridiculous stereotype of American housewives, but she never helped Marsha tie off and find a vein. Good God! Dad comes home and sings some Elvis tunes and then chases the kids away.<br /><br />Why didn't Clint borrow some money and buy shoes at a second hand store? Why didn't he go to a church and ask a kindly nun for some help? Why didn't he hang out in front of a shoe store and panhandle? I just don't know! None of these things seemed to be beneath him. Benevolent groups, like Goodwill and the Salvation Army have stores to help people. I know people who work there! If someone with no money showed up and needed shoes, the staff would give the person some shoes. Maybe not Prada or Gucci, but some form of foot covering. Not many of these groups hand out cell phones to the underprivileged, but shoes are usually no problem. What a dumb concept. The world, or at least the western part of it, simply isn't that cruel. In England, maybe it's from "The Queen's Royal Charity" rather than Goodwill, but people who need shoes do get them.<br /><br />Aside from the quest for shoes, there was no discernable plot to get in the way of the action. Not that it made the movie any quicker or more bearable, mind you. Despite checking the tape jacket several times, I was not watching the 20-hour extended version, it only seemed that way.<br /><br />Did Clint get his shoes? Did the cardboard cutout of Brad Dourif hire him at the restaurant? Did I ever watch anything else foreign ever again?<br /><br />[spoiler] Yes, yes, and yes.<br /><br />As for the fate of this particular film, I decided to end it all. I took out my S&W .45 and shot a half-inch hole through the cassette. Blammo! (I made sure to rewind it first.) I put it back in the tape sleeve, returned it to the rental store, and amazingly NO ONE EVER CALLED TO ASK ABOUT IT!!! Meaning, of course, that no one else rented it for at least the remaining three years I lived in that city. Others knew something that I didn't. Live and learn.<br /><br />BTW, if you rent something you've never seen before and someone has actually put a bullet through it, take it as a sign. And if you work at the Kroger video department, I'm just kidding.<br /><br />Footnote: this classic has yet to see the light of day on DVD, for which we should be eternally thankful to the digital gods.
If I'm to like a movie, I need to care about the lead characters and what happens to them. In this waste-pod of a film, I found myself hoping that they would all die in the end. None of the characters are people that you'd ever want to meet, they all made me sick. If not for a few nude scenes, I would have given this wretched movie a 1.
I bought this film at Blockbuster for $3.00, because it sounded interesting (a bit Ranma-esque, with the idea of someone dragging around a skeleton), because there was a cute girl in a mini-skirt on the back, and because there was a Restricted Viewing sticker on it. I thought it was going to be a sweet or at least sincere coming of age story with a weird indie edge. I was 100% wrong.<br /><br />Having watched it, I have to wonder how it got the restricted sticker, since there is hardly any foul language, little violence, and the closest thing to nudity (Honestly! I don't usually go around hoping for it!) is when the girl is in her nightgown and you see her panties (you see her panties a lot in this movie, because no matter what, she's wearing a miniskirt of some sort). Even the anti-religious humor is tame (and lame, caricatured, insincere, derivative, unoriginal, and worst of all not funny in the slightest--it would be better just to listen to Ray Stevens' "Would Jesus Wear a Rolex on His Television Show"). This would barely qualify as PG-13 (it is Not Rated), but Blockbuster refuses to let anyone under the age of 17 rent this--as if it was pornographic. Any little kid could go in there and rent the edited version of Requiem for a Dream, but they insist that Zack and Reba is worse.<br /><br />It is, but not in that way.<br /><br />In a way, this worries me--the only thing left that could offend people is the idea of the suicide at the beginning. If anybody needs to see movies with honestly portrayed suicides (not this one, but better ones like The Virgin Suicides), it's teenagers. If both of those movies were rated R purely because of the suicide aspect, then I have little chance of turning a story I've been writing into a PG-13 movie (the main characters are eleven and a half and twelve). Suicide is one of the top three leading causes of death in teenagers (I think it's number 2), so chances are that most teens have been or will be affected by it.<br /><br />Just say no to this movie, though. 2/10.
Yep, Edward G. gives us a retro view of the criminal defense world. First he's an overzealous prosecutor who sends the wrong man to the chair (played passionately, albeit briefly by DeForrest Kelly), then he's so filled with remorse his only solace is the bottle. Throw in a jaded romance, a genuinely rapid descent into penury and no qualms about who he defends, and next thing you know -- Shazam! Black Leg Lawyer (god I love that phrase). He sees the light just in time to save his jaded beloved from the chair. Yawn.<br /><br />But really, the courtroom action is pure melodrama. See him punch out a witness, see him drink poison, see him argue passionately as he clutches a bullet hole in his breast. Be prepared for melodrama.<br /><br />The hoot of the film though, is Jayne Russell. With curves defying the laws of gravity and an IQ approached absolute zero, she is something to see. Even sings a bit.
Director Lesley Selander's thoroughly routine outdoor yarn "The Yellow Tomahawk" (1954) pits the Cheyenne against the U.S. Cavalry with leathery tough Rory Calhoun in the middle as the seasoned, buckskin-clad Indian scout who has to lead the survivors to safety. This United Artists western was lensed in color but the TV print that Turner Classic Movies aired was inexplicably in black & white.<br /><br />The action opens with Adam Reed (Rory Calhoun of "Black Spurs") eluding several Indians and riding up to palaver with his old friend and Cheyenne chief, Fire Knife (Lee Van Cleef of "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly"), who has killing on his mind. Fire Knife warns Adam that his Cheyenne braves are poised to wipe out a nearby cavalry fort under construction because it violates a treaty that the Indians made with the government. On his way to inform stuck-up camp commandant, Major Ives (Warner Anderson of "Objective, Burma!"),about the impending Indian attack, Adam discovers a beautiful wood nymph seductively treading water in a lake. Katherine 'Kate' Bolden (Peggy Castle of "I, Jury") is another of those silly women in westerns that bathe nude in the middle of Indian country without a care in the world. Castle appears to be genuinely nude in her bathing scenes, too, perhaps the most memorable scene of all in this otherwise predictable western. Naturally, Major Ives dismisses Adam's warning from Fire Knife until the commander realizes that somebody has raided his ammunition dump far outside the fort. This is one of the many questions that the Richard Alan Simmons' screenplay leaves unanswered in this trim, 82-minute oater. Why would the cavalry bury their ammunition at a secret spot in the desert rather than keep it on the premises in the fort? No sooner have they made this discovery than the Indians attack, knock out of hero, and leave him as the only survivor. Before this attack, a pair of white prospectors rides into the fort. Sawyer (Peter Graves of "Stalag 17") brings in his partner with an arrow in his chest. While Adam is getting hot water to help in removing the arrow, the greedy Sawyer grinds the shaft in deeper and kills his helpless partner. Later, we learn that Sawyer and his partner had struck gold. The question of the dispersal of the gold is also left unanswered after our heroes survive the ordeal. Adam and Fire Knife have one final pow-wow and Fire Knife demands that Adam hand over Major Ives or everybody will die. Naturally, Adam refuses and the Indians begin to whittle down the whites. James Best in a supporting role as a cavalryman gets an arrow in the back for his efforts. Noah Beery, Jr., plays a aimable Mexican scout pursued by a sexy Indian damsel appropriately named Honey Bear (Oscar-winning actress Rita Moreno of "West Side Story") and Robert Bray of "Lassie" fame is on hand briefly as the ill-fated cavalry officer that Kate had planned to marry. <br /><br />The biggest surprise in this unremarkable western shot on location in Kanab, Utah, is that the evil cavalry officer Ives, who slaughtered Indian men, women, and children at the infamous Sand Creek Massacre, has been keeping a secret that he is a Native American, too! Ironically, the taut bow that Fire Knife gives out of friendship to Adam at the outset of the hostilities is what our heroic scout uses to kill the stalwart Cheyenne warrior after he has run out of bullets. "The Yellow Tomahawk" concludes on an ambiguous note. The survivors reach another outpost, Fort Ellis, where Adam and Ives furnish their respective reports about the issue to an army general, but we never learn the outcome of this meeting. Is this artistic ambiguity or yet another unanswered question. Producer Howard W. Koch is no relation to "Casablanca" scenarist Howard Koch. Ultimately, "The Yellow Tomahawk" is one of many pro-Indian westerns that appeared in the aftermath of "Broken Arrow" (1950) where the Native American is viewed as a noble savage unjustly treated by some but not all whites. Selander, who made dozens of westerns during the 1950s and the 1960s, makes this minor western tolerable despite its thin characters and familiar predicament. Calhoun stands out of an above-average cast as the always serviceable leading man, and good looking Castle is worth watching for her feminine charms. Peter Graves plays a skunk as was usual in most of his early roles. Actually, Lesley Selander did a more satisfactory dramatic version of this movie the year before called "War Paint" (1953) with Robert Stack. Incidentally, Noah Beery Jr. and Rita Moreno both went on to become regulars on "The Rockford Files".
I happened to have seen this movie this morning on TCM. Very bad acting, low budget and poor plot are the impressions I felt while watching the movie. The only highlight of the movie was watching tender young Rita Moreno, (23 years old), playing a teenage Indian squaw in love with an older man in his 50's. She reminded me of a earlier version of Sue Lyon as Lolita (1962), only a more innocent Lolita. She bounces up and down like a 1950's teeny bopper, almost as if you would expect her to be chewing gum, falling all over this old man, willing to give him anything, as he plays it off like she's a hindrance to him. Any man in his 50's that had a beautiful, virgin, teenage girl willing to do ANYTHING for him and be his bride, would be insane not to take advantage of her. It's too bad that the censorship board back when this movie was released didn't permit more of an expansion of a character such as Rita Moreno's. The only reason why I gave this movie a 3 instead of a 1 is Rita Moreno's appearance in the movie.
This was by far the worst movie I've ever seen. And thats compared to Alexander, Fortress 2 and The new world.<br /><br />I should go back to blockbuster and ask for my money back along with compensation as it was a truly traumatic experience. For the first ten minutes i was changing the zoom on my widescreen TV because the actors seemed to be out of screen. I didn't think it was possible to make such a bad film in this day and age, i was wrong. While typing this message, I've thought of a good reason to buy this movie. A joke present at Xmas. I'm blaming the Mrs for this one as she picked it, thanks babe.<br /><br />Be warned.......A true shocker all round!!!!!!
Right on Colmyster. I totally concur with all your sentiments and add these. I came to my PC especially to post a comment on this dreadful (minus)Bgrade movie. I was going to say that in this day and age I am at a loss to comprehend how anyone could possibly make such a woeful movie - but you beat me to it. Anyone reading this and Colmyster's comment, trust me ---- DON't waste you time and money. It's an absolute shocker. The acting is totally pathetic, the script is way worse, and the (so called) special effects are a joke. Surely no-one actually invested money to make this movie? I really cannot think of anything else to say about this so called horror sci-fi product, but must pad this commentary to make 10 lines of comment in order to have it accepted for submission.
No budget direct to video tale of aliens in Arizona involving the military and escaped convicts.<br /><br />Not bad as such, rather it suffers from the cast and crew sort of going through the paces instead of trying to sell it. Its as if they knew they were in a grade z movie and want you to know they know. Then again maybe they just couldn't get it together.<br /><br />A misfire of a grade z movie that could have been something if some one cared--and had skill. Why must low budget filmmakers insist on not actually trying to make a something good instead of just making a product.<br /><br />2 out of 10 because nothing comes together
The Salena Incident is set in Arizona where six death row inmates are being transfered from the state prison for reasons never explained, while driving along the heavily armed prison bus gets a flat & the driver is forced to pull off the road. Then two blonde birds turn up & after seducing the incompetent prison guards manage to get the better of them, the six prisoners are released but in a shoot-out their getaway car is damaged leaving them all stranded in the middle of the Arizona desert. They decide to head to the nearest town, Salena several miles away & take the cops with them as hostage. Once they reach Salena they find it odd that the place is completely deserted with not one single other person in sight. They soon discover that the entire town has been killed by flesh eating aliens & they are firmly placed on the menu...<br /><br />Also known as Alien Invasion Arizona in the US on DVD & apparently having the working title Terror Town this rubbishy low budget sci-fi horror flick was co-written, co-produced & directed by Dustin Rikert & has no real redeeming features at all, to be frank The Salena Incident is the sort of film which gives films a bad name. The film could roughly be divided into two parts, the opening forty or fifty odd minutes focuses on the prisoners in a thriller feeling opening, the guards & the escape although it's pretty poorly written & staged stuff. The dialogue between the two blonde birds & the prison guards is so bad it's unintentionally funny as the two fit birds chat up the two not so fit prison guards. Funny stuff actually, unfortunately The Salena Incident is supposed to be a sci-fi horror film not a comedy. Then once the escaped cons & their prison guard hostages arrive at Salena it goes into sci-fi horror mode as the aliens turn up & start killing our clichéd character's off which is good because they are annoying. Look, the whole film sucks as it's badly written, thought out & made. I can't really be bothered to go into why but trust me The Salena Incident is awful on every level.<br /><br />As well as being just a bad, boring & stupid film The Salena Incident is also poorly made. The action set-piece scenes are awful, the aliens looks terrible & are never shown on screen at the same time as the human character's & as such it's sometimes difficult to tell what's happening. The special effects are poor too, the aliens look rubbish & the CGI computer effects are absolutely terrible as well. The editing is poor, the cinematography is poor, the sets are cheap & the whole thing is just an eyesore really. There's a bit of gore, there's some gunshot wounds, someone is ripped in half & a severed hand is seen.<br /><br />Obviously shot on a low budget The Salena Incident has low production values & looks cheap from start to finish. Filmed in Superior in Arizona. The acting is terrible from no-one I have ever heard of although the actress who plays the female doctor is pretty good looking.<br /><br />The Salena Incident is a rubbish sci-fi horror film that is terrible in just about every way, not worth 90 minutes of yours, mine or anyone else's time.
If I was still 5 I might find it scary. It is (I guess) a low budget film. The acting is not good, but could be worse - the filming and special effect is awful. The story line is thin and not worth to dwell on. Too much time is used on boring shouting scenes. The chases or fight with aliens, remind me of kids fighting with scary masks on. Some gore with blood and body parts - would scare a 5 year old kid I guess. Apparently scare the crap out of some of the persons in the film.<br /><br />It is far from reaching anything like the film Tremors.<br /><br />This turns out to be an "incident" and we see alien ships nearby earth. It make you wonder if any will make a sequel...
The Salena Incident is by far the director, Dustin Rikert's, best film --- which isn't saying much. In his past films (and I use the term "films" loosely), the director takes ideas from Hollywood blockbusters and severely marginalizes them. The Salena Incident is no different. The movie is basically Con Air meets Aliens done with the semblance of your average film school production. The film is riddled with out-of-focus shots and plagued by special effects that would have trouble rivaling most high school computer animation classes. For example almost every on-screen explosion is the same fire effect matted over the screen.<br /><br />The weak effects and production value are only compromised by a flawed plot and rocky dialogue. In a sentence, the story strings together like an exposition of overused Hollywood clichés. The movie begins with the worst CGI Alien ship ever made crashing into the worst CGI earth ever made and a team of army somethings going down to investigate. Next a bus of prison transports, carrying the worst of the worst from across the state, is overthrown by the prisoners with the help of their blonde girlfriends armed with silicon implants. The prisoners escape and run into the town of Salena where they encounter the aliens who... SHOCK... have escaped from an alien prison transport carrying the worst of the worst from across the galaxy. The prisoners, and their captive police armed with only guns and sad puns have to fight off the aliens and escape the town before the International Space Alliance *rolls eyes* bombs the city into oblivion.<br /><br />The only real enjoyable parts of the movie are when the actors (who are clearly undermined by the script) are given the freedom to improvise and also when they fight off the smaller of the alien creatures in a flurry of gun fire. Other than that, the movie really isn't worth anyone's time let alone the plastic that the DVD is made out of. How awful was it? Let's just say the Secretary of Defense is about 90 years old, works in a room that is about as high tech 1950's real estate office and is wearing a Looney Tunes tie. Yes, if that wasn't clear enough before, THE MAN IN CHARGE OF THE PENTAGON IS WEARING A TIE WITH BUGS BUNNY AND THE ROAD RUNNER ON IT. The movie basically culminates (HAHAHahhaaa did I say culminates...) with the last remaining soldier running into the group of prisoners and guards and the new formed team fighting their way away from the vicious aliens --- which for some strange reason leads them straight back to the Alien ship? yeah...<br /><br />The movie has heart but is riddled with horrible direction and even worse camera work. Someone seriously needed to slap the DP and tell him there is more to cinematography than repetitive, stagnant, chest-level shots. This movie really isn't worth renting (if it ever makes it that far) being that it's not as horribly bad as the last films made by the director which reduces the laugh-ability, but it's nowhere near watchable cinema.
During the summer, the cue line for this attraction is really long, since it is a water ride. It's very well-themed, but a lot of the ride's artifacts seem to be out of order. Overall, the ride is not worth it if you have to wait for almost 2 hrs. in line. The drop at the end is exciting, but the whole ride itself could have been better. Creators for Indiana Jones could have prob. helped these Hollywood designers. Also, many times the ride breaks down and causes even longer waiting periods for others. It's also very unpleasing when they only have one raft departing dock open and not the two, like they are supposed to. During Halloween Horror Nights, you ride in the dark, and it's exciting if it's your first time, but if it's not, then don't bother waiting in a four-hour line.
When i saw the first octopus movie it was a laugh see the cheesy acting and appalling effects. This film seemed to make up for the acting, but not the special effects. After Jaws and Piranha, sure, why not make a film about a killer octopus? The octopus invades the New York waters, where 2 police investigators try stopping the rampaging beast before the 4th of July.<br /><br />A pretty clean plot and descent happenings but the octopus was pretty much appalling, its nice to see they actually made it this time but it looked like a piece of plastic... Better on a big budget really, this film could have been a good watch. There's a continuous amount of errors where it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't research the way octopus live...<br /><br />Watch this if you like cheap DVD sequels, otherwise your better watching Jaws.
I hated the first movie is really boring and we only get see the Octopus at the end. <br /><br />The plot Dead bodies are being found in the New York harbor. The police have no clues nor suspects until Nick and his colleague realize the killer is a giant octopus. Everybody, especially the police captain, refuses to believe Nick's story, and soon the harbor will be filled with boats for the 4th of July celebrations...<br /><br />In this movie we get to see more of the Giant Octopus and Special effects for this movie are really good for it's time.<br /><br />The acting is this movie not bad but not great too but okay and watch able. <br /><br />The are some really cheese scenes to movie but if can get past that, You should enjoy the rest of movie. <br /><br />5/10
This is the sequel to Octopus.<br /><br />Pff... OK. A lot of stock footage, but pretty good. I'm surprised that they actually had a giant robot octopus that actually didn't look that bad! I was actually quite surprised by that.<br /><br />The movie overall was just OK fun. It never explained how the octopus got so big, and isn't linked it anyway to the first. But it was still fun.<br /><br />The ending me and my friend laughed at. Basically, after blowing the octopus up once, the two main characters launch a bomb, and five explosions, most stock footage, appear on screen! We joked that they went to the dollar store and bought a 'five missiles in one' toy! Believe me, it has to be seen to believe! Overall just stupid fun. Worth giving a chance, buying if it's cheap.
I'd have to say that I've seen worse Sci Fi Channel originals, but this Nu Image shonker from Yossi Wein was still quite a drag. The big problem with it is that it simply isn't convincing, not just its creature, but acting, writing and any attempts at drama. The direction lacks any kind of flair and the script from Boaz Davidson and Danny Lerner never really works, predictable, often laughable, whilst it delivers less howlers than a fair few of these sorts of films it never offers anything to engage or raise the pulse. The actors do their best, but with such material their workmanlike efforts have little effect. Matthew Reilly Burke is a blandly watchable hero, Meredith Morton similar as a blandly watchable love interest. Actually she was a bit less convincing but at least she was easy on the eyes. The film at least has the dignity to bowl along at a reasonable pace, but its biggest plus is that the octopus isn't entirely CGI rendered. So even though it doesn't look good, at least there are a few legit scenes of characters inanely grappling with rubbery tentacles in pretty amusing fashion. I also chuckled at the disparities between different representations of the octopus, the cgi shots of the creature as a whole vary over the course of the film, they are also different not only in size but appearance to the practical shots of it, and there are scenes where the tentacle action suggests that the makers had abandoned pretending they were making a film about an octopus and just envisioned their creature as a bunch of miscellaneous tentacles. The scenes of the creature attacking people get old pretty swiftly, but there are a few funny scenes where it takes on other things, like a boat and a crane. Yes, these scenes are poor, but they did make me chuckle. Undisputable highlight though is a hilarious sequence in which the octopus takes on a New York landmark, the scene may not be much more than a minute but it really is inspired, and well worth looking up on youtube. Apart from that things are uninspired all round, (a PG level lack of gore or nastiness stops this one from even pulling off much in the trash good times) the film does take a turn into semi gripping disaster movie territory at the end, but I can't really give it credit because the best shots in the last few scenes were culled from the Stallone flick Daylight (which by my recollection is quite good). Altogether this was pretty rubbishy stuff and not something I'd really recommend to anyone except creature feature die hards. Better than a poke in the eye with a wet stick, but not by much.
Greetings, Moviegoers! As I watch Octopus II, I contemplate the inherent lameness of the Octopus/Croc/Dino Horror Genre. Many moviegoers may blame the poor acting, nonsensical screenplay, or poorly constructed plot as the reasons that cause the OCD movie to flounder. These reasons may indeed be floundering factors, but it is the inherent difficulty of filming an OCD movie that is at the heart of the lameness.<br /><br />You see, the technology does not yet exist to make a realistic, life-size OCD and the CGI technology currently used by studios lacks the ability to blend in smoothly with real world environments and characters. Even with clever cinematography, you can only film the semi-dark depths of the sea/semi-dark forest/semi-dark cave/semi-dark corridor so many times before the Sci-Fi aficionado becomes bored with the genre entirely (the OCD sub-genre, that is).<br /><br />What can be done, you ask? I wouldn't suggest that the genre surrender to cheesiness, but another avenue needs to be explored. We can't really go back to the days of the "Fade-to-Black" cue that someone has been killed. Or can we? If we can't reach the goal of realism, we have to compensate in other ways, such as plot twists, innuendo, and photo-ingenuity.<br /><br />It will be through ingenious and alternate methods that the disease of lameness, so common to the OCD sub-genre, will be cured.
I purchased this film on DVD for £4, but it was a waste, the film is very bad. The plot is your average monster film, where it kills a few people, the mayor/chief doesn't believe it, and they fight it at the end.<br /><br />On the plus side, the film quality is very good, and the setting of New York is impressive for a budget film - as opposed to a small coastal town. The acting is reasonable too.<br /><br />However, the special effects, mainstage in a monster film, are laughable and the addition of a random bus load of kids to the plot half way through just gets weird. The ending is just bad.<br /><br />In summary, whenever you have a chance to see this, don't - there WILL be something better on.<br /><br />R-T-C "True horror films don't have a PG rating"
A flesh-eating octopus, where does that guy Boaz(what the..?) Davidson keep getting inspiration? Anyway,even for the low,low standards of both the giant sea animal who kills people-genre and me,this one is just beyond awful.The octopus is one of the lamest,laziest,weakest monsters I've ever seen.I think he just ended up in the (ahum)East River because Sea World got sick of him.The actors can be seen repeatedly helping the octopus choking them.Bunch of idiots,that way he'll never learn!You guys want all the other giant killer octopuses(that's the correct plural,by the way)to laugh at him?Meanies.<br /><br />Up to stop the octopus are wind,razors that are hard to handle and also special sea agent Nick Hartfield and his partner,who will retire in a week but first has to be eaten by the octopus.Hooray,octopus won the fight!A couple more and he's going to evolve(the scars in my mind stay).Nick of course tries to help him by not doing a damn thing(doesn't he have a gun or something?)but no,that magically doesn't help either.<br /><br />Okay,enter sea cop's love interest Rachel Starbird.Is this based on some comic book or something?Anyway,together they try to stop the octopus by walking in the park.They hope this helps,cos it's the 4th of July in a couple of days,and the octopus might join the party.And you don't know what he's like when he's drunk.Rachel then gets a school bus from out of nowhere to make sure this movie won't end while Nick feeds the octopus some more sea cops.<br /><br />But all's crappy that ends crappy,Nick manages to blow the octopus to bits a couple of times,and a bunch of children who happened to be there cheer and laugh.You know,on tummy-vision,this would probably get an R.In real life,I'd say all ages but I kinda like all ages so my final idea is:Suitable for absolutely nobody.There's no sex,no gore,no nothing.Now forget this movie ever existed.Join the club.
Just finished watching this one after getting sick of getting ready for the Michigan Bar Exam. I wanted something that was mindless and that I could just sit back and say, "what the hell were they thinking?" I was not disappointed in this undertaking, but had I been watching this one in a serious mood, I would have been irate. The company that made this thing just spliced CGI footage from the first Octopus and added a little footage with a fake octopus that makes the one used in "Bride of the Monster" look like a masterpiece of special effect footage. Since when does an octopus have fangs? The plot is that an NYPD diver is investigating some murders/disappearances on the Hudson River shortly before the Fourth of July. He and his partner (who is soon to be transferred, or soon to be munched on by a fig bucking octopus) investigate in a rather inept manner (all the while believing that a huge octopus will kill people) and are occasionally accompanied by a female lackey from the Mayor's office. Of course on one believes that an octopus can get that big until the thing attacks the cop and the girl from the mayor's office. Surprisingly, all hell doesn't break loose and only a few cops and a few more civilians are killed.<br /><br />Really lame. Don't bother with it.
Oh wow, the character shares my name first name! Nick! This movie as bad as the first one, if not worse. Well, at least there's an actual octopus in this movie. An actual octopus that makes a better appearance in this film. By better, I mean, "Longer" the acting is pretty dry and it's hard to sit through. Just to let you know, when this ninety minute film ends not only are you freed from your couch but you get your ability to breathe back. Not only that, but you realise how stupid you are and then commit suicide, realising how horrible life is after watching this film. Really, it shows how desperate horror movies are today, more crap like this is being realised and where the hell have the real masters of horror been lately? This film should have been the final straw, so we can bring back cinematic geniuses in horror cinema, that could make some actually GOOD modern horror films, this movie bites.
As if the world hadn't already got enough cheap Jaws imitations, writer Boaz Davidson decided to make the sequel to his ropey-but-reasonably-enjoyable creature-feature Octopus a complete rip-off of Spielberg's classic, right down to having a concerned cop who no-one believes, and a mayor more worried about his 4th July celebrations than people's lives.<br /><br />Even in the hands of an extremely skilled director, it is unlikely that this derivative rubbish could have been anything other than hokey B-movie garbage, but with Yossi Wein (yes THE Yossi Wein!) calling the shots behind the camera, a man with a fraction of Mr.Spielberg's talent (I estimate about 1/10000th), Octopus 2 is guaranteed to be every bit as bad as one might imagine!<br /><br />The predictable and extremely clichéd plot isn't worth describing in much detail (substitute Jaws' Amity Island with New York, and Bruce the Shark with a giant rubber octopus and you'll get the gist), although several points about the film are definitely worth mentioning, simply because they are so funny: all of the octopus attacks involve the actors struggling to make incredibly fake-looking giant tentacles look real, which is hilarious to behold; Bulgaria's capital, Sofia, unconvincingly stands in for New York, and overuse of stock footage makes the illusion even less convincing; best of all, a silly dream sequence that sees the rubber octopus attacking our hero atop the Statue of Liberty, is not only gut-bustingly stupid but also features some truly dreadful special effects.<br /><br />Davidson's script also doesn't know when to quit: there are several points in this film at which it could've (and probably should've) ended, but the action goes on and on, with the octopus surviving several explosions, and causing a tunnel to collapse (trapping the film's love interest and a bunch of kids), before finally being blown to smithereens by the hero.<br /><br />Sometimes very silly, always awful technically, but never actually scary, this STV stinker may find fans amongst those who actively seek out cinematic trash. Most normal people, however, would be advised to steer well clear.
Since I am required to write minimum of 10 lines, and this garbage deserves not only a single one, I'll start with the following: 1. I voted AWFUL for this dreadful so called "movie".<br /><br />2. Let me explain why these turkeys Mr. David Varod produces are shot mainly in my beautiful homeland, Bulgaria (just in BTW, for the illiterate people around - this country is IN EUROPE, based north to Greece and has absolutely nothing to do with Mexico and Uruguay) Some years ago, NU Image has invaded our country and started making crappy mostly direct-to-video releases. Why here? Because here they pay derisively low fees to the Bulgarian crew and to the Bulgarian actors (most of them distinguished ones) which are, in many ways, better than most of their American colleagues. Personally I am ashamed of that fact. The reason is, of course, the greediness of the Americans involved and their wish to get most, if not all of the profit. Actually it would't be so bad if only the production wasn't so filthy and pale. There hasn't been a good picture shot here for years. At present NU image is being sued here over the very questionably purchasing of our national cinema production centre called Boyana Films. No doubt about it there has been corruption, there has been deceit, there has been a lies in this recent purchase. The Bulgarian cinema is dead. Long live the Bulgarian cinema!
If Daphne Du Maurier had set REBECCA in 1950s San Francisco, it might very well resemble this uptight, highly unusual noir from Robert Wise. Valentina Cortese plays a concentration camp survivor who steals the identity of a dead woman and insinuates herself into the life of Richard Basehart (who happens also to be the guardian of the dead woman's son)...it's absurd and over-the-top but also topflight entertainment. Cortese is terrific, slowly falling apart as she realizes the mistake she's made. Basehart is fine if a bit bland...although the lighting toward the end makes him appear very menacing. Fay Baker makes a very good Mrs. Danvers-like caretaker. Wise is a fine director and he keeps things moving at a pretty brisk clip. He also stages a now classic out of control car crash with Cortese (or at least a stunt Cortese) at the wheel.
Has some really good music and performances; Kid Creole and the Coconuts, James White and the Blacks, DNA, Tuxedo Moon, the Plastics, Melle Mel, Vincent Gallo, Lydia Lunch...etc, but aside from this there isn't much more to it. The dialog, especially the narration(by Saul Williams), is actually pretty good, but the performances are all pretty bland or outright bad, no matter how many hipsters are thrown in; Debbie Harry and Jean Micheal Basquit(the latter being the leading role) both still don't have enough cultural cred to keep this film from being a novelty item. It goes for the a Jack Kerouac style roving spontaneity, but doesn't have the insight to keep it moving along, which is where the band performances come in. I guess its pretty balanced in that regard between great music and bad acting, and I did enjoy it, but I just expected more. Though it does have a fairy tale ending.
Nothing but the void, a pleasant one for those who have known the eighties, but well, quite boring for those who are not interested in it. NO screenplay in this film, but a hero wandering in an underground New York full of arstists and night clubbers. It is aimless, pointless and naive. But not entirely unpleasant.
The only redeeming quality of this film is that it shows bands and their music when it was changing in NY during '81. As for the film itself it has at least three major flaws. First of all, there is narration throughout the film, which is not required at all. In the few places where there is some explanation necessary just adding a little dialogue would have gone a long way. Secondly, there was no obvious attempt to synchronize any of the audio, in fact it is quite apparent that most of the dialogue was recorded later with no attempt to match the film. The third flaw was in the ending. I will not give the ending away for those brave souls that would endure the torture of sitting through the film, but it commits a cardinal sin in screenwriting. Not worth the money or time it takes to see this, unless you are a fan of one of the represented bands.
Richard Donner shows off his liberal credentials with this ludicrously overcooked simplistic attack on the politics of South Africa.It's not as if America is the cradle of racial harmony and brotherly love - and further irony is added by the fact that the movie is set in the city that was the home of Rodney King and glorifies the Police Department that did so much towards community relations with their brutal racist behaviour. So Donner's salt and pepper pairing who clearly have a late = developing teenage crush on one another do their own thing with fine disregard for the rule of law or the rules of evidence and no one worries because the bad guys are white South Africans - surely a worrying example of police racism in itself? Inside Rudd's (Joss Ackland - eminently hissable) office the decor is designed and lit to resemble as far as possible the Fuhrerbunker and just in case some rather dumb moviegoers miss the point,he and his men are referred to as "nazis" at regular intervals. For me the only bright spot in the movie was when Mel Gibson turned up at an anti - apartheid demonstration carrying a banner bearing the inscription "End Aparthied Now". The intensely irritating Joe Pesci is introduced into the franchise to take some of the weight off the boys' shoulders by following them around yapping incessantly like a badly-trained puppy.This would be bearable if there was the remotest possibility of him ending up in a concrete overcoat,but sadly he survives to irritate another day. Miss Patsy Kensit seems in a world of her own,perhaps not believing her luck at being cast opposite Mel Gibson who has little trouble sweeping her into bed in his mobile home which appears to have been washed up on a beach somewhere.Shortly after consummating their affair they come under fire from a number of helicopters that fire enough rounds into Mel's caravan to keep the U.S. Army in Iraq going for six months. Fortunately he has a pet dog who is not afraid to cause coitus interruptus just as they are going for seconds and his barking warns them of the imminent attack.I hope he got a special bone as a reward. The film climaxes(without interruption from Mel's dog) on a cargo ship bound for Nazi Germany (sorry,South Africa),when Mel and Danny murder so many members of the master race that I lost count.Despite jiggling around like Bonnie and Clyde under the impact of a hail of bullets,Mel survives,curled up in his partner's arms like a small child with a wise and benevolent father.Take that,Apartheid!
Riggs and Murtough are back but the magic of the first film has disintegrated. The story line is just awful! I mean really, South African diplomats smuggling the mythical Krugerrands into the U.S. It's just painful! And the accents are absolutely abysmal! Can no one get an Afrikaans South African accent right? Or will we forever hear the British or Americans making them sound like drunken Hollanders? The only guy who got the Afrikaans accent right was Tim Robbins in Catch A Fire. Another thing about this movie that i disliked was when Danny Glover so artlessly describes an Afrikaans accent as being shitty! I mean what a slap in the face to the Afrikaans. There's also enough hypocrisy in this film to make me vomit. I mean Mel Gibson's character is like so against the diplomats but then sleeps with their P.A. type! Don't waste your time watching this rubbish non-researched film. If you want to see a film that doesn't completely insult a cultural group then rent Die Hard 2.
Spoilers!!<br /><br />I hate this one, but it is better than the others after this, they just keep getting worse. I hope Gibson has the smarts to stay out of the next one. A lot of the same with humor, ie the toilet, kids, etc. How much farther can we watch their relationship evolve. Drugs, bad guys why South Africa! I found that unbelievable, maybe South American, some country in the Golden Triangle would have made the script better. It seems the late 80' early 90's had the blond bad guys ie Die Hard, the mighty Ducks play Ice Land Gary Busey in the last Weapon, etc. Hollywood repeats itself over. This one with a similar story has to go over the top. The attacking the police, the beach condo scene, and the fight at the end, and way over the top Gibson's girlfriend killed by the copper attack were too much. Like many part 2's, they get worse, and 3 or 4 in this series picks up speed downhill. 3/10
This television show, is a idiotic waste of time if you want to learn<br /><br />about animals watch the discovery channel. If you want to watch<br /><br />nincompoops on television just watch MTV. MTV stands for music television<br /><br />not nitwit D-listers preforming retarded skits or bratty kids crying<br /><br />their hearts out for not getting a BMW for there 16th birthday. I bet<br /><br />that if you like this show I bet you love viva la Bam, and jackass huh? I think my IQ dropped ten points watching this show. <br /><br />This is a combination of two shows jackass and the animal planet<br /><br />Some people think this is a good combination.<br /><br />I on the other hand think it is retardant.<br /><br />And if you notice its a lot like jackass<br /><br />and viva la Bam<br /><br />just a note, this show is horrible
Let me start by saying you know a film is poorly run when extras make the cover. With that said, anyone who says this is the worst film ever is being dramatic, and anyone who says that the film is great is completely delusional. The film "is what it is." And what is that... A modest budget ($4 million, I estimate) studio sequel. The film isn't terrible, but for Road House fans it will be a disappointment. And that brings me to problem one, just as Dirty Dancing wouldn't been what it was without Swayze, Road House isn't the same without him. The lead lacks depth, character, and likability to carry the film. I feel that the lead was poorly cast and the producers should have bent over backwards to get Patrick to do it if they were gonna do a sequel. The other cast was uneven with outstanding actors like Will Patton along side day players who couldn't act there way out of a paper bag. Busey, who I have seen do great characters seemed like he just mailed it in. Ellen was played well, except for not being believable at all as a bayou raised chick. Sherri, the DEA agent at the first bar was hot and a good actress, yet her part was awkwardly small and undeveloped. The writer totally missed all opportunities to add depth and interest to the story and characters. Instead opting for a base one dimensional film. Which leads me to the biggest problem, the script... I got a bad feeling when the credits rolled and there were three script writers separated by an "and" and an "&." It looked very amateur. And that is what the writing was. I heard the original script was better and then a rewrite was done and the hard core sucking began. Some cheezy parts of the film to watch for are... During the first undercover meeting, the obvious drug deal under the table. "Hey lets meet at a crowded nudey bar, I will pull a block of coke out of my jacket and you pull cash out then we will slide them under the cocktail table" WAIT! "Make sure to look cool when you look left and right to make sure no one is looking!" Second, I love it when someone gets shot in the chest and then you see him sitting up happy as a lark 10 minutes later. There are some nasty editing cuts towards the end of the film especially during fight scenes and when the main character is chasing thru doors and runs into a patron. Which brings me to the realism of the DEA training, I won't both to get technical... But jumping thru doors isn't standard training... Nor do typical female agents, who bust their butts to make it in a male oriented field, act like weak characters... Boring! Thanks for the chauvinistic view Heir Director. There is other stuff I could teach a course at a school about it... The sped up fighting, the cheezy dialogue, the recycled story... etc... But aside from all that you just cannot like ex-Mr. Applegate, he totally lacks the humble zen coolness that made Mr. Patrick Swayze such a bad ass. He just strikes me as one of those 5 foot nothing actors who think they are a bad ass, but just like Van Damnit he runs into a real bad ass (Chuck Zito in Van Don't case) and he gives him a lesson about "badassdom." Therefore, that I feel is the major linchpin of the film, if you are a bad ass you are a bad ass, you don't have to try. Example: Swayze! If you are a pretty boy who tries to hard to prove you are a bad ass among other things... Then well... You are why your audience, the Average Joe... Will not rent this film, and if they do they will write reviews like this.
The original Road House was a classic cheesy 80s movie, which although it didn't have anywhere near award worthy writing or acting, was a very enjoyable and popular film, largely due to the presence of star Patrick Swayze and the great supporting cast, along with some excellent fight scenes and eye candy.<br /><br />16 years later, and MGM / Sony attempts to re-create the magic which left us all quoting one liners and reciting the three rules of bouncing... with a movie which quotes all the original's best one liners and recites the three rules.<br /><br />Were this an amateur fan made film, it would be seen as a loving homage to one of the most popular of Swayze's movies. As a professionally made film, it falls flat on it's face right into the DVD Bargin Bin, with its continual reuse of lines and plot from the original movie becoming more of an annoying sign of lack of originality rather than cool references to the original.<br /><br />Having said that, with new lines such as "I'm gonna kill you just like I killed your father" no wonder the screenwriters decided to rehash much of the original script.<br /><br />I knew this was never going to be anything special, being a Straight to DVD Sequel, but I had at least hoped that there might be a couple of new ideas and fresh things included to live up to the Road House name, but what you get is simply just a 2006 remake of the same film, with a little narcotics added in.<br /><br />Were I the director, I'd have removed all references to the first film so as not to tarnish the original and it's characters. As it is, we got Patrick Swayze's character now supposed to be dead (killed off screen in a lame way by Jake Busey) and his brother and son now the main characters, who strangely enough have completely different surnames.<br /><br />My favourite part was that Dalton's 'son' drove the same car his father did, a genuinely cool homage, although it was later ruined by having the car meet its end EXACTLY the same way as its predecessor did. That's a good example of how this film goes too far in including sequences and ideas from the '89 movie.<br /><br />Also of course who can forget the legendary moment where Wild Bill promises to kill Shane "just like I killed your father" and then proceeds to attempt to dispatch him in a completely different manner. Amazing writing there. I see Schaech is listed as co-screenwriter. Stick to acting, or preferably, nothing.<br /><br />Overall though, this is an OK film if there's nothing else to watch and you want to turn your brain off for an hour and a half, or if you haven't seen the first Road House, but hardcore fans of Swayze's classic will be totally disappointed almost to the point of feeling insulting at how much of a rip off this movie is of the first. As someone once suggested as an alternative subtitle for this film, "Even Jeff Healy is glad he won't be seeing this one!" Stick to the original Road House and relive the good old Swayze days!
If I had never seen the first Road House, then I guess this movie might get one more star, but even then that makes it a 3 star movie. For that matter I was really surprised as to the relatively high rating it currently has.<br /><br />In reality, I was not able to finish this movie, as it was painful. Where it went wrong (at least the most obvious way) is that it pretty much parallels the original exactly even though the original plot is still referenced. This doesn't really make sense and doesn't work. Also, the acting is weak...I never felt like I was into the movie yet I felt like I was watching people act. Even good actors like Busey don't work out, probably due to the screenplay or maybe the awkward editing. The strangest thing is that the movie feels like a mid 90's B movie, yet is made in 06. I am not sure as to why, but then again, this often seems to happen with sequels for some reason. The music, the look, and the whole overall feel reminds me of movies you saw 10 years ago on Cinemax late at night. The strangest thing of all is that I am also expecting Ja Rule to come in at some point...often it reminds me of more current movies with rappers as actors.<br /><br />The most irritating thing is love interest girl who's character seems like a total rip off of the Lois Lane character on Smallville which is also quite annoying. And lets not forget the fakest sounding "southern accents" I have heard since Walk the Line. I realize this is common place in movies, but no accent at all would work better than attempting to sound like you are from that universal hick place on TV where anyone from any southern state (or KY and WV) sound exactly the same. Sure, people in desert towns in AZ sound just like people in Southeastern states 2000+ miles away. That was wearing thin 10 years ago in the B movies where technique came from. Why do writers / directors make such decisions? <br /><br />Bottom line: I would truly not recommend this if you are a fan of Road House or if you like good movies. Also, if you have not seen it yet, don't spoil it by seeing this version first. The original Road House was one of those accidental classics that people love and watch over and over. It was an unexpected success like American Graffiti, Dazed and Confused, and more recently Office Space, Fast and Furious (only the first one!), and Napolean Dynamite. Why did they spoil it!!!???<br /><br />They should have never made a sequel to Road House other than a high budget version with the right actors / director. Sure, you can never top the original (ex: Bad News Bears, The Longest Yard, etc.), but at least if you can do it right it will be presentable as is the case with the examples I mentioned. But to make a low budget, off-network, self production of Road House is criminal.
The original Road House is by no means an award winning film. But it is one of the great guilty pleasures of all time. It shouldn't have been that hard to make a sequel. There's no need for a big budget, big name stars, and spectacular visual effects. Even the story didn't have to be original. All it needed was a good time vibe, and some great fist fights. I don't mean Matrix-style "wire-fu", just some well choreographed barroom brawls. Lots of them. There are a couple of decent fights in the movie, but none of them are memorable, and the focus is more on gun play. Plus, the way it ties in to the original film is laughable, bordering on insulting. Johnathon Schaech plays Shane Tanner, an undercover DEA agent who is good with his hands and feet. But here's the kicker...he's the son of Patrick Swayze's character Dalton!!!! Say what????? Let's see, the original Road House was made in 1989. So for Dalton to have a son in his late 20's (maybe even 30) in 2006...well you get the idea. They give it a cheesy explanation that he lived with his uncle Nate (Will Patton) while his father "travelled around a lot". Oh please. That itself almost warranted shutting this movie off. But I digress. Schaech is completely out of his element. Sure he can throw a couple of kicks, but he's got nothing going on as an actor. Plus, he's referred to in the movie by the bad guys as "pretty boy". I've never scrutinized men that closely, but I don't think this guy is too good looking. He looks sick. His face is way too thin, and his sunken eyes make it look like he's going to pass out at any moment. I'd never heard of him before, but I think he should give up acting and go back to his day job. Jake Busey plays the local drug runner Wild Bill. Busey is not a terrible actor. He was good in Starship Troopers, and even made a menacing villain in Hitcher 2. But here, he just chews the scenery in standard bad guy mode. Even his "threating" dialog is yawn worthy. We're supposed to buy him as the man that has the whole town in his pocket. But why? What does he do? Because he wants to buy a bar from Patton "by any means necessary"? Ellen Hollman has the token girlfriend role. A woman with a secret. Too bad that secret is about as difficult to figure out as 2+2. She's the local elementary school teacher who happens to be a former Army soldier. Guess what that means? It means that while she may quiver with fear for the majority of the movie, she'll be ready to smash heads when the fur starts to fly. Oh well, at least she's hot. Actually the fight between her and Wild Bill's girl is the best one in the movie. It's fast, brutal, and entertaining. Which leads me to my next problem with the movie...the fights. As I said Schaech knows how to throw a punch. The same can't be said for anyone he faces in the movie. Obviously the movie will all come down to Schaech versus Busey. Busey is an actor, not a fighter. He doesn't possess the skills to pull of a movie fight. Swayze may have been a trained dancer, but his athletic ability gave him the means to pull off well choreographed fights. He also faced a couple of worthy opponents, and had one killer (literally) move. None of that here. With a couple of exceptions, the fights are forced, poorly staged, and routine. The punches sound like someone smacking a 2X4 on the concrete, and there's even a couple of parts where the sound doesn't even match up to the punch. It's embarrassing. There isn't even the good southern/redneck music of the original. Road House had the Jeff Healy Band, who were a somewhat popular band at the time. This movie features a singer called John Otto, whose music is tepid, and his acting even worse. He's given one line in the movie, which was probably inserted to appease whatever fans he may have out there. Either that, or someone owed him a favor. My final complaint about the movie is one that comes out of just being picky...the continuity. Movies are shot out of sequence, and then it's the editor's job to piece it all together. Well someone should give the editor of this movie a little shove. The problems range from little things like people not looking the same direction when a shot changes, to RE-USED footage at the end of the movie. In the beginning, we are introduced to the bar, The Black Pellican. As the camera moves through the bar, you see the band, the bouncers, and the people dancing. At the end of the movie, when the bad guys have been defeated, we get another shot of the same bar, with insert shots of our hero sitting at the bar with his girl. The problem is, the footage of the people in the bar is the SAME footage from the beginning of the movie!!! I kid you not. It's the same people, standing (or dancing) in the same places, wearing the same clothes. Want to know the funniest part? You see bouncers in the shot that were KILLED earlier in the movie. Do yourself a favor, don't watch this movie unless YOU feel the need to go out and punch someone. This movie will make you angry enough to do it.
I happened to see a promo for this movie on Spike channel last night, it was grouped with a Patrick swazy rerun of another movie he made and thought swazy was in this sequel.....boy was I wrong....I see the screen writer also starred in it, and I'm thinking the budget was a bit tight. I am surprised to see Will Patton in the film he has far better credits to his name to be playing in a "c" movie like this. Bussey jr was trying so hard to portray the image of his father(one of the best bad guy actors ever) that failed miserably the only redeeming qualities in the movie was the chicks,,,,,good looking and with lots of T&A just not worth the time or your hard earned dollar to rent it
Man stop making sequels to great movies. The original was a great movie that was over the top with fights,sex,and one of the coolest characters that graced the screen in the 90's. The story is believable as if your been to bars in the outs of the south you would know. But here comes this piece of junk Roadhouse 2 Last Call. Lets just hope they are serious with the title and never make another Roadhouse ever again.It doesn't have the charm of the characters of the original nor is the story really believable. The Story is more of a Steven Segal type action that even though Roadhouse 2 is a B movie it still doesn't click as some B movie action still sales the movie no matter how cheesy it is. The only reason to rent not buy this movie is that we finally find out the one question is left from the original Roadhouse. Patrick Swayze's character Dalton, is Dalton his first name or last name? Well I'll save you the $4.00 rental fee. Dalton is his first name as in Dalton Tanner. NEVER MAKE ANOTHER ROADHOUSE!!!!!!!!!!!
this movie is a pile of rubbish , and to try and base it the first is just a farce , the main thing that let it down for me was the usage of the one liners out of the first one , which once said by classic actors such as Sam Elliot can not be reproduced in any way , i mean when Dalton phones wade in the 1st , and he ends the call with stay cool that was great , but when the chump rings the DEA agent back home and he ends the call with stay cool it doesn't have the same ring now really does it , there are other ones but I cant be bothered to post em up , but I hope u get my drift ,they should of named this roadhouse wannabe ..........
Well let's be fair. Following up a cult classic like Road House is no easy task. Now subtract Swayze from the equation and you get a monumental task. So with Patrick not on board whose bonehead idea was it to proceed anyway and make this piece of garbage? I am going to blame the director who didn't even provide 5 minutes of decent footage throughout the entire film. I was actually shocked they got Will Patton (Armaggedon) to jump on board. Johnathon Schaech did an OK job with the lead but the writing was atrocious. Turning down his partner brunette bombshell (Crystal Mantecon) in the film's first 5 minutes made me want to eject it right there. But I stuck with the film hoping to catch a glimpse of that great cheesy humor that worked so well with the Double Duece. No such luck. The cover of the DVD is hilarious, they show these two stacked blondes who make one 10 second appearance in the film. Costar Ellen Hollman actually puts in a decent performance as well. But again the effort is futile in a piece of garbage and disgrace such as this. Has Jake Busey ever been cast in a decent film? Could they not pull at least a few actors in from the first film for some kind of nostalgia treatment? Even one of the old bouncers or two, or Jeff Healey for a performance would have been nice. Take this film out of your Queue immediately. -LostFlix
"Direct-to-video" is a phrase that never sounds promising to the consumer unless its a direct-to-video sequel to something that went direct-to-video in the first place. Despite this, studios have insisted on releasing numerous direct-to-video sequels over the years to cult hits. I don't think it even needs to be mentioned that these sequels rank among some of the worst titles of all time, including THE HITCHER II, STARSHIP TROOPERS 2, and CRUEL INTENTIONS 3. It's fitting that ROAD HOUSE 2 was helmed by Scott Ziehl as he was also the man in charge of ruining the Cruel Intentions series. Like his entry in the Cruel Intentions trilogy, Ziehl takes elements that made the first ROAD HOUSE a great guy flick, and rehashes them with no success whatsoever. This is no sequel, this is a remake all the way. Various lines from the original are repeated, plot points cut and pasted, and scenes are replicated almost shot-for-shot from the first one. The one thing that could not be duplicated were the amazing fight scenes, which made ROAD HOUSE what it was. Here, we get clumsily directed fight sequences that are either too short or too long and seemingly planned out and shot within an hour. Compare that with its predecessor's fight scenes that look like they took months and months to prepare. Ziehl is capable of directing action as he did well with the 2001 remake of EARTH VS. THE SPIDER, but none of the talent shown there comes through in this mess. It's not completely his fault, as the screenplay is very, very poorly written and clunky. I don't care if something goes direct-to-video, a good script is still required. Someone should keep that mind while continuously churning these low-budget, direct-to-DVD movies out. Skip it entirely. 1/10
This in-name-only sequel to the classic ROADHOUSE has a DEA agent (John Schaech) coming to the rescue of his uncle (Will Patton) when the uncle is badly beaten up by a local drug gang, headed by that Wooden Indian of an actor Jake Busey. The gang wants to take over the poor guy's bar for nefarious reasons. Patrick Swayze is sorely missed here. Schaech is an indifferent actor and not convincing as an ass-kicking lawman. The fights here are intermittent and not nearly as powerful or vicious as the fights in ROADHOUSE. The finale is equally weak. Some good-looking women keep things afloat for a bit. There is a terrific fight between a Daisy Duke-type who turns out to be handy with both fists and weapons, and a nasty-looking babe of Busey's who is handy with sharp implements. There's also a scantily dressed gal at the beginning who is a fellow agent of Schaech's, but unfortunately she never reappears in the film. Too bad. She does a brief lap dance for Schaech that had my full attention. If nothing else, ROADHOUSE 2 kicks off with a strip club scene that comes darned close to what a real strip club looks like, a rare circumstance in any movie. The rest is snooze time.
SPOILERS: The original Road House is one of those movies that I know is clichéd and unoriginal, yet it's done so well, I'm embarrassed to admit I really like it. Turns out many of my friends, whose movie opinions I respect, think the same way. So when they attempt to make a sequel to it and it's as if it was written by some high school kids who were given the rights to do a sequel, it's just bad; really, really bad.<br /><br />Oddly, Johnathon Schaech is listed as one of the writers and I can only hope his WGA membership is revoked. The writing was just bad and all the writers of this film should retire for complete lack of originality and some of the worst dialog in this millennium. Schaech already appearing to be the king of the straight-to-DVD sequel (8mm 2, Poison Ivy 2) and now after seeing this and 8mm 2, I'm thinking his acting ability is non-existent. He was awful, just awful.<br /><br />And it's not the terrible fighting scenes that make this movie terrible, but take it from me, they're bad. Every fight scene is a slowly delivered punch (yet still making the "wiff" sound in the air) that is then blocked by the opponent, who returns a punch that sends the first guy to the ground. This is repeated throughout the film, worse than any bad 1970s cop show. Or the fact that many of the people involved in the fights seem to have a mouth full of cherry kool-aid for some reason. And we're supposed to believe Will Patton is a fighting machine; his fight scenes look so amazingly fake I was honestly embarrassed watching. <br /><br />It's the complete lapses of logic in this ridiculous movie that make it terrible. For instance: Johnathon Schaech's character is in town for a day and already tells some girl he barely knows who he has no idea what side she's on, "I'm with the Feds, but don't tell anyone." The female villain, who fights the good girl in one fight scene with acrobatics that rival any super hero, yet is easily held down by the Will Patton, "old guy," in another scene by simply holding both her hands while he utters some ridiculous line ("stab me once, shame on you, stab me twice, ain't gonna happen" whew, that's bad) and then head-butts her. Jake Busey's villain shoots at the feds while caught in the middle of a drug deal, yet no DEA agents or anyone simply go to his place and pick him up after, in fact, he's simply let go because "this is the sheriff's territory." Busey wants the bar because it's "in a great location" for drug deals, yet his own house appears to be just as good apparently offering all the perks the bar is supposed to have. Johnathon Schaech's character is supposed to be the son of Patrick Swayze's character in the original, yet Swayze's character's last name is Dalton and Schaech's isn't (nor is the supposed brother of Swayze's character). And Johnathon Schaech looks about 50 in this movie. I looked it up, he's 17 years younger than Swayze, but he looks awful.<br /><br />But my favorite absolutely stupid scene in this movie was the most stock fight scene ending in movies: the villain is knocked through a window on a second floor and as they pan down I'm thinking "please don't tell me he's impaled on something..." and sure enough, my worst fears were realized.<br /><br />Actually, I could go on for another half hour about the things I hated about this movie. Suffice to say, let's put an end to these ridiculous straight-to-DVD sequels to theatrical movies, at least the ones with Johnathon Schaech.
Dark Harvest 3: Scarecrow: 1 out of 10: In Einstein's theory of relativity time is of the perspective of the one that views time. (Or so I've heard) In other words this movie feels a lot longer that an hour and change. Even on fast-forward (And you will be reaching for that fast forward button) it clocks in somewhere around eternity.<br /><br />If you are familiar with Lionsgate's own version of Project Greenlight (This is where they buy a home movie but a fancy cover on it and sneak it into the horror section of your local Wal-Mart) you will not be surprised by the complete and utter lack of entertainment value contained within.<br /><br />The line reading (I refuse to call it acting) is uniformly awful. This is a collection of deadbeat dads and strippers pretending to be in a movie between cans of Schlitz. The camera work is drunken father shooting vacation film quality and while the special effects are okay the scariest effect is the breast augmentation scars in the nude scene.<br /><br />The story is awful, the sets are from a haunted Halloween put on by ADHD middle school students and once again the line reading (remember this is not acting anymore than sinking to the bottom of a pool is swimming) is distracting beyond mere words. Avoid.
It used to be that video distributors like Sub Rosa and Brain Damage Films would release low-budget, shot-on-video horror films to a select market of gorehounds that ate them up with glee. That's acceptable to me, because you could see these movies from a mile away with their shoddy box art and cheesy titles.<br /><br />Now we have Lions Gate getting into the mix, only they have decided that it'd be better to sucker in poor saps by putting a "professional" looking cover on it and charge the same price as one of their higher-budget, professionally made features. Do not be suckered in by this! Granted, if you've seen Dark Harvest 1 or 2 than you already know what to expect with 3 but there is a place for movies like this and it is not on a video store shelf beside professionally-made features.<br /><br />I am a fan of independent cinema and have watched several low budget, shot-on-video productions that were still a worthy rental but this was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The "acting" (if you can call it that) was abysmal. It was amusing to laugh at the horrible line reading for a minute or two, but eventually it was too much to take and became unbearable. The story is bad, the dialogue is worse, the acting somehow manages to be even worse. The only possible saving grace to this would be one disemboweling scene that still manages to be awful but is an award winning effect when compared to the blood splatters after a girl is slapped or the mannequin decapitation.<br /><br />It took me three tries to make it through this entire movie and I only did so because I paid good money to rent it and felt like I should at least finish it all the way through. Stay away - stay far, far away from this one.
OK i gave this a three A three! It deserves only one star no questions asked.<br /><br />If your going to look at the movie seriously and take it as a legit B-Horror movie than yes it will get one star. But i believe it is apparent within the first minutes of the movie what we are dealing with is a piece of crap.<br /><br />With this movie me and the buddy i was watching it with could of turned it off and put on something more "Hollywood" but instead we just decided to rip this whole movie apart from start to finish. We laughed so many times it was almost if i was watching a comedy.<br /><br />The acting is terrible..... The effects and death sequences are so bad.... The Story complete crap.....<br /><br />But the fact they are trying to make a serious horror movie..Priceless!<br /><br />The most memorable part for me is when two of the characters are walking in a supposed "dark basement" which is clearly lit, and they pretend to not be able to see bumping into bones hanging from the ceiling bahahahaha just terrible.....<br /><br />So if you want to laugh at how crappy this movie is, along with the fact it was made in 2004 than see this movie....<br /><br />Wait why am i writing so much? no one knows about this movie...i doubt anyone will even read this hahahaha.
I couldn't spoil this piece of crap if I wanted to. After watching Dark Harvest 1 I thought "this has got to be the worse movie ever made" then I watched Dark Harvest 2 and that made 1 seem a little better. Then I watched Dark Harvest 3 or tried too. The only thing I have to say is "when is this going to end?" Very bad acting and really bad special effects the only good thing about this movie was the boob shot. Don't waste your time of money on this piece of crap... And now I have to write 3 more lines to get this to submit. I was going to sing a song but I can't think of any right now. But the movie finally ended (though it had an ending that might mean they are going to make another one of these)
As you may remember I have seem all three of the trilogy of trash and the first movie is the only one even remotely close to be watchable. Part two was low grade sewage and this installment is slightly better then two, but still one steaming pile of something I removed from my backyard last Monday. The premise doesn't make sense, why did the moonshiners murder that poor old lady and even in 1921 I think someone would notice a bunch of oily guys where a sweet little old lady once lived. Second, that scarecrow is pathetic compared to how cool they looked in the first movie. It's just old clothes and a burlap sack. Let's face it, the series is garbage and should be forgotten about. THE NOOSE!
I rented this movie under the impression that it was "Scarecrow 3:Dark Harvest", thinking it was a continuation in the Scarecrow Slayer series (another extremely laughable and all together awful series of movies). I wasn't disappointed though. It was just as awful, if not worse, than what I expected. I was laughing throughout the entire movie. Every piece of bad acting, poorly shot and cut footage, and terrible special effects is what makes this movie worth renting.<br /><br />The special features include a pathetic view into the cast and crew's six months of filming.<br /><br />Favorite line, "The sins of my forefathers! They've trickled down to this very moment of time!"
This is just about the WORST piece of garbage I've ever had the displeasure of sitting through. The story was embarrassingly amateurish, the graphics were horrible, and the acting... I've never seen worse acting in my entire life. A kindergarten class could come up with a scarier, better written, and more entertaining concept than this. I pity anyone who wastes their time on this film, as well as the actors who agreed to doing the job. It was obvious that they were not given appropriate direction. The writers must have spent their time at film school in the "back room" playing peaknuckle. A lot of professors wasted a lot of time on these two. I would be truly embarrassed to admit that I knew them.
If it were possible, I would have given this sorry excuse for a movie a ZERO star. It was by far the worse I have ever seen. It was as if it were a home movie that some bored highschoolers decided to make as a joke. The "acting" was horrific. The "actors" didn't even react to the fact that they were being murdered.<br /><br />Honestly, I bought this movie by mistake. The Spanish title said Jeepers Creepers 3, so I thought hmm maybe it'll be OK. Wrong. It was honestly the worst ever. I didn't get past 20 minutes of the stupid movie. I skipped through chapters and nothing interesting ever seemed to happen.<br /><br />The cameramen were also terrible. It was like a home movie. I would NEVER recommend anyone to watch this. Terrible terrible moronic movie.
I absolutely hated this movie! I was 9 when I saw it. It is the only movie I have ever walked out of in the theater. My mom, dad, and I all looked at each other during the movie and knew we were wasting our time. This movie stole approximately 45 minutes of my life. Everything about it was ridiculous. The entire premise was too warped. Being 9, I was always easily entertained. This movie proved that I couldn't subject myself to anything and still be entertained.
This is the first film I've watched from the Italian Ed Wood, Demofilo Fidani aka Miles Deem. The above title was superfluously added later on since there exists another similarly titled 1961 movie starring Richard Basehart which was Hammer Films' Michael Carreras' one and only stab at the Western; the genuine Italian title was originally translated as HIS NAME WAS SAM WALBASH, BUT THEY CALLED HIM AMEN…although it was actually WALLACH in the Italian variant which, of course, implies a tribute of sorts to Hollywood actor Eli! <br /><br />While certainly not unwatchably bad, instances of clumsiness and ineptitude abound so that I was often cracking up into howls of laughter: a horrid number by a would-be irresistible French chanteuse; a totally irrelevant bar-room brawl; actors doing somersaults when being shot; an aged villager doing an impromptu dance routine; ineffective use (indeed abuse) of slow-motion; and, easily the most preposterous, seeing Gordon Mitchell and Lincoln Tate play two gunfighters (sporting the actors' own names!) hired by the villain to kill off the title character and then never having them appear in the rest of the film at all!! <br /><br />Lead actor Robert Woods is just that even down to ineffectively whispering the Amens over the bodies of his victims. Supporting actress Simonella Vitelli (actually, the director's own daughter!) as the villain's broad is quite a looker but, unfortunately, she doesn't get to do much in the film – despite having a change of heart towards the end. The main musical theme is actually pretty good but, again, the title song is, in itself, quite lousy.
This is one of the films that killed the "spaghetti" western. It not only loses something in the translation, it is a total chaotic mess of editing as well. Either chunks of it have been edited out and or re-edited for an English language version. In any case, it makes little or no sense, period. It makes the "Trinity" and the Eastwood "Man With No Name" films look like John Ford/John Wayne by comparison. Nothing in this film is original. Somewhere in there is a beginning, a middle, and (finally)an end. Except for the end, not everything is exactly in that order. Robert Wood seems personable enough. The rest of the cast, especially the women, should have made better career choices.
Savage Guns (video title) is a dirt cheap, bottom of the barrel spaghetti western in which the survivor of a massacre hunts the bandits who killed his brother and left him for dead, catching up with them in a town controlled by their crooked boss.<br /><br />Despite plenty of violence, this manages to be both dull and colorless with bad characterizations and almost no imagination or humor.<br /><br />Lead actor Robert Woods lives up to his name with a wooden and uncharismatic performance that fails to generate any warmth or sympathy whatsoever. In other words, the viewer never really roots for him despite the fact that he's the protagonist.<br /><br />The worst scene (in my opinion) is the annoying dance hall scene where a woman sings in a heavy and terribly unsexy German accent. It was the worst scene in Blazing Saddles and the worst one here!
At it's core, this is a fairly typical revenge Western, heavy on the spaghetti, and if you follow it as such, the protagonist comes through successfully defeating the main villain. However there's so much going on that has no bearing on the story that you have to wonder what the film makers were thinking about. I'm referring to stuff like the way Miss Rosie's singing number just pops up out of nowhere and the boxing match in the middle of town. OK, they have a loose connection to the influence villain Mash Flanagan has, but why all of a sudden does he turn up with an alias - Mr. Donovan.<br /><br />On the flip side, I thought it was pretty innovative how the camera shot showing the wounded Wallach's view of the trail might have been filmed by someone with an actual bullet in his shoulder. And wasn't it great the way Donovan's girl uses the old headache routine when he gets a little frisky? Don't let me forget either the great stunt work by the gravel pit bad guys as Wallach guns them down as part of the finale.<br /><br />Still, there was one thing unaccounted for, and I kept waiting the entire movie for it. Whatever happened to that trio of hoods that Flanagan/Donovan hires near the start of the picture? You know, the guy Martel that a funeral parlor wanted to hire for his gun prowess, the devil's henchman Mitchell with the rifle, and the knife thrower Lincoln Tate. Each had a five thousand dollar bounty on his head, and they were supposed to protect Donovan from the guy who survived the massacre of the opening scene. They were never heard from again! I like to think that maybe Donovan just had them killed and kept the 15K all for himself.
This showed up on a DVD a buddy of mine bought for me. They had it listed as "The Savage Guns" which was an entirely different movie. Obviously the folks who packaged the DVD never bothered to look at what they were burning on the disk.<br /><br />Anyway, this movie is about as bad as they come. The sound track is a combination TV Batman/Early James Bond/Spaghetti western. Lots of galloping around to this music. It appears that the guy has to gallop between scenes to burn up some time and give the sound track folks something to do.<br /><br />English is dubbed over the Italian and it really shows. I wish it had been just a little bit worse and then it would have had some of the campy feel of the Ed Wood films. AS it is, it is just plain awful.
Ever have one of those sneezes that seems to build up forever? You gasp and you convulse and you grab the nearest paper product in preparation for the world's greatest hanky-blower...and then it fizzles. "Frankenhooker" was the cinematic equivalent of that lost sneeze. Now, I'm big on B-movies, and I always look the other way when a boom mike pops onscreen or an actor speaks his or her lines with all the enthusiasm of Gerald Ford, but this one really let me down. The cover of the video, for instance, IS the tag-line of the whole movie. Using parts from murdered New York prostitutes, Dr. Franken rebuilds his deceased fiancee, only to have her run amok in Manhattan as a sort of superprostitute with a bad attitude. After an hour and a half of build-up, this fairly funny ten minutes seemed a little anti-climactic.
Well, don't bother. This film looks so tired, the acting is so old-fashioned, and the plot and characters so drab, that it should be studied instead of watched. It is really a horrible waste of film; Stereotypes, clichés, nonsense, and amateurish film-making. I watched it in unbelievable awe with my mouth wide open. How could such a film be made, and more interestingly, how could anyone find it funny or watchable? Old, tired, sloppy... a junior-high skit, at best. There is nothing watchable there, except for a study of very ancient film. Not good film, just ancient. This is not Abbott and Costello or Laurel and Hardy. This is nonsense. The acting is so bad that maybe it is worth it to watch just for the laugh. Some films are so bad that they are good. But, this one goes all the way around the corner and back to bad again.
Johnnie (Bert Wheeler) is a would-be songwriter; Newton (Robert Woolsey) is a would-be inventor. Both work at a cigar stand in the lobby of an office building. Johnnie wants to sell a song to Winfield Lake, a song publisher who also owns the building. Lake's secretary, Mary (Betty Grable), is Johnnie's sweetheart. When Lake turns up dead, circumstances conspire to make Mary and Newton think that Johnnie is the killer. They conspire again to implicate Mary, who goes to jail. But who really shot Lake? Who is the Black Widow, the blackmailer who had threatened him? The other characters in this wacky murder mystery are: Lake's suspicious wife, a self-satisfied private detective, a seemingly slow-witted janitor (Willie Best), Lake's auditor, a songwriter who thinks Lake is stealing from him and another who thinks everyone is stealing from him. It's up to Newton and his truth machine to reveal the real killer.<br /><br />The baby-voiced Wheeler and the cigar-chomping Woolsey strike me as an arbitrary pairing, but they made several movies together in the 30s and some of them were funny.<br /><br />Not this one. George Stevens, who went on to have a distinguished career, directed this dismal comedy with a tedious murder mystery plot. But two scenes are good, and both feature Wheeler and Betty Grable singing the excellent "Music in My Heart," written by Dorothy Fields and Jimmy McHugh. The first time, they sing it walking up a staircase (after which they dance back down). Later, Wheeler and Woolsey are on stilts so that they can see and talk to Mary, who is in a jail cell on a high floor. Wheeler and Grable sing to each other through the bars.<br /><br />"The Nitwits" has a few laughs, but the level of comedy is best illustrated by Woolsey's line: "Sonny, you've got the brain of a six-year-old boy. And I'll bet even he was glad to get rid of it." It's watered-down Groucho—who didn't use the superfluous "even" when he said it.
When you read the comment on this film, that it's smart and funny political comedy based on true events - the only true word here is that it's a comedy. If you're told it's insider movie about Russian politics - it's not. There's probably only 2% in the movie from what really happened in Russia during that election-campaign. In reality of the 1996 it was thousand times more interesting to follow the situation and that was a real funky election-campaign. Well, there were PR-advisers from the US working in the Yeltsin's staff, but their role was just minimal. The whole campaign was totally different from what is shown in the movie, it would be much funnier showing all the president's people riding across the country with paper boxes full of cash, and the celebrities giving the shows to support Yeltsin all over the place - at least that would be true. I give it three only because of the respect to Jeff Goldblum, Antony LaPagglia, and Liev Schreiber. And about the machine guns on the streets of Moscow. I was living in the place that had the highest amount of hard crime in Russia in the middle of 90-s and never seen a man with the gun on the street.
OK everybody is so enthused by this film I hardly dare add a negative review but I just did not enjoy this movie.<br /><br />I have to say first I saw the film in Russian language overdub so I will have missed some dialog, but not much.<br /><br />Nice things first. There are some hilarious moments (the Elvis impersonator for instance). Actors seem well casted, also the Russians. Efremova is great and Goldblum is very good. Which brings us to the downsides of this movie. First of all. There is hardly any story and the end we know already: Yeltsin wins. So no drama or suspense. They tried to solve this problem with an emerging affair between the actors mentioned above, but that story kind of evaporates.<br /><br />More importantly, the film does not represent reality. The Russians at the level of politics and society portrayed in this movie are not funny, they are a serious and dangerous lot. I am willing to believe that flying in some spin-doctors from the states helped Yeltsin win his campaign, but the real interesting questions that should be addressed are: who financed the campaign, what did they get in return, how was the opposition handled apart from airing some commercials?<br /><br />So what we have here is a film, loosely based on reality (but strangely avoiding anything that could make the film either historically relevant or just a very good political thriller) without plot or subplot.
The creators of this movie must have sat down one day and said "let's make fun of the Russians and at the same time show people how advanced we (Americans) are". The movie portrays the Russians as an inferior people who are unable to understand the brilliant ideas put forward by the Americans. It is true that American campaigns are probably more professional and more based on expensive studies than campaigns in any other countries are. However, this movie goes to far and it exaggerates the differences between East and West. To me it looked like a propaganda movie made during the Cold War.
let me get started with a terrible storyline and an awful control system. good animation but not too good graphics. that is why I'm giving this game 4 of 10. THIS GAME REALLY NEEDS AN Improvement IF YOU ASK ME!!! i would remake it and make this control system better so jaws is not so damn hard to control. if i made it to improve it i would make those graphics look better than on the movie. it will drive anyone crazy when you are getting killed so freaking easy. i played this and got killed by a diver when he had one of those flick knives in 2 hits. the dolphins will kill you so much that the shark will be begging to go to the bottom of hell. this game sucks some fat ass. sorry about all the cussing i think I'm done now. it just that this game sucks so bad that it should be taken off the store's shelf. i dare you to play the garbage and you will probably get so mad by dieing so easy so Don't PLAY IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There's not that much to say in the end. One would have expect much more from a director who made way better movies in the past. It just seems like he did it without actually caring. The actors are doing their job (though Belmondo is far from amazing), but you just don't get hooked. In a word, it's boring. This is even more disappointing since I heard several time that this movie could be considered as a reaction to all the big American blockbusters, which are considered to be a threaten to the French exception by those who just can't admit they should turn to another job. I tell you, if that's the best reaction we're supposed to get, boy, I'm going to be really depressed soon...
Afraid of the Dark left me with the impression that several different screenplays were written, all too short for a feature length film, then spliced together clumsily into this Frankenstein's monster.<br /><br />At his best, the protagonist, Lucas, is creepy. As hard as it is to draw a bead on the secondary characters, they're far more sympathetic.<br /><br />Afraid of the Dark could have achieved mediocrity had it taken just one approach and seen it through -- and had it made Lucas simply psychotic and confused instead of ghoulish and off-putting. I wanted to see him packed off into an asylum so the rest of the characters could have a normal life.
I would not be giving away too much of the film to tell you that there are many, many, many, MANY scenes of Lucas (the young protagonist) walking and looking at things! Yep. And you'll be happy to know that the first third of the movie is pointless, meaningless, and pretty much ignored for the rest of the film!<br /><br />This movie is populated by dull people who do dull things, and the dullest person of them all is young Lucas, who is going blind and needs an operation. You see, he has delusions, terrible delusions! He thinks a killer is preying on blind women! He walks around a lot and acts like an insufferable jerk!<br /><br />Patience does NOT pay off with this film. By the end, the plot and events are just as confusing and lethargic, and it is very hard to care one way or the other about what any of the nightmarish images meant. Nothing is made clear, the film moves at a snail's pace, and it left me with the same effects of a hangover.<br /><br />Judging from "Afraid of the Dark," the British don't make stupid thrillers like the Americans do; they make boring ones.
i am still not sure what the hell this movie is about. i guess the boy was afraid of becoming blind and began imagining all sorts of strange things. this does not explain why he wanted to kill his new baby brother , however , or the unrelenting boredom found within this film. while watching this movie you will wish you were blind so you did not have to see this experiment in futility. skip this steaming pile and opt for anything else at the video store ..... anything else.
This movie changes its way a third of the way in.its totally pointless boring and stupid.i hated this movie so much that i will never watch it again.some bad films can be really funny. this is just a British art house picture that should never of been made.1 out of 10
Another example that we should stay away from trying to do spectacular action movies in Sweden, it doesn´t work, except for Widerbergs still unsurpassed MANNEN PÅ TAKET. Stormare does the best he can, I suppose, and some scenes are mildly effective, but the plot is FULL of holes. Why does Hamilton continue the attack on the base, knowing that his wife is held hostage? It was fun to see Mark Hamill, but his Bad Guy-part was very underwritten. I´m constantly amazed that relatively big Swedish movies like this get made without a sensible, functioning script. 1 out of 5.
If this is the best Commander Hamilton movie, I have no curiosity about the others.<br /><br />A movie actor's greatest tools are his eyes, but when Peter Stormare wants to show great emotion, he closes his, so for five or six seconds we get to admire his eyelids while his feelings remain unknown behind them. Lousy acting technique.<br /><br />Stormare also flinches sometimes when he fires a gun, turning his head away and clamping his eyes shut. Watch carefully. James Bond can rest easy with competition like this.<br /><br />There are some interesting supporting performances from other actors, but not enough to hang a whole movie on. The cinematography is good-looking, doing a fine job of capturing the Nordic cold. Even the Sahara winds up looking cold. Perhaps Hamilton carries his own climate with him.<br /><br />There are some individual good action sequences here. Unfortunately, the only sense of humor on screen belongs to the villain, which turns the hero into a big pill. James Bond's jokes may not be particularly good, but at least he doesn't look constipated all the time.<br /><br />One positive point in the movie's favor is that the psychotic, contorted, vicious hatred of Israel in Guillou's books has been left out. What has been kept in is worship of a noble, heroic PLO, that he shows us functioning in Libya without the dictator Khaddafi's knowledge or supervision. This fantasy is hard to believe, since Khaddafi actually threw the PLO out of Libya for four years at a time. And at the end of the film, Hamilton gives the PLO a very disturbing gift. Where will they use that gift? Hamilton doesn't care.<br /><br />We're a long, long way away from "For Whom the Bell Tolls" here.<br /><br />Commander Hamilton will remain a local phenomenon. While Henning Mankell's books sell well around the world, Jan Guillou will never have the same success.<br /><br />As for this film, bleeeeaaahhhhh.
This film just doesn't work. No two ways about it. I saw it for the first time back in '98 when it was released and I didn't like it. I just bought it on sale a couple of days ago, 'cause I thought "whatta hell, I'll give it a try". I don't regret for the money I put out for Hamilton, but the fact remained the same.. this movie is pointless, dull and uninteresting.<br /><br />Stormare is usually a delight, but that's when he's making films in the US. Back home he doesn't do the trick. Sure the movie is well made (if you forget the odd stock footage here'n'there), but in the end the only thing that REALLY lifts Hamilton above one star garbage, is Hamill's turn as the bad guy Hawkins. He seriously has fun with the character and is also responsible for the only two good moments in the movie.. "Swedish intelligence, huh? Now there's a contradiction in terms" and when he allows Hamilton to have a word or two with his wife over the phone towards the end of the flick. And that's really pretty much it.<br /><br />** / *****
This is without doubt the worst film in the Hamilton saga and the worst actor to do Carl Hamilton.Peter Stormare just cant pull it off,with his psychotic looks and no style at all.He may be good to do killers and psychotic maniacs like in "Fargo" or "8mm" but in this type of roles,he is just useless.<br /><br />Lena Olin's presence did no use for this film.She couldnt save it from being what it is:an americanized copy of big budget action movies like "Goldeneye","Die Hard 3","Broken Arrow" etc.This film has nothing swedish in it but the actors.Its clear that some norweagian upstart director with McTiernan as model director has made this.<br /><br />Mark Hamill's presence is only laughable. 2 out of 10
Yes. It takes a Norwegian to ruin and slaughter two great books and a concept that would work well on film - this film truly is The Worst Swedish Film Of All Time. I hated it so badly that I even considered walking out on it, something I have never done. But it was so awful i was almost compelling. I just had to sit through to the end. Much like some early-80's Stallone action reel, this one REALLY takes Swedish action back to the stone-age. So full of logical errors and stupid mistakes it is almost amusing - but who could ever see anything good in the terrible acting, Mark Hamill's surviving a mine-field or the dumb-ass, useless and irrational action?<br /><br />Let me ask you: aren't we through with clocks ticking down to zero, the hero escaping in the nick of time and two friends become enemies reuniting by the end? STUPID!!!!<br /><br />And one more thing: the product placement in this film is unbelievable. While other countries have understood that it shouldn't be so OBVIOUS, the Swedish film industry apparently hasn't understood at all: just look at the credit card Hamilton uses to open a window? Or or or.... this film really makes me mad.
Two page boys working at a radio network go from trying to solve murders to performing in black-face in between work shifts. Jack Moran and Sidney Miller star in this whodunnit from 1945. Lots of fast talking, everybody yells at everybody, and the two page boys call the police detective "Marty" (played by Ralph Sanford). It's a real "shortie" at 59 minutes, and it has the feel of being adapted from a play, since it mostly takes place in a radio station soundstage. We don't really care about any of the characters, which is probably why its hardly ever shown. No big deal. This was Phil Karlson's second film as director. We're not given any clues as to who might be knocking people off, so we just kind of follow the police detective and the page boys as they all try to solve the mystery first. I'll say no more so as not to give away any spoilers.
I'll admit that this isn't a great film. It practically screams "low-budget" yet oddly I still found myself liking the film because although it lacked quality it abounded with energy. It was like the Little Engine That Could and a movie merged into one! <br /><br />The film takes place at a radio network and concerns some of their low-level employees--two page boys (one very pushy and brash and the other one a wuss) as well as a new receptionist. All three have visions of radio stardom but must for now content themselves with their lowly jobs.<br /><br />Into this story appears a murder that seems somewhat out of the blue. I didn't know that this was a murder mystery film and was taken a bit by surprise. However, like most B-mysteries, the cops are lamebrains and it's up to our pushy hero (Moran) to try to save the day. Throughout all this, I had a hard time deciding if Moran was obnoxious or endearing. I'm still not sure!! <br /><br />There is a moment in the film that is high on the 'cringe factor' and that is when the two pages try out for the roles of radio comedians. They show up in black-face and do a 3rd or 4th rate imitation of Amos n' Andy. Apart from being very insensitive, it also wasn't funny. Fortunately the producer of the show they were trying out for seemed to feel the same way.<br /><br />Overall. it's easy to skip this film and I wouldn't blame you if you do. However, the weird and frenetic pace of the film actually seemed to make up for the artistic deficiencies of the film and I am glad I saw it. A good film? No. But one that is still worth a peek for fans of old Bs.<br /><br />By the way, perhaps I just don't have very good taste, but I thought BOTH female singing divas really had poor voices despite how everyone in the film is captivated by their warblings. Listen for yourself and let me know what you think. I just couldn't believe either was allowed to sing on film--even if it was just for lowly Monogram Studios.
This is a bottom of the barrel type of B-film from one of the poverty row studios, Monogram, in the mid-'40s, the kind that filled out a double bill.<br /><br />Only reason I watched was to see what JACKIE MORAN was like in a leading role as a page boy at a radio station who attempts to solve a murder. He played Phil Meade in GONE WITH THE WIND only two years earlier and this was one of his last teen-aged roles. He's no Mickey Rooney.<br /><br />The script is as hapless as the production values and is full of cliché ridden situations with a cast of uniformly untalented individuals. WANDA McKAY is the switchboard girl who is "discovered" by a radio producer and SIDNEY MILLER is the nerdy friend of the hero who's afraid of his own shadow.<br /><br />Mercifully, it's over in an hour when the murder is solved after a round-up of all the suspects. Terribly overacted, the only quiet performance of any interest is given by JON GILBREATH as Tex, the cowboy, but he bites the dust after too brief an appearance.<br /><br />There are several songs, but all of them are forgettable, as are the lame jokes and dialog.
This is a awful re-make of a very good movie called "Up In The Air" starring Frankie Darrow, Mantan Moreland and Marjorie Reynolds. I was only able to get through about 20 minutes before turning it off. Almost all the lines are identical, I have no idea why they would re-do the movie. I totally disagree with a previous post that dislikes the songs ( there the same also), In the original the singing is first rate, I'm not sure if Marjorie Reynolds actually did her own singing, it's hard to tell since the vocals were usually added later, and the songs are very good, surprising in a "B" movie. If you get the chance see the original it's available on DVD. You'll be pleasantly surprised.
You gotta be a fan of the little man but I found Burlesque on Carmen dull, unimaginative and totally not funny.<br /><br />Chaplin is retelling the story of Carmen and plays a big role himself as Don Jose. It's a story about men and the women they love, although it's unclear why one would love such a woman as Carmen, as she is playing the men against each other.<br /><br />As I said I didn't think much of it. Chaplin made dozens and dozens of better movies so you can leave this one on the shelve.<br /><br />Oh and I'm curious what the difference is between this movie and the 1915 version... or is it just an IMDB mistake?<br /><br />On the whole: 3/10.
This movie starts out with kids telling each other urban legends such as the poodle in the microwave and getting something extra at a chicken place. Unfortunately, it then turns to your basic anthology movie. The first being about a janitor with a bit of a secret. This one is okay at best. Then it gets worse as the next story about this kid obsessed with dead flies is on and it goes on and on and on. It is way to long and not all that interesting to begin with. After that you get the typical shock scene and it ends. You need more than this in an anthology movie. You need at least three stories and one shouldn't be so long it becomes dreadfully uninteresting especially considering you can see how it is going to end a mile away.
The Willies starts late one night as brother's Josh (Joshua Miller) & Kyle (Jason Horst) are camping outside with their cousin Michael (Sean Astin), they decide to pass the time by telling scary stories...<br /><br />First up is Michael with a story entitled 'Bad Apples' in which a young boy named Danny Hollister (Ian Fried) is bullied at school, however the sinister new janitor Mr. Jenkins (James Karen) decides to help him out...<br /><br />Next up is Kyle as he tells a strange story called 'Flyboy' in which an overweight bully with a worrying fascination with dead flies gets what he deserves in a horrible twisted way...<br /><br />Written & directed by Brian Peck The Willies didn't do much for me & I doubt it'll do much for you either. The script is strange as far as episodic anthologies go, instead of the usual three or four stories it only has two main tales & a few bizarre 'urban myth' type mini scenes at the start, these consist of the person who orders food from a fast food restaurant only to find a dead rat in her chicken, a man who dies of a heart attack on a ride & someone who tries to dry her poodle off in the microwave only for it to explode. I have no idea what the purpose of these scenes are but they add nothing to the film, as for the two main stories they are both weak. For a start they are too long which is a huge mistake in these types of films, usually the stories in anthologies are short, sharp & quick with a nice twist at the end usually involving people getting what they deserved. However in The Willies the stories last for the best part of 40 minutes each which is longer than the average TV episode & I must admit I found both stories very boring, they have very little going for them & seem to be aimed at children. The first story is the better to watch as a whole but it has no twist ending as far as I could see while the second one has a nice 'just deserts' ending but the build up to it is weak & drawn out for no good reason. I really like horror anthology films so The Willies comes as a disappointment, frankly it lets the genre down.<br /><br />Director Peck was obviously working on a low budget & as a whole The Willies is pretty tough to sit through, there's plenty of continuity errors & it's poorly made. There's no atmosphere, there's no scares, there's no gore, the special effects are poor & it features unnecessary shots of a dirty toilet several times. Overall it's a pretty unappealing film to sit through.<br /><br />Technically The Willies is rough around the edges to say the least, the effects are far from special & it has an extremely drab & grainy look to the picture. The acting is poor, no ones going to win any awards thats for sure.<br /><br />The Willies is a poor film, it's not scary, it's not fun, it's not entertaining & it only features two overlong stories. Definitely not recommended.
Grim instead of amusing, mean-spirited instead of playful, boring instead of interesting. It won't give you "the willies", but it just may gross you out or send you to sleep. And it will certainly make you wonder: "what were they thinking?" (*1/2)
George Burns returns as the joshing Almighty after enjoying a big success with 1977's "Oh, God!", an upbeat fantasy made successful by a sudden need in the 1970s to switch from devil-driven thrillers to comedic redemption (although it made money, the original was more in line with the "Topper" comedies of the '30s than a return to feel-good religious cinema). Here, God appears to a young girl (Louanne, who had earlier starred in a stage production of "Annie") and asks her to spread his Divine Word, causing her nothing but trouble from grown-ups in the process. Peculiar, family-oriented film appears to be warm-hearted enough, and Burns gets to chime in with a nice barrage of wry jibes, but the writing is half-slapstick and half-seriousness, with the adults of the piece considering putting little Louanne away, all of which makes God seem more like a troublemaker than an elderly friend. Louanne is another problem: a perky kid with wizened little eyes, she is untrained for screen-acting and occasionally seems awkward. The medium-budget production has a gloppy, TV-movie appearance, with few graceful touches. The final scene mimics the climax of the first "Oh, God!" in that it brings a wistful sentiment to the mix, which is welcomed. It's the most subtle moment in the movie. ** from ****
Oh,God! Book II is more of a bad remake of the original than a sequel to it.It is not all that funny,its plot plays too much<br /><br />like a rejected situation comedy pilot,and the use of the slogan "Think God" is a different variation on the idea that worked so much better in the original.John Denver had not returned for this movie and that made a BIG difference.George Burns,as<br /><br />wonderful as he was playing God,does not have the same chemistry with the little girl that he did with John Denver.<br /><br />I would give this movie a rating of 3 out of 10,but only for<br /><br />George Burns;the rest of the cast is nothing special.<br /><br />If you loved the first one,don't bother to see this one.
Lance used to get quality support work from James Cameron. Heck, he even had his own tv show (Millenium) for a coupl'a seasons. Why is he doing this? Couldn't he find some better way to pay his bills?<br /><br />I love a good low-budget movie. Some of them you can laugh at simply due to their ludicrous premise, their textbook stereotyped characters, or often times because the actors are related to the director/producers. But, this movie has no redeeming value. I didn't laugh. I didn't cry. I only had this sick feeling in my stomach. That feeling was quickly identified as pity. At one point, Lance Henriksen was an A-list support actor. He's been in Terminator (he was going to BE terminator before Arnold showed up), Aliens, AliensIII, classic B-movie Pumpkinhead, among so many others! I wanted to send him money after this. Maybe we should start a support Lance fund or something.<br /><br />Then again, for making this thing...maybe not.
(r#64)<br /><br />Unredeemable, merit-less, and above all dreary trash. You know a movie is going to be bad when its sole star power is Lance Henriksen. The French title for this movie says it all: "Inexplicable". How can you possibly make a movie this unbelievably bad in this day and age? Whatever Jonas Quastel's trick is, it worked. This is über-trash, I'm talking 'Manos'-level crap, meaningless, unwatchable, not-even-so-bad-it's-good, cinematic bile of the highest order.<br /><br />Lance Henriksen IS Harlan Knowles, a character who could have been interesting if he wasn't so utterly devoid of characteristics or personality. He, along with a bunch of morons, goes on a field trip to search for an evil Sasquatch which is believed to have attacked a plane which crashed out in the woods, or something. Not much else happens. There's some soft-core (meaning: Teletubbie level) nudity and some blatant rip-offs of "Predator". After 92 minutes of utter pain and another ripped off scene, this time from "Blair Witch", the movie finally staggers across the finish line and ends. As a bonus, we only see the monster itself for about one or two scenes in the entire movie.<br /><br />There's really not much to say about this film. All you need to know is, this is a very bad movie and not even worth viewing as a "so-bad-it's-good" flick. "The Untold" is to entertainment value what Orlando Bloom is to character acting. Avoid it like arsenic.
Harlan Knowles (Lance Henriksen) brings a group of people to a mountain to help find his missing daughter (Erica Durance). What they don't know is that she was killed by a sasquatch (Taras Kostyuk) and it's still out there... waiting for them.<br /><br />It was a late night when I poped this into my DVD player. I seriously wish I could go back in time and stop me. Most people will tell you that films like "House of the Dead" or "S.I.C.K: Serial Insain Clown Killers" will be the movies you wish you've never seen. Wrong. This will be.<br /><br />I've seen a lot of crap, but this is the only crap that's haunted me. How I wish I never watched this! The acting actually isn't so bad. It's just the writing and the directing and the pacing and everything! I am actually a fan of Sasquatch films. But not this one.<br /><br />Please, listen to my warning. Don't watch this!
Developing movies that are based on actual events involving cryptozoology or the supernatural has always been a challenge for directors and screenwriters. You have to mainly reconcile reported testimonies, conflicting info sources, and Hollywood creativity to produce something the audience can get into. Unfortunately, for SASQUATCH, none of these things seem to take place.<br /><br />The movie starts out in typical film noir when a research team crash lands somewhere in the Cascades via airplane. From there the research team disappears, and despite attempts from law enforcement officials and local rescue parties they remain missing for some time. While one of the passengers is walking, infra-red-like images are splashed on the screen (a la Predator) which subtly hint that the legendary Sasquatch is the cause of the passengers' fates.<br /><br />Cue Harlan Knowles (Henriksen), CEO of BioComp Industries and father of one of the crash victims. Knowles puts together his own search & rescue team with the explicit mission of finding his daughter and the rest of the research crew, along with the invaluable technology lost during the crash.<br /><br />After Knowles' tailor-made rescue team is put together, the entire movie traverses down the path of uncolorful characters, dizzying cinematography, and a totally unoriginal plot line. I literally had to keep myself from falling asleep during this movie as it attempted to frighten me out of my wits. The only member of the cast that held his own was Henriksen, which doesn't make up for the lack of depth presented in all of the other characters. The over-done sound effects were annoying as well; basically, I didn't know if I was watching a movie about Bigfoot or grizzly bears.<br /><br />Neither was the plot line all that great. It was too underdeveloped as the viewer is mainly subjected to typical fright music found in anything similar of the genre. Obviously you didn't have to be a genius to figure out who would be pulling off all their clothes by the middle of the movie, or who'd be the first unlucky soul to get mauled by Mr. Sasquatch. As far as good points, there are none, and therefore I gave this movie a 2 out of 10.
One minute into THE UNTOLD and it`s already ripped off techniques from THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and PREDATOR . Does this mean we`ll be seeing lots of trees ? We sure will . Will we be seeing an Austrian bodybuilder blowing things up ? Well this film has the budget of a TVM so the answer is a resounding no . Does anyone like these soft porn shows like BEDTIME STORIES ? Good because there`s a scene in this that resembles these type of shows . Unfortunately the only thing you see is cellulite . Do you like it when the screen fades to black during a TVM ? Great because this happens between every scene in THE UNTOLD . In fact it happens during every scene too . Did you enjoy MILLIONAIRE - A MAJOR FRAUD ? Fantastic because one of the characters looks like a bearded Major Charles Ingram the contestant who tried to swindle the show out of one million pounds . Seriously one of the characters looks like Major Ingram . I kept expecting him to say " It`s bear. It could be a bear . But it might be a bigfoot < Cough , cough > , yes it`s a bigfoot < Cough > , it`s definately a bigfoot < Cough > Yes I`m going to shoot it . Final answer Chris " <br /><br />Oh and have I mentioned that all the above are the good bits ?<br /><br />THE UNTOLD isn`t the worst bigfoot movie I`ve ever seen , that accolade firmly goes to NIGHT OF THE DEMON which I saw over twenty years ago and I think I`ve only seen less than a dozen films that are worse in all of that time . But that said THE UNTOLD is still a very poor film in just about every aspect , especially editing . As some other reviewers have pointed out it feels like whole chunks of the film are missing while there`s other bits where scenes are spliced together in the wrong order . This is a really bad film that deserves far less than its rating of 5.1. I give it 3 out of ten and I`m being very kind
The Untold... Is one of the worst films I ever saw. The story really seems original, but it was badly bestow on screen. Lance Henriksen, a good actor, ended up in this crap. But, hey he made a lot of low budget films... you need to pay the bills, you know? Kidding. Lance is a great actor, but he ended up with this bunch of silly actors. Seriously, Andrea Roth was there just to have a nudity scene, and other actors... well they were just there. There was constantly a fade out-fade in editing, and that makes me sick! That was the most horrible move that just keeps on coming and it really makes you angry. It was also very predictable, boring and slow. It has a bizarre tempo that goes just... wrong.<br /><br />Can't say more... don't rent it, or buy it. You can watch it, if on TV.
This looks decidedly like "the amateur" hour. How this piece of trash was ever released is beyond me: the acting, the story, the characters, the supposedly special effects, etc...it's ALL wrong. Why Lance Henriksen accepted this will remain one of the great mysteries of cinema. Maybe he was in dire need for money or maybe be was under the influence of some illegal drug.<br /><br />It is pointless trying to explain you what this movie's about. It deals with the big foot legend but done in the worst possible manner. In fact, this stinker smells like a direct-to-video release.<br /><br />Avoid at ALL costs! 0* out of 10*
Hey all, I just wanted to give you all a few crazy facts about this movie. I was actually one of the Make-up FX artists that help create the "beast" for this movie and I have to tell you the original creature looked absolutely amazing. I remember when we got the first photos back from the set we were all talking about how much of a shame it was that this creature was in a movie that would probably be pretty poor.<br /><br />What actually happened though was that Jason Palmer did the original make-up for the Sasquatch, but for some reason they had to go back and re-shoot much of the creature. The sad part was that Jason passed away a few weeks before that and so the re-done creature was no where near as awesome as the original one.<br /><br />For me it was quite sad because this was Jasons final movie, and he sort of got cheated out of his final fame due to the bad re-shoots. Anyway, I thought you guys may find that a tad interesing, and if you would like you can head over to mmmyeah.com and check out some "behind the scenes" photos.<br /><br />Later, Jeff
I think that this is one of my top ten worst movies I have ever seen! There's like fade out every two minutes. If this was on TV, they would have a preview every 2-3 minutes. But there is a seen I personally enjoyed: which is when the blonde goes to take a bath in a pit of boiling water with a man watching and for about 10 seconds you see her whole body with no towel on! That was the best scene in the whole film because you see sasquatch starring at them but the last 10 minutes is when we see his whole body. Plus, most of the deaths are off screen and just the scream or roar. And I was expecting the Sasquatch to die. But he dosen't shoot him and only 4 or 5 people die in the whole film I was expecting 8-10 people to die. Don't watch this movie. I give it an F-. Don't waste your time.
Bigfoot movies tend to be bad, so I'm not inclined to watch them. However, there were some good commercials on The Sci-Fi Channel, so I decided to watch. A climbing expedition heads into the Pacific northwest to find a a fallen airplane carrying the daughter of the expedition's leader (played by Lance Hendrickson), and have brought a revolutionary DNA detector that could be used to prove the sasquatch's existence. And it actually generates some suspense at first. The sasquatch is unseen, but sees the mountain climbers' body heat (like the alien in "Predator"), and I did wonder when it was going to strike. The acting is passable, as is the background music. The dense wooded location is well-used. And when the creature is finally seen, the costume is not bad, though nothing great. But as the film grinds on, it becomes increasingly annoying and absurd. Most of the characters are unpleasant people, rude to each other and only in the expedition for money and publicity (except for Lance Hendrickson's character), so that it's impossible to care about what happens to them. And their behavior become increasingly stupid. One man shoots the creature (not fatally), then gets drunk and sits alone in the dark. One female camper puts on a slinky silk negligee before crawling into her sleeping bag, then barely escapes being dragged into the woods by the sasquatch, without getting her hair and make-up messed up. Then, the survivors conclude that the sasquatch is really after the DNA detecting machine and will let them live if they leave it behind ("a creature knows what threatens it"). Obviously, the instinct doesn't apply to these actors, or they wouldn't have appeared in this movie. And the ending is so stupid, you'll want to kick the TV screen. If it weren't for the script, it would have been a decent horror film.
A plane carrying a rich scientist's daughter goes down in thick wilderness. He assembles a group to go and find her and the others, but the rescue party soon suspects that something is stalking them. Then ulterior motives for the expedition are revealed and that only adds to the already existing tension.<br /><br />The movie is a decent idea and a take on the popular Sasquatch legend was bound to wind up on film sooner or later. However, the film's direction breaks a fundamental rule of horror/thriller directing and that is showing too much too soon. Of course the audience knows there is something stalking the characters, just read the title! But showing what should have been the film's kicker that early just ruins most of the suspense and, as a direct result, much of the fun. The film also lacks a good atmosphere and there are almost no landscape shots that show the expanse of the wilderness, but there are plenty monster point-of-view shots that add nothing to anything. They actually knock off 'Predator' quite shamelessly. The low-budget horror film 'Wendigo' did what this film tries to do much better.<br /><br />Some of the character tensions and a non-cliché ending manage to make up for this rise above the crap pile, but it is still poor and given the premise and potential, very disappointing. --- 4/10<br /><br />Rated R for some violence and profanity, but it's pretty tame compared to most R-rated horror.
Well, I read the other comments. Didn't think it sounded any good, but decided to tape it anyway. Perhaps not so smart to read all the poor reviews before watching this movie, because of course I would be noticing all the same weird things. Excessive use of fade to black, a few weird camera angles and crosscutting dialog for different conversations with the same people taking place at different times! But noticing all that I thought to myself: Well, this would probably be really boring if it was all going chronologically. The conversations aren't that exciting, but kind of mandatory. And the constant fading to black after really short scenes really makes it feel like the story is fast forwarding too the interesting part. Skipping the boring bits. At the end of the movie it gets a bit exciting too. Will they survive? <br /><br />So I actually liked this movie? No, not really. The director had some interesting ideas on how to keep the audience from being bored while he is trying to introduce the characters. But he is overdoing it. It gets annoying, and sometimes confusing. This was apparently only the second movie he directed, so maybe he will learn and make really good stuff in the future. And if you're sitting there (in the future) reading this wondering if the now famous directors second movie is worth a watch. Well, if he is good in the future, sure, watch this crap and wonder how he ever got to make a third one. Otherwise this movie isn't really worth watching unless you very interested in film-making, and want to see one way you can cut the mandatory boring introductory scenes into something watchable.
A big waste of time is all you'll get out of this bag. I rented this hoping for a suspenseful movie with maybe a few believable scenes, but boy was I ever dissapointed. I think the title should've been "Camping 101", or something to that effect. Well, anyway, stay the hell away from this film. It numbs you to death. Don't be afraid of big foot, be afraid of this crap!!
An airplane transporting some scientists and a prototype of a DNA machine, a powerful and revolutionary invent, fall in a jungle in Pacific. The insurance company sponsors a rescue expedition, commanded by Harlan Knowles (Lance Henriksen), the owner of a huge corporation, which owns the prototype, and father of one of the scientist. There, the group finds the rests of the plane five miles far from the expected location and the machine and the remains of the persons. Further, they realize that a Sasquatch, a kind of Big Foot, is chasing them. This movie is so ridiculous that I do not know what I am doing, spending my time again in this garbage. The direction is awful, the actors and the lines are horrible, copying parts of `The Predator' and even `The Blair Witch Project'. To summarize how bad this movie is, its best scene is when Marla Lawson, the character of Andrea Roth, is wounded, and the guide of the expedition says that she needs to have an injection of tetanus vaccine. Andrea undresses her jeans, and the guide says: 'Nice butts, but the shot needs to be in your arm'. Ridiculous! My vote is two.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): `Sasquatch, O Abominável' (`Sasquatch, The Abominable')<br /><br />
This is Jonas Quastel debut as a director and to be honest, it shows. It looks like he threw in every type of camera trick that he learned in film school to try and add some style to a badly written script, which he helped write! Film has Lance Henriksen and a group of others searching the pacific northwest for a plane that crashed that his daughter was on and also a special machine his company has built that he wants to also retrieve. The first 5 minutes of the film is either blurry or shaky or out of focus! Quastel tries to capture the "Blair Witch" mode with these type of shots and they grow tiresome very quickly. And there is also the POV shots that are right from "Wolfen" and "Predator". These shots are from the point of view (POV) of the Sasquatch. The editing is very choppy at times as a scene seems to shift right in the middle. I have heard this film was shot in about 12 days and I suppose instead of "Starting back to one" they just restarted without stopping and edited the scene together. And the rest of the film is fade-outs from one scene to another. They're are so many scenes that fade-out that I lost count. Now, the nude scene with Andrea Roth. Its not her. you can easily see its a body double. And you know your watching a bad "B" movie when in the middle of the pacific northwest a hot chick decides to go to the nearest hot spring and bathe! ********SPOILER ALERT********<br /><br />And the Sasquatch himself is not bad when you don't really see him and he's just a blurry image behind some trees or bushes but when you finally see him at the end your of course disappointed. First of all, he's not that tall. The actor who is playing Sasquatch is only hairy in certain spots on his body. Its a partial suit! And he's bald! I have heard that a make-up person died during filming and maybe that explains why the costume looks hastily made. Some of the sound effects that are coming from the Sasquatch are nothing more than the familiar lion roars that we have all heard in other films. I do have to admit that Henriksen is not to bad. Yes, he's working with bad material but he has one of those interesting faces that can actually enhance certain moments of the film. People keep saying that a good Bigfoot film has never been made but I disagree. I have always said that "The Creature From Black Lake" is a good film and I highly recommend that one. I'm a sucker for a Sasquatch film but this one is just to amateurish.
I'm not sure what it is but there seems to be some curse when it comes to films about the elusive Bigfoot. There has yet to be a film that intelligently approaches the subject, nor one that creates any real suspense. Both "Legend of Boggy Creek" (1972) and the first film entitled "Sasquatch" (1978) have become minor cult classics, but neither were very memorable. Both films were targeted at family friendly audiences, thus inhibiting themselves from actually trying to scare anyone. "Harry & The Hendersons" (1987) was the first big budgeted film to use Bigfoot, with a terrific creature design by Rick Baker. However, they too chose to aim for younger audiences, but this time as a comedy (as did "Bigfoot" in 1995). I've long awaited for someone to tackle the subject as a thriller, perhaps in the vein of "Jaws" or "Predator". When I saw this at my local video store I thought my dream had come true. Boy, was I wrong! Lance Henriksen plays a billionaire who leads an expedition into the pacific northwest in hopes of finding his daughter as she was on board a small plane when it crashed in the mountains. The premise is interesting and sounded promising. The truth is it never builds any real suspense. I never found myself at all interested in any of the characters as each of them were very two dimensional and rather bland. Even the always dependable Henriksen seems to be phoning in his performance. Every time he appears on screen he looks plain bored. He should be as there is no action to speak of for the first hour of the film. As for the creature, where do I start? I figured at the very least we would get a cool looking monster running around in the woods, but instead we get this bald (yes, I said "bald!") man with pitch black skin and patches of fur here and there. Picture a cross between "Swamp Thing" and Chaka from "Land of the Lost" and you'll get the idea. Nothing like the artwork on the cover box I assure you. Sloppy editing and careless direction also adds to the confusion as half the time everything seemed out of sequence, while the other half of the film was constantly used up with these long, slow fade outs (which made no sense or served any purpose). They even stole the whole infra-red vision P.O.V from the creature in "Predator", which just looked too silly and out of place to be effective. Maybe all this proves is that Hollywood should just forget about trying to make anymore Bigfoot films, as they have yet to make one that works. So far each one has been as scary as an episode of "In Search Of" 3/10
*This comment may technically contain "spoilers" but it sure doesn't contain surprises*<br /><br />My cousin and I rented this the other day hoping to get a good laugh at a typical amateur crappy excuse for a horror movie. Unfortunately, we didn't get too many laughs, and we certainly didn't get too many scares either.<br /><br />Plot outline: A plane containing a company head's daughter and some weird piece of technology crashes in an area where our furry friend lives, so the company head assembles a team of personalities, rather than skilled hunters, to recover it.<br /><br />For the first 3/4's of the movie, things get pretty boring. It mostly consists of shots of Big Foot lurking in the trees with the party members occasionally hearing him, and passing it off as nothing. We also see several shots of the party through Big Foot's point of view, and he apparently sees in thermal vision.<br /><br />To set up the plot, we have to watch sequences of the group sitting around the campfire talking about possibilities to justify the sasquatches existence and actions. "maybe he can dodge bullets...if he sees them coming". Sure enough, we later see he can. "There are many uncharted lands that the sasquatch may live in. Maybe this is one of them that was over-looked". And obviously it is. "Maybe the Sasquatch is angry because the plane hit one of his family members". And sure enough, thats the case. Along with those scenes, there are a couple of "Oh my god its the sasquatch oh wait its just you!" scenes, and sadly, they are among the scariest.<br /><br />Then, finally, people start dying. Well, 2 people at least. Plus, the bodies of past victims are discovered. The death scenes are pretty lame. It mostly just leaves it to our imagination by showing the Sasquatch grabbing them, then cutting to a different scene, but first, we are treated to some horrible screams off camera.<br /><br />Then at last, we get to see the protagonist's final showdown with the monster. I gotta admit, I found it pretty exciting while it lasted. But alas, it's pretty short lived, and after we are treated to an ending that makes a half assed effort to seem cryptic. Then, some closing text with a rather boring conclusion.<br /><br />I can't say I recommend this movie. It's not quite bad enough to give the Mystery Science Theatre 3000, and its definitely not scary enough and boring to enjoy as a horror movie. Just don't bother with it.
I can't believe how bad this "film" is. For starters, the movie deals with the legend of Big Foot and a group of people having a close encounter with the creature. The premise is interesting and having Lance Henriksen in the cast (ALIENS)gave "The Untold" a promising outlook. Unfortunately that's as interesting as it gets. This looks like a direct to DVD release...or so I guess. This is basically a production-less affair with probably the worst editing (with a constant "fading to black" in between every scene!!!)I've seen in my life and acting that will sure make you cringe. Why Lance Henriksen picked this is completely fathomless. And the movie takes cues from just about any other genre movie, from "Blair Witch Project" (The video scene) and "Predator", to "Alive". This is supposedly based on true events, but the only truth to be found herein is just how BAD this movie is. I'm usually not a harsh critic and believe me, I DID try to enjoy this trash but eventually did NOT. Do yourselves a favor and steer clear from this DVD. <br /><br />I'll try to put it mildly: This movie is PURE garbage and it made me want to take my gun and shoot my neighbors... or ask BLOCKBUSTER for a refund!!!<br /><br />And Lance, shame on you! 1* out of 10*
As I am a fan of hospital and medical shows, I have found this one gripping and sometimes humorous (especially the scenes with Dr Whitman) which brings a bit la light relief. However, I was looking forward to the last episode because I expected that the bad ones would be punished and the good ones reinstated. Instead of that, the hospital management are making even more fools of themselves in an unbelievable manner and it's getting worse and worse for the good ones. You can't help wondering what the unions are doing or doesn't Rob, Donna and Maria know what unions are there for ? Besides, never seeing the outside, trees, grass, sunlight is a bit oppressive. Anyone understood what the last words were ? i.e. the answer Rob Lake gave to Mrs Strawberry's children question "Why are you telling us all that?" It was very frustrating not to be able to understand it.
I was hoping this would be of the calibre of Das Boot and echo the stark realism created by acclaimed German Director Leni RiefenStahl in her documentaries, sadly I was monumentally disappointed. The story line is implausible and defies credulity. An RAF airman is shot down and somehow finds his way to a hospital in Dresden. Anna a nurse whose father runs the hospital and is about to become engaged to a doctor she works with falls in love with the airman and they make love. The next evening at a lavish engagement party the airman turns up disguised as a German officer and dances with Anna. Although well directed and acted, to me it is soap opera of the lowest order.
This film took up three hours, including commercials, on the History International Channel last night. But it felt like three weeks. It wasn't the cheap, stagy and unintentionally funny depictions of the bombing of Dresden. It wasn't that the film is stripped of almost all context surrounding World War II. It wasn't even that the bombing itself was often made to appear as nothing more than a major inconvenience for a goofy love story. No, it was the wooden featureless characterizations that sucked the life out of the story. Oh, and the fact that if it is possible for a movie to be obsequious, then Dresden is that movie. Perhaps a better title would have been DRESDEN--AS URIAH HEEP WOULD HAVE EXPERIENCED IT.<br /><br />It is especially the latter point that so irritates. Was the bombing of Dresden a war crime? The makers of this movie believe so. But in the typically emasculated way that Germans have come to approach World War II, they can't bring themselves to say so without braying about "peace" and "no more wars--anywhere" like they're Mother Teresa. And, also typical of German obsequiousness towards the British in particular, there is an unwieldy effort to grovel before "Britishness", while loading all the "guilt" for Dresden on to one person, Arthur Harris.<br /><br />Did I say one person? Well, not quite. At the beginning of the movie, there is an exclamation from the leading character, Anna, with whom we are all supposed to sympathize. "Damned Americans!", she screams, while watching as far off bombs fall. And a few minutes later, a radio voice intones warnings about the "American Terror Bombing" being inflicted upon Germans.<br /><br />Note the word, "terror". Got that? It's really the Americans behind the inhumane targeting of German civilians. No matter that the American strategy for almost all the war in Europe was the "precision" bombing of industrial and war manufacturing sites. No matter that it was the British who enthusiastically adopted "area" bombing of civilian targets in Germany--before the Germans had themselves even targeted English ones. No matter that the Americans bombed during the day, suffering more casualties in the process than the British, in order to hit precision targets, while the British bombed civilians under the cover of night. No matter that the Americans, essentially, were brought into the RAF's true terror bombing campaign kicking and screaming against it. No matter that most American officials, from FDR to Gen. Dolittle, opposed targeting civilians, while Churchill and his generals couldn't wait to do so.<br /><br />No, in DRESDEN, both the Germans and British, except for "Bomber" Harris, are innocent of a doctrine, it is intimated, created by the evil Americans. And only the might and power of a love story between a German nurse and a downed British bomber pilot can adequately explain the "truth" of the atrocity. Right.<br /><br />Oh, by the way, for the younger and likely less well read readers of IMDb, the first and still so far only major literary effort to give a thoughtful voice to Dresden's bombing was the pacifist novel penned by Kurt Vonnegut--an American POW in Dresden at the time of the bombing. I guess Germany's ZDF couldn't find a pretty nurse for Billy Pilgrim.
Dresden had great expectations because of its spectacular theme and its high budget. I was really looking forward to it and I really wanted it to be good... but it is not. The only good thing are the special effects that are very well done, but, like in a really bad Hollywood blockbuster, everything else is missing.<br /><br />It is poorly written, the screenplay tries to fulfill genre-rules with standard suspense/love- story elements but there is no depth or originality at all. It's way below average. The next thing: It is also poorly directed. It has this uninteresting TV-directing-Style with lots of close-ups and wanna-be-great-action by fast editing where actually no action or suspense is. The actors are not bad but there is no performance that is touching in any way.<br /><br />I don't know... they obviously try to do a typical TV-movie and not a film for the cinema, where its alway good to have some edges and a clear visual style. But why do they try to fulfill typical commercial Hollywood-rules? it really feels like the screenwriter did a weekend- class with some American scriptwriting-guru and then delivered this mess. Is there no producer who is responsible for the project who has an interest in dramaturgy/ visual style or plain in simple this magical cinematic moments that make some TV-Movies great ?!? Do they think that an TV-audience is stupid and doesn't need to get a high quality- movie experience? The Downfall was a very good example for a good TV-movie but there was probably some executive or producer who knew what he was doing.<br /><br />Don't waste you time with this one, rent "downfall" instead...
I only saw the first part of this and concluded that I wouldn't miss anything if I didn't watch the second episode. The cinematography was OK, but apart from this, the plot was just as commonorgarden and run-of-the-mill as any other war story. The actors and actresses play their characters without any passion, and the make up is really bad (Heiner Lauterbach with his white hair and Kai Wiesinger respectively, as if some dyed white hair could give them more dignity and common sense). I mean if you've watched more than two or three movies about WWII (as most of us have) then you'd only go to the trouble of seeing a third or fourth one if it promises some new insights or twists in the plot. But Roland Suso Richter seems to afraid of doing so, you can almost smell his fear of not living up to the bourgeois and jejune expectations of the conservative ZDF TV channel while watching this movie. Millions of Euros were spent to perpetuate boring and unimaginative German film-making. These millions of dollars could have been spent to make three or four independent movies, but no, let's give to some director who'll make a film that tells people that war can be explained by rational means. My advice: Read Joseph Heller or Kurt Vonnegut instead. They'll tell you what war is like! Or give me one million Euros and I make a better film than this load of BS! And another thing: Why is it that German movies only get to be nominated for the Oscars when the movie deals with WWII or the Holocaust? Probably because that is the only thing German film-making is good at. And that should get us thinking, shouldn't it?
What a bloody nuisance! You can't get on subjects like these with TV budgets and some smartass director who can't tell the difference between a Lanc I, II and III. All the silly clichés are well in place; on the character and human level the story is so schmaltzy and unbelievable it hurts. And all those responsible get carried away with joy for the brilliant ratings. Tech details: rubbish. Lancs flying that close would have kicked each other out of the sky by the dozen. Single engined night fighters attacking line astern: ridiculous. As I said: made up by a director who I bet never even heard the name Lancaster before that project and some kid 3D guys who turned Lancs into waddling ducks. But these are minor things compared to the overall mediocrity of this film. Although it might be too harsh I dare say this hurts the memory of those who died on both sides. TV crap, entertaining the dumb masses who don't care anyway. Shame on those responsible. Use your brains next time. And enjoy the profit you made from it.
Although unusually in colour for a second string oater, the vivid clothes of the lead females fails to bring any life to the flatly directed screenplay. The "plot" revolves around the Youngers newly released on parole attempting to go straight but being pursued by a vengeful ex-Pinkerton man (a scenery chewing Fred Clark) and a femme fatale determined to involve them in her bank robbery schemes whether they want to or not. As Cole Younger, Wayne Morris is big and hunky enough but his " cool" demeanour and wooden acting skills undermine things. The standard of action is frankly, no better than a Gene Autry or Roy Rogers TV episode with Colt .45's that never need reloading and uncanny shooting skills that allow a horse rider to shoot from the hip and wound a man from at least 50 feet...oh dear...
This is one incredibly standard western, that features some bad acting, dull storyline and silly action.<br /><br />Biggest problem perhaps is how incredibly formulaic this movie is. It features all of the usual clichés, yes even a bar fight and the movie really doesn't has any surprises in it. It makes this a dull and a weak western to watch, also not in the least because it's such a poorly made one.<br /><br />It's obviously a small production and the movie looks like it got shot in 30 days. The directing and editing can be called bad and all of the action sequences featured in the movie are incredibly silly. It perhaps almost becomes a bit humorous to watch, for all the wrong reasons.<br /><br />Its story also isn't that interesting. It's a pretty friendly western (so also no blood), in which for some odd reason everybody seems to be against the Younger brothers, who in this movie are being portrayed as good and very friendly guys. The story gets sillier and sillier as it heads toward its ending. The Younger brothers really existed and were part of the James-Younger gang, of which the famous brothers Frank and Jesse James were also part of. Of course they were not as friendly in real life as portrayed in this movie. It just was custom for an early '40's to have likable man characters in it. It wasn't really until the Spagethi-western age really that the main characters became rotten criminals themselves really. Strangely enough that approached has always worked out better than those early western's in which the main character is on the good side of the law.<br /><br />Thing that does make this movie original is the fact that it was shot in color. This was something pretty unique for an '40's western and still gives the movie something extra. You can wonder though, why they shot this western in full color. The movie is still done in the style of a black & white early western after all and I actually believe that this movie would had been a bit more credible if it got done in black & white instead.<br /><br />You could easily do without this western.<br /><br />4/10
This is one of those films with a great potential. Brilliant actors, a debut from a very interesting director and a haunting "Survivor"-ish plot.<br /><br />But it does not work at all.<br /><br />To start with the good thing: The cinematography is stunning. The beauty of the Namibian desert shows itself as a merciless surrounding, also in the pictures. And then there is the acting. Quite allright. Jennifer Jason Leigh has never been better. Bruce Davison also seems to have developed his character from Altman's "Short Cuts".<br /><br />Then the disappointments: Janet McTeer. Romane Bohringer. And the plot. Why on earth does Levring pick "Lear" for their play? The whole idea of letting Shakespeare articulate their despair and inner longings does not work. It seems like a facade. And it is clear that the tragedies takes place because of the choice of "Lear". They just needs to fit in in the Script by Levring and Academy Award winner Anders Thomas Jensen.<br /><br />And the sex. It takes about three days, then more or less all of the characters are sexually frustrated. Dahh!! Sex is always the easy way out when you are in need of a crisis in a plot. Janet McTeer's part totally falls apart, mainly because of that ridiculous idea. The sex makes the plot fall promptly to the ground. Instead they could have focused on the dialogue. There must have been conversation between all of the characters, but we mainly see them talking in smaller groups. Their talking though is as dead as "Lear" and the rest of the film.<br /><br />"The King Is Alive" still is not the worst Danish dogme '95 movie yet. But comparing it to the most recent of the homegrown dogme '95 films "Italiensk for begyndere" by Lone Scherfig, this one fails badly. It is not a good film. It is a bad one. But it is beautiful.
The movie is being televised as I write.<br /><br />I simply forgot how horrible an experience I had watching it in the cinema.<br /><br />The whole idea of the movie is flawed. The fact that intelligent Europeans and Americans stranded in the desert forget all concept of morals and civilization within a couple of days is laughable. The madness of Lord of the flies was longer in the making.<br /><br />Details that annoy are plenty. One is the single African god-like character that mysteriously survives the horrible climate and have done so for ages without losing his mind and he seems to have no supply-problems either. Ridiculous. So too is the rescue attempt from the tour guide, an Indiana Jones look-alike, whose rescue attempt ends in tragedy and death a 5 minute walk from the hut. Then there's the choice of Lear, imposed onto the group by a guru-like joke of an artist. He reminded me of my hippie high school art teacher.<br /><br />The worst thing though is Levrings choice of Lear. Obviously is an intellectual brain-fart. How that ever was going to be an pass-time is never clear to me.<br /><br />Positives are few and far between. It's a beautiful movie, but that's never important.<br /><br />High school intellectualism. Weird for the sake of weird. It's a complete waste of time unless you like thrashing useless art movies.
Imagine a GILLIGAN'S ISLAND set in the African desert in modern times. Add people nowhere near as jaunty as the Skipper or Marianne--and enough angst to fill a German psychiatrist's office. Throw in a plot that manages to be interesting only episodically and literary parallelism that never delves deeply enough to truly satisfy. Season with a truly morose topic that's been exploited since the first world travelers found themselves very, very lost.<br /><br />If THE KING IS ALIVE weren't a product of the reigning czars du jour of Dogme 95, would this film be garnering as much attention? Dogme 95 is to Hollywood as Danish modern is to rococo. A byproduct of digital technology, this Scandinavian movement seeks--quite dogmatically--to strip away artificiality in film-making, by using more natural elements and returning to the essence of storytelling. PEARL HARBOR, for instance, is the Dogme Antichrist.<br /><br />Director/co-author Kristian Levring's saga ponders interpersonal relations and human nature when placed under the fire of a life-threatening situation. Eleven people aboard a bus riding through the Namibian sand dunes suddenly find themselves stranded in the remains of an abandoned town. An African local who does not speak their language serves as observer and narrator (whose insights are among the film's most trenchant). As the strongest heads off for a five-day walk to the nearest village, the others stay behind, surviving on dented-canned carrots and circumambulating their likely future as vulture chow. Former thespian Henry decides that this rather unappealing crew needs a diversion, and hand-writes KING LEAR from memory. He assigns roles, and the group passes many days learning lines and rehearsing, in an effort to divert their attention from the seemingly inevitable.<br /><br />Gradually the cast begins to lose it, and the savageries of their nature—or, William Golding might say, human nature—begin to surface. If you've ever seen LORD OF THE FLIES, you know that these things can get ugly, that being in a lifeboat situation can turn even Mother Teresa into the PMSing termagant of Calcutta.<br /><br />The film was shot using an international ensemble of American, English, French and South African actors, who, the Dogme dogma dictates, develop themselves and their roles quite organically. THE KING was also filmed chronologically, adding a sense of realism to the ever-increasing desperation of its characters. After up to three hand-held cameras shot in digital, results were transferred to 35mm film.<br /><br />The performance that compels most comes from Jennifer Jason Leigh, who plays a boho Pop Tart trying to bolster the spirits of the group in any and every way she can. Henry (David Bradley) is another finely played character, whose passion for his life's work ultimately saves the gang from utter despair. It's hard to feel too sorry for the others—cruel wives and their oafish husbands, hirsute old womanizers, sulky French intellectuals, wealthy men who have more important places to be than marooned in the Namibian desert. Beckett might hate this question, but why is this group riding a bus together through remote Africa in the first place? Life-threatening morbidity! Utter despair rendered in graphic detail! A relentlessly tedious pace! Enjoy.
A ragtag collection of Western tourists in Africa suffer the misfortune of their plane breaking down, so they're compelled to hop on a bus to travel across the Namibian desert to reach the nearest jumping-off point back to civilization. Not surprisingly, the driver's compass ends up not working, and they find themselves way off course, coming to a stop at a deserted ghost-town that had been a barracks during the fighting in WWII. They find some kerosene (useless in terms of re-filling the tank of their bus), a storage room full of half-poisoned carrots in tin cans, and a native hermit who views them with indifference. The one fellow amongst them who appears to have something on the ball in terms of survivalist techniques goes off to get help. They are to remove the tires from the bus and burn them if he's not back in five days: hopefully, someone will see the black smoke.<br /><br />Does this sound interesting? Well, sure, even if it sounds a lot like *The Flight of the Phoenix* or any number of films in the "deserted island" genre. Which is why it's surprising that *The King Is Alive* is Number 4 (if anyone is still counting) in the ongoing "Dogma 95" series, which, if I remember that ridiculous "Dogma 95 Vow of Chastity" correctly, proclaimed that "genre films" are strictly verboten. Oops. Well, anyway, you can tell it's gonna try and be all arty and stuff in order to compensate for the fact that it's a genre flick. Yep, it doesn't take long for one member of the group, a wizened old stage actor, to start scribbling down -- from memory! -- the various roles from *King Lear* on, well, rolls of paper. The idea is that performing the play will help while away the time. All of which really goes against the absconded survivalist's advice to stay optimistic (didn't the old actor ever do a dinner-theater performance of *The Odd Couple* just once in his life?), quite apart from such an activity being a colossal waste of precious time and energy.<br /><br />This movie is so bad I really don't know how to continue. It's so monumentally stupid, so full of absurd situations and characters that it beggars rational criticism. It may be a timely moment to offer Full Disclosure: I despise this so-called Danish film "movement" to an almost irrational degree. I think my face even turns slightly red at the mere mention of Dogma 95. First of all, if the name of your movement has the word "dogma" in the title, you've already lost me; secondly, in this particular instance, the movement's insistence on the abnegation of individual artistic achievement is a recipe for arch hypocrisy when you consider that the filmmakers here are plundering one of the greatest works of the greatest INDIVIDUAL writer who ever lived. (But, doubtless, the Dogma crowd believes the Works of Shakespeare were actually penned by a consortium of Elizabethan bigwigs like the Earl of Oxford, Francis Bacon, Walter Raleigh, and the Queen Herself.)<br /><br />Hell, I may have forgiven the whole enterprise if it had played the scenario for farcical purposes (attacking the precious Dogma -- now THAT would be subversive!). But the movie takes itself very seriously, and soon devolves into the clichés attendant upon the genre in which it unmistakably belongs: people turning against each other; the men growing beards; the inevitable deaths of a few of the principal actors. All with a straight face. "Is this the promised end?" Well, not quite: we also have to endure the abysmal transfer of DV. For this is another Rule in the Dogma 95 Vow of Chastity: hand-held digital video only. Some friendly advice to the Danes: your "movement" is in trouble when your finished product has worse visual quality than an average high-school graduation home video. Professionalism belongs in an artist's bag of tricks, right alongside his own individuality. "Artisan" and "artist" are kindred words, Mr. von Trier: not every jackass with a $100 hand-held can be a filmmaker. Pass it on. And by the way: allow your Dogma directors to be credited for their films, while you're at it. The fact that the writer of *The King Is Alive* receives credit, while the guy (or girl) actually filming it doesn't, is just a wee bit hypocritical. <br /><br />Contemptible. 1 star out of 10.
Well, they sent it on TV between midnight and 2:00 am - it seems like the right time to watch it, and then go to bed afterwards ...<br /><br />No, it was not really living up to my expectations. I think the Dogma concept is good, because the film then gets closer to what's really happening between the involved characters when you cut all the unnecessary effects and mood-making music out. But then again, this concept requires some interesting action between the characters.<br /><br />I cannot say, that I know King Lear (the Shakespeare version) very well, if I had known the play, I would probably have been able to predict much of the film.<br /><br />Well, a crisis can bring the best and worst sides of a character on display - and we certainly see some bad sides. Oh yes, the paint of civilisation and culture can be very thin, and behind this paint you may find an animal.<br /><br />If you then compare it with "Italiensk for begyndere" (Italian for beginners) or "Mifunes sidste sang" (Mifune's last song), you see the same but opposite thing: A crisis can certainly bring people to view their life in a more constructive way. And if you dare do, you may win.<br /><br />When the film had ended, I thought to myself: "Oh that's why I haven't seen it before ..." The film has its own beauty. The quality of the work of the cameraman, actors, etc is good. But the script could need something more. A plot maybe wouldn't hurt.
I went to see "TKIA" with high expectations, which might have influence on my opinion on it. I have seen all of the Dogme films, and this TKIA, is by far the worst. The story intertwines with themes from Shakespeare's play: King Lear, but never succeeds in capturing the audience and making them care. The directing of the actors is very loose, even for Dogme style movies, and results in poor undefinable acting. The story lacks any dynamics whatsoever, and I lost interest very shortly. There are some scenes in the film which are there to shock the viewer, but I don't think they enhanced the story at all. Mifunes sidste sang and Festen are both Dogmefilms that proved to be well directed, and had good storylines, so I shall look forward to better Dogmefilms in the future. Perhaps Aake Sandgren's "An Invisible Man-Dogme 6" will prove to lift the quality again. For he is, like Vinterberg and S.K. Jacobsen a skilled and educated director.
This is possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. Can somebody please explain the plot of this movie to me? Yes, I know the bus ran out of gas in the middle of the desert, after the driver never noticed that his compass wasn't functioning, but what then? And how did it end? Maybe I'm to stupid to understand this movie, but to me it was an absolute waste of time.<br /><br />My recommendation? Do not bother, there are far better movies to be seen. This movie ranks with my other all time low-low's (Going overboard - Adam Sandler and Fire on the Amazon - Sandra Bullock)
"The King is Alive" is a flawed and contrived mess of a movie which comes off like a self indulgent auteur's excuse to transport a bunch of actors to a Godforsaken Namibian desert where he can play major-Dogme-domo and film his selfishly conceived, silly, overwrought drama with utter disregard for the real forces of human nature, market appeal, common sense, and even good art. In other words this is one dumbassed flick and if you don't believe that, your penance is watching it. Only for filmheads, critics, dilettantes, and the like. (D)
A bad movie, but with one reel that is worth savoring. For most of the film, the jokes are bad, the songs are bad, even W.C. Fields is bad. Then there is one sequence with Bob Hope and his movie-ex; the dialogue is witty and the song (a version of "Thanks for the Memories") light, cynical and delightful. Who parachuted in for this one bit? Yet it makes the whole thing worth the original 25 cents admission.
Pauline Kael gave this movie a good review but it is terrible. It is very outdated , the humour is silly and the music is forgetable.In fact it is so silly it is almost embarrassing. It might have been some fun in 1938 but I can not imagine anyone enjoying it in 2003.
Super Troopers was an instant classic. Club Dread, while disappointing to many, had its moments. Puddle Cruisers has fewer moments. I saw this movie on the shelf of my local video store and saw at the bottom that it was made by the Broken Lizard group who made Super Troopers, so naturally I picked it up. I only found one scene to be laugh out loud funny. A far cry from Super Troopers. All in all, I was very disappointed. I would not recommend this to anyone, unless you have an abundance of free time, and really need to kill some time. However, you're better off playing video games, or watching something that might make you laugh or think.
Even though this is the first film by the broken lizard group, it's the last one I saw. Having mildly enjoyed Super Troopers, and managed to sit through the crap that is club dred and beerfest, I was surprised to hear they did an earlier film. Now i didn't sit down with high hopes, but was hoping for a funny campus romp. My friend asked me to keep in mind they are younger (obviously) and its their first foray into film. I did and was still disappointed. Not taking away the acting and comedy skills of the BL guys, they were OK. The whole film was tiresome, clichéd and frankly boring. Some of the other actors in the film were really poor at acting. And the Rugby game didn't even resemble rugby. Poor showing. They improved drastically with Super Troopers and have declined since. Lets hope they get back on form with Super Troopers 2
man was this hard to watch! it was not at all funny, not well made and it had no point or plot to it whatsoever. the acting was horrible. it was not well made at all. it looked like a bunch of kids my age were just screwing around and making a pointless movie. it is by far the absolute worst broken lizard movie. if you are a broken lizard movie like myself you will disappointed and bored to your death. please skip this pointless movie about ugly guys looking for chicks. you will not regret m advice. by the way, don't say you didn't find this review helpful just because you didn't agree with it. thats stupid, like this movie. the only OK scene was when the main guy was playing rugby and got beat the crap out of. i liked that cause i found his character pretty damn annoying.
This movie was the worst movie I've ever seen. No story, no point, it wasn't even funny at all, not sure why people say this movie is hilarious because it sucked SO much!! Felix Bean the main character sucked. Susanna sucked. This movie was made in 1996 and it really was set in the 80s. What else, I'm never letting my friend pick movies ever again. Hmm, the movie cover said it was from the producers from super troopers, who kidnapped them and stole their identities. Wow, what a waste of time. The only minute thing that was funny was Freaky Ricky, he was funny, especially when he and Emily ended up together. That was funny. All and all, it sucked, waste of time and sleep. Wow, never thought a movie like this could be made, so dumb for watching for watching it to the end.
Oh My Gosh!!!! This was the first movie Broken Lizard made as a group (although it just recently came to video), and I have never been more disappointed in my entire life!!! I tell you what, if I had seen this movie before I saw Super Troopers (which by the way, is a kick A$$ movie!!!), I never ever would have watched it!! I had read several reviews online, as well as on the cover of the DVD, that raved it as being,"Broken Lizard's funniest movie ever!" Now if they were referring to Super Troopers as being their funniest movie ever, I would agree nonstop, but not this one. Talk about dry. It took the movie a good 45 minutes to even get going, and by then, I was so out of the mood to watch it, that it wasn't even worth it. Maybe you gotta be high for it to really be funny? I dunno. I love these guys, I really do, but that movie is by far the worst one they've made. Club Dread was a pretty good movie, but this one, just wow. I'd highly recommend Super Troopers if you want a good laugh, but if you want more of a romance, drama, with a few funny spots, I'd say go with Puddle Cruiser. Just my opinion though, everyone is entitled to their own! :)
I found Super Troopers only mildly amusing at best (seemed like a glorified Police Academy ripoff to me), and I rented this movie in hopes of it being better. It wasn't.<br /><br />The writing is absolutely horrible and the pacing of this film is even worse. It doesn't feel like a whole lot happens in this film, or that it really gives us a reason to give a damn about any of the characters.<br /><br />The actor who plays Felix is totally uninspired, though possibly due in part to the dialogue he had to work with. In short, this movie just went wrong in so many places.<br /><br />I get the impression that since films like Clerks, independent filmmakers seem to think that they can make movies like this with long, rambling scenes of dialogue where characters are trying to be funny. But, where dialogue in Clerks pushes the story forward, in this movie, it hopelessly weighs it down. Films are supposed to have a decent balance of action and dialogue, and as tempting as it is for filmmakers to try to have tons of snappy, funny dialogue, it just doesn't always work. Especially if they're not that good at writing dialogue. I hate to say it, but even "Extreme Heist" was more interesting than this movie- and that movie was so low-budget it was shot on video.
I rented this movie because the DVD cover made it look like it was going to be a ridiculous college comedy like van wilder or animal house. I took it to my friend house to watch for movie night. We ended up stopping it 15 minutes into the film, and watched Copper Mountain instead. I don't know if any of you have seen Copper Mountain, but it isn't great either. However, I would have to say that the Alan Thick Jim Carrey Duo made it a more enjoyable watch.<br /><br />I later finished Puddle Cruiser. This movie was slow and the humor was forced. This movie reminded me of some stinkers that I saw in some of my earlier production classes in college. I was left wondering "was this the film that enabled Broken Lizard to make Supertroopers?" Also how could this movie suck so bad? Supertroopers was good and Club Dread was decent. Don't see this movie!
If you would have asked me 1 month ago how this movie was I probably would have left most of this out, but I am a fan and as any fan I visit the movies sites often well when Super Troopers came out I visited that site after the release on DVD and was hooked yea it's a difficult site to stay on, but the good ones normally are like good families they stick together. What a story this company/comedy troop has.BEGGING people to come and see there movies on street corners,universities, anywhere they can and all for free and after all that to develop a great fan base after a few years THEY CRAP ON IT And decide to close down there website that helped them and was created for the fans, but the worst thing about it....THEY DIDN'T TELL ANY OF THEM. They just decided that they are better than us they want new fans not the fans that helped them get where they are....you know the same fans they begged years ago. Still the smart crew they are they released the best movie with Super Troopers and got everyones attention and thank God for that because after that they have sucked with everything else. Good for you guys way to go mainstream, just remember when you realize your material isn't that good and you have no new fans left you are the ones who crapped the original ones away. FANS MAKE YOU WHO YOU ARE NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Never burn your bridges
As Anthony Bourdain said... "I wanted to stick my head in a bucket of lye, pull my eyeballs out and jump off a cliff." This summarizes my feelings about this pathetic waste of human effort. Artless, self- indulgent, thoughtless, and just bad. Bad beyond comprehension. What else can I say? If you are unfortunate enough to be in an area where this piece of idiotic trash is playing, please, please have mercy on soul and avoid at all costs.
First off, I'm in the U.S.<br /><br />When I first saw this, I thought it was an obvious - and loathsome - rip off of "The Office" (UK). I would have thus awarded it zero stars, but lo and behold, it came out long before the Ricky Gervais series.<br /><br />Still, it's hard to watch this or any other show with a similar dynamic (including the American "Office") without comparison. It just isn't even close to being the same thing.<br /><br />I will give it some credit for being original, and ahead of its time. I'll also say that it - and the U.S. "Office" and "Larry Sanders" - are actual satires. The UK "Office" is something grander and more transcendent, as if populated with real people in events that felt like they actually happened. However, unlike this or the shrill Christopher Guest "mockumentaries", it isn't really a satire, while "The Newsroom" definitely is.<br /><br />Be that as it may, "The Newsroom" still isn't very funny. It's aloof, and self-aware, but with a cast and crew not nearly smart or talented enough to heft the goods. It's weighty comedy being carried on weak shoulders. Commendable, but ultimately not recommended.<br /><br />--- And what's with the lack of an anamorphic DVD?! I know it was shot in anamorphic widescreen, because I saw the pilot episode on one of our HD channels. CBC, get with the programme. ; )
This show has been performed live around the country with a wide variety of casts. I saw it first in the Provincetown production the first summer it was in P-town (2001)--before it was, curiously enough, banned in that overwhelmingly gay resort (the codes which resulted in its closing have since been amended). I saw it again later in the off-Broadway, long-running production in New York. Oddly enough, the P-town production was far better than the New York one--fresher, cuter, more spirited and funnier--but that was only in the 2001 showing; subsequent attempts to clone the production ("Bare Naked Lads" in 2007) were definitely third-rate. This filmed production features a Los Angelos production cast, and it is, as other comments have suggested, not the best. I would rate it somewhere in between the top-notch 2001 P-town production and the third-rate "Bare Naked Lads" P-town show from last summer.
I'm writing this as I watch the DVD. I grabbed for the laptop and went to IMDb during the first song. I didn't know anything about the movie except that a friend said that the show was supposed to be good. It has a decent Netflix rating too, so here I am.<br /><br />Maybe on the stage this worked. But I have to say that the sight of chorus boys dancing and singing completely naked just seems silly. And the lip syncing to a prerecorded score adds to the strangeness.<br /><br />Most of the songs and routines are about aspects of male nudity. This is my idea of nothing, sorry. The score, so far, is generic show tune music. Nothing memorable, or particularly melodic. Everything is to serve the lyrics. Which, I have to say, sound like they were written by a committee. Each song is essentially one extended joke. If the jokes were ten seconds, they might work. These single several-minute-long jokes don't.<br /><br />I'm now watching the movie by chapters--a few minutes until I get the gist. Kind of in the hopes that one of them will be different, or entertaining enough to keep me from going on to the next scene. Nope.<br /><br />Okay. I'm finished. So here's what I think. If you have any experience or long-standing appreciation of musical theater, avoid this--it's just not quality. If, however, you're a gay twenty-something and have never seen or heard a musical comedy, you might be entertained. Or maybe this would hold your interest if you've never seen a lot of attractive naked men. <br /><br />I have.
I absolutely could not believe the levels of ineptitude on display in this production. I honestly thought gay men had better taste than this. I know I do.<br /><br />The bulk of the blame doesn't lie with the cast, but let's get them out of the way first...the only one with real talent was Joe Souza (plus he had the best bod in the cast). He had a nice, clear theatre-style voice. Okay, and Jaymes Hodges' voice was so-so, but he had a vacant expression in every number. The rest couldn't hold a note in a bucket, even though the music was obviously dubbed in after the fact. Must have been really dreadful hearing them live. They were also all girly-boys except for maybe three. If I wanted to see naked WOMEN onstage I could go to the titty bars. Not sure why anyone would choose to film the L.A. production instead of New York. I would imagine NY has more readily available singing talent, though one would think in L.A. they would be able to find better-LOOKING guys. Apparently not.<br /><br />But I digress...the real blame here lies with the creators and producers. This score was the most banal, insipid tripe I have ever heard. It sounded like some theatre queens took all their musical cd's, threw them in a blender and poured the goo onto a page. Sadly, I'm sure there are many who can't tell the difference between good theatre writing and whatever this is. I mean seriously, I was laughing my ass off through the whole thing but not at the lame jokes. I think the morbid 'my-lover-has-died-of-AIDS-song' entitled "Kris, Look What You've Missed" was the most hysterical thing in the whole show. Genius writing...Kris / Missed...wow...they ALMOST rhyme...must be a good lyric. And Jesus...the END of that song..."Oh Kris, Ohhh Kris, OHHHH Kris..." OVER AND OVER!!! My other favorite was "You gotta be a Pumpy Junkie Boy to be a Humpy Hunkie Boy"...WTF??? The whole show was full of the most arbitrary lyrics JUST BECAUSE they rhymed. Where did these people learn to write songs? Apparently they listened to Sondheim and said "He's not so great, I can do that"...as evidenced by the retarded "Bobby, Bobby, Bobby" reference from COMPANY in one song. Another irk: why are 20-somethings singing about Robert Mitchum and Tab Hunter? Obviously coming from the mouths of the lyricists and not the actors...again, bad writing.<br /><br />If you love torture and pain, and I know many of you strange fetishists do, go ahead and watch it. But you've been warned.
That's the worst film I saw since a long time. Historic accuracy is totally non-existent. For example, James Wolfe, who his depicted as an anti-French Canadian, is shown in London during the summer of 1759. Natives are like Indians of a bad Hollywood movie of the 60's : They wear deerskin clothes and ride horses (The Montagnais had never ride horses). The film is taking place in Quebec City, but footage is set in Louisbourg, showing the Atlantic Ocean.<br /><br />The original scenario was supposed to include the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, but the producers drop this idea saying that costs for uniforms and participants would be more than 4 millions dollars ! I think they never heard about re-enactment.<br /><br />All the movie is planned to be a new Titanic : an impossible love during an historic tragedy (the fall of New-France). There's even a song performed by Celine Dion at the end of the movie (Yes, I stayed till the end of the movie, but I deeply regret). But the worst thing of all is that this movie cost 30 millions dollars. I just don't know how they spend all this money.<br /><br />Sorry for my anger, but I'm just too irritated.
This is the one major problem with this film, along with a good deal of québecois' biggest movies: Done in a pretentious way by pretentious people.<br /><br />It's really sad, but "big shots" movie makers (driving Dodge Stratus...) from this province believes They Got the Thruth, They Know What the Little People Like.<br /><br />We're not a rich province, every time a big movie like this (30 millions?!!?) is made, it's cutting off a lot of others who won't see their movie made because of lack of governmental help. So it generates mediocrity; only movies from "friends of the family" are going to be made.<br /><br />I sound angry and I am. I went see Nouvelle-France expecting a journey in the lives of my ancestors, but i found myself stuck in a pool of inconsistencies: french accent (we gotta please our cousins, so f*** our québecois' language)and lack of historical research is only a few. Add a campy love story and the same music score playing again and again and dumb québecois' viewer is gonna open up and ask for more. I'm glad this pretentious piece of s*** didn't do as planned by the Dodge stratus Big Shots... It's gonna help movie makers who aren't in the very restrained "movie business" of Québec.<br /><br />Rent Cruising Bar instead and have a real good time.<br /><br />PS: I'll never forgive them for ruining such an awesome title.
Please, do not waste your time and money with this stinker of a turkey.<br /><br />This is an over-the-top melodramatic love story set against the background of New France (aka Quebec in the 18th century). Or is it an historical saga of New France with an epic romance thrown in? I don't know, and at this point I don't care anymore.<br /><br />There is a rich story to be told out there about the intrepid French adventurers, rogues and other assorted characters who settled Canada and parts of the US. This is not it. The characters are total clichés, the story is overblown, breathless and devoid of any charm, and before long all the viewer wants to do is get the heck out of the theatre, have his or her head checked, and get hold of his or her anger at being taken in by the hype.<br /><br />This film was the biggest disappointment of my year in terms of cinema, especially since, as an historian and a French Canadian or Canadian of French descent (or whatever) I am a) a believer in the fact that the story of my people in this country has yet to be told as well as it could on film b) interested in this subject c) a film-lover who thinks cinema these days could do wonders with this grandiose and tragic story.<br /><br />As I said, do not waste your time with this frustrating bit of claptrap.
A film about an interesting and sensitive period of history, filmed in beautiful surroundings, managed to present an appallingly trivial and clichéd production, grossly clumsy script, poor continuity, intrusive slushy music, sugary casting, and pallid acting. <br /><br />It was a toss up between the script and the acting as to which was worse. The script probably won - the historical background, backstory and character descriptions were spelt out in painful detail in the dialogue. .. actually words can't describe quite how bad this film is.<br /><br />In a pre-release screening there was a massive exodus from about thirty minutes in. At about an hour many of those who remained were laughing loudly. I should add I am a Francophile, I am fascinated by Canada, and love historical film. This really was a one off.
It's really a shame to see so many talented people involved in what's happen to be a very waste of talents. The plot is cliché. The directing is too self conscious and the characters are almost caricatures. One of the most disappointing aspect of this film is Gerard Depardieu's performance in the English version (this movie was shot in french and English at the same time). Although he is one of the best actor in the film, he gives the worst performance of them all. I must say that Bianca Gervais come very close though...<br /><br />On a more positive note I must say that the newcomer Juliette Gosselin gives an amazing performance in both version. Unfortunately that the only good thing I remember about this film...<br /><br />By the way I must apologize for my not very good English...
Despite decades of tax incentives, in terms of international visibility the Canadian film industry still lags behind most central African and Islamic states (surprisingly few Canadian films are released outside their native shores), and Nouvelle-France aka Battle of the Brave is another example of why. More than any other country, commercial Canadian cinema seems unable to develop an identity of its own and is stuck in pale imitation of other countries' failures. On paper this historical drama could look vaguely promising. There's certainly a rich vein of untapped material in Canada's history as the French and English warred over and bought and sold the colony, though none of it makes the cut here unless you count the odd blink-and-you'll-miss-it scene of characters saying "Wolfe is dead" or "Nouvelle-France is no more" before getting back to the soap operatics. But while this isn't a history lesson, it isn't a drama or the epic adventure the new title promises either: there is no battle in the film unless you count 10 seconds of shelling by a half-dozen re-enactors and one collapsed shed. The town square that is all we ever see of Quebec is a rather obvious flatly lit studio interior, giving many scenes an old TV miniseries look, as does director Jean Beaudin's reluctance to offer much in the way of long shots or even exteriors. What you do get for your money is a simple but drawn-out Harlequin romance about doomed lovers constantly separated by events beyond their control where the biggest surprise is that Fabio doesn't turn up in the cast. It's the kind of film where whenever two characters are about to make the beast with two backs the camera pans over to a convenient raging fireplace or waterfall.<br /><br />An Anglo-Canadian-French co-production that doesn't so much unite once-warring nations as throw any country with a decent tax break into the stew, this massive box-office disaster was clearly intended to be Canada's Titanic - though someone neglected to tell the producers they meant the film, not the ship - but turns out more like Revolution done on the cheap without the battle scenes, crowds or the few moments that threaten to briefly work in the face of overwhelming odds. The Montreal Mirror described it as "so bad that one can't even find the strength to mock it." That's rather unfair, because while for most of its running time the film looks like a below-par 80s miniseries, the last half hour suddenly becomes very funny, with characters accidentally putting their legs in bear traps, dastardly husbands declaring "You'll never see your handsome lover again, cuckold's honor! You'll pay for this, both of you!" and our heroine accused of murder and - gasp! - witchcraft in a trial funny enough to have been in Demi Moore's version of The Scarlet Letter. Throw in caddish British governors, devious slaves and Celine Dion singing at the end and you've got something that at times almost feels like the kind of film that Timbo Hines was aspiring to (and still managed to miss wildly) with his legendarily inept period version of War of the Worlds, albeit without the staggering technical incompetence.<br /><br />Leading man David La Haye's versatility seems limited to the number of other actors he can look like throughout the course of the film: he starts out looking like Andy Garcia, briefly adopts the Al Pacino Revolution look, flirts with the clean-shaven Tchéky Karyo style before turning into a younger Ted Danson as his character ages. While his opening scene where he reacts to news of his father's death with an expression that looks like he's waiting for the director to tell him he can go home now promises a feast of bad acting, in reality he gives the impression more of a mediocre supporting actor who's lucked into a lead at the last minute when whoever was originally cast finally read the script and bailed. He shows willing and gives it a go but the grace and charisma the part needs just isn't there. Billie Piper lookalike Noemie Godin-Vigneau's leading lady doesn't exactly set the screen alight either despite occupying center-stage as the peasant girl who is the prey of giggly Vincent Perez's corrupt and perverted Intendant Le Bigot (that really is the character's name), the duplicitous goateed drunken lackey Sebastien Huberdeau and, saddest of all, Gerard Depardieu's bedridden revolutionary dirty old priest in a manky grey-haired wig. It's a truly pitiful sight to see a once great actor at the absolute rock bottom of his game as he shuffles through the motions looking like he's not just lost the will to act but the will to live along with it. He clearly couldn't be bothered to stick around for the English dubbing sessions (or even a couple of long shots where he is very noticeably doubled). Small wonder he talked of retiring around the time of the film's brief release.<br /><br />Some brief comic relief is provided by Jason Isaacs in his default Patriot mode who overplays Wolfe of Quebec rather like an asthmatic Alf Garnett/Archie Bunker played by Timothy Dalton on speed while Tim Roth's William Pitt stands on the sidelines with the occasional bemused smile of one who's being put up in a rather nice hotel with excellent room service and plenty of days off, though like Colm Meaney's Benjamin Franklin they're both in the film for less than three minutes. (Voltaire and Madame Pompadour pop their heads around the door for a couple of minutes as well but fail to make any impression, comic or otherwise.) The supporting actresses are generally better: Juliette Gosselin and Bianca Gervais as the heroine's real and adopted daughters and a strikingly beautiful Irene Jacob looking for all the world like a young Fanny Ardant are all refreshingly good and deserve much better.
From the title, the tag-line, the plot summary on the DVD etc..., I expected something at least slightly epic, with the historical fiction and the romance concurring to thrill you; that's what they did in Last of the Mohicans for example, and I think they did a superb job. Maybe I had standards too high for this movie and didn't give it a fair chance. But the scenery was barely OK (how could they not come up with something more beautiful when they have such landscapes to work with?), the two lovers had no chemistry whatsoever, and the plot was just so predictable it felt like it had been drafted in 5 minutes by a twelve-year-old -- and not a very imaginative one. Nouvelle-France is a love story set in an eventful historical age. But the history of Nouvelle-France is hardly a side note, and the love story is banal and fails dramatically to make the viewer care for the lovers' fate. Surprisingly, the only good parts about the movie came from something completely unexpected and unadvertised: the relationship between Marie-Loup, the heroine, and her children (one natural, one adopted). If only they'd concentrated on her family and forgotten about the love story, it would have been a much better movie. Marie-Loup's parents should have been given more screen time and character development, the politics going on in Britain should have been more than a three-minute scene with barely any connection to the rest, the rotten baddie should have been either more developed or removed from the script completely (why hire actors like Vincent Perez, Tim Roth or Jason Isaacs to misuse them so badly?) Bad work overall.
From the second the music swelled (second one of the movie) and it was movie-hack tripe, I knew I was in for a very long ride. Horrendously clichéd - (I laughed a lot and knew how the plot ended WELL before the ending) - they didn't use Louisbourg particularly well and the costuming and hair were kinda awful. (My particular favourite makeup moment is that the only way they age Depardieu as far as I could see was by putting a straight hair wig on him, instead of wavy). I could go on about the ridiculous unsuitability of the music for a long time -- the movie could be improved massively by an 18th century score. <br /><br />(ETA: AH, it's that horrible moviemusic guy Patrick Doyle who's responsible for the score - say no More! He should NOT be allowed near historical movies -- he should stick to 20th century settings.) <br /><br />The "visit to the notable people portion" was also hilarious particularly his little visit to Madame Pompadour who was not particularly convincingly played. <br /><br />I thought the only actor who appeared grounded in the century at hand was Michael Maloney as James Murray. He absolutely stole the show for all 30 seconds he was on screen. Tragically, he made you see what the movie could have been.<br /><br />The love scenes did have some heat - the two leads were stunning together.<br /><br />The most awful scene for historians is where they're at the big leavetaking dinner in Britain before Wolfe sails and he lifts his glass and says the first two lines of "How stands the glass around" aka "Why soldiers why" as if it's a toast. Absolutely excruciating failure at historicity, much better to leave it out. Thousands of people know the damn song and thousands more believe the rumour that Wolfe and company sang it (probably drunk, not all stuffy like this bunch). Daft.
This was truly the most painful experience I have had in quite some time in a movie theater. I will forego such facile criticisms as 'maudlin' or 'historically inaccurate' or 'horse's crap's crap' because quite simply our sympathies would then immediately go out to these words. If a director's to make a sweeping grandiose love epic, well for god's sake MAKE A REAL DAMN SWEEPING GRANDIOSE LOVE EPIC! Why bother with such laughably unconvincing second rate harlequin romances and such boring interchanges between characters we could care less about when the most decisive battle on Canadian soil is taking place? And for the pompous people thinking 'oh well, this story must center characters!" well you're wrong, dead wrong.
Much can usually be forgiven in period pieces that ask us to recall important historical events and spice them with enough love interest to keep the story going. BATTLE OF THE BRAVE tackles the 18th Century struggle for the control of Quebec (an all of Canada) between the British and the French with sidebars form the new America. It has the makings of a sweeping epic of fascination, but sadly in the hands of writer Pierre Billon (whose script deserves a Razzie award for worst of the season) and the scattered, unfocused, and confusing direction by Jean Beaudin this film is a dud - a two and a quarter hour tedious mess of a film.<br /><br />Even a cast a fine actors - pairing Noémie Godin-Vigneau as Marie-Loup Carignan with David La Haye as François le Gardeur, adding the lovely Bianca Gervais as Acoona , the venerable Gérard Depardieu as Le curé Thomas Blondeau, and the likes of Irène Jacob, Vincent Perez (ridiculous in period wigs), Tim Roth as William Pitt, Colm Meaney as Benjamin Franklin, and Jason Isaacs as Général James Wolfe - doesn't help. Veteran actors such as these must have cringed at the crude lines written for their characters! Cover the whole mess in a sappy musical score by Patrick Doyle and the result is a long film to be avoided. Sad to say such bad things about a costly project, but be warned....Grady Harp
The actors were not believable, The story was really weak, total sap, and completely predictable. Really disappointed in Depardieu. It was a shame that they did not focus more on the struggle of the Canadian fight for independence. We have seen this love story many times before, only with better actors! We had to wait for the last 15 minutes for a small sense of drama! The soundtrack was totally disturbing. The underscore hit you over the head with sentimentality. But really over the top. The only thing we found OK was the fact that they let the Indians speak their language. And we found the cinematography, of the Indian village relatively realistic.
As a Canadian History major, my first thing to say : HISTORICAL FACTS ARE NOT ACCURATE! How can a producer do that? The deportation of the Acadian wasn't in 1759 when we see Franklin in London, but in 1755! How can he pass that in the movie? The scenes in Londo were useless too. Then for the story for anyone that read "Les Anciens Canadians", you have the story line right there. It's the story of La Coriveau, that "witch". Add a love story too and a tragic relationship between mother and daughter ending. Sure, it brought tears to my eyes. But that's it. Then there's the fact it's apparently set up in Québec City, but it's mostly shot at the Forteresse de Louisbourg. Sure it's a historical site and it's accurate to the time, but it was obvious that the scenes were not all set in Québec City. Overall, if you're looking for a documentary of New France, go get Candad : A People's History, a real documentary on the history of Canda and NEw France. If you want a love story that will bring you tears, a story set up in a wonderful forest, watch New France.
See.. I really wanted to enjoy this movie. There were moments when my heart beat faster, when the hair on my neck began to stand up, when my muscles began to tighten.. but just like a strip tease, I was left with no real action, no resolution, and money missing from my wallet.<br /><br />Jaume Balagueró and Miguel Tejada-Flores apparently don't know the correct recipe for making a Horror Movie, and as such, utilized the old amateur cook's method of throwing everything into the pot.<br /><br />This movie is really The Shining, Poltergeist, Amityville, and Hellraiser all rolled into one. Amazing, I know, but true. All the flavors are there, you can taste each of them, they just don't mix well. I'm not gonna go down the list of every thing wrong with this movie; in short, good cinematography, mediocre acting, worse dialogue.<br /><br />The -real- problem with stealing from so many movie plots and combining them into one movie, aside from the resulting confusion, is while you CAN have several plots running at one time, you can't have several endings. And what does Jaume do when he runs into this problem? Just like a Freshman in English 101, you end your story with ellipses, "The little car vanished into the darkness and ..... THE END" Oooh, spooky. Not really. And very anticlimactic. The ending left me confused and disappointed; almost empty.<br /><br />Take your $10, go rent The Shining, Poltergeist, and Hellraiser.. scare the pants off yourself, have a great time, and forget that The Darkness ever existed. <br /><br />-BJamin
What starts out as a passable movie degenerates into one of the most incoherent, UNscary, incompetently made, stupid attempted horror films of recent years.<br /><br />Absolutely terrible. It's such a derivative mess ripping off every decent fright flick you can think of without successfully producing a single scare. Whether it's copying the recent trend with creepy kids or ghosts walking past the camera or the old school horror of Fulci's Gates of Hell.<br /><br />The worst thing is there's not even a cat jumping out of a cupboard to make you jump. To be avoided.
This review contains spoilers. I didn't have any expectations about this movie. I pulled it off the video store rack with the movie, "White Noise".<br /><br />First, the credits for this stupid movie run about 5 minutes into it. The pacing from start to finish is slooooow. The main heroines don't like to wear a bra and the director appears to enjoy the jiggle effect as Anna Paquin descends the stairs. If you like movies for boobies, this one has a low level buzz factor.<br /><br />Second, it's nice that the movie rips off elements of Lovecraft and other horror genre mechanisms, but in better movies, there is at least some rational or consistently irrational behavior. This stinker tries to establish some sense of modernity and reality but then you have situations where no one calls the police even though they've uncovered a treasure trove of potentially incriminating forensic evidence, and otherworldly rituals are nicely spelled out in a comprehensive book on otherworldly rituals like on Buffy. I was waiting for Miles to show up and give some consultation on how to slay a certain demon type of so and so.<br /><br />The premise is that it is possible to open up an age of Darkness where creatures that crawl on the ceiling can cut your throat or turn the meat grinder effect on you. Ho hum. To do this you need to have a sacrificial circle and then have seven kids who must have their throat cuts by people who love them. This opens the world to the age of Darkness. At least that's what it says in complete detail in the book of ancient occult rituals. Which raises the annoying question of, uh, well, how did the ones who wrote the book know, and, if this is what happens, would you really leave this information in a book you can take out from the library, much less get it from a library in a world that is not covered already in Darkness, an age brought on by lunatics who could have performed this like much earlier using the "Occult Practices to Bring the World to Darkness for Dummies, 2nd Edition"? It turns out the father in the story is the 7th child, the one that ran away from the ritual 40 years ago; he was released by his father, who is the doctor/grandfather in the movie, who wanted to try the ritual with presumably, other stupid parents, who just wanted to see if dumb sh*t like this opening the world to darkness actually works. The grandpa let the father go because he "didn't really love him". Aduh. Stupid stupid movie written by a moronic director who appears to think he's some kind of Eurofilm Auteur. There's also a scene in the movie where the kid appears with big welts on his face and the mother grabs him and has this total lack of reaction. The whole movie is like this. People seeing really weird sh*t going on and not reacting to it in any sort of normal way. Must be bad plot and direction.<br /><br />Anna Paquin does her best to play her character realistically without cracking a smirk, and she does look smashing in a halter top, but at several critical moments in the story, her character doesn't bother to call in for back up. You know, more of the same, "I will walk into a likely demonic evil situation without any knowledge of defense or help from others carrying flashlights or firepower even though I sense impending doom." And even dumber as it may seem, even if you bring on the age of Darkness, these creatures who make you bloody can't attack if you have a light source, but they appear as people you know, and tell you to turn off the light source. Reminds me of the video game "Alone In The Dark"; maybe this movie is a rip off of that game's concept.<br /><br />The best actors in the film are the young kid and Anna. They both die at the end. The entire family dies. The Darkness creatures lead them to their death, but really, the stupidity of the characters in the family was the main cause of death. The other adults could be interchangeable with any other actors from the Red Shoes Diaries series of fine cinema.<br /><br />So to wrap up, the worst things about this movie are the stupidity of the characters in bumping around blindly in an obviously abnormal situation, the really crap plot (there is an old architect in the story who designs a house with a sacrificial altar hidden in it - the architect has suspected from the beginning there would be occult sacrifices in the house but doesn't tell anyone because, well, no real reason, they couldn't find the kids, but he didn't bother to tell authorities about the HIDDEN ROOMS which he designed into the house but he does like to hang around the house for a 40 year period because he worries about what is going on inside...derrrrh...duuuuh), the hackneyed use of scare mechanisms (more children standing around in the dark or only showing up in photographs, and blood on the wallpaper), and the egotism of the director which when you see him in the DVD features describing his crap work as a new and original rendition, makes you understand where the real horror of this movie lies.<br /><br />Is it entertaining? At 2x speed on a DVD player with the subtitles turned on, it can be entertaining, until your reach the end and realize the movie is crap, otherwise it draaaaaaaags on. The cinematic equivalent of a fatty shake; the empty calories are horrid.<br /><br />The movie gives the feeling the director must have seen "The Ring" and wanted to attempt to create something similar in mood, which in this respect, the film fails miserably, and so, also, in this respect, Jaume Balagueró, it is my opinion that you suck at what you do.
Horrendously acted and completely laughable haunted-house horror flick that has an out of place Anna Paquin playing a neurotic teenager fighting off the "things-that-go-bump-in-the-dark" that are plaguing her and her family shortly after moving to their new home in Spain(?!). Little more than a geographically re-planted rip-off of "The Shining" and most notably "The Others", the weak-plotted "Darkness" is basically your typical run-of-the mill B-horror feature with a few predictable lame scares that can be seen by audiences a mile off (so to speak)! In retrospect I suppose I shouldn't have set my personal expectations quite as high for this movie to actually be good considering the well-known fact that it was shelved for nearly three years before finally being released around Christmas of last year in American cinemas across the country to what was ultimately lukewarm ticket-sales and very harsh reviews from critics. When will filmmakers ever learn that there's more to making movies (be it horror or otherwise) than just the fey possibility of a little financial gain? (Turkey-Zero Stars)
If you saw the grudge, a another mediocre ghost movie then you should know what to expect, just worse, a lot worse. This Time instead of being in Japan with all English speaking people we are in Spain with all English speaking people. It is interesting that not one shot of this movie actually looks like Spain and could have been entirely filmed in a studio back lot. Oh and a place with swings, cause there's a good 5 mins of footage of swings with no one on them, oooohhh how spooky.<br /><br />This one is terrible in every way imaginable. The acting by the lameinator mom and dad don't help matters at all. Anna Paquin is the only person that delivers a decent performance in the film but I hate Anna Paquin so you can imagine my own private hell viewing this film.<br /><br />There is one good moment in the movie, however, when a villain is trying to explain the convoluted plot to Anna Paquin's character and she doesn't understand any of it and asks a bunch of stupid questions and he blurts out "You IDIOT, you have not understood anything!" lol. Well I happen to understand this film is a piece of garbage. 0 stars.
When you get ahead of a film, you know you are wasting your time watching the movie in question. That is exactly how I felt while I was watching "Darkness." I could see anticipate every twist and turn easily. It is a combination of "The Amityville Horror" and a myriad of films that deal with the occult. It is so silly that I almost found endearing its naiveness. I cannot say I was wholly bored but I found the film way too derivative for my taste. Director Balagueró tries to redo his early Spanish hit "The Nameless," but he cannot pull it off. I admit, a few sequences were creepy enough but I just abhor when I can figure out what is going to happen next. Also, I hated to see good actors like Lena Olin and Giancarlo Giannini sweat so much over this piece of dreck. Finally, Anna Paquin as the star of a horror film? This must be a joke. She is cute but she is one of those good child actors that have become a very monotonous adult actor. You can live without watching this one.
An American family moves to the countryside of Spain to live in an isolated house. Regina (Anna Paquin), the teenager daughter of Mark (Iain Glen), who is sick and has some mental problems, and the nurse Maria (Lena Olin), notes that weird things is happening in the house and with her young brother Paul (Stephan Enquist), but her mother does not believe on her. Reggie decides to investigate with her boyfriend Carlos (Fele Martínez) the origins of the house, and they find that forty years ago, the place was the stage of the death of six children. Reggie decides to ask for support to her grandfather Albert (Giancarlo Giannini) to protect her brother against the house and her father.<br /><br />I bought this DVD expecting to see a good horror movie of haunted house mainly because of the names of Anna Paquin, Lena Olin, Fele Martínez (from "Thesis" and "Abre los Ojos") and Giancarlo Giannini. Further, I like very much Spanish cinema. In spite of, I found a terrible screenplay, an awful direction and a deplorable acting of excellent actors and actresses. The intention of the story is good, slightly recalling "The Shinning" in some moments, but unfortunately it is badly developed, never being clear, for example, the reasons and motives why the American family moved to Spain or the horrible relationship between the members of the family, mainly the situation between Maria and Reggie. The direction is confused, poorly trying to use dark and shadows to give scary effects to the story. I love Anna Paquin, but her expressionless face never works in this flick. Lena Olin is a caricature of the great actress she is; and Stephan Enquist is too much weak for such important role. Only Fele Martínez has a good performance in his support character. I liked the open end of the story. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "A Sétima Vítima" ("The Seventh Victim")
This movie is so daring it doesn't attempt to hide its similarities to The Shining. It lacks the originality to do so. And when it does, near the end, try to cover up its story of "father goes psycho under influence of sketchy haunted house in a foreign place," it does so by stooping to plenty of other already established conventions and ideas. In other words, it reduces itself to mere cliche. But hell, even I enjoy a good predictable horror or thriller as long as there is an interesting story, one filled with violence and gore, somewhere before the film makes the dreadful turn towards the predictable and trite. Well, this film doesn't have a good story and I was really disappointed with it. What 'Darkness' has going for it is remarkable direction and cinematography. It is a film well-shot and carefully constructed full of fun, creepy angles and shots. What 'Darkness' doesn't have going for it is pretty much everything else. To begin with a minor quibble - the editing in this movie is obnoxious. It jumps from one scene to the next, sometimes pointlessly. For example, the old man in the movie (who pretty much carries the background story, later filled in by another character) is underscored by a hamster running circles. I mean, it looks cool the first time, but why continue to use the same image? I guess you'd have to see it for yourself, to understand what I mean. Another problem with this movie is Anna Paquin's character who essentially whines throughout the film, crying and caring all too much about everything - she's the film's failed attempt at a character-driven horror film. The movie has scenes of overblown sentimentalism and the family drama it depicts is simply not believable. By the end, 'Darkness' is a muddled melodrama, with a non-involving mystery provided with too simple of an ending. And it's hardly scary.
What could have been some majorly creepy stuff ends up being an incomprehensible, nutty motion picture that even the filmmakers themselves probably didn't understand. Had they shown more of the Satanic ritual or whatever, it might have been creepier, but as it stands now, this is a waste of time and brain cells. Is anybody else getting sick of the whole "little kid drawing creepy pictures with crayon" thing? Could there possibly be a bigger horror cliché? Probably not. I know, I know, it's from some different country, and it's far too refined and sophisticated for me to understand, so I shouldn't expect the "plot" to be spoon-fed to me, blah, blah, blah. Whatever. I still say the movie blows.
Why would Burt Lancaster allow himself to play a poor schnook who is ultimately undermined by femme fatale Anna Dundee, played by Yvonne DeCarlo in 'Criss Cross'? The same reason why Robert Mitchum allows himself to be cast as another loser who falls for femme fatale Faith Domergue in the 1950 noir, "Where Danger Lives". Perhaps they both felt it was a good way to show that they had 'range' as actors—that playing against type, the usual 'tough-guy' role they were known for, would enhance their image as actors who could play any role. But the problem was that roles like Steve Thompson, the pathetic love-sick milquetoast in 'Criss Cross', did nothing to enhance Lancaster's career. Not only is Lancaster completely miscast in the one-note role of Thompson, but there's something inherently unlikeable (and may I say, pathetic) about the film's protagonist in the first place.<br /><br />'Criss Cross' is an interminably slow-moving film. Among the many unnecessary scenes in the film is at the beginning: the flashback which chronicles Thompson's confrontation with Dan Duryea's Dundee at the nightclub. Everything that occurs in that initial flashback is explained later in the picture: the illicit affair between Steve and Anna, Steve's strained relationship with Martinez the cop and his bad blood with Dundee. If Director Siodmark felt compelled to begin the film with a flashback, why not keep it under three minutes? I think it would have been more effective.<br /><br />In 'Criss Cross', it takes quite awhile before the protagonist commits himself and steps out of the 'ordinary' world of Act One. That's the scene where he's "passing by' and 'runs into' Anna at the nightclub. And notice how Siodmak spends so much time cutting back and forth between Anna dancing and Steve staring at her? In addition to the cross-cutting, he also spends a great deal of time focusing on Esy Morales and His Rhumba Band than moving the story along.<br /><br />Up until the crisis of Act Two, the story plods along with Thompson having various uneasy encounters with Anna and then drowning his sorrows at his usual watering hole. At the midpoint of Act Two, he learns that Anna has run off and gotten married to Dundee. It's becoming more clear at this point that one of the film's central weaknesses is that Dundee is never on screen throughout most of the second act. There are no confrontations between Thompson and Dundee during this time and we're left with the rather unexciting machinations between the two lovebirds. As it turns out (and Anna 'explains' this later to Steve), the reason why she left was not only because he disappeared for eight months but she also felt pressure from Steve's mother as well direct threats from Martinez the cop who implied that he would see to it that she ended up in the Women's House of Detention. Anna goes back to Steve because she realizes she made a big mistake with Dundee—it turns out that he's been beating her and she's now scared of him.<br /><br />One of the silly refrains uttered by more than one character in Criss Cross is that you can never hijack an armored car. But everyone acts so surprised when Steve points out it can be done if it's an 'inside job'! You would have thought that Dundee would have known about Steve's 'profession' as an armored car driver and propositioned him beforehand. But of course Steve needs to make the proposal so that Dundee won't kill him after discovering his affair with Anna (if they're so afraid at getting caught, why do Steve and Anna meet at his apartment where Dundee can so easily find them?). I really got a kick out of Finchley (played by Alan Napier), the 'brains' of the operation. Dundee is so dumb that he has to hire this alcoholic ex-professor type who plots out the heist on a map. Oh there is the matter of procuring the ingredients to construct the gas bombs used during the robbery and of course Finchley is good at that too!<br /><br />The only really well done scene in the entire film is the armored car robbery. The editing was quite good as it depicted the rising action of a heist gone bad. As the gas bombs go off, the brutality of the gang is shown in high relief when Dundee murders the innocent Armored Car Guard.<br /><br />The climax of the film is as drawn out as the rest of the film. Why does it take so long for one of Dundee's goons to kidnap Thompson? There's that nurse, then the goon is waiting outside, then he comes in and pretends that he's a friend, Steve falls asleep and finally after he awakes, the goon kidnaps him.<br /><br />When Steve finally meets up with Anna at the house, we wonder how Anna got her hands on the cash. Did she somehow steal it from Dundee after the heist when he went out to dinner? It's never explained. Even worse, Anna suddenly becomes the evil femme fatale out of the blue. Before, her selfishness and attraction to Dundee can be explained by her perceived rejection at the hands of Steve and Martinez's threats. But after going back to Steve because she fears Dundee, she inexplicably turns on him when he is most vulnerable. Just as there is 'instant coffee', you have 'instant femme fatale'.<br /><br />In "Film Noir—An Encyclopedic Reference to the American Style" by Silver and Ward, the authors hail 'Criss by Cross' as "one of the most tragic and compelling of film noir". I beg to differ. In order to have tragedy you need characters that have great depth and in order to be compelling you need a story that's plausible. Criss Cross has neither. It's an overrated "B Movie" that somehow has found itself in the pantheon of art house noirs. Once again, the herd mentality has triumphed in evaluating the pictures of yesteryear.
This could have been a good movie if more things were explained. Way too many plot holes to find this enjoyable. The ending in particular is off left field. SPOILER ALERT: How did the kidnapper get back to Dundee so fast and Dundee shows up at the house in a matter of two minutes? Way out of wack here. How did Anna get hold of the money? No explanation at all. If the Pete the cop knew Lancaster was in danger, why didn't he have a cop at the door in the Hospital. This and many more questions remain. Too bad because the premise was there, just bad writing and execution.<br /><br />Good cast is wasted here. DeCarlo goes from bad to good to bad? Lancaster's character lacks development and Dureya is just blah as the "bad guy".<br /><br />This could re-made with a cohesive story line and better writing. Of course it would be much more violent with lots of gratuitous sex and everything. The editing would be jerky as well I guess, so let's leave well enough alone.
I agree with the user "SpecialAgentFoxMulder" that this episode is awful- posisbly thr worst of the entire show. Now I'm not keen on many episodes of the later series but this one takes the biscuit! It was unfunny and unoffensive. As for the ending, I'm sorry but it disgusted me more than any other episodes combined.<br /><br />I mean, the boys think they meant well but the ending was so upsetting- that they think the whale belongs on the moon and over the credits, we see it has died. Wht could have saved the episode was if the pranksters were able to confess for what they did.<br /><br />There seem to be no outgoing message. Okay, South Park may be guilty of preaching too much and its always nice to see an unpreachign one (such as Make Love Not Warcraft") but this episode was just wrong! Avoid at all costs! Helen xxxxx
Free Willzyx (Stupidest name/title ever) is the worst episode of ANY of the TV shows I watch, which includes X-Files, Alias, All 3 Law And Orders, All of the CSI's, Family Guy, Simpsons, Chappelle's Show, Colbert Report, and more. South Park was for very long my favorite of the comedy shows, because of it's shockingly obscene content and disturbing black comedy. Free Willzyk has NONE of the content I mentioned earlier. It was so tame, so unoffensive it might has well been an episode of Sesame Street. Kyle goes to Sea World where a few of the workers play a prank on him, making him think a whale is talking to him. He BEFRIENDS THE WHALE, actually BEFRIENDS IT. Hello? This is South Park! the same show that brought you "Cancelled", "Chickenlover", "It Hits The Fan", "Death Camp Of Tolerance", and so many more! Not SpongeBob SquarePants! Ugh. I actually watched the whole episode, which is 30 minutes of my life I will never get back. Anyhow, I was extremely disgusted with this episode and I can't believe the shocking decline in the quality of Matt & Trey's work.
I have watched this show for a while, only because of my cousins, and I HATE IT! First, the girls dress in the same style clothes, and they have the same first letter in their names. (Come on, I could to better than that!) Then the villains (spare me), first we have a monkey with part of his (little) brain showing, then we have a (gay) version of the devil, a pink hillbilly, a gang green gang (whit is ironic, that's their name) a spoiled princess (once again, ironic, that's 'her' name) among others. I have also found that there is no male hero in the show. (Not that I'm sexist or anything...) I'd rather watch Sailor Moon, it's much better than this. If someone else wants to watch the show in the room that you're in, find a way to break the television. Believe me, it'll save you a half hour of torture.<br /><br />Rating: I'm giving this just what it deserves, a 1 out of 10. Whatever you do, DO NOT WATCH THIS!
I always hated this retarded show .I liked the shows of Cartoon Network like "Dexter's laboratory " or "Megas XLR .But I never liked this piece of turd . Basically because it have stupid characters (the good or the villains all seems to be mentally retarded ) they have stupid voices (specially Bubbles .She is supposed to be the "cute " character of the show ,but she is incredibly annoying ) the story lines are very ,very stupid . Some episodes could have been interesting but almost always the show turns childish and corny . There wasn't any likable character ,the music was horrible ,and the animation is the worst that I've seen . Evena five year old boy could draw better ! I don't see why all the world seems to love this piece of garbage . "The Powerpuff Girls " seems to be one of the worst cartoons ever made . Fortunately "Foster Home for the imaginary friends " from the same creator was far away better .
When I first watched this show on Cartoon Network, I found it uninteresting. Then I read a lot of good messages about this show, and I decided to watch it. The show was so boring. Each episode was predictable. More, this show has no logic. Hypersmart girls, who are going to school and sometimes do such stupid things, 99% of episodes start with a Monster attacking Townswille, then Mayor (he is a real fool, he is NOT funny, he is so stupid, that I can't imagine how he became a Mayor). Professor, yes, supposed to be the smartest person in this show, but actually... He even found no difference between monster and his brother. Narrator's comments also make this show boring. Because they also have similar lines in the beginning of each episode and in the ending. Also the animation is very strange. Everything except main heroes is shown in an ugly way. Also in every epsode this show is giving you some life-lessons, and it means that it is oriented on little children, but if you look closer, you will see, that there is a lot of violence and even blood(!!!) during their battles.
Isn't it depressing how the most violent cartoon on Cartoon Network is aimed at girls? While I'm not watching soldiers getting shot and blown up on Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers, it would be nice if there was a cartoon or at least something on TV I could watch to satisfy my violent urges. And something that I would not get made fun of for watching. I did see some episodes (I should really be shot for this) and had to sit through the movie (now, where do I find a gun?), and it is quite clear that this lost its spark after the first few episodes. If you like seeing 500-foot monsters that can destroy huge cities in seconds getting slaughtered by toddlers about one foot tall, this is a must-see. But it does get very boring after a while, and with a show like this, even original ideas become chiefly dull. The movie just felt like one overlong episode (I can't remember any of it), and the villain should have been far more intimidating than a green monkey. This show is a laughing stock. It churns out the same basic premise episode after episode after episode, and though it may try to have some mystery and intrigue once in a while, the ending will always be the same - "The Powerpuff Girls save the day!" All is good and nice, but all is very, very repetitive... I give it 3 out of 10 for being the only danged cartoon on CN to revolve around violence, although it is aimed at girls, so I won't be tuning in for it ever. I've established myself as a fan of war and violence films and I won't have that reputation destroyed... 3/10
The story is shortly about the faith-lacking business man priest, Daniel Clemens (Christian Slater), who is looking closer on a case where another priest is suspected for murder. The priest denies he's guilty but at the same time he is not able to discuss the matter due to confidentiality. Enter Daniel Clemens who starts playing cop...<br /><br />While the plot isn't ridiculous, everything else is. Let's start with the visual side, the cinematography is dull, it looks more like a TV-series than a movie. The camera angles are boring, in fact, there's not a single memorable camera angle in the entire movie. There's no interesting closeups revealing details. And the scene transitions, well, there's not much to say about those, they aren't smooth at all, there seems to be no connection between the scenes than the actual plot. Okay, they did use a transition with music in between two scenes, but there are no interesting visual transitions in the entire movie, the times dissolve was used there was no visual connection between the scenes.<br /><br />The boring visual part could be forgiven if the film would offer anything else. Unfortunately the film only offers forced wooden acting and clumsy dialogue with no punch. On top of that the film suffers from audio problems, the sound volume is lowered several times in the movie as if the microphones would be too far.<br /><br />I didn't predict the solution of the film. It could be because the film never gave me the opportunity or it could be due to the presentation, which was so boring I never even tried to figure it out.<br /><br />Put two plus two together and it equals a B-movie where 'B' stands for boring.
Was the cast and crew on drugs before they started filming this? There was a hole in the plot...so big...nothing could have filled it up. From the first scene when the co-star is late for dinner, was there any doubt where he was and what he had just done? The suspense was over from there. Now, it was going to take another 85 minutes before the mystery was solved. I must confess that the biggest hole in the plot kept me awake for hours, wondering how dumb the screenwriter, the director, Chrisian Slater, Molly Parker, and Stephen Rea could be not to at least explain how our murderer, who was not a lawyer, or a policeman, could go into a locked cell at a jail, kill his second victim, and tie him up from a noose to make it look like suicide??? I kept wondering if I had fallen asleep out of sheer boredom and missed how that happened. If someone can explain it to me, please do...and then, why, for God's sake, did he kill the third victim? Nothing made sense...and yet, someone thought this film was worthy to be an official selection at a film festival. Perhaps it was a comedy and I failed to laugh.
Man alive, is this game bad or what? The graphics are way below par, even if it were on a playstation 1, never mind a Gamecube. The gameplay is pathetic and the camera movements disorientating. What a worthless game!<br /><br />I totally love Warner's Batman animation and it's cool that they do all the games in this way. Batman: Vengeance could well have turned out great as they got off to a good start by keeping all the Gothic visuals and voice actors but they seriously stumbled when it came to playability and graphics. The result is a boring game that looks incredibly cheap and is no fun to play whatsoever. I really must stress how bad the graphics are. Don't let the color schemes fool you. I've seen better stuff on a Commodore 64.
I am shocked by all the good reviews on the cover of this movie and on IMDb. It belongs in the $2 bin at your local video store. To say that this is a B movie is extremely generous.<br /><br />Besides lacking a single redeemable character, only slightly better than average acting, and an ugly 80's style picture quality, the script for this film is dull and lifeless. This film is not only boring--it is pathetic. (Admittedly, there is occasionally some mildly interesting chemistry between the two main characters.) Even the final plot twist--rather, the only plot twist--does not save this film.<br /><br />Rent "Diamond Men" if you must, but do not hesitate to turn it off once you become appraised of its worthlessness. 2 out of 10.
This film was shot in Randolph County in central North Carolina in 1968 when a film crew in the state was a rare thing. The locations were the municipalities of Liberty and Ramseur and the surrounding rural countryside. It is not a particularly good movie. It did have Merle Haggard and it brought life to the hinterlands for a few minutes.<br /><br />The plot is standard shootemup. The cinematography is that fuzzy stuff that came out of the late sixties and early seventies. The local folks were thrilled to be a part of the enterprise.<br /><br />If viewers have difficulty finding a copy of this film, a record copy is available in Asheboro, NC.<br /><br />Actors not credited include Ben Jones, Mimi Pravda, Tommy Hull, Bill Nunnery.
I was living in Barstow Ca. in 1968 when the movie The Killers Three arrived at the local theater. The trailer was enough to get me to pay my hard earned money to see this movie. I was really expecting a Bonnie And Clyde movie and I got Dick Clark playing a shy nerdy guy while Robert Walker and Diane Varsi played an poor attempt of reinacting Bonnie and Clyde. Needless to say it never went over well. Maybe this is why it never made it to video. Even as a kid I was left some what ripped off as I left the theater. After all the best parts where in the trailer of the movie. The movie was dull and pretty much pointless. By the way, Dick Clark gets killed so it wasn't a total let down.
I love the book. It's full of passion, romance, tension... and the movie drags along taking two spunky stars with it. Kylie Minogue was already a major star in Australia, having starred in Neighbours and releasing her first single. The decision to cast her in The Delinquents was surely a marketing ploy. For me, it didn't pay off.<br /><br />Kylie may have been great in Neighbours, but she was far too sweet and innocent to play the feisty Lola... and, she wasn't of Asian descent as Lola was. Charlie Schlatter was an excellent Brownie, but there was no chemistry between him and Kylie.<br /><br />By and large, the movie was boring. It dragged on, it lacked the passion of the book, it focused heavily on Kylie and in general, was completely disappointing.
What a dire film. I cannot believe that I actually sat down and watched it. A very, very, very, very, very, VERY pathetic effort, with no redeeming features whatsoever. Hateeeeeeedddd ittttt! The so-called "racing" sequences are laughably awful, and the plot was so bad, I've forgotten it. Part of the film was made at the Spa-Francorchamps course in Belgium in, I think, 1988, during the actual Grand Prix there. I was there and am glad I didn't appear in any of the paddock scenes shown in the film. It could have been good...what a pity.
Is it just me or the fact that the evil racing team is Japanese and that their arrogant star racer is German seem a little over the top? Maybe that is how it is on the international racing circuit but if all America had representing them are chumps like Cody and his mechanic Chris (Peter Berg, who must have been still learning how to act) then I would be rooting for another country. Formula movies can be good but the characters have to be likeable and no one meets that criteria in this movie. To put it succinctly - a very bad movie.
First, let me mention the fact that, in spite of its title («Stories», in plural), there is only ONE Kitchen Story. As to whether Isak died or not at the end, I'm not so sure since, in one of the very last scenes, HIS PIPE is seen lying on the table next to the two cups. On the DVD cover, there is a reference to Tati. It claims that the film is «très drôle: rappelle Tati !» («Very funny: reminiscent of Tati!». The great Jacques Tati relied mainly on mime and silent deadpan attitudes to achieve his comical effects and to offer his critically satiric views of his 1950’s French «modern» society. Of course «Kitchen» does take place during the 1950’s and it does offer some (rather faint) satirical references to the absurdities of bureaucracy and there are some long moments were no words are uttered -– but they are not really funny. Are all these small details enough to make «Kitchen» a «Tatiesque» movie ? This being said, I have to admit that «Kitchen» does deal with the sometimes false objectivity of scientific research versus the «truth» of human subjective emotions. Generally speaking, the movie was agonizingly slow, with nothing much happening -- with barely any «dramatic impulse» : the involving parts were the set up during the first 15 minutes or so, and during the last half hour or so. Indeed, the last segment was -- FINALLY !!! -- interesting and moving. It might seem that it was a short subject, of less than an hour, unduly stretched to some 90 minutes. Now, about the set-up (a «scientific» observation on the behavior of single males in their kitchen): at first it seemed very promising –- with the charting out of the comings and goings of bachelors in their kitchen as a means to determine what new inventions would be most useful to come up with. But very quickly this premise turned out to be just a prologue, an «excuse» to introduce the real subject which was only fully developed towards the end and which was about loneliness and the invaluable bond of friendship. Pity ! I honestly wanted to like that movie. Yes, it seemed so promising when I heard about some of its unusual little «anecdotes» -- which were indeed there and which I enjoyed -– such as the burning of a man’s nose hair (instead of using scissors to cut it off), the «investment» of having a huge quantity of «valuable» black pepper stacked away in a barn, the role reversals (the observant becoming the observed), a man’s mouth emitting sounds from a radio program. And there is also a sick horse becoming the catalyst of half-hidden human despair, the relative importance of right or left side car driving in Sweden and Norway (a reflection of the importance for each of these very close neighboring countries to affirm its individuality ?). Am I the sole person who did not fully enjoy that film ? Does this necessarily mean that I'm wrong ? Perhaps it’s almost generally praised «fine points» were, in fact, «too subtle» for me ? Perhaps... Could my individual views on this movie ironically reflect the very essence of the film itself -- which would be the vital necessity to have the right to differ, to affirm one’s individuality and not to follow blindly society’s trends and opinions ? Each one of us has the right to have different personal views and not to be a slave of the demands of one’s bread-winning «dictatorial» demands: often, we do have other alternatives that would allow each one of us to be useful to our society while respecting one’s inner principles. In short, being true to oneself -– the way that in that film Folke (Isak’s «scientific observer») ends up by giving up his job while preferring to stay in his new friend Isak’s house and help his out with the tasks of his farm ... And so, «Vive la différence», as the French say !
The film starts out great, with a mock instruction film about the habits of Swedish housewives. After that we get a detailed reconstruction of post-war Scandinavia with lots of amazing cars, electronic equipment and interior design; a minimal jazz score, nice cinematography and stylish titling. Also there's some funny Scandinivian rivalry like in Von Triers 'Riget'.<br /><br />Sadly, after the set up, "Kitchen stories" collapses like the Twin Towers on 9/11.Actors who try to portray the emotion 'jealousy" by just staring in front of them. Corny dialog filled with stale gay symbolism in the vain of: "I don't like white swans, I prefer bears and wolves... u ever tasted bear meat?" The music becomes cheesier than Yann Tiersen at his worst.<br /><br />It's a pity the director put all the effort in this great set-up, just to screw it up after-wards.
The fun that was present in the other 'movies' has all but disappeared with this third effort, which means the rubbishy production values show through more than ever. Another 2-parter ('The Chinese Web') cobbled together, this one suffers from too much padding, not to mention weak Spidey action taking place in such uninspired locations as a car park, apartment and printing press. Nicholas Hammond is as endearing as ever, struggling valiantly against the drab production and lame performances of the rest of the cast. The plot, in which Peter and Spidey help a Chinese official defeat charge of corruption during World War II by locating three marines who could testify as to his innocence, doesn't exactly scream 'comic book sprung to life', does it?
A man wonders if his hunky co-worker is gay. At a yard sale he finds a ray gun called "Gaydar". You point it at a person, pull the trigger and it tells you how gay they are. He tries it out, it works and he sets out to find out if his coworker is gay like him...<br /><br />Promising idea ruined by an unfunny script (after a promising beginning) and terrible acting. The entire cast overacts and basically SCREAM their lines at each other constantly. It gets annoying and really embarassing after a while. The saving grace is that's it is short, there's a scene stealing cat (love her fall out of the kitty bed) and Charles Nelson Reilly is hysterical in his brief bit. But none of this saves the movie. I can't recommend this at all.
This guy is a real piece of work. An angry, immature boy in a grown man's body, packing all the charisma of a rock, he goes around to places most people would only wish to visit and does his best to be as miserable as possible.<br /><br />Give this job to someone else who actually appreciates it.<br /><br />I could go down an endless list of all the stupid things this guy does in his "episodes," though I'll just highlight the worst: Crete. While the locals are putting up seaside picnics in his "honour," this clown has the gall to act like a petulant, spoiled child. He complains about everything, including the fashion sense of the people who live there. What an imbecile.<br /><br />When he went to Sweden, he spent at least five minutes feigning incredulity at a bunch of chefs (who probably had better things to do than talk with some dimwit American, like work) because they didn't think Abba was horrible. Everywhere he went, he brought up Abba. This is the kind of talk you'd hear from 13-year-olds who watch too much MTV.<br /><br />When he was in New Orleans, he got upset that a certain restaurant had better-tasting fries than his, so he "accidentally" spilled some wine on them in order to ruin them. What a strange, emotionally unstable person.<br /><br />The worst of it all are his clumsy voice-overs, where he attempts in vain to add some kind of perspective on a situation he was too thick and ignorant to appreciate. He tries to use all these "big" words in order to sound like an author, but he's really just a pretentious hack whose lack of awareness has convinced him he has something to say. That, by the way, is probably the one good thing about this joker's TV show. It goes to show you, no matter how inept you are, as long as you take yourself seriously enough, the world will as well.<br /><br />Then there's the way he speaks with local guides whose English is obviously only rudimentary. He'll use vocabulary any writer--as he believes himself to be--would instinctively know will most likely not be understood by these people. Does he care? No. Self-important schmucks like this Bourdain clown do not use language to communicate; they use it to make themselves look important.<br /><br />Mcg13jthm's review on this same page is a perfect example of the kind of mind Bourdain attracts--that of a low IQ social misfit. Observe how the reviewer attempts to justify Bourdain's sociopath nature with simple-minded, childish excuses that hardly make sense. "Bourdain may complain but he goes through 'a lot' and, not only that, he was 'forced' to do this show but is trying to redeem himself." A dolt attracts dolts, and reading Mcg13jthm's review should let you know perfectly well whether or not you are the kind of person who'd enjoy this utterly useless, pointless show.<br /><br />Finally, to add a bit of "fairness" to my diatribe, I admit Bourdain would have been momentarily amusing had I met him in a bar. But as a TV host of a travel show whose purpose is to show the viewer the beauty of other places and cultures, Bourdain is a miserable, abject, hopeless, grim and depressing failure.<br /><br />A failure.
Very simply, they are all the syndicated episodes and NOT the original uncut/unedited NBC episodes. It is NOT the complete first season, all eps are edited to conform to 21:00 for syndication meaning jokes are cut, an extra commercial fade is included, all of the Harvey Korman intros are not here...very poorly done! Shame on a series I've been waiting for....booooooooooooooooo! If you're a true die hard Mama fan, don't buy this and go to http://www2.warnerbros.com/web/main/help/whv/customer_service.jsp and send them comments on why we're unhappy on this butcher job to a classic sitcom!
well,there isnt much to say about this movie. its simply trash. very poor acting, poor script, and lame story.... well, the actress,(i odnt even know her name) who played mainrole,(not the blond one,but latina one) was acting fine,but the blond one who played the friend of main charactor,,,her acting level is just like highschool play,so as most of other actors in the movie. Also,zombies,,,,very bad acting as well. and,,the story itself has really no point at all. well, if you are really bored and really got nothing to do,but wanna kill time somehow, maybe you may wanna watch this movie,but eventho,there are still millions of better B movies than this crap. its total waste of money and time.
This movie is available as a special "bonus" feature on the double-disc of Horror 101 & Horror 102: Endgame. It has nothing to do with those movies, except it does show that producers/directors Dudelson and Clavell are in a rut. Like those other movies, this one features young people who go to a building where they get trapped inside, and run down the hallways a lot, while they get picked off one by one. In the end one or more characters are revealed to have another identity. This is by far the worst of the three.<br /><br />Here, people are invited to a Halloween-night only opening of the Museum of the Dead. The museum doesn't have very many exhibits, and they're all sort of ancient central-American related. There are also flesh-eating, infection-spreading zombies in the museum as well as an ancient cannibal warrior and two female warriors.<br /><br />The movie is very repetitious. It kills people off fairly quickly, to the point you wonder who they're going to have left to kill off - at which point some more people show up without explanation, so that they can be killed.<br /><br />Amazingly, one of the characters does have a cellphone, and is actually able to call the police, who actually take it seriously and show up at the museum. When one tries to pick the lock to get in, the other tells him that would be "forced entry." If you've got people trapped in a building who are injured, I think that's irrelevant. The cops are also stupid in that when they shoot a zombie in the head, it goes down, but then they shoot other zombies in the chest and they don't go down. They happen to shoot another zombie in the head, and it goes down. They continue to shoot the rest of the zombies in the chest. Stupid.<br /><br />The opening credits and a nightmare sequence are done in a sort of animation-effect over video, a poor-man's Waking Life sort of thing, but not so cartoonish. It is sort of interesting, however, parts of some of the attacks are done the same way, so there's no logic to it.<br /><br />Dreadful.
Plot: None. Script: A string of cliches. Acting: Not in evidence. Special effects: Title sequence kind of cool, but otherwise exceptionally poor. Fright factor: Crossing the road is scarier. Cult factor: Only the most desperate cult would latch onto this dog. Can't you say anything positive: I did. The titles were kind of cool.<br /><br />(Special bonus question ... your idea of hell: Being at a party with people who voted this flop a 7.)
A study in BAD. Bad direction, bad acting, bad writing and f/x that´ll teach you that you´d better upgrade your computer before filming. It´s the kind of flick you used to do totally drunk in your cellar with Dad´s camera when you were young at heart. But YOU certainly would not show it in public when you´re sober again, would you? YOU wouldn´t even view it. Avoid at all costs.
again such kind of zero-budget digital-video cam trash. and again I fell into this trap cuz the title had "zombie" in it (german title: ZOMBIE ATTACK!) the story: on halloween some people visit the "museum of the dead", it's a trap, a crazy doctor wants to kill the people, everything connected to some aztec-cult. so they fight against some zombies in there.<br /><br />ultra cheap scenery: some corridors with black tape on it. a few dilettantish drawings and a few skulls as you can find them in every fun-shop. no actors, just low-grade models waking around with absolutely no idea what to do. no effects. laughable make-up, your local hobby-make-up-zombie-fan will do it better, some time it looked as if they had not enough money for enough colour, otherwise they just could not do it like this, man, they have to realize the looks of their "zombies". some laughable martial-arts fights with the zombies, slow-motion. just, when the director wants to have it scary he uses some standard digital-video-cam effect where everything is flackering. unbelievable! 0 out of 10!
I tried to love this movie. I really did. Kevin Bacon plays a cerebral palsy victim who is befriended by a 10-year-old girl whose fantasies of digging to China, flying away in a balloon, and so on, are her way of coping with a dreary existence. I admit I did fast-forward through one of the scenes in which the two of them share friendship and simple pleasures while soulful piano music plays in the background. Okay, three or four of those type scenes. Maybe nine or ten. Okay, okay, it was fourteen. But I did sit and watch most of them.
I like Kevin Bacon and Cathy Moriarty, and I love Mary Stuart Masterson, but the movie wasn't good at all. There wasn't a likable character in the picture, and the plot was nearly non-existent.<br /><br />Ms. Masterson is a great actress, but she just didn't pull off the "tough girl" character. (She had similar problems with her character in THE SECOND DAY OF Christmas.) Perhaps she should avoid these characters, especially those with an obnoxious female child to play off of.<br /><br />Evan Rachel Wood was unimpressive. Her character was a brat, plain and simple, and no young actress could have given Harriet any positive feelings.<br /><br />In the interest of full disclosure, I couldn't even finish watching this picture. Forty-five minutes of my time is enough to waste.
Diane Keaton is a pathetic actress. She is so boring and phony. She is the same on and off screen. I saw her in an interview with Ellen Degeneres and she behaves exactly the same as she does in movies. Her foolish facial expressions make me want to change channels. She has been in a couple of good movies, but they would have been better had someone else been picked for the part. Steve Martin doesn't add much to the movie either. He over acts as well and also ruins an old favorite. The ridiculous part Martin Short plays only adds more idiocies to the movie. I've tried to watch the movie twice but both times had to turn it off.
This film makes about as much sense as an 'Ozzie & Harriet' or a 'Father Knows Best' episode. An old copy of Reader's Digest (circa 1962) would provide more insight into modern life, or the relationship between a father and a daughter, than this weird concoction.<br /><br />I was surprised with Diane Keaton. She appears to sleepwalk through the film. (Given the film's title, I realize that hers was a supporting role but even Martin Short managed a distinct, supporting character.)<br /><br />I can understand the attraction of an imaginary world created in a good romantic comedy. But this film is the prozac version of an imaginary world. I'm frightened to consider that anyone could enjoy it even as pure fantasy.
I saw this movie on video with a couple of friends as part of a teen comedy triple header, alongside Dorm Daze and Going Greek. Obviously we weren't going for quality, but for air-headed entertainment and gross-out gags. Generally we got what we came for, but Wild Roomies really stood out: For being awful.<br /><br />First impression first, the cover: The Norwegian release cover showed breasts covered up and a bunch of seemingly "crazy" roomies in the background; Brings up pictures of drunken semi-naked teenagers doing bunches of funny stuff stuff doesn't it?- The "crazy" roomies on the cover were not even featured in the picture. And the funny stuff you assume they'll be doing?- Absent as well.<br /><br />This movie was labeled comedy, which is a bit strange since it not even remotely funny. Relationship drama would be more accurate.<br /><br />Put shortly the movie is about a young couple inheriting a swanky house in LA, and are forced to get some roomies to make ends meet. These roommates eventually put both the young couple's patience and relationship to the test because they're so "wild". Problem is, they're not. And here lies the problem of this movie: The protagonist couple are so anal-retentive and neurotic that they manage to generate zero sympathy. You'll find yourself rooting for the antagonist roomies halfway through the movie. Add mediocre acting, lame dialogue and boring direction and you got yourself a movie that is best left unseen.<br /><br />See something else.
I had high hopes for this one after reading the back of the DVD, "In the spirit of American Pie and Animal House..." After suffering through this I realized I just blew $2.50 to rent it. This movie started out slow and just got slower... brief and fleeting moments of levity proved that it was in the spirit of American Pie if you mean "spirit" as a dead thing. not very entertaining or fun! Don't be fooled like i was and expect anything barely watchable because this movie will depress you more than entertain you. "Need to fill up three more lines for this stupid movie that doesn't deserve the effort... what a stupid piece of ignorant crud. This movie wreaked, even the brief nudity sucked!
Roomies is the story of a guy who loses everything except his incredible girlfriend and an idea for a corn dog that he plans to patent and sell. Immediately his uncle dies and leaves him a house and a car, and he gets some roommates in to help pay the rent and gets a job. Then his girlfriend gets drunk and cheats on him, so he goes and writes a book about roommates and becomes famous.<br /><br />88 minutes. None of these details of the plot are explored in any detail, what you read above is more or less as interesting as the film will be. When his uncle dies there are some breasts on screen, one of the potential roommates he interviews is pretty funny for about 40 seconds. The ending is literally the worst i've ever seen. I want the other 87 minutes of my life back!<br /><br />I hadn't thought anyone could make a movie with so little merit: Surely there are rules against this sort of thing getting to the public? The script can't be longer than twenty pages, and the budget must have been minuscule because the whole film has about 3 locations and a car. The only conceivable use for Roomies, in my opinion, is if you're holding someone hostage and want to frustrate them beyond human thought. If so, get it on repeat and you'll have a ready made gibbering wreck within the day.<br /><br />one-and-a-half out of 10
Oh boy.. This movie is so mediocre I don't really know what exactly to write about it. <br /><br />I think it's easier to write what it's not: <br /><br />It's not very entertaining. It's not original. And there's not one character in the whole movie I cared about.<br /><br />Kind of reminds me of a certain reality TV show on MTV, but without any interesting people. It just drags on and on and I could hardly wait for it to end. The only thing that kept me from switching it off was Jennifer Lyons (c:<br /><br />I thought a long time about this movie to find one good thing to say about it. What I liked was the reminder not to judge a person by the first impression you get (as Holly did when she accused Nicole) which earns it a score of 2 out of 10 instead of a 1.
This is a typical college comedy and its very average. The story is OK but not very entertaining. Its about a unlucky guy named Reno who looses his job, gets his car ripped off and then his uncle dies in a stripbar. His got a girlfriend though (a nice one btw. :-). Anyway this uncle gives him his mansion in LA and mercedes as heritage and soon Reno and his girlfriend moves to LA to this new house. The problem is that they would need some roommates in order to pay the high rent for this house and so the film unfolds... <br /><br />The movie starts OK and has a few funny jokes here and there, but the suddenly the movie takes a turn straight down to hell... The ending is BAD. Really BAD. It destroys everything about the movie. You will know what I'm talking about when you see the movie...<br /><br />2/10
A tedious mixture of puerile efforts at humour with romantic relationship melodrama fails to provide this weakly made film with any flavour of reality. As action opens, Reno (A.J. Buckley) enters his apartment, there discovering his girlfriend in flagrante delicto with his roommate, who gloatingly tells Reno "Well, at least it's with someone you know", resulting in Reno's decision to never have another roommate, this decision told to viewers by means of a soon abandoned voice-over. The storyline then proceeds ten months where we find that Reno is indeed true to his word concerning avoidance of roommates, although this appears to beg the question due to his garnering of a live-in lover, Holly (Holly Fields), with whom he has generated marital plans. The plot briefly shifts to a sleazy Hollywood strip club, wherein Reno's Uncle Charley, enamoured of a "dancer" whom he finds eminently desirable, keels over dead atop the club's bar after seeing the unadorned charms displayed by the object of his affections. It is apparent that Charley had been aware of the flawed condition of his heart, because he created a video tape during which his commentary bequeaths his large (and mortgaged) residence in Hollywood to Reno, and we see the latter deciding to, contrary to his vow, interview applicants for two roommates as tenants, with he and Holly sharing the selection process in an organized manner. Following an inane sequence involving bizarre renter candidates, all of whom Reno and Holly unsurprisingly find unsuitable for living along with them in their house they, unknown to each other, each select a renter of the opposite sex, with the lovers manifestly cool toward the choice of their partner. The newcomers (Chad and Nicole) would seem to have little discernible point to their existence other than highly aural fornication with a broad range of partners, and it is not long before jealousy mars the harmonic relationship of Reno and Holly. Reno is bent upon patenting and merchandising a type of sporting travel bag and, as he has given an engagement ring to Holly, the potential success of this entrepreneurial adventure is of great financial significance if he intends to advance his marital plan. Unfortunately, the rapacious team of Chad and Nicole, whose every action is ostensibly laced with lust, is likely to disrupt any future wedding intentions of Reno. Direction is slack, plainly far from fulfilling basic needs of the players, although an erratically composed script provides scant material with which actors may work, and ad libbing falls embarrassingly flat. As a result, the performances are undistinguished, not aided by spotty editing, while the manner of camera-work changes as abruptly and often as a firefly's tail light. Filmed with a low budget and on location, only a modicum of skill is required for the designing processes, but a larger measure of value might have been placed upon the tasteless D.J. background soundtrack, generally blaring and nearly always invasive. A good deal of discussion has been stimulated by the movie's final sequences that are apparently not expected by a viewer based upon what has come before, but in reality these comprise probably the only thoughtful portions of a poorly cobbled screenplay, and bids fair to make the work almost watchable, despite the shabby quality of the production as a whole.
University Professor Justin Thorne (Jimmy Smits) has got it made. A good-looking, sophisticated teacher, with a loving wife and two adorable children. He plays the saxophone, owns an expensive car and his students love and respect him. But when temptation calls, in the form of one of his bright, pretty, sexy and willing students, Jennifer Carter (Naomi Watts), he foolishly gives in. The next day, he is being charged with her rape, and his perfect life could be forever ruined.<br /><br />When we see an American actor in Australian film, we know we are not in for a masterpiece. But even viewed with low expectations, "Gross Misconduct" is a huge flop. Based on a play with a rather unimaginative title and then adapted into a reasonably enjoyable book, it fails to engage, convince or even remotely interest its audience on a most fundamental level. The script is awkward and unconvincing; the acting is, for most part, not much better. Watts gives an acceptable performance, demonstrating for one of the first times on screen her emotion rawness, but she is the only good thing about the film, which seems almost like even it can't wait to be over.<br /><br />The direction is not horrible or distracting in anyway, but it is just painfully mediocre. Apart from the afore-mentioned Naomi Watts, who could be forgiven, seeing as this was early in her career, the acting is wooden and gets steadily worse over the course of the movie. The usually reliable Jimmy Smits doesn't seem to have been trying in this one, and who could really blame him? All these small failures, however, only add to the film's ultimate fatal flaw, which is that the focus is entirely in the wrong place. Any empathy for the characters or interest in the outcome is lost in a sea of what is basically soft-core entertainment of an adult kind. By the end, audiences will probably be bored, tired and wishing they'd done something else with their ninety minutes. Unless you just want to see Naomi get naked 4 or 5 times, you could definitely afford to give this nonevent film a miss.
'Gross Misconduct' was one of a series of texts released in Australia during the early-to-mid 1990s that explored the supposed victimisation of the Privileged Heterosexual Male in the age of feminism. This creature only needs look at a Pretty Young Thing, and he's accused of sexual harassment, and his life is ruined. Damn those women's libbers! Grrr...<br /><br />As my tone might suggest, I don't buy any of this anti-feminist BS, and correspondingly didn't enjoy this film. 'GM' trivialises the issues of sexual harassment and teacher-student relations. Sexual harassment is here the product of a Confused Young Woman's imagination, and those professional boundaries that teachers are meant to maintain ... well, when the teacher is a charming and handsome family man (and played by Jimmy Smits!), well needn't worry about those.<br /><br />Sexist trash, and even by reviewing it, I'm giving it more time than it deserves.
The credits at the end read "ALL directed by Shigeru Izumiya". That's a fitting way to phrase it because it seems like filmed material from several projects were thrown together somehow, barely even attempting to make it all form one consistent work. It more felt like one of those music clip things that are marketed as feature films to cash in on those video commercials, just that here we have the marketable music and the live performances missing, except for one scene, which may as well be marketed as a weird music video clip in Japan. Whatever.<br /><br />It makes zero sense. Visually it isn't too special either, although it has its moments (for example the female creature with the "death powder" who is strapped onto a bed base and some morphing sh!t throughout) and it certainly has an industrial-y feeling to it. Usually I'd call the effects dilettantish but what this film offers in this regard is baffling more than anything else. You remember those cheap video effects from 70's and 80's music videos that make them look so dated, like a picture within a picture flying through the screen? There is quite a lot of these kind of effects in this, and without any apparent reason. The most half-assed seeming effort comes in the form of a picture collage. The pictures sort of look like album covers. Whatever.<br /><br />I don't know what's up with the subtitles of the version I saw. The Chinese ones (or whatever those hieroglyphics are) sometimes seem to show up when nothing is even said and the English ones often show up without the Chinese ones. The English subs talk much about life without death (is it possible?), and a mind without a body, which provides what comes closest to a comprehensible conflict between characters in this film. One guy (a scientist dude) says that life without flesh is death while another guy (a metamorphosing dude) who claims his mind is beyond his body now that he got the "death powder" blown into his face and that he now knows the secrets of the flesh and whatnot; metamorphosing dude is visibly p!ssed off about the scientist dude's claim. Whatever.<br /><br />Erm, The End - All Written By Perception de Ambiguity
Well I'd have to say that I do own this film and I only like the ending. The movie is boring and slow but the final fight is so funny. Lets just say that if the fake bird didn't attack the main evil guy this movie would be a 0 out of 10. The bird though makes it a 3. If you are truly bored or want something terrible to watch rent this and fast forward to the final battle.
This film was bad. I believe Elton (or is it Mike) Wong starred in it. Anyway it was the Wong that didn't have that goofy grin and looks meaner. He plays a man who is hit over the head and suffers brain damage. He recovers and gets revenge. Gordon Liu is the only one worth seeing in this film, but he doesn't get to do much. But what little he does seems to make the<br /><br />others pale in comparison. Also, the film has some cheesy rubber hawk that the Wong guy controls. This film is not worth renting or buying.
This was a movie that could have been great if there were not so many unnecessary historical inaccuracies and if the actors had been chosen or made up to look a little more like the real persons (not very difficult). Sissi did not go to Mayerling to see her dead son, she also did not die in the street; they carried her on to the boat and then back to the hotel, which was much more dramatic. I am not sure about the wedding night, but I find it exaggerated that a lady-in-waiting would undress the empress and leave her completely naked (and that in the 1850's) or that the emperor would announce very proudly "yes I finally laid her" to the assembled court. As far as I know this was done right away on the first night and nobody rewarded her as if she were a streetwalker. The saving grace of the movie is really Stephane Audran, excellent actress and true to character.
The figure of empress Elizabeth of Austria (1837-1898) is, indeed, mostly associated with Romy Schneider and the Sissi trilogy by Ernst Marischka (1950s) where beauty, gentleness, sweetness but also history are ever present. This was the Sissi, perhaps myth for some; however, a powerful portrayal. The spirit of the Habsburgs' grandeur as well as the spirit of the Bavarian simplicity and straightforwardness influenced much those films. Simply, they did have a soul. However, Jean Daniel Verhaeghe's film, though made 50 years later, appears to be a wrong depiction of the empress and her life. It seems to be an attempt to show something different, to reveal some realism as a cure to sweetness; yet, it does not occur to add a lot but rather deprives the whole story of much. Let me analyze that in more details.<br /><br />September 1898, Sissi embarks at the port of Geneva. Accompanied by her court maid, she goes to visit Dr Mayer (Didier Bezace) whom she is going to tell the whole life story in order to find herself in this tragic life. The action consists of flashbacks to important moments in Sissi's life, yet these moments are chaotically presented and, therefore, someone not very knowledgeable of Austrian history may get totally misled or confused. Much attention is drawn on Sissi's bad marriage with the emperor Franz Josef. The scene of her wedding night is a failure. No one treated an empress like that (I mean undressing and payment). The focus on Sissi being misunderstood is right historically, however, the points that her views differ from the rest of the courtiers' are not the true ones. Where is her desire for peace? Where is her love to her nation? Where is her charity? Sissi appears to be rather very elegant, modern, liberal (from the 21st century's point of view). She foremost cares for her looks which is not true historically. Sissi had an inner life which is not showed in the film. "Once women will wear trousers" is a sentence said by her and occurs to be the image of the Sissi presented in the movie. Sissi detests monarchy, which is the film's noticeable criticism towards Austrian empire. Moreover, she partly accepts anarchist movements and, to my very surprise, she blames her husband, emperor Franz Josef, for the death of Rudolph, their son. Where is any mention in history that Sissi was present in Mayerling? Sissi's relation with Sophie, the mother in law, is better shown, however the scene of Sophie's death seems barely authentic and the conversation a bit of cliché.<br /><br />Sorry to criticize so much but another crucial aspect of the movie which I find weak here are performances. Although Arielle Dombasle has her moments as Sissi, she generally does not suit to the role. She looks more like a "femme fa tale" than a tragic empress. Her make up is seriously inaccurate as well as most of her gestures as the empress. Malik Zidi is a bit better as Rudolph and may be regarded as the one raising the value of the performances, in general. Yet, Stephane Audran does no special job as Sophie: you simply don't get the impression of why she detests Sissi. She did despise her for the sake of Sissi's young age while crowned, for the sake of her behavior, lifestyle and her believes. Partly it appears in the movie but definitely that is not enough. But the greatest mistake is, I think, Julien Hans Capua as Andrassi. Andrassi was a count with pride, honor, patriotism...here, he appears to be a sort of libertine thinking only to make love to his queen. And the portrayal is so weak that this performance is very very pale. The accurate choice is Tatyana Ivanova as Catherine Schratt, she really fits to the role with her looks and her gestures. But, unfortunately, her role does not require much time on screen.<br /><br />A good point of this movie are some costumes and pretty authentic locations. The port of Geneva is well presented and the moment of Sissi's death occurs to be a good surprise from the movie. It does not appear to be how it really was; however, the moment is good from the symbolical perspective...the empress walks and knows nothing that this is her final moment. That is how she must have felt about it, that is how one insane man destroyed a part of greatness of the world. Another good moment visually was when Sissi talks to her son Rudolph on Corfu. But these moments are rare.<br /><br />In sum, it's not a good film. It distorts a very eminent historical figure, a significant historical time, it tries to cure the sweetness of Sissi trilogy but appears to offer nothing creative. Charm is gone, grandeur is gone and history is ignored! Not very worth seeking out! 3/10
In reality that happened: the royal mother in law and father in law lunched with the couple the day after the wedding and gave her the money in public. This troubled young Elisabeth so much that she never forgot the issue. We must remember she was only 16. She was so embarrassed that she kept a fear for sex all her life. Perhaps this began to appear as a trauma. Also the constant meddling of her aunt and mother in law. As you say, she kept all her children away from her, critiqued her teeth and manners (which she considered inappropriate for an empress), and when Sissi finally went to Venice with her husband and children, her eldest daughter died, and the mother in law blamed her for that unfortunate and premature death. She never recovered.
Truly a great leap forward in the perfection of painful cinema.<br /><br />Everything about this film is bad. Acting (if it can be called that), lighting, sound, script (if there was one), editing, direction, camera work, it is all atrocious. There is not a single element that is done well. If I thought that this was intentional then I might give the film some credit but I can not believe people would set out to make such a horendous film.<br /><br />This film is worth buying and screening to your worst enemies.
It was (foolishly) with some degree of relish that I sat down to watch what a friend had promised would be the worst/best movie experience of my life, the mighty 'Roller blade 7'. 2 years on and I'm still in therapy. Oh yes my dear friends it REALLY IS THAT BAD. They obviously got about 40 minutes of footage in the can and then decided to use said footage endlessly and repeatedly to brain-numbing effect. My only fear of the kind of post-apocalyptic world featured in this turkey is that somehow, some way, a print of this abomination would survive. Truly the living would envy the dead.
okay, let's cut to the chase - there's no way i can give this anything other then 1 out of 10; and yet you have to see it! The acting is bad, but is nothing like as bad as the script, which itself pales before the production values. Cardboard axes? yup, we've got then. Car floor mats painted silver and used as armour? here it is!<br /><br />The film itself pretends to be artistic, but is just cheap; the same shots are used repeatedly - especially in the drawn out fight scenes; there is (thankfully!) very little dialogue, and there is much 'artistic' music to ram home the horror!<br /><br />And yet all this awfulness is compelling - you have to watch it through just so that you can say you've seen it. I've not even got onto the barren sets, the 'plot', or the risible special effects; this really is the 'how not to do it' school of filmmaking. This must be viewed - spread the word, and let the world all join together in puzzling over what on earth is happening at the end<br /><br />The best thing, though, is that they made a sequel.
This has to be the greatest practical joke ever. I'm amazed that all the other actors kept a straight face. I might be wrong but the impression I get from this movie was that they duped Frank Stallone and Joe Estevez into acting in this movie that has a budget of just under $40, depending on how much those nerf bats and spray painted catcher's equipment cost, create the most incoherent movie ever created, and sit back and laugh at the fact that Joe Estevez and Frank Stallone weren't in on the joke. <br /><br />If by some chance they weren't kidding and they legitimately tried to make a real movie then I feel sorry for everyone involved in the creation. I've had quite a love affair with cheesy movies, but this movie is so bad I can hardly watch it. They repeat pointless "special effects" so many times that it's obvious they were just trying to cover up the fact that they only shot 30 minutes of footage. If I were forced to watch this movie on repeat I would bludgeon myself unconscious with my own hands after about one and a half times through. No offense to the great Frank Stallone, but I would rather watch Sylvester teach a fingerpainting class for 10 hours than watch that movie ever again.
For many years Ed Wood's Classic 'Plan 9' has been considered the worst film ever made. Forget it The Roller Blade Seven is infinitely worse. The cast is made up of famous peoples brothers and almost famous or has been actors and actresses. The plot along with the budget and script are non-existent. The running time is made up not in the classic Ed Wood style of using stock footage. Instead there is endless slow motion and repeated action. And as for The Roller Blade Seven aren't even seven of them!<br /><br />You must see this film just to know how bad film making can really be. Giving independent film makers everywhere hope.
I bought this movie from a market stall three years ago.. I gotta hand it to you when I sat down and watched it.. I thought 'OK! This is gonna be another big action B-movie..' Obviously I was wrong.. While watching this film.. I began to realise that this movie was taking me to another planet.. full of cr*p!<br /><br />I began to get really bored and fed up with this film.. Although I wanted to see was gonna happen in the end.. I really felt like it was really getting on my nerves..<br /><br />The people behind the film may've brought some well known name actors into this project.. But what were they thinking..? Even these actors couldn't save this film..<br /><br />At the end of the film.. I felt like this was a waste of money.. just buying this low life sucker of film for a small amount of money. A few months later, I sent the tape off to charity.. I didn't want to see it again..<br /><br />Sorry! But if you're thinking of watching a movie and then nodding off to sleep.. I can highly recommend it you.. Me? I'll rather go on Pro-Plus and watch something decent..!<br /><br />Disappointing 1 out of 10!
I knew that I was not about to see a quality film when this title was included in a 'B-grade video night' at a friends place. Despite the warnings, I was still surprised at just how bad this film was. It was fortunate that there were a lot of us there to share the pain with each other... The film attempts to tell the story of a dark future, one in which Hawk (a Mad Max type of character) heads off to rescue a damsel in distress. In reality, the plot is a thinly disguised excuse for the producers to promote their own philosophies on life (watch the end credits and the 'these people are not real' disclaimer at the end for a real laugh). The movie is frequently lacking direction, and fails to develop its characters to any degree whatsoever. What's even worse though is the editing of this film. The film repeats scenes (often 10 to 20 seconds long) up to 4 or 5 times in a row. I think that this was an attempt to emulate things like Jean Claude Van-Damme fight sequences, but if it is it fails utterly. The film would probably be about 1/3 of its length if we weren't forced to watch the main character move his head in front of the setting sun half a dozen times (yes, that's all that happens in that repeated scene). I give this movie my 'worst film I've ever seen' award. I doubt that it will be topped any time soon.
A post-apocalyptic warrior goes off to save some kind of Nun and on the way meets some cyber-punks on skates who want to kick his ass. This is one of the hardest to watch films ever, There are scenes with silence that seems to last hours before somebody comes out with the next badly written, badly acted line. There are action sequences that keep repeating - and we're not talking the quickfire 1-2-3 action repeat on a particularly good kick that was made popular by eastern directors, we're talking many, many repeats of long, bad fight sequences. This is incredibly confusing at first but then quickly becomes annoying as you're watching a 30 second sequence for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th time. Any kind of plot or vision is lost within the confusing continuity, the only thing thats keeps this film in the videoplayer (apart from the bet from a friend that i couldn't watch it all the way through without begging for it to be turned off and disposed off safely so it may harm no-one else) is the fact that although painful, this film is unintentionally hilarious, i'm not at all a fan of those "so bad that it's funny" type of films but at parts i was in tears. Other points to note are the quality of the sound and picture but this is forgiveable as it's obvious money was a major problem in the making of this film. Final verdict - King of the "so bad they're funny" genre, anybody having that kind of genre video night should get themselves a copy. Also lets not forget that it is actually the worst film i've ever seen.
My house mate and I foolishly purchased the video of 'The Roller Blade Seven' from our local second hand video shop in the hope of finding a bad film to laugh at. This film isn't even laughable, it's pathetically poor, worse even than Jack Frost 2-and that's saying something. The script, acting, production, stunts, sound, sets, everything is absolutely terrible. In some parts the actors haven't even learned their lines and are blatantly ad-libbing or in one case actually having the lines read to them off set and simply repeating them. Set in the post apocalyptic 'Wheel Zone',The film obviously consists of about 45 minutes of film, many parts of which are edited badly or repeated ad nauseum from various different camera angles to make the film longer. This gets tedious very quickly. The plot makes no sense whatsoever (It is apparently an amalgam of two books written by Scott Shaw), there aren't even seven of them, most of them aren't on blades, they're wearing roller boots, and it seems to me that mostly the film has been completely sold on the fact that there's about 3 minutes of female semi-nudity in it. The writer and star Scott Shaw obviously fancies himself somewhat of a Samurai and throughout the film performs some very poor stunts and made up sword fighting moves that look massively amateurish. Despite all this, his website states that the film should never be compared to a traditional film because it really pushes the boundaries of modern film making. My house mate and I were left speechless by the whole ordeal, and despite my frequent attempts to burn the videotape, she has decided it may be some kind of Ring-esquire video curse that needs to be passed on. If you see the video in stores, take it from me! Leave well alone!
This film is, far and wide and beyond any shadow of a doubt, the single worst and most contemptible film in the history of the universe.<br /><br />It really *is* that bad.<br /><br />Personally I have always enjoyed the guilty pleasure of a terrible film, and rented this one thinking it would be one of those. To my immense disappointment, it was not.<br /><br />The script is delivered in a way that sounds as if they're reading the lines directly off placards, the story makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and the actual film looks like it was shot on a home video camera. I couldn't even finish watching it. It is even worse than "Witch Academy", and that's quite a feat in itself.<br /><br />I cannot even begin to fathom how a director could shoot this film, and then still have the sense to believe it was decent enough to release.<br /><br />Painful, awful, horrendous.
Looking for a movie for your Turkey Film Festival? THE ROLLER BLADE SEVEN is on my list of the ten worst films of all-time. The plot, the story of a post-Apocalyptic roller blading samurai warrior, is a convoluted hodge-podge of film references of everything from STAR WARS to THE SEVEN SAMAURI. The acting fluctuates from bland to abysmal. The scene where the villain tempts the old master is embarrassing to the point of jeering laughter. Frank Stalone's Black Knight reminds one too much of John Cleese's Black Knight in MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL. (Word of Advice, Frank: When you stoop to doing a movie like this one, your career is over.) I chanced upon this little stink-bomb on a low-end cable channel and I could not stop watching. It is like watching a train wreck, you just can't look away.
I watched this film with a group of Nazis, a French Archaeologist and my ex-girlfriend on a small island in the Mediterranian.<br /><br />When the tape was started, myself and my girlfriend were tied to a wooden stake at the far end of this cave like area. I told her to close her eyes and no matter what happened not to open them. The Nazi's and the archaeologist didn't close their eyes and after a few seconds started screaming. The Nazi's faces melted and the archaeologist's head exploded.<br /><br />After a few seconds the video tape popped out of the VCR and landed back in it's box and the top snapped shut. Myself and my girlfriend were left unharmed.<br /><br />Consequent to this experience, the video cassette was put in a wooden crate and stored in a huge warehouse of identical wooden crates, never to be see again.
Possibly the worst film within the genre in existence. It was announced as a comedy, but is simply tragically pathetic. I don't think anyone could have achieved anything more terrible and irritating if they were specifically requested to. It is toilet humour at its very poorest, I would avoid even watching the trailer. I only went to see it because it was announced that if you like Monty Python, you are bound to love this. Whoever wrote that was either biased or seriously deranged. I am still bewildered how one can honestly believe such a statement. Rarely do I leave the cinema, really it takes a lot of effort for a film to have that effect on me: this one did it in just 30 minutes.
I had seen Rik Mayall in Blackadder and the New Statesman, so I thought I'd give this film a try.<br /><br />At around 4 pm I bought it, at around 8pm I started to watch, at around 8.15pm I fast forwarded the remaining film to see if there was anything left watchable for a human being with a brain... but there wasn't. At around 8.45pm I threw the DVD into the dustbin. And that's where this "film" belongs.<br /><br />What ever happened to British humour? The humour so fine and witty, intelligent and artful that you find in Yes, Minister, Blackadder, Vicar of Dibley, Fawlty Towers or The Fast Show? The black humour Britain is so famous for? I don't want to insult anybody, but I presume even stupid children wouldn't find this funny. They deserve more intelligent fun. And Rik Mayall, you can do better, so please, do!
Being a HUGE fan of the bottom series i was really looking forward to the release of this film.I was eagerly anticipating a laugh a minute roller-coaster ride......alas.<br /><br />Where to start on this mess?i think its a good start to say that its hardly richie and eddie on our screens in the first place as none of the jokes and one liners they usually deliver so well are funny.I was still waiting for the first laugh after a good 20 minutes of viewing.Many aspects of the story were pathetic and it was as if the film was full of those bad moments they rehearsed and decided to leave out of the final cut.<br /><br />The overall sets and atmosphere surrounding the film is dark and dingy which i suppose is good if they want to portray the 'terrible' guest house the 2 buffoons attempt to run,but to me its just puts an even higher dampener on a sorry state of filming that should never have been created.<br /><br />The acting,at times,is pathetic.Fenella Fielding is wasted as the loony Mrs Foxfur and i've seen Simon Pegg have much better outings.<br /><br />I'd recommend Guest House Paradiso to anybody who is blind drunk because they might appreciate the terrible puns much more.But to any bottom fan who hasn't seen this film and is expecting true richie and eddie action you have been warned
The premise of Bottom crossed with Fawlty Towers sounds great! However, Ade Edmonson & Rik Mayall have managed to create a film that raises barely a titter. Ten years ago, Rik Mayall's mad stare and Ade's idiocy were funny, now they are just annoying.<br /><br />The film had promise - though the most horrendous hotel in Britain is not a new idea - but failed to deliver. The saving graces were competent performances from Simon (Spaced, Big Train) Pegg and Helene Mathieu, and the film is only 90 minutes long. Sorry, guys, but you really have hit the Bottom
I have always been a fan of Bottom, grabbing as many videos as I could find of the series here in the states. The chemistry between Rik and Ade is always genius, and the combination of smart writing and utterly stupid humor seems to work without fail. I thus sat down to watch this movie with great eagerness... and was utterly disappointed by the end.<br /><br />The first 3/4 of the movie can best be described as uninspired and poorly directed (sorry, Ade!), but with some utterly brilliant moments. Unfortunately, these laugh-out-loud moments make you realize how less-than-brilliant the rest of the movie is. The slapstick starts off funny but eventually becomes a bit boring, with only the perverted sex jokes to keep things humorous.<br /><br />The end of the movie (the 'green' scenes, for those of you who've seen it) was... perhaps the worst ending I've seen in the past decade. Honestly. It was one joke repeated about thirty times, followed by an abrupt ending that made no sense (which didn't bother me) and wasn't funny (which did).<br /><br />To sum up, I was sorely disappointed by this movie. I shall cling to the few brilliant moments in it, to retain the fondest memories that I can... but I have to warn you, if you're about to overpay for your NTSC conversion tape from the local importer, don't. There are far better things to spend your money on.
Wow, this film was terrible. It is as simple as that. It is actually the first time that I walked out early, as far as I can remember. This turned out okay, though: I had a very nice chat with two most charming girls while we all waited for the rest to finally give up on that crap they called a "movie".<br /><br />Where to start. Bad acting, bad jokes. Faecal humour, which I simply cannot stand. Sorry, but snot, pee and scat are *not* funny. You have seen the title picture? That scene actually drags on for about 5 minutes, with the two "heroes" hitting and mutilating each other, which is supposed to be humorous all by itself. It is not.<br /><br />Apart from body fluids, violence and cross-dressing, I do not remember much about this. At least not much good. I was really, really disappointed by this piece of garbage. Or let us be honest here: given that I am actually a big fan of "british" (i.e., black) humour, I was angry.<br /><br />So, want my advice? Three words: do not watch.
The unthinkable has happened. Having first witnessed it a few years ago, I have had a film that has been my benchmark for awfulness and that film was called "McCinsey's Island". A family adventure movie with Hulk Hogan and Grace Jones (I'm not making this up), it plunged to new depths of movie making and is still the only film I've seen that made me wonder what else the film's budget could have been spent on. Like new schools or cancer-treating drugs. However, for sheer and unadulterated levels of crap, any film will be having to lower their standards even lower if they wish to trump "Guest House Paradiso" to the distinction of being one of the very worst movies I've ever had to watch.<br /><br />Based loosely around the puerile but amusing TV show "Bottom", this film introduces us to two of the biggest losers imaginable. Richard (Rik Mayall) is a hotel manager, as unfriendly as anyone you can imagine and so twistedly lecherous as to almost ooze slime from every action. His buddy Eddie (director Adrian Edmondson) is an alcoholic waste of human life and together, they try to run Britain's worst hotel situated upon a cliff-top next to a nuclear power station. Between them, they indulge in cartoony violence (with sound effects) at regular intervals, steal anything remotely valuable or interesting from the fools who stay there and stare longingly at any woman at all. The plot, such as it is, involves the arrival of fabled Italian screen goddess Gina Carbonara (Vincent Cassel) who is fleeing from her wedding and attempts to lay low at the Guest House Paradiso, much to the astonishment of Richie and Eddie. And... that's it.<br /><br />I used to think that the Carry On films represented everything bad about the UK film industry and God knows, we've spent so much time and money trying to escape that god awful legacy. We've had films like "Trainspotting", "28 Days Later", "Four Weddings And A Funeral" and the brilliant "Shaun Of The Dead" (also starring Simon Pegg) but this... this drags those films screaming and kicking back to the days of Sid James and Barbara Windsor's top flying off with the aid of a bicycle whistle. "Guest House Paradiso" is so low in its ambition that it insults you the minute you watch it. I kept watching, waiting in anticipation for the jokes to start but they never came. Just an endless stream of trapped knob gags, unimaginative scenarios that defy explanation, slightly amusing violence with frying pans and fridge doors and almost nothing raising so much as a smirk. Come the first ad break (it was on TV, you see) and I was ready to switch off but my loyal duties to you, my readers, kept me going. "I'm watching this so they don't have to" became my mantra so you guys better remember how much you owe me for this because this was about as much fun as having sand kicking into my eyes and being force-fed dog food.<br /><br />Trust me, I used to love the "Bottom" TV show. The combination of suitably grubby acting from Mayall and Edmondson with OTT juvenile humour worked... for half an hour every week. Certainly not for an hour and a half, as Edmondson and Mayall indulge themselves in their little private joke and bore and depress the rest of the audience. Honestly, this makes Mayall's "Drop Dead Fred" seem like "The Godfather" and should you happen to meet either of these two people (who are pretty much solely responsible for the chaos on screen pretending to be a movie), feel free to swiftly deliver a boot to their testicle region. They'd probably enjoy it. Pegg and Bill Nighy (both as guests at the hotel) are dragged down with this sinking ship but at least they survived. Mayall and Edmondson should not be so lucky. The movie equivalent of Chernobyl and should be avoided as such.
Yep, this has got to be one of the lamest movies I've ever seen. It's utterly tasteless, has no style whatsoever, the story is so thin that you can watch television through it, and the whole film has so many holes you could drive an oil tanker through it.<br /><br />Sure, I appreciate a good B-movie as much as most male white homo sapiens do. But this has got to be the worst I've seen. In fact it's so B that it lacks everything that makes a B-movie interesting.<br /><br />The whole movie is based around such charming artefacts as the characters beating the crap out of each other, various bodily functions and the complete lack of sanity of anything on-screen.<br /><br />It's not even funny. In fact it's quite the opposite. I found it even boring at times due to it's extreme predictability.<br /><br />I find nothing good to say about this movie. It was a waste of time watching it, and I hope others don't do the same mistake. If you also pay for it you should get a serious brainscan done.
This should have been a short film, nothing more. The Length of 1,5 hours is much too long, because after 10 minutes you have seen almost every joke. It's getting more and more on your nerves untill you finally kick out your brain to endure that movie.<br /><br />To do yourself a favor, don't mention to see that movie...
Apart from the fact that this film was made ( I suppose it seemed a good idea at the time considering BOTTOM was so popular ) the one thing that puzzled me about GUEST HOUSE PARADISO was what happened to the lighting ? There is absolutely no artificial lighting used in this film whatsoever , and I watched it on network TV so it wasn`t a case of watching a dodgy tape. In fact the film was shot so darkly it was impossible to see what the hell was going on . But if the dialogue was anything to go by that`s maybe not a bad thing
Herman has made northern drama his own with Little Voice and Brassed Off, but the formula falters in this ropey, flat and contrived tale of two teenage delinquents trying to get season tickets to see Newcastle.<br /><br />Truancy, underage smoking and drinking, underage sex, teenage abortion, school bullying, drug abuse, substance abuse, depression, child violence, child sex abuse, shoplifting, housebreaking, auto theft, violent assault and armed robbery all put in an appearance here. None of these issues are explored, they merely serve to move the story along from one implausible situation to another. The film is not as acutely observed as Trainspotting, as poignant as The Full Monty, or as reflective of the times as Wonderland (from which it shamelessly steals music in an overly-manipulative manner). I suspect none of the filmmakers are from Newcastle, and have certainly never experienced the social problems the film references. I am all for entertainment, and Herman's track record shows he is aware of the need to balance the social message with laughs and tears. Quite simply, he comes up incredibly short here.<br /><br />The film has a nice ending, but there are far too many flat, banal moments to sit through to get there. Nicely shot, not very well acted, and ultimately fails on three crucial points: script, script, script.
The film is set in Newcastle on Tyne in north east England, the town where I was born and grew up. The film is also fundamentally dishonest - the way it presents the town, the kids, but above all the men of the town. In this film they are all stupid, violent, thieving, thugs.<br /><br />I suppose I could comment on the plot (predictable), the performances (competently unattractive), the direction (lazy and unimaginative), but to me that is all irrelevant compared to the director's insult to the town and its people.<br /><br />Thus the invitation in my summary to the director and writer, Mark Herman, to leave the north east.
Contrary to most of the comments in this section, I have to say this film just barely escapes the definition 'rubbish!'. The only readers who seem to be aware of what a catalogue of clichés it is are those who, like me, live in the north-east and know at first hand what the area is like. I am totally sick of films that are supposed to be 'realistic', yet portray the working class (of wherever) as stupid, criminal low-lifes, but then excuse them because of their social background. And funny? I smiled briefly twice and laughed once, but that was at the incongruity of two boy actors with Sunderland accents supposedly trying to hide their Newcastle accents from Sunderland football fans! There was only one likable character in the whole film, and that was the senile grandfather played quietly but very competently by Roy Hudd -- the only non-Geordie in the cast.<br /><br />As for the writing -- well, I just wonder what university sociology department the author studied at. He certainly had no ear for the local accent. And I too have never heard the expression 'Purely Belter' -- and not only am I a native, I'm a linguist who's written articles on the local dialect.<br /><br />Don't waste your time and eyesight on this garbage. It isn't funny, it isn't realistic, it isn't entertaining, and it is fundamentally dishonest.
After seeing PURELY BELTER I came onto this site to review it , but not only that I also had to check out the resume of the screenwriter / director Mark Herman . As soon as his name appeared on the opening credits I knew that I had seen his name before somewhere and after checking I found out he wrote and directed the film version of LITTLE VOICE one of the most underrated feelgood British movies of the 1990s <br /><br />PURELY BELTER is an entirely different kettle of fish . It's a grim stereotypical view of Geordie life and a very unfunny one at that . Everyone is either a wife beater , a single mother , a shoplifter , a drunk or a junkie . Since many scenes are set in a school the PE teacher is a sadistic bully and that's the closest the film ever gets to reality . Oh and everyone is very foul mouthed which adds to the grim unlikable atmosphere<br /><br />I didn't like PURELY BELTER much while I watched and now that I know who Mark Herman is I like it even less . With LITTLE VOICE Herman proved you can make an amusing uplifting comedy featuring northern souls but I had to ask where his undoubted talent went in this movie ?
Two teenagers in the north-east of England are desperate to raise money and buy season tickets for their favourite football team. They go through a series of "comic misadventures" but come up smiling in the end.<br /><br />The trailer for this film sells it as a comedy and includes most of its light-hearted moments. However, the tone is increasingly grim and the end result is a depressing story peopled with familiar stereotypes. The two "heroes" have no problems with lying, cheating and stealing. Their adversaries are a callous teacher, a pantomime villain of a father, a psychotic skinhead and a well-meaning but incompetent social worker. The other female characters are a drug addicted teenager, a pregnant schoolgirl and a battered wife who seems to be smoking herself to death. There are no likable characters, and the audience can only feel either pity or contempt. Local actors Tim Healy and Kevin Whateley both play against type as baddies, but the writing and direction of their characters are so one-dimensional that they have no more than novelty value.<br /><br />Chris Beattie and Greg McLane give good performances in the two young leads. However, they are miscast, because they have the wrong accent. To anyone from the north east, it is obvious that they both come from the Sunderland/Durham area, and yet we are expected to believe they are natives of Newcastle. As a Geordie myself I can assure you that the accents are by no means the same. Take the phrase "Let the poor lad speak". We say "Let the pooa lad speek" while they say "piwer lad spiyk", with two distinctly different vowel sounds. This discrepancy creates a ridiculous double irony in a scene in Sunderland football ground, where the two lads are trying to disguise the Newcastle accents they don't have, and *pretend* that they come from Sunderland - which they clearly do. In a gentle comedy this kind of criticism might be seen as nit-picking. However, the film's bleak tone makes it clear that writer/director Mark Herman is aiming for gritty realism: that means "near enough" is actually way off.<br /><br />I had hoped for humour and optimism from this film, and instead found tired old clichés. Tyneside is not a grey wasteland populated solely by losers, and in telling us it is, Herman should have known he would cause offence. It's interesting to compare the film with the same director's "Little Voice" - also largely downbeat and populated by one-dimensional characters, "Little Voice" at least has a talented heroine and doesn't wallow in misery to the same extent. I've heard "Belter" ranked alongside this year's "Billy Elliot", but that film is a vastly more enjoyable and life-affirming experience.<br /><br />Incidentally, I may be just too old, but having lived on Tyneside for 42 years, I have never heard anyone outside this film use the expression "Purely Belter".
I think we are supposed to think what wonderful salt-of-the-earth characters. Unfortunately, this is lame and laboured.<br /><br />As always with any production set in Newcastle, there are numerous shots of the Tyne Bridge and frequent attempts to show what great 'characters' Geordies are. The viewer is never allowed to forget where the film is set, as though the rest of the world cared about Newcastle and its inhabitants.<br /><br />If you like well observed, literate and original work stay well clear.
Very strange. But meant to be. This director is his own man. Even through there are strains if Polanski, Bergman, and Kafka at least in the episode no 6, the peeping tom one. What made it all so strange, and reminiscent of the above three artists, was that it went all over the place, you never knew where it was headed, and could have ended anyplace, and finally when it did end, could have kept going. The ending is hardly a finality, nobody could tell you what these two characters would be doing in even the next frame. One other thing should be said about the director: No wonder Kubrick found him fascinating. There is a lot of Eyes Wide Shut in this episode somehow, in the direct approach to character, the realistic fantasy elements of both. A Kubrick placement of the camera without any of the stark effects, much more washed out, and hurried, not as fussed over. That said, back to the beginning, still this guy has his own things to say and says them well. Yet, for some reason, there is not a single scene I ever want to see again. But definitely did not feel ripped off in the least watching it one time around. But I did keep getting the feeling of three or four other directors ghosts moving through the parade, blurring everything. The caveat being that it was only episode six: the other nine might give me entirely different takes. But since this episode revolved around peeping, looking, the absolute domain of film, I will say this, he took none of the usual routes, definitely went his own way while carrying the baggage of a lot of good directors behind him.
Think of an extremely low-rent version of "Heathers," and you've got "Pep Squad." That sums up the flick in a nutshell. I must give credit where credit's due, though. The film has a nice visual appeal to it. I liked the cinematography, I liked the wild color schemes, I liked the costume designs. But without good acting, a film has no redeeming value. I'd rather watch a film with little visual appeal, with good actors and sharp dialogue (i.e.: "The Brothers McMullen" or any Edward Burns film). The actors either recite their dialogue in monotones or scream it out like they're in a bad soap opera. This is why I don't badmouth most mainstream actors. Let's face it, most actors who are mainstream are mainstream for a reason. If they're not "great" actors, they're at least competent. People badmouth Leo DiCaprio, but when was the last time you saw a movie where he recites the dialogue as if he's reading it off the page? It's a shame, because the director seems like he knows his stuff when it comes to mis en scene (sp). At the same time I can't totally praise Steve Balderson (the director). He did write the screenplay, which contains some horrible dialogue. He might be slightly racist too, since there's a black principal in the movie, who inhabits a culmination of African-American stereotypes.
With Pep Squad receiving an average of 4.7 on IMDb.com, no wonder Steve Balderson slanders this website so. But the fact is that Pep Squad is a poorly crafted "black" "comedy" (both words in quotation marks for a reason). It's a movie full of over-acting (Cherry, Beth's Mother), coupled with a couple of lethargic performances (Beth and Julie's boyfriend). A movie where you can follow cars from twenty feet away in a gaudy red Jeep and never be noticed. A movie chock full of not-so-appetizing cleavage and nudity shots that make you wonder, "Does the director think this is funny? Or clever?" Most of all, the characters are so paper-thin and poorly developed that the film becomes quite unpredictable, but probably not on purpose. Pep Squad can't decide whether to be a comedy, or a drama, or a satire (patriotic music, I get it...). The movie fails at being serious, because the idea of killing for any school position (this being Prom Queen) crosses the line into insanity (not to mention shots of flag burning and drive-by shootings, a poor attempt at being controversial and edgy), and fails at being a comedy, for all the forced and awkwardly placed jokes (big butt mama, "funky" black principal, and excessive cussing delivered poorly by the principal cast). Watching the documentary "Wamego: Making Movies Anywhere" only made this film more cringe-worthy, with praise lauded towards it by... the director and the director's father... hmmmmmm. Not a black comedy, or anything for that matter. I guess Kansas will have to wait.
This is a really really bad movie. That may seem like an oversimplification. A fickle, childish retort comparable to a petty unsubstantiated insult. The truth is, there is not enough I can say about the confusing senseless plot, the really atrocious acting (I'm talking nasty here folks), or the random images of violence toward women that make up the chaotic pastiche of radically horrendous film-making mistakes that propel this affront to all that is good and decent in the world of cinema, nay, human culture. Please, take my word for it, don't watch it... ever. I'm serious. Stop. You'll thank me for it later.
Saw the film at it's Lawrence, Kansas premiere. This wavering story about a group of disgruntled highschoolers killing off the competition for prom queen was just awful. It fails for many reasons - bad acting, bad script, no clear point. But mainly it just felt like the filmmakers said to themselves - "Hey I have some money, so let's make a movie!" - without really thinking it out. Sorrowfully most indie films that don't make it suffer from just that mentality. They just don't seem to realize that it takes more than money to make a good movie... or in this case, even a watchable one. With this film I do not feel ashamed to say, that if I didn't know some of the crew, I would have walked out. Simple as that.
I don't mean to sound pretentious here, but to call this the next cult classic is yet another example of the lowering standards filmmakers have for themselves. This movie is an offense to everything we hold sacred, and not in the good "artsy " way of offending. This film becomes the archetype for PAINFUL dialogue, delivered by even more pathetic actors.
...but I would be lying. A relative was a crew member, and we got to go watch the production of this movie for a couple of days (and I was an extra). I get to die and have a second of screen time, not that I plan on moving to Hollywood anytime soon. I just thought it was awesome to see how movies are made and be a part of it. Plus, I got a copy of the movie once it was finally released. They didn't have a studio backing when making this film so it truly was independent. Why the writing and acting is so awful is beyond me, but the main character "Cherry" is the director's sister so that could be part of it. But the cinematography was good. :)
PEP SQUAD is at a very low point with its confusing plot line and horrible acting.<br /><br />First, let's tackle the characters. Cherry (Brooke Balderson) continues to hold an outrageous, boiling anger throughout the entire film, which is due to her overwhelming passion to become prom queen. However, it becomes completely unknown to the audience why Cherry wants to become prom queen in the first place. Before the nominations are even read off, she storms around the school with a constant disinterest upon being there, and shows no interest in the place or its students to begin with. Why does she care so much to be their prom queen? Brooke Balderson apparently presents an "acclaimed" performance but in reality just spends the entire time with an angry face, stomping around, killing people. Maybe it's just me, but I think if you handed any young actor/actress a script that only requires him/her to act insanely angry, you're not asking for much. You're also not allowing the character to develop very well.<br /><br />Beth's character, played by Jennifer Dreiling, is even worse. Dreiling shows absolutely no emotion and no connection to her character whatsoever. When being harassed by her principal, she knocks him down (after several seconds) with no feelings of disgust or shock or anything equally traumatizing. Her lines are read like she is reading trivia off the back of a cereal box.<br /><br />Throughout the rest of the film, the students in charge of his kidnapping sound more like they are planning a barbecue than deciding what they will do with their principal, sitting tied up in their basement.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Cherry is off killing several female prom queen candidates, and no one even notices or cares. (Yeah, I get it, I get it, the whole town is worried about prom. Very realistic. At least you could throw in some funny scenes with the cops, but that might be asking too much.) For example, right after Cherry drives by the school and shoots down a handful of students, Beth is found being interviewed by the local media. The reporter mentions "the shooter" in a way that makes it seem like no one knows who killed these innocent students, but then one second later asks, "What do you think about guns in the hands of minors?" or something to that effect. Where did the reporter jump to such conclusions? <br /><br />At the end of the movie, after Cherry kills the winning prom queen and prom is deemed over, with the media showing up again, Beth simply adds that "she understands (Cherry's) need to be heard" and walks away with her friends, smoking cigarettes in a calm, unaltered mood. No one is even strayed by the fact that they just witnessed a murder.<br /><br />Not to mention the students constantly parking in a yellow zone, and no one seeming to care that there is a sudden rise in violence in the town, Julie living in a large house with no parents present, and the bizarre party at her house (Maybe I'm a little left out of the scene, but last time I knew, high school parties did not involve naked women artistically dancing in a pool of water while men bob for marshmallows and everyone basks in their "I'm so indie and mod" attitudes), Beth's parent's horrible acting with her mother acting over-the-top and her father simply nodding at everything the mother has to say (and not in an entertaining way either), along with stupid scenes such as the new black principal running after Cherry as she tries to shoot her with a gun. Yes. Very realistic.<br /><br />The only compliment I can give this movie is that the photography is wonderful. The angles are flattering and the screen is very clear and crisp with each shot.<br /><br />Too bad the acting and script aren't.
The 2002 version of "The Time Machine" is just the latest in a string of terribly disappointing Hollywood remakes that fall flat on their face despite extravagant special effects. <br /><br />What a lousy, uninspired bland story, with no imagination. Why so totally rewrite such a wonderful sci-fi classic? Are today's movie audiences too hip for the H.G. Wells writing largely as is? The 1960 George Pal version told a much more endearing story, even with clunky low-budget effects, beach-party looking Eloi, and Morlocks that looked like Smurfs on steroids.<br /><br />The 2002 version must have H.G Wells turning in his grave:<br /><br />1. The idea that the time traveler is motivated by the desire to change the past and trapped in a time paradox is an old sci-fi cliché. This totally distracts from the love affair with Mara (what happened to Weena?!) that made the 1960 version so endearing. This sets an unfortunate and distractive tone early on that makes the whole movie dour. If Guy Pearce's character was so brilliant either he or his buddy Einstein would have realized the time paradox dilemma – not have it dawn on him 800,000 yrs in the future – from a Morlock no less, Doh!! What's wrong with time-traveling just for fun & adventure & curiosity -- as embodied in the 1960 version?<br /><br />2. Only if you saw the first movie would you realize at all what Pearce was doing with the time machine when you first see it. The George Pal film carefully explains the whole weird idea of 'travel' though a 4th dimension.<br /><br />3. The director goes out of his way to make Pearce's character look geeky, a worn out old stereotype of scientists. In the 1960 version Rod Taylor was a little nerdy too (at least around Weena) but managed to be swashbuckling, playful and charming.<br /><br />4. Among the key themes of the 60's version -- abandoned in the remake -- is the idea that endless war leads to the bifurcation of humanity. Blowing up the Moon to destroy humanity is pointless -- and doesn't do much for science literacy. For over 4 billion years the Moon has suffered vastly more powerful asteroid impacts, which would make any nuclear device look like a firecracker. Yes, science fiction needs artistic license, but this is just plain dumb and meaningless.<br /><br />5. Destroying the time machine is stupid too. Apparently our time traveler invented the neutron bomb to power this thing. Blowing up the machine to kill Morlocks is sort of a cop-out 'machina ex machina' Disappointingly, Pearce never comes back to the 1800s to tell his tale to his incredulous friends, a key part of the Wells story with the irony that in a week the time travels goes into the far future and back.<br /><br />6. Having Morlocks running around in the daytime totally ruins H.G. Wells' wonderfully spooky, ghoulish portrayal of them as shadowy creatures of the night. A true cinematic opportunity lost. Also, Wells depicted the Eloi as frail and childlike. These guys in the movie looked like they could take on Morlocks, if they weren't such big baby wusses.<br /><br />7. The one smart Morlock – kind of a bleached-out Star Wars Evil Emperor -- had potential, but is so lame and aloof he tells Pearce to take his machine and go home ?! Boy, what a dramatic high point! In the book the Morlocks steal the machine because they are so fascinated by it, and fight to keep it.<br /><br />8. The goof ball hologram at the N.Y. Public Library is too much. It makes light of the idea of human cannibalism. the 1960 version simply had the "talking rings" that delivered a chillingly somber eulogy for humankind. Derailed evolution is serious stuff.<br /><br />Its sad the wonderful effects in this movie can never make up for a weary contrived clunker of a script. Save the cost of a ticket & popcorn and go rent the DVD when it comes out (soon no doubt), at least you can fast-forward thought the dull parts, just like our time traveler.
H.G. Wells is spinning. No doubt about it.<br /><br />Really, this would have been a decent sci-fi/adventure movie, if it hadn't been based on a classic novel and directed by the author's grandson. I kept hearing about how this would be the definitive version of the novel. What resulted was a pathetic and simpleminded bastardization.<br /><br />The novel is a great sci-fi story but what a lot of people miss when they read it (probably because they read it when they're very young) is that it's overflowing with social commentary. The Eloi and Morlocks are a satire of the class distinctions of Victorian England, and the overall message of the film is that EVERYTHING DECAYS AND DEGENERATES, a satiric jab at Victorian complacency and their belief that their civilization would last forever. There's no love story, no romance with a beautiful Eloi woman....in the novel, the Eloi are 3-foot-tall childlike beings with a mental capacity not far above that of an animal. The Time Traveler does befriend an Eloi woman but it's clear he thinks of her more like a pet, and anyway she's killed before the novel ends.<br /><br />This movie first tries to give us a totally stupid backstory as to "why he wants to travel through time." The treacly romance and the Lessons He Must Learn are enough to make film fans vomit.<br /><br />The journey into the future is punctuated by a future disaster. OK, not bad, but it would have had more punch if we had been allowed to see that mankind just generally degenerates, as in the book. More a reflection of the times, I guess, as the George Pal version had a nuclear war take place.<br /><br />The general story? Ugh. A total misrepresentation of the novel. The Eloi are too competent and warlike. The Morlocks are too intelligent. The UberMorlock is an embarrassment, and there's no setup. He just shows up in time to be killed. Yawn.<br /><br />Samantha Mumba does OK. Guy Pearce is one of my favorites but he often seems confused and in pain. (Reportedly he broke a rib while filming this.) He also looks unhealthy and overly thin, as if he had been ill for a long time before making this.<br /><br />A sad, sorry film version of one of the world's classics. H. G. Wells deserves better....MUCH better.<br /><br />
Guy Pearce looks like and acts like a Calvin Klein underwear model, or one of those bimbo guys who wear Levi's Jeans and stand in front of a herd of stampeding Buffalo because they realize that Buffalo like Levi's too. In every scene, Guy Pearce looks like he is saying, "Look at me, I am so pretty!" As a hero, his character is a total wimp. In every scene that calls for courage, Pearce gets the short end of the stick. SPOILERS: Yet, at the end of the movie, this wimpy book-worm character out-runs a pack of baboon-like Morlocks who can run and leap along the side of the walls (like Spiderman). Around the same time, the TIME MACHINE seems to cause a Nuclear Explosion of some kind that wipes out an entire valley. Strangely, even though Pearce and his gal-pal Mumba are about a foot away from the last Morlock that gets killed; seconds later Pearce, Mumba, and the tribe are watching the valley blow up from the safety of their mountain. Now THAT is FAST RUNNING!!! Jeremy Irons as the King of the Morlocks is great. He really makes the movie a lot better than it was. Mumba, the model-turned-actress is not very cute, and she does not do much acting in this movie. The scenes which take place in the 1900s lack any real atmosphere. Even though the period dress and vehicles are shown, the characters act like caricatures of how they imagine 1900s people would walk and talk. The original version of this movie was a lot better in this respect. The period characters were much more realistic, and they were much better actors. The original version of this movie made the PAST seem like the real base of the characters. This new version lacks substance and feeling. The scenes in which Pearce deals with the death of Emma and then fails to save her from her fate are very good. The issue of the Morlocks being cannibals is not very well explained, and it does not make sense that they have some large dark butcher shop filled with knives and cutlery, yet they are never seen using any weapons except for a blow-dart. Also silly is the giant pit full of water and bones. All through the underground, the Morlocks are all walking around chewing on meaty bones. So how can all those skeletons be in the pit? It seems like there are some Morlocks that Bar-B-Que their humans and eat them off the grill, and other Morlocks only like filleted flesh?? And where are the restrooms for all of these creatures? As I was watching the dozens of Morlocks who were gorging themselves on human flesh, it occurred to me that they must have a very advanced toilet & plumbing system, considering that they were tossing in lots of bones. All these issues were never addressed. At the end of the movie, Pearce is holding Mumba's hand, but you can see that he is eye-balling her friend, Mandingo. One other totally irritating thing about this movie is the non-stop LION KING music which is in the background. Once Pearce arrives in the future (802,710 a.d.); the LION KING music never stops, and every time the natives are around, there is that African Moaning Singer (Is it Peter Gabriel or Paul Simon?) that starts wailing and moaning over the LION KING jungle music. I watched the credits at the end of the movie, and the jungle music is not specifically identified, but I think that Elton John should probably look into this matter. Time Machine was a mediocre movie with some good FX. See it once, then forget it.
Worst. Movie. Ever. I can't believe they had to hire Jeremy Irons to give this piece of crap some credibility - and still failed. Did they think that if they stuck to the plot of the book that their target audience wouldn't be able to figure it out on their own? (probably). "Hey, let's make lots of things explode and give Mina big boobs, and have her speak in an adorably fake broken English. That'll make the morons watch." "But sir, that's not how the book went at all, I think we're mot being faithful to Mr. Wells' message." "F*ck it, we're going to the box office here, never mind some dead author's ideas on human nature. Also, let's add in Orlando Jones with some classic 'Black attitude' as a supporting character, and never mind the interesting conclusion to the book - Guy Pierce has to get some p*ssy at the end."
It's a Time Machine all right. It runs in "real time" for 96 minutes but it felt like 96 years. The first 20 minutes were utterly superfluous. Massive amounts of "dead" time throughout. What happened? When will something happen? Who cares? Apparently the film was made on a tight budget, I note for your edification the following: The Morlochs: nothing like saving a little money by reusing the sets and costumes from Lord of the Rings part I, hey? The "scary dude" in charge of controlling the Morlochs... The scariest thing these guys could think of was somebody wearing one of Gene Simmons: (of the band Kiss) old costumes??? Little-known fact: freaks of the future have perfectly manicured nails.<br /><br />Save your money, save your time. Pass on this one.
After reading the novel which is about a one hour read, watching this film became a sad disappointing experience. Just as he did in prince of Egypt simon wells somehow managed to direct a script that took away all the drama and mystery out of its source material and turned it into this homogenized nonsense. Now I'm a sucker for cheese and camp but this movie made absolutely no sense. There was no joy in any of the performances or any humor. There were no thrills and that silly bookend with addy's character of filby throwing his hat in the air was the last hackwriting straw. I felt very violated when this movie was over and I still refuse to believe it was only 90 minutes it went on forever. I wondered how the studio and director could have OK'd such a lousy script but then my friend pitched the movie to me exactly as It was and I said wow that sounds great but what happened to the movie.
I was one of the many fools who were sapped out into paying for this at the theater, even though I payed 4 bucks for matinée (before 6pm) prices.<br /><br />The remake's story was ho-hum, the CGI Morlocks were lame, the Eloi were rastafarian to mimic today's fads (no I did not think the chick was hot at all), the re-killing of the hero's modern girlfriend was somewhat cruel, overall just a sad, bad remake. <br /><br />I'll take Rod Taylor, Weena, and the fat glowing eyed surfer Morlocks over this junk any time. My estimation is that many of the reviewers who like this awful remake are young kids, which does not account for either good taste or a true value of the old classics which are largely unappreciated by today's confused and ever-wanting-more youth. <br /><br />When the 60s version came out (I first saw it in the 70s for summer fun) it was pretty damn impressive and still holds up. You don't have to have an over abundance of CGI in a movie for it to be better. Too much of this looks fake. I can't say enough of how disappointingly bad the Morlocks looked and they ran and jumped around like they were in a child's video game. 3 stars out of 10.
This movie sucked. From beginning to end it was predictable. There was absolutly no chemistry between Pearce and the Mumba chick. The plot went nowhere, floating off into oblivion. All of these led to the movie being very hilarious in its stupidity. And I wanted to strangle Orlando Jones, the guy just needs to go away.
If you loved the early-60's version of "The Time Machine", don't waste your time; as with last year's "The Planet of the Apes", this has been "reimagined", and not for the better. And, just as with "Planet...", its lead actor is woefully miscast and leaden; Guy Pearce, a terrific actor of great range, is all wrong for this role, giving a one-note performance that elicits zero sympathy; he's so dour and serious, and lacking in awe of the (supposedly) amazing things he sees that you don't believe for a moment that he's experiencing them. Worse yet, whose idea was it for him to resemble the love child of David Spade and Calista Flockhart?? A handsome actor, here he is sickeningly gaunt, which is, believe it or not, a major distraction. Frankly, the man looks gravely ill and is photographed cruelly. He shares absolutely NO chemistry with anyone on the screen, a direct result of a performance that is out of sync with anyone else's. Sadly, even with a proper leading man this movie doesn't stand a chance for it is fatally burdened with both a totally inept director - whole scenes go nowhere and are poorly realized - and a screenplay that is utterly inferior, scattered and at times incoherent - not for a single moment do you care about anyone in this film, for the single fact that there is NOTHING in the way of character development! In the original, you got to KNOW the Eloi, so therefore you felt for them, and felt their terror of the Morelocks; here, as the movie stresses several times, they are nothing but sheep and act accordingly. Unless you're a member of PETA, scared sheep are HARDLY the stuff of entertainment! <br /><br />Samantha Mumba does as well as possible, in her movie debut, but, like everyone else in this mess, most especially Jeremy Irons (if he's the leader of the Morelocks [who look like rejects from "The Mummy Returns"], why then does HE look like Edgar Winter's long-lost brother?) is COMPLETELY WASTED. Also wasted was the money spent on the endless 'special' effects, which belie the $70M spent on the film; they are uniformly lackluster, obvious and unconvincing. And then there's the look of the film: poorly photographed, its art direction and sets are just "there" and its costumes are typical in design. There isn't an original thought or idea expressed behind or on the screen. Most of all, it isn't even fun! (The filmmakers use the now-ubiquitous Orlando Jones as "comic relief" but, as usual, Jones is irritating, and just HOW does his electrically-driven character survive in a world seemingly devoid of electricity?)<br /><br />All in all, this is an empty, lifeless, dull, sterile and confused affair: didn't they ALREADY REMAKE "Planet of the Apes"??? (At least THAT had the fortune of some strong performances!) <br /><br />*SPOILER!* The final insult (beyond a head-shakingly terrible, not to mention convenient, ending)? Not only do they BARELY feature the changing dress-store figures, they make even the time machine itself an anachronistic, gaudy glass-n-chrome bore! (If "The Sopranos" had a time machine, THIS is exactly what it would look like.) Pathetic...
The Time Machine starts in New York during 1899 where Professor Alexander Hartdegen (Guy Pearce) proposes to his beloved girlfriend Emma (Sienna Guillory) who accepts, unfortunately just after they are attacked by a mugger & Emma is shot dead & dies in Alexander's arms. Jump forward 'Four Years Later' & Alexander has built a time machine which he uses to travel back to the night Emma was killed in order to save her but she is still killed, only a different way this time. Alexander realises whatever he does, however many times he goes back Emma will always end up dead one way or another & he yearns to know the answer why so he travels far into the future to discover the truth. However after having destroyed the moon two new races have evolved on Earth, the human like Eloi & the monstrous Morlock's that eat the Eloi. Alexander decides to stick around & save the Eloi.<br /><br />Directed by Simon Wells who is actually the great grandson of author H.G. Wells who wrote the original The Time Machine book on which the original The Time Machine (1960) film was based & it is in fact the 1960 film that producer John Logan's script is based upon here rather than Wells original literally source. While all three share the same basic story & ideas this remake adds the subplot about Alexander's fiancé Emma being killed & that's the reason he invents a time machine rather than just because he is clever & he can. The script is a mixture of sci-fi, action adventure & drama none of which really grabbed me or engaged me that much, sure there are a few pretty special effects, a few nice action scenes & the moment when Alexander's question is answered regarding why he can't save Emma is actually quite intelligent & makes sense it never really captured my imagination & I was never really moved by it either. The time travel aspects of The Time Machine feel very similar to Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1992) in the sense you can't change the past but at the same time the future is not set only The Time Machine isn't anywhere near as good a film as Terminator 2: Judgment Day. The character's are alright although I thought Guy Pearce just looked too young to be a brainy scientist capable of inventing a time machine & there's never any real explanation behind it's mechanics either as it's like one moment there's no time machine the next he has invented & made one & it works perfectly. I reckon the Back to the Future trilogy offer far more thrills, laughs, excitement & general entertainment value than The Time Machine ever does & while I will stop short of calling it a bad film since it moves along at a decent pace, tells a reasonable story & has it's moments I wouldn't call it brilliant or even particularly good. There is also a cheeky little reference to the book & original film which are both name-checked here.<br /><br />The benefit this modern version has over the original is the development of special effects & in particular CGI which leads to scenes of time rapidly passing around Alexander in his time machine complete with huge buildings being built, new ridges, canyons & mountains being formed & a elaborate pan back which ends up in space as we see passenger rockets orbiting the moon. The effects work is good, there are one or two moments that look a little below par but generally speaking the effects are good. I saw The Time Machine on telly & the station playing it badly pan and scanned it so the left & right edges of the frame were cut off the screen thus cutting off part of the year on Alexander's time machine dial so I actually didn't know what year he went to. Apparently director Gore Verbinski took over the last eighteen days of filming as Wells was suffering from 'extreme exhaustion' while the IMDb says that the time machine itself was the biggest & most expensive prop ever built for a film at that point which I find hard to believe & Guy Pearce broke a rib during a fight scene but like a trooper carried on.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $80,000,000 the production values are high with a lovingly recreated period New York & good effects work although amazingly The Time Machine was nominated for an Oscar for best make-up but lost out to Frida (2002). The acting is mixed, Jermey Irons puts in a good performance in a terrible make-up job that has him looking like a reject from a Lord of the Rings film while singer Samantha Mumba makes her big screen debut here & is simply terrible although Guy Pearce is quite good & fairly likable.<br /><br />The Time Machine isn't a particularly bad film or a particularly good one, just a somewhat unremarkable one that is watchable & passes an hour and a half but not much else. Watch Back to the Future (1985) again instead.
This movie is a disgrace. How can you take one of the greatest science fiction stories of all time and turn it into some kind of half-assed love story. The entire beginning of the movie was not in the H.G. Wells story and didn't need to be. Also the Eloi were done completely wrong. They did build houses or form any kind of real society. They didn't care about each other at all. That was an important part of the story. The way they had formed a world that was without hardship or complex emotions. They were barely even aware of the Morlocks. I don't know why this movie was made the way it was but some stories should be told as they are or left alone.
Do you know that they want to escavate the Moon for real?And in Geneve there is the debated project that could lead to make possible time machine?All i can say about this movie that is based on facts about future(at the time of the movie)scientifical projects but real. Hope the moon will exist not happen as in the movie. Now about the movie itself, I saw the original movie too, and I also read the book. The book I didn't like though, but the movie yes.I totally agree with a previous comment that this movie was depressing,unlike the 60's one.That was very good with force, this one was only a paralled future of what is good movie.
Having not read the original book or seen the earlier film, and indeed knowing nothing about the storyline of either of those or the current film, I came to this film with an open mind.<br /><br />It's really difficult to know where to start a comment on the film, because the whole thing seems so confused. It seems like there is a point or a message or something in the film, but what that is remains completely obscure.<br /><br />The effects were fantastic and very well judged. The idea was set up really well with the motivation for time travel clearly made out. However, it was downhill from here.<br /><br />All of the time travel seems to have only the vaguest connection to the quest that was set out at the start. There are some nice ideas, but they seem to be isolated occurrences that really do not flow and make the film seem disjointed and lost. At one point one wonders whether the main story in the film is the fate of the moon.<br /><br />When Hartdegen arrives in 802,701 A.D., the film becomes very frustrating as he seems to be unable to discover anything of importance about the Eloi, and while it seems clear that there is something to find out, what it is remains annoyingly elusive. This is quite an odd change from the previous time travel instances and one wonders why all of this has suddenly been abandoned for what seems like a completely new story. So many things happen that there should be an explanation for, but there is no discovery. I really, really wanted to know what the film was "getting at", what there was to uncover, but to no avail. Having read a summary of what happens in the book at this point, it seems like there has been a very half-hearted attempt to render this in the film but it has been so simplified and "dumbed down" that the meaning and context is completely lost.<br /><br />Just as we hope that we are finally to discover where this is all leading, the film suddenly takes another significant change in direction, and becomes a mindless action film without any real action. It is as if by this point the director has simply given up bothering to put any meaning into the film. By now countless significant things are happening without any explanation. Hartdegen fails to take the opportunity to return to the past on two occasions for no reason, and then suddenly loses all interest in time travel for no reason. The film comes to an abrupt end as Hartdegen decides to stay with the Eloi.<br /><br />In summary, after a good start the film is very disappointing. Too much time is spent on Hartdegen's adventures before arriving with the Eloi. However, the worst part of the film is what I think is the most important part: the setting up of the situation with the Eloi. The whole point is completely missed, and this undermines the rest of the film. After this the film concentrates too much on effects and action and all attempts to return to the meaning and core of the film seem forced and out of place. With so many things happening without explanation, the film just seems to get lost and lose direction. However, the finale where Hartdegen decides he is no longer bothered about time travel is the most inexplicable of all.<br /><br />Ultimately, the whole film seemed like a collection of unconnected incidents. The meaning and context was lost, although the gaping hole where it should have been was very obvious. What was so frustrating about it all, though, was that there was clearly so much potential here: it wasn't by any means a bad film, it just so easily could have been so much better. The start was very promising, the time travelling looked fantastic and would have worked had it not gone off on tangents, and Hartdegen's experience with the Eloi could so easily have worked had a few more of the right questions been asked, and had there not been such a temptation to "dumb down" and simplify. I just wish I had a time machine so that I could travel back in time and advise against the mistakes that were made.
This was one of the worst films i have ever seen. I'm still trying to get over how bad it was. Just because it has Godard's name attached to it, doesn't make it great. Beyond the fact it makes absolutely no sense, we see one insanely long shot of a traffic jam that is not stunning, unbelievable or anything of the sort. While this long shot of the traffic jam is going on you will be feeling probably more like making a pastrami sandwich than continuing watching it. Pieces of a supposed story, silly, stupid characters. What message are we suppose to take from this? It offers nothing and serves no purpose. The arrogance of the director in showcasing these puny, dull chain-smoking french people and having them sit around and converse for hours on end and then getting it passed off as art is truly astounding.
This is a polarising film. People either love it or despise it, it seems. Me, I despise it. The film comes from the same context as Lindsay Anderson's Oh Lucky Man, but while that is a masterpiece, this is just horrible.<br /><br />Both films take Kafka's unfinished novel - America, for their inspiration and general ideal. America is a surreal story of a youth's travels through the country. Kafka uses the this character as a pure observer, one who does not change over the course of the journey (although the book is about 300 pages and still seems only a quarter finished, so we'll never know). Allowing Kafka to concentrate and comment on the absurd/surreal situations and surroundings. Oh Lucky Man follows this same template to show Britain through the eyes of Malcolm McDowell and Weekend does the same for France.<br /><br />Both films are also hugely Brechtian, using various tricks and techniques to point up the fact that this is NOT REAL, this is confabulation etc. But the difference comes where Oh Lucky Man uses the constructed film to convey the absurdity of life and the class system, Weekend uses the constructed film to bludgeon us to death with ideological polemic. Because Godard goes further than Anderson in his Brechtian principles, we end up with two principle characters in which we have no investment, at all. We're forced to spend 90 minutes with them, yet we couldn't care less about them. Deliberately so. But in doing this, Godard leaves us with a film that is entirely about his own message, which, in the first half of the film is provided through relentless and overbearing symbolism, and in the second half through a series of long speeches directed to camera. Combined with unpleasant and unnecessary scenes such as the really horrible pig slaying, far worse than any of the off camera violence of the car crashes.<br /><br />The end result is like listening to a student political apparatchik droning on and on and on about his views whilst repeatedly kicking you in the head so that you get the message. The problem with Brecht is, if you alienate the audience too much, then you've alienated them from what you are trying to convey. Which always seemed self evident to me.<br /><br />The parts that really stick in the craw for this movie though, is the contrast between the extremely sexually explicit verbal description of the threesome at the start and the off-screen comical rape in the middle, which, even if it could be viewed as allegorical, completely destroys the film's faith in itself and it's characters, what little of it existed in the first place. It's so French with a capital F, it hurts.<br /><br />Watch Oh Lucky Man instead. That is a work of genius. Weekend is a work of pretension.<br /><br />Two stars, and only for the traffic jam scene and the piano scene, which are just hints at genius, although they actually make the end result more frustrating and unsatisfying as without them, this is a bad film by the worst most pretentious director in the world, with them, well it's obvious that this is a damn good technical director making the most intellectually pretentious film in the world. Somehow that's far worse.
If you like me is going to see this in a film history class or something like that at your school, try to convince your teacher to see something else. believe me, anything is better than this movie. it is slow paced, confusing, boring, poorly constructed, gory, gringy, do I need to go on? It's message is good, but I have seen them been handled better in several other films. The acting isn't even any good. This movie is just even more awkward, as it start off as being funny (not intensional though)because of it's surreal story, than at the end, just becomes uncomfortable to watch.<br /><br />I honestly feel like 1 hour and 40 minutes of my life has been robbed. Why would anyone want to watch a girls describe a threesome for 10 minutes, than watch them drive through a traffic jam for 20 minutes, listen to a hippie who can make sheep appear, witness a sort of rape, than see the female lead role eat her husband.<br /><br />Honestly this movie deserves nothing but a 1/10. And if your not happy with my preview,seriously I'm an open minded guy and I like movies that protest through symbolism, but this movie was just awful. make any excuse you can, to avoid this film.
I saw this film in a Cinema-Club in Germany in 1970. Most of the attendees were from the local private school at which I was teaching. I had seen a few Godard films previously while I lived in France, and, though they hadn't been my favorites, I could at least make sense of them. Being able to speak French helped.<br /><br />The fairly innocuous beginning of "Le week-end" soon turned into a kaleidoscope of images, very well, maybe too well photographed, that soon made no sense to me. For me, films, like books, must have some clear sort of meaning. This didn't for me. I suppose I'm not "into" artsy films. Images still haunt me from the film. To this day I refuse to eat rabbit meat, well-loved by the French. Those who've seen the film might realize why. Yes, the theme of materialism came through, but the cannibalism, the car wrecks, and all the other scenes of destruction and horror only sickened me. I'm not sure if I walked out before the end, but I certainly felt like it. I promised myself that I'd never watch another Godard film, and I haven't and never knowingly will.<br /><br />My rating: nothing. It was the most disgusting film I've ever seen. Others may have been more inept, silly or stupid. I've forgotten those while scenes from this one will haunt me forever.
I work at the video store that rents this video in Lexington and I must say...it should have never been made. I even know some of the people who worked on it who regret doing so. Bad effects, horrid acting, bad script especially. I swear the dialog wouldn't have passed for the original PSX Resident Evil; it's that bad. If you want to know how not to make a movie, watch this film to learn a thing or two. If not, don't waste your time. And even the director know it sucks because he keeps coming in to try to get us to upsale the movie. No sir. I've watched two-thirds of the horror section and this rates even lower than Plan 9 from Outer Space. Even Ed Eood would have said, "Nope. That's too stupid even for me."
Once a month, I invite a few friends over for a "Retarded Movie Night". We look forward to movies that are either so bad they're funny or movies that know they don't have a plot and just show a lot of chests. Last night, we were unfortunate enough to have Zombie Planet as one of our movies. The cinematography is on par with what we're used to, but the acting was a different story. The lead role is played by a Johnny Depp/Rob Zombie wanna-be who couldn't get a role in a high school play, let alone a LOW-BUDGET horror film. Our indecisive hero, who couldn't tell whether or not he wanted to be a bad-ass this scene or a whimpering coward was one of the reasons why this was the first movie of 30 that I have ever had to stop early during a Retarded Movie Night. It had the possibility for greatness with a GREAT twist on the standard zombie infection, but they took it an entirely different direction based on Johnny Zombie. I personally would not recommend this to any of my friends. However, it's unfortunate that I already invited a few over last night to suffer through 80% of this movie with me.
Now, I'm a big fan of Zombie movies. I admit Zombie movies usually aren't all that good, but I like them anyways. Despite the crappy acting and worthless dialogues that occur in almost all Zombie movies, this one is by far the worst. See, there are a few ground rules with zombie-movies. 1. Zombies are suicidal. Tactics is seldom used, and NEVER do they act like a boxer. They don't dodge a blow to the head, they take it with a ugly smile. They don't try and hit you in the face, they grab a hold of your arm and bite it! 2. Zombies can't speak. Only in Evil Dead. Otherwise, they DO NOT SPEAK. 3. You don't fight zombies with melee-ranged weapons. You loose in a melee fight against zombies. Firearms are used. In this movie however, melee is the way to go, which is wrong. Very wrong.<br /><br />It had NO redeeming qualities.<br /><br />If you wish to see a Zombie movie, see one with an average score higher than 3 on IMDb.com
Just when you think that you've seen the worst the zombie sub-genre can offer, along comes another budding Romero and his team of no-talent mates to prove you wrong.<br /><br />I've suffered the Zombie Bloodbath trilogy, endured Death Valley: The Revenge of Bloody Bill, sat semi-comatose through The Zombie Diaries, and laughed hysterically during Zombie '90: Extreme Pestilence, and genuinely thought that amateur movie-making could sink no lower. However, having just watched Zombie Planet, a two hour long festering pile of drivel from writer/director George Bonilla, I think I have found the ultimate in awful zombie movies.<br /><br />In this dreadfully amateurish effort, which is part Mad Max and part Dawn of the Dead (but ALL bad), Frank Farhat stars as T. K. Kane, a tough fighter who kicks zombie ass for a hobby, armed only with knives, a machete, some concussion grenades, and what he obviously perceives to be a really mean glare.<br /><br />After a desperately unexciting opening sequence in which he takes on a horde of dodgy looking zombies, Kane teams up with a group of survivors who not only have to fend off attacks from the undead, but must also must placate a gang of vicious thugs who have taken control of the area (by searching for and handing over any valuables that they find).<br /><br />Of course, Kane isn't the type of man to take orders from a bunch of z-grade post-apocalyptic bully boys, and he sets about teaching the bad guys a lesson (mostly by glowering at them in a threatening manner), only pausing to periodically rescue pals from zombies.<br /><br />Featuring awful acting from almost everyone involved, a dreadful script, laughable effects, and shoddy production values, there is virtually nothing in this film to make it worth a watch. To be fair, I quite like the basic premise that the zombies are the unexpected result of a highly popular slimming drug that blocks cravings for carbohydrates (we learn this when one character conveniently explains the back-story to Kane, who strangely has no idea what has happened), but this is about the only vaguely interesting aspect of the whole production.<br /><br />I have a certain amount of respect for anyone who manages to fund and make their own movie, but when the results are this poor, that respect is lost when they decide to make it available for public viewing. I would've kept this one under wraps if I had made it.
I live and work in Lexington, Kentucky, the town where Zombie Planet was filmed. I'd heard about the film forever ago, from various people who claimed to be a critical part of the production. Then, for several years, I heard absolutely nothing. Imagine my surprise when I found it sitting all by itself at the local video store, just itching for a rental. So, being the cinephile that I am, I decided to give these local filmmakers a shot.<br /><br />Bad idea.<br /><br />Zombie Planet is overlong, boring, poorly acted, miserably shot -- and that's just the good stuff. I tried my hardest to enjoy it, which included removing my brain and setting it on the table so that it wouldn't get in the way of the horrible storyline. Alas, nothing worked. Zombie Planet is so bad it's pathetic. And the very idea that they're planning a sequel leads me to believe that the director and his henchmen have listened to none of the criticisms I'm sure they've heard. Move on, you guys. Please. In fact, refrain from film-making altogether. Or attend a few classes on pacing, storytelling, and, well, basic direction.<br /><br />Otherwise, for the love of God, hang it up.
Zombie Planet seems like an example of good ideas and laudable ambition overstepping budget. I thought the explanation for the zombies was real original and gnarly, and loved the dog munching in the exposition scene. The rest of the gore was effective in a low budget kinda way, but too spaced apart throughout the movie. The problem was that it was too long and anti-climatic. Sure, they had a intriguing, if derivative plot line, and a similarly familiar but cool setting, but a low budget zombie film really needs to be goretastic to make an impression and there just weren't enough red moments in this for me. I think there was surplus of cheap looking and bloodless fight scenes as well especially given the generally minimal grue. Plus, for a two hour movie, there's very little closure at the end, and though it kinda makes me want to track down Zombie Planet 2, I felt a tad cheated. So probably most worth looking for the two of them.
Set in the near future a dark stranger walks into some southern American city plagued by zombies. Settling with a group of friendly face inhabitants our stranger learns the harsh realities of city life. There are two groups of people; the upper classes who dwell safely behind the concrete walls of the city being provided by, at the right price, the state police. Then there are our friendly face inhabitants. These lower class folks live along side the zombies. There only means of survival is to trade goods, which they forage for during the day, with the police in exchange for tins of food. Our stranger discovers why his world is plague by zombies. A new dietary pill that suppressed the craving for carbohydrates was the foundation. The human race's desire to shed fat caused the down fall of society as we know it. These pills increased the desire for protein i.e. meat, even the pet poodle. However, there was one more grave side affect, after death people became reanimated with an even stronger craving for protein namely human flesh.<br /><br />With what I feel is an imaginative introduction I felt that this film many realise some inventive material. What better way could explain the cause of the zombie race than by a contemporary idea of people's desire to make any sacrifice to change their body without the hard work of the gym? However, the imagination of this film soon stopped after this exposition. This film falls into the old trap of 'I can not imagine what the world will be like when society collapses'. When you watch this film you do not escape to a different world as you do when you watch Planet of the Apes (original), Alien, Mad Max or Texas Chain Saw (original). In this film the alternate society is define by people with hair dyed orange and green. Face paint and charity shop leather jackets. There is no harshness about life in this alternate society, just healthy faces and over made-up zombies. Films should allow you to escape not remind you that you need to clear out your wardrobe and take your old cloths to the charity shop.<br /><br />Forget about some of the pitiful acting, or the over made-up zombies. This film fails because it is too polished, too congenial and too predictable. I have watch films like this since the early eighties. If you are going the make a film of this nature I suggest you need to watch again such films as Dawn of The Dead (original and remake), Threads or Fulci's Zombie to see and experience that feeling of desperation in a devastate society.
In the 50's, a gay photographer called Bob Mizer (Daniel MacIvor) founded an agency of male models, releasing a muscle magazine called "Physique Pictorial" and movie of men, and many of the models became prostitutes. "Beefcake" shows the rise and fall of this pervert.<br /><br />Alternating footages from the 50's, testimony of many models and Bob Mizer himself in the present days, the director Thom Fitzgerald used this subterfuge to show naked men and lots of penis along 93 minutes running time, in a complete bad taste and very silly crap. I have never heard anything about this morally corrupt Bob Mizer and I do not know what AMG is. In my opinion, only gay and very specific audiences might like the theme of this boring and pretentious movie. My vote is two.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Carne Fresca" ("Fresh Meat")
...left behind when the ostensible heroine's Venus flytrap makes any man whose sexual advances are forced upon her--ahem!--disappear. Fiona "This IS my career!" Horsey is an attractive enough screamqueen ingenué, although I found her acting chops to be suspect. With better direction, and a better vehicle, she might improve. Likely as not, her leading man, Paul "Mine, too!" Conway, never will, proving to be one of the most unlikeable, unattractive love interests I've seen in a film in recent memory. There's some nonsense involving Siamese twins, a frying-pan-to-the-head-obvious hot dog joke, a reasonable amount of bare boobies, production values in the low-budget-to-laughable range, scripting that would make Syd Field cry, acting that by and large only an Ed Wood could love, and camera-work a step above pedestrian. The vagina dentata gimmick might well have made for an interesting horror movie, but "Angst" botches the premise. Strictly for stoned-out viewing, and even then, you could do much better. Sturgeon's Law (or Revelation) still holds.
The main premise for this movie is every woman's fantasy: a vagina that kills and eats men. Well at least it is a fantasy for every woman who has ever had a fight against a man. What's that, 99.9999% of women? But don't worry it's not a gory kind of eating of men. It's more like a comical slurping them in, like a drain plug. There's no blood or parts left behind. So for blood, guts & gore fans, forget about this film, not much gore here.<br /><br />The two main characters of the film are somewhat unrealistic. Helen is a good girl who becomes a prostitute. Meanwhile, Dennis is a nice guy who stalks Helen.<br /><br />The story is already a little silly at this point, but then they throw in two more equally silly sub-stories that just send this movie into the bad B-movie territory. The first new sub-story is about Dennis finding new love with a pair of conjoined twins; and then eventually murdering one of them, and becoming a fugitive bank-robber. The second new sub-story is about Helen finding new love with a nice policeman who rescued her from a prostitution-related bad date, and decided he wanted to marry her. Dennis and Helen eventually meet up again at the end of movie in totally unbelievable circumstances, and magically Helen's murderous vagina is cured!
So umm this woman has a vagina that sucks people into it when they umm do it and there's this dude who like follows her around...everywhere....and uhh is umm in love with her and she cant love him back because of her thingy. Well her thingy starts talking to her...sort of...it just says feed me over and over and she tries to feed it hot dogs but that doesn't work because it ummmmm wants fresh meat?!?!!? So this woman heads to the red light district where she picks up tourists but only the really sleazy ones cause I guess they deserve it and after a while this dude comes looking for her and even though shes like right there he doesn't see her so eventually he gets involved with conjoined twins but he only likes one of them cause the other is a real hussy. This isn't bad good like I thought it would be cause like the novelty sort of wears off within the first 1/2 hour and it goes on for another hour. I think it killed off a few brain cells cause I sat through this whole thing and now im a little brain damaged. Either way man this is the worst man-eating vagina movie I have ever seen.
Am I the only one to think that this is a bad movie?<br /><br />I admit that horror movies often lack things like a big story or good acting or even good special effects. But the way these deficiencies come together in this movie is surprisingly pitiful.<br /><br />Miserable story: The idea of a raped vagina that takes revenge by turning into a man eater sounds quite funny, but what the writer made out of it is stupid.<br /><br />Bad acting: The actors move like marionettes. They play and look like people, who really try hard but completely fail to act.<br /><br />Bad FX: Especially the explosion of the Van looks unspeakably cheap.<br /><br />It is surprising that a director who made some nice movies during his carrier changes over to such messy stuff.
Hello all--for what it's worth, I'm in a doctoral program on Indonesian politics and returned this semester after about a year's fieldwork, most of it in Jakarta.<br /><br />I'm a big movie fan generally, so I went out as often as I could, and bought tons of local VCDs while I was there. This one I saw in the theater, since it opened while I was there, and, thankfully, closed soon after. <br /><br />Who was the intended audience for this film? The spoiled wives and daughters of the Indonesian super-elite whose antics are weakly and ineffectively parodied? The vast majority of Indonesians who could never afford even a single dish, let alone a full meal, in the film's central restaurant location? Or gay Indonesian males, whose dilemma in the country's Muslim-dominated society is reduced to absurdly simplistic, how-to-respect-yourself preaching. <br /><br />If all this wasn't bad enough, the soundtrack was either recorded or mixed so ineptly that even native-speaking Indonesians couldn't hear many of the lines.<br /><br />In brief, if you're looking for a cutting-edge gay-themed film from a region of the world that seems among the least likely to produce such an animal, forget it. "Westler" from the early '80s, or "My Beautiful Laundrette," from the same era, succeed far better in putting a happier face on dealing with homophobia, and do so by showing not telling through incessant, wordy scenes. <br /><br />Overall, an unfortunate waste of money in a country that still can't educate all of its children nor keep them healthy.
How can this movie be described? Oh yeah I've got it wretched!!!<br /><br />I'm not big on chop socky, but this is just plain garbage. Anyone who would waste their money to pay to see it, is just too sad for words.
I was ready for a Crouching Tiger style movie and all I got was the worst movie i've seen in years. It was almost as bad as Baron Von Munchhuasen. Dead script. Dead acting. Dead everything. <br /><br />Granted there was some good fight scenes but the positive side ends there. If this movie arrives in your house run screming to a phone and dial 911 and say, "Please help there is a movie in my house meant to force people to commit suicide"
Sure, it's hard being gay, especially in the south. We get it. Over... and over again.<br /><br />What stood out was that the film makers focused almost wholly on the more "extreme" characters in these small town gay bars; the drag queens, the seedy sleaze of a bar long-closed, and on a guy who was brutally murdered for being gay, yet had nothing to do with either of the bars which were the focus of this film.<br /><br />There were snippets of interviews from other people, people viewers would, perhaps, be better able to relate to. But they were glossed over, practically skipped, maybe shown in a glimpse in the background.<br /><br />It would have been more interesting, to me at least, to hear the experiences of the more common gay men and women who were either enriched or otherwise by the experiences of a small town gay bar and/or the absence of that community.
Maybe it's unfair to dislike a movie for what it isn't, rather than what it is, but I approached this hoping that finally a filmmaker would make a movie about small-town rural gay men and women. Instead, the focus is primarily on the outrageous bigotry (big news!) of the locals (and those in outlying areas) and the really gruesome torture/murder of a young gay man.<br /><br />So much time devoted to stupid people squawking about AIDS, sin, hellfire, and perverts. So much time devoted to the ghoulish preacher ranting about the Bible and gay people getting what they deserve.<br /><br />I wanted to see more of the people that came to the "small town gay bar", not those who opposed it. In addition, the young man who was murdered isn't even from this town.<br /><br />The whole movie works as a warning rather than a celebration, and it's very suspect.
After spending half an hour examining Rumors, a gay bar located outside Tupelo, Mississippi, SMALL TOWN GAY BAR shifts focus to the murder of Scotty Weaver in Bay Minette in order to demonstrate the risks run by the interview subjects. But there is a problem here. Bay Minette isn't near Tupelo, as the film implies. It isn't even in the same state. It is actually about three hundred miles away in coastal Alabama.<br /><br />Director Malcom Ingram doesn't exactly rush to point out this fact, nor does he bother to mention that while Bay Minette itself is little more than a wide spot in the road, it is actually about two deep breaths away from the major metro area of Mobile, Alabama--which has a noticeable gay community, quite a few gay bars, and even a congregation of Metropolitan Community Church. If Ingram is disingenuous on these points, one has to ask if he is on others as well.<br /><br />Speaking as someone who was born, raised, and continues to live in Mississippi, I have to say that I find most of SMALL TOWN GAY BAR a lot of hooey. Neither Meridian nor Tupelo, the communities upon which Ingram focuses, are as rural, small, or as isolated as he would have you imagine, and gay bars are indeed more common in the state than the film implies. That said, Ingram rather blithely ignores the fact that the absence of a gay bar does not mean an absence of a gay community, and in doing so he demonstrates a rather profound ignorance of southern culture, which tends to hold those who frequent bars--be they gay or straight--in low esteem.<br /><br />SMALL TOWN GAY BAR is, in my opinion, an instance in which a film maker came to his subject with a personal agenda in hand and then proceeded to film the agenda. Do gays and lesbians living in rural Mississippi face major, sometimes frightening challenges? You bet they do--but that's no excuse for fiddling with reality to such a degree. The DVD includes a commentary track and a number of deleted scenes, but I found the feature film itself so ridiculous that I didn't waste any time on them.<br /><br />GFT, Amazon Reviewer
What garbage, is there actually no part II? If this movie actually ends the way it did, everyone involved with this movie should be ashamed. This movie is nothing close to a movie like Outbreak, which was actually a fairly decent movie. This movie was rushed in hopes of being able to gain a few easy dollars. I started watching the movie under the assumption that it would be bad, but I never imagined it would be this bad. This movie was nothing more then a way to exploit the fears of the American people for profit! If you have not seen this movie, don't bother. Movie is full of poorly developed characters and poor acting. I really hope the production of this movie was only a couple of weeks. Stay away! Don't be fooled by the hype!
The C class cast and poorly transitioned scenes, complete with terrible acting have led me too believe this would make a good TV only release such as the FX presentation of a smallpox outbreak. At my local blockbuster however, about 9 copies are held on the shelves, none of which were checked out when I rented the title (I wonder why....) Anyway, this title was almost ridiculous in the "fear factor" the director was going for. The whole "death count" on the bottom of the screen completely contradicted the plot at times, such as when the chopper was going over Angola, and the toll was speeding at a breakneck pace from 23 million to 24. However, as the movie ends, (possibly several hours or even a day or so after the chopper has landed) the death toll counter is reset back too what it was at the moment the chopper was approaching the area. The movies end left a huge whole in th entire plot, and god knows nobody is waiting for the sequel. Anyway, do not rent this, I only advise watching this if you have obtained the title with no monetary loss, and you are in the mood for a cheesy suspense movie.
Fatal Contact: Bird Flu in America: 3 out of 10: This movie is both funny and sad. The funny part is fairly obvious as this certainly isn't a sober look at a possible impending crisis. This is a modern version of The Swarm. And much like those killer bees (and the so called killer bee crisis that prompted them) Bird Flu has joined a pantheon of media inspired end of the world scenarios (SARS, Y2K, Global Warming) that simply refuse to actually come about.<br /><br />The sad part is the blatant attempt of the filmmakers to inspire panic. Disease pandemics historically were fairly common after all people didn't all die in their forties from heart disease. Even recent pandemics such as AIDS mirrors the old fashioned VD crisis (Think syphilis) that used to kill more soldiers than bullets.<br /><br />The flu pandemic of the early twenties was a nasty business killing millions but honestly life went on. I wonder if our over dramatic media and their power hungry government allies would allow life as normal today.<br /><br />The movie itself swerves wildly from fairly competent scenes (Triage in grand Central Station) to the ridiculous (Rednecks try to ambush national guardsman in Manhattan).<br /><br />The scenarios themselves are fairly useless as the filmmakers can't seem to decide exactly how contagious the bird flu is or for that matter whether the symptoms are an Ebola style crash or simply a long illness. Indeed one scene will show everyone in bio-hazard suits and the next will have nobody even wearing a mask.<br /><br />The film also patently refuses to actually give any practical advice regarding what to do in a Bird Flu crisis. (Outside of wash your hands, what no duct tape?) The acting and directing are competent for a TV movie but the script is all over the map. Last the movie has a strangely non-exponential death total running on the bottom of the screen. Just like the Swarm did.
I watched this movie on TV last night, hoping for a realistic account of what could happen if there were an outbreak of some highly transmittable disease. I was disappointed, and I think the movie was garbage. It did not seem real to me. Some of the acting was awful, in particular that of the doctor. She was about the worst I've seen. The whole thing played like a CNN 'worst case scenario'. Even the obligatory disaster movie human relations bits didn't seem sincere. I have seen some disaster movies, in particular those weather ones, which are actually so bad they are amusing. This one is almost as bad, but it is not even amusing, it is tedious and boring.Don't bother with this one.
Clearly, Andreas Bethmann would like to wear Jess Franco's crown whilst coveting (at least cinematically) the old workhorse's wife, Lina Romay. Romay plays a corrupt, salacious, masturbating prison warden in this modern, ambitious W.I.P. film. With some exceptions, many of Franco's films are ineptly produced and directed in a slipshod, hurried manner. Shots don't always cut together and the sound mixes can be horrific. While watching "Angel of Death 2" (aka "Prison Island Massacre") I asked myself if Bethmann is deliberately trying to replicate Franco's patent shoddiness, or is he just naturally shoddy like his mentor? Is this movie deliberately bad, which would be self-defeating, or is it simply bad by neglect? After a hitchhiker is forced to give a gunpoint blowjob, her rapist fills her mouth, then fills her vagina with some drugs. Minutes later, she is hauled into a clifftop prison for reasons not explained and subjected to the leers and rough handling of staff and other inmates. As this is a WIP film, there are lesbian scenes galore and plenty of violent behavior. The gore is bloody and sadistic, too, with delights such as teeth pulling and scalping (courtesy of Olaf Ittenbach). The acting is pretty awful and the fight scenes are lame, but there is a love of sleaze in every frame and an understanding of what trash fans enjoy. Unfortunately, the flat script makes for a flat movie. So, despite numerous atrocities, hardcore sex, and a guest appearance from Jess Franco, the experience is an empty one. But isn't that what most Jess Franco movies are?
I thought this was an extremely bad movie. The whole time I was watching this movie I couldn't help but think over and over how bad it is, and how that was $3.69 down the drain. The plot was so jumpy. They did an excellent job at the beginning of explaining who dated who in high school, but they never really explained anything after that. Was it a supernatural thriller? Was it a regular thriller? Apparently you can decide for yourself, because they didn't see the need to explain. I understood basically what happened, I think. What I got confused about was all of it prior, what was the deal with the bloody noses, phone calls, etc.? Was this guy coming back? Was the wife channeling "Carrie" or something? Who knows? You certainly won't after watching this movie.
I'd picked this one up time and time again in the rental store, wondering if I should give it a shot. Today I broke down and gave it a whirl, and I probably shouldn't have.<br /><br />While the writer/director did give the film a respectable effort, it fell far short of engaging. The characters, while you wanted to feel for them, just didn't have enough development or depth for you to get truly involved with them. Sara's sexual outbursts got tiring-- fast. I don't mind sex in films, and I don't mind bitchy characters, but being a "bad" girl doesn't mean you're prone to excitedly ask people at random if they'd like sexual favors. By the time what happened to the characters was revealed, I was bored, and ready to fast-forward to the climax, the end, anything exciting... and nothing delivered. The things the folks in the story eventually inform you of seems forced and unrealistic, and just wasn't played quite right. If they'd have thrown a bit more anguish in there, I might have been interested. This should have been a more of a suspense/drama film, and should have stuck to the title "Jon Good's Wife" rather than the whole "red right hand" and horror film-like cover. Hell... this should have had suspense, period.<br /><br />Either way... watch this on a rainy day or a late night when there's nothing on the television. Though this isn't as great as I'd hoped, I would go for this over some infomercials.
Jon Good's Wife (simply one of the worst titles for a film ever), or The Red Right Hand (another absolutely awful sounding title that means nothing & has no relevance to the film) under which I saw it, is set in 'Salem, Massachusettes 1978' (incidently the year I was born which was quite possibly the best thing to happen during those 365 days) where five old college friends meet up for a school reunion, gay-boy fagot Roger Mather (John Kuntz, is that surname for real? Just say it out loud...), Martha Alden (Kim Brockington), Rebecca Lawson (Jenna Stern) & her boyfriend Jake Stabler (John Doe), Alan Hobbes (Michael Kevin Walker) & his wife Sandy (Megan Rawa) plus John Good (Marc Ardito, why is the spelling of 'John' different in the title?) & his wife Sara (Abigail Morgan). From the word go there is an uneasy tension in the air & when someone mentions their 'missing' friend Calef (Jason Winther) lots of unpleasant memories come flooding back. Then comes the phone calls, the mysterious nose-bleeds, hallucinations & guilt as the true horror of the events all those years ago finally comes to light...<br /><br />Produced, executive produced & directed by Kurt Gioscia who also wrote the thing & Kurt St. Thomas who gets the art direction credit too & if that wasn't enough they both act in the film as well! Personally I thought Jon Good's Wife was awful, I mean she can't cook or anything! Ha ha ha, only joking! Seriously though I didn't think much of the film overall, for a start it's pretty slow going & the entire first 30 minutes is solid snooze material of the reunion consisting of lots of catching up with each other & dull character building exposition. The film never explains itself, what's with those weird nose-bleeds for god's sake, the mysterious phone calls, the almost inconsequential death of one of the group that might or might not be natural & what the hell was Sara all about? She comes across as some nosey, sex crazed, dirty talking, shameless, bitter blackmailing know-it-all whore who apparently sleeps with just about every man she meets! Some of the dialogue she spouts wouldn't be out of place in a porno & it just seems totally at odds with the rest of the film which plays out more like a drama than the horror/thriller it was supposedly meant to be. Then there's the ending, if there's a worse way to end a film then to just leave literally everything hanging in the air with no closure whatsoever I have yet to see it. The whole thing was very predictable as well, I mean is anyone watching this not going to know that when they all mention their friend Calef went 'missing' there wouldn't be more to it?<br /><br />Directors Gioscia & Thomas make an infuriating film, on top of the predictability & annoying climax there is a retrospective narration by Alan which I simply don't understand as he has no more or less significance than anyone else & at what point in time is he narrating from? The reasons behind this narration is never made clear or elaborated upon. There's no tension because the whole things so by-the-numbers.<br /><br />Technically the film is OK but nothing special & some of the locations & clothes didn't look particularly authentic to me, this never convinced me it was taking place during the late 70's. The acting was alright & what about actor John Kuntz last name? I suppose if his wife was standing next to him we could describe them as a couple of Kuntz, right?!<br /><br />I really didn't think much of Jon Good's Wife (a blow up doll would have been better! Ha ha ha) & I'm not sure who it would appeal to. Forget about any gore, horror, violence, scares, atmosphere or excitement, in fact forget about everything that would have made this film watchable because it ain't here. Not recommended.
It's not often I feel strongly enough to post something about a film. This was, however, simply the worst movie I have ever seen. The performances were laughable at best, at worst they were, well, there's no other word for it, awful. Especially the lead female who's random sexual come-ons have to be seen and heard to be believed. Honestly, the plot is nonsensical,the dialogue appalling and the characterisation...there is none. I'm surprised it's not an Alan Smithee film. I can't stress this strongly enough... avoid at all costs.How do movies like this ever get made? This is no budget film-making at its very, very worst.
I don't think I've ever gave something a 1/10 rating, but this one easily gets the denomination. I find it hard just to sit through one of his jokes. It's not just that the jokes are so bad, but combine that with the fact that Carson Daily has zero charisma, can't set up or finish a punchline, and you've got a late night comedy recipe that will really turn your stomach.<br /><br />I have watched the show, never in its entirety, but many times still. It just creeps up on me after Conan. I usually watch a minute or two just to see if Carson daily is still the worst talk show host ever.<br /><br />Actually if you ever do see him interviewing a guest, it's just that, an interview. I feel so sorry every time he has a guest on and their confused smiles try to mask their body language that's screaming, "get me the hell away from this freak!" I do recommend watching the show, not for a laugh, but to ponder, how he got on the air and what he's still doing there. Watch as much as you can, I think you will find its complete awkwardness...interesting.
Carson Daly has to be the only late night talk show host that isn't a comedian. What was NBC thinking! He's not funny! The writing is horrible to! All of the sketches are painful to watch. The current new karaoke isn't funny at all, especially since he tells you what they are going to sing before they sing it! The escalator interviews is just stupid and needless to say not funny at all. All he jokes, especially during the monologue, are the least clever, dumbest, not funny jokes ever put on television! I mean, anytime he makes a Jessica Simpson joke he ends it with "because she's stupid," which cancels out any funniness that was in the joke, which was already very low. Any 3 year old could have come up with any of the jokes and sketches they put on this lame excuse for a show. Seriously, don't watch this show, unless you're on the edge of suicide and want something to push you over the edge.
Nothing Carson Daly has EVER said or done on this show has EVER made me laugh, or even smile a little. I DO NOT understand how this show has survived for so many years.<br /><br />Even the "funny" band member is just like one of those kids in high school who thinks nobody is good enough to even look at him. Daly and that dude are just arrogant frat boys. It seems like they don't even try to be a little funny.<br /><br />AWFUL AWFUL AWFUL show.<br /><br />It makes my soul cry.<br /><br />I just cannot stress enough how AWFUL this show is. Don't watch it. But if you absolutely have to, I recommend clawing your eyes out and clogging your ears with cement beforehand.
Before Last Call w/ Carson Daly, my local NBC affiliate aired much more worthwhile programming after Late Night w/ Conan such as second city TV, 3rd Rock From the Sun & Carline in the City reruns, and some stand up comedy. These days there is nothing worthwhile to watch because all I get to see is Carson Daly and his awful show. He is not a comedian, he is not an actor, he does not deserve to be famous because he isn't a good speaker nor comedian.<br /><br />On his June 21st show, he tried to use an internet meme called the "Rickroll" on his show. He failed hard. That event confirms that Carson Daly is awful.
He seems to be a control freak. I have heard him comment on "losing control of the show" and tell another guest who brought live animals that he had one rule-"no snakes." He needs to hire a comedy writer because his jokes are lame. The only reason I watch him is because he some some great guests and bands. <br /><br />I watched the Craig Ferguson show for a while but his show is even worse. He likes to bull sh** to burn time.I don't think either man has much of a future in late night talk shows.<br /><br />Daily also has the annoying habit of sticking his tongue out to lick his lips. He must do this at least 10 times a show. I do like the Joe Firstman band. Carson Daily needs to lighten up before it is too late.
For a while when I was in-between jobs I had a habit of watching all the late night talk shows. For a while I had a good selection: Conan, Leno, Letterman, Ferguson, Kimmel...<br /><br />Until I reached the 1:30 a.m. time slot. The time between Conan and X- Files, on SciFi. And the only show on at that time was (and curiously still is) Carson Daly.<br /><br />His show intrigued me at first. Youngish, casually dressed, and with the hip pedigree of an MTV host, I thought Carson would bring a younger aesthetic to late night. I couldn't have been more wrong.<br /><br />He has no comedic timing. His jokes are plainly unfunny, and his monologue a painful affair of self-conscious babbling. I began to think he simply wasn't capable of delivering comedy (and I am right, he isn't), but it became obvious over time that the writers on the show must have had it in for him. The writing was idiotic and much too overreaching and the skits screamingly bad. And towards the end of the show being in-studio, the writers had Carson drinking alcohol on the set with gusto on every show, an oblivious Carson grinning from emaciated cheek to emaciated cheek as he sloshed his way through interviews.<br /><br />Zero interview skills. None. He tries to be friendly/chatty, but ends up being boorish and rude. He talks too much. He cuts off his guests. He asks them rude or embarrassing questions -- if he can find a question to ask them at all. And as someone had already pointed out, the guests literally stare at him or squirm in their seats, clearly uncomfortable.<br /><br />Now the show has left the studio and looks as though it were shot on one handy cam. Even still, Carson refuses to take the hint from NBC. At one point, Carson didn't even get a camera man, he had to film himself for an episode! Wake up, Carson...that handwriting is all over the wall.<br /><br />I see the show is produced by Carson. I can only imagine that is the reason it is still on the air, he pays for it himself.
Maybe the best part of the show is the fact that it creeps up right after Conan O'Brien and Late Night's fans are all of a sudden unsuspectingly watching Carson's show. Carson Daly can't hold a candle to Leno, Letterman, O'Brien or any other late night talk show host, and Last Call seems to miss more than hit in this hit and miss genre. The shows only redeeming quality is that it's so short. But, I wouldn't call it crap. Carson Daly is sincere and doesn't hide the fact that his show isn't great(that honesty is actually helpful here), while some of Last Call's skits and material seem to be stolen, they still find the mark sometimes. Actually, some of Carson's montages have been quite entertaining, and the skits occasionally have their moments of decent comedy.<br /><br />As an interviewer, Carson is okay, even with only one guest, not exactly late night material but still above the level attained by a high school AV team. However, he doesn't have the quick wit that makes Conan so hilarious. I do not like his musical guests, but that's more because I am not a fan of that kind of music so, I'm not holding it against him.<br /><br />On to the house band. I don't know Joe Firstmans band and wouldn't compare them to the CBS Orchestra, the Tonite Show Band with Kevin Eubanks or the Max Weinberg 7. Even Cleeto and the Cleetones are better. But, Firstmans band mates do still the show in my opinion. Especially the Alto Sax player that sometimes shows up (he has long dark hair and sunglasses and is always playing in the upper register), if anything, watch the show for him, I do.<br /><br />In summary, this show isn't even worth a full bag of kibble n' bits. But it does have an audience, and appeals more to the younger "mtv generation". If you don't have cable and are up at 1:37 am, there really isn't much more to choose from and, surprise surprise, there is worse out there in that time frame. So, if you're waiting for Poker After Dark to come on, 30 minutes of Last Call wont kill you during the wait.
Again, we're getting a melange of themes well covered by so many previous films. The good and the bad son story, courtesy East of Eden. The American marine hero story, who doesn't consider himself to be one due to what he knows. And the grieving wife potentially falling in love with another man story.<br /><br />The mere fact of those stories being that ubiquitous isn't so much of a problem though. Because theoretically they could still be better presented and dealt with each time around. No luck this time though, as all three of those threads ultimately fall flat all the same.<br /><br />As the bad son never really gets to talk to his father, so that conflict is never resolved properly. Apart from the father kind of starting to appreciate the bad son thanks to the latter renovating the kitchen of the grieving wife. Now, how satisfying is that.<br /><br />Next, the surprisingly homecoming marine suspecting his wife of unfaithfulness conflict never gets resolved. Because he never really talks to the man under suspicion, namely his own brother. So once more we're handed a loose end here.<br /><br />And finally, the American military heroism hypocrisy theme, where the marine is publicly considered a hero when, due to the dirtiness of war he went through, he shouldn't really be called one as to his own standards, that third theme falls flat just the same. Because the movie ends right when, for the first time, he's just able to talk to his wife about what he went through. Where the real story would actually begin at that very point, namely his process of recovery, how that would look like and how he would finally face the family he'd have some major guilt to admit to. All that, all the really interesting bits are passed over and getting ignored.<br /><br />So while story wise this film is a serious, and I mean serious, disappointment, I'd still give it points for the impressive cast. Although no film should use Maguire for a voice over, because that belongs to Spiderman. Especially a grown up Gyllenhaal seems to fulfill all the expectations he aroused as a young and aspiring actor. So much that I'd in fact love to see him entrusted with a really deep and demanding lead role of proper profile.<br /><br />So while the cast really seems to do what they can, I consider this film totally forgettable otherwise. A shallow and ultimately pretentious, utterly unsatisfying tear squeezer indeed. Message du jour to the writers: we know the wounds already, see the host of Vietnam films. You want to earn some credit, show us a believable healing.
When the opening shot is U.S. Marines seriously disrespecting the U.S. flag, a movie has a tough road ahead, but unfortunately it was downhill from there. There is a military adviser credited, who is also apparently a retired U.S. Marine, making it even more baffling that this incredible breach of protocol, and law, went unnoticed. Even more baffling is the way they simply glossed over how a Marine is reported KIA, then buried, in very short order, without the slightest explanation of how they identified the body, or if there even was a body. The U.S. government is still finding the missing from WWII, and it takes months to identify the remains. Military shot down remain MIA for months or years and are only declared KIA when the remains have been positively identified, or after years of red tape. Here we are expected to believe that it happens within a matter of days or weeks. Maybe this happens in Denmark, but not in the U.S. Clearly none of the people involved ever had the slightest involvement with, or respect for, the U.S. military.<br /><br />Beyond that, there are a number of other utterly laughable moments when characters come up with zingers out of nowhere. There must have been some really extended meetings between auteur and actors as they struggled to find their motivation for such hogwash. Having a script that worked might have helped, but this one seems to have been made up on the spot, working from Cliffs Notes. There's no way to know if the script was this awful originally, or if it was the auteur, or the middle-management kids at the studio who bear responsibility. Either way, this is an awful movie that should have never been made.
... a recommendation! Gloria Grahame runs the kind of orphanage where discipline is imparted with a meat cleaver, orphans are hung on meat hooks to punish them and the bodies are kept in the deep freeze so that they can be brought out for when social services call. That the orphanage is strapped for cash we know because Gloria puts all the orphans to work, and also because there don't seem to be enough clothes to go round - especially for the older nubile female orphans (age range appears to be 12 - 30 ish). The new arrival, however, turns out to be more than a match for Gloria - and has indeed just taken out her own mother & mother's lover (in a witty claw hammer and arson opening scene). Predictably, Gloria ends up on a meat hook herself. This one was made for about tuppence but was/is a HUGE HUGE HUGE hit on the grindhouse circuit. My DVD cover promised "disturbing and politically incorrect scenes", and it sure wasn't lying. I believe it is regarded as the Citizen Kane of orphanage set torture porn movies. 4/10
I saw this at a drive-in when I was 9. All I remember are a few scenes (the ones where the main character Elle is being chased by a guy in a mask) and being scared spitless. Seeing it now, my opinions have changed. It's a pathetic "horror" film about an ophanage run by Gloria Grahame (sad) and dealing with a young, talentless girl Elle who is sent there after her mother, the town tramp, was beaten to death with a hammer (graphically shown). The film has adolescents (actually actors in their 20s) being beaten, tortured, killed, starved, attacked with meat cleavers, raped etc etc. The brutal hammer murder is the opening scene and then it gets worse and worse. There is NOTHING to recommend about this crap. The plot is stupid, all the dialogue is bad and the acting...the less said the better. How did this sickie get by with a GP (now PG) rating? It would get an R now. Worthless. One last thing...a truly repulsive twist ending suggests incest!
This is what happens when you try to adapt a play from the theater. Look at the end of the picture, totally theatrical.<br /><br />With a reminiscent of Les liaisons dangereuses the final steam-less speech try to make us think that the whole (and deep) theme of this matter was the manhood. Who cares by this point? It was about manipulation. And so the audience feels after this movie has ended.<br /><br />Young directors: A play is told with the words more than actions. A film is the opposite most of the times.<br /><br />And I'm not talking about the gay theme, overly exploited without a point ('cause there's no explanation of this topic considering the so called "philosophic" or presumptuous basis) to the level that this film should have been called Grand Gay
"Grande Ecole" is not an artful exploration of mixed sexuality but, if you're in need of it, a movie for an X-rated channel. Although I suspect there's nothing in this movie to spoil for a willing viewer, the plot is simply an excuse for male-to-female and male-to-male couplings set in the unconvincing context of a competition between a Parisian school for future CEOs and a major school for those seeking higher degrees in the liberal arts. There's likewise a frisson of cultural clash between high status and lower status French youth, plus a societal conflict involving native Frenchmen and Arab immigrants from North Africa. All that's missing is a female-to-female coupling, which could easily have been arranged with no more than a slight twist in the plot.<br /><br />The acting is at a somewhat higher level than in the usual pornographic movie -- but "Grande Ecole" is, to be blunt about it, no more than pornography with artistic aspirations. I'm not offended by the sex. It's just repetitive and, before long, boring. Where's the Hays Office when you really need it?
This film was nothing more than exploitative gay cheesecake. It was not an "art" movie; just an excuse to show several gratuitous, exploitative, over-the-top scenes with extensive male genital nudity. There was a locker room scene involving over a dozen naked men. The camera zooms in on the men's asses and penises as they are portrayed for several minutes with their dicks in full screen view. There are several scenes in this film showing penis after penis. It gets redundant REAL fast and makes it impossible to take this film seriously. I was wondering if I was watching a Playgirl video by mistake. If these same scenes were filmed using women (ex: totally naked and showing their vaginas repeatedly) it would be quickly dismissed as just softcore porn and an excuse to show a lot of eye candy...which is all that this film is. Any artistic merit got flushed down the drain of the gay ghetto mentality. The themes of class distinction, homosexuality, longing-desire, etc. were simple and superficial; no more developed than what one would expect from a first year philosophy student. Just cut to the chase and rent a gay porn instead.
I saw this film at the New Festival in New York. It was by far the worst film there. It's use of uncircumcised full frontal nudity and a wishy-washy script and direction that neither commits to a re-make of 'Maurice' nor decides it's a Neil LaBute flick, left me feeling 'Why would anyone ruin a perfectly good cast like this?'. It lacks irony and fills the vacuum with sentiment, which causes the times when the movie turns on itself to make you want to wipe your face as your mind and heart search for what could be going on in the film but isn't. I wish the director and editor had re-edited the film because maybe there's more story there that could be released from an otherwise unpleasant experience.
I saw Grande Ecole at its world premiere on the Rotterdam Film Festival. I had no idea what I was entering and if I'd had any idea I wouldn't have entered. This is the most pretentious film I've seen for a long time. It tries to be provocative, yet deep, with its full frontal homosexual sex scenes - it doesn't succeed! It's nothing but another bad excuse of showing naked persons on the big screen. 4/10
Not a terrible film -- my 10 year old boy loved it, and he would be the target demographic, so I guess they hit the spot. Pretty dull for an adult though.<br /><br />Hard to relate to animated lego characters, even mod high-tech ones.<br /><br />I thought the choice of the three great virtues of the Bionicle world was a bit odd -- unity, duty, and destiny. Am I the only one who thinks those sound just a bit fascistic? Especially destiny. What about freedom, equality, justice, etc.?<br /><br />Oh well, it will sell Lego. Kind of dull for a movie, but not bad for a 74-minute advertisement. Could have been a lot worse.
Antonio Margheriti, director of the enjoyably cheesy cult horror Cannibal Apocalypse, helms this Gothic-flavoured giallo starring gap-toothed 70s icon Jane Birkin (as well as her massive-conked French lover of the day, Serge Gainsbourg).<br /><br />Unfortunately, despite the inclusion of such treats as a tasty bi-sexual French teacher and a terribly unrealistic killer orangutan, Seven Deaths in the Cat's Eye ends up a dreary mess which is a struggle to endure.<br /><br />Pretty schoolgirl Corringa (Birkin) returns to her family's Scottish estate after many years away, only to discover that a maniac is murdering her relatives one by one. Using the whole array of 'spooky old house' tricks (hidden doorways, dark corridors, creepy graveyards, candlelit cobweb covered rooms), Margheriti cobbles together a confusing tale which at times promises supernatural goings-on, but ends up with a lame cop-out ending that is unimaginative in the extreme.<br /><br />'And where exactly does the cat fit in to all of this?', I hear you ask. Well, a rather pudgy moggy witnesses each murder thus justifying Margheriti's rather cool sounding title.<br /><br />'Gory, stylish fun' claims the DVD cover; 'Boring pile of dung' says I.
What can you say about a grainy, poorly filmed 16mm stag film, where the best and most attractive performer is a German Shepherd? Nothing that would be positive. Avoid this travesty at all costs. In any case, it would be difficult to find, since bestiality remains a taboo and illegal subject in the USA. I strongly suggest IMDb to re-visit their weighting formula for establishing ratings, since an 8.8 rating for this piece of fecal matter is absurd! I am, by no means, a prude and have spent many hours enjoying the classic porn movies of the 70's & 80's; but this is inferior product even by the looser standards of the (then illegal) stag loop.
Linda Lovelace was the victim of a sadistic woman hater, Chuck Traynor. I don't understand how having sex with a dog (which is animal abuse, as well) can be found to be entertaining or funny. Linda Lovelace was a virtual prisoner who was coerced into making these films. I know some people will criticize this comment but I feel strongly that these types of films fuel the fire of hatred and further misogynistic feelings towards women. This society continues to portray women as sexual objects as opposed to human beings. We call ourselves "civilized" however I feel we have a long way to go before we can ever scratch the surface of being civilized.
THE ATTIC starts off well. The somewhat dreary story is helped greatly by the two main actors and there's a semblance of a character study going on here but the film goes downhill fast when Carrie Snodgress' character buys a monkey. Not one of those cute little monkeys. She buys a real big chimpanzee!!!<br /><br />This sudden plot device basically kills the movie. It's just not conceivable for a woman like the one Snodgress plays, who has a hard time doing anything because of her domineering father, for her to, out of the blue, buy a chimpanzee. I mean, come on! Forget about it!
Slow, odd film that drags and plods (I mean really PLODS) along to its disappointing climax. You may expect some sort of punchline at the end, but there is none. Both Milland and Snodgress give awkward performances; in fact, the film's weirdness may actually be the only thing it has going for it. The generally atmospheric score has some absurd parts (like the music that plays during the first appearance of a monkey), and there is a truly awful fantasy scene involving....a gorilla. (**)
Oh, I'm mostly not the kind of person to give a movie less than 5 points. Mostly, just because of the effort from actors and directors.<br /><br />3/10 for Keyman from me. If anyone thinks the main character (or whoever) deserves an Oscar, I deserve the Nobelprize for peace.<br /><br />Seriously. I can't believe this movie made it to Europe. The acting was horrible, the plot was awful and what about the '70's horror-music. Give me a break.<br /><br />"Popeye" eg. What about him? Why is he there, he has nothing to do with the movie.<br /><br />And what about the Keyman's talking. One time he can't say a decent word, the next time he's getting all talky-talk. He also nearly dies when he wakes up and some sunlight shines thru his bunker. But when he's walking down the street, the sunlight doesn't seem to do anything.<br /><br />Watch this movie only of you're on the edge of dying of boredom. I regret myself for not watching my roses grow, which are in anyway more entertaining than this piece of...
No,I'm not a radical feminst bashing the hentai and yaoi genre,I just find it really boring and pointless.My god,I was MADE to watch this for initiation from some stupid punk and my my,even an MST3K movie has a storyline,not to mention that this HENTAI crap is what's giving Anime a bad name world-wide (watch out Sailor Moon!).Sadly,people don't realize that not all Anime(or any other Asian style) is sleazy porn.Death to the stereotype!!!<br /><br />*starts casting Ultima*
before seeing this film, the 1998 version was my only experience of this dickens story. i didn't enjoy that film very much, but this 1974 adaptation moves on in a particulary tiresome fashion.<br /><br />the actors don't shine, the main couple michael york and sarah miles are especially wooden cases. the only character of real interest for me was anthony quayle's intelligent jaggers.<br /><br />the so called plot is ridiculous, but the story itself is a great one. it's a real lesson on how your distorted values and obsessive principles can destroy you. live with an open mind and don't care what other people say, you are what you are, if others can't take it, **** 'em. pip was told this early on, but he didn't listen.<br /><br />the girl adopted by the weird old lady reminded me a little of the old kaspar hauser story, not in that same horrible level, but in the way she molded the child to create the executor of her personal vendetta against the entire opposite sex she thought had deceived her. pip's childhood didn't appear much better. the ending didn't seem to fit the rest of the story's style. the sets looked cheap, and coming to imdb i'm not surprised to see that this was indeed a tv-movie (which i had no idea of when i borrowed it from the library).<br /><br />live and learn. so many good movies, so little time. that's why the reviews are here. so YOU wouldn't have to waste your time on this sort of movies.<br /><br />3/10
Everything about this movie is bad. everything. Ridiculous 80's haircuts. Ridiculous moustaches. Ridiculous action and fight scenes where you can actually see that the adversaries do not even hit each other. Bad, bad, bad 80's music. Repeated scenes of people running through woods. A bad guy with a silver plastic hand and silly hair. Stupid dialogue. The acting is nonexistant. Everything looks extremely cheap. This movie even surpasses "Plan 9 from outer space" in its utter badness.<br /><br />It's not "funny bad" it's just bad.
This Canadian "movie" is the worst ever! Stunningly amateurish. When the bad guys rob a boat, we see two women with machine guns and one of them says, with a very low voice, "We're robbing your ship!" She blinks and is totally shy! Very intimidating. ROTFLOL!!!<br /><br />The two karate chopping heroes are 40something year old, five feet tall twin brothers! They're really bad actors. In fact, everyone involved in this production is a non-actor.<br /><br />There are so many continuity mistakes in this cheap production that it's amazing. In one scene, the guys are wearing one type of swimsuit. In the following shot, they're wearing completely different swimsuits. <br /><br />Absolutely terrible! A must see for any fan of bad movies. I have it on VHS. It's very rare. I cherish it.
I...I don't know where to begin. Dragon Hunt might just be the worst film in cinematic history. Even Anus Magilicutty was better than this, as it was intentionally bad. Showgirls? No, it had kitsch value and was technically a well made film. But Dragon Hunt takes the cake, and eats it, then vomits it back up and feeds it to a homeless man. It's that much of a travesty.<br /><br />The acting, if it can even be called that, is rough. It doesn't have the charm of improvised acting, so it must be scripted, but it's recited with an almost malicious tone of poor quality. Several lines were delivered in a way that shows the actors (or basically, those people on screen) either regretted being connected to this film or were thinking of a particularly humorous joke from Saturday Night Live, which they had watched prior to getting in front of the camera. I could write another three paragraphs on the quality of acting in this film, but you and I both don't want to hear it.<br /><br />The make-up and special effects (which, with most films, is the only good thing) was laughably bad. The antagonist, whose name is so ridiculous I can't remember it, has a Mohawk glued to the top of his head. Yeah, glued to his head. And you can tell it's glued on too, if you look at the spot where it meets his pockmarked skull you can see a plastic strip, not unlike the ones on fake eyelashes. Thankfully he's pretty much the only example of make-up no-nos in the film.<br /><br />There's also some terrible character development, to put it lightly. The women, who are strangely rough handled by the supposedly benevolent fugly brothers (and I mean, they are really pushed around), are not only ugly but...gasp...they don't know what they're doing! In one scene they turn on their apparent lovers, join up with the even uglier bad guy, and then snort some coke. Apparently they managed to get their hands on some really good cocaine, because they started shaking and laughing EVEN before all of it went up their nostrils. Great timing girls! Plus they wear some truly horrible stuff, clothes that belong solely in the late 80s and early 90s.<br /><br />Overall this movie, this film, this waste of film I should say, is also a waste of time. Watching it will hurt you, and will require the suspension of not only your belief, but also of your entire brain. If you want to get stoned with your friends and have some good laughs, see if you can get this film (you'll probably have to download it) otherwise, don't even think about it. Hope I was helpful.
Why is it that Canada can turn out decent to good movies in every genre, other then action? I caught Dragon Hunt on TV the other day and it was like a train wreck. I just could not change the channel, it's sheer stupidity sapped my willpower. Its pretty telling that the cast IMDb "credits" with this monstrosity apparently never worked again.<br /><br />Bad acting, bad writing, bad narration, bad music, bad hair, bad cinematography. It just goes on and on. The movie really has nothing to recommend it. If you're looking for bad action films to enjoy by laughing out, there are a tonne of other films that won't require you to scorch out your retinas afterwards.<br /><br />I hope this film didn't get money from the government for financing, otherwise I'm never paying taxes again.
This is by far the worst thing I have ever seen on film. My uncle's home movies have more talent in them then this piece of crap.<br /><br />The plot summary is basically that these twin kick boxers are playing some sick survival game with a man and his private army on some island. The man has a very cheap paper maché looking hand.<br /><br />The acting is atrocious in this movie. There are scene changes at the drop of the hat. For instance, for at least 30 seconds we see some guy humming a song to himself which adds NOTHING to the movie. This has the worst dialogue I have ever heard of in my life, I don't think this movie could get any worse then it already is. I would describe it as a want to be chuck Norris action film gone wrong. And I hate chuck Norris.
You know, I was very surprised when watching this movie. It aired during the day once when i was sick, and having nothing else to do, I continued watching. This is by far the WORST MOVIE EVER! But to my surprise I kept watching. I sat there saying, this is terrible, but yet didn't change the channel because I was so amused at how bad it was. Maybe It was the guy that looked like Big tom from survivor or the dreadful moustaches and mohawks these characters had, that kept me watching. However, the girls weren't half bad, but if that's what you want, there is far better. Oh, and there's "NINJAS" and "PAJAMA BOYS!"<br /><br />So if you like ninja's, bad acting, hilarious(and terrible) dialogue, and two twins who are five feet tall and killing everything in their sight, then this movie is for you. It's so bad it's good. However, I just had to give it a 1 out of ten. I couldn't have put a 10 on it up there with Lord of the Rings.<br /><br />ENJOY!!!!!!!!! :)
I have seen this movie several times, it sure is one of the cheapest action flicks of the eighties. So, I think many viewers would definitely change the channel when they come across this one. But, if you are into great trash, "Dragon Hunt" is made for you. The main characters (the McNamara Twins) are sporting great moustaches and look so ridiculous in their camouflage dresses. One of the best scenes is when one of then gets shot in the leg and is still kicking his enemies into nirvana. This movie is really awful, but then again, it is a great party tape!
This movie started off great; the first 30 minutes are very funny and clever with some interesting characters. That's the good news. The bad news is that the film then gets too repetitive and then it gets downright stupid. <br /><br />What we wind up getting is a Santa Claus with "magical" powers with a lot of New Age baloney thrown in the mix. It's just ridiculous and hardly the kind of "Christmas movie" I would expect from Jim Varney's "Ernest."<br /><br />To be fair, it still had a decent amount of laughs and is profanity-free but just not a film I could recommend.
'Ernest Saves Christmas' is comedian Ernest's Christmas special film. In this film, Ernest has to find a successor to Santa Claus in order for Christmas to continue. Along the way, he meets a young girl who is a thief and who ends up stealing something very important of Santa's (I won't tell you what that is; you'll just have to watch the film for yourself). Like most Ernest films, there is a lot of slapstick humor involved.<br /><br />This film is probably one of Ernest's best films. It's funny, and it has some important lessons to learn regarding friendship and family and not being afraid to show love. It's not the best Christmas film around, but it is a good one to get you in the Christmas spirit. It's a little bit sad that the film is a little dated now.
The first Robocop had a sense of cynical wit and a sick sense of violence. It was a fine line to walk, but Paul Verhoeven pulled it off and the film did so well, they made a sequel. How awful. (Possible Spoilers ahead - though anything that could spoil this is beyond me).<br /><br />Irvin Kershner is not the director for this type of film. He clearly did not understand the wit of the original and as a result the massive over-the-top senseless violence looks really bad - and worse is very distasteful. Even worse is the musical score. Leonard Rosenman was an old man from another era and the heroic, light music does not match the images on the screen at all! What was he scoring?! The Great American Hero?! Worst of all, he completely eliminated Robocop's theme from the first film, which was so memorable and perfect. Can you imagine a Superman film without John Williams' fanfare, or Indiana Jones, etc.? How could he do that?!!<br /><br />The plot is just a collection of ideas that don't gel. In beginning we see Robo "stalking" his old wife. Fine, good idea. But, they completely drop it after that. Then, there is this a stupid idea of the company reprogramming Robo to be nice. That's thrown in for 10 minutes and then is immediately dropped. Or, the silly idea that the repulsive 10 year old drug lord reminds Robo of his son - Once again, a weak motif that is shown briefly twice and dropped. This may work in a comic book, but not on film and Frank Miller was unfortunately too inexperienced at the time and threw every idea in along with the kitchen sink. It doesn't work as a whole.<br /><br />Some people here seem to be praising the corporate bashing in this film and the privatization of the police. That is the best part of the film that is consistent with the first. However, in the original, the old man was a tough business man out for a profit, but ultimately fair in the end. In this film, he is just pure evil in his lust for money and power. You can't just change characters like that for no reason. And Nancy Allen's character is useless in this film, whereas in the first she was essential to Robo's search for himself. She is as gratuitous as the violence in this film.<br /><br />And the violence, yes the violence. I enjoy many violent, bloody films when they serve purposes and are meant to tell a story. Irvin Kershner seems to get off on human beings being blown to bits, shot to pieces, children lusting for death and torture and peoples' desire for drugs. He doesn't know when to stop. Do we really need to see every last innocent bystander (even people trying to help others) get shot up???? It is inferred when we see the bad Robocop shooting repeatedly! Instead Mr. Kershner proves he has very little taste for this type of work and creates an abominable mess that is a terrible piece of pop art and worse, a disgusting message of violence for any young person watching this film.<br /><br />No, this film isn't meant to be message-y and I certainly don't watch Robocop movies or Alien or Predator movies for that reason. However, when you go too far and cross the line, much of what you do must be put into question. And as for this film, in the words of the evil kid drug dealer's last words as he dies, "It still sucks".
I was a huge fan of the original Robocop.<br /><br />But to say I was disappointed by this first sequel would be an understatement.<br /><br />The problems are many.<br /><br />Glossy though the film may look there are plenty of bloopers on screen for all to see, wires, cameramen etc, something I find wholly unacceptable from someone of Irvin Kreshner's pedigree.<br /><br />Robocop has become a robot. There is no spark of humanity to be found in the character here. A true disappointment when one considers that his "soul" had returned by the end of the first movie. Here his attitude shows no human side and makes him hard to sympathise with.<br /><br />Caine is a poor villain. OK I know Boddiker from the first film was better than the average, mainly thanks to Kurtwood Smith's performance, but the usually solid Tom Noonan creates a character who you couldn't care less about one way or the other.<br /><br />What's happened to the Old Man????. I appreciate that he didn't get to where he is by being "nice" but the change in his character here is nothing short of dumbfounding. In the first movie it's made clear he despises Dick Jone's tactics and attitude and yet here he's no better than Jones. It makes no sense.<br /><br />Doctor Faxx is a poor replacement for Bob Morton's charismatic, if unpleasant, OCP resident genius.<br /><br />The action sequences, save the sequence where Murphy is stuck to the side of Caine's truck, are harsh and nasty and repel rather than entertain.<br /><br />And finally. What is with the musical score?. Don't tell me Poledouris couldn't have done it simply because he was working on Total Recall at the time. A series (TV or Movie) soundtrack is part of its personality. Part of its character. When you remove that it harms the familiarity of the characters we're watching. So it's bad enough but shame on Leonard Rosenman. His score here is lurid, camp and downright cringe worthy.<br /><br />The story has its moments to be fair. There's a lot of originality in here. But it tries too many new things to take in with one film. Hob is a well realised villain and the only truly dis likable "villian" in the move, Thumbs up to Gabriel Damon there.<br /><br />The final showdown between Robocop and Robocop 2 is fun as well.<br /><br />But for the vast majority of its overlong running time this is a serious disappointment.
For most people, RoboCop 3 is the film that really is the big disgrace for the Robo series. It has few fans, and most people hate it for it's shameless commercial PG-13 approach. Now, I'm not going to say that RoboCop 3 is any good. Frankly, it pretty much sucks. But as far as being a properly shot and executed film, it surpasses this piece of circuit chaos. Yes, the truth of the matter is that RoboCop 2 is the worst of two bad and unnecessary sequels to a near-masterpiece. So what if RoboCop 3 turns Robo into a cartoonish super hero in a ultra mainstream production for kids to enjoy - at least it's doing it openly. I don't know where RoboCop 2 begins and ends, I don't know what or whom it's about, I don't understand what's going on in it, I don't understand which jokes are deliberate and which aren't, I will go insane if I try to understand the characters, I see nothing of any value in anything anybody is saying, I can't believe anybody looked at the shooting script and figured it would work and I can't believe that Irvin Kirshner saw the finished result and figured that he liked what he see. He probably didn't by the way, neither Miller, nor Weller nor Allen did. It's not hard to see why.<br /><br />Now, RoboCop 2 has it's fans, I know this. Mostly they belong to this league of absolute anti-pretensions, dismissing anybody who expected any depth, or subject matter from the first film, as academic Roger Ebert Sith apprentices. It's just a lot of fun, a good piece of action and great entertainment, the argument goes. Yeah well, I guess if you just don't listen to what any of the characters are saying you could fool yourself that we might as well have Arnold in the suit instead of Weller. Don't get me wrong, I like a good action film, with pure entertainment value as it's only - most satisfying - virtue. But RoboCop 2, sir, ain't no such thing.<br /><br />Look at the first couple of scenes. This horrible actor makes Robo repeat that he's just a machine, and then goes into this operatic speech about how he could never be a man, where-after Murphy's wife (who's suing OCP for robot-stalkings) walks in out of the blue and have this sad little moment with him, and then is never heard of again! I surely would like to go in to this film scene by scene, because every one has these kind of absurdities in them. It's like a twelve year old fan boy has done the screenplay, the characters act totally random and first say this, then say that. OCP wants to stop crime with a new Robo, especially this drug called "nuke" but then it seems they really just want to become this big capitalist empire and control the entire city – politics are abandoned I guess, understandable given the comic relief mayor, The villain (played by Tom Noonan, who did a better version of this in Last Action Hero and that's saying a lot) is an addict, but is still used for this machine. The woman behind it all has an agenda which is impossible to understand.<br /><br />Speaking of twelve year olds, this film has the infamous role of "Hub", this mad kid who swears and kills people, played by a child actor. I'm not going to be all moral about it, it's a free world and if you want a psycho kid in your action movie, go for it. I don't know how much of Frank Miller's original vision was put into this, but the credits at least acknowledge him as conceiver of the "story". And, if I zoom out, I could see this as being quite a cool character. It's grim for sure, to have a maniac killer kid but then again this is the world of RoboCop and who would be surprised? This whole business with the OCP trying to become this giant monopoly over everything, is properly dystopian and good as well. Also, the idea of RoboCop getting in touch with his wife and kid, having them embedded into the story somehow - would also be great, and as far as I can see a natural and logical step if they now had to make a RoboCop sequel.<br /><br />But, of course, these are just ideas. As many people have already said, the screenplay is 100% mess. The kid has one scene (the torture scene) where it's hinted that he in fact is just a stereotype messed up kid, and then we have this unimaginable scene where he is dying and gets all soft and friendly towards ol' tin head. Why doesn't he just take up his uzi and try to take him down with his last breath? Isn't that what his character would do? Does he give his life a little second thought there on his death bed? Not necessarily, given that his last words are "it sucks", so why? It really makes no sense, and this can be said about everybody, no everything, in this film. IS there a strike in the police force? IS RoboCop machine or man? What's the deal with turning Robo into this community service machine for 10 minutes? I mean, sure, it's pretty funny I wouldn't deny that. But why build it up, and then discard it? And why the hell is Allen so criminally underused? and what is it Weller has an obvious urge to express with his character and yeah, well, the threads are many and the mess is enormous.<br /><br />This review is just as messed up as the film. The only reason I give an extra star up there is because of the actors from the first film, I'm sure they had good intentions with it. I mean it's something somewhat stable, some kind of anchor in this sea of bad movie making.
I recently picked up all three Robocop films in one box set, rather cheaply and the only reason I did this was for the special edition of the superb first one. I have seen Robocop 2 before but not for 17 years, the year it came out. I have never watched it since because I can still remember how disappointed I was when I discovered how appalling it really is. Its a complete mess really, it has all the signs of a troubled production with so many sub-plots going on at the same time. It has a very uneven tone also and it is also one of the nastiest films I have ever seen. I don't mind a little violence, the first one was incredibly violent but this one is just plain nasty. Also the SFX is terrible even for 1990, say hello to bad stop motion. Also having a drug dealing, cursing kid as a villain is just a little too much. Peter Weller at least had the common sense not to return for the next one. The only positive thing I can say for this film is it does have a couple of nice gags, like the thank you for not smoking one and the kiddie baseball team robbing an electrics store. To quote the kid who plays the villain "It sucks"
I really don't understand who this movie is aimed at. From just the absurdity of it, not to mention the ridiculously bad acting, cheesy dialogue, and the fact that the villain is a child, I'd assume this was meant to be a children's movie... but I think there may be more swear words than Pulp Fiction, not to mention constant references to drugs and general mayhem and killing-so which demographic is it trying to please? This movie is too schizophrenic, like trying to combine Country music with Heavy metal, in the end no one is going to like it because it's a bloody paradox. I would recommend this movie because it's so funny (in a bad way) except the actors are so patently unbearable that I wouldn't want to suggest otherwise.<br /><br />I'm completely serious when I say that I could not watch more than 15 minutes of this. Terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiible
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />Old Detroit is back, with the giant Omni Consumer Corporation continuing to swallow everything in it's path as construction of the new Delta City continues and a new menace to contend with in the shape of Cain, a cruel drug lord with delusions of Christ-likeness, peddling a deadly new addictive on the streets called nuke. As he continues to struggle with the memories of his former life haunting him, the tin plated hero sets out to bring this villain down- only to wind up getting chopped into pieces of scrap metal. With Robocop out of action, a ruthless OCP business-woman proposes plans for her new android- a stomping, snarling beast of a machine that needs an equally nasty test subject to power it- which Cain fits perfectly. After a brief glitch in his system, Robo returns to bring justice to the streets and settle the score with Cain.<br /><br />The original Robocop is a film that always manages to astound you each time you watch it, no matter how many times you've seen it, one of those films that just can't be done again. That said, it's not surprising a sequel was made- it's even less surprising that that sequel really pales compared to the original. Empire Strikes Back director Irvin Kirschner has crafted an unpleasant, slightly incoherent and overlong film that can't capture the magic of the first film, no matter how hard it tries. And it certainly does that, the funny ads from the first film running none stop, the corporate satire aiming to be that bit sharper and the action roaring as fast and furious as before, but with blood/gore even meaner than the first film. The first film earned a name for some nasty, blood-soaked violence (including a man's genitals being blown off and a man being blasted to pieces) but while that was more memorable the violence/gore on display here is of a more sadistic and gratuitous nature, with a very unpleasant and mean-spirited tone to it.<br /><br />But overall, the film leaves you with a feeling of general apathy- why are you watching this when you could be watching the original again instead? **
Violent sequel to RoboCop was directed by Irvin Kershner (Never Say Never Again, The Empire Strikes Back) will never be as good as the original, because it is almost humorless, and it is extremely mean, and should have been rated NC-17, because of scenes with infants being involved in gunfights, people threatening to brutally murder very young infants with REAL automatic weapons, and even scenes with a 12 year old using lots of explicit profanity, giving drugs to lots of random people, shooting and graphically shooting up and killing policemen and SWAT officers, opening fire on police officers when lots of small and young children are present, and a whole group of children using strong profanity and beating up the store owner (who is a very old man) of an electronics store and stealing and destroying lots of items there. This film gives new meaning to the term "appallingly mean", but the effects and action sequences are exceptionally incredible. Overall, an OK movie.
Unfortunately producers don't know when to leave well enough alone, or are into recycling to the point that every scrap of trash that Hollywood generates is up for rendering into Alpo. It seems that every sci-fi action adventure flick must endure a sad list of follow-up films, and Robocop is a tragic example. The first film, under Paul Verhoven's direction was a wild, stylish ride, even finding time for a little social commentary on what the dark side of bio-tech is capable of turning us into. This film has none of that, aside from maybe telling us that drugs are bad for you and could make you do things you'd regret when sober. Robocop 2 lacks the vision, the profoundly scary vision of what we are becoming, and instead clumsily takes us on a boat ride into how nauseating drug dealers and their victims really are. Social commentary be damned. This one really bit the big one for me. If you don't care for anything but the SFX, go to it, my friend. Otherwise don't waste your time with this yeastless sour cake, and preserve the first film's accurately measured, heavy-weighted pumpernickle hot out of the oven. It's that simple.
Following which, the touted update goes and shoots itself through the head. Rather apt, considering the sorry state of this movie, a sequel to a film which patently didn't need one.<br /><br />What really irritates about Robocop 2 is that the makers obviously didn't understand why the original was so good in the first place. Robocop (7) was a witty, vibrant satire of bad action movies. Robocop 2 is just a bad action movie.<br /><br />Thin on dialogue, particularly towards the tedious, shoot-out finale, it attracts little interest and possesses none of the energy or spirit of the original. The spoof ads, now a little tasteless ("Warning: continued use will cause skin cancer") seem merely there as an afterthought. And calling a new designer drug "Nuke" is nowhere near as subtle or as funny as the original's family board game, "Nuke ‘em!"<br /><br />The stop-motion animation – the weakest element of the original – is used more extensively, while this humourless sequel fails to include a credits sequence, which makes it look even more cheap and hurried. Ah, humourless? You might say. But what about the funny mayor, or the way Robo is reprogrammed to spout platitudes? Yes, these are attempts at light relief, as is Robo tightening himself up with a screwdriver ("we're only human") for the film's punchline, but none are likely to induce laughter. Like the rest of the film, they're staid and moronic attempts at entertainment.<br /><br />The third and final film in the series (imaginatively titled Robocop 3; 5) saw Peter Weller leave, to be replaced by Robert John Burke, who does well in a undemanding role. With toned-down language and violence, it was an obvious plea to the kiddie market, a Robo action figure much plugged throughout. With it's social conscience too overstated, and Robocop's new-found arm attachments and jetpack getting too silly, the final film was never destined to be a masterpiece. Yet fluid direction by Fred Dekker and a flowing pace make this one enjoyably throwaway viewing.<br /><br />Robocop, then, is the film proper. Robocop 3 is the sequel which you could watch if there was nothing better on. Which leaves the second movie hanging in the middle, an unwatchable dirge of a picture. A franchise vehicle that has nothing to say, save for the pound signs that rung up. Irvin Kershner is no Paul Verhoven, just as comic artist Frank Miller and partner Walon Green aren't the writers that Edward Neumeier and Michael Miner were. A tragic waste of a good, if limited, concept. 4/10.
It's a shame that they didn't trust the original enough to build on it. <br /><br />But "RoboCop 2" takes the great ideas, imagination and characters of the original and replaces them with all the stereotypes that sequels have to offer.<br /><br />The beginning commercial was cute and so was the scene that follows (reminiscent of the beginning in "Guys and Dolls"!) but aside from a flash of thought here and there, this is one film that is a slow, dirty slog down into the middle of nowhere.<br /><br />Ideas are introduced then dropped, interesting characters from the original hardly get any screen time here, most of the new characters (Cain, Juliette Faxx) are so boring that they wouldn't hold up no matter what the movie, and then there's the tone.<br /><br />In the Blessed Original, Paul Verhoeven knew how to direct with the kind of attitude where if you cranked up the attitude and the sensibility of a good pulp comic, even the most repellent violence would be entertaining. Kershner (although he DID direct a "Star Wars" sequel) doesn't. And scene after scene either makes you cringe, look away or just tune it out altogether.<br /><br />And what's with RoboCop?? HE should be the main thing here, right? But there's whole scenes where he doesn't even show up, and what scenes he is in are so half-thought and shakily written that you don't know or care if he's part-human or part-cyborg - since he's all-boring.<br /><br />Never have I seen such a rapid fall from grace. Why does Hollywood make such bad sequels? On purpose? Why; did the film-makers have a bet going?<br /><br />Only one star for "RoboCop 2"; the FX are good but the story doesn't even try to match them.
A pointless cash-in with nothing to contribute except nastiness, this is a definite case of sloppy seconds for Robocop. Irvin Kershner's numbing, plot less and tired mess of a sequel is watchable and even mildly entertaining in a dubious, unpleasantly trashy way, but it has virtually none of the original's flair, emotion, intelligence or excitement. Instead we have just another empty spectacle of a blockbuster whose only reason to exist seems to be to nauseate the viewer with relentless violence, which is far more brainlessly gratuitous than anything in the original. Omni Consumer Products, who made the original Robocop cyborg, have turned into more of a totalitarian force than ever second time round, what with the suspicious Nazi-esquire banners, stormtrooper guards and tanks for hire at the end; as for the anonymous Old Man (Daniel O' Herlihy), he's less of a benevolent protector and more of a hideous Mr. Burns type, surrounding himself with moronic lackeys who genuinely believe that putting the brain of a murderous psychopath into the body of the all-new Robocop 2 is a good idea. Oh, and the first Robocop gets a look in somewhere amidst all of this mess, though you wonder what on Earth a fine actor like Peter Weller saw in the script. The droll Tom Noonan has nothing to work with as the villain, while Nancy Allen is badly wasted as Robocop's partner. There are some hilarious moments throughout; the opening 'Magnavolt' commercial, for instance, but this is a poor follow-up to the truly great original.
This movie is a fine example of what happens when a studio wants to get a sequel to a fine movie out of the gates at all cost. Only with this movie, it truly is a near miss. Everything seems in place for Robocop 2 to be a worthy followup to the groundbreaking first movie. The complete original cast (apart from the casualties, naturally) returns and gives it their best. Too bad a hackneyed script and an incompetent director as good as neutralize their efforts.<br /><br />Irvin Kershner might have been the ideal go to guy for George Lucas to direct the Empire Strikes Back. For a pedestrian filmmaker like Kershner there isn't much to ruin in Lucas' charmless film series. A worthy successor to a classic like Robocop would have needed either Paul Verhoeven to return, or a director with enough brass to give his own spin on it. Kershner doesn't know how to give his own spin on anything (Lucas hired him for that) and he's surely no Verhoeven.<br /><br />So what we get here is a movie that goes through all the motions to replicate the first movie, but with none of the freshness, humor or daring the original had. Kershner probably thought he could top Verhoeven by adding more gore and gratuitous violence, but instead he reveals how much he was at work as a director for hire instead of a passionate filmmaker. And that's a shame, since everything was in place to make this another classic. As mentioned the actors give it their best, but Phill Tippet delivers some groundbreaking stop motion effects and there are some great ideas in the story by Frank Miller, who was born to write a Robocop movie. If only the studio had hired a director who was competent enough to make all the potential come through.
This was okay, but really a bit disappointing because I expected more laughs. Considering the storyline and the lead actor (Bill Murray), it should have been a lot funnier than it turned out to be. Only part of this made me really laugh, such as when Murray lost control of his semi and was speeding down the road at a weird angle. (You have to see it, to appreciate it.)<br /><br />The supporting cast was anything but likable people. Just look at a sampling of the names: Matthew McConaughey, Janeane Garofalo and Linda Fiorentino. Yecch! McConaughey's role in here as "Tip Tucker" was just downright annoying. He was the worst. <br /><br />Other that those people, the movie had some charming moments but overall it is not recommended. It's another Disney flop.
The over-riding problem with this film is that it can't possibly use Bill Murray to the best of his abilities, simply because of the co-star.<br /><br />If this was a road movie with another comedic actor, it might work. Even if they were both trying to get the elephant across the country, it would at least allow for them to share some amusing dialogue. As it stands, Murray is left talking to an elephant who cannot answer back with witty banter. Essentially, it means that Murray is talking to himself, and this makes the film more boring than it could have been had he had another character to bounce off.<br /><br />Kids would enjoy this movie,simply because of the elephant, but anyone wanting to watch Bill Murray's biting delivery and enjoy an excellent script needs to look somewhere else.
LTL is the kind of formulaic, hopeless comedy to be enjoyed by the sort of sheep that stop and listen when they come across a band playing in a shopping mall.<br /><br />I remember Murray promoting LTL on Larry King's crappy CNN show, where he said something like "if this movie doesn't become a hit I'll stop making movies (or comedies)". He wasn't being nearly as jovial as one might think; he must have felt that LTL was a sure-fire hit and that its failure would mean his status as a star had markedly fallen - hence a sort-of ultimatum live-on-air to his fans to spend their hard-earned money on a dumb elephant comedy. (The comedy being dumb, not the elephant...) Or maybe he simply realized during the shooting (or when he saw the final cut) what a turkey this was, so he tried desperately to convince everyone how much optimism he had regarding LTL's quality. "Go see it, it really is good!" Actors are prostitutes inter-bred with car salesmen.<br /><br />LTL is the sort of lousy project that comes from the "Friends" school of comedy; their motto: "If you ever run out of ideas - or if you never had any in the first place - then stick an animal into the plot and that will at least inject an element of cuteness". Cuteness = a sad substitute for lack of funny gags. The other motto "Friends" had was: "always include pointless, dull sentimentality", which this movie so predictably ends with, when Murray rather pathetically says: "what they forgot to tell you is that you never forget an elephant". Maybe not an elephant, but I certainly managed to easily forget this turkey, which I saw many years ago. I was suddenly reminded of it when I saw a scene from it on TV today (hence this equally pointless review).<br /><br />Murray wastes his talent on this turkey (disguised as an elephant), but he isn't nearly as uninteresting/bad as McConaughey (or however that man's name is spelt); one would think that M.M. would have an easy time playing himself, i.e. a hick, but he is so painfully unfunny and unconvincing that I could barely stand to watch him make such a jackass out of himself. It was cringe-worthy. To round off this nonsense, we have that generation-X buffoon, Garofalo, in a rather useless role. Then again, everything about LTL is useless...<br /><br />After LTL, which bombed as far as I know, Murray went on to become more of a "serious actor". What is it with these comedians and their inferiority complex? Is it all just about getting awards, i.e. "recognition from their peers" (read: votes from their moron colleagues)? This piece of crap marked the end of a string of good and great movies Murray made in the early- and mid-90s, such as "Groundhog Day", "Quick Change", "Mad Dog & Glory", "Kingpin", "What about Bob?" and "Ed Wood". Recently we've had the immeasurable pleasure of seeing him in garbage/mediocrities such as "Hamlet", "Lost In Translation" (you just can't get away from these "ultra-talented Coppolas"), and "Broken Flowers". Compare those two batches.<br /><br />One guy described LTL "funny as heck". Now THAT'S the kind of audience this movie was hoping for... Shopping malls and trailer parks...
This *should* have been an amazingly funny movie...but it falls flat on its face. (In fact, I stopped watching it halfway through, which is something I rarely do...) -- Bill Murray plays Jack Corcoran, a second-rate motivational speaker who is bequeathed an elephant by his father (whom he had presumed to be dead before he was born) ; he then has one week to get the ponderous pachyderm across the country. His adventures on the way are only mildly amusing at best. Janeane Garofalo's considerable comedic talents go largely untapped. Anita Gillette is impressive in her small role as Jack's mother (who has a lot of explaining to do), and Pat Hingle stands out as a former circus associate of Jack's father. -- Perhaps the second half of the movie was better than the first, but I find that hard to believe...
I have always liked Bill Murray in films like Lost in Translation, and the trailer for this film looked really good, but the result was very disappointing. Basically Murray plays Jack Corcorin who has recently found out that his father died, and he is expected to hear his will. He finds out that his father was a clown, because he left a large shoe, his squeaky nose, and his main inheritance, an elephant! The only way that Jack can get rid of this elephant is to travel 4000 miles in four days and give him to a safe zoo for $30,000. Also starring Pat Hingle as Vernon. There are small tiny moments of humour, such as a truck's front bending forward, and Murray screaming, but overall, it's pointless. Pretty poor!
Mainly a biography of a lustful doctor, "Robert Merivel ," (Robert Downey) who has his way in the king's palace for the first half of the film and then helps out the downtrodden in the second half, mainly "Katharine" (Meg Ryan).<br /><br />The GOOD - Fantastic set decoration (i.e. the lush king's palace) and costuming make this a visual treat. The language is also very tame. Ian McKellen and Hugh Grant provide interesting support.<br /><br />The BAD - After 50-60 minutes, this movie simply gets too boring. It desperately needed to be given some spark after an hour but it does the opposite: it drags on and on. The script certainly needed some badly-needed "restoration," shall we say? The film may look nice but it's a long two hours to sit through.....too long.
Robert Downey Jr. in a 17th century wig and dress was enough to make me shudder, but I couldn't believe a great actor like Sam Neill actually took a part in this movie. The whole thing was unbelievable. I especially like Merivel's "cure" for the crazies. They dance...and hey presto! everyone's happy and they're all better! I guess I just didn't like the character Merivel too much. Therefore, watching a whole movie about his supposed transition from a whoring buffoon into a great physician was grueling. <br /><br />Also, I'm not entirely sure, but I didn't think the plague as well as the famous fire of London took place simultaneously.
I really wanted to like this film. The second film in the series had this silly, drive in movie feel to it that was fun (of course, I was also drunk). I watched this film with the highest expectation of a similar experience of high cinematic hilarity, a-la- Mystery Science Theater 3000. I WAS WRONG!!!!! This movie is a god awful waste of film, and I LIKED THE SECOND ONE!!!! From the effeminate villain with the David Bowie fright wig, to the tacky, obnoxious female villains with laughs that could strip the paint off a garage door, this whole thing was just a painful mess. I actually felt bad for Sue Price, because the material was beneath an actress of her stature (that pretty much says it all). An awful, awful film (that's not a recommendation).
This is going to be my first review on IMDb and I'm glad that the standard rating is 1 out of 10 because then I don't have to change anything...<br /><br />First there are awful movies. Movies you can make a laughter out of, like Island City, Battlefield Earth or Conan The Destroyer. That is totally acceptable. They makes a great party enhancer. Then there are the worst movie ever. I cannot believe how utterly crappy this steaming pile of dog turd was.<br /><br />I found it on a second hand store on VHS and bought it quickly because I like sci-fi, Terminator, post-apocalypse and stuff like that. Everything on the box art was very promising. Then I loaded in the tape quickly when I got home and the first thing that I noticed was... WHAT? There was maybe 10 minutes (or more) of switching between present clips and flashbacks in a very annoying blue effect, with sounds that makes you puke. And it just continues over and over. Then some "acting" kicks in and you wonder why you were ever born in a world, where this abomination of mankind actually exists... And then I realized, THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO PREQUELS. I didn't think about it first, but the title says "3" in it... And I was horrified. But as I actually in great pain and agony watch it to the end, I thought nothing could ever make me feel worse about myself and this universe... But then a little text showed up saying... "Next..." and... NEMESIS 4?!?!?! NO PLEASE NO!!!!!!!!
I got this thing off the sci-fi shelf because I remembered seeing the first of the series when I was a kid. I'd rented the second one and it was a decent "B" sci-fi. This one was out right obnoxious. The "special" effects on the cars looked like something my 4 year old cousin could have done. The two assistant female cyborgs were so terrible that I literally cringed every time they came on the screen. The plot left so much to be desired that it made me sick. I don't know what anyone was thinking when they agreed to be a part of this movie but I'm sure that they'd have done better to have left it at 2 movies. The movies in this series are going from good to decent to terrible. I only hope that no terrorist groups have access to this movie as it makes an excellent torturing device.
Perhaps the worst of the "Nemesis" films (and that says A LOT!), this mess features so many flashbacks to part 2 that you might as well say that you've seen them both, even if you've only endured this entry. Making matters worse are two wisecracking cyborgs who have absolutely no entertainment value. In other words, they are a perfect fit for this endlessly boring cinematic mistake.
Nemesis 3 is the worst movie what I have ever seen!!! I think that Nemesis 3 was only 30 minutes long. And that movie was so boo-oo-ring. When that movie ends and I saw word: NEMESIS 4... I thought I will...NOT watch that movie never again.
There's something about a movie that features female bodybuilders that gets me in front of the screen every time. <br /><br />I've seen "Pumping Iron II", "Aces: Iron Eagle III", "Raven Hawk", and even the TV movie "Getting Physical", which featured some big names in the sport. They were tolerable in their own ways (mostly, because they featured Rachel McLish. ROWWR!!).<br /><br />Then I went and watched "Nemesis III: Prey Harder", on the sole basis that it featured such luminaries as Sue Price, Debbie Muggli, Sharon Bruneau and Ursula Sarcev. Love the ladies, always will, but after this I'm kinda glad I missed the first two "Nemesis" flicks.<br /><br />Well, the first one, anyway. Most of the footage here is lifted bodily (and kicking and screaming, I would guess) from "Nemesis II". Actually, that one looked marginally entertaining from the evidence supplied here.<br /><br />But even though Price and company flex and pose, they don't get much of a chance to do anything else (like, say, ACT!). In fact, this whole film is an exercise (Get it? Ha-ha...) in oblique story-telling, ambiguous characters and open-ended movie-making (in terms of filming as well as the story-line). <br /><br />Nothing makes much sense but even if it did, there would still be issues - such as making such small parts for such larger-than-life women as these. What a crime.<br /><br />Of course, it was written and directed by Albert Pyun, so what did you expect: cohesion?<br /><br />One star only, in consideration for all the hard work that Price, Muggli, Bruneau and Sarcev obviously put into their bodies, NOT the "craft" work done within the movie itself.<br /><br />Thanks, ladies.
A plane carrying employees of a large biotech firm--including the CEO's daughter--goes down in thick forest in the Pacific Northwest. When the search and rescue mission is called off, the CEO, Harlan Knowles (Lance Henriksen), puts together a small ragtag group to execute their own search and rescue mission. But just what is Knowles searching for and trying to rescue, and just what is following and watching them in the woods? <br /><br />Oy, what a mess this film was! It was a shame, because for one, it stars Lance Henriksen, who is one of my favorite modern genre actors, and two, it could have easily been a decent film. It suffers from two major flaws, and they're probably both writer/director Jonas Quastel's fault--this film (which I'll be calling by its aka of Sasquatch) has just about the worst editing I've ever seen next to Alone in the Dark (2005), and Quastel's constant advice for the cast appears to have been, "Okay, let's try that again, but this time I want everyone to talk on top of each other, improvise non-sequiturs and generally try to be as annoying as possible".<br /><br />The potential was there. Despite the rip-off aspects (any material related to the plane crash was obviously trying to crib The Blair Witch Project (1999) and any material related to the titular monster was cribbing Predator (1987)), Ed Wood-like exposition and ridiculous dialogue, the plot had promise and potential for subtler and far less saccharine subtexts. The monster costume, once we actually get to see it, was more than sufficient for my tastes. The mixture of character types trudging through the woods could have been great if Quastel and fellow writer Chris Lanning would have turned down the stereotype notch from 11 to at least 5 and spent more time exploring their relationships. The monster's "lair" had some nice production design, specifically the corpse decorations ala a more primitive Jeepers Creepers (2001). If it had been edited well, there were some scenes with decent dialogue that could have easily been effective.<br /><br />But the most frightening thing about Sasquatch is the number of missteps made: For some reason, Quastel thinks it's a good idea to chop up dialogue scenes that occur within minutes of each other in real time so that instead we see a few lines of scene A, then a few lines of scene B, then back to A, back to B, and so on.<br /><br />For some reason, he thinks it's a good idea to use frequently use black screens in between snippets of dialogue, whether we need the idea of an unspecified amount of time passing between irrelevant comments or whether the irrelevant comments seem to be occurring one after the other in time anyway.<br /><br />For some reason, he doesn't care whether scenes were shot during the morning, afternoon, middle of the night, etc. He just cuts to them at random. For that matter, the scenes we're shown appear to be selected at random. Important events either never or barely appear, and we're stuck with far too many pointless scenes.<br /><br />For some reason, he left a scene about cave art in the film when it either needs more exposition to justify getting there, or it needs to just be cut out, because it's not that important (the monster's intelligence and "humanity" could have easily been shown in another way).<br /><br />For some reason, there is a whole character--Mary Mancini--left in the script even though she's superfluous.<br /><br />For some reason we suddenly go to a extremely soft-core porno scene, even though the motif is never repeated again.<br /><br />For some reason, characters keep calling Harlan Knowles "Mr. H", like they're stereotypes of Asian domestics.<br /><br />For some reason, Quastel insists on using the "Blurry Cam" and "Distorto-Cam" for the monster attack scenes, even though the costume doesn't look that bad, and it would have been much more effective to put in some fog, a subtle filter, or anything else other than bad cinematography.<br /><br />I could go on, but you get the idea.<br /><br />I really wanted to like this film better than I did—I'm a Henriksen fan, I'm intrigued by the subject, I loved the setting, I love hiking and this is basically a hiking film on one level--but I just couldn't. Every time I thought it was "going to be better from this point until the end", Quastel made some other awful move. In the end, my score was a 3 out of 10.
The original Airport (1970) was a classic of its kind, and the first two B-movie follow-ups (Airport 1975; Airport '77) were watchable fun at best, amusing camp at worst; but this crass and inept final entry lacks any entertainment value and displays a shocking contempt for its audience. It's unendurable and not even good for laughs. <br /><br />All of the three "Airport" sequels were theatrical releases made by Universal's television wing but this one is beneath even the modest standards of a TV movie of its day, with cheapjack production, grotesque casting, visual ugliness and tasteless, unfunny "comedy". The project was clearly doomed by the "creative" efforts of Universal executive Jennings Lang who personally produced and is given a "story" credit.<br /><br />Everyone starts somewhere, and writer Eric Roth (Forrest Gump) might have provided an element of self-burlesque, as had the previous films (especially the notorious Airport 1975), but there is nothing worth spoofing in Roth's turgid, incoherent script and even the comedy Airplane! left this crud untouched.<br /><br />What makes The Concorde: Airport '79 particularly offensive is its insulting misuse of professionals. The worst victim is the supremely gifted Cicily Tyson (Sounder; The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman), pitilessly reduced to a vomitous subplot involving her escorting a frozen heart transplant on the unfortunate flight. <br /><br />A special kick to the groin is reserved for the wonderful George Kennedy, who is the true lead despite being buried in the cast list. The official mascot of the "Airport" series and the only actor to appear in all four movies, Kennedy had more than earned the starring role and his turn in the Captain's seat would have been the only possible reason for this entry other than the squeezing of one last buck. Kennedy provides the only warmth and real humor in this mechanical muckup, briefly putting aside the bravura machismo and revealing a genuinely sweet and tender side to himself, and his lovable and heroic character of "Joe Patroni". Unfortunately we are never allowed to forget how fat and old and over-the-hill Kennedy is, and overage pretty-boy Alain Delon relentlessly calls him "Porky Pig" as part of a buddy-bonding that falls completely flat. Even Kennedy's Parisian romance, the only humane part of this plane-wreck, turns out to be merely a set-up for a hateful joke at Patroni's, Kennedy's, and the viewer's expense.
This movie is scary at times, perhaps no more so than when a naked George Kennedy tells his hooker girlfriend he wants a little more sugar. Thankfully his nakedness is covered by a blanket, but the image is still more horrifying than anything you're likely to find in, for example, Schindler's List.<br /><br />The dialog in this film was inspiring; it inspired me to watch another movie. In one scene, when a stewardess remarks about male pilots, Kennedy asks, "Why do you think it's called a 'cock' pit?" Charming.<br /><br />And yes, contrary to what some have written, this film is very, very bad.
All the Airport movies are stinkers, but this one is the biggest turkey of them all. The formula was different for this one because it focused on TWO disastrous flights and a lot of plot occurring on the ground, while the other movies focused on just one disastrous flight and less plot on the ground. The stunts with the Concorde are worth watching for the laughs, although the special effects aren't as terrible as I'd expect for a movie of this quality made in 1979. George Kennedy's sexist remarks are disgusting and his rendezvous with a prostitute in Paris is totally unnecessary (and made me gag a little). Poor Martha Raye was relegated to a role where she did nothing but relieve her bowel over and over in the Concorde's bathroom. There are no big stars in this movie compared to the previous films, giving you one more reason not to watch this one.
The real star of the last of the Airport films is that big supersonic carrier the French created called The Concorde. If you bear in mind that the whole film is dedicated to showing what that needle nosed plane could do in the sky, than the whole film kind of makes sense.<br /><br />But if you're expecting some serious drama here, than by all means take some of the evasive action the Concorde shows here when some nasty folks try to shoot her down.<br /><br />Susan Blakely plays a television news reporter who also happens to be the mistress of military industrial tycoon Robert Wagner. One of Wagner's aides just happens to bring her information on some of Wagner's dirty business dealings, selling arms to folks not friendly to the USA. When the source, Macon McCalman, is killed in front of her and she's nearly done in by a hit-man whom she escapes from of course she confronts Wagner with the information. And of course he denies it. But right before Blakely boards The Concorde, McCalman's widow Kathleen Maguire hands her the necessary documents. <br /><br />But on the way to Moscow with a stop in Paris, Wagner and his minions try to put the big bird down. But the fearless crew of Alain Delon, David Warner, and George Kennedy is up to all their tricks. It's quite a bag full as you'll see if you want to watch the film.<br /><br />If you're an aviation enthusiast, you absolutely won't care about the plot. It's like the film Le Mans with Steve McQueen which has a legion of auto racing fans who have made it a cult item. Maybe Le Mans is better at that because they just didn't bother with any kind of story.<br /><br />Among the passengers is a pot smoking saxophonist played by Jimmie Walker, a distraught mother accompanying a new heart for her child, played by Cicely Tyson and Martha Raye a woman with a weak bladder who spends the entire trip from Washington to Paris in the loo. She's actually the best one here.<br /><br />Robert Wagner must have been psychic though because I'm sure on the strength of this film he got the part of Doctor Evil's number two in the Austin Powers series.<br /><br />I'm sure all concerned got a big pay day out of this film, but it seems to have killed the Airport saga of movies.
"Oh, you pilots are such men." "They don't call it the cockpit for nothing, honey." Dialogue like that is just one of many reasons why The Concorde… Airport '79 (or, if you saw it in the UK where it dragged its heels getting released there, Airport '80: The Concorde) was the last and by far the least of the series. The disaster movie was in dire straits in the late70s, what with The Swarm having offered much unintentional hilarity and Beyond the Poseidon Adventure, When Time Ran Out and City on Fire simply offering much boredom, and the desperation to find a new spin on the genre is all too apparent here. This time it's a conspiracy plot, with Susan Blakely's news anchorwoman discovering billionaire boyfriend Robert Wagner has been selling arms to terrorists and the North Vietnamese. Naturally, she decides to tell him everything rather than make the story public, but, he fobs her off by explaining "I'm a very rich man. I have everything in life I could ever want. Why would I jeopardise that by doing something so incredibly stupid?" Just in case she doesn't buy that line, rather than, say hire a hit-man to kill her on the ground, he decides to do things the smart way by planning to destroy the Concorde while she's flying to Moscow via Paris. "I've done a lot of things I've been ashamed of, but I am not a murderer," he insists indignantly on his way to reprogramme a guided missile to destroy the plane. So, nothing incredibly stupid there. And when that fails, he sends a jet fighter after it. And when that fails… <br /><br />Don't even think of looking for anything resembling logic here: this is real bottom-of-the-barrel stuff that even the studio gave up on and marketed as a comedy in the US after critics laughed it off the screen. Where the previous three entries all had the look of glossy big-budget entertainments, this small-screen friendly effort (the only one not to be shot in 2.35:1 widescreen) doesn't even manage to make the Concorde look good, which is quite a feat. TV veteran David Lowell Rich presumably got the directing gig because he was fast, cheap and had previously directed TV movie SST: Disaster in the Sky where Peter Graves' supersonic airplane found itself unable to land due to sabotage and Senegalese flu (which was not, intentionally at least, a comedy despite the presence of a young Billy Crystal in the cast) and seemed like the natural choice for what looks like a $14m TV movie that somehow escaped into theatres when no-one was looking.<br /><br />Cast like a bad episode of Hollywood Squares, stars are in very short supply this time round, and most of the few vaguely familiar faces seem to have been rounded up from rehab clinics and busted sitcoms. Alain Delon gives the Hollywood career that one last shot as the pilot, "Happy Fish" (don't ask) George Kennedy moves from the executive suite to the co-pilot's seat in the hope of reminding people of the other movies, while the rest of the ensemble includes a couple of veterans of The Towering Inferno (Wagner and Blakely), a soft-porn star (Sylvia Kristel, trying to go respectable), an Ingmar Bergman regular (Bibi Andersson – and she's the one playing the hooker!), David Warner's navigator on a diet having nightmares about being chased by bananas, the voice of the Devil (Mercedes McCambridge), Charo and her Seeing Eye Chihuahua ("Dohn miscon-screw me"), Martha Raye and her weak bladder, Jimmie Walker playing the sax in his seat and smoking weed in the john (in the few moments its not occupied by Martha Raye), Cicely Tyson kissing her credibility goodbye as the obligatory mother with critically ill child and a frozen heart in the overhead locker, airline owner Eddie Albert and trophy wife Sybil Danning occupying the best seat in the house, Ed Begley Jr in goggles, and the Russian Olympic team and their lovable coach Val Avery and his deaf daughter (ahhhh!) on a goodwill tour of the States (who knew about the boycott?). Just to add a touch of The Simpsons to proceedings, Harry Shearer voices one news report in the same tones he'd later use for Smithers.<br /><br />Highlight? Despite the impromptu wedding ceremony during a crash landing, it just has to be George Kennedy diverting a heat-seeking missile by opening the window, sticking his arm out (at nearly twice the speed of sound!) and firing a flare – while the plane is upside down! And then Alain Delon turns off the engines so there won't be a "heat source" for the missiles to home in on… Yes, someone actually got paid for writing this, and that someone was future Oscar winner and screenwriter of Munich and The Insider Eric Roth (hey, everybody has to start somewhere), although in his defence it was producer Jennings Lang who came up with the plot. Still, what do you expect from a film that credits stunt balloonists and ends with a shot of the Concorde flying off into the sunset? Amazingly, in one of those won't admit defeat moments studios used to be prone to, Universal shot another 20 minutes or so of footage a couple of years later to include in the network TV showings (not included on the DVD). Sadly its box-office failure led to the fifth entry in the series, the laugh-riot that would have been Airport 1984: UFO, never getting off the ground. Even more genuinely tragically, it was the Concorde used in this film that crashed in France 21 years later.<br /><br />(Oh, and if you're wondering what Charo says to her Chihuahua in unsubtitled Spanish when it's not allowed on board, it's "What do you think? Don't worry. When the revolution comes, I promise you will fly on anything you want. I promise. What a shame, my love. What do they think they are?")
This is what happens when a franchise gets lazy, and no one can think of a new twist to add. Remember what happened to the "Childs Play" series? The first three were played as horror films, with genuine scares (albeit predictable) that held true to the theme of the movie. Then they ran out of folks for the doll to stalk, and decided to play it for laughs, with the next two being black comedies.....<br /><br />Well, that;s what happened here, but I think it was not meant to be like that. Kind of like saying, "I WANTED to make pancakes for dessert! I did this on purpose!" when your soufflé accidentally fizzles flat. But the milk was spilled, and it had some value in the theaters as a goof.<br /><br />When the floor ripped out from under the passenger seats, I sort of expected the passengers to extend their legs through the hole, start running Flintstones-Style, to safely land the plane in the Alps. I did. It would have fit into the silly campy theme of the rest of the show.<br /><br />Instead of pointing out the obvious physical impossibilities of the film, what about the social implausibilities? Like having George Kennedy's character react calmly to the news that his date was a whore? Even back in 1979, a man would not easily accept the notion that he has just poured his heart out to a paid companion. He supposedly felt he made a connection with a kindred spirit, who is subsequently shown to be a mercenary sex-worker with a come-on line. Who WOULDN'T feel cheated by the experience? And yet he giggles, and wraps his arms around his buddy's waist as they merrily stroll off. What a cheap wrap up of a sleazy scene. Ouch.<br /><br />I had an appetite for soufflé, and got served insipid cliché pancakes. And no, you did NOT do it on purpose!
The last of the "Airport" sequels. This has Alain Delon and George Kennedy (who was in all the Airport movies) as pilots; David Warner (!!!) as the radio engineer; Susan Blakely as a newswoman targeted for death; Robert Wagner as a brilliant scientist (stop laughing!); Eddie Albert as a president of the airlines; Charo in a dreadful "comical" bit; John Davidson as a newsman (love how his hair stays in place even AFTER the plane turns upside down!); poor Martha Raye is humiliated; Cicely Tyson plays a mother who is flying a heart for her dying son (stop rolling your eyes!); Jimmie Walker as a clarinet player (what did I say about not laughing?); Mercedes McCambridge as a Russian gymnastics coach (OK you can laugh at that one); Bibi Andresson as a hooker and Sylvia Kristel and Sybil Danning as love interests.<br /><br />Just pathetic. Full of stupid plots and dialogue that will have you roaring--watch for Davidson getting "married" on the plane near the end! The Concorde is taking all these people to Russia. They're attacked with missiles, escape, land safely in France and TAKE OFF AGAIN the very next day!!!! Don't you think the flight would have been cancelled or something? Most of the acting is terrible--McCambridge is a sight to behold in a red fright wig and a horrible fake accent. The only good acting is from Kennedy and Delon (looking fantastic) who gives a very engaging performance. Still that's not enough to make you sit through this drivel. Too long and lousy special effects too. This was a mega-bomb and (thankfully) stopped Universal from doing anymore.
Some slack might be cut this movie due to the fact that it was made in 1979. That much said, it really is pretty dire.<br /><br />Never mind the laughable back-projection or the awful, awful camera-tracking of supposed "in-flight" objects, it's the stunts that the Concorde pulls off that will have you blinking in disbelief at the absurdity. Barrel-rolls, loop-the-loops and violent "evasive" maneuvers left me wondering why the Air-Forces of the world didn't just fly Concordes as their main fighters.<br /><br />So, here are the important lessons I learned from this celluloid cheese-fest: <br /><br />1. The Concorde is at least as agile as a Phantom 4 jet-fighter.<br /><br />2. You can fire a flare gun at Mach 2 simply by opening the cockpit window and sticking your arm out.<br /><br />3. If the flare gun fails to discharge, do not drop it, as it may then go off.<br /><br />4. The Concorde can dodge up to two Sidewinder missiles fired at it at once.<br /><br />5. A flare will distract a heat-seeking missile every time.<br /><br />6. Switching off your jet-engines is a sure-fire way of throwing heat-seeking missiles off track if 5 (above) fails.<br /><br />7. When performing a crash-landing in the Concorde, it is apparently impossible to jettison your fuel beforehand.<br /><br />8. Concorde pilots are all combat-trained veterans.<br /><br />As you might imagine, this film is not very realistic. The effects are primitive by today's standards and that, coupled with the nonsense acrobatics the Concorde performs, makes this a movie deserving of little but scorn.<br /><br />Not recommended. Not recommended at all!
My Take: The silliest of the AIRPORT movies, and probably one of the worst of the 70's disaster movies.<br /><br />As if to milk the franchise with all its got, the producers of this third sequel to AIRPORT throws in more action, silly subplots, gratuitous star appearances and goofier elements. In its attempt to be the biggest AIRPORT yet, CONCORDE: AIRPORT '79 is the worst one yet, and probably one of the worst of the disaster movies of the 1970's. With its bad box-office results, it is no wonder that the genre has overstayed its welcome.<br /><br />The film opens with a rather catchy score by Lalo Schifrin backed-up by some impressive shots of the titular aircraft in its former glory (the same plane used in this film would be involved in a crash in July 2000). But then the credits appear, and we get a glimpse of the "all-star" cast, which is composed nothing more of faded Hollywood stars, TV actors and none-too-popular B actors. The plot is sillier than ever: George Kennedy is back in the role of Joe Patroni, now the pilot of the Concorde (co piloted by co-pilot Alain Delon) en route to France after the Summer Olympics. On board is reporter Maggie Whelan (Susan Blakely), who has just discovered that his boyfriend, renowned weapons manufacturer Kevin Harrison (Robert Wagner), is selling their weapons to terrorist. To prevent her from revealing the news to the world, Harrison sends his most advance missiles and best saboteurs to prevent the Concorde from landing.<br /><br />The cast/subplots are dumber than ever, even sillier than an alcoholic Myrna Loy or a singing nun. We have Cicely Tyson transporting a live human heart in a cooler (!), Martha Raye as a woman with a bladder condition (and the character doesn't go deeper than that), J.J. Walker a a pot-smoking saxophonist (arguably the most annoying character in the film), Eddie Albert married to "old" wife Sybil Danning, Avery Schreiber as Russian coach with a deaf daughter and finally, a love story between reporter Jon Davidson and gymnast Andrea Marcovici (much to the sour watching-eye of coach Mercedes McCambidge). Plus the movie gets much closer to LOVE BOAT episode than ever with the silliest cameos of Charo (and her pet Chihuahua) and Bibi Anderson. Camp buffs will no doubt get a real kick-in-the-balls in this silly entry in a long strain of 70's disaster movies. This one is, in more than the sense of the word, a true disaster.<br /><br />Rating: *1/2 out of 5.
I gave "Airport '79" only two stars because it's a truly lousy film. Nobody who had anything to do with it deserves any praise (except for Charo's Chihuahua, who does a pretty good job in his role.) This is not to say that the film isn't worth watching. It helps if you have a buzz on, but this is not essential.<br /><br />A'79 really does seem like an early version of "Airplane!" Every scene has a set-up and a payoff, and the scenes blunder after one another as if they were totally disconnected. One of my favorite recurring points is that the passengers, crew, and airplane get to keep going, no matter what. You're a news reporter and a strange guy gets murdered at your house in your presence? The hit-man then chases you onto your greenhouse roof? No problem. You can still catch that early-morning flight to Paris...no need to get the cops involved. Your plane dodges one unmanned "drone" missile, four heat-seeking missiles, and cannon fire from an unidentified Phantom fighter, doing barrel rolls, an unpowered dive, and a crash-net landing without thrust reversers in the process? No problem, we'll have the mechanics check the oil and get you on your way in just a few hours. It's truly funny.<br /><br />And I'll admit that there's a bit of the anarchist in me that comes out when the passengers pay no attention to the cabin attendants. The highlight is when the attendant tells Jimmie Walker he'll have to put away his saxophone (God spare me from a flight seated in front of a saxophonist playing jazz!) prior to take-off. Jimmie basically says, "Nope." Later in the flight, the sax is damaged during a barrel-roll and Jimmie actually shows up on the next leg of the flight with yet another sax that he won't put away. This aspect of the film is just fun. (ONE passenger actually obeys the attendant. When Charo is told she can't take her dog on the flight, she leaves the plane. Naturally, this is because you can't get a good view of her ass and boobs while she's seated.) <br /><br />In summary, a terrible movie, but terrible enough to be a bit amusing. Unfortunately, the filmmakers and cast deserve no credit whatsoever for this, as it was probably entirely unintentional.
WARNING **SPOILERS**<br /><br />Lord knows I have seen some bad movies in my time and this one makes me just as angry. This is an insult to people who ARE LOOKING for a bad movie. The "story" involves a stewardess who discovers her boyfriend (badly acted by otherwise great Robert Wagner) is a murder, thief, and just an overall puke face. After the Concorde takes off, he sends guided missiles to destroy the Concorde. So while the Concorde is traveling at the speed of light, our "hero" (played with utter stupidity, George Kennedy) opens the window in the cockpit then, sticks his hand OUT THE WINDOW to fire at the missile! I'm no rocket scientist, but it seems his hand would at least get a wind burn. Then towards the final "climax" when the Concorde is headed for certain disaster and everyone will die, a passenger turns to his fiance and proposes marriage. A Priest just happens to be sitting in the next row and proceeds to marry them as the planes is crashing! (I'm not making this up) Wow, the guy who wrote the script must have been sniffing glue for a week.
This film is an absolute disgrace! I thoroughly enjoyed the original Airport, and I can't believe how the same people could produce this twaddle nine years on. First of all, the acting is bad. The original had actors who had done quality (non-disaster) films before, but this one uses actors who have done the disaster movie circuit already (Blakely, Kennedy, Wagner). Also, George Kennedy's character Patroni seems to get promoted very quickly. He is now the lead in the film, but his character isn't strong enough to carry it off: he has lost the charm and humour of Airport (1970), and the character is now just boring. Have I mentioned the plot? Is it at all believable that someone would send a missile after the Concorde?? NO!!! There are also too many loose ends; scenes that have no relevance whatsoever to the plot. The scene where the hot air balloon lands on the runway, the chase of the thief in Charles De Gaulle airport are two such scenes. Both would be interesting - if only they had something to do with the actual story. There also many unanswered questions: Why does Patroni open the window and fire a flare at the other plane? Why does Robert Wagner's character kill himself? (He must have another stupid and costly way of Why is there no enquiry after the missile almost blows up the Concorde? Why are the back projections so bad? (It looks as though a cartoon missile is following the Concorde; although it does work well when the plane lands in Paris) Why does Patroni think that he is in a flight simulator? (when he turns the Concorde over) Why does he get a hero's welcome in the cabin of the plane after having terrified the passengers? And why is the ending so poor, if it can be called an ending at all? Given their one-dimensional-ness, no-one seems to notice this. The blessing given to the young couple on the plane by the girl's coach is shmaltzy, the man who plays the saxophone is annoying, and the woman with the bladder problem is just plain silly. The scenes where Susan Blakely is lying on the roof of her conservatory, and the when she tells Wagner that she still loves him are quite awful. In conclusion, this film should have been the climax of the previous three Airport films: instead it is a diabolical, sub-moronic, complete and utter waste of time, money, energy, celluloid and "talent"!!!!!!! Remember when Patroni asks the French pilot if he has "ever landed on his belly?" This film certainly does the belly flop, and lands flat on its pointy nose...
There is a special heaven reserved for people who make the world laugh. Alongside Chaplin,Stan and Ollie,The Marx Bros and.....(fill in your own special favourites)space must be made for everybody connected with "Airport 80 - Concorde,the movie". Robert Wagner in particular exceeds all expectations giving the comedy performance of a lifetime.I would never have thought he had it in him. The only way he could have been funnier would have been to have worn a red nose and a revolving bow tie. British moviegoers will recognise the fat one from Cannon and Ball pretending to be a Russian athlete,a nice trick if he could have pulled it off but,tragically,he couldn't.I have a 14 year old labrador more athletic and almost as funny. George Kennedy - bless him - has a part that requires him talk and move at the same time,and my goodness he triumphs!Brow wrinkled with effort he utters timeless dialogue,each word lovingly polished into Coward-like brilliance. Only once in twenty years does Hollywood turn out a film like "Airport 80".All the years of toil and struggle,the sweat,the tears,the lessons with Lee Strasberg,living out of suitcases,born in a trunk etc etc,all come to fruition.A work of art is created that will last as long as there are movies and machines to show them on. I think I'm ready for my medication now.
The Concorde ... Airport '79 starts in Washington where a man named Carl Parker (Macon (McCalman) contacts high profile TV news reporter Maggie Whelan (Susan Blakely) in order to hand secret documents over that prove his boss Kevin Harriosn (Robert Wagner) owner & president of Harrison Industries that develop weapons for the military has been illegally selling said weapons to foreign countries. However Maggie sees Carl assassinated & she barely escapes with her life, Maggie is to catch the Concorde to Moscow via Paris the next morning & intends to blow the whistle on Harrison who also happens to be her boyfriend which would ruin him. Determined to save himself he reprogrammes his hi-tech 'Buzzard' homing missile to intercept & destroy the Concorde during a test run killing all those on-board & destroying the documented evidence...<br /><br />Renamed Airport '80 - The Concorde for it's cinema & initial home video releases because it was released here in, well, 1980 rather than 1979 this last entry in the Airport franchise was directed by David Lowell Rich & is a notoriously bad film that was apparently laughed at during press & test screenings prompting Universal to promote the film as an action comedy. The first thing to say is that The Concorde ... Airport '79 is a really silly & downright daft film but on a purely entertainment basis I can think of a lot worse films to spend 108 minutes watching, I really can. I quite liked the absurd plot about a wealthy industrialist wanting to kill his girlfriend TV reporter before she can expose him as an illegal arms dealer but this guy doesn't do subtle & decides the best way to do it is to blow Concorde up with his own guided missile & then gets a Fench fighter pilot to try & shoot it down before finally sabotaging it so really there's three mini disaster flicks in one here as each time super pilot Joe Patroni manages to save the day. You know Joe Patroni played by George Kennedy appears in all four Airport films & goes from mechanic in the first to Concorde pilot extrodinaire in this, also I reckon he's a bit of a jinx since in the space of nine years he has been involved with four major aviation disasters. I think the real reason why the Airport series stopped here was because Patroni retired after this & the jinx was lifted. Some of the things that happen here are just silly, Patroni does barrel rolls, flies upside-down & out manoeuvre's a guided missile in a huge Concorde not to mention he crash lands it & fires flare guns out of his window to destroy the missile all while keeping a calm head. This guy is good, very good. Then there's the character's, there's a Saxophone playing black dude who smokes weed in the toilets, an old woman with a bladder problem & a team of Russian gymnasts with bad accents. Also, despite being almost shot down with a missile & then attacked by a Jet fighter the passengers of Concorde don't seem that bothered & happily get back aboard the following day, I don't know about you but after that I would probably find a safer way to travel & why do the police or authorities not question anyone? Why is the Concorde captain Patroni allowed to just go off & sleep with a French prostitute? The Concorde ... Airport '79 certainly isn't boring & is full of memorable moments & I was entertained in a way although it's far from a good film & modern audiences may not have the patience with it, hell I liked it for what it was in a daft way but it's no sort of classic.<br /><br />Even though Concorde no longer flies it's still quite a cool looking air-plane & there's plenty of footage of it here, the one used in The Concorde ... Airport '79 was the seventh one built. This Concorde was also the same aircraft which crashed after a tire bust caused a fuel tank to rupture and the leaking fuel catch fire on July 25th 2000, while taking off in Paris sadly resulting in the death of 109 passengers and crew on board and 4 people on the ground. When this aired on TV in the US in 1982 almost twenty minutes of new footage was included with most if not all of it being newly shot over two years after the original production had finished. I know the effects here take a bashing from most but I don't reckon they are too bad, when you consider this was made in the late 70's I think they come across quite well. The camera moves during effects shots, real footage of real planes is used rather than toy models which in my opinion would have looked a lot worse & I could certainly see what the makers were trying to do with limited funds & limited technology. In a strange way they are quite impressive actually without ever looking that good if you know what I mean. Probably the most action packed of all the Airport films there's missiles, exploding planes, daring crash landings, assassinations & a guy named Robert Palmer (no, not the singer) giving head a woman in a jacuzzi.<br /><br />The IMDb says this had a budget of about $14,000,000 which is actually more than I thought, maybe those special effects aren't so impressive after all. Shot in Utah, Washington, Los Angeles & France. The acting isn't great here, people don't look worried enough that they are about to die. Goerge Kennedy gets some bad one-liners while Robert Wagner plays the bad guy.<br /><br />The Concorde ... Airport '79 is fun for bad film enthusiasts everywhere & to be brutally honest I rather watch this entertaining mess of a film than some two hour Oscar nominated bore.
'Airport 4' is basically a slopped together mess for Universal Studios to try and work a new twist - the Concorde supersonic airliner - into their 'disaster-in-the-sky' formula.<br /><br />Bogged down with unintentional humor, the best of which is when George Kennedy sticks his hand out of Concorde's window at supersonic speed to fire a flare gun at a heat-seeking missile following the aircraft's flight path, and the simple fact that these dumb passengers keep re-boarding the same plane to continue their flight despite all the problems in the air. Many stars in this one including Robert Wagner, Sylvia Kristel, Alain Delon, and Martha Raye as a nervous passenger. <br /><br />Not really related to the other 'Airport' films.
Its a truly awful movie with a laughable storyline.some awful acting.and a script that Ed Wood might be ashamed of.Wagner is laughable in this. He plays his role like number two in Austin Powers.Easily the worst of the Airport movies.1 out of 10
i just saw this movie on TNT and let me tell you, this movie was downright corny and cheezy. But after a certain point, I began to laugh my socks off and to tell you the truth, they should classify this movie as comedy rather than action/adventure. The absolutely most hilarious scene comes when the Delon and Kennedy are making loop the loop 360's to avoid the French missiles that Wagner ordered to destroy the Concorde. Our fearless leader, Kennedy, decides to shoot flares out the window to stop the heat seeking missiles????? Dumb yet funny---the kicker comes here though---after one shot, the flare gun malfunctions and Kennedy tries to fix it in the cockpit and well...if you want to know what happens get a hold of this movie. The dumb parts of this movie include the total lack of plot----yeah lets have some action for 25 minutes than land in Paris and go ONE HOUR with love scenes with prostitutes and flight attendants. Now lets switch to the saboteur for ten minutes then a wasted rest of the movie and a plane that is visually breaking apart and the PASSENGERS DON"T EVEN SEE IT???? ITS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR EYES!!!!-----final rating for this move--- (1/10) out of 4 stars if it were action 2 out of 4 stars if it were a comedy
This final installment of the "Airport" franchise was so incredibly awful that it took me awhile to realize it actually wasn't a slapstick comedy, like "Airplane". George Kennedy shooting a flare gun out an open window to divert heat-seeking missiles was comical. What would happen to your hand if you held it out a window at mach two speed? You'd lose your grip on the gun and get a broken arm. The passengers were unintentionally hilarious, as was the interior of the plane. The sophisticated French woman coming on to slobby George Kennedy was like Jackie Kennedy coming on to Ernest Borgnine. Ain't gonna happen. Susan Blakely, a talented and unappreciated actress, did not get any points on her resume for this one. Neither did Robert Wagner. This movie was so lousy it seemed surreal.
Prior to Airport 79' these movies were rather good. They had decent special effects, all-star cast, and good acting. This movie destroyed the franchise, and there are many reasons for it. Lets talk about the special effects WOW!!!! they are horrific, what was the director thinking about. I know it's only 1979, but lets look at other very good special effects movies such as Star Wars(1977),and Moonraker(1979). I like the idea of the Concord and this could of been the best Airport movie, but they did too much with it. How about Joe Patroni(George Kennedey) shooting a flare out of the cockpit window, to prevent a heat seeking missile from hitting the concord. Also he is doing 90 degree dives and loops. This completely far fetched, and unrealistic WOW!!!!!! Believe me the special effects don't help this scene, and really are beyond poor.... They almost look like a cartoon, and this is how the whole movie is!!!Finally lets talk about the acting which in my opinion is extremely poor to fair at best.... Over acting is a major issue in this movie, especially George Kennedy.. Which I really like as an actor, but just doesn't cut in this movie. The full blame has to go on the director, who did a very poor editing job, and really whacked out the Airport Franchise. Too bad the Concord isn't still used today it was a marvel of Air travel...
The Concorde:Airport'79, Is for now, the last of the high drama high,camp Airport series, At first glance in the TV guide,or DVD cover you would simply think that the film your about to view is as thrilling as the previous Airport's Think Again! What your treated to is 2 hours And 3 Minutes worth of unintentional laughs courtesy of the worst script ever writing it was even penned by Eric Roth, Who brought the world 'Forrest Gump! well one things for sure the script is not Oscar worthy,It's Razzie worthy! The Executives at Universal in '79,done the right thing by marketing this as a 'comedy' Apart from Charo! the film does have an impressive cast list, It's certainly watchable to say the least,
With a cast of mostly lesser-tiered stars (Alain Delon, Robert Wagner, Eddie Albert), lousy special effects (sure, it was the 70's but "Alien" and "Star Wars" came from the same decade), and a storyline that is so laughable that one might want to cry, this is a "flight" that should have been GROUNDED.<br /><br />Even Academy Award winners Cicely Tyson and George Kennedy can't keep this "bird" airborne.<br /><br />The implausibility of the third film - airplane is submerged in The Bermuda Triangle - is much more believable than this turkey.<br /><br />Avoid "The Concorde" at all costs!
Actually there was nothing funny about this monstrosity at all!! This movie was a complete abomination. The absurdities in this movie almost made me want to vomit!! I think that the people responsible for this movie took advantage of their viewing audience. They took a relatively decent series of movies (I did say decent, NOT GOOD!!) and totally trashed it by trying to put money in their pockets. The making of Airplane! was a way for Hollywood to make up for this crappy flick. The worst part about it is that either nobody in 1979 realized the asinine events of the movie (such as Concorde's door popping off at some ungodly high altitude or Patroni shooting a flair gun out the window at Mach 2 to avoid a NUCLEAR WARHEAD!?!?!?....what were they thinking???)were totally unrealistic or they just didn't care! I think that it is the latter of the two. The writers and director of this "film", if you want to call it that, really tried to suck the Airport dynasty dry with this crap!
This movie has more goofs than any other movie I have seen in my life. The special effects are damned terrible. For instance, near the end, when the Concorde is falling after the cargo door tears off, the thing spins like a toy. The special effects of Airport (1970) are way better than this crap. Also, the force of a Concorde opening up at altitude and speed would essentially turn the thing inside-out. (That is if it would even open at all) But the movie has its good points. Mostly when it ends. That's also cheesy. E.g. The Thing lands on a bank of loosely-packed snow, if it did that, it would splinter into a million pieces. Overall, 2 out of 10. Instant flop. Great laugh flick.
This film isn't a little bad. It's not even kind of bad. It's horrid. You know you're in trouble when Charo shows up in a film. She must have had the week off from "Love Boat." George Kennedy, at least he's a gamer - he's in there trying. Actually, he's all right. And it's good to see Martha Raye. Jimmie Walker's okay. There's slightly better acting than in Airport '75 but what film doesn't have better acting than Airport '75? One thing I liked about this film is that it had more going on than a lot of other disaster films plot-wise. At least they made an attempt at subplots. What really hurts this film is the special effects - ugh! Not too special if you ask me. This is the kind of film that at 2am is truly, truly funny if you've been up having fun with your buddies and you're looking for something to laugh at.
The Second Woman is about the story of a mysterious man who lost his wife in an accident and now believes that someone wants to do him harm. A girl who likes him wants to help him but she is led to believe that his fears are caused by a mental illness...<br /><br />Interesting plot, very good acting, but the result as a whole is poor in many ways. The story is too simplistic, or rather, presented in a simplistic way (even though there is a couple of interesting plot twists). For example, people say they love each other after only two meetings. I don't want to reveal anything else, but you 'll see what I mean if you watch the movie. "Come on, it was the fifties!", you may think. Yet I 've seen quite a few films from that era and I know that some don't seem so dated nowadays.<br /><br />Something that disturbed me was that some scenes were shot pitch dark, making it almost impossible to watch what was going on. Ok, it's a film-noir but this one is too noir at some points... :o)<br /><br />Overall, the Second Woman is not a masterpiece of that era, but no trash either. Watch it if you have nothing else to do...
(May contain spoilers) This movie is the epitome of weirdness. I rented it hoping for a film so bad it would be funny. However, I still honestly can't decide if this film was intended to be scary or humorous. It combines the emotions in a rather disturbing way. Apparently this is trying to be clever but in actual fact it isn't. For instance, when the knife comes out and tries to kill the teacher, it starts playing happy music. When we go to Toxico, we have up-beat, quasi-Mr. Roger's Neighborhood music. However, when the little kid's dreaming of falling in "blood" and when he finds the leg, these are clearly intended to be tense. So, watch this film, and decide for yourself. It is too weird to be described in words and for that I say, kudos.<br /><br />"Nose-dive... WOW!"
I watched this film with a bunch of friends at a Halloween party last night. I got to say that the sarcastic comments were never ending and I have to say that they were well deserved. Though I felt that the directing was done well, the craziness in their dialogue is just a little too much cheese. I think I got about an hour into this before I even started to realize what it was the point was that they were trying to drive home. You catch on pretty quick that this whole family is pretty quirky and something is off about them, it's just a little too slow. This movie could easily have been about 45 minutes and been a lot better. The only thing that made it bearable was the two bottles of wine that I downed during the course of the flick. Bring on the slasher films folks, because at least I know what to expect out of them. This was not my thing, too much dark humour, and the subject material of cannibalism was a bit explicit and gross. I have to say that Randy Quaid played the part as well as it could have been, and I will give him props for that as I normally see him as a drunken goofball or a washed out fighter pilot who likes to kill aliens.<br /><br />In conclusion I give this horror/comedy film a very generous 3 out of 10.
Very disturbing, but expertly crafted & scripted and intelligently directed with a good eye for color and detail. Mary Beth Hurt, Sandy Dennis, and especially Randy Quaid are unusually good. The story centers around a young boy (Bryan Madorsky) wondering where all the leftovers they eat every night comes from. His parents (Hurt, Quaid) strange behavior causes the school psychiatrist (Dennis) to get involved. It is a gruesome cannibal movie. But it's not bad. If you like Hannibal, you'll love this. If you don't like Parents, stay away from the film. Just giving advice to Cannibal Lover and Haters.<br /><br />Rated R for Strong Adult Themes and Graphic Violence.
When my parents rented this movie, I was expecting a very funny movie as Randy Quaid is very funny in comedy movies. However, this movie is not all that funny and it is somewhat boring too. You can see the surprise coming a mile away and it runs long for a movie that is supposedly only eighty one minutes long. So I can honestly say it is not a movie that is on my favorites list. It may work for some people, but it just did not work with me at all proving to be rather slow in the build-up with virtually nothing that amused me within the entire movie. Randy Quaid is wasted and the rest of the cast is a list of very bland actors and actresses. The premise of the movie had potential, as did the casting of Quaid, but all of it just sputters and the inclusion of the horror element just seems very unnecessary. Granted, the one dream sequence the kid had when he jumped on the bed and it suddenly became a whirlpool of blood was very nicely done and would have worked very well in a movie that was supposed to be pure horror, instead of one that lists comedy as its first genre.
John Sayles, what have you done?<br /><br />"Silver City" had moments in which I could see the glimmering hope of a good story, well-drawn characters, thought provoking dialog. And then those moments would quickly be covered over by layers of poor writing, clumsy direction, and abysmal acting. I truly love almost all of John Sayles' work, but "Silver City" is ghastly.<br /><br />I got the feeling that Sayles may have been working on the beginnings of a good story involving the illegal labor and industrial corruption plot lines, but then he got rushed and stuck the secondary plot line satirizing the Bush administration onto it. The two stories don't really connect with each other, and the weaker elements of the political theme dominate the first 3/4 of the movie, causing me to lose patience with the whole affair.<br /><br />The other major flaw is Danny Huston's acting. His dialog in every scene is delivered with a gawping grin, regardless of its appropriateness to the mood. I hated this guy by the end of the film, having been reminded of every bad actor in every high school play I've ever seen. Not having seen Huston in anything else, I don't know whether to blame him or to blame Sayles' direction of him more. Regardless, he's the unfortunate focal point of a very unfortunate movie.<br /><br />Right down to the last sledgehammer-subtle final scene I was disappointed by "Silver City." Sayles at his best, or heck, even Sayles at mediocre, can be so very much better than this film. See ANY of his other works instead. This isn't even worth a rental.
I don't really consider myself a conservative, so I wasn't personally offended by this film, but it was pretty clear that the plot and the characterization in this film were secondary to the message. And the message is that all conservatives are either evil or stupid (or both). The characters are one-dimensional -- either good, freedom-loving Americans, or brainless, greedy, evil conservatives. There's nothing clever or creative, just anti-conservative. I don't really mind the political bias itself, but it shouldn't be the only purpose behind the movie. And clearly it is.<br /><br />On the positive side, the cast is wonderful and Chris Cooper's impression of W is funny the first two or three times, but after that it's just the same old joke being told over and over again.<br /><br />So if you really hate the conservatives, you'll probably enjoy this film, but if you're looking for something with realistic characters and a story that's less black-and-white, then you'd be better off watching something else.
Generally political messages are done on television, so if you are a big fan of environmental correctness, watch to your hearts content. Most people go to the movies to be entertained, not sold some poppycock political nonsense. The hook here is the big name cast. Unfortunately the sum of the performances equals a whole movie that went absolutely nowhere. The two best performances, Chris Cooper, and Richard Dreyfus, have minimal screen time. In short, "Silver City" is to be avoided as entertainment. It is nothing more than a non documentary, rambling political expose on illegal immigration, pollution, and any number of other causes that do not belong anywhere except on the small screen. - MERK
Honestly, one of the worst written, directed and acted movies I have ever seen. Seemed like a made-for-TV movie. And a bad one at that. I cannot believe that people are still hiring Danny Huston after seeing him in this movie, or that they are still allowing John Sayles to make films. My husband and I came across this movie on TV one night and got so bored with it, we ended up cleaning the house while it was on . . . and it still bored us! It made me think that critics have been so gullible with Sayles' previous films, such as Lone Star, which was raved about at he time but didn't really add up to much in the end. Spend your time on something better. Anything.
Apparently the film has a harsh anti-Bush message... If it does (I didn't get it), that's all it is. It's boring and useless, period.<br /><br />It's too serious at times to be a comedy, too slow to be a thriller, not funny, not gripping, not exciting, not film. It's too everything to be the opposite, and vise versa. I was amazed at how bad a film could suck. Don't even think of watching it.<br /><br />I have watched literally hundreds of films, and never have I been so obliged to write a warning on IMDb. Avoid at all costs. You have been warned.<br /><br />Even "The Making of..." is painfully boring. It's just people talking gibberish with loads of inside jokes infront of a camera, sort of like a home movie. There even is a part where a guy takes you on a tour of the food that was consumed on the set by the film crew. Still, beats the movie I guess...
This movie was horrible and the only reason it was even made was because the story appealed to the far-left. I consider my self a moderate, so I was able to see this film as the pile of garbage it was. While I'm not a Bush fan, your dislike for GW is not enough of a reason to see this movie.<br /><br />To start, the movie was shot on such low-grade film that it comes off as cheap, rather then artsy. Additionally, the characters are seriously lacking in depth. Chris Cooper's character was a poor parody of George Bush; better suited for Saturday Night Live then a Dramatic film. The rest of the characters are walking clichés and are poor facsimiles of other characters from much better movies.<br /><br />Avoid this movie at all costs!
SILVER CITY (2+ outta 5 stars) As a huge fan of John Sayles' work for many years now I feel safe in saying that this is the worst movie he has ever done. That said, the movie isn't exactly *terrible*... just very uninspired. Sayles throws in familiar elements from his previous movies (corrupt politics, illegal immigration, the selling out of youthful ideals) but fails to bring them together in any new or meaningful way. Even the dialogue (usually Sayles' strong point) is disappointing this time around.. sounding clichéd and forced in almost every scene. The movie looks and sounds like episodes from a TV series that didn't make it past its third episode. There are tons of big stars on hand... and they try their best to make their bit parts come alive... but the material just isn't there this time around. While filming a campaign spot a governor-hopeful (a poor and obvious George W Bush stand-in) fishes a dead body out of a lake. An investigator is hired to try and warn away people who may have deliberately set this up to discredit the candidate... but he soon finds out that there are deeper and darker (and more clichéd) secrets to be discovered. Sayles has made similarly-themed movies so much better in the past ("Lone Star", "Matewan", "Return of the Secaucus Seven", "Men With Guns"). It's a shame that he went to the well one time too many and came up with tainted water. One good line, delivered by Richard Dreyfuss: "Danny, you're a loser. That's already been established beyond doubt. So just try and be a good one, okay?"
Sayles had a very interesting film on his hands with Silver City, however it somehow became very muddied as it progressed from beginning to end. Chris Cooper did an exceptional job embodying the essence of his character, a Dubya of sorts, but he wasn't nearly given enough screen time. Instead, we find ourselves on a rampage with a character that felt less personal, less developed, and overall too confusing. The path that this Danny Huston leads us on inevitably becomes the downfall of the film. Too many characters are introduced to us in such a short time. These characters randomly were involved with the progression of the plot, which became too convoluted with each passing minute. Sayles knew what he was creating, I just feel as if it wasn't being translated well to the silver screen.<br /><br />Sayles is a master of his trade. His films continue to inspire and evoke thought even if they are not commercial successes. The trouble with Silver City is that I think he found himself going too deep with not enough money or time to explain it all. At the beginning of the film, I had an idea of what was happening, but as more and more characters were introduced, as more and more plot twists tried to occur I lost the sense of the film by the ending. While the ending was very clever and very dark, I needed more explanation. I think some of the reason that I lost my train of thought with this film was due to the casting of Danny Huston as our guide. He was pathetic. I didn't seem him as very exciting person to lead us on this adventure. He seemed to go through the motions, but not really accomplish much at all. This was the first downfall of Sayles' important film.<br /><br />While I will admit that the characters played by Richard Dreyfuss, Miguel Ferrer, James Gammon, and Daryl Hannah were interesting, I just needed a better guide to help me understand their roles in this political scandal. Danny Huston just did not cut it for me. Outside of the characters, Sayles needed a stronger script. I sometimes felt that unless I was deeply rooted in the political world, some of the references were well over my head. The entire reasoning for Silver City to be built and the corruption behind it eluded me. I am a simpleton that loves advanced films, but this one just didn't make much sense to me. There were several times that I found myself asking, "Why" instead of seeing the whole picture. I felt as if the individual stories were as clear as glass, yet the whole picture was dusty and murky at the same time. Sayles needed to concentrate more on the bigger picture instead of these smaller issues, which ultimately fogged this film.<br /><br />Perhaps I went into this film with the wrong idea. I was expecting to see another version of Primary Colors, but instead witnessed something less heartfelt and more technical. Without giving the ending away, I thought that the final scene was one of the most beautiful moments in political cinema history. The brilliant symbolism has stayed in my mind for the past two days after watching this film, while the rest of the movie quickly shuffled away from my mind. Maybe a second viewing would do better for me, but for some odd reason Silver City just didn't click with me. There seemed to be too many loopholes that were never explained or accounted for. An ensemble piece is always good with me, but when the characters are introduced without explanation, it just looses steam. This was one of those rare occasions.<br /><br />Overall, I was very upset with this film. Being very Democrat, I wanted to see a side of politics that I wasn't aware of and another side that would make you chuckle. I wanted to be engulfed with the world of corporate money and the dufus' that are elected. I wanted intelligent humor framed by the words of George W., but instead all I found was a very confusing story aimed at a certain audience of which I will never be a part. Sad, this picture had so much wasted promise.<br /><br />Grade: ** out of *****
I'm surprised over the number of folks that have rated this entry as their favorite "Chan" (didn't they ever see "...at the Opera" or "...at Treasure Island?"--- the latter ironically written by John Larkin, who dropped the ball here). This plot is a train wreck and overloaded with pointless characters. First, viewers are required to recall the sordid details of Steve McBirney's (played by venerable thug and HUAC squealer Marc Lawrence) 1929's murder spree. Let's not forget he escaped a capital murder rap at the courthouse with a lone policeman on his tail. There's also a victim that was fished out of a river 11 years earlier that no one ever seems concerned about. Then there's the suspension of disbelief required when all the characters are seemingly trapped in the wax museum (although Inspector O'Matthews manages to wield his fat wet rear end inside through a window). Why is Joan Valerie (as Cream's assistant) in this movie? She can't even handle pliers properly--- I realize Chan suffers the same boo-boo but yeesh, he's 66 years old here-- (and has less than 10 lines--- and her character's motivation is too weak to ever be adequately 'splained (excuse me, when I'm on a rant I write like Ricky Ricardo). The Mary Bolton (Marguerite Chapman) character is written to as a eager wide-eyed moron, apparently existing only for the vapid romantic interest of horndog lawyer Tom Agnew (played by the ferret-faced Ted Osborne). Why is Willie Fern a character? Why couldn't McBirney's henchman pulled the switch at 8:20? (not a spoiler, okay?!). One wonders how, with the IQ of lint he manages to dress himself or why he hadn't stepped in front of a bus years ago. Toler himself is given a little more acting rope than usual (a plus) and the real kudos go to set designer Thomas Little and cinematographer Virgil Miller who created some genuinely spooky atmosphere... but this entry has less logic than a Ritz Brothers film. I'm still boggled by how a toothpick can be used as a blow gun.
... I am left with little choice but to employ it at least once during the course of my review of Respiro. Among other things, what defines pretension is in my opinion a lack of emotional sincerity on the author's part. Respiro seems made with an all too contrived and self-aware intent to be artistic, symbolic, spiritual, provocative, metaphorical... mythical, even. But luckily for all true artists out there, a predisposed formula to achieve artistic beauty and depth doesn't exist. Stunning natural locations (yes, these remote parts of Southern Italy look exotic even to most other Italians), pretty actors and some amusing, gutsy, spontaneous performances by a handful of attractive children won't elevate a substanceless movie beyond a pretty succession of images. Yet this insincere and vain, and ultimately hollow movie aches to be art, succeeding only to a very limited extent, perhaps in some cases by accident. I'll admit that the conceptually pompous ending does have a certain visual poetry to it. However, it's my belief that this was achieved in ways that had more to do with the beauty of the Lampedusa sea and the strong symbolic power of bathing and water (connecting it to so much that's mythical, mystical, religious, archetypical, etc) than with Crialese's talent.<br /><br />Valeria Golino is gratingly histrionic and affected in her performance as Grazia. For a mentally unstable woman from a humble and provincial background, she sure has a fashionable wardrobe. Her flattering, floaty floral dresses and attractive, sun-kissed beach hair could have graced the pages of any Vogue summer edition. The fact she was a "nutcase" could in a way have been nothing but a fashionable addition to her trendy demeanour and look - that's how skin-deep her "condition" seemed to me. Golino's two-dimensional stereotype of the innocent, natural child-woman misunderstood and oppressed by her backward community was tiresome and irritating at worse, while leaving me unmoved and indifferent at best. I agree with the reviewer from London who wrote that mental illness is very badly served by cinema - during the course of the entire movie we never really get a sense of Grazia's illness and have no idea what is actually wrong with her (other than her being a tiresome stereotype of a "free spirit"). We don't know why she's given injections and is required to see a specialist in Milan. This generic way of writing mental illness is one of the main tell-tale signs of the movie's overall shallowness.<br /><br />Another fairly insulting aspect of Respiro is the quaintification of its location. I struggled to figure out whether this movie was supposed to be set in the present day or the past, seeing as it aimed to make even an admittedly backward part of Italy (by comparison) seem a dozen times quainter and more conveniently primitive than it actually is. Again, this smacks of shallowness and a complete lack of sincerity on Crialese's part. Some non-Italian viewers will gleefully lap up the picturesque backwardness, the cliché of the possessive, macho Italian man as if it were common-place, so keen will they be to continue viewing my country as one culturally stranded sometime in the 1950s (the question I'd like to ask David Ferguson, the reviewer from Dallas, Texas is as follows: is YOUR country's mentality stuck in the 1950s? No? OK, then why should mine be?). Unfortunately for whoever still wishes to view Italy in such an anachronistic way, that aspect of Respiro is actually ridiculous and phoney even in the eyes of THIS Italian viewer. The subtly incestuous tension between Grazia and her eldest son was as tiresome and predictable as Fabrizio Bentivoglio's sexist-but-loving-husband routine. I especially loathed the scene in which Grazia joins her husband and male friend in some man-to-man banter over a bottle of beer, to her husband's macho embarrassment and displeasure. According to this movie, it isn't a woman's place to take part in a man's conversations. Ah, but our "loveable" "free-spirit" is too good for this place and doesn't understand the oppressive, unwritten rules of Lampedusan patriarchy! Not only does this scene depict something so fake, it should be enough on its own to discredit the entire movie's credibility. It also completely gets the wrong end of the stick of the culture it strives to depict, clearly showing that it was written without a clear understanding of the location or its population. I would challenge anyone who knows contemporary Italy to say otherwise.<br /><br />For a truly accomplished contemporary Italian filmmaker, one who in my opinion deserves to be listed among the greats of Italy's glorious cinematic past (which alas, isn't the shadow of its former self!), look no further than Gianni Amelio - especially Lamerica, Così Ridevano and his latest, La Stella Che Non C'è. Unlike most contemporary Italian cinema, sadly derivative and stagnant, Amelio's is a fresh and independently creative voice. Despite my scathing review of Respiro, I am now more than willing to believe that Crialese's latest Nuovomondo, now showing in Italian cinemas, will be a worthwhile one. I therefore look forwards to enjoying it, though it won't be overly shocking to me if I don't (considering my feelings for Respiro!).
The synopsis of this movie led me to believe that it would be a story of an unconventional woman challenging the conventions of the society in with she lives. I like strong female characters and expected a movie much along the lines of "Chocolat" with a less fairy tale and more bite. What I got was a cast of despicable characters.<br /><br />For a character-driven movie to be effective, I need to feel a connection or compassion for the people. There was no one with whom I could relate in the movie. Grazia (Golino, whose work I admired in "Rain Man") portrays a mentally ill, probably bipolar, female that is often rude, aggressive and violent. Her husband bickers and yells, when he is not hitting or slapping someone. The children are rude brats. They yell at each other and the females in the movie. They attack other children with no provocation. Violence begets violence. This seems to be an island of unfeeling, aggressive, violent and rude people all the way around.<br /><br />The direction is not compelling. There are intermixed scenes that attempt to be art, but instead bore the viewer. The location is exceptionally gorgeous, but even that fails to be captured to the degree that it could be on film.<br /><br />I would have to recommend that you stay away from this failure of a movie.
A lack of character development proves fatal for this movie. Valeria Golino's character Grazia starts out looking like a bipolar personality but quickly degenerates into a caricature and seems unreal. The other characters are thin, probably the writer's fault not the actors'. The only exception is Filippo Pucillo as the younger son Filippo: his energy and bravado are funny and convincing.<br /><br />I suppose the children's petty cruelty is supposed to contribute to an atmosphere of bleakness and emphasize the pervasive primal spirits in the town, but for me, the gratuitous cruelty is redundant and contributes to the overall boredom of the film. Some scenes were amusing but not necessarily intended that way, for example, when the mistreated dogs turn out to be fat and healthy and look like they are ready to show. The pretty cast and setting make for an appealing trailer but cannot carry the whole movie.
I'm sorry folks, but these enthusiastic reviews on this prestigious site about this movie "Respiro" are very strange, to say the least. Is craziness picturesque, I ask and didn't find an answer. Of course, the movie is beautifully filmed, at part it's almost a documentary. But then, the fact is that when it comes to the women Grazia, she shows every sign of a deep illness and I was wondering throughout the movie what the heck she has. Her behavior is absolutely worrisome and the (shocked) citizens of the village are very right indeed in wanting to send her off to a proper institution to see what can be done about her condition. She needs treatment, urgently! Behaviour like hers is inferno to everybody around her, her husband, the poor children (especially) and the fellow citizens. Let's not be falsely romantic about this! I hated this condoning portrait of a mentally ill. WHY, for God's sake, should the husband not want to have her cured or at least try to do this? Why the horror of going to Milan (a big city, sure, but lots of possibilities of capable persons to cure her)? Narrowmindedness? Irresponsibility? Anyway, I inspired myself on this site for renting the movie on DVD and after seeing it I HAD to post this for others to make themselves an opinion on it. Frankly, I understand why the movie did not get any further as an INDICATION to the Cannes selection...
This could have been a breakout role for Valeria Golino but the film instead decided to shift its attention to another area. The film is about a woman named Grazia (Golino) who is married to a fisherman and the mother of three. She is a free spirit and prone to outbursts so the rest of the village and her family decide she should be sent to Milan and see a doctor. The story takes place on the island of Lampedusa off of Sicily and it shows the everyday life there with the teenage boys in rivaling gangs and just trying to find something to do on the sun baked rock. Grazia's oldest son Pasquale (Francesco Casisa) adores her and is always trying to protect her during her bouts of depression. The daughter Marinella (Veronica D'Agostino) is a blossoming young girl who becomes infatuated with a local policeman and the youngest son Filippo (Filippo Pucillo) is very sassy and mocks the policeman's accent. Upon learning that she is to be sent to Milan, Grazia runs away and Pasquale helps her by hiding her in a cave while everyone searches for her. This film could have really made more of an impact if it could have concentrated its focus to Grazia. We do see some outbursts and irrational behavior on her part but their is no follow up to these scenes. Nothing comes of it. The film looks great and is beautifully photographed so give director Emanuele Crialese credit for that but the story needed to focus on something more substantial. The film does a good job of showing us what life is like on this island and what is going on in the lives of the three children as they grow up. Their is some speculation that Golino's character gives a hint of being a mermaid like creature and that is why she is having difficulty existing on land. I also sense that the island itself expects its inhabitants to behave in a certain manner and if you don't then you can be subjected to the harsh realities of its rules. All speculations but I do think the films attention could have stayed with the character of Grazia. After she hides in the cave she really has nothing to do. In a sense, the character becomes stagnant. I wish Golino had more to do because I've always liked her and whenever she is onscreen you just can't take your eyes off her. She's a bundle of fury, passion and raw energy! What a shame Crialese didn't write a more complete role for her to act in. When the film ends your left feeling empty from an incomplete story.
To judge a movie just for the landscapes,decor,costumes....it is just not right , you are missing the core : THE STORY<br /><br />A movie has to narrate something , to tell a story something that impress you . Yes , I was pleased by the sea , cliffs , clear water and all that but ... There is the plot ?<br /><br />They are more interesting movies with mad people , such as : FLIGHT OVER THE CUCKOO"S NEST...etc...etc. This one is about a crazy woman who is more attached to dogs than his children or his husband. Just a clear psychiatric case !!!! Nothing extraordinary.Unfortunately a waste of time . And there is all that rage coming from ? Fish smell ? Sea ?
This is one of the worst movie I have ever seen. It's a thriller with a rather ridiculous ending. I watched this movie hoping for the best and instead found something truly bad. the movie starred two actors that I like very much, Rebecca DeMornay and Antonio Banderas. Sure they had decent chemistry together but for what? The movie's premise was bad to begin with and the execution just made it even worst.<br /><br />Miss DeMornay plays Sarah Taylor, a psychologist trying to analyze a convicted serial killer whose defense hinge on multiple personality disorder. That pretty much will give you a hint to where the movie is going and the identity of the killer. Early in the movie she gets an unexpected visit from her father. This being made in the 1990's when the bad daddy was the in thing in Hollywood is another clue to the ultimate conclusion.<br /><br />Mr. Banderas plays a mystery man named Tony Ramirez, who comes into Sarah's life. The whole first meeting and first encounter between Tony and Sarah is so badly done and so unconvincing it makes you wonder how it even got shot. And there's a sequence where the two of them are supposed to be knowing each other that is so sappy it doesn't seem to belong here. One thing that I would admit was that there was a sex scene that's very hot. Anyway creepy things start to happen after he arrives, weird packages arriving, things falling off the wall that could kill Sarah, incident that say things aren't normal anymore. <br /><br />Overall the movie was badly conceived, the editing at times seem jumpy, and the conclusion was laughable. Another thing that bugged me about this movie was the whole Orchestral music playing in the background. A more subtle musical score would have been better. I have to say this, no matter how bad the ending was, Miss DeMornay was very good in that sequence. It's sad that she never got first rate materials in her career. She's that rare combination of talent and beauty.
Man, is this lousy. It doesn't deserve much in the way of comment so, keeping it brief, Rebecca DeMornay is a highly disciplined police psychiatrist who falls for Latin Lover Antonio Banderas in a wine store, he of the ponytail and jail-house tats. When she cuts loose, she really cuts loose. Other than this torrid affair she's having (and we must admit the affair has its speed bumps) she's a pretty cold fish. Her broke, ailing father shows up for the first time in years and she boots him out. She's also adept at keeping her horny upstairs neighbor (Dennis Miller) at bay. And there's prisoner Harry Dean Stanton who's trying to maneuver her into giving him a diagnosis of multiple personality disorder so he won't have his privates nailed to the wall for the serial murders he's committed.<br /><br />All these people, and perhaps more, are immediately suspect when strange things begin happening to her. Somebody sends her dead flowers. Somebody does unspeakable things to her pet cat. (The next time I see a household pet turn up in a parcel or strung up in the closet or boiled in a pot, I'm going to puke.) So who's doing it? Guess. No power on earth could force me to reveal the ending, but maybe a hint will help: childhood abuse.<br /><br />The abuse excuse is an interesting business in itself, far more interesting than the movie. What does "childhood abuse" mean? Do we mean sexual abuse? Physical? Both? How about whacking a kid over the back with a wooden cooking spoon, hard enough to break it? That's what happened to me and my brother when we were kids, just as similar things happened to all the other errant boys in the neighborhood. Sexual abuse? That never happened to any of us, as far as I know, although I'm not sure it would have been rejected with any degree of animation. In the Samoan village I studied for two years, there was one case of an adolescent boy found playing sexually with a much younger girl. The girl's family beat hell out of him. The boy's own family sent him to live with another branch of the family in another village, an exile that lasted two years. By the time he returned the incident was forgotten by everyone, including the child. (By the way, the little girl we see here is under five so it's unlikely that she'd remember Dad's night-time visits in any case since long-term memory isn't really established until about that time.) DeMornay's experience leading to her mental disorder can be called "the social construction of trauma." It's not there unless we put it there. Enough of the psychiatric lecture. That will be fifteen cents.<br /><br />You want trauma? I'll give you trauma. The film absolutely forces us to identify with Rebecca DeMornay's character, right from the beginning. Then, when she has her first tryst with Antonio Banderas, and Pio Donnagio's score is pounding the eroticism into our heads, the camera gives us a shot from over her shoulder of the bare-torsoed Antonio crawling over us with his hairy chest. Now THAT'S traumatic. It makes any male viewer feel as if he's on the floor of the laundry room at the California Men's Colony in San Luis Obispo. Don't get me wrong. I don't dislike Antonio Banderas. It's just that I'm not in love with him. There aren't enough nude shots of Rebecca DeMornay's elfin body in the entire universe to compensate for that kind of anxiety.<br /><br />Here's an engaging way of surviving this movie. Instead of just sitting there puling, try picking out the scenes that were filmed in Toronto and separating them from the ones shot in Budapest. It's a challenge, really, and may, for all we know, preserve your sanity.
Rebecca De Mornay can be a fascinating beautiful actress but as for the parts she's given to play,if you cannot say something nice...<br /><br />De Mornay portrays a woman who had terrible traumas as a child with a father she can hardly stand now that she's a grown up and has become a -of course brilliant- shrink.She has an affair with Banderas ,whom we suspect of being (ouch!how original!) a serial killer.Sometimes she recalls Banderas's mother-in-law Tippi Hedren's character in "Marnie" .But I wouldn't count on it:Hitchcock died twenty-four years ago ,and a lot of regents desperately try to replace him .Here the director pulls out all the stops to make a thriller with an unexpected end,but that ending is so far-fetched it is absolutely impossible to buy it.The movie includes the obligatory "conversations with a serial killer" in the "silence of the lamb" tradition,murders (human beings and cats),split personality,and open ending in case the crowds should call for more.Apparently they did not,and they were right.
Sorry I couldn't be more expressive in my summary, but those two words seemed to describe the movie perfectly. This is not only a bad film, but a bad film with bad acting and a plot that will be inconsequential to most watchers.<br /><br />See it only for a naked Rebecca De Mornay tied to a chain-link fence and moaning with 'ecstasy; supposedly 'erotic', but actually hilarious.<br /><br />
With so many good movies coming out in 1995 (particularly "Mortal Kombat" and "Seven"), unfortunately, there had to be some bombs as well, and this film indeed falls into the latter category with a boring, predictable plot and a lousy ending. It seems that Antonio Banderas hasn't been able to find a decent script since "Desperado," the only remarkable film he's done. Anyone with an eighth of a brain could tell who DeMornay's stalker was from the beginning. Her flashbacks of the death of her mother did nothing but muddle an already paper-thin story. Pity that Dennis Miller was wasted in this film; this part resembles his eerily similar role in "The Net." <br /><br />The convoluted ending had me shaking my head, as I pretty much did throughout the entire movie. Plus, any film that depicts animal cruelty in any shape or form, no matter how fake it looks, automatically gets the thumbs-down from me. <br /><br />To make a long story short, if you want to enjoy a good thriller, then avoid this at all costs. Never talk to strangers...especially those who recommend this movie. 2/10
I thought Sliver offered the most boring and trivial "trick" ending in movie history, but of course I was wrong. I had no disillusions that this movie was going to be good. Unfortunately, it was worse than I expected. The worst part is that the obvious ending is so ridiculous and horrible that you can't believe it until it actually happens.
This derivative erotic thriller remains watchable most of the way, mainly because a viewer is casually curious about how it will turn out, and because the director, Peter Hall, manages to stage a pretty hot (and quite bold) sex scene. But the finale, though unexpected, is preposterous, and the whole plotting (complete with childhood traumas and multiple-personality disorders) reveals itself to be unbearably cliched, especially as far as motivation is concerned. (*1/2)
What a stinker!!! I swear this movie was written by a computer that took a whole pile of other movies and merged them all together into this platypus of film. Ouch!
Forgive me, but this work of director Peter Hall is horrendous. If you can't get to us with the plot, why not kill someone's cat or dog. That surely reaches the audiences. This viewer is tired of seeing animals sacrificed for the plot of a movie. And, believe me, I saw it coming before she opened the package. How predictable can you get. Take a cute animal then kill it in a gruesome way. I have never been a fan of De Mornay and this performance tells me why. Overacted and somewhat stagnant in interpretation, I found her rather silly and definitely boring. I did like Banderas, but felt bad that he had to play opposite De Mornay. He has done much better in other films namely "Philadelphia" where he had some honesty in his dialogue. In this chestnut he did his best to keep his character real. But the writers, Green & Rush, did a good job in preventing this with their trite storyline and insipid dialogue. Please, let us not be subjected to this kind of entertainment. Some of us aren't fooled by corny plots, bludgeoning animals and generally long winded dialogue. Seeing her get away with it, made me furious.
A few minutes in: "NOT credible. What idiot wrote this?" <br /><br />But, "What's going on...who's the bad guy...then there's that Rebecca De Mornay." Time passes....<br /><br />THE END.<br /><br />"NOT CREDIBLE. What IDIOT actually watched the whole *@#! thing!"
weird.this is a TV movie,yet the rating on the box says it's rated R.there's nothing in the movie that would remotely qualify for an R rating.aside from that,though,the movie is very slow and pointless.i mean the idea was good,but nothing was done with the storyline.it just wasn't developed.it's mildly creepy,and the acting is actually quite good,better than the movie deserves.i don't see myself watching it again anytime soon,if ever.there have been other movies dealing with the same concept which are better made than this one.i haven't seen too many Wes Craven Films,so i can't really compare it to any of his others.as for this movie itself though,i think it is poorly conceived and poorly executed.for me,i can't give Chiller a higher rating than 3/10
After his success with A Nightmare on Elm Street in 1984, director Wes Craven for some reason decided that his next project would be this TV movie. I'm not a big fan of this director on the whole; early exploitation flick The Last House on the Left as well as his modern slasher Scream sit well with me, but the rest of his work is very hit and miss and I'd hesitate to call him the master that others have labelled him as. The main theme here is cryogenic freezing, although it's more a springboard for the plot rather than an important part of the movie. The main influence here is obviously the excellent 1974 zombie film Deathdream and we focus on Miles Creighton; a businessman cryogenically frozen for ten years before an accident that means he has to be thawed out immediately. Miles is a part of a project for people that are ill; they pay to be frozen in the hope that they will be revived in the future when their illnesses can cured. Miles is successfully revived and it's seen as a miracle...but the person that wakes up is not the person who was frozen, as Miles returns without a soul.<br /><br />This film could actually have been quite decent judging by the idea behind it, but instead we're given a plot that doesn't really have a lot to it and it has to be said that Craven doesn't make the best out of the potential of the film. The 'soul' is the main focal point, but it would seem that not having a soul and simply having a murderous intent/no compassion are the same thing, which feels a bit unimaginative. The film was made for television so it's not particularly nasty and it's obvious that not a lot of money was spent on it as the whole production feels very cheap. Michael Beck never became a very popular actor and that isn't surprising judging by his performance here; while he is passable, he largely lacks charisma and is not formidable in the central role. The plot doesn't flow too badly but there's a real lack of suspense and/or tension and things slow down too much too often, which results in the film being rather boring on occasion. It all boils down to a predictable ending also. Overall, I have to admit that I was not impressed at all by this film and as far as Craven's filmography goes, Chiller would have to go down with Shocker, the Scream sequels and The Hills Have Eyes II as a miss.
I purchased a DVD of this film for a dollar at the big dept store. That's probably the best and kindest comment I have to offer on it. At least it didn't cheat me out of the cost of lunch.<br /><br />The problem with "Chiller" is Craven's problem as a director. The man has his apologists who claim his traveling papers prove he's a really smart guy and all-around sharp conceptualist. But it's no secret that, as a director, he has never possessed one iota of the visual and story-telling sense of a Hitchcock. As vigorously attested by "Chiller", he's much closer to that legendary flat-foot Hershel Gordon Lewis. What Craven lacks as a director is the main ingredient that would lift him from director for hire to a higher plane of film- making.<br /><br />Let's be specific. The transitional moments of this film are sleek. The establishing shots give it the feel of a quality production. The film looks professionally put together, in the way a film shot by a TV commercial director would. (A thought: The films only visual distinction, these transitions that at least look professionally handled may very well be the work of some second unit directors.) It's the parts between the bridges and smooth transitions -- the drama -- that fall flat. <br /><br />The core of the proceedings are invariably perfunctorily handled. The critical shots (after, say, the departing car drives into the well-positioned camera, then we cut to the night exterior of a hospital, then to the waiting area and hallway, then to the phone booth in the corner that will figure in the next bit of action) are quickly dispensed so we can hurry up and get to the next part. Craven never comes anywhere close to exploding the dramatic or visual possibilities of any moment. The net result of all this misplaced attention to the least important parts, and the fumbling rush to keep things moving, is a film that feels like the work of the fledgling art student who sharpens all his pencils, fussily adjusts his easel and lighting set-up, grinds all his pigments, stretches and primes his canvas ...and then has nothing to say. Craven, like the art student, never gets to the meat of the exercise.<br /><br />For Craven apologists who will point out that this film was made for TV, I will point to Spielberg's "Duel" and say no more.
Interesting topic. Pathetic delivery - script and direction. <br /><br />Our hero, Miles, thaws out and has his emergency world-first life restoration surgery. This is where the fun begins. The underlying issue is that Miles has NO SOUL!!! This is used to explain his quasi-erratic behaviour of being indirectly responsible for two deaths (I believe this to be the total number of deaths in 104 minutes). <br /><br />On the livlier side, Miles prefers the odd glass of brandy, blazing fireplaces and his young, maturing female cousin. The finale does indeed do justice to this film.<br /><br />Some thoughts: 1. Producer $$$ were parted with to create this tripe. J.D. Feigelson was the script writer and a (or sole) producer. Looks like he did not learn a lesson on "how not to bring an interesting idea to life" when one views his other writing credits. This will support the credibility of this script.<br /><br />2. Now available on DVD!!! This IS truly scary. Should be forever "Bottom of the Shelf" in VHS format.<br /><br />3. A re-incarnated human without a soul will default to an evil entity. <br /><br />4. The score offers minimal support. Not even an in-form Jerry Goldsmith could save it.<br /><br />5. Deserved the 0230 time slot on TV and a touch more entertaining than the infomercials + test patterns it was competing against at the time of my viewing.<br /><br />6. Thankfully did not spawn any sequels ala Wes Craven's "Nightmare" franchise. Chiller Too: The Return Return of Miles, or something like that.<br /><br />Despite my rating of 1, I still recommend this movie as a great example of how to kill an acting or script-writing career. This should apply to directing, however Wes Craven will eternally be exempt due to his sole good piece of "A Nightmare on Elm Street" 1984.
What was Wes thinking making this dribble? It does not jive well with any of his other work but then again he seemed to fall into a slight slump after making a A Nightmare On Elm Street. This can be seen by his follow ups 1.Invatation to Hell 2.Chiller 3.Hills Have Eyes II 4.Deadly Friend 5.Serpant and the Rainbow 6.Shocker all of these films were either mediocre our crap it was not until People Under the Stairs that he gained his momentum back and started to kick butt again. Chiller it'self has none of Craven's regulars and none of his suspense. The only good scene in when the old man has a heart attack on the stairs after graveling for his job.
Do you know what farmers spray on fields ? That's right - Manure , so when the BBC decided to make a much hyped conspiracy thriller about GMOs and farming what we got was some of the smelliest manure the BBC has inflicted upon its audience <br /><br />!!!! SPOILERS !!!!<br /><br />FIELDS OF GOLD opens with a bunch of masked scientists in a lab where a female scientist ( According to the right on trendy BBC all scientists are women ) announces " A new strain of wheat that will save the third world from hunger " then the story switches to another equally bland scene . If you're going to make a thriller of any type shouldn't you open with a hook that grabs the audience ? DOCTOR WHO was brilliant at this as was THE X- FILES while 28 DAYS LATER opened with a hook that took place in a laboratory. I guess someone at the BBC didn't think this thriller needed a hook because the viewers had trailers stuffed down their throat for weeks in advance <br /><br />As the ( Not very exciting ) story continues a couple of journalists ( One's a drunken man with morals lower than Bill Clinton and Dubya Bush combined while the other is a female journalist full of virtue ) investigating patients at a county hospital who might be getting bumped off via " Mercy killings " . It's at this point things start getting confused as the female journalist is threatened by MI5 spooks and the first episode ends with the main MI5 spook getting murdered <br /><br />The second episode reveals that the patients at the county hospital have actually been dying due to being infected with a VRSA superbug . This is when things go totally hay wire . All throughout FIELDS OF GOLD the audience have been led to believe the intelligence services and the company shown in the opening sequence have been behind the deaths - But they're not . It turns out the bad guy is an organic farmer who has been manufacturing the VRSA superbug in his bedroom and the story ends via THE MATRIX camera work with the drunken male journalist setting fire to a field ridden with VRSA thereby spreading the superbug throughout the land <br /><br />I find it impossible to say a good word about FIELDS OF GOLD . At the time of its broadcast I was both a member of the Scottish Green Party and Greenpeace . I have since renounced my time in the environmental movement but even now I am somewhat offended by how environmentalists are portrayed here and to have the bad guy spreading a fatal genetically engineered virus as a warning to the dangers of genetically modified organisms is very silly. It's a bit like a CND member letting off a nuke in London to warn of the dangers of nuclear war . I was also slightly offended as to how the male characters were written as being bastards while all the females were highly intelligent and morally superior to men . There's also other problems with the script especially with regard to VRSA . If unlike the scriptwriters you take the time and trouble to research VRSA you'll find it's entirely different from what is seen here . Oh and if you set fire to diesel it doesn't explode like napalm . Perhaps the worst criticism of the script is that it resembles JEEPERS CREEPERS structure wise whereby the last ten minutes contradicts most of what has gone before . Where as JEEPERS CREEPERS only lasted about 90 minutes FIELDS OF GOLD lasted twice that length so is doubly irritating and illogical<br /><br />As a footnote environmentalism never makes a good theme for a thriller ( Anyone remember those Steven Segal movies ? ) and it's about time TV and film producers realized this
I saw this movie for the first time on NBC Friday 11-29-02. It was a pretty good movie, but I don't think it would be the kind of Muppet movie Jim Henson would make. I mean first of all, Pepe' using the word "sexy" every now and then, and Pepe saying "it would suck?" And I defenitly know Jim Henson wouldn't allow Kermit yelling "I WISH I'D NEVER BEEN BORN!" thirteen time a minute. This movie just isn't like a classic Muppet movie. Sure I can understand Nicky Holiday stealing the baseball diamond from "The Great Muppet Caper," but a business lady cheating the Muppets in a contract for their theater to turn it into a smoker's nightclub. If Jim Henson was here today, he would HATE this movie!
I once saw a bit of this film, and was interested to see the full thing just to see why the critics give it two stars, the result being that I agree. Basically the film begins with Kermit the Frog (Steve Whitmire) telling all his Muppet chums that they have lost everything, and he ends sitting depressed (and possibly thinking about suicide) on the bench. Meanwhile, in another world (Heaven) angel Daniel (David Arquette, who had already been in Muppets from Space) visits the 'Boss' (Whoopi Goldberg, another reason I wanted to see the film) to show that Kermit really needs help. In the flashbacks, it shows Kermit, Miss Piggy (Eric Jacobson, not the original and better Frank Oz), Gonzo (Dave Goelz), Fozzie Bear (also Jacobson), Pepe the Prawn (Bill Barretta) and all the other Muppets have prepared a stage show for many people to see in the Christmas holiday, and it all seems to be going well. But the really mean Rachel Bitterman (Joan Cusack) is determined to either shut the show or the theatre down, and Kermit is doing everything possible to make sure that doesn't happen. Of course, Kermit fails the last time, and Bitterman tells him that they are finished, and she can officially take the theatre. This is where Daniel is sent as Kermit's guardian angel to try and help him, but Kermit is not in the mood, and eventually ends up saying "I wish I was never born". Obviously, you can recognise the spoof of It's a Wonderful Life, with Kermit as the George Bailey, and Cusack as the Mr. Potter, and in the end, obviously Kermit realises how much he means to everyone, and goes back to find the theatre saved as historical landmark. Also starring Whitmire as Rizzo the Rat and Beaker; Goelz as Dr. Bunsen Honeydew and Waldorf; Barretta as Dr. Teeth, Rowlf the Dog and Swedish Chef; Jacobson as Animal and Yoda (the only character who sounds similar to Oz's version), William H. Macy as Glenn, Matthew Lillard as Luc Fromage, Carson Daly, Molly Shannon; Scrubs' Zach Braff, Sarah Chalke, Neil Flynn, John C. McGinley and Judy Reyes, Mel Brooks as Joe Snow; Brian Henson as Scooter and Janice; Jerry Nelson as Robin the Frog, Statler, Pops and Floyd Pepper, and Kevin Clash as Sam the Eagle. The most memorable moment for me is the stage spoof of Moulin Rouge, besides that and the well known faces in it, not fantastic. It was nominated the Emmy for Outstanding Music and Lyrics for the song "Everyone Matters". The Muppets were number 47 on The 100 Greatest Pop Culture Icons. Adequate!
I've been a fan of Jim Henson and his characters since the very beginning. The most beguiling thing about them was the love and innocence and camaraderie shown. Kermit was a role model of deep thinking and problem solving. A spiritual character, yet sweetly and believably so. All the other characters were slightly eccentric but it demonstrated how different kinds of beings can co-exist in a caring manner together, respecting each other's difference.<br /><br />Following movies have somewhat kept the same vibe. Yet this "It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie" would have Jim Henson spinning in his grave. These characters have been completely re-written to be horny, nasty, selfish, and cheesy.<br /><br />The cast goes on to portray God as an uncaring corporate head, with a mean streak. Angels as spineless, non-spiritual corporate staff, and the movie was so bad I had to stop watching. I had bought it for my great-nephew but fortunately I preview anything I give a child.<br /><br />This movie deserved the trash bin instead and has no socially redeeming content or charm.<br /><br />Shame, shame on the people who re-wrote the characters and departed from Jim Henson's original heart-centered, socially conscious version. It does a terrible disservice to a great hearted man who is no longer around to defend his creations.
It's too slow paced and complex for children, and too lightweight and dull for adults. None of our family (6 weeks to 66 years) could be bothered watching it all the way through.<br /><br />Are there jokes in it? I couldn't really tell. There was certainly some unnecessarily adult innuendo. There was probably a bludgeoning message of sorts, but I wasn't engaged enough to care.<br /><br />The live talent are just stumbling and mugging their way through it. I have to wonder if they were actually being paid, or whether it was some form of community service or plea bargain.<br /><br />"Please, keep watching," whines Daniel; honestly, I wouldn't bother.
I am and have been a serious collector of Christmas related movies, TV shows, holidays specials, etc., for over twenty-five years. Please heed my warning and do not be mislead by sterling reviews & media hype about this movie. This is not a Muppett movie as we have come to know them, and is certainly NOT for children. The fact that this was produced for a major TV network is/was no surprise considering their level of operation at this time. What is hard for me to believe, is that The Jim Henson organization stooped so low to become involved in this travesty of Christmas.I wish there had been reviews for me to read that would warned me before I wasted my hard earned money on this piece of trash.
I am still waiting for that dark muppet film where we won't know how it ends from the beginning. I think Linklater could do one hes experimented with animation. This time I was intelligently not expecting such a thing but deeply wishing.<br /><br />Joan Cusack sucked. She moved to a made-for-tv level lazily acting this one with cliched cynic. The muppets were more life-life than she was. A disappointment.<br /><br />But then the entire film was, bar Pepe. I loved him. He was the only one to ever get me laugh(while Goldbergh as God got me choking and cursing). If we can't see a dark muppets than how about at least a PG:13 one with more of Pepe's controversial jokes and Animals metal-head, egg-nog-chuggin persona.<br /><br />The worst Muppets I saw even the boring Christmas Carol beats this one out. The muppets need to avoid this over commercialized holiday.<br /><br />5/10
I used to love the Muppets. The Muppet Movie, The Great Muppet Caper and The Muppets Take Manhattan were good family movies, cleverly written and fun to watch. I never thought I would see the day when they would jump on the Hollywood sleaze bandwagon, but here it is: Scooter as a caged rave dancer, Pepe making lewd and suggestive comments every five minutes -- this is not your father's Muppets. It's not Jim Henson's Muppets anymore, either.<br /><br />This "It's A Wonderful Life" themed movie has its moments, but not enough to save it. I cringed while watching this with my children. I still have hope for their next movie, but this one was certainly a disappointment.
I found this film extremely disturbing. Treadwell is delusional and disturbed, to the point of probably suffering from a mental illness. The footage shown is him and not an actor, but yet it is showing behaviour that ended in death. Is it appropriate to show actual footage of a suicide? Let's not mince words. The film shows footage of behaviour that directly led to his death.<br /><br />For those who think that Treadwell is some kind of hero, think again. The footage he shot is about him and not about the bears and foxes he claimed to be helping. He did no meaningful research into their habits or numbers and did nothing to actually protect them. All he did was run around in the bush and convince himself that he was better than everyone else. Reality is, by helping to desensitize the animals to humans, he exposed them to great risk. His self indulgent behaviour not caused his own death, but also the death of his companion Amy plus exposed his beloved bears and foxes to greater harm.<br /><br />But I'm also concerned about Werner Herzog's actions in compiling this film the way he did.<br /><br />A friend and I have had a long argument about this film who loved this film. He believes that seriously disturbed people make for interesting subjects and he cites the movie Downfall as an example. But in Downfall they use actors. We didn't see the real Madga Goebells put cyanide capsules into her own children's mouths.<br /><br />There was something about using the real footage in Grizzly Man which reminded me of that horrible football stadium tragedy where people were being crushed to death and the photographers who could have helped, elected to simply keep recording the horror.<br /><br />Herzog's film shows us that Treadwell's footage is more about Treadwell. But Herzog has done the same. His own personality and opinions are aired in this documentary, which is supposedly about someone else. Scenes such as the one where he listens to the tape are not necessary. We already knew what was on the tape because the coroner had told us. We didn't need Herzog shedding a tear with one of Treadwell's former girlfriends. It didn't add to the film.<br /><br />The film showed us that Treadwell was very self-indulgent, but it also showed us that Herzog is as well.
I haven't reviewed on IMDb before but this documentary is so overrated that I felt compelled to vent. I wouldn't have even finished watching if I hadn't been a guest at someone's house. The film was poor on many levels: First - Treadwell's video footage was contrived. The more I watched, the more he seemed to be acting as a person desperate to be famous instead of one acting out of conviction.<br /><br />Second - The others in the film, with the exception of Treadwell's parents and the airline pilot, were just as contrived and corny as he was. God, they seemed artificial.<br /><br />Third - Treadwell's mission to protect the bears doesn't even make sense as he did more harm than good by making the bears grow accustomed to human presence. I believe that Treadwell really did love the bears but there is much research which indicates his efforts were misguided. Sometimes we have to sacrifice our enjoyment of wildlife to really help.<br /><br />Fourth - The film's entertainment value wasn't half that of other wildlife films such as "March of the Penguins" and "Winged Migration". The filmmakers, in my opinion, did a poor job of sequencing scenes and gave little incentive to keep watching.<br /><br />As a person who loves Alaska, bears, and other wildlife, I would love to see more people dedicated to the preservation of our wildlands. Hopefully their efforts will be less people-centered.
I really seldom give either one or ten stars to any movie, but this was so awful, I had to make an exception.<br /><br />I am a SciFi fan and have seen a few comedic takes on SciFi that I genuinely like. There just wasn't anything here to like.<br /><br />I realize this was started with an extremely small budget by a film student. But even considering that, the sets and effect are bad. The cinematography is mediocre, but may be the best part of the movie.<br /><br />The acting is bad. A sad state when the female voice-over for the computer is the best actor. The dialogue is bad. The script is very weak and the plot is incoherent and almost nonexistent.<br /><br />The humor is not just subtle and sublime; it's nowhere to be found. As an example, a whole 20 minutes, of the 80 minute film, is spent on a lame 2 punch combo joke with the alien mascot and the elevator.<br /><br />This was supposed to be a parody of everything from bad 50's SciFi to 2001. What we end up with though, is just a slightly updated version of an old 50's SciFi C-movie. At least those movies were funny because they took themselves seriously.
This is probably the only movie I have ever not been able to make it all the way through. Not only was it annoying and boring, but the low production values made it hard to make out the action and in some cases the dialogue. Avoid this one like the plague.
I watched a movie called Dark Talon, dated 1974. The credits to this movie are exactly the same as Dark Star, so I'm going to presume it was an alternate title. Dark Talon was nowhere near as funny as everyone else here states. The acting was lame, the editing slipshod, and overall stupid. At the beginning there's an annoying 1970's trucking song called "Benson, Arizona" that has absolutely nothing to do with the movie. Basically the plot revolves around a small crew of an interstellar bomber that goes around bombing places that are unstable. The bombs are sentient and respond to people. The obligatory disaster disrupts communication between the bombs and the crew. One of the crewmen goes out and has an absurdly idiotic existential conversation with the bomb that made no sense whatsoever. The movie I saw was done in under an hour and a half, with commercials thrown in, so I suspect that Dark Talon is an overedited version of Dark Star.<br /><br />The alien is an inflatable red beach ball spray painted with a pair of monster hands that it walks on. It was silly and unconvincing as an alien.<br /><br />It's hard to believe that John Carpenter had a hand in this. His other movies were so much better.
This is a student film and it's a piece of crap. I would use much stronger language to describe it but then the review wouldn't be posted and the world needs to know- beyond any possible reasonable doubt- this movie REALLY SUCKS.<br /><br />There seems to be a different ruler used when measuring an already famous director's early work. Like somehow it was genius that we were just too stupid to comprehend since he finally got it right now today. I'm not buying it. The early movie "Bad taste" made by the LOTR Peter Jackson's sucks and this "early work" from another famous director really sucks the same way too. These "early works" are representative of crappy everything, from budget to scripts to actors etc.. it all is bottom of the bucket trash. Don't be fooled by the big name.<br /><br />If you like watching a handful of male 70's hippie burnouts pretend they could ever command a ship with the worst special effects you have ever seen- this is your movie.<br /><br />I can't f*37449ing believe this thing won a golden scroll award for best special effects. That is a joke right? Or a joke award?<br /><br />If you want to watch what this movie WISHES it was rent a season or three of Red Dwarf you smeghead.
I made the mistake of watching "Dark Star" (1974) late one night many years ago. It was one of the stupidest movies that I have ever watched:<br /><br />1. Bad acting.<br /><br />2. Bad writing.<br /><br />3. Scientifically stupid plot. (Destroying an entire planet because its orbit is unstable or in the way will only make matters worse: instead of having one large, easily avoidable object, you'll have thousands of smaller, but equally lethal and more difficult objects to track.)<br /><br />4. Completely unrealistic characters. A painted beach ball as a space alien? The writers must have been doing too many drugs.<br /><br />Not surprisingly, the majority of actors that starred in "Dark Star" never did anything else. Of those that did do anything else, the majority never acted again after Dark Star. Therefore, having Dark Star on one's acting resume was a death star to one's acting career!
This sequel is quite awful to be honest. I'm a fan of kung-fu movies and this is by far the worst I've seen. Bride with White Hair 1 was actually quite good and this is a huge disappointment. BWWH 1 was brilliant in some ways with an unique odd-ball evil bad guy.<br /><br />The couple from the first movie played a small role in this movie. Instead the movie revolves around a bunch of uninteresting characters trying to seek revenge on their fallen clans. But there's no antagonist in this movie so the revenge is mute.<br /><br />The worst part to this movie is the kung-fu or lack there of. They literally had a street style knife fight. The character at the end refused to fight because there was lack of choreography.
This was a real let down for me. The original Bride with White Hair is a great kung fu fantasy film but this one was pretty weak. I didn't care at all for the new characters who unfortunately dominated the screen time and the story wasn't well developed. While the first film was tragic and involving this one was tedious (as I merely counted the time to the end when the ill-fated lovers would actually meet). The action was poor in this one as well. The fights were not choreographed very well and there really wasn't much kung-fu at all. Just a few weak sword fights between the highly dis-likable Lui and one of Lin's henchwomen. Lin herself mainly uses a sort of telekinesis to throw people into walls and sometimes her hair, a far cry from the impressive showing with the whip and kung-fu she displayed in the previous film. I still gave this movie a 4 because at least it was fast pace and I did want to see what was going to happen at the end, though I (as most anyone who watched the first one) predicted it would go down the way it did and after seeing it I found it anti-climactic and wished they had either made a proper sequel or just left the story alone. I really recommend the first one but as for the sequel only fans of the genre and those who really want to see Lin as the bride one more time need apply.
Unfortunately this is not one of those movies which at least make you laugh at their unbelievable stupidity. It has no entertainment value at all. It just plain sucks. I don't know where to start to explain how much this movie annoyed me. I think what really takes the cake is the unbearable soundtrack. It sounds as if someone took a simple beat and then, for the rest of it, let a 5 year old child run amok with a synthesizer and taped it. It's really that awful and as if that's not enough, there's not one scene in the movie without "music" (=noise). By the end of the movie, you're either deaf or already cut off your ears earlier. Which would at least keep you from falling asleep, since there is nothing happening in the movie to keep your attention. Just a lot of bad acting, a few cheap and unconvincing kills, no story at all (it just jumps from one scene to another and you as the viewer can try to make any sense of it) and in the last 30 minutes or so you can witness some of the worst "special effects" ever. It's extremely boring. Do not watch this movie! You could do something much more entertaining like staring at a wall or reading the phone-book. Did I mention how much the soundtrack sucked?
This movie was so bad and so cheap and so corny, I found this movie to be one of the most boring slow paced early 80's movies that I have ever seen. I like most 80's cheap horror movies but I would never rent this one again. It just did not make any sense. A family that lives in the woods invites their son, his wife and their daughter to spend time with them for the holidays and during the movie for some reason the mother and daughter- in- law do not get along well. We never figure out why until almost till the end of the movie but until then, all we see is the fact that the mother has some form of ESP and the daughter- in- law is having nightmares and flashbacks of a catastrophe of what will happen to unfortunate victims to this "thing" that we have no clue as to what "it" looks like, all we see is a bright light signaling his approach and all we hear is a cheap interpretation of Darth Vadar voices and a soundtrack stolen from various horror movies. Then when we finally find out what and who it is all I did was laugh. This "killer" turns out to be some kind of alien Japanese warrior from WW2 who has apparently come back to life to claim the mother and her family. And all the mother does is stand there in front of the living room shaking with her hands on fire or something like she's going into some kind of convulsion. This movie is pathetic! Avoid it, it's not even worth renting.
No wonder a lot of us hate classical music; and what are the children to think? With "educational" PR like this, serious music will soon slip from life support to the morgue. Kids know when they're being talked down to, and this is no exception; why can't someone good do a movie about classical music for kids? I must admit, I enjoyed the actor who played Beethoven, he took to the role with enthusiasm and a keen balance of the poignant and humorous aspects of Beethoven's character; he obviously did his research. Otherwise, this is a third rate rehash of the old ABC Afterschool Special format, with none of the occasional charm those short films had. Sorry about the rant, but this is an important subject for young people to know about, and it could have been done well; I wonder if musicians or filmmakers were responsible? Either way, the kids are hipper than you think, folks...<br /><br />Medtner
Beethovan Lives Upstairs is a very bad movie. In my World History class, our teacher had us watch this movie and Amadeus to be able to compare the two composers or something. We watched Amadeus first and it was a very good movie, but when she had us watch this movie directly after that, I couldn't believe what I was seeing. The acting was horrific, the costumes were ugly (the little boy's was especially ugly and girlish), and the cinematography was z-grade. My Friend compared it to a home movie without the date display in the bottom right corner. I understand this was a T.V. movie from Canada and probably cost $10 to make, but please, they could have done better. I have seen a few good T.V. movies in my time, but this was not one of them. The biggest thing that I don't understand is why my World History class couldn't just watch Immortal Beloved or something. How is it possible to compare composers when given the movie Amadeus, for Mozart, and Beethovan Lives Upstairs, for Beethovan? It's not possible to do that when this is the choice of movie for Beethovan. I give Amadeus an A- (9 out of 10) if anyone cares to know, but Beethovan Lives Upstairs gets an F (1 out of 10).
It has been a tradition since my first VHS recorder for me to collect several of the incarnations of the old chestnut by Charles Dickens, and I taped this one and "Karroll's Christmas" this year. Fortunately, when this one was run on the Hallmark Channel at the unGodly hour of 3 AM, I was spared having to edit commercials from it. This was, however, it's only saving grace. <br /><br />The writing was excruciatingly dull with almost no clever scenes to save it from being anything more than a teeny-bopper soaper like Beverly Hills 90210. In this one, a good man who was cast aside for her celebrity seems the only logical explanation for her transformation into a Scrooge-like TV talk show hostess. It wasted Dinah Manoff who just plays bitch goddess to the other bitch goddess Tori Spelling (who, by the way, had more coats of paint on her face than some colonial houses) and Bill Shatner is perhaps one of the few fun things in this otherwise dreary adaptation. <br /><br />Some of the best opportunities are wasted like the entrances of the ghosts. Aunt Marla's entrance could have been spectacularly funny in the hands of a decent writer, but this Christmas turkey didn't have one, evidently.<br /><br />Tori Spelling may be a lovely person, but she has all the acting skill of a mannequin, and that makes for a bad show all by itself. <br /><br />Yes, it was good to see Gary Coleman work again, but the script gives him nothing to do really except roll his eyes and spout truly lame dialogue.<br /><br />And what is most infuriating was that the transformation from Scroogedom to Tori "sweet and light" is as convincing as a passionate conservative. Now, if anyone wants to write the ultimate Scrooge tale of a George Bush and Karl Rove, we might have a refreshing change from the usual bad Christmas Carol Clones.<br /><br />I suppose if you're a fan of Ms. Spelling and/or 90210, this might be your cup of Christmas cheer. I'd prefer a stiff shot of scotch and a cold beer to wash it down myself. This one I just may cast away before it is with me here for a long long time.<br /><br />God save us everyone!
When I first saw this DVD in a bargain bin for three dollars, I really couldn't believe my luck: a Christmas movie starring Tori Spelling, William Shatner, AND Gary Coleman??? Needless to say, I snatched it up immediately and considered it a worthwhile investment.<br /><br />The movie itself was just as bad as any movie you'd expect to be combining Christmas and the three aforementioned "celebrities." The dialogue was inane, the characters were one dimensional, and Carol's character arc was completely unbelievable. The movie itself was a lifeless piece of boring that refused to end and made me feel used as a human being when the end did finally come.<br /><br />My advice: Don't watch this movie unless you have to and then only under the influence of some serious holiday eggnog.
Given that Roger Corman attached his name to this production, I had high hopes for this film. Corman directed many memorable low budget horror flicks in the 1960's. I particularly enjoyed his adaptations of Poe's stories such as `The House Of Usher,' and `The Pit And Pendulum' and `The Raven' which starred the late great Vincent Price. These films had solid acting, atmosphere, suspense, strong characterization, intriguing plot development and delivered some chilling moments. Sadly, `House Of The Damned,' for the most part, sacrifices these qualities in lieu of cheesy low budget special effects, gratuitous nudity and mindless gore topped with cliche fast edits and camera angles.<br /><br />`House Of The Damned' starts off interestingly with some beautiful location shots in Ireland, but it's straight downhill from here. Unfortunately, instead of spending some time building atmosphere, creating characters we might care about, or building suspense - the director opts to begin running up the body count. After a brief introduction to the lead characters, a young couple and their daughter, the audience spends the balance of the film being bounced from one `spooky' event to another which, in this film, substitutes for coherent plot development. The lead characters are so ill conceived and are so badly acted - the audience doesn't care what happens to them. To make matters worse, the `spooky' events are either utterly cliché or unconvincing due to low tech - low budget special effects. The soundtrack has been lifted from `The Omen.' The plot, what little there is, borrows heavily from `Poltergeist' and `The Legend Of Hell House,' but lacks any of the qualities which made these films convincing.<br /><br />If you interested in seeing well done haunted house flicks, I recommend you check out classics like `The Haunting (1963),' `The Innocents (1961) or look into Corman's early American International films and pass on `House Of The Damned' unless you're masochistic or mindless.<br /><br />3 ½ out of 10.<br /><br />Rob Rheubottom<br /><br />Wpg, MB. Canada
This was a letdown in many ways. The location filming in Ireland, though quite beautiful at times, cannot save this uninspired flick. Greg Evigan and Alexandra Paul, as the married couple trying to get their marriage back on track and who inherit a haunted mansion, just aren't interesting characters. Paul, towards the end of the film, becomes incredibly annoying and one wishes she would just close her mouth and shut up, as it seems she is screaming as if it has just become an Olympic event! Other problems with this film are odd segments that have nothing to do with the core of the film, such as the opening sequence with two cleaning women and the woman in a bed with a severed hand climbing over her writhing, naked body. Although the woman is quite adequate doing this it does nothing storywise. One is left thinking the production team needed to pad out a short running time and just tossed in some padding and a bit of T and A. The CGI effects are cartoonish as well and the fiery finale rivals co-executive producer Roger Corman's much earlier and far superior film The Fall Of The House Of Usher in all its ineffective cheapness. Any attempt at true tension and suspense, and as a result chills, are thrown out the window in this low budget bust. If you like images of Ireland you might find something here but you would do better renting or buying a travelogue. Skip this unless you are undiscriminating and think plot is secondary. Rent another low budget ghost story(if you can find it) titled The Woman In Black and see how good and scary a movie can be. This was a wasted opportunity.
This movie is a clumsy mishmash of various ghost-story and suspense-thriller conventions, none of them fully realized and all of them rather irritating. The script was perfunctory. The acting, ditto. The scary FX were mostly laughable except for one exquisite seat-jumper moment that scared me even though I saw it coming a mile off. Now, explain to me someone why you would need ghosts, AND black magic, AND arcane ritual objects, AND Count Crapula CG boogeymen, AND psychic investigators, AND family curses, AND Irish superstitions, AND bowls of milk left out for the supernatural beings, AND possessed dollies, all in the same movie? With all that you would expect more than one good moment of horror, but this movie is lame, lame, lame.
New Year's Day. The day after consuming a few too many vodka martinis and Cosmopolitans mixed with a bunch of bubbly at midnight, my wife and I discovered the local cable company is offering up the digital specialty channels for free for the month of January. We had a choice - do we make use of the freebie channels or do we start watching the eight seasons of X-Files on DVD that we received from our daughter for Christmas?<br /><br />We elected for the digital freebie since the DVDs are going nowhere and we need something like ten twelve-hour days to watch all the X-Files beginning to end. The Drive-In channel was offering a horror classic three movie marathon: Asylum (1972), House of the Damned (1996) and The Pit and the Pendulum (1961). Asylum is well-reviewed here and the Pit and the Pendulum was on too late for us to watch which meant we could really only be properly critical for House of the Damned.<br /><br />To be honest, we tried to be serious about the movie since its stars have reasonably good acting credentials - Greg Evigan (William Shatner's over-written Tekwars) and Alexandra Paul (the only Baywatch babe who could act although she has the body of a ten-year-old boy). Unfortunately, we soon dissolved to giggles, under the influence of a little hair-of-the-dog, as we each shouted out the names of movies from which this dog borrowed its scenes: Poltergeist, The Shining, Hell House, House On Haunted Hill, Ghost Busters!<br /><br />The acting, especially by Evigan's real-life daughter, wasn't too bad considering the silly script they had to work with. The CGI, for 1996, was hilarious - at its worst point in the final scene when it should have been the most horrific it was so bad my wife and I dissolved in laughter.<br /><br />Overall: Acting 4/5, Script 2/5, SFX 0/5
Strange things happen to Americans Will (Greg Evigan), Maura (Alexandra Paul) and their young daughter Aubrey (Briana Evigan, Greg's real life daughter) when they move into a large, newly inherited house in Ireland. Crusty corpses are found in the cellar, a turkey squirts blood, furniture moves and the ghosts of a dead child and a cackling old lady show up to scare the little girl. Paranormal investigators are eventually called in to banish the evil spirits, but Maura becomes possessed anyway and chases everyone around with a meat cleaver.<br /><br />This film is full of cliches, but there's a standout performance from Alexandra Paul... too bad it doesn't belong in this movie (nor any other I can think of off hand)! She can barely keep a straight face and her over-emoting and hysterical screaming tantrums are a joy to behold. In any case, she's a lot more interesting to watch than anything else in this movie.<br /><br />Score: 3 out of 10
"House of the Damned" (also known as "Spectre") is one of your low budget haunted house horror flicks, filled with mediocre performances and cheap effects. It is about a family that inherits an old Irish mansion, and after moving in begin to experience strange phenomenon and ghostly apparitions, including the ghost of a young girl who was murdered and buried within a wall in the mansion's basement. The couple's young daughter is then whisked away into some other dimension and they seek help from a group of paranormal investigators for help.<br /><br />The ideas this film borrowed from the 1982 haunted house film "Poltergeist" are obvious. I will say that this movie does have some slightly creepy sequences, but it is sometimes very, very boring. The acting here is nothing special, the mood is alright, the score (which was mostly this dramatic Irish opera music) was somewhat annoying, and the CGI special effects are really horrible. I mean, it was 1996, you would think they could have done a little better than they did. The ending where the house was on fire was the poorest special effect I've seen, very very cheap. But hey, this was a cheap movie.<br /><br />Also, the translucent monster wolf thing that their daughter sees looks horribly fake. And what was it's significance in the film anyway? What the heck does a wolf-monster have to do with a haunted house? The special effects in here are what really ruined this movie. The acting was pretty bad too. I usually enjoy many low budget horror films, but not this one. "House of the Damned" is nothing special at all, only consider watching it if you have nothing better to do. But you'll probably want to pass on it. 4/10.
I saw this Film one midnight and I can say that it worse than other horror film about a Haunted House.Alexandra Paul is not one of the best actress but she can do the role better,The little girl get worse this is a example about a Bad actress,she has not got future in the great world of films. SENTENCE FOR HOUSE OF THE DAMNED:BAD
This has got to be the worst movie I have ever seen. The part where they loose there daughter? with the poltergeist overtone rip off? just pushes it over the edge with stupidity. I watched it on showtime so it still had the cheese soft-core porn scenes in it. I have to say it made me laugh my ass off. The 80's 3d effects were very out of place. Included an invisible cat and a spinning vortex. Wow I wonder if the people who made this actually feel accomplished in life. The actress who plays the wife looks familiar but sucks anyhow. Her screaming could be used as a torture device in hell for more than retired Nazis. Anyways thank you showtime for the super crappy horror movie. I will always enjoy the time I watched the biggest waist of time and money I have ever seen.
Butter Battle is an entertaining story about two fictional cities and their arms race. It is also as misguided allegory about the Cold-War and arms races in general. Yes, it is a children's book, but like so many of Theodor Seuss Geisel's works it hits people over the head with its moral.<br /><br />And that moral is what, exactly? Sure it is laudable to encourage us to concentrate more on what unites us than what divides us. It is even a good thing to encourage international cooperation. But to equate the differences between the Warsaw Pact nations and the Nato west to a difference in butter application is just plain wrong. To point out the obvious, many Warsaw Pact nations enjoyed intermittent periods of shortages of butter and bread -- they would have been happy to eat it butter sideways if it were available. On a less literal level, and whatever your political inclination, Soviet socialism versus Western (particularly Anglo-American) democracy is not a mere question of preference and custom.<br /><br />To make the point even clearer, nuclear weapons were not developed in a Cold War with the Soviets, but in a hot war with the Axis powers. There is no doubt that Germany was developing nuclear capability during the war. Should the US have refrained from nuclear weapons research putting their trust in their (less than inevitable) victory in the conventional war? Once the weapons were developed they were used against the enemy who attacked us at Pearl Harbor. What does a nation do at this point when the genie is out of the bottle? Furthermore, hindsight is 20-20, which is to say that there was no way of assuring another half crazed dictator wouldn't crop up with his eyes on developing nuclear weapons. The second Gulf War has shown the incredible difficulty in ascertaining credible threats and neutralizing them.<br /><br />In any event, the cartoon is little more than simplistic propaganda which does little to explore the nuances of the ethical questions behind nuclear armament and instead tries to inculcate fear of weapons technology into children.
It just so happens that IVAN THE TERRIBLE, PARTS I and II both had entries in the 50 Worst Movies book by Harry Medved. Now, I do think that declaring they are among the worst movies ever is an overstatement, though they are still both pretty poor films--particularly the first one, as it featured more eye rolling and "googly eyed looks" than I have ever seen before!! Director Eisenstein and an awful lot of other people out there thought this made the film "artsy and profound"--and since I am legally sane, I must say that I hated this first film!! The second, while still very incomplete-looking, is a vast improvement, as eye rolling is minimal, though overacting and long boring scenes are present in this film just like in part 1! While part 2 looks pretty incomplete and needed at least another hour (especially since it never gets to Ivan's insane behavior later in life--like killing his son and heir while in a fit of anger). Since both parts 1 and 2 were commissioned by Stalin to both excuse his own murderous reign and glorify him, it's no surprise that Ivan's life story is left very incomplete. Even without all the truly awful behaviors of Ivan, apparently the supremely evil Stalin STILL didn't like the film and wouldn't allow its release during his lifetime. Maybe he didn't allow this because he was more worried people would see what a HUGE waste of money and resources the film was instead of seeing Stalin as a crazy guy just like Ivan! <br /><br />By the way, there was one segment of this tedious film that was just so cool that the film merits a 4 (without it, a 2)--and that's the scene with Prince Vladimir at the banquet! It is well-done and pretty funny in a dark way. And, the scene was done in a Russian version of 2-color Technicolor. This is VERY odd, by the way, because by the mid-1930s, a vastly improved true color process was developed by Technicolor that no longer made everything look all orangy-red and greenish-blue. So, this film during the color sequences looks a lot like a silent or early sound color film. Very odd indeed for the 1940s.
I do not generally appreciate light-weight attempts at creating humourous stories, which means that "Anita no perd el Tren" cannot score very high for me. The story is good: a middle-aged but still good-looking woman finds a new love. But the attempts at making this film as a romantic comedy only managed at times to be somewhat comical. <br /><br />Rosa María Sardà has ably demonstrated that she can be a serious actress in such productions as "Amic/Amat" (qv), "Todo Sobre mi Madre" (qv), "Las Amargas Lágrimas de Petra von Kant" (qv) and "El Embrujo de Shanghai" (qv). However the powers that be have over the years dished her out a lot of trivial stuff, for the cinema and for TV. Something similar could be said of José Coronado: perfectly able to produce serious performances. María Barranco belongs safely in this grouping.<br /><br />Such that, in the end, I was left with the feeling that I would be real pleased to see a new making of this film, in a serious tone, which would allow the actors to really show their performing skills. And the curious thing is that it should be done with exactly the same leading actors. Wasted talent on a rather silly film that could have been very promising indeed.
I normally wouldn't waste my time criticizing a useless movie such as this. However, I'm off of work this week, so I have plenty of time to wallow in meaningless trivialities. To start, let me say that I frequently enjoy non-commercial, non-mainstream, non-American cinema. (Feel free to click on my user profile for a supporting filmography.) That said, there are plenty of bad movies that are released in countries outside of the U.S. Trust me, I've been tortured by hundreds of them. "Lost In Beijing" is one particularly bad film.<br /><br />The opening half hour is an impressive, non-stop exhibition of moral degeneracy. This film provides some classic morals that belong on the same level as Kim Ki-duk's "Bad Guy" (2001). <br /><br />1. women actually enjoy being raped; 2. rape should be glorified, praised, and respected; 3. feel free to rape any woman you like, because while your "doing" her she'll eventually start to like it and reach orgasm; 4. if you're wife gets raped, make sure you blackmail her rapist for lots of money, but if he doesn't pay, just repeatedly bang his slut of a wife as compensation; 5. if you're wife gets raped, be sure to screw and degrade her the next day while playing the role of the rapist, taunting her with lines like, "Did he fu*k you like this?"; 6. if you're husband is a rapist, just accept it; 7. after you personally get raped, befriend your rapist and hang out with him whenever possible.<br /><br />How can anyone in their right mind care about any of these characters? They're nothing more than a bunch of degenerates who not only live their lives in careless ways, but actually revel in their meaninglessness and support each other. Don't misunderstand me though. I'm very capable of enjoying films that depict lifestyles and morals that are contradictory to my own. "Ichi the Killer" (2001) and "Moonlight Whispers" (1999) are very interesting portrayals of sado-masochism. "Strange Circus" (2005) is an exceedingly perverted play on child sexual abuse. "Marriage Is A Crazy Thing" (2002) is a scathing indictment on traditional marriage. Even religiously-based movies like "Running On Karma" (2003) and "Samsara" (2001) have entertained me on occasion. The difference is that those films actually have some interesting psychological content and character development to them, whereas "Lost In Beijing" has virtually none.<br /><br />It's known that people with unorthodox mindsets exist on this planet, but without some kind of character development or psychology behind the acts themselves, you end up with a superficial exposition of despicable behavior. Why, exactly, does Bing Bing eventually befriend and care for her rapist? Why does the wife of a rapist accept his behavior unconditionally? The filmmakers never bothered to tell us. Even the obvious juxtaposition of rich and poor classes was ineptly conceived and in the end served as a mere situational ploy. It all feels too bland and forgettable after the filthy opening half hour subsides. <br /><br />Other reviewers here seem to have confused moral ambiguity with complex characterization. The reason you can't choose which person to root for is because they weren't developed properly. Don't think that this movie has complex characters just because they're not clearly defined. On the contrary, the reason they're not clearly defined is because we know nothing about them or what they're thinking. This is hardly a positive attribute of this movie. <br /><br />On the positive side, the camera-work and acting are quite good, but everything else just gets duller and duller as the film progresses. You can place this alongside trash like "Turning Gate" (2002), "What Time Is It There" (2001), "Irreversible" (2002), and the aforementioned "Bad Guy."
I picked out this DVD out of the cheepo bin at Walmart because the cover showed one of the planes I flew during Viet-Nam (C-123k). I did not fly for Air America, but knew being a C-123 pilot, I knew a lot who did, including those who flew in my Reserve Unit back home. I am not a movie critic, but wonder about the subliminal motivation of Directors and Writers who make movies like this. The best part of this movie has to go to the cameraman. The flying shots and stunts (although totally cartoon like) are excellent. The movie begins with Hollywood's favorite fall guy in 1969. But the fact is, Nixon did not start Air America, he did not begin the lies. Johnson was responsible for Air America and Nixon inherited the lies, the war, and Air America. Its not fair or accurate to portray Nixon as a liar on the subject of Air America. All President's have inherited the lies of their predecessors. Nobody smart enough to fly a C-123 was dumb enough to not know what they were joining. That makes the Downey character unbelievable. A C-123 was a rugged airplane. It could easily fly on one engine, or the two auxiliary jet engines. The three stooges shooting a duck with one shot is more likely. Pilots who flew with Air America were civilian employees of the CIA, they were not reckless soldiers of fortune. They had a good reason to behave and believe in a future, if they survived their extremely dangerous job. They were given double time towards a retirement pension. They weren't required to sell dope or guns to get a good pension. Dope was legal and a way of life in SEA, as it still is today in Afganistan. If individual pilots tried to make money on the side, it was not CIA policy. The CIA was fighting a war on communism, not drugs. The writer based his story on "war stories". Pilots love to BS anybody who will buy them a beer and listen. The writer and Director who had an ax to grind about Viet-Nam and Nixon. See the movie, and remember how it starts - it blames Nixon for what existed for years. Remember, he didn't become President until Jan 20, 1969.<br /><br />My favorite scene is the landing up hill in the jungle. Air America pilots put planes in places the aircraft designers never thought possible. Their were plenty of funny stories that could have been shown. Instead, the Director chose to use the oversize rubber scene to show how dumb the CIA was. This scene shows that the Director and writer fell for some pilot bar talk and the joke is on them. <br /><br />MDS Fort Valley Virginia.
Skilled professionals live it up in an exotic and dangerous location. They get drunk every night. They smuggle opium. They drop pigs in parachutes. They fly under impossibly hazardous conditions. They dress weird and act weirder. They're iconoclastic, outrageous. They violate every rule of command and have contempt for their employers at the CIA. They're irreplaceable.<br /><br />Nope. It's not "Only Angels Have Wings" and it's not "M*A*S*H." It's an uneasy mixture of the two that unfortunately comes across as more silly than funny.<br /><br />It aims at shock, amusement, and education, but doesn't really achieve its goals.<br /><br />As far as its shock value is concerned, well, we're inured by now, aren't we? Does it really shock anyone that a bunch of hard-living pilots flew secret missions in Laos in the 1970s? No, it's not shocking. It's not even educational now, under our current circumstances, when it would be interesting to learn that some paramilitary excursion was NOT buried in a file labeled National Interest, Defense de Toucher. That's okay. So we've been wised up a little and are no longer neither so shockable nor so dumb.<br /><br />The problem in this case is that the film depends on those very qualities for its power to amuse. Without that, the film implodes. A group of shaggy drunken CIA pilots are sitting around in a cat house, goosing the girls, shooting out the lights with a silenced pistol, killing lizards with same. Asks newbie pilot Robert Downey, Jr., "When you guys act like this does it mean there's something to celebrate?" Replies another, guffawing, "No, it means it's night time." That might be funny if we expected renegade pilots to be as upright as the rest of us. If we don't, the gag, like the movie, falls flat.<br /><br />There are action scenes naturally. Everything that can possibly happen in or to an airplane in flight happens in or to an airplane in flight. People fall out of them, baggage is thrown haphazardly out of their hatches, engines fail, they sustain damage from AAA, the are torn apart during crash landings, but we've seen most of this elsewhere, often done better.<br /><br />Some might find this funnier than I did, and the acting is pretty good. Robert Downey Jr. is especially effective as the straight man. Check out the other comments and if they describe a film that you might find appealing, then by all means watch it. There might be some laughs in it that escaped me.
Roger Spottiswoode isn't the worst director, and he did a good job on the underrated sci-fi thriller "The Sixth Day" (a.k.a. "The Box Office Downfall of Mr. Schwarzenegger"). However, "Air America" has to be one of his most inept projects.<br /><br />It comes across as an amalgamation between drama, comedy and war film - it's not a very convincing mix. In fact, I found it to be overbearing.<br /><br />Robert Downey, Jr. (during his heyday) stars as a pilot recruited into a top secret CIA organization operating during Laos in the Vietnam era. Mel Gibson plays his co-pilot and he stumbles upon the knowledge that they're trafficking drugs, and what not.<br /><br />The movie was hyped on release because it starred two famous faces and Aerosmith had re-recorded the Doors classic "Love Me Two Times" for the soundtrack.<br /><br />The redo of the song is pretty poor, which suits the film.
That this movie has been stapled to the wall of a chapel as proof that God is truly dead. Am I the only one that really saw (rather sleptwalked) through this "film"? This is the only movie I've ever seen in the theater that I regret not walking out on and demanding my money back -- it was just that dull. And I even saw "Highlander 2: The Quickening" at the local cinema. From beginning to end, Gibson and Downey have absolutely no chemistry as two unlikelies, cast together by circumstance, who eventually work together as best buddies. The action (what little there is) is goofy and as dull as the skullbone of the writer. Thank whatever deity is chortling down at us as it observes our "cinema" that there's no chance for an "Air America 2."
I'm normally a fan of Mel Gibson, but in this case he did a movie with a poor script. The acting for the most part really wasn't that bad, but the story was just pointless with flaws and boring. I thought I would like the movie a little but I didn't like it at all actually. I give it a 1 1/2 out of 5!
I decided to watch this movie because it has been noted as the "scariest movie ever" so, that's what I expected. Unfortunately, what I found out is that the movie didn't have a single scary moment in it (and I'm the kind of person who jumps very easily). The movie was nothing but terrible clichés and every time there was a jump-moment it was incredibly obvious. The pros of this movie would be the music and the odd scene thats actually shot well (like the very last scene when she opens the door and you see Tun in the reflection and when it swings back to him you see the ghost on his shoulders). Overall, this movie really added nothing new to the J-Horror genre and all-around lacked creativity and scares.
I should explain that as far as this trend goes for ripping off Asian horror movies, this Shutter is a head above The Grudge, and Dark Water, while still not achieving the same amount of atmospheric creepiness that The Ring establishes.<br /><br />Still though movies, like life, don't exist in a vacuum and are therefore up for comparison to other suspense/thriller/horror movies. Honestly, I'm not writing a lengthy synopsis here and will say that this movie attempts to rely on music induced "startle" scares rather than atmosphere and the "ghost" itself really isn't that remarkable. The plot is pretty basic and predictable and isn't anything to write home about either. While there are a few suspenseful scenes that border on creatively scary, most of the movie is pretty vanilla. If you enjoyed The Grudge and it's ilk then you might enjoy this.<br /><br />Grade: C-
I don't know, but the movie was just too similar to other movies I've seen. The Ring, The Eye, Dark Water, they're all the same to me. Don't get me wrong, it's beautifully made, lovely camera work, great graphics, but that story is just too.. too common. In the end, it's the score that makes the suspense, you know: the screams, rumbles. The characters in the movie are also not reacting very naturally, moving very slowly, surprised by anything they see. I know some people that love this kind of film, and if you do, being a well made movie, I guess it doesn't hurt to watch it. But if you've seen the movie I've mentioned above and didn't like them, then I'd suggest you don't bother.
i have seen many Japanese horrorfilms and i have to say that some of them are really interesting but they are all pretty much the same. this one is no exception. the ghost is a black haired girl, that scares it's victims by doing nothing else than walk and look dead.. the difference is just the motive for the haunting. the rest is the same as every time: black haired girl, strange things happening with some media (photos), creepy acting. while watching this flick i constantly found myself asking why i was wasting my time watching stuff that someone else has done so much better before. some scenes where quite nice though, i'll give it 3 out of 10
One of my co-workers recommended this one, implying that it was one of the most frightening movies she ever watched. I checked it out together with my girlfriend and we gave up after 50 minutes or so.<br /><br />Yesterday, I had a long talk with my co-worker (we're still friends!).<br /><br />This movie is as original as the latest film starring Steven Seagal. It brings absolutely nothing original to the table. The spooky parts have been done thousand of times before.<br /><br />The biggest fault however is the painfully slow pace of this movie. The periods between the scares are completely wasted with meaningless dialog and a lot of.. nothing..<br /><br />1 of 10 Molotov cocktails
I absolutely positively can't believe my fellow IMDb reviewers. All the praise about how "original" this movie is, it's like they've never seen "Ring" or the million of imitations that's come out in the 10 years since that movie. And some of them claim to be horror movie buffs! I think not! "Shutter" is okay. Average, I'd say. I give it 5 out of 10, but there's just no way it's original and great and "the most frightening thing I've ever seen" as one reviewer said. Puh-leeeze, people. This one is plain. It's predictable.<br /><br />I swear, if I see another ghost movie where the hero traces the past of the ghost in order to find out why she's so mad and after them, I'm going to scream.<br /><br />"Original"? Give me a break. You people need to get out more. Or at least stop calling yourselves "horror movie fans".
Amando DeOssorio was never one to let a lack of budget get in the way of telling one of his stories. His "Blind Dead" series started off great but had some truly laughable moments, such as shots of a small model boat in a water tank for "The Ghost Galleon". In "The Sea Serpent", he hits rock bottom and takes some notable actors along with him, telling the tale of a silly sock monster that brings google-eyed terror to a few water tanks and miniature aquariums.<br /><br />A vague opening sequence sets the stage and demonstrates an aborted military mission where American pilots, for some unknown reason, drop an atomic bomb (brazenly cartooned into the frame of the film) somewhere in the ocean off the coast of Spain. The military commander gives this order from an office that features a prominent American flag and a portrait of a deranged-looking Ronald Reagan, one of only a few things that makes this movie really seem like the Eighties. The other two are the hilariously inept subtitle that declares the year to be "1.985" and Tyria Power's dated Sheena Easton hairdo, which would have looked really cool next to some ripped neon sweats.<br /><br />One of the kookiest monsters you will ever see rises from the depths, disturbed by the explosion caused by the bomb. We learn that the errant atom bomb has killed off a great deal of the local fish. Unfortunately for our cast, it has no effect on the Sea Serpent, which swiftly descends on the coast of Spain for some miniature-set mayhem.<br /><br />Now when I say the monster is unrealistic, I am not exaggerating. It's not just "sort of" fake looking. I'm sure the filmmakers did the best with the ten dollars that they seem to have been allotted, but most of the time it looks like it was made out of Crayola markers, a ping pong ball, and an old sock. Not only that, it has this ominous music that accompanies it wherever it goes, music that sounds so much like the "Jaws" theme that it's a wonder nobody got sued.<br /><br />Along with Tyria Power, Timothy Bottoms and Ray Milland are caught slumming, and the dialogue could not have been any more dismal. Through a series of plot contrivances, our leading actors are thrown together in a quest to...well, I'm not sure what the purpose is. Bottoms and Power have got to prove the serpent is real in order to save their butts (he is blamed for a serpent-induced shipwreck, she is locked in the loony bin after a sighting). None of this matters, because by the end of the movie nothing has been resolved. Nobody admits the serpent is real, and it's not even dead. Furthermore, Power and Bottoms are still on the lam from the law. <br /><br />As illogical as it seems, nobody but our heroes knows that the serpent exists (despite numerous disappearances, a trashed lighthouse, and a crushed railroad bridge), and they embark on an extended non-adventure to track down and chase the monster away...not kill it, since they know they are no match for it. Their big plan is to use flares to scare it off. Although their scheme is botched, the serpent causes a big explosion in the water after it attacks a bridge support (don't ask), and the giant sea snake is so frightened that it swims away. The critical viewer would wonder why the serpent wasn't frightened off earlier in the movie when it caused a couple of big explosions after crashing into a dock. But never mind. It swims away, and our heroes are sure it's gone forever. The end.<br /><br />I can only imagine the horror that the stars felt when they saw the completed film they just worked on. A lamebrain script and a couple of dim reaction shots could never have prepared them for the embarrassment of sharing screen time with a spliced-in sock puppet/stop motion beastie. At least the supporting characters got to have fun screaming and pretending to be swallowed by a giant serpent head. I'm not sure what was going on when they made this movie; the monster is cheap, but there are some rather elaborate miniature sets, so somebody did spend some time making those, not to mention the stop-motion animation involved. It's seemingly played straight, although maybe this film's sense of humor went over my head. In the end, the film is nothing more than an easy target for a drunken commentary. Watch it at a party for best results.
This film has me seriously doubting again whether Armando de Ossorio was a good filmmaker or not... His BLIND DEAD films are praised by many fans. This I can understand. But wanna-be Gothic vampire trite like MALENKA doesn't show any signs from a gifted filmmaker. And that also goes for SERPIENTE DE MAR. It features horrible acting, a dumb plot, stupid events, a lot of other things you can expect from a bad monster-movie and also veteran actor Ray Milland, who does his best to mumble his way through this film while not having much of a clue about what he's doing in it. Apparently Milland was already very ill while shooting SERPIENTE DE MAR (his last theatrical feature) and going out with a ridiculous stinker like this, makes it all the more sad. One last appearance alongside Peter Cushing in a made-for-TV film directed by Roy Ward Baker (also in 1984) doesn't change much about it.<br /><br />But the sock puppet/sea serpent is a hoot to behold. Watch it swirl up a lighthouse and crush it. See it destroy a harbour with miniature boats. Look at it demolish bridges and munch on charming miniature trains.<br /><br />Good Badness? Yes. 3/10 and 7/10
and abysmal, over-the-top acting, you might enjoy this rubbish flick.Apparently atomic bombs makes life mutate in about a day or two (or according to other viewers, wake them up). Or so it seems. And apparently massive atomic explosions off the coast of Spain doesn't make anyone ask any questions at all. Coming to think of it, the plot doesn't make sense in any way whatsoever (why would evil sock puppets attack lighthouses?), so the nukes going off for no reason at all doesn't stand out too much.<br /><br />OK, getting past this, and the fact that the "monster" is a glorified thing you make of socks in kindergarten, you may actually be able to stand this. But for once the complete lack of gore doesn't help, leaving the monster attacks in all their naked rock-bottom-budget "glory".<br /><br />I doubt you'll be able to watch this though, so better stay well away.
This is the worst movie I have ever seen. A movie that is about a stupid looking monster from the ocean that threatens a small town which has to be filled with the dumbest people on earth.<br /><br />SPOILERS IF YOU EVEN CARE<br /><br />They can't even kill the damn thing by the end of the movie. The movie ends and they're like, "Well, some day we'll have to kill it."<br /><br />Avoid at all costs.
This has to be one of the most awfully scripted films I've ever seen. It's basically a remake of The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms (1953), but done with your standard snake-like puppet-monster instead of a sleek Ray Harryhausen creation. Combine the plot of that classic monster movie with the production qualities and acting level of The Creeping Terror and you have an idea of what this movie is like.<br /><br />The movie is dubbed, although by the original actors (I think that the movie was originally dubbed in Italian for that countries audiences, then redubbed for US release), which just makes the movie seem weird...the sounds, like in a Japanese monster movie, just don't quite match properly to the action on the screen, even if the actors' lips are moving properly.<br /><br />Poor Ray Milland...he's certainly come a long way down from The Lost Weekend or Dial M for Murder or any of the number of excellent movies he was in. Add this to his other sci-fi travesties (Panic in the Year Zero, X The Man with X-Ray Eyes) and you can see a once good actor fallen into a Boris Karloff syndrome...stuck doing really bad horror films in foreign countries just for the work.
This is a family movie set in 1950's rural America about a boy whose Uncle presses sheep killing charges against his dog Drum, starting not only a family legal feud but community discord as their town begins to take sides.<br /><br />This is formula film that attempts to be very touching and sweet. Its biggest weakness is that the only people who could really act were Scott Bakula (Defense Lawyer), Ron Perlman (father/Drum's owner) and the dog. (John Shuck and Kathy Garver, "Sissy" from the original "Family Affair," as the Uncle and his wife, were okay.) The children were not that good (basically they looked like they were acting) and that's a problem when the film really revolves around them (Aaron Fors, who plays the bully Donny makes me think of what the actor Russell Crowe must have looked liked as a child, only with no talent but a lot of ham). <br /><br />Favorite line (spoken by the Prosecutor after Scott Bakula's Defense closing trial speech): "We'll be lucky if they don't lynch us." <br /><br />Favorite line spoken by Ron Perlman (after his son punches the bully): "Now making him your friend, that will be the hard part."<br /><br />Cute enough to rent/buy used.
I like J-horror, anime and even kinda dig the pink movement, which some have claimed this a member of, but this did nothing for me. I willing to go a step further and label this one of the biggest let downs of my film watching career.<br /><br />Three young rockabillies go around getting their kicks out of raping girls. One of the group starts to develop a concisions about their pass-time when his kid sister nearly catches them in the act. Invariably, the group turns on itself as the once friends begin fighting with each other. It ends on a down note befitting the film as a whole.<br /><br />Aside from watching the friends yell at each other, which they do a lot, there isn't a whole lot going on here. The film is littered with LONG continual shots that only exacerbate the issue. On top of that, even when the film starts to do something interesting, it suddenly gets bogged down in ethereal philosophy that never makes any sense. For instance, after one of the buddies has his change of heart about assaulting girls, he goes out and does it again, but then stops his buddies from taking their turns. Huh? The cinematography is slow and lighting is poor. The writing is OK, as is the acting, which makes this a sub-par cinematic effort from the start. Mix the lack of technical prowess with the flimsy content and you have nothing more than a waste of time.<br /><br />Oh, and one more extra note, at least one of the girls that appears in the buff does not look old enough to be doing that kinda stuff.<br /><br />3/10
If I could give this movie less than a 1, I would certainly do that. I had read a review of this film in the LA Times and I found myself walking by the theater and remembered the review. My wife and I were game and we thought it can't be as bad as the critic said - you know critics. Sure enough... Give me a break with the awful acting, horrible camera work, poor use of the budget (that has been mentioned over and over again as an excuse). I've worked on films with smaller budgets that are 100 times better. It's the Director and the Producer that makes films work - they choose the teams. That's it. If they don't put it together and make it work...it simply won't. So, they didn't - and it doesn't. I don't think they can... I just had to take the time to write this review...though I'm sure the film crew doesn't appreciate this review - I hope I'm doing you all a favor with my wish for you to do well, but - in another career. Good luck.
There have been many movies, on living the American dream. And this is one of them.<br /><br />First of all, on the technical side, there is a lot wrong. The audio is bad, i had trouble understanding the dialogs here and there, and the camera positions could have been better.<br /><br />They really tried to come up with a good movie, but for example the part where they show, how Jonathan is loosing himself in the dream,with girls, drugs and alcohol, is done very badly. The acting is very poor as well from all the characters in the movie.<br /><br />I had a hard time watching it from the beginning till end, and couldn't wait for the movie to be over.<br /><br />If your expectations are low, and you're bored on a Sunday with bad weather, watch it. If you in for a deep story with action, then this is not your movie.<br /><br />Normally i would not have give a score of 1, but of 4.5 for this movie. But the reason i gave it a 1 is because of the bad audio, and camera uses, not to mention the bad cut scenes with cheesy effects.
jeez, this was immensely boring. the leading man (Christian Schoyen) has got to be the worst actor i have ever seen. and another thing, if the character in the movie moved to America when he was ten or something and had been living here for over 20 years, he would speak a lot better English than what he pulls of here. or to say it in my own Language "Skikkelig gebrokkent". But it is cool to see Norwegian dudes in a movie made in Hollywood. it was just a damn shame they were talentless hacks. The storyline itself is below mediocre. I have a suspicion that Christian Schoyen did this movie just to live the dream, as he clearly does in the film by humping one beautiful babe after another.
This movie is a real low budget production, yet I will not say anything more on that as it already has been covered. I give this movie a low rating for the story alone, but I met the director the night I saw the film and he gave me an additional reason to dislike the movie. He asked me how I enjoyed it and I told him that it was not easy to like. My main objection was the lack of foundation for the relationship between the two main characters, I was never convinced that they were close. I also told him that the scene where the main characters were presented as children becoming friends was too late in the film.<br /><br />He told me that the flashback scenes were not in the original script. That they were added because he felt like I did that the two main characters did not appear close. He went on to explain that these scenes were not filmed to his satisfaction as they were out of money. I agree that they did not do much for the film.<br /><br />Another fact about the movie, that I was not aware of, is the actor who had the lead wrote the script based on his own personal experience. This is usually a bad move as some writers do not take into consideration the emotional reaction the viewer. The story is so close to home that the writer make too many assumption as to the audience's reaction to his own tragedy. And the story is tragic. However, it did not work for me as I never cared for any of the characters, least of all the lead. What was presented were two evil people out to make a buck by any means, regardless who gets hurt. When Ms. Young's character decides to give up he evil ways, it appears that she does so because she is ineffective, not because she knows she is doing wrong. If the movie has a message then I suspect that only the writer is aware of it.
How LIVING THE DREAM managed to get into the Laemmle 5 in West Hollywood is beyond me, as it is the worst film I have ever seen in my life. I should have known when the first scene opened in-gasp, Eugene, Oregon-,that this dud of a film with characters that you want to like and feel sorry for from their exclusion days from high school,but can't, as they are such losers, is so wooden and atrocious with dialog that is beyond bad.<br /><br />Then, cliché, the three high school losers end up in LA, and here is where the film could have been realistic if it had shown them trying to find a career in acting. But no, one works as a used car salesman, the other is a true loser in a garage call center selling magazines. Even the bastard that runs the place has more audience appeal than that dreadful actor with the horrible foreign accent. And, they fraudulently get money from an insurance scam to set up an Executive Recruitment firm with no experience, just showing "the supposed good life" in LA night spots with a cast of actors that are so wooden and bad, they better not have SAG cards...<br /><br />I could go on and on about this bad film, but I ended up walking out of the theater, which had at the start six people, and when I left four men were the only ones in the audience. I wanted to like this film, but I couldn't find one merit in the story, characters, writing, dialog, nor the actors. Whoever cast this film should retire. Amen...enough...
I saw the film many times, and every time I am more and more disappointed,which is shame because the films from EX YU are usually very good. The shame here is, that Holiwood tried to make film about the place and people it has no idea. My self coming from the Balkans(Macedonia) found this film disappointing.Simply that the Bosnian characters are not really understood and not truly portrayed. To understand the mentality of a person from EX YU, you need to know their background, way of live, what makes them cry and laugh.And the director of the film didn't took that as guideline. When we(EX YU) make films, lots of symbolism is build in it, which makes the characters recognisable and likable, and mostly portraying the truth(if it is based on true story) The films like "Pritty village, pretty flame", "Tito and Me', "Underground',"No mans land', "Before the Rain","Black cat, white cat","Otac na sluzbenom putu",(When father was away on business),"Ko to tamo peva"(Who sings over there?)Rare the masterpiece of the Balkan cinematography,and nothing can compare to it. Not the half baked story of and Holiwood studio. As somebody from the panel mentioned the story jumps from one end of town to the other with no real connection. I am sorry but when the film is made is not only for the American armchair variety of viewers but for the rest of the World too, and some of them live on the Balkans and Sarajevo too. And to add insult to the injury, half of the things are shoot in Bitola ,Macedonia where I come from. Imagen my shock when I saw the Broad st. of Bitola in the opening scene of the film, when the bride is shoot from the sniper.And what was that inserting real footage of the news covering in the film? Anyway very disappointing, as the truth is far away from the film. Shame that nobody consulted the real people how is to live in Sarajevo under fire, before they shoot the film. book is one thing and real life is other, and this film lets down both.
A better film could have been made to portray the tragedy of Bosnia. Some parts are very effective and the film does well to give some idea of the suffering of the people specially the children, but overall it looks less like a film and more like a documentary. Woody Harrelson is very good but the rest of the cast has performed well without being extra ordinary. Should be watched in order to get a rough idea of what the war did to the children of Bosnia. If one expects a great and gripping movie, Welcome...... will be a disappointment.
The film has no connection with the real life in Bosnia in those days. Should be more realistic and shows the viewer real traumas that were happening to common people during the war. Please see some films of Yugoslav authors (Emir Kusturica, Ljubisa Samardzic,...e.g. Bure baruta( A barrel of powder), Tito i ja (Tito and me), Lepa sela lepo gore (Beautiful Villages burn Beautiful), etc... Just this is the real way to know about so called Bosnian problem. Hollywood is definitive not th right address to make films about the Balcan peninsula. Maybe Vietnam, WW II,... but not of the Slavs living in former Yugoslavia.
This movie shows me, that americans have no knowledge about the situation in the sad balkan-brother war! Please, if you want to see umpire movies with this theme, watch "Savior", and you will see that nobody is "bad"- and nobody is "good" in this land of tears and sorrows...
This is just Art house rubbish. I sat watching this trash with my Bosnian Friends they found it as boring as i did. For a more interesting and more true account watch the excellent movie Saviour. This is just a snoozefest with people talking in coffee shops.A cure for insomnia. 1 out of 10
Ken Harrison, a young sculptor in his early thirties, is seriously injured in a road accident. End of story.<br /><br />"End of story", that is, in the sense of "end of any physical action". Not in the sense of "end of the film". Ken's life is saved, but he is paralysed from the neck down. When he discovers that he is unlikely ever to regain the use of his limbs he decides that he wants to die and asks the doctors to end the medical treatment which is keeping him alive. The rest of the film is essentially one long debate about the rights and wrongs of euthanasia and the right to die.<br /><br />Ken's main antagonist in this debate is his doctor, Michael Emerson. Although the case against euthanasia is often presented in religious terms, here it is presented in purely secular ones. If Dr Emerson has any deep religious convictions, these are never expressed in the film. He believes passionately, however, that death is an enemy against which it is his duty as a doctor to fight; to allow a patient effectively to take his own life would represent a surrender to that enemy and a dereliction of that duty. Ken therefore finds himself in a "Catch-22" situation. He must be able to show that he is sane and rational enough to make the decision to end his life. Emerson, however, considers that a wish to die is in itself evidence of insanity and irrationality. Ken's dilemma can only be solved by hiring a lawyer to sue the hospital.<br /><br />Richard Dreyfuss as Ken and John Cassavetes as Dr Emerson put across their respective points of view skilfully and with sincerity, but this cannot hide the fact that "Whose Life is it Anyway?" simply does not work as a film. At one time filmed versions of stage plays were done in a similar way to theatrical productions but by the seventies and eighties this was often seen as unsatisfactory because of the differences between the two media. When plays were filmed, therefore, the general tendency was to "open them up" by filming on location as well as on studio sets, by taking liberties with the playwright's text, often making significant changes to the plot and even introducing extra characters.<br /><br />I have never seen Brian Clarke's play, but I suspect that this is a story that would work better in the theatre than in the cinema. There is very little physical action; most of the action consists of lengthy discussions around a hospital bed in which the main character lies paralysed. Such a plot does not lend itself to the "opening up" device at all, and the resulting film is very static, dominated by talk at the expense of action. Although it is well written and there is some good acting, I am surprised that a film was ever made of such an uncinematic subject. 4/10
I can't really remember any details of this movie except that the setting looked awfully familiar. Then I realized it was filmed at the Lazy Lizard Hostel in Moab, Utah. That was one of my favorite places to visit when I was younger and wandered around the country. The guy who owns/manages the hostel managed to get himself in the movie. All I remember about the plot of the movie is that it involves jeeps and naked women. It is great to watch just for the scenery (I mean the rock formations)... If you are just looking for soft-core porn, you will probably be better served elsewhere. I don't even know if this movie is available on tape or DVD.
I have never watched a movie that frustrated me more than Lord Of The Dance. Frustrated because it could have been fantastic. Frustrated because the dancing might have been astounding. Frustrated because the women could have been gorgeous. How would I know though?! By the time your eyes have moved to the area of interest on the screen and focused appropriately on the spot to be admired the insane editor has moved the shot! I completely agree with the other comments here about the crappy lighting and terrible camera/editor work. It makes me nauseous just watching ten minutes of this would be spectacular movie.<br /><br />Give me an opportunity to get a front seat to the live concert and I would be there in a shot! <br /><br />Nicholas T
The production values in this video are so poor that it is unwatchable. The performance took second place to the overwhelmingly creative hijinks of the studio wanks, with about thirty special effects per minute. It is filmed through a cloud of smoke, only one or two seconds duration per shot and frequently, background spotlights shine directly into the camera. The lighting was terrible for filming. There is constant zooming in and out with a total lack of visual continuity. There may have been some good dancing available to the live audience but the video viewers will never know.
No wonder so many young people have Attention Deficit Disorder. It seems that stage (dance) productions these days are all about how many cameras and camera angles a director/ editor can squeeze into a 1 hour show. Is there a special Emmy category for this feat? Try counting them sometimes for something different to do with this, otherwise, completely unwatchable show. <br /><br />I tried to make out at least a few faces of some of the other dancers in the production. That was impossible. They didn't appear to have any faces, just blurs - it was just Michael Flatley's face, Michael Flatley's bare chest(nice sheen!), Michael Flatley's feet, and that patented Flatley over-the-shoulder-come-hither look repeated infinity squared. Since he was an executive producer of this cut and paste job I guess that was to be expected. One doesn't have to wonder too much as to who his target audience is. <br /><br />Riverdance was a much better production, as it tried to present the show pretty much as one might see it from the audience, not the catwalk,side wings, or floor nail perspective. If I'm not mistaken,I believe Sir Michael has retired. Thank God for small blessings.
The first time I had heard of Guest House Paridiso was in the, er... "washroom" after having just seen Fight Club. In each urinal was deposited a small, round black circle. When the circle came into contact with moisture (to put it delicately), it caused a colour picture to form, with photographs of the two stars and the tag line "You'll P*** Yourself Laughing". When you'd finished washing your hands, the circle had dried and faded to black again, waiting to spring it's surprise on the next "victim".<br /><br />Okay, maybe the punchline wasn't terribly sophisticated, but you have to admit it was innovative. In fact, I think I can honestly say I've never seen anything like it in my life before, and these days of over a century of cinema and marketing, that's a real feat. What a pity the film that went with it failed to live up to the promise.<br /><br />I hate to pan Guest House Paridiso and I am indebted to Rik Mayall (Richard Twat) and Adrian Edmondson (Eddie Elizabeth Ndingombaba) for many years of laughter through their appealing television series, be it the invention of The Young Ones (1982-1984), the sitting room plays of Bottom (1991-1995), or even solo work, such as Rik in the New Statesman (1988-1993). In fact, this would have made an hilarious 45 minute tv special. Unfortunately, its an 89 minute film.<br /><br />There's definitely some merit to be had, and I laughed continuously throughout the protracted finale, which spoofed the Exorcist and Raiders of the Lost Ark, and involved... well, you'll have to see that bit for yourself. Yet often the pace is leaden, and a sterile atmosphere is throughout. The two stars (Edmondson taking his usual backseat, this time due to the fact that he adequately directs) never really get into first gear, Mayall only sporadically showing the foul-mouthed mania that makes us love him on the small screen. Indeed, the writers' presumption that we are already familiar with the characters leads to them being underdelivered to the audience. The slight hints of depth seen in the series (Richie's effeminate, failed social-climbing for example) are not present here, and instead we are left with parodies of parodies.<br /><br />The Fawlty Towers accusation does pass water, complete with drunken chef and unseen, called-for waiter "Pasquele", which uncannily rhymes with Manuel. Some of the ideas, such a hotel next to a nuclear reactor with a childrens' swing hanging over a cliff face, are very, very funny, but ultimately the frenetic pace is stolen, the two constantly looking for a studio audience that isn't there, and all the "dead laugh" areas patched up with incidental "comedy" music that would have been dated in a Carry On film two decades ago.<br /><br />Paridiso's brand of puerile, sadistic, perverse humour IS funny, and I feel sure it will make you laugh ... just not as often as it should.
Yet another recent comedy that shows that Hollywood can't even do the basics when it comes to film-making that it used to do in its sleep for decades. If the writer/director had any brains they would have based the film around Stamp's character of tyrant boss Jack Taylor. When he's in the film early on it's nothing special but it is mildly promising and occasionally amusing. Once he departs for the majority of the film and Kutcher has his 'hilarious' adventures house-sitting with guest after boring guest dropping in, the film totally disintegrates.<br /><br />As a result, what should have been a passable timewaster turns into an inept stinker.
This film is about the worst I have seen in a very long time. Terence Stamp's talent is totally wasted and just about the only thing that I enjoyed was hearing a favorite song of mine, "If I Had a Million Dollars" by BNL, in the opening credits.<br /><br />Ashton Kutcher plays the main character, a nice guy who gets roped into house sitting for his boss. Misadventures ensue. Blah blah blah. If you have time to kill and having nothing better to do, then this is the movie for you. Otherwise, watch something else.<br /><br />There are not necessarily any redeeming moments, but it is nice to see Molly Shannon and Jeffrey Tambor on the screen. They are always pleasures to watch though this film managed to dampen even these bright spots.
I saw this movie (unfortunately) because it was the only option at that time and because David Zucker was the director. I saw his previous "Naked gun" (both parts), Airplane and Top secret!, and I liked, at least I had a good time and laughed. I'm not saying that the movies I mentioned were master pieces, but were OK. I don't recall any other more stupid movie than this. It's incredible how Hollywood industry is in total decadence. If some studio spends any money to produce this awful picture, then is not a surprise that this kind of histories are more common on these days. This is a clear reflect of a decadent civilization where sex symbols and stupid plots are produced to entertain the common people. I don't have any good to say about this film. If you are planning to rent it or buy it, please don't waste your money or your time, avoid it no matter what. Even if you are fan of one of the actors, does not worth it. In fact this could be a very good example of what a Director should avoid. I won't see a Zucker movie again. (He is planning to direct the fourth sequel of Scary movie, imagine that!). Pathetic. Awful.
Anupam Kher is an excellent actor, he debuted at 28 playing a 50 yr old in SARAANSH<br /><br />Now he turns director with OJJ<br /><br />The film has a good plot but it's regressive<br /><br />The theme has been done to death and Urmila's character looks too put on while Anil-Mahima and Abhi- Tara tracks are too sudden and then forgotten<br /><br />The film moves a snail pace and begins to drag but there are several good scenes like the entire conflict between Anil-Fardeen and Abhishek where Fardeen says to sell the house<br /><br />Abhishek getting caught for a crime and Anil shouting at him<br /><br />The climax is too much though<br /><br />Directorally Anupam shows potential, but has some way to go Music is okay<br /><br />Anil Kapoor excels in his part like always Fardeen tries hard and is okay but needs to improve Abhishek is excellent, this was a turning pt, people realized he can act Urmila is okay Mahima and Tara are wasted Waheeda is good
Patsy Kensit and some random Australian bloke star as a duo of wannabe tough coppers in the middle of investigating a series of art-gallery related murders, but in between they can still find the time to shoot juvenile shoplifters and suspect the brand new wife of the male cop of being adulterous. The serial killer suddenly isn't important anymore when the supposed lover of the wife (who's basically just a co-worker of hers) is found murdered and the male cop becomes prime suspect. "Tunnel Vision" is a really dull, implausible and tension-free Aussie thriller that obviously imitates popular sex-thrillers like "Fatal Attraction", "Disclosure" and "Basic Instinct". The characters are extremely one-dimensional and pretty much every good-cop/bad-cop cliché is extendedly described in the script. The struggling position of police women in a corps full of men, the shoot-first-ask-questions-later mentality, alcohol problems through stress, etc etc… Even the unhealthy eating habits of cops are a running gag. Yawn! Kensit really tries her best to make this film more bearable, but she lacks the credibility and talent of a real cinema heroine. The end-twist is more or less interesting (not at all original, mind you) but, by then, you stopped caring for the characters a long time already. The scenes filmed inside the sex clubs look ludicrously fake and Clive Fleury's directing is completely uninspired. What a total waste of time…
While The Twilight Zone was a wonderful show, it was also very uneven--with some great episodes, some lousy ones and many in between. Don't believe the die-hard fans--there were some stinkers and this was definitely one of them.<br /><br />In a plot that is obviously meant to be an attack on Fidel Castro, a near lookalike (Peter Falk in lots of makeup and a beard) obtains a magic mirror that allows him to realize who all his enemies are so he can liquidate them. While I do believe that Castro is a thug and dictator (and tens of thousands of refugees and political prisoners will attest to this), it's amazing how this sort of preachy episode actually makes audiences laugh at the American efforts to marginalize the creep and actually makes Castro seem okay!! Think about it--Serling and company wanted to hurt Castro but instead only seemed to be obvious, preachy and silly in the process.<br /><br />It's indeed bad--almost laughably bad when seen today.
This one is a real stinker.<br /><br />The story just isn't up to par with most other TZ episodes. It's pretty boring, though seeing Peter Falk made up as a Fidel Castro lookalike is kind of amusing.<br /><br />Whenever Twilight Zone would be aired at an unannounced hour in my hometown, I'd grab a sandwich and a drink and settle in for some quality entertainment. 9 times out of 10, it wound up being THIS episode! Strange thing? This often happened to my mom (another TZ fan like me) as well. There were so many times that one of us would say to the other, "I was all set to watch _The Twilight Zone_ and guess which episode was on? The Cuban Dictator episode!" Obviously some people like this episode, as it gets a 6.7 rating ... how that happened, I have no idea - but THAT in and of itself would make a great Twilight Zone plot!
Almost certainly staged montage of women reading lines (very briefly) and getting naked (not very briefly) in front of a anonymous (and uncredited) panel - almost certainly including producer Charles Band. Thrown in are random scenes of Surrender Cinema's many movies (primarily lesbian scenes). Most of the women like "riding horses" (Hmmm); there is a Polish woman who seems to have no interest in acting despite going to an audition; a 'secret; camera that films actresses getting naked behind the screen...<br /><br />Jacqueline Lovell (too made up but still beautiful) introduces a couple of her own movie scenes and talks in a 'sexy' Way to the camera (if you enjoy lesbian scenes the one with Lovell and Vanesa Taylor from Femalian is included and they are probably the best looking lesbian 'couple' ever). Weird excuse for a movie and aside from the obvious draw of naked women, a frankly dull and uninspiring experience.
Surrender Cinema has been known for their extremely erotic, almost explicit sci-fi films. While they generally do very well at these (Femalien 1 & 2, Virtual Encounters), this particular entry seems to be just a rehash of old tape. Any number of girls -- some recognizable and others not -- are in this film in all stages of nudity. There are also several clips from other films which are outstanding, unless you've seen those other films. There are a number of solo nude scenes doing a number of things -- some playing basketball, others talking, still others playing with themselves. The only thing of value in this tape is the very last scene -- a short but erotic girl-girl scene with a very enthusiastic and enjoyable Sandy Wasko and a more subdued Tammie Hainum. Not highly recommended.
I saw the preview in Femalien and thought it could be a cool film. Turns out, it is an awful garbage. There isn't much nudity in the film, not to mention not having much sex either. There were just some dumb and corny dialogues along with some noninteresting dancing you usually expect to see during audition. In our case, you may even see it in the actual films. Conclusion: I ain't got none for it. Just leave it alone.
The "film" consists of the audition tapes of the "Surrender girls" and some footage from previous films. It's not hot or even suitable for late night viewing on Cinemax. Only an adolescent boy could be interested in Auditions from Beyond. I recommend avoiding this one.
think of the most un-film-worthy subject you can and this is 10 times worse. A woman needs to complete as many crosswords as she can in a day. We don't even get to see the questions and think of the words on our own, we just watch her struggle. The woman seems so anxious and in a hurry to do the crosswords, but for some reason she spends the time distractedly walking all around the city when she could be focused at home. The acting is horrible, the actress huffs and puffs as she tried to think of the words, and we are left completely in the dark. The New York scenery is nice but the movie relies on it too much and it gets old fast. The movie plays like a rejected NYU student film. This film has no redeeming qualities and I do not recommend it to anyone, ever.
"Marathon" has a very interesting premise, excellent ambient sounds, and good scenery. Unfortunately, the movie, aside from these aspects, falls flat on its face. For a woman trying to complete so many crossword puzzles in a day, she spends an awful lot of time standing around, sulking, and not doing puzzles. I believe there is more walking shown in the movie than her work on these puzzles. Also, while I understand the point of showing so much scenery, there is simply FAR too much of it. The movie is incredibly boring and unfocused. It's not worth buying, renting, watching on television, or viewing in any conceivable way. I lost interest so quickly that I'm not sure why I sat through the entire film in the first place.
Do the writers that conjure up these type of "comedies" have such empty lives that they have to embody them in tragic shows like this?.<br /><br />Why the talented and gorgeous Busy Phillips is amongst this trash is beyond me,I cannot stand the Hispanic girl whose accent sounds very fake and is so unfunny and annoying as is the other African-American girl with the shrill voice.<br /><br />The jokes are often stupid, the Jewish guy yells a lot and the show never goes anywhere, one particular episode with the solider looking for love was just terrible.<br /><br />I don't believe there would be that many working in a looking for love office and only one man? Of course all of the Woman are in tight fitting tops and tons of make up to make up for their lack of talent.<br /><br />I actually found Holly funny in her older shows and I have always admired Busy but this show is dumb, empty and had nothing going for it.
This appears to be one of Noel Coward's lesser known films, and it is easy to understand why. Taken at face value it's not a bad film, but there's nothing terribly good about it either. Nothing much happens at all throughout the course of the film, it's simply the story of Chris and Leonora's ill-fated affair, and Barbara's reaction to it. The only thing that keeps the film interesting is the fact that we already know it's going to end badly for one reason or another, owing to the first scene. Oddly, there are many perfect opportunities in the story for conflict, and yet none of them are utilised. For example, it would've been much more interesting and believable if Barbara had've fallen out with Leonora, but instead the two remained on good terms throughout the film. The notion of Barbara having been betrayed by her friend was not explored at all - in fact she didn't even seem to feel betrayed by her husband; she even encourages him to go on a holiday with Leonora. Similarly, Chris' two secretaries at his practice, Susan Birch and Tim Verney, who also happen to be close friends of both Chris and Barbara, are never forced to take sides. In fact, Tim shies away from conflict by telling Chris that he's terribly fond of both him and Barbara. Despite the strange lack of conflict, the biggest flaw in the film is the fact that we don't care whether Chris ends up with Leonora or Barbara. The two womens' personalities are indistinguishable anyway so we don't know which of the two is better suited to be with Chris, and besides this, Barbara's permissiveness gives the impression that she hardly cares about the affair anyway. Furthermore, I found Chris and Leonora's relationship somewhat unconvincing. I can overlook the ridiculously short timeframe in which they fall for each other because that is so common in films of this era, but even then the relationship seemed shallow. Coward's character was too austere and cynical to be the object of Leonora's affections. He reminds me of the socially inept genius Sir Earnest Pease from the film "Very Important Person" - I'm sure the two would've gotten along well. Chris' coldness and austerity made his love for Leonora seem insincere. I think Coward should've sat this one out and given his part to a younger man - as it is, I was constantly wondering what this young beauty saw in such a sombre, mostly emotionless, balding middle aged man. Despite all my criticisms, the film still manages to be interesting - just not terribly compelling. The fact that none of the characters are particularly well developed gives them an enigmatic nature, which is somewhat intriguing. The Astonished Heart is certainly worth watching, but it is a flawed piece of cinema.
The title is from a passage in the Bible (Deut. 28:28). Let's just say it is taken horribly out of context - but nonetheless, that is where the title of this agonizing movie originates. The other reviewers cover the plot details so I wont rehash. But the husband, who is a psychiatrist, delivers a lecture on "Inferior function" where he discusses how a person can meet another another person and they can experience a "cataclysmic crisis" in their lives where they cease to be masters of themselves and incapable of fair judgement. He is saying this at the podium at the exact moment as he lays eyes on Leonora Vail in the audience - the woman who will become his mistress. Not very subtle for showing that this is indeed what will happen to this poor man.<br /><br />I think the whole premise of the movie is implausible and just didn't work. Here is an over-the-hill psychiatrist, and we are to believe this young, beautiful woman falls for him and comes between the happiness he and his wife shared. What's even more implausible is how the betrayed wife responds when she learns of the infidelity. Not only is she understanding, but she INSISTS her husband embark on a several month vacation with the tramp - "so we all can get a little relief from this unbearable stress". GIVE ME A BREAK!! I wanted to reach through the screen and throttle not just the adulterer but the dim-wit wife.<br /><br />The fact that the whole movie takes place as a flashback after already revealing the end of the movie at the beginning (the fact that the husband had a terrible accident) - it leaves no doubt as to the outcome of the sordid affair. I think this was a poor decision as it leaves absolutely no plot twists to look forward to, as the whole movie is completely predictable. You already know the wife's resignation to the affair at the beginning of the film as she summons the mistress to the dying man's bedside and expresses no ill will towards her.<br /><br />Not only is the script defective, but Noel Coward is horribly miscast (even though it is HIS screenplay). He and Leonora have absolutely no chemistry on screen whatsoever. Its interesting that Michael Redgrave was originally cast in that role, but was replaced during filming. I wonder what that was about? In the end, neither the husband or the wife cause you to feel any sympathy for either one of them. I do think Margaret Leighton played the part of strumpet quite well. But she couldn't possibly overcome all the negatives this film had. Also, as is the case of many British Productions of this era, the dialogue is hard to understand due to the clipped, fast speech pattern of the actors. I saw it on TV and couldn't even rely on closed captioning to fill in the blanks for me.<br /><br />Don't waste your time on this one.
I like Noel Coward, the wit. I like Noel Coward, the play write. I like Noel Coward, the composer and singer, but I loathe Noel Coward the actor.<br /><br />To me this is a man who should have stayed firmly behind the scenes, writing his plays and composing his music and making his profound and hilarious observations. He should never have been allowed in front of a camera.<br /><br />Make no mistake, he is one of the top outstanding talents of the 20th century but the man just couldn't act, and his voice...with it's rolling R's and it's overly round tonal quality...well it could quite easily grate cheese in my opinion.<br /><br />This is one of my least favourite offerings from Coward, as he unconvincingly portrays a psychiatrist embarking on an affair with a much younger woman, made worse by the fact that the much younger woman is an old school friend of his much younger wife.<br /><br />Celia Johnson is as much a joy to watch as ever as Cowards wronged wife. It is her performance that saves this film from abject dullness. I suppose her own little fling in Coward's Brief Encounter four years previously qualified her for this role as she must have raised a few eyebrows playing a such a promiscuous woman and this gave her the chance to win back a few fans and gain some lost sympathy.<br /><br />She was such a wonderful actress and you can see why Noel Coward used her so much in many of his productions.<br /><br />However the rest of the film is drab, badly acted, predictable and on the whole boring to almost arse-clenching level.<br /><br />If its Noel Coward you want then take the time to watch In Which We Serve, Blythe Spirit or This Happy Breed instead. Three Noel Coward treasures. With lovely films like these I suppose we can forgive him for this turkey.<br /><br />I have given this four stars purely for the addition of Miss Johnson, but on the whole I'd avoid this one like the plague.
I once had a conversation with my parents who told me British cinema goers in the 1940s and 50s would check to see a film's country of origin before going to see it . It didn't matter what the plot was or who was in it , if it was an American movie people would want to see it and if it was British people wouldn't want to see it . This might sound like a ridiculous generalisation but after seeing THE ASTONISHED HEART I can understand why people in those days preferred American cinema to the home grown variety Back in the 1940s <br /><br />British equity was devoid of working class members and it shows in this movie . Everyone speaks in an English lad dee daa upper class accent that makes the British Royal Family sound like working class scum and what this does is alienate a large amount of a potential British audience who would no doubt prefer to be watching Jimmy Cagney in WHITE HEAT because people would have , If not related to then certainly empathised with a violent gangster in cinematic terms more than some high class English shrink in 1949 . That's entertainment , the reason people go to cinemas . Even the characters names seem bizarre - Leonora ! How many British people were named Leonora in 1949 ? And the protagonists drink cocktails . And they use words like " Austere " . You do get the feeling that this wasn't marketed for a 1949 mainstream British audience . But why should it if the majority of British cinema goers were queuing up at cinemas to watch far more entertaining American imports ? <br /><br />Watching THE ATSONISHED HEART in 2005 I was astonished how dated everything was , in fact it's so dated I thought maybe it might be a spoof from THE HARRY ENDFIELD SHOW . What didn't astonish me was the fact that these types of movie came close to sinking the British film industry , an industry that didn't pick up until American money invested in crowd pleasers like ZULU , ALFIE and the James Bond movies
This was only the second version of the classic story by Charles Dickens I had seen, and sadly it turned out to be one of the worst. The film opens with a quick live action piece where Simon Callow as Charles Dickens begins the story of A Christmas Carol, and then obviously it goes to animated story itself. You probably already know it, Ebenezer Scrooge is the grouchy cold-blooded businessman who refuses charity and hates Christmas. He is visited by Jacob Marley (Nicolas Cage) who warns him of the visits of the other three ghosts of Christmas Past (Jane Horrocks), Present (Sir Michael Gambon) and the silent Future/Yet To Come. After all this he obviously realises the true magic of Christmas, and promises to be nicer in future. The only changes I noticed to the story were Scrooge having mice as friends (a stupid idea), Scrooge's ex-love Belle (Kate Winslet) needing to see him to help at the orphanage, the Ghost of Christmas Present showing the two kids, "want" and "ignorance", Scrooge still gets haunted after being turned nice, and he's worried he can't keep his promise to stay nice. Also starring Rhys Ifans as Bob Cratchit, Juliet Stevenson as Mrs. Cratchit, Iain Jones as Scrooge's nephew Fred and Colin McFarlane as Fezziwig. The animation is not great quality, the actors have wasted their voices for a worthless piece of garbage. The only good thing that comes from this film is the good voice of Kate Winslet, singing the closing song "What If", as for the rest, it is just excruciatingly awful. Very poor!
It's difficult to make it through this movie without choking on your own vomit, to be honest. The shoddy animation doesn't help, as it makes this look like a decades-old video you'd find in Morrisons's 99p bin. Still, it's better than the abysmal screenplay, which spends about a third of its length on superfluous extras like Belle's present day problems, stuff about Scrooge's dad, and plenty of charmless fannying around with - choke - TWO ANTHROPOMORPHIC MICE. These bizarre additions eat up screen time at the expense of elements you'd think would be quite important, like Dickens's dialogue and key chunks of his plot - the movie buggers up the game of twenty questions, for example, and at times fails to put scenes in the right order. Absolutely hopeless.
This film is a perfect example of how to take a fascinating subject, come up with 25 minutes of substantive material and stretch it into a six hour borefest resembling the shape a documentary might take if Fox news decided to make one. Even the participants in this obnoxiously obstreperous film can't conceal their laughter at the stupidity of their attempt to show one of the few great times in world history where people take a stand and work to make a better world. If only the creators had spoken with Ken Burns for 5 minutes, they might have come out with something mildly intelligent instead of this cure for insomnia.
When a BBC murder thriller is this rife with heterosexual dysfunction, you know who the killer must be: The Homosexual.<br /><br />Who murdered the sexy blonde teenager (who's also a pathological liar) on her way home from school? Let's see, could it be the mother who (against all common sense) is letting her teenaged son make unchaperoned visits to his serial-killer father behind bars? Could it be the moody son, who's impressed by his dad's no-nonsense attitude about women? Could it be the serial killer himself, who seems able to manipulate events from behind bars, a la Hannibal Lecter? Could it be mom's boyfriend, a teacher at the school whose affair with an ex-student led to his wife's suicide? Or could it be boyfriend's daughter, who goes blabbing everyone's secrets at school, causing untold misery? No, it's none of these likely suspects. It's...The Homosexual!<br /><br />The only mystery for the viewer is guessing who The Homosexual is. Of course, it could be anybody, since the only characteristics of The Homosexual are shameful secrecy and a propensity to murder and otherwise make life complicated for the "normal" folks. The Homosexual is the invisible root cause of society's ills; only when this person is exposed and eliminated can the fractured family come back together, and things can return to normal...whatever that is.<br /><br />As for the cast, both Jemma Redgrave and Robson Green are now officially past their sell-by dates. The world could get by marvelously without ever seeing either on screen again, but as long as the BBC has roles for The Aggrieved Woman and The Misunderstood Man, I suppose they'll keep coming back in movies like this one.
I hate a movie that doesn't have an ending. I don't care how good or bad the rest might be, I don't like to be left without a conclusion. Such shows should insist upon a disclaimer ... something like: The movie you are about to watch has either no ending or is so ambiguous as to not be conclusive.<br /><br />In the movie the last scene we are left with is Dee and Dominic having a bit of a row and he says, almost regretfully I thought, that it couldn't be him because the fingers were either that of a girl or a child. THEN IT ENDS! Well sure, the smoking gun, so to say, is in the hands of the Dee's son, but what about Dominic's daughter? I actually thought we might discover it was her! Anyway, unless you like inconclusive movies, then I'd avoid this one. Otherwise, I thought the movie generally good.
A friend of mine once rented this, thinking since Peter Fonda starred in it, it couldn't be bad. WRONG! It's bad as anything can be. There is so much to laugh at and it's not the jokes. For instance, in one scene Hawken walks into the forest and when he comes out he is suddenly wearing a completely different outfit! Where was "the director's" brain when he shot that scene?!? Probably the same place Fonda's was when he agreed to do this flick. It's truly a shame one has to see such a fine actor go dumb in this poor excuse for a film.<br /><br />Nobody's performance in this movie can be called acting. Jack Elam is brought in just to bring up the star count here, but all he does is looking startled in a very dark and awfully shot scene in some kind of bar. Not to mention the "Indians", the girl was so godawful I wanted to shoot her just to end her misery and mine as well. If I could give this a 0, I would. Shame that mark doesn't exist here. This truly reminds of a bad joke or an amateur footage made just for fun. This should serve as a proof of how bad B-movies can get.
I couldn't wait for the end. This is absolutely the worst film I have ever seen. If you thought that just about anyone could make a watchable movie, these folks prove that there is a minimum skill set required. This is a film with no redeeming features whatsoever. It scores a zero in every department. This is more than just 'amateur' as the audience is given no consideration or regard at all. There is no serious attempt to act or entertain. The storyline is aimless, pointless and senseless. The cast look very uncomfortable and completely lack direction. The technical aspects of the film are poor.<br /><br />As a DVD it makes a good drinks coaster.
Look no further, this is it, the worst movie ever made. There may be others that are tied, but there are none worse. There can't be.<br /><br />I found this movie on a clearance-sale laserdisc for $3.25, and thought no movie with those actors could possibly not be worth that price. Turns out it's worth triple that - as the minimum they should have paid me to watch it.<br /><br />I'm virtually certain that the girl in the picture on the cover of the package is not the girl in the movie, they substituted someone else, someone younger and cuter, to make it look more appealing. Whatever "plot" there was amounted to about three minutes of actual movie, the rest is filler. And I don't mean the kind of filler that you only realize is filler when it's over, or that is some kind of eye candy you don't mind having there, I mean filler that has you thinking about your shopping list. I think the "music" must have been made up by somebody with a friend who had a radio he listened to once. It's terrible.<br /><br />If there were a shot of a nice mountain, a river valley, a forest, anything, there would be something positive about this movie. There isn't. Even with the speeder button on the remote, even at top laserdisc speed, you can't get it over with fast enough.<br /><br />After years of thinking about commenting on movies, being tempted but not registering with IMDb, I finally cracked, because I had to do my part to push the user rating on this stinker down as far as possible.<br /><br />The guidelines ask that you "focus on the content and context". I can't. There isn't enough content to focus on, and that's exactly my point. Sometimes bad is just bad, and this movie would have to be much better than it is to aspire to being only that.
If you want a complete waste of time, because pulling lint out of your belly button or cleaning the wax out of your ears or grouting your tile is your idea of a carnival thrill ride, then you'll not want to miss this one.<br /><br />For one thing, forget the VHS cover. NO body in this movie looks that attractive (ie, the Indian girl). Someone else commented that whoever posed for the cover is not the same girl and I agree. The cover is THE most exciting thing about this movie.<br /><br />To put this in perspective, I bought this VHS for 99 cents at K-Mart and three minutes, no, 40 seconds into the movie, I knew I had been ripped off.<br /><br />I finished watching it because 1) I did pay 99 cents after all and, 2)there might possibly, conceivably been a hair of chance some scene in this turkey was worth more than a pinched loaf.<br /><br />There wasn't.<br /><br />Good grief, Fonda. I know you were hard up for roles when you did this, but this is beneath you.
The problem with this movie is that it isn't funny, it isn't scary, it isn't dramatic, it isn't intriguing, it isn't stimulating, it isn't, it isn't exciting, it isn't even the slightest bit interesting. I saw this film recently on tape and I was glad I didn't spent any money to rent it. It's basically a poor attempt at film-making. I won't even bother to tell you the story. Story? What story?
MASSIVE SPOILERS AHEAD! OK the movie in a nutshell. so this girl goes out buys drugs gets pulled over by a cop, the cops name is Wolf. the cop feels her butt, then he eats her...okay? he beats her up and eats her. then this woman is at home and this guy come with bulging genitals and he does her up. then the woman goes into the other room and this black guy is there and she undresses.....then the movie turns into a porno. he starts sucking on her breasts, then she gives him head. then wolf walks in with blood all over him and says "honey I'm home" then he realizes his wife is blowing some black guy and he kills her, the black guy kills him cuts the girl out of wolfs stomach and the go home. the end and they lived happily ever after. THAT IS THE MOVIE.<br /><br />now after reading this do u really think there is anything to like about this movie. the only thing i liked in the woman had a nice body. but the performances sucked, the story sucked, the dialogue sucked, THE WHOLE MOVIE JUST SUCKED!!!!!
As usual, another masterpiece in the Vice Academy series(HaHaHa). I don't know why they even bothered to make this trash. Just another series of cops acting slutty. A defining part was when Ginger Lynn Allen's character(Holly Wells) and Elizabeth Kaitan's character(Candy) tried to seduce the scientist by wearing nothing but their bra and underwear under their labcoats. Just a wonderful scene(Ha). A character that I didn't like was the Commissioner. He was very annoying and ignorant. They should have arrested him. Mrs. Devonshire was pretty annoying, as well. They should have stopped this series after this movie.
There is no way to put into words just how bad, how shapeless, paceless and laughless these "Vice Academy" films really are. You have to experience one for yourself. For the third time in a row, writer-director Rick Sloane does not show even an ounce of writing or directing talent. There is nothing here that a person above the age of 5 will believe or laugh at, yet the (very brief) nudity and other "plot" elements make the films unsuitable for kids. Which leads me to believe that they are really aimed at adults with the mental capabilities of 5-year-olds. Elizabeth Kaitan makes a more than welcome replacement for Linnea Quigley - she is winningly bubbly and cute, and her wonderful big smile is about the only thing that can make a viewer smile as well. But watching her and the other girls in this film is like watching a bunch of flowers in a desert covered with horse manure. (*)
Terrible terrible movie for Television. Once again Lifetime brings us the predictable triangle; scheming bitchy woman out to get stupid unknowing wife of yet another stupid husband who doesn't have a clue.<br /><br />I get antsy when I see these films. You may ask, why do I watch them then? I haven't a clue. Usually by mistake. And the movie is so bad I can't get away from it. I wait for the bitch to get her come up-pence. And usually I'm not satisfied in how she gets her just desserts.<br /><br />Now if you can believe our vixen, she steals embryos from the clinic, and how does one do that? Without blood tests, DNA, inquiries and recommendations. She proceeds to kill the Realtor, Gabrielle Rose, who is on to her, in broad daylight in the front yard of a house for sale and no one sees her? She kills the mother, Susan Hogan, and you could predict that surmise when the mother off handedly mentions she's allergic to peanuts and that the pills to combat this allergy are in her pocket book. Guess what? I won't continue on this.<br /><br />Finally you are left in the house alone with the wife and the bitch. Well good triumphs evil, but much too slowly. Victoria Pratt as the evil girlfriend is adequate in the role, looking a bit too disheveled and obvious. Tori Spelling just stands around looking blank most of the time. She's got those big big Bette Davis eyes that look like they're popping out of her head. I liked her better in TRICK. And Tahmoh Penikett plays the husband going around assuring his wife there's nothing too he and his ex-girlfriend, even though he's spotted all over town being very chummy with her, standing half naked with her in his house when he sent the wife off to the city to stay overnight. Yet he continues to deny the romance.<br /><br />Lifetime never disappoints the viewers with their inane plots and stories about women and their stupid husbands. Wish I could give this chestnut a "0" rating.
This is one of those films you can have on for a couple of hours on a Sunday morning -- able to do other things with no real complications in losing any understanding of the proceedings, and gaining some fascination in wondering why such mediocrities acquired the manpower and financial resources to be produced in the first place.<br /><br />Of course, with all the cable channels, as well as Lifetime's need to fill its time slots with 100 or so hours worth of movies per week (along with incessant "Golden Girls" reruns), this type of fare is now a t.v. staple. Also, it seems these flicks provide livelihood to the Canadian locales where most are made, as well as the host of Canadian actors appearing in them.<br /><br />Tori Spelling, like the ferret-face Paris Hilton, is somebody who - if not for family connections and resources - would likely be working at The Gap. But at least Tori has become, say, a C+-level thespian, appearing in occasional presentations appropriate to this level.<br /><br />This story is one which has been seen on Lifetime and similar venues God-knows-how-many times. Devious woman, a total sociopath, trying to screw-up everyone else's lives, operating during the initial parts of the story with more cleverness than a CIA operative could muster, committing murder when necessary, and out to wreck the life of the flick's "heroine."<br /><br />As usual, the male lead is a completely clueless dolt. And in these types of films, one finds, say, characters about whom one can really "care," about 10% of the time. This one is in the other 90%.
I don't know if I should be amused or insulted by drivel like this put out by "Lifetime: Television For Women" Should be renamed "Lifetime: Television For Shut In Drama Queens" because I've yet to see a movie that wasn't a tear jerking pot boiler. This film was no exception. You know a film's going to be bad when the biggest headliner is Tori Spelling, completely a creation of bad plastic surgery and spoiled privilege minus any real talent. Everyone else matched her in unbelievably bad acting and the storyline was beyond dumb, as if anyone could believe any of it. If I hadn't have been helpless on the sofa pinned down watching with the same fascination you view a gory car wreck I would have changed the channel.
if you're a sucker for corny movies and are looking to see something you don't need to pay close attention to, this might be worth watching. the story itself is very unrealistic. the dialogue is also not very believable. it is doubtful you will find yourself relating to any of these characters because none of them are very likable. the acting could've been a lot worse. victoria pratt is noticeably out of place with the rest of the cast, as she seems to have a lot of potential and talent as an actress. while it's not saying much, this is one of the best acting performances i've seen from tori spelling. she appears to be getting better with age. overall, this extremely melodramatic movie is mediocre at best.
Lazy writing, bad acting and wooden direction lead us to a 2005 Canadian-made TV movie called HUSH, not to be confused with about eight other movies using the same name. Tori Spelling and her doctor hubby move from SanFran to his small hometown, where they run into his old gal pal, who decides she still loves him. She gets pregnant with Tori's baby (don't ask) and starts knocking off anyone who might get in her way as she plans to reunite with her old flame. The actors playing the old gal pal and the doctor are not worth mentioning, as they act flatter than flat. Tori isn't much better, but at least she is something to focus on as the plot meanders here and there before arriving at a very lame and all-too-familiar conclusion. Watch instead THE HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE.
In 1970, feminists invaded the 'Miss World' beauty contest in London and brought the occasion to a halt by pelting the stage with flour and eggs. Why? Because, rightly or wrongly, they felt the event to be demeaning and degrading to women. I offer no criticism of their actions. Its a free world we live in. What I want to know is: why don't their modern-day equivalents invade the studios where shows such as this are made and do likewise? <br /><br />'Sex & The City' is all about four self-absorbed women from New York: Carrie is a slave to fashion who turns into a pussycat when a man so much as claps eyes on her, Charlotte yearns to find the perfect man ( they don't exist, love ) so she can use sex to ensnare the poor devil, lawyer Miranda scares men away by wittering nonsense like 'out of touch with my emotions', and lastly we have Samantha, the living embodiment of the old Martini ad 'anytime, anyplace, anywhere'. Feminists hold up these characters - particularly Samantha - as a shining example of modern-day womanhood. Well, if shouting rude words in busy restaurants is progress, I think the feminists should take a long hard look at themselves and what they're supposed to represent.<br /><br />Had 'Sex & The City' been the creation of a man, it would have been pulled from the airwaves for being sexist. Instead, like 'Charlie's Angels' before it, it has conned supposedly intelligent women into thinking it has acted as a positive force for good. There's something very clinical and cold-blooded about the show. 'The Benny Hill Show' was sexist too, but at least it was funny.
To be hones, I used to like this show and watch it regularly, but now (thank god!) I don't understand why did I watch it. Sex and the city is one of the most pointless and insulting TV shows I've ever seen. I really don't get the point of this show, despite of trying. People are saying, that Sex and the city is funny. In what way? By cursing all the time, talking about vibrators and the size of the penis? Give me a break.<br /><br />I don't understand the plot: we have four girls who are trying to find a perfect man by sleeping with every dork, who comes around. And this show is all about four spoiled chicks, who are sleeping with every man in the city, but in the end they admit the best pleasure comes out of the penis vibrators. And yeah... the show is trying to tell us, that sex is the most important thing in every relationship. If you can have a good sex, you're a good husband (or wife). It doesn't matter if you want to be loyal and having a good heart.. the size does matter.<br /><br />The biggest problem is also bad acting. The four main actresses (Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattral, Cynthia Nixon and Kristin Davis) are so bad and unconvincing, that it makes me sick just watching this show. Parker is just screaming and complaining all the time, Cattral is showing her old boobs and saying "the f - word" all the time, Davis delivers her smile (and nothing else) and Nixon acts like she is bored all the time. And yes... men are sex - hungry pigs in this show. But, judging by this show, women are not much better. This show is insulting for men and women. The women are shown so primitive and emotionless, like they don't have any heart, just hunger for sex. It's insulting for everyone.<br /><br />Sex and the city is one of the worst TV shows and I'm glad that the show ended, because it delivers bad acting and pointless stories. The whole world is not all about sex and vibrators.
I truly despair for womankind when they discuss this joke of a programme as if it's intellectually engaging and promotes female liberation and independence. This show is the biggest insult to women next to all those libidinous hip-hop videos. If talking like a bunch of reckless teenage boys over $100 lunches in swanky restaurants, indiscriminately shopping for unnecessary fashion and jumping into bed with the nearest male in site is considered empowering, the fate of western women may be doomed as we speak.<br /><br />Aside from the damage it does to the female gender, Sex and the City is NOT ENTERTAINING. Not once has it been funny, captivating, exciting or original. The episodes play out monotonously. Each character are factory produced mannequins who behave in the same manner every episode. Not once have any of these shallow, unattractive women evolved. Perhaps the worst is lead character Carrie Bradshaw. Aside from looking hideous, her penchant for over analysis of relationships is cringe worthy. On top of all this, the show portrays men as a bunch of empty headed slobs who are unable to commit to healthy relationships. Even when there is a decent man, he is somehow painted as a villain. The utter lack of empathy for men is clearly the work of some "progressive" pseudo feminist.<br /><br />Saddest part of the whole show is that these women live unfortunate miserable lives. Any intelligent woman would never envy them. It is a banal show with even more banal characters. The NYC tourist board must hate the way this garbage is showing up their otherwise fine city! Thankfully this train wreck is over! Desperate Housewives is seen as the fitting replacement for SATC. While DH can be quite far-fetched, at least it explores women in more multi-faceted ways. Plus it treats men more respectfully and it's actually entertaining!
Appalling, shallow, materialistic nonsense. How women (and gay men?) can enjoy this rubbish is beyond me. No self-respecting man would ever want to be with one of these neurotic gold diggers. What is even more concerning is that so many reviewers say they relate to the women on the show. If that is the future of women, Lord help us all. Showing your independence and being respected as equals with men should not be about spreading your legs every three seconds with a different man. I think this demeans women and does not do them justice. But this review is no rant against women. Fans of this show say it is "hilarious" and "rivoting" but every time I have watched this show I have just struggled to stay awake. Despite the narrative of the reporter woman, at no point in this show is there even anything close to something that could be considered a rational thought. So, it's not entertaining, and it's not informative, so why would you bother watching it? One out of ten stars.
I didn't expect much from the movie so am not all that disappointed. Carrie looked ugly, Mr. Big had his eyebrows colored with crayons and Samantha didn't say f***. <br /><br />Charlotte's kid was annoying to watch as she was in too many scenes--the title could easily have been "SATC: Parents' Night Out." Camera angles just weren't that good, especially regarding Carrie's face. <br /><br />There was a token black woman thrown in whose character doesn't have a proper exit and too few appearances by the gay men friends who seemed thrown in with no purpose anyway. Samantha's going back and forth from LA choked the story flow, especially when she comes in for Fashion Week and nothing happens. <br /><br />The movie seems to have been made in rush because it could have been good but scenes were just thrown in to show different outfits or to offer viewers a chance to jump back in the show without adding much to the story of the movie.
The very first time I saw this I recoiled in HORROR at what was being presented as modern, liberated women.<br /><br />Sorry, but I cannot relate to whining idiots whose lives revolve around loveless sex and the acquisition of Gucci, Prada and Louis Vuitton labels. The troubling thing is that some may actually think this is how career women live in NYC. It's definitely not. These women are incredibly shallow and materialistic and as another reviewer said, they act like gold-digging hooches.<br /><br />This is not liberated womanhood and I'm glad it's gone. 0 stars and just plain AWFUL
All my friends and various other coworkers think this show is soooo great. First I hate this show!!!!!!! I think I might be the only female alive!!! I only watched it because my best friend adores it and fancies herself to be the Charlotte character!<br /><br />First the whole plot (If you can call it that) is about four women Superslut Samantha (Kim Cattrall)who most likely has every STD available and mossy,brown and green genitals considering she is tri sexual( she'll try anything).<br /><br />Samantha is not like most 40 something women even in NY, but than the show would not have some kind of entertainment since Samantha (along with some good NY scenery) is the only reason to watch and those are not reason enough. <br /><br />Charlotte (Kristen Davis) is a well dressed upper class NY idiot who still believes the Pince Charming myth! However sweet and pretty she is do not let that fool you, she spreads quite often.<br /><br />Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) now this woman is stereotypical angry, butch feminist. I think in one episode she is thought to be a lesbian, but apparently is not...What a shame she's almost interesting.<br /><br />Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) the most annoying character. I swear I thought I was watching Twisted Sister front man Dee Snider's more manly looking, cross dressing, sissy boy, brother! This is a girl looking for can't live without you love....Heard of a puppy?<br /><br />This show is stupid and I love making fun of it because I hear about how it is some kind of new awakening for women. That is just sad if your looking to watch slutty, pathetic, addictive people in way too expensive clothes drinking cosmopolitans and sounding like an annoying 15 yr old on cocaine than there is a show for you............just use protection.
I know that this show gave a lot of liberation to women in the late '90s and early 2000s, but come on! You have a whiner, a buzz kill, and an over-analyzer. This show really made women look bad. I cannot STAND Carrie's analyzing every little thing on this show and that's what really killed it for me. Also, Charlotte's whining about her nonexistent predicaments made my ears hurt and Miranda's cynicism was a complete buzz kill. I mean, can't she just be happy? Samantha was the only cool one on the show and the only one worth watching. There was also a good episode when Nathan Lane was on the show, but that was the only one worth watching--the rest of them were pretty much the same. The humor was drier than a bucket of sand, and not very interesting plot line. All in all, not a very good show and I'm glad it's over.
"Sex and the City" has some great things going for it. The problem is that it's saddled with a number of negatives that really hurt the ultimate rating and review for its' six seasons.<br /><br />The good things about "SATC" is that a lot of the conversations ring true to life, the romance stories are interesting, and the characters are fun.<br /><br />The bad things is that few women act like complete whores. These four women have so many partners, even going lesbian in some episodes, that you have no choice but to roll your eyes at the utter absurdity. Men on the show are for the most part depicted as shallow, degenerates, liars, cheats, and buffoons. The foul language these women use is far in excess as to what a normal conversation entails. Why do the writers do these things? Clearly, to be over-the-top and to get your attention.<br /><br />Another thing that bothered me (without spoiling) is how some of the relationships ended. They simply didn't ring real to me or to others I discussed this with.<br /><br />But, even though I gave the show 2 stars, in the end, I'm glad I watched the show. I've actually watched every season multiple times. I do recommend the show to anyone that won't be offended by strong profanity and soft-core pornography. I could have done less with the offensive language and the nudity and sex acts but the romance was very good and the saga ends pretty well.
Week after week these women just sweep all the men of their feet. Get real. None of these women are "Knockouts". Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) looks like the type of woman men would pick up at !:45am before the bar closed after their vision and standards were equally impaired by ten or eleven martinis. Yet she's the queen bee, a super-sexy man-killer. The other three don't fare much better. And their constant foul mouthed comments.....not to mention that they jump in and out of bed with strange men and never catch a disease. This show is pathetic .and creepy.I don't think any man would be terribly attracted to any of these women, even if he popped Viagra like Tic Tacs while on shore leave.
I watch family affairs,coronation st &east enders on uktv every week night family affairs is by far the worst, bad plots, bad sequences and the worst acting of any soapie,even worse than the Americans and that is saying something.<br /><br />I find it very frustrating that all these shows on uktv Australia" are so far behind the UK and when one trys to find out the reason for this they just fob you off with some story that they will show double episodes to catch up ,needless to say, this never happens. I am very happy that family affairs is going , to make space for something of better quality, but at the same time I would to know the background reasons, did they finally realize how bad it was? did people stop watching it? whatever it was you musn't leave us in suspense Why do you feel that you have to keep everything a secret from your fans? or is it that you just don't care? I feel strongly that you should try and keep your public up to date. Family affairs is notorious for just having its characters disappear and reappear for seemingly no reason,we do get involved in the people and enjoy following their lives.\<br /><br />I can understand why family affairs would have to come to an end, even though we are so far behind here in Australia, it is easy to see that the writers are running out of ideas for new plots,so many plots are being repeated and old episodes coming back.I have also noticed that as new characters are being introduced, a lot of them are really bad actors, like you are scraping the bottom of the barrel and ending up with the drek regards Vince
Yes, I couldn't stop yawning, nor could my partner. Incredibly boring - 90 minutes seemed to stretch to at least 3 hours - and I'm not even a fan of action films, but this just falls asleep on its feet - unless you are a 70's polo neck sweater fan! <br /><br />** SOME SPOILERS FOLLOW ** If you were expecting ANYTHING to happen, don't hold your breath - it doesn't! <br /><br />But seriously, it totally fails to convince or involve the watcher. It's like a long, boring and rather disjointed dream. Frederic floats through it, able to leave work whenever he wants, and with attractive secretaries bringing tea and messages constantly. Obviously not real life! And an office with virtually no paper or files - just a giant calendar to let you know that the film really is taking 6 months to watch. <br /><br />Frederick never seems to be touched by any real emotion, neither does his wife, and the children behave like rag dolls - in stark contrast to any real life. Even Chloe, despite her strong views, never gives the appearance of really feeling anything. The only 3 seconds of any real feeling occur between a couple overseen in a cafe, and have nothing to do with the plot.<br /><br />Okay, so maybe there are some moral considerations, but if it's entertainment, or even good cinematography you are looking for, I think this film is incredibly over-rated by most other viewers.
Why this worthless piece of French cinema has garnered any sort of attention, other than negative, is beyond me.<br /><br />Don't bother renting this one. It shouldn't have even come into this country.
1960's kid show with ex-vaudevillians playing handy men for hire. As you can expect they are a disaster at everything they do. Over the course of the 11 minute episodes (leaving 4 minutes for commercials in the 15 minute time slot), they do things like set up a fence between warring neighbors, help a magician on stage and deal with a found trunk and wallet.<br /><br />Growing up I had never run across this show (which appears to have been shot in New York). I thought I had run heard of or seen a most of the children's shows from the period either through having watched them as a kid or viewed them at nostalgia conventions. Until Alpha Video released it on DVD I had been completely unaware if its existence.<br /><br />The show plays like the Three Stooges mixed with Abbott and Costello as done by people aping the routines. (Indeed one of the pair claims to have created the legendary "Slowly I turned..." routine that Abbott and Costello perfected). Its not bad, but its really not good either since everything seems watered down. The timing is often off (Though that maybe due to bad direction) and the jokes were recycled years before the show first ran. Odds are you've seen it all before . On the plus side its the type of thing that would be perfect to introduce very young kids to the magic of vaudeville style comedy, however its going to be trying for parents to sit through even with the short episodes.<br /><br />For nostalgia junkies only. Everyone else should look to seeing an Abbott and Costello or Three Stooges original.
From what I understand, Mr. Bava abandoned this project before completion...AND RIGHTFULLY SO!!! If I were him I definitely would have made sure that EVERY copy was burned and if anybody in the future ever asked me about this film...IT NEVER HAPPENED & IT NEVER EXISTED...end of story.<br /><br />Despite some great sets and good photography this is one horrible film...is it supposed to be scary? (not in the least) is it supposed to be funny?? (puh-leese) A total waste of time...and I really don't like to have to say that!!
My only regret is that one cannot grade a movie on IMDb with a 0. "A Cena..." would definitely deserve that! At LEAST.<br /><br />*SPOILER?* The movie starts with a bunch of people entering a crypt to awaken an ancient Vampire. When a guy cuts himself and his blood drips and falls onto the putrid and dried corpse that is supposed to be a bloodsucker, the metamorphosis takes place and the Vampire, in an ANIMATION-like effect (would you believe it!), quickly takes on a more human form,only to reveal that he's wearing a tux and a bow-tie! A BOW-TIE, yes. Red, if my memory serves me right! I tried to check out random scenes by skipping through a bit, but it did not get any better than the opening sequences. That's the point when I turned the movie off, cursing it for having made me hope to see a Vampire movie. This is surely not one,unless you're 5 and could take such stupidity seriously.<br /><br />So, if you like Vampires and don't want to feel revolted or even disgusted,learn from my mistake and don't even try to see this garbage!
This started out as a good sketch comedy. The first few shows were very good and I was looking forward to a long run. What was really funny was the Mariah Carey imitation and the take off on Beverly Hills 90210 featuring the hair fight. The Delta Burke vs William Conrad heavy weight battle was also good. Unfortunately the following shows went downhill relatively quickly. The writing became uninspired and oh so predictable as if the show had acquired a cult following in it's young tenure. Nothing fresh was being offered and the recurring skits were boring. One example is the gun family (or whatever it was called) which became a weekly feature. This sketch was not all that funny to begin with let alone being a regular feature. An example of a quick promising start then a sudden fall.
This story of Ted Brice, an American pilot who is the sole survivor of the crash of an Allied reconnaissance plane in Belgium in January of 1944, is pretty much of a mess. The title would lead you to think that it is principally a story about the Belgian armed resistance groups, but that seems to be just a backdrop to prop up a silly love story between Ted and Claire, the woman who takes Ted in. Claire's husband Henri is a committed resistance member, but it is Claire who decides, in Henri's absence and against his wishes, to give Ted refuge.<br /><br />Crucial plot details don't make sense. Central to the story is the retrieval of the recorder on the downed plane that contains navigation codes and the positions of targets. But in the opening scene we see Belgians looting the plane, resistance members among them. Why did they not retrieve the valued items at that time instead of waiting for the Nazis to come and guard the plane? And the whole affair of transferring Ted out of the area was conducted using secret instructions and code words when the transaction could have just been a simple exchange. The ponderous music attempts, but fails, to lend some weight to this tepid undertaking.<br /><br />The most ludicrous part of the movie is how the love affair develops between Ted and Claire. At first Claire is devoted to nursing Ted back from near death and, when Ted starts to recover, they become physically involved (while Henri is conveniently away conducting resistance business). Julie Ormond does a passable job as Claire, but she effects a French accent that I frequently found impossible to understand. Her responses seemed a little weak at times - when informed of the hanging deaths of several town members she reacts as though she had just been told that the local grocery was out of peaches. As Ted, Bill Paxton seems just to be reciting his lines; his performance is so uninspired that it's embarrassing. A true American pilot might evidence such a flat personality, but it does not make for convincing cinema. I did not sense any chemistry between these supposed lovers.<br /><br />The most idiotic thing is the way that Ted and Claire act like lovers on holiday. Maybe sexual release from such heavy situations is understandable, but to appear totally oblivious of the gravity of the situation is hard to fathom. At first Ted is consigned to an attic room and Claire worries about his even coming into the house. But as things develop he not only comes into the house, he dances with Claire to loud music, enters the adjoining barn to have a game of baseball with a local boy, and ultimately goes on a car trip with Claire to a nearby town.<br /><br />The young boy seems to be most committed to his role, but he is undermined by the script. He has an uncanny ability to be at crucial events without being noticed. And when he delivers lines like:<br /><br />"Have you ever seen someone get hanged. They look like the're dancing, but they can't find the floor." <br /><br />you feel that it is the screenwriter talking and not a thirteen year old boy.<br /><br />And oh, by the way, there are scenes to show that the Nazis are pretty bad guys.<br /><br />Comparing this film to the brilliant "Ashes and Diamonds" about the Polish resistance, or the equally stellar "Lacombe, Lucien" about the French resistance, one realizes what a truly dismal affair it is.
I bought the DVD to get Julia Ormond. Well, I got that in spades. She was lovely in the romantic scenes; too bad Bill Paxton was flying on autopilot for the whole effort. I almost lost my lunch when he popped his big fat white behind out of his flight suit to shall we say 'engage' with Julia.<br /><br />I realized Julia was very proficient in French while watching her in 'Sabrina'. I watched 'Sabrina' with the French soundtrack to see if Julia dubbed her own dialog. They used someone else. In any case, Julia was chosen for this Dutch film over a native French speaker with sufficient English to communicate with the American flier. Perhaps they wanted at least one familiar name for the British/American market. To my unfamiliar eye, Julia's features could pass for Belgian.<br /><br />The whole film had an odd nature. It was a Dutch film about Belgium in World War 2. I would imagine that national pride would have required a theme of heroic Dutch resistance to the German invaders. The Belgians were much more passive during the occupation period than were the French or Norwegians. The most savage fighting of all came in the Balkans where Tito's communist partisans gave the Germans fits.<br /><br />I noted in another review that 'dbdumonteil' believed Julia Ormond to be an American instead of the actual British nationality. Perhaps Julia's acting skills were great enough to carry off that impression.<br /><br />After watching this film several times, it suddenly dawned on me how out of season, the film is. It is set on Junuary 16, 1944 when the American plane crashes in Belgian farm country. The trees look to be in mid-Fall with lots of leaves and the weather is warm. People walk about in light clothing and the grass is still green. There is not the smallest trace of snow or ice. This must have been the mildest winter in Belgium ever.<br /><br />The actual plot of the film was a mess. Where to begin? For anyone interested in World War 2 history, the film came across as farce. The reconnaissance plane used was a huge 4-engine converted bomber. Such aircraft did exist, but they would have required massive fighter escort to have any chance of survival. In reality, smaller and swifter aircraft were readily available and would have been far more suitable for the task. The vital code books in the film would never have been carried on the plane. The crew had no need of this information to complete their mission, while compromise of this information would have been a huge intelligence defeat. Even given the premise of the film, the first items to be stripped from the aircraft would be the code books. They would have been on their way to Berlin within 10 minutes of the arrival of German troops at the crash site.<br /><br />The Daussois home, where 'Major Brice' took refuge was a farm where no one had the least interest in farming. Food would have been very scarce in Belgium at this time. The Germans would have required substantial quantities of locally-produced food to support their forces. The family truck would have been expropriated long before the arrival of the American flier. There would not have been any fuel available to run it anyway.<br /><br />The plot twist where Henri Daussois turns in the American out of jealousy is pathetic. He would have had to reveal all he knew about the resistance in order to be allowed to live. He would have had to function as a double agent to frustrate any effective opposition. The woman with the secret radio would have never survived the war.<br /><br />'Major Brice' was caught in civilian clothing toward the end of the film. That made him a spy under the laws of war and liable for execution with no defense. He would not have meekly surrendered to face interrogation unhindered by the Geneva Convention. Better to force them to kill him and spare his friends if possible.<br /><br />I have not read the novel upon which this film is based. If this film is a faithful adaption, it shows an abysmal lack of development in the novel. Regardless of the novel, the screenwriters could easily have produced a superior script that would not waste this opportunity to deliver a much better film.
Albert Pyun presents his vision of the lost city of Atlantis - and it's a vision so cluttered up with claustrophobic settings, weird costumes and noisy, "quirky" minor characters that one thing is for sure: you want to get the hell outta there as soon as possible (unfortunately, it will take you about 80 minutes). The "Alice in Wonderland"-like story is meandering and uninteresting, and there was probably no actress in the world who could have turned this into a good movie, though Kathy Ireland makes an appealing (annoying voice and all) attempt. (*1/2)
This movie is a bizarre fantasy tale, that I'm sure doesn't appeal to anyone over 10, but is too strange for children. The plot is stupid, and the acting is some of the worst I've ever seen.<br /><br />25-year old Kathy Ireland plays a teenage girl who acts like a 9-year old. She seems to have gotten her character's voice by listening to Alvin and the Chipmunks. Her high pitched, screechy baby voice gets annoying the second she starts talking. All of the other acting is bad, but really Kathy Ireland is by far the worst. The plot is also terrible and is kind of a mix between Alice in Wonderland and Mad Max. Wanda Saknussemm (Ireland) gets a letter saying her father, who left her a long time ago, fell down a bottomless pit in Africa, and when she goes to find him, she falls into an underground world full of strange Australian accented people. It's one of the corniest movie you'll ever see, with terrible lines throughout. <br /><br />It's annoying the effects this movie uses for character development. Kathy Ireland is a nerd who won't do anything or go anywhere. She flies to Africa....wow, what development! She drops her glasses and then doesn't need them. Why does dropping one's glasses represent them not becoming a nerd. It should represent her descent into blindness. It's just stupid. The only positive I can think is there are semi-good special effects and camera work, and the musical score sounds OK.<br /><br />Overall this a ridiculous family fantasy that will only appeal to those who expect nothing from a movie.<br /><br />My rating: 1/2 out of ****. 84 mins. PG for violence.
Even in her glasses wearing geek mode Kathy Ireland is very easy on the eyes but her acting is not easy to watch. Most of the actors in the film either take it way over the top (beyond "campy fun") or act slightly embarrassed at being there. The effects and soundtrack are nothing special and fairly low budget. The plot line REALLY stretches ones ability to suspend disbelief. Catch this one to laugh at if it comes on a premium movie channel or network Saturday afternoon TV, but DO NOT waist money on this thing.<br /><br />One worthy mention for trivia purposes is that one of the underground mobsters is played by Deep Roy. Deep is now famous for playing (and doing it well) all the Oompa Loompas in Burton's "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory."
The director of this waste of celluloid specialises in dreadful exploitation films where pretension is all; the previous year he did "Dangerously Close" whose good idea (about gangs getting too much power in school and the school paper editor against them) was submerged in a sea of sloppiness, and he would go on to do "Cyborg," Jean Claude Van Damme's worst film ever (no mean feat). This would-be comedy about a girl - Kathy Ireland in her film debut - who's a total schlump whose inner babe is only awakened after she falls to the centre of the Earth and has a set of badly filmed, impossible-to-follow adventures (chiefly involving a set of dwarves who want her because she has big bones - go figure!) before returning home changed for the better isn't funny, gripping or entertaining in the slightest. And anybody watching this to salivate over Miss Ireland will be put off too - not because of her voice, but because she spends most of the film buried under tons of baggy clothes, with huge glasses to boot. No wonder Cannon, the producers, are out of business. Amazingly, Kathy Ireland has made better films since then...or maybe that isn't so amazing. Next to this, "Barb Wire" is "Aliens."
This movie had a very convoluted plot and very contrived setting, that I, frankly, could not follow, which is surprising considering the acting and dialogue could have only been the product of a kindergartener's writing. If you like Kathy Ireland, then maybe you'd want to see this. The movie was probably made as a vehicle to try to get her into Hollywood, but if that was its goal I would have to say that I hope she didn't invest too much money in its production.
Back in the 1960's, those of us who were bad movie aficionados thought that "Plan Nine From Outer Space" was the worst movie ever made, and would remain so for all time. To put things in perspective, though, we also thought that $3,000 was a lot to pay for a new car.<br /><br />As we grew older, our innocence was gradually stripped away as we were exposed to movies like "Hercules in New York" and "Overdrawn at the Memory Bank," which completely redefined the "bad movie" genre. In this context, last night, my son and I saw "Alien From L.A.," which pushed the envelope to an extreme unimaginable just a generation ago. To call this movie "bad" (or wretched or execrable) completely fails to do it justice, as does any other label existent in the English language. Even if there were words with which to accurately describe this movie, it would be of no consequence, since they would be banned in civilized society.<br /><br />The Alien referred to in the title is played by Kathy Ireland, who apparently took some time off from modeling swimsuits for Sports Illustrated, to kick off her cinematic career. Her casting might seem some sort of recommendation, until you actually see the movie. The makeup artists earned their money by making Kathy look so drab and unappetizing you would not want to touch her with the far end of a broomstick -- no mean feat. To put it bluntly, in this movie she has a face that would freeze Medusa. Even worse than her look, though, was her voice, which was so raucous that I initially failed to credit it as originating with a human being. Throughout the movie, I found myself longing for a chalkboard to drag my nails across to cover the screechy twang of her dialog. At the end of the movie, Kathy finally gets a makeover and finds herself in her beloved swimsuit. I suggested to my son that the movie would have been better if they had put her in the swimsuit at the beginning of the movie, so at least we would have had something to watch. My son perceptively pointed out that if they had then removed the swimsuit and stuffed it into her mouth, it would have considerably improved the movie on two counts. I defer to the plain brilliance of his observation. If you have any doubts, compare this dreck to "Barbarella," in which a competent filmmaker shows how to exploit the assets of an ethereally beautiful leading lady in the fantasy genre.<br /><br />Of the plot, itself, there is little on which to comment, since there was so little in evidence. It is said that if a million monkeys typed unceasingly for millions of years, eventually one would come up with "Hamlet." By the process of elimination, the rest of the time they would come up with something approximating this screenplay. Imagine, if you will, a modern-day Alice falling into a hole and dropping 500 feet onto a rock slab, following which she gets up, dusts herself off, and starts looking for her long-lost father in the city-kingdom of Atlantis. Once in Atlantis, she spends most of her time running, fighting, or climbing stairs and ladders, and basically trying to keep out of the hands of a general who seems to have no soldiers to do his bidding, and who would make Tiny Tim look macho. This summation, as abbreviated as it appears, is probably longer than the shooting script.<br /><br />On the plus side, as you revel in the production values and take in whatever you can of the sets and costumes through the smoke and haze, you realize that this is one movie in which you can actually see on the screen where all $20 of the budget went.<br /><br />The thought that kept going through my mind was that filmmakers ought not be given access to drugs and alcohol while they are shooting a movie, or perhaps prior, if it leads to results like "Alien from L.A.," though in fairness I have to acknowledge that I don't know whether they were actually involved in substance abuse, or were simply brain dead at the outset of the project.
The opening credits are pure poetry and I have watched it several times. It had a corny 20's adventure feel to it. Of course Kathy is gorgeous, but that voice! Did she realize this was a talkie. One word--voice coach. Great film for chronic insomnia (along with a bottle of scotch).
In 1990 I saw Kathy Ireland in person - I was at UNT in Denton during the filming of "Necessary Roughness." Strangely enough, the voice she's using in this film isn't too far off from her real speaking voice.<br /><br />Anyway, the plot goes like this: Kathy gets a letter telling her that her father's fallen into a bottomless pit in Africa. She goes and investigates the site of her father's death, only to get sucked into a subterranean world that's part dystopian nightmare, part uninspiring fantasy, and inhabited by rejects from the Plasmatics. This movie really wastes the talent of Linda Kerridge, who, in my opinion, could have been someone had she gotten that one big role that was right for her. Anyway, the main hero of the story, Gus, is a very lame Mark "Jacko" Jackson rip-off. The original is annoying enough to begin with, but this guy really is torture to watch. Eventually the nebbish Wanda comes out of her shell and ends up wearing a bikini top and a sarong at the end. If you're going to have Kathy Ireland in a film in skimpy clothing, it'd better be a bikini. Anyway, the film was just all around bad and rightfully skewered by MST3K.<br /><br />Avoid this one if possible.
Kathy Ireland: the body of a goddess, the face of an angel, the voice of a Smurf.<br /><br />And the acting talent of a shovel full of calcite. If you don't believe me, check this out: "Alien from L.A." actually depends on her to act throughout 9/10 of the movie! Sure, she ends up in a nice red bikini top and a wrap-around skirt near the end, but that's too little (so to speak) too late. <br /><br />Seems Ireland plays the daughter of a renowned scientist who falls down into the center of the earth to find him. Along the way, she falls for a guy named Charmin (yes, like the toilet paper - make your own jokes) and finds out how "Mad Max" rejects live. Did you know that people that live down deep in the earth have Austrailian accents? Neither did I.<br /><br />It's bad (it was MST'd, after all) and also a Golan-Globus production but after all is said and done, Ireland just basically looks lost, like she's trying to find where the photographers are so she can do a photo shoot instead.<br /><br />And I don't blame her.<br /><br />One star. And if you insist on watching this, do so with the sound turned off - save your eardrums.
And the title says it all: a cheesy sounding title that is a cheesy sounding joke of a film known as "Alien from L.A." Why not just call it "Alien from South Africa," as this is the place where this movie was filmed? My advice for watching movies that have been featured on "Mystery Science Theater 3000:" do not watch the original version of the movie at all! Period! Always watch the movie with the theater shadow at the bottom of the screen, with a man trapped in space with his two funny, wise-cracking robot friends sitting at the lower right hand corner of the screen. It just seems better that way.<br /><br />Movie as it was originally seen: Awful! Movie as it was seen on MST3K: Genius!
Boy, this movie is bad. And not in a good, cheesy, fun way, either. Even MST3K couldn't stop it from being boring, and it's also confusing as all get out. But the most annoying part of this dull mess is Ireland's hideous high pitched voice, which I was tired of listening to in the first five minutes. Not to mention how really unappealing her character is. Even her Dad ran away and abandoned her! I can see why, frankly. If he'd had to listen to her whine in her little mouse voice for more than a few minutes, he'd have been tempted to do her a great harm. As I was, by the end of the movie. Plus, she's useless and annoying. When she falls down the long hole in the earth a la Alice in Wonderland, she'd have been done for in the first ten minutes if that inexplicably Australian accented miner hadn't kept saving her from all of the various plights she kept falling into. He should have just tied her to the Atlantean version of train tracks and been done with it. And this Atlantis underground with the weird, confusing obsession with bone density,I have to ask-where was the light coming from down there? Did they have generators that imitate the sun? No matter. There's no real plot anyway, just a bunch of oddly costumed Goth wannabees running around trying to catch Kathy(probably so that they can stick a gag in her mouth). Stupid, pointless film. Thank you Golan Globus, for this cinematic abomination. May you burn in the seventh ring of Hell for all eternity.
I watched the MST3K version of the movie, and this review includes minor spoilers.<br /><br />When I started watching this movie, it looked like it might have promise as a cheesy sci-fi flick, but the more I watched it, the more disappointing it got. The first reason is pretty idiosyncratic - I liked the mousy shy girl with glasses a lot more than the model Wanda became by the end of the movie. More deeply, it was the fact that the loss of glasses and change in clothing replaced any actual character growth. Instead of growing into a character that could take care of herself, Wanda was just as dependent on males to do everything for her as she was at the start of the movie. The acting could have been better (though I got tired of cracks about Ireland's voice - they were even in the movie itself! It's not that bad.) The background was okay, but it was a little hokey (aliens = humans with facepaint), and could have used more explanation.<br /><br />Maybe it was just that I was interested in the movie itself, but Joel and the bots did little for me. The movie might have been better without them at all.<br /><br />Overall (for the movie itself, not the MST3K), a 3 out of 10. It was an okay flick, for what it was.
...don't watch it. Here's a hint: tune in to the last 5 minutes and you'll catch her in a bikini. Otherwise you'll just have to sit through the flick and endure her helium-sucking voice view for screen time with the inexplicable Aussie accents of the lost city of Atlantis or wherever the heck she goes to to locate her missing father. We now know why Kathy pursued a non-speaking career of modelling: she couldn't have survived the death-threats from those poor headache-suffering victims who heard her voice for more than 30 seconds. The rest of the story is some kind of weird poorly-lit Mad Max mish-mash.
Every boy eventually learns the lesson that just because a girl is good-looking, it doesn't mean she's good. Well, lemme tell you, at age 19, lesson learned. It's hard to tell what's worse: Kathy Ireland's acting skills, or her ultra-high-pitched voice; the one that sounds like a screeching mouse on helium scratching its tiny little claws down a blackboard. With an incomprehensible plot set in outer space with dwarves that want Kathy Ireland's bones for some obscure reason, this movie is just wrong on so many levels. If there were ever a candidate for a Mystery Science Theater 3000 revival, this would be it.
Because they all just watch there MST3K with their artificial friends who make (mostly) not that funny and obvious comments about movies. And that's the only way these people watch them and then they comment and down-vote them on the IMDb based just on that, they don't even try to watch the film on it's own.<br /><br />I watched this film on it's own, I didn't read the reviews first, I didn't have some people telling what to laugh at, I just got the DVD (bought for the flip side Morons From Outer Space, an old fave) and watched it.<br /><br />Of cause I knew kind of what I was in for when it's a Golan Globus, Albert Pyun film, but usually they can be quite entertaining.<br /><br />The film is a non too stressing on the brain Alice down the Rabbit-hole story done so many times, and kind of similar in basic structure (but completely different in content) to Warlords of Atlantis, another entertaining B-Movie.<br /><br />The voice, was annoying, but then that's the idea, which they even poke at with a few lines in the movie.<br /><br />The hero character had one of the worst over-the top voices/accents in English language film history, but you grow to accept it and enjoy it.<br /><br />It's not a good film, but it's not a really bad film, it's just a bit of an average B-Movie DTV kind of film, nothing too new nothing too outstanding, and probably would be enjoyed more by a younger age bracket (say 7-14 year olds) than I. It's a bit of light-hearted Fantasy.<br /><br />Will I see it again, probably not maybe about 10 years ago I would have.<br /><br />Don't be so harsh on a movie because a couple of puppets told you too, this film isn't taking itself seriously and it's certainly no Troll 2 or Space Mutiny.
As a native Chinese, I can not accept this kind of idea that some people must die for a 'better world'. I said 'better world' because it is a lie that Chinese people have been indoctrinated for thousand years! <br /><br />I guess most western audience may don't know Qin Shihuang(means the first emperor), the king in this film is the most notorious tyrant in ancient China. The Tianxia(Chinese word was spoken by the king, means 'the land and the people') spoken from his mouth is totally lie. From then on, one after another, all the king in ancient china spoke the same thing but very few of them did as what they said.<br /><br />Another fact is, Qin Shihuang's empire only lasted about twenty years before it was destroyed by people.<br /><br />Well, I do like the beautiful scenes of this movie, but it can not make me accept the idea that people should die for a tyrant.
The message of Hero is quite clear: the idea of Greater China is more important than the death and the suffering of millions. At a time when China is dangling its war toys over Taiwan, it is unacceptable for Western viewers to endorse this piece of over-produced, government-sponsored, dogmatic trash.<br /><br />Particularly surprising is the promotion of this film by the liberal media. Roger Ebert of Chicago Tribune, David Edelstein of Slate, Charles Taylor of Salon, and many others have wholeheartedly endorsed Hero. In so doing, they have implicitly legitimated its reactionary political message. The only critic (that I know of) who saw through the film's glossy facade was J. Hoberman of The Village Voice, who wrote of the film's "sanctimonious traditionalism" and its "glorification of ruthless leadership and self-sacrifice on the altar of national greatness." I, for one, sign my name under Hoberman's final pronouncement: Hero is nothing more than "fascinating fascism."
Impressive vision indeed, and some hot chicks with swords flying around, oh and those hypnotic Chinese violins too... Let me think, "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"?<br /><br />I kinda liked CTHD, with its down-to-earth simplicity and well developed characters, that still left enough room for you to enjoy the vision without having to think about the DEEEPAA Meaning of it.<br /><br />"Hero" on the other hand is painfully pretentious and demanding both visually and conceptually. The larger-than-life moral was horrible. I mean, sacrifice your life, sacrifice your beliefs, sacrifice your love so that your mighty nation can succeed???? WTF??<br /><br />No, thanks.<br /><br />But, hay, Mao and G.W.B. would be proud!<br /><br />Viva
It is impossible to avoid comparing Zhang Yimou's `Hero' to Ang Lee's `Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.' They were both big-budget Chinese kung-fu films with breathtaking cinematography of Chinese landscape and a cast of super-stars. But aside from the obvious, there is in fact nothing else to compare. `Hero' fails to deliver on almost every level that really matters, proving that big-name stars, beautiful scenery, and action effects are no replacement for a director's artistry and vision.<br /><br />All the marketing hype preceding the premier of `Hero' has done nothing more than make its failure a spectacular one. Much anticipated, `Hero' drew movie-goers in throngs when it first opened at theaters in mainland China and Hong Kong, making it an instant box-office success. However, though the script pleased government censors, Chinese audiences went to newfound heights of caustic criticism and sarcastic wit to express their disdain. On-line critics, both professional and amateur, proclaimed the film `ideologically disturbing,' `from the viewpoint of deep servitude,' written `either by an amateur historian, or someone with ulterior motives.' One article was simply titled, `Hero, you make me sick!'<br /><br />The deepest failing of the film is in its plot, which is not only morally reprehensible, and based on unforgivable historic fallacy but - worst of all for a film - is boring! All blockbuster epic films are known to take some liberties with the facts of history, but `Hero' goes beyond artistic license into unforgivable ignorance when it attempts to glorify an emperor that was as brutal as Stalin or Hitler. `Hero' does not make up for this lack of moral compass by being entertaining or fun. Instead, it is makes a woefully poor attempt at being `deep' and merely manages to be pretentious and preachy.<br /><br />Though historians agree that the First Emperor of China was ruthlessly violent, Mao Zedong was known to have admired this ruler - no surprise, given Mao's own tyrannical rule. Likewise, the Communist government in Beijing sees the allegory that can easily be drawn between the First Emperor and its own iron-fist methods, so they were particularly pleased with this latest work by Zhang Yimou. Tony Leung, one of the stars of `Hero' remarked during an interview to promote the film that the Beijing government had done the right thing in 1989 by crushing the student demonstrations, because it was needed to maintain `stability' in China. For these remarks, Tony Leung received shocked criticisms in his home city of Hong Kong, but he merely stated out loud the underlying message of the movie.<br /><br />Director Zhang Yimou has stated that his goal was to surpass the values of loyalty and revenge that are traditional in kung-fu novels and movies, to reveal a higher wisdom. Unfortunately, his version of `wisdom' turns out to be: THE OPPRESSOR IS RIGHT. In China, where thousands of years of historical reality have rammed this message through, art was the last sanctuary where the individual could actually find freedom from such tyranny. The great popularity of the kung-fu novel can be explained by its ability to provide an escape into an alternate world: one where kung-fu warriors roamed the country seeking adventure and fighting for justice, free from fear and winning against all odds with their super-human skills. Only in the novel did the individual ever win over institutionalized power in China, and only in the novel did the oppressed find their champions. Going against this tradition of the kung-fu hero, Zhang Yimou has not gone upwards towards a higher truth, as he had hoped, but downwards, to the level of government propaganda. It's no wonder the government was so pleased.<br /><br />Some film lovers may secretly wonder, `All moralistic judgments aside, is it at least entertaining?' Fortunately, the answer is a resounding `No!' Because the same tale is told over and over with only slight variations, it becomes tedious to watch. Moreover, the three conflicting versions of the same story serves only to confuse the character development, since it leaves precious little time for the viewer to feel any sympathy for any of them once the `real' version emerges.<br /><br />The film is not without its beautiful images. However, all the scenes fall flat because they do not connect to or enhance the storyline. The use of different colors to distinguish the separate versions of the tale comes across as simplistic and contrived, and the cinematography appears self-consciously rather than truly beautiful. Great for a trailer, but a disappointment once you are there to watch the entire film.<br /><br />For those in China who showed disdain for `Crouching Tiger's' unrealistic kung-fu, much was expected from `Hero.' Jet Li, who plays the title role, is a real kung-fu artist who held national titles before beginning his career as an actor. His previous movies have revealed limited acting abilities, but many hoped that Zhang Yimou could use Li's lithe body movements to full effect while casting him properly in a role that would not task his acting abilities. But it was not to be. `Hero' attempts to go beyond the kung-fu genre, so there are not many fighting scenes, and Jet Li is expected to perform a difficult piece of acting: an inner transformation leading to profound wisdom and self-sacrifice. As the casting director ought to have expected, Li fails miserably. Meanwhile, the only fighting scene that reveals any true kung-fu skill is the first one of the film, between Li and and Donnie Yen. All the scenes that follow are a disappointment, so `Hero' fails to satisfy, even on that level.<br /><br />Though most audiences outside China are unlikely to be aware of the historical mangling of the story of the cruel First Emperor, it seems even more unlikely that they would accept Zhang's version of `Chinese wisdom,' which is anything but. Perhaps the only time an audience coming out of a screening of `Hero' was seen smiling - instead of yawning or frowning - was at the special screening for Chinese government officials.<br /><br />
Salesman Lenny Brown (Woods) is fast losing his knack of selling the proverbial ice cream to Eskimos. Given a chance to shine in California by a philanthropic entrepreneur, Brown and his wife Linda (Young) live the high life off tax shelter investments; a fortune they lose when the federal government changes the tax laws.<br /><br />Seven hundred thousand dollars in the red, and in need of a 'boost', the yuppies without portfolio begin to hoover vast quantities of Colombian marching powder up their hooters, until they find themselves with rather hungry monkeys on their back. After briefly cleaning up, Linda's coke-induced miscarriage sees Lenny once more careering like a pinball between uppers and downers. Living purgatory follows.<br /><br />A contemporary take on Reefer Madness, with perverse echoes of Albert Brooks' Lost In America, The Boost was overshadowed on release by tabloid revelations concerning an alleged affair between Woods and Young, and their tumultuous falling out. Woods, then engaged to horse trainer Sarah Owen (now his ex-wife), reputedly slapped a $2 million lawsuit on his spurned co-star for "emotional harassment" during filming, citing Fatal Attraction-style late-night phone calls to his fiancée and, in one noteworthy incident, reputedly leaving a mutilated baby doll on his and Owen's doorstep.<br /><br />Ironically, the lack of chemistry between the supposedly loving leads is one of the more depressing aspects of this latter-day exploitation flick - the only real passion Woods demonstrates towards Young is when he's kicking her around the room. The script too is hilariously dreadful, perhaps mitigating Young's near-comatose performance when given howlers like "stay with me - 'til I fall off the Earth" to emote. Further, given Woods' edgy dramatic personae, his jittery descent loses all credibility when actually he looked that way to begin with.<br /><br />Ultimately, The Boost must be seen in context: in the 21st Century cocaine use is ubiquitous. However, in 1988, with America still embroiled in an unwinnable "war on drugs", the very fibre of the nation looked to be in peril - hence one of the most hellish - and for that read hysterical - depictions of drug-abuse.
My gosh, this movie was nothing more than filmmaking by numbers. Struggling salesman can't make a go of it in New York, mentor with a heart of gold takes him under his wing, struggling salesman moves to California and makes it big, then loses it big, then bounces back with the simple life, then hits rock bottom trying to get back to the top. I don't think I can remember any part of the plot that took more than five seconds to develop. Case in point (spoiler?): When the John Kapelos character calls to say he and his girlfriend were coming to Santa Cruz to visit, and James Woods says there's practically no chance he would come, you knew with 100% certainty they were coming in the next scene or two.<br /><br />On the other hand, Sean Young sure looked good.
I saw this film in the theater when it first came out, I'm sorry to say, and it was one of only a few films I have ever wanted to walk out of early. I didn't have a problem with the drug content and I could see how this cautionary tale could have been powerful. The problem was, the film-maker, working with James Woods and Sean Young, drew two of the least lovable characters I have ever seen on film. I hated this pair and couldn't have cared less if they sunk straight to the inevitable bottom. Their was not one surprise in this film. Every turn of events was so painfully obvious that I felt I could have written the script myself; although I like to think I would have done a better job. I subsequently heard nightmarish stories about the incidents on the set between Sean Young and James Woods along the lines of some sort of stalking events. It made me wonder if the terrible acting arose out of some bad feelings and dysfunction. Anyway, I refer to The Boost as the worst film I've ever paid money to see.
This film is right up there with The Oscar and Moment by Moment as one of unintentionally funny films of all time.<br /><br />It is worth the rental for a some wildly great laugh's.<br /><br />The story is absolutely ludicrous.nothing in life would happen like this.it's so completely unbelievable. the way James Woods tries and hustle heavy hitters, than they give this supposed two-bit hustler a job 3000 miles away in LA what a joke<br /><br />I love the old beat VW bug to signify how low they've gotten in life because of all the `tootski's'.<br /><br />Sean Young is as unbelievably bad as the, "I'll love you forever, no matter what, wife" you'll ever see.if it wasn't so funny you would throw up at how sugary sweet Young tries to project herself.and as bad acting as you'll ever see.<br /><br />James Wood overacts throughout the whole movie and he's so extremely funny and is way, way over the top, it's just not to be believed, Woods seems like a parody of a cocaine fiend off Saturday Night Live.but watching Woods on `ludes' is worth the price of the rental.<br /><br />I love it when Woods tells the guy who wants to give him some more `ludes' that he doesn't do that stuff anymore, right before that, Woods just did three giant lines of coke.<br /><br />This is some very funny stuff.<br /><br />The ending is so comical but right on par with the rest of the movie.
Its almost embarrassing to say I even saw this movie. I mean it doesn't take much to make a good zombie movie besides good special effects, lots of blood and gore, some scary moments and a decent plot. Does House of the Dead 2 do any of these things right? No, not one. Of course, its not as bad as its predecessor, from Uwe Bowle and thats the only thing about this movie that scares me.<br /><br />The dialog in this movie is notorious, with such lines as "What do you do for a living?" in response "I kill zombies" and "I was never a disk jockey, I was a soldier." The special effects are embarrassing even for a made for TV movie, I mean seriously, the zombies all look like they have bloody lips are hyped up on crack. The army base in this movie, is a parking garage, with a desk and a open gated room. This movie is so low budget that they couldn't even get co-ed locker rooms. In fact it seems like this entire movie was filmed in a middle school.<br /><br />Also, why is it that the all the female soldiers in this movie are models? And for that matter why is everyone in this movie so clueless at to what is going on that they simply just stand around letting the zombies kill them. Heck one guy even trys to give food to the zombie.<br /><br />Overall, this movie makes even the worst of Scifi Channel movies looks fantastic.
I haven't had a chance to view the previous film, but from what I've read on other posts it was supposedly worse than this one, although I doubt that is possible. I'm a huge fan of the "Zombie" genre, and I am fascinated by the psychological aspects of viewing creatures, that for all intents and purposes are human, as an atrocity that is only worth shooting in the head. That said, HOTD 2 takes the "Zombie" movie to an all new low.<br /><br />Without giving any big spoilers (which I really should do just so you won't bother wasting your time actually watching this movie) I would like to express my utter contempt for the way the writers of this film portray our countries Special Forces. Gomer Pile could have probably survived longer than the "Spec Ops" soldiers in this film. For crying out loud they should have called them the Special Education Forces instead. If you are going to write a script where you send in an elite team to deal with an outbreak of zombies, at least have the soldiers be smarter than the walking corpses. I understand that you have to kill off some or most of the team, but you can find better ways to do it than having them set down their machine guns and walk over to lay a tender hand on the shoulder of the drooling crazy person rocking back and forth in the corner of the dark creepy basement.<br /><br />The writers actually try to take the whole zombie thing to a more high-tech level by making it a virus that they are searching for a vaccine for, and the idea has merit, if it wasn't stuck in the middle of such a ridiculous display of wayward film making. I mean come on, zombie films aren't exactly "high art", and the viewer expects some tongue-in-cheek cheesiness along with the gore and thrills, but HOTD 2 is the type of cheese that makes you turn the channel in disgust and awe of the sheer stupidity of the characters. If you are a zombie movie fan like me, please do yourself a favor and stay away from this one.
Granted, HOTD 2 is better than the Uwe Boll crapfest that was the first one, but thats like saying drowning is better than being chopped alive. OK OK, I'm being a little bit harsh with this one, its just that Video Game adaptations of Zombie movies always leave a bad taste in my mouth. Resident Evil was alright, but its sequels are pure rubbish. The first HOTD was entertaining crap more than anything else; Uwe Boll saw to that. And HOTD 2 was...better? The entertainment value was there, the hot chicks were there, the gore was there, but... this is it? The script, even though subpar, was better than the first one. But in the script dwells horribly written characters, stupid action sequences, clichés, and an ending that drags on and on reaching a level of ridiculousness which would make the Bollmeister very, very proud. But, it could've been worse right?<br /><br />HOTD 2 stars Sig Haig (Yes, Sid Haig) as an insane doctor looking for a cure to death. As you may guess, it all goes to sh*t. A nearby College Campus seems to be the center for the Zombie (or Hypersapien?) epidemic, and as you may expect, a group of Commandos and two Zombie scientists try to save the world by going there and neutralizing the problem. Their main goal? No, it ain't blowing sh*t up. Instead, they have to get a sample of zombie blood, so they can create a cure to the deadly virus. Between this and that lays bland character interactions, an insufferable amount of clichés (but hey, at least the black guy isn't the first one to get killed), and decent looking Zombies. <br /><br />The acting is passable. Who would've thought that Sticky Fingaz was a passable actor? Not me. Emmanuelle Vaugier and Ed Quinn shine somewhat as the leads. And the supporting cast was passable too. It was all passable. <br /><br />The make up effects on the Zombies were alright, it could've been worse like in the first HOTD: just guys running around in dusty mummy suits. The gore was alright too. Cheap scares and even cheaper tension are almost non-existent in this movie, which is a good thing. The action sequences were stupid as f*ck, but at least there wasn't any sword fighting zombies or that ridiculous slow motion bullet effect. <br /><br />Overall, this movie will appeal only to Zombie enthusiasts, fans of the arcade games and for someone who wants to rent a cheap Horror movie for the weekend. Apparently there's going to be a third one as hinted by the ending, but I wouldn't count on it. Unless Uwe decides to do it. A 4.
I was on a mission to watch Uwe Boll movies to see if they were really as bad as all that. The first one I saw, BloodRayne, was not a complete loss. I liked it more than most people, and actually rated it a 4 out of 10. Next up was the first House of the Dead movie. Now THAT was horrifically bad. I could stand watching ten minutes of it, and fast-forwarding a bit, and that was it. I could see where it was going and I didn't need to see any more of it in order to rate it a just 1 out of 10.<br /><br />But I had access to the sequel, too (which however is not by Uwe Boll, but, mysteriously, written by the same guys who so incompetently wrote the first one), and since it got a higher rating at IMDb than the original, I thought I'd give it a chance. And I actually managed to watch all of it. It started out with some funny references and cool lines (like how the president got his orders from the vice-president!), and acting-wise it is light-years better than the first. Here we have cool muchachas like the ultra-hot Emmanuelle Vaugier, whose coolness is in league with Carrie-Anne Moss, Claudia Black and Evangeline Lilly. Man, I hope some Matrix-style movie comes along for her sometime. And the always delectable, super-aerobicized Victoria Pratt. I love athletic women. And, there was also Nadine Velazquez (Catalina on "My Name Is Earl"), who performed quite well.<br /><br />The story wasn't much, and the action wasn't great, either, and the ending was a disappointment, as they didn't succeed in their mission. Oh well, at least the two mains survived. Guess that's some small victory, too.<br /><br />Good cast, but a pretty bad movie. The actors make it watchable, but there's no real substance there.<br /><br />3 out of 10.
I saw the first House of the Dead and expected a root canal to be more pleasant to attend, so when it wasn't as bad as that, I was delightfully surprised.<br /><br />Unfortunately, I then got my hopes up that the second one might be okay as well...and I was wrong.<br /><br />Apparently I'm one of the few people who saw this movie that thinks it was bad.<br /><br />I don't know whether to watch it again and force myself to see whatever all the people who gave it good reviews saw, or wonder if I saw the wrong movie.<br /><br />Ed Quinn as Ellis and Emmanuelle Vaugier as Alexandra 'Nightingale' Morgan did a great job in roles that were way beneath them. They deserve to be in better movies.<br /><br />The special effects were okay and some of the characters likable/hate-able and that made for a tolerable watch, but for the most part, this movie was just a waste of time.<br /><br />Oh and I have to ask this because I found myself asking it aloud ALL the way through the movie...did anyone not know how to close doors behind themselves so zombies wouldn't just wander into the rooms? Only once did it happen, (zombies wandering in) and I found that a little convenient...soldiers walk into a room, leave the door wide open, pay little to no attention to same said door so the zombies can just walk in if they feel like it (with the hapless "livings" being cornered with no way to escape) and yet only once did zombies follow them in.<br /><br />Nitpicky? Maybe but honestly...if I was fighting for my life, the last thing I'd do would be to walk into a room and leave the door wide open so zombies could swarm in and eat me.<br /><br />That is really the only thing *bothered* me throughout the movie, and just the movie for the most part was a bad sequel to a not totally abominable original.
When Uwe Boll, cinema con man extraordinaire, released the first House Of The Dead adaptation to completely deserved mockery, it was generally agreed among fans of the source video game that one would have to be incredibly moronic to contemplate making a sequel. Hollywood's per-capita ratio of morons must indeed be high, for not only do we have a sequel, it was distributed in the antipodes by Sony, a company not normally known for its taste in expensive write-offs. Released direct to television in America, the sequel does improve on the original in most respects, but in so doing, it becomes bland rather than interesting. The scale of the scenario is enlarged, with the action taking place in a deserted town that just happens to surround a university where experiments in a virus that can reanimate the dead have been occurring. In particular, the action is spread throughout the university, where the first infected denizens can be found. Put simply, the film differs from the original in that it actually occurs within a house where dead people can be found.<br /><br />The cast, on the other hand, is a real step backward. Emmanuelle Vaugier was specifically made up to resemble a low-rent Angelina Jolie, while the rest of the cast never reaches the level of a slumming-it Jürgen Prochnow. In fact, the only name that will stand out among this cast is one Sticky Fingaz, who probably did not want to be recognised that easily by the people he faces at home. Put simply, these people could not convincingly order pizza on the big screen, even under the best direction. Say what you will about Boll, but he at least inspired actors like Ona Grauer to fight against his ineptitude. That said, the people involved here at least seem to be aware that their film sucks and that they might as well have some fun with it. Much of the problem with the original was that the director thought he was crafting some kind of misunderstood masterpiece, and he took himself seriously. Unfortunately, with the actors failing to take their characters or the predicament seriously, what little dramatic tension there could have been is undermined.<br /><br />Much of the plot concerns itself with the search for a generation-zero victim of whatever plague is causing the dead to rise. Or to translate into more practical terms, they are trying to find someone who was infected just after the virus mutated into a form that was threatening to humans. How this would help when a non-mutated strain is usually required to create a vaccine is anyone's guess, but the manner in which this quest is paced out suffers problems of its own. The we-have-to-go-back plot device is used in order to pad out the running time, but the actual timing of the extra quest is also problematic. We are told at one point that the town will be obliterated by Cruise missiles in ten minutes, yet the heroes drive back into the university, locate the sample they are looking for, and fight off enough zombies to eat the army of China, all in this space of time. Filmmakers take note: it only pays to be specific with time when it can serve rather than hinder dramatic tension.<br /><br />The special effects used in House Of The Dead 2 leave those of the original in the dust. Where Uwe Boll simulated the deaths of the characters using idiotic rotating camera tricks, Michael Hurst instead uses all the graphic details his budget can allow. Necks are bitten, arms are cut off, heads are shot. It all makes for a much more convincing throughput, but it also disallows the mockery of obvious fakery. The photography is also much improved. As DVD Crypt put it, the fact that it is in focus throughout makes it an improvement upon the original, but this also deprives us of something to have a laugh at the expense of. The writing is also both an improvement and a setback. Throughout the script, references to other horror and survival horror games, the most obvious being Run Like Hell, are offered. The first couple of times, they work because they offer clever ways to work titles into ordinary, everyday dialogue. After the eighth time, however, they just get on the nerves because they remind gamers of things they would prefer to do with their time.<br /><br />Interestingly, House Of The Dead 2 cost a mere six million to bring to television screens across America. Given that Tom Savini on his own would cost more than this to work on a film nowadays, I have to say I am somewhat impressed with the visual results. In contrast to the much-reviled original, the zombies here look like actual zombies rather than extras in bad makeup shot poorly. In a further contrast to the original, the actors appear to have a clue what they are doing. Sealing the deal is the fact that apart from some real zingers scattered throughout, the characters speak like real people. However, the story is nothing that we have not seen a thousand times already. When Aliens, the real Dawn Of The Dead, or The Evil Dead were released to acclaim, the acclaim came from the fact that these films either did something we had not seen before, or did it so well that we did not really care. House Of The Dead 2 is competent enough that we do not mock it, but it brings nothing new or particularly brilliant to the table, so we end up not caring either.<br /><br />For that reason, and many others, I gave House Of The Dead 2 a two out of ten. It is too good to be bad, but too bad to be any good. Unless you are into sucky films as much as I am, you are best to steer clear of it.
I'm sorry, but they did leave the impression that these commandos fought zombies before. But they sure didn't act like they even seen a zombie before. Jumping and turning their backs on them like amateurs. Second, the characters are pretty badly written. The actors did the best they could with what was given, I blame bad writing and bad directing. Lastly and here is where the spoiler warnings are highest. They loose the sample twice and the girl Jennifer Holland doesn't know if she's been bit or not. How stupid is that? As much as it hurts to be bitten, one would think you would know, plus gallons of blood leaking from your body is a good clue. Dumb, the first movie had it's flaws but it has re-watchablity, unlike this disaster of a movie, which I could barely get through once. I give the HOUSE OF THE DEAD 2: NO GUTS, ALL STUPIDITY THE CRAP-O-LANTERN
This is one of the most awful movies I've had the misfortune of picking up. Don't get me wrong, I love a good zombie flick, but this wasn't one of them.<br /><br />...Might as well (from the opening scenes, at least) been called 'Titty Zombies from Outer Space'. It had absolutely nothing to do with the other movie or the video game (as far as I could tell.) <br /><br />The best aspect of the film is how the two main characters can get covered with so much blood and remain so nonplussed. I would certainly suggest giving this one and miss and staying with a safer zombie pleaser like '28 Days Later' or 'Dawn of the Living Dead' (the remake, of course, unless you're into some serious campy action.)
"House of the Dead 2: Dead Aim" (2005) is the sequel, though you really don't need to see the first "House of the Dead" to get this film. That said, the production value is definitely here, with great zombie effects and it's edited quite nicely, with very effective sound design. However, that said, that's about all that's good here.<br /><br />The story and script are awful . . . there's blatant plot holes everywhere. It's also funny how the soldiers don't mind if they get blood on their faces (unlike in 28 Days Later where blood in any part of the body will infect you). Also realistic how there's little order with the soldiers here unlike the usual US Military discipline.<br /><br />A 4 out of 10.
How bad can you make a film. A good question which House of the Dead 2 succeeds in answering. I could not believe it was possible to get something worse than the first House of the Dead but amazingly the director has succeeded. The only feeling you get from the film is that its bad, just bad. What with overacting, bad FX and a stupid story. Its this kind of movie which gives a bad name to Z-Movies in general. Why could they not learn the lesson from the first House of the Dead movie? Anyway I guess you will have understood by now that you should not see this film. It is but a waste of time. Watch "Bad Taste" or "Dawn of the Dead" if you want to see some good zombies.
I can't get over how lazy the director is with this movie. Instead of setting up scenes in a creative way he relies on boring old zombie clichés.<br /><br />Where the two unarmed leads have to get down the college steps into the van he surrounds them with zombies yet neither of the leads is bitten. He can't be bothered to direct a decent fight scene so we see the leads shove their way down the steps.<br /><br />Sometimes the zombies limp about and at others they run like the wind. This is really convenient for the director because he can set up anything he likes without bothering with continuity in the behaviour of the zombies.<br /><br />With careful planning and a lot more inspiration this movie could have been so much better.
Terrible, boring zombie sequel is only marginally better than Uwe's horrible first film. It consists of a group of soldiers going into a zombie plagued college campus to find a certain type of blood which could assist in finding a cure for the infection. These soldiers are your typical lambs to the slaughter and none of them are that drawn out(or at least aren't very interesting)so you don't feel a sadness at the pit of your stomach when they are disposed of. The film has the typical zombies biting humans and blood splatter. It even has the same munching on guts. It just doesn't do anything for the zombie genre to give it memory. And, the story's climax is rather anti-climactic and ridiculous. One wonders how two people can submerged in an army of zombies and not get bit(for they are the main stars who seem to always manage escapability)while others seem to get bit rather easily. The film sole motivation is to show people getting bit..nothing else. Just go watch a Romero film for lasting effect.
So lame it isn't even funny. A zombie infection overtakes a small college campus and a government squad of secret operatives back up a couple of scientists sent to find the origin of the outbreak. Collecting zombie DNA damn sure is not easy. Once bitten you're one of "them". The entire university has been completely infected by the run amok undead.<br /><br />This sequel does not even redeem the awful original HOUSE OF THE DEAD(2003). Senseless entertainment is accomplished though. A few glimpses of female nakedness added to a gaggle of gore and exploding heads should keep any zombie freak happy. Credited cast members: Emmanuelle Vaugier, Victoria Pratt, Ed Quinn, Sid Haig and Nadine Velazquez. The "F" word holds together an unimaginative script.
If you haven't seen the first one you have to at least know someone who has and you have to know it was painful to sit through. There just wasn't anything good to say about it at all. So what's different with the second one? Why bother making a sequel for a movie that was wretched? This one doesn't take itself too seriously. It knows it was made for TV and doesn't try to impress with great or serious dialogue. There are moments where it tries to get 'serious' or 'intense' but these moments are so corny you have to laugh.<br /><br />Thankfully gone are any elements of Uwe Boll and any hint that this originated from a video game (other than the title of course). Don't go into this movie expecting anything worth mentioning to your friends unless they're into camp, lame zombie movies, or are interested in making a drinking game out of this movie. Take two shots whenever Ed Quinn's character mentions his dead brother! Take one shot whenever a bullet would have been better place in the head of a zombie instead of pumping three in the chest! etc etc.
I used to work in a video store. I saw this title in the horror section and took it home as a free rental one night.<br /><br />This movie was truly awful, there is no redeeming quality about it, because it actually takes a well respected sub genre of film and just goes about destroying it. If the first film wasn't low budget enough then this film truly takes the biscuit, being housed (mostly) indoors and at night...therefore avoiding the scenic cost setting of the first film In the first 5 minutes of this film a college lecturer comically runs over an attractive student. Rather than be mortified, the lecturer half heartedly apologises and the girl mentions that despite being thrown across the cars bonnet (he sped up as he approached her) that there is nothing to worry about...after which he attacks her with a crowbar and kills her! If this isn't strange enough, he wants to perform an experiment upon her, bringing her back from the dead....and so feels the need to remove her clothing to do so.<br /><br />Soft core female nudity (and pubic hair) is rampant throughout the film and is, to be honest,the only real thing to hold the average male viewers interest...like the swimming scene in the first film...but even having said that this film goes from bad to worse with its bad character acting, crappy dialogue and absurd plot turns....why introduce a pivotal character who has survived 29 days from zombie attack only to kill them within 10 minutes....its just a very very bad film
When one of the stars of a movie is named Sticky Fingaz, you should know enough to stay away. Stay away. HOUSE 2 is just more of the same, this time with zombies overrunning a college campus (man, how that must have saved on money). As usual, the "zombies" are given no direction so speak of, and provided very little makeup or costuming. They look like the zombies in one of those endless Italian zombie cheapies from years ago. Which is to say, they don't look like the kind of zombies we know and love from George Romero and Dan O'Bannon zombie flicks. The folks battling the zombies are all nonactors who get to shoot guns and do little else. Some who have written here feel the sequel is slightly more focused than the original. All I have to say is I'm glad the sequel's director did away with the 360-degree pan shots that helped to ruin the first movie. HOUSE 2 is still just more of the same, which means a lot of nothing happens for 80 or 90 minutes. There is one set piece, involving soldiers tussling with a zombie football team, that might at least have been funny. It's not.
I am furious! It has been a while since the last zombie movie I've watched so I was really looking forward to watching a good ol' gory zombie movie. HoTD2 was a major disappointment. A reasonable story but awful acting, filming, dialogue, and nauseating clichés and punch lines. I didn't even see the first one which is supposedly worse than this one...now I am curious about how bad could that one have been! The film is full of mistakes and goofs. Who on earth analyses DNA using a blood sample!? Why are these "special forces" who "have been to hell and back" fight like spoiled 6 year old girls? We see ferocious zombies who would take a bite at any chance they get then hundreds of them that wave their arms at our two "heroes", take them down to the ground, then let them go without even a scratch. I could go on and on about this but life is too short and I have already wasted a couple of hours watching this pathetic movie which is an insult to the movie industry.
Isn't it strange how crap-movies always tend to be a little better when you start watching them with an attitude like: "boy, this is going to suck harder than few things have ever sucked before"? It's pretty much impossible for anyone to rent this movie with high – or even remotely positive - expectations, as "House of the Dead 2" is a sequel to something that is generally considered to be one of the absolute worst genre disasters ever to be released. The abysmal reputation of the original actually turned out to be a great advantage for director Michael Hurst, as it was really easy to surpass the quality level of its predecessor. And exactly how embarrassing must this be for Uwe Boll, huh? Having to acknowledge that a straight-to-video sequel without star power or promotional campaigns is MUCH better than his own pretentious video game interpretation? In case anyone still doubts: NO, "House of the Dead 2: Dead Aim" isn't a good horror movie at all but, YES: it's definitely better than the first and even worth renting in case you're looking for an undemanding splatter film with loads of gory butchering, sleaze and stupid humor. There's no real connection with the events in the first film (another advantage) and this part two opens like a typically rancid sex comedy set in a college campus. The male fraternity club plans to attack a sorority house, inhabited exclusively by blond coeds with enormous breasts, but the party gets interrupted when an insane professor (Sid Haig!) who runs his car over a girl and takes her back to his lab to turn her into a zombie. This is the beginning of a quickly spreading and deadly epidemic but, no worries, as the government is prepared and sends their best scientists & soldiers to the campus to search for survivors and to bring back blood samples for an antidote. Hunting down zombies seems like the most common thing in the world for this squadron, they even named them Hyper Sapiens, but their constantly increasing amount eventually endangers the lives of the most hardened soldiers. Director Hurst thankfully found his inspiration in the more eminent classics of the genre, like James Cameron's "Aliens" and – of course - George A. Romero's dead-trilogy, particularly "Day of the Dead". He luckily also didn't made the same mistakes as Uwe Boll, who inserted footage of the actual video game in his movie (why?!?) and *slightly* exaggerated with the use of CGI-techniques. HotD 2 contains heavy images of violence, like chopped up female corpses and detailed amputations, but it never really becomes nauseating or shocking. Naturally, there's isn't the slightest bit of suspense to enjoy and every dreadful horror cliché features here as well. The film is very enjoyable as long as story writer Mark Altman doesn't try to explain the origins of the zombie epidemics. They're walking corpses with their brains hanging out of their skulls, so we really don't need to know what caused their deaths. Especially not when the explanations are given by a blond sorority slut who clearly hasn't got a clue what all the medical terms mean. Just avoid getting bitten, sweetheart.
I will keep it to bullet points so here goes: 1. Very badly scripted. 2. Tries to be like Resident Evil. 3. Zombies slow and docile one minute the next minute Raging lunatics. 4. Never saw blood clean up so easily! 5. Special effects not as good as the original "day of the living dead". 6. Acting not as good as the "Bold and the beautiful". 7. It looks like it was written in 1 week and made the next week.<br /><br />Basicaly Med team plus Special Forces go into a Zombie infested university to find the first Zombie and extract a serum to cure the plague. All die except the 2 main stars so predictable even though unarmed and swarmed with 100s of zombies they survived. However special forces (who were trained at kindergarten school scouts) only took 1 zombie to kill them even though they had weapons. Also the obligatory jerk on hand to fill any gaps. Overall load of rubbish.
oh man, where to even begin.....<br /><br />dropping your gun to get in hand to hand combat w/ a zombie, while holding a bitten soldier down debating to shoot him b4 he turns, then he turns and bites the person holding him down, turning your back on a "fallen" zombie, continuously shooting the chest and seeing it doesn't work, so they shoot the chest some more, having the idea that a kid slumped at a desk w/ blood coming out of his mouth is still alright, walking along a football field like nothing is wrong then all the sudden noticing the zombie football team doing whatever in the middle of the field like they couldn't have been seen up to that point....<br /><br />i could go one for a few more hours, but you get the point.....childish writing and dialog, bad directing, horrid special effects, truly sad and undeveloped storyline (zombie infested campus, must get the viral host then lose it....twice), the only plus i can find is that this one doesn't include clips of the actual game during the "action scenes"....<br /><br />id say don't waste your money, but id be more upset about the waste of time, i saw it on cable and wanted the 2 hours of my life back
OK this movie was by far worse then the first one and the first one sucked! The zombie make up was extremely fake! The acting is very poor! And it doesn't really follow the first one! While watching this I kept thinking wow the first one is a masterpiece compared to this. I would say catch it on TV, Don't spend your money on it! Its not the worst movie i've ever seen but its on the list. I started watching it last night and fell asleep so i watched it today and almost fell asleep again! The plot was pointless, I mean i get the fact that a small military group are sent on a mission to get the blood of the lead zombie and bring it back so they can use it to save lives and stop zombies but they made it where you wanted everyone to die. They made plenty of bad guys who really were just annoying. If you ask me this was a rip off of resident evil and not a good rip off either. The plot could have made it if the acting was good and if they actually made you feel scared to see whats behind the corner. With these zombies my grandma could have went in that building and survived! out of a 1-10 i give it a 2.
OK I have to admit that I quite enjoyed House of the Dead despite its well documented failings. This however was the worst film I have seen since Demons at the Door. Compared to DATD the effects are vastly superior. However the plot is weak, the acting reminiscent of everyone's favourite, the porn film, and the decisions and actions of the "characters" consistently verge on the moronic. I feel like trying out Uwe Boll's latest cinematic outings just to get some sense of perspective over HOTD2. I am not suggesting that he is really the cure, more a case of a different disease, but when your senses have been insulted in such an abhorrent manner the only way is up. OK there it is. I have managed the ten line minimum and shall waste no more of our time on the waste of celluloid that is House of the dead 2.
A college professor is working on creating zombies and, wouldn't you know it, things go horribly wrong. Next thing you know, the whole campus is overrun. Thank goodness there's a pair of uber-commandos trained for just such a situation. Too bad they must be accompanied by a group of moron-commandos, lead by a rapper (he doesn't even bother trying to play a military guy, he just responds to his superiors as if he were rappin' wit' da homies in da hood). The high point of this part of the movie is the locker room scene. The male and female moron-commandos share the same locker room, and apparently military regulations require all females to wear black bras and panties. Hey, if you can't make a good movie, at least you can have women in their underwear. My hat's off to the film makers.<br /><br />So, after much discussion of how well prepared these moron-commandos are for the job (Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq), they all get killed off in fairly short order. Their biggest downfall seems to be that it never occurs to them to turn any lights on. A typical encounter has them walking into a room and seeing someone at the far end. Human or zombie? Can't tell. Flip on the lights? No, moron-commando protocol requires them to walk up to the person, making sure to hold their gun in such a way that it can be easily knocked out of their hand, and well, you know the drill. The demise of Sergeant Major Sticky Fingaz is especially fun - my favorite scene involving a rapper in any movie I've ever seen. Luckily (and again, hats off to the filmmakers), the hottest babe among the moron-commandos manages to survive. Her and the female uber-commando both wind up in tight T-shirts for the remainder of the movie. Now this is how a military operation should be performed! There's a bunch of running around, punctuated my humorous stuff like the uber-commandos being unable to get through a simple ventilator grating (it obviously is a thin piece of aluminum that you could easily put your fist through). This necessitates a plan to rub zombie guts all over themselves, and even though we've seen nothing in the movie to indicate that zombies locate their prey by smell, they're good enough to immediately begin sniffing the zombie guts and let our heroes go.<br /><br />A few other funny bits - the Paris Hilton gag, the "Can you hear me now?" gag, and the fact that although the zombies immediately bite secondary characters, main characters are able to fight their way through dozens of them without being nibbled on. Another chuckle is provided by Mr. Fingaz, who can't seem to pronounce the word 'tourniquet' (toe-no-kit?).<br /><br />Overall, it's somewhat amusing. Could have used some more interesting characters, but for a Sci-Fi Channel original, I was mildly impressed.
So many of these types of movies out these days. This zombie flick falls into the major "cheese" category unlike the far more polished dawn of the dead, and day of the dead. In all fairness those 2 movies were major studio releases with big budgets behind them. But they were also good movies. A low budget movie can still be good if only they would stop accepting and using the worst scripts around. Whoever wrote this movie must have been drunk the whole time.<br /><br />This movie had so so special effects and a very un-even plot line. The one major difference from other movies of its type is the time it takes for people to transform into zombies. In this one, it seems to take just seconds for them to die and then turn into a zombie. Yet with the ease this "infection" spreads you can have zombie blood all over you and not even seem to be at risk for infection, and believe me the people in this one get covered in blood.<br /><br />The main problem I had is that our 2 main stars at times were walking around dozens of zombies and didn't get bit. When everybody else turns into zombies amazingly quickly these 2 were swarmed by zombies when they were even unarmed and were able to come out of it without a problem. Our hot chick star even survived a missile strike on the building she was in. I was laughing out load at that point. Unarmed, having like 10 zombies on her and a missile hits the building yet she manages to get out without a scratch? OK sure....<br /><br />Also whoever advised these people on how special forces behaves obviously never spent any time in the military. They should have watched a movie like Blackhawk down first to get at least an idea of how they behave in combat situations.<br /><br />One soldier was a fat overweight SPECIAL FORCES private. LOL that was a good one. Another kept going up to zombies thinking they were survivors, even putting his weapon down at one point. These guys are in there to fight zombies and they were acting like the soldiers from the movie Stripes. Special Forces, lol...<br /><br />Then they get to the point at which they try to explain the zombie girl in the rubber room and the whole thing gets very confusing. The explanation is muddled and does not even follow the first movie. It made no sense at all.<br /><br />The only thing I liked was the Anti Bush jokes. The military lady at the beginning told them that the order came down from the Vice President to the President and at the end it was the Vice President from an "undisclosed location" giving the orders. That was the best part of the movie for me.
This fake documentary is flawed on a lot of points, it's badly made, has uninteresting characters but the biggest problem I have with it is the basic premise.<br /><br />This film uses the idea that H.P. Lovecraft has traveled to Italy and that some of his work is based on real supernatural events that he witnessed. I'm willing to go along with the notion that he traveled to Italy (only for suspension of disbelieve) but that some of his work is based on reality and that Insmouth exist is total nonsense.<br /><br />First of all, Lovecraft didn't believe in the supernatural, in his letters he clearly states that he considered himself a mechanical materialist, his monsters where there to show that humans weren't so special after all. Another myth used in this film is that Lovecraft was an expert on the occult, he wasn't, all his knowledge on the subject came from the most basic sources.<br /><br />So we end up with a film about people jelling at each other a lot and when we finally see the monster, it's so bad that you can't even laugh at it, you just feel a pain in your love for horror.<br /><br />After seeing the film Frankenstein Lovecraft said that he felt sorry for Mary Shelley because he felt that her work was butchered. I feel sorry for Lovecraft.
This film plays like a demented episode of VH1's "Where Are They Now", or "Behind The Music". In the first half of the movie (that depict his "glory days") Abbie Hoffman is unintentionally portrayed as a sort of delusional rock star. You know the kind; the poseur lead singer, the pretty boy, who didn't write any of the music, doesn't have a clue, but gets all the glory for nothing and chicks for free. Consequently he takes his success for granted, abuses it, and ultimately destroys it along with himself. Indeed Hoffman's glory days ended abruptly when he was busted for dealing cocaine, skipped bail, and went into hiding. <br /><br />The second part of the movie deals with that time in hiding. In it we see Hoffman as a pathetic crybaby endlessly blaming everyone, anyone, but himself for his downfall. Eventually the times pass him by completely; and he can never to come to grips with that. How sad. THE END. End credits roll and OH NO! We learn that Abbie Hoffman eventually committed suicide in 1989.<br /><br />I'm sure this is not the image the filmmakers intended for Hoffman in making this movie. Given that Tom Hayden and Gerald Lefcourt were involved, I'm sure they intended this film as some kind of homage to the life of a man who was after all, an icon of the 60's and of the Left's anti-war movement. In this they have failed miserably. The film presents Abbie Hoffman as a mindless caricature. We are never told about what drives him. How did he arrive at his views? How did he manage to capture the imagination of a whole generation? How did he organize such a vast movement? Why at the height of his fame did he get involved in dealing cocaine? Why? Who knows, and since the filmmakers don't seem to, ultimately who cares?
Let me start out by saying that I am a huge fan of Abbie Hoffman and have read Steal this Book and Steal this Urine Test. Also am a even bigger Jerry Rubin fan. But his movie was a discusting pile of rubbish that made a very PG version of Abbie Hoffman. The director took no chances into making Abbie Hoffman interesting in this movie. They despicted Stew Albert as a F***ing cartoon chjaractor devoid of intellegence, the man was a proffesor at Berkley for christsakes. Ok they did a horrid casting job for Anita Hoffman, did a Horrible job casting for the Jerry Rubin character. I just guess the movie doesnt fit the news flashes that I have seen of Abbie or the books that he wrote. The movie just didnt fit and upset me. Oh yeah and theat is the absolute worst voice over I have ever heard of Richard Nixon. This is one of the few movies that I have ever rented that I could not sit all the way through because, I have a passion for Abbie Hoffman and his discruntled band of Yippies and this movie was just plain badly done. And it hurt me that now when people see a movie about the yippies they will see a terrible adaptation, and not get a true sense of reality. Instead they get a hollywoodized palanthra of crap.<br /><br />
The trouble with this film, like so many other films that fail, is the script.<br /><br />The script is so unfocused it flounders around all over the place. What IS the story here? OK, it's a biopic but I think everyone will agree there is no way that an entire life can be condensed into 100 or so minutes. Some selection and editing is required but this script just didn't select or edit enough. It didn't render Hoffman's life down to one or two definable pivotal moments or themes that the audience could identify with and, through them, 'get' the bigger picture of the whole man.<br /><br />The movie wanders from being a straight plodding 'troubled genius' biopic, to semi-docu/mocu-mentary (using new shots faked up to match archive footage), to sub True Life Sob Stories Movie of the Week (the whole "I'm bringing up a son who doesn't know I'm his Dad" shtick), to political conspiracy theory movie etc. etc. It just never makes its mind up what it wants to be, and the half-hearted Citizen Kane like narrative structure (reporter interviewing people from Hoffman's past) is soon abandoned which leaves the film even more unstructured and flabby than it starts out.<br /><br />The movie is full of moments and incidents that contribute nothing to the story and could well have been cut to leave room to expand something more important. The whole scene in the psychiatrist's office after Vincent D'Onofrio pounds the window screaming "I'm Abbie Hoffman! I'm Abbie Hoffman! I'm Abbie Hoffman!" ("I'm acting! I'm acting! I'm acting!") could have easily been cut. All that happens is the psychiatrist says "You have bipolar disorder here's some lithium.", and the two women in his life say "We could see you weekends more often." and bang! That's it. No more mental health problems. It is such a laughably pointless tokenistic scene it could easily, and should, have been dumped before it was shot. The scene where they all get high and watch newsreel footage from Viet Nam and Hoffman phones GOD? Pointless. Tells us nothing about anything. Yet, when it comes to a pivotally important moment like the drugs bust, the film making is so hurried the situation just comes out of leftfield and doesn't make any sense to the audience. Suddenly he's dealing in heroin? Where did this come from? Why? What is going on here? <br /><br />I, being a middle-aged leftie, would guess I am sitting well within the target audience for this movie but even I got fed up with the portrayal of 'The Man', 'The Pigs', 'The Fuzz' etc. as brutal, be-suited, unthinking, hippie-hating androids. It may have been like that in 60's America, I don't know, I wasn't there, but in film terms it was cheap clumsy polemic.<br /><br />Having said all that Vincent D'Onofrio was convincingly charismatic as the younger Hoffman and I could watch Janeane Garofalo in anything, even reading a bus timetable, though she just wasn't right for this part.
Want a great recipe for failure? Take a crappy, leftist political plot, add in some weak & completely undeveloped characters and then throw in the worst sequences a movie has ever known. Let stew for a week (the amount of time probably spent making this trash).<br /><br />The result is 'Steal This Movie,' a cinematic experience that takes bad movies to dangerous and exotically low places never before conceived.<br /><br />This movie utterly blew chunks at my face for its entire run time. Words cannot convey how painful it was to watch. This is not one of those bad movies that you and your friends can sit around and make fun of. This is not 'Plan 9 From Outer Space.' This is a long, boring and sad waste of time. 'Steal This Movie' is the biggest waste of energy and talent I have ever seen. It depresses me when I realize that people *actually* took time out of their lives to act in this tripe, if you can call it "acting." But then again, when you have poor direction, poor writing, poor EVERYTHING - "acting" is the last thing to criticize.<br /><br />This movie is like a huge, disgusting turd that you yearn to quickly flush out of existence, fearful that a friend or loved one might somehow see it. I really wish I could somehow destroy every copy of this film so it will not pollute the minds of aspiring filmmakers. Thank you, Robert Greenwald, for giving me newfound respect for every other movie I have ever seen. You have shown me what is truly awful and why I should appreciate all those movies that are merely crappy and/or boring.
There is nothing good to say about this movie. Read Revolution For the Hell of It or any of his other writings. Abbie was often dismissed as the clown-prince of the '60's, but he was a man of ideas who used his cleverness, his sense of humor and pop culture, and his flamboyant personality to get attention to his ideas. The media too often concentrated on the man, not the ideas, and that's the problem with this movie, too. Later in his life he did suffer from depression. But this flick is like a National Enquirer version of Abbie. He deserves better. If you don't know Abbie or his times, this movie won't help.<br /><br /> This film lies. I give it a zero. <br /><br />
This movie was one of the worst I've ever seen, it did not left out a single clichee one could imagine about a Hollywood-so-called-Thriller. The protagonist is a loving father & a private investigator who is engaged in a special task: finding out if a suspected "snuff" movie is real.<br /><br />Certainly, he get's involved deeper & deeper, smeary pornoshops (run by mexicans) & sex theatres are his field of investigation as he's searching for the murderers of the woman in the "snuff" movie. Assisted by a "smart" (he read a book) sexshop employee, he's catching up with a murderous bondage-film producer and his personal perverts who are responsible for the film... ...and what do you expect? They are portrayed as the simple evil, no need for explanations, backgrounds, history: they are the bad ones, and he's the purifier. Boom. Killer of the killers. End of film. Is it that bad? Yes, I'm afraid so.<br /><br />Ironically, "machine" (the mega-pervert who did the killing) is even pointing at his ridiculous character: In the last scene, our hero forces "machine" to put off his leather mask (yep, of course he's wearing one) and recognizes that "machine" looks just like the normal 08/15 guy from the street. Then "machine" says: "blablabla I'm not a monster, my parents never abused me, I had a nice childhood, I just love to do what I do!"<br /><br />I just love to kill people. Yeah, sure, "everybody loves killing people" (Bender). It's not only the total lack of character what made this film so boring, it's also it's ugly "I have to kill these people"-attitude which makes you sick. In one scene, our hero has tied up one of the killers and tries to shoot him...but he can't. So what does he do? He calls the mother of the killed woman, says that her child is killed and asks her whether she loved her child so much that she wishes to see the killers dead. The mother cries yes, she'd love her child, he goes back to the tied killer and slaughters him.<br /><br />To come to the point: This film is breathing the foul air of lynchmob-supporters (certainly the police does not play any role in it), moralizes in a ridiculous form against pornography, does not take it's characters serious and wastes your time with a stupid plot. Probably the only good thing about this film is that it does not try to pseudo-psycho-analyze ... even that would be too much plot.<br /><br />Don't waste your time with this.<br /><br />
These days, Ridley Scott is one of the top directors and producers and can command huge sums to helm movies--especially since he has films like ALIEN, GLADIATOR and BLADE RUNNER to his credit. So from this partial list of his credits, it's obvious he's an amazing talent. However, if you watch this very early effort that he made while in film school, you'd probably have a hard time telling that he was destined for greatness. That's because although it has some nice camera-work and style, the film is hopelessly dull and uninvolving. However, considering that it wasn't meant for general release and it was only a training ground, then I am disposed to looking at it charitably--hence the score of 4.<br /><br />By the way, this film is part of the CINEMA 16: European Shorts DVD. On this DVD are 16 shorts. Most aren't great, though because it contains THE MAN WITHOUT A HEAD, COPY SHOP, RABBIT and WASP, it's an amazing DVD for lovers of short films and well worth buying.
I saw this short film on the dvd for Ridley Scott's film, The Duellists. There was no introduction by Scott before the film, it just started right up.<br /><br /> Boy and a Bicycle is hardly an example of Ridley Scott's other work, it bears no resemblance. The film shows a boy, played by Tony Scott, riding around on a bicycle. Guess what? That's pretty all that happens. The boy rides around, rambling on and on with pointless, confusing dialogue. The film was shot in black and white, and since it was directed by Ridley Scott, I expected some cool cinematography or visually-striking sets. Instead, I was treated with nothing. This film isn't even good for a first effort. However, I recommend that any fan of Ridley Scott should check it out at least once.
This is a fact that this is the 1st Saudi feature film to be shown in cinema theaters but not in Saudi Arabia for a simple reason we don't have cinema theaters in our large kingdom .. not only one cinema theater! The government forbidden opening cinema theaters after the Islamic extremists OR the religious police (or both) asked for closing it in the late 1970s & the early 1980s .. accusing the 7th art with encouraging wrong sex relationships and stuff like that .. I don't see a powerful reason why we don't open cinema theaters!! .. we have many videos stores throughout the kingdom, we watch movies in the TV from some satellite channels, we can install the "Showtime" set channels and after all movies in general seems harmless in many ways .. I know many people how go to neighboring countries only to watch a couple of films .. I personally went to Bahrain several times only to watch films in theaters because watching it there is big fun unlike watching a movie home. Saudis pay the most expensive cinema ticket in the world, we travel to watch movies while the rest of the world have cinema theaters around every town. This is one of the problems that we are having!! ..<br /><br />The movie is produced and presented by Rotana Filmed Entertainment which is a major company belongs to the Saudi tycoon-prince Alwaleed Bin Talal (the 8th richest man in the world).<br /><br />The movie's title is a word means literally "how are you?" but it is also a slang means "what's up!", sometimes used as a slang to say "bad" about something and sometimes is used as a slang to tell someone politely to mind his business & not to interfere in someone else's affairs. Anyway, I think they meant (how are you) & (what's up!) in the same time, I could be wrong though.<br /><br />Male actors are from Saudi Arabia like Hisham Abdulrahman who is very famous and has some popularity after winning 1st prize in Arabian realty show more like "American Idol", he works in some TV programs like the Arabian version of "Cash Taxi" .. the other famous actor is Khaled Sami who is funny and has a very good sense of humor .. other actors like Mishal Al-Mutairi, Turki Al-Yusuf and Ali Al Sabea are less famous and they work on some TV series shows. Female actresses are non-Saudis and they did a very good job speaking the Saudi accent .. Jordanian actress Mais Hamdan in leading role & Emeriti actress Fatima Al-Hawsani .. not that we don't have Saudi actresses but are few and not that good.<br /><br />A Saudi critic " Rja Al-Mutairi" who writes for Alriyadh Newspaper (the most popular newspaper in the kingdom) wrote about it saying: "lets not expect much of the 1st Saudi feature film. It was born in unusual circumstances therefore we can't judge it under the usual standards like any other film. It is a fact that the movie hit a huge financial success in its 1st opening days only in Kingdom of Bahrain. The movie is fresh and is about a Saudi family deals (interacts) with controversial fresh issues inside the Saudi society like: women driving cars, the low-shallow thoughts about the arts, the guardianship of the society by a certain group & the differences between being conservative and being an extremist. The ideas are good but you feel you are lost in the middle of the movie. One of the movie's advantages is the beautiful music score by Rajeh Dawood which was good but sometimes it doesn't match or express what's in the picture. Turki Al-Yusuf did a great job .. his performance was the best alongside with Mais Hamdan .. the biggest loser is the leading actor Hisham Abdulrahman who came behind the supporting actors Mishal Al-Mutairi, Ali Al Sabea and Khaled Sami who did a good job within the limits of their roles. <br /><br />after all, " Keif al-hal?" even with all of its disadvantages still an OK movie and it is a very good 1st step of Rotana .. and the movie became the speech of people and streets which is a golden goal to make a strong debates inside the Saudi society about movies in general until they become aware of the importance of the 7th art and other arts"<br /><br />PS: there is another Saudi filmmaker "Abdullah Almohaisen" claims that he directed the 1st Saudi movie titled "Shadows of Silence".<br /><br />I haven't seen the movie yet .. I hope I've been helpful.
Total disgrace! Truly awful! The screenplay and dialogue is a joke, and combined with a director who doesn't have a clue about life in Saudi Arabia. It's not a surprise, quite Saudi film ha, the director is Palestinian-Canadian, the writer is Lebanese, the lead actress is Jordanian, and the shooting took place in Dubai, and all those elements show very well to make the film far from representing the Saudi society. Yes it contains some Saudi cliché's, the stuff we see in cartoons in the newspapers everyday, but that's about everything. The film had the opportunity to show real problem with Saudi society, or at least give us something new and genuine about the youth troubles and concerns in Saudi Arabia, instead it copied and pasted from here and there, and the result was a mess. Even the supposedly love story in the movie doesn't exist or at least we haven't seen it. The only bright side in this total debacle is some good acting from the supporting cast. The veteran Khaled Sami was funny in a badly written role as the grand father, which he is clearly got miscasted, for he looks younger than the actor who plays his son. Also the actor who plays the fanatic brother's role, Turki Al-Yusuf, has done well, in fact he was the best actor in the film. The rest of the cast, being professionals for long, did an OK job, but the lead actor Hisham Abdulrahman was just bad. He had one look of a little adorable bobby for all situations. He couldn't even say his lines in a proper manner. He has charisma that made him win the title of Star Academy, a very famous reality show, and he is good in interviews and TV shows, but he was just the weakest link of this film. The lead actress I didn't mind very much, but even she acted badly in some scenes and overplayed her sensuality in unneeded way.<br /><br />The Film was a huge hit, Saudi flocked in thousands to neighboring Bahrain and Dubai to attend it when it was screened there, and it made a tone of money, then it was screened in pay per view, then in broadcasting TV, and that was in a span of a few weeks. This was to cash on Saudis eagerness to homegrown entertainment, but alas; the film was neither homegrown, nor entertaining.
what a shame our first movie is so bad .............................. hi sham , what did you do in this movie:( . . it is awful! and the director :( .. there is no story in this film . i had sleep when i was watching this film .. It is a disappointment, and the majority of the crew is not from Saudi Arabia. Supposed to be a comedy movie, but it lacks the essential elements in Comedy ,<br /><br />I know it first experience of cinema in Saudi Arabia, but I expect better from Kaif Al Hal !! The only positive in the movie is the presence of some talented actors who did not help much text to explode their talents Finally.., iwant to know your comment about this movie guys... is it bad or what?
This Movie as the 1st KSA's movie should be active to their people and show the good thing on them. Otherwise, we see in this as Rotana's cast want show religion's people in Saudi Arabia as Terrorist and stupid in fact their not they are very peaceful and smart. About the director is not even less good. The Grandfather in movie is very younger than the father, everyone notes that. And the girls who not Saudi by the way show our girls as pitches looking to man to satisfy their needs. Hasham was just another part of furniture at act he did nothing to imagine only when he said to his lover I love you and yell to his friend don't talk to strange girls >>>>>>> really funny or really stupid<br /><br />The Father was so not moving only set their and he watch this movie as not one of cast and only word he said "A5zo Al Shai6an". The Weird Thing in this movie is when the girls were set in restaurant in family's part, there voice in behind young man talk to his girlfriends "kiss me" many times >>>>> Is that happened in Saudi Arabia when the girls and boys grow up good and Muslem not bitches and adulterer. Any Saudi have patriot in his heart will not allow to see this stupid movie
This film revival right march in a bad film industry and Saudi Arabia, I want to know how the director was able to stand in front of people of the industry after he making this film, work was so very bad, we do not know how cinema Saudi companies such as Rutana and other does not support yang Filmmakers in KSA like UAE We hope in the future to prosper film industry in Saudi Arabia But without such intervention Fools traders and idiots make us bad movies do not benefit the reputation of cinema in Saudi Arabia is like the Roman and Iranian cinema At the same time, please makers simple experimental cinema in Saudi Arabia such as Abdullah alayaf And others to achieve the dream of a good film industry to participate in festivals world away from the major companies interventions stupid
This piece of crap doesn't worth a critical review so I'll write some information for those who don't know the background of this movie. First off all it is not the first Saudi movie, they used this wrong info for commercial purpose (they lied!). Second they made it for money not for anything else so they picked the jerk (Hesham) who won Star Academy (like Big Brother) it is a popular show and the jerk Hesham is popular but dumb, cheesy & untalented then picked the famous Kuwaiti actor Mohammed Al Sairafi (also dumb & untalented) but has a popular (count how many times I'll use the word "popular" then email me to get your prize, however..) has popular show and the Jordanian actress Mais Hamdan who appeared in POPular comic show CBM (unfunny) so she is famous * PoPular! Then they picked some Saudi actors for .. blah blah blah. The funniest thing is the director! He is Canadian with Palestinian roots (I believe that the identity of the movie is the identity of its director) .. wait a minute! The screen play was written by an Egyptian screenwriter (very awful one!) with some help from Lebanese critic (famous as critic but actually he is a money collector!). This group of the multi races (money slaves) doesn't know anything about the Saudi culture they don't represent it but when we know who is behind this garbage all our questions will be relieved! Waleed bin Talaal is Saudi prince and (B U S I N E S S M A N) who doesn't care about the Saudi culture or Saudi people he even doesn't live in Saudi Arabia (even if he lives he will live in his own world, his world is far far far away from the real world the people world) so he doesn't know anything or care about anything except raising his endless fortune.<br /><br />*Not Saudi movie(not anything movie).<br /><br />Screw them all.<br /><br />Beep out of 10!
The amount of hype and the huge success this film has encountered is evidence how desperate our people are towards a good independent Saudi film. In fact the huge success of "Tash ma Tash" is also an evidence.<br /><br />I'm not going to start of how important film making is, as it is obvious to those with half a brain how films have changed the world.<br /><br />And I'm not going to say how much our society needs a bunch of films to clear out a lot of issues we have in our country. Religion, politics, women's rights, education, general health, terrorism, Law and many many more.<br /><br />Along came news about the fist Saudi movie which should've been a remedy to some of the issues we have, especially towards the youth. Instead we experienced a bald movie for that matter.<br /><br />The ignorance and naivety of the script was obvious. It was as if a 13 year old had written it.<br /><br />Now I've heard that the budget for this film was huge. I would like to know where the money went, huh? The effects were really ugly, the editing was poor. The script was "kharabeet". You really don't know what the story is and what the director aims at from this film.<br /><br />A note on the actor who played the religious brother, his performance was good but with bad direction. Another thing with the role of the religious friends he had, that is not how religious guys act here in Saudi Arabia! They are not "Evil" as this film intends. In fact they are some of the nicest people you'll ever meet with some really uncommon way of living, and that is what should've appeared in the film.<br /><br />The youth are following the religious here because of a reason, and that is the youngsters are the most passionate and sentimental. And with the well formed principles the religious live on, the youngsters follow them. Again, this is what should've appeared.<br /><br />We need another "First Film" with a Saudi Writer, actor, director, composer, even cameraman. So that they all work with passion towards their experiment, not just for the money!<br /><br />And we should do what Shakespeare did hundreds of years ago, we should include phrases from the Qur'an in the script of the movie. As the people in our society still see art as a form of sin, the challenge a Saudi movie maker is facing is changing the mentality in that angle.
I am a big MD fan. But, I call it like I see it. This film limped along. The plot was preposterous. Gaining access to heads of state in this movie is easier than gaining access to the the local grocery store. Come on! Tone Loc has the emotion of a wooden plank. Loosen up! The editing is choppy. The actors, and I use the term loosely, sound as if they are reading their lines on valium.<br /><br />This movie could have been better. Dudikoff has potential, but he chooses scripts that just scream,"Stinker".<br /><br />If you want to watch a good Dudikoff movie, may I suggest Crash Dive or Avenging Force. If you have never seen one of his films, this is not the one to introduce you to his work. You will walk away with a bad taste in your mouth and think all of his projects are this bad.
As a bit of a Michael Dudikoff fan I sat down to watch one of his good old-fashioned actioners - I'm still waiting.<br /><br />The film is based around a group of US commandos trying to get rid of a bunch of Syrian terrorists who have taken over a nuclear reactor. Maddie Reese (Felicity Waterman) was an English member of the commando unit and of course she became romantically involved with Tom Dickson (Dudikoff). I must ask since when have the Brits had female SAS members - as far as I know if they are ever needed they are got from other sources. Even if they did I can pretty much guarantee they wouldn't be as wet as Maddie Reese. I would also think that Tom Dickson would be a little more responsible in his position - or have I lost the plot?! I know there is always the romantic angle in these films as it helps provide the feelgood factor, but does it have to be throughout, especially when there's more important things to be taken into consideration - like nuclear warfare!<br /><br />The signing of the treaty on the US aircraft carrier intrigued me. The "sacred pen" as carried by one of the supposed TV news crew - are there were no security checks to find out who or what goes on board one of these ships, especially with the calibre of people that was on it. Mind you if there was, I suppose there would be no story.<br /><br />I could go on, but when it got to "inner body bomb defusion" in order to safely remove a bullet I gave up on the action drama movie bit and enjoyed it for the comedy it actually was.<br /><br />By the way, would a news reporter really say "Downtown Damascus"??
This film is unbelievable on any level. It fails as an action film because no one would be fooled for a moment that the props, actors and scenery are realistic. It fails because even the most gung-ho would see through the hollow chauvinism portrayed by the film, a hypocritical might is right mentality.
I only watched the first twenty minutes of this movie and personally I think that this is the worst movie to be made in the recent years.<br /><br />The plot was so bad that it might have been possible that a 10 year old kid wrote it. The acting was also sloppy with pretty much an unknown cast and not only that the action sequences especially at the first half of the film were so terrible it was unbelievable.<br /><br />I don't know how the producers obtained the budget to film this movie but the production company must be regretting it by now.<br /><br />To anyone who may come across this film in the near future, I advise you to steer clear of this joke of a movie.
Ivan The Terrible is more a filmed stage play than a "big-screen-opus". Citizen Kane - a similar work in many ways - is quite the opposite (in the way we come to expect such fare) in that it has lots of location shooting for example.<br /><br />Acting is meant to convey a character's motivations and thinking to the audience; if it succeeds in making you understand the character, what does it matter HOW it was done? And considering the low amount of action, how else is one to express events that influence the story, and consequently the characters' machinations and decisions other than "exaggerated movements"?<br /><br />As well, there's a historical level why the acting style should not surprise. The rise of totalitarian regimes in Germany and USSR forced film-makers who stayed behind to make films the way they knew how. As they were prevented access to more modern works that showed cinema's evolution and techniques, they only used what they knew.<br /><br />The Nazi's control of government in Germany destroyed the great German film industry of the 1920's, due to their total control over that film industry. And propaganda films can only "entertain" German troops so much; hence the need for popular German silent films of the 1920's, for example. So a lot of Ivan The Terrible film's techniques would have been derived from such captured German films supplied to the film crew (as mentioned in other comments).<br /><br />There was no confusion anywhere and though personally it was found over-hyped, it is by no means a bad cinematic experience - and definitely NOT amongst the worse films ever. The acting is fine, and part of the cinematography excellent (even by today's standards; more below). Definitely not a popcorn flick; one can't leave their brain outside this one's door. Dated perhaps and very symbolic - only worth watching on the big screen if one is unable to view the films with the lights off at home, for many of the cinematic elements will be lost in these films' chiefly B&W experience. It all depends upon what expectations one walks in with...<br /><br />WARNING - SPOILERS: Do not read the following comments, in case they influence your personal view of the film(s).<br /><br />...and if one does not mind the obvious communist propaganda (as opposed to capitalist propaganda). For Ivan is how Stalin saw himself - obvious in his influence on the film's direction (see other comments) - and anyone with a world historical awareness outside the US perspective will definitely understand this. Maybe Ivan was an earlier incarnation of Stalin, or maybe not; this is more a diatribe on Stalin and his motivations, decisions, loneliness, promotions of lackeys, etc - using the persona of Ivan - than any true historical record of Ivan. Also note the obvious use of particular colours in the sequel: Red (for the USSR) in the banquet scene. And perhaps blue (for the USA) during certain shots when the usurper wears the crown?<br /><br />But it has many excellent visuals such as the profound use of shadows, or the exterior shot of the populace coming to beg Ivan's return to Moscow.
Well I will come clean and admit that I was forced as part of my history degree to watch this film, and then write a short film review as part of my grade.<br /><br />Yet even if I had watched the film alone, at my own discretion I found it extremely boring and absurd. The style is dated beyond its years, and the acting is farcical. Rather than use dialogue they instead exchange eye popping glances at each other, or sometimes into thin air. For me, such over the top acting does not convey any greater emotion, and after seeing an extreme close up Ivan's face for the hundredth time I was praying for the film to end.<br /><br />The most disappointing though is how wrong Ivan's character is. This man was nasty, his bodyguard's murderous thugs and his character cowardly. For me the film was nothing but a piece of Stalin propaganda, inaccurate and dull.
Well, "built" Doris Day (as Ethel S. "Dynamite" Jackson) is mistaken for thespian Ethel Barrymore, and falls in love with dancer Ray Bolger (as S. "Sam" Winthrop Putnam). Older Frenchman Claude Dauphin (as Philippe Fouquet) also digs Doris. Honestly… What were they thinking? - This wildly inappropriate musical does feature Ms. Day prettily singing the standard "April in Paris", and others. Certainly, there nothing as good as her Columbia recordings from the time; and, nothing approaches Day's stunning and forthcoming "Secret Love". Although the material does not serve him well, it's nice to see Mr. Bolger performing. Some of the musical numbers are obnoxious.<br /><br />**** April in Paris (12/24/52) David Butler ~ Doris Day, Ray Bolger, Claude Dauphin
Sorry folks, I love Ray Bolger's work but the one thing he ain't is a leading man. Maybe if you pretend he's the last man on earth, this romantic plot might work but come'on now !<br /><br />Here's a movie that exists simply to showcase the title song which was a big hit for the Basie Band the year before (1951). And some pretty nifty singing and dancing save it from being a total disaster. <br /><br />However, the story line is pathetic, even by 1952 musical comedy standards. And the other songs are equally as forgettable as Evening In Paris cologne. The dialogue embarrasses the stars, Day & Bolger. Only Claude Dauphin's Boyeresque charms keep his character three dimensional.<br /><br />So, how to enjoy this movie on video ? <br /><br />A.) Fast forward through all the dialogue...<br /><br />B.) Surrender yourself to Doris Day's vocals and Ray Bolger's loose-limbed footwork. And don't miss Dauphin's hilarious take on a rain-soaked, windswept reprise of "April In Paris"...<br /><br />C.) Finally, keep a couple of bottles of Cabernet chilled and handy.<br /><br />Bob Raymond
This one is a cut above the usual softcore T&A, with the spirit of a dead actress returning to claim the film role she believes is rightfully hers, and using the body of an aspiring young actress to do so.<br /><br />As always, the gorgeously sexy Amber Newman the is main attraction; her sensuous presence overshadows the mildly attractive, Shauna O'Brien<br /><br />Plot: *1/2 out of ****<br /><br />Sex/nudity: *** out of ****
There are bad movies, movies that are horrible, and then there's a tiny, rarified body of movies that are so horribly bad that, even after seeing them just once, the sheer awfulness makes it impossible to forget them even decades later. This is exactly such a movie, and it's hard to believe that the original film in this series was actually quite good. Let's see, George Kennedy, the cigar chomping "tough guy" mechanic of the original has somehow been promoted to airline captain, and, after the Concorde comes under missile attack (don't ask), he resorts to stunts like shooting a flare gun out the cockpit window despite (presumably) flying at Mach 2, all the while doing the sort of wild high-G evasive maneuvers that would have ripped the wings off any real airliner, never mind the effect of the passengers! But the absolute worst part of the film, at least to dedicated airplane buffs like myself, is that this atrocity "starred" one of the coolest, sexiest, and most technologically remarkable planes ever to fly. The Concorde (or, just plain "Concorde" as its pilots refer to it) deserved far better, this abomination is the equivalent of taking a high class beauty like Audrey Hepburn and putting her in a "Porky's" sequel. Thankfully, the release of the ever hilarious "Airplane!" the following year brought the whole "Airport" franchise to a well deserved halt, as anyone even contemplating a fifth installment would have been laughed to death by studios and movie fans alike. <br /><br />1/10
OK, here is the deal. I love action movies and generally have no problem suspending a great deal of disbelief over plot holes or other implausible actions. However, this movie went far beyond minor flaws and went straight to the ridiculous. Let me get this straight. The police send a notorious gangster and cop killer (along with a number of other prisoners) on a bus with a grand total of two guards. They then are forced to stop at a precinct where precisely two cops are working, one of which is a day away from retirement and the other is a burn out. Apparently the building was about to be shut down so somehow the police decided that everyone else in the entire precinct got the night off for new year's eve. Right. But wait, it gets better. Gabriel Byrne shows up to take out Fishburne before he can rat him and other dirty cops out. (although we never find out anything about their relationship or dealings). Interestingly, the cops launching the assault on the precinct are in full SWAT gear with night vision goggles, assault rifles, the whole nine yards. Later on they even bring in a helicopter with MORE people in full gear. I'm not a cop, but I'm pretty sure you can't just waltz out of the station with an entire swat platoon worth of equipment without someone asking what you are doing. And the police helicopter??? In the supposedly terrible winter storm??? Also, no one near the precinct happens to hear or see this major siege going on with flash grenades and heavy rifle fire going off? I mean seriously, come on. I know this is set in Detroit, but even there it would raise suspicion on a supposedly top secret mission. I also love the fact that they find a Tommy Gun in the evidence room and somehow the gun still works and has bullets that are still intact and usable.<br /><br />I could live with some of these problems if there weren't other glaring issues also. For one, the opening couple minutes of the movie are shot nicely in a very frenetic and hyperactive way and I thought was going to set the tone for the rest of the movie. Unfortunately I was wrong. The remainder of the film has no sense of pacing or tension or drama. The "characters" don't relate to each other in any way which is probably largely due to the fact that they aren't particularly interesting. There isn't enough interesting action to make this a good action movie, and there isn't enough character development/storytelling to make this a passable thriller/drama. The "relationship" between Hawke/Fishburn is the only thing that the director even tries to make interesting or intense. Oh and by the way, the final scene in the wilderness? Uh, I thought this was in the middle of a run down industrial section of Detroit and suddenly we are in the woods?? The acting isn't terrible in this movie, it is just that the directing and writing are atrocious. I really enjoy some of Hawkes, Fishburne, Byrne, Dennehy's other movies but this one is terrible.
I was looking for ATTACK on Precinct 13. There, the film is THAT memorable. Who is the star of this? Ethan Hawke or Matt Dillon (I can't tell who the lead actor is, that's a pretty big point against the movie right there) Gabriel Byrne (who could't have needed the money this badly could he?) Drea De Matteo is stunning but only because of her amazing body. It took me ages to finally work out she's Joey's sister off "Friends". I agree that the so called SWAT people attacking the station are pretty crap, as far as tactics go. We were even taught better basic skills than this in RAF basic training.<br /><br />Avoid this, even the snow doesn't want to fall on a bus full of prisoners! Very bad continuity indeed.<br /><br />Avoid like the plague!
**Maybe spoilers** **hard to spoil this thing more then it is, but just in case** Gee's I don't see how anybody could have liked this re-make!! It was like a "made for T.V" show and still pretty lame for that. Lots of fake snow, bad acting by top stars, bad action and that crazy pine forest in Detroit. What the heck??!! I didn't really think this would be a great movie but I was hoping to be entertained. Nope, we fell asleep half way and had to finish it up the next day. I could have skipped the rest easy(but then I would have missed those great piney woods!) I'm so glad I missed this at the theater! Bad enough to have wasted $3.50 at the video store. And I am a lover of cop, action and drama films. This was a very stinky 1 out of 10 stars. Give me the original any day!!
This movie examines the now infamous Wannsee Conference where top Nazis gathered to discuss the organisation and implementation of the "Final Solution" First off, I want to say I was amazed to see Kenneth Branagh play a Nazi. With the slicked back blonde hair, he certainly looked the part but he didn't really act the part well. There was none of the menace & cruelty and in the end, he came out looking like a grinning cheerleader, keeping the meeting going. The real Heydrich would not have let the conference get out of control the way it did in the film.<br /><br />The best performance of all was undoubtedly Colin Firth who played Dr William Stuckart, the man who wrote the 1935 Nuremberg race laws and who gave "legal respectibility" to everything the Nazis did. Firth's performance was stunning, the main vocal opponent to what Heydrich was proposing. The best part of all was when he was verbally dressing down one of the Nazi thugs. The thug muttered "I'll remember you" and Firth replies "you should! I'm very well-known!!" The film is historically accurate but let's boil it down to what it really is - 90 minutes of a group of men around a table discussing, shouting and bragging. There's no excitement, no real conflicts (except the brief argument). It's just 90 minutes of talking! Same room, same table, same people.<br /><br />I'm not sure if the DVD is worth the money. I for one felt short-changed.
This is yet another pseudo-intellectual "let's make the Nazis look real bad" movie. The Nazis were pretty bad, no doubt - most of already know that. However, that does not necessarily make every movie on the theme good. A Discovery Channel presentation of "The Wannsee Conference" would have been much more interesting. <br /><br />"Conspiracy" falls on its ass between two categories: documentary and drama. It doesn't cut it as a documentary, the movie is too `staged' and the presentation too `common'. It doesn't cut it as a drama, the characters are too shallow and conflicts too easily `solved'.<br /><br />Another thing is the tagline: "One Of The Greatest Crimes Against Humanity Was Perpetrated In Just Over An Hour." As the movie shows the Wannsee Conference the meeting had nothing to do with reaching a consensus on the final solution. The decision on the solution had already been taken by the SS. The sole purpose of the meeting was to make all significant stakeholders commit themselves to an already established plan. There were no decisions or plans made at the Wannsee Conference. There was only threats and coercion (some needed less than others).<br /><br />Finally: One thing the movie does show (although in no exceptional manner) is, man has a tendency to turn to culture and aesthetics in an attempt to hide for himself the fact that he is committing appalling atrocities. This is seen in most powermongering `leaders' and politicians.
This is yet another pseudo-intellectual "let's make the Nazis look real bad" movie. The Nazis were pretty bad, no doubt - most of already know that. However, that does not necessarily make every movie on the theme good. A Discovery Channel presentation of "The Wannsee Conference" would have been much more interesting. <br /><br />"Conspiracy" falls on its ass between two categories: documentary and drama. It doesn't cut it as a documentary, the movie is too "staged" and the presentation too "common". It doesn't cut it as a drama, the characters are too shallow and conflicts too easily "solved".<br /><br />Another thing is the tagline: "One Of The Greatest Crimes Against Humanity Was Perpetrated In Just Over An Hour." As the movie shows the Wannsee Conference the meeting had nothing to do with reaching a consensus on the final solution. The decision on the solution had already been taken by the SS. The sole purpose of the meeting was to make all significant stakeholders commit themselves to an already established plan. There were no decisions or plans made at the Wannsee Conference. There was only threats and coercion (some needed less than others).<br /><br />Finally: One thing the movie does show (although in no exceptional manner) is, man has a tendency to turn to culture and aesthetics in an attempt to hide for himself the fact that he is committing appalling atrocities. This is seen in most powermongering "leaders" and politicians.
This was an absolute disgrace! The worst dramatisation I have ever seen. German officer's with a spotless English accent, they didn't even attempt to be German. How were we supposed to take them seriously? Garbage garbage garbage! Leave the German acting to the likes of Ralph Fiennes & Liam Neeson in future.
For a movie that was the most seen in its native South Korea for most of 2004, it was a huge disappointment. Shows that Hollywood is not the only place where people can make over-emotional, melodramatic movies. The film was over 130 minutes long but not a lot actually happened and everything that happened was pretty much what one expected, the plot was that transparent. Granted if one himself was Korean, one would perhaps get into it more, but for me it didn't do much anything. Suffice to say that as the case tends to be with Korean cinema, the plot revolves around the relationship between the northern and southern parts of the peninsula. South Korea decides to recruit and train an elite assassination squad from death-sentence prisoners to kill Kim Il-Sung.<br /><br />A tedious plot doesn't bother me much if the characters are good but unfortunately that is not the case this time around either. They are stereotypes and most of the acting is mediocre and too often just over the top as it tends to be in Korean cinema. Too much time is spent on the numerous montages and the characters remain distant, one dimensional cardboard cuts. They should've spent more time establishing the characters and less showing us how tough and cruel the training and the soldiers are.<br /><br />One thing it does remind us of, is that a lesser of two wrongs is still wrong.
Where do I start? The plot of the movie, which is about a love between two high school students during wartime, while one is a living weapon, and their struggle to maintain that love is a very good plot. It is based on a manga by Shin Takahashi which was also turned into an anime in 2002, both of which I have yet to read or see.<br /><br />This review is about this live action adaptation however. Sadly, this honest to goodness was a terrible movie. It isn't as if one could site certain aspects, and say, for instance, the budget is at fault, or the acting is to blame. It is, sadly, a series of underwhelming and ineffectual elements that bring this film down.<br /><br />The acting is poor. Not to say Aki Maeda and Shunsuke Kubozuka are bad actors, but they didn't have much to work with, and seemed miscast. Neither seemed to have the physical range to draw the viewer in the story as well as being too old for their parts to a distracting degree.<br /><br />The script was weak, the leads act unrealistically, and behave irrationally. The film also plays for the heartstrings, but ends up being predictable, all the while not being compelling, and under-developing the characters. There are also pacing issues.<br /><br />Visually, it is unremarkable. The film uses green screen heavily and unnecessarily in too many scenes. The other special effects also have a cheap look to them, especially where minimalistic practical special effects could have been used. There is also no visual flair, as if there were no cinematographer or art designer to make the scenes look consistent and stimulating.<br /><br />The music and sound effects were fine, but unremarkable.<br /><br />Overall, the movie isn't devoid of enjoyment, and fans of the series shouldn't be discouraged to see it at least once just for the sake of completion. People unfamiliar with Saikano, this probably isn't the place to jump in as it isn't a very good movie or melodrama. It isn't the movie or the cast and crews fault, it just isn't inspired, and that is what kills it.
My first impresson of the Saikano: Live Action movie trailer (viewable on YouTube), was "Wow, this could be perhaps one of the few better live-action anime adaptations."<br /><br />This time I was just wrong! Simply put, the live-action Saikano movie was a puzzle missing a number of pieces; put together just enough to get the vague image of it all.<br /><br />*STORY* <br /><br />The movies story vaguely follows the anime and manga, but the movies story is just the frame of a car, rather than a complete automobile. It seems that many parts of the story originally in the anime were left out, altered, or completely changed. In fact the ending is completely different from the manga or anime endings. <br /><br />Characters especially; many left out or had a different feel. The connection between Fuyumi and Shuji is reduced to that of Shuji knowing her because she's the video store lady. Chise's character felt too strong already and only uttered the infamous I'm sorry a few times in the movie. Same can be said with Shuji. We lost the shy uptight yet tall male lead, the song he hums, and his frequent action of calling Chise silly. Other characters like Tetsu and Akemi had a different, toned down feel to them. Perhaps the dropping and toning down of other characters was to focus a lot more on Chise and Shuji, which it did. Way too much. Expecting a lot of sweet action scenes like those in the trailer? Well don't! Those in the trailer plus a few minutes, is the only amount of action you will get. So much of the movie is talking that while I was browsing thru the movie before watching it all, I thought I had gotten a regular Asian romance drama. <br /><br />Pacing was way too fast. In the film, we see the famous scene of Chise armed with small wings and a chain gun arm, in just a little less than nine minutes of beginning it. There is very little time to get to know the characters and connect with them. What they should have done was split it into two movies, or even a trilogy. If it had been not as many things would have to be changed or dropped.<br /><br />But again the movie behaves like a frame. The anime was more of a complete automobile because even if all those little details and such are minor they can really add up.<br /><br />*PRODUCTION*<br /><br />-Visuals- Visuals were disappointing. So much of the special effects turned out looking quite cheesy especially the CGI. Sadly, they were like those found on Sci-Fi channel movies. They are bearable and this movie isn't for the effects.<br /><br />-Music- Music was average. Much of it was orchestral background music except there were really no themes. The film has dropped the addicting song that Shuji in the anime was always humming. A noticeable piece of music though is the ending song, heard in the trailer. Not a bad and somewhat beautiful song. Its a shame that it was not integrated into the movie as itself or an orchestrated version of the song.<br /><br />-Casting- Saikano's casting was also so-so. The main star was Chises actor Aki Maeda, who is most famous for her role in the Battle Royale films. The actor that played Shuji was pretty good but they took away the glasses from the original character. Oh yeah and Tetsuo looks like Lupin the 3rd.<br /><br />Unlike what I've heard from a few others, the acting in the live-action Saikano was not that bad. I rather feel at fault is the way the story was laid out and cramming the series into just a two-hour film.<br /><br />*What can be learned from the live action Saikano:*<br /><br />-CGI- I really wish the CGI in Saikano hadn't been that bad. But even with just that, we could have gotten a few more fight scenes! Probably the most anticipated live-action anime adaptation Neon Genesis Evangelion most likely wont suffer since they currently have WETA Studios assigned to do the effects.<br /><br />-Modernism- Fuyumi owned a video shop. Chise used a audio cassette player to listen to music and gave Shuji a mix tape for his birthday. Why? This movie is made in 2006! Not only that in the movies reality they can create such a thing as Chise so it cannot take place in the 90s! The future is an age of CDs, DVDs, and MP3 players. Hopefully in Evangelion, Shinji will have a Sony Walkman MP3 player. NOT one that plays cassette tapes.<br /><br />-Story & Pacing- As mentioned earlier, the Saikano movie moved too fast and forced the story to drop out many details. It was a smart move upon ADV Films and whoever else, to make Evangelion into a solid trilogy thus allowing more time to retell the story as true to the original as possible.<br /><br />-Characters- Leave most of the character designs alone and let those classic quotes be said! What if the live action Evangelion didn't have Asuka's "What are you, stupid?!" or Shinji's "I mustn't run away!" Sometimes as small as they seem, those frequent quotes add and are who the characters are.<br /><br />*CONCLUSION:*<br /><br />All in all, the live action Saikano movie had potential. It really did. Those you who aren't fans and see this movie: you will be reluctant to start the anime or manga (so don't watch the movie first!) People who saw and liked the anime/manga, don't get your hopes up on this one. Studies show you most likely will be disappointed. It was still fun to see the anime come to life in the live action adaptation but it could have been so much more.<br /><br />Reluctantly, I give the live-action Saishu Heiki Kanojo (Saikano) a 2 out of 5. <br /><br />As Chise says, "I'm sorry" <br /><br />~NekoTakuto
This movie is so stupid that I want my $2.99 back that I paid for!! First this movie starts off with a bunch of wooden actor geeks with fill in talent like they got picked off the street somewhere because the "real" actors either did not show up because of the laughable script or they just couldn't get anybody desperate enough to do this movie! The music in this movie is enough to put you to sleep, flute music made for faerie's dancing in the wilderness wouldn't even be good enough for this movie! And the guy dressed up as Satan looks like he's all dressed up in a K-Mart Halloween special costume! There are no dead scenes except a few lame scenes. When I saw what the terrible killers looked like in those bath robes with Nosferatu faces I just laughed! This is what the whole town is supposed to be running away from once a year! This movie is one of the worst demonic movies I have ever seen. Avoid this one!
This movie is... horrible and wonderful at the same time. I first saw it when I was about 13 or 14 years old, so it has a great deal of nostalgic value for me. In this movie, Cesar Romero actually plays the character of Octavio, the man who "discovered" Santana. There are also two other actors, Monte Markham (plays Sam, who is trying to save his daughter) and Peter Mark Richman (plays the priest), who have large filmographies, and these are the only performances that are okay. The rest of the acting and the movie itself have all of the B-film qualities that some of us cherish.<br /><br />I recently spent 2 years trying to acquire a copy of this movie, and it is almost nonexistent. I am assuming that it was discontinued very shortly after its release. But I did eventually find a copy and paid a pretty penny to acquire it. If you happen to come upon Judgement Day in a video store (unmistakeable with a cheesy green "satan" on the cover), count yourself among the blessed who live near one of the few video stores that still has a working copy. A must see for those of you who like to laugh at cheesy attempts at a scary movie.
Movies like these do not need sequels. Part of the advantage of Don Bluth moving away from Disney is that he didn't need to suffer their endless tirade of straight-to-video, poorly animated cash-in sequels. But apparently it was someone's brilliant idea to make a sequel to "All Dogs Go to Heaven," so we get this.<br /><br />Charlie Sheen replaces Burt and he's not really as good. Most of the film is just a poor excuse for a sequel and it isn't nearly as dark, different or entertaining as the original.<br /><br />I feel sorry for future generations who are going to have to suffer endless sequels like this without ever knowing what it was like to have a time when Hollywood didn't totally rely on successful films as a crutch to release banal crap.<br /><br />Please, no more sequels to kids films that don't need 'em.
How could they take such a beautifully animated gem like Don Bluth's All Dogs go to Heaven and bastardize it with a charmless, cheesy, uninspired sequel. The haunting music and delightful characters are gone, now replaced with tacky animation and an unimaginative plot.<br /><br />The Pros: Charlie Sheen is sometimes fun as Charlie, but he lacks the charming tough guy attitude that brought him to life by Burt Reynolds. I did particularly enjoy the songs "I will always be with you" and "It's too Heavenly here".<br /><br />The Cons: There seems to be no connection between this and the original. In the beginning Charlie is chums with Carface, but wait a minute. Isn't this the same character who was responsible for Charlie's murder and kidnapped the sweet little orphan he loved? I guess that all changes in Heaven but why isn't Anne-Marie even mentioned? If Itchy makes it to Heaven, wouldn't Flo and Killer make it too? What is with Annabelle the whippet's voice? In the original it sounded feminine and charming and in the sequel it sounds like a whiny, bitchy, parrot. The new characters aren't all that great (except Sasha). And the animation is better compared to a generic Saturday morning cartoon. The constant cartoony "humor" is flat and unfunny and the "heart" just doesn't work when compare to the original, which had such a moving unsubtle touch that makes me cry every time.<br /><br />All Dogs go to Heaven is one of my all-time favorite films. How Don Bluth allowed this sequel to be made is beyond me.<br /><br />BOTTOM LINE: Not all sequels go to Heaven.
All Dogs go to Heaven was a quirky, funny movie; With good name talent who's voices lended an adult familiarity to a cartoon basicly for kids. It was just interesting enough to be likeable by adults aside from something good for the kids to watch.<br /><br />Unfortunately ADGTH2 is a valueless sequel trying to make a bit of cash rideing on the coattails of the first. Charlie Sheen is a passable replacement for Burt Reynolds in this second movie and Sheena Easton's voice in a few of the movies lovely but forgettable songs makes her a worthwhile pick as a co-star for this. Add Dom DeLuise from the first movie and you'd think this would be a decent mix to make this sequel at least relatively decent compared to the first one.<br /><br />Unfortunately even with the addition of other good voice actors such as Bebe Neuwirth in the horrible role of Anabelle, this movie cannot be saved from the atrocious production values and animation skills (or lack thereof) present all over this movie. Horrible editing, syncronization of the voices, and flat out spaces where characters mouths should be moving to dialouge but are not combine to make this movie look like a college interns animation project instead of the decent sequel it could have been.<br /><br />All in all i'd say unless you were a very big fan of the first movie i'd give this a very large PASS.
First, they ruin it with the uniquely bad animation quality, then, they get voices that sound nothing like the original. They make sooo many movie mistakes. When Sasha is singing in Count Me Out, the drummer disappears and then reappears, Itchy's shirt keeps changing color, his hat keeps changing position, one of the bridge is white, everyone in the background appears fat, halos keep changing colors and appearing and disappearing. Even heaven appears different. I don't give a damn if this is a low budget film, they shouldn't cut corners on animation. They completely ruined the first ADGTH. The only good thing about this movie was the soundtrack.
I think that this is a disappointing sequel. I miss a lot of the old characters (King Gator, Anne Marie, etc.), and I don't like it due to the fact that not even half of the original voices are back to do the characters. A lot of personality was lost in Charlie, and the villain Red is not even half as bad as Carface was in the first one. If you're a big ADGTH fan like I am, it's worth seeing just to see how the story is continued, but don't count on it being 5 stars in your book.
If you just watched All Dogs Go To Heaven, and learn that there's a sequel, don't watch it. It's horrible. It's absolutely awful. They rush the characters to develop. Sasha, for example, begins singing about how you can count her out for love. And at the end, this seems more like a dramatic romance flick than a comedy-adventure film. They rip Charlie out of his character and replace him with a gushy, soft, but still rebellious version of himself.<br /><br />The humor behind Carface's character is just completely lost. He's a totally different dog. He doesn't have a cool voice anymore, he isn't that villain you love to hate anymore, he's just a wimp voiced by none other than Mermaid Man from Spongebob. Speaking of voice actors..<br /><br />Charlie has a completely different voice. And while it isn't horrible, I don't like it. It's terrible in comparison to the excellent job that Burt Reynolds did for the character in the first film. Dom DeLuise is wonderful as always, as Itchy. That character stays true, and that's why this film gets a 3/10. Purely because Dom DeLuise was still voicing Itchy.<br /><br />Oh, and my last complaint. I know Ann-Marie's movie was done and gone, she has parents now, etc, but did Charlie completely forget about her, or what? No mention at ALL of her in the second film. I mean, even a small mention from Itchy would have been acceptable. (ex. "Charlie, we have to get back. You can't take care of every kid that needs rescuing.) Or something of the sort. I mean, he died living with her, she deserves some kind of mention.<br /><br />Don't watch this if you're looking for a wonderful sequel.
I loved All Dogs go to Heaven so much that I went to see the sequel in the theater, and I can't remember being more disappointed by a movie. The story stank worse than an over-aged sack of manure. I mean, come on! How could Carface possibly imagine being able to get revenge on an animal so much bigger than him, no matter how angry he was. Plus depicting Satan as a CAT?!?! How cliché can you get? So much for the story. Is it any wonder that Don Bluth, Burt Reynolds, Melba Moore, and Vic Tayback wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole? The animation was absolutely wretched. The colors were all washed out, and I can't count how many times I was able to see through objects that were supposed to be solid. It had to be the worst animation I've ever seen! I usually like animated movies, but not this BOMB!
I'm glad that I did not expect too much when I saw this sequel to one of my favourite childhood films. The storyline was dull and unconvincing as were the characters, and I was disappointed that some of the characters in the original were not in this sequel. I also did not think that the characters themselves were similar from the previous film. Charlie had changed, and now, he has a girlfriend. The first film had some good music, but the music in this film was unmemorable. In short, this film just did not do it for me. And, looking at other user feedback, it looks like it didn't do it for a lot of you. It's not worth watching.
... because this is yet another dead one. Lifeless voice acting, second-rate animation, contrived and un-funny songs (although the bit sung by the Devil would have been worthy of Tim Curry), and a weaker plot than Land Before Time 99: Fossils On Parade.<br /><br />I have to admit, I haven't seen the first film. I'm not a big fan of movies involving Heaven or dogs, especially not in combination. Still, I hope to see the first one soon, as there HAD to be a reason someone would create such a God-awful sequel.<br /><br />If I didn't get this movie for free, I wouldn't have it at all. For a 'heaven' flick, the only good thing in this was the Devil. 2/10.
This movie is very scary with scenes where the Devil uses Gabriels horn to open Heaven and pull the good angel-dogs out and imprision them on Alkatraz. The devil sings and dances to a few songs about the joys of being bad, and at one point, eats a live rat.<br /><br />We got this movie free with a pizza. You get what you pay for.
This movie is very scary with scenes where the Devil uses Gabriels horn to open Heaven and pull the good angel-dogs out and imprision them on Alkatraz. The devil sings and dances to a few songs about the joys of being bad, and at one point, eats a live rat.<br /><br />We got this movie free with a pizza. You get what you pay for.
Having watched all of the Star Trek TV series episodes many times each since the 1960s, most being quite good to superb, and only very few being mediocre, my opinion is that this one is the worst of all.<br /><br />In fact, I think it's so poorly executed as to be an embarrassment to the series. It's not that the story is so bad, although it's not particularly outstanding in any way, but the acting is just abysmal on the part of the two lead characters, meaning those other than the regulars in this case. Barbara Anderson gives her weakest performance ever as the daughter of a mass killer, and who is on a mission of a sort. She practically calls in the role from a phone, and shows no real emotive abilities here. Although usually she's never used as more than a pretty face in most of her film/TV roles,usually small parts, she has done much better.<br /><br />Arnold Moss as her father gives new meaning to the term 'Ham' and is the only actor ever on a 1960s Star Trek episode that outdid William Shatner in this area, and actually makes Shatner look superb by comparison. And he gets to play a Shakespearian actor no less, which gives him more impetus to overact, and he does so.<br /><br />Other than these two leads being so weak, the story is such that anybody with any sense at all can tell who the killer is within the first 15 minutes. I say this because I told my brother the whole plot ending at the first commercial break when we were watching the original 1966 broadcast as pre-teens. His reply was, Yeah, you're right.<br /><br />Skip this one and watch the much superior Menagerie episodes which were originally televised right before.
Somebody decided to make a "black version" of Airplane.<br /><br />Somebody decided to make a really, really bad "black version" of Airplane.<br /><br />Somebody decided to make a really, really bad "black version" of Airplane that ran out of humor after the first twenty minutes.<br /><br />Somebody decided to make a really, really bad "black version" of Airplane that ran out of humor after the first twenty minutes and instead spent all of its time insulting the intelligence of the audience and the cast.<br /><br />This movie managed to violate the laws of physics by sucking and blowing at the same time. If nothing else, it deserves to be remembered for that accomplishment.<br /><br />It's not a black thing, it's not a white thing, it's just a bad thing. A really, really bad thing. Picking it apart point-by-point would be a waste of time. The best thing that can be said about the movie is that there was a purple airplane in it. Do yourself a favor... go buy a picture of a purple airplane, and you will have gotten the best of what this movie had to offer.<br /><br />This one definitely goes under the category of "What the !^@@&*! were they thinking????"
After a humiliating experience on an airplane, Nashawn Wade (Kevin Hart) sues the airline and uses the money he wins to start up his own full-service airline. What makes his different is that it has sexy stewardesses, an on board dance club and no less than Captain Snoop Dogg in the cockpit.<br /><br />Soul Plane is a very racist comedy except it is only occasionally funny. Soul Plane has been described as an "urban" version of Airplane. The problem is that Soul Plane doesn't even come close to achieving the laughs of Airplane. The jokes in Soul Pane are too offensive and they are mostly unoriginal. I would be lying if I said I didn't laugh since there were some funny moments. However, I was expecting more and I left the theater disappointed.<br /><br />I would compare Soul Plane to Airplane 2. The latter was just a rehash of the first film while the former is just a rehash of outdated, crude jokes. There is really no creativity behind the movie and there are only a few fun spots. However, I don't think Soul Plane is "bottom 100" bad. Right now, the movie is ranked at number 82 and that's a little harsh. I'm not saying this is a good movie but it isn't a terrible on either. The running time is only 86 minutes long so it isn't too much of a pain to watch. For stupid comedies, you can do a lot worse.<br /><br />No one in the cast is very good but they all seem to be having fun and this helps. Kevin Hart was very annoying as Nashawn. He had a few funny lines but he is a very poor leading man. Snoop Dogg, who was mildly funny in Starsky and Hutch, completely flunks here. Tom Arnold was actually tolerable and that was the film's biggest surprise. The most annoying person in the movie was Ryan Pinkston. He was not funny at all and he will never be funny. The funniest cast members were Missi Pyle and Mo'Nique. They gave the best lines and they made me laugh the most. In the end, Soul Plane may fit the bill if you're looking for a stupid comedy but it would probably be better if you just skip the film. Rating 4/10
I wholeheartedly agree with Greg in Ontario. I saw this movie today with a friend who actually went to the theatre manager afterwards and told him "That was possibly the worst movie I have ever seen." I have seen a LOT of movies with this person, and he's pretty forgiving, so I was actually shocked. (The manager gave him a free pass!)<br /><br />I was offended by much of the humor in the film (yes, the baked potato scene was on the top of the list!). My friend and I are white and saw the film with a primarily black audience. For awhile I thought, maybe I just don't get this movie because I'm white. Then I realized NO ONE was laughing. The writing was bad; the direction was bad; the timing was almost non-existent.<br /><br />There were a few funny moments, there was just WAY too much time between them. Even Airplane Two was funnier than this, and that's saying a lot.<br /><br />I was so dazzled by Snoop Dogg in Starsky and Hutch (as Huggy Bear) that I felt I was sure to enjoy this movie. Nope.<br /><br />DL Hughley was funny, as usual, but his role was rather small. Tom Arnold had a few funny moments as "the white guy", but most other attempts at humor fell far short of the mark.<br /><br />Sadly, I was not able to award this film a rating with negative stars.
I hate to comment on something I didn't finish, but if I spare one person what I sat through for almost an hour before turning it off in disgust, it will be worth it. <br /><br />I decided to watch this with an open mind, knowing it was on the bottom 100.<br /><br />Bad idea. I usually love crude humor, or can at least tolerate it. I love so-called "black" comedies. I'm not easily offended, either. <br /><br />It started off okay and quickly went downhill. I laughed a few times (for example, when the main character got stuck in the airplane toilet), but that was it and didn't compensate for the strong disgust I felt.<br /><br />I didn't laugh when the dog got sucked into a jet engine. I usually can't see the humor in animals dying (except in Animal House). I didn't laugh at much else of the nastiness, either. I turned it off after an incident involving a blind man and a baked potato that I don't care to repeat the details of, only that the wave of nausea still hasn't passed over me. <br /><br />Simply put, it was smut-filled and simply not funny with barely any plot. This is one of the times when if you don't have something nice to say, you should get the word out.<br /><br />Don't say I didn't warn you.
Frankly I did not think there was anything humorous about this movie. It was really lame and poorly done with no plot whatsoever. Surprisingly it got some chuckles from me at the beginning with the Malcolm X terminal and that was about it. Seriously Soul Plane made even the worst movies such as Gigli look like a Emmy winner. This movie is really not worth seeing unless of course you were blind like Johnny Witherspoon who played the blind man in the movie (another sad character). I cringed at majority of the stereotypic jokes and ruining Tom Arnold and D.L Hughley by casting them in this movie. This movie could be summarized in just one sentence. Nashawn wins $100,000,000 and creates his own airline, sex, drugs, homosexuality, more sex, drugs, did i mention sex? If I could I would rate this movie in the negative integers, however, the beginning was amusing which brings this movie to a 1/10. Doing the "t bag" pfft!
"Soul Plane" is a horrible attempt at comedy that only should appeal people with thick skulls, bloodshot eyes and furry pawns. <br /><br />The plot is not only incoherent but also non-existent, acting is mostly sub sub-par with a gang of highly moronic and dreadful characters thrown in for bad measure, jokes are often spotted miles ahead and almost never even a bit amusing. This movie lacks any structure and is full of racial stereotypes that must have seemed old even in the fifties, the only thing it really has going for it is some pretty ladies, but really, if you want that you can rent something from the "Adult" section. OK?<br /><br />I can hardly see anything here to recommend since you'll probably have a lot a better and productive time chasing rats with a sledgehammer or inventing waterproof teabags or whatever.<br /><br />2/10
This movie wasn't too funny. It wasn't too horrible either. Just a fun ride aboard the Soul Plane. It's a black-owned flight service with a kick-ass disco, beautiful bar, and pumping stewards. The plot takes you through the whole idea of a black (not race or color, but 'style') -owned plane with the same style of black humor. At times, there are some great rare scenes like when the main character uses the 'normal' lavatory in the 'normal' plane. Check that out. There are lulls, however, and I find it most in the character who played the Soul Pilot. Watch to find out who it is. All in all, it's a fun movie. Tom Arnold adds to the fun with his 'cracker' attitude. This is one movie to watch when playing poker, when you're drunk, or just vegging.
This "movie" and I say this lightly, is nothing but pure trash. I feel sorry for those people that actually wasted their money to go see this in theaters..I saw a screener of the movie from a friend and I've regretted it ever since. <br /><br />As a black woman, I am EXTREMELY embarrassed to have seen this. More so, I am extremely horrified that people of other races may have seen this as well and might believe it to be behavior of black people in general. It's full of stereotypes against all nationalities and genders, horribly vulgar coarse jokes and lame one-liners bleated out by somewhat well known African American comedians who should have known better after reading this script! I must also mention the numerous rap and hip hop singers/rappers that populate the movie like it was an overlong music video---they had absolutely no place in the movie. I guess they were the "Jiving & Singing Minstrels?" HORRIBLE. <br /><br />The "writers," producers and whoever had the stupidity to fund this "movie" should all be shot or locked in a room and forced to look at this crap nonstop for the rest of their lives. DO-NOT-WATCH-THIS- MOVIE!!! It's time wasted out of your life that you can never get back.
Well to start with I'm straight up as black as black gets, and I can tell you it's very sad when black people think a "black movie" sucks. I can't say i've ever seen a movie this badly directed or a worse story line.<br /><br />Snoop is my dawg and all but he wasn't feeling this movie at all, I don't know how much they paid him to be in this bucket of crap called a movie, but i hope it's enough to wash the smell out.<br /><br />I'm all about supporting a bothers movie, but this one was bad, really really bad. It blew chucks in every aspect, no real plot, story sucked, cast couldn't act and the best one there was the white guy!<br /><br />I almost demanded a refund on my way out the door of the theatre, half the crowd up and left before it was over, I'm still wishing I had too. Save yourself some pain and go see something else, anything else...
Wow this really is stereotypical, terrible trash. i feel sorry for anyone who may have wasted their money to see this.<br /><br />i am pretty sure i did not laugh once during this whole movie, i just cannot believe they would make such a terrible movie.<br /><br />i will now be more wary when i watch late night movies.<br /><br />this is most definitely the worst movie i have ever seen in my life. i am not saying it is the worst movie in existence (though it could be), but i don't think i have seen anything so stupid and unfunny it my life. it makes the Scary Movie series look intelligent.<br /><br />1/10 i'd give it a 0 if they would let me
I gave Soul Plane the benefit of the doubt and thought there would actually be something of comedic value in it. Im not black, but that does not mean I cant appreciate black comedy. I know that because I happen to enjoy watching the Wayans Bros, Good Times and other series. <br /><br />I've seen crap movies and Im not easily repulsed. As for Soul Plane, I didn't even bother finishing it. Don't know if they managed to land the plane and I couldn't care less. It would be unfair to say I didn't find some parts funny as I did laugh, but I also laugh at Youtube videos of skateboarders falling on their nuts so that doesn't say much. The men in the movie were like a bunch of howling horny hyenas in mating season looking to "get some" whenever and where ever possible. And we wonder why all those stereotypes don't seem to disappear. To summarize: Soul Plane makes the Harold and Kumar series look like The Godfather.
This movie was just horrendous. How could anybody like this movie, and for the ones who liked it because of the jokes, they should really take a long hard look in the mirror and ask themselves if stereotypes are not bad. Ignoring the face of the racial stereotypes, this was just awful. It never had its moments, if it paid homage to 1980's, "Airplane!", it needs to pay some more. Awful acting, terrible script writing, even for a movie with Mo'Nique or Tom Arnold. This movie was bad from the beginning, but people might have seen the whole thing, by the thought that the plane would crash. One of the worse movies ever, stay away.
my friend made me watch this awful film.. ugh.. it was so stupid... <br /><br />its about some black guy who gets a plane company and turns it into a stupid pimp thing<br /><br />with snoop dog acting as pilot for god knows why.. this movie is trashing white people and having many racist stereotypical events making fun of <br /><br />Asains white people and trying to make the movie seem like all black people are cool pimps and all white people a losers... and black people get all the girls blah blah blah and so forth..<br /><br />i despise my friend for making me watch this movie.. i kept saying "GOD TURN IT OFF!!" and he's like "NO I BET SOMETHING FUNNY IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN" we did end up finally turning it off half way through.. thank god...<br /><br />i recommend this movie to people with very very poor taste in humor..
Hmph. Soul Plane supposed to be a "black comedy" spoof of a much well known movie, Airplane. This movie, is black comedy done at it's worst. Stereotypes can be funny, and a lot of times they are. But in this picture, it's disgusting. Okay, you have clubs, sex, drugs, everything crude that people associate with "urban" culture today.<br /><br />Tom Arnold's appearance in this movie, is this movie's saving grace if it ever had any. DL Hughley should have never accepted the script. Kevin Hart makes a poor leading figure here... his appearance in this movie will probably grow annoying to many. Method Man and Snoop's appearance were by far, their worst.<br /><br />I am just happy that I didn't pay to see this movie...
This could quite possibly be the worst movie ever made, up there in a league with movies like "Howard the Duck," "Plan 9 From Outer Space," and "Ishtar." I don't understand why I decided to see this movie, as it was a waste of my life. I also do not understand why one would like this movie, regardless of their sense of humor. The acting is among the worst I've ever seen, as is the writing. The characters are all stupid, and there is not one funny scene in the entire movie. Tom Arnold is quite possibly the worst actor ever-- this movie proves it. There is nothing worthy about this movie. Don't rent it, don't watch it, don't even say that it looks interesting. It's bad enough I saw it.
The movie starts off relatively well and seems to be getting somewhere when an African American passenger sues an airline for negligence. There is one scene in which his pet dog gets sucked into the engine and thats really a sad thing. But the way it is portrayed makes it difficult for one to figure out if that was an attempt at crude humor or really a tragedy to reflect on the extent of negligence? After this point, they clearly ran out of ideas. If you stuck around long enough, you will soon be treated with one of the worst movies ever made. It is basically a highly racist sequence of smoking dope, toilet humor, styling of each and every segment of the aircraft to reflect African American pop culture and pretty much nothing else. You'd think that the only 3 white passengers onboard would lead to some hilarious consequences but nothing of the same happens. They were basically just added to show how badly they could initially be treated and later be accepted into the hood if they behaved. Avoid.
I watched this movie with my boyfriend, an avid hip-hop fan and he was really really looking forward to catch the "soul" vibe the movie claimed to have. Boy, we were dead wrong. When I finished watching the movie I felt two things: remorse and relief. Remorse because I regretted wasting my time to watch this awful piece of dung, and relief because I watched it free on cable.<br /><br />This movie really really gives a bad name to black people, by putting so much awful stereotypes that I believe all smart black people everywhere has been trying to spell off. I'm Asian, and I feel very very sorry and sick for those who made this movie. What more to say? Bad writing, even worse acting, and horrible storyline.<br /><br />Even if you're bored to death and has no other choice, don't watch this movie. Seriously. The movie really has nothing to offer, except if you want to see things like minor illegal drinking, animal slain, women degradation, and overall: A REALLY REALLY BAD-OBNOXIOUS-SICKENING-AWFUL MOVIE. Yuck.
With awful movies like this one being even considered let alone being made, it's very easy to see why Hollywood is in such serious trouble with bad plots and worse remakes all the time.<br /><br />I guess the viewer is supposed to be laughing their rear ends off over the 'black' in-jokes, the 'pimped up' look and the 'Bling'. It's so incredible 'over the top' and so bad that is even past the 'So bad it's funny again' mark and have plummeted right into 'totally embarrassing for anyone involved'.<br /><br />I'm very, very sorry for every single minute I wasted on this one. I want my time back !<br /><br />Save yourself the agony, do NOT watch this. The only reason for me to give even 1 point in the rating is that 0 wasn't an option.
I'll be honest-- the pimped out purple plane with Snoop Dogg at the helm is an amusing visual gag. It would have been a decent concept for a 30 second commercial, or maybe a 3 minute music video. But the producers have committed the age-old concept comedy sin of stretching 30 seconds of material into an hour and a half of film, and the results are predictably lame. The remainder of the 89 minutes are filled with the typical gamut of racist and sexist humor and fart jokes, offensive and-- worst of all-- painfully unfunny. The threadbare plot screams under the weight of its contrivances. Best to be avoided unless you are drunk or stoned.
Alright lets break it down. Why is this one of the worst films ever? Because there are so many answers to that question I'm having a headache. Come on...Cracker World? Mr. Honkee? The part with the Arab guy? its just awful, i didn't really care about the whole white racism crap, but when they did that thing with the Arab guy, i wanted to get the names of all the writers. Its really not worth watching 3 seconds of this movie. It isn't even funny-bad which was my first interpretation. I hope the person who directed this movie doesn't commit suicide, but it seems likely, i don't see any other options.Don't EVER watch this movie, if you watch it, u cant say u died with no regrets.
This is a movie about a black man buying a airline company and turning the company into a African-centric over the top airliner. They even portray the owner as not only being in control of the airline, but also controlling part of the air terminal at the airport. One day this guy wins $100 million dollars a the next time you see him, he is walking all over the airport acting like the owner of the airport. Everyone calls this movie a parody, but nothing about this movie shouts parody! This movie is a flop and will forever be in the $4.95 bin at Wal-Mart.<br /><br />I can't even come to terms to why MGM would waste 16 million dollars on this movie. This movie doesn't even warrant straight-to-video status. The writers (one black and one white) should be blackballed from Hollywood forever. Not only do they over-stereotype blacks, they portray them as ignorant human beings. I would be ashamed of going to a movie that constantly humiliates me. Don't waste your time at the video store, wal-mart, pay-per-view, or on a Sunday afternoon when the movie is shown on TBS.
The Emperor's (Richard Haydn) dog is betrothed to Johanna's (Joan Fontaine) dog. However, when Virgil (Bing Crosby) arrives in town to sell a gramaphone record player to the Emperor, his dog is attacked by Johanna's dog. After a revenge attack where Virgil is banished from town, a psychoanalyst insists that Johanna's dog must confront Virgil's dog so that she can overcome her doggy fears. This is arranged and the dogs fall in love. So do Virgil and Johanna. The rest of the film passes by with romance and at the end, Johanna's dog gives birth. But who is the father.......? <br /><br />The dog story is the very weak vehicle that is used to try and create a story between humans. Its a terrible storyline. There are 3 main musical pieces all of which are rubbish - bad songs and dreadful choreography. Its just an extremely boring film - Bing has too many words in each sentence and delivers them in an almost shouty, irritating manner. Its not funny............ EVER..........but its meant to be. Bing and Joan have done much better than this.
Intended as light entertainment, this film is indeed successful as such during its first half, but then succumbs to a rapidly foundering script that drops it down. Harry (Judd Nelson), a "reformed" burglar, and Daphne (Gina Gershon), an aspiring actress, are employed as live window mannequins at a department store where one evening they are late in leaving and are locked within, whereupon they witness, from their less than protective glass observation point, an apparent homicide occurring on the street. The ostensible murderer, Miles Raymond (Nick Mancuso), a local sculptor, returns the following day to observe the mannequins since he realizes that they are the only possible witnesses to the prior night's violent event and, when one of the posing pair "flinches", the fun begins. Daphne and Harry report their observations at a local police station, but when the detective taking a crime report remembers Harry's criminal background, he becomes cynical. There are a great many ways in which a film can become hackneyed, and this one manages to utilize most of them, including an obligatory slow motion bedroom scene of passion. A low budget affair shot in Vancouver, even police procedural aspects are displayed by rote. The always capable Gershon tries to make something of her role, but Mancuso is incredibly histrionic, bizarrely so, as he attacks his lines with an obvious loose rein. Although the film sags into nonsense, cinematographer Glen MacPherson prefers to not follow suit, as he sets up with camera and lighting some splendidly realised compositions that a viewer may focus upon while ignoring plot holes and witless dialogue. A well-crafted score, appropriately based upon the action, is contributed by Hal Beckett. The mentioned dialogue is initially somewhat fresh and delivered well in a bantering manner by Nelson and Gershon, but in a subsequent context of flawed continuity and logic, predictability takes over. The direction reflects a lack of original ideas or point of view, and post-production flaws set the work back farther than should be expected for a basic thriller.
Leon Errol handles his double role of Uncle Matt Lindsay and Lord Basil Epping superbly, but I have trouble liking the "Mexican Spitfire" Series because they all are contrived to produce mistaken identities, and these are telegraphed way in advance. Errol is funny as the stuffy Lord Epping, but I would have preferred a lot more wit and much less repetition. <br /><br />
SAIMIN <br /><br />(USA: The Hypnotist /UK: Hypnosis) <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.85:1<br /><br />Sound format: Dolby Stereo SR<br /><br />Following a series of bizarre and apparently unrelated 'suicides', an experienced Tokyo detective (Ken Utsui) enlists the help of a young psychoanalyst (Goro Inagaki) who believes the victims were acting on a post-hypnotic suggestion. But their subsequent investigations reveal an even darker force at work, linked to a young girl (Miho Kanno) whose life has been blighted by sadistic abuse...<br /><br />Based on a novel by Keisuke Matsuoka, this densely-plotted mystery takes inspiration from a variety of sources (Italian gialli, traditional Japanese ghost stories, etc.), though some of the images in the climactic showdown reveal a more immediate influence: The recent commercial success of Hideo Nakata's RING (1998). For all its ambition, however, SAIMIN is a routine potboiler which stumbles badly after a powerhouse opening (the 'suicides' are particularly impressive, despite some feeble CGI effects), though director Masayuki Ochiai - who co-wrote the script with Yasushi Fukuda - rallies proceedings for an extended finale in which the narrative's startling secrets are finally revealed. Ochiai is best known for his film adaptation of novel-turned-video-game PARASITE EVE (1997) - which also starred leading man Inagaki (a member of Japanese pop group SMAP) - and while SAIMIN echoes that movie's strong visual sense, it falls short as drama, and most of the characters are mere ciphers, undermining the storyline's emotional pay-off. Which is a shame, because the final half hour is galvanized by a series of dynamic set-pieces - most notably, a concert hall sequence in which Dvorak's 'New World' symphony is transformed into an instrument of murder! - and Ochiai is well-served by an excellent production team. However, those lured by the promise of gory carnage may be disappointed - the film is long on atmospherics and short on splatter.<br /><br />Performances are varied, due to the script's limitations, but Kanno (TOMIE) is outstanding as a young woman suffering from multiple personality disorder - which, the subtitles on the print under review assures us, isn't recognized as a viable medical condition in Japan! - who falls prey to a sleazy TV hypnotist (Takeshi Masu), a prime suspect in the murders. Inagaki is bland in a one-dimensional role, and he's constantly upstaged by Utsui, a veteran performer whose career stretches back to the "Sûpâ Jaiantsu" series of the 1950's.<br /><br />(Japanese dialogue)
I first saw a poster advertising this film on a street in Helsinki, Finland in June of 2000. What caught my attention was the proud proclamation advising all readers that the movie, although itself French, had been "Banned in France". Upon returning home to New York, I discovered that one of the "Art House" movie theaters in the City was screening the film, and so (with my Finnish fiancee) decided to see what all the fuss was about. Boy, did we ever.<br /><br />From the comments read here, and the reviews I knew the movie was violent and sexually explicit. Not necessarily offended by either of these two conditions, I went with an open mind to see what had perturbed the sensibilities of our Gallic cousins. Presumably, as anyone who is reading this will know, the story involves two women who embark on a crime and murder spree in France (the movie has English subtitles). The resemblance to "Thelma and Louise" however, ends with that; the sex is unusually graphic (and in copious supply) as is the violence (a lot of stomping to death, and a lot of blood and other organic matter splattering after bullet impact).<br /><br />On an intellectual level, one could make the case that the film's very essence is the relationship of sex and violence (as manifested by the only sex these women know: one is a small-time prostitute, and the other has earned money from time to time by performing in pornographic films. When they, during their descent into crime and murder, have the upper hand over their sexual situations, they react only with the same violence and brutality that they themselves know and understand. It is important to note, however, that the victims of their rampage are not only creepy men interested in creepy sex, (of which there are several)but innocent passersby, a woman at an ATM, for example, as well.<br /><br />I myself do not really understand why the repeated "porn-movie" shots were all that necessary, (except to depict the physical contact as cruel, unpassionate and debased) and the unrelenting gore did get rather tedious after the first few violent spasms.<br /><br />It is a coarse and crude movie, but in fairness, it is dealing with coarse and crude people and equally unpleasant circumstances. From one point of view, the lives of the French underclasses is explored, and it's pretty grim; a travelogue for France it definitely is not- perhaps that's why the French banned it.<br /><br />
This is one of the rare movies that I did not immediately discuss with my friends after watching it. This wasn't because it had particularly entranced or impressed me. The contrary, it had given me nothing at all.<br /><br />Why? Because somehow, everything was so much overdone that I couldn't take this film seriously anymore. There was so much sex and violence that I got the strong impression that the film was trying very, very hard to be offensive, as if it was aiming at superlatives in ugliness, rather than in telling a convincing tale about two women caught in a spiral of crime.<br /><br />Baise-moi had been described as "Thelma & Louise with actual sex" to me. Well, it is true that the main idea is similar. There are two women traveling through the country because they've committed crimes and know that their lives are finished now, that the police are going to catch them, and they decide that now that everything's over anyway, there is no way to hold back.<br /><br />Baise-moi had been described as a feminist film where women, who had suffered from male dominance in the past, exact revenge upon the men that they encounter.<br /><br />This is something that I had never interpreted into this film, simply because none of these women had ever been innocent, and because they do not just kill irresponsible, violent men, but also men that they seduce themselves, men that show the sense of wanting to do protected sex. And they kill women. No, they are in no way better than the characters that they encounter and murder in hideous, brutal ways.<br /><br />How easily the "heroines" decide to murder, and how much pleasure they take in it, made it absolutely impossible for me to relate to them in any way, or even take them seriously. It was just all too much. Too much sex, too much violence. I got the feeling that sex and violence were only there in order to create a superlative in ugliness, rather than in conveying a story, or making a point.<br /><br />Baise-moi left me with no impression, hadn't set me thinking, because it was so far removed from any real world. So constructed, unrealistic and over the top.<br /><br />There was nothing that I could do with this film, there was simply nothing about it to think about, other than "Why did they make this terrible film?" Had the intense unpleasantness going on in this film, served a purpose, I'd easily accepted it. But since I found nothing, since the film's story appeared to be not more than an excuse to squeeze as much and as ugly sex as possible into one film... I filed it away under "unnecessary torture", decided to never ever, EVER, watch this film again, and I now consider this to be the worst film I've ever seen. <br /><br />Worst, not just because it really isn't my cup of tea to watch people get raped, rape, have sex in other forms and kill one another... but because whatever it was that the makers wanted to tell the world with their film... if they wanted to say anything at all... it just didn't work. And there's nothing else that could save this film, because it's also filmed in such an ugly style.
A movie about a French girl who gets raped by street hoodlums. The rape scene itself is shot in all it's gory detail with all the male and female organs and their interactions clearly visible to the camera. In a fit of rage, the victim grabs her friend's (or was it brother ?) gun, shoots him and runs off with the weapon. She meets this prostitute who has just seen her pimp shot down, they team up, and make off towards Paris. A series of crazy, meaningless and wild killings follow, the girls seem to enjoy every murder more than the one before. One poor guy gets shot in the ****hole. There are good doses of sex thrown in between the numerous killings.<br /><br />The movie is not the most violent I have seen, I would say Saving Private Ryan probably had more violence in it. If violence is what you are looking for, then there are lots of other movies out there. And if it's sex you are out for, then I would suggest one of those XXX ones.<br /><br />I went to see the movie because of all the hype the media was giving it. The movie itself is no big deal, just a lot of violence and sex shot with something like a hand-held camera. I was surprised this movie had a 15 year age limit in Sweden, if 15 year-olds can watch this movie, they should be able to watch XXX movies too.
This film is about two female killers going on a tour to kill random men they meet.<br /><br />Wow, "Baise-moi" just became the worst film of all time in my list. The plot is crazy, pointless and unnecessary. The whole film is full of violence and sex, and I am sure no sane parents would want to show this film to their children. I don't understand what people get out of by making this film, or watching this film. Maybe someone somewhere has their perverted desires fulfilled. There is simply no excuse or reasons for the existence of this perverted and depraved piece of work.<br /><br />The only consolation I offer myself is that I watched it on fast forward, so that I have not wasted as much time.
While it's true that the movie is somewhat interesting, the execution leaves a lot to be desired (much like Blood Orgy of the Leather Girls, I Spit on Your Grave, and Born in Flames, all superior). I don't think it's not porn, but porn is in the eye of the beholder: if it functions as porn for somebody, who am I to say that he/she is wrong? I was rather puzzled by the statement in Winkimation's generally thoughtful review ("Such a Shame") that "for once we actually see men's faces when they come." A few years ago I did occasional freelance reviews for an adult mag and I recall seeing plenty of men's faces when they came. I think this is probably more common when the film features on of the few male porn "stars" (and especially when that male is the director). Though I unsurprisingly can't refer to any specific titles, I know that there are some instances in Ron Jeremy's, uh, work. I also don't know that I'd agree that a man is necessarily showing vulnerability in his face when coming.
Well, how to make a movie as provocative as possible? This cartoonishly straight shocker tries by having two low-life Paris women (one prostitute, one recently raped ex-porn actress, no less) lash out and go on a national sex-and-killing spree- of men in particular. <br /><br />Very short running time gives you a hint of the experimental nature of this violently hardcore "Thelma & Louise"- but it's done completely without irony or contemplation for any possible feminist message... And since we don't get very close to the protagonists, the violence actually feels muted and numbing- and maybe that's a good thing. <br /><br />As a liberal advocate of freedom of expression, I always welcome when the "serious" movie industry dares to contain full-on sex scenes. But the question is: Does it work for the movie as a whole? Is it any good? Here, not very, although we're given a new meaning to the phrase "a shot in the ass"! <br /><br />3 out of 10 from Ozjeppe
I'm sick of the "open mind" argument. I'm generally quite open-minded, but this sort of line is basically made by people who enjoy things that should not be "enjoyed." You know what, there is a reason so many people are disgusted by this. And just because someone out there isn't doesn't make it less so. There is, after all, a reason for the existence of the feeling of disgust, and no amount of "open mind" or "pushing the envelope" should eliminate that feeling. Otherwise we're no better than senseless living things.<br /><br />Back to the film. Another argument is that this film puts women in the roles normally reserved for men, which may be why men don't like it. But just because it proves revolting for more men than would otherwise doesn't make it great. Maybe men shouldn't be turned on by what's dominating the movie industry, but is the answer for women to do the same? Maybe, if you don't like movies, TV, and entertainment having so much sexual objectification of women, so much violence, don't watch them.<br /><br />And if you're a director, don't make them.<br /><br />Otherwise, some day someone will ask for an open mind when what happened in this "movie" happen in real life.<br /><br />Heck, some people seem to like it so much.
Another French film with absurdity. Baise-Moi(F*ck Me) tells the story of two young women who come together to kill and f*ck. One of them is a porn star who escapes from her community after being raped and killing her boyfriend. Second one is a hooker who kills her flatmate and sees her boyfriend being shot dead. After those incidents they meet at a tube station(both misses the last train)then the whole thing starts. They find a bound and come very close. They abuse men sexually, take drugs, drive around the country and have lots of sex. Thats all about Baise-Moi really. We can see that they have no mercy for their victims. They even kill a woman for her money. Both actresses are real porn stars in France that affects the movie in two different ways. They look so comfortable in sex scenes, nonetheless, they can't make the whole film worth watching as ,to me, the film does not require no further ability of acting than that. It is a version of Thelma and Louise on a different level. I could recommend you loads of things to do instead of watching Baise-Moi. So, bother to watch if you wanna see a pointless, kinky film. * out of *****
I never really understood the controversy and hype this movie caused. Especially in French and the neighboring countries (in Belgium, where I am located, for example), "Baise-Moi" was announced as THE most shocking and THE most thought-provoking social drama you could ever experience. Yeah right! It might be a little shocking, maybe (how often do you see someone getting shot up the arse?), but the weak and pointless plot surely didn't cause me to think much. "Baise-Moi" is another one of those "blame everything that goes wrong on society"-films and they're generally not very convincing. About 99% of the people functions perfectly well in this society so why would you blame this exact same society for the vile and hopeless acts of two deranged nymph-girls? The two main characters and their miserable lives are introduced separately and in flashes. Nadine just killed her roommate; Manu shot her brother and the two meet in an abandoned train-station, late at night. They decide to travel around France together, leaving a trail of sex and blood behind wherever they made a stop. Although we're constantly exposed to pornography and violence, this film is very boring to sit through. Like the girls are indicating themselves all the time, the dialogues are lame and the people they run into (and kill…) are very uninteresting. If people want to make porno movies, that's fine by me, but please don't pretend that it's art-house film-making. If you leave out the swearing and the hip camera-work, all there is to see is (not so) arousing pornography. Cool soundtrack, though!
This isn't a good movie. Plain and simple. Take out the hardcore sex scenes and what you have is a mediocre plot, average acting (at best), plodding direction, and dull dialogue. Add in the grot and you've got mediocre plot, average acting, plodding direction, dull dialogue, with lashings of hardcore porn. Trouble is the porn's nothing special either. So it's not a good movie, and nor is it a good porno. It fails on both counts. They can say that women made this movie and they were intending to do this with it, and that with it, etc. But talk's cheap, the end result is what counts, and what we have here is a mediocre movie with some sex thrown in for shock value to try and con you into wasting your time watching it. One of those movies where you'd rather have the time you spent watching it back.
I had to watch this movie for professional reasons and can only say it's a complete waste of time. When running, Baldwin looks like an ape, Characters are dull, same story has been told 1000 times better in other movies. I think everything has been now said about this film, but IMDb requires me to write 10 lines. So:Boring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivial
I saw this at my local supermarket and I knew that Debra was in it so I decided to buy it (out of support for that sexy woman!) The plot and acting in this movie was terrible (with the exception of Debra Wilson; and I'm not just saying that because I love her, she seriously was the only actor or actress who had any emotion in their acting and voice!) What I didn't get at the beginning is why the wife didn't just get back in her car instead of running at random like that. It was so stupid. And it's LA (NOBODY saw her being abducted on a public, residential street--NOBODY...yeah, that's realistic!) Also in the park, when Charlie stole the woman's cell phone (for some stupid reason) they were hell bent on finding him (and at one point) when they did they had him at gunpoint--over a CELL PHONE! In reality I doubt the LAPD would go out of their way like that for a stupid cell phone! The lady could've walked up to one of many of those cell phone booths and have it replaced! The kids acting skills sucked too (I think they were reading from a cue card or had somebody off camera whisper their lines) because they'd be asked questions and would look around and then answer in a questionable voice (i.e.-"yes I do miss daddy?") Also how could there be all of those snipers be in the trees and on building rooftops in LA WITHOUT being seen?! I see this being played at 3 AM on USA.<br /><br />Debra Wilson fanatics will enjoy her parts. She's the only actor with any real acting skills (Debra, sweetheart--stop doing these cheap D-grade, direct to video films...maybe that'll change with the upcoming film Whitepaddy.) She puts some jokes in there (like when one of her superiors comes up and asks her who's she talking to, she screams at her computer and goes "Damnit, Charlie!") I gave it a 4/10...a 4 only because of Debra's good acting skills.
Ugh. Stephen Baldwin. I never noticed until I got the DVD home and saw his name in the credits. Double ugh. What's worse, HE'S the NAME in this low budget, mindless, wandering, wannabe shoot'em up. I mean, where did they find the guy to write this refuse? Driving a caterpillar in the LA City Dump, while hoping to break into the movie game? The whole plot is ridiculous situation piled on ridiculous premise. Baldwin is as convincing as a poster boy for American Gothic, sans pitchfork. His whole acting repertoire is looking like he needs the potty and then looking like he found it. <br /><br />So, there you have it folks: bad script, bad acting by no-name actors, low-budget setting and a hero that's about as convincing as a girl scout looking for a cookie customer as an action hero. It's too late for me to get my money back on the DVD, but you can spare yourself-- unless you're one of those who likes to look at the dogs for a laugh...frankly, this one is too boring to be funny.
One of the worst movies I've ever seen. When I was trying to watch this I had flu and i was pretty open minded for any brainless entertainment. Unfortunately this was too much. How, so many totally ungifted actors can be in one movie? This movie makes porn look like European art-movie. Cast just speaks out their lines without any emotions; special thanks to Charlie Snows (Baldwin) soon-to-be-ex-wife who talks about her divorce like the rest of us talk about the weather. Just horrible (and funny).<br /><br />With lots of booze and friends this might just make it as a background entertainment and few laughs, just like Ed Wood-movies. The plot is a joke and soundtrack straight from some cheeky soap-opera.<br /><br />Hopefully nobody paid to see this movie.<br /><br />
I rented this film when my girlfriend was away, hoping to see some serious military/specialist action.<br /><br />After 10 minutes of watching this "movie" I was so terrified and horrified and sick of the quality of everything in this film that I was ready to destroy the rented disc with a flame thrower. Luckily I couldn´t find one. I´ve seen many bad films. But this is not even bad, it is total garbage and it does not even deserve to be counted as a movie here on IMDB.<br /><br />I feel sorry for the people who have been involved in the making of this total disgrace. Hope it wins some Oscars though :D.
This is 1 hour and 24 minutes of pure boredom!!<br /><br />In this 'Action'- movie, even the gun Baldwin uses (HK G3A3) sucks. It was sent to recycling by armed forces worldwide in the mid eighties, and is now only used by terrorists, bank robbers and military museums.<br /><br />If I had known this movie was this bad, I would rather watch 10 episodes of MacGyver saving the planet.<br /><br />No groove, no drive and no feel. Watch the Tupperware-channel – it's more exiting than this sorry excuse for a movie. This movie doesn't deserve a '0' on the scale. Better luck next time, Baldwin. Until then, I'll sit here watch my toenails grow – that is far more exiting than 'Target'….
This movie sucks. The acting is worse than in the films we made when we were 10 years old with a camcorder, the effects look like some 80's computer game and the plot is worse than terrible. Even the worst Van Damme movies make this look crappy. The accent and speech rhythm of the 'bad guys' is so bad it's funny.. <br /><br />I wouldn't recommend watching this unless you are a big time fan one of the actors. 1 out of 10.
Dear Movie Director:<br /><br />In the future, when trying to create a sense of urgency, it might be best to have your hero *run* instead of jog/shuffle. Especially if you're trying to reinforce a time line. For example, if you're trying to convince the audience that the bad guy really will kill the hostage if the hero doesn't find her, it's probably a good idea to convey the feeling that your hero believes it may actually happen... Let's face it though. Making a *good* movie obviously wasn't your goal. Your goal was to pump out some garbage that will make more money than it cost. Otherwise you might have hired some actors.<br /><br />Sincerely, Bored Viewer.<br /><br />This is the worst movie I've seen in a long time. I can't say that it's the worst ever, because I was able to finish it. It was bad, bad, bad though. Dude, where's my refund?
Target is the story of a special agent who, after carrying out orders to assassinate Turkish "Terrorists" (note that this is one of those American "movies for guys who love mindless nationalistic super-patriotic crap movies"), returns home to find that his ex-wife and two kids are taking hostage. Charlie Snow has just a couple of hours to do whatever the terrorists tell him in order to get them back.<br /><br />This was by far one of THE worst movies I have ever seen. And, had it not been for someone I know actually (and probably, mistakenly) taking it out of the video store, I would never have watched this giant pile of garbage to begin with.<br /><br />The movie plays out like any generic action movie story I have ever seen before. In fact, these are the kind of things they spoof on variety shows, that is how bad it is. I half expected In Living the Color's 'Homey the Clown' to Mad TV's Will Sasso doing his Steven Segal impression to bust out on the screen half way through, to remind you that this was just an exaggerated action movie, but now our characters are here to spoof how ridiculous it really is. There were not even any good fighting or action sequences. By the way things are played out, you wouldn't even think that anyone was kidnapped, that there were any terrorists, or that anything remotely interesting was going on.<br /><br />Not only is the story completely and utterly uninteresting, the acting is so terribly wooden. Just watch the part where Stephen Baldwin, as former special agent Charlie Snow, is talking to the kidnappers on the telephone. They tell him that they have his wife, and they put her on the phone. She says "Charlie, help!" or something to that effect. And Baldwin replies "it's okay, honey" in such a deadpan manner, you think he was reading the script and trying to sound out the words phonetically. I imagine that, despite being such a ridiculously bad movie (one that belongs on the bottom 100 on IMDb--a list that they should expand to at least 250 movies and should contain nearly every Stephen Baldwin movie), someone with some talent could have at least made the effort not to ham it up as much. Someone. Anyone. I couldn't get past the fact that everyone sounded like they were reading from a script. Save that is, the only person in the whole friggin movie who has any talent whatsoever (and thus should not have been in this), Mad TV's Deborah Wilson.<br /><br />This was the capital cheese fest. How truly embarrassing.
I hate to be too critical, but this one really was bad. I like the Baldwin brothers, I just wish there was more talent evenly spread between them. I did like the general plot, but there was just too much 'trying' and not enough actual 'doing' as far as quality acting was concerned. <br /><br />My favorite character out of the whole thing was bald cop. He reminded me of Dmitri Valtane ( Jeremy Roberts, I believe ) from Start Trek 6: Undiscovered country. Just, without the hair.<br /><br />If you have Hollywood Video's MVP program and are really trying to get your money's worth, then through this in with one of the three MVP movies you pick up. It's worth it for a few laughs.<br /><br />The single most impressive special effect in the whole show is the sound of Stephen Baldwin's rifle firing. I suppose that lets you in a bit on the quality and excitement of the rest of the show.
If this film were to be rated on a scale of 1 to 10, one would need to create a new rating system, as this one should not even qualify. The film's plot, (if you can call it that) revolves around Charlie (Stephen Baldwin), an ex- special operatives agent who is being targeted by the brother of a man he killed while he was still working for the US gov't. If this sounds like an interesting scenario, please don't be fooled, as this film will not deliver that which its action-themed story suggests.<br /><br />Comedian Chris Rock once said that when one sees an actor doing a bad film that it makes one want to send the actor $50, given that the actor must be desperate for money to be doing such poor quality work. After watching this film, you may want to send Stephen Baldwin $100. <br /><br />It appears that Baldwin did not put any effort into his role in the film. In the film, Baldwin is forced to run all over the city of Los Angeles in order to protect his "honeycomb" (wife) from being murdered by the brother of a man he previously killed. However, throughout the picture it appears that Baldwin can barely pull off maintaining a light jog. His laid back performance succeeds in subtracting from any suspense that the film might have intended to portray. <br /><br />If you are the type of person who enjoys watching very bad films and laughing at their shortcomings, than this film is for you. However, if you are looking for a well made action thriller, it would be best to look somewhere else rather than renting this film.
*The ELITE sniper team that has inserted 24h or so earlier have instead of digging in and making them selves invisible decided to take cover behind a big rock in one of the first scenes. *When the hero "runs" to rescue his wife he actually jogs. *When inside a building and aiming for a target only some 20-30 meter away the hero USES HIS SCOPE. Besides the fact that most non elite soldiers would make that shot from the hip and still hit there is also the fact that the scope probably wouldn't be able to focus that close. *There is a satellite that can actually look horizontally into buildings.<br /><br />The list is endless... and the film is the biggest heap of crap I have ever put in my DVD player.
1- Stephen Baldwin doesn't care about his involvement in Stephen Baldwin vehicles.<br /><br />2- The acting in any Stephen Baldwin vehicle ranges from horrible to mildly passable.<br /><br />3- Writers don't write Stephen Baldwin vehicles, children do.<br /><br />4- Most of the Stephen Baldwin vehicles revolve around one genre- the Actionless Action genre. It basically consists of crappy action sequences made with little to no effort whatsoever. <br /><br />5- The director doesn't care about Stephen Baldwin vehicles; he passes his job to an orangutan from time to time.<br /><br />And now you know.
This movie is so bad that it actually gets funny. One of the worst movies I've ever seen in my entire life. The funny thing was that the trailer had scenes in it that wasn't in the movie. Just by watching the trailer I would have saved a lot of my time. It actually showed everything that happened in the movie except for the conclusion and that was also so obvious.<br /><br />It's honestly hard to think of a reason why this movie was made. This is just so bad. Horrible. <br /><br />I would give it 0 out of 10 if that would be possible. There is nothing else to say about this movie.
Curse of the Wolf starts as reluctant Werewolf Dakota (Renee Porada) manages to escape from her 'pack' & into the city where 6 months later she is working in a vet's. The rest of Dakota's pack are unhappy & want her back, their leader Michael (Todd Humes) says she will come back to them but fat Werewolf Franklin (Brian Heffron) picks her scent up & the pack decides to force the issue & get her back using her affections for her human friends including her boyfriend Danny (Dennis Carver). Can Dakota save Danny & finally rid herself of her Werewolf pursuers? I doubt you will care...<br /><br />Executive produced, written & directed by Len Kabasinski who also had a fairly large role in the film as Stick I was dreading watching Curse of the Wolf since Kabasinski was the man behind Swamp Zombies (2005) which is surely one of the worst films ever made, ever. Unfortunately my worst fears were confirmed & one has to say that Curse of the Wolf is a truly horrible film in every way, both conceptually & technically. Curse of the Wolf is the sort of film where the low budget dictates what happens & the script rather than the script dictating the budget. You get the impression that everything was written & conceived to take advantage of the few sets & actor's they had, you can almost imagine the makers saying we've got a few actor's, some basic equipment & a couple of locations so lets make a horror film around them. The story is awful (Michael finds the location of Dakota by looking at a large dog two women are taking for a walk), the character's are awful (a big fat Werewolf guy who farts a lot), the dialogue is awful (just about every line in the thing) & there's never any motivation for anything that happens (why are the pack so desperate to get Dakota back?), people just do seemingly random things & since director Kabasinski's background is in martial arts he insists in inserting lots of random martial arts fight sequences into the plot. No offence but this is meant to be a horror film not a martial arts one, isn't it? In fact apart from the presence of a few Werewolves you would be hard pushed to describe Curse of the Wolf as anything approaching a horror film. At almost two hours in length it feels like it goes on forever & is so slow & uneventful it's just not funny.<br /><br />Director Kabasinski was obviously working on a low budget but film-making this bad should be a crime. There's no continuity between shots, the fight scenes look awful & are so poorly staged it's untrue & it's sometimes impossible to follow what's going on be it because of the choppy editing & poor camera angles or the fact that it is sometimes so dark that you literally can't see a thing. Seriously there are times during Curse of the Wolf where the screen is totally black & you can't see a thing, I would hate to have to sit through this watching it on a fuzzy low resolution VHS. The sound is awful too, you can hear the wind & breeze against the microphone! There are also lots of other unpleasant & unwanted ambient sounds during just about every scene. Did the production actually have any lighting gear while making this? It doesn't feel like it. The special effects mostly consist of Werewolf mask's that look like the sort of thing shops sell at Halloween for the kids, basically they look awful.<br /><br />Technically Curse of the Wolf is as bad as they come, I'm sorry because I know this had a low budget but it's truly horrible to sit through & try to garner some entertainment from. This is high school film student quality, I'm sorry if that sounds unkind but it's a fact. The acting is, well you can probably guess so I'll stop myself right here before I say something else negative, I mean I've done enough of that already & I really take no pleasure in it.<br /><br />Curse of the Wolf is terrible, both conceptually & technically this is a real chore to sit through. Curse of the Wolf is the type of film where while your watching it time seems to stand still, it's the type of film that lasts for almost two hours yet feels like two years. One of the worst films you or I am ever likely to see, definitely one to avoid.
During the 1990's, several attempts have been made to revive old Matsumoto's series. Yoshinobu Nishizaki tried to revive old Yamato saga in form of a laughably bad "Yamato 2520", which was completely abandoned after mere two episodes. Captain Harlock suffered a confusing and pointless "Harlock Saga", while Galaxy Express 999 suffered having this hack of a movie stapled to its name.<br /><br />If you've seen "Queen Millennia", you'll recall that it was a wonderful movie in its own way. Maetel Legend tries to tell a sequel to this already concluded chapter, also finding a way to suck at doing so.<br /><br />This movie takes all the annoying aspects of a generic pulp science fiction movie, mixes it with badly paced melodrama, and to add an insult to an injury, tosses in some of the most renowned characters from Matsumoto's universe.<br /><br />The only redeeming aspect of this movie is good artwork, but the remainder is so amazingly bad that it can't save this movie from being a total loss.<br /><br />If you've enjoyed Queen Millennia or Galaxy Express, do yourself a favor and skip this hack of a movie. You'll thank me.
While there is a lot to recommend about Maetel Legend both in concept and finished product, it's ultimately a poor film. Plot wise it's a retelling of Maetel's early life, which is usually unclear; at the same time the writers take the opportunity to tell the story of the Machine Empire. And since Leiji Matsumoto has trouble not including his other work we get a starting point for Emeraldas her sister, Her mother: the Queen of La Metalle and a bit of Galaxy Express 999 to flesh out the film.<br /><br />In short Maetel is a princess on the planet La Metalle, a planet with an irregular orbit, thus meaning its cycle around the nearest sun is reaching a cold stage and it's artificial Sun is dying. The Planet grows increasingly colder throughout the story, thus increasing the sense of doom. In order to protect her subjects and family the Queen decides that mechanisation is the only way to ensure survival of La Metalle's people. Enter Lord Hardgear, a robot / cyborg who provides the means for the job. Through the film, the characters are left to question mechanisation, will they still be human? Can Hardgear be trusted? Do souls and hearts remain? So for a fan of Matsumoto's work, there's lots to enjoy, questions to be answered, themes continued, except it's obvious that the film is meant to be an introduction, as well as a fan curiosity. The negatives, foremost the animation, while Galaxy Express 999, a TV series from over 20 years ago has shoddy mouth animation and at times sketchy character design, Maetel Legend has all the worst traits of modern animation and thus earns an air of respectability to Galaxy Express 999. The design is well detailed but unfortunately the animation has suffered leaving well drawn characters that 'slide', as in the backgrounds move or the camera zooms, a quick way of animating. However the few, yes few well animated scenes are re used over and over in dream sequences, repetition and in extra scenes. Anyone who's seem the film will wonder how many times Lord Hardgear can drink the same glass of wine.<br /><br />Next the story, While in concept everything sounds great, the finished product is in fact a series of conversations of plot which are repeated over and over to little effect, the number of times the characters encounter the same problems and learn the same things is practically insulting to the audience and the characters, which are seemingly much more articulate in former incarnations. Add to all of that some terrible character design, that seem lifeless, over exaggerated, and the audience is left with a movie so miss handled it might as well have been rewritten as a different film, at least the newcomers wouldn't be left baffled.<br /><br />And yet, it really has its moments, the ending at least is surprising. The plight of the citizens of La Metalle was quite affecting and rightly disturbing; I guess I find that whole man-machine theme distressing. It's hard know who to recommend Maetel Legend to, since it's not well animated, written or executed, plus confusing once Leiji Matsumoto's mandatory cross-referencing is introduced. However I can't help but brighten up when the magnificent entrance of Three-Nine occurs, now that's good cinema.<br /><br />1/5 stars out of 5, 2 if you're a fan.
"Heaven Can Wait" is a crushing bore and a candy-coated, misogynist lie. I can't imagine anyone but film students sitting through it today. Don Ameche is in almost every scene, and, while he has a mellifluous voice that no doubt contributed to his successful career in radio, he doesn't have the charisma to carry this film. Ameche plays Henry, a womanizer. Lubitsch wants to make Henry's sexual incontinence adorable and amusing, and so he directs Ameche to play the part as blandly as possible. The combination of Ameche's lack of charisma and Lubitsch's insistence on blandness results in a lead character who is both deadly dull and completely icky. You wouldn't want to spend any time with this man; he'd put you to sleep. You wouldn't leave him alone with your daughter, no matter her age. Something creepy would happen.<br /><br />The movie's look is quite boring. Scene after scene consists of static, overly lighted, diorama-style shots of fastidiously dressed Gilded Age stuffed shirts and bustles lounging in excessively busy, Victorian parlors. There's so many ruffles and frills and curlicues, so much lilac and sky blue and pink, you need Dramamine.<br /><br />This movie hates women as much as hardcore porn, but it presents that hatred with a candy coating and a sweet little bow on top. The contrast between the content of the message and its delivery is sickening. In one of the movie's most hateful scenes, an elderly woman is sent to hell because she's not physically attractive.
Henry (Don Ameche) turns up at the entrance to Hell and recounts his life story to His Excellency (Laird Cregar). The story focuses on his relationships with females throughout his life, and in particular, his relationship with Martha (Gene Tierney). At the end of the film, we cut back to Henry and His Excellency for a very predictable ending.<br /><br />Unfortunately, there is nothing more to say about the film because nothing happens. Its a sentimental story of one man's life and its very boring. I watched it with my girlfriend and my dad and we all thought it was rubbish, despite the Lubitsch touch. I yawned more than 15 times. Hugo (Charles Coburn) is good whenever he is on screen as the grandfather and there were a few funny moments of dialogue. The colour made it a good spectacle but it wasn't enough to save this plodder from going into the reject pile. In the same mould as "Its A Wonderful World" and "You Can't Take It With You", and so, not surprisingly, it was nominated for an Oscar. A story about ordinary people, none of whom are interesting and with no storyline of any interest. Boring, sentimental and the biggest damp squib of an ending that I can remember...
To some of us, director Ernst Lubitsch, adored for his underlying cheekiness and ironic comic touches, was rather wet when it came to picking material. It isn't that Lubitsch is overrated--on the contrary, he probably was ahead of his time in terms of a visual narrative--yet the projects he became attached to (or was assigned to) are not quite the landmarks of comedy his fans like to label them. With "Heaven Can Wait", a screen-adaptation of Lazlo Bus-Fekete's play "Birthday", Lubitsch is saddled with sleepy Don Ameche in the lead--and the combination of an anemic plot, a colorless star, and a musty flashback-framework stymies the director. A wicked man at the turn of the century "falls asleep without realizing it", presenting the facts of his life in front of Hell's entrance. Ameche...wicked? That was problem number one. The promising opening sequence (set in the Hades lobby) quickly gives way to dreary whimsy, and the supporting cast is of little help. *1/2 from ****
C'était complètement minable : à fuir absolument! <br /><br />This was an idiotic attempt to destroy classic source material, and thoroughly succeeded!<br /><br />Do not see this film under any circumstances unless you wish to have your ten euros torn up and shoved up your nostrils by a bunch of vapid, atrociously unamusing characters.<br /><br />This type of film clearly illustrates the gulf that still unfortunately divides directors and audiences. If the individual (heaven forbid a collective could have conceived this dross) behind this had been considerate enough to watch the version currently playing in French cinemas, he or she would have endured what I was forced to endure, and mercifully rewritten it or just scrapped it altogether. The vein of adult humour being mined here dates, to my mind, back to Fritz the Cat but lacks that film's avant-garde status or even its base attempt at social commentary.<br /><br />With the proliferation of remakes and increasing reliance on pre-existing source material to fund storytelling these days, one would hope that choosing Snow White, and thus not having to worry about conceiving characters or a radically new story, would have allowed more time for, oh I don't know, interesting animation, smarter jokes, perhaps a coherent film that has something to say and doesn't telegraph its vacuity from the opening frame? <br /><br />A manifestly appalling production.
I came across this film by accident and wish I hadn't.<br /><br />Why make a sexually rude sequel (and some gore when a man is beheaded) of a well know children's movie.<br /><br />Do not take young kids to see this the title misdirects you, it has nothing to do with the original Snow White except for stealing it's characters. Better still don't bother going yourself, it's not worth it.<br /><br />I could not watch it all, the poor (in comparison to Disney) cartoon graphics, and no plot except on how to totally mess up a classic movie made me want to give up and leave.
I am a fan of good historical fiction, and was thrilled at the thought that someone would take a well written book series and film it. Writing scripts is not like writing regular fiction, but when you have a book you are adapting, it would be nice to actually follow the plot line.<br /><br />The portrayals of the Vespasians (the actual Emperor, and his 2 sons Titus and Domitian) was horrid. They acted like a cookie cutter Caligula, and were the 'bad guys' in this adaptation. There was a scene with Titus dispensing justice as if he was Caligula (from the movie of the same name.) The way the Vespasianii are portrayed in the books mostly follow the reports of historians writing in that time period - they were fair, and sane, not tainted by the Imperial Claudian insanity.<br /><br />Helena (the love interest of Marcus Didius Falco) gives as her reason for divorcing Pertinax (one of the traitors referenced in the title) was that he was a traitor, yet in the books it was because he ignored her and she felt that she would be better off marrying someone who valued her as a person.<br /><br />Marcus in the movie gets a slave named Justus, yet in the books he could barely afford his apartment, let alone afford a slave. There was certainly no romantic interlude between the nonexistent slave Justus and a female gladiator...<br /><br />On the whole, if you want good cookie cutter roman stereotypes get Caligula, if you want good roman from the classical history viewpoint, get I, Claudius.
I fail to see how anyone who has actually read the M. Didius Falco mysteries could make such a mockery of them. An Aussie has no business in Ancient Rome. Nothing of the books is in this film except the setting and characters, and they are wasted on a plot thin enough through which to read the silly script. Kevin Connor and Lee Zlotoff have a lot of nerve displaying their names in the credits.
Paul Muni and Bette Davis overact monstrously while lacklustre studio hack Archie Mayo seems distracted and oblivious in this racially provocative film that derives its "bittersweet ending" by condoning segregationist attitudes. Heavy handed and poorly constructed the film collapses under its own weight within the first fifteen minutes with an out of control courtroom scene that it never recovers from as Mr. Muni begins to chew up scenery by the yard hollering and howling away in an almost incoherent fashion.<br /><br />Johnny Ramirez is a Mexican American from the other side of the tracks who through determination and grit attains a law degree from a store front night school. In his first big case involving an auto accident he displays only ineptitude and is quickly made to look the fool by his well heeled opponents and an impatient judge who recommends he be disbarred. Devastated by the setback an angry Johnny takes on a job at a gambling joint where he is befriended by the owner Charlie Roark (Eugene Palette) who likes his style. The owner cuts him in on the place but problems arise with Mrs. Roark (Davis) who also wants a piece of Johnny. She kills Charlie, implicates Johnny and slowly goes mad before he is acquitted and free to be with a high society Wasp who coldly explains to him that they are from "different tribes, savage" and it will never work. When she flees to escape his rage she is run over and killed by a car. Ramirez sells the casino and moves back to his poor neighborhood rationalizing that its best to stay with your own.<br /><br />In addition to this appalling denouement Bordertown has a series of bad performances to compliment the overall ugliness of the story. Unfair as his plight might be, Muni's Ramirez is so abrasive and arrogant it becomes hard to show sympathy for such a bull headed blunderer. Davis is no better as the less than loyal wife matching the same adolescent emotions of Muni. Her Lady Macbeth mad scenes give no indication that she was about to become the best film actress of her era. Margaret Lindsay as Muni's American Dream is cold, remote and flat.<br /><br />Bad as Bordertown is (and it is very) it remains an interesting indicator of the times and acceptable attitudes. The rest is just a mishmash of bad acting and uninspired direction.
German emigree and uber-hambone actor Paul Muni who never saw a scene he didn't want to chew up goes "blackface" to play a humble Mexican immigrant living in Los Angeles and working his way up in the world. If this creaky vehicle reminds anyone of Al Pacino's minstrel performance as an uncultured Cuban in the remake of SCARFACE, don't be too surprised. The characters are quite similar, and both get wildly pop-eyed when the script calls for it. Hispanics everywhere should be greatly offended by Muni's over-the-top performance as this giddy Mexican living the American dream, consequences be damned. I guess Benicio DelToro's grandfather wasn't available. A young, bleached-blonde Bette Davis plays one of Muni's love interests; she eventually goes insane for love of Mr. Meh-hee-can Muni. An absolute hoot, Davis is the sole reason to watch this racially offensive claptrap. There is an absolutely delirious near the end when Muni asks the gal of his dreams to marry him -- a white gal of breeding with one of those stilted, stage-like '30s accents that Hollywood loved so much -- and she calls him a savage and a brute, of "a different tribe." Muni immediately transforms into Mr. Hyde and chases her to an untimely death. In the final scene, a repentant Muni tells his sober-faced priest that he is going back to his own people, his own kind. End of movie. Finis. That's all she wrote. Muni was said to have hired a gen-oo-ine Mexican as a chauffeur in order to study this exotic creature's speech pattern and physical habits. Yowza!
The Kissing Bandit was the third and final film that Frank Sinatra and Kathryn Grayson co-starred at MGM with. The first two were Anchors Aweigh and It Happened in Brooklyn. And in both Sinatra wooed and lost Grayson. I guess the third time's the charm.<br /><br />For romance maybe, but definitely not for screen image. Sinatra in his forty's films once again plays the nice little schnook only this time in toreador pants. Poaching on Tyrone Power's territory laid out in The Mark of Zorro, Sinatra plays the son of a man who was a hotel owner by day and The Kissing Bandit by night. He's gone and left California for an education and has come back ready to take Dad's place, but in the hotel business only. And where does he learn the hotel business, Boston.<br /><br />Of course some of Dad's former gang members, grown a little old and paunchy led by J. Carrol Naish, want him to lead the gang again. But Frank's just not cut out for the outlaw life. But he does make a good impression on the Governor's daughter, Kathryn Grayson.<br /><br />Somebody must have had it in for Sinatra at MGM to cast him in this after the bad reviews he got in Miracle of the Bells. Frank's in a part that was more suitable for Red Skelton. But since this was a musical, I guess the brain trust at MGM figured Kathryn Grayson had to have a singing co-star.<br /><br />In fact the best number in the film are for her, Love Is Where You Find It. Also Ricardo Montalban, Ann Miller, and Cyd Charisse do a dance specialty that is nice. Frank's songs are nice, but nothing spectacular.<br /><br />In later years, Sinatra would wince at the mention of The Kissing Bandit and with good reason.
Perhaps the director was trying for another PIRATE (Good Garland and Kelly musical) -- but this lame musical epoch falls flat. Sinatra and Kathryn Graysons voices do not blend well -- and their chemistry together lacks spark. The premise of Sinatra as a sweet guy who tries to impersonate his late "bandito" father is okay, but he seems awkward in the role. What's amazing and wonderful here, is how Sinatra can take a rather insipid song and make it seem special -- his phrasing and eloquence as a singer make you want to hear it again. When Grayson sings the same songs it's hard to believe she's not singing something entirely different and not nearly as interesting. She has her big moment with "Love Is Where You Find It" which suits her perfectly and shows off her abilities. The photography is lucious and both stars look appealing as do the costumes and sets. Co-stars Mildred Natwick and J. Carroll Nash put lots of energy into making the impossible work. Aside from Sinatra's singing there is a strange menage-a-tois dance with Ricardo Montalban, Cyd Charisse and Ann Miller. It's fascinating and weird. Montalban and Charisse were a wonderful dancing team and this number is a real oddity.
This must be one of MGM's and FRANK SINATRAS worst films. An oddball musical comedy that fails in almost every aspect. Silly plot has SINATRA trying to carry on his fathers reputation as a KISSING BANDIT. He's no bandit and doesn't kiss!! He does play the "nerdy" character as well as could be expected given the dialog he has to speak. The scene stealer's are J. CARROLL NASH and MILDRED NATWICK. Too bad they didn't have more scenes together. I've given the film two stars because the sets and costumes are superior and one of the songs sung by KATHTREN GRAYSON "Love is Where You Find It", is sensational. Could have had a repirse of that one. Also, a comic type dance number by RIDCARDO MANTALBAN, CYD CHARISSE and ANN MILLER if fun. So for those reasons and those reasons only, it is watchable. KISSING BANDIT is part of the Frank Sinatra early years collection.
A klutzy young man returns West after being schooled in the hotel business via Boston; he quickly learns his friends in Spanish-colonized Old California expect him to fill his deceased father's shoes instead--that of a romantic thief known for kissing his female victims after robbing them. Colorful but silly M-G-M production has a great deal of talent before and behind the camera, but it never takes off. This might have been fun, second-string material for Abbott & Costello, but Frank Sinatra looks lost and embarrassed in the lead. Combination of raucous comedy and musical interludes are hindered by the poor staging (Sinatra is photographed singing at one point in a mirror, but one doesn't concentrate on his performance so much as noticing how odd the star appears reflected in this way!). Kathryn Grayson is the Governor's daughter who falls for Frank, and her high soprano trilling turns her singing scenes into self-parody. Aside from Robert Surtees' cinematography and the decent art direction, this "Bandit" remains kissless. * from ****
Tycoon will never be listed as one of John Wayne's better post Stagecoach film. It's good in spots, has some fine action sequences in the cave in and also in the flood at the climax. But the plot leaves a lot to be desired.<br /><br />What we have in Tycoon is two men who thoroughly dislike each other and that dislike prevents them from working as a team. Multimillionaire Cedric Hardwicke has hired John Wayne and James Gleason to build a railroad. But then he refuses to give them the needed funds to do the job right.<br /><br />Things get really complicated when Wayne falls for Hardwicke's daughter, Laraine Day. After a night when they have to spend time alone in an Inca ruin, by convention in South America, Wayne and Day get a shotgun wedding even though nothing happened.<br /><br />What should have happened is these two should have been locked in a room for 24 hours together to work out their differences one way or another. Their petty spites cause some fatalities among Wayne's crew.<br /><br />But what Tycoon is most known for is another piece of pettiness. Laraine Day was married to Leo Durocher the manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers when this was being filmed. He was a constant presence on the set, insanely jealous of John Wayne who he thought might be having an affair with his wife. Nothing to it, but he made his wife's life miserable.<br /><br />Not one of the Duke's better efforts.
This movie was terrible. John Wayne is a brutal actor at times. The lead female playing the role of "Maura" did a good job and tried her best to make scenes believable despite Wayne's inept, one dimensional, over acting. Seriously, did you see him when he was supposed to be talking in his sleep? Ridiculous. And his character became such an awful person in the second half of the movie and then did nothing to atone for his behavior and is still forgiven by everyone including his arch nemesis without even so much as a 'sorry'. The story was completely implausible. We were supposed to believe that two grown men, both tremendous successes in their respected fields, would sabotage a job and risk the lives of innocent men simply because they disliked one another? YOu can pretty much randomly select any scene and it will probably leave you shaking your head in disbelief that someone paid money to have this film made. Its too bad because the only other Wayne films I've seen are the shootist and rio bravo, which were both great movies. Unless you're being paid don't bother watching this one.
Burt Reynolds plays Gator McKlusky, a likable ex-convict just released from prison who helps the feds nab a corrupt small town sheriff. Laid-back Reynolds was often accused by critics of merely phoning these 'good ol' boy' performances in; true, he's on auto-pilot throughout. But in his day, Reynolds knew just how to make a low-key effort work well for himself. Ingratiating and handsome, Reynolds comes as close to winking at the audience as he can without breaking up; he seems to know these backwoods as well as any movie star, while director Joesph Sargent provides an easy pace and a sweaty ambiance which brings the South alive. Unfortunately, the story isn't much, and supporting actors Ned Beatty and Bo Hopkins overact (as usual). Diane Ladd is fine in a small part, and real-life daughter Laura Dern can be glimpsed in the background. Reynolds returned to this character for 1976's "Gator". *1/2 from ****
This film must have done well in the box office, in order to give Gator the budget it deserves. This film had no budget, needed a script rewrite, and a better ending. There is flashes of brilliance in this movie. The boat ride scene, Burt driving the mean machine, and his chat with his parents. You can tell Burt is a Southerner, and not a actor. This movie shows what Gator would be like, Burt's best film. Too, bad this film did not have the same funding and was done on the Rush. 4/10
One commenter said if you like Austin Powers you will like this movie. I liked Autin Powers and was disappointed with this movie. The film works hard, maybe too hard for laughs. Maybe it was that all the villains in this movie were shouting as if the shouting in itself is suppose to be funny. I get where they were trying to go with this flick. A cross between Zorro and the Scarlet Pimpernel but it just doesn't work. Austin Powers if silly but intelligent, Zorro the Gay Blade lacks the savvy of Austin Powers, The Big Lebowski or Kingpin.<br /><br />I kept waiting for a laugh and while waiting found myself amazed that someone actually got paid for the script. My 15 year daughter also thought the movie was flat. My 17 year old who selected this flick on it's title, walked out after 20 minutes.<br /><br />It seems many people on IMDb liked this film, but for me it lacked the good timing or jokes of a good comedy.
Though predictable and contrived, not a bad movie. It entertains, which is all Van Damme hopes to do. The omnipresent "twin" device is again used (as in a large number of Van Damme's movies) but it is not bothersome except to long time fans. Natasha is gorgeous and worth watching. Action is decent, nothing spectacular for Van Damme but exciting. I can recommend to Van Damme fans and even to those who aren't but don't mind an action film with a good looking lead couple. The Russian Mob is a nice concept and topical for the day. Clearly, not his best film but by no means his worst.
"Maximum Risk" is a step sideways for Van Damme and just more of the uninspired B-movie action stuff we've come to expect from films featuring the macho Belgian martial artist. The flick has gaping plots holes, goofs galore, a messy conglomerated plot, and a gorgeous Henstridge who spends most of her time looking like she's waiting for a cue. "Maximum Risk" doesn't distinguish itself in any way and will likely not have much appeal beyond the usual young male audiences. (C-)
This is not a good film.<br /><br />I can usually sit through a Van Damme movie if I have to, as they are usually a bit of a laugh and don't require much thought. This one has no redeeming features. <br /><br />It has a distinct lack of plot, humour, acting, direction etc etc. A real stinker on all levels. <br /><br />I have never walked out of a cinema during a movie, although I came damme close here. <br /><br />Avoid at all costs.
Jean Claude Van Damme's movie career seems to have gone to hell in a handcart so how ironic to see him playing a character who meets the same fate in a literal manner at the very start of the movie ! It's also interesting to note how very , very similar the plots of his movies play out regardless of who the producer , director or screenwriter are . Van Damme usually plays a character who is living in France then due to a set of circumstances finds himself in another part of the globe where he has a brother who dies and it's up to Van Damme to get revenge helped by a character he's just met . Look at AWOL or LEGOINAIRRE or many other films that feature the headline " Starring Jean Claude Van Damme " and they all feature nearly the same type of story structure . This doesn't mean they're identical of course , just very similar and if you've seen one Van Damme movie you've basically seen them all . It's the same with MAXIMUM RISK
Maximum risk is quite surprising to a person that has seen more then on of his movies. Director Ringo Lam made an average action-movie, that can be compared with most of the other mid-quality action movies, what is a special predicate to a `Muscles from Brussels`movie. It has a quite classy style, an interesting atmosphere and, last but not least, the beautyful Natasha Henstridge. Even VanDamme doesn´t make you crying by his acting, he does a relatively good job. Of course you may not compare Maximum Risk (oh, what a creative title!) to `Ronin`, but after watching `Knock off` it´s the hell of a good movie... in special standards, of course.
The Story: Alain, a French policeman, is shocked to discover that he had a twin brother when his body is found in Nice. Investigating the murder, he finds out that he was in possession of a list that details the deeds of the Russian Mafia. Helped by his brother's girlfriend, Alain dodges Russian gangsters & corrupt FBI agents while trying to find the list.<br /><br />"Maximum Risk" is another one of the long list of action films that feature Jean-Claude Van Damme. As far as things go, it is strictly formulaic. The script sticks to the clichés & the acting is mediocre. There are some nicely done action sequences, with an inventive car chase, a fight in a burning building, an escape through rooftops, a brutal fight in an elevator & JCVD fleeing his enemies over an elevated train line. Director Ringo Lam keeps everything going at a reasonable pace.
The movie is not that bad, Ringo Lam sucks. I hate when Van Damme has love in his movies, van Damme is good only when he doesn't have love in his movies.
Well another shootem up. Typical run around film with guns, revenge, and violence. Not much of a story. In fact I forgot most of what this film is about. Don't rent this one. I think the exercise infomertial would be more entertaining during late night.
A quick resumé: Almost nonexistent, badly chosen musical soundtrack, steady-cam filming done without the steady but with lots of coffee and a hyperactive cameraman, NO plot, and nothing ever really happens. The film goes from one dialog into another, sounding hollow, never achieving depth, never creating the illusion that you really are inside a cobweb of conspiracy, and the everybody-has-an-affair-with-everybody is just a boring excuse to show the main actress in nice underwear. (which, combined with her rusty voice certainly is nice, but nothing to base a movie on) The high point for me is the opening scene, and the film just degraded from there to a point where I just wanted to quit the film about 45 minutes into the story. I regret sitting it out.
If you're an average guy like me and enjoy good acting, good plot, good scripts, novel ideas, or being entertained, you might want to skip this one. I was honestly bored from the opening credits to the very end, but tried to give the film a chance, and watched it all the way through -- only to be disappointed at every turn.<br /><br />The acting was unbelievably sub par, but I'm not sure if the actors themselves are to blame or if it was the ridiculously wooden and horrible dialog coupled with an even worse script. The plot is very vague and underdeveloped and I think the audience is supposed to derive some kind of deeper meaning from it, or be able to look past it in some way, but honestly to do so would be a waste of time.<br /><br />The film has a kind of crude sexuality to it which doesn't serve any purpose other than to show off some tattoos and lingerie. No one seems to have any motivation except making money off of some kind of "investment" deal that is never really explained. The connections between the characters aren't terribly clear, and there is little to no character development.<br /><br />This is either some kind of sub-culture film meant for a very specific audience to enjoy or absolute crap, but you can decide for yourselves.<br /><br />I gave it a 2 because it is definitely one of the worst films I've ever seen, but probably not THE worst.
You have to start worrying when you see that Michael Madsen is leading the Cast of any movie. I wont go through the list of shame that is his movie career.<br /><br />I watched 45 minutes and still was not sure what really was going on. The movie consisted of a love hate relationship between Madsen and Argento, Which basically was Madsen insulting her, threatening violence and generally treating her like dirt. She on the other hand loves him, then shes doesn't, then she does, the she desires him, then she loves him again......whats wrong with you woman !!!! <br /><br />The Script is awful, lousy soundtrack and pointless aggressive and crude sexuality which i believe was added to entice some viewers as the movie has little else to offer. I would have given the movie a 1 but it just about managed a 2 with a little excitement in the last 20 minutes. It did actually answer one question in the final few minutes but i am not going to share that, i will make you suffer for the full movie like i did.
Asia Argento has never done a film (so far as I know, and this includes ones directed by her own father, Dario) where she fails to show all of her anatomy at some point. Sure enough, in the most boring opening dialogue scene ever, poor Madsen has her coming into his office and right there, reminding us that even though her hair is up, she can still stick her fingers in her crotch at any given second (which she does but in such a random "what? am I really seeing that?" kind of way). The DVD box, packaging, makes this look like a femme fatale film so you keep waiting to see her turn into a sleek and minimalist killer.. no such luck. She's verbose, hung up on some aging has been and even worse, has no credible skills in physical agility other than (surprise!) taking off ALL the clothes when any scene allows it. Her accented English would be cool if only she didn't try to make it sound so affected and try to talk like a 12 year old. How about this plot? Weak-minded but simultaneously nymphomaniacal woman is suddenly driven to kill while she already has another affair on the go and is running some cheap drug deal ... huh? what? does anyone have motivation in this movie to do anything other than buy a hamster? The screenplay seems to be oriented by letting everyone talk a lot about the same things over and over (I was expecting to see the worst acting on this appear as a producer who dumped money in it just to have some screen time) - there is nothing going on sub the obvious flaws of Asia's character that at any point in the movie delivers what the DVD cover promises. She's weak... but she knows how to kill. she flails A LOT. She flails naked, she flails half dressed, she even flails in a dead woman's clothing.. she is very floppy and unmotivated. In fact "Floppy" would have been a great name for this movie.. and a shot of Asia passed out looking angry on the cover would have been a better representation ... there are actually shots of her eating airplane food!!! What's that about? <br /><br />THe ending makes 0 sense - everyone is just annoyingly wishy washy in their intent and their execution of all objectives. The wife of Lester doesn't deliver any REAL vengeance (taking someone to bad karoeke IS life threatening but not really valid).. and Lester just floats around without really making much proclaimation of anything. Totally misleading key art... yeah, we know Asia lost the baby fat of her first born but really, a whole movie trying to pretend like that's interesting enough to drive a film about a passive-aggressive chick is not worth your while. See Point of No Return instead.
Olivier Assayas' film stars Asia Argento as a woman who had a relationship with Michael Madsen. Madsen is a business man who's in financial trouble. In desperation he is going to sell his share of a business to a company called Golden Eagle, a company from the Far East. As Madsen begins his moves away from his company Asia Argento returns to his life. The pair had a torrid love affair that included her doing business favors for Madsen (with said Golden Eagle). Once Argento enters the film the film follows her as we see the tangled web she's woven and how the complications spin dangerously and violently out of control.<br /><br />I'm not a fan. Actually I was quite bored as the film seems to go from pillar to post for much of the first hour during which I kept wondering what the point was other than to provide a meaty role for Argento. Argento, daughter of director Dario Argento and a director in her own right, is a unique actress. At times stunningly good, she is more often then not going to give you a quirky off beat portrayal of a damaged human being. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I don't think it completely works here mostly because the script is too "complicated" to support it. I didn't care what was going on so her wounded girl just rubbed me the wrong way(she seemed more nut job than anything else). I'm not blaming the actors but writer/director Assayas who has once again constructed a complicated tale with the sort of parts actors love to tackle, but which leave audiences scratching their heads because they they don't really work. <br /><br />If you must try it on cable
Tired, garbled dreck. The chemistry between Argento and Madsen was as exciting as a wet doughnut. Their dialogue was dramatically uninteresting. The storyline was a mess. The acting forced. The cinematography lingered on the uninspired. Lazy and pointless. Kim Gordon and her character had no reason to be there. Nor did anyone else for that matter. I couldn't have given two farts for any of the 'characters'. Their emotions skipped and jumped like a junkie who hates his heroin. Empty and dull. Why do I have to write ten lines of text on here to make my point? I think I summed it up in the first three words. But, obviously it's not enough. I think this is the last time I'll bother to waste my time critiquing a film. Anyway, I saw 'Clean' and thought that was quite ineffectual as well. Again, I cared not for the characters, whether they lived or died.
Asia Argento is a sexy beautiful woman who likes to run around naked which isn't a bad thing in it's self, but, when her character talks about all the guys she serviced, and to see her with Michael Madsen and an Asian guy in the present tense of the movie, it made me feel like I needed a condom over my eyes to watch this movie, like a disease was going to rub off on me or something.<br /><br />The movie felt like it was going for a love triangle/drama/action/??? plot, it just seemed to go everywhere and nowhere at the same time. The acting was great, the plot, not so great. The director needs to at least pick a genre and practice, practice, practice, before trying to do something as complicated as this again, because they are not very good at it obviously.
The story is disjointed and poorly written. We are given threads and a possible hook in act one, only to see it vanish. Had the writer bothered reading his work carefully, it wold have been apparent that Madsden's character's initial problem and meeting with the 'bad' girl suggests that there will be a troubled alliance between them as they try to solve his problem.<br /><br />The problem goes nowhere. The relationship goes nowhere. And there is no sexual tension in any of the relationships. No-one digs anyone and no-one is appealing. The writing and directing is laughable. You can feel someone struggling with the mess and shifting the story focus about trying to extract some excitement. There is none. The writer/director is simply a beginner whose muddled efforts somehow became a movie. From simple errors such as '...they took polaroids...' - in Japan in 2007 ? to insulting errors such as nudity for eroticism, this movie is an insult. You cannot make them much worse.<br /><br />And by plastering 'Madsden' on the talent list, the producers thought they'd have some success. He is hardly acting. Asia certainly is... and the result is some heroin-chic panto.<br /><br />Give it a big miss.
The trailer is so deceiving... I thought this will be a good film... What was the point in bringing the women in Hong Kong for being killed? They could have done it in Paris. And the fist half hour:<br /><br />-You love me!<br /><br />-No I don't! -You love me!<br /><br />-No I don't! -You love me!<br /><br />-No I don't!Repeat for 100 times... then... Well I don't love you... So i shoot you! :D So here is the reason why movie piracy is a good thing! Imagine if I would have even give money for this torture! I'm sorry for the time I lost watching it... the film makers should pay me <br /><br />for the inconvenience... Worst film ever seen...
This film was terrible. I thought it would be OK but it just got worse and worse. From the starting scenes it seems to be heading in the direction of another safe predictable rom-com, but the moment he arrives at the house it just disintegrates. None of the characters have any depth and the only person who was anywhere near believable was Tom, although the way he became so easily distracted just annoyed me after a while. The dialogue is ridiculous and the structure of the film almost completely non-existent. In an insulting attempt at comedy the writer/director introduces a new character or event in practically every scene, none of which are realistic, making it very confusing to keep track of what is going on. The plot is barely an excuse for a movie : guy likes girl, house sits fathers home to get to know girl, destroys house, gets girl. A complete waste of time.
Not just the money we paid to rent it or actually go to the movies. I'm talking about how big productions companies waste so much money in things that actually are boring and not to talk about ridiculous. With the millions they used to make a movie like this, because I don't think the actors here would actually work for free or for an insignificant sum. With that money imagine how many good independent movies you could make, or maybe one good Hollywood movie. Its just to rip you off, but not anyone, just the majority of teens that are willing to go and see an Ashton Kutcher movie, just because they are fans of him. I don't really know either how someone with common sense could actually act in this kind of movie. If you actually look at it in prospective the actors are the same quality of this movie. So i guess I shouldn't be surprise, I actually couldn't have expected more.
I have never seen a movie that annoyed me that much. It is a movie about stupid people that are doing stupid and terrible things. This is not a funny movie. I must say that the plot line is awful. I did not had patience to watch it so that i only saw half of it, but it was enough for me. The characters are not very inspired. Just terribly annoying. This movie is all about a goofy guy trying to hook up with his tyrannous boss's daughter. When he finally manages to talk to her, she asks him to go at that night at her home to watch her father's owl, and he thinks she had invited him to go with her at a party and to be at her home at 6 pm. He gets to be very disappointed finding out that he only has to take care of the owl and that she has a boyfriend. After her father leaves home leaving precise orders, about taking care of the house and his beloved bird, appears a secretary, a renegaded son and all sort of NOT funny stuff happens in the house. But he finally hooks up with his boss's daughter. TRUST ME THIS MOVIE IS TERRIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!
This movie is perfect for any aspiring screen writer, actor or director. By watching this movie you will see all the things that are wrong with the film industry as it is today. There are so many clichés that it pained me to sit through this movie. Nothing about it is original and every single line spoken has been ripped off from those clichéd movies that we all saw in the 90's. Although it does have a few cheap laughs, overall it is wrong wrong wrong. I was so immensely bored and the movie was so predictable and pathetic i actually noticed how much make-up was caked onto Tara Reid's face to hide those massive bags and wrinkles from her endless partying. Seriously, she was wearing so much foundation you could literally scrape it off and refill an entire bottle of it.<br /><br />What shocked me though was that so many of the talented and popular cast would sign on for this piece of junk. And i do NOT know how i sat through that horrible screaming that Ashton Kutcher does, you know when he's like angry or something and he shouts his words in this annoying manner? Ashton's horrifying "talking", Tara's face being ten shades darker than her neck, a drugged up owl, a script that seemed like the work of a three-year-old...<br /><br />Seriously, in my whole life there has been no movie that i have watched that i did not in someway enjoy no matter how bad it was. This deserves an award for being the first. BAD BAD BAD... I don't think there is a single word in the English dictionary that can possibly describe this trashy movie. Today i was trying to re-watch it but i had to turn it off like ten minutes in because i was about to cry from the overwhelming amount of clichés.<br /><br />Don't even bother to rent this at your blockbuster, it's not worth a cent, as a matter of fact i am willing to pay anyone out there considering to watch this movie so they can go do something decent with their lives.
For years I hesitated watching this movie. Now, I know why. Not only is it a comedy that fails at being even remotely funny, but there's also just nothing to laugh *at* about the movie. It was even worse than I'd expected. I rented this sucker and still felt cheated out of time more than money. I have never seen a film that annoyed me that much. It is a movie about stupid people that are doing stupid and terrible things. I don't really know either how someone with common sense could actually act in this kind of movie. I have used IMDb for some time but felt obligated to register just to help prevent poor unsuspecting folks from renting or, worse, buying this stinker!! Really a waste of time and money. I must say that the plot line is awful.
Ever wanted to see how low a movie could sink? Well, look no further! This movie has it all! <br /><br />Racism jokes, handicapped jokes, overweight jokes, suicide jokes, murder jokes, drug jokes, animal abuse jokes, eating dirt jokes, old man young wife jokes, cancer jokes, gay jokes, crap jokes, falling flat on one's face over and over jokes, overuse of blood jokes, rape jokes, pee jokes, alcohol abuse jokes, anal rash jokes, a bunch of people yacking their coffee back up jokes, nudity jokes, see who can say the most swear words in one scene jokes, lesbian jokes, girlfriend abuse jokes, and the list goes on and on people!<br /><br />The worst part is: none of it is funny! (Not that anyone would find most of those funny to begin with.) It seems that when it just can't get any worst, it pushes your expectations to an all new bottom, as it always seems to find another to make the viewer feel worse. There was one scene that had me almost throw up and almost completely depressed at the same time. I don't think I need to point out which one, but then again, I'm sure there are other scenes that will give people this same feeling.<br /><br />There was one moment at the end of the movie that actually made sense and was slightly realistic, when suddenly one of the characters in the scene was piled on with the nastiest remains of a trash bag and thrown several feet on the ground only to have a bunch of beer bottles smashed into his head. All of this probably when he least deserved it. So all thought of a 1 more point redemption was quickly regarded. This is indeed a terrible movie. This is one that needs to be studied and bisected into small parts at a film school to teach students what not to do.
For years I hesitated watching this movie. Now, I know why. It was even worse than I'd expected. Ashton Kutcher makes the worst movie mistake of his career, since 'Dude, Where's My Car?' Tara Reid co-stars as the girl of Ashton's dreams, who asks him to babysit her father (and his boss)'s pet owl for the weekend. The rules: 1. No shoes in the house. 2. No people in the house. 3. The boss' son stays out of the house. 4. Don't touch the furniture.<br /><br />Well, you can pretty much guess by the end of the first twenty minutes, how the rest of the film is going to turn out.<br /><br />You know, there are films like, "Meet The Parents", where bad things happen to someone, but it's entertaining to watch, and it's delivered in a way, that you can't wait to see what happens next. This, is not one of those films. You know right from the start that bad things are going to happen, and they're mostly stupid things that would never actually happen. It's an extremely frustrating movie to watch, and there were about three times when I nearly turned it off, because it was so bad. But, I paid the rental fee, and figured I had to watch it now.<br /><br />Tara Reid was good, and I would like to see her in more films. Though, I'm not surprised if this had a hand in hurting her career.<br /><br />The end result is a happy ending...but of course with the kind of film it is, you would expect nothing short of that.<br /><br />Don't watch it. You'll sincerely regret it!
This is the first time I'm entering a comment for a movie I haven't viewed till the credits. Reason for this is simple...people need to be warned: this is one of the worst comedies of the new millennium. I usually stay away from a good deal of comedies that are in bad taste but I reckoned this to be watchable. A regrettable decision which was based on other Ashton Kutcher comedies that were (semi-) enjoyable such as A Lot Like Love and Guess Who.<br /><br />Where those two movies had their charms and laughs, this had none (and I mean none!!). The acting is horrible, especially the 'boss'. Tara Reid was no surprise, how dare she call herself an actress?! The premise is thin and the plot doesn't thicken at all. Not a problem if you manage to keep it funny and/or sweet...but as you probably already guessed, this was not the cast at all! The script felt like it wasn't quite finished and I wouldn't even be baffled if the director did some rewrites while shooting. My dog could've written a more coherent script, seriously. And he's not exactly Lassie either :-).<br /><br />Stay away from this tripe even if you like silly goof-ball comedies at times (like I do). This low quality movie will not be enjoyed by many...<br /><br />I (almost) never give a one so therefore...a 2.
This is easily one of the worst movies i have ever seen. There is so much at the house that goes wrong that would not happen it isn't even funny. Granted this is a movie meaning things that won't happen in normal life happen here, however this movie is more far fetched than theories that no child left behind is working. All of these people are in the house and nobody has noticed another, not to mention the damn owl that seems to be coming everywhere but in its cage. I could deal with an owl joke the first few times, but after an hour i just can't take it, i would rather kill myself than see that damn owl again. Did i laugh during this movie? no. Not even once? no. Horrible, Horrible, Horrible. The fact that this pile of garbage is capped off with Ashton Kutcher bending his boss over and taking his pants off in front of everybody just makes this movie ever worse. But wait, the day is saved because the damn owl can fly. WOW AMAZING! However, i do give this movie some cred, its not as bad as Epic Movie.....
This is by far the most awful movie I have ever watched. I have never before rated a movie 1 out of 10. My advice is don't watch it. This doesn't even classify as a movie.<br /><br />You'd be better off sitting on the couch bored rather than watching this movie. Acting was terrible but what was worst by far was the storyline. Highly unlikely sequence of events which aren't even funny. They are actually very lame and stupid. Very foolish choice by Ashton Kutcher and Tara Reid to act in this movie. Might even upset their careers a little.<br /><br />When I walked into Blockbuster, the main focus was on this movie , so I decided rent it. I sincerely regret it.<br /><br />Once you're 10 or 20 minutes into the movie you could basically predict what was going to happen. I was hoping it would get better , but instead it got worse.<br /><br />I am not exaggerating this. The movie is terrible. Don't watch it. Hope this helps.
This movie has got to be about one of the worst i have ever seen. The humor was crude, hardly funny and been heard a million times before. The start was noting special and it got worse and worse as it went on. I got about halfway through and couldn't stand to watch any more of it. Luckily I was only watching it on TV so it didn't cost anything, but I seriously recommend you do not waste you time or your money.<br /><br />Nothing in the movie was new. The characters were not at all developed. I actually think it would have been better as a little kids movie in that it was full of stupid unrealistic "funny" events occurring ... thats like what happens in home alone or something. Not to imply home alone was in any way as terrible as this.
"There are some things you just don't do" so says the tag-line of this, a 2003 David Zucker comedy about a young man caught up in one horrendous situation after another entitled My Boss's Daughter, and it's the tag-line which should speak for both the people that made this junk as well as those contemplating watching it. There are indeed some things you just don't do, with the placing of mostly all of the sort of content to be found within My Boss's Daughter counting as wholly items you just should not do to the medium of cinema by including them in your picture. My Boss's Daugther is a sordid; creepy; grotesque experience, a clunky and heavy handed piece which is infantile beyond words and disgusting beyond expression. To see it is to endure it, to endure it is to survive it and to survive it is an accomplishment all by itself – if any of the cast; writers; extras; Hell, even the guys that worked as runners on the set, aid in producing anything as Earth-shatteringly poor as this again, then it'll be either because they've been sent here by the devil Himself to destroy the medium of film or, it'll be because they've most probably garnered employment on behalf of the Friedberg/Seltzer mob.<br /><br />My Boss's Daugther, (which I'm pretty sure ought to be titled "My Boss' Daugther", grammatically speaking), revolves around its hapless male lead, named Tom Stansfield (Kutcher), and a night in at his boss' house as he chases that seemingly elusive 'goal' that is his young, blonde daughter Lisa Taylor (Reid) - someone whom works within the same department as he does in a towering Chicago office block whilst under the strict eye of Jack Taylor (Stamp). Tom spies Lisa early on, she's taking the subway to work with all the other shmos despite the fact she owns a car and that her father is the boss of the damn company. After trying to talk to her, but having his attempts foiled by a puking baby and a dog for the blind more interested in Tom's crotch than anything else, he finally gets his chance in the office when talk of an after-dark party elsewhere arises and that he ought to come round to her house to visit her - and yes, she does still live with her father. Think Hitchcock's 1960 film Psycho with the gender roles between Norman Bates and his mother reversed and then played for laughs.<br /><br />The distinct establishment of character is made painfully apparent in the opening scene in which Tom sits on the subway train and travels to work with his yuppie cohorts. They are a ruthless and smarmy bunch, whom it's made apparent swipe the briefcases of those unfortunate enough to get them stuck in the door in the ensuing morning rush, without ever returning them. One day it happens with Tom there, and his wish is to return it, thus pounding into us that he's-not-like-other-guys(!) This, as he first sees Lisa down the carriage and is somewhat shy to approach her as the other men treat the whole situation as if it would be a breeze if they were in his position. This rather obvious and flat-footed attempt to try and get us to 'side' with Tom sits uneasily with what it supposedly takes to earn a place amidst these co-workers in this company.<br /><br />It is, however, as close as My Boss's Daughter comes to any level of film-making. From a seemingly harmless premise of a boy meeting a girl and wanting to get to know her arrives the comedy from Hell. Tom's arriving at the house will not see him invited to the party, instead he is charged with house sitting Jack's pet owl and generally keeping out of mischief whilst maintaining a spotless house. It's been established Terrance Stamp's character means business in the strictest of manners, firing people for the smallest of things such as the making of a bad cup of coffee. It's not that Jack is a shrewed businessman, he's a cleanliness freak; obsessed with control and a borderline sociopath in his placings of bear traps in the garden so as to keep the children next door off his land. You can imagine, that when we're let into his large and exquisite house with the orders that nothing should go wrong, there's obviously going to be trouble.<br /><br />The film has fun with this premise of danger for about ten minutes. The first time someone uses the worktop to crack open a beer thus marking the pristine top, you may smirk, but by the time half the house is wrecked and Michael Madsen has shown up urinating all over the rug, you've got your head in your hands. Each joke in the film is set up in an almighty clunky manner before it is played out in a way that is closer to slow and excruciating than slick and faultless, the only thing missing as it follows through to the next gag is the sound effect of someone incorrectly changing the gears to a car as it clunks and creaks onto the next pratfall. Inbetween the gross-out wackiness, the film takes time to roll down a route of yucky, saccharine driven romance as Lisa and Tom bond whilst talking of in-workplace and out-of workplace persona's, and that maybe they have more in common than first thought. By the hour mark, the film's opted for gross out gags and hate filled jibes more than anything when there's an entire scene that exists purely to target paraplegics and a dumb subplot to do with a head-injury sporting neighbour on a blind date in which some truly unwatchable sight gags are unfolded. Throughout, Stamp's character enjoys putting people down and asking if the simplest of tasks are too difficult for them, to which the common-place reply ought to be whilst channeling Jack Taylor: was reading the screenplay first too complicated-a concept for you, Stamp?
To be fair, I couldn't bear to watch this movie all the way thru, so I have no idea if it suddenly gets better half way thru the film. But the first 30 minutes or so are amongst the worst I have seen in a while. Children under twelve might get a kick out of the poorly written, acted, and directed slapstick humor, but adults in full control of all their faculties should steer clear of this stinker.
It was dumb. Sort of like an Adam Sandler movie. <br /><br />There were a few funny parts but not that funny.<br /><br />I liked some of the actors in it though. <br /><br />There were some Sat. Night Live people in the movie. But I wouldn't recommend this unless there is just nothing else better on. And it was still better than any Jennifer Lopez movie.
I was intrigued by the nasty boss character as I am one myself, and the actual boss's daughter was attractive and it was interesting to see an even younger Ashton Kushner, but this movie is so puerile I had to turn it off. It was a waste of time to watch it. When people started peeing all over the living room, it was too much to watch. Painful, awful crap movie. If they had just toned it down a little. Are there really people out there that find it funny and like it? I was relieved to know that IMDb readers rated it so low. The career side to the story was intriguing as well as the young man trying to get a promotion and win the bosses favor. I liked that part. Also, the opening scene with the coworkers on the train was cool as I like his coworker's characters. If you can stomach non-sense movies or you are pretty young, then it might be one you can stomach.
Dreamy young Ashton Kutcher (as Tom Stansfield) wants a date with sexy blonde Tara Reid (as Lisa Taylor). Ms. Reid thinks Mr. Kutcher is gay. Kutcher works for Reid's father, an anal retentive Terence Stamp (as Jack Taylor). Kutcher agrees to "housesit" for the boss, believing it will get him closer to Reid. Mr. Stamp has a pet owl named "O.J.", who becomes a toilet cokehead. <br /><br />This is a film to get your restricted to "G-rated" pre-teens ready for raunchier "R-rated" fare. It will help if they haven't seen the plot before, and especially like moronic potty humor. Remember, people get paid to act like this.<br /><br />** My Boss's Daughter (2003) David Zucker ~ Ashton Kutcher, Tara Reid, Terence Stamp
This film made me so angry because of its stupidity that I felt the need to create an account on IMDb to share with you my opinion. I liked Ashton Kutcher in "A lot like love" and this is why I still wanted to see this film despite it's current 4.2 rating. It is highly over-rated. I trusted that an actor (any of them) would judge the script and would not agree to participate in such low/now quality production. It is very disappointing. The theme of home-sitting was much better used in "Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo". Things that did not make sense here: fist of all, the house owner leaves his precious pet with somebody who doesn't know anything about taking care of it. Secondly, the rule is not to let anybody in the house, but the house-sitter fails to follow this simple rule. The door is not locked?! And so on..
I bought this thing used at a video game store's "clearance bin". I wanted to get that guilty feeling from watching something I've been warned is too intense to watch; I wanted the shock value. I wanted to feel guilty and bad about watching a "banned film". I was very disappointed.<br /><br />Cannibal Ferox does not work because it is so campy and fake. Most of the time the camera does not show you the "shocking" stabs, chops, slicing - you just see the aftermath. (They do show a breast hooking in detail). The special effects are just OK. Nothing here that tells you any of the violence is real. The "cannibals" are obviously poor people from central / south America who were dressed up as jungle savages and told to act mean. These people were obviously in on the whole picture to get a little money, or food, or both. Again...just not convincing.<br /><br />However, like everyone else has said, there is some real killing of animals going on here. That is the extent of the realism. To me, that was more shocking than any gutting, chopping of scalps, or castration, and even then, the animal deaths are not that gory at all - maybe just sad.
Like anyone else who bought this, I was duped by the "20 pieces of extreme gore" and "banned in 20 countries" or whatever it says in the box. I have to admit I am a huge gore fan and I am always amazed when films can lay it on thick and look convincing doing it. Tom Savini, Rick Baker and Greg Cannom are some of the best in the business. The revolutionized make-up effects in the 80's. Today, you don't need them as everything is done on computer. But computers cannot compare to the visual wizardry that these three men could conjure up. But I digress.<br /><br />Watching fantastically gory films like Fulci's Gates to Hell or even Savini's crowning achievement, Friday the 13th the Final Chapter, you can appreciate all that goes into making a terrifically gory film. You can't tell the difference between reality and magic.<br /><br />I can't imagine another reason why anyone would see Cannibal Ferox but the gore that is ostensibly omnipotent in this film. If that is the reason you seek this film, then you are wasting your money. As many other reviewers in here have noted, most of the gore is an aftermath. You don't see the torture, or the bloodshed as it happens, you see whatever it looks like afterwords.<br /><br />The gore? Well, it's here, but not as much as one would hope, or expect. A man does get castrated and a women does get hanged by her breasts, but other then those two scenes, and one involving a scalping; there is nothing really much else to this film. The scenes of gore even in these three mentioned, are still pretty tame in comparison to what you were hoping for. Maybe it's just me and my sick and twisted experience in the horror and gore genre, but I was expecting a bit more. Call me sick or twisted, but isn't that the only reason people are watching this film in the first place? I honestly found myself bored in a lot of places.<br /><br />Cannibal Ferox is just another film that tries to capitalize on a craze of a superior film. While Cannibal Holocaust is not exactly a great film, it is much better than this tripe. If you go out of your way to buy this for $20.00, you will feel cheated.<br /><br />3/10
One of the most notorious of the banned "Video Nasties" of the 1980s is also one of the most excessively over-hyped. "Make Them Die Slowly" is about what you'd expect from an Umberto Lenzi-directed jungle potboiler–inventive (yet poorly rendered) native torture techniques, some ridiculous "social commentary" (yes, even sillier than "Cannibal Holocaust"), and lots of guts being chewed. The film's exploitative violence, though, is often only shown in brief close-up, and never dwelt on for very long, which diminishes its effect (interpret that how you may). The dialog is Lenzi's usual silliness, as our male heroes show their affection for females by calling them "tw@t" and the like. The cast of familiar faces (including Lorraine De Selle, Giovanni Lombardo Radice, Zora Kerowa, and Robert Kerman) does their best in the face of the escalating idiocy (including a completely ludicrous "castration preservation"), but cannot save this overworked, lousy effort.
First thing I note is the music. It's nothing as amazing as Ruggero Deodato's Cannibal Holocaust's haunting theme or the masterpiece waltz from A Tale of Two Sisters, but I don't let that stop me so early in the film.<br /><br />One must assume that the woman researching her hypothesis for her PHd dissertation that cannibalism as a organized practice has never existed, one would think they must take into the consideration that they are wrong and prepare for the trip accordingly right? Or why go at all if you already believe the hypothesis to be true before even being tested? That's fairly unbelievably ignorant and makes the movie seem that much more unrealistic and badly scripted.<br /><br />That actually is similar to the Ruggero Deodato's film, just totally ill-prepared. No guns, no decent hiking clothing, just nonsense through and through.<br /><br />People don't go on trips like this for college without months of planning and preparation.<br /><br />But I digress...<br /><br />Things don't get off to a very good start for our brave yet stupid adventurers as they swerve to miss a jaywalking iguana, and their decoy pet ferret falls out of the truck nearly to it's demise, then to fall into a mud hole, well I guess it's time to walk.<br /><br />Okay then they flip a coin to see whether they keep going or forget the whole thing. How does that scene even make any sense? All their conviction rests on the flip of a coin? After they must've spent time, and money, and preparation just getting out there. This just keeps getting worse. Defiinitely some of the worst acting and scripting and music ever concocted for the film industry.<br /><br />Mike talks about how he and his friend's were captured by the cannibals and put into cages in mud pits with 3 inch long leeches sucking on their blood. I found that interesting because if you remember the first cannibal they run into in the jungle, a man they mistake as a simple native, is sitting on the ground eating such leeches... wonder if they are the same ones? Really though this movie is just terrible because the script is horrible and the acting is emotionless considering the content. They just agree to off themselves rather then get eaten by cannibals like it's no big decision.<br /><br />Obviously Mike is insane, but just like in the first movie they treat the natives with such terrible behavior it's simply unrealistic.<br /><br />Ruggero Deodato's movie easily feels the Americans got what they deserved, while in this movie one can hardly blame the natives for what befalls the Americans yet again.<br /><br />And because of that the movie feels somewhat pointless. We already got the point from the first movie, so why was the sequel made? The lieutenant's name is Rizzo?! Could it get any worse? Oftentimes with movies such as these when you look up the cast you find they haven't really acted in much other films and their bios are all but non existent, so you can imagine I was surprised to find Giovanni Lombardo Radice in this movie who was in Scorsese's Gangs of New York. Now Lt. Rizzo looked familiar and I found he was in the 2002 movie Spiderman as a very tiny role as a tugboat captain. Reminds me of how William Shatner went from being the admiral on the USS Enterprise to a cop in a car. Irony, sometimes irony works out. Shatner never could get the music right until his recent album "Has Been" which is really good, just like Bono of U2 never could get a haircut right, and Dan Marino never could win no Superbowls.<br /><br />Sometimes irony is just sad, like Christopher Reeve, Superman can't walk irony. The man will always be a legend though because he was such a great guy, I digress yet again though.<br /><br />At this point you can tell I'm fairly bored of even discussing Cannibal Ferox.<br /><br />Cannibal Holocaust's message was about who are the real savages and what is truly evil? What the savages do in natural living unknown to our moral records, or what we do to others with malicious intent? Cannibal Ferox's message seems to be 'Be careful what you go looking for, for you just might find it.' I will say this for Cannibal Ferox. When Gloria comes back and writes her dissertation, asserting that Cannibalism does NOT exist, she saves others who would be curious and go where angels fear tread, but overall this movie was really bad.<br /><br />***/10
CANNIBAL FEROX (1+ outta 5 stars) Miserable excuse for a movie... which you might enjoy if you really like boring, nonsensical jungle movies spiced up with scenes of graphic violence. A pair of drug dealers on the run from the mob travel to the jungles of Paraguay to search for emeralds and cocaine. They meet up with another young traveler and his two hot babe sidekicks, one of whom is an anthropologist seeking to prove definitively that cannibalism does not and has not ever existed. One of the two dealers turns out to be a bit of a psychopath and he tortures and kills a couple of natives in order to get them to tell him where they hide their jewels. (And how they could even tell him when he doesn't seem to speak their language in the first place?) Well, the natives are suddenly not too thrilled with white folks in their jungle and capture them all for some retaliatory torture. Poor acting, poor plot and poor direction. Not a decent moment of suspense in the whole dreary 90 minutes. Even the special effects are not particularly convincing (though a couple of shots will still make most viewers cringe). The only good scene in the whole movie is when the two women are imprisoned in a mud hut and seem to touch the hearts of the natives with their rendition of "Red River Valley". The following is a quote from the movie but I wouldn't be surprised if many viewers weren't saying exactly the same thing by that point: "Oh God, please let her die soon. Oh, let her die soon. And let me die soon too, please."
This movie was unbelievably bad... It's gory but the violence is just too much to the point where it looks extremely fake and predictable. Since Everything is shown to you there is nothing left to the imagination. And the plot... what plot? There really isn't any! The pacing is unbelievably slow (despite the random acts of violence) and the screenplay must have been written by a deranged 12 year old kid who kills kittens for fun. So this movie was banned in 31 countries? I could see why... not because of the gore (boring and trite) but because it was a terrible movie. It should have been BANNED from existence. Avoid this one like the plague. 1 out of 10
This film is about a young man's painful journey to discovering his sexuality.<br /><br />The film is raw and unpretentious. It does not rely on steamy sex scenes to attract the viewers. Though the plot may seem incoherent and disconnected at times, and some events are not properly explained. I can understand it though, because this film is a collection of memories that are highly personal to the director. The subplot of about his sister and mother probably does not need to exist in the film, but I can certainly imagine that these are very important events in his life.<br /><br />The low budget of the film is clearly discernible. It is a pity that the sound effects are poorly done. The narration and some dialogs (particularly the scene in the classroom with the French teacher) have so much echo, which makes it hard to make out what is said. The ambient noise, notable traffic noise, is also captured throughout the film. When a scene cuts into another, the level of traffic noise changes.<br /><br />This film is probably not entertaining, but it certainly serves as an insightful diary of a young man's journey to embracing his sexuality.
I'm probably one of the few people who defend and even enjoy "Frisk," the project that put Todd Verow on the map, if that is indeed where he is. I appreciated that someone had the guts to take on Dennis Cooper and not back away from the material; Verow fairly rolls around in it. Judging from what he's done since then he's well-suited for that type of material and should probably stick to it. "Vacationland," a would-be "teen coming out" film, is so misguided in so many ways it becomes unintentional comedy, and I'm disappointed I have to report that.<br /><br />First off, our hero, the high school Senior "Joe" is far too old in appearance to be playing 18 . When we later meet a man who is supposed to be Joe's teacher it's confusing, as the sweaty-faced guy looks much younger than the student he's teaching. Joe's mother looks younger than he does and doesn't "act" any older either. Second, in Joe's opening scenes he looked like he was either playing, or actually experiencing, mental challenges. To his credit he got better as the film went on and I figured out he was "playing young," but it just wasn't working--it was weird.<br /><br />It's 15 minutes in before anything is revealed about who, what and where these people are, and why we should care. The second scene in the film is an extended bit of business in a men's toilet room that, considering where the story goes later, is absolutely superfluous; the subplot with the teacher goes nowhere at all, even as a "rite of passage" for our "young" hero...one minute Joe is nervously trying his hand at bathroom stall sex (a scene so un-erotic it makes you truly wonder what anyone sees in the practice), the next minute he's an expert at sexual blackmail and violent double-crossing. This is followed by an extended scene with the character we'll later learn is "Andrew," and that's about all we learn about him, other than he's apparently gay but not out yet.<br /><br />There's a lot crammed in to the 1:44 running time (which is about 20 minutes too long--I can't imagine how it played with the mind-numbingly long and pointless deleted scenes of Joe walking around); a sub-plot copped from "Gods And Monsters" with an aged patron who spouts rhetoric appros pos of nothing played by an actor who obviously can't remember his lines (he is conveniently dispatched with in a way Dickens might have come up with on a slow week); a mix-n-match almost-four-way between the boys and their girlfriends, a gay-bashing toilet tramp, a would-be wise sage in the form of a nellie queen (and hasn't the nellie queen suddenly taken over the role of the "hooker with the heart of gold" as most tired stereo-type?) who exists only to be degraded; blackmail, theft, murder, alcohol consumption and abuse of looping music software for soundtrack recording.<br /><br />What you will NOT find in this movie are any interior establishing master shots; we're expected to imagine we're in an airport, grocery store office and classroom, as all the scenes in these locations consist of close-ups and poorly edited soundscapes to convey the idea of locales that the production must not have been able to afford. One thing they were able to get appears to have been an actual gay bar; either it's the worst bar in the world or there are only about 5 gay men in Bangor, Maine, as the bar never has any patrons in it. Another good chuckle came when the actors were supposed to be yelling over dance music that very obviously wasn't coming from the speakers, but was just more of the droning loop-music of the "score."<br /><br />Plots and characters come and go, emotions are unreadable and the dialog, clearly inspired by Dennis Cooper, is "film-speak," meaning no humans actually talk this way. Since we aren't given any information about these characters it's impossible to care about what happens to them; it's as if Joe et al appear out of the ether one day and might simply cease to exist once the credits roll (certainly the character of Joe's sister, a wannabee Jennifer Grey who is Bohemia-crazy, seems to just simply "stop," we never know where she is in LA or what her problem is...but again...does it matter?). Visually the film looks very good at times, more a testament to new developments in hi-def video than anything, I suspect. The editing is pretty clunky though (there was one great edit; Joe is posing naked and says, "I wanted to play sports, but..." and we cut to a shot revealing his "butt..." ha ha). Composition is also odd at times (I thought I was watching SCTV's parody of "Persona" when the boys were talking together in bed and visually it looked as if their noses were stuck together for the whole scene!).<br /><br />One senses Verow is really restraining himself from making a "naughtier" or somewhat rougher movie like he usually does, and maybe he shouldn't have held back (the frothy toothpaste/sex fantasy worked nicely, I thought, though the tone was out of touch with the rest of the movie)...he produces and directs this "sensitive coming of age" story much like Herschell Gordon Lewis directed films without gore...porn films without sex in them. I got some unintended laughs out of this and it wasn't boring, it just wasn't very good either.
This movie has too many things going on. Another reviewer comments on the disjointed, episodic nature of the film as reflecting the director's memories - that's fine, if that is how it was written and performed. Instead, what we get is straight-forward narrative - some of the time - that jumps around, under and over, leaves us dangling in some instances, interrupts the flow with unnecessary digressions in other instances, and otherwise simply doesn't work. <br /><br />There are also some plot details that just don't work. For example, why drag a body onto a beach in an urban area in broad daylight, as opposed to night time? Why leave your flat sheet on the body? Why would an artist who knew the Joe character for a brief time decide to leave him "everything" (even if it wasn't much)? This sub-plot was poorly developed to make that point work. For that matter, why even have the man be an invalid or an artist other than to provide the money and the gratuitous nude posing scenes? He could just as easily have been a photographer, or a opera composer? For that matter, how does someone rate an apartment in an Opera House - particularly without some clear connection to the Opera? The coincidences are also both too obvious and to unclear and unexplained. Why would the guys take everything in the warehouse and "disappear." If Tim was a 10 year old school mate in a town as small as Bangor, how could Joe lose track of him for 8 years, especially if they knew each other well enough that one would recommend the other for a job. <br /><br />Some of the other subplots (like the mother and her boyfriend(s) and the sister wanting to escape felt like padding. There's some good ideas that might have made a feature with full development or could have been interesting shorts. As completed, this movie made little sense and offers even less.
Awful is really all one needs to know. First think of all the things that could be bad about a movie. And then try to make a movie that is bad in all of these ways. You will have made "Vacationland." The state of Maine should feel insulted: it's much too nice a place to serve as the backdrop for such trite, mindless, boring schlock. I'm a romantic, and I always want movies about two people finding each other to succeed, and I tried hard to find the good in this one. It was tough; very tough. I couldn't find a glimmer of emotional connection among any of the characters in this exercise in humdrum dreariness. Except maybe in one or two of the bad guys.<br /><br />Maine IS a good vacationland; this movie is not.
Director Todd Verow's unexpected turn into sentimental coming-out drama yields a predictable result: Nothing new to see here. Attractive but unconvincing leads - these 20-somethings are supposed to be in high school? - dribbling out banalities about confused, adolescent sexuality doesn't strike me as the best way to explore the promise of Anonymous, which was equally self-involved, but also honest, raw and, by comparison, not all that maudlin. I have no idea what to make of this drab and uninspiring movie other than to hope that Verow finds another career. Sure, it's unpretentious, but so's Mike Huckabee.<br /><br />No single attribute, however, is as awful as Jim Dwyer's chintzy, electronic score, which grates non-stop, wall-to-wall for the full length of this movie. If I'd seen this, and heard this, in a theatre, I would have walked out. Thankfully, on my laptop, I could scrub and hit mute.
I first watched Kindred in 1987 along with another movie called devouring waves. I remember back then i hated them both and i have never really bothered to watch them again.<br /><br />However i have recently started a crusade to collect as many 80's horror titles in their original boxed form, That have been deleted for some time. I have got myself quite a proud collection with many more titles on my list!<br /><br />The Kindred although i have not as yet got a copy is high priority as all the old movies i didn't like back then, I now own and have now re-watched and think they are brilliant and the bits i do remember of the Kindred are now driving me to want to get hold of a copy A.S.A.P.<br /><br />Hurray for the 80's and long live horror!
The Kindred opens to shots of a Porsche racing along a highway, it catches up with an old pick-up truck and gets held up. As it speeds past the pick-up the driver (Benjamin J.Perry as Ben Perry) shouts obscenities and honks his horn. Distracted he doesn't notice an obstruction ahead and crashes his Porsche. He is quickly freed from the wreckage and is taken to hospital. On the way the Paramedic (Randy Harrington) trying to save him suggests that he probably won't make it. Then the Ambulance is attacked and forced off the road by a van. The driver of the van, Jackson (Jim Boeke as James F.Boeke) beats the Paramedic up and steals the patient. The Ambulance driver, Harry (Charles Grueber) makes no attempt to stop him. Once the injured man has been placed into the van Jackson turns his attention to Harry whom seem to know each other. Harry asks Jackson not to hit him because he broke his jaw 'last time'. Jackson punches Harry to the floor and throws a bundle of money at him. The film then makes it perfectly clear we are in San Fransisco by showing a shot of the Golden Gate Bridge. Sharon Raymond is woken up by a phone call for her boyfriend Dr. John Hollins (David Allen Brooks) to inform him that his Mother, Amanda (Kim Hunter) who has recently had a heart attack has regained consciousness. Hollins works for a company called the 'Geneticell Corporation' and is delighted at the news and heads off to see her. Once there she asks him to go back to his old childhood house in a small town called Shelter Cove and destroy all of her notes and experiments, especially the 'Anthony journals' which Hollins has never heard of, she also claims that he has a brother named Anthony. Back at Geneticell, Hollins talks with a Dr. Phillip Lloyd (Rod Steiger) about his Mother as they had both worked together before they had a falling out with each other, and questions him about her research and if he knows of anyone called Anthony. He claims he knows nothing. When Amanda dies after a visit from the sinister Dr. Lloyd, Hollins decides to carry out his Mothers request and try to find out who Anthony is. While paying his final respects at the funeral a woman named Melissa Leftridge (Amanda Pays) introduces herself to Hollins and says she was a big admirer of his Mothers work and research after she helped her. Because Melissa seems to know so much about his Mothers work he invites her to the house as she may possibly be able to help find some answers to various questions he has. Hollins, Sharon, Melissa and three lab assistants, Brad Baxter (Peter Frechette), Hart Phillips (Timothy Gibbs) and Cindy Russell (Julia Montgomery) plus a girl with a watermelon(!) named Nell Valentine (Bunki Z, great name what were her parents thinking!?). They get down to business straight away but find little of any interest. For some reason no one at this point thinks to look in the basement, which is just as well as there's something down there, something large, slimy and has lots of tentacles. First it kills Duke, the dog. Then it moves on to larger prey. When Hart is attacked by something in a barn Hollins decides he must destroy all traces of his Mothers work and whatever Anthony is. Jointly co-written and directed by Stepehn Carpenter and Jeffery Obrow, Carpenter also acted as cinematographer and Obrow as producer. This is a pretty poor film in my opinion. The script is credited to five(!) writers, Carpenter, Obrow, Earl Ghaffari, John Penny and Joseph Stefano and with five people working on it I'd like to think they could come up with something a little bit better and more coherent than this. Nothing is explained that well, why did Amanda create these monstrous sea creature/human hybrids? What is Dr. Lloyd's interest and his motives? Why does he steal bodies from the back of Ambulance's? Why does he have a basement full of mutants? Why do none of these so-called genetic scientists think to check the basement out? Could Melissa act more suspiciously even if she tried? Why are none of the characters given any background? Why do people keep mentioning a substance found in sea creatures called Hemocynine when 99.9% of the audience isn't going to have clue what their on about? There is also a serious lack of blood and gore, only one person dies on screen, just one! And all the scientists survive in a vomit inducingly mushy 'happy ending'. This is a horror film guys, all we want to see is the slimy monsters kill and eat people in various gory ways. The one on screen death is actually quite cool, someone has slimy tentacles inserted under their skin, in their ear and up their nose in the films only decent horror sequence. To try and up the gore quotent there is a scene where Dr. Lloyd is experimenting on a skinned animal but it only lasts for a few seconds, and in the context of the rest of the film doesn't mean a thing. Melissa also turns into a fish, don't ask. There's no nudity either, which isn't a surprise. The film looks professional enough with decent production values but is just so dull and plods along at a snails pace, we don't even get to see the giant monster in the basement until 15 odd minutes before the end which is far too little far too late, when it does make an appearance the effects are OK and that makes it even more of a shame that it wasn't used more. Overall I was very disappointed and I was expecting a lot better. A horror film with only one on screen death and only three in total, what's the world coming too?
"Son you must stop the experiments I have started!!" Too bad nobody said this too whoever green lighted this project!! I was almost literally dragged to this movie by a friend of mine for a midnight showing when we were in high-school. Now, a midnight movie in high-school on a Friday night, you are not expecting much, but c'mon!! And upon seeing it again years later I sill stand by my original opinion of it. Great special effects but so what!! Quite possibly one of the worst movies ever made. Unless you enjoy blood and guts and seeing some Hollywood vets (Steiger & Hunter) make fools of themselves for a buck. YUCK!!!
The best way to have fun in this movie is to count how many clichés it is rehashing. Snarling Chinese gangsters. A female vice-president. A ventilator duct that happens to be big enough to fit a big Caucasian male. Shooting through the wall to kill the bad guy. A Situation where you need to snuff out some innocent people to prevent Armageddon. Independence Day scenes where you snuff out some memorable landmarks in a fireball. The vice president in a nice well lighted room surrounded by subordinates, while the Chinese premier virtually alone in a dark room with just bit of dim light shining, snarling as viciously as the slimy gangsters. A lone hero left alone in a ship (building, airplane, whatever) wreaking havoc on clueless bad guys with big automatic weapons. Etc., etc., etc.<br /><br />The second best way is to count how many zeroes you need to put after the decimal to accurately gauge the probability of the film scenario. I counted up to 45. A president agreeing to a meeting on board a private vessel. The impossibly non-overridable command from the nuke box. The part where the Chinese decided to play shoot 'em up. Etc., etc. Man the earth is more likely fall into the sun than for this film to happen. <br /><br />I admit the film was interesting until the point the evil Taiwanese gangsters kidnapped the President. Then the boredom kicked in. Suspension of disbelief ceased, and I started thinking the fun I'd have torturing this film...
I at first thought this little fantasy excursion would be a little entertaining. I was wrong. <br /><br />A good cast (Roy Scheider as the president) didn't help it any. The story had every conceivable possible worst-case scenario that could take place in a terrorist nuclear disaster. And none of it could POSSIBLY happen! <br /><br />True -- the kidnapping of the President could only be accomplished with the inside help of a traitor in the Secret Service (ala Air Force One), but everything they depicted regarding the FOOTBALL and the helplessness of our country if were to fall into enemy hands is ludicrous to the Nth degree. Seriously, not even the President can fully over-ride our missile control. The case is only used to relay orders. In this situation, our system would have completely deleted the codes and the whole thing would go nowhere. The destruction of Beijing couldn't happen -- there would not have been a missile launch because the silo-crews would have been instructed not to (communications include a hardwired system). There are just too many safe-guards to prevent such a thing from happening. <br /><br />True, film's like FAIL-SAFE and STRANGELOVE gave some credibility to the concept of us losing control of THE SYSTEM. But this film goes too far and fails to suspend my concept of the unbelievable. And that makes the experience a waste of the viewer's time. This film is a failure.
...a film comes along that manages to be absolutely terrible from the opening titles on through to the studio logo tagged at the end of the closing credits. This was such a film - the very type you can not stop watching for fear of missing a moment of its ever-descending quality.<br /><br />Forget the low budget that's indicated by a slow, monotonous opening sequence that shows secret service agents running alongside a presidential motorcade with no crowds, no traffic or location discernible. Forget the jumbled logic needed to even remotely make the actual plot seem plausible. Forget that Roy Scheider delivers some of the hammiest dialogue whilst completely failing to hide his shame.<br /><br />This clunker is terribly paced, bombarded by a score that's simply laughable, and seems edited by a third grader. All the while twisting scenarios to cover up the hardest thing about filming a presidential storyline on the cheap: making him seem presidential.<br /><br />I honestly feel asleep briefly in the last reel, and when I awoke, I ran it back so as not to miss a single excruciating frame. Try this drinking game: take a shot every time you see it blatantly aping another much better film. You'll doze off, too.<br /><br />Not since 'The Man' w/ Samuel L. Jackson and Eugene Levy have I seen such a delightfully unredeemable project. I may give out copies as Christmas gifts. Zero stars. A thousand laughs.
This is no doubt one of the worst movies i have seen in a long time. I was expecting alot more from the actors. It started alright, then things go from idiotic to absolutely ridiculous. Definitely not worth renting except if its a free rental.
COC had its moments. I enjoyed the action sequences, but I despised the screenplay and plot. I hate this film so much, I'll just write about the dumbest part. First of all, the plot would never happen. Second, the bleakness of the Chinese President was uncalled for. That would never happen. Finally, the dialogue. Employing non-Chinese actors to play Chinese roles is understandable, but to write dialogue for them that's TOTALLY OFF is dumb! For those of you who understood the Chinese in the film, you know what I mean.
Poorly done political actioner. Badly photographed, acted, and directed. Every single scene is underlighted, including those very few that are shot during the daytime. It doesn't matter what the location is. At an important conference in the White House, no lights are on, and the only available lighting is a gloomy blue that is filtered through a few windows. The primier of China conducts an earth-shattering phone conversation under conditions of such intense chiaroscuro that he should be contemplating a bust of Homer in a Rembrandt painting. Honest. It's as if he had a tiny spotlight on his face and was otherwise in total darkness. The slow motion deaths are by now obligatory in any ill-thought-out movie.<br /><br />Roy Scheider and Maria Conchita Alonzo do well by their roles, but Scheider is rarely on screen. The other performances are dismissable. There is a pretty Oriental woman in a short tight skirt who totes a gun and is right out of a Bond movie who's accent suggests a childhood spent in Basset, Nebraska, and who should have remained the model she probably started out as. Whoever plays the surviving Secret Service agent aboard the cruise ship was probably picked for the part because he looked most like Johnny Depp, not because of any display of talent. The Chinese villains, representing both Taiwan and mainland China, hiss and grin as they threaten the heroes. <br /><br />The script is pretty awful, recycled from other, better films. There is a lot of shooting aboard the ship and practically everyone winds up mincemeat. Two thirds of the way through, the ship explodes into the expected series of fireballs. Then the movie splits into two related parts. Part one, another shootout, this time in a waterfront warehouse. Part two, an exchange between the Vice President, now acting president, and the oily Chinese premiere, lifted out of both "Dr. Strangelove" and "Fail Safe." We unwittingly launch our missiles. They launch theirs in retaliation. We cannot convince them that our launch was accidental, even though we offer to help them destroy our own missiles. There is even the George C. Scott/ Walter Matthau general who argues that their "nucular" armory can't match ours so we should hit them with everything we've got. More fireballs. <br /><br />The end comes none too soon.
Ugh. This movie has so many unbelievable plot contrivances that they made what could have been a good movie into a hideous mess. The story is halfway decent, but the holes in the plot make the execution literally laughable. We're actually supposed to believe that the Secret Service would go against all common sense and allow the President of the United States to be put at unbelievable risk. If this is an indication of the kind of thinking that passes for good judgment among the President's protectors, then we're all in trouble. Roy Scheider turns in a good performance as the President, but it is unfortunately offset by the truly loathsome acting of Patrick Muldoon (who somehow continues to get jobs in Hollywood based solely upon his good looks and his uncanny knack of smirking at every opportunity, regardless of whether the script calls for a smirk). Perhaps someone will see this and be inspired to make a good movie from the premise--or, perhaps someone will see it and say, "Hey, if they can get a movie this bad made, maybe I can, too!"
Schieder delivers a semi-believable part as the President of the United States with politically correct Maria Conchita Alonzo as the female Vice President. The movie just stinks. with so many plot holes its a wonder they got it to stick to the film it was shot on. Relegated to late night HBO time schedules, this film is not worth seeing at all. 10 minutes into it, you are asking yourself why it was written. 40 minutes into it, you are wondering why you are watching it. Save the effort and watch a re-run of Hee Haw or something. Anything is better than this clunker.
I would think that this was one of those films whose director hadn't read the book it was based on, were it not for the fact that they are just slightly similar. It is certainly possible for a great film to be "based" very loosely on a book and this was certainly the latter but not the former.<br /><br />There were a number of flaws. One was that it tried to be too much like the Railway Children, probably because adults would expect this, being from the same author. Another is that it also sought to be too like Harry Potter, down to the music and in overemphasizing the setting. I have nothing against J K Rowling or the films but the book is just nothing like the Harry Potter ones. I thought the Psammead, though very well voiced by Eddie Izzard and in character too, was almost gratuitously in a totally inappropriate environment. I may have missed something here, as the comments made about one of the characters' own books may have been a reference to the inaccuracy of the adaptation. There was also no need for the extra characters, and today's special effects could easily have been used to tell the story as it was written, but they weren't.<br /><br />I saw this film with my two children, one of whom knows the book and the other of whom doesn't. The one who does know it thought it was all right but wasn't as enthusiastic as the one who doesn't. I'm not sure what this means.
1st watched 10/29/2006 - 4 out of 10(Dir-John Stephenson): Mildly entertaining story of a group of five kids who are forced to live with their eccentric uncle while their father and mother fight & work in World War I as England entered the war. They are told not to go in the greenhouse of the uncle's mansion, which of course they do over and over, and they discover a sand fairy who them daily wishes that only last until the sun goes down. This is the "IT" referred to in the title, created by the Jim Henson group and voiced by Eddie Izzard. The problem is their wishes usually bring about other problems that they are supposed to learn from. This part of the movie is not done very well because it's obvious the children, primarily the Freddie Highmore character, do not learn from them but instead keep going back to "it" to solve their next big problem. "IT" is not nearly as funny as it could have been with the comedian Eddie Izzard really not given much opportunity to improvise and Kenneth Branagh is wasted as the eccentric uncle, although he is the best character. The children are fine as far as their acting abilities but the story probably would have been much better going into the fantasy realm but they did have a human story to tell as well, which probably caused the confusion with the filmmakers. So, all in all, this was an OK film but could have been much better.
The Great War breaks out and Daddy is a brave pilot who goes off to carry out some unsightly business to put Jerry in his place. Mummy is doing her bit as a nurse, so the five children are evacuated to their barmy uncle in the country, where a secret passageway takes them to a mischievous sand fairy and the beginning of a magical adventure.<br /><br />Based on a book written the best part of a century ago, they don't make stories like this anymore. And there's a reason. The men fly planes and author books; the women change bandages and clean house. The boys lead the way with their compasses and nighttime furloughs; the girls do what they are told and play violin - badly. Fat kids who wear specs are nasty. All the kids speak in those clipped, vowel-flattening accents that are soppy and prim but which a certain economic class of English people cultivate. On top of the snobbery and yearning for Imperial Albion, there are plot holes a five-year-old would not tolerate. I mean that literally - my son was asking why the father disappeared before sunset, why the compass didn't just drop from his hand as he disappeared. The film at least tries to aim strictly for the kids, until a completely inappropriate and unfunny monologue by Eddie Izzard (what a waste of genuine comic talent) plays over the final credits.<br /><br />No doubt the five percent of British schoolkids who go to expensive public schools in the UK will find it all such a jolly wheeze. For the other 95 percent of British families who no longer live in the 19th century, the good news is Wall-E, Ratatouille and Wallace and Gromit are all out on DVD.
This is one of those "family" movies that I can't imagine having much appeal to anyone over about 9. A group of siblings discovers a "sand fairy" (yes, really) conveniently located at the end of a not-so-secret passage at the country home of their eccentric uncle, to which they've been evacuated from the London blitz. ...And there you have it, all in one sentence. The story is about the role of magic in childhood and the danger of getting wishes fulfilled, but neither of these issues is examined in a way that would be interesting to adults or instructive to children (or vice versa!). The only reason I can think of for watching this is to see how starkly Freddie Highmore's outstanding talent stands out from the rest of the mediocre performances.
I will repeat - what a stupid scenario.<br /><br />Is there anything new inside? I don't know who have wrote this. But i believe this guy have watch all Hollywood -children -family -teens movies ever made... all scenes and dilouges u can see in everywhere. Why do u people making this movies? children's like an adults? they like money gold cars... and they are positives? they have lucky... and emotions of course... without it can be done. o the young Actors - wow :-). I do like when is camera concentrated on their nice faces? what a crap... there is 90% better children movies that this one! This is not creative or funny movie. This is simply nothing.<br /><br />D.
This late-ish effort from Freda plays as a modern day (70's that is) Gothic thriller, but comes out short of thrills. Certainly it's not a dreadfully bad film, it's jut got that feeling which many of Freda's later films have of someone who has given up when he's seen the first daily's. It starts out good enough, almost giallo like in tone, then takes a turn into Gothic territories with a decent (albeit terribly cliché) set up. Then suddenly Freda seems to have lost interest in the film and all we get is prolonged shots of Camille Keaton and burning candles. Then circa an hour into the film we get some sort of violent climax with decent-to-poor special effects. This is followed by a slow paced outro with a very obvious twist ending (If it's even intended to be a twist?). And throw a few very halfhearted explanatory scenes along the way and you got Tragic Ceremony. Thus in parts it's got its qualities. But then suddenly stumbles and collapses in front of you. A pity.<br /><br />btw stay away from the SHAROMA DVD, a useless murky pan& scan edition which kills of what could be a good visual experience.
On the way home from a day at the beach, four young people seek shelter from a torrential downpour at the home of Lord and Lady Alexander after their car runs out of gas. They don't know it, but the house they're staying in is to be the site of a Satanic ritual. Jane (Camille Keaton), the only female of the group, is to be sacrificed. As her male companions rush to her aid, one of them accidentally kills Lady Alexander. Things really get out of hand and everyone else attending the black mass is also killed. The four try to make an escape, but soon discover there's no escape from what they've witnessed. One by one, they meet their fates.<br /><br />Gong into Tragic Ceremony, I was positive I would enjoy it. Slow-burn Gothic horror is right up my alley. I'm also quite fond of some of Riccardo Freda's other movies like The Horrible Dr. Hichcock, The Ghost, and I Vampiri. Tragic Ceremony seemed to be a sure thing. Unfortunately, things don't always work out the way they should. The biggest tragedy with respect to Tragic Ceremony is the time I spent watching this mess of a movie. With a few minor exceptions, nothing about the film appealed to me or worked for me. The characters are unlikeable, the plot is incoherent and schizophrenic, and the pacing is terrible. There's a subplot about some cursed pearls that goes nowhere and only serves to confuse things even further. In addition, nothing interesting happens for most of the movie. By the time the four leads realize they're in danger, I was well past the point of caring. And I don't understand the reviews I've read that praise the acting of Camille Keaton. I suppose it's a terrific performance if you consider an emotionless daze to be acting. The three male leads are the very definition of nondescript. They do nothing to stand out. The supporting cast includes some genre favorites like Luigi Pistilli, Luciana Paluzzi, and Paul Muller, but none is given anything to do. In fact Muller's main contribution is a two minute long monologue at the end of the movie that attempts to explain what happened in the previous 80 or so minutes. It's a weak attempt to provide a wrap-up to a very weak movie.
Riccardo Freda may have a good reputation; but since we now that many of his best films were, in fact, directed by the late great Mario Bava; it's clear that he wasn't one of Italy's most gifted filmmakers back in the seventies. This film pretty much proves that as despite the simplistic plot; it's a sprawling mess and overall, I'd even have to go as far as to say that Tragic Ceremony is WORSE than Freda's insipid Giallo effort, The Iguana with the Tongue of Fire. Freda apparently disowned this movie, and I certainly don't blame him! The plot simply follows a bunch of kids that run out of petrol in the middle of nowhere. They happen upon a house while searching for fuel; but it turns out to be a bad choice, as the owner is just about to conduct a satanic ceremony...ho hum. The film features a lead role for Camille Keaton, who would go on to star in the exploitation classic I Spit on Your Grave some years later, but fails to make an impression here despite acting alongside a cast of talentless performers. The film features one decent gore scene towards the end, but this really isn't enough considering that it takes eighty minutes of tedium to get there. I have a high tolerance for rubbish Italian films that don't make sense - but even I couldn't stand this one. Miss it, miss nothing!
Even Mel Gibson couldnt save this slop of a movie. This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Why would mel Gibson make a movie that Im sure he couldnt sit and watch? what was this? A total goofball on some heavy drugs stalking a schizophrinic lady, who was also on some heavy ilicit street drugs. For all the moviegoers out there on heavy drugs; you will love this movie.
This movie just stunk. I know that some people will say that anybody who thinks it is no good "just doesn't get it." I like Wenders in American Friend and Wings of Desire. But this is utter dreck. The main character is so annoying that I couldn't care less what he does. He is, as has been said in another review bouncing around like a little annoying monkey. I just couldn't stand him or force myself to care. This is the case with most of the characters who just seem to be trying to hard to be goofey or weird. I liked the Mel Gibson character and the Milla Jovovich characters and wish they would have focused more on them. Milla is of course beautiful, pitiful and you really feel for her and what she has been thru and why she is the way she is. I see Gibsons character as almost Frankenstien like. I just wish he would have save Milla and brunt the hotel down with all the worthless boring characters that lived in it. Milla Rating 10 Movie rating 0
Perhaps I'm just a simple person, but I prefer movies that somehow make me care about the people in them. I couldn't care less about anyone in this movie. This was supposed to be a comedy? Maybe the humor was too subtle for me (all the way down to the nano-level). The thing about it is, it missed on so many things. There were characters that could have been funny, but they weren't. There were characters that you could have liked, but you didn't. For instance, the guy who thought the Beatles ripped off his songs. There was so much potential there, but all he did was talk like a Beatle and complain about how they ripped him off. Haha. And the previous poster talked about the 'I am the Walrus' scene like it was special. What? He played 'I am the Walrus' on an old piano and sang out of tune. Is there an inside joke there? It sure stank at face value. This movie has the feel to me of a movie people say they like because it sounds 'intellectual' or 'hip' to say you like it, that you get the whole metaphysical art/garbage message the artist is expressing. If you want to be entertained, stay away.
It's the one film I almost walked out of, and would have if my friends hadn't been in the movie theatre with me. Normally, even if I don't like a film, I think it's still worth sitting through it to the end. That way, you can really claim to have given it every chance to redeem itself. But with The Million Dollar Hotel, it was so dreadful I just badly wanted the experience to end as quickly as possible. I think I probably would not have been so sourly disappointed if this film had been made by a lesser director, one I didn't normally like so much. But coming from Wenders, it was all the more shocking to behold. I know Bono from U2, a good friend of Wenders's, wrote the script to this abysmal film, and I wonder why Wenders let him, as buddy-buddy as the two may have been. "Stick to the day job, Bono", is a sentence that easily springs to mind whilst viewing this mess. Pretentious, disjointed, a mish-mash of every possible contemporary film stereotype, a naive and transparent attempt at coming across as kooky and daring, with the most irritating characters I have ever set eyes upon, especially the leads, Jeremy Davies, Milla Jovovich and Mel Gibson, none of whom I dislike normally. The happiest ending I could have wished for would have been for a nuclear bomb to be dropped on their collective heads so as to get it all over with as soon as possible. On a positive note, the first five minutes of the film are extremely good, with an extremely stirring soundtrack from U2. But the film's opening shots make the rest of the film (which takes a spectacular nose-dive from then on) all the more disappointing as they are a promise of cinematic quality that's just never delivered, not even close.
Pretty pictures with a cool sound track do not constitute a 'movie'. Like all pop promos, MDH's pretentions are are outdone only by its' unjustifiable budget. One dollar spent on this aimless, purposeless dross was one dollar too many. Stick to penning pop songs Bono.
<br /><br />I rented this movie on 20 June 2001, and watched it for about 45 minutes. I concluded that watching a blank screen would be delightful by comparison. There was not a single person in the cast for whom I would have shed a tear if hell itself had opened up and swallowed the whole bunch of them.<br /><br />So, I e-mailed all of my friends and relatives warning them, and I am taking the time to urge everyone who may see this note to avoid this movie like the plague! I have seen some really bad movies in my time, but NEVER one as bad as this.
S l o w, l o n g, d u l l. . .<br /><br />Oh my god, dull. <br /><br />Characters so annoying - you'll cringe every time you see Jimy Smits, or the guy that played tomtom from now on. They must have never rehearsed or reviewed the film in progress. Mel Gibson was absolutely wooden.<br /><br />This may not be the worst movie ever made, but that it went almost straight to video says it is darn close.<br /><br />
Being a completely broke film buff with a house to furnish, I'm a big fan of IKEA. My whole domicile, practically, is packed to the brim with the cheap particle-board stuff. And you know how all those stylish household items at IKEA have those funny names--a bookshelf called "Holika" and a bathroom mirror called a "Grundtal"--well, it just adds to the whole Euro-charm.<br /><br />Like those interestingly-named (but horribly translated) items on the shelves at IKEA, I'd like to provide a bit of translation to some of the reviews I've read about the Swedish-made "Kraftverk 3714." <br /><br />Original Comment: "For a low budget film, this is pretty cool stuff. It would be great to see what these guys could do on a Hollywood budget!"<br /><br />Translation: The film stock is crappy, the lighting is pedestrian, the cinematography is uninteresting, the sound recording is hollow.<br /><br />Original Comment: "David Lynchesque sci-fi drama set in a strange forest town with equally strange characters!" <br /><br />Translation: These "actors" are acting for free, the storyline is circular and tiring, the ideas that undergird the flick desperately try to be existential but are simply mundane, and the settings (especially the interiors) are dull and filled with ugly wallpaper.<br /><br />Original Comment: "The editing is well-done, and the conservative use of computer graphics shows that compelling CGI effects don't have to come out of a Hollywood studio!"<br /><br />Translation: When you've got sketchy cinematography to begin with, hide the imperfections by digitizing all of it onto a Mac and blending vigorously for three minutes. Ingenious!<br /><br />I took a chance on this DVD because I'm a sucker for independent films, especially those that attempt to tackle the often-expensive and awe-inspiring genre of science fiction. I mean, some of the best sci-fi flicks of all time have been realized with little or no budget, spfx, and specious actors. Take Peter Fonda's eco-warning-time-travel flick "Idaho Transfer" for example! A classic.<br /><br />But "Kraftverk 3714" doesn't fit the category of "carefully-crafted, low-key, idea-dependent sci-fi." It relentlessly focuses on characters that don't do much and don't say interesting things. It goes round and round in circles. It is much too long (this coming from a major Tarkovsky fan). Worse, its concept of "reality shifting aliens" is Twilight Zone fodder from 40 years ago. It's just not a well-made film -and I really wanted it to be, dammit!<br /><br />However, being the IKEA fan I am, I did make one ground-shattering observation. First, anyone who has shopped at IKEA knows how their tricky shopping carts work--all four wheels being multidirectional. The carts can spin a perfect 360 degrees, and it takes some familiarity to handle them like a pro, as any avid IKEA shopper knows. Well, I'll be damned, but one of the lead actresses in "Kraftverk 3714" goes to some inky-dinky grocery store in the middle of nowhere and what is she pushing around? A multidirectional shopping cart! So, that's not an IKEA invention after all, but is yet another wonderful invention (let's call it a "Tacklebee" for the hell of it) from the land of hei-doo!
After hearing that some of the people behind the low-budget flicks "Terror in Rock'n'Roll Önsjön" and "It came from outer space... and stuff" were involved in making this movie, I decided to buy it unseen on DVD. I wish I hadn't. The other movies were funny, tongue-in-cheek and kinda stupid. While Kraftverk 3714 is devoid of any humor at all. And it is so god-awful that I'm getting angry just thinking about it. The worst actors possible, the worst script possible, the worst special effects available. And the most unsexy sex scene ever. Uhhh. And the whole thing goes on for 2 hours and 45 minutes. Please, do not ever make another movie.
It's funny... one day before i have seen this movie i had been watching a documentary about Leni Riefenstahl, so comparison kind of came automatically... of course there isn't any :)<br /><br /> This movie is weak in every aspect... acting is not convincing (especially the one who plays Simona...) and unnatural..., editing in confused and always leaves a taste of unfinished shot, music doesn't fit, the story doesn't flow, it gets boring and the movie comes out much longer as it is... oh, and the characters aren't very well shown, you actually can't tell much about the girls (except what you see)... The movie also tries to shock with explicit cursing (which is very laughable :)<br /><br />So... 2/10
Half a mystical thriller and half the fractured fantasies of a fragile mind, "Guardian of the Frontier" is an engaging trip that soon derails. Strong imagery and a compelling premise is soon overwhelmed by incoherent plotting, hackneyed dialogue, amateurish acting, and the most outlandish and over-the-top phallic imagery in recent memory (here, a fish is most definitely not just a fish!). Evidently, this is the first Slovenian feature film to be directed by a woman -- Ms. Weiss must have been determined to prove that she could be as lurid and gratuitously explicit as any man.
Three young college women, Simona (Iva Krajnc), Alja (Tanja Potocnik), and Zana (Pia Zemljic), go on an adventure canoing down the River Kolpa, dividing their Slovenia from neighboring Croatia, in this 2002 Slovenian film by Maya Weiss. What could have been an Eastern European version of the well-known and exciting 1972 "Deliverance" turned out, for me, to be utterly uninspiring with flat character portrayals that denied sympathetic identification with the characters.<br /><br />Alja and Zana are not convincing as students at all, though Alja expresses a desire to be a writer, and both use what seemed to me to be excessive bad language. Alja is bored with her boyfriend and seems to just be drifting along in life. Zana, even less scholarly, is a self-absorbed adventure seeker with an attraction to other women. I had some sympathy with relatively innocent Simona, conservative and starry eyed. The very idea of these three traveling together just doesn't work for me. The disdain that Zana and Alja show toward Simona makes no sense - why would they choose her as a travel companion to start with as surely they must know her demeanor and attitudes?<br /><br />The three begin a carefree journey down the river on two canoes, undeterred by a news story of a woman's disappearance along the river. Things become more somber with the mysterious appearance, sometimes real and sometimes possibly hallucinatory, of a rabidly conservative fisherman politician (Jonas Znidarsic).<br /><br />I did enjoy the scenes along the river and of small villages the trio visit. It may be because of a lack of cultural understanding, but the film didn't move me otherwise. I was surprised to see that the film has won some awards.
I can confidently say that this is the worst film I have ever seen, and I usually love foreign films. The movie is nothing more than poorly-made violent pornography. If you choose to see it, prepare yourself for endless sexism, gratuitous nudity shots, and a stupid sensationalized rape scene, which I'm sure is the main appeal for the people who like the movie. <br /><br />Additionally, the plot meanders aimlessly, and none of the characters is likable. Many scenes are filmed from the woods surrounding the river the girls are on to give a constant feeling that someone is stalking them, which was a pathetic attempt to make up for the lack of story to tell.<br /><br />Perhaps I wouldn't have wasted my time to see the movie, if it had been accurately described in reviews.
This is a weak throw-together of just about everything: refugees, Croatia-Slovenia relations, globalization, sexual orientation.. A very big clumsy metaphor about Slovenia being at the cross roads between its past, which is symbolized by everything "virgin" becoming queen of the household, and its future, which is symbolized by listening to music in clubs and being a lesbian and never having kids.<br /><br />It plays on a rather recent Slovenian legend involving a virgin and a "forest king" assuming the shape of a goat (Zlatorog Beer's imagery is also based on that legend), but unfortunately, the treatment is very incoherent. Weiss seems to think the end justifies the means: she can use all kinds of "dream-like" sequences, and then pick and choose which ones true, and which ones are imaginary. How can the ride in the jeep with the "forest king" be real for all three girls, but the scene outside the tent be real only in Simona's imaginary ? The ending just drags on and on (I can't believe the movie's runtime is only 98 minutes, have I been watching a director's cut without knowing it?), with the three girls having to look at the camera for about 10 seconds while looking afraid and happy at the same time (so obvious).<br /><br />I never thought I could spot bad acting in a movie whose language I don't understand, but it didn't take long to see that "Simona" is over-acting most of the time, as if she was playing in a silent movie.<br /><br />It wasn't so bad as I kept thinking the director was just starting and wanted to capture what she thought her generation was all about on film by doing a half-experimental movie, until I realized that the director was actually 37 years old when making the movie and that her work is probably "serious".
A couple of teenagers have a little sex on the beach in the 1960s. That's all. They say they are fifteen while one of the actors is really twenty-five. Maybe this movie was somewhat revolutionary in 1978 in its way of touching `taboo' topics but I can't imagine that at that time anything shown in Esmiko Limon was regarded as tabooish.<br /><br />Shallow dialogues are mixed with disco music that is even shallower. The selection of songs doesn't involve anything but the very very well-known `classics' that are still heard on every second radio station today. The plot of American Pie is not much different but it is at least a little bit funny. Eskimo Limon is dull, flat and not aesthetic. Almost unbelievable that it had six sequels!
Thomas Hardy is one of my favorite authors. Some truly wonderful movies have been made from his novels ("Far From the Madding Crowd," "Tess of the D'Urbervilles," "The Mayor of Casterbridge"), and I had high hopes for this one. The Hallmark-Hall-of-Fame-ification of "Return of the Native" totally wrecked it. The cast was terrific, the photography excellent, but the script was dismal and the direction positively ruinous. People walked up to people, said lines, walked away. A meager excitement developed when Clive Owen and Catherine Zeta Jones (very young, very beautiful) exchanged a bit of flesh-pressing, but even Clive, who is a superb actor, couldn't save it. It was awash with the usual Hallmark "romantic" strings background music and pretend bumpkins offering plot exposition, and what could have been dynamite turned out to be awful. The richness of the above three movies was commpletely absent.
Remember the wooden, undramatic literary adaptations of the 1970s at their worst? You will when you see this broadly acted, unintentionally hilarious piece of chocolate-box adaptation. Most culpable of all is Catherine Z-J who, while undeniably easy on the eye, substitutes swishing a big dress and looking sultry for actually turning in a performance. Played po-faced like a melodrama, or Cold Comfort Farm without the jokes, this effort is not helped by a scriptwriter with a tin ear for dialogue who misses entirely the novel's sense of irony or tragedy. A shame, given the quality of the acting talent on offer - Joan Plowright, Claire Skinner, Steven Macintosh all deserve better than this.
This film is an almost complete waste of time. I am studying the book for my English A level, and the film only contributes in one way, and that's getting across that the whole scenario is set in a rural idyll. The acting is wooden, the filmography is laughable, and the so called dramatic scenes in the film had the majority of my class (including me) snickering into their texts. The book, although not my favourite literary choice, is miles better than the film is, and the sound track is just plain irritating. Don't watch this film unless you are looking for a timeless, quality storyline transformed into mindless, media waste.
I rented this because I couldn't pass up the chance to see pre-Hollywood-fame Clive Owen and Catherine Zeta Jones together, but it definitely wasn't worth it. The only reason I give it two stars instead of one is for the novelty of seeing them before they made it big across the pond.<br /><br />Zeta Jones, who is usually fun to watch even if she isn't the greatest thesp in the world, is awful. Owen seems really uncomfortable to be in such a turkey, plus he wears a ridiculous, egregiously ill-fitting chin-length wig (at least I hope that's a wig and not his real hair). And the scene where he dances a country jig with Zeta Jones just makes you embarrassed for him. Joan Plowright walks around in a daze the whole movie -- she's probably wondering how she got herself into such a mess.<br /><br />The actress who plays Clive Owen's wife isn't terrible, but just about everyone else is. Oh, and the writing stinks too.
I saw this Hallmark television movie when it originally aired. I lost interest in the story because a character was said to be a witch. I just was not in the right frame of mind to watch this film. But Hallmark stands for the best, quality films. Now, there is a reason to give this film a second look. Clive Owen who plays "Damon Wildeve" just might have a chance to be selected as the next James Bond 007 when Pierce Brosnan passes it on. Clive Owen might have to wait until the year 2008. The other reason is the female lead is Catherine Zeta-Jones is now a celebrity (she was an unknown at the time) and became an Academy Award winner for Outstanding Supporting Actress in 2003. Joan Plowright as "Mrs. Yeobright" is also in this film. I like the opening line in this film: "Deliver my heart from this fearful, lonely place. Send me a great love from somewhere or else I shall die, truly I shall die."
Well!! the movie has Catherine Zeta Jones in it. It's a Hallmark television movie. It's from a Thomas Hardy novel. It has Catherine Zeta Jones in it. She is by far the only one in the movie who acts better than in my high school theater class. Oh yes it has Clive Owen in it. I'm not British so that means almost as much as being a Thomas Hardy novel. Except he was in "The Bourne Identity", and I liked that. That just about wraps it all up folks. That really all there was. I'm becoming repetitive, but I do like CZJ, so I stuck it out to the end. The computer is telling me that I don't have 10 lines and I keep counting them. I always count 11, but maybe it just doesn't like my style, but that is my opinion of the movie, too.
I'm a fan of Judy Garland, Vincente Minnelli, and Gene Kelly, but this movie just left me cold. I was expecting another American In Paris from Minnelli, so perhaps I was expecting too much.<br /><br />The movie was short on songs and short of impressive dance numbers. I was impressed by the very expressionistic Kelly dance as Mococo on the ship. I was also impressed by the Nicholas Brothers in Be a Clown, too bad the song was so annoying. I also enjoyed Judy attacking Kelly with bric-a-brac. Check Lorna Luft's autobiography for some interesting information on that scene.<br /><br />Actually, the movie has what must be some of Cole Porter's most annoying songs, especially "Nina". Also, Judy and Gene yell constantly like screechy children.<br /><br />The plot is thin--which is par for the course for musicals--but it is not saved by impressive dance numbers or by memorable songs. I suspect the best parts of this movie were left on the cutting room floor. Please, some movie restorer, find those bits of film and show us what the movie could have been!
To anyone who likes the TV series: forget the movie. The jokes are bad and some topics are much too sensitive to laugh about it.<br /><br />We have seen much better acting by R. Dueringer in "Hinterholz 8".
Years ago "MA2412" the feature film tried to be some kind of "regional Blockbuster" in Austria. One thing's for sure: I hope no one outside will ever have to see this one. Perhaps if you are familiar with the original sitcom it could be interesting to watch what director Sicheritz made of his series. I think he missed his chance and wasted time and money.<br /><br />So far many director's and writers have failed to make a series concept compatible to a 90min movie (consider Alf, Inspector Gadget...). You can see how hard this is by watching "MA 2412". The result of this attempt in my opinion tastes like a never-ending TV-Episode (and not a good one). It fails to deliver a plot, the humor tries too hard and the directing seems very unfocused - as holds true for the visual style.<br /><br />So summing up I'd clearly not recommend this one...
they (dueringer, dorfer) are good stand-up comedians, young, not ugly, have money, the girls love them, the audience is appreciating everything there doing<br /><br />and then they made this film ...<br /><br />no story at all, some jokes were old in the fifties, the acting is awful. save your money for something useful, like a gift for your girlfriend.
I think that saying this film has too many is not what makes this film bad. The twists are not the problem of the film. The story is quite clever and could have been very cool if filmed right. The major problems why everyone is complaining about the twists in the film is that the film is just not fascinating enough to make people follow them. The film is badly shot (at least in comparison to its genre brother Lock, Stock). Worse: the characters are (although often well acted) just plain flat. The characters don't have enough time to be introduced well enough to let the viewer get involved with a single one of them, let alone understand them. Oh, and the locations are just terrible: locations-person (I didn't bother to watch the credits for your name) - get another job (maybe still photography or interior design)
Would somebody please explain why anybody would want to make a "British neo-noir" crime film with a cast almost entirely American? The accents spoken in this film are bloody awful! But entirely in keeping with the performances, which are so wooden, one fears to strike a match for setting the cast on fire.<br /><br />Really, what kind of disgusting, moronic, cynical crud is this? Even neo-noir films have some character you either feel for or want to feel for, even if they're wretched and doomed; they at least have some decency to them, some sense that what they've done is wrong, or that a seemingly good plan has gone wrong, and that somehow they're stuck with the responsibility for it.<br /><br />Not in this stanky stew. These characters are putrid, betraying each other, themselves, and the audience.<br /><br />Also, note that they are low-lives - all right, nothing wrong with that - except that they seem to be living a life of luxury. For a film supposedly about desperate petty thieves, the keynote here is - ennui. It's all so terribly dull and dross, doncha know. So let's just rip some people off or maybe murder them, and go get laid in a luxury hotel. What ambition! <br /><br />Gooping this whole mess to some bottom of swampy muck are: boringly uneven pacing; predictable 'action' sequences that aren't; banal and incoherent set-design; made-for-bad-TV camera-work and editing; forgettable score; and an entire lack of any imagination or innovation in production and direction.<br /><br />Wholly unbelievable, unlikeable, and for less dedicated movie watchers(or masochists) like myself, utterly unwatchable.<br /><br />There are other nasty things I would like to say about this nasty film, but they wouldn't print them here. Suffice it to say, you can probably find something more useful to do with your time than watch this film - just about anything, in fact.
<br /><br />I was fascinated to read the range of opinions on `Circus' from `awesome, breathtaking, brilliant' and most things between right down to `Golden Turkey candidate'. I find myself in the latter camp.<br /><br />The producers obviously thought that if they mixed plenty of over-the-top violence with barrages of four-letter expletives they'd have another `Lock, Stock and two Smoking Barrels' on their hands. A pity that they forgot to include wit, style, charm and flair. And it was certainly a mistake to feature a visit to Welles' classic `The Lady from Shanghai' thus serving to remind us how much better cinema can be.<br /><br />John Hannah gets his shirt off at every opportunity, a huge American drives around in a Mini Minor as `Circus' pathetically strains for cult status and even the beautiful Amanda Donohoe can't add any class to these proceedings.<br /><br />If you want to see a good Brit film try the sublime `Wonderland'
Circus could have been so much better if they had reduced the number of twists and developed each better the film features a very gifted cast that mostly perform well , however it totally loses the audience basically everyone is back stabbing everyone else and not back stabbing them at the same time because they are backstabbing someone else and working with .... did i lose you? well the film is even more confusing clearly written by a first timer writer , it has some redeeming qualities though in the acting especially Famke Janssen shines as Lily but sadly gets a lot of USELESS screen time just standing there doing nothing.....the dialogue is a bit cheesy and the accents sometimes irritating but its still worth watching if you're a fan of any of the actors especially John and Famke who get the most screen time just remember to watch it with a notebook so you can write down who is double crossing who every second....
This film could of been a hell of a lot better if they didn't use Brian Conley as a gangster and if they didn't start the film with Christopher Biggins.<br /><br />When I watched this film I had absolutely no idea what was going on. There were too many double crosses and plot twists to make the film believable. The film deserves a 0, but seeing as I there isn't a 0 I gave it a 1.<br /><br />I wouldn't recommend this film to my worst enemy, I would rather poke out my eyeballs with some rusty scissors than watch this film again. I'm telling you, that was an hour and a half of my life I won't get back.<br /><br />If you want to watch a gangster film, don't get this. Watch "Going Off Big Time" or "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" instead.
Boring, cliched and predictable. The only original bit was the Brighton location for gangsters. It is certainly no "Lock Stock etc......." Hannah was likeable in "Sliding Doors". In "Circus" I developed no empathy with his character and couldn't give a toss what happened to either him or his girlfriend. Although this movie was so cliched and predictable the ending was no surprise I was so uninterested I didn't even care why the movie was given the name "Circus"....... Booooring.......Don't visit this big top.
Mockney comes to Brighton; despite a poor reception in the British press and state-funded-British-cinema written all over it I rather hoped that we'd get a bit of the grimy, hard-nosed London-by-the-sea of Graham Greene.<br /><br />It doesn't even aspire to this. Characters straight out of their clone 'n crimp trailers reproduce Guy Ritchie's types. The format looks more like a British TV series than a film (Brighton is a backdrop goldmine, wasted with plastic studio work).<br /><br />I watched this film in pursuit of a good performance from Famke Janssen... she's a bit slick for this company, her brand of big screen impertability belonging more to blockbusters such as Deep Rising. As for acting (a role even!) the search continues. Circus is boring. 3/10
This film simply has no redeeming features. The story is incomprehensible, and the script is gross, sadistic, and stupid. The sex scenes are a joke, as is the inevitable car chase. The music is awful. The acting is limited largely to growling and smirking. A half star dud. Shame on DirecTV for putting it on pay-per-view. In a theater, people might well have thrown soda at the screen.
Enter the Ninja (1981) was the first of several "Ninja" films produced by Cannon starring or co-starring Japanese sensation Sho Kosugi. But the star of the first "Ninja" film was legendary tough guy Franco Nero. Sadly not even Mr. Nero or Sho Kosugi couldn't make this film watchable. When you have two bad dudes in an action film and it's neither watchable or fun, somethings amiss. But I digress. Skip this chapter and watch the next films in the series. They're more interesting and a whole lot of fun.<br /><br />Next is Revenge of the Ninja. Instead of playing the "evil oriental" (I use that term tongue in cheek mind you). He's the star! Strange for a western film. Watch that one instead.<br /><br />Not recommended except for die hard Sho Kosugi fans or Cannon film buffs.
Any person, claiming this movie to be a ninja classic film, must have seen this movie before the middle of the nineties or he was less then 10 years before he's seen it. Otherwise I can't explain this 'classic ninja movie' title.<br /><br />The fight scenes in this movie are just intolerable. Instead of casting Franco Nero as the ninja, they could hire some experienced martial artist instead. In any way the acting skill is not important in that kind of a movie. Nero's fighting ability is barely of some street fighter in a bar. His kicks and punches are lame.<br /><br />There's enough of old action movies with good action. This is just a waste of time.
This is a very famous Ninja movie but it isn't a nice movie. If you want to see some ninjas and some figures, want to know some things about Ninjas see this movie. This movie only for ninja fans and who wants to make nostalgia.<br /><br />First 20 minutes and last 20 minutes of the movie are best. You can just see Ninja figures and fight in this scenes. Between these are below the average, nearly bad as a movie. Acting is bad. Sho (black ninja) is the best actor in this movie. Frank Nero is a good actor and charismatic but he cannot fight good. Scenario is also not good. Its so simple. Franko Nero comes near to his best , old friend from army and war. He also protects him from mafia but he is having sex ( go to bed ) with his wife and his friend knows this but don't say anything to Nero negative. Is this possible in life ? What a friendship !<br /><br />Finally this movie started a genre ; Ninja movies. Also there is the ninja master Sho Kasugi but some fighting scenes are not realistic and not fast even with shoo. This film is below the average even it is a classic.
This is one of those movies that is so bad it is awesome!!! It has everything an early eighties movie needs: Flared pants, Big Moustaches, Chicks with Farrah Hair, and most importantly, NINJAS!!!! I have a few choice moments to recant for you. Cole's army buddy has a strange monkey-like face and always seems to speak without moving his jaw. He gets his ass handed to him about every other scene by the thugs wanting his land so he gets drunk through the entire film. At one point his farm workers finally return after being run off by the gangster guy's hired goons and Frank, I think his name is Frank, is so moved he shouts to the whole group "Lets Have A Cock Fight!!" and they all gleefully move to the cock fighting area of the farm to begin the festivities. This is funny on every level possible. Whether you take it dirty or literally it still warms my heart. Another funny thing is Sho Kosugi's little grunts and over animated ninja style movements. I remember this dude from when I was a kid and he used to say he was the world's only real ninja (he had ads in martial arts magazines) if I remember correctly. My friends and I were a little ninja crazy during the time this movie came out and I can recall seeing it in the local theater many times. I was wondering as I watched this on Starz last night why every sleazy American gangster type always has a stronghold in the Phillipines and wears a white Steve Martin suit. As a matter of fact this guy goes way beyond that in requiring all of his thugs to wear white Steve Martin suits. There is a scene where it looks like 20 Steve Martin impersonators are attacking a 1970's Sears underwear model (Cole). As we wind up for the final battle Cole very clumsily breaks into the bad guy's headquarters and is immediately spotted by a secretary who in turn alerts a guard who fires off a round from his pump action shotgun not 30 feet from the bad guys and no one seems to notice or care. Cole, Wearing a completely white ninja outfit, proceeds to sneakily ascend a staircase then does a flip right into the area where all the bad guys are. The second in charge tells him he didn't need to kill everybody as they were expecting him, then gives him a ride to the bad guys huge Cock Fighting arena. Don't ask me why Cock Fighting is a huge part of this movie but it is. When they arrive Cole is still wearing his ninja mask even though everyone involved knows what he looks like without it. The final battle is approaching as Cole has killed everybody and now Sho, as I like to call him, reveals himself to have kidnapped Cole's lady aka Frank's wife, and they meet in the snazziest cockfighting arena you ever saw. Sho then, very politely I might add, releases said lady and the battle is about to start. They do their bowing and start circling each other, both masked by the way. When they join in battle it appears Cole becomes someone else intermittently ala "Finishing The Game" a funny spoof on completing Bruce Lee's "Game of Death". Cole eventually comes out on top, Kills Sho, who dies with honor by being decapitated and all is well. Next we see Cole, after ruining everyone's life is about to split town again but not before foreshadowing the brutal death of a fat guy with a hook hand and then he inexplicably winks at the camera, freeze frame, credits, done.
A combat veteran, fresh from completion of ninjutsu training, reunites with an old friend in Manila and gets caught up in a power struggle with a ruthless land baron.<br /><br />But, do you really care about that? If you're even reading this page, you must know something of what to expect. It's your typical chop-socky, complete with ridiculous dialouge, mega-corny villains, apocalyptic sound editing, and a camera that begs for your attention. The only reason for being seen in public with this film is the fight sequences, wonderfully choreographed by Mike Stone and true master Sho Kosugi. Franco Nero ain't no slouch either, assuming you can see around the mustache.<br /><br />Well, I'm being too harsh. There are some good laughs--enjoy Christopher George repeatedly screaming "Ninja!" and delivering arguably the goofiest death scene ever captured on film.
Terrible action movie in which lead Franco Nero exchanges his cowboy hat, gun belt and the coffin he dragged around in DJANGO (1966) for an all-white Ninja outfit with all the snazzy paraphernalia that goes with it! Despite virtually non-stop action, the film is utterly clichéd and unintentionally funny - with a campy villain, to boot, in Christopher George. Susan George (no relation) is the attractive woman with a washed-up husband, Nero's wartime companion, whom the villains are trying to push off her oil-rich land - but the latter haven't counted upon Nero's martial-arts (and stunt-heavy) gymnastics. The solution to their problems is to hire a similarly-skilled Ninja for themselves who, as it happens, turns out to be Nero's deadly enemy (played by Sho Kosugi, who appeared in two more sequels and is currently engaged in another!). The climax takes place inside an arena where one-man army Nero 'eliminates' George and what has remained of his gang from previous confrontations; the subtle way in which he despatches his nemesis, however, is effectively done.
Franco Nero stars as Cole a ninja who comes to the rescue of his war buddy Frank Landers (Alex Courtney) and his fetching wife (Susan George) to protect them from a mobster (Christopher George) who wants the land. Things get even more complicated when the mobster hires Cole's old nemesis (Sho Kosugi) who is also a ninja. Inept martial arts actioner, while having better production values then most ninja movies, fails to inject any life into the surroundings, or for that matter actionscenes. A poor effort all around.
I stumbled across this movie late at night on TV. My brother and I could not stop laughing at how God awful this movie is. The crappy sound effects whenever White Ninja or Black Ninja punch, kick, or use a weapon is hilarious. This movie is almost on the same level as the Evil Dead series, but you can only watch this movie once because of shear crappiness. I'm not sure if the director meant for it to be so crappy on purpose because he knew idiots like me would buy it.
This movie is recommended only for insomniacs: it will relieve them by putting them to sleep. Five-year-olds might also enjoy it. But for anyone else (including fans of the genre), what a bore! The "ancient" plot is reminiscent of "Return Of The Dragon", and this film is just as inept, but Nero is no Bruce Lee, so "Enter the Ninja" is an even worse film. Until now, this is the second (the offensive "comedy" "Bachelor Party" was the first) film I gave 1/10 to.
This movie is such a total waste of time. I can't understand anyone sitting through this piece of trash. Oh, I would have loved it when I was seven years old. I think a seven year old child may have written and directed it.<br /><br />There's no script, no acting, just rubbish. The best acting is that by the fighting roosters. I think I could whip these ninjas and I am not someone you'd consider tough. Totally unconvincing and did not spark the least bit of interest. I was yawning, and laughing, by the end of the first ten minutes of the film. This is one that would turn people away from martial art movies. Great comedy, bad action flick.
Surely this deserves to be in the bottom 10 films of all time, pity it's just a TV movie. Rubbish that only we British can produce! It perhaps has some merit in the so awful it's good scale. Watch out for scene where they start dancing !
"The Wizard of Menlo Park" was deeply responsible for many things we take for granted in 2007: even if he did not invent them without rivals or assistants, he gave birth to the electric light, the phonograph, the motion picture camera, the electric car battery, the electric power grid (possibly his most important but least recalled invention), the pre-fabricated house, and innovations to the telephone and telegraph, as well as the ticker-tape machine and an early voting machine. The total number of patents is over 1,000 - far more than any other American Inventor.<br /><br />But Edison was a ruthless business competitor. He frequently had vast legal fights over the precedence of his inventions over rivals. The best example is the telephone, where he was one of seven or eight rivals with claims against Alexander Graham Bell. Actually Edison's invention here was not the central idea that Bell and Gray had come up with independently of each other in 1876, but an improvement on the sound quality of the phone receiver and transmitter that Bell did not develop. Still it was part of the huge 1888 Supreme Court decision that was the longest U.S. Supreme Court decision (a single volume of their reports!) written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite - which, by the way, killed the poor Chief Justice from overwork within weeks of completing it.<br /><br />In 1886 Edison found an equally ruthless competitor in the area of electric power grids for large cities. This was George Westinghouse, inventor of the railroad air break. Westinghouse's firm had gotten the assistance of a new inventor, and former Edison assistant, Nicola Tesla. Tesla developed "alternating current", which was a rival system to Edison's "direct current". Edison's system was basically a straight circuit system of electricity. Tesla's system allowed the current to be switched from one circuit to another - actually it was a better, and more efficient system. But Edison was determined to break this rival by a publicity campaign.<br /><br />It started with electric power lines. Edison early on had his lines put underground, so that they would not be endangered by weather conditions. But Westinghouse was forced to have his lines out in the open - like telephone lines. When there were several accidental deaths by repair linemen on Westinghouse's lines (in particular one incident where the repairman was burned alive in front of hundreds of horrified onlookers in Manhattan's business district), Edison started insisting that A.C. current was far more dangerous that D.C.<br /><br />One result of all this was Edison helping some subsidiary inventors with getting Westinghouse A.C. generators and dynamos for an electric chair. Edison himself always denied that he invented the electric chair, but he helped several lesser figures along the way - for the complete story read Mark Essig's EDISON & THE ELECTRIC CHAIR (New York: WALKER & COMPANY, 2003). <br /><br />Edison experiment himself with cats and dogs (experiments he was glad to show the public). In the long run, despite assisting in the invention of a new method of execution, Edison failed to dislodge the public support of Alternating Current. But he never stopped trying.<br /><br />In 1903 he had an opportunity to combine his campaign against Westinghouse and A.C. with his invention of the motion picture camera. He assisted in "putting down" a well known public elephant ("Topsy") who had killed several men. He did so by electrocuting the poor beast with A.C. But the entire killing is on film - and one can view it to this day. It is a pitiful looking film - whatever poor "Topsy" had done it was a poor beast - not a Machiavellian murderer. The moment we see the explosions of electricity sparks that show the death of the elephant, we are aware it will soon be over, but the sudden collapse of "Topsy" is still an unpleasant sight to view. The film leaves a bad flavor in the mouths of modern movie audiences. Yet, sad to say, it probably made a profit for Edison - his description of the film in his catalog of films shows real pride in his accomplishment here. In 1903 it may have been exciting entertainment for many Americans watching it. One is glad that more people are appalled by it today - sometimes one can sense the human race has improved a little bit.
This vicious little film is horrendous. My low rating for it comes for two main reasons. The first is that it is an animal snuff film and I find that whole concept so vile it turns my stomach. Filmed over a hundred years ago, I can only hope that we've evolved into something a little more humane and compassionate. This film is complete and utter exploitation, made to cash in on the sensational aspects of the film and the subject. Historical interest aside, this is something to watch only if one finds themselves in the grip of morbid fascination.<br /><br />Reason number two? Look at the way that the camera is set up. It is placed in the best possible location to fully capture the full effect: long march forward of the elephant, perfect view of the electrocution platform and a cold and clinically dispassionate viewpoint of the elephant with smoke coming out of it before it finally collapses. Sickening.<br /><br />Thomas Edison did many great things for civilization and his talents and intelligence aren't in doubt. Nobody is perfect, but when you realize that this film provided A) an opportunity for him to trump early cinematic competitors with a sensationalist film of an elephant being electrocuted and B) he filmed the execution to demonstrate the greater effectiveness of DC as opposed to AC, you can't help but wonder if the scientist in him was a little TOO dispassionate and cold. Any number of Peter Cushing's mad scientists would be proud. The rest of us should be ashamed and revolted.
We see Thomas Edison, with a glowing smile on his face, trying to electrocute a 5 ton living being. Eventually he was successful, and so the first animal snuff film is born, cleverly disguised as an amazing achievement in technology. This is scientific arrogance at it's worst, folks. It ranks up there with the doctor who decapitated a monkey just to prove that he could keep its severed head alive for 22 minutes.<br /><br />Oh yes, there's the absurd excuse that the elephant had been convicted of "murder" and sentenced to death, and that this was a fair and humane "execution". To all the people who are satisfied with this sophistry, please form a line on my right. I'm going to give you all a big collective Three Stooges slap across the head.<br /><br />Go watch "The Advocate" (1993), a movie based on the true story murder trial of a pig in Mideval France. 500 years later, humans are still a bunch of morons I see.<br /><br />What's next? We arrest birds for stealing our blueberries? Arrest pricker bushes for assault and battery? Thomas Edison, I hope you have a big fat worm crawling through your eye socket right now. Oh wait, that would be trespassing, wouldn't it? lol
Thomas Edison May Have Done Lots Of Great Inventions But WTF Is This!!!! I Am Sorry But This Movie Is Simply Awful. The Plot Is That This Elephant Walks To A Certain Point & Gets Electrocuted. Okay The Picture Quality Looked Like Someone Used It For Toilet Paper. I Thought That The Early Charlie Chaplin Films Were Awful. Okay Thomas Edison May Have Been An Inventor But Why Did He Make This Film He Could Have Filmed A Baby Being Fed & It Would Have Been Better. People Might Say I'm Being Harsh On The Times But Would You Enjoy Something Like This From What I Have Said Edison May Have Made The Lightbulb But Why Did He Make This Particular Movie. Well I Might Sound Like A Complete A##hole But Watch This On Youtube Then You Will See This Abomination. I Still Can't Believe This Film Is Completely Awful. All In All The Worst Short Film I Have Ever Seen.<br /><br />Rating: 1/10
Thomas Edison had no other reason to make this film except to show that film can capture the electrocution of an innocent elephant. Edison was not a genius but a man out for money and profit; his love for life was measured by dollars, not experiences, as this film shows.
Oh my God, I was so expecting something more entertaining than this when I downloaded this movie, seeing as 1903 was one of my fave years for movies ever, but it sucked! The "plot", although I'd hesitate to call it that, is about some dumb elephant. It slowly makes its way onto some platform and gets electrocuted to death. Lame. Even for a short film, the plot was too thin to keep my attention. Edison is, like, the worst director ever. Plus, the elephant has no screen presence whatsoever. And the ending? Wow, that wasn't predictable at all. *sarcasm*<br /><br />The picture quality is horrible too. You can barely tell what's going on most of the time. The only positive thing about this movie is that unlike most other un-scary horror flicks this didn't spawn eleven sequels. Other than that this is a complete waste of money and 1 minute of your life you'll never get back.
There isn't much about "Reckless" that feels right, beginning with the off-putting title (thanks to screenwriter Craig Lucas, who adapted his own play, bringing the title along with him) and continuing with the casting (Mia Farrow playing wife to Tony Goldwyn, who's young enough to be her son). The couple live in an idyllic winter world that appears to be the inside of a snow-globe, but Farrow gets a startling dose of reality after he admits he's hired a man to kill her. She flees into the night, taking refuge with a very strange couple who want to help her rebuild her life. The production design and art direction of "Reckless" are fine, but they are services rendered for a completely inane, often alienating screenplay. It's supposed to be a dark holiday comedy, though the cast is at a loss with this unfunny, occasionally offensive material. *1/2 from ****
Depressing black BLACK comedy about a woman (Mia Farrow) who flees her house on Christmas Eve when she discovers her husband (Tony Goldwyn) has hired a hit man to kill her. She ends up with a husband and wife (Scott Glenn and Mary-Louise Parker) and then things go wrong. Basically Farrow keeps running and is continuously meeting VERY strange people and getting into morbidly unfunny situations.<br /><br />This was advertised as a feel good movie when I saw it around Christmas time at its VERY short run in an art cinema. I found it sick, unfunny and just depressing. I like black humor but this was WAY too dark for me. What happens to Parker's character especially was horrifying. To make matters worse Eileen Brennan is thrown in as a nun (!!!) later on and proceeds to chew the scenery with gusto.<br /><br />The only saving grace was Farrow's acting--it's much better than this picture deserves. Also it was a relief to see the very talented Stephen Dorff pop up at the end. The ending itself was kind of nice but it couldn't erase what had gone on before.<br /><br />Sick, morbid, pitch black "comedy". A 1
I recently was in a stage version of this play. And, on the last day of the run, I was excited to see that it was going to be playing on TV. I stuck a tape in as it was on late at night, and I watched it the next day. I have to say I was very disappointed. The actors in the film made few of the discovers that are in the script. That is understandable as the resersal process is probably different, but it was upsetting to see. A lot of the original script was changed for the movie as well to make it better for the screen, but I am not sure if it helped the movie out at all. I gave this 4 stars only because I know the script and the writing is a lot better than what this movie portrays.
Produced by International Playhouse Pictures, it looks as if filmed in a doll house. Everybody's a liar, everything is dream-like, toy-like for no good reason. I'm not saying everything in all movies should be totally realistic, but such unbelievable fantasy things and situations in one movie are way too much. How did they get these fine actors -actresses particularly- to this movie? It's nice to see Mia again; if we were meant to understand why her husband wants to kill her, Mia does do it well. Not funny, not moving, just fake. Stephen Dorff briefly appears at the end, fitting for a play maybe, less for a movie, but this isn't one to measure things at. Terrible.
This was my very first "Bollywood" movie and I found it in the same way many other recent viewers did -- through "Ghost World". Having done a little bit of reading up on the film industry of Bollywood this week, I understand somewhat why there are seemingly unrelated musical numbers and romance and comedy in a horror film. But "Something for everyone" doesn't always add up to a cohesive product.<br /><br />The ultra-groovy musical dance number "Jaan Pehechaan Ho" has captivated the world in a way it probably could not have done in 1965. It's all over the internet now, with many folks scrambling for a good English translation. Laxmi Chhaya does an amazing job dancing take after take, making it all look fresh, new and fun even when any normal person would be exhausted! She rules! <br /><br />On the beach with Miss Kitty is a light-weight fun and pretty tune in total contrast to the horror plot. Still, I find myself singing it in Hindi a week later. I found a rough translation:<br /><br />if you want to live in this life then listen to what I say leave your sorrows behind and join the party take my advice<br /><br />those who want to live live with laughter and singing let your hair down and relax people of this world what do you know? come to me and I'll explain<br /><br />whoever there is who will see me will stop worrying in this world fish swim freely here and there<br /><br />My second favorite number in the film is The Butler's Dream where Mehmood is entranced by Miss Kitty's dancing. The electric tiki-like idols are just wonderfully tacky as is the entire set of this number. Online, I'd seen it described as what would happen if "Liberace threw up"!! Way fun.<br /><br />Gumnaam is not a good movie as a whole. That's why I gave it a rating of 3. It's actually a real stinker of a film with some fun, kitschy musical numbers that have nothing really to do with the murder plot.
Geesh, I never, ever, ever thought I'd write the above four words. But, actually, she's the highpoint of this little flick.<br /><br />As the movie was packaged when I rented it, it supposedly is a comedy about a girl who is kidnapped but doesn't have her medication, which keeps her stable. It sounded like a cute concept. For years, all we ever saw of Spelling was as Donna Martin in 90210 and an endless parade of dull, lifeless TV movies. It sounded like a chance for her to stretch a little, and considering that with her TV success and her rich daddy, she couldn't have any financial reason to do this movie, I figured she took the part because this must be a low-budget jewel.<br /><br />Wrong.<br /><br />Instead, Spelling's part is small, and the bit about the mentally unbalanced kidnap victim is just one of several storylines. When she's not on the screen, the movie crawls so badly, I could've sworn it was longer than the 85 minutes that were listed on the tape. This would've worked so much better if Spelling's storyline had dominated, and it had been changed into a romantic comedy with her and Phil, the least irritating kidnapper.
i bought this rental return for $1.99 at hollywood and overpaid. i didn't expect much, but thought it would be something to fall asleep by at least. i quickly noted the very weak storyline, the gross overacting by everyone (no one talks like that except in cartoons), and the seemingly let's-make-it-up-as-we-go-along direction. i know that the participants in this mess must be very embarrassed by it, and i feel certain that it did not help any careers. as for this movie buff of 35 years, it has now provided a ready answer for the worst-film-you've-ever-seen question.<br /><br />
Supreme Sanction is a movie about a female assassin who works for the U.S. government. She has to kill a known TV reporter, but spares his life when she sees that he has a little daughter. Because she hasn't killed him, she becomes the next target of her employers.<br /><br />The script isn't good although I've seen worse B-movies. A hit-man with remorse, the government killing innocent people in the name of fighting terror,... What's next? Aliens rescuing the victim??? No, Supreme Sanction will never win any award because of the script. And the acting isn't any better I'm afraid. A few better known actors (Michael Madsen and Kristy Swanson), who clearly had a lot of bills to pay and therefor accepted to play in this movie, together with some other actors who probably don't even know what a camera really looks like don't do any good to the movie either.<br /><br />So why should you watch this movie? Well, if you haven't got anything better to do but to watch some action flick and you are tired of the 10,531st rerun of Mc Gyver or the A-team, than this might be the movie you want to see. Otherwise you better leave it alone. I give it a 3/10.
Please give this one a miss.<br /><br />Kristy Swanson and the rest of the cast rendered terrible performances. The show is flat, flat, flat.<br /><br />I don't know how Michael Madison could have allowed this one on his plate. He almost seemed to know this wasn't going to work out and his performance was quite lacklustre, so all you Madison fans give this a miss.
The first question is: how many talentless idiots it takes to screw a movie up? Answer: one is more than enough, if he writes the screenplay and directs it. The second question is: did anyone teach the actors to handle guns properly? Answer: hell no. I wonder if Kristy Swanson got hit across the face with hot brass - because it damn seemed so! The third question is: how many times we did the "super secret government agency conspiracy gets uncovered from inside" plot? Answer: a good couple too many! The fourth question is: are Michael Madsen and Ron Perlman overrated? Answer: in this movie, sadly, yes. The fifth question is: can a pair of boobs save this movie? Answer: even three (Kristy Swanson's pair and the director/writer) didn't.<br /><br />God... If I see the (most probably) assassin getting her guns ready for a hit, and then the morons from prop department give her a completely different set the first bloody thing in the goddamn movie, the "suck" meter hits the peak. Time from beginning of the movie to me switching the TV off: fifteen minutes. Just a little bit more than it took me in case of "Alone in the Dark".
When Kristy Swanson gets an attack of the guilts about what she does, she wants out. Unfortunately, Madsen is her immediate superior in a company where "giving two weeks notice ain't an option."<br /><br />As a teen killing vampires, Kristy did a very good job. The valley girl image seemed to fit. But as an assassin on the run...well, keep running Kristy. Run, run far away! This film is not a concept that hasn't been done before, but it HAS been done better!<br /><br />I didn't want to watch the rest of this film, but I felt I should if I wanted to give a review of this movie. I've always liked Madsen, and his character was a bit predictable, but this movie was definitely a waste of time both to watch and make...no wonder it never got released theatrically!
Kristy Swanson plays an elite hitwoman who is supposed to have knocked off a TV reporter for a group of bad guys,but once she sees this poor fellow at home playing with his kids she decides to junk the whole project and the TV reporter's life is spared.The hitwoman's life is up for grabs as the people who wanted this reporter killed now want her dead for not following through with her assignment.Such is the basis for a movie called Supreme Sanction.<br /><br />Supreme waste of time is more like it.We see Swanson's character beat up,pummel and kill men far bigger than her.And she always one two fifty steps ahead of the group of murders who can't,for some reason,do away with this super hitwoman.Having one woman do away and beat all these men,makes the movie seem so gay.It is too predictable once you figure Swanson's character is going to win out anyway,thus making the film boring and inept.<br /><br />Kristy Swanson is decent actress,who in her younger days was always sexy and easy on the eyes.Supreme Sanction is not one of her better efforts however.
First I have to say that I have read everything about this subject and I know it inside out, and I was excited about finally seeing it, too. But you have to read only the book this mini-series is based on to realize that it's not the true story of what really happened almost 90 years ago. It's loosely based on the facts, the rest is taken from the scriptwriter's imagination. And unfortunately these changes are anything but successful and mostly totally unnecessary.<br /><br />Where do I begin? Vita and Violet didn't use the names Mitya and Lushka until their affair started, and during it Violet also called Vita Dmitri and Julian. It was Violet who chased Vita with a dagger when they were teenagers. The 'seduction' scene when their affair started Violet was much more passive than represented here and certainly didn't kiss Vita first. I could go on and on, these examples were all included when the series was only just started. Besides all these alterations from the facts, the characterizations are also all wrong. At times Vita behaves like a mad woman. Especially the scene where she saw from the newspaper Violet's engagement announcement is just ridiculous. Vita kept her surges of emotion inside. It was Violet who was temperamental and let her feelings (good or bad) show. All Vita did when she read it was that she nearly fainted, that's all. Being a gentle nature, Harold avoided confrontations in real life, but here he is sometimes pretty stern and accusing. Harold and Vita always discussed their intimate things in letters, not verbally. And Violet... I know that this series purposely concentrated on Vita and Harold, but that doesn't mean that all the other characters have to be mere puppets on the sidelines. Here she is totally one-dimensional character, and the lines gave to her are mostly embarrassingly shallow. Actually she was intelligent, gifted, quite an extraordinary woman who has rarely given the credit she deserves. I have always thought her much more interesting person than Vita. In this series her unhappiness, loneliness and her problems with her mother are totally ignored. Viewer has also little clue of her background and family, what kind of relation (and marriage) with Denys Trefusis she had or how hard she battled over Vita. Vita was the only love of her life, her raison d'etre, and if Harold suffered during affair, so did Violet. After it her life was in ruins, and it took time that she could pull herself back together again. Statue could have acted the role of Denys, that much depth his character has. Lady Sackville-West is just a badly drawn caricature; an annoying chatterbox with exaggerating french accent. <br /><br />The series ends to the totally badly written scene in Amiens, and that was the end of this affair, according to scriptwriter. No, it continued a whole year after that, and it's ending was much more lingering and sad than what was presented here. But what one cares about the stupid ending if the whole series has been stupid from the start. I have to give some credit to actors, they tried to make best of those roles given to them though Janet McTeer as Vita is the only one who really shines through. One can't complain the settings either. All complaints go to director and most of all, scriptwriter. Instead of insightful character studies, there are too many sex scenes and bland conversation. Many of the scenes are too long, some are pointless and don't bring anything to the story line. On the other hand many details are shortened or omitted altogether. Especially there should have been more information about Vita's and Violet's youth, and how their friendship developed. This is one fascinating story which would have deserved a much better adaptation. Maybe someday someone will do it. At the moment one can make much more of this story by reading the actual book or Violet's letters to Vita, which are brilliant stuff.
I have neither read the book on which the movie is based, nor the letters between Vita and Violet. If I came to this movie with any expectations whatsoever, it was maybe that the Bloomsbury group (including among others Virginia Woolf, and which the Nicolsons were part of) would be depicted. It wasn't, which however wasn't a problem for me. What I am wondering about is how the people behind this movie managed to make it, in my opinion, so very uninteresting and repetitive and most of the characters flat, in spite of great material and some very good actors. The script is simply not good enough. I agree with the criticism of my Finnish neighbor - too many pointless sex scenes (but only between the women, while there is nothing explicit whatsoever concerning Harold's numerous love affairs), too many pointless scenes in general, too little information about the background of characters. It seems odd considering the quality of the production - on the surface it seems a really ambitious piece of work, but the script holds of course the most weight and that is where this movie fails.<br /><br />Vita's relationship with Harold struck me as unconvincing, although both of them act really well, especially her. The way they kept declaring their unconditional love for each other in a rather sappy manner I thought, well, simply unconvincing. It makes a lot more sense that it should have happened through letters, as tmmvds points out I would also have liked to know where the nicknames came from - the Russian ones* as well as Mar - why ever is someone called Vita given the nickname Mar? It might be small stuff, but it matters in contributing to the bigger picture.<br /><br />*I watched the movie with English subtitles on, and where it should apparently have said Mitya, it said instead Medea. That might explain my frustration with the nicknames to some extent - I could not understand why Vita's should be Greek while Violet's was Russian!
Lance Henriksen got paid something to appear in this. I hope it was a lot.<br /><br />Former US National Champion gymnast, Kristie Phillips starts as Charlie Case, a gymnast-turn-secret-agent (because it's very common that munchkin gymnasts become government spies...)<br /><br />There's a truly hysterical opening scene where Charlie's uneven bars routine is sabotaged by an eastern-bloc competitor. What follows is one of the most ridiculous stunt scenes I've ever witnessed....and they want you to take it seriously! Don't worry...she sticks her dismount.<br /><br />Everything after that is just a messy, dreck of a spy movie. Watch the first fifteen minutes for the campy-gymnastics stuff, then run for cover.
Lina McLaidlaw is a bright, solitary young women who falls unexpectedly in love with Johnnie Aysgarth, a highly eligible bachelor with a penchant for losing money. They get married, but almost at once Lina is subjected to Johnnie's addiction to lying, gambling and getting into debt. Despite his flaws, she is unable to resist his charming manner, until she starts to suspect he may be harbouring murderous thoughts toward her ...<br /><br />This is a good movie, well-made, with an attractive cast, a good script and possibly the single lousiest ending in movie history. Okay, that's maybe going too far, but not by much. Lots of films change the ending of a book (Great Expectations, The Shining, etc) but the last two scenes of this one not only manage to be horribly lame, but also render the entire preceding plot completely meaningless. The story is about a woman whose husband is driven by his greed and moral lacking - and what she knows about him - to kill her. It should end (as it does in Francis Iles / Anthony Berkeley's book Before The Fact) with him attempting to murder her. The reason it doesn't is that the studio forced Hitch to reshoot the ending, one of the first examples of the godawful process of preview audience testing. Hitch was canny and did what he was told (this was only his third film in Hollywood) knowing that if he played the game, sooner or later he would gain creative control of his films, evinced by his masterpieces of the fifties. But that still leaves us with a turkey of an ending. This is a great shame because it really is a very good movie with an intriguing theme - does anyone really know their husband or wife that well ? The script is excellent, with many off-guard moments (such as when Lina's father dies and Johnnie assumes she's crying about it), a finely-judged performance by Grant (who never played a villain again) and fine photography throughout, culminating in the famous glass-of-milk shot. Fontaine won an Oscar for this performance, although personally I prefer her confusion and vulnerability in her earlier victimised wife role in Rebecca. I would like to rate this movie higher, but I really can't forgive that ending; this is what happens when movies are made for money, not love, which I guess is curiously the theme of the film itself. Look fast for Hitchcock's cameo as a man posting a letter.
This is unique in films of Hitchcock's that I've seen, in that I didn't really enjoy it.<br /><br />In fact, I actually found this quite predictable and annoying.<br /><br />Cary Grant and Joan Fontaine are a newly married couple. He's the kind of "lovable rogue" character that you've seen in many films, without ever being lovable as far as I am concerned!<br /><br />In fact, it was a barely believable relationship at best, and at times seemed particularly false and implausible.<br /><br />Unable to hold down a job and trying to live an opulent lifestyle, Grant is led to borrow money that he cannot pay back.<br /><br />Fontaine is convinced that he is trying to kill her in order to get the money she is insured for; and presumably what her late father was worth.<br /><br />Average and rather uninteresting all round actually, but as usual you can see the influence on films that have come at a later date.
There is no doubt that Alfred Hitchcock was a seriously talented director. Many of his films are undeniable classics that have stood the test of time and are highly watchable to this day. This list could include The 39 Steps, Rear Window, North by Northwest, Dial M for Murder, Vertigo, The Birds, Shadow of a Doubt, and a few other films.<br /><br />However, "Suspicion" is not aging well at all and is really so unwatchable that it seems to me that it was probably a bad film even by 1941 standards. The list of scenes that work well could be listed on a matchbook with a crayon. The script is loose and ridiculous most of the time, but the acting seems so forced and wooden and borderline amateurish throughout, that it is almost unbelievable. Joan Fontaine tries to shore things up but she is on a slippery slope and Cary Grant doesn't provide much assistance. His acting is so bad at times that I have seen better performances in high school plays or college Theatre Experience classes where a Chemical Engineer is acting for the first time with no formal training.<br /><br />After about 30 minutes of watching this film you may find yourself reaching for the DVD sleeve in the dark to see if you accidentally picked up some kind of special edition version that was cobbled together without any editing.<br /><br />The subject matter is serious, yet the film has a silly and trite feel to it that just seems so out of place you become numb with perplexity.<br /><br />"Suspicion" is basically unwatchable and another very very very overrated BAD movie.
Joan Fontaine is swept off her feet by the suave Cary Grant. After their marriage, she realizes that her husband is very irresponsible and owes a major gambling debt. It appears that Grant tries to scheme his best friend, Nigel Bruce, out of part of his life savings. Bruce ends up murdered and Fontaine suspects that her husband will try to kill her for the insurance money. This drama drags on to an abrupt and flat finale.
I don't dislike Cary Grant but I've found his performances annoying in enough films to notice; this, Arsenic & Old Lace and Bringing up Baby. I don't dislike him in North by Northwest but I really find that movie unbearably silly. On top of that I find the endless raving about Grant's class tiresome. I don't have a clue what his class does for the viewers who herald it. It doesn't do a thing for me.<br /><br />In the behind-the-scenes feature included with this DVD Patrcia Hitchcock says that Grant was her fathers favorite leading man; I think he was wrong. Jimmy Stewart was a better leading man in a string of better Hitchcock movies.<br /><br />With it's ruined ending this is really half a movie and doesn't bear discussion, and can't support the high ratings it's getting. Even if the movie had it's ending intact there's not much to it. Fontaine is a completely unsympathetic sucker. She has to remain numb, inactive, and unwilling to contact anyone but Johnny for the whole movie, in either ending, for his ploys to work. That's not much to work with. Cary Grant begins every line with "Monkeyface..." until I wanted to strangle him. He says it about sixty times. It's positively grating. Hitch's technique here is shockingly shallow. An endless succession of rooms/sets have a phony skylight projected on the rear wall as a spiderweb effect. And a light-bulb in a glass of milk may make fans excited, but it can't save a movie this poorly made.<br /><br />Peter Bogdanovich should retire if he does one more Hitchcock/Cary Grant imitation on a DVD. I think that's his whole career now. As soon as I saw him, I thought, oh crap, here comes an imitation that only he's impressed with. Instead there were two! oh joy!
Spoiler warning!!!<br /><br />This is probably my least favourite Cary Grant film. I spent most of the time thinking: ignore him, leave him etc. Is he trying to kill her? Should we assume that after the end, when he persuades her to return home with him, that he will kill her after all? I see from checking in a couple of books that this is a reading that some viewers/critics have taken. Finishing early is after all a more reasonable way to film a book, than to change the ending - and this is a more unreasonable change of ending than, for example, in Altman's The Long Goodbye. Unlike Hitchcock's earlier example of making the murderer not the murderer because a star has been cast (when Gosford Park refers to The Lodger, Ivor Novello's murderous habits are not mentioned) the book's ending is not definitely ruled out.<br /><br />In Robin Wood's Hitchcock's Films Revisited, he writes: "As one mentally 'swiches' from ending to ending , the significance of every scene changes, the apparent solidity of the narrative dissolves, the illusion of the fiction's 'reality' disintegrates, the film becomes a 'modernist' text in which the process of narrative is foregrounded." I enjoy playing intellectual interpretation games as much as anyone else, but unless the film stands on a straightforward reading, then it fails. This one fails. Even after considering the fatal glasses of milk that recur in a few Hitchcock films.<br /><br />An annoying quibble. The year is 1941. Nothing in the film says that it is set in the past. Beaky (Nigel Bruce) keeps his money in a Paris Bank, and goes there to do financial business? Does he not know that there is a war on? Indeed, were there still any flights from Croydon airport? Is he on good terms with the Nazis? How come it is never suggested that the Germans shot him as a spy or something.<br /><br />A curiosity. When Johnnie and Lina have dinner with Isobel, the mystery writer, and her brother, the pathologist, there is a fifth person present, who is never explained nor introduced - a woman in a tuxedo. The credits say that she is Nondas Metcalf playing Phyllis Swinghurst. Is this not an example of how lesbians were coded in '40s films? Are we to take her as Isobel's lover? The books that discuss overt and hidden gays/lesbians in Hitchcock (e.g. Robin Wood again) do not include Phyllis Swinghurst.
This film spends a lot of time preaching against marijuana. However, the plot and visuals are so insane that it seems more like the poster-child for LSD.<br /><br />Plot: The heroic struggle of Michael as he battles his drug addiction while being subjected to the humiliation brought on by the likes of Winnie the Pooh and Papa Smurf.<br /><br />Yea, yea, there's a good message, but it's obscured by the fact that the writers have taken a rather stale PSA idea and tried stretching it into 30 minutes. This includes a song sequence, where you're told that there's a million, rational ways to say "No!" such as "I can't smoke pot, I have homework!"<br /><br />The writers can't make up their minds what to do with the characters they've brought in royalty-free. At first we see they all have to hide from the human characters, but within five minutes we see them all running around in plain sight without anyone noticing. Soon they begin interacting with the human cast, and the only one who's even slightly disturbed by this fact is not the drug-abusers, it's the little sister who talks to her teddy bear (Pooh, by the way.) Further, there's the little drug demon floating around. Because you know, pushers don't give kids drugs. He too is ambiguous - while he might be symbolic of Michael's addiction and hence is not supposed to be seen by other people, he laters goes and haunts little Corey to get HER into drugs. So I guess he's...uhhh.....moving on!<br /><br />The whole plot finally culminates in some insane sequence in which Michael is in what would appear to be the Saturday Morning Carnival of Souls, aka a theme park from hell where the various cartoon characters beat him up and ignore him and stuff. For example, Miss Piggy eats him in a sandwich and spits him out. If the writers were not high when writing this, I must recommend they try getting high because they can't get crazier than this. Of course, the film ignores the fact that Michael's been having highs for two years by this point, so why this tripping sequence would frighten him is beyond me.<br /><br />I realize I'm completely whaling on this film, but I actually just saw it again because I went through the trouble of tracking it down on eBay because of it's sheer infamy of being a BAD cartoon. The level of unintentional humor is is brilliant. Take this scene for example - Michael's dad is rooting through the fridge for a beer. He notices many of them missing and mentions it to his wife. The ever-observant Mom tells him "Don't worry, you probably just drank them last night watching football." While we're obviously supposed to be learning that Michael is drinking beer (in addition to the pot and crack), we instead read further in and realize - Hey kids, it's okay to have chemical dependencies as long as you're a grown-up! Scenes like this are worth the tiny price tag of this film. Oh yea, and the fact you get to hear Simon the Chipmunk say "Marijuana."
If there's one thing I want to distinguish myself from all the other great reviewers here, it's that I am the Queen of Finding Strange Movies in Thrift and Dollar Stores. That said, you can't possibly imagine how happy I was when I found this one. <br /><br />I can even remember that Saturday morning when *every* station simulcast it, so you were stuck if you wanted to watch something else (then again, I guess that was the idea). As a kid, I didn't know if I liked the way all the different characters were stuck together (there are some crossovers that just do *not* work). But I guess the special had it's intended effect. Don't do drugs because you will have nightmares about the Muppets.<br /><br />Now, if you watch this as an adult, on the other hand, you will be treated to the *strangest* anti-drug movie this side of "Reefer Madness". I think I'll just leave it at that before I get into trouble.
Water shows the plight of Indian widows in the late 1930s, says in the end that the problem still exists largely by giving statistics in the end, refers to Gandhi several times in the movie before finally having a scene depicting him and does nothing extra ordinarily innovative or new in the movie. Yes, the cinematography is pretty impressive but that cannot be the soul of any movie for me. <br /><br />India has had several problems like many other nations but it has got rid of many of these problems at large. What if a movie is made on racism in America in a particular year which ends with 'x number of Americans still experience racism today'. <br /><br />a) How would it be relevant, and, b) How would it be some thing so extra ordinary being depicted in cinema.<br /><br />A view I read from a Deepa Mehta interview was that this movie is being interpreted as a voice for the marginalised every where. From reviews I read every where, the common thing I am hearing is how the director did a great job and was brave in bringing a problem to the world. The movie is more about a specific problem a society faced (and has got rid of through reforms at large). <br /><br />I do not see any thing earth shattering about the movie. Moreover, the movie lacked soul and shifted between the plots of Chuiyya and Kalyani. Sarala, the young Sri Lankan actress, portrayed the role of Chuiyya superbly and that was the only thing which impressed me about the movie, sadly.
I am a big fan of Deepa Mehta's work, especially Fire and Earth 1947. Unfortunately, this movie of hers lacks _all_ that is needed for a good film.<br /><br />The movie attempts to showcase the plight of the widows in India in the early 20th century and the new wave of ideas of their rehabilitation around the same time. Shown with a child widow as a central character, although the plot too banal from an Indian standpoint, it could still have been a very powerful movie. Alas! the movie lacked both the sensitivity of Fire and the intensity of emotion in Earth 1947.<br /><br />Even if one assumes that the story is a given, although there are hundreds of things I would have liked different in that as well, the movie making is especially unfortunate. Everything is said. Everything is shown straight. Absence of sensitive implied sentences. Absence of things left unsaid. I just couldn't believe that this was a Deepa Mehta film.<br /><br />There were some very standard Hindi movie characters - like an old widow with her own vested interests, or a father who has double standards of the highest quality. Can one not write a script without having these old-style standard Indian movie characters?<br /><br />Many people acclaimed Deepa for making a movie and proving a point against hindu fundamentalists. Well, I agree that she took a bold step, but should one not worry about the quality of movie, or is it being a controversial one an end in itself? Its obvious, that if you start with a story as in Water, you will end up feeling the pain of the widows in consideration --- It doesn't take an accomplished director to achieve that. And the movie had nothing more than that!! So where is Deepa's contribution to the film?<br /><br />And talk about acting etc. - pathetic!!! Lisa Ray has a pretty face, an extremely pretty face - but thats where it ends. She can't speak Hindi; she can't emote. John Abraham is no better. Most widows seem unnatural. The saving grace are Seema Biswas and the young girl. They are fabulous.<br /><br />And this was a period film - but the Hindi dialogues suck big time. Even there utterance is also as unnatural as it gets. No rustic accents!!! No local slangs. No nothing. The only thing right was probably the shooting locales. I thought that the set of the vidhwa-ashram was reasonably real. The overall blue tinge in the whole movie is also apt.<br /><br />But all and all, don't watch this movie. You _won't_ get anything. There is nothing in the story, or direction. If you have to watch it watch it for the little girl's acting.
Deepa has again tried to bravely bring out a subject that no one wants to talk about. The story line is OK, cinematography is outstanding, screenplay and acting are way below average. I guess the blame is to the citizens of Uttar Pradesh in India from where her original set was destroyed in 2000. This resulted in a totally different cast, I just wonder what a spectacular movie it would have been if it had the original Shabana Azmi, Nandita Das and Aamir Khan. The current actors Lisa Ray (who's just good for squirming in Bombay Dyeing bedsheets) and John Abraham are pathetic, need basic lessons in acting. Seema Biswas, Raghubir Yadav and Kulbushan Kharbabda have saved the movie as much as they can. The kid had done an outstanding job. The editing and the flow of the movie is also not something you would have expected from Deepa. Great subject, sends out a strong message about a practice which is still pretty rampant in rural India but falls short of the standards Deepa set for herself in Fire and Earth. Watch it once...when its on DVD, don't bother paying $10 to see it....well its out beats the average Hindi movie any day
Copy cats have copied this movie from a 1974 Hindi movie called "Call Girl"! "Call Girl" had an identical story line. The way in which the protagonists fall in love, then rebel and the climax all same in both these films! "Call Girl" is better than Water, at least from the story telling point of view. It was not as agonizingly slow as Water! Water on the contrary does not progresses at all. The aim is perhaps to make the audience sympathize with Kalyani for ever! Are Indian film makers any better than just being great copiers these days? Well they call it "being inspired". In their language it is: "getting inspired (without any citation that is!)"! :)
Deepa Mehta, Arundhati Roy and a host of other so called intellectuals get the title of intellectuals because of the fact that they love portraying India and hinduism in a bad light...and Deepa Mehta makes her money from it anyway. Anyway Hindus are too gentle or scared to protest the way muslims protest so anybody can take any liberties with Hinduism. And it is a fact that during the 1930's women in the west were also illtreated when they were widowed...just that nobody likes to point out anything bad about the west or anything other than India and Hindus. She paints an inncorrect portrayal of India and the situation of widows there. Nowhere is it mentioned that child marriage is illegal. She ended the movie saying there are 34 million widows in India. Of course among a billion people, there will be that many widows. But how many are living life she has depicted in the movie?? Deepa Mehta finally is selling India and poverty to make dollars. How pathetic....
Pathetic NRI Crap.....Appeal to all who are not Indian's....This is the WORST of Indian cinema,made by the worst piece of NRI trash.....The story is boring and clichéd (the way NRIs and westerners view India).....Go for it if u want to be bored to death.<br /><br />The movie deals with the plight of widows in India before independence.A lot of it is true even now in remote rural areas but not to the extent as depicted (maybe because its a period movie).....<br /><br />There are plenty of other Indian movies directed by extremely talented directors that are worth savoring...This one is a definite miss...Watch a documentary instead or look up information on the net if you are genuinely interested in the plight of the downtrodden in India.<br /><br />I wasted my time.
What about Scream Baby Scream is supposed to make me not feel like a fool for buying it? I bought it because, God help me, I'm a sucker for old B-cinema even as worthless as this. Nonetheless, Something about this movie irritates me, it's probably Janet, Janet comes off cold & snooty, seemingly, with the intention of coming off as deep and noble, with a look on her face that screams constipation, she can't seem to agree to anything her uptight boyfriend wants. I'm glad that this is her only role. What really irritates me is that this is a 1960's gore film gone terribly awry, and as we all know, awry is Floridian for "zero gore". It's like the director started with a Herschell Lewis style but backed out of the gore scenes when his wife found out, so instead we end up with one dull conversation after the other, and basically, a whole lot of irritating nothing. In other words, we end up with Florida Bore. Joseph Adler should be embarrassed. Janets boyfriend, Jason is almost as ridiculous as she is, this guy has something negative to say about absolutely everything, come to think of it, he's probably the least likable good guy in horror history. The only thing this movie really has going for it is that it carries that 60's/early 70's B-gore vibe that you can find in stuff like Undertaker & his pals, Blood Freak, or most anything from Herschell Lewis. Even Rodney from the Gruesome Twosome is in this, I Ithought his caveman comedy routine was irritating, most everything from reel to reel is stupid, even the trip scene was stupid. The only positive thing at all is the small amount of beach scenery, but that mostly includes Janet whining about life not being perfect. In the only real ironic twist, Scream Baby Scream gets even less interesting once the story finally gets started, around the 45 minute mark. If you happen to be indifferent to whether or not your entertainment is watchable, but are offended by the color red, you might not hate this. Why does Troma distribute this? Wouldn't this be Something Weird Video's area? Scream Baby Scream very well may be the worst in Florida horror/gore of its era, but, I suppose, underneath the unlikeable characters, and the incoherent plot, lies potential. Scream, Baby, Scream really just seems like it should follow the Blood Feast pattern, so, to steal a quote from Janet, "If it doesn't fit, I throw it out". 2/10
Maybe you have to be a former hippie to fully appreciate this, because aside from some dated fashions, music and dialogue, it doesn't really have a thing going for it nowadays.<br /><br />Four fun-loving college art students enjoy carefree days of painting nude models and riding on motorcycles. They take acid in one scene and go to a zoo. A sign flashes on the screen that says "Do Not Feed The Animals," and suddenly they're in a cage laughing and hanging from a chain tire swing (?!) An evil artist (Larry Swanson) tells (in flashback) how his art career was almost ruined because of a crippling hand disease. He sends out zombie henchmen dressed in black to kidnap people, then injects them with a serum that distorts their faces. He's trying to create some new form of abstract act (I'm guessing here, the details given are a bit fuzzy, to put it mildly). Meanwhile, Jason (Ross Harris) sets out to save the day after his friend Scotty (Chris Martell) is killed and his girlfriend Janet (Eugenie Wingate) is kidnapped. I thought the zombie make-up in ZOMBIE LAKE was awful, but wait until you see it here! It's by Douglas Hobart, the star of DEATH CURSE OF TARTU. A small role is played by Brad Grinter, the director of the Z-classic BLOOD FREAK, which is much, much more enjoyable than this deadly dull turkey (aka NIGHTMARE HOUSE).<br /><br />Useless trivia note: The 1984 Regal video release features the wrong cast (for THE BRIDES WORE BLOOD) printed directly on the video label!<br /><br />Score: 1 out of 10
...Or is this another way below the bottom-of-the-barrel masterpiece? Preferably both! Somewhere between 1969 and 1972 came a host of several horrible horror movies that are all but lost again. Nothing more needs to be explained, asked, or screamed out loud. If you followed closely at my writings about CARNIVAL OF BLOOD or GURU THE MAD MONK, then you know what's in store with SCREAM BABY SCREAM. The title sounds cool; it's just the weak script that should have gone someplace else! Even so, this is hands down, the most dreadfully written piece of cinematic mastery ever worked on film!<br /><br />If you thought this is an early slasher (which benefits the average IMDb user to write up another comment), better luck next time! The real truth behind the script has NOTHING to do with the movie, which supposedly tells of a blue-faced psychopath out to "kill" and make some ugly facial sculptures on his victims. It feels like you're watching another early "SCOOBY-DOO" episode. My favorite scene is the monkey cage where the four young hippie teenagers play in. And hooray for an actress under the name "Eugenie Wingate" for giving us the worst facial makeover, ever! 1969 has never been this bad, but it is!<br /><br />Try finding this 30-year old rarity at a bargain basement for five bucks; it makes the perfect novelty item for going back to those psychedelic days of flower power, bad fashions, and trashy music! Interesting note: SCREAM BABY SCREAM is also listed in Troma's film archives on the company's website. Only time will tell when this reaches the top of the Bottom 100 List along with a few more early 70s cheapies; gosh knows they NEED to!!! PLAN 9 is history!!!
Have you ever watched a film, when after it's conclusion, your left pondering what in the world it was all about? Well, say hello to "Scream, Baby, Scream". It's not that the story's complex or anything like that, it's just that it plays out in three completely different modes...1. A fun 60s drug movie...2. A much overplayed soap opera...and 3. a horror flick (with very little to "Scream" about). Much to my surprise, I've found out that it was written by one of my all-time favorites, Larry Cohen. Well, I guess even the best have to learn through trial and error.<br /><br />Playing out much like something from H.G. Lewis(only with lesser fx), this "bad" film does have it's perks. For most of it's short running time there's a pretty cool jazz score to be heard, and there are a couple of memorable scenes...one of those being where a group of kids decide to experiment with acid and take a nice long motor bike ride to the zoo. The camera tricks the director uses to indicate their hallucinatory state is just plain retarded, but amusing. Trust me when I tell you, there's no need to run out of the house to catch this one!
I found this movie at a XXX store for $1 on VHS. The interesting thing about it is that Camp Video bought up the rights to it and slapped on a 1986 copywrite date in the credits. Anyways, enough of odd facts.<br /><br />This film is absolutely not scary. To even call this horror or a "thriller" is laughable. There were only maybe 5 minutes at most of what you would call horror in this 80+ minute film, and that consisted of the acting, because it was HORRORible! All puns aside, the writing for this film was absolute garbage as well, just as the special effects and makeup was laughable. No wonder this is such an obscure film, probably the director has spent the last 35 years scouring the country for all existing copies of it and burning them in one big pile so no one else could be subjected to it.
Why remake the original "Assault"? To my mind "Assault" was Carpenter's true masterpiece. It had all the elements good Carpenter movies contain. External threat on a small group of individuals. People taking the challenge because they are forced to do so. Isolation! Just remember, the guns in Carpenter's original made no sound, being thus a lot more threatening than conventional devices. And now this remake. Concentrating on "main character I"s psychology and on his relation to main character II (the evil but honorable). The anonymous threat in the Carpenter movie replaced by a rather conventional conspiracy/corruption background. The "remakers" just didn't understand the main plot of the original. And thus produced something pretty ordinary.
Assault on Precinct 13: 3/10: Let us forget for a moment that Assault on Precinct 13 is a remake of a classic action movie. Taken completely on its own merits Assault is a debacle. <br /><br />Lets start with the Rio Bravo style scenario. About a dozen people are trapped in a decaying police station in Detroit (If the Detroit location is giving you Robocop warm and fuzzies stop right now. It could have easily said Topeka in the opening credits and nothing would have changed. In fact the last bit in the forest would have made more sense.) Surrounding them are our bad guys; corrupt cops.<br /><br />Now I know what your thinking. Corrupt cops? Were the Nazis and drug cartels busy that weekend? Of course these are no ordinary cops. These guys are right of the cover of the latest Tom Clancy video game. Yup we have body armor; helicopters; laser sights; night vision goggles the works. So we have thirty S.W.A.T. members/Special Forces armed to the teeth verses 4 cops (drunk mind you it's new years eve), 2 girls in party dresses and half a dozen criminals. <br /><br />So how do our heroes defend themselves? Truth is they can't. They all should be dead within ten minutes tops. (Not to mention the characters inside have an annoying habit of walking past the windows.) Now an illogical scenario is no reason to completely pan a movie esp. a B style action film. However with the exception of Laurence Fishburne and Ethan Hawke all the other characters seemed to be comic relief. (At least I hope they were) <br /><br />While Ja-Rules and Leguizamo's characters are bad enough. It's Aisha Hind's minstrel show that takes the cake. Rarely has a more stereotypical African American character appeared on the modern screen. Her performance resembles a frat boy in blackface and drag acting ghetto. <br /><br />In the original Assault a gang member takes over an Ice-Cream truck and drives around the neighborhood shooting little girls in the head. I have had an irrational fear of ice-cream trucks ever since. After this Assault I have a perfectly rational fear of remakes.
I'm sure a lot of guys will love this movie. The only woman who shows any "balls" (unfortunate pun regretted) is made to look, talk, and seem like a guy, the other 2 women are portrayed either as sexual objects with one thing on their mind- sex / being sexy, with sex as their only attribute and skill (Iris) - or as freaked out pretty little princesses who's neurosis negates any strength and professional authority they had before all hell broke lose (Doc). The only strength Iris has in the end is the result of some advice from a big strong man. Besides my negative gut reaction as a feminist, I have to give the camera work props- and Ethan Hawke is great in the very first scene. After that his performance loses steam. Empty entertainment for a brain that wants to take it easy. At least the film skims the subject of the duality of good/bad in the criminal mind.
It's New Year's eve, a cop-killer (in the form of, Laurence Fishburne) end up at a precinct that's closing down due till snow. When the people are layed siege on, cops have to team up with cons to survive. This re-make of the John Carpenter classic just had to add a few beyond stupid plot twists, take out all the tension, and add a horrid John Lequizamo to the cast, didn't it? The first film was thrilling, gritty, and a joy to watch. This one is more Hollywood, clichéd, and painful to behold. The only thing I took from this movie was OCD can be very annoying...VERY. The ending song is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO bad.<br /><br />My Grade: D- <br /><br />DVD Extras: Commentary by Richet, Demonaco and Jeffrey Silver; Delet scenes with optional commentary; 5 minute "Armed and Dangerous" featurette on the weapons expert; 7 and a half minute "behind Precinct Walls"; "Plan of Attack"; "The Assault Team"; 12 and a half minute behind the scenes featurette;, Trailers for "Unleashed", "White Noise", :Seed of Chucky" <br /><br />Miscelanious: I got this at Best Buy and it came with a bonus disc including the first 2 minutes of "Cry Wolf"; a 10 minute first look at "Unleashed"; the trailer for that film; and a Fuzion interview with John Leguizamo
Los Angeles, 1976. Indie film brat John Carpenter, fresh out of film school and with one film - his class project's no-budget spoof of 2001 called Dark Star - under his belt, finishes a gritty actioner called Assault On Precinct 13. The story of an almost deserted police station under siege by an unseen LA gang, it was a minor hit on the drive-in circuit and garnered small praise from the few critics who cared, but it hardly set the film world on fire, unlike Carpenter's follow-up smash Halloween (1978). On Precinct, Carpenter was still learning how to exploit his almost non-existent budget by using lower-shelf actors, keeping the action to the one hellishly small location, and moving the film along at a tight pace with a combination of editing, intelligent camera work and switched-on genre savvy.<br /><br />No-one wants or needs to be hungry in Hollywood anymore, particularly if the week's catering bill on the 2005 version of Assault On Precinct 13 is more than the entire cost of the original. It does translate into a certain kind of laziness on a filmmaker's part - you have a stupidly large union crew, a studio and a marketing firm all doing your thinking for you. Which is why twenty years after watching Carpenter's film I can still see every glorious moment, from the small girl gunned down in cold blood while buying an ice cream, to the relentless pounding synth score. A week after Assault 2005, I remember Larry Fishburne's unmoving ping pong ball eyes and little else.<br /><br />"Forgettable popcorn actioner" fits the top of the poster perfectly. It's New Years Eve at Precinct 13, a station closing down with a skeleton staff to see in its final hours. On call is Jake Roenick (Ethan Hawke), an ex-narc now deeply troubled and hopped up on Jack Daniels and Seconol after his partners were iced in the opening scene; Iris (The Sopranos' Drea de Matteo), a nympho with a thing for criminal types, and Jasper (Brian Dennehy), a crusty old timer one scotch away from retirement. As in Carpenter's Assault..., a bus with four heavy-duty criminals is rerouted to the Precinct. All boozy eyes are on gangster kingpin Bishop (Fishburne, still beefed-up from his time in the Matrix) who has narrowly survived an assassination attempt from an undercover cop and plans to blow the lid on the endemic corruption in the organized crime unit led by Marcus Duvall (a tired-looking Gabriel Byrne). Soon the phones are out, the power lines are down, and both crims and police find themselves heavily armed with a serious police arsenal and consumed with paranoia while waging war against a task force of Duvall's corrupt cops sporting white balaclavas, bullet vests, infra-red bazookas and more high-tech gear than the Skywalker Ranch. This, we're expected to believe as the helicopters buzz around the top of the police station shooting rockets into windows, is a clandestine operation to cover Duvall's tracks. He may as well have taken out billboards on Hollywood Boulevard.<br /><br />As with the recent Seventies genre reworking Dawn Of The Dead, Assault 2005 takes the barest plot essentials of John Carpenter's original and, to quote the Seventies, "does it's own thing, man". The main question is - why bother? John Carpenter's 1976 is a cult favorite among genre buffs, but is hardly branded in the public's collective consciousness. Carpenter himself was busy reworking Howard Hawks' classic western Rio Bravo into a tight, claustrophobic urban thriller for only $20,000. French wunderkind director and rap producer Jean-Francois Richet, a self-professed fan of John Carpenter's work, seems less concerned with making an homage to either Hawks or JC - although the script is peppered with references to cowboys and injuns - and seems intent on squeezing in as much flash and firepower as the multi-million dollar budget can withstand. The result: some tense moments with hand-held POV cameras, an unexpectedly high (and bloody) body count, a few neat plot twists, but essentially a B-grade urban actioner with a much inflated price tag. As for name-checking Carpenter, it's pure conceit on the part of the filmmakers that doesn't pay off.<br /><br />To Monsieur Richet, I say bon voyage, and I wish you luck on your music career.
I don't think it's necessary to outline the plot for you, because the site and other users have done a superb job of that already. That said, here's my take. This is by far the worst movie of 2005, and there have been some really, really bad ones. I don't even need to go into detail because there is NOTHING redeeming about this movie. Bad acting, bad plot, bad directing, bad special effects-you name it. If it doesn't stand alone as the worst film ever made, it's tied with some other piece of crap. I'd be embarrassed to have my friends know I was in this movie. But hey, most people that are gonna see it will do so no matter what reviews it gets, so more power to ya. When you feel the gaping void between your neurons two hours into your evening, don't blame me.
This movie definitely made me laugh but that doesn't mean it was exactly funny. Well, then again, me and my friends had a lot of fun watching it.<br /><br />I doubt there is anything about this movie that hasn't been done at least twice before, just like the plot itself. All of the characters are overused movie cliché cardboard-box roles that don't even require acting skills; accordingly, such skills are not delivered. We have the corrupt cop, a ruthless killer who claims to care about his men and their families whilst caring nothing about people he shoots in the forehead at so close a range as to have blood spat on his face. We have the "worn-out cop on the edge" so nicely pointed at in the discussion boards of this movie; we have the old one-day-away-from-retirement-cop who just about everyone must have immediately identified as the most likely man on the inside, since he had most to gain and he didn't utter a trustworthy word throughout the movie. About as see-through as a glass house on a sunny day. The big black gangster king was a copy of all previous big black gangster kings in movie history (they could've just called him Marcellus Wallace), but just slightly tougher and more ruthless, because something has to emphasize that we also know Laurence Fishburne from actually good movies. Then we finally have the HIGHLY EDUCATED doctor who can't think of anything reasonable to do as soon as the situation differs from her ordinary life and who spends the majority of the movie sitting in a corner helplessly trying to figure out how to hold on to the weapon she was given. NOT USING IT.<br /><br />The whole siege story is not interesting, not original (having been used twice before), and this movie manages to add absolutely nothing interesting to it. There is the initial probe, then the laying of the siege, then the assault, then the escape attempts. Meanwhile a bunch of strained, stressed, freaked out cops and thugs manage to hold off a Police assault team with high-tech equipment and the quite important advantage of VISION. Then again, in deep night, with the power cut and with a snow storm raging overhead, there is definitely a lot of light coming in, so who really cares about night vision.<br /><br />But the best part comes right at the end. In the first scenes showing Precinct 13, we see it is situated in an outskirt of an industrial city; factories and office buildings surround it on all sides. From this point, the besieged walk maybe a hundred meters in a sewer and where do they end up? Some alley ending right in the middle of a forest! A FOREST! Where did that forest come from? Who decided to lay a pine forest in the middle of an industrial area? How is this forest, in the last scene, suddenly on a hill over the city in question, while in the scenes inside the forest it looked deceptively FLAT?? <br /><br />From here I leave the judgment to you, and to your common sense. Go and see this movie if you're looking for an unintended good laugh, I can really recommend it.
The opening scene keeps me from rating at absolute zero. I wish the entire movie was as gritty and real as the intro.<br /><br />In order to enjoy some movies, a lot can be forgiven,(hand guns with 60 shots, hero's with super human powers, all women are gorgeous AND half naked) but Puuuuleeese this "Assault On My Intelligence 13" is so far fetched that I'm surprised the cast showed up for a second day of filming.<br /><br />Firstly, how did these guys get to be cops? Based on stupidity I guess. How do the main female characters justify being half naked in the middle of winter in Detroit or wherever the heck they are. As a matter of fact no character reacts to the elements whatsoever in this movie. No windows, no electricity(which miraculously returns unexplained)during the storm of the century and they are all comfy as bugs in a rug. What technology exists which disables all cell phones, radios, and brain function. This must be the same power which causes Maria Bella to walk from her disabled car knee deep in snow with no coat and hardly any dress.
The original "Assault on Precinct 13" is gritty, witty, and - perhaps most importantly - short. This remake is mercilessly padded out and talky. Worse yet, the African-American hero of the first movie is here replaced with handsome white boy Ethan Hawke, which makes this "Assault" less progressive than the 1970s one. God, how I miss John Carpenter and his improbable plot line and his weird sense of humor. I even miss his B-list actors, who are leagues better than Hawke and company.<br /><br />I can't say I care for the new villains in this version - they stretch what little credibility the story ever had to the limit. The female characters are useless, the criminals are all generic hoods, and Gabriel Byrne gives another of his bored performances. The music's all wrong, too - it's bland action stuff that actually detracts from the tension. Simply awful.
Assault on Precinct 13 is the absolute dumbest film I've seen since Charlie's Angels 2. The shame lies in the fact that they had a good cast and a good premise to work with. <br /><br />SPOILERS ............................................................. I know they've said this movie is a remake descendant of Rio Bravo but did the writers of this film actually watch Rio Bravo? Besides the fact that Rio Bravo is a western classic, the premise of the film was that the sheriff (John Wayne) had to keep a prisoner accused of murder from being liberated by his brother and his gang. No one wants to liberate anyone in Assault on Precinct 13. They want EVERYONE dead. So, my first question would have to be, WHY NOT JUST BURN THE WHOLE PLACE DOWN FROM THE START? Why "assault" the place at all? I know the contrived plot turn was suppose to be clever and shocking but it didn't make sense and/or was presented properly. If the veteran cop was in on it from the start, why the need for this whole movie? If the veteran cop suddenly cut a deal at the back door during the siege, how did he even get the chance? As soon as he appeared at the door he would've been shot and they would've had their entry point. It's all just FUBAR. <br /><br />What part of any city can an all out war take place at a police precinct (complete with helicopters and massive explosions) but no one notices?? However, as soon as there's a fire they have to "leave before the fire department shows up"?????? How did they plan to cover up the chaos that was happening outside?? Police issue bullets in the walls, bullet casings, footprints, equipment usage, and the fact that there were going to be no bodies of "Bishop's men" to be found? How about those police snipers? How could they possibly miss so badly so often? I like the fact that when the two detainees tried to run, the snipers were foiled by two tiny mounds of snow. As if it's not possible to shoot a high powered riffle through a pile of snow. <br /><br />The set up was interesting although ridiculous but the movie just went off a cliff when they decided to kill that particular character with a bullet to the head for absolutely NO REASON at all. I know the makers of the film were going for shock but all they got was disgust at the cruelty and the anger of the audience. Don't you think that part of the reason why this thing is bombing at the box office is the fact that word of mouth has everyone telling friends and family to stay away from this one? That particular scene has to be a big part of that word of mouth (that and the fact that every plot turn is dumber then dirt). The conclusion remains steadily stupid as the villain pauses to deliver an Austin Powers-like diatribe instead of killing the helpless people who he has finally captured. I know several people have mentioned the closing scenes that take place in the woods of Detroit city (>snicker<) but why did Ethan's character just wander off in to the woods in the first place? He doesn't even look to see if the SUV with the secretary and his friend gets away? They just cut to him prowling slowly in the woods, pistol in hand. GACK. I could go on but won't. All I can say is that you want to avoid this stupidity at all cost.
This was perhaps the worst movie I've seen in a long, long time. Forget that it's clear no research was done regarding Detroit (forest in downtown Detroit! Bwahaha!!). The writing was horrible, the premise completely implausible, and quite frankly, the characters were embarrassing. I cannot for the life of me understand why seasoned actors would stoop to such a low and participate in something this god awful. Now, I have never seen the original and don't know if this movie pays tribute to it's original form. It's my understanding that the original was not set in Detroit. Why they would deviate from that without researching details about the setting only tells me that it was more than the cast that was looking to pay the rent. <br /><br />Don't waste your time on this junk, unless you're from Detroit and wish for some comic relief.
I am a huge fan of the original Assault On Precinct 13. The ice cream scene haunts me to this day. I'm 33 now and I still remember being horrified by it as a child. When I heard they were remaking it, I thought it might be good but when I saw the film, it's 100% not the same film. It's not a remake. It's a bad stolen idea. It was completely ruined. The cast, Maria Bello, Laurence Fishburne, Ethan Hawke, Gabriel Burne, John Leguizamo and Drea De Matteo are all great actors but even they couldn't save this film. It was just wrong. Even the setting was completely opposite. And how in the hell did no one in that city notice that there was a war going on next door? Why didn't help show up sooner? Stupid. No sense.
Is it just me, or is this an AWFUL film? I'm going with it's an AWFUL film...<br /><br />Knowing full well that it's a guy flick (usually defined as full of car chases, crashes, gunfights, explosions, etc.), I still expect some small degree of credibility. If I can't somehow believe in the premise, the film WILL NOT WORK. Thus, we come to the problem with "Assault on Precinct 13."<br /><br />Not one for spoilers, I never report details of the plot. However, I will make an exception here, because the plot is SO inane. Bad guy is jailed in Precinct 13. Bad guy's buddies want to bust him out. Surprise. The bad guys' buddies are actually corrupt cops. Brooding, troubled, but heroic young cop saves the day while romancing the girl. UGH. Yes, it really is THAT simple, and that dumb.<br /><br />"Assault on Precinct 13" takes place in Detroit. Not a bad setting for crime and corruption (I spent 3 months there in late 2004, so I know what I'm talking about). Even so, it's outrageously violent and insulting to the police and the citizens of Detroit. I have spent a lot of time in downtown Detroit, but I cannot imagine how the final chase wound up in the downtown Detroit forest. I must have missed it...<br /><br />There are NO refunds for watching bad movies. Save your money. There were too many good films in 2005 to waste even $3.00 at Blockbuster on this one.<br /><br />FINAL RATING: 1<br /><br />(Only because I have seen worse films.)
You expect it to be juvenile but you at least expect a complete and coherent movie. What a waste. I am extremely disappointed, not at just having watched a bad movie, but at having such a great concept be tainted by a common movie that we've all seen before. If this crud makes $1 over its budget, The studio would be wise to declare victory, round up all available copies, store them deep within the nuclear waste repository under Yucca Mountain, and then never make another movie like it again. Most of this movie will keep you thinking, "This is not what I wanted to see." This film appeals to the unintelligent and maybe to teenagers. It's a true shame because most movies are made for that demographic. I had much higher hopes for this film.
I accidentally happened upon this movie when I was looking for something to watch while eating lunch. I actually turned to the WE Network because it said it had the last 20 minutes of some movie about the importance of "sticking it" for some gymnastics team -- I figured cheesy goodness. Well, I got cheesy alright. <br /><br />First, I missed a good 20-40 minutes at the start of the movie. Luckily, most of it was recapped fairly quickly, especially in the bedroom scene where Crystal admits that she felt responsible for the death of her rapist.<br /><br />I love Jenny Garth and will watch her in just about anything. She's just so pretty, and I want my lipstick to look as perfect as hers always does. She looks great throughout this movie, and doesn't really age over what seems to be more than a decade. <br /><br />Overall, I felt bad for the actors as I watched this movie. All of them tried to sell their parts, but all were so poorly written that it was a constant struggle. Frankly, I was surprised to see Terry Farrell and Mitch Ryan (Greg's dad from Dharma & Greg) in this. <br /><br />But the writing was not the worst part of this movie. About a half-hour before the end, her mother dies, and when they show the headstone the death date is 1979. Having missed the beginning, I had gotten the impression from the wardrobe that this was taking place in the 80s. Not one leisure suit or bell bottom in sight. Shame on the person who did wardrobe for this film! Don't get me wrong -- all the outfits in this movie were beautiful, but they were completely wrong for the time period. It almost makes me wonder if they told the wardrobe person that it was a period piece.<br /><br />Bottom line -- good for a laugh or to feed a Jennie Garth fix. :)
I haven't seen many movies worse than this one. The story line, the dialogues, the acting: it's horror! The story just jumps from a to b to c without any logical steps in between. Every time you think you've missed something, but no: that was the way it was intended to be. And why on earth is the character that Jenny Garth portrays so in love with that no-no loser guy (who actually now plays in the movie Cinderella Man with Russel Crow!)? O well, it's no Spielberg, of course... I have to write ten lines to get posted. This movie really isn't inspiring enough to write 10 lines! It's a romantic feel good movie with a lousy story, so if you're up for that: you'll have a ball.
This person is a so-called entertainer who has to resort to profanity, vulgarity, and slander to try and make others believe he has talent. I have often seen comics use a little of each with effect but when all you can say is laced with it, it is a sign of a drug affected warped mind. Makes me wonder where his twisted and fried brain will be in a few more years of abuse. Poor man!!! I admit I could not watch all of it - too stupid for words. The amazing part of this is that somebody actually believes he is a philosopher!!! No wonder self respect and decency are dwindling and perversity is rising. Could it be that the UFC might have been a factor in his deadened brain?
Joe Rogan's whole act is profanity laced with bile. He is a pot smoker who entered Fear Factor, thinking it was a joke. He said he would egg people on because he did not know how stupid people were going to be. The producers of the show he explained were going on the premise of playing pranks on unsuspecting contestants to see how far they will go. The level of evil involved is a little twisted. Mr. Rogan's special is just filled with the rants of someone who is too good for regular human beings. I found him to be offensive and his stuff can be heard by more talented comedians such as Eddie Murphy or Chris Rock. Rogan even does a five minute set on the N word. Overall, ignore this special.
This is a truly awful movie. The jokes are few and far between and the pacing is a down right endurance test. The only thing funny to come out of this production is it's comparison to the classic film "This Is Spinal Tap."<br /><br />Avoid this film as if it were one of the plagues of the Bible itself.<br /><br />
If Jacqueline McKenzie and John Lynch weren't such talented actors this film would probably be even worse than it actually is.The story of two mentally disturbed people who fall in love and have a baby is an interesting one,and well worth exploring.However on the negative side,the plot becomes increasingly over the top as the story progresses,and the music choices more and more bizarre,so that by the end I found myself laughing when I know the director intended for me to be crying.
On the Opening night of the San Francisco Silent Film festival I was quite excited to see films that are historical and well not common. The guest speaker who opened this film created a sense of hype towards the obscurity, and how this film is underrated. The sci-fi part of the film was very interesting and fantastic for its time, but i'm not sure if it was due to the fact it was shown directly after the Brilliant 1928 "The Wind" or if it seemed that Russian filmmakers take after what Russian novels are famous for (hundreds of characters, tangled plots) but I know for certain that the dramatic parts, as in the parts on Earth, made absolutely no sense, were boring and I became lost within about twenty minutes. Maybe it was the acting but I found myself convinced as to why this film is "unknown and underrated": It's boring, there is no plot or basic story and the acting is horrible. This certainly is no "Battleship Potemkin", however I will say that Russian films do not make a real good effort in lightning up what life in Russia is like.
I have barely managed to view the entire film... Only after about 85min out of the movie's 110min did the journey to Mars begin, and then there were 5min left for the closure. These 85 long minutes were VERY boring and didn't contribute anything to the film. When finally reaching Mars, it wasn't much better plot wise. It all could have been fitted into much shorter running time and nothing would have been missed.<br /><br />What I cannot understand is the piece of trivia saying the because of the film new-born Babies were named "Aelita"... Why would someone want to name his/her baby after a villain, who despite having only one eyebrow, apparently has 3 breasts???<br /><br />The only interesting thing here is the sets and costumes for the Mars scenes. They are an interesting experiment in Constructivism, just as "The cabinet of Dr. Caligari" was for Expressionism, five years earlier.<br /><br />I give it 4/10 for the great looking design...
A dedicated Russian Scientist dreams of going to Mars. He eventually gets there but it takes the whole film before we are able to have a laugh at the Russian style of Revolution in Mars.
This film is strange, even for a silent movie. Essentially, it follows the adventures about a engineer in post-revolutionary Russia who daydreams about going to Mars. In this movie, it seems like the producers KNOW the Communists have truly screwed up the country, but also seems to want to make it look like they've accomplished something good.<br /><br />Then we get to the "Martian" scenes, where everyone on Mars wears goofy hats. They have a revolution after being inspired by the Earth Men, but are quickly betrayed by the Queen who sides with them. Except it's all a dream, or is it. (And given that the Russian Revolution eventually lead to the Stalin dictatorship, it makes you wonder if it was all allegory.) <br /><br />Now, I've seen GOOD Russian cinema. For instance, Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin is a good movie. This is just, well, silly.
After watching Avalon (which was decent only because of the very nice digital fx), and several anime films written by Oshii, including Jin-Roh (which is fantastic) I decided I should check out the Oshii cinema trilogy box set. Being that the Red Spectacles and Stray Dog are related, I will comment here on both. And let me tell you, it was one of the biggest wastes of money I have spent in a while. I first watched Stray Dogs and then The Red Spectacles. I am sad to say that these films are quite possibly the most boring two movies I have ever seen. For only about 10 minutes in each film do you get to see some action between the the characters, who are only dressed in the "Panzer Cop" outfits for a few fleeting scenes. The rest of the time you will see some very drawn out scenes filled with boring dialogue in some less than impressive locations. I really don't understand the motivation behind these two films at all. I love the Wolf Brigade outfits and the idea behind the plot, but the films themselves leave much to be desired. I would suggest NOT watching these films, and certainly do not buy the box set like I did, unless you enjoy wasting money. Oh, and if you are wondering what I think about the 3rd movie in the set, Talking Head, I couldn't even bring myself to watch it before I purged the box set from my DVD collection via eBay at a $20 loss. If you want cool Japanese live action, check out Returner, or Ichii the Killer or the Zeiram series.
Red spectacles<br /><br />I loved Avalon, I think This director has made some awesome demented visions of the future. This film however was boring pretentious crap. The opening scene showed great promise for what the cover art and description promise a surreal live action amimae style future noir. I feel I got that with Avalon.<br /><br />With Red Spectacles I was only driven to feel a uncomfortable to desire to what the hell the point was. The film barely made sense to me and I could not care less about the people in it. This would all be ok if the film was effective art. While the opening scene looked interesting and the scene with the giant robot-suit person holding the giant machine gun in the rain looked cool, it did not watch the film worth watching.<br /><br />Thumbs down.
I guess this is in the public domain as its out on DVD. First off, this is a feel good propaganda movie to be shown to a wartime Aussie audience, so its not to be considered a serious retelling of Tobruk. The first half to 3/4 is very dry stuff set in Australia, I guess like many American war films where the recruits are getting together, oh man its soooo long. Than we get to Africa and Tobruk, pretty bad, low budget stuff. The battle scenes on the DVD copy I watched were almost completely black. See it if you must, but be prepared to use the fast forward as I doubt you can take it after a few minutes. I enjoyed the cheesy Italian "Battle of El Alamien" a whole lot more, also Richard Burton did an African theater war flick that was good "The Desert Rats", this movie is just a real period piece and should have stayed in that time, does not hold up well today (I doubt it was highly regarded back then either). I say the same thing about my American counterpart war flicks so don't take it personally Aussies (I love Australia, been there twice!).
What You Need In the run up to 'What You Need', every episode since 'The Lonely' had been a winner to some extent. This episode is the first major failure since 'Escape Clause'. The Serling script is again based on someone else's materiel, a short story by Lewis Padgett. As with 'And When the Sky Was Opened', Serling altered the content significantly, removing a scientist and his machine and inserting an elderly peddler.<br /><br />'What You Need' works best when it is being sweet. The opening half, in which the peddler provides customers in a bar with objects they will need in the near future, has a gentle charm about it that may have worn thin throughout an entire episode but works well in the time frame it is allotted. Sadly, the main plot which it sets up is full of gaping holes. The minute Steve Cochran's performance as a two-bit thug becomes the main focus the episode falls apart. Cochran's part is an underwritten stereotype and his flat performance highlights this flaw. His exploitation of the old peddler is dull and predictable and the revelation that he will murder the old man is totally unconvincing, making the whole slippery shoes scene seem completely false. Ernest Truex is good as the peddler, bringing a magical, mysterious but warm edge to the character, but he's not good enough to help the floundering script.<br /><br />To make matters worse, the weak script is also full of inconsistencies. For instance, we learn that the peddler's power to provide people with what they need stems from an ability to see into the future. So how exactly does this allow him to produce a pen that will magically pick winning horses. That seems like it should be a little outside his realms of power. Also, for a man who can see the future, the peddler certainly acts surprised to find the thug waiting for him in his flat. There are many more holes that can be picked in 'What You Need' but it's hardly worth it when the episode is so thin that you can see through it anyway.
I don't mind some adult humor, but this feature was just downright dirty. The first 10 minutes consisted of Pryor swearing at some guy taking pictures, followed my even more profanities. I don't know what happened between that time the the last 5 minutes because I walked out. After seeing this I never looked at Richard Pryor the same way again. And to think that he actually went on to host a childrens' show.<br /><br />If profanity and tasteless, unfunny dirty jokes make you laugh, then you'll probably enjoy this. But if you're an "old-fashioned" type, then don't bother.
This may not be the worst movie to ever win best picture but its up there. Well on second thought this is probably the worst film to ever win best picture. Still though you would expect it to be a worth while film. That in fact though if questionable as well. The film contains almost no depth and is just "fun" after "fun" if you want to call it that. At first its very interesting but it seems as if everything is exaggerated on so many levels.<br /><br />The acting was not spectacular to watch but it was quite interesting seeing Charlton Heston in his first lead role. I found many of the characters like the tone of the movie annoying after awhile. Who I did like a lot was James Stewart as the philosophical clown. He to me saved the film in that he gave it a much needed extra layer. Sadly though after Stewart there was not much else.<br /><br />The directing of the much respected Cecil DeMille was non existent to me. I found the movie corny at times and his use of Betty Hutton was a mistake. The look of the movie was very good at times but it did not generate that magical feeling that classics need to have. The writing was actually pretty good considering how shallow much of the movie was.<br /><br />From movies like this did the term "Hollywood Trash" come up. There is no depth, no valid attempt at drawing emotions out of the audience and simply no artistic value to the film. Then of course the many holes in the plot throughout. This movie was consistently annoying and frustrating. I even had a sense through this film that much of what I was watching was not only and inaccurate depiction of circus life but instead the opposite of how it really is. Why this won best picture is beyond me but its not like the first or the last time the Oscars will and have made a mistake.
In a year when "Singin' in the Rain" and "High Noon" were released, this overstuffed turkey somehow won the Oscar for Best Picture. Half the film is nothing more than circus performances. The other half is soap opera and melodrama. Heston and Wilde both overact, although they are models of restraint compared to the annoying Hutton. Playing a self-centered trapeze artist, Hutton acts like an overzealous high school student in a badly produced school play. Grahame is the only cast member to turn in a decent performance. DeMille has no interest in telling a good story, only in creating an overlong spectacle, not matter how dull.
OK, here's the short of it... this movie is full of corny dialogue, over the top acting, and a threadbare script.<br /><br />There are moments that intended to be very dramatic but simply come off humorous because of the over the top acting and poorly written lines. I couldn't help laughing at moments that were meant to be very serious. The bright spot in this movie is the circus. Seeing the circus in its heyday was certainly a treat.<br /><br />There are moments that come through as good. But then it nosedives right back into B-movie territory. I was tempted to stop watching it several times.<br /><br />I certainly don't know how it won best picture, however. It must have been a slow year!
I used to always love the bill because of its great script and characters, but lately i feel as though it has turned into an emotional type of soap. If you look at promotional pictures/posters of the bill now you will see either two of the officers hugging/kissing or something to do with friendships whereas promotional pictures of the bill a long time ago would have shown something to do with crime. This proves that it has changed a lot from being an absolutely amazing Police drama to an average type of television soap. When i watch it i feel like I'm watching a police version of Coronation Street or something similar. I have to say i still like the bill as I'm interested in Police work and that type of thing but i really miss the greatness that The Bill used to have. I want to rate it as 2 out of ten because you have to admit it has been totally ruined by the people who took the bill over.<br /><br />As for the script and characters they have both gone downhill, most of the great characters are gone now (although a few still remain i think) and I'm not saying that the newer characters are poor or anything because they definitely aren't, its just that they lack the tough looks, personalities and script lines that all of the old characters used to have because most of the new ones are at the moment involved with silly relationships and family trouble.<br /><br />Overall being one of the only Police programs on television these days, The Bill will always be a crappily interesting thing to watch, but like i say it has lost a lot of its uniqueness (if thats the right spelling) and would now be classed as a terrible, unreal television soap.<br /><br />Recommended to watch for a good laugh over the stupidity of the police officers involved - 2/10
Ravi Chopra wrote this film 40 years back, wanted to cast Dilip Kumar in the lead<br /><br />The film finally was re-written and made in 2003 and hence the subject looks dated and too superficial at times<br /><br />Like the reason Amitabh-Hema separate is too superficial even the way the youth are shown is too bad like Gulshan in AVTAAR<br /><br />The message though comes well but things are presented in a clichéd manner Salman's character is the worst, looks straight out of a storybook while the climax speech of Bachchan is good and also the final of not forgiving the sons is good<br /><br />Ravi Chopra does a good job Music is decent, the songs sung by Bachchan stand out<br /><br />Amitabh excels like always, he has played an elder stern father earlier but here he plays a victim and portrays it well His last speech is great Hema is good in her part Aman Verma stands out Samir Soni is okay, Naseer and the rest sons and wives are decent though Divya Dutta stands out Salman Khan is fake, Mahima is okay Paresh and Lillete are lovable
Two days ago I got a chance to watch this movie on Cable (TV-Asia). I have been very disturbed since then. The movie "Baghban" has been very successful in portraying only one side of the real life. It is highly partial towards parents. Have you ever thought of other side (kids)?? There are few parents in this world who just give birth to their kids but don't give right parental care. I am a victim of that. Why do you (parents) want to have 5 kids in your life if you are merely making only Rs 2000 per month? I was made to work on streets along with my siblings. I have no idea how I managed to reach IIT from there. It has been a long time since then but still I don't believe. Now I am a research scientist here in USA. I have provided all the necessities to my parents along with care by my two brothers who stay along with them. They could not provide basic things to us when we were kids. I find this movie very resentful. Its very partial. It has hurt my sentiments very deeply. I strongly urge the producer/director of this movie to look at the Indian society in other point of view also and make another movie. I can be reached at john_simension@yahoo.com
This movie truly shows the farce and hypocrisy of Indian society. What it tries to show you is only ONE side of the story. The other side of the story is the hidden emotional and mental abuse of Indian children which this movie does not show.<br /><br />"Indian Parents" are culpable for the following: a. Destroying the individuality of the children by making them completely dependent on the parents at a very early age. Such children grow up to be Adults only in physical looks but remain children in minds. Since everything has been provided to them by their great Indian parents, They children automatically do not feel the need to work hard at something or learn the basics of human communication with other human beings apart from their parents.<br /><br />B. I can show you so many Indian parents who try to prevent their kids making friends, going out or prevent them to do anything which starts making them to grow into adults.<br /><br />The reason why they do is the same selfishness. Indian parents "expect" their children to take care of them when they grow old. They do no savings for themselves and once they reach the age of 50...They cry out LOUD......We have grown old now and so we are dependent on you children since we have done the GREAT SERVICE of bringing you to this world and taking care of you and making you intellectually weak.<br /><br />Most of the Indian parents at the age of 50 have dilapidated bodies and health and are financially completely insecure. Most feel that they ABSOLUTELY have no need to take care of themselves since they "expect" their kids to take care of them.<br /><br />In the west the opposite of that happens. People start planning at the age of 20 about their retirement and once they retire they are financially secure.<br /><br />Indian parents do NOTHING of that sort since like I said they have brought the kids in the world and what better investment at that?.<br /><br />I am a victim of my Indian parents (i am sure there are countless other Indian kids like me), who have grown up physically but are still struggling with their lives on THEIR OWN and they continue to have pestering 50 year olds who cry out loud for HELP all the time.<br /><br />This movie shows only ONE side of the story.....UTTER piece of JUNK
Watching "Baghban" is the movie equivalent of trying to eat one's way out of a vat of saltwater taffy for nigh unto three hours. This Indian film is a sticky sweet, sentimental soap opera that starts off like "King Lear," moves on to "Romeo and Juliet" in the middle section, then heads back again to "King Lear" for its tear-soaked finale.<br /><br />Raj Malhotra is a bank accountant who seems to have everything a man could possibly want out of life: a wife who adores him, a family who loves him, and a job from which he is about to retire after a lifetime of faithful service. Even though Raj and his wife, Pooja, have been married for 40 years and have four grown sons, they still act like a couple of love struck newlyweds, cooing and sighing, batting their eyes at one another and whispering sweet nothings into each other's ears almost to the point of nausea. In fact, the whole bloody brood is so happy, loving and harmonious that they make the Von Trapps look like a dysfunctional family in comparison. The parents and children joke together, laugh together, even perform elaborately choreographed, "spontaneous" song-and-dance numbers together (like many Bollywood productions, "Baghban" is a drama interspersed with a great number - in this case, far too great a number - of musical sequences).<br /><br />Anyone who knows anything at all about storytelling is aware that such unadulterated bliss can not be allowed to go unpunished for long, and that all that joy is merely the prelude to some awful catastrophe destined to come crashing down on the heads of our unsuspecting revelers. Knowing this, we spend the first hour of the film in fearful expectation, wondering just what form that disaster will take when it does finally arrive. The thunderclap occurs about an hour into the film, when Raj announces to his children that he and their mother have decided to move in with one of their families, leaving the choice of which one it will be up to the kids and their respective spouses. Suddenly, like King Lear discovering the vipers hidden in the familial bosom, Raj finds out that his children are not quite as loving, selfless and eager to share their homes and lives with their parents as he had originally thought. Understandably horrified at the prospect, the kids, in order to foil their parents' plan, come up with a scheme in which Raj will go live with one of their children, while Pooja will live with another; then they will switch off until, eventually, each of the children has had a chance to host both parents and then the cycle will repeat itself ad infinitum. Much to the chagrin of the kids, the parents accede to the plan, even though the two are deeply in love with one another and have never spent any time apart. Thus, the second and most of the third hour are spent with the two aging (albeit married) lovers pining away for one another, while their ungrateful, insensitive little brats do everything in their power to make their parents understand how unwelcome they are in their homes.<br /><br />One of the major problems with "Baghban" is that it lacks subtlety in both its storytelling and direction. The love that Ray and Pooja feel for one another, as well as the almost giddy closeness of the family unit, is laid on so thickly in the first hour that the film almost collapses under the weight of the sentimentality. Then, virtually without any warning, the screenplay turns on a dime and converts the kids into callous, self-centered monsters and the parents into passive, whiny victims of that callousness. Raj and Pooja are a little too long in the tooth and a little too self-reliant to be doing the dreamy-eyed, pouting, unrequited love bit, more appropriate to lovelorn school kids than the parents of four grown children. The purple prose style, in which every emotion is underlined and highlighted, leads to intense overacting and a heavy reliance on corny reaction shots and melodramatic music for punctuation. The musical numbers convey a certain liberating joy in the beginning, but they go on for so long and turn up so frequently that they quickly lose their effectiveness and serve only to pad out the material to unendurable proportions. At least a full hour could be excised from this bloated production with no discernible harm being done - and quite a bit of good. There really is no reason why this film needs to drag on for a punishing three hours. Most egregious of all is the seemingly endless harangue we are subjected to an the end, a speech in which Raj (who has somehow managed to turn his experiences into an award-winning bestseller) lectures us all on the verities of parent/child relationships for ten straight minutes at the very least.<br /><br />"Baghban" is a sappy, corny saga, filled with more sugar and goo than a king-sized box of See's chocolates. Sample at your own risk.
this is a movie which reminds me of avatar- starring rajesh khanna from the 80's. the issue of parents-kids divide is interesting but was handled in a rather unoriginal manner.. the characters were not developed fully and the kids seemed to go from being extermely loving ( in the first 15mts of the movie) to being totally unconcerned about the parents,, this transformation was not credible to say the least..they sld have explored this a little more. amitabh and jaya were miscast as this helpless old couple.. firstly amit was not too convincing in this role,because he just did not look like he should be helpless, i mean why not just go back to work where he is wanted instead of being w/ kids who didnt want them.. hema was not convincing as a 60 yr old either... she didnt look a day over 50.. then the whole isssue of the book baghban winning the booker prize begged credibility.. all in all, a movie that handles an important issue but cld have been made better, i give it 5/10
It's hard to make a bad movie with the "underdog finally succeeds" sport theme, but this movie succeeds admirably. My mind boggles at how pointless and boring this film is.<br /><br />I guess the director couldn't decide whether this was about the runner or the coach. It ends up being about neither. Ultimately, who cares? Neither character has a likable personality. There is nothing in the movie to make you care about anyone. Even the "bad guy" isn't really bad. (I think he's in two scenes, and seemingly is on some kind of barbituate. ) I think he asks her, once and politely, to leave the coach and train with him. Then later he kinda' sorta' asks her to move in with him. that's it. Conflict! Tension! What will she do? !!<br /><br />-And what's with the depiction of running? Has the director ever SEEN an actual marathon? Christine's form is so incorrect it's absurd, as is the form of the supposed "champion" she competes with (A character with no lines. -Maybe they could have hired, you know, an actual RUNNER?)<br /><br />-And the speed the run at is beyond comprehension. Were they running or speed walking? It's actually laughable. I can literally walk backwards faster then they were running in the big race. Maybe it was too hard to move the cameras at real speed?<br /><br />Another absurdity: (spoiler, I guess) At one point in the big race, the two women in the lead inexplicably fall, at the same time. What they fell on is a mystery. Maybe they both just got exhausted and fell down? -And then they get up, but don't start running again for maybe 30 seconds. Oh yeah, very realistic. This ridiculous event doesn't even add any tension, since the other runners are not close, and besides at this point you have been numbed into a state of catatonia.<br /><br />-I especially enjoyed how all four of her male teammates, highly trained athletes all, drop out of the big race due to charlie-horses, or pulled tendons, or something just as improbable. <br /><br />But who cares? This movie has almost no tension, no resolution, nothing. Some woman runner with absolutely no personality is discovered by an old, boring coach with some past failure that is barely hinted at. They train a lot. She is not happy. They train some more. She wins da big race. Woopie. <br /><br />My description is actually more interesting than the actual movie. I just saved you 90 minutes. Avoid this one like the plague.
Well, I only caught the tail end of this film on HBO, just the final 10 minutes or so, but I must say that it contains probably the most laughable depiction of distance running EVER put on film! I'm a serious distance runner and a dedicated fan of the sport, and I've sat through many painful demonstrations in movies before. However, nothing could have ever prepared me for what is shown on screen in the final 10 minutes of this movie, it literally defies belief! The depiction of the runners is even more ironic considering that African runners completely dominate the sport, and they are elegant and graceful. The female protagonist shuffles along like an overweight pregnant woman, and her "highly trained" male supporters are no better. Well into the race this alleged world class runner is surrounded by pudgy, overweight people, many of whom are WALKING! I find it interesting that the director decided to have her lead the female competition, yet near the end she is shown passing people who look like they're staggering along on two broken legs! Are we to believe that this amazing stellar athlete has only overtaken a crippled person at the very end of the race? Maybe the director just thinks that female runners can't run faster than 12 minute miles, and he has obviously never heard of athletes like Paula Radcliffe or Tirunesh Dibaba.<br /><br />Even if you aren't a running fan you'll be astonished by the insanely inaccurate portrayal of running, and this movie is only watchable as unintentional comedy. Here is a note to the director: The next time you decide to make a movie about a sport, it might be worth it to hire at least one person who actually has observed that sport in action.
Maybe it gets better. I wouldn't know. I made it through the first twenty minutes or so before cutting it off and entering a period of mourning. It was obvious that the plot itself was a familiar one. A man, Paul LeMatt, a professor of entymology at Columbia, drives with his dog to a small town in Ohio in search of his ex wife, Diana Scarwid. There he encounters people who either ignore him or are hostile. Oh, they may smile but there's something going on underneath.<br /><br />That sort of arrangement is home turf for movie makers and viewers alike, and it's pregnant with possibilities. You can turn out a neatly drawn commercial success like "Bad Day at Black Rock." Or it would have made, and probably DID make, a nice "Twilight Zone" episode.<br /><br />The cast includes some seasoned performers too, as well as some formerly prominent names. Kenneth Toby, a veteran of science fiction, is the superficially amiable motel manager. Diana Scarwid can give an impressive performance, as she did in, say, "Silkwood." For some of the others, their range is limited.<br /><br />But it's poorly directed and shabbily written.<br /><br />Example of shabby direction. That dog of LeMatt's is disliked by Kenneth Toby, right off the bat. So when LeMatt walks out to the street, Toby sneaks up to the window of his room, peers in at the dog, and something zaps. Cut to LeMatt in the street. He hears his dog howling away. Then a POV shot of presumably the dog zipping along towards LeMatt then past him while the wind blows and LeMatt gawks at the camera. Cut to an identical shot -- coming from the other direction! Whatever the camera represents, whatever LeMatt is staring at, is never shown. Maybe it was nothing, because suddenly the wind stops and LeMatt is alone in the street, looking a little bit puzzled. "You should never have brought that dog in the first place," remarks a smiling Toby from the porch. Question: What the hell is that scene all about? <br /><br />Example of shabby writing. Well, TWO examples. (1) If you were to sit down and write a stereotypical waitress in a small-town diner, without the exercise of any craft whatever, you'd come up with an expressionless babe with her hair piled on top of her head, chewing gum, sauntering among the tables. Right. (2) Anything resembling believability is thrown out the window in favor of special effects. LeMatt's car chugs to a halt, then explodes while it is waiting to be fixed at the garage. Chugging to a halt: believable. Exploding: supernatural. Not even Edgar Allan Poe would endorse such an event.<br /><br />And the invaders themselves? Think of a modest masterpiece like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." Something is going wrong in Dr. Kevin McCarthy's small town, and it takes half the movie for the mystery to be unraveled, and all the time suspense is building and doubt is growing. Here, twenty minutes into the movie, a stranger walks into a motel room and tears off his plastic face, revealing a pulsing, light-emitting, naked brain. The pregnancy is aborted.<br /><br />I won't tell you the ending because I don't know what it is, nor do I care. I suppose it had something to do with insects because why else would Paul LeMatt be an entymologist? (By the way, who's handling his classes?) But I'm not even sure bugs were involved. It's entirely possible that the bug business was adventitious. The writers may have made him a specialist in insects and then forgot all about it. It wouldn't surprise me.
I love movies, all genres, and from big dollar spectacles to small indie projects. But even making allowance for this piece of junk being 25 years old and its attempt at homage to the 1950's it just suffers in almost aspect, by which we judge films.<br /><br />Throughout the movie, I was reminded of several "student films," I've had a chance to watch, efforts where creativity is required to fill gaps where funds are needed. <br /><br />All in all, chances are there are much better uses for 90 minutes of your life.<br /><br />2/10
Where to begin.... This hideous excuse for a motion picture makes "Plan 9 From Outer Space" look well thought out. The music? It's culled from every single overwrought piece of PD shlock in existence. The focus? Hell, doesn't matter if in one shot there are thirty people standing in the road; the new angle shows a lone Packard with a waitress posing for Argosy Mag shots. Paul Le Mat, Diana Scarwid, Louise Fletcher, Wallace Shawn: fine actors who must have all been starving to death at that point in their lives and the director lured them to sign on with tempting bits of cat food. The production budget must have skyrocketed to well over fifty cents with the addition of The Space Alien Phallic Transportation Machine which, for a time, must have meant that the Oscar Meyer Wiener Mobile was not available. When Bad Movies Happen to Good Actors
There is somewhere in here the makings of a decent if routine SF story. It is thwarted by several factors. First, the actor is just awful. Even the competent actors are awful. The dialog is wooden and stilted. The plot plods along predictably. This seems less like a finished movie than actors going through a walk through. Extremely disappointing.
I must say, I found this movie very disappointing. Yes, I know Maltin gave it 3 1/2 and others think very highly of it. But, well, the opera sequences were god-awful. I take it Jeannete MacDonald is an acquired taste. Yes, in the short sequences I have seen her with Nelson Eddy, she is immensely preferable to him. But on her own...God, I dislike opera and despise operetta, and she is basically intolerable. At one point I had to cover my ears. Gable is just OK, and Tracy is thrown away. The plot is annoying in the JM never simply tells Gable she loves him and the opera and why can't she do both? Instead she suffers silently (or not so) with the compromises she makes. The supporting cast is distinctly unmemorable. Besides the star three and Jack Holt (and I suppose his mother), they all are just background and forgettable. The EQ sequence is the only thing that saves the movie. And just. Yes, it is fairly spectacular and moving. But the "oh God is great" seems very contrived. I immensely prefer "In Old Chicago" as far as old time disaster spectaculars go. Spare yourself on this one.
"San Francisco, Oh you marvelously desolated town, Thank You, God, for destroying it, and making bricks fall on our collective heads, and for pummeling into oblivion tens of thousands of Your innocent, obedient sheep, oh Lord, who art so merciful in thy Heavenly ways..." These should have been the lyrics to the title song of this oh-so inspiring and utterly mindless film.<br /><br />The movie starts well enough, with Gable discovering a Cinderella with a highly annoying but much-appreciated operatic voice, and she soon shoots to stardom. One of the many problems with our Cinderella is that she is played by Jeanette MacDonald, who, if one "takes the time" to look through all that make-up and 30s glitz facade, realizes that she is kind of ugly. Too ugly to be playing THIS role, anyway. Yet Gable and everyone else fawn all over here as if she were some damn beauty or something. Another problem with Cinderella is that her character is so utterly humble, wholesome, innocent, God-loving, kind, and generous - enough to make you vomit for a full hour. MacDonald plays her (admittedly one-dimensional) role with the sort of "ahhh", "oh", and "ooh" that serves to annoy rather than make her sympathetic.<br /><br />Tracy has been better, and had better roles, than playing this clichéd, heart-of-gold, God-loving, non-child-molesting priest (who boxes in his "free time" - as if priests have anything to do - how cute). Even the ever-reliable Gable is not up to his usual standard; he is far too animated, and his character is far too selfless for someone who is supposed to be an ambitious Western "scoundrel" (though this, obviously, is the script's fault).<br /><br />The plot is basically this: Gable and his rival Holt play ping-pong with Cinderella - using her as the ball. How? Well, first she is working (singing) for Gable, then she works for the square Holt, then she goes back to Gable, only to return very soon to Holt. (And, of course, both want to have her as girlfriend/wife.) And if the earthquake hadn't interrupted this table-tennis plot, it's a safe bet that she would have been bouncing back-and-forth another ten times, the wishy-washy little princess that she is.<br /><br />There are many, far too many in fact, musical numbers. It's almost as though they tried to make the first "disaster-movie musical" ever. How silly. The stuff she sings in Gable's "joint" is okay, but when she starts belting out those high-pitched, annoying whines during the opera segments, that is when I felt that my ears were unprovokingly and unjustly attacked by enemy sound-fire. In fact, there is an opera number that lasts 6 DAMN MINUTES. 6 may seem like little, for those who haven't had first-hand Vietoperanam experience with such horrors of audio torture, but it's like with dog years; a dog's year is equivalent to seven human ones. A minute of opera is equivalent to 100 minutes of Chinese torture (or a dog urinating acid on your leg).<br /><br />I thought this was a disaster movie, but it's more like a near-disaster movie. (I read that some of the dialog in this film was written by a SILENT-ERA FILM DIRECTOR. Jesus...) The melodramatic, and only occasionally amusing, proceedings get interrupted by the real star of this movie (namely, the earthquake), only after well over one-and-a-half hours. When Joe the earthquake finally does shake up the city, and our clichéd characters in it, I almost felt like saying "Thank God, death and destruction are finally here!". Unfortunately, Joe comes too late into the movie to save it from its increasing mediocrity; the scenes of devastation are very good, but even the earthquake part of the movie gets ruined (pun) by a highly annoying, religious ending. You see, Gable, who professes to be an atheist all along (without actually using the word itself), finally finds MacDonald alive - after having searched for days - and suddenly he is converted into a believer because Cinderella is alive?!! How stupid! All that tells me is that Gable's character is a weak-minded moron.<br /><br />The movie ends on a very dumb note, indeed. Gable, having said "thank you" to God for "saving" his girl (and he does his on his knees) "finds" God (sees the light), and the movie's little old devil Gable converts himself into a believer. How very God-fearingly American an ending...<br /><br />Of course, no one thought of asking this "God" why the hell there was an earthquake in the first place! The sad and unintentional irony is that Gable in the end becomes a "sucker"; all along he had made fun of "suckers" who fall for the holiest scam of them all - namely religion - and in the end he himself becomes one. Now that's what I call a triumph of the human spirit! Another irony is that the ending was supposed to have improved Gable as a person, but I see it quite differently; on the contrary: it took only one big Joe to turn Gable into a God-fearing, meek, little, obedient believer - who joins the world's sheep family. And as if this intellectual downfall of Gable's wasn't pathetic and disappointing enough, this first-ever "earthquake musical" ends with a truly hair-raising (take this word as you will), noble, and hope-inspiringly beautiful mass-choir scene: dozens (or hundreds) of earthquake survivors and proud, proud citizens of Frisco spontaneously (or did "God" perhaps arrange it?) sing all together the title song in hope for a better, brighter, Joe-less future. Hallelujah! If you are a "sucker" for Hollywood sentimentality, do not skip this movie.
This movie features a pretty decent FX sequence of an earthquake for 1936. The reason you haven't seen it, is because audiences in the 30s were enamored of the "Jeanette MacDonald picture;" in which the eponymous star warbled her way through countless songs, while plots came to a complete standstill. The FX cross time very well. MacDonald's songs do not, and the awkward insertion of said songs to show off her only typical talent is not good. <br /><br />The hoary device of two friends growing up to become a priest and a hoodlum is given another run through the machinery (Manhattan Melodrama, The Departed). At the 30 minute mark, you've already heard the song 'San Francisco' three times. Entertainment in the thirties is generally an accumulation of irritation. Only Grand Hotel from the decade foregoes annoyance to the degree shown in San Francisco, Dinner at 8, Little Caesar, Stagecoach, All Quiet on the Western Front, Les Miserables etc..
I was expecting to view a more exploitation style of film but unfortunately this turned out to be just a badly made low budget action flick that just doesn't have the talent for that. Story is about a very beautiful woman named Teri Marshall (Heather Thomas) who's boyfriend Rick (Jeffrey Combs) works for a secret agency and he has invented a motorcycle that is bullet proof and can shoot lasers and rockets and has a helmet that can shoot lasers as well. The head of the agency Bosarian (Martin Landau) has made a 5 million dollar deal to sell it and sends two hired thugs to kill Rick and Teri and collect the bike. A tall blond thug named Rolf (Dar Robinson) and his partner Hanna (Dawn Wildsmith) manage to kill Rick but Teri survives. While at home she discovers a video tape that Rick left describing his invention that helps Teri on what to do next.<br /><br />*****SPOILER ALERT*****<br /><br />Teri is being chased by several agents and she gets caught and tortured but doesn't talk about where a piece of the motorcycle that is needed but she gets help from a federal agent named Waters (Martine Beswick) where they end up using the motorcycle for a bloody shoot-out.<br /><br />This film is directed by Fred Olen Ray who has made his career out of making ultra-low budget exploitation films but he made a dire mistake here by leaving out the exploitation aspect and trying to make an action film. Aside from a quick shower scene at the beginning there is no nudity and the usual titillation that viewers are accustomed to seeing in a Ray film is no where to be found. I don't think anyone was expecting Thomas to get naked but she doesn't wear one sexy outfit. Not that it stopped me from ogling her in those tight jeans and admiring her near perfect form but Ray really blew it in this case. Like all of his films the cast is fun to watch and many familiar faces have roles like Robert Quarry, Huntz Hall, Troy Donahue, Tim Conway Jr., Michael Reagan, and Russ Tamblyn. Stuntman Dar Robinson died shortly after this was made and it's his last acting effort and the film is dedicated to him. You have to wonder why Landau would waste him time with such junk like this but I was interested in the casting of Combs in a very rare romantic role. Is Thomas any good in this film? Who cares! I think she showed that she could have become a popular "B" movie starlet if she wanted but it never did happen. Ray wastes everyone's time with this effort although the cast is fun to watch but he left out the elements that make him an enjoyable filmmaker.
Although I am a fan of Heather Thomas and I have a few of her old bikini posters around here somewhere, I can honestly say that if the only movie I had ever seen her in was "Cyclone", I would never be able to guess why she had made it as far as she had in show business.<br /><br />Directed by Fred Olen Ray (about as good an omen as seeing buzzards circle over head in the desert), this tale of a woman (Thomas) who must protect a high-tech motorcycle from unscrupulous types is about as "B" movie as it gets (or in Fred Olen's case, "B minus").<br /><br />The cast itself should tell you something. It's not every movie that combines Thomas with actors the calibre of Beswick, Hall, Combs, Donahue, Tamblyn and Landau (!!). If you're lucky, very few movies do. And even though they seem to be having fun, shouldn't some of that fun be passed on to the audience? I vote yes, seems they voted no.<br /><br />Of course, if you ever wanted to see Heather deliver an uppercut to another woman, use the "F" word and get hooked up to battery cables, you've probably been looking for this one. Myself, I'll be content with old "Fall Guy" reruns.<br /><br />One star, given in hopes that when another "Cyclone" hits town, Heather runs for shelter. I know I will.
Rarely does one find a movie so bad that it achieves the often-sought paradigm of having so little redeeming value that that alone makes it worth watching. "Cyclone," I am happy to report, is such a film.<br /><br />I knew I was in for something good as soon as I found the videotape. I am at least its fourth owner: It has a "Used Movie Sale! $9.95" sticker on the front, and a yard-sale sticker for one dollar. I picked it up at a thrift store for fifty cents.<br /><br />The Used Movie Sale! sticker covers much of the front cover artwork, meaning that what I see is a truly odd blended still of the front of the Cyclone super bike, a car flipping over on fire, and Heather Thomas, wearing Flouncy Eighties Hair with her mouth open in an expression that says, "I 'ave a 'ooth ache." I saw that and thought, "All RIGHT." The case, honestly, was enough ("with nowhere to turn and no one to trust, Teri is plunged headlong into a maze of danger and deceit"), but I surprised myself by actually getting around to watching it. I always make time for the really bad films. That "Fight Club" tape can wait.<br /><br />Meet Teri. Teri is a stunningly well-crafted character, as we can tell from her introduction, in which she and her friend do exercises that highlight her breasts and, later, her legwarmers. Then Teri goes off to hook up with her boyfriend for the evening that goes horribly wrong. Before she knows it, Teri is driven "straight into a web of deadly double-crosses in CYCLONE." The VHS box tells it like it is.<br /><br />Left out of the box summary - perhaps out of some faint hope that actual copies of this film would be sold - is how awful the acting is. It might have been just me, but I kept thinking I could read the characters' thoughts through their eyes. "This is dumb," thinks Heather Thomas. "I know," thinks Bad Guy with Too-Wide Mouth.<br /><br />A driving force (no pun intended) for the second half of this epic picture are the car chases. Those were actually pretty good, although I'm inclined that gasoline doesn't need coaching on how to explode. What really impressed me is that, in all the chases, the streets were pretty much empty. It's like there are only twenty people in this huge city.<br /><br />I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "Gee Wilikers! I have to see this movie!" The sad thing, though, is that you can't find it. Oh no. "Cyclone" is a film that finds YOU. Just wait. Some day - perhaps during lunch, perhaps late in the evening, perhaps "when military scientist Jeffery Combs ('Re-Animator')is murdered by hired assassins" - you will hear the rustle of legwarmers, and know that it is time.
This movie was in a box set with 20 others, with varying quality, & I can safely say that this title was right at the bottom of the heap.<br /><br />It is pointless to go through the plot, what there was of it, picking out what was wrong, as I haven't got all day & life is to short, which reminds me, I have just lost around 85 minutes of mine watching this tripe.<br /><br />The acting was diabolically bad in a way that made it funny, though only just, whilst the comedy elements like the two idiotic cops must have made any Laurel & Hardy fans groan. One of the only barely funny moments was when the leading lady made a joke about her former friends plastic T*ts, which would have been okay if I hadn't had to watch them bob around whenever she waddled on the screen.<br /><br />The lowest I can give is one, & it probably deserves that for having Heather Thomas in it, as she was certainly sexy & shapely, though her acting was as bad as everyone else.
The only thing I expected that this film didn't have was an intelligent, talking motorcycle.<br /><br />This film is just plain awful. I gave it 1 star, which of course, means I enjoyed it tremendously. Bad acting, bad writing, bad directing, bad fight choreography. The only real actor in this movie is Martin Landau, who of course does a good job playing the villain, although the character is your standard cardboard cutout evil CEO/Villain. Even the so-called "plot twist" at the end was no shock.<br /><br />There was so much to make fun of in this movie, I enjoyed it a lot. And it did have a few impressive car wreck stunts.<br /><br />Like bad movies? Check this one out, ouch. Want a good movie? Not here.
Cyclone is a piece of dreck with little redeeming value, even on the so bad its entertaining front. A friend of mine took the tape from an overflowing St. Vincent DePaul clothes bin. Okay, that may be a little bit dodgy but it was meant to be a clothes bin, not a crappy old VHS bin, something the less fortunate members of our society don't really need to make their lives better. It could be considered a mercy. Watching a movie like Cyclone would really only add to their problems. Anyway the basic premise of a woman with a super-powerful motorcycle that it armed to the teeth with rockets and lasers isn't even properly exploited. The two 'high speed' chase sequences involve vehicles travelling at less than hair raising speeds of around 40 KMPH and a super-fast motorcycle that is in danger of being overtaken by a crappy old station wagon is not that awe inspiring when you get down to it. There is only one scene where the bikes goofy weaponry is used, at the film's climax, and it is laughably ineffectual, or just laughable, when it is. This includes laser beams that look like they should be coming out of the hands of an evil wizard in a cheesy eighties sword and sorcery that produced large bursts of flame which seem to have no noticeable effect on their targets even when they hit directly. The rest of the movie is just tedious hard to watch filler. Lots of bad actors, yes even Combs and Landau suck in this, most of whom seem like they have been lifted from the set of a porno movie stand around exchanging really bad dialogue in a desperate attempt to pus forward the barely coherent plot. There are a few badly staged fight sequences and some excruciatingly unfunny comic relief scenes with some cops and the owner of the motor cycle repair shop. Comedy of the sub Benny Hill horny old man can't stop staring at the female leads chest variety. Basically the 'money' scenes involving the bike actually doing stuff are few and lame and the rest is clunky filler material. Skip it.
Being (somewhat) an independent filmmaker myself, I really understand what these guys were trying to do and it sounds like a good idea. On paper. On 16mm film, however, it's awful. I didn't realize the thing was made in the mid 90's because the film was so grainy and bad I would have sworn this was one of those 30 year old flicks where a porn producer tried to go mainstream. And the sound! Ugh, I don't know what kind of mic they were using to record but it sounds like someone is walking over dead leaves throughout the entire thing. I guess I shouldn't judge too harshly, after all, how many feature films has MY company put out? None, but I'd like to think that we'd at least have good picture and sound quality to go with our poor acting, writing, and directing. A+ for idea, F-- for execution.
Gave it two stars because the DVD cover was good enough to make me buy this piece of horse manure. I paid a dollar for it at the local DVD exchange and I want my money back. I have a couple of good movies(at least I think they're good) that have never seen the inside of a video store. After seeing this, I'm really insulted by that. Light years worse than anything I've ever seen, I can't even recommend this as a campy joke movie. It is so bad, instead of making you laugh it makes you angry. How did this awful film find any kind of distro? I can only believe it was self distributed as the amateurish DVD authoring would suggest. To the producers of this "movie" get out of the business, it's obvious you have no talent for it.
This movie has one or two slightly interesting gags but they are NOT worth the wait. After an unexplained argument between two guys picking up litter in a drive-in movie theatre we cut to a family leaving! Hollywood and driving driving driving driving their camper van across the screen again and again as inane dialogue is voiced over. At least I think it's inane, the terrible song that accompanies this montage is mixed so loud it renders the dialogue at times almost inaudible. <br /><br />Finally the camper van arrives, at night, at a gas station where the family get out, have another inane conversation, before driving off. The camera then pans across to reveal the actor we have just seen drive away. He talks straight to camera and we realise he is the director of the movie we are watching which is about him, and how he came to make the movie.<br /><br />A nice idea which ALMOST (but not quite) makes the previous sequences worth the pain.<br /><br />As the movie unfolds he encounters the two characters we met picking litter at the start of the movie and they all form a motion picture company.<br /><br />All sorts of not very funny and clumsy comedy ensues as they put together a crew and attempt to raise the cash needed to start filming.<br /><br />This movie was obviously put together on a shoe string and a promise and there is a nice little idea in here struggling to get out but the execution is so inept that the idea gets lost. Comedy is more than things just falling over and everyone talking (or shouting) at once. So much of the dialogue here is shouted by several actors simultaneously - Robert Altman can do this sort of thing well because he has a script, rehearsals, decent sound techies, and editing facilities. Everyone shouting at the one mike which, by the sound of it, was hidden in a dustbin in the next room, does not make for clarity.
With the little respect it deserves, I would like to state that this movie was horrible. The filmmakers had good intentions, but the overall quality of the direction and production value was obviously lacking a great deal. I would recommend this movie to anyone who likes a good hard laugh and then wasting two more hours of their life enduring a truly painful experience. I'm surprised I even found this movie on the $1 DVD rack where it was aptly placed. I thought maybe it was going to be good and that I might discover some amazing independent film - I was wrong. I wish I had never seen this movie. My 3-year-old cousin couldn't make a worse film. I'm glad I saw the film because I can finally tell people I've seen the worst movie ever made, and be sure of it.
This movie is a laugh and a half. From the first scene, where we have an appearance of Mel Torme as a big, bad Jaguar drivin' stud muffin gang leader(and that's a giggle-fest in itself), to the final image of Mamie Van Doren, now a rehabilitated angelic teen strolling out of the prison(errr..loving girl's home run by iron fisted nuns), you can't stop shaking your head. The cast of this movie is a cheesy list from Mel and Mamie to the talentless Paul Anka(all I wanted through most of this movie was for him to just STOP SINGING!) and the King of Forty Year Old Teens, Dick Contino. Gloria Talbot, playing a humorless teen girl with more than a few chops(judo, not acting) I last saw in the horrible misogynist 50's romp Leech Woman, with a hairstyle so bad it looked like a dead woodchuck that had been squashed by a Mac truck.<br /><br />Mamie is a bad, bad girl-she smokes, swears, runs wild, hits teachers, and runs around with gang leaders. She dumps her idiot Jaguar driving boyfriend Chip(who we see in the first scene trying to rape a blonde girl, before he falls off a cliff-nice guy), and proceeds to take up with Dick Contino instead. Whether this is a step up for her is anybody's guess. Mel shows up at a party she's at with her new beau, and accuses her of pushing the nasty Chip off the cliff. While I'm sure that she would have liked to, she wasn't there. A stupid fight scene between Contino and his gang and Mel and his jazz freaks ensues, with some hilariously bad moves on both sides.<br /><br />Mamie ends up being sent to girls town, a reform school..errr...loving home for erring girls..run by Sister Iron Pants and her fellow sisters of correction. She annoys the nuns(and us) by scatting, tossing off sullen one-liners, and just generally showing how bad she is. She quickly runs into Gloria Talbot, playing one of the misbehaving girls, who gives her a chop sockey so that she knows her place. She meets a limp noodle of a girl who's obsessed with Paul Anka's character(why?). This little drip becomes her 'henchman'. <br /><br />There's a long bit of movie where nothing much happens, except St. Paul of Anka keeps showing up and proving how saintly he is. He sings way too much in this interval, until you want to smack him in his huge snozz to just make him be quiet! And Mamie's little sister, played by Princess of Father Know's Best fame, calls her to tell her she's in trouble. Turns out it was sis who went out with the Chipster, and now Mel's blackmailing her because he found out. The girls all break out to go save her, with a hysterical fight scene between the girls and Mel and his boys. this is after a race between Mel and Dick that is just so stupid that it boggles the mind. The overage teenagers in this corny movie have a fabulous good time romping through what is basically a silly, badly written and morally preachy film that accomplishes none if its aims-unless its aim was to make you laugh out loud.
Admittedly, I watched the MST3K version of this, but it's not actually too bad outright, at least compared to others which deserve my cinematic hatred.<br /><br />The story centers around a troubled girl wrongly sent to a "reform school" called Girls' Town. Along way, races, redemption, and wackiness (unintentional) happen. The story and acting are a little flat, as is the action. However, the entire thing is actually entertaining to a degree if you are absolutely bored.<br /><br />Overall, just a simple sub par 50's flick, but far from the worst movie ever made, with some bright spots in the movie (The Ave Maria sequence was good for me).<br /><br />If you get a chance to watch the MST3K version, you won't be disappointed. By it self, not so much, but I can think of worse methods of torture ("Spiker" anyone?).
Froggie is upset that he never has a big party like all the other kids. Spanky and the gang seek to remedy that by giving him a surprise party. Unaware that all the decorations and preparations are for him Froggy sabotages everything only to find out too late that the party is for him.<br /><br />Okay Our Gang comedy works in fits and starts. The bits work but I don't think it really works as a whole. Part of the problem is that we all know where this is going and since much of the humor needs to have some form of surprise for it to work the whole thing falls down. I think in a weird way the film just sort of misses. Its the type of thing that had they actually thought about it might have amounted to something more than a misfire. Worth trying if you lower your expectations
Two years after this short, the last "Our Gang" short was made. After seeing this, you wonder how it even lasted that much longer. The quality of "Our Gang" nosedived soon after moving from Hal Roach to MGM, and this short is a perfect example. The gags are all very unfunny and Froggy's last line of this being the happiest day of his life paints a bad picture in your mind of what it's like for him the rest of the time. A very poor example of film making.
For an indy film this is probably a bit better than a 3 out of 10, but in general it only gets a 3. The effects aren't horrible and at least they have some adults playing adult roles rather than all kids as a lot of indy low budget horror films do. The acting is very wooden, but at least they had a better "display" than some films in the shoestring budget category. It's filmed a lot inside a building rather than a friend's basement. The plot as a whole isn't the worst. It's a Resident Evil rip off about an evil corporation invading a small town and an outbreak makes people into zombies. I would have liked to have seen some sort of creatures rather than the big baddie just be another "super" zombie. I try not to write spoilers but this review has one so be warned!! SPOILER ALERT!!! Not only do some of the cast just seem to shrug past the zombies (the same ones are recycled over and over but at least they have more then 5 people playing them). But one of the plot twists really doesn't fly with me. The deputy who goes inside turns out to be on the evil corporations payroll. He kills one of the other employees in cold blood and then meets with the head bad guy in an office talking about cleaning up the mess. The deputy has just shown us that he is a real bad person too and talks like he can clean it up (meaning kill all the surviving witnesses) no problem. But then 2 seconds later, he is helping them out. There was no real "change of heart" emotion or anything to make me feel that this bad guy went from killing an innocent guy just minutes ago and then talking about taking everyone out no problem to being their savior. There was no incident or anything to make me buy into this. Worth watching if you are a fan of low budget flicks, otherwise you will not enjoy this.
This film is perfect for over the top cheesy zombie lovers. its a film you can laugh at from the acting to the terrible zombie action. that being said, i gave this a 4 outta 10 for effort cos horror is a hard genre to make. going down the list the bad points of this film were as following.<br /><br />#Bad make up #terrible sound and sound effects #really bad continuity #cheesy dialogue #one song played through the whole film #stein couldn't act and in my opinion one of the worst I've seen #terrible ending #racist moment and stealing Simpson's character named<br /><br />the good points #good costume #police officers seemed to have the best acting exp #the actors with less lines or small roles did appear to be better #good attempt with gore<br /><br />i don't wanna bad mouth the film, its funny to watch cos of these bad points and i think thats what makes this film OK. if it was any better i don't think it would of made any difference but it wouldn't be interesting to see a remake with all the same cast as i believe they have possibly improved over the last 7 years.
The film is a pathetic attempt to remake Ingmar Bergman's "Autumn Sonata"(1978) starring Ingrid Bergman,Liv Ullman and Erland Josephson.It did not take me more than 5 minutes to figure that out.<br /><br />It is time Film journalists like Khalid Mohammad took out time to do some creative thinking. It makes me sad when potentially good film-makers waste their talents by making substandard remakes of Hollywood and European films.<br /><br />You've got to give the film-maker something though. The film he picked for copying is one of Bergman's classics, and easily one of the finest instances of the portrayal of a strained human relationship in European cinema.
Certainly not a bad little low budget film, this "Bride of the Gorilla", but nothing special, neither, and not memorable enough to be ranked among the meaningful Sci-Fi efforts of its time. Director Curt Siodmak was an eminent scriptwriter during the 1930's and 1940's and delivered stories for some true genre classics ("I walked with a Zombie", "The Wolf Man") but, as a director, he obviously lacked the required competences. "Bride of the Gorilla" is similar to the aforementioned "The Wolf Man" in story and atmosphere, but the film looks a lot more amateurish and pitiful. Both handle about cursed men that turn into large animals at night, but the titular gorilla doesn't look half as threatening as the werewolf, even though the film got released a whole decade later. During a cheesy opening speech, actor Lon Chaney tries to convince us that the jungle is an ominous place and hiding many mysteries, but actually there's no real mystery in the plot. It's just handles about a plantation manager who's jealous at his older colleague for having such a beautiful young wife and he kills him. A native woman witnesses his crime and puts a spell on Barney that causes him to transform into a hideously big gorilla at night... Or maybe she just wants him to believe he's turning into a hideously big gorilla…Lon Chaney himself plays the police commissioner charged with the murder investigation while Raymond Burr (who starred in about a thousand Perry Mason TV-movies) portrays the greedy plantation manager/nightly gorilla. Siodmak attempts to make the film look like a supernatural thriller – is it or is it not all just happening in Barney's head? – fail miserably and it causes way too much talking and too few jungle-action. Several of the jungle-settings are nicely pictured but the rest of the "special" effects are tacky and poorly done. Still the acting is pretty good, Barbara Payton is looking beautiful and – although very predictable – the story is strangely compelling until the very end. Weird movie, it probably voodoo-cursed me…
It is a story as old as man. The jealousy for another man's wife and possessions. There are even commandments against it.<br /><br />In this story, Raymond Burr ("Perry Mason", "Ironside") is the manager of a runner plantation who lusts after the owners wife and feels that he isn't treated with respect. The wife, the starlet Barbara Payton, who was trying to make a comeback after a string of sordid affairs, was lusting after Burr, who killed her husband, Paul Cavanagh.<br /><br />But, lurking about was a strange woman, the housekeeper (Gisela Werbisek) who sees everything, and who was capable of some voodoo to avenge the wronged, which also included another young woman (Carol Varga) to whom Burr also professed love.<br /><br />Burr is poisoned and becomes , or thinks he becomes, a gorilla. Payton will have to mate with Kong if she ever wants her marriage consummated, as he goes into the jungle every night.<br /><br />The end is predictable. But, the stirring question of this film is why Payton would ever be afraid. With those sharply pointed missiles jutting out from her chest, no animal could get near her to do harm.
The cast and crew of this cheap horror potboiler are more interesting than anything that occurs throughout the movie itself; we have Barbara Payton, Raymond Burr, Lon Chaney Jr., Tom Conway, Paul Cavanaugh and Woody Strode in front of the camera and writer-director Curt Siodmak, cinematographer Charles Van Enger, editorial supervisor Francis D. Lyon and production assistant Herman Cohen behind it. The ill-fated Payton turns the head of virtually every male she comes in contact with deep in the African jungle where she lives on husband Cavanaugh's plantation: doctor Conway secretly desires her while hot-headed foreman Burr's approach is, quite literally, more hands-on. On the other hand, Chaney is (surprisingly enough) the laid-back but knowing authoritarian figure and Strode is a native police official. The plot is very simple but, frankly, does not make a whole lot of sense: after a particularly agitated dinner complete with thunderstorm, Burr and Cavanaugh (art imitating life – more on that later) come to blows in the garden over their affection for Payton and, conveniently for Burr, a large snake just happens to be crawling near where Cavanaugh hits the ground! Witnessing the event from behind the bushes, Payton's enigmatic maid (a native witch, no less), for some inexplicable reason, puts a curse on Burr (who has in the meantime married Payton) that periodically turns him into a gorilla...starting from his very wedding day (when his hand briefly turns hirsute)! Consequently, Burr takes to losing himself in the jungle for days on end – even if the ape creature itself is barely glimpsed throughout the film. It must be said, however, that the version that I watched ran for just 56 minutes when the 'official' length is elsewhere given as either 66, 70 or 76!! Therefore, the film feels understandably rushed and disjointed if never less than campily enjoyable as it culminates in the gorilla's subjectively-shot chasing of Payton in the jungle, with the former being itself pursued by the gun-toting Chaney and Conway. To get back to the film's tragic blonde leading lady for a minute: after a promising start in movies next to such Hollywood legends as James Cagney and Gary Cooper – in, respectively, KISS TOMORROW GOODBYE and DALLAS (both 1950) – her career soon nose-dived into B (and lesser) grade territory thanks to her own 'colorful' off-screen antics: her most notorious misdemeanor was being the cause of a much-publicized bar-room brawl between suave husband Franchot Tone and brutish former lover Tom Neal which ended with the former in a coma and Payton actually deserting him for the latter shortly thereafter!! But that was not all: nymphomaniac Payton also boasted that Woody Strode was among her conquests (a controversial issue at the time); short-lived husband Tone, having caught Payton's infidelities on camera, spread the damning photographic evidence around Hollywood and this virtually served to end her days as a starlet – her last film appearance being Edgar G. Ulmer's MURDER IS MY BEAT (1955) which I happen to have in my "Unwatched Movies" pile. The last 12 years of her tumultuous life were spent on Skid Row in the throes of booze, drugs, prostitution, beatings, arrests and even a stabbing – before, eventually, dying in 1967 in her parents' home at the young age of 39!
This movie was cheesy and it was more than that. It was about this guy who gets a curse on him and he turns into a gorilla. I had to see how bad it was because of the title. Before this guy turns into a gorilla, he gets married. I was a little upset because she wasn't a bride of a gorilla: she is now the wife of the gorilla. She should have married him when he was a gorilla then the title would have made more sense. There are all these people in the middle of the jungle too and they all want to leave. This isn't just a B movie, it's more like a Z movie. I didn't even see any bananas for a wedding gift. Oh, right he wasn't cursed yet.
Barbara Payton is the suppose-to-be sultry sexy young hot Chickie wife of the geezer plantation owner somewhere in a jungley back lot set at a cheap studio in Hollywood. Raymond Burr wears his working shirt with the top button undone as the hunky chunky plantation foreman who Mrs Payton is desiring to blow the joint with. There is another girl, some sort of peasant slave thing that Burr used to fool around with but he's given her the old heave ho so the obligatory squatty old voo-doo hag is conjuring up a good spell to cast on him and the Payton tramp. I watched this only part way through because its really awful, so didn't even get to see the star of the show---which I guess is a gorilla that the voo-doo hag turned someone into or whatever.....who cares. I give this one half star out of a possible ten. It's not even campy, just really bad.
Of course I have disappeared into the movies. The Neil Young concert film 'Heart of Gold.' <br /><br />There have been many great concert films through the years. The best being Martin Scorsese's 'The Last Waltz' which filmed the Band's last concert at Filmore West. A phenomenal concert and a phenomenal film, that is if you love rock and roll and felt as if you had been born into it and were part of the music, and could be in the band if you had a better guitar and someone would show you the chords and that with a few chords and a lyric or two you could change the world...as you can guess I felt all five to the bottom of my twenty four year old soul. <br /><br />Neil Young was in 'The Last Waltz.' They had to digitally, before digital actually, they had to manually scrape a big hanging cocaine rock that extruded from his nose so in the film there's a bright light that is not the star of Bethlehem dangling above his lip and below his nostril...it's a famous bit of rock and roll history. <br /><br />But 'The Last Waltz' was made when the Band and Neil and everyone else was in their thirties and 'Heart of Gold' was filmed last year when Neil is in his sixties and his band looks as if they are in their late nineties and the entire movie could visually be used by the Christian Right and the DEA in the same way that those Ohio State Patrol films of the perils of drunk driving were used when I was in high school showing dead teenagers hanging through front windows or dangling from trees or bloody in a ditch. <br /><br />Close your eyes and it is a terrific concert, open them and view Dorian Grey's hidden portrait. Case in point, the once ethereally beautiful Emmylou Harris literally coming out of the darkness to sing with Neil and from dark to light appearing to be a ring wraith leapt full borne out of the river in front of Rivendale. Ghastly, ghostlike, a nose that doesn't appear in nature and is not an advertisement for plastic surgery, eyes that make buttons on dolls look lifelike, and the ability to express any emotion, human or not, constrained by unrestrained over indulgence in Botox. My mind reeled...porcupine...Peru...Jack Daniels...living hard for decades...my god...sweet Emmylou Harris who I saw sing for free at Fred's in Boulder, a face a 2000 year dead Pharoah would not accept. But the voice, as pure as a thick lipped bottle of Boulder beer brewed from the waters of Boulder Creek and I closed my eyes and smelled ammmmmbbbererrrrrrrrrgerrrrrrrssss (an homage...one must use homage at least once in any film review...to Fred's hamburgers on Boulder Mall and the Steve Martin Pink Panther movie). <br /><br />It would have been a terrific concert sitting in the dark in Ryman Auditorium, maybe twenty rows back. But, close up, in close ups, it was a medieval morality play depicting the horrors of indulgence and the consequences of a sinful life. <br /><br />The concert theme, emblazoned on the scenery, A Prairie Wind...the last song, massed guitars (I counted eight) and I wondered if irony was at play. I don't think so. A Native American bass player, a lead guitarist who looked and dressed like Buffalo Bill, a piano player whose face looked like the screamer's face in Munch's The Scream, the chick singers (actually matronly singers, mostly reminding one of the lost youth of senior United flight attendants still plying the friendly skies) dressed in matching full length distressed denim dresses...no it was played straight. <br /><br />None of them had seen, I would bet, A Mighty Wind. <br /><br />It will be a great CD, and would be glad to tell tales of hippy dippy Boulder when Neil was a long haired Canadian crooner whose indecipherable lyrics seemed to mirror heartache and loss, feelings as universal then as now. <br /><br />But, only in a dark bar.
I walked into Heart Of Gold thinking I was going to watch a documentary about Neil Young. Instead, I witnessed a self-serving tribute to the arrogance of aging baby boomers who have lost their edge and forgotten their roots. Highly rated by aging baby boomer critics, directed and performed by more aging baby boomer artists, Heart Of Gold is a bore-fest from start to finish, that is if you can manage to sit through the entire near 2 hour movie. Neil Young and crew have long lost their edge and want the rest of us to join them on a cushioned rocking chair of middle-of-the-road mediocrity. What happened to the raunchy guitar of his earlier solo efforts? I guess all of his fuzz boxes rusted out and his over-driven vacuum tubes exploded in the hot air of his generation. As far as Demme goes, this is the daring director of Something Wild & Melvin And Howard? A student filmmaker could have made a more daring film than this poorly visualized surface performance film. Don't waste your $$ on Heart Of Gold and go straight to The Last Waltz and Gimmie Shelter. And if you really want to dig deep into the personality of a rock and roll icon, scrounge up a copy of Chuck Berry: Hail Hail Rock And Roll which is sorely out of print. And baby boomers, don't bother squawking about how this review is jaded by someone younger. I too am one of those baby boomers who listened to Cinnamon Girl on acid and danced in the streets to the Stones' Street Fighting Man. Go back and watch Don't Look Back or Gimmie Shelter and then come back and tell me that Heart of Gold has any worth as a document.
This movie has some good performances, as others have pointed out, but suffers (as others have pointed out, except for the people who apparently are either friends of the filmmaker or the cast to otherwise explain why they would deem this a "10") from some self-conscious and self-absorbed film school padding and excess plots. This is the type of plot that Sex In The City could handle in a half hour episode, so there was no reason for it to be even an 88 minute movie. A perfect example of wasted footage is the fast forwarding montage in the first third of the movie. Some of the back story is merited, but too much time, for example, was spent on Daria character with the anal sex boyfriend and on the back story for Paulie, who was not a realistic character, although the actor did a decent job with the lines he was given. <br /><br />The worst aspect of the movie was the level of amateurish parts: from typos in the typed material, to bad jumps and edits, poor camera positions, angles, lighting problems throughout and, most glaringly, a poorly written script with a badly developed concept. If the writer (also the director and lead) had collaborated with someone, he might not have ended up with a 100% rotten score on Rotten Tomatoes, which further belays the ability of anyone to truly believe the people who gave it a 10 on the rating system here.
Julien Hernandez is certainly an attractive and likable on screen persona. In fact, his character pretty much carries this whole film, or what's worthwhile about it. The problem is, with the exception of his gal pal (played by Marisa Petroro) and Paul Lekakis (as a trick/date/ boyfriend for some of the characters) no one else even comes close. Hernandez plays a 30- something director of Cuban heritage, and unknown sexuality, who comes to L.A. and gets a job making a gay documentary. In the process of meeting a group of gay people while finding subjects, he comes out...but very s l o w l y. Even at 88 minutes, the film has obviously been stretched out and padded with various film-school devices, most of which only end up pointlessly interrupting the narrative (which ain't much to begin with) or pointing out the overall amateurish-ness of the film-making. <br /><br />Which is a shame, because there's a love story in here somewhere, and the final three minutes, when Hernandez's Sebastien finally clicks with a wealthy West Hollywood party- thrower (nicely underplayed by Lonnie Henderson) and they share some sexy soulful kisses, it works despite all that came before. But we don't really care about any of the other characters or their situations: Why would handsome Dante have a Eurotrash priss for a boyfriend? He wouldn't. And don't even get me started on Sebastien's friend Paulie's "rules" for dating -- no gay man I know, hell no sane person, period, would put such constrictions on himself or others. And please tell me how Sebastien gets a peeled banana (which is normally fairly shmushy, right?) stuck up his butt and has to go to a doctor to get it removed? <br /><br />I noticed Hernandez won an award for this film as a "short" -- it probably should have stayed that way. All this said -- I'd look forward to seeing Hernandez on screen again, in a better scripted comedy with more assured direction.
I really wanted to like this film but it barely eked out a 3. It's surprising that equal amounts of the votes were 10, the other half 1. All the characters were entertaining and even talented but as a whole the film didn't pay off. Sebastian Hernandez is appealing; charismatic and likable (he even physically resembles Marc Anthony in a more approachable yet ultimately conscious sort of way...) but even he couldn't save this mess of a movie. Scenes dragged on far too long and points were ultimately beaten to death. The banana scene fringed on self-absorption, seemingly showing how much movement was in his boxers. But in his defense it was his first movie as director (that I'm aware of) and I appreciate his labor of love. It just left me empty despite what was trying to be said. Ultimately I think the story would have been better handled by a more experienced director. From what I've seen of the 'extras', there is a real story behind this and, perhaps when I finish watching them, I'll appreciate this attempt more.
I unwittingly walked into this "trap" of a movie.<br /><br />If I could turn back time or simply get a refund I would be happy.<br /><br />It was 7:30pm and Cinderella Man didn't start until 10pm so I rushed into the theater to catch the movie that started at 7:20pm...and I dare say God reached out his hand (or retracted it) and allowed me to punish myself for my film gluttony by sitting in for this film.<br /><br />It may be unfair to criticize a movie that was not targeted at my heterosexual male cohort, however, there is no excuse for lousy sound and video editing. This movie was at most worthy of a highschool project budget...and I think I've seen better in those play acting French shorts that we used to do about Louis Laloupe.<br /><br />Maybe it's because I'm Canadian and this film was for the LA fudge-packing crew and their sympathizing dames. Woe was me when I realized that then entire audience save me cracked up at all the jokes and entendres...I fully understood the hinted humor...but I just could not relate.<br /><br />This show did show me, supposedly, how Gay men date and build relationships. However, even if it was their purpose of the movie, I feel that the "Gayness" was focused on too heavily....the humanity seemed lacking....but again, maybe that was the point...simply to be avant-gard...and to make a splash.<br /><br />I guess with a low budget and poor equipment, you have to make your movie as "loud" as possible in order to get crowds and cash return. I really wish I had simply read my Sheldon Van Auken instead. Hehe...I was totally the wrong audience.
Greedy land baron in the tiny western town of Prairie City wants all the ranchers off their land, using intimidation tactics and arson to get them to vacate; seems the town is swimming atop oil, and when a Swedish farmer refuses to leave, he's mowed down by the baron's hired gun. The farmer's seafaring son soon arrives, slowly realizing what he's up against and attempting to rally the rest of the residents to fight. Another lawlessness-in-the-West story, with everybody under the thumb of the villain (who naturally holds all the cards). Derivative and uncomfortable at times to watch, with a long wait before our stoic hero finally gets his dander up. Sterling Hayden's half-hearted Swedish accent is a big problem, though he cuts a sturdy, sympathetic presence on the screen and almost makes the picture worth-watching. Director Joseph H. Lewis stages most of the scenes stiffly, like a TV western, and Gerald Fried's bugle-heavy score is no help, though the rich black-and-white cinematography by Ray Rennahan is excellent. An independent production released via United Artists, the film has a bizarre start (beginning with shots from the finale, followed by shots from the movie's midsection), yet it does have a certain needling power which most assuredly gets the viewer on Hayden's side. ** from ****
Big (and we mean plus sized big) baddie Sebastian Cabot is trying to run salt of the earth farmers off their land in order to get the oil rights. When sea faring Sterling Haden's pop is killed, how will Haden put an end to TERROR IN A Texas TOWN, armed only with a harpoon? <br /><br />First off, this isn't a B-western. There are no singing cowboys, no daredevil stunts, no interesting action sequences. It's just an independent movie -- you know, the ones that use unimportant actors to say "important things" and cover the general low budget vapidity of the goings on with Interesting Camera Angles.<br /><br />Second, this movie, to avoid compromises (one expects) that would cause the elimination of Trumbo's Important Statements about Justice in America, and the rather sick relationship between the chief henchman and his girl, IS really low budget. The main problem that causes is that the acting is really, really bad. Sterling Haden is decent enough in tough roles, but he is the last guy you want playing a sensitive Swedish sailor gone to find his fortune in the West. Sebastian Cabot tries to do a Sydney Greenstreet as (very) bloated plutocrat. It's not a bad idea, but Cabot does not have the acting chops for it. The guy who plays the hired gun with the missing arm and soul (Johnny Crale) has the best role in the film. He does nothing with it.<br /><br />Third, the script really isn't all that. Trumbo gets some digs in about the immigrant isn't going to get a fair shake from the sheriff in a corrupt town, and the people, when up against real oppression tend to back down. This is a pretty stale movie message by 1958 -- High Noon, Bad Day at Black Rock, Devil's Doorway -- are all Westerns that deal with the evils of Western society with an eye to the evils of 50s America. Trumbo, in '59, certainly had every personal reason to agree with those sentiments, but he isn't doing anything new or interesting with them.<br /><br />So, given all the negatives, why does this movie get a 4? Mostly because there are interesting quirks throughout the movie. (The relationship between Crale and his girl is, um fascinating.) And Trumbo, while a mediocre writer when pursuing his political affectations, is very good in creating both interesting characters and intelligent interactions between them. Just when one is ready to pass out from Indy movie boredom, will come an exchange of dialog or simple quirkiness that gets one realize that guy writing the script was not simply a hack.<br /><br />If you don't like Trumbo or westerns, give this one a miss. Otherwise, try it. You might like it more than I did.
Sebastian Cabot is a rich jerk who wants to buy up all the land because there is oil--though none of the locals are aware of the oil. With the help of an evil gunfighter in black, they kill and terrorize everyone. When the son of a murdered man arrives, he refuses to back down and stands up to these forces of darkness.<br /><br />Wow. As I watched TERROR IN A Texas TOWN, I felt as if I'd seen this film many times before and would probably see something like it again. That's because aside from a few novelties (such as Sterling Hayden using a harpoon on the bad guy), it has a plot that is too familiar. Once again, we've got a rich guy who is trying to drive out all the farmers in order to gain control of all the land. And, to do so, he's brought in hired guns to force people to sell or kill them. Been there, done that in just too many films.<br /><br />I love Sterling Hayden in films, but just couldn't recommend this as anything other than a poor time passer.
First of all, let me just say that after watching this movie I felt like I'd been sold a bill of goods. Mind you it's not the movie's fault that IMDb has it listen as a comedy first and a horror second (although I don't know how that's entered...maybe some moron from the film's crew put it in). Being a fan of the horror/comedy genre, I checked it out based on that and I'm so, so sorry I did. Where to start? First of all, to touch back on my beginning, there's no comedy in this movie. It tries once or twice, but never gets more than a chuckle at best. My reaction was primarily rolling my eyes and wondering why someone thought such tired material would be funny. Also, there's no horror here. Not a second of tension can be found. You think I'm exaggerating...I am not. No tension, very little blood, and not much violence on screen (sorry, but in a horror flick cutting away just as the good stuff starts is a major foul). Hell...there's even zero nudity. Call me a purist or juvenile...I prefer some in a horror flick if it can't come up with an original plot/premise. And that tired as all hell "reality TV show gone wrong thing"? It's been done before and a lot better. Like Wrong Turn 2 or...ummm....whatever that movie was called with Edward Furlong. That's how bad this movie is. I don't even remember the name of that movie, but it was better than this. I also enjoyed the one comment claiming the timing for this was good because "reality TV is taking over". Did someone from the past post that with a time machine? Are you freaking kidding me? This thing is trash...and not in a fun way.
Realty television crew are assigned to cover a small town high school hockey team running into a serial killer wearing a black mask and hoody. Lots of interviews where the members of the crew(and some of the locals who live in the town of White Plains where most of this film is set)talk into the camera about each other, those they encounter in the town of White Plains, their current situations, and the showbiz side of their lives. The screenplay is often acidic, cynical, and caustic and Killer Movie essentially pokes fun at realty television shows, featuring a cast of characters one might find on The Real World. If this plot is attractive to you, knock yourself out. I found the characters tiresome and the satire is old hat. Out of the cast, Paul Wesley, the director needing a big break, encountering more than he could possibly bargain for, Jake Tanner, is a nice guy, coming off very likable and tolerant of the crap he must contend with, considering the prima donnas and immature people in his entourage who often cause nothing but migraines. Particularly irksome is his producer Lee(Cyia Batten), a tyrant constantly barking orders to everyone, her poisonous attitude creating much tension..she's the type of producer who wishes to capitalize on a small town eruption regarding the killer, using the hockey team cover story as a front to exploit the tragedy occurring in White Plains. Those familiar with Kaley Cuoco know that by now she has perfected the pampered princess, got it down pat because it's the only role we ever see her in most of the time. As Blanca, she's polarizing the way she demands attention, milking what little celeb status she has to the hilt, manufacturing much friction as she becomes a source of frustration, and has quite the potty mouth(Cuoco may've taken the part just so she could escape her usual television sitcom roles, allowed to spout profanity without restriction) Cuoco, along with the entire cast, services Killer Movie as eye candy, but it's hard to find any character you wouldn't want to see hacked to pieces with a meat cleaver. Jason London is the sound/equipment guy, a real creep with a sour attitude, often tormenting the others with his foul comments that are uncalled for. We witness lots of personality clashes, watching how these self-absorbed Hollywood types in the cast snipe at each other. The killer's identity shouldn't surprise anyone, it's quite blatantly obvious. Some minor gore, but most of the violence is shot off-screen. Despite some tame lesbianism, not even this is satisfying. Leighton Meester pops up in the film as a cute victim. Director/writer Jeff Fisher assembles quite an attractive cast, but I wouldn't be able to distinguish this from the innumerable slashers that have stocked the horror shelves over the last ten or so years since SCREAM. While I've never liked any of Cuoco's characters, I never tire of looking at her, but eventually she needs to come up with a role that doesn't consist of her preening, with smug arrogance, always whining and complaining.
I tried. I really, really tried to think of something that would merit rating this higher than a two. It's not that I don't "get it" -- I'm a big fan of Asian cinema. The truth is, the movie is infantile in construction, long-winded, and painfully disjointed.<br /><br />I suppose that if you are of Alfred Hitchcock's school of thought "Don't tell them, show them," then you could try to appreciate this movie, but you would still be hard pressed.<br /><br />First of all, The Terrorizers tries stream-of-consciousness in the style of Jean-Luc Godard and fails in this. Edward Yang seems to understand the basics of the technique, but he's very unskilled at it. (Perhaps he gets better with age; I don't know as I haven't yet attempted other Yang films.) The point is, he uses a dearth of "show, don't tell" that really only serves to interrupt the procession of the story. Sure, he gets in some visually arresting images, but they don't draw the story together, and they don't help to make it any better.<br /><br />Additionally, the major concept behind stream-of-consciousness and "show, don't tell" is that with the right images, the right drama, repetition, and tight correlation, the viewer will be able to make his or her own inferences; not to say that these will be the correct inferences, but those can be amended as the story progresses, and every director should strive for some of this type of audience interaction. In this, Edward Yang sorely disappoints. The viewer is constantly on the periphery. There is no reason to be drawn in, no reason to consider the characters or their motives, no reason to get emotionally involved, and really, no reason to stay alert.<br /><br />Finally, Yang gets lost in the story that he wants to tell, not the story that the movie itself is telling. His art moves in one direction, but like a large dog he can't control, he's constantly yanking the lead, trying to get it back onto the course he wants, not the one that it is naturally following. The most egregious example of this is the ending. The ending really should have occurred at the moment of the husband's revelation. The ending of the book that the movie is focusing on, (and by extension, a possible ending for the movie) has already been told to us. If Yang had chosen to end at that point, he would have had a much more powerful piece, leaving the watcher in suspense -- does the story play out as the book says, or does Yang's "real world" play out differently? Asking the viewer to think about this is the sort of viewer interaction that Yang painfully needs. Instead, he continues to tell the story he wants to tell, straining the natural conclusion for the sake of what? For the sheer sake of lingering on a main character -- we didn't' need to know more about her superficially, and Yang wouldn't feel the need to tell us if he hadn't made her into a veneer instead of bothering to make her a more engaging and deep character to begin with. <br /><br />Why else does Yang prolong and torture his movie? To get in some more of those "visually arresting images." The movie truly suffers for it. It wants to end, it has a conclusion that feels natural and leaves the viewer unsettled, but instead, Yang pushes on. Instead, Yang constructs a complex ending that leads the viewer on, causing him or her to constantly ask "so what?" The first ending, the one that Yang ignored, that was good. The second ending, well, my thought was"so what, who cares?", because it's not as if it is introducing something that hasn't been put forth in the storyline already... but the last ending? That really was a waste of time. Not only did the "real" ending leave me disengaged, but I also felt it was an affront to what the story could have been. Yang sacrificed a potentially good story for the bubblegum-melancholy-noir-tinged conclusion that he had insisted upon all along.<br /><br />My last problem with the movie has nothing to do with the movie itself, but rather its post-production. The subbing (if you see it subbed) is horrible. Long sentences stay up for a second or two, while short ones stay up far too long. Also, as Yang quickly changes images, the subtitles are removed from the screen. This is one of those rare instances that subtitles should be able to stay on the screen even as the image has changed, because there's not much dialog going on anyway.
I still remember when Frog Baseball first aired on MTV. In some sort of odd, surreal manner, the cartoon captured the stupid actions that I think every boy growing up in America engages in. I cringe now thinking about how I burned a crippled grasshopper using a magnifying glass, but it was interesting at the time for some reason. Growing up in the 1980s we all knew "stoners." These were the kids who wore Iron Maiden t-shirts to school, grew their hair long, had immature moustaches and were at least two inches taller than everyone else because they had flunked a grade or two. We laughed at them because they were so stupid even when not stoned. So it was easy to understand Beavis & Co because we already knew them, some of us were even them. To the extent that GenXers like myself would spurn the excess of the 1980s and embrace the grunge movement of the 1990s, Beavis & Co were sort of a strange post-modern anthem for us. Strange because like Beavis & Co we didn't care if we had an anthem. It was just an inside joke that we all immediately got even if it was awful.
I don't care if this show is suppose to be communicating profound messages about human existence.<br /><br />The show is crap....how can anyone derive pleasure from watching it? Yet it was received so well. This reflects a sad state of affairs for Joe Moron out there.<br /><br />I tried watching this program when it first came out as friends were talking about it. The inane laughing between the two main characters and the pitiful dialog made me want to cry.<br /><br />It is beyond belief that people can watch this show. Yet I guess the creators had the last laugh....making themselves wealthy by taking the p.ss out of the very people that would watch a show such as this.<br /><br />I would wager they are laughing all the way to the bank.
According to Milan Kundera, a porcelain-cat holding a red rose is denying the crap. Well, those criminals guilty of making this series probably wanted to show how to make a total opposite of the porcelain-cat holding a red rose. Because teenaged sleazoids Beavis and Butthead are enthusiastically from the place where the sun doesn't shine and their crappiness infects the whole stoopid series. MTV has received a LOT of bad-mouthing from it's half-nude stripper beauties, while THIS is gathering positive reviews in IMDb. Well, newsflash to everybody - your butt is cool too, if you go out showing it in the middle of the winter - something these two probably would do. Still, there is no need to make a film about your butt - and yes, these two probably would do that, too.
Seriously... I'm amazed at all the good feedback this show has here. All we have in this show is two stupid kids who keep doing an annoying laugh and they do OCCASIONAL funny things only in like... 2 of the shows, while most of the others sucked... as then they comment on music videos which I cannot stand personally while they either love or like.<br /><br />In most episodes, the only things you will hear are the repitive "let's go score with some chicks", or "I'll kick your ass beavis", or the better yet and usually used quote "that was cool", and above all, their annoying laugh.<br /><br />If you want a good animated show, try The Simpsons, Ren and Stimpy, South Park, this show is just not worth the time or energy it takes to watch this awful MTV series truthfully.
Dreadful film about a doctor who goes fishing and winds up catching a mermaid when he is thrown overboard. She traps him into bringing her back with him.<br /><br />Glynis Johns, in the title role, is really a silly individual with a tail hanging out.<br /><br />Margaret Rutherford is the nurse who is supposed to be so eccentric but we see no eccentricity here. In fact, Miss Rutherford was not allowed to use her true comedic gifts.<br /><br />Nice to see David Tomlinson in the film. He would get together with Johns in the far superior "Mary Poppins," 16 years later.<br /><br />Miranda causes mischief in that two guys, a neighbor's fiancée and chauffeur (Tomlinson) fall for her.<br /><br />Ask any mermaid you happen to see, what's the best tuna, Chicken of the Sea! As for this film, forget it.
Yumiko (Wakana Sakai), the pretty adopted daughter of a recently-deceased Japanese businessman, inherits control of her father's company; her uncle Kazuo (Shun Sugata), miffed that he wasn't left the business to run, orders a hit on his niece. When jug-eared chef Kensuke (Takashi Okamura) enters the wrong hotel room by mistake and knocks out hit-man Invincible (Jung Yuen), he is mistaken for the killer and sent to kill Yumiko. Instead, he falls for the pretty heiress and ends up vowing to protect her. However, she is kidnapped by Kazuo's men while Kensuke is preoccupied playing an arcade game with cop Daniel (Sam Lee).<br /><br />Uncle Kazuo keeps Yumiko in a hypnotic trance, and takes control of the business, but runs into a spot of bother himself, when his gangster pals threaten to reveal his illegal activities unless he allows them total control.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Kensuke teams up with two martial arts experts, Lam Kau (Yuen Baio) and Lam Doi (Candy Lo) who are hunting Invincible. He learns Kung Fu and attempts to free Yumiko.<br /><br />A mixture of broad slapstick humour, spoofery and fight scenes, No Problem 2 is a disappointing film considering the talent involved: 80s kung fu superstar Yuen Baio manages a few fight scenes but is getting a little old for acrobatics these days; director Kar Lok Chin delivers the kind of dumb parody schtick I'd expect from a Scary Movie film; Jung Yuen resorts to mocking his character in Operation Scorpio; and Sam Lee… well, Sam Lee is as annoying as always!<br /><br />On the other hand, Collin Chou, as gangster Ben, impressed me; he has an obviously strong screen presence which has not gone unnoticed by Hollywood—he has since starred in two of the Matrix movies and is soon to appear in D.O.A., directed by Corey Yuen. I was also impressed by Wakana Sakai, but for an entirely different reason: this beauty is easy on the eye and should go much further in the film business.<br /><br />There is some fun to be had from working out what movies are being parodied, but at 104 minutes I found this film a real chore to sit through. If people pulling funny faces accompanied by silly sound effects makes you burst your sides laughing, then No Problem 2 might appeal to you. Otherwise, I would leave well alone.
Unless there's some huge ironic conspiracy going on, my jaw dropped when I read the positive reviews of this film; I cannot believe that this film was even released, it's so bad.<br /><br />I admit it is not my kind of movie, but I tried to watch it objectively anyway, you know, so bad it's funny, and was still offended at its sheer awfulness.<br /><br />The acting is atrocious, they can't have watched the rushes and I'm guessing there was one take per scene, it really is that terrible. It is the worst film I have seen in many a year, in fact, I wouldn't even call it a film, it's a tragedy. The gay black friend, whom no-one actually calls "gay", it's just implied because he's so crazy? Homophobic. This is not good, in fact, this is downright vomit inducing. The jokes die on their pathetic arses, the music is so bad it defies belief. The person who compiled the soundtrack essentially chose the most ear-mutilatingly bad songs they had ever heard and put them in this waste of film stock. Oh my good Christ I can't believe the 80's produced utter garbage like this, I grew up through them, and I cannot find one thing worth of note here, it must have been a dark time to be a cinema-goer.<br /><br />If you even contemplate watching this film go see a psychiatrist, he will then accordingly slap you, you sick, sick person.
Nearly everything that Stephen King has ever written seems to have been turned into a film or TV series; in fact, I'm surprised that no one has tried to make a mini-series from the guy's grocery list. Let's face it, if they did, it couldn't be any less interesting than Children of the Corn.<br /><br />Based on one of King's many short stories, this 1984 horror flick sees Linda Hamilton and Peter Horton playing a couple on a long car journey who run into a spot of bother when they chance upon the sleepy Nebraska town of Gatlin, where all of the adults have been murdered by children who worship an ancient evil that lurks in the corn fields.<br /><br />Although director Fritz Kiersch does manage to build a fair amount of atmosphere at the beginning (after Hamilton's silly song and dance, but before we get to meet the freakish Isaac, leader of the killer kids), he completely blows it with endless unexciting scenes in which Hamilton and Horton are hunted down by the town's homicidal half-pints. Courtney Gains, as violent redhead Malachai, manages to appear genuinely menacing, but the rest of the children are not the least bit threatening; as a result, many of the film's 'scary' moments fail to work. <br /><br />Towards the end of the film, when we finally get to see the malevolent force that inhabits the field surrounding Gatlin, the film descends into a glut of terrible 80s visual effects that probably looked pretty ropey almost 25 years ago, but look positively laughable nowadays.<br /><br />Children of the Corn might be of interest to King fans keen to see how the writer's work has been translated to the big screen, but your average horror-film fan will be most unimpressed.
I must admit, ashamed though I am, that as an impressionable young teenager this below par horror-chiller was one of my favourite all time films. Nine years after first viewing Stephen King's frightening story however I have now come to my senses, and am able to assess Fritz Kiersch's work more reasonably.<br /><br />Indeed King's tale of a small Nebraskan farming community that is turned upside down by a young demonic preacher boy and his sadistic sidekick is truly disturbing on paper, but it makes for a cheap, average horror show on celluloid. A lot of this outcome can be attributed to the fact that Kiersch almost allows the beginning of the film to become a hacker-slasher show, and then turns the finale into a hocus-pocus special effects nightmare.<br /><br />The cast are reasonable, but they can only portray as much credibility as this rather incredible, over the top movie will allow them, and the soundtrack by Jonathan Elias is spookier than the pictures.<br /><br />A real shame that George Goldsmith's screenplay turned Stephen King's haunting short story into a shocking horror. Isaac, Malachai and all the other "Children of the Corn" aren't really all that scary.<br /><br />Sunday, August 7, 1994 - Video
While this is horribly dated, I MUST insist...PLEASE, NO REMAKE! Frankly, it just won't help, as there's nothing which could be added or changed, contemporarily, to make this cinematically better.<br /><br />The novel upon which this is based, was atmospheric, well written, truly spooky work, but on film, it just doesn't translate. Most of King's written masterpieces fail to translate to film. I'm not sure why this is, but when you view this work, if you view it, you are likely to see just what I mean. <br /><br />The book? It's wonderful. It's not a masterpiece, but it's more than just entertaining. <br /><br />The movie? Do something else. You can thank me later.<br /><br />It rates a 3.1/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.
I'm sorry, but for a movie that has been so stamped as a semi classic and a scary movie, but seriously, I think when the director has me laughing unintentionally, that's not a good thing. The characters in this film were just so over the top and unbelievable. I just couldn't stop laughing at Issac's voice, it was just like a high pitched whiny girl's British voice. Not to mention Malicai's over dramatic stick up his butt character.<br /><br />Children of the Corn is about a town where all the children have killed off the adults and worship a God that commands them to sacrifice any 20+ aged people. When a couple has a bad car accident they come to the town for help, but of course they get caught in the kid's trap and are getting sacrificed! But Malicai has other intentions when he is sick of following Issac's orders.<br /><br />Children of the Corn could've been something great, but turned into a bad over the top movie that you could easily make fun of. As much as I love Stephen King, I'm sure this is not what he intended and it was a pretty lame story, or at least the actors destroyed it. Like I said, for a good laugh, watch it, but I'm warning you, it's pretty pathetic.<br /><br />3/10
A traveling couple (Horton and Hamilton)stumble onto the town of Gatlin, where kids have slaughtered the adults and are always eager to slaughter more, along the way they're separated and Peter Horton of course must save his wife from these tiresome, er terrible tykes in this very bad adaption of one of King's best short stories. In the original story King managed to create tension and draw personality of his characters, however all of that has been zapped from the production and all that is left is a repetitive bore which is far too predictable to be all that suspenseful. Also the effective ending used in the story is in favor dumped for a happy ending which makes the overall impact mute. There is some atmosphere and stylish directing but no plot to back any of it up. The kids are woefully unconvincing also.<br /><br />1/5 Matt Bronson
The first word i can find to describe this movie is Awful.<br /><br />This movie is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. First of all is the plot a very thin plot (Wont comment further on this part) and a plot which a lot of movies from this genre is following. This makes the movie so bad, because you know whats going to happen. Secondly does the movie contain a lot of questions which never is revealed. One of the questions (and this is no spoiler) is: WHAT THE HELL ARE THE KIDS DOING IN THAT CORN!!!!!!!!!! Thirdly is the characters very bad, not only because the movie is bad, but also because of the sorry actors. They are bad as they can be.<br /><br />The last thing that make this movie bad, is that its a horror movie. You are supposed to be scared of the killings or the sudden shocks, but you are not scared, you a not horrified because you know whats going to happen.<br /><br />Conclusion: The movie is as bad as the movie about the killer ants! I hoped that it was a very great movie but because the story is bad, the actors are bad, the film raises a lot of questions and because its not scary, the movie is best unseen.
Having loved Stephen King's novels and short stories for many years, I, like most reviewers, have been consistently disappointed in the adaptations to film from his printed works. A few notable exceptions are "Stand By Me" from "The Body", "Carrie" from the novel of the same name, and "The Shawshank Redemption" from "Rita Heyworth and Shawshank Redemption". This movie is by far the worst thing that has ever been produced with Stephen King's name attached to it in any way. It is no surprise that Mr. King has pretty much disavowed any connection with it. I feel the thing that most offended me about this poorly acted, cheaply filmed, hideously directed piece of garbage is that they had the audacity to COMPLETELY change the ending Don't waste your time or money on this amazing bow-wow of a movie!!
i found this movie to be a complete waste of 96 minutes. jones was a weird kid and is severly messed up! According to my memory which might be wrong, wasnt he only 16 or 17 years old? **Spoiler** why did he leave college and rent an apartment with a two crazy girls who feud over boys for a pasttime? and the cowboy who lives underneath jones creeped me out too, how he knew what happened in the apartments didnt float past me for a minute. i do not understand his thinking about the girl that took pictures for fun and stayed in her room when mandy moore was always over and is was quite obvious that she wanted to be more than friends with him. i dont really find this movie funny or artsy or dramatic or anything, i found it to be stupid and a complete waste of time (D- F+)
There could be some SPOILERS AHEAD but I doubt it. I have no idea how the screenplay for this one made it past the shredder. It's horrible. Completely unwatchable. I hung in there for 45 minutes (about half the running time) and just couldn't stand it anymore. I was an Elijah Wood fan in the '90s (see "The War") and I learned to enjoy Mandy Moore's shifts from bubbly to serious this year (see "Chasing Liberty" which is surprisingly entertaining). I've seen bits of "Run Lola Run." So with three leads I liked this should have been fine. It wasn't. Nobody turned in a good performance. Wood's Jones was flat. For an aspiring writer he had next to no imagination (his violent fantasies looked like they were ripped off from "A Christmas Story" and his lustful ones were--huh, a cross between boring and alarming). Potente is absolutely unlikable from the first second and I'd only know that she was supposed to be "THE girl" by reading the box. Speaking of the synopsis--whoever they employed for that job made the film sound funny, quirky, romantic, and quite enjoyable. Whoever that person was, he or she should have been employed to rewrite this script. By the halfway point, I didn't care about ANY of the characters anymore. Moore's Lisa is an aspiring actress who's bubbly and a little conniving (for no apparent reason at all) but her ludicrous period play (which is supposed to be funny in presentation) is on a par with the rest of the script. There is supposedly a happy, romantic comedy ending to this turkey--given the character material they had to work with, I just can't envision it. Save your money. Warn your friends. DON'T watch this movie.
No spoiler needed to steer you clear of this...well, bizarre film. Canada becomes part of the USA. OK. So, I guess I'm unusual, but I expected something about the implications of Canada becoming part of the USA. Silly me. Continue with this movie and you are off to cloud coocoo land. The opening premise has nothing to do with the rest of the film in which you will (trust me) not care a squat for any of the characters. Slings and Arrows and Due South have to be among the most imaginative series ever. But in this case, Paul Gross, I'm so very sorry to say, didn't have a clue about making a coherent film and wasted a lot of talented actors in the process. A real disappointment.
I wasn't sure where this was headed until the ending. when it turned out that this was all a liberal conspiracy to hand the world over to European wimps and the United Nations. What a load of right-wing crud! Incidentally, the bit about Canada joining the US didn't really have much to do with the plot at all and the idea was never developed. The only point of it seems to be that it made the main character eligible to run for President(but they could have just made him American and dispensed with that). In any event, this was a load of bull and not worth your time. If you wan't to see this kind of thing done well, check out the brilliant BBC political thriller "State of Play."
MGM hodgepodge of Jimmy Durante throwing a big party for everybody in Hollywood. No major stars show up--we get the Three Stooges, Laurel & Hardy, Durante and Lupe Velez. I didn't recognize anyone else--they were probably unknowns (for good reason). The movie contains annoyingly unfunny jokes and some truly dreadful songs and choreography. The only things that save this from being a total disaster are Laurel & Hardy's "battle" with Lupe Velez and a wonderful color Disney cartoon called "The Hot Chocolate Soldier". It's a beautiful, very colorful cartoon that gives the movie a huge boost. Otherwise, the movie is a colossal bore. There's no director credited--what does that tell you?
Poor Bela Lugosi. Just another day at work. A group of saboteurs attempting to disrupt the American war effort from the inside. It's pretty hard to figure out at first because, while we know these guys are up to something, their method of operation just isn't very clear. I won't spoil it, but the ending in pretty amazing. There are a series of murders perpetrated by our hero. A police force that doesn't know what is going on. What a coincidence that all the victims seem to come and go from the same house. There are comments like, "A true patriot would do this or that." It's obvious while suspicion abounds most of the world wouldn't know a spy or a subversive if it jumped up and bit them. I also was surprised to see Clayton Moore (the Lone Ranger) in a romantic role. I never realized that he ever did anything other than sit on a horse. There is, of course, the smugness of the criminals as they think that they are immune from the killer's guest list. Anyway, Bela is sort of a good guy and a bad guy rolled into one. The best scene in the movie is at the end, but I won't spoil it. As a curiosity, and a period piece, it may be fun to watch for some people.
This film is truly a sorry excuse for film making. The pacing is poor, the budget must have been depressingly low, and the acting is cut-rate (that is, except for Bela Lugosi). The audio at this point in time is also terrible, with so much extra noise in the background that it sounded to me as though a jet were taking off for the entirety of the movie. If these things bother you at all, don't watch this film.<br /><br />If you can get past this, however, you will find that the idea behind the film is a very good one. A German plastic surgeon (Bela Lugosi) was hired by the Japanese to operate on several Japanese agents and turn them into the likenesses of upstanding American businessmen whom the Japanese have kidnapped and killed. After completing his work, he was betrayed by the Japanese and thrown into prison. He later escapes and travels to America to seek revenge on his patients through a series of highly-publicized murders.<br /><br />It seemed as though Bela Lugosi was the only decent actor in the film, and, to be honest, the rest of the actors were completely forgettable and stodgy. The leading actress ended up being rather boring and stereotypical, while the police officer assigned to her case was the common, chauvinistic and always correct dominant male that is found in many films of this time period. <br /><br />I also found that the camera work was completely uninspired, often taking the exact same angles of the exact same rooms time and time again. After a while, this tends to drag the film down, setting a very slow pace for the "action," which is more or less non-existent anyway.<br /><br />To me, the idea is a fascinating one, and with a better writer, director, script, equipment, and actors it could become an excellent film. Sadly, these handicaps keep the film back for now, and I can't recommend it to anyone but the most open of movie lovers.
"Black Dragons" is a second feature WWII propaganda film popular at the time. It's not as bad as some would have you believe.<br /><br /> A secret meeting hosted by the respected Dr. William Saunders (George Pembroke)is interrupted by a mysterious stranger names Monsieur Colomb (Bela Lugosi). Shortly thereafter the participants at the meeting begin to turn up murdered, their bodies being placed on the steps of the Japanese embassy in Washington. Colomb is suspected. Federal Agent Dick Martin (Clayton Moore) is assigned to the case and meets Saunders niece Alice Saunders (Joan Barclay) who tries to assist him. The reasons behind Colomb's actions are not explained until the final reel. Until all is explained at the end, the story is hard to comprehend. <br /><br /> Lugosi who had by this time been reduced to appearing in a string of low budget quickies, is actually quite good in this one. He is not allowed to over act as much as he ususlly did and credit for this has to go to director William Nigh. Lugosi's character slinks through the shadows and is reminiscent of his Dracula even to the point of the full close ups of his piercing eyes.<br /><br /> Clayton Moore, a one dimensional actor at best, would become TV's Lone Ranger in a few years. Joan Barclay makes a good heroine.<br /><br /> Although a little dated now, "Black Dragons" is not a bad way to spend an hour.
This was a strange film. A bit horror and certainly film noir. Some fifth columnists meet and mysteriously start dying off with a Japanese dagger in their hands after Monsieur Colomb (Bela Lugosi) shows up.<br /><br />Soon the Lone Ranger arrives in the person of FBI Agent Richard 'Dick' Martin (Clayton Moore). Martin is ineffective in finding the killer as he is more interested in the niece (Joan Barclay) of a missing doctor, who is part of the gang.<br /><br />After the last man dies, and the doctor is horribly disfigured by some strange serum, the true story of the group comes out and that is where it gets interesting and weird. I won't spill it.<br /><br />Lugosi was marvelous as the skulking killer.
I probably have to blame myself…but I sure as hell expected more from a movie that goes by the title "Black Dragons" and revolves on secret WWII conspiracies, Nazi plastic surgeons and revenge. This film is a dull failure with an incomprehensible structure. The actual plot (which basically is rather ingenious and intriguing) only becomes clear during an explication near the end, but the problem is that you stop caring a long time before. We see how horror icon Bela Lugosi infiltrates in a society of prominent American politicians and kills them one by one. The story is timed right before WWII and – especially after witnessing the ending – it surely is a premise with lots of potential, so it's quite a shame it isn't elaborated more proper. There is however one great dialogue that I can't resist sharing! Man towards woman: "Do you want to marry me?" "Why?" "So I can beat you up…it's the only way you'll leave this place!" It's the only highlight in an overall very boring movie. Bela Lugosi is lovely – as usual – but his spooky performance alone is hardly worth purchasing this film. If you're interested in seeing other ghoulish performances of his (in movies with decent screenplays), check out "Invisible Ghost", "The Corpse Vanishes", "White Zombie" and of course the 1931 Dracula version.
Bela Lugosi is a real enigma. In the early 1930s, he was on top of the world after appearing in Dracula. Yet, again and again, he made lousy decisions regarding his career. Perhaps he had a bad agent, perhaps his drinking and drug use had a part in it or maybe he was just crazy. Regardless, he ruined his reputation by appearing in pretty much any film--ranging from excellent horror films (such as THE RAVEN) to big-budget flicks (like NINOTCHKA) to grade-Z flicks for the cheapest and shoddiest of studios. Interestingly enough, although he agreed to do this terrible film, he actually turned down the role that later went to Boris Karloff in FRANKENSTEIN! As for this movie, it is a very silly an horridly produced WWII propaganda film that featured a dumb plot and wretched editing. Lugosi spends much of the movie murdering saboteurs--not a bad thing at all. But at the end, we find out that he is himself a Nazi plastic surgeon and all the American-looking men he killed were actually Japanese!!!! The funniest part of this is during a flashback. You see Lugosi talking to a group of Japanese men before he changes them to American-like men. When the camera scans them, the men are clearly Asian. But, on all the other non-close-up shots, they are all VERY Western looking--many with bald heads!! They looked absolutely NOTHING like Japanese men. I suspect the plot must have undergone a re-write and this might account for the obvious mistake. Or, it could just be shoddy production values and editing. In fact, early in the film, they show a street scene in the city and all the cars (circa 1942) are old Model T Fords--obviously from stock footage!!! The bottom line is that the film is bad but also very dull. Unlike PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, it's hard to laugh at the ineptitude--just be put to sleep by it.
First - nick-623, Pearl Harbor was bombed in 1941, not 1942. They didn't have to predict the bombing.<br /><br />Second - did nobody notice these six industrialist/lawyers/whatever were missing for a rather long amount of time? They were killed *before* the surgery took place! Third - how the heck did Lugosi get out of cabs without being seen? Fourth - why did the Japanese not just kill him, instead of putting him in jail with a convenient look-alike companion and his surgical kit? Fifth - oh, what's the use? This movie has a few interesting moments in it, but by the time they explain what's going on, you'll probably have stopped watching. If not, you won't care.
When a group of businessmen start dying in the presence of the mysterious Mr. Coulomb, FBI agent Dick Martin is assigned to the case. As the deaths continue to mount, Mr. Martin obviously isn't having much success. By the end of the movie, the strange truth is revealed, which I won't reveal here.<br /><br />One of the other users commenting on this states "This is a Classic film and should be ENJOYED and not picked apart". I'm sorry but I have to respectfully disagree with this opinion. It is "classic" only in that it is old, not in any sense pertaining to its quality. I've enjoyed a lot of low budget "B" movies from around this time period, but this isn't one of them.<br /><br />The pacing is unbearably slow, the camera work is pretty bland, most of the acting is fairly wooden (even Lugosi isn't great in this one in my opinion) and the plot, while it has an interesting premise, seems to be thrown together in a very difficult to follow manner.
** Black Dragons (1942) William Nigh ~ Bela Lugosi, Joan Barclay, Clayton Moore <br /><br />"Just prior to the start of World War II, Dr. Melcher (Bela Lugosi), a world-famous surgeon, is brought in by Japan's Black Dragon Society as part of a secret plan. Dr. Melcher operates on six Black Dragon Society operatives and transforms them into exact duplicates of 6 high ranking American businessmen who are replaced by these look-alikes. With their operatives in place, the Black Dragon Society's plan to sabotage the American war effort appears to be set but, the F.B.I. Chief and an agent begin to piece together the clues that hopefully uncover this sinister plot," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />That synopsis gives away the entire ending; which, in this case, might be a good thing. "Black Dragons" is an incredible, wildly inconsistent muddle. A wiser course of action would have been to stay with the teasing supernatural angle. In early scenes, Mr. Lugosi (as Monsieur Colomb) is effectively creepy. Confusing Joan Barclay (as Alice Saunders), future "Lone Ranger" Clayton Moore (as Dick Martin), along with a cast of old stage and silent veterans do the best they can with a story that looks as if filmmakers were making it up as they went along.
I had expected a fairly straightforward R-rated graphic, sexual, crude teen-comedy when I sat down to see this... it turned out to be fairly accurate... only it was far more sick and disgusting than I would have thought. I don't know if the director/writer Gregory Poirier is sick or deeply messed up sexually, but I doubt that a normal person could have made a movie like this. I could probably have taken it if it was just that, if the only thing that was wrong was it was that it required a tough stomach... but it isn't. The film is also horribly mean-spirited and disturbing... every single character that has more than one full second of time on-screen is an extreme... sexually, mentally or physically. I don't know if this is just the director's sense of humor, but I just found it to be... wrong. Just wrong. Even in a comedy, there is supposed to be some seriousness. The plot is stupid. The acting is bad. The characters are inconsistent and poorly written... all of them. There isn't one single likable character in the film. The humor is disgusting and goes way too far. The film is just so incredibly poorly done that I really don't think it's worth anyone's time. If you like R-rated, crude comedies with plenty of sexual innuendo and graphic stuff, watch The Groomsmen, or, better yet, American Pie... or Road Trip, my personal favorite. But don't watch this. I can't possibly describe to you how bad it is... you would have to experience it for yourself. However, this is one of those times where I'll say that you're better off wondering. That way you can just imagine that this film goes very close to the bottom... without knowing that it goes through it, and far lower than that. This movie most of all looks like a group of horny teenage guys got together, put together a film crew, and every-time one of them got an idea, they filmed it, and later put the entire thing together. It lacks structure, consistency and taste. I recommend this only to horny teenage guys who have seen every single other R-rated crude teen comedy and who don't care about quality. Everyone else... do the sensible thing; avoid this. It's not even worth it to see the booty. Believe me. 1/10
I mostly rented this movie to see Shannon Elizabeth. She played well in this movie, but the plot sucked. The movie wasn't really about anything just about trying to stay single after making a pact when one of Jerry O' Connell's friends gets married. The other friends put together this money and who's ever last to get married get's the money ($10,000) from all his friends. Anyway the movie just try to follow through by making no since and trying to make it more funny then making since. I'm glad I only paid .50 for this movie. It really wasn't good at all. I rated it **** out of 10 stars!
What can you say about a movie whose funniest episode sees a fat man wrestling a garden hose? The acting, particularly that of lead man Jerry O'Connel, is embarrassing. The dialogue is so contrived and unfunny it makes you cringe. The controlling idea is actually not a bad one for this genre (infantile teen comedy), but, somehow, the director manages to make the least of it. I rate it a 2 out of 10.
Highly flawed but just about watchable `comedy' that runs like a Farrelly brothers reject. The most criminal thing about it though is the casting. I couldn't for one minute believe Jerry O Connell and Jake Busey in the role of superstuds, who could pull any woman at the drop of a hat, nor could I believe (the very beautiful) Shannon Elizabeth as a streetwise tough cop!. Story is predictable but does manage to raise a titter on a few occasions, although, the `gross out', meant to be `shock comic' scenes, (one involving an amputated testicle, and another set in a sperm bank) are just plain awful. If this film is on TV then its probably worth watching if you are extremely bored, but please don't waste your money renting it!!
Right then. This film is totally unfunny, puerile, has gags from other films, has songs from other films (Blink 182's "Mutt", Grand Theft Audio's "We Luv U"), an unlikeable leading man, a ridiculous plot, and lame parodies of films like Mission Impossible 2 and American Beauty. Redeeming features? Shannon Elizabeth and Jaime Pressly. Enough said.
This is movie is garbage, it looked really funny on the previews but I didn't laugh once through the whole movie. Do yourself a big favor and don't waste your money on this, don't waste anyone's money on this. I gave it a 1/10 believe me I would have given it less if I could have. I'm a 15 year old guy and I thought it was trash if you wanna see a good movie go out and see Jay and Silent Bob strike back.
Horrible, misogynist drivel. My neighbor brought this turkey over, subjected me to it, and didn't have the courtesy to apologize. The plot was laughable, my four year old could write a better movie.
Here's the spoiler: At the end of the movie, a little piece of you dies. You'll spend the rest of your life searching in vain for that missing piece, but it's gone, it's gone. You'll wander the streets at night peering into your neighbors' windows as they sit down for dinner. Friends and family will try to pinpoint when exactly you turned into the walking dead. You'll answer their questions and concerns with a blank stare and some mumblings about a runaway testicle. When AMC inevitably makes Tomcats the "movie of the month," a series of mysterious murders will take place in your city. You'll wake up the next morning balled up on the floor of the kitchen with a faint taste of brains in your mouth. Then you'll crawl into the living room and onto the couch. You'll stare at the wall, wet yourself a little and then begin to laugh maniacally. Because once your dead inside, Jake Busey in a thong is actually pretty damn funny.
If you want to see someone accidentally eat another man's testicle, or look at a row of pathetically fake hard-ons at a wedding, or listen to a man talk about how good it felt to have sex with a girl while she was throwing up, then this is the movie for you. Alternating, in neck breaking fashion, between romantic and gross out comedy, Tomcats is certainly interesting. The lovely Jaime Pressly plays the wife of Horatio Sanz(tell me another one) who is found in many silhouetted situations with other women, but there is, surprisingly, no nudity. Jake Busey is thoroughly revolting as a hound dog who you wouldn't want as your friend. Shannon Elizabeth and Jerry O'Connell are both good and make a convincing couple, but the movie is far too busy trying to disgust to be any good.
Rare and auspicious are the moments in film-making when greatness stands as a defining monument for the rest of the industry to measure themselves against and for us to immerse in that glorious moment.<br /><br />Some stories transcend their time and aspire to the lofty reaches of a classic and the stuff of legends. Throw in the refined skills of an ensemble cast of thespians who are at the very top of their game.<br /><br />"Where has all the originality gone?" It is here, as this story and it's cast sashay through a plot and story that will not only educate but also entertain even the most seasoned of Shakespearean/action/love story connoisseurs.<br /><br />I cannot begin to imagine where the writers dreamed up this extraordinary tale. Where do geniuses get this kind of inspiration? I now have hope for mankind, knowing that this kind of talent still exists gives me hope that we will make it to the stars and beyond, perhaps to the very gates of heaven.<br /><br />I have, like others before me, dreamed of greatness. Though I did not write this movie I did see it and because of this movie's noble greatness, I feel as if I have been elevated to a higher level of being, a higher level of spiritual wholeness.<br /><br />It is no wonder this kind of glory eludes most of us. What would become of our world if we all could attain this level of magnificence? We would probably be consumed in a white fire of super-nova glory as we evolve into trans-dimensional spiritual beings capable of omnipotent creative power.<br /><br />The most important thing to know, with all your heart and the very essence of your being, is that "Tomcats" is nothing like what I have been talking about. "Tomcats" is the antithesis of all I mentioned. It could very well destroy our world. For as some reviewers rate a movie on a star system, i.e. 1 through 5 stars, or even zero stars, I'm going to rate "Tomcats" a black hole.<br /><br />I am willing to donate money to a cause that will put a stop to these kinds of atrocities that, as of late, seem to be running amuck at box offices. I'm not even adverse to the use of nuclear weapons. It must stop. How much more of this can we take before aliens from outer space come down here and blow up our planet because we have so many stupid, crass, vulgar, unimaginative, and degrading movies spewing out of Hollywood? I'm not even going to dignify this movie by mentioning anyone's name that starred or produced it. I'm not even going to waste my time describing the story, since we've seen it a ba-zillion times, and all of the past versions were at least a ga-zillion times better.<br /><br />By the way my head nearly imploded during this movie, but with supreme selfless effort and lots-o-luck I survived to warn the public. You have been warned.
This movie, quite literally, does not have one redeeming feature. The characters are one-dimensional, cliched, incredibly misogynistic and stupid. The script looks as if it was cobbled together from 100 other movies, the acting is horrible, and some of the 'gross-out' humour made me feel nauseous.<br /><br />Shame on you, Gregory Poirier, for thinking ANY of this would be funny or interesting!<br /><br />The worst movie I've seen in several years.
The Guidelines state that a comment must contain a minimum of four lines. That is the only reason I am saying anything more about Tomcats. Because after all, my one line summary really says everything there is to say. There is absolutely NOTHING remotely entertaining in this film.
This movie is one of the worst I've ever seen. Even being hangover didn't help. The plot is lousy, if existent. The relatively large number of beautiful girls are unable to help. I guess seeing an episode of temptation island with the sound turned of would give the same kind of experience. Do NOT see this flick
I thought it will be a Ok movie after seeing the commercials about it. It was funny at some parts and some very nasty. The only person I felt sorry for is Horatio Sans who got a hot wife who is cheating on him with other women. But he never got a chance to have a threesome with until the and that was good but they should have made more bigger thru out the film.
Ah the sci-fi channel. How often do you disappoint me? Quite often I think, do you ever show good movies? OK you have given me the great 'Heroes' and the reasonably good 'The Lost Room' but they are series, and as for the movie well there really is nothing positive to say. Bad acting, bad directing, terrible characters and a shallow story, and that is just for starters. I checked out the director Allan A Goldstien and was not surprised to find nothing of interest in his resume (in fact I am half thinking that this is a pseudo name). The premises of four motor bikers out motto-crossing in a national park when one of them has an accident that needs a park ranger to come rescue them only for them to get caught in a forrest fire is weak and predictable that you know every beat before it happens. Leading man Bryan Genesse the park ranger is so bad it is terrible. Cast as the action hero martial arts boy in the footsteps of so many others this guy makes Seagal and Van Damme look like De Nero. The supporting cast are little better and well before the end one was left hoping the fire would engulf them all then the film crew. Avoid at all costs
That is what this movie is. Good God the special effects suck in this movie. It is difficult for anything to suck more than this movie's plot, but the special effects manage to pull it off. Let me try to explain just how bad this movie is.<br /><br />First, there is the plot. There are four punk-ass teenage dirt bikers who are riding around in a forest in Duluth, MN. One of them is a dumb-ass and tries a ridiculous jump and breaks his leg. A paramedic comes to help him, but gets stranded with them when the helicopter breaks. Then all five realize that there is a forest fire, which we see is started by some guy dumping tons of gas all over the forest. All they show us is his boots, and they show scene after scene of this guys boots walking around dumping gas and starting fires. Meanwhile, the teenagers try to escape the fire, only to find that boot man has somehow managed to get ahead of them (while they were speeding through the forest on dirt bikes!), dump gas all over the area they were riding through, and start more fires. He does this several times, and the paramedic finally catches him and starts him on fire. I won't spoil the ending, but this guy's resilience will have you shouting "WHAT THE BLOODY HELL?!?!" at the screen. Anyway, they are now surrounded by fire, and their only escape is through a mine which is filled with methane gas. Yes, methane gas. I'm not even going to try to describe the ending, because it is too ridiculous, and you'll enjoy it more if you don't see it coming. Which you won't, because you can't possibly expect what happens. This is because of the second major problem with this movie: consistency.<br /><br />Is some semblance of consistence too much to ask for? Apparently so. I cannot even count the number of broken limbs in this movie (they keep breaking arms and legs while crashing their bikes). I think each character breaks at least one limb, and several more than one. They then limp around until the scene ends, and then forget that they're supposed to have broken limbs. There is one scene where three of them who are supposed to have broken legs start dancing. But then their injuries suddenly return when the plot needs them to.<br /><br />Finally, the CGI. If there is a hell, it consists of watching the fire in this movie. All they did for the forest fires is line the dirt paths with CGI fire. You can clearly see that the only CGI fire is along the paths, and all of the trees more than two feet from the path are left untouched. And then they zoom out and show the whole forest being engulfed in flames. It's hard to describe in words how ridiculous it looks, but I assure you that the ridiculousness is quite impressive.<br /><br />This movie is one of those so-bad-its-good types. There are some occasions where it descends into the painful-bad category, but for the most part it stays above the line and is laughably inept. I can't wait to check out the other Nature Unleashed movies that came in the four-pack with this one.
**MAJOR SPOILERS** Watchable only for the action sequences not the story or acting in it "Nature Unleashed: Fire" has one of the longest and excruciating endings in modern motion picture history. We have the fearless Ranger Jake, Bryan Genesse, leading this trio of hysterical bikers to safety in of all paces an explosive fume beaching mine shaft! This during a raging forest fire! It seems that Ranger Jake with all his knowledge of the great outdoors didn't realize that a mine shaft that's leaking with dangerous and explosive methane gas is the last place to go when all the woods around it is on fire!<br /><br />***SPOILERS FROM THIS POINT ON*** All this started some time ago when Ranger Jake in an effort to save the not that on the ball miner Tiny, Chris Harz aka "The Sherd", let him slip through his fingers and fall to his death at the bottom of the mine shaft, or did he! Even though we were kept in suspense to who's setting the forest fires for the first half of the movie it wasn't a surprise at all the Tiny was the culprit! As you would expect in movies like these Tiny seemed to be made of hardened steel in that nothing that ever happened to him, fires explosions as well as impaling, could stop the crazed miner.<br /><br />Before Tiny's reappearance, or resurrection, Ranger Jake got involved in rescuing bikers Chris Mel Sharon & Marcus, Josh Cohen Melanie Lewis Anastasia Griffith & Ross McCall, who were trapped in the woods with fires breaking all around them. Having the usual know it all-Marcus-among the bikers things don't go as smoothly as Ranger Jake wanted them to go. Marcus not only eggs on the meek Chris to do something stupid, jump with his bike over a 10 foot pile of logs, but has the guy break his leg. This makes it almost impossible for Ranger Jake to have Chris air-lifted out before the fires consume him as well as his fellow bikers!<br /><br />For the remainder of the movie Ranger Jake, who put himself in charge, makes boner after boner in his attempt to save himself and the trapped and lost in the woods bikers! All this ends with Jake's brilliant idea to hide in a dangerous and abandoned mine shaft with the rescue party just yards away from rescuing them if they only stayed put and in the open where the rescue team could find them!<br /><br />Even though he was supposed to be the life of the party, or movie, Tiny for all his efforts in being another indestructible super villain came across as a man who spent too much time out in the sun. The make-up job on Tiny was so outrageous that he looked like he dumped a jar of spaghetti sauce over his head instead of having it burned to a crisp.<br /><br />Ranger Jake came across as either somewhat very naive or retarded in his being so taken in by the dangerous Tiny in always trying to save the rampaging psycho who never hid his feelings about what he had in mind for the play by the rules Forest Ranger. In fact Ranger Jake actually encouraged Tiny to do both him and the bikers in by showing him how incompetent he was in trying to save them. The fact that Ranger Jake was successful wasn't because he was so smart but because Tiny , despite his indestructibility, was so brainless!
when i watched this crap, it reminded me of the the title of the movie FIRE, Which is where this garbage belongs, in a fire. I don't even know what to say the acting blew, the fire looked really fake, Andy the chicks are'nt exactly supermodels. And lastly i don't know what you people are complaining i own this damn movie, yeah happy birthday to me Well i guess it could be worse i could be watching left behind 2. And to make things worse i have the whole set on DVD fire,volcano,earthquake,avalanche. All i'm missing is the awesome tornado movie which i hear sucks balls.<br /><br />Well until my next crap movie peace
A bunch of teen dirt bikers are out in the forest riding around in circles. They're having fun; little do they know nature is about to be unleashed by an emo refugee from a Deliverance or Hills Have Eyes movie. He's armed with matches and fire accellerant. And he's got an eye that's bleeding or something. Why torch a park? I dunno. Maybe he doesn't like Smokey the Bear, or something. But he wears army/navy store fatigues, if that helps.<br /><br />The rangers send one single helicopter to battle the resulting blaze; that's all you ever see, except a bunch of people in a base somewhere talking a lot about the fire, but doing nothing. Some cop or ranger or militiaman or whatever he is drops from the helicopter on a defective tether.<br /><br />Everybody now rides their dirt bikes like they're auditioning for motocross. They forever pop wheelies, do Evel Knievel jumps, spin around etc. They argue incessantly. Shots of the fire are as phony as a 3 dollar bill; it's the same footage from a dozen different angles, and the blaze never grows or moves. And you still never once see any fire fighting equipment.<br /><br />SyFy channel movie which has about 0% science fiction attached to it. What you can expect from this: bad acting, cheap effects, and a story that goes nowhere (like the bikes and fire go nowhere). Laughable insomniac cure.
This is the worst movie I have ever seen. The story line is a joke, the effects are terrible, the cinematography doesn't fit the tone of the movie, the dialogue is cheesy, and the actors do a good job at screwing up the rest. People just don't act that way in real life situations. My question is: Who would fund such crap?<br /><br />The movie starts where some miners fall down a mine shaft after a fireman fails to save them. Next we join some bikers in a forest who ride around doing stunts on their bikes. One guy falls and breaks his leg or something. The fireman arrives to help them. Meanwhile, somebody starts a fire. Some more bike stunts. Bla bla bla.<br /><br />I wasted my time.<br /><br />Do not watch this movie.
This production is an insult to the Stooges, especially Moe. It is inaccurate and poorly acted. Many of the events depicted just didn't happen that way and too much was left out or skipped over. Read the books written by Moe and his daughter Joan instead. This was a waste of time.
Stephen King TV movies can go 5 or 6 parts and no one complains, right? So why give the Stooges only 96 minutes? I'm not asking for a PBS mini-series, but would a two parter had killed anyone? The movie steamrolled over events that should have been mentioned and mentioned events that could have been omitted. I do want to give a salute to the performances of the stars...they had a tough job because they didn't really look like the Stooges, but the spirit was there. After watching the movie, I pulled out a tape from American Movie Classics that had the real deal on it and laughed myself silly. The movie was pretty tough emotionally, especially after Curly has the stroke and Moe needs to keep the business going. When Curley started crying I lost it...Like I said, the movie was good, but could have been and SHOULD have been much, much better. Maybe it's fitting though...the Stooges got ripped off when they were alive and now, 25 years later, it happens again.
The movie was a pleasure to watch if you are a fan of the Stooges. The story is told from the point of view of Moe Howard and his relationships with his brothers Shemp and Jerome (Curly) Howard, also the life long friendship with Larry Fine. The movie deals mostly with the off camera high points and pit falls of the Stooges multi decade career. The casting director and makeup artist did a fair job of finding actors who resembled the famous ensemble. The actor who plays "Curly" Howard did a fine job of portraying the on camera antics of the most beloved Stooge. A must see for any fan of Three Stooges shorts.
I remember vacationing in Florida when this movie aired. I had set up my VCR to record it. The anticipation was killing me. I had known about the movie ever since it was announced some half a year earlier. We came back from Florida 4 days after the movie aired, and I immediately watched it. I tried as hard as I could to like it, but I didn't.<br /><br />I am a HUGE 3 stooges fan. And as such I know quite a bit about them. So it wasn't like I was expecting to learn anything from the movie, and I didn't. I was more interested with the portrayals and seeing how accurate their information was. There were many things wrong with this film. The actors, the script, the reenactments, ALL could have been much better.<br /><br />Paul Ben-Victor is a tremendously talented actor. But let's face facts, Moe Howard was WAY out of his reach. He doesn't look like him, he doesn't sound like him, and thus, he can't act like him. Michael Chiklis is also very talented, but his portrayal of Curly didn't quite score with me, although when Curly becomes ill he did very well at that. John Kassir's portrayal of Shemp could've been rehearsed better. It was more of a bad impression than a portrayal. Worst of all was Joe Besser. They made him skinny, and more annoying than he really was. It was just plain laziness. I don't like the Joe shorts, because, as the movie illustrates he hardly EVER got hit. But he wasn't that annoying, and DEFINATELY wasn't that thin. The best performance belongs to Evan Handler. He had the most accurate stooge portrayal. The problem with Larry's character, his hair is WAY too frizzy and WAY too red. I know that's too technical, so I won't count that on my list of why I didn't like this movie.<br /><br />Back to Shemp, who just so happens to be my favorite stooge. He is written as a whining, quivering, chicken. True, he had many phobias, but he wasn't that bad. He didn't leave the group initially because he was afraid of Ted Healy, although he didn't like him, Shemp left because he received an offer from another studio that he simply couldn't turn down. Instead of the truth, this movie chooses to make him wet the bed, on Larry no less, run into a closet, and shamefully bow out of the group. Another problem is that Shemp made nearly as many Columbia shorts as Curly did as a stooge, but only one, Fright Night, which was his first short, is shown. His career was almost completely ignored. Plus, lousy editing caused a terrible and most unforgivable error. Shemp was born in early 1895, and died in late 1955. That would make him how old at death? Well, here's a hint, it's not 59 as the movie states.<br /><br />Now for the writing, which I think was flawed only because this movie was rushed out. Some of the lines are dumb and could be developed and/or introduced much better than they were. The one line that really got me was at the very end of the film, when Moe is showing the promoter how the eyepoke is done.<br /><br />"That's how we do it, make contact with the brow bone, not the eyes, looks real on film though." this line was poorly written and poorly placed in the film. It's meant to be one of those lines that make the audience say OH! In amazement and I'm sure it did with some people, but the very end of the movie was not the place for this line. A better place you ask? How about when they show up at Columbia for the first time and are introduced to the sound effects machine. I know initially there was no sound for the eyepoke, but Moe for instance could have said, "What about this?" and eyepokes Curly or Larry. Jules White then says "Are you okay?" or "How'd you do that?" There were a lot of misplaced lines in this film which is a clear sign that the script was rushed out. Another one involves the origin of the name Shemp, although that one isn't as bad, and so I will let that one slide.<br /><br />What does this film do well? It illustrates how the stooges were screwed by Columbia, which they were. I'm not sure if Moe was an errand boy, but that was the kind of dramatization stuff that is meant to get the viewer sympathizing with them. I know this film was a dramatization. I know not everything is going to be crisp and clean and absolutely perfect. However some of the stuff they made up and the real stuff that they ignored were in serious conflict with each other. For instance Curly's stroke is not even close to the way it happened in real life. I know, I know, dramatization, but the purpose of dramatizations is to make real events more dramatic. Curly's stroke in real life is more dramatic than what they showed in the movie. Here's what really happened. Curly was sitting in a chair off screen while a scene was being shot, they called him for the final pie fight scene but there was no response. Moe went to go get him and discovered his little brother head slumped, half paralyzed, unable to speak, and tears streaming down his face. Moe then said "Babe?" and tried to help him out of his chair. Poor Curly drops to his knees. Then the ambulance was called.<br /><br />All in all, this movie wasn't terrible, but it certainly wasn't good, or even OK. This film portrays the stooges helplessly and inaccurately and sometimes goes overboard with dramatizations. There is a very, VERY long list of inaccuracies in this film. If you don't believe me, check out a fella named Stooge's list at the threestooges.com news forum. It is about a page and a half long. Some things in the movie I can let slide. But others were unforgivable. The Three Stooges were geniuses, and a lot of today's comedy is based off of what they did. Don't believe me? Check out the Simpsons, and more so Ren & Stimpy. But this film fails to capture their genius. It more so inaccurately captures their hardships, which is important, but if the title of the film is gonna be the Three Stooges, it has to portray their ingenuity and originality more than anything.
Cuore Sacro combines glossy film effects with a story that leaves much to be desired. With a script that the screen-writers for "Touched by an Angel" might have passed up as being too impuissant, Ozpetek still keeps us interested at times. In fact, I wanted to focus on the positives but I found the last act so bafflingly bizarre and awful that I think the couple who jumped to their deaths in the very beginning might have been the fortunate ones.<br /><br />This movie is at heart (pun intended) a story built on a big twist-style ending. This kind of tenuous foundation can result in a tremendous success like Tornatore's Una Pura Formalità or god-awful garbage like the films of M. Night Shyamalan. Cuore Sacro falls somewhat closer to the latter. I found the cinematography in general to be above average. The tracking shots of Irene dutifully doing her quotidian laps in the pool were very impressive as was the atmosphere conjured by the interior of her mother's house. For me, the grotesque parody of Michelangelo's Pieta when Giancarlo comes in from the rain and Irene poses with him was a bit of a stretch. One big issue that I took exception to in this film was Ozpetek's method of simply turning the camera directly into the face of his protagonist and recording the emotions taking place. This worked to fantastic effect in Facing Windows, but when employed here it seems that Bubolova is no Mezzogiorno. In fact besides the ridiculous story, the main problem with this film is the milquetoast performance of it's main character. It made the final breakdown scene even more unconscionably bad. <br /><br />In this movie Ozpetek continues his crusade against our corporate-driven societies by urging us to be more spiritual (not necessarily religious) and more altruistic. And while I'm certainly one who is very sympathetic to this view, I felt as if the audience was being hit over the head with a blunt object. Could the characters have been anymore two-dimensional? I tended to find this movie very enervating and soulless. Was the "evil" aunt Eleonora anything more than a caricature? It goes for the people on the side of "right" too, like the "good" aunt Maria Clara and the elderly doorman Aurelio. And just in case we might have missed Ozpetek's point, he decided to clothe his opposing forces in their own liveries. <br /><br />This brings me to an interesting point about the director's use of color. He clothes the opening couple who briefly take flight in all black, as well as Irene (when we first meet her and after her life-conversion), the evil aunt Eleonora, and of course the good but confused Padre Carras. Black is a color that suggests a definite course, the wearer's mind is set and emotionless. It is the color of choice for that indispensable item of modern day armor, the business suit. It is also the color of mourning, such as the funerary finery sported by the suicidal duo. Finally, black is the color of piety, such as the simple robes of priests and nuns that Irene emulates in the second half of the film. <br /><br />The other main color, and a very appropriate choice for a movie about the sacred heart, is red. It is a color that has an extreme inherent emotional component. The character who wears red is bold, emotional, receptive to new ideas, and indulgent. Red is a risky color in modern times; it challenges our perceptions of the wearer and at the same time makes the wearer vulnerable. Yet red carries an enormous weight of history and mysticism, as the earliest members of Cro-Magnon man buried their dead in red ochre and indeed the first man named in the Torah, Adam, is named after the Hebrew word for red. Red also has an anachronistic flavor, looking back on the past where red (and by association a less self-driven attitude towards life) was more accepted. So when we encounter the red-filled room (the mysterious frieze covered walls complete with a red accented menorah and a red painting of a Whirling Dervish!) of Irene's mother, "good" characters Maria Clara and Aurelio wearing resplendent outfits of red, and finally the painting of Irene's mother in a formal red gown we can see where Ozpetek's sympathies lie.<br /><br />A word or two about the soundtrack, I found the original musical themes to be excellently suited to the story. The quasi-baroque theme that signified Irene was great for it's monotony and feeling of restive malaise (the absolute best use of a constantly repeated baroque theme such a this would have to be in Kubrick's Barry Lyndon, with it's masterful repetitions of an 8-bar sarabande attributed to Handel). One absolutely inspired choice was a couple of seconds of an opera aria we hear as the power is flickering while Irene is chasing Benny through the house. It is of the famous aria "Ebben? ... Ne andrò lontano" from Catalani's opera "La Wally". The aria is sung by the lead soprano who is leaving home forever. As Irene's mother was a dramatic soprano, we can guess that this is a recording of her singing and that she is saying a poignant farewell to her daughter, as in the movie Irene is soon destined to never again see Benny alive. I just have one minor question of the soundtrack, why include the famous tango Yo Soy Maria? I love the song and personally could hear it all the time, but it didn't really fit here.
I live in Rome where the Turkish director of this film lives and works. From my Italian friends I have heard many good things about his films...so after seeing the preview I really wanted to see "Cuore Sacro". I am deeply disappointed, one of the most pompous, pseudo-religious, highly improbable and naive films. I love film but this one is really heavy and bad. The main character is really crazy, and should be locked up in a madhouse...made me sympathise with the negative character of an aunt, who runs a dirty-dealing company that only wants to make money...and I consider myself an anti-capitalist...that bad!!!
Rollerskating vampires?! I'm sorry but even for the 80's that's just way too cheesy to be remotely scary... You can excuse the original the odd kitsch moment because it was parodying old movies and TV shows, but that's been done once, so the sequel needed to be a little less camp, not even more outlandish! Plus, the first movie had the presence of Chris Sarandon - a man who could even make stalking discotheques in casual knitwear seem seductive! - that this one sorely lacks, so there was no 'danger' in anything that happened, it just seemed silly.<br /><br />Admittedly I only saw this once when I was 7, but by then already being a huge fan of the original I remember being disgusted. To me, there is no sequel to Fright Night, just a tacky spoof that doesn't deserve any appraisal whatsoever.
I saw this movie many years ago, and just for kicks decided to rent it and watch it again. The plot is a carbon copy from Fright Night. I did like the hairy vampire and the bug eating driver. Otherwise it was not good at all.
so if a guy meets you and he says 'I want you to look at my erection!' don't be alarmed, maybe he wants you to look at the film he made about how his house was to be built. yes! that's the only thing what happens in this movie! it's like the worst Warholian BEEP I ever saw! it's like filming the inside of your toilet before you flush it, in fact, it's less interesting to look at than that.<br /><br />but if you do watch Lennon's Erection, be warned that he put a lot of background noise in it too. I mean, really, it's as if the building is being attacked by space mutants from hell or something! in the meanwhile, the building in progress is growing up as an erection can do too (in almost 20 minutes, what an accomplishment).<br /><br />so if someone does ask you to watch his erection, be sure he wants to videotape it all.
... ever! (I always wanted to write that:) Many years ago (in 1993 as I recall it) one of my former classmates persuaded me to watch what he called "a epic masterpiece". To this day it stands out to me as the worst movie I have ever seen. The acting, the story, the effects - everything is bad. Unless you are one of these people who just loves to appreciate trash, you should pass on this. However chances are that since you are reading this, you've already seen it.<br /><br />Out of almost 500 movies this is the only non-short I've given a 1/10.<br /><br />I haven't seen any other low-budget Asian warrior flicks, so I guess there's even worse things out there! Scary... <br /><br />:P
This movie was quite a mess. There wasn't anything really going for it. The only character that had any appeal was Bobbie Phillips' Maya and she wasn't even worth it.<br /><br />The plot is standard, double-cross the double-crossing double-crosser. With a few too many double crosses to make any sense. Sometimes that means it "keeps you guessing" in this case it "keeps you waiting". By the end I just wanted everyone to get thrown in jail or shot.
This film is much the same as Cannibal Holocaust. If it weren't for the needless animal killing in the name of 'shock' ("Ooh look at us, we're hardcore, we've added real death to our films") these films would make their way onto my dusty classics shelf - I'm a huge fan of cannibal films and zombies. But as it stands, it's another example of shock horror clutching at the last straws of the pile in a desperate effort to make a poor film generate more hype. To sum up, a crusty gore flick with limited appeal. A fan of 70's gore should give this a try, but anyone with modern ethics and tastes should pick something a little better written for their popcorn-fest.
Just how bad? Well, compared to this movie, Cannibal Holocaust is Citizen Kane. There's the stilted acting, the atrocious dialogue, the half baked plot and like its companion piece way too much in the way of on screen animal slaughter that was actually done. Unlike Holocaust, Ferox is a straight forward movie. It doesn't pretend to be a pseudo documentary. In some ways that helps the production in that the film is very sharp and crisp compared to Holocaust's graininess. Unfortunately, we are once again given a group of people who are morally reprehensible. They torture the natives and essentially bring everything that they get upon themselves. There's really nothing in this film that makes it worth your while. I was fairly lenient with my review of Holocaust due to some actual attempt at a statement and style, but in Ferox's case there is no reason to watch this unless you solely get off on blood and gore.
The Brave One is about a New York radio show host named Erica Bain (Jodie Foster). Her life is a dream living in the city she grew up in and loves. She has her great fiancé David (Naveen Andrews), whom she is planning to marry. But one night while Erica and David are out walking their dog, they are attacked and mugged by a group of degenerates, leaving David dead. Erica recovers but is heartbroken and traumatized later on, and can barely cope with real life anymore. She buys a gun off a guy on the streets for protection. But one day she's shopping in a store, and a man comes in and shoots the clerk dead. It is then that Erica shoots and kills this man, and she becomes a vigilante. Killing anyone who tries to threaten or harm her or any others. At the same time Detective Mercer (Terrence Howard) is tracking down this elusive unknown killer, and in the process becomes friends with Erica. Erica begins to regain her sanity as she kills these violent people, but is unsure of whether or not what she's doing is morally right. And as her and Mercer become closer, he doesn't even realize the unknown murderous assailant is right next to him.<br /><br />Jodie Foster gives a very good performance in The Brave One. She portrays this type of violent, morally corrupted character brilliantly. Terrence Howard is also great in this movie. Both have excellent chemistry together, and strengthen the film to a certain level. The Brave One looks visually pristine, and conveys some brilliant camera work, but not all of it works to a great effect. The scenes where Erica is absolutely traumatized and afraid to walk out her front door to face the world. The camera swayed back and forth to the sides in an almost dream-like way, and really captured the moment with essence. Whereas almost every time Erica killed somebody, everything just had to go slo-mo and show her facial expressions in fine detail. The slo-mo was properly used when Erica committed her first murder. But why keep doing this effect almost every time she committed murder? The camera work creates a great atmosphere in most of the film, but there a few scenes here that are just plain overkill.<br /><br />The Brave One is very much about how these murders affect Erica emotionally. Her fiancé is killed by a group of thugs, and suddenly her love of New York City is turned upside down. She realizes that there is a dark side to the beloved city, and she says so on her radio show. I don't completely understand this though. Erica acts as if she never realized that violence can occur at night in the city, and that's pretty stupid. If she lived there all her life she must be either blind or very oblivious. Erica also seems to be a glutton for inhumane, murderous people. She really doesn't even have to go look for them, they just to come to her as if they're begging to be shot dead for their wrong-doing. The Brave One deals with the morals and proper use of violence strongly at first, and then suddenly it glorifies it. The ending is very negative, and completely immoral and inhumane. It also negates the purpose of Terrence Howard's character, which the movie spends so much time trying to evenly develop, and suddenly his morals take a U-turn. The morals in The Brave One become very fractured, and just plain shatter all over the place by the end. So violence is okay? It's a good thing to commit murder as long as it's for vengeance? I pretty much refuse to believe that. You know why? Because I have a conscience, which this film surely lacks. It is not right to take the life of another person, no matter how bad they are, or how much you hate them. Erica Bain sets out to stop these evil-doers, but in the end she is no better than the horrible people she kills.<br /><br />Jodie Foster and Terrence Howard provide a lot of strength for this movie. The Brave One contains a strong message, but that message is both immoral and wrong. This movie may look pretty, well acted, and intelligently strong. But it becomes pretty rotten by the end. I give The Brave One a 1.5 out of 4. The message is very out of line and morally incorrect, and really can't be saved by the good acting.
I am very disappointed because I expected a real ride as promised in the many reviews. The script is very bad with lot of holes and the direction too. The director failed completely to develop each violent scene with thrills and suspense. It tries very hard to follow a wannabe thriller. Therefore I had to watch how every bullet was spent without giving any sense to me. I was always asking what kind of movie I am watching. Then I didn't like that she smoked aggressively one cigarette after the other but perhaps the film was supported partly by the tobacco industry. The end is also very disappointing. I cannot understand how Jodie Foster could have been nominated for the Golden Globe in this worst role of her life. Jodie, therefore I liked very much PANIC ROOM or FLIGHT PLAN. This is definitely one of the worst I have ever seen. 4/10.
I don't know what neighborhoods the folks who wrote the rave reviews for this movie live in, but I'm glad I'm not there if they don't comment on the cartoonish-ness of this thing. Okay, we learn to suspend our disbelief in films like the "Die Hard" series, but seeing little Jodie knock off a whole street gang, with a Glock, as a NOVICE yet...c'mon. All she needed was a bald head and a ripped T-shirt and she would BE Bruce Willis. <br /><br />Apparently, Jodie being the executive producer blinded her to what a joke and waste of her money this would be. Or she was living out some kind of fantasy where she is the only blonde and everyone else is a brunette black, or Hispanic. Even the dog is black. Little Blondie is the only good one and (except for a Black police officer) everyone else in town is some nasty minority out to get her. Has your fear of your acting talent declined so far that you think the only way you can get noticed is to be the only bright spot (literally) on camera in a dark, morose and somber neighborhood/film/cast? Apparently she thought she was in the wrong movie...The Dark Knight.<br /><br />Ridiculous plot holes, furniture chewing acting, gratuitous violence ("Look girls! Now you can do it, too!")...Spend the time with your family instead of watching this drek.
A lot of good things could have been done with this movie using essentially the same sets, plot devices and storyline. For example, why not plant a seed of Erica's capability before the murder of her lover? Why not develop Erica and the cop's relationship slowly and convincingly? Maybe contrast Eric's metamorphis by including some other post-event facet, relationship, etc., in her life that she now rejects? Why not have her injure an innocent bystander to underscore the wrongness in Erica's actions.<br /><br />Instead TBO exploits the revenge fantasy to its maximum level, giving insincere lip service to the "don't do this at home" messages thrown in only to allow the film to qualify as legitimate.<br /><br />I'm not a Jodie Foster fan. After displaying some range in films like SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, NELL and one where she plays the ordinary mother of a child prodigy, Foster has slipped into a succession of roles where she plays the same hard-bitten, badgered heroine single-handedly overcoming evil. Such is fine once or twice, but I'm getting too used to her "fight versus flight" close-up. TBO could have used a younger actress or one that more convincingly embraced being a woman in her forties (instead of 40-something Foster playing a younger woman).<br /><br />TBO is a movie with substantial actors, financing and resources that manages to descend to junk.
Hi, Everyone, Oh, Boy... This one is a lulu. It has really bad background music whenever they can squeeze it in. There are three bad guys who, I guess, are the stars of this. They beat people up and chop people up and crash trucks and bulldozers into people. Usual stuff.<br /><br />The woman who is sending them on their missions is unable to move her mouth when she speaks. It's sort of like watching a bad ventriloquist who is her own dummy. She walks like she is balancing an egg on her head.<br /><br />The wardrobe is 70s leisure style for the men and blah for the female lead who is supposed to be a good nurse. The bad novocain mouth woman wears red. A silk frock perhaps, or maybe just a poplin windbreaker that is too big.<br /><br />I actually liked the ending even though it did not make a lot of sense. It lets us in on what happened earlier in the film.<br /><br />The police officers are OK. Some bad, some good, all stupid except two. The two bright ones could have worked again in Hollywood.<br /><br />The movie starts interestingly enough and ends with a surprise. The middle sucks. The guy in the diner who gives a free hamburger to the star does a good job. He is like a 1940s character actor. Great voice.<br /><br />This one is a bit too long. The lady with marbles in her mouth could have had just a couple of lines and the rest could have been said by a parrot. It would have been easier to understand a bird.<br /><br />Her scene with a sword could have been handled by a trained woodpecker.<br /><br />Tom Willett
"Death Machines" takes a fairly decent premise for an action movie (unstoppable martial arts killing machines sent out to eliminate a crime boss' opponents) and turns it into an unwatchable mess. I have rarely seen such a breath taking combination of tiny budget, bad acting and incoherent script released as a so-called "movie". It's easily the worst martial-arts/action oriented movie I've seen in years, eclipsing even "Ninja Holocaust" (which at least had some good energetic fight scenes). <br /><br />The actual "star" of the movie is the white "Death Machine", (it's basically his vehicle) so he is featured prominently in many more scenes than his two cohorts. He's in good shape, and he's not bad looking, but as an actor he's barely there - think Chuck Norris in "The Octagon",only without any energy or emotion.This is obviously a deliberate choice on the part of the actor and director...but you have to be Arnold to pull this kind of thing off, and this guy is no Arnold.<br /><br />The movie (and the director) can't seem to find the time (or the budget) to film the scenes that would have answered the basic questions that it originally posed, like: Who was the shadowy figure giving the marbled-mouthed Asian lady her orders? How did the "gang war" end? Why did the mush-mouthed Asian lady decide to have her zombie assassins killed? And what the heck happened that left her assistant dead and her wielding a katana like a broom stick? <br /><br />It does, however, find the time to film a completely extraneous bar fight in which a sailor (well, he looked like Popeye) destroys a bar because the juke box didn't work. It's only related to the rest of the film because in the process he also K.O.'s the movie's "hero", a bartender/karate student who was a victim of the "Death Machines" first major assignment (he got his hand chopped off while they were killing his teacher). It follows this up with one of the most un-called for "love scenes" between the hero and his girlfriend I have ever watched. The segue makes no sense - at the end of the bar-fight, she's grimacing over his splayed limp body, and the next thing they are in a "tasteful" shadow montage of sex and love that looks like it came from a Hallmark card. BTW, we never see the sailor again. <br /><br />And wait until you see the showdown between the homicide detective and his captain - it plays as if the director and screenwriter never actually saw a movie scene placed inside a police station, but had heard of them second hand and decided to include some without really knowing how they worked. <br /><br />The movie is a textbook case of poor casting and community theater-level actors floundering without decent direction. The three "Death Machines" come across as clods; the "hero" knows his lines but can't carry the movie, given that his character is an ineffective wimp; his girlfriend is a charisma vacuum; and all the other minor parts are barely watchable. All this makes for a fairly poor movie- but the "dragon lady" does more to drag the movie into subterranean stinker territory than anyone or anything else. She looks ridiculous; her tiny, inexpressive face is overpowered by her ton-o-hair skyscraper wig, she wears her red silk dress like a bathrobe, and she talks with a terrible mush-mouth delivery that screams "needed time with a dialog coach". Poor lady - she was obviously way out of her element, and as far as I know, never appeared in a film again. <br /><br />Add to this a low-budget one-synthesizer soundtrack that never shuts up and never plays anything appropriate or interesting; crappy film stock and lighting; fight choreography that is strictly from hunger; and a general all around dreariness and lack of energy in the blocking and the stage business...and you have one lame movie. <br /><br />I got this as part of a 50 movie DVD compilation, so it probably cost me about 50 cents to watch it. It wasn't worth it. Feh!
What a gargantuan pile of malodorous ordure! Ye Gods where to even begin with this one…..<br /><br />Well, mix crap acting (including one bloody infuriating woman who speaks as though she's either a) chewing painfully on some ice cubes or b) has just woken up after having undergone some extensive root canal surgery), editing that would appear to donate that the celluloid was cut and spliced via the utilisation of an angle grinder, some truly hopelessly choreographed martial arts 'action', a script that has ostensibly been written by a two year old and some of the most hideous and intrusively loud background music ever committed to any film and hey presto you have Death Machines aka The Ninja Murders (although note that surprise, surprise – there are in fact no actual ninja anywhere to be found in this sodding travesty!) <br /><br />In a nutshell, if ever there was a cinematic equivalent of a particularly vehement bout of dysentery, then this must surely be it! Avoid at all costs!
There is a point in the film where the female boss of the "death machines" (a multi-ethnic trio to please everyone, being inclusive I think it's called these days) talks about using leverage on a business man. Except such is her delivery that it sounds like "leatherage." At which point this viewer perked up thinking this dull film was turning a corner into new world of kinkiness. But it didn't. The boss lady had to do the talking as the "death machines" did not say a single word during the whole film and talk she does. Interminably. There is action in the film but it is not that exciting and the plot staggers from one cliché to another. The three mute "death machines" live to survive another day at the end of the film. Hopefully there wasn't a sequel.
As bad as this movie is, I really like it. The poor acting, dialogue and action made it so funny. I loved John Travis from Omega Cop and stayed up all night working out how the Death Machines checked in at the airport if they can't speak, probably had to shake/nod at the security questions. Actually why can't they speak!? It fails to adhere to any sort of movie making convention which makes it strangely interesting to watch- just lots of people getting killed around a very loose plot surrounding hired killers - no "machines" as such and those weird face/mountain things on the front cover and the trailer do not appear! I love the fact that there is no good guy in this film until about half way through and I love the numerous pointless scenes of that aeroplane landing - lots of people get killed who have nothing to do with the "plot" and no explanation is given about anything - DO NOT expect to understand this film. Instead admire how the main good guy can't even handle a random old guy in the bar - who is presented as the bad guy yet speaks out against the barman's decision to hire a scantily clad woman to dance badly in the corner for "entertainment" - all the good guys seem to enjoy this! Why did old guy get to beat up our hero - and why did the random bloke decide to help old guy in the fight?! Why did the hero collapse under one punch from old guy onto the bar where a stream of water jets out in the background so it looks like it's coming from his mouth? Definite Top 20 B-Movie, must check for a part 2.
Bay Area residents probably remember Paul from The Diamond Center, an unctuous late night huckster who flogged easy credit and cheap rocks on late night television throughout the 1980s and early 90s. I mention him only because there is an actor in Death Machines who looks JUST LIKE HIM playing the owner of an Italian restaurant. He appears in the best scene in this positively dreadful and near unwatchable crime drama about a Dragon Lady (Mari Honjo, who wisely hung up her acting spurs after completing this film) who controls the local syndicate. Our hero (let's call him Not Paul From the Diamond Center) plays the restaurateur with all the subtlety of The Simpsons' Luigi ("you lika da spaghetti?") and seems unimpressed when one of his patrons complains about the food. No, there's no fly in the soup or hair in the sauce: there's a Red Buddha in the pasta, the calling card of the murderous crime boss, who sends a statuette to each of her prospective victims. Death Machines is bad by any measure, and pretty boring, which is an even worse crime.
I'm from Texas so I thought I knew big hair, but the female villain in this movie had humongous hair. Whenever she was on the screen I couldn't concentrate on anything but her hair. Take about stage presence! There seemed to be a lot of people with hearing problems in this movie also. There was a traffic warden writing out a parking ticket who somehow didn't notice the owner plunging toward the car screaming at the top of his lungs until he hit the car. Then there was a guy in a phone booth who couldn't hear a huge bulldozer coming at him until it was 5 feet away. All the hit men in this movie seemed a bit deaf, no one had to sneak up on them. The one handed 'hero' of this movie was so whiny and ineffective that it was funny. The bar-fight was pretty funny. There is a priceless scene where the hero and his girlfriend just had sex and judging from their expressions, it wasn't good for either one of them. It made me laugh out loud. This movie is on the 50 Movie Pack Martial Arts set if you want to see a lot of bad movies (with a few decent ones).
I watched DEATH MACHINES as part of BCI Eclipse' Drive-in Cult Classics (featuring Crown International Pictures releases) on DVD. As I work my way through the multiple DVD sets, I am growing to love many of Crown International's movies -- especially, the creepy, erotic, psychological thrillers! <br /><br />DEATH MACHINES is not one of them.<br /><br />After seeing movies like MALIBU BEACH, THE CREEPING TERROR and THE PINK ANGELS, it is hard to say that this is the worst film ever made; but, it doesn't have much going for it.<br /><br />No plot; really no story to speak of.<br /><br />The acting isn't evident – only the actor responsible for the terribly-played Tony (with the thick, fake Italian accent) made any attempt to "get into character." <br /><br />The score is annoying and pedantic.<br /><br />The only thing about this movie is why... what compelled the film-makers to make this film? <br /><br />Did they think the story of: 1) three ninjas, 2) two competing crime bosses, 3) an ancillary bartender / karate school student character; and 4) his pitiful love-interest nurse was so compelling that the world would not be complete without this movie being made? <br /><br />This is a complete waste of time and money, for you, me, the producers, writers, actors, and the director.
What a terrible movie! The acting in this film is about the quality of a high school play, or a story driven pornography film. This is not pornography in this film, but there sure is a lot of gratuitous nudity! This is one of the only redeeming qualities of the film, one of the only things that saved it from receiving a rating on one star. Also there are a million cops that die in this film. Hardly offensive though since the violence is so unrealistic we can only laugh. But breasts pop out and become exposed in the most surprising and hilarious times, if you enjoy really really bad movies check this one out. This is a Bonnie and Clyde type story, where a mother and her two daughters are out for revenge. This film also features a sex scene with two of the oldest people i have ever seen rolling around naked!
Mel Welles, you might remember him as Mr. Mushnick in Roger Corman's Little Shop of Horrors, directs this somewhat interesting yet wholly twisted tale of Dr. Frankenstein's daughter carrying on her father's work after his death and creating a creature not for its intellectual ability or its likelihood to be/do good but rather for its sex appeal. You see, Tania Frankenstein, though a doctor and scientist in her own right, is concerned with really nothing more than satiating her primal desires for the stable boy and making some super sex slave by using his body with the excellent brain of a man she does not love. The story is tissue-thin here, and one gets what one might expect: lots of leering and suggestive comments(surprisingly most from the female lead), special effects that are not so special, acting that lacks depth of characterization, and not really much action or suspense. And while this film is almost barren in regards to good storytelling, Lady Frankenstein does oddly have some aspects which make it watchable - not highly watchable but watchable nonetheless. Italian actress Rosalba Neri AKA Sara Bay/Bey plays the Baron's daughter with some aplomb and lots and lots of sex appeal. She oozes desire and seduction quite well. Her performance is pretty one-dimensional, but she is quite lovely and plays over-the-top a little too well. She is also very open with her performance if you catch my drift. Poor Joseph Cotten, now regulated to European horror films for money, plays the father in a brief yet competent performance. He is the star attraction but gone before the film really kicks into a gear. As for the rest of the cast, Paul Muller is somewhat effective as Dr. Charles Marshall, the baron's assistant and an admirer of the daughter for some time. As crimes and missing persons begin to unfold in the village, policeman(I wasn't buying this)Mickey Hargitay starts to pump Tania for answers - despite what you might think not to her satisfaction. Where the movie really loses credibility is in the final third of the film where the suspect script, weak performances, and lackluster direction all head further South. The creature is revealed and looks quite ridiculous. The film ends somewhat abruptly with one of the hasty resolutions very common in the 1970s. While not nearly as bad and repulsive as some might want you to think, Lady Frankenstein is indeed a very flawed film with some perverse albeit intriguing overtones.
Low budget, but still creepy enough to hold your interest in another take off on the familiar Frankenstein story. This movie is also known as LADY FRANKENSTEIN. The alluring Tania Frankenstein(Sara Bay)fresh from medical school arrives at her father's estate to find that he is still up to his old tricks. Baron Frankenstein(Joseph Cotten)is murdered by his own creation and now his daughter decides to carry on the family tradition by creating herself a lover. This is closer to being an eerie melodrama than horror flick. Supporting cast features Mickey Hargitay, Paul Whiteman, Paul Muller and Herbert Fux. A rainy night could amplify the atmosphere. Still a fun watch.
Wow. Just wow. Never before have i seen a horror movie in which it seemed like a bad self insert fanfic that somebody wrote one day in 20 minutes. And then i happened to come upon "Lady Frankenstein". This movie takes everything you know about Frankenstein and turns it completely upside down... and not in a good way. If you've seen this movie you either stumbled across it on Italian TV, or you have the dubbed version on the 50 Chilling Classics Box set like i have, as number 24. And lets just say there's a reason why these movies are here. Because they're not very good. enough of that though, onto the movie.<br /><br />It starts out with Dr. Frankenstein trying to make the monster with his assistant who's....obviously not igor for some reason. His college graduate daughter (?) shows up and states how she just graduated with a medical degree, cause yeah. there were so many female doctors back then. So she states how she wants to help her father with his work and he says no. And then he makes the monster and it kills him. So she grieves for exactly 7 seconds and then makes up a story with the assistant how it was a burglar. The monster escapes and goes on a rampage. <br /><br />OK, i really can't believe they killed Dr. Frankenstein so early in the movie. he dies like...20 minutes in. and then his daughter takes over. which.... doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but sure. <br /><br />So Lady frankenstein decides the best way to kill the monster who's now rampaging....is to make ANOTHER monster! oh yes how i love her logic. so her new monster she gets the body by killing someone and putting the brain of the assistant in it...i know. just nod and go along with it. So the monsters meet and duke it out. I love how the assistant asks "why don't we just let the mobs kill it?" and she answers with "They wouldn't know how to kill it!" and in the end he kills it with an axe to the head. haha. oh yeah, nobody ELSE could have figured THAT one out. so in the end the brain switched new monster kills lady frankenstein. The End.<br /><br />This movie was just....weird. it was seriously like somebody wrote a self insert fanfic. There's no other way to describe this movie. there were some odd naked scenes too. like, this girl was having naked sex in the park with her boyfriend, the monster picks up the girl and the guy drives away. haha. nice guy. She then struggles a bit and dies from.....to be quite honest, i really don't know what she died from. But whatever. It's Lady Frankenstein. It doesn't have to make sense. <br /><br />This movie had a lot of those "Why?" moments to the point that i just gave up. Movies shouldn't do that, but for some reason i see that more than i probably should. <br /><br />So final word, it's not the worst movie i've seen on this pack, but it's a tad boring, and full of many many holes and random things. <br /><br />So Lady Frankenstein gets 3 Frankenstein porn scenes, out of 10
A true Gothic Horror Trash Classic!<br /><br />Uhm, actually, it's a horrible movie. Best thing about it: Rosalba Neri's erected naked nipples. Intensely suckable material.<br /><br />Oh sure, Rosalba Neri is one fine lady. Never even heard of her before this flick, but she is a damn fine looking lady. But honestly, it were her nipples that did it for me, in that very last scene, before the movie abruptly ends, all naked and erected... Total dream-nipples, man. Okay, sorry, getting a little carried away here...<br /><br />Basically, I got what I expected from LADY FRANKENSTEIN: It's a sleazy and horrible flick with a big stupid, ugly-looking Frankenstein monster and a couple of naked tits. And it's got a castle in it. So I wasn't really disappointed or anything. It just dragged too much in certain places (the first resurrection of the creature kept on going for ages, with daddy Frankenstein just experimenting, talking, trying some more). There was one fun, imbecilic homage to the original Frankenstein, though: Instead of throwing a little girl into a lake, here Mongoloid Franky picked up a naked chick and threw her in a river. Had me laughing.<br /><br />Some friends of mine raved just a tad bit too much about this flick, though. Had me maybe expecting a bit too much. But Rosalba's erected nipples sure were worth it... (Aw crap, I really need to stop mentioning her nipples). I think I'll just end this user-comment now.
Okay, anyone looking to see a great work of art should NOT watch this film. A sophisticated film connoisseur will no doubt be nauseated by the horrid production values and the sight of watching an excellent actor (Joseph Cotten) whoring himself out for a buck. Mr. Cotten must have either really needed the money or he was too senile to realize that the film was crap. The same phenomenon occurred with Dana Andrews, who late in his career appeared in the campy and awful FROZEN DEAD. I know Mr. Andrews was in the throes of alcoholism, but why did Cotten do this mess?!<br /><br />As for the plot, it's a reworking of the Frankenstein plot. The first half of the movie really looked as if they were doing a serious but seriously flawed version of the original Frankenstein story. Then, inexplicably, they introduced a daughter. This wasn't a bad thing,...until then, out of the blue, they decided to stop making a horror film but make a soft-core pornographic flick!! The change was dramatic and bizarre. It was almost as if they said "okay, Mr. Cotten is done with his scenes and has gone home,....now ladies,...STRIP!".<br /><br />The problem is that on every level, the film is just awful except for the monster's makeup. While not great, it is still pretty cool to see. But bad writing, acting and a budget of $17.46 conspired to make this a drab and awful flick--one so bad that tossing in some nudity for the pervs out there shouldn't be enough to entice anyone to see it.
Although I had previously watched this one some time ago on Italian TV, I found it to be a surprisingly tolerable potboiler this time round, buoyed by an international cast of familiar faces (including a bemused Joseph Cotten as the Baron) and, contrary to many another film of the Euro-Cult sub-genre, an incident-packed plot in place of lethargic pacing.<br /><br />The creature itself looks a bit dodgy and Cotten is a bit too old to be taken seriously as an eager scientist still dabbling in creating life-forms out of corpses (one would have thought that he would have made himself an army of them by now and not struggling at perfecting his technique still) but Ms. Neri does look good in and out of costume and reliable Herbert Fux probably comes off best as a lecherous grave-robber/blackmailer.
Really bad Italian horror movie, a sort of remake of Hammer infamous Frankenstein must be destroyed, this time with a lady Frankenstein taking over the business from father. A few nudes, several botched bits of dialogue, no tension at all. forgettable
Ok, if you like yer monster moovies sullen, stiff, starchy, and thunderously dull, but with lots of throttling, then head right for "Lady Frankenstein", a stagy, costumy Italian corpse-walker. Joseph Cotten("Citizen Kane")plays the crusty old Baron himself, and must have really needed to make that condo payment. Sexy Sarah Bay, who has played in cow-ntless European B-films, usually as Rosabla Neri, including "Hercules Against the Moon Men", plays his ambitious daughter, a surgeon in a ruffled prom dress. Cotten makes an ugly, big-headed monster (cud it really be that much effort to make a nice one??), who immediately throttles Cotten(who took his royalty check & ran), and wanders around throttling everyone in sight. Tania(Bay) decides to switch the brain of her lover(who is old and wrinkly) with the brain of a younger man (who is "beautiful", but stooopid), in order to make ANOTHER monster to throttle the first monster Cotten made, who is wandering around throttling people. Well, after much exposition, and some throttling, the 2 monsters throttle each other for a bit, Tania stabs the first monster in the back, and then has sex in the flaming ruins of her mansion with the second monster - only to have him throttle her! Doh! There is so much throttling going on that you almoost overlook the fact that the film is about as exciting as a dead carp, and mooves just as quickly. The Alpha Video version I saw for this review was heavily edited, and one wonders cow much nekkid people were chopped out, not that it would have improved the film much. Director von Theurmer previously helmed a variety of grade Z Euro-trash, including "Jungle Warriors", "Island of the Dead"(as Mel Wells), and "The Crucified Girls of San Ramon". The MooCow says avoid this corpse of a film, and find something that mooves at moore of a full...throttle. <br /><br />;=8)
This movie clearly has an agenda, which could be summed up like this: Never, never cross the border (either physical or metaphorical). Let's shun everything that's on the other side with a wall or a fence or something else, let's pretend all "gringos" are evil, satanic, or drug dealers. All that is outside one's country's border (and specially US borders) is dangerous, malevolent and people there will hate you, or envy you or try to steal you or something else. The "based on true events" is only a perverse tag that can be pinned on anything to give it some aura of credibility or, in this case, just to help pushing the film's ideology down some naïve throats out there. The perversity of the film lies in the fact that it reduces countries, people and all else into very black and white stereotyped categories: Mexicans into disgusting people, Mexican police into a bunch of corrupt cops, republicans into the right-wing morons, democrats into almost hippie humanists and so forth. Is there anything good about the film? I hardly think so, but may be you think differently.
I was wondering when someone would try turning that whole Matamoros mess into a goreporn pic. Anyroad, here's a few things I learned about Mexico from watching this film.<br /><br />~All Mexican Women Are Super Hot - Remember that little desert town in Unearthed? Yeah, well, this must be it's Mexican sister city. Don't even bother with the hookers, just put a few smooth moves on the hot bartender. She'll be just as hot as the prostitutes and probably doesn't have any kids as well! <br /><br />~Half of Mexico is controlled by insane Satan-worshiping Palo Mayombe cultists. ¡Ay, caramba! The other half, as everyone here in the U.S. knows, is run by drug dealers. Fortunately, this doesn't much interfere with the sex-tourisim trade and our ultra-low wage factories down there.<br /><br />~Mexican cops are useless. Don't go to them. Go to the nearest occult bookstore and ask the hot chick behind the counter what happened to your vanished friend. She'll be way more help than the cops.<br /><br />~When you're being gruesomely tortured by the aforementioned bloodthirsty cultists, don't go reciting the Psalms or any part of the Bible, really. You'll just mess up the mojo.
Uggh! Hanna-Barbera of the 60s and 70s! What lousy and unwatchable cartoons that were thrust upon us by these hacks! It's a shame really, as in the 1940s and 1950s "Hanna-Barbera" meant quality--because they produced so many wonderful Tom and Jerry cartoons. However, with the major cost-cutting efforts of the late 1950s, cartoons in general began to look pretty poor and budgets were slashed. In fact, William Hanna and Joseph Barbera were fired by MGM and replaced by a team of Czech animators who had never even seen the original cartoons! So, in the late 50s, the team was out of work and decided "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"--and began producing horrid little cartoons themselves--with horrible animation, backgrounds and writing.<br /><br />It's unfortunate, but the team's production of crappy cartoons worked too well---making them rich and the most successful producers of cartoons of the 60s and 70s. During this time, again and again, bad production values was their norm and a long list of VERY forgettable cartoons were created. In this case, the amazingly bad INCH HIGH PRIVATE EYE--a completely unfunny and stupid idea. If you want to know what the show was about, the title says it all.<br /><br />Rotten to the core and strong evidence that the production team had total contempt for us kids!
Some of the secondary actors try, really hard. And camera shots in the desert are quite lovely. Otherwise, this film is horrible.<br /><br />William Shatner's character, Harvey, is an amateur screenwriter. He's also a psychopath, a man who quite literally escapes from a mental institution. Is the point of this film that amateur screenwriters are psychopaths? Harvey will do anything to get his script read and turned into a movie, even if that means taking a film crew hostage. Do amateur screenwriters ... grovel? Maybe they do.<br /><br />The film's setup is way too long. We don't get to the point of the story until well into the second half. The first half darts and flits among assorted characters.<br /><br />"Shoot Or Be Shot" is touted as a comedy, but I found it totally not funny. Dialogue contains no subtext. None of the characters are believable as real people. They're all stick figures that perform "action" in a way that resembles cartoon characters. Indeed, the film is basically a cartoon for adults: silly, inane, birdbrained.<br /><br />I can understand why some actors are in this film. They need the money or the exposure. But what are insiders Shatner and Harry Hamlin doing here? Maybe Shatner wants more comedy roles. Is this the best he can do? Is Hamlin that desperate for money? He used to be a respected actor. What happened?<br /><br />Even though the story is supposed to be a satire, it comes across more as a put-down of amateur screenwriters. Maybe that wasn't the intent. But that's certainly how the film can be interpreted. As such, the script was very, very poorly written.
OK, a film about a film that takes a crack at Video movie making could be entertaining. Could be, should be, funny, edgy, even controversial, or at least interesting, and yet... This film is the bizzaro negative version of that. Hamlin was entertaining as a 'B' Film producer. Shatner played crazy yet likable, and had all the best lines. The rest of the characters were boring, predictable, boring, underdeveloped, boring and boring. The production value was lame. You'll actually see the boom come down in one scene. The sound was awful in some of the scenes. Hey I'm a big fan of Shatner's and of Hamlin now, but their talents are wasted here. At least the story had a clichéd ending.
This movie spends most of its time preaching that it is the script that makes the movie, but apparently there was no script when they shot this waste of time! The trailer makes this out to be a comedy, but the film can't decide if it wants to be a comedy, a drama, a romance or an action film. Press releases indicated that Shatner and Hamlin made this movie because they loved the script (what were they thinking?). If you like William Shatner (I do) see "Free Enterprise" instead.
While I am a long-time Shatner fan (since we used to watch Trek re-runs over the dinner hour in the early '70s), I cannot think of any possible reason why he wanted to do this film, whether for personal development or business reasons. Did he lose a bet?<br /><br />As a movie fan, I like to appreciate the bad films along with the great ones. But "Shoot or be Shot" doesn't have any flair or funny bits, unintentional or not.<br /><br />While unrated, there were no objectionable scenes (blink or you'll miss it nudity, cartoonish gunfire "violence" with the endless bullet gunfights), so one is led to believe that the producers merely wanted to save the fee required to get the MPAA to rate it. This will make its way to cable with barely 10 seconds edited out.<br /><br />Of the eight people that were in the theatre with us, four of them left mid-way, muttering statements like "This is stupid".<br /><br />Shatner plays an escaped mental patient who has been denied release because he views himself as a screenwriter. The examination board stamps his request "INSANE". He runs into a group of Z-grade moviemakers who "shoot on video because its 80% cheaper than film" and decides to force them to shoot his script at gunpoint. There are a few minor subplots that develop some of the secondary characters, but for the most part, that is the whole movie.<br /><br />If you want to spend 90 minutes on a Shatner "art" film, see "Free Enterprise" instead, it is a much better film.
"Graduation Day" was released in May 1981, during the height of the slasher film craze. Earlier that year, fans had been subjected to flicks like "My Bloody Valentine", "Just Before Dawn", "Friday the 13th Part 2", and "The Burning" and theaters still were expecting flicks such as "Halloween II", "The Prowler", and "Happy Birthday to Me". I have seen all of these films, and out of all the popular 1981 slashers "Graduation Day" is by far the worst.<br /><br />What "Graduation Day" amounts to is an exercise in poor, low-budget film-making with bad acting, bad writing, pointless characters, pointless scenes, unneeded nudity, cheesy dialogue, and an experiment in editing that didn't work so well. And who could forget the classic 80's disco music that plays throughout the film (the opening scene's music is only rivaled by the music that plays during a chase scene). However when renting a movie like this a person should be aware that those details will be in this film. So why isn't "Graduation Day" considered a classic like "Halloween", "Friday the 13th", "A Nightmare on Elm Street", "My Bloody Valentine", "The Burning", or "Prom Night"? Why do fans still seek those films but disregard this without care?<br /><br />Where slasher films need to succeed above all other areas is in the pacing. There is nothing worse than a slow moving slasher, and "Graduation Day" moves pretty slow. The most aggravating part is that there are plenty of opportunities to speed things up; there are numerous pointless characters who are introduced and who are never allowed the chance to be a suspect in the murders or be a victim. There's a sleazy teacher, a stressed principal, a cunning secretary, a dopey school security guard, a clueless detective, an alcoholic step father, a mindless grandmother, and a mom to an earlier victim still grieving. All of these characters could have a motive to killing or a reason to getting killed, but they are all wasted. The worst part is that the story still focuses on them, and at times designates entire scenes just to flesh out their character. But for what?<br /><br />What does amaze me about "Graduation Day" and its small fanbase is that people aren't more amazed by the death scenes. Fans go wild for death scenes like the raft massacre in "The Burning", the washing-machine death in "My Bloody Valentine", the kabob death in "Happy Birthday to Me", the upside down death in "Friday the 13th Part 3", and hot tub death in "Halloween II", and even the car hood death in "Madman". But where is the respect for some truly unique (even though cheesy) deaths in "Graduation Day". One victim gets impaled right through the jugular with a fencing sword, while another gets that sword thrown at them like a javelin. The best death includes spikes under a landing mat. Why aren't these deaths famous among the genre like the deaths in more popular slasher films?<br /><br />"Graduation Day" tries hard to be a great and unique film, but there is just an element of logic and pacing missing that really ruins the whole experience. Its not the worst of its kind (try checking out "Don't Go in the Woods... Alone") and there is a bit of suspense, plus it delivers just what fans are looking for (blood, gore, nudity, sex, and nostalgia) but "Graduation Day" will not be remembered as one of the all time greatest slasher films ever made. It's not a question of budget - almost all slashers have a low-budget - however it is a question of ideas, creativity, and craftsmanship. That's all any type of movie making is...<br /><br />Recommended for hardcore slasher fans. General horror fans might get a little bored, and people who don't have much interest in horror at all should steer clear. It's not the worst slasher film ever made, but its a long way from being the best.
"Graduation Day" is a result of the success of "Friday the 13th." Both of those films are about creative, bloody murders, rather than suspense. If you enjoy that type of film, I'd recommend "Graduation Day." If not, I wouldn't. There's nothing new here, just the same old killings.<br /><br />Even though I've given the film a 4 out of 10, I will say that it's not a repulsive film. It is watchable if your curious about it, just not creative.
High school female track star dies of a blood clot after winning a race with the community in an uproar against Coach George Michaels(Christopher George playing him as a major butt-head who is VERY demanding of the athletes under his watch). He'll be canned after school lets out providing the flick with his motive as a possible killer. Some twisted psychopath in sweats(much the same as what Michaels is often seen wearing), using a stop watch to time his executions, murders the members of the track team the dead female runner was a part of. Soon disturbed parents call Principal Guglione(Michael Pataki)wondering why their children didn't come home after a prom party. Inspector Halliday(Carmen Argenziano)begins snooping around campus at worried parents' request. Instantly a beleaguered Michaels becomes a prime suspect after the body of a gymnast is found in a locker. Ensign Anne(Patch Mackenzie)returned home from her base in Guam to receive her dead track sister's diploma and soon confronts the killer herself in the climactic chase scene. Kevin Badger(E Danny Murphy)is the weary boyfriend of the lost track star.<br /><br />Rather leisurely paced slasher spreads out the death sequences quite a bit trying to mix humor within and rather failing miserably. Low-quality kill sequences only increase the laughter such as a sword embedded within a football thrown into the stomach of a football player or a pair of garden shears used to behead a poor soul taking a leak. Linnea Quigley has an amusing role as horny student Dolores who sleeps with her music teacher for a higher grade and always chases after a male stud(the recipient of the garden shears before he has a chance to bed Dolores outside of the prom party). Vanna White has an early role here as a ditsy blonde who discovers the dead gymnast's body in the locker. Virgil Frye has a silly role as an inept officer.
I've got to say that I'm not a massive fan of Troma films. Granted, I've only seen three of them (or four including this one), but two (Blood Sucking Freaks and Mothers' Day) are widely reputed to be the best, which leads me to believe that all the others aren't worth seeing. That would certainly seem to be the case with Graduation Day, which is a Troma take on the over-popular eighties slasher. While the film is never particularly bad (given the type of film), it's never particularly good either; and by the end, all I could think about was 'why did I bother watching this?'. Anyway, the plot sees some girl die on a race track, and shortly thereafter; more people start dying. Naturally, there are a few possible suspects; but it's hard to really care about anything that happens. Of course, in slasher terms; it's the gore that is most important, and given Troma's track record where the red stuff is concerned, I was expecting buckets of it. There are some decent kill scenes, and some of them are gory; but it's never very shocking, which really just makes this another dreary slasher based on a celebratory event on the American calendar. It's worth noting that there's a small role in this film for sleaze queen Linnea Quigley, but the rest of the cast aren't worth mentioning. The direction, plot and its execution are all very mundane; and I will say that unless you're a big Troma fan or someone that wants to track down every slasher ever made; don't bother with this film.
A high school track star falls dead after winning a race; shortly after, her older sister (Patch Mackenzie) returns home in time to notice that all of her sister's track team members are disappearing. Who could the killer be? You may not care enough to want to find out.<br /><br />Crude, cheap, amateurish slasher is just about completely worthless, although top-billed Christopher George (as the nasty, hard-driving track coach) tries to give it a lift with an intense performance. Not even the gore is worth mentioning. The whole thing is lame from beginning to end, starting with opening the movie to a track meet montage set to disco music, and the casting of E.J. Peaker, once a co-star of the movie "Hello, Dolly" as a character named "Blondie"! That's right, "Blondie". This may mean that we aren't supposed to take the movie seriously, but in any case it's a shambles.<br /><br />It's the kind of routine slasher junk that makes the "Friday the 13th" movies look like works of art in comparison.<br /><br />The only point of interest may be wanting to see an early film appearance by Vanna White, of all people.<br /><br />2/10
Next stop on our journey through the calender-slasher scene is... oh yes, "Graduation Day"! All of those seniors, just brimming with possibility and ready to venture out into the real world and become adults. That is, however, IF they can make it TO graduation without having to tangle with the campus lunatic who's running around, gouging the life out of students with his fencing sword... Yeah, it all stems from a the high school track star who drops dead from a blood clot during a race and a year later, her older sister returns home from the Navy for Graduation. The track coach holds the blame and broods in his demoted position in shop-class while the girl's boyfriend still mourns her death a year later... All of these characters are prime candidates for "Serial Slasher of the Year" and you just have to sit through this movie until the end to find out who-done-it. "Graduation Day" is fun, though it isn't spell-bindingly original by any means and there aren't a whole lot of memorable demises, but there is enough going on to keep you mildly entertained. Like Linnea Quigley screwing the music teacher and getting busted with a joint, 30 year-old actors playing teenagers, and of course... Rollerdisco! Gotta love that crap! You can do a lot worse than "Graduation Day", kiddies...
Six months after high-school sprinter Laura dies during a race, a killer begins to murder the rest of the track team using a variety of sports equipment as weapons: that's the daft plot of early 80s slasher Graduation Day, a lacklustre addition to the genre that offers very little in the way of style, originality or decent gore.<br /><br />What it does deliver, however, are some stunningly awful musical interludes, a few familiar faces (including an early appearance from scream-queen Linnea Quigley), and a smattering of nudity (a prerequisite of any slasher movie!).<br /><br />So forget the death scenes—they're lame and rather bloodless—and instead enjoy the movie's more memorably crap elements: the rapid editing that can induce migraines and epileptic seizures; the roller disco, which is accompanied by a prolonged heavy rock song, ' Gangster Rock', as performed by the unforgettably awful Felony; an impromptu jamming session by the school's students; Christopher George hamming it up as chief red-herring Coach Michaels; and the cheesy music teacher who letches after his female students (who, for some reason, find him quite irresistible?!?!).<br /><br />Towards the end of the film, the action picks up a little, with the discovery of the slaughtered kids' bodies under the bleachers, and a quite twisted scene featuring Laura's corpse in her cap and gown, but it all comes way to late in the day to save this film from mediocrity.
After their star cross-country runner dies after a race, the members of a track team are stalked and killed by a mysterious masked murderer seeking vengeance for the girl's death.<br /><br />From the beginning of this film, it was quite obvious it was not going to be very good (at least as far as true quality goes). The 'dramatic' track race at the end of the introduction scene was one of the least believable sporting events I've ever seen in a film. It would seem that the winner of the race had never actually run before in her entire life. Not just run track. . . but, run at all. Ever. From there, we get a horribly unrealistic female Navy member who was breaking numerous appearance rules with her jewelry and make-up, not to mention the fact that her hair was hanging loose onto her collar while in uniform. Ridiculously awkward camera angles, pathetically done gore effects, and acting that ranged from frighteningly over-the-top to boringly under done (all in one actor, mind you) all help to make this film one of the most unintentionally hilarious horror films ever made. On the other hand, the writing wasn't all that terrible and the story was actually okay. But, the direction was horrible, made worse by offensively bad cinematography. The acting ranged from acceptable to just plain abysmal. Regardless of all the embarrassingly bad elements, however, there's something here, whether it be cheese or something else that I can't figure out, that makes the film extremely enjoyable and very worthy of a watch. Maybe it was just Vanna White.<br /><br />Obligatory Slasher Elements:<br /><br />- Violence/Gore: Death scenes were fun enough, but the gore was just awful: blood squirts from impossible angles, no actual gashes or wounds from knives, etc. But, this film has the first 'death by football' scene I've ever seen.<br /><br />- Sex/Nudity: There was a bit of nudity (I mean, Linnea Quigley is in it, after all), and some overly horny high schoolers, but nothing to excess.<br /><br />- Cool Killer(s): If you think leather gloves, stop watches, track suits, and fencing masks are cool, this one is for you.<br /><br />- Scares/Suspense: Not really any at all. There is one moment that takes place in the girls' locker room that I was preparing myself to be scared at. . . but, it just led to some typical stupidity and was ruined for me.<br /><br />- Mystery: A little, but if you can't figure out the killer's identity about 20 minutes into the film, then I'm not too sure about your powers of deduction.<br /><br />- Awkward Dance Scene: There's a great impromptu jam session ("Graduation Day Blues") with a guitar & harmonica that leads to some awesome 80s bopping. This is followed shortly by some kind of weird blend of 70s disco and 80s break dancing that was probably the scariest part of the film.<br /><br />Final verdict: 4/10. Don't take it too seriously and you might enjoy it (just like most everything else Troma touches).<br /><br />-AP3-
An interesting slasher film with multiple suspects.<br /><br />Includes typical girl flashing her breasts (Denise Cheshire) as she changes into her swimsuit, creepy suspect - any one of them could be doing the deed, expected breast baring to get a passing grade (Linnea Quigley), a very unusual forward pass, more bare breasts, a track and field event that will NOT be in the summer Olympics, and a ghoulish secret.<br /><br />It all comes to a crashing ending. No, there's more. Won't this guy die? I bet Anne (Patch Mackenzie) doesn't plan any more visits home anytime soon.<br /><br />If you like teen slasher films, can you possible be a pervert, even if all the actresses are over 18?
First and foremost I wish to aim a big & mean middle-finger towards the Troma DVD-distribution crew, who were actually stupid enough to reveal the identity of this movie's pivot killer on the back of the cover! The synopsis just randomly mentions who's the person responsible for the massacre on graduation day, for Christ's sake! I don't care how terrible or how predictable an 80's slasher can be; just mentioning who did it ruins the whole point! So, a word of advise in case you also purchase the Troma double-feature containing "Graduation Day" and "Nymphoid Barbarian in Dinosaur Hell", do not – repeat DO NOT – turn the box around and read the back! Watching the film is already a painful experience, but reading the back would really spoil everything.<br /><br />Now, as for the actual the actual movie… Oh boy! Personally I'm a fan of the cinematic 'work' of Herb Freed. Well actually, I don't really know whether I should admire him…or pity him! All Herb's films are pretty bad & amateurish, but at the same time you can tell his direction is spirited and full of good intentions! Unlike with "Haunts" and "Beyond Evil", he followed a contemporary popular genre trend and tried to cash in on the typical high-school slasher films. Just to offer a minimum of originality, all the victims in "Graduation Day" are promising athletes and members of the same track of coach George Michaels (awesome name! I guess Herb Freed is a fan of "Wham!"). During the opening credits, we witness how a young girl dramatically dies on the field, moments after winning a 30 seconds running race. The debate of whether or not her coach and fellow track team-members weren't pushing her physical limits too much is raised, but one particular individual goes one step further and begins to sadistically kill everyone he/she considers responsible for Laura's death. What a demented little movie! The script must be one of the most incoherent ones I ever beheld, with loads of red herrings and sub plots that go absolutely nowhere and death sequences that are almost too cheesy for words! There's a bloke impaled by a football attached to a javelin, others are decapitated with an absurdly big sword and the unluckiest bastard of them all even falls to his death on a disguised bed of spikes! Herb concentrates on the ingeniousness & the fast pacing of the killings so much that he totally forgets about the sub plots he introduced earlier in the film! For example, Laura's sister returns home from her military training and seemly starts an investigation regarding the circumstances of her death. Halfway through the movie, however, her character hardly appears in the movie anymore. Also, the girls' stepfather is referred to as a violent drunkard but this interesting given immediately gets ignored as well. Instead of carefully mounted suspense and misleading red herrings, we're served disco-dancing & roller-skating sequences and – of course – numerous images of unattractive 80's chicks stripping their tops off. Despite being really bad, "Graduation Day" could count on a respectable cast! Christopher George ("Grizzly", "City of the Living Dead") greatly stars as the demanding coach, Carmen Argenziano ("When a Stranger Calls", "The Accused") briefly appears as a police detective investigating the rising number of missing teenagers and Michael Pataki ("Dead & Buried", "Dracula's Dog") has a very amusing part as the school's stressed out principal. The teenage beauties on duty include Linnea Quigley and Vanna White. Heck, for some horror fans, the presence of these two ladies is enough reason already to count "Graduation Day" among the most quintessential slashers of the early 80's. It's a dumb film, but entertainment and chuckles are guaranteed!
This film is slow. This film is cheap. This film makes Friday the 13th look like a Best Picture nominee. The acting is crap. The special effects are crap. No one dies for like 40 minutes and all the people do is act badly. The only thing that saves it is it's ability to make you laugh at all the stupidity going on. The funniest part is watching the heroine "fight off" the attacker. She supposed to be trained but she fights like a 70 year old. They spend pointless scenes on people who don't die and no scenes on people who do die to the point where you don't even know why they are dieing. I love slashers but this is just crap.
Pretty lame and awful slasher about someone killing the members of a high school track team after their star runner dies during a meet.<br /><br />Christopher George gives a hilariously over-the-top performance as the track team's coach. I don't think ANYONE has ever taken track and field as seriously as Chris does here - not even in the Olympics. It's a typically divine CG performance, and if you are a fan of the man/the legend, you should run right out and grab a copy.<br /><br />But we watch slashers for the murders (you know it's true), not the performances, and Graduation Day fails to deliver on most counts (there is one really good kill). True horror only comes during a performance by the band "Felony". Never heard of 'em? Watch Graduation Day and find out why.
"Graduation Day" - <br /><br />i bought this movie this past week and waited for some time where i could kick back and relax and watch some "good" 80's slasher gems, i got this and "Xtro" to watch, never seen any of them. i just watched it and realized my outdoor speakers were on also. i only imagine what my neighbors thought when "Felony" came on to sing their one 10 minute hit? I'm sure it was loud and I'm sure they think I'm weird, with that and the chainsaw sound and screaming from other movies.<br /><br />this was a pretty sub par slasher movie, no suspense, no story, some cool deaths, almost seemed on the amateur side, i usually like movies like that, but it just didn't click with me, now i will watch "Xtro" for the 1st time and have a margarita!<br /><br />DJ Eric Austin TX
For me, reviewing movies is an extension of my love of film--and of horror cinema, in particular. The reviews I've written thus far have been for films that I love, respect, and admire, and I have eagerly rewarded them with glowing accolades and perfect-ten ratings. A life-long horror movie fan, it is a tremendous pleasure for me to be able to share with others my thoughts and ideas about great horror films, and to, hopefully, have a hand in exposing people to movies they may not otherwise seek out. I only recently began reviewing films for the IMDB, and it was my initial intention to concentrate only on my own personal favorites, examining those which I believe are of substance and of lasting value to the horror genre. However, the existence of films like "Graduation Day" is, without pun, a thorn in my side. Completely devoid of any merit whatsoever, this 1981 hodgepodge of unformed ideas is amateurishly directed, poorly acted, and, in every sense, an unmitigated embarrassment to horror cinema. During the brief couple of years before and after this movie's release, we saw the appearance of domestic (and Canadian) films such as "Halloween II," "Prom Night," "Terror Train," "Madman," "My Bloody Valentine," "The Prowler," "Just Before Dawn," "Final Exam," and "Hell Night," among others. These films, though of varying degrees of quality, clearly strove to achieve something in terms of story line, plotting, acting, direction, and overall tone. Not every movie released during this bountiful season of the Slasher Era would be of the artistic merit or commercial success of the original "Halloween" or "Friday the 13th," but these films were all well-made and clearly contributed to the ongoing development of horror cinema. "Graduation Day," an abysmal farce about a masked killer stalking members of a high school track team, was directed by Herb Freed, whom one can only hope will never again attempt to besmirch the horror genre with such a travesty. The task of creating worthwhile horror films is best left to those who have a genuine love and respect for the genre. This movie fails miserably on every possible level, not the least of which are dreadfully wooden performances, dime-store special effects, an irritating musical score, and, most of all, a story lacking even the slightest hint of tension or suspense. A pointless exercise in how to waste film, "Graduation Day" is an utter disgrace to horror cinema.
This movie was sheer, slow, plodding torture. Not being a fan of slasher films, and preferring classic horror, I may not be the best judge. Slasher fans may enjoy this as an early entry into the slasher genre. I really would like the 90 minutes I spent watching this back. The only reasons to watch this are 1) a young Vanna White (pre Wheel of Fortune) who has about 3 minutes of total screen time. 2) an early role by scream queen Linnea Quigley (with nudity), and legendary beauty EJ Peaker as the school secretary, who added a bit of humor and sex appeal. Otherwise, an 80's band called Felony makes an appearance, which while interesting, drags on WAY too long. Just like the movie.....I had to keep checking how much time was left and couldn't wait to "Graduate" to a better film.
The title for this review about sums up how I feel about this movie. I can't imagine what audience there would be for this thing, if not for the die-hard fan of 1980s slasher films who simply has to see -everything- from that era. Otherwise, don't even waste your time on this.<br /><br />The story is similar to most films of its type: something awful happens to one of the characters in the opening scene, which inspires a bloodthirsty killer to go on a murderous rampage. Been there, done that. Truth be told, none of these '80s slashers were known for their originality, so I can't see the point in harping on the film simply for this.<br /><br />But where the film fails is in its suspense and murder sequences. I've seen some pretty scary slasher movies from the 1980s that had far lower budgets than this. This one just fails to create any real suspense. The director throws in some nice camera angles and some semi-professional directorial touches here and there, but they mean nothing if you're not frightened. The gore is pretty tame as well, so anyone who watches these things with the intention of seeing some cool 1980s makeup effects will be sadly disappointed.<br /><br />The movie manages to clunk along rather dully. Honestly, the key ingredient to almost any slasher is the tight pacing--you have to keep things moving along swiftly and keep the murder set pieces staged at regular intervals, because, let's face it, we don't watch these things for the great characterization and stellar plots. But the pacing, whether due to the script or the editor, is all off. The murders are spaced out at odd intervals, leaving us with some long-winded scenes (no doubt meant to build "character") that serve only to bore you and leave you praying for the next kill (which, as I've said, usually isn't executed all that well anyway).<br /><br />As for the killer, don't expect anything original or even remotely frightening. He (or she?) wears a jogging suit, a fencing mask, and his (or her?) primary weapon is a sword. I bet the writer just wet himself over thinking he came up with an original, "cool" murder weapon, but the idea just comes off as impractical and silly. There's also not much emphasis placed on the "whodunnit' nature of the film, as if they either forgot or don't care to place any red herrings in the mix to throw us off.<br /><br />I have the sense that the people behind this were trying to make something decent and respectable, and at times, it shows their intentions were probably a bit more genuine in regards to making a quality film as opposed to countless other knockoff slashers from the era. But alas, the attempt fails for the most part. There is, however, some pretty good acting (at least, for this type of film). There is attempt at characterization, but none of it ends up meaning anything in the end, so...what a waste. Here, all it manages to do is bog down the plot and make the murder sequences feel like they can't come soon enough.<br /><br />In the end, if you're really into these old '80s slashers, by all means, check it out, if only to say you've seen it. There's a completest in all of us. But don't expect to be blown away or anything. What we have here is a very mildly entertaining slasher movie that leaves no real impression at all.
After high school Track & Field athelete, Laura Remstead, dies of natural causes during a race (an event that is shown multiple times, in slow-motion none-the-less), an unknown killer is murdering all the people who were on that same aforementioned team close to Graduation Day (hence the name)in this laughably inept slasher flick.It brings absolutely nothing new (or even good) to the slasher table, instead opting to merely unleash the most god-awful song I've heard in quite some time with ' Gangster Rock' being played in a roller-disco party that went on far too long.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Denise Cheshire & Linnea Quigley get topless <br /><br />My Grade: D-
OK.. at the time of writing, 65 people voted for this movie, bringing it to a 5 out of 10 rating. My guess is that only the film crew voted. So I'm here to bring some justice to it all.<br /><br />Never has a movie provoked the audience's intelligence more than this one. Given, I laughed out loud quite a bit - but the movie/story absolutely didn't want me to.<br /><br />I've seen a LOT of bad movies. A LOT. But man, this one blows them all away.<br /><br />Speaking '96 computers, ridiculous acting, and wheelchair chases - and we have young Tarantinos who can't get their ideas financed. Yup, life's a cruel joke.
I couldn't help but laugh when I saw what the public could be made to think was email back in 1996. Apparently email is an interactive discussion (similar to a chat) with lame voice synthesis reading every comment out loud. And some of the other "tech" aspects are also laugh-out-loud funny. I'd swear the "high tech" communications centre she has actually has a few Commodore 64 monitors in it. Almost like watching the movie Hackers nowadays, I guess.<br /><br />Despite the fact that for most of the movie the lead actress carries off the illusion of being disabled, the final part of the movie has an unexplained use of her legs which somehow I can't ignore. I mean, why include something so stupid? <br /><br />Anyway, to sum up: the plot is pretty predictable, the acting bad, the killer quite guessable. But it can be amusing in a Mystery Science Theatre 3000 kind of way I guess.
This movie tries its darndest to capture that classic bad canadian movie feel:<br /><br />"quirky" and obnoxious characters (a few); "quirky" town with "quirky" folk; a "quirky" coffee shop or restaurant (coffee shop here); lots of shots of canadian stuff for postcards (ocean stuff here); lots of mention of "gotta get out of this town"; downright booooring.<br /><br />And it succeeds on all counts.<br /><br />Something to note, though. I couldn't figure out whether this movie was just trying to be post-Northern Exposure "quirky" comedy or something surreal like a drug-induced or psychotic hallucination. The editing of this movie jumped around nonsensically from one unrelated thing to another with zero pacing or motivation. Not to mention the fact that half the time we didn't even know where we were jumping. Take for instance, the very opening shots, of yelling teens in a car. Who are they and what the h--- did they have to do with anything? And this sub - uh - plot (use that word plot loosely) concering kids that seem to span generations. I don't think they actually do, but the editing makes it look like they materialize from flashback, all of a sudden, to current time. Huh? What did I miss?<br /><br />Avoid. Unless for laughs. Or you want to try and trip out on the inept editing.
This movie tries its darndest to capture that classic bad canadian movie feel:<br /><br />"quirky" and obnoxious characters (a few); "quirky" town with "quirky" folk; a "quirky" coffee shop or restaurant (coffee shop here); lots of shots of canadian stuff for postcards (ocean stuff here); lots of mention of "gotta get out of this town"; downright booooring.<br /><br />And it succeeds on all counts.<br /><br />Something to note, though. I couldn't figure out whether this movie was just trying to be post-Northern Exposure "quirky" comedy or something surreal like a drug-induced or psychotic hallucination. The editing of this movie jumped around nonsensically from one unrelated thing to another with zero pacing or motivation. Not to mention the fact that half the time we didn't even know where we were jumping. Take for instance, the very opening shots, of yelling teens in a car. Who are they and what the h--- did they have to do with anything? And this sub - uh - plot (use that word plot loosely) concering kids that seem to span generations. I don't think they actually do, but the editing makes it look like they materialize from flashback, all of a sudden, to current time. Huh? What did I miss?<br /><br />Avoid. Unless for laughs. Or you want to try and trip out on the inept editing.
Ohhhh MAN this movie is awful!!<br /><br />This kind of tripe is what gives Canadian Cinema a bad name, or no name. Well, to be fair, I guess most Canadian movies give Canadian Cinema a bad name.<br /><br />Next to the characters (there's a couple that are the most grating in movie history), the most annoying thing is the editing and pace of the movie. It's like a drunken snail making its way to die.<br /><br />Thank goodness Melanie Doane is nice to look at. She's the only thing that kept me watching. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie kept interrupting.<br /><br />Good for a laugh, though, if you're having a bad Canadian Movie night, though.<br /><br />Did I mention Melanie Doane? The only good point (too bad they didn't have the sense to keep the camera on her for more than a blink at a time).<br /><br />Another addition in the Canadian Hall of Stinking Movies.
The TV announcer who introduced this late one Saturday night said it should have won Oscars. Quite a statement for a film I'd never heard of...though why I should have taken any notice of a TV announcer, I don't know. In the event, said announcer was talking tripe.<br /><br />It's a dreary, miserable movie that leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I couldn't get on with Hoskins' awful Burr-ming-gum accent. Can't see any advantage in it being set in the Midland's anyway. <br /><br />Unresolved threads abound...and I wouldn't normally mind this but half of them make no sense. And what about when Hoskins' says he'll pick Felicia up from outside her B&B although she never told him where exactly she was staying??? Or her buying into the funeral that clearly never took place (and where was she during those days???) Clumbsy and ill-thought through bits of business if you ask me.<br /><br />It's a thriller without thrills. It's full of pretentious bits of business. It's depressing... <br /><br />Didn't like it. Thought it was rubbish. Wouldn't recommend it. 'Nuff said.
You just need to see this as a poorly executed anti abortion propaganda and you will realize just how bad it really is. The main message of this movie is that even the sickest of persons can't commit an abortion. If you ask that's not a long way away from blowing up abortion clinics. So this guy wants to kill some poor girl but he has to convince her to do an abortion first. What a load of crap. And the worst part is that he has an convincing argument (bringing a child into a loveless environment), but that is supposed to be dismissed because he's a freak anyway. And the part with the bible pushers...first they throw this girl out just because she explains someone stole her money (that rule must be in the bible somewhere) and then on the end they are some sort of angel like deus ex machina delivering the killer from evil by harassing him on his front yard. Come on. Other downpoints include a very confusing scenario (and I don't mean in a good way)...so this guy is just some psycho why? Because his mother fed his some liver once? And I don't know about the rest of you but he seemed like the nicest person in the world throughout the whole move! even though he was a wearing girlie clothes, stealing money and taping girls in his car. If you forget the idiot story, this movie has a really great cinematography and Bob Hoskins was really great, and it has one of those funny little English cars in it. If it was actually about some psycho killer I'd give it a 7 at least.
I found this an awfully disappointing experience! But I have appended a better option of similar style at the foot of this entry.<br /><br />This "Felicia's Journey" is intriguing. It has drama. But it is full of stereo-types! <br /><br />So it ONLY serves judgemental temperaments without concern for truer justice & fairness & truth, beyond black 'n' white judgements that fit 30-second ads of "NEWS" that dot our multimedia experiences everyday, especially news bulletins, true or misleading in such depictions! <br /><br />It is SO EXAGGERATED, it reminds me of the fairytale of "Little Red Ridinghood"! Consider the innocent young girl with no identification crossing borders questioned by a guard but freed without any evidence to venture on in search of her 'Romeo' who didn't give her an address VERSUS the pathetically inept lack of substance in the raspy voice of the 'helping hand' befriending her with his unlikely story fabricated by the layer! <br /><br />It seems to suit the directors & management team that no-one has faith or prays to God, even in their times of desperation! <br /><br />So in these early settings, it orchestrates & tells much of what is to come! A nightmare journey that betrays the essence of substance without fairytale resolution, without truth or integrity or credibility! ...Then one twist & it's all over. What a disappointment! If you want to see a MUCH superior movie that investigates similar themes with MUCH more credibility, with much more powerful insight, watch the 1983 Paul Cox/Norman Kaye "Man of Flowers" movie!!! <br /><br />Unlike here, you will NOT be disappointed!
Definition of documentary: A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration. The key word here is informative. I love They Might Be Giants, and barely learned a thing about them.<br /><br />The interviews with all the celebrities were pretty much worthless. I don't care what Sarah Vowel thinks of anybody and Syd Straw was downright irritating. And is listening to people recite TMBG lyrics like they were supposed to be funny/interesting? It was neither. I think that was the problem: the movie spends time discussing TMBG's love for coffee. So what?? Millions of people love coffee. Was the presentation of the material funny? No! There were hints that both men are married, yet it was never discussed. And what about the solo material they did? What motivated them to do it? These type of questions are not addressed nor answered.<br /><br />I could go on and on with the negatives. I did find the segment on Dial-a-Song very interesting. If you want to learn about They Might Be Giants, just buy a few CD's and listen. Seriously. This movie is a gigantic disappointment. I can't believe so many folks gave it a 10. Incredible.
This episode was boring and was not even in the realm of horror, so far this season Masters of Horror has produced one really good episode...The Damned Thing...it is still early, I have faith that the episodes will get better. I admit that the vampire episode was okay but lacked a solid storyline. The episode about the couple catching the serial killer started out boring, but the last fifteen minutes was really good. Though, I am just plain out disappointed with the lack of originality and horror that the first season's episodes possessed. Please, save this season John Carpenter! I have faith that Pro-Life will redeem the entire lackluster season so far.<br /><br />"You're an angry little elf!"
Masters Horror: Sounds Like is set in Seattle where Larry Pearce works as the manager of a computer software call center, having lost his 6 year old son Michael (Nicholas Elia) to a rare heart condition he finds that he has ultra sensitive hearing. Larry hears everything in ten fold, from people typing on computer keyboards, people whispering across the room, people tapping their foot on the floor, dripping taps & eventually even people breathing become unbearable for Larry as he is constantly bombarded with mind piercing noise. Eventually Larry decides he's had enough & if he can't stop the noises themselves then maybe he can stop himself hearing them with the help of a large meat clever...<br /><br />This Canadian American co-production was episode 4 from season 2 of the generally hit-and-miss Masters of Horror TV series, written & directed by Brad Anderson I thought Sounds Like was a definite miss. The script was based on a short story by Mike O'Driscoll & I am genuinely surprised by the amount of very positive comments it has here on the IMDb at the present time, for a start I would be very hard pressed to even describe this as a horror film & it feels more like some bizarre sentimental drama until the last 5 minutes when Howard Berger, Gregory Nicotero & the boys at KNB effects actually get to do some work. Larry has this strange unexplained ability to amplify sound & noises from the start so this episode ends up like 55 minutes of exactly the same sort of repetitive build up which leads up to a gory ending although it comes to late to save the episode. This is pretty slow going & while it's well written isn't this meant to be horror themed & I'm slightly confused as to who this is meant to appeal to?<br /><br />Director Anderson does OK but he just keeps repeating the same things over & over again, until the last 5 minutes there isn't a single drop of blood in the entire thing. There's no horror, there's no scares or tension & absolutely no atmosphere.<br /><br />Technically this is very well made, has good production values & doesn't look like a cheap made-for-TV program. The acting is very good actually & it's shame the story is somewhat limited.<br /><br />Sounds Like is one of the very worst Masters of Horror episodes, a lot of people seem to like it & that's fine but it's definitely not for me. Another Masters of Horror, another disappointment.
I agree with most of the critics above. More yet, I was shocked by the presentation of the love scenes with the homosexual couple. Why? because while they --the director, the producers?-- didn't have any compulsion whatsoever in presenting the different heterosexual couples in the most passionate embraces including nudity and super close-ups of French kissing and all sorts of nude contortions in bed, completely unnecessary in their length and in the story, when the moment came to show the same experiences with the homosexual couple, they only dare to go as far as an excruciatingly painful hug, almost among scholarly giggles, with two very nervous actors. So, in reality, the makers of this film found homosexuality to be UNNATURAL, as one of the characters says in some scene. What a difference with the Spanish cinema!! I remember being at the projection of an Almodovar film in an Italian cinema in Rome, and being completely amazed at the total lack of reaction from the Italian audience, they were afraid to have a reaction!! when in Spain people would fall down from their seats laughing at all the risquè situations and fabulous Almodovar wit and flair. Obviously in Italy there are dark forces in its history that impedes the free manifestation of some very normal and natural emotions. Pity. I must add that I was quite surprised to find that this same comment was censured by another correspondent. It's very bad and dangerous when we cannot be allowed by the narrowness of others to express our opinions about certain matters. Where is freedom of speech? I don't know if that censor will approve of the changes I was forced to make in this comment, and I hope he won't receive the same treatment from some other narrow minded judge. Pity again.
Not only the title, the film itself is a long one too, or so it seems. That's because of the outdated style of acting and the pathetic way its hackneyed themes are visualised. Bad marriages of the sisters and a homo-brother who dares not speak the name of his sexual preference - Italy 2003, you don't believe it (and you don't have to).
Ru Paul plays a secret agent called Starrbooty. She teams up with another drag queen agent to fight the evil Annaka Manners (Candis Cayne)and get her kidnapped niece back...or something like that. Seriously-- I had trouble concentrating on the plot! The movie is seemingly directed by somebody with severe ADD--quick camera cuts nonstop that make it impossible to focus on anything. The dialogue is incomprehensible at times and when you can hear it you wish it remained incomprehensible! The acting is actually pretty OK except for Ru Paul who overacts to an embarrassing degree. Also the film is full of disgusting bathroom humor that is just revolting and not even remotely funny. After 30 minutes I had to leave because I was bored, sick and just couldn't stand it anymore. I pride myself on sitting through anything but this went WAY beyond my limits! People are comparing this to the early work of John Waters. I disagree. Waters' work is sick but good--this is just sick. Avoid.
Okay,. so I went into this loving RuPaul. I still love him/her but think a little less. This is one gross movie that shows a lot of male genitalia. THis is a spoof of the 1970s black exploitation films and is purposefully done badly. The only fun part about it for me is that all of the voices have been looped with those of drag queens, even the voices of real women. This is over an the top, nonstop, laugh your rear end off it is so stupid, badly made movie. I would never watch this again but I do appreciate what the film makers were trying to do. There is no rating on this but it would be R or even NC-17. RuPaul has done much better work.
What a great cast and what a pathetic attempt at a film. The script is full of holes from beginning to end. Incoherent, not cohesive...utterly ridiculous. One of the most talented/beautiful actresses in the world (and I'm talking about Nastassja Kinski) is without a single memorable line here. Worse, she supposedly dyes her hair halfway thru the movie, but it's obvious she's just wearing a cheap black wig bought from a drag queen costume shop. The best moments are given to a character actor and his dog in the apartment building that lead actor Peter Coyote lives in. Fairuza Balk is photographed poorly, to boot. She looks like an overweight freshman who's pigged out at too many all-you-can-eat-student-cafeteria-buffets. I was so looking forward to this film. I WANTED to like it, but I think I'd rather watch Nastassja read the phone book, with her OWN hair.
In "Red Letters", Coyote is at the vortex of as a college professor who writes to a female prison inmate and gets more than he bargained for. There are two reasons to watch this flick...Kinski is one and Piven the other although it's difficult for their sparks to shine in such a complete directorial disaster. Everything is wrong with "Red Letters"...convoluted, lousy screenplay, camera, editing, and most of all acting which is subpar for Coyote, etc. Battersby has taken a story with potential and turned it into a seriously flawed and amateurish flick not worth the time.
It's a shame, really, that the script of this film had more holes than you could shake a stick at (mixed metaphor intentional), because Kinski and Coyote - both supremely talented performers who are capable of great subtlety and nuance - have wonderful chemistry together, and the always-provocative Fairuza Balk didn't hurt the mix either. Jeremy Piven would have been great here too, if his character (and all the other supporting characters) hadn't been written as a plot device. As for the main proceedings, the writers just didn't know how to create the suitable guilty-or-innocent tension for Kinski's character -- instead they gave us confusion, contradiction and, by the finale, downright let's-hope-the-viewers-don't-notice claptrap.
I bought this film as I thought the cast was decent and I like Jennifer Rubin & Patsy Kensit.<br /><br />First off let me say the acting is not of a high standard. Stephen Baldwin makes his character look almost retarded at times and at other times morose. Patsy Kensit is so-so but not too convincing in some scenes, and the supposed poetry she spouts in a particular scene in her Hotel Room is utterly meaningless rubbish. Ms Kensit is certainly very suggestive and sexy here but ultimately I think Jennifer Rubin is by far the best in this film. Ms Rubins Character is at first innocent, then sexy, as she plays Stephen Baldwin's Character (Travis)for a fool. The supporting cast includes Adam Baldwin(no relation to his more famous namesakes) & M.Emmet Walsh who has appeared in many films, also I noticed Art Evans who was one of John Mclane's allies in Die Hard 2. The Movie is decent and there are a few nude scenes with Rubin & Kensit, a bit of action but this is certainly not a fast moving or intelligent thriller. There is a particular scene when they are in the car about to commit a crime and Stephen Balwin's character is wearing sunglasses and when you see him again, the area around his eyes etc is painted black instead, then the sunglasses reappear later when they are leaving the crime scene and police are in pursuit, a very obvious error in editing. <br /><br />If you are fans of either of the ladies or either Baldwin then you may find something to like here, but others should steer clear. This is a reasonable but unremarkable thriller and not really worth more than a couple of dollars if you want it.
A truly masterful piece of filmmaking. It managed to put me to sleep and to boggle my mind. So boring that it induces sleep and yet so ludicrous that it made me wonder how stuff like this gets made. Avoid at all costs. That is, unless you like taking invisible cranial punishment, in which case I highly recommend it.
Oops. I hired this because I thought it was Bitter harvest (1981), which was recommended. After the appearance of the appalling Patsy Kensit, I checked the recommendation and discovered my mistake. OK, It's watchable, because the main characters are very sexy, but the acting is awful. Stephen Baldwin looks morose the whole time, which is understandable, considering his co-star. Is Patsy competing with Liz Hurley for the title of the most obviously useless actor on the screen?
Enormous suspension of disbelief is required where Will's "genius" is concerned. Not just in math--he is also very well read in economic history, able to out-shrink several shrinks, etc etc. No, no, no. I don't buy it. While they're at it, they might as well have him wearing a big "S" on his chest, flying faster than a jet plane and stopping bullets.<br /><br />Among other problems...real genius (shelving for the moment the problem of what it really is, and whether it deserves such mindless homage) doesn't simply appear /ex nihilo/. It isn't ever so multi-faceted. And it is very rarely appreciated by contemporaries.<br /><br />Better to have made Will a basketball prodigy. Except that Damon's too short.
What is about mathematical geniuses that get the critics juices flowing ? A BEAUTIFUL MIND wasn`t up to much in my opinion ( FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING deserved the Oscar that year ) while GOOD WILL HUNTING had several awards lavished on it undeservedly<br /><br />First off is the script . When I attended film school I was told GOOD WILL HUNTING is a very good example on how not to start a script and the tutor was right . This movie lacks any type of opening hook and for the most part it`s very very slow . If you wrote an unsolicited script like this the script reader would have given up on it by page 15<br /><br />Structure aside the idea of a member of the American underclass being some sort of intellectual god doesn`t really ring true . Ask yourself this : If he`s the cleverst character in the movie how come he`s gone through his short life without anyone noticing his abilities ? Not one single teacher from his childhood noticed his gift ? Highly unlikely as is the fact he`s read so much mind expanding litrature . And if Will`s so clever how come he`s so oblivous of what happens to young good looking boys in American prisons ?<br /><br />But it`s the casting that let much of the film down . You want to get a couple of actors to play rough tough Irish gang members ? Let`s get Matt Damon and Ben Affleck which is like getting Russell Crowe to play a pacifist or Charles Bronson to play a liberal do gooder . I failed to be convinced by the foul mouthed Damon and Affleck as they strutted about smacking people in the chops and couldn`t help thinking that even though they wrote the script the parts should have been awarded to different actors , after all Billy Bob Thornton has written screenplays for films he hasn`t been cast in and the same criteria should have been applied here<br /><br />There are some good points to the movie . Robin Williams is excellent as the man who tries to show Will his potential and also very good is Stellan Skarsgard who is quite simply one of the greatest character actors to stepped foot outside of Europe and despite my previous criticism of the script there is quite a moving piece of dialogue at the park as Williams character explains to Will what he has seen in life<br /><br />But I`ve got to repeat that there`s less plus points than negatives to this movie and I`ve got to agree with the people who`ve said GOOD WILL HUNTING is boring and unconvincing
I'm not surprised that so many people fell for this one. When I was watching this movie, a couple viewers next to me sobbed whenever you're "supposed" to sob -- or at least feel "touched". Like when Hunting said he didn't love the girl. Like when Robin Williams' character (sorry I forgot his role's name) was telling Hunting repeatedly "It's not your fault" (oh Lord, just thinking of that scene gives me the goosebumps). I couldn't have cared less for what would happen to the characters. Many people sob for Hollywood manufactured characters they can't even relate to (think Titanic; Yuck!)... but it really only made me cringe and want to get out of the theatre. I guess I simply refuse to be psychically and emotionally manipulated by all this.<br /><br />Folks it's not me who's being condescending ... those characters are, and for no good reason because they're unreal. Worse yet, nothing is new or surprising. Even Robin Williams' character is all cliched.<br /><br />I gave it 1 out of 10. It's probably not that bad; it's just quite mediocre... but so many people went to the other extreme and gave it a 10 so I figured a single balancing vote won't hurt.
So many fans, so little to show for it. I know, I know, these words are gonna find me in a great minority. A lot of people really liked Good Will Hunting. But seriously please, great film making, not even close, and let's put the blame where it belongs... in the writing.<br /><br />Now, I know they won an oscar for it, and boy did they look good emoting on the screen. But Good Will Hunting is an ABC after school special with lots of cursing in it, and a slightly bigger budget.<br /><br />What this movie does show, is the brilliance of Harvey Weinstein and Miramax Pictures. Mr. Weinstein could take manure, feed it to you, and make you believe your eating bon bons. And that's exactly what the studio did with the film. They created such high faluttin buzz around it, that people believed, and wanted to believe it so much --- that they saw brilliance where there was none.<br /><br />Now, I know some people think it's a great movie, I don't think it's a horribly bad movie, I like to compare it to more in the middle of the road movies, and also to some great Made for TV movies (although, not HBO films, HBO films are unusually better than Good Will Hunting would ever be.) It's just a nice, little film, with some good performances, Robin Williams was not good in it, they just gave him the oscar cause the'd been itching to do it for a while. And of course, the Miramax public relations machine secured Ben and Matt their screenwriting oscar... but come one people... there's better movies out there thatn GWH.
Sappy.<br /><br />I liked how they went to the "Haaavaad baaa" to quote books at each other to impress the ugliest girl there.<br /><br />Probably the janitor at my school is a genius too but is waiting to land that big construction job.<br /><br />Just because you keep your nose to the grindstone is no reason to try to cut a steak with it. "Do you like apples?"<br /><br />the guy nods or something.<br /><br />"Well, how'd ya like DEM APPLES!" Wow, that IS genius.<br /><br />Duh, Minnie Driver would give her number to anybody. Robin Williams can't paint and keeps the good books on the top shelf. And there's a professor who always wears a priest scarf for no reason.
When Hollywood is trying to grasp what an "intelligent person" is like, they fail so miserably, finding it hard putting words in the mouth of the purported "genius".<br /><br />Right, any genius walks around trying to rub in his superiority at every instance. Sure, they hang out in bars and pick fights – it's not like they are (generalizing wildly) autistic nerds who never have a tan.<br /><br />Plus, if you are a genius you know all about Math and History and Politics and of course you're constantly up to date with current events and a thorough analysis of them. Coz these things, like, all go together n stuff, y'know?<br /><br />Plus, you walk around with a smirk all the time. You are just a smug son of a you-know-what, that's how it is, y'all. <br /><br />And of course you smoke, like someone who never smoked before, but you smoke coz it's like cool n stuff, y'know. And you're different. That is understood.<br /><br />And of course you can fight – you're a bully. A bully who finds time to study 10.000 books whenever he doesn't lift weights. And whenever he doesn't smoke or drink beer because he follows a strict health regimen.<br /><br />And you date a 30-something college student – Minnie Driver. Well, I won't even comment Matt Damon. Team America has hit the nail on the head already.<br /><br />This movie is a daydream of a Beavis & Butthead type student (in other words 95% of them): "Yeah, that's what I would be like if I was a genius." But stupid people and stupid authors in this case cannot imagine the lives of geniuses.
I sat down through 2 hours of pure boredom. I look here on IMDB, even though it is not high on the list, it is in the top 250. I was a little surpised. Even though, yes. I am very impressed with Robin and Matt's acting abilities, they still didn't save the movie. I'm not sure what I really didn't like about the movie. Maybe it's because I dispise math. Maybe I'm not too much for dreary talking for 2 hours. Even though I loved "American Beauty", but that was it. I just want my 2 hours back. It was a big waste of my time. If I'm missing something in this movie, please E-mail me. I am curious why this is on the top 250. And don't say "Because it was a good movie".<br /><br />2/10
This movie is so predictable when you know the modern American dream: Do nothing, be a loser and then suddenly... whoah! You're a genius and an obnoxious one and the world is kissing the ground you are walking on.<br /><br />And surprisingly all the other smart people are losers. They don't know anything and are bitter when our wonderkid solves problems so easily. And what kind of problems? They are so difficult but still these professors can analyse the results in less than 10 seconds.<br /><br />Every movie has something good in it anyway and Robin Williams is it in this one.
I'm racking my brain, but I can't seem to think of another movie quite like The Valley of the Gwangi. A Western with dinosaurs? What could be more natural? You gotta wonder why John Ford and/or John Wayne never tried it! <br /><br />The plot – While searching for a mythical miniature horse for her circus, TJ Breckenridge (Gila Golan), Tuck Kirby (James Franciscus), and the rest of the cast/characters enter a strange, lost valley. There they find not only the miniature horse, but some other, more fearsome creatures as well. Dinosaurs rule this place. Now wouldn't that be an attraction at TJ's circus – a caged T-Rex? <br /><br />It's not that I find The Valley of the Gwangi a bad movie, I just don't seem to have enjoyed it as much as many others who have posted comments on the movie. There are some parts that I actually find almost unwatchable. For the first half of the movie, there just doesn't seem to be much going on. I wasn't necessarily bored, but I did want something to happen. Plodding would be an adjective I would use. To top it off, the movie features a very contrived love story. It feels forced as if the writers decided that the male and female leads just had to get together. But The Valley of the Gwangi isn't a total waste. There are moments I really enjoyed. Who doesn't get a kick out of the scenes of the cowboys on horseback trying to lasso a T-Rex. You just don't see stuff like that every day. Ray Harryhausen's creatures are impressive. There are some really cool shots of Harryhausen's miniatures interacting with people and horses. It might not represent the best of his work, but the effects are very nice. Still, at least in my mind these good moments aren't enough to overcome the negatives. As much as I hate to do it, I've got to rate The Valley of the Gwangi a 4/10.
Oh what the heck, I'll reveal the secret: this movie stinks!<br /><br />Yeah there are some nifty dinosaur effects that, for their time, were probably really exciting to watch. Now they don't cut it, but they're not terrible. They're just good enough to tolerate without being able to laugh at it. So they just sit there, and i sit watching this, not laughing, not excited, just, well, bored. It stinks!<br /><br />If I can exercise my Jay Sherman for a moment, the film really does. The box promises cowboys versus dinosaurs, and in very generic sense it delivers. Guys dressed like cowboys fight a couple of big dinosaurs. But really these guys are a bunch of sissies, and the hero is a loser (more on this later) and the dinosaurs are hardly intimidating. The plot is a yawner, and there isn't much technically wrong with it that's there to laugh at. It's all just gray and bland.<br /><br />After some dreadful night cinematography (Filmed in one and a half colors I called it), we get the plot which involves some people, doing stuff. That was what I caught. Oh and they are at the turn of the century in Mexico, so they at least dress like cowboys even if they don't act like it.<br /><br />So a bunch of these people, who I think were human, they go in the desert, and they stumble on these dinosaurs (after they find a miniature horse...I don't know, let's just move on). Then the movie degrades into a really pathetic King Kong ripoff in the final act. At that point I had lost the will to even keep my eyes at television level, and I drifted in and out of consciousness.<br /><br />The "hero" is played by the guy from Beneath the Planet of the Apes who essentially played Charlton Heston's part when Heston decided he didn't want to be in the sequel. He was picked cause, shock o' shocks, he looks exactly like Heston. That's about all he has going for him. I was really upset when he was the hero of the film cause all he does is glower, snear, bag the chick in the film (Who's named T.J...unfortunately she's not a prostitute or finally the origin of the name would have been revealed). Meanwhile his friend kills all the dinosaurs, saves the day numerous times, and what does he get for it? Not recognition, no nothing! And he dies, sacrificing himself for his friends! They don't even wait up for him while they escape!<br /><br />Boring, long, slowly paced, with little to enjoy until the film decides to carbon copy King Kong's script onto it's own, it's best to avoid this film unless you enjoy pain on the scale of dropping an anvil on your eyeball.
I generally loved the Carry on movies but this one is actually pretty awful. There are very few laughs because the whole thing is so forced.There is plenty of talent on the screen and some come off better than others. June Whitfield, Kenneth Williams, Hatti Jaques and Peter Butterworth are fine but Barbara Windsor looks tired and Sid James is just tacky. Joan Sims comes off well but in the case of the usually wonderful Charles Hawtrey its just plain sad. When you think of the sad end to his career the movie is almost too depressing to watch. The homophobia of the movie is nasty and its a very unpleasant experience. The set looks cheap and unlike other movies in the series the movie is very clearly set in England. The sea side looks cold and there is little attempt to create any illusions here. It looks like a cheap production. You will be surprised at how miserable you become watching this especially if you loved the series.
I have always liked the Carry On films, with their double-meaning sexual innuendo dialogue and moments of slapstick comedy, but I can see why the critics give this one two stars. Basically, many British people are gathering on a coach to go on a Spanish holiday to an island called Elsbels to the Palace Hotel. What they didn't know is that it is not completely built, plus they have to share bathrooms with their neighbours, they have crap draws, and many other complications and complaints that the owner Pepe (Peter Butterworth, putting on quite an amusing accent, e.g. peace sounding like the bad P word). Starring Sid James as Vic Flange, Kenneth Williams as Stuart Farquhar, Charles Hawtrey as Eustace Tuttle, Joan Sims as Cora Flange, Barbara Windsor as Sadie Tomkins, Kenneth Connor as Stanley Blunt, an apparently crap (I personally can't remember who he is) Jimmy Logan as Bert Conway, June Whitfield as Evelyn Blunt, Hattie Jacques as Floella (a ridiculous hag character, not as memorable as her usual Matron), Bernard Bresslaw as Brother Bernard, Sally Geeson as Lily, Carol Hawkins as Marge, Jack Douglas as Harry and Patsy Rowlands as Miss Dobbs. I admit it is not great, but there are just enough dialogue gags, and of course Babs in the shower, and going to to her bum with that iconic whistle, and later a rapid rip off of her bra. Okay!
Sorry I couldn't disagree more ,with the last comments . frankly I thought this was worse than Carry on Columbus , enough said . Last film for THE usually brilliant Charles Hartrey who looked out of place as the humour had move on to the Highly witty level of on the buses, films of which were being made at the same time ,were frankly funnier .Barbara Windsor was embarrassing,a character like one of your mums flirty friends who still thinks she's eighteen , on holiday with some non entity of a Scotsman , Rab c Nesbit he ain't. The series miraculously trundled on with duffers like Carry on Behind ,and Carry on England . Carry on Dick wasn't bad , but really with this film the end of the series was nigh , a pity because up to this film I cant think of bad film before this?
This season lacked real oomf, but, as far as setting up stories to get us in the mood again, season 6 is without highlights and spontaneity.<br /><br />This season lacked its usual Sopranos style, and if you cut out all the garbage that was filled in each and every episode this season, you probably would have had 6 episodes worth of real stories.<br /><br />Side stories like Pauly's mom, is she or isn't she? was boring and had no purpose other than further exploration of his character. I would have like to have seen Bobby express his anger more at Pauly in that carnival episode, but to no avail.<br /><br />And that's just it! These side stories had no real purpose, and lack finishing. If they are going to finish off these stories in the next 6 episodes, I'd rather not watch it, because, its not really worth seeing.<br /><br />Disappointing is to nice a word to say about this season and its finale.
As I sat watching this episode I kept glancing at the clock waiting for something to happen. As the hour wound down I thought they were really going to give us a big pop at the end, and then - nothing. The whole family is huddled around the Christmas tree like something from the Hallmark Channel then, fade to black.<br /><br />Perhaps one of the poorest season finales I've ever seen. Nothing at all to drum up any excitement for next season. The only thing thrown out as any sort of incentive to watch the next season was the ambiguous nugget offered up by Agent Harris while pawing a sub sandwich that the guys in New York were looking to get one of the guys in New Jersey. Wow, really? I would never expect something like that from mobsters, I'm on the edge of my seat.<br /><br />It almost seems like they're trying to get everyone to lose interest. They start more plot lines that end up just disappearing than any show I've ever seen. They tease and hint but rarely deliver any more.<br /><br />What's with the Arabs that hang out at the Bing? They keep throwing them in front of us and magically, nothing happens.<br /><br />Paulie knee caps some kid after Tony promised his mother that nothing would happen to her son and, poof, gone in the wind.<br /><br />And how many more meandering drug montages with Christopher are we going to have to endure? Please, have him get arrested or overdose or something interesting.<br /><br />This was one of the few shows that I used to looked forward to watching but now, forgetta-bout it.
I picked up this movie and was horrified to find out that the movie is based on a rape of a little girl that the parents knowingly take their daughter to. My first thoughts were that I have never been more ashamed to be an Indian as well as a Hindu. I found this movie to be down right appalling. Please don't waste your time. As for the music, there are at most 2 horrible songs and the film used is cheap. The beautiful scenes are not what India is known for. I just hope that I have shed some light on how disgusting this movie really is. Yes it may highlight how evil people in power especially when it comes to religion may be, but to sit down and watch almost 2 hours of this movie can make almost anyone gag. If your up for a good Indian movie watch something by director Mira Nair.
This movie reeks. No money, no acting, no nothing. I caught this on on the 3am late show movie tonight and felt compelled to comment on it. This movie has nothing to recommend it. I can't believe it ever got released to US television! Nobody in this movie can act their way out of a paperbag. The lame attempts at comedy fall flat on their face, the special effects consist of a worm-like handpuppet "monster"... I can't even begin to tell you how rock-bottom this production is. It looks like it cost maybe $50,000 to shoot, but only because it is on 16mm, and that is probably a generous estimate! Anyway, I lost interest rapidly and had to settle for watching "Matlock" reruns instead of finishing it. That's how BAD this movie is!!!
Revisiting old films that you thought were average isn't necessarily a good thing. They sometimes get worse. Championed by the Fangoria camp (in Gorezone they labeled it "the scariest film since Texas CHAINSAW"…um, no), LUTHER THE GEEK inexplicably developed a cult following as an "intense" horror picture. Actually, it is just an average stalk and slash…uh, bite film that briefly sets itself aside from the pack by featuring a killer who clucks like a chicken. Yes, clucks like a chicken. To the filmmaker's credit, at least they didn't make the killer sound like a duck a la THE NEW YORK RIPPER. That would just be silly.<br /><br />Narrative logic is completely abandoned in LUTHER THE GEEK. I'm not saying that slasher films are abound with reason, but at least in HALLOWEEN Michael Myers escaped. Luther is actually paroled after a lengthy scene where people argue he is reformed, even though he clucks like a chicken and has razor dentures (which he apparently fashioned in prison). It is the kind of film where a couple sees a bashed in door and the girl dismisses it by saying, "Oh, my mom must have forgotten her keys. She forgets a lot of things since my dad died." The kind of film where the hysterical mother runs into a cop looking for Luther and tells him, "The killer is in my house!" So what does he do? He grabs her and literally drags her back to the house and says, "Just show me where he is and I'll do the rest." Why not call back up? <br /><br />It is too bad the film is filled with such horrible action and dialogue because the Luther character is actually pretty interesting. Most of the credit goes to Ed Terry, a dead ringer for Tom Noonan in MANHUNTER, who gives the clucking Luther a genuine air of menace. In the hands of a right director, LUTHER THE GEEK could be on the same level as SONNY BOY or SANTA SANGRE and be a true cinematic oddity. But Albright is not that director and merely places the fascinating character of Luther in tedious slasher trappings.
Luther the Geek (1990) is a dull horror movie and is really bad even by Troma's standards!! It's about a freak who bites the heads off chickens, and kills people by biting their necks out, and he actually thinks he's a chicken himself!!!!! Luther gets released from prison after 25 yrs because apparentely he's been a "model" prisoner and deserves another chance in life (which is VERY hard to believe after you see how he acts and treats people throughout the movie).<br /><br />After killing an elderly lady in a supermarket car park, he manages to sneak into a womans car, and proceeds to torture her, her daughter and the daughters boyfriend at their family home in the country.<br /><br />Then we get treated to a long winded and boring movie, with awful acting all the way through, before a useless cop turns up to try and kill Luther once and for all!! Oh and the film has a ridiculous and laughable ending too!!! I love low budget horror movies and i think "The Toxic Avenger" is an all time classic, but i'm afraid Luther the Geek is just boring, illogical and dull, not much in the way of gore too, just afew bloody neck bitings and thats about it! 3/10
I consider myself a big fan of low budget horror movies. The more bizarre and imaginative the film, the more blood and guts, the better, and i really fall in love with cheaply done flicks if they are done right. Luther starts out well enough... his origin at the circus, a creepy run at a supermarket, an attack of an old lady, and his disturbing occupation of a woman's farmhouse all set the mood nicely. A hot sex/ shower scene ensues when the woman's daughter and daughter's boyfriend arrives at the house. When Luther steals the boyfriends motorbike the movie takes a turn for the worse. <br /><br />The characters are presented with numerous opportunities to: A) save their loved ones, B) get the police to help, C) escape, or (most importantly) D) KILL LUTHER!!! I can't feel empathy or fear for characters that are too stupid to help themselves. Chareters snub chances to arm themselves with guns and knives while Luther is away. A policeman eventually arrives and is equally ineffective in stopping Luther, even though at one point he has a rifle squarely aimed at Luther while Luther clucks and does his rendition of the polish chicken dance. I found myself futilely coaching my television: "Make sure he's dead!", "Hes gone, get out of there!", or "Just kill him already!" <br /><br />Luther is a bloodthirsty savage, but he is hardly Hannibal Lecter. If you can't outsmart this egghead, you deserve what's coming to you. By halfway through the movie you'll be so lethargic to the fates of the half-wits that only morbid curiosity will sustain you to last to the mildly amusing ending. This movie was noted as one of Fangoria's 101 greatest movies you've never seen... well Fangoria is half-right in the case of Luther the Geek.
This movie has been a classic in my part of the country because it was filmed in my own small town. I now have many friends who are guards at Dixon Correctional, and I myself worked for 3 yrs at the SuperAmerica store next to the Krogers store the old lady was at. However, this is still the dumbest movie ever made, destined to be introduced by Gilbert Godfreid or Rhonda Shearer, if it hasn't been already. A bit of trivia, Illinois doesn't even have parole hearings, and Dixon Prison is a medium security facility housing burglars and vending machine vandals. The classic clucking/seduction scene is perhaps the most amusing piece of writing I've ever seen, especially with the suspenseful build-up
This is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen! The plot revolves around a man named Luther who wears metal dentures, bites people on the neck, and walks around clucking like a chicken without the flapping of the arms. He also thinks he's a chicken.<br /><br />Sounds bizarre right? Well, to me, the more bizarre and weird the person is, the better. The more gore, the better and so on.<br /><br />The movie starts out with the board deciding if they want to release this maniac from their institution. They mention that he has created some dentures in prison that he used to bite people on the neck. He also clucks like a chicken and THINKS he's a chicken.<br /><br />If I had a patient like this, there is no way I would release him.<br /><br />First, Luther heads to the supermarket and attacks an old woman on a bench and walks away. Then, he sneaks in the back seat of a woman's car and she drives all the way to her home.<br /><br />While at the house, Luther ties up the woman to the bed. When the woman's daughter and her daughter's boyfriend come home, Luther hides.<br /><br />Later through the film, a cop comes to the front door and asks about the mother. You can clearly see the daughter is scared out of her mind and crying but the officer keeps asking if everything is okay. She replies that everything is fine. The officer finally gets in his car and leaves. If I saw a woman constantly crying and looking scared, I would want to at least get inside the house to investigate a little.<br /><br />The ending is stupid as well. While the woman in in the barn, she starts clucking and gets Luther excited so he starts walking around flapping his arms and clucking like a maniac. She finally shoots him and just sits there for a minute before finally clucking some more.<br /><br />Then the credits roll.<br /><br />This is one of the STUPIDEST movies I have ever seen! NOTHING happens at the woman's house! NOTHING!<br /><br />I sometimes like campy films but this one really bored me.<br /><br />I give this movie 1 star out of 10. Good idea, bad direction!
This movie was so awful that I can't even describe it. I was amazed that I even sat through this pile of trash. I couldn't believe that a movie like this was even thought of. It was a about a serial killer that clucks like a chicken. He doesn't just cluck a couple of times, he clucks non-stop through out the whole movie. He even flaps his arms like a chicken which is even stupider than anything I have ever seen. I couldn't believe this came out in 1990. I thought it came out in the early '80's or something. Then the daughter isn't very smart either because she was protecting the geek or man chicken. The end just gets worse and is the worse ending I have ever seen. This movie is just chicken s**t. I was laughing more than I was scared and I strongly suggest going out and getting a bucket of fried chicken instead of seeing this movie.
This is an odd movie. On the surface it's no different to many other d-grade gore movies but in at least a few ways it stands out. Firstly, the main killer character is really weird. How the heck a guy who only ever clucks like a chicken got paroled is totally beyond me. What was that female parole board member thinking: "he's totally reformed and rehabilitated". He clucks! Another problem with Luther the Geek is the script/direction for the women. The daughter is so pathetic and seemingly stupid that if she was mine I'ld slap her. In attempting to untie her mother off the bed she struggles with knots and just doesn't seem to think, "I'll get scissors, or a knife". Later on, in a similar attempt to untie her mother she wanders down stairs and starts searching in a box of scrap-booking stuff for some scissors, eventually she gets a knife. By the way, this is after the killer has obviously left in the car and just returned. Bizarre. On the plus side the daughter did get her kit off for the shower scene, so that was nice, although again unusual. It seems that in many of these d-grade gore movies they happily show throats being bitten open with gushing blood but the sight of a female breast is somehow too strong for the audience. In general, it worked but it was annoying and nasty, although the bare breasts made up for some of that.
This isn't a very good movie, but it is easily the best Troma Studios film I have ever viewed. Lloyd Kaufman - the "brains" behind Troma - isn't concerned with a good plot or even making a moderately entertaining film. His chief concern is making something bizarre. And his definition of bizarre oftentimes mirrors my definition of terrible cinema.<br /><br />In this film we have the titled character Luther - whose favorite pastime isn't Baseball, but biting the heads off of chickens - receiving his release from lockup. The board has deemed him rehabilitated despite the fact that he doesn't speak - he merely clucks like a chicken - and has a set of razorblade dentures at his disposal. Of course, once Luther is set free, he goes about causing mayhem, first at a grocery store and later at a farm house.<br /><br />VIOLENCE: $$$$$ (Lots of violence in this oftentimes tasteless flick. Luther sinks his razorblade chompers into a poor elderly lady waiting at a bus stop and then spends the rest of the film terrorizing the mother and daughter at the farmhouse).<br /><br />NUDITY: $$$$$ (Stacy Haiduk delivers some noteworthy skin in his picture, as the former Lois Lane (I can't recall which Superman edition she was from) gives us a shower scene followed by a romp in bed with her boyfriend - a guy who just doesn't have any chemistry with Ms. Haiduk. The extended shower scene footage in the DVD extras gives the viewer quite a bit more of Stacy. She is quite something).<br /><br />STORY: $ (Forgettaboutit!!!! Whitey Styles' screenplay may just be the worst ever written. The way in which Luther is released from the asylum completely throws all credibility out the window. His dialogue is something that a pre-schooler might write and the actions he writes for his characters border on the absurd. It's as if Styles spent ten years without human contact and completely forgot how people react in certain situations).<br /><br />ACTING: $$ (The film belongs to Edward Terry who actually does a decent job as the Geek. He is quite menacing in a stupid barnyard fashion. Joan Roth as the mother does a super job in support but Haiduk and her boyfriend's lack of chemistry made their roles awkward at best).
I'd chose either over this film. This film has been in my "must see" list for a while because people talked about it being "disturbing" and also the VHS box contains lots and lots of quotes from people saying how "amazing" it is, or how "as close as you can get to texas chainsaw massacre" and lines like that. But, sorry folks, I was disappointed big time. The idea is interesting, but the script is SO underdeveloped that each character becomes a mistaken creation of evolution and people do indeed to the dumbest films in the film.<br /><br />That, in turn, takes away any credibility that the plot may have otherwise had. I couldn't believe how unnecessarily loooooong some "where is he, let's find him" sequences were. A few gory moments to please the gore fan, but they are so few that by the time we get to them there's no point. If Luther's a geek, then the filmmakers must really be down on the food chain.
Shot in my former home town by a couple of college kids, this movie centers around some freak named "luther". Luther, recently paroled (revealed to us by an arguing parole board in one of the most laughably scenes of all time), runs amuck at the local Kroger grocery by eating an old woman's neck with his metal teeth.<br /><br />Luther runs to farm where he eats a guy, steals a car, ties up an old woman, and gets chased, and gets killed. Oh, and the chick from the SUPERBOY tv show gets naked.
I have no qualms with how the movie does NOT capture New Jersey (like Zach, I'm from there). Fine. Whatever. I lived there WAY long enough. I don't need to see a movie that captures the Garden State.<br /><br />What I do have qualms with is how bad this movie is. Let's make it easy on you. We'll use some bullet-points. There are probably some spoilers that follow. (Not that you wouldn't be able to predict the movie ANYWAY): <br /><br />-The music placement was maddeningly forced and patronizing. Example: Large: "What are you listening to?" Sam: "The Shins. Ever heard of 'em?" "No." "Listen to this song - it will change your life!" And then they proceed to play that Shins song that was in a McDonalds commercial. (Don't you love when the characters in a movie blatantly tell you - the viewer - how to react to something? I love that! Hey, they should have put subtitles during various scenes instructing us to "chuckle," "Say 'aaaaaw'" "cry" "feel inspired" etc.) <br /><br />-The scenes were SO BAD. SO Cliché. SO MELODRAMATIC. Example: The entire movie. But no, really, example: They're in the rainy quarry by the ark. Large runs up - in the pouring rain (oh he's SO TORMENTED!) - on top of a piece of heavy machinery and SCREAMS! Oh how moving! But wait! Here comes Sam and his buddy (the annoying drug addict), and they ALL SCREAM!!!! BUT WAIT!!!! OH MY GOD!!!! Here it comes! THEY KISS!!! LONG, DEEP!!!! IN THE RAIN!!!!!!!! <br /><br />-The dialogue was SO BAD. SO Cliché. SO MELODRAMATIC. Example. They're leaving the ark and Sam says something like, "Hey. Good luck exploring the infinite abyss." And the guy says back, "You, too." Oh...Oh my! I never realized...could it be? Oh my God it is! Large's life is like...ohmigod...AN INFINITE ABYSS!!!! Another example: Large and Sam in the airport. Sam says something like, "Is this goodbye?" Not enough for ya? OK, Largeman says something like, "This isn't a period at the end of the sentence... it's an ellipses." And guess what happens when he tries to walk down the jetway and go back to his life in LA. You know, what? Don't guess. It's a waste of your time.<br /><br />-It's a Grade Z Wes Anderson rip-off movie. When not busy being melodramatic and cliché, the movie spends lots of times with crazy-kooky-off-kilter characters. Hey, Sam's brother... thank you Zach Braff for including him, because it really made the movie so much more textured. Also ripping off Anderson: the dialogue. Scene: Sam and Largeman are in a bar. In walks friends, "Vagina!" says one of them. Then they see him sitting with Sam, so one of the friends says, "Sorry I said vagina." And Sam says, "It's OK." <br /><br />-Inventive cinematography that's not inventive but pointless and annoying. Give me a break with the speed-up/slow down of film. Again, Wes Anderson does it effectively in his movies. And it was done well in "Donnie Darko." But, really, it was pointless. Wow. A crazy party where people are taking X and snorting coke. Better roll out all the tricks! <br /><br />-You can count the good moments on one hand (even if you're missing fingers). That's what makes it even WORSE. The retarded quarterback thing...well, that was good! The little thing he (largeman) says as they're about to enter the quarry (something about huffing turpentine)...that was good! Oh, wait, that's about it.<br /><br />You know, Zach Braff is, I think, always a little too cute. But, he's likable. But, man, this is forced, pretentious, melodramatic (have you gotten that yet?), overly cute, overly everything. This movie is terrible. Apparently, I'm outnumbered, as this waste of time is currently rated an 8.0.<br /><br />Please, though, if you're looking for something truly poignant and subtle and unique DO. NOT. RENT. THIS. MOVIE.
Garden State must rate amongst the most contrived and pretentious films of all time. The plot is a simple one, involving a young man returning home after his mother's death and discovering love. But really, the plot isn't important. What is important to Zach Braff - writer, director, and star – is that he is able to hang from the plot all the necessary accoutrements of an 'indie' or 'arty' film. We therefore are presented with endless cute and quirky characters and scenes that don't exist for reasons of plot or character development, but simply to give some artistic credibility to the film (à la Wes Anderson - or so Braff hopes). Unfortunately and somewhat astonishingly, Braff has not only fooled many on IMDb, but also some critics who really ought to have known better.<br /><br />Of course, Braff's gratuitous use of the quirky alone does not make Garden State a bad film. What really makes Garden State a stinker is Braff's script. He simply does not have the writing skills to carry this film off, and the dialogue and characterisation are abysmal. Braff often has to resort to blunt devises and symbolism to achieve what he can't achieve through the writing. For example, the numbness of the Braff character is shown to us by his indifference to an impending plane crash (this can't be worked into the plot, and so has to take place in a dream!), later he is shown fighting back against his circumstances by screaming into a bottomless abyss (life = a bottomless abyss, very clever Mr Braff). Those two scenes must rank amongst the most ludicrous and contrived ever seen on a cinema screen.<br /><br />On the plus side, the acting is passable despite the lack of material for the cast to work with (by which I mean a script), and I do admire Natalie Portman for her efforts as the love interest - a character so badly written and implausible that she is little more than a mindless doll that Braff moulds into his fantasy woman.<br /><br />It apparently took Braff 3 years to write the script for Garden State (3 years to write a script this bad - he really is inept!). Hopefully therefore it will be some time before he makes another film.
OK, so I gotta start this review by saying i was really expecting to see this flick for months, i use to watch its trailer and think it looked really cool....little did i know that the only cool thing about this cliché-driven turd was precisely its trailer.<br /><br />At the cinema, i watched the first 3 frames of this movie and though to myself "no way this movie is so bad, don't be an idiot, give it a chance! you've only seen 3 minutes" while i rolled my eyes in shame. All those frames showed....get this....a guy with a poker face (because he feels nothing....that's deep) looking straight at the camera in the middle of the frame. In the second or third one, he stays awake in his perfectly made bed (because he sleeps like a dead guy...cause he feels nothing), and his father calls, and says "John Garden State, is me, your father"....oh come on! I've seen a little more than a couple flicks to hate clichés such as the "is me, your (insert parent)", how the hell am I supposed to react??: "Oh, he has a tough relationship with him"....uh....yeah, thats exactly how I'm supposed to react....<br /><br />Man, this is a crappy movie...<br /><br />Anywho, as the flick goes on, we learn things about his friends, of which everyone is a ALTERNATIVE EMO WALKING INDIE MOVIE CLICHÉ. For example, one of his acquaintances is a guy who works in a medieval themed restaurant who speaks Klingon (Bizarre characters + Pop culture = Your standard American indie flick). Then we know Natalie Portman's character, who is a copy of Alissa Jones (from a movie that kicks GS's butt, Chasing Amy), Amelie and that chick from Eternal Sunshine... you know, smart, original (not really), cultured, beautiful and...in touch with her sexuality (!). She listens some '70s band named The Shins and gives...what? they're from this damn decade?? Then why do they sound like that?? Oh, they have no personality, OK.....so she hands her CD player to John Garden State and he looks at her with a dumb face(you know, love). As the song played on, i heard its lyrics saying "you will love this soundtrack, it is so alternative and cool, you will love this movie, it will define you and your generation even if it is a ideological photocopy of The Breakfast Club, Ghost World and every other smart teen movie from the last 20 years, you will drink coffee and read books you don't understand"...<br /><br />By now, really unoriginal sh!t starts to happen....he doesn't care if he dies in a airplane crash (because he is already dead....and he feels nothing) and he lets us know in a scene idea taken straight out of an unknown movie called FIGHT CLUB!!!, it is a cool scene but, oh, did I mentioned it appeared in the trailer?.......then in some party, and just when you think this guy is really deep and asexual he makes out with a bimbo....so oh, he's not such a emotional zombie after all....clever character development or just a sh!tty movie?......well, lets analyze that scene, it features him sitting motionless in a couch with everyone else moving in really fast speed......scene idea taken straight out of an unknown movie called REQUIEM FROM A DREAM!......so just a sh!tty, sh!tty movie...<br /><br />Then they meet more eccentric (cliché, actually) characters, and finally, one that lives next to a big hole in the ground. John Garden State says some crap like "good luck exploring your infinite abyss" and the guy says....and by now i wanted to really choke myself, "You too"..............and then we are gently told that Neo is Jesus....oh no, wait, thats from another dumb, obvious, repetitive, overestimated and cliché piece of crap.<br /><br />Finally (Finally!!!!), some more crap happens and he enters the big warehouse showdown to defuse the bombs: he has to talk to his dad who he hasn't seen in the last zillion years cause he (FINALLY COOL SPOILERS) killed his own mom....(you see, he killed his mom, so he's also dead.......and feels nothing.....that's deep). Now I really expected just clever and moving Magnolia-like dialogue between a father and a son......but this is Garden State, so this is pretty much it: -John Garden State: Father, I forgive you, you didn't know what you were doing when you drugged me for a zillion years, but I know you love me -Crappy director's dad: No!!! No!!!! I'm gonna say some simple stuff cause I'm not really so deep of a character anyway, like this whole movie actually, so no!!!! -John Garden State: No dad, we must get along cause we are equal individuals.....i mean different individuals -Crappy director's dad: No!!!!! No!!!!............OK, you convinced me. <br /><br />And he gets the girl (cause he's no longer dead, you know) and the movie ends and i go and eat a piece of chicken that makes my day....<br /><br />This made-for-trailer movie sucks
Garden State was a mediocre film at best. The film seems more like a compilation of thoughts that the writer (Zach Braff) had, rather than a cohesive story. The disjointed plot may have been more engaging if it weren't interspersed with pointless scenes that were nothing more than "quirky." Coincidentally these scenes are often the ones that are relayed in conversation (Zack walking past faucets that turn on as he passes, crazy under-cranked party scene, shouting over a gorge, the list goes on).<br /><br />The main character is flat, disengaging, and ultimately unlikable, which is exhibited most in the scene where he talks to his father, selfishly ignoring his fathers problems, including a recently deceased wife, and droning on about his own "What am I to do with my life?" problem.<br /><br />The film ends when Andrew (Zach Braff) decides not to go back to LA because he cannot tear himself from the love of his life, Sam (Natalie Portman) whom he has known for 2 days. Which can only lead me to the conclusion that the message of the film is that love at first sight cures occupational dilemmas... Sure you could interpret it as a misappropriation of priorities, but if that is the case it could have been done better. Much better.<br /><br />This film does not know what it wants to be. A drama, a comedy, a teenage-wasteland film, or a gamut of other things. I say this not as a single-genre oriented person, but as a person who loves multi-genre pieces such as those mastered by Stanley Kubrick. The reason I feel it does not work for Garden State is because rather than blending the genres together, it jumps around; one scene is one genre, the next another, and back again, so on.<br /><br />I have heard many people tell me to cut Zach Braff some slack, after all it was his first feature film and he debuted as Director, Writer, and lead actor. Impressive as it was a first film, I should think that with as much money as he has, he could do better. There have been much better first-time feature film directors (Michel Gondry "Human Nature", David Gordon Green "George Washington"). Maybe if he stuck to writing OR directing OR acting it would have been better. Zach Braff is a talented performer, maybe his second attempt won't be so tedious and disjointed.
Wave after wave of directionless nausea - this film wants and at first promises to be quirky and original but is in fact obvious, solipsistic and mired in cliché-driven dialogue which builds to a crecendo of awfulness and cheese by the end. Throughout the film we meet supposedly off the wall characters, who are actually very dull, and just don't quite work and who clunk through the horrific screenplay like men in armour suits, driving jeeps through mansion houses and spouting preppy existential obviousness accompanied by the whinings of Coldplay. The film has occasional funny episodes, often no funnier than a dog playing with its genitals, which happened twice (an index of the slapstick, rudimentary humour of the film in general) but by the end, the film falls into an 'infinite abyss' of complete detritus and the director's egocentric ramblings which made me want to gouge my eyes out. Watch this film at your peril.
"Garden State" is another of these "indie"-type pictures that supposedly skimp on production values for the sake of giving the audience some real true-to-life human drama. Oddly enough, the production is very good, so are the performances (by some fairly big-name actors as well). Where the picture is lacking is in Zach Braff's script, which seems mostly culled from situations taken from other movies.<br /><br />When you're as young as Braff is, you haven't really lived enough to use the experience as film fodder. Braff's experience looks to be from watching movies, then repeating the same trite clichés in his own movie. In Garden State, he plays Andrew Largeman, a semi-successful Hollywood actor who returns to his hometown in New Jersey to bury his mother, who took her own life after suffering in a wheelchair for many years. He appears to have no feeling about any of this; he has no relationship with his father, who blames him for causing his mother's paralysis in a freak accident as a six-year-old, and has no particular despondency over losing his mother (in fact, he attends a party right after the burial to which he was invited by a friend of his, who works as a cemetery grave-digger). It all smacks heavily of "Beautiful Girls", also about a guy who returns to his hometown to "find himself" and hang with his old friends, with a little "Ordinary People" thrown in on the side. <br /><br />It's really a miracle Braff could accomplish anything at all in his life, given his father and his useless friends (I'm surprised he didn't kill himself), who are still living their "lives" as though they're still in high school, partying with dumb bimbos, drinking and drugging, etc. None of them even recognize him from his TV role as the "retarded quarterback" (Natalie Portman's character, the most aware person in the movie, does), and say things, like "Hey, I remember you from Junior year". These guys are such losers, for them, watching television would be a cultural leap forward. Even one friend, who made millions inventing a silent Velcro, has no real reason to live, because his whole frame of reference is high school and partying. And you don't need big money to party like a high school sophomore.<br /><br />Braff, it is revealed, is heavily medicated, which keeps from "feeling" and dealing with anything, really, like an adult would. Then he meets Sam (Natalie Portman) a sort-of lost girl, who gives pet funerals and lives with her mother like a 10-year-old in a bedroom that looks like a pink doll house blown up to life size. Anyway, they fall in love, and Braff learns to "feel" again. The clichés come fast and furious. Braff has a long delayed heart-to-heart talk with his cold, distancing father and tells him What It Is and The Name Of The Game. In one scene, Braff and Portman are in the millionaire kid's house, playing touchy-feely is front of a giant fireplace, and the bit is so routine, so standard movie-schtick, I swear, I half-expected somebody to walk up and throw a sled into the fire. In another, Braff visits a doctor (Ron Liebman) to get his junk refilled, and Liebman tells him (in easily the worst line in the movie) "The body can play tricks on you. I once found my ex-best-friend's cufflinks in my wife's purse, and I didn't have an erection for a year and a half." Obviously, no licensed physician would ever say that, but it's dirtbag poetry, a nod from Braff to, I guess, his loser friends to let them know he's still thinking of them, just as the "37" joke in "Clerks", was Kevin Smith's nod to his dirtbag buddies. <br /><br />Anyway, Braff finds true happiness and gets off the dope; the story plays itself out predictably. But if you're going to have a movie that's wall-to-wall clichés, at least give it some charming performances to breathe some life into it. And Braff does. He has the right sort of vacancy, of casual acceptance to make his role as the zonked-out Andrew both real and poignant, and Natalie Portman (also of Beautiful Girls) gives the movie a big lift. With her tiny features and flickering expressions of mood, she just about steals the picture as his traveling companion. Jean Smart is surprisingly good as Portman's mother, and Peter Saarsgard (though much better in "Shattered Glass") is notable as the gravedigger friend. I would recommend "Garden State" if you can't get enough storybook romance out of movies, but when people start hailing it as a masterpiece, they're just clueless. Braff thinks you can take the same old tired plot, write in a few "f**ks" and "awesomes" and slap on an acoustic rock soundtrack and that contemporizes the material. It doesn't.
For those that might send me nasty e-mails, shove it. There is a trend in Hollywood where those that create overly-quirky movies are instantly impervious to criticism. Garden State tends to be one of those movies. <br /><br />Sure, Zach Braff, star of a rather overrated sitcom, surprises people with some talent behind the camera, but that doesn't warrant the kind of praise that a film like this has been receiving. The story is often times too thin and shallow to provide any real insight. People have compared this film to The Graduate, but those type of people are the types that try to oversell independent cinema. Indie films are subject to the same hit and miss mentality that typically hits the studio films, but people seemed to have forgotten that there are far more bad indie films than good ones. Garden State isn't atrocious, but its isn't great.<br /><br />First off, the film is too quick, resulting in a rather fast reemergence of Large into his former life. After ten years, people tend to act like he never left. Where's the awkwardness? Of course, the situation is always solved by a quick drug tasting scene (which I will say was portrayed rather accurately). The film seem to present a lot of emotional inequities, giving us the idea that the emotion will come up later in a more deeper and more well thought out way. However, it fails to deliver on those fronts, leaving us wondering why the journey to some of his decisions and moments were quickly resolved (like Peter Saarsgard's grave robbing tendencies). It wasn't completely abysmal, but maybe we should stop praising the film as something it isn't.
Of all the directors ever to sit behind a camera Wellman could break your heart quicker than anyone. Even Ford. But this is one of his worst. Even he seemed to know it, probably from its jejune treatment, not much above a Bonanza or Big Valley. <br /><br />Yet there is one moment, typical Wellman that comes out of nowhere to shatter you, the death of the Indian wife of Gable. She has gone to give her baby some water and WHAM is killed by an arrow instantly. No warning. Nada. <br /><br />One of the most shocking, unprepared for deaths in all cinema. Particularly after investing a whole hour of love for the lady in what looked to be a sappy western. Of course the treatment of her afterwards is laden with Wellman's total indifference, apparently, to the film. Even so it is a reminder of the power he has always had at his best.
The movie begins with much voice-over, a bad sign. Then it just slides downhill with silly and intelligence-insulting scenes involving trappers and Indians. But, it reaches new and impressive lows when all the merry mountain men square dance with each other in a high alpine meadow. Meanwhile, the happy-go-lucky Indians sit around watching them. It's a better scene than the dancing cowboys in "Blazing Saddles". There is a minor flaw in this comparison; "Across the Wide Missouri" is not a comedy.<br /><br />
The film successfully gives a graphic portrayal of the suffering of forced sex labour, but nothing more. The leftest agenda behind this movie could be seen a mile away and leaves viewer so embarrassed while watching if you know that feeling. So, the women are kidnapped and sent to ex Yugoslavian territory to work as sex slaves because (take a deep breath) the American military institution is corrupt and looks away while their private security contractors are selling people abroad. You don't need half a brain to see the relevance to Iraq war and Black Water Company.<br /><br />What a load of leftest excrement! Looks like I have been fooled all my life into thinking that this problem and many others were a direct result of Communism's grip on this region for 45 years. But no, it was the American war on Iraq, which is also responsible for earthquakes, tropical storms, and the constipation I had last week.<br /><br />The film ignores the fact that 95% of the sex trade is women willing to sell their bodies for money and entry to the western block. You also see scenes that are so stupid you want to pull your hair. We have someone chasing down a woman in the streets of London in broad daylight, beat her up, then somehow drags her unconscious body half a mile back to the apartment where he rapes her. No one sees this or calls the police, and the running woman does not care to scream during the chase. Even better, we later see 4-5 women lined up in the centre of London in -again- broad daylight to be sold, one of them has a smashed face, and people are shopping in the background as if nothing was happening. You can't make this stupidity up.<br /><br />I used to think that such trash was exclusive to Hollywood, but apparently I was mistaken.
Okay, make no mistake - this is a pretty awful film, but I actually thought it had a couple of creepy scenes and overcame its pathetic budget every now and then. At the very least it's unintentionally funny in spots and has a definite air of creepiness and discomfort (a face burning scene, the part with the disfigured bride). <br /><br />This baby falls into the "so bad it's entertaining" category to me, and for that alone I would give it a star. The effects are terrible, the acting is abysmal, and the whole thing looks like it was shot in a day. You gotta love that toy ship at the beginning, too! It brought back childhood memories of seeing this on late night TV many years ago. While the Alpha DVD print looks weak and as though it was recorded directly off an old television broadcast or something, I actually liked that in this case!
**May Contain Spoilers**<br /><br />The main character, a nobleman named Fallon, is stranded on an island with characters so looney and lethal he might have been better off drowning. Count Lorente de Sade (pronounced "dee-SAYd") talks to his own hallucinations and sees all intruders on the island as invading pirates. He routinely beats mute servant Anne and tortures his unwilling guests in the dungeon. Inadvertant laughs are provided by giant "Nubian" slave Mantis who talks with a Deep South accent and helps de Sade hunt down trespassers in the style of THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME. De Sade's crazed wife, ravaged by leprosy, provides some truly scary moments as she prowls the dungeon and embraces a helplessly chained prisoner. (This scene was viewed on late-night TV by many kids who carried the memory into adulthood.) The one nearly-normal person in sight is Cassandra, who has self-deprecation down to a science. ("I used to be a nurse, now I'm not much of anything.") She and Fallon plan their escape and ultimately encounter an enemy more fearsome than de Sade and Mantis combined.<br /><br />	This movie was shot in San Antonio and directed by a man more competent at drawing horror comics than making horror movies. (I'll say this much for Mr. Boyette--he does showcase his fixatation with contagion here, as he did in his comics.) It's rather like an Andy Milligan melodrama minus the meat cleavers. The period wardrobe, library music, abuse of the handicapped and all-around misanthropy makes one wonder if Andy wasn't called in as a consultant. However, Milligan made better costumes and wrote better dialogue. Technical gaffes are too numerous to list here but you know this flick is in trouble when you see the opening shipwreck, which looks like it was shot in a fish tank. Also, a film made in Texas should have had real spiders and snakes rather than rubber ones. Glorious Eastmancolor gives this melodrama the garish look it so richly deserves. Fallon's initial encounter with the leprous Countess is truly horrifying, as is the movie's parting shot. If the rest had been half as harrowing, THE DUNGEON OF HARROW would have been a terror classic. Instead it's a funny piece of schlock that trash-fiends will love, for all the wrong reasons.
My bad film guru (and the president of the Exposed Film Society) sprang this one on us last week. There was no denying the demented gleam in his eye as he pulled it out of its brown paper bag and announced what he had in store for us: "The Most Dangerous Game", filmed on a budget of about $2.95.<br /><br />Of course, $2.95 went a lot further back in 1962, but still...<br /><br />Anyway, there is certainly a lot to dislike about this film. It abounds with serious technical gaffes (my favorite was the 'repeating musket' that fired twice in two minutes without benefit of a reload). The hero is a wuss who stands by while his wounded friend fights the henchman and gets killed. <br /><br />More? OK -The plot is a shambles with no continuity to speak of. The movie wastes five minutes with a 'special guest star' who serves as the physical embodiment of the villain's madness and paranoia, but never shows him again. The hero is choked unconscious by the henchman but makes no mention of it when he wakes up and first meets his host. The mute servant girl is captured, put on the rack...and then the movie (and the hero, who put her in this predicament) just sort of "forgets" about her. <br /><br />More? Well, the sets are cheap, and the special effects are cheaper (the makeup is an exception to this). Much of the plot is carried by the narrator's droning, monotonic voice-over, which carries less dramatic impact than the menu recital at Denny's. Most of the dialog is simply ridiculous and stilted , as if it was translated from Japanese. ("I demand that our conversation be pleasant!!!") And the color values tended to shift violently from shot to shot, as if cheap film stock and problematic lighting equipment were the order of the day. (Note - this last may have been the fault of a bad print, rather than the camera crew). <br /><br />But there were a couple of nice moments here and there. The makeup effects were startlingly good in contrast to the rest of the film, the actors were LOOKED interesting, especially the mute servant girl and the Countess. And in spite of everything, there was a definite creepy atmosphere to be found, very nasty and disturbing.<br /><br />So what was the deal with this movie? I thought about it a bit, and realized that director/writer Pat Boyette basically tried to put a story from of the old "EC" horror comics on film. That would account for the stilted dialog, the sketchy character development (in a comic, physiognomy = character even more than in film), the loopy interior logic of the story ("EC" horror stories went out of their way to include a nasty "shock" ending and weren't big on psychological realism), the over reliance on the narrative voice (which belongs in captions over the panels), and the interesting makeup effects that mimicked the grisly pictures that the old EC artists did so well.<br /><br />In fact, I'd be willing to bet that when Boyette saw his leading man during casting, he instantly saw that the fellow was as close to being the equivalent of the lanky, shambling figures and caved in faces that artists like Johnny Craig and Jack Davis drew as an actual human could be and still exist in the real world.. He used costumes and lighting to emphasize the cartoony aspect of the visuals and turned everyone into living EC comics characters. (See: the leading lady's blank beauty, the Count's strong bony features, oddly bronze skin and sharp chin, the platinum 'do on the tall, bony black henchman, etc.) <br /><br />This would explain the movie's failings. Boyette knew how to 'frame' things, but he didn't know how to deal with three dimensions and moving bodies. Boyette knew how to tell a creepy story within the confines of a comics page, but the nuances of film and live actors escaped him. He wouldn't be the first person with this problem of course - look at what Joel Schumacher did to "Batman". But he didn't have a big budget to hide behind.<br /><br />In any case, I'm imagine that Boyette walked away from this train wreck and probably spent less time thinking about "Dungeon of Harrow"than the folks who post on this film's message boards. He did, within certainly vague boundaries, what he set out to do, and you have to respect him for it...even if you don't care for "Harrow".
Buyer beware. The Alpha Video release uses a print that defies description. The movie was shot in color but you wouldn't know it for the first 25 minutes or so. The print that is used is so faded and decrepit that it appears almost sepia toned. After 30 minutes some color seeps back into the print but from there to the conclusion the color comes and goes. Keep in mind, even at it's best the color is pale and washed out. It looks like the print was recorded off a television that wasn't getting the best reception. Adding to this travesty is the most plodding delivery of lines that I can recollect. Even the voice over narration is stupor inducing. Every line is delivered in this irritating plodding demeanor. I found myself wishing that they would hurry and get the words out. For this reason I couldn't wait for this movie to end. It's one of those so-bad -it's- good movies but I wish that someone would find a half decent print.
The basic idea behind "Dungeon of Harrow" isn't all bad. The acting, however, is bad. The lighting is bad. The music is bad. The scenes of torture are without emotion. There really isn't much there to recommend this film. You know what kind of a movie you're in for when the credits say "Special Guest Star" and list someone you've never heard of. Might as well say "Rex Hamilton as Abraham Lincoln." because there's really no one in this movie you can identify. There are one or two decent moments, mostly toward the end and I think the basic plot outline may have contained an original idea, but that alone is not enough to keep you awake through this otherwise inept yawner.
This weird movie from Texas is about Fallon, a dilettante rich boy in the late 1800s (although he looks like a 60s C&W singer with greasy hair and sideburns) whose ship wrecks on an island owned by Count DeSade (pronounced de-sayd) with his captain. The count is afraid of pirates and tortures a young girl who was once a pirate hostage and also tortures the captain. Meanwhile, creepy former nurse Cassandra tells Fallon the secrets of the castle. The Countess has leprosy and went mad! Fallon is trapped but brings supplies. The captain is killed by a racist-caricature slave. Fallon is thrown in the dungeon with the leper, who always thinks it's her wedding day. The leper bride is horny, bu Cassandra kills her. Fallon and Cassandra escape the castle, but the Count and his slave chase them with dogs. DeSade kills the slave and Fallon kills DeSade. Fallon and Cassandra fall in love over the course of the next year, but when the supply ship comes, the crew refuses to take our lovers because they're both lepers now. They live for years in the castle...Fallon's hair turns gray and Cassandra goes bonkers. Fallon puts her in the dungeon. Our tale of love and leprosy ends.<br /><br />So bizarre it's watchable, and you can smell the drive-in popcorn.
"Dungeon of Harrow" had a lot of things that could've made this quite a good horror film. Creepy mansion, a torture chamber, a paranoid host, a henchman, a ghoul in the dungeon, etc. But sadly to say this wasn't made very well.<br /><br />A writer and a skipper get shipwrecked on an island owned by a count in a castle, his slave, and a mute maid. The count becomes more and more suspicious that the two shipwrecked men are pirates (of all things) and gets more inclined to turn on them and subject them, and the mute maid who befriends them, to torture and imprisonment. Sound not-bad right? <br /><br />Well, not quite. I used to call this one of the worst movies I have ever seen, but now I hesitate. Because it had so much potential it can't really be called "one of the worst." However, seeing all this potential go to waste is a really big hit against this film. All in all, it's not a very good movie.<br /><br />There is a very Gothic-suspense scene when our hero is chained in the dungeon and is confronted by the insane and leprous rotting bride, adorned in a tattered wedding dress. This was both creepy and disturbing the first time I saw the horror unfold in this scene. Man I wish this was a better movie! <br /><br />This movie had all the right stuff to make this a moody late-night chiller, but ultimately took all the wrong turns. I suggest someone remake this one.
A couple of men are ship-wrecked on a remote island. They are then captured by an insane count who lives there with a small group of servants; while in the castle dungeon lives the count's unfortunate leper wife.<br /><br />The Dungeon of Harrow is pretty much a hack job of a movie. The amateur actors all sleepwalk through the film while an annoyingly insistent score continually plays in the background. The various bits of action are all filmed in an incredibly unenergetic way; in fact the film in general is completely lethargic. It just seems to drag on and on. And even though the ending isn't too bad you will be hard-pressed to care by that point. As an example of 60's Gothic horror, this is strictly a bargain basement example. I sadly can't recommend this one really.
This movie tries to be more than it is. First of all, the acting is horrible. You have to get past the incredibly bad delivering of lines and terrible emoting. The plot is quite interesting. A shipwreck occurs (apparently because it was made out of strings and balsa wood), and a couple of guys find themselves on shore. If this weren't bad enough, some guy named Count de Sade is living there as well. He lives in fear of pirates and has gone utterly insane. Anyway, he has a large slave, a young woman, and some dogs. There's another woman who doesn't speak and his wife, who is a leper. Anyway, things get bad as these men have to deal with this nut case. He is arrogant and likes to pose and deliver lines. The rest of the movie involves an attempt to escape. It has an ironic ending which I won't reveal and it kind of rescues the film. I wouldn't bother if I were you.
Why can't a movie be rated a zero? Or even a negative number? Some movies such as "Plan Nine From Outer Space" are so bad they're fun to watch. THIS IS NOT ONE. "The Dungeon of Horror" might be the worst movie I've ever seen (some of anyway. I HAD to fast forward through a lot of it!). Fortunately for the indiscretions of my youth and senility of my advancing age, there may be worse movies I've seen, but thankfully, I can't remember them. The sets appeared to be made with cardboard and finished with cans of spray paint. The special effects looked like a fifth grader's C+ diorama set in a shoebox. The movie contained unforgivable gaffs such as when the Marquis shoots and kills his servant. He then immediately gets into a scuffle with his escaping victim, who takes his flintlock and shoots him with it, without the gun having been reloaded! This movie was so bad my DVD copy only had name credits. I guess no company or studio wanted to be incriminated. Though I guess when you film in your garage and make sets out of cardboard boxes a studio isn't needed. This movie definitely ranks in my cellar of all time worst movies with such horrible sacrileges as "The Manipulator", the worst movie I have ever seen with an actual (one time) Hollywood leading man-Mickey Rooney. The only time I would recommend watching "The Dungeon of Harrow" (or "The Manipulator" for that matter) would be if someone were to pay you. (I'm kind of cheap) I'd have to have $7 or $8 bucks for "Dungeon" and at least ten for "Manipulator". phil-the never out of the can cinematographer
If it was possible to give negative stars I would for this stinkburger.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong I LOOOOOOVVVEEEE a good crappy movie. I am a big fan of films like Octoman, Wizard Of Mars, Queen King and others. Real classics of B-Cinema.<br /><br />But this film actually makes Jack Nicolson and Boris Karloff in The Terror look like an academy award winner!! The Dialouge is so needlessly long-winded, and mostly inappropriately used. (ie. "I will now Condensened (yes, condensend!!) to your wishes. The acting might have been a lot better if they had some more logical lines.<br /><br />The story? What story, A count is exiled because his wife had leprosy? I'm still not sure on that count. A (Rich?) Fleet one and the Captian of one of his ships crash on the island? People acting unnaturally? OK, I like camp in b-films a lot, there lies a lot of it's charm, but this was just dumb..plain dumb. A salty sea Captian who sounds as well versed as a college professor? A fleet owner who is as clueless as they come (I felt this guy had no idea of how to play it, one scene he's Spanish acting, the next English/European)? The count, who's not sure if he's a reincarnation or really DeSade (Don't ask me how DeSade figures into this, after 4 beers my wife, friend and I still couldn't figure it out.<br /><br />The scare factor? I could show this turkey to my small grandkids and only worry about them sleeping through it. I like a lot of early 60's horror movies, and some still have good shocks, but this thing...never had a shock, or even a hint of of a scare.<br /><br />On the info on the back it says, "This Movie contains scenes that are so vivid and degrading that they will surpass your worst nightmare." The ONLY degradation is WATCHING THIS MOVIE. It's 90 mins.(The case says it's 74 mins.) of your life you do not get back.<br /><br />I paid only a buck, yes one buck, for this and another film. I still feel like I am owed .50 cents for even sitting though this.<br /><br />To sum up Dungeon Of Harrow had NO ONE Named Harrow in it, but, it did have a lovely cardboard dungeon.
This movie shows what you can create if you have a camera, some spare paint and cardboard,a toy ship, a few friends who acted in community theater, and the incorrect notion you can make a film. The end result is an unwatchable time-waster that you'll skip through, unless you take it out of the DVD player and toss it through the window first.<br /><br />The acting in the opening scene (especially by the rotund Lee Morgan as 'Captain') and the toy ship "crashing" into the rocks before the credits is a good indicator of what you're in for (with all the foam, it looks like this "special effect" was shot in a kitchen sink. I guess Boyette figured he save some cash by washing the dishes at the same time). In terms of bad cinema, the funny thing is "Dungeon of Harrow" seems to have inspired (maybe by coincidence) the twist ending of "Manos: The Hands of Fate". Yep, it's the same lame "I was the victim, and now I take the mad villain's place" ironic ending. The bigger irony is that two inept, talentless filmmakers could make two equally-wretched, Texas-filmed horror movies and get away with it.<br /><br />Monotone nerd Russ Harvey is a noble in a great family line (why they were great is never broached), boring us while lamenting the death of his family line and crest before his ship even crashes (we're also treating to a droning narration throughout the film). Sadly, we aren't so lucky. His family's toy ship crashes into some styrofoam in a sink, and he's washed ashore with his bloated captain and some woman, conveniently deposited on a mad Count's island.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the Count is visited by an evil spirit who, dressed in a Blackstone's Magic Kit outfit, assaults him with various puppets (spiders, snakes, bats. . . all the icky stuff). The Count (William McNulty) overacts worse than Shatner and has a visibly difficult time keeping a straight face through the typical madman ranting.<br /><br />I'd be mad too if I had to be in this disaster. The woman is promptly killed by the Count's ferocious dogs, and the two jerks are captured by his manservant. The Count accuses them of being pirates (apparently his worst fear), he slaps his manservant around a lot (apparently his greatest joy), Fatboy gets tortured, there's a woman who's a servant and one who's a nurse, the rotting leper hag-in-a-wedding-dress Countess in the dungeon (she digs the Nerdy Noble and is the only effective & creepy thing in the movie), a lot of inane dialogue at a dining room table, the blubbery Captain gets killed while making a pathetic getaway (aking to watching a sloth battle a pack of lions). . . it's all an ugly haze to me. I spent most of my time on the fast-forward button.<br /><br />Anyway, the jerk noble and nurse make a getaway and think they're going to be rescued by three guys in a rowboat on the lake (yeah, we're supposed to believe a lake is the ocean). They don't, since the nerd's hair turned gray and he scares the would-be rescuers away. Honestly, I think they simply took the opportunity to row away from this hideous film while the had the chance. They head back to the castle, the nurse starts rotting like the Countess (and your stomach, by this time), and we end with these two getting ready to descend into the . . . DUNGEON OF HARROW!!!! Blech!<br /><br />I love old, lousy horror films, but they must have some sort of entertainment value. I feel ripped off, even at the low low price of $5.99 for this biscuit. Mystery Science Theater would have a tough time making this one fun. I was taken in by a few nutty reviewers who claimed this film had atmosphere and some creepy moments. Wrong! Avoid this tripe at all costs, and don't even waste a buck if you find it in a dollar bin somewhere. This movie makes Corman's "The Terror" like like a masterpiece of horror and atmosphere.
That distinction has to go to THE DUNGEON OF HARROW. At least Ed Wood's misguided attempt at making a quality science fiction film had the dubious "star" power of Bela Lugusi, Vampira, Tor Johnson, Criswell and Lyle Talbot. THE DUNGEON OF HARROW has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. What could have been an interesting and suspenseful plot about a marooned aristocrat on a leper colony, perhaps in the style of THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU or MYSTERIOUS ISLAND, is trashed by the heavy dialog and mono tonal acting of amateurs whose lines sink like lead weights into a sea of stupidity. The "special effects", which took place in someone's bathtub, further doom this film to the dung heap. Even the treatment of leprosy is something out of a Victorian interpretation of the Bible. The fact that leprosy can not be contracted from an individual in its last stages belies the plot line that the aristocrat Fallon and his lady, Cassandra contract the disease and end up as the original occupants of the Castle De Sade, doomed to insanity and inhuman cruelty. It is interesting to note that not one member of the cast made another film. No wonder, talent begets talent; lack of talent begets oblivion, which is where this film should find its deplorable end.
A group of seven people fear they are the only survivors of a near world ending H-bomb blast. Not only do they fear the radiation, but also mutants in the surrounding hillside. One of the group is already contaminated, but strangely poses no real threat to the others. Just surviving the friction of assorted personalities at close range is the sub-plot. Richard Denning plays the hero. Mike Connors is close to the edge playing a tough guy. Lori Nelson is the girl destined to start populating a brave new world. Not one of director Roger Corman's best. This is predictable black and white sci-fi.
A 1957 Roger Corman non epic in which a sundry bunch of characters end up in a lead lined valley (sic) just as stock footage thermo nuclear heck is unleashed. It's the end of the world. Four men with guns, two women, (one an unmarried virgin the other a Las Vegas show gird who drinks and smokes - guess which one makes it to the end of the movie?) Time passes, tensions develop (or are supposed to). Something is in the woods eating radioactive rabbits. A mutant monster! Seven weeks of radioactive dust has performed "a million years of evolution" (on an already living human) the result is a laughably bad, zip up the back, rubber monster who is strangely scared of their only source of fresh water. It rains. The monster dissolves. The remaining two characters, the Hunk and the Virgin. set out to repopulate the world as the caption 'The Beginning' fills the screen after it transpires that the brief shower of rain had washed all the radioactivity away and dissolved all the monsters running around 'out there'.<br /><br />The only thing of real note about this is the incredible amount of 'curtain acting' that goes on in it. One of the staple elements of bad and lo budget movie making of the period was the superabundant use of curtains in the set design. It was cheap. Finished with one set-up? Pull a curtain across, drop a different piece of furniture in front of it and you have a different location in minutes without having to move the camera or change the lighting.<br /><br />'Curtain acting' is a skill in which the actor will get to comment on what's going on outside any building he happens to be in ("It looks like Rain", or "Here they come now, and it looks like they've got the sheriff with them!", that sort of stuff). He'll do this by standing to one side of the window - reaching across his body and lifting the curtain away from the window but along the axis of the shot - ie towards the camera - thus enabling him to pretend to look out and tell us what's happening off screen, without letting the audience see he's staring at the studio wall three inches away from his nose behind some cheap velvet curtains. There was a lot of that in this movie.
This is a very low budget film, set in one location in a valley shielded by the effects of radiation. The cast, an older man and daughter, a handsome visitor, a couple (a tough buy and gal), a drifter, a donkey and a radiation affected man, interact during the after effects of a nuclear blast. Added to this is an entity watching the women take a bath.<br /><br />They all have guns, some of them get shot, some of them are told to have children, others are murdered and others just drift away and, well this is the movie. Harvey Cormann's first film, it shows a certain simplicity in movie making. To avoid expensive sets, actors go through curtains to enter and exit the house (ie the studio). The location shots filmed in the hills near Hollywood are the backdrop.<br /><br />I would not say this is worth going out of your way to see, but interesting to see how movies with human subjects were made in the 50s.
This story starts at the end ! So the film's opening credits advise us. Unfortunately that's not true as we then are treated to around 70 minutes of a typical B science fiction movie of the 1950's. The story is dreary; the plot is very weak and has clearly been filmed on a low budget, as was often the case in those days.<br /><br />The story could have covered any situation where people are taking refuge in an isolated house and being threatened by someone outside. it just happened to be adapted to fit round a sci-fi story.<br /><br />The scenery consisted of a few rocks, bushes, and smoke. - Oh yes there was a pool of water as well. Someone wore a rubber mask with a beak like face and what looked like feathers.<br /><br />Written by Lou Rusoff, who penned several sci-fi stories around that time including The She Creature and It Conquered The World The filming was completed in a matter of days, not allowing the actors time to develop their characters to better advantage. The low budget restraints also prevented this film reaching its potential. It could have been a much better film than it turned out to be.<br /><br />Mike Connors and Richard Denning brought some life to the film, but even they could not lift this film into the category where you could say- 'I enjoyed that film' Richard Denning's acting career began in 1937. He starred with Gregory Peck and Deborah Kerr in An Affair to Remember and later became more well known on television in the series Hawaii Five-O and The Flying Doctor series.<br /><br />Directed by Roger Corman who has many films to his credit both as a director and producer. He has made some good films and is still making them. He became very well known for his direction of films from the stories of Edgar Allan Poe, often starring Vincent Price. He also made other low budget films; some were good and entertaining for one reason or another, and most were much better than this.<br /><br />I would not recommend this film to anyone.<br /><br />Darnmay <br /><br />10th September 2007
This movie's only redeeming factor was the fact that it was on TV for free, and that it probably helped the Romanian economy. Other than that, Hallmark needs to re-evaluate this division of their empire, and maybe keep their movies more oriented towards bizarre love affairs between cancer-stricken hemophiliacs in Mississippi. To go into details about how mindless this movie is would give credit to it for being memorable. It wasn't. I remember the act of watching it, there being vampires (some of them teenage) and some very bad dubbing. Whoever worked on the dubbing track of this movie needs to be relocated to another sector of society...maybe food service, to the deaf. If you have the opportunity, watch this movie, just because it makes so many other really bad movies seem Oscar-worthy in retrospect. Then again, if you actually ended up at this movie's profile, I imagine that it may be too late...
This is one of the worst movies I've seen in my life. If you're looking for a nice theatrical effect, skip it and watch something else.<br /><br />But if you're looking for camp-value, this is it. Here's my advice: Gather a few sarcastic friends and watch the movie strictly for the purpose of making fun of it.
This is a movie that was probably made to entertain the middle school, early high school age kids. Maybe to them it's funny, they may possibly even see something scary in it. To me, the acting is poor, and plot is poor, there's just not much value at all for the adult viewer. I saw this film as weak and boring. At times there was the possibility that the movie could become interesting but it never really materialized. The creatures look pretty good but after seeing them for a few seconds, they don't seem to have any substance other than the look. At times I wasn't sure if the movie was trying to make another attempt at comedy or was it just another attempt at horror that failed again. This movie just wasn't good for me.
One night on an independent channel famous for showing off-the-wall films was aired this monstrosity. Though tempted to turn it off, we watched it to the bitter end, hoping to see some semblance of redeeming value. Alas, there was none. Absolutely nothing. The film quality was cheap; the soundtrack was muddy; the editing was ridiculous. Then again, there was precious little to salvage. After a few minutes of Cameron Mitchell's doctor character narrating about some patient of his, the viewer is tortured by no plot, pathetic writing, abysmally terrible acting, and an utter lack of cohesion and continuity. The rotting cherry on top of this fetid mess was the most horrendous "special effects" and "makeup" to ever disgrace the screen, even for television. The main character stumbles through his role in a dimestore rubber mask and a pair of dishwashing gloves which appear to have been dipped in glue and rolled in beads. Perhaps the poor lighting and gag-worthy film quality were attempting to cover up how bad-to-the-tenth-power the makeup was. One can only hope that at least one deliberate decision was made in the course of this hopelessly amateurish video. Seriously, a handful of three-year-old kids could've produced a better project. At the end, poor Mr. Mitchell returns (how desperate he must've been for money!) and drones out some nonsense that's supposed to connect this pile of crap with the AIDS epidemic. Please spare you and your loved ones the inhuman cruelty of sitting through this. It was so bad, even Mystery Science Theater 3000 couldn't have salvaged it.
I remember watching this movie on TV a few years back. It was so bad, I can only remember the scenes that just made me die laughing. The only plot summary I can give you (without any spoilers) is picture a home movie made by college kids who were high.<br /><br />(Spoiler alert starts here...) When the movie starts, a guy's running, being chased by the "Demon Cop", when in fact, the man was really being chased by a Halloween costume gone wrong. A car pops out of nowhere, hitting the guy who was running. It sends him flying over the top of it, and what does the driver do??? Watches the man as he falls, gets back in his car and drives away. What kind of hair-brained dolt would do that? I would've at least asked if the guy was okay.<br /><br />Then, some black guy stares the Demon Cop straight in the face, then, later tells reporters, "I didn't get a good look at him." My sisters and I, by then, were almost choking ourselves to death with laughter.<br /><br />Then, there's some scene in an alley, where this girl with an afro, pulls a machine gun out of her teeny-weeny little purse. It couldn't have possibly FIT!! I can hardly remember certain scenes. Maybe it's because they were just that bad.<br /><br />Cops in the film can't even jump a fence, and the acting is so wooden, it makes planks of wood look like better actors.<br /><br />All in all, this movie brings shame to Hollywood, way more than any other flop could. You have to see it to believe its sappy cheesy plot, which it has none of, as far as I can tell.
As I was flipping through the channel I came to a channel 124. It is an urban channel. I saw this movie on and decided to give it a try. I almost became a mass murderer due to this film. I have done home movies and they are oscar quality compared to this huge mass of Dookie. The lighting was terrible and the acting was absolutely unrelentlessly bad. I would rather watch Star Crystal....... Holy cow maybe that is not a good example. The main question I have about this film is... Was it to be a morality film? the reason why I ask is because ther was one line where this lady in a wheelchair says " I would have been another gang statistic" Oh my head is starting to hurt. After hearing that line I went into the kitchen and pulled out a knife ready to stab anyone who dared watch this movie. But some sense kicked in and I just changed the channel to watch the man with the afro paint. Well that is all I have to say about this movie. If you want to endure this pain go ahead but not recommended for those with short fuses or a bad case of tourettes
^^contains spoilers^^<br /><br />This movie is utter crap. Do not watch.<br /><br />There is no one in this movie to root for, or even like, except for the wife, and she wins by default. Everyone is selfish, and many things happen that make no sense.<br /><br />The acting is mediocre at best and everyone breathes too heavily about everything. No one can even cry believably.<br /><br />If you leave the room for even a second, then something totally out of left field will happen, and it will make NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.<br /><br />For example, I left the room for a second, while Jennie Garth's character was sleeping with her manager. I come back, seriously about 4 minutes later, (also I'm pretty sure there was a commercial somewhere in there) and she's sleeping with that Berko guy. <br /><br />I gave up on this movie around the time that Berko was being an ass to his fiancé in the car, because she didn't want to call off the wedding.<br /><br />I wasted 2 hours of my life. You shouldn't.
It's schmaltzy, but then what else did you expect? The heroine is Cinderella's younger sister complete with wicked mother, sister, and brother-in-law; the hero (if you can call him that) is an ineffectual putz; and the rival love interests are full of melodramatic villainy.<br /><br />The cast, settings, and wardrobe were all very attractive, and I thought the actors did a superb job considering how weak the material was. The movie was prettily filmed and boasted a soundtrack that was carefully crafted to cue the viewer about what emotions he should be experiencing throughout. Megon McDonough sang sweetly and provided the film with some of its best moments.<br /><br />If you love Danielle Steel, you will love this film. If you love archetypal romance, you will love this film. I did not. I was able to sit through it, but it was close.
The movie is great for Venezuelan tourism, birds, birds and more birds. Only 1 piranha. Nice scenery. The only highlight was the alligator seen during a very long and boring motorcycle race. The end when Caribe drowns is a definite Hollywood prop. There is no definite storyline. It goes from Venezuelan scenery to a rip off of easy rider to diamond mining and a ruthless hunter going crazy for some reason who gets it in the end. A very low budget movie that could have been filmed anywhere with outtakes of Venezuela. William Smith is a very talented actor that has made some very good movies. Like all actors they all need to have at least one bad film Don't waste the $5.00 on the DVD.
"Two wildlife photographers are traveling through the Amazon River basin on their latest assignment. While trying to capture the wildlife of the area on film, our photographers cross paths with a game hunter, who is stalking the animals for another reason. Looking to eliminate the witnesses to his illegal activities, the hunter decides to…" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. <br /><br />Handsome guide Peter Brown (as Jim Pendrake) takes pretty blonde Ahna Capri (as Terry Greene) and her good-looking brother Tom Simcox (as Art Greene) into the Venezuelan jungle, to admire the view, and take wildlife pictures. After they hook up with hunky big-game hunter William Smith (as Caribe), psychological dramatics surface. <br /><br />A pivotal scene, with Mr. Brown reposing in the "vee" of a tree, and sharing a cigarette with Mr. Simcox, is nicely staged. The circular direction reappears in the later "fight" between Brown and Mr. Smith; and, it is effective. Simcox' early sex romp adds nothing to the story; it could have been cut, to take advantage of what seems like flirting between the Brown and Simcox characters. An attraction between Brown and Ms. Capri could have been played up, also. <br /><br />The music, including Jim Stein's "Love All Things That Love the Sun", is fine; but the film needs to be re-tracked, to cut out animals which do not appear on screen. And, there is far too much superfluous footage on display. "Piranha" is a case where less would have been more.
WARNING:I advise anyone who has not seen the film yet to not read this comment.<br /><br />If you plan on watching this movie DON'T! I warn you... this movie is TERRIBLY boring and basically horrifying, not in the Horror movie kind of way, to watch. I mistook this Piranha movie for another Piranha movie and when I had noticed I made a mistake I decided to watch this one anyway. I wish I wouldn't have. This movie is so horrendous and so intolerable in every piece of material that I couldn't bare to let anyone say this movie was halfway decent. For one thing, this movie should be called A Boring Talk About Wilderness instead of Piranha. They only show piranhas ONCE! At the same time, the way this film sounds so poorly heard, I got sleepy only 20 minutes into the thing. At the end my mouth was hung wide open and I stared gloomily at the blank TV screen. It is a VERY poorly directed and badly filmed piece of junk that I was afraid I brain dysfunction after watching it...
Obviously, this is not the "Piranha" directed by Joe Dante and produced by Roger Corman. It wasn't so obvious, when I bought the DVD for only $2.95, as the DVD cover art matched that of the Corman produced comedy/horror "Piranha", even the DVD menu (no features of course) matched the cover. Half way through watching this odd movie, my girlfriend and I started thinking, where are the PIRANHAS? Once the movie reached the climax we realised that we must have been watching the wrong movie as we had seen the trailer, which had completely different footage, the blurb on the back of the DVD did not match the story we were watching and the credits (actors, producer, director) were also completely different. Instead, we got some jungle melodrama about a a girl and two guys who go searching for diamonds and end up confronting a vicious animal hunter. This tame, exploitation thriller is boring and pointless and is only mildly amusing for old-school, camp value. Strange that a DVD can be manufactured with the wrong film in tact, but I suppose it is an easy mistake to make seeing as though they are both B-grade movies of the same name made in the 70's. Reading other posts made on this film, I noticed that I'm not the only one with the wrong movie on the DVD. How could this be an INTERNATIONAL error? Is there perhaps, some sort of DVD phenomena where unsuccessful films try to get recognition by being put on the wrong DVDs? WHAT IS GOING ON???
I got seriously ripped off with this purchase. The other posters pretty well cover the failings of this poor poor film. My DVD that I purchased actually had the 1978 Piranha poster art on the cover with the credits for that film on the front 'Directed by Joe Dante', etc. I was really disappointed to find the wrong film on the disc. I am actually a fan of lots of bad movies. There is always something funny or at least amusing on most of them somewhere. NOt this film! I am actually going to spend the three dollars in gas money to return this two dollar DVD just for the principle of the thing. Blatant false packaging here. Easily the worst movie of all time. No redeeming factors at all. BORING!!!Not even worth checking out just to see how bad it is. Seriously.
Let's see: what are the advantages to watching Piranha, Piranha? Well, if you've never seen anything to do with Venezuela, there's a lot of travelogue footage of both Caracas and the countryside (and jungle-side), and of the various native peoples at work and play, as well as plenty of indigenous wildlife. If you like William Smith, he plays a bit of a git (as he has always been wont to do).<br /><br />And that's about it. If it wasn't for William Smith, this could probably pass as a fund-raising film for Save the Children or some other organization that benefits the "third world". The only time you really see the fish of the title is during the opening credits. No mutant killer fish like in Roger Corman's singly-named Piranha. You'd figure with twice the fish in the title there would be twice as many monster fish preying on the characters, but alas, this is not the case.<br /><br />The story starts with a photojournalist and her brother coming to Venezuela to do a story on one of the last untouched places on the planet, but their motivation quickly changes to one of wanting to find diamonds, which are apparently fairly plentiful there.<br /><br />There's not a lot of real action or danger in this movie. What could've been an exciting motorcycle race is dulled by the mass of landscape and animal footage that is inserted in it to draw out the films running time. There's not a whole lot more action until the last fifteen minutes or so of the movie (which is probably about how long the movie would last without all the traveloguery).<br /><br />In my view, the only ways that a movie can really be a BAD movie is to be boring or incredibly stupid. Piranha, Piranha certainly qualifies for that former badge, and is pretty damn close to the second. The only reason I won't rate it a "1" is that the added footage is more interesting than the rest of the movie.
Piranha starts out as expected, stupid white people going to discover new lands and exploit them. I thought for a while it might be a cannibal film. It starts off like so many others, showing nothing but shots off untouched Amazon rain forest. For all I know it could be Florida. At this point you figure some animal mutilation or natives will pop up. Instead you get the acting talents of William Smith, who starred in L.A. Vice and Angels Die Hard. He plays Caribe, an acclaimed hunter, who I would describe him as Jack Palance Light. He is bigger in stature, but not quite the Jack Palance goodness. As for natives, you don't really get that many. Where's the piranha? Should I even ask that question? Caribe now hunts humans, I guess. He doesn't really pursue anyone till the end of the movie though, just stares at them. Caribe does race one of the tourists on a motorcycle in a over-dramatic Smokey and the Bandit kind of way. The motorcycle challenge happens for no real reason other than an action sequence. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a tourist challenge a stranger to a motorcycle race in the jungle. Never actually. Do they live, do they die? Will you care? Anybody wanna race on motorcycles? Caution: this film contains extreme dry look. My advice is to rent a Jack Palance classic like Craze.
this was absolutely the most tragic pile of cinema to which i have ever born witness. not only was the name a complete misnomer--since the film has next to nothing to do with piranhas--but the acting is as hollow and stale as the attempt to actually make some kind of plot. when you watch this film you cannot help but spend every waking second questioning when you've had enough and it's time to turn it off. unfortunately i waited until the end in my case. that's two hours of my life that i will never be able to reclaim.
I picked up this DVD for $4.99. They had put spiffy cover art on the package, along with a plot summary that had nothing to do with the movie. The acting is terrible, and the writing is worse. The only possible way this movie could be redeemed would be as MST3K fodder. I paid too much.
The sound is terrible, the picture is worse than worse, the acting is awful, the female leading actress is chubby, and the story is... wait a minute... There is no story...! The plot is really bad and the title of the movie is misleading. If you expect to to see Piranhas, you might be disappointed. This movie has nothing to do with the Piranha movies from 1978 and 1981. Actually, I can only think of one scene involving Piranhas.<br /><br />The only thing that I liked about this movie, besides the fact that it runs for only about 85 minutes, is the song at the end. It's written and sung by Jim Stein and it's called "Love all things that love the sun".<br /><br />I don't recommend this movie. It is so bad it's not even funny to watch. I fell asleep after the first 20 minutes and I am the kind of person who watches anything.
This movie starts out as if it were a comedy. It almost appears that the actors are reading off of cue cards, especially in the airport sequence. William Smith plays the role of "Caribe," a hunter, who is quite twisted and deranged. Smith seems to always play villains such as in "The Ultimate Warrior" (1975), and "The Frisco Kid" (1979) to name a few, although in this film the villainous role seems laughable. This is one of those films where senseless things take place only to fill up screen time, such as the girl chasing sequence at the beginning, and the long silly motorcycle race. I give this film 1/10. I would have liked to see this film on "Mystery Science Theatre" it would have been hilarious.
One of the greatest lessons I ever had in how to watch a movie happened this way: <br /><br />I was working in Roger Corman's offices, like so many other wanabees before and since, I was interning and trying to figure out how it all worked and how to make myself indispensable (hah!). One afternoon Julie Corman, Roger Corman's wife and a producer in her own right, asked me to load up a tape. I'm not sure why she wanted to watch it. I got the impression it was a student film or a show reel, something like that, some sort of calling card. Whatever the reasons she had to see it, the only free video machine in the offices at the time happened to be in the room I was working in, and I was the nearest person to the machine. I started the tape.<br /><br />Fade in: On screen a figure sat at a desk facing the camera. Behind him, screen left, was a door that opened into the room. Against the far wall was a coat rack. A second character entered through the door and started talking. The first character, the guy at the desk, turned round to reply, (this is all one take, static camera, there are no cuts pans or dolly shots. Just one locked off camera). The second character turned to hang his coat on the coat rack and delivered his next line. Julie Corman said "I've seen enough." and left the room.<br /><br />What she had seen in the ten seconds of footage she had watched was that the director was an idiot. Opening with two characters who immediately turned their backs to the camera delivering lines? Nope, sorry. Next! That's how long you've got. Ten seconds. Cock it up in the opening shot and you are dead.<br /><br />I was reminded of that moment while I watched the opening of this piece of crap. After an interminably long travelogue of jungle we see several monkeys apparently throwing themselves into cages. A man carrying a gun laughs. A jet liner lands and we see it taxi the whole way to the terminal. God this is boring! Cut to the interior of the Airport. Two men meet. Aha! Something is happening! They shake hands. Cut to a different angle of the two men -<br /><br />- and the director crosses the line.<br /><br />The first two shots of the movie that have any kind of spatial relationship with each other and the guy has cocked up. 'Not Crossing The line' is one of those basic rules of movie grammar that keeps the characters from jumping about from side to side on the screen and confusing the audience. Audiences don't like to be confused. Mystified? Baffled? Puzzled and intrigued? Yes. Audiences love all of those. Confused? No. You loose them. They walk out. 'Not Crossing The line' is one of those things they pound into you at film school, or should. It's basic stuff. It's not an inviolable rule (there are no inviolable rules) directors break it all the time - but not on the first real cut of the movie.<br /><br />I thought, "I've seen enough". And switched off.
This movie starts out as if it were a comedy. It almost appears that the actors are reading off of cue cards, especially in the airport sequence. William Smith plays the role of "Caribe," a hunter, who is quite twisted and deranged. Smith seems to always play villains such as in "The Ultimate Warrior" (1975), and "The Frisco Kid" (1979) to name a few, although in this film the villainous role seems laughable. This is one of those films where senseless things take place only to fill up screen time, such as the girl chasing sequence at the beginning, and the long silly motorcycle race. I give this film 1/10. I would have liked to see this film on "Mystery Science Theatre" it would have been hilarious.
And one of 'em are bad movies. The title, as it turns out, refers to a killer of the human male variety, not fish. This is not the Dante-directed "Piranha" of '78 (which did have the fish) and is also known as "Piranha, Piranha." A trio of photographers, 2 men and a woman, hook up with a local hunter/trapper named Caribe somewhere in the Amazon jungle. Unfortunately, they are not familiar with the film resume of William Smith, who plays Caribe; otherwise, they would have known immediately he is the villain of the piece. Smith may have also refused to film the ending or cut out before they finished filming (see end of this comment).<br /><br />As mentioned elsewhere, this pic has a lot of filler - lengthy shots of the local wildlife (birds) - and the central set piece, a motorcycle race, which goes on too long. The reason this gets a second star from me is, of course, William Smith, who can't really save this sludge, but once again proves why he was the 'go to' guy 30-35 years ago if you needed a really nasty villain; at his best, Smith could be really terrifying. He's the type who enjoys killing, possibly in sadistic fashion, and you get that sense from the evil grin he usually puts on when a mood strikes him. Physically, he's very imposing, and you know the other 3 characters are pretty much doomed within the first half-hour. This was what Smith brought to most of his roles; it seems hopeless for the other characters against this manlike monster. Unfortunately, the movie continues to muddy things up to the very end, as if a minute of footage was lost - a confusing, incomplete climax.
I've seen a lot of movies in my time and this one really stands out as being the absolute worst movie ever made in the history of film making anywhere in the world. It took me 3 efforts to watch this movie. The first time I fell asleep after 15 minutes from boredom, possibly because I was already tired as it was late at night. The second effort I managed to get through 35 minutes but yet again I found myself asleep. I can go on and on like this but I think you're getting the point......nothing happens ever in this movie. A complete waste of time and money. This movie really sucks. Watch it and you will know what I am talking about. If you can get 40 minutes into this movie without shaking your head and wondering what the hell is the point of it all then you are indeed a masochist. The only reason I gave this movie a 1 out of 10 is because 0 was not provided as an option. I just thought the world needed to be warned before either hiring or worse yet...buying this trash. LATER!
An art teacher comes across an antique wooden bed made from gingko trees and puts it in his apartment, but it has a terrible history and he becomes hunted by a ancient spirit who sustains his human form by ripping the hearts out of people.<br /><br />This beautifully crafted horror… well, actually it's more fantasy/romance than anything else does raise some chills and provide some stunning visuals, but the plot was hardly interesting enough and the formulaic script lacked any sort of life. Problem was that I spent most of the time trying to keep my finger away from the fast forward button. It sure would have sped up the film's slow pacing, but then again I wouldn't know about too much that was going on, which was reasonably hard to figure out or keep interest in the first place. The performances ranged from too melodramatic or just plain dull, and that's probably because these characters are unconvincing, stale and coma inducing. The actual back-story of the old bed and the spirits is incredibly boring and messily put together, with too much focus on a flimsy romance, being laughable when it shouldn't be and overall it's constructed in an ordinary manner that just lacks the oomph or conviction to carry the film. What compensates for the story's shortcomings are really arty images, which looked grand, but the use of some images had me somewhat dumbfounded to what they actually mean towards the film. What catches your eye is the faded colour scheme, but sometimes the actual screen would look real grainy, or snowy. Although, from that it shows the raw intensity of the production valves, but also add some nice polished effects that goes well with the soothing but sometimes edgy score. The camera work was pretty diverse (although it didn't add too much to the feature), but during some of the more upbeat scenes there were too many close ups or dark lighting which made it hard to understand what you are seeing. Also on show are some nice moments of blood and gore, but not overtly grand or distinguishable from most other films.<br /><br />Lethargically odd film, with luminous images that look like something out of a painting, but still it isn't particularly enticing. Watch out, it might put you in a deep trance!
GINGKO BED is a strange movie. It's very convoluted, as if it had a lot of ideas but lacked the ability to bring them all into one coherent story. Instead, we get various plotlines that diverges into their own separate little movies. Oh sure, they eventually meet up in the end, but it all seems rather...superfluous. Of note is the girlfriend and her troubles at the hospital. Was this...interesting? Then there were the "we are spirits, thus we have no physicality" elements, which leads to the same problem that people had with GHOST, namely: If the characters have no physicality (i.e. no corporeal form) and they can phase through walls and what not, how exactly do they keep from falling through the floor, or float up the ceiling for that matter?<br /><br />GINGKO BED was highly touted as a new breed of South Korean film. There's plenty of special effects, but the movie itself is hollow and its faux melodrama will only "touch" those who are easy to, well, touch to begin with. <br /><br />4 out of 10<br /><br />(go to www.nixflix.com for a more detailed review of this movie and reviews of other foreign films)
I remember watching this mini-series the first time in 1984 with a growing sense of anger and indignation. Having read the comments on this title, I must agree with those from the people in Greece. This was produced to coincide with the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games and, to me, it seemed like nothing more than an exercise in jingoistic, flag-waving American nationalism in which the American athletes are glorified at everyone else's expense. Some other nationalities would have every right to feel deeply insulted at the way they were portrayed in this series. It may, however, help to explain the way in which many American spectators behaved at the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics and the TV coverage which seemed only interested in events that Americans were likely to win.
"Disappointing" is the best word I could think for this film, especially considering the glowing reviews it receives from some other users.<br /><br />One thing that really spoils the film is that it is unabashedly partial(in both senses of the word). Not only does it present a very selective description of the games (focussing as it does on the US athletics team) but it also contains several inaccuracies, most of which serve to exaggerate the difficulties the US team faced.<br /><br />What is even more disturbing is that all the omissions and mistakes (?), appear to glorify US sportsmanship to the exclusion of other athletes (with a few celebrated exceptions). For example, the viewer is led to believe that the US won the majority of medals in the Games, when in fact they won only one out of four gold medals and one out of 6 total. Similarly, many athletes are portrayed as caricatures of their respective countrymen (thus we have an arrogant Brit, and a wine-swilling French). This attitude does very little service to the Olympic ideals that the film is supposed to celebrate.<br /><br />In conclusion, I believe that this film would appeal to that part of the US audience that is looking for a quick boost of national self-esteem. Those looking for a detailed and historically correct description of the games are advised to look elsewhere.
Historically awful. Scarcely an accurate moment in 4 hours of ridiculosity. One cannot keep track of the inconsistencies while watching. As with all track and filed movies, nobody bothers to ask for any track consultants. Events and techniques that weren't even created until the next century are shown. From the shots of runners jogging in a 400 meters to the highly overweight actor portraying the high jump and long jump winner, one would have to know absolutely nothing about track to even be mildly entertained. Likely thrown together in 1984 as a tribute to the games just prior to the LA Olympics.
I sat last night to see this film being played in Greek television because of the upcoming Olympic Games hosted by my city.Knowing that it is an American film, i had already expected it to focus more on the American athletes story.And i was really ready for it. But what i saw was..., too much!I mean, when a movie has such a title ("First Olympics: Athens 1896"), even being of American origin, you would not expect it to be so propagandizing and, on the same time, ignorant towards other countries' athletes and efforts.The American athletes seem to have all the gifts of nature (strength, smartness, generosity, kindness, politeness...), in contrast to their "sin-athletes" in the Games, who seem being unable even to... speak their thoughts or express feelings.The number of times the American anthem is played during the film must be an all time record in filmography.Megalomania at it's best!It even uses fictionalized facts which ridicules the Greek nation, such as Greek citizens serving the foreign Marathon athletes with wine, in order to help the domestic ones win the race.So much for the Olympic spirit.<br /><br />Think of it.Being a Greek and putting a bad mark to a movie whose title is also Greek is something that doesn't make me happy at all.But according to what i have seen, i cannot give it more than 4 out of 10 (being pretty generous actually).
That's all I can really say about this film. It's DBZ...like Tree of Might and The World's Strongest, it really...doesn't fit into the timeline for the show at all, though it is supposedly placed just before the beginning of the TV series. The action is pretty nice in general. The plot has a nice enough base, with a good background establishing why these guys hate each other and all. Pretty good in general, there... The problem is...there's a lot of really weird stuff. I mean, really weird stuff. Like The World's Strongest, there's a really, really odd song in this one that could only have been created in a drug induced haze...disturbing is the fact that Gohan, while singing, is pretty much drugged out himself. Creepy. The villains are odd and rather comical...moreso than the usual DBZ type--this seems more like it was made as a Dragon Ball movie rather than a Dragon Ball Z movie. In general, its entertaining enough, but...just...strange.
After reading so many glowing reports of 'To Serve Them All My Days' I went out and bought it for Christmas. A waste of money, I'm afraid. I was looking forward to something in the same league as 'Brideshead Revisited' and some of the few other great productions from British television but this is decidedly not among them. <br /><br />The characters are all too good to be true, swathed in a very predictable plot and with the most trite and eye-rolling script I've heard in years. Yes, it has its moments, but they are very thin on the ground. The lead actor is interesting, mostly because of his uncanny resemblance to Anthony Andrews (Sebastian in 'Brideshead'), only dark. But his undoubted talents are wasted on a character who is insufferably self-important and priggish. His prickliness is attributed to the effects of his experiences in the Somme during WW1. He does the early episodes, centered around his nervous condition, better than he does playing the the squeaky clean, socialist do-gooder later on. <br /><br />The women are completely unbelievable, as in un-real. His first wife is annoyingly chipper and chirpy, the girlfriend, the perfect sophisticated slut, and the last lady a hodge-podge of political bosh. The most interesting characters are Howarth (Alan MacNaughton) and one of the other masters, named Hobarth, I forget the actor's name.<br /><br />The high-minded preachiness of the script is typical Andrew Davies, screen-writer, in his early years, and becomes tiresome within the first two episodes (this mini-series is 11 episodes long!). By episode 4 I just wanted to get through the blasted thing. <br /><br />The music is equally tedious, limited mostly to one mawkish piano tune and a chorale sung by boys during the credits. No expense was spared on the location settings which gives some visual relief to an otherwise excruciating viewing experience.<br /><br />I like stories of this sort, as a rule, and am very disappointed at the maudlin nature of this series. If you want to watch something riveting about WW1 and its after-effects there are many other far finer vehicles to rent or buy. One that comes to mind is 'The Unknown Soldier' from 1998. The characters in that Masterpiece Theater presentation are real and fascinating and move one, unlike the 2 dimensional puppets in 'To Serve Them All My Days.' As for films on boys' schools stick to 'Goodbye Mr Chips' or 'Tom Brown's Schooldays'. <br /><br />I know this goes against the general favorable view of this mini-series, but I strongly recommend thinking twice before shelling out $80.00 to Acorn Media for their 4 DVD set, 2 discs of which on my set had insurmountable problems with freezing and skipping.
Forget any angst-ridden documentary! This film is really an out and out comedy about a 40-yer-old porn star whose goal in life is to sing junky circuit party songs. The only problem? Colton Ford can't sing! And the film cuts away whenever he appears to be ready to burst into song. Yet Ford and equally vapid boyfriend Blake Harper whine and primp and run around in their tank tops, determined to make dreams come true. Even funnier is "manager" Kyle who appears to have the I.Q. of a turnip and whose collagen-injected lips look like a bee stung him. How can grown men be so self-delusional? Bwa ha ha! As for the documentary, the filmmakers don't appear to have any POV and the film is poorly structured and wildly uneven. Very little background information is provided about the three leads. Such an inclusion might have made the three seem like something other than aging West Hollywood stereotypes.
So what is one to do if you are a porno star with fading looks? I know, become a pop star! This documentary - and I use the term loosely - follows the trials and tribulations of Colton as he tries to transform himself from a gay porn star into a singer of electronic (read: dance) music. I only wish Mr Ford's voice was as muscular as his arms...sorry to say his vocals are painfully thin. There isn't much interesting going on here but Mr Ford and friends are eye candy.<br /><br />See him record a song that sounds exactly like every other mindless dance tune. See him travel to New York to make "connections." See him go back to L.A. with little success. See yourself look in the mirror and ask, " Why am I wasting time watching this mess?"
For the first fifteen minutes the story of NAKED FAME is interesting: two late thirties male porn stars in a seemingly healthy relationship decide to leave the Porn industry and try for the world of singing and acting. The two very buff and preening men are Colton Ford and Blake Harper. With the aid of Kevin Aviance and Marc Berkely, Colton makes a dance track that is then marketed in New York with the hopes that Colton Ford will become an instant star - a unique disco singer touting his background as a Porn Star for PR.<br /><br />The remainder of the film is grumbling and in-fighting and commentary by Porn Producer ChiChi LaRue and the film slowly sinks into repetition and doldrums. Not a bad idea for a film if there were a bit more depth revealed in each character's drive to move away form a successful career (though one greatly influenced by the youth both characters have lost) into an alternative one. It is just that a one-note song wears thin quickly. Grady Harp, November 05
One of the worse gay-related movies I have ever seen. Since these are not characters in this story it's hard to comment on the actual film. Therefore, since Colton Ford (aka Glen) laid his life open for all to see, I guess he's fair game to criticize. And that's not hard to do. Here goes. 50 something Glen is a big time porn star who wants fame and fortune as a big time singer. (I guess 11 films makes him a "star") Being gay and forty, I have seen porno and I did not recognize him or his lover. Personally they all look the same to me with different hair styles. Face it, guys, he's no Jeff Stryker, Jim Bently or Casey Donovon. That's OK, though. The purpose of these films takes place in about 6.5 minutes, so they all pretty much have the same requirements, if you know what I mean.<br /><br />So Glen wants to be a serious (legit) singer after he dumps the porno industry but he can't get anyone to take him seriously. I wonder why? Was he so stupid to think that he could whitewash taking his clothes off and having sex on film. And according to the film it's not just porn flicks he indulges in, it's living in a house with other "stars" where people can hook into their bedroom, the bathroom and where ever via webcams . It's 500 dollars an hour to entertain at a private party. Strip gigs at clothing optional "hotels". Doing something called meth which I presume is a drug. And then you have the balls to get angry when someone at a club gig tries to touch you ---- because he's "legit" now. Oy!<br /><br />The only interesting, non-cardboard character is the Academy Award winning gay screen writer who wouldn't give his name. And considering this is a documentary, well, porn is as porn does. You can tell he's most amused by the dumb-bunny porn star.<br /><br />Glen has one hyper-nellie manager (Kyle) who wants to "sell' him as a porno-participant in hopes of getting him gay-club gigs. He tries to do the Svengalli-routine. "Wear this" "Don't smile" "say this" in what amounts to controlling issues. But our anti-hero will not be controlled or told what to do. That's the first mistake. I'm not saying Kyle was right but if any budding singer starts questioning the manager, they're not going to get far. Kind of like: He who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client.<br /><br />All of this wouldn't have been bad if it weren't for one small tiny bit of information. Drum roll, please. He's bad. He sucks. His singing talent ranks up there with Ashlee Simpson. It's hard to root for someone who -- while trying make his dream come true --- at 50! --- doesn't work like normal people. No job. Can you say lazy-ass? And the whining, and the "Why don't they accept me." song and dance. And after a few months of scraping the surface of the music industry, he spouts off, "Why don't I have a record deal by now." What? Actors are waiters. Writers work in low-level newspapers or mags -- whatever. This guy is above that. It's true. He wants his success now merely because he decided he wanted it. Whine. Whine Whine. His lover leaves him to return to nursing but I tell ya I wouldn't want that moron dispensing medical care to me. Both of them were useless. Airheads. The movie is useless. Unless you really like Whine and Cheeesy people stay away. Do not waste your money on the crappy lives of useless people, there are far more interesting things stuck to the bottom of your shoe.
Dryly irreverent, but sadly unfunny satire of detective movies, with stony-faced Michael Caine playing a British author of trashy crime stories traveling to the Mediterraean to assist in writing the memoirs of a would-be gangster; soon, he realizes he's being followed and his life is in danger. Caine narrates the proceedings with considerable sly wit and low-keyed sarcasm, but his actual performance is bereft of energy (Caine's shrill bursts of anger or frustration seem to come out of nowhere, and he connects with nobody on the screen). Other cast members (particularly Mickey Rooney, a silver-haired Lionel Stander, and Lizabeth Scott) do very well in colorfully outré roles, though Al Lettieri has an insulting part as an apparent cross-dressing homosexual (Lettieri gets insulted without being able to defend himself, an unenviable position). Writer-director Mike Hodges has the germ of a good idea (satirize the detective movies of the 1940s without compromising the hard-boiled talk and milieu), but he hasn't a very sharp sense of humor. When a Bogart lookalike--asking a question about a falcon--is the best joke, what follows is anemic indeed. ** from ****
I watched this video because I like Malta and this movie was filmed in its entirety there. Very disappointing, since it fails to catch any of the flavor or beauty of the island - just the hot, dry, and barren elements. The movie was dull, boring, completely incoherent from beginning to end, pretentious, and devoid of any conceivable plot. You had to be a psychic to follow the plot line, or lack thereof. It had its moments, sure; but so does going to the dentist.<br /><br />In short, I'd much rather endure another colonoscophy before viewing this horrible mess again. It was so bad, I actually couldn't fall asleep. There are quite a few "Eurotrash" movies out there that were obviously made without adult supervision. This is one of them. On the bright side, who is Nadia Cassini? Never before have I seen a more beautiful set of legs. She is the one saving grace of this movie.<br /><br />Disturbing, too, was the cruel boar hunt depicted in the closing credits. A boar that was released on someone's property (Malta has very few native mammals; all of them small - rats, bats, etc.) and then set upon by dogs before it was shot. Oh, well - go visit Malta anyway despite this film - it's a beautiful, colorful island; rich in history and lots of fun.
What bird is that ? A maltese falcon. The only thing remotely funny about this movie is Michael Caines hair. Which has more depth and character than the man underneath it.<br /><br />The Malta settings are as dry and as barren as the dialogue. Salutes to Raymond Chandler and Humphrey Bogart and crime fiction etc... seem obtuse and just plain silly without the salvation of any humour or pertinency. The reason this film has no 'longevity' and near forgotten is it's so vacuous, an hour and half of pointless time spent in the company of second rate actors and film makers - This film is what the title suggests...
Okay, enough. Every time I think I've seen a film that is so misbegotten, so bad in every way that I think that no one could possibly find something to praise, I just come to the IMDb where I'm greeted with the usual inane "Undiscovered masterpiece" "GREAT film" - I mean, honestly, what movie are you people watching, because it's certainly not the mess I just watched on the new Fox/MGM/UA DVD. There are about three amusing lines, and a plot that gives incoherence a new meaning. And then, after ninety-three interminable minutes, it just stops and the end credits begin. Then there's another scene. The DVD is fairly wretched, which suits the film. The source material is almost completely faded to an ugly brown. It's hard to imagine this film followed Get Carter. The critics and the public got this one right back then - it was lambasted and a box-office disaster, and rightfully so. But you pundits keep on trying. And I'll keep on trying to find a movie that DOESN'T have SOMEONE who raves about it.
This is a silly spoof of private eye thrillers as a novelist(Michael Cain)is called upon to 'ghostwrite' an autobiography of a colorful, waning Hollywood star(Mickey Rooney). At times silliness becomes obnoxious. This is not Cain at his best. Rooney is way over the top. Notable support from Lizabeth Scott, Lionel Stander and the comely Nadia Cassini. Not easy to watch.
I was hoping that Pulp would be a interesting movie, but was profoundly disappointed.<br /><br />Pulp has very little storyline, and what there is never holds your interest. It was a real struggle to keep watching it. When its over you say to you self "huh? that's it?!?". This is one where you think after watching it - why did they ever bother?<br /><br />Its too bad since Michael Caine is a good actor. I was also hoping to see the great Lizabeth Scott in this, but she only appears on screen for a total of perhaps one minute. Scott is one of the all time great film noir femme fatale girls and this was her last film.<br /><br />Oh well...
This film is a bad film but to gain any nutritional value from it I recommend watching it back to back with Rosemary's Baby.<br /><br />There is a lot to learn seeing how different directors can draw different performances from the same actors playing the same characters. Observe Minnie Castevet (Ruth Gordon) and the fine work she did in the first film vs the awful rendition in this film.<br /><br />It is also interesting to see how the same characters were played by different actors. Which leads me to wonder if anyone involved with the sequel were aware of the first film and did any of them watch Rosemary's Baby before making this?<br /><br />If your interest in films is purely superficial then you would best avoid this one. I have a lot more to say about this film but I really don't want to go there.
For a movie that gained so much recognition and appraise this spinoff to "Rosemarys Baby" is one big mistake. It starts off that Andrew/Adrian whatever his name is because he's so confused that he doesn't know who he is anymore runs away from a cult with his mother and soon is kidnapped by a strange lady that ends up taking care of him as if she were his mother. The acting is terrible as Andrew grows up in his twenties and looks terrible with his sunken in face, never ending grin and Dukes of Hazard clothes on looks more like a drunken has been than the son of Satan. In fact thats all he does is drink and falls sloppily all over himself as he tries to come to grips with his past and the last memory of his mother driving away on a bus screaming to him. He finds a friend that seems to be an angel but he's quickly killed off and electricuted in a hillarious scene in which he looks more like a Christmas tree. Andrew gets cought and the cult with the members of the first part test him to see if he's really the Son of Satan. His dumb self fails the test and gets up off the alter glittering with myme makeup and jumps of the stage of a night club and dances like a clown on crack!!! This scene is memorable and well worth a watch. The ending is terrible and somewhat predictable considering how stupid he is in the whole movie. Do not watch this piece of trash or you will loose respect for the first part.
I usually seek to find good in movies, even the bad ones.Unfortunately this movie is one where I fail miserably-and the fact that there's barely one positive review on this board shows many IMDb reviewers share my pain.<br /><br />I don't usually watch sequels but I just had to see this since I love "Rosemary's Baby" so much. What a mistake that was. It simply reaffirms my belief in the fact that most sequels are lousy-though thankfully, very few are as bad as this. In fact in my mind this isn't even really a sequel, it's a satire on how bad a sequel can be. Movie recommended very highly for not viewing-at any time-ever.
Sam O'Steen, the film editor on the superlative suspense flick "Rosemary's Baby" from 1968, here directs a quickie TV-made sequel, one in which Rosemary Woodhouse (Patty Duke Astin, in for Mia Farrow) is shunted off early--and inexplicably--presumably to help flesh out the more ghoulish aspects of this flaccid story about Satan's son on Earth. Most interesting is the return of Ruth Gordon to her Oscar-winning role as Minnie Castevet (with Ray Milland well-cast as her husband, Roman), but she isn't given much to do--and looks terribly uncomfortable at being involved anyway. This script is strictly low-rent goods, and must have shamed original author Ira Levin (who went on to write his own sequel). Fairly dim and pallid, with poor photography and no suspense or scares whatsoever.
With its few touches of surrealism, LWHTRB works as low-grade horror, but as a major follow-up statement to the original, it flounders miserably.<br /><br /> Things begin somewhat promising during the telefilm's opening credits... We see and hear several interesting shots and sounds: The Baby's black crib with the overhanging, inverted cross; the kitchen knife Rosemary carried into the Castevette's apartment and dropped in shock (the utensil is shown sticking out of the hardwood floor); and the emptiness of the Bramford itself, without tenants or furniture (voice-overs can be heard here from the previous film's dialog). Interesting too is the Easter Egg hunt the titular child participates in (the eggs and baskets are also black). Once the story gets rolling, it never really 'rolls'... And what happens to Rosemary when she boards that driverless bus, and is whisked away to God-knows-where? <br /><br />Patty Duke (a poor replacement for Mia Farrow), Ray Milland and Tina Louise (as the Southwestern Whore who raises the child, "Adrian/Andrew") head this almost-star cast, with Ruth Gordon reprising her "Minnie" role.<br /><br />Although not a total failure, this sequel-of-sorts should have been released in book form first, then maybe we all could have been a bit better informed... and not left totally in the dark. A fairly recent sequel novel "Son of Rosemary" (1999?) is the legitimate followup by Ira Levin himself.<br /><br />
Pretty lousy made-for-TV sequel to the Roman Polanski classic. Rosemary's son Adrian has grown up and is embodied by creepy Stephen McHattie. After eliminating Rosemary (here played by Patty Duke) a coven of witches, again led by Minnie & Roman Castevets, preps Satan's son for world domination. It's not really scary and light years less macabre than its predecessor. Instead, writer Anthony Wilson and director Sam O'Steen opt for a Satan-worshiping thriller full of a lot of chanting, plenty of candles, and Ruth Gordon trying to act daffy and nasty at the same time. Gordon's the sole holdover from the original. George Maharis replaces John Cassavetes as Guy and a very hammy Ray Milland plays Roman Castevets, subbing for the late Sidney Blackmer. Newcomer McHattie is the film's only real saving grace. He's very off-kilter and looks really sinister without even doing anything. The music by Charles Bernstein is suitably creepy, but so over-used, it's ends up being intrusive rather than effective. O'Steen, who edited the earlier Polanski masterpiece, shows no flair or subtlety whatsoever.
The first film is somewhat good to me, I enjoyed it for the most part, but I thought it was really nothing all that special. However, when compared to this mess it looks a whole heck of a lot better. Why they felt the need to make the movie is beyond me, but they should have known it could not match the acting of the first movie when they only could get Ruth Gordon back to reprise her role. The story kind of follows Rosemary's baby around and stuff, but in reality it is kind of a mess, it does not help that the movie is a television movie and the television look shines through very well. It has more of a comedy tone to it as well which hinders it greatly, if they really felt the need to make a sequel they should have made it an R rated movie that had some nudity and gore in it. I am sure it would have still been quite bad, but at least it would have been more watchable and fun which this movie is not despite its trying to be funny. I saw this one on Monstervision and Joe Bob had nothing really good to say about it in the intro and I do not have to much to say either. I do have to say it was a sequel that should have never seen the light of day.
Um... okay, this is very poor indeed if compared to the first film, the very-much-so critically acclaimed Rosemary's Baby. In fact, it's a pretty poor film in general. Yes, there are a few redeeming qualities, but I'll get to that later.<br /><br />Well, it has been quite a while since the last film took place... in fact, it's been pretty much eight years I believe. Rosemary is still trying to escape with her child and influence him in a good way, rather than let him succumb to the evil future that the coven (or "tribe", as it is referred to as here) has laid out for him. When she runs off with him and an empty bus comes and picks her up, leaving her child with a hooker, the hooker raises him until he comes of age, where Satan tries to possess him since he seems to be rejecting his evil heritage in every way.<br /><br />Obviously, things don't go as planned, and then there is the ending that I would have felt seriously ashamed at had I not seen it coming since hearing that there was a sequel to "Rosemary's Baby"! Okay, when I was around 11 years old, I witnessed the masterpiece Rosemary's Baby and then read the book sequel. Thinking that this film was an adaptation of that, I tracked this film down and got it... was I right in doing so? Well, in some way, yes... I am a true fan of this "franchise" and can say that I have seen the sequel, and I have some idea as to what happens after the events in the first film (speaking of both this film AND "Son of Rosemary", Ira Levin's own book sequel, not yet adapted to film).<br /><br />Ruth Gordon, who played Minnie in the first film, is shown a few times in this film, but why-oh-why is the coven so different? The knife Rosemary had dropped in the first film is shown sticking out of the ground, yet Minnie pulled it out! The coven is now called the tribe (as I said earlier). They now go around in hooded capes chanting "Hail Satan... Hail Adrian... Hail Satan... Hail Adrian..." and so on and so forth. The Gothic building is now like a two-story house on a lawn in the middle of nowhere, it looks like a little nice suburb home or something! And the child itself is pretty normal-looking, with his eyes only going all "catty" when he gets mad and kills someone or something in that vain.<br /><br />As far as the acting goes, it's pretty poor on all parts, except for Stephen McHattie, whom plays a very-grown up Adrian. Pattie Duke Astin, replacing Mia Farrow as Rosemary, has to have one of the flat-out WORST performances ever to be caught on film! It is so bad it's almost not even funny... when she screams "OH MY GOD!" and cries for like the fifteenth time in the movie, you're just like "Okay, it's not funny anymore," and then by the time she is gone and the movie has been on for twenty minutes only, you're like THANK THE LORD I DON'T HAVE TO HEAR HER SAY "OH MY GOD" ANY LONGER!! SHEESH! In the end, this movie has very, very, *very* few redeeming qualities, enough to get it at least four stars. But, if you look at it as a serious sequel to the first film, it's pretty much non-existent.
I kept watching it because it seemed like the plot was going somewhere. When it ambiguously got there I was very disappointed. I'm going to tell you what really happened in the next sentence. But maybe I won't. Maybe I'll just imply something will happen. The writers lacked any imagination. This is not even a "B" movie - it's a made for TV "B" movie.
I think "Rosemary's Baby" is the most overrated horror film out there. Not scary, interesting or much of anything. It's reasonably well-directed and Ruth Gordon was wonderful but that's about it. But this sequel makes it look like "Gone With the Wind"!<br /><br />I caught this on TV back when I was 14. Unfortunately, I still remember it. From what I remember Rosemary's baby Andrew is now grown up and the coven wants him to start taking over (the world that is). But there are forces trying to stop it...and Andrew is having doubts himself...<br /><br />I'm giving this a 2 for a few reasons: Gordon is in this (and still very good); Stephen McHattie was actually pretty good as Andrew and there is one spooky moment at the beginning with Rosemary (Patty Duke) being "kidnapped" by a bus...with no driver.<br /><br />Other than that it's dull, silly and needless. The original didn't NEED a sequel! Ira Levin's book followup in 1999 wasn't much better.<br /><br />Tune in for the beginning with Duke...then tune out. Not worth the effort.
If you thought "ROSEMARY'S BABY" was bad, this one isn't much better. Easily one of the worst movies ever made, like it's lame predecessor, it goes nowhere fast. <br /><br />Rating: 1/2* out of *****
A disturbing film, this, climaxing, as it does, with an intensely intimate reunion between a naked man and his young son, but in its confused structure it contains a poetically imagined visual exploration of the innocence of an idealised amnesiac.<br /><br />The plot follows two threads, the weaker of which is the gradual revelation of Graham/Pablo's condition. Wound through this, though, is a beautiful description of his condition, and his meandering path towards a partial awakening, driven by his affair with Irene.<br /><br />The affair is the strong thread, while the specifics of the plot are carried by a seemingly tacked on collection of characters: Graham's best friend, who can reveal the cause of his condition in a clunking flashback, his manipulative boss and his comic book mad scientist psychologist: all of whom have an interest in keeping him lost and dependent.<br /><br />The failure of the film lies in the conflict between the two threads. One is visual, meandering and sublime, while the other is structured like an inept thriller, all expository dialogue and unresolved patterns of symbolism.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I enjoyed Novo. It keeps flirting with the abyss of taboo and shying away into something beautiful, as in the quarry, with the double bassist and the two women, when a setup for a scene of cheap pornography becomes a segment of peace and rejuvenation. I still don't get the tooth, though.<br /><br />Odd, clunky and a narrative failure, but with an almost redeeming beauty.
I have heard that Novo was compared to Memento for the simple fact they both rely on main characters suffering from short-term memory loss. Well, that's like comparing The Silence of the Lambs and Friday the 13th as both involved a character that killed multiple people. They couldn't be further apart in ideas.<br /><br />Novo deals with a copier man at a company who does have short term memory loss. He is consistently followed by another gentleman and his boss likes to have sex with him in the office. In comes a temp who also gets involved with him and may/may not use him for sex. Needless to say, he has a lot of on-screen sex.<br /><br />Wait, there's more. There's a boy who runs into the troubled amnesia male and it's obvious there's more to this boy just bumping into him. And there's a notebook the man keeps to try and remember important clues.<br /><br />I admit I am not one for foreign-made films. I don't mind reading the subtitles, but I do mind that sometimes that takes away from one of my favorite aspects of a film: great dialogue. Since they have to translate, or I wouldn't be able to understand for the most part, I truly believe they simplify what the characters have to say. This movie was no exception; the dialogue was just, well, blah.<br /><br />As for the story, it was interesting enough to keep me around for 98 minutes. Weird, yes, but then again I don't live in France, so I am not as familiar with their likes/dislike or lifestyles. (Such as, I guess it's acceptable for a father to lie with and frolic in the buff with his son on the beach – that must be a cultural thing.) Thankfully it wasn't two+ hours of time invested in watching this man regain his past and progressively move forward to his cure. For, when the "secret" is learned, I was like, really? Well, okay then.<br /><br />I can only recommend for somewhat decent acting, good looking folks and soft-porn sexual situations (like every 2-4 minutes,) however if you're not into that sort of scene, I would wholeheartedly skip this slow moving and memory-regaining film.
It's difficult to decide who or what is the target audience for this film. Jean-Pierre Limousin presumably had the chance to explore the problems of amnesia on a serious level and opted instead to use it as an excuse to make a soft-porn movie. Having seen, loved, admired and respected Se Souvenir des belles choses which explores memory loss - albeit as the result of Alzheimer's - in a profound and heartbreaking way, not least in the luminous performance of Isabelle Carre I find that Novo is an insult to Se Souvenirs. I have no problem with soft porn per se - and even if I had I'd virtually have to give up going to movies so prevalent is it today - but I do have a problem with writers/directors who attempt to respectablise it by cloaking it as here in the guise of medical research. The sad thing is that fine actresses like Julie Gayet - so wonderful in Clara et Moi - and Anna Mouglalis - who seems to have hit into a double play after last week's Le Deluge and now this - are wasting their time on dross like this.
I really wanted to like this film, especially after all the buzz I'd heard revolving around it. But, sadly, it just didn't work for me. Paranoid Park suffers from the same delusion Lost In Translation did--If you use very little dialogue, be heavy on the slow motion close ups and concentrate on pieces of fabric in the setting, then your story will magically come across as deep and thoughtful. <br /><br />Much of the plot line, if you can find a plot, of this film is contrived. I wasn't impressed with the 'write it all down' confessional being the way the protagonist deals with the accident--So what are we supposed to believe? He grew up happily ever after and wrote a book about his experiences, thus was vindicated for that horrific incident?<br /><br />What is, I suspect, supposed to be a film that evokes empathy for a young man who is directionless and faced with an impossible moral quandary, instead creates a portrait of a future sociopathic personality. He has no connection to anyone around him, and by the end of the film has no real sense of what is right or wrong. He has no direction at home and feels nothing for his friends. What we have is a portrait of a non-person, a spirit that merely coasts through life as he weaves his way along on his skateboard. I don't feel for him at all, and honestly I wish he'd been caught. The entire film centres not necessarily on his feelings of guilt, but on how he is going to avoid punishment and/or accountability for a bad decision. He not only gets away with it, he finds a way to subtly rationalise it. Quite a frightening, negative message, the suggestion being that so many of our youth are so disconnected from right and twrong that they simply make up the rules as they go along, serving themselves for good or ill. I find it an insulting treatsie on today's youth, and the pretentious arrogance of the film-maker drips thick with every plodding, overthought step and shifting eye.<br /><br />(He did murder the guard, but if you blink your eyes you miss it. Whether it was an act of mercy or not is hard to say--it could be he was so mortified he lashed out with his skateboard. When he runs to the security guard's car, one of the wheels of his skateboard is stained with blood. )
...now please move on because that's getting on my nerves.<br /><br />Seriously, the man behind brilliant pieces like "My Own Private Idaho" and "To Die For" (and others not so brilliant movies, i.e. the unnecessary "Psycho" remake) started an experimental phase with "Gerry", which reached its peak with the thought-provoking "Elephant". "Last Days" had some interesting aspects but was very uneven, while "Paranoid Park", his new film, also has good-looking 15 year-olds walking around... and not much else. Some cool references to Fellini (the soundtrack reuses some beautiful pieces by Nino Rota) and the elegant cinematography by the legendary Christopher Doyle ("In the Mood for Love") are the highlights, but the movie is just too artsy-fartsy and meaningless for its own doom. We've had much better coming of age stories, and "Paranoid Park" brings nothing new. I don't see anything artistic about seeing excessive shots of Gabe Nevins in his underwear or showering. Or when Nevins and 13 year-old Taylor Momsen (the little girl from "How the Grinch Stole Christmas"), who plays his cheerleading girlfriend, have sex for the first time, just because she felt like they had to do it and after they're done, she calls her friend to say how amazing it was (and you can say from Nevins' face how traumatic it was). Everybody knows that they're starting earlier and earlier nowadays, movies like "Thirteen" and even "Elephant" itself (which shows how lost their minds are in general, not only when it comes to sexuality) have done a better portrayal of that. Gus tries to be minimalist and artistic, but the final result is just boring and uninteresting. His next project, "Milk", a biopic about Harvey Milk starring Sean Penn, will, hopefully, bring the good old Gus back, because, frankly, this obsession over underage kids is almost... creepy. 4.5/10.
first off, i'm amazed to see that this film has got a rating of 7 on this site. at first i thought it might be industry people logging in to IMDb and jacking up the rating. but after looking on rotten tomatoes and seeing that this film has something like a 76% approval rating, it seems that maybe folks have just been duped again into mistaking pretentious crap for profundity. i mean, this film is simply awful. the acting is simply terrible, but the rest of the film is worse. at least the acting provides some (unintentional) laughs. <br /><br />the plot involves a teenage skateboarding boy who is being questioned along with his friends for a murder that happened by a park where they skate. and that's about it. the rest of the film consists of the aforementioned terrible acting, terrible dialog, slow motion shots of people walking, of people's faces, of people skating, often set to music that does not fit the scene. perhaps that was done to be "cool" or experimental or hip. or perhaps it was done in hopes that it would fool people into thinking that it is somehow profound, but it does not work. nothing in this film works. it's pretentious garbage. i can't not recommend it enough.
How any of you gave this more than 2 stars amazes me. I made an account on IMDb just to comment on this cr@p film. The acting is cr@p and the plot is cr@p. It would deserve no stars at all if it weren't for the descent soundtrack (and yet there are still some outrageously clownish tracks in there too, most notably the ones featuring the oboe and sound like black and white cartoon comedy background music and in no way fit the intended mood of the scenes that they haunt) and quality cinematography. The dialog and plot are about as complex as that of a Dr. Sues book. These actors are horrible. I am actually watching this movie right now and, with every word, am stunned you all swallowed this shitte. The only reason I didn't turn the movie off was because I have gotten wrapped up in creating an account on IMDb and posting this review. I dig mainstream films, I dig silly stupid films, I dig retro indie films, and nearly any other type/genre if carried out well. My brother convinced me to rent this because he said he heard it was good and he generally has great taste in movies; from the moment he told me the title I looked at him like he was crazy. I'm having a tough time ending this rant because there is just so much badness to talk about. The only way I can rationalize the good ratings on here is that you guys were paid to give this movie high ratings. It is so poorly done and no where close to dramatic, artsy, complex, well written, well preformed, or even bearable. If this was the final product of my hard directorial work, I would be to embarrassed to release it to the public, so I don't even feel sorry for the director if he reads this -- what the hell were you thinking guy?
I logged on here right after watching this movie, feeling that it was so awful that at least its reviews might be entertaining. But all you miscreants appear to kind of like it. And so, since I want the job done right...<br /><br />From the opening shot, the movie establishes its contempt for the audience's attention span by showing an entirely unremarkable picture of an irrelevant bridge for a long, long time. Then it goes to some slow-motion skateboarding, which is at least a little bit cool, but then offsets that glimmer of excitement by overlaying the most repellent soundtrack song I've ever heard. Some girl screeching in whispery French over what sounds like sheets of plywood banging together. Whoever decided that needed to be there has never ridden a skateboard, I guarantee it. It seemed to be there to test the limits of the audience's patience.<br /><br />From there, the movie is about 50 per cent slow motion. You know what's worse than a gratuitous slow-motion shot? A gratuitous slow motion shot of *nothing happening.* Here's a guy walking along a path. Here's a guy sitting. Here's a guy looking around. Here's a guy looking at another guy. After a while I started watching the movie at double speed, bringing it back down whenever people appeared on screen engaging in actual dialog, which was rare. Once, astonishingly, I slowed the movie to find out what a girl was saying, only to find that the camera was showing her talking, but the sound was another horrible, horrible song and her actual voice was not audible.<br /><br />This reminds me of some great advice I heard once about writing -- if you don't have anything to say, don't use fancy tricks to pretend as though you do. Get back to work and think of something to say. All these camera tricks, like the slow motion and weird lighting and lenses and freaky music, is what the absence of content looks and sounds like. A lot of people have apparently bought it, and perceive emotional gravity and deep meaning, but I think they are projecting this onto a movie that did not do any of the work involved in creating it.
this movie is honestly the worst piece of rubbish i have ever seen. this is slow, plot less and boring. the cinematographer deserved to be shot. There were various aspects of unintentional comedy, one of which was Jared being oddly camp. Raised many laughs but also many yawns. don't watch with anyone, anytime any place. If u hate someone, recommend they buy or rent this. big waste of time and money. Thanks Gus Van Sant...not. i cant think of anything else to say except Don't ever see this movie, it will make u want to jump off a cliff. Hope Gus and his mates read this comment before it's too late and he makes a sequel or some other catastrophe with what appeared to be shot with a camera phone.
When me and my GF went to see this film, we didn't know what to expect, however she assured me that it had good reviews. So I went along with it. We got into the cinema and bought tickets and went into the screen. After a while of sitting there waiting for the film to start no one else walked through the door. I was very suspicious as you usually get at least a couple of more people in any film screening. The film began eventually and we sat there. After a while of very little dialogue and very "arty" type moody scenes I was starting to realise why we were the only people there. It was disjointed with random cuts from the main story to kids in a skate park, the story it's self made no sense. The kid was meant to have committed a crime when he didn't and If he did, writing a letter to no one is not an answer and you shouldn't feel not guilty just because you wrote that letter, he should have been punished. There was no point to this film at all. I have no idea why we didn't go and get our money back part of the way through the film. I tried to give it a chance I guess. There was little concept to this film, and the execution was disgraceful. The writer and director and just about everyone else who made this film should have realised what they were doing and stopped. It is an hour plus that I will never ever ever get back. I'm sorry to anyone who liked this film, but...it's just so so awful, i mean really really really bad. Oh well at least i never have to be subjected to it again.
If it's an art and essay film, there is not enough art, not to mention essay.<br /><br />If it is a thriller, there is not enough thriller.<br /><br />If it is a teenage drama, there is not enough drama, and as far as teenagers are concerned, there is not enough NOFX and too much Nino Rota.<br /><br />I thought it could be a trailer for Tony Hawk's forthcoming movie, but there is no Tony Hawk, so I guess I'be been cheated: it's not Tony Hawk biopic.<br /><br />If it's an action movie, it lacks explosions, which would have added some interest to it, or at least would have make jump the sleeping ones into their chairs.<br /><br />Most of the characters seem to be dead inside, but it's not a zombie movie. In fact, if it is a movie, there is not enough plot. If it is not a movie, it lasts too long to be a music video.<br /><br />If it's a music video, well... it's an album I will not purchase
Paranoid Park is about Alex, a 16 year old skater who causes the death even if accidentally of a security guard. As the movie goes on Alex deals with little issues like his parent's divorce and the sexual heat of his girlfriend Jennifer(played by Taylor Momsen who you can currently see in Gossip Girl) while he's consumed by guilt. I had seen just one movie by Gus Van Sant so far,Elephant, and I can assure you that he kept all his mannerisms while doing this one.Once again he crosses time lines.Once again he uses weird filming techniques like the never-ending shots of people walking...maybe you like these filming techniques, I know I don't. The plot feels unsatisfactory to me...its almost to simple to be explored for such a long time. The feeling I get (same with Elephant)is that Gus Van Sant tries too hard to make an "artistic" movie which causes the movie itself to loose substance. Also Gabe Nevins was pretty bad as Alex, there's a difference between looking alienated or detached and looking like a robot. If you're a fan of Mr.Van Sant then watch this, otherwise skip it.<br /><br />3/10
This movie is awful, I can't even be bothered to write a review on this garbage! All i will say it is one of the most boring films I've ever seen.<br /><br />And the acting is very bad. The boy who plays the main character really annoys me, he's got the same expression on his face through out the movie. I just want to slap him! Basically 80% of the movie is slow motion shots of skateboarders, weird music, and utter sh*t..<br /><br />Apparently I've got to write at least 10 lines of text to submit this comment, so I'll use up a few more lines by saying the lead character has got one of those faces you just want to slap!<br /><br />Meh i give up..THIS MOVIE SUCKS !!!!
Unless you want to be bored half to death. I've never been a fan of Gus Van Sant and as part of what previous posters have described as the new youth generation i was very disappointed and slightly angry at the stereotypical depiction of the characters in the film especially as they were used to string along the film's ridiculous storyline which is pretty much enforcing to the viewing masses that skateboarders are social rejects and should be blamed for crimes. As a skater myself i watch a lot of skate films and the filming during the skate scenes, which is obviously a major part of the plot as the lead protagonist is a skateboarder, was awful and Bourne identity esquire shaky camera technique was used with slow motion to give a horrible effect. This film is just full of ridiculous stereotypes as shown by the 'emo' soundtrack which just adds to the media myth that all skateboarders are white rockers. Simply just a really bad film.
This movie was so bad it looked like a home movie. In one scene, the camera very slowly and gradually tilts down, then moves back up into place again. The sound is crackly, and occasionally fades out then in again. In another scene, the camera man is just visible in a mirror.<br /><br />Then came the scene with instructions how to put down a tent... which, believe me, went on for ages and was completely irrelevant to the plot. Most scenes dragged on with conversations that were not entirely relevant either. In my opinion these were just to fill out the movie and make it longer. Even with these scenes added it was very short.<br /><br />The only good thing about it was the severed head, which did look quite realistic.
To date this is still the worst piece of rubbish I've ever viewed. So annoyed I even complained to Blockbuster for stocking it. Me and some friends rented it after looking at the back cover thinking we were in for a good horror film. The plot line seem to change during the film and there was lots of irrelevant padding. The film ended quite abruptly, I'm guessing they ran out of film. Sound quality was dire and the first female character had a very thick Spanish accent although she talked utter nonsense anyway. The guy provided a brief bit of eye candy until his bizarre attempts at murder. After wasting all the time to go into in-depth discussion on the workshop and its many power tools, he opts to put a plastic bag over her head. All in all on second thoughts I think you have to watch this film to actually believe it exists.
I had the misfortune to see this film recently and have to sit through it. A friend purchased it for £1 and insisted we watch it as it sounded good from the story on the back cover.<br /><br />10 minutes into the film it was apparent that the actors were amateurs and this was an extremely low budget effort.<br /><br />The scenes were very poorly acted, the script was stupid and the story contained many scenes which seemed unnecessarily long, just so the movie would be of a reasonable length.<br /><br />For instance when the lead character rents a warehouse, the film spends a ridiculous amount of time on this scene, with meaningless dialogue which serves no real purpose or necessity to the plot.<br /><br />The lead actor is supposedly carrying out revenge on a woman who sleeps with guys to give them HIV, he never once thinks to get tested. Instead he turns into a crazed killer deciding to torture her before killing her and sawing her into pieces.<br /><br />If this sounds good and you are thinking this will have lots of gore, think again. This film has no real gory sequences and is quite tame for this type of film.<br /><br />It does not scare, it does not make you think, it does not offer fast paced fun. It may however put you to sleep, it is certain to bore you to tears, so please save yourself the despair and follow my heading.<br /><br />AVOID THIS FILM 1/2 out of 10 (this does not deserve even 1)<br /><br />The film was 78 minutes but seemed as if it was 2 1/2 hours.
I watched this film last night, i though i would rent a horror/scary film from blockbusters and i got this one out. The opening scenes were so long winded, the conversations between characters seemed not to lead anywhere. <br /><br />The story line seemed so poor to me, she gave him HIV and then she goes to meet someone else but she is killed by the man she infected ( i think she may have been doing it for a long time to different people) Then when he dumps the body it just happened to be the man she was going to meet, was in the forest and saw him dumping the body. Then he chased them ( did he ever finish burying the body??) and they got into a car and he somehow found them from a different direction they came from and killed the bloke. <br /><br />I think the severed head was the only good thing in the film as it was quite realistic. and then when the woman ran she happened to fall over in front of him so he could stab her with a spade!! AND THEN IT FINISHED!! <br /><br />What a relief, It was the most pointless film i have ever watched...please steer well clear of it, it is just so poorly made, i counted only 5 different people in it, and the scene where he kills her is so unrealistic and they only swear in it and thats it!! Thats it from me...<br /><br />STEER WELL CLEAR!!
This movie was so bad If anyone out their who starred in the movie are reading this including the director,i HATE YOU! LOL,that blonde woman, who was running away screaming through the forest.At least CRY RATHER THAN SCREAM AND KEEP DOING THE DODGY HEAVY BREATHING!! and oh dear god, if it was the director who sorted out the cameras on this one, then go back to a normal job. No one wants to be watching some scared woman's chin throughout it.Damn, don't even THINK about renting/buying or even having a copy of this within 100 metre radius of your house since it can be harmful to,people who like good movies...When i got home, i thought id rented a pron movie by the acting and style of the camera.
I can't seem to find anything that is good about this miniseries. Why the hell would you ban chocolate when u could ban something far more practical like smoking or alcohol? Also the fact that its an Australian program and its all set in england and everyone is faking british accents is stupid. Overall i think that this show is Unrealistic and cheap.
This film is a nightmare! The sensation you feel when you wake up from a nightmare is the same I got when I finished watching this movie: "Uff…OK, it ended, what a relief!" I felt pain watching this movie, so bad it was! It's a B-series low cost movie, that's for sure, but I think it not an excuse to be so bad! I've watched brilliant low cost movies, with nice plots, nice production, nice acting, and most of all, some substance! This one got nothing of it! The plot is hilarious, it almost seems like an "American guide about how to transform ancient Chinese mythology into a ridiculous teenage movie, with some kids playing with the occult"… I don't know if the Chinese tale present in this movie is real or not, but if it is, the "damage" is even worse! The production is just horrible, a plain zero (What "special effects" are those?). There's no suspense. The supposed "tension scenes" are a complete failure. The acting is not better; and what about the dialogs? Oh my God! A movie which has for several times dialogs just like: "I will pass there later, OK? Is that alright? – OK, alright. - OK? – OK, alright, bye then"… I'm sure it doesn't deserve more than a 1/10 score!<br /><br />Too bad to be true!
While studying the differences between religion and cult in college, Mindy (Rachel Miner), who is the best student in the class, convinces her schoolmates Cassandra (Taryn Manning), Bailey (Glenn Dunk), Alex (Joel Michaely) and Morgan (Victoria Venegas) to research the massacre of worshipers of Kwan Yin by their leader Owen Quinlin (Robert Berson) twenty years ago in California. Quinlin had found an ancient amulet in Southern China that would give an enormous power to him after the sacrifice of human souls, but one woman resists and he is destroyed. However, after the death of Morgan, who apparently committed suicide, the students discover that Quinlin has returned and is chasing their souls with his amulet.<br /><br />The storyline of 'Cult" is not totally bad. Unfortunately, the screenplay, the direction, the acting, the lines, the camera, the CGI and the edition are awful. I was completely bored and tempted to use the FF button of the DVD, but I resisted and wasted 90 minutes of my life watching this never-ending crap on a Saturday night. My vote is two.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "O Amuleto Secreto" ("The Secret Charm")
Cult starts 20 years ago on the 'Quinling Mountain Range, Southern China' as a guy called Owen Quinlin (Robert Berson) finds an ancient amulet said to have magical powers, cut to California where Quinlin has set up a cult & the members are about to sacrifice themselves when one of them (Cazzy Golomb) foils his evil scheme... Jump forward to the present day as five college students, Mindy (Rachel Miner), Cassandra (Taryn Manning), Bailey (Glenn Dunk), Alex (Joel Michaely) & Morgan (Victoria Venegas) are researching the events of twenty years ago that have become know as the 'Quinling Massacre' for a school project. Unfortunately Morgan decides to kill herself which unleashes the evil spirit of Owen Quinlin for reasons that are rather tenuous, he sets about completing what he started all those years ago by claiming souls so he can finally inherit the magical powers of the amulet for his own evil use...<br /><br />Edited, co-produced & directed by Joe Knee this is not a good film & that's being kind to it. The script by Benjamin Oren which seems to take itself very seriously is a dour supernatural tale about a cult leader who comes back from the dead to finish what he started a few years prior, as you would expect the character's involved now have links to what happened all those years ago & it's as dull as it sounds. The character's are bland & forgettable, the dialogue just as much so, there's no proper horror or exploitation in it, it's slow going at times, it's predictable, it's clichéd, it goes completely off the rails at the end & doesn't make much sense when you think about it. The story never grips or engages you, it's never exciting or particularly interesting & I'd struggle to even call it average. There is very little here by which I could recommend Cult, don't bother with this one.<br /><br />Director Knee does alright but the film has that bland shot-on-video made-for-TV look about it, it's utterly forgettable & flat stuff throughout. There's no scares, there's no atmosphere & it lacks any tension. There is no gore either, sure there's a fair amount of blood splatter but no proper actual special make-up effect gore scenes.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $950,000 Cult looks cheap although it's not as badly made as some low budget horror films I've seen recently. The acting isn't even worth mentioning.<br /><br />Cult is a poor film that didn't do anything for me, I'd struggle to call this average. There are much better horror films out there.
Firstly, few colleges allow students to take courses from their parent's lover. Secondly, few women professors are sleeping with dorm cooks. Thirdly, few brassy coeds have a dad who cooks in their dorm. Fourthly, once a SECOND member of a college small-group project team meets a violent demise, the college PRESIDENT will disband the whole class, and NOT turn a blind eye as the professor merrily steers the rest of the group toward grisly deaths. Since the supernatural elements of CULT make absolutely no sense, it is useful to study the mundane content of this film to truly appreciate how much this flick really sucks!
The two most noteworthy things about "I Won't Play" are: It won an Academy Award as the best two-reel short film of 1944; and it was directed by silent-era leading man Crane Wilbur. The plot of this run-of-the-mill short is inconsequential, the dialogue lacks spark, while the acting is no better and no worse than that found in most war-themed Hollywood movies of the 1940s (in other words, it's awful). Admittedly, there are moments when "I Won't Play" is funny -- Janis Paige's totally artificial look and line delivery are precious -- but one laughs AT the picture, not with it.
A bad Quentin Tarantino rip off, at least I hope that's what they were going for because at least then I could respect the director for admiring Tarantino. One scene a "singing" scene with Rose McGowan is far to well done and genius for this film and could have only been stumbled on by mistake by this director. So besides his Quinton inspiration and Rose McGowan and her one good scene this film sucked. Some of the crappiest dialogue I have ever heard, I'm willing to bet why McGowan doesn't speak much is because of how crappy her dialogue would have been. Tries to be funny, never is, tries to be dark and isn't, tries to be stylish and is just bland. Who dishes out the money to make movies like this, I'm hoping it was all the directors so no one else's money was wasted. If not for McGowan the whole cast is awful and when McGowan is your best hmmm, I gotta wonder.
This movie looked fun on the cover and I honestly thought 'how bad can this be?' Little did I know. Out of the gate the dialogue was UNBEARABLE. It was contrived, unrealistic and not even interesting. Dialogue on UPN syndicated television shows is more natural sounding. The story was implausible and had nearly zero play-off at the end. The end with the snake is almost confusing and seemed staged. The only remotely interesting character is Rose McGowen's, who is mute which prevents her from being ruined with cliche ridden garbage dialogue (well, at least until the end when even she has to speak). The only thing that even gives this a 3 over a 1 or 2 is Rose McGowen's nude scene. Truly awful. Save yourself the trouble and rent something more interesting like a Barney Video.
Let me start by saying I don't recall laughing once during this comedy. From the opening scene, our protagonist Solo (Giovanni Ribisi) shows himself to be a self-absorbed, feeble, and neurotic loser completely unable to cope with the smallest responsibilities such as balancing a checkbook, keeping his word, or forming a coherent thought. I guess we're supposed to be drawn to his fragile vulnerability and cheer him on through the process of clawing his way out of a deep depression. I guess we're supposed to sympathize as he stumbles through a series of misadventures seemingly triggered by his purchase of a dog, but in reality brought on by his own contemptible nature. I didn't get the slightest hint at any point that Solo ever possessed any redeeming character, which became disturbingly apparent when he failed to feed his dog for a few days. No spark of humanity or glimmer of conscience gave me hope that he would ever realize his life is so utterly miserable because he's a self- absorbed, self-pitying lowlife. I didn't develop any connection with this character. He didn't seem to care, and so neither did I. I actually wanted him to get his kneecaps busted at one point.<br /><br />The dog was not a character in the film. It was simply a prop to be used, neglected, scorned, abused, coveted and disposed of on a whim. So be warned. Even though "dog" is in the title, this film is not a romantic comedy for dog lovers.<br /><br />Scott Caan's role is amusing and believable as the oversexed best friend/cad. Don Cheadle is sincere and magnetic - I always want to see more of him on screen. Mena Suvari was delightfully repellent. Lynn Collins role of a "stripper with a heart" was well acted, but the character was simultaneously absurd and clichéd, not to mention there was zero chemistry between her and Ribisi.<br /><br />Romantic? Hardly. Comedy? If you say so.
I realize the line on my summary is not too polite.<br /><br />This film written & directed by Scott Caan & starring Giovanni Ribisi,Don Cheadle & himself runs a long 88 minutes.<br /><br />There is a dog in this puppy of a movie., he is cute.<br /><br />The movie opened in 2 U.S. theatres in late April 2007,for one week & grossed all of $ 914. It quickly went to DVD in early August 2007.<br /><br />We were only able to take about 40 minutes before we turned the DVD off.<br /><br />This was the type of movie that played on lower half of double bill. You saw the main film & figured lets see what this one is like, You might have walked out before we shut it off.<br /><br />The 3 actors & the young ladies in the film all have done & deserve better than this..<br /><br />Ratings: ** (out of 4) 54 points (out of 100) IMDb 4 (out of 10_
This must rate with the worst films I have ever seen. It just wasn't funny. My wife fell asleep. I suppose if you are the sort of person who goes all gooey eyed at the sight of a dog then it may do something for you. If you expect a comedy film to have some humour in it then you will be disappointed unless you find an English radio announcer saying the f word a lot hilarious. The strippers in the club kept their underwear on so there wasn't even a bit of nudity to relieve the boredom. What did happen in the strip club made no sense at all. There was a great deal of mumbling by the lead character with whom I developed no sympathy at all. Mena Suvari was hardly in the film, presumably just there to make people think it was a serious attempt at producing a film. The bad guys were unconvincing and carried as much menace as a dead sheep.
Maybe we Aussies just have a totally different sense of humour and therein my lie the only problem here. I have a database of all the DVDs I own (including those received as gifts - which this was) and so, when entering a new one, I always refer to IMDb for such info as genre, runtime, director, leads etc. When entering this, I noted that it was a comedy and so I decided to watch it at a time when I wanted something light and a good laugh. Well, it was neither! There were absolutely NO laughs at all and an inordinate amount of gratuitous profanity (are there REALLY radio announcers allowed to broadcast the sort of filth that Steve Jones dishes out? What if a decent child happened to tune to his station?).<br /><br />Rather than enjoy a good laugh (or even a little giggle) I found the whole thing thoroughly depressing. I have given it 3 out of 10 but, to be honest, I don't know what those 3 are for! I suppose the basics of lighting and sound weren't too bad! <br /><br />We have an ostensibly stone-broke loser (Giovanni Ribisi) who still seems to be able to drive a reasonable car (who pays for the fuel?) and live in what could be a nice apartment (who pays his rent?) Given the opportunity of forming what might have been some sort of meaningful relationship with what turned out to be a nice girl, he even blew that! Perhaps it was she (Lynn Collins) who earned this movie the 3 points! The fact that she works as a stripper rather than a hairdresser is one of the few aspects of this movie that makes sense ("I make as much in one night doing this as I do in two weeks' hairdressing").<br /><br />Unless you want to get depressed and bored to the teeth, forget it!
This really is by far the worst movie I've ever seen in my whole life (I'm approaching 47)! The description on the back of the cover equaled the scrolling text right at the begin of the movie. The further plot was nil and even a bunch of corpses would have shown more life in their "acting". I viewed the full length of it and was really relieved when the final character's death signalled the end of my suffering! The location was either some kind of vaults or a grimy beach. I suppose, that home-video equipment served as camera and the lighting was sub-standard. The dialogues were uninspired and devoid of meaning. As were the actors faces. Which brings me to the topic "make-up": By the looks of it they got it as gimmicks in some teen-ager's magazines "my first own make-up" or similar. What made me buy the DVD was the name "Lovecraft" printed on the cover. The only connection with this brilliant mind's works was the use of the name "Necronomicon", which was wrongly translated as "Book of Light". The 4,70 EURO I paid for this DVD were a complete loss, for the DVD went into the recycling box without any further ado.
As I was watching it, I was getting ready to compose a blasting, lambasting critique of this "film," (it is actually video), but then I saw that someone already did. I pretty much agree with him. But then again, it looks like a lot of effort and millions of lira went into it, so I guess you gotta give them some credit for trying. However, that being said, anyone who doesn't already know the Lovecraftian world and that this is what they were trying to convey will probably think, ... well, I suppose, that not only is it really bad, but it makes absolutely no sense. Thank god I read part of the other review ('twas a little gushy, maybe?) which revealed that this guy also did "The Shunned House," (which looked pretty bad, judging by the DVD box), so now I can avoid it and save my mind from any further exposure to such desecration of the brilliance of H.P. Lovecraft.
it's a real big bummer that people easily are able too make movies because of cheap digital video cams nowadays. usually I would appreciate this possibility but if you see movies like this it's just a big shame. and it's also big shame if people like h.p. lovecraft get abused by the likes of this. I rented this "movie" cuz of the drop "h.p. lovecraft" on it. and I'm a big fan of many of his adaptions, mainly those done by brian yuzna & stuart gordon. this movie has nothing to deliver! a cheap scenery on a beach and in an old wine-cellar. digi-cam effect "red light" over the whole movie. no actors, just some stupid low-grade models who have for sure no idea what they are doing, stiff as wood. and so must be the director. It's obvious that he tried to create some atmosphere. but as the whole things is so laughable it just doesn't work. and no gore-effects, just some blood in a river (you drink = you become demon) and dropping here and there. oh yeah, the story: thousands of years ago some "big old" colonised the world and took humans as slaves. then mankind got independent, so the "old ones" tried to destroy them. and now there are some survivors in a post-apocalyptic world. the only possibility to save mankind is to find the NECRONOMICON, that's where it gets to LOVECRAFT. so those soldiers fight against some undead and demons on their beach and in their wine-cellar. unbelievable - the whole thing! but as it is dubbed (german title: "Armee des Jenseits) and you can find it in most commercial video-stores it seems as if you can make money with stuff like that. I find this fact impressive.
I'm sort of between the gushy review and the hate review. I've been a fan of Lovecraft (and a Lovecraft 'purist') for a long time, and while this little amateur film was of poor quality it had a number of redeeming qualities. I went into viewing expecting the worst thing I've ever seen, and wondering if Lovecraft would turn in his grave over it, but I was shocked to find that I actually kind of liked it.<br /><br />I don't want to catalog the movie's faults, so I'll only mention a few that keep this movie from being a 'stellar amateur effort'.<br /><br />It's very low budget and shot on a video cam, so it has the look of some soap operas, but once you get used to the idea then it ceases to be a big deal. The direction is pretty amateur and the shot framing and use of distance in the shots is rather clumsy. STILL, this film was actually kind of creepy and it stayed more faithful to Lovecraftian intent than nearly all the Stuart Gordan and Brian Yuzna travesties (my main exception to those films being Re-Animator and Dagon) put together. The idea of being impregnated by some Old One is reminiscent of Dunwich Horror and Shadow over Innsmouth (which isn't to say this movie is as good as those stories!!), so the overall plot is quite faithful to Lovecraft's ideas. One thing that annoyed me was that words out of the bible seemed to make a zombie prisoner upset and afraid. I'm not sure if this was meant to indicate that 'God's' words upset the Old Ones or just this particular zombie. There was no real answer to that. The rest of the Christian symbolism in it reminds me of August Derleth's take on the mythos. So in a way this was a Derleth style take on the mythos.<br /><br />I would recommend this film only as a curiosity. It shows how a fairly atmospheric movie can be made with nearly zero budget. I liked the setting of the wine cellars. The outdoor shots were sad, though. Using the same stretch of beach and trees (and nearly the same damn shot) to convey 3 characters' long journey was really sad. The director needs whack upside the head for that. The acting was standard for an amateur film, with the blonde zombie girl getting a personal award for "Best Impersonation of Gollum by an Italian Actress". Actually I think this film was done prior to the Lord of the Rings movies. Maybe Andy Sedaris watched her and thought "Dang, she'd make a great Gollum!" <br /><br />One little kudo to the director, though. The makeup on the zombies was like bad goth kids. I was upset seeing this and nearly stopped watching. I was like "Oh so that's how we know she's evil and possessed", but later on in the movie you see a girl painting makeup like that on the face of an older woman (both living). So it wasn't an attempt to say 'goth makeup = zombie' but rather, 'goth makeup was left on after zombification'. However, possessed/zombie does equal 'blue contact lenses'...heh.<br /><br />On the whole, I still liked this movie better than the Yuzna and Gordan films (barring the aforementioned exceptions). Yuzna and Gordan had much better budgets, but this film did a better job at filming a Lovecraft-like story than they did, and on a tiny budget.<br /><br />One quick word to the the make-up artist: I know you wanted 'claws' or something on Zariah's fingers, but long, black press-on nails looked really silly.<br /><br />A quick word to the writer of the score: I know you couldn't resist, and apparently neither could the director who okayed it, but when the two characters square off with guns for a 'duel', playing that little whistle from "The Good, the bad, and the ugly" killed any mood that scene had accumulated. It was cute, but cute wasn't appropriate.<br /><br />The filmmakers of this movie have read Lovecraft and had a great deal of respect for him. I enjoyed the little nods here and there: the character Carter with the bad dreams, and the character Pickman who becomes a ghoulish zombie.
I'm a big fan of H. P. Lovecraft's books, and the Mythos background spawned some rather good other stories and stuff like that. And in the last years there came along some boys who did movies about H. P.'s work, – for the bigger part low-budged flicks – and showed them to the public at places like the H. P. Lovecraft Film Festival. Now, like I said, most of them don't have a big budged, but they at least know the heart and "soul" of Lovecrafts work and films like "Cool Air" or "The Call of Cthulhu" - are what I would think - gifts for the fan base and other loonies that like H.P.'s creation. <br /><br />And then there are people like Ivan Zuccon, who just rip off the name and create a movie which would have been fun to watch if I had directed it myself and filmed with some friends down at the beach. That is what Mr. Zuccon did as it seems...but, while blokes like Aaron Vanek's or Bryan Moore's earlier movies might not have had more budged, they somehow still had more to offer , like a story, real characters and some connection to Lovecraft! Just blabbering out names like "Nyarlathotep" or "Necronomicon" makes a movie not a Lovecraft-adaption. <br /><br />Anyway, this flick will not only make fans of the Mythos shudder and hide, it will also not appeal to people who 1. like good movies, 2. laugh about bad movies, 3. like good C-grade splatter movies or 4. watch everything that has Horror written on the DVD-cover. I will not go into the "plott" of this waste of time, as it has already been discussed by others here on this page, but like I said, Unknown Beyond is like a movie I would have made up with some geeky friends.. Aside from that it lacks ideas for any storytelling and goes into ridiculous "moronic-nonsense-but-he-it's-art-stuff". Self-made flicks of this "quality" are fun to watch if you know all the blokes in it and ha-ha, see how XY is coughing out the fake blood we made from old tomato sauce and stuff – but hey, you don't put this in a DVD-casing, declare it an actual movie and want money for it…<br /><br />I give it 2/10 because of the I dunno – effort or something like that
At least if you're a Disney fanatic (well, of the variety who loves their live-action films as well as the animated stuff), if you're a kid, if you're a kid at heart almost to the extent that you hardly realize you're an adult, if you love absolutely any film that features animals, especially when they're doing tricks, or if you're just not too demanding, Air Bud: World Pup is somewhat enjoyable to watch. I'm a Disney fanatic. I enjoyed this film enough, and I'll gladly watch it again.<br /><br />But boy does it have a lot of problems. The main flaw arises from a combination of too many characters, too many plot threads and not enough time to take care of them all. In the space of 82 minutes, we've got adults getting married, teens falling in love and trying not to be awkward at it, teen competition for love and jealousy, preteens playing spy games, dogs falling in love, dogs playing soccer, dogs having puppies, manipulative parents who'll do anything to make their kids win being taught a lesson by their kids, housekeeper dilemmas, and crooks cooking up and executing elaborate plots. I'm probably forgetting something, but that's 10 big plot issues to be dealt with, with less than 10 minutes per thread to deal with them, and presumably weave them into a coherent whole that's both not too complicated--this is a kids' film, after all--and that's also humorous and heartwarming. Not surprisingly, director Bill Bannerman, on his first turn being completely in charge (he has a lot of previous second unit experience), wasn't quite up to the task. I'm sure it didn't help that there were at least three screenwriters involved, and probably dictating producers, as well.<br /><br />The end result is that Air Bud: World Pup is extremely choppy. Events occur with little justification, and worse, often little explanation. People figure out and do things primarily because they need to--and fast--so that everything can arrive where it needs to arrive in less than 90 minutes. From one cut to the next, time might jump ahead six months or so. We have both adults who seem like maybe they're mentally disabled and kids who just intuitively figure out what a dog is thinking and rush into some unexpected action. Some of the threads should have simply been removed, because it's difficult to become too engaged in the film when as soon as you're introduced to an idea, it's already passed you by.<br /><br />Also not helping is the fact that one of the threads is basically a rip-off of One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961), minus a Cruella De Vil character. And another problem is that given the way the film is edited, I have to assume that the dog, Air Bud, probably couldn't do much with the soccer ball. Unlike the first two films, a dog playing a sport is almost an afterthought here, and when we see him, it's in very quick glimpses; every once in a while, these snippets appear to be even aided by computer animation.<br /><br />Yet, for someone like me, there's a cheesy charm to Air Bud: World Pup. The script and performances often teeter between ridiculous, hokey and kinda clichéd. I tend to like that combination. It makes the film both a bit predictable and subtly bizarre. And at times, like the ending, when the film completely abandons consistency and basically becomes a commercial for the U.S. Women's Soccer Team, Air Bud: World Pup is so blatantly tacky that you can't help but love it.
I suppose that to say this is an all-out terrible movie would be unfair, but it's pretty bad. The sub-Disney storyline involves dogs playing soccer and falling in love (aw, how cute!) The acting isn't bad, but definitely could be better, especially that of young Canadian actor Kevin Zegers, who, during the whole movie, looks embarrassed, like he doesn't even want to be there. Anyway, kids will love it, but parents beware!
If you're coming to this film to learn something about depression, forget it: you won't learn anything except how not to write a screenplay on the subject. I understand the intent was to show how severe depression can turn an average person into a complete wreck, but the result is the most one-dimensional character I've ever seen in a Hollywood feature... no small feat. Christina Ricci as Elizabeth spends the entirety of this film screaming at the top of her lungs, viciously insulting someone, bursting into tears or some combination of the three (the only exceptions being some quiet sulking at the beginning and end). There is not the slightest hint of what she might be like WITHOUT depression... not the faintest glimmer of any other aspects of her personality... she just screams. At one point, her roommate tells her, "Lizzie, you're such a fun person to be around when you're not being depressed," and my reaction was, "She IS?" It seemed odd that the writers would include this comment without giving us any examples, but this script is a lesson in incompetence. It has no discernible structure or flow at all; instead, it consists of a series of awkwardly strung-together scenes of Lizzie screaming, then ends. Character development? No... Scenes of her everyday existence, i.e. going to classes, that might possibly be important details? No... Screaming at maximum volume? CHECK. It's not quite enough, I'm afraid. 1/10.
Last night I got to see an early preview screener of Prozac Nation. Because I love everything that Christina Ricci does I was very excited at first, but as the movie continued I started to wonder where it was going. Based on a true story, it is simply about Christina Ricci's character and her struggle with depression, drugs, friends and family as you can probably tell from the title. In my opinion this movie moved too fast, and it was way too dramatic. I would say there was a dramatic moment every five minutes, and the movie moved through her life extremely fast, and this left no room for us to connect with Christina Ricci's character. Christina Ricci's performance was fantastic as always but Jessica Lange stood out throughout the whole movie, and I believe this movie's success will be all because of her and Christina Ricci. I would rate this 4 out of 10 and I would suggest you rent this one or read the books by Elizabeth Wurtzel they are good and definitely worth checking out.
I seldom see a film with such a cast, such a potentially strong story and based on a bestselling book that has been this weak and to some extent unwatchable... <br /><br />The premise of a story reads like a Brent Easton Ellis novel - a lot of drugs, hopelessness and self-induced tragedy as a young Elisabeth Wurtzel (played by Christina Ricci) tries to cope with being a suicidal loser, that can't seem to accept that she is actually living a good life and that basically she is pathetic for being such a baby... <br /><br />Christina Ricci is not only playing a tragic personae, but also a tragic actor, whose sobbing and screeching for the most part of the movie actually make you want to shout - kill yourself already and let us get to the credits rolling... The director is of no help as he supplies absolutely no pace and the story feels so disjointed you have no idea what this damn girl is actually on about. The director apparently was on Prozac when directing this imitation of a movie and hence let the movie go on autopilot making it an unbearable mess.<br /><br />The only redeeming features are a sympathetic Jason Biggs, as Wurtzel's boyfriend (who thankfully decided to dump the self-indulgent egocentric egomaniac) and an unbelievably good Jessica Lange as the cry-babies mother. Lange apparently can not be brought down by terrible script, directing and dire co-actors. Pure class.<br /><br />I don't know if this is really who Wurtzel is or was, but the film has successfully made me totally uninterested in her writings.<br /><br />In the end I finished watching this movie and instantly started to think: OK. Time to watch something, that actually is about REAL problems...
Congratulations to Christina Ricci for making this movie and putting her mojo behind this important subject and trying to make a great film. Ricci is my favorite actress: She is so gifted, so natural, her reactions are perfect and so is the energy she constantly radiates, which gives credence to the often misapplied term "star." <br /><br />The film misses its mark for lots of various reasons, but perhaps most notably for the story's seeming unadaptability to the screen in making it a compelling narrative...more on that later. The cast at first glance is excellent, but come to think of it, Jessica Lang as the Jewish mother is too Protestant and not exactly right, Ann Hetch doesn't come close to showing the compassion and dedication of the psychiatrist from the book, and when your making a movie, how can you justify saying no to Anne Heche and Jessica Lange? But the real problems are in the film's construction: first in the failure to elicit any kind of lasting sympathy for the Elizabeth Wurtzle character, and second to say anything meaningful regarding the all too common and horrible situation that this poor girl finds herself in. <br /><br />Unfortunately do to the flashback construction, Lizzy merely comes off as certainly more affected teenager than most, but not nearly as devastatingly ill as she comes off in the book. This is a major problem. This story had to be told from beginning to end and from the therapist's couch. She is only eight or nine when her depression starts due to devastating social factors, both society and the home, and this is a crucial point in not only eliciting the proper sympathy for her but also of the gravitas of her case. She is so talented, and such a vulnerable and disaffected spirit so early on, that one's heart can't help but reach out to her due to her victimization. This is missed on the film.<br /><br />Ultimately one has to come to terms with what the film is trying to say: it is a biopic of one severely affected girl, but also it is a film about a nation who can't get its act together; that is very clear in the book but interestingly not in the film where the chosen at Harvard are even more messed up than the average college enrollee. The film finally isn't able to get either of these messages across compellingly, and that's too bad. Is Prozac a good thing or is it a bad thing, or a mixed blessing or a seeming necessity in a country in which so many people can't function without a chemical crutch? These are tough and challenging concepts to work with and the writing does not really attempt to address any of them in a more or less engaging way. The Challenger disaster is an interesting image to symbolize a dysfunctional America, but that doesn't have the effect it's suppose to have due to the crosscutting and insufficient earlier development of controlling themes.<br /><br />Ricci's performance is tight and heartfelt, and one of the best of her acting career.<br /><br />Michele Williams is also superb in her role.
It seems no matter what I see her in, Christina Ricci seems full of promise but fails to deliver. Sure she can cry and scream, but Prozac Nation sees Ricci totally out of her depth, perhaps I'm being too harsh.... okay, I'm shifting the blame to the director. Jessica Lange is outrageous and almost reaches Faye Dunaway heights of megadramatisation. Unfortunately I think Lange peaked with Frances and it was all downhill from there. There was every chance of this film being slick and witty while tackling depression head on. What we get instead is poorly acted hysteria dressed up with a stereotypical try hard eighties veneer. I really had no sense of the films eighties backdrop, since I was unsatisfied with the lame attempt at making believe it was the eighties just because ms Ricci wears a madonna inspired dress to her "lost my virginity" celebration. Cmon everyone, you are ALL better than this. The filmmakers should hang their heads in shame, and as a result of disappointment, Elizabeth Wurtzel could probably make a bundle if she sued for "irrepairable emotional damages" as a result of the finished product. go on lizzie, sue! I would
In the real world of art Elizabeth Wurtzel is the sexy drama queen every guy wants to do, but no guy wants to wake up next to. Her on-screen portrayer, Christina Ricci, is the ugly artsy wannabe girl that desperately wants every and any guy, but no guy will touch her. That's why, in Prozac Nation, the unreleased 2001 film of Wurtzel's 1990s bestseller book of the same name, there are immediate problems. OK, the problems start before the miscast of Ricci, who has the emotional range of a thimble- is it any wonder that, by far, her finest acting was in the two Addams Family films? First off, she is bizarre looking- with big eyes and a bulging forehead, making her look like the fetal Starchild from 2001: A Space Odyssey. Secondly, she always plays whiney brats. But, thirdly, is the way films try to make it appear any guy would be attracted to her. In one scene in the film her pal Ruby (Michelle Williams) and Liz walk through Harvard, and all the guys' tongues are wagging at Ricci, not the super-cute and sexy Williams. Hello….Reality check time…. This material begged for the Andy Warhol treatment. Here is his version of the film. A five minute shot of a hypodermic needle. A five minute shot of Wurtzel's hairy pudenda. A five minute shot of her sleeping naked and stoned on the bed. She rises, gives the middle finger to the audience. Cue credits. See, less than twenty minutes to distill Wurtzel's whole life. And, oh yeah, Warhol's film would not have cast Ricci. Even Michelle Williams would have been better, and after seeing Ricci's pallid bosom, I'd take anything Williams or any other babe had to offer me cinematically. Ricci is almost the kiss of death for a film, and how she stays working is a mystery. Think of her performances in mediocre to bad films like Monster, Sleepy Hollow, and Woody Allen's Anything Else- also co-starring Jason Biggs, and now picture another actress in her role, and immediately the films could seem better, if not great. She is the female counterpart to banal, wooden, milquetoast actors like Tom Cruise and Leonardo Dicaprio.
There must have been a lot of background info that was left out of the movie. In fact, in the film, the girl, Lizzy, didn't even appear depressed. She just seemed like a girl that went out of control when she finally got to college, mainly from doing drugs and drinking alcohol. That seemed to be her problem, not mental illness. Sure, she had emotional problems because her dad left and she barely saw him as a child, and her mom seemed a little out there. But, the way she treated Noah and Ruby was just mean and I don't think caused by depression. She was very needed, which ran Rafe off, but she was like that because of her dad.<br /><br />But, I think the main reason this movie never achieved a theater release is that not enough happens with the plot and the story is not written well.<br /><br />FINAL VERDICT: Truthfully, I'd only recommend this if you are interested in seeing Ricci's first nude scene. Otherwise, it isn't very interesting.
I found it almost impossible to empathize with Ricci's character in this film. If she was supposed to be a depressive, I think the screenwriter and director neglected to research depressives before making this film because Ricci's character was more a depiction of a self-centered, worthless sh!tbag than a victim and survivor of depression.<br /><br />The forced attempt at introspective narration was as ludicrous as the pained interactions between her and the people around her. <br /><br />Sorry but I couldn't buy it. This is straight to video schlock. I'm glad I didn't pay to see this.
I am writing this review simply because I am a huge fan of the book, Prozac Nation, and was appalled by the film.<br /><br />I think that if you hadn't read the book, you would have been lost watching the film, as it provided no real back story to Wurtzel's depression. There was no real mention of her childhood (her relationship with her father, her experiences at summer camp, her first therapists (in fact, the film gives the impression that she has never been in therapy until Dr. Sterling)...). That said, if you had read the book, you would have been confused by the amount of editing that had taken place.<br /><br />I found the book to be a vivid portrayal of depression, highlighting Wurtzel's low points, and the experiences she had along the way. The film however, began at Harvard, and literally threw the audience straight in with no real explanation of what was going on.<br /><br />Events that, in the book, were important (such as Wurtzel's miscarriage, her summer working in Dallas, her suicide attempt whilst on Prozac) were omitted from the film.<br /><br />Also, this is pedantic, but Wurtzel did not lose her virginity to Noah. The suicide attempt that was shown in Sterling's office was completely different to the book. For a start, she actually overdosed on Mellaril, as opposed to the para-suicidal gesture shown in the film.<br /><br />All in all, I would say that if you have read the book and enjoyed it/identified with it, then don't watch the film. Read 'More, Now, Again' (by the same author) instead. Or watch Girl, Interrupted.<br /><br />The only redeeming feature was the performance by Anne Heche, who I believe portrayed Dr. Sterling very well. Christina Ricci was also good, though her performance seemed a little... stilted. Jessica Lange made for enjoyable viewing, but looked the opposite of how Wurtzel's mother is described in the book.<br /><br />Conclusion? Don't bother.
I have a question for the writers and producers of "Prozac Nation": What is the root cause and what is the solution to the widespread problem of personal depression in America? In the moving performance of Christina Ricci as Liz Wurtzel, the film portrays a young woman with unlimited potential as a Harvard student and as a writer. But this is not a story of success, only one of self-destruction as we watch Liz bring misery into the lives everyone who comes in contact with her. The film examines divorce, family dysfunction, drugs, alcohol, and prescription medication as possible reasons for Liz's unhappiness. But none of those superficial explanations are satisfactory.<br /><br />At some point in the film, it would have been helpful to suggest that Liz needs to take responsibility for her life and her problems. No light was shed on what the film alleged to be a runaway problem in "The United States of Depression." In the story, Liz had a caring therapist (Anne Heche), a caring roommate (Michele Williams), a caring boyfriend (Jason Biggs), and a troubled but caring parent (Jessica Lange). In a key scene in the film, Liz is lying in a hospital bed watching the break-up of the space shuttle Challenger. Instead of equating Challenger with Liz's life, the film should have used the image as a starting point for her healing and recovery.<br /><br />This film reminded me of a generic made-for-cable "victim" film on the Lifetime network. An excellent cast was wasted, especially in the earnest performance of Christina Ricci. The real-life Elizabeth Wurtzel obviously found within herself the resources to cope with her depression and become a successful author. It is unfortunate that the film could not offer us even the slightest glimpse into her courageous spirit.
This film is just as bad as "The Birdman of Alcatraz". I do not refer to the acting but rather the premise of both films, which try to portray psychopathic criminals as heroic figures. Moreover it disturbs me when well respected, revered actors like Alan Alda (and Burt Lancaster) play such roles, because their status tends to lend credibility to the director's intent to elevate the film's subject, a societal outcast.<br /><br />I was in junior high school during the last years of Caryl Chessman's life and his death penalty appeals and books were very much in the news. I remember the groundswell of opinion that the death penalty was wrong and Chessman was the victim.<br /><br />Get a grip people. Read the history. Chessman was a criminal and sexual predator. He drove around the LA streets at night with a stolen police light in his vehicle. He stopped cars with attractive women inside under the ruse of making a traffic arrest; then abducted and raped the women. Rape is the worst trauma a woman can experience and many victims say they would prefer death to its horror and humiliation.<br /><br />Chessman got exactly what he deserved, it just took a decade too long. No sympathy for the devil here.
Wealthy businessman's daughter, who as a young girl caught rheumatic fever and now suffers from a shortness of breath, discovers her marriage to a charming ne'er-do-well was arranged by daddy (whom she affectionately refers to as "Darling"); worse than that, she may in fact have only a few weeks left to live, leaving her husband free to marry her conniving romantic-rival. Pure bunk. Paul Osborn's screenplay (via Jerome Weidman's thin story) trots out the redundant flashbacks in the second-half instead of proceeding ahead with the plot, which submerges the already-soapy scenario in grim talk. Why go backwards when we can figure out what's happening for ourselves? This is a "woman's weeper" with no faith in its target audience, so simplistic is the set-up. Dorothy McGuire, swathed in furs for most of the picture, isn't a canny, clever heroine at all; when she's upset, she turns inward and stony. Upon realizing her marriage is basically a sham, she shrinks away from her husband like the consummate virgin (well, that's a possibility, she and Van Johnson sleep in separate beds after all!). Ruth Roman has the film's best moments as a society shark with her trap set for Van, but what exactly do these women see in him? Johnson can be charming when it's required, but put him in a melodramatic setting and he goes stony, too. MGM production values only so-so, however director Gottfried Reinhardt tries adding some visual flavor to the flashback segues and he attempts a lively pacing for the movie's initial half-hour. ** from ****
If I had never seen an episode of the original Avengers, with Blackman, Rigg, or Thorson, I would have appreciated this series more. While the cast did its best to sustain the action and interest of the scripts, I was just caught up in comparing the episodes to the original series. There was an expectation of Steed participating more in fight scenes, and the continuity seemed as though the writers were struggling to keep up with the actors. To be honest, I can't blame them for trying to resurrect the fans from the original series, but it just didn't work, as evidenced by the fact that it lasted one season. Watching Steed labor through this series reminded me of Gen. Macarthur when he said, 'Old soldiers never die, they just fade away!'
Comparisons to the original series are inevitable. It's a shame Diana Rigg left the original show in the 1960's due to mistreatment on the part of the producers, and MacNee probably regretted this as much as any fan - there's no telling how long the show might have lasted otherwise. Linda Thorson was OK as a replacement and her episodes still retained almost all of the quality and aspects of the Rigg episodes - only the Rigg/Macnee chemistry was lacking. The New Avengers should have been left on the shelf - a declining Macnee, an annoying Purdey, and a who the hell is this guy Gambit. Also, the humor was forced and poor - granted I only watched a few of the episodes, because that was all I COULD watch, but I think I got the idea. Try as many might and do, it's nearly impossible to resurrect an old show as a new format or movie.
'Volcano' is a B-movie at best, and at worst is more of a disaster that what it's supposed to be depicting. To be fair, you have to be prepared in any movie to suspend disbelief for one major concept. 'Volcano' asks you to suspend disbelief in science, human interaction, and common sense.<br /><br />Tommy Lee Jones gets to be the studly-yet-1990s-sensitive head honcho of the Office of Emergency Management, and he's fine when he's not stuck with the stupid dialogue the script provides. However, Anne Heche gives a howlingly bad performance as a smart-ass geologist who becomes Roark's love interest (while the city is burning down, natch). Gaby Hoffman goes from Field of Dreams and American President to a turn as a whimpering, needy, and victim-for-life daughter of Jones. Don Cheadle gets to sit in a really coooool office and take Jones's phone calls, doing the job that in reality Roark would and should be doing.<br /><br />Anyway, the movie really starts going downhill when Heche's geology partner gets sucked into a lava vent while they're breaking into the subway lines. It picks up speed when Jones starts suggesting that they use buses to dam the flow of the lava flowing down the street, Heche's geologist (who loves to lecture everyone about The Science Of Geology) being apparently oblivious to the fact that lava is hot and it melts metal, and rock, and a dead bus is unlikely to have much effect. It really starts to suck when the film introduces Rodney King-like racial tension between two bad actors dressed as cops and an angry black man who can't understand why the fire department is busy with this large river of flowing lava. But hey, in the end, the three of them will be working together to build a K-rail dam to stop the lava from eating up his neighborhood, even though the dam is built in the wrong direction and the material used wouldn't stop lava anyway. Besides, K-rails are hardly watertight, but I guess lava wouldn't think to poke its head through the gaps, not when Tommy Lee Jones is glaring at it. Don't even get me started on the stranded-subway-car subplot, where a tunnelful of hot lava is coming down but oddly enough, it's not too hot to attempt a rescue, it's not too smoky to see, and there aren't any poisonous gases so everyone can breathe. This must be LA Lava, or Lava Lite. You know, it eats cars but is eco-friendly.<br /><br />There are moments of sheer camp here that almost make you wonder if this was meant to be a comedy. For instance, the two security guards packing up Hieronymus Bosch paintings have a completely meaningless and farcical conversation about weight, and at the end, no sooner does the little boy Roark/Jones rescued note that everyone looks the same while covered in ash, than a rainstorm breaks out and cleans everyone up -- and then the sun comes out and Heche says something along the lines of, "aw, shucks, Roark".<br /><br />'Volcano' almost achieves Battlefield Earth status, but except for Heche no one approaches Travolta-like badness and the technical aspects are handled pretty well. If you are from the LA area as I am, it's kind of funny to think of a lava flow wiping out Wilshire Boulevard. I gave it a three for the effects and the little amount of tension you get from this.
Although this movie (and I use the term loosely) was made in 1997, we just watched it tonight for the first time. My husband commented that a Tommy Lee Jones movie that we'd never heard of made him a little apprehensive. I blithely watched anyway, certain that if Jones was in the movie, it must at least be worth two hours of my time. After all, he has been one of our go-to actors for years. Although Heche isn't one of my favorite actresses, I was additionally reassured by seeing another well-known face. The list of accomplished actors/actresses continued to grow, so I endured more and more of this film, certain that if I pushed through enough clichés and trite social statements, I would arrive victorious on the other side of the plot. Alas, there was no plot. It appeared to be burned by the ever-oozing lava of doom.<br /><br />The characters were paper-thin. The plot was so chock full of holes that it literally distracted me from most of the special effects and acting in the movie. Was the fee for a brief consultation with an elementary science teacher too much for this film's budget? No acid rain...no toxic gasses (like sulfur or hydrochloride)...no deadly ash...no skin-searing heat just a few feet from the lava. Wow...it's the world's friendliest lava ever! <br /><br />The events were no better than the characters. Each incident was so contrived and far-fetched...it's like the writers said "Okay, we need to get rid of the little girl NOW"...and poof, she's splashed by a lava bomb which burns her enough that she has to be carried to safety (not from the lava, but from her own helpless stupor)...but just moments later in the car she is in no apparent pain and soon after is running effortlessly through the (groan!) building that (oh no!) is about to be blown up. After enduring all of this, your reward is the line from the little boy at the end (about all the people looking the same)...which has got to be one of the worst movie lines I have ever heard. Even if it wasn't so painfully scripted, it was ridiculous timing for all the characters involved. Kid and cop aside, as if the mother would still be in the area and just needs to be pointed out because she just isn't speaking up...what...she's hoping to slink off into the shadows and get away from the little brat once and for all? I don't think so. Obviously the child's mother would be missing or dead - or yelling her head off to find her toddler.<br /><br />The token black gangsta tough hoodlum with a secret soft spot versus the chip on his shoulder narrow minded cracker cop with a secret soft spot scene made my eyes bleed. Even if such pat characters existed, they wouldn't behave as the movie portrays them given the circumstances. Something about imminent fiery death and massive destruction tends to catch people off-guard, ya know? <br /><br />There are too many canned movie moments like these to mention...really, it's just an embarrassing movie to watch. Those poor writers...where are they now?
As a geology student this movie depicts the ignorance of Hollywood. In the scene where the dog grabs the bone from inside of the burning house, it is less then a foot from lava which has an average temperature of 1,750 degrees Fahrenheit. This stupidity is witnessed again when "Stan" goes to save subway 4. His shoes are melting to the floor of the subway while the rest of the team is standing just feet away from the flowing lava. And to finish off this monstrosity of a film, they come up with the most illogical solution, stopping a lava flow with cement K rails. Earlier in the film a reporters voice can be heard saying that nothing can stop the flow fire fighters have tried cars and CEMENT. Common sense dictates this film is a preposterous and gross understatement of human knowledge.
This movie is a disaster within a disaster film. It is full of great action scenes, which are only meaningful if you throw away all sense of reality. Let's see, word to the wise, lava burns you; steam burns you. You can't stand next to lava. Diverting a minor lava flow is difficult, let alone a significant one. Scares me to think that some might actually believe what they saw in this movie.<br /><br />Even worse is the significant amount of talent that went into making this film. I mean the acting is actually very good. The effects are above average. Hard to believe somebody read the scripts for this and allowed all this talent to be wasted. I guess my suggestion would be that if this movie is about to start on TV ... look away! It is like a train wreck: it is so awful that once you know what is coming, you just have to watch. Look away and spend your time on more meaningful content.
The story of a Volcano erupting downtown L.A. sounds like a nice plot for a disaster movie. This one though, is missed bigtime. The movie looks chaotic, has a storyline which is hard to follow or believe and the acting was very bad.<br /><br />Im in agreement with a lot of comments that Lee Jones is only good at bossing people around as a chief in some particular field. In this one, he is heading the emergency office. Being chief of such an office it naturally is a good idea to bring along your daughter to dangerous scenes. Clever thinking. Ann Heche touching walls and walking in tunnels that suppose to be 678 degrees fahrenheit. Yea right. Aside from the bad acting those factual errors make the film look almost as silly as Armageddon. The only good point of this movie is that there is no Ben Affleck to make matters even worse. Avoid this movie at all costs.
Hahahahah Probably one of the funniest movies i've even seen. Obviously this isn't intentional though. It takes about half the movie for the main characters to realize what the big hilly thing is in the middle of the city is spewing hot red stuff, and the other half spent diverting the lave flow through the city using fire trucks (yer right). It certainly made me laugh. The acting makes Arnie look like a RSC thespian. It is amazing that films like this get commissioned. A more interesting version would be someone going near an active volcano and filming it, and would probably cost about £20 to make. ($40) I can see some guy pitching the film to a film company "well there's this big VOLCANO and it erupts in a CITY....pretty radical hey" If you can find it in the dollar bins, maybe worth buying as after watching this most other films would look good.
Volcano is set in Los Angeles where a minor earthquake has just hit, vacationing boss of the O.E.M. (the Offcie of Emergency Management) Mike Roark (Tommy Lee Jones) decides to cut his holiday short & go in, once there he sees that everything is alright but then drives off to the epicentre of the quake where seven underground workers have been killed by a fire or intense heat of some kind. Mike isn't sure what to think so he brings geologist Dr. Amy Barnes (Anne Heche) in to try & explain things, unfortunately a huge underground river of molten lava has been released after the quake & erupts at the La Brea Tar Pits sending the lava pouring out into the city streets engulfing anything & everything it touches in flames. Mike, his men & the emergency services have their work cut out trying to stop the river of lava & save as many lives as possible...<br /><br />Directed by Mick Jackson this was the second big budget disaster flick revolving around the idea of an erupting Volcano during 1997 with Dante's Peak (1997) being released a mere two months or so before Volcano was & while Dante's peak is hardly any sort of masterpiece at least it's slightly better & more plausible than Volcano is. The script here is total nonsense & is not based in reality at all, underground rivers of lava that seem to appear & then disappear just as quick, various character's standing inches from a river of lava yet not being affected by the heat (when that guy is on the train the metal seats around him start melting but he remains perfectly fine, as far as I am aware human skin is not as heat resistant as metal, is it?) & it constantly happens, helicopters flying is clouds of ash (in reality it would be impossible), one simple blockade at the end of a street will stop the flowing lava (what about down the other streets & other directions?), being able to blow a perfect trench in a street & then blowing a huge building up to make a massive dam & when Kelly sees the lava heading towards her car she gets out just like anyone would but then for some reason just stands there & watches two firemen get burned to death & waits for her dad to save her even though by this stage her leg has caught fire, despite all those concrete blocks being placed together to make a barrier in less than twenty minutes the guy's do such a great job not one bit of molten lava manages to seep through & loads more besides like that massive building falling on Tommy Lee & his daughter yet then both being fine afterwards. The character's are awful too although they were not as clichéd as usual with no romance blossoming between Tommy Lee & Anne Heche & minimal city official's who try to shut Tommy Lee & Anne Heche up before the event labelling them scaremongers. There's a few badly written & at times embarrassing moral moments as Los Angeles pulls together, the black guy & that semi racist cop who warm to each other & by the end are wishing each other well & that little kid at the end when he says 'everyone looks the same' is cringe worthy & is surely a ham-fisted attempt & trying to say whatever colour we are we are still human beings & we can all get along in time of a crisis as it brings people together. Having said that I think Volcano is one of those so bad it's good films, it entertains & it moves along at a decent pace but just don't expect anything grounded in reality or any human drama either.<br /><br />I suppose a film like Volcano could be seen as an updating of a 70's disaster film such as The Poseidon Adventure (1972) or Earthquake (1974) but on a huge budget with modern effects work. Speaking of the effects they are alright but none stand out that much & the set-pieces are also surprisingly forgettable, sure there are a few impressive explosions & a few OK river of lava flowing through Los Angeles effects but little else. Generally Volcano just isn't very exciting & while occasionally unintentionally funny & completely ridiculous it doesn't really work in the way the makers intended.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $90,000,000 it opened to a little under $15,000,000 at the box-office, it looks alright & there's lots of fire but nothing stands out & Volcano is a pretty forgettable film overall. Filmed in Los Angeles I think most of the places featured here were shot at their real life locations. The cast go through the motions with some terrible dialogue & ridiculous set-pieces to contend with, Tommy Lee Jones deserves better than this.<br /><br />Volcano is a bit of a disaster in both senses, it is a disaster themed film that ended up a bit of disaster itself. Worth it for a few unintentional laughs & the ridiculousness of it all but it's nothing great & I doubt I would ever want to see it again.
I saw this movie and I thought this is a stupid movie. What is even more stupid is that who had thought an idea that there should be a volcano in Los Angeles? The fact is that there are no volcanoes in Los Angeles. This movie should not be filmed in Los Angeles, it should be filmed in Honolulu Hawaii. Hawaii has volcanoes which is a real fact that this movie should be made in Hawaii's state capital. This movie should be filmed in Hawaii because this is the real idea and not in Los Angeles. There are earthquakes in Los Angeles, but there are no volcanoes. To be honest with you, this is unbelievable nonsense and very foolish. In conclusion, I will not bother with this movie because a volcano in Los Angeles is nothing but nonsense.
This film is all right, fairly silly and to be taken lightly. But what I can't stand are the numerous heroes and that boy's ILLEGALY SENTIMENTAL comment near the end: "look, they all look the same". Isn't that by far passing the good taste standards? I thought it was revolting, as were the heroic, unselfish acts by some of the people in this film. I'm not saying it won't happen like that, but zooming in on all the bravery like that makes my stomach churn.
Considering the subject matter, I thought that this film would at least be enjoyable, if stopping somewhat short of a masterpiece. I was wrong. I was still waiting for something to happen and it finished - I thought that the finale was the bit that happened before it got exciting. The only reason I gave it 2 instead of 1 is because the effects guys deserve some recognition.
I saw the trailer for this film before watching Titanic, and I must admit that it whetted my appetite. Volcano seemed to be quite spectacular and full of promise. But what a damp squib. Corny is not the word for the script, and the characterizations are often ludicrous. The stupid daughter is just beyond belief - she is supposed to be 13 not 4. But then the scientists,firemen and peripheral characters don't offer any more. This movie ranks just in front of Cruise II and Twister, but only because those 2 films are completely appalling. This does have some reasonable effects, but overall its a 1 out of 10. Don't waste your time
The scriptwriters, directors, and actors have lost sight of the cornerstone of a good story - the concept of suspension of disbelief. In Volcano, the concept goes up in smoke almost as quickly as the city. Contrary to earlier commentators, I much preferred Dantes Peak amongst the 97 vintage of volcano movies.
When I saw this movie, all I could think was: What a disaster! No I'm not talking about the volcano, but about the movie itself. I have seen a lot of movies, but this is certainly one of the worst ever. I don't care about the fact if a volcano erupting underneath downtown L.A. is possible or not. Perhaps it isn't, but even than this could have been a good movie... but it sure isn't and I'll explain you why.<br /><br />I don't know how much lava flows out of an average volcano, but what I do know is that the volcano in this movie makes the Vesuvius, Etna and Mount Pinatubo together look like a little barbecue. I don't think there has ever been so much lava flowing out of a volcano as what we see in this film. I'm sure the director had a lot of money to spend on his movie, but I really wonder why he all spent it on the special effects and not on the script and the actors. I'm not saying that he should have hired a top cast, but this really is the opposite of what I would call good acting. Their performances are so unbelievably poor that it makes the entire movie even worse.<br /><br />And what's wrong about the script you probably ask yourself. Well, can you tell me who comes up with the idea of people standing a few yards or even a few feet from the lava without getting burned or having to hide for the heath? Or people sinking in the earth when the flow of lava isn't even two foot high? <br /><br />I'm sure I wouldn't be proud if I wrote such a script, but apparently there are script writers in Hollywood who don't mind about believability as long as it pays good money! VERY good money!!!<br /><br />When you see the movie, you'll probably agree with me that this is one of Hollywood's worst disaster movies, not worth more than a 3/10.
This movie is a real waste of time and effort. The film lacks plot and depth. The visuals are decent but nothing to write home about. There are far better films out there.
Riotously cheesy lunacy about lava spewing from the La Brea tar pits in Los Angeles. Even if you attempt to suspend disbelief by ignoring this ludicrous premise, you'll still be howling with laughter at the inane dialog, nonsensical plot contrivances, and wildly reckless scientific plot holes that parade across the screen.<br /><br />I have a theory: every successful actor is doomed to appear in at least one bad movie at some point in his/her career. This was Tommy Lee Jones's turn. Although he makes a decent effort, the script is just so pathetic even he goes down in flames (oops, sorry about that). Most of the supporting cast is also choked by the hackneyed writing; a few of the actors simply phone in their roles. Anne Heche deserves special Hall of Shame recognition for her awkward portrayal of a scientist. She is about as convincing in this role as Pee Wee Herman, and even he would have at least done a better acting job.<br /><br />Since the scientific plot holes are too numerous to list here, I would instead suggest that you screen the film with friends, and have a game of "Find the scientific absurdities." The loser could be forced to listen to tapes of corny lines from the movie like "Everybody looks the same" over and over. Here's a sample of the kind of nonsense you can expect: a scheme to blow up a building is devised, engineered, and the dynamite set and detonated all within a space of about 20 minutes. <br /><br />Let us not forget the obligatory disaster movie clichés: divorced dads, scientists who get ignored by everybody, obnoxious cops, tough street kids, bratty teenagers, greedy investors etc.; all are present and in abundance. The film also bashes you over the head with a relentless barrage of political correctness.<br /><br />For fans of cheese and silliness only. All other viewers: beware.
A horrible mish mash of predictable story lines and toe-bendingly poor delivered PC clichés ad nauseam (races working together, the heroine being smart as well pretty, a guy sacrificing himself to save another life, a father/daughter relationship etc etc etc). The movie looks like something created for network television and should have probably stayed there. Even the gifted Tommy Lee Jones does not manage to salvage this BOMB. I urge you not to waste money or time on this cinematic ruin from the time when disaster-movies roamed Hollywood.<br /><br />The two stars are given solely to the CGI-people and the PR-peoples' ability to get even one movie-goer to sit through it.
only if its the last thing yo do and your humour is evaporated should you ever attempt to watch this. If you do, watch it alone invite no one, they will never return to watch another movie with you. It might be an excellent tool for that very purpose, invite people you want to get rid of in your life.<br /><br />Apparently I need to write more about his film in order to qualify as a review. This is sweet irony for this film it really does sum it up perfectly. after wasting my time it wastes more of your time. IT does have a function I take it all back.<br /><br />I recommend this film, watch it, its provocative, really go ahead watch it.
When the film started I got the feeling this was going to be something special. The acting and camera work were undoubtedly good. I also liked the characters and could have grown to empathise with them. The film had a good atmosphere and there was a hint of fantasy.<br /><br />However, as the film went on, the plot never appeared to takeoff and just rolled on scene by scene. I was unable to understand the connection between the stories. All I could see was the characters occasionally bumping into each other and references to ships in bottles. Without that connection, I was just left with a few unremarkable short stories.<br /><br />Am surprised it did so well at Cannes
I went to see this because I'd never seen Tel-Aviv, where the story is set. I was disappointed, since it doesn't offer many views of Israel's largest metropolis. It's also pretentious—one of those movies that leaves you guessing at its meaning until you ultimately give up with a shrug of the shoulders.<br /><br />The main protagonist is Batya, a woman in her twenties' who works as a waitress at catered weddings. Her parents evidently don't care about her very much, and when a little girl walks out of the sea with an inflatable ring around her, Batya feels compelled to take care of her. The little girl doesn't speak, and Batya can't give her to social services because it's the weekend and the agency is closed. So she takes her back to her apartment with the leaky roof, and when it comes time to work in the evening, she has to take the little girl with her. The boss is very unhappy about this and other shortcomings in Batya's work performance.<br /><br />Another main character is Keren, who is getting married. At her wedding party (where Batya is of course working), she breaks her leg climbing out of a ladies' room cubicle whose door won't open, and so she and her new husband cannot take the Caribbean vacation they've planned. They end up in a dingy hotel on the seafront without a view. It smells bad, there is noise from the traffic, and Keren is complaining all the time. Her husband meets a strangely attractive older woman – a writer – who is also staying in the hotel, and Keren worries that he has slept with this stranger.<br /><br />The third main character is a Filipino woman named Joy who looks after old people. The old woman she is hired to care for is very crabby and speaks no English, only German and Hebrew. Joy speaks English but no Hebrew or German. Joy is mostly concerned with how her son is doing back in the Philippines, and wants to buy him a toy boat, as he has asked. She finds the perfect boat in a store and plans to buy it. The daughter of the old woman, who hired Joy, is an actress appearing in some sort of post-modern "physical theater" adaptation of Hamlet, and does not get along with her mother.<br /><br />The way in which these three stories—which intersect momentarily—resolve themselves is presumably supposed to mean something profound. I didn't get it. There is a fantasy element to Batya's relationship with the little girl, and maybe Batya's non-existent relationship with her parents is somehow inverted in this relationship. When Joy sees the toy boat in the shop window, there is a strange effect used where the little sails billow as if blown by the wind, and they do this as if they are on the scale of a real-life ship. Keren draws the outline of a bottle around a ship that is on a brochure cover in the hotel room, and a narration of the strange woman's poetry mentions a ship in a bottle. But what does all this mean? I thought about it for a while and realized I wasn't going to lose any sleep in the process. If anyone out there has a clear idea of what it's all about, maybe they can fill me in.
The director is sweet, as is his co-directing wife Shira Geffen, but their movie sucks. It has its moments (and some pretty girls), but there is too much of everything: "Amélie" meets "Breaking the waves" meets "Pauline at the beach". You walk away wanting to know more about the wedding photographer, and about the girl who likes it best when nothing happens, be it in movies or in real life. Instead, you get a suicidal writer, a neurotic actress and an illegal-immigrant-come-social-worker with a heart of gold. It feels like there's more than one truly touching story hidden in the script, but at face value it's a truckload of wasted story lines and sentimental bullshit. Hard to sit out as it is.
The world now seems to be in an odd stage of downsizing, in which objects such as DVD and CD players are steadily decreasing in size. It is obviously much cooler to have a smaller iPod than a larger one. This is not so with theater screens, as is the case with the IMAX, the enormous, widely-known theater system that has stunned audiences upon its release, and to this day. As long as the material's right.<br /><br />The main problem with 'Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D" is that it uses the huge screen as its main advantage. It is dull, uninformative, and relentlessly eager to please and amaze us with its corny special effects and inspiring quotes from famous names such as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. Another problem with the film is that it doesn't even take the time to sit down and interview those lucky few who have had such an extraordinary experience as to have been to the moon. Instead, the writers have simply pressed COPY and PASTE and hired famous voices such as Morgan Freeman, Bill Paxton, and Matt Damon to imitate their famous quotes. This tactic is unrelentingly repetitive and tedious.<br /><br />I'd say without one moment's hesitation that I didn't learn one piece of information from the film that I didn't already know.<br /><br />And it repeatedly insisted on irritating the crap out of me with its insistent sentimentality. Every three minutes there seems to be a cue for Tom Hanks' voice to say something like "Without the contributions of these brave men and women..." Watching the film is like watching a bad commercial. For forty agonizing minutes.<br /><br />1/4
Well, This was my first IMAX experience so I was pretty blown away about that, primarily; although with hindsight, I can't help wishing that it had been some other (less monochrome)film.<br /><br />Magnificent Desolation very much had the "Programme for Schools" feel the way it listed all the astronauts and this made it feel a LOT like reading National Geographic Magazine in 3D. Weirdly it actually had a very two dimensional quality that only occasionally exploded into reality and a lot of time it felt like some PowerPoint Presentation. There was a moment in the film when an unnoticed abyss opens; seemingly at your feel, that had a bit of a WOW factor but to be honest, that may have had more to do with me being an IMAX virgin.<br /><br />The commentary, provided by Tom Hanks, I personally found very, (what's a nice way to put it??) "flag-wavingly nationalistic" which didn't go down too well in central London, judging by remarks overheard as we left.<br /><br />Over all, I loved the IMAX experience, but dearly wish a different film had been on on that day. The Moon isn't a particularly colourful subject and to be honest, a lot of the 3D effects were lost in the monochrome scenery. All that would have been well, were it not for the documentary inserts and distractions like the interviews with American schoolchildren which spoiled it a bit
You'd think a movie about incestuous sisters who eventually murder their employer couldn't help but be gripping, but then you'd be wrong.<br /><br />There is no plot. There is no character development. There is no redeeming visual beauty.<br /><br />This movie is a waste of time. The exploration of how the relationship between the sisters develops is nil, their sexuality is never anything but a grotesque, the class relationships are glossed over, and employer is a silly caricature.<br /><br />Ponderous silences and period clothing do not equal depth of meaning.
"Tragic Hero" is a film that is most definitely trying to emulate the classic Godfather films, focusing on family, crime, loyalty, and revenge. Also, this is part of a two part series as The Godfather also was (at the time). However, this film comes nowhere near the level of those classic films and actually fairs worse than other Triad thrillers being released in Hong Kong at the time.<br /><br />One reason is the acting. With the exception of Chow Yun Fat, the acting is generally over the top and unbelievable. The audience tends to find the proceedings humorous simply because the actors' inability to maintain any degree of seriousness. As a result, we find the film not truly emotionally involving or intense since we don't particularly care what occurs with these characters.<br /><br />Another reason is its lack of focus. The narrative tries to incorporate many different story elements into the film, but this results in portions of the movie becoming underdeveloped as well as lacking any real sense of coherency. The audience sometimes becomes lost at the proceedings we are viewing, not knowing what the character's motivations are.<br /><br />The film's climax does contain a decent gun fight, but again since we don't care about the characters, we don't care who lives or who dies; The scene loses it's intensity and suspense because of this. The other action set pieces are rather mundane in nature, with a feeling of it being too controlled rather than free flowing.<br /><br />In general, this is a strictly average film and isn't recommended to the general film viewer... Only hard core genre enthusiasts and fans of Chow Yun Fat should consider this film for viewing.
Danny Lee's performance as a wisecracking cop is the only spot of interest in this film, even though it has an excellent cast including Chow Yun-Fat, Carina Lau, Andy Lau, Shing Fui-On and Alex Man. CYF plays a triad boss who wants to settle down to a life of peace and plenty but Alex Man, a total psycho who has a big grudge against CYF, won't let him. CYF tries to escape to Malacca but to no avail. After his family is blown to bits, his cronies dead or turncoat, wounded and broke, CYF returns to Hong Kong to get into some serious revenge.<br /><br />It sounds a lot better than it is. CYF is well-dressed and handsome, looks pained, grimaces and cries on cue, but somehow or another you just don't care. Andy Lau looks great, but that's about it. Carina Lau has a tiny, tiny little part which was nice, but she gets a bullet in the head early on so that ends that. Alex Man is a cartoon villain he's so over-the-top which at times can be intriguing but the writing here is so flat that he just comes across as a garden-variety nut.<br /><br />Danny Lee is great though - too bad he's only a small blip on the screen of this dark (literally) and essentially boring movie.<br /><br />Rent it, don't buy it. Or just skip it altogether.<br /><br />This is the sequel to "Rich And Famous", even though it apparently was filmed simultaneously; it was released first because of CYF's boxoffice power.
"Black Vengeance" is an alternate title for "Ying hung ho hon" AKA "Tragic Hero" (1987). I have just seen this on VHS, together with the first part of the story, "Gong woo ching" ("Rich and Famous"), also 1987. (The poster and 2 stills featured on the page are for a 4-DVD set of movies starring Rod Perry (The Black Gestapo), Fred Williamson (Black Cobra 2), Richard Lawson (Black Fist). The fourth movie is called "The Black Six"). Strangely, while the characters retain their original names in "Rich and Famous", in "Black Vengeance" Chow Yun-Fat's character is named Eddie Shaw, Alex Man (Man Tze Leung) is Harry, and Andy Lau is called Johnny. Also confusing is the fact that 1994 is given as the copyright dates on both films. Perhaps that was the year they were American-dubbed. According to the release dates given on IMDb "Tragic Hero" was released before "Rich and Famous". Was there any reason for releasing the sequel first? Despite some users' comments, I enjoyed these films, although they aren't among CYF's best such as "The Killer" and "Hard-Boiled" which are truly astonishing. However,if one day I come across a 2-DVD set of "Rich and Famous" and "Tragic Hero" I won't hesitate to buy it. Hopefully, these comments about "Black Vengeance" clear up, which was also for me, a mystery as to where it belonged in Chow Yun-Fat's filmography.
This is a documentary about homeless women. It was interesting in the sense that this focused on women who are engaged socially - having jobs and lasting friendships - but are in situations where they can not afford housing.<br /><br />I found some of the women covered to be interesting, but there was little focus or progression in the story. The direction and editing failed to maintain my attention. There were differences in the stories of these women, of course, but the message was essentially the same and could have been told by focusing on any one of them in more depth.<br /><br />I made it to the end of the movie, but it was a rather boring journey.
(This review is based on the English language version)<br /><br />Orson Welles' legendary unfinished epic was just that - unfinished. It should have been left as such, not thrown together in this clumsy, boring compilation of whatever material was available.<br /><br />While I'm sure it was done with the best of intentions, the filmmakers have not only failed to do justice to Welles' vision, they've also managed to discredit it by inflicting this version upon audiences.<br /><br />The first thing that strikes the viewer is the amateurish quality of the audio. Not only are the newly dubbed voices rather poor performances, they're also inconsistent - Welles' original recordings (using his own voice, as he often did) have been retained in a handful of scenes, & they don't match at all. There hasn't been the slightest attempt at consistency. Add to that an extremely empty sound mix which has only a bare minimum of sound effects & atmos - a long sequence during a huge festival (including the running of the bulls) sounds like it was recorded in a deserted suburban street with about three people making the sound of a crowd that's meant to be in the thousands.<br /><br />However, the real problem is the unavoidable fact that 'Don Quixote' was incomplete, & it's glaringly obvious from watching this. The film consists of a handful of scenes strung together & dragged out to ridiculous lengths just to make up the running time. Case in point - the sequence where Sancho searches for Don Quixote in the city goes on forever. It's just Sancho approaching people in the crowd, asking them the same questions over & over again - there is no way that Welles could ever have intended using every single take in its entirety, but that's what appears here. It lasts over twelve minutes, when, in fact, it would most likely have lasted about two minutes absolute maximum in a proper finished version of the film. <br /><br />While the start of the film is relatively complete & rather well done, the rest has massive holes which simply can't be filled with endless overlay of Spanish countryside & still more shots of Don Quixote & Sancho going back & forth. There's also no ending. No resolution, no conclusion, no punchline, no point.<br /><br />Although there is material in private collections that was unavailable to the filmmakers, that couldn't possibly account for what would be required to make this into a complete, coherent work. Welles simply didn't complete shooting, largely due to the fact that his lead actor died before they could finish.<br /><br />However, putting aside the fact that it wasn't complete, & never could be, one would think that just seeing a collection of footage from this masterpiece that might have been would be enough. Unfortunately, by putting it all together in such a slipshod manner, one is left with a very negative impression of the film overall. In particular, what was clearly a terrific performance from Akim Tamiroff as Sancho is utterly ruined with the new voice & with long, drawn out scenes that eventually cause him to be simply irritating.<br /><br />Orson Welles' vision for this film was something far more ambitious & complex than a simple retelling of the story of Don Quixote, but that's what has been attempted here, & as such, the point is lost. The only person who could have assembled all the material into anything worthwhile would have been Welles himself, & he didn't.<br /><br />The footage could have been put to far better use in a documentary chronicling the whole saga of Welles trying to make the film. Welles himself even came up with the perfect title for such a doco: "When Are You Going To Finish Don Quixote?"
An atrocious offense to the memory and genius of Welles, this senseless assemblage of self-indulgent improvisation on a grand theme should have been locked up in storage along with a number of other unfinished Welles' projects no one has ever seen. Now we know why! To add additional insult to prior injury, the appalling English language dubbing by amateur America dubbing actors and even the great man himself only heightens all the sloppy mistakes in story-telling and construction. It's as if every weekend some good hearted Spanish soul gave Orson a few pesos, a 35mm camera and some short-ends of negative film left over from some other production and told Welles to drive out to the Spanish countryside and just keeping shooting anything and everything until the film stock ran out. It's true that if Orson had really shaped this film himself instead the notorious Jesus Franco, he might have thrown out 85% of what he shot, but we will never know. As Welles never took the time to edit his own work here, and somewhere along the way he or his heirs sanctioned someone else to do so, he is not entirely blameless for the debacle. Those who wish to prove that in his early days Welles was the luckiest of young men because he surrounded himself with the likes of John Houseman, Herman Mankewiecz, Greg Toland, Bernard Hermann and Robert Wise need no better proof of his adult inadequacies than this mess of a film. In his sad old age Welles was capable of doing anything when he needed a few bucks or pesos, including selling his artistic soul. The devil certainly got his due with this one!
This film is terrible, and don't blame Jesus Franco, because its not his fault.<br /><br />This film was shot silent over many years by Welles as he got the money to bring a crew and the actors together to do some shooting. How much film Welles actually shot is not clear, although not all of the film or all of the sequences are here since several "key" sequences, such as Quixote in a movie theater, are in the hands of collectors or backers who wouldn't give them up. The film here is just under two hours and I would be hard pressed to imagine it ever really working at any length. I'm of the opinion, based on several comments that Welles made before his death, that he never really intended to release the film, but was putting it together as a personal toy.<br /><br />What exists here is for the most part is beautifully shot, but dramatically dead. Very little happens for the first hour other than Quixote and Sancho wandering around the country side. Dull would be a kind description of the material. In the second hour Quixote ends up in modern Spain and in a series of not very good sequences deals with everyday life. This isn't to say that there isn't a few nice moments, the windmill and the chicken sequences are quite good, but mostly this is a vast waste of film and time.<br /><br />"Completed" by Jesus Franco, who was Welles' assistant director on the vastly superior Chimes at Midnight, we have a bunch of film fragments that have been put together as best as possible. Many people have crucified Franco as having been the reason the film stinks, but frankly one can not make a good movie from crap material. One critic has gone on record as having seen a different cut of the film in the 1970's, which meant that Franco made this version up on his own and ruined it. While that maybe true, I've run across stories of Welles cutting and re-cutting the film many many times over the years since he could never get it right.<br /><br />This film is terrible no matter how you slice it.<br /><br />Ultimately I'm left wondering just how good a film maker Welles was. Aside from Citizen Kane almost all of his films have been plagued by lack of budget or interfered with so we are left with the excuse that many of his films "would have been better if only...". How do we know? How can we know? Perhaps Welles was a man of less talent than we thought and many of his borderline films just aren't that good, and never would have been. While this is no place to argue the place of Welles in film history, the surviving material of Don Quixote, assuming it approximates what Welles intended (I think it does), is a good case for rethinking how we view the man and his work.<br /><br />4 out of 10 for the good sequences (though 2 out of 10 is probably closer to reality)
Are we serious??? I mean wow ... just, wow. I think I saw this flick in an old issue of War Journal. This is pathetic, originality is completely dead, instead of trying to formulate a new idea what we receive is a bland re-do of an old plot line and to "switch it up" we just change the gender or race of the original character it's moronic and everyone should be sick and tired of seeing it ... but I guess this is just a rant and will most likely fall on deaf ears to engrossed with the sound of another turd hitting the toilet water like the best western since 3:10 to Yuma ... (wait for it)... 3:10 to Yuma! Thank You Hollywood for killing film as an art form and turning it into a commercial barrage of neo-pop junk and blatant retardation ... wonderful!!!
The Brave One seems to indicate that the main character, of course, is brave. I'd disagree. The more brave thing to do in a situation like the one that happens to her- getting brutally beaten along with her fiancée who doesn't live another day from it- is to go after the criminals without resorting to a total distorted view of society. Jodie Foster's character, Erica, is a radio personality who's niche is walking the streets and recording what goes on. We're given no real depth aside from 'she had someone she loved, he died, the police don't pursue it, she gets a gun, yada-yada-yada, she gets somewhat but not really involved with the lead detective' into the character, and so were left with something leftover from past movies: the vigilante code of justice, where taking the power in one's own hands is all there is. But we're never too sure if Erica is sane or not, if the filmmakers take a position one way or another (that is until the end, which is such a stupid message to take anyway, dog included as overbearing metaphor), while making the New York City of today, which has become significantly safer than, say, twenty years ago, look like you'll get knifed or beaten if you go down just the right alley or just sit alone on a subway car.<br /><br />There could even be a somewhat better movie in the midst of all of this- perhaps just in the undercooked subplot with Terence Howard's detective, who is involved in some custody battle of a child that isn't his and a woman who he's not linked to and a step-father who, I don't know what aside from owning parking lots and being a bad dude- but we're left to a script that's both ham-fisted and disjointed with logic. It becomes laughable, for example, to see that at first the logical side- of Erica unable to really shoot properly, as seen in her first shooting in a convenience store at the convenient moment of a robbery of a wife by the husband- and then giving way to the illogical of her crack-shot at shooting at a pimp driving a car head on at her and killing him and ducking just in time to not get run over. It doesn't help that Jordon's style with the camera becomes a little more than insufferable: it's called a stedi-cam for a *reason*, not because it can weave in and out.<br /><br />Ironically, the script and direction become very good, or rather work the best they can under the desired circumstances: when looking at the actual beating scene under the bridge, caught between a video-taped point of view by one of the criminals by the regular film cam in a pace that is perfectly disorienting. And when Erica first comes back on the air to her radio show, and she freezes up trying to do her old shtick, and speaks out a 'from-the-heart' about how afraid she is- this scene, from Foster's performance, to the clear direction and script, is the best scene in the film. But aside from that, there's just a lot of posturing into a psychology that's flimsy: is she a De Niro in Taxi Driver or a Bronson in Death Wish? We have her narration over scenes, some of it doesn't have to do at all with her radio show, observing how disgusted she is with walking around at night, nothing to do but her self-imposed task of cleaning up the streets. But unlike Death Wish, a movie that held more ambiguity and never held an answer at the end in a revenge scenario, the path of endless violence just heeds to a message, one that won't be news to anyone who's seen a second of Lifetime movie-of-the-week melodrama.<br /><br />The actors make do with what's given, and in the end it becomes much more frustrating trying to stay with the anticipated, the hackneyed plot turns, and the plain old inexplicable (plus the unintentionally hilarious, like a few expletives shouted by Howard after getting shot in one scene), and the temptation to walk out grows stronger and stronger. It's a very problematic picture, with only a few moments of genuine interest and clear-headed convention-bending.
I don't usually like to comment on the acting in a movie, because it is the one thing that people who have agenda against a film will go after. In this movie, I will make an exception. The acting in this film are below average all around. I mean halfway into the film, I wonder how the hell did the producer and/or the director gets around casting such an ensemble of people who can't act. Even-though the production value was good, the ill written story just compounded on top of the bad performance of the actors, and there is even a half-hearted attempts to a twist to the ending of the movie, which ends up quite confusing. Is all the Spanish horror films this disappointing?
The major flaw in this Spanish slasher/shocker is within it's script. For the first half hour it's an okay effort, building some suspense and an atmosphere of fear and dread. We even get some nice killings too! Then it goes completely downhill and turns into a whole catalog of "your basic slasher clichés". I must admit that I was quite disappointed because the trailer promised so much more. The final thirty minutes consists of some killings and a lot of running around in an abandoned convent. It should have been so much better (although the final scenes in the flooded room is quite okay)!<br /><br />First of all, we have the dialog. It's awful most of the time (there was quite a few giggles in the audience here and there when I saw it) and merely adequate elsewhere. It is also barely audible during a lot of scenes, drowning under the pressure of sound effects and the soundtrack (however that might not be such a bad thing after all considering the stupid lines we have to listen to!). There is one line in the whole movie that makes a reference to the "I know what you did last summer"-movies, indicating that the film makers wrote it all as one big joke, but I doubt it.<br /><br />And the ending...well, some will hate it, others will dig it. For me, it was mostly a question of the former because the final twist comes from out of nowhere! If the audience had been given some clues to the girls mental status, I might have thought otherwise. It also throws all logic out of the window, because the murderer could never had been in place for some of the kills! But as an avid horror fan I have learned to live with these inconsistencies in Spanish and Italian movies.<br /><br />But all is not bad. The movie has a big budget appearance, mainly due to the excellent cinematography (the scenes from past times really shines here), tight editing and an atmospheric soundtrack. Even though most of the actors are pretty bad, Anita Briem is an exception, making the most of what she has to work with. Real screen presence!<br /><br />And, like I mentioned before, the killings are gory enough for the fans of such stuff and they are usually accompanied by very good special effects involving images of water (but the "water theme" tends to get tiresome in the end though).<br /><br />So, to end this review, it's a movie that is quite fun in a "so-bad-it's-good" kind of way and it's also pleasing to the eye. But don't expect too much because it doesn't deliver as you probably think it will, judging from trailer and plot descriptions.
I thought this movie'd be totally different than just another teen-slasher. Well I was totally wrong. There's a liquid nun coming out of the toilet seat and something really odd. I know that Spanish culture is a bit different and their movies too, but I didn't expect to see a fake Hollywood film. They certainly faked it pretty well though. Why'd they make a movie without any new aspects? This is just plain boring and it'd been done totally without any imagination.<br /><br />I thought that having a nun as the bad guy in the movie'd be something really original. It turned out to be a teen slasher. If this'd been done ten years ago then it'd have been something new.<br /><br />I can't recommend this movie for anyone but it certainly has some comedy value! It's like a horror parody in some points.
Six students at a convent do the unthinkable - kill a nun who was overbearing. Now, eighteen years later, the nun's spirit is back and getting revenge for her murder.<br /><br />Yea, basically that's the short of it. There's more to it than that, but I still have no clue what it is. The only really cool thing is the effects on the spiritual nun, as I was pretty impressed for being a more low-budget flick. I'm also confused as to whether or not it's in English. Most of the actors are Italian, and even the title here is in Italian, yet they spoke English in the film (I think, or it might've been dubbed, I still can't tell).<br /><br />Anyway, the real premise of the film is pretty idiotic, and the ending not only doesn't make sense, it...well...doesn't make sense.
Review: Nunsploitation films. They've been around since forever. A few that pop to mind are the Mexican devil worshiping movie Alucarda, Night of the Demons 2, The Convent and of course Dante Tomasellis Desecration. Cant blame somebody for trying to exploit a religious/holy image and twisting it around to make it scary. If done right, it works. Here comes the most recent addition to the nunsploitation sub-genre simply titled The Nun.<br /><br />The story is about this group of girls that live in a Catholic school. In this school there's a Nun who is particularly cruel to one of the girls. The girls acting in self defense against the abusive nun accidentally kill her and then decide to bury her and tell no one. Fast forward 18 years later and the nun is back searching for revenge from those who killed her.<br /><br />This movie was produced by Brian Yuznas Fantastic Factory. You know, the company that makes horror movies in Spain. Need a reminder of the kind of movies that this company churns out? Well heres a small reminder: Arachnid, Darkness, Romasanta: The Werewolf Hunt, Rottweiler. You get the picture. About the only really good movie that this company has produced (in my opinion) was Stuart Gordons Dagon. Thats it. Oh no, wait, I believe they also produced the excellent Christian Bale vehicle The Machinist. But thats it. So when I consciously rented this movie, I knew I wasn't going to watch anything that was mind blowingly good. Still, with all that mental preparation I was disappointed.<br /><br />One of the only good things this movie has going for it is its slick look. The movie has some nice cinematography. It doesn't look like a cheap horror film. The movies special effects were alright, with The Nun being able to travel through water. Well, that was an image that lended it self for some cool fx moments that sometimes scratched into cheesy territory but sometimes were cool enough to watch. I dug that scene with the Nun hurling herself at people like a bucket of water. Its not a particularly deadly move, but it made for a cool visual. There's some gore here but not a lot of it. One particular scene involving an elevator death was cool, but sadly the movie hit its peak with that scene. And it was only half way through. After that, nothing really cool happens and the movie deludes into an incredible borefest.<br /><br />The movie just turns into The Nun popping up every now and then to give us a boo scare, she would kill someone and then CUT! We get back to the characters talking crap, going through rooms, opening doors, you get the drill. And I just personally hate it when a horror movie turns into that. People opening doors and going into rooms. Boring! And when the characters do talk its terrible dialog. In one particularly stupid scene a character decides right out of the blue that the nun turns into flesh and blood whenever she is in the water so thats they way to go to try and kill her. And everyone just says OK! And they all elaborate this plan to kill the nun in a water tank. Now, who gave that guy this info and why did the others just take it for granted? Who the hell knows, but its scenes like that that make the movie look stupid.<br /><br />And yet another thing that got in the way of my enjoyment of this film was the fact that they used Spanish actors who have a very thick accent. When they try to speak English its very hard to make out what the hell they are trying to say. Id prefer to have them be dubbed then try and figure out what they are saying and become frustrated. The fact that this DVD has no English subtitles didn't help matters either.<br /><br />So in conclusion, this is a movie that has some slick visuals, nice sound effects but a terrible terrible script. I guess this just goes to show that you might have the biggest budget or the best special effects, but if your movie has a bad script with terrible characters and situations that your audience cant connect with, then you've still got a bad movie. Such was the case with The NUN.<br /><br />If you want to have some real fun with evil nuns, rent any of the films I mentioned at the beginning of this review. Now, as for the makers of this film, they should go say ten hail maries and light fifty candles to their saint of choice to see if they'll be forgiven for making this sinfully terrible film.<br /><br />Rating: 2 out of 5.
The headline describes it exactly. This dribble of a film was nothing more than the typical 'group of teens killed someone accidentally now that someone is haunting/killing them off 20 years later' crap that has been shoved down our throats for decades. The only twist is instead of an angry ex-classmate or lovable psycho/loser, it was a nun. Nun wants to eliminate the sin from the girls, blah blah, girls accidentally/purposely drown the nun, blah blah, nun haunts the girls, people die, movie ends. The only thing that made this watchable were the death scenes, which were pretty cool (especially the one with the elevator door ripping off this fat lady's arms) but even they couldn't make this a great movie. Brian Yuzna should hang his head for attaching himself to this refuse. I'm sure glad I rented it and didn't buy it, or I'd be furious beyond belief. If you want a nunsploitation flick to please the senses, go watch Demonia or something. Stay away from this garbage.
I didn't buy this, I didn't rent this, it was on PPV and someone burned a copy of it and loaned it to me, so at least I wasted no money on it. For someone that did Darkness, the Nameless, Devil's Backbone, this is a pretty lame film. Seems to have something to do with a bunch of girls that were at a convent back in the day and now they're all grown up and they're being pursued and killed one by one by a nun that comes out of the kitchen sink, the toilet, and even manages to negotiate the revolving doors in a hotel. And what makes this nun so mean and nasty (and wet?) I dunno, this was so boring that at some point about halfway through I just stopped it, put it away, and watched something else. Wasn't even interested in finding out, really. Oh sure, there's some lovely young ladies to look at but hey, are two of them lesbians? I guess, there's a picture on the bedside table of one young lady's bedroom and what self-respecting horror movie wouldn't be complete these days without a lesbian couple? Yeah whatever. 2 out of 10, if you want to see a worthwhile nun horror movie try "Desecration", "Dead Waters", or "The Convent" (and that's the one with Adrienne Barbeau, by the way, not the one with John Malkovich).
I am a huge horror fan, particularly Spanish horror. This film had so many possibilities to be good. It's a marvelous idea, a vigilante ghost nun, as most of what has come out of Jaume Balangueró's mind. Both visual and sound effects were also pretty good. But everything was shamefully spoiled by bad direction, awful casting and a painfully bad (exposition, exposition!) script. Too bad. Maybe Balangueró should write and direct himself a remake...<br /><br />Moreover, I don't really understand why this had to be spoken in English by actors who can't really speak English (and when they do, they do it so bad it just makes their performances even more fake). If you look at contemporary Spanish horror films like El Orfanato or Rec, the performances are totally in tune with this type of stylish ghost story - and that is being realistic, being believable as someone like ourselves, like real people, because that is the only way horror achieves it's goal. Unfortunately, everything failed in La Monja.
The movie is nothing extraordinary. As a matter of fact, it is an insult to the horror genre. Nothing about it borders on scary... not even close to the threshold of scary...<br /><br />It's just another case of "another teenage horror movie"-seen one and you've seen em all. First few minutes in the movie and you'll know what will happen next. The worst part is, the script is blunter than the most recent installment of scary movie. Would have been better if it's written in Spanish. And don't get me started with the inside jokes and punchlines.<br /><br />Though i will give a little credit for the special effects. But trust me, like any other Hollywood made horror movie, CGI's and special effects has little or no effect to a horror movie's ability to scare. In fact, it makes it worse.<br /><br />Between the fresh faced Anita Briem and the spooky location, there's not much to see in this movie.
The only good thing of this movie is its final twist. In 97 minutes of film we can only save one single idea, which was totally wasted in this movie I must say! For more than 90 minutes this film is just a collection of clichés, bad acting, stupid ideas and disclosures, complete lack of suspense, stupid deaths, terrible special effects; all this in a pathetic and unoriginal plot… until the last three minutes, where, FINALLY, a good idea appeared! It's nothing outstanding or an extremely original idea, but, at least was a "decent" good idea, the only one the entire movie has! I won't spoil it, but I must say I think that idea with a better plot, better FX and, definitely, a better acting, would turn into a good film. If you watch this movie and can stand it until the end you will know what it is…
Well, first of all, excuse me for the lame pun in the title. I was browsing for movies to rent the other day and saw this. I heard something about this so I picked it up and looked on the back and there was a short little review blurb on it from John Fallon AKA Arrow in the Head! At that moment I thought "Well if he likes it then I gotta like it!" So I rented it and just finally got around to watching it last night (college keeps me so busy). Oh and I might wanna add that I read a little of Arrow's review and it turns out that out of 4 stars he gave it 1 and a half. So my expectations from this movie went from very high to iffy. Well after watching this, I once again agree with Arrow (and turns out that quote from the review was the only positive thing he said about that!) Wow, did this film stink or what? Where do I begin with why it did so? Well, the film was so dull in my opinion. Not even the cool gore bits excited me and when a decapitation doesn't excite you in a movie, that's bad! The characters I hated a lot and from the beginning I could tell who would die and who wouldn't. Actually the film proved me wrong at some points, but the worst thing is that one particular character I wanted to die didn't! What the heck? And the chemistry between the main girl and the guy she met? Didn't feel it. He obviously was just there to be eye candy and give her a love interest, otherwise I thought he was a waste! And as a horror fan I should know that doing the "dumb horror movie" sometimes gotta happen or else there wouldn't be much of a movie, but the ones in here ticked me off! Hello? Why are you making out in the room of the killer nun when you should be on the lookout from her? And it was done by the supposedly smarter characters no less. The twist....ah, it would have been alright, if it hadn't been done a billion times and I didn't have to sit through this wast of film to reach that point! My main point: Stupid movie that sucked me in with some words of my favorite (actually my only favorite) movie critic. Jerks!
Movies like this make me wonder what modern horror would be like if someone had (mercifully, for movie fans) put an end to M. Night Shyamalan inside the womb. This garbage is a prime example of what kind of lame, random, uninspired, last minute, generic plot twists have become the norm since movies like "The Sixth Sense" and "The Others" were released. This was an okay movie until the writers took a dump all over whatever of the mediocre script they had written, and decided, "Hey, here's an interesting idea: Lets throw in a wacky twist at the end and make the main character the murderer! That'll throw the audience for a loop!" What an original idea.
I can't believe they even released such a movie. The only good acting came from the water in the movie. This has to be one of worst (if not the worst) movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />The only scary part of the movie is the bad acting, me giving this movie a 1 is me being to kind, this movie deserve a 0.<br /><br />The storyline, and if you can call it the plot of the movie, seems to have been written by an high school kid. Ofcaurse you have to ask yourself if it may have been better with better actors in it.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor, wait for it to show on TV. <br /><br />AND EVEN THEN WATCHING IT WILL BE A WAST OF TIME.
The Nun is a revenge picture whereby a very strict nun is killed by her rebellious trailer trash charges and comes back years later to get even when the now adults visit their old school. Story line is predictable in spades and will hold no surprises as it slowly winds its way to the end. It is a screamer of a movie with passable acting and a below average script and screenplay. Much of the special effects are low grade and there is almost zero believability in the final battle. Still, if you look past these there is some suspense and acting jewels. If you like senseless cookie cutter screamers, you'll like this, otherwise you should pass.
I can only say this: ee03128 from Portugal, I couldn't say it better. The worst movie I've ever seen... and I've seen lots of crap! When I read you comment I thought only about the thoughts I had while watching the movie. When I saw who was one of the script writers I understood it. Balagueró uses the same tricks in all his movies. And his scripts are not much better either. And, of course, in Barcelona we have tons of temples and churches around the city so we can keep cursed nuns to scare young Americans coming on vacations. Please, be serious! And I do not want to talk about the quality of the actors... There is something remarkable too. It is fair to recognize it. Compared to the usual level, all the Spanish actors use a fairly good English
i can't even describe it. it's the worst movie i've ever seen (i'm being a nice guy when i call it movie).Just another big-budget-made-to-someone-who-doesn't-like-to-think-much.It's not even scary. It's revolting when there are great movies that never reach the big screen and then comes this..."thing" to trick movie fans. I guess big producers make whatever they want.<br /><br />Just get a big producer, hot chicks (allthough horrible actresses) and a ton of horror movie clichés and cook it for a week or so, and you'll get "The Nun".<br /><br />And I thought Bad Boys 2 was horrible!!!!
I have spent the last 5 years in the entertainment business and most recently find myself working for the company that made this movie, which is a REAL pity, because I like these folks, I just can't believe ANYONE could possibly make anything as bad as this?!!!! This was crap from every possible angle. From camera work to dialogue to acting to costumes and production design was one of the worst films I have ever seen! The actors in this film looked like they had been taken straight off of a porn that was being shot in the San Fernando Valley and put on a set with an even less talented crew.<br /><br />I just can't get over the fact that I am sitting on some of the best material I have ever read and contacts within the industry that could help me make my dream a reality and have hit every roadblock possible? Yet the folks behind this spectacle of a film have no problems putting it together and in fact, sleep well after it is released.<br /><br />Life, what a trip!
LORD PROTECTOR is kiddie fare, but for whose kids? Obviously shot for television or STV, this amateurish rehash KRULL has several stock characters -- a magician, an assassin, a warrior, a scientist -- on the trail of something or other in order to defeat the Dark Forces about to be unleashed on their planet. Badly written, acted and staged in available California locations like municipal parks and a ranch, LORD PROTECTOR has nothing to recommend it, not even as a time waster. Jay Underwood is the only "name" actor, and most people, especially the intended audience of five year olds, are not likely to remember him from such ancient Disney fare as NOT QUITE HUMAN. A no-name actor playing a magician in an ill-fitting silver wig at least plays it with tongue planted firmly in cheek, while those around him act as if they are in a dinner theater production of KING LEAR. I was hoping at least for a decent action or special effects sequence. Alas, the action sequences are pathetically staged and the few special effects are those old fashioned painted-over cartoon gags we used to see in 1950s and 1960s fantasy flicks, like Bert Gordon's THE MAGIC SWORD. The filmmakers planned a sequel that mercifully never came to be. Often, such cheap Hollywood back-lot productions use a combination of legit and porn actors. I kept myself occupied during the film's seemingly interminable running time, trying to figure which was which in this one. I didn't have much luck.
Edge of Madness is a tale about a woman in the 1800's who gets hand-picked by dirty Scotsman who can't keep his penis in his pants. He just so happens to have a younger brother who is against rape and kills him, but continuously says it was an accident. This makes his wife go crazy, she gets delusional and she takes the fall because she loves George too much.<br /><br />Like I said, this type of thing has been done before. This is just more "artistic" because it's Canadian and it's an indie production done on a low-budget with hardly known actors (except that one kid from Lassie, yea, he's in it). I dunno' whether this was going for Oscar bait, but it was sure as hell boring. And this is based on a 40 page short story. Half of that short story is incorporated into this flick, and I'm glad. Otherwise, I'd bore to death. Unfortunately, I had to watch it in my Media Fundamentals class, and I had an assignment on it. Read the short story and compare and contrast the flick to the story. BORING.<br /><br />You know, it's harder to answer movie questions when you don't like the movie. Ah well, I hope this is the last type of assignment me and my class get. For what it's worth, Annie Herron was totally hot, she had a nice, soft ass and I liked the nude parts of her in the movie.<br /><br />3/10 for boring, Oscar bait performance and graphic sexuality..plus nudity.
How can any of you call this propaganda a family film. This is nothing but a PC, insensitive insult to small-town churchgoers. The film portrays a woman as the great white savior of some small Midwestern town, and everyone else in the town (mostly men) are just mere damsels in distress, incapable of honor, who can't fend for themselves and have to rely on the main character for redemption. This film is just some love affair that the producer has with some undisciplined, arrogant, pushy little squirt, who he expects the audience to admire.<br /><br />The person who made this movie probably spent his whole life in a seeker-sensitive church, and had the freedom to dump garbage on small church members as wacky lunatics and not the majority. The same people who give money to the Salvation Army at Christmastime, collecting donations to help missionaries, the poor and the homeless, singing, fellow-shipping, and making friends with each other. What is wrong with this humble group that offends these self-righteous traitors? Most Christians in this world would step in front of a train and give their lives for any person in trouble, even if they disagree with them. Most Christians wouldn't mind if the pastor, or some church worker, of some church took of his or her coat (or outer shirt). They would not condemn her. This film is ridiculous!
Get the CD instead. The show is tame, and the editing sucks. The crowd gets way too much screen time, as does Till Lindemann. The cameras spend more time on the same kid shaking his head around in the same way (which leads me to believe it's the exact same shot) than they do during Richard Kruspe's solo in Weisses Fleisch. The scenes change so quickly it's impossible to tell where the camera is pointed, and the replays are simply redundant. Not worth the tape it's recorded on.
Not the best of the WIP's, but not the worst either. I honestly feel guilty laughing at this film considering it had to be career lows for all involved. Yet the acting, dialogue, preposterous scenarios, and the ever present boom mic get to me everytime and certainly add to its bad movie charm. As much of a Linda Blair fan I am, top (or topless) honors go to Sybil Danning. Also, special kudos to Henry Silva, who's the only one in the cast who doesn't play his role too seriously. Viewing, the film now, though, makes me look at Stella Stevens character more closely. She plays the head officer, and I have to wonder if this where Hilary Clinton decided to adopt her current look and demeanor. After all, I'm sure she had to look no further than her husband's video collection to find this film. Not that I'm judging. I've seen it several times myself, and it all makes me wonder what would've happened if Mr. Clinton had been allowed to install a hot tub in the Oval Office. Hmmm.
Ugly women-of-the-cellblock flick rakes the bottom of the midnight-movie barrel, combining pulpy sleaze with the hoariest of girls-in-the-shower clichés. Linda Blair plays an innocent sent to jail (we learn offhandedly she was involved in running over some guy with her car), facing hard time in the Big House with some of the nastiest characters this side of a Russ Meyer pic. Blair is continually pawed at, punched, raped, humiliated and harassed. The dialogue is four-letter-word disgusting throughout, and the flick offers no let-up from its barrage of violence and stupidity. Still, some viewers see this as a camp classic, though perhaps its tongue isn't far enough in cheek. * from ****
Sad... really sad. This movie has nothing (hmmm, well maybe Sybil Danning) to keep you watching. It also hurt my eyes to see Linda Blair in this exploitation flick. She certainly deserves better.<br /><br />So what's the story about? Let's see... Warden John Vernon tapes the inmates in rather inspiring positions, while prisoner Sybil actually runs the prison and little Linda must fight to survive... Sounds like a B-movie, huh? It is.
A lot of actors have a multitude of good movie roles in their soul. Some, a handful. Others, maybe a couple.<br /><br />Then there's Linda Blair. "The Exorcist". That's it.<br /><br />When you see "Chained Heat" and watch Linda Blair in it, you have to wonder what, if anything, was running through her mind.<br /><br />Certainly not, "Oh boy: Oscar for Best Actress, here I come!"<br /><br />Just another women in prison film like they used to make for the cheap in the '70s, this one actually has names you may recognize. John Vernon plays the dean... I mean, the warden (with a hot tub in his office; wonder what he told the contractor?), Stella Stevens pops up, even Henry Silva and Louisa Moritz show how bad they needed the work.<br /><br />And special mention, of course, for our heroine Sybil Danning as a bisexual prisoner who puts the moves on poor Blair. To paraphrase, Sybil is as Sybil does and everything Sybil does is done perfect. Makes you forget what a terrible movie you're watching.<br /><br />Almost.<br /><br />Two stars. One for Sybil and another for trying to pass off Linda Blair as a sex symbol. Whatever could have possessed them (get it?)?
You Belong To Me was the final teaming of Henry Fonda and Barbara Stanwyck as a screen team and it was a loan out film for Fonda to Columbia Pictures. Fonda had signed a contract with 20th Century Fox in order to get the Tom Joad part in The Grapes of Wrath. But after that it was usually his loan out films that were good while he was cast in mediocre things at Fox.<br /><br />But the rule was broken here. Though the character he plays bears some superficial resemblance to Charles Pike from The Lady Eve, this film isn't anywhere near as funny. In fact feminists would probably be aghast at it. <br /><br />In fact Barbara Stanwyck herself didn't like it at all. She liked working with Henry Fonda right enough, but thought this film was ridiculous. As well she should have.<br /><br />Fonda is another millionaire playboy, who we would now call a trust fund baby who doesn't really do much with his life. He's sort of lovable lunkhead who meets Stanwyck on a ski slope and literally falls for her trying to show off. Turns out she's a doctor and they have a whirlwind courtship and get married. <br /><br />But it turns out Fonda has a jealous streak, especially when it involves Roger Clark, another millionaire patient of Stanwyck's. And he's not understanding as to her professional obligations.<br /><br />Stanwyck, like Bette Davis and Katharine Hepburn, was and is a feminist icon. When she tells Fonda that he ought to go out in the working world and live on a salary and see if he can do it, Fonda goes out and gets a job as a salesman in a department store. She's so proud of him, that she actually is going to give up her medical practice and live with him on his salesman's salary.<br /><br />Today NOW would be picketing the film. Stanwyck did not have too much conviction in her performance, probably because she didn't believe any of it. I certainly couldn't. <br /><br />I don't think even back then audiences believed it either. But the two stars and the rest of the cast tried their best, but this one was a Thanksgiving special.
Despite having an absolutely horrid script (more about that later), this film is still vaguely watchable just because it stars two excellent actors, Barbara Stanwyck and Henry Fonda. Aside from one or two REAL stinkers, I'd probably watch just about anything with them in the film, as I am a huge fan of Hollywood's golden age of the 1930s and 40s. However, no matter how much I love their films, I just can't recommend this film.<br /><br />The movie begins with Fonda and Stanwyck on vacation at some ski resort. The two haven't yet met, but the film begins loudly and obnoxiously with a scene in which Fonda horribly yodels while skiing. It was done so unsubtly and made my teeth grind but I stuck it out--especially when Fonda fell into a snow bank and this stopped the yodeling!! In hindsight, perhaps I should have just turned it off then! Fonda is knocked out in the fall and Barbara goes for help. Back at the ski lodge, he seems okay but fortunately she is ALSO a doctor and has him x-rayed and nurses him back to health. He, in turn, becomes infatuated with her and proposes to her. Despite hardly knowing each other, they marry and so far the film seems like a sweet but very slight romantic comedy.<br /><br />Once home, however, all isn't rosy as she jumps right back into her job as a family doctor and he begins exhibiting signs that he is a controlling and potentially dangerous man due to his jealousy. The film plays it all for laughs, but frankly Fonda's behaviors were really creepy--spying on her and her male patients, attacking or threatening ANY man she treats, tripping a patient who already has a back injury and stomping into a surprise party and insisting that everyone there (men and women) are out to steal away his wife. He comes off as a combination of a sociopath and paranoid schizophrenic, but it's all supposed to be for laughs. Considering that he seems like a dangerous nut, you would think that Stanwyck would file for an annulment along with a restraining order! But, oddly, she gets mad but just can't stay mad at Fonda because he's so........? I can't think of the right word--'creepy' is all that comes to mind!!! Later, out of the blue, multi-millionaire Fonda gets a job working the counter at a department store. Then, through magical thinking, he and Babs seem to assume his hostility and violent jealousy is all a thing of the past--so a job apparently cures anger and suspicions. When this job falls through, the film ends with Fonda buying his own hospital, giving Barbara a job there and they live happily ever after. They don't go any further with the story, but I assume based on Fonda's character that he then spent most of his time as hospital administrator beating up all the male patients.<br /><br />The first portion at the ski lodge and the next did NOT fit well together, nor did the final "Horatio Alger" inspired section where the rich boy made good in the business world. They were like three separate plots but despite this, the most serious problem with the film was its seeming to excuse away domestic violence and delusional jealousy! What a creepy little film! Thank goodness neither Fonda nor Stanwyck are known for this yechy film but for all their other lovely films.
YOU BELONG TO ME (1941) is a example of the 'ScrewBall Comedy' which started in the mid 1930s and ended postwar (WWII). Some of these films maintained their status. Others have earned undeserved praise when originally were critical and box office flops. Like BRINGING UP BABY (1938) or MR. & MRS. SMITH (1941). Then there is this one which value just keeps sinking.<br /><br />Why can be rooted in the screenplay/story. It strains credibility from the get go, betraying a superior cast. BARBARA STANWYCK is married to millionaire HENRY FONDA who is insanely jealous. He would be content to sit back with his million$ and love her, she wishes to maintain her profession as a Doctor. She wants him to become in what her eyes is a useful member of society. This conflict is supposed to amuse us. It cannot be salvaged by either the principals or the supporting cast.<br /><br />The faults in this scenario can clearly be laid at the feet of DALTON TRUMBO. HENRY FONDAs' character is written in such broad strokes that any viewer has a instant dislike for him. BARBARA STANWYCK just has nothing to do but react to each idiotic situation of jealousy. TRUMBO must have been spending to much time outside the studio being a "useful idiot" then being on the job. COLUMBIA obviously did not get their moneys worth from him, maybe ROBERT RISKIN should taken over.
Begrudgingly gave it a 3 - one point each for Fonda, Stanwyck, and the supporting cast.<br /><br />Never saw this one before - am watching it right now and it has just gotten to the part where Henry Fonda is carrying Babs over the threshold. If I continue watching, it will be just to see if Fonda and Stanwyck will be able to pull this one out of the dumper.<br /><br />But after reading the other viewer comments, I'm not very optimistic.<br /><br />The opening ski scenes were enough to put me off my lunch. The voice-overs were obviously done in a sound studio, and the editing between the exterior shots and the closeups was horrendous. I do not know that much about the technology of that era - but I can't believe there wasn't something they could do to make it more believable.<br /><br />My second gasp of disbelief was when Fonda wiped out and (I imagine due to the extreme velocity of travel) he is burrowed head first into the snow up to his torso - Stanwyck pulls him out with obvious staged difficulty - and, (I imagine because she is such an experienced doctor) does not react at all to his apparently unconscious state and limp posture.<br /><br />Look, I'm completely capable of suspending my disbelief, but I couldn't get over the fact that she had just jostled a man with a possible head injury and that he might be paralyzed for life. Not my idea of big yuks.<br /><br />So, as I finish this comment, we have just seen Kirk's first jealous outburst, and Dr. Hunt is off to perform an appendectomy! I'm not sure which I hate more - the script, the background music, or the story!! Argghhhh! I'm done. Game over. Click.
A multi-millionaire marries a female doctor. He hasn't worked in a day and she is devoted to her profession. He sees her off each day. Something has got to give.<br /><br />Our hero, Henry Fonda, finally decides to do something with his life. He becomes a salesman in a department store but is soon fired as poorer people need the job. In the meantime, Dr. Helen Hunt, (Barbara Stanwyck) has given up her practice? What's there to do?<br /><br />Kirk (Fonda) buys a bankrupt hospital and the two shall now be happy aiding others while they eke out an existence.<br /><br />What's with the writing here? When annoyed with her husband, Dr. Hunt says, "You've been acting like gestapo." This is supposed to be a comedy. Hogwash. <br /><br />A very boring, tedious film. Very little going on here.
Terribly disappointed with CITY OF MEN after being swept away by CITY OF GOD. Lost is the exciting and unpredictable storyline, and instead, in its place, is bland predictability with the obvious attempts at audience manipulation by a superficial pretentious production and distribution team. This story ended up feeling like a sappy soap opera rather than a gritty indie feature, which is what is should have been. This is what happens when distributors try to seek a wider audience (ridiculous sweeping shots of the Rio coastline, etc) at the expense of a gripping story and characters. I really couldn't care what happened to any of the characters in this film - they were all so 2 dimensional. In short, sad waste of potential that should have been a slam-dunk following the exceptionally inspired CITY OF GOD. Boo!
An expedition party made up of constantly bickering and obnoxious jerks go trekking into the dangerous African jungle in search of both a fortune in diamonds and a missing young lady named Diana (luscious brunette looker Katja Biernet, clad solely in a skimpy loincloth that shows off a lot of her hot shapely body) who's worshiped as a goddess by a deadly primitive tribe called the Mabutos. Director/screenwriter Jess Franco crucially fails to inject any style or vigor into the generally blah and meandering proceedings, allowing the sluggish pace to crawl along at an often agonizingly slow clip and staging the infrequent action scenes with a singular lack of skill and panache. The lousy dubbing, excess amount of grainy "National Geographic"-like animal stock footage, groovy, jazzy lounge score, terrible acting, talky, uneventful narrative, tepid soft-core sex scenes, and static photography don't help matters any as well. Fortunately, there's plenty of tasty gratuitous nudity on sight to alleviate the tedium to a reasonable extent: Besides the delectable Biernert, both Aline Mess as fierce, wicked high priestess Noba and Mari Carmen Nieto as the conniving, treacherous Lita are likewise real easy on the eyes. The beautiful jungle scenery is very nice, too. But overall this picture sizes up as barely watchable and hence instantly forgettable swill.
Franco films can be divided into 4 categories- the "earlies" (often black and white and inventive), the "naughties" (late 1960s/early 1970s often involving Soledad Miranda), the "nudies" (of various periods, but using full frontal female nudity as plot drive)and "the rest".<br /><br />This is part of the "rest". It is not really a cannibal movie at all. It is certainly no gorefest. The few women in the picture dont even lose their loin cloths and there is little full frontal stuff at all. The picture quality on the German DVD I watched is poor. The film peters out (insofar as it ever catches fire). As a Franco fan, I would tell others not to bother. Do something else with your time...read a book....get a copy of "Women in Cellblock 9"...anything really...
Jess Franco makes exploitation films, and he has made tons of them. Franco is responsible for some of the most shocking films in cinema history, and god bless him for it. Unfortunately, The Diamonds of Kilominjaro is a truly awful movie that is not up to his usual standards.<br /><br />Exploitation films should be judged on story, sex, and gore. What else is there? This film fails on most of those benchmarks. The plot is paper thin, placing a nubile young girl in the jungle among cannibals. We really don't get information on why she and her father were there in the first place. As expected, her father is the "Big White Chief" and she becomes a goddess, sitting in trees, naked. Add fortune hunters and precious stones, and you have your basic rescue the girl for greedy intentions plot line. The characters are stock, not adding an ounce of believability to the proceedings.<br /><br />Gore? None, or at least very little. This film is often mentioned in the same vein as the classic Italian cannibal movies. Those seeking that type of gore need to run the other way. Save for one cheap be-heading, this movie features surprisingly little blood and guts.<br /><br />As best I can tell the only reason this movie exists is so Katja Bienert, Aliene Mess, and Mari Carmen Neieto could run around naked. Actually "Lita" (Mari Carmen Neieto) does the full frontal heavy lifting, while the two jungle ladies are bare chested throughout. Yes, there are love scenes....probably the most sterile Franco has ever supervised. The women are beautiful, but nothing here to really make this movie an erotic classic either.<br /><br />This movie just reeks of low budget buffoonery. The sets are laughable. The acting is horrid, and the editing is confusing. There is no real story to hold this together, and not enough of a budget (or effort) to shock or titillate. I think Franco fans have come to expect more out of the master of exploitation.
A group of adventurers travel to the 'dark continent' to try and locate a lost heiress named Diana, who disappeared years before in a plane crash, and who is now believed to be living with a savage tribe that consider her to be their goddess.<br /><br />Once again, my search for sleazy, European cannibal movies has taken me deep into Jess Franco territory—a seemingly endless cinematic wilderness swarming with sub-par scriptwriting, crawling with crap camera-work, and abundant with awful acting (Franco regular Lina Romay taking the prize this time for her pitiful performance as an ailing, elderly woman). It is here, in this hellish place, that I finally stumbled upon Diamonds of Kilimanjaro, an abysmal jungle-based exploitationer so stupefyingly bad that it took me three successive evenings to finish watching it.<br /><br />Tawdry and unrelentingly dull, even by Franco's standards, this wearisome piece of trash fails on almost every level: the story is a dreadfully dull derivative of Edgar Rice Burrough's Tarzan, albeit with a feminine twist; the film appears to have been filmed in the local botanical gardens, although grainy stock footage is poorly integrated into the film in a pointless effort to convince viewers that the action is really taking place in Africa; and the death scenes are virtually bloodless (Franco can usually be relied upon for some splatter, but despite initial appearances, this isn't a cannibal movie and it isn't that gory).<br /><br />Where the director does succeed, however, is in his casting of sexy young Katja Bienert as jungle jail-bait Diana. Running and leaping through the undergrowth in nothing but a skimpy loin-cloth, her curvaceous bod belying the fact that she was only sixteen at the time, this nubile beauty makes quite an impression. Franco also throws in some further nudity courtesy of Mari Carmen Nieto as treacherous traveller Lita (who gives us a glimpse of her untamed regions), and Aline Mess as topless warrior woman Noba, thus narrowly avoiding getting yet another rating of 1/10 from me (although I'm sure he'll be receiving plenty more in the future—I have loads of his films yet to see).
Good old Jess Franco! The always-reliable choice of director in case you're looking for undemanding sleaze, shameless exploitation and 200% gratuitousness. Jess once again really surpassed himself with this utterly trashy piece of jungle "adventure". Let's face it, this film is basically just an excuse to have the ravishingly hot (and underage…) actress Katja Bienert parade around topless. It's actually a rather disturbing thought that an innocent 16-year-old girl had to walk around a film set naked in front of a whole crew and particularly before the gazing eyes of pervert Franco! And it wasn't even the first time, since the duo previously already made "Linda" together. Anyways, just in case you wondered: YES, "Diamonds of the Kilimanjaro" does have a plot, albeit a very imbecilic one. During the opening sequences a plane, carrying aboard a wealthy Scottish guy and a girl child, crash amidst an African tribe of vegetarian cannibals. I say vegetarian because they never at one point in the film so much even attempt to consume human flesh. The obnoxious Scot declares himself the Great White Leader and the girl grows up to become the beautiful and scarcely dressed White Goddess. Several years later an expedition reaches the middle of the jungle to get the girl back to civilization and – even more importantly - to steal some of the tribe's legendary diamonds. This could have been a compelling and action-packed adventure movie, but Jess Franco obviously couldn't be bothered. Why shoot jungle chase sequences or bloody cannibalistic rites when you can just as easily aim your camera at a hot young chick sitting naked in a tree? Most of the jungle settings simply appear to be filmed in someone's garden and there's a massive amount of clumsily edited National Geographic wildlife footage in order to fill up the gaps in continuity. The back of the DVD describes "Diamonds of the Kilimanjaro" as an ingenious, feminist and adult orientated version of Tarzan. Yeah right, they just put that sentence there because Katja Bienert's character swings from one tree to another using a a couple of times.
Just saw this movie on opening night. I read some other user comments which convinced me to go see it... I must say, I was not impressed. I'm so unimpressed that I feel the need to write this comment to spare some of you people some money.<br /><br />First of all "The Messengers" is very predictable, and just not much of a thriller. It might be scary for someone under 13, but it really did nothing for me. The climax was laughable and most of the audience left before the movie's resolution.<br /><br />Furthermore the acting seemed a little superficial. Some of the emotional arguments between the family were less convincing than the sub-par suspense scenes.<br /><br />If you've seen previews for this movie, then you've seen most of the best parts and have a strong understanding of the plot. This movie is not worth seeing in the theaters.
First off, the editing of this film consisted of one major flaw which I don't understand how was missed - you consistently see the overhead microphones bobbing in and out of the film. The first time I saw it I just said "well, mistakes happen" and brushed it off. After about the 10th time, it began to get incredibly irritating and distractingly funny. If you haven't seen the film yet, try counting how many times you see the microphone; might make for pretty interesting game.<br /><br />Now, about the film. This movie started out with the makings of a pretty solid "ghost" story; however, the plot twist at the end just ruined it completely. You begin watching the movie under the assumption, alluded by the TV commercials, that the haunted house consists of ghosts which can only be seen by children; particularly young children, which makes it even more freaky as they will be unable to effectively warn the family of the impending danger. The opening scene did a good job of misleading the audience that this would remain the premise of the film. **(SPOILER)** The movie starts with the family being stalked and ultimately killed by an "unseen" force in the home. The idea that only children can see these ghosts is set in motion when the daughter, at the beginning of the movie, asks her little brother to tell her where "it" is right before "it" grabs her and drags her screaming into the cellar. The young boy also witnesses this supposedly "unseen force" kill his mother after she tells him to hide under the bed. After his family is killed, the boy attempts to run and hide only to be snatched away as well.<br /><br />As I said, this movie started out with the makings of a pretty spooky movie in which the family would be stalked by an "unseen force" with their only hopes of survival resting on sightings by a two-year-old. This began to be ruined less than halfway into the film as the daughter began to see the ghosts as well; completely ruining the "only children can see" illusion set forth by the commercials and opening scene.<br /><br />Regardless of this, the movie didn't actually get "ruined" until the plot twist at the end. In which the man who had been helping the family cultivate the farm turns out to have been the man responsible for killing the family at the beginning of the movie. All of a sudden, after being attacked by a swarm of crows, the man snaps and tries to kill the mother, daughter, and son while having a psychotic breakdown in which he believes them to be HIS family; which he killed at the beginning.<br /><br />The whole plot twist at the end just created a whole list of unsolved questions and left me going wtf. First, why was the family's souls trapped in a house? If the director was going for a Ju-On (The Grudge) approach in which the family, after dying in a fit of rage, would haunt the house and kill whoever enters, why did the haunting stop after the father was "captured" by the ghosts of his family? If the ghosts only wanted to kill the man that killed them, why were they attacking the new family? Here's another one for you. It takes several months from the time you sow seeds until the plants fully blossom in time for harvest. This tells me that the man who killed his family at the beginning, the man that the ghosts apparently had a grudge with the whole movie, was living on the property for months. During all this time, why didn't the ghosts just go kill him? <br /><br />This movie included a lot of clichéd "horror movie" scares as well as an obvious combination of ideas from other horror movies. However, I'm telling ya, this movie still could've pulled off okay if not for the plot twist at the end. It's like they just ran out of their budget and just threw together something for an ending. For this movie to have been a success, they should've stuck with the "only children can see them" premise and ended with either the family barely getting away or being killed off like the family at the beginning (would've opened the door for possible sequel,too).
I don't expect a lot from ghost stories, but I do expect a story to make a bit of sense! Is that asking too much from the screenwriters and filmmakers? When the bad guy, all of the sudden, becomes a homicidal maniac solely because a bunch of crows start pecking him, then I have a problem spending $9.00 for a ticket! Alfred Hitchcock would be spinning in his grave. Didn't anyone learn anything in their college Film 101 class? A good movie has at its roots an INTERESTING story!<br /><br />Here are some of the ridiculous messages in this movie: If you have desperate financial problems move from Chicago to the middle of no-where in North Dakota to grow Sunflowers (I kid you not!). If your toddler has serious neurological problems from a car accident move away from some of the best hospitals and speech therapists in the country to an isolated small town, which, at best, has a community hospital. Hire a drifter to live & work with you, out of the blue, without checking any references, when you have a teenage vixen daughter, a wife and toddler. ( I'm glad they're not my parents!) <br /><br />A town where everyone knows everything would have no problem missing a triple homicide, just outside of town. And, of course, blame the man's lunacy on a bad crop of Sunflowers! (Doesn't anything else grow in North Dakota?) A couple of days after you buy your rundown house - with huge vines growing everywhere - that it reminds you of Jack and the Beanstalk, a guy from the X-Files, ala Smoking Man, (I'm glad to see the cigarettes didn't get him, I guess he doesn't inhale!) will just suddenly sneak up on you while you're working to offer you the sale price of your home, plus 15% more, for absolutely no reason!<br /><br />I think you get the picture. I have seen so many godforsaken awful movies in the past month, it just blows my mind! Is it that difficult to make a movie that doesn't treat the audience like an idiot? I'm glad at least the crows in this sorry film turned out to have the some brains! I wish I could say the same for whomever thinks they are going to make money off this celluloid piece of trash!
After having problems in Chicago, the Solomon family moves to a remote North Dakota farmhouse to start anew, but their attempts at an idyllic farming life is disrupted when their teen daughter Jess (Kristen Stewart) and her 3-year-old brother Ben start seeing and being attacked by supernatural beings who won't allow them to live in peace.<br /><br />The Messengers starts off decently although it eventually becomes a generic horror film that's a lot more humorous than frightening. After reading the premise, I thought this could have been a decent movie since it sounded creepy and it held potential. Unfortunately, the film didn't live up to its potential although I should have expected this since the trailer was awful. The screenplay was probably the worst part about it. It was full of silly sequences and bland dialog. The characters were not developed at all and most of them were acting like a bunch of idiots so it was hard to feel sympathy for them.<br /><br />The directors did a horrible job at building up suspense. They mainly relied on cheap scares like loud noises and random jumps. The music was really over the top and it just made it easier for the viewer to telegraph the next "scary" moment. I also didn't like how they pretty much just used one location for the whole movie. The house was the centerpiece of the story and that's where the majority of the filming took place so it got a little boring after awhile to see the same area. Also, I didn't like the close-ups of the actors. During a conversation, the camera would continually jerk from character to another in the span of five seconds and it got really annoying. The directors did create a decent atmosphere and they do get some points for making their movie stylish. However, since we have come a long way in terms of style and effects, it's not really that hard to make your movie look nice especially if you are working on a Hollywood film.<br /><br />The acting was atrocious and if this movie had been released in December, I'm sure it would have received several Razzie nominations. Kristen Stewart showed some talent in Panic Room but you wouldn't be able to tell she has talent by watching her performance in The Messengers. She was okay at acting scared and that's it. The rest of the time she was dry and unconvincing. Penelope Anne Miller was just awful when it came to everything. It sounded like she was reading her lines and she had some of the worst facial expressions I have ever seen. Dylan McDermott was just very wooden and he showed almost no emotion. John Corbett gave the best performance and he had a couple of good scenes. The twins who played Ben were also decent and managed to out act many of the adult actors. Overall, this lame horror film is not worth watching because of it's blandness and lazy film-making. Rating 4/10
******Spoilers within******* What a dull, predictable, non-scary snore-fest. The movie had no character development: I felt no empathy towards any of the characters (except may be the small boy), and did not care what happened to any of them. The movie had so many clichéd bits, or elements stolen from other horror movies.<br /><br />The movie was so predictable. Many times I would be saying to myself, "Let me guess, {fill in guess} happens next?" Yup, I was right. Even in the opening scene, I predicted that the "attack" on the family was by some man, probably the father (because only the wife and children were attacked). Sure enough, that is what happened (of course, you have to wait 79 minutes to find out for sure). And, of course, another "evil man" scenario. Why was he evil and killing his family? Because he's a man, duh!<br /><br />As someone else stated, this movie may be scary for someone under 13 years of age, or for a movie from the 1970's, but it is FAR from being a 'scary' movie by todays standards. AND, like so many other crap horror movies, a lot of the scares were "fakes". Scary music, Scary music, Scary music, and.....A crow suddenly flies at the window! Wow, scary!<br /><br />How did the old bank guy manage, a few times, to walk across an open lot without the father seeing him? I thought, for sure, that the old man was a ghost. Nope, just a crappy movie.<br /><br />I rated this movie a 2 out of 10, because it did keep my attention enough to sit through the whole thing.
Let's cut through everything in the first paragraph. "The Messengers," the newest film by the Pang Brothers (Danny and Oxide), as a horror movie, is profoundly bad. And just as a movie in general, is a big disappointment. It's nothing but a rewarmed "Sixth Sense," and as long as that picture is still available, there is no reason on Earth to pay money to see this turkey.<br /><br />Lately, horror/slasher films such as the "Final Destination" series, "Wrong Turn," "Boogie Man," "The Ring 2" and "The Grudge," are becoming increasingly more reliant on big shocks with no payoff (for instance, something jumps out at the person on screen, elicits a gasp from the audience, but turns out to be a cat or a crow or something.) Little goes into making it a genuine frightening experience like "The Sixth Sense," or "Signs," or some of the classic horror movies of the 1940s, '50s and '60s.<br /><br />"The Messengers" relies upon the same old, tired clichés as these newer, far inferior films, and is therefor old, tired and - to my surprise - ended up as one of the most boring movies I have seen in awhile.<br /><br />The plot has another stupid family, led by dad Roy (Dylan McDermott, "The Practice"), mom Denise (Penelope Ann Miller, "Awakenings," "Kindergarten Cop," TV series "Desperate Housewives"), big sis Jess (Kristen Stewart, "Zathura: A Space Adventure") and toddler Ben (Evan Turner), who move to North Dakota from Chicago.<br /><br />The reason for the move is never really outlined here, but it has something to do with the dad's inability to find work and Jess' drunken driving escapades. We know there will be trouble immediately because they move into a big Gothic house in the middle of nowhere; a domicile that looks like the Munster's summer home. Oh, and the first five minutes of the movie show something really horrible happened there.<br /><br />Jess hates the place (hey, who could blame her), but optimistic pop hopes to make a go out of raising sunflowers (despite the unusually large amount of crows fluttering about). But when he meets Burwell (John Corbet, "Raising Helen" and looking like Kevin Costner in the film version of "My Name Is Earl"), an itinerant drifter and expert on raising sunflowers, things start to pick up.<br /><br />But then weird things begin to happen; Jess is terrorized by a violent unseen force in the house (of course, no one else but the two-year-old Ben can see it, so she's labeled a flake) and the crows keep hanging around. Ben also is able to detect the unearthly creatures, but since he's two, he cannot articulate it. Scene after scene of people telling the little boy to tell them what he sees finally had me wanting to yell to the screen, "He can't tell you! He's two - freaking' - years old!" Yes, have the only protagonist who can solve all of these things be a mute toddler is real smart. <br /><br />Anyway, we're left to ponder the sanity of Jess; when and if Ben will ever properly describe the paranormal visions he sees; if dad will make the sunflower thing work; if the high plains drifter is a good guy or bad; what the point of the George Plimpton-looking Realtor is; how a pitchfork plunged in the back can only be a flesh wound; what mom's role in the family is; and where are all the crows coming from.<br /><br />All of this while waiting and wondering for something - anything - to happen. The conclusion is really lame, as well, and once again begs the question of how a spirit which has no physical body can cause harm to a living person. Very dull, pointless and most terrible of all, not frightening in the least.<br /><br />Oh, and there are a lot of crows in this movie.
This movie has all the ingredients of a great horror story and loses it in the last half. Few movies can actually give me chill bumps. This one did. Few horror movie give me a sense of dread. This one did. It kept me guessing. I cared about the story. I cared about the characters. The acting was decent. Unfortunately, about half way through the movie, the story just doesn't have many good directions it can go. It becomes evident that everything cool about the plot is going to self-destruct. It does. What builds in the first half as a great horror concept shifts away from horror and towards the absurd. A plausible fear turns into a series of implausible reactions from the characters. The story concludes with disappointment. While this movie seems complete, there is one loose end that could setup for a sequel. The movie isn't good enough for a sequel. This movie is worth seeing in the theater, just don't expect to be stunned. This is best suited as a movie to rent. It's probably not a movie you'd want to own.
Despite a totally misleading advertising campaign, this flick turns out to be an irritatingly clichéd, sub-par haunted house flick with a totally implausible ending. Clue #1 for all considering seeing this turkey: Sam Raimi didn't direct it. Although commercials for the movie play up his involvement, in truth he is one of four producers. It's too bad that someone as talented as Raimi has allowed his name to be used in conjunction with such a poor movie. I don't think he would ever have directed something like this; that task was left to the Pang Brothers.<br /><br />The screenplay for this film seems to have been cobbled together from numerous other "horror" films, so you'll find absolutely zero original content in "The Messengers." What we get are a scene here and there that was plucked straight out of "Pulse," a couple that could have come from "The Birds," one or two from "The Others," etc. Nearly every scene, almost every line of dialogue, is one that has been lifted from any number of other movies. The whole thing makes for such a predictable movie that almost anyone will be able to figure out the "surprise ending" long before it comes.<br /><br />Right about here would be a good time to point out that the advertising campaign, centered on the idea that only children can see ghosts, has nothing to do with this movie. In fact, everyone can see the ghosts. The teenage daughter and mother characters certainly see them, even quite early in the movie. I'm sure that whomever was in charge of marketing came up with this campaign because the film needed a unique angle to have any box office appeal, which otherwise is entirely absent. Now you know, so don't be fooled! Perhaps what this movie lacks most of all is anything resembling chemistry between the actors. It simply isn't there. All of the interactions come across as awkwardly stilted. Coupled with the hackneyed story and ridiculous plot holes (just what is a guy who murdered his whole family doing still lurking around the small town where the murder happened, anyhow? Didn't anyone think to maybe arrest him?), it all adds up to a profoundly unsatisfying ghost flick that only manages to surprise anyone over the age of ten with cheap shots: loud noises, visual flashes, and anything short of a sheeted figure jumping out of a closet and yelling "Boo!" All we get for our buck this time around is yet another poorly-made film about spirits attempting to warn people away from a house. If there's any message that "The Messengers" delivers, it's "Don't waste your time on this movie."
Well, at least we have to acknowledge the big Hollywood horror-producers are finally getting smarter and more perceptive. Instead of patiently waiting to buy the rights of Asian horror hits and subsequently remake them in America, they now discovered they could simply hire the Asian directors and assign them to make their brand new ghost story directly in the states. That's like killing two birds with one stone; way to go guys! "The Messengers" is pretty much identical to every other supernatural chiller that came out of the Oriental countries ever since "Ringu". Roughly translated, this means it's a boring, overlong and entirely gore-free film, but it does feature copious amounts of false scares and embarrassingly weak "did we scare you yet?" moments. The Pang Brothers (Danny & Oxide) previously made the extremely overrated "The Eye" and it sort of is a tradition for them to build up a story with clues and hints towards a point where it becomes nearly impossible to meet the expectations of their curious audiences, yet they don't seem eager to alter their formula any time soon. And they're also unscrupulous enough to recycle the same old & repetitive ghost topics over and over again. Restless spirits of the previous inhabitants trapped in the walls of a remote countryside farm? The protagonist family torn apart by unprocessed traumas from the past, so they first have to restore faith and trust in each other? Give me a break! Throw in a videotape and a seven-days-curse, why don't you? Even the attempts to make you jump in your seat are too déjà-vu and won't scare anyone over the age of 7. Slamming doors, filthy & gradually larger growing stains on the walls, ghostly appearances, noises coming from the cellar... The endless overuse of cheap tricks like this is almost becoming insulting to horror fans. "The Messengers" revolves on a family on their way to a new life in the country as the growers of sunflowers. The family situation is kind of dysfunctional since a personal tragedy (which doesn't get revealed until late in the film) caused their youngest son to stop talking and the parents to distrust their revolting teenage daughter. Soon after, the children experience strange presences in remote farmhouse, but they don't manage to convince their parents to leave. That's pretty much concludes the entire film. Little Ben sees things but he can't talk and Jessica repeatedly gets attacked by supernatural forces but nobody listens to her. The basic premise of "The Messagers" is very derivative of Stanley Kubrick's immortal classic "The Shining", only it lacks the constantly ominous atmosphere and disturbing tone. The script takes itself far too seriously even though it's fairly easy to predict the final denouement and the total absence of violence and bloodshed is unforgivable. At least "The Eye" delivered some genuine shocks in the end, whereas the happy happy joy joy ending of "The Messengers" is just pathetic. The only positive elements I can think of are the beautiful rural filming locations, the adequate editing job and the promising young acting talents (and beauty) Kristen Stewart. And there's an uncanny, but sadly underdeveloped supportive role for William B. Davis.
Special sneak previews are always a good time. No matter what movie it is you are seeing, the theatre will always be packed by people who have been awaiting the film, like free stuff, thought it'd be something to do, or just got lost. Either way, no matter how good or bad the film, the audience alone will make it enjoyable. Now when said movie is a PG-13 pseudo- horror film (can you really delve into horror when the MPAA is on your back censoring everything?) you know there will be chatter, laughing, and breath holding. With The Messengers, the crowd did not disappoint giving numerous outbursts and warnings to the characters on screen. As for the actual movie, I feel sorry for those involved because it really could have been much better had it been paced right and allowed to stretch its legs beyond the scare/fade-to-black/show aftermath progression these films have. In the end we are shown a boring, plodding story with no surprises and few moments of actual suspense.<br /><br />The story is a common one. A family moves from the big city to the country after a traumatic event to try and rebuild their relationship with each other. Once settled in, the spirits of the house come out to the reformed troublemaker child whose past makes it even easier for the parents to disbelieve everything told to them. Of course the child is not crying wolf and those around only find out when it is too late. I will credit the Pang Brothers, (directors of the acclaimed The Eye that I would like to watch more than before to see what they can do without Hollywood interference—supposedly reshoots on The Messengers were done by someone else, but the brothers retained credit; it's a shame what our studio system does to foreigners especially when it was creative independence which made the films that brings them in and not bottomline interference), for really having a fitting style and for keeping the tired plot line somewhat fresh. Unfortunately, though, I also must give them credit for the almost unbearable slowness. Similar to why I disliked What Lies Beneath, I couldn't stand the drawn out suspense, which goes so far as to make it laughable. When our heroine and her brother stand in a hallway with a ghost behind them, the scene lasts about eight minutes with just static, oddly composed close-ups and depth of field focus changes to end up culminating to absolutely nothing. For being only 84 minutes, I almost think it would have worked better even shorter.<br /><br />Besides a very effective opening sequence, featuring the fantastic Jodelle Ferland, (strangely playing a boy), and a great atmospheric credit sequence, the only thing that saves the film from utter garbage is the acting. Except for Penelope Ann Miller, who first made me wonder what ever happened to her and then, after a few scenes, made me understand why I never asked that question in the years she was absent, and Dustin Milligan, completely lacking in credibility, the acting is very strong. Dyan McDermott does a nice job as the father trying to keep his family together through all the tough times. He has many little moments of light comedy to counteract his serious, dramatic role. William B. Davis (everyone's favorite Cancerman) is used effectively as an almost foreboding character, sadly not utilized more. Our true stars are Kristen Stewart and John Corbett. Stewart plays the emotion very well and shows some promise as an actress with this and Panic Room on her resume. As for Corbett, if he didn't pull off his role, the entire movie would have unraveled completely. I do wish he would be given more work as I've enjoyed him since the under-appreciated series "The Visitor"—I still need to check out his first role in "Northern Exposure," a show I haven't yet been able to catch up on. It's a shame he will probably be most recognizable for the overrated My Big Fat Greek Wedding.<br /><br />If anything, The Messengers gave me a nice introduction to the Pang Brothers' work and reinvigorated my desire to check out their Chinese horror catalog. The mood and performances were there; it was just the simple and vacant story that needed way too much padding to make a feature film. If they delved more into other characters, rather than just Stewart's, it could have been more effective while also having something more to show then ten minute scenes of nothing. If our protagonist is the only one being attacked, there is no suspense as to how far the creatures will go to harm her. The moments of danger had no gravity to them and until the ending really just stood in as filler. I am excited, however, for the free comic book given away after the special screening, as hopefully the medium will allow for a faster paced story that engrosses before it tries to surprise.
My Take: Yet another lame PG-13 horror movie with predictable scare tactics and a derivative plot.<br /><br />The spirits move. The walls creak. There's something wrong in the basement. These, along with several other horror movie clichés haunt the walls of yet another house in the country in the Sam Raimi-produced THE MESSENGERS, a lame pastiche of the most predictable scare tactics thrown in on a plot savagely recycled from better (and sometimes, even worse) horror movies of the past.<br /><br />When the Solomon family moves into an old South Dakota farmhouse, in yet another attempt by dad (Dylan McDermott) to reconnect with the family, especially with their formerly drunk-driving daughter Jessica (the underrated Kristen Stewart), in the more subtle countryside than their home in Chicago. The horror ensues when Jessica begins to get little surprise visits from the house's poltergeists. Thinking she's some teenage girl who cried wolf, her parents don't believe her. How could they? The real horror in THE MESSENGERS is waiting for which horror movie it will savage next. Will it be an angry flock of crows wanting more than the family's crops (a direct rip-off of Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece THE BIRDS)? Will it be the haunted house with a history dating back from THE AMITYVILLE HORROR or POLTERGEIST? Or will it be the grotesque phantoms taken from your familiar recent horrors like THE RING and THE GRUDGE? Heck, the movie even manages to rip-off a scene or two from some truly bad horror movies like AMITYVILLE 3-D and the mediocre COLD CREEK MANOR. Perhaps all the Pang Brothers really wanted to do was a B-level horror movie, but did it have to be this bad? Couldn't they rip-off from the best? Avoid it.<br /><br />Rating: * out of 5.
This was one of the slowest movies I have ever had the displeasure of sitting through. After the introduction where we are given the backstory of "something" killing a couple people in a farm house, We are introduced to a white looser family that is moving to a farm - AND NOTHING HAPPENS for a looooong time. Then they meet this drifter who helps out on the farm AND NOTHING HAPPENS again for a very long time. Then FINALLY the girl of the family has some plotergeist stuff happens. Then some more happens, the drifter guy goes nuts and the movie ends. In between its all about how this family had to move out becuz the girl got in some trouble back home and they have no money and its done SO POORLY that I could care less about these pathetic people. I cannot believe I actually went to the theatres to see this! Not only did this movie suck, but some a$$hole answered his cell phone, dumb morons were making noise AND the movie sucked. THATS WHY THEATERS SUCK - Bad movies, overpriced crappy food, and idiots in the theatre, I'm staying home and watching DVDs from now on, at least I could smoke if I was at home while watching this stupid movie. Stay home and bake some pie rather than going to a theatre to see this piece of typical crap. Dumb stupid crap.
Directors of "The Messengers" Danny Pang and Oxide Pang are responsible for "The Eye" and its sequel and their premiere American picture plays like "The Grudge"-lite set in a farmhouse.A family of four move from Chicago to a run-down sunflower farm in rural North Dakota.Almost immediately their teenage daughter Jess starts seeing ghosts.Of course her parents and the police are skeptical.Admittedly the film is well-made and there are two or three effective scares,but relies too much on 'boo' effect.Still the plot is a carbon copy of many ghost stories and the ending is anti-climatic and stupefyingly awful.Scares are on the low side too with a tendency toward CGI.Overall,"The Messengers" is a pretty weak horror film that simply doesn't deliver.4 out of 10.
This movie was trying to something, but failed miserably. All the attempts at suspense were cheap, and there were so many tired gimmicks and plot holes I ended up laughing and making fun of it the whole way through. At least I was entertained. <br /><br />The ghosts are attempting to warn the family, so why do they attack the girl, whose name I didn't care to remember. And what was with the black and white at the beginning? I know what they were trying to do, but they fell far short. And where the heck did that guy (John Corbett's character) come from? He just waltzes in from no where in a vast field. And why did he suddenly lose it again when the ravens came? And if the ravens were a manifestation of the spirits of his family, then why did they attack him if it would make him try to kill the family? Makes no sense. So many things in this movie just don't make sense, and the acting ain't too pretty on the part of the main girl character. It's not terrible, just a little like her kiddy movie days. <br /><br />So all in all this movie wasn't brilliant, but I had a good time ripping at it, and sometimes that's all a horror movie needs to do. Rent for entertainment not quality.
I almost laughed out loud when during the commentary the director said this movie is original with a strong plot line. There is not one... repeat ONE original plot line or special effect in this blah movie. <br /><br />The Crows.... Hitchcock did it superbly back before CGI and even with CGI this film falls short of a well done attack scene. The creepy crawly boy... The Grudge did it and did it better. The psycho...done in Cold Creek Manor most recently, however it has been done to death. No pun intended. Disconnected/rebellious teen who no one listens to... about a dozen films have used this one right down to Beetlejuice. The oozy stuff from the basement... can you say Amnityville Horror? Doors opening unbidden... What Lies Beneath did it with much more flair. Creepy farmhouse... too numerous to mention. <br /><br />The backdrop of metaphysics-- which should have been the central focus, gets lost once you figure out what is happening, which by the way is pretty early on.<br /><br />One thing (of many actually) they never even try to explain in the movie is how they explain to the police that their attacker was sucked down the ooze in the basement, so they really don't have a body. <br /><br />Overall... DON'T BOTHER
I'm sorry but I can't agree that this was a good movie. Yes, it looked good visually, but it's the story that drives the movie and I must say the story sucked big-time. How in the world did they manage to slip some of those plot-holes past the critics. Better story and I would've gave it a higher vote but I was impossible to do that and still be able to live with myself. I have always been a fan of scary movies, and the previews really had me fooled. All the scary scenes were shown in the previews. And why did the family that got killed stay to haunt the house? Why did the father come back again? WHy did he decide to kill in the first place? Why were the kids the only ones to see the ghosts first? To many questions, not enough answers. If I could've gave it a zero, I would've.
Spoiler with plot explanation: a poor family is being thrown in the middle of war between the evil guy (that pops out from nowhere, and no questions asked... ) that went wacko, and Casper the friendly ghost trying to avenge his death. With every frame movie gets more and more predictable, a big disappointment. Ending seams completely dumb, it has nothing to od with the movie itself, i think someone run out of ideas or just get to the point that movie is s**t this way or other, so it may as well have a stupid ending. Waste of time, resources and money. Actor play is very poor. If you think about the dialogs you may find out that family conflict is artificially enforced by poor communication between characters. Some scenes seam random. In summary: boring, predictable, poor, pathetic. Waste of time, and money.
The Messengers is a bad,generic and boring ''horror'' movie.The film has got a big problem:it does not scare.The performances and the screenplay are totally stupid.It uses old tricks for scaring and all the supernatural events make laugh.I would not call The Messengers as a bad movie...I would call it an accidental comedy because it's so bad that makes laugh.The only good thing about this movie is that it's short,so this crap will not stay with us for so long.There are a lot of masterpieces of horror genre which count with a low budget(like Subject Two,Lucky or May)which are sadly ignored,while this crap is all a success in the box office.So,I do not recommend this weak and pathetic horror film which is called The Messengers.
You're Dead is an indescribably awful attempt at a British gangster film. It has not got a single original idea in it, being an atrocious copy of various elements of Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels, The Usual Suspects and Pulp Fiction. The acting and dialogue are absolutely excruciating, the plot is ludicrous and utterly predictable despite constant attempts at plot twists, and contains nothing but one dimensional stock characters and clichés. It has some good actors in it, but they are off-form, and unable to do anything much with the dreadful material they are working with. It is absolute torture to sit through this drivel.
Theres not much you can really say about this film except that it was crap and probably the worst film i have ever been to see!! Take my advice don't watch this film it just wastes your money and time!!<br /><br />I gave this film a 1/10 which is doesn't deserve.
This film is strictly for fans of Debbie Reynolds and Eddie Fisher.<br /><br />I get angry at TCM for showing this mess more frequently than Bachelor Mother, the delightful original. I get angrier still that some Hollywood boob thought it would be a good idea to remake Bachelor Mother, filling it with some lame songs that only serve to interrupt the flow of a cute comedy. Instead, Hollywood could have spent the time, money, energy and talent wasted on this horrible remake to give us something new and original - Wow, what a concept!<br /><br />Bachelor Mother (the original), with Ginger Rogers and David Niven is a spicy stew, simmering with sexuality. It is a 1930's wink at the Hays Office. Bundle of Joy (the remake), with Debbie Reynolds and Eddie Fisher is strictly milk and cookies. It is a 1950's handshake with Eisenhower.<br /><br />Which cast would you rather watch - Debbie Reynolds, Eddie Fisher and Adolphe Menjou, or Ginger Rogers, David Niven and Charles Coburn? For me, every member of the cast in the original version is far better than his/her counterpart in the remake.<br /><br />In the original a beautiful, young Ginger Rogers is at her peak. David Niven delivers perfectly as a somewhat spoiled, sophisticated and yet befuddled scion of a wealthy department store magnate. And I always love to see Charles Coburn in a movie. In Bachelor Mother, he is priceless as the desperate grandfather wannabe.<br /><br />In Bundle of Joy Debbie Reynolds is her usual perky self. She is fine in this role, although her performance (along with Fisher's) completely changes the tone of the story. As an actor, Eddie Fisher is hopeless. He is completely lacking in screen "presence." Here he is way too wholesome for this story. His acting is completely bland and clueless. Likewise, his singing is so bland and unremarkable that it has been completely forgotten by the world at large. The only time he is not completely painful is in Butterfield 8 - where, incidentally, he doesn't sing. Here, Fisher's lame performance alone is enough to ruin this movie. Adolphe Menjou, a favorite character actor, delivers a competent performance, but not one of his best. He is more blustering than commanding. He and Fisher are not convincing as a father and son.<br /><br />Do you see a musical for the music, the story being merely incidental? Or do watch a musical for a story, with some (hopefullly) good music used for seasoning? If the former, you might like this lame remake. Otherwise you are much better off watching the Ginger Rogers non-musical original, Bachelor Mother.
Eddie Fischer was simply bad. Possibly the worst scene came early in the movie when he broke into a spontaneous song and dance number centered around a piano and some conveniently placed employees. The song was totally stupid... I think I could drunkenly offer a few lines on a sheet of paper that would far exceed it and probably win a Grammy. Then, as if the writers could come up with no better way to escape the ridiculousness of the scene, Fischer says something to the effect of, "Don't tell (insert the guy's name). He doesn't like music" and smiles. I can't describe how bad this is, I felt a little embarrassed. And that guy Debbie Reynolds works with and who's always hitting on her is so annoying too. I can't even imagine someone like her wasting a fraction of time on him. The jokes were delivered without any sort of chemistry between characters which made the movie crawl by. At least the baby had cute hair. The two stars are for Reynolds, who was like a swan among ugly ducklings.<br /><br />See Bachelor Mother instead.
I saw this piece of pseudo-intellectual crap a couple of years ago, and it is now making a comeback at the local film club. It uses every cliché in the Intellectual Movie Makers Handbook (Beginners Edition) in order to appear as intellectual as the director probably imagines himself to be. You get your run-of-the-mill slow-motion tempo, brown color scale, slow pans through bombed-out environments, blank, suffering facial expressions, over-symbolic imagery, and the requisite miserable ending.<br /><br />It is a complete failure, an unintentional perfect caricature of the typical Russian art movie. The director, Aleksandr Sokurov, has excellent command of technique, but he lacks eye. He doesn't see when he crosses the line into the realm of the pathetic.<br /><br />This movie is a wet dream for art film haters. It lives up to every stereotypical view of the genre that there is.<br /><br />If it was bad in an entertaining way, it would a turkey. But for a movie that is so bad that you walk out afterwards royally p***ed-off, we need a new term. This movie is a Sokurov.
I'm a big fan of Patricia Hodge and Mariam Margolyes, so I watched this show when it came on A&E some years ago. The show was strange to say the least, but I gave it a chance because I liked these actresses. This has got to be one of the worst shows I've ever seen. I wouldn't watch it again and certainly wouldn't waste money on buying the video. The storyline of this TV version is ludicrous and just plain stupid! The "kicker" (pun intended) comes when Ruth has surgery done on her leg bones. That kind of nonsense belongs in James Bond and Sci-Fi movies. If this version is true to the book, then I won't be checking the book out from my local library! The American version came out some years after I'd seen this original. To my surprise the Americans got it right this time, as their version with Meryl Streep and Roseanne is played for laughs and is rather funny. When played for laughs the storyline works.
I'll give it a two because it has a lot of music, otherwise it would be a one.<br /><br />I saw this movie for the first time tonight and it's the first "Road" picture I've seen. I was expecting waaaaay better. Robert Osborn says this is the best of the Road movies. If that's true I needn't bother to see the others. The best thing about this movie is that it has a lot of songs in the first half, but that's balanced out by only one production number with dancing in the entire movie.<br /><br />I didn't like the movie. Neither Hope nor Crosby came across all that well, their characters weren't very charming, the movie was not funny at all, most of the dialog was just lame filler, there wasn't much action, there wasn't much spectacle.<br /><br />The movie wasn't what I expected. I was expecting more "Road," but there isn't much. They quickly make it to the palace and then most of the movie takes place there, until the end. I was also expecting a lot more of the famous "road" style of breaking the fourth wall, wherein the characters talk directly to the audience or comment on the plot. There was only about 4 instances of that. One of those is an example of the non-funny humor of this script:<br /><br />(Hope recaps the plot up to now to Crosby) Crosby: I know all that! Hope: Yeah but the people that came in half-way through the picture don't. Crosby: You mean they missed my song?<br /><br />Those are two weak punchlines, but at least they are actually jokes. Much of the rest of the script doesn't even have any jokes. An example is: <br /><br />Crosby: Remind me to throw you a piece of cheese in the morning. (Indirectly calling Hope a rat).<br /><br />That's not funny at all, it barely even qualifies as a joke, but that's the kind of non-joke dialog that carries most of the movie. Many of the scenes don't even come that close to a joke, just using generic uninteresting dialog like:<br /><br />Crosby: Hey, whadda ya' take me for? You think that you can just throw me to the dogs? Hope: Well why not, you did it to me didn't you? Crosby: Yeah but that's because I was lookin' out for us. You're not lookin' out for nobody. Hope: Oh yeah? Well then why did I pay the check?<br /><br />(the above is just from my memory. It's not exact but it illustrates to you what I mean).<br /><br />And so on....just generic dialog with no jokes at all.<br /><br />My grade: A waste of time.
When a friend and I saw this in the recent releases, we decided to get it despite the fact that neither of us had heard of it before. We both like Costas Mandylor and it had James Coburn so we figured it couldn't be that bad. We were wrong. It was. It was REALLY that bad. No actor or actress could have made this film worth seeing. It was like taking Titanic, The Poseidon Adventure and some nuclear bomb film and trying to cut and paste it all together.<br /><br />I must admit that there were a couple of chuckles. I did laugh when the head cabin boy is asking Alan (Costas Mandylor) if he's some "pussy marine." The other laughs this film got though had nothing to do with the writing. I would dearly love to know how the people making this movie thought that you could have a cruise liner knocked upside down and have it remain steady. It isn't tipped or anything.<br /><br />If you are looking for something to watch for Costas Mandylor, James Coburn or any of the rest of this cast, move on. Find something good that they did.
In my opinion, this movie is not good. I hardly find a good thing to say about it, but still I would like to explain, before I conclude it is just another bad movie.<br /><br />I decided to watch it because Costas Mandylor is starring in it, and that was the main reason I watched it till the end. I like action movies, and I understand that such movies are built on the action rather than the story. I know they don't go into details when it comes to the credibility of the story and the events, but even that does not explain why some scenes, just because they lack the sense of reality, look ridiculous.<br /><br />At the beginning, the movie looks quite promising: a tough, good looking specialist and his not so tough but smart and funny partner must do a job, which turns out a bit different than they expected. The story takes place on a cruise ship. A disaster happens, the ship is turned over, and only a few are left alive. During their struggle to survive they have to escape a shark, a professional killer and the rising water.<br /><br />Furthermore, the movie is quite violent. The main weapon (beside the disaster which already took out most of the passengers) is the gun, which is successfully used in many cases. I personally missed a good man to man (or woman to woman if you prefer) fight. Family fun? I don't think so.<br /><br />All in all, I think this movie was shot in a hurry, without a real vision what it is trying to say. Made of the usual action movie tricks, with a bit of something called love, and without a real meaning, it just results in a bad movie.
Shirley Temple's films for Twentieth Century Fox aren't negligible because they're poorly-made (Darryl F. Zanuck supervised most of them, after all); they don't retain much of a "classic" stature among cinema aficionados mainly because they're weighed down with the syrupy optimism of Depression-era Hollywood. 1930s audiences were placated by the delight of seeing a dimply, often orphaned sunshine girl making the grown-ups look foolish by comparison (they fretted and wrung their hands while she danced her troubles away). Seen these many years later, Temple's vehicles barely get by on story (aided always by musical sequences to bolster the content), and her timing (always too-perfect) and exaggerated reactions might leave most modern viewers rolling their eyes. No one could possibly be blamed for their exasperation over Temple's performance here (shouting lines at the top of her lungs) or the perverseness of her dance steps, sashaying with a crowd of sailors to "At the Codfish Ball". Still, the fantasy aspect of this particular story, previously filmed in 1924 from the book by Laura E. Richard, is enough to captivate those in the proper saccharine spirit. Seems Shirl was pulled from a shipwreck by a government-appointed lighthouse keeper, but when a truant officer from the State Board finds out the tyke isn't in school, she threatens to take the kid away. It doesn't really matter if the prune-faced officer has a point that Temple isn't being raised properly (the woman is turned into the proverbial villainess almost immediately); one can see right away that Temple can hold her own, taking care of herself and her elderly guardian in the bargain (as well as the local widow who has her hooks in for the Captain). Temple isn't the only one overly-rehearsed; Guy Kibbee's January is cued for wide-eyed reactions so often you wonder if maybe if he didn't film them all in one day. The dialogue is steeped in waterfront metaphors ("You can't rush a trout!" ... "Well, don't give up the ship!), and something about the whole enterprise seems strangely pixilated. ** from ****
I was a still photographer working in Europe the summer that Jim Salter shot the movie Three.<br /><br />I did some swell pictures for him, one of which I was told became the poster for the movie. I didn't see the film until years later. I thought it was bad. A pity, because the elements that went into it were compelling. Robie Porter's girlfriend was almast as beautiful as Rampling herself. Salter asked if I would stick around and be an extra cameraman so they wouldn't have to shoot everything twice. I said sure, but I had to return to NY, promising I'd be back. Alas, I never did get back. One of life's unsung melodies.<br /><br />I wish I could post the pictures I made somewhere.<br /><br />Rowland Scherman
No doubt about it, Rampling is gorgeous -- a classic beauty, here very young. She manages to appear simultaneously sophisticated and poignant. Her two male foils act well too. But seen in 2003, the flic is all<br /><br />American-trying-to-be-artsy-and-not-be-Hollywood-while-shooting-beautiful-sh ots-of-the-French-Riviera-and-three-pretty-young-people-in-their-cute-old-ca r. I enjoyed the view (both the actors and the nature) but the movie is boring and pretentious while trying to be the opposite.
If you haven't read Tolkien's masterpiece; prepare yourself for maybe the best movie experience ever! If you have however... After having read the books several times, over many years, I have come to love the characters and story, and feel I Know it intimately. I have my own personal vision of The Shire, Hobbiton and the character-gallery. Thus for me the movie was a disappointment. Why? It dictates the appearance of the characters (unavoidably), it changes events, it removes important storyline, it removes not-so-important storyline. Great chunks of what makes The Lord Of The Rings what it is, is simply ignored. Even 2001 special effects can't do Tolkien's (and your own) imagination justice. Peter Jackson has made an honest attempt at the impossible, and I don't think anyone else could have done it better! But the fact remains, I regret seeing the movie. The next time I read The Lord Of The Rings, Peter Jackson's limited vision will leap forward, not my own.
First off, I am a huge fan of Tolkien, and as one I will base most of my critic on his books.<br /><br />The movie is a standard adventure movie, well made with nifty special effects, nice sound track and fine acting. Now if this movie was called something else than lord of the rings the reviews wouldn't be half this good as they are here.<br /><br />The problem of the movie is that it takes the basic story line from Tolkiens books but then it goes and "hollywoods" everything it can, numerous scenes from the book are eighter missing or changed quite a lot, the characters are changed from the book also, a thing that I think should be punishable ! What the movie lacks is deep insight of the characters in it, I know that it is almost impossible to make a good film out of a good book, and it didn't work here eighter, mostly the motivation of the characters is left hazy at best.<br /><br />As a adventure movie it would rate 7+ / 10 As a adaptation of Tolkien it rates 2 / 10<br /><br />I mean honestly, what on earth was Arwen doing at rivendell ford ? And as for the comments that this movie "is the best ever" I can only say that eighter you are very young, or you havent seen good movies...<br /><br />Peter Jackson should have called this movie an adventure movie based on the lord of the rings.
Debbie Boone had a monster hit with her recording of the pop song "You Light Up My Life;" the Didi Conn film of the same name, however, was a horrifically embarrassing flop. Conn plays the stereotypically goofy-homely-vulnerable girl who is in love with Michael Zaslow, who plays the stereotypical yuppie-wannabe guy. They are engaged, but every one knows that Zaslow isn't going to marry any one that isn't blonde and built, so only Didi is surprised when he dumps her. Needless to say, Didi is quite embarrassed.<br /><br />Fortunately, she has been doing a little songwriting in her spare time, and she's come up with a tune she thinks is pretty nifty. She calls it--can you guess?--"You Light Up My Life." She hops in the car and drives off to the big city to sell her song and make a new life. Now, I recall sitting in the theatre and watching her hop in the car to drive off to the big city, and thinking "Well thank heavens, we've finally got all the exposition out of the way. Now maybe something interesting will happen." And something interesting did happen. The credits rolled.<br /><br />Yep, that was it. Not only was the movie badly acted, badly written, and badly filmed, it also ended in the middle. This movie is a really, profoundly bad movie, and we're not talking cult-movie-bad here. We're talking unmitigated flop, a real yawner from start to finish. If you liked the Debbie Boone song by all means buy a copy of it. But don't waste your time or money on this flick. This is one movie you'll be glad you missed.<br /><br />Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
I remember this movie with feelings of sheer . . . agony. More than half of the film is commercials (no, really!). The slight excuse for a story could easily have been told in 25 minutes (and almost is!) The end result is a prefab love story of predictable schlock, all obviously thrown together in a crassly commercial attempt to wring a few more bucks from the contemporary Debbie Boone hit. Yep, that's how fast it was produced... the song that "inspired" it was still big on the charts when the film was released!<br /><br />Despite decades of seeing bad movies, this one still impresses me for its extravagant, no-holds-barred, headlong jump into the most tedious, absurd, and indelible cinematic badness. It truly deserves to be on the IMDb list of the 100 worst of all time, and has never left the top 3 on my personal "worst" list. <br /><br />Enjoy it for the sheer masochistic thrill!
I enjoy gay-themed movies where the characters aren't stereotypically gay and that's what attracted me to this movie, that and the principal actor, which is the only reason I'm giving this movie one more star than it deserves (although not because of his acting in the film, let me tell you). A lot of people complain about the cinematography, but the camcorder feel of the movie added a certain "underground" quality to it for me and there are a couple of scenes, usually around sunset or sunrise and among trains that would make any movie screen blush.<br /><br />But the acting is cardboard, the music is repetitive (I got through the latter half of the movie listening to a soundtrack from another film), you have to wait almost twenty minutes for any dialog and then it is awkward and amateur. The subject of graffiti could have made this movie great had it been gracefully exploited and had the art itself been more intriguing, but it isn't.<br /><br />Worst of all, there is no climax; there wasn't really a plot to begin with. The movie just crawls back into its shell of silence and dies. A forgettable movie.
I give this movie 2 stars purely because of its slightly liberal plot line. Without going into too much detail.<br /><br />The acting in this movie is terrible. Really terrible - wooden, shallow.<br /><br />The graffiti on show is weak, so bloody weak that I can only wonder why they bothered to use graffiti artists at all. IT was obvious in the spraying scenes that they'd gotten other people in to do the 'work'. They might as well have let the actors do the painting and saved themselves a few cents.<br /><br />I would avoid this film at all costs.<br /><br />The kid loco soundtrack used to be something I listened to on my iPod, its going to be a while before I can go back there for fear of this movie coming back into my mind.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs. Unless you are thinking to yourself "Wow, its been a while since I've seen a really sh*t movie...."
I wasn't impressed with the Graffiti Artist, despite it's artsy (aka. low budget improvisation) appeal. There is little dialog and at least for me, I was disappointed that it didn't give more credit or promote the work of guerrilla artists such as these. Instead, it was a story that covers familiar territory. Two guys who basically do little more than tag buildings become friends, tagging partners, and eventually experiment with a relationship. They seem like opposites, rather uncomfortable together. Little is explained about their backgrounds and the things between the two young men happen at rapid speed (although, this I can understand because it's only 70 minutes or so). There's been countless numbers of similar plots and productions in recent years to the point that the sphere of independent film is starting to become just as saturated with this particular storytelling just as the mainstream has become saturated with this and more.<br /><br />Much of the film may bore the viewer who needs immediate dialog and purpose. The primary figure of this story (at least extensively), performs his routines with nearly no dialog, no insight, and nothing else to carry the viewer. And, for a short film, I wished they could've gotten to the point a lot faster. That, aside from the typical plot annoyed me. Yet, there was something about a momentary glimpse into the daily habits of at least two graffiti artists, even if most of it was rather unoccupied time.<br /><br />Recommended if you're tired of the mainstream crap and don't mind an indie picture and have some interested into this underground, urban art form. But, you really have to watch it for yourself, because this seems to be one with a more acquired taste. For more recent indie films centering on graffiti artists, check out Transit.
Other reviewers seem to have held this film in high regard. For something made by an eighteen year old film student, I would say bravo, but that is not the case. If you want to watch a good movie about graffitti stick to the documentaries. It is filmed with the same quality as a digital home video. The two main characters are dismal actors and once again that would be okay if this were a student film. The plot follows a lonely artist who skateboards around Portland writing graffitti. He is joined by another and they skate around together creating art. Then comes the unnecessary gay love scene. Then comes the dispute between them that is never actually discussed because this film has about as much dialogue as a charlie chaplin picture. This movie does show the gravity street artists give to their form well, and the music is nice, but overall I wouldn't really call it a film.
How did this film get into the Berlin Film Festival? I understand it got into the Panorama section, but still. <br /><br />This film featured:<br /><br />1. No plot. 2. Horrible acting. 3. Atrocious videography. 4. Some of the worst graffiti ever captured on video.<br /><br />The one clincher that accounts for most of its festival acceptances is the presence of that old standby: homosexuality. That's right, about the only thing that does happen in this film is that one graff artist makes out with another one and jerks him off. Then he feels weird about it and they have a boring old "breaking up" conversation that you might expect to hear from your first crush in middle school (featuring lines like "You kissed me first, dude."). Oh, and by the way, this is no Crying Game...you see the gay angle coming in the first ten minutes of the film. Aside from that it's mostly just bad tags, badly costumed "undercover" cops, some skateboarding, and a train ride. <br /><br />If the subject matter is of interest to anyone I recommend looking around the web for some underground graff videos taken by real graffiti artists. There's plenty out there...and they are a hell of a lot more entertaining than this crap.
I didn't understand the people who rated it over 5. I think it's a horrible film from any point of view. Plots, acting, art, dialog, music, whatsoever! I don't mind a low budget..However you have to get some point. Wandering, wondering..pointless..then two boys started kissing in bed. awful,,just awful. I love indie films, don't mind it is slow. However this movie disappointed me from any perspectives. Even the Graffito, not artistic.<br /><br />I was wondering what kind of people would like it. I am a female in my 30's. Is it for teens who have some kind of the loneliness about life, or I just don't get it? What I gained then? Wasting time! Please go for some others.
I wouldn't have given this film such a low rating (2) if its average hadn't been ridiculously high, but someone had to bring it down to something more reasonable. I sat through most of this film, watching scene after scene of tagging and shoplifting. No dialog, just tagging and shoplifting. Finally the two taggers kissed. Something happened. But then back to tagging and shoplifting. I left the screening. I recommend this film only to those who are impressed by pretentious film-making. I disliked the directors previous film (a self-righteous defense of man-boy love) but at least that film had a story, interesting characters, dialog. The Graffiti Artist had only scene after scene of tagging and shoplifting. I want more from a film than this.
This movie is a gay love story disguised as a tale of graffiti and friendship. Not ONE review described this movie as a gay romance film, and that's the weight of the plot. I don't know if this was to trick people that would otherwise be uninterested to sit through it, expecting the film to be as it was marketed... The film is out of touch with graffiti culture, abuses and defames graffiti culture, and the acting is abysmal. Oh yeah, the graffiti sucks too. This movie was a clever way to hide the agenda of portraying young boys getting gay. Just look at the rest of the movies the director's been involved with, all contain the same subject matter. Boring as hell, not what I expected.
This film has made e mad. I believe the original of this film ,'The Mask', was an awesome film, worth buying and watching a lot. I strongly believed that they should make a sequel, but when i saw this, i thought again.<br /><br />This film has spoilt the whole idea of 'The Mask'. Mask mode? A baby flying around in a room? My little brother who is seven didn't even laugh, and he is into these childish movies, but this was worse. A load of crap!! I am telling you now, please do not watch this film, it is a waste of money and a waste of time. Instead you could actually be having fun! Watch 'The Mask', but do not, I repeat do NOT, watch this hunk of junk. Thank you.
Mr. Kennedy should stop ExPeRiMeNtIng with bad movie scripts. What WAS he thinking? This is a movie that should not have passed the "hey, I've got an idea, let's make a sequel" stage of inception. If there was a ZERO rating, I'd give it, but I guess I'll settle for a generous 1. It seems these days that if there is a buck to be made, movie execs will dig up an old hit and run it by a set of writers and see what turns up. (Hey, I said "hit and run"! Kinda describes how I felt when this movie ended!) How THIS piece of trash ever saw the light of day is beyond me. It is filled with unpleasant humor, strange animation and jokes that don't quite take you anywhere besides a state of confusion. If you are being dragged to this movie, and someone is paying for you....fine.... but its still going to be more painful than a brick in the forehead. However, if you're planning on paying your own hard-earned money, search out a better alternative.
This is without a doubt the worst movie I have ever seen. I say this without hyperbole, and believe me, I've seen a lot of bad movies. It's embarrassing and annoying that millions of dollars went into this film and that hundreds (thousands?) of craftspeople spent so much time working on what the writers and producers MUST have known would be a colossal failure.<br /><br />When a 90 minute film feels this long, drawn out, boring, and incomprehensible, you know that something went wrong somewhere. Also, Jamie Kennedy (whose work I've enjoyed elsewhere) is simply terrible in this role; he was obviously never given a screen test, because no producer in their right mind would consider him entertaining in any way, especially in the guise of The Mask. Simply awful.<br /><br />Personally, I can't wait to see the reviews by the major film critics, because I know they're do a better job than me at tearing this train wreck to shreds.<br /><br />The producers of this film should be embarrassed, and more importantly, NEVER be allowed to make theatrical films again.
What the hell is this movie about? Well, if I didn't know that "son of the Mask" is categorized as comedy, I would never have a clue! A comedy? A tragedy, that's the right genre for this yet-another-so-called-sequel.<br /><br />Yes I've watched "Dumb and Dumber" but I never believed somebody will ever make it's title real in Hollywood. Yes, You watch "Son of the Mask" and You think.. 5 minutes - Dumb... 10 minutes - Dumber... 15 - minutes Dumbest... And then, after 16 minutes there is only one thing to say :/ I'm out of here...<br /><br />Sorry, my nominee for Comedy Crap of The Year 2005.
I can just picture how this movie came to be:<br /><br />"So how else can we screw up our careers?" <br /><br />"I know! Let's take a film that was wildly successful and make a sequel out of it!<br /><br />"Perfect! We'll get B-grade actors who have half the charisma and want only 10% of Carrey's original salary. We'll save millions and rake in a massive profit, never mind the fact nobody wants to see a second rate sequel with none of the original actors that made it popular in the first place! We as executives still honestly believe a movie was popular based on the name and story, not the actors who made it so in the first place!" <br /><br />"Brilliant! Let's put a massive budget and get the cheapest actors we can find!" <br /><br />And really, that's what Son Of The Mask can be described as. Just a simple B-grade movie that attempts to suck the life out of it's original classic.<br /><br />Nevertheless, if the movie didn't contain the words the mask, or anything to do with the mask, it would be a nice kids movie. For all it's massive flaws and horrible acting, this really will appeal to kids. It's a good natured flick that really wants to scream out "like me!" but only those 8 and younger will truly enjoy it.<br /><br />Jamie Kennedy is the only worthwhile mention in this movie. He clearly is trying to make the material work, playing the desperate dad but the script is so poor, the only thing that spews out that is worthwhile was my drink after seeing this. The character of Loki also deserves a mention, as he was the most enjoyable character and really one of the only reasons for older adults to see this film. It's too bad the character is wasted on this film, I would have really liked to have seen the character take on the true mask. Instead, we are reduced to fart jokes and toilet humor near the end.<br /><br />The plot is so much by the books, I won't bother to mention it here. It's all so clearly obvious that even a Disney exec would be green with envy.<br /><br />Save your money, this one is heading to DVD in three months from the looks of it. Shame on the studios for once again smearing a decent film with a horrible sequel. Didn't dumb and dumberer teach them anything?
My wife received tickets for our family to attend the premier of this movie from her employer for free. I only regret the price of the popcorn and the two hours of my life wasted on this garbage film.<br /><br />I own the DVD of the original Mask, and quite enjoyed it. I expected a remake nowhere near the original in production values or writing.. but wasn't prepared for this vulgar pile of trash. Weak acting, poor plot, a bad CGI baby passing gas and urinating in hyper "mask mode".. a woman turned into a giant nose, spewing mucous.. Fun huh? My eight year old son loves movies like Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Star Wars. After this was over I asked him what he thought. His exact words; "I hated it. It's like the Scooby Doo movie. They take something good and have to put all that gross stuff in." My twelve year old daughter and wife hated it as well. My wife later told me that my son asker her twice during it if we could leave. He's never done that before. I'm proud of him. Lest you think I'm some kind of puritan, from the groans, and lack of laughter I heard in the theater, I think most of the patrons agreed with me.<br /><br />This film represents everything bad about children's entertainment today, and any positive reviews MUST be from people financially connected with the film.
Eleven years ago, Stanley Ipkiss released his true inner self and became the hero of Edge City by finding and wearing the Norse god of mischief, Loki's mask. The Mask helped bring Jim Carrey to the forefront of comedy and reached a very popular status for its originality and just pure fun. Everyone knew how to spell party. P-A-R-T-Y. Why? Cuz I gotta! Now, eleven years later, it seems to me that the same philosophy has been applied to the new movie "Son of the Mask." Someone asked director Lawrence Guterman why are you making this? And he responds "Cuz I gotta!" Unfortunately, that answer doesn't cover it because after seeing Son of the Mask I still left the theatre thinking, "Good Lord, Why?" Guterman and the rest of the people involved in the blasphemous film need to realize that the response given to why are you making this film should not be as simple as the answer to the debate on whether or not to party.<br /><br />The Son of the Mask begins with Otis the dog finding the infamous mask and bringing it back to his owner Tim Avery, a clear homage to legendary Loony Toons creator Tex Avery. Tim, played by Jamie Kennedy, is a struggling animator who is stuck working as a turtle tour guide for the animation company he aspires to one-day draw for. On the night of the company Halloween party, Tim puts on the mask and transforms into the mischievous, insane character that we all expect. After the party Tim goes home, mask still on and conceives a child with his wife. Nine months later mayhem ensues as the baby born of the mask has remarkable cartoonish powers. Otis the dog, jealous of the baby's attention, puts on the mask and partakes in Tom and Jerry type mayhem to out the baby. Meanwhile, Loki, played by Alan Cumming, is in search for his mask at the orders of his father, Odin.<br /><br />First off, ill admit that I do respect the fact that this film pays so much homage to the classic cartoons such as Tom and Jerry and Loony Toons, with its Wile E. Coyote type contraptions and the infamous dancing frog type plot. However, this reverence cannot save the film and makes it less respectful and more of a waste of time.<br /><br />The premise of the movie becomes increasingly silly. Silly is not always a bad thing, but in this movie, the silliness gets to the point of just plain annoying. The characters are not fun to watch, and what's worse, they're not funny. The dullness of the characters can also be attributed to the fact that so much CGI was used. One of the greatest things about the original is that while, obviously computer animation was used, so much relied on Jim Carrey and his exuberant style of just being. Jim Carrey, we were convinced, was an actual cartoon. Jamie Kennedy just doesn't have that kind of ability, a fact that is clear when you watch him wear the mask and his facial features rarely shift. The baby and dog were mostly completely animated which became increasingly distracting throughout the movie. The side story of Loki searching for the mask just became more and more stupefying.<br /><br />The son of the Mask is a sad sad state of affairs. What I suggest is you go rent or buy the original the Mask and thank the Norse gods, or whoever, for bringing it to us. And will consider seeing the sequel my sacrifice as I continue to ask the infamous question "WHY?" The son of the Mask gets one star, although that star should be divvied up between the classic creators of Loony Toons and Jim Carrey, who will always be, in my book, the mask.
IS there any reason to revive characters 10 years after the fact when the only reason they worked the first time was due to the actors playing them.<br /><br />Who can replace Jim Carrey or Cameron Diaz -- or better yet, who can replace them at cut-rate prices since most studios know that sequels don't bring in the same amount of revenue as the originals so they cut corners from the get-go.<br /><br />Where are the good movies going to play if powerful Hollywood studios can clog up 3,000 theaters opening weekend with whatever turds they feel like the general public can be suckered into.<br /><br />Enough's enough people, this sequel-itis has got to stop and the Hollywood people need to start getting their act together or start distributing the much-better foreign product that's floating in limbo.<br /><br />Wake up Hollywood, cause the people HAVE woken up and they aren't buying it just cause it's new and shiny. Give us the good stuff and send the rest to the DVD shelves, cause we are taking back the theaters once and for all!!!
I sort of liked this movie, not a good one, but not the worst ever made. Though, everyone else says it is one o the worst movies ever created, I thought it was okay. There are a lot of immature jokes. It wants to be funny sometimes, but fails.<br /><br />The story is OKAY. It may be a little hard to follow for the younger audiences, though.<br /><br />The acting is pretty bad. Jamie Kennedy is a horrible actor at most times. At some times, it is even laughable. Alan Cumming is probably the best actor in here. He is funny when he is supposed to be, but some of his lines are god awful.<br /><br />Oh, and the main bad thing about this movie that I hated was Tim Avery's voice when he is possessed by the mask. The voice is HORRIBLE. Also, the scenes that he is in are so unfunny, that they are almost unbearable. I am sure they could have cut him out, and it wouldn't affect the movie at all.<br /><br />Overall, you can live without seeing this. It is a nice movie to watch if you have nothing else to watch, though. They definitely could have gone without making the sequel, but it is a decent effort. 4/10
Actually, Son of the Mask did make me laugh a few times...mostly due to the cartoonish jokes that made Bugs Bunny and Roadrunner so funny. The CGI is very impressive and is used extensively in this movie. Garfield, for example, is no where on par for CGI, but I would give it the same vote.<br /><br />Everyone knows the story...which wasn't that bad for a KIDS movie. Yes, it is a KIDS movie...and therefore should be treated as such. Jamie Kennedy is not very good in his role. His attempts to act "crazy" are not very good and overall acting is poor.<br /><br />Everyone else is not too bad.<br /><br />Basically, my 2 and 5 year old watched the whole thing without complaining. At least I was able to sit through this.<br /><br />There is no way this movie is worst than **shudder** Class of 1999<br /><br />4/10 for the CGI and a few laughs.
Well I had the chance to view this film the other day. I didn't know what to expect as I never saw the trailer and such... but what I did discover simply by watching the first 10 minutes is that this film is the worst I have ever had the misfortune to see.<br /><br />I wish I could give it this film a 0 rating. The first 10 minutes were bad but as soon as it goto the party scene I wanted to just enter a coma it was really poorly done. The actors didn't have any direction, there was no real story, I read some reviews that state its good if you have a little child to entertain for 90 minutes etc... but really why should we expose children to this type of film? Its got poor humor, rude and crude comedy at best and focuses on poor special effects to fill 80% of its time. I am sure a few people in Hollywood will be out on the streets after this film bombs.<br /><br />Also How can 39 people give this movie a 10. I mean get real anyone that gives this movie a 10 either has some mental issue and or works for the film company. This movie should average at 1.5/10 instead of its current 2.3/10 due to the people that ranked it 10. Truly sad.
This movie is a real shame, not just for the plot,the empty performance of the characters, it is for the lack of creativity from the director and all the crew, this is maybe one of the worst movies of all times,and it is hard to believe that is the sequel of one of the most famous movies of the 90's.<br /><br />I am a great fan of The Mask, when I went to see this movie I was expecting to a movie with a good sense of humor, a movie with a acceptable plot, instead I saw a really bad copy of Chuck Jones and Tex Avery cartoons, the movie was not funny even for my 7 years old sister, so I wonder:What was wrong New Line Cinema???.Was it trying to repeat the success of the first movie, or was it trying to create another masterpiece like The Lord of the Rings???.Because if they did, they were completely out of their minds.
I cant believe it! I thought this is a good sequel when Jim carry in the film has a baby but instead its a film with crappy actors, stupid plot and stupid scenes. This should be in 'crappest films of sh*t in earth'. Thank god the same director did not make this because this is so stupid with some cartoonish parts like the fart was not funny, not the pee and not the dancing! I laughed at this because of how stupid the person made this like homer Simpson making a movie about a doughnut! I wish someone makes a remake of son of the mask with a plot like this! The mask guy (Jim carry) and his wife have a son which is a normal baby. When the baby finds another mask he became the mask, too and the mask guy tries to get his mask back! This is very crap so i'll give it a 1 out of 10. Fu*king sh*t!
SPOILERS<br /><br />I love movies. I've seen a lot of movies. I didn't think I'd ever see a film that I actually hated. Son of the Mask ruined it. Son of the Mask is so bad I'm not even going to do a detailed comment like I usually do. In fact, I'm not even going to write a lot. I think all of you should know that this movie is horribly awful. And poor Jamie Kennedy. He was awesome in Scream, but now this film! Also, this film takes a SMO-CAN film and turns it into this goofy kids film that not even kids will like. This film also consists of very rude humor. Like the nose woman. She has a nose for a head and when she sneezes white stuff spews out of her nose. There is also an Exorcist parody. Yes, a kid film has an adult parody. Maybe they thought the adults would like it. Quite frankly, it made the film even more cheesier and crude.<br /><br />Here's the basic, stupid plot. Tim Avery's dog gets the amazing Loki mask and turns into a cartoon dog thing. When Tim is paying more attention to the baby with special powers, cartoon dog becomes a Wiley Coyote ripoff. Then Loki takes the baby with amazing powers and Tim and Loki have a really cheesy animated fight. Tim's wearing the mask. It all ends happy. Too bad this movie is horrible. <br /><br />Overall, the original the Mask was a fantastic Jim Carrey movie. This, basically is not. Please, please, don't rent, buy, or download this movie. I made a terrible mistake renting this. I don't want you guys to make that same exact mistake. I feel horrible that I couldn't write a detailed comment, but really, what's there to comment on?<br /><br />2/10 I'd give it a one, but come on, it's basically a kid film.<br /><br />Recommended Films: The Mask.
Loki, Norse god of mischief, creates a mask that endows the wearer with cartoon-like powers. At the command of his father, Odin, he spends the rest of the movie looking for the mask so that it can cause no further grief to mankind. In the meantime, the possessor of the mask conceives a child who inherits the powers of the mask. Etc. etc. If this sounds like a pretty thin plot line, it is. Add to this the fact that the movie is handled ineptly from start to finish, and the result is very, very bad. You can find worse movies, but you'll have to actively search for them.<br /><br />For the most part, Son of the Mask is presented at the intellectual level of a pre-schooler, but in light of scenes such as the mask-baby urinating copiously in six different directions, including on his father, this premise seems unlikely. I asked my son who he thought might have been the target audience for the movie, and he responded "Convicted felons," apparently forgetting for the moment that the Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.<br /><br />But just making a bad movie is not a sin, or Hell would be overflowing. What makes it a sin is that $72 million was spent on this piece of garbage. To put things in perspective, the day after we watched Son of the Mask, my son and I watched "Good Night, and Good Luck," a movie that garnered six academy award nominations (including best picture), and was brought in for $7 million. That's right. Just one-tenth of the amount of money spent on Son of the Mask. This, then is the sin -- to flush good money down the sewer, when it could have been better used in making watchable movies, or feeding starving children, or for that matter, almost any other purpose. The producers should truly be ashamed of themselves.
OK, about 11 years ago the awesome, funny movie, "The Mask", came out and everyone loved it and now, 11 years later the mask is brought back in this awesome movie right? WRONG!!!!!!!!!! this movie was the stupidest movie that i have probably ever seen!! i mean when i rented it i thought that i would be laughing so hard that i would almost pee my pants like from the first one. but after i saw this "sequal" i barley even let out a chuckle. i mean no offense to the director or the cast of this movie, but what a waste of time and money. so, the plot of the whole story was about this little baby that has part of the mask in him and this evil person is after him for some thing, because that is all i really got, i would have least added some more things to it so it would be higher than a 2 out of 10 stars.
(Contains really bad Spoilers) So what can I say about this....It's a really HORRIBLE and AWFUL movie!!.Too much CGI and special effects....you could tell how fake the ridiculous baby is!!.PLEASE at least go watch "Dungeons and Dragons" which is another terrible pile of TRASH.Son of the Mask makes Dungeons and Dragons way better!!! Uggg!!!!!!!!!!!! Pure Crap!!!!!!!!!!!!I Hate this Trash!! I would also like to say that "Superbabies:BabyGeniuses 2" was also a really stupid movie.Probably just as stupid as "Son of the Mask"."BabyGeniuses 2 was just as fake as"Son of the Mask" and also contains way too much CGI!!<br /><br />Anyway Yeah...this was a BAD BAD REALLY BAD movie....just please avoid it....Do NOT recommend this to no one...please its just way too ridiculous....makes no sense and really bad plot.The baby peing on his dad was just lame!
There was no need for this movie, plain and simple. The original, although hated by some, was something I found to be actually really entertaining, mainly because it was before Jim Carrey started to really lose his touch, and Cameron Diaz was, well, "Smoooooookin!" 'Nuff said. So why make a sequel/prequel thing? Honestly? Knowing that Jim Carrey wouldn't do it should've been clue enough that it didn't deserve to be created. But then they just make mistake after mistake. Jamie Kennedy. Why is this man still allowed to breathe? The writing and story: terrible. Why would I ever want to see a baby wearing the mask? Moreover why would I want to see it fly? Ever? HOW DID SOMEONE THINK THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA?! The acting is despicable, in fact nearly everything about this movie is. I'm trying to keep calm, or IMDb probably won't let me post this. Bottom line: don't watch this piece of trash. Pick up the original, see how good Cameron Diaz looked and how Jim Carrey used to have a career, and laugh. Don't waste even a second of your time on this.
This movie isn't worth going to the theaters to watch, i did and i didn't like it, the effects on the movie are really well done, and you get a laugh here and there, but the story is really bad, it seemed like they had run out of ideas, and what is that of loki and odin getting along? that totally destroys norse mythology, and i guess they forgot that loki's powers only worked during the NIGHT!! If you really MUST see this movie rent it when it comes out, don't go to the movies for this!<br /><br />They could have done a lot more with this than they did, it felt like they just wanted to do a movie to show off cool animation and effects
-So the weak excuse for a story in the generic waste of time involves a guy that wants to be an animator but can't get his career of the ground. His super hot wife is more successful and she doesn't seem to care that he's a loser but the man isn't satisfied with that and wants to make more out of his life. One day their dog brings them a magic mask that changes his life. Unfortunately for him, the god Loki is looking for his magic mask and once he finds the man with the mask he tries to get it back and that's the whole story. If that sounded exciting to you then someone needs to throw some water on you to wake you up <br /><br />-This movie is terrible. There's really no other way for me to say it and I just can't stretch it enough. The only good thing about the whole thing was the woman that played Jamie Kennedy's wife who was hot but apart from her there's is nothing about this movie that is worth watching. I know it's meant for kids and that's why it's so idiotic but what about the adults that have to take their kids to watch this trash. Why do we have to suffer through this vile vomit sack of horrid crap. The original mask was a very good movie that had a great mix of comedy and great story telling. This one is a lame attempt by hack filmmakers to cash in on the franchise and judging by the laughable BO gross I'm guessing the franchise won't go on any longer.<br /><br />-The cinematographer needs to be beaten severely because the sugary colors of the movie will make you feel like throwing up. If there was music, I didn't pay attention to it because I had already punctured my eardrums to prevent myself from hearing the horrid dialog. Then there's the acting or at least what passes for acting nowadays. you could watch an infomercial and see much better acting in that than the one in this movie but I can't really blame the actors since it's the director who deserves the blame for apparently not realizing that the actors needed to do another f**king take. If new line is looking to start a franchise with this then they need to up their game by hiring writers that can actually write and stop thinking that the audience will watch any crap that comes out <br /><br />-Bottom line if you're a sadomasochistic and you love torturing yourself then please by all means check this out because it is painful to watch but if you're not and you actually like to watch movies that are good then avoid at all cost
Son of the Mask is a terrible movie. I don't like the baby and I don't like the dog. Jamie Kennedy and his wife are a cute couple but that can't redeem sitting through this garbage. Even at only 88 minutes (or so it says), the movie could not end soon enough for me. The only real laughs come at the beginning with a brief appearance by Ben Stain. That's it. The rest is just a rehash of the first movie. Actually that is just an insult to rehashes. Why was this sequel made?? This movie cost millions of dollars to make. Why would I sit through a movie with a baby and a dog intentionally trying to drive the dad crazy? Jamie Kennedy is talented but he has nothing to do in this movie. I am not bothering to be nice to this movie. 1/10
"Son of the Mask" is a terrible excuse of a movie. I went to see this with my friend and I still wish we had seen "Because of Winn-Dixie" instead. I must say that it is partially my fault, as I agreed to go see it with him. Being a fan of the first "Mask" movie (Jim Carrey was hilarious) I had hoped it wasn't as bad as all of the critics said it was.<br /><br />Ten minutes into the movie I knew it was headed for disaster. Disgusting and pointless attempts at being funny got little seven and eight year old children shrieking with laughter, but the rest of us were left staring at the screen in disbelief.<br /><br />Finding the movie as repulsive and unfunny as I did is surprising to even me, as I loved "Scary Movie" and "Anchorman", two films which many people I know found crude and offensive. But the thing is, "Son of the Mask" is not funny unless you're under the age of ten.<br /><br />The film features lots of CGI in it, but it cannot save this piece of rubbish. Whoever allowed this movie to make it to the big screen was probably thinking it had potential, considering the success of its original. Unfortunately, it has none of the laughs, fun, or excitement of the first, creating a mockery of the original movie. I recommend renting the original "Mask" to anyone who is thinking about seeing this one. 1 star out of 10 is generous to this awful mess.
This "film," and I use that term loosely, reminds me of the first joke my daughter wrote, at eighteen months: "P.U., stinky poopies!" <br /><br />Like that joke, this movie can only appeal to the very young, the very immature, or the very stupid. <br /><br />That said, there are a few bright spots. <br /><br />The effects, where the majority of the reputed $100 million went, are kinetic and convincing -- I mean, as convincing as those kind of kinetic CGI effects can be. The CGI baby effects are not great, but I imagine those are very hard to do well... although for a hundred-million bucks, they could have been better!<br /><br />Moose, the dog from "Frasier," phoned in his usual exemplary performance. Steven Wright did well with a small part. Alan Cummings was, well, Alan Cummings-as-villain, which we've seen before, and Bob Hoskins as Odin was unrecognizable, but enjoyable. <br /><br />The actress playing Mrs. Avery was cute-as-a-button, as you'd expect, and Jamie Kennedy stunk, as you'd expect. His best role so far was in the Scream trilogy (not to be confused with the Lord of the Rings trilogy), and in Three Kings. He should stick, perhaps, to more subtle forms of comedy. Jim Carrey, he ain't.<br /><br />The writing and direction were, if anything, worse than Kennedy's performance. I semi-remember one clever (though seven-year-old clever) line that I wish someone would quote accurately for the "Memorable Quotes" section. Something about Avery's proposed costume being the "crappiest crap in Craptown," it was a second-grade joke, but sort of funny in context.<br /><br />Over all, since there's nothing lower than a "one," I give this film a "one."
The satirical movie website Dateline Hollywood joked that "Son of the Mask" was all a practical joke star Jamie Kennedy played on New Line Cinema for his show "The Jamie Kennedy Experiment." If only. And if only the movie had been half as funny as that satire piece.<br /><br />"The Mask" was the ideal vehicle for the face-pulling Jim Carrey that so many viewers dote on; it also delighted males over the age of 12 by introducing Cameron Diaz. So having a followup minus both of them was not a good idea, plus you'd have thought New Line would have learned their lesson after "Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd." But no... though to be fair, having an all new cast is in keeping with the original comic (in which the Mask went from owner to owner). As written by Lance Khazei and directed by Lawrence Guterman, however, there's nothing there in return, except a steady stream of admittedly decent FX by the usual squadron of houses (Industrial Light and Magic improving on the "Ally McBeal" dancing baby and their own "Baby's Day Out," with the Tippett Studio, Giant Killer Robots, Digital Dimension and so on in support) and an even greater pandering to cartoon fans by having our hero work at an animation company (responsible for such gems as "Siamese Popes"), naming his character after Tex Avery, and working in not just references to classic cartoons but actual clips.<br /><br />The trouble is that last approach doesn't really work, partly because most of the attempts to bring cartoon trappings to live action fall flat (especially the cars getting in the party mood) and mostly because the tributes to the Flintstones, Woody Woodpecker, "Duck Amuck" and especially "One Froggy Evening" show up how weak this movie is in comparison. Plus the movie fits in shambolic slapstick alongside strained sentiment (the underlying theme of the story is family; our hero isn't ready to have a son, and his nemesis - Alan Cumming as the Norse god Loki - is far from the apple of Odin's eye... and what Bob Hoskins is doing here as Odin, even after "Super Mario Bros.," is beyond me), and Kennedy just isn't in the same league as Carrey in the zany stakes - though it's not like he gets any help from the script. Also note that unlike Diaz, the very cute Traylor Howard (as the mother of the son of the Mask) doesn't get much to do; giving HER the Mask might have helped the movie.<br /><br />Further points are lost for throwing away Cumming, Hoskins, Steven Wright and Magda Szubanski; for a suspiciously abbreviated running time (which would account for some gaping plot holes and scenes that seem to be missing); and for an incredibly bad attempt at an inside joke when our hero fails to sell the concept of the "green guy" as an animated TV series - "The Mask" did become an animated TV series in real life, and was a far better follow up than this sequel. The fact that this actually opened in Britain before the US should tell you everything... what with this and "Blade: Trinity," New Line seems intent on cornering the market on dreadful sequels with cast members from "Two Guys And A Girl." What next, "The Butterfly Effect 2" with Nathan Fillion?<br /><br />Somebody stop this.
"I remember waiting to be born..." <br /><br />"Vision quest that was the American West." <br /><br />"We went to a psychic..." <br /><br />"I'm sure their first reaction is that she's cuckoo" <br /><br />"...the place is haunted..." <br /><br />"I think there's another dimension right here." <br /><br />An artist (Marta Becket) and her husband many decades ago left the hustle and bustle and culture of New York and moved to a god-forsaken town with a population of 10 in Death Valley. There, they renovated a theater--painting it is a very home-spun/folk art manner. And, once finished, she bega putting on dancing performances for practically no one. In many ways, it's highly reminiscent of the Werner Herzog film FITZCARRALDO or FIELD OF DREAMS--though AMARGOSA is a documentary of a real person--not a mythical crazy man like Klaus Kinski or Kevin Costner. Her husband eventually leaves--much of it apparently because of the lifestyle she chose. So, today she lives on with her ten cats and a sanctuary for burros eventually along with her new male companion, Tom.<br /><br />What you think about this documentary depends on your perspectives. If you are into New Age ideas and open to these sensibilities, then you'll more likely appreciate the film. Her talking about how she remembers her birth, ghosts, vision quests and psychics frankly made the psychology teacher in me cringe and this would definitely be the case for many people. In addition, her burro sanctuary and trying to preserve horses in the desert will most likely appeal to PETA and many other animal lovers, though with my background in environmental concerns and biology, I see the burros and horses as a blight that would destroy the native plants and animals. So on two different accounts, I tend to think quite the opposite of Marta--who is more of a "feeler" and "sensing" individual. Depending on how you feel about all this will definitely color your opinions--and I am pretty sure most people will either think she's a genius or a nut! You'll just have to guess what I think.<br /><br />Now despite all this, the film is interesting and Marta's life is definitely NOT dull--particularly since in recent years, people have actually begun taking trips to the desert to see her perform. There is a definite following for her and her unusual little world. While I would not be nearly as positive as most reviews, I also can't be as negative as the one review, as there is definite merit to this odd documentary. I like films about unusual people and Marta certainly is unusual! I also appreciate her love of her art and happy life--that is a rare gift. <br /><br />I teach psychology at an arts school and it sure would be interesting to show this to the staff--where I am pretty sure we'd get a strong positive and negative reaction to the film--probably depending on whether the teachers taught the arts classes or core curriculum! It sure would be interesting.<br /><br />By the way, and I am not trying to be sarcastic, but when Marta's husband was having affairs, with whom did this occur?! After all, they lived in the middle of no where and I was left wondering where he'd find partners.<br /><br />By the way, if you'd like to see her perform and/or stay at her hotel, it can be found at www.amargosaoperahouse.com/ . The site is in English, French and German and hotel rates are pretty reasonable as are ticket prices.
I lasted almost ninety minutes through this dreadful movie waiting for some revelation about dance or spirit or inspiration or something and gave up! What possessed the filmmakers to do this? This is an old woman of limited talent who is obsessed with herself and nothing else. To fill in a story without a point we get some stuff about the other folks in her thrall, her aid to burros, and, of course, her ten cats! Do not see this film. And have nothing more to do with anybody who loved it - they do not have a clue. There are fascinating people in this world with wonderful stories to tell and insights to share - but Marta Becket is not one of them. The people I took to this movie say they have forgiven me - but that they will never, ever stop kidding me about it.
I watched this cooking show for a few times before I wanted to pull my hair out. Just one question.....Who CAN'T cook a slapped together plain meal in 30 minutes when everything you need is at hand, already bagged, sometimes pre-chopped and you have very little else to do except chop a few greens. Also, almost every cooking show on TV is 30 minutes and most of these chefs do all of their prep work (except for Sandra Lee), during their show. Oh and yep....they do full meals too.<br /><br />Love the comment by the guy who hated the "EVOO" comment. Add "DE-LISH" to my list of stupid tag words. <br /><br />Then you have the obvious....a Loud, gregarious woman who is truly her own best audience. She laughs at her own lame comments, mugs too many times for the camera because she wants to convince us that she's as good as the thinks. <br /><br />NO she ain't "the cutest thing." She's a 40-something year old woman who isn't DE-LISH.
Forget what I said about Emeril. Rachael Ray is the most irritating personality on the Food Network AND all of television. If you've never seen 30 Minute Meals, then you cannot possibly begin to comprehend how unfathomably annoying she is. I really truly meant that you can't even begin to be boggled by her until you've viewed the show once or twice, and even then all words and intelligent thoughts will fail you. The problem is mostly with her mannerisms as you might have guessed. Ray has a goofy mouth and often imitates the parrot. If you love something or think it's "awesome" (a word she uses roughly 87 times per telecast) just say it. And she's constantly using horrible, unfunny catchphrases like "EVOO" (Extra virgin olive oil!). SHUT UP! What's worse is Ray has TWO other shows on the network! I think this is some elaborate conspiracy by the terrorists to drive us mad. Give me more Tyler Florence! Ray is lame.
I found this movie immensely interesting yet a little jaded, it talks of violence and what there doing, I still don't see the point in becoming terrorists in order to stop the terrorists. We have similar people in the United States and other countries justifying the use of violence and war tactics because they think they are right. Think of the Puritans,and the Christian crusades against the Islamic people during the Medieval times. Lots of blood and death far exceeding the violence of today, the western world has had a negative impact on the religion. I do not justify their actions but western culture in the past has had a very negative effect on some. But still do remember the majority of the Islamic people are PEACEFUL! People of any nation feel some sort of patriotism but to start a war on the fact that I'm right and your wrong needs to be rethought. Again I repeat you cannot stop terrorists by becoming like them.
It's complete nonsense. I've studied Nazism and read many manuscripts from the day - the "parallels" use most of the classic debased apocryphal myths of Nazism and then compare it with complete specious generalizations about what constitute 1/3 of the planet. It's crafted for an audience of Polly-Anna complacency who diet heavily on spoon-fed gibberish, horribly thought out arguments, irrational conclusions, fallacious ideas, and nonsensical logic.<br /><br />Who made this hit peace? Easy.<br /><br />When all is said and done; Que Bono? That is, who benefits, in the long run?<br /><br />You don't. You sacrifice money and rights. Muslims don't, they get our bombs. Try again. Answer this, and you've unlocked a major door.
Brought to you by the following among others:<br /><br />1- Yigal Carmon (Hebrew יגאל כרמון) is the president and founder of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)<br /><br />Yigal's Career: <br /><br />Colonel, Israeli Army Intelligence from 1968-88 Acting head and adviser on Arab affairs, Civil Administration in Judea and Samaria, 1977-1982<br /><br />2- Raphael Shore is an Israeli-Canadian film writer, producer, and Rabbi employed full time by Aish HaTorah. He is the founder of The Clarion Fund, a non-profit organization that seeks to advance the idea that the United States faces a threat of radical Islam. Shore is also a regular critic of the media coverage on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, coverage which he alleges is regularly anti-Israel. (LMAO)<br /><br />3- Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Funny how ADL supports this hateful propaganda. You can never tell by reading their "Anti-Defamation" name title.<br /><br />Use your mind and see how objective these people are. They have their own agenda!<br /><br />I think, therefore I am.
- Contains 1 spoiler, market with: ***** -<br /><br />Not presenting itself as yet another remake of "The Interview", Five Fingers actually is. Alas, besides maybe the hardship of physical torture, it never adds anything to it's predecessor's accomplishment in terms of suspense, plot or performances. In fact, Five Fingers never gets anywhere near its level. <br /><br />What I found to be in particular painful to watch wasn't the torture itself, but the way Martijn (Ryan Philippe) acted out his ordeal. To me it looked as if Philippe tried too hard to get his accent right and it made his performance glibly amateur which in turn even dragged down the performance of an otherwise great Colm Meaney. Phillipe's accent btw, being far from anything near Dutch, sounded more like Eastern European. <br /><br />Besides the acting of Philippi(which to my surprise turned from poor to actually decent towards the end) there is the matter of the flashbacks with the hackneyed Dutch scenery. (If these scenes were set in Switzerland they would have had the cast eat cheese on mountaintops with endless pastures with grazing cows wearing expensive timepieces). Scenery aside, The way these flashbacks pushed the plot didn't work for me at all. It made it being served like French fries at a drive-in and caused the build-up of suspense to flatline.<br /><br />Admittedly the movie did become more enjoyable as Phillipe's acting improved but I couldn't help being annoyed every now and then with scenes that were just too implausible. E.g.: <br /><br />************ Start spoiler<br /><br />At some point (after days) Philippe is almost tenderly washed by the female terrorist. This only to be followed by the brute severing of yet another finger. Why give the guy a wash if he's in for a torture? And the severing of that last finger seemed to only serve the title of this flick anyway, I mean, he was practically begging to have it knifed off. Didn't make sense…<br /><br />************ End spoiler<br /><br />What ultimately kept me watching was the performance of Fishburn who once again proved to be a brilliant actor but who also had the best part of the script to work with.<br /><br />All in all one is just far better off seeing "The Interview" with that other Matrix-icon: Hugo Weaving. And when you do, I'm confident you won't find this review that disagreeable.<br /><br />3.5/10<br /><br />"The Interview", 1998 www.imdb.com/title/tt0120714/
Five Fingers relies heavily on barbaric, shock value Hollywood tactics to elicit apparently a positive movie-going response. This is where this movie fails throughout, primarily because it is too graphic to be taken seriously. I was repulsed and disgusted that Five Fingers was even made, and essentially had to force myself to continue watching it. Torture in and of itself is gruesome. Even the sounds coming from a room where someone is being tortured are gruesome. But obviously the makers of this stinker of a movie felt that was not enough. It had to go way beyond what was needed, and simply and effectively ruined any chances this movie had of making some sort of valid point. For this reason, this movie came across as nothing more than being self-gratifying. Five Fingers also pretty much relegates itself to a B-movie status solely by its indulgence on manipulation of time. In other words we are shown the present and then the past is revealed in snippets. This is a little bit of a twist of the normal Hollywood manipulation of time. Whereas the viewer normally is shown page 95 in a 100 page script as the beginning of the movie, and then the rest of the flick is essentially explaining the ending, Five Fingers is dedicated to flashing back, which gets quite tiring by the end of the movie. Overall, Five Fingers made me feel stupid for watching the whole movie, because torture is obviously obscene, and it certainly was not necessary to resort to graphic mutilation to make this point. I am surprised that Dick Cheney did not make a guest cameo appearance at the end as some sort of torture superhero. This movie is a perfect example of what happens when an important topic falls into the hands of greedy, mindless dolts.
Boring movie. Poor plot. Poor actors. The movie happens in a room supposed to be in Morocco but actually in some American city! The "Arab terrorists" are the patriots the blonde patriot is the "Arab terrorist"...DAMN!<br /><br />There is something good about this movie though (that's why the score is 2 out of 10). The director turns the ridiculous stereotype about terrorism the media feeds us every day into the real thing, the terrorists are Americans (or western people if you like).<br /><br />The movie is divided into two parts. The first part of the movie concerns the Dutchman travel (15 seconds) while the second part is about the staying in the amazing dark brown room (1 hour and something).<br /><br />The Dutch guy is going to deliver money in Morocco to some "charity organization", gets off the plain, takes the bus and ends up kidnapped in a dark brown room. He is kidnapped with another guy that is shot after telling "They will not shoot at us". The Dutch survivor is forced to play chess with a Morpheus-like Arab guy for so long that you'll learn how to play chess too! At the end the dutch guy reveals his plot not because they cut four of his fingers off but because he is tricked by such a lame game you should watch the movie for!<br /><br />Good when you are so tired you can't sleep.
Five Fingers is so bad, that I hardly know where to begin. So let me admit first, that I have only seen the first half hour. When the first finger had been chopped off, I thought sleeping a more useful activity. I told my girlfriend the meaning of "five fingers" and she immediately followed my example.<br /><br />Couldn't the producer, the director and/or the scriptwriter consult a chess-amateur? Like me? They should have used a digital chess-clock and not an analogue. This major goof makes the mental pressure put on Martijn just a laugh. How, when and why did Martijn date a Moroccan girlfriend? Such an affair is very rare in The Netherlands.<br /><br />Calling me a retard is of course an insult to all those people suffering with a much lower than average IQ. Moreover, as far as I know, retards don't play chess. I do.<br /><br />The biggest problem is the script of course. Just compare the little intelligent movie Hard Candy. To keep the spectator in a grip, the information must be revealed bit by bit. A nice twist now and then also helps. I understood from other reviews, that there is a big one at the end of the movie. Any smart person can guess what it is. This of course just raises more questions - why is the travel guide killed? Oh my, why should I even care? The whole movie focuses on just one thing: the chopped fingers. The makers have not even learned Hitchcock's lesson: it is thrilling to get a bomb exploded. It is more thrilling to show that bomb ticking. But no, we don't see the paper-cutter until the impossible countdown is over. I will not waste more words on this crap. Go see Hard Candy.
this movie isn't that great...at all but it's good when you want to just laugh, because it's pretty ridiculous :) there are a lot of mistakes in it and it's cheesy. i got this movie for Christmas like 5 years ago but for some reason i've never given it away. i guess i just like it for a rainy day even though i only watch it like once a year. This is a very 90's movie so it's really funny to see how everyone dresses and acts. this movie is good for someone young...although come to think of it, i didn't even like it much when i was like 12 but that's just my personal opinion. the movie was really predictable. i wish it had had some extra weird twists but i guess it was trying to be an appropriate movie for everyone to enjoy. i think it was appropriate for the whole family but Hallie's dress was a bit unmodest but certainly appropriate enough for family material.
Maybe the target audience of this Disney Channel TV-movie will be pleased with it, but if any parents are watching along with the youngsters, they will clearly see that "cranked out" is written all over this production. Obviously it was no one's dream to make this movie, but rather, this was concocted in a board room somewhere, then produced with cold efficiency. There is some talent among the cast, but actors like Dabney Coleman and Jay Thomas don't get much of a chance to showcase their talent. The impossibly cute Elisabeth Harnois is engaging as the First Daughter, but Will Friedle is stuck once again playing another dumb character, though he's not nearly as moronic and annoying as in his "Boy Meets World" role. The background for this movie is Washington, D.C. and the White House, but there is no real "presidential" feel to the film and the Secret Service is made out to be little better than the Keystone Kops when it come to doing their duty. The Disney Channel presents a lot of original TV-movies and most of them are better than this.
If this was nominated for a screenwriting award by the WGA, a professional association of screenwriters, then it's time to hang up the word processor. Astonishingly inept writing, direction, production, at every level, even for a TV movie. No cliche goes unexploited in this jaw-droppingly bad movie. What were they thinking? Does anyone really believe kids are stupid enough to watch this?
Pointless and pretty silly film that is just basically a compilation of clips from horror, science fiction and suspense films. There are unnecessary shots to an audience watching the clips and Donald Pleasance and Nancy Allen are among audience members who turn to the camera and explain why we love horror films. Not a bad idea but all the explanations are obvious ("movie horror helps us deal with real horror", "you are at the mercy of the filmmaker in a theatre") and pretty trite. Also the clips are shown very quickly and the changes are kind of jarring. And, shown out of context, these bits aren't very scary at all. And it's REAL short--I saw it in a theatre back in 1984 and was outraged that I paid $5.00 for an 84 minute movie!<br /><br />Still, it is reasonably well-edited and Allen and Pleasance seem to be enjoying themselves. For people who have an interest in knowing more about terror this might be fun and interesting. But if you're a horror fan (like me) you'll probably be bored silly. Good idea, bad execution (no pun intended). I give it a 3.
I used to think that "It Came from Hollywood" was the worst movie I had seen that showed clips from horror, sci-fi, crime and drama movies. Of course, I hadn't seen THIS beauty yet.<br /><br />What's wrong with "Terror in the Aisles"? Four things:<br /><br />1) It assumes that most of the great moments in shock cinema history began in the '70s when directors like John Carpenter and Brian De Palma came along. And what bones are thrown to the true classics (i.e. - the black and white films) like "Frankenstein", "Dracula" and "The Wolf Man" are either shown with Martin and Lewis or Abbott and Costello alongside or not at all!<br /><br />2) The clips are most times so brief and out of their originals' place that they just give a momentary shock to the viewer and, for those unfamiliar with these films, will make no sense at all (indeed, the moment where the shark jumps out of the water at Roy Scheider in "Jaws" is shown much to the effect of a sight gag. Whereas, in the original's context, it had power.)<br /><br />3) Did we really need Pleasance and Allen in the audience reminding us that "it's only a movie" or that most of the violence in the horror movies "is, sadly, against women"? So, is that an indictment against the movie-makers for adding those scenes or the movie-goers who tromp into the theaters and watch the same kind of fodder time and again? Sorry, that's a whole can of worms to open for a more deserving movie.<br /><br />4) And most importantly, why is the movie so SHORT? It isn't like there wasn't enough of these kinds of movies to use. If they had just opened up their resources and used EVERY available film, they could have had a "That's Entertainment!"-style movie that would have been comparatively more entertaining. Heck, even drag out Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing (Cushing was alive then, mind you) and better yet, even Vincent Price would have been more than willing, I'll bet! What a cheer THAT would have gotten from the audience!<br /><br />But no... all we're left with is a dreary little flick that pretends to pay homage to these movies but all it does is leave the viewer feeling cheated out of less than 90 minutes with which they could have went and watched a REAL movie. Don't get me wrong; it was good to see what clips they did show, but if they could have just done more with the goods!<br /><br />Two stars. Another good idea left laying "in the Aisles".
"Terror in the Aisles" might look like the ultimate treat for horror fans but it has, in fact, very few to offer. Granted, it presents a decent and versatile (too versatile?) selection of horror/thriller fragments that are considered classic but ...what's the point? This documentary primarily aims for the horror-loving public so we've pretty much seen all these clips already, haven't we? The only thing really praiseworthy about this project is the editing. If you're into scream-queens, chases by vile murderers and that sort of things, "Terror in the Aisles" has some neat compilations of the most famous sequences. All these different scenes hang together by a lame wraparound story starring Donald Pleasance and Nancy Allen sitting in a movie theater. In between two sequences, the address the viewer and "explain" why we love horror so much. Those speeches naturally are soporific and rather obvious (it's in our nature to be afraid ...bla bla bla) and I fail to understand why many people love the concept. This is worth a peek in case you're a loyal horror fan but it certainly isn't essential viewing. On the contrary: in case you still have to see a classic genre title, beware that bits and pieces of it here don't spoil your future viewing. The main reason why I overall disliked it is because it shamelessly ignores a lot of lesser known, but fundamental (foreign) titles endlessly focusing on "Halloween". This does result in a cool inside joke, however, when Donald Pleasance screams to the screen at his own character.
So you've got a number of models on an island, and one by one they're picked off Agatha Christie-style. We get somebody lost at sea, pushed off a cliff, poisoned by a solvent, driven off a cliff, blown up, etc. Nothing terribly graphic.<br /><br />Before any of that starts, one woman inexplicably has a dream of a killer in a weird human face mask.<br /><br />The owner of the magazine is a sleaze who had an affair, and somebody had photos taken of her before she was of age.<br /><br />In the end, it's all about business, or something,<br /><br />There's an 80s style montage of a photo shoot, most of the bathing suits being one-pieces, surprisingly. A couple are fairly translucent. There's camera clicks during the montage where the frame of the camera appears as a white square or rectangle within the picture. The photographer is rather bad at framing!
This movie just happened to be on HBO yesterday so I watched it. This was a mistake. I guess I got sucked in and kept watching although it was a lot like a train wreck, terrible, horrible, but somehow you just can't look away. shaudenfraud I guess! ; ).<br /><br />This is the story of a photoshoot for models on some island in the Caribbean. One by one they are all murdered. One drinks cleaning fluid, one gets blown up on a waverunner, one goes over a cliff...so these are NOT accidents, but for some inane reason the police are never called and no one thinks that perhaps they should "wrap" the shoot and go home, not just in respect for the dead, but perhaps out of fear for their own lives. No. They just continue with their shoot because THAT is what's most important. Forget about the dead models, we have a magazine to produce!<br /><br />One of the subplots is the Evil magazine owner, played by Lee Majors, Rex is his name. He is the most obvious suspect and every time a model gets killed he twirls his mustache and says "well, I can't say this won't be good for sales", mooo hoo hoo hoo ha ha ha ha". So absurd. Another subplot is when it's revealed that Rex is one of the models baby dady, only when he learned of the baby he tried to convince the girl to abort. She didn't, but always resented him for even suggesting this.<br /><br />They try to give you false clues and point toward some guy named Raule, seemingly because he's the only one with an accent and "looks creepy".<br /><br />At the very end (sorry to spoil, but this movie came out years ago so if you haven't seen it by now...) one of the women was found face down dead in the pool. THIS was the Last straw!!!! Vanessa Angel, forget her characters name comes at Rex with a gun, they struggle, the gun fires and now SHE'S dead too!!! While she's laying on the floor his business associate tells him that with all this bad press the magazine will be worthless and it's all his fault. He gets him to sign over the magazine to him. Once he does voila! All the dead models come back to life and you find the entire thing was an elaborate ruse to get back at Rex.<br /><br />Oy! What a ridiculous movie. As someone else said; if you want to see something like this April Fools Day is far better!
I caught this during a brief run in a Philadelphia theater. Despite its local provenance (and its relation to a hometown tragedy, namely the beating death of Eddie Polec in 1994), I really have to come down hard on this movie. The director, for reasons best known to himself, decided to shoot the entire film guerilla-style, with nonstop handheld cameras and rapidfire cuts. Such technique might work for the scenes of jarring violence, but is utterly inappropriate for the rest of the material, which makes up the majority of the film. A stroll down the sidewalk, a brother-to-brother discussion on a sofa, hell, even a kiss on a first-date are all shot cusinart-style, distracting this viewer from ever being able to enter into the drama. Martin also undercuts his narrative by packing in far too many topics: besides the birth of mob violence, we get anorexia, alcoholism, divorce, racism, parental abuse...did I miss anything? No doubt a better cast (and a better-focused direction) would have knit these threads together, as Martin surely intended, to demonstrate how one moral flaw leads into and sustains a host of others...but good intentions do not necessarily a great film make. Just a sprawling mess. Martin, I know you're from my town, and I'm down with you man, I really am...just do a better job next time, like you did in Two Plus One.
This movie was outright painful for me to watch. I understand that indie films do not have the same resources as other mainstream films. But there are basic elements of film making that typically you want to adhere to. First off, jump cuts. There are numerous in the film's opening 15 minutes. There are shots in which it appears that two separate takes of the same shot were edited together. What I mean by this is a character will say half a line from one take, and the rest of the line is from a different take. Secondly, the dialog. I understand that many writers strive for a very realistic and true dialog for their films. Since this film is very specific to its location, the dialog must be spoken in a specific tone also (example: set a movie in Boston, yet people use west coast slang with a Chicago accent). Even with understanding this, it is still hard to sit through some of the lines these actors present. These are only the two most vivid problems I encountered with this film. There were a few others. I do not mean to sound like a harsh critic who doesn't know a thing. I have years of experience in the film (more importantly the low budget indie film) industry. I also understand that with many directors there is often a method to their madness. I have been unable to discover this method used in this film. This makes it difficult when trying to decide whether I view this film as an example of unique style in film making, or just another low budget, poorly put together film. I honestly hope that it is not the latter. If anyone has any insight into why things were done a certain way, or has any thoughts/views of their own concerning this film, I would love to hear them. Hopefully I can understand this film more and my current opinion can be changed.
this is an example of a movie that can have great potential and is executed very poorly.. i am a fan of kids and thumb sucker and many other so called teen angst films, but this one bugged me.<br /><br />why is every white kid made into a thug who loves rap, its getting to be one dimensional. the acting was awful but simple since It mainly consisted of just dropping f bomb after f bomb just a bad bad movie if you'd like to see better movies like this : thumb sucker kids bully all<br /><br />those i think are better so i recommend one of those is you'd like to see a good "teen movie" i hope my comment you found useful and hope you hear future comments from me
**SPOILERS** With the title of the film having the name of the killer fish twice not once you would expect to see them in action attack biting ripping and eating up almost everyone in the cast of characters. Instead you have to wait until the movie is almost over for you to get as much as a glimpse of the Piranahs. Even then all you see is the water bubbling and stirring around as a poor individual disappears under it assuming that he's being eaten, whole and alive, by the fish.<br /><br />The movie "Piranha Piranha" starts with this scary looking Piranha on the screen as the credits start rolling down but****SPOILER****that's the only time in the movie that you ever get to see the killer fish or fishes you never get to see a Piranha is the movie again. What you do see is a travelogue of Venezuela and it's people and the Venezuelan jungle along the Amazon River basin. Together with a lot of nice and breathtaking photography of the landscape as well as the people and wildlife but that's about all.<br /><br />There is some kind of a story that has to do with this great White Hunter Caribe, William Smith, which ironically means Piranha in the native language spoken there, is this what the title of the film "Piranha Piranha" really meant? "Caribe Caribe"! The person Caribe is played by legendary Hollywood Hell's Angles biker and all around tough guy William Smith.<br /><br />At the beginning of the movie this trio of American tourists Jim Pendrake and his sister Terry, Peter Bown & Ahna Capri, and their American guide Art Green, Tom Simcox, are on their way into the Venezuelan jungles to go sight-seeing with Terry taking photos to send back home. Terry is terrified of guns as we learn that as a young girl saw her father get his head blown off by a gun. Even when Art saves her life using one when see's attack by a six foot long diamondback rattlesnake Terry almost belts him for having a gun; which he promised her he wouldn't take along with him on the trip.<br /><br />At a jungle rest stop, or bar, the three run into Caribe who we first saw catching monkey's in the jungle at the start of the movie. Caribe makes himself more then welcomed by the three with his knowledge of the jungle and his half-baked philosophy about life and death as well as his ability to get them where their going to the local diamond mines deep in the Amazon basin.<br /><br />Even though a bit strange at first, the guy is so in to himself that he doesn't seem to notice that there are any people around him, Caribe turns out to be a swell and likable guy engaging in a long and friendly motorcycle race through the swamps and jungle with Art. Caribe even shows Terry, who at one time in the movie almost knocked his teeth out, the fine points of hunting and shooting wild game that he believes don't really die but become a part of him after he kills them! A bit crazy but you have to admit this guy's got imagination. <br /><br />It's much later in the movie that for some strange reason, maybe it was the cheap booze that he was drinking, Caribe suddenly goes insane and become homicidal attacking and raping Terry and then murdering her enraged brother and feeding him to the deadly Piranha's. Trying to escape from the rampaging lunatic and then being forced to have to fight it out with him Art gets beaten up so savagely by the dirty-fighting Caribe that he's almost left unconscious. Just when Caribe's about to finally kill Art he's shot to death by Terry who after experiencing what this insane nut-job is all about finally decided that guns are indeed very necessary and should be used to kill on very rare but life-saving occasions.<br /><br />Worth watching, if worth watching at all, only for the scenery and nothing else. It's just a shame that the movie has to advertise as a killer fish, or Piranha, horror movie when if it was honest about itself it could have been a more or less average jungle adventure flick with Smith, he does have the build for it, playing Tarzan of the Venezuelan, not African, Jungle
Like the above poster, I got burned on the title thinking I was getting the other Piranha... This movie is everything the above poster said and worse... <br /><br />Poor camera, lousy acting and just plain horrid storyline...<br /><br />There was very little here that was even worth watching... How this movie even got released is beyond me. <br /><br />Make sure the movie you buy is the one you want... and not this one.<br /><br />The movie I bought was labeled "Piranha" and not "Piranha, Piranha!" which is what it actually is... This is the only way they sold this movie at all.<br /><br />Peace Out.
I was duped as well. Here I was expecting all sorts of man eating Pirahnas and what the hell do you get.<br /><br />An hour and a half of nothing, but awkward silences with some weird guy, who isn't weird enough to be scary.<br /><br />I thought there was no way $5 could be too much for a movie.<br /><br />Damn I was sooooo wrong. It was very hard to watch the whole thing.<br /><br />Don't fool yourself. Its not so good that its bad. Its not even that kind of movie.<br /><br />Its nothing. an hour and a half of absolutely nothing.<br /><br />PIECE OF CRAP!!!!!!!!
This is just one of those films which cannot justify much of anything that happens. These people are going on a trek: the young girl wants to photograph animals. There really are no Piranhas, but I guess the psychotic hunter guy is the real piranha. Anyway, there are lots of animals and there is lots of driving. There is considerable anti-gun talk, but we all know where that is going. Toward the end, there's lots of action and a rape thrown in. Somebody must pay, and they do. It would have been nice to have a couple of piranhas to sort of fill the thing out. There were lots of monkeys. If you fast forward through the dull parts, you have a tight little five minutes.
This movie was dreadful. Biblically very inaccurate. Moses was 80 years old when he led the people out of Egypt, the movie has him about forty. Moses was about forty when he fled Egypt, was gone for forty years, and was with them wandering for forty years. Moses was 120 years old when he died, and was denied the privilege of crossing over to the promised land. I realize movies use a lot of "poetic license" as the biblical account isn't that long, but, if making a biblical movie they still need to reflect the facts known, and keep the general flavor of the main biblical character, this movie fails in this aspect, and in many others.Even though the 1956 version has its problems as well, theatrically it was much better.
I realise it's very hard to live up to the first The 10 Commandments movie (which was grandiose and personally not a Charleton Heston fan) but wow...this movie/mini-series was disappointing. Even the animated The Prince of Egypt was better.<br /><br />The one thing that threw me off was Ramses. Compared to Yul Brynner's version, Paul Rhys's version just seemed so weak and un-Pharoh like. The acting really wasn't that great. For a modern adaptation, I was expecting something better. It just didn't look as stunning visually as the first one. I guess they were running on a tight budget or something. There's an occasional voice-over narrator which I found strange and unnecessary. It also broke up the flow of the story. And um...God's voice/lines were kinda weird.
I really wish Hollywood would come up with some new ideas and quick. Instead they go around and recreate and mess up a perfectly good movie with a re-make. This movie is awful from the DeMille version. All the way through this movie I was saying to myself, Huh??? - What???? - I don't remember that part. The only exciting thing in this movie so far was the parting of the Red Sea. And in Heston's version - it was a heck of a lot better than this version. Did anyone else see an atomic or nuclear bomb cloud fade in and out when the Red Sea was being parted? I think I did. Anyway, I Might - Might - watch the last part tonight.<br /><br />I wish Hollywood would tackle different ideas and subject matters when they are making new movies. Instead of re-hashing old films.<br /><br />They should of left well enough alone.<br /><br />UPDATE:<br /><br />Well I watched the last part. Did Moses make up the second copy of the ten commandments with his own hand - or was I seeing things - please someone - email me and let me know. HORRIBLE
if you're a fan of the original ten commandments, this movie will make you weep inside. granted, i'm only about 1/2 hour into it currently, but it's so painful, i felt it was my duty to warn away real ten commandments fans before they are subjected to this bastardization. i didn't think it was possible to actually make the special effects worse than they were in 1950s when the original was shot, but this 2006 remake proves me wrong. i can forgive some lame special effects, but the craptastic dialogue, melodramatic lifetime movie-style schlockiness, and the stilted we-are-wax-figures-come-to-life acting makes me hope they'll rewrite the plot and drown moses in the red sea.
The reason why this movie sucks, have these people even read a bible? Everything in the movie was about moses, God was staying out of it. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN! God directed everything, he told them where to go and what to do. Also the people wandered for 40 years AFTER they arrived at Canan and betrayed God again! They didn't wander for 40 years then suddenly find it, It was a punishment for their doubts. Maybe if the people who made the film actually picked up a Bible first they would say oh no we got it all wrong try again. Everything in this movie was about Moses. They made God look like a jerk who was messing with Moses the whole time. NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!! God was their the whole time and he wanted the people to see he was taking care of them. How dare they say otherwise not even close to the passage. AND Moses was kept out because he was angry at the people and blatantly disobeyed God! He sinned badly and was told he would not be allowed to enter for it. When did moses run off and yell at God for everything in the Bible? NEVER!!!!!! Actually read your story before you make up whatever you think is a good idea. Also this whole God stayed out of it for the most part and made them do it themselves is not true!!! God did everything for the people, he provided for them in every way and God told them where to go. He was there the whole time. The whole we have to do it ourselves is true in some ways, but back then thats not how it worked! Yes today He doesn't work directly for everyone to see, but back then he actually killed people after the golden calf thing! God worked directly with the people. Read the Bible Next Time Echo Bridge or don't make another Bible movie!
This movie was a waste of 3 hours of my precious time..in the first 10 minutes i was already annoyed as i am familiar with the real version on the story according to the torah (5 books of moses)...but i decided to watch it to get my moneys worth and too see how bad it sucked. Well it sucked..way more then i thought it would. First and for most lets start with the script and characters the skeleton that makes up the body of a movie. If you study torah at all you'll see that the story is all wrong here are some of the distasful mistakes: moses doesn't do slave work because he was in the tribe of levi, moses doesn't kill anybody at mount sinai.. but yet the movie depicts moses being whipped and aaron and himself killing people...reeeealllly not!. When moses speaks to the burning bush he knows who hes speaking too but the movie makes moses look like an idiot, he states that he doesn't know who the g-d in the bush is... whatever|Aaron knews his brother well regardless of their distance growing up, aaron was known for his calm, composed peaceful nature but yet he is depicted as angry and arrogant in this movie. Moses looks like Jesus in this movie.. how ridiculous....pharoah the real one was actually and ugly dwarf who sat upon a pyramid of stairs so he could appear bigger then he was and moses was more then 10 feet and in the movie pharoah is taller then him and hes hot with light eyes! The woman of Am Israel (nation of Israel) covered themselves meaning their hair and bodies and they didn't dance or sing in front of men, they did not participate in the golden calf so they would definitely not dance with a man in public as the movie depicts. Moses's wife Tzipora was married to moses and she therefore covered herself and being as humble as they were did not cuddle or hold hands in public. Batia Pharoahs daughter ( the one who adopts him and saves him from the water) actual converted to Judaism and therefore would have been proud of Moses when he said he was going to go free his people.fast fwd to mount sinai moses comes down the 2nd time with two sets of tablets...with gibberish writing on it..at least put the writing in the holy tongue, hebrew or English and put it on one tablet not two sets.. Bottom line is the movie is horribly written, directed and the characters are all wrong..basically EVERYTHING is wrong about the movie... The old one is inaccurate as well but its more realistic, and they actors are believable. Am Israel Chai!
This movie could have had a lot of potential. Certainly with today's technology, one would expect real special effects. But movies are not made with special effects alone, of course acting is needed. This film lacked both!<br /><br />First, let me say to those who are upset with this not following the bible: why can't a movie take artistic license? If you want to know about the story of Moses, read the bible. I have seen very few movies that follow a true story fact by fact. Look at of movie from its artistic quailities.<br /><br />In viewing this movie, you will inevitably compare it to the 1956 version. It fails miserably in that. Heston and Brenner had PRESENCE. They became their roles. You don't see this here.<br /><br />Even if you don't compare, standing on it's own, this movie to too rushed. Parts where a scene should be developed, it does not. It becomes boring.<br /><br />My advice: skip this and watch the other. As campy as the other is, it's far and away the better movie.
For a really wonderful movie, you could also try seeing the movie about Saint Francis of Assisi - good for any audience. Best thing I liked about this movie was the Mexico landscape, & it gets the movie up to a 2. I was surprised that these actors didn't have terrible sunburn, they were so were not desert dwellers. And Moses is said to have a speakING impediment, but certainly not here. Even the "miracle" scenes were contrived & un-believable. And what's the point if you can belief anything in a TV story? Talk about dumbing down, I thought this Hallmark-made movie was pathetic, & I can see why others hate Hollywood. I don't, just some of these corporate profit grubbers. You don't have to be any kind of religious to benefit from "Jesus of Nazareth", but for this waste of celluloid you need to be bored, with nothing to do, dumbed-down & religious. And for a real movie experience, try "Short Cut to Nirvana", a very highly rated film.
From the English accents to the so unnecessary violence after violence. Showing Moses as a murderer. People who actually believe in the Old Testament will just sit there and shake their heads. I am not a religious person at all. But even i felt as though the writers of this movie were trying to turn us all against God and the Jews.When Moses picked up that rock and threw the first stone at the woman to kill her for committing adultery. I wanted to stone the writers. I can't believe in this day and age that Hallmark and ABC (Disney) would attempt to show such garbage as this. Don't we have enough problems in this world already?
It is difficult to compete against classic greatness, but once you make that choice and the decision is in play, you need find the best and brightest resources to keep your product top drawer, and on the cutting edge of quality. If your intention is to aim for second or third (or fourth) best, why even try? It is with that, I wonder why this version of the Ten Commandments was written, produced, and aired. I would ask the producers, "What were you thinking? Were you endeavoring to create a projected deficit?" If perhaps the producers were thinking, "We want to examine this biblical story from another point of view..." Then I would say "OK, I watched the show, now what's the point of view?" The premise of this "possible point of view theory" eludes me. I can generally watch programs, and (right or wrong) at least get a sense of what the creators were trying to accomplish. Not so, here. I recognize names such as "Robert Halmi" (the producer) and I can associate his work with some eye catching product; Tin Man, Earthsea, Flash Gordon, Jason and the Argonauts. Low budget entertainment based on myth, history and comic book entertainment. A perfect genre for Sci-Fi Channel. So I still have to ask Robert Halmi..."What was the point of THIS Ten Commandments, What WERE you thinking?" …………FJS
Nice attempt to bring Shakespearian language alive in a post-apocalyptic setting, but the final result is dreadful. Futuristic Liverpool is not convincing at all; the budget was obviously not very big, but the production designer could have come up with a slightly more creative approach to the matter. Alex Cox has made some good films, e.g. Repo Man and Highway Patrol Man, but i really don't know what he was thinking here. Just an opinion.
i really wanted this to be good as i am from Liverpool where it is set but it truly awful. the acting from everyone involved is cringeworthy the script is terrible absolutly terrible. terrible
Does anyone care about any of the characters in this film? - Or for that matter what happens to them? - I doubt it. That is the key problem - for a tragedy to work we have to care about at least one of the characters and none of them inspire any sympathy or appear to have any redeeming qualities at all.<br /><br />What may have worked in the 16th Century, certainly does not work in one can only assume 'post apocalyptic Liverpool' if that was indeed what it was meant to be. The problem is the characters in post apocalyptic Liverpool, whilst still driving around in cars, using mobile phones and watching television, have reverted to speaking in Shakespearian language - with a Liverpudlian dialect. Oh dear! Bad enough you might think - but this often lapsed into pure scouse - with comments such as 'eh lah are you a cockney? And was that a Merseyrail announcement during one of the scenes filmed in the underground? Well the good news is that in Post apocalyptic Liverpool - the trains are still running.<br /><br />The characters without exception are badly drawn, wooden and more like charicatures on the lines of the Joker/Penguin in Batman and Robin except there is no real storyline to speak of - or if there is - it is one that doesn't work in a modern setting where half the sets are gloomy and 'Blade runnerish' and the other half are fluorescent garish or just 21st century normal. Costumes are also mixed up with half wearing their everyday clothes (Parkers are big in post apocalyptic Liverpool - apparently) and the other half wearing costumes from the leftovers of a fancy dress party?<br /><br />The film explores the ideas of lust, incest and revenge in the most inane fashion imaginable - the tragedy is that this film was made at all.<br /><br />
I rented this movie, after hearing Chris Gore saying something to the effect of "five stars!" on that Attack of the Show show. Well when I turned around the DVD and it showed the 3 stages of hell, well I had to buy it. Just to see the spectacle of a mother yelling at her son to drop her other son into a flaming pit.<br /><br />I wasn't expecting ECW or CZW for an hour and eighteen minutes, but I was expecting at least a summarized version of what seemed to be the main highlight of this movie. Well sadly there wasn't anything like that. The 3 stages of death part happens right from the beginning, and its pretty much downhill from there. Nothing really happens in this documentary. It was pretty raw, bare and unbiased. Not a bad thing, but there is a narrator in this one. You'd expect him to have opinions on the subject of this documentary, but he doesn't. Which would of been nice to have, a message or reason for this doc.There was no real reason to have a narrator, there should of been just text explaining some of the less obvious scenes.<br /><br />It doesn't really explain the lives of these wrestlers either. It shows a few moments of some dramatic scenes, which sound interesting, but the reality isn't as great as it sounds. For instance mom watching her son wrestle with light bulbs and tacks, for the first time, at a public park. instead of seeing her reaction to the wrestling, They show her reacting to the camera, instead of say a interview later on, or just actually witnessing her reactions.<br /><br />Legitamit document wise, this one ain't. The source material was flimsy to begin with. Nothing truly profound or interesting really happens. No conclusion to a few of the more interesting stories, No real point or final thought to backyard wrestling, edited together badly, and its and its basically a cheap, failed rip off of Beyond the Mat.<br /><br />Wrestling wise, this is pretty boring. the better bumps are at the beginning, and slowly become less amazing and shocking. If you have seen Japanese wrestling, Indie wrestling, or even Backyard Wrestling Dvds, than this wont shock and awe you. If you want wrestling don't make the same mistake I did and see this one. Go get some CZW ECW or XPW Dvds instead.<br /><br />The only thing I got out of this documentary was how stupid people can be. Not for supporting self mutilation or doing dangerous stunts, but their reasoning for committing these acts. The backyarders seem stupid for wrestling. Most of them are jobless, and probably have a few issues in their head, and wrestling is a type of therapy for them. Than the supporters seem even more idiotic. Mothers basically take the whole "if ya cant beat em join em" reasoning to cope with the fact that their sons are basically killing themselves. School authority figures support their students in their dangerous stunts because its an alternative to joining gangs and to a lesser extend doing drugs, which is kinda funny since that segment took place in a rural town, where like people live 20 miles from one another. People are stupid. Thats what I extracted from this documentary.<br /><br />If you want to see the reasoning and thoughts to someone brutalizing themselves in wrestling and basically what the back of this DVD promises, get UNSCARRED: the Life of Nick Mondo. Its more amazing, and interesting than the Backyard, and a lot more entertaining. Oh and its actually good.
Uncle Fred Olen Ray once again gives us a little of his Retromedia "goodness" in the form of this soft-core Cinemax non-classic.<br /><br />A numb-nut pair are out looking at rocks when they come across a swirling vortex a "black hole" as the intelligent dolts put it. Pretty soon an attractive cave girl from one million years ago happens into out time-line and she beds her way into the future. Pretty soon her studly other half makes his way into the future as well and blazes a path through the beds of the future.<br /><br />Ray again delivers a passable (but barely) smut-fest that has horrible acting but some decent skin. Yeah it's barely titillating but heh! If worse comes to worse it will cure you insomnia.<br /><br />S10 reviews: 1/5 or 3/10
The VHS cover for The Evil Below makes it look like a cool underwater horror flick. Sadly it's closer to a boring adventure flick and has no real horror elements. It starts off with some divers who get attacked and we see a bit of blood, but that's the only blood in the entire film.<br /><br />The Evil Below isn't the worst around, but for a horror film it is tediously boring. The acting is decent and to be honest the only thing that keeps you watching is the developing romance between the two leads. There's a few nightmare sequences where it just seems like the director didn't know what to do. I manged to sit through it all (just about) but I wouldn't recommend this film to ANYONE. Horror fans might want a copy for the cool VHS cover, but it's best left at that.
The Evil Below starts on 'The Straits of San Sebastian 1683' as the 17th century treasure ship the El Diablo sinks in a violent thunderstorm. Jump to 'The Straits of San Sebastian Present Day' where two divers are exploring the beautiful underwater coral reefs that are rich in wildlife, the come across the sunken wreck of the El Diablo & explore it but are attacked & killed by something that looks like a vicious eel. Captain Max Cash (Wayne Crawford) owns & runs a boat-for-hire named the 'Vagrant Viking' which caters for tourists who want to fish, dive & generally explore the islands. Sarah Livingstone (June Chadwick) is an art teacher who dives for treasure as a hobby (well we all have to do something to pass the time right?), she hires Max & his scantily clad assistant Tracy (Sheri Able) so she can try to locate the El Diablo & get rich. Talk of sunken treasure excites some of the more unscrupulous members of the local community, as they dodge the criminals & thugs it is brought to Max & Sarah's attention that the El Diablo has a sinister past, a past that supposedly still leaves it's supernatural legacy behind even now...<br /><br />Directed by Jean-Claude Dubois, according to the IMDb with a little help from star Crawford although the version I saw only listed Dubois, I thought The Evil Below had some potential & is a bit different but unfortunately that's not enough to save it from sinking to the bottom of the sea like a stone. The script by Arthur Payne starts off OK with the two divers being killed by some sort of sea creature but this opening is NEVER referred to again, the creature is NEVER seen again & there are no more supernatural killings. The Evil Below then suffers from a serious & terminal case of identity crisis, it doesn't seem to know what it wants to be as it chucks bits & pieces of various genres in there from underwater adventure, horror, action, thriller, crime & it even has time to throw in a little murder mystery & religious nonsense as well. As a result The Evil Below feels very bitty, fragmented & since the best scene in the entire film is the opening sequence I found myself sat there becoming more & more frustrated at the lack of any consistent horror as it went downhill rapidly & the fact we never see the sea creature thing again. The Evil Below is dull, slow, uneventful, predictable, silly & lacks any sort of charm or intelligence, in short The Evil Below doesn't do anything right that a good film should.<br /><br />Director Dubois fails to liven things up although he obviously shot plenty of underwater wildlife material as at times I thought I was watching a National Geographic documentary with all the shots of fish, coral & the wildlife in general. Forget about any gore, some blood stained water & blood coughing is about as gory as it gets I'm afraid.<br /><br />Technically The Evil Below is very basic, it's bland & totally forgettable apart from nice underwater photography of fish. This is point & shoot stuff & as a whole the production values are very low, even the place where this was shot doesn't look very sunny or appealing. The acting is poor, but then again did you expect anything else?<br /><br />The Evil Below is a poor film, it's basic story is all over the place & it can't decide what it wants to be & as a result it ends up being a mess. Add that to the low production values, the fact there's no gore here & absolutely minimal horror content you have a film that is probably best avoided unless your absolutely desperate & even then surely there are better ways to spend 90 plus minutes of your life...
Max Cash a charter boat captain who works off the Caribbean island San Sebastian is hired by Sarah, who's looking for legendary boat, El Diablo and its stolen treasure that sunk out in the reef in the 17th century. But something seems to be protecting the whereabouts of the ship, as people who knew anything about it are being killed.<br /><br />I have to agree with those that were under the impression that this was going to be a horror feature. Instead what we ended up with was a low-rent, b-grade late 80s take on 1977 deep-sea adventure film 'The Deep', but with a baffling supernatural origin and an injection of mystery. The story is a tame muddle (so many inconsistent angles don't make a lick of sense and encourages a blotchy pace) and the technical side is clunky. Nice exotic location and under-water photography though. While the carefree performances weren't too bad either. A gruff Wayne Crawford is enjoyably witty and June Chadwick is fair along side him. Sheri Able is pretty much eye candy. There are some bizarre developments that amuse and one or two eerie sequences. However there's a real lack of cohesion. Most of the cutaway deaths happen off-screen, except for the bloody, fitful opening kills done by something unseen. Again just another thing that leaves you high and dry. The music is generic with its thumping cues to warn us of approaching danger and the POV shots get a good working out. Tatty, but watchable.
***Minor Plot Spoilers***<br /><br />I must confess to having a soft spot for Wayne Crawford. I know little about him, but he appears to have masses of enthusiasm to compensate for his lack of talent. In his films he usually performs multi-tasks - perm any 3 from lead male, director, producer and script-writer - tackling story lines from the sub-basement. Despite this the end product is usually enjoyable fun for the non-discerning.<br /><br />'The Evil Below' features Crawford as a down-on-his-luck Captain of a ramshackle charter boat, a bit like Bogart in 'To Have & Have Not' - the similarities between the films ends here though.<br /><br />The story begins with an underwater scene with two divers searching a wreck, before being attacked by an unseen creature - bit like the start of 'Jaws 2'. The wreck turns out to be that of the 'El Diablo', which went down centuries earlier. The ship was manned by heretic priests on the run from Spain, with a cargo of stolen Church treasure. This allows the introduction of various links to supernatural forces with Lucifer and The Armageddon both getting a look in. The films title refers to this sunken Devil-ship, rather than any malevolent sea-creature.<br /><br />Whatever faults the film has (and there are many) it is fun to watch and competently made. You can't help but like a film which, in the final 5 minutes, copies the famous beach scene in 'From Here to Eternity' and the final line from 'Casablanca'.
This movie was a total yawnfest that took forever to get going, but never really did. It was simply boring to watch, so much in fact I could just never really get into it. This movie is not a horror movie by an stretch of the imagination, the cover of the videotape made it out to be one. Instead it is a thriller type movie with a few elements of horror thrown in as to make the movie more interesting. Of course, it does not help this movie at all. Mostly all I remember is that this movie was kind of like a movie from the 1970's called "The Deep". Bunch of looking for treasure, rival groups that sort of thing. There are supernatural twists in it too, but to tell you the truth I was so bored when watching this movie that I kind of zoned out so I can not really tell you what the supernatural elements were. I kind of remember footprints on the bottom of the sea so maybe it was some sort of walking dead, or that may be me thinking of Lucio Fulcio's "Zombie" movie instead as that one was a horror movie that was set in a tropical island and as outlandish as that one was it was a lot more entertaining than this movie. That day we learned a valuable lesson, never rent a movie based on its cover art.
In this Silly Symphony, a mouse from the country visits his cousin in the city. Most of the short is the two mice exploring the dinner table. The animation is fine, where this short suffers is in a lack of humor. Perhaps I've just seen this "dinner table adventure" in one too many Tom and Jerry shorts. Even though this came first, I just didn't find it that enjoyable.
<br /><br />Very dull, laborious adaptation of Amis's amusing satire. The hero is portrayed not as a likeable loser but a merely oafish cretin. Most of the rest are pure caricatures with only Helen McCrory putting in real quality and providing something of the novel's wit. The period setting is camped up as if it were the 1920s, not the post-war period of horror comics and rock'n' roll. A real dud even by the standards of bad UK TV.<br /><br />
On the plus side this does contain interesting information over a wide range of topics, particularly concerned with Himmler, the SS and their research branch. It also has some good piano music, some interesting footage and some excellent camera work.<br /><br />However it is a very poor piece of historical work. It has no clear aim to it and the entire thing could be summed up as follows.<br /><br />Himmler set up a department in the SS for research into the origins of the German race. They went all over the world. They did some things and launched expeditions to all manner of places... (nonoe of these avenues were explored, the results were not shown and the arguments were barely refuted). They wanted to establish that the Aryan race and the German people were one and the same thing through historical proof. They didn't find any. The members of this research group were leading professors, members of the SS and therefore linked to the holocaust, and were seen as OK after the war and went on to lead German institutes.<br /><br />These facts in themselves are fascinating but they are never explored in depth and no coherent argument is presented in the program that either condemns these people or exonerates them. Nor does this seem to be the aim of the programme, the aim of the program is unclear, it hops from topic to topic. The witnesses, though presented as credible, are few and unsupported.<br /><br />Sadly this programme does not know where it is going or why and fails to impress. The topics are fascinating but this program tries to take on a huge area of research and consequently appears to not know what is going on. I would avoid this.<br /><br />Also the 'Holy Grail'is the German bloodline, nothing to do with the Holy Grail of Christian mythology except in passing. Mentions of expeditions to look for the Christian Holy grail are made but never followed through. The title is misleading and the content of this documentary unconvincing and incomplete.
The good news for IMDb is that this movie was so very bad that it compelled me to register and make a comment. I should add here that I'm a film buff who rarely passes harsh judgment. But sometimes a movie is so poorly acted, poorly conceived, poorly edited, with a such a poor story line that it begs criticism.<br /><br />I'm surprised by all the claims of how superb, brilliant, dark, and beautifully shot this movie was. I can only conclude that the cast and crew are active posters here. The acting was extremely thin. The pace of the movie was agonizing. I gave it new chances at every turn (mostly because I didn't want to feel like I was wasting a Saturday morning in NY), but with every new scene, it dragged longer, delivering characters in which I took no interest, with which I could not connect, for whom I could not empathize.<br /><br />When I see negative reviews on IMDb of small independent films like this, I sometimes wonder if the poster has a personal axe to grind (something like. . he used to date the gaffer, she dumped him, and now he's going to trash everything she ever works on). But here, nope. I know no one who worked on this film. And I wish it would have been great. But the film wasn't dark (as some have mentioned) or depressing (as others have claimed). . . those suggest that I connected with the film . . . nope, Henry May Long was just too long, empty, and tedious. <br /><br />That's the Tomas Take on this one.
This film with fine production values features secrets and how friends use each other. Henry May Long is a very well-acted, dimly lit, depressing turn-of-the-century period piece about a friendship between a fatally ill man and a melancholy, indebted junkie. Talky drawing room dramas are not my cup of tea, and all the crying wears thin. Recommended if you like independent, slyly intellectual, slow-paced Merchant Ivory-type features. <br /><br />I suspected that the main characters were in love, but their connection was so intimated, it didn't really have the emotional impact of 'Brokeback Mountain.' It features some good writing with a scene discussing how to disappear in life, but it is truly a dark and depressing film.
I watched 40 minutes and couldn't bear it any longer – the television went off and I returned to some light reading "Lobotomy for Beginners".<br /><br />It was hard to say what aspect of this production was most displeasing - dialogue made up entirely of sound-bytes or the acting by numbers.<br /><br />It was difficult to determine the period in which the drama was supposed to take place. There were throw-away references to Lord Nelson and slavery but Edmund, the cleric-to-be, played by Blake Ritson was the only actor who one could believe inhabited the early 19th century. The other bright-young things had make-up and costumes more appropriate to a 21st century fancy dress party - the bleached-blonde Fanny, Billie Piper being the least credible character.<br /><br />UK commercial television obviously believes heaving bosoms, pouting lips and deep meaningful looks make a good story. Fortunately Jane Austen had other ideas.<br /><br />If you want to find out the story of Mansfield Park, buy the 1983 mini-series DVD.
I doubt whoever wrote this screenplay has ever actually read Mansfield Park...or if they have it was not very well. None of the characters are what they should be: Fanny is lively and conscious of her mistreatment, while Sir Thomas, who treated her very well, seems to have accidentally fallen into Aunt Norris' personality. Additionally, a first person narrative by Fanny is highly inappropriate to both the story and her character. Fanny is not an entertaining heroine, and I would contend that she is not meant to be. Additionally, in the movie version, Fanny flirts shamelessly with Edmund from the very beginning, when they have been raised as brother and sister! Austen's Fanny would have shrank from flirtation of any sort, and the novel paints the Fanny/Edmund pairing as highly uncomfortable...as it should be. Unlike some other Jane Austen novels (P&P, Emma), Mansfield Park does not rest on the strength of its female protagonist. It is a very different sort of novel than the others; it is not meant to be a love story. I watched this movie because I have just now finished reading Mansfield Park, and I am absolutely horrified by what I see; Miss Austen is rolling in her grave.
Well, this latest version of Mansfield Park seemed to try and take the edginess of the 1999 theatrical version (outright copied some of the ideas from it in fact), but tone things down a bit to bring it more in line with the original story. Unfortunately, the result is a rather lackluster, and schizophrenic, production. And, as with all the other versions of Mansfield Park out there, the character of Fanny Price is no where to be found. Instead there is a strangely child-like, bleached-blond woman running around who never really fully develops as a character. At least in the 1999 movie the character they call "Fanny Price" is firmly established as rebellious tomboy who is too clever for her own good. This "Fanny Price" is a complete enigma. Someday, I would really like to see a dramatization of Mansfield Park that actually includes a depiction of the character of Fanny as she was written by Jane Austen. A sweet, kind, compassionate girl with a timid personality and frail constitution. She is reserved in manner and painfully honest, but also strong in her convictions, unfailingly loyal, extremely intelligent, and remarkably astute. A bit of a late bloomer, it is not until her eighteenth year that she finally begins to make the transition from awkward adolescent to self-possessed young woman. And she wants nothing more in life than to be of some real use to those she loves most. It's a wonderfully complex character that I look forward to one day seeing faithfully portrayed.
Oh dear! The BBC is not about to be knocked off its pedestal for absorbing period dramas by this one. I agree this novel of Jane Austens is the difficult to portray particularly to a modern audience, the heroine is hardly a Elizabeth Bennet, even Edmund is not calculated to cause female hearts to skip a beat. However I must say I was hoping for an improvement on the last and was sadly disappointed. The basic story was preserved, but the dialogue was so altered that all that was Jane Austen's tone, manner, feeling, wit, depth, was diluted if not lost. If some past adaptions may be seen as dated the weakness of this one must be that it is too modern ('his life is one long party'?????) The cast was generally adequate, but I think Billie Piper was the wrong choice, it needed someone more restrained, I gained no impression of hidden depths beneath a submissive exterior, she was more like a frolicking child. I see I must wait for the BBC to weave its magic once again.
I'm no Jane Austen purist but why make a film like this if you have nothing to say.<br /><br />Billie Piper was so wrong for the part it is difficult to know where to begin-wrong personality,modern make-up,completely wrong hair (there is no way a young lady of her age would have romped around in public with her hair loose and unbrushed like that),she didn't seem particularly meek nor put-upon by the family and I didn't understand why everyone seemed to think of her as particularly saintly or kind.<br /><br />The picnic(substituted for the ball) was so low-budget it was embarrassing to watch and missing out the Portsmouth section completely destroyed the point of the piece (as well as losing scenes which could have added a gritty counterpoint to that oh-so-claustrophobic pink sitting room.)<br /><br />To those responsible:-If you haven't the imagination (even the budget doesn't matter so much as the imagination) to do something meaningful with an adaptation please don't pretend to be producing Jane Austen.<br /><br />It was about 10% Mansfield Park and 90% nothing much at all<br /><br />PS Edmund was very good
... when we all know, no one does it like the BBC.<br /><br />Being an avid fan of this sort of Sunday night watching, i was quite looking forward to this. How disappointed was I! In the first thirty seconds I didn't think it was looking promising and after two minutes i was finding it hard to watch.<br /><br />However me and my friends persisted only to find bad acting and a complete misunderstanding of half of the characters. The plot was hurried to the extreme and the make up and costumes gaudy and very 21st century in a 'bbc robin hood' style. This modern style may have been able to be placed within sharp camera angles and visually sumptuous cinematography but unfortunately we got neither. The direction felt decidedly sloppy for both acting and shot choice.<br /><br />After 30 mins we couldn't bare to watch it and went out and rented 'The Prestige'(which is very good btw) Maybe it is unfair that I judge this as I have watched so little of this, but rarely have I felt so compelled to warn people not to watch something! However, me and my friends did think that the house and parasols were pretty- but thats as good as it gets.
Please...if anybody gets the chance to read this BEFORE watching the movie, if it can be called so, refrain from it... do not waste your time!!!! I too watched this film right after finishing the book, and was seriously disappointed... the main character is basically a new made up Fanny, for she shows NO resemblance whatso ever to the book...she's so lively and laughing all the time... if there was one thing the author wanted to set on this was that she was a very shy, introverted character.... please!!!!! All the most important parts of the story, which are supposed to convey to the heppy ending, are simply not taken into account...and the rest made up!!! I think one is better off using the time to either read a little bit of the actual novel or simply do nothing.
This was just telecast here in the U.S. Others have commented on the faithfulness (or lack of same) to the novel; the 1983 BBC version is far superior on this and all other counts. Given the scope of the novel, it should not have been condensed to 85 minutes. Key sections have to be rushed or alluded to, or omitted; there barely enough time just to get in the chronology of events, so character development has to be sacrificed: we cannot get much of a sense of who the people are, which robs us of what makes Austen so great.<br /><br />One major negative for me was the cinematography, which I thought was just awful, and quite literally sickening. The camera is constantly doing ultra-closeups, and swirling around and around in circles. Maybe on a small TV box this is OK, but on our 40" hi-def screen it was so literally dizzying that both my wife and I had to look away from the set repeatedly (my Dramamine supply had run out). Of course, this did distract from the rather lackluster I'm-just-reading-what's-in-the-script acting (isolated scenes are nicely done, but not enough to save things).<br /><br />Adding up the score so far in the Complete J.A. Sweepstakes: I'd rate "Northanger Abbey" a success, because of superior direction and production values (and the story lends itself better to short treatment), "Persuasion" OK (though not the equal of other versions, with condensation again being at fault), both far ahead of this attempt. I will hope for better in the two remaining novels in this TV Reader's Digest Jane Austen; like others, I am thankful they left P & P alone!
Why bother, ITV? Admittedly, Mansfield Park is the most difficult of the novels to "get," and Fanny is certainly the hardest to like, but... If one is going to take it on, then have the courage to risk being true to the book and its rather complicated spirit. And for heaven's sake, have the guts to cast Fanny as she was written: A prissy, good-hearted, sweetish, whiner! Mrs. Norris wasn't nearly as awful as she should have been. And what the heck happened to Portsmouth? The contrast between Fanny's rather dubious family and family home and the splendors of Mansfield is key to, well, so many aspects of Fanny's refusal of Henry, her uncle's rejection, Henry's near transformation to a good person, etc., etc. Again, given the complexity and challenges of the novel, why did they bother? It's beyond me...
Why did they have to make such a dreadful adaptation? The whole "Complete Jane Austin" series as a part of Masterpiece Classics looks like a huge disappointment. Characters are totally miscast and there's no chemistry on the screen. The whole thing feels rather rushed. The 1999 movie release based on the same novel seems like a masterpiece compared to this. I really want to forget it. I'm really happy though that "Pride and Prejudice" won't be re-made as part of this project and we will see the iconic and magnificent Colin Firth and Jennifer Elle as protagonists. if you skipped this "Mansfield Park" production consider yourself lucky!
I've read plenty of Jane Austen in my time and approve of several cinema/TV adaptations but this one we just don't need.<br /><br />Rating is a 2 as I wouldn't say it's awful just so boring you will feel like you've wasted 90 minutes of your life. Dull script matched by even duller acting. I've heard Billie Piper is OK in Dr Who (not a fan so can't confirm) but in this she just sucks. There is absolutely no chemistry between the leads. This is Austen, it's supposed to be a romance!<br /><br />Please don't let this put you off Austen or historical dramas. There are plenty of better programmes to view.
For a teenager who has never read Austen, this adaptation might be fine. But only for them. This is a disjointed "Cliff Notes" version of Mansfield Park, and if you have not seen another version or read the books parts of it would be head scratching.<br /><br />Why has it been so hard to do a good adaptation of this book? The one in the 1990s took such liberties that it barely seemed to be the same book - the mindset was completely modern and prurient.<br /><br />Here we have Billie Piper who looks like a pretty country wench. She has a charming personality that develops nicely - but she has flagrantly died blonde hair, with black eyebrows and - through much of the pic - dark brown roots. So much for unspoiled cousin. It is incredibly distracting, and the rest of the cast is in the greasy hair, rumpled clothing genre that shows a real disrespect for period accuracy.<br /><br />One thing is good here - Haley Atwell is the best Mary Crawford of all the versions. She is note perfect, flirtatious without being at all modern or suggestive, flippant and completely without any moral or ethical compass. Henry here is actually good looking enough to be a slight temptation for our heroine.<br /><br />Jemma Redgrave takes one of the most interesting roles in the story and manages to make her actually boring until her last scene - much too sensible. This is just a production that really missed the mark, a real low for Austen fans.<br /><br />The only serviceable version is the one with odd duck (perfect for the role) Sylvestra La Touzel (despite the very very gay Henry Crawford - he's just laughable).
Rozema's 1999 adaptation of Mansfield Park is far superior to this ostensibly slightly more faithful film. The 1999 film is reviled by many Austen purists, but I admire the job Rozema did in making Mansfield Park her own. It may not be strictly Jane Austen's Mansfield Park, but at least it was well-written, beautifully shot, and well-acted by a superior cast. I don't see how Austen purists can be any happier with this 2007 version from ITV (and rebroadcast on Masterpiece Theatre/PBS). The screenplay is shoddily pasted together and dumbed down to boot, the production values are lackluster, and the cast (apart from Jemma Redgrave and Blake Ritson) are largely guilty of bad acting. I can't think of a worst miscast than Billie Piper as Fanny Price. Her look was all wrong (bleached hair and dark brows??) and her talent simply wasn't suited to the material. Sir Thomas looked constipated the whole time. Michelle Ryan as Mariah was on autopilot, as were the actors who portrayed the Crawfords (when I think how superior Alessandro Nivola and Embeth Davidtz were in the '99 version, I just kinda shake my head).<br /><br />I haven't seen the 1983 version, so I can't comment on it, but I'd advise anyone who's curious to give the '99 version a chance. Read the novel before or after and make up your own mind.
Is it just me or are most of the actors in this adaptation miscast age-wise? <br /><br />Jemma Redgrave, although a superior actress, seems as if she should be joining her children instead of nodding off on the couch. (I would have loved to see Brenda Blethlyn in the part, her connection to the latest Pride and Prejudice notwithstanding.)<br /><br />Blake Ritson and Rory Kinnear were the only two whom I felt lived up to their characters in spirit and performance. Every else looked confused or out of place. <br /><br />Luckily, I'm not very familiar with Dr. Who (I've only seen a few episodes so far) or it would have definitely soured this further. <br /><br />Too bad Mansfield Park has not yet seen its due on screen (either large or small). This novel requires the talent of a Robert Altman to balance all the complexities of the characters successfully.
Mansfield Park, in its second half, is my favorite of Austen's novels, and Fanny Price my favorite of her heroines, so I'm saddened by the unhappy fate she's suffered in her big- and small-screen representations. The only good reading of the character I've heard was done for radio by Amanda Root, who gave it the same quality as she did the character Anne in the film of "Persuasion": a stern, sure, heartfelt moral centeredness. If the actress had been younger she would have been good visual casting as well; but the Fannys that have reached our eyes to date have more resembled, respectively: Mary Crawford; Ruby the scullery girl; and (in this incarnation) a jovial serving wench, or possibly tart, with her high moral principles pulled down a peg.<br /><br />Well, I had hoped for better, but had feared worse. The serial had a solid Edmund, in an actor who was best at likable saps, and the perfect, i.e. perfectly abominable, Mrs. Norris; otherwise it was dullish. The film, which was apparently intended as a deconstruction or some other bad theatrical idea, came off as a mixed-up burlesque. After such disappointments, and the more recent disappointments of this production's sister pieces (the new "Persuasion" and "Northanger Abbey"), I couldn't help but have mixed expectations for this one; and on the whole, it left me feeling slightly better disposed to it than not. It condensed the novel intelligently, and in the end left me with much the same feeling, as a comic-book version might. On the other hand, to do so it had to rework most of the characters, except the Crawfords, and it incidentally diminished or eliminated most or all of the most memorable things in the book, including its most famous character and what should be, if it isn't, its most famous scene.<br /><br />The character is the officious Aunt Norris, always ready to direct other people in what to do, but always managing to avoid having to do any of it herself; here one gets no sense of that at all. And with her goes much else: her remark that cuts through Fanny, "...considering who and what you are"; Sir Thomas's discovery that she has forbidden Fanny a fire in her room all these years, and his roundabout apology for her; Fanny's honesty in acknowledging, during a visit home, that Aunt Norris, for all her faults, could manage the household better than either of her sisters. But then, that entire trip is missing from the story, and so is most of what goes on at the theatrical rehearsals and most of what discomfits Sir Thomas on his return; and in fact Sir Thomas himself, and his wife, are different from what they were. Above all, the scene in which Crawford proposes to Fanny, one of Austen's most complex, is simplified to a bare telling; missing from it is Fanny's staunch upholding of what she knows to be right, and what she knows to be very probably true, against all the distractions Crawford and anybody else can throw at her. To a male reader, now no less than when it was written, it reveals with unmatched clarity--unmatched, at any rate, as far as I know--what a woman goes through in trying to deal fairly but firmly with a man she has reason to distrust. It's a brilliant scene, in the novel; on TV it's just a scene.<br /><br />And, Fanny, oh, Fanny: when will we see your like?
I agree with several of you that this film was rather boring and dull. I found myself disliking the main character and the following actors/actresses that came in the scenes. The camera work was non pleasing itself. Random shots and shaky film scenes made me quite annoyed and I turned the film off. I will make up my time by watching the 1999 adaption and hope that it fits agreeable along with Sense and Sensibility; Emma; Becoming Jane; and Pride and Prejudice. I've only a few others to watch besides these films but I believe they were done in great taste. The music was kind of out of place with the film also, reminding me of another show I had seen this year. It was called Hex and a show from BBC. I came across it one night on the web. I rather liked the first season but the second season was dry and pulling things out of thin air that should of stayed with the clouds. I found the main male character who was Henry in this film out of place. Perhaps I just do not like his way of speaking or his stature. Well I would not recommend this film to anyone unless they were going to have it muted and they wanted to look at the fashion of the era, or the way homes were kept at the time. Again I will watch the 1999 version and hope it is a better and does Jane Austen some justice to her writing.
I started to take a critical view on this adaptation within the first few minutes but as a dedicated Jane Austen fan I persevered through to the end... However, this is not a programme I would recommend to someone unfamiliar with her work as I don't think it does the book justice, nor makes particularly entertaining television in its own right. There was something about this adaptation that lacked believability - many of the costumes and even the actors did not have an authentic look and I found the acting to be, at times, poor. There is no doubt that the actors were all very good-looking, but this didn't provide enough variety to create really diverse, memorable characters. It was far too static being set entirely in the same location and missing out Fanny's return home, which is one of the most interesting parts of the story. The best actor was Blake Ritson, who captured the wholesomeness of Edmund very well, and the Crawfords were effectively cast too. I do like Billie Piper as an actress, but this role did not suit her and was much better played by Frances O'Connor in the 1999 version who gave overall a far more subtle and convincing performance. Jane Austen adaptations will always provide a love story to leave you feeling good but unfortunately, this is one of the worst I have seen.
As a fan of nearly any period drama, and at that a huge Jane Austen fan, I was horrified by this adaption. As a fan of the 1999 version of Mansfield Park, I was constantly comparing the two and this fell far short. It felt hugely rushed and very one-dimensional so that it became boring very quickly. There seemed to be no subtly to the relationships, particularly that of Fanny and Edmund, and little atmosphere despite being set in a beautiful location. Despite having looked forward to the Jane Austen season since Christmas I turned this off after an hour and went to bed. I will be interested to watch the adaptations of Persuasion and Northanger Abbey, of which I have no much-loved version, to see if they still manage to bore me in such a manner.
What a crappy movie! The main character in this movie was supposed to be born and brought up in Canada, yet he had a thicker Indian accent than his parents! Is it just me or does Uday look gay in this movie? Also, do all the chicks in Canada dress like sluts? At least that's how it is in this movie. All the females are dressed like strippers. Don't waste your time with this one! The only good thing about this movie is the setting in beautiful Vancouver. Wonder why Bollywood is going through a slump? It's because of movies like this. I miss the good old' days when Hindi movies were actually entertaining!I couldn't even finish this movie because it was so bad. I think Bollywood needs to stop trying to replicate the style of Hollywood because it's just not working out. They need to stick to their roots because that's what makes Indian movies entertaining.
this is the worst film i have ever seen and what disappoints me the most is that this is yash raj film so at first when you see the promos you think yes thats definitely another yash raj hit But when you see the film your eyes will water with disappoint the storyline is stupid and dumb we've seen it many times boy is soon to marry and falls in love with a girl blah blah blah. if you do see this pathetic film don't go with you family there is too much exposure and kiss scene. i don even see why you would go to see it on your own. overall this is a disgraceful disgusting and anything else which is bad and starts with a d film don't go to see it you'll end up hating yash ji and yash raj films
It is definitely not worth spending either money or time. It is the same hackneyed plot of a guy and a girl meeting and falling in love. But this is with a western touch. But it fails miserably in either depicting a love story or giving it the western touch. Never do we feel that the hero and heroin are in love. There is no depth to either of their characters. Probably, with a better cast, some justice could have been brought about to the characters. Finally, it is a movie with no fun, no acting, no theme, no plot, no comedy , no action, no thrill, no romance (i associate romance to something more passionate). Definitely not a movie you would want to go with your family. Overall, if you are looking for a movie with some content, this is definitely not an option. I shall wait for the day when bollywood movies are something that i can wait to watch and i can refer to my friends as a "must watch" movie.
Yash Raj films are so funny, whatever works they follow it yet they are called the best production house?<br /><br />Seeing Bhatt films working they copied the formula, bikini and everything plus casting low actors like Uday and Tanishaa<br /><br />The film is so horrible it makes you cringe<br /><br />the jokes are so bad and horny it makes you slap them Uday resembles a gay plus a monkey<br /><br />Tanishaa resembles an idiot <br /><br />The director thinks we all are idiots Arjun Sablok takes the audience for granted Music is saving grace Camera-work is good<br /><br />Uday Chopra hams like an idiot, Tanishaa looks like Kajol in K3g if Kajol was annoying der then Tanishaa is worse the rest are okay
Neal N Nikki is voted on of the Worst films of the year by Planetbollywood. Its hard to believe the famous Chopra's have produced this lousy movie. It was presented as a movie for the family, but turns out to be a ridiculous sex comedy. Nor does it make you laugh, but cry of boredom and nor does it have any sexy girls to make the film look sexy. The title song is the most annoying song of the decade, I'm the Neil, I'm the man, rock star superstar. Uday Chopra is one of Bollywood's worst actors ever with no acting talent. After making many Super Flops, and not receiving any movies from a producer rather then his Family. He gives a total crap performance, that bores you to death. Tanisha, who is and will always be known for being Kajol's sister, gives a dreadful performance. Both actors have the most annoying chemistry, and are very immature for their age. It has a special appearance by the very cute Richa Pollad, in a pathetic role. The ending was so daft and stupid, I cant believe i actually paid money to rent this crap.
I'd give this film a 1/10. This film is devoid of common cinematic substance and concentrates way too much upon the current "skin trend" in Bollywood movies. I'd definitely not recommend teenagers to watch this movie. What really makes me feel dejected is how could such an impressive banner like Yash Chopra Films ever succumb to such an awful production? They have perhaps forgotten to keep in view that there is a larger audience than "adult" audience too, which when exposed to these sort of gross movies,may wreck their growing mind set and succumb to things devoid of sense and recognition.<br /><br />On the whole, films must not only be entertaining, but also must comprise of some sense as well. Certainly, this film is an immense disappointment to Yash Chopra fans, especially me myself. I am really disappointed over the plot, acting and everything else. Why can't people put in some substance that can be cherished after confronted with in the films, at least for once throughout the film? The point is clear. I'd like to put my opinion in short: "Horrible - Disappointment - Lot of Adult Material - Lack of sensible "substance" - Lack of normal psyche - Worthless - Could grab a Cornetto or a Temptations chocolate instead"
I agree that this movie is about sex without any seduction or love. In fact, it makes sex seem so boring and makes me wonder why bother. I actually don't think at all this remotely speaks of how Canadian Indian second generations feel about sex. At any rate, did you know the first hotel/drunk idea was copied from a Korean movie, Yopgijogin gunyo, made in 2001 or thereabouts? That Korean film was actually brilliant as comedy but at the same time compels the audience to reflect on the complexity of man-woman relationships and man-woman difference in experience and thinking. I mean most of the Neal N Nikki hotel/drunk segment was emulated take by take. Can't Bollywood movie makers try to make originals only, please? Seriously, I never enjoyed a Hindi flick that is a copycat. The ones I enjoy have always spoken Indian feelings through Indian cultural means.
I did have some expectations from this film because 1. It was a Yash raj production 2. When the songs were first shown on TV, they seemed catchy 3. The star(??!) cast was new. Well, I must tell u that I just couldn't sit through this movie. Uday, (with his red lips-what were the make up artists thinking???!) tries hard to look cool but fails miserably. I won't even get started on his acting (if u can call it that). 'Cleavage queen' Tanisha with all her screaming and ranting n raving just makes you want to pull your hair out in frustration. I think Uday was slightly more tolerable than her! She seriously needs to take acting lessons from her sister. The story is pathetic...the same old tried and tested formula. Absolutely no originality. There is nothing worth watching in this movie. Makes me wonder why it was made in the first place!
Oh my god, WHY, did I waste my precious time on this film? It is pathetic, waaaay OTT and unrealistic, and one of the worst films I have ever seen in my life. Yes, MY LIFE. I am embarrassed for Yash Raj films, the poor guys have to live with the horrible news that yes, they produced this terrible film.<br /><br />This is by far, the most, trashy, sexual, eyebrow-raising movie I have ever seen by Yash Raj Films. I cringe for them, I really do. Along with the terrible acting (or NO acting, for that matter) by Uday Chopra, combined with the lack of talent of the "Look At My Boobs" Tanisha, Neal 'n' Nikki has not one good thing about it at all. Even the music is not upto the standard left by YRF. The director, Arjun Sablok, did an embarrassingly bad job here.<br /><br />Honestly, I expected more. Much, much more.
This movie is not worth anything. I mean, if you want to watch this kind of stuff, flip to Hollywood movies! This totally is a disgrace to the Bollywood name. Neal N Nikki seriously sucked! Never watch this movie. As for the actors, it appears the acting genes skipped a generation. Tanisha couldn't have worn less and Uday Chopra obviously was just picked because he was the director's spoiled son. (All of that Halla Re was amazingly stupid) The songs are eh, and I hope the director did not spend to much money on it...... Bottom line, I hated the movie. Do not let your kids watch it, and if you have it in your house it is a stupid movie so discard it! Buy the CD, if you must. (As I said, the songs are eh.) At least it is better then the movie.
This movie is very modern and forward. It is about 75% in English. It is aimed at English-speaking multiplex-going young audience. Basic plot is similar to DDLJ. Acting is below average.<br /><br />Unfortunately they are portraying a wrong picture and setting a bad example for the youngsters. Tanisha is shown drinking from a bottle, or taking shots of tequila about 5-6 times in the movie. The director does not even acknowledge she is an alcoholic and has a drinking problem. All through the movie she only wears bikini tops whether she is at work, at a beach or at a wedding. The heroine of the movie doing this makes the youngsters feel this behaviour is acceptable.<br /><br />The less that is said about failure of Uday Chopra doing Shahrukh Khan's DDLJ role of arrogant girl-chaser, the better. The movie is about equality of sexes. But equality should not be about making the same mistakes, instead about doing the right to do the right thing. If men have been shown as chronic Casanovas in movies, does not mean women should also portray same behaviour.<br /><br />Even though the movie is made in light-hearted fun spirit, it promotes so many wrong social notions in the name of being forward, that "fun" part of the movie makes no impact. Not even in Canada women dress like this, or guys behave like they have shown in the movie. It is certainly not a reflection of Indian society or even Canadian society. Perhaps they should have a disclaimer at the beginning stating, "All characters and events in the movie are imaginary and do not reflect the actual culture of the cities and countries mentioned in the film." The only good thing about this movie is the length, 1.5 hrs, thank god.
If this is film noir, then noir must be French for glacially slow. Take a cast of completely unlikeable characters, give them nothing to say, punctuate the whole thing with gratuitous ultra-violence, and you've got the formula for an aggravated Dash. Could be subtitled "Sleazy Hollywood types attempt to make money from Chinatown rip-off". Bruce Dern's one minute part is orders of magnitude better than anything else in this flick. By the way, I didn't like the film.
A special unit of four police detectives are dispensing justice in their own unique way in 1950s Los Angeles. Nick Nolte plays Max Hoover, the unit's lead officer and his partners are played by Michael Madsen, Chazz Palminteri and Chris Penn. Also starring are Melanie Griffith, Jennifer Connelly and John Malkovich among others. Quite an impressive list of names. Unfortunately that is the only thing even remotely impressive about this film.<br /><br />Our story begins when young Allison Pond, played by Connelly, turns up dead in a remote area of town currently under development. Our band of four detectives is called in and it is immediately obvious that Nolte's Max Hoover is going to be taking a very personal interest in this case. We will soon find out that Allison, in addition to knowing Hoover quite well, was also involved with some rather important military and government types who may have had reason to want her dead. But who exactly was involved and why exactly would they want this seemingly harmless woman dead? Hoover and crew set out to find out. Sounds like an interesting premise but unfortunately it goes nowhere.<br /><br />Despite the impressive array of names, the acting here leaves much to be desired. Nolte is overacting, Madsen seems incredibly bored, Palminteri and Malkovich come off as caricatures, Penn has hardly anything to do and Griffith is dull as can be. By far the best performance is Connelly's in all too fleeting flashback sequences. The dialogue throughout the film is forced and wooden. The sense of drama you would expect from a mystery of this type is missing altogether. Nothing dramatic really happens. In fact nothing at all seems to happen for the bulk of the picture. Instead we just slog along towards a rather ludicrous and incredibly disappointing climax. When the "mystery" is solved you may find yourself saying, "Oh come on now, is that all there is?" But it gets worse as after the mystery is solved we get a completely ridiculous and utterly unbelievable action sequence. And even then we are made to suffer further as another awful, badly acted, completely unnecessary scene is tacked on at the end. And then mercifully it is over. And not a moment too soon.
The four LA cops in fedoras driving around in a big black convertible look faintly absurd, and even more ridiculous when it turns out that Nick Nolte, the dumbest-looking of the lot, is in charge. The writer never manages to create a spirit of camaraderie among the squad members, and the director fails to wring articulacy out of the man-mountain Nolte. Foprget questioning anyone. Nolte's character lights a cigaret, gets mad, and beats interviewees to a pulp. His methods get him nowhere, until at one point in the action he is wandering from tossed residence to tossed residence with his mouth open and his brain shut. He smashes up an FBI squad, and throws two military officers out of a plane in flight, with only a vague report of anger at HQ and no punishment at all. At the end of the film he is as gormless and muscle-bound as he was at the outset. How he managed to get a beautiful whore to fall deeply in love with him is a mystery, as is the eternal devotion and tragic sense of betrayal expressed by his jobless wife. Two interesting shots in the picture: one, of an atomic explosion, the other of a gigantic crater, ostensibly caused by a Bomb. It's almost as wrecked and puffy as Nolte's face.
I saw this movie on the shelf at Blockbuster and thought it looked cool. The DVD case touted so many great actors and I wondered to myself, "Why have I never heard of this movie?" Then I turned over the case and saw the director, Lee Tamahori, and thus the answer began to explain itself. <br /><br />First of all I want to defeat the idea that a great cast equals a great movie, but more importantly, I think I should explain why this movie is so terrible. Okay, the script is awful and full of one dimensional characters. This is the worst role I've ever seen Chazz Palminteri play and I'm surprised he would do something this ridiculous. However, under-appreciated yet talented actors must earn their money. Palminteri plays a one dimensional police detective who comes off about as dumb as a C-movie mob henchman. Him, along with the lead detective (the poorly directed Nolte), the great but simple Michael Madsen, and the late Chris Penn (whose role along with Madsen's was completely thrown away) make up an elite squad of LA detectives tasked to rid the city of mobsters sometime in the late 30s or 40s. The movie introduces this squad as cops who will break every law to make sure those who think they're above the law don't operate in their city. At the beginning of the film the cops rough up a local restaurant, grab an alleged mobster (William Peterson) and take him to a place they call the Mulholland Falls. They toss him off one of the cliffs on Mullholland Drive and this is supposed to demonstrate how serious these guys are about ridding the city of crime. Whatever. This was nothing more than a cheap excuse to use a crappy title that's designed to make you think of LA and its famous sites. Somewhere later on they find the dead body of Jennifer Connelly and the plot begins. <br /><br />On to the direction which was nothing short of amateur and WEAK! Aside from the fact that the characters were B-movie quality, the overacting by those such as Treat Williams, the guy who plays the chief of police, and the awful Daniel Baldwin are just a few highlights that made this movie seem like it was Lee Tamhori's first film. There's not one good performance in the movie aside from maybe Melanie Griffith, who some might argue was the worst in the movie (she won a Razzie for this film). In the end, it was her character that was not that great and she really didn't have much to work with. <br /><br />As with any bad movie, it all begins with the writing, and this script was no gem. Plot is formulated simply on the basis of setting up the next scene and never takes into consideration characters' motivations. The way the characters behaved was unbelievable. Cops taking the law into their own hands is believable within the right circumstances (see LA CONFIDENTIAL) but in this case it looked like these guys could get away with anything, including murder, and never bat an eye about cleaning anything up. I guess we as an audience are just supposed to assume that no one saw anything and that people won't ask questions. Everything about the story is predictable and is spoon fed so well that we understand everything that's going to happen a good while before the characters do. However, it doesn't make us feel smart, but rather makes us angry at how stupid the hero is, despite the fact that there aren't any heroes in this movie. <br /><br />In the end, the best component of the movie was the great score by David Grusin. From the beginning, it invoked a since of CHINATOWN, which quickly faded when I realized how unbelievable just about everything in the film was. It didn't surprise me to learn that it made a whopping eleven million in the box office. What I will say is that this film is worth watching for a few laughs. Nick Nolte's acting is like an unsuccessfully domesticated junkyard dog and I laughed every time he tried to be serious. I also nearly fell on the floor at each of the slow motion shots used in the film (I think there are three with one during a key fight scene). When you have to use slow motion in the heat of a dramatic moment, you clearly have some problems. So, even with my negative criticism, I will recommend this movie solely for the purpose of enticing laughter, that is, if you appreciate the good movies like LA CONFIDENTIAL.
I went to see this film at the cinema on the strength of its potentially interesting subject matter, good cast, a director who had previously done the highly-rated "Once Were Warriors" and my liking for noir-ish films set in L.A. in the Forties and Fifties. I would argue that I am reasonably easy to please in this film category; I appreciate the classics of the genre but I will sit through and enjoy a half-decent if derivative effort as well. However, I found this film completely unbearable.<br /><br />Despite a good situation in which to place the story, nobody seems to do or say anything remotely interesting or entertaining in the whole two-hours plus of this sorry mess. Good actors are wasted in endless scenes of dialogue ranging from banal to embarrassing. The narrative is slack and drags unbearably, and none of the events it depicts is handled well enough to do anything other than bore the audience to death. There is no drama, no atmosphere, no tension, absolutely no entertainment value and by the end I simply didn't care what happened because I did not believe in anything in the film.<br /><br />L.A. Confidential came out a year later and regardless of whether one version of the story is more true-to-life, the latter film deservedly gets all the plaudits for its excellence in every department. Mulholland Falls by contrast fails in every department, a fact made all the more tragic by the amount of talent involved. If they ever show this on a plane I will still walk out.
William Petersen (that C.S.I guy) has a small uncredited role but it's the best part of the movie. His character comes across smart ass and tough, and it's a fun surprise to see him in this. He has a range that allows him to play just about anything. After his 5 minutes, it goes from looking cool to just nothing much. It leaves you hoping that his character will reappear in the movie but after 20 minutes you give up hope. The movie itself is pretty poor. Worth a watch on TMN or a pick up at the library but not much more. Too much of it reminds you of L.A Confidential except that where that movie starts to get complicated upon itself, this one is so loose, it steers everywhere but where it should. 2 out of 5 stars
I rented this movie, because I noticed the cover in the video rental store. I saw Nolte, Connely, Madsen, 40's time setting, and thought "hmm, can't be too bad." Unfortunately, after watching it, my impression was "not too good".<br /><br />Its kind of a Chinatown ripoff, but the worst part is that other than Nolte, the other members of the squad didn't get enough screen time. But its a decent movie to see once I guess. And Melanie's role was small enough that she wasn't given a chance to be a nuisance.
I was hoping this would be a good weekly vehicle for Tim Curry, one of my all-time favorite performers. Alas and alack, it is NOT. There doesn't seem to be any chemistry between anyone on the show, the dialogue is decidedly uninspired, and even the laugh track appeared to be laboring. Brutal.
This film is absolute trash and proceeds to become even worse towards the, very protracted, end! <br /><br />The plot is confused and laboured, the actors have a couldn't care less attitude (maybe they were paid in advance - bad move, or knew they weren't going to get paid), and the sets were featureless, boring and cheap.<br /><br />I fell asleep twice and actually decided to not bother with the last 5 minutes as I assumed the actors would have fallen asleep themselves by then. More unrecoverable life time wasted!<br /><br />If you must watch it, then take it to the bedroom and forget the sleeping pills for once. But maybe you'll need an antidepressant instead!<br /><br />Sometimes it's good if celluloid degrades.
Watched this months ago on Netflix Instant and left a review there.<br /><br />Let me say, most of the other reviews are very accurate. This movie was bad writing, bad acting and bad directing. I too, had liked Russell and Pare "back in the old days" and was very hopeful for them. In my Netflix review, I mentioned that I lost interest in the film and proceeded to wash the dishes and make a sandwich, yet still watching the movie from the kitchen. When I did return to the living room, I was very confused as the last 5 minutes of the film unfolded. I even rewound it to make sure I was not missing anything. This film totally crapped out on how to do a "twist" ending. I suspect that the idea sounded good, maybe the script was intriguing, but the budget was so non-existent that sets were really lacking. And yes, I suppose all those "bad sets" were an effort to give the viewer a clue. All it told me was "low budget."<br /><br />Anyway, the reason I came here, was because over the weekend I saw a review of Shutter Island, and with what the reviewers were saying, or not saying, lead me to believe that Shutter Island is the same deal, only with a budget 50 to 60 times more! (Actually I have no idea how much Dark World cost, but I HOPE they didn't spend more than 1 million!)<br /><br />So, that being said, I kinda thought that if someone reworked the script a bit, got a bigger budget for a better "look" (whether that meant a better scenic designer, or better post coloring, just someone with a vision,) they could remake Dark World into a passable product. Now it sounds like Shutter Island is doing that. Looks like they got the vision right, but the scripting could still be off. Money can't buy everything, but it should in Hollywood!<br /><br />PS My 2 star rating is for Russell and Pare.
Once upon a time Theresa Russell made a few halfway decent movies, so I keep hoping that one of her efforts from the past decade or two will merit a rating of at least 6 or 7 (out of 10). However, DARK WORLD is just the latest in a string of disappointments. The first 90 minutes are very hard to watch. The lines are delivered by the lead actors as if they are being read at a first rehearsal or even a casting session (in which the actors are doing it for the sake of their agents, but do not really want the parts for which they are perfunctorily reading). The sets and props seem "off" somehow (what kind of a police department would allow a detective to have a whole living room wall shelved full of case file holders?). The screen is constantly cluttered with meaningless time and datelines, which appear with no rhyme or reason. Now, if the scriptwriter were standing here after the lights go up from a film fest screening, they no doubt would crow about how all these shortcomings are REALLY clever clues to the plot turning topsy-turvy in this misfire's final five minutes. Well, for those audience members whose only other movie experiences are TV: THE MOVIE and SURFER, DUDE; they might be bamboozled into nodding their heads in agreement. But it is hard to believe that ANYONE who has seen 10 or more movies in their life--and is not a close friend or relative of a DARK WORLD cast or crew member--could fall for such a lame canard. Despite what the d.v.d. box might lead you to believe, this movie has about as much resemblance to SUNSET BOULEVARD (dead narrator device) or Hitchcock (schizophrenic protagonist device) as a drained Jim Beam bottle refilled with urine has to booze!
The film starts out with a narration of the protagonist explaining certain crimes occurring all over the city and then we get to know that the hero is a cop who is either suspended or has probably retired. I did not have the patience or the interest to verify the above before commenting. If there is a stereotype for narrators to have a deep, sleep-inducing voice then, it is high time to put an end to it. I seriously fell asleep and did not bother to shut the movie down either. Am still trying to figure out what the movie was all about and why there were no outdoor shootings. A third rate TV Serial will have more number of sets compared to this crap of a movie and I still pity the actors and producers involved in this huge bullshit of a movie. It ought to have been produced as a normal TV serial or maybe even as a local theater drama instead of putting it out on the big screen. Total waste of time and money. The movie was supposed to be in production for a long time and it would have been better to have left it that way.With redundant sleep inducing dialogs and sets, this is the worst movie I have come across.
When George Sluizer was told he could direct an American version of the book "Het Gouden Ei"/the movie "Spoorloos"(outside Holland, this movie has the name "the Vanishing" too), he was told that this would only go through if the ending was changed - He was told that 'the American Audience' wouldn't approve the original ending. Of course, the original ending is much better, and without it, the movie loses its impact. Because I have already put this in the trivia section, I won't give the original ending and keep my comment spoiler-free. If you want to know the original ending, watch "Spoorloos" or read the book. This movie is absolute rubbish, and the first Kiefer Sutherland movie I don't like. Watch the original Dutch movie, which is one of the best thrillers in the world.
Skip this Hollywood version, a real piece of garbage. A cheap insult to the brilliant original "Spoorloos", or by the English title also called "The Vanishing". It completely misses the mark in typical, grotesque Hollywood fashion, usually due to a bunch of talentless, corporate bean counters who haven't the vaguest idea about anything artistic, they just look for the "successful formula" and want it applied to everything to glean a profit. Much like the awful "The Scarlet Letter" made in 1995, which twisted the original story around so much to suit the MacDonaldsland crowd, that it became an aberration, not even a bastardization, but a pile of goop that has been sort of shaped similar but does not look, feel or even remotely resemble the spirit of the original. Except that movie at least had Gary Oldman, who is interesting to watch in anything he does. This dog has nothing going for it, even the usually very talented Jeff Bridges is an embarrassment. Great tragedy is not nor never should be "the feel good movie of the year" but rather takes one or more of the sadly much too frequent tragic events in life and allows the reader/viewer to draw meaning and insight into the human condition.<br /><br />Do yourself a great favor if you're looking for a rental and skip this grotesque garbage and pick up the original made in a Dutch/French collaboration in 1988. That is a great film. This is a horrific mess.
George Sluizer's original version of The Vanishing aka The Man Who Wanted to Know offers one of European cinema's most quietly disturbing sociopaths and one of the most memorable finales of all time (shamelessly stolen by Tarantino for Kill Bill Volume Two), but it has plenty more to offer than that. Playing around with chronology and inverting the usual clichés of standard 'lady vanishes' plots, it also offers superb characterisation and strong, underplayed but convincing performances.<br /><br />Unfortunately, I can only assume that when it came to the remake, Sluizer was so determined that no-one else was going to get the chance to ruin his film when he was perfectly capable of doing it himself, but few people could have anticipated how comprehensively he trashes his own work. His career never recovered from this disastrous misstep.<br /><br />Chief culprit is an astonishing performance by Jeff Bridges that has been over thought through in every detail to a truly disastrous level. A friend who produced one of his earliest movies noted that Bridges was a great instinctive actor as long as you stopped him thinking about what he was doing, and this film is the proof of the pudding. Every movement is overly mechanical in its precision, making him look like a rusty clockwork toy, while his voice is a bizarre mixture of Tootsie, Latka Gravas from Taxi and a Dalek who have all been taking elocution lessons from Dok-tah E-ville. No banality of evil here, just a looney walking around with an invisible sign over his head saying "Please. Let. Me. Kill. You. Thank you. For your. Consideration.' But the blame really needs to be shared out here. None of the performances are good: often, they don't even look good – Keifer Sutherland looks more like a baby hamster than a distraught man at his wits end in the hurried scenes at the gas station, Nancy Travis flounders badly and Sandra Bullock makes no impression at all as the object of his obsession. Not that they're given any help by either director or writer Todd Graff. The script is particularly weak. The chronology has been altered to put the focus firmly on Bridges at the expense of the couple at the opening of the film. Worse is the rush the film is in, draining the life and character from each scene in its race to get to the next. Rather than the high/low mood shifts in the couple's relationship or the apparently casual but careful establishing of the feel of the location, we just get a couple of arguments that give you the impression that he's probably better off without her. As for the new and improved happy ending – standard woman chased by nutter in the woods jeopardy stuff complete with lame 'let's end on a joke like a TV cop show' moment – best not go there… which is advice that holds for this entire trainwreck of a movie. Even a shockingly bland and uninspired Jerry Goldsmith score can't do anything for this one.
I know it's hard for you Americans to find European films on video/DVD, particularly from the 80's but please seek out the original version of the Vanishing - title Spoorloos (1988) - and you'll see why the Hollywood version of The Vanishing screws up bigtime, particularly at the finale.<br /><br />I really like Sandra Bullock, Kiefer Sutherland and particularly Jeff Bridges, but this is just so so lame compared with the original. What where they thinking? Can you imagine Seven with a happy ending with Gwyneth Paltrow running happily into the arms of Brad Pitt in the finale? The whole point the original was such a major international success was because of the shocking finale. So why do you accept this kind of shyte remake? Really, avoid this and GET THE ORIGINAL.
*spoiler alert!* it just gets to me the nerve some people have to remake (and i use the term loosely here..) good movies. in the american version of this dutch thriller, someone decided the original ending wasn't pasteurized enough for american audiences. so what do they do? they create a new one! a stupid, improbable, i-pretend-i'm-dead-but-come-to-life-again-so-the-good-guy-can-kick-my-butt- some-more kind of ending. do yourself a favor and get the original one.
If I had to pick the most depressing movie, try to be suspenseful I've seen it'd be this one. I know about how good the original is supposed to be, it had better be better then this one. The movie's so dark and depressing but it isn't interesting to watch either-I've seen depressing "thriler" type movies that were saved because of the suspense to counteratc and balence the dark quality. Vanishing didn't have that, This was so disturbing to watch to begin with and there was nothing positive to make this a classic type movie. I think another IMDb poster got it right in saying this genre has just seen thrillers done in a far superior way. I completely agree-I would recommend skipping this one-maybe I'll watch the original some day but I doubt it. I give this a 2 out of 10.
This is the most frightening film ever made in Hollywood. It is a cautionary tale of how to take a European masterpiece and suck the life of of it until it is a dry husk like an insect carcass on the the windowsill. Frightening because it reveals how the world of Hollywood really works: ignorant money begetting dross. It makes me wonder how many great films could populate the corridors of my memory if the Hollywood process had not leveled them to forgettable mediocrity. Cry for the murdered children! See Spoorloos or read The Golden Egg, if you dare, because they will come back to you forever in the idle moments of your life: when you're walking along the street and you see a 'missing' poster; in ordinary-looking parking lots; when you hear the Tour De France on the radio; and, especially, when you you think "what's the harm?" in wearing a sock with a hole in it on a perfectly ordinary day.<br /><br />If only I could give this a zero.
Man, what an awful film. As with many terrible films, the structure of its awfulness lies in the script. This is such a pathetic attempt at a psychological thriller that it gives the entire genre a bad name. Okay, here's one major problem: Sandra Bullock's character is abducted by Jeff Bridges in his car at a busy convenience store in broad daylight. Somehow, her boyfriend Kiefer Sutherland doesn't find a single witness to this act and subsequently spends most of the movie completely clueless as to her whereabouts. Come on! Personally, I find this completely insulting to even the dimmest of audience members. Yet we are forced to buy into this nonsense. Of equal frustration is the poorly explained motive for Jeff Bridges's actions. His character is a bit of an eccentric academic, to be sure, but far from the sociopath who would do these things. He goes through about ten minutes, give or take, spilling his beans to Sutherland as to why he has performed his cruel actions. But the explanation itself lacks even the most elementary sense of logic. Therefore, no intelligent audience member can really believe in the possibility of his evil. And if you subtract that element from the story, the entire thing falls apart.<br /><br />Also of major concern: -Jeff Bridges using a weird, pseudo-French accent for no reason.<br /><br />-The entire boring subplot involving Nancy Travis, most especially her saving the day by turning the tables on Bridges.<br /><br />-The crazy woman who somehow manages to remember Jeff Bridges' license plate number despite also thinking that the Lucky Charms leprechaun is real.<br /><br />-Sandra Bullock's character's name, Diane Shaver, conveniently re-scrambles to form the word "vanished". Are you friggin' kidding me?? -The logistical impossibility of drugging, abducting, and burying (in a very remote location) a human being within the span of forty minutes (as Bridges specifically alludes to).<br /><br />This is a movie that made me remember the fictional, impossibly stupid (yet very successful) Donald Kaufman character in Adaptation. Many screenwriters are brilliant, inspired artists. Some are just bozos who convince the nitwits running the studios to make their drivel. This particular script is so stunningly dimwitted that Donald Kaufman himself would have managed to sell it. Unfortunately for all of us in the real world, Todd Graff actually did.
I've watched this movie, after having seen the original "Spoorloos" a few times, in anticipation of the chilling ending.<br /><br />I can't even begin to explain the anger and disappointment that I experienced when the ending came, and went, and the movie continued to have a happy ending. What a waste of time it was watching this US remake...<br /><br />If you have a choice, please skip "The Vanishing" and watch the Dutch original "Spoorloos". The suspense is very well built-up. You feel the frustration of Rex, in search of any trace of what might have happened to his girlfriend Saskia, after she entered a gas-station and never returned to his car. The search takes him three years, and when he finally gets in touch with the person who knows the truth about what happened to Saskia, he must agree to undergo the same thing that Saskia has undergone. The ending leaves you speechless in your chair....
A couple are split apart during a vacation. Early scenes lead us to believe Barney, Jeff Bridges' character, has kidnapped the girl in an unexplained but premeditated abduction. The film plays out some years later where, despite a new love interest, Jeff (Kiefer Sutherland) is determined to solve her disappearance.<br /><br />The storyline is definitely intriguing but there have been some really bad decisions made during the making of this film, culminating a pretty shoddy piece of work.<br /><br />OK here we go. The abduction scene - aside from two major continuity errors there is a point where Sandra Bullock and Kiefer Sutherland are made to perform a little signed-pet-love-ritual that's drowned in over-sentimentality to the point of nausea. We know they're in love; the "I do solemnly swear never to leave you" speech only moments prior was ample thank you. Jeff Bridges' robot accent is another example. What is that for? Starman is back and it seems after a decade on the planet, he's turned nasty. The entire plot is then able to be resolved by the introduction of a needless character who, by a rather fortunate twist of fate, has quite miraculous powers of observation. The climactic sequence itself has essentially been done before only much, much better. It's riddled with further annoyances and another blinding continuity blunder. I could go on but something positive needs to be said. At a stretch, Kiefer Sutherland is the only one to save face with a fairly decent performance.<br /><br />The 1988 original of the same name (changed from the Dutch title 'Spoorloos' for English speaking audiences) was recommended to me, only for an online rental company to send me this later Hollywood version by mistake. I was surprised to find both having been Directed by George Sluizer and would be interested to know his motivation for the remake. I am reliably and thankfully informed it is of a much higher quality in all areas including plot. Horah for that, but it really doesn't take much doing.
A real insult to the original "Spoorloos", which is one of the most genuinely disturbing films (and I intend this as a compliment!) I have seen in the last years.<br /><br />Where the original is chilling and brilliant, the remake is flat and even boring, especially the "happy end" finale takes away what little suspense there was in this film in the first place.<br /><br />While such a distortion (especially grafting a "happy end" which wasn't there previously) is quite frequently the case in "Hollywood" remakes of European art-house movies and could've been expected, the biggest disappointment lies in the fact that this inane mess was created by the very same filmmaker who did the original "Spoorloos"...<br /><br />Why Mr. Sluizer decided to ruin his masterpiece in such a fashion is beyond me.<br /><br />Avoid this abomination at all cost, as it might spoil the original for you even if watched *after* that, let alone the other way round...
I can't believe this movie has 6 stars on IMDb. This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen that wasn't an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. The plot is predictable. I couldn't bring myself to care about any of the characters. The dialog is cheesy. Several moments in the movie actually made me groan out loud (including Kiefer Southerland's crazy neighbor and the incredibly lame joke that ends the movie). Jeff Bridges' accent is goofy - I can't tell what country he's supposed to be from. It has to be one of the least thrilling thrillers I've ever seen as well...after Sandra Bullock's character disappears, absolutely nothing happens to advance the story for a good 45 minutes. I would give this movie a negative amount of stars if I could.
There are just so many things wrong with this movie.<br /><br />Jeff Bridges weird accent.<br /><br />Rita's ability to crack the password code <br /><br />The entire script <br /><br />The ending - esp the last scene when two coffees are brought to the table for Jeff and Rita and the publisher. J & R laugh and say "We don;t drink coffee anymore". Well, why did they order it then??? They obviously did. If they didn't and the waiter brought everyone a coffee by default there would have been three coffees.<br /><br />Total Tosh.
This movie was so poorly acted. What was with Jeff Bridges accent, horrible and unbelievable. Was it supposed to be French, Scandinavian?The script was lame. To have the heroine trip over the grave of her boyfriend while running from the Jeff Bridges character...are you kidding me? How convenient that Jeff brings his dirty shovel in the house after he disposes of bodies in his lawn. Do these people just not believe in calling the cops? Okay...I'll get into the car with you, why not? DUH! Why was Bridge's daughter obsessed with making her dad have an affair, is her mother that evil or just plain dull? I did not see the original, it would be hard to make myself after seeing this movie.
George Sluizer's remake of his own - superior - film is a complete waste of time. Why was it even attempted? Kiefer Sutherland plays Jeff Harriman, whose girlfriend (Sandra Bullock, who only has a small amount of screen time)is abducted at a service station by Barney Cousins (Jeff Bridges). Now, Barney is portrayed as the kind of guy that no one would trust in a month of Sundays - he lopes about like Frankenstein's Monster but without the sympathy, and Bridges' acting is totally awful. Sutherland comes across a little better when his character turns detective with the help of new love interest Rita Baker (Nancy Travis).<br /><br />A major problem with this version of 'The Vanishing' is its obvious need to cater to Hollywood audiences by avoiding the bleak ending of the original film. Here the ending is happy which seems forced and unbelievable, and completely wrecks the story. However by this time the damage has been done as Jeff Bridges turns the bad guy into a huge laugh.
Most American remakes of European films are pretty poor, but this is in a league of its own. In fact this might even be the worst (Sandra Bullock) movie ever made. I daresay I might have passed it off as just another innocuously bad Hollywood thriller had I not seen the Dutch original, SPOORLOOS. The altered ending here is stupid enough (and executed with particular ineptitude), but a far worse crime than that is removing all the intelligence and depth of character that marked out the original as a classic. The real horror to be found here is in the fact that the same man who directed SPOORLOOS is responsible for this atrocity. Will the real George Sluizer please stand up?
More suspenseful, more subtle, much, much more disturbing....
In Thailand, the Americans Connor (Colin Egglesfield) and his girlfriend Amanda (Meredith Monroe) quarrel in a Muay-Thai fight, and Amanda leaves Connor alone. She asks the direction of the hotel to a stranger, indeed the mean vampire Niran (Don Hetrakul), and she is bitten and kidnapped by his gang of evil vampires in motorcycles. Connor joins to a clan of "good" vampires leaded by Sang (Stephanie Chao), trying to save Amanda from the claws of Niran.<br /><br />I expected that "Vampires: The Turning" were a good movie. The locations and the cinematography are beautiful; the very heavy music score is excellent; Stephanie Chao is gorgeous and attractive; but unfortunately, the screenplay and the director are terrible and the very loose costume of Meredith Monroe does not help her fallen breasts. The story is very short, and the unknown Marty Weiss uses long scenes with motorcycle race, fights and boring flashbacks to complete a minimum running time for film. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Vampiros: A Conversão" ("Vampires: The Conversion")
Even though this was set up to be a showcase for some kickboxing and swordplay, "Vampires: The Turning" (VTT) could have aspired beyond that. Because it doesn't even aspire to be a good vampire movie, VTT fails to deliver any punch that it may have been attempting to.<br /><br />Using the idea of an 800-year-old thai vampire was interesting, but the story about progeny she mistakenly brought into existence (and now must wipe out) actually reminds me of Gizmo and his plight in "Gremlins," and that isn't a good thing when it come to a vampire flick.<br /><br />Stephanie Chao is attractive and serves as the "good" vampire very well, but her lack of any accent grates when you realize that she's an 800-year-old vampire. Added to that, when she tells Connor he's "a young soul," she doesn't deliver the line with much of the weight you would expect from an "old" soul. Attractive, but not believable.<br /><br />Meredith Monroe was more believable in her role but, for a "Dawson's Creek" alum, you would think she would have more screen time. The question of whether Amanda succumbs and "turns" is the most compelling reason to continue watching this movie, and you never get it. You get a tease of it, but you never actually get any type of development out of the characters for that plot device. It's a cheap way to play your audience, folks.<br /><br />If you want something that is a good vampire movie, go find Lugosi's "Dracula," and if you want a sexy vampire movie, you have dozens of flicks from Hammer with a lot more strength than this one. In the end, if you want good or sexy, this isn't the place. This is just forgettable.
This movie "Vampires: The Turning" isn't even really worth the 2 out of 10 I'm giving it. The movie, is very predictable from beginning, up to the very end when our hero kills the leader of the Vampire Slayers. The use of music in this movie was even bad, it kept playing as if you were to expect something significant to happen at any second, though it never did. The acting, was B-Rank at best... And the movie was just, dull. The only reason I give this movie a 2 out of 10 is because the story, had potential though it ended up unable to deliver. Oh, and did I mention the wardrobe? The wardrobe for this movie was obviously cheap to "non-existent" because our hero, and his girlfriend (whom he's trying to save throughout the entire movie) wear the same outfits through the entire movie. I'd suggest this film only if your really bored, and don't have a good wall with fresh paint to watch dry. ~Dave, the Horror Cowboy
There's a good story well hidden and never really used! <br /><br />The film is short and overly dependent on action and thematic photography; somehow, character and story development have been forgotten. What is left is muddled and superficial.<br /><br />Turn off your brain and watch—you will probably find that the time goes quickly enough, but unless you are the sort of person that finds soaps deep and meaningful, you are going to get no real satisfaction from this film.<br /><br />Watch only if you have nothing better to do and then only if someone else pays for the video rental.
An in-name-only sequel to John Carpenter's Vampires, this movie takes place in Thailand and involves a sect of bad vampires, who enjoy killing people, and a sect of good vampires who do not. While it's an interesting idea to set a vampire film in Thailand, the writers don't seem to do a lot with the exotic locale. This film could just as easily have been set in Los Angeles. Which brings me to my next point, which is that this seems a lot like Blade Lite. We've got the rock soundtrack, the martial art battle scenes, a dance club bloodletting and, of course, lots of sharp objects going through vampires. What we don't have is the budget and talent. Yes, the hero is a good martial arts fighter, too bad his acting wasn't as good, and there's plenty of decent wire work, and tons of revved up fight sequences, maybe too many. The problem is they just don't have the same impact as the ones in any of the Blade films. Perhaps it's just that the film has a "been there seen that" feel to it.<br /><br />However, for me the biggest problem was that the filmmakers didn't take enough time to establish the relationship between the lead, played by the buff and bland Colin Egglesfield, and his girlfriend. She gets snatched at the very beginning of the flick after a whiny exchange with her boyfriend. We have no vested interest in her welfare at this point and no reason to believe that her boyfriend would be willing to risk his neck to save her. Now that's a major drawback when that's the major thrust of the plot.<br /><br />In the end, you could do worse than waste 85 minutes of your time with this, but I can think of a lot better things to do with your time, like renting any of the Blade movies.
I watched this movie tonight and I do need to say that it is horrible! I expected it to be great, because you know, usually we don't have many movies about Asian vampires mixed with Asian culture; but already in the beginning it started in a bad way: the introduction of the movie seemed not to have an end! The plot is so weak and if you take the fights and the soundtrack off, you really don't have anything useful at all! The director of this film doesn't look to have some important notions about how much time to spend in introduction and flashbacks for example.( not to mention some other things)<br /><br />For people like me, who wants to watch a great vampire movie, I really recommend to watch ''Lost Boys'' or ''The Interview with the vampire''.
The plot is simple: an American couple is in vacation in Thailand. Somehow they are attacked by the 'almighty' Chinese vampires, and the girl is kidnapped by the big boss of the vampires. This is OK till now. The girl's partner is left to search for her. And now the horror begins. He comes upon a strange group of semi-vampires or something (they only drank animal blood). These vampires are in conflict with the bad guy for about...800 years. However, with the help of the 'good vampires', the guy begins to search his girlfriend.<br /><br />Now the fight scenes begin, what a karate movie without fight? Another thing i have noticed is that the vampires are very ugly guys. I mean....a vampire is an old-fashion guy(he is alive since...for ever), he's got style. There are also modern vampires, but in this movie, the vampires are....weird. Like, come on, they ride a bike, they are all dressed in leather and they destroy everything in their way.<br /><br />The worst thing is that you can clearly see that this movie it is an low budget one. The script is boring and the actors aren't too talented. The music is pretty good, but the effects are not that great.<br /><br />To sum up the movie it is not that great, but if you have a free afternoon, watch it and tell me if i'm right or not.
Well I watch tons of movies and this one really sucked ... BIG TIME. I am sure we are all sick and tired of the low budget ploy to make Vampire Movies using some "Martial Arts Teacher" turn "actor" type of movies. I am also so tired of the guy knowing some form of fighting technique and then able to fight his way through a somewhat boring Movie. I forced myself to watch it and one of the main reasons were that the Lead Actress is quite Pretty (Ha-Ha) Well I hope this helped a bit and if you have time and want to give your Brain a rest Watch it!!! Well hopefully one day this type of movies will not be released but then hey where will all the Low Budget actors go :-) <br /><br />The movie also contains many Bloops but that I will leave to you to find because it adds quite a bit of fun while watching and also if you a bit of a perfectionist it will bother you ;-) Cheers!!
Firstly, I'll admit I haven't seen Vampires: Los Muertos, but I've seen the original Vampires film and love it. I rented this film having heard nothing about it. I didn't expect to be impressed. I wasn't.<br /><br />I love the idea of shifting the action to the far east, which should have opened up a lot of new avenues for the action sequences as well as the story line, but not enough was made of this. The fight scenes and the motorbike chases were painfully boring. <br /><br />There were some parts I liked, like the way the slayer team weren't shown as heroic good guys, as they were in the first movie.<br /><br />I'd been hoping since I saw the old Hammer movie Legend Of The 7 Golden Vampires a few years ago that someone would one day make another good Asian-based vampire film. This was not it.
This movie is really bad. The hero can't play. You see too much that he learned his walking moves by heart. And believe me, he walks a lot. For 45 min, nothing happens. He only walks to places and gets out..... Like if the story was so short that they had to extend it by adding useless and boring "looks-like-a-suspens" scenes.<br /><br />Dialogues are very poor. I counted around a lots of "hello's" and few "hang on" on the 1st part.<br /><br />Blood is orange like the Mercurochrome you put on kid's blisters. And scenes are not following themselves. A bloody neck on a scene, a clean neck on the following.<br /><br />The story could have been improved. Yeah I mean what the hell is the story? <br /><br />Martial arts? Where? Is that martial arts? Watch how hesitant and slow are the moves!!!!! If giving a kick and receiving a punch is called martial arts, then I am Bruce Lee!!!!<br /><br />The only good point I have found is on fight scenes : They don't play with zoom and fast switching scenes that gives you headache in most of action movies.<br /><br />There are plenty of low budget movies that are great. That one was just to make money. Nothing else.
Man oh man, this was a piece of dog sh#t. I read a few reviews on here after seeing the case in the local video store, and thought to myself........ Ah this seems like a half decent movie.Vampires.Swords. Thailand.How can you go wrong? Right? No,no,no way f*cking wrong. Jesus, if only I could gouge out my eyes and not remember this film, I would be happy. The lead actor had THE whiniest, gayest voice ever.Man!It really was bad...."Amandaaaaaaaa....","I gotta save my girlfriend...." F*ck off! My buddy and I actually changed the Audio Track on the DVD to Portugese just so we didn't have to hear the guy's voice. Subtitles and all...and this IMPROVED the film. I'm serious, if your anything like me and wondered what this film was like..STOP WONDERING. I have the answer. WORST VAMPIRE MOVIE EVER! No good action, no good gore and only the smallest smattering of nudity. Just pure sh*t for 90 Mins. Don't rent this,buy it,think about it,or watch it at 3:00am. It just doesn't cut the cake......at all....in any way. F*ck this movie and watch All Anal 7: Real Deep Cover. You'd have a better time. I'm sure.
I watched the world premiere of this on the Starz Action channel. They call it Vampires: The Turning. The plot was a little confusing. There is a voice-over in the introduction about an 800 year war, and I didn't quite understand. The movie is about a young couple somewhere in Asia (maybe in China, I don't think the movie specifies). The couple has an argument and Meredith Monroe runs off and is kidnapped by a biker gang of Vampires. The boyfriend finds a group of vampires that don't kill humans, and enters into a battle with the bikers. A human group of slayers somehow get involved, and the final fight sequence takes place during a solar eclipse. This movie is not related to either Vampires or Vampires: Los Muertos. Confusing, but decent action. Four out of 10 stars.
....so why on Earth would I see 'Sex Lives of the Potato Men'? Answer: Johnny vegas and Mackenzie Crook. Vegas I have seen live and thoroughly enjoyed. I think he is an intelligent and unique intellectual comic who manages to retain extreme oafishness. Crook I know only from probably the greatest comedy of the last 10 years along with 'Alan Partridge', 'The Office'. As Gareth he was simply hilarious, and I was interested in how he would convert to another character on the big screen.<br /><br />OK. So me and the boyfriend went down to the multiplex last night and the film was very funny, only because the mediocre nonsense dialogue and banter Ferris and Dave had was delivered with aplomb and enthusiasm by the talent of Vegas and Crook. They are destined for better things (have done better already infact) and I even believe Vegas would make a decent straight actor. The trite scenes where he says he misses his wife came almost close to touching, although the **SPOILER** tacked on scene at the end where he is taken back by his wife needed to be lengthened, it just wasnt believable. And throughout the film Vegas only appears to miss his wife 2 or 3 times.<br /><br />The film became grotesquely unfunny and plain old, well, grotesque, when sex was mentioned. Not, I add, when it was shown on screen. Tolly's gratuitous explanation of what was in his sandwiches and why was not even slightly funny, and just made me feel a little bit ill. Also totally unneccisary was the inclusion of the character of Jeremy picking his nose, before showing a close up of the bogey on his finger. Just him picking his nose would have raised a smile, he was a pathetic character and it would have just made him look as low as possible, but showing the snot close up was just not needed and was rank.<br /><br />One scene I did think was hilarious involving sex was Vegas in the threesome. His blokish conversation with the second bloke just highlighted the fact that threesomes arent always endless ecstasy. Not that I'd know.....<br /><br />That's about all I can say really. I will end with this, and this is actually my main critique of the film. This is supposed to revive the British film industry. It is no 'Trainspotting' that is for sure....it isn't even a 'Love Actually' (you'd have to have a heart of stone not to throw up at that one), and 3 million pounds really could have been put into a better project. 'Mike Basset England Manager' was a wonderful little known British comedy and was made for far less than 3 million. I only hope that the BFC will learn from 'Sex Lives of the Potato Men' and not get so gratuitous in future. Although the terrible reviews this film is getting are only enhancing the box office takings. :-)
Sex Lives of the Potato Men is about the sex lives of several men involved in delivering potatoes. So there are no surprises there. It is, in fact, pretty much what you might expect from the title: that is, it's a quirky comedy involving sex and potato men. At times the film works. It's an edgy, sometimes uncomfortable comedy about the lives of some rather unimportant and rather average men who are having problems of various sorts with women. Where the film clearly does not work, and why it failed at the box office, is that the quirky, uncomfortable parts are perhaps just a shade too quirky and uncomfortable. Instead of laughing during the scene of a man suspended from a basement ceiling masturbating over another man while he makes love to his wife, I think most of us just kind of groan awkwardly and wonder what Andy Humphries was thinking. Well, perhaps we are shown what he was thinking all too clearly.
Ever watched something so awful you just have to keep watching to be sure it really is as bad as it looks? This is one of those films. It was slammed by the critics on it's release, not least for the way it was funded. I caught it on TV last night and gave in to curiosity.<br /><br />In the event, it is what it says on the box, no more nor less: low level humour, crudity, very much in the 'Carry On...' vein but with 'adult' language. Indeed, it harks back to the 60s/70s UK porn industry, cheating punters by promising real sex and not delivering (spot the nipple?) That whole tawdry era is lovingly recreated here but with modern cinematography.<br /><br />It has the benefit of Mackenzie Crook (The Office, Pirates of the Caribbean and much more) and also Johnny Vegas. The chip shop girl is genuinely sexy. Beyond these unexpected positives, it does leave me wondering what happened to England. Junk food, low paid work, council estates, desperate lives. As a bonus, there are some nice shots of leafy Birmingham. Foreigners might find it informative about British attitudes and aspirations. Overall, though, I still feel disbelief that I sat through it.
I watched this film with a sort of dangerous fascination, like a hedgehog trapped in the headlights. There is no doubt that (even if you enjoyed it) it's a bad movie, but the important question is why? It has a good cast; it's lively; it's prepared to tackle sex head on, with some of the characters actually getting some of it here and there, which is unusual for a British comedy. It also has Johnny Vegas and Mackenzie Crook, Marmite performers agreed but they've have had their moments in the past.<br /><br />What it's principally lacking is charm. The characters are impossibly idiotic, unbelievable and alienating, so that instead of a film of Men Behaving Badly the producers have made Game On. Any mediocre writer wanting to make a film about the sexual attitudes of dozy, sexist British men would have got hold of a few copies of Loaded, Zoo or even Viz to read Sid the Sexist and the thing would have written itself. Instead, the producers clearly tried to make up some moronic, difficult to care about, characters. Character comedy - as opposed to slapstick etc - only works if the audience can recognise some human truth to the situation. But watching this film is like being told an annoying joke that you know is not going to end up funny but you can't stop it.<br /><br />Sadly, the film is also poorly made. The plot structure is weak, there's little character delineation or development, and many of the scenes aren't funny. Time after time the same lame reggae chips in to divide scenes, pointlessly and gratingly. There's a lot of needless repetition - when you've done one joke about parking outside a sex party you don't need to do it again. One wonders what the UK Film Council saw in the script.<br /><br />This is a world where most men are rakes, and most women are continually up for it. The Apartment and Alfie satirised much the same world view, but the producers of this film accept it without criticism. Thus they've ended up with a kind of inferior update of Confessions of a Window Cleaner. Somebody British needs to have another go at this kind of thing, and do it properly – a good next project for Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright I think...
I found myself watching Sex Lives Of The Potato men with a furrowed brow, puzzled why so many talented and witty comedians decided to be involved in a film so totally devoid of humour.<br /><br />Poo and wanking jokes are funny when you're eleven. Eighteen plus and you begin to lose friends around the water cooler.<br /><br />Maybe some enjoyment could be had from this movie if you're the kind of person who frequently plays practical jokes involving dog mess, brown bags and matches, or maybe partake in 'man' competitions on nights-out by imbibing companions' vomit/urine etc when you're not back at your parent's basement punching your teenage wife.<br /><br />Even then "Sex Lives..." it's hard to recommend. Perhaps if you're really weirdly into masochistic cranial surgery and spend your evenings happy slapping the elderly or watching toilets flush, you might think a close-up of a bogie is worthy of cinematic distribution.<br /><br />I'd discuss characterisation, narrative or performances had I not zoned completely out following the lengthy tuna-paste/vagina comparison.
The Daily Mail's Christopher Tookey had some choice things to say about this film, among them "watch it all the way through its 82 miserable minutes, and I guarantee you'll be shaking your head and asking: 'Have we really descended to this?' Yes, we have, for if ever a movie testified to the utter cynicism, tastelessness and moral corruption of those who commission and make British movies, it is this abomination". Tookey continues "aimed squarely at oafs with unwashed underwear, filthy minds and knuckles that graze the pavement when they walk, this sex comedy is so sordid, unfunny and malodorous that it is enough to put you off sex, and indeed films, for life", before concluding "Sex Lives of the Potato Men is not merely a truly vile film, it is symptomatic of a new national culture of instant self-gratification, yobbishness and sadism that is now being celebrated on screen". Normally I don't listen too closely to the critics, but in this case, Tookey was bang on the money. This film goes beyond bad, indeed, it goes beyond being merely unfunny and enters some bizarre parallel universe where every painful minute drags on for an hour and where the definition of 'hilarious' seems to be 'saying tw*t in a Brummie accent'. It's depressing to anyone with half a brain who grew up with the Goodies, Monty Python, Spitting Image, Not the Nine O'Clock News and Fawlty Towers.<br /><br />Ideally, Sex Lives Of the Potato Men would have quietly vanished after its cinema release and joined the equally dire Vix spin-off The Fat Slags (2004) and the ill-starred All Saints vehicle Honest (2000) in the celluloid graveyard, but as it seems destined for endless late night schedule-filling screenings and misguided "best film EVER!" raves from people who should know better, so I must apologise in advance for trying to right a wrong that the British film industry, in all its wisdom, has inflicted onto an undeserving world. Yes, I really am sorry to bring this one back from the celluloid dead, but I actually remember thinking "It can't be as bad as the critics said it was"...but, as God is my witness, it was WORSE.<br /><br />Acting - dire from start to finish, special mention to Mackenzie 'Albert Steptoe's legs on a young man's body' Crook.<br /><br />Soundtrack - cut and paste 'ladrock', mostly ska-based lager-lout-friendly pub jukebox piffle which brought back horrible memories of seeing those chirpy cockernee doin' the Lambeth Walk to a watered-down imitation of the Specials knob-shiners Madness on every single comedy / variety programme in the eighties...and 'Ace Of Spades' by Motorhead as the title music? What the hell...trying to evoke memories of one of the most genuinely exciting scenes ever offered by The Young Ones, indeed, ever offered by ANY comedy show?! Cheap shot, way below the belt.<br /><br />Script - written by a 12 year old who's just read every single back issue of Smut and Zit in one long Red Bull-fuelled session...SURELY? C'mon, no real, proper, worldly, grown-up person could possibly set this kind of retarded hogwash on paper? And Mark Gatiss was in it...Mark Gatiss...the least annoying member of the League of Gentlemen and Goodies fan taking part in such a towering heap of fly-blown cinematic excrement? 'One of the brightest British comedy stars'? Not any more he's not! On the subject of League Of Gentlemen, somebody give me a pair of lead-lined diver's boots and Steve 'face like a collapsed rectum' Pemberton and a long weekend in a soundproofed room before I die...PLEASE...<br /><br />Cinema, British or otherwise, just doesn't come much worse than this. Kent Bateman's The Headless Eyes (1971) is a new-wave masterpiece compared to this repugnant smut.
There are no spoilers for this film as nothing could be written that could make it any worse! The dictionary definition of "puerile" should now read: "sex lives of the potato men"! Unless, that is, you like dog poo and mucous; in which case - this is the film to see! Johnny Vegas et all - what WERE you thinking!
Sometimes when a film is panned by the critics one just has to see it to see if it is really as bad as the claim, well in this case it was. I believe it was meant to be a sex comedy but it was neither sexy nor funny, I think I chuckled once when Johnny Vegas failed to vault a roadside fence and that was it.<br /><br />The film follows the lives of four men who deliver potatoes for a living, each of them has a problem with their sex lives; Dave has left his wife and seeks out an old flame who once invited him for a threesome a few years before, Ferris is living with his mother in law who treats him as a sex object, Tolly has an obsession for involving strawberry jam in his encounters and Jeremy claims to be in a loving relationship but is in fact stalking some poor woman.<br /><br />The tone of the jokes varies from tasteless to "I don't believe that anybody could write that" an example of the the latter being when they tell a small child his father has died in a car crash, then for the punch line when the boy asks how his mum is they tell him she is in a coma. The blame for this all lands squarely at the feet of the writers, the actors obviously made a poor choice agreeing to be in this film but I didn't think their acting was all that bad... not that it was all that good either. Surprisingly for a fairly sleazy film about sex there is no nudity and the sex is never erotic.<br /><br />I certainly wouldn't recommend seeing this for any reason other than morbid curiosity although judging from other reviews this seems to be a love it or loathe it film, I suspect it would be better watched after a few beers and with your mates.
Oh Sex Lives of the Potato Men, what foul demon created thee? This is a film that you watch, smirk a little during the runtime and then when you mention it to others having seen it, you just cannot help but smile as you talk. But it's not that Sex Lives of the Potato Men is actually a funny film and one that inspires you to smile when talking or thinking about it, it's just that the film is so bizarre; is so insulting and is no shameless in its attempt to get across a meek laugh to do with sex and sex lives in general that you just cannot help but have your mouth break out into a grin. Do bear in mind that what follows the smirk is a sinking of the head; a consequent shake of the head and a raise of the index finger and thumb to both eyebrows as you gently rub them in an attempt to reminisce about your time watching this trash.<br /><br />But that's what the film is, it's trash; it's very brave and shameless trash but trash none-the-less. Whoever came up with this idea, put it to paper and then spread it around the industry trying to get it made must either be very brave or very desperate. It's strange to have a film that is most definitely 'about' something but one that does not have, under any sort of circumstance, a decisive narrative. This follows on from that idea that most of European cinema is artistic and its stories are ambiguous and open-ended and themes take precedence over most other things. In Sex Lives of the Potato Men, the same situation and technically the same joke are replayed over and over again and that is an ideation that consists of: 'sex is a very, very funny thing.' These ideas are perhaps more suited to an American film so it's no wonder that after a while watching this film, things start to feel a little out of sorts.<br /><br />The film begins and ends in the same manner, creating a feeling of a circular journey; a circular journey that has gone absolutely nowhere and absolutely nothing has been achieved. Three blokes sit around a table talking and what-not. Their boss joins them and the conversation is limited to whatever crude and disgusting stories, situations or scenarios each can possibly think of. The odd thing here, being that whenever one man says something nasty, the other grimaces but has an equally filthy story to give in return creating a contradiction in what these men find to cross the line and what they do not. The men are Dave (Vegas) and Ferris (Crook), two people joined by Tolly (Coleman) whenever the film sees fit to throw in a third face to crack some more nasty sex jokes or break some peculiar stories. They are employed by Jeremy (Gattis), a man who has deeper issues and problems but issues of which the film is more concerned with exploiting for the sake of humour rather than study.<br /><br />So what's the situation in Sex Lives of the Potato Men? The three to four men are in a crisis and for the duration of the film, we will adopt the role of the hapless fly on the wall as we witness what foul play these people get up to over the period of about a week. If the humour revolving around Dave and Ferris is disgusting and repulsive, then for Jeremy things are just spooky. It all begins rather innocently and it appears there is a female he likes and one who equally likes him in return but when the essence that Jeremy is merely a stalker creeps in, that's when the jaws drop. The character of Jeremy is used and put across in a way that makes unrequited love and stalking in general merely look 'funny'. Jeremy sits in his apartment listening to classical music and writing out letters of abuse to Ruth (Davis), echoing some sort of psychotic persona more associated with Hannibal Lecter writing his letter's to Clarice in 2001's Hannibal. But whatever sympathy we might have for him at this point is rendered absolutely false when, later on, it is revealed the true origin of their relationship. Suddenly, we as an audience feel cheated into feeling a mite sorry for him earlier on and for whatever reason he did do what he did in the first place just seems cowardly and distasteful. To say what it was would ruin whatever few surprises lurk within the film.<br /><br />Quite sad how, in one of Jeremy's letters, he writes about something-or-other exclaiming it to have "No artistic vision – just one big mess". I hate it when words said by the characters echo the film they're in. Sex Lives of the Potato Men does not explore someone's psyche or particular interest in a fetish or why they feel the need to go around having as much sex as possible, it just uses them as a front to pile on ridiculously unfunny jokes and situations. Rather than take group sex and explore what drives a person to seek it down, it makes a daft joke out of it (tickets with numbers on!?); rather than get into the mindset of a fan of Sadomasochism, the film has someone hang from a basement ceiling and warn everyone of 'incoming salt and vinegar' as he climaxes. Ferris covers his face in disgust and the camera fades to the next scene without too much of a fuss. It's a relief the film got to no audiences abroad. This is one section of British culture, indeed of the British mentality that I pray will be confined to our shores and ignored accordingly.
Now i like Johnny Vegas which is a good start, I also enjoy toilet humour<br /><br />Such as Young Ones and Bottom etc. This however failed to bring even a<br /><br />small smile to my face. The story follows Johnny around after his wife<br /><br />chucks him out (how he got his good looking wife and kid i dont know) <br /><br />as he attempts to shag anything that moves. Failing normally. I was looking forward to this but found it to be totally boring and a waste<br /><br />of my time altogether. Unless you are stuck for something to do for 90 mins apart from wash the car then dont bother..... <br /><br />
The unfunniest so called comedy I've ever seen<br /><br />Not a patch on the naturalism of the hilariously dare Twin Town<br /><br />Vegas I ;like normally but this script is so dire so predictable so well English in the worst way (In recent years the English films have been awful all of them) Ireland at least produced the commitments, Scotland with Braveheart and Trainspotting 2 stand out great movies and Wales had Twin Town, Zulu, Last Days of Dolwyn , Torchwood, Doctor Who and Under Milk Wood etc<br /><br />The comedy is paint by numbers, the actors are dead men walking because there is no characterisation and no originality and it's just so unfunny<br /><br />England is falling behind no matter how many grim up north movies they produce. It's the old class system that destroys English films. The Oxbridge graduates spewing endlessly clichéd scripts about working class people they've never lived with. It is pathetic. Monty Python wasn't funny, neither was anything from Oxbridge.<br /><br />Let guys like Jonny Vegas and Peter Kay, Rob Brydon, Billy Connolly or write their own dialogue and forget the archaic failed class system let the working class people and the real talent that comes through the system properly take over the writing and the British and English film industries will rise again what next prince Edward to write a modern day Oliver Twist?
The other day I showed my boyfriend a great movie, Stand By Me, a movie I have shown to many people and they absolutely adored it, but for some odd reason he didn't like it. He lends me a movie called Backdraft and he tells me that he's shown it to many people and they loved it, instead I hated this movie. I don't think I've hated a movie so much in a while, how this movie has even a 6.6 rating is beyond me. I couldn't keep up with the five million stories here: Billy Baldwin becoming a fire man, the random sibling rivalry, the random love story(s), the who's being an arson story, the investigator, the fire who has a personality of it's own. I just have a problem that this movie can't keep up with all these stories, they didn't balance out well enough make the film interesting. I would have just preferred if this movie was about being a firefighter or the investigator and how he came to be one or what it is exactly he does and why.<br /><br />The movie tells the story of a group of Chicago firefighters, two brothers. Stephen "Bull" McCaffrey, the elder brother, is obsessed with the beating of the fires that he fights. Brian, the younger brother quit the fire fighting academy school several years before, then embarking on a number of other unsuccessful careers before returning to become a firefighter. He is looked down on by his elder brother who expects him to fail in his newly chosen career as a fire fighter. Donald "Shadow" Rimgale is an arson investigator who is dedicated to his profession. He is called in because a number of fires that have occurred have somewhat similar connections. .Martin Swayzak is an alderman on the City Council. He has obvious hopes of being elected to mayor, but has had to make a number of budget cuts to the fire department. Many of the rank and file firemen believe that the cuts that he has made are endangering the lives of the firefighters. However, Swayzak is initially successful in portraying the fire department as bloated and ineffectual after firemen are repeatedly being killed in blazes.<br /><br />I just couldn't get into this movie, I don't know how anyone else could, it was incredibly unrealistic and portrayed firefighters all wrong. I loved how they had every action cliché in the book to match this action flick. I just felt also like there was great talent wasted on such mediocre roles, Donald Sutherland, great actor, but such a strange role that could have been taken by a lesser known man who had the upcoming talent at the time. I know Ron was going for great quality, but I think him casting such huge actors in small roles was a mistake for this film. I even had to joke my way through while watching this movie commenting how the doctor in the background was probably Kevin Spacey. The fire was so unrealistic and the movie was just so out there, I didn't enjoy it and honestly wouldn't recommend it to people, I'll stick to the recommendations in my relationship from this point on.<br /><br />2/10
I loved this movie when I was a teenager. LOVED it. It hasn't grown up with me, though. Maybe that's because it's a melodramatic load of old rubbish, full of macho posturing, cheesy dialogue, overwrought slo-mo and characters saying 'Goddammit' a lot. The lumpy narrative blobs gracelessly from one character to another, one plot strand to another, without ever bringing it all together, and it doesn't help that William Baldwin's mono-expression of a performance is wet enough to put out every fire in the movie's overlong runtime. Robert DeNiro and Donald Sutherland are worth watching, but no one's really at the top of their game here, and the women folk get particularly short thrift. The only real impact comes from the impressive firefighting sequences, and Hans Zimmer's majestic score, which remains one of my all-time favourites.
If You can watch a film without worrying about the plot, or corny acting, then Backdraft is definitely the one.<br /><br />However, if, like me, you like watching films that you can believe, then Backdraft has some serious flaws. It doesn't offer anything new, and there are hundreds of 90's action films that follow identical formulas, whilst not being quite as clunky.<br /><br />After two firefights, i'm thinking, this has got to go somewhere else, i mean, how many big fires are there in one city? Surely firemen do other things, such as getting cats out of trees? Well I was wrong, and the repetition continues again and again, up until the end.<br /><br />A good aspect of the film is the fire itself, well filmed, and I must say i felt quite hot while watching it, which suggests that two hours of watching fire without a story or acting would have been more suited to my taste.
The basic plot is good and can be engaging. The music is so great that it became the theme music for the TV show IRON CHEF (though it is WAY overused and too intrusive in the movie). So, how did this movie end up so poor?!?! Well, the plot was about 95% predictable and the characters were about as 1-dimensional as possible. And the dialog?! What person would actually allow themselves to receive credit for coming up with the STUPID macho bull-crap that purports to be dialog? You get much greater realism from most cartoons! The bottom line is that this movie has some good points but is so marred by hackneyed clichés and rotten dialog that it quickly becomes tiresome. And, this is a shame, because firemen deserve a better tribute than this mess! If you don't believe me, look at the number of goofs listed on IMDb for this movie--WAY in excess of what you'd expect to find. They just didn't care enough to work out all the kinks and problems. So, as a result the movie seems rushed and in need of a re-write and re-editing.
The man who gave us Splash, Cocoon and Parenthood gave us this incoherent muddle of cliched characters, poor plotting, you've-got-to-be-kidding dialogue and melodramatic acting? I guess everybody has a bad day at the office now and then. He's allowed.
When I first watched this film, I thought that it would be rally good, because it featured my favourite actor of all time. He gives a sterling performance, though it is fairly obvious he didn't have to life more than half a finger to make the róle work. He is the only good thing in it, unlesss you're into explosions and American dream-working class hero trash (which I'm not). <br /><br />I don't get it. How can this film get away with being so naf. That bit with the little boy being rescued, I mean, come on! You can't tell me that he would have been rescued without the fire-guy wearing any goggles (I know for a fact that it would have been pitch black in there and you can't see for more than a couple of feet infront of you) and no breathing equipment (he'd have choked after 2 minutes!). This film was just bad, OK?<br /><br />Why Robert? WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY????!!!!<br /><br />Sorry if this is your favourite film.
Beautiful images, propaganda and history as toy. The ingredients of this film, good, interesting but with many shadows. Politicall shadows. Jefferson is more than the hero of a mythical America. He is silhouette of a vision about life and society, an extraordinary thinker, teacher of large part of North America. In film is only Superman. The delicate contour of ideas are crushed. The subtle birth of essential truth is forgotten. And Jefferson is basic instrument for create a good image of American realities. The end,triumphal and fake, romance and heroic, is gun suicide of a story who may be tall with more wisdom. And the war against "Avatar" is another gray stain. For one who heard nothing about Jefferson, movie is a good beginning. For the others - disillusion. It is like the precious silk of a tailor. But the tailor is fascinating about silk and the clothes are only ordinary cloth. So, a sad experience. Slices of beauty and boring lakes, patriotic lesson and the crush of expectation. A film who must impressive. And the ash of a story who could be magnificent.
I just got back from "AGS". After seeing it, I'm convinced that no matter how much it's written how he extensively researched the film, Stone NEVER has watched an NFL game in his life. Great cinematography ? Give me a break. The game montages were almost unviewable and 90% of the other shots in the film were close-ups. Was there ANYTHING in this movie that wasn't brought up in "North Dallas Forty" ?<br /><br />Aging star player ... check. Young hot shot .... check. Painkillers .... check. Owner who doesn't "get it" .... check. Crazy off-field behavior .... check<br /><br />Also, it's the playoffs in Dallas (i.e Dec or Jan) in an outdoor stadium, yet people sitting there in tank-tops and shorts ! And what was with those lights ? Were they playing in a Japanese Kabuki theater or a sports stadium ?<br /><br />And the strategy shown in the game was laughable. It's fourth & 1 inside the "Sharks'" 30. Dallas leads 35-31. KICK THE FRIGGING FIELD GOAL. Not only would this had made sense football-wise, but you'd then have an even better final sequence where they could have scored and had to go for the two-point conversion. Hell, tie the game w/ the extra point and Stone could have made it an even 3 hours with overtime.<br /><br />Were the lame montages of "old time" football players supposed to be a tribute to the game ? Give me a break.<br /><br />And the script ... ugh. More cliches than you can shake a stick at .. oops, there's another one.<br /><br />"Slapshot" was better than this movie. By far.<br /><br />1/10.<br /><br />Skips this at all costs.<br /><br />
I have never seen a more unrealistic movie than this foul piece of dung. The acting was over the top. The direction was tacky and amateurish. The script was just a joke. The story looked penned by a person that has never been around a high school football game, much less a professional game. And why, why did Oliver Stone feel the need to place himself in this movie as an actor? He was terrible, playing the most unrealistic announcer ever. He could not even get hired to do professional wrestling contests. Then you have Jamie Foxx, who throws like a girl. But, he is a tad more athletic than the aged Dennis Quaid. Seriously, Stone wanted to direct this film at 16 year old males with ADD. That is why we hear the loud music, the quick cuts and numerous edits. It just became a bad MTV video. Shame on Al Pacino for doing this crap. Cameron Diaz? Heck, that no-talent takes any role that comes down the pike. When Lawrence Taylor is the best "actor" you got going, well, your movie sucks! And this one does.
Another lame attempt to make a movie "gritty" and "thought provoking"- whatever the hell that means. They have Al Pacino say a lot of words like - "Television killed football." Yeah whatever. This is another movie that showcases Oliver Stone's Delusions of Grandeur. If Stone is trying to show us that football will be our downfall or something, why does he insist on romanticizing the sport with his stilted camera movements and Kid Rock songs? He even throws Cameron Diaz into the fray for purely aesthetic reasons. It's a shame that Diaz and Pacino have to meet in a movie that is so bad.<br /><br />Ever since "Scent of Woman," writers and directors have used Pacino to romanticize their pathetic lines. His characters are nothing more than loudspeakers - their voices covering up what would normally be redundant and trite. He needs to reinvent himself, showing how he can act without yelling. He has to stop feeling sorry for hokey scripts with cheesy lessons like "Organized football is messed up," and act out a good story.
This noisy, dizzying football film from director Oliver Stone seems to have everyone in the cast - well, everyone except William H. Macy, who could have tackled the role played by Mr. Stone, the team doctors, or the "fruitcake" selling cereal. If you're a fan of the foul-mouthed, there are some great, profanity-laden knock-down, drag-out, put-down phrases you can try-out on two-faced friends and way-ward lovers. The film is sometimes good as lively background party atmosphere, especially during the first two hours; it even features some MTV-styled music video scenes.<br /><br />** Any Given Sunday (12/16/99) Oliver Stone ~ Al Pacino, Cameron Diaz, Jamie Foxx, Dennis Quaid
I looked forward to seeing this movie, because the trailer made it look so cool. But the fact is that this movie is boring, and totally muddled. There is no plot, and half the movie is fast flashing shots from football games. Zoomed in shots, that gives you no overview of the games. I was constantly looking at the timer, to see when the movie was over!<br /><br />There's only ONE good thing about this movie. The sound!! The soundtrack is awesome! .............Don't expect anything from this movie.
Stone has tried another type of movie. Any Given Sunday falls short of a the above average The Last Boy Scout and the below average Against all Odds. Stone can be fantastic, see The Doors, Natural Born Killers or Platoon but he can also repeat himself see Nixon or Born on the Fourth of July. His real brilliance is realized in the Michael Caine perfection, The Hand.
Predictable, cliche, unbelievable, boring...what else can I say? It's only the caliber of the cast that saves any redeeming qualities of this bloated mess. Oh yeah, and the entertaining end zone antics.<br /><br />But wait for the eleven o'clock highlights, 'cause the outcome is as predictable as who's going to win the Globetrotters/Washington Generals matchup.<br /><br />I was well into the second act before I figured out these were supposed to be PRO teams we were watching (all clad in vintage Padres brown). And Cameron Diaz character's imitation of a youthful Georgia Frontiere was ill-conceived on the page. (Not your fault, Cameron. Would you like to go to dinner?)<br /><br />Enough of this - I'm only on a rant because I was looking forward to this film. Rent THE LONGEST YARD instead.<br /><br />
For a horror film, this is criminally dull. A few memorable, gruesome bits can't compensate for a really poor script. Very little coherence is achieved, and the movie relentlessly overplays its one basic idea (a killer cat), until it becomes repetitive - and things are made even worse by the constant use of shots from the cat's point-of-view. (*1/2)
I've always found the dilettante Man Ray and his artistic efforts to be deeply pretentious, and I've never understood why his work attracts so much attention. Apart from his Rayographs (which he invented by accident, and which are merely direct-contact photo prints), his one real contribution to culture seems to be that he was the first photographer to depict female nudity in a manner that was accepted as art rather than as porn. But surely this had to happen eventually, and there's no real reason why Ray deserves the credit. The critical reaction to Man Ray reminds me of the story about the Emperor's New Clothes.<br /><br />"L'Étoile de merde" ... whoops, "de mer" ... features a lot of blurry photography and a recurring visual theme of a starfish, which is never explained. Starfishes have the fascinating ability to regenerate lost limbs -- and even to regenerate entire duplicate bodies -- but, if that has anything to do with this movie's theme, Ray neglects to say so. I was much more impressed by this movie's title cards, which (in French) manage to include rhymes, a pun ('Si belle, Cybele') and some portmanteaux.<br /><br />As so often in Ray's work, there is indeed a beautiful young woman seen in this movie. Unfortunately, the photography is (largely) so blurred that we have little opportunity to appreciate her. I'll rate this mess one point out of 10.
A woman in love with her husband (he's suicidal) decides to have a baby to save his life. She's been to a fertility clinic - as has the lover she takes - so both know how artificial insemination works; but, instead of using the method thousands of people use every year around the world (the $5 turkey baster), they engage in coitus. We also are to believe that although the immigrant is in love with his fiancée, he doesn't suggest the obvious alternative to intercourse. Further, even though this is a business arrangement, the first time she's with her sperm donor, she takes off all her clothes, as if it's a seduction. Plus, her husband doesn't notice when $30,000 goes missing from their bank accounts. Does all this seem to demand more willing suspension of disbelief than even most Hollywood fare? Far fetched on all counts.
Admirable but weak James Bond film mainly because both the hero (Bond) and villain (Blofeld) were seriously miscast. Lazenby is too big and innocent looking to play Bond. He looks and acts more like the good-natured but dim-witted sidekick in a police action movie. The director and writer try to establish his credibility, but his saying of lines like "Royal Baluga, North of the ..." just aren't effective in establishing him as this worldly and suave rogue. Savalas doesn't do a bad job, but his characterization and behavior is more fitting of a mob gangster. The best portrayed characters of the movie are those of Tracy and her father. But the performances by those actors when sharing the screen with Lazenby only serve to emphasize his deficiencies as an actor. This movie is too long (140 mins.) for a Bond film and doesn't offer any excitement until Bond's mountain escape, where it begins to pick up. This film tries very hard, but falls short. Many Bondian elements are present and the climatic battle is top notch, but I always get a sense of something missing when watching this one.
I attended a screening of 'The Cooler' at the Toronto Film Festival this year. While the other reviews I've read seem to be generally (and mystifyingly) positive, I must tell you without any kind of axe to grind that this film is unimaginably, unspeakably bad. The very brave and candid performances by William H. Macy and Maria Bello have been horribly misspent on what is probably the least polished, most clichéd script to have received the green light in years. I don't know how bad The Brown Bunny was, but I'm certain it couldn't have attained the Dante-style depths that this one did. As courageous as their performances were, perhaps the bravest thing these otherwise brilliant actors did was to entrust themselves to such a dreadful director and abysmal screenplay.<br /><br />He must pitch pretty well in the boardroom, because he should never been permitted to be within a hundred yards of a camera. The dialogue is so embarrassingly contrived and clumsy that I actually found myself blushing during the screening. I am mortified that the talents of Macy have been totally squandered in the hands of someone whose direction is as incompetent as his writing.<br /><br />Watching gifted actors like Alec Baldwin labor through Kramer's appalling script and ham-fisted direction was akin to watching a baby seal get clubbed to death - I felt angered, helpless, and sickened all at the same time. Although I am always glad that there are investors and industry-people willing to take risks on quirky scripts with interesting premises, this picture was a total, utter fiasco. Kramer couldn't have been crueler to these actors if he had himself taken a steel pipe to their knees. I hope for their sakes they can all avoid similar humiliations in the future. Macy wisely ducked out the side door and didn't even stick around for the screening. Regrettably, it seems that the bad luck of main character has rubbed off on the picture in the worst possible way. Anyone accustomed to quality independents will likely find it completely unbearable.
This movie is very disappointing for one who has read the book. As written by Rafael Sabatini, this was a clean cut tale of piracy in the Caribbean, and it would have made a grand motion . Also, it would have been very simple to make. All the action takes place aboard ship and on a deserted island. Unfortunately, the screen writers took the title from Sabatini then threw the rest of the book away. Even the name of the main character was changed, and his screen personality was completely different from that of the individual described in the novel. It's a sad loss for one who loves a good sea story.
This is a stereotype plot. A young fighter tries to enter a competition when he is not ready and is not selected to represent his fighting school. This leads to separation from the fighting school and naturally he finds a strange new master to teach him to fight.<br /><br />The fights are not of high standards. They are way too "simple" in a way that 1+1 is simple to every adult. The fighter has trained and enters the ring, but does not do what he trained and gets an ass kicking. The coach yells do this and do that with no success. And after some more of this ridiculous beating he suddenly does what he is told and hits his opponent once. This results in a turning point in the fight, although our hero has been taking a beating of his life up until that point. Think about the Rocky movies and you'll have a good point of reference of how much beating he really takes. The fights are also shot poorly.<br /><br />There final thing that screws this film up is the stupid romance. Cheesy music and awkward moments are not what I call entertainment.<br /><br />These guys really could have made some quality entertainment, but the director wasn't up to the task. Or the other crew in my opinion. Maybe they had a small budget, I don't know, but what matters in the end is that this movie is bad and deserves the rating of 3 out of 10.
This week's surprise screening at GV turned out to be the horror movie The Nun (La Monja). Seriously, I think that horror movies should try and come up with more imaginative titles, even though the story's about the character as described in the title. Who knows, soon we'll have spinoffs like The Monk, The Priest, and others belonging to various religious sects.<br /><br />The basic premise goes very simply, that a ghoul dressed up in a Nun garb (so that it can lay claim to the title) goes around killing ex-convent girls. There seemed to be some sort of conspiracy involved, as the daughter of one of the victims, Eva (played by an eye candy Icelandic Anita Briem), goes on to discover, with the help of a few good friends, like a rip off of I Know What You Did Last Summer (mentioned also, by the way).<br /><br />So as the body count increases, it's a race against time for our emotionally scarred (aren't they always?) heroine to uncover the truth and save the day. Delving into the sins of the mothers, the movie did the unthinkable, that with a dream sequence as the introduction. I hate dream sequences as it's a pretty cheap technique if not done correctly, and there are a couple of them in the movie.<br /><br />In part, the movie played at times like Ju-On gone wrong with the plenty of Dark Water references, and they could have retitled this Unholy Water, for the circumstances and plot points in the movie. However, there are plot holes abound, so don't be looking into the storyline too deeply. You'd come to expect the standard textbook twists towards the end about the sadistic nun, and sets which look like they can rival recent Thai horror movie Dorm.<br /><br />The acting's pretty forgettable, with the cast speaking in perfect heavily accented English. And since most of them are pleasing to the eye, the story must weave in a love scene in the middle of a witch-hunt. What gives? Hello, got hantu, still got mood ah? Then again, the ghoul is a pretty cheap animated/SFX which has a built in AI of popping up every now and then, in various fashion, just to elicit screams from timid audiences. The characters also break every unwritten rule in the Do-Nots in horror lore, so you know and expect their just desserts.<br /><br />Can you possibly enjoy this movie? Sure you can. Just ensure that you're watching it in a full house (should be easy, since local folks are suckers for anything remotely horrific), and laugh at those who are so jumpy they scream at every "frightening" scene. It's pretty fun, and adds to the atmosphere, besides what's going on the screen. Surround sound doesn't even come close.<br /><br />Think of it as watching an episode of Scooby Doo without the wisecracks, and it's a pity that the gory moments in the movie had to be censored for a PG rating. Those could possibly have been the best bits, now left rotting on the censor's floor board.
I would like to make it very clear that I am not at all religious. I am an atheist but I could see that Richard Dorkins was contradicting himself over and over again. I would also like to make it known that I am not the sort of person that argues against something with philosophy all the time, but I feel that when comparing science and religion we must be philosophical and be willing to question the belief in main stream science as well as questioning religious beliefs.<br /><br />I wonder if Richard Dorkins ever spends any time to think philosophically about belief, anyone who thinks long and hard enough about science and religion will realise that science is indeed a religion in itself. Yes there is a fundamental difference between the way that scientific beliefs are held when compared with other religions, but at it's roots, it's faith in a particular human instinct.<br /><br />Throughout this series, Richard insists that science methods are the only right way of thinking and that it makes sense to believe in something only if the evidence for it is strong enough. If you dig deep enough into how science functions you'll realise that it is just as irrational as religion and that it comes down to faith in the end, faith in the evidence, faith in our sanity, faith in our senses but more than anything else faith in our instinct to follow patterns of recurrence.<br /><br />This is not easy to explain but think about how the laws of physics were decided, it was because they were and still are the most common patterns of recurrence that we are aware of. I think that human beings have an instinct that makes them believe that the longer something remains in a certain state or place of existence the more we just assume out of blind FAITH that it is more likely to stay like it. For example, we don't expect that gravity will suddenly work in reverse tomorrow, by this I mean pushing matter away as supposed to attracting it. But the only reason why we don't expect this sudden change is because we have known for so long that it has always attracted as far as we are aware. However that doesn't mean that it couldn't do exactly the reverse tomorrow or even right now. It doesn't matter how long something may stay in a certain state or change, there is no rational reason to make assumptions about it but we do out of instinct. I would ask you to consider what is a long and short amount of time? There is no such thing, I don't know exactly how long it took for these supposed wise men to decide that everything must be made out of matter, Sound, Light, etc but lets give them what they would consider to be an edge way! Lets say far longer than it really was 12,00000000000 years! Is that a long period of time? 99999999999999999 years makes 12,00000000000 years seem like an incredibly short period of time. For all we know there could be an extreme amount of change in the so called laws of science within the next trillion years. It's all about comparison, only when we compare things can we say "that is long" or that is short. It's the same with big and small, wide and thin, heavy and light, strong and weak and others.<br /><br />I doubt that any scientist could tell me why they think that trusting this instinct makes sense. I certainly don't see why it should, but that doesn't mean that we as humanity should necessarily stop using it. With this in mind, the most hypocritical comment that Richard Dorkins made was when he said that faith is irrational, "a process of non thinking" he said. If what we have in this instinct that I've been describing and this instinct that we all possess on some level isn't faith then I don't know what the hell it is. Other times when he is being hypocritical is when he talks about the religions being bronze age, "bronze age myths" he says. I would like to point out that no matter how much scientific methods have been changed over the years due to experience, experiments and evaluating, the pure rules of science are getting older and older all the time! They could even be described as the holy bible of science. He was going on about how he is sick of the different religions being stubborn " I am right, he is wrong" but looking back on how rude he was to the various interviewees, he seems to be just as stubborn him self. To be fair to him, at least he doesn't try to bomb religious communities. I appreciate his hatred for certain religious beliefs that generate war, but I don't respect his arrogance in his own beliefs.<br /><br />As far as I'm concerned, Richard has the right to believe in science if that is his way. I am scientifically minded as well, but I don't think he has the right to go up to religious leaders having unfriendly arguments, trying to force his opinion on to them and virtually describing them as stupid. Despite all his education, experience and discoveries he seems to fail to have the wisdom to properly question his very own system of belief. I have read what he says in defence of this argument that open minded atheists such as my self put forward, What he states suggests to me that he is totally missing the point.<br /><br />Finally the title of the documentary, Root Of All Evil. This states that religion is the root of all evil, it isn't true. There are causes of evil that have nothing to do with religion.<br /><br />All round the documentary series was frustrating, narrow minded, hypocritical and flat-out rubbish.
This is a good blueprint for a study of corporate power and the dichotomoy between required public life and the need for privacy. Robert Taylor has been primed by corporate head Burl Ives as a surrogate son to replace him as head of the corporation. He sends him to England to negotiate a deal, where Taylor is both taken aback by the ethics and morality of the men he is dealing with and manages to fall in love with a refugee while he's at it. He comes back emtpy handed, having done his duty but having told the truth to the English about his motives. He attempts to marry the refugee rather than the boss's niece and so begins an attempt by Ives to discredit the refugee as a suitable wife for a corporate executive. It could have been gritter, nastier and less romantic - the amount of time spent on the romance skews the film away from the points it's trying to make about corporate ethics.<br /><br />Somehow the costume design was nominated (undeservedly) for an Oscar - it's all business suits and the two women in the film dress conservatively - studio politics at work yet again, no doubt.<br /><br />What is stiking however is the black and white CinemaScope cinematography which is excellent - this if anything deserved the Oscar nom. (It was MGM's first 'Scope film in B&W).<br /><br />Not as good as it could have been but not terrible either.
I love Japanese movies--having seen at least 100-200. So it's obvious I am not afraid of Japanese films. However, sometimes there are Japanese concepts for film that just don't translate well to Westerners. They might be hits at home, but abroad they just don't seem, well,...normal. It's like the live fish my wife ate on a business meeting or odd PS2 games such as dating simulators or Katamari Damacy--things that are accepted there that confuse non-Japanese. This is probably the way others view things Americans take for granted, such as American football, fried Snicker bars and Paris Hilton! Well the king of strange Japanese films that just don't seem right to Americans might just be ATAMA-YAMA. Now the style of animation isn't the issue--it's different but nice enough. No, it's the story concept itself and the rather bizarre ending. That's what make this a truly unusual film and it goes like this: There was a stingy man who, for no apparent reason, had a tree growing out of his head. It was little at first and he simply cut it away, but again and again it grew back--so he just decided to let it go. And, after a while, people began living on his head under the shade of the tree. Oddly, while they were under the tree, they were tiny but when they left, they were full sized again. Then, after finally getting sick of it all and yanking out the tree, the man drown himself(!?) in the hole in the top of the head where the tree was! The end.<br /><br />See! I told you this was very, very odd--but not in a good way like TAMPOPO or HAPPINESS OF THE KATAKURIS--just odd. O-D-D....odd! And unless you have a very high tolerance for this sort of thing, I doubt if you'll feel bad to know that this Oscar-nominated film did not win. Frankly, that makes me happy, as I really DON'T want this film to spur on such similar films. The only reason it earns a 4 is due to nice, but not spectacular animation.<br /><br />This film made my brain hurt....I hope that isn't a sign that I have a tree!
It is very possible that I simply didn't give the movie a fair enough chance because it was so immediately unappealing to me (something similar happened with Triplets of Belleville), but I really should have caught on when I put the film on and my roommate, an exchange student from Japan, immediately started laughing at the movie, saying that it sounded dumb. Now, I don't agree that it is dumb, the animation is very simple but clearly very skilled. It's like classic animation with added layers that add another element of realism to them while remaining strictly in the realm of the surreal at the same time.<br /><br />But the subject matter is entirely unappealing to me. It has an interesting message about stinginess and greed, but it is wrapped in such an unpleasant package that it is almost not worth learning, especially because you already knew it anyway. The sound effects while the man is loudly gobbling cherries and cherry pits, for example, are indeed repulsive.<br /><br />There was a clever scene of animation as we kept diving endlessly into the hole that the man finds in his head when he pulls the sapling out of his scalp, but it goes on for so long that it seems to overshadow everything else. There is so much stock put into that one sequence that it is almost like the whole movie is about it.<br /><br />As I said about Triplets of Belleville, this would have been a great thing for a late night TV program like adult swim, or its Japanese counterpart, but an Academy Award nominated film? It gives me the impression that there is not generally a long list of animated short films for the Academy to choose from.
In all the episodes, I never saw any real action or drama or comedy.<br /><br />The plot is so repetitive.<br /><br />****Somebody gets something old and then somebody else tells them a little bit about it and how much it's worth and who made it and where it comes from and how much it could sell for and if there was any work done to it.<br /><br />Sowhile I watched about 30 of these, i realized...there is no drama....nobody ever loses a limb or life or gets divorced or hit by a car or air-plane.<br /><br />There are no car chases or explosions- not even a horse race with old carriages.<br /><br />All those guns and swords and nobody goes on a violent killing spree...what gives? No pshycos, no axe-murders, no-gun-totting old Englishmen in bad suits...just yap yap yap...you have an old tea set and it came from the country of Germany back in 1602 - blah blah blah...<br /><br />I'm still waiting for somebody with a time machine to go on screen and ask about it, but no...it never comes to be and the only thing that happens is that some stuffy Englishman or woman serves up some crap about something old being sold in Boston or China during the Ming Dynasty - big EFFIN deal.<br /><br />Can't anybody ever kidnap one of the leads and hold them for ransom? Is there no alien spacecraft that will obliterate the entire floor? Who the hell writes this stuff as a series and expects us to stay awake? This is about as entertaining as watching paint dry - only with commentary.<br /><br />There's no sex, there's no comedy or romance, no action, no suspense, no action, no drama, no mystery or martial arts.<br /><br />This show sucks! What ever happened to supermodels wearing thongs and spewing lasers from a futuristic weapon? Antiques Roadshow - More like grab a blanket and pillow and go to sleep show...
It's about jealousy, it's about racism, it's about manipulation, but the underlying message is love. Geoffrey Sax tried to pull off Shakespeare's Othello, by bringing it to modern day context. However, the actors were not convincing enough to pull this off. There were extra bodies to help put everything in to perspective, however, John Othello, played by Eamonn Walker, over reacted a lot in this film, causing for the down fall of Keeley Hawes, Dessie Brabant, eventually ending in Dessie's death. <br /><br />Ben Jago, played by Christopher Eccleston, was seen as the main character in the film. He didn't give enough evidence for Dessie to be cheating on Othello, with Michael Cass, played by Richard Coyle. Instead he just played a friend to all and gave one reason as to why she "was" cheating. In the play, it took a lot more convincing from Iago to make Othello even suspect anything. This change made the movie more about rage for the wrong reasons, than what the book was based off of. However, the movie did have a few good points. It turned the army scenes into more a racist group toward blacks, where Othello is the main chief of the police squad. These scenes are made believable by the raging crowds, and burning fires. You are able to sense the amount of racism in the movie, more so than you can in the book. This book plays up the modern day scenes by making it much easier to understand, than the Shakespearian times it was written in. In the play Iago (Jago) gets tortured at the end, but in the film he gets his satisfaction, and gets Othello's position. He never gets what he deserves and is never caught for telling the lie to Othello until it is too late. I saw this as a downfall in the movie, because I feel that the villain is granted his treasure of the promotion out of lying, and in the book, he is found out by Rodrigo. Overall, the movie could have done a better job based on the play than what it did. I feel that the director of the movie left out some of the most important parts of the play that were mentioned or there to make the play flow, or make it more of a tragedy. I would say that you should read the book first, in order to understand all of the events that happened in the movie, otherwise you may find yourself lost, and confused.
Othello is set to burn the eyes of the viewers of this film. The bad depiction of Shakespeare's characters, and the terrible rendition of the love that Desi & John had, made this movie the horrendous filth that it is. By far, Othello, directed by Jeffery Saks, is beyond mediocre and atrocious. <br /><br />The movie Othello is a pitiful drama about the love between John and Desi. Their faithfulness to one another will be tested by the man's friend. In the opening scene of the film, it is clearly shown that the love between John and Desdemona is inseparable beyond belief. Moments later, Ben Jago, John's friend pops out into the screen scaring the viewers and showing them right away how much of a liar and power hungry person he is. <br /><br />By far, this movie was much more horrid than the Shakespeare novel itself. With that being said, it does have a miniscule amount of good parts. For example, the love that was shown between John and Desi, was depicted very well and it looked that the couple was so inseparable; just as it was explained in the book. Although the love between them was shown exceptionally well, it still did not show the jealously that Othello had between Cass and Desi as well as it should. <br /><br />Love, jealously, deceitfulness, this movie is based on all three of the main topics that were in the Shakespeare novel. The novel however, really explains how all of this came together much better than the movie could. For example, the conclusion of this story ends much more differently in the book than in the film. Much more detail is also put into the novel. This is why this film is such a disappointment, trust me, those who have read it will find it disappointing as well. <br /><br />In conclusion, this film was by far, the most horrendous depiction of a novel that has ever been put out by mankind. By avoiding to see this film, not only will viewers save themselves an hour two of their lives, but also save themselves an eye or two from the distasteful face of Ben Jago popping out at them.
It seems like an exciting prospect, a modern-dress "Othello" with Christopher Eccleston, who was so frighteningly good in "Shallow Grave" and (especially) "Jude," and Eamonn Walker, who brought such intensity and introspection to his pivotal role on "Oz." One would think them both natural Shakespeareans, but both performers misfire: Walker's Othello is a fairly cookie-cutter take on the part, with a whispery delivery that doesn't make much of an impact; and Eccleston hams it up appallingly as Iago, winking at the camera in almost an outrageous parody of the role. It's likely he was egged on by his director, whose florid approach might have worked better with Elizabethan language, but who seems a jarring, pretentious choice for this modernized screenplay. And the screenplay itself is less disappointing in being modern than it is in being obvious – it's as if Andrew Davies sketched out the famous plot and then just wrote whatever dialogue first popped into his head. All in all, a failure. 4 out of 10.
"I haven't laughed this hard since granny got caught in the wringer," says one of the potheads in this hilarious quasi-spoof of all those Val Lewton and George A. Romero walking-dead movies we have come to love (or loath, depending on your personal taste) through the years. <br /><br />In this story, a young actor pair play a ghoulish prank on the rest of their troupe after, one spooky night, they visit a cemetery island. Their artistic director, Alan, pretends to bring the dead back to life by conducting a highly stylized ritual.<br /><br />Way too much screen time is misspent; the amateur dialog includes lame witticisms, melodrama and other kinds of unnecessary filler commentaries (And can't Alan stop that irritating laughter... way too much!). Once the action kicks in (which comes close to the end of this film), it's worth the wait. <br /><br />I saw this one on a late-night, local station television program that ran films very much like this one... only this one scared me at the age of 13... but then again, you might laugh your way through it, until the bitter end... ...which is probably the reason, nowadays, why very few people still wear striped hip-huggers.
Strange, often effective hippie zombie flick, starring the unforgettable husband/wife team of Alan and Anya Ornsby, this movie isn't as bad as most in its genre, but is still way high on the cheese-factor. Includes several bargain-basement zombies, outrageously campy dialogue, a scene-chewing performance by Alan Ormsby, several gay/kinky grave-robbers, and one straange soundtrack. Wife Anya puts on a performance that's so odd, one has to wonder if she's really acting at all. There are much worst pics of this kind during the era (look for any Al Adamson flic), but it's no Night of the Living Dead. Director/Writer "Benjamin" Clark, is really Bob Clark, who went on to create the purile "Porky's" early 80's teen exploitation disasters. He has only now resurfaced after 1 inexplicably good movie ("A Christmas Story") to return to his dreadful ways with "Baby Geniuses". Weirdo Alan Ormsby later wrote the kinky Nastasia Kinski/Malcolm McDowell version of "Cat People". Moocow says check this hippy horror movie out for fun, zombie frolics, and campy dialogue :=8)
I'd heard a lot of bad things about this film before seeing it, but thought all the negative comments were probably down to the film's low budget and poor acting - both of which I can deal with when it comes to zombie films. However, what I didn't count on is this film being really, really boring; if there's one thing you can count on from low budget zombies, its gore and entertainment - but unfortunately, this film has neither. I'm quite surprised, because the previous two horror films I've seen from director Bob Clark - Deathdream and Black Christmas - were both highly inventive and entertaining films, but Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things just doesn't cut it. The plot line follows a group of young adults that travel to a burial island in order to mess about with rituals to bring the dead back to life. However, they soon learn that playing with things they don't understand is a really stupid idea when their rituals actually bring the dead back to life and the corpses of the island return to feast on their blood!<br /><br />The plots sounds like it could lead to a decent flick, but what I didn't mention is that the interesting parts don't start until the final twenty minutes; and as this is a ninety minute movie, I'm sure you can guess that this isn't a good thing. The opening hour and ten minutes are padded out with poor acting and even worse characters. I can understand setting up a situation so that the horror is more potent once it comes along; but please, if you're going to spend so long on it, you've really got to make it interesting. All of the characters in the film are over the top and annoying, and personally I just wanted the zombies to hurry up and eat them. The film is not without its merits, however, as the atmosphere is a standout. Lucio Fulci would show seven years later how an isolated island and flesh eating zombies can blend well; but Bob Clark already did it with this film. The direction isn't bad either, but it's brought down by poor make-up effects and a distinct lack of blood, which isn't likely to please fans of zombie movies. Overall, I really can't recommend this film; but if you're a hardcore zombie fanatic, you may get a kick out of it.
It's always interesting to view a horror movie after hearing so much praise from other fans. Experience has taught me that you should never generalize fan taste within a genre. My expectations of this movie were a great deal higher than my viewed opinion.<br /><br />Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things is a movie with a good intended plot that trips up too many times to carry it out. The whole idea of a band of actors staging a reanimation of dead corpses had me intrigued. However, everything degenerated into cinematic chaos. The actors,who for the most part were competent and amazingly expressive, were offered roles that fail to maintain consistent characterization. Some of these characters go from ambivalence about the whole act of defiling a cemetery, to outspoken criticism, back to ambivalence. It's one thing for characters to have a change heart in the course of the film; it's another to produce an overly dynamic, circular attitude that loops every ten minutes.<br /><br />Another inconsistent element of this film is the premise. Does the main protagonist intend for the ceremony to be theatrical prank or does he actually conspire with dark spiritual forces to raise the dead? Even with the aforementioned flaws, I would recommend this movie to other horror fans, since I believe that only true horror fans will appreciate the dark atmospheric components and be able to ignore the plot's inconsistency. The scene where the dead rise out of the grave is made extremely haunting (even to a veteran zombie enthusiast) by the excellent combined use of scenery and sound, and the great choice of skilled actors chosen to play the reanimated dead. Current filmmakers should learn from CSPWDT about using the proper video and audio techniques in mood development.<br /><br />All in all, if you are zombie movie completionist like me, you should take time to locate and view this movie. It's a fun watch.
This early film from director Bob Clark ("Porky's", "Black Christmas", "A Christmas Story") didn't really pump my nads like I expected. In fact, it straight up annoyed me. It's about a theater troupe who sail to a burial island, consisting of dead criminals, where they plan to conjure some evil forces and resurrect some corpses... The leader of their group, a conceited black-magic enthusiast and possible homosexual, attempts to summon Satan's help with the re-animation of an exhumed body, which fails so they take the corpse to the nearby, deserted caretaker's house and play with it... Nothing interesting happens until the last fifteen minutes or so when the undead finally spring from their graves and go after the desecrater's. The make-up effects are okay, the gore is VERY minimal (PG rating), and the extremely irritating characters are focused on way to much, which really got on my nerves. I guess having group of terrible actors bickering for an hour was suppose to equal some "comedic" status, yet I found no humor in it, whatsoever. The entire concept is just ridiculous - how these kids are willing to dig up and monkey around with a dead body for as long as they did. The characters are stereotypical and bland and the movie is just plain boring... Don't waste your time with it...
I have to give this movie a 4 because of a couple of things.<br /><br />1. What I'll call the "stupid victim syndrome". If you have the killer on the floor and you have his gun - shoot him please. If you are a cop and you have your shotgun pointed at the killer's back - shoot him please.<br /><br />2. When you are in a high stress situation and you have your finger on the trigger of a gun - your first instinct is to squeeze. This is one of the first things they teach you in handgun training and the reason that you don't put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire - ask any hunter or infantryman. If you are electrocuted, your muscles should also contract - making you squeeze your finger.<br /><br />3. It's really hard to lay on the floor completely still for 8 hours without 2 other people - one of them a doctor - not noticing that you aren't dead. Even more so if you are supposedly dying of a brain tumor and were in the hospital just a few months earlier.<br /><br />4. Technically, the killer did kill one of his victims - the guy he injected with poison that had to get the antidote. If you poison someone, that is murder.<br /><br />5. What was Adam's lesson that he was supposed to learn? Yes, the doctor needed to be there, but what was Adam's crime? Maybe I just missed something.<br /><br />Other than those things, I would have given this movie a higher grade. The plot was pretty good, and the ways the killer chose to kill his victims were very inventive. I can even forgive the terrible acting on the doctor's part - the scenes with his family were enough to make me sick. The cinematography and soundtrack were very good, but the ending seemed contrived and just didn't work for me. Thank goodness I didn't have to pay to see this or I would have demanded a refund.
(This review does not necessarily expose the plot of the movie, however it may change one's expectations of the movie and thus make for a less enjoyable experience.) <br /><br />Ever rented a scary movie, expecting to be on the edge of your seat in fear, and instead ended up howling in laughter at each and every stupid turn of the plot? This movie had so many opportunities to impress and actually scare the viewer. It was cut poorly and jumped around too much; making references to the past seem more like excuses as to why the plot was heading in its particular direction. The writers must not have thought about how the potentially excellent plot should have been carried out, because the poor construction of time throughout the plot is discouraging to the viewer and makes the movie increasingly tiring to watch.<br /><br />Almost worse than the writers having abused what could have been an excellent and classic thriller was the fact that it gradually relied on cheap tactics for a scare. The acting didn't make it scary, and the situations hardly made it scary, therefore it needed a few dark scenes with things jumping out at you to make it worthwhile. Even those were predictable.<br /><br />Not even the gore could've saved the plot, and it rivals the gore of the successful thriller Se7en.<br /><br />Speaking of Se7en, I feel like Saw tried to follow Se7en's incredibly fascinating psychological theme, but failed miserably in doing so. I was terribly disappointed in the lack of analysis and plot structure surrounding the psychology of the killer. The beginning scenes tease the viewer into thinking that this is a psychological thriller; believe me, it is far from that.<br /><br />Oh, did I mention poor acting? At first, Cary Elwes seems makes a convincing performance; however, this completely deteriorates at the most crucial parts of the plot. I was left in tears of laughter at this performance, which is worthy of a Razzie. The performance of Leigh Whannell is also terrible and too played-out, although not as bad as the performance by Elwes, and the big red flag with this is that Whannell is also a writer for the movie.<br /><br />The end of Saw could never make up for having lost the entire middle of it, and that is what makes it a huge failure. It was an opportunity wasted, and I have no clue as to why Monica Potter and Danny Glover chose to take roles in this movie.<br /><br />I am mad at myself for wasting money on just renting it. It was definitely not worth the $4, and in the future I will definitely avoid seeing anything having to do with Elwes, Whannell or James Wan. The big tragedy in this is not that it lacked basis to its plot, it's that the great potential storyline was thrown away and poor acting added insult to injury. I'll avoid the poor puns involving the title and just conclude with this: don't watch this movie.
The main problems of 'Saw' are related to the tremendous script mistakes that only a uncritical spectator will just obviate. The main question is what's is the purpose of the killer in his lying in the middle of the floor? The film tries to show that the killer's aim is to cause evil and destruction in his victims, he loves to play with the lives of other people and to feel control over their the fears and debilities. So why does he just pretend to be dead between the two main characters? A tremendous unlikelihood: can a man pretend to be dead for more than one or two hours without moving a single muscle or even without breathing in order not to be discovered by two men who are in the same room? It has not sense at all except to be the final (d)effect of the movie. The killer seems to have always the control along the plot and if it's lying like a dead body this can't be possible. Finally, it doesn't work. The right place for the killer should have been a darker and untouchable shadow behind the false shadow (the male nurse) but not the floor of the white room. The director shouldn't have showed the killer's face and maybe the site where he is hidden. Then, the film would be a quite good thriller. However, 'Saw' is just a fiasco. Hitchcock, please, come back.
I really tried to like "Saw." The story was good, and I admire the breakneck pace of the way the film was shot. However, there were too many clichés and elements that while they may have looked "cool," they really made no sense.<br /><br />First, what I liked about the film was the overall tone of the story, and I thought the premise was fantastic. The character of The Jigsaw Killer was intriguing and reminded me of vintage Dario Argento. Danny Glover was excellent in his role as an obsessed detective, and Monica Potter was good in a thankless role as a doctor's abducted wife. Shawnee Smith's scene was incredible and both Wan and Whannell should be commended for using that scene as a demo to get the backing for the film. The whole notion that the Jigsaw killer finds a way for his victims to kill themselves is an excellent notion, but once the film got going, logic began to get away.<br /><br />Once they showed that Zap was the one holding Dr. Gordon's wife and daughter hostage, it was apparent that he was not the Jigsaw killer, and part of it. The scene where he puts a stethoscope over the heart of the terrified Diana while Allison screams at him through her gag was one of the most gratuitous scenes I've ever seen. It was supposed to be chilling, but establishing nothing. Also, since the Jigsaw killer finds a way for victims to kill themselves, he has no problem slicing the throat of a police officer. I guess it's a way to show that he doesn't want to get caught and will go to any means necessary to ensure that doesn't happen, but to me it just didn't make any logic, especially when he shows no remorse over the death of another detective (which I did like that setup, just would've been better if given to someone who actually deserved it).<br /><br />I felt Leigh Whannell was fine as Adam. It wasn't really a showy role and he has a lot of potential as a character actor. However, I wasn't too fond of James Wan's direction. The story may have been original, but the direction sure wasn't. I guess I'm tired of quick, MTV style cuts in favor of the old approach to directing, but a lot of scenes involving the Jigsaw killer reminded me too much of "Se7en," way too much of it. As the film progressed, to me it was starting to become a series of demo reels like "Hey, look what I can do." Instead of being intriguing, it became very distracting. But hey, it worked. He's now directing "Final Destination 3" so he's on a path to a successful career, and I think he will become a top notch horror director in years to come.<br /><br />What really did it in for me was the ending. Like I said, I knew that Jigsaw wasn't Zap, and I liked how Adam discovered the mini tape player after killing him. It would've had a terrific ending, except for one fatal flaw: I felt they should've left it where you didn't know who the killer was. The way it was done was only done for one reason: Boy, are we clever? Uh, no. To me, it just didn't make sense.<br /><br />Some of the better horror films are made for a reason, where there is a reason for the violence we see in the story. While "Saw" started out very well, it started to become undone by the filmmakers' insatiable need to be "cool" and detract from the winning story they had. Perhaps if they weren't too insistent on making the films themselves, and relied on a more experienced horror director to helm it, I think it would've been the horror classic that it undeservedly has been given over the past four months. If this and "Cabin Fever" are the future of horror, I'm very scared.
I'm a big horror film buff, particularly of the 1980's subgenres. Name one – I've probably seen it. Last year, a new little horror movie that seemed to slip under mainstream radar called "Saw" was about to hit theaters. I was moderately excited. Having not heard anything about it, I thought it looked quite promising judging by the previews and posters (well, except the back and white ones with the severed hands and feet...those just looked terrible!) I saw the film on opening night. It was one of the worst experiences of my life. This movie was literally mentally and psychically painful to watch. Because it was scary?...NO! Because it was one of the most awful movies I had ever had the displeasure of seeing! First off, the construction of the screenplay and editing was utterly atrocious, even by horror movie standards. Starting off a sequence in an interrogation room with a victim (Shawnee Smith) who recently survived a serial killer's attack, then showing a flashback of what she survived? NOT SCARY! It was impossible to feel any type of tension WHATSOEVER knowing that the aforementioned victim was perfectly alright. Sure, that reverse-bear-trap thing was creepy...but WHY should I feel in the least bit frightened when CLEARLY, you just showed me she survived the ordeal? Unfortunately, the entire film was constructed this way. It starts with two guys in a cellar. Then, they show flashbacks of how they were abducted...NOT SCARY! Why? Because we already know what's gonna happen to them, seeing as how we JUST SAW the result of the attack. THEY'RE FINE! Move on with the story! Even more unfortunately, the actual story was meager at best. I couldn't have cared less for these annoying, pitiful excuses for "characters" and the acting didn't help. Cary Elwes was solid for the most part and then suddenly towards the end he started crying like a lost infant while straining to keep his American accent in tact (it didn't work – the audience I saw this with was in stitches). This drove him to a rash and idiotic decision even the most simple-minded wouldn't attempt. He had other options. Better ones. SMARTER ONES. Even given his intense emotional state (horribly communicated through horrible acting), it was still irrational. I didn't buy it. BAD WRITING ALERT! Furthermore, even when certain sequences were played straight-through and flashback-free, they were painfully predictable. I constantly found my foot tapping impatiently waiting for the dumb sequence to end. This happened for the entire film. I saw every single "twist" coming. Twenty minutes into the film, I had already called the killer's identity, not to mention his connection to his "accomplice(s)" as SOON as they appeared on screen. Better acting might've been able to overshadow the awful script. Instead, the actors might as well have had "RED-HERRING" or "ACCOMPLICE" tattooed across their foreheads.<br /><br />By the end of the movie, I was utterly outraged I had wasted even a fragment of my life on this film, and the entire theatre was laughing hysterically at the downright horrendous finale. Seriously, you'd think they were watching a Monty Python movie. I would've been laughing too, had I not been so angered at the film's total and utter failure to accomplish ANYTHING it set out to do. When we left, there was (no joke) a line to speak to the manager of the theatre to get their money back (didn't happen). I was absolutely positive the movie was going to be a box-office bomb. The following week, you couldn't have imagined my shock to find out "Saw" had hit number one at the box office and EVERYONE was talking about it (mostly individuals who found "Napoleon Dynamite" to be a thought-provoking epic tale and thought "satire" was some type of rubber). I am so utterly sickened to hear people praise this film that I often feel as though I'm going to vomit. It's entertainment for the most feeble and simple-minded of the human race. Those who find some weird Jigsaw clown-puppet riding on a tricycle threatening (it's a doll – knock it over and leave – what's so frightening about that?).<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I own every "Friday the 13th", love my splatter movies, thought "Napoleon Dynamite" was hilarious, can't get enough of Freddy, Michael, Pinhead, or Leatherface, have a font appreciation for unknown horror gems and rank "Sleepaway Camp II: Unhappy Campers" amongst my Top 10 Favorite Slashers. However, I realize these films aren't the most sophisticated American cinema has to offer – I appreciate them for what they are – quick, easy fun. "Saw" is cinematic garbage. The film attempts to be a smart and semi-sophisticated, nasty little thrill ride, and bogs down to an irritating, annoying waste of time, money, energy, and celluloid. Atrocious on all accounts. Every single copy should be incinerated, along with its feeble-minded fans. Shame on all of you.<br /><br />Will I see "Saw II"? Maybe after I take a double-shot of Liquid Drano before I gouge out my own eyes and impale white-hot shish-kabob brochettes into my ears and colon. My Rating: 0/10. Avoid at all costs.
This was the most unrealistic movie I ever seen.<br /><br />I can't believe that the writer and director didn't see that almost all the movie looks like a SF one.<br /><br />For example: <br /><br />1. It is impossible for the killer to stay on cold glaze and after 10 hours to get up so quickly.<br /><br />2. You can't get electrocuted trough a water pipe like in the movie.(believe me, it's my domain)<br /><br />3. With a saw you can cut 10 pipes in 10 hour very easy. Let's say that the chain was made from steel but the water pipe was rusty and it was made from iron.<br /><br />4. If you try to cut your foot with a saw you faint (in the best case, it's more likely to die because your hart fails) before to get to the bone(shin).<br /><br />And there are more other examples.
Why is it that every time I mention this movie to somebody, I have to hear 10 minutes of praise about it. I have come to the conclusion that any movie that has a twist upon a twist is deemed "genius" by anyone who watches it. Is that really what film has become? Or is it that any time someone says "Wow, that is so cool" everybody has to agree with them and has no opinion of their own? How this movie has a 7.5 rating is a disgrace to the film industry in general. It has also become yet another movie that "needs" two sequels for it, so I am going to have to hear about this horrible franchise for quite a while longer.<br /><br />Now to the film and why it is so bad. The original concept of it is actually not that bad, as there has not been a good serial killer movie in a while. The writing for this film is horrible as well as the execution. OK, so its a low budget movie, but that should not change the story or writing. The actors could not be worse in their attempt to make us scared of this killer or just scared of this movie. So they go out and get a big name in Danny Glover, but his talents (whatever those are) are wasted because HIS CHARACTER IS WORTHLESS. Why was he even in this movie? What was his whole fight at the end turned out to be useless and misleading for what the audience believes is happening. This is of course the filmmakers intent, but couldn't there have been a better way to do this without making us watch all that garbage. And then the "big" twist comes (was this the third or fourth?) and the whole audience is shocked and walks out of the theater like this is some kind of masterpiece. Sure the movie gets people talking about the storyline and what not, but that was not the only flaw in this film. The direction was trying to be way too creative with what it was working with, and the flashback sequences were used merely as a shock effect.<br /><br />After watching this movie, even if you enjoyed it, go back and review the film and you will soon understand why it is not worthy of the praise it is receiving. For an amazing serial killer film check out Se7en if you have not done so. That is what this film wanted to be. I have gotten into more arguments about this film than probably any others and will continue to argue against it. Please do not support this franchise for not only your sake, but mine and everybody else's sake as well. Hollywood needs to find a good horror movie to make, rather than 1,000 remakes, sequels, and "shock" factor films (such as this). Oh yeah the saw 2 tag line sounds real promising: "Oh yes, there will be blood." Yaaayyyy!!!! Sweet!! blood, that must mean its good right? Give me a break. Sorry everybody who love this movie, but poor writing, flashy direction, and bad acting does not make a good movie.
There were so many things wrong with this movie i have trouble keeping them all straight. But one thing that really bothers me is that if Jigsaw was the one laying on the ground in the bathroom, what happens if Zep never shows up? What if Zep was killed by Danny Gloover before he made it to the bathroom? Does Jigsaw simply just get up and walk out? Could the guy in the middle of the bathroom not be jigsaw, but another part of Jigsaw's game? What if Zep killed the wife and kid, how does Jigsaw get him the antidote for the poison if he's lying in the middle of the bathroom? Why does the doctor wait till the last minute to finally cut off his foot? It was too late, it was after six and as far as he knew his wife and child were already shot dead, it wasn't the best time for heroics. These are just a few questions i had about the film, but i may be missing something or everything as i have only seen the movie once. Please Help!
Danny Glover and Carey Elwes obviously forgot how to act when they made this movie, the acting is absolutely atrocious. The pay-off is even worse. I feel sorry for Danny Glover, I hope he got paid well for this because it makes him look completely foolish, the same goes for Mr. Elwes.An absolute slap in the face to any horror movie fan. Despicable. This is probably the worst display of acting by veteran actors I have ever seen. I wonder if they bothered to look at the script, or if they did it must have said "forget everything you know about acting" because this makes the two of them look ridiculous. For two seasoned veterans to act this way is appalling, I hope the pay check was very large, I thought, at first, it was a spoof. If you can find satisfaction in this movie then more power to you.
Eh. This is a popcorn movie, nothing more. I watched this with a bunch of friends (and though that might NOT be the best way to view a horror movie...) and most of the dialogue and action was laughable.<br /><br />It left me yearning for a real film. :)<br /><br />The main problem is the lack of tension in the film. It keeps flashing back to 'explanation' scenes, which dissipates any discernible tension.<br /><br />And the character relationship 'twists'? Yeah, they suck. I won't say what they are, but they just don't add anything to the film/storyline.<br /><br />(By relationship, I mean the two main characters.)<br /><br />Eek. My recommendation is this: watch this movie if you can't think of anything better. Mediocre at best...Maybe not even that.
There are bad movies and then there are movies which are even worst. Saw is just that.<br /><br />The movie is simply bad on all points. The plot, the acting, the camera work, the music and everything else is absolutely terrible and I cannot begin to comprehend how such trash made it to the big screen.<br /><br />The simple fact is that Saw is riddled with plot holes. The beginning is enticing and leaves much to be expected but it does not hold up and the plot becomes absolutely ridiculous and absurd. The film is not creative and will not leave you with a single bit of credibility. People that claim that this movie is gory, violent, sadistic and scary are sissy girls who have nightmares after watching CSI because it is far from that.<br /><br />So I am warning you know, do not attempt to watch this if you have any form of intellect, because you will be disappointed. A true bore and a mediocre film as can be.
"Hood Rat" is absolutely terrible. This is a urban version of "Willard". I just can't believe this movie got made, let alone distributed. Someone in Universal Studios thought that people would watch and like this "movie". The only good thing in this is Ice-T as the landlord. He was funny. <br /><br />The one thing I hate in movies is sped up action. Once or twice is bad enough, but the WHOLE movie is like that. Every scene transition is some fast motion special effect. The director should be banned from making movies forever. <br /><br />Trust Me, Never see this movie!
I can't believe that Isaiah Washington and Ice-T were in this mess! The plot (and I use that term very loosely) centers around an army of rats that terrorize an urban apartment complex--at least I think that's what it was about. The script made no sense at all, I couldn't have cared less about the characters and the camera-work consisted of repeatedly showing shadow images of rats standing on their hind legs or running. Running is what I should have done. As an African American male, I often read pleas from my brothers and sisters to "support African American films." I try to help out, but enough is enough. No one should watch garbage like this for any reason whatsoever. Please, brothers and sisters, don't produce any more direct to video rat turds like this. Please!
I normally am a glutton for poor movies, but this thing stunk.<br /><br />Do not watch this movie.<br /><br />Terrible effects and very little humour, what the hell was the point of making this movie? No gore to speak of and no acting to speak of.<br /><br />I could only manage 45 minutes of this rat dropping of a movie, and that is rare for me.<br /><br />Something positive to say about this drivel? cover art was OK, I am pretty sure the movie has a ending too, even tho I did not make it to it.<br /><br />The rats were unorganized and blew their lines constantly,they lacked intensity and seemed just to be going through the paces for their paycheque. The actors were worse.
(spoiler) it could be the one the worst movie you see, you might like it like I did I really like it. Its one of those odds movie. <br /><br />There is man who seen to have a had day in life. Blacks rats some how feel sorry him (which I think was a good Idea).<br /><br />The killer rats become friends with man two big man come making feel unwanted so the man set the killer rat on them and floor to floor both bodies covered in big black rats not that much blood.<br /><br />but think about big black rats all over body) but start to little killing people but rats are going over-bored until the rats kills his friends and girlfriends, <br /><br />Ther one scene in were seating on the toilet while rats are going into the pipes leading to toilet and rat goes up his you know and come out of his mouth, (which mean the rats must off eaten everything inside in body's) I had me laughing for weeks<br /><br />why did i like this movie, yes it's different of the rest, I for ONE like it when little creature takes on mankind. <br /><br />if you have seen any of these movie slugs, slither, Them, spiders, snakes, tremors ,Cujo, crocodile, shark, octopus.<br /><br />If you liked them and check out Hood rats, <br /><br />it better then Terror toons that all I Can say! 4/10
This movie wasn't the best... but it did have some good actors in it. Isiaiah Washington was pretty good as a homeless guy, Guy Torrey was good as his handicapped brother, Ice-T was humorous as the landlord and surprisingly...the actress Tami Roman was good as the Judge in the movie. I didn't even know it was her and I am a die hard Real World fan. She was totally believable. Hopefully this movie won't hinder these actors development. I know that Isiaiah has left this movie far behind with the success of Grey's Anatomy, Ice-T with his regular role on NYPD Special Unit and Tami Roman has landed a recurring role on Sex Love and Secrets (UPN's new soap opera). I wish the same for the other actors because one bad movie DOESN'T a bad actor make.
This movie is bad, so bad that my mother who can barely stand the "suspense" of Disney's Snow White, was chuckling through out the entire movie. My first warning should've been that it was in the $5.50 bin at Wal-mart. But I have actually found some good movies in that bin, so i can't fault if for this debacle. The second warning should have been that when the cashier rang up the DVD, it was actually $3.88. Again I have never been one to ignore the cheapies. THis movie is definitely not for people looking for something good to watch, and it most certainly isn't for everyone that enjoys the occasional bad movie. If you need background noise while you are doing something like playing cards with some friends, then get this but if you are looking for something to actually watch don't even bother. It was really disappointing because there were a lot of good actors. I felt like i was watching a chocolate version of Willard.
I don't understand how some people can stand playing "Half-Life: Counter-Strike" when there are so many better first-person shooting games available.<br /><br />"Counter-Strike" is a game that doesn't use any imaginative ideas in its weaponry. All the weapons in the game are real-life weapons, but there could have been at least a cheat that allowed players to have access to a "supernatural" weapon, like the all-powerful BFG in the Quake & Doom games.<br /><br />Another problem is that the player actually has to reload the weapon manually. This can become extremely annoying, especially while in the middle of a firefight when you are so close to killing the enemy. The reloading delay also gives the feeling that the gun is slow at performing its task.<br /><br />There are not many choices of characters to choose from. If I remember correctly, there are 4 types of characters each for the Terrorist and Counter-Terrorist forces. This means that many of the characters look the same as each other, which really brings down the game's realism.<br /><br />The game is pretty sexist when it comes to character selections. In the early version of Counter-Strike, there was a woman available to choose (in the Terrorist force selection) which was good for the female gamers. In the latest versions, however, the female character was deleted and replaced with another male character. I wonder if the women who played the game were disappointed at the newer versions.<br /><br />Finally, the maps in the game are very small. The biggest map seems to be the desert map, but it has standard detail. In fact, all the maps in the game have standard graphics. In other words, nothing new.<br /><br />To sum up, I think "Half-Life: Counter-Strike" is the most un-imaginative first-person shooting game of all time. There are plenty of better & more imaginative shooting games to play, so why waste your time on this boring game? You're better off playing the Unreal Tournament, Quake, and Doom games. Avoid this over-rated & over-hyped game.<br /><br />I give the game a 1/10.
"The Man From Utah" opens with a singing cowboy strumming a guitar on horseback. This is how we're introduced to John Weston (John Wayne), heading into town and looking for work. When he helps Marshal Higgins (George pre-Gabby Hayes) foil a bank robbery with his fancy shooting, the marshal offers him an undercover job as a deputy to investigate the Dalton Valley Rodeo. Apparently, the annual winners of the big prize money in the rodeo are a tight knit band of bad boys in the employ of Spike Barton (Ed Peil), who also happens to head up the rodeo committee. Serious challengers to the supremacy of Barton's top henchman Cheyenne Kent (Yakima Canutt) wind up severely ill or dead. <br /><br />Even back in these 1930's Lone Star Westerns John Wayne had a charismatic presence that hinted at future star quality. If for nothing else, seeing Wayne so young in these films is a real treat. The movie itself clips along at a quick fifty three minute pace, much of it taken up by stock rodeo footage of roping, bulldogging and Indian parade and dance. In the deciding rodeo event, Weston avoids disaster by discovering a poisoned needle inserted into the saddle of "Dynamite", a formerly unridden bronco on which he must outlast Cheyenne. <br /><br />The ending is no surprise, as Barton's bad boys forsake winning the rodeo events and go for the whole thirty thousand dollar pot of prize money deposited in the local bank. But the marshal and Weston are there to foil their plans and save the day for the Dalton Valley Rodeo. And as we've seen before in films like "Neath the Arizona Skies" and "Randy Rides Alone", Wayne's character closes out the film in a clinch with a pretty young lady, this time the judge's daughter Marjorie Carter (Polly Ann Young), who pined for him throughout the film.
Too much stock footage (almost one third of this 53 minute film) really slows this one down. Granted that the plot is that John Weston (John Wayne) is sent by Marshall George Higgins (George Hayes) to participate in a fixed rodeo (say "Ro-DAY-oh"), but character development and interaction are sacrificed. The relationship between the Bad Girl (usually a Latina-- even in the great "Duck Soup" [1933]) and the 'heroine' Polly Ann Young, a Loretta Young look-alike (hey! it's her sister!) could have benefited from more screen time. The happy ending is too abrupt-- although this time John Wayne actually kisses the girl.<br /><br />The most interesting stock footage was the lengthy rodeo parade of real Indians, squaws, and papooses. But when the best part of the movie is the stunt work by the Mighty Yak, Yakima Canutt, who gives us jumping from one horse to another and several different running leaps onto a horse, you know we're in trouble. As noted by others, the final fight with the villain is very poorly done.<br /><br />My copy, from 'Platinum Disc Corporation' featured an added,sparse, ill-fitting (pseudo-classical) stereo music track that ruins the authenticity of the original film.(The DVD box had 'enhanced audio 5.1' on it.) If you're going to modernize and colorize it you should add a 'western' sounding score with acoustic guitars, 'klip-klopping' hoofbeats, harmonicas, and an accordion. <br /><br />Finally, we have to say this is one of the weakest Lone Star efforts.
OK, before I get into this, let's go ahead and get the warning out of the way: this movie is the quintessential "cinematic" definition of SLEAZE! There are movies out there that can definitely out-shock or out-disgust this movie that have WAY more artistic validity than can be said for this turd of a film. So what makes it so sleazy?? Let's take a closer look at "Wet Wilderness" for a moment......<br /><br />Made in 1974 for practically nothing, this "roughie" has no real genuine "plot" to speak of other than portraying what would happen if a FAMILY went into the wilderness to relax and spend a day while being accosted by a fat dude in a ski mask wielding a machete looking for kicks.....the kind that end up with everyone being forced to have sex with each other while being systematically murdered by the masked creep. So those sensitive to themes dealing with incest are encouraged to look elsewhere. Then to really either add a level of surrealism or just demonstrate a complete ineptness for the art of film-making, the "daughter" of the group runs away after being forced to have sex with her brother and finds a random black dude (!) tied to a tree branch ("...that fat sum-bitch left me here for 3 days...") with virtually NO explanation whatsoever!! He is saved.....or is he? Of course not!! They are caught before they can escape, where our killer forces them to have sex as well while forcing the mother to join in, ending up with a dead black dude (courtesy of a hatchet through the chest) when all is said and done. Then our killer forces the daughter and mother to give him oral sex when one of the women grabs the machete........and the movie abruptly ends!!! Just like that! No warning, no tied-up loose ends.....it's simply over. Now there MIGHT be a proper ending to this film (I honestly do not know), but I have only seen the extremely crude Alpha Blue Archives version. Their version appears to have the ending either cut out completely or this is how it ends. If this was intentional, then in Film-making 101, I'm sure there is some sort of rule of thumb on HOW to end a film, but it shouldn't be done like THIS! Fans of the film "Psycho" should rejoice upon hearing the soundtrack music, as it's all through the film! I'd be willing to bet no rights were licensed or anything. Also, even though this is a "violent" film, there's not a hell of a lot of it, so gorehounds will find nothing of real use here. None of the violence is graphically shown.....only the results (one of the victims gets stabbed with a machete right above the vagina area). Also, the sex is some of the UGLIEST sex I've ever seen! The interesting thing about this film is it's too ugly a film to work as an effectively erotic porno or turn on anyone but those with a tendency to like things sleazy, nasty, and ugly, but not violent enough to garner any real notoriety with those looking for something really brutal like "Cannibal Holocaust" or other flicks like that. The only "notorious" thing about this steaming pile is that violence was added to an adult film, a fairly new concept at that time, especially when you consider than porn chic was all the rage and the grindhouses that filled 42nd Street played stuff like this to a most jaded group of porn mavens. This wasn't and isn't "mainstream" porn at all.<br /><br />If you were in film-making school and there was a list of movie-making "don'ts", this film would be a shining example of that lesson! This cinematic swill demonstrates what happens when cerebrally challenged filmmakers are given a "budget" (in this case, probably about $142.....cuz it looks it!) and ignore all the "don'ts" and turn them into "do's".....yes, this film is that bad!! One more thing: those who get offended by racial epithets are also encouraged to watch something else. The black man in the film is constantly being verbally abused about his color and the killer is obviously racist, but there was NO political correctness in the early 70's. I'm not sure a film like this could be made today.<br /><br />To be honest, this won't "shock" anyone or titillate anyone but those who get off on ugliness. Actually, I got bored. The sex is so ugly and mundane, it's hard to watch with any sense of eroticism, so if you chance this, you will thank God for the fast forward button! The "acting", if you want to call it that, is amateurish at best (I mean, it's even bad for PORNO!) with not one reason to care about anyone or anything in this!! If you JUST gotta see this anyway, then download it, as you'll really feel like a heel if you buy this. Some things are simply that worthless.....and "Wet Wildernes" is. The only thing more unpleasant than watching this film would be watching this film sitting in a theater and looking around at the others in attendance watching it too and suddenly feeling unsafe. Probably not society's greatest collection of thinkers and intellectuals. But if you're up for some stupid, yet SLEAZY porn garbage, give it a crack. It's 54 minutes and yet, it feels MUCH longer!! Crackheads would LOVE this! Then again, maybe there's something wrong with me for seeking this out in the first place......LOL! Caveat emptor, sleaze-lovers!!
There was a time in the US that everything was possible on film, so came the roughies, movies containing horror and explicit scene's. The best known are Forced Entry and Waterpower, but of course those were made with a bit of budget. All shown on 42nd in NY, but hey, there were other grindhouses out there that showed no budget roughies. Wet Wilderness is an example of it. It circuited the underground scene after a while so copies were available but as seen on other reviews, some copies were abrupt cut at the end. But the version I watched was complete. Well i would call this one more a porn one then a roughie, there is a serial killer around but he likes more to watch others have sex instead of killing them, when he kills it's done off screen. The acting is the worst I ever seen. And I guessed that the so called actors didn't like what they are doing, for example in the beginning when we have the lesbian scene watch one girl stop performing and pulls a pubic hair out of here mouth then continues doing what was happening, or when mother is riding the black man, the daughter is sitting in the grass annoyed by ants! But it is the storyline that made this one famous, incest and racism is what this made it famous. When there is blood watch the two girls sitting there waiting for a cue to act, god this is worse but still one to have if you are into sleaze and grindhouse. Be sure that you have the full version.
A single mom,her son and daughter and their hippie chick friend are camping in the woods.A muscle bound,machete wielding maniac in a yellow ski mask appears.He starts terrorizing and sexually violating the family before murdering them with a machete."Wet Wilderness" is loaded with ugly hardcore sex,forced incest and blatant racism.It's as politically incorrect as XXX roughies get.The score is stolen from seminal Hitchcock's horror classic "Psycho" and also "Jaws".The acting is hilariously awful,the editing is bad and there are some huge lapses in logic.The repetitive nature of the sex scenes grinds the movie after while so the brief running time is a blessing.The scenes of violence are quite nasty for example the hippie girl is stabbed with the machete in her groin and one can see blood on her crotch.3 out of 10 and that's being generous.
<br /><br />to make this short and sweet: i hope this movie will not be considered the seminal work for the "gener-asian" of american film making. the acting was sub-par, relying on stereotypes, raised voices, and exaggerated eye-buggery to convey its message. chris chan park does not delve very deep into the any of his characters, allowing them to remain caricatures of angry/frustrated/distant/uncommunicative asians. these depictions do not make characters mysteriously appealing; it makes them confusing and unsympathetic. i like to think that us asians are more complex than that.<br /><br />i came out of the movie unconvinced. unconvinced that these characters had a life long, blood-brother like connection with each other to go to the lengths they did to help their buddy out. unconvinced that the main character had anything beyond a superficial attraction to his girlfriend. unconvinced that hard working immigrant parents wouldn't pay for their son's college education. unconvinced that all of the characters were even necessary, i.e.: janet, who is put to bed in the back of the car and quickly forgotten.<br /><br />the story line, which i actually think had potential, was not allowed to come into its own for two reasons: 1) flat characters for whom i had no sympathy/affinity, 2) the plot is overshadowed by meaningless non-sequitur scenes, such as the seance/donut shop sequence with amy hill which was simply ridiculous and unnecessary.<br /><br />i commend park for his efforts, as i'm sure it took a lot of hard work to even produce the film, and i'll even give him the benefit of the doubt this time around as a rookie director/screenwriter, but i sincerely hope that next time around he'll go a little deeper. just because the film is one of the first of its kind about the korean american experience, doesn't mean it's automatically good.
In his feature film debut `Yellow,' Chris Chan Lee attempts to enlighten Hollywood's portrayal of Asian-Americans by departing from the stereotypes typically depicted in mainstream film. However, in so doing, Lee commits a far more heinous crime: he exaggerates Asian-Americans' own stereotypes of themselves to the point of incredulity. The result? Dreadfully one-dimensional characters and an outrageously shallow script triggers the cast into a frenzy of over-acting, ultimately resulting in a film that is physically painful to watch.<br /><br />Don't be deceived by any of the positive reviews garnered by `Yellow'; each falls into one of two camps. In one corner (e.g., right here on imdb.com), you find Asian-Americans who are so elated that an Asian character can be depicted onscreen without thick glasses and a math book, that they somehow neglect the idiocy of Lee's final product. On the other hand, you find movie critics who have simply presumed that it'd be uncool to give `Yellow' the thorough bashing that it deserves; after all, it's an edgy Asian-American film made by an independent Asian-American filmmaker... protected territory for now.<br /><br />Case example: main character Sin Lee (Michael Chung). Writer/Director Lee accomplishes a monumental feat with Sin, by editing `Yellow' in such a way that Sin never appears onscreen unless he is either scowling or yelling. See Sin resenting his friends' support. Scowl. See Sin walk along the beach and brood. Scowl. (Yelling ensues.) See Sin closing up his father's shop. Scowl. See Sin urinating. Scowl. See Sin breathing. Scowl.<br /><br />Gee, I wonder if Sin is full of Asian-American angst. Do you think? I'm not sure. Scowl. Scowl.<br /><br />Just to be thorough, Lee introduces us to Sin's father, Woon Lee (Soon-tek Oh). Throughout the movie, whereas Sin simply scowls or yells, Mr. Lee scowls *and* yells. In fact, this is Woon's principal role in `Yellow': simultaneous scowling and yelling.<br /><br />Gee, I wonder if Woon is an Asian father with an authority complex. Do you think? I'm not sure. Scowl. Yell.<br /><br />If Lee's one-dimensional characters don't annoy you, his story line will. Meet Mina (Mary Chen) and Joey (John Cho), two characters that exist in this film solely for the purpose of spinning a tangential and entirely irrelevant love story into the film. You see, Lee learned in film school that every good movie must include some sort of love-related subtext, and these two characters allow him to fulfill the obligation. Mina and Joey's excruciatingly inane flirting dialogue consists of one-liner insults culminating in a kiss: `Nerd!'; `Stupidhead!'; (eyes meet); (understanding smile); (kissing ensues).<br /><br />But rest assured, somewhere out there, Sin is scowling while this all takes place.<br /><br />That neither Mina nor Joey contributes in any way whatsoever to the film's plot does not perplex me so much as Lee's insistence on the most hackneyed movie cliches to accomplish his nonsequiturs. And trust me, the flirting sequence is just the tip of the iceberg.<br /><br />Towards the end of the film, we find Woon Lee attempting to explain his constant scowling and yelling to Sin's girlfriend, Teri (Mia Suh), in what I am sure Lee meant to be a poignant moment. What a surprise: as Woon invokes a metaphorical story about the homeland to illustrate his point, ripped straight out of Reader's Digest, his voice quivers in that extra-special paternal way. The camera pans into an obligatory shot of Teri's trembling hands. We feel compelled to roll our eyes, except we realize that Woon's explanation makes no sense whatsoever. But lack of substance didn't stop Lee from making the movie, so why would he cut this particularly ineffective scene? After all, the world can always use another cliché.<br /><br />Well, you say, the movie may be painful, but at least it *must* be a technical masterpiece -- say, like, `What Dreams May Come.' Sorry, on a technical basis, `Yellow' disappoints as well. Lee's edits are awkward and disrupt what little rhythm exists in the film at all, but I'm sure Lee thought they would seem hip. To make matters worse, every frame is either underexposed or overexposed. Although the light meter was invented in 1932, somehow the newfangled technology didn't make it onto the `Yellow' set.<br /><br />In light of the film's utter deficiency, supporting actor Burt Bolos, who plays Sin's best friend Alex, performs relatively well. Although Bolos overacts slightly, you can't really blame him when Lee's script consists solely of scowling and yelling. Bolos' castmates, on the other hand, show no restraint in their overacting whatsoever.<br /><br />I have not seen a film as bad as `Yellow' in a very long time. And I truly pray that I will not see a film as bad as `Yellow' for quite some time, as well. Please do not waste see it; life is already way too short. Thank you.
I just realized why the colors and sets in "Sakuran" were so flashy and gaudy, and just painful to look at. The story is about a high-class prostitute known as an oiran in Japanese. Their kimono were always flashier and gaudier than other kimono so that the oiran would stand out. But the director, Mika Ninagawa, had to make sure that the director stood out even more than the main character, or even the story. <br /><br />What Anna Tsuchiya did in the movie just gave me the creeps. You couldn't call it acting. It was nothing more than catering to her flipped-out, high-school-girl fan base. Hey Anna, good luck on that one as you get older. Yeah, right, an oiran as a crude and vulgar, prone- to-violence, biker chick. Didn't we already see you portray this character in a more appropriate movie?<br /><br />The story was painfully boring and predictable. What is the story of "Sakuran"? An obnoxious little bitch ever remains true to her self which is just that: an obnoxious bitch. She finds that, inexplicably, men are attracted to her and that she has an unexplained ability to manipulate men and becomes a successful, high-class prostitute even though she talks and behaves like she's a member of a female biker gang. This so-called seductive ability of hers is talked about but we never see it in action, probably due to the ineptitude of the main, pretend-phony-biker chick, I mean "actress." <br /><br />The main character of the movie makes a wealthy and powerful man angry at her because she keeps him waiting while she services a much more lowly customer. Not very oiran-like, is it? How could such a woman ever become an oiran? Oh, because the previous oiran got herself killed and the house needed a whore that could demand a high price. Who would pay a high price for a slut so cheap? Rumors get around. How could there be no repercussions for what she did to the powerful guy? Because the screenwriters are dolts. They just made up a bunch of crap.<br /><br />Then an even more wealthy and powerful guy falls for her (why?) and she throws him over for a penniless guy who is generally cold and distant toward her but respects who she really is (which doesn't make sense. How can anyone respect someone so worthless?).<br /><br />Speaking of crap, it's like the director squatted down and took a huge, psychedelic-colored dump on the aesthetics, culture, and society of the Edo Period. What of such things as sabi, mono no aware, wabi, subtlety, elegance, a rigidly hierarchical society? All shat upon by a director who comes off as a senseless, nouveau-riche parvenu. The amazing thing is that so many other Japanese, in watching this movie, squatted down around the director and took steaming spoonfuls of this blazing-colored stinking crap and exclaimed how tasty it was.<br /><br />Argentinean tango music with violin and bandoneon as backdrop for the Edo Period when Japan was totally isolated from the international world (except for the 3.7 acres of Dejima)? Why not just have Anna, the bad-ass-biker oiran, answer her cell phone and the rich and powerful daimyo character drive off in a hissy fit in his red Ferrari? The music we had to listen to was jarring and anachronistic (the same as the art design). <br /><br />Near the ending, I liked that there were only two or three tiny flowers on the shrine cherry tree. But, earlier, the second she said she would leave the quarters when it bloomed, we all knew exactly what would happen. How boring, to telegraph the ending so clearly. But what's the point of the old tree blooming? That rich and powerful guy already made the pleasure quarters bloom in cherry blossoms like the mountains of Yoshino in spring. That didn't impress her at all? No, of course not. I already know that about whores. The guys that treat them nicely get kicked in the balls. Maybe it bugs the whores to have people idealize them when they themselves know the truth of who they are: just cheap and worthless.<br /><br />Considering the director's obsession with goldfish, the second to last scene should have been of a goldfish bowl on a verandah accidentally knocked over. Two fish tumble into a stream which carries them off to escape beyond the walls of the pleasure quarters, belying how goldfish are stuck in their bowl and can't survive outside (just like the denizen's relationship with the pleasure quarters). Otherwise the talk of the fate of goldfish has no meaning.<br /><br />In the final scene the cherry trees were full in bloom, but the brevity of the blooms is one thing special about cherry blossoms. I couldn't help thinking that soon enough dusk would wipe away all the soft pink color and warmth from the scene. The sky would go quickly from hints of shadow, into an ever- deepening gloom, and night would fall. It would become cold, very cold. And dark. That really wasn't a happy ending, was it? Romantic love (in the Edo Period?) could survive in the face of terrible poverty and being ostracized for about as long as those cherry trees bloomed. Maybe a few days, unless it rained sooner. But the unconsummated romantic love we see here? It's existence in this period is incomprehensible.<br /><br />Anna Tsuchiya walking in the shoes of an oiran? She couldn't do it. Literally. Check out the scene of her "promenade" where she seems to have the correct footwear on but she has to hold on to some guy's shoulder to keep from tumbling on her ass.<br /><br />I was going to give this movie two stars for the art direction but then I realized what that was all about: sick dominance on the part of the director. Those colors and sets are just the way the director has of screaming, "I'm the most important one here! Me! It's all about me!!!!"
It's painfully clear that all effort in this film was directed toward cinematography and very little attention to everything else. Most obvious mistake is the miscast of the entire female cast. Many of them are very experienced and capable, but they all seemed out of place, and having an amateur director certainly didn't help. The story is a very common Geisha story, and characters behaved very inconsistently, thus making it extremely difficult for me to connect with the heroine. <br /><br />This movie's theme is "modern prostitution", but still, it was annoying how Tsuchiya Anna's lead character kept talking like a female motorcycle gang member while everyone else spoke in old Japanese fitting for this setting. This movie has very beautiful vibrant colors, similar to Zhang Yimou's "Hero", but viewers can easily tell it's filmed in a cheap, elaborate set.<br /><br />The two sequences with Shiina Ringo's insert songs were really nice though, in mid-section of the movie. I actually really disliked her music before, but they fit perfectly in this movie. Although Ninagawa Mika is a complete failure as a film director, she has a major potential in PV (music video) production.<br /><br />I believe the story felt very plain because the director failed to focus on character development, and because Tsuchiya Anna's unconvincing acting as an Oiran. Had this film been directed by a known Jidaigeki director with any other known actress in Japan, it would've had the potential to become a masterpiece.
Ridiculous film where two swinging college graduates move out to California and one becomes a movie star and the other his manager.<br /><br />As 10 years pass, the star's popularity is decreasing so it is determined that there will be a television show where women will compete for his affection. <br /><br />The film is obnoxious and ridiculous. The girls who vie for lover boy are made to look foolish. Only one girl seems to be the choice of the producer of the show. She is really an amateur up against some of the other women, but she is wholesome and brings good ratings to the show as well.<br /><br />By the third scene you realize that the manager is falling for her.<br /><br />We know that Ryan really was meant to be a bachelor. While the ending is somewhat cute, you really know where this was going.
This movie was obscenely obvious and predictable. The scenes were poorly written and acted even worse. Following the horrible scenes was the terrible script filled with pointless and poorly thought out lines. I would never suggest this movie to anyone who would have any sense in watching decent movies. This movie was not only with the same ideas as the show the Bachelor and Bachelorette but also contained many parts in which you would know what the next move and line was going to be without ever having to watched the movie before. The casting was fine but the actors played there characters horribly with more drama then should have been used and said lines in was that wanted you to change the channel quickly. As a note please don't watch this movie.
By the mid 1990s, the career of animator-director Don Bluth had seemed to drop to its all-time low. Before, Bluth had made a series of popular animated films, many which remain beloved today such as "The Land Before Time" (1988), "The Secret of NIMH" (1982), and "An American Tail" (1986). But beginning with "Thumbelina" in 1994, his films seemed to decrease more and more in quality and popularity and one of the many unfortunate entries is 1995's box office bomb "The Pebble and the Penguin", a film that didn't attract audience members beyond parents and children under the age of seven. Frankly, the latter are the only audience members I can comprehend taking enjoyment out of this rather bland animated feature.<br /><br />The story is absurd. The film stars a poorly-drawn, stammering, and chubby penguin named Hubie (voiced by Martin Short) who falls in love with a female penguin with a surprisingly healthy flower on her head (voice by Annie Golden). SORT OF like in real life, penguins present their bride-to-bes with a pebble as a substitute for a ring. But when Hubie is swept away by the current, he teams up with a lone rockhopper (James Belushi) with a dream of flying and they race against time to return to Antarctica before it's too late. The reasons why they could be too late is one of many underdeveloped elements of this weak story that would still be weak even if they were there.<br /><br />It becomes very clear very early on why this animated children's musical does not and will not work for anybody older than say six or seven years of age. It just does not have any of the qualities that are required for a good animated feature. Number one, the film looks bad on account of a very poor drawing style. The animation in this film is very cartoony (even as far as animated films go); it's dark, gloomy, there is no vibrancy in the colors, and on top of that, the design of the film and the elements in it are universally droll and laughable. Take for instance, the penguins who star in the film. With only a few background exceptions, every single penguin looks absolutely nothing at all like a bird. Hubie, for example, looks absurdly ridiculous with wide cheeks, a stubby beak, big eyes, and that preposterous hat that he wears wherever he goes. Combined with his hand-like "flippers" he looks like Chris Farley in a penguin suit. Result: he's an ugly, poorly-drawn cartoon character. But the most absurd-looking and absurdly-designed character is the evil penguin, Drake, who frankly looks nothing at all like a penguin. He's a muscle-man wearing a penguin mask. He's got a chest broader than that of Arnold Schwarzenegger, and teeth larger than the teeth of the leopard seals and killer whales that serve as the film's predators. Basically, he's a two-dimensional, recycled villain. He lives in a cave shaped like a skull, he wears a cape, laughs a lot, and gets mad when people laugh with him. Result: who cares? And what's also bad, and maybe worse, is that this is an animated musical and there's not a single noteworthy or memorable song to found anywhere within its running time. The opening hymn was harmless—not memorable, but harmless. But after that, the songs became duller and duller and there was one in particular that had me grimacing all the way through. It's the moment that viewers press the fast-forward button for whenever it comes up.<br /><br />I felt "The Pebble and the Penguin" was lame all around save for the very few moments when Hubie and the rockhopper penguin Rocko are placed in peril at the jaws of leopard seals and killer whales, who were thankfully, given no dialogue and treated as animals instead of cartoon characters. But in a way, for this reason, I cannot wholeheartedly recommend this movie to children. This is the reason. The film displays killer whales are the natural predator of the penguins. My concern is that children familiar with "Free Willy" (1993) may be offended or downhearted by seeing their favorite denizen of the sea portrayed as a bloodthirsty carnivore. The leopard seal was a better antagonist and was more funny seeing as how his jaws opened wider than a rattlesnake's and how he appeared to smile while growling. But the point really is, these moments with the predators—and there are only a few—are the only interesting moments. And they're not enormously interesting, mind you.<br /><br />Bottom line, I cannot recommend this to anybody below the age of seven. My advice: if you have children around that page, rent it for them. They might enjoy it.
Hubie -- like Stanely the troll from Bluth's A Troll in Central Park -- lacks the spark of personality to be the main character that carries an entire movie. We're supposed to like him because he's nice, but that's about all he is.<br /><br />His character design is unappealing. The top of his head is a sort of dome that is narrower than the pudgy bottom half of his head.<br /><br />And penguins should not have teeth. I know that Iago the parrot in Aladdin had teeth, but maybe that worked because it made him look more like his voice actor, Gilbert Gottfried. Hubie, with his weenie little voice (provided by Martin Short), looks funny with that big set of chompers in his beak.<br /><br />Tim Curry, who is usually delightful at being evil, does some sort of dippy surfer dude accent as the villain (might have been a good voice for a comic relief accomplice, not the supposedly menacing main villain).<br /><br />The entire plot revolves around the hero and villain's love for female penguin Marina, who is just as dull as both of her suitors.<br /><br />Worst of all is the pacing. We keep cutting back to the villain to watch him threaten Marina some more - this time in dialogue, this time in song...<br /><br />Barry Manilow may be a great songwriter, but in animated films like this and Thumbelina, his songs feel limp and listless - especially the ballads. The only song I liked was the 1930's-ish "Good Ship Misery" song.<br /><br />I read that the distributor made some cuts in this film against the filmmaker's wishes, and that could have caused some of the problems - though I suspect the real problem is that they didn't cut the rest of it ;).
I'm an animator myself and an all around buff of the medium so when I saw this movie in a $5 bin I figured it was worth a shot to add to my collection. While I never regret having a new addition to my animation library this film was definitely disappointing.<br /><br />The premise has enough potential. A penguin named Hubie finds the perfect pebble to give to the girl he loves as the penguin equivalent to an engagement ring but before he can give it to her, he's cast out by an evil rival and lost at sea. He then befriends another penguin who helps him find his way home. That set up isn't great but it's enough to set up what could be a fun adventure. Unfortunately the duo's exploits never really amount to much and it all gets pretty repetitive. Most of the situations they find themselves in are really uninspired and lacking in creativity...and the bonding the two of them under go is cheesy and forced.<br /><br />Animation is good but not up to Don Bluth's usual standards. This is the guy that gave us The Secret of Nimh, Land Before Time and An American Tale, all of which had an attention to detail that often surpassed Disney, the granddaddy of feature animation. This one doesn't amount to much beyond high end TV fair.<br /><br />The music is alright but pretty forgettable and the voice actors are all wasted talent...Martin Short is particularly wasted here as the lead character who in spite of being spoken of as a bumbler is practically a straight man through the whole film.<br /><br />In short the movie will probably appeal to very small kids but a good family film should appeal to all ages and unfortunately it doesn't got what it takes.
i rented this when it came out on video cassette in 1995. After rewatching it again,my idea about it hasn't changed much.<br /><br />i was an adult then and i'm still an adult now!lol<br /><br />The illogical elements mentioned by other reviewers didn't bother me. This isn't a documentary,it's a fantasy story where animals can talk!<br /><br />While i didn't care for much of the songs,i liked the one at the end of the picture where it's sang by barry manilow and another person.<br /><br />Some people seem to make an excuse for it's primitive animation by saying that CGI wasn't used often in animated features but let's not forget that THE LION KING was released about a year earlier and that packed possibly more excellence than any animated feature that came before it!!<br /><br />But i think it's pretty fair to say that THE PEBBLE AND THE PINGOIN was made on the cheap while THE LION KING wasn't....<br /><br />The high points for me in 1995 as well as today is the suspense generated by the few dangerous(mostly) underwater chase scenes.<br /><br />i also liked the opening scene which takes place on a music notes page and a little bit of the love story. But most of the time,the story dragged on and was boring.<br /><br />Worth a look if you like animation but if you're an adult and not a risk taker,go get another Walt Disney production instead of this!
Whoa. I mean, whoa. I mean, whoa whoa.<br /><br />I saw this movie, waaay back when I was eight, in 1996. Back then, CGI films were a rarity; and good ones even more so. Also, back then we listened to things called CD players. But I digress. I used to like this movie a lot, way back then, and up till viewing it again, I've held reaally fond memories of it. Hey, it's Don Bluth! Anyone who hates "All Dogs Go to Heaven" is clearly a robot. But, again, I digress.<br /><br />Then, I saw it again. This really isn't one of his best, I can say now, eleven years later. I've seen a lot more films, and I've garnered a little bit more knowledge. Now, sure, the voice acting is good, I'll give 'em that. Story's...okay. I mean, we see it all the time. A LOT. But, it works. The musical numbers are what irk me. This would've been more at home in the eighties, with these kind of musical numbers. In '96, most kids movies had epic numbers, like the Lion King (which came out a year or so previous, but whatever)or stuff like that. You get showtunes here, vaudeville style.<br /><br />The animation kind of hurts, too. At times choppy, and at others completely changing style and format with the change of a shot, it's really hard not to notice.<br /><br />I still like "All Dogs Go to Heaven, but this could've been waaay better.<br /><br />4/10
Would it surprise you that my ears and eyes almost bled from watching and listening to this awful movie? My eyes almost bled from watching the awful animation and insipid, plotless, empty story. My ears almost bled from listening to the songs that sounded like they were sung by a chorus of howler monkeys. Then my brain almost melted because of this film's complete lack of intelligence. It's formulaic every step of the way. Talking animals are one thing, but a penguin who can fly just to keep with the "dreams can come true" schtick? Show some more faith in the children's intelligence please. Next to Rock-A-Doodle, this is one of Bluth's worst.
This movie totally sucked!!! Don't even rent it! You'll hate it! The plot didn't make sense, the characters sucked, and why was that penguin trying to get the pebble anyway? If that girl penguin would only like him because he has a pretty pebble than the relationship would not be based on love only on money! I very much disliked this movie(Hate is such a strong word!). And penguins cant fly! Even if they believe than they can do it, they cant. p.s. I am not who you think I am!
The untold origin of the Lone Ranger. It shows who he was and how and why he became the Ranger.<br /><br />Legendary bomb. The idea was not a bad one--reinvent and introduce the Lone Ranger for 1980s audiences. Right off the bat though there were problems. The studio ordered Clayton Moore (the original Ranger) to stop appearing anywhere as the Lone Ranger. It led to a nasty little battle that made headlines. I know of people who refused to see the film because of how Moore was treated. Also they hired the awesomely untalented Klinton Spilsbury to play the Ranger. Spilsbury was very handsome and muscular but had absolutely no charisma and just couldn't act. In fact his whole vocal performance was redubbed by another actor! Also his off screen antics (public drunkenness and beating people up) didn't help matters. Acting aside, the script is dull and slow. Also the Ranger himself doesn't show up until an HOUR in! There were some complaints at the time that the movie was too violent for a PG. However I don't think it was that bad.<br /><br />There are a few (very few) things done right here--the photography was truly beautiful; Michael Horse was excellent as Tonto; Christopher Lloyd is lots of fun as the villain and when the Lone Ranger finally shows up (with the William Tell Overture booming from the soundtrack) it's really rousing. But, all in all, this is a boring and terrible attempt to bring back the Lone Ranger. It's easy to see why this bombed. A 4--mostly for the photography.
This movie contains the worst acting performance of all time. Spilsbury lacks energy to say the least. Energy is what Clayton Moore gave us in spades. I never felt once in this movie that Spilsbury was anxious for anything. Revenge, love, justice? Not in this guy's portrayal.<br /><br />There is also no chemistry between Tonto and LR. If the plot did not force them to be friends, you don't get the impression they want to hang out with each other. Plus, the sidekick has the more interesting personality. Ewww.<br /><br />The dialogue is predictable and boring.<br /><br />The narration is stunningly bad and if you are familiar with the Dukes of Hazzard you can picture what this is like. I cannot believe the director would agree to this. It insulted me as a viewer by explaining every plot line I just witnessed.<br /><br />Hey, at least the horses and locations looked good, maybe that is what happens when you hire a cinematographer to be your director.<br /><br />RATING-2 You may be able to watch this one for laughs or to demonstrate to an alien what a bad movie is.
I very well remember the bad press this film got because of the producers' court order against Clayton Moore using the name "Lone Ranger" or donning his black mask at personal appearances. Quite apart from any consideration of the film's quality, this was the absolute height of nearsighted arrogance and stupidity on the part of the producers and their attorneys. And I suspect that the lesson was well-learned after this film tanked, which was widely perceived as some sort of karma for the jerks responsible for the court order against Moore.<br /><br />In more recent times it has become the custom, when reviving a legendary film or TV project, to invite the original star or stars for cameo appearances, and rightly so. Show some respect, you idiots! And even if they turn up their noses at the prospect, which has happened, at least the offer was made. This is proof positive that film producers, studio executives, and entertainment attorneys are not quite too stupid and arrogant to be taught by example.
I remember this bomb coming out in the early 80's. At first it sounded like a great idea. A retelling of an American classic with the help of modern movie techniques of the day. There was a bit a of a back lash over the treatment of the original "Lone ranger", Clayton Moore. The movie studio had threatened legal action if Moore continued portraying him self as the real lone ranger. (Moore was performing at children's hospitals as the Lone ranger for sick kids.) To many Americans Clayton Moore was just that the; the one and only lone ranger. I had always felt that the studio could have done justice to both the fans and legacy of the lone ranger if Moore had been treated better. Maybe even a cameo in the new movie. How ever this was not the case, and many of the viewing public stayed away in droves. Also the story and acting were weak. All this added up to a big box office bomb, and rightly so. I personally I'm glad the studio lost big money after the way the real Lone ranger was treated. You don't treat an American icon that way.
There are so many things wrong with this movie that it is hard to pick just a few. Let's start with the silly and annoying songs. Like "Ride Little Cowboy" which just tended to accentuate the city-slickers look of Klinton Spilsbury. The silly kiddie cowboy songs going on in the background during the movie hurt any credibility or momentum that the story had going for it.<br /><br />I had seen the media hype before this movie was released, and I saw Klinton Spilsbury interviewed on various TV shows, and he had a very soft, sweet, lilting voice. His body language was not exactly what people remembered who were fans of Clayton Moore and the Lone Ranger TV series. Spilsbury did not help things by acting like a diva and talking trash about Clayton Moore after the Producers got an injunction prohibiting Moore from appearing at Conventions and other events as the original Lone Ranger. Clayton Moore was not even allowed to sign as "Clayton Moore, The Lone Ranger." He could only sign as "The Masked Man." The incredible amount of negative publicity that this move gave the film was only added to by the petulant attitude of Spilsbury who was very quick to tell reporters that Clayton Moore would be quickly forgotten once the movie came out! <br /><br />Sadly, even after the movie was a total flop, the company that owned The Lone Ranger refused to lift their Injunction against Clayton Moore, and he was never again permitted to sign anything except as "The Masked Man" and he could not don his black mask at any public appearances. Between Spilsbury's diva personality and the negative publicity the movie got, it certainly did not help to make a good impression on the public. Worse yet, a few weeks before the movie was finally released, the news was leaked that Spilsbury's voice in the movie had been over-dubbed by James Keech because the Producers thought that Spilsbury did not sound very convincing as a cowboy. The ridicule and derision that this news brought on the talk shows and comedy shows of that era put the last nail into the coffin.<br /><br />But then there was Merle Haggard narrating his way through the movie. Apparently, the Producers were hoping that the macho image of Haggard (one of the Outlaws of Country Music) would add credibility to Spilsbury as The Lone Ranger. The narration by Merle Haggard was just another annoyance that audiences had to deal with. At times Haggard rhymes his narration, and it sounds like some weird kiddie movie. Combine the rhyming narration with the "Ride Little Cowboy" songs and any credibility that Spilsbury could have mustered was destroyed by Haggard and the soundtrack.<br /><br />Tonto was played by Michael Horse, and as others have pointed out, Horse had a lot more personality than Spilsbury. In fact, perhaps because of Spilsbury's allegedly combative attitude during filming, it seems like Horse was given a lot more dialogue and screen time than anyone would have expected of Tonto. Tonto takes charge and often is the leader instead of the Lone Ranger. I was expecting (or hoping) that Billy Jack would make a cameo as Tonto's brother (it would have made the movie a lot better). Horse is not only more interesting than Spilsbury, but he says more and has better scenes. Perhaps it was a case of Horse stealing the show from Spilsbury. However, since the movie was so wretched, Horse did not get much recognition. Unlike Spilsbury, Horse has had a very productive career in the film industry.<br /><br />Perhaps the last negative about this movie is the Powder Blue outfit of The Lone Ranger. The material that was chosen for Spilsbury was more powdery blue than what Clayton Moore normally wore at appearances. That choice of color for the outfit just made Spilsbury look more effeminate in his role. The comic book version had shown The Lone Ranger also wearing a red shirt and black pants, and that alternative outfit would have helped Spilsbury look more convincing as The Lone Ranger.<br /><br />The supporting cast mostly mailed in their performances. They all look as if they were working on a TV episode and nobody seemed very convincing. Even the villain, Cavendish lost his edge due to the people around him. Overall, I feel sorry for Spilsbury. Not only did he do a terrible acting job, but it is obvious that the production and publicity were horrible and effectively sabotaged any chance the poor guy had. Even if he had been an excellent replacement for Clayton Moore, I doubt that the movie would have done well as a result of the other factors. As it stands, this film is funny in a sad way.
I guess it wasn't entirely the filmmaker's fault though. The film suffered from the unimaginably stupid decision to tell Clayton Moore (who had done the role in the 1950's and was the Lone Ranger us old folks grew up with) he couldn't wear the mask in public. Now mind you, the poor guy wasn't making all that much money doing so, and it wasn't like he was going to take anything away from this film, but the whole thing seemed... gratuitous.<br /><br />The other thing the film suffered from (besides a leading man whose voice was so awful they had to overdub it) was that fact that Westerns weren't so hip in 1981. John Wayne was dead and we had just been subjected to a decade-long major liberal guilt trip about how the west was built on genocide of the Native Americans. (That and Blazing Saddles sent up the whole genre! The Campfire scene. Enough said!) Hollywood shied away from Westerns, because Science Fiction was COOL then.<br /><br />The one scene that underscored it was when after rescuing the drunken President Grant (and seriously, I'd have let Grant stay with the bad guys. The country would have been better off!) Grant asks Tonto what his reward should be "Honor your treaties with my people". Yeah, right, like THAT was going to happen!
I loved this movie when it first came out(but i was just 12 years old then - and I had forgotten this film existed until one day I found a used copy for sale at a gas station. I bought it and I couldn't wait to watch this film that had I loved as a kid, and then as I saw this film again many years later,it hit me.... Why in the world did I like this film as a Kid, watching it again as an adult I realized that this film is terrible. The saddest part about this film is that they had everything in place to make the greatest western ever and they blew it!!! the costumes are perfect,good actors, there are 2 music scores the orchestrail score is wonderful, and keeps with the classic spirit of the old timey Lone Ranger alive, the second score is a series of songs by country music artest like Merle Haggerd, and The Statler Brothers and those songs like "The Man in the Mask" are so bad that they are funny. This movies Strongest point is that it had a Briliant Storyline, and one of the best Western plots ever, and for a while its fun to watch as John Reid is nursed back to health,after he and his fellow Rangers are ambushed.Its fun to see him grow into his new life and Identity as the Lone Ranger,as he concels his identity, and goes on a revenge run to get the gang responsible for killing his brother and all his fellow rangers to whom he rode with. But unfortunatly,as good as the storyline is, its all ruined by Merle Haggard Narrating everything as you are watching it happen(for the love of God why did they do that?) between Merle Haggard's Narration and The Statler Brothers singing corny(stupid) songs like "Ride little cowboy" being playing in the backgound make this movie impossible to take serious. I would Love to see a really good producer take this same script and story and re-do this film right,because at the heart of this silly film is a great western.---I would descibe this film as a beautiful woman dress in the ugliest clothing. I give it 4 stars out of 10 --if your 12 years old, and dont know better, then you might love it.
Whatever the producer was going for, he missed entirely. The Lone Ranger is not camp, but "the" icon for good-doers all over the world. And it's a total violation of the spirit of the character that the only real Lone Ranger, Mr. Clayton Moore, was forbidden to wear his mask in public appearances when this movie was released.<br /><br />Whelp, long story short, the single saving grace of this gross (and poorly done) distortion was that in that year, I had the honor of meeting Mr. Clayton Moore in Columbus Ohio, as part of a tour resulting from the bad press over Mr. Moore's treatment. Needless to say, Mr. Moore's character, integrity and presence far outshined the movie.<br /><br />Some things cannot be done better. There is only one Lone Ranger.
I waited quite awhile till I was able to watch this Lone Ranger movie. I finally got to see it on the Lone Star Channel today and was very disappointed in the whole movie. Clayton Moore and John Hart acted better Lone Rangers and Jay Silverheels as Tonto, than the two stars in this movie. Very poor acting was done by everyone in this movie. Even the plot was bad and far fetching. I believe the horse, portraying Silver was the best actor throughout this movie.I am glad I didn't go out and buy a copy of this movie when it first came out, as I feel it's a waste of good money. I am truly sorry the characters that Clayton Moore, John Hart and Jay Silverheels played, and brought to life on the silver screen, have been tarnished so badly. Unless in the future, they find actors worthy of portraying the characters in the same manner which Clayton, John and Jay did so well in the past, I'll not spend the money to buy the movie. I'll not watch this movie again.<br /><br />Wayne Davies
The relationship between the Lone Ranger and Tonto was always good for a snicker, but to take the joke out of the joke by building a movie around the gay appeal of the legend... oh the horror, the horror...<br /><br />
One of the reviewers here wrote: "Good acting, good special effects, great<br /><br />location. Even better ending. " All I can say is, "Ugh." This movie was painful to watch. Let me start by saying this: I am a Christian- considered extremely conservative by many people I know. So, what I am about to say is not biased by the<br /><br />"Christian content" of the film. I'm not gonna bash it because it's Christian. I am gonna give it a 2/10 because it's a horrible movie. The writing is bad- over the top, WAY too preachy, and much of the "preachy" stuff is just plain irrelevant to the story. It just makes for bad scriptwriting. Whether I agree with the<br /><br />screenwriter's beliefs is irrelevant- make a good script that flows well, stays on track, and is believable. The acting was amateurish at best. But hey, when you cast amateurs, you get<br /><br />amateur performances. Dirk Been may have been on "Survivor," but that show<br /><br />requires ZERO acting ability. Playing on his name and reputation to sell units is in bad taste. Cast unknowns who can act and you'll have a much better film. The effects were HORRIBLE. The scene with the hail and the subsequent falling of the stars was embarrassing to watch. And what was so great about the ending? It made no sense.Yeah, I know what<br /><br />Tim Chey was going for, but it missed the mark, big-time. I bought this film and expected so much more based on reviews and the<br /><br />misinformation on their website. And, although I was hoping for more, I got what I always get when I watch "Christian" films- an under budget, poorly written, pathetically acted, badly produced piece of ka-ka. Maybe someday, someone will finally step up to the plate with an end-times film as well-written and as well-made as Gibson's "Passion..." was. 2/10 stars.
I'm a Christian, and I have watched pretty of Christian movies, but this one is too bad. They try to make this good, but it's too hard for them I think.<br /><br />- You can see the film is badly dubbed in many places. - You can almost think that the mainpersons in this film was the only ones left behind. I think there will be a lot more of them.<br /><br />- The quality is poor, and the acting could have been better too. The story is not so very bad, but could've been better. The only plus I give, is to the story in this film, but totally I can't rate it more than 3/10. Watch "Left Behind" instead!
...not to waste your time watching this vanity project. I've had my comment deleted twice now, for reasons that I have yet to understand, other than the suspicion that someone involved with "Gone" isn't happy with what I had to say. So, I've pared things down to the nitty-gritty this time with an excerpt of my original comments that can in no way be taken as a personal attack on anyone, nor unfair commentary: <br /><br />""Gone" is the sort of train wreck that gives new meaning to the words. Horrible, stilted dialogue, a script that just plain flails about like a fish out of water, acting that would embarrass the most self-centered of community theater divas, cinematography inspired by the "Survivor" school of swooping crane shots followed by static, nostril-exploring close-ups, terrible ADR work, special visual effects that aren't, pedestrian music that totally fails to sustain any mood or emotion, terrible editing with utterly pointless freezes and fades, no art direction to speak of---the litany of badness just goes on and on...I felt genuinely cheated out of the time it took me to fast forward through most of it...time that could have been better spent staring at a wall...Under no circumstances should anyone unfortunate enough to be reading this subject themselves to this "movie," because long before it's over, they will be wishing they had been "raptured" before they made that mistake." <br /><br />Case closed. Amen.
As an avid fan of Christian film, and a person trying to maintain a keen eye for improvements in the realm of Christian film-making, I was excited to get a chance to see this film. I was ready to see something that would make a new mark in quality movies. I was left disappointed.<br /><br />The beginning scene is excellent, though a slight rip-off of Leon - The Professional on the angle, it showcases some great cinematography in the early goings... everything after that was pretty much downhill.<br /><br />I was barely able to sit through this one, I was tempted multiple times just to shut it off.<br /><br />The acting, while quite possibly sincere, was incredibly awful. But then again, the heart of the problem was the screenplay itself. The dialog was worse than anything I have ever seen, and even my amateurish screenplay "The Awakening" (soon to be an independent film) looked like a Hitchcock-thriller next to this. (Which isn't saying much.) The bright side of this film is that it was filmed on Sony's brand new High-Definition 900 cameras shooting in 24P. This film and Star Wars: Attack of the Clones were the first movies ever to use these new technology cameras that year. Unfortunately, the camera's performance seemed to be wasted with bad lighting, poor angles, and awkward handling.<br /><br />The only good feeling I got coming out of watching this movie was how good my rookie indie film is going to look next to it. ; ) 4/10
The other reviewer was completely correct about this one. The writing was awful, the acting was awful, the subject was awful. The actors looked like they were not really into the movie, like they almost *had* to be there. There were some unique camera effects, but they were not really germane to the story (or what there was of a story), and they weren't produced particularly well. <br /><br />I suppose they were trying to piggyback on the success (can I say that?) of the other eschatologically influenced movies (Omega Code, Left Behind). And yes, it DOES make Christians embarrassed when these types of movies are produced. I would not recommend this movie to anyone, especially a non-Christian.
This movie was terrible. You couldn't fast forward fast enough to get to the end of this movie. It came down to the last 20 minutes of the film and I literally hit the eject button right in the middle of the scene. It was one of the worst movies I have ever experienced. Worse than all Dean Cain films combined. To start, the acting was terrible. I realize that the main actors were from the cast of survivor, but one would think that any TV experience would have given them a little more talent. The movies other main problem was the campy visual effects and the poor film quality. In the movies defense, the theme of the show was well intentioned and the story was all right.
The back of the DVD for this movie raves, "Chey is the Quentin Tarantino of Christian Films." This isn't so much an insult to Quentin as it is to Christian films. This film is poorly written, stiffly acted and edited with a purposeless intensity. The scenes play out in a confusing and unrealistic way and are interspersed with some nice time-lapse photography. Flashbacks, fades to grey, freeze frames to tell the time (unimportant in the story) are all done with out any apparent reason other than to give the movie more cinematic credibility. The camera is haphazard, some nice crane shots are cut with ridiculous montages that have no significance. Poor blocking and lighting leave the viewer wondering who is talking to who in many scenes. Oh and the audio is terrible. The special effects were decent and thankfully limited. But this is all just technical. The movie fails to engage on an emotional level. The dialogue is so fake sounding and the actors seem to have only read it a moment before the camera was rolling. The story... the things that happen in sequence have no motivation behind them. The characters are struggling to take hold of one dimensionality. And the characters have to make a stance on Christianity and faith in every single scene. Take a queue from M. Night, engaging Christian films don't have to have the characters saying the name of Jesus Christ in every scene for the movie to be Christian. Goodness! Please don't try to show this to your unsaved friends with any expectations other than laughter.
This movie was terrible. The acting was awful. The script was awful. What was even worse were the camera shots and sound. Half the time the voices did not match up with the actors lips, and different camera angles in the same scene would be completely different hues. The worst part had to be when one of the actors was at the top of a huge cross-shaped building. The building had to have been 50 stories high, and probably 100 feet wide. However, when the actor was on top of it in another shot, they had "recreated" the top of the building. The building's width had been reduced to about eight feet wide. How could a building hundreds of feet high be eight feet wide? I know the film was low budget, but it is inexcusable. The movie itself just pushed ideas about a "rapture" then actually having a storyline or point. This reduced the script to mere rubbish, the characters seemed to be selling ideas in their lines rather than conveying emotions and moving the movie along in a direction. It was a complete waste of time watching. The movie gives Christians a bad name if it is one of the current best Christian films out there.
I watched the first show of each series just to see and what a waste of time. The girl from Emmerdale she was fat so yeah she should be in fat friend but no one every lost weigh.<br /><br />Like Itv made a big mistake with this.<br /><br />Bad Girls is 100times better.<br /><br />I feel that the whole show was just about large people trying to loose weight but never did then they tried to have love storyline oh my god what a a waste of time and also air time. This show has not been repeated on ITV2/3/4 yeah thats how good it is.<br /><br />I would say do not by th box sets just a waste of money.<br /><br />BEWARE
One of low budget horror schlockmeister actor, John Carradine's more animated roles as a implied Nazi scientist, who is turning humans into zombies to serve the Reich. Mindless scuffling brain dead, only able to obey the most simple of orders....bit like staff in McDonalds.<br /><br />Hitler isn't mentioned by name, since America wasn't at war at the time they was filmed, but it's pretty obvious who the bad guys are working for!<br /><br />There seems to be two types of zombies in film, the traditional voodoo type popular in the old black & white films of the 1930's and '40's. Blank eyed and just following the commands of someone else as they stumble along. And then there is the type we know from later films like 'The Night of the Living Dead' and 'The Evil Dead.' Still roaming about but with only the intention to kill and eat the flesh and brains of their victims. Both have their moments in various movies over the years. <br /><br />'Revenge' features the former zombie type, although, these are particularly goofy looking and would look more at home in an old time freak shows as geeks as they bite the heads off chickens. One black zombie named Lazarus with his wild hair, looks like a young Don King.<br /><br />As to the plot, the evil doctor decides to make his wife a zombie along with the others and that's where he makes his mistake. Even though he lets her keep her strappy heels as a nice womanly touch as he turns her into one of the living dead, she's not happy about it.<br /><br />It all goes horribly wrong and ends in tears, and the moral of the tale must be, never, ever, turn your wife into a zombie, it's just asking for trouble....<br /><br />The film is interesting enough and it quickly rolls along to a finish, but never rises above it's poverty row origins. Not a patch on any true zombie classics but fun just the same.
There is not much to say about this one except that it is probably the worst of the early spate of zombie movies (I may get to watch another one, REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES [1936], before the month is out). For all star John Carradine's intention of building an army in the service of the Third Reich with them, they are not seen to do much at all!; James Baskett (Uncle Remus from SONG OF THE SOUTH [1946]!) plays their leader, who also serves as Carradine's manservant. Black comic Mantan Moreland reprises his 'fraidy cat' chauffeur role from KING OF THE ZOMBIES (1941), as does the exotically named Madame Sul-Te-Wan as Carradine's housekeeper. Unfortunately for Carradine, his supreme achievement – the zombification of his wife – brings him all sorts of trouble: not only do her relatives turn up at his remote abode/lab to inquire into her sudden death (which means he has to fake a funeral service!) but she actually proves disobedient and indignant, eventually 'persuading' her fellow zombies to rise against their master!! Also involved is cowboy star Bob Steele (still best-known for his bit in Howard Hawks' THE BIG SLEEP [1946]) who plays a U.S. secret agent posing as a Nazi posing as a Sheriff! Thankfully, director Sekely would have much better luck with his next genre effort, THE DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS (1962).
"Revenge of the Zombies" is a pretty weak and barely passable zombie effort.<br /><br />**SPOILERS**<br /><br />Traveling in the Bayou, Larry Adams, (Robert Lowery) and Scott Warrington, (Mauritz Hugo) are informed that a friend has deceased. Meeting with local Dr. Von Altermann, (John Carradine) he repeats the notion that they mysteriously died. While they are staying there, they realize that the help consists of zombies, reanimated dead people who are doing the bidding of their master. As the bodies pile up, he reveals that he has been making the creatures for use in various experiments and all try to stop him before it's too late.<br /><br />The Good News: This here gets very little right. The opening is easily it's best, as it's got several great marks for it. From where it starts, with the creepy silhouettes walking in the dark all the way through to the revelations, this one works wonders for both it's mystery and great imagery. The big one is a really scene where the creature emerges from a coffin in a long, slow and creepy shot. These here are all done before the opening credits and is a fun sight. The scenes in the middle where the creature reawakens inside the coffin is pretty chilling and looks really great. The last big positive is the really fun ending. With the sort of ending that feels reminiscent of so many Universal attempts, this one fits in with that style. From the creepy reanimation to the real action involved near the swamp, this one is fun and really works with the others to give it's only real positives.<br /><br />The Bad News: This one here only has a couple flaws, but they are major ones. The first one is the film's major boredom from inactivity. Almost nothing happens in here, mainly due to the tendency to do everything with talking rather than anything else. There's only intermittent scenes relegated to the zombies, yet there's nothing here that devotes any action to the film. This one simply doesn't have any action, and that's what hurts the film. It rarely generates a scenes that keeps the interest going, and at times this makes it feel a lot longer than it really is. The last flaw in the film are it's pathetic excuses for zombies. Those used to more modern fare will have a hard time getting any fear out of these creatures, and they really only serve several scenes. This here doesn't treat the zombies as threats, making them even less frightening. Little screen-time, nonthreatening nature and un-modern behavior from these zombies really destroys this one. These here are what really hurt the film.<br /><br />The Final Verdict: With bad zombies and hardly anything worth watching, this one here is a curious effort. Those used to modern zombies will find little of interest in this one and come out the same as this one is, while only classic horror fans are advised to give it a shot.<br /><br />Today's Rating-PG: Mild Violence
Always enjoy the Classic Horror films, however, this film was really a big waste of time and if it were not for John Carradine playing the mad man doctor who is able to control human beings through his experiments. This film was made during WW II and John Carradine was a German Nazi working to find a human weapon against the entire world. Bob Steele playing in many roles as a cowboy or gangster and in this picture Bob seemed bored to death with his role in this film and acted like this was his first film. Mantan Moreland, (Jeff) gave an outstanding performance with great comedy which helped keep the audience attention. I hate to criticize a film made in 1943, but this is really a big disappointment. If you like John Carradine and the roles he played as Count Dracula throughout many films during the 1940's, you just might like to watch John doing his best.
Well well, I had seen a lot of reviews on this one, and a lot of promo always showing the decapitation scene. But this flick is a tough one. And I mean it by all ways. It's hard to find a copy, because it was a low budget independent release and because MPAA was on the hunt for every copy on VHS, it came out unrated but it had to be rated for the MPAA. So copies disappeared into the underground scene. All people involved in this flick never did anything else in the biz. So it made this flick unique. VHS copies almost never pop up on ebay or other sites and if they do you will pay over a 100$ to get one. But due US connections I was able to catch a release on DVD sold worldwide. Limited but it was to be a sort of official one. Now and then there are still some screenings of this splatterfest. But is it worth all the hype surrounding it? As said earlier, it is a tough one to catch but also to sit through. There are gory killings, there is necrophilia, there is nudity but there is also a lot of talking between the coppers. And to be honest, if you would like to see the movie in 5 minutes watch the ending, it's a flashback in the killer's mind. The blood flows and indeed it's a splatterfest but not the full 80 minutes, splatter galore for 10 minutes. The quality of the movie is okay, sound okay, no hiss, colors okay, black is black and not blue as in many low budgets. It's okay to watch it but you never will be frightened but it's one to watch with your friends having a beer and a pizza I guess. 555, naaaaaaaaaaaaaaah 333.
Oh, the horror! I've seen A LOT of gore movies in my day, but this one just makes me gag with with laughter rather than repulsiveness. This is definitely a crazy movie and is very low-budget, I might add, but if you're able to look past the cheap audio, horrible dialogue, ugly girls, the obviously fake gore scenes, and overall cheeziness of the film, then you might find some of this film to be somewhat entertaining. The story is about a copy cat killer who goes on a killing spree every "5th day, of the 5th month, of the 5th year" (wow, how original), and it's up to two detectives (one of whom gave a valiant effort at trying to make the crapy dialogue good) to stop the killer's bloody rampage. The killing scenes (which are done with a plastic toy knife) are pretty brutal (which is a good thing), but very annoying due to the constant repetition of an obviously recorded scream (which is very ear piercing). As for the gore, there's plenty of it but it looks very fake; especially the blood - dude, c'mon, purple blood? But, if you're a fan of gore videos, like myself, then you'll find something in this video to cherish like I did (the crap-talking detective...he's the best thing going for this film). Other than that, all you're going to find is a bunch of senseless nudity (which is also a good thing, but too bad the girls are OOOGLY) and a very idiotic hippy necrophiliac serial killer. Sorry, but this one sucks.
Well, I didn't know what to expect from 555. Matter of fact, I had never even heard of it until a few months ago. But, being a collector of just about all types of horror I figured I would go ahead and grab this obscure 80's slasher.<br /><br />Basically the storyline has to do with a killer that kills every 5 years for 5 nights in a row. What the third 5 in the title means... nobody knows. Anyway, the killings start as the killer searches for young teenagers fooling around in obscure places. He decapitates the men and brutally knifes the woman to death. After this, he proceeds to rape the dead corpse. The police think they have a lead on the killings but really have no idea what is going on. How will they find the killer? Does anybody care?<br /><br />This movie is filled with some of the worst actors I have ever seen. No wonder none of these actors went on to do anything else, literally. The three lead actors consist of two detectives and a "sexy" female reporter. I am being sarcastic when I say sexy, she is about as un-sexy as it gets. The two detectives are like watching tweedle dee and tweedle dum. One of them underacts his part and the other one may have gone to the Shatner School of Acting. The acting is so bad that it almost forces you to lose your interest in the movie, thus almost putting you to sleep.<br /><br />The only thing holding this terrible movie together is a few decent gore scenes. For a movie on this budget the makers must have put all of there money into the special effects, which still aren't that great.<br /><br />Unless you are like me and have to own every single horror movie out there, I would suggest steering clear of this movie. 4/10
A majority of exclusively made-for-video low-budget fright flicks from the 80's invariably stink worse than raunchy old socks. This particularly dismal and amateurish no-budget Chicago-set bargain basement "nasty necrophiliac nutcase on the loose" bloodbath serves as a depressing affirmation of this borderline ineluctable fact. A bearded, disheveled, long-haired, bead and flower shirt-wearing wild-eyed psycho hippie fruitcake embarks on your standard random gruesome killing spree, graphically slaughtering libidinous young couples who are engaging in strenuous coitus whenever the deranged Mansonesque lunatic attacks. (Hmm, do I detect a fairly obvious and self-righteously puritanical "have sex and die" message here? Gee, could be, man.) Boy, is this mentally unbalanced sicko one real way gone pup: After knifing his female victims, our certifiably crackers killer enjoys making love to their freshly slain bodies. (WARNING: Possible *SPOILER* ahead. Towards the picture's end the corpse-copulating crazy gets rudely interrupted by the cops while he's in the middle of doing the unthinkable with a nubile cadaver, thereby provoking the foul pervert to cut loose with an understandably anguished and ear-splitting cry of "Nooo!") Now, ain't this gonzo guy a definite sweetheart and a half? <br /><br />Too bad this flick is so poorly done; if it had only been made with a modicum of flair and proficiency it could have been a sleazy little gem of a horror exploitation item. Alas, Wally Koz's ham-fisted direction, Lamar "Larry" Bloodworth's stubbornly static and immobile cinematography, Frankie "Hollywood" Rodriguez's insipid, monotonously head-banging "hard rock" score, the pitifully cheap and unconvincing make-up f/x, flat, conspicuously uneasy plywood acting by a hideously all-thumbs and unappealing non-pro cast, lethargic pacing (too much screen time is tiresomely squandered on the police's drab efforts to catch the wacko), an especially lame would-be shocking "surprise" ending (the mystery killer's true identity is guaranteed to have you groaning in disgust), the uniformly boring, incessantly bickering and positively braindead characters, and a steady succession of dull soft-core sex scenes that are about as erotic as watching two slugs mate for 90 minutes straight all add up to one profoundly putrid and unrewarding limp, soggy noodle of a crummy clinker. However, to be fair, this film does possess one stellar virtue: The mad-dog slasher has unquestionably excellent taste in garishly tropical, louder-than-thunder day-glo Hawaiian shirts.
this is the worst movie in the world. the only reason i gave it a 2 was because the first 10 minutes were hysterically funny in a "is this for real??" sort of way. it was so cheesy and low budget...they should not have even bothered. there was nudity and violence for the pure sake of having nudity and violence, and the effects were just so so bad you would not believe it (think ketchup as blood, and cabbages for severed heads). do not rent this!!
Hollywood had a long love affair with bogus Arabian Nights tales but few of these products have stood the test of time. The most memorable were the Jon Hall, Maria Montez films which have long since become camp. This one is filled with dubbed songs, anachronistic slang, and slapstick. It's a truly bounteous crop of Mesopotamian corn, and pretty near intolerable today. It was nominated for its imaginative special effects which are almost unnoticeable in this day and age, consisting mainly of trick photography. The only outstanding, positive feature which survives is its beautiful color and clarity. Sad to say, of the many films made in this genre, few of them come up to Alexander Korda's original "Thief of Baghdad". Almost any other Arabian Nights film is superior to this one, though. It's a loser.
Yes,the movie is not a piece of art but the first time I watched it I was 10 years old,my parents were out and I stayed home with my two brothers.It was May 1970(I know that because I found a note about the cycle of horror movies that one network had).It's one of the most vivid memories I have with the guys.We ended all in one bed and covered up to the head! Our very first horror movie! We kept talking about it for years and laughing about the moment.Those were horror movies.Nowadays horror movies are always the same.Or was it better when we were kids enjoying without analyzing the plot and the cast and the dialogs? Most sure it was that.But for me this is a great movie!
I love this movie. Even though I rated it a "4", that's because the acting, the plot and the budget were all slated to the "B" universe even before this movie was released. But that's OK! It is an entertaining film that has a lot to offer! <br /><br />I remember what Leonard Maltin said about "Plan 9 From Outer Space": a film so bad that it's great! Lacking the UFO - alien plot, The Thing the Couldn't Die relies on the supernatural (divination, a buried head looking for it's body, hypnosis, etc) to tell it's story. The acting is stilted, the camera work second class and the settings are limited, but boy! what a movie! This film is available in the bootleg market. If you find a copy, buy it!
While out divining for water, a young psychic woman named Jessica Burns (Carolyn Kearney) stumbles upon something else altogether. She discovers a chest that has been buried for centuries on her aunt's ranch. Instead of the treasure her aunt is hoping for, the chest contains the head of Gideon Drew, a devil worshiper who was beheaded by Sir Francis Drake. Telepathically controlling the hired-hand who opened the chest, Drew's head goes on a murderous spree in search of the rest of his body – also buried on Jessica's aunt's farm. While Jessica is certain she feels the presence of evil, can she put a stop to Drew's plans and will she be in time to prevent his becoming whole? <br /><br />I thought I was fairly familiar with most of Universal's horror output prior to 1960, but this is one Universal film from the 50s that certainly gets little mention. While The Thing That Couldn't Die isn't what I would call a "good" movie, it does have a few things going for it. First, the film has some interesting ideas and is actually rather ambitious. Director Will Cowan, whether by luck or intention, is able to give the movie some nice atmosphere from time-to-time. And, the special effects involving the head are certainly creepy. But the whole project is undone by the acting. I'm shocked to learn that any of the supposed "actors" in this thing ever appeared in anything else. You would think that this was a "one and done" type of movie for most of those involved. Kearney is the worst offender. She's horrible. Also, The Thing That Couldn't Die may have been a bit too ambitious for its own good. Given the budget and other limitations, there was no way the movie could aspire to its more lofty ideas. Finally, the movie ends rather abruptly. Just as things are starting to get interesting, The End. What's that about?
For all its many flaws, I'm inclined to be charitable towards "Thing". There is the nugget of an interesting, creepy, claustrophobic Hitchcock style story here. Put this in the hands of a writer like Theodore Sturgeon or (if you prefer British perspective) Robert Bloch, or the guy who wrote "Day Of The Triffids", and you might have had a nasty, unsettling little spook story that was the best thing in an book anthology of horror and suspense stories.<br /><br />However, someone chose to tell this story as a feature length movie, and a cheap, 2nd rate at that, and so most of the potential is wasted. A story like this really needs a voice like Sturgeon's to bring out interesting quirks of character in a better light. His classic story "The -widget-, the -wadget-, and Boff" is an example of how he can gather together an isolated group of "ordinary" characters and in the space of 40 pages can turn them into the most amusing, sympathetic and fascinating people you've ever met. A good writer can, with a few chosen words, make the reader "see" some of the most vivid and memorable events ever to scar his emotions.<br /><br />Instead, we get a movie where some of the most irritating and unlikeable characters ever made are lumped together and made to interact in unconvincing "Where did that come from??" moments that just lie there. (IE the blond psychic girl declaiming that "You're all evil and I hope you are destroyed!"). We get leaden pacing and slow motion blocking and dull sets and stiff actors. I blame the director for the 'stiff and shallow' part. These are all 3rd rank character actors who never made the big time, but they are also 'real' actors, and a good director could have gotten better performances out of them. We get uncalled for lesbian overtones that make the viewer feel uneasy and exploited without delivering any kind of payoff. (If I'm going to have my baser instincts exploited and feel guilty about it, I want done by stuff staged better than this). And we get over an hour of creepy build-up diffused in about 35 seconds in one of the worst anti-climaxes I've ever seen.<br /><br />Good things about "Thing"? Um, well...some of the closeup shots of the warlock's head silently mouthing its directives were pretty effective. The miserly and shrewish widow rang true to life (even if I wanted to stuff a sock in her mouth). The first scene where the big, "simple" ranch hand silently turns on the oily cowboy and kills him had a bit of shock value, because the plot had taken the trouble to establish the big guy as a fairly sympathetic character. And like I said earlier, the idea of an insidious force from the past turning the members of an isolated community against each other is a good one and can sustain interest far above the actual merit of a bad performance.<br /><br />Which this definitely is.<br /><br />But, as I said, I'm inclined to be charitable, because the director was probably working under a penurious budget, breakneck time constraints and the best actors he could find for the money. Heaven knows how future generations will judge facile crap like "The Cave", "Wrong Turn" or the remake of "House of Wax" 40 years from now. I hope they are charitable towards our own tastes in supporting our generations wastes of film stock.
Yes this movie features a gal named Jessica who says everything is evil and she causes trees to land on people too (well she only causes a tree to fall once, but she does say everything is evil). This movie is about a farm that apparently rents out rooms to people, but offers little else in the way of entertainment. Jessica can find things with a stick and she finds the head of an evil guy. Of course they don't know this until the owner of the farm's helpers open the box containing the head. The head proceeds to hypnotize everyone it can so it can get to Jessica and use her powers to find stuff to help look for his body. This movie has an interesting enough story, but it plays out very bad here. Everyone in this flick will get on your nerves at least once.
If you ever visited Shenandoah Acres as a child and wondered, could there be a worse vacation spot in the world? Well, you could have watched this movie and had your answer. Flavia (a.k.a. Fistula) Macintyre's dude ranch is often frequented by business casual Gordon, at least since resident water witch, Jessica, was 13. But Jessica can find much more than fresh spring water with that divining rod – buried "tray-shure," lost jewelry, dead bodies, even a talisman that will keep her from dressing like a slut and raising drinks with a phony beat and a Suzanne Pleshette look-alike while hypnotized by a disembodied head. Evil, evil evil.
Jessica is a young, virginal and very innocent girl who lives with her aunt on a remote ranch. Jessica is also a powerful psychic, capable of dowsing, retro-cognition, precognition and esp. When young and handsome Gordon Hawthorne comes to visit, he is instantly skeptical of Jessica's powers...until her skills uncover a lost wristwatch and unearth an ancient treasure chest. However, the treasure chest holds the severed head of a centuries dead satanist named Gideon Drew, whose powers are far stronger than Jessica's. Despite her warnings of the evil in their midst, Drew manages to mentally enslave everyone unfortunate to make eye contact with him. But Drew wants Jessica most of all. He needs her dowsing skills to unearth his body, so that he can rise from the dead and rule over the human race. Will Jessica's powerful fleur de lis, combined with Gordon's love, ward the ancient evil off before it can destroy them all?<br /><br />This isn't a very interesting movie. It certainly could have been - the basic story is interesting and imaginative, but the acting is leaden and the whole thing moves much too slowly to hold interest. Jessica is also too innocent - almost annoyingly so, and Gordon, her love interest, is wooden, stiff and totally emotionless. None of the characters are very likable, and the low budget is painfully obvious. A rushed ending also doesn't help matters. Avoid, unless it's the MST3K version.
As a kid, this movie scared me green. As an adult, I couldn't stop laughing.<br /><br />I have not had the pleasure of watching this movie via MST3K. I caught it, instead, on a late Saturday afternoon, when there was absolutely nothing in the theaters, and there was nothing left to do outside but rake some autumn leaves. I figured, this HAD to be better. I was wrong.<br /><br />The movie has some very good elements; a water-divining mystic, a beatnik painter, couple of idiot ranch hands, an elderly history buff, and an "evil wind." Um...I mean...evil head. An evil head which will, as soon as the systematic hypnotism of each and every one present is complete, be looking for its evil body.<br /><br />The whole story takes place on an evil "ranch" which apparently neither grows crops, nor raises evil livestock.<br /><br />As everything is declared by their resident mystic to be "evil," you either roll your eyes horribly, or laugh til your sides split, depending on your mood. Me? I laughed until I had tears streaming down my face.<br /><br />I remembered this movie fondly as one of those which really SCARED me as a kid. But some kids are afraid of Santa Claus, too..no? Anyway... if you're into 50's horror camp, then this is definitely a movie you shouldn't miss. <br /><br />If you're looking for a good story line, this movie has that. It's the over the top dramatics and downright innocence of the time that makes it so horrid. The acting was just BAD, but it still had some good elements. Perhaps it rates a remake...? <br /><br />It rates a 4.3/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.
I suppose you could say this film has a grain of potential, but nothing more, because boy did the filmmakers botch it. The plot is practically incomprehensible, the pacing is lethargic and the acting is pathetic. And what the hell is a trade rat? Worst of all, though, this movie's climax is the anticlimax of all anticlimaxes; plus the title doesn't seem even remotely accurate. The only redeeming feature of this film is the pretty dark-haired woman... well, the blond girl was pretty too, but she was annoying and not as good looking as the brunette. Anyhoo, as with a lot of movies, this is one to be seen only on MST3K.
This joins the endless line of corny, predictable 50's sci-fi shlock out there. As usual, it's pretty bad. There isn't much of a plot that I could detect and the over-exaggeration of the leads only adds to the unintentional laughs. The title is misleading also. Catching this on MST3K is probably the only way for it to be viewed, and it's better left that way.
Boy Oh Boy, does this movie stink. This movie is one of the worst pieces of trash I have ever seen in my whole entire life. Please, even if your life depends on it, DO NOT, and I repeat: DO NOT under any circumstances, view this horrid piece of garbage. Only watch this thing when it comes on as a MST 3000 Episode. That was the only way I could sit through the whole thing. If I had to watch it without that show, I would've stopped watching it before it was over. It does have one use: A Cure For Insomniacs!!!!!
Directed by Diane Keaton and adapted from a book by Franz Lidz. A young mother Selma Lidz(Andie MacDowell)is battling a very serious illness and her self proclaimed inventor husband Sid(John Tururro)is a little lacking in the emotions department. Unhappy with the new home situation, their sensitive son Steven(Nathan Watt)decides he wants to stay with his two eccentric uncles Danny(Michael Richards)and Melvin(Lou Cutell)until his mom is well. Steven seems to be happier and even takes interest in his strange uncle's living habits; he even decides he wants to change his name to Franz. Set in the early 60's, this drama is a bit comedic...change that to zany. Not being a MacDowell fan, UNSTRUNG HEROES assures my attitude; albeit I enjoyed the film and it is not a total waste.
I began watching this movie on t.v. some weeks ago, but gave up after the first 10 minutes or so. At the start, the person on the witness protection scheme located in an isolated farmhouse becomes nervous about his exterior placed guards, and then asks the guard inside the house whether he can make a telephone call - only to discover the line has been cut.<br /><br />Shortly afterwards, Roy Scheider as one of the witness's assassins turns up and duly executes the witness and his wife - upon which the Roy Scheider character duly picks up the wall telephone in the kitchen, dials a number, and then speaks: It is done!!!! That was it for me!
Having sat and watched this film I can only wonder at the reasons for creating the film. This was without a doubt one of the worst films I've ever seen and had no redeeming features.<br /><br />If it was supposed to be funny then it might have managed to be a very weak comedy but as an action thriller it was dire.<br /><br />Slow, no plot, no real action, nothing approaching good dialogue and I've no idea about the characters. What else can I say. Avoid.
To be honest, I did never read one of the comics and cannot remember part 2 and 3 at all. I can compare to the first part (Werner - Beinhart) and this one here is really disappointing, compared to part1 as well as compared to most other movies I watched the last weeks. The first minutes seam to be just a needless clone of the first movie intro and then it is becoming even worse. There are a few good (funny) scenes, but in total it is just another boring second-rate try of German film industry that cannot succeed (nearly as usual). One good thing: The movie is quite short (75 min.) The bad thing: It only contains story and jokes for 45 Minutes ;) -> Don't watch it
MASTER PLAN: have the winning team in a deadly tournament. One of several martial arts action pictures that attempted to capture the flavor of the famous "Enter the Dragon" from '73, this one is an effort from South Africa. The villain's stronghold is a bit different, appearing as a white castle-like fortress in the middle of the desert from a distance. The villain himself, a Baron or general, is a slightly more perverse version of the "Dr.No" or Han mold of master villainy, having strange flashbacks to the glory days of Nazi Germany. He does wear the full regalia Nazi uniform at some points. His main ambition in life is to hold an illegal martial arts competition/tournament against his Japanese rival, an extension of their complicity in the 2nd World War (my army is better than your army). It sounds silly and it is, though the suggestion of madness and crazed machismo almost works. The central hero, Steve Chase (Ryan), resembles a white 'Bruce Lee' character, having a similarly lean, lithe physique, though obviously not on the same level of martial arts expertise. I thought he would be some secret government agent here but apparently not. He and his girlfriend have joined the Baron's team of fighters, but decide to quit (what did they think they were getting into?). Of course, it's not that easy. There's an odd sequence of them escaping through the desert using a wrecked car with a rigged sail - those desert winds can do wonders for travel, it seems.<br /><br />The plot kind of meanders in the 2nd half, as the hero joins the team of the villain's competitor and the girlfriend is held hostage by the villain in a cell, under threat of rape by the hero's rival. The most interesting character turns out to be Chico, a dwarf who is the villain's assistant; he's loyal to the Baron but is sympathetic to the plight of the hero. Much of the fighting utilizes the ballet-like capabilities of the hero, with a lot of leaping and slow motion. The sound FX are also amped up and exaggerated in an attempt to add more impact to the blows. There are a few good fights during the tournament towards the climax, but none really stand out. If one had to pick, I suppose the best involves the brutish muscle man-henchman of the Baron, introduced late in the story (he lifts the back of a car at one point). You wonder how the hero will take him out at the end, since the brute seems to shrug off most of the punches. The acting is very mediocre, descending into camp as far as the girlfriend, who tends to laugh for no reason, as if she's high on grass, though she is very cute. Some of the training scenes are also campy, especially all those guys running over or rolling down the desert sands. And, with such a title, there's surprisingly few actual killings. Ryan, as Steve Chase, returned as a traditional agent in the sequel "Kill and Kill Again." Hero:4 Villain:4 Femme Fatales:4 Henchmen:6 Fights:6 Stunts/Chases:4 Gadgets:2 Auto:3 Locations:5 Pace:5 overall:4+
A buddy and I went to see this movie when it came out in 1980. It was playing in a huge theater and we were the only two people in the place. It lasted two days in the theater before they stopped showing it. It was so bad that we laughed all the way through it. Since that time, we rate movies based on Kill or Be Killed as the worst movie of all time. Like other reviewers have mentioned, it is so bad that it is funny. It isn't worth a second look that's for sure. I just can't bring myself to give it more than a 1 because I don't think the makers of the movie intended for it to be so bad and I can't give credit for an accident. Sorry.
"A research scientist is experimenting with human DNA in an attempt to create the perfect human being. His work has made it to the point where he can take a human fetus and accelerate its growth to that of an adult within a few days. His latest creation is a (spoiler omitted), but side effects from the process (spoiler omitted)," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />"Embryo" opens by promising: "The film you are about to see is not all science fiction. It is based upon medical technology which currently exists for fetal growth outside the womb. It could be a possibility tomorrow… or today," according to Dr. Charles M. Brinkman III. Right. And, Dr. Joyce Brothers appears, later, at a party with Roddy McDowall.<br /><br />First, we see Rock Hudson (as Dr. Paul Holliston) light a cigarette and drive recklessly (watch that speedometer!) during a storm; unfortunately, he hits a dog. Mr. Hudson takes the wounded canine home. He learns it is pregnant, and manages to save the life of one of the puppies, due to his experimental knowledge of fetal growth. What this really boils down to is that Hudson uses an experimental drug to grow the embryo, so that it can survive outside the mother's womb. The dog, "Number One", grows to adult-size rapidly, and is passed off as its mother.<br /><br />Hudson lives with his sister-in-law Diane Ladd (as Martha Douglas); since his wife Nicole, also a doctor, died in another car accident. Ms. Ladd seems more emotionally stable about Nicole's death than Hudson, who survived the crash that killed his wife. Things begin to get creepy when Hudson's dog shows an intelligence level far above any normal dog. Then, Hudson decides to use his accelerated embryo growth on a human, Barbara Carrera (as Victoria Spencer).<br /><br />Hudson and the cast try their best; but, the "Embryo" storyline is wretchedly absurd nonsense. If you take away her silly opening and closing scenes, Ms. Carrera's valiant characterization almost works; she might have been a bigger star, if offered better films than this. The infantile ending suggests a sequel; but, happily, the idea was aborted.
First and foremost I'd like to state - for the record - that it's incredibly dumb to call your movie "Embryo" when the subject matter exclusively revolves on scientific research performed on fetuses (animal as well as human) aged 12-16 weeks. The embryonic stage is over at the end of the eighth pregnancy week and from that moment on the unborn critter enters the fetal phase. Okay, in all honestly, I didn't know all this, but I took the effort of looking it up and that's the also the least thing the creators of "Embryo" could have done. Don't worry; I'm not just stumbling over details or being exaggeratedly bitter, as there are several more reasons to state why "Embryo" is a huge failure. Actual science can be considered as boring and inaccessible, and thus Science Fiction is a cinematic genre created especially to make the otherwise tedious, yet educational science topics more interesting and comprehensible to larger audiences. By depicting ambitious scientific experiments that go horribly wrong, or space missions that encounter evil aliens instead of light-years of void, filmmakers usually manage to entertain people with spectacular special effects and, at the same time, teach them useful little trivia about science. In order to make a good or at least halfway-decent Science Fiction movie, writers and directors only have to comply with one basic rule: DON'T be boring! If they can't fulfill this one condition, the viewer might as well read a theoretically accurate book. Something must have gone wrong during the production of Ralph Nelson's "Embryo". The basic premise is potentially fascinating and even involving, as we're all sensitive about saving the lives of unborn babies. There also were some very prominent names involved in the production, like main stars Rock Hudson ("Giant", "Seconds"), Diane Ladd ("Chinatown", "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore") and director Nelson himself was responsible for the acclaimed classics "Soldier Blue" and "Charly". Then what went wrong? Simple. The script is irredeemably boring, clichéd and the whole thing looks incredibly foolish because the lab scenery & scientific equipment is clearly too primitive to achieve any medical breakthroughs with. <br /><br />Rock Hudson, in a very poor performance, plays a doctor who hasn't put any passion in his research work ever since his wife passed away. When his car hits a pregnant dog on a rainy night, his passion returns and he does everything possible to save the dying animals' fetuses. He manages to keep one fetus alive, impressively accelerates its growth process and trains it to become an extremely intelligent dog. Because his procedure is so successful, Dr. Paul Holliston convinces his friend at the hospital to repeat his tests with the human fetus taken from the womb of a pregnant teenager who committed suicide. The female subject unexpectedly keeps growing at a fast rate, however, and after only a couple of weeks she's a full-grown, ravishing and super-intelligent woman. The good doctor naturally falls in love with her, but the groundbreaking new growth treatment also begins to show horrible side effects... Absolute nothing happens during the first 45 minutes of the film, apart from a lot of implausible and overly melodramatic mumbo-jumbo and one or two deeply impressive tricks performed by the dog. That second half of the film does contain a little bit of (grotesque) action and suspense, but by then the stupidity of the dialogs and the implausible plot-twists already ruined the potentially fabulous Sci-Fi idea. There are some really cool scenes, most notably the chess-showdown between Victoria and Roddy McDowall (in a highly memorable and ultra-obnoxious supportive role). The grand finale is absurdly grotesque and literally on the verge of ridiculous, and it almost feels like Ralph Nelson put in that final disastrous shot because it was the general rule in contemporary thriller & Sci-Fi cinema. The last sequence, including the horrible freeze-frame shot at the end, certainly doesn't fit the tone of the previous 100 minutes of the film. But anyway, my sincere admiration and respect to the dog and his trainers. An animal with such intellect and talent surely deserved to demonstrate its tricks in a much better film.
Although Embryo could have been a potentially thought provoking examination of bioethics, it degenerates into a stereotypical Frankenstein parable, putting across the by now monotonous lesson that there were some realms man was not meant to enter or study.<br /><br />Scientist Rock Hudson is experimenting with ways to prevent miscarried babies from dying. After success with a dog, he immediately jumps to humans-violating medical ethics and any sense of plausibility-with the equally unrealistic assistance of a hospital administrator. His experiment works too well, with some decidedly unpleasant side effects.<br /><br />Although Barbara Carrera is reasonably good in her role, and some of the animal training is spectacular, the film suffers from being too fantastical. Even though a message at the prologue assures viewers that this represents contemporary technology, the scientific work depicted looks far fetched even for the twenty-first century, let alone the mid- 1970s. Furthermore, the scene where Carrera is able to find a cure for the side effects of bioengineering simply by typing a question into a computer is laughable.
After his career as a romantic leading man ended in the late 1960s, Rock Hudson starred in lots of different projects, including TV shows and lesser films. However, I believe that "Embryo" is his only turn as a mad scientist, and that's probably a good thing. I guess he needed the work.<br /><br />Driving along one dark and stormy night, brilliant Dr. Paul Holliston (Hudson) hits and injures a Doberman, which he brings back to his lab (that looks somewhat like a dank Midwestern basement). He then manages to raise the dog's unborn puppy outside the womb, so naturally he decides to do the same thing with a human being. He raises Victoria (the beautiful Barbara Carrera) from a fetus the same way. Victoria grows at an astonishing pace, and soon blossoms into a gorgeous young woman.<br /><br />Predictably, things go very wrong. After a halcyon beginning, Holliston's sister-in-law Martha (Diane Ladd) begins to wonder where the young woman came from, and Victoria herself begins to show signs of instability and violence. The final sequence is one long car chase straight out of "Smokey and the Bandit", after which Victoria—who has shockingly aged in just a few minutes—is assaulted by a frantic Holliston, who tries in vain to destroy his malformed creation along with its unborn child. All of this is accompanied by screeching tires, roaring engines, a car fire, and lots of sirens. The limp ending—a bunch of paramedics frantically working on Victoria while Holliston writhes in regret—is more labored than creepy.<br /><br />Although just made in 1976, this movie is very dated. The only difference between this and the many 1940s mad scientist movies is that Hudson plays the lead role rather than Boris Karloff. The sets are pretty cheap and very antiquated to today's audiences, to the extent that Hudson's reel-to-reel tape recorder is about the size of a refrigerator. Much of the action takes place in a poorly lighted laboratory. Hudson sleepwalks through his sordid role, giving the impression that he's truly a washed-up movie star, while Ladd and Carrera are much more believable. Surprisingly, Roddy McDowall pops up briefly as a chess player.<br /><br />The Passport Video transfer is very substandard, looking as though it had been made from a poor VHS copy using home equipment. If you're nostalgic for 1976, watch this once just to say you did. Otherwise, watch a football game or soap opera instead.
Rock Hudson's second venture in the science fiction genre after Seconds is Embryo a film that combines elements of the Bride of Frankenstein and Pygmalion in one rather weird film about for lack of a better word a test tube baby that grows up to be Barbara Carrera.<br /><br />Hudson is scientist experimenting in organic development and gets a chance to first experiment on his own Doberman pincher when it is accidentally hit by his car. <br /><br />Some pituitary secretions from the female dog are given to a prematurely born puppy and it grows remarkably into an adult. Exalted with his success, Hudson takes a fetus from a dead accident victim and gives it some of the same stuff.<br /><br />What he gets is Barbara Carrera. And she develops physically and intellectually at a prodigious rate. What she doesn't do is develop emotionally. Still Hudson passes her off as his new research assistant to friends and family like sister-in-law Diane Ladd, son John Elerick, and daughter-in-law Anne Schedeen. <br /><br />Embryo doesn't explore some of the real issues in this kind of science, it exploits them instead. The special effects as they are, are pretty second rate. Hudson looks like he lost interest in the project about halfway through the film.<br /><br />Now what would have really been interesting is if he had gotten boy child and it grew up to be a harlequin novel hero. Now that would have been something Rock Hudson could have sunk his teeth into.
I suppose I'm supposed to take something like this with a grain of salt. These laboratory movies (and, yes, they spend a lot of time in the laboratory), always fail in one dimension: there is an understanding that single people fooling around have uncovered secrets beyond the comprehension of anyone to this time. Of course, they pay a price because their experimenting has the same shortcomings that Dr. Frankenstein's did. There is always something they didn't anticipate. There are so many things from pure science to fashion for young ladies to outrageous cover ups that don't work here. The young woman is certainly fetching and the doctor can't help himself, but he could have been a little bit discreet or even made an effort to shelter what he was doing. Things go wrong and because of this intellect, she gains tremendous power, including an understanding of how she came to be. Rock Hudson looks pretty fit here. He never quite makes it in this role, however. It wanders all over with lots of clichés and silliness which diminishes the basic issue. Once she has her revenge a more suitable thing would be for her to wander off and allow him to seek her out and destroy her in some grand way.
I sat through this on TV hoping because of the names in it that it would be worth the time...but dear Gussie, whoever thought this script was worth producing? The basic idea is excellent but the execution is appallingly bad, with a constantly illogical sequence of scenes, an ending that is almost laughably melodramatic and poor Rock Hudson wanders through this with an understandably confused look on his slightly sagging face. Looks like a bad B movie from the 40's...
"The Apartment Complex" is a campy comedy full of kookie characters created in lieu of a real story which tells a young psych student (Lowe) who takes a job managing an apartment complex and becomes embroiled in a murder mystery...um, if you can call it that. This low cal watch contains no suspense, no thrills, no drama, no action, precious few funny moments, a dash of nudity, and almost no romance. "The Apartment Complex" is passable, forgettable junk food for only the most needy couch potatoes.
I agree in many parts with the fairly thorough review already posted on the subject of the miniseries, and agree that it does have its pros, not only its cons. For example, the original film manage to truncate much of the middle and final sections of the novel into a single montage, including the discovery of Gurney Halleck and the love affair of Paul Atreides and Chani, which, on reading the novel, is a travesty, probably born of the studio cutting shenanigens of which the other reviewer writes. This was one of the great failings of the original film, and the miniseries, to its credit, does include many of the original plot lines that were cut out of the Lynch film due to the expansive nature of the Herbert novel.<br /><br />However, this in itself is a double edged sword. Rather than complete a text-to-celluloid transfer of the novel, the creators of the miniseries were tempted to create their own plot lines, absent from the original novel. Similarly, although this is surely a "fuller" account of the storyline of Dune, it is also a break from the originals heart and soul & main vision - that of prophecy. Where are the internal monologues that characterize Herbert's writing and demonstrate what the many different characters are thinking, without the need to suddenly switch viewpoint, or expand in words or unnecessary and stilted spoken monologues? Gone. So much of the original agony of Paul's decision to choose the jihad or death, the choice to fulfill the prophecy or swing away from it, surely the most interesting aspect of the novel itself (and one which captivates people who are far from Science fiction fans) is missing. <br /><br />Without prophecy, what is the point of Dune? It is simply a more educated and learned version of Farscape or Andromeda. How sad that this is all we are provided with. Lynch's film was flawed, yes. But a flawed film could lead to a correction by another film-maker, taking on some of the best points of Lynch's film-making and rejecting some of the more overblown aspects of the style whilst restoring the storyline. Now this story shall probably never be translated to film again, and this I find heartrending.
This miniseries/movie was so terrible at times that I nearly broke down and turned it off. I am a great fan of the novel, however this movie suffers from multitudes of problems. The costuming is poor, and many of the more emotionally charged scenes are blase. The departures from the novel are poorly chosen, significant nuances are missed or rewritten.<br /><br />
I looked forward to watching this film since I loved the David Lynch version. In my first attempt at watching it I fell asleep. Nothing was happening. The next night I tried to watch the rest, and again it was putting me to sleep! Nothing ever happened in this movie that could keep anyone's interest alive. The only time it got a bit more exciting was when I tried it on Fast Forward! The DVD came with a second disk which contained bonus material. Needless to say, I had no hard to go through the torture of watching more of Dune (2000). Here are the low points: The acting was bad, the plot moved in slow motion, the sets were and looked cheap, the direction was pathetic, and the CGI visual effects childish.<br /><br />If you want to watch Dune, save your money or rent the 1984 version.
That's a weird, weird movie and doesn't deserve a better mark than David Lynch's one! The special effects are badly made, the actors are majorly bad actors and in this movie it's not about a race which is the minority of a planet and tries to fight against the dominators, but it seems to be a crazy movie, which pays homage to sect kind of organisations. That's surely not the will of Frank Herbert, the author of the six part epic! Check out David Lynch's one, that's the perfect tribute to the novels!
This is the "Battlefield Earth" of mini series. It has with a few exceptions, all the disastrous ingredients that doomed that movie and will follow it to the grave in the turkey cemetery. They are both adaptations of books with a endless amount of pages who has been turned to a complete mess by a script writer and a director (In this case they are the same person.) who clearly don't know what they are doing, they have both a messiah wannabe that don't really deliver, as a hero (Played in this case by a guy that looks like Mark Hamill but sadly the force is not with him.) and a bunch of stupid bad guys who likes to betray and mess up the life for each other, they are both containing scenes stolen from better productions and they are both cheap productions who tries to look expensive with some (often badly made) computer animation. The exceptions that actually makes the whole thing worse is the terrible work made by the lighting guy who don't even have the skills to turn on the light in his own living room, the camera work that for no reasons at all sometimes are in tilted "Battlefield Earth" mode but for the most of the time are flat as a pancake, the extremely cheap and to small desert set that only contents a pile of sand in the front of a backdrop painted as a desert, that turns very old very fast because it appears in almost every scene, and the bad idea by the costume designer to try to mimic "The fifth element"'s fashion madness with the addition of the silliest hats ever made. Silly moments to remember: 1. Every scene with the guild guys, who looks like MST3K's observer guys but with silly hats. 2. Irulan shows up at the party dressed in her butterfly dress (Why butterflys? -was the one with stuffed parrots in the cleaner?) with matching silly hat, together with a couple of guys with silly balloon hats. 3. Paul the stand-up comedian. 4. Baron Harkonnen in over acting overdrive, screaming "I,m alive". 5. Every Scene with the backdrop, because it newer fits the foreground 6. Every scene with the Fremen's fake religious cermonies, specially the "water of life" cermony. 7. The battle scenes where the same guys gets killed a couple times and the same things explodes over and over again. It is a lot more but it is a 1000 words limit on this so i better stop before i gets carried away.
Drivel. Utter junk. The writers must not have read the book, or seen David Lynch's film. Not worth wasting your time.<br /><br />Longer does not make better. While more in-depth then Lynch's film, it has gross in-accuracies, and down-play's key parts of the story.<br /><br />"A Night at the Roxbury" is more worth your time.
What can I say? After having read Herbert's books and loving Lynch's movie version, I was extremely disappointed. I felt I was watching a reject version of Buck Rogers. The sets looked like left overs from a Star Wars TV special! I felt the acting was a bit amateurish by most. The costumes were garish and over done which gave it a '60s Flash Gordon, pulp feel. The worms! They're supposed to be Sand Worms and yet they appeared to "big stalagtites" with a mouth at the blunt end. The effects in general were pretty second rate. I won't even start about the disgraceful "Navigator" effect.<br /><br />This so-called "Frank Herbert's Dune" wasn't even faithfull to his books! It should have been called "Frank Herbert's Dune - For Dummies". Key plot elements were left out, names were changed and the entire "feel" of the story was "sanitised". I didn't even recognise the Harkonnens! In fact most of the characters appeared nothing like Herbert's descriptions had depicted them. I'm starting to get upset just remembering what a tragedy it was. I'm glad I couldn't stomach the second installment....
The Dune miniseries opens with a "flashforward" montage of action sequences. The realisation quickly dawns that these are the *best* scenes out of the 265 minute running time, and they're not good. Not good at all. Oh dear. <br /><br />But let us not judge a book by its cover (even though that's exactly what we're being invited to do). Let's give Dune a chance to redeem itself.<br /><br />Well, here's the expected watery opening on Caladan. But who's this petulant, strangely ugly man? Paul Atreides? *This* is Paul Atreides? This generic plastic puppet? And why does he look so old? What's that? The actor's only 25? Well, he doesn't *look* it, and that's way too old anyway.<br /><br />But at least he has charisma, right? Wrong. Alec Newman is a stumbling, mumbling buffoon. I'm picturing him being discovered sitting in the dark in a remedial acting class because nobody liked him enough to tell him the class was over, and he's just too dumb to realise it. When your Paul Atreides has all the screen prescence of soggy toast, and an acting range from "petulant" to "blank" your production of Dune is doomed from the start.<br /><br />The other actors take pity on poor Alec though, and give uniformly insipid and incomprehensible performances so that he doesn't look too bad by comparison. At least, I *assume* that is what they are doing. Because I'm charitable, you see.<br /><br />To be fair, they are clearly being given no direction at all. Random gestures, blank or inconsistent deliveries, missing their marks, it's all here. This is like a master class in how not to do it.<br /><br />And sure, there are more elements of the book in this miniseries than there are in the 1984 movie, but there aren't twice as many, because of all the. Pauses. To fill. Time.<br /><br />But we can forgive all this because of the small budget of $20 million, or only $5 million per hour. Nobody could be expected make quality science fiction on that sort of budget.<br /><br />Except perhaps "Stargate SG-1" which makes do with $1.4 million per 50 minute episode, or "Farscape" at $2 million. And frankly I'd rather watch four episodes of either of those while being punched in the kidneys, than have to sit though the travesty that is Dune the miniseries again.
This is a total piece of crap. It is an insult to the awesome book by Frank Herbert. They have mangled the story and characters. The acting is average to bad. The only character done right and played well is Duke Leto, played by William Hurt. Unfortunately, he dies pretty early in the story and then its all downhill from there (not that its a very tall hill to begin with).<br /><br />The 1984 movie was directed by the legendary David Lynch. I was not overly impressed with the movie, but considering the technological limitations of the time, they tried their best. Amazingly, the crappy mini series makes it look so much better by comparison. It was at least somewhat true to the book, which I really love. <br /><br />They had the chance to do it right this time, sadly it was not taken.
If you have never read the classic science fiction novel this mini-series is based on, it may actually be good. Unfortunately, if you ARE a fan of the book, you probably won't be able to watch more than the first hour or two. All of the political intrigue has been taken out of the film, the most important scenes from the book have been taken out, characters motivations have been changed completely, and words from the wrong characters mouths. Where in the novel Paul Atredies was a teen age boy with incredible political skill and a great understanding of the way the world worked, in this film he is hot headed and and frustrated. Avoid this movie at all costs.
While the David Lynch version of Dune is choppy, awkward, and unfaithful to the novel, it is visually well designed and well acted. The best one can say about the Sci Fi channel's attempt to make Dune into a miniseries is that it's ambitious. Actually, that is virtually the only positive praise one can offer. The actors (with few exceptions) seem happy to recite their lines with the least emotion possible, and the least appropriate accents. The costumes seem to have been designed by someone with a a large surplus of Mylar fabric on hand and an unhealthy love of unflattering headwear.<br /><br />In part, this miniseries suffers from living in the shadow of Lynch's already well known effort. However, it takes elements from Lynch's film which were not present in the novel and copies them nearly wholesale (i.e. the Guild Steersman's navigation sequence), and this only encourages encourages negative comparison to Lynch's film. A for effort. D for virtually everything else.
Surely one of the lamest shows ever to be produced on these shores and thats saying something. Even many of the lead actors didn't stick around for the duration. The fact that it ran for eight years is a sad indictment on the average intelligence and cultural nous of the Aussie viewer. It went round and round in circles, with repetitive gags and poorly-drawn characters. Arthur MacArthur, for god's sake. did they actually pay the writers of this show? I wonder if anyone checked their qualifications. There were tired gags about rural people and second-rate farce situations that were poor imitations of a thousand English and US sitcoms that had gone before. I think that's what I hate about it so much, that it appears no one involved wanted to make it memorable, original or clever, instead opting for the lowest common denominator each time.
But even caricatures need a plausible plot line. I suppose in 1934 some part of that audience long ago would enjoy this tepid farce. It doesn't age well. It does give Nat Pendelton and Zasu Pitts experienced and expert support players a shot at leading roles. Pendelton, who is featured prominently in the Thin Man series tries his best but is over matched by witless plot. With the backdrop being a stage play with gangsters its not exactly original material. Movie's saving grace is the always excellent Edward Everett Horton in a wasted performance. But don't waste your time watching Everett in this film. I would encourage anyone to watch him in his effort in Holiday, with Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn. Same era 1936, but much better script and storyline. Better gags and needless to say star power as well.
It's astonishing that some people saw this as art. We saw it as a poorly filmed (shaky hand-held camera and all), (generally) badly acted, unscripted mess that seemed more like a high school film project with the kids experimenting in black & white film making. Injecting mounds of poetry in place of a story does not an art film make. When we watched this in the theatre, people were starting to have fits of the giggles (us included) at the endless stupidity of this self-indulgent, meandering mess. And believe me, it does seem endless. Had we finished our candy and popcorn, we too would have walked out of the theatre with the other two dozen people who packed up and left looking for something more interesting to do!
A terrible deception: controversial film, winner of the Teddy in Berlin 2003, Mil nubes de paz turned out to be a fiasco. The actors are all reciting (well, they are not exactly actors); the film tried to be a high bet but ends up being a doubtful bet: it stays in the superficiality of two guys kissing and a guy whose lover is gone; it has no purpose: nothing to do with the homo-sexuality presented in other films (e.g. Before Night Falls (2000) by Julian Schnabel). Technically the only thing that works is the photography; otherwise, the camera is put in strange angles (to make it more `art-film') and the whole film runs in a black and white atmosphere. The film is so pretentious that bothers. I mean, it's good to be pretentious when you have talent to support it. Or maybe it is that it's so art-cinema that it's incomprehensible. The story flows slowly, slowly, slowly. To me, more form than essence. Superb edition? It was good. Superb direction? Don't think so: the film is weak. It was an interesting project. It's a shame. It's a flaw. One star out of four.
A very, very, very slow-moving, aimless movie about a distressed, drifting young man. Not sure who was more lost - the flat characters or the audience, nearly half of whom walked out. <br /><br />Attempting artiness with black & white and clever camera angles, the movie disappointed - became even more ridiculous - as the acting was poor and the plot and lines almost non-existent. Very little music or anything to speak of. The best scene in the movie was when Gerardo is trying to find a song that keeps running through his head. He goes to a used record store to buy it for his lover and has to sing the song for two sales clerks before they find the album. Cute scene gave promise, but it went downhill from there. The rest of the movie lacks art, charm, meaning... If it's about emptiness, it works I guess because it's empty. Wasted two hours.
I nearly fell asleep during a screening of this. Of a boring story that seems to go on forever, it follows several days in the life of a male prostitute who falls in love with one of his tricks. After a heated affair, the trick leaves a long letter explaining why they cannot be together and how they must go on their separate ways.<br /><br />The male prostitute then goes on a downward self-destructive spiral trying to find his "one true love", repeatedly returning to the same places they frequented, looking for more clues or signs as to where he may locate his love.<br /><br />In the meanwhile, he hooks up with one ugly guy (who I thought was also a male prostitute), a gay basher, and some guy who ends up having a "three-second sexual intercourse session" with him in a back alley.<br /><br />It never ceases to amaze me how films STILL portray random sex acts as scenes that can take place in a brief matter of seconds, such as in this case where the trick barely has his pants unbuckled before thrusting three times and miraculously experiencing orgasm! <br /><br />All of these random encounters end with the sexual partner asking him to call them, to which he discards their telephone numbers.<br /><br />There is a brief side-plot involving the main character visiting his busy mother who seems to have no time for his lifestyle. There is also another brief side-plot involving some random conversation with a young woman who has noticed him several times standing on the bridge from her window. And there is also one more brief side-plot involving him showing the letter to a male acquaintance, but the audience is not advised of his relation to this person.<br /><br />None of these things really connect with each other, only to show us how lost and confused this young man really is. He seems to be living life like a ghost. There was one good scene in the entire movie that involved him rummaging through a yard sale looking for a particular record with the world's saddest song on it.<br /><br />Otherwise, this movie just seems to go on forever. Filmed in black and white, it may seem very dreamlike, but sitting in the theater for nearly two hours watching this drivel will resemble something more like a nightmare!<br /><br />I found the ending to be confusing as I wasn't quite sure whether the young man had died and gone to heaven? That would have been a nice pay off to end the misery that both audience and the main character had to endure in this meaningless tripe. But seeing as this is an "independent film", movies with endings like these are supposed to encourage you to "use your imagination". <br /><br />For those of you who are seeking out nudity, there are only brief scenes and most of them are filmed in such a way that anything suggestive are artfully concealed within the shadows. In other words, don't waste your time with this one.<br /><br />My Rating - 2 out of 10
The only reason I am giving a second star is for the first half of the movie. This was a good rendition of the story. I enjoy seeing a few fictional characters added to add some color to a well known story. But the second half was horrible!!! Yes there were violent aspects of this story. But the writers of this movie chose to only include the violence and forget about the good things God did for the Israelites. Towards the end of the movie Scott looked as though he were getting messages from the big giant head instead of talking and hearing from God. This rendition had some HUGE problems with deviation from scripture. And big surprise, there are no favorable deviations! Their portrayal of Moses as this screaming naked lunatic who did all of this against his will is totally false. It showed a Moses who had to scream in order to get God to talk to him. WRONG The scripture says God spoke to Moses all the time and not just after a temper tantrum. They got the people's complaining right, but failed to show that God spoke to Moses at Sinai in an audible voice that the followers could hear and believe.(Chapter 19). They also forgot the pillar of fire and cloud which guided them in the day and night.<br /><br />What was the whole Joshua thing? The righteous peace loving Jew who would not fight until Moses threatens him? WRONG (He was known as a great warrior) What about the great speech that Moses gave the army telling them God had helped them enough and now they were on their own?? WRONG (They only won through God's help as shown in their own scenes with Moses lifting his staff)And what was that sorry looking Ark of the Covenant? Instead of overlaying it with gold this movie was on a tight budget and attached little gold chips to it! Oh yeah, it was a "molten calf" not a straw one with little chips tacked on. Someone forgot that they came out of Egypt with a huge amount of gold tribute from the Egyptians. You wouldn't know it from this sorry looking bunch.<br /><br />By the way, the part about them slaying the Israelites after the golden calf incident says "men" and does not mention women and children which the movie delighted in showing the viewers. Oh yeah - Manna wasn't the only thing sent from heaven - don't forget the birds for meat. Also, the Bible mentions Jethro bringing Moses his wife and children and then says Jethro went back to his own land. It does not say that Moses gave up his family.<br /><br />Oh well, if you know nothing about the real story, read Exodus for yourself. If you know the real story, you will hate this version.
I watched this series out of curiosity,wanting to see if they could possibly and with ALL this modern technology,out do Cecil B. DeMille's classic epic of 1956, starring Charleton Heston,Yul Brenner and Sir Cedric Hardwicke. Of course, I was let down. Yes, they had all the Biblical characters correct, but they didn't give us any of the spectacular theatrical scenes, that held your interest throughout the first movie. If you going to have a mini-series, you have to have some "rivoting" scenes, the "Burning bush", Parting the "RED Sea",drowning "Pharohs Armies", "building Sethi's Pyramids", could have been done with todays' technology on the scale of blockbuster movies such as "Lord of the Rings" or the Matrix. Obviously, they didn't want to leave a LASTING impression of "faith and sacrifice", which is much needed in these trouble times.
I had high hopes for this movie I even gave up a night of watching Stargate for this movie. I found it had a rushed feel about it and a lot of the key biblical moments and facts were missing. I might be a bit jaded and spoiled for the 1956 version, as I have watched that one every year for the last 20 or so years. I doubt this one will make it to the realm of yearly classic, as the other one has. If you have not seen the 19546 version, you might like this one but, I seriously doubt it and urge you to skip this one and go rent or buy the classic one. This has some nifty special effects but that is not what I look for when telling a movie like the Ten Commandments. I was kind of looking to see how they told the story, and the writers did not do a good job with this one.
This movie deviated from the Bible and fell so below the bar of the 1956 movie. I hate that they replaced the 2006 movie over the traditionally seen 10 commandments. Moses looked like a criminal in this movie, not like the kind looking man Charelston Heston in the 1956 movie. I will not waste my time again watching this movie. They tried so hard to modernize this movie in order to keep you on the edge that it was more like a soap opera (and not a good one at that). I'm pretty sure that younger ones out there who never paid attention to the original 10 commandments may disagree with me, but to each his own. Also, it took them 10 years to make the first 10 commandments, it probably took them 2 months to make this one. The special effects were not as amazing as the first one and after all these years with so much technology, you would have thought they would have done better now.
If you are a Christian or a Jew hoping to see an accurate Biblical (or Torah) portrayal of the events in Exodus, you will be disappointed by this movie. In typical Hollywood fashion people who are not even in the Bible have been "created" for supporting characters and play a large role in the movie. Jethro's role is changed completely and he becomes nothing but an untrusting father-in-law instead of a Shepherd priest who gave Moses excellent advise. God is largely removed from the movie, and instead viewers are given the impression that Moses had to figure things out for himself. Nothing could be further from the truth.<br /><br />This movie is a typical Humanistic twist on Biblical things and attempts to put most of the responsibility on Moses for trying to understand what God wants and what he should do. Those who know the book of Exodus well will see not only inconsistencies in the movie, but outright glaring changes to events. Most importantly, they will see a near total absence of God's dialog with Moses, which determines everything Moses does after the burning bush. Far from being alone as portrayed in the movie, Moses is guided by God with detailed and direct communication.<br /><br />Even Hallmark apparently can't acknowledge God's direct role, and without his spoken words to Moses many events make no sense. To compensate, Hallmark has actually changed some things. For instance, after the golden calf God plagues the people and they must look upon a symbol of a serpent to live. Hallmark creates a civil war instead and the Israelites pick sides, then slaughter each other. Moses side wins of course.<br /><br />There may be minimal value in this movie to unbelievers since it may cause them to seek answers, but believers should stay away. The twisted events and changes make this a danger to anyone who doesn't know their Bible. Read Exodus for yourself, there is no substitute.
With a name like "10 Commandments" you would expect a film to be representative of the account in the Bible, specifically Exodus. Not so here. This is standard procedure with any Biblical Hallmark-made film. Remember "Noah"?? That was utter fiction and one of the worst films ever made. At least this film had "some" truth to the original story. However, Menerith, who was a major character in this movie - half-brother of Moses, is not in the original story. Other characters were absent, not to mention important events were completely eliminated. So what, you may ask? Because this should be representative of the actual story; otherwise, some might and do believe that is the way it actually happened. In today's age, people get their religion from movies instead of Church and reading the Bible. Also, it is a great error. See Revelation 22:18-19. The script is already written. Why change it? Other than the account in Exodus itself (which should be the main focus), you have the Cecil B. DeMille film to compare it to, which is clearly a far better presentation.<br /><br />The night it first aired, my wife was anxious to see it. I told her not to get her hopes up because it was a Hallmark-film. She looked puzzled and said, "Why? Hallmark makes good movies". That might be so, but they butcher the Bible. I'm sorry to say that I was correct. Not just the story, but the acting as well. With today's technology, you should be able to make a wonderful Biblical movie. I'm still waiting...
I appreciate the effort that the filmmakers wanted to depict the story of Moses and the exodus of Israel, and that the film helps viewers to put themselves into Moses' shoes and gain understanding of the intense burden laid upon Moses' shoulders. As excited as I was to see this film, I was greatly disappointed in the storyline. (I'll leave out the videography, special effects, and artistic ability in this review.) What is most disappointing is the historical inaccuracy of this movie and how it is so far from the historical accounts from Biblical texts. One of the overarching principles from the Bible is that *God* led His people out of Egypt, and He promised that He would take them to a land that is flowing with milk and honey. Not only did He give this promise, but He led His people in a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. He never left them; He always was visible to the Israelites. The movie, however, depicts a God who remains silent during the entire wandering through the desert. This movie changed the essence and theme of the Biblical text and instead depicts God as a silent, cruel, disciplinary void.<br /><br />In addition, the depiction of Moses was just as wrong. Moses was known as a man of faith (why else would he be such a father-figure to Israel throughout the Old and New Testaments, even that Moses is known as a man of great faith). However, the movie depicts him as a pragmatic, angry, insecure loner who despises the calling that God placed on his life. OK, I'll allow some creative freedom for the filmmakers in the Exodus story... but this is beyond creativity -- it is heresy.
I as a Christian am outraged after seeing just the first half of this picture. The film's website says they researched the movie before writing but I believe they forgot to consult the ultimate source THE BIBLE. I sat with two different versions of the Bible and could not find half of what happened or was said in this picture. It was like they made up what was not in the Bible and changed what was in the Bible to what they thought modern film viewers would want to see instead of the truth. I personally am too young to remember the 1950's Ten Commandments but it can't be any worse than this. I have written to the network and can only hope they publicly apologize for this travesty.
I got this movie as a buy one get one deal at troma.com with The Ruining (which isn't much better). The main reason I wanted it was to see Star Worms II: Attack of the Pleasure Pods, the DVD is a double feature with that movie. I really didn't know what Actium Maximus was at the time, and when I saw the trailer I got scared. It looked awful. But hey, what can you tell from the trailer? Well, apparently I could tell a lot. This movie honestly made no sens to me. The special effects were so terrible you cannot tell what in God's name is going on. I understand Mark HIcks had a extremely low budget, but come on. And it is sad, because in the interview he sounded like this was to be an epic film and meant more than you could see. But sadly, watching the film is one of the most boring hour and 15 minutes of anyone's life. It is so utterly painful to sit through. I really can't even explain the plot to you because I didn't understand it at all and I have sadly seen this film two times! Apparently they used some type of puppets for the "alien dinosaurs" like they did in Star Wars. But these special effects are awful, I can't stress it enough. And most of the time bad special effects are okay but this film needed them badly. It takes place on some futuristic planet where alien dinosaurs battle each other and bad actors in hooded sweatshirts run around, and they look like they are in the kkk. And some box with a blue light on it is the president. I know in the interview Mark Hicks said something about making this a television pilot, well, I can see why this didn't make it to CBS or NBC. There are two good things about this film. 1. the music is actually pretty good, it has an epic score that sticks in your head for days. And 2. Lloyd Kaufman's introduction is as always hilarious. Overall, don't waste your time but check out Star Worms II: Attack of the Pleasure Pods!
OK, what to say about Actium Maximus...<br /><br />There are some bad movies that are so horribly awful they circle 'round to awesome. There are bad movies that just suck in their own right. There are good movies, and so-so movies, and movies that are just fun. Then there's Actium Maximus. You can't make a spoiler for this movie because to do that you would have to understand the action enough to comment. This particular movie is worse than Turkish Star wars one and the sequel too. Those movies are so bad they circle 'round to awesome and they make you feel drunk even if you're stone cold sober. Actium circles 'round from bad to awesome, but then it doesn't stop there, it takes another trip to badville, then 'round again to awesome, then finally it sets up a little feudal kingdom on the border of "Bad" and "stock footage of paint drying while a harpy screams incoherently." If you are into self punishment this movie is for you. It actually will cause your brain to hurt.
This was a shockingly bad movie and I literally gasped the first time seeing the Blue Screen puppets. Imagine the worst Blue Screen special effects you ever saw, make it somehow far worse, and then combine this with poorly made, rubber and Play-doh puppets that look like something from a semi-retarded pre-school art class. Then add some screeching, Yngwie Malmstein-esquire, melodic-metal guitar solos stuff that is way too loud and lasts way too long. The overall film is absolutely awful and makes "Feeders" look like "Rashomon." Its one of the worst movies I've ever seen, with every quantifiable metric spiraling dismally downward, much like a waterlogged turd in the perpetual, slow whirlpool of a broken Rest Stop toilet. Still, though, a film like "Actium Maximus" is not to be missed by the bad movie conesseuirs out there, even if only by looking up clips on YouTube or someplace. This movie is a bit of an eye opener, if you can stomach the ride. I think this director may be mentally ill, though, which is a bit debasing. Watching him discuss the project, you get the sense that he truly believes that he's created something wonderful. I guess he's the "Star Wars kid" of gonzo filmmakers. What a mess. :-)
I just don't understand why anytime someone does a show about one of the largest metro areas in the country (Houston, Dallas, Austin/San Antonio etc.), they portray the average person as someone who wears wranglers/cowboy hat , talks with a drawl, has zero fashion sense, and drives a truck on his way to either the "saloon" or his next hunting trip, rodeo, skeet shooting or country music concert. I have never even seen a small town cop driving a police-truck...anywhere in Texas.<br /><br />The funny thing is this is not done for artistic reasons or comedy...they are actually serious and I guess believe the average person is too stupid to know the difference. The bad scripts and equally bad acting give that away. This show makes goofy shows in the past like Knightrider look like high-brow entertainment. At least Knightrider had the talking car.
First of all, no one with any law enforcement experience (Not ER or EMT, but real law enforcement) takes this show seriously. Walker would be drummed out of any police force in the US for his illegal and totally unprofessional tactics. On top of that, he is a comic book character---no acting ability, incredibly trite lines, no character development. The fact that Alex Cahill loves him shows just how dumb blondes really are. And Trivett is the ultimate clown in black-face. Come on---if you think Walker is a heartfelt show without bias, then explain why JT is treated as a dolt, always is the subject of Walker's jokes, never is allowed to be the one to solve the crime, and never rescues Walker, who should be dead 50 times over for the stupid things he does. While it may be true that many criminals are even dumber than the detectives who go after them (and believe me, most cops are dumber than dirt), the smart ones Walker comes up against never seem to get the point that once Walker is captured, the jerk needs to be put of his misery. But then again, Norris produced the show as well as starred in it, so how could he willingly get rid of himself or even show how stupid his tactics are. As if six guys are going to wait around to take him one at a time. What a terrible series! It is more demeaning than any of the hokey westerns like The Lone Ranger, Roy Rogers, The Cisco Kid, and Wild Bill Hickock, though I would imagine that most of you on here are far too young to remember those shows. But like those shows, in the same way as those shows, Walker TR is just as insulting and just plain silly.
The fact that this cruddy series could elicit dozens of comments (much less hundreds of 'votes') speaks volumes as to the decline of Western (or at least American) civilization.<br /><br />Read Proust, you morons!! Or at least Dave Barry or Calvin and Hobbes anthologies.<br /><br />Chuck Norris. Wrap your brains around the fact that in order to rate or write about this series you'd have to have spent minutes..nay, HOURS...viewing this poor sod treading the boards and spewing lines with less emotional impact than the gal who used to call off the correct time on your local service.<br /><br />PLEASE DON'T WATCH THIS SHOW!! SPARE YOUR FEW REMAINING BRAIN CELLS!
This show is the worst show ever! Norris and his family write it, produce it, direct it, etc etc. The only reason I ever see it is because my goofy wife likes it. How many times can Norris fly though the air from plain sight to land a kick on an obviously blind villain? No trees, no building, just whoosh.....thin air. He ALWAYS solves the case or is the best at whatever skill there is. No co star ever gets the glory. Its all Norris. Its truly apparent that Norris is awful stuck on himself and will not allow anyone to one up him in any scene no matter what the content. Terrible acting, terrible script, terrible series.
This TV show is possibly the most pathetic display of crap on TV today. Horribly predictable, obscene usage of slow motion photography, cheesy story lines. Chuck Norris is an abomination who should never have been allowed to be filmed in anything. The way he chooses to make each episode into a public service announcement is really annoying. His acting sucks so bad that it makes a person cringe with embarrassment. I will give the series some credit though...it does get entertaining at times, but not enough for it make any difference. With all the negative points this series has, i still prefer it over reality TV, it can't really get any more worthless than that.
Walker Texas Ranger is one of the worst shows produced in the past 10 years. The script for James 'Jimmy' Trivette, Walker's sidekick, is about as pathetically written of a part as Wesley Crusher on Star Trek TNG, and is played with about as much conviction.<br /><br />On this show, people don't respond the way people respond to things in real life--everyone is polarized--everyone is either a completely good guy or a completely bad guy (unless Walker himself has a 2 minute talk with them and then they change instantly). That's not how life works, that's not how people are. This show doesn't take place in this reality.<br /><br />The plot lines are about as realistic as Murder She Wrote, a show where an arrogant old lady can just walk into people's houses without them getting angry, and she can demand that police officers do what she wants and they bend over backwards for her. With Walker, everyone on the show, including the "bad guys", act like he's the sort of hero that myths and fairy tales are made of, and time itself bends to his whim. The lines that sometimes come out of people's mouths on this show are beyond ridiculous. It's as if the scriptwriter for the part of Wesley Crusher (for the "serious" parts) and the scriptwriter for Bob Saget's funniest home videos (for the "humor" parts) got together and wrote all the scripts for this show.<br /><br />This show is for people who think that good always prevails over evil. It's for the elderly. It's for wishful thinkers. It's for people who want to be guaranteed to always have a happy ending. It's for people who want to drift away into oblivion. It's for people whose drug of choice is their television.<br /><br />I cringe every time I see even a commercial for this show. My opinion is that it is THE worst show to be on television in the last 10 years.<br /><br />I used to like Chuck Norris, but this show has forever tainted him in my mind. I can't even watch his older movies without thinking of this show.
This series is formulaic and boring. The episodes are the same thing every week, simply with slightly varied settings. Some purely evil character does some dastardly deed, Walker goes after him, and it ends in a Karate match. The villains are super-cliché super-stereotypical evil villains, the good guys are all pure, honest and saintly, and the story lines are simplistic and unrealistic. After about 2 episodes, the show becomes totally unwatchable by all but the least discerning fans. Certainly not Norris's best work. His other work may be cliché but it usually does not drag on for weeks. If you enjoy formulaic,boring, repetitive clichéd snooze-fests, then this is for you.
I'd never thought that I would be caught saying this: But I think "Dog the Bounty Hunter" is more entertaining than this 90's era cop drama. Walker is very melodramatic and actually set a standard of the genre of "High Octane" cop shows such as CSI, CSI: Miami, and so forth. I'm not saying all these shows are bad, but they aren't good either. I like the karate chop action that Walker dispenses on the enemies of justice, and the diverse cast of characters as much as the science tech of the CSI series. But there are some elements that I hate in a show like this. Stereotypes/Countertypes! That's right, Stereotypes/Countertypes! Unfortunately, this is a show for the moderates of Red State America who refuse to part with the old prejudices of yore especially when it comes to crime. For example, there was an episode in which a kid with psychic powers ventures into Dallas where he encounters group of kids in Goth/Punk clothing and they start harassing him. Now! This is exactly what Middle America perceives the Goth/Punk culture. I mean come on, how often do people that dress like that rob and steal from people just minding there own business. Whenever there are Blacks and Latinos in the plot it's always about gangs in some impoverished neighborhood. Okay! Not everyone who's a minority is a desperate recruit of a gang surrounded by crime, drugs, poverty. Again, this is what Middle Red State America sees of these people. Finally, Why is the Trivette the bumbling sidekick, can't you make the sidekick an equal ass-kicker?
This has got to be the worst show I have ever seen. I always liked Chuck Norris in Films, but why do we need to make these shows politically correct by adding a black side kick who is as threatening as Shirley Temple in Little Miss Marker. I also thought the show was limited because how many times can you kick a guy in the face and make it interesting. I know an African American who looks like this Trivette guy and he gets his butt kicked about once a week he is all attitude.<br /><br />Chuck Norris is the man and he deserves all the kudos he gets, I think this show started great but lost steam as time went on<br /><br />They should have dumped Chucks side kick
Great acting, great production values, good direction.<br /><br />But the script starts out with great pacing and interest in the first half and then falls apart in the second half. We're clear on character and motivation for the first half but then the second half leaves many questions unanswered.<br /><br />The conflicts raised are compelling but the follow-through is weak. For instance, we're very clear that Rudyard Kipling is pro-war but we don't know if that philosophical stance changes through the course of the film.<br /><br />This is the sort of picture that makes me want to look up the facts in history books. I don't feel I can rely on the film to get a clear idea.<br /><br />The depiction of the war itself is heart-breakingly accurate, though the women's lack of enthusiasm doesn't reflect the war hysteria that swept Britain at the time. Perhaps this is historically accurate; like so much in this film, I simply don't know.
**SPOILERS** I rented "Tesis" (or "Thesis" in English) on the strength of director Alejandro Amenabar's later effort "The Others". Based on what a brilliantly measured and horrifyingly effective creepfest that film was, I assumed his earlier efforts would be of a similar quality and I was in the mood for some good horror. Instead I wound up with the most tedious, preposterous excuse for a lame-brained slasher movie I've seen since the German film "Anatomie" (which this one kinda reminded me of).<br /><br />The plot has potential but it's thrown away within the first 20 minutes. It revolves around innocent-n-pretty psychology student Angela's (Ana Torrent - a Jessica Harper deadringer) thesis on the subject of violence in films. Through some far-fetched circumstances too dumb to go into here, she winds up in possession of a 'snuff' tape on which two men torture, mutilate and kill a young girl for the camera. Angela, and her horror-buff friend Chema (Fele Martinez) are both shocked yet intrigued by the tape and decide to get to the bottom of who's responsible for it.<br /><br />This leads to... well, nothing.<br /><br />They never really give a reason for why they want to find the girl's killers (since they resolutely refuse to contact the police throughout any of the unfolding events, even when their own lives at risk) and the mystery itself is as limp as Graham Norton in a room full of bunny girls. There is only one proper 'clue' (the type of camera the killers used is discovered) and that's a) a really weak one and b) wheeled out in the first 20 minutes. The rest of the so-called 'unravelling' just occurs through blind luck, increasingly ridiculous plot twists and a SLEW of awful, transparent and thoroughly pointless red herrings that are chucked in merely to pad out the running time.<br /><br />Seriously - Amenabar might know his stuff about ghost stories but he's clearly never read a detective book in his life. The key to a good whodunnit is to have a large cluster of potential suspects and to eliminate them one by one with clever deduction and the gradual discovery of more and more evidence, before moving in for the final twist. In "Tesis", *POTENTIAL SPOILER AHEAD* the killer's identity is guessed correctly by the amateur 'detectives' almost instantly and then we get 100 minutes of the writer trying feebly to throw us off the scent until he runs out of ideas, throws his hands up and says "OK, ya got me, it was him after all"! As for any kind of logic or motive behind the crimes - no such luck. You're watching the wrong movie if that's what you're after.<br /><br />The only thing that drags "Tesis" down further from just being a dumb, badly written thriller is the way it actually tries to make some ludicrous, muddled-up 'point' about violence in films. I have no idea what stance it's attempting to take on the subject but it seems determined to cram in a ton of misguided, confused psychobabble, in between the rest of the gibberish, and say "look at me! I'm political!". The final scenes, in which the "point" of the movie is supposedly hammered home, are so utterly absurd and puerile, one can't help but wonder if Amenabar feels embarrassed now when he watches this. If he doesn't, he certainly should. This is total 'amateur night at the slasher house' stuff.<br /><br />Overall I can't believe I wasted two whole hours (it felt like at least six) on this, just hoping something might happen. The urban legend of 'snuff films' (and that is basically all they are, despite the way this film tries to suggest they're some kind of criminal phenomenon sweeping the world!) is an area that can be so tantalisingly exploited in good horror films ("Videodrome" anyone?) but it's so easy to step over the line into childlike 'wouldn't it be cool if!' territory with it (ie: "My Little Eye")... "Tesis" hits an all-time low for the 'snuff movie' genre. On every level, this one is better left dead and buried. I'll award it a 1 out of 10, for some nice lighting, but that's all it's getting.
Some years back, this film had been scheduled for broadcast on TCM UK as part of a Tod Browning retrospective – but what they actually showed was the 1937 remake!; my brother had watched it (and, in hindsight, it followed the original pretty much scene-for-scene, even down to the set design) – though no classic, he said it was a far more satisfying viewing experience than the incredibly creaky earlier version… <br /><br />This being the first collaboration between Browning and Bela Lugosi, I had high hopes for it – but these were quashed when it became evident after the first reel of tedious conversation that the film's main concern was to appease the still-novel sound technique, and consequently the result is stagey and extremely static. The thriller plot isn't exactly exciting either; even less appetizing is the ostensible British-Indian setting (with the characters' affected accents and upper-class demeanor – not to mention the over-use of corny idiosyncratic idioms such as "I say", "rather" and "now look here" – rendering the whole risible more than anything else)! <br /><br />Apart from this, there are a few unintended howlers: Margaret Wycherly (as a fake medium) pleads with Police Inspector Lugosi (if anything, his undeniable screen presence is already evident) to give her some time to 'work out' who the culprit of the double-murder really is (the evidence points to her own daughter, played by Leila Hyams!) – she hears a tapping and is deluded into thinking that the spirit world has genuinely made contact with her…but then Lugosi enters the room and, in his unmistakable accent, straight-facedly tells her "I knocked twice – you didn't hear me!", at which my brother and I almost fell to the floor in convulsions of laughter!!; the editing is really sloppy, too: during one high-angle shot of the main set, a mike is seen being rapidly pulled up out of camera range – and even worse are a couple of instances where a person walks off-screen, ostensibly into the next shot, to another part of the set…but each shot is held on the other actors for an absurdly long time, so that it appears to take forever for this person to walk just a few paces!! <br /><br />THE THIRTEENTH CHAIR marks the third non-horror Browning Talkie that I've watched – even if both this and MIRACLES FOR SALE (1939) deal with murder and occultism and could, therefore, still be linked to the genre. Much has been said about the director's apparent slackening with the coming of Sound: however, flawed though they may be, the 4 straight horror films he did throughout the 30s are infinitely better than the rest – which I've always found stylish and bizarre enough to suggest that Browning wasn't as much at sea during this period as has been suggested…
Early talkie feature based on a popular stage play. A murder has been committed and a bunch of people hire a medium to conduct a séance to see who the murderer is. While the lights are out there's ANOTHER murder...so it's someone in that room.<br /><br />What follows is an obvious, dull and creaky murder mystery. Most of the cast overacts to a ridiculous degree. They act like they're on stage (where you have to overdo things) and it looks silly on screen. Most embarrassing is Bela Lugosi (two years before "Dracula") who REALLY overdoes it as a police inspector. Static direction by Tod Browning (who was always overrated) doesn't help.<br /><br />For Browning and Lugosi completists only. I give it a 3.
OK, so this is horror? I get horror - but I don't get horrific. Black & white is artistic but too much black is overkill.....enough said about the lighting. The story - a serial killer ....... lot's of these around. It's been done in the past and yes, it will continue to be done.....but I hope not. My question is , when will the audience tire of reliving this maddening dilemma? I guess the director thought he would do something different - portray killing children. Well that's been done before too. SO I guess he had to go to shock value.....have them killed in the darkest of fashions. Okay ..... the audience was shocked......sickened....disgusted.....numbed. And getting up out of my seat , I felt all of these things. So was the director successful? Yes! Absolutely! These are the things he wanted me to feel and I did. Now what do I do with the feelings? And more importantly, what is the "message" here? With the amazing talent that Francis Xavier was "gifted" with.....could he ever consider applying it to making films that speak of, dare I say, coming out of the darkness? I was left in the dark after viewing this film, my soul was assaulted....is that what this craft is about? There are many such films out there - they make the bucks I'm told. So what's up with the people that want to see all these deploring visuals? What is going on in this world that people will pay to be horrifically shocked? Would I see this again.....not ever.
OH MY God I am lost Now I know everything this guy does is Pointless R J A wrote at August 13th, 2006 (posting no. 881): What an awful experience. It looked like a bunch of 3rd graders stole a video camera, borrowed some old editing software from 1995, and played a joke on each other. Trash RGC wrote at August 1st, 2006 (posting no. 747): This movie is a piece of @$#@#@. It sucks Calling this a movie would be misleading. This was a group of friends having a good time and videotaping one another. The storyline was very hard to follow. The attempted artistic camera angles detracted from the story and in to themselves made the entire time a dizzying experience. The acting although comical was very amateurish. The concept is OK, I guess. Perhaps next time, the producers should raise some capital and hire actual professionals and try again. I must say that I'm sick and tired of so many thinking that making a good movie is easy. It is not easy... This fact seems to be lost or ignored by many that believe that without any training/experience and talent that they can make a good product. I guess in the end they will learn just how difficult it is I am so disgusted I HAVE NO COMMENT Chrisite wrote at August 5th, 2006 (posting no. 762):
As much as I love trains, I couldn't stomach this movie. The premise that one could steal a locomotive and "drive" from Arkansas to Chicago without hitting another train along the way has to be right up there on the Impossible Plot lines hit board. Imagine two disgruntled NASA employees stealing the "crawler" that totes the shuttles to and fro and driving it to New York and you get the idea.<br /><br />Having said all that, it's a nice try. Wilford Brimely is at his Quaker Oats best, and Levon Helm turns a good performance as his dimwitted but well-meaning sidekick. Bob Balaban is suitably wormy as the Corporate Guy, and the "little guy takes on Goliath" story gets another airing.
I would agree with another viewer who wrote that this movie recalls the offbeat Melanie Griffith/Jeff Daniels comedy, "Something Wild," in which a rather eccentric free-spirit hooks up with a conservative and very orderly young man, and the two pose as a couple and basically, her personality gradually has an effect on him. He looses up and learns to enjoy their short-lived tryst. That is exactly what happens here, except insert convenient store-robbing eccentric, Alex (Rosanna Arquette) in Melanie Griffith's role, and super-cautious teen, Lincoln (the name is no coincidence, played by Devon Gummersall) in Jeff Daniel's part. This movie even shares the same twist and abrupt genre change where the creepy, violent boyfriend suddenly shows up in the end and things end up quite badly. Only, here, instead of it being Ray Liotta playing a throwback to 1950s film goons, it's Peter Greene.<br /><br />The story is about a teenage kid who is in his own little world. He has some sort of fascination with death following his brother's suicide, and his parents have disconnected, too, behaving quite strangely (the mother is convinced Christmas will be arriving shortly, despite it being August). Then, on a night out with the "guys" (one of whom is played by Jason Hervey of the Wonder Years) trying to buy them beer, he runs into Alex who decides to kidnap him and his friends car (with his permission of course), and they take off for mini-adventure across the deserts of the West Coast, robbing convenient stores in Robin Hood sort of fashion and of course, indulging in the routine self-discovery as each asks more about the other's life. But, Alex has left behind a partner in her trade of theft, and he isn't going away easily. Although, we're not consistently reminded of him or anything as in repetitive flashback or cutting over to his point of view. At least this much was done cleverly.<br /><br />'Do Me a Favor' (aka Trading Favors), is a mostly underdeveloped story of criminal mischief and self-discovery that lags quite a bit for the first half of the film, but delivers the goods a little to late once Alex and Lincoln arrive at her home out in the middle of nowhere. By the time the filmmakers give you enough stimulation, the film is unfortunately, almost over. I would recommend that if this is the sort of story you're in the mood for, and despite Rosanna Arquette always giving a good performance (even in a poorly written film), I would still recommend catching this in its best form, "Something Wild."
The most obvious flaw...horrible, horrible script. This movie had a potentially good story, but it was ruined with bad dialogue, continuity problems, things that were never explained, gaping plotholes, sub-plots that went nowhere, and just plain stupidity. Not to mention the awful, cliched directing of Sandra Locke. Not even two great performances could've saved this movie. So it didn't matter that Devon Gummersall and Rosanna Arquette give horrific performances. The thing is, they're better actors than this movie would have you believe. The best of the Arquettes, Rosanna Arquette (Silverado, After Hours, Desperately Seeking Susan) has some fine moments - like a great scene in the beginning when she painfully pulls her handcuffs off - but gives an overall weak performance, by her standards. And Devon Gummersall (Dick, When Trumpets Fade, and the brilliant My So-Called Life) is much worse, acting with no conviction or emotion what-so-ever. But I won't lay blame on the actors, who have been good in other roles. The script is awful, and the bad direction doesn't help. Do me a favor...avoid this movie.
"Music and lyrics written and performed by Charlie Daniels"... 'nuff said. Just don't be expecting anything along the lines of "Devil Went Down To Georgia", ol' Charles sorta talk-sings through one song early in about the Whiskey Mountain (duh) and that's it for lyrics. Hey though, fans of arty rape scenes will get a kick out of the Polaroid montage (my second-hand copy is classified as a FAMILY film) and who doesn't love interminable scenes of rednecks gawking at purty wimmen? The box art made the movie look a hell of a lot weirder than it was, with the promise that "you can lose your life-- or your mind!", but mostly it's two couples trekking through the sticks and "acting" natural. Love that hermit.
A less than redemptive hunka junk that is mercifully free from the ravages of competence. Some Northern idiots come to the deep South looking for some confederate rifles stashed on the legendary Whiskey Mountain. They are menaced by scary hillbillies, in a wide nod to 'Deliverance'; but it turns out that the hicks are fronting for a Northern marijuana-trafficking badass. This is brought to light so early that it doesn't even qualify as a twist. The women are locked up and raped into catatonia; rather than rescuing them, the guys run down to town to get the sheriff, who is lazy and doesn't believe them. I think if my girlfriend were being raped I'd kind of take the shortest route to the hideout anyway. It's OK though because as soon as they show up to tenderize the baddies the girls get all cheery and hop around, if only trauma were like this in real life. Also featuring a backwoods guy with a beard who cackles a lot. Not exactly bursting at the seams with ideas.
One of the worst movies ever made... If you can get through this movies without falling asleep, then you are doing pretty good, considering no matter how hard you turn up the volume you cant hear what the 'actors' (?) are saying and if you can acually see whats going on from the terrible film (I mean hell if you cant find anything that works better... use a Home movie camara... AT LEAST YOU CAN ACUALLY TELL WHATS GOING ON!)<br /><br />It is beyond my imagination how people get a movie like this to slip through the cracks, and escape on video... and further more.. how do people making this not know how terrible it is... good god... (!)<br /><br />After what I have just told you... If you are waiting for me to give you a summary of this piece of trash movie, there is nothing to tell... a group of campers on motorcycles get lost in the woods and a bunch of people terrorize them... or somthing to that... whats more so an action movie than a horror... this 'movie' (?) is of NO interest... if someone acually likes this I litterally feel for you.... <br /><br />Absolute Trash... not even one of those cheap funny flicks to watch go rent.. 'Plan 9 From Outerspace' and have a ball
At Beaverview Cheerleading Camp, the goody-goody two shows Lucky Ducks cheerleading team must get in cahoots with the 'tough' bad girl cheerleading team of The Demons to beat the dastardly Falcon team who always seems to win at this camp I guess. This being a typical clichéd '80's teen (lame) sex comedy who do you think will win? But what the film lacks in originality it more than makes up for it sheer bloody awfulness. Oh and insanely bad dance numbers and the obligatory Japenese businessmen who want to buy the camp (on the condition that male cheerleader, Tommy Hamilton, stays with the camp of course). Simply awful, forgettable, and sadly has a surprising lack of nudity.<br /><br />Where I saw it: HBO Comedy <br /><br />My Grade: F (yup I did indeed give it to them)
This movie is too stupid for words. Even if you consider it to be a parody on movie-making, if you consider it to be completely camp, even than you're wasting your time watching it - for you've seen it a hundred times before. But maybe you are a big fan of high shrieking girl voices, you're still loving Barbie and Ken and you can stand this typical '80s electric guitar background noise... Well, than you'll have a chance.
"Flashdance" meets "Meatballs III" or maybe it should just be called "Meatballs IV". This is my friend Wesley's all-time favorite movie, largely because he still has a thing about J.V. cheerleaders. As someone once said: "This is fine-more than fine-but as you get older you need to branch out. Whether you want to or not, society demands it".<br /><br />"Gimme An F" has cinema's greatest J.V. cheerleader Mary Ann (played by Beth Miller), who looks like a sweet-faced Alicia Silverstone from before her "Clueless" days. Wesley hates Miller's other film, the horrific "Teen Wolf Too" made three years later, where she plays a fickle southern belle much like Martha Smith's character in "Animal House". Personally I admire Miller's range as the two characters could not be more different and she is convincing as both.<br /><br />Anyway, Mary Ann is a naïve novice cheerleader from Moline (a member of "The Lucky Ducks" squad) who comes to Camp Beaverview for cheerleading instruction. She's befriended by Jenna (Karen Lee Kelly), the leader of the tough girl squad-appropriately named "The Demons". Jenna becomes protective of Mary Ann after her main rival takes an instant dislike to Mary Ann.<br /><br />Later Mary Ann gets a crush on Tommy Hamilton, the head instructor. Tommy is spending his summer wrestling with the dilemma of having to grow up and move on, which is a problem as his only skills are teaching cheerleading and performing elaborate dance routines in the shower, for the enjoyment of viewers who get off on that sort of thing. Phoebe (Daphne Ashbrook) is Tommy's long-suffering girlfriend, she has a well-adjusted attitude and an experienced perspective. She even tolerates Tommy's flirtation with Mary Ann-trusting that Tommy will not actually take advantage of young Mary Ann.<br /><br />While these four characters are solid and their relationships have a nice charm, the supporting cast is almost as weak as the material they have to work with. Which is a shame because had they brought some actual comic relief to the production it would have been a decent film. Jennifer Cooke plays Pam, a social climbing and terminally peppy instructor who is carrying on with camp's money-hungry owner Bucky. And there is another couple with a thing for the characters from "Mad Max". Since nothing is very funny you are left with only a cute semi-romance and some great dance routines.<br /><br />An attempt is made to create some suspense by slowly leading up a final competition but unless this is your first movie experience the outcome is never in doubt. And there is a back-story about some Japanese businessmen Bucky wants to get money from, but it goes nowhere dramatically or comically.<br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
I only wish there was a grade lower than F to give it! i scored it a 1 in the vote tally.I am grading this not even as a regular film,but as a T&A film,and this is the worst,lamest,crappiest and most awful movie i've seen.the acting,story and music are all terrible,not to mention there isn't even any nudity for the T&A connisuer.it's about a male cheerleader and the viewer is made to sit through many painful scenes of him doing cheers.avoid this piece of trash at all cost! this is the worst of bad 80's teen cinema.
This is on my TV right now... but only long enough for me to finish panning it in this comment. The previous comment let me know that this movie will not get any better, no matter how much I hope and pray. I will concur this movie is a colossal waste of my time, and would be of your time...it is not going to get any better! I can't believe this screenwriter is doing Atlas Shrugged! I hope he has improved a million-fold! I see some other credits on his resume that have had good reviews, but I'm still not convinced. If you are familiar with his work, please post something here, because I really want to see Atlas Shrugged, and would hate it if this guy turned it into the garbage that this movie turned out to be.
Steven Seagal is back! Here with his third film released this year. Of course as a one time fan who has become increasingly disgruntled I can say it comes as no surprise that this is pretty lame. Firstly the film made headlines because of apparent problems in production due to Seagal. He would turn up late on set, change the script, crew etc and generally cause problems for the director, Don E Faun Leroy (his lack of talent his trouble enough!). This also happens in their second collaboration the upcoming Mercenary which promises to be just as bad as this garbage. This also marks a big turning point in Seagal's career because this film is the first of his to really dig out the stock footage. There was a little in Ticker but this film takes the biscuit. They borrow bits from, The Order (A Van Damme movie, Seagals biggest rival in DTV movies!) No Code Of Conduct, Undisputed, and also an entire action sequence from the little known Peter Weller starring vehicle Top Of The World. Interestingly the car chase stolen from Weller's epic, made almost 10 years ago and ironically probably cheaper than this garbage, is actually by far the best action scene of the film. I was shocked enough when Dolph Lundgren had a brief stint in the stock action video world, which thankfully he has escaped from. Seagal though is the leader of the DTV action market currently, with Van Damme and Snipes his main rivals. Seagal still manages to sell movies and for the life of me I don't know how. Surely the fans must be getting bored of this awfulness, longing for a return to the likes of Above The Law. The story here is totally lame. In fact the film has so many plot holes it doesn't bare thinking about. For example at the end of a film there's a little girl that Seagal apparently knows at an orphanage who he gives a necklace to. Why I don't know but we never see her at all in the rest of the movie, or hear her mentioned. Seagal has a girlfriend in this movie who at the beginning of the film is with a psychic and she becomes haunted by visions, which by the end of the film are never explained and mean nothing. The film is so ridiculously glued together by a series of meaningless pap that it becomes headache inducing.. This is by far Seagal's dumbest movie! Seagal himself is as wooden as ever, however to his credit he doesn't get dubbed in this one as far as I could tell. Seagal does however feel the need to talk like he is a gangsta rapper, making me long for the days he would don his Brooklyn/Italian-American accent, in his classic early films. He also has a painfully unfunny double act with Treach, who I assume is a rapper. It is funny how producers seem to think that the combo of Seagal, plus hip-hop star seems to work, because his team up with DMX in Exit Wounds was his most successful film since Under Siege. Clearly though if no one has heard of the rapper, it won't work. This is an action film though and so the action itself must be judged. Unfortunately the action that didn't come form the NU Image back catalogue is strictly routine. There are a few small fight scenes with some classic Seagal aikido but when 90% is performed by his stunt double, who really does have a rigorous work out in this film, it really doesn't impress much. There are also some standard gun fights which really only have some nice violent and bloody squibbage going for them. All in all this is a painfully boring experience and once again I'm left giving the same verdict: Seagal has lost it! I keep asking the years old question now, "why do people still watch his movies?" That is all very well and good as a question but the sad bastard that I am continues to watch his films in the deluded hope he may do something good once again. Chances are slim, unlike Seagal's ever expanding waistline. *1/2
It's been 3 months and you know what that means...A new Seagal movie. Seagal has really been on role making horrible film after horrible film. Each time every movie getting worse and worse, he's really amazing! I don't really know what to say about TYD, first it's a piece of crap, the story makes no sense at all, secondly he uses stunt men in all his fight scenes, and last but not least a lot of the footage is taken from other movies! It amazes how this guy continues to find work, he comes to the set late and leaves early and because of that his films are full of plot holes and stunt men. Why do we continue to buy his movies, why do we continue to have hope that maybe just maybe he will make a great movie?
STAR RATING: ***** Jodie Marsh **** Michelle Marsh *** Kym Marsh ** Rodney Marsh * Hackney Marsh <br /><br />Harlan Banks (Steven Seagal- not quite as bad an actor as Kevin Costner but.......aaaaahhhh, you get it) is a modern day Robin Hood (listen close, you can hear Brian Adams music playing in the background...no, not really), the kind of guy who steals ill-gotten blood money from drug dealers and uses it to keep run-down orphanages open. But now he's been approached to drive a getaway van in a heist from Las Vegas in one of those last things before retirement type jobs. But, of course, it all goes wrong and he winds up the patsy for the big guys at the top and in jail. Here he meets a guy named (although you wouldn't know it from paying attention to the movie) Ice Cool (Treach), who he forms a friendship with and ends up breaking out of jail with. Once free, he's out to prove his innocence, locate the missing money and, naturally, get even with those who framed him!<br /><br />Of all Seagal's recent straight to video films, Today You Die has that look about it most of all that it belongs in a cinema, even with a rap star as his co-star like his previous cinema films Half Past Dead and Exit Wounds. Yes, it seems when he's not making films about looking after the environment he's pretending to be black and co-starring with rappers. But TYD is not a cinema film and that's a luxury The Great One is never going to be enjoying again until Under Siege 3 materializes (if ever!) <br /><br />The film opens with a slick, polished look that commands attention but it all quickly goes down hill from there. Once Seagal hits prison, the plot quickly loses it's coherence. Indeed Treach's character just seems to pop up out of nowhere without any introduction as his sidekick and from there you quickly lose interest in it.<br /><br />That's it. I know I've said it before but I think I mean it this time. I don't think I'm going to be giving any more of these straight to video Seagal films any time. I honestly have no enthusiasm to watching Shadow Man at all. In fact, I can honestly say that I've not really enjoyed ANY of his STV films up to this point, and Today You Die is certainly no exception, an apathetic, boring effort all round best avoided by all. *
Poor action films are the graveyards for aging martial art stars. In such films they struggle to maintain that dangerous demeanor that made their early work successful, but they all end in failure. Seagal is too old for this type of role but he wont let go...no matter how silly he looks. Some hope his current work will somehow bring back the magic, but there is no magic left. The late '80s and early '90s belonged to Steven Seagal and his work made me a fan. I could see him fit nicely in a slot on The Sopranos where his overweight body, jowly features and sullen attitude could have found a home. I wonder what the return is on his run of direct to video films?! Since he produces them I'm assuming the $$$ is more than satisfactory. If this is the deal we will be subjected to poorly done Seagal action films well into his late 60s and 70s.....
Harlan Banks is thief at the top of his game, but, after a successful career, he has decided to settle down with his woman and retire. However, he decides to take one last routine job in Las Vegas. All he has to do is drive the car and it seems simple. Unfortunately someone tips the police and after a hectic car chase he winds up in the slam only to escape and take revenge on those who betrayed and got him there in the first place. A typical action-fest ensues.<br /><br />Steven Seagal plays himself (surprise!) wearing a trench-coat and sporting his beloved Colt 1911 along with his usual bone-breaking aikido. The Colt and aikido have always been with him, but the first I recall him with the trench-coat is in 'The Foreigner.' It isn't particularly impressive, but it does add a little notch to Seagal's lethal arsenal of badassness. Or it covers up those extra pounds he is packing. Look at it however way you choose. His main buddy throughout the film is played by Treach (another new thing, a rapper in an action movie) and they both uncover a little conspiracy of bad-guys, on both sides of the law, and give each evil-doer his due.<br /><br />The film's main problem is that is it painfully, and I truly mean painfully, unoriginal. Seagal just follows a clockwork plot throughout the movie and even that manages to get more and more dull as the film progresses. Then it goes from dull to utterly ridiculous in the final scene as people who seemed to be dead on killing each other suddenly, for no reason, start to talk. Groan inducing in every sense of the word. The only real positive thing here is the decent opening - a car chase in Las Vegas complete with flipping police cars and generally entertaining mayhem, but after that brief highlight you've seen it all before. 3/10<br /><br />Rated R: constant violence and profanity
Ho Hum. Just another flick with Steven Seagal pretending to be some spiritual being, but bashing heads and killing like it was nothing. He, of course, justifies it in the end by donating the money to an orphanage., How sweet. Lay the world to waste and we'll ignore it if you take care of a little girl. Jeesh! This time, he is partnered with Ice Cool (Anthony 'Treach' Criss). Gotta have someone to lay all those cringe-inducing lines on, man, and there are plenty. The dialog is pure crap.<br /><br />They go after bad guys Nick Mancuso and Kevin Tighe, two people that were born to play the scumbags.<br /><br />He's squeezing Mari Morrow and impressing soap star Sarah Buxton. How cute.<br /><br />I guess if you gotta have some July Force excitement, this may suffice. If nothing else it will help you get your degree in Seagalology.
I ran across this movie on a local TV channel last night. Frankly, I have never heard about this movie before. Simply, I lost track of Seagual's recent movies, for each one is worst than the previous one. Here, again we have a dull Seagal as if he was insisted by his girlfriend to make this movie and he accepted forcefully. The plot is ridiculous, acting is below zero, and there is no single aspect the movie is not falling apart. I simply don't have any idea why Seagal did this movie. Man, it is even worst than "Out for a kill"! If you watch this movie you will start feeling sorry for Seagal. He seems to be running out of ideas, enthusiasm and money. Avoid this movie and do something worthwhile.
I usually spend almost as much time writing my reviews as I do watching the film, but with Today You Die, I feel that doing so would be a criminal waste of my time.<br /><br />So here is a five minute rant about how bad this film is.<br /><br />There was a time in the mid-80s when a single look from Steven Seagal was enough to crack your ribs; a full on scowl could knock you off your feet. If he actually got a hold of you, he would snap you like a twig.<br /><br />These days, although he is still capable of doing considerable damage, he no longer looks the part. He's gone to seed and just doesn't know when to call it quits. He walks like he's dumped in his pants yet somehow still manages to look constipated, and he has put on weight. His trademark long ponytail has gone, but his hair still looks stupid. How this man keeps on working in the movie industry is beyond me.<br /><br />Today you Die is the usual Seagal mix of bone crunching fights, car crashes, gun battles and pyrotechnics. Seagal mumbles his way through the dull script, delivering his lines with zero enthusiasm or believability. In this third-rate action flick, he plays Harlan Banks a thief trying to go straight, who is conned into partaking in a $20,000,000 robbery. He gets caught, goes to jail, escapes, and seeks revenge. Yawn.<br /><br />There are some pretty good car chases and gun fights which intersperse the boring stuff (of which there is a lot), but reading other comments on IMDb has revealed that these were actually borrowed from other better movies. Seagal is also body-doubled an awful lot in this one.<br /><br />Seagal turns in one of the most dreadful performances of his career—and that's saying something, considering the lousy 'acting' in some of his recent efforts. Most hilarious is his totally embarrassing attempt at Ebonics (African American street slang). 'I da man, fo' sho'—no, actually Steven, you sound like an arse! With a ridiculous script and plot lines that go nowhere, this film is a waste of time, money and effort. And the final moment, where Harlan Banks saves a Children's home from closure is enough to make you blow chunks.<br /><br />Damn, I just looked at the clock. I was enjoying trashing this steaming pile of dreck so much, I went way over my five minutes. It's time to post this comment and get to watching something decent.
Ah yet another Seagal movie.In no less than a few mere months arrive to populate the video store shelves.As bad as Submerged?No.But that is not saying much.Like perfume on a pig.<br /><br />Seagal is professional thief who wants to quit,but goes for one last job only to be double-crossed by his boss.He lands in Prison and is befriended by a Gangster who helps him to break out and seek payback.<br /><br />Its good to see Seagal finally not playing an agent,cop,or what he usually plays.We actually get a USA Location in Las Vegas it seems. Then an eastern European territory as usual. There is no wire-Fu either here.Don Fauntleroy does an okay job.<br /><br />However most of the action and fight scenes with Stevie are clearly doubles.Scenes from other movies,a lack of realism and logic in even tiniest situation.Seagal and Treech make a so-so team inspiring(unintentional) laughs one minute.Sighs the rest.<br /><br />Several notable faces turn up to slum it.. sleepy Kevin Tighe is a long way from his emergency days.Nick Mancuso shows up in sleepwalking mode to take a check.No more rappers.Please?<br /><br />At this point the action scenes and plots are more predictable and recycled generically more than ever.Its a stale scene that Seagal needs to get out of or hang it up.He should have gotten out a while ago.
this is only the second time i have been moved enough to write a review. unfortunately, both times they have been for movies that can be described with several 4 lettered words that can be defined as faeces or excrement. the other movie of such calibre was masked and anonymous.<br /><br />anywa, onto the review.. there are several key things wrong with this movie which i will describe below.<br /><br />1) steven has lost the plot (i.e. in all his other movies, family / friend gets killed. steven gets angry. steven kills people. the end).<br /><br />2) steven has run out of money (there was a good car chase scene at the start, but i think he blew his budget on that and couldn't afford a decent script writer or editor).<br /><br />3) steven no longer appears to do his own action. instead, the (from memory) 2 fight scenes were shot neck down and from the back, so you couldn't actually see his face. most likely a stunt double. i'm guessing chuck norris.<br /><br />in summary.. worst seagal movie ever. second worst movie i have seen in recent history, and i've seen a lot of bad movies.
Steven Seagal is a thief who specializes in robbing wealther drug dealers, giving to the poor and unfortunate..heh, Harlan, the Robin Hood. Anyway, Harlan wants to go straight for his girl, Jada(Mari Morrow), so he takes on a job as the driver of an armoured car for a Max Stevens(Kevin Tighe, wasted in an underwritten role). Max intends to have the millions for himself and his unscrupulous associates, with the intent of using his loader, Bruno(Robert Miano)to bring him the money, but Harlan has other plans. Escaping the police, hiding the money, and ditching Bruno(who had a loaded gun pointed at Harlan's head threatening to shoot him if he didn't drive)after evading capture by ramming a huge dump truck, Harlan passes out. Charged with the murder of police among other things as a result of the damage caused by the high-speed chase, Harlan is imprisoned and many wish to know where the money is. Harlan joins forces with an inmate, Ice(Treach), a leader of one of the many gangs in the prison, breaking out with the plans of finding Max and eliminating every member of his corrupt entourage. Soon DEA agent Rachel Knowles(Sarah Buxton) becomes part of this scenario thanks to her boss, Saunders(Nick Mancuso)who claims there's drugs involved. Also injected into the plot is Harlan's desire to save a children's hospital about to close and Jada has mysterious dreams regarding Max.<br /><br />Seagal and Treach cut up with each other speaking in gangsta, while Buxton spends time trying to help Harlan, uncovering the possibility her boss is in cahoots with Max. Mancuso's character is an odd duck, allowing Rachel much leeway despite the threat she is to his career. Tighe shows up for five or so minutes tops, which is a shame. Seagal's Harlan escapes prison and finds each and every rich associate of Max's, inevitably discovering his whereabouts after cracking a few skulls, snapping some wrists, and breaking some bones. Treach speaks in his rapper speech and Seagal tries to answer him in kind, providing some unintentional laughs. As you'd expect, a lot of people get shot and Seagal doesn't break a sweat. It's interesting seeing Seagal in prison, among the convicts, helping Treach out when a group of "Eses" plan to take him out.
Today You Die starts as honourable criminal Harlan banks (producer Steven Seagal) is hired by sinister businessman Max Stevens (Kevin Tighe) to drive a security vehicle with $20,000,000 of cash in the back from point 'A' a Las Vegas casino to point 'B' him, sounds simple right? Well what Max forgot to tell Harlan that the money is stolen & that he has just become the getaway driver in an armed robbery. Bummer. Things get even worse for Harlan when the local cops catch him & chuck him in prison for a long time, however Harlan managed to hide the money before he was caught & with a nice $20,000,000 at stake & unaccounted for Harlan has to watch his back as the crooks want it as do Government agents. Harlan teams up with Ice Kool (!)(Anthony 'Teach' Criss) in prison & they both manage to escape at which point Harlan goes looking for some revenge...<br /><br />Photographed & directed by Don E. FauntLeRoy one has to say that the shot in Eastern Europe straight-to-video action films that Steven Seagal specialises in these days aren't getting any better & Today You Die is a good case in point. This is a terrible film, simple as that really. The script by producer Danny Lerner, Kevin Moore & Les Weldon gives Seagal a new sort of character to get his none existent acting skills around, that of a criminal rather than some Government agent/cop/soldier/one man army cliché he usually plays. In fact if you were being charitable you could say Today You Die is a rip-off of Mel Gibson's excellent thriller Payback (1998) where he too played a really nasty piece of work to such good effect. While Payback was a superb uncompromising hard edged film noir type action thriller Today You Die isn't & pales into insignificance by comparison. Unfortunately here Seagal is terrible, he has no on screen presence or menace either & the audience is never quite sure whether he is meant to be a bad guy that we hate or not. For instance initially his character's is set up like a modern day Robin Hood as he steals from the rich drug dealers & scumbags to give to the poor (as well as keeping a tidy profit for himself) which is just ludicrous in itself but then it has Seagal turn around & murder a lot of people which contradicts the likable criminal with morals that the film went to such lengths to set up in the first place. The story is full of holes, for instance Agent Knowles is contacted by the on the run Harlan & is then reprimanded by her bent superior for meeting him & it turns out that he found out by tapped her phone. In that case why didn't her boss use the information he had to catch Harlan? The story is the usual dull predictable bland fight over lots of money with surprise surprise the investigating Government agent is actually a bad guy! Wow, I didn't see that coming I must say...<br /><br />Director FauntLeRoy slows everything down to a snails pace & Today You Die feels like it goes on forever, the action scenes & set-pieces are also severely lacking in entertainment value. The infrequent fight scenes aren't great, most are either shot in shadow, very quickly cut & edited or with the camera played behind Seagal's character to try & disguise the fact that most of the stunt work done here is by a double. Again Seagal looks fat & out of shape & uses long baggy overcoats to try & hide it, it doesn't. There's a pretty cool car chase through the streets of Las Vegas in this at the start & I thought that Today You Die might be alright but it seems the whole sequence was stolen from another action film called Top of the World (1997) which is about a Las Vegas casino robbery, as well as using footage from that film Today You Die also edits scenes from the Charlie Sheen action film No Code of Conduct (1998), the Jean-Claude Van Damme action film The Order (2001) & the Wesley Snipes prison based action film Undisputed (2002) so quite how much of Today You Die is original footage is anyone's guess.<br /><br />Technically the film is alright, considering it's edited together from four separate films as well as it's own footage it's just about competent & consistent enough. All the footage of the US locations are obviously lifted from the films already mentioned with all the original footage shot on the cheap in Bulgaria. The rap style music that litter Today You Die is awful by the way. The acting is poor & Seagal just mumbles his way through his lines as usual.<br /><br />Today You Die is a really bad film made up from other bad action films, Seagal looks old & fat, the action scenes are average at best & most of the story is fairly random & it doesn't come together at the end that well at all. One to avoid unless your a die hard Seagal fan, if such an animal even exists...
I have just seen Today You Die. It is bad, almost very bad.<br /><br />1) The direction and editing are awful, just awful. Almost made me turn off the movie, Fauntleroy (the director) has no idea what he is doing, he seems to be filming things at random and some scenes don't make sense at all. Also, I hate it when the same scene is used again in the same movie, in this movie some scenes were used 3 or 4 times. Pretty bad.<br /><br />2) The dialogue is sometimes good, sometimes awful. I like the fact that they wanted to make Seagal's character and Treach's character seem like they were in a similar relationship to the characters in Lethal Weapon, but it did not work simply because some of the dialogue DID NOT MAKE SENSE, and I speak English very well, it's not that I did not understand the words, it was the fact that the jokes and dialogue lines had no meaning whatsoever.<br /><br />3) The script is pretty bad. Why do they always try to complicate DTV action movies? Seagal's wife in the movie has psychic abilities, why? Is it useful to the movie? NO. Seagal eliminates a whole bunch of people who work for the guy who betrayed him and he knows these people without having ever met them in the movie. STUPID. The story sometimes goes off track and the jumps back without any reason. The story is messy and pointless sometimes. They should have kept it simple and it would have worked.<br /><br />4) In some of the action scenes it is not Seagal, it is his stunt double. You can tell because they only film him from behind and never show his face. He also beats the guys with movie martial arts, not real ones like the aikido Steven knows. The stunt double uses cheesy kicks and punches.<br /><br />5) Steven is good in the movie. 90-95% of the lines are said with his real voice. The rest is dubbing but it is not that bad. This was good. Also Steven seems to be enjoying himself in the movie and is more into the action that he was in Submerged. He likes Treach as a partner; at least he does not seem to dislike him. Also, he seems to have been in better shape than in some of his recent movies. I hate the fact that he wears clothes to hide his body, but in the same clothes that he wears on the DVD cover he looks more than OK and he should have wore those clothes for most of the movie not the stupid long leather coat.<br /><br />I really think that Seagal was willing to make a good movie. The fact that he came late and took off early from the set ON TWO MOVIES directed by Fauntleroy does not look like a coincidence to me. I think he realized that the crew were amateurs or only in it for a quick buck and he did not give a damn anymore.<br /><br />In the hands of a better company and crew this might have been a damn good action movie for Seagal. Something like Out for Justice or Above the Law. I honestly believe that. But the people who made the movie are not very good at their jobs or they did not have enough money to do the job properly. Too bad since I liked Steven in the movie and Treach was cool (Ice Cool ) too, but the rest was bad. Hey, at least this gives me hope for Black Dawn and Shadows of the past. I think that Mercenary might be just as badly handled. But hey, Steven seemed to be back into the same mood he was in while making his better movies and at least THAT is reason enough to watch the movie.<br /><br />I liked it, but it could have been SO much better. 4/10
Today You Die was the 4th Seagal movie in a mini marathon I just held. Wow, I don't know where to start. He seems to mumble his lines more and more as time goes on, and the scenes between Seagal and Treach where they seem to improv are embarrassing. And what did his girlfriend's dreams have to do with anything else in the plot? I can't recommend this to anyone but the most die hard Seagal fan, and even then you are better off with his earlier work. Of the 4 films in my marathon (Submerged, Into the Sun, Foreigner and Today You Die) Today was the worst. A previous reviewer mentioned this but the usage of stock footage was quite obvious.
I love his martial arts style, it is quick, close up and oh so fast, but it seems like his movies are becoming more and more crime based lifestyle quality and less meaning...I thought he was out to bring forth a deeper message. At least some of the movies had a hidden meaning or agenda this one had some good redeeming qualities of the character but the rest was so far off. I was very disappointed. The martial arts is also suffering. I am hoping to see a more devoted Segal in his future films. This movie also lacks in keeping the story line going, there are too many gaps so the thought is lost. Too many things are cryptic without a solution.
To start off, I love Steven Seagal, the man is a genius. But recent movies leave me to wonder, Is he trying anymore? His latest movies show almost no effort on Seagal's part. In Out of Reach, its too obvious that his lines are dubbed over. . What Seagal does in this movie is not only a slap on the face to his fans, but even more to Jean-Claude Van Damme and his fans. In the 2nd scene or so, when he prepares to zip-line into the drug dealers penthouse to steal the jewels and money, it shows him set-up the gun and hook it on a neon sign. Your might be saying to yourself, 'Yah, so what does this have to do with Van Damme?'. Well that scene was stolen from a Jean-Claude Van Damme movie called the Order. Rent both, watch both, compare both and you will lose respect for Seagal. Not only was Today You Die garbage, but it was, dare I say, an insult. Seagal's Aikido moves are still good, but why isn't he doing great movies like Marked for Death or Above the law, hes still got the moves and the attitude, I'm just left wondering 'Why Seagal, Why?'. There are such idiotic scenes in his newer movies that have nothing to do with the storyline, and such idiotic story lines on top of that. I hope the up-coming Black Dawn movie will be another Exit Wounds or Beyond Justice, because these last chain of movies he made, especially Today You Die, really made me wonder if he has the stuff to make more great action movies like Double Team. Please, don't watch this movie unless you hate Seagal, if you love his movies don't watch this, it WILL make you question his future in the action film genre.
TDY is probably the single worst piece of trash to ever hit the straight to video selection. They take a scene from The Order starring Jean Claude Van Damme and this angers me because Van Damme is a personally favourite for B movie comedy. Segal has done some fine work in the past but he has dropped very low in my books and he will probably never pull out another undersiege or marked for death unless he sits down and has a very good brain storming session with himself. <br /><br />It also annoys me how he didn't do many of his own stunts like he has done in previous films. In conclusion of all this if you are prepared to see a movie fit for a trash can or woodchipper, then rent today you die.
I love watching steven seagal movies not because of the action of the great plot holes but just because it makes me laugh<br /><br />oh it makes me laugh so hard this movie totally got no point and is ridiculous compared to this movie Pearl harbor rocks!!! and Ben affleck need no acting school at all just to give a impression how bad it is<br /><br />first off all there so many goofs and bad acting its just getting worse like when steven is try to get out of jail a chopper lands at first the security notice and they led them land when they fly away all of the sudden a guard start shooting<br /><br />or when he killed that guy in the car he and treach both walk away you can't see no oil on the ground behind him steven notice that there is oil without even watching treach trows a lighter and the car blows up<br /><br />and there are plenty of more goofs Steven uses his basic action when someone is pointing a gun at him he grabs it and shoot him totally bullshit!!! like some gangster would let that ever happen.<br /><br />the acting is also very worse at the fight scene in the jail outdoor place you can see steven clearly wait to come in action just rewind it a couple of time and you notice the bad acting<br /><br />its just makes me laugh i hope one day it comes to the cinema's here in Holland then i'll go there with as many friends as possible just to laugh my self to death
Ah yet another Seagal movie.In no less than a few mere months arrive to populate the video store shelves.As bad as Submerged?No.But that is not saying much.Like perfume on a pig.<br /><br />Seagal is professional thief who wants to quit,but goes for one last job only to be double-crossed by his boss.He lands in Prison and is befriended by a Gangster who helps him to break out and seek payback.<br /><br />Its good to see Seagal finally not playing an agent,cop,or what he usually plays.We actually get a USA Location in Las Vegas it seems. Then an eastern European territory as usual. There is no wire-Fu either here.Don Fauntleroy does an okay job.<br /><br />However most of the action and fight scenes with Stevie are clearly doubles.Scenes from other movies,a lack of realism and logic in even tiniest situation.Seagal and Treech make a so-so team inspiring(unintentional) laughs one minute.Sighs the rest.<br /><br />Several notable faces turn up to slum it.. sleepy Kevin Tighe is a long way from his emergency days.Nick Mancuso shows up in sleepwalking mode to take a check.No more rappers.Please? At this point the action scenes and plots are more predictable and recycled generically more than ever.Its a stale scene that Seagal needs to get out of or hang it up.He should have gotten out a while ago.
Stephen Seagal plays the role of a dude who gets talked into driving an armored car for a bank hold up and drives into everything that comes across his path. However, the police seem to appear on the scene very quickly and Seagal smells a rat who gave the police advanced notice. The story gets into many twists and turns and the money from the hold up has disappeared and nobody knows its new owner. Poor Seagal gets a bit framed into this hold up and naturally he is out looking for the person or persons who are trying to put him away for a long time. In this film, Seagal tries to be a good guy but the forces of evil are against him. Unfortunately, this is not a great film and rather boring and too long.
Really? Is this necessary? How can somebody make such a film? Disgusting!!! Seteven Seagal with funny hair and fat like an elephant. Stunts all the time, cars persecutions with an annoying soundtrack. Not to mention the Ending. Completely nonsense with the presence of the little girl.<br /><br />Steven Seagal wants to be Robin Hood!!! Well, at the beginning a fortune teller answers something, nobody has asked. Seagal's wife has nightmares and she can see the future. They must be kidding. Steven Segal passes out after a car persecution, and I know he can't act. It was terrible. Nothing can save that film.<br /><br />I lost 90 minutes of my life! See you
The film quickly gets to a major chase scene with ever increasing destruction. The first really bad thing is the guy hijacking Steven Seagal would have been beaten to pulp by Seagal's driving, but that probably would have ended the whole premise for the movie.<br /><br />It seems like they decided to make all kinds of changes in the movie plot, so just plan to enjoy the action, and do not expect a coherent plot. Turn any sense of logic you may have, it will reduce your chance of getting a headache.<br /><br />I does give me some hope that Steven Seagal is trying to move back towards the type of characters he portrayed in his more popular movies.
What a crap that movie is. The script is simply non existent. The movie at times seems like a music video. But it cannot even be that since the soundtrack does not really match. Pathetic way of combining action and rap. One might think it being a recipe for a successful flick... here it fails miserably. Dialogues in this flick just killed me. The scene when Harlan is interrogated by some policeman is merely pitiful. Generally speaking, recent Seagals films are hardly watchable. What the hell happened to the guy? I know he's old but can't he get "Hollywood" to drop him a decent script or something? Is he running out of dough for his escapades to India that he takes on anything they serve him?
Honestly, this is a very funny movie if you are looking for bad acting (Heather Graham could never live this down... it has three titles for a reason- to protect the guilty!), beautifully bad dialog ("Do you like... ribs?"), and a plot only a mother could approve, this is your Friday night entertainment! <br /><br />My roommate rented this under the title "Terrified" because he liked Heather Graham, but terrified is what we felt after the final credits. Not because the movie is scary, but because somebody actually paid money to make this turd on a movie reel.<br /><br />Horrible movie. There are a few no-name actors that provide some unintentional comedy, but nothing worth viewing. Heather Graham's dramatic climax also was one of the most pathetic and disturbing things I have ever witnessed. I award this movie no point, and may God have mercy on its soul.
I got hold of this film on DVD with the title Evil Never Sleeps, it gives front cover billing to Carrie Ann Moss, but she plays such a minor character that I didn't really notice her in the film.<br /><br />I'm afraid that I consider this one of the worst purchases I have ever made. The dialogue was stilted and the delivery wooden, I found the acting to be disconnected from the plot. Graham's performance to me was of someone who's wondering whether she's left the gas on at home.<br /><br />All in all both my wife and I found this film painful to watch, and it is not a valuable addition to my collection, watch it at your peril, but spending 90 minutes having your fingernails pulled out would probably be a better way to spend your time.
I was looking through TV Guide last night and saw a movie starring Heather Grahm on, who I liked in movies like Boogie Nights, and Austin Powers, so I decided to watch it. It started out ok, but you could tell the story was lacking, and at about half way through, it started to deteriorate. I do not remember this movie being in the theaters, and I'm sure if it was, it wasn't there long. The acting was stale and unconvincing, the dialogue was silly and predictable, and the story was confusing and stupid. Definately one of the worst movies I have ever seen, and I like movies like the ones this has been compared to like Fight Club, but this one doesn't come close!! Heather Grahm has done much better things since. I gave it a 2 out of 10 but thats because I clicked on the wrong number, I meant to give it a 1.
This film has it's heart in the right place, but unfortunately, it isn't much of a film. It is more of a documentary under the guise of a narrative. Bamako is basically a newspaper op-ed piece put on celluloid. However, your average well-researched op-ed piece is far more cogent and concise than anything presented here. The filmmaker is trying to relay to the viewer the hardships of African life, in particular the country of Mali, due to the unethical practices of the IMF, G8, and World Bank, by using the setting of a mock trial against the aforementioned. There is an extra 10 minutes dispersed throughout the film that makes a half-hearted attempt at a narrative plot, and a bizarre Hollywood Western-style shootout scene, where the director seems quite pleased with his own cleverness (hence, the frequent Godard comparisons).<br /><br />Of course, as the film begins, what and who is on trial is never explained, but as we know by now, the French refuse to spoon-feed their audience.<br /><br />There are many impassioned arguments made, but they are often long-winded, delivered in a shrill monotone (one that becomes quite easy to tune out after awhile), and very light on specifics. The last point is the most frustrating of all since there is a very well-reasoned specific case to be made against the institutions on trial here. Unfortunately, all we get in 2 hours is that the IMF and G8 are evil oppressors and should forgive 3rd-World debt. We are given no more than the occasional hint to the specific reasons why the organizations on trial are guilty, but never a clear case. The mock-trial arguments and the footage of the surrounding village makes the suffering of these African residents clear, but one wonders why we must sit through 2 hours of it, when a far more precise picture could be painted in a 20-minute Newsweek article, or Bill Moyers episode. In the end, there is something very important to be said on this issue, it simply isn't presented very well, or very clearly, in this pretentious, indulgent piece.
Abderrahmane Sissako may have known what he was doing when he made "Bamako," but the rest of us can just sit back in mystification and confusion trying to figure out what that purpose might have been.<br /><br />The nominal "plot" involves a young African singer who's planning on leaving her unemployed husband to find work in the city. But far more of the screen time is taken up with what the publicists for the film describe as "a mock trial against key financial institutions" dealing "with the overwhelming economic hardships of Africa." That's all well and good, I suppose, but when the arguments and ideas are put forth in as undramatic and pedantic a way as they are here, they lose both force and impact. Put another way, if the director had found the means to actually incorporate issues such as the injurious effect of colonialism on the African people and the problem of African debt into anything even remotely resembling a compelling storyline, the film might have achieved the intellectual and emotional resonance it now so clearly lacks.<br /><br />The topics the movie is dealing with may be relevant and important, but trying to pass off what amounts to two hours worth of speechifying as an actual, honest-to-God movie is not likely to garner much of an audience for one's message.
Endless repetition about the evil World Bank, IMF, Globalization, and the Americans are blamed for all of Africa's problems—and the movie is long, about two hours, but it seems longer. The French actually occupied Mali, the country in which the movie takes place, for centuries, but are only peripheral bad guys.<br /><br />One doesn't learn enough about any of the characters to really care what's happening to them—they are completely marginal to the preaching, which goes on and on and on. There's no plot, no character development, no humor (except for a few pokes at Bush and Wolfowitz, but that's almost cheating it's so easy) and the production values are mediocre—no redemption there.<br /><br />It is amazing that a movie can spend two hours preaching about such a big topic and convey utterly zero real information. The Irish ballad "I was dying, and then the famine came" has more content.<br /><br />The movie is boring, the sub-titles are tough to read, there is no real content about the subject of the film, and the propaganda is relentless.<br /><br />Skip this one.
If this film won the Lumiere Award for Best French-Language Film, then what kind of garbage is coming out of France these days??<br /><br />The subject matter is an important one -- how the African economies are kept as economic hostages by the international organizations that are supposed to be helping them, namely the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. About 40% of the governmental budgets of several African nations go to payment of Western debt, while their people suffer from disease, dehydration and illiteracy.<br /><br />... but the subject matter was treated in the most dry manner that could be conceived by man -- dryer than the Sahara that surrounds the country of Mali in which this film takes place. More monotone and action-lacking than any documentary I've ever seen (and I'm a fan of the genre), one "witness" after another comes forward in this "trial" that is "captured" on film that condemns the World Bank & IMF. Some critics may site the colorful visual asides within the film, but they were out of place and had no complementary soundtrack when they were on the screen. They belonged better in a coffee table book than in this film.<br /><br />Even the characters in the film say something like "This trial is boring" and "When will it be over?" Everyone in the theater laughed. Were those people on the screen reading our minds??<br /><br />Danny Glover had a brief appearance in this film. It is a televised movie within "Bamako" and it was set within Morocco or Mali. It was also more ridiculous than any spaghetti-Western I've ever tried to avoid. The only redeeming part of these five wasted minutes was where a Caucasian bad guy accidentally shoots an African woman carrying a baby and shows no remorse whatsoever. Perhaps it was to symbolize the insensitivity of the World Bank and how it is unintentionally killing Africans.<br /><br />And one last technical parting shot, the subtitles were difficult to read with so much light colors on the screen and not enough black outline to the subtitles themselves.<br /><br />I've already summarized the movie for you. Don't be fooled by the hype. No need to see this film. You'll never get these two hours back in your life.
Flockhart's performance is very disappointing. It seems she is trying to make up for her lack of emotion by substituting obscenities. Why the R rating includes 'sexuality' is beyond me. There is no nudity or steamy love scenes. The plot is old and tired.
Another movie from Swedish hillbilly country, which is always the Northern part. If black people were shown this way, there would be shouts about racism and for good reasons.<br /><br />This is a farce and you are supposed to laugh at the "clever" farce clichés. But it's mostly tiresome. A gangster comedy, with the bad Russians (as always) and the bad (and stupid) Finns. And most stupid of all is of course the Norwegian, according to Stockholm prejudice.<br /><br />Andreas Wilson is the only one who tries to make a performance reminding us of reality. This is not funny. This is not even exciting. A burlesque too raw to make you interested in any way.
Although I rarely agree with filmkrönikan, I have to say that this film while not awful, just didn't make me care at all... and it all just seemed to be out of place... it had its moments... three or four ones that made me snicker... but most of the time I was just sitting and wondering why? why did the characters do this? even Hot Shots characters felt more thought out and fleshed out...<br /><br />If you want to see a nice norrlands-film then watch Pistvakt. There it was more than random ethnicities that just walked around shooting each other on the Swedish tundra...<br /><br />I am so disappointed...
My only reason registering to this site was for the opportunity to write a comment to this movie. I felt that I had to get rid of some of my anger by writing it off me. <br /><br />The movie "Babas bilar" must be just about the worst film I ever seen. I really do believe that the script may have seen to been able to become a pretty good movie or at least OK, but somewhere on the line something happened. What makes it even more odd is the fact that the cast appears to be quite alright on paper. Put to practice both script and the cast fails to deliver. There are to much action, it happens to much things and you can't help wonder why it happens. And then the cast, the actors make such a poor effort that you almost start to cry. <br /><br />If you have to much time at hand I would say you can see it. If not - don't.
Hey, I know Angel isn't the kind of show that gives people a happy ending, and I know they couldn't just make everything perfect, but I couldn't believe the ending to Angel. I absolutely love the show, it's possibly the best show ever. However, I really hated this ending, as well as the whole way the 2nd half of Angel season 5 went (similar to Buffy season 7). My favorite characters deaths were pretty much pointless and did nothing for the plot. Cordelia was one of the best characters on the show, and once she and Angel were finally going to get together she turned all evil and into a demon. I wanted so badly to have her back, don't get me wrong the episode where Cordelia comes back is fantastic, but I was still really mad she was gone. Then on earth was up with Fred dying, right after she finally got with Wesley? There was no sacrifice, it was pointless, it did nothing whatsoever for the plot, and blue haired demon girl is an awful, useless character. They spent way too much of the end centered around her. Another big problem is they didn't connect the elements well enough. I know those dudes in that black thorn wanted to bring about the apocalypse, but there wasn't even a date set for when it was supposed to happen. The apocalypse should have been carried out and discovered throughout the entire season, rather than just mentioning there are some evil dudes an hour before the season ends. One of the biggest problems is every character who the audience cares about is either dead or has nothing to live for. My three favorite characters died, and Angel, Spike, and Gunn (who I'm not sure even survives) have no office, aren't even back to their helping the helpless, are in the middle of a huge battle, and have lost everyone they care about. Angel and Spike are never redeemed, they lose the girl they care about, and just about everyone's dead, and they still have to fight this weird evil army. I get the whole you never stop fighting, but it was stupid to end it right in the middle. Couldn't there have been some redemption, with knowledge that there would always be many more battles to come. I don't get why this episode is so highly rated, because I think the Buffy ending was 10 times better, and I wasn't even a giant fan of that one. Why did they have to slip at the end, season 3 and 4 and 1st half of five were so amazing, then they went and messed up the show.
I was a fan of Buffy and hoped it would come to a proper end when Angel got only one more season. But when the end came closer I was exited to see that. And what did we get? This episode called "NOT FADE AWAY" was the very last one.<br /><br />I was so disappointed by this episode. This is absolutely the worst way to this series. Why couldn't it get a happy ending? Why did have a few of the main characters to die? Why did Angel not become a human and was reunited with Buffy again? No. Angel has to sign this bloddy piece of paper that he'll never become a human. How stupid.<br /><br />And the end is a cliffhanger.<br /><br />What could have been worse? The Buffyshow began so great, such as Angel, but the hole Universe ended so crappy. Somebody should put a spell on the man who wrote the screenplay to this episode and make sure he get's lost in hell.<br /><br />So don't bother watching this, it's so bad, it hurts! Totally 1 out of 10.
Any fan of Russian cinema will have great difficulty in believing the sub-par performances phoned-in by Mashkov and Bodrov Jr., and will perhaps be utterly perplexed by Bodrov Sr.'s hackneyed and confusing script, which is coupled with uncharacteristically weak direction. Most of the characters wander through the movie as though they have no idea who they are or what they are doing. It is also sad to see that Jennifer Jason Leigh's acting skills have not advanced one iota since FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH, and her screen exposure is mercifully limited. This is a terrible mafia movie; so much so that it makes the GODFATHER III look like a winner in the genre. To see the key Russians at their best, check out Bodrov Sr.'s work on PRISONER OF THE MOUNTAINS (which also features Jr.), Mashkov's turn in VOR (THE THIEF), and Bodrov Jr.'s new criminal in BRAT.
This movie came very close to being a good flick. The direction needs to be a bit smoother to progress from one piece to the next to make it more plausible. In particular: The main character's need to escape is not explicit enough. Is he trying to kill himself? Is he trying to escape? His life does not seem to be that bad, so it makes it more difficult to swallow that he wants to leave his life so much. Also, it is not very clear how much "in love" he has fallen with Jennifer Jason L. If the movie was reworked with some more attention to these details, it would have been Great. On the other hand, for an indy flick, it's pretty good! Maybe if you have a couple of drinks, to dull the logical thinking, it would be more fun...<br /><br />
I wanted to see this movie because I liked "Kavkazskij Plennik" ("Prisoner of the Mountains") and "Brat" ("Brother") with Sergey Bodrov, Jr. and "Vor" ("The Thief") with Vladimir Mashkov. Well, unlike the other movies, "The Quickie" was a total waste of time. The story that makes little sense, very uneven acting (Lesley Ann Warren was especially bad), really awful dialogs, poor cinematography, what else could go wrong? I find it amusing that in practically every American-made movie, when the same-language-speaking foreigners (Russians in this case) are left alone, they prefer to communicate with each other mostly in broken English (and when they happen to speak Russian, for some reason translators feel obligated to add a lot of "f**ks" in the sentences, which have no profanity, literal or non-literal). At the same time, native-English-speaking actors choose to speak in broken Russian. Why is that? Getting back to the story, most of the subplots of the movie (e.g. betting the house, inviting Latin American paramilitaries, etc) either make no sense or do nothing more than confusing the viewers. It is too bad that Bodrov, Mashkov, and Leigh (all good actors in my humble opinion) got themselves involved in this disaster.
THE QUICKIE (1 outta 5 stars)<br /><br />Pretty poor movie... an old-as-the-hills story about a high-ranking gangster who wants to quit, passing on his empire to his inept son. Of course, it's not going to be easy for someone in that line or work to just quit... so a contract is put out on his life. After throwing a big party an exterminator (Jennifer Jason Leigh, who I guess is *never* going to act in anything other than TV movies or low budget direct-to-video trash ever again) is called to the scene. Our "hero" makes a pass at her... offering her big money for a "quickie"... she turns down his offer, even though she needs the money... but winds up staying overnight anyway... even after being brutally harassed by the overzealous son who thinks she was sent to kill his father. Ugh. The story just goes on and on... you can see every "twist" and "turn" coming a mile away. Weird soundtrack by some group called "The Tiger Lillies" will drive most people nuts... but I thought there was one kind of cool track towards the end. Or maybe I was just excited because I could tell that the movie was almost over? Jennifer, Jennifer, Jennifer... what the hell happened to you?
"The Quickie" tells of a decadent Russian mob family who lives in Malibu and...well, frankly, this awful attempt at drama isn't worthy of commentary.<br /><br />Jason Leigh introduces herself to Mr. Mob-guy as being from "Pacific Exterminators" with huge letters in plain sight on her back which say "West Coast Exterminators". Eventually the mob-guys get suspicious because she was exterminating in a bedroom. (duh).<br /><br />In another scene Mr. Mobguy plays Russian roulette giving a hooker $4000 to bet whether he'll live or die. She has 5 chances out of 6 of keeping the money if she bets "live". Well, she bets "die". (double duh) Later she complains it wasn't fair and wants to play again. (Triple duh).<br /><br />The list of flaws just goes on and on while this intelligence insulting film stinks and sinks in a quagmire of lousy music, mediocre camera work, poor direction, boring story, etc. Pass on this loser. (D)<br /><br />Note - The barebones DVD which I rented had no English same language subtitles or closed captions.
This flick is so bad its beyond belief.Even for an independent low budget film...it just, well, sucks.I can't even believe even Troma would put out such crap.I have been a fan of some Troma flicks for years(Toxic Avenger,Squeeze Play,Rockabilly Vampire to name a few).But LLoyd, come on,this goes way beyond the boundaries of any taste.It features some of the worst acting imaginable.I think it would have been possible to find unemployed street people who could have been as good...oh,wait, that is what they did.I mean it,these characters have negative charisma.With any luck, the producer and director of this film will have a huge karmic debt because of this atrocity.As will the special effects people.But beyond the terrible acting and the horrid special effects,the dialogue is absolutely traumatic to the ears.The script is full of plot holes the size of Alaska, and there are severe continuity problems.The worst part however, is that it not entertaining in even the smallest way.And this is the most unforgivable sin in film making.But, don't take my word for it.Go out and waste four bucks renting it.Just don't say I didn't warn you.
I vowed some time ago to never get another Joe Castro film (perhaps after "Near Death") but I sort of ended up with this one by accident, since it was a Troma release & I didn't read the cover carefully. Oops. Well, I watched it, and it's by no means good, but it's, I guess, sort of "tongue in cheek"....if it's not, it sure seemed that way. Some intrepid folks from the University of the Rio Grande set out to find if the Chupacabra exists, because of surveillance camera footage from someone's GOAT BARN that shows this weird thing hopping across the field of vision. And also because the person that this thing supposedly killed was the uncle of the leader of the expedition. There's a couple of camera men, one of whom whines the whole time, and there some ex-Marine named "Army" (?!), who is some kind of munitions expert or something. At any rate, the do find the Chupacabra on some guy's ranch & set out to find it, getting involved with two supposed witches along the way. The creature itself is rather ridiculous-looking, with spines on its back & a great big long tongue that Gene Simmons would die for. Eventually, after a bunch of folks done get killed, so does the Chupacabra, and they take it back to the university for an autopsy. So, is it from another planet? Is it a genetic creation from some lab in Puerto Rico? Uh, they don't tell us, really. Not exactly intriguing but not quite terrible either. Definitely not a wide audience for this one. 4 out of 10.
The chupacabra, according to this mockumentary, is a mysterious<br /><br />creature that has been killing and eating Hispanic goats in Latin<br /><br />America and Mexico for years. One has crossed the border into<br /><br />southern Texas, and a cute, intrepid cryptozoologist (no, I did not<br /><br />make up that word) go to an isolated ranch to find one. Her uncle<br /><br />was killed by the creature, and some grainy video footage of the<br /><br />monster exists. She takes a badass black guy with a gun and two<br /><br />cameramen (for easy-to-edit coverage), and they go ahuntin' for<br /><br />chupacabras. Ten minutes into the film, they find it.<br /><br />The rest of the film has the team of documentarians getting<br /><br />attacked by the bloodthirsty monster, and stilted dialogue. At one<br /><br />point, the team runs into a couple of hottie witches who lead them<br /><br />to the chupacabra's nest...for $100. If only the FBI knew about how<br /><br />cheaply Tex-Mex witches could be bought as informants. Whole<br /><br />decades of mythical beast reports could be cleared up with a<br /><br />blank check.<br /><br />In the end, after the bloody deaths of characters you don't give a<br /><br />goat's patoot about, a chupacabra is captured, killed, and<br /><br />autopsied. The only point of the autopsy scene is to highlight the<br /><br />makeup department's efforts in such a cheap film.<br /><br />The film is shot on video, just like "BWP," yet the cameraman<br /><br />characters never reload their tapes or recharge their camera<br /><br />batteries. The lead actress here is awful. The beauty of the<br /><br />average "BWP" was its use of improvisation during the production.<br /><br />Here, all the lines are written, and are delivered like a poorly<br /><br />rehearsed Christmas pageant.<br /><br />The film is tinged with racism, as well. The only African-American<br /><br />here is a loudmouthed gun nut. At one point, as the crew breaks<br /><br />into an abandoned house, they find a trio of illegal immigrants who<br /><br />comically ask them if they are from the INS. Chortle, chortle.<br /><br />The monster itself is a guy in a rubber suit, and nothing more. For<br /><br />such a lumbering and awkward beast, he is able to sneak up on<br /><br />the cast pretty quietly, whether they have idiotically locked<br /><br />themselves in a giant cage as bait, or cannot seem to get their<br /><br />only vehicle started.<br /><br />The gore is gruesome, but when surrounded by this kind of<br /><br />stupidity, it loses all of its effectiveness. I do not know if this was<br /><br />shot before or after "BWP," but I can honestly say this is the worst<br /><br />film ever made in southern Texas about a mythical beast. Pray<br /><br />there are not any sequels, I will start a letter writing campaign to<br /><br />Troma.<br /><br />This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, gun violence, strong<br /><br />gore, and profanity.<br /><br />
We rented the movie and it maybe the worst movie ever. The box they had in the video store had a cool looking monster on the cover but in reality the monster was a creature from the black lagoon mask. Awful, awful, awful...you actually might have to rent it it's so bad. It feels like you are watching a bizzare-o home movie.
This movie had very little good points, the special effects and acting was horrible for sure. But it was a movie made on a low budget so you dont expect much from it, it does have some laughs (I doubt they are intended though :) ). The scene where the old woman bends down and touches dung that was on the floor, then puts it to her nose and goes CHUPACABRA! in a really stupid raspy voice was priceless. All in all if you have nothing else to watch and just want to laugh at a really crappy flick trying to cash in on the Blair Witch Project's success, then grab it other then that dont bother.
I did here this movie was good from various people. Plus I do like Natalie Portman and Javier Bardem as well as the director Milos Forman. Yet after watching this movie I really had nothing to admire about it.<br /><br />First off the acting was very much below average. The performances were just not powerful enough to really feel shocked by what the inquisition did. Javier Bardem did give a solid performance and was probably the only one who actually had as Spanish accent. It is pretty obvious why this Bardem was the only one. Natalie Portman, who I think is a very good up and coming actress did not really make me feel sorry for her being tortured. Like the movie there was nothing to admire about her performance. Stellan Skarsgaard who I do like gave a very average performance, like the other actors giving a boring performance. This movie was essentially about him since he plays Goya. Yet he did not become what he needed to be to make this movie good. What about Randy Quaid? You have just got to be kidding me. Him playing King Carlos IV. Look he is great in comedies but him playing a King that just describes the whole movie for you.<br /><br />The directing was just horrible in this movie. When a movie is a mess there are usually two people to blame for that: the director and the writer. I get the feeling that Milos Forman really didn't want his actors to put a Spanish accent on. From the very few battle scenes in here they were all displayed horribly. Also as a director he needs to give you the feeling of shock of what the inquisition did. After this movie I felt like I could careless about the event. To sum it all up he poorly shot the scenes and misguided the actors.<br /><br />The writing which was also done by Milos Forman was just as bad or maybe even worse than the directing. There really was nothing memorable of the movie except for one seen where Bardem does get the same treatment that Portman's character has gotten. Other then that the movie did not give you the feeling of the time period and at least it could have made up for it with a quote or two.<br /><br />After finishing this movie I was just looking at the T.V. thinking OK why should I care about any of this. I do care and are very much interested in history but when movies like this come up it feels like the producers robbed you of something good that could have been taken away from the movie. When movies are this bad we highlight a lot of the technical faults in a movie than if it was good. Like the accents. I'm not sure people would have emphasized the lack of Spanish accents if this movie was good.<br /><br />Thw whole point of this review is to say just don't watch it.
Perhaps I missed something, but I found GOYA'S GHOSTS to be a tedious costume melodrama. As to the story it was trying to tell, I found that a confusing mish-mash that went off in all directions. And perhaps it should have been made by a Spanish director with the appropriate languages subtitled rather than in unconvincingly accented English. I can't judge the historical veracity of the story but it seemed to move along with a similar "artist's model's tragic fate" plot line as GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING. Was the movie a commentary on the religious injustices of the Inquisition, false piety, torture then and now, or what???? I never seemed to be able to figure that one out. Natalie Portman's various characters also seemed ridiculously stereotypical. And ultimately the movie was crowned with the concluding melodrama of a disheveled Bardem's head and body hanging on the edge of cart heading off into the sunset…with Ines and Goya following along behind………Can't Milos Forman do better than that?
With a title like that, you will be forgiven for thinking this film is about the great painter, Goya. Then after half an hour you decide it is more about the Roman Catholic Inquisition. With even more latitude, perhaps it is just a snapshot of the period. With lurid characterisation, too many axes to grind and a scant regard for fact, Milos Forman dishes up a colourful but shambolic, rambling mish-mash that fails on all three accounts.<br /><br />Milos Forman (who lost his Jewish father to Nazi concentration camps), is the great director who painted the artist Mozart as a buffoon and got away with it. Won awards for it, in fact. His life in Czechoslovakia gave him a taste of diverse, repellent regimes, especially Communism. He also made the equally over-the-top but rather impressive, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. So, at the age of 74, how does he come to offer us this mess? In Goya's Ghosts, Goya is one step removed from buffoon. The main character is Brother Lorenzo, passionately acted by Javier Bardem. Natalie Portman is equally vibrant as Goya's model Ines (and later in the film, her own daughter). The tenuous connection with Goya is that he happens to paint both of them.<br /><br />Lorenzo tortures (and then rapes) Ines who he suspects of being a Jew. Her father tortures Lorenzo. Napoleon dashes in to liberate Spain (briefly). Ines gets out of the dungeon the Church has left her in and searches for her child. Goya is still painting but has gone deaf. His main preoccupation seems to be helping Ines. And so on.<br /><br />Historically, Goya was also a historian. As Forman had sadly relinquished the idea of a biopic of Goya the painter, this one fact could have been used to pull the whole film together – a large slice of history as seen by Goya. But the painter is too tangential to receive any weight. Similarly, a document of the terrors of the Inquisition should be done – compared to other despotic orders throughout time, the Holy See has been forgiven with barely a confession. Though one might ask if Forman is competent enough to be trusted with a factual account of anything.<br /><br />"I thought this could be the heart of a wonderful story," he says in the production notes. "There were a great many parallels between the Communist society we lived under and the Spanish Inquisition." But the story is too tenuous to hold our attention. Against our expectations and with a background of something major (the life of a great painter, the horrors of the Inquisition, and even the French Revolution), we are instead asked to feel involved in a concocted (if kind) infatuation of Goya's. The result is that we feel cheated.<br /><br />Background detail is appallingly handled. Goya went deaf in 1792 (when the film starts), not 15 years later. Napoleon is as believable as a cut-out from a cereal packet. We see the Church passing out a death sentence (when the normal procedure was for the Church to insist that the secular arm did that dirty work). Battles look overly-choreographed and stagey. A peppering of gratuitous naked bosoms hardly makes up for it.<br /><br />On the positive side, the production values are mostly good. The colours are vivid, the pacing excellent (at least until we give up on finding any worthwhile storyline.) Bardem is excellent, and Portman is a joy until she goes into overdrive as a mad woman. While it doesn't say very much about Goya, what it does say is nice, even if superficial and pretty irrelevant.<br /><br />I once had a late night drunken conversation where my friends and I asked each other, if you could choose a director to depict your life, who would it be? On his record, Forman would sadly have to be at the bottom of my list.
then the second half of this movie is hard to follow. I got the first part with the Spanish Inquistion, but the film skipped many years forward with the French ruling Spain. The movie does little to fill you in on what happened, and I don't remember much about it. So, the movie gets confusing then. The movie begins when Ines, daughter of a rich merchant, is accused of Judiasm by the church, specifically Father Lorenzo. She is put to the Question and forced to confess. Even her family's wealth can not buy her out of prison. Her father forces Lorenzo to sign a confession saying he is the offspring of a chimp, in hopes of getting Ines released. All it does is give a reason for the church to condemn Lorenzo, who runs off to France.<br /><br />Then, the movie skips many years, and the French Revolution is in full force. Ines is released from prison. It was very good make up work to make Natalie Portman look that tore up. She finds her family dead and seeks Goya for her help. She tells him she had a child in prison. Goya sets up a meeting between her and Lorenzo, whom is now with the French and in power. He is the father. Goya sees the daughter and tells Lorenzo, whom decides it's best to send her off to America, so no one will find out. But before his plans get carried out, the British join the Spainish, and Spain reclaims power and he is now the persecuted. That part is not well told in the film. It's like the film shows this to happen in a day.<br /><br />FINAL VERDICT: The movie is good until it skips many years in time after the Inquistion, then the movie expects you to understand what is going on. It just got too confusing to me then.
I had this DVD to watch, thinking that I would see a type of biography o painter Goya, but the movie was about everything but Goya. This movie is about a young woman taken away from her family by the Holy Inquisition, allegedly because she practiced Jewish rituals (only because the poor girl did not like eating pork!). The rest of the movie is about torture, humiliation, driven by a poor script (can't believe it is by JC Carrière as I could not believe this cr** is directed by Mr Milos Forman) centered on a religious man and that young woman and that is all. <br /><br />Ah, and there is Goya, I forgot, playing a completely peripheral role - that could be the role of John, Paul, Peter, Manuel, Joaquim, Jose or anyone. Very disappointing - one one these movies that will be forgotten for ever (if it has not had happened yet). Rent "The Name of the Rose" if you want a movie about the Holy Inquisition. And I don't know what you should rent, if you want to watch a movie about Spanish painter Goya. Maybe a director of a good caliber, not Forman, still needs to make it. PS: the Spanish painter, Goya - the title role who is lost in the plot - is portrayed by a Scandinavian actor, something that makes this film even more difficult to be taken seriously. Maybe next time we should send Javier Barden to play the biopic of Norwegian painter, Edvard Munch!
Having watched this movie several times, I have come to the conclusion that Milos Forman made a very daring decision to manufacture a muse for Goya, when the artist led what most would consider a tempestuous,passionate life while the French Revolution and the Napoleonic era raged across Europe, surely one that would have sufficient drama upon which to draw. While I do understand that Mr. Forman was relating in the microcosm of the tragedy of Ines' life the devastation of the world at that time, I was left feeling that there was just so much of Goya left out, so much of his humanity. The strongest and most eloquent point this film made was that because of man's fallen nature each of us is a potential villain in the stream of life, each of us has evil within us that we must fight with the help of God. How eloquent when Goya says he should have helped Ines more, how true for all of us! We must defend and protect the innocent. The superbly ironic scene in which the once imprisoned priest sentenced to die pronounces the death sentence on Lorenzo who condemned him originally is the stuff of genius. I was left wanting something more when the credits rolled. Maybe less of the unreal coincidences, and more of the inner life of the characters.
This isn't exactly a complicated story. It's not a mystery, or a plot you have to spend time re watching because you missed an intrinsic part of the dialog. Claiming a movie has to be seen multiple times for you 'to get it' may apply to a very few films, however this isn't one of them. Those type of movies have substance and are so involving it's easy to miss an important portion of dialog, or a subtle nuance to plot details you may have overlooked. With Goya's Ghosts this doesn't apply. The main flaw in this movie is an absence of detail. It jumps from one character to the next, never giving enough substance to any one set of scenes to allow the involvement of those watching. Because of that you don't connect with any of the characters. You don't get to the point where you care. Either the main actor is gone just as the movie seems it's going to redeem itself, or their actions are despicable and you're not inclined to anyway. Goya's refusal to go very far to help Ines is a good example. His refusal to commit himself further mirrors the overall tone of his part. The only characters you may momentarily feel for are Ines, when she's being questioned and then tortured. After her rape by Lorenzo any focus on her character is pretty much gone. Following that the only other in depth involvement comes from the best scenes in the movie centered around Lorenzo's invitation to supper with Ines' family, and her fathers all out attempt to force Lorenzo into signing a bogus confession and getting his daughter back. Then just as things start to be developing again, they're gone from the movie. I've read a lot of the comments here about how the movie didn't know what it wanted to be, etc. I found that basically it succeeded in not being much of anything. From Lorenzo's return and the coincidental viewing of Ines' daughter by Goya, everything seemed nothing more than contrived. Without much of a storyline, no effort to really examine the turbulent times they lived in took place. The essence of who Goya was didn't materialize, other than his actions, or lack thereof, proving him to be more self-centered than anything else. As for his art, the movie seemed intent on examining a few of the paintings he did but again frittered away another opportunity in examining the reactions to this work rather than the work itself. To sum things up best, the movie had no cohesion, it grossly lacked the substance to delve into the historical environment it covered, and upon ending, left you feeling like what you'd just seen was a series of aborted attempts to engage the viewer by switching from one thing to the next without adequately engaging the viewer in any of them. You can't watch something like this several times expecting it to improve with added examination. There's just not enough to it to waste the time. It's not a case of your missing out on something, it would just be more proof that the ingredients needed to make this movie good, just aren't there. As for best film ever made? It's not even the best film I've watched today.
I'm going to recommend putting this one in the "skip it" pile as well. I was mildly excited by the concept when my fiancée rented it, and a bit more excited when I saw that Milos Forman directed it. Ah, well.....<br /><br />The costumes were nice, sure, but they were typical. There was nothing about them that said they were from anywhere but the Period Costume department of any major Hollywood studio. There was no distinction between Spanish, British and French - everyone dressed like they were at court in Versailles. The sets somehow didn't evoke the qualities of the settings - the prison didn't feel like a prison, the mansions didn't feel like mansions, and the outside scenes looked like they were filmed on a back lot, for all that they were probably practical locations.<br /><br />The score was dramatically less than it could have been. I have been a fan of film scores since my youth, noticing, appreciating and collecting them, by which I mean more than John Williams. My fiancée is a professional film composer, an award winner who has had her works performed at Lincoln Center, and a rising star in the industry. At the start of the film, we had high hopes for it, and it did indeed start off nicely. It rapidly deteriorated, and at several points - including the scene of the release of the prisoners - it actually reached a level of annoyance. I actually reached for the remote to turn down the volume. The score was never anything more than the most obvious choice for scoring a specific tone of scene, and didn't integrate itself into the "soul" of the film (think of the music in Babel and you'll have an idea of what I mean). It never attained the grandeur it wanted to, but then neither did the film.<br /><br />Javier Bardem, as talented as he is, was awful. For the first part of the film, his mannerisms are so distracting that it takes over his performance. During the second half, everything that was his character in the first half is gone, replaced by an entirely different set of annoying mannerisms, and he looked like the love-child of Keith Richards and Stuart Townshend's Lestat. I never got the idea that he cared about the role (which is to say, that the character cared about his life and actions), or that the character was ever drawn by the writers as anything more than an opportunist who, for whatever reason, changes his mind and decides to stick by his principles at the end.<br /><br />Natalie Portman was very good, although her performance lacked the shades of increasing insanity between her release from the prison and taking Lorenzo's hand at the end that I would have needed to call it truly an effective performance. The character of Alicia was never defined enough to truly discern, and if it weren't for the superb makeup on her eyes and cheeks, someone seeing the beginning of the film and the end wouldn't know they weren't the same character. The prosthetic teeth were horrible, artificial and distracting, but that's no knock on Ms. Portman.<br /><br />Stellan Skarsgård was fine as Goya. Not Oscar-worthy, but serviceable and generally believable. I don't know much about the life of Goya, or his deafness, but it seemed to be tacked on to the movie as a requirement of biographical information, rather than anything that was utilized in the film. I am sure it affected Goya's life much more than just requiring the need of an interpreter, but you'd never know it from watching this. For the record, words and sounds can only be correctly interpreted roughly 30% of the time through lip-reading.<br /><br />Don't get me started on Randy Quaid. At least he was a minor character.<br /><br />The script reads like one of the "choose your own adventure" books I used to read as a kid: at several moments through the film, several outcomes are possible, and none of the actions preceding them lead with any certainty to the way the film actually plays out. Ironically, the film is also predictable, especially its meager attempts at leavening the mood through small bits of humor. The joke about the hands? Maybe it's because I paint (not well) as a hobby and know what a PITA hands are to draw/paint, but I saw the joke coming a mile away, as well as the reprise in the second half. Was the baby ever there for any other reason other than to be taken by Ines? There might as well have been a line of bread crumbs.<br /><br />Disappointing.<br /><br />(note: this review is a copy of a reply I made to a thread in the forum)
This film is just another waste of time. The plot is ridiculous, forced USA drama. The characters were all really weak, especially the uncharismatic Goya and the bad interpretation of Bardem, who only was alright in his classic interpretation, when acting as french ally.<br /><br />Just another chance lost of have spent the money in a good film. I guess it was no a low budget film. Definitely not recommended. Maybe the director's should think a bit whether the film has sense or not before wasting so that money. Maybe they do not bother as they have profits before launching them in the cinema.<br /><br />No more hope in cinema...
I didn't even watch this whole movie. Now, I like 50's sci-fi movies even when they are wildly inaccurate but this one just annoyed me. For one thing, one member of the crew on the spaceship talks and acts like he might have made it into the tenth grade. He sounds like he ought to be on a bowling league, not a space ship. Out the window of the spaceship the crew is marveling at Earth and this boob says 'Can you see Brooklyn?' and another guy says 'Sure'. And the boob says 'Gee, I wonder who's pitching?' Pardon me a moment, I think my sides are splitting.<br /><br />When they first get up into orbit the boob says 'The moon is just for looking at! Take me back down!' Watching the crew making stretched mouths and screaming from the G-forces of acceleration during takeoff is also not one of the better moments of the film. (Perhaps the film's best moment can be identified by a big "THE END" on the screen.)<br /><br />We also find out that they can't open the hatch because 'the boob' greased it before they took off. Sure, a space vehicle is going to be 'greased' by a member of the crew, who we later learn has never even had a space suit on before and doesn't know anything about zero gravity. As Baby Huey the overgrown fat cartoon duck once said, "That sounds logical!" The no-gravity-in-space effects are so bad it's painful to watch. (Everyone knows, in the absence of gravity, everything tends to go UP.)<br /><br />How this movie gets 6.3 stars out of 10, when other vastly superior films don't rate any higher, is a mystery to me. I really do like old sci-fi movies but this one is not realistic, and the lame attempts at character humor by throwing in that boob from a gas station grease pit does not work at all - it just ruins the movie. I think in retrospect it's not the whole movie I hate so much as the fact that 'the boob' is so obviously not someone who would be on a space ship - not even to 'grease the hatch.' OMG. I wonder if he checked the fan belts too. Maybe if they'd left 'the boob' off the trip it might not have been QUITE so excruciating. Even so, it's only average. What everyone else is raving about, I don't know.<br /><br />You want to watch a neat 1950's space movie? 'Rocketship X-M' beats it all to heck. Maybe not so much 'realism' but a more serious story and less goofy characters.
This movie may bear some historical importance, and it sure seems astonishing how well the facts are together, the setting, the rocket, the space suits, the surface of the moon, all scream "a classic" - but in the end, the result makes a pretty dull movie for todays eyes, and the 50ies tech scenes you might hope for in a movie like this are by far not enough to reward sitting through all the tacky dialog and predictable plot developments. The characters and plot may reward a scientific sociological analysis, but bear too little entertainment value many times.<br /><br />Much of this movie seems like a good movie for nine-year-olds. The mature themes, the human drama and the violence are kept to a level suitale for children as well.<br /><br />The images of the earth and the moon seen from space may actually be more accurate than the ones in "2001", but so what if their use is dramatically inefficient. Especially 2001 may seem like a stretched out meditation over themes of this movie, and, has Star Wars not somehow modelled it's space-scrolling opening titles on the opening titles of this Film? But then again - the inheritance is marginal.<br /><br />If its a real groundbreaking and mega-influential mature 1950ies Sci-Fi classic you are looking for however, check out "Forbidden Planet".
The actors are so bland that it's almost impossible to tell them apart (Pauline Kael said of this movie: "The actors have names, but they're truly anonymous"), and the special effects are really bad. They simulate weightlessness with people hanging on cables and by recycling the trick that let Fred Astaire dance on the ceiling in "Royal Wedding" (but none of these guys move well enough to make it look convincing). <br /><br />The low point of the movie is when one of the characters, an airplane tycoon, is trying to convince some other "giants of industry" to come in with him in a moon-rocket consortium, and he shows them a Woody Woodpecker cartoon that explains how a rocket works at a 2nd grade level! (And to think that Robert Heinlein worked on the screenplay...)<br /><br />The only plus is that the production design manages to communicate a sort of "Amazing Stories" sensibility, and even that is done much better in the producer's (George Pal) subsequent movie "When Worlds Collide", which has similar bad acting, but is much more entertaining. However, Pal's best sci-fi movie has to be "The Time Machine".
Of the thousands of movies I've seen so far, this is the first one which made me think of the "wasted talents" expression. I had never EVER seen so many fine actors giving so dreadful performances (Frédéric Pierrot, Elsa Zylberstein,and so on). The "aging" make-up is quite awful and, to make it worse, lit broadly. The use of music (e.g. love at first sight for the young aide de camp) is at times so caricatural that I could feel most spectators around me smile awkwardly. So far, Antoine de Caunes has been quite a good actor, but seeing this one and "les morsures de l'aube" I think he should start considering quitting. Please Antoine, give up that "master of balantree" project ; I doubt you deserve it.
Tu pa tam is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. But on the other hand is better then most of the movies from Slovenia, who are filled with depressing characters and story without any bright ideas. Tu pa tam is bright, optimistic and without any artistic moments. In many interviews director Mitja Okorn tried to tell us that his movie is top quality just because it didn't cost a lot of money. But thinking that way is wrong. Tu pa tam is for me very bad movie. The dialogs are really bad written (90% of the script is consisted of cursing), the characters are stereotypical morons, the story and its twists are very predictable and the action sequences (this movie supposed to be an action comedy) are filmed very very bad and without any style. Okorn is just thinking he's even bigger than Quentin Tarantino, so he's copying his style over all 90 minutes. The humor in the movie is very cheap and primitive (Okorn probably thinks that constant cursing is funny). In my opinion is Tu pa tam very cheap (not only by budget)movie with stupid story and very very bad acting.
Police officer Michael (Tomas Arana, "The Church") has his hands full while investigating a serial killer who's been leaving parts of the bodies of the people that he's been murdering at the house of one recently widowed, Tracy (Joanna Pacula). Mike has to find a way to stop the bodies from piling up, while perhaps finding love in the process.<br /><br />A feeling of the 'giallo' films of yore pervades this film, even though we know who the killer is from the get-go, and the film contains a few good set-pieces (a scene later in the film set in a school for the blind being particularly memorable), but it doesn't make all that much sense when all is said and done either. All in all, not nearly as good as Bava's earlier "Macabre" nor his first two "Demons" films, but enjoyable enough if you can forgive the rather outrageous plot twists towards the end of the film. A pity the Image Entertainment DVD lacked extras of any kind, as I would have been interested in some.<br /><br />My Grade: C-
I consider myself to have a decent sense of humor, but this "movie" left me stunned in my chair.<br /><br />It's so bad that it could just not have been any worse. Not once did I laugh at the sadly attempted jokes in this movie. I have watched and enjoyed several parodies of big movies, but unfortunately this one will allways be the one I remember best - in my nightmares.<br /><br />The only reason anyone should want to watch this, is if they want to enter a coma for a brief period of time.<br /><br />This is the worst movie ever.
Without a doubt, the WORST movie I have ever seen in my life. There was nothing entertaining about this film. I know it was supposed to be a comedy, but it actually made me cry at the thought of losing the $4.75 admission price.
It's painfully obvious that the people who made this "movie" have never seen such brilliant spoofs as "The Naked Gun" and "Hot Shots". This movie is terrible, and so are the actors. They wouldn't know acting even if it hit them in the face, as I felt like doing while watching this total pile of rubbish.<br /><br />The movie is stupid and has no humor in it what so ever. I'm SURE that I could make a better movie with my friends. To me it's amazing that a movie can fail this much. Not a single clever or funny line. No trace of intelligence behind it. It's a pathetic movie and I'd like to meet the person who actually likes this movie. Yuck!
I've never understood this type of spoof movies. You get some serious/semi-serious movie that everyone knows about and takes the seriousness out of it through immature fart-jokes and such. We've seen it many, many times, and it's never really been funny. It's just an easy way to laugh at something you don't understand, in my opinion. This seems to be one of the more obscure and less liked of the genre, though I honestly don't see anything in this that is much worse than that of Spy Hard or Hot Shots. This movie, as is clearly understood simply from the title, concentrates on making childish fun of Pulp Fiction. That's the main reason I decided to watch it, as I found that film to be overly indulgent of Tarantino's sick mind and powerfully overrated. I had hoped for one or two good jokes, making fun of the overly violent and pointless type of movie that Pulp Fiction was in every aspect, in my (anything but) humble opinion. I was sorely disappointed. The plot is pretty much a rip-off of Tarantino's film, with a few scenes spoofing other, often better, films, in the same childish and humorless fashion. The pacing is poor, and often you'll sit there, being able to guess the outcome of every scene, predicting every joke, often thinking of a better one at the spot, bored out of your mind. The acting is bad. The characters are clichés and stereotypes, and are intentionally paper-thin in order to make fun of the characters they're based on... problem is, it doesn't work. It just makes the movie that much harder to sit through. The humor is juvenile and lame. The only positive thing I can say about this film is that they managed to find some actors that looked like the people they were supposed to look like. The film is an awful waste of the actual real actors involved. Possibly slightly entertaining to fans of the typical spoof movies of the same kind. I recommend this only to people who truly loathed Pulp Fiction, or fans of the Zucker parody films. Everyone else: avoid. 1/10
Now first let me say I love god awful movies. Especially horror films mainly. I watched hundreds of movies on Mystery Science Theater 3000 with no pain. But this is the absolute worst film on the planet!!! I had to turn it off it was so bad. It was unfunny and just plain unwatchable. Give me 3 back to back viewings of Manos The Hands of fate or Monster A-go-go over this any day. Avoid this film like the plauge!! Now excuse me while I go gouge out my eyes to cleanse them of the filth I had to watch to get a decent judgement for this film. Only one decent gag in the part I watched was the hitmen now are an extermination pair for Hitmen Exterminators. Even that wasn't to great of a gag.
This is a spin off of Pulp Fiction. I thought that it would be good for a few decent laughs. Well it turns out that this movie really was terrible. The whole plot doesn't follow on the Pulp Fiction plot. It turns to other movie like Forrest Gump and more. Some laughs came out of this movie, but all and all it totally took 90 minutes of my life away from me. If you are thinking of renting this movie, please don't it will waste 90 minutes of your life. Reconsider renting this and go on and find a movie that actually makes sense. Please if there is a Plump Fiction 2, I will definitely not go on and rent the sequel. Just giving a heads up for those out there.
This can hardly be called a good movie, actually it's not even close. But I have to say, that there was a few things that made me... not laugh, not giggle, but something like that. The Resovoir Dogs parody was one of them. The rest are not important enough to be remembered.<br /><br />To be honest, I was a little disappointed by this movie. The plot sounded like an idea, but it quickly fell to the ground. The whole thing was just to messy and the actors where not good for the characters; most of them simply overacted. There was also a whole lot of unessecary sequences, that was a total waste of film. I do realize that it would make the movie about 20 min shorter, but it would only make it better.<br /><br />Now, with the good and the bad things lined up, let's go to the conclusion: two out of six toilet seats up for this one.
<br /><br />..this movie being one of them.<br /><br />I remember, in the middle of the movie, me and my friend just<br /><br />looked at each other, shaked our heads and laughed.. in despair.<br /><br />See it if you wish, if you feel that you have the time to waste<br /><br />and don´t mind 1.5 hrs of catatonia.
...when this movie was on.<br /><br />What a bore. An attempt at humor, but really not pulling it off too well. Some good ideas were cast, and the actors makeup and wardrobe were OK.<br /><br />I expected a lot more, unfortunately I couldn't sit through any more of it, I switched off halfway through the video, and ejected the tape, went to the rental store to get my money back...
The worst movie ever made. If anyone asks you what is the worst movie you've ever seen - tell them Plump Fiction. Of all the movies I've ever seen this gotta be the most lame experience. Even the poorest sequels are pure masterpieces compared
This is by far the worst movie i have ever seen. Its been a few years since I saw it and nothing has come close since then and i doubt that there ever will be a movie produced that is as bad as this. It tries to make fun of a variety of different movies, for example 'Nell' (!) and instead of funny its just pathetic. Whatever you do, don't rent or by this garbage and if someone throws it at you....turn around and run the other way!!
If you watched Pulp Fiction don't see this movie. This movie is NOT funny. This is the worst parody movie ever. This is a poor attempt of parody films.<br /><br />The cast is bad. The film is bad. This is one of the worst pictures ever made.<br /><br />I do not recommend Plump Fiction. I prefer the original Pulp Fiction by the great Quentin Tarantino. This is one of the worst parody films ever made.<br /><br />Plump Fiction is not a good movie. It is not funny. It is so dumb and vulgar.
...about this film was the title song. After 30 minutes, I discontinued watching because it was so lame. Bad story, bad actors, bad movie. If you want to watch a good movie, watch Pulp Fiction instead.
Well,this movie is really "PLUMPED" HAHA Get it? Thats kinda like the attitude of this movie. The plot is just a copy of Pulp Fiction,okay thats acceptable,but to make this piece if "PLUMP" (haha)! is really unbelievable.The storyline is so pathetic,and the whole thing only gathered a few laughs. It did try making a few jokes from various other movies,and it failed most of the times. I mean,i do have a sense of humor,but this isnt really the way to go to get a laugh. Most of the supposedly "Funny" moments are completely ironic. The film is quiet short running at around 75 minutes overall. They could have done a much funnier job,seeming they made fun of a blockbuster film,they were gambling,and hey! I think they lost!<br /><br />In overall PLUMP Fiction,is "PLUMPABLE" but you wont gather much at all!<br /><br />Worth watching over and over again?: No once is enough,actually its more than enough!<br /><br />So is it worth the rent? Ummm..As I said,Its "PLUMPABLE",but you will only gather a few "PLUMPS" from it!<br /><br />Overall out of 10: a 4 out of 10!
Gritty drama? Emotionally powerful? Blah! The BBC has lost out big time to masterful productions such as The Wire, Sopranos and Carnivale from HBO. Okay, so the budget may be a lot smaller but 'The Street' last night was badly acted, predictable, unrealistic, stereotypical, insensitive and a big fat waste of time. TV (British TV) is not as good as it used to be and is falling further and further behind the American productions.<br /><br />There was no sense of brutal violence from the 'local gangster'. There was no indication that this man was 'insane' enough to beat up a man he has respected for such a long time. There was no remorse when he did it and this shouldn't be the sort of character that would back down when Bob Hoskins called his son a pansy, in a display of 'bravery'.<br /><br />I wish I was more eloquent to express my disdain for this show, but I am not and although I can't prove my point well enough, believe me when I say that this was rubbish, shock TV, that provides no real inward looking perspective on life.<br /><br />1/5 stars.
This film is about a gap that exists between the real world and the world of the dead. There's a lot of mumbo-jumbo about the internet (i.e., if you install a program on the computer, you see dead folks--much like if you play a videotape you'll die in RINGU). Frankly, most of this seemed rather silly and lost me. What I did find interesting is the idea that the dead live within their own separate existence--being totally alone for eternity. This was sobering and fascinating.<br /><br />I love Japanese films and have seen a huge number compared to most Americans. However, one genre that has become popular in recent years that I just can't relate to very well are these horror films. I know they are super popular--especially since they seem to be remade so often in the States. I've seen both RINGU as well as THE RING, JU-ON and THE GRUDGE and was rather ambivalent despite their popularity. About the only recent horror film I really liked from Japan was SEANCE--a reworking of the great British film, SEANCE ON A WET AFTERNOON. And what, do I think, made SEANCE different? Well, unlike the other films as well as KAIRO, gobs and gobs of money weren't spent on special effects or trying to scare the audience--instead, the emphasis was on the story. The bottom line is that these other films are a lot like American films like HALLOWEEN or Friday 13th--with scary things jumping out just to scare the audience and plot is purely secondary (at best). For me, I want story--not cheap thrills or ghosts as the primary focus of the film.<br /><br />With a relatively high rating, I know I am in the minority, but I just don't find this a very satisfying film. All too often, minor things occur that might startle someone slightly--but the characters begin screaming and crying and acting as if to say "this is the scariest film ever made so you'd better start shaking". Well, I think it just tries too hard and I wish it had focused more on the afterlife seen at the end of the film and plot progression--not scare tactics.
Kairo, or Pulse as it's known amongst English speaking audiences, is set in Tokyo & starts as Sunny Plant Sales employee Michi Kudo (Kumiko Aso) decides to visit her friend Taguchi (Kenji Mizuhashi) to enquire about a computer disk he's been working on, when she gets to his place he gives her the disk but then rather inconsiderately commits suicide in front of her. Meanwhile a student named Ryosuke Kawashima (Haruhiko Kato) has recently hooked up to the internet & keeps getting spooky messages & images on his monitor so he ask's computer whizz Harue Karasawa (Koyuki) whats happening, she doesn't really know but it seems that the place where people's spirits go when they die is full & they need somewhere else to go & Earth is as good a place as any, right? These spirits don't like sharing either so they sort of make people commit suicide or turn them into ashes or something like that, I don't really know because the films a bit of a mess...<br /><br />This Japanese production was written & directed by Kiyoshi Kurosawa & right off the bat I have to say I hated Kairo, I hated everything about it & it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Asian cinema can produce something as crap as any American filmmaker. The script is an overlong mess, the thing simply doesn't make any sense with scenes which seem like they are from a different film, sequences which make no logical sense or are not explained in any way & Kairo is also the most downright boring film I've sat through this year. At two hours long this is a real chore to sit through, I really wanted to fast-forward it but I'm fair if nothing else so I stuck it out to the bitter end & frankly wished I hadn't. There are so many things wrong with Kairo, I suppose the filmmakers were going for a surreal ambiguous & deliberately incoherent feel but those are traits which I despise in a film unless they are done properly. Then there's the whole internet thing which I just couldn't relate to at all, I use the internet all day & it's not in the least bit scary to me in any way. Then there's the fact that Kairo as a film provided zero entertainment value for me, maybe I'm a Neanderthal but I kind of like the films I watch to entertain me, make some sort of sense & not bore me to death.<br /><br />Director Kurosawa has made the ultimate insomnia cure as far as I'm concerned, if you have trouble getting to sleep stick this in the DVD & you be fast asleep within 10 minutes I guarantee you. I didn't think Kairo was scary in the slightest, the whole internet thing was laughable & as for scary you should see some of the penis enlargement pop-up ads I get, now that's scary! I hate this film, I hate this film, I'm sorry I just need to make that basic point again, twice. Forget about any action, tension or gore as there isn't any. If you have a very nervous disposition then there are maybe a couple of scenes which might creep you out otherwise this is kiddie friendly PG rated stuff all the way. Urgh.<br /><br />The film looks so dull & boring it's untrue, the camera just sits there for very long shots & when it does move it moves very slowly, this has all the style of a Mexican soap opera. Since Kairo is sub titled it's difficult to judge the original performances so I won't bother, it's hard to care for someone when they don't even speak the same language & you don't know what they are saying.<br /><br />Kairo is crap, I hated it & it's as simple & straight forward as that. Just because it's an Asian flick doesn't automatically make it any good & the mess of a story, the plot holes, the fact it makes no sense & it's an absolute bore means Kairo would rightly be torn to shreds by people if it were an American production. The worst film I've seen this year by some distance. Kairo got a Hollywood remake as Pulse (2006).
I was so excited to finally watch "Pulse" after receiving it from Amazon, and I have to say I was utterly disappointed. I perhaps think I was too hyped up. I had expectations set by its fans that simply couldn't be met. After loving other Asian horrors, I thought I knew this would find a place in my heart.<br /><br />The story was slow, painfully so. I am a diverse fan of horror. I love the brutal, bloody craziness of "The Devil's Rejects" and I love equally the steady, growing macabre of "A Tale of Two Sisters". "Pulse" offered little from either spectrum, sadly.<br /><br />Along with the sluggishness of the plot, it was also very muddled. I hadn't a clue why characters were doing what they were doing and how what they were doing would help their problem. It seemed as if the director spouted off the plot in a sentence or two and the rest was improf from our actors. Unlike "A Tale of Two Sisters", which also has a rather hard-to-follow plot line, "Pulse" clears up very little at the end and left me feeling frustrated, confused and uninterested in the characters' endeavors. My closing statement about the plot was its inconsistency. At first it seemed as if the story was about the ghost world overflowing and their medium of escaping is the Internet. That's a damn original idea. I like that. But as the plot drones on, plot-holes and unexplained happenings rearing their heads in, it seems the director switched to some apocalyptic tale (as evident by the ending) that just hasn't been clear enough throughout to execute.<br /><br />I realize the dreariness of the shots and the setting was intentional to make the viewer feel bleak and isolated, but the dullness of the movie was only intensified by the grainy, shadowy surroundings. I will admit there was a certain feel of surrealism with the movie, but that may have just been my attention waning in and out.<br /><br />The actions of some of the characters are a little bit ridiculous as well, and perhaps if I was more enthralled by the story I would've been able to suspend more disbelief but as well myself being unmotivated so too were some of the characters. Like I mentioned previously, the logic behind what certain characters did were absent and contributed to the incoherence of the plot. Perhaps it was a result of the plot's incoherence that the characters do questionable things. To be honest I don't really care.<br /><br />The acting was decent. Certainly nothing outstanding but nothing terrible either. No outliers to mention on either side of brilliant or plain awful.<br /><br />Now I'll stop sounding so sour and mention that there were a handful of creepy moments. One towards the end especially that if there were more like it throughout, I would've enjoyed this movie (almost) wholly. I thought whenever the website was shown it was pretty unsettling, as well as some of the ghostly encounters our two main characters face. The things that went on between these ghastly run-ins were just too lackluster, baffling and "WTF" for me to truly appreciate.<br /><br />Now for something pertaining to the DVD itself... Magnolia's release of "Pulse" comes with subtitles, yes, but the subtitles are off. They aren't said at the correct time of the character's speech. It may sound nit-picking but it bothered me a little and it may bother some others. I think this is the only North American release of the film though so you either have to deal or watch dubbing (NEVER WATCH DUBBING!!!) I tried to like the film, I really did. I WANTED this film to live up to the hype... but sadly, it fell flat for me. If you're looking for other creepy Asian cinema I can recommend you "Audition", "Shutter", "A Tale of Two Sisters", "Strange Circus" and "Marebito" -- all of which are more my palette.
I saw this movie because every review I read of it said that it was one of the scariest movies of the new millennium. I really don't understand what all of the hype was about. For one thing, the dialogue in this movie was laughably bad ("What if something strange is going on?"...what????). The acting didn't blow my socks off either. It could have been because the script barely gave the actors anything to work with....the characters are purely 2-dimensional to me and I didn't give a hoot about them at all. Another thing is that the movie extremely boring. Extremely. Sure, there are a couple of "jolts" here and there, but for the movie's 112 minute length, it sure didn't use it's time up wisely. Most of the movie contains characters talking about stuff that had barely anything to do with the plot. What was the point of that??<br /><br />To top it off, the movie makes no sense. Yes, I believe I understood the intentions of the ghosts, but how that fits into the events that actually occur in the movie is beyond me. Also, much of the movie is played out in little vignettes, which makes the story hard to follow at times. And don't even get me started with the ending. What exactly happened there?<br /><br />I can give Kurosawa credit for placing some truly frightening images throughout the film. There are very creepy shots of ghosts and other unsettling images. If they reflected more on those images and elaborated on them, it would have made the movie much stronger. But they didn't, and instead elaborated more on social commentary, which was interesting, but again, portrayed in an extremely dull way. Yes, it's a message movie. Okay, fun. I'll just get the message of my review right out here in the open: find a better way to spend your spare time than watching this.
Would be promising if it were a student film. Never seems to know where it's going next, as if they decided on each next scene as they were making the film. As a result, much repetition and a deadening pace. There's an absolutely confusing procedure by which the ghosts affect people in this world: it involves the internet, phone calls, a computer science experiment, a suspicious grad student, withdrawn behavior, red rooms, dark stains, and _then_ suicides. Good luck figuring out the connections, or when a character is a ghost yet or just acting strangely. Characters are barely sketched, which could be OK, but they're completely uninteresting. It's far too long and ends just when it reaches a promising scenario, although the conclusion is nonsensical. Weakest moment: when "the boss" sits down to give some incoherent advice.
I can appreciate movies with subtitles from foreign countries and specially the ones in which the subtitles are weak and don't really seems to follow the story or really make sense, but this movie had too many parts that didn't really make sense.<br /><br />All in all, i can admit to a few scary and freaky parts, but they are repetitive, i felt like i was watching a loop trailer; seems like it was a short film shot with different actors.<br /><br />In the veins of RINGU and GRUDGE but not even close the the hype...the excessive length killed the thrill.<br /><br />Unless you are a die hard fan of these types of movies (wich i thought i was), don't waste your time on this one.
Do not see this film. In most cases, such as that of Ju-On and The Grudge, the Japanese film are infinitely better than the American remake. However, this movie was terrible. The ghosts, much like a trick or treater dressed as a sheet ghost moan and wheeze in an attempt to be scary in the absence of good makeup or special effects and the acting is just horrible. The story itself is inconsistent and confusing, not everything is explained leaving the film to go from bad to worse. Do not waste your time with this movie, it's not worth it and I am sure that there are more entertaining things to do - like watching paint dry.
I never fell asleep during a movie. Never. This movie did the impossible.<br /><br />While many people claim the superiority of Japanese horror films over their American counterparts, this movie was a lesson in over abundance. As in, the movie was 30 minutes too long. It would have helped if the movie had a little more movement in the plot and the camera work, but instead, all we got were awkward silences and a lot of slow movement. The acting was absolutely terrible, bordering on bad student film levels while everyone struggled to ad-lib something called a script. Did these people even get any direction? Were they coaxed to be boring and dull? Either therory wouldn't surprise me.<br /><br />What was even worse was the rather unscary make-up involved with the creatures from the other side. Either way, they all stunk. Don't watch this film. That's all I can say (unless you're an insomniac).
Forget the lousy acting, that can be forgiven in this sort of film. Or even the terrible, unnatural dialog and illogical events (if my subtitles actually reflected what was said). Far worse is the blatant absence of a skillful or experienced director who maybe took a holiday with the editor while the film was being made? Watching the film, it feels completely out of date even though it was 'only' made 7 years ago. A computer virus as a portal to the afterlife? lol? A dial up internetconnection? Clucky ghost images photoshopped on pictures ("He! Look over there...is that..is that a face?" -zoom in on face- -Oops, sound breaks off- 'chop' -next scene- ), scenes and sequences are poorly edited and as a result don't flow at all. You'll be watching a girl finding a corpse still hanging from the knot in one scene and then literally 10 seconds later seeing her again at some place apparently unaffected, smiling and going about.<br /><br />Apart from the many problems I have with the movie in terms of production-value, it is also painfully long and repetitive and thus utterly boring.<br /><br />I recommend 'Shutter' in stead, an oriental (Thai) horror movie done well.
While the design and locations and photography are strong assets in this film; it is a turgid and melodramatic affair which demonstrates the limits of cinema to convey truth.<br /><br />The case is the use of the soundtrack music: a mix of Gustav Mahler and Andrew Lloyd-Webber that plays constantly and loudly, and would have made Max Steiner grimace at its over use as it instructs the audience how difficult; how ecstatic; how tortured it is to be an artist. And then it really counts the story elides the details at the end.<br /><br />This heightened and kitsch exploitation of emotions was once well ridiculed by Peter Ackroyd about a Yukio Mishima book: This is not writing, this is Barbara Cartland. Precisely the same critique can be made of this film: a deceptive, mawkish vanity project.
I saw this movie and thought it was a sleeper. Sometimes I can get into intellectual Romantic movies. This movie just did not move me. I felt like it was about one hour too long. Camille is portrayed as a very sympathetic sculptor, who loses just about everything. I thought the whole movie was just sad, and downcast. If you like tragedies, you MIGHT like this. I just thought it was too long, which meant it has many unnecessary scenes, which ultimately lead to about one hour of boredom. I would not recommend this movie. If you want to see a good romantic tragedy go watch Titanic.
Although this starts out promisingly, a woman in a car is weaving around dark roads in the middle of the night in the middle of the forest until she almost hits a man holding a lizard! This gave me the impression that we were going to see something special, something almost David Lynchian (if there is such a term), but unfortunately, the film starts to go everyplace, not having a core center, just sort of meandering story about a woman trying to solve a mystery of a small town. The character study goes all over the place, and I couldn't really care for any of the characters it seems, especially when some of the story all of a sudden goes into flashback mode. I had some hopes for this movie, but all in all, it was a bit of a letdown.
I am looking at all the good reviews about this film and I start thinking to myself... Am I going crazy..? Can't I see the beauty from a film like this..? Am I just dumb enough to NOT understand the message this film is trying to point out? I don't know.. maybe one of those lizards entered in my head and ate all my brains as well. The film idea was going nowhere... I was sure it would have a foggy end, and of course... it did! Nothing exceptional... Not even the landscapes (I hopped that being placed in a mountain village at least the landscapes would be nice.. but no). Just a lame story about a crazy teacher, and of course her crazy students... now all grown up, each of them.. with his/her own fixed ideas. And boy some of those ideas were stupid.. like the lizard story for example. At a moment I thought I was watching x files.. with the lizard entering in the ear and all. No.. from my point of view this movie is a waste of time (not to say money if U pay for the ticket) The only part that I did like was the acting of the young blue eye "german" kid... He played very well and convincing for his age... The rest... nothing! I read the previous review and I think the script writer and the director were both on drugs when they came up with those ideas. Well considering that there are a lot of people that enjoyed this film... I think to myself again.. Maybe I am the crazy one. Advice.. Don't waste your time with this!
Obabakoak is a bunch of short stories with an only common point: the little Vasque town of Obaba. In this film, the director tries to explain some of these stories by using a young reporter as a continuum. The result is a strange film, as it has any main character (the movie spends about 20 min. to each tale) other than the town of Obaba. Any story is really well explained and the fact is that they result very boring. It was by far the best film of the year in Spain, but, well, that's not saying too much. The only good thing of the film is the precious scenarios. It is filmed in a very precious valley and it is more enjoyable to spend the time watching the scenario rather than being aware of the story.
With great expectations I went to see this film, Spain's contribution to the Oscar-race this year. Part from being completely pointless, banal, pathetic, badly written, edited, acted and directed, the movie is too long. It fails in delivering the "message" it tries to give, fails in its storytelling, clumsy historical settings and above all in its rhythm. There are some so extreme misfires I haven't seen in a movie in a long time (the story of Lucas whose dead sister lives in his head, the divine revelations, all that lizard nonsense). The Spanish-speaking audience around me was yawning and rapidly losing patience, and some of the commentaries I overheard was whether the members of the Spanish Academy had taken drugs before choosing the film for the Oscar contest.
Lone Star Productions sure churned them out in the 1930's, and "Star Packer" has the feel of one of the more rushed ones. John Wayne is U.S. Marshal John Travers, investigating a crooked hoodlum known only as "The Shadow", responsible for stealing cattle, stage holdups and the like, and giving orders from behind the door of a phony wall safe. Yakima Canutt is Travers' trusty Indian sidekick, appropriately named as... well, "Yak".<br /><br />Early on, we find out that Cattlemens Union head Matt Matlock (George pre-Gabby Hayes) is really The Shadow; the dead giveaway is when he offers to buy out his (supposed) niece Anita's half of the Matlock Ranch, since "this is no place for a girl". As Anita, Verna Hillie doesn't have much to do in the film, although in a comic moment, she gets to use a six shooter to blast the butt of one of the villains in a night time scare raid.<br /><br />There are a few curiosities in the film - for one, Wayne's character alternately rides a white horse and a dark horse in the first half of the film. In what could have been a neat device, a hollowed out tree stump used by a henchman is located right in the middle of the street. And finally, the movie doesn't truly live up to it's name, as Sheriff Travers never wears a badge throughout the film, that is, a star packer without a star.<br /><br />The horse chases, the runaway stage scenes, the stagecoach off the cliff (another curiosity, the horses conveniently get loose from the stage) are all pretty standard stuff. But John Wayne fans will want to see this one for the charisma he displayed early on in his career. For those more critical, the white kerchiefs worn around the forehead by the good guy posse could only mean that they all had a headache.
I watched the beginning twice, could NOT make sense of it, and it bothered me for the whole movie.<br /><br />So, work this out with me: Wayne (the GOOD guy) jumps on the stagecoach, disarms the drivers (!), steals the money (?!), and takes off.<br /><br />Disarmed, one driver is then killed and the other wounded by the bad guys. Thanks to Wayne, who disarmed them, and then watched it happen.<br /><br />Then Wayne drops the money in the dirt, rescues the girl, rides into town, chuckles it up with Yak (too bad about the dead guy, I guess)...and then later says he "found" the money back at the scene. And everyone's okay with that.<br /><br />And he's the good guy? And I'm pretty sure there weren't small, hand-held flashlights at the time. And Bell did his first phone demo in 1876... were they in houses then? Am I thinking too hard about this one? Normally, I'm happy to suspend judgment to enjoy a movie, but this one bothered me. And that's a sign the move didn't really work for me.
Sad to say this is one of the sillier of John Wayne's series of poverty row westerns for Lone Star Productions. Here he is a United States Marshal on the trail of a bandit known only, I kid you not, as the Shadow.<br /><br />No it's not Lamont Cranston, it's some dude who gives his orders through an open wall safe so his men don't see who he is. But the voice is unmistakable, you'll know within 10 minutes of the film. <br /><br />And another reviewer here is quite wrong, no squeals or groans from the audience would have occurred because Gabby Hayes was still playing a variety of roles and he's clean shaven here. He had not yet found his niche as the lovable oldtimer sidekick of various movie cowboy heroes like the Duke.<br /><br />Later on he does lead his men quite openly in the climax so I'm not sure what the point of the original gimmick with the wall safe was. I don't think those that wrote this one knew either.<br /><br />Wayne gets Yakima Canutt as an Indian sidekick here and the relationship is just about the same as an unmasked Lone Ranger and Tonto.<br /><br />It's all pretty silly if you ask me.
THE STAR PACKER is one of about 152,000,000 westerns that John Wayne acted in during the 1930s. Well, the number is a bit exaggerated, but it seemed almost like this many. This is because these B-movies were quickly made with very low budgets in order to be the second, or lesser, feature in a theater. Most Bs were pretty cheap and tended to cut corners to keep down costs and THE STAR PACKER is no exception. To save on costs, incidental music is not used, running times were kept to under an hour, the writing was often rather derivative and the actors are mostly lesser talents--and Wayne himself was definitely far from being a household name at this time. Some of these Wayne features are pretty good, while others, like this one, are watchable but also rather silly and inconsequential. I enjoyed this film and most of the others, but it's probably because I cut Bs a lot of slack.<br /><br />Wayne stars as John Travers--a US Marshall investigating the actions of a local gang out to chase locals out and steal from the stage. This is odd, as the film was apparently set in the modern time or close to it, as they used telephones and modern machine guns--things you just wouldn't expect to find in the Old West. Such anachronisms are actually pretty common in B Westerns--as Gene Autry films (for example) abound with them. Wayne's sidekick is Yak--played by stuntman and real life friend of Wayne, Yakima Canutt.<br /><br />The bad guy is an unknown figure referred to as "The Shadow" and he dispenses his instructions through a black screen that hides his face! This sounds exactly like a character from a movie serial--the sort of baddie that kids loved but grownups groaned at because they were so silly and at bit like Blofeld or Dr. Evil! The problem is, if you listen to his voice AND pay any attention at all, it becomes obvious early in the film that this "Shadow" is George Hayes. Now speaking of Hayes, this is the same guy who later in films was known as Gabby Hayes, but here and in several other of Wayne's early films, he looks and acts NOTHING like Gabby. In THE STAR PACKER, he was well dressed, articulate and clean-shaven--imagine that! In real life, apparently this was more the real George Hayes--though I doubt that he was evil! Now as you can tell from the last paragraph that there really is no mystery in this film. You are left with acting (passable and nothing more) and stunts--which were actually pretty amazing. Again and again, one amazing stunt after another occurred--such as men jumping from horse to horse and some great fight scenes--all done, by the way, by Canutt and his friends. Canutt was often John Wayne's double in films--and this went on for decades. The problem with some of the stunts, however, is that it appears that the film makers actually killed a few horses to get those great "stumbling horses" bits seen later in the film. Up until about 1940, film makers often strung thin metal wire and ran horses across it at full gallop! In the process, the horses' legs were usually broken and the horses were subsequently euthanized! One of the worst examples of this was the film JESSE JAMES--where several horses were brutally killed--leading to the American Humane Association insisting that a representative of the organization be on film shoots to certify that animals are NOT hurt in the production. So, since about 1940, films bear this little disclaimer. THE STAR PACKER was made well before the disclaimer and I can't see how the horses did these "tricks" without being killed.<br /><br />Overall, this is at best a time-passer due to a poor plot, occasionally poor acting and an unbelievable cruel attitude towards the horses. I am no bleeding heart, but just can't understand this disregard for a poor old animal.
I haven't any idea how commentators could regard this as a decent B Western. Or how one commentator said the plot was more cohesive than most. Nothing could be farther from the truth! This movie is one HUGE non-sequitur! It is an affront to the noble B Western films of the '30's. I have seen many of Wayne's early Lone Star and Republic westerns, and this one is easily the worst.<br /><br />The bad guy is known as The Shadow - for crying out loud! Initially, The Shadow's scheme is holding up open-sided stage coaches. Simultaneously, his gang rustles all of the cattle in the territory. Then they decide to move on to bank robbery. To do this, they need to shoot up the town with a machine gun - no explanation of why that's necessary or how he got that neato little toy!<br /><br />No single scheme is revealed in enough detail to suggest a plot here. The Shadow is obviously just a generally bad guy with all kinds of generally evil schemes. <br /><br />He imparts his instructions to his gang through a fake wall-safe. (Knock-knock, who's there?) He is apparently clairvoyant, because whenever his henchmen need to talk to him, they knock on the wall, the safe opens and - PRESTO - he's there. (I can just imagine that he has met them face-to-face and says,"I have some secret, nefarious instructions to give you about our next evil deed - meet me at the wall-safe and I'll give 'em to you.") Just why the Shadow requires the safe to communicate with his army of outlaws is, like most of the elements of this mess, never explained.<br /><br />He has a nifty tunnel to the ol' hollow stump across the street from which vantage point, various of his baddies perform assassinations. He also has a hidden panel NOT in his secret lair behind the fake safe, but out in the main room.<br /><br />When not behind the safe, he hangs out on his cow-less ranch, masquerading as rancher Matlock. We learn that he has murdered the true owners of the ranch - two brothers - and assumed the identity of one. The daughter of the dead brother has recently arrived from 1930's NYC (judging by her wardrobe), and she apparently never met her real uncle, because he dupes her, too!<br /><br />If you thought that bad guys always wore black hats and good guys white hats, you need to see this movie. Here, the good guys all ditch their hats in favor of white head-bands that make them look like they have all suffered head wounds before any shots have been fired! It's like a game of pick-up basketball - only Wayne has them tying bandanas 'round their heads instead of just taking off their shirts.<br /><br />Perhaps the weirdest of all is the ending. Immediately after subduing the Shadow and his gang, we jump far enough into the future to see Wayne and his wife (the erst-while niece) on the front porch of their home. (Never mind that there has been scant romance.) There, Yak is playing with Wayne's 3-4 year old son, dressed up in Injun garb! (Hiyoo, skookum fun!)<br /><br />No thanks to this nonsense, Wayne went on to become a screen legend. Only a super-star (packer or not!) could surmount this entry in a film resume. Long live the Duke!
This proves just how awful the WB Network was in the last few years of its existence. As a homeschooler, I of course deplore this show for its ridiculous, fantasy land, obscure & unfunny stereotypes about the kids being "weird hippies who are so smart they're alienated from the super-cool high school students". Sorry TV writers, the world as viewed from inside your ass (containing your heads apparently when you wrote this show)is NOT the world we talented people see with our eyes as we live in a little thing called reality. As for those who actually liked this show...please, dear sweet Jesus PLEASE rethink the statement that you actually liked this crap over a very long walk. The acting is even more hollow, phony and wooden than the stereotypes the whole show was built around. Thank you WB for doing the right thing and putting this horse out of its beginning-to-end misery. This show never, ever should've even had the privilege of being made, no less having so much as eight awful episodes. I really hope that these actors eventually got a clue and stopped playing roles in garbage TV shows like this as soon as this show ended.
I'm sorry but I just honestly cannot see why anyone would actually like this. It's stereotypical and REAL homeschoolers are NOTHING like they were on this show!! Personally I'm glad it got canceled after the first few episodes. I mean, this kind of show would certainly be alright if everyone knew that homeschoolers weren't really like this, and the whole story was just for the show, but unfortunately not everyone is aware of this. If anyone out there that watched this actually believed this is what goes on in the life of a homeschooler, then I honestly feel sorry for them. This reminds me of the kind of portrayal they have of homeschooled kids in "Mean Girls". It's sad, really, that people think this way. This is complete garbage, IMHO.
I have watched THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL with the avowed object of refuting this so called scientific atheist . I don't know where to start as he is such a rich source of stupidity.<br /><br />He is obviously not a statistician else the odds of 2/1 of him burning for all eternity would have pushed him towards belief in God<br /><br />He regards science as religion and expects us to believe him as we do God. One has only to look at the language used in his postulations. <br /><br />Regarding Faith. This commodity is used extensively in everyday behaviour. Just think about it. When he gets in an electrician be believes that it will be wired correctly and trustfully turns on the switch. When he gets in a plumber he pulls the chain in his bathroom and expects the water to flow in the right direction. Regarding faith in science When I was in chemistry class I believed and was taught that the atom was the smallest particle and the onion skin theory of electrons both of which have now been discounted. I was taught this as the atomic theory 'writ in stone' so to speak. So why should we believe any scientist especially when he goes beyond the parameters of his field? Dawkins states that religion will be the downfall of civilisation. Religion is civilisation. Can he, or any other atheist, please tell us what civilisation was founded and nurtured by atheism, barbarism or savagery please? He is now living in the last stages of a Christian based civilisation and taking all the benefits from it without any admission for its source. I found Dawkins to be arrogant, dictatorial, judgmental, an obvious believer in eugenics and a Nazi in his attitude towards the young. How dare he say what a parent can teach their child. The child is theirs, not the nation's and as the parents bequeath to it their genetics, so do they bequeath their beliefs. His dismissal of Adam as "he never existed" as he has no proof was an example of this same attitude. So I have no proof that Joe Blogs lives in New York but he well may do. I just haven't found the proof yet. That does not negate his existence I note his argument with the Bishop of Oxford that the prelate is selective with what he takes and believes in the Bible. Well, Dawkins also does this. Where does he draw the line between it as a historical document and a religious statement? He is also selective. I heard the lot when Dawkins came up with the ALTRUISTIC gene. What a hoot. He is desperately looking for proof for his wackiness and as the Piltdown Man was invented, so now we have this so called ALTRUISTIC gene which predisposes us to looking after our young and other members of our 'group' The trouble is that all animals do this - not just apes, and with evolution it is survival of the fittest. not the kindest and if he really thinks we are becoming kinder as a race he is not reading the same newspapers as I am I found his arrogance beyond belief in declaiming that as we only have this life, we should enjoy it to the full. So how does he equate this with his obvious position as a well off European to a destitute person in Africa who has had all her family wiped out and probably raped and is starving. Will he help her? I note that all his opposition to religion is a) that they go to war. Well G K Chesterton declared that the only war worth fighting was a war for religion b) we are against using contraception and abortion and homosexuality. All sins against the 6th commandment. Funny that.<br /><br />As a Catholic I find his dismissal of Pius XII's pronouncement of the Dogma of the Assumption in 1958 to be erroneous. He , Pius, never said that it was revealed to him while he was sitting somewhere by himself. In case Dawkins does not know it, Revelation ended with the last Apostle. Pius would have taken years of advice and studied documents handed from down over the centuries to have come up with this pronouncement. Also as a Catholic I find his dismissal of all religious people as satisfied. what utter rubbish. We, everyday fight the world, the flesh and the devil. We are the Church Militant. We are also able to glory at a sunset and admire the beauties of nature even if we believe in God. The trouble with Dawkins was that he interviewed whacky zealots and extrapolated them to all of us.
Whoever likened this one to RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK certainly knew whereof he spoke. He might, as well, have likened it to some of the adventures of the pulp heroes that followed. "Kay Hoog" reminds one more than a little of both Lamont Cranston (The Shadow) and Clark Savage (Doc Savage). (The Shadow, quintessential man of mystery- and the very first "Dark Knight"- was also thought to be one Kent Allard. If one were to take Savage's first name first and add to it the Kent, you end up with- voila- Clark Kent. Funny, innit?) Like Indiana Jones, Hoog isn't above pilfering the artifacts of an ancient civilization (though his thefts are often more blatant and less "charmingly roguish" than Jones's). Unfortunately, this two-parter is a far cry from subsequent serials (from any era) in terms of overall quality. One of the first indications that something is amiss vis a vis the cinematic storytelling is a scene where desperados on horseback, quite literally breathing down his neck, simply watch as Hoog escapes their clutches in a hot air balloon. Why they don't bother to shoot down the balloon is just one of the many movie-making mysteries that plague these two films.<br /><br />The second half of this two-parter is even worse than the first. Granted, this was one of the first ever serials and, as such, should be cut a bit of slack- but there are limits, even, to tolerance. (At one point, the capture of the hero is effected not on screen, but in the narration itself! Talk about cutting corners...) Fritz Lang happens to be one of the greatest filmmakers to ever make films; unfortunately for those of us who admire most of what he did, THE SPIDERS is a bitter pill indeed to swallow...
Originally, the Spiders was planned as a four-part serial, and it shows. I dislike serials; they're typically ridiculous, convoluted and banal. This one is no exception. In the first part of the Spiders, 'The Golden Lake,' a rich adventurer thwarts the plans of a gang of criminals--the Spiders--to steal gold from Incas. A silly love triangle ensues, with some Cowboys and Indians action. The sensationalism and exotica of it didn't entertain me.<br /><br />One can legitimately trace themes from this two-part series to Lang's later, far superior work. And, the film-making is better than in other serials I've seen from this time, including 'Les Vampires' (1915). In the Spiders, the camera isn't as static, and this film is fast paced, thankfully. The tinting and lighting are adequate, too. None of that's remarkable, though. It's nearly unseemly, however, in how closely this series resembles Louis Feuillade's serials; the criminal gang dresses and behaves like those in 'Les Vampires'--only the names, and to a lesser extent, the situations have changed.<br /><br />For the further comments on The Spiders series, see the web pages for it.
During an eight-year stretch of the 1980s when Charles Bronson made nine films, only one was released by a company other than the Cannon Group: 'The Evil That Men Do,' a TriStar Films pickup from Sir Lew Grade's ITC Entertainment firm. Bronson was already in the thick of his collaborations with director J. Lee Thompson, which ran through numerous actioners until 'Kinjite: Forbidden Subjects' in 1989.<br /><br />Expectations should run pretty high with Bronson and Thompson working for a better-funded outfit like ITC, but 'The Evil That Man Do' is a great disappointment on many levels. While still from the low budget, B-movie mold of the 1980s, 'Evil' has tantalizing potential for a great film. Everyone in the production department, however, took an easy way out and sold hack work undeserving of Bronson's imprint. 'The Evil That Men Do' had a concept and technical resources that could have been used to make one of Bronson and Thompson's best films, but instead will go down as one of their most average.<br /><br />This 1984 political thriller/actioner opens in brutal fashion with Clement Molloch (Joseph Maher), a British doctor, holding his special training class for political leaders in Surinam. The gray-haired, passive Molloch is an expert on torture methods who is employed by numerous political regimes. In the opening seven minutes, we witness Molloch using electrical current to inflict unbearable pain on Jorge Hidalgo (Jorge Humberto Robles), a dissident journalist. As you may expect, the scene is awful to watch and was cut from the original VHS release.<br /><br />Hidalgo was none other than a friend of Holland (Bronson), a retired assassin who is enjoying life in the Cayman Islands. Holland was approached by the journalist years before to rid humanity of Molloch, but turned the offer down. A Mexican professor named Hector Lomelin (José Ferrer) visits shortly after Hidalgo's death to talk Holland into finishing the job, bringing videotapes of testimony from The Doctor's victims. While in denial at first, Holland eventually agrees to the dirty work, targeting Molloch and his doting sister Claire (Antoinette Bower) in Guatemala.<br /><br />Holland enters Guatemala City with help from an adviser, Max Ortiz (René Enríquez); he poses as a tourist with Hidalgo's widow Rhiana (Theresa Saldana) and young daughter Sarah (Amanda Nicole Thomas) in tow. As with most of Bronson's later output, his character knocks off Molloch's henchmen one by one, crossing paths with a sleazy American diplomat (John Glover) and his supporting hit-man (Roger Cudney) along the way. A brutal ending takes place in the crevices of an opal mine, where The Doctor gets just deserts from several of his victims.<br /><br />'The Evil That Men Do' is based on a forgotten novel by R. Lance Hill and jumps at American political dealings in Latin America during the 1980s. Indeed, 'Evil' is hard-boiled in every sense of the term, as it uses sensationalism and doses of brutality to cover up huge weaknesses in plot and character development. For every plus this film has, there are three or four minuses, resulting from shod craftsmanship.<br /><br />While 'The Evil That Men Do' has a great concept, the film is never truly more than an excuse for Bronson to wipe out foreign-based scum. In the style of bad pulp fiction, 'Evil' is filled with cardboard characters that we never get to know or understand. Holland, despite being played strongly by Bronson, never talks about his inner feelings or explains what motivated him into becoming a killer for hire. Rhiana, a terribly weak part for Theresa Saldana, is disgusted by Holland for much of the way but later feels an affection for him. Where does her love come from, especially after watching Holland kill several people and wanting to go home just a few scenes before?<br /><br />The most interesting characters are actually Molloch and his sister Claire, because so many questions can be asked of them. Naturally, we never find out what has brought them so close together, how and where their torture dealings started, what Claire's exact role in their business is…These plot holes can go on forever, especially with the paint-by-numbers storyline that seems to make things up as it goes along. Why is Hidalgo's daughter brought into such a dangerous situation, other than for her to be conveniently taken hostage by Molloch? If Molloch's bodyguard Randolph (Raymond St. Jacques) clearly saw Holland and Rhiana in the cockfight arena, why is he so friendly with them in a bar afterwords? Is his memory that short? And what really was the purpose, other than cheap theatrics, of Holland throwing Molloch's chauffeur Cillero (Jorge Luke) off a window ledge when the murder could have been handled more discreetly in Claire's apartment?<br /><br />The overall acting is decent and somehow Bronson gives one of his strongest performances. J. Lee Thompson's direction is lacking at points, but may have been compromised by limited time on site. Besides Evil's filming in Mexico, the presence of ITC is clear through better production values, cinematography, and music. Rural locations are well-used to convey the hot and dusty atmosphere of Latin America and cinematographer Xavier Cruz provides rich color and clarity. The orchestral score by Ken Thorne ('Murphy's War') is refreshing in an era of synthesized junk. Oddly enough, these positives only add to the frustration of a good movie that is screaming to come out. Peter Lee Thompson's editing is better than usual, although with more laughable continuity errors.<br /><br />'The Evil Than Men Do' was perfect grindhouse material for the early 80s and I find it hard to recommend for 21st century action fans. The DVD from Columbia TriStar Entertainment is an okay presentation, offering widescreen and standard format with four-language subtitles. While the video quality is well above average, 'Evil' was originally recorded in plain mono audio. The theatrical trailer is offered and actually has a grindhouse feel, with eroded color and fuzzy sound quality.<br /><br />** out of 4
Yet again, director J. Lee Thompson unites with actor Charles Bronson for a violent and uncompromising action flick. In fact, this is probably Bronson's most brutal film (quite a feat for a man who appeared in Death Wish, Ten To Midnight and Chato's Land). However, brutality doesn't on its own make for a good film, and The Evil That Men Do is ultimately a disappointment. If you were to take away its brutality the film would have precious little else of interest.<br /><br /> The story is about a retired hitman (Bronson) who lives a cosy life on a Caribbean island. He is persuaded to come out of retirement to track down and eliminate a sadistic torture doctor who has been plying his vile trade around various South American hell-holes. Throughout the film, especially at the beginning, we are treated to some graphic torture scenes to show us just what a nasty piece of work he is.<br /><br /> These themes are actually quite serious. Torture does go on in suppressive Latin American dictatorships, and everyday folk are made to suffer some despicably painful experiences simply for voicing an unpopular viewpoint. But The Evil That Men Do - for all its worthy posturing - isn't really bothered about the plight of these poor people. It is bothered purely with giving Charles Bronson an excuse to blow away some unpleasant scum-bags. It's just an exploitative actioner which hangs its coat on genuine issues. The torture sequences make you, the viewer, feel like a dirty, sick-in-the-head voyeur, rather like someone who gains pleasure from viewing "snuff" movies. The script is full of horrid dialogue, including some excessive descriptions of acts of torture. The Evil That Men Do fails to explore its disturbing ideas... its serves them up as entertainment and asks us to enjoy them. Sorry, but that's just wrong.
Once again Bronson's talent is mostly wasted on this shock value 1984 thriller which (uncut) is far more disturbing than most of what is out even today. The fact that "The Evil That Men Do" is very disturbing (in its verbal and visual depictions of torture) is not the problem. It is the shameless gratuity in which it is presented. Interestingly, this film seems to symbolize that latter part of Bronson's career in which he has tortured many of his fans with the same egregiously predictable and uncreative plots. One hopes this fine actor will rise again.
It's hard to believe that there are some people out there in the world that actually think this is a worthy Charles Bronson vehicle. <br /><br />Bronson is a good actor that can do more than tote a gun and knock off bad guys. He was quietly moving in the TV movie "Yes Virginia, There is a Santa Claus" and showed a lot of class and style in the Sean Penn-directed "The Indian Runner".<br /><br />In "The Evil That Men Do", however, Bronson again plays a character that sees injustice and sets it right with fists, knives and, of course, guns. There's nothing here you haven't seen in the last five "Death Wish" flicks. <br /><br />Wait, I take that back. This has to be the most sadistic and repellently violent film Bronson has ever had the dis-service of being in. Not just repellent in the scenes of torture or the descriptions of torture, but in the fact that these scenes were put in a film just to sell tickets. And Jose Ferrer! What in blue blazes was he doing here?!! I mean, he won an Oscar, for crying out loud!!! <br /><br />Okay, sorry about that outburst. Let me just say that "The Evil That Men Do" has to be one of the worst movies I had ever seen that was based on a book. Yeah, that's right. I wonder if it was written with Bronson in mind?<br /><br />No stars. Watch "Death Wish" instead. At least IT was topical.
Does anyone remember the alternative comedy show THE COMIC STRIP PRESENTS . One edition featured Charles Bronson ( Robbie Coltrane ) being interviewed about his new movie GLC :<br /><br />" It's about a man , an ordinary man whose wife and family gets wiped out by creeps and I have to hunt them down and kill them in a sadistic and graphic manner " <br /><br />" And after GLC what next for Bronson ? " <br /><br />" We're using a new angle . My family don't get wiped out but I go after creeps just the same " <br /><br />This accurately describes THE EVIL THAT MEN DO . It's a Bronson vigilante thriller where his motivation isn't down to a blood feud but this leads to credibility becoming strained <br /><br />Bronson is a retired hit-man who isn't giving up his retirement for anything until someone shows him a video tape featuring interviews with the victims of " The Doctor " , not the legendary time traveler but a infamous expert on torture . It's never really explained why The Doctor is so infamous since any police state has a myriad of these sadists nor is it explained why The Doctor and his sister have ridiculous English accents <br /><br />As you may guess it's a lazily written movie and incidents happening because the screenwriter needs things to happen to further the plot no matter how unlikely they are like one of the bad guys getting invited to a threesome so he can be killed or things being revealed like The Doctor's sister being a lesbian so some T&A can be included <br /><br />In many ways it's like one of those nasty Chuck Norris vehicles that were being released at the same time , but the most disappointing thing is that the director is also the same man who made ICE COLD IN ALEX and THE GUNS OF NAVERONE two very well regarded war dramas that are often shown on Sunday afternoons . Believe me this movie won't be shown until well after the watershed
This is one of the few movies - maybe the only - that truly haunted me for years. It was the first I had ever seen people tortured, so much that blood was flowing of their mouths from gritting their teeth and screaming, etc. It was brutal; the worst thing I had ever seen on film.<br /><br />Dr. Clement Molloch, played by Joseph Mayer, is still one of the most evil characters I've ever seen on film, and I've viewed thousands. He was so sadistic that I would never watch this movie again, nor would I recommend it. He makes Hannibal Lecter look like Mr. Rogers. If seeing people tortured is not your idea of fun, then stay away from this film.<br /><br />I know there are a lot of sick people out there, many of them professional film critics, who probably enjoyed this sordid, sick story. It's a "B" movie, anyway, with stupid dialog and some wooden acting by Charles Bronson. This is not one of his better efforts. Even if it was, there so many horrendous scenes in here you wouldn't want to watch. Trust me on this one.
"The Evil That Men Do" begins with a truly repellent torture scene, followed, a little later, by graphic verbal descriptions of equally repellent torture methods that the sadistic, heartless villain likes to use. But despite the use of such strictly-for-shock effects, the filmmakers can't really cover up the fact that this is just a dull, low-grade Bronson vehicle. Bronson himself is solid here, but he should have chosen a better script.
The Evil that Men Do (1984) was one of the few non-Cannon films Charlie Bronson made during the 80's. Unlike most of the Cannon films Charlie starred in, this one wasn't fun or entertaining. Charlie basically tortures and brutalizes people for over an hour and a half. If you thought he was Mr. Emotion before, wait until you see this! <br /><br />In this one, Charlie goes to an unnamed Central American country and shows the populace that whoever messes with Chuck or his people have to pay the piper. This one is no fun. It's not cheesy or campy, just brutal, sadistic and not in a good way. <br /><br />I didn't like this one. I have no love for this film. No recommendations because it's not worth watching. Maybe if they didn't cut the hell out of it. Watch with precaution.<br /><br />Don't bother.
Bronson took the money and ran with this film; he must have house payments like me! This low budget film made in Mexico reminds me of a few of those Italians stinkers from over seas. I heard, I do not know if this is true, but companies make these films in foreign countries for tax purposes. I believe this because why else would they make this film, it sure wasn't to make money. We had a whole lot of these Canadian made stinkers, because the government gave tax breaks to create a movie industry. I wonder if it payed off in the other countries like in Canada. Anyway, back to topic this film is poorly made in every aspect, I believe they grabbed Charles Bronson in order to sell this stinker; that dead body at the end looks very phony. 3/10
Other reviews have talked about how frank this film is, especially in terms of male frontal nudity. Well, those who've seen Grande Ecole with its frequently naked actors and expect something similar are in for a big disappointment. Other than a few seconds in the judo team locker room, the two leads' side by side shower lasts a grand total of 15 seconds. The female lead has comparably brief frontal moments. A lot of this film's marketing is geared to the gay male audience, but those expecting even a hint of homoeroticism between the two male leads (best friends who have a three-way with the girlfriend of one of them) will be most disappointed. There is not even the hint of either one's being interested in the other, or even scarcely aware that the other is part of the menage a trois. As a film, Douches Froides is curiously uninvolving; the viewer gets very little sense of who these three young people are, of how they are feeling, of why they behave as they do. About one hour of the original cut was deleted; perhaps this is why the finished film seems frustratingly undeveloped. Stick with Grande Ecole, a French film which more than delivers on its promises.
I chose this movie because I was looking for a triangle friendship between a girl & two boys. As I lived this situation and get lost in it, I hope a similar story would inspire me. <br /><br />My major concerns are: - Why (a) & How (b) the triangle forms ? - Why (c) & How (d) the triangle degenerates ?<br /><br />(a) The movie offers a plain answer: "because it's better !". <br /><br />(b) here, it's an open triangle: the three share things together. Mine was a closed one: every ones knows the others but never the three are together or speak about the missing one: <br /><br />(c) The movie doesn't offer spoken explanations but rather prefer visual & emotional assumptions: the end comes with sensuality, sexuality coming up in the triangle, or more accurately, when for one member, deep feelings are tied with intimacy, and, as for the latter and the former, they can be divided. I agree with that.<br /><br />(d) In the movie & in my story, silence is the proof that something isn't well.. And in a ironic and painful way, the tool for this sad times, is always the phone: I lived this dreadful planned phone-call: "Call me back: I wait you"… and when time comes, the phone is silent…. A variation is also shown, when the line is connected but one refuses to speak… All those scenes were very very hard to see for me.<br /><br />If the movie was a great help in that way, he got also a lot of flaws:<br /><br />- I zapped on the boy's family problems<br /><br />- why the shower scene on the DVD cover is cut on the movie? <br /><br />- how Mickael gets finally into the hotel ? <br /><br />- is Clément always seeing Salomé ? he says "no" but has her address; and who is the girl with him in the bar: his girlfriend ? how can she knows about the address ???<br /><br />- what finally happens to Vanessa: the ring at the final shoot is a proof of engagement ??? with whom ?????
It's been a long time since I have been in the art-house theater and I went to see Douches Froides because it has gotten such great reviews in the papers.<br /><br />The thing is with this movie, is that it has no head or tail, but merely a section in time about the life of the three main characters.<br /><br />When it started I already knew that it was gonna be a long sit down, but sometimes things can get better, in this case not. There is no real character development or interconnection between the players. You start in the middle of a situation, all of the sudden there's a girlfriend and then there's a guy with whom he needs to be friends with in order to fulfill his sports ambitions, but the way they are put together is quite odd, since they are "just put together", so it seems.<br /><br />And all of the sudden they have sex with each other, at least one you can see of. The feeling of guilt or jealousy with the other guy is hardly noticeable and really all I could think of during the movie was "when are they gonna have sex again?". And when you think of it, it's quite insane really. Because it basically means there is nothing really worth looking at, but three teens going at it and that, for me at least, makes it a very crappy movie, stay clear from it and save your money (my €7,50 is wasted), there are better art-house movies than this one.<br /><br />I give three stars for the acting performance, one each.
This movie is about a man who likes to blow himself up on gas containers.<br /><br />He also loves his mommy. So, to keep the money coming in, he takes his act to Broadway.<br /><br />SEE! CODY POWERS JARRETT BLOW HIMSELF UP ON HIS BIGGEST GAS CONTAINER YET! TONIGHT! 7.30PM! <br /><br />However, one day, his mommy dies and Jarrett goes berserk. He kidnaps the audience in the theatre and makes them all stand on top of a huge gas cylinder.<br /><br />Losing control further, he makes them all scream "MADE IT MA, TOP OF THE CYLINDER!" in unison.<br /><br />The noise is so deafening that it bursts Jarrets eardrums, causing him to topple from the cylinder into a vat of acid.<br /><br />This Warner Bros. movie is not all it's cracked up to be.
Ed (Kel Mitchell) is a teenager who lives for his job at Good Burger, a small but friendly neighborhood hamburger stand, while his buddy Dexter (Kennan Thompson) also works there, but lack Ed's single-minded devotion to his job he's there because he accidentally destroyed the car of his teacher Mr. Wheat (Sinbad) and has to raise money to pay the damages. When Mondo Burger, a mammoth fast-foot chain, opens across the street, it looks like Good Burger is history, until Ed formulates a secret sauce that brings hundreds of new customers to their door. However, the monomaniacal manager of Mondo Burger, Kurt (Jan Schweiterman), is determined to get his hands on the sauce and put Good Burger out of business. Meanwhile, Ed and Dexter must rescue Otis (Abe Vigoda), the world's oldest fast food employee, from the Demented Hills Asylum, and Ed might just find love with Monique (Shar Jackson) if he could take his mind off the burgers long enough to pay attention to her. Good Burger is a comedy directed for kids, decent story, acting, and overall a pretty harmless kids movie.
The cast of "All That" returns for good humor in the "Good Burger" a place similar to an old fashioned fast food restaurant. The comedy is terrific, the fun is non-stop, and though cliché, is a passer for kid and family comedy.<br /><br />A movie for all ages, this movie is meant to enjoy, laugh, and pretty much a lazy movie for a rainy day, as that's what I'd save this movie for, a rainy day. USA aired it today, and since I know that the cast of "All That" is in it, I thought that it might be a bit of a chuckle burner, but in good fun, as Keenan Thompson and Kel Mitchell (probably one of the best young duos of that time) were terrific together, the pieces came together, and everything worked out, and it made it into good family fun together with some lazy day work to get off the bad day.<br /><br />May I take your order?
Attractive husband and wife writing team Robert Wagner (as Joel Gregory) and Kate Jackson (as Donna Gregory) arrive at the spooky mansion of actress "Lorna Love" (actually, silent film star Harold Lloyd's house). Mr. Wagner and Ms. Jackson are contracted to write the silent movie star's biography. Wagner has a personal interest in the project, since his father was once the famed star's lover. Mysterious events unfold, and Jackson must fight to save her husband from the spirit of the beautiful blonde, who is "perfectly preserved" in a crypt on the estate; moreover, the evil woman seems bent on possessing her husband, and murdering Jackson! <br /><br />This is very much a "Night of Dark Shadows" variation, co-starring genuine "Dark Shadows" alumni Kate Jackson, who knows and plays her part well. Robert Wagner lacks David Selby's intensity. Sylvia Sidney (as Mrs. Josephs) sidesteps Grayson Hall. Marianna Hill is not a match for Lara Parker (or Diana Millay). Bill Macy (as Oscar Payne) is good in a part that would have been played by John Karlen (in a Dan Curtis production).<br /><br />There are smooth cameos by Joan Blondell, John Carradine, and Dorothy Lamour. Ms. Lamour's delivery resembles Joan Bennett, which begs the question: why didn't producer Aaron Spelling get more of the original "Dark Shadows" regulars? <br /><br />Director E.W. Swackhamer was Bridget Hanley's husband; he worked with Ms. Blondell on "Here Come the Brides", and with Jackson on "The Rookies". "Death at Love House" has, arguably, a tighter storyline than the "Night of Dark Shadows" film; it differs in the movie star angle; and, in its "Father Eternal Fire" ending, it more closely resembles the TVseries' "Laura the Phoenix" storyline. <br /><br />**** Death at Love House (9/3/76) E.W. Swackhamer ~ Robert Wagner, Kate Jackson, Sylvia Sidney
The 70s were without a doubt the golden age of "made-for-TV" horror. This is one of those that was probably churned out as an ABC movie of the week. It's the old story of a house and/or ghost possessing one of the new owners. The movie has promise, but it's never realized. Everything is rushed too much. Tension and suspense need time to build and grow. And there's nothing new. We've seen it all before and one better.<br /><br />One final thought: I don't understand why Robert Wagner's character would fall for the long dead movie star when he's married to Kate Jackson for goodness sake!!!
Don't worry - no spoilers here, just saying there is a very predictable plot. A couple decide to live in his father's love nest so they can write a book/article/newsletter on his fling with a famous tragic Hollywood starlet. This whole production ran kind of like a high school troupe doing an episode of "Murder She Wrote". The only acting I was sold on was the old fogy's they interviewed for sources in the story. Apparently the directors thought the movie was getting too long, so towards the end they stopped pointing their camera to a kind of creepy image of the starlet and brought in plot enhancers to wrap this thing up. Don't waste your time - even the tried and true horror/intrigue classics fail in this movie.
Is there anything else on earth to be more enticing than to learn what expects our frail bodies after, um, death. Spanish director Ignacio Cerdà (a soul-mate of his German colleague Jörg Buttgereit) provides blow-by-blow answer to our curiosity and invites us to an exciting journey in the world of preparation tables, scalpels, surgical saws, human entrails and warped minds.<br /><br />Welcome to the autopsy room!<br /><br />I don't know which facets of the film, apart of its notorious reputation, may have helped it to acquire sufficiently high rating.<br /><br />Storywise it's fairly simple and straightforward - a day in the life (actually half an hour) of a troubled coroner (or, perhaps, assistant pathologist or whoever he is) that is fed up with his routine morbid duty and discharges his psychological tension in a non-traditional fashion, right at his workplace. I'm perplexed of what particular message the authors tried to deliver with this one-note plot. I suspect it may be somehow inspired by Udo Kier's character's quirky demeanor in Andy Warhol's Frankenstein.<br /><br />Artistic values of the film are also questionable. It's hard to evaluate the performance of the actors that don't squeeze a single word. Their emotions are concealed behind the medical masks. There's also not enough room for great camera-work - basically, the entire action unfolds mostly within four walls.<br /><br />Authenticity - effects and makeup are impressive and the setup looks very plausible, but only a handful of medical/forensic experts can judge how truthful and anatomically correct the dissection is carried out here (if anyone cares). Honestly, I used to think that the autopsy is done to examine the condition of particular organs and to ascertain the cause of death. Now I know that dead bodies are severed, raped and humiliated, intestines are ripped apart, brains are retrieved from the head, stuffed into abdomen and mixed with guts, then the body is stitched back and washed - nothing personal. And what are these poor lads expected to write in their deceitful autopsy reports afterward?<br /><br />Shock and disgust factor - it's much unlikely that an unsuspecting viewer would discover, to his horror, that the disc he was intended to watch with his wife and kids beside a Christmas tree turns out to be a graphic video manual on vivisection. This obscure item is barely available, sought by people well familiar with the subject and not easily offended. Hence it would be pointless to warn anyone to sabotage this film. They are well aware what exactly they are watching and what they want to see.<br /><br />Cerdà is really gifted and stylish director, which is clearly obvious from at least two other parts of his "trilogy" - preceding 'The Awakening', amazing black and white short, and 30-minute 'Genesis', visually stunning and moody piece with an off-beat and interesting concept. And I'm pretty sure that one day he will conquer the hearts of moviegoers with his new, more mainstream oriented, material. And sooner or later 'Aftermath' would become a rarity for the meticulous collectors of his "early" "warm-up" works.<br /><br />But in the meantime, I'm afraid, it may be recommended strictly for medical students or specialists that study mental disorders and sexual deviations.
This movie is not so good as I thought it would be. There is no story whatsoever, no characters and some dialog would have been nice. The gore effects are good and it gets quite bloody at times but nothing over the top. It starts with an autopsy on a man and when that is over the scene with the girl starts. The music is a classic score and fits the movie very well. They should have made a 90 minutes version in which they could have had some time for character development so we can feel sorry for the person on the autopsy table. And some more info about the morticians would have made this movie far scarier than it is. Don't expect a scary movie but a nice, gory special effects reel.
OK so this is about 30 minutes of gore with no story whatsoever. There is no spoken dialogue, no subtitles, not even any real characters. You see three people in the entire movie (that are alive) and two are just there for very little reason. The main guy has no emotion and just mutilates corpses for no apparent reason. That is the entire movie. I love to see very gory movies, especially since in America real gore just isn't very common in modern movies. So yeah the gore effects were pretty cool. But it just isn't really disturbing. Why does everyone think it's so disturbing? There are no characters at all, there are just 3 living people and 3 corpses. No one has any personality or back story. You see three corpses being hacked apart and you can't really identify with it unless you just identify with death itself and how this could very well happen (despite the guy losing his job and going to jail very shortly after.) To be disturbing the viewer has to care and to care they have to identify with the victim. For example in a good horror movie you should really care about the main character. Here it's just a guy and a corpse. It's as deep as a puddle made from only a single rain drop. They never give you any reason to care about anyone in the movie. All it is a guy hacking up a few bodies, then he has sex with a body. Now with the sex scene here is an odd thing about it, he makes sure to wear gloves but doesn't use a condom. So he couldn't care less about catching some weird STD from having sex with a corpse but as long as his hands don't get messy there is no problem, now that is really logical. I don't really dislike the movie, I liked that it was very gory but when it ends there is no reason to watch it again, no reason to even care, and it just isn't a very compelling movie. I say if you can find it for under 10 dollars then you might as well get it but if it's more than that it just isn't worth it.
Honestly - this short film sucks. the dummy used in the necro scene is pretty well made but still phony enough looking to ruin the viewing experience. the Unearthed DVD is crisp and clear and I haven't made up my mind if this helps or hinders it. If the film was a little grainy it might have added some "creepiness factor" to what was going on. I have no idea why this film has so much hype surrounding it other than the subject matter - but to be honest the necrophilia scenes in films like NEKROMANTIK and VISITOR Q among others, are more shocking than in AFTERMATH. All this talk about the film being about loneliness and all other manner of deep philosophy is bull****. This is an expensive, beautifully filmed turd. It's not that shocking, it's not that disgusting. if you insist on viewing it - rent it. I give it a 3 for the fact that not many people make explicit movies about necrophilia (there should definitely be a bigger selection for us sickos ;) - the filming is good and it does have some "gore" (if watching a rubbery looking doll get cut open is considered gore...) but other than that - absolutely nothing going for this over-hyped mess. On the other hand - GENESIS - Cerda's "sequel" to AFTERMATH (now available as a "double feature" released by Unearthed films) is an absolute masterpiece of a short film, really showing what a good director Cerda really is when given the right material. Although I don't care for AFTERMATH at all, GENESIS is so well made that I will forgive Cerda and Definitely keep an eye out for him in the future...
As a serious marathoner, I was seriously disappointed in this film. Its target audience is clearly those who have never run a marathon, or novice marathoners. Following the stories of 2 first-time marathoners, one senior, one injured runner, and two elites as they prepare for the Chicago marathon, the film dedicates the majority of its attention to one female beginner whose story is, for lack of a better word, boring. While I did enjoy the brief glimpses into the training sessions of Deena Kastor, the brief history of the Boston marathon and marathoning in general, let me emphasize: These were brief!! Watching some Joe Runners prepare for a Saturday run with their water bottles and talking about how they view the marathon is not inspiring, and the nonstop clichés about achievement and feel-good grinning runners will make you wish the film were about an hour shorter. If you are a first-time marathoner, this film may give you a feeling of "I can do it." For anyone else, run away.
I saw this movie with a friend who ran a marathon with me, and we both had the same feeling about it: it wasn't terribly motivating, and didn't even broach the idea of what a training schedule would look like, so that non-marathoners could have an idea of what it would take for them to train and run one. In fact there was almost zero technical information at all. I didn't expect this to be a tech-heavy instructional video, but when that info was near zero then the film just wasn't balanced, and wasn't particularly useful to non-marathoners contemplating their first run.<br /><br />There were other problems. Some of the very first images were people collapsing near death while trying to run a race. Yeah, real inspiring. The timing was also hard to follow, because it was semi chronological, but the filmmakers rarely gave you any good clues as to what point in time you were looking at. And they withheld information. You see that Kantor has an injury, and you just assume it's from all her training, but then several scenes later they finally clue you in that it's because she tripped over a pine cone in her yard.<br /><br />Some parts were very good, though, like the bit about a woman defying race officials who wanted the run to be men-only, and the coverage of a Chicago race where two of the runners portrayed earlier were vying for first place.<br /><br />Off the top of my head, I'm thinking of other chronological documentaries, like Supersize Me, and Grass, where you always know where you are, and you feel like they told you everything you wanted to know.<br /><br />In short, it wouldn't have been hard to make a better marathon film, and as it stands I can't recommend this to non-marathoners to educate and motivate them to try one, because I don't think it will have that effect.
I'm a fan of the old SCTV show from the late 70's and early 80's and John Candy was a major reason why. He was given very funny off the wall characters and was simply hilarious. Unfortunately he could not get these roles to play in the movies. Time after time I was disappointed by the mediocre movies in which he was almost playing the "straight" role instead of the funny guy. "Armed and Dangerous" rarely tries to use John's comedic abilities, or that of Harold Ramis, for that matter. It is simply a very predictable cops and robbers type of movie. If you are a John Candy or Harold Ramis fan the movie is watchable, just don't expect to laugh much.
It's really too bad that John Candy wasted his skills on so many horrible films (Delirious, Wagons East, Who's Harry Crumb?, etc.. This one has maybe a few chuckles, but it's mostly just really bad one-liners and dumb physical stuff. Let's honor this comedian's memory by remembering things like Planes, Trains & Automobiles and Uncle Buck.
John Candy and Eugene Levy star as inept security guards who chase down a big time mobster. Inept is truly the right word for this alleged comedy...a few laughs but mostly groans and thoughts to yourself like "why am I watching this c**p?" Yes that is Meg Ryan in this too..which i am sure she doesnt want to be reminded of..a waste of a talented cast..on a scale of one to ten ..0
ARMED AND DANGEROUS is not one of the greats of John Candy. This film about a fired cop who ends up working for a small security system run by the mob is very weak and not very much a comedy. There are some moments that I did enjoy, like looking at Candy in a pilot suit, but it doesn't seem to matter much. ARMED AND DANGEROUS is still a dangerously disappointing dud brought to us by the director of the equally dumb actioner COMMANDO. What a sad excuse for a comedy!<br /><br />1 out of 5
i didn't hate this one. i just couldn't adapt to the story. it didn't really grab me. Michael Mann is a very good director but i have to disagree with his methods in this. i'm also a fan of Daniel Day Lewis. some projects he's been in are pretty rubbish but his acting is brilliant. my favourite Daniel Day Lewis films are There Will Be Blood and Gangs Of New York.<br /><br />there is one thing i loved about this and that was the musical score, it gave the film a lot of atmosphere. thats about all i liked in it though. this film has a high vote as well which is a bit random. i can see that a fair few people will like this but not enough to make the overall rating 7.8.<br /><br />i would give this film a miss if i was you but there is a lot of high votes for this so i guess you should watch it and make your own views on what you think. i didn't really like it............. 4/10.............j.d Seaton
Personally, I didn't really gain a whole lot from THE ACT OF SEEING WITH ONE'S OWN EYES. I've noticed a lot of really highly rated reviews on here for the film, and I'm kinda surprised. Maybe I missed something that other reviewers felt "moved" by but I found the film pretty tedious and basically pointless.<br /><br />The "action" of the film is a bunch of autopsy footage that is filmed in an "art-house" style - lots of extreme close-ups, weird editing, etc...and with no sound or dialogue.<br /><br />I guess THE ACT OF SEEING WITH ONE'S OWN EYES could be considered a study of human anatomy, or maybe (if you really wanna dig a little) some sort of comment on the fragility of humanity or whatever - but I personally found it to be a bunch of semi-interesting but ultimately dull autopsy footage. If that's your thing, then this will be a winner for you. As for me - I've seen more interesting ER footage. Not a "bad" film, as it isn't really a "film" in any traditional sense - I just found nothing really notable about it - 4/10.
Eaten Alive follows a young woman (Janet Agren) who searches for her lost sister. Turns out her sister have joined a sect that has disappeared into the jungles of Borneo. With Vietnam veteran Mark at her side she sets off to find her sister.<br /><br />As per usual, the acting isn't of the highest quality but you do get cannibal flick poster girl Me Me Lai spending most of the time on screen with her breast bare, female lead Janet Agren covered in gold paint and abused with a dildo dipped in snake blood among other things. Now that's gotta count for something! <br /><br />But, I must say that I find it bit hard to recommend this title. If you are fan of the genre, you will most likely recognize every gore scene in the movie bar a select few. And I mean that literally. A lot of the gore scenes are lifted straight out other Cannibal movies, like MAN FROM DEEP RIVER and LAST CANNIBAL WORLD. There's probably more movies stuck in there.<br /><br />Ultimately, this is one for die-hard fans to check off their list. If you haven't seen any Italian jungle movies, you'd be better off watching CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST and if you're an avid fan, you have seen most of the gore scenes in other movies.
One IMDb reviewer calls Eaten Alive a passable film for the "cannibal connoisseur." Are there such people? I didn't know. But if you are one of them, hey, have a ball. The rest of you might find this tripe a bit hard to swallow (pun intended), even if, like me, you consider yourself a horror film connoisseur. I have been an avid horror fan for about 15 years now, although I never got around to the cannibal subgenre until a few weeks ago, and I guess I owe my short-lived interest in these groan-inducing movies, strangely enough, to China's total disregard for copyright laws. You see, I bought a two-disc DVD collection of all of Wesley Snipes' films for 20 yuan (about $2.75), which turned out to include Last Cannibal World, Mountain of the Cannibal God, Eaten Alive, Cannibal Holocaust, Next, with Nicholas Cage, and something called Voodoo Lagoon, along with Blade 1-3, in Chinese. Nice.<br /><br />Being a second sequel, I immediately got a sinking feeling when the movie opened with a cannibal in street clothes wandering around major American cities, shooting unsuspecting Americans with poison darts and then scrambling away at full speed. Having run out of ways to keep movie cannibals scary, it seems that now they have made their way to the mainland. Later, you may be shocked to learn that this guy is on a "training exercise." Lock up your daughters! <br /><br />Before long the movie settles into the old missing sister routine, as a young blonde woman named Sheila begins her own investigation of the disappearance of her sister, who looks nothing like her in any way, but she's willing to spend most of the movie naked so I guess that doesn't matter. It seems that, after shooting one of his victims, the hapless cannibal we met early in the movie, not used to big city life, ran into the road and was struck dead by a moving van. <br /><br />The brilliant police force find a mysterious bit of film on him showing Sheila's sister involved in some bizarre ritual behavior, but other than the film, the guy is a complete mystery. As the piteous police chief laments, "we know nothing about him except that he's dead!" Poor guy, he must be getting a headache from all this. I recommend a nap. Luckily, Sheila is the kind of girl who can throw around tens of thousands of dollars like it's nothing in the search for her sister. Perfect for hiring a plucky backwoods guide caricature, since the police are clearly going to be no help.<br /><br />Obviously, nothing new is added to this miniscule sub-genre. Quite the contrary, cannibalism almost seems like a background to a completely different kind of bad movie, about the rescue of a missing person from the dangerous elements. Thickening the plot of that clothesline is not difficult, all you have to do is add in a cartoonish jungle cult of people who follow some guy who calls himself Jonas, who believes in using pain as a way to reunite man with nature, a process they call "purification." Personally, I prefer just peeing outside occasionally.<br /><br />One of my favorite parts of the movie is when Sheila is caught by one of the cult members - an overweight guy who looks like he took a three-day weekend from the office to appear in this movie. As he pulls out his trusty medical kit to give her an injection, he warns her, "If you don't believe in Jonas and purification (through pain), God help you." He then gives her a shot and, when she winces from the tiny pinch, he politely apologizes to her. I sense a true believer in this guy!<br /><br />As far as the gore, there are plenty of nasty sound effects over random shots of animals getting slaughtered and more than enough disgusting footage of women being cut up and eaten alive, so I guess right there the movie lives up to its name. The acting is astonishingly bad, as can be expected, and interestingly enough, the editing is also spectacularly botched but still strangely effective. <br /><br />Unfortunately, I think you have to be able to relate to people who believe in utterly insane cults in order to relate to anyone in the movie. There are plenty of outlandish religious ceremonies that take place, which make it more and more difficult to understand why Sheila's sister decided to turn her back on normal society. I'm all for individualism and doing your own thing, but come ON. <br /><br />After a while the movie descends even further into your basic, run of the mill escape movie, just before we witness the most wildly inappropriate rendition of Glory, Glory Hallelujah in film history. WOW. <br /><br />Note: in this movie, a woman is raped with a severed snake. If you need any more reason never to watch it, seek professional help. Avoid this mess at all costs.
Eaten Alive is a little film that opens in New York city and the arctic where tribe men shoot snake venom at a few people,then a woman enters the police precinct who's trying to find her sister that has disappeared after 6 months Sheila is from Alabama,but her accent sucks,she is teamed up with an adventurer who seems to just want her money and seems to say it a lot throughout the film.They venture through the amazon only to find a community with people and they find the sister,they're confronted by a mad man who has probably seen one too many Jim Jones preaches.He will bring them to a better place,it could be heaven but no,Mark and Sheila find out later its actually a suicide cult.<br /><br />Why do I call Eaten Alive a "little film"? Ill tell you but when I watched it,I was floored through all the run ins with the cannibals,Robert Kerman has a different role than his professor in Cannibal Holocaust.He's a bit annoying,once we meet him at an arm wrestling match that looked like Russian roulette we know hes one tough guy.Plus the strong misogyny just makes you cringe and it looked like I saw it somewhere,oh the scenes of animals killing each other.But the whole film revolves on those scenes,its like were actually watching a images of nature with parts of a film But after watching this film I realized that most of the films scenes are taken from other cannibal films,even the demise of 2 of the characters,well..most of the film is.That's why I call this a little film,when I did found out that scenes were borrowed I felt like throwing the disc across the room,this isn't a film just a simple montage of sorts .
An Asian blowgun assassin takes out victims in Niagara Falls and New York City before getting run over by a car. Sheila Morris (former Miss Sweden Janet Agren, given a hilarious "Southern belle" dub to show she's from Alabama) finds a connection between these killings and the disappearance of her sister Diana (Paola Senatore) and sets out to investigate. This brings her to New Guinea where she promises a sleazy guide (Robert Kerman i.e. American porn star R. Bolla) 80,000 dollars to help locate her sister. After barely making it through a jungle full of bloodthirsty cannibals, they finally locate Diana, who's under the control of Jim Jones-type cult leader Jonas Melvyn (Ivan Rassimov). Jonas does the typical mad guru-style things, like passing out LSD, initiating group suicide, threatening to kill anyone who disobeys him and raping Agren with a giant dong dipped in cobra blood. Every once in awhile a character will look to the right or left and see a gory scene lifted directly from JUNGLE HOLOCAUST or MAN FROM DEEP RIVER (both of which were also directed by Lenzi). I'm pretty sure they also use at least two scenes from CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST as well. Here we get the expected animal slaughter scenes (gutting a gator; natives eating live snakes), plus some additional nudity and a castration. Me Me Lai shows up to give her breast implants another workout playing a widow who is gang banged by three of her brother in laws on top of the ashes of her freshly cremated husband. Mel Ferrer briefly appears as a professor and isn't given much to do.<br /><br />So anyway, with MANGIATI VIVI! you pretty much get a promise fulfilled with all the nudity, gore, dead animals and bad taste you expect with one of these titles, so if you're a sleaze hound, by all means watch it. Personally, I got bored with it about midway through and just wanted it to end. The original (heavily cut) U.S. release in 1985 was titled THE EMERALD JUNGLE in order to trick people into thinking they were actually renting John Boorman's EMERALD FOREST. It was also called DOOMED TO DIE and EATEN ALIVE BY CANNIBALS!
I love Umberto Lenzi's cop movies -- ROME ARMED TO THE TEETH is my favorite -- and his DESERT COMMANDOS pretty much legitimized the Italian Euro War phenomenon by managing to actually be a pretty good movie. Give him guns, machines, some guys to run around talking tough and it's hard for him to miss.<br /><br />What a shame it is then to encounter his EATEN ALIVE and CANNIBAL FEROX. They could have been by anybody, really, and one watches them with a sense that he was under contract, was told what kind of films to make, was assigned a cast & crew and given a budget, deadline and script. Lenzi then went out and executed his films the same way that a guy at McDonald's fixes a batch of French Fries. Of the two, EATEN ALIVE is the more original -- which is kind of amazing considering that it features extensive footage copped from three other cannibal movies -- and easier to enjoy than CANNIBAL FEROX, though not much.<br /><br />I will let others outline the plot: What fascinated me about the film is how staged it all looks, and yet what a somewhat infamous reputation this film has as some sort of all-out assault on good taste. It isn't, though the film is an exercise in bad taste, complete with a title-earning scene where two of the pretty supporting ladies are quite literally sliced up and eaten alive by cannibals which is the film's high point. The problem is that Lenzi lets us get a good, long look at the cannibal feast scene and it has the convincing ring of a 3rd season STAR TREK episode complete with a fake jungle set for the really gory close up shots. And I don't know about anyone else, but if someone was slicing off pieces of my person and eating them I wouldn't just lie there and look distressed.<br /><br />My problem with the film might be that I have a lot of respect for Lenzi as a filmmaker, and again this could have been directed by anybody. All of your cannibal movie conventions are touched on but it never feels like they are filmed with any real conviction, other than to try and bully Ruggero Deodato out of the sandbox. The two directors certainly must have known each other and either had a sort of juvenile rivalry or an actual dislike for each other's work and a conscious need to upstage them. Lenzi invented the cannibal genre with MAN FROM DEEP RIVER, Deodato blew it away with JUNGLE HOLOCAUST, Lenzi fired back with EATEN ALIVE, Deodato blew him (and everyone else) away with the superior CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, and Lenzi fired a last parting salvo with CANNIBAL FEROX, which is about as realistic as that Krazy Glu commercial where the guy superglues his hardhat to a girder and hangs in midair.<br /><br />This film is less desperate and a bit more hesitant to push viewers into the abyss with everything holy than FEROX, which remains as a sort of misguided attempt to upstage CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST. This one is more of a mish-mash, with an interesting jungle adventure crossed with a Jim Jones like suicide cult -- the cannibals seem like they were added as an afterthought rather than the reason for making the film. I think that fans of the genre will have a better impression of the film than fans of Lenzi's films looking for something new by the formidable director. It isn't as entertaining as SLAVE OF THE CANNIBAL GOD, adventurous as his own MAN FROM DEEP RIVER and certainly lacks the wallop of CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST. Combine those considerations with the recycled footage, stomach churning scenes of animal violence, misogynistic scenes of sexual violence and stagy, wooden methodology of film-making and what you get ends up being an OK jungle thriller with two or three standout scenes, and Umberto Lenzi was capable of so much more.<br /><br />4/10; Gore freaks will go nuts however.
Largely forgettable tale in which mercenary Kerman & employer Agren travel into the jungle in search of Agren's missing sister.<br /><br />Despite its connection to the cannibal movie family, this film is more of an extreme version of Rene Cardona's "Guyana - Crime of the Century". Lenzi clearly aims to exploit the (at that time) topical Jonestown massacre, by depicting a rogue, self righteous zealot with a penchant for bigamy and just a hint of megalomania (played with ruthless intensity by Ivan Rassimov) leading his motley crew flock into self inflicted oblivion. With sister in toe, Kerman & Agren attempt to stop the rot, but after several failed coups, they end up fleeing into the "Green Inferno", only to run afoul the locals and their notorious appetites.<br /><br />One in a string of excessive gore fests that emerged in the late seventies/early eighties, where every new addition seemed to engage in a one-upmanship contest with its predecessor, by attempting to contrive the most gory and graphic display ever brought to motion pictures. This inferior instalment employs all the motifs and gimmicks of the others, but with much less success.<br /><br />Was it the so called "Amazonian natives" who looked like they were Bollywood rejects (this film was made on location in Sri Lanka), or the inept "decapitation" and "castration" scenes that seriously diminished the authenticity that was apparent in "Cannibal Holocaust"? You can decide. Without spoiling the conclusion, it appeared as though Lenzi put more emphasis in his shock and awe climax than in the basic requirement for a cohesive ending, where all loose ends are resolved. Most unsatisfying.<br /><br />As with the others, where the extent of the graphic depictions of violence toward humans is limited (thankfully), the filmmakers have spared no extreme in inflicting the worst possible cruelty on hapless animals in their pursuit of the most sadistic shocks. Unfortunately, the only thing shocking about this film is that it rates a mention among others of the ilk, that deal with the subject matter more convincingly.<br /><br />If there are any redeemable features at all, Kerman is an affable if somewhat one-dimensional leading man, and his bevy of scantily clad co-stars (Agren, Lai and Senatore) provide some visual respite from the relentless slayings.
Eaten Alive plays out like a bad rehearsal for the following year's Cannibal Ferox. The characters are universally bland, the locations are criminally under-utilized, there's no attempt to create tension or suspense, the physical effects are either laughably bad or shamelessly stolen from other movies, and the ubiquitous tribal rape scenes are barely worthy of a PG-13. Even the scenes of animal 'cruelty' are more tedious than usual. The only mildly shocking scene involves crazy Jonas, going a bit Goldfinger, wielding a blood soaked dildo; a scene that is just plain bizarre rather than graphic. My beloved wife, she of the 'Romeo and Juliet Collector's Edition', watched this movie without so much as a wince of disgust! And it calls itself a Cannibal movie! All-in-all, a pretty lame effort that thoroughly betrays the Cannibal tradition. Cannibal Ferox, Luci's follow-up, is a far superior example of the genre.
"Eaten Alive" goes down much easier than Ruggero Deodato's "Cannibal Holocaust," but it's also a far more sillier film. I mean, at times it can be unintentionally hilarious, but the plot is so mind-numbingly idiotic that it was impossible for me not to lose all patience by the end. Tough guy Robert Kerman (Cannibal Holocaust) teams up with Janet Agren (The Gates of Hell; here with an intolerable accent) to search the jungles of New Guinea for Agren's sister, who's been brainwashed by the leader of a religious cult (Ivan Rassimov). Along the way, they fall witness to (sometimes real) animal torture and some cheesily rendered cannibalism. As directed by Umberto Lenzi, the movie is so over-the-top it's hard to take seriously, but if you enjoy trash cinema with more than a few unintentional laughs, it's not bad.<br /><br />4/10
A snore gore. I saw this piece of horrible, stinking, worthless, junk at the Cameo Movie House (Now the famous Crobar Night-club)on Washington Avenue on South Beach in 1980 or 81. I was 17, and my three buddies and I laughed at this horrible, gross, piece of trash. The theater was on it's last legs and there were mostly drunks snoring and sleeping in the place. They didn't miss a darn thing. The Worst acting ever.These actors deserve the Academy Award for the worst, and I mean worst acting roles in the history of the cinema. Joke was, the theater was showing another Mi Mi Lay(A great name at least!) stinker...barf city. Enough said. If you're under 12 years old you might get a few chills. Over 12, you will be snoring after the opening credits. It's just amazing that anyone spent a cent on making this movie. And to think, it's considered a "cult" classic. YUK!!!!
This movie contains real animals been killed, like a monkey been eaten by a snake and an crocible been cut open. I find this totally deranged and sick, and seriously question the mental health of the director of this trash.<br /><br />This movie is so stupid and daft, that it has no logic at all.<br /><br />There is a lot of boobs and sex in this movie, still don't bother viewing this trash for that, if you want to see boobs and sex, watch a porno instead. There is also rape scenes in this movie, which i found disgusting, like women been raped and cut up, and eaten. This movie is for sadists and those who get their kicks, seeing people been cut up and eaten.<br /><br />A lot of the animals, like the monkey that appeared in this movie, there is none in the jungles of New Guinea. The local characters, most of them appeared to be Asian and none look like they come from New Guinea. It looks like, this movie was made around the grounds of a resort, which i bet it was.<br /><br />Stay away from this trash, its sick and deranged.
Umberto Lenzi hits new lows with this recycled trash. Janet Agren plays a lady who is looking for her missing sister. It turns out the sister is part of a Jim Jones type religous cult in New Guinea. She hires a scruffy guide played by Robert Kerman to help her get to the cult's compound located in the jungle. This is another (!) cannibal movie, and I probably would have liked it if not for Lenzi padding this film out with scenes from his superior "The Man from Deep River." I mean every cannibal scene is directly lifted from this film, which I guess makes him about as credible as Al Adamson. I felt ripped off. ***SPOILER*** 1/2 star and that's for the dildo scene.
Why is it that in the '50s and '60s, Italians made so of the best movies, and then during the '70s and '80s, made nothing but zombie and cannibal movies? Probably because art films didn't make any money. , The Cannibal Movie, unlike the Zombie Movie, which was created by Americans and `exploited' by Italians, is a purely Italian creation, designed as a mondo exploitation showcase, and to make as much money as possible (no artistic integrity getting in the way here). Eaten Alive came during the Cannibal Movie heyday. The director, Umberto Lenzi, hadn't even hit his stride yet; his genre classic, Cannibal Ferox, was still a year away.<br /><br />In plotting similar to (read: ripped off from) Ruggero Deodato's seminal cannibal classic, Cannibal Holocaust, a woman (Janet Agren) receives word from the police that they've received a 8mm film from her sister. She's gone missing in Africa, and it's suspected that the tribal ritual depicted on the film may have something to do with it. Mel Ferrer, as a Professor of Somethingoranother, tells her that a man named Jonas (Ivan Rassimov) has started a Jonestown-like cult in New Guinea, and that's where the sister is. The woman hires a guide (Robert Kerman) to take her through the jungle to find the cult and her sister. And, wouldn't you know it, the jungle is full of cannibals. <br /><br />One sentence should sum it up: if you've seen on Cannibal Movie, you've seen them all, mostly because these films steal shamelessly from each other (Lenzi copied Cannibal Holocaust to make this film, and retooled this to make Cannibal Ferox; Deodato copied parts of this for Hit and Run). And because they all share the same material, they all feature the same traits: awful photography, boring scenery, terrible dubbing, overacting, and exploitation, exploitation, exploitation. Genre fans will have a ball since everyone in it is a genre veteran. Rassimov and Kerman have a scenery eating contest. Agren exists solely to be naked, raped, or in peril. Plenty o' gore for all the sickos out there. The cannibals, who do actually appear to be native cannibals, eat lunch met disguised as human flesh. And, in the grand tradition of Cannibal Movies, any live animal shown onscreen is usually killed shortly thereafter. Overall, really not a good experience, but I'm sure there are psychopaths out there who find this excrement entertaining. I know I did.
I recently viewed a copy of this (under the title 'Eaten Alive') Talk about dreadful! Any movie Ed Wood ever put out looks like Oscar material compared to this laughable tosh. To be fair a couple of lines from the script will live long in the memory such as "These people (Cannibals) don't buy frozen meat from a supermarket like us, they get it fresh everyday from folk like you or me" Classic! The mad 'Jonesville' type leader out in the jungle was the best character in the film, he really did look like a nutter. I think he was the only actor not to be dubbed in (badly), if these Italians must have American characters in their films why dont they get Americans to dub in the dialogue instead of English people trying their best to sound like Annie Oakley. I'll give this 3 out of 10, I'll give it three because it really is funnier than most comedies out these days.
Uuuuaaa! Barf! Yuk! Yuk! Disgusting! Puke City! Worst piece of junk ever made. Sick. Weird. Horrible. Enough said. Hold your nose. Don't eat. After seeing this sick, demented, garbage pail of a movie, you won't be able to eat your food for a week. But, maybe that's good. A new diet has been invented. Go to see this vomit inducing film. Get sick to your stomach. And you will be so turned off by the whole mess, that you can't eat for at least a week, and you drop about 15 pounds.<br /><br />Me Me Lay! With a name like this, it's really amazing that she doesn't have a "cult" fan following. She rates as the worst actress ever. Her films make Ed Woods look like Gone With The Wind. This movie rates a minus 10.
***SPOILERS*** This movie - called EATEN ALIVE here in the UK is quite possibly the worst film ever made and is brilliant just for that. A sexy rich girl teams up with a rugged action man to search for her sister in the New Guinea jungle. What follows is an unspeakably crap mixture of cannibalism, insane cults and religious maniacs that has to be seen to be believed. The cannibalism scenes are quite horrific but are so badly staged and acted that they prove quite amusing. The cast are awful except for Janet Agren as the female lead who is excellent. Look out for the scene where she is stripped naked and covered with gold paint! My rating - 1 out of 10.
The only reason I checked this film out was to see the "early" Kim Bassinger. That, and the fact that my TV guide said it was a "gripping suspense", and it was three-star rated. The rating must have come from the man who wrote this drivel because the only suspense in this movie was whether I would finish it or not. Robert Culp turns in what has to be the "disaster" of his career as a cop who is not even close to being believeable. At one point, EVERYBODY is a suspect, including a frail old woman. If you want to deliberately set out to watch a badly written, badly directed, badly acted movie...then go for it. It may make you appreciate fine films by comparison. I wish I had that hour and thirty six minutes back.
You would think that a film that starred three of the biggest male film stars of the post World War II era would have become a classic. These three who also happen to be three favorites of mine, walk around in a daze, looking like they'd rather be any place, but there.<br /><br />The sad thing is that The Way West definitely had some potential to be a classic. In these days of political correctness, a film about American pioneers and the travails of their westward migration is something not done now. It should have been better done back then.<br /><br />Kirk Douglas is a former United States Senator who's heading a wagon train west to build a settlement in Oregon's Willamette Valley. Being he's an ex-politician, he rates above the hoi ploi he's leading. The script calls for him to have not only a covered wagon, but a carriage to lead the train.<br /><br />You think that's ludicrous, you ought to see the whipping scene where Douglas orders his black servant, played by Roy Glenn to whip him. I won't spoil it by saying what causes Douglas to demand this of Glenn, but trust me, it's bad.<br /><br />Robert Mitchum is the trail guide and of the three stars he looks the most bored. There was supposed to be considerable friction on the set between Widmark and Douglas, but Mitchum just saunters through the film above it all.<br /><br />Maybe the friction helped somewhat because the movie calls for Douglas, a widower, to have an eye on Mrs. Widmark, played by Lola Albright. Now she's the best looking thing in the movie.<br /><br />The film billing says introducing Sally Field. This was made in between her Gidget and her Flying Nun days. She plays a piece of white southern trash with the musical comedy name of Mercy McBee. We first see her in the movie sitting on the back of her parents wagon, legs akimbo and inviting. Of course she gets taken up on her invitation.<br /><br />Her character is something like what's found in every trailer park in America and then again what was a wagon train, but one large trailer park on the move. <br /><br />Despite this film, Sally Field went on to a two Oscar career. What that woman had to overcome.<br /><br />Victor McLaglen's son Andrew directed this item and together with a lousy script turned this into a turgid mess. Shame on Andrew McLaglen, he's certainly done better in his career.<br /><br />And so will you, unless you're a stargazer.
While not truly terrible, this movie is still largely a waste of time, and paints an incredibly inaccurate and revisionist picture of Beach Boys history.<br /><br />Basically, this movie would have you believe that Mike Love was the brains behind the band and Brian Wilson was just a pathetic psycho. In fact, none of the characters is developed beyond a one-dimensional parody, but this is a TV movie so what do you expect? Mike Love's foul stench is all over this turkey as he attempts to re-write history with himself in the role of band figurehead and resident genius. Yeah, as if...<br /><br />On the plus side, the music is excellent. Unlike the previous Beach Boys made-for-TV bio-pic "Summer Dreams", this movie actually features real Beach Boys music, rather than anemic cover versions...Also, it features a surprising number of Beach Boys-related rarities and seldom-heard tracks - The Sunrays "I Live for the Sun" being but one example.<br /><br />This movie was originally shown in two parts on American network TV. Part one is the superior of the two and documents the Boys early days and rise to the top. By the time part two rolls around, the Brian Wilson character has become a mere cartoon and the actor seems to be playing for laughs - but how could anyone take this crap seriously? If you're not a Beach Boys fan you probably won't get much out of this movie except an extremely warped and one-sided view of the band's history. But then again, why would you watch this if you weren't a fan?
Another movie that makes the story of The Beach Boys worse than it is. I especially remember the scene when Brian says he's to quit touring and the other Boys calls him traitor. I didn't happen like that, and like the movie indicates in the beginning is that some scenes are over-reacted. A movie about The Beach Boys doesn't have to be that way because a lot of things happened anyway. The sad thing is that this movie gives the wrong picture about the boys to those who ain't so familiar with the group. Hard-core fans like myself knew that this isn't the entire true story and that's why i gave it a low rating 3. However it is the best movie about The Beach Boys I've seen so far, that says quite a bit about the other movies. If you want the truth I recommend the documentary Endless Harmony.
I love the beach boys and their music. So, being that I am a filmmaker, I thought, wow, a Beach Boys Movie sounds great. Well, WRONG! I just actually turned off HDNET, the channel the movie was playing on, because it was so bad. Someone above mentioned about editing... well, they should have at least looked at the monitors while they were filming. I don't know if anyone else caught the mustache falling off the face of one of the guys after he kissed his wife and then he smoothed it back on with his hands. Ever heard of re-taking a scene! Acting was terrible. Direction was terrible. Make-Up was TERRIBLE!!! Possibly the worst make-up job I have ever seen. Brian Wilson's "fat" cheek's looked like pl-ado. <br /><br />This is honestly the first time I have ever commented on IMDb, and I know it really doesn't make a difference... but come on, what the hell were the producers thinking?!?!!?
Just finished watching this movie as it were playing on TV and I did'nt have anything else to do. Went right here to IMDb too look on the trivia page and happened to glance at the user comments. And what do I find? Every dumb idiot raises this movie to the sky! I would'nt even have written anything but when no one else takes the time to spread the word about this suck-ass movie I thought that I could.<br /><br />The acting sucked from pretty much everyone in the cast. The worst one was the guy playing Brian Wilson (think I got the name right) as he were overacting, especially when he was high. The rest was'nt as bad as him but no one was good neither. I ain't no expert on the beach boys though so cant really complain on the story that much.... except it sucked though. No motivation for any of the characters decisions most of the time but hey, maybe they were idiots in real life to. And what I found worst was that I thought it were going to be a movie about the beach boys, but you really only got a grip about a few of the characters. I hate when they do that in movies, same thing in the doors, even though I like that movie more. Don't have any energy left to write more... it sucked! don't buy or watch it!
Marked for Death (1990) spends more time on action sequences, than it does with focusing on its characters. After his first two impressive efforts, Above the Law (1988) and Hard to Kill (1989), this third Steven Seagal picture makes the idea clear: anyone who opposes him is meant to look like a fool; the bad guys are just there to make him look good.<br /><br />Seagal had been steadily building an audience that seemed a bit larger than those that follow the kick-'em-up antics of Chuck Norris or Jean Claude Van Damme.<br /><br />In Marked for Death, Seagal tosses aside any pretense at style and heads full throttle into exploitation. This film contains loads of graphic violence, gore and nudity that seem to be there for no reason other than to please rowdy moviegoers, who are unable to distinguish between action pictures that tell a story and those that simply pour on the thrills without rhyme or reason. And he deserves some real blame for this lapse in taste as a producer of "Marked for Death."<br /><br />Seagal plays John Hatcher, a retired DEA agent who comes home to Chicago, where his family is being attacked by a Jamaican street gang, who attack his sister's house, and the film proves that it isn't squeamish when Hatcher's niece (Danielle Harris) is shot in the crossfire. Hatcher gets mad, and he decides to team up with his old friend, Max (Keith David), a school gym teacher, and Charles (Tom Wright), a Jamaican cop.<br /><br />Naturally, Hatcher declares war on the chief bad guy, a dread-locked Jamaican voodoo priest called Screwface (Basil Wallace), a nickname that apparently means "outrageous overacting." <br /><br />And it is almost unbelievable in the way Seagal picks off various members of the gang: he gouges one guy's eyeball, he breaks a guy's back, and he breaks numerous arms and limbs.<br /><br />All logic for this movie is thrown out the window- -through the glass, that is. Why aren't Hatcher and friends indicted for all the property damage they cause or the body count that piles up? And how did they get their cache of automatic weapons from Illinois to Jamaica by plane without being detected? <br /><br />Seagal has a Clint Eastwood stoicism about him that fans once seemed to enjoy, and despite the three different characters he's played in as many films, each dresses in Oriental black bathrobes, and wears a ponytail. One of the problems that I have with some of Seagal's movies is that the main characters never seem to be in serious jeopardy, and because he's the star, of course, no one can lay a glove on him, except for the bad guy.<br /><br />Seagal's heroes are all interchangeable, as are most of the plot lines and action sequences. Regardless of whether he's masquerading as a ship's cook, a fire fighter, or an L.A. cop wearing love beads, Seagal is always Seagal, which is exactly what his fans want. In fact, the sameness of these films is such that, if I wanted to, I could take an old review, change the names, and have a reasonably accurate take on the new movie. Not that I'd ever really do that...
So Seagal plays a DEA detective named John Hatcher who lost his partner on a drug investigation into, surprise surprise, Colombia! Not to brag or anything, but my father was born and raised in Colombia (hence my last name), and now he's a doctor in California, so no matter what the movies would have you believe, there are some things other than drug dealers and cocaine that come out of Colombia!<br /><br />At any rate, in a drug bust gone bad, Hatcher loses his partner and accidentally kills a naked Colombian prostitute, inspiring him to go to confession, somewhere that I have never seen him go before in any of his movies, before or since. It was actually pretty interesting. Seagal has a tendency to come off as almost asexual the way he never gets much involved with women other than as a plot device and the way the occasional seduction attempt, whether by a stripper or by a lover, never piques the slightest bit of interest from him. He's all get-the- bad-guys all the time. <br /><br />But in the confession booth, he confesses to having lied, sold drugs, falsified evidence, and even slept with informants in order to get the information he needed to put the bad guys behind bars (I hope I'm not getting in trouble with God by telling you this…). The priest tells him to go to his family, so he decides it's time to retire from the force. <br /><br />The next third of the movie is an exercise in the paper-thin characterization characteristic of Seagal's films. Marked For Death is the story of Seagal against a band of mystic Jamaican drug dealers, and these guys have no discretions about pushing their products in broad daylight.<br /><br />Hatcher goes back to visit his old high school coach, Max (a minimal effort by Keith David), and right in the middle of practice there are some of these dread-locked crackheads sitting right there in the bleachers peddling crack to some bookworm-looking high school girls.<br /><br />Maybe I just had a sheltered experience in high school, but I didn't know crack dealers and crackheads hung out AT SCHOOL in the MIDDLE OF THE DAY. At any rate, it's not long before Hatcher learns how evil these guys are. They're not just peddling crack to high school kids, but the coach has been losing football players regularly to their drugs, they engage in smartass stare-downs with Max, and since that's not enough, his 13-year-old niece died in their crackhouse.<br /><br />Ah, OK. We get the picture. I'm sure they also torture puppies and beat up old women, and maybe steal candy from children too, just for good measure. Is it really this hard to establish who the bad guys are? 13-year-old niece died in their crackhouse. Wow.<br /><br />Anyway. Not only does the movie not know how to develop villains without resorting to what basically boils down to movie name-calling, where evil deeds are shallowly assigned to them through dialogue, but they also don't know how they should act. <br /><br />The leader of the drug dealers, is named Screwface, and I suppose that alone should tell you something about the kind of movie this is. Screwface is a cartoonish Jamaican man with these bright, bizarrely green eyes, which I am guess must be an important part of his character because he spends a good majority of his screen time with his eyes half bulging out of his head. His favorite means of intimidation is to scream really loud in his wildly overblown Jamaican accent with his face quite literally less than an inch away from whoever he's yelling at. This guy likes to get so into guys' faces that he has to turn his head to the side so their noses don't touch. All I could think about was how the poor guys would deal with his breath.<br /><br />Man, they do not want you to forget that these guys are Jamaican, by the way. Their accents are so exaggerated and overblown that for most of the movie it's nearly impossible to understand them. Not that it matters. It doesn't matter what they're saying, all you need to know is that everything that comes out of their mouths is some kind of evil drug-related thing, they're just the psychos that peddle drugs and kill people. The movie must have been a huge hit in Jamaica!<br /><br />My biggest problem with the movie is that the theatrics, particularly of the bad guys, as I've described, are spectacularly goofy, even for a Seagal film. They are so cartoonish and weird that it's impossible to take them as anything other than a goofball b-movie creation, something slapped together to provide fodder to whom Seagal can distribute his characteristic brand of smack-down retribution. <br /><br />But there is also a bizarre kind of mysticism in the movie that just makes it all come off as weird. For example, a mystic, I guess you would call her, at one point puts some kind of curse on Screwface by (if I remember correctly) spitting mouthfuls of Bacardi onto a live rooster that's hanging upside down before beheading it and dripping its blood onto a picture of Screwface. Hmm. Interesting. <br /><br />Sadly, it's this same woman that warns Hatcher that his family has been "marked for death" by these people, meaning they've got some voodoo hex on them. Not to belittle anyone, but if I was told that my family had been cursed by people like that, I would just laugh at it. Hatcher doesn't strike me as the kind of guy to take much stock in freaky voodoo curses! <br /><br />But the set-up, as you can see, is pretty standard for a Seagal film. Unique villains, I guess you could say, although not very impressive. Definitely the weirdest film of Seagal's early career…
Have you ever wondered why these guys -- Seagal, Stallone, Willis, et al -- manage to survive all those gunfights in which they're outnumbered? I think I've got it figured out. The enemies always miss, and the hero doesn't.<br /><br />Here, Seagal has a pistol and outshoots a half dozen heavies firing at him from a few feet away. One of the heavies has a shotgun. Or maybe two of them have. It doesn't really matter. There could be a thousand shotguns blasting away at him and Seagal would still emerge with his ponytail intact.<br /><br />And when it comes to mano a mano combat -- forget it. The evildoers may or may not be armed with swords or knives or blunt object but Seagal, with his skill in aikido or tempura or sushido or play-do or whatever it is, brushes them aside with a few dismissive blows. Not only is he a master of these outré skills but his physical strength is Herculean. More than once he snaps somebody's long bones as easily as we would break a toothpick. One he breaks a guy's SPINE over his knee.<br /><br />I'll tell you something. (I'm getting into the spirit of the film here because Seagal uses that line, "I'll tell you something," several times, along with, "What's that supposed to mean?") These guys are fully deserving of extinction in any good Xenophobe's handbook. They are all black, speak with unintelligible Jah-MAY-can accents, wear dreadlocks that look in dire need of a shampoo, they torture and murder with aplomb, and -- here's the worst part. They're unchristian. That's right. They practice voodoo.<br /><br />Actually the voodoo element comes close to being the most interesting element of the film. They got the constituents of the ritual pretty well -- cigar smoke, rum spitting, the sacrificial chicken. They only left out the possession dance in which the spirit rides the dancer. They should have read Metraux on voodoo.<br /><br />Otherwise the plot adheres to the usual conventions. What was done to Jaqueline Bissett by the voodoo-practitioners in "The Deep" is done here to a friend of Seagal's. What was done to John Wayne when he was stuck between trucks in "McQ" is done here to Seagal himself. At the movie's very opening, when Seagal makes a brief speech about having seen too much pointless violence in his DEA career so he's now happily retired, and when we are introduced to his friends and family, I tried to keep track of his affiliates to see if I could pick out which ones would be horribly murdered or maimed to generate his quest for revenge.<br /><br />The acting doesn't really require much comment. But Charles, the Jamaican cop, played by Tom Wright, is really pretty good. Wright has considerable range. Here, he's an associate of dubious allegiance, rather sinister. But in "The Pentagon Wars" he has a comic part that he underplays perfectly.<br /><br />The Jamaicans never flew as movie villains. I don't know why exactly. It's a small movie market. And if you go to Jamaica stick to Montego Bay. However, if you want to see Jamaican voodoo drug dealers as heavies, and if you're in the mood for another typical-standard action flick, this should be a satisfying view.
"Escape from Hell" is not made with enough artistry to disguise what it is: crass exploitation. The direction and writing are both sloppy: for example, the camera-work during the fight between Cintia Lodetti and Ajita Wilson is so bad that you can barely make out what's happening; also, if the alcoholic-but-kind-hearted doctor hadn't killed the warden, the guards would never have followed him and the girls after their escape - the "fake plague" plan had worked fine until then but he just had to ruin it. I would have given this film a 4 out of 10 (the sweaty lesbian scene is not bad and Christina Lai has an amazingly beautiful face and body), but a particularly disgusting scene of abuse forced me to cut 2 more points. Of course some sickos will take that as a recommendation. After all, one thing even more disturbing than this film is that some people actually gave it positive reviews!
OK,I've seen over 100 Troma films, and some of them are pretty bad. "Sizzle Beach U.S.A." was horrible, and "I Was A Teenage TV Terrorist" was unwatchable, but this is THE WORST FILM IN THE TROMA LIBRARY!<br /><br />A bunch of women are kept in a prison and tortured as they try to escape.<br /><br />This is really terrible. Even as exploitation films go. Doris Wishman and Hershall Gordon Lewis would probably kill the director if they saw this poor excuse for an cult film. Avoid this movie at all costs.<br /><br />
Allegedly the "true story" of Juana de Castilla, the eldest daughter of the Catholic Queen Isabella (yes, the same who funded Columbus's expedition), the film charts the progress and degeneration of her morbid obsession with her husband, the Archduke Philip of Austria, known as "The Handsome" (and played in a rather unispired manner by Italian hunk Daniele Liotti, at his most buttery and beefy here). This is a groan-inducingly familiar story of late 15th c., early 16th c. intrigue, betrayal and bodice-ripping. It drips destructive lust from start to finish. But while La Reine Margot succeeds in making cruel sensuality and ruthless, cut-throat intrigue entertaining to watch, Juana La Loca just doesn't pull off. It just ends up feeling like a big-budgeted soap opera, with below-average, lazy or over-keen acting. Liotti looks positively bored and Pilar López de Ayala in the title role – though to be fair she may mature into a proper talent – just seems to be trying too hard, switching back and fourth from two-dimensional horny-looking to spoilt teenage hysterics all the way through. Some of the supporting cast are OK, with the exception of Manuela Arcuri, another Italian pin-up, voluptuous and beautiful but really no "actress" to speak of. I couldn't in fact bring myself to feel any concern towards any character, nor for that matter did I feel strongly in a negative way against any of the supposed villains. What a waste of a substantial film budget! This one, sadly, is just so rhetorical and deja-vu, nodding to other films in the genre rather than to its source material - history - for inspiration. It seems to me that such a fascinating and complex historic era deserved a far superior film-maker to evoke it.
This film is a great disappointment. Director Vicente Aranda has provided many interesting films throughout his long career, some of them were highlighted by strong and powerful performances by Spanish actress Victoria Abril. In JUANA LA LOCA, he relies on a gifted actress as well , newcomer Pilar Lopez de Ayala, but this is barely the sole positive element in an otherwise terrible mess of a movie. While Lopez de Ayala tries hard to portray Juana as a romantic and passionate young woman, completely obsessed by love to her handsome husband, it seems as if she weren't able to develop her character over this one-dimensional feature; Juana was an important figure in Spanish history, and politics of that time were essential in her storyline... but here she's introduced as a romantic leading lady out of a soap opera; this is a real pity, and the film a missing opportunity to show the way personal lives can influence History and vice versa. Worst of all, Italian actors Daniele Liotti and Manuela Arcuri turn out in real bad performances, which, in the case of Liotti is a real problem as he portrays Felipe el Hermoso, a pivotal role in this story. It seems a clear choice to attract young audiences, as both of them look like top-models of this era. On the other hand, talented actors such as Giuliano Gemma and Rosana Pastor are completely wasted in supporting roles clearly underdeveloped. Even if this was a big-budgeted film, little care was taken in bringing a good screenplay or creating "period pieces" on the screen. Costumes are particularly grotesque in some of the group scenes, as if they were taken from stock material,without regarding of a real coherence. All in all, the main problem with JUANA LA LOCA (and this is what makes the difference with far superior historical films as LA REINE MARGOT or ELIZABETH) is the lack of a director's point of view. This a strange turn in Aranda's career, as he was able to develop it in other works (LIBERTARIAS and AMANTES come to my mind), creating very personal and interesting movies, while this JUANA really is no more than a routine academic historical piece... and a not very good one at that!
Vicente Aranda has made a terrible historical movie. It shows the poor resources of the spanish cinema. In the movie, an irreal script shows Juana just as a ninphomaniac, faced to Felipe, worried only for sex...but sex with others not with her. The technical mistakes begin with the wedding ring that shows Isabel of Castilla -Nobody noticed that?-. Then, the voice in off seems as a documentary, actors and actress in the movie sometimes laughs -take a look to the sequence when Juana arrives to the council which want to keep her isolated-; the castles are almost broken when in the age of the movie they have been recently built, crowds are just "four" people, lights are bad placed...Compared with Amelie Poulain, the french movie for the oscars...it has no sense to speak about a bad movie like Juana la loca.
What a silly movie. While it looks nice, it doesn't make a lot of sense. On the one hand, the film suggests that Juana's "madness" was that she was just a woman ahead of her time. On the other hand, she has an obsession that is right out of the worst Victorian novel of the wronged woman, and that does seem a sort of mental problem, like Miss Havesham in a castle. This movie is what Elizabeth would have been if Elizabeth had not been able to get past Essex's sexual attraction.
Even die hard John Wayne fans will have to concede that this film is a mess. Wayne's character, John Tobin is after the gang that killed his parents, led by half Apache, half white renegade Pandro Zanti (Earl Dwire), posing as a Mexican. <br /><br />There are almost too many silly plot points to count, but those that stand out include Sheriff Williams (Jack Rockwell) cuffing a captured Zanti around his boot, so all Zanti has to do to get free is remove his boot! Tobin's friend Dusty (George pre-Gabby Hayes) takes a thrown knife in the back, and comes back good as new for the rest of the story. In a chase scene, Tobin rides a makeshift log flume through a drainage trough surrounded by log walls in the middle of a desert, and missing his mark, chases (actually walks after) Zanti on foot through the desert. Zanti seeks relief and drinks from a pool of water, but OOPS!, he didn't see the sign above the waterhole that states "Don't Drink Poison". As Zanti collapses dead, Tobin resumes his chase after the remainder of the gang, and captures the whole lot by blowing up a rock wall that seals a secret passage into Dusty's cabin - how convenient.<br /><br />In the closing scene, the new Sheriff Tobin is seen on the phone talking to the new Mrs. Tobin (Sheila Terry), Dusty's daughter Ruby, who earlier in the film was a kidnap target of Zanti's gang. Apparently, the studio was intent on Wayne's getting the girl in virtually every film they made with him, as this type of ending is completely predictable for almost all of Lone Star's films.
The most die-hard worshippers of John Wayne will cringe when they watch The Lawless Frontier. Even for a poverty row studio, this one is one stinkeroo.<br /><br />Unusual for a western we have a criminal who is a sex crime perpetrator. Earl Dwire plays a halfbreed white and Indian who for reasons that are not explained, pretends he's a Mexican, hokey accent and all. Dwire sounds like the Frito Bandito of advertising fame back in the day.<br /><br />He and his gang happen upon Gabby Hayes and his daughter Sheila Terry. They really don't have anything worth robbing, but Dwire just wants an excuse to kidnap Terry and have his way with her. She hears the dastardly fate she has in store and she and Hayes flee the ranch. <br /><br />Where they happen to meet John Wayne who's on the trail of the bandits. They also run into one very stupid sheriff who believes Wayne is one of the bandits. Again for reasons I can't quite fathom.<br /><br />It was a tough way to earn a living grinding out horse operas like these for the Duke. Fortunately better things were on the way.
While most of Wayne's B efforts are entertaining in a fun way, this film is so sloppily edited and written, it is a dud. The first ten minutes alone show Wayne and bandits in nighttime scenes intercut with stock footage obviously shot in the day. Dwire plays a half white, half Apache bandit with a heavy Mexican accent and he cannot seem to pull off any nationality! I give this a 3.
This is probably Wayne's poorest movie; at least the poorest in which he had a starring role. It's just incredibly bad. The editing is especially awful; it really appears that the editor (if there was one)literally picked up pieces of film off the floor and pasted them together. The opening has to be seen to be believed. John Wayne must have cringed every time it was mentioned! I know there are "B" films - but are there "H" films? If so, this one's an example. And I say this as a devoted JW fan.
What distinguishes some of the 'Lone Star' films (and many others in western and adventure films of the early thirties) was their lack of what we recognize as formulaic story telling. To be sure they had good vs. evil (the basic element of any Western), boy meets girl and some stock characters, such as the old rancher and his beautiful daughter or grand daughter, and sometimes the evil banker or other businessman, but the way the action played out was often different from film to film.<br /><br />'The Lawless Frontier' features Earl Dwire in his big star turn (not) as (for some inexplicable reason) Pandro Zanti, a 'half Apache, half American posing as a Mexican who speaks the language fluently.' His biggest posing as a Mexican seemed to be his outrageous mariachi clothes. The only plot seems to be that he wants to steal Ruby, the granddaughter of "Old Dusty" (Gabby Hayes). When meeting her for the first time, Dwire gives her a long once over look that puts him in the big leagues with sexual predators. You'd think that because the opening scene shows Zanti killing John (Wayne) Tobin's father off camera, it would play a bigger part in the film. It doesn't. Too much chasing back and forth between heroes and villains.<br /><br />We get many good stunts, though, from Yakima Canutt, including pulling Ruby up on his horse when he rides by, jumping on 'renegades' and knocking them off their horses, a horse leap off a cliff into a lake, and even the same slide down the sluice sequence that was in "The Lucky Texan" (1934), although this time the Mighty Yak uses a body surfing log instead of straddling a tree bough, and its inclusion is just as illogical this time too, since they are in a desert.<br /><br />The high point is clearly John Wayne's measured and methodical well photographed walk across the desert after the fleeing and stumbling Zanti with those fantastic basalt cliffs of Red Rock Canyon (seen in countless serials, westerns and science fiction 'moon' movies) framed behind him. No final gun duel at fifty paces with the heroine running from the wooden steps of the bar to embrace and kiss the conquering hero in this movie! When John Wayne finally catches up with him, Zanti drinks poisoned water from a waterhole and dies.<br /><br />After a couple too many chase sequences, Zantai's gang is finally captured in Dusty's cabin, emerging one by one from behind a swivel cabinet that apparently leads to a canyon, now blocked off by having been dynamited. No riding off into the sunset or obligatorily kissing the girl: The final shot is Ruby, now Mrs. John Tobin, on the telephone to the now Sheriff John Tobin, "What would Sheriff Tobin like for dinner?" The film also has poor lighting and editing at the beginning, the pacing is slow, some parts with the sheriff cause it to drag, and the horse chases fill up the film. So despite the different and unusual elements, it comes off as one of the weaker Lone Stars.
Oh, there are many worse Wayne movies. This movie is edited poorly but it has a campy element that makes watching it enjoyable. The villain is an Anglo actor who sports ridiculous Mexican clothes and affects an over-the-top Mexican accent which is hilarious. The girl is dressed like a Jean Harlow wannabe, this is 1934 after all. At least the location shots are beautiful and enjoyable.<br /><br />Watch it and laugh. Don't expect a serious western, but rather a lightweight and superficial story with poor acting but occasional flashes of camp humor. Wayne is almost ludicrously young and handsome and one can see his acting ability blossomed years after this regrettable venture.
This slightly ponderous late 50's sci-fi-horror schlock isn't entirely a loser. It's about a manned space rocket that crash lands in a remote area. A bunch of scientists go to investigate and discover that the astronaut is in some kind of coma; he's being kept alive by alien embryos that have been mysteriously implanted in him. Anyway, the title alien monster soon raises it's head causing general havoc, including partial head removal.<br /><br />The main problem with the film is it's pacing. It takes quite a while for the Blood Beast to appear, and he really only comes into his own in the last 20 minutes or so. He is undoubtedly a completely ridiculous creation but that's really not a problem as he provides a fair amount of comic relief. At the end of the movie where we have the final stand-off and this ludicrous creature starts talking with the voice of the doctor he killed earlier, you will be doing well not to have a giggle. So too in the brilliant x-ray scene where we see the alien embryos floating about in the astronaut's body - it's just too funny for words.<br /><br />But unfortunately, the fun moments in Night of the Blood Beast come too few and far between. If you're a 50's sci-fi nut though then it's well worth checking this one out. Just don't expect too much.
"An astronaut (Michael Emmet) dies while returning from a mission and his body is recovered by the military. The base where the dead astronaut is taken to becomes the scene of a bizarre invasion plan from outer space. Alien embryos inside the dead astronaut resurrect the corpse and begin a terrifying assault on the military staff in the hopes of conquering the world," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />A Roger Corman "American International" production. The man who fell to Earth impregnated, Mr. Emmet (as John Corcoran), does all right. Angela Greene is his pretty conflicted fiancée. And, Ed Nelson (as Dave Randall) is featured as prominently. With a bigger budget, better opening, and a re-write for crisper characterizations, this could have been something approaching classic 1950s science fiction.<br /><br />*** Night of the Blood Beast (1958) Bernard L. Kowalski, Roger Corman ~ Michael Emmet, Angela Greene, Ed Nelson
After an astronaut dies in space, he is brought back to a military base. Inside the man are discovered alien embryos -- he is the host for what could be a terrible alien invasion! This film comes to us from director Bernard L. Kowalski, who also directed "Attack of the Giant Leeches" (see separate review) but may be better known for his work on "Columbo". Executive producer was Roger Corman, known as the creator of much better films than this one... particularly in the 1960s.<br /><br />This movie is cheesy and poorly constructed. What comes across as interesting is the poor effects, not the actual film itself. One scene shows a close-up of the alien embryos and it's an embarrassing cartoon representation. Even for 1958. And then when a full-grown alien appears... you'll wonder why he is wearing shoes. Or if you're really perceptive, you'll wonder why you've seen the alien suit in other movies.<br /><br />By no means is this the worst science fiction film you'll ever see. And you almost have to give it some credit -- the alien host overtaking a military base idea predates both "The Thing" and "Alien" by a number of years. I don't know if these films were inspired in any way (I doubt it), but at least it was ahead of its time. Beyond that, though, the film flops and is only great for heckling when drinking. I haven't seen the "Mystery Science Theater" version, but this sure is one film worthy of their insults.
WARNING: SPOILERS Dear Roger,<br /><br />During your distinguished career, you've made a wide range of entertainment, some good, some notsogood. "Night of the Blood Beast" falls in the latter category. It's not as unredeemingly awful as say, "The Phantom From 10,000 Leagues" or, maybe, "The Dunwich Horror." Nonetheless, one of my greatest criticisms of this movie is that I could have made it for you faster, better and cheaper.<br /><br />Let's start with the foreward and titles. Roger, the rocket sequences look like something from Disney's "Man Into Space," not as good, of course. The futuristic rocketship looks like nothing in contemporary 1958. Why didn't you just use a Vanguard, Atlas, or even a Viking launch? Better still, why not dispense entirely with the launch and start with a shot of space and the capsule floating in it? That's what I would have done for you, Roger. Second, why have the spaceship crash upon reentry? Even a middle school physics student could have told you, your astronaut would have arrived on earth extra crispy and largely deboned. I would have shown your astronaut becoming "possessed" by the monster (maybe by using that great "negative/positive" stuff you used in "War of the Satellites"), losing contact with earth and landing in the wilderness. That would also explain how you "blood beast" could impregnate your astronaut during the tremendous heat of reentry, but still be destroyed by fire. Even with these stupidities. The first half of your movie is pretty good. Had you spent some money on decent music, it would have been as good as a mediocre episode of "Outer Limits." But, once again, your writer describes Ed Nelson as the designer of the landing system, then gives him some stupid dialogue regarding magnetism. The biggest problem with the second half of "Night of the Blood Beast" is Michael Emmet. He's terrible as the doomed astronaut. You should have fired him on the spot and replaced him with Ed Nelson. You could have combined Nelson's responsibilities with those of John Dunlap and saved yourself the cost of one actor. I don't know if you actually PAID any of these people; but, at least you would saved the cost of catering three meals a day. I'd had also ditched the "scorched parrot" costume and spent the extra money using makeup to have the astronaut turn into the "blood beast". Maybe that was a little too close to "The Creeping Unknown" for you, but it would have helped the pace of the second half immensely. if you are going to have a "blood beast," wouldn't it be a good idea to show a little blood? Yeah, I know the title comes from the embryos in the astronaut's blood, but Kowalski could've done a LOT better job for you if he poured a little chocolate syrup around. After all, it LOOKS like blood in black and white. What've that cost you, maybe two bucks? I'd have also used some closeups. For some reason insipid dialogue and bad acting don't seem quite so bad in closeups. Look at almost 70s TV series and you'll see what I mean. Oh, in closing, Roger, a note to your writer. You can't use a fluoroscope to show some poor schmuck full of alien embryos when you DON'T HAVE ANY ELECTRICITY. Remember, you fried the generator in the first reel? Oh,and I almost forgot. Roger, couldn't you afford a fake knife? You know, the kind where the blade goes into the handle. I had one of those when I was 9, which also happens to be the year "Night of the Blood Beast" was made.It cost, maybe, another two bucks. I think I knew enough then to make you a better movie. I KNOW I know enough now to do so. So, Roger, if you decide to remake "Night of the Blood Beast," or if you are looking for a writer/director to work with you on SOME OTHER PROJECT, I'm your man. I'll work cheap, 'cause I'd really like to make a movie for you, Roger.<br /><br />I give "Night of the Blood Beast" a "3". SPECIAL NOTE: If you like to watch kitschy movies like "Night of the Blood Beast," the DVD I bought for $3.99 was very good quality. You can also get "Night of the Blood Beast" along with a lot of other terrible horror/scifi movies at places like Bestbuy for about $6.
Another winner from that 50s , 60s era that I love so much for the comedic value they give with each viewing these days .Corman never lets you down with these films , they take themselves seriously and they have very low budgets , a recipe for good watching for sure . Ed Nelson a very competent actor got started with Corman as well as many other favorites who show up in Superman and many of the westerns of the day . The costume is pretty bad and the sound of the alien speaking , well the reverb was a little off but thats the beauty of it . Film making for the love of it , not looking for perfection just digging the action of doing it , it comes thru . These films are a fun time ! Even better is the MST3K version !!
Another gray, horrible bit of schlockiness from the family Corman. The first space capsule into outer space crash lands back on Earth(with some of the worst special effects ever), and the pilot appears to be dead. But appearances can be deceiving. He's actually more alive than the rest of the cast, including a patronizing misogynist old doctor(who'd also really, REALLY boring), a greasy guy who looks like he's cornered the market on hair oil, another guy so dull he doesn't even make much of an impression, a female scientist who never seems to be hurt or angry over the old guy's patronizing, and a female photographer with a Farah Fawcett haircut(pre-Farah, of course) and about as much liveliness as a dead duck.<br /><br />What are any of these people's names? I think it was Steve. Apparently, everyone in the cast, including the women, were called Steve. Anyway, the dead pilot Steve turns out to not only be alive, but to be incubating baby aliens(or seahorses, or shrimp, or whatever) inside his torso. The Momma beast that implanted these little critters looks like a giant bald parrot with claws. Once again, I am impressed by the laugh-ability factor of the monsters created by the House of Corman. The space carrot from Venus in It Conquered the World is still officially the worst, most laughable monster I've ever seen grace the screen, but the Cormans always manage to deliver when it comes to bad, cheesy looking monsters.<br /><br />They also managed to deliver on their other trademarks as well; i.e. a boring, confusing plot, long gray shots(thank God Corman did most of his films in black and white, since his color stuff still manages to look somehow gray)two or three locations max, stupid and lame props and special effects, and lots and lots of dull dialog. There's only two deaths in the film(if you don't counted the roasted parrot..err..alien blood beast being offed at the end of the film). Cheers rang out through the land, I'm sure, when the alien rips the old doctor's head off and(apparently) eats it. Now it can talk in English and has the doctor's memories. It can also move the pregnant astronaut around as though he were Pinnochio. <br /><br />The monster's apparent intent is to rebuild its race using human beings as food and giant wombs. There's a confusing bit at the end(well, more confusing than usual, anyway) in which the creature tries to explain why it is doing this, but it makes no sense whatsoever. Something about how humanity is about to follow in its race's footsteps and destroy themselves by something they'll soon create. It never really said what that was. It could have been anything from toaster ovens to digital watches, who knows. Its baby minder stabs himself rather than let the alien shrimp crawl out of his body, and the oily guy(and the other guy) burn the parrot-alien to death with a Molotov cocktail. Ahh,the smell of roasting chicken..err.. alien. End of story, in which the rest of the characters wander off and leave their dead comrade laying on the ground to rot. Oh, Hell, why not save yourself the expense of a funeral? I'm sure that was what Corman was thinking, when he was trying to cut corners and make his scenes as cheaply as possible.
For those viewers who thought the 1979 film "Alien" the first to depict a male Earthling being impregnated by a malevolent extraterrestrial, "Night of the Blood Beast," made 21 years earlier, may come as something of a surprise. In this film, America's first man in space crashlands back on Earth and, after examination, is thought to be dead. He later comes to again, only with a half dozen or so alien seahorse thingies growing in his abdomen. The mama (?) alien also pops up to terrify the small band of scientists who are observing our gravid hero, and she (?) seems to have the body of a bear and the head of Yarnek, the rock creature from a 1969 "Star Trek" episode. Anyway, with its short, 62-minute running time, small group of scientists, and cheap-looking monster, this film suggests nothing less than a Grade Z warm-up for "The Outer Limits" (which would premiere four years later), but without the fine writing that that show usually boasted. Despite the lurid title, this film is decidedly sci-fi, not horror, and offers no scares, no laffs, little suspense and little food for thought afterwards. It looks as if it cost around $100 to make (but probably cost twice as much), and its musical score often seems to have no relation to the happenings (I won't use the word "action") on screen. By the film's end, many questions remain: Just how was our hero to give birth to these critters? Why does the alien need to decapitate people to learn our language? (To justify that title, no doubt!) Why can't the space-traveling aliens land on our planet, rather than needing to hitch rides on our ships? How was our hero impregnated to begin with? These are all matters that this little cheapie can't be bothered with. It really is for 1950s sci-fi completists only.
What a travesty of movie ratings injustice - a 2.1 on the IMDb scale as I write this. Folks, this is a lot closer to a 3.0, I'll even go out on a limb and say 4.0 where I've put it. Come on - how can you have a movie about a net of static electricity surrounding the earth and alien amorphic cell structures, and not give it at least a 4.0 for creativity? Then you've got all that great dialog like - "Dave, look at the composition of this mud." You know, I don't think they ever got back to that mud. No matter, this is the kind of flick that 'Z' movie diehards live for, and I can now rest easy. Actually, I saw this quite a few years ago without the proper appreciation for it, along with Corman titles like "Attack of the Giant Leeches " and "The Wasp Woman". I don't know what the fascination might be, but to quote a character from the film - "Whatever it is, it works fast!"<br /><br />Back to that alien amorphic cell structure - I liked the idea of a third element competing against your standard red and white blood cells. When astronaut John Corcoran (Michael Emmet) returned from the dead, I had visions of a scene that might have been a precursor to 1979's "Alien", but that was not to be. Instead, budget restrictions limit the picture to a de-feathered Big Bird knock off, even though that concept was still almost a decade away. Who knows where one idea leaves off and picks up with another? <br /><br />Look, this is not that bad. Not that good, but not that bad. Anytime you can hook up crash landing astronauts with alien beings committed to taking over the Earth, you've got a winning combination. Throw in the cheesy monster factor and you're on your way. Just remember - "A wounded animal that large isn't good".
This movie has a fairly decent premise - one gruesomely featured again and again in science fiction films, most spectacularly in "Alien" - and some decent "he-man" performances from the male cast. The possessed astronaut's wife, to me, is the weak link in the ensemble - she doesn't seem to know what to do with her face in a lot of her most prominent scenes, for which I blame director Corman. <br /><br />Given a decent budget for props and special effects and a more focused and coherent screen play, "Blood Beast" might have been pretty decent. But the inherent cheapness of the production design and the continuity errors and gaffes undermine the proceedings. For instance, every time I saw the comatose astronaut laid out on an "examination table" the width of an ironing board, I broke into giggles, probably not the the emotion the crew wanted to invoke. And the monster's costume needed some serious work; fern covered parrots just aren't scary or convincing.<br /><br />Still, the premise was strong enough that I hung on to the end just to see how the plot would resolve itself, and the alien's motives were sufficiently ambiguous at first that I could sort of think of it as an enigma. And the scene with the shot of the murdered scientist had a bit of punch to it, along with the plot development where the alien claimed to have assimilated some of the dead man's personality. <br /><br />It's Corman. It's cheap, fast, and mildly watchable if you don't think too hard or expect too much. What more needs to be said?
I accept that most 50's horror aren't scary by today's standards, but what the hell is this? When you see a title like this you expect to see blood and a blood thirsty beast. Instead we get no blood at all and a beast who either wants to take over the world or live in peace on Earth....yeah which is what the people wanted.<br /><br />The overall story is fine with the astronaut coming back to life and being one with the beast....but the title really kills the movie. Night of the Beast would have made the fans more happy because there really isn't any blood to speak of.<br /><br />I like how the 50's movies had endings that left room for a sequel but wisely never made one. This movie isn't the worst i've ever seen but its almost up there.<br /><br />2 out of 10
I've been trying to write a plot summary for several minutes now and can't seem to do it. But with a movie as bad as Night of the Blood Beast the plot hardly matters. An astronaut crash lands and is believed dead. His body later reanimates, but is found to be carrying the embryos of some strange alien life-form. But how did they get there? And where's the alien that implanted the strange creatures in Maj. John Corcoran's body? <br /><br />IMDb lists the runtime for Night of the Blood Beast at 62 minutes. Is that right? 62 minutes? It had to be longer than that. It felt interminable to me. Even with the MST3K commentary (which was very funny by the way), the actual movie felt much, much longer. And it's pretty much a snoozer from beginning to end. I like a lot of these alien invasion type movies of the 50s, but not this one. It failed to grab my interest on any level. The baby aliens were too silly looking to be taken seriously, the titular blood beast was pathetic, and none of the characters did anything for me. Add to that the usual low-budget Roger Corman trappings and you've got a real loser of a movie.
I had the funny chance of seeing this on Mystery Science Theater 3000, four years ago. I must admit it wasn't as badly done as some other science fiction/horror movies of the time. The plot revolved around an astronaut that came back to earth with alien embryo's inside of him. Now the plot is quite weird, well if you can even call that a plot. (Seeing a space program run out of one building and an old pickup truck is drop-dead funny!) I'll admit it was horrible by today's standards (and 20 years ago)...but I can see myself 43 years ago watching and being charmed by this movie. It's not even close to the badness of Invasion of the Neptune Men, Manos: Hands of Fate or Future War.<br /><br />
This film is a total bore. Entrapment is way better in all aspects, plot, acting, stunts, etc. Plus the soundtrack is one of the most annoying I've ever heard. I was close to muting the film just to shut it up. 3 out of 10 stars ***
I am sure I'm in the minority (I know I am among my friends), but I found this movie long, boring and gratuitous. The fact that the role played by DENIS LEARY is the most likable character (the only other time I liked him at all was in "A Bug's Life"!) speaks volumes. Rene Russo's character was irritating beyond belief and Thomas Crowne himself was flat and stereotypical. To say he was two-dimensional may be a little generous. (No, the scenes with his psychiatrist did NOT help make him real.)<br /><br />With the exception of two wonderful scenes (both involving the museum caper and NOT involving Rene Russo), this movie made me wish I were at home watching televised golf.
"The Thomas Crown Affair" is a terrible remake of a not-very-good movie, redeemable only for the topless shots of former supermodel Renee Russo.<br /><br />That's it. The plot is negligible, Pierce Brosnan phoned in his part, and Dennis Leary (as usual) plays an annoying Irish cop, but I couldn't take my eyes off the beautiful Ms. Russo. There's an okay love-making scene on a stairway, a terrifically sexy ballroom dance, a topless beach scene, and a roll in the sack. Oh, and there's a painting stolen from a museum and a catamaran gets sunk.<br /><br />But let's hope other directors recognize Ms. Russo's perky attributes and cast her in more, highly-visible roles.
I had a bit of hope for this hour long film made up of footage from old Poverty Row movies. Certainly it had the possibility to seem like more than a home video mass marketed to the world. Unfortunately while funny this movie still feels like a home movie, but with stock footage spliced in.<br /><br />The plot concerns the planned reading of a will on a liner at midnight somewhere in the tropics. The ship sinks and well...thats the movie.<br /><br />The film promises Karloff, Lugosi, Chaney and others being lifted from old movies to interact with new footage. We get that alright, but mostly we get lots of new video footage made to look like scratchy black and white film, in which new actors prance about. Old footage is inter-cut mostly to set the scene, but very little of the old and new actually matches so its clearly just a put on. Its not very convincing and is very disappointing for someone like me was looking for a better constructed film.<br /><br />Still if you know and love the old Poverty Row films, (its very spoofy) this might be worth a viewing. I would warn against buying this but it can be had for about five bucks, the price of a rental) so the choice is yours (Though if you can get away with not paying for it do so).<br /><br />Disappointing.
Take it from me as a camera man who worked for Republic Studios from 1946 to 1950 and then Warners Bros and Paramount from 1950 to 1993, this is a piece of crap. Sure it would be great to show it to your favorite friends at a house party but to try to sell this on a DVD is absolutely ridicious.<br /><br />I have seen bad acting in my day but this is NO acting. The hero is almost laughable and he really thinks he is something judging from his comments on the specials. I hate to see his fan club. The old films did not jive with the action in many of the scenes. What the hell was that garden scene with three of worst actresses. I never seen a garden on a ship. They could not even emote. I would not mind it if they could have once ounce of acting but the only one was the guy with the Translvanian accent. I am sorry but this is not a clever film as some persons are stating. I would think horror film buffs would be insulted by this piece of film.
This isn't "so bad it's good"--It's "so bad, it violates the Geneva Convention's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment"! Only by reading the Synopsis can you even figure out the "plot" of this Straight to Video disaster. It's a hodge-podge of grainy stock footage spliced together with some of the all-time worst acting you'll ever have the misfortune to see. Comparing this incompetent, turgid, humorless mess to "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid" is like saying that "Gigli" is like "Citizen Kane". The talentless cast are costumed in cheap, J.C. Penney "Goin' to Church" clothes, and there isn't the slightest attempt at period hairstyles or make-up. If you really want to see how this sort of "homage" can work, check out "The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra"--It's clever, well-written, and best of all, performed by actual actors who aren't such agony to watch. For that matter, seek out the work of Phoenix artist Paul Wilson whose Sci-Fi short "The Attack of the 70 foot Courtesy Lady" leaves this film in the dust. The people in Terror In the Tropics look and sound like they were pulled off the street and given their scripts to read during the one and only take. This is an insult to Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff, Lon Chaney, and anyone else involved in the films they cannibalized to make this schlock-fest! Money isn't the problem--A lot can be accomplished with very little expense. A good script, decent actors, and above Z-Grade costumes and production design should have been a given before the so-called director created this stinky pile of cinematic offal. Let's hope the "promise" of a sequel doesn't come true--That was by far the scariest thing shown in the whole movie!!
being a fan of Bela Lugosi,Boris Karloff,and Lon Chaney Jr i had to see this.what tripe the only thing good about this is the clips of Lugosi,Karloff and Chaney Jr.along with all the vintage clips,that do not gel with the new black and white footage.not even close to Steve martins dead men don't wear plaid,that was done great.with all the technology we have now why was'nt this done better?if you are planning to shell out 5 bucks and some change,be warned this is really bad. but if you like Lugosi Karloff and Chaney Jr then watch their movies instead.even ed wood did better then this one.new actor mark redfield is pretty good as an imitation Bela Lugosi.the clips they use are; the ape,Mr Wong,most dangerous game,lost world,indestructible man. and devil bat.that notorious Bela Lugosi classic.i believe this production was very low budget,and it shows.1 out of 10.
Problems: 1) Although billed as "a loving tribute to Poverty Row," a lot of the old footage is not even from Poverty Row films-- much of it is from RKO's "The Most Dangerous Game," (1932), with some from the silent (!?) version of "The Lost World" (1926)! <br /><br />2) Much of the old footage is just used as filler (the old shipboard footage) or as silent shots (for example, of Bela walking, looking or staring) often repeated; <br /><br />3) Where is the pantheon of Poverty Row Master Thespians (Bela, Boris, Lon Chaney, Jr., George Zucco, John Carradine, Buster Crabbe, Tom Neal, etc.) emoting their lines as punch lines to the 'new' characters jokes (as in Woody Allen's "What's Up Tiger Lily?" or Steve Martin's "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid")? Even Mike Nelson's feeble commentary on the colorized "Reefer Madness" is funnier than this. <br /><br />High Point: The long but extremely enlightening lecture by Gregory Mank which makes you give new respect to and admiration for Bela, John Carradine and George Zucco. That's worth the price of the DVD alone!
What a waste of time. I got about five minutes into it and became *very* antsy, and was soon fast-forwarding a bit, and pretty soon the desire to take my thumb OFF the fast-forward button was nonexistent. Actors Mark Redfield and Barry Murphy did very capable jobs, I thought, but no one else I saw gave anything like a good performance. Again, take this review with a large grain of salt because the movie was just so unbearable I couldn't make it to the end. Heck, I couldn't make it to the MIDDLE !!<br /><br />I find myself unable to submit this review because it isn't long enough. Maybe this last sentence will put it over the top.
This film is enjoyable if you like poverty row, public domain films from the first half of the 20th century, or are a fan of amateur film-making. The film splices together public domain thrillers together along with newly shot scenes in which the "actors" (With the sole exception of Redfield doing a near dead on Lugosi rip, all of the "performers" are simply dreadful!) attempt to interact with the stock footage. The "New" footage is covered with digitally added film scratches, as is some of the already substandard old footage (??!!). As near as I can figure out the plot has something to do with a bunch of strangers being brought together on an island for a will reading(?) This film, while boasting a creative premise ala 'Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid', is a technical and creative wreck. In one dreadfully over long sequence and injured sailor on a ship describes an abortive trip to 'Fog Island', whatever that is! The "flashback" then incoherently weaves together old footage from totally different eras, and of totally disparate film quality. Unrelated scenes from 'The Lost World' (1925), The Most Dangerous Game (1932), White Zombie (1932), Bela Lugosi Meets A Brooklyn Gorilla (1952) and some other poverty row productions. This is done over an incredibly bad voice over which seems to have too much room echo as if the audio was recorded on a cheap home video camera.<br /><br />The "filmmakers" seem to think that they are paying homage to the great actors of yesteryear by giving characters the surnames of famous actors (Carradine, Zucco, Ouspenskaya, etc..etc..). This tactic was done cleverly, as well as subtly in 'Final Destination' here it's just obnoxious! Bizarre, and painfully unfunny, jokes about Spiderman, Dracula, and Superman abound. Even the old as dirt 'Dewey, Cheetam and Howe' lawyer reference is used here-this was old and tired when The Three Stooges used it in the 1930s.<br /><br />The film stock and audio, don't match scene to scene, and dozens of different sources are used for Lugosi. The finale effect is that he seems to be getting, older, younger, older, thinner, heavier, younger and older again minute by minute. Oddly the film didn't use this as a comedy subplot and squanders a good chance for comedy.<br /><br />Truth be told though, It was great fun to watch this late at night in bed. Maybe thats what they wanted to happen!
After reading the mostly glowing comments about this movie I decided to rent it despite some suspicions of TV movies. I should have followed my instincts.<br /><br />I tried so hard to warm up to the movie and find merit in it but I just couldn't. The story never draws you in or rings true and the acting is perfunctory at best and laughable at worst. Everything in this production is amateurish.<br /><br />Always a joy to watch, Mary McDonnell may be the only performer to escape this disaster without damaging her career or reputation. I won't even bother checking the name of the leading man - hopefully he's back doing commercials.<br /><br />Even poor Vanessa Redgrave, whom I adore and respect, seemed to be channeling Katherine Hepburn all the time appearing as if she were really drugged in the home. Maybe she needed the money.<br /><br />If I can save one person from wasting 100 minutes on this tripe I will feel vindicated.
Naach A more detailed review can be obtained anywhere else in the web. This one is a good portrayal, although I do not agree with it entirely. Taran is a commercial guy and hence views from his angle only.<br /><br />Ram Gopal Varma (RGV, seems like a political party) has created a marvel in Rangeela, so this one seems like a pale reflection of that one in some parts... I'm not even going to compare Urmila and Anthara.. both are good! The former has better acting talent, although the latter is catching up nicely.<br /><br />Anyways, I like Anthara's character. She is true to her art, not touched by any unnecessary emotion and definitely not too practical. She is a dance scientist, actually she is so sure of her theories that even comparing her to a scientist would offend her. Hey.. Donald Trump.. maybe you gotta ditch Melania, here is Anthara and you've already built a Taj Mahal... ain't this easy? Abhishek on the other hand is a practical fellow, who wants money, power, fame, etc. Hence these two albeit were struggling to get a break into the film industry, cannot get along, given their different styles and approach to life. This is very typical, but what I like about the movie is that it says what an Abhimaan would say in its total runtime, in one scene! What's new? This movie takes a different angle to the film industry and how different people get into it. There is always something different about RGV's movies, this one is different too, it is way too slow for his standards. In parts, it drags one almost to sleep.<br /><br />Noticeable It is tough to notice anything other than Anthara in the first half of the movie. I think this skin show was necessary for the dance sequences involved :-) Also, looks like Anthara is a pro in Yoga, she is way too flexible, almost like a Prabhu Devi. Aby Baby is improving as an actor with every movie. I am sure his filmstar blood is paying off rich dividends. The title song was really good, the music overall was above average.
In most parts a lethally dull venture, Naach is about this dancer/choreographer (Antara Mali) who regards herself as some kind of auteur, beyond the petty commercial compromises that people around her, including her actor beau (Abhishek Bachchan) build their careers on. Nice idea, only it turns out that she has the most howlariously bad concepts about costumes and dance movements, stuff rotten enough to make even the forces behind those ultra-cheap South Indian potboilers squirm in severe embarrassment.<br /><br />The story follows a yawn-inducing predictable pattern...dancer and beau meet and have an affair (yes, sex included)...beau gets success, but she spurns his attempts to help her...beau throws attitude and they walk out on each other...dancer meets a most unlikely director who wants her 'to do what she wants'...incongruous effort bags even more incongruous popularity...beau's attempts to reach out are rebuffed until a climax where he bursts out about how he can't live without her...D-uh end.<br /><br />Actually I didn't really expect this film to be much good. So why did I watch it? Because I have an Antara Mali fetish. She's an actress with IMO sufficient talent to reach grand heights provided she has the opportunity. Alas, her role in the film looks far better on paper than in actual execution, ironic for a film that's supposed to be about an uncompromising character. To give her credit she puts in a game effort, shining well in the few scenes that actually ask of her as an actress. I just wish the movie had been more worthy of her. Abhishek Bachchan also throws in a few good punches, the last scene salvaged somewhat by a simmering turn which pleasantly reminds you of his father.<br /><br />Only recommended if you can sit through humongous piles of dogcrap for the return of a few grains of good moments courtesy the lead actors.
Ram Gopal Verma usually makes so-so cookie cutter formula fare, lifted from some Hollywood flick. His every film after Shiva is in the cookie-cutter genre. Occasionally, he makes a truly horrible movie like this one. <br /><br />For the first 55 minutes, we are introduced to the only 2 characters, a struggling gymnast masquerading as a skilled dancer (go figure!) and a wannabe actor trying to strike it rich in Bollywood. They fall in love, zero becomes hero, dancer/gymnast gets no break, gymnastics, angst, the usual heartbreak, more gymnastics, angst, song, dance, angst, some more gymnastics, more ridiculous gymnastics and before you know it, you're fast asleep. And this despite the HOT SEXY HOT HOT SEXY HOT bod of the leading lady-cum-gymnast-cum-dancer.<br /><br />But hey, you're not alone!! The editor, director, photographer, in fact the whole cast and crew are asleep thru-out the entire production. Only difference being they got paid to snooze while you paid money for this crap, so you lose. Ha, joke's on you. Don't feel sorry for yourself but for our poor broke gal as she tones up daily in her high-rise penthouse in the sexiest of leotards and exercise-wear. Puh-leese, when will the poor thang get a break, she's STARR-VINNNG?!<br /><br />Antara Mali cannot act. RGV's lost his marbles. Abhishek tried hard but failed. No plot. No story. Nothing. She must've paid RGV handsomely to make this all-nonsense stuff in addition to free gymnastics lessons on his casting couch. What a super deal. No need for an acting career.<br /><br />Such absolute rubbish can only be "Made in Bollywood" of course!
Naach would have won an Razzie for the Worst Film in 2004 (may be overall too) if it were global. When it comes acting badly (aka showing attitude/yawning/over (not) acting) Halle Berry is no match for Antra Malli. While the catwoman had storeline, supposedly hot actress in microscopic costume, and some action sequences, Naach had nothing at all.<br /><br />One of those movies which makes me wonder why IMDb does allow one to rate a movie as 0/10. Yet again, I think that movie does not even deserve a 0. It has to be something negative or minus infinity.<br /><br />OK what about the plot outline? It is a funda-giving, arrogant, full of attitude choreographer meet an useless, skill-less, loafer who aspires to be an actor tale. The story is so short that if just another sentence, IMDb might ban me for writing a spoiler. About the story-telling? Its like a bunch (sorry 2 people for the most part) of people moving in super slow motion. Don't try this movie if you have bought new DVD-player. You would end up believing that either DVD is in bad shape or DVD-player is struck. Not its fault at all.<br /><br />At the end of it all, you end up giving some credits to the director. At least he realized that both Antra Malli and Abhishek Bachan (at least at that time) can't speak dialogues convincingly, so there are not too many dialogues in this movie. So, you can at least sleep your way through the movie, with some annoying noises from those Antra-malli song sequences.<br /><br />Do watch this movie if you are new to Bollywood Cinema. Once you have tolerated this movie, you would be able to see any Bollywood movie and enjoy it.<br /><br />There can't be worse 3 hour torture than this!
Leonard can write lyrics, but he sure can't sing. Nor has he had an original idea in his life, just a floater. From the looks of this nasty little puff piece (note that his publishers, McClelland and Stewart were involved in the production), he didn't know how to live, either. The woman he loves is only mentioned in passing and no woman is allowed to speak in this nonsensical advertisement. While Irving Layton was given a credit, the other poet interviewed, Earle Birney, was to remain nameless. I come from the generation just after Cohen, where all the boys seemed to idolize him. His lack of commitment was probably just calling to them. I hadn't realized what a disappointing poseur he was back then. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because of his age.<br /><br />Whiny, little rich prince, and not one memorable line in his oeuvre. No dedication to social change, outside of the sexual arena.<br /><br />You don't speak for my generation, Lennie, and not for my gender. Go back to the monastery and stay off the screen.<br /><br />As for my local public broadcaster, I will let them know what I think of them wasting my time on this guy. Not a has-been, a never was...
The film begins in Latvia just after WWI. Being a history teacher, I knew that multinational troops occupied much of Russia during this time. There was serious concern about the spread of Bolshevism and the troops were there ostensibly to protect their nations' interests. However, some times they flew missions or had armed conflicts with the Communist army, as the nations involved really wanted to see the so-called "Whites" win. However, the Whites were deeply factionalized--some wanting the return of a czar, some wanting a republic and some wanting something in between. Because of these mixed goals and a lack of a real commitment by the foreign armies, the whole expedition was doomed and left the USSR after only a year or two. However, what I did NOT know was that German troops were also involved. This surprised me, as they had just lost WWI and weren't in the best shape to be mounting such an expedition.<br /><br />This is the backdrop for the film, but it's also about a pro-Communist rich lady and her ill-fated love for a childhood friend who is among the German troops. She throws herself at him repeatedly but in each case he rebuffs her. So, she then sublimates these desires by various affairs. While none of this sex is all that graphic, this and the underlying reason the man isn't interested make this a rather adult film and one I wouldn't show to younger audiences.<br /><br />While the setting for this film is interesting, the overall film is as gray and lifeless as any I have seen. I don't recommend it unless you are an amazingly patient person or you are really into overrated German films. I especially warn away anyone who suffers with depression, as it will no doubt make it worse. The simple fact is that there are so many better German films out there waiting to be seen--such as MOSTLY MARTHA, DAS BOOT, MOTHER KUSTERS GOES TO HEAVEN, WINGS OF DESIRE or ALI, FEAR EATS THE SOUL (among others).
This fantasy was utter garbage. I thought Michael Moore cornered the market on ridiculous anti-government movies, but this one was far worse than anything he ever did. No wonder critics of the British media complain it's driven by tabloid journalism. This movie is a left-wing loony's greatest fantasy come to life on the big screen. Anyone even slightly to the right of such rabid Bush-bashers should be appalled it ever got funding to be made. I'm sure it will do well in Syria, Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea, though. It's hard to believe that in these days of insane Muslims blowing up innocent commuters there is anyone in the U.K. who thinks Britain should surrender in the war on terrorism. I guess it's no longer the country I admired for standing alone against the Nazis nearly 70 years ago. All hail Neville Chamberlain and the pathetic policy of appeasement!
I read a lot of high hopes from readers of the book that this would be a faithful adaptation of Nora Roberts' story. Not having read the book, I don't know if this adaptation was faithful but I do know it wasn't good. Actually, the screenplay was the best part of the movie so kudos to Nora Roberts.<br /><br />I planned ahead and watched Carolina Moon because of Claire Forlani. I've never been sure if she's a good actress. She's been decent in some movies, average in others and really bad in this one. But, Forlani wasn't alone. The performances were all over the place. Oliver Hudson was wooden and boring. Josie Davis was hammy. Then, amidst all this B-rate acting, there's Jacqueline Bisset! She didn't have a lot to do other than portray bitterness but, even sleepwalking through that, she was miles ahead of the others.<br /><br />Still, Forlani remains one of the most breathtaking women in movies and I was not disappointed in that capacity here. I believe Forlani can be more than eye-candy but, until she turns in a good performance in a good movie, she continues to excel at that. And, I'll continue to faithfully watch everything she participates in. Fandom is fun that way.<br /><br />This movie though, Carolina Moon, was pretty bad. In addition to the bad acting (fake Southern accents are really distracting) the direction was pedestrian. It wasn't horrible. It was just the boring made-for-TV caliber you're used to seeing on Lifetime.<br /><br />If you're a fan of any of the stars you can probably enjoy Carolina Moon for that reason, as I did. If you're a fan of the book you might enjoy seeing the story on the screen, albeit in a lackluster form. Otherwise, this movie is unremarkable.
I watched this movie for the hot guy--and even he sucked! He was the worst one--well, okay, I have to give props to that freaky police officer rapist guy too, he was even worse. The guy wasn't that cute in the end, he had the most terrible accent, and he was the most definite definition of hicksville idiot that can't stand up to his mom for the one he "loves" there's ever been. Overall, and if this makes any sense to you, when I go to pick up movies at the video store, I think to myself as I read the back of a movie that looks so/so, "Well, at least it can't be worse than Carolina Moon." The most terrible movie, and the most terrible writing, acting, plot--everything in it made my gag reflexes want to do back flips. It was THE most horrid movie I will ever see, with Gabriela way up there too. I hated it, and trust me, if there was any number under 1 IMDb had for rating, I'd choose that in a heartbeat.
First, let me state that I have no idea who Nora Roberts is. So the book may have been great, but the movie isn't.<br /><br />I have spent my entire life living in the Peidmont region of NC. I have never heard southern accents as ridiculous as the ones in this movie. I have lived in two small NC towns and Charlotte and Raleigh. On occasion, you will meet people with a strong southern accent, but I have never encountered a town where everyone talks like a bad imitation of Gone with the Wind.<br /><br />In response to Gore_Won from the atheist community. Your comments reveal more about your warped psyche than it does about the movie. If we were to stretch our imaginations and pretend that there is anything realistic in this movie - which there isn't - then the truth is that bad people such as Tory's father will always find some justification for their actions. The author chose religion as a counter to Tory's supernatural abilities. Your supposition that "the true character of the Gospels" directs a man to beat his daughter is about the most perverse and misinformed interpretation I have ever heard. Before you start spouting off about the Gospels, maybe you should read them first.<br /><br />Back to the movie. The dialog is flat, unnatural, and unbelievable most of the time. In particular, many of the things that Kade said to Tory are inappropriate and do not match the mood, context, or way they are said.<br /><br />The "exciting twist" at the end of the movie is lame, predictable, and lacks any credibility. Some have also claimed that Jacqueline Bisset does a wonderful job in this movie, but the truth is that the bitter mother character is also a stale, predictable, one-dimensional character. Is that Bisset's fault? I don't know.<br /><br />If you have a choice between watching this movie and a twenty year old rerun of the Muppet Show, I recommend the Muppet Show.
The story is about a psychic woman, Tory, who returns to her hometown and begins reliving her traumatic childhood past (the death of her childhood friend and abusive father). Tory discovers that her friend was just the first in a string of murders that are still occurring. Can her psychic powers help solve the crimes and stop the continuing murders? <br /><br />You really don't need to find out because, Oh My God! This was so so so so bad! I know all the Nora Roberts fans will flock to this movie and give it tons of 10's. Then the rest of us will see an IMDb score of 6 and actually think this movie is worth watching. But do not be fooled. The ending was predictable, the acting TERRIBLE (don't even get me started about the southern accents *y'all*) and the story was trite. Just remember....you were warned!
A total and absolute waste of time. Bad acting. Bad story. Predictable. Simple. Pathetic. After a while I was only watching to see what happens, since I'd already invested my time into it. Totally surprised Mrs Forlani played in a weak movie as this. Honestly - just don't bother. A total and absolute waste of time. Bad acting. Bad story. Predictable. Simple. Pathetic. After a while I was only watching to see what happens, since I'd already invested my time into it. Totally surprised Mrs Forlani played in a weak movie as this. Honestly - just don't bother. A total and absolute waste of time. Bad acting. Bad story. Predictable. Simple. Pathetic. After a while I was only watching to see what happens, since I'd already invested my time into it. Totally surprised Mrs Forlani played in a weak movie as this. Honestly - just don't bother.
I don't leave IMDb comments about films but this.... this film was bad. very bad. I fast forwarded through most of it, stopping where I hoped the acting had improved since the last scene, only to continue with the fast forwards. Formula plot -- once the obvious murderers were discounted, there was only the one left. And that was in the first five minutes. Scene by scene it felt as though I'd already read the script before because there were no surprises, no mystery. The Tori character... bad bad acting. A true waste of time on DVD and a definite 'let's go to bed early' option if it's the only thing on television. If you watch this film, you will find yourself realising you'll never be able to get back the time you've just wasted.
'Carolina Moon' is an adequate made-for-TV movie about a girl with psychic powers who returns to the town where<br /><br />she grew up in and where her childhood best friend was murdered. Turns out that every year on the same date another<br /><br />young girl is murdered and Tori, played by Claire Forlani, must solve the mystery before she ends up dead. Claire Forlani (Meet Joe Black, CSI New York) is the female lead and does a pretty good job of it, ably supported by the rather delicious Oliver Hudsom and a still luminous Jacqueline Bisset. The script, adapted from a Nora Roberts novel, is bog-standard and the plot<br /><br />is tediously predictable. That, however, is offset again by, like I said, the rather delicious Oliver Hudson.
This movie was nothing like the book. <br /><br />Everything was mixed up or changed. Most of the movie was things that weren't even in the book.<br /><br />This movie never should have been viewed. It was a great disappointment to me when I enjoyed the book so much and then to watch how this movie trashed the entire thing.<br /><br />I would never recommend this movie to anyone that is a fan of Nora Roberts or J.D. Robb.<br /><br />Honestly this movie is not worth watching with how off from the book is really is.
This owes a great deal to the plot of CAPTAINS COURAGEOUS. Although he is quite grown up, it is partly the story of a wealthy lad who is shanghaied as a crew member aboard a cargo vessel and becomes a man in the process. Moran of the title is a boyish young woman also brought up on a vessel owned by her father. When the cargo burns, she and crew members are evacuated to our lad's ship. However, the captain has smuggling on his mind and his intentions are not honorable where Moran is concerned. The inevitable ensues - our lad falls for the mannish Moran and she for him. In the end evil is subdued and the lovers are united. Some interesting dialogue points out that Moran belongs to no man -"and no woman." (A nod to Sappho here). Dorothy Dalton is appropriately sexless as Moran and not too attractive either. Valentino does well in a romantic, action role. His sexy build and physique are shown off to advantage and the role is quite a masculine one. He is very appealing. This is no great film but it passes the time. What it really showcases is Valentino's beauty and sexiness.
Trekkies is really not a movie about Star Trek fandom. It's a freak show about those Star Trek fans who have no sense of reality. As a freak show, it's fine. But it is a mistake to think that this movie gives you an insight into Star Trek fans. Most Star Trek fans cringe at what this movie shows.
This is by far the worst British comedy ever, how it made it past the first episode let alone the pilot is beyond me. The acting is weak from the main character played by Ben Miller to Sarah Alexander (from the fantastic coupling)right through the cast. The plot/story lines were unfunny and very very predictable using many worn out ideas. A very painful series to endure but sadly put in a slot between two excellent shows. describing it as Britain's answer to ' Meet the parents' does a disservice to 'meet the parents' and is as about as fresh as an old shoe that has a run around with the family dog. Britain should have learned that rip offs from other countries never work from looking at America's sad attempts at doing so.
Although this was the first Hunter S. Thompson documentary I have seen it was average at best despite the involvement's of huge star appearances such as Johnny Depp, Bill Murray, Gary Busey, and a few others. I was let down by this and yet it was still a little interesting. What kept me watching was some of the old clips from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Where the Buffalo Roam. Not that good mostly because of the old guys rambling and things any fan would already know. I still think they were milking it because it could have been compressed down by at least half. Still if your a fan I would you'll like anything that has to do with hunter. best regards
Deep Sea 3D is a stunning insight in to an underwater world only a few have had the opportunity to view first hand.<br /><br />From the opening sequence when a wave rushes towards the audience momentarily engulfing us in the ocean, the filmmakers make full use of the IMAX format. A jelly fish field appears to fill the whole theatre, a shark powers towards us, predators pounce from behind rocks and devour their prey. It is a beautifully captured under sea feast for the eyes.<br /><br />Our ears on the other hand, are not given the same treatment. The film is narrated by Hollywood stars Jonny Depp and Kate Winslet. Both sound so ridiculous it positively spoils the enjoyment of the visuals. Depp sounds slightly bored whilst Winslet sounds as if she is reading a bedtime story to the village idiot. I was shocked that an actress of her status could have pitched her performance so wrongly. The script is fairly silly and contains very little depth. The soundtrack is filled with strange, unrealistic sound effects which I assume are meant to be funny but in fact detract attention from the material which should have been allowed to speak for itself. <br /><br />Danny Elfman has provided an excellent score which gives plenty of impact to the ups and downs of life under the sea, when it is allowed to play out without the silly bubble sounds or crayfish footfalls which pepper film.<br /><br />The film is a technical marvel but with it's childish script, annoying narration and misplaced sound effects it cannot be taken seriously.
Honestly, on the subject of the death penalty, I could take it or leave it. The problem I have with this documentary lies in the fact that it is a complete love-fest for the murderer, with absolutely no sympathy for the family. The Execution of Wanda Jean, with it's completely one sided view, only reinforced my view that she should have been executed for her crimes. It tried to argue that she was mentally retarded, but nothing in the video supported that view. She seemed uneducated, but so did her entire family, but that doesn't mean they were all retarded. I can completely understand if someone is opposed to the death penalty, but to completely ignore the crime, as if it didn't happen, and try to put Wanda on some moral mountain top, is offensive in nature, and that's not the side of the issue I would be associated with.
The main portion of this lightweight musical story is located at fictional Midwick College, which Peter Kendricks (Peter Lind Hayes) attends due to the largesse of stage actress Grace Hayes, his real-life mother who fills the same role here, and who manages to supply his love interest through her secretary Mary (Healy) who is his real-life wife. Drably directed from a weak script, and additionally hampered by excessive cutting and poor editing, this film does provide some treasures among its eight songs, including the title number, and has nice turns by soprano Healy, Benny Rubin as a snack shop proprietor, and the dynamic tap dancing Roland Dupree.
Having some idle time before going to work, I looked at my "50 Movie Pack Comedy Classics" DVD collection and picked the most obscure title in the pack: Zis Boom Bah starring a forgotten Grace Hayes. "Classics" is obviously the operative word here since most of the titles I've never heard of and I suspect they're all in the public domain. Anyway, this movie also stars her son Peter Lind and his wife Mary Healy (who I just found out is a New Orleans native from the state I live in, Louisiana) with Benny Rubin as a malt shop proprietor and Huntz Hall, taking a break from the East Side Kids, as Peter's buddy. The plot, about a vaudeville mother trying to turn her rich carefree son into a responsible one with him unaware of who she is, is for the birds and doesn't have many funny scenes though I did like Peter's celebrity impersonations and his dance with Hall in drag. And the songs and dances are entertaining in themselves. Rubin, however, is all over the place with his confusion of the American vernacular of the time and almost everything concerning him makes no sense whatsoever (though I did like his funny dance). Since this was only 61 minutes that I'm sure played on the lower-half of the double feature bill, I'll be charitable and give this one a 3 for the few entertaining bits that I mentioned enjoying.
Oh Gawd. I want to time travel back to Monogram Studios and throttle someone in their 2 room front office for this sloppy musical. It is one watt above flat-lining for 60 of its 61 minutes and then actually shows (for the one thin minute, spread in milli-second blips across the hour) that there is real life talent being badly photographed.I just don't see the point of going to some trouble to actually make this film that could easily be energetic and actually funny and allow lethargy to be the main thing on view. The weird storyline shows cranky vaudeville trouper Grace Hayes bulldozing her blowsy way into a college where her rat-bag son is rich college clown. She's gonna fix his playboy ways, no matter what.Her real life son (weird looking) Peter Hays plays her screen son. His real life wife plays her secretary. Talk about nepotism. I suspect this talent package was almost the raison d'etre for Monogram financing this back-lot musical produced by resident schlockmeister extraordinaire Sam Katzman. As with other Monogram musicals it just looks more like a reason to film recent new furniture purchases and light fittings in order to show off to other studios that Monogram Pictures are 'lavish' in their B grade ways. Have a ghastly look at SWING PARADE OF 1946 for genuine evidence of this: they just constructed this gigantic nightclub set then found an excuse to film actors and musicians running all over it. Story? None. Anyway ZIS BOOM BAH is more BAH than BOOM. Where was Gale Storm and Mantan Mooreland when Monogram really needed them? Probably standing at the boom gate of PRC Pictures wondering if it looked safe to enter there. Junior jive hepster Roland Dupree springs to life to rappety tap his teen legs around two wobbly dance numbers, especially in the 'big show' finale set in the new and expanded malt shoppe/club set. The usual crumpled curtains are loosely hanging on the back wall, and the stage set of mis matched drapery even has one dark main rag that is yanked back and forth as each amateur sequence elbows past the previous one. The chorus girls and their very plain looking partners in this finale just look like Monogram office staff borrowed (from typing and carpentry) for the morning of filming. They have absolutely no dance talent and are so ordinary on screen... ALL the girls look like they are all called Joyce. There is even a costume calamity where they wear frilly hot-pants...on one leg only. It is all so awful and crummy...and actually annoying when one more tweak up by all concerned would result in ZIS being actually FUN. The one strangely interesting thing is the dialog delivery between Grace and her son/daughter in law: it is so casually delivered that it actually works in spite of the script and logic. She has a very life like presence which is the only thing that allows the ridiculous story to be slightly compelling. The Dupree kid is the real star. He can actually do something...in spite of looking like a tubby Liberace tap dancing teen... You read that right.
The stage star Grace Hayes stars in this obscure little film. After years of being on the stage, she is going to visit a small college town to check up on her son who is being raised by his grandfather. The kid doesn't know who his mother is and when she sees him in a local malt shop, he's a boorish jerk. Part of the problem is that he is a college clown the other part is that he's really spoiled.<br /><br />Interestingly, it turns out that Mom is really quite wealthy and has been not only funding her son's life but is a hefty contributor to the college. So, she has the idea of forcing the young man to mature. She talks to the man who's raising Peter and has his allowance cut off completely--hoping he'll rise to the occasion. It also turns out that she puts the screws to the school because she thinks all these kids need to stop playing around and be more responsible.<br /><br />Now here's where it gets pretty dumb. To show that they know the value of hard work, she hires a bunch of them to sing and dance at the malt shop she just purchased. Talk about contrived!! What happens next is like a long and not particularly good talent show or perhaps a poor man's version of a Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musical! I'd suggest the kids try to do something else to earn money...or perhaps sing and dance until people pay them to stop! I know I would pay them.<br /><br />Considering that the talent is far from talented, Peter is a bad actor and his change from lout to responsible adult is almost instantaneous, the whole thing is a bit hard to take. Not a very good film by any sane standard, this is an obscure film that should have stayed obscure! <br /><br />By the way, it is interesting that Ms. Hayes' son in the film, Peter, is actually her real life son. The only problem with that is that Peter Lind Hayes is a truly awful actor. He's not handsome enough to be a leading man and he comes off as either dull and uninteresting or downright obnoxious. In particular, all the stupid impressions he does are really bad and he has the charisma of the gelatin that you scrape off Spam. Despite this terrible performance, he did go on to have a reasonably successful acting career. Who would have believed it if you'd seen him in ZIS BOOM BAH--because here, he's about as welcome as the Bubonic Plague!!
This feels very stilted and patronizing to a great extent. The whole plot is extremely forced - especially the "gallant" effort to save the college from ruin, and the moralistic overtone (especially by the leading lady) grates a bit.<br /><br />But there are one or two comic moments that do help relieve the boredom, and the dancing is quite fun (especially for alleged amateurs - ha, ha!)<br /><br />The shop proprietor and the young guy doing spectacular tap dancing were particular highlights. And I liked Peter Hayes impressions of Charles Laughton and Ronald Coleman as well.
I will never, ever forget watching this show around the age of 13. Even at the young age I remember thinking, "This is a Baywatch rip off show without the one thing that makes Baywatch tolerable. The girls in bathing suits." Nonetheless I was too small in those days to be the holder of the remote in my house. The high point of Pacific Blue was an episode in which a couple of thugged out gangsters are coming to whack someone with submachine guns ... on bikes!!! As a thirteen year old I never laughed so hard at something that was supposed to be taken seriously. Even I knew that the task of going out and acquiring Uzis (for murder) is a task that should never come before borrowing someones car for the day. That had been the defining moment of this show. Simple Crimes and situations tailor made by hack writing so they could be taken care of by the unsung hero of the crime fighting world The Bike Cop. Does not get much Dumber.
Any chance to see Katharine Hepburn in something I haven't seen or from her early movie career is a treat, and on that level the film is amusing, but she's horrible miscast as a Hill Billy. Her famous New England enunciation slips through, making lines like, "I'd better rustle up some Vittles" pretty ludicrous. She's so pretty and so young… it almost overcomes this major flaw. The story is an old fashioned melodrama, and there fore, a younger generation may think this pretty corny stuff, but this was the staple of American Entertainment well into the 1940's. It has its moments, but you might need to be a die-hard movie buff to appreciate it.
Katharine Hepburn as a mountain woman who mixes prayer with positive thinking--and is thought by the local folk to be a witch. Kate works overly-hard trying to convince us she's a backwoods hick (named Trigger Hicks!), but you can see she doesn't even believe in this unintentionally comical scenario. Constantly-smiling Robert Young plays a foreman working on the construction of a mountain dam who becomes Trigger's first crush...but alas, he's married! No amount of white magic can resuscitate this formula, based on a play and brought to the screen by R.K.O. with too broad a hillbilly flourish. It is ungodly, and just about unwatchable. *1/2 from ****
This is a really silly job of miscasting--about as bad as Hepburn playing a Chinese woman in DRAGON SEED. The lead part Hepburn plays is a combination of Granny from the Beverly Hillbillies and a faith healer! This film is even worse than Bogart's Swing Your Lady, because at least Bogart didn't play a hillbilly--he was just surrounded by them. And the dialog sounds as if it comes right from a Li'l Abner strip! The problems don't really end with the outrageous casting, though, as the plot is completely muddled and the "love story" might make your head hurt. For no reason WHATSOEVER, married Robert Young falls for this Ozark bobcat. Was it her lovely personality that won his heart? I doubt it, as she as the fiery "spitfire" the movie was named after and she really seemed to like fightin' and scrappin' and hollerin'! Was it her feminine charms? With no makeup and fashions that looked like they were designed by Ma Kettle, I doubt if this was the case as well. To top this off, in the end, somehow Ralph Bellamy also fell for her, though once again, it really doesn't seem to make ANY sense.<br /><br />So, here we have two city fellers fallin' for a scrappy unfeminine she-beast played by Ms. Hepburn--now THAT'S a recipe for a good film!
**** Spitfire (1934) John Cromwell ~ Katharine Hepburn, Ralph Bellamy, Robert Young <br /><br />Mountain hillbilly Katharine Hepburn (as Trigger Hicks) is a religious back-woods laundry woman. "Going on 18", she begins to attract male attention, and responds by throwing rocks. The arrival of a dam-building construction crew triggers dreams of romance in Ms. Hepburn. She quickly attracts the attention of suave engineer Robert Young (as John Stafford), who flirtingly hides his marital status. Supervising engineer Ralph Bellamy (as George Fleetwood) is also interested in Hepburn, but for different reasons; Mr. Bellamy wants to know more about Jesus Christ, whom Hepburn worships.<br /><br />After Hepburn employs the power of prayer to heal a child, neighborhood folks suspect she is a witch.<br /><br />If it weren't so serious, "Spitfire" might be more amusing; it is an atypical and wildly inappropriate vehicle for its star, who is thoroughly unconvincing. Of the leads, Mr. Bellamy performs best. However, the best characterization is essayed by Sarah Haden (as Etta Dawson), who appeared in George Cukor's stage version, along with Louis Mason (as Bill Grayson). Will Geer (as West Fry), "Grandpa Walton" in the 1970s, has a small role. An unexpected ending helps.
This movie is truly unbelievable, in every sense of the word. I couldn't believe what I was seeing, and hearing, and I didn't believe it anyhow. Hepburn is probably my favorite actress, but this was ridiculous. Being a hillbilly myself, I know what it should sound like, and it's not Kate's Back Bay accent. The only thing I found funnier was the fact that the guy who played Charlie Chan so many times, Sydney Toler, was cast as another one of the hillbillies, with accent to match. Maybe this was a practical joke, come to think of it. I can think of no other reason for such peculiar casting. Well, maybe this. I noticed that Natalie Schaefer, Lovey Howell on Gilligan's Island, appeared in this play on Broadway. Can you imagine what part she might have played?
As someone has already mentioned on this board, it's very difficult to make a fake documentary. It requires tremendous skill, pacing, patience, directorial 'distance,' a plausible premise, a narrative 'flow,' and REALLY believable acting (aka GREAT acting). <br /><br />Such is not the case with 'Love Machine'. It starts to show its faux hand about the 20-minute mark (with 60 minutes left to watch), and the viewer starts to realize that he or she is being taken in. It's downhill from there.<br /><br />Director Gordon Eriksen simply peaked too soon. But to be fair to Eriksen, his problems started early: as he explains in the extras, he began wanting to do a REAL doc, couldn't get funding, and settled for a cheaper way of making his film.<br /><br />The premise -- people who have secret lives by posting themselves on a porn website -- was perhaps more interesting in 1997-98, when the film was made. Eriksen does a lot of tricky stuff -- a pushy 'host,' hand-held cameras, zooms, grainy blacks and whites -- all, I guess, to elicit a sense of authenticity, but it just doesn't work. The film is confusing and forced, but what ultimately brings it down is the believability of the actors and the pretty awful dialogue.
**** MILD SPOILERS _ BUT YOU PROBABLY KNOW THE PLOT ****<br /><br />Woman gets raped and decides to take out her rage on all of mankind . Oh did I mention the rape victim was mute ? That`s the problem with MS 45 , Thana the rape victim decides she`s going to kill men but is there any logical explanation to any of this ? Surely the whole film would have better if we had Thana give a voice over as to why she`s bumping off any man she comes across ? There`s just not enough development to this plot<br /><br />As you`d expect from a film by Ferrara it`s not a complete waste of time . it`s far better than I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE and pseudo intellectuals will have a field day pointing out the irony of the woman holding a knife like a penis as Thana goes on a killing spree at the end . But the script is somewhat silly and underdeveloped and hinders any serious comment the film could have made
Sickening exploitation trash plays like a bad (and reverse) "Death Wish" ripoff - but the ugly and untalented Tamerlis makes Charles Bronson look like Al Pacino with her performance. As for Ferrara's "stylish" direction, when a film is so vile, dumb and deeply offensive, it's hard for the viewer to pay attention to such details.
A gaggle of unpleasant city dwellers descend on Le Touquet for a week's holiday. Stories intertwine, characters fight, make friends, deceive each other, have sex...<br /><br />Blanc has gathered together a stellar cast for his adaptation of Connolly's book, but to little avail. What should be hilarious is instead at turns tedious and irritating. All the characters are either pathetic or unpleasant or both, and in the end, despite the farcical nature of things, this viewer was left caring little about what happens to any of them.<br /><br />Credit to the always wonderful Rampling, plus Bouquet and Viard but that's it. And Dutronc looks like he's rather overdone the nips and tucks, if you ask me...
This movie is awful, I'm SORRY. I bought this to get Star Worms, and actually expected this to be better after how disappointed I was in Star Worms. Oh just kidding, turns out this is the worst movie I've ever seen. The acting is garbage, not that there really is any, and the main character is a big stupid box who gets attacked by like, stuff or something. I can't really tell. The special effects are so bad that you can't even see the warring dinosaurs, which by the way do not war, but just stand and kind of move their mouths, or whatever those things are. The movie is a headache. It's very obvious the director is trying to establish a universe. Hahahahahahahaha... Really, this movie is just abominable, even by Troma's standards. The only good thing I can say about it is that it's got a Lloyd Kaufman intro, as he tricks us yet again into watching something that isn't fit for consumption.
In my opinion, the ending is what completely ruined the whole thing. The initial idea of having someone suddenly realize they were the son of god and the second coming was somewhat clever. People started to believe him and his friends became the new disciples. People went nutty, demons were possessing people, all kinds of fun. Of course then it all went wrong. It was bad enough that they had to take on the impossible task of looking through a vast amount of writings to find the "third testament" in five days, but then at the end it became this ridiculous humanist fantasy. I won't spoil it, but I'll just say it comes off as if it were written by a teenager with a very limited knowledge of theology. I hear they are making an American feature version of this story, I just hope they change the eye rolling ending.
The film tells you to be aware and conscientious. It also destroys any and all things, the Bible claims to be true. To people like me the first episode was interesting and the second was disastrous. It has been called "blasphemy", and it is, if you are a believer. It is sad to hear, that many people think of it as a good sequel to the Bible. However, the film shows you a lot of things and subjects, that can be interpreted as a filmic version of the "Revelation". Some of us think, that such things are not to be abused. One good thing about the film is, that it strongly encourages ethical awareness and makes you consider your actions twice. The director just seems to forget, that some people act that way already solely based on the fact, that they believe and love as prescribed in the Bible... Why attempt to change that, unless you be the Devil yourself?
Why I disliked the movie, apart from the sheer ugliness of the actors themselves, is that someone might actually believe such crap.<br /><br />First of all, The Second Coming of Christ will be at the end of words, and when Jesus Christ will come on Judgement day he will not come as He did before, in human form. He will come in His full Glory as God and we shall be judged not only for our sins, but also for the consequences of our actions. Everyone will! Secondly, I have seen the eternal Gay pride illustrated in this movie with the all unquestionable "I read the Bible last night and it's not written anywhere". Well, it is. Moses cites on 3 different occasions that men who make love to other men, or women who make love to each other as if man and wife should be killed because these will never inherit the kingdom of God as they are foul! If it truly were for us to follow the Bible word for word there would be executions now, wouldn't there? But I think misinforming people does more harm than this would... That was the in the Old Testament.<br /><br />There are lots of lunatics in psychiatric wards who think they are The Son of God, but to make a movie after it truly makes you think of how many idiots out there can make a movie.
Very poor quality and the acting is equally as bad. This movie is a prime example of present day england and the mindset. There is no mention of Jesus in this movie nor does the movie feature any type of scripture Christianity as most know it. <br /><br />I am also very surprised because this film is a BBC program and the BBC is quit well known for their quality programing, but it looks like the BBC's attempt to rival the Hollywood psycho/drama films are failing completely. <br /><br />Poor acting, poor plot, poor culture that seems to be without religion. I would not even bother buying this, instead better to try to rent this one or buy it when it goes to the 2 dollar bin.
Something not-so-great. "Silence of the Lambs" remains Demme's only good film, and I'm of course including all the overrated, left-wing exercises in big-screen indulgence some of which I haven't seen - and never will.<br /><br />This is a light comedy that takes a thriller turn somewhere half-way. The first half is a little hard to sit through; it's neither funny nor particularly interesting. Daniels plays an over-the-top dumb-as-dirt naive moron who is so gullible and trusting that it defies belief. His animated acting is often annoying, and barely funny. He actually lies to Griffith at the outset and tells her that he is married, with children, when in fact he is divorced! In all the history of mankind and movies any man who is married and meets a woman he likes will lie - if he lies - and say that he ISN'T married. (Later on, the not-at-all credible or believable rationale behind this was revealed: he wanted to "protect (himself)". What a load of crap...) The fact that his character makes all the wrong decisions and does all the dumb things in the movie made me actually look forward to Liotta pounding on him when he caught up with him in the former's apartment.<br /><br />What then happens in Daniels's apartment is the classic end-of-movie fight-to-the-death which the good guy - albeit the very dumb good guy - predictably wins. Still, at least the last half-hour has some action, something going on, and Daniels isn't given any more the opportunity to be animated. The film lacks credible characters (whether main or marginal), and the feel of it is too 80s which means the movie has a rather bland look; visually ugly. Sayles yet again makes a cameo as a policeman. The film is also perhaps a bit too heavy on the coincidences side. Griffith once again plays a soft-talking dumb-sounding bimbo, but, as usual, she is convincing because she IS a soft-talking dumb-sounding bimbo. This was an earlier film, before her lip-enlargement and breast-enlargement surgery; compare the natural breasts she exposes in this film to the ready-to-explode balloons she briefly flashes years later in "Nobody's Fool".<br /><br />If you're interested in reading my "biographies" of Griffith and other Hollywood intellectuals, contact me by e-mail.
There needs to be a 0/10 option for bilge like this. <br /><br />It was painful to watch, but strangely compelling all the same. Compelling because it seemed unbelievable that a movie could actually suck this much. I kept thinking "it must get better." It got worse. And worse. <br /><br />How on earth were people conned into producing such a categorical piece of junk I'll never know. The most surprising thing of all though, is all these reviews I see of people actually loving the movie. Yes, the acting was good, but the movie was very very very bad. Worst movie ever!
The movie opens with Charlie (Jeff Daniels), a business man just finishing his lunch in a neighborhood deli. It appears he doesn't have enough cash to cover the check. Instead of reaching for his plastic, he furtively glances around to see if the coast is clear and ducks out of the place without paying. Unbeknownst to Charlie, "Lulu" (Melanie Griffith) had been observing him from the other side of the deli.<br /><br />"Lulu" is decked out in what passed for cool back in the 1980's with a brunette page-boy cut. She follows him out to let him know that she saw what he did. He tries to deny it but can't escape her accusation. Thinking he's in it, Charlie is surprised when "Lulu" says she doesn't work for the deli and then offers him a ride back to work.<br /><br />When she heads in the opposite direction, thus begins their cavorting across the Middle Atlantic Seaboard.<br /><br />We're supposed to get titillated as thoroughly modern "Lulu" puts straight-laced Charlie into humiliating situations. It's all right when the two consenting adults get a little kinky in a motel room but off-putting when they wriggle out of paying the check at a family-style restaurant. Stealing the labor from hard-working people is not my idea of "wild". Charlie is a jerk.<br /><br />"Lulu" is a loony jerk. She starts to pass off Charlie as her husband. First to her mom (who blithely tolerates the charade) and then at her conveniently timed 10-year high school reunion (an event used later by another too-cool-for-its-own-good movie "Grosse Pointe Blank").<br /><br />The "marriage" comes as a surprise to "Lulu"'s real husband (Ray Liotta)who's just been recently released from prison for armed robbery. Ray gives the two a welcome comeuppance and shows them how nasty crime really is.<br /><br />I can't add any irony by writing that I first watched this by sneaking in the movie theater. No, I don't do that sort of thing. I taped it off of cable TV and assure you I view it strictly in the privacy of my own home.<br /><br />So I got to thinking why I taped it when I don't like it very much and conclude that 20 years ago I was on a reggae kick and the soundtrack of "Something Wild" does prominently feature reggae. The closing credits start with the treat of Sister Carol performing her version of "Wild Thing".
This is the kind of movie that could have ruined several careers, if garbage could ruin motion picture careers these days.<br /><br />Melanie Griffith took off her shirt, and in her pre-enhancement surgery days, she really should have stayed dressed.<br /><br />Jeff Daniels was completely wasted, but fortunately for him and for us, he has gone on to much better things since this ... this ... this ... well, heck, piece of garbage.<br /><br />Strangely, all of its major players have gone on to bigger and better things, including director Jonathan Demme. His work here was also wasted but deserving of a grudging admiration. I mean, anything not worth doing is not worth doing well. But he did it well, anyway.<br /><br />Still, there was one bright, shining aspect: Ray Liotta, who is named way down the credit list, just absolutely stole everything. Liotta was magnificently mesmerizing! Hypnotic! Enthralling.<br /><br />I saw this piece of garbage while it was still relatively new, in a friend's private theater. For some strange reason, my friend LOVED it. I sort of think it's because Melanie Griffith took off her shirt (and, really, honest, she shouldn't have), though he tried to claim it was other, more artistic, reasons.<br /><br />Anyway, I thought even then, after his first scene, that Ray Liotta would become a major star, or at least a major, highly-respected actor.<br /><br />Despite the garbagey aspects of the garbagey script, the sheer ugliness of the whole story, Liotta made it almost worth watching. In fact, it is worth seeing, once, just to see how far Ray Liotta has come. I mean, for one thing, his name is now usually listed at or near the top.<br /><br />Even then, even in a pile of garbage, Ray Liotta shone like a diamond.<br /><br />Just, if you do see this trash, be prepared to hold your nose. Every major character is either amoral or immoral. Terrible movie. Terrible movie idea.<br /><br />Added comment: Too many people answer "Was this comment helpful?" with a "no" because they disagree with the expressed opinion. Maybe IMDb should ask that question instead: "Do you agree with these opinions?"
The first half of the movie is not that bad actually. Although there's not really too much depth in the characters, the story is somehow funny and generally OK with potential to get better, which it doesn't.<br /><br />In the second half things start to turn for the worse, not only for the characters in the movie, but also for the viewer, who will be basically waiting for the story to come to its obvious end.<br /><br />The previous user comment mentioned: "It's a love story, a road movie, a thriller, a comedy of errors, an 80's movie and most of all, it's a Jonathan Demme movie."<br /><br />Well, please allow me to rephrase that: "It's a boy gets girl story, they happen to be driving around in cars, the thrill is gone as it is all too clear how things will evolve, there wasn't any scene in this film to which one might laugh out loud, it does have some slight 80's feeling and yes, Jonathan Demme really was the director."
After the success of Star Wars, there was a boost in interest in Sci-Fi movies. This was one of those cheap attempts to cash in quickly.<br /><br />A group of survivors from a spaceship land on a planet inhabited by stop-motion dinosaurs, where half of them are systematically killed off (the people not the dinosaurs). Porn-movie level acting. Cheap special effects, even for the time, although it looks like a lot of effort was put into them.<br /><br />Costumes were pure 1970's, as were the hairstyles. Ahh, the 70's. I expected a disco to break out at any minute.<br /><br />Nothing to really recommend in this film.
Now, I love bad, old skifee movies as much as most people. And I understand that a budget is a budget. That said, Planet of the Dinosaurs is as bad as a bad movie can get. The thing has no actors, and only one attractive female whom they kill off two minutes after swimming ashore. There are literally no redeeming qualities to be found in this pile of wasted celluloid. The only thing not wasted was paper...the screenplay must have been no more than four pages long. Surely no one actually WROTE dialogue this pointless. I'm constantly amazed that such movies ever got made, much less released. I'm only glad I didn't pay to see this waste of time. It's 75 minutes of my life I'll never get back.
A spaceship in some unspecified future where human beings are equipped for space travel and have laser guns for weapons, crash lands on a strange young planet where dinosaurs are coincidentally also evolved and only on this world, have not gone extinct...yet. The survivors of the crash, roughly ten bland characters wearing blue, white, and yellow suits, fight for survival against the alien prehistoric monsters.<br /><br />"Planet of the Dinosaurs" is a peculiar movie. Like I said in my summary above, the stop-motion animated dinosaurs in the film are the only colorful actors. The models are crude, but effectively animated. And they are much more fascinating and intriguing than these characters portrayed by inexperienced actors and speaking lines from a script that must have been written overnight without a single revision. Obviously, most of the budget was put into the dinosaurs, and although there is a fair share of them, there's not nearly enough to save us from our boredom. These human characters are only there to scream, run around, and mutter these poorly-written and verbose speeches about survival. And unfortunately, not nearly enough of them get eaten by the dinosaurs.<br /><br />Overall, "Planet of the Dinosaurs" is not a film I plan on seeing again. Some people will simply love it for being so cheap and so poorly made. Sometimes, I enjoy movies like this. But this particular film is just too long, too boring, and very exhausting on the mind.
1) Bad acting.<br /><br />2) For a bunch of castaways on an alien planet, it sure looked like home, especially with the houses and roads you can glimpse in the background.<br /><br />3) Terrible plot with stupid caracters making idiotic decisions and blithely losing precious survival equipment and clothing left, right and center.<br /><br />4) Cool 70's scifi jumpsuits (possibly the only good thing about this movie)<br /><br />5) Interesting ship at the beginning (this crew must have been watching Space 1999 a lot). Too bad it blows up so early. The escape ship also got sunk too fast. *sigh*<br /><br />6) Anthropologists might find some aspects of the movie interesting in terms of primate group behavior.
First, This movie was made in 1978. So that tells you that the movie is going to be bad anyway.But I am not saying that all old movies are bad . Second, The special effects we're terrible for even that time. Finally, The acting was so bad, Bozo The Clown could have done it better. It makes you wonder how people get the money to make movies this pathetic. This movie sucks!
I say Ben Johnson and my fellow Canadians say, "Ben Johnson?!" - he was a goddam MOVIE STAR guys, a COWBOY, and by 1976 he was scraping by playing a sheriff in stupid made for TV disaster movies such as this, cashing in on the DEADLY SWARMS OF KILLER BEES that everyone apparently thought were coming to get us at the time. So there's these bees, and they kill some people by flying in their mouth and going after them underwater. Eventually these idiots find the swarm and die and this woman is trapped in her car by the entire swarm. The cops are like, what do we do? Uh, bees die when it's cold. So where could we make it cold? I know - the stadium in New Orleans! So they drive this car and its attendant swarm of killer bees on and on through the streets of New Orleans, with a bullhorn saying "GET OFF THE STREETS OR YOU WILL BE STUNG TO DEATH." And the future home of tens of thousands of flood victims with its broken toilets so becomes the narcotic doom of this particular buncha bees. I don't know which is the greater indignity on this great city...well I do, but this one sucks too. Most appropriately viewed on an extremely faded-to-orange 16mm print, although Betamax is a good alternative!
I really enjoyed the film. It was really cheesy at times. (They destroy the villain with hair driers--but where are they plugged in?) It's a unique film though, and I enjoyed the acting of Courtney Draper and Tamara Hope. I also enjoyed Fanuel (however you write it...) liking Megan's charecter because she called him a dweeb. Besides the acting, the "rewinding" and showing what happened on Ariel's and then Megan's point of view was quite interesting. I saw it twice and I'd see it again
It's just a bad film.Not as bad as R.I.C.C.O. but bad.It got me hooked at the beginging then totally lost me after that.The acting was way off then on then going way way way off.Do not see this movie at all costs,TRUST ME WITH ALL MY HEART!!!!The directors who are brothers are not the next HUGHES BROTHERS,who made really great films like DEAD PRESIDENTS,FROM HELL,AMERICAN PIMP,and MENACE II SOCIETY.The only person who made me watch this was the acting of Paris Campbell,who will be a great actor one day if he makes better films than this.Christina Caparoula also did a nice job for what she got.I hope THE FITTEST is 10 times better than this piece of crap!
If you pack all the clichés about city firefighters into 105 minutes; you have Ladder 49.<br /><br />It has a story but is highly clouded by all the clichés. It turns it into movie that with every event; becomes so predictable it's not worth watching. There is no depth to the story and even the acting seems superficial.<br /><br />It looked like it wanted to be a tribute to firefighters but ended up being boring and pretentious. The parallel between Jack Morrison being fatally trapped beneath an inaccessible part of a building and firefighters being trapped beneath the rubble of the Twin Towers was all too obvious.<br /><br />It doesn't compare to movies like Backdraft and certainly does not set an example for future movies about fire personnel.
I'm sorry, perhaps this is part of the wave of praise for fireman since 911, perhaps it's an old fashioned story, perhaps it's not meant to knock your socks off but I'm sorry, this film is awful. As in the title, cliché 49, I think it has at least that many clichés. It's a dreary story (impressive managing to be dreary when there's dangerous fires and lives being saved) about a fireman. And his dreary life, told in a pointless, 'scene from now' flashback to the past style. We begin the film with the hero in peril in a collapsing burning building. The entire film is about trying to get us to love this guy so we squeeze a few tears out when he meets his end in the finale of the scene from the start of the film. I found it hard to care and wished he'd gone up in smoke earlier. Clichés abound such as - death of best friend, love at first site, hazing in a new job, firstborn, a worried wife with a husband with a perilous job, a father figure boss/superior, 2.4 kids (well 2 but close enough), sacrificing your life to save others, awards for bravery....on and on. It's every fireman's life, every police officer, nurse, doctor in some way. It was lazy, if it was meant as a 'life flashing before his eyes' as he died, then God help the poor chap, I'm surprised he didn't suck in more smoke to go quicker. The flashbacks are mostly mundane and predictable, dully acted and with a soundtrack that could put The Laughing Cow out of business it was so cheesy, it actually sounded like muzak or copyright free elevator stuff!!! To be avoided at all costs unless you need something to watch with granny of a Sunday evening. Or maybe if your related to a firefighter - warning - your life will end horribly or you will be scarred for life if you are a brave fireman according to this movie. Unless your John Travolta (strange Velcro style hair in this one!!)
This is a poor, poor movie. Full of clichés, unrealistic moments: punching the air in celebration after putting a fire out, never mind that someone's lost their home and possessions!!, announcing a pregnancy in a bar along with all your mates before telling you in private first, walking on the roof of a burning building for no apparent reason, the stereotypical funerals and strained relationships, the very dodgy, cheesy music at the end, the unrealistic treatment of the girl who was rescued from her apartment, the very unrealistic explosion from that same apartment!! Did they have a couple of oxygen tanks in the attic or something!!? Anyone with an ounce of wit can see that this movie was a joke. It's a pity, because firefighters do an awesome job, and they deserve to have a good movie made about what they do, but not at the expense of common sense.
As much as I respect firefighters for what they do. I was unimpressed and bored with this film. The acting was OK but Joaquin Phoenix was a poor casting choice to say the least.<br /><br />What bothered me the most about this film was the Celtic music whining on and on and on at the worst possible time in the film. The directing and continuity was pretty bad too!<br /><br />**SPOILER** For example, after Phoenix's character falls several stories and is badly injured, he can barely move to speak to his captain on the radio. Then miraculously, he manages to crawl across a huge space covered in rubble and fire to punch a man-sized opening in a double thickness brick wall using only a foot-long piece of re-bar???? And to top it all off he then gets ultra weak and busted-up again.<br /><br />Did anyone also notice that throughout the film, whenever you see shots of Joaquin fighting fires and rescuing people, there is little or no smoke in the buildings. I would think the smoke should be pretty thick in a flame engulfed building.<br /><br />I also got tired of hearing the search and rescue team yelling "I need some equipment over here!!!".<br /><br />I really thought I would enjoy this film but I found it to be a weak attempt at representing the true life of a fireman. The intention was there but I honestly think that this film could have been so much better. I couldn't help but think that the producer was trying to meet a deadline with this film and had to rush to put it in theaters. More time should have been spent on editing and ensuring there was good flow to the film.<br /><br />The special effects were impressive in some scenes but disappointing and almost ridiculous in others. Kind of like a Jerry Bruckheimer movie.<br /><br />Call me critical but I just can't see what's so great about this movie. At least it wasn't as bad as "The Whole Ten Yards" which is by far the worst film I've seen in recent months.<br /><br />I really hope there isn't a Ladder 50 in the making!
Is there a fire fighter cliché that is NOT used in this film? From the opening line "I'm getting too old for this" through the "antics" of the firemen, to the "worrisome wife" the loss of his best friend in the firehouse, to the final funeral for the fallen brethren, this film looks and sounds like it was written by the marketing department at Disney ("Our studies show that audiences really like it when..." and then they stuck it in).<br /><br />There is nothing original here. Any emotion we feel for these guys is brought in for our admiration and feelings for firemen. <br /><br />Go watch Rescue Me if you want to see real heroes: Everyday guys with flaws that think nothing of running into a burning building to save strangers.
Wow - Thank god I was on an airplane and could look out the window. Bad Hollywood fire scenes, predictable, terribly acted (who the hell was that awful woman who played the wife?), badly casted, awfully written. This movie was apparently made to appeal to the type of person who's willing to kneel at the alter of either firemen specifically, "Heroes" or gods in general, I suppose. I just don't have enough bad things to say about this film. It couldn't have been cheap, either, with all the stars that were in it plus all those special effects and fire scenes. Had to have cost a fortune, yet it still sucked worse than any movie I can even remember seeing. Funeral scene? Astonishingly bad. Courtship between fireman and aforementioned awful woman? Corny, contrived, trite. Firehouse pranks? Don't we all wish we could be both so manly and churlish at the same time.
One of the worst movies ever made. Let's start with the superficial: Joaquin Phoenix is, first of all, too fat to be a rookie fireman. The NYFD does not recruit Pillsbury dough boys. John Travolta has a bad dye job, and the strange gleam in his eye throughout the movie made me think that he was on some sort of extended Scientology bender. The plot hits on all the tropes and clichés of what the average Joe believes life as a firefighter is really like: they all get drunk, get into fights, have a hard time expressing their emotions, their wives all stay at home crying, they all have father issues, everyone has a Boston accent, et cetera. An execrable piece of schwarmerei that plays on our lingering cultural hero worship of firefighters after 9-11 -- which was, by the way, valid cultural hero worship. This film unfortunately presents no believable heroes to worship.
This really is a cringe making exercise. Dressed up as a tribute to fire fighters it contain stupid scenes of "we're just a bunch of wacky guys" in the midst of the "my goodness this can be really dangerous" parts. Mostly it is just plain dumb. You couldn't believe for a single minute that real fire fighters act like this. It is so awful I couldn't bear to watch at times. If my daughter hadn't rented it and then insisted on seeing it through to the end I would have had no option but to turn it off.<br /><br />Thing is I'm a John Travolta fan. Every interview of his I've seen just raises my opinion of him. I think this was one strictly for the money. I'm sure he'll be happy when this one gets forgotten.
This film basically try to portray the heroism of firefighters by making the whole movie revolve around a American dad with a good heart that puts others before himself. Now I know they try to show Jack Morrison(Joaquin Phoenix) as a typical American father that is a firefighter but like there is just nothing interesting in about him what so ever, thus when the movie gets to the climax there is just little to no emotion. This movie basically tries to make the life of a firefighter exciting but it just comes off as boring as any other jobs except you save lives or property by extinguishing the fire. John Travolta plays the captain of the fire station but anyone could have played his role and he is a dull character as the rest of the film. What could have been a good film is that the firefighter are put way up as heroes because they are firemen and turns the whole scenario into a uninteresting melodrama.<br /><br />4.9/10
First off, I'm not a firefighter, but I'm in some kind of para-firefighting unit (the guys who get called if an earthquake hits and the real firefighters need more people for SAR), so I had some training and simulation but I have no real-life experience.<br /><br />But still, there are some points one notices as totally unbelievable. I can understand that they removed the mouth/nose-pieces of the masks and that there is not enough smoke, because the public would otherwise see nothing. But some things defy logic: <br /><br />- No second mask attached to the oxygen. How the hell do you want to rescue people trough the smoke without one? <br /><br />- Rappelling people. No, it's not done like that. I'd be screaming too if somebody hitched a rope around me in that fashion and hung me from a building. If I could scream, that is, and not pass out from want of air because the rope squeezes my lungs. The second time when they're abseiling Jack it's better but still weird.<br /><br />- "Aim high". No, you bloody don't. You always fight fire from as low as possible. You don't fight want to sprinkle flames, you'll want to extinguish the fire, and that's below the flames.<br /><br />- No discipline. They're running around like chicken. And they shout all the time, instead of using radio, and keeping discipline.<br /><br />- No tactics. Why don't they work in teams of at least two? You still can get separated, but it takes much more than if everyone just scurries around alone in search for victims.<br /><br />- Do they really enter buildings without bringing water? I Europe, firefighters would never enter a burning building without.<br /><br />- Firefighters on the roof. WTF do they think they're doing there without security lines or water? - Exploding rooms. Wood and brick does not "explode suddenly".<br /><br />The better points are actually camaraderie and the other non-firefighting parts of the movie. It's a lot of kitsch, but that's alright. I'll give it a point for this.
In the aftermath of September 11th in New York, this drama about American firefighters was conceived as a salute and tribute to their professionalism. The story is told with a series of flashbacks, where after firefighter Jack Morrison (Joaquin Phoenix) has crashed through the floor of a burning building, and only communicating with Captain Mike Kennedy (John Travolta) via the radio. The flashbacks basically show how Jack grows from being a recruit, seeing Kennedy as a father figure, to being a firehouse legend. Of course, in the present day, Jack's fellow firefighters are trying to reach him, but they are too late, and in the end, he lets them leave him, and it forwards to his funeral, where he is praised as one of the best firefighters they have known. Also starring Jacinda Barrett as Linda Morrison, Terminator 2's Robert Patrick as Lenny Richter, Morris Chestnut as Tommy Drake, Billy Burke as Dennis Gauquin, Balthazar Getty as Ray Gauquin and Tim Guinee as Tony Corrigan. The blazes of the film are ultimately all I could pay attention to and enjoy seeing the characters tackle them, the rest is a bit too chatty for my liking. Adequate!
Jeff Fahey has such alert eyes and a smudgy, insidious smile that every character he plays seems villainous; therefore, it doesn't really work to cast him as the good guy of the piece, the audience is just waiting for his character to crack and start blowing people away. Drew Barrymore, fresh off her acclaimed role as "Poison Ivy", must have done this film simply as a favor to director Phedon Papamichael (he was the cinematographer on "Ivy"); playing a character named Daisy Drew (!), she's bumped off right away, which leaves us with no one to look at but Jeff Fahey and Sean Young (who hasn't had a single subtle moment on camera since "Blade Runner"). This witless script, by Michael Angeli, concerns a police sketch artist who draws his own wife's face from a murder witness's testimony, and while that's not a bad idea for a plot, it would be much better suited to an hour-long TV series. This cable-made movie is short on inspiration (beginning with the casting) and shorter on surprises. * from ****
"Wagons East" was a big disappointment for me. But the saddest thing about this movie is that it turned out to be John Candy's last film role (he died just before shooting was completed on this). There are only a few laughs throughout this western spoof, and for a comedy that doesn't cut it. If you want to see a uproarious spoof of western movies, the answer is obvious. See Mel Brooks' classic "Blazing Saddles". Or if you want to see Candy in much better material, see "Summer Rental", "Spaceballs", or "Uncle Buck" (just to name a few). These three movies (as well as others) shows us what a great comic actor he was. Unfortuneately, "Wagons East" does not. What a shame!<br /><br />* (out of four)
John Candy was very much a hit-or-miss comic actor. His death was a tragedy and we all miss him a lot, but WAGONS EAST, in which he plays a bumbling wagonmaster who agrees to take a group of pioneers out of the wild west, is even sadder. I don't understand why it was even released. The story is pointless and weak, and the jokes aren't there. It saddens me even further that Candy's last film would be his all-time worst movie. So let's forget all about this one and remember him in his better films such as SUMMER RENTAL, PLANES, TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES and UNCLE BUCK.<br /><br />0 out of 5
"Wagons East" is widely known as John Candy's last movie, as he died on the set. That's just what makes it so sad: not simply that Candy suffered a fatal heart attack, but that it was on the set of such a crummy movie. Seriously, I don't know what they were thinking when they came up with this piece of crap, but the flick has NO redeeming qualities. It's as if they took every unused script for stupid westerns and just mixed them together and filmed it. No wonder John Candy didn't want to make the movie; maybe his contractual participation was what did him in.<br /><br />Anyway, the point is that Candy did much better than this throughout his career. To be certain, he had already completed Michael Moore's "Canadian Bacon", in which the United States declares war on Canada. Just stick with that one and you can say that Candy ended his career honorably. As for Richard Lewis - who previous had co-starred with Candy in Eugene Levy's absurd but hilarious "Once Upon a Crime" - he made up for this piece of crap by frequently guest appearing on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" in later years.
This movie is silly and very short of being a funny movie. Unhappy 'easterners' are not pleased with being out west; so they hire a drunk wagon master(John Candy)to lead them back east. Sight gags were just not funny enough to carry this one. And Richard Lewis gets on your nerves very quickly; but then I honestly don't like him at anything he does. Ed Lauter is hilarious as the bumbling villain.<br /><br />The movie was dedicated to Candy. He died from a massive heart attack ten days before the movie was completed. A stand in and digital enhancement enabled Candy's character to be seen in the final scenes. Candy was a very good comedian and gave us some real good knee slapping, belly laughs in his career. This movie was just not the caliber of his best.<br /><br />Also in the film, you will recognize: William Sanderson, Gailard Sartain, Ethan Phillips, Ellen Greene and Rodney A. Grant.
this cartoon is not right,lol I totally disagree with a lot of things it portrayed however it ended on a positive note , but as for me and mine we will not be viewing this in our household mainly because we fight against stereotypes every day and this cartoon just confirms what most white people feel black people act like<br /><br />the comment one of the little black girls made on the cartoon was that her boyfriend was so conscious (he was white ) that really offended me that's not something we as black people take lightly conscious is a state of being that black people achieve when they realize their true ability
By far the most racist and ghettoish cartoon for children 7+. Kids who watch this cartoon will most likely try to dress, talk, and act like the characters portrayed. I am disappointed in Nickelodeon and Nick Jr. for agreeing to air this terrible program. The Wayan's Brothers may be good in movies meant for the young adult viewers. They should stick to the movies and not make any more episodes for this cartoon. Usually The young celebs start off working in movies and doing voice-overs for cartoons and then as they grow older, they move up to programs for young adults. A good example is Nick Cannon. He first started out with appearing in All-That, Later on he starred in MIB II, then Drumline, and now his TV show, Nick Cannon Presents: Wild 'N Out, where comedians compete by telling inappropriate jokes. This comment was originally for Thugaboo, but I wanted to show examples of how celebs kids watched on TV not long ago can become those who get involved with non-kid-friendly programs. It is very sad that this happens, but all celebs change and grow up. It is just the opposite with the Wayan's Brothers new cartoon. It is bad enough we have to deal with all the bad people from the ghettos, with allowing the young generation watch this program, it will just convert the kids with possibilities to the ones who don't have a chance at a good life. Just my feelings on this cartoon and my beliefs on what will happen to our children if they were to watch it.
Unlike most of the reviewers of this particular movie, I'm really not the much of a Cynthia Rothrock fan, to say the least. However when I saw that the movie had Fred Williamson and Robert Forster (both great actors), I just had to watch the film. Williamson is a Dakota Smith, an alcoholic cop who is demoted to scrubbing toilets with a toothbrush and even worse having to team up with Cynthia at the behest of the captain (Robert Forster). Forster is always watchable, it's just a crying shame that the movie itself is so damn trite and clichéd. It also features one of the least terrifying villains ever to be committed to celluloid. Williamson would return to the Dakota character in a few more films, the next one being "Down N Dirty" <br /><br />Eye Candy: Nina Richardson shows some T&A; Mary Kapper goes topless <br /><br />My Grade: D <br /><br />Where I saw it: Showtime Extreme
Fred Williamson, one of the two or three top blaxploitation stars. Cynthia Rothrock, one of the two or three top American female action stars. Imagine a film with these two together for the first time! Now imagine THE WORST film that could possibly be made with these two together for the first time. Welcome to "Night Vision". Of course, this movie was made in 1997 and they were both past their prime, but that doesn't mean they didn't have what it takes anymore - they just needed the help of good writing and direction. They got neither here. Rothrock does get to throw a couple of kicks near the end, but this film is so atrocious that you probably won't be awake to see them. (*)
Fred "The Hammer" Williamson delivers another cheaply made movie. He might have set a new standard for himself. Look for the painfully obvious special effects mortar cannon that is visible in the street during a chase scene. You don't see it just once, you see it several times. Look for the out of focus shot in one scene and the camera operator try to fix it as the scene rolls on. Watch this with a group of people and make your own Mystery Science Theater!
the only reason i bought this DVD is because cynthia rothrock is in it.now everybody knows she is the queen of martial arts b movies.the trouble is this is not a martial arts movie.cynthia rothrock has about a minute or so of fight scenes in this stupid movie.now if you were a film maker and you had cynthia rothrock in your movie would'nt you want to have a lot of martial arts action? all she does in this movie is walk around looking bored just like i was when i watched this pile of crap.i own a lot of her movies and they are all b movies but at least they had some cool fight scenes in them.if you are a martial arts fan avoid this no matter what.i'm still mad i wasted 4 dollars to buy this DVD
Trying to catch a serial killer, did they ever think of tracking the license plate number of the black van or fingerprint the video tapes he sent? Oh brother the plot of this movie was so full of holes it was pathetic. Now I know why there are bad movies in the world. This one however was one of the worst.
What is night vision? Well according to the star (Williamson) let's see...one package store owner says to him 'it's getting dark outside' to which he replies 'it makes for better.........'night vision.' What in the hell does that mean? In fact what in the hell is this movie trying to say? It has plot holes that you could drive the killer's van through. Not to mention a cop on duty drinking, Robert Forster sleepwalking through this bizarre attempt at cashing in on the serial killer craze, and a killer who videos his murders. That's actually all I remember.<br /><br />The film took place in Texas, had a few car chases, and a clichéd ending. Perhaps if one watches this film with their eyes closed - it might be good? After all, without being able to see it....it would make for better.....night vision. Did that make sense? Nope. And neither does this film.
"First Snow" has an intriguing beginning. A traveling salesman has his fortune told by an old man, who's predictions turn out to be amazingly correct. From this point on the movie plays out like a bloated "Twilight Zone" episode. I mean nothing but car trips, phone calls and paranoia. William Fichtner gives his usual interesting performance, but Guy Pierce is anything but a sympathetic character, disregarding other people's well being for the sake of his own paranoia. The ending is especially weak, with absolutely no payoff for the long suffering audience. Do yourself a big favor and avoid this one. Not recommended. - MERK
What can I say...not much to this one at all. Pretty dull and uninteresting.<br /><br />The actors performances are just OK. The only one that shines in any way is Simmons, but he only has, maybe 3 scenes. I understand that by keeping his screen time to a minimum he retains the mysterious psychic aura he has, but I can't help but feel his talent was wasted. No one else rose above mediocre.<br /><br />The story itself seems like it may be intriguing at the beginning, but then just doesn't go anywhere. There wasn't a single scene in the movie that impressed me or made me feel like I had just seen something special. The cinematography was fairly bland...I mean desert in a washed out sort of sepia...not very inspiring.<br /><br />The story of his childhood pal back outta prison seemed only partially thought out and didn't really add anything to the story, other than making an average 'Twilight Zone' script into a full length feature.<br /><br />Drab.
This film without doubt is one of the worst I have seen. It was so boring that I simply could not wait for it to end. I talked my girlfriend into watching it after this site had good reviews and after even 30 mins in she looked at me as if to say "your nuts" The scenery was as boring as the film with nothing but driving around in the car looking at the wind blowing bits of bush around. The acting was un-inspiring and the film was simply a waste of what have been a good idea into a waste of a dvdr.<br /><br />Guy Pierce should have stuck to neighbours as at least he washed his hair. All he done was talk on his phone but yet sold nothing as a salesman. He would have been sacked weeks before. His girlfriend (once in Coyote Ugly) should have remained dancing on the bar as at least she looked hot in that.<br /><br />The guy who played Vincent (those who watched know) was so annoying with his phone calls that any normal person would have drove to his house and hit him with a bit of 4 by 2.<br /><br />I do not on this earth know what anyone liked about it. I actually want people to watch this to suffer the torture I went through.
I waited a long time to finally see what I thought was going to be a fun caper flick and was shocked to discover shoddy direction, awkward dialogue, a lackluster pace, unmotivated slapstick gags and an overall coarseness that permeated the film throughout. Just not funny! The sets looked cheap, the costumes by the usually excellent Donfeld are garish and distracting. Even the title song is annoying. The whole children's book characters doesn't come close to representing the married couple whose life is turned upside down when he loses his job. For a film that seems to aim a dart at the unfairness of welfare and unemployment systems, the filmmakers have no problem in being unfair themselves, allowing Hispanic, black and gay stereotypes played at such a cruel level. The look of the film resembles any episode of Love American Style. This is not a compliment. Tacky seventies fashions abound in this world of white collar theft that only lends an air of implausibility to every situation. Outside of a clever initial idea, and two capable stars in Jane Fonda and George Segal, this dated exercise in social commentary comes off as forced and mean spirited to minorities, especially to gay people. If you want a better caper film, you're better off with The Hot Rock with George Segal and Robert Redford or What's Up Doc with Ryan O'Neal and Barbra Streisand. Now that's funny!
Essentially this is a dreadful film with a few features that may or may not redeem it for you, depending on how much you want them to. In "opening up" "The Red Green Show" for the big screen, the filmmakers jettisoned the rustic charm carefully honed over a decade's worth of episodes set in and around Possum Lodge in favor of a blandly-photographed "road movie" with a ghastly faux-Hollywood "big" musical score and profoundly boring storyline that's not embellished with enough good gags to make it as entertaining as even the most mediocre episode of the TV series.<br /><br />Having devised a plotline that keeps most of the members of Possum Lodge offscreen for most of the film and requires virtually everyone concerned to be despicably mean to the loveable Harold (who's the hero of the film, the usually affably crusty Red being relegated in this incarnation to nothing more than the role of head Harold abuser), the only performers who really get to shine are Patrick McKenna and Peter Keleghan as Harold and Ranger Gord, who deliver satisfyingly large-screen versions of their small-screen characters.
Steve Smith has finally run a fairly weak series right into the ground with this movie. Poor actors thrashing a horrible script pretty much sums this one up. Two hours of your life you'll never get back! Go get a root canal instead - you'll enjoy it more.
The Hell's Angels did come out the losers in this movie. Sonny stated to the director that NOBODY does this to the Angles and gets away with it. His version was the two dudes were to be shotgunned to death, but his suggestion was ignored. They were stoops to even appear, much less be "technical advisers" in a stink-bomb of a movie like this. Hell's Angles on JAP bikes? C'mon! (although in Sonny's autobiography he says, "F$#K Harley Davidson!" and that if they was smart, they would be riding Hondas. (ST1100) Read his auto...he HATES Harleys. Can you imagine the Angels whispering into town on their sewing-machine sounding Jap bikes? Not too intimidating. They would get laughed out of town.
Tom Stern and Jeremy Slate are swing bachelor's planning to hijack a casino, ala "Ocean's 11", and pin it on the Hell's Angels. Bad move. For a film with the words Hell's Angels AND the number 69 AND featuring actual Hell's Angels, this movie is surprisingly tame. The Hell's Angels truly deserve a better film to be centered around them. Not this snoorefest. Luckily this is one of the DVDs that features commentary by Joe Bob Briggs so the pain of having to sit through it is greatly alleviated. If you watch it any other way, let me recommend something to you. DON'T!! <br /><br />My Grade: D <br /><br />DVD Extras: Joe Bob Brigg's commentary; Conny Van Dyke's message to her fans (she has more than one?); Photo gallery; Theatrical Trailer; and Trailers for "Blood Shack", "Hell High", "Samurai Cop", and "The Hollywood Strangler"
Something of a disappointment. Lee J. Cobb is the anti-union head of Roxton Garments in New York. His partner in the business is killed when an elevator is unleashed and plunges twenty-seven floors to the bottom of the shaft, in the scariest scene in the film.<br /><br />Cobb doesn't know it, or doesn't let himself realize it, but the man behind the killing is Richard Boone, who protects the business from union organizers.<br /><br />Then Cobb's son, Kerwin Mathews, returns from Europe determined to learn the business and join his father in running a clean shop. He's shocked -- shocked! -- to learn that Boone has been clobbering the union members and killing a few who have become irretrievably irritating.<br /><br />Robert Loggia is one of the organizers who is killed by a couple of Boone's goons, led by Wesley Addy. Loggia leaves behind a widow, Gia Scala, with whom Mathews, understandably and decorously, takes up.<br /><br />In the end, Cobb pays for his self deception, Addy and Boone get their just desserts, and Mathews winds up with the succulent Scala, after whom an opera house is named.<br /><br />There isn't a sparkle in any line of dialog. A couple of lines are stolen verbatim from "On the Waterfront" -- "pistoleros", "you'll talk yourself right into the grave." The plot is schematic and holds absolutely no surprises. Vincent Sherman's direction is pedestrian. The photography is flat an uninspired, though there are a couple of nice shots of New York streets.<br /><br />Lee J. Cobb can act. In this case, it must have been easy for him because he replays Johnny Friendly from "On the Waterfront," only this time with a soft heart. Richard Boone can act too. Joseph Wiseman, in a minor part, does a good job. Gia Scala hits her marks, says what the script demands, and does what the director tells her to. A stunning woman, her life soured early on. The director and photographer do a good job on Wesley Addy. He has white hair, a blanched face, eyes the color of a glacial lake, and he's sometimes shot through a wide-angle lens than turns his surprisingly fleshy lips into those of some kind of parasitic fish. I don't see him as a low-tier muscle man though. He and Boone should have switched roles. Harold J. Stone is his reliable self, although he's forced to be more "Italian", as Tony, than comes naturally to him. Nobody else in anything resembling a major part is more than mediocre, and some performers don't clear even that bar. Kerwin Mathews may be a nice guy in real life, but he's blandly sterile and belongs in domestic dramas on afternoon television.<br /><br />Great title, suggestive of intrigue and shadows. Some good people in the cast. A potentially explosive expose of a business nobody knows much about but which deals in megabucks.<br /><br />And it all comes out like this.
I went into this movie with semi-high expectations after loving the cartoon series in my childhood, and this nearly wrecked that love for me. Jason Lee, David Seville in the film, is horrifying. I understand it can't be easy to act with CGI characters who aren't actually there, but I really found his performance atrocious, along with all the other non-animated characters. The chipmunks were adorable, yet sometimes blatantly obvious at moving the plot of the story along, and therefore did not tempt me to stay in the theater for longer than half an hour into the film. If you feel you must see this film, rent it, at the most. It is NOT worth eight bucks to see it in theaters, unless you'd like a good laugh at the horrible acting.
As cute and adorable as they are, the story of three singing chipmunks just doesn't seem to have enough meat to it to sustain it for an hour and a half. I thought that the first half hour or so of this movie was well worth watching. It was fun, it had a few laughs in it, it was full of energy. Then it somehow just lost that. I wouldn't even say it faded away, because it seemed quite abrupt to me. The fun was gone; the laughter disappeared. My daughter noticed it, too. She's 4 - she laughed uproariously several times in that first part of the movie, then her laughter stopped. Perhaps it took on too serious a tone - the evil movie producer working the chipmunks to death. Something happened, anyway, and it wasn't for the better.<br /><br />Of course, the movie is trying to tell the story of how the chipmunks (Alvin, Simon and Theodore) began. Everyone knows the Christmas song. Here we discover how they met Dave and got their start. The movie is updated to the present time, although their real origin is noted by Dave's street address of 1958, which was the year when the animated singing rodents were first created. Jason Lee did a pretty good job as Dave and the chipmunk voices were also pretty good. David Cross as the evil Ian irritated me to be blunt, and I couldn't figure out the point of the character of Claire, played by Cameron Richardson. She added little to the movie. It's a movie you can watch with the kids - it's probably a movie you'd only want to watch with the kids, in fact. It gets a 4/10 from me.
When I finally got around to seeing this film recently, it turned out to be exactly what it looked like to me at first glance... yet another Hollywood CG/live-action rehash of an established cartoon franchise. Nothing special or memorable whatsoever. Designed in every way possible to appeal to very young children and very immature adults, making heavy use of comedic devices such as farts, poo-eating, and the size of Theodore's butt.<br /><br />This film would bother me a lot less if it weren't such an obvious step down for the Chipmunks. Even their characters I found were changed for the worse for this movie. While in the past each one of them had a very distinct personality, here they all behaved like immature, smart-alecky children with ADD, constantly bouncing erratically off the walls. It especially bothered me to see Simon portrayed in this way... He's supposed to be the smart, serious nerd who acts as the "straight man" to Alvin's crazy antics. But here he's pretty much a carbon copy of Alvin. One joke in the film even implies that Simon only *thinks* he's smart but really isn't... and honestly if I had never heard of the Chipmunks before seeing this film, I would have agreed.<br /><br />In my opinion, this film is just another obvious cash-grab, and I'm more than a little sorry it was even made. The fact that it's a "kid's" movie doesn't excuse its flaws... To excuse a stupid movie that degrades a classic franchise just because it's for children is insulting to children, and any kid would deserve something more intelligent than this film.
You know the old saw about a train wreck? The one about how you can't look away? This movie isn't that good. The only reason you're still there is because you brought your kids and you can't leave them alone in the theater. You might catch a nap.<br /><br />Tim Hill should never work in film again after delivering this awful piece of junk. He manages to take a decent comic actor in Jason Lee and turn him into a robotic, unsure actor in this production.<br /><br />I didn't have much hope for this movie in the first place, I admit. If it weren't basically the only family film I could take my son to around Christmas, my wife and I wouldn't have gone. God, I wish we could go back in time and stop ourselves. I leaned over to my wife about 10 minutes in to tell her what a stinker I thought it was, but she beat me to the punch.<br /><br />I'm not kidding. It's putrid. Only David Cross's terrific-as-usual work saves this review from being only 1 star.<br /><br />The story is cloying, insulting and stupid, as might be expected for a movie in this genre (although the recent "Curious George" was blissfully intelligent and enjoyable). The acting is mostly poor. The decision to "update" the Chipmunks songs for today's audience was inadvisable at best and boneheaded at worst. It does not work.<br /><br />The chipmunks of old were clever, mischievous and sly. These chipmunks are dumb, somewhat mean-spirited, obnoxious, and in a surprise, needy to the point of uselessness.<br /><br />Either as a retrospect, a tribute, or as a completely new production, this film totally fails. The final straw? My son couldn't wait to leave. Spend your money renting Curious George instead.
I'm surprised to read all the positive comments on this movie. Even my 4 and 6 year old were bored. The chipmunks are cute...but the storyline is overly obvious. Not recommended for young ones with the least sophisticated tastes.<br /><br />We did hear a few laughs from the audience while we were in attendance; but I wondered why.<br /><br />I don't admit to ever being a 'chipmunks' fan, but I expected to be entertained. It's not even an 'escapist' movie as far as I can tell. Simply a heavy handed view of 'success too young spoils'. We've seen more than enough of that with Britney Spears, et al, haven't we?<br /><br />Don't bother.
The writers missed so many opportunities and created so many plot holes.<br /><br />Example: When Dave retrieved his keyboard from the rain, I was eagerly anticipating the funny sounds that were going to come out of it. Nothing! Are you kidding me? A truly witty writer would have not only had a field day with that, but it would have eliminated the major problem of the entire audience wondering how a digital keyboard can become completely soaked but then work perfectly.<br /><br />There were at least 10 other similar situations. Overall, small children will enjoy this, parents will endure it without too much complaining.
I honestly thought this movie was going to be cheesy, even though I've liked Alvin and the Chipmunks for a LONG TIME! I was was very wrong. IT WAS GREAT!!! It has been the best movie I have seen since October! In my opinion, it's the movie everyone should see this holiday season! Enchanted (I thought anyway...)was awful, The Golden Compass was alright, but the ending was pretty crappy to His Dark Materials fans, and I Am Legend, well I haven't seen that yet (or National Treasures 2) but it looks alright.<br /><br />I'm not about to give anything away, but this movie is great for anyone, especially kids!
This is a below average "whodunit" with the cliche everyone in the living room routine. Charlie Chan is a Secret Service Agent doing government work, and he must find who killed a scientist working on a bomb to defeat German U-boats in World War Two. There is little to recommend with this movie, since the neither the bomb nor the scientist nor the war have much to do with the plot. Charlie Chan fans will most likely find this movie disappointing. Who dunit? Who cares?
A true yawner and a bad film even for the Chan series. I like a good Charlie Chan film or even a reasonably good one, but this one falls way short of the mark. Charlie is enlisted to help figure out the murder of a scientist working for our government when someone in the house has stolen the plans for another power. The mystery is very pedestrian and the acting doesn't fare much better. The only saving grace for me in the film was the presence of Mantan Moreland as Birmingham Brown. He gives the film a little comedy and has some good scared faces, but after that the pickings are rather slim. Benson Fong is here as Tommy Chan and pairs up with Chan's daughter of all things. What about Sidney Toler? He is pretty decent but looks like he is straining to carry the film. What I noticed most was the way the film was shot. Chan director Phil Rosen, of whom I generally like most of his entries, uses lots of long shots with no action(like Charlie's initial walk into the house from outside). Why? The film is only 64 minutes long for crying out loud! Shots like that tell me the director had to fill time up because the script was even weaker than he was accustomed to. This probably isn't the worst Chan film ever made, but up to now it is the worst I have sat through unfortunately.
This was the first Chan film made by Monogram. What a come down from Fox values and standards! I was shocked when I saw my first Monogram after seeing the great Fox films. This is boring and uninspired with wild music playing as Chan calmly walks across the street. Chan is now working for the US Secret Service rather than the Honolulu Police Department. He is assisted by Benson Fong, who plays No. 3 Son Tommy for the first time. He also has a daughter along, Iris Chan, played by Marianne Quon. Mantan Moreland also makes his debut as Birmingham Brown. He is a cab driver in Washington, DC, here, rather than the later chauffeur to Chan in the later films.
Great book, poorly done movie. Cheesy performances and contrived situations make this movie a sentimental bore-fest. Flat and uninspired work from most of the actors leaves this film in the After School Special category. No doubt there is a lot of talent to be tapped in this cast and crew but something went horribly wrong The very talented Gretchen Mol attempts to pull this film out of the mire but even she can't seem to rise above the silly dialogue. Feels like everyone just phoned it in. Even the makeup (Mulrooney ages 20 years over the course of the film) looks amateurish and crude. Don't waste your time on this clunker.... go read the book.
THE MEMORY KEEPER'S DAUGHTER in the form of a novel by Kim Edwards was a highly successful bestseller and probably was featured in more reading groups than any other novel during its circulation. So what happened when the novel became a made-for-television movie? Perhaps it is the below mediocre screenplay (oops!, teleplay!) by John Pielmeier that consistently galumphs along in an awkward pedestrian fashion removing all sense of credibility to the story. Perhaps it is the cut and paste direction by Mick Jackson that misses the pacing and character delineation. Perhaps it suffers from the cinematography of an uncredited source or the 'liquid tears' musical score by Daniel Licht. For whatever of these (or all of these) reasons, this novel-to-film survives because it does make a good case for educating the public about the capabilities of those born with Down Syndrome. And for that it is worthy of attention. <br /><br />Dr. David Henry (Dermot Mulroney), a successful orthopedic doctor, is married to the beautiful Norah (Gretchen Mol) and their lives are becoming changed by their pregnancy. On a stormy winter night in Kentucky Norah goes into labor and the Henry's rush to a nearby clinic where David delivers his wife (the doctor is caught in a snowstorm) with the assistance of his old friend, nurse Caroline Gill (Emily Watson). After the delivery of a perfect boy child (Paul) Norah continues to be in labor and (surprisingly...) delivers an unexpected (!) twin girl. David and Caroline immediately recognize that the little girl (Phoebe) is a 'mongoloid' (this is before the use of the term Down Syndrome) and David, having a history of losing a little sister because of a birth defect) decides to send Phoebe to an asylum for the mentally challenged: Caroline is to make the delivery and Norah is told the second twin died at birth. <br /><br />Caroline follows instructions, sees the conditions of the 'home' where Phoebe is to be deposited, shrinks in horror, and decides to keep the child. Aided by a friendly trucker, Caroline changes her solitary existence and mothers Phoebe, finding a new life in her trucker's Pittsburgh. Norah insists on a formal funeral for Phoebe - a fact that deeply disturbs David's psyche, and the Henry's life goes on with only the one child Paul, leaving submerged pains about the lack of Phoebe's presence. Norah gifts David with a camera ('peoples lives are like a camera, that's where they live - in a room captured by a moment') and David becomes obsessed with photography. Norah grieves, drinks, and loses David's attention, while David traces Phoebe's existence with Caroline - sending money and letters to Pittsburgh. Paul (Tyler Stentiford to Jamie Spilchuk) grows up, discovers his mother's infidelities and is angered about his father's lack of communication and understanding, and decides to fulfill his goal of becoming a musician, and off to Juilliard he goes. Meanwhile Phoebe (Krystal Hope Nausbaum) has matured into a very highly adapted young girl, and the manner in which the broken marriage of the Henrys happens and the healing atmosphere of Phoebe's and Paul's lives coupled with the courage that has supported Caroline Gill's struggle to gain acceptance in the world for those born with Down Syndrome forms the conclusion of the film. <br /><br />The cast of well-known actors tries hard, but only Emily Watson is able to resurrect a credible character from this squishy script. Jamie Spilchuk gives evidence of a young actor with much promise. Dermot Mulroney and Gretchen find it difficult to mold empathetic characters form the corny lines they are given to deliver. The film is a mess, but the message about acceptance of Down Syndrome children and adults is an important one. Grady Harp
Who is minding the store here? How could any producer/network executive/director let a crew stick the skeeziest fakest plastic palm trees in film history in the sands of a wintry Canadian beach and try to fob it off on us as the tropics? Those trees were to real palm trees what a pink tinsel K-Mart Christmas tree is to real fir. And who let Dermot Mulroney go in front of the camera with painted-on grey hair that wouldn't have passed muster in a high school play? And didn't any of the geniuses doing quality control on this thing think to correct the (excellent) Canadian actor when he said gaz instead of gas? Everybody involved with this plodding slug of a "movie"--writer, director, actors--has done not just good but brilliant work elsewhere. Paced way too fast between events and deadly slow within them, devoid of any emotion except the obvious, expository and contrived--maybe this only seems like one of Lifetime's worst movie because of all the Red Carpet hype with which it was presented. And I'm saying this as somebody who love Lifetime. What gives, folks?<br /><br />All of that said, a certain actress's work at a certain critical turn in the movie (and if you've seen it you'll know exactly what I'm talking about) was so brilliant that the movie would have gotten a 10 from me if that was the whole movie. Unfortunately it was only about five seconds of it.
Based on a fairly bland "best seller," this film - like most other Lifetime movies - played out more like a reenactment than an actual movie. The only difference here was that Meredith Baxter wasn't in it. The women in this don't age even over a span of like 20 years and the acting in general is pretty bad.<br /><br />The characters in this were all cliché and one-dimensional. The story was of the cheesy nature. I wouldn't recommend it, but it's the kind of thing that people who loved the book and people who watch that network all the time will think is great. I only watched it because my girlfriend wanted to see it so she wouldn't have to read the book her sister loaned to her. It wasn't made for someone like me - my girlfriend cried a little at the end though, so she didn't think it was as terrible as I did.
I just saw a terrible film called The Sleeping Dictionary. One reviewer on Four Word Film Review (www.fwfr.com) got it right right when he wrote, "From A to Zzzzzzzzz." The story is about an English colonialist jerk that comes to Malaysia to "civilize the savages" so to speak and ends up falling in love with his sleeping dictionary. A sleeping dictionary is a native Malaysian prostitute fluent in English that services Englishmen colonialists and teaches them her native language in return for ... well the movie never really makes that clear, but I can only assume he gives her money or something. Needless to say, the movie focuses a lot more on the "sleeping" part than on the "dictionary" part of the job description. Things get complicated for our young hero when the forbidden love affair gets compounded by her culture, his soap opera domestic situation, and his own boundless stupidity in every major decision he makes throughout the film.<br /><br />So yes, the movie has some major flaws, but on the other hand, it delivered exactly the two things I rented it for in the first place: a beautifully photographed exotic location, and an even more beautifully photographed and exotic woman that plays the sleeping dictionary, Jessica Alba. My friend told me that this crappy movie was her at her most beautiful and damn was he right. She's not a great actress, and doesn't quite pass for Malaysian, and its pretty obvious that they use a body double for the nudity, but who cares? Jessica Alba has that rare face and figure that's more than just sexy, but also beautiful in the way that a Vivaldi violin concerto or a Rembrandt painting is.<br /><br />(P.S. Sorry to all you feminists out there who discourage objectifying women, the "male gaze," etc. etc., but I hope you can understand that I mean no disrespect.)
Yes, it's true that it was Jessica Alba who leads me to this movie, because without her, I should have never pick it.<br /><br />But, I find it long, dull and above all, unoriginal. All along, I thought that the story was full of clichés and the directing very boring. So it was a surprise to see that the director and writer are the one and same person. I take notice to remember to avoid all his next movies.<br /><br />It's a pity because all good things were at hand: Malaysia is a beautiful jungle, it was the British Empire and the cast is wonderful: Jessica knows how to open her soul and for one time, she has found an appropriate movie for this. Bob Hoskins shows a great experience and he should have won an award for this role.<br /><br />The only positive thing is that it makes me open a world-map to locate this island because if you guess it happens in south Asia, you don't know where exactly! Ah, the little plane flight with red lines in the Indiana Jones movie!!!
Like the beauty of the jungle, Jessica Alba's gorgeous smile and sultry looks loom over the film, but alas they are the only two things worth watching this film for. When in theory we should be watching for the narrative.<br /><br />The plot is thin on the ground, and hard to believe. As beautiful as Jessica Alba is, she doesn't add any of the spark that she injected into the credible 'Dark Angel' series. Since Dark Angel it seems that Alba has been reduced to mere eye candy(but what eye candy!), and is the sole reason for putting her into films.<br /><br />The concept of the sleeping dictionary is daft and implausible, with little character development (or character for that matter) to make us want to undertake the 109 minutes run time with this world. Despite the films short running time, it still manages to feel to long and too laboured.<br /><br />It seems a shame that such talent such as Brenda Blethyn, Emily Mortimer, Bob Hoskins are wasted on a threadbare narrative which barely raises a pulse. This film seriously misses a trick, an exotic setting, a more than capable cast, with lovely cinematography, and a chance to utilise the themes and the dualistic concepts of 'civilisation'. But there is little narrative to speak of, no drama, no sense we are watching a story of love, more a story of lust and woman happy to please men without question. Lets be honest, if Jessica Alba was freely allowing you to sleep with her, do you seriously think you'd be able to concentrate on learning a tribal language? Therein lies the great problem, both in suspension of disbelief, and also what the female characters are limited and reduced to. Take for example the fact that Jessica alba's character undergoes the mental and physical tribulation of pregnancy and birth to her forbidden love, yet all we see is her looking lovely and curvy one minute, then lovely and curvy, with a baby, the next.<br /><br />It's a sorry state of affairs to see a film with promise not live up to anything near it's potential. I could write endlessly of the films flaws, but it pains me to do so. The film looks good, the premise could have been made into a lovely film, but sadly it wasn't to be.
The positives: It's shot pretty well. Has some interesting peripheral characters. Likable main character (albeit weak).<br /><br />The bad: Plot/story. Editing. Characters wasted. Jessica Alba.<br /><br />I'm a fan of sappy movies, but this movie is cringe-inducingly bad. I don't understand how anyone can hand over $12M to this Guy Jenkin. And before I go any further, I just want to say that I don't dislike Jessica Alba--I really wanted to like her in this film. However, Jessica Alba in her fake accent and her model poses made me miserable. She has absolutely no screen presence in this movie, and she ruins every scene she's in. Needless to say, the romance does not come off as believable(not even a tiny bit).<br /><br />All I saw throughout was the actors flapping their wings, trying to get this thing off the ground with what little they were given--but sadly, all this movie does is sink. There is no emotional connection, no emotional conflict, and nothing is gained. It's a pretty empty movie.
This version of "The Magic Flute" is not only the worst production of Mozart's great opera that I have ever seen, it is also the worst video production I have seen of any opera.<br /><br />I'm a big opera fan and I have more opera on DVD than movies. The sets are cheap and cheesy. Papageno doesn't even have a bird costume. He is just dressed like some guy. The sound is in mono. The color is really bad. It is saturated in orange. Most DVD's from this period have the color digitally restored, but they did not bother with this one. Also, the language has been changed to Swedish instead of the original German.<br /><br />This is not a movie version of "The Magic Flute." It is a filmed performance and it is not a good performance and it was not filmed very well. You can pick any other available DVD of this opera and I guarantee it will be better than this one. My preference is for the version conducted by James Levine with sets by David Hockney.
A tedious effort from not-yet great director Budd Boetticher and pretty but not-yet un-bland actress Nina Foch, this movie is, as one of the other reviewers notes, is the quintessence of a certain kind of B movie. It's just not the good kind. And a promising premise and an overactive fog machine is wasted.<br /><br />Basic plot -- Nina, a nurse on leave from wartime duties on account of her nerves, has a nightmare. She meets a dashing fellow at the resort where she's giving her nerves a breather, and realizes he's in the dream, even though she's never met him before. Meanwhile, it turns out our dashing guy is working as a spy, and is about to go on an-extra secret, hush-hush mission that must not fail.<br /><br />Of course, there are Nazis. And plot holes. And smart people acting in a fashion most likely to get them into entirely unnecessary scrapes, so that the running time can be spun out past an hour. At the end, the movie becomes a contest between which group of spies can act more foolishly. If the FBI and OSS had acted like this crew, we'd have lost the war in '42.<br /><br />The movie itself is rather flatly shot (despite the best efforts of the fog machine) and the acting -- as it seems to be in many of the Columbia Bs TCM has been showing lately -- is curiously unengaged. It's less stylized than what one might find from a similarly budgeted Warner Bros movie, but also less fun to watch.<br /><br />Boetticher's strength, of course, is a rather matter of fact style which allows the strong stories and acting in his Randolph Scott westerns to come to the fore. Maybe the problem here is that such a style is not going to work when the script is lousy and the actors tired from their five film a year schedule.
We've all got to start somewhere, it was in films like Escape In The Fog that somebody like Budd Boetticher could learn his trade before turning out good films. In fact the film was dated before it even hit the movie going public on June 25, 1945.<br /><br />The war on Europe was over for almost two months, of course not even Harry Cohn could control the events of history. So I'm wondering why even back then the public didn't question why a Nazi spy ring was helping out the Japanese. Another very bad historical inaccuracy was that the FBI had nothing to do with the Pacific or Asian theater. The cloak and dagger stuff was the territory of the OSS in that part of the world.<br /><br />When you're an FBI man like William Wright it sure good to have a psychic girl friend like Nina Foch. He's about to go on a mission to the Orient to deliver the names of key underground leaders to start a general uprising in China against the Japanese occupation. Germans who've been bugging Otto Kruger's house learn of this and the whole movie is spent with these guys who've already lost the war trying to help their allies. Who, by the way, they refer to as 'Japs'. When Foch is sideswiped by a speeding car and knocked unconscious she dreams about Wright's danger and sees what is about to happen to him on the Golden Gate Bridge. She goes there and foils the plot. <br /><br />All the stuff you'd expect from a nice noir film is there, the foggy atmosphere of San Francisco, the dimly lit sets, Budd Boetticher tried his best as did the cast. But they just weren't convincing, probably because they didn't believe this claptrap themselves.<br /><br />It's possible, but not likely that Nina Foch's dream and its psychic consequences might have been more developed and the developments were left on the cutting room floor. I think it was just a lousy screenplay. <br /><br />And Budd and Harry Cohn at Columbia Pictures had the fast moving events of history going against them here.
That is the answer. The question is: What is the single reason to watch this movie? I loved her in "My Name Is Julia Ross." That is one of the best films noir of all time. Noir or whatever one may call it, it's a very unsettling movie.<br /><br />She is fun in one of the worst major studio releases of all time, too. That would be "The Guilt Of Janet Ames." This one has a spooky, promising title. It has a good cast. It has a fine director. I was expecting something dark. Maybe something a little tawdry. Instead, it's an uninspired, routine espionage movie. It's pretty much is a total bore. At least it was to me. Ms. Foch is captivating. And that is about it.
If any movie ever made Italians look bad, this is it.<br /><br />Duke Mitchell - what an A--HOLE. Duke Mitchell, I s--t on your grave. Seeing as practically every person gunned down in this film by the cowardly Mimi is either black or of some other racial or ethnic minority, it's hard not to become convinced that the guy ultimately owes his allegiance to the Ku Klux Klan or skinheads. Awww, but he doesn't shoot the little black kid in the elevator in the opening sequence, so that means he can't be all bad, right? WRONG. Typical softheaded sentimental tripe.<br /><br />While I do understand why some people might be struck by and even, to a certain extent, admire the film's audacious, totally un-PC verve (it's certainly unashamed of its own hatefulness and sense of self-involvement), but this doesn't change the fact that the main character, Mimi (and, by extension, Duke Mitchell), is thoroughly loathsome human being who earns not one iota of empathy or interest, especially given that Duke Mitchell is such a COMPLETE BORE as a performer. But what do you expect from a guy whose main claim to fame (apart from this dog t--d of a movie) was being a second rate Dean Martin imitator?
What a disappointment! I've enjoyed the Jon Cleary books about Scobie Malone, but there's little resemblance between him and the cinematic Malone. In the books he's a city detective, who is devoted to his wife and doesn't get involved in fisticuffs. For the film the character has been spiced up, into an outback copper who uses his fists and isn't averse to jumping into bed with a gorgeous girl, though quite what she and the film's other sex interest see in him I don't know; Taylor was 39 at the time and his face was getting puffy.<br /><br />But his character's stamina is remarkable; he flies in from Australia, apparently goes straight to the Commissioner's house (rather unwisely seeking to arrest him during a black-tie reception), saves him from assassination (getting into a fight in the process), goes to a casino with one girl, leaves with another and takes her to bed. So much for jet lag! On the way back to the Commissioner's house (showing a good knowledge of London back streets), he gets beaten up by the baddies, but is still first down to breakfast! It's also remarkable that the commissioner's limo has its windscreen and headlights miraculously repaired within minutes of the assassination attempt and that one character has a touching faith in the precise timekeeping of a clock-activated bomb.<br /><br />The best thing is Joseph the Butler's disdain for the uncouth Malone. And at least the film avoids being a London travelogue, though some scenes take place during the Wimbledon tennis week.
This is a failure so complete as to make me angry.<br /><br />All of the subtlety and structure of Reggio's early films is gone, leaving nothing but a hash of digitally smeared images whose sole purpose seems to be Whining About Bad Things Humans Do. Just how do Star Trek-like wormhole graphics, slo-mo colorized seascapes, mutiplicities of obviously fake computer icons, and shots of athletic competition that, incidentally, show that no one has ever been able to top (or even match) Leni Riefenstahl for filming bodies in motion, edited together with an overlay of video colorization that a 1980s "Dr. Who" producer would have rejected as "too cheesy," add up to a polemic against "civilized violence"? There is no intellectual, emotional, or visceral connection between these images as assembled and mutated by Reggio and way too many digital effects artistes, and the cautionary tale I assume he wanted to produce. With all of the "dramaturgical consultants" involved, no one seems to have pulled his head out the his own feeling of Saying Something Important and considered that they might all be failing to say something new.<br /><br />Only people who watch too much television could make such a film and believe that it's meaningful; this is kindergarten Stan Brakhage, and ultimately gutless in its relentless obviousness. The only irony and tension evident here (unlike in "Koyaanisqatsi" where the relentless beauty and strangeness of time-altered ordinary images forced you to consider their meaning) was when the DVD I was watching jammed and skipped. This is MTV for the Noam Chomsky crowd, based on reflex rather than reflection and signifying nothing. Two stars for the music, which is in Glass's best pomo-Cesar Franck style and features some passionate cello from Yo-Yo Ma. (I hope for his sake that he didn't have to record his parts to a playback of the film; there are some things you shouldn't have to do even for a paycheck.)
I am a gigantic fan of both Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqqatsi, but this movie is just not good. The reviewer below is entirely correct that the stunning imagery of the Detroit station is the first and last memorable scene in the film. I really, really wish I had left after that, instead of continuing to hold out hope throughout the film. Maybe my expectations were too high, but I felt let down.<br /><br />The score is almost completely a rehash of the previous two - not necessarily a bad thing if you're a fan, but there's only one piece that stood out to me as being fresh. It was good enough, though, that I'll still probably check out the soundtrack.<br /><br />But just keep this in mind if you see this film: if you come to realize at any point that you're not enjoying it, go ahead and split - you won't miss a thing, because it won't get any better.<br /><br />I'll even give the executive summary here (warning! spoilers!): lots of shots of athletes that look almost good enough for a Nike commercial, shots of smiling people, inexplicably dull frontal head shots of famous people's wax dummies (WTF were they thinking here?!?), some giggling babies (cuuuuute), some "bitchin'" Photoshop effects, some imagery that's meant to suggest a comparison between the flows of water, information, money and people (I think)... and then a bunch of quick unrelated scenes of mass violence... and then a bunch of stock space footage.<br /><br />I could remake this movie in 10 seconds. Here's my pitch:<br /><br />2 seconds of a happy daddy with a shaved head and lycra biking shorts playing with a toddler playing with a kitten playing with string; 5 seconds of that scene in "Network" where the guy talks about messing with the "elemental forces of nature" and how "money flows in, money flows out;" 1 second of Reginald Denny getting brained with a brick, and then 3 seconds of Alan Bean bouncing around on the moon. <br /><br />There you go - that's 88 minutes and 50 seconds of your life I just saved. Of course, I'd get a copy of After Effects and apply a filter or two, so it wouldn't look as blatantly stock as it is. If Steven Soderbergh's reading this, hey, I won't even need much money for this project...<br /><br />If you insist upon watching a movie about "Life as War," I suggest "Bowling for Columbine" instead. It may not have the pseudo-intellectual veneer so fashionable among the black turtleneck crowd, but at least it's funny.
Having enjoyed Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqatsi I was looking forward to this third part of the Qatsi trilogy and seeing what direction it had taken. Rarely has a film so spectacularly failed to live up to its predecessors and lost its way. Although it tries to represent "civilised warfare" in the form of sport, science, trade and other forms of competition, it lacks the global scope and even the coherently developed themes of its predecessors. War is chaos, but even wars have an aim in mind and this film had little structure and unclear goals.<br /><br />Naqoyqatsi is flawed by being a chaotic melange of images that does little to develop its theme. On the plus side, it wisely avoided using some of the iconic images of last century's wars.<br /><br />Naqoyqatsi is also so insular that several times I had to remind myself that I was not watching an advertisement promoting the American way of life. Perhaps this insularity reflects the ongoing "War on Terror". When representing "sport as war" the prominent team logos ensured that the USA was depicted as the winner. Hence it missed the opportunity to depict some of the many sports around the world and showing that humanity is united in its use of sport as a form of civilised warfare.<br /><br />Apart from newsreel, the footage seemed to have been shot on a budget in the confines of New York and there was little recognition of "life as war" in the rest of the world. The gallery of faces (waxworks) gave only a nod to the existence of important personages outside of the USA. The makers missed the point that globalisation does not mean Americanisation.<br /><br />The Philip Glass soundtrack sounded much like every other Philip Glass score I've heard (with the possible exception of Koyaanisqatsi) and at best can be described as "inoffensive" neither adding to, nor detracting from, the chaotic imagery.
I've seen all 3 now. I just can't believe how bad Naqoyqatsi is. Not in comparison to the others, but simply on it's own merit, or lack of. <br /><br />I can't understand how the average rating for this movie is over 6 out of 10. I gave the first 2 movies 8 out of 10. They were thought provoking and beautifully done. I gave this movie a rating of 1. If a 0 or negative number was available, I would have given it that rating instead. What a total waste of time it was watching this movie. I thought after the first 30 minutes that I should turn it off, but then I figured that it was just a (very) slow starting movie. I thought the same thing after 45 minutes, then 1 hour, etc. Then I realized that it wasn't going to get any better.<br /><br />It's very tedious to watch and without any redeeming qualities. Don't take my word for it, watch it yourself. Be sure to see the first two movies before this one. If you see this one first, I can just about guarantee that you'll never want to see the first two, but they are definitely much, much better than this "piece of work".<br /><br />The best part of the movie is when the credits role at the end. That's when your penance on this earth is complete and you can foregoe 89 minutes in purgatory, for the suffering that you've endured watching this "film". If God is truely merciful, he'll be more generous.
The director Godfrey Reggio must be a very charming and persuasive man for this dreadfully botched project to have seen the light of day. Reggio's message, so powerful and resonant in his previous two Qatsi films, is hopelessly jumbled here. Athletes, equations, oceans, keypads, laughing heads, etc, mingle without purpose. The parade of banal imagery is mostly generic stock from Getty Images et al, and the heavy-handed digital manipulations are amateurish in the worst way imaginable. Surely someone involved (Steven Soderbergh, executive producer?) could have pointed out that applying a solarizing filter to nearly every frame was a VERY BAD idea? The crude looping, layering, and distorting of images recalls a freshman Photoshop class. And to make matters worse, the computer animation sequences are more artless than a 1980's Wall Street pie-chart. This is not to say that improved aesthetics alone would have salvaged this film, but some meager effort in this direction may have made it tolerable as visual fodder for the accompanying music. I feel compelled to point out that the score by Philip Glass will certainly satisfy his fans. Not a radical departure, but rather a refinement of what Glass does best with lovely violin contributions by Yo Yo Ma. If you decide to see this film be certain to focus your attention on the brief opening sequence. While you may already be familiar with Detroit's once majestic but long abandoned Michigan Central Railroad Station 89 minutes later you will find yourself remembering this image of 20th century decay as the critical point when you should have headed for the EXIT sign/hit the STOP button, etc. You've been warned.
PLEASE?! If this is about technology and what man does to kill others and ourselves, I think I missed his entire point. Because I walked out feeling like Reggio relied on cold-war-era footage of space exploration, and had NOTHING new to add to the dialogue about fears of technology. Trails of 1 and 0, denoting technology and math and science -- DONE that. Anyone out there see The Matrix? And motion studies of people in motion? Ever heard of Edward Muybridge? At least he uses exact clips of Muybridge's photographs of human motion studies.<br /><br />This film was derivative, and the score is just enough Philip Glass to sound like EVERYTHING he's done in the past 10 years... Avoid this film at ALL costs!!
The first two movies of this series excelled for their footage of the natural world and ordinary people stuck in the midst of society. This movie doesn't have any of that natural footage, which I understand is part of the point, but it really makes the entire video component of the film seem like random images stuck together-- ones and zeroes flying around, computer models of human skeletons, and so forth. Occasionally the stock footage is put to good effect (the nationalism/finance segment around 35:00), but usually it makes the video appear to lack any meaningful content, and demands you accept the context of the stock photographers rather than the context of the director. It's no better than the video displayed on a karaoke machine. Three stars added for the Philip Glass soundtrack.
Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqqatsi are both Beautiful films, but this final installment of the trilogy is a major let down. They got too carried away with stock footage and photography, so little content. The executive producer puts his own image in the film... Its just pretentious. Maybe if they had more than $3 million to spend maybe it would have been something. I actually thought Steven Soderbergh directed it because it was so bad, but Godfrey Reggio the director of Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqqatsi directed this. I'll have to assume that they just didn't have the budget to make a decent film. You would think that Francis Ford Coppola would have wanted to be a part of this film and help get more money together.
The peace and beauty of Koyaanisqatsi was a powerful affirmation of the natural world. In Naqoyqatsi, we are assaulted by images of the synthetic, the competitive, the violent, and the digital -- the destructive constructs of our culture.<br /><br />Some liberties are taken with the images, with posterization, distressing, and much slow motion. The connections between the sequences are inscrutable, if there are any. Naqoyqatsi is defined at the film's end, a missed opportunity to place the images in context.<br /><br />The film is difficult to watch, the quality of the archival footage uneven, and it's most redeeming qualities are its theme and the hypnotic score of Philip Glass.
I was very disappointed in this film. The director has shown some talent in his other endeavors, but this just seemed to be filler. There may have been a deep meaning behind it, but it seems to me to be nothing but a director who has access to some toys.<br /><br />I would highly recommend his other works to people, but certainly not this one. As I watched it, I kept on thinking it would pick up after an initial slow period, but it never did. At the end of the movie I was neither entertained nor moved nor thought of things in a new way. I could only say to myself, "What was that?"<br /><br />There were a few really striking parts of the film, but not enough to warrant sitting through it again.
There seems to be a spectrum of cinema. On the left, there are movies made mostly for entertainment and/or commercial purposes. In the middle, there are movies that are both entertaining and artistic. On the right are movies that are not as commercial, but are focused more on cinema as art than cinema as product.<br /><br />I'm not here to say any one part of the spectrum is better than any other, but that when a movie goes too far to either end, it's rarely good. Such is the case with Naqoyqatsi.<br /><br />I had no idea what to expect when I saw it advertised. A few friends were going and asked if I wanted to come along. None of us knew what to expect, and by the end, none of us were pleased.<br /><br />Yes, there are breathtaking images. Yes, I'm amazed at the lengths the filmmakers went to in searching through archival footage. Yes, the soundtrack is enjoyable to listen to, and probably the best part of the experience. The thing is, this goes so far to the right side of the spectrum I mentioned that I can't say anything nice about the movie as a whole.<br /><br />It's preachy. It's a jumble of symbolism and obvious morality. It's not saying anything new or forcing the viewer to examine life in a new way. It's just telling us things we already know (that is, if we can even figure out what it's saying).<br /><br />This movie is simply art for art's sake. An attempt to say "Look at how deep and thought-provoking we can be by using montage!" When a film becomes more about how clever or intelligent its creators are than about its subject, it ceases to be a film and simply becomes celluloid self-gratification.
What I hoped for (or even expected) was the well known "stop motion" imagery and extreme slow motions, extreme zooms and all embracing fish eye takes. In short: The art of a) finding interesting Visual Events and b) capturing them in a way the human eye is not capable of, to be replayed so that the human eye can see. The stuff that made the other Qatsi's hits.<br /><br />I just wondered how the creation of the whole would fit the title.<br /><br />Having watched the movie I got the feeling that the focus in this third part was on the message and not on the wrapping. That's fine, especially since the message is so valid. But I already knew the message, and it appeared there was nothing else left for me. More then half the film was solarized or colorized or posterized or transformed through some other filter. It looked a lot like the effects your video camera does but you never use. A lot of the images would have been prettier without the filters, like the giraffe and zebra chase. You could say that 'technology or whatever human based malicious source disfigured our beautiful nature' but why use these seventies effects to symbolize that? At the point that there had been more than 10 minutes in a row of this cheap looking effect I was ready to leave. The hope that the rest just couldn't BE that bad made me stay. But then there was the slow motion: slow motion is good because it gives you time to analyze the moving picture. But if there are no more than 24 or maybe 50 or 60 frames a second, then there's just not enough motion to slow down. Please, record the motion-to-be-slowed faster, like was done with the beautiful shots of the foaming and splashing water (some of) the laughing people and the drill song singing soldiers. I acknowledge that archive pictures can't be redone, but I had already seen a lot of that footage anyway, it could have done without it. It must have been a lot of work to search through the archive footage, and the effects can't have been that easy to apply and arrange as well. On top of that, a lot of the work was mixed with each other. It shows that the creator wasn't out to lengthen the movie or to spare himself. But I didn't like the mixed stuff one bit... The idea behind it was sometimes nice or even clever, but the implementation was insufficient. The computer generated images didn't bother me that much, however out of date. The 'bits' streaming along circuits (in the first part of the film) looked more recent and were nice. Mandelbrot is always fun, the fractal-mountain was less. I was pleased to hear a cello playing a major role in the music. A little less vibrato at certain moments would have been appropriate with Glass' music, but that's a matter of taste. As is all of the above, of course. I do hope that there will be another Qatsi story to tell soon, where computer imagery will have a less significant role and that will inspire somebody to get into the field again.<br /><br />
Dear reader, Watch out! This movie is not really a movie, though its creators have the impertinence to call it so. If you have not been warned about its content, here it goes: the film is simply a sequence of imagines which flow continually and are trying to transmit a certain feeling, concept. They could be called, therefore, symbols. The images are accompanied by a soundtrack, it's purpose being to create atmosphere as well. However, the images the director has chosen can only transmit feelings to an American audience, because they are, in an overwhelming number, American icons. Though the film is intended to express the idea of "civilized warfare", it fails to do so not only because of the general chaos, but also because it is far too long and tiresome, and I strongly felt that a lot of the scenes have not to do with "war", in whichever conception. To conclude, I was greatly disappointed by a documentary which is not a documentary, a movie which is not a movie, a "something" whose only strong point is the extraordinary use of technology in image processing.
Koyaanisquatsi is simply the best film I've ever seen. It's a masterpiece where everything is at the right place. Some scenes are not "nice" or "beautiful", but the camera never peeks or intrudes. This is exactly what's happening here. The camera is used to intrude, to disgrace and to ridicule. There is no magic flow here, no sense of greatness or respect. Instead some scenes are cobbled together without greater purpose or plan. The music is disturbing. Just as I rated Koyaanisquatsi the best film ever made, this one is the worst. It's a "pure" movie, too, but this is the negative form, exactly that which should *not* be done.
The trouble with this sort of lyrical film-making is that you either make a masterpiece, or a lemon: there's little middle ground. Putting it gently, this is not "Berlin - symphony of a city" or "Man with a Movie Camera". Unfortunately, it's not much to look at, either.<br /><br />The problem with this one is that it's glib and half-baked, as if Michael Moore had come on board. It doesn't really have anything to say, or rather, to show us with pictures and sounds. Koyanisqatsi uses images cumulatively to propound a thesis. This is just a patchwork in search of a point. (Though, quite inadvertently, the movie tells us more about the mind of Uncle Sam than it intends. There is something profoundly paradoxical about an anti-technology, anti-civilisation, anti-media movie that is so profoundly souped up with technology. 'Do as I say, and not as I do'. You just gotta love the Yanks, eh.) Tonally, there's something sour and misanthropic about this episode. Both the prior episodes had moments of lyricism and exhilaration; this time the tone is consistently glum. It simply doesn't work over this duration, as Gustav Mahler will tell you.<br /><br />Stylistically, Naqoyqatsi is a mess. The whizzy digital stuff is particularly misguided. It gives the whole thing a totally fussy, overprocessed look, and it also undermines the 'realist' nature of the analogue 'found footage'. (I mean, I pity the guys. Part of the joy of Koyanisqaatsi was that it was a homage to the use of optical film. But now optical film's an historical artifact, they have to 'take on board' the digital domain; but I don't think they bring it off. The digital stuff often looks like video links from CNN or BBC World.) And with the "found footage", well, the digital manipulation is often ugly, and usually just silly, and the false colour and solarisation kept me thinking of...<br /><br />...ahem...<br /><br />James Bond title sequences.<br /><br />Ahem. Odd as it may seem, there is also the possibility that the movie has been simply stolen by Yo Yo Ma's performance; it's about as unobtrusive as a Lawrence Olivier voice-over. The images would have to be jolly compelling to stack up against all that charisma.<br /><br />Philip Glass himself is on odd form; never expected him to knock off the Verdi requiem! (Made me laugh, which, of course, is not the desired response to any part of this movie). There's even one piece of music that sounds like Brahms. (?) Perhaps they've changed his pills.<br /><br />From our 'idle questions' department: is Geoffrey Reggio actually a Hopi Indian at all? Or did he just do a sweatlodge in Hollywood Hills? Oh, and are the various snippets bits of footage from earlier 'episodes' in the trilogy a commentary on the way these movies, too, are part of the global media slushy?
The final frames of the original "American Graffiti" provide one-line summaries of the fates of the film's four central male characters. While somewhat sexist in omitting the female characters, the ending of the original film provided all the information about those people that even the most ardent fan of the movie would want. However, someone felt that mega-bucks could be made by detailing the dreary lives of these characters after the original film ended. Bad move. Making an insurance salesman and his wife, a nerdy private in Vietnam, a drag race driver, and a overgrown hippie into interesting characters in interesting situations was far beyond the talents of those who wrote this nearly unwatchable movie. While most of the original cast is back, with only Richard Dreyfuss having the good sense to stay away, "More American Graffiti" is a mess of silly situations that involve protests, car races, country singers, and the Vietnam war. The use of split screens, once thought innovative and daring, is overused here to the point of distraction and adds confusion to the already confused goings one. This is a sequel that demonstrates nearly everything that can go wrong with a sequel. Perhaps it should be screened in film schools as a lesson. Even the use of period music, which was a delight in the original, is poorly done here. If you want more "American Graffiti," see the original twice.
As with many sequels, this one just doesn't have the quality or the impact of the original. The first one belongs up there with the rest of the greats. This one just doesn't cut it. The first film had a magical "good time" feeling about it that is totally missing from this film. We became enamored of all these characters (minus Richard Dreyfuss) in an age of innocence. Now, a few years later, they have changed so much that they are largely different people. While this is what happens in real life, we don't expect this to happen to our favorite film characters! The film doesn't have the humor that the original had, and we were expecting to laugh. What little humor is there is dark. The first film also featured what is probably the greatest soundtrack ever, while this one is good but not even close to the original's. This film is so totally different from the original that it isn't even actually a sequel. I gave it a 4.
Like a lot of people, I loved the original; "American Graffiti" was one of the great movies of the 70s. The sequel, "More American Graffiti" is a horrible, depressing mess of a movie. It wasn't funny, the wide-eyed, likable characters had become cynical and jaded, and the stories were contrived (such as "Laurie's" character having another brother because Richard Dreyfuss didn't do the sequel and "Terry the Toad" and "Pharaoh Joe" somehow managing to serve together in Vietnam). They even have a police officer by the name of "Falfa" (Harrison Ford's character in the original) who makes a "cameo". He doesn't even look like Harrison Ford, who was way too big a star by 1979 to even bother with this garbage.<br /><br />The operative word here is "funny". This movie isn't even amusing. Debbie (Candy Clark) is a stripper mixed in with a bunch of dope spoking hippies and trying to bail her dealer boyfriend out of jail; Steve and Laurie (Ron Howard and Cindy Williams), the lovebirds in the original, have two kids and have become an annoying, bickering couple; Adorable little tomboy Carol (MacKenzie Phillips) has become "Rainbow", yet another hippie child. John Milner (Paul LeMat) is a loser race car driver whose fortune was foretold at the end of the original. Even Wolfman Jack, whose voice was such an integral part of the original, and gave it such a great flow, only is heard sporadically.<br /><br />Perhaps it was different writers, a different director and the complete lack of a cohesive story line that makes this movie such a dismal failure.<br /><br />The episodic charm and authentic nostalgia of the original is nowhere to be found in the sequel. It was a movie that didn't need to be made and its best just to remember what a great movie "American Graffiti" was and avoid the movie with "More" in the title.
I really don't think producer George Lucas didn't really set out to make such a horrible sequel as "More American Graffiti" turned out to be. But in retrospect it was the first crack in his then-seemingly impenetrable armor. Coming straight off the huge success of "American Graffiti" and produced basically at the same time as "Star Wars", this film was the first that Lucas successfully took away from Coppola without having to bother directing it himself. The result is typical Lucas -- far more interesting in terms of its structure and the way it's edited than the actual material. The writer/director Bill Norton has been allowed to use a variety of different screen ratios and split screens to produce odd associations in the images. While it's interesting to see ironic juxtapositions of the 4 story lines, the style ultimately only epitomizes the fractured nature of the film itself.<br /><br />Lucas' brilliant original film was all about a group of friends on the archetypical "last big night" before school ends and Kurt (Ron Dreyfuss) and Steve (Ron Howard) are supposed to go off to college. One thing that made that film work, despite the fact that it's very episodic, is that you had the core characters together at the beginning and they come back together at the end. There's a disposition of time, like in Nick Ray's "Rebel Without a Cause" where a certain period of time becomes very elastic and takes on more meaning than such a specific time really would in actual life, but everything takes place in a static space. "More American Graffiti" is basically the opposite -- the space is very dynamic, with Toad (Charles Martin Smith) off in Vietnam, his former girlfriend Debbie (Candy Clark) partying with hippies in San Francisco, Steve and Laurie (Cindy Williams) involved in student protests in Berkeley, and John Miler (Paul Le Mat) drag racing on the semi-pro circuit. In a contrived meeting early in the film all the principles are brought together to watch John race, but after that the threads don't come back together and weave apart the way they do in the original. Instead they split off and we follow the characters through about 3 years' of time, just seeing various events on New Years Eve in what seems to be 1967, 68 and 69. It's easy for the audience to become confused, and I think it's fair to say that we do. While the original film seemed to condense important events and rites of passages into unreal theatrical time that produced an experience of nostalgia even for those who never experienced those events, this sequel drags and stretches the few plot points from the epilogue of the original and attempts to make them into a coherent film.<br /><br />The best parts of the movie to me are the ones with Candy Clark in SF and Charles Martin Smith in Nam. Some of the jokes do fall flat but the style of those sections is interesting and they form a neat contrast with each other. A good movie could maybe have been made if these parts were just a bit better, and if the other parts weren't such a drag. Speaking of drag racing, the whole plot with Milner talking to a foreign exchange student was really lame, unfunny, and throwing in Mackenzie Phillips for a cameo didn't help at all. It was just another contrived moment, like when they briefly explain why Curt isn't in the movie because he's already in Canada. Instead Laurie just has another brother who is basically identical to Curt but has a different name and is now played by a very boring actor. There's a black kind of satire to some of the Vietnam stuff, very similar to what I would imagine Lucas and John Milius' original idea for "Apocalypse Now" would have been like. And there's some of that manic fun in the San Francisco scenes that made the first movie fun. But still along with that fun stuff, you have the rest of the movie dragging it down, as if anyone wants to see Steve and Laurie argue in their horrible suburban abode as if they were auditioning for a Spielberg movie about divorce and child abandonment. I think even if those parts of the movie weren't so painful, it still wouldn't really be comparable to the first movie because there's no closure and no sense of coming back together or of anybody having learned anything. It just sort of ends at the point when they ran out of money or something, a cheap freeze frame imitation of "Two-Lane Blacktop" and so many better films.<br /><br />Like the original however, this film has a great soundtrack of period hits that is probably worth owning for its own sake and almost makes the movie itself palatable. The performances by Country Joe and the Fish are great, and Scott Glenn all duded up as a hippie in love with Candy Clark is a sight to see -- I wonder if even back then he had to use a wig? I couldn't possibly recommend this movie, and yet it has some small affection in my heart because I love the original so much. Every couple of decades I guess I have to give this movie a try just to make sure that it's really as worthless as I remember it being. It's a party killer but it's something that every fan of "American Graffiti" or George Lucas in general will want to see at least once or twice. It shows how a lot of effort can go into something and it can still turn out pretty half baked. It makes you reflect on how much of a miracle it is that Lucas actually made such a good movie as "American Graffiti" in the first place, as if all the elements were in place and all the appropriate gods had been placated. Unfortunately such was not the case for this film or for Bill Norton.
The gang is back for more! Ron Howard and Cindy Williams are now married! Her brother is demonstrating against the draft and Charles Martin Smith is doing everything he can in Vietnam to get sent home.<br /><br />The issues of the 60's are brought to light here, but it's all over the place, beginning with New Year's Eve 1963, then three minutes later, it's New Year's Eve 1964, then three minutes later, it's New Year's Eve 1965, then three minutes later, it's back to 1963 again. Martin Smith is talking about his friend dying in a drag race a year ago, and a couple of scenes later, this friend is winning his next heat in a drag race and to top it all off, the drug scene and the flower children enter the picture (or pictures, in some cases, as many as three different camera shots are shown on the screen at the same time).<br /><br />If you want to watch this film, you have to WATCH this film, but I'd advise you to stick to the original and leave it there. Wolfman Jack is heard in the beginning of the film before almost every song played in the background, but where'd he go? Maybe HE couldn't keep up with this film, either, and quit! 2 out of 10 stars!
I loved the first "American Graffiti" with all my heart and soul that I considered it to be the best movie about rock n' roll along with being the best teenager flick I've ever seen. The first film spawned the careers of George Lucas who would later do the blockbuster epic "Star Wars" before doing the prequels two decades later while making Richard Dreyfuss a star in Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind and other films as well.<br /><br />Somehow without those two, the magic died off.<br /><br />"More American Graffiti" shows audiences what happened to the rest of the characters later on in the sixties where Steve (Ron Howard) and Laurie (Cindy Williams) are protesting against the Vietnam War while their friend Terry "The Toad" Fields (Charles Martin Smith) is in the war himself and trying to get out. John Milner (Paul Le Mat) is still the hot drag racer in California where he never quite left home. The rest of the supporting actors in the film from Candy Clark's Debbie (Terry's Girlfriend), to the Pharaoh's gang members, along with Harrison Ford and others really don't do much. The original film showed teenagers cruising the streets without any bloodshed with the early music of rock n' roll from Buddy Holly, The Fleetwoods, Chuck Berry, Fats Domino, Bill Haley and the Comets, Buddy Knox and more that brought back the nostalgia bug in classic music. The soundtrack for "More American Graffiti" is a mixture of rock, soul, country, hippie music, and whatever fitted the mood during the late 60's of protesting, drugs, sacrifices and more.<br /><br />After watching "More American Graffiti" it looked like it wanted to show audience members what happened after the title epilogue of the four main characters in the first film (with the exception of Dreyfuss's character) where it wasn't necessary. This film wasn't necessary either as I was glad to see that neither Lucas or Dreyfuss moved on to bigger and better projects.
I suggest if you have already seen the original American Graffiti, do not see this movie. If you haven't seen the original, I still don't recommend this, but it will be a lot less painful to watch. The characters from the first film are great, and by the end you fell a connection to them. This movie sets out to show how bad their lives have become. It's a chore to watch!<br /><br />Set on New year's eve in 1964, '65, '66 and '67, we have four stories about the characters from the first film. In '64, we have John Milner (Paul Le Mat) who is now a professional drag racer. He meets a foreign girl Eva, and though his plot really goes nowhere, it's the best of the four. In 1965, we have Toad (Charles Martin Smith) who is stuck in Vietnam, and more than anything, he wants out. He tries to find ways to hurt himself or do stupid things to get out. In '66, we have Debbie (Candy Clark), the girl who Toad picked up in the first movie. Now she is a pot smoking hippie, and really I'm not sure what her plot was about. It was her going to a concert...not much of anything happened. Finally, in 1967, Steve Bolander (Ron Howard) and Laurie Bolander (Cindy Williams) are having marriage problems that end in a anti-war rally and police action.<br /><br />None of these stories are very good. The script in some parts features very, very bad dialogue. These poor characters who I enjoyed so much in the first film, ended up where they are here...why? Why was this sequel made? I guess if a sequel was made, it had to feature the Vietnam war, and hippies and police action, but the real thing is that this movie shouldn't have been made.<br /><br />The direction was stylish, but it just amounts in a huge headache. Each story has a different style. Milner's is just a regular (depending on how you watch it) wide screen, and is filmed how the rest of the movie should be. Toad's plot was shot in 16mm, and what it amounts to is a poor looking picture, which is the size of a small box in the middle of the screen. Debbie's plot is shot in multi-screen. At one point there might have been one screen, but for the good majority, it's anywhere from two to twenty screens up at once. Don't bother trying to follow the screens, since there's nothing going on anyways. Steve and Laurie's plot has the weirdest filming style. It's style really doesn't mean anything, and is dumb and pointless. Instead of just a full widescreen, it's a condensed widescreen that looks like a full screen version of widescreen. Though I don't like the others, at least I understand what they were going for, this one just doesn't make sense.<br /><br />The music is this movie's saving grace, not that it could save this! Bob Dylan, Simon and Grafunkel, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye and dozens of others have nice songs featured here. They don't save the feature, they just make it a little better than it is. It's still bad! <br /><br />Overall, this is a pointless sequel. Any fan of the original should avoid this lackluster sequel! <br /><br />My rating: * 1/2 out of ****. 110 mins. PG for language, drug use and violence
Were it not for the fact that this came as a 2-dvd set paired with the original American Graffiti; were it not for the fact that I've been here in Iraq for several months and, at this point, will watch pretty much anything, I would have tossed this movie in the garbage after the first ten minutes. This movie was appallingly bad on so many levels I just don't know where to start. Poorly acted, shot, directed, written, scored, edited. My 9-year old daughter's first forays into film-making are superior to this - and she was filming the dog sleeping. (Come to think of it, I give that piece of cinematography 9 stars. But I'm biased.) If you have even the slightest appreciation for quality film-making, then avoid this piece of garbage at all costs. No character in this movie has a single redeeming quality save for the Icelandic girl who doesn't even have a single line in English. I'll not waste more of my time describing what a bad movie this is.
American Graffiti is one of the best movies ever made. I've seen it at least 30 times and am emotionally affected by it each time I see it. (I graduated from high school in 1962.) <br /><br />However, More American Graffiti is one of the worst movies ever made.<br /><br />It is hard to believe than anyone associated with the great original movie was involved with this terrible sequel. The part of the movie set in Vietnam was extremely inaccurate. (I served 18 months in Vietnam with the 101st Airborne Division.) <br /><br />The whole movie had nothing worthwhile in any part of it.<br /><br />If anyone ever wants to make a case against making sequels to great movies, More American Graffiti would be the prime example of what can go wrong.
The critics were like "a movie that will break your heart" etc. So a friend of mine and I had great expectations when we decided to watch this movie.<br /><br />I'll make it short and leave it up to others to write about its content. This movie tries to touch you, to reach your heart. But it fails. At least for me. And for my friend, too.<br /><br />Everything that happened happened only on the screen. It was always THERE, not HERE, where I am. I thought most of the time "hmm, something's happening on the screen, but it's only on the screen. It's not real."<br /><br />Movies which succeeded MUCH better in touching me: East of Eden (1955), Terms of Endearment (1983), Jerry Maguire (1996), Babe (1995), Mies vailla menneisyyttä (2002)
Personally I've watched it because of Lea Thompson's appearance and I didn't really expect to enjoy the movie as such, but surprisingly I kept watching it until the end.<br /><br />Let's face it - it just one of the saga-like stories and isn't particularly original or entertaining, but strangely it just keeps you by the TV. My opinion about Will of Their Own would be much better if there wouldn't be one point that I just don't get.<br /><br />There is lovely and really touchy scene in which Lea Thompson's character is running on the street holding baby in her arms, the snow is falling, she is cold, scared, and has no place to stay, she doesn't know what to do next. And then about 10-12 years later, when things are better for her, she just leaves the same kid without any warning to take up the career she was dreaming about.<br /><br />I just don't get it - I don't see how is it possible that she would do such thing, it was the opposite action to all that she done so far in her life when all that she was doing was aimed on that child survival. After this character flip I just couldn't enjoy rest of the movie.
The setup for "Nature of the Beast" is ingeniously simple, and fraught with limitless potential for suspense: harried salesman Jack (a very domesticated Lance Henriksen) picks up trouble in the form of hitchhiker Adrian (Eric Roberts), who seems to be in possession of incriminating information against Jack. Oh, and over a million dollars has been stolen from a casino and someone dubbed 'Hatchet Man' is dismembering people in the desert. Sounds great, right? Sort of like "The Hitcher" meets "Psycho." One or both of these men has a secret, and nothing is as it seems! Well, unfortunately, writer-director Victor Salva (of "Jeepers Creepers" and "Powder" fame) doesn't have enough ideas to keep the movie going, the scenario arouses no tension or suspense (poison for what is supposedly a 'thriller'), and the inclusion of an underlying homo-erotic tone seems out-of-place. Henriksen evokes an unusual, not-quite-earthbound Everyman (even sporting an ample gut), but Roberts is about as threatening and scary as an extra in "Death Wish 3"; we're never sucked in to the point where we actually CARE about what's happening, and the conclusion slides into improbable territory (I kept thinking it was going to be "Fight Club" all over again, but I was mistaken). Too bad. "Nature of the Beast" could have been something else...instead of nothing else.
I had a bad feeling ten seconds into the film as a pair of overworked tumbleweeds (probably left over from a bad western) blew across the scene. The bad feeling grew ten seconds later when the obligatory opening stranger-turned-human-sacrifice for no apparent reason lowered his rear view mirror to see a shadow in the back seat. For the next five minutes over the opening credits we are treated to an overhead shot of the car rocking back and forth and only the dramatic made-for-TV-movie music informs us a killing is taking place, not a make-out session. For the next 27 or so hours we are treated to two idiotic psychotics who for some reason seem compelled to drive through the desert Southwest together, going after each other like a demented Abbot & Costello. Even with the "shocking" twists at the end, we are merely left to shake our heads and wonder if the producers and director/writer feel as ashamed and embarrassed as they should for creating this inconsistent, incoherent nonsense.
I love most movies and I'm a big fan of Sean Bean so I thought that I would at least LIKE this movie. Also, I'm Canadian and this is a mostly-Canadian movie so I was prepared to cut it some serious slack. Nothing could have prepared me for the garbage that is "Airborne". Steve Guttenberg as an action hero? Give me a break. The acting throughout the movie was so bad I am going to have trouble sleeping tonight. I now have only two wishes in my life.<br /><br />1. I hope that you never have to sit through this movie. 2. I wish I could get those 6 hours back. Oh wait, the movie's under 2 hours - it only seemed like 6 hours...<br /><br />Don't watch this. Seriously.
This film suffers horrendously from its direction "Julian Grant" , and its incompetent lead, Steve Guttenberg, who's putting a solid effort to win a Bruce Willis look-alike contest! The writing is reckless Hollywood action thriller; Sean Bean --whose one of my favorites-- David Fraser, and Kim Coates give a decent performance. The film is definitely below average. 3 out of 10! I wonder what Hollywood studios thought, actually giving the go ahead, to weak director such as Grant. And I'd say to Sean Bean "what were you thinking even considering participating in a film like this, after such great films like GoldenEye, Ronin, and Patriot Games!
*****I reveal two 'twists' at the end of the film. Do not read if you want to watch this movie for some reason*****<br /><br />Oh my, this is bad. And for some reason, Sean Bean, one of the greatest present day actors, has sold his soul and appears in it. The only consolation is that the scriptwriters must have realised that someone as ultimately pathetic as Steve Guttenberg could never in his life aspire to kill someone as cool as Sean Bean. Instead, he is killed in what must have seemed like a marvellous twist at the end, by the good guy who was meant to be be killed by Bean, but was actually his boss and faked his own death. Don't worry. I haven't ruined anything for you. The acting itself is spectacularly apalling, with Guttenberg's patented "Hey-look-I-can-pull-a-Chuck-Norris-face" hard man stare dominating most of the two hours of hell on earth. Added to a plot that I could have written whilst being tortured and hung upside down with both hands cut off, there is also a completely nonsensical critical error in the fact that one moment the virus will escape if they so much as look at it wrong, while another moment, Steve Guttenberg is bravely running around with it, throwing, catching bashing and generally abusing this 'virus' which has the distinct look of a collection of those little balls of soap you put in your bath. My final word? If you are suicidally depressed and feel like you want to laugh manically at something that should be a bad comedy but even worse isn't, tape it next time it's on channel 5 at midnight, then burn it when you realise that I am indeed telling the truth.
A cut above from the usual straight to video actioneer, Airborne has enough in the tank to keep it going for the full 90 minutes, although you can't help but think of how low former '80's comedy golden boy Steve Guttenburg has stooped to be in such a cheap production (and playing a hard man too!). The plot is simple, the baddies have stolen a deadly virus and Guttenburg and the rest of his goodie pals are sent to retrieve it, Not bad of its kind but not in the same league (obviously) as the films it is compared too on the cover such as AIR FORCE ONE and CON AIR. The cast is good though, with Sean Bean reprising his Brit.-bad guy character which we have had a glimpse of in such box office smashes as GOLDENEYE and PATRIOT GAMES.
**Might contain spoilers**<br /><br />Ok, lets conclude this movie in one word: bad. Two words? Really bad. Now why do I think that? Let me explain. <br /><br />Guttenberg leads a special-ops team consisting of four persons that get assigned to retake an lethal virus after some arms-dealer stole it from a lab. They do this by attacking the arm-dealers in mid-flight and somehow gets back the virus after some fighting. However, suspicions arise about Guttenberg because one of the terrorist knew his name. After debriefing the team-members get attacked by unknown persons and everyone starts to suspect everyone else is involved. After deciding they cant trust their bosses, they decide to, once again, steal the virus and try to lure out the possible attackers.<br /><br />In theory this is a plot that could have worked in a low-budget movie that just aims to be aired on TV. However, the plot is compromised and the movie ruined in several accounts. Firstly, the plot is totally predictable and it is not fun to know how the movie is going to end after three minutes. Second. The acting is really bad, or the actors are directed to act as dummys. There aren't many emotions, change of facial expressions at all etc. I was especially disappointed in Guttenberg that I believe can do so much more, but fails completely in an attempt to be a rough action-hero. In addition, though I am not by any means any expert on the subject, I totally believe I could assemble a better covert-ops team by picking up five strangers and train them for a week. This seems to be a theme in the movie to do things as stupid and unprofessionally as possible. This go for good guys, bad guys and bystanders as well. Then I sincerely doubt the scientific and technical consultants, if any, of the film. For example, I have poured liquid nitrogen over my hand and I didn't break instantly.<br /><br />Don't know how to conclude this really, but lets say that this movie has a predictable plot, bad acting and they seem to be amateurs in whatever the do. Sorry, can't be any nicer than that. Do not watch this movie, it is not even so bad it is funny. 2/10
This is so bad it will be my contribution to the next bad movie party I go to. It is clear from the start that Steve Gutenburg was taking this role seriously.... the other principles were walking through their lines. I think they got a whiff of how much it stank early on and they were going through the motions for their paychecks. Sean Bean "acted" as usual but was spared sharing space on screen with any of the principles till the final scene where it was like an actor walking onto a high school stage that is how defined the contrast was. Some actors do not look good scruffy. Some actors should not bulk up for a part. Those two statements apply to "Police Academy" Steve. His scruffy look translates to bum and indigent and his bulking up makes him look potato lumpy not buff. Pair that with one of the worst scripted dialogues in Hollywood history and you have BAD movie. I can only guess that all of the principles really really needed the money for remodeling or something or their agents signed them before the script was written by the monkeys that must of typed it out. I would love to know the back story to this disaster.
Wow... this is the kind of movie that makes you wonder who's idea this was and what soup kitchen are they eating at now. To say this was bad is an insult to the bad movies we all know and love.<br /><br />When I saw Guttenberg's name in the TV guide I figured it would be a spoof... maybe it should have been. Could have made for a better movie.<br /><br />Look for the scene where they are in an airplane in mid flight with the door open and there is no wind what so ever. They could have sprung for a fan at least.<br /><br />Look for several Canadian & c-list actors in the movie. This is the kind of movie that litters the b-rate cable stations you never watch except on a rainy Sunday.
Seriously, this film is not. Steve Guttenburg is constantly forcing his tough-guy dialogue and then giving everyone the evil-eye all the time. He just wasn't believable, he seems like he's trying to be a badass and he sucks at it. I just remember him as the millionaire dad with the Olsen twins in It Takes Two...so, this is a BIG change. I rented this film for Sean Bean, and he dies (as usual). Only this time he didn't get impaled on a boat anchor (Patriot Games), smashed by a giant satellite dish (Goldeneye), or get run over by cows(The Field). He just got shot, real quick-like and civil, and that was all I got from this film that they didn't kill him off in an extremely grotesque and morbid way. How sad is that? I was only watching it for the 3 seconds that Sean was in it, and then the rest was rubbish. I actually tried to watch and understand the plot, but there really wasn't one. Seemed a little like Mission Impossible with the hole,"Oooooo! There's a mole! It's the leader of the group, and NO ONE EXPECTED IT! Let's trap him! Let's frame the underdog good-guy so we can get away with it!" Cliched and tired, this movie was a waste of time.
It sounded so promising in the Rental Store, the premise sounded great and I couldnt wait to get home and watch it. It was Apalling the Diologue is Dreadful, The Action is Extremely badly Scripted and the Plot takes a nosedive from the beginning. Gutenberg puts in a pathetic performance, Sean Bean tries his best but with a script this bad there wasnt much he could do.<br /><br />This isnt even worth watching, even if you can get it for free (borrow it off a friend for instance) Dont as you will regret it and waste 90 Minuites of your life.<br /><br />0/10
This movie was bad on so many levels. The writing was horrible so even the best actors could not have made this movie watchable. It's a shame because they did have some good actors in this movie. I mean if anyone has seen any of the Police Academy movies, you would know that Steve Guttenberg was good. His Character in this movie was very serious, which was a big difference from Characters i have seen him play before, so that was a plus. And I did think that Steve Guttenberg was extremely hot in this movie. With or without the shirt you can not deny that he has a GREAT body! Sexy face too. Loved the 5 o'clock shadow look, it made him look dangerous. At one part in the movie he is lying in bed without his shirt and i have to say, I would have gladly jumped in there and tried to take his mind off of his problems! So honestly i would watch this movie again just to fantasize!
all i can say about this film is to read the back of the video case and then put it back on he shelf and pick anything else, i mean anything, a blank video, would be better than watching this.
My friends and I rented this movie mistaking it for another one about skateboarding. Watchin Steve Guttenberg as an action hero is hilarious. The movie is so incredibly predictable and over the top that it ended up being a laugh fest. Even though I gave it a 1/10 this movie should be seen especially if u manage to catch it on TV anywhere.
This film tries very hard to be an "action" film, but it fails miserably.<br /><br />Steve Guttenberg plays the head of an elite counter-terrorist team that fails (?) in attempt to keep a mysterious group from stealing a deadly nerve agent.<br /><br />The story...the acting...the special effects...ALL FALL FLAT!!!<br /><br />Definitely A MUST AVOID!!!!
Alain Resnais directs three parallel stories that have to do with fantasy and imagination in the adult world. In one of them is a sort of Operatic bordello story where a rejected architect attempts to manipulate a group of people into throes of happiness--only his attempt misses it's only real target, the woman that he pines after. In the same unfinished château he built, a group of teachers search for love in a more modern story, as one woman believes ineffably in the role of romance and the cynical anthropoligist tries to teach her a lesson by setting her up with the biggest jerk in the group. Meanwhile, a bunch of kids fantasize a George Melies-like adventure of a prince that saves a girl in distress from swamp creatures and then kills the evil king, bringing upon the kingdom of love. The two primary themes? Life is a fairy tale, and Life isn't a fairy tale.<br /><br />Which sounds better than the movie actually is. Resnais is the type of director where oftentimes the concept is good or bad, but the exposition is what matters; here, the concept is great but the movie is downright painful to watch. Horridly off-tune songs, bubbly characters without an ounce of dimension, backdrops of sickening pastel--instead of giving your inner child an ice cream cone, Resnais drowns it in a bucket of cake frosting. Add some French philosophy and you get a weird witches brew, one that doesn't bubble bubble toil and trouble, but just kinda sits wrong in your stomach until you want to regurgitate it.<br /><br />Resnais is a risk-taking director, and even in his worst you can see he's trying something that might not work with full clarity of action. In I Want to Go Home, he manages to pull past annoying characters and ditzy set-pieces by showing some real change and having a moment few moments of quiet to catch his breath. Here he submerges directly into a fantasy that doesn't really reflect fantasy, only its baby's room wallpaper reference. The biggest problem is that he somehow managed to make a movie more flamboyant than an 80s pop video, and more kitsch than Golden Era Hollywood musicals. The fantasies are beyond childish and naive, but the movie (with nudity and profanity) is definitely aimed for adults, a target he decidedly missed.<br /><br />However, he sticks closely to his theme and never backpedals. If anything, this movie is impressive simply because its unapologetic.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB
Watching the first few moments, you realize it's going to be a parody - and certainly it *is* a parody, but I'm not sure of what (a fairy tale? an opera? a Hollywoodian C-movie? - if there was something like that), and I can assure you it's not worth watching. It's simply a pointless film (cf. a good parody is everything but pointless), with pretentious, shallow speeches of extremely sketchy characters. It's like a commedia dell'arte. Or better, it's like a botched commedia dell'arte. And the score... sung in an intentionally incompetent way (something Greenaway will use much more efficiently), it *is* painful to listen to (unless one wears some sate-of-the-art earplugs, haha). Go for quality movies (e.g. A. Mitta's How Czar Peter the Great Married Off His Moor, 1976) and steer clear of this mistake.
I remember seeing a clip of this movie on HBO when I was a kid and it scared the ever living crap out of me. When I found it, I watched it. I wish I hadn't. The movie wasn't scary.<br /><br />The plot revolves around an old woman running the castle. She feeds this horribly disfigured person in the cellar of a 12 century castle. She continuously beats the poor guy every day and feeds him. Well, that day, she dies. Then, a few months later, a family moves in. A father, a mother, and their blind daughter. The father was involved in a horrific car accident that got their son killed and left their daughter blind.<br /><br />Later through the film, the daughter hears sounds, things break, etc. and everybody is not concerned about anything at all. That is until a few people turn up dead. Apparently, the creature in the cellar has broken free and is killing people. How this thing survived for the past few months without food or water is impossible! Every time I saw the creature, it gave me the creeps. The creature goes on a gory killing spree and the police blame the father for the deaths.<br /><br />It was a pretty bad film.<br /><br />I give this film 3 stars out of 10. Creepy not scary!
This film has some pretty gorey parts like a boob getting bit off and a other big bites. Castle Freak himself is a good monster. I would be scared to pieces if he was coming after me. However, the movie had some dumb parts about it.<br /><br />A husband goes drunk driving and kills his 3 year old son and blinds his teenage daughter. I suppose death is a greater damage than blindness, but you'd never know that the parents actually feel bad about their daughter being blind. All they care about is that "J.J.'s dead!" While their teenage daughter walks around running into things and talking about how she'll never be able to drive a car. The parents are like - "honey, stop walking around without a guide, you know better than that," and then they cry and don't ever stop being depressed because JJ's dead. Sounds like favortism to me.<br /><br /> The lines of dialogue are not very realistic or well done. For example, when a giant crash is heard in the castle, everybody runs down into the basement to see what it was. It was a huge mirror that crashed to the ground and shattered. The husband runs to the broken mirror in horror and plainly says, "The mirror broke." I don't know, I would say a little more than that if a giant mirror mysteriously crashed to the ground in my castle.<br /><br /> The husband and wife have some major relationship problems and it's funny to watch how dumb they are with each other. No one ever believes the blind girl. Advice: If a blind girl says she hears things, believe her and don't tell her to shut up. I think this is the moral of the story. Listen to people when they tell you things or else you might end up killing yourself to prove your point.<br /><br /> Lastly, I thought the best character was the main police officer. He was the best actor and character. Everyone else (besides Castle Freak) was pretty run of the mill. 3/10
Gordon goes over the top in typical Full Moon fashion, but that's to be expected. Combs is surprisingly low-key, keeping his performance at a more realistic level than we are used to seeing. Also gone is the usual Stuart Gordon 'tongue-in-cheek' black humor.<br /><br />The film is quite effective in showing Combs' break down and his final heroic act to save his wife & daughter. You actually feel sympathy for his character, despite his short-comings.<br /><br />Personally, I was more surprised at the nudity and borderline porno sex scene, than I was shocked by the graphic violence & gore.<br /><br />Not classic Gordon, but certainly something you might enjoy if you've seen his more famous films.
This is a candidate for worst films I've ever seen. It wanted to be as shocking as "Silence of the Lambs," but has neither the style nor the wit of the aforementioned. The make-up is excellent, the acting is pretty good, but the story seems to drag on for years and the murders are so gruesome that they're more disturbing than entertaining.
A chilling and gory tale of a couple inheriting a 150 room Italian castle while still grieving the loss of their young son. The couples marriage seems to be on the rocks due to the car accident that took the life of their son and left their daughter blind. Upon taking inventory of the castle for a future sale a hideous, tortured and misshapen creature breaks lose from the bowels of the 12th century castle. Pretty gory with great horror atmosphere and some sexual overtones. Starring Jeffrey Combs, Barbara Crampton, Jessica Dollarhide and Elisabeth Kaza .
I really couldn't get into this movie. The plot is some old woman has been torturing someone so long that he is deformed. She dies and he is left in the basement to starve. Months must pass and a family moves in. The daughter is blind because of an accident caused by the father. Well anyway this guy in the basement, who for all rights should be long dead is still around. He eats a cat and now is superhuman. He now wants to eat people and have sex. And when a hooker dies father gets the blame. I always dislike movies where someone else is blamed for the killings because you always here the typical lines "I didn't do it", "I could never do such a thing", blah blah blah. And the family storyline could be a lifetime movie storyline.
This movie was a disappointment. The story is essentially The Shining with a castle (or a very cheap set masquerading as a castle, to be specific) substituting as the hotel and a monster instead of the ghosts. The budget is the same you'd see from a Cinemax softcore porn, as is the photography, sets, lighting, and video it was shot on. The story is a failed attempt at sincerity: there's no easier way to make your audience feel sympathetic for your characters than to show them experiencing emotional trauma. And the trauma in this movie is pretty trite. Want an example? A blind girl listening to a language tape teaching the Italian words for colors begins to cry at what she will never see.<br /><br />This movie had a few things going for it, however: the monster is actually pretty cool, pretty scary-looking. And there is a pretty decent amount of nudity from Raffaella Offidani, herself a star of Italian "erotic" films. The gore, however, leaves much to be desired, as does the acting, even from the experienced Jeffrey Combs.<br /><br />Other than this I've only seen two other Stuart Gordon films: Re-Animator and From Beyond, both of which were outstanding. But I won't let this little footnote in his career keep me from watching many more of his movies.
I was rather disappointed. The first Tetsuo made me an INSTANT Tsukamoto fan, from the first 5 mins of the film. It was fresh, innovative, and just.....different. I rather enjoy having a movie be in your face and push all those "make you squirm" buttons. Tetsuo did just that where for me, few movies can.<br /><br />For those of us who enjoy getting a breath of fresh air, those that appreciate those offbeat styles used that make indie films so worthwhile, Testuo II will likely be a disspointment. If your looking for that visceral "HYPER-KINETIC" feel of the first movie, skip this one, as thats all been stripped away. Tetsuo II is for some odd reason, just a typical Hollywood style action flick. I was rather confused. However, it's still worthwhile in my opinion for any die-hard Tsukamoto fan.
I was reading in a Stuff Magazine about some of the goriest, bloodiest films that Asia had to offer and I immediately jumped to Netflix to quench my thirst. Boy what a mistake I made. This movie is one of the worst films I have seen. First and foremost no plot, what I expected to be the plot (see: "Revenge") turned into a series of events just happening in a effort to spend their special effects budget of $14.89 and waste studio time. They should have kept their money and not wasted their time nor yours.<br /><br />When a major plot twist occurs, Tetsuo II: Body Hammer is given a new identity and I wasn't buying it. A flashback is given that should answer our questions, but seemed to me like I turned on Showtime at 3:47 am and dropped ACID. The movie continues and spirals out of control with cheesy graphics and special (olympic) effects.<br /><br />Do I seem bitter about this film? Yes. Did I see Iron Man? No. Was there a plot? No. Was it so symbolic that I didn't understand? NO. Was there a Body Hammer? Beats the Hell out of ME. So take my advice and STAY away!!!!!! <br /><br />(I must admit though I have had so much fun writing this and laughing to myself about this film that if you want to laugh, WATCH IT!!!)
This is strictly for Pryor fans. Just because he was a great, funny guy doesn't mean this is more than a B-Movie. The script is awful, it just meanders around constantly ridiculing crime and prisoners of war. It balances between comedy and melodrama and keeps falling on its face doing justice to neither. <br /><br />First there are 30 minutes of rather unrealistic, uninspired Vietnam prisoner of war time – the guy is playing basketball at one point... How more can you pander to your audience?... That prison time is boring, unconvincing and already can easily put one to sleep. <br /><br />Back in the U.S. the guy for no real reason at all is considered a "war hero". Yet he is of course quickly forgotten by the public and seems to be stumbling into all kinds of wacky mishaps. Or are they really? We will soon find out. Yawn. There are annoying clichés: his sick mother, his little daughter he never meets, a high end whore falling in love with the hero etc. It is very odd how this movie constantly switches from tragedy to slapstick in one instant. Doesn't work at all. <br /><br />Overall this in fact is just a bad comedy and does a disservice to prisoners of war. Just because this guy was a great stand-up comedian, played in a few good movies and died of MS is no reason not to be annoyed by this silly, unconvincing, unfunny comedy. But if you like Richard Pryor you will probably be thrilled by him reading 3 hours of Dadaist poetry.
Well, well... Even if you're a fervent admirer of Lang's silent films, this early one - the first part of a two-part unfinished four-part serial(!) - will leave you in doubt about Fritz's narrative skills. (His directorial skills aren't that evident either, but here and there one senses his talent for building up atmosphere.) <br /><br />The pic's just pure juvenile nonsense, which wouldn't be half as bad, were it not for the long ponderous stretches in between the childish action scenes.<br /><br />But the whole affair almost gets by on its amiable innocence.<br /><br />4 out of 10 Inca treasures
I don't understand the exaggerated good critics about this film, except that a lot of people from Venezuela are understandably very excited, based on that the Venezuelan cinema is really a bit behind of what other countries are in the region.<br /><br />The movie first of all is too repetitive, a lot of scenes are almost identical from each of the both leading roles, so you get the impression that it's a time filler. A time filler is also a good point, as this movie is definitely too long with 105 minutes, you will start to get tired after a while and watch on the clock.<br /><br />All actors are quite bad, by exception of the venezuelan guy Edgar Ramirez, who brings in a bit of slapstick and plays the role of the venezuelan recruit "Pedro".<br /><br />By the way, this is not a representative movie about the people of the region (caribean zone), it tends to ridicules them.
I'll not comment a lot, what's to??? Stereotype characters, absolute ignorance about Colombia's reality, awful mise en scene, poor color choice, NOT funny (it supposed to be a comedy and they expect that you will laugh because some distend music it's beside the nonsense scenes), Very poor actors direction (if you see somewhere those people, I mean the interpreters, you'll know they are at least good, but seeing this so call film, it is impossible to guess it), you get tired of the music... this "comedy" has no rhythm, the only good rhythm in it, it's the rap sing in the final credits....pathetic, doesn't it? etc...etc... It has been a long time I haven't seen a movie so bad!!
I grew up in the 90s; therefore, you must understand that i witnessed firsthand the premiers of the greatest DCOMs. I was there when Brink! appeared, Zenon, Halloweentown, Johnny Tsunami, etc, These movies constitute my childhood. When these movies came on, not only myself but whoever I was watching them with would stand completely in awe for 1h30, talk about it for the week to come and catch it again the next weekend. I don't think words could express the amount of excitement Zoog Disney brought. <br /><br />Even when I watch them now, the dialog doesn't seem that bad (so effective in fact, that I actually remember parts of conversations literally word per word, from movies I saw over ten years ago). The characters are believable, funny, granted a little stereotypical but that's what makes Disney's charm... <br /><br />I sat my little brother down in front of the Disney channel to try and convey and make him understand my feelings for DCOMs. Enter Stuck in the Suburbs... my brother looked at me slightly puzzled, asking me if I had always been gay. I feel more disappointed and betrayed now than, what could I compare this to?, when Han Solo found out Lando sold him out to Vader... <br /><br />Half the movie, and I'm not exaggerating, is flashbacks. There is no talent in these young actors (some of which are older than I am) whatsoever. The plot is ridiculous; it feels like a bunch of old rotting corporate people over at Disney sat around a table and asked themselves "How can we seem hip to these youngsters?" OK, maybe all the DCOMs were like that, but they at least made a little effort to not let us realize they think we're complete idiots. <br /><br />And apparently this type of movie works... Stuck in the Suburbs is rated almost as much as Zenon or Airborne. How is this possible? DCOMs got even cheesier and people prefer them now? (though apparently the lack of curse words is enough to give it 10/10 for some people) Christ, it's a completely different generation.
i found the film a bit predictable and boring but i am 14.<br /><br />i was really annoyed with my little cousin as she was very hyper that day so i saw a film on the Disney channel and put it on and told her to watch it.<br /><br />she is 6 and she loved the film, some bits she didn't get like the ending but i didn't get that either y was Eddie the star of the video shoot i thought it was Jordan's video?! but she did enjoy it. <br /><br />i noticed the mistakes such as at the end Jordan was not actually playing the guitar, but she never. <br /><br />it is definitely a film for if you are seriously bored or 10 and under.<br /><br />it calmed my cousin down well.<br /><br />although all she did was sing for the rest of the day then.
...if only Disney had stayed away from it. See, I think that this movie has some potential. Well, the main character's situation does, at least. Take out the whole Jordan Cahill thing, and you've got the beginnings of a decent movie! Of course, you also lose more than half of the film, but, oh well. Not that much of a loss.<br /><br />So, here it goes: you take a typical, preppy, suburban teenage girl (Danielle Panabaker, who's actually a decent actress) whose best friends screech a lot, mostly over a "pop sensation" (I'm assuming it's a direct quote from the movie; movie's like this almost always involve that particular phrase) named Jordan Cahill. Except, of course, TPSTG wants more out of life. Enter Brenda Song's character, a sophisticated individual who is just what TPSTG needs (honestly, I don't care what the character's real name is, I like the acronym better). The two new friends go to see Jordan Cahill (one to drool, one to make fun of the droolers), and they come out of it with his cell phone. Hijinks ensue, and everything turns out alright in the end.<br /><br />If only Disney, or any major film studio for that matter, didn't have such a low opinion of 8 to 14 year olds. Or maybe if 8 to 14 year olds expected a little more out of the movies targeted at them. It's sugar-coated crap like this that make me more than a little unsure who to be more disgusted with (a little film called 'High School Musical' comes to mind...)
In short this movie was awful.<br /><br />I understand it's a Disney movie, which are generally shallow movies with mediocre plots and bad acting. HOWEVER, i must say this is the worst of all Disney movies, with bad acting, LOTS OF IRRITATING SHRIEKING TEEN GIRLS(my god), and an extremely unrealistic plot. Even as a 12 year old there is no way i would have liked this movie. The only way this movie could have been any worse is if they attempted to put it in theaters or tried to sell it in a local video store. <br /><br />Do yourself a favor and change the channel before watching this, no matter how bored you are on a Sunday afternoon.
Right this moment I am watching this movie on TV here in Tokyo. Beautiful scenery, beautiful sets of biblical proportions, beautiful costumes, beautiful color, beautiful Gina. Great climactic scene when God destroys the Sheban idol and a lot more with de Millean thunderbolts at the moment when Yul and Gina are about to consummate their love. Yul does a halfway decent job of delivering his lines, though he sounds a lot like Yul delivering his lines as Ramses or Taras Bulba. George Sanders sounds like George Sanders playing George Sanders. Given the limited range of acting she is asked to display in this role, Gina does a good job, though by the time the movie ends, she is completely converted into a demure remorseful lass and looks likes she might be playing in a biography of Mother Teresa. I guess thunderbolts will do that to you, but it is almost breathtaking how quickly she jettisons her own beliefs for her new religion. The supporting players are mostly awful, lacking credible emotion and timing. The usual big battle scenes, what passed for lascivious dances in 1959, and an orchestra blasting out plenty of trumpet calls behind a huge chorus singing lots of "Ah's", but none of it quite of topnotch Hollywood quality. The final swordfight between Brynner and Sanders is at the laughingly low skill level of a junior high school play. The film is one big piece of eye candy but not much more.
Solomon and Sheba has come down in Hollywood lore not for the quality of the film, but for the fact that Tyrone Power died while making it. I was in the 5th grade and well remember the huge news for days when that tragedy happened. I didn't know who Tyrone Power was then, but I learned and learned to appreciate the body of his work.<br /><br />I often wonder if Ty had a sense about this film and what a dud it proved. He was the unnamed producer of this as well. Maybe he just didn't want to face the critics. Good thing Power actually went out with Witness for the Prosecution although you can see him in long shots if you look close. <br /><br />What we have here is a biblical stew that probably would baffle the great Solomon himself. Several incidents described in the Bible that the Bible treats separately are woven together into one plot with a few additions tossed in by Hollywood. <br /><br />The actual story about the Queen of Sheba is that she went on a trade mission to the Kingdom of Israel, chatted Solomon up a bit, came back with a lot of trade goods and that was that. The story of a romance between her and Solomon is of legend. The ancient kingdom of Sheba is about where Yemen is now and her people purportedly moved to the African continent which is how Ethiopia was founded.<br /><br />The Queen never witnessed Solomon's famous case involving the two women with separate claims for a baby, nor was she involved with the building of the First Temple. Nor was she around for the destruction of same. For that matter neither was Solomon.<br /><br />And she was not involved in the dispute over the succession when Solomon's brother Adonijah put in a counterclaim. That is the heart of this film. Adonijah upon hearing the news that King David is dying declares himself king. Of course David rallies temporarily and says that God came to him and said Solomon should succeed him. When David hears about what Adonijah did, he says that's what got God all bent out of shape, Adonijah being greedy. After that Adonijah gets to plotting.<br /><br />Things seem to come full circle in that Ty Power collapsed on the set while dueling with George Sanders as Adonijah. Sanders and Power were rivals in many films, most particularly in Lloyds of London which was Power's breakthrough role. If Sanders is not quite the jaded sophisticate he was in Samson and Delilah, he's still Sanders the biblical cad.<br /><br />When Power died Yul Brynner was brought in to play Solomon and given a wig so that existing footage of Power in long shot could be salvaged. Brynner invests the dialog with the proper dignity, but I think he probably regretted doing the pinch hitting.<br /><br />Gina Lollobrigida is the Queen of Sheba and she is alluring as a biblical temptress in the Cecil B. DeMille tradition. She seems not to have any real conviction and my guess is she was shocked at Power's sudden demise and having to do it all over again. Marisa Pavan as Abishag may give the best performance in the film.<br /><br />The real story with Adonijah is not as elaborate as this film. He disputed with Solomon for the succession and gathered around a group of some of King David's court as supporters. Solomon pardoned them once and then Adonijah asked for Abishag in marriage. Abishag in the Bible and here was an adopted daughter of King David in his old age. When Solomon hears that, he decides Adonijah is getting greedy again and has him killed. The Bible mentions someone named Berniah who was going around basically doing contract hits on Adonijah's supporters.<br /><br />What we have in the film is a spectacular climax involving a miracle that I searched for and couldn't find. It came from the fertile imagination of director King Vidor who ended a long and distinguished career on a sour note. It was a question of Vidor trying to out do Cecil B. DeMille in biblical spectacle. <br /><br />He didn't make it.
It wasn't until I looked at the trivia section that I found out that the original producer/star of this movie Tyrone Power died during its making . This no doubt explains why everyone on screen seems to have their minds on other things , a symptom of which appears in a very early scene involving a battle that can only be described as pathetic . You know when you've been painting a wall until you're completely bored ? Well that's the sort of expression the combatants have on their face when they're swinging their swords in a highly unconvincing manner <br /><br />The plot centres on Soloman the King of Israel having an affair with the Queen of Sheeba and his people not being happy about it . You can't really blame them since there's few things more beautiful in the world than those Israeli moteks , though the Israeli women here all seem to look like Cherie Blair ! Modern day Israel is also very cosmopolitan with the majority of Israelis being born outside the country but would this have been true a couple of thousand years ago where everyone speaks in European and American accents <br /><br />After much talking and a dance sequence that has to be seen to be believed ( And no that's not praise ) we have a climax where the heavily outnumbered Israelis have to defend themselves against a massed Egyptian army who can't read a map otherwise they would have known there was a canyon in front of them . This is what I don't get - Even though their blinded by the sun the Egyptians spend ten minutes charging towards the Israelis never ever realising they're charging towards a gaping ravine ! Isn't this somewhat illogical ? It's also something of a revealing error since the horses , chariots and men falling into the canyon are obviously miniature figures <br /><br />Anyway the film ends with Soloman killing his treacherous brother and praising God for his victory . But who needs Moshe Dayan , Arik Sharon or God when you've got an idiotic enemy who can't see a ravine in front of him or waves a sword like he paints a wall ?
This movie and several other movies from the 1950s with a religious overtone, such as The Robe, Quo Vadis, and Samson and Delilah, unfortunately depict all pagans or anybody who isn't a Jew or Christian as morally depraved and decadent. The focus is only on biblical-related stories that ignore the world outside the Bible. As far as they are concerned, nothing good came from pagan Egypt, Greece or Rome.<br /><br />Any movie that preaches about the "one true god" gives a short shift to freedom of religion. The movies ignore the fact that ancient Judea's lack of religious freedom made it a fertile ground for religious extremism. Most 1950s religious movies also overlook the loss of freedom the occurred after Christians assumed political power in the 4th century.
"Solomon and Sheba" was the kind of film that you just had to go and see back in the late 50's when I was a kid: a biblical epic spectacular with well known performers, unusual costumes, lots of extras and battle sequences. So I went to see it; but I remember that back then "Solomon and Sheba" didn't impress me at all, which was a strange thing since I had enjoyed a lot "The Ten Commandments", "Quo Vadis", "Helen of Troy" and others. The point is that when you are a kid you disregard things in pictures that adults don't (bad acting, for instance) and you are easier to please with warriors in their armors, battles, sword duels and action, so if your'e not impressed then something is wrong with a product of this genre. <br /><br />This film, though it has some of such features, is definitely standard and average. Yul Brynner's wooden performance as the Hebrew king doesn't even light when he has voluptuous and half naked Gina Lollobrigida dancing around him provocatively. She is better and renders an acceptable acting. George Sanders doesn't look interested in what he is doing, and Marisa Pavan (Pier Angeli's twin sister) doesn't add at all as a sort of Brynner's conscience.<br /><br />The final sword duel between Brynner and Sanders is just for the plot and lacks interest and intensity (it had to filmed, that's all).<br /><br />Not a good farewell for director King Vidor, Solomon and Sheba will probably be remembered as Ty Power's last unfinished picture.
Mostly uninvolving biblical mumbo-jumbo that drags on for well over two hours. The only thing that saves this film from God's wreath (and there is only one God, remember) is the unintentionally funny dialog, and a good battle scene which comes far too late in the movie. For most of the two hours until the action scenes there is too much talking; the dialog is so inept that the movie just begs to be spoofed by MST3K.<br /><br />George Sanders is absolutely awful; one of the most animated, overly-theatrical performances I've ever seen. Brynner isn't much better; his stiff, wooden acting, combined with the horrendous fortune-cookie wisdom utterings make for a rather boring and silly Solomon. It seems that every time Brynner opens his mouth something oh-so wise and ridiculously high-and-mighty comes out. To an extent it's not Sanders's and Brynner's fault, because of the crappy, comical dialog and the typically biblical one-dimensional characterization, but they made little effort otherwise. Brynner's accent even reminds a bit of Schwarzenegger's; this is not a plus. Only Lollobrigida manages to avoid embarrassing herself, by playing the role with more conviction and in an appropriate way which befits a role in such a silly film. To describe these biblical characters as one-dimensional would be too give them undeserved credit; the characterization is half-dimensional.
Tyrone Power was cast in the lead as Solomon. However, part-way through the film he died unexpectedly. The studio chose to cast Yul Brynner in the lead and re-shoot the scenes that Power had done. In hindsight, considering how awful this film was, Power was lucky--as this would have been a horrible way to end his lovely film career!!! <br /><br />Of all the Biblical epics I have seen, this one is by far the worst--and that's saying a lot because Hollywood has made many dull Biblical tales--so many you wonder if the creation of these films was an Atheist conspiracy!! In fact, the film was so dull that it deservedly was included in Harry Medved's brilliant book "The Fifty Worst Movies of All Time". There are so many reasons to hate the film but the worst is how incredibly ponderous the whole thing was! Sure, casting people with Italian, Eastern European, Scottish and English accents to play Egyptians and Israelis was pretty bad--but at least this made the film oddly humorous. Having bosomy Gina Lollobrigida playing the role of a woman reputed to have come from a place around Ethiopia was also just awful, but at least she was beautiful even if she couldn't act. Having an overweight and post-middle aged George Sanders play such a young role was also pretty bad, but at least he had a pretty voice. Creating an orgy scene that was choreographed and revoltingly dull was pretty bad, but at least you got to see in the credits a mention of a person as the "orgy choreographer"! No, the worse thing about this movie is that almost two and a half hours, it seemed like nine it was so poorly paced and insipid! Considering that the only mention of this Queen of Sheba and Solomon is only in a few measly verses in the Old Testament, it's amazing the film just went on and on and on. THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD was a bit longer, but that movie was based on four gospels--not a dozen or so verses! <br /><br />The bottom line is that the film is wretched in practically every way (except for Gina's cleavage). Even for devoted Christians and Jews, this is a must-avoid film because it plays so fast and loose with the truth as well as injects an amazing amount of sex into a Biblical film!!! Terrible in almost every way, it is truly a blessing for Tyrone Power that he's not remembered for starring in this bloated turkey.
How does a movie become a Biblical epic? Simply by quoting a couple of Scriptures & using some names out of the Bible for your characters? The only thing that was Biblical about this epic was the names of the characters. Oh, I almost forgot the 3 kingdoms, Israel, Egypt & Sheba were also used. Where did King Vidor get the rest of his story from? It surely wasn't from the Bible. It was complete & utter nonsense. If you want to read about Solomon's reign as King in Israel then read 1 Kings 1-11 & 2 Chronicles 1-9. You will even come across Adonijah in 1 Kings 1 & 2. The Queen of Sheba, (who doesn't show up until King Solomon has been king for about 20 years or so, which by the way, is long after Adonijah & Joab had been dead) can be found in 1 Kings 10 & 2 Chronicles 9. One of the first thing Solomon does is make an affinity with Pharoah by taking his daughter.<br /><br />Yes, King Solomon did get involved with the worshipping of false gods & this is why the Kingdom was split after his death, not the Temple being destroyed by lightning. Also, I think Solomon was too busy marrying & providing temples to the false gods of his 700 wives & tending to his 300 concubines to be fighting Egypt, let alone a dead brother.<br /><br />Like I said this movie was utter nonsense. If you aren't gonna use the story in the Bible then call it something else. This could've just as easily been called Romeo & Juliet or Sid & Nancy.<br /><br />
This movie was childish in its writing and laughable in its visual effects. Scenes where Father Merrin is tossing in his bed and his glimpses of a gimpy native are signs of bad acting and poor imagination. Nothing seems to fit. The story jumps from scene to scene. The elementary writing leaves no fact to the imagination and leaves no room for suspense. The lady doctor at one point states that she thinks the town is going to "explode soon" from all the crazy happenings. There was, in fact, nothing in the movie to make that line relevant. From the terrible job the movie had done, I would have never known that there were any tensions in the village. If you are into cheesy movies go ahead and rent this, but if you want to see this done right check out Exorcist:The Beginning
Well, after seeing "Beginning" I thought why the hell they burned Schraders Version and did that poor one. But now, after seeing "Dominion" I deeply understand this decision. Even they got it not much better.<br /><br />Sorry, but this movie is really crap. Some good moments, but a really boring story-telling and some major plot-holes are killing this movie.<br /><br />I thing the Exorcist-story has a lot and in a prequel on this you can built on a lot and give references the audience will like to see. But there is so much little of it in the movie. The effects are really bad - not even TV-standard.
I hate to admit it, but they were right to sack Schrader. The opportunity is here to build an atmosphere, to draw an audience into a movie. It wasn't done. The characters are weak. The story was weak. The directing was very poor. Schrader was out of his depth and it shows. I've watched it several times now in the hope that there will be at least one redeeming feature. But no, nothing. The next stage will probably be a remake of the original or hopefully it will be left well alone. Anyone wanting to know what the best sequel to The Exorcist was should read 'Legion', penned by Blatty it has to be the best follow up to an original piece to be committed to print. Sadly, it did not translate to to screen very well and I doubt if it ever could be. As for Dominion, Beginning. Avoid at all costs.
Once again, I've been duped by seemingly intelligent reviews making seemingly intelligent comments about an obviously crappy movie. I actually put my shoes on, got in my car, burned expensive gasoline and drove to the nearest rental place AFTER reading said reviews and paid the requisite 4 dollars and change to rent this thing. I'm telling you, this one's not worth the minuscule kilo-calories spent on lifting one's index finger to switch channels on a TV remote. <br /><br />I even gave it a few more minutes after seeing all the tell-tale signs of a pedigree dog-pile. These presented as clinical symptoms of a director who is a. going senile or, b. is only marginally interested in the film he/she is obligated to create. I saw similar deterioration with John Carpenter's string of ridiculous caricature's over the past number of years.<br /><br />Here are a couple of scenes as incriminating evidence. The priest is having a disturbing dream...supposedly a harbinger of nastiness to come since he seems hell bent on opening the archaeological feature which houses the demon. The dream is a goofy collage of disjointed images right out of the Twilight Zone's stock footage. A ticking clock careens through the dream scape's blackness implying, what?, the unfathomable mystery of Time?....big deal! A disembodied head, painted in demon features with convenience store quality Halloween make-up, flickers back and forth in a convulsive frenzy. Every time I see this effect, a big fat rip-off from Jacob's Ladder, it pisses me off. This, in itself, almost instantly discredits a film. <br /><br />The whole build-up of the archaeological dig itself is laughable. Everything is so obvious...so tired and over-wrought...the only possible response is boredom. At one point in the dig, the priest comments on finding the statues of Angels surrounding a sarcophagus...they're all pointing down toward the crypt with their weapons. He queries "Look at these surrounding statues....It's as if they are holding..something..down!" This is supposed to build tension...critical mass..but it doesn't even come close! How can there be suspense if you treat the audience like a bunch of morons having to EXPLAIN the suspense as you go along. The imagery is over-done in the first place but the added comments only add insult to injury in my opinion. Soon thereafter, the tomb is "decorated" with the remains of the soldiers placed there to guard the main atrium (another shameless rip-off of The Keep, btw). Who, for crying out loud, did the make-up effects for this film??! The blood actually had that pinkish quality one might see in 70's Tromaville flicks. At this point I became almost convinced that they simply forgot the make-up and had to go to Wal-Mart in the interest of time and money.<br /><br />DON'T listen to glowing comments on this one! I'll be keeping a suspicious eye on Schrader too. Looks like it might be time to hang up his gloves. Perhaps a close friend will offer a gentle admonition to quit while there's still dignity in memory of films gone by.
Absolutely one of the worst movies I've ever seen! "The Beginning" was not the greatest either but better than this one. This is not a good way to lead up to the original movie. It's just simply awful! The CGI hyenas were so fake looking in both movies! Why not use real animals? I enjoyed the old Sinbad movies better than this. I was royally disappointed! The only good thing I can say about this waste of film is the cinematography and clothes which really captured that era well. I understand why this movie was redone as "The Beginning". It's just that bad, in my opinion. where does the money come from to waste like this? Give me a multi-million dollar budget and I'll show you how it should be done!
I found Dominion to be a lousy attempt to continue the success of the story. The original movie was a story about evil, and how it can infiltrate our lives.<br /><br />Schrader's version is lacking in evil. Viewers do not get an overwhelming sense of dread, fear, or even foreboding. Harlin's version offers evident evil, shows violations of the church's sanctity, and builds a convincing story that is plausible, given Father Merrin's background. Schrader's story leaves one wondering exactly what happened. Dominion does not evoke the emotions of the viewers to empathize with Father Merrin, and leaves the viewer wondering exactly why he was troubled in the first place.<br /><br />Anyone interested in seeing a sequel which lives up to the original should see Exorcist: The Beginning.
I have nothing at all against Paul Schrader. In fact, HARDCORE (1979) is one of my very favorite films. But some horror movie fans were in a premature uproar when his original version of the EXORCIST prequel (DOMINION; this one you're reading about right now, as it turns out) was scrapped by Warners, and when Renny Harlin was substituted to spruce things up and make a new version that was "more scary". In my opinion, some viewers were prejudiced and became automatically juiced up for hating Renny Harlin's take on the subject (EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING) before the first frame of film was ever even unspooled for them to judge. And I ought to know; because I myself went into the theatrical premiere of BEGINNING with stubborn arms folded, and prepared for the absolute worst, which I was sure had to come. Imagine my surprise when I found Harlin's BEGINNING to be much more serious than I ever could have conceived, with a good performance from Stellan Skarsgard as a young version of Father Merrin, who was struggling with his faith in God. It wasn't a great film by any means, but it was nowhere near the garbage I had prepared myself for, well in advance, sight unseen.<br /><br />Well, now I finally HAVE seen the true garbage version - and it's Paul Schrader's DOMINION: PREQUEL TO THE EXORCIST. It was relentlessly talky, uninteresting, and insipid. Stellan Skarsgard's troubled priest was nowhere near as interesting as he had been for me in Harlin's film, and the actor himself not as good in the part. For all those who pointed out the obvious CGI effects in BEGINNING, guess what? They're here in DOMINION as well. Remember the silly ending in Harlin's rendition (which I'll also agree tainted the rest of that movie)? Well, you're going to find that this ending from Schrader isn't a hell of a lot less lame.<br /><br />Let me also say that I resent the nonsense that's been presented by those who appreciate this film better than Harlin's, by saying that we're "retards" or "cannot appreciate subtle film-making". As a person who despises Stephen Sommers' MTV-fashioned MUMMY of '99, and being a true fan of the very suggestive and discreet old horror films of the '30s and '40s, I can assure you this is not the case with me. At least there was "some" degree of terror and Exorcist-type goings on in Harlin's BEGINNING; this one here is just a real exercise in tedium and a great challenge even for the most certified of insomniacs. It's going to be quite interesting to hear horror fans try to convince themselves that DOMINION: PREQUEL TO THE EXORCIST was as good as they'd already made their minds up for it to be in advance; just as they were already pre-disposed to lambasting Harlin's BEGINNING the second they learned Paul Schrader's name was getting soaked with the White-Out.
Don't get me wrong, I love most of Paul Schrader's movies, so it was with sheer excitement I was able to attend at the "Rolling Thunder" screening at the Parisian french cinemathèque with surprise movie on the 17th Dec 2004. Of course the surprise movie was The Exorcist and most people were there for that (I was too). The film was then finished but the score, so P Schrader used excerpts from The Return of the King and some other movie I forget (Was it Conan?). Anyways, apart from that the movie was finalized. The happy few there (maybe 200 people) were told to please not write about the film on the internet or magazines since it may have jeopardized its chance of getting selected to the Cannes Film Festival. Then came the film, then came the realization that the film might not get selected for the Festival because of its quality : Never in my life had I experienced such a feeling of awkwardness in the audience as people went from being skeptical to plainly laughing out loud at the pity-full spectacle. I couldn't believe how low the author of Light Sleeper, Mishima, Blue Collar and Affliction had sunk.<br /><br />Forced over-the-top acting thorough, stupid ending, black and white moral, awful FXs, worst take on Christianity from Schrader ever, not even suspenseful, just boring as hell (no pun intended) and unsurprising at all! Some good locations but sadly miss-used or at least not fulfilling the initial hopes! In the end I was 100 times more satisfied by the Schrader penned Rolling Thunder and wished my 2 hours back.<br /><br />Don't believe the hype, even the John Boorman movie is more exciting and original. Oh, and the Billy Crawford casting, the poor guy does his best, but what where you expecting? He's now part of the small club of worst casting mistakes ever! I give the movie a 1/5 just because I didn't leave the room, but I should have.
Let me begin by saying that I had been eagerly anticipating this film's release for awhile. After finally getting the chance to see it last night, I'm sorry to say that I was incredibly disappointed. It's hard to imagine a film that could make last fall's "Exorcist: The Beginning" look good, but "Dominion" does just that. No wait...it makes it look like a GREAT film. <br /><br />Perhaps I got myself too excited about this movie, and that contributed to the let down. After all, the idea that Warner Bros. was releasing two versions of what is essentially the same film within six months of each other was an exciting attraction. Plus, I'm a huge fan of Stellan Skarsgard, and in true fashion he gives a great performance, despite the often ridiculous content of the film. On the other hand, the supporting cast in this film is abysmal. Clara Bellar seems to be capable of only one expression - blank stare, and delivers all of her lines with the same monotonous tone, while Gabrielle Mann's Father Frances is just ridiculous. The effects in this film are laughable at best and the sheer cheesiness of it all is enough to rob the film of any chance of being taken seriously. This movie brought about more stifled giggling than anything else, and with the exception of one really chilling shot that lasted about three-seconds and made my friend cover her eyes and whimper, it neglected to offer anything in the scare department either. I could go into more detail and possibly give away some spoilers, but frankly I'm too exhausted from thinking about how bad this film was to write all the things I'd love to say.<br /><br />The saddest part about the whole thing is that the basic idea that both versions of the film tried to give...a story about a priest who has lost his faith and then regains it after coming to terms with his troubled past...had huge potential, especially with Skarsgard as leading man. Unfortunately for us, that potential was wasted. Go and see this film only if you're really curious about how it differs from the Harlin version, but don't expect to see a good film or you'll regret wasting your money and two hours of your life. Otherwise, be content with the version first released and move on.
I don't know about you but i go to horror films to be scared and this was anything but scary, the movie had several chances to be truly scary and failed miserably EVERY TIME! Several of these supposedly suspenseful moments were haunted by some of the worst cg you will see this year, perhaps decade! I mean when i say the cg looks like daytime TV, I'm giving daytime TV a bad name, I've seen better stuff on the sci-fi channel. Who i really feel sorry for is the actors,(that they have their names attached to this film) they did a good job, i cared about most of the characters and i felt that their performances were quite good, but that was not enough to bring this movie out of the gutter. Whats really amusing is the reuse of some of the sets, if you have seen "exorcist: the beginning" it will be easy to spot the reuse of some of the buildings. However what i thought was the worst thing about this film, even above the cg problems was the main demon, he was just not scary in anyway, his form, the way he talked, he was extremely bland. all in all this movie was a horrible experience and i would have walked out of the theater if it weren't for my wife wanting to see the end.
Well, I remember when the studio sacked Schrader and hired Harlin to do reshoots to this film, they were quite right to do so.<br /><br />Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist is simply a bad movie, it's boring, really it is.<br /><br />It would be nice to think that the studio put aside a psychological masterpiece and that all those who in such big words condemned Harlin's version and praised Schraders, even if no one had ever seen it, would have been right.<br /><br />But they weren't.<br /><br />To put it in a nutshell : Schrader has no idea what a horror film should be, and it shows in a big way.<br /><br />Droll, boring, unintentionally funny in all the wrong places and bad supporting cast.<br /><br />Save your cash and your nerves, don't see it.
OK, last night I saw the world premiere of Paul Schrader's The Exorcist: The Beginning at the Brussels International Festival of Fantasy Films. With all the commotion around the film it was highly anticipated.<br /><br />The director was there and so were most of the stars (except Skarsgard).<br /><br />Unfortunately the movie sucked big time. It was a real disappointment for me because I'm a huge fan of both Shrader and Friedkin's (RIP) original 1973 film.<br /><br />What was wrong with it? Most of it actually. The FX (you would think that the Matrix and LOTR digital revolution never happened: it was so badly rendered!), the editing (no real pace or rhythm), the acting (only Skarsgard at times could convince). The script was a, IMO, set up to explain the African scenes in the original film. So the movie had the feel of a set up scene only it contributed nothing.<br /><br />The only thing that I did like was Vittorio Storaro's cinematography although I've seen better from him (Apocalyps Now).<br /><br />All of the time I was thinking this was just a rough cut, a work in progress. And that, given the (well known) circumstances, is probably what it is. But that doesn't change the obvious problems with the script.<br /><br />I had the chance to meet Schrader (very briefly) but I didn't have the guts to tell him what I thought of the film and I was so nervous (this is the guy who wrote Taxi Driver for Christ sake!!) that I forgot to ask him to sign my copy of his Taxi Driver script...
Help! Once again, Paul Schrader has sabotaged his own intentions with dull, pedantic storytelling. I rearranged a vacation so that I could see this "world premiere." What a mistake! Why did Schrader even want to make an Exorcist film? Lofty intentions are fine, but if I wanted 2 hours of theological babble, I would visit my nephew's Sunday school. Father Merrin's struggle with his faith, as presented in his younger days, is a potentially interesting subject. But an Exorcist movie needs more! The relentlessly draggy presentation, along with ridiculous special effects, makes for a strange production. Who is this movie for? I didn't bother seeing the Harlin version, but at least they apparently tried to deliver some sort of visceral thrills.<br /><br />The Exorcist series has been quite strange. The first film was excellent, but every sequel has been unloved and pointless. Why do they keep making them? I suppose Schrader made it so that he could get a lot of money. But why should we go?
As long as you go into this movie with the understanding that it's not going to contain any historical fact whatsoever, it's not bad.<br /><br />It's on par with Sam Raimi's "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys", as far as plot, acting, humour, and production values are concerned. You'll see the similarities at several points. Most of the fight scenes are not as good however and the film suffers from that.<br /><br />Jack Palance commands the screen as well as ever, and at no time do you have the impression he's giving anything less than his level best. Same for Oliver Reed. The problem is that their strong performances make square-jawed Don Diamont's less-than-stellar acting skills seem even more awkward. Perennial bit player Cas Anvar was very good as well, playing a character much like Salmonius in the aforementioned Hercules.<br /><br />If you enjoyed the low budget swords-and-sorcery movies of the early 80s, you're probably going to enjoy this show as well. It's actually a shame they attached the Marco Polo name to it. It really has nothing to do with Marco's life, contrary to the expectations of most of the people who will want to watch this movie.
Historical movies always take liberties -- conversations are concocted where no one could actually know what was said, customs are adjusted to be comprehensible to modern audiences, etc. However, historical films about actual historical personages should make at least a minimal nod to history. This film does not. The only scene I actually remember is when our hero surprises an assassin who creeps into his chamber at night. He confronts the dangerous intruder with, "I don't remember sending for room service". The main entertainment value is in its badness; I recommended my local video story put it on the "Turkeys" shelf.
What can be said of this independent effort beyond the fact that it was shot with television cameras, and whether that was by conceit or budget constraints doesn't make the watching of this variation on a theme by Romero any easier. I was constantly reminded that I was watching somebody's school project, at best derivative, at worst cheap.<br /><br />Writer/director Georg Koszulinski (who also appears in the film) does some interesting things with stock footage, but that says more about his editing style than his directing style, which consists of in-your-face close-ups with TV cameras which made me think I was watching public-access television instead of an actual, honest-to-goodness film.<br /><br />The story copies and pastes bits and pieces from various sources, including the aforementioned Romero's DEAD trilogy, THE ROAD WARRIOR (dig that stock footage of a "future" that looks like the past) and THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT.<br /><br />What results is an hour-and-nothing's worth of zombies tracking down and eating humans. (Okay, the "humans" in this case are clones, but that doesn't change anything. It's the same menu.)<br /><br />The year is 2031, and the first strand of people who were cloned nineteen years before have started to malfunction, particularly in the dietary area. Of course, when clones go bad, the first thing they have a taste for is human flesh (or, in this case, cloned human flesh). It's not safe to be indoors, it's not safe to be outdoors. It's just a matter of time before the flesh-eating ghouls devour our heroes. Have you seen this before? <br /><br />I don't mind people ripping off Romero, if it's done well, but no new territory is covered in this film. It's NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD meets THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, shot with television cameras. What is particularly disappointing is that the DVD cover makes it look like it was shot, at the very least, with 8mm film. This wouldn't have been a problem with me if the story had not been equally cheap. The film offers a bleak vision of the future in which technology has evolved to the point where human cloning is possible. Must we continue to clone our favourite movies?
A young man falls in love with a princess but then has to go to battle to save her father's kingdom. While away, he accidentally kills an enchanted animal which brings a curse upon him. He becomes a beast and begins to kill even his own comrades. When nobody returns to the kingdom from the battle, the king renders the land of battle cursed and forbids anyone from going there. One day, a rebel who wishes to marry the princess decides that it's time they ventured into the cursed land to claim it for the king and the king agrees, when they reach the land the king is captured by the beast and the rebel returns home to lie to the kingdom that the king has been captured and killed. He assumes the throne and prepares to marry the princess but the night before her wedding, the princess escapes to the land to go and battle the beast herself. It is only when she gets to the cursed land that she begins to realise that her father is still alive and that the beast may not even be that evil after all. Sadly, her discoveries lead her to pay the ultimate price in their revelation.
Most awful casting I've ever seen. Clark Kent as a crack head, a very feminine looking woman as a trans and on and on.............<br /><br />Stupid ass violence just for the sake of being violent. No content, no meaning. This person has never been on the streets. It's a joke!<br /><br />The only thing dumber than this movie is the fact that I finished watching it. I just kept thinking it couldn't get any worse but it did to the very end.<br /><br />Trying way to hard to be an off the hook movie. Trying to be freaky. So stupid! I really have no more to say but can't leave a comment unless I write more.<br /><br />Please take this advice and DO NOT BOTHER WATCHING THIS MOVIE!!!!! AWFUL!!!
I feel dumber after watching the first 20 min,luckily i walked out and saved the rest of my brain, people should watch better films and take notes on why they are rated highly,not because of the budget of the film or the special effects, just simply good acting and getting simple things right,and MOst importantly--not being LAME--, but i guess this was produced for those Sheeple without taste and not a clue of what is ''A good Movie''don't be scared of rating films low,save your under-appreciated high scores for ''once in a life time movies''. Keep in mind that many use IMDb for trusted reviews and opinions,don't spoil the broth by sugarcoating turds Peace & love
I cannot stress how bad this movie is. This director took every cheap little unintelligent shot at making these people look so "distressed". Why are their clothes so dirty? Why on earth would you get the new clark kent to play a crack head? You should be banned from motion pictures for the rest of your life Buddy Giovinazzo.<br /><br />I take serious offense to this fool wanting to cast real actors as thugs and lowlifes as some kind of clever joke. Why would you ask Clark Kent to play a crackhead? Why are they yelling so much? Why is everyone so mean? Why are those kids so filthy? No one would want to be so filthy? Not even a crackhead child.<br /><br />You need to grow up and not make any movies ever again.
This movie was a poor movie. The plot was poor and the comedy they "tried" to deliver came out poorly. The accidents seem contrived and predictable. I thought the actors tried to some extent but with this movie, it was so lame it can only go so far.One of the worst films I have seen and don't recommend it to anyone. The only accident to Mr. Accident was it's release.
Yahoo Serious is like a $3 bottle of wine - had no substance to begin with and just gets worse with age. This film proves he is completely toxic. We can only hope that this is his final film and that its serious lack of success will diminish his chances of obtaining finance for any future ventures. It is right up there with "Lightning Jack" and "Les Patterson Saves the World" as the most abysmal example of Australian comedy imaginable. How tragic it is that with so many infinitely superior comedic talents in Australia Yahoo is given such vehicles to express his brand of puerile school yard comedy. And to think - he had 7 years to come up with the script. True genius!
Mr. Accident is a deliberate series of non-stop disasters and near death experiences reminiscent of Saturday Morning's Warner Brothers Cartoons. Like the coyote who falls off the cliff 5 times per episode, the "leading man" (more like an over grown klutzy child) always manages to postpone his meeting with the Grimm Reaper.<br /><br />This Australian "surprise" is offensively unfunny, and at times even depressing. The 2 (out of ten) are is for the visual stunts (some never attempted by anyone since Daffy Duck) and the use of vivid colors (like in those high class national laundry detergent commercials).<br /><br />There may be an age bracket where this "comedy" finds a following. I have definitely passed that age long ago. Calling all preteens: Here's a "ha-ha" for ya!
It pains me to say this about an Australian film but Mr. Accident ranks with the worst of the worst films I have ever seen. What's even more tragic is that it doesn't fit into the 'it's so bad it's good' category. What annoys me the most about this film is the fairly large amount of money that has been frittered away on a pointless, unfunny, underdeveloped, inept screenplay. Dumb performances (What are Garry McDonald and Elisabeth Gore aka Elle McFeast doing in this trash?), inadequate direction, no plot and a general sense of meanness totally take away from the interesting production design and leave you with a truly horrible taste in your mouth. Comedy! Ha! Do yourself a favour and stay away!
I know everyone said this movie was utter crap and I agree with them. I spent a few years after seeing it telling other people it was crap. I recommended they not see it. But when it came on TV, we saw the ad. I turned to family and said: "I know this is sad, but I'm thinking of watching it". My sister turned to me and said: "Yeah, me too." And you know what? It was funny.<br /><br />By no means is this a good movie. It's absolutely a waste of time. But it's a good waste of time. You may still think it's crap and fair enough, but I thought it was a really funny slapstick comedy. I didn't like a couple of bits, like when the fish got hit by the car, but apart from that I thought it was good. I loved sitting there and picking out all the famous Australian faces: Flacco, Elle McFeast, Garry McDonald etc.<br /><br />So, if you like to waste your time, watch this movie. Otherwise, see a drama or something.
This is the worst movie of all-time, no doubt, and Schindler's List, did in fact have more laughs. This, not only, tells you how unfunny this movie is and how great SL is, considering it's heartbreaking and contains 1 laugh. I wish I could meet "Yahoo Serious" so I could personally throttle him, for this and all the other very, very, very bad movies he's ever been in. There is also very few things to say about Australia, seeing as they like this stupid fruit. Don't get me wrong people (Mel Gibson) from Australia are great, they brought us Mad Max. It makes me very nauseous that people like this garbage, (A review I just read said it was, "very funny," sickening, isn't it). I, personally will be boycotting this movie and will start a petition online to ban and burn all Yahoo Serious' movies for being so, and I emphasize this, so RETARDED.<br /><br />These are just my personal thoughts, no doubting they are shared by everybody who has seen this movie.<br /><br />Note: If you are forced to watch this movie, Clockwork Orange style, call me to commit euthanasia on you for free.
The book is great. It's one of my favorite books ever. The film, on the other hand, is amazingly insipid and bad! When I heard Damon would play Ripley, I knew this production was doomed. But I didn't expect it to be this bad. The actors go around and act very showy. Except for Law (and even he is guilty of some showy acting), all the actors here are near amateurish. Speaking Italian and moving one's arms or hair about shouldn't be considered as acting. Damon is miscast. He's way too stiff for a character that's supposed to be a chameleon. Paltrow is forgettable and Hoffman plays yet another effeminate slimy character. Talk about typecasting.<br /><br />What's really unforgivable about the script (written by the overrated director) is that it completely forgoes every subtle details from the book and comes up with many of its own, and none of them work! The addition of the Jazz music stuff is totally WRONG! I guess Minghella's idea of Italy in the late 50s, early 60s is clouded with images of Chet Baker roaming the Italian countryside and spreading amore. Yep, Minghella is a true visionary. The film is so bleeding obvious. That silly scene when Ripley drives through the narrow street full of mirrors. Very laughable. Yes, we get the point!!! Every point or detail comes across a mile away, so much so that the film might give the audience the false impression that they have psychic powers. We know, for example, that the Blanchett character, introduced at the beginning of the movie, will return later on only complicate things. And the soundtrack, at times, is totally inappropriate. Whimsical when it shouldn't be. The film goes on for too long and in all sorts of pointless directions. There are too many boring characters populating the landscape (many that weren't in the book). This film is bad! Really bad!<br /><br />Apparently, Minghella's son told his father that the Ripley novel was his favorite. Mr. Minghella then proceeded to direct it as a favor of sorts to his son. Well, the director did achieve what he set out to do: Talented Mr. Ripley, with its Hitchcock aspirations, is a film strictly made for 12 year olds!
As the title suggests there is a philosophical, meritocratic thread running through this film: if a man has the talent and looks to find his way into society and money what might be the outcome if he is denied it for failing to have the X factor? This question is unsatisfactorily dealt with in this adaptation of Patricia Highsmith's book and left me rather cold along the way.<br /><br />Matt Damon is the Ripley of the title and apart from blagging his way on a funded jaunt to Europe falls under the spell of his commissioned target, Dickie Greenleaf (Law). Homoeroticism and social insecurity get all tangled up in a violent conflagration which escalated and complicate themselves for the rest of the movie. Law, Damon and the damningly pleasant Paltrow as Dickie's girlfriend are OK. I liked Philip Seymour Hoffman's cameo-ish Freddie Miles, the bluff society friend that Ripley can never be. The problem is that the story is lumpen without arc - or redemption, for that matter - which makes it rather difficult to swallow. 4/10
This movie stars Ben Kingsley as Frank, a hit man for some Russian mobsters based out of Buffalo. He is also a raging alcoholic, and this has caused his job performance to decline. After he falls asleep in his car during a would-be hit, his mob boss uncle sends him to San Francisco, where he is to attend AA meetings and get a job as a mortician's assistant. If you're thinking that this makes absolutely no sense, you're not alone.<br /><br />It gets worse. Well, it actually gets better, but not before getting much, much worse. Frank suddenly becomes a master mortician in spite of a complete lack of training, but his reactions with the people in the funeral home and the AA meetings are interesting. The viewer starts to root for him as they notice positive changes in his life. Luke Wilson is a welcome addition as Frank's sponsor, although he is given almost nothing to do (his character does tell us he is gay, but this ends up having no significance whatsoever). The movie plunges headlong into idiocy with the introduction of the Tea Leoni character. She is completely unrealistic, and her role as a love interest to Frank flounders, as the two actors have no chemistry together. Around the time she comes into the picture, Frank becomes much less engrossing as a character. His characterization is seemingly random; there is no consistency in his behavior. The comedy is low-key and only intermittently funny, especially disappointing considering the comedic pedigree of the cast.<br /><br />Problems abound in this one. Kingsley's accent is terrible and inconsistent. It alternates between Italian, Russian, and Hispanic. Throughout the course of the movie, Frank tells numerous people he is a hit man (including an entire AA group), but nobody seems to care, or wants to do anything about it. The movie relies on cliché scenes to carry it through its final act, most notably when Leoni's insufferable character chases Frank down at the airport, just when he is about to board a flight back to Buffalo.<br /><br />Though it has a strong premise and an interesting first half-hour, the movie quickly becomes a total disaster and devolves into complete nonsense. At the end of the film, Frank celebrates one year of sobriety. I hope to celebrate many, many years of not having seen "You Kill Me". <br /><br />My Grade: D+
Frank Falenczyk: It isn't that I'm sorry I killed them; it's that I'm sorry I killed them badly.<br /><br />Wow! Talk about a swing and a miss. You have a great cast and a great plot with endless possibilties...how do you f_ck that up?! Well, apparently John Dahl has found a way. With an atrocious screenplay featuring jokes about as funny as a malaria epidemic and dialogue so painfully dry it makes none of the characters likable, 'You Kill Me' might be the biggest cinematic failure of 2007. On a positive note, Ben Kinglsey provides another great performance as the alcoholic Polish hit man trying to get clean but the material he has to work with is crap. Tea Leoni is good as well as is Luke Wilson, Dennis Farina, Bill Pullman, Philip Baker Hall and the rest of the cast. I guess the best way to describe 'You Kill Me' is a terrible movie with good performances. Grade: D+
I went to this film full of hope. With so many capable and humorous actors headed up by Sir Ben I thought this is going to be a little treat.<br /><br />Oh how I felt like gouging my eyes out as the credits rolled. That I had wasted 93mins of my life this film that was clearly DOA. There are some real problems with this film and it will probably be easier to list them; 1. No jokes, I am not particularly hard to please comedically - high or low brow - but there really is not one laugh in this film.<br /><br />2. Sir Ben mumbles through every single line whether he is supposed to be drunk or not?!? 3. There is no effort to to begin let alone develop the relationship between the love interests in this. 2 people bumping into each other randomly in the street would instantly have more rapport.<br /><br />4. All the acting talent that is assembled is completely wasted. Don't be fooled into watching this because of the names.<br /><br />5. For a cold ass hit-man he rubbed out more people in Gandhi than this flaccid waste of time (a by the way dyed beards look really creepy) I was hoping that this was a slow burner but in the end the only thing that could inject any life - and justice - into this is Frank pulling out his 9 and offing the whole cast starting with Tea and ending with himself - sorry it was that bad.
I love Ben Kingsley and Tea Leoni. However, this is easily the worst movie I have seen in 10 years, and I see my share of movies. A stinker. This is a bad idea for a movie, poorly executed. Nothing about it is funny, credible or interesting. I was looking for wit, irony and genuine humor. Instead, this looked like most of the cast members wandered on to the set to do Tea Leoni a favor. It's too bad such acting talent was wasted on such hollowness. Don't bother. I have to wonder what opinion the makers of this movie have of their audience to subject them to the idea of Polish gangsters in Buffalo, NY sending a contract murderer to San Francisco to become a mortuary assistant while attending AA meetings. Bill Pullman should begin reading scripts before he agrees to be in a movie. Sad.
Comedy? What's so funny about watching an ugly deadbeat alcoholic attending 6 sessions (by the time I turned it off) of alchoholics anonymous? Set off by a woeful script of grunts and mumbles and drunken slurrings. Served up with lashings of Hollywood's religious "God will Save you" redemption drivel Another Reviewer mentioned the "Sassy dialogue" of Tea Leone - well I managed to watch nearly an hour of this boring film and I still haven't seen any sassy yet - in fact my 80 year old grandmother has more amusing comebacks than Tea's character in this rubbish. Tea is more stony faced and shows less emotion than Keanu - in fact one wonders if she too isn't addicted to something - maybe botox her face is so wooden? Save yourself from being killed with boredom from this film.
This is possibly one of the worst movies I have had the dis-pleasure of watching in my entire life. The plot is ridiculous and the characters are horrible people. I watched this film with 3 friends and we all agreed to turn it off 30 minutes before the end. Ben Kingsley's character is just plain stupid but not funny at all. It is a wonder why an actor of his talent would be involved in such tripe. Tea Leoni does a fine Hillary Clinton impression throughout to portray the very cold and uninteresting female lead who has all the endearing qualities of a broom handle. Throw in a pointless and unexplained sub-plot and a horribly cringe worthy montage, and you end up with a waste of 93 minutes (60 in my case). Avoid this film at all costs!
****Contains Spoilers****<br /><br />As a fan of Rachael Leigh Cook, I watched for this show to finally come on so that I could see it. I taped it so I could watch it several times, and there is something about this show that really bothers me!<br /><br />I recognize that this was a made-for-TV movie. Not only that, but it was made for Lifetime, which is a channel that I despise. Because it was made for TV, I can ignore the huge plot holes. I can ignore the massive lack of character development in Ally Sheedy's character. I can overlook the fact that George C. Scott and Rachael Leigh Cook, both of whom are very talented actors, were definately not reaching the best of their abilities. I can look past the fact that Don Diamont's character was so cliche'd, that you knew when you saw him he was the villain. I can even pass over the obvious mistake in the timeline (She's raped during her winter break, and then over a year later she has the baby from it.)<br /><br />The major thing that I can't get over is this: There are two trials for the custody of the child. In the first trial, custody is awarded to the child's father because he is "better educated, has a degree from a community college, and has a full time job." In the second trial the judgement is reversed because the Judge feels that there is lack of evidence that Emma (RLC's character)is an unfit mother, and custody shouldn't be taken from the primary caretaker and given to someone with no previous interaction with the child.<br /><br />The problem is this: Nowhere during the course of these trials is the fact that a thirtysomthing year old man raped a 15 year old girl and got her pregnant taken into consideration! Whether it was a rape or not, he had sex with a minor! Wouldn't that be taken into consideration when the judge is choosing him for custody because he's a "mature adult?" Mature adults don't have sex with minors! <br /><br />It's not the worst cable movie that you would ever see, but it's not a great show either. ** out of ****
A very sensitive topic--15 y/o girl abandoned by mother as a baby and who goes to visit her, continues to be ignored, is raped by her mom's boyfriend, becomes pregnant. There was not enough depth displayed of this situation. Too much of time is taken up on the chase with the truckers transporting the baby. (Interesting, this baby with asthma--you never see him cry-- except once--, be fed, have is diaper changed during the whole truck transport ordeal.) I would have liked to have seen more of the interrelationships, more focus on the fact that this girl was a minor--this should have stood up in court immediately.<br /><br />And this was a true story! It deserved a better telling than that!!<br /><br />If it weren't for the subject matter, I would have given this closer to a 0 rating. I rented this from the library. Only later I found out it was a made for TV movie. <br /><br />oh well
An ex- informant of the East Germany finishes in Mexico like spy of a student group in 1971 in where she falls in love with one of the activists. This is the first co-production of Mexico with Germany, and although it is a good picture of the ideals that marked, and continue marking (at least to the CGH), youth, as much finishes being something insipid since to the internal dilemmas that it faces Dark brown (Noethem) like the passion by his ideals that Adela feels (Campomanes), as soon as they glimpse, in the case of him, I want to suppose, by the barrier of the language; and in the case of her by its lack of experience. Reason why in the end a concrete identification with any of them does not exist, which causes that what could have been films that even served as document like Red Dawn, finished being one more a film; although I want to clarify that in the room many of the assistants were excited in the conversation with the director, which says to me that no longer they are so young or my ideals have changed.
You may be interested to know that BARRICADE was viewed as a failure by the studio and shelved for a year before ALICE FAYE's popularity reached such a high that the studio decided to release the film despite the fact that it was never fully completed. It fared modestly OK at the box-office.<br /><br />Faye refers to a murder during her nightclub stint in New York City--and this scene was actually in the script and was the way the film was to start. Instead, it is entirely missing and what could have been an exciting sequence (including a complete song number by Faye) was never filmed. However, the rest of the story is pretty much intact and made release of the film possible at a running time of 71 minutes.<br /><br />A tired looking WARNER BAXTER is too old to be believable as Faye's romantic interest and is merely perfunctory as the broken down reporter. Audiences today would be offended by the depiction of Chinese using fractured English phrases like "Me likey make noisy". Key Luke is one of the Chinese loyalists but plays his role in a low-key, straightforward way. Arthur Treacher is all but invisible and yet gets fourth billing on screen due to editing changes in the story. Originally, Joseph Schildkraut had a role in the film but his part was eventually edited out.<br /><br />A mishmash of a film that will serve as entertainment only for the most die-hard Alice Faye fans who will get a chance to see her in a dramatic role--albeit a weak one. Charles Winninger is totally wasted as a kindly man running the American consulate.<br /><br />Despite all the weaknesses, there are a couple of scenes involving narrow escapes that are effectively played and Karl Freund's B&W photography is top notch.
Barricade finds Alice Faye without any songs as a refugee trying to flee China and without passport. She's in a heap of trouble, I won't say what exactly, and even American extraterritoriality won't help her out.<br /><br />I mention that because one of the grievances that the Chinese including the bandits who attack the American mission in this story set deep in the Chinese interior was that particular institution whereby American citizens who committed crimes were tried by American courts set up by our consulates. We were far from the only country doing that however.<br /><br />Anyway the story opens with her on a train for Shanghai trying to use a hokey Russian accent. The accent intrigues Warner Baxter who's pretty plastered.<br /><br />Bandits however interrupt the journey and the two of them seek refuge in the American consulate presided over by Charles Winninger. He's the best one in the film and I only wish that a better story was given because I liked his character. He's a widower and a proud member of the consular service, appointed in 1900 by William McKinley. He requested a transfer ten years later and that's the last he was heard from. As Assistant Secretary of State Jonathan Hale aptly put it, he's the real forgotten man.<br /><br />Baxter does all right in a role that someone like Clark Gable would have done in his sleep at MGM. The heroics would have come more natural to Gable than to Baxter as the mission is barricaded and defended against the bandits.<br /><br />Alice Faye did have one number to sing. Why Alice's song was cut out, God and Zanuck only know. One thing I'm still trying to figure out is when the mission inhabitants take final refuge in the cellar with a trap door, just who was left upstairs to pull the rug over the cellar door? <br /><br />Barricade had the potential to be a lot better than it was. But sloppy editing and lost faith in the project made 20th Century Fox release a project unfulfilled. Watching Barricade is like eating a badly cooked meal.
To paraphrase the previous reviewer's comments, if you're a Stooges fan, avoid this one at all costs! My basic question is, being the experienced troopers of comedy that Moe and Larry were, why did they insist on attempting to continue the act when it was so obvious that their home studio, Columbia, was so clearly not interested in giving them serious writers and veteran comedy directors? This movie plays like someone who's giving a pale imitation of the trio and you can see how very hard Moe and Larry are working to make every little bit of slapstick relevant. Joe De Rita, despite his background in vaudeville is just not up to the job as a replacement for Curly, Shemp, or even Joe Besser. If that's who Moe and Larry had left to pick from, they should have just closed up shop and enjoy their retirement years. Leaving us fans with better memories of far better films they had done earlier. Always leave them laughing is the motto for comedy and always quit while you're on top. Hence Seinfeld's leaving the sitcom while right up there, instead of sticking around for the inevitable decline.
Martin Lawrence could be considered a talented man, but those days are long gone. Runteldat shows a man who at once tries to play the sympathy card to his plight yet takes responsibility for it whenever he thinks it'll benefit his ego. The sad truth is that at this point in his life, his best days were behind him: his half-funny show was dead in the water after his co-star left and to today he faces a career of voice acting and god awful action films.<br /><br />One gets the impression that this concert film wasn't made to give Lawrence's career another boost after his humiliation but rather a childish attempt to clear the air by both trying to pathetically salvage what remained of his life and somehow twist it into something to be proud of, some defining moment in which he showed himself to have 'earned' his fame. Sadly, the concert is nothing but a gravelly-voiced Martin incoherently trying to be funny, invoke pathos, and then claim he doesn't care about it at all because hardcore. The sad truth is that this is the real public embarrassment for Lawrence: the way he rambles on invoking sad pity laughter makes you wish that he would just strip down to his underwear on stage, wave a gun around, and just reenact it all over again. There is no real insight to his performance at all. Much like the childish title states, Martin is trying to make his ultimate moment of truth his own in his way and fails miserably. He would have been better off waiting for the E! True Hollywood Story instead of running on a stage and making an idiot out of himself for the second time.<br /><br />Perhaps the saddest thing about this concert film--or rather, career eulogy--is that Martin didn't put any thought into this. What was this film supposed to prove? Sadly, that his fame was fleeting, he was a flash in the pan before the underwear incident, and now that the only way he can get work is piggybacking Will Smith or a Pixar production. They might as well called this concert 'Tombstone' because that's what it is. Martin Lawrence just dies on stage here, and with it goes what could have been an interesting career. Now? Just a pathetic side note in history.
It is not uncommon for a celebrity to be faced with the proverbial "wake-up call". And, should they survive this event, they come to a deeper understanding and appreciation of their particular good fortune. However, in the case of comedian's, they are rarely as funny after their epiphany as they were prior to it. Such is the case with Martin Lawrence. Frankly, I pay little attention to celebrities as I have much better things to do with my life than to spend it monitoring others'. So, I was unaware of the majority of what Lawrence had gone through prior to this film. It was interesting but, unfortunately, all to common. I was left with the larger impression that this guy's stand-up act just wasn't very funny. Save the big life messages for a book, just be funny on stage. If you want to see a funny Martin Lawrence, go rent some of the old Def Jams for which he hosted. Don't rent Runteldat.
I usually really like Lawrence and being in Australia I haven't seen much of his stand up, so when I saw this at my video shop I thought, yeah I'll have a look. I wish I hadn't seen it now. Obviously Lawrence had a profound experience that opened up his mind, and I guess he wants to share this with others but this was neither the time nor the place.<br /><br />This whole experience seemed like a motivational speech in hell, it really did. I believe the catch phrase of the night was "ride it until the wheels fall off" which he intermingled with just plain lewd jokes revolving around sex and sexual organs.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I don't mind crude humor, but Lawrence lacks the gift of classing it up in the fashion of Eddie Murphy, Richard Prior or Robin Williams. Lawrence was just plain lewd, the only time I laughed was when he relived his experience with the law and his recovery in the hospital. If there were minus points, i would give them....
It's the single unfunniest thing I ever watched. It's sad how he tries so hard to come up with a good joke and all he does is curse and thinks his disgusting vulgarity is funny. He is the most bitter person I ever saw. His whole act he is trying to show how much he doesn't care, and by that only showing how much he's angry at the critics and the people with any taste and sense of humor who'd rather go through immense torture than go watch his "show". There are good comedians, there are bad ones and there are horrible ones. But this guy is in a league of his own. I feel sorry for him and even more for the people who find him funny.
I saw this late at night on a minor channel and I put it on expecting a laugh or two. Martin Lawrence is a good comic actor and I reckoned he might be a good stand-up comedian/actor in the style of Richard Pryor.<br /><br />I couldn't have been more wrong. This concert was awful. It was full of racist comments directed at white people, Muslims and people from India (Muslims and Indians are the same thing in Lawrence's narrow mind) and rambling, clichéd cod-philosophy (Lawrence, like many black comics and directors, can't resist the urge to preach when given a platform. Do we really need a lecture on Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights struggle during a stand-up comedy show?). Then there were his fawning comments designed to ingratiate him with women, it made my skin crawl listening to him.<br /><br />Worst of all, the show simply wasn't funny and I found it boring. I turned over halfway through and flipped back to find him either still preaching or going on and on and on about the birth of his child (there was no humour in the story of the birth of his child and it was self-indulgent on his part to bore us with the details. He clearly didn't have very much to say or he would have cut this section of the show out).<br /><br />This show was rubbish: Runteldat!
Martin Lawrence is not a funny man i Runteldat. He just has too much on his mind and he is too mad which trips his puns pretty early in the game. He tries to make fun of critics, which boils down to "f*** them". Then he goes on to rather primitive sexual jokes on smokers with throat cancer and it just goes downhill from there. 3/10
Anthony Wong stars in both this and the original (far superior) Untold Story, but the similarities stop there. Wong doesn't reprise his role obviously, and instead plays a bumbling policeman who gets involved with a rather suspicious female, Fung (1994's Miss Singapore, Paulyn Sun) who's a repressed nut-job, sure. But her tame jealous "wanna be with a guy who's with a girl" killer is no where near as compelling as what Wong played in the first one. The movie itself seems tired and by the numbers. Yeung Fan as the physcho's love interest's unfaithful girl tries to keep one from total boredom by stripping down whenever possible, and Sun does have a nice ass, but even that can't save this dud.<br /><br />My Grade: D <br /><br />Mei Ah DVD Extras: Sub-titled interviews with Cheung Kam Ching & Paulyn Sun; Anthony Wong filmography; a very brief synopsis; Theatrical trailer for the film; & trailers for "Chinese Erotic Ghost Story" and "Twenty Something"
I watched this movie with big expectations. The blurb on the back indicated that this was going to be a nasty one. But it was pretty tame and a little unsatisfying. The violence was nothing I haven't seen a thousand times before, the gore level was only average (mind you there was probably more than what has been seen in Hollywood in the last 5 years - perhaps more), and at no stage was I even feeling uneasy let along frightened. Again a CAT 3 movie with big wraps, has not lived up to its hype.<br /><br />Sure hire this movie, but don't go in with any expectations. I am so keen to get into the whole Asian horror scene, but am continuously disappointed. I did love Ichi, and Audition, but then again, Miike stands alone at the moment.<br /><br />Please inspire me..... there is a large cluster of jaded genre fans who are starved of quality horror!
This was one of the shows that I wanted to follow-up on. But, I'd just couldn't bring myself on devoting my time to this show. To have a show that centers on the topic of politics, you really need a strong plot with twists and turns to enhance the mood of the show, something like "The West Wing" or "Commander-in-Chief." Rob Lowe was OK, but actors like Kyle Chandler just couldn't act (he was awful in "Early Edition"). It was a pain to sit through this show. With its lack of suspense, urgency, and characters who can actually act, I just had to give up on this show and am glad it was canceled so I would have nothing more to miss.<br /><br />Grade D-
The 3rd and last big screen spin off from the very popular ITV sitcom of the early 1970's,HOLIDAY ON THE BUSES is every bit as resistible and crude as the previous two efforts,and observing from a standpoint three and a half decades later,it is truly mind boggling that even one film was produced in this franchise.<br /><br />What constitutes the plot surrounds the adventures of Stan Butler (Reg Varney),his conductor Jack (Bob Grant) and their bumblingly autocratic Inspector Blake (Stephen Lewis) after their sackings from their regular jobs at the bus depot.They all find work in similar positions at a holiday camp with Stan's family (Doris Hare,Anna Karen,Michael Robbins) following therewith.<br /><br />British cinema had a deserved and considerable reputation for high quality in the 1960's,but much of this was due to American financial support and guidance which sadly drew to a close as the 1970's dawned.Thereafter,notable homegrown titles (GET CARTER being the among these very few exceptions) became as rare as Mick Jagger in a stable marriage,and UK cinema went down the road of cheap budgets,sleazy and witless sex comedies (The CONFESSIONS series,COME PLAY WITH ME) and flabby,elongated celluloid versions of various TV shows,mostly sitcoms (this being one of many hideous examples).Only DAD'S ARMY and PORRIDGE came off fairly respectably in this regard;the quirky success of the first ON THE BUSES film (it was the biggest box-office hit of it's year in 1971,nonsensical to think now!) led to two further sequels.<br /><br />To be fair,the TV series itself had a cheerful,ripe,non-PC vulgarity about it which was reasonably tolerable in half-hour sitcom form,but stretched to three times that length it taxes the patience beyond belief.It's ironical that HAMMER FILMS produced this effort as it virtually resembles a horror film in the literal sense,with ancient puns,hackneyed,poorly-timed slapstick and awful,seedy production values.<br /><br />A chance to send up the cheesiness of the British holiday camp is totally wasted here in favour of the above elements,and it is most bizarre,if not gruesome,to see the obviously 50-something Varney and the beaky-nosed,long-toothed Grant managing to instantly charm young women barely in their early twenties,while constantly laughing at their own bravado and lame jokes.The presence of Wilfrid Brambell (from STEPTOE AND SON) romancing the aged Miss Hare does not help matters either,and even though the film lasts about 1 and a half hours,it drags on to an interminably depressing degree.<br /><br />Thankfully,this was the last film in this most dire of film trilogies,and the TV series itself came to an end around the same time,with a sequel (DON'T DRINK THE WATER,which was roundly savaged by the critics and ignored by audiences) following in 1975.Most of the leading actors involved were not seen much afterwards,but the worst affected was Bob Grant.Afflicted with depression and other mental problems for many years,he committed suicide in 2003.A sad coda to a sitcom that was the most popular of it's era (it has not aged too well either),and should have remained that way,rather than the three financially successful but artistically hopeless big screen hybrids which diluted the happy memories and occasional merits of it's TV counterpart.<br /><br />RATING:2 and a half out of 10.
This movie is a window on the world of Britain in 1973 - a world of holiday camps, fags and birds. I was actually at Pontins Prestatyn while this was being filmed, so it's fascinating to see where I holidayed as a kid, and what a world we have left behind. The 'plot', such as it is, concerns Stan and Jack's attempts to turn a job at a holiday camp(25 quid a week!) into an opportunity for chasing young women and winding up Blakey. They are joined by the rest of Stan's family and some laughs are to be had from Arthur (Michael Robbins) and Olive's (Anna Karen) persistent chuntering, as well as the sheer oddness of Blakey, but the idea that young women would see anything desirable in brilliantined Stan (Reg Varney) or lecherous Jack (Bob Grant) is just risible. Harmless enough in its time, now it's just a curio from a bygone age.
This has got to be the most appalling abuse of the word comedy ever witnessed.It is simply not funny and the scriptwriters have obviously just tried to use the name of the TV series in order to make a few quid at the box office. This film makes a carry on seem subtle as far as sexual innuendo goes ( no mean feat), and has all the charisma of a corpse with rigamortis. A complete washout I'm afraid!!
The problem this film has is the same problem the TV series had and that`s the laddish Stan and Jack . There`s nothing wrong with laddish characters but Stan and Jack are played by actors who seem to be in their late 40s/ early 50s ! And there`s something objectionable - not to mention crediblity defying - as they cop off with girls young enough to be their daughters<br /><br />As for the rest of HOLIDAY ON THE BUSES , I found it instantly forgettable . It`s basically a 30 minute episode spun out to 90 minutes with having all the action take place at a holiday camp instead of a bus station<br /><br />Amazingly almost a third of voters on this site have given it a 10 ! Come on guys , this film doesn`t deserve more than a 5
The final entry in the On The Buses trilogy sees the usual wasters go about their business in Wales. I feel sure the franchise could have continued, but Harold Pinter complained that the screenplays made him look bad in comparison, and so no more were made. <br /><br />It's actually less than two minutes before we get our first dollop of sexism - a woman running for the bus finds her breasts fall out of her dress for no reason whatsoever. Still, it does at least make Stan (Reg Varney) laugh - but then what doesn't? He and Jack (Bob Grant) spend the entire movie laughing uproariously with little or no provocation. You get the impression that they'd wet themselves watching paint dry. <br /><br />As before, the only funny element is the genuinely amusing Stephen Lewis, hilarious as Blakey. He's on his own, though, with a cheesy, dated script that even wastes first-rate talent like Wilfrid Brambell and Henry McGee. Yet it seems as if only Lewis understands how to time the shaky material, wringing laughs out of even the weakest lines. Describing how her daughter fell in a river, Stan's mum laments "I hope it's not polluted." "Well it will be now" Blakey quips. <br /><br />The plot - if indeed there is one - sees Stan lusting after a young girl, but being continually thwarted by her domineering mother. It's a recipe for side splitting hilarity I'm sure you'll agree, and whether it's on a storm-lashed boat or the swimming baths, Stan and Mavis's exploits always produce the same result... abject boredom. Later conquests include Maria, an Italian stereotype, and a staff co-worker. Even Stan's mum gets a one-night stand, with Stan considerately reminding her to "put your tin drawers on."<br /><br />When one of the comic "highpoints" is Arthur Mullard overhearing Olive trying to locate a light switch in the dark ("I can't find it") and thinking she's talking about sex, then you can see why this work reaches the upper levels of literary sophistication. In fact, why it didn't get in the BFI's Top 100 movies is beyond me. <br /><br />Other rib-tickling shenanigans involve Olive (Anna Karen) breaking her glasses. I don't know what's more surprising, the lame predictability of the set-up, or the underdeveloped pay-off. The short sighted Olive follows a man in a kilt into the gents, thinking he's a woman in a skirt. The next shot sees her marched out by Blakey and redirected to the ladies. And that's it. Next, she ends up in another man's bed, and is ordered out by his wife. And... no, that's all there is to that scene, too.<br /><br />When Holiday on the Buses was last screened on British television there was a breakdown in transmission. It actually came as blessed relief.
I rented this TV movie version of 'Troilus and Cressida' out of my library last thursday, and simply could not believe my eyes. Where should I begin? no effort was made to make the play look remotely like it was about the Trojan war, all the actors were wearing Elizabethan dress. Moreover, most of the actors were too old and horribly miscast - Aeneas (with his white beard) looked older than Nestor, Troilus was at least 30, Hector looked like a Spanish pirate, Ajax was badly played anyway and Thersites was a transvestite.<br /><br />Likewise the action is poor, the duel between Ajax and Hector is short and amateurish, the camera angle focuses more on Nestor's face, so we can only see what is going on in the background which is frustrating in itself. Nor is the 'battle' at the end given it's due respect. We do not see Troilus and Diomedes fight, nor anyone else for that matter, Paris and Menelaus just seem to mud wrestle in front of Thersites. Even Patroclus death was omitted. All this was a major disappointment considering I waded through a very dull 2 and a half hours of BBC costume drama to get to that point.<br /><br />Nonetheless, it wasn't all bad. I thought the Incredible Orlando as Thersites and John Shrapnel as Hector were well played, even if they didn't look quite right. I'd say the same about Kenneth Haigh as Achilles, since he didn't have the striking countenance and was a bit dry at times. SPOILER: The climax at the end - the death of Hector - was perhaps the best part of the film, Achilles' dialogue here is excellent and sums up the attitude of a cold, seasoned murderer. However, the gruesomeness of the scene (when Achilles stamps on what was Hector's head)sets it apart anyway.<br /><br />Charles Gray as Pandarus was delightful as a sleazy old pervert and I thought the actress playing Cressida did an OK job. The war-mongering Troilus, however, was annoying and I think that the play would have been better perhaps if he had been murdered by Achilles instead of a peacenik like Hector.<br /><br />Conclusion? OK, but could have been better if it had had a younger cast and costumes that at least attempted to look Ancient Grecian, not to mention the lack of action. 5/10
The movie has a good story line, the action is good in some parts, but not all of them. Some of the parts, I just felt like the bad guys wouldn't have dosed off yet, from my experience from taking Martial arts. Some are the actions are long, like always mostly for the boss, but for the least important ones, they were killed or dosed off with a few hits, but some where quite unrealistic or could have done a better job at.<br /><br />The least important actors or stunt people were the right picks for the movie, my girlfriend started to have a crush on them that she started to watch the movie more than she spends her time with me.<br /><br />The movie is good, that is all I can say.
This was touted as a sequel to Crash Dive, which was a very good film in the low budget category. I assumed this movie would be good also, but boy was I wrong. First, this movie has nothing to do with Crash Dive other than they both take place on submarines. Secondly, the plot can be slow, tedious, and in some cases, totally preposterous.<br /><br />This movie will not hold most people's attention. (I remember reading a book during the slow, boring scenes.) There will be scenes that are supposed to be used for dramatic effect that will make the viewer laugh out loud. The corkscrew scene is definitely one. After I got over my initial shock that anyone would slip this in and not know people would not only disbelieve it but laugh at the sheer silliness of it, I was able to find humor in it.<br /><br />If you want to see MD in a good sub flick, watch Crash Dive and leave this lame film on the shelf.
Story of an ex-Navy Seal who is now a combat medical officer assigned to a state of the art Russian sub with a nurse. This is to answer a call for help set off by a dying member of the original crew. The sub has been overtaken by terrorists who are bent on destruction. So we see the duo try and gain control back. And this happens with the fear of the US Naval Forces is about to unleashing everything it has got on the terrorist sub to prevent it from launching its arsenal. Be careful of the early explicit sexual scene in the first quarter of the movie. A couple of unexplained scenes towards the end. Watch it when you have the time. Nothing to miss out even if you let the show run while you go get yourself a cup of coffee: slow moving.
Cates is insipid and unconvincing, Kline over-acts as always, as does Lithgow while butchering an English accent (at least, I assume that's what he's attempting), and the tone staggers uneasily between farcical and maudlin. As with most pet projects showcasing a celebrity couple, it's a relief when this shoddy piece grinds to it's forced and jarring conclusion.
This is a very strange film, with a no-name cast and virtually nothing known about it on the web. It uses an approach familiar to those who have watched the likes of Creepshow in that it introduces a trilogy of so-called "horror" shorts and blends them together into a connecting narrative of the people who are involved in the segments getting off a bus. There is a narrator who prattles on about relationships, but his talking adds absolutely nothing to the mix at all and just adds to the confusion. As for the stories themselves, well.. I swear I have not got a clue why this movie got an 18 certificate in the UK, which would bring it into line with the likes of Nightmare On Elm Street and The Exorcist. Nothing here is even remotely scary.. there is no gore, sex, nudity or even a swear word to liven things up, this is the kind of thing you could put out on Children's TV and no-one would bat an eyelid. I can only think if it had got the rating it truly deserved (a PG) no serious horror fan would be seen dead with it, so the distributor probably buffeted the BBFC until they relented. Anyway, here are the 3 tales in summary: 1. A man becomes dangerously obsessed with his telekinetic car to the point of alienating his fiancee. 2. A man who lives in a filthy apartment is understandably freaked out when a living organism evolved from his six-month old tuna casserole. 3. A woman thinks she has found the perfect man through a computer dating service.. that is until he starts to act weird.. And there you have it. Some of them are pretty amusing due to their outlandish premises (my favourite being number 2) but you get the feeling they were meant to be a) frightening and b) morality plays, unfortunately they fail miserably on both counts. To sum up then, this flick is an obscure curiosity.. for very good reasons.
Its hard to decide where to begin.I bought this for a few quid and its the worst few quid Iv ever wasted. The back of the DVD had no pictures and a few lines plot summary, this should have warned me, but I usually like bad movies for a laugh so decided to give it a go. The movie is made up of three short stories,each revolving around someone who was on a particular bus at one point.(its never made clear what the significance of the bus is, or what city its set in)<br /><br />POSSIBLE SPOILERS(as if there is anything to be spoiled) The first story is about a man who is persuaded, by a car, to purcahse it, against his wife's wishes.The car is sort of like a demonic Brum and takes over his life.<br /><br />The second is about a slob of a man who never cleans his fridge and a monster bacteria man grows out of it.<br /><br />The third about a woman who goes to a dating agency, only to discover her date isnt all that normal.<br /><br />Inbetween these, we are treated to shots of the bus(or A bus anyway) while a narrator whittles on a load of garbage about relationships(really,its like he is on commission for saying 'relationships')<br /><br />The movie actually has no redeeming features whatsoever.The acting, the costumes and the little Spfx are all disgusting.There arent even any attractive female cast members to admire.Simply put, this movie is a debacle.
This is perhaps the most ridiculous crap I have ever watched. Three unconnected stories about completely stupid and random things are occasionally interrupted by a bus and a boring monologue about relationships by a stupid man. Christ knows why so many people got involved in this. Highlights: Green fridge man reading Jean-Paul Sartre, the slob mans dinner guest and her horse-manure hair products, a RIDICULOUSLY unreasonable woman in the third short, who suspected a man of foul play just for taking an interest in her generic activities, Blowers.<br /><br />I need to use up a few more lines apparently, so may as well mention some more stupid things about the film. The first film involves a man driving a talking car around and obeying its unreasonable demands for absolutely no apparent reason. The only way you would watch this film is if you were blind and had other debilitating defects in your personality and brain. It is kind of funny in an ironic way, but also extremely wearying, like being forced to chew for a very long time on a stained rug.
With a cheap pound shop having just opened,i thought that it was worth looking to see if their were any cheap DVDs that looked good.and while the back of the cover made this sound like a Jeepers Creepers type of film,it is actually an anthology film! and thought one or two of the stories feel very familiar.Its still a fun light horror/comedy. The plots:<br /><br />Story one:The classic.<br /><br />A young couple feel the it is time that they should try to in prove their financial life by picking up a $1500 car.But,when the guy goes to pick a car,a car starts to talk to him.The car (called Banns) says that to get everything that he has ever wanted in life,that he must buy Baans for $5000.So while the guys relationship crumbles,Baans does everything he can to show who really is in charge.<br /><br />Story two:Kitchen culture.<br /><br />A guy that might get thrown out by his land lord,due to how messy his flat is,discovers that due to keeping a tuna pasta in his fridge for six months,the it has now moulded and evolved into a green mouldy version of himself!.And while they start off as friends,they end up having a big falling out,the leads to a final battle to see if the real guy or his fridge clone will survive.<br /><br />Story three:Too good to be true.<br /><br />A girl signs up with a dating agency and she gets matched with a guy the is perfect for her.But she is unsure that the guy is too perfect,and when she thinks that she sees him 'shut down' she starts to get spooked. View on the film:<br /><br />The first thing that i have to mention is the rating for the film in england,where it has been given an eighteen rating,even thought it has no nudity,swearing or blood at all.And the other odd thing about all the stories is that they all have happy endings,where the goodies win!.And while the first story is too close to the Stephen King classic Christine,the second story is easily the highlight of the film,with director Tom Parkinson making the nuttiness of the story feel like a low-budget Muppets episode!.<br /><br />Final view on the film<br /><br />While it does have a bit of a 'remake; feel,their is enough wackiness to make this a good horror 'comedy'.
My grandad gave me this DVD. With friends like these. The front cover looked quite scary thought i'd watch it. What a bloody mistake.<br /><br />Basically the film follows three people on a bus and what happens to them involving friends.<br /><br />The first one is about a guy who buys a car that talks to him. The second is a about a guy who wakes up to find a cassarole clone in his fridge. And the third is about a woman who does online dating but it turns out he has a robotic arm.<br /><br />The DVD case rated this film 18 but even a 5 year old can watch this and not be scard or entertained. The film should be rated 12 for slight scares and the swear word bloody.<br /><br />All in all this film is utter shite don't go near it.
I acquired this film a couple of years ago and on trying to find some info about it I found that even the mighty IMDb didn't have it listed. That should have been all I needed to know.<br /><br />With Friends Like These is an anthology that plays like a collection of second rate Twilight Zone / Outer Limits episodes all linked together by a bus journey that never really seems to tie in with the rest of the film. Of the three stories, the only one that I gleaned any entertainment value from was the second episode in which a man (of sorts) grows out of the bacteria in a guys fridge. This episode wins points for a few spots of humour and it's bizarre premise. Other than that there is an episode with a talking car (bland and directionless) and an episode where a girl visits a very unique dating agency (my dog guessed the ending of this one).<br /><br />As has been mentioned in other comments, the 18 rating is entirely unwarranted. There is nothing to offend here. If you're after a good horror anthology check out Asylum or the Creepshow films instead.
Well, after the hype surrounding the film and after Surya labeling the film as PATH-BREAKING, I went into the theatre expecting something big. Boy was I disappointed. <br /><br />First of all, the characterizations in the film are SO weird! Which wife would do what Kundhavi (Jyothika) did? An idiotic, coo-coo one? And what was the point of her standing in the rain with her child (Baby Shreya) after she and her husband had a fight? What was the purpose of that scene anyway? To start a vulgarly shot "Maaja Maaja"? Not only was the song not canned aesthetically, it was just not needed in the screenplay. NOT NEEDED AT ALL! Secondly, the first half of the had practically NO STORY. The entire first half was a FREAKING drag. Every scene in the first half of the film had no significance what so ever to the real story of the film. And also, how did Aishwarya (Bhoomika Chawla) change so radically all of a sudden? And how did Gautham (Surya) and Kundhavi lead a happy live together after six years even though they were SO unhappy about marrying each other? And if Gautham did love Aishwarya like he claimed he did, why DID he even marry Kundhavi even if it was his uncle's death wish? WHY? That's the question you keep asking whilst watching the film! And how fair is the ending to Aishwarya? After all, she was Gautham's first wife? Krishna, the director of the film, claimed he worked on the script of this film for two years, but his script is filled with flaws and leaves the audience utterly irritated! Thirdly, Krishna's un-imaginative picturizations of Rahman's awesome is just disappointing. Surprisingly, Anthony's editing (usually superb) for the "New York Nagaram" song just sucks! The whole song looked like it was a slide show made on Microsoft Power Point! "Munbe Vaa" Rangoli chorus was wasted showing Gautham PLAYING FOOTBALL!!! Who wants to see the freaking dude playing football during such a beautiful chorus?!? Whats more, the whole movie only needed TWO songs. Munbe Vaa and Kummi Adi. The rest of the songs inclusive of "Machakari", "Maaja Maaja", "New York" and "Jillunu Oru Kaadhal" are just not needed. Rahman's fine efforts are simply wasted on a stupid film directed by an amateur director! Fans of Rahman, you ask why Rahman keeps moving to Bollywood. After looking at the way his songs are picturised in Kollywood, why would he want to stay here? What's more irritating is that after Krishna decided to include Machakari into the film, the song was cut by half which truly, truly annoyes.<br /><br />Surya looks handsome in his new get ups save the ones during the college scenes and packs in a so-and-so performance. His expressions during all the songs he was featured in really do not fit the way the singer sings the songs. Was Jyothika even acting in the film? All she did was CRY! Would you call all that crying acting? One of her worst performances ever! What's more, her new hairstyle does not suit her. She looked way better in Vettaiyaadu Vilaiyaadu. Her costumes during the "New York Nagaram" song are way off. Bhoomika Chawla is just gorgeous during the film and does justice to her role. Vadivelu's comedy is ANNOYING. When one is watching him, one wishes they could slap him on the face. It is Santhanam who is the show stealer during the comedy scenes. And why the heck did Sukanya even agree to do such a minuscule role which could have done by just anyone? And why is her make up so heavy when she has perfect complexion? Music by A.R. Rahman is just awesome. "Machakari", "Munbe Vaa", "New York" and "Jillunu Oru Kaadhal" deserve special mention. R.D. Rajasekhar's cinematography is OK and isn't as good as his previous films though the scenery during the "Kummi Adi" song deserve special mention. Anthony's editing is really really disappointing. The film is just so freaking draggy and could be trimmed severely.<br /><br />Krishna's direction just sucks. Dialogues (A.C. Durai and Krishna) are just too corny to digest especially the part where Bhoomika professes her love for Surya. The screenplay and script (Krishna) are horibble. The film moves in the more un-interesting pace ever. And Krishna's script is just filled with unexplained sub plots.<br /><br />And for goodness sakes, why was there so much advertising in the film? Pepsi, Maggi, Suzuki, you name it. Was the producer of the film (K.E. Gnanavel) low on budget or was he just desperate? Overall, Jillunu Oru Kaadhal is a damp squib. With a title like that, one would expect a heart warming and cooling love story but what you end up is a painfully botched up love story. Really, really disappointing.
This film's a big bore. It has a plenty of Predictable plots & endless sentiments from the start. It starts good with a classy number but seems lost midway.<br /><br />Surya & Jyothika's on screen chemistry works out really good & a good part by Bhoomika. Why include Vadivelu in it? He disappears totally after a good half an hour!. Santhanam proves his wit again by timing comedy.<br /><br />AR's tunes sure will last for sometime. But he could have done better. What ever be the drawbacks still it's worth watching once if you feel alone at home or looking for a good time-pass.
Extremely slow movie.There are fine performances from all actors which is why above 5 score.Surya and Jyo are supposed to be this ideal husband and wife and we are shown this till it gets to a point you start asking is there a story.Then one day Jyo discovers Surya's diary to find his failed college love story .The college love story is totally unconvincing as Surya is an arrogant Senior who is always picking on Bhoomika, beats up her friend, yells at her in public and despite being terrified of him she falls in love for him.Even after that he continues to dominate her using crude language.I certainly could not appreciate the meek character played by Bhoomika, I don't think any self respecting woman will fall for such jerks in real life.So Jyo decides to bring them together and what happens after that is the climax. The story is extremely weak in its characters.A extremely arrogant Surya to Bhoomika is the exact opposite with Jyo( and there is no reason given for the sudden change in character).Again a extremely meek Bhoomika becomes a big extrovert when she returns.Wonder, if she had turned so super confident why didn't she try to find her love as she no longer feared anyone.
I bought this movie for 99 cents at K-mart several years back (along with "Hawken's Breed") figuring anything with Gabriel Byrne and Amanda Donahoe is surely worth that much. It wasn't. "Dark Obsession" (the title I bought it under) was a slight cut above "Hawken's Breed" (IMBD rated at 2.4), but not enough to allow me to even keep it in the house. I threw both movies in the trash.<br /><br />This thing fails on so many levels it's hard to narrow it down, but let's just say it's tawdry, incredible, boring, hedonistic, confusing and even at 100 minutes, way too long.<br /><br />I love Byrne as an actor, but this schlock really looks bad on his resume.
Seven pioneer kids strive independently across many miles of Indian territory and harsh weather to reach Oregon.<br /><br />According to history, young'uns who traveled by themselves through long distances of land - such as with the 'Children's Crusade' - were manipulated and exploited by being abused and sold into slavery, but these kids are pretty tough and they try their best to prevail in accomplishing their goal of making a homestead out west. Film is a little too syrupy at times, but OK for fans of 'The Waltons' and 'Little House on the Prairie'.<br /><br />Dean Smith gives a cool performance as 'Kit Carson'.
Take a bad script, some lousy acting and throw in a politically incorrect morality tale and what do you get? Something that is supposed to pass for quality family viewing.<br /><br />Seven Alone is the story of a family in the 19th century who travel across America in a wagon train, hoping for a new life in Oregon. There are seven children (three boys, three girls and a baby whose sex I'm not quite sure of) hence the title of the film.<br /><br />The story opens up with the family living a seemingly normal 19th century life on a farm in the middle of nowhere. Eldest son John is a precocious teenager, 'lazy and good for nothing' as his father constantly reminds him. We see right off the bat that he has a penchant for practical jokes when he ties string to the hair of his sleeping sisters and connects it to a nearby mule. When the mule is moved of course the poor girls are jolted out of bed. John is caught by his father and is immediately punished with a strap.<br /><br />That same day a wagon train passes through. Pa is tempted to join up as it promises a new life in the wild, wild west. So the family hitches up their belongings and head off.<br /><br />From the very beginning the film seems weak and amateurish. The acting is below grade, as if from one of those films shown in school about the pioneers. I can't blame the actors, however, because the lines in this film are silly and just too sickeningly sweet and optimistic.<br /><br />I must tell you that I caught this film while flipping channels one boring Saturday afternoon on a Christian television station. Not of a religious mind myself, I watched in horror as Seven Alone offered up moral statements that were not only outdated, but downright offensive! If I were a good Christian I would hope that I would have had the good sense to complain to the television station for airing such trash. However, because I am a cynical, non-believer with a wicked sense of humor, I chose to sit back and laugh myself silly.<br /><br />In one of the opening scenes, the role of the father as the stern ruler of the house is established when he proposes the idea of heading off for Oregon to his wife. Her response is a heated "Over my dead body." We are expected to laugh, I suppose, as the film cuts to the next scene with Pa and Ma smiling as he steers the wagon along through the prairies. Oh I suppose even the most staunch feminist would have to admit that this 'Father-knows-best' attitude was the norm in those days, and one could argue the need for such dictatorial rule when living conditions were difficult, but I somehow got the feeling that this film supported that notion, even for today. Lovely message coming from a Christian television station.<br /><br />Anyway, things get worse for the family, and the films moral integrity is further diminished. An Indian (or Native American) robs John as he lay sleeping in a field. Like a common savage, the Indian takes Johns clothes and belongings. Thankfully Pa, with the help of passerby Kit Carson, is able to kill the Indian, as well as a couple of his delinquent friends. Kit Carson tells John that his father is a true hero.<br /><br />The family is accompanied by the wagon train's resident doctor, Dr. Dutch (played by Aldo Ray). He shares Pa's sentiments about John, stating that he is a useless brat. Perhaps so, but he also the best thing about this film. Aldo Ray's doctor is buffoon, who seems unable to tie his own shoes, let alone treat one of the girls for a broken leg. Thankfully the young child didn't cry when the wagon ran over and snapped her leg in two, because Dr. Dutch didn't seem to have the appropriate bedside manner. We know the drawbacks of constantly belittling a child. Here's a film that promotes that behavior.<br /><br />Later on Pa develops food poisoning, or something, I wasn't paying much attention, and he dies. His death bed scene is the stuff great acting is made of. Frankly, the man didn't even look sick.<br /><br />Soon after, Ma dies too. The children are left to fend for themselves. And that's when the real adventure begins. Slugging it through the rapids, encountering more Indians (these ones are nice though) and venturing through snowy terrain, these children do it all. And I was left thinking, "What a bunch of garbage!"<br /><br />Sorry, but there was nothing redeeming about this film. This low-budget Little House on the Prairie is a shameful waste of time and an insult to 'families' everywhere. I'm surprised that in 1975, at the tail end of the feminist movement, and at a time when treatment of Native Americans was coming into focus, that something like this could actually be made.<br /><br />
Staten Island filmmaker Andy Milligan is well known in the horror community for being an even worse director than Ed Wood. And with this as a dim example of his output I'm apt to agree with them. In "The Ghastly Ones" we basically have three bickering couples traveling to their childhood home (located on a conveniently secluded island) to collect an inheritance. There they are killed off one by one and the events unfold in murder/mystery fashion with a scarred retard hunchback butler added to throw you for a loop. The film is in such bad shape that it looks like someone just ran it through a dishwasher, the sound is terrible, the dialog is otherworldly bad, there's some primitive mannequin gore (plus some dismemberments and guts) and it's technically inept in every possible way it can be inept. But is it enjoyable in a bad movie kind of way? Sort of. It's excruciating to watch but oddly entertaining in a train wreck fashion. Approach with caution. If you're not a fan of horrible movies better deep six this one.
This film was released in the UK under the name Blood Rites. It was banned outright and never submitted again for release.<br /><br />As The Ghastly Ones, it was supposedly a hit with the horror hungry denizens of New York City's famed 42nd Street Grindhouse circuit. If you are looking for some bloody horror, then you will find it in this film.<br /><br />Unfortunately to see the developmentally disabled Colin (Hal Borske) chomp down on a live rabbit, you have to put up with shaky 16mm camera work that makes Ed Wood look positively marvelous.<br /><br />Three sisters are to spend three days in the family homestead with their husbands before the old man's money is disbursed. Naturally, in such a situation, people start dropping dead. Family secrets are exposed and lots of blood is spilled, especially during a gruesome dismemberment.<br /><br />Maybe it was the bunny bit that the Brits objected to, I know I did.
Out of all the films I could have chosen, it had to be this. When I was last in New York I went into a Times Square store and out of the hundreds of DVD's they had I chose Joel M. Reeds Bloodsucking Freaks (1976) and this, on a double feature DVD that also included Seeds of Sin (1968), did I regret it? Read on to find out. The film opens on an island (near Milligan's Staten Island home) where two lovers are walking along with a massive parasol seemingly made from paper, at one point he gives her the top of a weed as a gift. Out of nowhere Colin (Hal Borske) a retarded hunchback pops up and kills both of them for no reason at all. After the opening credits which are joined by some of the worst headache inducing music I have ever heard, at least it got me used to it as it's used constantly throughout the film, we are introduced to three couples. The wives are all sisters, Vicky (Ann Linden) and Ricard (Fib LaBlaque), Veronica (Eileen Hayes) and Bill (Don Williams) plus Elizabeth (Carol Vogel) and Donald (Richard Ramos). They each receive a letter from a lawyer, H. Dobbs (Neil Flanagan) that request a meeting so he can read their late father's will. Dobbs informs them that they must spend three days in their childhood home 'Crenshaw House' and fill it with 'sexual harmony and marital love' that it had never known because of the strained relationship between their father and mother. He informs the couples that the will is highly irregular but legal. After three days the inheritance will be settled. The couples are also told about the servants, Martha (Veronica Radburn), Hattie (Maggie Rodgers) and the retarded Colin, who welcomes the couples by killing and biting chunks out of a rabbit in front of them. Later on that night whats left of the dead rabbit is found in one of the couples beds with a note that says 'blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit'. This starts a series of events which end in gruesome murder and reveals dark family secrets.<br /><br />Co-written, photographed and directed by the talentless Andy Milligan. This is an absolutely horrible film in every way possible. Lets go through just some of it's faults. The music, it's awful and headache inducing. Sound, you can barely hear what characters are saying and certain scenes don't have any sound effects plus at certain points you can hear Milligan shouting out orders to his actors, oh and there's a constant hiss on the soundtrack throughout as well. The acting, probably among the worst I have ever witnessed. The very un-special effects, Colin pokes someones eye out in the opening sequence, it's the size of a tennis ball, the part where someone is tied down and has his stomach opened up with a saw looks really awful as are the various hands and legs that are chopped off. Photography, Milligan has absolutely no idea how to stage or film a scene, he regularly cuts the top, bottom or sides of peoples heads and faces off the screen and his camera jerks and shakes around like it's operated by someone who is constantly tripping over. There is also at least one scene so badly thought out and filmed that a crew member is seen. The film is often so dark you can't see whats happening, too. Editing, again some of the worst I've ever sat through, he seems to cut scenes before they've finished, cutting away while characters are in the middle of a sentence. The script, if there was one, credited to both Milligan and Hal Sherwood (It took two people to write this!?) is all over the place and is incredibly stupid. There is one unbelievably bad sequence where the killer follows a victim down into the basement, the killer walks right behind him, at one point the potential victim turns around. What does the killer do to avoid being spotted? They duck down right in from of him, the killers close enough to give the guy oral sex yet he doesn't notice them, right in front of him. You have to see this sequence to believe it, I still can't believe what I saw. Bizarre sub plots just happen and then totally disappear, check the scene out when Richard has to borrow money from his brother Walter (producer and co-writer Hal Sherwood), who turns out to be a gay priest who has had an incestuous relationship with his brother before he was married! A strange scene that's there for no reason at all. Martha the housekeepers reaction to the first murder, she's more bothered by the fact that it's thrown her dinner schedule out! There's load of insane dialogue as well, Patty and Martha discuss Colin, Patty says "if only I didn't beat him so hard" Martha sympathetically replies "you have to Patty, you have to!", delivered totally straight faced. And don't start me on how ugly the wallpaper looks throughout the house! The only good thing I can think of saying is that the costumes look reasonable, for the time period it's meant to be set in. I could probably go on all day about how amateurish this is, but I think you get the idea. One to avoid unless your a serious masochist! I didn't regret buying or watching it for a second, though!
Well well, at last a view of this underrated flick. But you can't find a good copy of it, terrible copy full with green drops, the editing isn't syncronized, the sound do has sometimes that terrible hiss and sometimes you even can hear the camera recording. Overall it's too dark, a waist of time you should say but it isn't. It's a bit slow, the first half part of the movie it's all talking and making love to each other. It is even still weird that the girls in movies from the 60's never wear any bra's. When they enter the sleeping room it's full glory. Anyway, banned in the UK since 84 and still on the video nasties list. The reason is simple, it's gory for their time being. It really has some nasty dismemberement's and it's creepy in some way due the fact that it is filmed handycam way. So every shot the image is moving, things they do these days with the steadycam. The Ghastly Ones could have been better if the quality of the film was better but still better then other films of the time like Schoolgirls In Chains.
I saw this film purely based on the fact that it was on the DPP Video Nasty list, and while I'm glad I saw it because it's now 'another Video Nasty down' - on its own merits, Andy Milligan's film really isn't worth bothering with. There are, of course, far worse films on the infamous list; but that doesn't make the pain of viewing this one any easier. The film was obviously shot on an extremely low budget, and that has translated into the script; as Blood Rites works on an idea often seen in horror cinema, and doesn't do anything new with it. Basically, the plot centres on three couples who find themselves at a house awaiting the results of a will. It's not long before they start getting picked off...blah blah blah. For most of the film, nothing happens; and then when we finally get down to the scenes that justify the movie being banned, they're so amateurish and silly that they're impossible to take seriously on any level. It's a very good thing that this movie doesn't have a very long running time as otherwise it could have been used as a particularly nasty method of torture. It all boils down to a fittingly tedious ending, which also succeeds in being a non-event of epic proportions. Apparently, this movie is still banned here in the UK; but somehow I doubt it's because of its shock value. Basically, Blood Rites isn't worth seeing and I personally can see no reason to recommend it. Unless, of course, you've made it your business to see everything on the Video Nasty list...
Lord David Cecil wrote an interesting book in the 1930s EARLY VICTORIAN NOVELISTS, where he looked at the works of Dickens, Thackeray, Eliot, Trollope, Mrs. Gaskell, Charlotte Bronte, and Emily Bronte. He selected these writers as the popular favorites of the first half of the Victorian period, and he explained their strengths and weaknesses (as he saw them) to the reading public. Some of his comments are quite relevant to this day, but like all criticism it gives an idea of the spirit of the times of the critic's life as well.<br /><br />Cecil thought highly of George Eliot (Mary Ann Cross), who wrote about seven or eight books (including sketches and poetry). But for most modern readers, they are usually acquainted with her shortest book, SILAS MARNER, which is still read in some high school curriculum. The other books, FELIX HOLT THE RADICAL, DANIEL DERONDA, MIDDLEMARCH, THE MILL ON THE FLOSS, ADAM BEDE, ROMOLA, SCENES OF CLERICAL LIFE, are still in print (Penguin, for example, has most of them in print), but are mostly unread. The one of most interest today is her last novel, DERONDA, where she discusses the Jews in English society, and an incipient, pre-Hertzl type of Zionism. ROMOLA is her sole attempt at a historic novel (about Savanarola's experiment of a religiously pure republic in Florence in the 1490s). Her meatiest novel is MIDDLEMARCH, which is concerned with English society in the provinces in 1832, the year of the great Reform Bill of Lord Grey. I had to read MIDDLEMARCH in college for a literature course. It certainly is a thoughtful book (Virginia Woolf called it the most grown-up book in the English language). But it suffers (like all of Eliot's novels) from one defect - she cannot write livable, exciting prose. While Dickens is overly exuberant at times, and Thackeray can become pompous and prolix, and Trollope can become (as Lord Cecil says) very ordinary in his discussion, and Charlotte Bronte can fail to explain certain relationships well, and Mrs. Gaskell seems best dealing with female characters, all of them (and Emily Bronte in her single novel) hold the reader's interest. Reading most of Eliot's novels is like trying to chisel sentences out of blocks of marble with a toothpick!<br /><br />To date I have read about fifty pages of MILL OF THE FLOSS. I notice that one of the other reviewers never finished the novel too. But I have read a synopsis of what it is about. The Tullivers (Maggie and her brother Tom) are the central figures - they own the mill in the title. Although close at the start of the story, Maggie falls in love with the son of a neighbor whose father is involved in legal difficulties with Mr. Tulliver Sr. Tom takes a dim view of this relationship, and the tragedy of the story is regarding the split between the siblings, culminating in their demise at the conclusion (Maggie runs back to the mill to rescue Tom during a heavy flood, and they die together). It must have been a success with Victorian readers, but it is very gloomy and depressing to modern audiences.<br /><br />The movie changed the ending a little - Maggie (Geraldine Fitzgerald) does die at the end with her lover, and Tom (James Mason) notes their deaths at the conclusion in his record book. The story is totally rewritten, except for a double death in the flood at the conclusion. It doesn't really help matters. Although Fitzgerald and Mason do pretty well with their parts, they can't really pull the film up by their work alone. The end result is a fairly minor film, that fortunately did not hurt the lead's careers. The only other thing to note is that the boyfriend was played by Frank Lawton, who two years earlier played David Copperfield as a grown up opposite W.C.Fields, Lionel Barrymore, and Maureen O'Sullivan. But then, Lawton never really had a major film career - he just happened to always be around in pictures, some good, some mediocre.
'The Mill on the Floss' was one of the lesser novels by Mary Ann Evans, who wrote under the male pseudonym George Eliot. I tried to read this dull and very turgid novel years ago, but was unable to finish it. I'll review this film version solely on its own merits, as I don't know how faithfully it follows the original novel.<br /><br />The film's opening credits are printed in an Old English typeface that suggests the mediaeval period, and so it's a very poor choice for a film with a 19th-century setting. (On the other hand, about halfway into the film, we see a close-up shot of a handbill advertising an estate auction. This handbill is set in authentic Victorian type fonts, and looks *very* convincing.) Most of this film is extremely convincing in its depiction of the architecture and clothing of early 19th-century England. The precise location of this film's story is never disclosed, but - judging by the actors' accents - I'd place it as somewhere in the Cotswolds, perhaps Warwickshire.<br /><br />The plot, what there is of it, involves a mill that changes hands a couple of times (over a couple of decades) between two rival families, one wealthy and one working-class. I disagree with another IMDb reviewer who claims that James Mason has only a small role in this film. Mason has the largest and most central role in this drama, as the scion of the wealthier family. As the spoilt and petulant Tom Tulliver, Mason is darkly brooding and impetuous. His performance here belongs in a better film: it made me want to see 'Wuthering Heights' recast with Mason as Heathcliff.<br /><br />As this is a multi-generational saga (something which George Eliot did much better in 'Middlemarch'), several of the main roles in this film are split among two actors apiece: child actors in the prologue, adults in the main narrative. The prologue of this film features a very well-written scene, establishing Tom Tulliver as wilful and bully-ragging from an early age, and young Philip Wakeham as decent and thoughtful. Through hard labour, Philip has earned a halfpenny: Tom tries to bully it away from him, but is unwilling to take the coin by brute force: he wants Philip to *give* it to him. All the child actors in this movie, male and female, are talented and attractive. Unfortunately, all of the children speak their dialogue in posh plummy-voiced accents that are utterly unlike the accents of the actors and actresses who play those same roles as adults. This discrepancy calls attention to the staginess of the material. Regrettably, none of the later scenes are as good as this prologue.<br /><br />The climax features a crowd of labourers in a rainstorm, much better paced and photographed than the earlier scenes. But modern viewers (in Britain, at least) can no longer take this sort of material seriously. By now, practically every British comedian has done a "trouble at t' mill, squire" comedy routine, parodying precisely this subject matter, so I had difficulty watching this movie with a straight face.<br /><br />The character actress Martita Hunt is good in a small role, but the opening credits (in that Old English typeface) misspell her forename as 'Marita'. I'll rate this dull movie 3 points out of 10: one point apiece for James Mason's performance, the early scene with the children, and the authentic Victorian typesetting in that auctioneer's handbill.
This was shown on a premium channel, so I didn't realise it was made for TV. Even so, I like some of the movies on lifetime (Lifestyle here in UK), but this was awful. The family were so cheesy, "Love you mum" "Love you even more honey" Then after they were broken into for the second time, 10 mins later, they were at it again, "Love you mum" big cheesy smiles etc... She phones her husband, and tells him not to bother coming home. They were only broken into by a guy that wanted them dead, have a nutter living next door, who needs help? She has her teenage daughter and a cat (not for long) to look after her.<br /><br />However, as a comedy, I'd give it a good 7. I might even show it to my friends next time I have them round. Could be great fun after a bottle of Vodka or 10!
So bad as good - not only the script is obvious, but the acting is not just poor, but pathetic. The worst of all is the definition of the characters: unrealistic ingenuity, affected reactions, camera forcing to watch superficial aspects, which are introduced as keys to the plot.<br /><br />Can't prevent laughing when, at the end, main character says to second something like 'your daughter plays no soccer and knows no cooking'. Such offense to female intelligence defines the level of this film.<br /><br />Is the film about the psychological behaviour of the second character?, about its impact on the main character?, or just a sequence of events set in order to heat for the obvious ending? <br /><br />Pls, make more of these - I had a good time guessing what next would go wrong...
The acting is awkward and creepy, and not in a good way...at all. The writing, the dialogue, and the chemistry between the actors is horrible. Nothing makes sense and every close-up of an actor's expression or reaction lasts 3 or 4 seconds too long, making it seem like a Mexican Soap Opera (telenovela). Everything about the writing is unrealistic, and all of the actors involved make it that much worse with their campy interpretations of the script. Am I the only one who sees this??? To use the word cheesy to describe this Canadian disaster would be the understatement of the century. Did the director even watch the final cut before it was put on the air???
... or should I say unintentionally hilarious? Either way, this is one of the best comedies I've seen in a long time. I was laughing throughout at the antics of some of the dumbest fictional characters this side of Homer Simpson. It's just one forehead-slapping, painfully stupid scene after another as the clownish, dim-witted cardboard cutouts substituting for actual humanoid characters push, pull, and drag the "plot" to its inevitable and obvious conclusion.<br /><br />If I had to describe this movie to someone, I'd call it a mutated hybrid of Fatal Attraction, Dumb and Dumber, and the Three Stooges, with a "climax" uncannily similar to the episode of Family Guy in which the whole family gets into a knock-down fistfight in the living room.<br /><br />Advice to Benson family: next time you get a new pet, do the poor animal a favor and DON'T name it Fred!
I can name only a few movies that I have seen which were this bad. This movie has terrible everything: The dialog is corny and cliché', the acting is poor for the most part with a few exceptions, the cinematography is nothing to cheer about, and the plot is silly (A fat woman stalks a suburban family because her daughter didn't make the soccer team). This is so bad, it's funny to watch. If you can catch this on lifetime, I'd recommend it highly as a comedy. As for being a serious movie, I'm afraid i'll have to rate this a 2.<br /><br />Don't watch this film if you are a serious movie fan and looking for an interesting and challenging storyline, or good acting. There is none to be found.<br /><br />Edit: Hmmm... I think a group of people who work for lifetime must have written some phony reviews and voted all the negative ones down. Don't believe them. This is a really crappy movie.
Too fractured to be enjoyable, too loose to be interesting and too clumsily photographed to be tolerable MR LONELY is an interesting idea ruined by really bad film making. Like a Ken Russell film at its worst, or DAY OF THE LOCUST remade by amateurs, MR LONELY might have seemed like a good idea on a few scraps of paper (no script, you see) and a free holiday to somewhere, but in the end we have a widescreen film that seems as if it was made by film students whose parents told them that EVERYTHING they did was a brilliant creation. Or did I get the film maker right? MR LONELY is a waste of resources, trying to be (gawd!) quirky and deliberately off kilter. It ends up being annoying and indulgent.. and pointless. What's the point of going to a commune in Scotland? What a stupid idea in this film about Hollywood delusion. Maybe Korine wanted to remake GODSPELL ... well the result is GOD-AWFUL. Oh and there is some subplot like leftover footage from FITZCARRALDO including Werner Herzog, nuns and a plane. Add slo-mo drifting and violin music all wistful and melancholy, add James Fox who seems to hope he might be seen as daring (like in PERFORMANCE) and the result is amphetamine fantasy alphabet soup in widescreen. It might have been fun to film but the result on the screen is a mess. Imagine American PIE BAND CAMP with food poisoning.
Why would anyone make a film like this? Why would anybody invest in a film like this? Why would anybody in the film business work on a film like this? Why would any theatre show a film like this? Why would any TV channel program a film like this? Why would any critic bother to review a film like this? Why would anybody watch a film like this? Why would mental examinations not be made of the writers/producers/directors of a film like this? Sometimes there are movies that are so bad they're good. This is a movie that is so ghastly that it's horrible. IMDb really must institute a "0" or even a minus scale to embrace works of this appallingly pretentious awfulness.
Korine's established himself, by now, as a talented and impressive image-maker. The promotional posters for Mister Lonely all include the film's most impressive compositions (though there's one in particular I've yet to see in promo material: that of a blue-clad nun teasing a dog with a stick, surrounded by green forest with torrential rain pouring down). The opening images of this film, of Michael Jackson lookalike (Diego Luna) riding a small motorbike round a track, is strangely compelling and beautiful: Roy Orbison's "Mister Lonely" plays on the soundtrack, and the images unfold in slow-motion. There's also a funny and terrific sequence in which the same character mimes a dance, without music (though a radio sits like a silent dog next to him), in the middle of a Paris street; Korine splices in sound effects and jump-cuts that evoke both a feeling of futility and dogged liberation in the character's dance routine.<br /><br />The first instance of the segment dealing with the nuns is also strangely poignant; Father Umbrillo (Werner Herzog) is an autocratic priest about to fly with some nuns over, and drop food into, impoverished areas nearby. In a scene that is both light-hearted and affecting, Herzog must deal with a stubbornly enthusiastic local who wishes to make the plane trip with them in order to see his wife in San Francisco. As the exchange develops, Herzog draws out of the man a confession: he has sinned, and his frequent infidelity is the cause of his wife having left him in the first place. This scene, short and sweet, gains particular weight after one learns its improvised origins: the sinner is played by a non-actor who was on set when Korine and co. were filming - and his adulterous ways had given him, in real life, a lasting, overwhelming guilt.<br /><br />Henceforth, the film is hit-and-miss; a succession of intrinsically interesting moments that add to a frivolous, muddled narrative. Whereas Gummo and Julien Donkey-Boy maintain their aesthetic and emotional weight via coherent structural frameworks, Mister Lonely feels like a victim of editing room ruthlessness. A few scenes were cut from the film, which would have otherwise painted fuller pictures of certain characters, due to continuity errors in costume - a result, no doubt, due to the absence of a shooting script and Korine's tendency for improvisation. One deleted scene in particular - in which 'Charlie Chaplin' (Denis Lavant) and 'Madonna' (Melita Morgan) have sex - would have added much more emotional conflict to a scene later on in the film (I won't spoil it, but it's there to deflate any feeling of warmth or celebration, and, as it is, only half-succeeds).<br /><br />The two strands of the narrative, unconnected literally, are best approached as two entirely different stories with the same allegorical meaning; one compliments the other and vice versa. (It's something to do with the conflict between one's ambitions and the reality of the current situation.) But there's not enough of the Herzog scenes to merit their place in the film, and so any connection between these two allegorically-connected threads is inevitably strained - and the inclusion is, in retrospect, tedious.<br /><br />This is an ambitious step forward from Julien Donkey-Boy that suffers mostly, at least in the lookalike segments, from having far too many characters for the film's running length, a flaw that would have been even worse had big star names played everyone (as was originally planned).<br /><br />With many of the imagery's self-contained beauty, and moments of real, genuine connection with the soundtrack, this feels like it'd be much more suited to an art installation or photo exhibition. As an exploration of mimesis and the nature of impersonation, it'd lose none of its power - indeed, for me, it would perhaps be more impressive. The loneliness attached to iconic performativity (such as that encountered by both the icons themselves and those who aspire to be like them) is well-captured in images such as that wherein 'Marilyn Monroe' (a gorgeous Samantha Morton) seduces the camera with a Seven Year Itch pose in the middle of a forest, or when 'Sammy Davis, Jr.' (Jason Pennycooke) settles, post-dance rehearsal, with his back to the camera overlooking an incredible, tranquil lake.<br /><br />As it is, moments like these, and all those where the titles of randomly-chosen Michael Jackson songs crawl across the scene, are married to one another in a film narrative far less affecting than it should be.<br /><br />(For those who see it, I lost all faith during the egg-singing scene, late on. You'll know which scene I mean because it sticks out like a sore thumb, as some sort of gimmicky attempt at the new cinematic language for which Korine has previously been hailed.)
Harmony Korine. I'm not sure what he was trying to do with this film. If it was to turn my good day feeling into a night of disturbing memories than I guess he succeeded.<br /><br />I know that there were big questions raised in this movie like, who are we really, what are we here for, is there really a God. All great questions, But I really don't think that is funny when you have the questions along side such tragedy. I'm all for real life being portrayed but come on. It's never funny when a wife is being raped, someone killing themselves (and family and friends find the body) and people die for unexplained and unnecessary reasons.<br /><br />The only good thing about this movie was the location it was filmed. There is a lot of beautiful places.<br /><br />I'm not a film student or even know all that much on the subject I admit this, but I do know that when I leave the theater with a feeling of disgust, then it was not a film I would recommend to anyone.
I watched this movie and all I can say is this...I am not a film student, nor am I some artsy intellect who tries to look for a deeper meaning into everything that I don't understand. However, IF I were to do that with this film, my thoughts would be...<br /><br />Yep! He's on drugs and I can picture it now...he was tripping one night and sat around with his buddies laughing and saying stuff like, hey...wouldn't it be funny if nuns really could fly? Like what if one just fell out of a plane and free fell for a while, bounced to the ground and got up and walked away? *cackles* or if buckwheat gave the pope a bath? oh my god, I'm cracking up just thinking about it! Dude! We gotta make a movie about it! And then he says to his friend as he's laughing...Oh and wouldn't it be hilarious if people loved it and called me a genius for it? So to me, this is what happens when some guy does one too many drugs and writes a script and produces a movie. Should I have been doing LSD to understand what this guy was thinking so I could have had a laugh too? Because I have to tell you, I wasn't laughing. I was yawning and checking the time.<br /><br />I think everyone who is trying their hardest to find a deeper meaning is hysterical. I had never heard of this director until I came to read the reviews, which I did because I was mad that I lost that last 2 hrs, or how ever long it was, (it felt like 12 hrs of my life) and I can't ever get it back, anyway...I have read that this guy is a heroine addict and he wanted to die for art?? what the heck is that? So my point is sort of proved. This guy is not all there, he's a drug addict, and his movie is evidence of such...So please quit trying to find a deeper meaning to it. If one really wants to understand everything in this movie, go drop some LSD and sit back and relax, then it might actually make sense.<br /><br />It reminded me of the time I watched Gus Van Sant's Last Days, another movie I was mad about watching. I cannot help but wonder what the ratings would be for that movie, if the same people reviewed it who reviewed this one. It seems like, if the movie's director is totally off his rocker, or if it's a french movie with sex and subtitles, or if it's a cartoon, it is going to get great reviews, hands down, anything else is boring and has already been done. BLAH, bring on the boring please!
Harmony Korrine - hate him or hate him? On this evidence, loathe might be a better word. Not him of course, just everything he does. But it could've been so different because the first ten minutes of this film promises so much including a fantastic idea of a Michael Jackson impersonator falling in love with a Marilyn Monroe impersonator. Fantastic. And set in Paris! This could be great. But unfortunately, Korrine may spark the odd decent idea but because he is an awful writer, the story fails on every level and the audience walkout I witnessed about an hour in is proof positive that he is the most boring and pretentious film-making out there. Apparently the walk-out rate at its premiere in last years Cannes festival was quite shocking. Instead of focusing on the two protagonists, he switches the story stupidly to the confines of a château to introduce a bunch of other impersonators making the whole experience tedious and narratively barren. When will the independent cinema stop funding this upstart?
I just watched this yesterday and wanted to read other peoples scathing comments but found some high marks.<br /><br />WHAT??? This was probably the worst Asian horror movie I've seen.<br /><br />*spoilers* There were just so many fundamental problems with the story. A lot of Asian horror has the twist of spirits trying to help but just looking scary (with notable exceptions: ringu and Ju-on). This is the case here except they aren't scary. A pretty Asian woman who looks a little pale isn't scary at all. The "monk" character straight up explains everything as being a perfectly natural cycle of life; nothing scary there either. But the woman just doesn't get it, she would rather kill herself and her baby then let this poor ghost be reincarnated. My friend and I were just laughing when she jumped off the building twice and the ghost waits until after the second time to tell her why she's been following her around. That information would have been nice to know before she started jumping but whatever.<br /><br />*That said I did like a couple of parts right in the middle. First she rides a taxi with a ghost (ghosts ride taxis?) that has a whole lot of extra hair which inexplicably IS creepy. Right after that at the bus stop, well you need to see it as it's pretty messed up.<br /><br />All in all this movie is a total bomb, I gave it an extra point just for those two scenes above. This is a poor quality Asian horror that manages to make ghosts flying into women's wombs almost beautiful while trying to scare you with the same images.
(The beginning might be a spoiler...)<br /><br />"The Eye 2" is the sequel to "The Eye". It's about a pregnant woman who is able to see ghosts and spirits after an incident happened to her.<br /><br />The sound effects scared the hell out of me though momentarily but that's the only scary thing. Some of the scenes from the prequel are comparatively similar and repeated so the chilling effects certainly have chilled. <br /><br />"The Eye" has quite a frightening and indelible impression whereas "The Eye 2" is a forgettable horror-cum-drama film. Omit watching this. Watching "The Eye" is good enough.
****Probably will contain spoilers****<br /><br />After a successful attempt to get attention (I would not call making sure that you get help before you die a "failed suicide attempt"), Joey finds out that she is pregnant and starts seeing images of spirits.<br /><br />Overall the movie was a little slow going, but entertaining enough to watch the whole thing. For a horror movie, there were only a few minor creeps and thrills. Halfway through, however, was a really good scary scene (I wont give it away though) :) I watched this movie because I really liked the preceding movie, The Eye.<br /><br />I was a little confused, however to determine that, other than being a "supernatural suspense" movie from the same creators, The Eye 2 had NO relation to The Eye, *whatsoever*; different cast, different story. The Eye2 does not even have anything to do with eyes :\<br /><br />The movie had a few questionable scenes: Joey attempts suicide 3 times (4 times, if you count the time when witnesses say they saw Joey trying to jump in front of the train), she is associated with brutally defacing an attacker, she freaks out in a restaurant and witnesses say she was "attacking" people and yet she is allowed to go about her business freely, without even so much as a psyche evaluation or put in the hospital (for reasons other than her pregnancy).<br /><br />The movie was not the greatest horror movie, the story was rather far-fetched (even for a fiction movie :P ), the spooks were either few and/or nothing we have not seen before. However, it was an "interesting" story and once you know what the "truth" is behind the spooks, it was an interesting twist on the "ghost" story.<br /><br />I rate the movie 3 out of 10.
This for one has nothing to do with the absolutely fantastic first flick. And of course us Americans just have to remake everything successful into English, because man reading subtitles is SOOOOO Hard isn't it! From what I've see in the new trailers with the adorable now pregnant Jessica Alba (well that sure ruins every teenage boys fantasy everywhere doesn't it!) It looks EXACTLY the same but probably w/double the budget. I thought the original was one of the best horror/suspense/mystery flicks I have seen in any language in quite a long while. I would recommend watching that one and skipping this one all together, there is no reason to watch this as there is no reason this even called "The Eye 2" except to capitalize on the excellence that was the first flick. Do yourself a favor watch "The Eye" with the volume turned up and get ready for some probable jumping. I watched it w/headphones on and was pleasantly surprised on the excellence that was the direction of the Pang brothers. If "The Eye" remake does well which I'm hoping it does for the sake of the Pang Brothers movie careers, but at the same time it seems a shame that people won't/can't see the original, because very often/almost always the remake isn't as good as the original. Watch this one if one wants to be mildly kinda of boring flick, but the original is no comparison to this sequel in name only flick.
Altioklar's populist approach manifests itself in all his titles, from the worst to the best. He doesn't care (or has no clue) about art, all he cares is to make people think they've got a kick in the groin by watching his movies. The problem is, the effort is way too evident, and as events unfold with all the senseless exaggeration kneaded into them, the effort fails badly.<br /><br />On this "Turkish" movie (who knows where the original or originals were made, since it felt extremely Hollywoodish to me), Altioklar is trying to be some sort of Tarantino. (Mr. Tarantino, if you're reading this, please watch the movie for the best comedy of your life!) He doesn't use subtle moves to do that, all he does is to use extreme stuff, and it gets unbearably absurd and laughable.<br /><br />Levent Üzümcü as the forensic guy with the cow-licked hair is just hilarious. I'm hoping to meet him in person and ask how he felt about this movie himself. Because I really found the role insulting for him. Demet Evgar groping her genitalia was also uncalled for, and did nothing other than making everything look fake. Another specifically idiotic aspect of this movie was the 100% faulty pace setting. When things need to be taken slowly, scenes flow abruptly. And at other times, it makes you sleepy to watch the slow ridicule going on.<br /><br />If Altioklar is so deeply in love with lame Hollywood superficiality, he should use Michael Sixarrows as his name instead. Even such a move wouldn't be half as ludicrous as what he has done on this movie. He should first learn not to imitate directors whose levels he'll never approach, then realize he's not in Hollywood, and then take private lessons from Zeki Demirkubuz or Reha Erdem on how to lay the flow of ideas out in the plot. This useless movie couldn't be saved even by those, but perhaps he can make watchable movies in the future by taking these steps.<br /><br />By the way I've seen some infamous failures such as Propaganda and Otostop, and I still can't divert from saying this one was the worst Turkish movie ever.
Persuaded by the 7.0 points in IMDb, which is pretty good, i decided to watch this movie. However, i found this movie quiet boring (about 2 hours) and full of clichés, A little girl getting multiple personalities after a childhood trauma etc. Tamer KAradagli is quiet funny in this movie, dialogs motions etc, you will have to see it, he is kinda the tough cop you see on American movies, perhaps copied too much. I would describe this movie as ordinary American thriller with a little bit of Turkish touch, Unfortunately yet again I'm convinced that comedies and dramas are the only genres worth watching in Turkish cinema Anyways i gave this movie a 4, its too boring and full of clichés
Altioklar: Master of the thieves. <br /><br />Watch some movie, steal some parts of them, write a script... It must be very easy to be a director in Turkey. I think Altioklar watched "Identity (2003)", "Saw (2004)", a few series which is about crime, murder etc. then he said "Eureka, eureka"(i have found it!) after that he wrote the script of the movie.<br /><br />You can guess the murderer at the beginning of the movie. It took only 10 minutes for me. He shouted "I'm the murderer, i'm the murderer.". There is no mystery. <br /><br />Tamer Karadagli is same(sux). Exaggerated mimics, funny macho man. <br /><br />There is only one good thing in the movie. The performance of Demet Evgar is very good. You may see the movie just for that.
I understand the purpose of the director to tell stories that aren't stories, but the way he tried to show time passing by (the couple of joggers, who first appear jogging together, than jogging with a stroller (sic!), than the man alone...) and to link the "adventures" of the characters (the final scene, with the maid climbing a mountain seeing the big black guy on another cliff, and then seeing the boat with her former employer and saying "Oh, a boat!") were awful. At the same time, I liked the way he portrayed the middle-high class, even in an excessive way. I think it is a lousy movie. If you want to watch it, do it as a film school student, trying to see technical aspects and issues. It will help a lot.
While I agree with the previous post that the cinematography is good, I totally disagree with the rest: This is nothing more than a porno movie disguised as an artsy film. Showing little boys naked is not art and amounts to child porn. Steer clear of this dud. Stupid is what this film is.
It is sad that some find this film worth watching. I am Russian, and I am disgusted. There is nothing in this film that deserves praise, except cinematography. However, I am not one of those who find beauty in death or perversion. I think this film is poorly designed and directed. There is nothing more irritating and even enraging than shameless speculation in art (if you can call this garbage art). Balabanov wanted to shock the viewers by pervasive evil, and he succeeded in creating a hopelessly dark film. But the biggest shock is Balabanov's primitive directorial work. I would never advise any of my friends to watch it. Huge disappointment!
People call a 976 "party line" to talk dirty to strangers, and perhaps meet up for a sexual liason. A deranged, somewhat incestuous sister and occasional transvestite brother use the line to find people to kill, usually married men, but they don't discriminate! A pair of sixteen year old girls also call the line for fun, pretending to be older, of course. One of them works as a babysitter for a married man who's hot for her (or anyone).<br /><br />Meanwhile, a vice cop is borrowed by homicide when he's the first to discover one of the siblings' victims. He's teamed with a female assistant of the District Attorney.<br /><br />Nothing too special here. Richard Roundtree has little more than a cameo as the police chief. One of the dirty-talking sixteen year olds is played by an actress who also voiced Peanuts character Peppermint Patty! According to the IMDb, the other died quite young, just several years after this movie: sad.
Yep, it's me again! Mr 'I sit through crap so you don't have to'.<br /><br />What do you think this is about? Could it possibly be about a woman who call a sex line and arrange to meet bachelors in a secluded area? Then her cross-dressing boyfriend comes along and slits their throat with razor, before they make off together with his cash? Wow, what a guess! And if I tell you that the cop who is put on the case is forced to team up with a sexy assistant DA to nail these suckers, what conclusion will you come to? Do you reckon the sexy DA will go undercover wearing a flimsy red dress to an attempt to meet the drag queen, but then end up being kidnapped and having to be rescued by the maverick officer? (who has already handed in his gun and badge) ZING! You get 10 points!<br /><br />Frankly, this film bored me to tears. Why do people insist on making this kind of rubbish? Its a waste of our time, their time and yet they still carry on regardless.. filming a movie that no-one gives an iota about. If it has any redeeming features, there's the fact that it has some of the prettiest ladies I've seen in a motion picture for a while. I hope they spent what meagre wages they earned on plenty of botox and colonic irrigation. They'd look great on the cover of Vogue, or perched on the top of a car in a bikini. They should just leave acting to the professionals (like Shannon Tweed).<br /><br />Talking about future careers, I ran into the director the other day. He sure does whip up a tasty chicken burger meal. I must say too, that the uniform really does suit him. I asked him about 'Party Line', and his eyes went to the floor before he mumbled something about extra fries. Oh well, guess it didn't quite work out. Never mind, they're letting him take over the drive-thru tomorrow!! Hurray!! 1/10
Thats what this movie really takes. A big piece of cheeze. This movie is about a sister and brother Bonnie and Clyde type of duo that creates their own party line in order to lure their victims in and trap them and kill them. But for what reason? Just for the fun of getting away with it? In comes Richard Hatch who comes across as a wishy washy ladies man. A real BAD version of a ladies man. And he gets involved with finding who's behind all the killings across LA. He finally meets a teenager who helps him find the killer and rest is for your fun and amusement. But there are parts in this film that really get me going like the scene with Lief Garret dressed in his mothers wedding gown acting like a sissy in front of his sister telling her that he needs her and can't live without her and watching as she slaps him across the face dominateing him. I can't believe that was Lief!!! Well, I guess I could. But it's worth watching but only to see one of Garrets worst films that he ever did.
Terror in the Jungle is a real find. If you saw it, you're one of the few lucky ones. It's hilarious!<br /><br />The story is about an airplane crashing in the middle of the south american jungle. The crash scene has to be seen to be believed. Everyone dies in the crash or they're subsequently eaten alive by crocodiles. Only a young blonde boy survives. A nearby tribes brings the kid to their village and they (all males) venerate him because of his golden hair! I kid you NOT! At the end, there's a lot of wrestling between the natives and the man on the search for any survivors of the downed airplane. All the while, the kid sits on a throne and his blond hair is surrounded by a golden halo and he cries nonstop!! It's a hoot!!!<br /><br />Very obscure and contains very questionable subtexts. A must if you're into obscure, it's-so-bad-it's-good movies.
If the following sounds tempting, then by all means rush down to your local Blockbuster and rent this movie post-haste:<br /><br />1. Awful 60's hairstyles, from pathetic perms to dodgy ducktails.<br /><br />2. The worst child actor in the world ever, who does nothing but cry and say DADDY in the most annoying voice imaginable.<br /><br />3. Lots of stock footage of alligators and monkeys that doesn't mesh with the film. At all.<br /><br />4. Stereotypical Indians who use blowpipes and talk gobbledegook. Oh, and it goes without saying they whoop around a campfire.<br /><br />5. Hilariously fake plane crash mechanics where the cast actually throw themselves into the corners of the cardboard set.<br /><br />6. The exterior shots of 5, which look suspiciously like a toy jet on a string being led around a studio lit with blue light.<br /><br />7. Terrible special effects which make the ones used in the first Star Trek series look cutting edge by comparison. ( Special mention: The little boy's blond hair glowing. Oh dear..) <br /><br />8. Laughable editing and continuity, where background items move between scenes, the soundtrack changes completely without any warning etc.<br /><br />9. Not got enough money to hire a professional dancer? Get any lady from off the street to prance about like an idiot! No-one will notice the difference! Er..<br /><br />10. A 'thrilling' climax involving quicksand, snakes (more stuff from the archives) and a ton of fake blood. Don't forget to put in a stupid 'tribal' sounding song either!<br /><br />The more sensible among you however, will wait for it's inevitable appearance on MST3K when this classic TV show is resurrected and then you can watch it in the spirit it was intended. Any other kind of enjoyment to be derived from this crap is unthinkable.. not to mention unworkable. So don't even try it. 0/10
If there's anything worse than this movie I don't want to see it. I remember so many amazing things--a nun dropped out of a coffin to make a raft for a little blond boy; the little blond boy himself adored as a god; lots of stock footage of Peru as an ideal vacation spot. Shining Path and Alberto Fujimori should blast away any notion that Peru is a vacation paradise. The whole thing is so awful that Plan 9 or even Robot Monster is an aesthetic treat by comparison. This film should be bombed and strafed and bombed again.
This is indeed a spectacularly bad film, but it is the rare kind of badness that is endlessly, jaw-droppingly entertaining! I want to add to the other comments on this film.<br /><br />The "rock band" on the plane look like three skinny drunks from casual labor wearing bad wigs.<br /><br />Watch for the severe continuity problem with the kid's stuffed tiger: it turns into a lion, a leopard and back again; it's filthy or clean depending on the shot.<br /><br />*SPOILER! The stuffed tiger turns into a real animal to save the kid (and the writers)!<br /><br />The sight of little Jimmy floating down the Amazon in a coffin, clutching his stuffed tiger and squalling away will stick permanently in your memory. <br /><br />Listen for one of the most inept sound effects ever: late in the story when the priest is setting out to find Jimmy, the guide demands his monk's robes as payment-the priest drops on one knee in a moment of resigned contemplation and there is the sound of a bell, not the deep "BONNNNG" of a church bell, but the "ding" of a bell from a boxing match!<br /><br />This is an absolute hoot to watch.
An unbelievable plot, laughable characters, and obvious errors (in one scene where several grass huts are supposed to be burning, a gas torch can be seen repeatedly trying to ignite one of the huts), this film is a real dog.
The movie that would be included if Mystery Science Theater 3000 had a home game version! The source material for tacky comments in this movie are endless. I found the video of Terror in the Jungle at a garage sale. What a find!
This is a silly movie with much singing and dancing. Acting is average, but writing leaves something to be desired. There are rememberable performances by Buddy Epsen, with a short but outstanding performance by Gypsy Rose as the bitter wife of a rich playboy. A totally unbelievable portrayal of college life which ends with a superb ice skating exibition of Alice in Wonderland. Many parts are worth watching, but do not be afraid to fast forward through parts of the movie
POSSIBLE MINOR SPOILER<br /><br />It's not a terribly objective review but I just found this movie horribly depressing. Like a lot of Russell T. Davies'<br /><br />work, it asks more questions than it can answer. His best work (Bob & Rose, Doctor Who) revels in hope against the odds and perseverance even after apparent defeat. These uplifting themes seemed strangely absent here. I suppose the fact that I'm still thinking about it days after viewing is a testament to the quality of the program but the resolution was just too bleak for my tastes. <br /><br />I would, however, disagree with the reviews I've read complaining that the end feels "tacked on." I think each conclusion follows logically from its premise and the ending represented a sound personal belief that neatly resolved the primary theme of the show. While I never really questioned the progression of events, I felt like there was much that could have been expanded upon. I've also read that it was originally conceived as a four part series instead of two, and it's possible that the truncation has done some harm to the completed piece. However, these flaws appear throughout, in sequences and themes that sometimes feel rough or sketched in.<br /><br />To his credit Davies is totally unafraid to write big, and you have to admire the sheer audacity and scope of this project. The premise he tackles here is the stuff of movies or novels – it is a brave and ambitious thing to tackle it in the medium of television. Strong points include Christopher Eccleston, who is positively mesmeric in the lead. For me, he was and remains the best reason to watch. The depiction of the Messiah's humanity was brilliant, thought provoking and engaging and a real credit to both Davies' writing and Eccleston's acting. I also thought the depiction of the modern world's reaction to the second coming rang true. <br /><br />So, two stars simply because I personally want my entertainment to be entertaining. I would rather be uplifted or, at least, distracted by my fiction. I have a whole big real world around me – as filtered through CNN or the newspapers -- if I choose to be horribly depressed. There are definitely less subjective reasons by which to judge this piece but I'm afraid my judgment in this matter is clouded by my emotional response.
As I don't have a TV, and had never heard of this mini-series, I didn't know what to expect from The Second Coming and hired it purely on the strength of its plot synopsis, which sounded interesting.<br /><br />Dear God! (Every pun intended.) If someone told me that this had been written by a class of thirteen year olds who had been given the project of turning the second coming into a school play I wouldn't have been surprised.<br /><br />Why, oh why did they decide to portray Jesus mark II as what amounted to an idiot savant? Is there anything in any of the gospels to suggest this? Okay, an ordinary bloke, but a Great Northern Moron. I don't think so.<br /><br />Apparently all Jesus did to impress people was his miracles, because according to this take his preaching sure as hell never impressed anyone. Certainly without the night into day stunt Mr Jesus Eccleston would have been floundering without a canoe, a paddle or any kind of following at all.<br /><br />And the odd little gay polemics put in willy-nilly, without rhyme or reason. Other than, of course, Russell waving to his QAF fan base. Jesus turns up in the pub to recruit 'disciples' (more gormless Northern losers and, of course, the gay writer's standby - the harpy woman, nag, nag, nagging away). Gay rights are rammed down his throat to no real purpose, almost like Russell thought he 'owed it to the lads' to put Jesus on the spot. <br /><br />I can't really see the real Jesus coming out with "Well, I've nothing against it personally, mate." Only someone truly middle class and woolly could imagine Jesus to be quite this wet.<br /><br />And don't start me on the ending. 'Please come in and eat rat poison because the only way we can be truly free is if God dies'.<br /><br />It was like an Eddie Izzard sketch of God as Bill Gates. "Hello, I'm Bill Gates, and now you've pointed out to me that my global domination is cramping your style I'm going to give it all to you, my customers." And eat the rat poison, of course.<br /><br />I'm often mystified by the ratings on IMDb, but the high rating on this one takes the biscuit.<br /><br />Never mind Jesus for the new millennium - this is Jesus for brainless MTV lads.<br /><br />God help us all indeed.
One should have the right to expect from people who make a film about the Second Coming and the Third Testament, that they had read the other two, or at least knew a little more about them than miracles and Judgement Day. This film contains absolutely nothing of relevance for viewers who are interested in Jesus, religion or philosophy -- there is only the standard British social realism with guttural dialects and plump characters in pubs.<br /><br />Actually, good candidates for a real Third Testament have been published several times - like "A Course in Miracles" or "Conversations with God". They all have thought-provoking new twists and angles for Christian faith and theology.<br /><br />The most interesting information in IMDb's rating is not the number of stars, but how many people who have bothered to vote. In four years, only 387 people have bothered to vote for this film. As usual, the enthusiasts are the most eager. For comparison, have a look at "Jesus Christ, Superstar" - original version from 1973.
I went into this movie hoping for an imaginative twist on the Second Coming. Boy, was I ever wrong. BBC are dullards at pacing a movie, total idiots at creating suspense, fools at building intensity. And this movie is no exception to the rule of how much BBC sucks.<br /><br />Ugh, the pacing and time-wasting laborious dialogue was just painful to sit through. The first 30 minutes felt like 2 hours. I kept looking down at my watch wondering when the pointless, monotonous drivel would end. They wasted a perfectly good actor in the lead role, because the material is so lazy, and sloppily, written. Everything that happens is just to kill time.<br /><br />Out of 155 minutes, only 15 minutes are interesting (the controversial ending). What a shame. Reading the plot summary is more interesting than watching the movie. The preaching, the "am I God" endless blah blah blah-ing, the dumb as doornails boring miracles... UGH.<br /><br />DO NOT WATCH THIS CRAP.
I remember seeing this years ago, It had a reasonably promising start, with an interesting premise, but then it degenerated into nonsense quite quickly. Uninteresting characters, failed attempts to add drama and tension, and a bit of simplistic philosophy thrown in too, all culminating in a terrible ending. <br /><br />Simply, it's trash. <br /><br />Before I saw this TV film, I didn't think I would ever have any film that I thought was the "worst" I had seen, but after I finished watching this, I knew that from then on, if anyone asked me what the worst film I had ever seen was, I could say without hesitation - "The Second Coming".<br /><br />Avoid.
This movie was definitely on the boring side. The acting was decent and the film looks pretty nice, the soundtrack is definitely for fans of Kenny G and Michael Bolton. Speaking of the soundtrack, I found it very ironic that a film about telling the truth and not stealing decided to use a song in it's titles that was a BLATANT RIPOFF of Paul Simon's "You Can Call Me Al" - except that they don't acknowledge it at all. Isn't there something a little hypocritical there? The scene that the main kid was in where he was mimicking a game show host was my favorite. 10 lines? I have to write ten lines about this movie to be included? What a ripoff, I don't think it's too fair to FORCE people to write more than they would just to get it included!
Telly Savalas hams it up as the Mexican revolutionary (though he's matched by Chuck Connors as a military martinet) in this jokey yet rather boring pastiche on the famous historical figure's life and times. An earlier attempt, VILLA RIDES! (1968) with Yul Brynner in the role and co-starring Robert Mitchcum, dealt with these events more soberly and on a grander scale. As such, PANCHO VILLA is an all-too typical European venture and an undistinguished one at that, despite its credentials; the end result is more often silly rather than amusing - though a few moments, most notably the action set-pieces and a scene involving a brawl inside a church, offer some mild pleasure. Oh, and Savalas even gets to sing over the end titles!
Telly Savalas put on a passable (but no better than that) performance as Pancho Villa, the notorious Mexican bandit/revolutionary in this account of Villa's raid on the town of Columbus, New Mexico in 1916. Villa is not really a historical figure who I'm overly familiar with, so I won't say much about the historical details of the film. As a movie, this isn't great, although it has a smattering here and there of both action and humour. Chuck Connors' performance as Colonel Wilcox, commander of the U.S. Army base near Columbus struck me as a bit over the top, and Clint Walker as Villa's Gringo sidekick Scotty didn't really do very much for me. The movie is obviously a pretty low budget effort of limited technical quality. For a movie with a runtime of only slightly over an hour and a half I have to say that this movie dragged in places, particularly in the last 20 minutes or so. Villa's raid into the United States was an interesting (if, in the overall scheme of things, not especially important) historical sidebar, and probably deserved better treatment than this. 4/10
A couple of clarifying comments are in order. Herschell Gordon Lewis contributed a brief introduction to the video release of DOCTOR GORE (aka THE BODY SHOP), wherein he touched upon his collaborative efforts with J.G. "Pat" Patterson, director and star of DOCTOR GORE. Patterson concocted the "gore effects" for THE GRUESOME TWOSOME and a few other Lewis movies in the late 60s. Lewis remarks that whereas 2,000 MANIACS was a "five gallon" film (referring to the amount of stage blood required), the Lewis-Patterson productions were "fifteen gallon" pictures. Lewis does not describe DOCTOR GORE as a "fifteen gallon" film -- he's only talking about the films he & Patterson made together. Lewis has confessed (elsewhere) that his introduction to DOCTOR GORE was improvised before he'd even seen Patterson's film! So take it with a grain of salt. <br /><br />This may be an "unfinished" film, but like some unfinished novels it does have an "ending." It's just missing some connective tissue. <br /><br />Patterson has definite stage presence & a dry sense of humor, helping to make this simplistic show somewhat more watchable than it should be. There's an extremely bare-bones plot -- even BLOOD FEAST is more complex -- and a gratingly repetitive musical score by William Girdler. A bit of nudity & lots of skin. The entire middle section of the film involves the construction of a "perfect woman;" this is concentrated gore for the bloodthirsty, and laughable. <br /><br />Patterson the director is in way over his head, but he tries hard to tell his story creatively, if it's possible to use Frankenstein clichés creatively. But the best reason to see this film (on Something Weird's DVD, if possible) is that it features a perfect Nashville weeper, Bill Hicks' "A Heart Dies Every Minute." Ain't it the truth!
The lines in the title of this review are the first lines in this film's theme song, a wonderfully demented parody of the (in my opinion horrible) song "My favorite things" from "The Sound of Music". And this fun little detail isn't the only aspect that makes "The Body Shop" aka. "Doctor Gore" (1973) recommendable to my fellow Gore/Trash fans. The film, which was created almost entirely by J.G. Patterson Jr., who served as producer, writer, director and leading man as the eponymous Dr. Gore, is crap, no doubt, but it is also beyond doubt that it is amusing, and that everyone involved, probably Patterson especially, was aware that they were not exactly making a masterpiece.<br /><br />Dr. Brandon (Patterson) a famous but totally insane plastic surgeon, looses his beloved wife Anitra, a model, in an accident. Along with his hunchbacked assistant Greg (Roy Mehaffey), he henceforth kidnaps beautiful young women in order to build himself a new, perfect wife out of their body-parts...<br /><br />"Doctor Gore" is doubtlessly a film of the 'so bad it's good kind', but it is also has qualities beyond the usual ridiculous trashiness. Mad science has always been one of my absolute favorite Horror topics, and, as a matter of fact, it is also one of the coolest topics for ridiculous Gore Trash flicks. Obviously shot on a minimal budget, "Doctor Gore" pays some homage to the "Frankenstein" films, especially James Whale's masterpiece "Bride of Frankenstein" (1935), and resembles the look of the early Troma / Herschell Gordon Lewis Gore flicks such as "Blood Feast" (1963) - only that this looks a lot cheaper and crappier. Obviously J.G. Patterson's motive was not merely to make a fun gore flick: Being a rather ugly, weird-looking fellow, his role of Dr. Brandon gave Patterson the opportunity to make out with a couple of hot, scarcely dressed young women (who would later end up as body-part donors in Dr. Brandon's laboratory).<br /><br />Most of the gore is actually pretty well-made regarding the obviously tiny budget. The dialogue includes some extremely hilarious lines ("Get that, it might be the door... and put a coat on so they don't see you're a hunchback."). Besides the aforementioned theme song, "Doctor Gore" also includes a wonderfully crappy appearance by a country band called 'Bill Hicks and the Rainbows' - my new favorite band, NOT. For the rest of the film, I kept wondering whether Bill Hicks and Roy Mehaffey, who plays the hunchbacked assistant, are twins or even the same person - the two look exactly the same, and having two unrelated obese, red-bearded guys looking this weird in one film would be a huge coincidence. Other than J.G. Patterson, most of the cast members never did any other films. This is the first film I've seen out of the few by Patterson. Sadly, the man died of cancer in 1975.<br /><br />Overall, "Doctor Gore" is a film that certainly isn't for everyone. As a matter of fact, it is total crap. But it is also amusing, and recommendable to my fellow fans of weirdness and cheap camp stuff. Dictionaries should show a screenshot from this film under 'trash flick'.
My friends and I have watched this so many time I have lost count. This is worth seeing for those in the right frame of mind, meaning that this is not so much a good horror film as a film to lampoon for its funny quotes and bad effects. This film is best watched with other like minded individuals so you have someone to laugh with.<br /><br />You'll laugh as Greg leaps and shuffles around the lab, petting his pet rabbit, while his hunchback shifts from right to left on his back. "Greg, stop clowning!", scolds Dr. Brandon. You'll laugh as J.G. Patterson gives hand signals to direct Greg to the other side of the operating table, while his hand is in the shot. And you'll probably chuckle when you realize that the final woman has none of the features he used to construct her with.
After the wife of a plastic surgeon dies, he gets his hunchbacked assistant to help him bring her back to life with various parts of other nubile, young, girls. This film wants to be a Hersel Gordon Lewis-type romp, but fails miserably. The acting is beyond bad, the gore effects atrocious (no, not in the good way), the plot almost none-existent and no fun to be had. Skip it. You want to know how incompetent it is? At one point you can actually see a movie slateboard quite obviously.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Candy Furr gets topless and again in a flashback <br /><br />My Grade: F<br /><br />DVD Extras: Commentary with Jeffrey Hogue and Cynthia Soroka, A second feature "How to make a Doll"; Alternate Title sequence with Hershel Gordon Lewis intro; 2 shorts ("Quest of the Perfect Woman" and "Maniac Hospital"); Cover art gallery with music by the Dead Elvi; Trailers for "Dr. Black Mr. Hyde", "Boots and the Preacher"; "The Doctor and the Playgirls", "the Gruesome Twosome"; "Wizard of Gore"; "Awful Dr Orlof"; "Wacky world of Doctor Morgus"; "Proffessor Lust", "Monstrosity"; "Fanny Hill meets Dr. Erotico"; and "I, Marquis DeSade" <br /><br />Easter Eggs: Theatrical Trailer; a scene from "Just for the Hell of It"; and a trailer for "Axe"
I can't believe I even tried to watch this filth. As an avid B-Horror movie fan, I was more than riveted at the prospect of this film by popular budget horror filmmaker Herschell Gordon Lewis. Unfortunately, right from the opening of the film, I could not, for the life of me, think of a worse movie than this. Well, maybe Gigli, but I firmly believe Dr. Gore (The Body Shop) is worse when I think about it. A horrible plot that moves incredibly slow, the movie drags on with no real horror to speak of. However, I will admit to the pure hilarity of a couple scenes when Dr. Gore is mesmorizing his soon-to-be victims. The camera zooms in on his overly large, bulbous eyes, while the whole time there is this purely putrid soundtrack to add to the amusement. I laughed for the better part of 10 minutes. After he erects his "miracle woman", the movie wastes away nearly 20 minutes just showing him and his "girlfriend" as he is teaching her to speak, then they talk, frolic among marigolds, have picnics, etc. Unfortunately, there is only music playing during this whole fandango with no speech whatsoever. This portion of the movie will leave you wishing you had slit your wrists with the dull edge of a butter knife. I almost want to puke at the very thought of this movie. If you like movies that are bad, watch this one.
I know this movie is a low-budget horror movie intended for those in favor of shocks and "inexpensive" gore, but even considering that, this movie is just too dull, filled with an incoherent plot, along with awful music, and obvious signs that this movie was never finished.<br /><br />Without giving any spoilers, I'll just say that by the final reel, things are wrapped up with no explantion at all, either by film or narration. The girl Anitra is real attractive, but yet that is not a good enough reason to enjoy this movie.<br /><br />If you are a fan of those gore movies from the 60's and 70's, then you should watch it, but be warned that it does not even reach to the usual plateau of these kinds of movies.
**Spoiler* It gives away the very irrelevant ending**<br /><br />At the beginning of this movie, there was a brief intro to the world of gore by the master of gore movies, H.G. Lewis. He talked about how this movie was lost, and then found years after the director's death. He also talked about how gore movies were measured by the amount of stage blood used in it. Blood Feast was a 2 galloner, 10,000 Maniacs was a 5 galloner. But, then he goes and claims that Dr. Gore was a 15 galloner. I want to know where half of the 15 gallons went. Watching the movie, I saw very little near 15 gallons. Agreed, there was a fairly large amount of blood, but no where near 15 gallons. Some of the dismemberment scenes were definitely pretty gory and realistic, strings of flesh and all, but I wouldn't say 15 gallons.<br /><br />"END!!! ENNNNNNNNNDDDDDD!!!" Does that sound familiar? That's what you should have been saying near the last half of this movie. After the Igor character was tossed into the acid bath, the movie slowed to a painful crawl. There was no coherent end, as it didn't fit into anything the 90 minutes before it provided. She drove off in a van with a total stranger, BIG DEAL! That's what happens when you keep an individual (I won't say person, because she doesn't qualify as a person) very innocent about the world around her. The doctor teaches the girl that a man is to be loved, so every man she meets, she loves.<br /><br />Even though H.G. Lewis told us at the beginning of the movie that we may not like the acting, the directing, or even the gore... I will go with choices A and B. BOTH WERE TERRIBLE!! It was enough to give me bad dreams of cut editing and people with shifty eyes as they talk to one person. But, I made it through the movie, and came out stronger. Too bad I couldn't say the same after finishing ROBO C.H.I.C.<br /><br />This was a BAD movie. I can usually take my doses of vinegar in good stride, but every once in a while, you get a movie that bites back. I think this movie took off an arm or a leg (haha... *sigh*) Admitted, I did enjoy the stare down scenes, where the good doctor stared at his future victims and opened his eyes REALLY wide and just stared. It was VERY similar to Fuad Ramseys in Blood Feast when he stared at that lady in his catering shop, and did not use his power after that. I guess this movie picks up where Fuad's powers left off.<br /><br />*Final Judgement* The movie should have stayed lost. Good day<br /><br />-Scott-
One of the commenter's is wrong. This is not the only Pat Patterson film and he didn't die two years after this was made. He shot a film called the "Electric Chair" in Pineville, NC. He shot this a few years after Doctor Gore. Patterson died in the late 70's. I know this because he used my house and he left a cat there!! It sucked also. This was a big deal when the movie came out. No independent horror films were being made in NC. This movie didn't help matters. Patterson used to do gore effects for H. G. Lewis. He was also good at magic. His gore scenes in Body shop were actually well done. The film was shot in a building that also housed a 7/11. You can actually see the tops of the walls in some scenes. The budget was less that $20,000 and the script looked like a child wrote it. Only Patterson could understand it. Still...it's entertainment and it's a classic.
Before I saw this movie I believed there were two kinds of bad cinema. (1) Your average, completely uninspired fare (i.e. "Constantine"), and (2) the work that is charmingly bad, or so-bad-it's good (a la "Manos The Hands of Fate"). Now that I've seen "Dr. Gore" I know there is a third kind of bad movie: the utter crap sandwich. That will be irrevocably tattooed on your memory. A work that is mind-bendingly execrable. Anathema.<br /><br />I have hated certain films before, but I've never hated a film so much that my loathing reached its thresh-hold and became SELF loathing! Have you seen a movie that not only makes you regret losing the hour you spent watching it, but makes you grieve for another hour after that? Mystery Science Theatre disciples beware, this is soul-sucking cinema. Go Rent "Circle of Iron" or "The Killer Shrews" instead.
I own this movie. And it is terribly hard to find. It is a unique low budget little gore flick about a doctor seeking the perfect companion. It has the really humourous low budget feel to it, and the gore is suprisingly good for what appears to be a $500 budget. The director is claimed to be the master of gore. I wouldn't go that far, but maybe in his time he was. Overall 6/10 on the gore chart.
Ah yes, it's yet another retelling of the classic, "sociopathic murderous doctor creates female Frankenstein and falls in love".<br /><br />From the same director who brought you such timeless classics as "10,000 Maniacs" (no, not the group) and "Blood Feast", this "unfinished" film virtually cries out for the MST3K treatment. The doctor's assistant even has overtones of Torgo from the classic "Manos: The Hands Of Fate". I don't know if the graphic, if fake-looking violence or the frequent stretches of dialogue-free tedium could have scared the crew off, though.<br /><br />The main reasons to bother sitting through this movie are for the hysterical 'hypnosis' scene, the laughably serious ending and the rock-bottom production values. I actually watched all of the credits after this movie, for the same reasons you're inclined to slow down your car when you pass a serious traffic accident. That and the sheer genius of the end theme that sounds like a watered down "My Favorite Things" played on a toy piano. Goblin this ain't.
Nothing but the director's juvenile fantasy come to life. This 'movie' is nothing more than an excuse for the director/actor to play kissy face with an attractive young woman who would otherwise never give him the time of day.<br /><br />The plot is simple, the direction is nonexistent and the movie drags while the actor/director/writer/narrator narrates. Don't be fooled by the 'X' rating, there is no nudity and minimal gore.
Ouch!! What a mess we have here. Not so much of a mess as a painfully dull, half-assed excuse for exploitation. Brought to you by the one and only, J. G. "Pat" Patterson, yeah, the same one from Moonshine Mountain. Doctor Gore, formerly known as The Body Shop, is, I guess, somewhat inspired by Frankenstein, and God knows what else. The Late Mr. Patterson also stars in this joke, as a heartbroken scientist/plastic surgeon, who has recently lost his wife in a car accident, and is driven insane from grief, to the point that it becomes clear that the next step is to slaughter countless females, then maybe rob a few graves for body parts, in order to "put together" the perfect mate. It won't be easy, but thank goodness his pal Gregg the hunchback is available to lend a hand, and to offer moral support.<br /><br />If proof was ever needed that some peoples goals are not meant to be accomplished, here it is, gang. This Patterson hayseed obviously never had any business directing anything, much less, following in the footsteps of good ol' H. G. as a master of gore. I've never seen a gore movie that just flat-out refuses to give the viewer a single reason to keep watching. Even the gore is boring. Almost remotely humorous at times, but impossible to tell whether it's intentional or not. I pick "not".<br /><br />Shot in Charolotte, North Carolina (home of the California Axe Massacre), on, most likely, a 3-digit budget, by a guy, as untalented as he may have been, who probably had an appreciation for drive-in trash, so, maybe we should give good ol' J. G. a break, I mean, he tried (I assume) which is more that can be said for most, and this movie is better than any of the big-budget super-hero garbage the theaters put out these days, although, I realize that isn't saying much. Besides, Doctor Gore is quite the improvement over Patterson's previous failure, The Electic Chair, so it's slightly possible he would have improved his craft in time, had he not died, so maybe it's not all that terrible, especially compared to the other movie on the DVD, How To Make A Doll, so what the hell, check it out. 4/10
Bought for £1, Project Vampire is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Wooden acting,lame effects and a terrible storyline all add up to be a movie you have no reason to even want to see. PV is one of those movies that don't even have the good grace to be bad in an enjoyable way, instead this bile seems to try to make itself as offensively dull,stupid and crap as humanly possible.<br /><br />A vampire has created a serum he sells to old people as a life-enhancer, and those who take it fall under his control. A former lab intern teams up with a nurse to try and stop him. Someone should have stopped the makers of this rubbish.<br /><br />No one has any reason to see this movie, and I am actually appalled at the human race on the grounds that at time of writing 2 people have given this atrocity 10 out of 10.
How poor is this movie? Well, I got it less than two months ago and can hardly remember what it was about...<br /><br />I also paid a £1 for this on DVD, the old story of 'put-a-new-cover-on-the-box-and-some-fool-will-buy-it' syndrome. All I really recall it that the cast ran around a lot, use of cars must have been too above the budget and that a vampire was involved. Then again, guess you could know that from the film's title.<br /><br />Straight to video rubbish or straight to cheap-jack DVD as it is now. This stuff will be in the bargain bins at rental shops, supermarkets and charity shops until the death of the sun. Only cockroaches will rule the earth but this trash will still be around. God bless the dawn of the DVD age....
A friend of mine loves tacky horror films so I often get to see low budget stuff like this. This is, however the first time I have been compelled to write a review of one...<br /><br />Put simply this is probably the worst film I have ever seen! Even worse then Boggy Creek II!<br /><br />The entire budget for the film seems to have been spent on a brief scene in the middle when Dr. Klaus stands in this chamber thing & turns all vampire-ish.<br /><br />The only good thing to say about it is that it was hilarious after a few beers (but for all the wrong reasons).
A really terrible movie, really low-budget, with terrible acting, a convoluted and inane plot, a modest reworking of the vampire tales mixed with modern science.<br /><br />The result is a total mess, without meaning for most parts, with very limited and cheap effects. It is not even fun, like several of the low budget independent movies of this kind<br /><br />A waste of time
This is seriously the worst movie I have ever seen, right from the start the movie goes straight down hill with its cheesy music score, poor acting, and total lack or real story or plot. Even for a B movie this is down right awful. After reading some of the good reviews i thought i'd keep an open mind and watch it. But all the bad reviews were so right. I totally can't understand how anyone could have enjoyed it. I'm a huge Sci-fi fan and this was way more than i could swallow. Definlty do yourself a favor a move on to a different movie. They are many other better movies that deal with this subject matter. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
Dreamland started out moderately interesting but never went anywhere except Tedium city. A low rent affair with no name actors and laughable effects, not recommended for any reason. The best thing that could be said is it looks like they really filmed it on location in the Nevada desert. That's it, I can't think of one thing good besides that about this stinker. The finale is supposed to be some kind of revelation but falls flat like the rest. Oh, I thought of one other good point about this cheese, it clocks in at just over an hour although it still wears out its welcome long before then. When the girl starts walking around in the desert at night it seems to last forever and just keeps getting worse from there. The attempts at horror aren't effective in the least. The story is an attempt at a twilight zone style feel but fails badly. Check out "Retroactive" for a good science fiction B-movie.
I watched this because of the description and cover art and yet again was deceived.I am getting sick of all these new stupid straight to DVD horror movies.Once in a blue moon 1 will be OK. It started out with a confusing scene and then jumped 30 years and showed a couple one night during a thunderstorm which was OK because I like storms and it set a nice mood.Then it turned into a cool road trip where they ended up at a diner encountering bizarre people.The rest got weird and then got confusing.I did watch it til the end but was even more confused when it ended so badly.I had higher hopes for this movie but it was more like a science fiction then horror and something that should have been made for TV.
I watch a TON of movies and enjoy the occasional B movie but this movie was awful. Aside from the "homemade" quality of the film it was very slow and seemed to make no point. I'm only commenting b/c of another comment I saw here that said it was great! WOW! Maybe OK to watch on a rainy day when nothing else is available.<br /><br />The characters were disjointed and didn't fit any discernible pattern of reality. The dialog between characters was forced and at times very confusing.<br /><br />I guess if you were very into the whole area 51 and understood some of the nuances other comments reference, it may be good - but for me - the Average Joe - I don't get it!?
The lives of Megan(Jackie Kresler)and Dylan(Shane Elliott)change in the Nevada desert between Reno and Las Vegas. They stop to eat at a small greasy spoon where they reluctantly learn about the infamous Area 51 by the café proprietor(Jonathan Breck). After getting back on the road in their forty year old Lincoln, the radio gets a little crazy broadcasting Hitler's speech at the 1836 Olympics and then later a 1958 news bulletin of Elvis Presley being drafted into the military. The car slowly breaks down and the two are in for the scare of their lives as mysterious unexplainable things happen in the lonely radiation-poisoned desert; remnants of nuclear testing. Megan meets a lost little girl(Channing Nichols)and a wounded WWII soldier. The nightmarish journey doesn't end there. Kresler is impressive to a degree and writer/director James Lay makes good use of Patsy Cline tunes. All in all, moderately interesting Sci-Fi.
I never comment on a film, but I have to say that this was one of the worst films that I have ever seen. I feel it was made by a beginner film student and not to put down talented film students, but this was horrible! I did not buy the lead actress and felt I was in acting class with her while she was on film. Her decisions were very safe and I feel she was mimicking other actresses in films and not acting and making her own decisions. The direction was very confusing and the sound was louder than the actors themselves. The end may have made a little more sense if there was someone narrating the events and not a song. I love Patsy Cline but she her songs appear quite frequently in films. Maybe the song selection could have been a little more original. The song "crazy" was such a cliché. As I said before I never comment on films and have seen my share of good and bad, but this was the worst. Sorry.
I have to say this is the worst movie that I have ever watched in my life, I cannot believe that I wasted $10 at blockbuster ; this movie should be burned and who ever thought of it has issues. Who ever actually spent money to make this movie was insane =D This movie has TERRIBLE actors and some of the scenes make absolutely no sense. Well, the whole movie doesn't make sense. Also the part where those "men" come into the diner ( department of national securities )that happened to be the worst part of the film. How dare they say Frank Sinatra's name in vain? Also, what is up with those glasses? When the guy and girl are in the car and she "drinks" water, you can totally tell that she isn't even drinking! Also, what is up with the freaky dinner guy. And everyone knows that you don't stab tires, you slash them.
Ed Wood, perhaps the worst film maker of all time left us gems that are SO bad, they delight, being unintentionally funny and therefore charming and innocent.<br /><br />James Lay, and his financial backers (Mom and Dad, it seems from the credits) have created in 'Dreamland' a film just as poorly made as any Ed Wood film, but lacking any charm or innocence. Dreamland simply stinks, and about the only good thing about this 90 minute waste of time is the certain knowledge that James Lay and his fellow perps will never make another picture again.<br /><br />I must mention some of the dramatic lengths some of the crew took to avoid being associated with this horrible picture. I'm sure the production controller, once seeing the completed film, demanded to have his or her name changed in the credits to 'Donna Snartlebutt' and the accounting done by 'Brutus'. One can imagine 'Brutus' with his roll of 5 dollar bills paying the crew at the end of a shooting day.<br /><br />I wont mention the many technical problems with this pathetic little videotape, but I must mention a few commentaries that compare this slag to the work of David Lynch. You know you have turned out a real stinker when you have your mom log into IMDb and post such astonishing BS - no one , save violent mental patients, could -ever- mistake 'dreamland' with -anything- produced by Lynch. What a horrific slight against Mr. Lynch and his work.<br /><br />Go back to film school, Mr Lay.
Maybe James P. Lay knows what do to in the sound department if a director supervises him.<br /><br />In 'Dreamland (2007)' however, he cannot accomplish anything as a writer or as a director.<br /><br />There is absolutely nothing in this film, no story, no character building, no events, no atmosphere, no plot, no twists, no acting that deserves that name.<br /><br />In any of those departments this movie is billions of light years behind any short film that has some actual thinking in it, even a one minute one.<br /><br />It has nothing to do with any of David Lynch's works!<br /><br />I actually think it could be used as mental torture or as negative propaganda material against the West.<br /><br />Recommend it only to your worst enemies!
I cannot BELIEVE anyone is giving this film a good rating. In addition to the terrible acting, thin (nonexistent?) plot line and slooooooooow pace, this would be the movie to watch if you were really TRYING to fall asleep. The writer's and director's brains must have been fried eggs to ever have concocted something as abominable as this. Based on the plot summary on the DVD case, the premise really sounded promising. But within the first ten minutes I knew it was a lost cause. If you want to see a REALLY creep take on the Area 51 idea, check out the remake of "The Hills Have Eyes". Dreamland will soon fade away as all pathetic films of its ilk do. NEXT!!!
This film has absolutely no redeeming features. It's not even worthy of being in the 'so bad it's good' category - it's simply bad. Badly acted, badly shot, badly written, badly directed, terrible sound recording and the whole thing is just incredibly amateur. Quite how this got a release is beyond me.<br /><br />Oh, and could someone PLEASE tell the lead actress that if you're playing 'mad' that does not mean that you should constantly fiddle with your hair - in a film that was generally irritating, this was probably one of the most irritating things of all.<br /><br />On the plus side, I think this is the only film ever to feature a Nazi carjacker ...
...I can't believe there are actually people here who recommend this movie... This is such a slow POS going absolutely nowhere. Oh yeah OK it goes somewhere, but you see that coming from miles away. Acting: Really really bad, maybe the bartender was kind of OK. Editing: BAD! I suppose the editor was told "we need at least 90 minutes", cause half of all the scenes could have gone in the bin. Music: don't get me started on that, the lousiest score I've ever heard. Who is that singing in the last scene for crying out loud?? Directing: oh my, IMNSHO David Lynch sucks, but someone trying to copy him sucks even harder. Skip this one.
This film was utterly horrible. Stupid premise, and horrible acting by all. Whoever wrote this trash should be hanged. Reminds me of a hack student film, BUT WORSE. Who ever produced this should give up now. I know opinions are subjective and all, and some may think this "fantastic" as some think "Dune (1984)" was fantastic, well get off your horse and watch some real films. OK, the acting was tolerable, and with better direction could have been far better, but it didn't so it suffers. I don't know how much more I can say about this waste of film, other than to totally trash it. Anyways it was horrible and I recommend to avoid it like the plague, if you come anywhere near "dreamland", rent the movie beside it instead.
I know this film was shown on local TV when I was a kid, but I can't remember whether I watched it or not; seeing it now, considering how utterly forgettable it is, I still don't know – so I counted it as a first viewing! There have been several films featuring the title character, a creation of visionary French author Jules Verne; these include: 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA (1954; with James Mason in the role), MASTER OF THE WORLD (1961; Vincent Price), MYSTERIOUS ISLAND (1961; Herbert Lom), CAPTAIN NEMO AND THE UNDERWATER CITY (1969; Robert Ryan) and THE MYSTERIOUS ISLAND OF CAPTAIN NEMO (1973; Omar Sharif).<br /><br />This version stars Academy Award winner Jose' Ferrer. However, even if the premise itself isn't half-bad – awakened from suspended animation in his submarine, "The Nautilus", and finding himself in modern times, Nemo adopts all his ingenuity to aid the U.S. Navy in defeating megalomaniac scientist Burgess Meredith – it emerges as easily his most infantile adventure yet! For instance: five seconds into the film, Meredith's assistant – donning a steel mask – rants that "The World Shall Be Ours!"); equally hilarious are the zealous gesticulations of the similarly decked-out midget, whose task it is to fire The Professor's all-important "Delta Beam" - and how about those android-type minions aboard Meredith's vessel who never seem to do much of anything?! <br /><br />Ferrer manages to maintain his dignity throughout, but Meredith is an embarrassment (in what is virtually a retread of his Penguin characterization from the 1960s BATMAN TV series and film) where the budget was so tight – mostly invested in bland production design and shoddy special effects, no doubt, and both evidently influenced by STAR WARS (1977) – that, apparently, they couldn't even afford him a decent costume (he looks positively idiotic wearing a tie in a sub)! The supporting cast includes Mel Ferrer (playing a saboteur in the vein of Joan Fontaine from another Irwin Allen production, VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA [1961], and who engages in a swashbuckling routine with his namesake inside the engine-room of "The Nautilus"), Lynda Day George (unsurprisingly, she's the only female character around) and Horst Buchholz (as the King Of Atlantis – for whatever reason, Nemo is obsessed with locating the famed Lost Continent).<br /><br />By the way, having been reduced from a three-part mini-series for theatrical exhibition, the film obviously feels choppy – though one is still able to discern where one episode ended and another began.
This has to rate as one of the cheesiest of TV shows in a long time.<br /><br />Jose Ferrer played the title character, Nemo. He did the part justice and certainly looked the part. But nowadays, it strikes me that the Nemo he was made up to be bore more than a passing resemblance to Captain Bird's Eye, from the TV commercials. Or maybe it's the other way around.<br /><br />His nemesis, Professor Cunningham, was overacted brilliantly by Burgess Meredith. He never seemed to get over his "Penguin" days from Batman. Although he doesn't do his Penguin "quack" here, he is without parallel as the maniacal Professor. Only John Colicos, of Battlestar Galactica fame, chewed up the scenery better as a maniacal despot.<br /><br />I never can recall what the grudge was between Nemo and Cunningham, but it must have been severe, since the Prof. never missed a chance to try and scupper Nemo, and vice-versa.<br /><br />The effects were nothing special, though Prof. Cunningham's submarine was way better looking than Nemo's. It also had a crew of strange, fish-like amphibians that served Cunningham and did his every bidding.<br /><br />However, the most memorable aspect of the whole show was Prof. Cunningham's secret weapon. The Delta Beam! He was forever saying "Fire Delta Beam!", whereupon, a fishy crewman would horribly overract the motion of firing the weapon by use of a full shoulder shrug. Truly priceless! They don't make them like this anymore, and perhaps just as well. But like other series of this era, for those who remember it, it will always have an affectionate, if cheddar-covered, place in our hearts.
You'll feel like you've experienced a vacation in Hell after you have sat down and watched this horrible TV movie. This movie is an exercise in over-acting (very bad over-acting) to situations that made out to be more than what they are. I won't give away the plot, but once you realize why the people in this film are running from the native man in the film you will demand the two wasted hours of your life back. The only plus is seeing Marcia Brady running around in a bikini!
It is easy to tell early in this movie exactly what will happen, and who will die. It is about 4 women and a man who on a vacation. This was made during the end of the ultra Nazi seventies, when blonde women were supposedly ultra American survivors and brunettes were all deserving of death.<br /><br />This movie, like the others of that era, contrives to bring this about, and the viewer knows this. There is no mystery or suspense. The people squabble, but everything is so predictable for the prejudices of the time, it is laughable.<br /><br />The five people happen upon two savage young characters, and go nuts. Everyone is nuts, so that the director-writer team can justify their Nazi propaganda.<br /><br />For some reason, the guy is attracted to the blonde, who is really not much to look at, and ignores a super hot looking brunette that any heterosexual man would go nuts over. One must remember that in the seventies, movies were meant to appeal to women and not men.<br /><br />Totally crap and totally depressing.
Can there be a worst film? Even Ed Wood at his horrific worst couldn't come up with something this bad. Cheesy, stupid, long-winded, preposterous...and those are the good points. I saw this trash back in the early 80's when I was incredibly bored to begin with, and actually sat through the entire thing without blowing my brains out, although that probably would have been a more pleasant experience. I actually remembered it because it was so bad. It makes me sad in a way because some of the best directors got their start by making TV movies (ie Spielberg) and it was a wonderful way for them to get their initial material before the public, but crap like this just totally killed the entire process.
Meet Cosmo (Jason Priestley), a nerdy young bookie content with his boring life crunching numbers for the mob and living in a stark basement apartment at a senior citizens center. His only recreation is watching TV and the occasional tryst with his quirky prostitute pal, Honey (Janeane Garofalo). But one day all this changes, when the mob boss is killed and the well-regarded Cosmo is selected by the smooth and persuasive new chief, Gordon (Robert Loggia), to become a full-fledged hit man. It's an offer the reluctant Cosmo cannot-repeat, cannot-refuse, and he quickly trades in his mundane, solitary existence for a crash course in revenge under the tutelage of veteran mobster Steve (Peter Riegert), a relaxed, suburban bon vivant who relishes the job's maximum pay and minimum hours. In no time, Cosmo surprises both himself and mentor Steve by displaying an absolutely uncanny aptitude for the work. Though he's never touched a gun before, Cosmo proves to be both a crack marksman and, after an initial wave of moral hesitancy, a cool, detached killer. Soon, Cosmo is dispatching deadbeat clients with speed and style and his natural flair with a gun quickly establishes him as an invaluable addition to Gordon's mob.<br /><br />Reality gets in the way though, when one night, while being massaged by Honey, Cosmo admits feeling a bit uptight and she recommends he try yoga to relax. Cosmo takes her advice and joins a nearby yoga class taught by a beautiful young woman named Jasmine (Kimberly Williams). Cosmo is instantly taken with the kind and gentle Jasmine, who soon becomes drawn to Cosmo. Now if she can just get rid of her pesky, abusive boyfriend, Randy (Josh Charles), maybe she and Cosmo can actually start something. Cosmo, using some of the "skills" of his new trade, eventually persuades Randy to disappear and his relationship with Jasmine takes off.<br /><br />Writer/director M. Wallace Wolodarksy, a two-time Emmy Award-winner for his work on "The Tracy Ullman Show" and "The Simpsons", has fashioned a script fusing his three genre loves: "I like comedies, gangster movies and romances," explained Wolodarsky, "so I essentially smashed together all three to create this film." But what he's come up with is a film so disjointed and improbable that it looks just like a very long sketch on Saturday Night Live. It's monotonous tone doesn't so much match it's droll sense of humor, as underline the fact that a lot of money was spent on a vehicle for Jason Priestly to blithely shatter his nice guy image, which doesn't even fully succeed because he plays his character not as a nerd, but as a laconic zombie. A nerd may be naive, but a nerd has passion. Passion for inwardly directed things. But Priestly plays his character as mentally deficient, almost the anti-Forrest Gump. Unfortunately, "Coldblooded" doesn't have the sense of scope to actually BE the anti-Forrest Gump.<br /><br />Peter Riegert (Local Hero, Animal House) turns in a fine performance as usual, and Kimberly Williams does her best with what she has to work with, but Janeane Garofalo (HBO's Larry Sanders Show) is practically wasted in her role as Cosmo's friend. Probably not for long, though. Garofalo has all the enthusiasm and charm of an apple waiting to be picked and it's just a matter of time before she'll be given a meaty role, hopefully doing a tag team thing with Marisa Tomei.<br /><br />
A wonderful semi-humorous homage to Expressionistic black and white films of folks like FW Murnau, Fritz Lang, Carl Dreyer, Marcel Carné and others. Allen plays a character caught in a Kafkaesque nightmare, at first thinking he is part of a vigilante group trying to catch a killer and slowly realizing that he might be a suspect. The writing is a little forced (this is, after all, Woody Allen trying to be a coy Kafka), but the point is made, and no harm done. The cinematography is interesting, about 100 shades of gray, but make sure you watch in a very dark room with a good screen, or details will get swallowed in the fog. This is an amusing little movie with a few laughs that are actually snorts of "uh-huh". The acting is fine, considering the odd vehicle, and it's worth watching if you are big Woody Allen fan. Also of interest to those knowledgeable about Expressionistic films. I'd give this a 6.5 out of 10.
"Shadows and Fog" is surely one of Woody Allen's weakest films, right up there with "September" and "Hollywood Ending" (though nothing Allen has done equals the awfulness of "Anything Else").<br /><br />"Shadows and Fog" is Allen's homage to the German Expressionist style of film-making, all stark and stylized light and shadow and...you guessed it.....lots of fog. But you can tell Allen got caught up in the technique and the parody and forgot to make a movie that anyone would care about.<br /><br />Luckily, he made "Husbands and Wives" the same year, so things weren't a total wash for him.<br /><br />Grade: D
It may be, although there are still two or three I've missed. This film constructs an interesting nocturnal cityscape, reminiscent of so many foggy scenes from Sherlock Holmes movies, and populates it with sinister, Kafka-esque characters. Into their midst, the movie drops Mia Farrow, who sounds like she's still playing Hannah, and Woody Allen, who seems to be reprising his nebbish role from Play It Again Sam. Are we supposed to laugh at his stammering and hand-wringing? I suppose I would, if the rest of the movie were clearly a comedy, but it's not. At least I don't think it is.
If good intentions made a film great, then this film might be one of the greatest films ever made. The film has great actors, a master director, a significant theme--at least a would-be significant theme, undertone of fifties existential world-weariness, aerial scenes that ought to have thrilled both senses and imagination, and characters about which one might deeply care. It is about patriotism and about patriotism in a healthy way.<br /><br />Not quite ten years after the film, I knew Air Force officers who taught my R.O.T.C. classes at university. They were intellectuals. They thought deeply about their work. They has senses of humor. One had been a crew member on the first plane to drop a hydrogen bomb. I have wondered if any one of them died in Vietnam. I imagine that they flew missions there.<br /><br />Regrettably, the film fails. The movie lacks visual interest, drama, expression of feeling, and celebration of the very patriotism that underlines the narrative. No actress has been worse used that June Allison in this movie. Her Susan Holland is a woman that one would flee, not embrace. Col. James Stewart (who as then a colonel) makes a good stab at this role as Lt. Col(and later Col.) Dutch Holland. But the most interesting thing he does in the role is bite into a sandwich. I'm not kidding. Stewart was good as biting in sandwiches as he did in The Spirit of Saint Louis. <br /><br />One might think of Ted Williams, but I don't when I watch Mr. Steward in the role. I do think of William Holden as Lt. Harry Brubaker in The Bridges at Toko-Ri . The comparison is not good for Mr. Stewart, who seems wasted in this film.<br /><br />Footage shot from a B-36 looks like outtakes from commercials for an airline. Though beautiful, the aerial shots are mundane. For the time, they might have impressed viewers. The crash in Greenland involves unexciting modeling You expect the outcome to be good.<br /><br />The undertone--the subtext-- for the film voices the tedium that Air Force flight crews must have felt during their long missions and the banality that the Air Force used to make its business--well business like any other business. One imagines how a La Nouvelle Vague director might explore this theme and then one begins to think about how someone with imagination might have filmed this movie. Little moments are missed.When crews returned from long missions, the members of the crew got a shot of scotch and a massage before debriefing the mission. Showing that might have helped.<br /><br />Banality was the image the Air Force wanted and Mr. Mann accommodated the brass. Maybe, in that sense, the film works, but not for me.<br /><br />I mourn when I watch the movie, because I think all of us, director, actors, crew, viewers, and members of the armed services might have enjoyed giving and getting much more than we get here.<br /><br />I don't think that this movie had to be Dr. Strangelove or 2001, both of which it presages, but it had potential never realized. Yet, I enjoy watching it. I think of the airmen on their long missions and the ground crews in isolated places. There is a certain sense of honor celebrated here and I celebrate that honor. <br /><br />I certainly understand why people who praise this movie here and other places appreciate it. If there were no intentional fallacy, it would get a 10 from me.<br /><br />.
This film reeks of production line planning. It appears like the filmmakers looked at recent hit movies, and threw spaghetti on the screen - Jimmy Stewart! June Allyson! Anthony Mann! Baseball! War! Baby! Airplane! - ROLL 'EM! - The film does address the age of the Stewart/Allyson performers; though, I'm certain we are still supposed to think they are much younger.<br /><br />There are messages in "Strategic Air Command" I found curiously shocking and offensive, but I'll stick with one truly wretched element: The happily married couple is challenged when Mr. Stewart's character makes an important decision without consulting his wife. In the film's most dramatic scene, she calls him on it. It ends completely unresolved - Allyson is crying her heart out on their bed, and Stewart walks out on her. NO discussion; he simply says he is correct, and walks out on his devastated wife. For all he knows, she could slit her wrists.<br /><br />Later, Allyson apologizes for questioning her husband's decision.<br /><br />Unbelievable! <br /><br />Stick with Stewart-Allyson in "The Stratton Story" (1949). <br /><br />** Strategic Air Command (3/25/55) Anthony Mann ~ James Stewart, June Allyson, Frank Lovejoy
An anonymous film which could have been directed by anyone at all.Where is Anthony Mann,the director of such classics as "El Cid" " the naked spur" or "the man from Laramie"?<br /><br />There are marvelous shots of planes in the clouds,lovingly filmed.The story is very trite ,and almost completely devoid of dramatization.The couple lives an almost routine life and the user who complains about June Allyson's choice for the wife ,IMHO,totally misses the point.With her less-than-attractive look,her hoarse voice,she was the perfect housewife the screenplay needed.At the time,women were barefoot and pregnant:there 's not one single woman among the base staff,even in the desk jobs -.All they had to do was worrying about their hubbies ,who were fighting for democracy and against an Enemy whose name we never hear ,but in 1955,it was not hard to guess it.<br /><br />One wonders why a young person who has never seen a Mann movie should choose this one among all the great movies he made.
This is a low grade cold war propaganda film crossed with a soapie. It may have some long-term significance as a snapshot of 1950s US thinking, but there is little else to commend in the mawkish storyline, wooden acting and grating style. There are some interesting photos of long-gone aircraft, but that was not enough for even this aircraft enthusiast to leave it on the screen for the full length.
Firstly, let me make it clear that I love aircraft, and usually any film with them in is worth watching - and I've sat through some shocking ones. However, the same is not true of this film. James Stewart is an excellent actor, but he is wasted in this Strategic Air Command promotional film. The acting is mediocre, and the direction is weak. I had to stop watching this awful rubbish about half way through. This was despite some really good, maybe even the best, aerial photography. The trouble is, even for an aviation nut like me, making something out of the shocking aircraft featured (B-36 and B-47) just grates on the nerves too much. It's a shame that the film wasn't made when the B-52 appeared, then the superlatives used for the aircraft in this film would have been valid. Then I might have been able to sit through it. Perhaps I'm missing the point of the film, which may be the angst suffered by loved ones while their beloved are on active duties. In any case, it could have been done much better. Recommendation? Well worth missing.
This film is a load of crap. It's quite disturbing to see that anyone is able to say that this is one of the best films of the year. What can I say? Bad acting, bad action scenes which becomes really comical in the end. Pardon me if this was a comedy, then I didn't understand it. If it was I regret laughing of the tent scenes! Do yourself a favor - go to bed instead of watching this! Good night!
I was told about this film from a friend who saw it late night during the week He told me it was so bad that I had to see it! So I went on an auction site and bought the film. This is probably the worst film I have EVER seen. It makes you laugh when it really shouldn't. Terrible acting and terrible storyline. Plus he looks nothing like Michael Jackson?!<br /><br />I still recommend buying this film as its one of the funniest things you will ever see. Van Peebles is a joke in this film.<br /><br />Robots cant bluff... PSYCHE!<br /><br />I have to say though the special effects are actually amazing... PSYCHE! DVDs were probably even out when this film came out but if I had my way it would be a straight to VHS release yes people it is THAT bad!
Solo is an action movie about a Terminator-like android that is constructed and trained for the military. When a flaw is discovered, he is issued to be deprogrammed. Rather than face death, he chooses to flee into the jungles of Central America, where he takes refuge in a village. The military chases him into there, leading into a big action feast.<br /><br />Mario Van Peebles does a decent performance the android. His movements and gestures look mechanical enough to get the job done. Actual scientific realism is abandoned in order to make a good action hero. And it works out; the action scenes aren't that spectacular, but they aren't all too bad either. The acting from the other characters is pretty bad, but I was not expecting anything too good. The special effects were decent as well.<br /><br />Solo is decent as an action flick, but very forgettable. It lacks the substance that most movies possess. But if you just want to pass a couple hours without much thinking, this will get the job done.
The novel WEAPON which serves as the basis for this atrocious piece of garbage is one of the best techno-thrillers to come down the pike in a long time.The character of SOLO, who is NOT supposed to look like a human, is a wonderful creation and it was simply awful to see him reduced to just another Terminator-clone with Mario Van Peebles horrendously trying to "act" like a robot. There is NOTHING worthwhile about this film.<br /><br />Why does Hollywood insist on snapping up the rights to excellent novels and then butchering them? There are so many things wrong with SOLO that listing them seems as unfair as inviting a man with no legs to a brisk game of Hopscotch. Avoid this awful film and seek out the 2 novels by ROBERT MASON that feature the awesome character of SOLO. The books are WEAPON and an excellent sequel SOLO.But don't pay any attention to this awful dreck of a film.
Solo starts as a team of US soldiers go into Soth America to blow up a rebel airstrip, joining them is a robot named Solo (Mario Van Peebles) who can use any weapon ever made, is fifteen times stronger & ten times faster than any human being. Something goes wrong though & Solo refuses to kill innocent civilians which Colonel Frank Madden (William Sadler) isn't happy about, back at base & General Haynes (Barry Corbin) orders Solo to be shut down & reprogrammed. One of Solo's main directives is self preservation so decides to escape back into the South American jungles where Colonel Madden & his men are sent in to recapture it...<br /><br />This Mexican American co-production was directed by Norberto Barba & one has to say Solo is awful. The script by David Corley was based on the novel 'Weapon' by Robert Mason & is one cliché after another, robots were popular at the time Solo was made in Hollywood & at the box-office so Solo rip-offs the likes of Robocop (1987), Universal Soldier (1992) & the two Terminator flicks as well as having the same setting & basic story as Predator (1987). This is the usual rubbish about an emotionless robot who grows a sense of humanity while being around people, at first he doesn't know what a joke is or why one person would care for another but by the end he develops emotions & starts to befriend people, sounds like Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) to me. The character's are poor & Colonel Madden in particular is given absolutely no motivation for hating Solo at all & why he would kill other US soldiers & disobey orders to destroy it. You know I saw this on cable telly last night for free (thank god I didn't spend any money on it) & I looked it up in the TV guide & do you know what it said? My TV guide described Solo as a 'dire sci-fi action starring Mario Van Peebels' which when I think about it is a perfect description of Solo. In less than ten words my TV guide has hit the nail on the head, I mean it's a sci-fi action film, it certainly stars Mario Van Peebles & it's definitely dire. Enough said really.<br /><br />Director Barba doesn't do anything particularly special here & the action scenes lack any real excitement & the sci-fi elements are virtually none existent apart from the fact Solo is a robot. So the military lose Solo & Colonel Madden is sent in to recapture it right? I'm not being funny but wouldn't the military have put a 'self destruct' mechanism inside Solo in case something like that happened? Surely at the very least Solo would have had a tracking device inside it so the military would at least know where it was at any given time? I'm not being funny but these people can come up with a walking talking robotic soldier but they are not clever enough to realise that a tracking or self destruct device might be useful if anything went wrong? The violence is mild, there are a few OK fight scenes but this is pretty weak stuff really.<br /><br />Technically the film looks alright & is competently made, it was actually shot in Mexico. The makers of the Dolph Lundgren action flick Agent Red (2000) edited footage from Solo into that film. The acting is poor, Van Peebles was the perfect choice to play an emotionless robot... William Sadler deserves better than this, it was only a few years prior he was staring in the fantastic Die Hard 2: Die Harder (1990).<br /><br />Solo is a really bad sci-fi action flick which is basically a huge rip-off of big budget Hollywood sci-fi action films like Robocop, Universal Soldier & the Terminator films. Not recommend & I'm going to start & pay more attention to my TV guide when it comes to choosing films to watch...
I had the dubious opportunity to view this movie on TV. It's the perfect example of how to take a terrible script and turn it into one of the worst films ever made. Not only is the acting bad and the effects terrible, the movie has more logical holes than ten pounds of imported swiss cheese.<br /><br />I would highly recommend this film as an example of how NOT to make a movie and what director not to use in one of yours.<br /><br />I turned off the TV during the last ten hideous minutes of the show. Calling it "pathetic" is a gross understatement.
When you see Barry Corbin in the cast of a movie, you can never be sure if it will be a classic or trash. Guess which category SOLO falls into. Apparently derived from a popular sci-fi novel, WEAPON, SOLO stars Mario Van Peebles as a human-looking robot who decides to think for himself and is thus targeted for elimination. He hides out in a Mexican village, obviously to save money on locations and extras. Paying in pesos is cheaper than paying in dollars, I suspect. William Sadler is along for the ride, as one of the robots and soldiers sent to destroy Van Peebles. Van Peebles manages to beat them all with ease, of course, while Corbin watches all this with bemusement from afar. The movie is a horrible ripoff of the THE TERMINATOR and CYBORG series, and apparently has little to do with its source material. It is horribly written and acted, and the big fight at the end if downright comical. Van Peebles, a decent actor elsewhere, is a scream as he pretends to be a robot covered in synthetic flesh. He looks like he is doing the Robot Dance most of the time.
Solo is a poor film - that cannot be ignored. The acting for the most part is very wooden (the only exception is Adrien Brody's performance as Solo's creator Bill) and the story is slight enough that you would probably forget it WHILST you where watching the film. That said, such films are more about the action than the plot/acting and, as such, live or die by the action set pieces - that after all is the point of such films - to give 14 year-olds something to smile at whilst the adults watch films of actual substance. And even on this Solo fails to deliver - what little action there is is poorly done, dull and uninspired. After seeing the trailer for this on television I was hoping for something along the lines of Predator with a robot replacing the Predaot. Instead I got a fairly lifeless action film with a poorly constructed attempt at depth by taking on message that robots can feel too. Watch Terminator II or Predator instead.. both classics that this film desperately wants to be except it lacks the inspiration or, to be fair, the budget.
Mario Van Peebles tries to go the Jean-Claude Van Damme route and play a renegade robotic soldier who goes AWOL to preserve himself, however the government isn't going to take this lying down, so among the simplistic plot Van Peebles protects villagers from the rebel forces and defeats a improved version of himself in this disappointing film. This blatant rip off of Universal Soldier (Which is far more fun then this) simply goes nowhere. The main problem is that the movie is so unbelievably inert. Van Peebles just waits around and there just isn't enough ass-kicking to justify a viewing. On the other hand the movie does sort of resemble a competent version of R.O.T.O.R although where as that abysmal bad movie was hilarious, this one only yields occasional laughter in its laughably unconvincing action sequences. Also like R.O.T.O.R it makes no sense in its narrative and basically the movie is awesomely boring. Plus the villains are disappointingly weak and basically the movie needs an actual action scenario to work, because the material is too dull. In all regards Solo is a very weak film.<br /><br />*1/2 out of 4-(Poor)
You know I only watched 15 minutes of this film, so I can't really describe how great it is. I mean the concept alone is so original and intriguing it just did not let me go. Then there is the mass of academy award winning people involved here plus the academy award nominated director. YOU JUST CAN'T miss. I mean imagine it is the middle of the night and you're not sleepy yet. This film comes on. You watch it and are shocked. It is so brilliant, so original it is so GREAT. It will feel to you that half an hour later you've turned off the screen, but as you go to your bed you see it's only 15 minutes after midnight. ENJOY!!!<br /><br />3 out of 10
I didn't have much high hopes for this one. Before seeing it, the story yelled "stereotype" at me.<br /><br />I mean... come on! It's so stupid the plot line about the innocent android that realizes that the people who created him are immoral, then decides to change everything.<br /><br />I had to see it three times. The first two times I fell asleep because I was so incredibly bored by it. It's very rare that movies bore me so much I fall asleep during them. The third time I forced myself to watch it, simply to be able to warn people about it.<br /><br />I got the distinct impression that the people responsible for this mess had tried to take all the cool/neat things from other scifi/action movies, and put them together to make a kick-ass movie! They took the android/robot, lots of action, thin story, stereotype characters, and a big fight in the end and threw it together. Unfortunately, the movie sucks. The acting is so wooden you could build a house out of it, the storyline/plot is absolutely laughable, the camerawork and editing is horrid, the direction is non-existent, and to top it all off, everything is so cliche and ridiculous that it just annoys the hell out of you.<br /><br />I was left with the feeling that I could've spent the time watching this one doing something much more creative, like trimming my fingernails, or watching the grass grow.
I am usually a big fan of Pacino (Scarface, Serpico, Devils advocate) but since Scent of a woman he pretty much plays the same role and shouts a lot. This movie had no endearing characters to warm to. Brandon played by Bongo McConnahey is the least likable of the bunch. He nowhere even approached a real human being. Pacino was hopelessly unlikeable and my goodness how old is Renee Russo? The only high light of this wretched mess was the hot hooker with the perfect lipstick and she has like 10 lines total. Even the usually reliable Jeremy Piven was utterly unlikeable.<br /><br />Note to writers of movies, they do not usually work unless one of the main characters is at least a bit likable (noteable exception Scarface). As the movie closes and old Brandon is at the airport my only thought was, please let a plane crash into the airport and kill Brandon.
I went into this movie determined to like it. I usually enjoy dramas like Wall Street, Glen Gary Glen Ross, Boiler Room, etc...I went into this movie thinking I would be on the edge of my seat. Plus, I am a big Pacino fan.<br /><br />What a piece of garbage. Quite possibly the worst movie I have seen in five years. This makes Pacino's debacle in Any Given Sunday actually look good. First, half the movie is watching Matthew McConaughey lift weights. OK, we get it. You are in shape Matt. We don't need to see every other scene with you pumping iron, shirtless.<br /><br />Secondly, how many plot holes are in this movie? Why introduce the phone call from Brandon's long lost Dad and never address it again? What was the point of his Mom hanging up on him - why even have her call to say he is sending her too much money - what was the point of that? The guy from Puerto Rico who lost 30 million? Also, since sports betting is illegal in NY, and its acknowledged its illegal, how can they possibly guarantee everyone's bet at the end? <br /><br />This was simply a very poorly written script. It had potential, but it was devoid of a coherent plot. I thought Pacino learned his lesson about script selection after Any Given Sunday, but apparently not. My Gosh, this is the same actor that starred in the Godfather! <br /><br />Don't waste your money.
Very poor script and acting. I was very surprised that the director was able to convince his cast with his empty story that tells us nothing new. All is in the cliché of the "mentor" and the "talented immature pupil". The characters aren't' even interesting nor sympathetic. Artistically it is as empty and insignificant. The colours are very impersonal and light. Only the poster may be appealing. Al Pacino tries very hard to give depth to his character with no success. Too bad because the sport betting can be a really interesting subject to which many could relate. But I can't have a complete comment on this movie any way as i got out from the theatre 20 minutes before ending. Everything was so predictable that it was a waist of time...
This movie was utterly and unequivocally terrible. The plot was so predictable and boring and the script so corny and pretentious that by the end I wanted to stab my eyes with the nearest pen.<br /><br />Normally I don't write reviews, but I was astonished by the number of positive reviews it got. While I admit that the acting was okay at some parts, the script's deficiencies more than outweighed the decent acting. The only reason I watched this was because a few of my friends were watching it, introducing it as most likely the worst movie ever made, judging by the trailer. We were not disappointed in the least. Its only saving grace is that it contained my new favorite pickup line:<br /><br />BRANDON: I just want to get to know you.<br /><br />GIRL: You just want to get into my pants.<br /><br />BRANDON: I want to get into your mind, your heart, your soul. I don't see you wearing any pants in this equation.<br /><br />Overall, I would rate this movie as the worst movie I ever saw that took itself seriously.
For all the cast and crew who worked on this excuse for a movie, another payday in L.A. For any audience hoping for a fair return for the price of admission, a huge waste of time and money. The saddest aspect of this ugly exercise (to me) is that we are watching an extremely talented actor, Pacino, seemingly playing a parody of himself. That's what remained with me as a total mystery. I can fully understand the need for movie industry people to work and thus make a living. What I fail to comprehend is an artist of Al Pacino's talent prostituting and embarrassing himself with this level of mindless junk. Hopefully he'll choose projects of better value in the future...and for value, save your time and hard earned money. Skip this!! Let's send Hollywood and Al a message.
Al Pacino was once an actor capable of making a role work without resorting to constant use of profanity. In other words when he could act, he didn't have to talk like some street junkie. McConaughey must have been impressed by Pacino because he became a promoter of the "F" word also. This might be the kind of society that they actually live in, but most of us have the common decency to watch what we say in mixed company. I don't recall the exact words that a professor used in explaining the constant use of profanity, but it was something like this. "It shows a lack of intelligence, poor language skills and disrespect for all those that have to listen." Maybe it is time that Al takes some acting courses again to sharpen his talent. Oh yes, the movie... Probably the worse thing that McConaughey has played in. Hopefully his next role will be in the company of more talented people. Rene Russo as always was hot.
I will leave it to my bettors, uhh, betters here to gape and gawk at this wonderful wonderawful movie, and just say that I thought it stunk. The great thing about this site is you always get a variety of views, and seek them out, by all means. No telling what you will come out of the film with. For me, the ones who saw through the simplicities and shenanigans of it have my money. There was one, dead on perfect when he pointed out the two grand moments of the thing, which belong to Pacino. The meeting and the airport. Other than that, well, what a waste of time. Utterly. Pacino is just doing the same thing over and over and over, he would have been better served by taking the performance down about five notches at about the level of his protégé. Everybody always says, but this movie could have been so much better. Sure they all could have been. But really most of them just should never have been made. Including this one.
Another entry in the Pacino-As-Mentor sub-genre. You know the drill: young hotshot with hubristic flaw (in this case, Matthew McConaughey, trying to jump-start a flagging career by latching onto Pacino's coattails -- hey, it worked for Keanu and Colin, didn't it?) is discovered by glamorous and delightfully corrupt father figure (Pacino, natch). Young Hotshot learns from Father Figure all the ins-and-outs of a lucrative yet degrading career (this time, it's football handicapping). Father Figure plies Young Hotshot with money and hookers and power, but we all know that this decadent state of affairs is on a collision course with dissolution and despair . . . that is, until the Young Hotshot finds his moral center by rejecting the Father Figure and all, or almost all, that he stands for. (Clearly, Stone's *Wall Street* pretty much set the ground rules for the Pacino-As-Mentor sub-genre.)<br /><br />We are also meant to take these latter-day Pacino films as a parallel to reality. Again, you know the drill: Living-Legend Actor demonstrates his unquestioned superiority as compared to an Inferior Young Actor. The latter may bear and grin through the process, but he must recognize that he isn't going to get any of the good lines, much less get a chance to chew major scenery before the denouement. Now it must be said that there are actually two good movies in the Pacino-As-Mentor canon: *Scent of a Woman* and *Donnie Brasco*. In the former case, it was a one-man show, anyway; in the latter case, Pacino had met his match as a scene-stealer in the person of Johnny Depp. However, those two movies were serious-minded, not merely an exercise in showboating for showboating's sake. Pacino has made damn certain that his younger co-stars in the films since *Brasco* are nowhere near as charismatic as Depp. By the way, none of this speaks very well about the Living-Legend Actor. Like his contemporary De Niro, Pacino has spent the last 10 or 15 years resting on his laurels. *Two for the Money* is the worst example yet, worse even than *Devil's Advocate*, which at least had the virtues of featuring a naked Connie Nielsen and being chronologically prior to this movie. Well, this is what happens when you're crowned King too damn early -- just ask Marlon Brando. Frankly, I've seen one too many Al Pacino films with the same plot -- and the same overacting from the star -- to be charitable any longer. Did I say "none of this speaks well"? Actually, it's humiliating for everyone involved, including the paying audience. No one's going to accuse Matthew McConaughey of being a Shakespearean actor, but even he doesn't deserve the role of second-fiddle to this intolerable old show-off, with the added implication that he, McConaughey, will never measure up to the Greatness That Is Al.<br /><br />I've not wasted space on the plot particulars. If you want a synopsis, IMDb provides a no-nonsense summary, though I think I laid out a fairly comprehensive summary in my opening paragraph. Basically, you've seen this movie before. Many times. The particular milieu in *Two for the Money* is the seedy world (underworld, really) of sports handicapping. Pacino runs an office of "bet advisers" -- that is, middlemen between you and your bookie -- and even has a cable TV handicapping show, co-hosted with several of his top guys. One thing the movie got right was the sleaziness of these type of shows . . . but one detail they got dead wrong was the constant use of the words "gamble" and "gambling". If you've ever seen ProLine or other shows of similar ilk, you'll NEVER, NEVER hear Jim Feist and his cohorts say the word "gamble". They ask you to call their 1-900 number to get their picks . . . but if you were from, say, Mars, you'd have no idea what you were supposed to do with those picks. "Gamble" is the F-word on sports-handicapping TV shows -- strictly verboten.<br /><br />Gambling is against the law, you know.<br /><br />1 star out of 10.
Just finished watching 2FTM. The trailers intrigued me so much I actually went to see it on opening weekend, something I never do. Needless to say I was very disappointed. The story has so much potential and it's frustrating to see it get screwed up. I really feel the problem with the movie was the directing and Matthew McConaughey. First off I am not a MM hater, I thought he was awesome in both Reign of Fire and Lone Star. I enjoyed his performance in those movies without having to see him with his shirt off 3-4 times. Yes we all get it that he a good-looking guy with a nice body, but I think most people knew this 10 years ago when he came on the scene in A Time to Kill. Showing him with his shirt off pumping iron like a sweaty madman 3-4 times in the movie is totally unnecessary. I think one time would have been sufficient. It wouldn't surprise me if they threw those unnecessary scenes in so girlfriends and wives would be willing to tag along with their significant other, no woman wants to see a movie about sports gambling, unless......Enough about that, let's get into his role. I feel his acting was very forced and he didn't seem very comfortable. I know his character was supposed to be this charming southerner, but his lines were corny and cheesy. It was almost like he was referencing Days and Confused lines a few times! In short, I didn't like his character even though I was supposed to. The accent, his shirt off, corny pick up lines, weak sales pitches. His character was just too much of a tool, as Brandon or Jonathan. Pacino and Assante were great, but that' no surprise. Piven is fun to watch as Arie....oooops I mean Jerry. I just feel this movie was very commercial and put together poorly. It's insulting that they could take a great story, and throw in crap ingredients to try and make it a box office success. 1. Cool story that appeals to the male man 2. Hunky Hollywood actor for female women (make sure he has numerous scenes with shirt off lifting weights) 3. Al Pacino with 4 great speech scenes, and 25 great one liners 3. Every character shall be dressed in thousand dollars suites and have an extremely dark tan 4. Jeremy Piven to play the same character he did in Entourage and Old School 4. Throw in Armand Assante to seal the deal 5. Plot, good writing, character development, and intelligent casting are unnecessary<br /><br />This will be good enough for most people, but not me! Anybody who disagrees with me, ask your self this. Would this movie be much better if: A. Directed by Sodeberg B. DeCaprio or Ed Norton as Brandon instead of MM<br /><br />I will probably be part of the minority in thinking this movie sucks. I realized this when the woman next to me started crying during the ridiculous ending scene of Pacino shedding a fake tear while embracing Russo. The financial success of this movie will ensure one thing. The movie going public gets what the movie going public wants, big budget crapola.
Pacino, and Maconadump really hit the mark with this stinker. I swear, I am an avid movie goer and fan. I have been a fan of most of the people in this abortion at one time or another. Until now. The story-crap The acting- crap(Rene Ruso-Major League was good) The plot-crap The subplot-garbage The teenage attempts to relate to sports betting-junk<br /><br />I have vowed to watch Romy and Michelle's High School reunion 2 times a day for the next seven days as my punishment for not turning this colostomy bag of a movie off after 10 minutes. I was out of town for a seminar, and this pile of mung cost me $9.99, and 2 hours. I have been cheated. This director should be in jail for fraud.<br /><br />Get with me if you have other review questions. I am always right.
This is by far probably the worst film Al Pacino could have starred in. The movie had no real plot. It kind of careens into 24 different directions. It seems that the target audience for this film are people from gambler's anonymous.Mat Mcconaughey's character is not believable enough to be Pacino's protégé'. So he won a few bets for some degenerate clients as a sideline to a shitty job recording on a 900 service. Does that automatically supposed to convince an audience of his skills? It was just plain stupid to think of. The trailer did promise to show us how he makes his sure-shot picks but after going through the whole film I have yet to see what skill if any he ever had. If you want skill try looking at Robert de Niro's character in Casino now that is showmanship. At some point in the film, Mat's character picks his winning bets at a flip of a coin. Anybody could do that. Al Pacino seems to talk a lot and I mean blabber mouth in your face dialog. I think that style started with Scent of a Woman and worked for him because he finally won an Oscar but now I think its just irritating. He seems to be always sermonizing. He does do a mean act of portraying a man having unstable angina (that's an impending heart attack) its typically reminiscent of his acting in Godather part 3 which he plays the aging,diabetic mafia don corleone but other than that Pacino's talent is wasted on this film. Rene Russo is just plain eye candy for this film. She's kept in shape and shows it off in the tight clothes she wears throughout. This film is plain crap. Do not waste your money on it. It is much worse than the gambling picks of Mats character in the film.
Please do not go see this. I did have several laughs throughout this movie, but they were all due to unintentional comedy.<br /><br />There were only three characters in this movie, so it was amazing how bad the character development was. Pacino played Pacino again and was aggravating most of the time. The scenes in this movie seem like they were put together from 20 other bad movies by a really poor editor. There is no continuity and I found myself wondering why I didn't leave 15 minutes into this.<br /><br />I would suggest never seeing a movie directed by D.J. Caruso. This really was awful.
Well to do American divorcée with more money than brains buys a rundown villa in Tuscany. (Much more money; whilst having to dicker over the price, she subsequently manages to cook sumptuous buffets for her workmen and wander around Italy indefinitely with no job or apparent means of support.) Interminable boredom and the inevitable Italian lover ensue; this is a chick flick in the most pejorative sense of the term. Lane acts like an unskilled clueless teenage ingénue throughout - which dynamically clashes with her seriously fading looks - along the way smashing into a variety of (mostly Italian) cardboard stereotypes, dykes, divas, senile contessas and gigolos among them. Bloated with unnecessary scenes, the most ridiculous being a clumsily inserted and pointless recreation of the fountain scene in 'La Dolce Vita'. (A similar conceit was used in an effective and appropriate narrative context in 'Only You', Norman Jewison's vastly superior ode to Italy and romance). 'Tuscan Sun' may be the most vacant piece of cinema of the last decade, despite its admittedly well-lensed panoramas of Italy. Bonus negative point for the extraneous lover parachuted in at the last minute to provide requisite Hollywood ending for its targeted audience of Oprah-brainwashed housewives. Avoid at all costs, unless, of course, you view Oprah and Dr. Phil as pinnacles of intelligent discourse.
Yes i really found this film distasteful. <br /><br />I didn't like the Sandra Oh character, she really annoyed me. It is unlikely she would be accepted into rural Italian life due to the fact she is non-white. this was a bit of PC nonsense. <br /><br />the film is also offensive to Italian men. For instance, the one man she (Diane Lane) has an affair is turns out to be a caddish cheat. But guess what: at the end your typically plasticky American brick-head turns up, all cheesy white smile and tan, and she finally finds what she wants all along: a real American man, and now she has colonized another part of the world. <br /><br />In fact, this film is quite racist in its depiction of Italians and the way it subjugates them as either smarmy lotharios or backward peasants. <br /><br />the photography was good but the film and its attitude were trash.
Ridiculous, nauseating doggerel with terrible acting; ineptly, superficially, and condescendingly trawling all the most banal clichés about Tuscany and Italy, divorce and midlife. The main actor nervously grimaces her way through the film, struggling to portray the appropriate level of smug, self-congratulatory self-pity the worthless character and script call for. I'm sure the book was bad, but it can't have been this bad! The camera is permanently fitted with a vomit-yellow "Tuscan" lense filter (perhaps the Tuscan sun wasn't Tuscan enough?), which they forgot to remove when the scene shifts to Rome and (how imaginative!) the Amalfi coast. You've never seen the white marble of Rome's Vittorio Emmanuelle monument looking so yellow... I mean Tuscan. One of the worst movies ever, and therefore quite worth a look.
Diane Lane is beautiful and sexy, and Tuscany is gorgeous but this film is no better than mediocre and that's being generous. The story line is grafted onto a travelogue and remains thoroughly uninvolving.<br /><br />Set in (let's say) a suburb of Newark, the plot would be deemed ridiculous. All that saves the movie are the Tuscan countryside and occasional scenes set in Florence and Positano, and a film of the while-the-sun-sinks-slowly-in-the-west variety would have served better to show what it certainly one of the loveliest locales in all the world.
The movie had no excitement and does not have anything to hold your interest. The movie had nothing exiting,funny,dramatic or romantic about it!!! How can a movie be romantic if the girl never gets a the right guy until the last seen in the movie, than the movie ends??? Maybe part II will be romantic, but somebody else will have to risk wasting their money! I have nothing else to say other than do not waste your time!!! The movie had nothing exiting,funny,dramatic or romantic about it!!! The movie had nothing exiting,funny,dramatic or romantic about it!!! The movie had nothing exiting,funny,dramatic or romantic about it!!! The movie had nothing exiting,funny,dramatic or romantic about it!!!
This movie was supposedly based on a non-fiction book. I'm not sure what book the script writer(s) read to write their adaptation but it has absolutely nothing to do with the true life adventures of Frances Mayes in Italy. Instead, it is an uninteresting tale that takes liberties at every juncture to bash men. Note the following examples:<br /><br />********************************************************************<br /><br />SPOILER DETAILS<br /><br />********************************************************************<br /><br />Bash Number One : Lane's husband cheats on her and her marriage ends in a divorce.<br /><br />Bash Number Two : Lane ventures into a local Italian town and is promptly solicited by every male on the street.<br /><br />Bash Number Three : Lane is saved from the horny town folk men by a charming gentlemen. She falls for him after consummating an afternoon of love making. She later finds out that he's already attached and cheating with her.<br /><br />Bash Number Four : You have to broaden your horizon for this one because the reference is definitely is in the movie. Her lesbian couple friends decide to have a baby by invetro (SP?) fertilization. I am told that in most lesbian relationships, you have one person assuming the female role and another assuming the male role. In the movie, after the female has been made pregnant, the "male" lesbian decides to run out on the relationship because she can not handle it.<br /><br />In conclusion, this movie has nothing to do with the book that it was supposedly based on.
This movie was thoroughly unwholesome, unsettling and unsatisfying. Apart from a few nice shots of Italy, there's nothing to recommend this movie. As usual, Hollywood draws the wrong conclusion from a fractured existence--the _next_ guy you meet, whom you sleep with after knowing for a few hours, _he_ must be Mr. Right. As for humor, there is some in the movie, but I can't see how anyone could possibly label this a romantic _comedy_ since about three-quarters of the movie is totally depressing! My recommendation? Skip it in the theaters, wait till it comes out on DVD, then skip it there also. I want someone to give me back the two hours I wasted watching this dreck, drivel, dross.
This is just another one of those "American finds romance with charming foreigner in exotic European locale." This genre has been cinematically bankrupt since the 1950s, yet they continue to churn them out. I let my girlfriend talk me into seeing this - bad idea, we both hated it. If all you want to see is Tuscany, try watching "Stealing Beauty" with Liv Tyler - a marginally better movie.<br /><br />This types of genre movies are very Hallmark Greeting Card-ish.
If you're a North American 'TOURIST' looking for a 'TRAP' here it is. Was this "Trading Spaces visits TUSCANY?" There were way too many stereotypes. Little attention was given to character and plot development. YAWN. Highlight of the film: the flag throwing. Poor guy! I thought he was going to loose an eye!
If you feel like wasting 86 minutes on a film that makes no sense, is badly written ,with a bad plot and bad acting then this little gem is for you. Recommended for those who are about to fall asleep. Major annoyance will be felt by the awake viewer. Do not pay to see this movie!
Got to confess right up front that I didn't watch this entire movie. I missed the first hour during a Sci Fi Channel broadcast. Or was I spared the first hour? The other reviewers sum this one up nicely. It was badly conceived. Badly scripted. Badly acted.<br /><br />But the worst thing for me was the ADR. The entire film, which appeared to have been dubbed, sounded like it was done in somebody's garage. There was a voluminous echo to the words, which just served to make the bad dialog hang. And hang. And hang. Even a made for TV movie should have recognized this.<br /><br />And the idea that alternate dimensions are differentiated by color saturation went out in the 80s, folks.
The Bermuda Triangle ,we are told in this waste of celluloid, is the portal to another time and dimension and can be crossed using cheap special effects by bad actors spouting inane dialogue<br /><br />I simply was unable to decide who the makers of this excresence thought would be its target audience as it seems impossible anybody could derive even a modicum of pleasure from the outcome Avoid-its not even bad enough to be good.
This is the worst movie that I have ever seen. At first i thought that it was going to be good because I'm interested in the bermuda triangle, but instead it was terrible. All it did was offer a bunch of lame explinations that didn't make sense (if time moves differently there how come the woman didn't age, and her son aged rapidly), and have a horrible sappy ending. Next time the guys who made this go to Bermuda they should take all copies of this movie with them. Please everyone vote for this movie so it can get on the worst movie list.
On the positive, I'll say it's pretty enough to be watchable. On the negative, it's insipid enough to cause regret for another 2 hours of life wasted in front of the screen. Long, whiny and pointless. And I'm not saying this to be mean, I really wanted to like this film, it seemed to have everything going for it, had the so called "buzz", and was a hassle to track down besides. Had a little more effort gone into it on the story side, I believe this would've been amazing. And I expect the team behind it will produce wonderful work in the future, they clearly have the ability. But I recommend waiting for their future efforts, let this one go.
With NBC's "Thank God You're Here", the network may be trying to replicate the successes of ABC's improv sitcom, "Who's Line Is It Anyway?" in which host Drew Carey would judge the performances of a handful of cast regulars asked to improvise scenes of some kind. In the NBC show, Dave Foley and co-host Dave Alan Grier oversee a handful of notable comedians who must improvise their way through various scenes which all begin with "Thank God You're Here." It takes itself far too seriously (why must viewers be repeatedly reminded that the actors have never seen the sets before), both co-hosts seem less then enthused. After watching the continuously sub-par, unfunny attempts by the actors to solicit some laughs, I am left wondering whether the live audience is genuinely laughing at what transpires, or whether they, too, are improvising. Expect this time slot filler to be a very short-lived one.
This show is terrible. I cannot get over the complete waste of great talent this show contains. This is not entertaining improvisational acting, it's just a cheap attempt to throw someone famous comedic actors onto a stage and have them perform a poorly improved scene. I have actually done improv work as an actor, and this show is not improv.<br /><br />What the audience is actually laughing at (if they're actually laughing at this show at all, it looks quite fake) is the embarrassment of the guest star being lost like a deer in headlights. The dumb, completely unrelated things they come up with are what people laugh at. And if it's not part of the scene, the actors will tell them that it's wrong! I find this show is disgrace to the art, and makes me cry for shows like Whose Line is it Anyway, which had great talent, great improv games, and on top of everything else, didn't make me want to change the channel.
THANK GOD YOU'RE HERE is painful, positively painful. The title is apt, in a sense, if aimed at the large studio audience paid to laugh like they were watching the second coming of the Marx Brothers. And trust me, they are paid.<br /><br />As creatively barren as the entertainment industry has become, I refuse to believe that NBC brass really have faith in this turkey. Rather, I think THANK GOD YOU'RE HERE is what all of you get who didn't watch, or didn't appreciate STUDIO 60, which previously graced the peacock network's Monday night lineup. You want to turn your nose up at caviar, fine. Here's some lovely Alpo direct from Menu Foods for you to slop around in.
Talk about creepy. If you really want to sit down and watch this episode where the girl who was in Firefly later on gets kidnapped there's entertainment for you, but only if you like this sort of thing. I don't so I thought, to be frank, this episode was appalling. Thankfully it's one of a few duff episodes in Season 3, and the only Charles Grant Craig episode, so you don't get much of this sort of thing in Season 3. So, overall verdict? Just read the summary at the top. This is a strong contender (Hell Money says hi!) for worst episode of Season 3. To be honest though, I hadn't really expected much. I wish I could Oubliette this episode altogether. That's one thing they got right: the title.
When Jan Svankmajer lets his imagination run wild, get ready. You're in for dark, harrowing films like "Alice" and "Little Otik," or short gems such as "Down to the Cellar" and "Jabberwocky." All of those are excellent films that represent disturbing, surrealistic film-making at its best.<br /><br />On the other hand, when Svankmajer attempts to make a political statement of any kind, you're advised to leave the room in a hurry. Svankmajer's films in this vein tend to be both adolescent and preachy, presenting straw-man caricatures in repetitious fashion to express his pseudo-brilliant insights.<br /><br />"Lunacy," unfortunately, is very much this latter type of movie. Cartoonish ideas and characters are stretched paper-thin for an appalling two hours. There are a few moments that briefly hold interest, but these few oases are separated by vast deserts of boredom.<br /><br />If you found Svankmajer's dreadful, monotonous short film "Et Cetera" brilliant and hilarious, you'll probably love "Lunacy." If you've never seen a Svankmajer film before, please start elsewhere.
It starts quite good, but after a while you start to expect more from this film than you are actually getting. Everything becomes unclear and unclear it stays. Czech filmmakers were good 20 or more years ago. But after they transfered to Capitalistic country, here it is, Czech unofficial but well known mentality ... COPYING ... COPYING ... COPYING of everything they consider good, when they see it in another movies or countries or elsewhere. I think that this is a good example of making "art" and "politics" and "horror" and "humor" and "film" and money. And it remains me of the /One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest/, which can not be compared to this film in the way of ART and ACTORS and STORY and POLITICS. I think this film is boring. It could be done better. At least, they tried. Sorry guys. :-( CANOT NOT Recommend
Although allegedly autobiographical, this movie demonstrates very little insight both into the protagonist's psychology (resulting in a flat, fragmented characterization) as well as into larger-scale historical processes, and my hope of either learning something new or improving my understanding of contemporary Iran remained unfulfilled. Instead, I found my sensibilities somewhat dulled as a succession of bearded Islamic villains replaced each other taunting, torturing or killing the wantonly victimized prototypical middle-class Iranian whose Western cultural sympathies were patent (and whose exoneration the movie quite blatantly seeks.) The deeper understanding the movie does seem to demonstrate is that of the mass-media market, as it serves to nourish prevalent occidental folk-ideologies (i.e. a "crowd pleaser"). <br /><br />What redeemed the movie from being outright boring was its creative animation - genuinely minimalistic imagery which, nevertheless, always kept the screen rich, expressive and unambiguous - no small fete for which I do give it some stars.
The only good thing about Persepolis is the shadows created in the German Expressionism-style of animation and a hint of history. This movie bored me. It was about a woman dissatisfied with her culture who tries everything else and then goes back to her roots. Here she finds great discontentment once again and finally leaves for final to let everyone else in her country figure out the situation and what they will do now that she is not there to support them. It comes to no conclusion and leaves us with a feeling that this woman has no loyalties. Mind you, she is torn between cultures and doesn't have enough of a background it seems to figure what is important and real. She is listening to ever-so-many voices and will most likely end up a world citizen of some kind than one with any ties to her native culture of Iran. The only thing I received from this movie was angst.
i will be honest and say i gave up on watching it somewhere mid-way and then fast forward with a few breaks. then i came back here and read many of the reviews already made....<br /><br />maybe is just me, and i can not help it, but this cartoon to north American society seems to have a purpose of "lets save them from themselves" and iraq comes to mind right away. it seems to me that this is a justification, or part of, for another invasion with "good intentions".<br /><br />the lady to me seems a self indulged person and i frankly got annoyed at her portrait of trying to raise pity and "feel" for her. well in this case this could never happen because, just like a history teacher has already mentioned here, i NEED to know how come her family was so wealthy above average, manage to keep that ( were they playing both sides maybe?)and send her to Paris!? now, if this would have been made after a poor girl's biography i could see myself having certain emotions. but as it stands + its release timing this is just pure propaganda movie; even worse, since its cartoon, it overplays the "soft" side of tings too well for its own good , in order to possibly be taken serious.<br /><br />besides there are those clichés regarding gays. well, a woman that fights toward winning her rights should not have at least some compassion for the underdogs of society just like her??? the message is obviously self indulgent from the view of a ruling class member.<br /><br />i only give it 2 stars because its production and related stuff. a propaganda movie obviously has interests in convincing-manipulating my thoughts and therefore generally is well done appealing to certain visual emotions that i can not deny i might have as well.
25 August 2003 League of Extraordinary Gentlemen:<br /><br />Sean Connery is one of the all time greats and I have been a fan of his since the 1950's. I went to this movie because Sean Connery was the main actor. I had not read reviews or had any prior knowledge of the movie. The movie surprised me quite a bit. The scenery and sights were spectacular, but the plot was unreal to the point of being ridiculous. In my mind this was not one of his better movies it could be the worst. Why he chose to be in this movie is a mystery. For me, going to this movie was a waste of my time. I will continue to go to his movies and add his movies to my video collection. But I can't see wasting money to put this movie in my collection
This is the only movie that I can think of where after it ended, I was seething with anger at the waste of money and time on the part of myself and everyone involved in making it. No wonder Alan Moore refused to have anything to do with V for Vendetta (a phenomenal film) after this debacle.<br /><br />It's not bad in an entertaining way, like Showgirls. It's bad in a way that makes you want to claw your eyes out. Plot holes the size of planets. The worst script in memory. Horrible acting by decent actors. Visuals that should be great, but somehow flop. <br /><br />It could have been so good...
"De Dominee" is based on the life of a real dutch gangster,Klaas Bruinsma! In the movie he is called Klaas Donkers! I have my doubts that events presented in the movie have something to do with what really happened! But that doesn't really matter! Because it failed to grab my attention! This movie bored the crap out of me! It lacks substance and style! The substance part could have been forgiven if the acting was any good and if the director tried to do something original! Without the substance you at least have to bring some style or decent action! Don't we need to be entertained? It would have helped if the director had seen more gangster movies! It is obvious that he didn't! Otherwise he wouldn't have made this the way he did! This movie got a lot of publicity because of a little scandal surrounding Klaas Bruinsma and a member of the Dutch Royal family! This scandal has nothing to do with the movie what so ever! Without it "De Dominee" never would have been successful! I am sure of it!
To begin with, I have to admit I've never been a big fan of the Dutch movie-genre. Unfortunately watching De Dominee hasn't made me change my mind. It shares some common flaws, like having a plot that's too predictable and linear for my taste. <br /><br />Worse however is that the cast has their dialogues as if they were stage-actors in a play. Unfortunately this is common too in many Dutch movies and, at least to me, makes it impossible to feel any kind of involvement with the main characters.<br /><br />The actor that plays Adri (I'm sorry, I forgot his name at the moment) is at least delivering a decent performance, and is one of the reasons I don't rate this movie even worse.Another reason is the fact that at least it seems to have had some budget, and the production seems professional. <br /><br />Ironically the fact that the acting is often too articulated might not be so much of a problem if you don't speak Dutch,although I already warned you that the plot isn't spectacular either, but at least it might make it an acceptable movie to watch.
After some quite OK Dutch action flicks, like Lek and Van God Los, Gerrard Verhage wants to make a movie about the life of a Dutch mobster. Well, mobster is a big word for Klaas Bruinsma. He isn't a real international big guy like George Jung (Blow) or Pablo Escobar. He is just an Amsterdam lowlife who made some money by selling soft-drugs. Things are often blown up in the Netherlands, and this movie is just an other example. But even then, the movie could be very nice if the story was okay told. Now there are major jumps in time: one day KLaas is just an ordinary drug-boy, the next shot he seems to be a big player in the drug-scene. Nobody knows how's that possible (except for those who read the book). The acting is really bad, the non-Dutch movie-watchers get to see one of the worst actresses in the Netherlands: Chantal Janzen. When you think she finally gets naked, then you are watching a stand in model. So: bad acting + bad montage + crap story = De Dominee.<br /><br />Please don't watch it, even if other people say it's good, because it isn't. I've warned you.
The brands in this film, like Suit Supply, take away from the story, cause it's supposed to be set in the eighties. It's not a very thrilling film. Also, the single from Intwine on the soundtrack is very bad, it has a chorus that is repeated numerous times', like "I'm a cruel man, I take it all away, I'm a cruel man I'm here to stay.." Jeeez couldn't those asswipes have come up with something better than that? I guess they wrote it in a couple of minutes..<br /><br />It's really annoying, just like the product placement in this filmproduct,that cashes in on the controversy and publicity around a criminal who should not be a celebrity like he is now made out to be, but should be forgotten like rats ought to be.
Eliza Dushku is a very talented and beautiful actress. She manages to be the rock-steady centre of "Tru Calling" but that's not enough to rescue her TV series from mediocrity. It's a real shame that a woman as attractive and talented as Dushku should go from a meaty supporting role in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" to this clunker. <br /><br />Unoriginal and desperately trying to be hip, "Tru Calling" fails to excite on any level above hormonal. The eponymous heroine spends a lot of her time running hither and yon across what must be a very small city, in order to avert the deaths of good-looking corpses-to-be that she's already met in the mortuary where she works. Despite all the running she does, she always arrives looking like she's just stepped out of a portable air-conditioned dressing room. <br /><br />In every episode, Eliza Dushku and the rest of the cast struggle to breath life into the bland, characterless screenplays but it's a pointless exercise. "Tru Calling" just lies on the slab, gazing lifelessly at the ceiling.
Tru Calling was good but it could have been great. The concept was intriguing and allowed for seriously strange and frightening story lines that might have been explored in future. Unfortunately the writing and an actor let the show down.<br /><br />The writing wasn't too bad but there were holes. In episode 13, "Drop Dead Gorgeous", an incredibly toxic poison was supposedly used to kill the victim. This was so toxic and killed so quickly the victim had no time to run or even scream for help. Yet there was no plausible explanation for how the killer obtained such a powerful poison.<br /><br />In episode 15, "The Getaway", the off-duty policeman responded unrealistically. In the second diner scene he (meekly) tells the robber to drop the gun and when she doesn't follow the order, and in fact turns the gun in his direction, he allows it to turn into a standoff and then escalate into a hostage situation – the very situation he'd been warned about. His response should (would) have been to shoot the robber when she failed to follow his order and upon her turning the gun on him. There are other faults in the stories but I'll leave it with these two examples. In spite of the writing faults I did like the show.<br /><br />The other problem I had was that I just could not accept Eliza Dushku in this roll. In my opinion she is too inexperienced and lightweight to carry this part. She never walked anywhere, she marched; and far too often she came to an abrupt stop on her mark. <br /><br />She also lacked any really emotional facial expression or intonation. She either has a pensive look or a cute smile; rarely are other emotions apparent. When she tries to appear dramatic she begins her line looking away and 'then' turns her eyes to her fellow actor. Or alternatively she begins her line looking at her opposite and then looks away. Both are annoying when done as a replacement for true emotion. An example of her lack of intonation is in episode 20, "Two Weddings and a Funeral", during her second wedding speech is devoid of emotion (eg. hearts in our hearts).<br /><br />I liked all of the other actors in their respective parts and they were all believable. With improved writing and a lead change Tru Calling might have made it.
The only thing it has to offer is the interesting opposites of Tru and Jack, their choices and viewpoints, and the philosophical questions that it raises. Tru feels that she is helping people who aren't supposed to die, and Jack feels that they are supposed to die, and she is messing with fate's plan, or the universe's plan, or such-whatnot.<br /><br />But she is obviously able to change things, so there is obviously no such thing as fate in the series' metaphysics. Jack has no basis for believing that there is. And very conveniently, Tru never asks him the right questions. Nobody does. Which obviously proves that the makers of the series don't have an answer.<br /><br />There simply is no plot!<br /><br />Instead, they leave it murky in order for the series to be able to continue with it's boring girl stuff, only occasionally interrupted by Tru and Jack's racing against each other towards ends that are unknown...<br /><br />It turns out that there is nothing to any of it. A teenage pop series with that pretends to be something else.<br /><br />Your time will be better spent sleeping.
I usually don't write reviews for shows unless I've seen them in full. However, there were so many positive views of this show on here I felt it was necessary to balance it out with a bit of realism.<br /><br />This show is hysterically bad. I don't think it was meant to be, but it is. I see that there's lots of praise being showered upon the show, and I honestly can't understand why--- this show is so poorly acted, the dialogue is so awful, and the plots are thin around their holes.<br /><br />I think that this show is interesting in that it is a definite litmus test of your standards. Some elements of the show work, and perhaps those elements are just more important to some people than those that don't work, which make the show nearly unwatchable to people like me.<br /><br />If you enjoy making fun of a show as you watch it, anticipating clichéd lines and such, this can be an enjoyable show to ridicule, if you have that sort of time on your hands.<br /><br />The pilot is a pretty fair example of the whole show. If the nonsense saccharin cliché ending doesn't leave you in a dumb shock, then this may be a show for you.
Or anyone else have noticed the fact that first bunch of episodes are inspired too much by 90's flicks?<br /><br />I mean seriously wife who is trying get someone else to murder his rich husband so she can claim his assets. Med students who are temporarily stopping their hearts to reach memories that are lost; Flatliners. Bunch of college bodies getting together again to reminisce on the old days but are not fully comfortable because they did something in the past, Very Bad Things? Groundhog day is one of my all time favorite movies. Sadly enough the writing staff behind his turd is bunch of lazy bastards who can not come up with their original scripts.<br /><br />Noble idea totally fubarred in it's execution.
I awarded this presentation 4 stars. They are all for the script, which has been butchered beyond recognition in places. What can possibly be said? They took one of the finest plays written in the last century and methodically robbed it of its heart, humor and humanity. I don't really blame the actors, who are probably doing their best with shoddy direction and incomplete characters (because the very complete characters of the stage version have had their insides -- and insights -- ripped out). I do very much blame the director, who seems to strain to find ways to undermine the script. There are so many awkward pauses, awkwardly re-staged moments and awkwardly re-imagined line readings in this TV movie that at times, I forgot ever loving the play. I'm not one of these people who thinks that genius plays are automatically inferior on film (quite the contrary), but this particular genius play has been tremendously under-served by this outing. Now I hope they'll make a *real* film of this play. The world deserves it.
From the start this film drags and drags. Clumsy overdubs explaining the history, monochrome acting, boring sets, total lack of any humanity, verve or style. The actors look as if they are drugged. Potentially an interesting story completely wasted. Surely somebody realised how bad it was at some point in producing it?
I simply cannot understand how any Who fan, or just plain anyone could find this awful, lazy, poorly written abomination even remotely funny. It is so embarrassingly below par that it qualifies as a genuine tragedy. The potential for this was huge, it could have been great. What a shame that all that acting talent, the sets, the props, the goodwill of everyone involved was so pathetically wasted by a script that should have been burned.<br /><br />There is an obvious lack of any rigorous production and quality control here. Like those hammy Hollywood movies (mad mad mad world, casino royale) where the stars are just mugging for each other and 'having a great time' which basically means picking up a cheque for doing nothing.<br /><br />I could have written a better Who send-up in my sleep. In fact I have, while awake though. I did it in Year 10 in high school and performed it with a bunch of classmates. It was better, I look at it now and the gags are funnier. Steven Moffat YOU ARE A NO TALENT BUM! What a waste, what a wasted opportunity. Makes me want to cry....
Tonight's film course film was The Legend of the Suram Fortress and during its 87 minute running time it managed to quickly jump into my top five most difficult films of all time. That's difficult to watch; films so different to everything else that you're seeing something totally alien. A brief synopsis would be: a group of Georgians are trying to build a fortress to defend themselves from invaders, but every time they are about to put on the finishing touches, for no readily apparent reasons it collapses. So they go and see a fortune teller who advises them that if they want to get the fortress to stay standing, they need to find a youth, a tall blonde blue eyed boy to be buried into one of the walls during the construction and his presence will ensure that the construction job will be completed smoothly. And sure enough in those closing moments there he is gladly being smeared in cement and eggs, giggling as he's buried alive, with only his mother to grieve.<br /><br />It actually a fairly simple story. But the director, Sergo Paradjanov, working in Soviet Georgia in 1984, not too long after leaving a fifteen year jail term, doesn't follow any of the film making rules we are used to. There are very few close ups. Very often the action we need to be following is hidden in the bottom left hand corner of a landscape shot, extra-ordinarily easy to miss. There are very few close ups and at times its hard to tell whose doing what to whom and why. Every now and then the film goes off on digressions which have no relevance to the main plot and generally serve to confuse the viewer. The music is utterly mad, with found sounds, on screen instruments and church organ dropped in seemingly at random. At times when nothing seems to be happening, someone will break into a jig, almost playing time until the next scene comes along. But infuriatingly there is an obvious cinematic voice behind it all so you're compelled to try and understand the message whatever it is. One of those times when your eyes are glued to the screen simply because you can't believe what you're seeing.
<br /><br />I understand that people have different expectations of low-budget, arthouse movies. I also know that John Sayles has a sort of glow about him, that earthy, intellectual anti-hollywood vibe, a la Tim Robbins, the Coen brothers and Atom Egoyan, that makes him a darling with the critics from the get-go.<br /><br />But this is not a good movie. I'm sorry, it just isn't.<br /><br />It meanders. It has too many characters. Its tone is uneven, its point of view is muddled, the acting is all over the board, from naturalistic to over the top. It lingers for long moments with minor characters we don't care about and cuts away from tense scenes just when things are getting good.<br /><br />It misses the mark.<br /><br />The worst flaw in the movie is that the two closest things to a protagonist, Edie Falco's Marly and Angela Bassett's Desiree, are straight-jacketed in characters that have no drive. Marly is an apathetic drunk, steeped in her life's own inertia. Desiree is a woman trapped in her own repressed pain. When your two main characters' world-views can be summed up with the phrases "I don't care" and "I want to leave here," why should the audience give a rat's patootie?<br /><br />I'll be plain: Sayles writes funny dialogue. He's very adept at crafting a scene. The problem is, these scenes don't go anywhere. There's no spine to the movie. No drive. The movie doesn't create rooting interest in any of the characters. In my opinion, he's also too preachy about big bad corporate America gobbling up the little guy. <br /><br />If you want to see a quality "small" movie, see David Lynch's "Straight Story." Pass this one up.
This is a movie from Toilet Pictures. If the name of the production company is any indication how stinky a movie is, then this would be it. I think I'm not really a fan of horror movies, not that I'm chicken, but rather this year alone, I haven't been genuinely spooked by what's on offer so far, be it from the West, or from Asia. 9:56 is no different, great premise, but poor execution, relying on clichéd techniques (I think these are the only tools of the trade available?) to try and elicit some heart thumping moments.<br /><br />Se-jin (Ko So-young) is a lonely career woman, who one day notices that some apartments in the block of flats opposite hers, undergo blackouts simultaneously at precisely 9:56pm everyday. No, she's no voyeur, but a series of unexplained deaths in the neighbourhood, including one which she encounters herself on a subway, start to draw her deeper and deeper into the mystery surrounding these deaths.<br /><br />With horror movies, there's always a pseudo-logical explanation within the movie about how the spooks come about. That's just about the most interesting thing that happens in the film, the unravelling of the "Truth", although it won't take seasoned film lovers to guess the plot halfway through. Which of course makes it a very unsatisfying experience watching this movie.<br /><br />There's a myriad of characters like the wheelchair bound girl, and the neighbours who take turns to care for her, as well as a schoolgirl, detective, a mentally challenged boy and a spooky train commuter. But following genre formula, these folks are there usually as fodder for deaths, or in this case, pointless red herring characters whose sole aim by the filmmakers is to mislead the audience, nevermind if they convolute, or add little to forward the plot.<br /><br />And don't get me started on the techniques employed here. Quick cuts, sudden appearances, long hair ghouls (ahhhhhhh, so passe!) who can't move properly, copious amount of blood like it flows down a mountain for free, and the list goes on. But credit to the sound engineers for creating some ear piercing bone crunching sounds used each time the spooks move, though it seems like a one trick pony.<br /><br />Don't waste time on this, even if you're a horror fan. It's a complete waste of a promising premise, and in the end, you feel like you've just be taken on a ride. A very long and painful one to endure. It's high time for some innovation in this genre, otherwise one film will easily look like another, with ugly long haired monsters moving funny but with the ability to make sudden appearances accompanied by loud sounds. Oh, and can someone oil those doors while they're at it as well.
A woman finds herself caught up in an apparently inexplicable rash of suicides. Then again, are these really suicides? It seems as though there's a ghost on the loose. Guess what? The ghost has long black hair that hides its face, and it moves about with its head or arms twisted this way or that, making for a very weird looking specter. Recurrent theme music plays from unexpected locations to announce the arrival of the ghost, and bizarre sound effects--which resemble the sound of small twigs being snapped--always accompany this hapless spirit. Does any of this sound familiar? Well, if you've seen a few Asian horror movies in the last 10 years, it should. Borrowing heavily and unabashedly from "The Ring", "One Last Call" and a few other recent horror hits, this film tries to carry an uninteresting and worn-out plot to a climax, but we've seen it all before. Avoid it unless you're desperate or haven't seen any other Asian horror movies in the last 10 years.
I have no respect for IMDb ratings anymore. I think a bunch of Mormons flooded the website and voted for this. This is not an artistic movie, it is Mormon propaganda. Nothing wrong with that, but the plot outline and the way it is described is totally misleading. If you are a bible thumping Christian or a Mormon, watch this movie, you'll love it and think it is truly amazing. For anyone else, don't bother, the story is so contrived, random stuff happens that really doesn't follow in a coherent way. This guy tries to commit suicide cause he sleeps with his neighbor. Are you kidding? What a pussy! Anyways, this is an awful movie.
I had heard good things about "States of Grace" and came in with an open mind. I thought that "God's Army" was okay, and I thought that maybe Dutcher had improved and matured as a filmmaker. The film began with some shaky acting, and I thought, "well, maybe it will get better." Unfortunately, it never did. The picture starts out by introducing two elders -- Mormon missionaries -- and it seems that the audience will get to know them and grow to care about them. Instead, the story degenerates into a highly improbable series of unfortunate events highlighting blatant disobedience by the missionaries (something that undeniably exists, but rarely on the level that Dutcher portrays) and it becomes almost laughable.<br /><br />Dutcher's only success in this movie is his successful alienation of his target audience. By unrealistically and inaccurately portraying the lives of Mormon missionaries, Dutcher accomplishes nothing more than angering his predominantly Mormon audience. The film in no way reflects reality. Missions are nothing like what Dutcher shows (having served a Mormon mission myself I can attest to this fact) and gang life in California certainly contains much more explicit language than the occasional mild vulgarity.<br /><br />The conclusion, which I'm assuming was supposed to touch the audience and inspire them to believe that forgiveness is available to all, was both unbelievable (c'mon, the entire mission gathers to see this elder sent home -- and the mom and the girl are standing right next to each other!) and cheesy. Next time, Dutcher, try making a movie that SOMEONE can identify with.
This very finely crafted film commits the unforgivable (which is ironic, given the film's theme). No one coming into this film knows what they are in for. Worse than that, 3/4 of the way into the film, no one still has any clue of what they're in for because everything up to that "moment" is a different movie.<br /><br />As a front-row fan of Dutcher's first two films, easily competing for the Best 2 Mormon films to date (competing with Saints and Soldiers and, now, New York Doll--saw that at a screening), Dutcher had me wanting to see his film for a very long time. I was there. I wanted to believe, believe that I'd see the next great Mormon movie, one that would hold the Numero Uno spot for a very long time. But no. Three-fourths in the film took the sharpest of left turns and dragged me through something that I never wanted to go through. He takes on the Mt. Everest of all moral issues, yea, both of them, with little time or emotional capacity left to adequately address them, but instead waves them both off with a nod towards Jesus as if that will make all things well, instantly. (True it is that Jesus saves. Don't accuse me of not believing that. That's not Dutcher's problem.)<br /><br />Is the film shot well? Indeed. Do the actors act? They acted their pants off. Was the music appropriate? All but whatever was over the closing credits. Everything about this film was superb, except the story, which was so dank and wrong, that all else doesn't matter. (I learned "dank" from New York Doll, very decent show, by the way.) The third act of the film was neither desirable nor pleasant nor faith affirming. I know Dutcher was bending over backwards to make it so, but I was so far shoved out of the movie at that point that nothing, no thing, could have brought me back. The preposterous unbelievability of dozens of details in the final minutes didn't help. Anyone who's been on a mission knows what I'm talking about, especially anyone who—Spoiler Alert—is familiar with events surrounding someone being sent home from a mission early for moral and/or psychological reasons. It's as if a parallel universe suddenly sprung up where normal rules or behaviors suddenly don't apply.<br /><br />There are a million things good about this film, but they were created and beautified only to be trampled upon and thrown away in a knee-jerk fit of "ooh, this will really get them" elitism. Hence, unforgivable. I can only hope that when Dutcher puts the finishing touches on his next film ("Falling", apparently), that he remembers that film critics can only buy so many tickets and that it's the fans that pay the bills. That's why the first God's Army was such an unqualified success.<br /><br />Dutcher's shock and awe approach proves that when it comes to the Big Issues he is in way over his head, having neither the spiritual nor creative maturity nor business sense necessary to take them on. I pray—pray!—he learns his lesson and that years from now he and we all look back, with a chagrin, and rejoice that he pulled his head out of where the Light doesn't shine and really, successfully, takes on those and other issues and changes the world forever because of it.
I was sorely disappointed in this movie. Twice I was temped to walk out because segments of the movie were so demoralizing and depressing. The movie has elements that allude to all the seamy things in life (pornography, murder, suicide, fornication, hatred, gang warfare). The graphic nature of the violence in this movie was particularly disturbing.<br /><br />And Richard Dutcher does a great disservice to the LDS Church in portraying missionary attitudes, commitment, spirituality, and obedience as unfocused and lackadaisical.<br /><br />My biggest objection to this movie, however, was that it is the exact opposite of a feel-good movie.<br /><br />Dutcher's God's Army One was okay. His Brigham City was quite good. This movie, in terms of casting, acting, and drama was his best. But in terms of being inspiring or uplifting it was as awful as it could be. In fact, this movie so demoralized me that I am sorry I went. I have lost interest in ever again supporting Dutcher in an LDS-themed movie with a ticket purchase.
I can't believe some of the comments here in the reviews. The film is dated of course, and from our comfortable viewpoint in the age of CGG a lot of the special effects are deeply unconvincing now. But even allowing for this, Helen of Troy is so bad that it is almost laughable. <br /><br />The scripting is awful, just awful, with no characterisation at all. The performances suffer as a result, you can see the likes of Hardwicke and Andrews writhing in an agony of embarrassment as they deliver the most ridiculous shallow trite codswallop lines. The writers seem to feel the need to explain almost everything in a dreadful didactic screenplay that allows the viewer to decide nothing for him/herself at all. The beginning of the movie spells out the historical background as if no one had ever heard of ancient Greece; I know they had American audiences to take into consideration, but the patronising way we are told everything twice to make sure we understood the action is really awful.<br /><br />I honestly can't believe the comments above describing this movie as a great epic film. Even allowing for the comparatively primitive cinematography and the relative sophistication of today's audience, this movie truly stinks.
Go up to any film fan and ask them the title of the film which was directed by Robert Wise, with second-unit direction by Yakima Canutt and Sergio Leone, was designed by Ken Adam and scored by Max Steiner, starred Sir Stanley Baker, Sir Cedric Hardwicke and Brigitte Bardot, was filmed in colour, scope and stereo, at Cinecitta in 1955, with a thousand extras - and they'll tell you to go away and stop being silly.<br /><br />They'll tell you that no such film EXISTS. That the names you've quoted NEVER worked together - they weren't even contemporaneous. And that you've just picked the names out of a movie publication at random and are attempting to befuddle them.<br /><br />At which point you can direct them to IMDb and show them the cast and crew of "Helen Of Troy". They'll be amazed! This lesser-known sword-and-sandal epic has ALL these names and more - Niall MacGinnis, Janette Scott and good old Harry Andrews.<br /><br />And it is certainly an oddity. After the war, 1,000 Italian extras cost about $25 a day and toga dramas were a staple of Italian cinema. The orgy scenes were shot twice - one with tops, the other without (you can guess which version Britain and America got). I believe even La Sophia is an extra in this one.<br /><br />Either way, the names STAGGER the mind. But it's really just a coincidence. All of said names were either just reaching the ends of their careers (Canutt, Steiner) or beginning them (everybody else).<br /><br />Only Robert Wise and Niall MacGinnis were in the middle of their careers.<br /><br />For the record, Leone was uncredited and learning his trade - Adam still had to invent the descending circle in the ceiling of sets (a trademark he'd go on to put into all the early Bonds) - Baker had yet to star in and help produce the likes of "Zulu" and "Robbery" - and go on to direct a Welsh TV company called Harlech - then die tragically young.<br /><br />While Harry Andrews would go on to become one of Britain's favourite character actors - Janette Scott (Thora Hird's daughter) would never make the really big time, but who can forget her in "Day Of The Triffids" (even though her bit was added later - for padding and a happy ending) or "Crack In The World"?<br /><br />Sir Cedric was theatre, but knew how to mug on film - and Bardot... was BARDOT, for gawdsake!<br /><br />But what were these stellar people DOING in this camp old nonsense? Don't ask me. The two main stars were no-name Italians - Helen had a moustache and Paris was pretty - while the Brits were only there for support.<br /><br />To summarise, I think you can just mark this one up as a major FLUKE. In stereo. To be honest, if I hadn't seen it - I wouldn't believe it EITHER!
'Helen of Troy' follows the story of Helen and the outbreak of the Trojan War. This is more of a love story between Helen and Paris, who is shipwrecked and falls in love with Helen without knowing she is queen. The film portrays the couple as lovesick and wanting nothing more than to be together. (Other films and books have different portrayals of the characters, but in this one, they are simply hopelessly in love.) The film is pretty slow-moving in some places, but the battles and the detail to the scenery are done pretty well. There are also some good performances. I thought that the slave girl did a particularly good job, and she was one of the most well-liked characters.<br /><br />Overall, this is a good adaption if you can look beyond the slow-moving story in places and look beyond some of the cheesy romance and dialogue. In my opinion, a perfect Iliad film version has not yet been created, but this one is entertaining and does have some good bits.
I saw this movie in 1956 and again on Cable a few days ago. The movie hasn't improved with age. Quite the opposite. It's a true spaghetti epic.<br /><br />The Trojans are heroic and likable; the Greeks are nasty, petty and sneaky.<br /><br />So what if Paris ran off with the King's wife? Hey...love is love.
Awful Star Wars knock-off with a slightly more comic tinge. Robert Urich stars as the leader of a group of ice pirates, who steal ice because water is the most valuable substance in the universe now (how all the poor people stay alive is a mystery). He hooks up with Mary Crosby (Bing's daughter, around 25 and a total cutie), a princess looking for her missing father. Also in the cast are an embarrassed-looking Anjelica Huston in some hilarious sci-fi get-ups and a pudgy, short-ish Ron Perlman (whom I thought was seven feet tall from his other roles!). And John Carradine, who looks days from death and Hollywood Squares funnyman (relative term) Bruce Vilanch. If you ever wanted to see Bruce Vilanch get decapitated, here's your film. But, then again, even that's not worth seeing, as it doesn't shut him up at all (think he might have been a robot, but I nodded off a couple of times).
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away (sound familiar), water has become the most precious commodity (this has got to sound familiar) and a small minority control its distribution (what a surprise, just have a heart attack and die from that surprise). A group of ice pirates (water renegades?…wet bandits?...oh wait, that last one's been used) try to discover the route to a fabled unlimited supply of water with a lovely but spoiled (Druish?) princess en tow and a group of idiots…er…despicable villains in pursuit.<br /><br />This movie has the potential to be a really great comedic parody ("Star Wars," David Lynch's "Dune") but was just not handled correctly. It goes for, I believe the term is, "low brow" humor. It doesn't really succeed in being all that funny which is a shame since it has Angelica Houston, Ron Perlman and Robert Urich, (hence the three stars) who aren't exactly slackers in the acting department.<br /><br />Definitely a rental and definitely have a drink straight up.
I can't knock this film too terribly, because it's obvious midway through the the watching of it that they were trying to make it bad, or 'campy' if you prefer. Anyway, many of the parts they tried to make funny actually are, but often simply for the cheese factor. Watch the 'space invaders' game, actually played as real-life! Scratch your head at the bumbling robots...oh, the wackyness! And watch the whole thing go way over the top near the end with the 'time warp'! And the sexual innuendoes just keep on flying...I'm actually surprised this got away with a PG. Oh well. A fun way to waste a couple hours, but Star Wars/Trek this ain't, folks. 3 out of 10.
I like the "Star Wars" series. I like a good, cheapo sci-fi flick every once in a while, too. Heck, I even like the Roger Corman-produced nickel-and-dime jobbies.<br /><br />I do NOT like "The Ice Pirates", though. <br /><br />For one, it just looks too cheap, you know? For a movie that's supposed to take place in outer space, it feels cramped and closed-in like it's being filmed in the front seat of someone's Mazda. And the special effects, while appropriately cheesy, look more than anything like foam rubber painted metallic gray.<br /><br />Usually, I don't let things like that bother me, especially if the story and the characters are worthwhile.<br /><br />They ain't.<br /><br />The whole storyline, about these ne'er-do-well space pirates who decide to find a planet loaded with ice they can melt down and sell as water (a hot commodity in the future, I guess) is about as original as the jokes, which is not a compliment.<br /><br />The humor comes in at about crotch-level (like that castrating machine you'll see early on), and everyone seems to have a cranky attitude. And who told John Matuzak that he was funny? Whoever did, shame on them. Good old Robert Urich tries, but he's a reliable actor on board a badly sinking ship (or starship, in this case). <br /><br />I watched this one about three times and ended up feeling the same way every time - shanghaied.<br /><br />No stars. In spite of of the presence of Huston (one year prior to "Prizzi's Honor") and Carradine (at the tail end of a once-lofty career), these "Pirates" should walk the plank.
Wow. The storyline to this was just incredibly stupid. I realize that this movie was supposed to be of a comedic genre. But still, even nonsense is supposed to make at least some vague sort of sense.<br /><br />Water has become incredibly rare substance?<br /><br />Well, that's strange, considering that hydrogenated oxygen (or oxidized hydrogen) is one of the most plentiful substances there is in the universe. And pretty easy to make. Glomp together hydrogen and oxygen atoms, and voilà, water.<br /><br />Instead of water, the rarity of dilithium crystals or some such thingamajig should have been used as a plot device as something the pirates would go after. Water as a plot device was just dumb, dumb, dumb.<br /><br />The "comedy" seemed labored and contrived and forced. The comedy in the TV series "Red Dwarf" was labored and contrived and forced, but, it was actually amusing. Here instead, i felt like saying, "Ha ha, that was just so funny, i forgot to laugh..."<br /><br />Sigh... all that money put into sets, costumes, actors... what a waste...<br /><br />Rather than just whimper and whine and complain at it's lameness, my recommendations to make it better: 1) Use a believable plot device. 2) Get rid of the "comedy". None of the actors were really any good at it. The movie would work better as a "serious" action adventure.<br /><br />The obvious intention of the writers was to do a spoofy comedy, but they didn't quite pull it off. It's not likely i'll ever watch this again. It's too much a total hack job.
After missing out on this innumerable times on TCM UK, I decided to check it out given its sci-fi/adventure/camp pedigree: I knew I’d be in for a thoroughly silly ride – but it was also astoundingly bad! Anyway, perhaps appropriately given the characters involved, the script rips off many sci-fi titles then of recent vintage – SOYLENT GREEN (1973), ZARDOZ (1974), LOGAN’S RUN (1976; to the extent that it was filmed on some of the self-same sets!), STAR WARS (1977), ALIEN (1979) and MAD MAX 2: THE ROAD WARRIOR (1981)! <br /><br />The plot is simple but not exactly engaging: from the title one can deduce that water has become scarce on the planet where all of this takes place – so our ragtag buccaneer heroes take it upon themselves to steal ice blocks from the tyrannical Templar(!) rulers. Also involved is a beautiful princess (Mary Crosby, daughter of Bing!) in search of her father, the deposed king; by the way, the cast includes another famous offspring: Anjelica Huston (daughter of John) as one of the pirate band – thankfully, the actress’ mistake in accepting such a role would soon be forgotten in the wake of her winning an Oscar (under her father’s guidance, no less) for PRIZZI’S HONOR (1985). Since STAR WARS had Peter Cushing as the “Supreme Commander”, the film-makers opted to have a screen legend of their own – 78-year old John Carradine (who’s seen strapped to a sort of operating table during his one brief scene!).<br /><br />The most notable bits (for all the wrong reasons) are: the alien using the toilet; the castration machine; the clumsy antics (including karate-style combat!) of the inevitable robot companions; the goofy slave/eunuch make-up worn at one point by the heroes; the recurring attacks by the “space herpies” (whatever that is); the climax in which the characters are made to age when going through a time-warp (Crosby becomes pregnant, gives birth, and sees her son grow up in the space of 30 seconds, while leading man Robert Urich himself is replaced by John Ford stalwart Hank Worden for this scene!) – incidentally, the jump-cuts adopted here (intending to denote the rapid passage of time) are not only unsuccessful but downright irritating.
Oh man, this movie was toe-cringing bad. Bad look, awful story...the list of good things is shorter than the list of bad things about this movie.<br /><br />Yes sure it's supposed to be a comedy and all but something tells me that this movie was supposed to be the real deal. The movie most certainly does not start of as a comedy but more as an adventurous movie with fun elements put in it. You can especially tells they were serious with this by the acting, that was in a serious and non-comical way, with the exception of a couple of over-the-top sequences obviously. It seemed to be me that at first they tried to make a real and serious adventurous science-fiction movie, perhaps even a franchise but soon began to noticed how bad it all was and simply decided to insert some more and deliberately overdone comical sequence, to make the movie seem more like a comedy and prevent it from turning into a complete disastrous mess.<br /><br />The movie is a weird attempt to mix adventurous swashbuckling pirate movies with serious science-fiction action. The movie was obviously inspired by the "Star Wars" movies and its success. The movie isn't even too ashamed to copy entire sequences and even the way the story progresses, sets, characters and robots show similarities. They tried to hide this by putting in some obviously spoofing sequences but I'm not falling for it. So the movie is not even original on its own, despite its original concept. You can say that this movie is a poor man's "Spaceballs", without even really being fully a spoof.<br /><br />The movie is bad looking, with some video games special effects (in some sequences even literally), awful looking costumes (coat of mail and swords in outer space?). The sound is at times even laughable. Seems like they shot some sequences without sound and then forgot to add all of the required sounds later again in post-production. the mixing is also really bad. They tried to conceal this by putting the sound down to a minimum at times and by tuning up the Bruce Broughton musical score.<br /><br />At times the movie is so busy trying to make the movie look humorous that it totally forgets to tell the story. It makes the story of the movie seems extremely messy and poorly written, with an almost completely undeveloped main plot. It also doesn't help to make the movie really ever flow. Lots of thing don't get explained and some are even dropped after a while. The movie begins as a 'pirate' movie, who constantly are looking and steal water, since its scarcely and there is only one planet in the entire galaxy remaining with water on it (yeah right!). However this plot line gets soon abandoned, especially in the middle part of the movie, in which the movie seems to become a totally different one, with different motivations. It's just like the one weird and bad, silly sequence after the other, without really making a click. It also keeps the characters way too shallow and uninteresting to care about.<br /><br />Sad to see that actors like John Carradine, Anjelica Huston and a still young and unknown Ron Perlman were attached to this disastrous movie.<br /><br />OK I admit that I liked some of the moments, especially the ending when they go through the time-warp was original and fun but really, non of this all was enough to save the movie.<br /><br />I didn't even liked the movie in a campy kind of way.<br /><br />2/10
The only redeeming scene in this movie is when the robots are sent out to fight 'karate style', there was one good spinning side-kick... and that is the best 3 seconds of the movie. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie has very little to recommend it -- there are better spoofs out there.
You want to know what the writers of this movie consider funny? A robot child sees his robot parents killed (beheaded, as I recall), and then moves between their bodies calling their names. Yeah--what a comic moment. This is the worst movie I ever paid to see.
All right, let me start by saying I love the original RS for the 64. The graphics were new, the ships were really fast and cool. The missions were a challenge, but you had a strategy to come up with. The computer didn't tell you every step of your mission, you could wander and explore. <br /><br />That's the first thing that's wrong with RL, everything you do is under a timetable and controlled by other people. I mean, shouldn't you, as the leader, be telling people how to handle each and every mission? <br /><br />And speaking of missions, why do they intersperse the original trilogy with completely made up crap? Never mind.<br /><br />I was so waiting for this game when I heard they were going to allow you fly through the asteroid field from Empire Strikes Back. I think anyone who is a fan of the films wanted to do this. So, they give it to you. It's the stupidest level in the game. You start by flying through the asteroid field with ties chasing after you, and your whole objective is to get farther into the field while shooting the ties. You have to kill them all to get ahead. Hey, remember how many Han killed when he was in the field? None, they all had poor piloting skills compared to him. I just wanted to be able to dodge the asteroids as they came at me, but instead I have to use my automatic aim guns to kill ties behind me.<br /><br />That was the biggest disappointment, you have no control over your flying, everything is sluggish. All except for the A-Wing, probably the fastest and most maneuverable ship in the entire fleet. But, oh yeah, didn't Han say the Falcon was? Anyway...<br /><br />You finally get to the Battle of Endor. Here is the ultimate level, you get to destroy the death star, everyone's first instinct is to pick the Falcon and be the leader. But, of course, you get there and have to do stupid pre-chosen strategies like finding (not to mention deciphering the difference between) the tie-bombers. This is impossible in the falcon, by the time you have spotted one group the frigate gets destroyed. The only way to get passed this part is to pick the A-Wing. After this you have to attack the star destroyers and that's a real stupid chore. This game makes you feel like you're the only one defending the rebel alliance.<br /><br />After you frustratingly get through that 'fun' fight, you get to the death star. And here, you might think 'yay! I get to destroy the death star', and again, like in the Asteroid field, you have to do some tedious thing while narrowly getting passed the tunnels of impending doom. Your mission is to protect the ship in front of you, remember that from the Return of the Jedi? It's so moronic because if you pick the falcon, you'll die because you're not maneuverable enough, but if you pick the x-wing, you have to keep locking and unlocking your s-foils. So it's a choice to either kill the bad guys, or try to catch up to Lando, who apparently doesn't know how to maneuver. Thus dying in the process.<br /><br />The bonus stages aren't even worth aiming for as each level just gets more and more frustrating. It makes me feel the way I did when I saw the new three films, upset and in need of killing something. Lucky for me, Smash Bros Melee exists.<br /><br />I hope with the Wii they come up with something a lot better and have the original trilogy levels to full capacity. I'm going to sell this game the first chance I get.
An unintentionally hilarious early talkie melodrama with Kay Francis as the Countess Balakireff chasing everything in pants. At the beginning of the film she "throws back" the stableboy for being too young before setting off for the chauffeur! The high-toned English set she moves in is such a clichéd bunch of harummpf-ers that it's ridiculous. But the topper is Basil Rathbone as an Italian violinist with a Chico Marx accent! "My violeen! How weel I ever play eet again!" "Patreecia, my meelk is cold!" It's campy beyond belief.
Although many Billie Dove fans are delighted with her work here, I have to pass. As a socially prominent member of the British smart set, her British accent is basically non-existent and her line readings sound just like, well, line readings and her emoting seems trance-like and ponderous. Basil Rathbone, usually a fine actor, seems off-kilter throughout and also speaks with a weird sort-of-accent - in his case something like Italian, though we cannot be sure. The script manages to keep his precise ethnicity a secret. He is further hampered by the script which gives him one of those old movie diseases, something to do with nerves, which requires surgery. The only real entertainment is provided by the illustrious Kay Francis sporting a lacquered bob with side curls in her role as a depraved countess who shamelessly devours men, including Rathbone, and then spits them out. She pulls it off with her unique aplomb. She is the only living thing in this dead sea of a film.
Bog Creatures shows exactly what can happen when very enthusiastic people get together with a little cash, some knowledge of movie making, a mixed bag of aspiring actors, and a lot of determination, yet all without the necessary knowledge and skills to pull off anything more than a fairly poor looking After School Special (in a bad way, not a nostalgic good way). I mean this is so-so quality home movie / student film stuff if you want to pass it around to family and friends for free. Thankfully, I found it in a discount bin somewhere. Sure, there may be some sort of market out there for this kind of thing, but it is a market that seems to only exist by default because there are so many poor B movies out there. Even more so now in this day and age.<br /><br />The only people I would recommend this move to is aspiring guerrilla filmmakers. First, I would recommend that they watch the special feature MAKING OF thing included on the disc. See the film crews enthusiasm, their hard work, joy, and very high opinions of their own product. THEN watch the movie. Within a few frames you will hopefully understand what went wrong. Bored, I went through the whole thing and clearly the director and cinematographer tried, but just don't know enough about what they are doing. They knew enough to have fun, but in the long run, without necessary skills, this interprets to: They knew enough to be dangerous. This is like a bad Nickelodeon movie (as apposed to a more decent one I guess). A couple of the actors did ok, and the cool stoner looking dude with the tattoo (real or fake tattoo I know not) was probably the best and most natural and I hope he makes it. But their natural acting talent was what was coming through despite the bad movie, bad script, and so-so directing principles. If the director had spent more time helping these aspiring actors to develop their characters, studying successfully proven camera techniques and lighting principles to direct his crew better, and if the script had been actually worked on instead of written in a week or so (according to the very indulgent documentary) then maybe this could have been more of a film. Instead, it's a film that has a feeling of some potential, and has a few moments in it (due more to the genre than the film itself), but ends up showing nearly every frame, WHAT NOT TO DO. If you want to see what a decent low budget horror movie can really look like, watch Phantasm or even Laserblast. If you want a glorified home movie (no joke), get Bog Creatures.
I saw this movie yesterday on a public service channel. They had advertised it as an awful movie, and so I was drawn to see it, and I was not let down.<br /><br />A group of 18-19 year old go to an excavation site at an old viking castle in Denmark, to try to uncover the myth of the Berserker vikings. Strange things happens: something is in the forest, and people start disappearing.<br /><br />The main thing about this movie that really bothers me, is that the story is supposed to take place in Denmark, where I happen to live. There were so many places in the movie where the Hollywood-style overlapped danish reality. It really made the acting and drama look ridiculous in my eyes.<br /><br />You never see the characters interact with any of their surroundings. Its feels like a mini-Hollywood in Denmark, and it takes away the credibility of the movie. When at one point you hear someone speak "old danish", it sounds exactly like modern day Swedish. Really bad research, considering the director is from Denmark.<br /><br />The characters in the movie used GPS and maps, and that's really funny, since Denmark is about the size of your backyard. Nomatter where you are, there is never more than 50 km to the sea, and 500 meters to civilization. And if you are at a castle, there are going to be tourists everywhere. We see a lot of overviews of forests in the movie, and sometimes, we see what appears to be North American vegetation(?) The story did not exactly appeal to me, maybe because the acting was so bad. When the characters see the bog creatures for the first time, they are not even scared. I guess their acting skills were insufficient to display realistic emotions. At the end, there is an unexpected twist, but it didn't impress me, since I didn't really care.<br /><br />The bog creatures are cheap, but they had the potential to be scary. Unfortunately, they fail, since we get a good look at them standing in the forest when the characters arrive at the castle. Also, there are no really scary scenes, since the Bog Creatures are mostly just standing around.<br /><br />Anyway, conclusion: Disregarding the facts, the movie is your typical B-horror flick. I guess people from other countries can enjoy it more. As long as you are unaware of reality, it doesn't matter. Just like I think of USA as one big action movie set, everyone else can think of Denmark as a forest with a castle.. and some living-dead people in a bog..
********SPOILER ALERT************** Wasted 85 minutes of my life watching this "film". first of all, we think it is hilarious that the producer cameoed in the film as the autopsy doctor with a horrible unbelieveably unbelievable accent -- what the hell was that anyway, romanian? And how is it that in Denmark no one speaks danish except the bog creatures? (Note, the scottish camp director...). ? And who does the shopping for the bog creatures? Their pants looked like they were purchased at Banana Republic. Very nicely dressed for being 1200 years old. This one was worse than Scarecrow Slayer (we didn't think that was even POSSIBLE). We basically fast forwarded through 75% of the movie looking for any gore/death/scary moments. None found. Do rent the DVD just to watch the 2 hour "Behind the Scenes of Bog Creatures" featurette. Who are these people? Are they serious? And the filmmakers are like 60 years old. I think this is their holy grail and that's pathetic enough in and of itself.<br /><br />BEST LINE from the movie, hands down: "Not bad for a girl who never even went to graduate school...." My blind grandma who has alzheimers could make a better movie.
Laughed my ass off but probably because I was stoned. That aside ... this is in no way a horror movie, there is no horror whatsoever in this entire movie and the plot holes are so huge that even a below average IQ person would think it was stupid. On top of that, I am living in Denmark and have been for all my life and can assure you that Denmark is way too small a country that you need GPSS and maps to find your way back if you got lost. I would estimate that unless you really put an effort into it you could never be farther away from town or other people than maximum 3 hours on foot. Secondly I don't think any part of the movie, apart from two shots from Copenhagen where none of the actors were in, were actually taped in Denmark. The bog woman is talking Swedish not Danish. The helmet on the first bog body is brand new. The girl they find in the forest is hiding under a type of rock that does not exist in Denmark. This is just stupid.
This film holds 7.0 rating on IMDb, so even I sensed something rotten in it's synopsis I decided to try it out. What a waste of 100 minutes. First of all, the 80's were not a good decade for crime and thriller genre. Most of these, in those days were badly done with silly plot (if they had any), so there are very few that can stand out, and even if they were good they are still not very good. The Hit, however suffers from everything that made silly crime pictures silly. It has poor character development, improbable plot and wasn't written or directed in a decent manner, and when you have such shortcomings the acting doesn't help. Stephen Frears often tried to emulate French new wave in English style film making and the two don't match.<br /><br />First of all Terence Stamp is 10 years in hiding because he testified against some of his former partners in crime. He hides in Spain, of all places. He is finally caught up with, and than first kidnapped by a group of silly looking Spanish thugs, just do be driven away some distance to the two hit man that are supposed to deal with him. These two are John Hurt, who is supposed to be hard boiled, stone cold killer, and Tim Roth (in his first role) as the devil's apprentice. They don't kill Stamp right away, they first dispose of the "three Amigos", they shouldn't have hired in the first place, and then, they are driving Stamp to Paris, because one of the buddies he testified against wants to confront him. OK that's possible. But even with Stamp being such a dangerous figure that they had to hire four guys to overpower him, they don't tie him down, don't incapacitate him in any way, and drive around with him, like he's one of the buddies. Stamp doesn't object and is happily going to Paris to be shot, not using any of a half a dozen chances, these "professionals" offer for him to escape. Than it appears that Tim Roth is just a school boy bully, making the idea of big crime boss teaming him up with a hard core hit man like John Hurt, even more improbable, especially on an important job like that. But than John Hurt is not so hard core himself, he spends twenty minutes of the movie, killing or not killing the totally surplus Australian, played by Bill Hunter, whose only purpose in this film is to introduce the lovely Laura Del Sol, his mistress (who he says is 15, but she looks more like 25), and whose role in the story and acting capabilities suggest that she was offered the role, solely on the basis of being the director's or producer's mistress at the time. After much deliberation, Hurt kills the Australian but takes along his mistress for no apparent reason. Than he wants to kill her but Roth with his "subtle ways" convince him not to, so even she kicks him, bites him and scratches him through the entire movie, he stays true to that deeply buried human side of him.<br /><br />Than you have plain idiotic scenes, like when Hurt and Roth lock the car from the outside, trying to prevent the people inside from getting out?!?! Anyway the movie drags on. Tim Roth falls asleep, guarding Terence Stamp with his gun on his chest, and Stamp just waits there watching the waterfall. Than the whole shamble of a plot comes to the point where everything we've seen in the last hour and 20 minutes just goes out through the window. Let's recapitulate, the whole point in not killing Stamp right away (except for having a movie) is to take him to Paris, so his former partner is to have a last word with him. And the whole point in him not running away is that he is prepared to die, saying "It's just a moment. We're here. Then we're not here. We're somewhere else... maybe. And it's as natural as breathing. Why should we be scared?" But my friends, here is where the plot twists, Hurt kills the man while still in Spain, and we ask why bother and drive around for days, he could have done it in the first 15 minutes, and than contrary to his philosophy Stamp is very afraid of being killed, so we ask again why didn't he run, and he had plenty chance. Roth gets killed too, but he shouldn't be in the movie at all, and Del Sol, well she's promised a role in this film purely for romantic (read sexual) reasons, so she stays alive again, even she attacked Hurt for the 15th time in the movie. He killed all the others, but not her, she must have maximum screen appearance. The movie was made on a shoe string budget and it shows, but when you have no story and card board characterizations, it shows even more.And yes Fernando Ray appears and goes through the movie as the guest star, having a single audible line of dialog. Awful
A potentially good idea gets completely let down by a weak script which throws all credibility out the window leaving the actors very little to work with. Roth covers it up as best he can by being all mouth; Hurt has about as much menace as a fluffy bunny and Stamp can't seem to decide whether he's playing an ex-London crook or some toff straight off the playing fields at Eton. As for poor Laura del Sol she does what she can but her character is no more than every northern European's idea of the stereotypical Latino woman who's all pouts and hot temperament. If you're a fan of any of the main actors don't disappoint yourself or fool yourself (as I suspect many of the other reviewer's here have done). Watch it by all means but stay critical; you know these guys can do better.
When King Kong stripped her of her top in the 1976 remake, I was breathless. I don't know how many times I went back to see that movies hoping to see more. Jessica Lange was not a great actress then (She became one), but she was so hot! I went to see "Sweet Dreams" when it came out because, by that time, Ms. Lange had become a great actress. It looked like a wonderful story. And she's always exciting to see.<br /><br />I never walked out of a movie faster. My wife concurred.<br /><br />When we got into the car, I turned to her, and said, "If you had told me I would get bored watching Jessica Lange take her clothes off, I would have said your crazy. I just got bored watching Jessice Lange take her clothes off!" How bad is that?
Director and playwright Richard Day adapted his own stage material for the screen, clearly inspired by Rock Hudson's real-life dilemma from the 1950s: what to do with a screen idol who is secretly homosexual? Marry him off to an unsuspecting woman in order to quell the gossips (and keep him working). Wispy-thin idea given some energy by the good cast and retro production design which amusingly resembles a greeting card by Shag. The dialogue isn't very clever, and there's some slapstick goofing around near the beginning which fails to work (spitting out food, etc.). Still, when a serious tone comes over the final act, it is handled with great taste--and is far more welcomed by the viewer than all the klutzy silliness. Matt Letscher does good work as movie hero/male whore Guy Stone, but are his experiences here enough to strengthen his character, or would he be right back at the bar the next night? The movie seems not to know--or care. Day wants to get off a few one-liners and one carefully written pro-gay speech--a plea for tolerance--but he has no other agenda. For audiences who invest their time and interest in these people, the sentimental bow on this thing can look like nothing more than a prank. *1/2 from ****
This film tries to skewer the studio era in Hollywood and the morals of the 1950s. Guy Stone is intended to be a Rock Hudson type, but both the script and actor Matt Letscher end up channeling a smarmy, cruel, baritone-voiced version of George Hamilton instead, which makes for an unpleasant character.<br /><br />Guy Stone is such a reprehensible human being that the audience has trouble liking this waste of human skin. Unlike Hudson, who was sweetly promiscuous, Stone is a hateful person who knowingly uses and then throws away the sweet, handsome young men who share his bed every few hours.<br /><br />Veronica Cartwright is Jerry, Stone's celibate lesbian manager. Cartwright is very good, but the director doesn't quite know what to do with her. The fault lies in the dialogue, which is a bit clumsy, and the film suffers for it.<br /><br />Carrie Preston's Sally owes more to Ellen Greene in "The Little Shop of Horrors". As written, Preston's Sally is good for a laugh but little else. Newcomer Adam Greer is lost in this movie. He cannot act, and seems to have been cast for his hot body and good looks.<br /><br />Like many recent films, "Straight-Jacket" is a "dramedy" -- a comedy film which switches messily to a drama about two-thirds of the way through the film. And, like almost all dramedies, "Straight-Jacket" fails miserably.<br /><br />Despite the expensive services of Skywalker Sound, the sound quality of the film leaves a lot of be desired. The over-use of the musical soundtrack creates a distracting amount of cues as well.<br /><br />The film really doesn't managed to satirize anything about the 1950s. Unlike "Singin' in the Rain," which perfectly captures Hollywood's ambivalence about the advent of sound as well as the studio mentality about formula films, "Straight-Jacket" doesn't manage to depict Hollywood in the 1950s at all well. The dialogue, sets and behavior of the key characters are nondescript rather than dead-on stereotypes of the 1950s Hollywood. The same can be said for the lampooning of the general mores, social trends and fads of the 1950s as a whole. Compare the transformation of Guy's home to the dead-on satire of the 1950s home in "Little Shop of Horrors". There is no comparison; "Little Shop" hits the nail on the head, while "Straight-Jacket" doesn't even know there is a nail.<br /><br />Motivations, too, seem haphazard. Rick Foster is supposed to be a principled liberal, yet he falls almost immediately for a materialistic schmuck like Guy Stone. Rick is fine with Guy's closeted status for many months. But when it comes time to go to Italy, he becomes conflicted for reasons that are completely unclear. And even though Sally appears to fall in love with Freddie during the party, this plot point simply disappears a few minutes later without comment. Rick comes off like a gay man from the 1990s, not a gay author of the 1950s. Indeed, modern morality suffuses this film -- which it shouldn't, if it were really a satirical look at homophobia in 1950s Hollywood.<br /><br />Plot holes in this ragtag film also abound. Saul repeatedly says that he's going to turn Freddie Stevens over to the feds, but never does so -- allowing Freddie to out Guy. Jerry and Saul's plot to "in" Guy never makes any sense, nor does Sally's sudden decision to take the blame. And although Guy has admitted he is a homosexual, apparently it doesn't matter and he ends up a famous star and playwright anyway.<br /><br />Unfortunately, none of the production values manage to save this film. The cinematography by Michael Pinkey is pedestrian. At times, the film almost looks like a filmed play rather than a motion picture (especially the scenes in Saul's office). Everything is restricted to medium shots, and the film has an incredibly static. The editing by Chris Conlee doesn't do the film any help, either. Long scenes which would benefit from the insertion of close-ups or shifts in point of view remain uncut. Whether this is due to lack of coverage or bad editing is not clear, but the overall effect is to create a sense of lethargy.<br /><br />The film relies heavily on CGI effects of Guy's home, created by visual effect designer Thomas Dickens. But the CGI looks clumsy and hokey, and it is very noticeably amateurish.<br /><br />My overall impression of this film is that the jokes are cheap and easy, the plot muddled, the characterizations wildly inconsistent and way off the mark, the satire nonexistent, the performances overbroad and off the mark, and the comic timing off. It's almost an amateurish film. It is as if someone took a high school production and threw $10 million at it.
... why watch a TV drama (billed as a comedy) in which none of the characters are likable or even interesting people ? I can sort of see what the writer David Renwick was trying to achieve: the misdirections and bad-taste surprises that he put into "One foot in the grave", etc. I admit that the script made a bit more of an effort than most on British TV at the moment. But really ... who cares about these people ? They are cold bores.<br /><br />Another poster mentioned the scene in which the woman sits down to watch a video of herself and her deceased ex-boyfriend shagging. That was the moment when I switched OFF this programme, never to return.<br /><br />P.S. It's interesting to note that the posters who didn't like this series are all British, whereas those who praise it are mostly in other countries. This reflects the fact that when the BBC broadcast this series it was ignored by viewers and sank like a stone.<br /><br />P.P.S. Good news for those who liked it ! There will be a second series in Autumn 2007 - though without the male lead. It sounds like the BBC have decided to turn it into a more conventional 30 minute sitcom.
If you live in the suburbs, are relatively well off financially, and do not really have much contact with the city life of england, then this is the comedy for you. Not something a mass audience would go for, but if you're like these characters they show you'll love it to pieces. Overall this is a comedy that the snobs at the BBC will sit back and laugh at for their pleasure and only a select few of the publics. Comparing it to BBC Comedys like Only Fools and Horses, Fawlty Towers, Black Adder, and other classics, this series tends to drift away from the BBC's regular product to the audience and deliver to somewhat of a folk culture.
This is the worst exercise in middle class pretentiousness yet to hit our television screens. I unfortunately did not see it when it was first shown but paid for the joy of watching six hours of excruciating drivel - and I'm still waiting for the laughs to arrive. I love Tasmin Greig having been a big fan of both Black Books and Green Wing and therefore know that she is capable of the very best of comedy parts. However, she played this part as well as she was able considering the lack of any decent comedy material provided. Please broadcasters bear in mind that the Trades Descriptions Act may well be invoked if you continue to bill as comedy material which is at best pseudo psychological romanticism and at worst a drama which poses as a quirky comedy to hide the fact that is neither fish nor fowl.
This is a crummy film, a pretender to a genre of surprise ending movies. And a genre that has been done so much better before. The plot limps along, with a predictable ending. (Yawn) The characters are unlikeable, and some are so unlikeable they are almost unwatchable. Matt Dillon, a fine, intense actor is totally miscast here and is stiff and mannered. The others are forgettable. Much of the dialog is sophomoric, again a pretender trying to be witty. I wouldn't hire the screenwriter to write my grocery list. Yes, it's that bad, veering from misogynistic to just plain gross, as in beyond frat-house gross. With so much real talent out there, I'm really surprised this movie ever got made. It shows the total lack of imagination of the office suits...
Seems like a pretty innocent choice at first- the name "employee of the month" might ring bells with "Office Space," and the show "Office Clerk." I think not. This isn't even a dark comedy. The director of this movie, whoever the guy's name, was a complete jerk, and has a sick, perverse mind. There is no pleasure in being lured into feeling sorry for a complete loser who cheats on his wife, steals from his top-notch job, and lies through his teeth 24/7. The second I walk in to the room when my family are watching it (and believe me, they were only watching it more because they were praying that there would be at least some relief, perhaps even some fable in the end, sending a warm message of good justice done and when the good guys look good). All the good guys were killed so long ago that they had no time to look good. No memorial was made.<br /><br />This movie has borderline insanity. It disrespects the elderly, the dead and women- and the director tries to make people to like it.<br /><br />I gave this movie a two only because the soundtrack was good. But not even that was all that memorable. If you were lucky enough to not see this in theaters, definitaly my friends- do not do this at home.
I can't believe the amount of reviewers who praise this as realistic. I'm a million miles from being an expert, and I'm never going to climb a mountain; but even the very basic knowledge attained from reading Into Thin Air, and watching Everest Beyond The Limit and a few other Everest docs meant that this film just got more and more ridiculous as it went on. There is some good climbing footage at the start; and when the billionaire mission leader asks early in the film "How much experience above 8000 metres do you have?", I was encouraged to hope that this might be a gritty and accurate man-vs-nature odyssey. Instead you have a bunch of climbers zooming up a mountain with no acclimatisation; climbing with goggles off in full sun, and they are barely ever out of breath performing miraculous feats of endurance. Only near the summit is a little fatigue suggested, to dramatically accentuate the physical feat of climbing such a monstrous peak, almost as an afterthought. If you have no knowledge of mountaineering, give it a look: be prepared for some clichéd heroics (although no more clichéd than a hundred other passably diverting flicks), and a clichéd outcome. I've been developing a minor fascination with high mountains and was looking forward to watching K2; but other than some amazingly beautiful scenery, it was a let down because it was so far removed from reality. I can imagine some experts being employed in the making of this movie, but then being conveniently ignored in the pursuit of the heroic, and sadly fantastical storyline. Also, you would sound like a bit of a tit if you said "welcome to the death zone" at 200000 feet.
Mount Godwin-Austin (otherwise known as K2) is the world's second highest mountain, and if the evidence presented in this film is to be believed is the hardest mountain to climb successfully without getting yourself killed. "K2" is basically a buddy flick set in the breathtakingly dangerous world of mountaineering. While the outdoor photography takes in some truly awesome scenery, the characters standing in front of all those glorious landscapes are a crashing bore - and therein lies the fault with the whole film.<br /><br />Cocksure lawyer Taylor Brooks (Michael Biehn) and his quiet married friend Harold Jamieson (Matt Craven) spend their free time rock climbing. During one of their trips, they meet up with another bunch of climbers funded by wealthy mountain enthusiast Philip Claibourne (Raymond J. Barry). Claibourne's team are in training for a forthcoming shot at the infamous K2, a mountain that Taylor and Harold would both love to tackle but could never afford to do so. During their training run, however, two of Claibourne's team get themselves killed in an avalanche. Taylor and Harold put themselves forward as potential replacements. Despite initial reluctance, Claibourne gives them the nod of approval and the pair find themselves joining his team in the Himalayas. Harold's wife Cindy (Julia Nickson-Soul) is distraught that her husband is going to take on such a dangerous climb, especially since he has recently become a father. Tensions in the climbing team mount as Taylor repeatedly clashes with another member of the group, the equally brash and arrogant Dallas Woolf (Luca Bercovici). Meanwhile, Claibourne himself grows increasingly ill as altitude sickness takes its toll on his body. Will the guys reach the peak of K2, or is their quest destined to end in disappointment, or even death?<br /><br />"K2" spends an inordinately long time introducing its somewhat dislikeable characters. Biehn as a foul-mouthed, pushy, adventurous type is especially hard to like, as is Barry as the hard-nosed mountaineering millionaire. But on the other side of the coin, Craven is so dull that it becomes difficult to believe his wife could possibly give a damn about him going off to climb K2 - heck, she'd be better off if he never came back!! Rounding off the main characters is Bercovici, whose characterisation as Dallas Woolf is as campy and over-the-top as every other role he's ever played. The story itself is totally tame and disposable – just a straightforward yarn about guys trying to reach the top of a mountain. There's a bit of male bonding thrown in, but the whole subplot about Harold and his wife amounts to nil, and the personality clashes between Taylor and Dallas ring totally false. "K2" scores its few merits solely from the stunning cinematography by Gabriel Berastain – during the Himalayan sequences, the scale and awe of the mountains is quite nicely captured. I'm completely with critic Kim Newman on this one, who hilariously stated in Empire magazine: "On this evidence, climbing K2 can't be any harder than sitting through it!" Quite true, Kim, quite true!
I bought the DVD out of a big bin for $4.99, thinking I'd lucked into some documentary pearl that would actually show extensive footage of the Karakoram mountains, and K2 in particular. Fast-forwarding through the film, I reached the climactic scene in which the climbers catch their first sight of ---- Mount Waddington, towering to all of 13,260 ft, in Canada's Coastal Range. At least one of the several bozos geared up to climb K2 clearly has no idea what the real mountain actually looks like -- he has to be assured by his friend and climbing partner that he wouldn't have been brought by said partner to an ugly mountain. Given that one of the film's premises is that 27 or so people have lost their lives on K2, you might think that the jerk in question might have taken a minute or two to bone up on a few basic facts, but the clown seems to think that preparations on this scale, while good enough for the likes of Reinhold Messner, are beneath him. To be honest, I haven't watched the whole thing. What I've seen makes me cringe. They say that you get what you pay for. At $4.99, I've been ripped off.
I don't know why I even watched this film. I think it was because I liked the idea of the scenery and was hoping the film would be as good. Very boring and pointless.
They call this film "euro trash horror". <br /><br />Well, it's not horror. The film takes place in Europe, so yes, it's "euro". Trash? Ah yes, it's trash all right.<br /><br />You know you're in for a great movie when, right at the beginning, the DVD gives you text on the screen apologizing for the quality of the print you're about to watch. Expect crackles, odd jarring cuts, and for the movie not to fit the screen. Plus there's the sound -- at first I thought I was watching a dubbed film. Then, watching the lips carefully, I realized that, no, it's that the sound quality is embarrassingly bad and out of synch.<br /><br />The plot itself is fairly goofy -- an old, disfigured woman named Dr Bannister kills a scientist for his youth formula. I'm not giving much away because when you see the "old woman" it's pretty obvious she's under a layer of thick, badly applied make-up. Anyone with a lick of sense, seeing the fake old age, knows what's coming next.<br /><br />Yes, the "old crone" is miraculously transformed into a beautiful young woman -- complete with face make-up and a long wig of hair! Zounds!<br /><br />When I say the old woman is disfigured, I mean she has cornflakes glued to her face. The film makes no attempt to explain how the cornflakes got there. For that matter, there is no attempt to explain anything at all relating to any of the characters. They're never developed beyond the level of finger puppets. <br /><br />The two policemen pursuing our anti-heroine just wander about, apparently baffled by the simplest clues. The murdered scientist was working on a youth serum, the old woman has disappeared, and we keep running into a young woman -- how do these pieces fit together?! What does it all mean?! One of the cops sweats a lot and pats his face with a cloth. The other smokes a pipe. That's pretty much all we get, character-wise.<br /><br />Dr Bannister (the crone, now a beauty) goes around wearing odd costumes and then taking them off so we can see her flesh. She has affairs with men. She gets in a catfight with a young woman in a nightgown. She goes to Geneva so we can see the lake there. She water- skis a bit, then takes off her wet suit to reveal a strange bead-curtain bikini. She takes off her clothes again in a strange ninja costume striptease.<br /><br />The ending? Well, without giving anything away, it's just a bizarre, tacked on conclusion that makes about as little sense as the rest of the picture. It's the sort of thing a writer comes up with when the director wakes him up at 4 AM and says, "Quick! We need an ending for our movie! What happens next?"<br /><br />The writer mumbles something half awake, and the director runs with it.<br /><br />What's good about this movie? Some of the music is campy and fun. That classic 60s organ music that's so corny it's enough to make you laugh out loud. There are some odd seduction scenes, bizarre dialogue, goofy moments. <br /><br />It's very close to being so bad it's good. I did manage to watch it from start to finish without gouging out my eyes or sobbing. I guess that's praise, of sorts.'
This Spanish-Italian co-production tells an interesting and weird story about Dr. Bannister, a woman that not only has the best years behind her, but also has a scarred face that makes her look like a freak. But in Madrid, a professor she knows has conducted some experiments on animals with a substance which regenerates cells. The experiments were successful, but the animals became aggressive. Because the professor won't allow Dr. Bannister to be the first human guinea pig, she kills him and consumes the substance. She becomes a beautiful young woman, but also a vicious killer when it comes to keep her secret a secret.<br /><br />The plot of the film is great fun, but Piero Vivarelli had not enough skills and money to make a cool movie out of it. Also, the film becomes boring after a good start and doesn't manage to regain a fast pace even though the film's running time doesn't exceed 83 minutes. And as the setting changes to Swiss city Geneva for the last third of the film, it sometimes even looks like a vacation movie as we see how beautiful Geneva is (which it is indeed - but it doesn't help to push the plot forward...). So, with a more talented director, better actors and a bigger budget, "Satanik" could have become an obscure Italian classic. But, as it is, it's just a lacklustre and boring crime film that isn't really worth looking for. Rating: 3 out of 10.
Deformed, aged female scientist kills fellow scientist in order to steal formulae for rejuvenating cells and reversing the aging process. She takes it and turns into the beautiful, evil Satanik (Magda Konopka) who goes around, seducing and murdering wealthy businessmen.<br /><br />She dresses very stylishly in late-60s mod clothes and manipulates those around her, looking a lot like the late Marisa Mell from the DIABOLIK film. Coincidence??<br /><br />However, in spite of all this, it's amateurish and sloppy without the James Bond pop-art gadgetry that DIABOLIK had had. Even the Madrid and Lake Geneva filming locations don't make up for this.<br /><br />The soundtrack is by Manuel Parada & Roberto Pregadio and it isn't bad at all, consisting of lush orchestration with a little fuzz guitar used as an embellishment. Perfect for one of those European Loungecore CDs that came out in the 90s.<br /><br />The Retromedia DVD also uses a substandard grainy color print that's in poor shape, with an explanation at the beginning saying that this was due to the age of the film. Bull ! They either didn't bother looking for a better source or they couldn't find one at all. There are only a few stills of Magda and that's it.<br /><br />Sloppy & poor all around, this one gets a 3 out of 10.
Dr. Marnie Bannister (Magda Konopka) is a horribly disfigured woman. When one of her colleagues discovers a rejuvenation formula, Marnie sees it as her opportunity to become beautiful. When she's denied the drug because of possible side effects, she kills her colleague to get what she wants. The drug works and she becomes beautiful. But the formula brings out the worst in her and it's not long before she's left a string of bodies behind her.<br /><br />Have you ever heard the expression "as exciting as watching paint dry"? That pretty much sums up Satanik. During the film, one of the characters utters the line, "Something so horrible, it's inconceivable." I wasn't sure if he was talking about something in movie or the movie itself. I'm really disappointed because I had high hopes for this one. Satanik had possibilities, but they're never realized. At every opportunity, the plot has Marnie do the dullest things imaginable. The writing is horrible. And part of the problem is Magda Konopka. She's not that appealing and cannot carry the film on her own.<br /><br />Another big problem with Satanik is the direction and editing. It's a mess. We see things and places that have no bearing on anything in the movie. The camera lingers on shots too long after the scene is over. I can't think of a single shot that would call anything but unoriginal. This group of filmmakers exhibits little in the way of imagination or talent.<br /><br />I may not be familiar with the Italian comic on which Satanik is supposedly based, but I'm sure it's got to be better than this.
Old bat transforms to younger OK looking girl after drinking a potion. This movie was dreadful. The acting atrocious. The camera work made me head spin. And it features the longest, most excruciatingly boring strip-tease ever put to film. Piero Vivarelli should be ashamed for directing this. Eduardo Manzanos Brochero should'voe been blacklisted just for writing something so awful.Don't rent this movie, the only exception I can this of is maybe If you're dying and only have less then 90 minutes to live, watch this film cause it will feel like an eternity and you'll be begging the Grip Reaper come a little early.<br /><br />My Grade: F
As I write this in November 2005 I've become aware that the great British boom of cinema has come to an end and while people will claim much of this is down to the British government not giving film makers tax breaks I think the cause is much simpler - A lack of diversity on the part of producers over the last few years . Let's have a look at what the Brits were producing 1995-2005:<br /><br />Funky gangster thrillers . LOCK STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRALES was a truly great and thoroughly entertaining film and people went out of their way to ape Guy Ritchie's style with usually disappointing results <br /><br />Romantic comedies . Yeah okay I do realise FOUR WEDDINGS , NOTTING HILL etc were produced by American studios but they're still vaguely " British films " . Unfortunately because they're guaranteed to make a profit for the studios they have to follow a winning formula which usually involved Hugh Grant playing Hugh Grant for the umpteenth time <br /><br />Black Comedies . Can anyone explain what a black comedy actually is ? In the British context it's usually a rambling film with often contemporary political statements made and which often resembles Mike Leigh's NAKED <br /><br />Jasmin Disdar's BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE is a good example of the third type of British movie . Filmed in 1999 but set in 1993 it opens with two men having a fight on a bus and it's later revealed that one's a Serb and one's a Croat so we get a bite sized rundown of what was happening in the Balkans at that time , though what's the odds of two former enemies in the Balkans bumping into each other on a London bus ? This sums up one of the major flaws of the movie - Irony takes precedence over likely situations , you can appreciate the final irony of the subplots but is the outcome likely ? Perhaps the greatest irony is the title of the film . It's called BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE but certainly this audience member found them clichéd stereotypical people that I couldn't believe in as three dimensional characters
I had to lower my rating of this movie to a 4 due to the terrible sound track. I'm pretty sure it was not a problem with me or the tape, because some actors and the sound track sounded great. But most of the actors voices were distorted or garbled beyond recognition, especially for non-brits.<br /><br />There are plenty of cute little twists that would make this an enjoyable movie - ending up in Bosnia by mistake is great - but much of the humor was lost in the sound.
This very forced attempt to fuse Robert Altman and Quentin Tarantino (who is wildly overrated himself) is neither informative nor entertaining. The character development is arbitrary and unbelievable -- especially in the final scene of the thugs and the little boy, as other reviewers have noted. Also, a couple of humorous moments aside, the film is not as funny (black humor or otherwise) as the director seems to think it is.
What I miss most of all in this film is that it lets no place for imagination, everything is said. It is like a documentary film, but not as good as a documentary, because it is no documentary. A patchwork film without a continuous story. Very superficial, nothing to think about, because the film tells you already what you are supposed to think. Too many different problems are touched but none is worked out in order to make you think. I do not even know if it is a funny film that wants to be serious or a serious film that wants to be funny. Many scenes are very unrealistic, and the acting is quite poor. The film is quite boring.
Well, I saw this movie during the last San Sebastian Film Festival. The reaction to it was...let's say as funny as the movie unintetionally is. It happened that they showed a copy with terribly wrong spanish subtitles. They seemed to be a translation from chinese to english and then to spanish. It was all confusing, the genders were switched (girls appeared as boys and boys as girls), and my friends and I remember great lines... but because they were so absurd. All in all not a good movie, but if they ever show it on tv, and you have nothing to do, and if you want to laugh (again, not so much with the movie) then go ahead, "Visible secret" is your film.
Before I begin, let me get something off my chest: I'm a huge fan of John Eyres' first film PROJECT: SHADOWCHASER. The film, a B-grade cross of both THE TERMINATOR & DIE HARD, may not be the work of a cinematic genius, but is a hugely entertaining action film that became a cult hit (& spawned two sequels & a spin off).<br /><br />Judge and Jury begins with Joseph Meeker, a convicted killer who was sent to Death Row following his capture after the so-called "Bloody Shootout" (which seems like a poor name for a killing spree – Meeker kills three people while trying to rob a convenience store), being led to the electric chair. There is an amusing scene where Meeker talks to the priest about living for sex but meeting his one true love (who was killed during the shootout), expressing his revenge for the person who killed her – Michael Silvano, a washed-up football star who spends his days watching his son Alex practicing football with his high school team (and ends up harassing his son's coach). But once executed, Meeker returns as a revenant (or as Kelly Perine calls "a hamburger without the fries"), whose sole aim is to get his revenge, which basically means making Silvano's life a misery.<br /><br />Let me point out the fact that Judge and Jury is not a true horror film. It is a supernatural action film, with Meeker chasing Silvano, using his ability to change form (which amounts to David Keith dressing up as everything from an Elvis impersonator, a French chef (with an accent as bad as his moustache), a drag queen, a clown & a stand-up comedian), a shotgun which fires explosive rounds & an invulnerability to death (although that doesn't stop Martin Kove from shooting Keith with a Desert Eagle), to pay Silvano back for killing Meeker's wife.<br /><br />Director John Eyres does not seem interested in characterisations, instead focusing solely on action scenes, which the film has plenty of. But that is the film's main flaw, since there's nothing to connect the action scenes together. The acting is surprisingly good, with Keith delivering the best performance, supported ably by Kove, as well as Paul Koslo, who plays the washed-up cop quite well. Kelly Perine is annoying as the cabbie who tries to help but makes the situation worse.
If this is not heavily featured on every list of "what not to watch", it should only be because those keeping that particular list are not aware of its existence, which, as long as that remains so, is the acceptable alternative. I'm not kidding you, this is a *bad* "movie". Joseph Meeker returns from the dead, with various vague, undefined supernatural powers, the most employed of which would seem to be appearing in new, increasingly comical-looking and ridiculous(and never scary or creepy... in general, when this goes for the latter of those, it winds up just being bizarre, and attempts at the former just don't work, period) outfits and stereotypes/archetypes, and he is portrayed by David Keith(whom I respect in... well, at least Daredevil), doing a more often than not terribly inconsistent(which could also have to do with script) and often over the top performance. A character or two have personalities so unbelievably irritating that they're painful to watch. The editing thinks it's considerably more clever than it really is(and what on Earth was with the red tint for the flashbacks?). Cinematography... oh, dear. Framing, coverage, effective use of angle(that one could be attributed some to editing, too, perhaps), please, guys, stop me when I say something you've ever heard about the existence of. As far as the technical side goes, this is a pretty lousy excuse for something more worthwhile to put in the projector than unexposed film. But why stop there? The plot is just poor. The basic idea's been done, and it's been done so much better than this(The Crow would be one). The way it's told is gimmicky, and while there is some explanation behind the flashbacks, it still doesn't satisfy. Pacing is about non-existent. The lead is distinctly unlikeable, and there's more personality in a barn door, not to mention that those are also considerably less wooden. Kelly Perine and Thomas Ian Nicholas? What in the name of all that is good and just(pun intended) are you doing in this? Perine, you were already funny before this, on The Drew Carey Show, Nicholas, well, I haven't seen you in anything preceding American Pie, but if nothing else, you *were* funny later on, and in those productions, the amusement was intentional. Dialog is... the less said, the better. Language is unrestrained, and tends to be stupid. The violence is shoddily done, and they don't even seem to care to try to hide it(hinting at it might have been the smarter strategy). Characters, don't get me started. Why spend so much energy on portraying unexciting, at times utterly illogical, events? The more you think about this, the worse it gets. It's not even passable as a "bad horror flick", or a B movie(it may very well pass through the rest of the alphabet, and go further still), it couldn't scare you on the scariest day of your life if it had an electrified scaring machine. I recommend this only to people who want to disprove how bad this is, and don't say I didn't warn ya. 1/10
So much for JUDGE AND JURY, which lives up to its nonsense title. What good is there? The lighting is terribly foggy! Another horror movie you ask? Well, that's perfectly explainable. David Keith actually does pretty good at disguising clowns, chefs, and other shenanigans while being the killer who escaped death row. But overall, despite some new twists, it's reasonably stupid. Unapix has been putting out some ludicrous productions recently, and this one only means so much. We, the jury, find this film guilty for its indecent exposure to many of us sitting around believing it's a total waste of our time!
I rented this thinking it would be pretty good just by the cover of the movie case. Judge and Jury started out pretty good killer chasing the man who killed his wife on a bike with a cool gun, but this movie got progressively stupider as it went on. David Keith is awesome actor especially when he plays a role like this too bad the movie was a piece of crap it really wasted his talent. Judge and Jury was well plain dumb I gave it a 3 should have gave it a 2, I gave it an extra star just because David Keith's gun was cool.
It`s funny how instinct warns you of something . For example as soon as the company credits read Nu Image I knew instinctively I`d seen a really crap film by them somewhere before but couldn`t remember where . Nevertheless I just knew JUDGE AND JURY was going to be crap and it was . Maybe I`m psychic ?<br /><br />!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!<br /><br />The opening is rather violent with several people getting blown away for no more reason than being in the wrong place at the wrong time . I don`t know about you but I`m geting slightly fed up with exploitive violence onscreen nowadays along with bad language , especially if it`s spouted by actors as bad as the ones in this movie . Anyway the plot revolves around the bad dude getting executed and coming back to reek revenge on the man who shot his wife . Oh did I mention the bad dude and his wife murdered a couple of people on their wedding night ? Yeah he`s a serious badass mofo . In fact he`s so bad ( And I don`t mean the acting - I`ll get to that in a moment ) that he`s impossible to take seriously and this is before he`s executed only to return as Elton John , Elvis , a French chef etc . I wonder if Keith David got paid for this ? because he looks lke he`s having so much fun on screen that`s the only reason he`s playing the role . What a pity this reviewer didn`t have any fun whatsoever watching JUDGE AND JURY . Hey maybe the producers could send me Keith`s fee ? Gawd only knows I deserve it.<br /><br />I disliked this movie a lot as if you hadn`t guessed and my main beef isn`t with the stupid plot or the cheap production values but with its attitude to violence . If like me you`ve had a wine bottle cracked over your head or been kicked in the ribs very hard several times you`ll know violence is an obscene painful thing , but JUDGE AND JURY will have you believe that if you`re thrown through a window , crash through some bannisters and fall twenty odd feet onto a table not only will you be unhurt but you`ll be able to outrun a couple of rabid devil dogs . It could of course be argued that any film starring Sly , Arnie or Bruce also suffers from this same dishonest showing of violence but with JUDGE AND JURY it yanked my chain
It goes without saying that a modicum of allowances has to be made when a true story is being adapted for the big screen. But if you shoot a fairy tale that has next to nothing to do with what actually happened - why call it Bugsy and make the audience believe this was a halfway true story? The Godfather trilogy processes many real characters and events, Once Upon A Time In America does it, too, but they don't claim to be telling true stories.<br /><br />* SPOILER*<br /><br />In the movie, Benny has this grand vision of a gambler's Eldorado; in real life Lansky had to argue him into going to Nevada. Benny deemed the notion of a counterpart to Monte Carlo idiotic, and he'd have preferred to continue his life as a playboy in L.A. Not until much later Benny warmed to the idea. But of course he's the hero of the movie, so naturally the idea had to be his.<br /><br />In the movie, Benny wants to use Count diFrasso to get close to Mussolini in order to assassinate him because he was Hitler's partner, and Hitler killed jews in gas chambers, after all. Obviously we're supposed to like Benny, so the screenwriters invented this nonsense. In real life, at that time nobody knew about the gas chambers, least of all Benny who was completely uninterested in politics. In fact he did use the countess' connection and he did visit Mussolini, but not to kill him, but to sell explosives to him. He even met Goebbels and Goering during his sojourn in Italy.<br /><br />The whole Greenberg subplot was nonsense. Greenberg didn't turn stool pigeon, he didn't seek refuge with Benny, Benny didn't kill him (that was up to Albert Tannenbaum)... at least they got the name right.<br /><br />I guess it was supposed to be very romantic to have Virginia return to Benny, offering him the money she had stolen. The movie even goes so far to tell us via text panels that she ruefully returned the money to Lansky after Benny's assassination. Let me just say, revisionism just doesn't get more impudent than this.<br /><br />This list is by no means exhaustive - there's the issue with Benny's family not living in L.A, the way Benny deals with Dragna and Adonis, the portrayal of Costello (a disagreeable corporate type), Lansky (a lovable teddy bear), Benny himself (an aging windbag who wouldn't have reached age 12 if he had regularly gone "bugsy" in situations like those in the movie, and what's more, who neither has the good looks nor the charisma of Benny Siegel) and many others. Apart from a few hard facts nothing's right in this flick.<br /><br />* SPOILERS END HERE*<br /><br />All in all, this is the one mafia movie that manages to be even more ridiculously bad than Harlem, NY. But honor where honor is due: This is a feat in itself.
The reality of the mafia environment is absolutely dog-eat-dog where a gangster will be killed for showing any sign of weakness because they become a liability. I've got no problem with the human side of gansters' being portrayed but Bugsy steers too far in the direction of soft, comical, men. The film is enjoyable but is only light entertainment and not a biopic of a man who, though exciting, was extremely dangerous and fearsome.<br /><br />The acting's all good and the direction very solid. The locations and era are very well represented and the themes very interesting. Did Bugsy really want to kill Mussoulini?
Not as bad as "Billy Bathgate" but close. Try as he might, Warren Beatty just could not be believed as Bugsy. Whenever he flipped out, instead of being shocked by the violence, I found it pretty embarrassing because it was so phony. The other actors don't fare as well either. Annette Bening just doesn't have what it takes to play seductive women, she is better off with safe characters. As many have noted, Joe Mantegna would have fared better if the script had him as a more believable George Raft. Only Harvey Keitel emerged unscathed, but then again this guy can do these movies in his sleep. And Robert Beltran, with just one line, steals one of the big Beatty, Bening scenes. With these films, I'm never sure if the director is intent on making the mobsters seem like normal businessmen or if it just comes out that way. Either way, I don't like it. These guys were killers and no matter how much Las Vegas is indebted to Bugsy Siegel, I don't think that a movie should be made glorifying the guy, especially one with a big studio backing.
A tedious gangster film that leaves you wishing someone had edited it farce more ruthlessly. I would have thought that the story of the creation of Las Vegas would prove interesting but it fails at almost every turn. Warren Beatty's performance as the stupid and unlikeable Bugsy Seigel leaves you wishing you were watching someone else. Once or twice he flashes through the fog of his performance to deliver an interesting scene but most of the time you just can't care about him. Annette Benning gives a skilled turn as his untrustworthy lover but even she's only faintly more savoury than he is.<br /><br />I really wouldn't bother with this turgid drama unless you're a Benning devotee.
Bugsy Siegel was 31 when he went out to the West Coast. In addition to his dreams about Las Vegas, he toyed with the idea of acting. He was a good looking guy and about 7 years younger than his pal George Raft, so it wasn't such a crazy idea.<br /><br />Warren Beatty was 54 when he made this movie and despite the hair dye, he's too old for this part. Beatty was miscast; Bugsy should have been played by someone like Alec Baldwin. Bugsy was a tough guy feared by his contemporaries; Beatty just doesn't radiate menace.<br /><br />This was a vanity project for Beatty, who hasn't come to terms with the fact that he's no longer a leading man.<br /><br />The other big annoying miscast is Mantegna as George Raft. Raft had a distinctive voice and mannerisms, none of which Mantegna even attempts to match. You never once believe that Mantegna came from the streets.<br /><br />Warren Beatty and Robert Redford have both been pretending to be younger for years by massive use of hair dye, and now it;ll be a shock to suddenly go gray and play character parts.
My girlfriend wanted to see this (lol this is the case a lot)...so I rented it. Then I saw how acclaimed this was nominated for 10 Oscars. GREAT! this should be good ol' drama. This movie had a lot of potential...the direction and the way everything was paced was very well. But once the movie ended, I couldn't help but ask myself if this story was really worth making a film for. Virginia Hill (Annette Bening) was EXTREMELY annoying, I just couldn't tolerate her character at all. Warren Beatty was excellent in the film acting-wise, but again I just found it hard to have sympathy for his character....he just came off essentially as a idiotic, hotheaded loser of a gangster..who had no place in 'the life' in the first place. How'd he get in with the likes of Meyer Lansky and Lucky Luciano anyway??? This film just left me with a bland but uneasy feeling...what was the big deal with this movie? I just didn't feel a completeness with Bugsy. Beatty's antics, although acted quite well, just seemed too random and illogical. I'm guessing that's how Siegel really was....but it was just too much of that. There just didn't seem to be much of a real story here. My basic assessment of it would be <br /><br />"a hot-headed, playboy, underachieving gangster falls in love with a loser of a woman, comes up with the idea of 'Las Vegas'....but his failed attempt at the casino he builds, along with having no regard for his mob bosses' money gets him killed."<br /><br />What else is there besides that? I just didn't see the big deal with this, and it was a big disappointment. There must've not been many movies to come out in 1991, how this was nominated for 10 Oscars is beyond me (although the two it won is justifiable). 1.5/4 stars.
The movie was supposed to release in 2002 and was much awaited due to the promos but it finally released in 2003 after the producer died<br /><br />The movie is good in parts but overall isn't great<br /><br />The scenes between Rani and Ajay are okay but the other scenes are not well handled<br /><br />The film is too similar to BOLLYWOOD Hollywood and though this was planned before that got released first so originality is lost<br /><br />Milan Luthria disappoints overall after KACHCHE DAAGE<br /><br />Music is good but too many songs<br /><br />Ajay Devgan looks jaded and his appearance gives away that the film was delayed and his acting looks boring too Rani is good Sonali is good too rest are okay
I was on a British Airways flight from London to New York when I saw this movie. I wish I could have fallen asleep. The story line was very thin and the editing crew did their best to stretch it out as long as they did.<br /><br />Gary, played by Andy Garcia, was such an unlikable character that I found it hard to be supportive of him. Andy's acting ability is good but not good enough to make up for the poor writing in this movie.<br /><br />Andie MacDowell did a fine job with her portrayal of Linda, Gary's romantic interest. I can not say anything bad about Andie, I always enjoy her acting. The problem here is that the romance between Andy and Andie is so far fetched and unbelievable. The two do not make a good pair on the big screen.<br /><br />The end of the movie was almost as much of a let down as the movie itself. A nod from the Pope and all is forgiven, come on. The event that allows this movie to have a some what happy ending and that the writers would expect us to accept it is pathetic. Gary does not change and only by the death of a dear friend does his situation get better.<br /><br />There are tons of great movies that should be seen before this one. Don't waste your time.<br /><br />
A trite fish-out-of-water story about two friends from the midwest who move to the big city to seek their fortune. They become Playboy bunnies, and nothing particularly surprising happens after that. The final 15 minutes are especially cheesy. But at least the Bunnies looked good...
What's the point of this film? It's totally forgettable. Unless you have a serious bunny fetish, look elsewhere. So the bunnies had a merit/demerit list. No chewing gum in front of the customers. Are we supposed to find that interesting?
Boston Blackie movies have some strengths -- mostly in that the pacing is swift and the hero is cheerfully unfazed in even the worst circumstances. But the plotting is frequently atrocious, and the unrelenting comic bits often kill the pacing (if the plot happens to be atypically good) or are just unfunny and inappropriate.<br /><br />This one involves Blackie chasing an escapee from the asylum (Steve Cochran in a really poor performance) who has become fixated on beautiful Nina Foch (who puts in a nice, rather subtle acting job). Inspector Farraday, of course, believes Blackie has gone homicidal maniac (he at least has some evidence in this one for that), and is incompetently trying to jail him as Blackie goes after the real killer. The plot has possibilities, but any time any real tension gets going, we a get a not funny comedy routine. It doesn't seem like anyone at Columbia understood that, in a movie about a pursuit of a really dangerous maniac, cute little comedy scenes about hiding an inconvenient body from the inspector disrupt any willing suspension of disbelief. (One just concludes our clever hero is an idiot -- deadly for a film like this.) <br /><br />This one is not worth the time. For a well plotted episode of this series, see Alias Boston Blackie.
I just saw this early this morning on the Fox channel quite by accident (my dog woke me up) - I had seen it years ago and thought I remembered it fairly well. As a kid, I had enjoyed it. But now? As another poster commented, several of the reels were out of order, and while it was disorienting at first, and bizarre, it seemed to fit the production - what was just awful became surreal and amusing. Musical numbers for what I think was the "big" fundraiser show("you're in show business, I'm in show business, most of the kids are in show business, let's put on a show")come out of nowhere BEFORE all the talk about putting on a show, and then fade without applause to totally unrelated "straight" scenes. The leading man's girlfriend shows up, spits out lines and lines of dialogue, then disappears. I was half awake, and loved every insane minute of it.
This is one for the Golden Turkey book. It's another of those "putting on a show" flicks. The dialogue is turgid. The music is terrible. The costumes may be the worst ever. And the Nick Castle choreography is hilariously dreadful. Check it out, oh ye who love bad flicks. Only Perry Como is tolerable.
SPOILER ALERT<br /><br />A cliché-riddled film that somehow makes an anti-death with dignity statement, though it attempts to do the opposite. Washington is a paralyzed forensics officer who has been suffering and wanting to die for the past four years (apparently he wrote his huge selling book only a year ago though, so it hasn't all be despair). He arranges for an assisted suicide with his doctor who will return in a week.<br /><br />In the meantime, he helps out on a serial killer case. He recruits the gutsy, I don't wanna do it, but I'm just so good at it, cop Jolie, and they track down impossible clue jumping to highly unlikely conclusions in matters of moments. Hey, that old bolt means that the killer has the millionaire's wife in a steam tunnel by the old Woolworth building. Shyeah, right. It's laughable. Yet no is smart enough to figure out that doctor who's going to assist him is the killer.<br /><br />When he comes to Washington to murder him (ahead of schedule), he has a change of heart and struggles unbelievably for his life. Cut to the obligatory bad guy about to shoot the good guy scene when BANG the gun goes off--- but the bad guy didn't fire! No the woman steps out of the corner, she has just shot him in the back.
The storyline has too many flaws and illogical sequences to be worthwhile. Jolie's acting is pretty flat and poor, Washington's is OK, the rest of the cast are cardboard cutouts. Somehow almost everything about this film oozes mediocrity. The plot is lame. The only thing I liked more or less about this film are the fairly original methods the perpetrator uses to end his victims. Technical details are worse than the most far-stretched CSI 'knowledge' and gizmos and halfway the movie one wonders if the director even cared about detail credibility. (Some Spoilers hereafter!) I mean, an EKG machine with a pure sinus wave reflecting a man's heartbeat, a quadriplegic with full body muscle spasms and one working index finger, sure. A killer gutting a man's bowels whilst keeping him alive to allow the rats to feast on him followed by a rat aiming for the guy's FACE! What's with all that stupidity? Then there are quite a few continuity goofs, but you can find those elsewhere here on IMDb Honestly I found it a bit of an insult even to my limited intelligence.<br /><br />Waste of time. Still 4 out of 10 to keep my girlfriend from kicking me.
*Criticism does mention spoilers*<br /><br />I rarely make user comments, but this is one movie I have no problem slandering. This movie stinks, and its mediocre of rating of 6 and a half stars is probably too high for such pulp. The Bone Collector is not at all the same calibre of film that Silence of the Lambs or Seven were, despite what its ad claims. This is a perfect example of how not to make a thriller. The pace of this movie was extremely slow- I actually left for about 10 minutes half-way through and came back at the exact scene with the exact same character with absolutely no progression (I refer to you the part where Angelina Jolie's character debates Denzel about cutting off a corpse' hands). The movie is not at all scary, but tries to compensate this with a love-subplot albeit sexy Angelina Jolie's character and Denzel Washington's. Of course, what you get is something comparable to that of the mentor-student relationship as seen in the brillian epic Silence of the Lambs with Hannibal Lecter and Starling, however, even this lacks all effectiveness and I was personally routing for the villain to kill Denzel off so as to avoid hackneyed giggles between the two. With such a crappy movie, I was half-expecting a plot-twist or some sort of spectacular situation to occur at the end to give the movie some credit- things that mediocre movies like Arlington Road and Scream pulled off. Anybody with a 4th grade education can see the ending how will be resolved ( a situation which mimicks Alfred Hitchcock's Rear Window). The cliche of having the killer explain his motives was uninspired enough, but the reason was so ridiculous and stupid it had me spewing latte over the screen. Esoterically speaking, I even think the murderer's intention was completely lost as Denzel happily recovers from his loss over the proverbial 'chess game' and gets with his pet project, Angelina.<br /><br />If you are a fan of movies with original ideas and genuinely dynamic concepts (like I am), you will not appreciate this film. If you have not attended a single movie in your life and would like to catch-up on every single Hollywood cliche ever borne (the late-night knock on the window from somebody else but the murderer, the ridiculous serial-killer to prime investigator relationship, the horrible 'woman trying to get by in an all-male dominated workforce aka SOTL) , see this movie....but even then its too slow-paced and you'd be bored.
I can envision the writers of this story thinking up this script:<br /><br />1.Let's make a serial killer movie like Se7en, Knight Moves, Copycat, and Silence of the Lambs. People like serial killer stuff. It'll sell... 2.The killer needs to adopt some sort of pattern. I know; he'll copy it out of a serial killer mystery novel. That hasn't been done yet, at least not exactly like that. 3.Now, we need some kind of way to make this movie unique; of course, the good guy can be bedridden like in Rear Window. 4.Lastly, we need a twist ending that will give this movie the success of The Sixth Sense and The Usual Suspects.<br /><br />Okay, now that you know these things, you know the whole movie, so don't waste your money. One thing I really hate about moviemakers is that they take a perfectly good concept for movies and completely run them into the ground. I wrote better stories than this when I was in Junior High. I just kept checking my watch every five minutes. When the twist ending finally came, I wasn't shocked, I just said, "Oh. Who cares?!" The characters are two-dimensional. They have your typical movie personalities. This movie is just proof that stealing the elements of other successful movies is no excuse for a bad script. I give this movie 1 out of 10. Normally, it would earn at least 2 or 3, but I'm so sick of the unoriginality. When will they learn? 1/10
The Bone Collector is set in New York City & starts as one of the world's foremost criminologist's & crime scene experts Lincoln Rhyme (Denzel Washington) is involved in an accident which leaves him a bedridden quadriplegic. Jump forward four years & Alan (Gary Swanson) & his wife Lindsay Rubin (Olivia Birkelund) are kidnapped, soon after New York cop Amelia Donaghy (Angelina Jolie) is called to a crime scene & finds the buried & mutilated body of Alan. Amelia notices some unusual crime scene evidence & makes a note of it which impresses Rhyme when he is asked to work on the case, he quickly realises the evidence are in fact cryptic clues to the whereabouts of Lindsay. Having cracked the clues the cops get there too late to save her but this is just the beginning as a sadistic serial killer continues to kill & leave forensic clues for Rhyme & the police...<br /><br />Directed by Phillip Noyce I watched The Bone Collector last night & I have to say it's one of the worst big budget post The Silence of the Lambs (1991) & Se7en (1995) serial killer thrillers I have seen, in fact it makes Friday the 13th (1980) look sophisticated & realistic! The script by Jeremy Iacone was based on the book by Jeffery Deaver & is so poor on so many levels I hardly know where to begin. For a start it takes itself deadly seriously & that makes all the other flaws seem twice as bad. The character's are truly awful & I didn't believe any of them were actual human beings. First we have Lincoln Rhyme who is paralysed from the neck down & there's just not a lot the script can do with him, in fact he quite literally can't do anything but lie in bed for the whole film. He is seemingly impressed with Amelia because she stopped a train & thought a fresh footprint near a murdered person might be of relevance, I'm not being funny here but wouldn't any cop realise a footprint near a murder victim might be of some relevance? Why is he so impressed with her? Then there's Capatin Cheney who is not only unlikable & shouts at everyone for no apparent reason but is so incompetent that he failed to connect several murders committed in a short space of time where each victim had sections of flesh & skin surgically removed from their bodies, how exactly did this guy get to be a police Captain? Then there's the killer whose motives are less than plausible, are you trying to tell me they devised an intricate plan to murder at least seven people because they spent six years in jail for something they actually did? If they wanted revenge on Rhyme why did they kill all those other people who had no connection to anything, I could maybe just about buy someone wanting revenge against the guy who put them away but not to kill several other people who have no connection to themselves, the intended target Rhyme anything else. Also after devising an intricate plan to kill these people & get away with it they suddenly turn into the most stupid person in history as despite holding a large knife & being able to walk & use their arms they are actually defeated & nearly killed by a quadriplegic who has no movement in his body below his neck! How did that happen? I should also mention Amelia who is a terrible character, she actually buys her own camera to take crime scene photo's & shoots rats for no apparent reason.<br /><br />Besides some of the worst written character's ever the story & plot isn't much better We never find out why the killer is using The Bone Collector book as inspiration We never find out why the killer was taking strips of flesh from his victims. It's never explained why a rookie cop like Amelia is allowed to enter crime scenes even before the proper forensic teams. There is no reason given for why the killer chooses his victims. Also the killers clues are a little obscure aren't they? I mean a bloody animal bone & shaved rat hair? Logically how does someone go from a bone & rat hair to the exact pinpoint location of the next victim & has the whole of New York to choose from? There's some nonsense about a bird that sits on Rhymes window ledge which is just totally random & at almost two hours The Bone Collector is really slow going. There is so much wrong with The Bone Collector & it all comes down to one of the worst scripts ever, it's atrocious on all levels & has zero credibility. Apparently Angelina Jolie has stated that she shot nude scenes for this film but they were cut because they were felt to be too distracting.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $48,000,000 The Bone Collector is well made with good production values & that Hollywood gloss about it. I also must add right now that I think Angelina Jolie gives one of the worst performances I have ever seen, I think she is absolutely terrible in this. Denzel Washington just sort of lies there really, Queen Latifah is awful & even Michael Rooker can't do much as he is stuck with a clichéd & one dimensional character.<br /><br />The Bone Collector has to be one of the worst Hollywood films I have seen in a while, I saw it for free on telly last night & I still feel cheated & ripped-off. There are just so many things to poke holes at it's silly, embarrassingly awful or should that be awfully embarrassing? Works either way to be honest...
Am I the only person who thinks that the entire Forensics and Scenes Of Crime community in the USA must detest this almighty slap in their faces. A rookie cop is first to a crime scene where her back up is so slow to respond that she has time to send the kid who found the body to the local store to buy a disposable camera. By the time he returns (still no senior cops, SOCOs or other assistance for the lovely Jolie - this is New York isn't it??) it has started raining and she gets to work photographing the evidence, only after she'd stood in front of an Amtrak to stop it disturbing the scene.<br /><br />I want to know the name of that camera as the photographs were so incredibly detailed that no amount of zooming in distorted the images!! The horror continues:- not in the film itself (pretty ordinary I'm afraid) but in the Lincoln Rhyme character as played by Mr Washington. This man is a highly dedicated Forensic Crime Scene Examiner with years of experience who, instead of the highly trained but invisible local Crime Scene Examiners, entrusts the work to an untrained cop, a rookie cop, who proceeds to find the very obviously placed clues and move them before photographing them thus contaminating every item and making DNA profiling well nigh impossible. Now that was a bright idea eh? I know one should be able to suspend disbelief to a degree but those who say this film is intelligent must have entirely disengaged their ability to think in order to find this film believable.<br /><br />I have given this film 4/10 for the superb acting of Denzel Washington and for Miss Jolie's lips which are the only items requiring my disbelief to be suspended!
I wouldn't recommend this to anyone, except cinema-goers who like to laugh at a film, not with it.<br /><br />Quite a promising premise and set of actors get progressively worse over a film which ends with perhaps the worst ending ever seen in a film. I won't spoil it, but basically the most over-used set of movie cliches get done badly and half heartedly for the most disappointing last five minutes to any film, ever.<br /><br />The movie also includes the most cringe inducing scene ever, the attempt at on-screen chemistry between the two lead roles when we're presented with a close up of Angela Jolie stroking Denzel Washington's finger lovingly. It may be the only thing he could move, but quite why the viewer is treated to a zoom of Washington's finger getting stroked amidst the kind of dimmed lights and music appropriate for a sex scene is beyond me. I laughed out loud and shook my head.<br /><br />The direction of the storyline borrows heavily from Se7en, but here it is executed far more simplistically, and far too obviously. To call it a poor-mans Se7en would be an understatement, this really is nothing more than a made for TV movie and even Jolie and Washington's best efforts can't convince that this is a box office film.
A formulaic story with all the tired cliches. I was shocked that the horrible script became a movie! What a waste! How many ORIGINAL scripts are scattered around without being produced? <br /><br /> At the climax I could predict what will happen in every single shot.<br /><br /> Oh, and don't even get me started about the idiotic sexual tension between the gorgeous female cop and the paralyzed cop who can barely move a finger. YEAH RIGHT. I CAN BUY THAT. What next? Fingers porn?
Wow -- this movie was really bad! You talk about formulaic, typical movie plot? Watching this movie was like hitting my head repeatedly against a brick wall. The transitions kept trying to be cool but failed. The plot twist at the end, where we find out who the bad guy is was unexpected, but doesn't make much sense until his monologue. Even then... The amount of gore in this movie doesn't help either. Are all of those images necessary? My last complaint is about the plausibility of chunks of the movie. Would the PD really send a lone officer into an unlit warehouse, subway tunnel, or wherever to find a body, when the location of the perp is unknown? And why does the romance at the end just kind of happen all of a sudden? It's like the writer was trying to fit in every Hollywood cliche he could. Don't waste your time seeing this piece of... something.
If a copy of this movie fell into the wrong hands, the world would be in grave danger. I am a huge fan of "B" movies, and I have seen my share of bad ones, but there is not a letter in the alphabet that could adequately describe this rancid piece of solidified puke. This movie even surpasses the "so bad it's good" phase and goes straight on to the "so bad your world will seem a little less meaningful for having watched it" phase.<br /><br />It is hard to say what is more disturbing: .1. The fact that the people who wrote this thought their political satire (I use the term very, very, very loosely) was witty enough to film .2. They were able to find so many other people who agreed with them enough to work on this garbage for obviously little or no money .3. That someone actually thought it would be a good idea to pick this crap up for distribution on a horror anthology DVD.<br /><br />Were I a weaker man, I most likely would have jammed grapefruit spoons into my eyes and then blindly flung myself to my death in oncoming traffic after watching this. As it stands though, I live ,but I am forever scarred by the experience.
Move over Manos. Back off Boogens. It doesn't take a Baby Genius to know that Malibu Beach Vampires (MBV for the rest of this tome) is now and always will be (unless someone makes a sequel to Zarkorr The Invader) the worst film ever. The only horror in this thing is watching it. I wonder if this was an attempt for someone to meet babes by casting a movie. If this was the case, the babes ain't babes just like this ain't a movie. It's dreck. No wait. I dishonor the word dreck by calling it dreck. Ulli Lommel (of Boogey Man fame) would call it "uber dreck" or Scheiße. It should be used to torture prisoners. If you find it on a shelf in a video store, back away from it quietly and notify the authorities.
....is where I'm assuming this movie came from. I mean, I've watched plenty of B movies over the course of my young life so far, and I wouldn't even classify this as a B movie. I remember seeing films in my high school mass media class that surpass this one.<br /><br />So the premise is...a bunch of dancing numbers and goofy crap happens. Women in bikinis, who aren't even that great looking to begin with, dance in the beginning and sing. Guys with hairy chests show up and girls with fangs who are out in the sunlight. I mean, I can barely put together a cohesive sentence just thinking about this movie. According to most people on this site, Manos the Hands of Fate and Pod People are the worst movies (MST3K classics :-D)...I used to be one of them. Then I saw this movie. Usually I don't try to trash a movie too much, but the people who made this really do deserve it. It is THAT bad and THAT unbearable, and I'm assuming the director or an actor in the movie is the only person who rated this a ten.
OK - say some college in southern California has an movie making class. And some dudes were enrolled just to film girls, and they gave them a camera. And then they were drunk/stoned/ or just to plain stupid to actually use a camera, and they turned this in for their grade. AND FAILED.<br /><br />That is my only explanation for this, this, thing. Good God they left the date and time counter on during some of it. The picture started in new scene way before the sound, and forget about a plot. Well apparently there was one and they had to tell you all about it once the 3 hour introduction sequence was finished. But I am glad they did because I never would have gotten it by watching this.<br /><br />STAY AWAY from this.
I like bad films, but this thing is a steaming heap. From the shaky cameramen to the horrible sound and devastating acting, don't waste a second on this pile. Fifth graders could have made a better film and first graders could have written a better script. Want a real synopsis? Ugly chicks in neon bikinis dancing for way too long. A disjointed plot made worse by hideous acting. The on-location sets weren't even passable. The church scenes take place in a dance studio, and oh yeah - what's with the two tap-dance numbers that come up out of the blue?<br /><br />Oh, and the total number of naked breasts, which couldn't have even saved this film - 0. Add this one to the trash heap.
Wow! After the first five minutes of watching this "film", I was quite tempted to put a bullet in my brain, and end my life. It's really hard to describe what exactly this film is about. I honestly don't know what kind of human being would even finance a piece of excrement. The film looks to have either been shot on video or 16mm. I normally don't have a problem with SOV movies, are shoddily made 16mm films, but this was just so awful. And where did they find these "actresses"? I have seen some bad acting, but this takes the cake. Watch the first 5 minutes and you'll see what I mean. BCI Entertainment should be boycotted for distributing this god awful sludge. This has to be the worst film I have ever had the displeasure of viewing. I want my 74 minutes back! If you are able to sit through the first 5 minutes, without either shooting your TV or committing mass homicide, then give a shot. After all, what have you got to lose?
THE OTHER is a supposed "horror" movie made during the 1970s. It is not to be confused with the similarly titled THE OTHERS, which starred Nicole Kidman.<br /><br />The plot is as follows - a woman with strange supernatural powers teaches her twin grandsons something referred to simply as "the game". One of these twin boys - Niles - is supposed to be "good". The other one - Holland - is supposed to be evil.<br /><br />The idea sounds interesting enough as an abstract concept and the movie was adapted from a novel. I can only hope the novel was interesting as the movie was incredibly boring from beginning to end.<br /><br />The execution of this movie is very much like a TV movie of the kind UK residents might see on Channel 5. In fact, this movie looks like it was made to be the daytime afternoon movie for this TV channel. A slight trimming to one or two scenes and this would be a U-rated movie of the kind Disney produce. But even the youngest of children are more likely to be bored than scared by THE OTHER.<br /><br />You don't need to check out the director's CV to realise horror is not his forte.<br /><br />Mr. Mulligan relies heavily upon the characters to drive the story. This is obvious from the get-go. I haven't seen any of his other movies but TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD is a highly regarded crime movie on this site. Unfortunately in THE OTHER, the characters are given too little to do and the plodding script ensures the movie never really takes off in the way one might expect.<br /><br />The direction is as bland as you could possibly find. Almost every single scene takes place in the daytime! Think about this - a scene shot in the open landscape in rural America during daytime with the camera focusing on vast area. Does it sound scary or atmospheric? Believe me, it isn't. It comes across as something more akin to an episode of LITTLE HOUSE ON THE PRAIRIE than a horror movie. And yes, both the aforementioned TV series and THE OTHER were shot in California.<br /><br />There is a noticeable absence of danger or malice that makes the whole exercise seem rather pointless.<br /><br />The ending was clearly meant to be highly disturbing and perhaps influenced that of another movie from this time period. I won't reveal which movie but I'll give 2 clues - a young boy was a main character and the movie is well-known. And I'll add that the concept was used to much greater effect in the latter movie.<br /><br />The acting is actually quite good and is the only reason why I have awarded 2 stars. The actors playing the twin boys, along with the actress playing the grandmother, all try hard with the poor material they are given.<br /><br />Diana Muldaur is completely wasted in a thankless role as the mother of the twin boys. Do not be fooled by her high billing on the cast list. She gets very little screen time and her presence just comes across as a ploy to cash-in on her long established TV career in order to help attract TV viewers.<br /><br />I paid careful attention to the blurb on the back of the DVD cover (of the Region 2 version in the UK). Comparisons were made to THE EXORCIST, which I thought was a complete insult to that movie. There is no comparison. THE EXORCIST had everything this movie should contain but does not - suspense, tension, tongue-in-cheek humour, highly disturbing content, great acting, superb characterisation and viewer involvement. Ironically, THE EXORCIST was made only a year later but in terms of style and execution seems like decades ahead of the bland drama known as THE OTHER. THE OTHER comes across as a work that would have seemed tame in the 1950s let alone the 1970s!<br /><br />The 1970s was a great era for horror movies with classics such as THE EXORCIST, THE OMEN, THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE, THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE, SALEM'S LOT to name just a few being produced. For this reason, THE OTHER proves an even greater disappointment.<br /><br />If anyone finds the synopsis of THE OTHER interesting, they might want to read the book or do a little more research on what the book was about. I would advice everyone to skip the movie.
What a waste of talent -- although it appears that Crudup in real life is a lot more like the vapid, self- absorbed, character-less character he portrays in this disappointing movie.<br /><br />In art, sometimes the empty spaces reveal more than the painted or created content. What this movie reveals is the unconsciousness and the contradictory/competing, unresolved impulses/consciousness of the film's director/writer. It unintentionally shows the LACK of awareness that a truly evolved, deeply aware character should have and be tormented about in order to deserve audience empathy or sympathy OR the lack of which is used to serve as a cautionary tale to the audience. But this film fails on either level in that regard.<br /><br />The fact that Cal, the main character (very much an ANTagonist, not a protagonist in the true sense of the word), has no empathy for anyone, especially those most deserving of it (which does NOT include him) and that he has such overblown, entitled, self-pitying, whiney sympathy only for himself, combined with the hallmark lack of remorse and no sense of guilt or awareness of his impact on others -- all converge in this film to make him the epitome of the self-involved, developmentally arrested, narcissistic sociopath -- somehow this is now the gold standard for males on film and in the world at this point and time. <br /><br />One of his counterpoints (James LeGros) states with a laser-true flash: "I bet you haven't done one good thing in life -- and I bet you won't". It captures the absolute essence of the Cal character. Something the other characters he bulldozes over in the film seem to realize fairly quickly despite the director having stacked the deck to manipulate sympathy for Cal. That is a testament to the supporting cast's talent and skills.<br /><br />Cal's eventual 'return' has nothing to do with character development, transformation or evolution of consciousness. It has only to do with the ultimate capitulation that until something better comes along, he may as well be back in his comfy cozy status quo of entitled enablement where the living is easy and no one will demand that he grow up--something of which he is willfully incapable and uninterested in doing.<br /><br />The film could have been pointed and intentional about showing the traps and tragedies -- the devastating effects of this kind of lack of conscience/ consciousness, but it excuses and glorifies it instead -- in fact, it wallows in self-pity right along with the arrogant, selfish, emotionally stunted main character.<br /><br />(and it sure sent chills up my spine when thinking of the recent revelations about convicted murderer Scott Peterson).<br /><br />If you want to see Crudup at his most nuanced and full of an exciting potential that has never been truly realized in my opinion, see the underrated 'Inventing the Abbotts' ....
This film was so unfocused, rambling and uneven that it was an effort to watch the whole thing. (I actually thought some interesting plot elements might develop.) This was nothing more than a "coming-of-age" film for the thirty-something generation. Total crap and I have no idea what Julianne Moore was doing in this since it was the only reason I picked it off the shelf at the rental store.
This is one of those road movies that would like to tell you a lotta things about women,the universe,the better life,the terrible solitude of the brilliant architect from Manhattan who severs all links with everyone,including his three years old child -which may seem irresponsible to some-Actually the hero wins hands down when it comes to selfishness and the scene with his old school pal ,which begins as some kind of good old days conversation and ends on a threatening note is the oasis in a desert movie.<br /><br />The scene with-the-father-who-left-home-when -I-was-a child has been told and told and TOLD.Of course it did not prevent the offspring from making his way of life.And when you see the hero's wife's attitude ,you may think she must never have heard about woman's lib.<br /><br />The best is the soundtrack which includes superb songs by Willie Nelson,Tom Waits or Bonnie Raitt...But you can enjoy them without this tedious pretentious work.
I am one of those people that respect every film-maker as having achieved, each film I watch I usually respect(although I admit I select carefully) and appriciate for what it is. Not any more. This is truly one of the worst scripts I have seen produced as a film...so much so I felt compelled to warn others off it. The dialogue was truly unbelievable, the main protaganist was about the last person I would be interested in finding out more about. A scene were an old school friend 'tells it like it is' made me laugh only because it was a pathetic attempt to reveal the subtext of an already concluded plot. The direction is glib at best and at worst film-making by numbers. To compare this film to the atmospheric majesty of a film like Five Easy Pieces is a travesty.
The reviewer in Variety said this was "overwritten and overlong", and I kind of agree with it. It has some events that seem forced and unlikely, like when Cal (Crudup once again as the 'lost, vacant, and kind of dull' male) and Julianne Moore find a map of the US in kind of an unbelievable place. The story is one of those 1970's "guy must find meaning in his life" stories, and I found myself imagining Jack Nicholson in his prime playing the role of Cal. The whole "hitting the road to find meaning in life" theme is still kind of interesting though. Does it all really lead back to family? I wasn't so sure. The acting is okay, I particularly liked Karen Allen and James LeGross, who unfortunately only have supporting roles. I'd give it a 'five'.
The worst movie I've seen in a long time. This whole thing rings false, and the Billy Crudup character especially so. The potential for a good story is there, but this movie never comes close to delivering. Every plot element just drifts away.
Lois Weber's film "Hypocrites" was and still kind of is a very bold and daring film. I enjoyed it and was very impressed by the filming and story of it. The priest sees the hypocrisy of the people in his church and tries to show them the "naked" truth. The people are appalled when he reveals the naked statue portraying truth, after failing to lead them to it and the few that did, help along the way. The people do not want to face the truth that they are doing anything wrong, but it shows them putting things before God, going to beach parties acting inappropriate, their materialistic ways, and other things in which the people of our world do that tend to not be morally right. In the end, failing to gain any followers, he must enter into the gates of heaven alone. This film seems to me to be very bold, in the fact that a naked woman is shown throughout it, especially considering the time period in which this film was made. The imagery and symbolism portrayed in this movie I found incredible. The way they made the naked woman translucent and using a naked woman to symbolize the naked truth shows a lot of creativity and art. Showing the different sins of the people as they walked down the road and refused to follow along the path, each with different excuses, setbacks, and/or higher priorities, was a great way of representing the people of today. This film does a very good job of getting the moral message across to its audience. Lois Weber has a tremendous way of capturing her spectators' attention with her creativity, symbolism, visuals, and through auditory. Even the music of the piano throughout this film is very beautiful and fitting with the whole theme.
The story, as I understand, is "based on real events." That can be either good or bad, depending on what sort of license is taken with those real events and how they are rendered.<br /><br />In this case, the results are enough to gag a maggot. I wasn't expecting much going in -- anticipating a story of rich high-school kids taking an ocean cruise under a stern skipper. That is, what I figured was a coming-of-age movie along the lines of something about boot camp or basic training, the kind in which the drill sergeant says, "My duty is to snap you out of your winsome civilian ways." Well, it IS that, in a way. The kids start out as kids and end up as an organic group. But this is far hokier than any boot-camp movie I've ever seen, outside of a deliberate comedy. Who WROTE this thing? The air is filled with slogans that belong, not in high school, but in the third grade. The dialog offends the ear.<br /><br />Jeff Bridges usually does a better-than-average job but in this case his performance is mediocre. He brings nothing extra to the part, although given his lines, it's hard to know how he could do much with them. The rest of the cast is undistinguished and a few of the kids are painfully inadequate. There's a lot of tearing up, and considerable crying. The best scene involves a dolphin.<br /><br />The immature clichés continue to the very end. The Coast Guard is cast in the role of the hard-hearted court at the hearing that follows the disaster. The interrogator does nothing but hit Bridges over the head with his misinterpretations and misconstruction of events. "You let the crew drink alcohol, didn't you?" (A couple of harmless drinks.) "And you didn't punish them, though you punished them for killing a fish." (The dolphin business.) The technical details surrounding the sinking are left murky. What is a "white squall" anyway? And if it's as dangerous as Bridges claims, why weren't the whole crew alerted and wearing life vests? But why go on? If "The Albatross" were a Dreadnaught, it would still be torpedoed and sunk by the ludicrous comic-book script.
As a person who knows the filmed ship and some other ships, too, I cannot see the movie as a movie, only. As a movie is has some great, wonderful shots of the ship, most of them done on an existing vessel - apart of the ones in the disaster scenes, of course, and a certain room under deck. But regarding the story and dialogs I only can call it big crap. Nothing of that would happen like this on a real sailing vessel. No wonder, the film had bad impact on the existing ship - if I didn't know better, I wasn't tempted to do a sailing voyage for sure. Definitely, for Europeans I recommend to switch off once the ship ran aground. After that, the over-emotional, very American part begins which I couldn't bear. The pics are really, really great, no wonder in a Ridley Scott film, but if you can avoid listening to the text, it will become much better.
Duncan Roy's writing and direction is really, and regularly, below par. Actually it sort of stinks. AKA is almost as bad as his recent (horrible, self-serving) remake of Dorian Gray - absurd, contorted dialogue among the 'upper class' characters, at once idiotic and pretentious, amateurish, stilted to its core. Characterisiation and script - and sometimes the acting - is creaky like a school play...but worse, there's a sort of peacock self-certainty about the direction which is just soul destroying when the director clearly hasn't grasped...he's just no good. Diana Quick must be cringing with embarrassment. DR you should just get out of film...seriously.
AKA <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 3 x 1.78:1 within 2.39:1 frame (Triptych) <br /><br />Sound format: Dolby Digital<br /><br />1978: A working class teenager (Matthew Leitch) assumes a false identity and gatecrashes high society, where he learns harsh lessons about the divisions between Rich and Poor.<br /><br />Autobiographical feature by director Duncan Roy (JACKSON: MY LIFE... YOUR FAULT), an exposé of the pre-Thatcherite aristocracy, as seen through the eyes of a low-rent 'commoner' whose world view is transformed by his adventures amongst the Upper Classes. Unfortunately, Roy's screenplay says very little we didn't already know about the excesses of the idle rich, and the narrative is only briefly ignited by Leitch's relationship with a handsome but self-destructive rent boy (Peter Youngblood Hills) who turns out to be no less hypocritical than the very people he seeks to emulate. Also starring Diana Quick (as an outrageous snob who believes working class people are "embarrassed to be alive"!), Bill Nighy as the black sheep of a wealthy family, Lindsay Coulson ("EastEnders"), Blake Ritson (DIFFERENT FOR GIRLS) and Georgina Hale in a typically flamboyant cameo, flashing her boobs at all and sundry, without a care in the world! <br /><br />Unfortunately, much of the film's impact is diluted by Roy's insistence on using a Triptych effect (three separate 1.78:1 images are letterboxed within the 2.39:1 frame, each one providing a different viewpoint of individual scenes), which shrinks the image and distances viewers from events on-screen. A long, pointless film, too personal for wide appeal, and hampered throughout by a cinematic process which fails to reconcile the story at hand. A single-image version is also available (framed theatrically at 1.85:1), with the on-screen title AKA: LIES ARE LIKE WISHES.
Unlike one of the reviewers below, I don't think that a great and glittering career should lie ahead for the director of this inept and tedious piece of navel-gazing. Whereas it is good to see a British director attempting to break out of the confines of convention, AKA's only claim for innovative fame rests on the novelty of the triple screen. At first you think that this might prove to be an interesting device, but its only real contribution to the film is to test your eyesight and patience. Seeing the same character from 3 different angles in a 2-dimensional movie does not make it more revealing or complex. If you can forget the triple screen (which, granted, is very hard to do), you then have to deal with the unintentionally hilarious script. The audience is beaten into submission by chiche upon chiche about the British class system. The film has the political and emotional sophistication of an episode of Upstairs and Downstairs. To sum up: the Emperor's New Clothes. And a rather poor outfit, too.
I'm a bit spooked by some of these reviews praising A.K.A. Not only do they sound as if they were written by the same person, but they contain all kinds of insider information that surely you could only find by reading the press book from cover to cover. Please don't tell me that the director is writing his own reviews as that would just be too sad to contemplate.<br /><br /> Afraid I'm another one of those who hated the film and was surprised by its unapologetic amateurism. Great idea, shame about the execution. And it was most disconcerting to watch so many good actors (as well as some very bad ones including the leaden lead) all apparently thinking that they were appearing in a series of very different films.<br /><br /> I wish that A.K.A. had been audacious, innovative or just simply interesting. Sadly it was like watching an unintentionally hysterical home video with arty aspirations. A missed opportunity.
I was very interested in seeing this movie despite the article I read about the director in Tattler Magazine. I don't judge movies by what the director may or may not have done. This debut feature was very difficult to watch. I found the split screens to be a distraction to the drama in the film, some of the supporting characters gave bad performances, and the film to be a copy of several other films I have seen. There really wasn't anything fresh about this
What a self-indulgent mess! Duncan Roy's film is apparently autobiographical, however it's impossible to find any glimmer of emotional truth in this chaotic, badly acted and woefully amateurish fiasco.<br /><br />In a way, you have to admire the balls of a man who through grim determination and a very generous benefactor manages to make a film about his own rise and fall - from abused, working class lad to criminal English lord. However, the tone is either so self-pitying or so arch, that it's impossible to engage with either characters or plot. The raw material is potentially great stuff, however Roy seems unable to tease out the kind of tale that should grab you by the throat, then move you to tears. And it's a complete mystery why it was ever made to be screened as a triptych of images - presumably because a single image would have been too tedious to watch.<br /><br />It's also interesting to see so many otherwise good actors - Bill Nighy, Diana Quick, Lindsay Coulson - giving career-worst performances.
What can I say about this movie, it really is one of the worst gay themed movies, ever to come out of the UK. I can only imagine the likes of Diana Quick and Georgina Hale, needed the money. What story there is, is such a rambling mess that you loose interest pretty quickly. It's supposed to be based on real life events. Well, all I can say to that one, is that it's an insult to the real life characters. The DVD is out at the moment in the UK. It's available in either the split screen format, which must make it even worse that the full screen version I watch. Gay cinema can be so much better than this, and we deserve more.
I was so looking forward to seeing this at the film festival in Sydney. I left the theater, like many others, before the end credits because I couldn't sit through it any longer. It was badly shot, the sound sucks, and the acting was worse than an episode of The Love Boat. Now I know why this film hasn't been able to find an American distribution company to release it in the United States. This screams of a low budget high school production.
I saw this film without knowing much about it at all. The split screen device was immediately irritating, and things didn't improve for me after the title sequence had finished. The plot, characters and dialogue were all extremely cliched - poor guy from abusive family gets thrown out of home, wants to get out of his 'lot', reinvents himself, changes his voice, dresses in others' clothes, is adopted by a gay man who he proceeds to disgard on his way up to becoming part of an international set of drug taking British aristocrats.<br /><br />The estate of Patricia Highsmith (talented mr ripley) should be suing the makers of this film. The triple screen to me, together with the over 120 min duration, emphasises the almost non existent editing. Can't decide which image works and is the most powerful, why not show three and hope you get it right with one of them. This gimmick removed any connection or interest I had with any of the characters. Important dialogue was repeated 3 times across each screen, as if to say 'this is an important / moving / deep moment, ok!'.<br /><br />Don't waste your time.<br /><br />
This movie was so frustrating to watch. The split screens don't allow you to get very involved in the emotions of the actors. I was constantly going back and forth watching all these tiny images that I found myself with wiplash by the end. This is basically a rip off of "The Talented Mr. Ripley" and "Timecode" I was very let down with this film makers attempt to be cool. I wish I had walked out like so many other people did.
When I voted my "1" for this film I noticed that 75 people voted the same out of 146 total votes. That means that half the people that voted for this film feel it's truly terrible. I saw this not long ago at a film festival and I was really unimpressed by it's poor execution. The cinematography is unwatchable, the sound is bad, the story is cut and pasted from many other movies, and the acting is dreadful. This movie is basically a poor rip-off of three other films. NO WONDER THIS WAS NEVER RELEASED IN THE USA.
It's so depressing when film makers try to be cool and it's so obvious here. This has below average acting, laughable dialogue, split screens that are difficult to watch, and many goofs in it's attempt to be a period film and autobiographical. This film should be avoided at all costs. I was told not to go and see this film. I wish I had listened.
This is by far the worst version of William Shakespeare's tragic masterpiece I have ever seen. It seems the filmmakers didn't actually read Shakespeare's text. No, they just took what they wanted from the Lawerence Olivier movie. The plot is out of order and slimmed down to its bare necessity, yet there is time for the non-canon Olivier created incest hint between Hamlet and Queen Gertrude. Could we have had the "Something rotten in the state of Denmark" bit instead? Casting is another issue. I understand that the far superior Branagh movie had its weak bits (Robin Williams and Charlton Heston come to mind), but this one has very few good moments. I do like Laertes and Polonius, but the rest of the cast is stale. Mel Gibson's creepy stubble is irritating, and one often wonders if he has any idea what he is saying. Many of the actors seem to have just memorized the part--they know less about what is being said than sophomores in high school.<br /><br />If you want a version of Hamlet, check out Kenneth Branagh's or even Lawerence Olivier. To be frank, even Disney's Hamlet is better.
Well, to each his own, but I thought Gibson's Hamlet was the most god-awful rendition I had ever witnessed... as subtly nuanced as a paper bag, and as inspired as a telemarketing call. The only reason I watched the movie through to the end was that I held out hope that either it would get better or become unintentionally funny. No luck.<br /><br />No disrespect for the supporting cast or for Zefferelli's staging, but nothing can make up for the bungling of the main character. I have seen Hamlet well-portrayed as an African prince, as an animated lion, as a rough-and-tumble warrior, as a romantic poet, etc. etc. etc. . But IMHO this portrayal was just a plentiful lack of wit together with most weak hams.
It is one of the joys of Shakespeare that there can be no definitive performances - no single performance can be ‘right', but some can be wrong, and this one is. There are at least two things about Hamlet which cannot be dispensed with: 1. His indecisiveness and inability to take any kind of action. For God's sake that is what makes the play last as long as it does. If you had Othello there instead of Hamlet, Claudius would be dead by the end of Act One. Any production has to try to explain why Hamlet delays, why he is incapable of action. 2. His sexual disgust. His total revulsion at the thought of what his mother and uncle get up to in bed fill him with an utter disgust for all things sexual and this means that any kind of relationship with Ophelia is impossible. At the slightest hint of sex, Hamlet throws up. So, what does Mel Gibson give us? Lusty action-man. You could not get further from the character of Hamlet if you tried. There are lots of ways Hamlet can be played, but this isn't one of them! What I don't understand is since they managed to get such good actors for the other parts - Claudius, Polonius and so on, why couldn't they find one to play Hamlet as well. Mark Rylance in the part would have made this a great film. This ‘Mel Gibson', whoever he is, completely let down the rest of the cast. And lets face it, Hamlet without the prince really doesn't work.
Franco Zeffirelli's ("The Taming Of The Shrew," "Romeo And Juliet," "Jesus Of Nazareth," "Othello") third stab at transferring Shakespeare to the screen works very well, with the casting of Mel Gibson ("Mad Max," "Lethal Weapon" and pre-"The Passion Of The Christ" notoriety) in the role formerly owned by Sir Laurence Olivier (and rightly so; see my review on his "Hamlet," arguably the best interpretation of one of the Bard's timeless (and most quoted) tragedies) and redone 5 years later by Kenneth Branagh as a full-bloodied treatment, explaining its 3 hour 22 minute running time, combined with a dream cast (and a lot of little additions, which were well-chosen and expertly done by the contemporary master of William Shakespeare, Kenneth Branagh, the director of "Henry V" and "Dead Again." Joining the "Lethal Weapon" star are Glenn Close ("The Big Chill"), Paul Scofield ("A Man For All Seasons"), Alan Bates, Ian Holm, Michael Maloney (who would be cast as Roderigo opposite Kenneth Branagh and Laurence Fishburne in Oliver Parker's "Othello" (see my review of Olivier's "stage" version of the tragedy, though he only starred in it) and who Branagh would cast as Laertes in HIS 3-hour version of "Hamlet" (a proper homage to Sir Laurence Olivier and his classic version of the play; see my review on that one as well) 5 years later), Nathaniel Parker (who would be cast as Cassio in his brother's version of "Othello" 4 years later) and Helena Bonham-Carter, who would be cast in "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" 4 years later. <br /><br />Zeffirelli intended this movie as a homage to Sir Laurence Olivier (who had died 2 years prior to this movie) and it works pretty well, for the most part. What I was slightly uncomfortable with was Zeffirelli's misplacing a lot of lines and in one scene, he gives one of Hamlet's lines to the Ghost. Also, Helena Bonham-Carter DID NOT convince me as Ophelia. She was too dull and unreal, whereas Jean Simmons (who had immortalized the role in Olivier's version) and Kate Winslet (who did an acceptable job in Kenneth Branagh's uncut, epic revisionist reworking of "Hamlet") were good in the role, with Jean Simmons being the BEST Ophelia ever, that's why she was nominated for Best Actress in 1948 (she didn't win-what a shame). Ian Holm said his lines too quickly, not slowly as I expected him to, in a scene with him, Laertes and Ophelia. But then again, I'm more used to Felix Aylmer and Richard Briers' interpretations of the role and I think that they did better jobs than Holm in their respective versions of "Hamlet" (both done by great directors, actors, text-editors, producers AND stars of all their versions of the Bard's work) as Polonius. <br /><br />The rest of the cast, however, was excellent. The scene where Hamlet confronts his mother was very well done, but Olivier and Branagh heightened the scene to better lengths to create even more emotional intensity and suspense that the scene required. <br /><br />I recommend this version just to pass the time, but it's ideal as a teaching tool for 12th-grade English teachers (I recommend showing Olivier's version first, then Branagh's and finally this version). Despite the film's "PG" rating, there was really nothing objectionable in the movie. Only what the play called for. <br /><br />The Best Versions Of "Hamlet" Are: <br /><br />#1 Sir Laurence Olivier and Kenneth Branagh. Both were so good that I can't decide which one was the best. See my reviews on these versions for more information. <br /><br />#2 Franco Zeffirelli. This one was alright. It started out alright with a scene not in the play, but should've then progressed to the actual beginning of the play, where a guard cries out "Who's there?" "Nay, answer me. Stand and unfold yourself!!" That scene scares the hell out of you because you're sitting quietly and then-bam!!, you almost jump out of your skin. In short, that scene sets the tone for the rest of the play. HUGE blunder on Zeffirelli's part to omit that scene. It also misplaced a lot of lines (and cut others that I think should've been put in), such as the line where Hamlet says to Ophelia "Get thee to a nunnery, why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners?"; that line was supposed to have occurred in THAT scene, NOT where it was placed in the film (after the "To Be Or Not To Be" soliloquy. This version struggles between cutting out too much or too little from an excellent piece of literature. Kenneth Branagh would remedy that 5 years later with his uncut version of the tragedy, making HIS version a more fitting homage to Sir Laurence Olivier, as several of the actors (aside from him) had performed "Hamlet" on stage/or on film many times on different occasions. However, Zeffirelli's take on "Hamlet" IS faithful to the play and THAT's what I was looking for. The setup for the final act duel was the same as in Olivier and Branagh's versions, only that the denouement in Branagh's version was more violent than the denouement of the previous two faithful versions (more in line with the play; Olivier toned it down...and it worked equally well) and stuck more closely to the play, with Branagh throwing in a few harmless touches of his own...to very good effect. <br /><br />This version is Not Rated.
Admittedly, the only reason I watched this film -- since it's been about a decade since it was released -- was because of Ian Holm; I was intrigued to see his portrayal of my second-favorite character in this play. At any rate, this film is as gritty as anything the Old Zeff has produced since "Jesus of Nazareth." But some of the best parts of the play have been left out. I understand the directing/editing choices, but I don't think that it really does justice to the play. Perhaps I'm too much a purist. I would have to direct people (who have read this far) toward Branagh's version, if it weren't that I despise his tendency toward over-dramatization. All the same, he plays a better Hamlet than Gibson. But then, weren't we all waiting for Gibson to prove himself as an actor? Now, all he's done is to prove that he wants to make films in extinct languages.<br /><br />...Perhaps the only Shakespearean-worthy acting here is Scofield as The Ghost.
<br /><br />The play has been heavily edited and the order of the scenes has been completely mixed up. The acting is appalling (especially by Helena Bonham Carter) and the cinematography poor.<br /><br />The result is a slow, confused, boring film which will put those new to Shakespeare off Shakespeare instantly!<br /><br />If you can't see a stage play then at least see the Olivier version (1948) instead of this drivel!
(This is a review of the later English release by Disney, featuring Alison Lohman, Patrick Stewart, and co.) <br /><br />I really wanted this film to be good. Really, really. I'm a huge fan of Princess Mononoke and Spirited Away, and after seeing all the glowing reviews on this earlier Miyazaki film, I was eager to see it. But I was shocked, shocked I say, at the quality of this film. Those later films boast well-crafted plots, 3-dimensional characters, and the best film music since...well...ever. This film just doesn't come close.<br /><br />Might as well start w/ the positive aspects, though. Like all Miyazaki films, this one is still very imaginative, with a bizarre fantasy/sci-fi setting, in a post-apocalyptic world where insects are the dominant species. Nausicaa can also boast some far superior animation to other films from its time. (though not as beautiful and fluid as Miyazaki's later films) And the English voice acting is quite well done.<br /><br />But this film...just...isn't...good... The characters are all cardboard - from saccharine sweet little Nausicaa, to the ruthlessly evil Tolmekians, to everyone in between. Once you've seen each of them for 30 seconds, you've seen all there is. And the fact that the plot just ambles along doesn't help.<br /><br />Then there's the music... Now, Hisaichi is hands down my favorite film composer, but Nausicaa doesn't do him justice. Half the music is 80's keyboards on overdrive, and it usually enters and leaves so abruptly that it distracts the visuals rather than helping them. I highly suspect that Hisaichi was told to compose a lot of the music before he even saw the picture.<br /><br />But wait! There's a great message with this film, right?! Let's all save the environment! Too bad that this film hits you over the head with it like a sledgehammer. There is a scene in which Nausicaa hugs a tree. No, really. I ain't kidding.<br /><br />It makes me a little sad to talk about how lame this film is. But for some reason all the other reviews on IMDb seem to adore it. And when the characters have to talk to themselves in extended sentences to tell you what's going on, that's lame.<br /><br />If you're the kind of person who worships anime, enjoys 80's music, and plants a tree every Arbor day, you will probably like this film. Otherwise, save your money for his later films, because they rock big time.
I am partly a fan of Miyazaki's work. I say "partly" because most of his films fall into two categories: brilliant, and boring. Sadly this film falls into the later category.<br /><br />This film suffers from the same fundamental problems as Miyazaki's recent film "Howl's Moving Castle". An intriguing premise is set up, but then immediately reduced to little more than a backdrop for some unfathomable events that only serve to confuse the plot rather than explain it.<br /><br />The first third of the film reveals the post-apocalyptic world the story is set in, and actually looks like an very interesting story is about to unfold. From then on things go down hill. The middle part of the film is mostly made up of thinly-veiled eco-propaganda, and the ending is heavily marred by the reliance on the kind of impenetrable spiritualism which ruins a large number of Japanese animated films.<br /><br />Overall the film feels as though someone ripped out every other page from the script before passing it on the the animators. What is left is something which is visually stunning (although sadly the version I saw was an Nth-generation copy, with poor colour - which gives rise to the common myth that Nausicaa shows her bare bottom when flying), but which makes little sense and ultimately left me confused.
This movie is very difficult to understand, why do the couple want to divorce ? No reason is given, we don't know anything about their life in Lisbon, and even nothing about Marie's job. We may only understand that a certain bore appeared in this life. We don't even know who took the initiative of asking the divorce.<br /><br />The way of filming is kind of special : I didn't know the director's name before the end of the movie, when I read it on the screen, I understood why it was so slow, only 42 shots in a hundred minutes (I counted them) ! It reminded me of some Japanese movies I saw in the 90's, in fact we must accept that this is the expression of another culture even if the set is occidental. I don't know if this story would have suited a Japanese couple.<br /><br />One can see the logic of the scenes but the result is a bore, anyway I decided to watch it to the end because I wanted to get the spirit and the meaning of it all. In fact, I only understood that the story of these two beings may not be over yet since the train leaves the station without Marie. This is few for such a long time ! I can't recommend this work.
I usually much prefer French movies over American ones, with explosions and car chases, but this movie was very disappointing. There is no way to write a spoiler because nothing really happens. This French couple has been living in Lisbon for years, and they return to Paris for a friend's wedding. They announce to another friend they are having dinner with that they are going to split. Then nothing much happens, they don't seem to know whether they want to separate or not. I don't necessarily think that their hesitations make for a bad movie, it is very human to hesitate before making such a decision for good, but this could be treated in an interesting manner, giving some flesh to their desires and their relationship, but that does not happen. One gets out of the theater unsure of why these two got together or want to split. The only piece I enjoyed was the conversation with the drunk. That was true to life.
I thought this is an unbelievable boring movie! i heard the director can't speak french and so he left his actors tell what they wanted... Well, Valeria Bruni-Tedeschi is great, as usual but I can't say the same of other actors. They have nothing to say, especially Bruno Todeschini.<br /><br />They all seem very tired, this being one of the movie plot : tired of being together, of living abroad, of their live in general; so they spend half the movie sleeping in a hotel room. After a while i felt sleepy myself...<br /><br />I gave 4, because of some very beautiful scenes, including the last one.
(Only light spoilers in here)<br /><br />Stealing Sinatra is a half-slapstick comedy about dimwit kidnappers, dimwit victims, and a few other side-stories thrown in to eat up some time.<br /><br />You will see some poor performances all around in this movie. The drama is forced, and the humor makes no sense. Whether you're watching the kidnappers threaten the victim who won't shut up, or a victim's father responding to the criminal's death threat with "Care for some tea?", none of it is believable. This quite comfortably fits into the "wannabe movie" category.<br /><br />You will also be listening to a repetitive goofy music track throughout pretty much the entire movie. It's quite unprofessional, and adds nothing. It's really just a sad attempt at making an achingly unfunny movie seem somewhat witty.<br /><br />However, if you're able to look past all of this and suspend a lot of disbelief, you might be entertained by the adequate storyline.<br /><br />I voted 4/10.
Underwoods goofy story about a young man(Arquette) who convinces his friends that they should kidnap Frank Sinatra Jr. (Nicholas). The film is written ridiculously, direction is odd, dialogues are out of place and scrambled, the actors didn't do it much justice either, Arquette is annoying throughout, Ian Nicholas was nonexistent, Macy was decent, but only because hes a pretty good actor and probably just tried his best not to come out of this project with a totally embarrassing performance, he was at least tolerable. This is a stupid film in my eyes, boring at times, not entertaining, just a film that i wouldn't recommend to anybody. IMDb Rating: 5.5, my rating: 4/10
Yah. I know. It has the name "Sinatra" in the title, so how bad can it be? Well, it's bad, trust me! I rented this thinking it was some movie I missed in the theaters. It's not. It's some garbage "movie" made by the folks at Showtime (cable station). Geez, these cable stations make a few bucks they think they can make whatever garbage movies they want! It's not good. I am as big a Sinatra fan as any sane man, but this movie was just dumb. Boring. Dull. Unfunny. Uninteresting. The only redeeming quality is that (assuming they did stick to the facts) you do learn about what happened to the captors of Frank Jr. Otherwise it's just a stupid film.
I don't know where to begin. Perhaps the whole idea of this movie was just a disaster waiting to happen. There is nothing slightly humorous about a kidnapping. I don't know what was more offensive--the subject matter or David Arquette's "performance". It was like watching a bull get it's penis cut off, although I think the bull felt better afterwards. The filmmakers should find something about Sinatra other than his son's kidnapping to show (like, I don't know, his TALENT AS A SINGER!!!!). His family shouldn't have to relive that horror. Thank GOD it was just shown on HBO and not released in theaters. Please don't watch this if you have any self respect.
Except for the glossy look, this show had little to recommend it. The writing was patronizing and convoluted. Without exception the characters were shallow and unsympathetic. The female characters came off the worst... reduced to spoiled, selfish airheads whose soul ambition was to run around in slip dresses and stilettos, and try to bag a man. This aspect of the show is all the more curious as the series was produced by two women! The acting for the most part was dull and humourless with the cast playing one dimensional characters attacking every scene on the same note. This is not entirely the actors fault. Had they spent more time developing the characters and the storyline, adding a little injection of style and humour, MVP might have been a hit. What we're left with is something flat and vaguely unpleasant.
I love Ustinov's distinctive, literate narration. And the photography is quiet nice. We put the film on for our 3.5 year old who sort of wandered in and out of the room. So for our first viewing, we only saw about 1/3 of the movie and were quite charmed. When we re-watched, sitting down for family time,we were all mortified at the violence and life-threatening situations the poor otter got into. About halfway through the movie, there's a rack of dead, bloody furry animals. Lots of blood, not just a little. Then at the end, there's a wild struggle with a dog, then blood clouds the water. You'd think, given the G rating, that's all you'll see...that they will IMPLY one of the animals died. Nope. They drag the carcass out of the water and show it plainly for several traumatizing seconds. Personally, as an adult I love horror movies and am fine with violent movies ala Scorsese, Cronenberg, Tarantino. Heck, I love the ultra violent Battle Royale. But those aren't kid movies and don't advertise themselves as such. If you are deliberately raising your young ones to see the harsh realities of life for cute animals, then this is the movie for you. If you are like me and my wife though, you might want to spare your child nightmares and avoid this one.
I have never felt the need to add a review to this website until now, but having just sat through the film I felt it necessary to warn parents who may be thinking of showing it to their children. Please don't! This is no Disney film. This film tells us 'life is cruel' and if you show it to your children, in my opinion, you are too. <br /><br />The video box describes the film as a 'delight for all ages' and the IMDb plot outline describes it as a 'family film'. I just had to find a definition of 'family film' and came across the following: "Usually consisting of comedies or adventures, these films are often based on children's literature and can involve any number of helpful animals, friendly supernatural beings and fantasy worlds, all geared to stimulate and appeal to the imagination. Whatever the situation, there is little or no offensive material and generally a lesson is learned on the way." Not an apt description of Tarka The Otter, which contains some thoroughly unpleasant scenes, totally unsuitable for young children, and an ending that qualifies the film as a 'feel bad' movie. The lesson learned? As I said: life is cruel. Family entertainment? I don't think so. Unless you hate your family, that is. <br /><br />Another review, more revealing than this but worth reading, can be found by following the 'external reviews' link.
I really don't know much about the Marquis de Sade, not having read any of his book, but I never imagined him as a flaming queen. Carson Kressley of Queer Eye For the Straight Guy, or Jack from Will and Grace would have fit easily into the role that Nick Mancuso gave us.<br /><br />The movie itself was rather thin and seemed more of a parody - or an excuse to show the Paris whorehouse several times with men and women having a good time on the couches in the parlor. What? They can't afford a room? I did find it cute that the Madame (Irina Malysheva) felt she was doing her patriotic duty taking care of the soldier's needs.<br /><br />The movie was just an excuse to show a lot of breasts - and I mean a lot! Fans of Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) might be interested in seeing him in a different role as Inspector Marais.
The revisionist history -- making the evil Marquis de Sade a semi-heroic romantic -- is mind-boggling enough. But the atrocious acting, amateurish cinematography and terrible dubbing make this film achingly bad. The only reason to keep watching is that almost all the women in the film are gorgeous. And, amazingly, being tortured for days, with hands bound overhead, apparently doesn't detract from a woman's beauty, hairstyle and makeup. My guess is that the producers filmed mostly in Russia, choosing women for their looks -- and willingness to work cheap -- rather than acting ability. If you decide to watch this because you have nothing better to do, or are a film student looking for bad examples, fast-forward through every scene not involving nudity.
This movie is not very bad tjough. But one cannot find anything new about the personality of Marquis de Sade from this movie. The movie tries to stay on the borderline between erotic and insightful and it cannot succeed at either. The cinematography is really bad (straigh-to video quality)<br /><br />
Douglas Sirk's inaugural "women's-picture" weepy for Universal, based on a preachy, dogmatic, didactic novel by the intolerable Lloyd C. Douglas (author of that other beloved piece of crap, *The Robe*). Rock Hudson, in the role that catapulted him to stardom, plays Bob Merrick, a drunken playboy worth untold millions who is more interested in chasing skirts and racing speedboats than in finishing his medical degree. In the first scene, he wrecks his boat on a sumptuously photographed lake. The accident nearly kills Merrick, and thus he requires a rather mysterious "resuscitator machine" to keep him alive . . . meanwhile, across town, beloved surgeon Dr. Phillips finally drops dead from a heart condition. Since the local hospital can maintain only one resuscitator at a time, Phillips dies so that the louse may live. When Merrick learns of this, he tries to make apologetic overtures to Phillips' family, especially to the widow (Jane Wyman, coiffed and clothed in matronly hauteur), but indeed anyone and everyone who knew the surgeon spits at Merrick like a brace of cobras. One doctor on the hospital staff even calls it "a total waste" that the playboy lived instead of the Christ-like surgeon. Hippocrates might have had something to say about that!<br /><br />These early scenes are where you'll find the typical Sirkian iconoclasm: the director rubs our faces so much in the unpleasantness of middle-class, mid-century America, that one finds oneself rooting for the wastrel playboy to put whoopee-cushions under the ramrod fannies of these moral hypocrites. But, alas, no: the risible plot of the novel must proceed, and Merrick soon finds himself getting converted by God, in the guise of pipe-puffing Otto Kruger, an artist who claims that Phillips made him a better man and even a better painter. (Why don't we see any of this amazing art?) We learn that the intolerably ubiquitous Dr. Phillips would often refuse payment for medical services rendered (though who exactly qualified for these "magnificent exemptions" is never made clear). This is supposed to provide our hero with a whole new outlook on life and an example of personal conduct. Kruger even tries to make it all sound very illicitly exciting: "Once you start this thing, there's no way out of it! It's an obsession . . . a MAGNIFICENT obsession!" So Merrick tries it out by AGAIN pestering the widow with apologetic overtures, but he somehow causes her to get hit by a car. She loses her eyesight. Apparently, Merrick will have several more stations-of-the-cross to trudge past before he can be accounted a decent fellow.<br /><br />But Sirk continues to sneak in his revenges even as the movie grows more and more preachy. The most obvious bit has to be the presence of Agnes Moorehead as the head hospital nurse and Wyman's friend and unrequited lesbian lover. Note the disappointment on Moorehead's face when Merrick, finally redeemed as a doctor, shows up to save Wyman's life near the end. Hudson's own homosexuality, an open secret in Hollywood at the time, is also used to great ironic effect. He and Wyman -- dowdy and fifteen years older -- generate absolutely zero erotic heat in their scenes together, which, by the way, are purposefully few, presumably because any more scenes between the stars would hopelessly expose this whole enterprise. (One thing we feel certain of: if Rock Hudson was obsessed by anything, it certainly wasn't Jane Wyman.) It's a chronic case of *Tea and Sympathy*. Sirk seemed to enjoy tweaking everyone's noses by having this gay actor -- who was attractive to the innocent ladies of the era -- coolly drift through these exquisitely-colored "women's pictures". In fact, the director worked with Hudson 6 or 7 more times, to best effect in the follow-up to this film, *All That Heaven Allows*, which re-teamed Hudson with Wyman but was also accompanied by a realistic plot. In *Obsession*, meanwhile, we must endure God/Kruger gazing beneficently down from an observation-window onto Merrick and his medical team as they prepare to save Wyman's life, in tandem with a musical score of swelling vocals from a cheesy Hollywood choir.<br /><br />But to see why Sirk is considered an auteur, check out the scene wherein Wyman explains to her grown daughter that she can in fact tell the difference from night and day. The entire frame is blackened, here: the daughter is barely visible, and Wyman's face is faintly silhouetted against a faint light. She goes on to say that she hates the night because "I know that Dawn will never come again". A great, chilling moment that deserves a much better movie than *Magnificent Obsession*.<br /><br />4 stars out of 10.
I would like to know the real name of the Lodge where scenes from the movie were filmed. It is truly beautiful and hearkens back to 20's and 30's architecture like the Hotel Del Coronado. I know it was on either Big Bear Lake or Lake Arrowhead and would like to hear if it is still in existence. As for the movie itself, it is truly amazing that Jane Wyman was even nominated for an Academy Award. This must have been a period when she was well liked by her Academy peers. It really would have been interesting to get a true impression from Wyman and the other actors in this movie regarding the script. The script of this movie, like the recent Kevin Costner movie with a message in a bottle, is so unbelievable that it it limits the credibility that the actors can bring to their parts. Rock Hudson can be forgiven. He was never a great actor, was able to get by mostly on his looks and didn't get credible roles until later in his career (Pretty Maids is the exception). But Wyman must have been forced to take this movie through contractual requirements or the studio system.
Daft potboilers don't come much dafter than this, but it's a Douglas Sirk movie which makes everything alright. Except in this case it doesn't. Based on a sanctimonious novel by the sanctimonious Lloyd C Douglas, (he wrote "The Robe"), and already filmed in 1935 with Irene Dunne and Robert Taylor, it's got more uplift than a cantilever bra.<br /><br />Rock Hudson is the arrogant playboy who not only feels responsible for making Jane Wyman a widow but later is directly responsible for the accident in which she loses her sight. To make amends he takes up medicine, becomes a great eye surgeon and restores it. (No, it sin't quite that daft; he had planned to become a doctor before becoming an arrogant playboy). In between times, they fall in love.<br /><br />Try as I might I can't quite find the redeeming social commentary and critique of American mores that are supposed to lie just below the surface of Sirk's films, (this one isn't too deep). On the plus side Rock Hudson isn't half bad, (I think I am rediscovering him), and, of course, it looks great, (in Sirk's films people live in rooms the size of cathedrals). Nothing in this film matches the best of his later work and even in soap-opera terms this is definitely daytime TV.
I saw this at my in-laws' house one night when it popped up on TV and my mother-in-law said it was one of her favorite movies. Well, she can have it.<br /><br />Look, I can enjoy a chick flick now and then, as long as it's good. But this one's extra-sappy, unrealistic, and just plain predictable, despite some decent performances from Rock Hudson and Jane Wyman. It's uncanny how quickly a woman can accept having her eyesight taken away from her. Oh well, they say love is blind...<br /><br />The neat and tidy happy little ending nearly made me gag, too. And how often did we need Otto Kruger repeating the title? It happened not once, not twice, but THREE times!
One of the more prominent/popular episodes, but clearly one of the worst. A red-shirt female falls for Khan (instead of dropping dead - for a change) and then proceeds to betray Kirk and the Enterprise as if loyalty were a non-existent character trait on the ship. Makes one wonder what kind of psychology tests this supposedly brilliant Starfleet uses to test people when hiring. We have the same kind of absurd lack of loyalty in "Wink Of An Eye", when a red-shirt male takes the enemy's side just because he falls in love! Same as in SS. (However, in that episode the betrayal plays a tiny role in the overall plot.) This is very silly because it once again makes Kirk's crew seem like a bunch of soft-headed, easy-to-impress morons, who - once they fall in love with the enemy - are capable of doing just about anything. The fact that McGivers switches back to Kirk's side doesn't ameliorate the illogic in any way. Lord McGiveth and the Lord McTaketh...<br /><br />Why is Khan kept behind a regular door when they know he has superior strength? That's one of several ST plot-devices that undermine Kirk's intelligence. Why does Khan hold a knife against McCoy's throat? If Khan is of such superior intelligence then one would expect him to be more wily with the way he carries himself. And what's with a Sikh being played with a Latino accent? Montalban should have been provided with a vocal coach. I was half-expecting to hear "the plaaain! the plaaaain!" in the background at any moment. Why the hell would Kirk (or any ship captain) provide limitless use of the ship's library concerning the innermost technical details of the Enterprise to ANYONE? Is the Starfleet an institution solely consisting of idiots? <br /><br />SS is a very cartoonish, silly episode, so no wonder Trekkies love it. It doesn't have too many sci-fi elements in it, which is what Trekkies hate the most. It also figures that the ST franchise chose to revive this dull character for the second movie, that way pleasing rabid Trekkies, who were so very disappointed with the first movie which - you guessed it - had far too much sci-fi for the average tiny Trekkie brain.
I have seen this movie and I did not care for this movie anyhow. I would not think about going to Paris because I do not like this country and its national capital. I do not like to learn french anyhow because I do not understand their language. Why would I go to France when I rather go to Germany or the United Kingdom? Germany and the United Kingdom are the nations I tolerate. Apparently the Olsen Twins do not understand the French language just like me. Therefore I will not bother the France trip no matter what. I might as well stick to the United Kingdom and meet single women and play video games if there is a video arcade. That is all.
This movie was alright. Mary-Kate and Ashley play twin sisters (sorry for stating the obvious) who against their will are sent to Paris to spend the week with their rich uncle or something like that.<br /><br />Right away two French boys (who looked slightly inbred) start talking to them and taking interest. Blah blah blah. It's an Olsen twin movie - we already know what's going to happen between them. Anyway, along with that, the twins meet a FABULOUS French model because they're in Paris, the fashion capital of the world. They make bffs with the model and spend a fun montage of shopping in the city of lights. Yep.<br /><br />Plotwise, I frankly can't remember what happened. I guess that could say something, but hey, it's an Olsen movie. "Olsen movie" seems to be synonymous with "light entertainment".<br /><br />Overall, this movie was annoying. I mean, can I really identify at all with two girls who are devastated upon hearing that they're going to Paris? Really? Also, the jokes really weren't that funny. However, I watched the whole movie. So it had to be somewhat entertaining. The fact that it was set in Paris was what probably kept me watching.
I was once a big Olsen fan. I received this movie when I was six and watched it almost nonstop until I was nine. Then it lay on my shelf gathering dust until yesterday. I was left speechless.<br /><br />Mary-Kate and Ashley play Allie and Mel, two twelve year olds who are sent to spend Spring Break in Paris with their ambassador grandfather. Along the way, they meet, as one might expect, two cute French boys who show them the more fun side to Paris. I guess the two boys were okay, fake French accents aside. <br /><br />The plot is predictable and the humour is shallow and corny. Mary-Kate and Ashley play two shallow girls with too much make up on their face. <br /><br />Don't watch this movie if you're not into the Olsen twins or family movies.
A stupid movie, with a stupid plot. Feels like they threw every imaginable cliché in a blender. I especially "Liked" the part, where two teenage girls gets the french president to clean the water. Because we all know how dedicated America is to conservation of the environment. Kyoto, anyone?? And the french chef, who has apparently never seen or tasted a hamburger... This is why people think Americans have no culture. That, and the fact that we meet your kids when they come to Europe to "see the world" (i.e. eat at McDonalds in foreign capitals) They are not as dumb as the two ditsy preteens in this movie, but they have just about the same amount of cultural enlightenment and good manners.
the boys were the most appealing things in the entire movie. the girls were lame and pathetic, i mean, how can they own their own clothing line, dolls, movies, producing studios, and not smell this bomb from far away? in order to gain some sort of responsibility, which i dont really see the sense in the punishment..., they are sent to paris, far far far away from home to live with the so-called strict grandfather who holds an important standing with paris. i cant really remember what he was, so who really cares? the detail doesnt help, the girls are sent to paris to learn something.. so what exactly do they learn when they meet two french boys and are able to manipulate the guy that supposed to watch them so they can meet these guys on scooters? the typical pre-teen movie, having all pre-teens wishing to misbehave and be able to afford the trip to paris or some far away country away from parents? i dont really like the olsens anyways, they never could really shake off the image of michelle, on full house... in case you didnt see that, then you were lucky from the start. (F F-)
OK I watched this movie. Someone needs to kick me. WHY must the Olsen twins insist on subjecting the world to this putrid torture? This was another movie of watching the Olsen twins travel to an exotic location, meet some cute guys,look pretty and have everyone drooling over them.the direction,the plot development,ugh the acting. i don't know about the U.S., but in my country it is considered extremely stupid to hop onto the bike of a guy u met like,10 minutes back. though i'm now convinced that these girls will never learn to act, i really hope that one day we'll get to watch a movie with an original,even slightly plausible plot.
This movie is pretty predictable nuff said....from the delayed kissing scene to the inevitable coming around of grandpa...this is a great movie for the 10-12 age group but beyond that it has no market..i give it 4/10 only because it achieved exactly what it set out to do and nothing more.
Oh yes, I admit I have made myself guilty of the crime of seeing this piece of trash. I can't say I was forced by aliens who pointed a gun at my head, tied me to a chair and made it impossible for me to close my eyes and then turned this awful excuse for a movie on. No I did it with free will. I deliberately tortured myself. Let's go through the fact here folks. - The acting is an insult to humanity. - The plot (if it exists) is ridiculous. - The character development is horrendous - The characters that appear in the movie are so clichéd you would <br /><br />recognize them in your average comic book. - The editing is sloppy and unimaginative. - The camera-work is low key. - The dialogue is simply the worst in cinematic history. - The directing: well let's say, I bet it wasn't Hitchcock.<br /><br />Then to add to these facts, there was absolutely no talent involved wath so ever. The director must be smoking crack now to forgive himself for inflicting this poison to the world. <br /><br />Bottom line: Passport to Paris is one of the worst movies ever made. PERMANENT!
This movie sucks so bad. Its funny to see what a poor story this has, where two pea-brained American twins who know about nothing outside their school can come to another continent, and do unimaginable things there. Its just so stupid and so bizarre. How can they just find two French guys, hit on them and in the end kiss them, not knowing anything about them? More realistic would have been having the guys take them away and rape them, which could have easily happened in such a situation. As for the bit where they make the French President drink 'bad water', that was just lame. I don't think he would have been too pleased in real life. Everything worked out too easily for the girls, and they could have been in real trouble many times in the movie, if it at all depicted real life.<br /><br />My Rating : 0 / 10
Just what the world needed-another superficial cookie-cutter Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen movie. This movie gives out horrible messages to girls everywhere, complete with stereotypical "junior high" experience. They make learning anything at all seem completely taboo. I can't stand the fake French accents, or those guys on the mopeds racing around who eventually "fall" for the twins. Why am I putting everything in parenthesis? Because its all stereotyped. The twins even complain about not having a stereotypical grandfather. They should be happy they even have a grandfather at all. How does this fit the Mary-Kate/Ashley mold? This one has them fixing up a single guy who (gasp!!) ISN'T THEIR FATHER!!!!! Yes, folks, they actually have a mother who appears for all of five seconds. I haven't even sat through thirty minutes of this and I can already tell how it will end up. This movie is so pitiful, it makes Miss USA seem like an academic bowl. Really.
this is horrible film. it is past dumb. first, the only thing the twins care about is how they look and what boys like them. they are in 7th grade. not to say i am a prude or anything but it sends the wrong message to girls of all ages. being pretty and popular is not everything. but that is what the twins make it out to be. The plot is even worse. the girl's grandpa just happens to be the ambasitor(sp?) to France. He has a co-worker take the girls around paris and they meet two "cute french boys" with motorcycles. they sneek out to meet the boys start to really like them ETC.....they meet a supermodel in process and go around paris with total strangers they think are cute. need i say more? this movie may be cute to 8&9 year olds. the twins play ditsy losers that want boyfriends. it makes sends the wrong idea to girls. the film itself is not great either. i don't recomend this to anyone. i give passport to paris 2/10
Now, I watched this when I was hungover one Sunday and my auntie and uncle were visiting one day with my 2 cousins (one was 11, the other 9). We stuck on the TV and Passport To Paris had just started. My cousins both had said that they watch Two Of A Kind sometimes and I said they could watch the film if they liked. Since I was in no fit state to get up, I just stayed in the living room with them and ended up watching the film! I have to say, as a person who has no interest in those kinds of TV shows or films, I actually enjoyed it... it must have been the alcohol lol but I do admit, it would probably only appeal more to girls aged between 6 and 13, but it was a movie to pass the time. There's always a movie or a show that you don't think you'll like, but for a laugh, you enjoyed it.
Well, first off, the twins are exactly the same. there is no one is girly and one is tomboy (Ashley is taller than Mary-Kate though) and their boyfriends aren't even French, so that is bad because they are faking the accents. Lamo. It is also not that bad, not their best. I am A big Mary-Kate and Ashley fan, don't get me wrong. the storyline is OK and it is funny to watch. it is not the type of movie that you would watch over and over again. But hey, when they made this movie they were still new at the whole making their own movie thing. The girls also act like they are older then 13. but if you are a young viewer this is a good movie. Not so good if you are older than 13 unless you are a parent watching a movie with your kids. then it's OK. Good luck MK+A with your future movies!
Firstly let me get this of my chest I hate Octopussy with an absolute passion. What is so frustrating is that it had so much potential and had a very good opening sequence, unfortunately post the opening sequence it all goes downhill. Firstly there was absolutely no plot to begin with, just an excuse for Moore to tell his corny jokes. Next there are several sequences that would make a Bond fan cringe,for instance the sequence in which Bond turns up to diffuse a bomb dressed as a clown. The villains are pretty poor, Louis Jordon fails to make an impact as Kamal Khan and Bollywood veteran Kabir Bedi is equally poor as his henchman. It's funny that when people debate over what the worst Bond movie is and Octopussy gets overlooked when it can easily give them a run for their money.
I saw Roger Moore huffing it on the scenes that required running or exercise. He was a James Bond who would be most comfortable sitting at a bar telling stories with his fellow British Knights. Nothing against the elderly in age-appropriate roles, but how realistic is it for a frail-looking 58 year old man to be fighting on the wings of planes, hanging off the side of a train, swimming in a swamp with crocodiles, etc.? Aside from the fact that OCTOPUSSY was incredibly silly, vapid, and moronic, the fact that a frail oldster engaged in many death-defying stunts just made it so much easier to laugh at James Bond. By 1983 Roger Moore was clearly looking his age, and he was long past the time when he looked like he could fight with younger men. I saw this movie in the Theater, and the howls of laughter were many and very often. Any credibility that James Bond had built up was gone after OCTOPUSSY.<br /><br />The only thing missing from OCTOPUSSY was Benny Hill and his supporting cast. Another low point was that the incredibly lame Louis Jordan was one half of the Axis of Evil. Jordan helped to make the whole concept even more laughable. And the Russian General was a total goof. OCTOPUSSY works better as a comedy spoof similar to SPIES LIKE US.<br /><br />Even the fight scene on the train was just a bad copy of the same train scenes done in many other films by better actors. Take EMPEROR OF THE NORTH (1972) where Lee Marvin & Ernest Borgnine fought all over the top & bottom of the train and made it look exciting and real.<br /><br />Roger Moore had a thin, frail body in 1983 and yet his stunt double was clearly a younger, taller, athletic & muscular man. Even the hair color did not match. This only made his fight scenes more comedic. The Moore stunts looked like those old low-budget Chop-Socky Kung-Fu movies, especially with the bad editing. The Director seemed to try to make the bad acting and bad stunts better by providing several views of the same stunt. This only accentuated the differences between Moore and his stunt double. The fact that the Train scenes with Moore were shot inside a studio could be noticed from the lighting when Moore was in the shot versus the exterior shots of the stunt double on a real train. Though many of the Bond Movies have to be the worst ever when it comes to editing their stunt-fights. You can usually clearly see that the Bond actor is not actually fighting. Overall OCTOPUSSY has to rank as one of the worst movies ever made, and easily the worst of the worst Bond movies.
An aging Roger Moore is back yet again as Bond, this time trying to find out why Agent 009 was killed, and why he had a forgery of a Faberge egg with him, and where it came from. He ends up in New Delhi India, then in East Germany after finding out about a Russian general trying to detonate a nuclear bomb at a circus, hoping NATO will push for complete disarmament, so he can take control of Western Europe, then the rest of the world.<br /><br />Despite the way it sounds, this is really more of a romance, I think, between Bond and Octopussy than an action movie, and longish, but still somewhat fun. But there are way too many attempts at humour in this one; at times it seems like it was intended to be a comedy. Also, Timothy Dalton would have been better than Roger Moore in this, so there wouldn't have been so much of an age difference between Bond and Octopussy. <br /><br />Useless trivia: the small plane used by Bond in the pre credits sequence is now hanging up in a Quaker Steak and Lube restaurant in Clearwater/ Largo area Florida, USA.<br /><br />**1/2 out of ****
I feel very generous giving this movie a 2 out of 10. Okay, noted that the special effects are, 'okay' and Renny Harlin did make one my favorite genetically-altered-sharks-attack-a-research-station movie, that of which you may know as Deep Blue Sea. Also, the opening credits are done fairly well with a remix of WhiteZombie's "more human then human' and it does go fairly well with what is in the context of this 'movie'. But enough praise, lets get to the reason why this movie sucks so much.<br /><br />Not since Uwe Boll's Alone in the Dark did i ever feel that the special effects in a movie were totally wasted. Okay, our story starts with four guys who are descendants of four different families, each of which possess a never fully explained power from a never fully explained family background that did a never fully explained art of witch craft. Oh and for some reason, these descendants are all 17, all go to the same school, are all on the swim team and all, for some reason or another, sit in bed with their shirts off, sweating and talking to each other on the phone. I have nothing against gays, Gothic or thirteen year old's, but that is what this movie is aimed at...13 year old goth who question their sexuality. Yeah there's girls in it who sit on their beds in their panties or whatever, but how come they don't take their shirts off? hey its only fair.<br /><br />Anyways, the characters in this movie are told that when they turn 18, they will ascend and be granted new profound, almost god-like powers. But before i go any further, i forgot to mention that when they use their powers, they age slowly and they grow more addicted to it. That explains why they got people in their late 20's to play 17 year old's. Oh and if something needs explaining, don't worry, someone will explain it all in one large piece of dialog. God this movie sucks...where was I? oh yeah, the ascension part.<br /><br />Okay, apparently there was a super-secret-alpha-one family that the others forgot about or some s#*t like that, i don't know, i was dozing off at this point. But they were written out some how and the new kid at school who is befriending the group is 'secretly' one of these descendants from the fifth family. And I say 'secretly' because anyone who has seen any of the previews of this movie knows that this new guy is the bad guy. He has greater power then the others because he's older i think. Anyways, Bob Loblaw (say it out loud) things happen and we get to the final fight in the movie.<br /><br />To be honest, I was all game for a witch battle. You know like Saurmon vs. Gandalf or anything along the lines with magic battle, because you know, this is about witches and stuff. Now, when these two witches throw down, its more of like...how can i put it...a very, very crappy version of a Dragonball Z type battle. They throw stuff at each other, talk, throw stuff, talk, throw stuff, talk etc. When i say 'throw stuff' i only say that because i have no clue what the F#%k their throwing at each other. It looks like big gobs of slimy water. God this movie sucks, anyways, when our main witch 'ascends' he doesn't get very powerful at all. He just throws bigger gobs of slimy water. Things happen and it ends in a way that you as the viewer know its gonna end. The good witch wins bad witch loses.<br /><br />You know how shitty a movie is when the bad guy says something so incredibly stupid as, 'I'm gonna make you my Wiotch' Thats where i wanted to punch myself in the face for sitting through this whole...thing.<br /><br />Yes, i admit, the thought of witches doing battle, using powers in the modern day does sound kinda cool, but when the execution is this bad, i really wished they didn't make THIS movie. Maybe if it was R-rated, had tit's and threw in more deaths with a dash of gore, it might have worked...might have worked.<br /><br />If your interested in watching this, don't buy it or even rent it. Wait for it to come on TV or borrow it from your sucker of a friend who bought it. Just don't waste your time with this hack of a movie. If you spend any money on it, there's a good chance your putting an effort towards a sequel to be made by Uwe Boll called, The Covenant 2: Alone in the dark with the house of the dead.
If I were to pitch this movie idea to some Hollywood bigwigs, I'm sure it would sound like this: <br /><br />ME: "Four boys at a private high school are good friends, AND they are witches."<br /><br />Hollywood: "That sounds like "The Craft." <br /><br />ME: "No, no, I said four boys, not four girls." <br /><br />Hollywood: "That still sounds like "The Craft", just with boys instead of girls." <br /><br />ME: "OK, but there is this fifth unknown boy that comes into the picture and he wants more power."<br /><br />Hollywood: "Still not much difference, because one of the girls in "The Craft" also wanted more power.<br /><br />ME: "OK, OK... I'll make these boys part of the "in crowd", they'll be rich, AND the school is on the east coast.<br /><br />Hollywood: "Now that sounds original. That is nothing like "The Craft", here's a billion dollars." <br /><br />This movie was so cliché and uninspiring. Even the manufactured drama between Chase and the brothers of Ipswich was very blasé. A bunch of rich kids, with their biggest problem being what color Bentley they want for their 18th birthday (and 18th car), don't interest me at all, even if they have powers. Every single kid in this movie looked like they stepped out of a magazine, and of course there had to be the gratuitous male nudity and female 80% nudity just to drive home how out of shape you are. I wanted to rename this movie "The Witches of O.C.". Oooh, rich kids and their problems... let me pretend to care.<br /><br />This film was completely unimaginative and predictable. The final fight was lame and dragged out and the ending was very anti-climatic. This was a movie best left on the cutting room floor.
From the beginning of this film,with it's "The Lost boys" rip off opening sequence, to the bad wire work and even worse dialog ending, this movie slimed along at a snail's pace. "The Covenant" came highly recommended from some of my co-workers, who I am thoroughly convinced were playing a practical joke on me. At least I hope that was the intention and their taste isn't that bad! This movie was not much longer than an hour and a half, yet felt much much longer then that. The story was so basic that it could have been summed up in about 15 minutes, maximum. They could have at least filled the rest of the movie with some entertaining magic or fight scenes, however someone decided,(maybe the director, but I don't know if anyone really "directed" this movie) that it was going to be filled with some poorly executed "artsy" camera shots, and nonsensical scenes of the "boys" swimming and getting into bar fights. About half way through this film I thought that maybe bashing my head against a wall would be more entertaining, and partially to rid myself of this horrible dirty feeling I had for continuing to watch it. . So I did bash my head against a wall, and I did enjoy it more then the movie! I watched it all the way to the bitter end, hoping it would eventually offer me more enjoyment. Nope,my efforts were rewarded with "How about I make you my Whee-aytch!" I vomited, and then just felt embarrassment for the screen writer and pity for the poor actor who had to deliver this drivel. The acting really wasn't as bad as other reviewers seemed to think, but even the most talented thespian could not saved this work, and work it did, on my nerves! I give movies a chance, even bad ones because they usually offer some form of enjoyment, and this actually wasn't the worst movie I have ever seen. After it was over I did feel like watching the movie "Stealth" again and WOW it was so much better this time around! Oh yeah Case in point, don't bother with this movie, really, don't. Watch a few episodes of "Charmed", and watch "The Lost boys" after having a fair amount of alcohol, and you will be a much better person. If you do fall into the same trap that I did and watch "The Covenant", make sure to keep all sharp objects far, far away from yourself, you'll thank me for it.
Anyone who rates this movie above a 3 has a very distorted view of movies, anyone who rated this piece of sh!t 7 or higher, i have absolutely no respect for their taste in movies, and doubt they have ever seen a good one. I am always up for giving any movie a shot and i did with this one, i tried to pay attention, i tried not to let my money go 2 waste but 15 minutes in my friends were laughing at me cause i was listenin 2 my iPod, 25 minutes later i couldn't even watch the overacting that was occurring within the film, so i up and left, i have never ever ever walked out of a movie, until this garbage, Anyone who said they enjoyed it is a liar, or they should be banned from this site. I get so angry when i see a person rate this an 8 when the Godfathers overall rating is a 9.1 its like saying that that movie was close which it isn't.
Most of the critiques on this flick have been pretty damn accurate. It is an hour and half waste of time, following a bunch of very pretty high schoolers whine and cry about life. There is about twenty minutes of magic, and absolutely no scary or thrilling moments. Our actress are treated like pieces of ass, and seem to be perfectly happy with their position. The lead characters, these sons of ipsmith are walking poster boys for any pop culture clothing store. You can't relate with them, hell you barely can understand them. The story steps all over itself and when it finally gets to the final battle, its no more than a volleyball match that doesn't last long enough to make up with this trashed script raped from the O.C.
The TV ads for this movie showed the warlocks hitting a truck head-on, then getting smashed to bits and reforming on the other side of the truck. I thought the special effects were good, but the general style of the movie was wimpy. This is the "Charmed" TV series with three boys instead of three girls.<br /><br />The big surprise for the three teens who are about to become adults is that there is an unknown fourth member of the clan who is out to get them and consolidate all their power. Besides driving into trucks, these kids can fly up the sides of houses, climb out of windows, push each other into stacks of garbage, and make the veins in their necks pop out. But if they use their powers too often, they become prematurely old and feeble. The father of one of the boys is evidence of this, as he sits in an attic made up to look like a mummy but he is only 45 years old.<br /><br />The three good warlocks are each filthy rich in his own right, completely spoiled, obnoxious, and annoying. In any public school, these kids would be beaten up every day. Their glares and facial ticks would not cut any mustard with the boys from the hood. Unfortunately for all good people, these Charmed boys were sent to Hogwart's Reform School for the warlocks that couldn't get into Harry Potter's class.<br /><br />So what was the movie all about? Three teenagers acting out with each other and their girlfriends. One other teenager who envies their power and money and happens to be a lost relative. After a few scenes where the Charmed boys show off their powers and have sex with their girlfriends; the movie gets around to the unknown warlock teen's revenge plot. The predictable stuff happens. The bad warlock ambushes various friends of the other warlocks, and eventually starts attacking them too. The final confrontation happens, and that is about it.<br /><br />The special effects are not bad, but nothing special. If you like to see fireballs, spiders, and blue veins, then this is a good movie to watch.
I feel really bad for reviewing this movie because I wish that I had only watched it as a concept production. The Covenant looked like it could have been a really original piece, but sadly they lose the great idea in the translation to the screen.<br /><br />The story follows four (five) teens that are the descendants of the families that started the town of Ipswitch a survivors of the Salem witch trials. They also happen to be a part of the secret sect called "The Covenant". Their power must be used sparingly as it drains their life-force in small amounts and is highly addictive. In theory this would make a pretty good action sci-fi movie…or at least an interesting teeny flick.<br /><br />But there were just too many glaring downfalls that don't allow this movie to reach its plot's full potential. That acting wasn't good, the sound track was mediocre and we found a lot of unnecessary sync issues. For sure the biggest issue is the poor editing job. The movie has little to no coherent flow and makes one fight to keep a mental timeline or any feel of pacing.<br /><br />The movie has it's moments, but overall was a little disappointing.<br /><br />A witchy 4/10
The story was disjointed, the acting was not of any callibre you can catagorise. More of a serial pilot than an actual movie. I wanted to like this movie but just could not find anything to like about it. Whatever it was that made The Lost boys so likable was obviously absent here. Altho it tried hard. Plot hooks were clumsily placed amidst what could have been an episode of dawsons creek with dark clothes, and the story arc was going nowhere soon. Very disappointing for me. The end scenes were special effects driven convenience and how the villain of the story planned his whole scheme.. who was he (or she) trying to kid, talk about naive. Stick with films of this kind of genre from the eighties, when they had more of an idea.
OK...before I even start the more or less constructive criticism of the movie I'd like to say a few words which come from the heart... THIS MOVIE SUCKS!!!! DON'T GO TO SEE IT UNLESS YOU REALLY LIKE SWEATY BOY-BANDS AND WOODEN-ACTING, NO-PLOT STORIES.. So, let's go to why I think the movie is so bad: 1. There is not story line. There is no plot. The director tried to create a mystery it the feeling just wasn't there. 2. The whole thing looks like a big, hour and a half promotion for some kind of goth-wanna-be-but-still-looking-like-"BSB"-band... All guys in school have perfect abs, no fat or ugly young people... there is no good looking girl in the movie as well, not one. The main character is either wet in the swimming pool, or all sweaty in his bed... poor guy. Must be awful to go on a date sweating like that. 3. Can those guys do something good with their powers? Anything good? Like put off the fire in that old barn or help his friend who got into the accident instead of just running around breaking things and showing of in front of each other. 4. Wooden acting. The main character only has two expressions on his face. Expression number one: sad. Expression number two: trying to look seductive but still seems sad... In that boy band there are 4 guys: The main characted, his best friend who got into the accident, the blondy, and the fourth one... what was the name of the fourth one? I think he only spoke twice throughout the whole film: once in the beginning ( he said the jumping from the cliff using "the power" won't kill them) and second time at the end when he and the blondy lost the girl... the movie could have been done without him and no one would notice... Anyways, my verdict: 1 is the perfect score for this film. Guys - do not go to see it. There is very little action, no suspense, no hot girls. Girls - a least the actors are good looking... What I would advise you people is to get a soundtreck of this movie - that's the only thing I liked about it.
Think 'Charmed' with testosterone instead of estrogen and you get the general idea for this picture. A very lame story with mediocre effects and an anti-climax ending to let the door open for a part 2. Let's hope someone has the sense to spend their money wiser. I'd suggest a 'Charmed - the movie' because compared to this 'Charmed' kicked ass and I only watched that show to please my girlfriend!!!! Wait and watch it on DVD on a rainy Sunday when you've got nothing better to do. Or better yet download it so you don't waste your money. The first 15 minutes were alright. But the funniest line from the movie and also the only highlight of this movie is when Reid says : "Kiss my ass Harry Potter", while driving of a cliff. Although they are not worthy to kiss Potter's ass, because Potter is way cooler and at least his movies have a story. The Goblet of fire was even scarier than this!!!
A group of four young men, attending a prestigious private school, belong to an old covenant that was formed by their ancestors during the time of the witch hunts of the late 1600s. They each possess a power that ages them whenever they use it and they suspect that a new kid at the academy might be from a family that was thought to have perished long ago. This new guy wants everyone's power for himself.<br /><br />This not a horror movie as it tries to present itself as. Yes, there is magic and all that supernatural stuff, but this is really just an action movie. A very mediocre action movie. Focusing almost solely on being cool and slick and paying only minimal attention to the plot, which has plenty of sadly unused room for interesting twists. But none were put in and even before the movie is half over you'll know what is being played and by whom.<br /><br />There are a few good scenes here and there, most notably an exploding car that is magically reconstructed after colliding with a big rig, but that's about it. What's worse is that director Renny Harlin, who has some very entertaining if not smart movies to his credit, relies heavily on blasting metal music and overly sexy leads to carry that film and that makes it quite possibly the silliest "horror" movie since the disastrous "Alone in the Dark." It is not as bad as "Alone in the Dark" since the few slick scenes are actually slick and not ridiculously incompetent, but in the end, the highest this film can hope for is a nice and cozy home on late night cable. 3/10<br /><br />Rated PG-13: violent action
This movie was Flippin Awful....I wanted those hours of my life back. For god's sake, -stay far away from this awful crumb ball movie at all costs. Its not worth mentioning the title, but the ratings on this movie are pretty generous for a vomit scum movie like this. And where do I begin? The dumb A** kids in the movie.....The zero plot or story?...the garden-variety college/frat boy-esquire scenes of towel slapping? Or the VERY bad acted, teen angst innuendo? $$$#@%@! My god, It NEVER ended!.....I remember thinking I would have rather kissed the movie theater floor, then sit through this one again.<br /><br />But what do you expect? Most people with the brain power to look up reviews, are not going to be the target audience here at all- so GO SEE Pirites 2 again, or the Jet Lee one, -If your debating to yourself. Look, This movie will just cost you your soul, your money, your energy, and your brain cells. HEED THE WARNING.
Too bad Mike Meyers picked this for his dramatic debut. This film looks like it was put together by a committee that couldn't decide if it was a comedy, drama, suspense, or sci-fi. It starts out sort of playful, then quickly gets darker, and then at the end, apparently shortly after one of the main characters has been killed, the whole family is standing in the backyard laughing about something. It's totally weird and impossible to string together. The acting is extremely uneven, with the older professionals engaging your attention, and then the younger and less experienced actors looking like they are in a high school play. This movie showed me that it's probably harder to make a good movie than is evident from the truly professional fare we see in the first-run and art houses. This would be a good film for a film class to analyze. Plot, character, theme, consistency - they are all either faulty or missing from this film.
The only reason for me for watching this little known Irish film was the question could Mike Myers have played a normal, dramatic character. Well, he could and his acting was pretty good but unfortunately that was probably the only good thing that I can say about this film. In the beginning film follows life of twelve years old orphan Mickey who lives with his brother and sister with their somewhat eccentric grandma. Despite some strong language it looks like a family film but after a while it becomes clearly that Pete's Meteor is a hardly suitable for young audience drama. And the worst is that it is a drama with so much ridiculous and even totally implausible plot. One preposterous story line turns into another and all the time there is no much sense in the events on screen. I suppose when a life drama needs a meteor or what is more something that looks like even more ridiculous spiritual content that's a really bad sign. The characters are not much better than a story. Despite all his troubles young Mickey by no means is not a likable character but it's clearly was somehow we were supposed to care about him and even feel strong sympathy to him. It doesn't work. The same thing with other characters. They are mostly as ridiculous as the story itself with the title character (although he wasn't the main character) as the only bright spot. Towards the end of the movie I still had a strong hope that there is something behind of all that improbability and absurdity. Unfortunately even if the writer of the story had such intentions (and I'm sure he had) in the film they are hidden and practically imperceptible under such a weird script. <br /><br />Grade: 3 out of 10. Those of you who are interested in seeing Mike Myers as a drama actor can watch Pete's Meteor for that reason but the rest of viewers most likely will be bitterly disappointed.
Pete's Meteor. I seen this referred to as "authentic" and a "gem." I caught this movie on a Saturday afternoon. I kinda wished that I didn't.<br /><br />Apparently this was noted as being Mike Myers' first dramatic role. Unfortunately it had to be this movie. The first thing you'll notice that Pete's Meteor suffers from is a complete lack of plot. Or rather, a bunch of little subplots that aren't really connected and don't go anywhere. Young orphan Mickey lives with his younger brother and sister with their grandmother. A meteorite lands in their garden and is eventually collected by a scientist named Hugh. Despite the title of the movie, Mickey is the one who lays claim to the meteor, and the "storyline" actually has little to do with the meteor in any shape or form. From here on out, several other characters and subplots are introduced. But like I said before, they don't really go anywhere.<br /><br />Things go from cute family movie to dark thriller pretty fast, when Pete (Mike Myers) is introduced and starts to play a role. Micky blames him for the death of his parents, though we're never really told what happened or why. Hugh has romance problems because his girlfriend can't get past his cosmic fascination. And Pete's drug-related past starts to catch up with him and temporarily draws his own girlfriend and the rest of the cast into the mix when shady characters start trying to kill him. This would seem to be the main plot, until you realize it doesn't even have a role until halfway through the film, making everything else feel like pointless filler. Hugh's girl problems, Mickey's bad behavior, the meteor...what on EARTH do they have to do with this? Not much.<br /><br />So the 'plot' is disjointed and half of it is pointless. But a good cast of characters can save it, right? Keyword: good. The majority of characters are terribly unlikable people, most of which you'd like to see die horribly. At least, I know I would. Despite the title, Mickey seems to be the main character, which is a really bad move once you see him in action. He is one of the WORST little kids I've seen in a movie, with an extremely bad attitude problem. He 'borrows' a car, harasses and talks trash to Hugh (an adult) for taking the meteor, actually attempts burn the man's house down when he doesn't get his way, and even tries to stab Pete with a knife. You'd think a kid like this is on his way to the jail house. Unfortunately, one of the worst things about this movie is that Mickey never gets what's coming to him. I'm not sure at what point you're supposed to be sympathizing with his character, because he's always a nasty little brat. He's the ringleader for his brother and sister, so they predictably end up taking and backseat and just following whatever he does. Amazingly, they're pushed back so far that I can't even remember their names. They might as well not even be there.<br /><br />Their grandmother is pretty much a borderline alcoholic. She tends to be just as nasty to Hugh as Mickey, and likes to push people out of her house and give them evil glares when she's not chugging down liquor bottles and drinking herself silly. Pretty ridiculous when you take into account that she's supposed to be taking care of three children. Her issues with alcohol are never really addressed, though she does collapse from time to time in the movie.<br /><br />Hugh is one of the few likable characters in the movie, but that's only because he's the punching bag for the majority of characters and takes their mess without giving it back. The kids treat him nastily but he always comes back and tries to teach them and do nice things with them. He's got a taxi driver girlfriend who seems to take every aspect of his life as a scientist as a personal offense, attempting to leave him several times in the movie when he goes off into his cosmic lingo or does something to prove that he isn't exactly on the same wavelength as the rest of the characters (thankfully).<br /><br />Then there's Mike Myers as Pete. Pete, despite having the only solid purpose and plot in the movie, is extremely underused and doesn't play any kind of role until the second half. It's unfortunate that Myers got stuck in such a position for a dramatic role. Even when Pete is getting screen time, half of it is just Myers running through dark alleys and hiding in small corners. And even though he was the only real point to this movie, when his plot line brings the movie to a close, it's a strange, unfulfilling conclusion that has all the characters laughing on a good note with a quick and strange explanation behind the title of the movie, making you wonder if they were just performing in the movie you were just watching.<br /><br />The only thing worth seeing in Pete's meteor is Mike Myers' role as Pete, and that's if you can wade through this disjointed mess long enough without lashing out at another human being due to the extremely unlikable characters and nonexistent plot line. No sir, I didn't like this one at all.
As was mentioned by others, could there be any other reason to see this film other than to see former "Wayne's World" star Mike Myers play a serious role? The story line is interesting but lacks development and is sabotaged by loose ends and bad characters. If there was any good scenic shots of Ireland then it would give it another reason to see it. But instead it focuses on a little normal village that is obviously surrounded by the 'green pastures' of the Emerald-Isle that are often shown in Irish films. If there was any cultural 'spice' to admire the "Irish personality" it would be worth seeing, however this could have almost been shot in England. Too bad for Myers, but this one fails to please or satisfy the heart of anybody who ever wanted to visit the land of Guiness.
This is probably the worst film I have ever seen. Mike Myers tries to be a dramatic actor and fails miserably. The children, who have the major roles, are almost impossible to understand and are really unpleasant characters. It was not even worth the price of the rental.
This movie is simply bad. First of all the story is just weird and it's not good written. It leaves you with questions when you're finished. Sometimes that's OK, but not in this case.<br /><br />The acting is nothing to write home about. The adults does a OK job, but the kids, taken in consideration they are kids, does not a good job. I thought the lead role, Ian Costello as Mickey, was worst. Well, to be honest I'm not sure that was the lead role. Never quite figured who this movie was about. Mickey or Pete.<br /><br />There were some shots that stood out, but over all there were nothing exiting about the cinematography. The sound, however, was better. There was a nice score. A little adventure kind of score, though this didn't look like an adventure film to me. It had some elements of an adventure film, but it was more of a drama. However, it was hard to tell who this film was meant for. Children? Hardly. There is too much language and violence for that. Adults? I don't know. It had to many elements of a children's movie in it. It was like a adult movie in a children movie wrapping.<br /><br />The story was just weird. I don't have much of an idea of what it really was about. You was thrown right in to it without knowing anything, but there were all the time references to something you felt you should know. The fact that the children's parents were dead for instance and that Mickey blamed Pete for it. You expected to get to know what happened , but you never got.<br /><br />All together this movie was bad and a waste of time. There was no drive in it. Nothing to really move the story forward. This is not what you spend your Saturday night on.
This film is one of the worst adaptations of Pride and Prejudice ever filmed and if Jane Austen were alive, she would demand that her name be removed from the film. Austen's novel is only superficially a story of the development of true love between Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy. It is also a commentary on the class structure of Regency Britain. This film focuses only on the love story, thereby disappointing viewers who hoped it would do justice to the novel.<br /><br />There are numerous problems with the historical accuracy of the film. In the film, the dance at which Darcy snubs Elizabeth is not the refined dancing done by the gentry, to which the Bennet, Lucas, Bingley, and Darcy families belong, but is rather the dancing of the lower classes. The gentry would not have been dancing as if they were at a peasant barn dance. There are costume and hair problems, too. The custom of the period required married women to wear white cloth hats to cover their hair and for women to wear bonnets when outdoors. Women of the Regency period were not so liberated as to forego the bonnet requirements in public. The worst historical inaccuracy is the early morning meeting of Elizabeth (in her nightgown and coat) and Mr. Darcy (sans cravat and vest) at which they admit their love for each other. This is an unforgivable liberty with the novel. No respectable young woman or gentleman would venture out of doors in such a state of undress or seek to meet someone of the opposite sex at such an early hour. <br /><br />But the worst thing of all with this film is the mangling of Austen's dialogue and the atrocious modern dialogue. Austen's dialogue needs no assistance from a writer who thinks he/she can write like Austen. The writer of the non-Austen dialogue not only lacks Austen's talent but also has no feel for Austen's style. The juxtaposition of the two styles is jarring.<br /><br />As for the acting, the best is done by Judi Dench, who clearly understands the imperiousness of the aristocracy. Brenda Blethyn takes some liberties in making Mrs. Bennet less awful than Austen's portrayal. Her portrayal is interesting and seems to work. Donald Sutherland is miscast. His affected British accent is terrible and he portrays Mr. Bennet too much as a father of the 20th century and not a father of the late 18th century. Matthew MacFadeyn's portrayal of Darcy is flat. I can't imagine anyone falling in love with his Mr. Darcy. Keira Knightly is a pretty Elizabeth, but her portrayal of Elizabeth Bennet is far too modern. Knightly focuses on the Elizabeth's forthrightness, but her portrayal completely lacks an understanding of the social mores and conventions of the time. She would have done well to actually read the novel before attempting to portray Elizabeth and to do research on the behavior of women of the period.<br /><br />If one is making a period movie, one must be true to the period. This film needed an historical adviser who actually knows something about the Regency period. It also needed a writer who has a better appreciation and understanding of Austen's text. I can only hope Emma Thompson decides to do a film of Pride and Prejudice in the near future to erase this abomination from our minds.<br /><br />The best thing that can be said about this film is that it contains many pretty scenes of the English countryside. Chatsworth is well used as Pemberly (as it was in the 1995 BBC adaptation). But pretty scenery and pretty actors cannot save this film. True fans of Austen will rush home to watch their DVDs of the far superior 1995 BBC production with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth or to read Austen's text in order to wipe this version from their minds.
Well Wright may have made a gritty depiction of life around 1800 - as he so repeatedly and anally goes on about because of when it was written as opposed to published - but it is HIS not Austen's and shouldn't claim to be an adaptation.<br /><br />Mrs Bennett looks like a rural washerwoman. This is a pampered woman - they have servants (remember the book scene with the servant dressing the hair, etc)? But Wright portrays her with rough reddened skin all down her chest, rough hands and working in the kitchen. And the pigs wandering through! If he wants bucolic, he should try Tess.<br /><br />Mr Bennett - the script makes too cuddly and modern and ignored the weakness in him. The scene where he stops Mary playing is supposed to make you cringe - not pass in seconds. If it doesn't - don't include it.<br /><br />MacFadyen is very weak in the part and seems to be doing some kind of Pride by numbers acting. The first proposal he looks like a nervous schoolboy rather than a man overcoming his pride to make a proposal beneath his station. Most of his lines, he could as well be reading a shopping list.<br /><br />Lydia is awful. Completely over the top with excessive shrieking and skipping. Indeed, Knightley plays Elizabeth more like the giggling inane character Lydia actually is in the book, at times.<br /><br />And Elizabeth. Half the time Knightley is, clearly, mimicking Ehle's voice and intonation - close your eyes to see what a copy it is. And in her role you see Wright's major error - there is NO PREJUDICE.<br /><br />From the first encounter with Darcy she clearly fancies him. When he comments to Bingley on the attractiveness of the women in the hall she initially looks hurt - not shocked and affronted. The latter should set up the prejudice side of things. And when she and 'caroline' are prancing round the room she comes across like a tease, obviously all over him. And by virtually cutting out Wickham you don't get Elizabeth invested enough there to set up the prejudicial aspects falling out of that relationship.<br /><br />And apparently it is Caroline not Miss Bingley. And Mr Bingley happily wanders into Jane's bedroom. And and and - Wright can boast about how great he is with period all he wants. But a few panorama shots of rural life (which show the preference for Hardy) don't excuse him the glaring blunders all over the place.<br /><br />The cinematographer - who clearly wants awards - should have been reined in. He veered between Bronte and Hardy throughout the film - and wasn't the last proposal shots/lighting from Tess? The need to see Darcy walk along through the 'scape with unkempt shirt was just dumb. But most importantly - when going between those 2 very different landscapes they forget the most important one - Austen. (She'd have laughed out loud at the Elizabeth = sad, therefore = rain, running through to picturesque folly, wet Darcy rubbish).<br /><br />I admit I found it impossible the watch the film without using the book as context. I was prepared to give it some leeway as it had to provide the story in a short space of time. But to forget fully one half of the core of the book in prejudice and Darcy to continually look more constipated than prideful, made it almost unwatchable. I could only see it as a mess with generally poor performances (when Knightley wasn't aping Ehle she was gurning or skipping or both and only calmed down a couple of times to indicate she does have some promise - but faffing about on swings to convey emotion isn't a substitute for a poor script and poor direction) - although for some it was simply a case of bad script.<br /><br />Tom Holland alone would escape censure. While he toned down the comic aspects of Collins, he did turn in a very interesting approach. Dench does superbly the schtick she can do in her sleep whether it be here or in Oscar Wilde - but this was supposed to be Lady Catherine De Bourgh NOT Lady Bracknell. She was just a little too sane.<br /><br />The shortened length could have been handled by a competent screenwriter, surely? Not characters filling in story gaps and helping along the audience all over the place. Elizabeth couldn't have come up with the £10k figure. And while they wanted to cut time with her learning of Darcy's involvement in Wickhams marriage the lines didn't fit with Lydia. It was the worst case of incongruous exposition in the piece.<br /><br />It really is appalling stuff. Anyone who reviews it saying it works well in the context of the book is someone I frankly don't believe has read or understood the characterisations in the thing. Wright seems to think his characters are in the 1990s not the 1709s from their behaviour. I'm not convinced he has read the book - he certainly doesn't understand it. He doesn't understand Austen's acerbic wit or lightness of touch - he certainly made a dull plodding film out of it.<br /><br />What is possibly worse was the sad pathetic need of the chick lit lovers to need the 'I love you, I love yous' all over the place so they can sigh and get off on it. The fact that it has no place in a work by Austen is apparently irrelevant.<br /><br />Anyone who reviews it as a film alone? Well, more difficult for me except I would note the poor acting, the weak Darcy, and the gurning skipping inane irritation of the whole thing. If you are going to adapt you can change a lot - but if it loses the spirit and key motivations, then don't insult the book by taking it's title.
If you have never heard of Jane Austen, seen the original movie or the 1995 BBC adaptation, or even seen a pop up version of the book, then this farcical attempt to show this classic love story may be considered vaguely endurable.<br /><br />From the opening scene, this film must be remembered for its awful acting, abominable miscasting and complete lack of the classic wit of Jane Austen.<br /><br />Whoever decided to cast actors (with the exception of the excellent Judi Dench) who have obviously never heard of Jane Austen, let alone read her, should be punished! Keira Knightley grimaces and grins through every scene, and came across as being so obnoxious that no-one would want to marry her! Darcy looked as if he was trying to remember his lines throughout the whole film and the rest of the Bennet girls were interchangeable in their lack of portraying their characters as they were originally written.<br /><br />This version failed to show the proper Pride and Prejudice that both Darcy and Elizabeth suffered from and, at the end of the longest two hours of my life, who cared whether they got together or not! Absolutely abysmal - even the too few minutes of Judi Dench cannot save this rubbish. I cannot think of anything good to say about this film apart from that it eventually ended!
I went to see suspecting I would hate it, I did. Everything about it was wrong; it was like they were filming a different book. Granted the locations and houses very lovely (if not a little miscast-yes even the house were wrong for their parts) Keira was too modern, dull and frankly I found it unpleasant to watch her. Were everyone else sees Darcy as a sex god the writer of this saw him as sexually frustrated and inadequate. Bingley was stupid and dippy (he isn't meant to be) and the Bennett's were shown to be destitute and for some unknown reason farmers, this is incorrect and ludicrous. The very idea that Mr Bennett would answer the door in his night gear with the rest of the family dressed in their underwear to in the middle of the night is stupid. They had servants. Mr Collins was not repulsive and greasy merely stupid and obnoxious, Georgina Darcy was ugly and old and Miss Bingley wore a sleeveless dress, what! As if! It is Historically inaccurate and even the ending is unsatisfying. I could go on for days. I hated it so much as not only was it nothing like the book but I fear that for many people it will be their fist experience of this great novel and it will give them the worst possible idea of it. The BBC version is so superior it's not even funny and everything about this version is an insult to its memory. In short if you must see it be sure you have read the book first or seen the BBC version other wise you will be lead done the deluded road that this is what it's like, which its not!
Sorry to say but was disappointed in the film. It was very very rushed, as I suppose you can understand a movie length version of Pride & Prejudice would be and I felt that a lot of the major scenes were glossed over just to get through the story. As the movie is so rushed, unfortunately you don't get to really know about and feel for each of the characters much at all. <br /><br />Not only that, this movie is Boring. I say that with a capital B. 1/3 of the way through I started yawning and couldn't wait for the movie to be over. As I have read the book and watch the BBC version, I knew how many scenes had to go, before I could finally leave the cinema. Mr Darcy whoever he is in this movie, definitely can't act. He looks also too young to play Mr Darcy. Every word that comes out of his mouth is rushed like he needs to get through the script or something. Where is the build up? At first, he seems confused with everything. He is just bizarre! It all looks put on. <br /><br />Was trying not to compare to the Colin Firth version but if you love that version, you will most likely be disappointed anyway.<br /><br />The costumes are absolutely shocking. Where are the corsets? I know Elizabeth is poor, but I think she still knows how to dress as some sort of ladylike fashion, and hasn't been brought up in a squaller. Her dresses indicates she might be the poorest peasant in all of England.<br /><br />I didn't agree with a couple of scenes in the movie in the fact, that I don't think it would be considered proper in that society for men to do such things, honestly Mr Bingley who has wealth should know better. There is some things that are said that sound too modern for the period this movie is set in, and not at all like Jane Austen. Bingley's character is shockingly donee, to me he behaves like a simpleton, not a character to like and respect. What about that laugh of his!!! I Wickham hardly has a presence and Mr & Mrs Hurst and a couple of other characters have no presence at all. Keira did okay, but it just ain't the same.
Maybe if you've never read any English literature or only ever watched the Hollywood version of any book you might find merit in this awful film. It has the directorial and scripting skill of Shoreditch. The BBC 1995 adaptation is both very enjoyable and close to the book and captures the atmosphere between Elisabeth and Darcy very well.<br /><br />The characters in this production are badly miscast, Sutherland as Bennet seems a total buffoon. Bingley likewise acts the fool and it is imcomrepnsible that he my be a friend of Darcy. I can't imagine how Judi Dench could have accepted the role, maybe she thought it was a surreal comedy version.<br /><br />Quotes from the book are thrown in out of context. Huge chunks are missing, the important episode with Wickham is glossed over.<br /><br />Mr Collins is however very good, and towers above the other members of the cast.<br /><br />The only good thing is we didn't pay to see it. Wait for the DVD and use to keep a table from wobbling.
From the film's first shot - Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet wandering reading through a field at dawn, thus invoking all the clichés cinema has developed to address the phenomenon of the strong-minded rebellious female character in period drama - I knew I was in for something to make me want to kill myself.<br /><br />Joe Wright seemed not only to have not read the book, but to be under the regrettable misapprehension that what he was filming was not in fact Jane Austen's subtle, nuanced comedy of manners conducted through sparkling, delicate social interaction in eighteenth century English drawing-rooms, but a sort of U-certificate Wuthering Heights. Thus we were treated to every scene between Elizabeth and Darcy taking place outside for no apparent reason, in inappropriately rugged scenery and often in the pouring rain. Not to mention that Jane Austen, and in particular P & P, is not about passion, sexual tension or love. It's about different strategies of negotiating the stultification of eighteenth century society. Which was completely ignored, so that the Bennets' house was a rambunctious, chaotic place where everybody shouts at once, runs around, leaves their underwear on chairs, and pigs wander happily through the house; the society balls become rowdy country dances one step away from a Matrix Reloaded style dance-orgy; and everybody says exactly what they think without the slightest regard for propriety.<br /><br />The genius of Jane Austen lies in exploring the void created by a society in which nobody says what they think or mean because of an overwhelming regard for propriety, and the tragic predicaments of her characters arise from misunderstandings and miscommunications enabled by that speechless gap. So both the brilliance of Jane Austen and the very factor that allows her plots - particularly in this film - to function was completely erased. Subtlety in general was nowhere int his film, sacrificed in favour of an overwrought drama which jarred entirely with the material and the performances.<br /><br />It was so obviously trying to be a *serious* film. The humour - which IS Pride & Prejudice, both Austen's methodology and her appeal - was almost entirely suppressed in favour of all this po-faced melodrama, and when it was allowed in, was handled so clumsily. Pride & Prejudice is a serious narrative which makes serious points, yes, but those serious points and weightier themes are not just intertwined with the humour, they are embedded in it. You can't lose Jane Austen's technique, leaving only the bare bones of the story, and expect the themes to remain. Not even when you replace her techniques with your own heavy-handed mystical-numinous fauxbrow cinematography.<br /><br />Elizabeth Bennett is supposed to be a woman, an adult, mature and sensible and clear-sighted. Keira Knightley played the first half of the film like an empty-headed giggling schoolgirl, and the second half like an empty-headed schoolgirl who thinks she is a tragic heroine. Elizabeth's wit, her combative verbal exchanges, her quintessential characteristic of being able to see and laugh at everybody's follies including her own, her strength and composure, and her fantastic clear-sightedness were completely lost and replaced with ... what? A lot of giggling and staring into the distance? Rather than being able to keep her head when all about her were losing theirs, she started to cry and scream at the slightest provocation - and not genuinely raging, either; no, these were petulant hissy fits. And where the great strength of Austen's Elizabeth (at least in Austen's eyes) was her ability to retain integrity and observance while remaining within the boundaries of society and sustaining impeachable propriety, Knightley's Elizabeth had no regard whatsoever for convention. Furthermore, she seemed to think that wandering around barefoot in the mud in the eighteenth century version of overalls established her beyond doubt as spirited and strong-minded, and therefore nothing in the character as written or the performance had to sustain it. An astonishingly unsubtle and bland performance. In which quest for blandness and weakness, she was ably matched by Matthew Macfayden.<br /><br />Donald Sutherland as Mr Bennet seemed weak, ineffectual and permanently befuddled without the wicked sense of humour and ironic detachment at the expense of human relationships that makes Mr Bennet so fascinating and tragic. His special bond with Lizzie, as the only two sensible people in a world of fools, was completely lost, not least because both of them were fools in a world of fools, and that completely deprived the end of the film of emotional impact. Mr Bingley was no longer amiable and well-meaning to the point of folly, but was played as a complete retard for cheap laughs, and the woman who was playing Jane was so wildly inconsistent that she may as well not have tried to do anything with the character at all. The script veered wildly between verbatim chunks of Jane Austen - delivered with remarkable clumsiness - and totally contemporaneous language which would not be out of place in a modern day romantic comedy.<br /><br />Just get the BBC adaptation on DVD and save yourself the heartache.
I think it is saying something that the Bollywood "Bride and PRejudice" stayed more faithful to the source material than this 2005 Hollywood version did. I also laughed more at the Bollywood version. (Mr. Kholi? Priceless!) If you have read the book or seen the 1995 BBC version (and liked them), you will be in for a nasty surprise going in to this film then. My friend however, who had seen neither, was mildly amused by the film. If you are a JAne Austen purist though, or even a film-goer who dislikes historical inaccuracies, it will be painful to sit through this.<br /><br />Ugh, the script. The script was the biggest problem. I imagine the actors wouldn't have fared half so badly if they'd had a decent script, perhaps penned by somebody who actually loved Austen's work.<br /><br />What travesties were committed? Well, you'll be forced to endure such incredulous lines as "Don't you dare judge me, Lizzy!" and "Leave me alone for once in your lives!". Not only are such lines far from anything that could come from Jane Austen's eloquent pen, but can anyone honestly believe words like that spilling from the mouth of a genteel young lady from the Regency era? The usage of modern colloquialisms is one of the many irritating ways that the screenwriter butchers the book. The writer also decided to give characters lines that, in the book, were said by a completely different characters and all for no apparent purpose. Worse of all, when they do try to stick a bit closer to the book's writing, the screenwriter has a nasty and unnecessary habit of rearranging Austen's phrases and substituting awkward synonyms for her already perfect words. It was as if the screenwriter sat down with the book in one hand and a thesaurus in the other when writing the script. Stick to Austen's words; she did it better than you! I assume all of this was done in a "revisionist" spirit and in an effort to distance this film from the iconic 1995 BBC version. However, for me, it also made a travesty of the true spirit of Austen's most beloved work.<br /><br />The casting did have potential, though it was quickly dashed away once the script kicked in. But Keira, giggling excessively and baring your crooked teeth does not equal charm and vivacity! And I think Mr. McFayden, though I find him tolerably handsome enough, misread his script and was under the impression he was playing Heathcliff and not the formidable Mr. Darcy. I really did enjoy Brenda Blethyn, Kelly Reilly and the actor who played Mr. Collins. Their interpretations were really rather refreshing.<br /><br />Oh, but Donald Sutherland! Somebody described his performance as seeming like a hobo who had accidentally wandered onto the movie set and I must say it is an apt description. And can somebody tell me why they fashioned Wickham after Legolas? Though he was in the movie for under two minutes, I daresay, and without his impressive archery skills to perk up the movie.<br /><br />On a wardrobe note, I would kill for Miss Bingley's dresses because they were sumptuous and would fit in more with the modern century. (A sleeveless Regency evening gown? Please! More Versace than Austen, that is sure) And poor Keira, all of the budget went to her salary and not her wardrobe! Oh, and I'm sure they eventually caught the bastard who stole the one hairbrush from the movie set. Unfortunately, they didn't catch him soon enough to comb the actresses' tresses before filming rolled.<br /><br />In short, with this new Hollywood version, bid adieu to Austen's eloquence, subtlety and wit because you'll be getting the complete opposite.
Let me begin by saying that I adore the book and loved the A&E miniseries. I was hoping to love this film, and I was absolutely willing to allow it a moderate degree of artistic license in interpreting and abbreviating the actual story. However, this film scarcely resembles the original book. If only "the names had been changed to protect the innocent," I would have possibly enjoyed the movie as simply an entertaining, if inaccurate, period piece.<br /><br />Unfortunately, putting the name "Mr. Darcy" on a character who is emotional and weak, giving the name "Elizabeth Bennett" to a reckless, snippy, often teary-eyed hoyden who cares nothing for the rules of society, and making "Mr. Bingley" a wide-eyed dimwit absolutely destroyed the idea that the director had ever read Jane Austen's original story. <br /><br />There are some really stellar moments in this movie -- perhaps a total of 10 minutes are truly excellent. Charlotte's explanation of why she accepted Mr. Collins' proposal begins beautifully. She is 27 years old (quite near the hopeless-spinster age in those times), she is becoming a burden on her family, and she is not romantic. She only wants "a comfortable home." However, the beautiful dialogue is ruined when she blubbers, "Don't you judge me, Elizabeth. Don't you dare judge me!" and runs off in tears. Later, you see Charlotte kowtow to Lady Catherine de Bourgh, which was not at all in her character as described in the book. <br /><br />Another good moment is when Darcy catches Elizabeth in his home while she is touring the area with her aunt and uncle. It was well done in the A&E series, but the film version with Keira Knightley made the audience feel acutely how very humiliating that moment must have been for Elizabeth. Very nice.<br /><br />The ending also illustrated a level of affection between Elizabeth and Darcy that was not shown as obviously in the miniseries. I actually appreciated that scene, simply because I like to see a happy ending, rather than just know that it took place. <br /><br />Altogether, though, this movie eliminated the subtlety that was such an integral part of Austen's Pride and Prejudice. The characters speak in a jarring combination of Austen's dialogue verbatim and modern phrases and colloquialisms. Information that was only alluded to or suggested in the original work is blatantly stated in this version. Yes, time was a concern. It's only a short movie, yada yada. But turning a complex, beautiful book into a superficial love story is ridiculous. <br /><br />Some have commented that they loved the moment when Darcy first sees Elizabeth, because it is so obviously a case of "love at first sight." Love at first sight? Huh? One of the best aspects of the book is that Elizabeth is not supposed to be a traditional beauty, and Darcy comes to love her for her wit and liveliness ... he literally "loves her for her mind." <br /><br />This version also had a moment (during Darcy's first proposal) when the two are yelling furiously at each other, while leaning closer ... and closer ... and almost kissing ... but they suddenly step apart. Ugh! What a sad cliché. They're angry and disgusted with each other, but so attracted that it doesn't matter that (at the time) they don't even like each other? Ridiculous! <br /><br />The characterizations were all so far removed from those described in the book that it really was like a different story. Mr. Bennet was dour, Elizabeth usually acted just as silly as her younger sisters, Charlotte was emotional, somewhat unintelligent and desperate for a home of her own -- unlike the intelligent, slightly scheming woman with an abundance of common sense who is portrayed in the novel. Jane and Elizabeth's relationship is merely topical, instead of the deep-rooted love and admiration they are supposed to have for each other. <br /><br />All this I could have accepted as merely poor interpretations of the novel, but I refused to accept all that in addition to the many, many historical inaccuracies. Miss Bingley walked around scarcely clothed (her dress looked like what the others would wear as tight undergarments). Elizabeth walked to Netherfield with her hair down and allowed to fly all over. The family lazed about one morning, though mornings were supposed to be reserved for calling on acquaintances (or being called on at your own home). Elizabeth walked outside barefoot in her nightgown. And in a really appalling scene, Bingley walked into Jane's bedroom and conversed with her (and sounded like an idiot) when she was ill. <br /><br />Most people would feel these are minor points, but I simply wanted either A.) an historically accurate film, or B.)an accurate representation of the characters in the novel. <br /><br />The director/writer/whoever sacrificed accuracy, subtlety and a good story for a trite tale of love at first sight. I can concede that those who have not read the book or who are not familiar with the social conventions of the time could very easily like this movie, and there is nothing wrong with that. I simply couldn't overcome my desire to see a film that involved more than just two pretty faces.
While the new Pride & Prejudice film is gorgeous to view, and the soundtrack is lovely, we are not seeing Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. The film is for some reason set back in the early 1790's, rather than the Regency period where the novel is set, as scholars have long shown. The Bennets' Longbourn estate is ram-shackled and looks like Cold Comfort Farm. Yet the Bennets in the novel are gentry class; they own a farm, but the pig does not walk through the house, nor is the farmyard of manure and chicken droppings contiguous to the home. Scenes are re-set from the novel,and lest we forget, Jane Austen placed scenes in certain locations for a reason. For example, the film puts the big Darcy proposal scene outside in a storm in front of a Neoclassical temple, as opposed to inside the Collins' parsonage: Why did Jane Austen put it in the parsonage? Because while Lizzy and Darcy speak with total, if brutal honesty to each other in this scene, the Collinses have never shared an honest word. Why the rain and the outdoor proposal? It looks like Jane Eyre meeting Rochester! And when Elizabeth walks across a windy field to stand on a cliff and view the panorama, one expects her to cry, "Heathcliffe" at any minute! Austen has been Bronteized! Judy Dench is a GREAT actress, but Lady Catherine is supposed to be tall and striking. The petite Tom Hollander is a brilliant actor: but Mr. Collins is described in the novel as tall and heavy-looking, which suggests that his terrible dancing with poor Lizzy is elephantine. Matthew MacFayden is another favorite of mine from MI-5 on A&E; in P&P, however, he is more the young Heathcliffe, never smiling--though Austen observes in the novel that Darcy smiles at Lizzy quite a bit, and she realizes this when she sees his wonderful smiling portrait at Pemberley--a portrait that in this movie is for some reason replaced by a sculptured marble bust.And much of Austen's dialogue is changed to modern speech. Mr. Bingley has been turned into such a clown that one wonders why Darcy would have him as a friend and why Jane Bennet would love him. The bottom line is that while this is a great movie to watch and hear, it deviates from Jane Austen's novel so much that any student who watched it, thinking she could substitute viewing for reading, would fail!
I've spent quite a while going through all the reviews for this film. I'm in total agreement with almost every reviewer in saying that Noah's Ark is crap, crap, crap, crap, crap! Don't the executives at NBC have any class? I feel sick to my stomach for actually watching both parts of this mini-series. The script is so dumb, so pointless, and yes, TOTALLY INACCURATE! I can understand making a few changes for dramatic purposes, but this film changed just about everything in the story. God himself is going to go through the trouble to kill off the entire Earth's population, but he somehow misses one guy that's sailing around trying to sell stuff to Noah. Give me a break! And what was up with Noah's sons acting like Indiana Jones, saving girls in distress? If all that isn't bad enough, there's the part where God apologizes to Noah and says "I'm sorry Noah, I was wrong". Newsflash NBC, GOD CAN NOT BE WRONG! This film is the most tasteless and disgraceful Biblical film ever made.
NBC had a chance to make a powerful religious epic along the lines of "The Ten Commandments" and "The Greatest Story Ever Told," and instead they chose to make some halfhearted cartoon that was more like "Waterworld" than anything else. I don't recall a Bible passage where Lot turns into a pirate and attacks the ark, nor do I remember one where Noah's son develops a serious friendship with an orange, nor do I remember Noah being some crazy old loon who suddenly acts like he's commanding a naval fleet and runs around shouting nautical terms like "hoist the mainstay!" This was possibly the worst marketing decision in history. Obviously the majority of people watching this were going to be Jewish and Christian parents with their kids, so why on earth make the movie so offensive to those people? If they were intentionally trying to offend, why not advertise it that way and at least reel in the right audience?? I hope they make a REAL Noah movie someday, one done seriously and thoughtfully, one that actually appeals to people and makes money. Until then, don't waste your time with this trash.
This movie could have been an impressing epic, but the makers seem to have done their utmost to make it appear foolish. Even God Himself is not spared in this movie, in that His words are drenched with childish jokes. The result is blasphemous and annoying. Only people who don't care to see a cheap parody on the biblical story may perhaps watch this film without embarrassment. The makers of this tasteless production should see 'Il Vangelo secondo Matteo' (The Gospel according to Mathew), a film of Pier Paolo Pasolini, who shows that it is unnecessary to pervert the words of the Bible to make a good story; the most impressing result is obtained by a sincere rendering of the plain text itself.
I'll dispense with the obvious review of factual inaccuracies. They are too numerous to name. A much shorter list would be what they got right. 1. Dude named Noah. 2. Ark with animals on it. <br /><br />If you want a much more accurate portrayal of Noah's Ark and the destruction of Sodom, go rent "The Bible" (1966). It depicts the story of creation through Abraham attempting to sacrifice his son Isaac. It's a much better movie, and it may be that the abomination called "Noah's Ark" (1999) drove you to seek just such a film. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060164/<br /><br />I really couldn't stomach watching the whole movie. From reading other comments, I can see that even the atheists found it grossly inaccurate. As a Christian, it was intolerable to me. Possibly the worst movie ever made. No real point to this movie either, except maybe to showcase their sub-par computer animation.<br /><br />Was it a complete waste? Maybe not. God can use evil to work good. <br /><br />Romans 8:28 says, [28] And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.<br /><br />Genesis 50 says, [20] But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.<br /><br />In the second example, Joseph's brothers meant to kill him, but God turned their evil into a very great good. He may have done the same thing with this movie.<br /><br />People were so astonished by its lack of Biblical foundation, that they probably broke out the dusty old Bible and read the story for themselves. To find out about Lot and Sodom, they would have to go the whole way up to Genesis 19 before God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah. By then, they have read almost half of Genesis, so they might want to finish. The next book is Exodus, which the movie "The Ten Commandments" was based on (and much more accurately). If they have seen that movie, then Exodus becomes an easy read. So now they have read at least two whole books of the Bible, just because they watched a pathetic movie about Noah's Ark. I'm sure this actually happened to someone out there.<br /><br />God works in mysterious ways.
This is one of the worst mini-series I have ever seen on TV. I sat through the first half hoping it would improve but it only went from bad to worse. Needless to say I could not bring myself to sit through the torture of a second nights viewing. What was Jon Voight thinking when he made this?????
Sorry about that. But if you have seen this "epic", you will obviously know of the utter disregard for the actual text of the Bible. Now, I'm not exactly the next in line for sainthood, but I do know the basics. And the basics were this. God wanted to wipe everyone of the face of the Earth because he believed they have been corrupted to the point of no return. He chose Noah, the diamond in the rough, and his family to be spared due to their uncorrupted ways. Noah builds an ark as instructed by God to house he, his family, and two of every creature while he floods the rest of the planet. Those are the basics. In this movie, you have other people roaming around the seas such as peddlers and pirates. But I thought that EVERYONE was wiped out. I guess the executives at NBC have never been to church. There are other inaccuracies, I'm told, but being the average Joe, I have no idea what they are. Sorry. Back to the movie, it was inaccurate, as stated before, the acting stunk, but some of the effects were good, I'll give it that. But as a whole, I've seen a better and more tasteful rendition of the story done as a little scene on The Simpsons. God help the NBC executives come judgement day. 3/10
Dramatic ? Yes......Historically accurate ? Not Quite !.... This movie twists the Bibles details of the deluge by placing Lot meeting Noah during the building of the Ark. Fascinating time travel for Lot made in part by NBC !....being Lot had not been born until 2136 BCE, 234 years AFTER the floodwater's (2370BCE)....Thats like having George Bush meet with William Shakepeare ! And whats with this guy floating around selling items & nicknack's to Noah ? <br /><br />You can make a movie based on historical facts dramatic, but don't twist it around placing people where they weren't....especially when it comes to Gods Word.
I could not believe what i saw...(once) brilliant actors appearing in this dire effort that should never of been made. The plots are dreadful and the dialogue appauling (at first i thought it was a spoof), and the acting abysmal. Everything about it is bad, from the cheap sets to the phony backdrops, a bunch of paintings enlarged. Respectable filmakers struggle to get their vision realised, yet this blasphemous, pathetic attempt at a mini-series makes it to our television's, with 3 oscar winners making appearances. I can only guess everyone involved somehow hurt the writer and director and were forced (maybe at gunpoint)to star in this worthless T.V. trash.
This is the most inaccurate and disgraceful biblical film i have ever has the misfortune to watch. I would like to know why anybody on earth could enjoy viewing this. I am so surprised that a big name like Jon Voight would agree to act in this disgraceful piece of garbage. Many people who may not have read the bible will now be mislead by believing this film was accurate and the thought of that really bothers me. I think the makers have a lot to answer for. The worst thing is that, i believe nobody could make such obvious mistakes with a biblical film, since they can research the bible for the truth, so i believe the makers deliberately twisted what the bible says, and that is something nobody has the right to do and i find that very offensive. There are no words strong enough to describe exactly how i feel about this.
If you are going to make a movie from any book, be sure that the characters are consistant with that book. This movie not only defied the Biblical story that has been told for thousands upon thousands of years to children one way or another, but it clearly took liberties that no adaptation would probably ever try. At least the Lord of the Rings is close enough to the books that people understand the story more if they read the books than this "Noah's Ark" tried to.
This move is terrible. They took Gods word and made a mockery of it. The acting was terrible too. Why bother doing a story on something from the bible when your not even going to tell it correctly. There were not just a few changes but the whole thing was wrong. Do not see this movie.
I just wanted to say that I was very disappointed after seeing this movie! I was expecting a Biblical story visualized with great special fx, etc. but during the film I found out that this was an absolute disaster... it wasn't biblical at all... only the boat and the animals were similar to the story... if you want a visual 'translation' of the Bible version of Noah then DON'T go watch this movie!
How can so many blundering decisions can be made. All that waste of resources!Its an idiotic story to begin with but theres no need to make it worse.A loose interpretation? Are you kidding! it diminishes my regard for Voight and Coburn.I hope they were paid well.
Who wrote the script for this movie, the staff at Disney Studios?! This is the most inacurrate adaptation of any story ever! I wanted to laugh at a few scenes and cry at others, and that was only because of how pitiful it was. I'll have to hand it credit, it did have a few funny scenes, but I could've spent better time with my evening. Very seldom do I turn off a movie after only a quarter of the way through.
Even though I have great interest in Biblical movies, I was bored to death every minute of the movie. Everything is bad. The movie is too long, the acting is most of the time a Joke and the script is horrible. I did not get the point in mixing the story about Abraham and Noah together. So if you value your time and sanity stay away from this horror.
How offensive! Those who liked this movie have probably never opened a bible. I can imagine those at NBC saying, "OK. Let's make a movie to appease those pesky Christians, but they'll never know the difference if we don't have anything factual or in the correct chronological order." Well, they were wrong. Anybody associated with this atrocity needs to find a church and repent for their involvement in this blasphemous atrocity. I only gave this movie a 1 because I couldn't give it a 0.
Oh boy. Where do I begin on this piece of slime? This is one of the few real high-budget films on my list that I've actually seen fit to give a 1 rating, and that's not for the production values, which are pretty high. This movie has absolutely no respect for the account in the bible, and treats the whole story as laughable fantasy. I could not recommend it to anyone, except to see how low as a society we have become...<br /><br />For the first thing, Noah was absolutely not friends with Lot. Anyone who actually read Genesis could tell you that Abram was who they were thinking of. The writers were just trying to pad out the story with the whole Sodom/Gommorah subplot, and it seems out of place because it is. Noah is treated as a prudish goofball ("You were kissing! You were kissing!") but at least it's a step up from Voight's hilarious overacting in Anaconda. <br /><br />However, these offenses pale in comparison to the heretical treatment of God in this movie. God is portrayed as a petty, incomprehesible being who changes his mind at the slightest whim. ("I'm one eternal perfect, but I can be wrong") What? Where are they getting this from? This kind of God...no one should ever pay any attention to, much less worship, praise, or love. What the director's saying in this, I do not claim to know. I just know that a responsible treatment of Noah's Ark should not take such an easy way out. Shame on these people.
This rendition of "Noah's Ark" has set Hallmark's (and Turner's) reputation back about 100 years. However, the production has it's bright side...a learning experience for neophyte movie entrepreneurs in "how not to make a movie"<br /><br />Where in the annals of Biblical literature and common sense can one find these quotes and situations:<br /><br />"Ok, boys, let's saddle up." "It's too bad that God created the sun to shine only during the day when we really needed it at night." "We're not kissing...we're only whispering in each others' mouths."<br /><br />Lumber for building the Ark with "Georgia Pacific" stamped on it. Metal nails. Kids flying kites. A peddler (how can James Coburn sleep after this) selling Chinese hats. Pirates attacking a wooden Ark, which they wished to capture, with flaming tar balls of fire shot from catapults. Glass bottles of wine (Noah was in a continual state of inibriation. It was a miracle that he could see the Ark let alone build it.) Lady Godiva (Mary Steenberg in a blond wig tromping around the Ark on a white horse...still rated G) Warding off Biblical pirates with an iron (teflon-lined?) frying pan. Landing on Mount Ararat after having passed through the Straights of Hercules.<br /><br />etc., etc., etc.<br /><br />Special effects...you've got to see them in order not to believe them.<br /><br />The list goes on. This movie must not be missed; but if you want the full TV version, you must call NBC for the screen version...but only if you agree to absolve NBC of all responsibility of ever having aired the thing in the first place. Only the expurgated version exists in video stores (no pirates, etc.)...that is, those video stores that dare to stock it.<br /><br />Marvin Cohn<br /><br />
This film is a completely inaccurate depiction of the real story of Noah's Ark. The producers probably did not even read the Bible. This is the worst movie I have EVER seen! Noah's wife was never mentioned by name in the Bible, but the writers of the film "gave" her the name Naamah. This movie depicts the destruction of Sodom a good 1000 years before it happened, and what about Gamorrah? It too was destroyed at the same time Sodom was. (Maybe the producers thought that not including Gamorrah in the story and showing the city of "Sodom" as in you-know-what would raise more eyebrows.) This film is utter filth and mocks God and the Bible. It is a wonder that any true Christian would want to participate in the production of this abysmal, hideous, reprobated mockery of the Bible.
I think Hollywood should seriously consider NEVER doing another "Biblical" film again, if Noah's Ark is going to be the norm. Aside from the horrible, completely uninspired acting from the whole cast (Voight and Steenburgen undoubtedly rue the day the agreed to do this film), the time line has been completely rearranged. I also missed the part in Genesis about the pirate fight on the deck of the ark or the traveling salesman coming by on his paddle boat. Hello? EVERYONE else was dead except for Noah and his family according to scripture. God stacked lumber and added plans to build the ark when Noah questioned how?? I also don't remember reading anything about Noah's wife constantly nagging him during the 40 days, or Noah wandering around glassy-eyed and dazed all the time. The script writer obviously had very little knowledge of the book of Genesis, or just didn't care that his abomination of a story completely mocked it.
I've seen some Bible-based trash. This one tops it all. To make matters worse, it lasts about three hours. A horrible waste of time, unless you want to match your kid's biblical knowledge against the innumerable aberrations. Do yourself a favor - take a walk in the Sahara instead. Since I am required to give you a ten line statement of why not to watch this movie, let me just say there is absolutely no redeemable quality to it. God's conversations with Noah are ridiculous. The whole thing has a stench of "let's make the Biblical account look retarded." The basic logic goes, if they spent the money on a biblical film, why not make it worthwhile? Since the basic logic is not met, something is amiss. The movie starts with a disclaimer about Poetic Licenses taken...that is the understatement of the century. Poetic rape. But then, poetic would be an unmerited favor.
Recently I borrowed a copy of this mess of a movie, which took me three sessions over three days to get through. That's another comment in the making.<br /><br />But what I wanted to comment on first was the carelessness on the special features of the DVD. It included a game of memory, which asks the player/viewer to match up pairs of animals in order for them to board the ark. However, every time it reveals the chosen animal, the screen prompts the player to find (or congratulates the player on finding)"it's mate." This is a spelling error since it should be "its mate" as possessive pronoun, not a contraction for "it is." It is an annoying error to keep repeating 16 or more times to finish a game. Of course, it's a kid's activity really, but teaches kids incorrect spelling.<br /><br />And, oh yeah, the game never changes. It is the same game with the same locations of the same animals each time. Plus it doesn't keep score, like the number of moves it took to solve the game. So there is no lasting value or challenge to it. It's just a feature to list on the packaging.<br /><br />Simply put, there could have been more thought and care put into this "special" feature, just like there could have been more thought and care put into this muddled film.
How this film could be classified as Drama, I have no idea. If I were John Voight and Mary Steenburgen, I would be trying to erase this from my CV. It was as historically accurate as Xena and Hercules. Abraham and Moses got melded into Noah. Lot, Abraham's nephew, Lot, turns up thousands of years before he would have been born. Canaanites wandered the earth...really? What were the scriptwriters thinking? Was it just ignorance ("I remember something about Noah and animals, and Lot and Canaanites and all that stuff from Sunday School") or were they trying to offend the maximum number of people on the planet as possible- from Christians, Jews and Muslims, to historians, archaeologists, geologists, psychologists, linguists ...as a matter of fact, did anyone not get offended? Anyone who had even a modicum of taste would have winced at this one!
NBC should be ashamed. I wouldn't allow my children to see this. I definitely would tell my church to stay away. This movie is proof as to why NBC has always been a 3rd rate network The producers, actors, and writers should get on their knees and beg God's forgiveness for making this work of fiction. There were no pirates. Noah's wife didn't parade around on the deck of the ark. The ark had NO deck. Lot wasn't even born when this event took place. Did anyone attached to this project try reading the Bible? There were more than two animals of each type taken. Read the story in Genesis. How could anyone bring this to any screen, small or large!
I was so excited to see the cast in this movie that I was completely surprised at how completely WRONG this movie was. I love John Voight but I have no idea what possessed him to be a part of this travesty. The Biblical accuracy was completely non-existent and I honestly could not stomach watching the movie with my children. My kids stood astonished because even THEY know that Lot was not even thought of when Noah was building the ark. I think that NBC should be ashamed of themselves for allowing producers to make a mockery of the Word and cause even more confusion in a world that barely knows the truth as it is... PLEASE DO NOT BUY THIS MOVIE!!! I have considered burning my copy but I have every intentions on writing the producers and sending them the scripture references that they SHOULD HAVE read before making this movie!!!
This is pure CRAP, and probably the worst Biblical theme film ever... Absolutely inaccurate, I mean, they've put Sodom and Gomora BEFORE the great flood. They've described Lot as a friend of Noah although he lived after Noah. To make things worse, later Lot became a pirate and attacks Noah's Ark during the flood!!!??? And what's with the merchant who comes along on a boat which is moved over the water with a bicycle mechanism??? And exchanges alcohol for a food and water, and then Noah is portrayed as alcoholic!? Mockery, and continuous blasphemies one after another, and it goes on and on, and on... Film maker and all participants surely secured themselves the front row in hell with this garbage...<br /><br />Please stay off this crap, because you will save yourself nearly three hours of your life.
I have wanted to say this since I first saw the movie, I still will not allow any of my children or grandchildren to watch this. At least not until I tell them and they understand that it is completely fiction. The only thing that I saw that was correct was that animals went onto the Ark, everything else was false. Lot and Noah fighting on the ocean like a pirate movie. Make sure you tell your kids the real story before you allow them to watch it, but really, until they are old enough to understand that it is not real they may have a messed up vision of the Bible. This was the worst Bible movie I have ever seen. Bruce and Evan Almighty were much better and had more to teach. Let your children watch those
Just when I thought nothing could be as offensive and/or irritating as a Billy Mays infomercial, I had the intellectually shattering experience of renting this piece of garbage. Peter Barnes and John Irvin should be brought up on criminal charges for smuggling this script into the public venue. The actors need to be charged as accomplices, serving no less than a lifetime away from the public eye.<br /><br />This production offers the disclaimer, "For dramatic effect, we have taken poetic license with certain facts", or some such inadequate statement to fully brace you for the absolute repugnant rewrite of a Bible story which needed no drama added. What they did add was enough to make your I.Q. drop three full points for every five minutes of viewing time.<br /><br />The "poetic license" taken, invents characters so bizarre, you'll recognize nothing but the names of a few, and, of course, the ark.<br /><br />For some reason, Noah and Lot are both living in Sodom, so maybe Abram was vacationing in Switzerland on a skiing trip. Lot's wife, played by Carol Kane, is a harpy, and when she's turned to a pillar of salt, Lot breaks off her finger and carries it around in what appears to be an empty baby food jar. If that's "poetic", I'm a kumquat.<br /><br />When Noah - who has now begun drinking wine in quantities that could help float the ark - whines about the tough job of the building project, he awakens one morning to find that God has delivered enough precut lumber to lighten his burden. At least I think it was God. It looked like a delivery from 84 Lumber, neatly stacked and bundled. Maybe 84 Lumber is really an agent for God????? Rather than bore you with the cargo being loaded, I'll regale you with the account of the pirate attack on the ark. Incongruous, you think? This movie is filled with such insulting nonsense. After an untold time on the waters, Noah spies a pirate ship heading right for them. And who might the salty sea-captain be? Well, duh, it's Lot, of course! My only surprise was that his uncle Abram wasn't aboard. If you're going to slaughter a plot line, slaughter all of it. The piracy attempt is unsuccessful, and the swashbuckling was pathetic, not poetic. I think it was around this mark that my nausea prevented me from punishing myself anymore.<br /><br />An ugly, senseless, moronic distortion of anything remotely resembling a Bible account. On a scale of 1 - 10, this movie is premeditated mind abuse. Stupid and insulting, you'll be more entertained by reading the Yellow Pages.
Disney-like entertainment with some un-Disney-like moments of graphic violence and sexual references. Lousy comedy alongside cliché-ridden moralizing. Noah as Abraham, Lot as his wicked buddy. Laughable special effects. Overdone acting with bad timing. Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed before the Flood? Strange twists and too many sub-plots the Bible doesn't mention. God as a doubting father who just needs to be entertained by whistling before deciding the world has to be saved from disaster.<br /><br />B-movie wannabee director John Irvin adds another failure to his worthless list of poorly-directed movies that seriously lack plot and direction.
After seeing Shootfighter 1, and the buckets of blood they shed, I was ready for another rousing jaunt of open handed heart massage, and chiropractics in a cage. But nooooooo, this was like the Barney version of the first movie, with that lamer from the Karate kid. At least Bolo Yeung still kicks booty, although he needs to do more movies like Bloodsport and Caddyshack.
A bad bad movie... terrible plot, hinges on Bolo Yeung's charater, but he speaks maybe 20 words in the entire movie and only has one fight scene - still in great shape considering he was also in the kung fu classic "Enter The Dragon" Interesting to see William Zabka ("Johnny" from The Karate Kid) in another martial-arts role.
Visually, this film is interesting. Light is literally thrown in a way, together with cinematography and an alluring introduction before the titles, that had my hopes up at the start, but then - a b-movie is a b-movie is a b-movie, no matter how much spectacle is seen. This film surrounds the life of Albert Fish, one of the most well-known serial-killers in the world. Active around the start of the 20th century, Fish's life is hastily and blurry dealt with before before he started killing children at an old age. This film is based upon two tracks: Fish's life and that of William F. King, lead investigator of the case. What saves this film from becoming a Hallmark spectacle and debacle of the usual sort, whenever films about serial killers are concerned, is the direction, which is a double-edged sword; director Scott L. Flynn sheds focus enough upon the b-actors not to let their flaws shine through too much, but at the same times created a truly dull and stereotypical view of the American police through the King-angle. Sure enough he dealt quite thoroughly with Fish's meet with Grace Budd, the 10-year-old girl that he killed, even though I'm not really sure if her mother was the media-crazed person that Flynn really tries to emphasise that she was. I miss more psychological diving into Fish, not to mention the very little time which was spent on Fish's post-capture. All in all, interesting for those who are into serial-killers, but mostly a let-down; however, if the director will make another film about another serial-killer, I'd definitely see it in hopes that holes were patched-up.
There's something strange about the antisocial sentiment you can find in some Cheech And Chong material. One of the songs in Up In Smoke, well, I often wish more songs these days began that way. But in this excuse for a video, the stoner duo are showing us the videos for four songs from their album of the moment, also titled Get Out Of My Room. You hear a voice-over during the opening credits in which some anonymous producer describes the record as being a novelty recording that will just take up room on the charts. Unfortunately, this opening voice-over hits the nail right on the head.<br /><br />Most music recordings endorsed by the RIAA seem to keep to a rule of putting the best material early in the album. Often, when one gets past that first song, the discerning listener notices that the recording has little, if anything, to hold their attention. Bands that defied mainstream convention, on the other hand, often saved their best material for last, or at least spread it evenly throughout the disc. In this case, Cheech And Chong appear to have decided to hedge their bets. The opening piece, Get Out Of My Room, is a hilariously-themed song with an incredibly bad video. Many a viewer of a 1980s music video will find the sloppy direction somewhat nostalgic. Cheech's conception of British punk is also incredibly funny.<br /><br />Where it all goes downhill is the second number, I'm Not Home Right Now. Nothing kills interest in a song quite like repetition, and it's tough to get more repetitive than this aural turd. Honestly, one feels the urge to slap Cheech in the face and tell him that we get the idea, he isn't home right now, so please move on. The next song, along the theme of love being a strange thing, is the absolute rock bottom not only for this collection, but for Cheech And Chong in general. It's almost as if this song was made for the sole reason of padding out the album's running time.<br /><br />Fortunately, the stoner duo saved the best for last, but it is also curious to note that Chong is completely absent from this cut. Born In East L.A. is a simple number based upon the old Bruce Springsteen number that mocks Reagan's view of multiculturalism. As one is regaled by Cheech's tale, one has to wonder how many poor schleps who couldn't speak a word of Spanish were deported to Mexico simply because their skin wasn't bedsheet-white. Racism was an integral part of America's culture in 1985, and it remains so today. If anything, it has gotten worse, so one has to wonder what Born In East L.A. would be like if it were written in the current era.<br /><br />Unfortunately, two cuts does not an album make, especially when there is so much boring filler between them. The interviews before Get Out Of My Room, for example, are quite funny. Not side-splitting like much of Up In Smoke, but funny enough to justify their existence. Unfortunately, the two middle songs are reflected in their making-of footage. Boring song makes boring filler. If you cut out the middle half-hour of material from this video, you'd have something substantially better.<br /><br />I gave Get Out Of My Room a three out of ten. They are earned by the first and last video. I'm pretty certain that the stars look at material like this today and wonder what they were thinking.
I got this for my birthday in a box set under the name Broke Skull. Well, after watching one on the DVD and being pleasantly surprised, I popped this sucker in. It was worse than I had expected, and I didn't expect much. This movie is basically a convoluted story about a guy who dies and comes back to life with the mob, and other bull crap. There was some interesting ideas in this that were never followed up on. Now everybody has been saying there was a lot of gore, can somebody tell me were? I saw a bad effect of a head being crushed, brain tissue (or something...), and blood coming from the penis area two times. I have to say the the part were the guy gets his man hood bitten off made me squirm, that was the only good thing about this movie. And that gay sex scene was just thrown in there for no reason. The acting in this was Atrocious, really, it blew. That Asian chick was annoying, then the annoying Mexican boyfriend who comes in to just be killed. I say if you get this in a box set, that is fine, but don't spend any money on it, at all.
We picked this up as a part of a Brentwood set, under the title "The Broken Skull." Shot directly onto video, with widely varying sound and lighting quality, this movie winds up with a hyperactive quality that may inspire the viewer to feelings of nervousness, confusion and irritability - and not in a good, "Evil Dead" kind of way.<br /><br />Without going into spoilers, what appears at first to be a simple revenge ghost story becomes increasingly convoluted and bizarre. While there are some interesting ideas here, the overall effect is likely to leave you scratching your head and saying "hunh?"<br /><br />This is a very, very gory movie. The gore effects range all the way from full bloody head appliances to a silly Video Toaster effect that has to be freeze-framed to be (dis)believed. The "Fangoria" level of gross-out effects in this film is really amazing and should likely please the gore-hounds while making anyone with a weak constitution feel a bit on the queasy side.<br /><br />The Broken Skull is also an extremely noisy movie. It features not only ambient noises (captured by mikes and not replaced in post), but there is a lot of shrieking. No, no, I mean a LOT. A lot, a lot! Characters scream, wail, howl and yell, chitter and laugh maniacally. Turn down the volume if you value your eardrums and your nerves! But you can't fault the cast for their enthusiasm, they really eat up the scenery and sometimes the effect is rather entertaining. In particular, the actress playing a certain Vietnamese immigrant delivers all of the above with a remarkable amount of gusto.<br /><br />In fact, very few of the actors were wooden. Some of them may have overacted a bit (oh, just a wee smidgen!), but most of them are certainly fun to watch go off. The cast is ethnically diverse and kudos to the filmmakers for that. The two middle-aged white women, however, are two of the most spiteful, exasperated characters since the shopkeeper in the MST3k classic "the Brute Man." Just watch them seethe at all the other characters, it's fun!<br /><br />In closing, the Headcrusher may not become a horror icon on a par with Jason Voorhees, Michael Myers or Freddy Kruger (or even the Leprechaun), but we can definitely say this ... this was a movie.
I don't think it really matters too much what the plot of this movie is about, the main thing you'll notice is the extreme amateurishness of the entire production. The acting is what you'd get if you chose people at random off the street. The sound is really annoying - a medicine cabinet closes with all the gusto of a gunshot going off in your ear, while at the same time the dialog is perhaps one-fifth as loud. Miscellaneous on-set noises dominate the soundtrack to a huge degree, with dialog taking a distant back seat. The theme music sounds as if it was about a quarter done when the movie was released, as large portions of the film don't have any music at all. Camera-work can best be described as a gnarled mess, with close-up shots where a medium angle would be much better, cameramen walking around and jostling the camera every which way, absolutely no attention paid to framing any scene, they just shot everything from whatever position it was most convenient for the cameraman to stand. If the cameraman was a foot taller than the actors and you end up looking at the tops of everyone's heads, well, so be it. Editing is just a butcher job; Everything is tossed together in the most abrupt manner possible, nothing flows or transitions in any sense of the word. I don't know if this was shot on video or perhaps a rented camcorder, I tend to think it was the latter. <br /><br />I only made it about three-quarters of the way through this thing before I turned it off, I just got so annoyed at the low quality of the production I couldn't take it anymore. It's like a ninth grade audio-visual class project.
I admit - I was lured to this one from the hype - and I didn't stop to consider the sources. "one of the best indie exploitation flicks of the year (1999)", shocking", and " a must have ".<br /><br />Well - I wasted my money. But not all was bad in this movie. THey at least got the gore right, as well as some of the most unique methods of murder seen in a long time. There is even a storyline (kinda) and that is about it.<br /><br />But for an exploitation film there is a surprising amount of content - but no exploiting. We get gay sex - sorta. We have 3 inter-racial babes - maybe. We have a psychotic Vietnamese hooker - nice back, oral sex (ok that made me wince) and some female version of Gene Simmons (I don't get that part). We have an honest to goodness Capone - rates among the best of the actors in this film - that is not a compliment. And finally we have a government conspiracy thrown in to - I don't know - try to connect the vengeance/random/theme killing by Jimmy boy to make the Vietnamese psycho seem sane??????? If nothing else this movie proves that the Italians and the Americans do not have a lock on this type of movie. The Latinos can make crap as well as the rest of them. Kudos goes to anyone involved in this accomplishment that overcame it and made a career for themselves.
The Calu-what now? Yeah, I thought it was a stupid name as well. Chris Carter remains blissfully unaware of the scum in his writing staff. Starting off with the usual cheery X-Files teaser (a baby getting run over by a train) this episode... well I can't really say it goes downhill because to be honest it was never going uphill. <br /><br />Poorly written, with us feeling no pathos for any of the characters (except maybe that baby at the start) the writer makes us hate characters before brutally killing them off, it's the worst technique ever. Are we supposed to feel sorry for the characters of hate them? Don't ask me. <br /><br />Not only is it boring and un-scary, but it's like watching a really bad Omen sequel with overblown and disgusting death sequences and rotten special effects (although to be brutally honest, that's the least of my worries). <br /><br />Sara B. Charno began her X-Files career with a whimper and thankfully ended it with one as well.<br /><br />Verdict: <br /><br />In the words of my maths teacher Mr. Laverack: "Horrible, Awful..."
wow, this movie sucked.<br /><br />This movie was a embarrassment to the original sandlot.<br /><br />Everything about this movie was awful.<br /><br />The acting was horrendous. Every part except the part of the 'mexican' sandlot manager was terrible.<br /><br />Luke Perry, though only bit parts was absolutely awful. This was is worst role ever. Even the kid actor playing him as a kid was someone you'd want to punch, even in the end, lol.<br /><br />This movie reminded me of those kid movies that go that extra mile making a part goofy way beyond the funny stage. The humor was for 6 year olds.<br /><br />If your over 12 and want something worthwhile to watch, skip this movie and watch a sitcom instead.
Just in case the title didn't give it away - this movie is garbage.<br /><br />Short review? Yeah.<br /><br />I decided to spend as much time writing this review as Hollywood probably decided to put into the script. I doubt it'll be published considering how poorly I worded everything but if this is and anyone reads it -- stick to cherishing the first Sandlot movie. It completely surpasses its predecessors in every single way. The sequels aren't ever worth buying or seeing and everyone involved in making them should be ashamed for ruining what has to be one of the most classic, original films of our childhood.
First off, this movie is not near complete, my guess is that someone actually bothered to steal every other page of the script.<br /><br />The movie contains bizarre time-travels without notice, inconsistent dialogs, misplaced details all over, the music isn't very bad at all, other then misplaced tracks, and besides the fact that the volume goes up and down between the different tracks. The cutting-room did a descent job actually, and that says a lot. Missplaced sound effects ruin the tension, though.<br /><br />Luke Perry does what he does best, just looking worried, and occasionally coughing up punchlines from hell.<br /><br />I seriously rate this movie as the worst of 2007, and i've seen a few bad ones. Do not spend money on this one, it's not so bad it's a laugh, it's worse. Ratings above 1 star, should render a blacklist at IMDb, because it's a damn lie.
This movie was absolutely terrible. The only explanation I can think of for the good reviews it received from some here is that they were written by people in the cast. It was actually painful to watch this movie. Even my grandchildren (ages 6-13) could not bear to watch it. As far as I know, this movie never made it to theaters and for good reason. It's as if some people were sitting around having a beer and said, "Hey! Let's make a movie. Who wants to be in it?" It's that bad. Besides Luke Perry, who is only in a small part of the movie, I did not recognize a single other actor. That's not necessarily a bad thing but it is in this case. I liked Sandlot (I) and I generally like stupid and silly movies but this movie doesn't have a single redeeming quality. The people who wrote it don't have the slightest clue as to how children think, talk, or act and the movie is a disjointed mess of terribly corny lines and stupid jokes. I rarely write negative reviews but this is the worst movie I have seen since Man's Best Friend and it's definitely one of the ten worst movies I have ever seen in my life. If you rent it, remember that I warned you. The fact that some people actually rated this movie as being good is a sad commentary on their taste and intelligence. I'm not exaggerating.
I find it amazing, that so many people (probably Poles) have voted for this movie, giving it such grades (mostly tens). OK, the movie was fine, funny, but it was nothing special on the other hand. The only good thing about Kiler is the dialogues, rather not comprehensive for non-Poles. Screenplay is primitive, the acting (except for Jerzy Stuhr as Ryba) - awful. It's too much ado about nothing - fortunately it's not included in the top 250. P.S. The sequel "Kilerow 2-och" ("2 Kilers") is on the way and it's just the same story.
I can see what this film was intending to do. Unfortunately it just never quite completes the deal. The "reality crime" aspect works fine and the shots are all first rate. In fact quite a few of the scenes are incredibly evocative in a moody sort of way. Notably the silhouette of the detective talking to the beat up woman, the scene of the detectives going through the garbage, and the father tying flies. On occasion s few scenes bog down in too much dialog. Instead of showing the viewer the writer treats it too much like a book. But the real problem lies in the editing. The story does not flow. It fails to make a whole out of the sum of the parts. In the end you are confused as to what is actually happening. Those who like this sort of detective movie like to follow along, piecing together the puzzle at the same time the lead characters do. With such poor editing it is difficult if not nearly impossible to do this.
This movie certainly is a weird one to say the least. The basic plot is 3 old business associates invite 2 strangers into their home for returning a lost wallet with 10 bucks in it. The two whom show up fall in love. The 3 older business men die and come back as ghosts to try to help the two younger guests out. Okay so that may make sense but then we have 3 old guys whom apparently have some bread living together..slightly weird here...Harry Carey plays his part way off base you can't tell if he is a nice guy or really a prick. I mean really, make up my mind I can handle it. Then there is Richard Carlson playing James Houston from Texas....hmmmmm, He sounds way more like a southern gentleman from Kentucky than a person from Texas. This one isn't even close.. Then we take the 3 ghosts whom would stand a better chance of helping the New Orleans Saints win a play off game than actually helping out...In fact they are really no help at all and why they are even in the film is beyond any scope of knowledge.. Silly film in which a cast of characters act totally out of character..You can avoid this one..
I bought this because it was $1.99 and Harry Carey was in it and a friend of mine was in it, and for $1.99, how bad could it be? Then I read some comments here on the film and began to get excited -- maybe this really was a lost gem, one of those terrific little B-movies everyone had forgotten about but which deserved to be resurrected. WRONG! I'm not sure how anyone else can give this thing the praise it got from some quarters here, but I found it one of the most tedious and blatantly bathos-filled movies I've ever seen. And I'm not talking about Richard Carlson's hokey Texas accent (straight from the Georgia part of Texas, I guess). It's just dumb. No one in the film behaves like a real human being. No one. And no one does anything believable or interesting. It's not even a cliché-fest. It's just 80-something minutes of frames going by. It even managed to make Harry Carey, Maria Ouspenskaya, and C. Aubrey Smith boring. Now THAT'S unbelievable.
First of all, let me say that I am in no way denying the importance of the subject - quite the opposite. I am Polish and I have been aware of the Katyn massacre for quite a long time (in fact, two of my family members died there), so I was looking forward to this film. Unfortunately, I was disappointed.<br /><br />I think the main problem lies with the script, which encompasses too many subplots and characters, none of which are properly developed. The characters are painfully one-dimensional; their stories are intertwined, but lack overall meaning. In my opinion the cast doesn't really have a chance to show their ability. The exception is Andrzej Chyra, portraying Jerzy - the only interesting character. I wish the story was more focused on him.<br /><br />As a result, the film lacks emotion. Before seeing it I thought I would be moved, if only for sentimental reasons - but in fact I was watching it with an odd sense of detachment throughout, except for the final execution scene. It is done well and its placing is interesting and provides a climactic ending, although the idea of the Lord's Prayer being recited in unison by the executed officers seems a bit far-fetched.<br /><br />To conclude, I suppose the film may have some educational value for those who are not familiar with the portrayed historical events, but in my opinion it fails as a work of cinema.
Oh what a disappointment this movie is. I can't believe it was directed by Wajda. There's practically no plot and 90% of the movie consists of various people walking in and out of the screen, weakly trying to interact with each other while talking about the Katyn massacre. The most interesting part comes right at the end, but by that time I simply stopped caring while trying to suppress my yawns.<br /><br />Almost the entire movie is filmed with a hand-held camera, which is supposed to convey the feeling of "personal immediacy" but there's nothing personal or immediate about most of the movie. Instead, the constant jerking of the camera made me seasick. To be fair, there are some great shots too (no pun intended), but nothing that makes you go "Wow!".<br /><br />If you're not familiar with the Katyn massacre, the movie will leave you scratching your head. If you are familiar, you'll be scratching your head too, although maybe for different reasons. Basically, the movie states and restates over and over again that it was the Soviets who murdered thousands of Polish soldiers in 1940. This point is hammered repeatedly as though someone in the audience needed to be convinced of this basic historical fact. However, the movie never tries to explain as to WHY they were killed. After all, tens of thousands of Polish soldiers in the other Soviet POW camps were not harmed and were released in 1941. It is also never explained adequately HOW MANY people perished, although the figure 20,000 is thrown in a couple of times.<br /><br />The acting is adequate with only Komorowska (old woman) and Chyra (Lt. Jerzy) giving noticeable performances, but they get to act for maybe 10-15 minutes in total. Certainly not enough to carry the whole movie. Many other actors seem to have been chosen more for their matinée looks rather than their acting abilities, but I won't mention their names. Suffice to say that they are definitely NOT the Oscar material, so any claims that this movie was "robbed" of the Academy Award are simply laughable.<br /><br />The tone of movie is wrong as well. On one hand it tries to be an accurate historical drama, on the other it resorts to cheap anti-Soviet propaganda such as showing a Russian soldier tear up the Polish flag and using it to clean his boots. Then there are some puzzling scenes which have absolutely no bearing on the plot, such as a couple climbing on a roof or the liquidation of the Krakow University.<br /><br />There are many missed opportunities to make this movie more interesting, such as adding a political angle to the story, or showing the German discovery of the graves, or even portraying Anna's trip from the Soviet occupied part to the German occupied Krakow. All of these aspects could have been the major part of the movie, but instead they're reduced to a couple of minutes. In the end, we get a collection of loosely fitting, confusing, boring scenes about the reaction of Poles to one of their greatest tragedies of WWII. Not very compelling and not worthy of Wajda at all.
I'm guessing that the movie was based on a hefty book. Given the number of characters and subplots during Katyn, I thought that the movie creators, perhaps the writer or director, intended to create an epic movie. But really there wasn't enough time to properly spend on developing characters or story. Aggravatingly, there were many unrelated side-stories that could have been edited out.<br /><br />In relating the events leading up to the mass-murder of all these intellectuals and officers, I don't think the movie explained any reasons why murder was necessary. Was it political? Philosophical? Revenge? The interesting part of historical movies are seeing personal motivations or emotions. Instead, the murderers of Katyn seemed like automatons, controlled entirely by Stalin, who's appears occasionally framed as a charcoal sketch. The portrayal of the Russians and Germans seemed entirely one-dimensional. (Are Polish people just that angry at the Russians?) Besides being badly edited and biased or at least unrealistic, choices of music and cinematography felt mismatched to each other and to the movie itself. I don't think you can really shoot an epic war film or war event on hand-held camera. (But if the director went with a character-driven story, perhaps by focusing on a single family, maybe the handy-cam approach would have worked better.) And if you use really dramatic music, it needs to be better balanced to the type of shots made.
This movie is a shame especially considering Andrzej Wajda is not an amateur, but professional director. However this movie fails to deliver anything you could expect.<br /><br />First of all -- I am Polish, so I can tell all the background story, because I read books. But how can you tell there is even a war from this movie -- bunch of people are going back and forth, some soldiers are shouting... This is really The Second World War or soldiers are on vacations?<br /><br />Acting and dialogs -- poor, miserably poor. A.Żmijewski, D.Stenka, M.Komorowska, W.Kowalski, A.Chyra fit in their roles, the rest of (Polish) cast is out of the place (most notably M.Ostaszewska, one of the leading characters, what an unfortunate choice). 99% of the dialogs are not spoken, they are just put there, actors had difficulties to perform and it is no surprise considering what odd things they had to say.<br /><br />And this leads us to the most disappointing issue -- you can't feel it. Everything is so theatrical, artificial. There is no real life, there is no feeling in it. There are a lot of original footage from the WWII and, guess what, the material is much more powerful, dramatic, than what A.Wajda did.<br /><br />I can see only one positive -- despite historical mistakes (like acronym ZSRR; it was made for post-1945 propaganda purposes, to please Polish that ZSRS was gone, and now there was ZSRR, but in 1940 there was no ZSRR!), luckily it is undoubtedly shown killing in Katyn was done by Soviets (yes, it is a fact, not some controversial gossip). Great, two hours for 5-10 minutes scene.<br /><br />Anyway -- time and potential wasted. This is tragedy of epic proportions, will to fight in 1939 (barely shown), not declaring war against Soviet Union by Polish authorities (sic! not shown here), imprisonment of soldiers shortly after, living in the outrageous conditions (not shown here), hope and fear what will come next (barely shown) , and then... extermination. Hand to hand with Germans -- Soviets were exterminating Polish nation, aimed at people who constituted the backbone of Poland. Unfortunately they succeed, and the results are still visible to this very day.
First let me say I'm not someone who usually cringe at the fact of having to think while seeing movies, I love Tarkowsky movies for example, Berghman is also a favorite.....but this? The positive points can be summed up easily: the photography is splendid, and the music is perfect....does it make a good movie? I used to think so, but this one is a perfect example of one that (for me) doesn't make it.... maybe it's because I'm too dumb? possible, but I don't think so.... Tarkwosky for example also used very long shots, but what he never did was filming 5 minutes of the exact same image of two people walking (and I mean just their heads, because in this movie there are a lot of those shots, but sometimes it IS effective), the general result is plainly boring, even with the intelligent undertones (which are done in a way that, while intelligent, is above all very pedantic)<br /><br />you also always feel that the director is making some of the long shots not for the aesthetic, or symbolic effect, but just to spare on budget....<br /><br />I'm very disappointed in this film, because I really liked the first 30 minutes or so, but it just went on and on, without even keeping the same level as in the first scenes....<br /><br />While reading the very praising comments on this page, I also get the feeling some people just try to see much more in the movie than there is to it...when a movie is slow and arty, it doesn't necessarily mean it is very profound....yes it is an allegory on musical theory placed in the context of a small town, which is quite interesting on itself, but it does NOT make a profound movie....except for people who absolutely want to make some sort of intellectual masturbation out of it, but then it's not what you find in the movie, but what you find in yourself....an exercise that, in my opinion can be made much more effectively while watching "Stalker" or "Solyaris" than Werckmeister Harmonies, that owes much to Tarkowsky, but cab never equal it's level....
This self-important, confusing b+w "film" watches like an infant on a very bad acid trip. You're dealing with something that reminds you of a piece of rotting lettuce that accidentally fell out of the back of a garbage truck: no one cares to touch it because it will probably be washed away on its own down the storm drain. There's no room for plot when you've got "visceral imagery" and "subtle" allegory. To me, it seems like the director tries to make the next great art movie while begging for intellectual accolades. I didn't bring my beret either. Watching this, I felt almost insulted since the "film" does such an effective job of distancing itself from you.
What a drawn out painful experience.<br /><br />That's over two hours of my life I will never get back.<br /><br />This Film Festival Director's delight - is awash with overuse of the long slow shot....however - that's not the only thing that makes a script.<br /><br />Avoid this movie at all costs.
I generally LIKE Sion Sono's work, but this movie was completely retarded. But sadly, not retarded enough to make it entertainingly retarded. I just sat, mouth agape, wondering when it would end. The plot makes only a whisper of sense. I think it was intended to be campy. I mean, haunted hair extensions - how could it not be? But the humor, such as it was, fell flat. Not funny. Not scary. Not gory. I would say perhaps Sono was a hired hand on this project, but he appears to have written this boring trash as well. I still need to fill a couple more lines, what else is there to say? I suppose I could finish by saying: Better luck next time, Sono-san.
The threesome of Bill Boyd, Robert Armstrong, and James Gleason play Coney Island carnys vying for the hand of Ginger Rogers, a working gal who sells salt water taffy. With the outbreak of World War I, the threesome enlist and pursue Ginger from afar. The first half of this RKO Pathe production is hard going, with the three male leads chewing up the scenery with overcooked one-liners and 'snappy' dialogue that quickly grows tiresome. The second half concentrates on action sequences as the US Navy pursues both a German merchant cruiser and a U-boat. These sequences are lively and well-filmed, but overall this is an overlong and unsatisfying comedy-drama with a flat ending. For fans of the stars only.
...at least during its first half. If it had started out with the three buddies in the navy and concentrated on the naval action scenes, it would have been a much better and tighter film. The second half of the film is worth it, especially for the action sequences and close up shots of early 20th century ships, but it's like a dull toothache getting there. Also, don't watch this film just because Ginger Rogers is in it. She has an important role, but it's a small one.<br /><br />The film starts out showing three New York City buddies working the tourist trade and also in good-natured competition for the hand of Sally (Ginger Rogers), a singing candy salesgirl along the avenue. World War I breaks out, the three buddies seem completely indifferent to the struggle, yet enlist in the navy anyways. The one of the three with the least industry as a civilian (Bill Boyd as Baltimore) winds up the commanding officer to the other two (Robert Armstrong as Dutch and James Gleason as Skeets). To make matters more complex, Sally has fallen in love with one of the three, but doesn't have the chance to tell him before the three sail off to war.<br /><br />The film is a little more interesting on board ship, mainly because of the close shots we have of the ship itself, and also because the chemistry among the three buddies is believable. However, James Gleason at age 49 looks a bit long in the tooth to be a swabby, especially when the sign at the enlistment office said you had to be between 17 and 35 to be eligible.<br /><br />One real obvious flaw in the film that made me believe that everything outside the naval scenes was slapped together with minimum care is the costume design, or, I should say, the lack of it. In the scenes in New York just prior to WWI we have everyone dressed in the fashions of 1931 and everyone driving the cars of 1931 - no effort was taken to bring this film into period.<br /><br />In conclusion, if you watch the few scenes with Ginger Rogers in them and the last 45 minutes involving the naval suicide mission, you've seen everything here worth seeing. The rest is padding.
The story isn't very strong. Don't expect a "Bourne identity" kind of movie. It started of strong, Tara speaking Russian and it even sounded credible. (Not that I'm the Russian language expert.) Moscow had that darkish depressing look what gave this movie potential, I still believed in it. To bad it only took about half an hour to see they really missed the spot with this one. Acting was poor, maybe because the story itself was not very strong. There is this part in the movie where Gordon Patrick (Nick Moran) is having a conversation on the phone with the C.I.A., like you're listening to a Chinese synchronizer. W.T.F!? Too bad, the writer didn't even take little effort to give the main characters depth. Also, bit of a cheap and easy ending.<br /><br />Plus point is almost every scene where Tara Reid is in. Not that she's acting that well, in fact, she doesn't. But she really looks great in this movie. Overall, it was a bit of a disappointment. Rental material….maybe.
Over acted, heavy handed, full of speeches, preachy, on the nose, and over stylized in a way only MTV could be guilty of, Stop-Loss is agit-prop garbage. I expected a lot more with talented young actors such as Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Ryan Philippe, but Screenwriter/Director Kimberly Peirce does a hatchet job of portraying the ill effects of war on American youth. I'm sure she did some work researching the Iraq war and the young men fighting in it, but you'd never guess it from watching Stop-Loss. In many ways this mess reminded me of Catherine Hardwicke's Lords of Dogtown, an equally inept, overly stylized, TV movie-like waste of solid subject matter.<br /><br />http://eattheblinds.blogspot.com/
My mistake for thinking this was a serious war-is-hell movie prior to seeing it. That all ended seconds into the film when the "MTV" logo appeared. It might as well been called "National Lampoon's Sexy-N-Loose." And it did play to the "MTV" crowd; the movie that followed those comical first few seconds played like the music videos they used to play 40+ years ago. At least Disney was smart enough to ship its Rated R stuff over to Touchtone and allowed us to take it seriously. Okay, I'm being harsh; it wasn't that bad of a film. However, it definitely has its share of overacting and the film is extremely biased/one-sided. Admittedly, I'm not a war movie buff. I can't watch 'Platoon,' 'Full Metal Jacket' or 'Saving Private Ryan' more than once. Sure they were good movies, but they're not my forte and they all seem to blend in after awhile to where I wouldn't be able to distinguish one from the next. Following a tour in Iraq, Phillippe plans life after the war but is drawn back in due to a clause in his contract. Or, at least, that's the military's plan until he goes AWOL and the characters speed cross-country on a few bucks amazingly never caught. No, I haven't been in any war, nor to Iraq, nor do I agree with it. I also don't have all the knowledge when it comes to recruitment or signing their contracts. I can say this: though I am sorry they're drawn back into this conflict, I can't feel too much for someone so dumb not to read the fine print. It's like someone on their deathbed leaning over to finally read the Surgeon General's warning on their box of cigarettes and say, "Oh, they're what? Deadly? I'll sue them!"
I find it terribly ironic that "left wing" Hollywood continues to hedge its bets, making these awful lukewarm movies that neither condemn the war on terror nor embrace it.<br /><br />If you're a Sixties survivor and a committed pacifist, and you're hoping for an all-out condemnation of war like BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY or ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, this movie will really feel like a rip off. None of these soldiers actually question this war, or any war, or the idea of war. They just gripe about having to do another tour.<br /><br />On the other hand, if you're a patriotic American who wants to see a story of courage and honor, this movie will really feel like a rip off. None of these soldiers loves America, or even loves the service. The way they pout and sulk makes them come across more like suburban teenagers than blue collar tough guys. It's not WE WERE SOLDIERS, and it's not SANDS OF IWO JIMA. It's not even mindless action, and the war scenes are less RAMBO and more BUFFY.<br /><br />Ryan Philippe so completely cannot carry this kind of movie. Though he's devastatingly sexy, in a rough trade, men's room, bisexual sort of way, it's hard to picture him as a slow-talking' Texas boy who wants to stand up and be counted. This is no Sgt. Croft in Mailer's THE NAKED AND THE DEAD. He's more like Joel in Truman Capote's OTHER VOICES, OTHER ROOMS. He can't sell you on the idea that he's been in combat and done his bit, OR that he wants his woman and wants her right now. He fizzles on the battlefield and in the bedroom scenes, looking as if he would much prefer to bend over and take a good stiff attack from the rear.
It is unfortunate that between this film, In the Valley of Elah, Lions for Lambs, and Home of the Brave seem to all be based upon common stereotypes about veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The boozing, the fighting, the short-fuses, the broken marriages, guys freaking out and digging a foxhole in their front yard when they're drunk, etc etc etc.<br /><br />Does it happen - yes, but not as often as one would think after having watched any of these movies. I think that it is unfortunate that these directors/producers/writers choose to grind their axe against the political establishment by portraying soldiers in such an atypical way. In this particular film, Kimberly Peirce didn't even throw us a bone, like showing the new children that were born while a family member was deployed, or the kid who grew up in some ghetto who can now afford college thanks to the GI Bill, or the couple who can afford a house, or start a new business, earn their citizenship, etc etc etc. Instead, we are treated to the stereotypes because the people who made this film only want to show you the bad side.<br /><br />A couple of issues with the film itself: 1) somebody screwed up by putting Phillippe in for a Bronze Star with V after he led his squad down a tight alleyway after having been baited by a gunman in a taxi. Pretty stupid, but yes, it happens. 2) the humvees didn't have any turret armor, so we are supposed to believe it is a near the beginning of the war, yet every soldier and their brother has an ACOG and every possible attachment for their M4? sorry, don't think so 3) Timothy Olyphant as a Lieutenant Colonel? It's hard to believe, but I just checked an he turned 40 in May, so the timing isn't too off. 4) He strikes two soldiers to escape being sent to jail after saying that he wouldn't return to Iraq (upon having learned that he had been stop-lossed). So he's a fugitive. Then, when he finally turns himself in at the end, and they take him back, he keeps his rank and deploys with the same unit? Sorry don't think so.<br /><br />I can only describe it as one giant stereotype of the Army and the Infantry. Do some of the events portrayed in this movie happen to some soldiers, yes. However, in this film you get practically every stereotype in the space of about 100 minutes, and really things just aren't like that for most soldiers returning. I wish the director had made a point of doing a little better research instead of starting off with her agenda and then making a film.<br /><br />Of the movies I mentioned at the beginning of this post, the best one is probably Lions for Lambs, which is more a commentary on the sad state of Generation Y+ than it is about the Wars in Iraq or Afghanistan or the Bush Administration. If you really want to see this film wait for cable or Netflix it, don't pay cash directly to rent it.
This is one of those so-called "Hollywood Social Commentary" films that wants to have it both ways. And believe me, in this film, both ways are clichéd and stereotypical. STOP-LOSS is a 21st Century John Wayne Film dealing with some anti-war sentiment but clearly ending on the note that "If you are a MAN in today's society, you get your act together and march off to war with your buddies." In many ways the film was a great sequel to TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE as it portrayed a military equally as insane and out of control, a quasi FRAT PARTY/ANIMAL HOUSE extravaganza mixed in with a Texas Red Neck world of repressed homo-erotic proofs of masculinity. This movie had it all in one scene after another of clichéd imagery. And then rebellious military deserter Ryan Phillippe goes on a "Road Trip" with best friend's girlfriend, an artificial storyline manipulation to visit families of dead servicemen, maimed soldiers in military hospitals, etc. and finally to broach the issue of fleeing to Canada or Mexico. But male honor and patriotism win out in the end, as all freshly scrubbed and handsome, he rides off into the sunset on a bus with his buddies back to Iraq and a world that a few minutes before he assured everyone he could never again tolerate. FULL METAL JACKET meets SANDS OF IWO JIMA . But in the end, John Wayne rides again! And a Hollywood Blockbuster ultimately gets to keep both sides of its audience in the palm of its hand…….at least it would like to think so. As far as I was/am concerned, just take me back to the more convincing reality of IN THE GARDEN OF ELAH.
After watching Stop-Loss, I find myself against disappointed in Hollywood for making such a stinker. Gone are the days of glory of the films of the 1940's that made one proud to be an American, fighting the evilness that desires conquest abroad and death at home. What we are left with is dribble frothing at the mouth of rabid anti-Bush radicals. The story tells of three young men who return home from the war. One descends into out-of-control madness, culminating in his death. The main protagonist deserts his country at a time of war, and destroys his best friends relationship with his fiancé at the same time. The third truly is the hero of the story, electing to continue the fight that was brought to our shores nearly eight years ago. What makes this movie bad, is not the acting, but the premise behind it. We are lead to believe that decorated soldiers are in fact haters of our country. Desertion is akin to treason in a time of war, and the main protagonist flirts with it throughout the movie. This paradox is designed to weaken the audience's reaction to the central act of the movie. We are not supposed to find fault with King, since he wears medals, but his actions don't just merit it, but cry out for it. He is not an anti-hero. In order to accept the movie, the audience must accept the correctness of desertion because the story paints King as nothing else short of a hero. I cannot accept that, since it is like asking me to call the sky yellow on a clear blue day. Furthermore, derision for the real hero is heaped upon, the man who re-enlists and continues to serve his country. I would only recommend this stinker to someone who needs convincing of the decay of Hollywood, as it is a clear example of it. No wonder it fared poorly in the box office.
This is the kind of movie which is loved by 50-year old schoolteachers and people who consider themselves aware in social issues - but really haven´t got a clue. The actors - I think all of them are amateurs - do their best, but the script is so full of cliches and stupidities that they can´t save it.<br /><br />Worst of all though is the scool cabaret that the kids are working on - brings back all your worst memories from acting classes in school. The lyric to one of the songs goes something like this in a fast-translation 2.30 in the morning: "I´m the dwarf of society, an emotionally crippled individual."<br /><br />Please!
This representation of the popular children's story on film is pretty pathetic to watch. I know it is one of the earliest efforts at moviemaking, but this 15-minute picture is unimaginative and poorly shot. "The Great Train Robbery" (1903), which I also commented on, is much more creative and exciting to watch.<br /><br />We see little long-haired Jack trade a cow (2 men in a cow-suit) for a hatful of beans from a merchant and later a beanstalk grows from where his mom throws them in the yard (I guess poor Jack attained the wrong kind). Jack dreams of a goose (actually it seems to be a chicken) and golden egg and the next day climbs the stalk into heaven.<br /><br />There is no effort made to be creative in this film. The stalk looks like a rope with leaves on it, the giant is just a tall bearded guy in a home with nothing abnormally large in comparison to Jack and the climax to the film where Jack makes his escape with the goose-chicken and its golden egg is miserable as a stuffed dummy falls from out of screenshot in place of the giant and then the actor takes its place - rising up on his feet in a exaggerated death dance like in most early films. The beanstalk (leaf-covered rope) comes trailing down from above and coils neatly on the giants forehead.<br /><br />Watch something else.
HANDS OF THE RIPPER <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.85:1<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />An Edwardian doctor (Eric Porter) uses newfangled Freudian analysis on a young girl (Angharad Rees) who turns out to be the daughter of Jack the Ripper, and just as deadly...<br /><br />Unlikely Hammer horror, in which a respectable society figure takes charge of a beautiful young waif without attracting so much as a whiff of scandal, even when she takes to murdering all and sundry with a variety of lethal implements (broken mirrors, hat-pins, etc.)! L.W. Davidson's screenplay wanders aimlessly from one murder to another, sacrificing the material's inherent subtext (Porter's obvious attraction to Rees) in favor of commercial melodrama, and the tone remains subdued throughout. Some of the gore scenes are surprisingly vivid, even for Hammer, and these were clipped from the original US release (despite an R rating from the MPAA), though the complete version is now available on home video. Porter and Rees give excellent performances, and the climax in St. Paul's cathedral is a definite highlight, but the rest of the film is strangely hollow and unaffecting. Directed by Peter Sasdy.
Strained and humorless (especially in light of its rather dubious psychology), but well-paced and comfortably lurid, this genteel body count movie highlights the unusually hypnotic presence of Angharad Rees as a young woman periodically possessed by Jack the Ripper, thus allowing for some nasty gore effects amidst the Edwardian propriety. It's all pretty standard stuff for Hammer, but is handled with a good deal of visual elan, even if the central relationship, between psychoanalyst Porter and Rees, drives the narrative without ever being satisfactorily explained.
I've watched this film a few times and I never really liked it. I'm not a fan so termed "nu horror", so I can't be dismissed on that account. I found it a little sleazy, I think the thing that irks me about Hammers is the sexploitation aspect, not sex mind you, but Sexploitation. I'm surprised at how many people have rated this film so highly, so I'll have another look at it. But for me, it wasn't creepy, it had no atmosphere, just a bit of "omigod, look at those bad/stupid London prostitute women and that little innocent Anna about to get raped by yet another nasty man, ooherh!" I suppose ultimately for me, the film had no depth whatsoever, just a bunch of nasty priggish men and women only there for the titillation value. This no doubt was to some degree what Victorian England was like, but the sets are even too clunky and dull impart a sense of Victorian menace. Roger Corman's horrors on the other hand, now that's style, atmosphere and elegant horror. For me, this was just exploitative, flat footed trash.
By 1971 it was becoming more and more obvious that Hammer film studios were on the way out . HANDS OF THE RIPPER is a case in point where even the idea smacks of desperation - The spirit of Jack The Ripper posses his own daughter ! Yeah okay no one was expecting a documentary but this plot seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel for stupid premise and you do find yourself questioning why on earth the producers brought Jack The Ripper into the story . Was this to give the movie a snappy title ? <br /><br />The production values are unimpressive and the cinematography gives the whole movie a cheap TVM feel but you know you're not going to be watching a classic Hammer horror as soon as the title starts because the music is laughably inappropriate . I think the composer was trying to make the theme tune haunting and touching but the music resembles something out of a soppy romantic movie . I will give the cast some credit as they do take their roles seriously in what's a far from serious movie <br /><br />I didn't enjoy this film much and it instantly reminded me of the Phantom Raspberry Blower Of London Town from The Two Ronnies which I'd been laughing at in the weeks before I saw this
There are no saving graces in this dreadful, stagey, boring snooze-fest, which brings to mind "The Ransom Of Red Chief"! <br /><br />Even though there are some big stars in this film, the acting is almost uniformly terrible. <br /><br />Glenn Ford, normally a laid-back kind of guy, hams it up with forced emotion. <br /><br />Donna Reed is so over-the-top as to prove laughable. <br /><br />Leslie Nielson is woefully miscast and is terrible. <br /><br />The son is such a repulsive little brat, I found myself rooting for the kidnappers. <br /><br />The only decent performance in this mish-mash is the relatively minor role of the butler. <br /><br />Perhaps I'm being too harsh on the actors, after all, all they did were to read the lines given them in the script. Ah, the script, that turgid piece of contrived dreck that would like to tug on your heart strings but merely turns your stomach.
So many people loved this movie, yet there are a few of us IMDb reviewers who found Mirrormask excruciatingly uncomfortable to watch and arse-clenchingly boring. I fall into the latter of these two camps, and I will try to explain what it was that made my toenails curl so unpleasantly.<br /><br />Firstly, to set the record straight - I like Neil Gaiman's books. I sometimes find his knowing, sarcastic, 'wry asides' humour a little geeky, and I actually prefer his work when he is playing it straight and leaving the jokes alone - but, even with his occasional lapses into crap 'dad' gags, I find his creativity and imagination to be something a bit special.<br /><br />Interestingly, one of Gaiman's strongest works is Coraline, a Gothic fairy story for kids that is very low on jokes and high on tension and creepiness. His latest novel (Anansi Boys) overdoes the funnies, and tends to read at times like Terry Pratchett does the Sisters of Mercy (not the nuns but the band). Mirrormask inhabits similar territory to Coraline, and when I saw the stunning visuals in the trailer, I got a bit excited that somebody had managed to transfer Gaiman's spectacular vision and imagination to the screen.<br /><br />In praise of the film, some sequences do look stunning. However, the visual effects are occasionally ruined by CGI animation that looks like a Media Studies student project. Backgrounds and scenery are often incredible, but some of the character animation looks clumsy, amateur and cheap. In an early dream sequence, the spider is animated beautifully, but the book-eating cat-beast looks poorly rendered and very 'computer generated'. Compared with the standard of animation found in productions such as 'The Corpse Bride', Mirrormask occasionally looks very amateur indeed. However, in Mirrormask's defence, the budget was tiny for such a grand vision, and a few creaks in the effects can be understood and forgiven.<br /><br />What cannot be forgiven is the stilted, stagy, cringeworthy and pretentious dialogue. The actors struggle desperately with the dialogue - and there is so much of it that they are constantly hampered and stumbling over it. Conversation is rendered completely unnatural, the jokes fall flat time and time again, and the turgid speeches appear to be the writer's only method of plot exposition. Combined with the fact that the actors are working against a blue screen (which always adds an element of 'Phantom Menace') - this renders the film almost unwatchable. In such an unreal setting the actors need to work twice as hard to be believed, and in the main they fail terribly. The girl who plays the lead role puts in a valiant struggle against the impossible stage-school dialogue, and occasionally shows real promise, but it is never enough. The god-awful cod-'Oirish' of the Valentine character (with whom she is forced to spend an inordinate amount of screen time) puts paid to any chance of this young actress rising above the material. It appears to be Valentine's job to explain the plot to younger viewers, and to add a bit of light relief. Personally, I wouldn't want him anywhere near my 15 year old daughter.<br /><br />What else is wrong with this film? Answer....Rob Brydon. What's annoying (for us Brits, anyway) is we know Rob Brydon can act! We've seen him hold the screen for half-an-hour on his own (doing those 'Marion & Geoff' monologues), and in the first 'real world' bit of the film he is fine. However, stick him in front of a blue screen and he loses all sense of character and turns into the worst am-dram-ham I've seen in years. A real shame.<br /><br />What else is wrong? Answer... the wanky slap-bassing, sub-Courtney Pine saxing and unlistenable, too-high-in-the-mix soundtrack that never shuts up. God, the music is incessant, loud, distracting, irrelevant and, if that isn't enough, has wanky slap bass wanking all over it. It makes the dialogue very hard to hear, but that could be a blessing in disguise.<br /><br />What else is wrong with it? Answer.... The whistling mime artist. In modern society there should be no place for mime, apart from certain secret places in France. Every moment the camera lingers on the gurning, whistling, moss-juggling, yogurt-weaving idiot, I understand why the Edinburgh locals get a bit anxious and fractious when Festival time comes round again.<br /><br />My final criticism is that the film is pretty dull. Surrealism often is dull – it either requires its audience to slip into a dreamlike, Zen, accepting state, or for the audience be constantly wowed by bigger and grander surprises. A story with a bit of pace involving characters that we could believe in and care about would have gone a long way to giving this film the emotional centre that it sadly lacked, whilst stopping the eyelids from drooping.<br /><br />Finally, apologies to all those who found depth, meaning and wonder in this film. You have managed to suspend your disbelief, you have seen past the creaky CGI, ignored the crappy dialogue and the abysmal performances that resulted, and understood the maker's grand, imaginative vision. I wanted to, but I couldn't see past the real-world failings that dragged it down.<br /><br />I hope Neil Gaiman gets it right next time, if he gets (or even wants) the opportunity.
I didn't really HATE Mirrormask. I just really wanted more from a movie than pretty visuals. The movie begins with a young girl named Helana who works in a circus. But while other children (supposedly) want to run away to the circus she only wants to run away FROM the circus. During a heated argument with her mother, Helana wishes she would drop dead. Bad move. The mother gets ill with...something (presumably cancer) and needs surgery. On the night before surgery she dreams she travels to a wonderful world composed of her her dreams and nightmares where she "finds herself". Personally the movie got crap for me as soon as she started dreaming. The early scenes show the weird and wonderful world of the circus and then contrast it with the bleakness of the hospital and the filth of an apartment block. But a soon as she dreams the whole films shifts to CGI land where nearly everything is a computer image. The problem is that this dream world has none of the mystery and wonder it should have. while films like the Wizard of Oz seemed enticing to explore Mirrormask shoves images in our faces and then snatches them away to give us another image. There's little rhyme or reason to the design in this film and even though some things are very pretty (the librarian is a masterpiece) they just disappear so quickly that they're soon forgotten. Helana and her sidekick Valentine are annoying at best and unbearable at worst. Overall Mirrormask is like a pretty stake that you bite and find out is actually ash. Stick to the real world kids.
I saw "Mirrormask" last night and it was an unsatisfactory experience.<br /><br />It is a film that is visually rich but with slow direction, poor plot line and 2-dimensional characterisation.<br /><br />I did, however, know this when I went in. I was willing to trust the two gentleman that I went with (knowledgable comic buffs) that the visuals would be out of the ordinary and so they were. Unfortunately, inexperience of direction meant that scene after scene passed with little in the way of dramatic tension or conflict. Though, this is a comment that could be made of many artists whose work is transferred to screen and who are given charge of direction. The pace of the story is lost as the camera lovingly dwells on the pretty pictures.<br /><br />I would not have gone at all without that reassurance that the style of the film would be worth seeing. I have tried with Neil Gaiman's work but am always left with the "emperor's new clothes" feeling. I live in hope but last night was no exception.<br /><br />I do not think I can continue with an analysis of Gaiman's work without losing the will to live. Read the rest of the comments and all his faults are eloquently described. I cannot comprehend, however, how he imagined that he had any understanding of the mind of a fifteen year old girl, Nor that what he had to say added anything to the sum total of human knowledge on growing up and assuming adult responsibility, or the changing relationship that a girl might have with her mother. These are the central themes of the film and they are handled ineptly, stereotypically and with no depth of imagination. All the pretty pictures in the world cannot make up for a piece of work that is flawed at the core.
Wow, what exciting visual effects. I also loved the costumes and artwork, the circus and ethereal feel to the film was sublime. It just required the need for the viewer to worry about the fate of our protagonist. As she is trapped in her imagination, there is never a sense of peril unlike, say, David Lynch's films which haunt every time. This also draws attention to which age group this film is aimed at. Who would this engage?<br /><br />Mirrormask is obviously going to draw comparisons with Labyrinth with the teen- angst/ fantasy theme, but unfortunately it doesn't really come close to delivering the same Henson essence. The ill mother theme is never fully explained and certainly not something that you care about while lapping up the eye candy.<br /><br />Not agonisingly awful a la The Cell, nor as engagingly dreamlike as Labyrinth - a forgettable but good-looking fantasy.
Well, that was sure a waste of Dave McKean's talents, wasn't it? Don't get me wrong: when it comes to graphic design, Dave McKean may be the best in the world right now. The layered, textured look he can accomplish with just a few pencil lines on rough paper make the efforts of people like Peter Greenaway and David Fincher look like what they are: hackwork. McKean has been the godfather of a revolution in the look of comics, film, even magazine ads which borrow the distinctive collage effect he has pioneered.<br /><br />But this movie? It's junk. Complete junk. The story, from Neil Gaiman, is, unfortunately, exactly what Gaiman has been giving us ever since he ripped off Clive Barker for the first time: a pseudo-mythic, overblown dreamscape, populated by characters which have Titles in All Capital Letters rather than names. Everything is allegory, to the point that it is impossible to get any human drama, emotion, or empathy from anyone involved. People make pithy postulations, speaking in riddles which bring to mind what Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead might have sounded like if Tom Stoppard had suffered a debilitating stroke halfway through its composition. Really, Gaiman, get over yourself. You're not a prophet. You're a poser.<br /><br />McKean's directing doesn't help - his pacing is poor, taking fully half an hour to actually rev himself up for the main picaresque plot, and then simply providing a disconnected sequence of events, none of them given any weight. The monsters don't menace because they're not foreshadowed, simply thrown at the screen. The plot doesn't engage because we don't really care about the rancid little protagonists. Half the dialogue, muttered into into shirt fronts and ubiquitous masks, is unintelligible.<br /><br />Some of the visuals are pretty, and I'm sure the fanboys will lick it up. Pity. Think of the amount of really good work McKean could have produced if he hadn't been stuck with this lame project.<br /><br />Grade: D/D-
This film is really really bad, it is not very well done and is a lack lustre attempt at something but I am not sure what. I watched it and was very disappointed. It promised a lot, but delivered nothing at all. The characters are shallow and wooden, and the music, if you can call it that, is dreadful. There are of course all the creatures and animated beings, but they are so poorly done that it does not come across as anything other than a third rate movie. It is a real shame that more attention could not have been spent to the special effects, not the be all and end all of a movie I agree, but in a movie that is based around them, it's a very important factor. For me, a very sad attempt, and should be avoided.
Having enjoyed Neil Gaiman's writing (especially his collaboration with Yoshitaka Amano in "The Dream Hunters") in the past, I figured Mirrormask to be a sure thing and was very disappointed. The beginning, live-action section of the movie was intriguing enough. The relationships between the characters was believable and easy to empathize with, and I loved the sets, the costuming, and Helena's artwork. The subsequent computer-generated scenes, however, were excruciating. The dialogue was awkward and pretentious, the interaction between the live actors and the CGI horrifying. Events occurred for the flimsiest reasons, and most events seemed superfluous to whatever plot may have existed. I only watched the first twenty or thirty minutes of the movie, so I'm not exactly an authority, but I strongly recommend that you don't watch any of it at all and stick with Gaiman's strong written work.
I'm trying to understand what people liked about MirrorMask. I am an avid film viewer and hobbyist film maker. As I was telling friends during my lunch hour, MirrorMask may well be my biggest movie disappointment of the year. Just like the short Moongirl, the film missed its marks. Several times during the movie it made attempts at humor. It sets you up for the laugh. Instead of making you laugh, it leaves you feeling empty. The jokes reminded one of the recent Star Wars films. They weren't funny unless you were five. And the acting felt similarly terrible. I've seen actors actually act in front of a blue screen. And I've believed it. But not in this film. Not for a second.<br /><br />This film takes a formula and tries to apply it with pretty artwork… And though the script is totally workable and the special effects quite beautiful, it has no heart to it and fails miserably. I left the film shaking my head and considered leaving the theater. I felt hallow and miserable and still haven't gotten the sour taste out of my mouth from it. I love independent film. I encourage people to view independent films to support them. But not this film. This film shouldn't have been made. At least, not like this. Why did the director miss the marks so clearly? They were clearly setup… Not just the humor. But the emotions. The drama. Even the lines were poorly timed and delivered. It was like the film walked on three legs instead of four. Its steps are awkward and miss timed. And it could fall over with the slightest push… Don't see this film. I don't care who you are. It isn't worth your time.
"MirrorMask" was a terribly disappointing film for me. I had expected much from a Jim Henson production and had found favourable reviews comparing it to "The Labyrinth" and "Alice In Wonderland". Unfortunately, the film ended up in one of those "style over substance" pile of movies.<br /><br />Whereas most kids dream about running away from home to join a circus, Helena is a kid who has grown up in a circus (child labour, anyone?) who wishes to run away to join Real Life. Helena wishes that her mother drop dead, which is a bad move for a spoiled brat with a princess complex in a kid's fantasy movie. Next thing you know, Helena's mother flops over, and for some reason, she is suddenly transported to another world.<br /><br />Meanwhile, I felt as if I was transported to the Museum of Contemporary Art with a pair of foggy sepia-tinted glasses.<br /><br />The showcase of CGI-generated creatures and backdrop was interesting at first, and I liked the Orbiting Giants. It got a little too tiresome after a few minutes though, and I felt my mind wandering ...<br /><br />With no sense of narrative and MTV-style clips and soundtrack (the sphinxes reminded me of Basement Jaxx's "Where's Your Head At"), I did not feel involved in the plight of the protagonist and also frustrated, as we waited for the film to lead us wherever it wanted, hopefully towards the "Exit" signs of the theatre ...
I saw this film when it premiered in LA. I think I laughed 2 or three times. The rest of the time I was in shock at how ridiculous/poorly shot and poorly written it was. Kirby is in fact the only saving grace in the film. I was disappointed at the performance of Larry Bagby , whom I usually find entertaining. If you enjoy watching your friend's crappy homemade short films that they shot on their mom's 8mm video camera then there's a slight chance you might enjoy this film. Then again part of what makes those movies enjoyable is that it's your buddies playing all the parts. You don't know these people so you'll probably find it as dull and stupid as I did. Dear Mr. Nelson, go back to film school, intern for a while as a PA or a grip or some low level job so you can see how things are properly done in film . Then look for as long as you must to find a Director of Photography who knows what f. stop means, make sure he has ND filter on hand. Then try again. Repeat as many times as needed.
The old man mouse in this cartoon would have you believe that all men are created equally EVIL............so if we have to kill men in order to stop Hitler..........we are just as bad as Hitler was killing the Jews........ Well.....I don't buy it Mr. Mouse............but I guess it paints a pretty picture and makes a cute cartoon.......but it wasn't the reality then and it ain't reality now.
The DVD version released by Crash Cinema was very poorly done. The mastering engineer must have been either drunk, asleep or not even in the room while it was being done. It looks like it was mastered from about a tenth generation copy and about halfway through the film, the audio synchronization disappears. The dialog is about 10 or 15 seconds behind the audio. If you're thinking about purchasing this DVD, please save your money. I remember seeing this film at the theater back in 1973. Also, the VHS copy of this film under the title of "When Taekwondo Strikes" looks better than the DVD, but the remaining several minutes of the movie are "missing". Where is the original camera negative?
I won't waste your time by describing the plot for this, the other reviewer already did this quite well. I will however give you my opinion of this movie. This movie is basically anti japanese propoganda. The japanese are portrayed as incredably evil b**tards who have respect for nothing, as well as having very poor martial arts skills (groups of japanese men get there asses kicked by single women on more than one occasion.) The fact that the japanese fighters lose almost every (if not every) fight in the movie kind of takes away the suspense. The plot is actually quite solid and perfect for a kung fu movie though. The problem lies in the fact that there's not much fighting. When there are fights some of the fighting is quite good, but other scenes are choreographed badly. One scene angela mao takes on six japanese in a church and kicks all their asses. The problem is they show her fighting them one by one when they're all supposed to be attacking at the same time. I gather this movie was incredably cheap considering how cheap some of the sets are. They use the same village set for when they are in korea and when they are in china without changing it at all. Some scenes are filmed at real locations though, and they look good. Overall the only real problem with the movie is it's slow moving and uninteresting plot. Since there are few fight scenes we have to rely on the plot for entertainment and, well, I wasn't entertained.<br /><br />one and a half stars out of four
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** What's going on here ?<br /><br />Barbara Hershey, looking decidedly unsexy - as if she'd stolen her granny's spare wig - puts in an unconvincing performance as a woman who kills the wife of a man she has had an affair with 'in self defence' after hitting her forty odd times with an axe.<br /><br />Like Lizzy Borden, she is acquitted but after the most unconvincing argument ever presented to a jury by the representative of a supposedly 'innocent' defendant I have ever seen.<br /><br />Lizzy Borden took an axe and gave her father forty whacks When she saw what she'd done - she pleaded self defence<br /><br />I don't think so<br /><br />I find the defendants guilty of screening an unconvincing portrayal and have no alternative but to award this film a sentence of 4 out of 10 (which would have been lower but for the previous good behaviour of some of those involved)<br /><br />
Oh dear - quite how Alfred Hitchcock (North by Northwest, Spellbound, the 39 Steps) could turn out this nasty, cheapjack shocker is beyond me. Don't bother looking for hidden depths or deep meanings - there aren't any. This is just horrid, seedy and cheap. The one redeeming feature is the home-life of the inspector who leads the investigation - his wife fancies herself as a gourmet cook and constantly serves up her revolting culinary experiments to her poor husband. This is amusing, and just about saved me putting the film in the 'awful' bracket, but the film as a whole is one of the most unpleasant I've ever seen. I believe this was Hitchcock's next-to-last film - perhaps someone was trying to tell him something.
Not even 'lesser' Hitch, but simply a bad movie. The cinematic equivalent of a dirty-old-man. Ugly in every way: unimaginative script, static point of view, putrid clothing, ghastly hair, unlikable actors, and one truly gratuitous rape-and-strangulation scene. The director's perverse sense of humor is present, but it is not applied consistently; the movie comes alive only in its cruelty. The women fare especially badly; 'Frenzy' could be used as proof the director was a misogynist, though a better explanation to me is that perhaps beginning with his TV series and 'Psycho'- which he himself described as an exercise in thrift, an experiment to see if a television crew could shoot a passable feature -Alfred Hitchcock had pretty much abandoned art and settled for commerce. In 'Frenzy' the great master seems to be bowing to convention, trying to go with the times and give audiences what he thinks they want- in the form of unappealing nudity, nudge-nudge winks, and general nastiness. I don't begrudge an old man his rest, but I don't want to remember him tired and lazy and pandering- time to watch 'Vertigo' again!
Greeted with derision by most critics when it first appeared, 'Frenzy' has recently done the rounds of UK TV. I remember seeing it on its original release, and thinking then that if Hitchcock wanted to parade some kind of screen confession about his ingrained misogynism, he couldn't have found a nastier little vehicle to do so.<br /><br />But Time alters perspective, and so what was nauseatingly bad in 1972 might, all these years later, be worthy of upward re-evaluation.<br /><br />Might. . . but not. 'Frenzy' is dross. The dross of an ageing director who desperately wanted to exploit the artistic freedom of 70s movie making without seeming to realise that freedom imposes its own obligations -- notably, the need to bring integrity to one's work.<br /><br />There's none here. And not much evidence of the earlier directorial brilliance, either -- the switch from spine-tingling implicit to odious explicit is neither shocking nor, for a supreme stylist, stylish: it's just banal (the prolonged murder scene is precisely that: prolonged, without pace, without reason, without purpose other than the cheapest of directorial desires to appear as contemporary an artiste as, say, that other acclaimed practitioner of cheap sleaze, Michael Winner).<br /><br />And it goes from bad to worse, with dialog that defies any human provenance (not least in the ludicrous diversion into the Home Life of Our Dear Wooden Inspector, and his wife's cooking).<br /><br />Perhaps the scene that best sums up 'Frenzy' (and endures as the most explicit indictment of Hitchcock's persona) is the clunking exchange between two lawyers in a bar, where they discuss the serial killings and then agree that at least the women had a good time first by being raped.<br /><br />I remember my revulsion at that scene back in '72, and it's still undimmed, because this wasn't Hitchcock being clever, or sardonic, or trying to make some universal point (big themes, big truths, were not Hitchcock's forte, nor personal preference.) It was just Hitchcock, allowing a reflection of his own distorted mirror on life to shine through the texture of the movie.<br /><br />Calling 'Frenzy' Hitchcock's last great masterpiece is to betray little if any understanding of just what Hitchcock actually achieved in the way of cinematic trickery, cinematic thrills, and dazzling cinematic mastery.<br /><br />'Frenzy' is therefore now what it always was: a cheap, nasty, and ham-fisted movie that did no service to any of those involved, or to the memory of a film-maker who really was, in his Hollywood days, one of the greatest there has ever been.
I won't be too hard on this show because I enjoyed the first season, but then, things got worse. The concept is nothing special, just about a girl named Casey who is trying to cope with a new step-brother, Derek, and his loud, crude family, while she gradually forces her princess standards onto each of them.<br /><br />In season 1, the story was actually interesting. I liked Casey back then because she was smart, strong, independent, and conservative. She was well-mannered and deep. I felt bad when she was being harassed at her new school by her new step-brother. She was a perfectionist, but not as annoying as the later episodes. Oh, and she dated a nice guy, who is now currently portrayed as one of Derek's idiot friends. The season grasped the true tension the title of the show was trying to capture.<br /><br />Now, I can't say the show has really gone downhill because the story is sometimes interesting, but I root for Derek now instead of Casey. Now, there is little, if any interaction, between the two siblings. If they interact, it's only briefly. Oh, and I don't want any Dasey fans in my face. People, that's called INCEST, even if they are step-siblings. My tolerance can only go so far, but that's not the point.<br /><br />It's strange. Derek, as the antagonist, has gotten more sensitive over time, while Casey, the supposed protagonist, is more neurotic and unlikeable than before. I like how the younger kids get more airtime, but the parents are even more clueless than before. But that's not the biggest problem...<br /><br />Unfortunately, we are forced to see everything from Casey's point of view, with lame, nauseating background music. She has gotten stupider and more shallow over time. In one episode, she got whiny and wanted her boyfriend to be more chivalrous, so she purposely dumped food on herself and blamed Derek. Now, what happened to being a strong, independent feminist? I haven't watched much of the fourth season, but I hear she is dating a guy named Truman, who is a jackass and is arrogant. Oh, I remember that fencing episode. She constantly reminds him she doesn't like him, freaks out over being "goosed" by a sword, and in the end, hooks up with him because she can "handle" him? What the hell? Why go with a guy like that in the first place. The 1st season Casey would have just punched him in his...never mind. Or, maybe that would have been my reaction. Oh, and she's a cheerleader. Not that that's a bad thing, but I think she fell on her head at one of her practices. And in a prom episode, she cried because she couldn't find the "dress in her dreams," and wasn't completely satisfied until she became prom queen. One thing I've noticed is that no matter how bad Casey tries to tell us her life is, thing's almost always go her way in the end (she gets the guy she wants, Derek gets some kind of revenge, people all love her, etc.) Derek is still quite immature, but I see that he really has matured. I don't see why many people hate Sally. She seems nice, and it's good to see Derek in a serious relationship with someone he cares about rather than "playing the field." He is also treating Edwin slightly better, and is a good brother to Marti.<br /><br />Really, the show is so-so, and I rated it low because despite some character development, the character I once admired has now become like any "fashionable teen queen" you can see anywhere on TV. But it was good while it lasted.
What ever happened to shows with united parental figures? The parents in this show are nearly as irresponsible as the children. Instead of punishing the youngest child for being manipulative, they let her get away with murder. They can't ever agree on a course of action when it comes to dealing with the children, and instead they do nothing. Yeah, great plan. Just ignore their behavior because they're "cute." This show tells the already manipulative preteens that watch it that the "divide and conquer" technique is the best way to get their parents to "cave." The oldest children are constantly running amok and getting themselves into all sorts of impossible situations, but there are no consequences for their actions. Yeah, great television all right.
Based on what little i have seen of this show I don't think I will ever watch it again. Its not even remotely believable and frankly the Derek character just makes me angry.<br /><br />Sorry but seeing such a spoiled brat get his way time and again? Why would i want to watch that?!? No thanks, there are plenty of other shows that involve devious characters (Phil of the Future's Pim for example) where the evil one doesn't win or if they do not in the way they though.<br /><br />Not to mention that I think this is a terrible picture to paint about living with step-siblings. Yes life isn't rosy but one could attempt to portray a character that wasn't outright evil and wins.<br /><br />My suggestion is that you watch this only if you like seeing the villain win.
There is so much not to like about this show it's hard to know where to start. Unlikeable characters, horrible plot lines, terrible writing, AND terrible acting. Don't even get me started on the obnoxious theme music.<br /><br />On top of all that the show is out of touch with U.S. audiences due to the heavy Canadian references all throughout it. "Oh say Derek, will you be going to Queens College in the Fall! How have you bean? We should go oot." <br /><br />Granted, other shows are filmed in Canada for financial reasons like Stargate: Atlantis, but while those shows may have suffered from some annoyances (like Rodney calling a Z-P-M a "Zed-P-M") the show didn't focus on life in Canada.<br /><br />MTV is running Degrassi (another show based on the experiences of the Canadian teenager) during daytime hours when no one is watching to fill time (most teens are at school when it airs). I'd wager it's for the same reason. Shows that focus on teenage life in Canada don't translate well to a U.S. audience.<br /><br />This show should be canceled and the remaining masters burned in a furnace.
It is really a shame that IMDb doesn't let you give negative votes. This is the most hideously awful show ever foisted on the American public by our usually-likable neighbors to the north. The parents are a troglodyte and a neurotic hag. He is as charming as a well-used fire hydrant, with the same hygiene standards. She is a wax museum mannequin programmed with more neuroses than the entire cast of THE VIEW. The kids are non-entities if female and repulsive beyond belief if male, especially the title character. The boy is a serious contender for most insanely smug, self-satisfied, arrogant, and vain male character on Disney, which is saying something. This show was obviously conceived as the anti-BRADY BUNCH, but it comes off as the anti-Christ. And why is the photography so dark?
As a parent of two girls(14 and 11) I have grave doubts about this show and all the shows aimed at tweens. First, I am always amazed that the living conditions of Drake/Josh, Zac/Cody, Hanna, Carly, Derek, Sunny etc. always make most houses look tiny and cramped. Most people work hard all day to pay for living quarters less than half the size yet on these shows nobody is going or coming from work, paying utility,rent, mortgage or insurance bills, mopping, sweeping, changing lightbulbs, fixing toilets,etc. Just walking in and out(and down the ubiquitous wide stairs that only exist on TV sets) cracking jokes(most of which involve lying and the hilarious results) and shirking work. I think kids watching these will have unrealistic expectations on how hard they will work and how luxurious their lives will be. Second, there is never an intact family, always a Mom or Dad but never both, who are always going on sexless dates but never seem to have any of the downside of divorce(alimony, support, arguments). Again, kids may get the impression that if mom/dad get divorced there will be fun fun fun(actually mom or dad are often not around if that helps the plot). Needless to say there is no mention of spirituality(forget specific religion). Finally there is a theme that troubles me. There are "nerds" that are good in school, "jocks" good in sports, "goody two shoes" as well. The protagonists are not good at school, sports, or charitable but make wisecracks about those who are. The message is don't be good at anything, just be one of the "nothings" who blend in cracking jokes. Needless to say I give all these shows a zero and turn them off all the time and am just short of forbidding them in my house.
I tried to give this show a chance, but it really doesn't sit well with me. Although the performances are good, the writing isn't. The two oldest step-siblings, Derek and Casey, are equally annoying; I get the impression that we're supposed to side with Casey, given that she's the protagonist, but I don't find her at all likable. The parents are continually portrayed as utterly clueless. The three younger children are the most watchable things on the show; Lizzie and Edwin are sweet the way they team up, and Marti is adorable. The plot lines are a bit far-fetched and the whole premise is mostly hard to swallow -- blended families are common, yes, but this family isn't really trying all that hard to blend. On the whole, I think it grades thumbs-down.
Normally I don't bother wasting my time writing comments for junk like this that I forget almost as soon as I see it, but since I saw this movie just yesterday on one of the comcast Showtime channels (346, I think) I decided to make an exception.<br /><br />Besides the fact that I enjoyed watching Carol Alt, I can't give any rational reason why I watched this movie through to the end. I'm always amazed that good-looking women are willing to appear in awful movies like this, but I suppose she thought this movie would lead to something better. I hope she was right, for her sake.<br /><br />Otherwise, this is an all-too-typical straight-to-video laugh riot, or just a piece of garbage, depending on your point of view. While there are a few decent moments of action in this movie, they don't really connect well with the story, such as it is.<br /><br />The setup, as I recall, involved Carol Alt as a depressed housewife who believes her husband, a cop, is cheating on her. There was also something about their child dying in an accident, and she blaming him for it, but before that storyline went anywhere she shot and killed him.<br /><br />On the same fateful night, a wounded stranger comes to her door and she tends to him, and almost immediately her house is under siege by government stooges and mercenaries intent on capturing the stranger, who appears to have almost superhuman fighting skills.<br /><br />This same kind of material has yielded decent entertainment plenty of times before, most notably in Matt Damon's The Bourne Identity, and could have done so this time as well but this particular movie was let down by poor production values and a lousy script.<br /><br />This movie really falls apart at the end, when the mysterious stranger turns out to be a cyborg (!) who was programmed to be a policeman, and after discovering that Carol Alt killed her husband he tries to kill her! The movie wasn't particularly good up until this point, but the ending really ruins it by trying to turn a modest action-thriller into a lumpy Terminator/Robocop wannabe.<br /><br />I also thought that the violence in the movie was a bit excessive at the end, with the demented cyborg gouging out poor Carol Alt's eye before it finally bit the dust. What was the point of that? For that matter, what was the point of anything in this movie? It held my attention and entertained me for about an hour, until the end, when it reminded me that I wasn't watching a first-rate movie. It wasn't even really a second-rate movie, for that matter.<br /><br />The final scenes seem to hint at a sequel, which I don't think ever happened, although I haven't carefully checked the web for it. Needless to say that I'm not in any hurry to see any sequel to this movie.
Alright! A sci-fi/horror/action B-hybrid directed by Jim Wynorski and in the final scenes we get to see a cyborg with a defleshed metal head killing off multiple people! As with any Wynorski-flick, he throws in a whole bunch of crazy ideas and subplots that mostly don't lead to anywhere. But "Storm Trooper" is more like a two-movies-for-the-price-of-one kind of deal. On the one hand we got the drama/thriller part (as such the film opens) with Carol Alt killing her incredibly annoying & ungrateful husband (a plot that simply leads to nowhere). And on the other hand we got the 'escaped cyborg on a rampage' part, "Night of the Living Dead"-style. With Carol and the Cyborg being the ones trapped inside the house and a bunch of special OPs/bounty hunters playing the role of the zombies, trying to break into the house. Needless to say this flick is not up there with the greatest. Zach Galligan (of "Gremlins"-fame) especially is painfully bad and Corey Feldman (in a small supporting roll) is once again completely wasted on this movie. Wynorski even rips off one of his own movies here, since I am 99% sure he used some stock footage of his previous film "976 EVIL II" (the scene with the exploding truck and the motorcycle). Yes, it's so not good and so much fun. This is strictly for Wynorski-fans only. And I am one of them, in case you didn't know already.
Normally for movie reviews, I try to be constructive and objective, but there is only one word for this, uh, "film" : SUCKS!!!!!!! The dialogue, acting, special effects, plot, set, and characters all seem as if they were made up by, well, my potted plants. Don't see this, for the sake of all that is good and right in this world! :)
I think this is the worst movie I have seen since "Mortal Kombat 2". The action (including the effects) is like in a cheap Glen A. Larson TV show, the acting is terrible and the dialogs are even more stupid than in MK2. Avoid at all cost.
Anyone who thinks Kool Moe Dee, Carol Alt, and Corey Feldman comprise a list of good actors must be smoking something I'd love to try sometime. Where to begin: lousy soundtrack, hammy acting, "action" in places. This is the typical amateurishly written hack fodder that washed-up has-been and never-was's love to star in. I actually felt embarrassed for the "stars" in this "film". The only thespian missing to top this turd was Gary Coleman, who if he would have been in the movie, would have made it at least somewhat howlingly bad, rather than just plain bad.<br /><br />There was one part in the film where Carol Alt screamed, "DO YOU THINK I'M AN IDIOT?!?" Yes, Carol, I do, your agent does, and PLEASE for the love of all that is decent and holy... GO AWAY and stop degrading yourself like this! This film is something Anna Nicole Smith would take part in.<br /><br />I would tell you what the plot was, but that would be one more sentence fragment to this article, plus my mind drifted many times during the movie anyway, so I barely paid attention.
I am a lover of bad movies. I own "R.O.T.O.R." and "Boa vs. Python" and am working to build up my collection to such great titles as "Troll 2" and "What's up Superdoc?" But "Storm Trooper" is not even bad enough to make it to the list of wonderfully terrible movies. It's just lame. The guy who said he's had better dialogue with his potted plants has it right. Everything about this movie is stupid. When the robot guy runs into the car it seems almost as if he knew it was going to blow up, there was just no reason he would ever run in that direction. "Judge, Jury, and Executioner," "The perfect cop...but they went too far," I mean, come on, why do people bother making these movies anymore? R.O.T.O.R. makes it because it is hysterically awful, but Storm Trooper is just a waste of cinema because it isn't even bad enough to be so bad it's worth watching. This belongs in someone's home movies collection, something they can be sort of proud of, but that is all. I am p*ssed off it was on an HBO channel (with only 1-star, which is why I watched it) because it didn't belong there. Even if you love bad movies, do not watch this movie. It is shameful.
In watching Enterprise for the first time, as we all no doubt do with all shows, I went into it with an open mind, enjoying about half of the past Star Trek efforts and disliking the other half.<br /><br />Enterprise has fallen short, but this episode "A Night In Sickbay" made me seriously question why I bother tivoing the shows from Monday night on Sci Fi.<br /><br />Masking some idea that it is one of those 'A Day In The Life' episodes, in which we learn about what makes certain characters operate as humanoids, the writers seemed to forget that this was supposed to be a starship vessel, not the Ricardoes and the Mertzes.<br /><br />A planet, especially one whose people had been offended previously by the Enterprise crew (for eating in public), was no place for a dog. As an animal lover myself, I would have never taken one of my pets into an environment that had proved in the past to be tense.<br /><br />But what made this episode even more ridiculous was the endless problem with all of these ST shows, constantly depicting things that are sacred and insulting to other cultures, as tho they are offering some insight into American religious zealots.<br /><br />The aliens were now offended when the dog urinated on a sacred tree, yet the aliens were quite capable of taking the dog urinating as an insult.<br /><br />Strange how the dog's urinating wasn't regarded as some form of worship. I wonder how that one got by the show's writers.<br /><br />From there, we are subjected to a captain who was misguided by his duties. In watching the episode, I found it very easy to forget that Bakula was supposed to be the ship's captain.<br /><br />He chose to sleep in sickbay and from there we are given more inanities of behavior (sigh) that we aren't supposed to understand and that causes us to furrow brows.<br /><br />The doctor non-chalantly clips long, hairy toenails and feeds them to hungry caged animals. Ewwwwww! Then a white bat creature escapes.<br /><br />Oh, how is anyone supposed to sleep with all of this going on! Toenail clipping, for crying out loud! I was waiting for something that feeds on vomit to be presented.<br /><br />Then we were inexplicably given some idea that the captain was in love with T'pol, and that perhaps he was masking those feelings with his concern over the dog.<br /><br />Endless amounts of rubbish.<br /><br />"your dog is ill, so go have sex. You'll feel better." And of course, the captain had to apologize and we humans had to regard his apology as completely ridiculous, because we are so (everyone smile very sarcastically) narrow-minded! Saw depictions such as this endlessly droned out on TNG.<br /><br />Oddly enough, the only thing missing from this awful episode was that Trip person offering his smirks and downhome boyisms, tho Bakula seemed to be covering all of that with the silly dog.<br /><br />Oh, the dog survived, so now go play fetch.
I thought this series was going to be another fun, action series with some dynamic plots and great performances. I was wrong. While I like Jamie Denton, this show is hardly worth watching at all, unless you enjoy watching some people brutalized and the actions of the agents supposedly warranted under the theme of "national security." The show is great propaganda for the current government, and spews out jingoism as though we talk that way every day. After a couple of episodes, it was boring the hell out of me, and I started watching reruns of House Invaders on BBCAmerica instead. Rather watch CSI and Without a Trace, without a doubt.
Now we were chosen to be tortured with this disgusting piece of blatant American propaganda. It came no wonder for me that this is admired by most American viewers and hated by Europeans. This show is made for Americans - it is too stupid and full with hatred and clichés to be admitted elsewhere. Almost everyone involved must be return to school, acting is utterly predictable and bad, script is pile of garbage all round. operator work is ground zero etc. etc.<br /><br />You have been warned. It doesn't even have "guilty pleasure" entertainment for those brainwashed iq=0 human beings.<br /><br />I wish I could enter negative values, admins? Anyone?
The TV show was slow moving and the 'offbeat' characters were sometimes irritating. Only through the miracle of fast forward was I able to make it through the first 2 hours. <br /><br />The write-up indicates that it's some kind of comedy/mystery but I didn't see much of either. <br /><br />If it really picks up after the first 2 hours, please let me know, because I doubt that I will watch the rest without a recommendation.<br /><br />This review is supposed to be without spoilers so I will continue in a vague, non-spoiler, fashion. I found the two main characters uninteresting and unsympathetic. I found myself asking 'Would a normal adult do that?' The man with the hedge trimmer looking out the window was irritating and when the male lead interacted with him, he looked pathetic. Would a normal adult put up with someone as irritating as him?
Ah, the classic genre of 80s sex comedies. This is set on two beaches; one a nude beach featuring myriad (fully) unclothed women. The plot? Something about a bunch of dimwits attempting to get laid. The usual. Fans of gratuitous T&A (and P) should hunt this one down.
This is one of a rarity of movies, where instead of a bowl of popcorn one should watch it with a bottle of vodka. To be completely honest we are a group of people who actually know the man, Mo Ogrodnik, and decided to drink ourselves stupid to this film.<br /><br />The cinematic aspect of Wolfgang Something's photography seems to have left out both close-ups and breasts. Mo and Wolfgang's collaborative effort revealed the passion of the two actresses, plastic peens holding passion. There's also beetle banging. As Violet would have put it: "This (plastic peen) goes up your butt". The rat porn and subsequent rat smashing is awesome. <br /><br />Alright. So if you are still reading, let us explain who we are. Mo Ogrodnik teaches at NYU and we are a group of her students, who, finishing a film class with her, decided to get poop- faced and watch here directorial debut. She also wrote Uptown Girls. I can't tell you how much that's been hammered into our skulls. So this movie is quite the experience. At the very bottom of this post will be a drinking game we created for this movie. <br /><br />About 13 minutes into this game, none of us could see straight. The sheer amount of Dido's in the first thirty minutes created enough reasons to drink to pacify an elephant.There was something secretly pleasurable about seeing two underage girls hit on a Kurt Cobain lookalike with absolutely no context, save for his mysterious scene at the convenience store where he was oh-so-naturally reading a local newspaper. Because that's what we all do. The heart-shaped glasses were delightfully derivative of Lolita. And something about that provocative scene of the nude chin-up boy suggests the director's history of homosexual pornographic experiments. We wish we were kidding.<br /><br />Enough intellectual contemplation. ON TO THE DRINKING GAME! This will ensure that the viewing experience is a positive one. It's very simple, and very likely to send at least one member of your party to immediate care.<br /><br />The Mo Ogrodnik/Ripe Drinking Game: 1. Every time you see anything related to pornography, take a drink. 2. Every time you see auteur Mo Ogrodnik's name appear, take a drink. 3. Sex. 4. (plastic peen) require two drinks. 5. Any time somebody points a gun at another character, take a drink. -At this point you will probably need to refill/pee pee any remaining sobriety from your body.- 6. Any time there is blood (INCLUDING "LADY BLOOD"), please take a sip! 7. The underused hula-hoop girl requires one drink per second. 8. Gratuitous use of the "magic black man" requires one drink. 9. If you can't figure out the through-line, KEEP DRINKING, Beyotch. 10. Whenever you are able to predict a line, take a drink. Trust us. It's easy. <br /><br />That's it, internet! Keep drinking, and try not to get riped.<br /><br />-Hawaiian Smirnoff Punch, Jr.
There are so many things wrong with this movie I don't even know where to begin. The story is not cohesive AT ALL. I guarantee that five minutes into the movie the average viewer will be scratching his/her head in confusion.<br /><br />Here's what I remember of the movie before I was bored into unconsciousness: A quasi-abusive dad chases some pre-teen sisters through a house but turns out to be not that abusive after all. In the next scene, the girls are about 15. They're driving with their parents and hit a deer. The deer must have been explosive because their car blows up, one sister drags the other from the burning wreckage. Then, the girls are drifting in a boat on a lake and make a huge plan to go to Kentucky (??) and start a new life. In the very next scene, the girls are hitchhiking toward a military base. And what a military base it is. Actually, it's more like a hog farm converted to look like a military base with plenty of confused extras playing "soldiers." The base commander's office is particularly awesome because there are random things like an AK-47 hanging on the wall and a drill sergeant hat mounted to a plaque (????) so the audience is sure to know that this is a military guy's office. Then some random dude pushing a motorcycle shows up and the base commander orders him to go "into town" to buy some porn mags, and to make sure the soldiers don't think that he's on the "pink team." So our character takes a pickup converted to look like an army truck "to town" and loads up a box from a nondescript "book store" with a blowup doll by the front door. The girls hide in the guy's truck when he stops to gas up, and look through the porn stash to find items inside like the "anal invader." I guess that's enough of the plot to scare most people away. Plot aside, the sound quality is terrible and the movie is full of cheesy attempts at symbolism, like a radio preacher talking about forbidden fruit during the scene where the "slutty" sister meets the main character for the first time, or how the camera lingers way too long on certain shots to try to convey a "message".<br /><br />If you ever see this for sale or rent or whatever, stay away. It's not worth the money in either case.
Thinly-cloaked retelling of the Garden-of-Eden story -- nothing new, nothing shocking, although I feel that that is what the filmmakers were going for. The idea is trite. Strong performance from Daisy Eagan, that's about it. I believed she was 13, and I was interested in her character. The rest left me cold.
This movie did attempt to capture the naive idealism that many young teenaged girls have for fun, friendship, escape, danger, sex, maturity, etc. The problem was that it failed to establish these things on every single level; which is why it failed to build a decent story around them. I couldn't follow the point of any part of this story, nor any reason why I should care.<br /><br />This movie is not an exploration into pedophilia at all. It's basically about a girl being in love with her sister, and her sister being in love with the idea of "men". While the latter tries out her love of men, the former tries to win her sister back by "getting even".<br /><br />The plot is weak, the characters are weak, and the reality of it all was similar to an amateur porn filmmaker (without the sexual substance).
This movie was, in one word, terrible. It was boring, predictable, and downright creepy. I kept waiting for it to end and when it did, I was horrified. The ending left a bad taste in my mouth, to say the least. My advice to anyone interested in movies about budding female sexuality: stay away from this movie. Movies like this give classics like Lolita a bad name.
"Ripe" is one of those awful indies which manages to get into circulation and give indies a bad name. Telling a stupidly incongruous tale of pubescent twin sisters who crawl from a firey car crash which kills their parents and then hit the road while happily shoplifting, making goo-goo eyes at some guy, and ending up on an Army post so dilapidated no Army would want it (yeah, right!). An apparent attempt at a coming of age flick, "Ripe" is an almost complete loser which wanders aimlessly as the players drift in and out of character finally ending clumsily with nary a shred of credibility to be found anywhere. Not recommended for anyone.
Uninspired, pretty much all around. The only exceptions were a couple emotional scenes with Keena (Violet), with whose performance I was pleasantly surprised and occasionally moved. Beyond that, it ended up being little more than a bad COA flick.
If this movie had been directed by a man, he would have been jailed. While Adrian Lyne was shackled with a lawyer in the editing room to oversee the gutting of a classic piece of literature to appease the censors, and to avoid running afoul of the Child Pornography Protection Act of 1996, a woman dumps Ripe on us and everyone applauds. Did I miss a meeting? In addition to the blatant pedophilia, this movie is utterly preposterous. Has this woman never set foot on an active military base? Has she never met a soldier? Whose army is this? The uniforms must have come from Uniforms-R-Us. Just throw on some patches, who cares? Just make sure each and every one of them has a Big Red One. There is a slight inside joke here that no doubt went over the auteur's head, but might possibly have been slipped in by whoever furnished the military vehicles. Certainly there were no military advisors. The U.S. Army does not operate slums. Temporary base camps in jungle war zones are cleaner than this. The U.S. Army does not put 14-year-old girls to work on military bases, nor allow them to use the firing ranges or training courses. There is much drama to be mined in the sexual coming-of-age of teenage girls. This movie has absolutely nothing to do with that whatsoever.
This film is terrible. Not only is the story unbelievable, the situations the characters put themselves in are so silly, to the point where it isn't shocking. I find it sad that Daisy Eagan, star of Broadway's The Secret Garden, decided that this would be a career step. The idea is interesting, two young girls coming of age very quickly. But the sex isn't even arousing. The film is silly, the story is silly, the performances are silly, and the whole concept while interesting falls flat. I'm sure all 14 year old girls make out with guys after they've had their first period and tried to flush their panties down the toilet. Better Luck next time guys. My Scale * T-Scale *
"Stick Around" is one of the brief series of films that paired Bobby Ray with Oliver 'Babe' Hardy before Hardy's immortal teaming with Stan Laurel. Several critics have suggested that Ray and Hardy -- the gormless little man and the overbearing big man -- were a prototype for Laurel and Hardy, but that simply isn't true. Ray and Hardy play off each other well, but really aren't a team; in each of these films, Ray has more footage and is clearly meant to be the hero, while Hardy bullies him in a manner very much unlike his later "Ollie" character's treatment of "Stanley". It's very clear that the relationship between little Bobby and big Babe was inspired by earlier Chaplin films, in which the Little Tramp was bullied by huge Mack Swain or burly Eric Campbell.<br /><br />However, in "Stick Around", Hardy sports a bowler hat that's identical to his later "Ollie" titfer (although with a fuller moustache), and he and Bobby -- after spending most of this movie as adversaries -- end up as drunken comrades.<br /><br />Bobby is a paperhanger for the firm of Matz and Blatz, with Hardy as his boss. When the tardy Bobby tries to pretend he showed up promptly, there's some clever physical business between the two men that reminds me of a routine performed by Roscoe Arbuckle and Buster Keaton in 'The Garage'. A bit later, Bobby Ray -- whose brief acting career never firmly developed a screen persona -- performs an "impossible" gag that would have been inappropriate for Stan Laurel, when he pulls a long stepladder out of a much smaller toolkit.<br /><br />The paperhangers go to work in a sanitarium, and there are the usual unrealistic depictions of mental illness: one resident insists on sitting on a piece of toast because he thinks he's a poached egg! There are also some howlingly racist (and tastelessly unfunny) gags involving a black man who obligingly lets the inmates crack open walnuts on top of his head. When he sees a *picture* of a lion -- not even a photograph, mind you -- he goes all cowardly as if it were an actual wild animal.<br /><br />"Stick Around" is fairly dire. Most of the pantomime and acting is much broader than it needs to be for a slapstick comedy; even Hardy, already a very subtle actor by 1925, pongs badly with his over-acting here. There are several bad examples of shot-matching. I was impressed with one unusual camera set-up, when a fat pedestrian's face is dirtied and we see a close-up of his reflection in a hand mirror, rather than his actual face.<br /><br />SPOILERS COMING. During their brief pairing, Hardy typically played Ray's boss or adversary or both; here, for once, they end up as pals. It's a nice ending, but it doesn't make up for what's really a poor film. My rating for this one is only 4 out of 10.
"Nicodemus" is almost a copy of "Red" in the odd behavior sense, but this episode focuses on other people in Clark Kent's unpredictable life. When a poisonous flower finds it's way into Smallville Jonathan Kent is the first to be effected by it. the flower causes people to reverse their behavior and when it effects Jonathan, he becomes short tempered and violent, however Clark manages to stop him from doing anything rash until his father finally passes out. okay. so far, so good. next up is Lana. the Episode was good up to that point, for the flower causes her to attempt seducing Clark. at the last moment, he refuses her but the damage has already been done. this episode causes the wrong impressions and isn't suitable for people under the age of twenty, due to it's adult content. the first part was good, the last part (focusing on the effect the flower has on Pete) was good, but the middle that was all about Lana's alternate personality, was most defiantly not, and that ruined what could have been a brilliant Episode. I give this Episode two.
It is a shame that a movie with such a good cinematography as this one had no plot to be supported by the work of Sarah Cawley (cinematography) and Adam Lichtenstein (Film Editing), and above all, no sense of what goes on in Mexico City. The movie tries to be a very realistic depiction of life in city, but it is unable to do it. It is a shame, a lot of film wasted. An American woman tries to find her brother who has been kidnaped. The first account of the story is powerful and interesting, very realistic, but it seems that there was no effort to come with a better narrative of the ordeal, especially when it comes to the issue of the attitudes of the US embassy personnel in Mexico City, when dealing with an issue like this one. Compare, as an example, with Frantic(1988), which deals with a similar issue. Something similar can be said of the role of local authorities. Compare, as an example, with Todo el Poder (1999). The movie is worth watching if you want to get a sense of the looks of the City itself, paying little or no attention to the rather weak "plot" and the many twists that require a rather extensive suspension of disbelief. Who is going to believe that a Mexican patrol from Mexico City is going to go all the way to catch the main characters to the Mexico-US border? And that this policeman is going to be able to use its radio from the border to Mexico City! Only the producers of this movie. It is worth mentioning that unlike Frida and other movies about Mexico at least in these one Mexicans talk Spanish.
Here is a movie that was so pedestrian for 90% of it that it had no right to become so challenging and frustrating at the end. Did the director decide to become auteur suddenly, 80% through the making of this movie? Yeesh. SPOILER ALERT Thing start out typically enough for 50's youth-gone-wild; there are drifters, good girls, bad girls, gangs, the kindly old diner manager, and the town creep. Things follow the expected path until about 15 minutes before the end, when the only likable character is killed off and the anti-hero is blamed (this would not be so unexpected if this were the main plot of the movie... but all this stuff starts happening and unravelling during the final reel! Major curve ball). Then things get weird; the kindly old codger forms a mob and beats the hero to a bloody pulp. The mere presence of the hero's friend somehow drags a confession out of the real killer - the leering, creepy town nut (which in any real universe, he'd have been the prime suspect to begin with, even if the anti-hero was found with her body).<br /><br />We're left with a somewhat feeble "happy" ending, which is about as out of character with the rest of the movie as the events of the 10 minutes preceding it.<br /><br />Even more odd is this film's insistence on playing homosexual innuendo to the hilt, but constantly presenting the two male leads as straight. Maybe this was on purpose - perhaps Bix's resistance to settling down with the girl was more because of his sexuality (which in the 50s would have to be kept quite repressed, and thus not discussed or even admitted by him) than his need to be a "drifter". If the director's intent was to spin this as a sexual yarn - that the drifter drifts because he feels he's an outcast sexually; that his paternal regard towards Danny is not, in fact, paternal but spousal; that his inability to remain with Carrie is rooted in a sexual revulsion that even he does not quite understand - it could have been made more clear. Instead, we get this very bizarre alchemy of homoeroticism and behavior that is completely heterosexual.<br /><br />These young men sleep next to each other even when they can get some room to spread out. When Danny is propositioned (and once even in bed with a woman), Bix flips out and takes him away. Danny pays Bix's way (sure, there is another explanation for it, but it still strikes a chord every time you see Danny buy Bix's lunch). They end up living together at the end. Not since Hitchcock's "Rope" has homosexuality been so blatant but denied.<br /><br />MST3K did the right thing by taking this one on. Aside from Jack Elam, there is little to commend the film.
This one is one of those classic B movie following the exploits of 2 hobos. It's done really cheesily and Big Stupid running off one-liners like a cardboard cassanova. But Jack Elam steals every scene he's in as the creepazoid Jesse (now Jerome!). My favorite scene is the lynch mob and the dad's voice going up 10 octaves ("You loved her?"). Danny, Big Stupid's protege, is surprisingly stupider, but not as loathsome as our lead star. There's also a quaint scene of a guy pimping at the diner. Joyce Meadows is the sweet, naive nice gal and probably the least annoying. And those yellow ruffles (RAWR!). Oh, and booze is evil according to Mr. Stupid.<br /><br />This movie's a hoot. Watch the MST cover of this and Crow's terrific Elam homage!
A young man, named Danny, has run away from home and meets a drifter, named Bix, who agrees to tag along with Danny and watch out for him... and his money. They end up in a small town where they meet Carrie - a shy, naive girl working in her father's diner. Bix starts seeing Carrie but he plans on leaving soon (because he's a drifter, see? He's no good! Understand?). Meanwhile, the town creep, Jesse (played by a perfectly casted Jack Elam), keeps showing up at the diner and bothering Carrie. Danny keeps inadvertently picking up whores left and right (because he's loaded with money – he has almost a hundred dollars!) whom Bix has to constantly chase away (there are a lot of ambiguously gay overtones between Danny and Bix in this flick). Eventually, Bix and Danny decide to leave town but trouble is a-brewing, due to Jesse the creep.<br /><br />My review of the movie itself: a terrible, dated "Troubled Youth" flick from the '50s.<br /><br />My review of the MST3K version of the movie: I've got to say that this is one of the best episodes of MST3K ever. The riffing is dead-on, all the time. Except for the somewhat downbeat ending, this movie is easy material for Joel and the Bots, especially Danny's constant screw-ups that Bix has to rescue him from. The host segments are pretty good too, especially the segment with the `Train Song.' Hopefully, Rhino releases this episode to home video one day.
The Girl in Lovers Lane is one strange little low-budget film. On its surface, the movie tells the story of a tough drifter named Bix (Brett Halsey) who spends his time looking out for a young kid named Danny (Lowell Brown) and the girl, Carrie (Joyce Meadows), that Bix meets who would like to look out for him. Nothing overly interesting happens (Bix goes out with Carrie, Bix gets Danny out of trouble, Carrie's father drinks a lot, etc.) until about 10 minutes to go in the movie when Carrie is murdered. Her father blames Bix, pulls him out of a jail cell, and just about beats him to death. Now their roles are reversed and Danny has to save Bix.<br /><br />Until I read the reviews on IMDb, I thought that maybe it was just me reading more into Bix and Danny's relationship than was really there, but I see now that I'm not alone. It was quite obvious to me early on that Bix and Danny had more of a relationship than you usually see in a movie from 1959. The homosexual nature of their relationship, while never openly expressed, is still quite obvious. Their living and sleeping arrangements, Bix's reaction to finding Danny in bed with a prostitute, Bix's inability to commit to Carrie, and that phone call at the end when Danny tells his parents he's "brining home a friend are a few examples of moments that lead to the inevitable conclusion that there's more to their relationship than initially meets the eye. I'm sure they exist, but I can't think of any movies I've seen from the 50s that scream homosexual quite as loudly as this one.<br /><br />As for the movie, I don't know any other way to put this – it's boring. As I wrote earlier, nothing much at all happens for 90% of the run time. The characters are dull and the actors aren't good enough to give The Girl in Lovers Lane much of a spark. The lone exception is Jack Elam. His crazy Jesse is the one character interesting enough to be worth watching. Elam had creepy down pat! But I guess the biggest problem I had with the movie was with character motivation and logic. Carrie is killed and Bix is immediately blamed? What about crazy Jesse who has been stalking Carrie for probably her whole life? Anyone think to ask Jesse where he was that night? Her father has seen him bother Carrie at the diner, yet he never considers that the leering Jesse might have something to do with his daughter's death? Not a lot of logic there. And what about Jesse's confession? Danny grabs Jesse by the lapel and this is all it takes to force a confession out of Jesse? Real tough guy, huh? Why would he confess so easily? And after he confesses, no one thinks to grab him? It's awfully nice of Jesse just to stay put and not run off. In any other reality, he would have never spilled his guts and would have run like a rabbit if he had been fingered for the murder. The fact that The Girl in Lovers Lane asks me to accept these ridiculous actions on the part of the characters is something I'm not willing to do. Overall, I'm giving The Girl in Lovers Lane a 4/10.
Okay... for the most part, and all its cheesiness, this movie was actually pretty good for an MST3K flick... but then they decided to ruin what little goodness it had about fifteen minutes before the ending. *SPOILER ALERT* The film is very basic... a rich mama's boy named Danny meets a bum named Bix, and the two of them travel to a small town, where Bix meets a pretty girl named Carrie (who is so very.) Now, this film's basic premise seemed promising enough. All they needed to do was follow the simple chemistry of any romance movie... Carrie loves Bix... Bix loves Carrie... a creepy guy in town lusts for Carrie... Now, I know what you're thinking... Bix fights the creep and ultimately decides to settle down with Carrie, and Danny returns home, and they all live happily ever after... right? WRONG!! Because Carrie gets murdered by the town creep, because Bix is too gay to commit. (There are so many homosexual undertones between Danny and Bix.) And then, the whole town decides to lynch Bix, even though the town creep would've easily been the prime suspect. Then, the town creep confesses to killing Carrie without much hesitation... (must've felt bad, the poor dope.) Then, Danny brings Bix home with him... that's the film's "happily ever after." Sad, huh? All I can say is, thank God for Joel and the Bots. Because they turned this horse hockey into one of my favorite MST3K episodes.
I have noticed that a lot of films that have been featured on "Mystery Science Theater" have received a tons of low ratings on IMDb. However, a few of the films featured on the films weren't that bad and it's not fair to rate a film that's been given the "MST" treatment--with the hosts making funny comments during the film. Now I am NOT saying that "The Girl in Lover's Lane" is a great film, but it's not nearly bad enough to merit its current IMDb score of 2.1.<br /><br />The film begins with Bix and Danny meeting. Bix is a veteran drifter and Danny a younger guy who seems to have no particular reason to be wandering about the country. Once they blow into a small town, Bix needs to rescue Danny again and again because Danny is quite naive--a nice way of saying he has the intellect of a tomato.<br /><br />Along the way, something happens to the self-assured Bix--he finds a nice young lady and finds the lure of staying put pulling at him. And, in an odd subplot, Jack Elam plays a super-creepy sicko who wanders the town scaring the crap out of everyone--yet oddly, the police don't seem to take much notice nor does anyone on their own do anything about him. Ultimately, however, when Elam puts the moves on a girl who Bix is falling for, things come to a full boil.<br /><br />Overall, while not at all a great film, there were many interesting plot elements in this film--enough to merit a score higher than 2.1. The biggest negatives are a simplistic conclusion to the mystery that occurs near the end as well as the total stupidity of Danny one time too often. Considering the minuscule budget, however, it's a watchable little film.
The Girl in Lovers' Lane: 3 out of 10: Homoerotic subtext in the movies is a well known phenomenon. Plenty of dissertations have come out of film schools about the hidden subtexts in such films as Top Gun and Spartacus. The Girl in Lover’s Lane certainly fits the homoerotic trope. In fact, it is so blatant and over the top even MST3K, whom rarely notes such things in their riffing, simply cannot avoid it.<br /><br />The film is about two drifters. One a rich kid (Lowell Brown) running away from home with a hundred dollars and no street smarts, the other is a professional hobo (Brett Halsey). The hobo saves the kid from a gang of thugs and they end up in a small town consisting of a diner, a pool hall and a whorehouse. Our drifter scholar gets a second look from the diner’s waitress (Joyce Meadows as the titular Girl in Lovers Lane) who clearly is past the age of being choosy and whose only other prospect is creepy Jack Elam doing a Steve Buscemi impression.<br /><br />On the surface, this seems like a strange film for the MST3K treatment. While the cast are to old for the characters they are playing, the acting is actually pretty good with both Brett Halsey and Jack Elam giving solid performances. The story is slight, but hardly The Robot vs. Aztec Mummy material and the production values are cheap back lot, but relatively competent.<br /><br />It is the strange Batman and his ward homosexual undercurrents that make this film both awful and hilarious. Halsey’s over the top objections to the kids attempts to get laid in the whorehouse are hilarious, his inability to commit to the waitress (or at the least get past first base) are telling, and the dozens of glances between him and the kid; a hand on shoulder, the sleeping arrangements, blowing off dates with the girl so he and the kid can shave each other. You don’t have to be Freud to figure out this undercurrent.
I don't know if I hate this movie as much as I did when I watched it two weeks ago, but if you're expecting the events described on the box, forget it... that would have been a good movie. The great descent described on the box is nothing compared to the descent into utter dispair that I took viewing this movie. If you've seen HBO's Taxi Cab Confessions, this is the same thing, only fictional, and not even remotely as interesting. If you really want to see something interesting about a cab driver, check out the 20 minute short they run on Encore from time to time... it is actually worth watching. I have never, ever asked for my money back for a movie until I saw this ... thing. Boring, Boring, Boring. It does offer one unique trait, which is this: It leaves you to decide what happens to each of the passengers, letting your imagination fill in the gaps. Which would be great, if you actually cared about any of these people. Instead I found myself yelling at the screen, weeping like a child, praying for either the end of the movie or my own death. The cab driver himself (though well played, considering) runs through emotions seemingly at random, from sarcastic to sympathetic to raging lunatic to apathetic. Sometimes it is appropriate, most of the time it's just a display for it's own sake. "Dammit, I learned all these emotions in acting class, and I'm gonna use them!" Now that I've been thinking about it again, I do hate this movie as much as I did!
If you have ever wanted to know more about cab drivers, then this is an excellent movie to watch, for informational purposes only. I can just hear it now, "Wait, just wait a second! Why don't we follow a cab driver through his entire day! Cabbies are funny, and so are the people they meet, and they only talk to each other for just a couple of minutes, so the other actors should be cheap! Harry, you take care of production, Joan, you've got materials, Brian, you go round up some actors and we'll all meet back here tomorrow to start filming!"<br /><br />The first 90% of the movie could not have been any worse had that very thing happened. At least with no planning whatsoever, there is always the element of surprise to be found. Some of Jim Carrey's movies have stuff added as they go along and they always do well at the box offices. The problem here is that the first 90% is pretty well scripted out, and it pretty much sucks. Paul Dillon plays the cab driver in Chicago who is working all day. We pretty much see what he sees. People get in and out of his car and he drives all around town. He talks to those people for a few seconds and then we get some more people. <br /><br />I'll admit, there were a couple of funny bits here and there. A religious family tries to talk the cab driver into going to church with them, he takes a pregnant lady and her husband to the hospital, breaks up a rich businessman from his girlfriend, a poor girlfriend from her boyfriend and takes a rape victim home. I guess the moral of the movie is that a Cab Driver is more than a Cab Driver and has a larger sphere of influence over the lives of his passengers than you might originally think. For some people, he's just a means of getting from here to there, but for others, his very ordinary words help change the direction of their lives.<br /><br />The last passenger of the day is used to try make sense of the rest of the movie, and to a small extent it succeeds. It had a bit of that deathbed repentance feel to it where the good majority of the movie sucks and then at the very end, it tries to make it all better in just one or two changes. I wasn't too impressed with the movie as a whole, but there were a few bits and pieces worth watching again. As far as the actors go, Paul Dillon is it. John Cusack, Gillian Anderson and Julianne Moore are all in this, for about 30 seconds each, but don't watch this for any of them or you will most certainly be disappointed. I will give the other people invovled some credit that it's not your ordinary movie they have produced here, but it wasn't a very good one either. There just wasn't enough material to keep you going for an hour and a half. It was a decent effort, but it failed none the same.
A day in the life of a dimwitted cab driver sometime around Christmas: The cab driver picks up a fare...they have a 'really insightful' interlude...he drops off the fare...he picks up another fare...another interlude...and so it goes on like this for 90 friggin' minutes...none of it convincing (or interesting) for even one minute...SKIP IT!
The lavish production values that you generally find in a Merchant/Ivory film are all here, but this is an exceedingly dull take on what could have been a very lively affair. I agree with an earlier poster that it makes no sense for the story to be unfolding through the eyes of an African American family and yet their own ancestor, Sally Hemmings, has barely a role to play in the proceedings. There is not much clarity to be found in helping the audience understand the motivations of any of these historical figures. And I was very bothered by the accents of a number of the characters. Nancy Marchand sounded very British for what one assumes is a French nun. And both Gwyneth Paltrow and Greta Scacchi seemed to be trying out different accents in various scenes. In fact, Gwyneth is very poorly served in this biopic. Her role as Thomas Jefferson's daughter, Martha, is written in such a manner that we never get a handle on who she really is. One moment she is slapping a slave, and another moment, she's deploring the whole system of slavery. Nick Nolte performs the role well enough but doesn't ever make us truly care for Jefferson or any of his exploits. Very disappointing all in all.
"Jefferson in Paris" is a truly confounding film. It presents Thomas Jefferson (Nick Nolte) in the most unflattering light possible, painting him as a liar, racist and pedophile, yet offers not a shred of condemnation for those sins. This is the way he was, the film seems to say. End of sentence, end of movie, the door's behind you.<br /><br />After arriving in Paris with his daughter Patsy (Gwenyth Paltrow), Jefferson proceeds to win the heart of Maria Cosway (Greta Scacchi), the wife of a homosexual English painter (the criminally underused Simon Callow). A turn of events sends Maria to England, however, and Jefferson proceeds to forget her with astonishing speed for a man who, mere minutes of screen time before, was asking her to live with him in America.<br /><br />He's been bewitched, you see, by Sally Hemmings (Thandie Newton), one of his slaves just arrived from America. Just why he's bewitched is hard to tell--although Sally is undeniably beautiful, she acts like a simple-minded child in front of Jefferson. When she isn't telling ghost stories in exaggerated "darky" speech patterns, she's slinking around his bedroom, practically oozing lust for her distinguished massa.<br /><br />If her behavior is an attempt to excuse Jefferson's, it doesn't work. Jefferson damns himself further when Maria, tired of waiting for his letters, travels from England to see him. I've not changed toward you, he insists, offering weak excuses for not writing. To her credit, Maria sees through his brazen lies immediately. When Sally appears, and she and Jefferson flirt openly (and cruelly, to my mind) in Maria's very presence, the illusion falls apart completely.<br /><br />No one today believes that Jefferson, Washington and the rest were utter paragons of virtue and morality. Yet, are we supposed to believe that the learned, distinguished Jefferson would be attracted to Sally, a woman whose most intelligent conversation is about how "massa's Frenchie friends don' unnastan' aw corn" and who rubs herself against his front as she passes, right before Maria's eyes?<br /><br />Even if we let that slide, it's followed by the horrifying revelation that Sally was only 15 when this affair took place (Jefferson was 41). Strangely, this fact comes out only toward the very end, when Sally's brother James is understandbly furious at her blase announcement that she is carrying Jefferson's child.<br /><br />Jefferson is equally blase when told that Sally is carrying his child, and patronizingly tells her that she'd be far better off under his protection than free and living in France with her brother. But, he promises, I'll free her when I die and our children (including any more that come, Jefferson says, in a chilling declaration of Sally as *his*) when they reach 21. Oh thank you, massa, you feel like telling the screen. Big deal.<br /><br />The worst scene is still to come, however, involving Jefferson's daughter Patsy. She is already angry at him, first for breaking his vow, made to her mother on her deathbed, not to marry again. (Obviously the woman wasn't just talking about matrimony.) Jefferson has also refused to allow Patsy to become a nun as she wishes, despite earlier moralizing about freedom of religion (that seems to mean freedom to agree with him).<br /><br />Having promised Sally and her brother their freedom, Jefferson calls in Patsy to witness the bargain and promise to fulfill it should anything happen to him. Sally's brother blurts out the impending birth of the child, and Jefferson asks, "do you swear?" Paltrow's performance in this scene is brilliant, although she has almost nothing to say. Her face nearly contorts in agonizing pain at this revelation, yet she controls her grief and whispers yes.<br /><br />If anything, and the filmmakers could have had something if they'd emphasized this point more, "Jefferson in Paris" is an indication of the status of woman in the late 18th century, viewed even by men like Jefferson as attractive property, pleasing but without true intellect or souls. We see Jefferson shed a few tears over a letter from Maria, obviously telling him where to get off, but he's soon laughing away at a wild dance from Sally, complete with tossed hair and heaving bosom.<br /><br />I don't know whether this is an accurate portrait of Jefferson or not. I don't care to watch it, however, just for the sake of watching it. This Jefferson is no hero or even an anti-hero. He's a selfish, lying child-molestor--and one who gets away with it--not the kind of man I want to see a movie about.
I looked forward to spending part of my Independence Day weekend watching a good film about Jefferson. This film was not it. It was rather long, drawn out, dull and unbalanced. Too much time was spent exploring Jefferson's relationship with Cosway and not enough time was spent on his relationship with Sally Hemmings. The lady who played Sally, Thandie Newton, was absolutely awful. Her acting was so bad it was like watching an A1 airhead trying to recite Shakespeare. Her constant whining voice grated the nerves! Nolte's accent made Jefferson sound like an ignorant man, rather than a genius. Jefferson's relationship with his daughters and their feelings on slavery was also underdeveloped, yet his eldest daughter's rebellion (Patsy)is a key event late in the film. The film was too long and the script lacked energy and excitement. On the positive side, the costumes were quite beautiful, and Greta Scacchi played the part of Cosway well. If you want to watch a film about the revolutionary era and/or Jefferson, then watch 1776, it's much better than Jefferson in Paris.
Even though this film's trailer and poster imply that Sally Hemmings was an important character, I might not have been as shocked to discover she was just a minor (and I do mean Minor) character if this movie was suppose to being told by Sally's very own family! I mean if you are going to tell the story of a member of your family that has been ignored by history, would you really tell it with the man who relegated her to obscurity at the main character? His other lover (who happens to be white) as the actual love interest? I know I wouldn't! I am as pale as they come and normally a big fan of Merchent~Ivory flicks, but I couldn't stomach this film's treatment of poor Sally Hemmings.
We sought out this hard-to-find VHS after watching two excellent Merchant-Ivory pictures back to back. Knowing it was an instant box office failure, a failure as a rental, I thought it might be worth seeing anyway based on M-I's reputation. Too bad! Nine years ago, it was very much a Liberal Agenda objective to trash the Founding Fathers and indeed they had some success in eradicating the Founding Fathers from many American classrooms including, for example, New Jersey; whose eradication of our great founders quickly ended when the Washington Times shone the spotlight of truth into the NJ School Board and their subversive deed. A small part of this was headlining the alleged Sally Hemmings-Thomas Jefferson connection, disregarding the inconvenient DNA findings which failed to support the wacky left's agenda. Never mind! They got James Ellis, an author of dubious reputation, to put it in a book, and Columbia University sealed the deal by giving Ellis a Pulitzer.<br /><br />As to Jefferson in Paris, the Liberal Agenda spin begins in the opening scene wherein James Earl Jones is claiming to be the son of Jefferson. The spin simply continues in flashback mode to Paris. The unmistakable truth is that even if a person assumes the lie is true the Hemmings allegation would be an insignificant detail into the larger matter of Jefferson's prolonged and vital diplomatic mission to Paris (as well as to the Netherlands where he secured crucial financial backing for America when our infant nation was without funds).<br /><br />Besides the Liberal Spin Job, there is nothing else of interest in this drab and tortuously dull movie. Some of the other history is indeed accurate --- adding credence to frame the lie --- but this movie takes one of the most interesting moments in American history and reduces it to a remedy for insomnia.<br /><br />Please do not ask me why Liberals set out to trash the Founding Fathers, because I don't waste time explaining the acts of such people. Don't ask them either; they usually respond to such questions with the same answer: "SHUT UP!"
Hellboy revolves around classic comic book/action/superhero genre story lines. Essentially Hellboy is a kind of demon who has found his way on earth. He is brought up from a child by a priest and within a government society and has chosen to protect the people of earth from the supernatural, rather then be a menace (the normal career route for a demon).<br /><br />The set up of the story involves creative uses of history, combining Nazi experiments with the occult. It's preposterous, but so is the whole idea of a demon roaming the streets. I find the explanations of the characters, who they are and how they came to be very well handled. The sequences are to the point and very entertaining. In fact the opening is the best part of the film, therein lays the problem….<br /><br />Essentially Del Toro who both writes and directs this piece bottles it. The film is absent of all tension or any major conflict. Hellboy is essentially established as invincible within the first act and so the rest of the film comprises of scenes in which any conflict is automatically rather crass because we know inevitably Hellboy will be OK and the bad guy will die. I hear you cry that this is the case for any action/hero film. Well yes it is, but once we are drawn into a well made action film we can't help but feel the hero may die. Die Hard works because John Mclane looks likely to die at all parts. He escapes death by the slimmest of margins. The stakes are raised as his wife is also in danger etc etc… Terminator and Terminator two work because in both cases the villain is far superior than the hero. The threat and tension is constant.<br /><br />Some of the other major weaknesses are: Del Toro is also guilty of employing deus ex machina. Characters generally disappear and reappear as their skills are needed within the story. The villain is featured in maybe three scenes. He has no motives. Turns up unexpectedly and inexplicably. In the one scene Hellboy looks to be up against a real threat (groups of monsters) a character unleashes her abilities - the screen fades to white and inexplicably the monsters are dead but everybody else lives. A minor character established in an irritating and undeveloped love story becomes the key to the conclusion of the film. Her character is so thin, the relationship so undeveloped. It is clear she is nothing more than a prop of sorts to push the plot along and to make it all make sense. I don't want to ruin the ending of the film but essentially a character that is dead is miraculously and unbelievably brought back to life….<br /><br />The film suffers from poor dialogue and one liners that just aren't smart or funny. After a while it all starts to grate.<br /><br />What's more Del Toro blows the action scenes with some uninspired visuals. And whoever made the creative decision to make hellboy's primary weapon a gun instead of his clunking arm should be fired. Essentially the use of the gun weakens the concept of the film, degrading the fights to nothing more than a one sided shoot out <br /><br />The few positives include: The cinematography is very good. At all times a sense of mood is established by the dark lighting and the darker colour palette. As well as the use of interesting locations. Yet perhaps it is all a bit samey as well.<br /><br />The use of cgi and Fx is well done. Never do we get an over load. When effects are used they are used well and the sense of realism is kept. Rather similar to how Nolan used FX in batman. I much prefer this method to the overtop effects we often see.<br /><br />All in all this is a pretty poor film. The real shame is that (despite not reading the comics) I found the film wasted a lot of potential. Hellboy as a character has a lot of instantly apparent fascinating dimensions which are completely unexplored. The film has watch-ability, in the sense that if it comes on TV and nothing else is on it might be worth a viewing. But in any other situation I wouldn't bother with it.
Where do we start with an offering like this? I nearly said film but that would be going a step too far. The only thing hellish about this film is that it is certainly a marriage made in hell, between nothing and nonsense, baloney and balderdash. These films should carry a physiological health warning so as not to damage one's spirit to the point where one might believe that all good film makers have left the planet and their resources have been handed to the dunderheads who have make this classic piece of trite garbage just like it's sister in arms "League of Extraordinary Twaddle". They are neither science fiction nor fact, entertaining nor thought provoking, humorous nor weighty but lay in a twilight zone devoid of any and all accoutrements that entice people to give up their valuable time, sit in a darkened room and generally be more enlightened, enlivened or happy at the end of it. If we could award "Turkey" points for films like this, this would be a turnip, as we would gone through the turkey, ham, potatoes, sprouts, gravy and all other embellishments before reaching rock bottom.
The Book gets 10 out of 10 stars...<br /><br />PROBABLY CONTAINS SPOILERS OF BOTH THE BOOK AND THE MOVIE!!!<br /><br />If you've never read Geoffrey Household's Rogue Male, the source material for Man Hunt, you'll likely enjoy Fritz Lang's treatment of the story. On the other hand, if you're in my camp and have practically memorized the book, the movie will be a crashing disappointment. I'll assume you've already read a synopsis of the story, and proceed to my complaints. Household's little novel is one of the all-time great suspense classics, taut and spare, with only a bare handful of characters to propel the action. Fritz Lang and his screen writer Dudley Nichols feel the need to throw in the protagonist's brother and a sympathetic floozy, the latter of which reduces the depth of the story by injecting an extrinsic motivation into the screenplay where the novel needed none. In fact, the true climax of the book was not the nameless narrator's escape from his underground lair, but rather his self-acceptance of his true motive for going on his hunt in the first place. And that's another thing: if David Fincher and Quentin Tarantino can get us all the way through Fight Club and Kill Bill 1 without revealing the names of their respective protagonists, why can't Lang? "Thorndyke?" What hat did they pull that out of? Which brings me to my bitterest complaint: Household's hunter is so quintessentially British,he would bleed a Union Jack if you cut him. But Walter Pigeon, who plays him, is Canadian! He can barely sustain the accent, which is only slightly deeper and more convincing that Kevin Costner's in Robin Hood. He looked about right in the role, and was a fine actor for the 1940s,but as Rogue Male's reluctant hero? Let's look to the Sceptered Isle itself for a more convincing version. Remake soon with subtlety and with, please! I'll direct it for free…
I am assuming that the rave reviews on this page were from people who have never read the book - Unfortunately for those of us who love the text, Hollywood outdid itself on destroying this one.<br /><br />I am not sure where on earth the woman love-interest came from, except that she replaced the cat, nor why our Rogue Male acquired a helpful family back in Blighty - In fact the vast majority of the book has been cut out and replaced with your standard cruddy love story. The ambiguity about which world leader was in his sights was removed completely and our Rogue was given a name (neither of these appeared until the second book).<br /><br />I gave it a 2 rather than a 1 simply because of the wonderfully bad cockney accents. Joan Bennett outdoes Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins by miles and this goes a tiny way towards saving it.<br /><br />Ah well - Brits should probably avoid this. Trust me :)
Disappointing film with Walter Pidgeon as a hunter who goes to Germany to assassinate Hitler. When he is discovered, he is coerced into signing a document stating that he acted on orders from England. His refusal to sign the document brings us to the plot of the film.<br /><br />Pidgeon is pursued back to England by the evil George Sanders and his cohort, John Carradine, who speaks little, but is again as always, the embodiment of wickedness personified.<br /><br />Along the way of being pursued, Pidgeon meets up with Joan Bennett, the latter displaying a wonderful cockney accent.<br /><br />The story gets bogged down somewhat as love develops between the two, but again as we approach World War 11, realism becomes the object of the day.<br /><br />The near-ending scene in the cave between Sanders and Pidgeon is nicely realized but we know where that arrow is going to go to.<br /><br />Very interesting that while Pidgeon is fleeing Nazi Germany, he meets up again with a young Roddy McDowall, one of Pidgeon's many co-stars that same year in the memorable "How Green Was My Valley." How green was "Man Hunt?"
Essentially a undistinguished B-movie that mysteriously is directed by one of the golden era's major talents, Fritz Lang. Even with the stellar names of Lang, Walter Pidgeon, Joan Bennett and George Sanders, be prepared for a ludicrous storyline, bad acting, patently phony sets and miscasting. For transparency sake, I have to admit I am an ardent non-admirer of Walter Pidgeon, who was lucky to have found a niche at the artificial dream-factory of MGM, and somehow worked in secondary roles, supporting Greer Garson and others. He is wildly miscast, acting in a chipper, '30s-Ray Milland madcap comedy tone, in a role where his life is in danger, and he is in hiding. Joan Bennett's cockney accent is excessive, but her lacquered hair, perfect makeup and classy outfit belies a street-wise Cockney slum-girl. George Sanders is incapable of bad acting, but disappears after the preposterous opening finds Pidgeon somehow pretending to shoot Adolph Hitler. Surprising for Fritz Lang is the unevenness of tone. I found the film wavered uneasily between occasional moments of suspense-thriller surrounded by light-hearted comedic interplay. Hitchcock totally reversed the ratio, using comic relief to occasionally pace the suspense. There is a reason this film is unknown. It didn't serve or propel anybody's career or reputation, and is forgotten because it's a surprisingly bad film from such a pedigreed group.
Preposterous twaddle executed in a bewilderingly amateurish and inept way -- or perhaps several since the incredible lack of continuity, tone, realism, plausibility, suspense, and much more combine with Walter Pidgeon's bovine attempts at charm to produce a cinema curiosity to rank with some of Fritz Lang's other stupendous failures. (I thought the German ambassador was actually played by Lang but apparently not -- they could have been twins.) If you cannot predict the ending from several timezones away, you are not actually alive.<br /><br />I was eagerly awaiting this DVD and was totally surprised and disappointed by such dire crap (even with George Sanders and John Carradine -- maybe I can wash my mind out by watching Viaggio in Italia instead and for the umpteenth time).<br /><br />Anyone want a DVD used once? (There may be a movie to be made about the making of this atrocious film and how so many talented people could be wasted so completely.)
A pig-tailed Linnea Quigley drinks milk, strips and kills her sister and her sister's boyfriend after they have sex. She goes to an asylum, makes a best friend out of Amy (Karen Russell) and the two blackmail their way out of a mental institution by sleeping with their psychologists (one is played by "Carol Burnett Show" regular Lyle Waggoner). On the outside, these two man-hating mafia princesses (!) stop taking their medication and invite six slimeball ex-boyfriends over to their large country home for a party where they're systematically slaughtered in very gory ways by a gloved, leather-clad mystery killer.<br /><br />The hideous David Barton FX are so bloody, but so unrealistic that they take on a sort-of surrealistic quality. Same goes for the movie. The dialogue is so strange and stilted, the film so ineptly paced and edited and the acting so other-worldly, you'll start to doubt your own sanity. This film actually attempts to have a plot and three-dimensional characters, but it's all so poorly handled it's almost like what would happen if Ed Wood did a rewrite of an Ingmar Bergman script! And like any good Bergman film, this has a mature moral to abide by--Any good party needs a proper guy/girl "ratio," so there will be enough chicks to "tickle your lizard." See it for yourself... or don't!<br /><br />Linnea (the only reason I was even interested in watching this to begin with) is very amusing in this one, has a lot more dialogue than usual and has several eye-popping nude scenes. Unfortunately, she also completely disappears from the final third of this film and the movie suffers because of it.<br /><br />Score: 3 out of 10
This movie is a bad movie. But after watching an endless series of bad horror movies, I can say that it is a little different from many I have seen. Not in the plot, which is a fairly regular slasher story, but more the way the scenes are cut. Murder Weapon gives us a lot of inane dialogue scenes, but they go on for a lot longer than in most movies of this type. Because of this some of the victims seem slightly less like cardboard cut-outs. Just slightly. I had a difficult time figuring out exactly what was happening at the beginning and kept wondering if certain events were dream sequences. My favorite scene is when two guys are on the run from the killer and take refuge in a car. In the glove compartment, they find a handgun. "Thank you, God!" one of them happily exclaims. That guy's head suddenly looks like a mannequin's head, and it went on for just enough time for me to wonder, "What is that? Where is that mannequin in relation to the two guys in the car?" Then BOOM! The head explodes and I figured out that it was supposed to be one of the guys in the car getting his head shot off with a shotgun. I love that scene, but the movie is a very bad movie. 3/10.
I saw this movie years about 8 years ago when it first came out, and the only memories that I have about it are : 1. That it was awful. 2. That in one scene Linnea Quigley applies suntan lotion to her arms and legs repeatedly for about 15 minutes straight (it seemed that long anyways). 3. One scene where a character gets a sledgehammer rammed into his head. In this scene, when the hammer connects, the head smashes like glass. It's quite bad.
Anyone who knows anything about evolution wouldn't even need to see the film to say "fake". "it's never been disproved" also is a weak argument. Saying the universe was created by a giant hippo cannot be disproved. Although, to be fair, it does seem like the only people who do believe are the same people who open email attachments from people they don't know or give their bank details to a dude in Zambia. No bones of any primates are have been found in the United States or Canada. There is also a good reason why legitimate scientists don't bother studying this. The same argument goes for the Loch Ness monster, ghosts and god.
Hilariously inept - like "She Wore A Yellow Ribbon" remade by five-year-olds.<br /><br />Spoilers ahead: Despite its title, and the high bodycount, "Slaughter Trail" is in fact a musical with Injun battles instead of dance numbers.<br /><br />If you ever wondered what Ed Wood might have done with a B-movie budget, this film should answer your question. Some decisions may have been bad only in retrospect, such as filming in the short-lived Cinecolor process, which resulted in faces changing hue within the same shot. But there was definitely some ill-advised skimping on the film's main set, a cavalry fort that seems to be partly a Norman castle.<br /><br />Terry Gilkyson, who later wrote the 'The Bare Necessities' for Disney's "The Jungle Book", supplies a score full of original ditties which would have been wonderful for a cartoon but which fit Western action like a fuzzy slipper stuck in a stirrup. One song tells how "horse hooves pound, and their melody sounds, like the hoofbeat serenade"...during a dead-serious scene of a cavalry patrol. Other songs literally narrate the story shot by shot, introducing characters, describing their moods and gestures - as they happen on screen - and even stop to advertise the Cinecolor process(!) <br /><br />The script sends ferocious Navajos on the warpath to avenge the killing of two of their band by an outlaw trio. By the end of the film, what looks like a hundred Navajos and cavalrymen have bitten the dust (thanks to repeated footage of the same characters dying over and over.) But the chief is satisfied once he sees the trio of badguys have been slain. As the singer helpfully informs those of us who weren't paying attention, the Navajos ride away, their battle called off. The cavalry captain, surrounded by the corpses of his fallen comrades, cheerily waves his appreciation.<br /><br />The direction could most charitably be described as wooden, or more to the point, Wood-en. Navajos are consistently shot off their horses in pairs -- never just one. Virtually every red man on foot dies by throwing his hands in the air and keeling over. The film also employs the most cautious stuntmen in Hollywood, who crouch before dropping off a one-story roof (and still fail to stick the landing) or turn to look behind them as they slide, "dead", down a rocky slope.<br /><br />The star is Brian Donlevy, who surely deserves an Oscar for not blushing. After the endless final battle scene -- "climax" is scarcely the word -- he scans a list of the dozens of his troopers killed, and shrugs, "It could've been a LOT worse." Trooper Andy Devine gets to sing and robber/murderer Gig Young laughs at Andy's antics...which leads a character who had been held up by masked bandits to rat Gig out: "I'd know that laugh anywhere!" <br /><br />And lest anyone forget just what a nasty piece of work Howard Hughes could be, recall that as head of RKO, Hughes was first in line to blacklist original star Howard Da Silva when HUAC denounced him. It would take Hughes another six years to finish running that once-celebrated studio into the ground, but it didn't help things when he insisted on reshooting Da Silva's every scene for this film, substituting Donlevy.<br /><br />It was nearly a decade before Da Silva was able to work in Hollywood again. But all things considered, for getting him out of "Slaughter Trail", he should have sent Hughes a thank-you note.
Slaughter Trail is a B western with some grand pretensions. But it's come down in Hollywood history for a most ignominious reason.<br /><br />Watching this film with it's musical score which can only be described as overbearing, I have a feeling what Howard Hughes was trying to do is recruit a singing cowboy for RKO films. They already had Tim Holt who was as reliable a B picture cowboy hero there ever was, but he was not a singer. I guess Hughes saw what money Herbert J. Yates was raking in with Roy Rogers over at Republic and decided he'd get one as well.<br /><br />So Terry Gilkyson who was a very good performer and much better song writer got recruited and sang some of his material which was not his best and worse, looked like they were shoehorned into the picture. But worse than that, there's this annoying chorus which sang a lot of the story and frankly overwhelmed the actors, extras, even the horses. Needless to say Terry never got to be a singing cowboy. But he did write such classics as The Bare Necessities and Dean Martin's great hit, Memories are Made of This.<br /><br />The plot concerns an inside woman on a stagecoach jewel robbery. That's right, the outlaws who are Gig Young, Myron Healey, and Ken Koutnik plant Virginia Grey in the coach as a passenger which they receive word is carrying some valuable jewels. <br /><br />It's a great act Grey and Young pull off. Young takes her away from the coach to presumably a fate worse than death and they do properly act out the scene within earshot of the passengers, but what he does is slip her the swag. Last place the authorities might look, if she doesn't run off with it.<br /><br />But when they flee the robbery it's on tired horses so they stop at a cabin to take some replacement mounts and shoot three Navajos who object. That puts the Navajos back on the warpath, didn't help that one of the casualties was Chief Ric Roman's brother.<br /><br />That's the situation that Captain Brian Donlevy at the fort has to deal with when the coach and the outlaws arrive there for protection. How it all works out is predictable, but in a gaudy sort of overproduced way.<br /><br />In fact that's the problem with Slaughter Trail. It's a simple no frills B western that got souped up into something almost grotesque.<br /><br />But the real reason Slaughter Trail entered into history is that this film apparently marks the official beginning of the blacklist. Originally Howard DaSilva was to play Donlevy's part and may have in fact completed his scenes, when Howard Hughes officially fired him for Communist sympathies. His scenes were completely re-shot with Brian Donlevy in the lead.<br /><br />Considering what a fiasco this film turned into, I'm not sure whether Donlevy or DaSilva ought to have thanked Hughes or kicked him in his private preserve.
Intriguing premise should have been a 20 minute short. That's how long it would take his biological parents to think, "Hmm, we lost one son (and never found him) who is about his age, and he looks like our remaining son. Oh, yes, and he's a runaway. Hmm." But no, this is the most clueless family in history. And the conclusion, while trying to jerk tears, manages only to induce more groans of disbelief.
Pretty twisted Horror film, that has a few good moments here and there, with some creepy Blood transfusion scenes, however it's just too dull for it's own good. All the characters are OK, and the story while had a lot of potential is rather dull, however the blood transfusion scenes looked frighteningly real, and as a result they were extremely disturbing. It's well made and decently written, and it started out really interesting, but it just couldn't keep up the pace, plus I found the ending to be disappointing. Linnea Quigley has no more then a very small role in this so, I was also disappointed about that, and Stephen Knight does a good job as the lead, as he was pretty twisted, plus I got this in a DVD Horror set called A Taste Of Evil, along with a bunch of other Horror films. There is lots of blood,however it's not all that gory, and for it's low budget it was pretty well done, however as I said it just couldn't sustain it's interest. This is a pretty twisted Horror film, that has a few good moments here and there, with some creepy blood transfusion scenes, however it's just too dull for it's own good, I would pass,but I guess it's worth a watch if you have nothing better to do. The Direction is OK. Elly Kenner&Norman Thaddeus Vane do an OK job here with decent camera work, and doing a good job on it's low budget, however the pace is too inconsistent for my liking. The Acting is actually alright. Stephen Knight is great as the lead, he was creepy, twisted, sick, and gave a very creepy performance, the most creepy thing about it though was he seemed like a normal person. Linnea Quigley did well in her small role. Christopher McDonald is OK I guess sin his short time. Rest of the cast are OK as well. Overall I would pass, but I guess it's worth a watch if you have nothing absolutely better to do. *1/2 out of 5
During filming, was Vanessa Redgrave taking mogadon? It was like she was reading from an autocue. I've seen more life in a wooden spoon. Or perhaps that was all part of the character? whatever, it was very very annoying, I kept wanting to shake the screen to hurry her up. I read the book a long time ago & didn't like much about it except that Septimus's descent into madness was very well done - but I don't think Rupert Graves showed this very well, his acting was all on the surface. The connection between his life and Clarissa's is not very well done either but I suspect the attempt is to show the sacrifice soldiers made to enable people like Clarissa to continue their vapid lives. The film is very bitty and has no real unity to it. Hated it.
One of the most boring,pointless movies I have ever seen. The title character is self-centered, self-absorbed and wholly distasteful. The secondary plot line is incomprehensible and its relation to the primary plot line is mystifying. Hated it.
I usually like period films but this one just seemed to drag and drag. I'd perk up during Rupert Graves' scenes, but Vanessa Redgrave just put me to sleep.<br /><br />I was disappointed in the film. It lacked a little "punch" at the end that I'd hoped it would have.
Can you say "Boring" with a capital B! It's slower than watching grass grow! It's more boring than watching paint dry! You'll sleep right through it.....we all did.....don't do it...you'll regret it!
I couldn't believe this was the same director as Antonia's Line.<br /><br />This film has it all, a boring plot, disjointed flashbacks, a subplot that has nothing to do with the main plot what so ever, and totally uninteresting characters. It was painful to watch. Soooo, painful.
I kept waiting for the film to move me, inspire me, shock me, sadden me in some way but it stirred none of my emotions. It just meandered along to the end. None of the characters seemed very unique or complex, they just seemed like actors reciting their lines. I think it could have been a better movie if the characters expressed more emotion. The only one who did and was believable was the veteran and he probably committed suicide just to get out of the movie as soon as he could. It was a waste of talent, film, their time, and mine. If there is a message or meaning or genius in this story, it certainly is well-hidden or I am very dense, which I doubt.
Since I was just finishing the book, `Mrs. Dalloway' by Virginia Woolf, I was excited to see that it was on one of the movie channels last weekend. What I encountered, however, is a film that was boring, incomprehensible and non-sensical. One cannot entirely blame the film, it tried the best it could with the material it had, but when the source material is Virginia Woolf, and is almost entirely written in stream-of-conscience style with extended periods of internalizing and little actual dialogue, one would certainly think that there shouldn't be a film made from it just because a film can be made from it. <br /><br />Vanessa Redgrave, who plays the title character, does not deserve any blame for the failure of this film, nor do any of the other actors. It is just simply a film that could not intelligibly be made from the story that Woolfe wrote, and should not have even been attempted. Don't watch the movie, read the book. <br /><br />--Shelly
In the 1940s, Veronica Lake made a meteoric rise to film stardom, thanks to her sultry beauty and, her highly exploited "peekaboo" hairstyle. She starred opposite big names like Alan Ladd and Fredric March, scoring screen successes in films like "This Gun For Hire" and "I Married A Witch". She held her own with female stars as well, and she surprised even her detractors with her performance as a bitter navy nurse in "So Proudly We Hail". But changing times and her own failings caught up with her, and by the end of the decade, her heyday was over. With two unsuccessful marriages behind her (and two more in her future) Veronica headed for New York City, where she made occasional television and summer stock appearances before dropping completely out of sight. It was briefly big news when she was found working as a barmaid in a second rate hotel in the early sixties. But by now, her longtime alcoholism and years of hard living had robbed her of her looks. Without them, public interest in her soon faded again. She did return to the stage in assorted vehicles, but her success was minimal. Eventually, she relocated to Miami, Florida, where she lived in relative obscurity. In 1966 she went to Canada for a part in an obscure movie called "Footsteps In The Snow" which had no U.S. release. The following year, she was discovered by some industrial filmmakers who had long wanted to produce a commercial feature. They approached her to star in their film "Time Is Terror" and convinced her to invest in the project. As one author put it, "If ever a movie queen suffered a terminal comedown, this was it". Surrounded by amateur performers and pathetic production values, she failed even to rise to a minimal level in this Miami, Florida shot quickie. Looking utterly ordinary in long shots, and luridly aged in close-ups, poor Veronica didn't act so much as walk through her part. As a deranged doctor, who has hit upon a successful youth restoration formula, using flesh-eating maggots!, she looks both bored and confused, her most unintentionally hilarious moment coming when she is forced to ad-lib while she struggles gamefully to don a pair of rubber gloves. The supporting cast is no help at all, merely advancing the plot by talking it to death. Director Brad Grinter apparently only required the actors to move while the camera was pointed at them, no need for anything resembling entertainment (There is, admittedly, one unintentionally hilarious scene involving a Private Detective/Nurse and a corpse in a wheelchair that predates ''Weekend At Bernie's'' by almost 20 years.) According to Veronica herself, the film was shelved for three years because no master shots were filmed. But in 1970, the production company scraped it together, changed the title to "Flesh Feast", and released it to cash in on Lake's just published biography. And, because former leading ladies such as Bette Davis, Joan Crawford and Olivia De Havilland had unexpectedly revived their careers in horror movies, this travesty was promoted as Veronica's "comeback film". This seems a strange course of action for the filmmakers to pursue, though, because it's unlikely that the (young) audience for a horror film of this quality either knew or cared who Veronica Lake was. As expected, it did nothing for Veronica's career, and she died in poverty, three years later. A previous reviewer cites a scene in which the female detective working undercover as a nurse in the doctor's laboratory (overseeing the theft of bodies from a nearby morgue) enlists the help of a multi-talented chauffeur to cut up the body parts. "Poor Mrs. Lustig," she sighs, "I hope she doesn't mind leaving her body to science." "Try not to think about it," advises the chauffeur, sawing away. "I guess you are right, Hans." concludes the detective/nurse, "What is done is done." What a sad end to the career of a still fondly remembered star.
Once upon a time, way back in the 1940's, there lived an actress named Veronica Lake. A beautiful, talented young woman who was once in high demand for many big-budget, Hollywood pictures. Fast Forward to the late 1960's, age, alcoholism, and all-around bad luck has tarnished everyones favorite actress. Now a hasbeen, Miss Lake decides the time has come to follow in the foot steps of her peers(?), Joan Crawford, and Bette Davis, and fall back on good ol' reliable Horror. But Flesh Feast? Really? She couldn't have possibly been that washed up. To put it delicately, Flesh Feast is a lifeless pile garbage, possibly one of the top 5 worst films I've ever seen, and I've seen them all. Lake plays a scientist, who is plotting, with Nazi's, to bring Hitler back to life, with youth restoration experiments involving maggots, that's right, maggots. Unless you're a huge fan of Heather Hughes, run away and never look back!! <br /><br />I know very little about this Veronica Lake person, as well as 40's flicks, but to think that such a successful career actually became that dismal, is actually pretty sad. Flesh Feast is almost impossible to get through, and by almost, I mean absolutely. Directed by Brad Grinter, director of Nudist Camp pictures, and the man who, coincidentally brought us the greatest B-movie ever made, Blood Freak, just a couple years later. One has to wonder, is this what Blood Freak would have been like if Grinter hadn't co-directed with Steve Hawkes? If so, then God bless Steve Hawkes. You wouldn't think that a Religious, dope-blood craving, Turkey Monster could be THAT much better than experiments involving Maggots and Hitler, but it really, really is. So forget you ever heard of this one and go find Blood Freak, it's just waiting to entertain you. Fast Forward a couple years later, Veronica Lake dies of Hepititas, broke, and forgotten. The End. I hate you, Flesh Feast. 1/10
Flesh Feast starts at Miami Airport, ace reporter Dan Carter (Harry Kerwin, he is also credited as production designer) phones his mate Ed Casey (Phil Philbin) to let him know that he has just returned from South America where he has been investigating Carl Schuman (Doug Foster) & that he was onto a big story but while still talking on the phone he is stabbed in the back & killed. Schuman meets Dr. Elaine Frederick (Veronica Lake, she also executive produced) who has recently been released from a mental institution, together they discuss their grisly plans. The news of Cater's death has reached Casey & he decides to take the story up himself & do some investigating, well actually he gets his secretary Viginia Day (Marth Mischon) to do most of the investigating & just report back to him, lazy bugger. Virginia informs Casey that they have someone on the inside named Kristine (Heather Hughes) since Dr. Frederick rents her spare rooms out to nurses, Kristine reports back to Casey about Schuman & Dr. Frederick's grotesque youth restoration experiments involving human flesh & specially cultivated maggots...<br /><br />Co written, co-produced & directed by Brad F. Grinter Flesh Feast is a pretty poor film on all accounts. First lets start with the script by Grinter & Thomas Casey who was also responsible for the cinematography (you get the feeling that most of the cast & crew had more than one job), basically it's terrible. The character's are one dimensional idiots & have no personality, I didn't like anyone in this film. For what it's worth I quite like some of the ideas here, the flesh-eating maggots, the basement laboratory, stealing bodies from a hospital & that unforgettable 'twist' ending that's almost worth sitting through the rest of the film for on it's own. Unfortunately the dialogue is so badly written, stiff & unnatural sounding it's untrue, I mean there is one scene in which a nurse says that they "won't let us out of the house" which is fine except for the fact that she is speaking OUTSIDE in the garden to someone. No thought has been put into the story as no explanation is ever given for why flesh-eating maggots are able to restore youth, in fact at one point near the end when questioned about this very thing Dr. Frederick claims there is no time to explain at that point which to me sounds like the people who wrote this didn't have a clue either! Even at an extremely short 68 minutes long Flesh Feast is very slow & dull, the poor editing doesn't help with scenes & shots lasting for far too long, for example there is a scene in which an Ambulance pulls up outside a Hospital, drives up to the doors, the guy gets out, he walks to the back doors & opens them etc. etc. did we really need to see every single detail? There is also another sequence in which Dr. Frederick enters room & puts some gloves on, then she takes them off walks into the opposite room & puts another pair on! I personally think that Grinter probably didn't shoot enough material so he stretches every scene out as much as he can to make the run time up. I do like that bizarre ending though, I really do. Technically Flesh feast is complete crap, I'm not sure what the budget was on this but it must have been small, very small. Just about the entire film takes place in one house, Dr. Frederick's laboratory consists of a table, some plastic beakers & test tubes, some ancient looking electronic medical equipment & a strange screen with funny colours on it (don't ask). The cinematography is poor, the music sucks & the entire film looks dubbed, badly dubbed too. The exploitation elements are also disappointing, there are a few maggot shots but they don't actually do anything other than wriggle a bit, there is a brief scene where a dead body has it's leg sawn off & a OK looking dismembered corpse & limbs hanging on hooks. The acting is awful from everyone concerned, & I mean really bad which makes the rubbishy dialogue even worse. Do yourself a favour & avoid Flesh Feast, yes there are one or two unintentionally funny moments & that ending is, well unique to say the least but for the most part this is real amateur film-making that quickly becomes painful to watch. I doubt most people will make it through this is one sitting, I can tolerate just about anything but even I considered switching it off. Definitely one to avoid, you'll be pleased you did & if you really have to see it don't say you weren't warned!
***BIG SPOILERS!*** "Flesh Feast" of 1970 is a more than unworthy conclusion to the great Veronica Lake's career. This has the wide reputation of being an awful stinker, and rightly so, I must say. As a huge fan of low-budget Horror/Exploitation, especially from the 70s, I nonetheless chose to watch this, mainly due to the cool camp-looking picture on this site, but after watching it I had to recognize that the picture actually has nothing to do with the film. The picture here on this site is the cover of a DVD collection entitled 'Flesh Feast' containing four films, including Sergio Martino's "Mountain Of The Cannibal God" and Dal Tenney's "I Eat Your Skin". What the collection does not include, however, is this boring turkey. "Flesh Feast" is not only camp and ridiculous, but mostly quite tedious, which is even more pathetic regarding that the film is only 70 minutes long. Also, don't get fooled by the title, the film is not gory at all. Yet it is watchable, if only for its trashiness and, especially, the extremely stupid, but therefore somewhat entertaining ending. The film follows a ridiculous plot about Dr. Elaine Frederick (Veronica Lake), an ingenious female scientist who can somehow rebuild youth with the help of flesh-eating maggots (don't ask how). A bunch of criminals (or terrorists, or whatever), who are paid by a radical political group assign the doctor to restore the youth of a 'mysterious' commander. After an endless hour of nonsensical drivel, it turns out that the mysterious commander is actually Hitler himself. It was quite obvious before, but I still had to burst out laughing because the film's finale was so unbelievably silly and unintentionally hilarious... This is a film that is very inadequate as the last film of a great actress and former beauty queen like Veronika Lake. Except for lake, the performances are ridiculously bad, even for a zero-budget production like this. Bad performances, however, are something I can easily forgive in films like this one. What I can not forgive, though, is extreme boredom. The final five minutes make this watchable for hardcore fans of camp stuff, but I would still recommend to skip it.
The plot here is simple. Country boy, Lem (Farrell) goes to the city to sell the wheat crop, falls in love with a waitress, Kate (Duncan) and marries her, bringing her home to a hostile father and a group of woman-hungry reapers. There are shades of THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WANTED and MICE AND MEN here. The courtship, taking place in two lengthy sequences set in the restaurant, consume the first half hour and are lethargically paced. Lem is so weak he allows his father to mistreat his wife, who is propositioned by Mac (Richard Alexander) , one of the reapers, to come away with him. Duncan and Alexander are the only good things in this tedious potboiler, which lacks the insights and the cinematic beauty we expect from Murnau. Farrell's character has no backbone so we wind up rooting for a "real man" (Mac) to take Kate away from it all. With audience sympathy skewed, the film loses its narrative progression. The father's conversion at film's end is unrealistic and unbelievable, making for a contrived denouement. This film is for fans of the stars and the director only - general audiences need not bother.
...and I Bought A Vampire Motorcycle staggers all over that line like a drunk with his shoelaces tied together. Some 'bad' films are quite enjoyable (like Norman J.Warren's Inseminoid), some 'bad' films are just bad (like Kent Bateman's Headless Eyes), but 'bad' films that try and do the post-modernist thing of being knowingly bad should always be approached with extreme caution. A lot of people think Troma's Terror Firmer is a bad-taste masterpiece, for example, but I'm guessing anyone over the age of nineteen will shrug it off as worthless dreck. Then there's John Carpenter's Dark Star. Yes, it's quaint, and certainly a product of its time, but as a film it's only two notches above worthless. This no-budget British black comedy-horror outing tries to achieve a satirical tone, with its endless references to its fellow shoestring splatter flicks (among them Psychomania, Horror Hospital and pretty much anything by Pete Walker), but due to dismal performances by second-string TV actors (the leading lady looks like Amy Winehouse), a script that appears to have been written on the back of a peeled beermat by two 'lads' with no understanding of how film comedy works, Dean Friedman's (intentionally?) dire elevator-rock soundtrack and production values never rising above mediocre, the net result is a film that can only be laughed AT, rather than WITH. If your idea of whoopee is anthropomorphic turds, Chinese takeaways called Fu King and references to long-forgotten TV ads, you'll enjoy this one, but don't expect too much.
Dreadful! A friend of mine (who obviously thought I had an abysmal sense of humour) recommended this.<br /><br />It's bobbins. I almost switched it off. It is only my anal desire to not leave things unfinished that prevented me doing so.<br /><br />This was evidently a British attempt to make a movie with a bunch of also ran TV actors using some lame script from their mate in the business. I struggle to think of anything even approaching the paucity of this movie. Less funny than global warming.<br /><br />I'm not normally so vehement, but I watched this well over ten years ago and thought that I wasted an hour or so of my life on it is destructive.<br /><br />Puerile, plot less, useless tosh.<br /><br />I'd rather eat my feet than watch it again.
After his widower father dies in a horsing accident, young Tom Burlinson (as Jim Craig) is left to manage his Australian "Snowy River" farm, with only wizened, peg-legged prospector Kirk Douglas (as Spur) to help. Times are hard, so Mr. Burlinson goes to work for Mr. Douglas' wealthy, silver-haired brother rancher "Mr. Harrison" (also played by Kirk Douglas). When a big job comes up, the silver-haired (older?) Douglas feels Burlinson is too young and inexperienced to go along; so, Burlinson stays behind, and falls in love with the boss' daughter, Sigrid Thornton (as Jessica Harrison).<br /><br />The least satisfactory aspect of director George Miller's "The Man from Snowy River" is a weak storyline. Observe, for example, the "Jessica is lost" sequence of events. The damsel gets lost in one of those "freak" storms, while running away. Her worried father rounds up a posses of drunk men to find her, after predicting bad weather. Damsel "Jessica" rolls herself on to the edge of a conveniently appearing cliff. Father and the suddenly sober men don't check Burlinson's farm. Hero Burlinson discovers the damsel. After building a fire, he decides to kiss her.<br /><br />The "romance" is played too innocently for as obvious an attracted man and woman as Burlinson and Ms. Thornton. To make matters worse, the Douglas brothers have a "dark history" which is revealed before any mystery is built up regarding the matter. The main attraction, herein, is the Australian scenery.<br /><br />**** The Man from Snowy River (1982) George Miller ~ Tom Burlinson, Kirk Douglas, Sigrid Thornton
A tedious yawn of a film that retains nothing of the zing and raciness of its predecessor, "Gold Diggers of 1933." The Production Code was firmly in place by the time of this film's release, so the humour is all of the hokey, wocka-wocka variety and gone are the dry one-liners that sounded so cosmopolitan dripping off the lips of the gorgeous dames from the first film. A cast of second-tier stars and character actors go through the motions here, and the "puttin' on a show" motif seems awfully forced; instead of the make or break world of Broadway, the show here is a charity event hosted by a swanky hotel. Who really cares whether or not the show goes on? The score here is bland too. Of course the movie's big number is "Lullaby of Broadway," which accompanies a long fantasy dance number about a New York socialite's eventual demise from too much partying--doesn't exactly have the same effect as the searing "Forgotten Man" number used as the finale in '33. Busby Berkeley directs as well as choreographs this film, and whatever promise is built up in the film's fluid opening scenes quickly deteriorates. Unfortunately, no one learned any lessons from this, and there was yet another Gold Diggers movie two years later.<br /><br />Grade: C-
It's impossible to make a film based on such a book as the "Brothers Karamzov" by F.M. Dostojevsky.<br /><br />Richard Brooks is a great director, but that film is on a very low level.<br /><br />The worst part of the film was the ending. Well, let's think of the book. In the end we have the "guilty" Dimitrij Karamazov. Afterwards they sent him to Siberia. In the end, the famous epilogues of Dostojevsky, the friends and family making a plan to save him. But that's it ... a nd now the film takes two steps more and shows us an illusion ending of the escape of Dimitry and Gruschenka(I think). just from the moral point I'm sure that Dostojevsky would finish the book with an open end because one the one hand he is not guilty(Smerdjakov is the real murderer) and so he have to be a free man. But on the other hand he goes to his father to kill him, so he has decided to commit the crime... that's a moral dilemma and so the following point is an open end...well, for real ,it's just not full open.<br /><br />William Shatner as Aljoscha Karamazov... I'm sorry! --> NO!!!<br /><br />The others characters playing in a good performance as we have to expect it from such great actors ... In front of course a superb performance of Yul Breynner as Dimitrij. I think that there are not many actors who can play this part in a better way.<br /><br />But as I said in the beginning: This book is unadaptable. It never should be film in two hours that's impossible. I think that there are some 'longer films, so maybe they could do the right thing... But I just keep the opinion that this book can't be adapted.<br /><br />So - 3 points:<br /><br />A point for the great director Richard Brooks <br /><br />A point for a superb performance of Yul Brynner<br /><br />Finally: A point for one of the greatest writers of all time: Dostojevsky
Apparently SHRUNKEN HEADS was the last movie that Julius Harris had a role in. I have not seen all of his movies, but Julius Harris was in many good movies, and I remember him best from "Live and Let Die" where he played Tee-Hee and which was full of Voodoo references, something that is common here in South Florida! I always thought LIVE AND LET DIE was a great movie because it had some atmosphere and mystique, unlike most of the 007 movies. In SHRUNKEN HEADS, Julius Harris is back in his Voodoo persona! He has a great style for mystery and the occult, and his part in this movie is excellent. Sadly, the rest of the movie is something of a comedy. SPOILERS: Three kids who look like they were fired from the cast of THE LITTLE RASCALS get killed by a neighborhood hoodlum who looks like he got fired from the cast of FAME! or as a dancer on DICK CLARK'S AMERICAN BANDSTAND. In other words, these kids give LOW BUDGET another dimension. Julius Harris goes to the mortuary-Funeral Home, cuts off the three kids' heads (and nobody notices) and then takes them to his Condominium Unit where he has a giant cauldron of boiling liquids. The three heads get tossed in, along with some herbs, spices, and Voodoo items. At some point Mr. Harris has the ugly little heads on a table and he spills his blood on them, and they come to life as talking heads! They can fly, make jokes, roll their eyes, and exact vengeance from the Evil-Doers. They usually look pretty funny flying around, but the effects are not bad. For some reason, one of the kids always has a switch-blade in his mouth, and he uses it to slice people's necks and to cut holes into tires. This movie is weird and funny, but only the first time you see it. Meg Foster is in this movie and she looks fatter than Rosie O'Donnell and Meg plays a masculine leader of the local gangsters. Strange movie.
This is one odd film. It seems to be aimed at a younger audience, but is filled with sexual innuendos. The whole premise is rather absurd, not just the idea of some shrunken heads of three dead kids doing some crime fighting, but the same said kids taking on a gang of tough older guys is a little far-fetched, but then again, the parents are mainly absent in the film and there is a lack of authority figures to keep the kids in line.<br /><br />The cast are good though, Meg Foster plays a very butch mafia-like leader, with the handsome A.J. Damato as the leader of the bullies. Aerky Egan and Rebecca Herbst are well cast as the young lovers, though for a comic actress of her talent, Leigh Allyn Baker is notoriously wasted in this film.<br /><br />Overall, the film is unusual, but I don't think that is enough to make up for the poor quality and bumbling execution. The scenery is all rather dull and the "special effects" quite dismal. Sit this one out, unless your in the mood.
This is quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen. I would think you could get that from the title. Also, there is a particular love scene that could be the strangest in the history of film. I can't even remember why I saw this film or when. Only that is an absolutely horrible movie-viewing experience. On the other hand, if you are looking for the absolute weirdest movie to waste two hours of your time, then by all means rent it. Good luck finding it at your local store though. I doubt this movie is in a very wide-distribution. And please do not show this to children by any means as it may warp their impressionable minds forever.
Being a former MST3k watcher, even I found this movie unwatchable. The awful attempts at humor-heck the awful attempts at acting. Nobody needs to read a harangue on this piece of junk.<br /><br />I just like how all the positive reviews were clearly written by cast members or family friends. Just click on their other reviews and wow--they are all reviewing Modern Vampires. Give me a couple of bucks and I can make a movie better than this. One of the most incompetent pieces of film-making I've ever seen and that's saying something. Watch at your own risk.<br /><br />Rating: 0/10
I am appalled to see that so many people have given positive reviews for this "film". This movie has no redeeming factors. The music is not good, the acting is pathetic, I have a difficult time understanding how someone could enjoy this movie, let alone sing its "praises". The idea is horrible, certain scenes linked to the plot (such as the continued love story even though the male romantic interest is a SHRUNKEN HEAD) are so bad that I wanted to do myself bodily harm while watching them. The fact that there is scene in which a shrunken head flies under a girls' shirt so he can "feel her up" AND she likes it is reason enough for everyone associated with this film to perish. The link to West Side Story can only be a mockery, since to reference such a great movie in such a horrible one is grounds alone to destroy all copies of this movie. To make a long story short, this film is horrible in every way. And if I had my way, everyone who likes it should go straight to hell....
Nine out of nine people who watched this have declared themselves to be mentally scarred for life. No-one should ever have to see this abomination. The English Language is poorly equipped to express how utterly, dreadfully atrocious this "film" is. It's really not worth the plastic it's made of. No greater crime has been committed by the human race in the entire history of creation; never is there likely to be anything worse.<br /><br />It was agreed unanimously that the scene involving the shrunken head of Tommy and the young girl's blouse was unbelievably sick and twisted; in fact many of us have not yet recovered from the ordeal and are currently sitting in the corner of the room rocking, sucking our thumbs and whimpering.<br /><br />The fundamental question on everyone's lips, however, has to be "Why???". How is it possible for anyone to create such a monstrosity and then subject it to so many innocent people? After viewing the trailer we thought that this film might be a laugh: how wrong we were.<br /><br />Please sign the petition to rid the world of "Shrunken Heads" so that no other poor civilians be exposed to it. Please, for the good of humanity.
This may just be the worst movie ever produced. Worst plot, worst acting, worst special effects...be prepared if you want to watch this. The only way to get enjoyment out of it is to light a match and burn the tape of it, knowing it will never fall into the hands of any sane person again.
My jaw fell so many times watching this flick, I have bruises. Okay, granted, I really wasn't expecting the quality of, say, The Others or even Thirteen Ghosts (the new one, which was just dreadful and is still head and shoulders above this insanity). Someone else noted the thin characters...I wouldn't call them "thin". "Thin" implies there might be something to them. How about almost non-existent? In no particular order we have: The Girl Who Will Scream; The American Who Will Figure It All Out; The Macho Guy Who Will Just Bull Through Everything Until He Gets Killed: The Wise Black Man Who Will Die Early; The Extra Guy Who Is There To Die First; The Extra Woman Who Is There To Play Tough. That's it. That's your character list and that is what they are and what they remain from beginning to end. If they were "thin" they might, at least, change a little bit from beginning to end. But they don't. Well, okay, the American guy decides he's going to stay with the fieldwork at the end and the Screaming Girl goes back to wherever she came from. That's the change. Other than that, they all act according to their assigned roles and rarely betray any real emotion when they finally meet up with the menace.<br /><br />Now, the producers get props for an original menace, I will say. I had understood the story was going to be "Tremors" but with ants instead of giant worms. I give the writer credit: these are very cool, very scary ants and what they do with bones is excellent. (The first time the "bone snatcher" appear, I admit I jumped a few feet.)Unfortunately, the very cool concept becomes Alien in the Desert very quickly. We get a lot of commentary on ants that may or may not be true, but we don't get much of the mythology on which the menace is based. And we get every monster movie cliché ever made. People go into places they know they shouldn't and when they have no compelling reason to. Moronic characters try to hinder our heroes and die for it. One character does double duty as "scientist who doesn't want to kill the monster but study it". A Very Cool Gadget is introduced only so the American can tell everyone something about ants that, gee, I hope everyone knows anyway. Then the gadget is broken. Our heroes run out of the one thing that can keep the menace at bay. And then there is that final, annoying moment when we know the menace is still with us--and wonder exactly what and how the hey the hero or heroine came by it. It completely renders everything that went before as useless and false.<br /><br />Three stars for the cool use of ants and bones. Nothing at all for clichés, clunky dialogue and dim bulb characters.
"The Bone Snatcher" starts out extremely promising, with the introduction of a new and original type of unseen evil as well as with the use of the sublimely isolated filming location of the African desert. Whilst checking pipelines out in the desert, three miners are attacked and killed by a seemingly unworldly creature that devours their flesh and only leaves a pile of half-eaten bones. The expedition crew sent to rescue them discovers that the monster is a superiorly mutated ant-queen, and pretty soon they find themselves trapped in the uncanny desert as well. Director Jason Wulfsohn sustains a respectable level of tension just until the nature of the monster is identified. Immediately after that, the film rapidly turns into an ordinary creature-feature with all the characters dropping out of the survival-race one by one. The second half of "The Bone Snatcher" is unendurably boring; with the inevitable love-story clichés as well as a complete absence of gory murder set pieces. The characters all are insufferable stereotypes that act and say exactly what you predict several minutes in advance. There's the rookie who has to prove himself, the female with brain-capacity apart from her hot looks, the obnoxious experienced guy who redeems himself at the end through self-sacrifice and – last but not least – who could forget the wise black guy who refers to the monster using all kind of voodoo names. Wulfsohn tries too hard to make his monster look like the outer space menaces of "Alien" and "Predator". The ant-creature has infrared-vision and crumbles when shot at, yawn! The movie actually just benefits from its unique setting and the handful of nasty images of decomposed bodies. This could have been a modest gem, but instead it's less than mediocre. Avoid.
This horror movie starts out promisingly enough and there is a moment where I thought to myself "this is going to be really good". However, it gets rather boring rather quick at the end. The acting is fairly good, as is the location and the story starts out rather well too. The problem, not enough kills on screen and an ending where you have the monster basically turning tail and running. I wanted to see more, especially after a very good sleeping bag scene where I thought the movie was picking up and going to be a winner. Unfortunately after that the movie showed the monster very little and the back of the DVD lied as it told me that the desert beneath the people literally came alive and was capable of devouring their flesh...now that would have been some movie, a nearly inescapable situation. Granted that would have made viewers uncomfortable and it might of ramped up the tension, but that is what horror movies are supposed to do! Instead we have very few shots of the creature or creatures as it were and when we do see it, it is mainly on the defensive. Still it wasn't all bad, it just needed more horror less hunting and more chomping.
The Bone Snatcher is about a group miners who go on a search for a missing crew of miners in the Namib Desert. When the find them, they are nothing more than bones stripped clean and they could not have been dead for more than six hours. The story keeps you interested as to what exactly caused this. The characters are well enough, and the acting is pretty good.<br /><br />About an hour and ten minutes in when you find out what is causing the bones to be stripped clean, you sigh "oh, that is really stupid." The movie is ruined by bad writing and a non-exciting ending. Up until that point, the movie was pretty good, and it is a shame that it took such a bad turn. So I cannot recommend this movie. I gave it a 4/10.
This is another Alien imitation and not a very good one at that.Replace outer space with the South African desert,throw in the same ingredients,a group of people stranded in an inhospitable landscape, have them hunted down by an alien creature and you have the same old story of a very ordinary film trying to ape a classic film. A group of miners and scientists go on a hunt for some missing colleagues and find their bones in the desert stripped clean of flesh.Their vehicle breaks down and they head for civilisation while being stalked by the monster. The African location is pretty enough but that is basically all this film has going for it. There is a vain attempt to build up the tension but I found this didn't really work and made the film rather boring.The creature didn't appear much and when it did it didn't really install a feeling of horror.There is one scene where someone gets the flesh ripped from his arm but that was basically it on the gore front. In conclusion i found this film about as exciting as watching paint dry.I give this film 4/10 and that is only because of the interesting location which alone isn't enough to save this movie from being a total snooze-fest
I gave this movie 2 instead of 1 just just because I am a polite person. This movie made me loose 90 minutes of my life in which I could have done something useful for the human kind or just me. <br /><br />The dialog is poor, the actors never look scared! Even if it's supposed to be a horror movie. For example the scene in which Kurt collects the bones of his former colleague. He should be frightened, but he looks quite normal. The chick of the movie is such a cliché. The one thing I liked about her is the dress she wore in the final scene.And, by the way, the end was extremely predictable with the cocoon blinking pinkly in the box. As a matter of fact, I was thinking more of an ant walking around on the back seat of the car. But it still didn't surprise me.
I wasted 5 dollars renting this complete piece of crap. Dr. Zack is the most unlovable lead character i have ever seen. The movie was full of EVERY cliche you could ever think of and contained not a single OUNCE of originality. There was the typical sexism portrayed by rugged foreigners, all the guys had those 'too-proud to take advice' attitudes that are as stale as grandma's christmas fruitcake. The concept and deaths were really cool, but they lose all novelty once the monster is revealed. (read the SPOILER at the end) Nothing else is really revealed though, the ending is the biggest cop-out you've ever seen. I predicted everything before it happened, including who would die and how. The dialogue is lacking, and that's an understatement by far. There's mostly just random yelling, thoughtful staring, and chunky sentences. The actors are just GOD AWFUL! I don't want to talk about this movie anymore, it's making me angry. I just wonder if the director even watched it when it was done.<br /><br />(SPOILER ALERT!!!! SAVE 5 DOLLARS!) the monster is just a bunch of ants that "evolved" so now they need bones so they can move around, (nevermind the fact that this serves no evolutionary advantage whatsoever, and that the ants just killed whoever was available, though the movie acts like they kill out of necessity. This movie made me dumber.) The end consists of the lead idiot killing the mother ant (a big blob thing) which destroys all the other ants. Pretty cliche eh? He almost wusses out at the end because of a sudden emotional attachment to the mother-thing that overcomes him. Give me a break.
When I saw the poster at the theater, I thought that it is a "new line" of a horror story without a famous cast worth giving a try. But, after I went in, I wanted to leave after 20 minutes. There was a lot of non-sense and logical flaws. To me, it is a movie that is not worth putting in theaters. It is not even worth seeing.
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Some bunch of Afrikkaner-Hillbilly types are out in the desert looking for Diamonds when they find a hard mound in the middle of a sandy desert area. Spoilers: The dumbest one starts hitting the mound with a pick, and cracks it open. Then he looks into the hole and sticks his head in and SURPRISE! something eats him. The other two dimwits are not seen alive again. Scott Bairstow looks like a Pizza Delivery boy but he plays some kind of expert scientist with a medical degree (which means he should be about 35 years old, minimum). Bairstow is supposed to join Camp C and help them find diamonds. The truck that picks up Bairstow to take him to Camp C has a handful of the kind of weirdoes that usually populate movies like "PITCH BLACK" "THE THING" etc. The truck happens to drive across the first truck and they decide to investigate (how come that truck did not see the other truck when they were driving to pick up Bairstow, since they were travelling the same road??). So they find the eaten bodies, and there are some decent special effects relating to bones with little bits of flesh on them. The main lunatic in the group, Karl, decides that they must find the killer. So the truck drives around in the desert following some tracks, and eventually it has an electrical short and the crew is stuck in the desert. The dumbest guy in this group had picked up a bunch of bones using his jacket to carry them around. When he takes a nap (wearing the same jacket) the creatures eat him alive, and another guy runs over and sticks his arm into the goo and that dummy loses his arm too. Sounds exciting so far, except that a few minutes later, Dr. Bairstow realizes that the creature is really hundreds of thousands of ants who are using the bones to hold each other together so they can travel to a new hive (because the miners cracked open the old hive). Now, last time I checked, ants could move around on their own, without having to kill people in order to use the bones for structure. If all they need was something hard, they could have put a bunch of sticks together and used those to create a form. The whole story is really, really dumb, and the ant explanation is the only one given. The rest of the movie is just about the group getting killed off until they find the new ant-nest, and kill the ant-brain (sort-of), and the hundreds of thousands of ants then walk away on their own itty-bitty feet. There is a spare ant-brain found (off-camera) and sent back for analysis thus creating a reason for a sequel.
This horror tale takes place in the Namib Desert of Africa. A Canadian systems analyst, Zach Straker(Scott Bairstow)is sent on an assignment for a diamond mining company. Although he hates field work, he finds himself in a truck with a rescue unit in the open desert fighting sand flies and whipping, blowing sand. Four diamond prospectors are found...well whats left of their scattered bones are discovered. During a long cold desert night a shape-shifting monster makes its appearance. Zach and his colleagues are terrified when their truck is stranded and members of the unit are dying horribly one by one. There is no character development; let alone dialogue to speak of. The desert set in its own way is beautiful and without giving anything away... the creature is as old as the desert sands. Also in the cast are: Rachel Shelley, Warrick Grier and Patrick Shai.
no really, im not kidding around here folks, and i so cant believe how many people here have given it really really positive reviews! oh wait, its the IMDB comments section, silly me. its interesting to note that at this date, there have not been enough votes to give this film a rating out of ten, yet there are dozens of comments that rave about the film. what does this mean i wonder? anyway, the script IS terrible. character change their personality and motivation and actions every scene, in order to keep the movie running along at something that vaguely resembled a pace. it wasnt even dumb behaviour, that was there too, but the pure idiocy of the script transcended any dumbness the characters displayed. for instance: karl is disobeying an order because there are two dead bodies in the desert and "the killer is out here somewhere" so he forces everyone to travel 40kms in order to find the killer, disobeying orders and p*ssing everyone off. when the hero spots something nasty in the darkness and warns karl, karl tells our hero to stop being an idiot and that there's nothing out there so they are all going home. next scene, he is refusing to let it go and must hunt down whatever it is. it is just a joke. yes, the monster is very impressive, but the crap that the humans say about it just tries to cancel out its interesting aspects, and the predator and alien rip off moments were very tedious. and the ending...the ending!?!?! jesus....the worst film i saw the year, and i saw bug buster!
The name of this film and the clips that I saw caused me to believe that this film would have excitement and interesting moments. I was disappointed. The desert sands were interesting but this film inched along at a snails pace. It started fine with an underground cave and something coming out but then tried to involve us with the lives of some very unlikeable human beings. As they found dead bodies, or should I say, skeletons with some flesh on them, they began a search for the reason why? At times it became somewhat different as something was following them in the desert. Some type of black ooze or something that would begin to eat the flesh of humans. As the flesh was munched upon, a bag of bones began to creep after the remaining humans. The reason for this black ooze as we find out was pretty bad, ants? Unbelieveable! Then the ending made no sense. I guess the motto of this film will be, when you have an itch and see an ant, quickly kill it before the ant's friends smell your flesh.
I think the "Bone Snatcher" should go after anyone associated with this movie. Watching this will seem like the longest 90 minutes or so of your entire life. The plot is boring and stupid. There were no scenes that were horrifying, even remotely. If you manage to endure this fine piece of cinema art all the way to the end, you're either going to be highly disappointed or die laughing hysterically. I bought this movie based on some other reviews I'd read. I wish I had my money back. What a skunker. If you're looking for a horror movie that will hold your interest, watch "U Turn". It may be based on a kooky plot, but it's full of those creepy scenes that keep you jumping from beginning to end.
Such pain! Pain in the shape that it had promise in its central idea, but it never fully recognised it and goes on to blow a lot sand in your face. I wouldn't say this straight-to-video South African/Canadian/UK horror flick is awful, but its just too bland, predictable and there's just very little memorable about it. It's a guarantee you'll forget it, not too long after watching it. I tried watching it last night, but had to finish it during the morning, as I couldn't keep my eyes open. Even then I couldn't remember where I got up to, which left me watching it from the beginning again. The only thing that hit a chord was Andreas Poulsson's sharp cinematography of the vast, harsh and eerie desert locations. A nice glossy chic creates a striking visual sense, which can't save the film from that overall empty feeling. Everything else is below-par and almost comes off grating. Like the head-scratching revelation of the beast. Huh. The computer-generated special effects of the ominous monster are tolerable, and there are some grisly flashes of stripped flesh and bones. But there's too little, as there's no hiding the fact that the clichéd script wants to ponder on the generic character conflict to build tension and uncertainty. That would be fine if the wilted script was more than just basic, shallow fluff, because it never generated any strong, lasting suspense, but makes it uninterestingly labour on. The lead characters are superficial and the token support fall in the dispensable basket. It's your stereotypical bunch. Scott Bairstow and Warrick Grier's performances are colourless, and the beautiful Rachel Shelley tries but looks rather weary.
I's a big struggle. As a story that is surreal, this movie could've been great (as great as it is rated by some here), but mixed with the acting (director and relatives playing major roles, due to financial reasons I reckon) found in here ... although calling this acting, is not only a stretch of that word, it's giving it a new meaning! A whole new meaning! <br /><br />If you are into surreal movies (there are some that I do like actually, see the Japanese Strange Circus for example), you might be able to overlook the flaws (see above) and enjoy this more. There are great ideas here, after all! Many great metaphors and ambiguous scenes, but while watching this (with a group of friends) almost all of us, just couldn't stop laughing ... not the intention of the director of course! Again, everyone has their own liking, as one can see by the high rating of this movie, but I could only recommend the movie if you're aware of the work that Alejandro Jodorowsky has done and/or are a fan of his!
I'm going to be generous here and give it a 3 only because I live in Huntsville and it was great to see how well the city was filmed. That said, this movie was pretty bad. It's like they started off with hardly any script and the director just told the actors to stare at each other meaningfully with a lot of music playing over it. And Billy D. Williams looked like he'd rather be anywhere but in this movie. It's just a mess. I think I could write a script better than the dislodge for this film, and I'm no writer.<br /><br />There is one thing I've seen mentioned throughout the reviews and message boards--everyone is under the impression that the movie begins around World War 2 and actually it seemed more like it was supposed to start out in the late 1950's/early 1960's. While the military was not segregated by then, I'm pretty sure that any troops waiting to board a train would still be segregated in a place like Huntsville, Al. If the beginning of film was supposed to be the 1940's, then Billy D, Lesley Ann & Rae Dawn would have to have been in the 70's and 80's instead of their mid 50's or early 60's.<br /><br />Don't waste your time unless you really, really like the actors because the story isn't very interesting.
This movie is absolutely horrible! I thought because it had good actors in it like Gabrielle Union, Hill Harper, and of course the infamous Billy D. Williams. The movie is long, and drags on with a documentary style of showing Gabrielle Union, who has died in the movie, talking about her family; which by the way is a confusing family because you never know who's who, and who's related to who. I would not recommend this movie to anyone, and I wish I could take it back where I got it from. I fell asleep from time to time because of the boredom. Do not waste your time or money on this movie. It could had been more true to life with more drama, and less boredom.
This film wasn't good at all. I was able to catch it at a film festival and didn't appreciate the content I was forced to watch. It's a well shot film about family looking to reconnect after the death of the family's cornerstone (Gabrielle Union) dies. the film stars Billy Dee Williams as Gabrielle's Union's brother. Well, actually, Gabrielle Union portrayed the woman in her early years, which should help explain why the woman was Billy Dee Williams older sister. This had to be Billy Dee William's worst performance in his career, ever. He looked as if he didn't remember his lines in a few scenes. He was an unlikable, hardly ever empathetic character, who fathered a daughter while married to a white woman whom he already had a daughter with as well. The two daughters are older now and while the daughter he had with the white woman (Lucy) was trying to connect with him, his other daughter didn't want anything to do with him. Billy Dee's character was so pathetic that the only way they can get him to fly in from Paris for his sister's funeral was by telling him that the funeral had already passed and his late sister left him with the responsibility of handling her paperwork. Why they had to fool him? Because he didn't like attending funerals. I know. You're asking, "but he didn't want to attend his own sister's funeral too?" Yes! He claims he didn't like being around the forced feelings of emotions that is shared amongst the people paying their respects. He didn't want anything to do with that. Now we're suppose to empathize with that a**hole? The rest of the performances in the film were flat with equally flat characters. The director and editor didn't care to consider the pacing of the film. The flashbacks were painful to watch. It was a bad film. However, it seems to be the favorite at black film festivals; a film that glorifies African-Americans dependence on Caucasians to find a love that they can settle down with, even if it is a healthy relationship. When lame love stories like this win best of festivals at the black film festivals, it makes me question the judgment of black people on film. In these same festivals, the only films that win awards are educational films about African American culture and black films directed by Caucasian directors. I'm not saying that anything is wrong with a white person directing stories written for people of color. The problems with these films is that they never argue from both point of views, which are usually the films that actually speaks to the masses. These films are often one-sided forms of didacticism. These films fail at executing the powers of both sides of the argument that the film is revolved around. The writers and directors never compose the scenes and sequences that contradict your final statement with as much truth and energy as those that reinforce it. These films always slant the argument. What I am saying is, are the people running these black film festivals judging a film off of pure content, which to me means directing, acting, writing cinematography, editing, etc., or are they judging films off of strictly the message being delivered about African American culture? Are we suppose to expect a film like Constellation to have a shot in the world against films like "Million Dollar Baby" and "Sideways?" What happened to film being entertaining? When I mean entertainment, I mean the ritual of sitting in the dark, staring at the screen, investing tremendous concentration and energy into what one hopes will be satisfying, meaningful emotional experience. Why can't these festivals appreciate films that get their messages across without preaching? Why can't these black film festivals acknowledge films that are well told pieces of work that are brutally honest, telling the truth? "I believe we have no responsibility to cure social ills or renew faith in humanity, to uplift the spirits of society or even express our inner being. We have only one responsibility: to tell the truth."--Robert McKee. Now that's something I totally agree with. These same black film festivals put down "Hustle and Flo" as if it is that awful film stereotyping blacks. However, it's an honest film about a pimp with a dream. A pimp can't dream? I recall the last time I saw a real pimp he was a human being. And aren't they, pimps and prostitution a harsh reality in our society at large, not just in the black community but all over? The powers that be in "black Hollywood" believe that films like this are making Afro-Americans look bad in the eyes of others, as if others don't know that there are pimps in the hood. The truth is, until African American people in film can accept the truth about themselves and dare to share it with the world, then our films will never have a chance in the world. This film was awful. The best thing was the cinematography and Zoe.
I don't care what anyone says, this movie is hilarious! It combines the bleak seriousness of Threads with an anarchic blend of alternative comedy, and the results are a severely dark, but outrageously funny satire on the brinkmanship policies of both the Western and Eastern blocs at the time. You gotta give the filmmakers credit for even attempting to top the real life lunacy of "Duck and cover" or "Protect and survive"!<br /><br />Imagine someone made a movie based on the Dead Kennedys track 'Kinky Sex Makes The World Go Round', and you're pretty close to Whoops! Apocalypse. Add Rik Mayall on top form as an insanely OTT SAS commander and you've got it exactly. A worthy companion piece to Dr Strangelove, and that's saying something.
What an utter disappointment. Forget this abysmal film and get hold of the TV series instead. What on earth were they doing making the American president relatively sane? ALL the politicians should have been bumbling buffoons (Peter Cook is good as the British PM). It lacks the biting satire of the original, going instead for "lowest common denominator" slapstick. 1 out of 10 if I'm being generous! This is unfortunately yet another example of a remake which totally misses the point of the original, the difference with this one being that they were both written by the same people.
Since THE MAGUS is a confusing puzzle that really has no solution, one should sit back and enjoy the scenery. Set on a "remote Greek island," it stars a very uptight Michael Caine as a teacher working at a school for boys who gets caught up in mind games with local wacko/mystery man Anthony Quinn and his daffy girlfriend Candice Bergen. Quinn, looking like Pablo Picasso with white hair and striped sailor shirt, is actually pretty good but Caine looks like he's ready to explode. Bergen, although stunning, should NOT put on a British accent EVER. She's not very good at that type of thing. Guy Green's direction is fine, but unless you have infinite patience with the circular logic of the film, you will not enjoy it. A real sour note is the casting of the effervescent Anna Karina in the completely joyless role of Caine's girlfriend. After seeing her in the likes of A WOMAN IS A WOMAN and A BAND APART, her presence here is quite jarring.
I loved the gorgeous Greek scenery but the story, which is not something you can follow anyway, was even harder to follow in the movie. I cannot imagine how anyone watching the movie can get any kind of grip on it if they have not read the book, and then, like me, they would probably wonder why Australian Allison turned into French Anne, and many other seemingly pointless changes in the story. The mysteries in the book seemed to be chopped up or left out in the movie. I saw it when it first came out and had the same problems with it then, since I had read the book several times. I recently watched it with my granddaughter (very intelligent at 20 and usually into movies I like) who was mostly amazed at how young Michael Caine and Candace Bergen were in it, but otherwise could not imagine why one would watch it except for the scenery.
I have always wanted to see the movie because I loved the novel, but was warned away because I'd heard that the movie was a stinker. It is. Fowles wrote the script and I could follow it fine, despite the fact that I read the novel over thirty years ago.<br /><br />The soundtrack is execrable--jarring, jangling, and utterly inappropriate--breaking any attempt at mystery or mood in the movie. I suspect that the director must take a lot of the blame as even Michael Caine is terrible in it and he was already doing excellent work in ALFIE a couple of years earlier.<br /><br />The "Mysteries" evoked by the book are not well-translated onto the screen. I'd love to see someone remake this one.
Don't be taken in because the premise of this film is a good one. It is, but that, does not a good film, make.<br /><br />Comedies require a well-honed script and masterful direction. Sadly, this poorly executed film has neither. Leconte, a good director in other genres, does not deliver in his comedic farces (Les Bronzes series being another example).<br /><br />The comedic timing is terrible. Some jokes are telegraphed. Some are re-hashed from other movies. Others just sit there as if they were giving you time to laugh. The plot has messy subplots (the allergic daughter, the lesbian co-owner) and just does not develop or envelope the viewer. It isn't funny and it isn't believable for a second.<br /><br />Compare this to any comedy by Billy Wilder (Some Like it Hot, A Foreign Afair, etc.) or by Leconte's compatriot, Francis Veber, a true GENIUS at French comedy (Le Diner de Cons, Le Placard, Les Comperes, La Chevre, La Grande Blonde, etc.) and you'll see the difference in their tight scripts, great comedic acting and timing, with each joke leading to the next one.<br /><br />Watching Mon Meilleur Ami twice would be cruel and unusual punishment, not a good sign for a comedy.
Writer-director Patrice Leconte takes a universal and potentially bottomless subject - friendship - and turns it into a flat and meaningless farce, despite A-list actors, fine cinematography and elegant production design. It's all in the plot, and the plot is laughable. "Teach me how to be likable", art dealer François Coste (Daniel Auteuil) tells a random stranger (Dany Boon), and that about sums it up. We learn next to nothing about friendship, and Daniel Auteuil may be a fine actor, but not one minute do we believe he could be the cut-throat egoist the script depends on him to be. Just as we hope the travesty is over, Leconte pulls one of his usual cathartic third acts, fast-forwarding from damage to disaster. Like François's treasured Greek vase, everyone and everything in this movie is a fake. Leconte's only asset is Julie Gayet in the part of Coste's business partner Catherine, looking swell and sexy despite a major mishap of a haircut.
This movie was horrible and corny. James Agee is rolling in his grave.This movie was nothing at all like the book and made a mockery of it. No one should see this movie unless they want to gag.
As I watched this movie, I felt as if a plastic bag was slowly closing in around my head. The acting was horribly stifling, and it was Bad Acting. The most brilliant piece of acting in the entire film was the guy who had to play laid-out-in-state-in-a-coffin. I felt nothing but relief when it was finally over. I was expecting that this film was going to be some real tragedy, with some deep psychological intrigue in the aftermath. All around it was stupid, no beginning, no climax, no ending, just rambling on and on, and the plastic bag kept getting worse. Let's get real here. This is an awful movie.
Teenage Exorcist is one of those God-awful films to video that makes the viewer give up any expectations of decent entertainment for low brow sexual antics, adolescent humour, and empty writing. This film delivers exactly what its was trying to deliver. It is about a girl moving into a house where a Baron de Sade(hmmm) once lived and finally being drawn to him through her own inner demon. Her sister and brother-in-law, along with an Irish priest, her boyfriend, and a pizza delivery boy, try to save her and exorcise her demon. Well, not much here in way of horror or suspense. In fact, one line from the film pretty much sums up what to expect. Mike(the girl's brother-in-law) has tied her(the name is Diane by the way and she is played by Brinke Stevens) up after trying to chainsaw her sister. He removes a gag from her mouth and says something like, "This won't be the last gag we see tonight." Indeed, it was not. The special effects are cheesy and poorly crafted, and the film makes use of this by playing on its comedic appeal. Some of the lines and situations are funny. Robert Quarry, old Count Yorga himself, really steals his scenes as an Irish priest. He hams it up wailing Biblical verses and crooning Irish songs. You know you are in trouble, however, when Eddie Deezen gets top billing. Deezen does his schtick and has a couple nice moments as well, but the material is just too threadbare than to be anything more than teenage sophomoric time filler. Michael Berryman, from The Hills Have Eyes, also has a brief but interesting cameo in the film. As for the other thespians, well, they are all pretty good at being pretty mediocre. Stevens is lovely in fishnet stockings and French-cut panties, but beyond that don't expect too much more from her. Her sister is played by Elena Sahagun, and she shows a bit more than Brinke(a very lovely young lady by the way) and out acts Brinke by miles. Her husband, played by Jay Richardson shows off his ability to act and be funny amidst mediocrity. Again, not a bad film to waste a little time that involves NO thinking on. If you are a Robert Quarry fan, watch it for his performance at the very least.
Going into the movie with the right expectations, I somewhat liked this movie. Like most reviewers who have seen this movie, I fully agree that the plot was razor thin, clichéd, and I could predict every plot twist from the very beginning of the movie. But, the dancing sequences were VERY well done, and I really enjoyed the fusion of classical and hip-hop dance (both which I enjoy watching). The music/soundtrack of the movie was also very good, which made the "drama" scenes more bearable. The leads (Jenna Dewan and Channing Tatum) were OK as actors, but their dancing throughout the movie was impressive and mesmerizing.<br /><br />All in all, a movie worth watching if you like to watch good dance sequences, and this movie is MUCH MUCH MUCH better than "You Got Served" in terms of the plot and drama. Then again, that doesn't say much, does it? =P
Step Up is a fair dance film about some kids that get their big performance break. The film is average in every way with little more for the viewer. A jock fights external prejudices to become a dancer with an accomplished partner and a teach who sees something special. The acting was fine, but the dialog and directing had little to add to overcoming a predictable story. None the less you still feel quite good about the outcome of the film. There were some dark scenes and some typical generalizations about dancers that went a little overboard. This is a class B+ film with moderate continuity errors and dialog mishaps. The scenery was good and the characters held true to life. It is worth the watch if you like that kind of film.
I wasn't really interested in seeing Step Up, but my friend just kept bugging and bugging me to see this film, especially since she is so in love with Channing Tatum, I tease her constantly about it saying how that's the only reason why she loved the movie. But she somehow convinced me that it was a movie worth seeing, that if I loved movies like Dirty Dancing, Take the Lead, and Save the Last Dance, that I should love Step Up, eh, what the heck? I guess every movie in some way has it's right to a view.<br /><br />Well, you know those movies I just mentioned up top? Dirty Dancing, Take the Lead, and Save the Last Dance? Well, put them in a blender with some gangsta love in it and that's what you have. Not to mention if you've seen those movies, well, frankly, you have seen Step Up. Because Channing is lower class with street smarts who just naturally feels the music while that snobby up class girl must follow step by step, how will they ever fall in love if they are so different? After all, this is their chance to "step up" to the passion, the mystery, and the lust of the dance! <br /><br />OK, that was a silly plot explanation, but like I said, as long as you've seen those movies I mentioned, or even if you just saw the plot, you get the movie. I don't understand how it actually has a 5.5 rating, I bet it's those Channing lovers! LOL! I'm kidding with you guys, but it's all good, I guess I just didn't get what others did with the passion, the mystery that is the dance! Oh, Antonio Bandares, where are you when we need you?! <br /><br />4/10
the actors cannot act. all dialoague was plagued with bad accents and loss of character. Channing Tatum never moves his lips or changes his facial expression... EVER.<br /><br />the story is nothing new at all. some kid from the street gets involved in a professional world of dance and it turns his life around. that coupled with the whole incident involving the little kid is taken straight from You Got Served and Save the Last Dance (I'm not saying that those movies were any good either, but that is to say that this movie brought nothing new to the table).<br /><br />and the dancing... THERE WERE ONLY 3 DANCE SEQUENCES IN THE ENTIRE MOVIE AND 2 OF THEM WERE TAKEN STRAIGHT FROM THE COMMERCIAL. perhaps i'm being overly critical because i am a dancer, but maybe thats what needs to be heard. Channing Tatum is NOT by any means a b-boy. his little solo in the parking lot had little style, technique, or any wow factor, all of which are part of a street dancer's criteria. All of the jazz and ballet in the movie had nothing to offer except bad technique and a few acceptable twirls, but nothing more. the grande finale left me thinking "... OK, now they're gonna get serious" all the way through the end when i realized it never was going to happen.<br /><br />i'll admit that im sure it is difficult to make a good dance movie, but Step up is no exception to the rule. You Got Served, with the exception of its inconsistencies with street dance culture at least had the dance aspect. Save the Last Dance was garbage, and so was just about any musical from the past 10 years (although i was impressed with Moulin Rouge)... look to Center Stage for Ballet, look to Beat Street for Hip-Hop
'Take Fame' and 'You've Got Served' and roughly jam them together and what do you got? This God awful movie custom made for dull-normal adolescents. The plot very closely follows 'You've Got Served.' Three ghetto afro-teeners, this time living in John Water's Baltimore—not far from 'Peckers' home—spend their time getting failing grades in high school and dancing in dilapidated 100-year-old buildings with hoochy-mamas. To finance their expensive baggy hip-hop clothing tastes, they steal cars and deliver them to the local chop shop—not unlike John (Tony Manaro) Travolta who worked in a Brooklyn paint store so he could purchase his polyester disco clothes.<br /><br />Tyler Gage, one of the black three musketeers, gets caught trashing the local Fame High School and is forced to perform janitorial duties. He meets Nora Clark, a 26-year-old white high school student and discovers he's Irish-American, much to the chagrin of his black buddies Mac and Skinny.<br /><br />As in 'You've Got Served' crime doesn't pay and Skinny, the youngest member of the trio gets shot by a Bad Bad Leroy Brown type—but that doesn't stop the music—and heart-stopping finale.
Seriously I don't get why people are all like "Oh my God Step Up is the best movie ever!!!" It's a bunch of junk! The acting, first of all, is ridiculous, and let's not even begin to talk about the dialogue because it was terrible...Movies are supposed to be entertaining, and this, let me be the first to say, was *not* entertainment. I was actually laughing because I was so embarrassed watching it. The music and dancing didn't do anything for me as well. And what's with the Channing Tatum "hotness" that all the girls talk about? Whatever. The movie was pathetic. Don't waste your time - or your money. Unless you're a dancing movie freak, but movies like that are *not* movies...they're jokes.
I just saw this movie. I liked the soundtrack.I saw first the trailer and was magnificent, like all Hollywood movies, they know how to sell.But the movie is almost awful, first 30 minutes are interesting, but then.... like almost all new movies they blow it up. I don't get the idea, why that kid died??Is a cliché, every nigga' movie must have a kid to be killed, and everybody must become good after his death.LOL.I don't understand what is the connection with the movie... And is so predictable, you know the end from the very first minutes.Nothing new in this movie. I saw 'You got served' same idea but also... something new... this is something like 'Honey', but is not a little bit difference between them.If you have no other option watch this movie, but be sure is the last option you take. And the choreography is worst than everything before. This is NOT a must see for sure...
This is probably the only film I've seen where the IMDb reviews on both sides of the spectrum are 100% accurate. "The Stupids" is an atrocious, dim-witted film with absolutely no artistic merit whatsoever, and is a denigration to a director like John Landis. And that's what makes it great.<br /><br />In order to appreciate "The Stupids", you have to keep in mind a little-known, but very true maxim spoken by director Abo Kyrou: "I urge you to learn to look at bad films, they are so often sublime." In order for any film to work, the film must establish and follow it's own logic, and if it does so convincingly and sincerely, then it's actually possible for the film to work. For example, when you watch "Freddy Got Fingered" as a traditional gross-out comedy, it's complete and utter garbage; when you watch it with the understanding that it's actually a neo-surrealist comedy, it's brilliant.<br /><br />It works with good movies too. If "Jaws" hadn't accepted the reality it created, the air-tank explosion ending wouldn't have worked. But, a lot of people think "Jaws" is vastly overrated for this type of reason, and they aren't wrong. But it has it's strengths, doesn't it? The point being that a movie like this makes sense if you look at it with the right perspective. Some people, like me, get it right away, while others never will no matter how often it's explained. Jim Jarmusch made a compelling defense of "Showgirls" once, and even afterwards I still can't see it from his P.O.V. Doesn't mean he's wrong though. If you have the right frame of mind when you watch this movie (and NO I DO NOT MEAN STONED, I'm gonna put that to bed right now), you can actually enjoy the movie for the dumb, cheap, pointless slapstick late-80s/early-90s-style farce that it is.<br /><br />The defenders and haters of this film are right: It's STUPID, and that's the point. The movie accepts the stupidity of the characters much in the same way "The Jerk" accepted Navin Johnson's idiocy. And because it takes that and runs with it, the movie focuses exclusively on using that to forward the plot and to define the characters. A "bad" movie would actually do this and fail to use that logic properly; bad movie are bad because they make it up as they go along, whereas movies like "The Stupids" knows where it's going, what it's doing and why from the beginning.<br /><br />I can't defend the film from an artistic standpoint, which is why I give it such a low rating. The acting is mostly bad, the jokes very superficial, and the live-action quality probably ruins what would have worked as a cartoon. But I can't deny that it IS entertaining in its own way, and that's why I defend it. I got it right away, and I pity those who don't.<br /><br />I'll admit I was drawn to this movie because of Christopher Lee's delicious cameo appearance (hearing him say "Release the drive bee!" would have been worth the rental price even if I hated this film), but was amazed to find that, aside from the TV Studio Applause Sign segment with Jenny McCarthy, I was never bored, and never disappointed. In fact, many of the jokes, because of their cartoonish context, were hilarious (in particular the airbag-cigarette explosion). They were dumb, but they were funny. And the movie doesn't pretend to be anything else: a STUPID comedy about STUPID characters and instead of apologizing for it, it enjoys itself.<br /><br />And that's exactly why it works.
This is beyond a shadow of a doubt the absolute worst movie I have ever seen. It's been a long time since I've seen it, but the jokes are NOT funny, the plot is painfully forseeable, calling the main characters stupid is to vastly upgrade their intelligence...uggh! I just wanted to punch Tom Arnold and make him cry because he wasted two hours of my life when I was done watching this piece of cinematic filth. I don't even know why I ever wanted to watch it, but remember if you see this movie: DON'T SAY I DIDN'T WARN YOU.<br /><br />PS Tom Arnold's character sings a song in this movie called "I'm My Own Grandfather." Nuff said.
Would it be too trite of me to create a review of just me saying the word "STUPID" over and over again? Probably.<br /><br />This is arguably the worst movie I've ever seen. Seriously. There are better movies on Mystery Science Theater 3000. I saw this movie for the first time at a friend's birthday party when it was still in theaters. Even though it was actually *with friends* and at one of their *birthday parties,* I had to leave. I actually had to leave. I just excused myself and walked out. Fortunately, some of the parents were doing the same thing, so I didn't look like a total jerk... Anyway, this film is awful. There is nothing to like about it. It's painfully (as in actually causing physical pain) slow, and sickeningly (literally does induce vomiting) unfunny. You almost feel sorry for Tom Arnold, but then you don't because you remember he was actually IN the movie. It really does pain me to even THINK about it.<br /><br />It was on TV a few months ago, and I decided I had to watch it all the way through, just once. I remembered then why I walked out in the first place, and felt guilty for boosting its ratings by even one viewer. The gags aren't funny, the characters arn't interesting. it's just a senseless mess of pratfalls and stupidity.<br /><br />There is a small crowd of then-eight-year-old kids who watched the movie when it came out and considered it "brilliant." If you think that having your face removed piece by pece with an ice cream scoop is brilliant, then by all means, go rent it. But if you have any dignity whatsoever avoid this big STUPID mess altogether. SCORE: 0/10 ... maybe a negative 1, actually.
This movie was chosen, quite frankly as a pig in a poke from our local Video store. It turned out to be quite a pig. The plot line-such as it is-was disjointed, inconsistent and predictable. The actors constantly looked embarrassed to be mouthing the poorly written lines. The only funny moment in the entire film revolved around the dangers of smoking and the inadvertant deployment of an airbag. The remainder of the film lacked the punch to amuse either of my young daughters (aged less than ten years), myself, my wife, my mother-in-law, or even the cat or the dog. My advice, if you are tempted to borrow this turkey, is to save your money and your time. Look for something else...
I don't care what anyone else says, this movie is the worst piece of trash committed on film. What was John Landis thinking?<br /><br />I know it's based on a series of children's books, but c'mon! Even kids hate this movie. It's pointless and boring. Tom Arnold once again amply demonstrates that his only talent is wasting production money.<br /><br />I think the only reason The Stupids hasn't appeared on the 100 worst films of all time is that only 20 or so people will admit to watching this garbage. At least Hobgoblins made it on MST3K.
I couldn't even sit through the whole thing! This movie was a piece of crap! I had more fun watching "Dont' Tell Mom The Babysitter's Dead"! It was just too painful to watch. Say, besides "Austin Powers", has Tom Arnold ever been in a hit movie?
I vaguely remember this film. I do remember it for the one solid reason that it is the only film that I have ever walked out on!! and since then I have never seen it available to rent ANYWHERE!! I can't spoil it for anyone cos I can barely remember it!! To think, looking at the cast, it seemed a winner, with John Landis directing, but good god, they must have been paid a whole lot for this drivel!! All I can seem to recall is that the dad goes missing and the family try to search for him, by trying to put an actual photograph into the disc drive of a computer. I walked out after about half an hour of this. I must confess though, I'd love to see if I can get a copy, just to see if it really was that bad!!<br /><br />It wouldn't surprise me if this was on every actor's black list! I mean Christopher Lee was in this?? The legend of all bad guys, who'd been in Star Wars and Lord of the Rings?? As I said - black listed movie, The Stupids!
How this character ever got hired by the post office is far beyond me. The test that postal workers take is so difficult. There is no way that a guy this stupid can work at the post office. Everyone in this movie is just stupid and that is probably the point of the movie. How they could go their entire lives and not see an elevator is also puzzling. I didn't take this movie too seriously but it was so stupid. Then he tries to start the car without his keys? Lots of horrible scenes and horrible acting and this movie is not funny at all. It's just a sad stupid mess. I liked the moms dress though.<br /><br />Send it back to sender as soon as possible.
Stanley Stupid (Tom Arnold) and his wife, Joan, like to sleep in bed with their heads under the covers and their feet on the pillows. They have two equally challenged children, Buster and Petunia. One day, Mr. Stupid notices their garbage is gone again....there must be someone stealing it from the curb. He goes off in roller blades after the garbage truck. When he finally gets to the dump, he is startled to learn not only that "other folks garbage" has been stolen, too, but that there is a secret organization meeting at the landfill. He is determined to defeat the garbage nappers of the world, it seems. Meanwhile, Petunia and Buster visit the police station and a Chinese restaurant in search of their parents, for Joan comes up missing, too. Will they bumble their way through their problems? This is just a stupid, stupid movie, with the culprit being the terrible script. The books by Allard and Marshall are hysterical and only a couple of situations from the books ends up in this film. Arnold is actually quite nice as Mr. Stupid and the other cast members try very, very hard to make the film work. The production values are very high, with the dog and cat belonging to the Stupids adding a little oomph to the film. But, it is all for naught, as the plot is wandering and weak. Perhaps, someday, someone will take another stab at translating the very funny Allard books to the big screen. Therefore, if you love to laugh, rent something else while you await a new production and, by all means, go get the books, too. But, stay away from being stupid yourself, as anyone who watches this movie to the end could hardly be called intelligent.
This is a stupid movie. When I saw it in a movie theater more than half the audience left before it was half over. I stayed to the bitter end. To show fortitude? I caught it again on television and it was much funnier. Still by no means a classic, or even consistently hilarious but the family kinda grew on me. I love Jessica Lundy anyway. If you've nothing better to do and it's free on t.v. you could do worse.
Most of you out there really disliked this movie... you were right. A small minority of you really loved the movie... can't say you' re wrong. For me, this movie was too stupid. I have seen many dumb, silly comedies but this one surpasses every one of them. As I was watching I couldn't stop rubbing my eyes, not believing what I was seeing and trying to decide if I should laugh or cry, as *REALLY STUPID* stuff were going on on the screen, and people were leaving the theater.<br /><br />According to the leading characters, time travel is accomplished, just enter any museum and you will actually travel to the past. Plus, if you are seeking an after death experience, just go to the nearest planetarium, there you shall meet Lord - sorry, Loydd and be given important commands... All te above doesn' t really make sense, right? Well, go ahead, watch the movie (I almost never regret the movies I watch), you probably won't like it, but you will be intrigued by the writer's ability in producing the ultimately STUPID script...<br /><br />I' m giving it a 3 out of 10, not good, far from being the worse...
Perhaps it's just me, but this movie seemed more like sequel or follow-up than the separate project. Why? When it was filmed (just few years after the war) most of the viewers probably knew why Rommel was so famous, why his death was so important to Allied, why he was Hitler's favorite general, but now, 50 years later, it isn't so obvious anymore.<br /><br />"Desert Fox: The Story of Rommel" is a decent war movie, but it's just isn't in any way explained how Rommel did get his nickname, what was he doing that Allied considered him as their best general, why their soldiers were so afraid of Afrika Korps? That's what is missing in this movie - we see his fame, his character, his way to treat soldiers and enemies, but f.e. we also see that Hitler was complaining about his achievements in Africa, calling him coward, etc. So, we're missing the big picture here - it is "The Story of Rommel", but unfortunately the "Desert Fox" part is missing.
For me this movie was a disappointment. Somehow I expected that it would explain the reason for General Rommel's popularity and his success as a military strategist in WW II. But there is none of that, it deals with the last year or two of his life and tries, in a way, to whitewash him. So I just have to suppose that Rommel was primarily an amoral and apolitical technocrat in the conquering and killing business, without any particular charm or notoriety in behaviour. Such real life people just do not make good movie material. I almost feel sorry for James Mason, really one of my favorite actors, who had to impersonate a pretty wooden character. Actually, a good director and a lot of great acting talent was wasted on this movie – with the exception of Luther Adler who gives a really memorable and weirdly naturalistic portrayal of Adolf Hitler.<br /><br />There might also be a cultural problem for people like me who are part of the German speaking world. Famous British actors impersonating Germans are just not credible. Rommel, for example, is perceived here not just as a German but as a typical „Southerner" from Baden-Württemberg. You immediately think of a certain dialect, a certain kind of wit, a certain way of seeing the world (the total opposite of eg a Prussian „junker"). I also think that there are now mixed feelings about the assassination attempt of July 20th, many of those who were in on the conspiracy were not democrats and just wanted the German troops to join the Western Allies against the advancing Bolsheviks (thus prolonging the war forever).<br /><br />The best movie portrayal of an intellectual, intelligent military mind is in my opinion still Patton (1970). Incidentally, General Patton can be glimpsed for a short moment in the ample documentary footing used for this movie, a low angle shot while he is inspecting passing vehicles. The open holster and the revolver with the mother of pearl grips are clearly visible!
Despite the fact that he worked for the worst government of the 20th century, Erwin Rommel is generally well-regarded by historians and World War II buffs as a gentleman, a soldier's soldier, and a brilliant tactician in the field of mechanized warfare. If only Hitler had given him the troops and materiel he had desired in Africa, the argument goes, things would have gone very differently. And that's probably true. Rommel was, in fact, a military genius, and by all accounts an upstanding, honest man.<br /><br />But this film goes out of its way to portray him as a near-saint. He does his job, trying to win the war for Hitler, but constantly the Fuhrer interferes and gives him ridiculous orders, which Rommel (James Mason) expresses amazement with but rarely actually questions and never, ever disobeys. Only when it's patently obvious that Hitler is leading Germany to ruin does Rommel think of treason against him; this dilemma plays out as the main theme of the film, a good man in bad circumstances trying to do the right thing.<br /><br />Mason is fine as Rommel, but it's hardly a memorable performance along the lines of, say, George C. Scott as Patton. Of course, Rommel wasn't as colorful as Patton, but this film is so intent on making him look like a decent human being that it forgets to make him interesting. He occasionally lapses into some warmth when with his wife Lucie (a young Jessica Tandy, well-cast), but usually Mason is called upon to give a stiff British performance – as if the Brits were trying to claim Rommel for themselves (though in all fairness all the Nazis have English accents except Hitler).<br /><br />Done on the cheap, with any battle scenes swiping stock footage, and the beaches of southern California doubling for Tunisia, there's nothing to particularly recommend this film. A remake could be interesting (I'd pick Ed Harris only because of a slight physical resemblance and, well, Harris can act) were it spiced up a little, but this movie mostly demonstrated to me how much more demanding we as viewers have become in the last fifty years; a biography this bland would never cut it any more.
I hoped to learn something from this movie, but I was disappointed. It is all about Rommel and lauds him as a great general, but at no time in this entire movie did we ever get an idea of why he was great. What made him so successful? Was it his drive, his unwillingness to accept defeat, his discipline with his men? I was looking for a Patton-like rendition that really gets into the character, but this fell way flat. Most of the dialog is contrived and sensationalized, and feels stale and artificial. There is some good action here and there, but not much. The tail end of the story, which discusses his involvement in the plot to assassinate Hitler, was the most informative part and probably the most interesting. But as a history lesson on Germany's greatest general, this was a failure.
Oh boy. Films like this really bother me. If this movie is supposed to close to truth, then I assume that Rommel knew Hitler for a time before WWII started. In the movie, Rommel mentions how Hitler had changed from before. Well I can't imagine that Rommel wouldn't have known something about Hitler's government policies so Rommel must share some guilt for the German atrocities. With that in mind, I have a problem with a movie that makes Rommel's life at the end a tragic one. He made his choices and we have to feel bad for him? I can't do it. I also can't buy the theory that if the more competent generals were allowed to fight the war, the allies would have had more trouble winning it. If more competent people were in charge, WWII may never have started in the first place. From a movie watching aspect, the film jumps from place to place and most of the time seems like a history special with big name actors playing the historical roles. Leo G. Carroll has a couple of good scenes with James Mason and I liked the fact that everyone spoke English without the ridiculous accents. But other than that not very essential.
Basic summary: Ipswitch used to be a community of witches and escaped the Salem witch hunts by forming a covenant of secrecy. The first born males descended from these families have supernatural powers, and must come to terms with the seductive, addictive nature of using those powers.<br /><br />Well, I usually give movies the benefit of the doubt and start from a 5, going from there:<br /><br />Production: -1 for very obvious audio out of sync, +1 for nicely done special effects, the darkling actually gave me chills, +0.5 for nice colorization (I like the dull blue), -0.5 for the stupid sound track, +0.5 for the opening sequence -- I'm a sucker for stylish compositing and flashy title design.<br /><br />Story / Script: +1 for decent main idea, -0.5 for DBZ/Matrix/Street Fighter ripoff/pastiche, -1 for not explaining some plot threads very well (spiders, darkling), -1 for boring, predictable ending, -1 for gratuitous exposition, both as words on the screen and as bland monologuing<br /><br />Acting / Characterization: -0.5 for bad bad acting, although it gets a little better as the film progresses, -1 for lack of character development, especially among all the females<br /><br />Other: +1 for gratuitous male and female nudity, which is fun to watch, and +0.5 for no sex scenes, which for this genre are usually done very badly and end up being boring rather than hot, +1 for hitting its target audience, teenage sci-fi/horror/thriller fans, even though this movie is not exclusively any of those genres.<br /><br />Conclusion: This is not a "film," this is a MOVIE. There's really nothing to analyze, it's just good, (relatively) clean fun. Lots of really attractive actors and actresses. Lots of boys fighting in the style of DBZ and Street Fighter. If you like cute actors and actresses, supernatural special effects, and/or mindlessly fun plots, this movie is for you. If you prefer Oscar-worthy, exquisitely-produced film masterpieces with tons of multi-layered, allegorical plot threads and groundbreaking visualization techniques, you probably won't like this film.<br /><br />Using my twisted logic, this movie gets a 4/10.
It seems whenever a mainstream film company wants to make a movies for teens it concentrates on only one thing: sex. Don't get me wrong, I'm no prude but the fact that these people seem to think getting my rocks off is all I'm interested in is highly offensive. Take The Convenant, a film that relies so heavily on you finding the main characters attractive it thinks it can get away without a plot and/or a script that wasn't written by a six year old. This is essentially The Craft with (supposedly) hot guys. And, yeah, that's it. It bored me to tears. Even my friend, who usually laps us crap films, hated it. It is really stunningly bad, to the extent where it can actually be funny. I would have laughed if it wasn't for the fact that several other females in cinema attendance seemed to be enjoying it. They were accompanied by several shifty looking guys who positively curled up and died when the (really cliché) boy on boy kiss happened towards the end. Watching them squirm really was the highlight of the film. I don't think mainstream, Hollywood cinema will ever put out good films for teenagers (or, indeed, for anyone) so I think I'll give up. Unless you're a teen who likes The Pussycat Dolls, thinks Paris Hilton is "hot" and watches MTV it's like some sort of wasteland. Life's hard when you're a fifteen year old who likes art house. :( P.S. Someone should have told the Director that not all teenage girls find would be boy band members "totally HAWT LOL!!!111!!"
let me say first off I didn't go in expecting much, and watching it at prime-time on opening night should have helped. I believe it would have, had there been more than 20 people in the theater. <br /><br />It sucked so hard. the acting was robotic at best and nothing was really explained until the last 30 minutes of the movie. I guess that was their way of twisting the plot; keep everyone in the dark on crucial info to understand the movies direction until the end and THEN explain things and hope it feels like a twist of plot.<br /><br />Unknowns until the end of the movie: -What the Eff is a dark-ling? the CG was cool but I want to understand! -why cant powers be willed? especially if mass murder is the ultimatum. -why is willing away powers so bad? your just normal after, right? -who farted?<br /><br />roughly 50% of the minutes with just men on screen, were shots of them in wife beaters, sleeveless t's and then a gut wrenching pool scene of all teenage men in the skimpiest low riding speedos knowing to ever have been manufactured. I swear you could see the start of the one guys.... well, it was close to soft-core. And of course there was a shower scene, and to mix it up it was of the DUDES. Butt cracks were abundant, a sausage fest in progress. But there was a single girl shower scene in which nothing was seen and she ambles around the best looking dorm bathroom for around 12 minutes. Then there was a girl talk PJ party. the other thing I couldn't get over was the amount of driving that Caleb did in his SUPER COOL ford mustang GT. it was a ford commercial for around 1/4th of the movie.<br /><br />Don't see it. or go see it with a friend who likes to make fun of bad movies. then it could be worth it. but don't expect anything breathtaking.
When I saw on the voting panel that some people had given this film a score of 10 I assumed they were unaware that the score wasn't out of 100. This is a disaster movie in the real meaning of that term. Poorly written and weakly directed with so-called actors unable to act, but able to grimace when ordered to. For the first 60 minutes the story appears to be going in one direction, then it changes tack and gets involved in a power fight, with extremely poor special effects. Unable to work out an intelligent way for the hero with limited powers to beat the villain with super powers, the "writer" cheats. It is obvious that the father was added to the so-called story-line because it was easier than working out an acceptable denouement. Not that the write would even know the word "denouement." Some movies go directly to DVD. This one should have gone directly to the dustbin.
Wow! I just don't even know where to begin with what made this movie so awful. Maybe I should start by just saying that during a "heated confrontation" between the antagonist and protagonist, I had to leave the theater because I was laughing so hard. Yeah. The acting really was that bad. The acting was not even the worst part though. The plot was almost entirely shown in the previews. The characters are all grossly underdeveloped. The dialogue and "dramatic moments" are ridiculous. The bad guy is a caricature of an out of control, power drunk, sadist.<br /><br />But hey the actors are pretty, so guess that was supposed to make it all better.
"No one really knows how the Power came to be. Not even the Book of Damnation recorded its beginning, but those who mastered it have always been hunted… The families of Ipswich formed a Covenant of Silence… bla bla bla" After this intro, we suddenly see Take That. Or was it N'Synch? The Backstreet Boys, perhaps? Well, I don't know which of these they belong to, but one thing's for sure: the descendants of Salem are a boy-band. Can you tell them apart? I couldn't. If you can tell me which is which, I'd very much appreciate it. These boy-band boys looks so damn alike…! Seriously now. Is this a horror movie or a film for teenie-boppers? It's sad that the (anyway weak) horror genre has been kidnapped by teens. And this is one of the teeniest I've seen so far. The movie is visually solid, but the cast is so bland, the acting so awful, that it was a trial finishing the movie. As bad as the cast was (after all, boy-bands and fashion models are rarely good actors) the absolute "stand-out" in this regard was the guy playing the villain, Sebastian Stan. This guy's overacting is right up there with the worst in the history of film. I have rarely seen someone make such annoying and silly grimaces in such a short space of time. What's worse, he has the most baby-face of all the boy-band baby-faces in the entire cast. I mean, it's a joke.
210 minute version (extremely hardcore, or so I hear) or the R-rated version released into theaters? Both are terribly awful, of course. Peter O'Toole and Malcolm McDowell have both claimed they wish they had never made this film (the latter of the two men reported this in an IMDb interview!), and I can see why. Nothing but a nonsensical mess of softcore porn and a half-hearted attempt at a plot.<br /><br />Not much of anything here, other than cheap tricks and stupid scenes. I liked what McDowell himself said about the film: "It was like one moment I'd be staring, admiring my mule or something, and the next scene would be two lesbians going at it."<br /><br />How true.<br /><br />What an awful movie.<br /><br />1/5 stars.
As a semi-film buff, I had heard of this infamous movie a long time ago. I had heard that it was basically a 15 million dollar film about the tyrannical rule of the Roman emperor Caligula, complete with hard-core pornography. What struck me was that it was a porno movie yet it had great thespians like Peter O'Toole, John Geilgud, Malcolm McDowell and Hellen Mirren in it!!?? A week ago I saw a documentary about Caligula on the History channel and this film came back into my head and finally my curiousity got the best of me, I foolishly rented the DVD and even more foolishly watched it.<br /><br />Within the first 30 minutes I was seeing acts of sex and especially violence that would earn an NC-17 even by todays standards. Was it really necessary to have a scene of a man having his urinary track closed and then have gallons of wine poured into him and then have his stomach cut with a sword (all in very graphic detail). And a scene where a guy gets his d*** cut off and fed to dogs (again in very graphic detail)....and this just scratches the surface. The argument for this movie from those who like it seems that it is the only film that honestly portrays pagan Rome and it's excesses. When in fact what this movie really is, is sheer exploitation. From beginning to end you see nothing but endless torture, and decapitations and every kind of violence and crude behavior imaginable (sadomasochism, rape, necrophelia, it just never stopped). There is no insight into Caligula himself, what might have propelled him to go mad, the horrible childhood he had that molded him into a sadist as an adult. This is not a historic film, it is sleaze. Even the porn in this movie stinks, and through much of this when I wasn't gagging I was just incredibly bored. By the time it was over I was depressed, didn't feel much like eating and this movie does the impossible, it actually can turn you off of sex.<br /><br />What were these great actors thinking when they got into this. I did read that the porn segments were filmed after the principal shooting was completed (which explains why none of the main actors are in any of these scenes and why the quality of these scenes is so poor). But still and all these actors must have known what they were getting into. Right at the opening credits it says "Penthouse Magazine and Bob Gucionne Presents". And the scenes that the famous actors actually take part in are completely repulsive in and of themselves. Apparently director Tinto Brass wanted his name removed from the completed film entirely, as did the screenwriter (Gore Vidal of all people). Even John Geilgud and Peter O'toole were begging people not to see this when it opened at the Cannes film festival.<br /><br />For the amount of money the producers spent on this, the movie's quality is terrible. Everything is underlit and murky as if the film was dropped in a swamp prior to being developed, and that's when you're lucky enough to view a scene that's actually in-focus. The sound is poorly dubbed, much of the music is awkward and the editing is god awful.<br /><br />Anyway, I brought this movie on myself. My advice...don't watch this, don't watch this, don't watch this......as for myself tomorrow night I am going to watch something lighter....like DAWN OF THE DEAD!
Who really wants to see that? Disgusting violence, disgusting sex, for such a long time. I do not want to, but I always stayed true to my philosophy to watch any movie as bad as it may be. This was the hardest (right after "Next Friday").<br /><br />It's basically just crap. How can you possibly call it anything else? The story of a Roman emperor as an excuse for gore and T&A. Yeah, yeah, "Hey, it's realistic, they have been like this." Fine, but why bother us with it? I don't care if it has been like this (and there are a lot of scenes where I truly doubt it). The point is, why should anyone wanna see it? Problem is, there is only one reason you could like the film and that would be that you like violence. There's nothing special about it, just cruelty. You can say "Cool!" as you'd say in splatter-slasher-movie. But horror movies with violence at least can give you chills and excitement, maybe characters you care about. But here everything is dark, dull and boring. Every character is mad. "The story of an emperor who can't deal with his power". What? In the very first scene he runs naked through the woods with his sister! I have no problem saying that we saw a madman for 2 1/2 hours.<br /><br />But maybe you get turned on by seeing Helen Mirren, being pregnant and dancing. Or 5 minutes of hardcore scenes that some people see as the message of the movie. Or castration, yeah right, that was fun! Real birth scenes, how hilarious! Humans, animals, who cares, let's just treat them as toys.<br /><br />I don't care what anyone says, this is no movie, this is just 2 1/2 hours of blood and sex, degrading and disgusting. Go watch a porn movie if you want sex or watch a horror flick if you want violence. At least those movies don't pretend to be some artistic masterpiece. And they are shorter.<br /><br />[0/10] [6 (1+ - 6-)] [0/4]
Probably not the same version as most of the other reviewers because there`s no real hard core sex . What do people mean by hard core sex ? The sort of explicit hard core sex seen in films starring Traci Lords and " Big " John Holmes ? Well anyway this is really poor film , I doubt if I`ve ever seen so many big name actors wasted in a film . The script is really poor and plotless , the directing and cinematography is awful and the editing is non existant . It truly is an absolutely awful film. You could watch this ten times and still not understand what the hell it`s about . The only memorable scene is the one where people are buried up to their necks and a giant lawnmower comes along and decapitates them . Yes you read that right , a film set in Roman times has a scene with a head chopping giant lawnmower !<br /><br />Trivia point. Many years ago a pirate copy of THE THING ( 1982 version ) was doing the rental rounds on my Island and it been copied onto a rental tape of CALIGULA meaning the pirate version of THE THING starts with the first few seconds of CALIGULA of the man and woman walking through the forest then the title sequence of THE THING starts . This led people who`d seen the pirate tape to believe the forest scene was the opening of John Carpenter`s 1982 film and were very confused as to what it meant. Well that`s what you get for renting pirate videos . But having seen the whole of CALIGULA I don`t know what it meant either
"Caligula" shares many of the same attributes as the 1970 "Fellini Satyricon" with bizarre sights, freakishness, and depictions of sexual excesses all set in the "glory" of ancient Rome. But Fellini it ain't... First of all it is not as entertaining. Far too much screen time is devoted to bug-eyed, rubber-faced McDowell in the titular role. His performance is far too fey and campy to be convincing. The portrayals by Jay Robinson in "The Robe" (1953) and David Cain-Haughton in "Emperor Caligula" (1983) are far more persuasive and believable, with the latter being the most nuanced. Relief could have been judiciously provided by developing the surrounding characters more fully. As it is, they are little more than cyphers. One example is the role of Macro, played by Guido Mannari who has tremendous screen presence in an important role, but is mostly left in the background. The only positive features to credit are the adroit use of some Prokofiev and Stravinsky themes in the music score and the inclusion of some of the distasteful but nevertheless accurate actions of the despot. These two factors are far less than what is needed to relieve the prevailing tedium, however.
I rated this movie a 3 and that was generous. The scenery is ponderous and gaudy, the acting for the most part is terrible. I do think Peter O'Toole did a good job of acting (Tiberius), but he must have been mortified when he saw the final cut of the movie. John Gielgud, howsoever brief his appearance in the movie, still seemed to be playing a role from Hamlet. The hard core pornography parts were neither erotic nor did they do much to further the story. Okay Malcolm McDowell had a nice butt and the guy who played Macro was handsome. The guy who played Claudius, looked more like the traditional depictions of Nero and was certainly at odds with Robert Graves' picture of Claudius. The climactic (?) assassination of Caligula, wife and child is inaccurate in that it shows him after death lying on stairs in an open-air area, when in fact he was assassinated in the underground passage on the palatine hill which ran along the front of the Domus Flaviana that still exists today. There are places in this movie where virtually anything drew my attention away from it--merciful distractions. If you want history, read Suetonius or Tacitus, if you want pornography and sadism, watch Passolini's "Salo", but by all means stay away from this movie.
I'm almost embarrassed to admit to seeing CALIGULA twice. The problems with the production are almost too numerous to mention. The script is sub-standard (it's easy to see why Vidal tried to disown it). The direction is worse. Most of the movie consists of long shots inter cut with close-ups interspersed with cross cuts of mostly un-erotic porn (more prevalent obviously in the "uncut" version). The cinematography is especially sub par, giving the whole production a cheap washed-out look that undermines some of the elaborate set designs. The movie should've looked a whole lot better. The overall concept of placing name actors in what would've easily been an X-rated movie (Guccione called it "paganography") wears thin after the first hour after Peter O'Toole and John Guilgud exit. Bob Guccione obviously lavished a lot of bucks on this but it all seems like a big waste. If you want a far better understanding of the Roman Empire in the 1st Century watch the mid-79's BBC production of I, CLAUDIUS instead... and if you want porn, jeeze-Louise, look somewhere else.
Fellow Giallo-fanatics: beware and/or proceed with caution … for this movie isn't exactly what it appears to be. It surely looks like a Giallo, with its juicy VHS cover (showing a busty naked girl and a big bloodied knife), rhythmic title and the names of two veteran Italian actors in the cast (John Phillip & Fernando Rey), but it's basically just an erotic thriller without much of a plot. The version I watched is presumably harshly censored – with a running time of barely 77 minutes – but then still there's a severe lack of suspense, character development and most of all sadistic (and typically Giallo) carnage. "Eyes Behind the Wall" can briefly be summarized as the gathering of a bunch of perverted characters and the extended depiction of their sexuality issues. It's an interesting effort notwithstanding, because writer/director Giuliano Petrelli (his only film) clearly attempted to do something special, but the overall result is unsatisfying and regrettably tame. Inspired by Hitchcock's "Rear Window", the main character is a frustrated elderly and wheelchair-bound writer. He and his much younger lover get their sexual kicks from spying on the single male tenant living across the road. The tenant, respectively, likes to perform gym exercises around the house whilst being naked and clearly has bisexual desires. Wheelchair guy sends his wife over and they have sex. Then, there's also Ottavio the butler who repeatedly rapes schoolgirls. Are there any normal characters in the story? Well no, of course not! The film benefices from a continuously ominous atmosphere, with a moody soundtrack and nifty photography, but none of it ever leads anywhere so it's all just sleaze & sex without significance. There's a truly bizarre twist/revelation at the end of the story, but it comes too late and too randomly to boost up the overall quality. Not recommended to fans of Italian horror/cult cinema, but maybe it is great viewing for psychology students, to analyze the characters Freud-style.
I was expecting "Born to Kill" to be an exciting, high-tension film noir. Instead, it's got two good action set-pieces (one at the beginning and one at the end) and some marvelously atmospheric cinematography by Robert de Grasse (usually a "glamor" cameraman and a surprising credit for a noir), but the rest of the film is pretty boring. Lawrence Tierney goes through his psycho kick but it's a strictly by-the-numbers performance, mechanically churning out what the audience expected from him after "Dillinger" (an overrated movie but at least better than this). Claire Trevor's character is too stupid and unmotivated to have any audience appeal, and the action (such as it is) stays so resolutely inside that damned house in San Francisco the film becomes claustrophobic instead of genuinely thrilling. It's one of those movies in which the supporting players -- notably Elisha Cook, Jr. (whose character's homoerotic itch for Tierney's is one of the few subtleties in an otherwise pretty obvious script) and Isabel Jewell -- out-act the leads. It also doesn't help that, nearly half a century after Alfred Hitchcock and Anthony Perkins revolutionized the depiction of psycho killers on the screen in "Psycho," Tierney's is so gross and obvious he might as well have "PSYCHO" tattooed on his forehead. Also, there's no indication in the film as it stands as to why the source novel was called "Deadlier than the Male" -- but perhaps James Gunn made the female characters stronger and more interesting than they are in the film. "Born to Kill" is a real disappointment from Robert Wise, who already had some quality movies under his belt and would go on to a stellar career.
This HBO original is pretty straightforward and pretty dumb. Armand Assante, once again doing a poor Stallone imitation, is Ray Wellman a ex-con just out on parole. All he wants is his old girlfriend Lacy, played by a young Marcia Gay Harden, back. Unfortunately for Ray, Lacy has hooked up with stalwart Elliot, played by Sam Neill. Further complicating matters is that Ray's old Cell buddies want some favors and they kidnap Lacy to make sure they happen. Ray and Elliot team up, despite mutual dislike.<br /><br />What follows is violent and slow, but Marcia Gay Harden shows us why she would win Oscar in the future, she's not as polished here, but her raw emotion, sincerity and some rather explicit nude scenes almost make this worth watching. Almost.<br /><br />Rent "Fever" (no the title doesn't fit the film) if your a fan of hers, otherwise skip it and be grateful it's stars went on to better things.<br /><br />Note-this is a hard "R" flick for language, violence and nudity.
I was looking forward to watching this film and was therefore extremely disappointed when I found it to be complete and utter rubbish. Akerman's direction is both heavy handed and cliched (how much more cliched can you get than Paris at night?). The male cast seems to have been chosen entirely for their resemberlance to Egon Schiele's angst ridden self portraits. Yet the themes of jealousy and betrayal which should have been the primary focus of a film of this type are left virtually unexplored. What is left is a turgid melodrama which takes an age to get started and even longer to finish. The only advantage with this sort of film is that it makes you realise how good Goddard and Truffaut really are.
This film is about a woman falling in love with a friend of her boyfriend. From then on, she has to divide her time for the two boyfriends: Jack during the day and Joseph during the night.<br /><br />This film feels like as if it was made with minimum budget. The majority of the film is set in a flat with minimal furniture. There are only three main actors, all the other actors listed in the credits make only momentary appearances. The wardrobe designer doesn't seem to have much to do, as the actors wear very down to earth clothes, and actually most of the time they are naked anyway.<br /><br />The film is very dialog heavy, which should have made up for the shortcomings described above. However, the dialogs sound too composed and awkward. In the beginning of the film, most of the dialog is a person saying a very long sentence, and then the person says 'Me too'. After the frenzy of agreement, the dialog descends into a mess of disjointed and confused word salad.<br /><br />The only merit of this film I can think of is that it serves as a feminist outlet which conveys that it is not just men who can be unfaithful.<br /><br />This film is a great disappointment.
One of the most boring movies I've ever seen. Three immature young people have sex and talk about very little except their "love" of each other. They don't seem to be interested in much but each other, and only passively so. I was left feeling shut out. Most of the exterior scenes take place at night, so one can't even enjoy well-lit sights of Paris! I gave up after an hour and ten minutes.
Strikes me as routine, as far as TV movies go. I can believe that it's based on a true story because the plot seems too clumsy to have been written by anyone with storytelling skills.<br /><br />For instance, good old John Ritter (now a rather bulky and bearded villain) poisons his wife enough to make her ill, then accuses her of being psychosomatic and leaves to marry another young woman immediately. Fourteen years pass before the story picks up again. Why fourteen years? I would guess that though the narrative doesn't demand it, history does.<br /><br />Some of the particular scenes, however, are so cinematically apt that they were almost certainly dreamed up by a writer. Pawing through her attic, Helgenberger, Ritter's first wife, stumbles across an old electrical appliance and has one of those black-and-white flashbacks with stings on the score -- suddenly she recalls when, fourteen years ago, she discovered Ritter shaving selenium filings from a rectifier, carefully collecting them, and putting them in her shampoo and her eyelash liner (or whatever it's called). Later it develops that he was putting it into her coffee as well.<br /><br />Frankly, I don't believe it. I don't believe either that she had that particular epiphany in the attic or that Ritter put selenium shavings into her shampoo or eyeliner. Selenium is referred to in the movie as a "toxic metal" and I suppose it is, in sufficient quantity, but it's also an anti-oxidant that's sold over the counter in drug stores and swallowed. Someone will have to demonstrate -- as no one does in this movie -- that it is a topical poison. Many people have tried the nicotine patch and failed. So how come some selenium in her shampoo gives Marg Helgenberger immediate and drastic headaches? And her eyes become as painful as boils when she applies makeup? I think the anthropologist E. B. Tylor called this simple-minded idea "sympathetic magic," but I'm not sure.<br /><br />Mais je divage. Anyway Ritter evidently tries the same stunt with his second wife fourteen years later, although no evidence of trickery is ever produced when she becomes ill with the same symptoms. Wife Number Two is taken to Mexico and apparently cured but suddenly drops dead shortly after her return. Circumstantial evidence piles up against Ritter, who plays the villain with all the stops out -- when his first trial is dismissed he SMIRKS at Helgenberger, who has prompted the investigation.<br /><br />You see, Helgenberger was good friends with Ritter's second wife and was terribly disturbed at her demise and its manner. (I'll bet.) And she wants to prevent the same thing from happening to the wealthy young woman who seems lined up for third place in Ritter's marital schedule. (Sure.) The best performance is given by the guy who plays Detective Mauser -- Lawrence Dane? Everyone else acts by the numbers. They project emotions and thoughts with the subtlety of a warning at a railroad crossing. But Dane does little things that are original. "I'm told you want to report a murder. (Long pause while he sits down and waits), then abruptly thrusts his face towards Helgeberger and inquires in a reasonable and curious voice, "So who was murdered"? I suppose except for the bare bones of the historical events, nothing prevented characters or their actions from being drawn differently than they were in real life. I mean, what the heck, Ritter is still in jail convicted of murder and Helgenberger's character is dead, so who is to object? I wish the forensic stuff had been made clearer. Ritter seems to have used so many poisons and toxic metals -- let me see, selenium, cyanide, a massive dose of chlorine, and maybe something else -- that I was confused by it all. Not that I was rooting for Ritter. Here's a mathematician with a Ph.D. who insists people call him "doctor." He even corrects people who address him merely as "professor." Most Ph.D.s get that narcissistic problem behind them very quickly. "Jes' call me Whitey, even though I know how to get a standard deviation and you don't." Average TV fare.
Okay, last night, August 18th, 2004, I had the distinct displeasure of meeting Mr. Van Bebble at a showing of the film The Manson Family at the Three Penny in Chicago as part of the Chicago Underground Film Festival. Here's what I have to say about it. First of all, the film is an obvious rip off of every Kenneth Anger, Roman Polanski, Oliver Stone and Terry Gilliam movie I've ever seen. Second of all, in a short Q & A session after the show Mr. Van Bebble immediately stated that he never made any contact with the actual Manson Family members or Charlie himself, calling them liars and saying he wanted nothing to do with them, that the film was based on his (Van Bebble's) take on the trial having seen it all from his living room on TV and in the news (and I'm assuming from the Autobiography and the book Helter Skelter which were directly mimicked through the narrative). So I had second dibs on questions, I asked if he was trying to present the outsider, Mtv, sex drugs and rock 'n roll version and not necessarily the true story. This question obviously pissed off the by now sloshed director who started shouting "f*** you, shut the f*** up, this is the truth! All those other movies are bullsh**!"<br /><br />Well anyway, I didn't even think about how ridiculous this was until the next day when I read the tagline for the film, "You've heard the laws side of the story...now hear the story as it is told by the Manson Family." Excuse me, if this guy has never even spoken to the family and considers them to be liars that he doesn't want to have anything to do with, how in God's name can he tell the story for them!? This is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard! The film was obviously catered to the sex drugs and rock 'n roll audience that it had no trouble in attracting to the small, dimly lit theatre, and was even more obviously spawned by the sex drugs and rock 'n roll mind of a man who couldn't even watch his own film without getting up every ten minutes to go get more beer or to shout some sort of Rocky Horroresque call line to the actors on screen. This film accomplishes little more than warping the public's image of actual events (which helped shape the state of America and much of the world today) into some sort of Slasher/Comic Book/Porno/Rape fantasy dreamed up by an obviously shallow individual.<br /><br />The film was definitely very impressive to look at. The soundtrack was refreshing as it contained actual samples of Charlie's work with the Family off of his Lie album. The editing was nice and choppy to simulate the nauseating uncertainty of most modern music videos. All in all this film would have made a much better addition to the catalogues at Mtv than to the Underground Film Festival or for that matter the minds of any intellectual observers. I felt like I was at a midnight Rocky Horror viewing the way the audience was dressed and behaving (probably the best part of the experience). The cast was very good with the exception of Charlie who resembled some sort of stoned Dungeons and Dragons enthusiast more than the actual role he was portraying. The descriptions the film gave of him as full of energy, throwing ten things at you and being very physical about it all the while did not match at all the slow, lethargic, and chubby representation that was actually presented.<br /><br />All in all the film basically explains itself as Sadie (or maybe it was Linda) declares at the end, "You can write a bunch of bullsh** books or make a bunch of bullsh** movies...etc. etc." Case in point. Even the disclaimer "Based on a True Story" is a dead giveaway, signalling that somewhere beneath this psychedelic garbage heap lay the foundation of an actual story with content that will make and has made a difference in the world. All you have to do is a little bit of alchemy to separate the truth from the the crap, or actually, maybe you could just avoid it all together and go read a book instead.<br /><br />All I can say is this, when the film ended I got a free beer so I'm glad I went, but not so glad I spent fifteen dollars on my ticket to be told to shut the f*** up for asking the director a question. Peace.
The only thing of interest about this movie is its subject matter. Taking a look at the Manson "family" from the point of view of the family members themselves is a great idea. However, trying to make sense of the uncomprehensible is something that can really only be accomplished in a masterwork -- and this ain't it.<br /><br />Presumably because there was so much information to squeeze into a screenplay, this film was done in a faux documentary style, with reenactments thrown in. Trouble is, the writing and directing make it impossible to establish those things that make a movie watchable, like character, story, theme and so on.<br /><br />Worse, there's an incredibly weak sub-plot thrown in that follows a little band of latter-day Mansonites as they go after a reporter who's working on a story on the anniversary of the killings. It's dumb and pointless, and a complete waste of time.<br /><br />All in all, this movie is one big wasted opportunity. The one ray of sunshine is the acting of Marc Pitman, who plays Tex, who in real life did most of the actual killing. Whereas the female characters come off as giggly airheads in the 60s flashbacks, Pitman manages to convey real feeling.<br /><br />In short, don't bother with this movie.
I got encouraged to watch this film because I've heard good word of it: it was supposed to be this thrilling true crime milestone, disturbing, shocking... all that jazz. Well, I am disturbed because I spent money on it, and I am shocked that something so God-awful actually got released. That's about it.<br /><br />This is a supposed "new look" at Charles Manson's family of insane loser junkies and their murders. But if this is a "new look" then it's probably "new" as in "fresh and totally inept": just watching it gave me a headache and I had to give up trying to make any sense of it or even understand just what the director intended it to be.<br /><br />I suppose I should say something about the plot but fact is, it was so stupid and incoherent that I barely remember if there even WAS a plot at all. There was something about a "Manson tape" delivered to a radio DJ (or a TV producer?), then an hour of pointless random footage of "the family" in '69, then the Polanski murders (looking like a bad school play) and finally some idiotic part about a bunch of skinheads getting drunk and beating the hell out of one another in an alley (I kid you not), and then it ended (thank God) (Don't ask me to make any sense of that, I'm just recalling what I saw!) The performances were terrible, too. And how difficult is it to make a convincing "Manson"? Get a short skinny scrawny bloke, put a dirty wig and a shaggy beard on him. There's your Manson. But this "Manson" doesn't even look right. He just looks like, uh, a bloke in a cheap wig and a glued on Santa beard painted black.<br /><br />Or maybe that's what this film is actually about: Manson's family didn't make any sense, so this film doesn't make any sense, either. It's symbolic! (Yeah, right) I'm still so angry at spending money on this I stopped my normal lurking on this site and registered just to vote 1 for this film and post this warning that will hopefully prevent others from spending their money on this garbage. Stay away from it, it's not even worth renting.<br /><br />PS. The recent US TV production "Helter Skelter" got bad reviews here but I saw it last month (I saw the 1976 original too) and let me tell you, compared to "Manson Family", that new Helter Skelter is BRILLIANT and FLAWLESS. And I was disappointed in it! That's how bad "Manson Family" is: it makes a flawed and mostly disappointing TV movie look perfect.
I heard legends about this "film" (quotes used so as not to insult films) for a while, so when I finally got the DVD with it, I impatiently started watching it. By the end, I *had* to fast forward through just a few of the most moronic, ineptly made, nonsensical scenes of this pointless childish mess to make it end quicker.<br /><br />This may be the worst film I've even "touched" - and I used to be associated with Troma for a while. "Manson Family" makes the bottom of Troma's entries look like daring and groundbreaking art-house filmwork. I could go on and talk about the syphilitic skeleton of a "plot" it has, the revoltingly bad "acting", the painful, inept "directing", the sets and props with their "dollar ninety nine" look (I especially "loved" the plastic toy guns used in the Tate murder scene!) or the nauseating look and feel of this whole bag of garbage (I think it was supposed to represent a drug-induced hallucination; I have absolutely no idea how a drug-induced hallucination looks or feels, nor do I want to find out - but I guess drug junkies with burned out "brains" will love this "film" (they seem to be the ones who made it) I've seen many films from various "Worst 50" lists, traditionally opened by Eddie Wood's ones - and Eddie Wood would be appalled by the sheer ineptitude and talentless of van Webber (or whatever his name is; I certainly don't want to remember it) I've never seen "Superbabies" or its sequel, but I strongly wish that "Manson" joined them on IMDb's rating. Fortunately, this obscure garbage probably won't be seen by enough viewers to warrant it sufficiently many "1" votes - and so much the better!
This has got to be the most god-awful piece of cinematic crap I have ever watched. It makes Mel Brooks movies Oscar-worthy by comparison. Jim VanBebber needs to be publicly slapped for trying to pass this off as ANY form of entertainment.<br /><br />While some may say that this movie is true to the low budget genre of such classics as "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" or "Night of the Living Dead", the production value is not in question. It is VanBebber's ability to cast and present a plausible story line. The casting is deplorable. For the role of Charlie he must have picked the first actor he saw with a beard and long hair. Never mind that this actor's hair came halfway down his back, (Manson's never went much past his shoulders) this actor spoke in a dreadful monotone without so much as a fraction of the personality that Steve Railsback or even Jeremy Davies lent to their portrayals of Manson. The actor chosen to play "Tex" Watson had curly blond hair instead of straight dark hair, a fact that anyone who has shown even the most remote interest in the Manson case knows. He looks like a Minnesota farmer on "Little House on the Prairie" The actress playing Susan Atkins has a butt wider than Oprah's, While those familiar with the Family members know that "Clem" was considered somewhat retarded, the actor portraying him did so in such a campy, Chaplinesque way it was like watching an old Vaudevile act. Instead of Sharon Tate looking like a beautiful pregnant woman, the actress looked like bloated, alcoholic trailer trash. VanBebber speeds up the filming in some places for artistic effect yet this technique hasn't proved remotely useful since "The Munsters". The end credits list every known family member yet we are never introduced to the majority of them and those we are introduced to we aren't sure who they are sometimes.<br /><br />Facts are destroyed in this movie as well. "Lotsapoppa" did not die in real life, Steven Parent was shot four times, not twice, Abagail Folger did not have her throat slit, Where were Mary Brunner and Bruce Davis during the Himnan Murder? Patricia Krenwinkel never sported a "Dorothy Hamill" hair style.<br /><br />The most baffling aspect of this movie is what the modern day "freaks" had to do with this movie? Why was the girl wearing a rubber mask with a dildo attached? What was their problem with the journalist? What was the meaning or purpose of the final confrontation? Why were they included, period? The viewer never knows! <br /><br />Holy mackerel, I could go on and on but space prevents it. Don't try to eat popcorn during this garbage because your hand will be too busy scratching your head while you repeatedly say "What the f---?"
A paranoid scientist creates a wolfman by transfusing wolf blood into a meek, quiet, but very large gardener, in order to prove an hypothesis. So the gardener begins nightly rampages and the scientist tries to use him to reclaim his credentials, but is rebuffed by his former colleagues for tampering with nature. Island of Dr Moreau, Frankenstein and various wolfman films all blended together into a terribly dated, goofy, morality play.<br /><br />Though the subject matter is pedantic and unoriginal at best, this film is not too poorly made, and interesting to watch as a representative of horror film making of its time. Like most mad scientist films, this is a weak warning against fooling around with Mother Nature. It doesn't have the power or intellectual challenges of Frankenstein, but it doesn't ever extend its reach anyway. The acting is passable, as is the cinematography, and the film moves along at an entertaining clip. Some of the dialog is utterly ludicrous, but hey... it's just a movie - and a B minus one at that. There are also a few nice shots of a wolf, and a smattering of humor tossed-in to prevent the film from appearing to take itself too seriously - always a plus for this genre.
I'm working my way through the Horror Classics 50 Movie Pack Collection and THE MAD MONSTER is one of the movies in the set.<br /><br />I am sure that George Zucco was a good actor; but, this was only the second film in which I saw him, the first being DEAD MEN WALK, in which he played two parts. However, even good acting couldn't save THE MAD MONSTER.<br /><br />Zucco plays a mad scientist, Dr. Cameron (who was banned from academia because of his unethical and inhumane experiments). He believes that he can control evolution by bringing out the characteristics of one animal into another.<br /><br />In this case, like so many others of its ilk, it is a transfusion of (I assume) wolf's blood into humans. His goal is to create an invincible army, which he can control through the antidote. The subject of his experiments is his hired hand, a retarded gardener, whose dialogue slows down this snail-paced classic to almost a full-stop. <br /><br />Beyond his experiments, Dr. Cameron also plots revenge on those who discredited him, using his transformed gardener. However, he loses control of his subject, who begins to transform without the transfusion -- yikes! <br /><br />The werewolf transformations are classic Hollywood stop-action / makeup effects. No doubt these were groundbreaking techniques of the time; but, in today's digital age it's hard to imagine audiences being scared by this.
George Zucco was like Boris Karloff in the fact no matter how poor the film he appeared in was, he would always maintain a sense of dignity and turn in a fine performance. "The Mad Monster" is no exception to that rule. It is by all standards a poor (if entertaining) film. The filmmakers obviously didn't know how to make the most of their low budget and the script seems as if it was turned out in one or two days. Still, Zucco is fine and believable as the mad scientist.<br /><br />The film itself is enjoyable on a camp level. Normal horror movie fans for the most part won't take a liking to PRC films. However, these "Poverty Row" productions have a small but loyal cult following. Occasionally they would rise above their limitations with "Detour" being the best example of this. Usually they looked like this. For all its technically poor qualities, "The Mad Monster" is an amusing enough way to kill a rainy afternoon. The DVD from Retromedia is recommended, as it pairs this with another PRC production "The Black Raven", the original theatrical trailer, and best of all an interview with Glenn Strange talking about his role in this movie. (4/10)
A scientist (George Zucco) wants to create wolf men out of American soldiers to fight the Nazis, but is branded as mad. He uses a simpleton gardener (Glenn Strange) to experiment on by mixing his blood with the blood of a wolf. Strange, constantly embedding his dialogue with the tones of Lon Chaney Jr. in "Of Mice and Men", has no idea what's going on, only that he sleepwalks. The victims begin to pile up (including a little girl, which modern viewers might find rather disturbing, and two of Zucco's rivals). There is some good dialogue on how man should not mess with nature (still prevalent today) and play God. Zucco's motives may be honorable, but his methods are most questionable. And then there is his daughter, Anne Nagel, who is sympathetically nice to Strange, yet has no idea of her father's deeds. Johnny Downs is a reporter who gets on Zucco's bad side by questioning him, but wins Nagel's heart, thus creating the usual and always dull romantic subplot in classic horror films. At 77 minutes, this is about 15 minutes longer than usual for a horror film of the early 40's (particularly one out of PRC, who released this one), so the romantic story could have been trimmed for costs and to speed things up a bit. Zucco, fortunately, is never hammy; He left that to Bela Lugosi (who always hammed in a deliciously theatrical manner which endeared him to audiences) and England's Todd Slaughter. But try not to think of "Bride of the Monster's" laboratory while looking at the one Zucco works in, or some of Lugosi's dialogue in that now classic cult film. "Mad Monster" lacks a cult following more because it is not delightfully bad, just has dull pacing in more than a few spots. For PRC and Monogram lovers, I would recommend "The Corpse Vanishes" or "Fog Island" higher than this
OK, this movie seems to have been pretty well covered by earlier comments, but there are a couple of items I wish to add. The mad scientist is producing a serum from the blood of a caged animal in order to turn a man into a werewolf. If we suspend our disbelief enough to buy into that, fine. But the animal in the cage is a coyote. That would make a werecoyote. Did audiences in 1942 not know the difference between a wolf and a coyote? They're easy to tell apart. That's weak.<br /><br />Secondly, this movie was covered in the third episode of MST3k (on the Comedy Channel). It took Joel and the bots a number of episodes to get up to full riffing steam, and they weren't up there quite yet on this one. They DID add enough to this snoozer to keep you awake until the end, but it was not one of their better episodes. They never even mentioned the glaring omission of an actual wolf, and THAT joke was just hanging in the air waiting to be smacked.
OK, I've now seen George Zucco in at least four separate horror/suspense films recently as I worked my way through various 50 pack collections, and I have to say, the guy had a limited range, but he was good at what he did. He wasn't Karloff, but PRC was lucky to have him. <br /><br />But the poor guy was stuck in a kind of back-water ghetto of horror films, and he wasn't good enough to take them to the next level of interest....not with the thread-bare screenplays and direction and budgets he worked under. That's the case here. <br /><br />This movie is, well, slow, stodgy and unexciting for the most part. The "heroine" seems to be doomed to be a rent-a-center version of Judy Garland, the "hero" is bland as white rice, and the poor guy playing the monster doesn't even get a good transformation scene out of the deal. His make up effects aren't scary at all - he looks like a slightly more shaggy version of a farm hand, is all. <br /><br />It's not a total waste. Zucco looks good on camera, he chews the scenery while managing to deliver some terribly affected and contrived set speeches without flinching or losing the flow. There are some moody B&W shots here and there that don't completely suck. <br /><br />So all in all...this movie helped some "C" through "Z" level actors pay their rent for another month, and it never sinks below a certain hacked out level of quality. Watch it once if you like George Zucco, or just feel the need to see every wolfman-themed movie ever made.
Thankfully you don't need a lot of "book learnin" to understand where this thing's going... Obviously a poverty row cash-in on Universal's big hit THE WOLF MAN (which was made just one year earlier), this finds the always-watchable George Zucco in another of his patented "mad doctor" roles as brilliant, vengeance-minded scientist Lorenzo Cameron. Cameron, who has set up shop deep in the swamp lands of what I'm presuming is the Louisiana bayou, is plotting revenge against four of his former peers who both humiliated him and forced him to resign from his previous job. You see, they scoffed at his claims of being able to mix man with beast to create an unstoppable army of wolfman creatures that would come in handy during war-time. Thankfully Cameron has found the ideal test subject for his wolf blood injections - a hulking, child-like half-wit named Petro (Glenn Strange). Petro is pretty clueless as to what's going on, doesn't ask too many question and lets the doc strap him down to a table and shoot him up with whatever happens to be in his syringe. This results in a time-lapse change of man turning into a werewolf. Cameron lets him out of the mansion using a secret passageway, so you basically get a big guy (Strange was 6'5") dressed in overalls with a bushy beard, hairy paws and a set of over-sized plastic teeth, running around in the woods the majority of the time. After an eyewitness sees the beast and a little girl is killed, the locals grab their rifles and organize a posse to hunt it down. Dr. Cameron, who can control the beast with a whip and also has a handy antidote to reverse the effect, also drags Petro along to the big city to try to track down the professors who had made a mockery of his original theories and destroyed his reputation in the process. Also hanging around the house is Cameron's daughter Lenora (Anne Nagel), as well as Lenora's nosy reporter boyfriend Tom (Johnny Downs), whose first inclination is that they're dealing with an upright-walking prehistoric creature (!)<br /><br />Though a typically chintzy PRC flick in many ways, with unimpressive sets, cinematography and make-ups, as well as a fairly bland supporting cast, it remains watchable thanks to the histrionics of star George Zucco. I have no clue why Downs received top billing; he shows up half-an-hour in and really doesn't have a whole lot to do, nor is he all that impressive doing it. This is Zucco's show all the way and he's great ranting and raving, talking to himself while fantasizing that he's talking to his peers ("I'm not interested in your imbecilic mouthings!") and temporarily sliding in and out of sanity. Strange seems to have patterned his performance as the hilariously naive and slow-talking semi-retarded country bumpkin around the entire oeuvre of Lon Chaney Jr., from his turn as Lenny in OF MICE AND MEN, to his performance as the aforementioned WOLF MAN. In any case, Strange and Zucco do a fairly good job playing off one another. My favorite part is when Zucco calls him his "guinea pig" in front of a colleague while Petro just sits there grinning and staring at a doorknob. Some of the foggy swamp scenes are pretty atmospheric, too.
"Dr. Cameron, a discredited scientist succeeds with his experiment in creating serum the transforms men into wolf-like creatures. Originally developing this formula to help the world, the scientist decides to use his newly created subject to exact revenge upon the scientists who were responsible for his ouster from the scientific community. The scientist's daughter Lenora grows wary of her father's actions and shares her suspicions with a newspaper reporter. When the scientist loses control of his creature, it falls upon the scientist's daughter and the reporter to stop it," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />Mad scientist George Zucco (as Lorenzo Cameron) creates his formula rather unimaginatively, by mixing human and wolf blood. This brings the beast out in hulking Glenn Strange (as Petro aka Pedro), who is directed to act like Lon Chaney Jr. in "Of Mice and Men". Johnny Downs (as Tom Gregory) and Anna Nagel (as Lenora Cameron) are a likable werewolf hunter and damsel in distress. Certainly, "The Mad Monster" is no substitute for "The Wolf Man"; but, it's a serviceable addendum. The grainy black-and-white photography enhances the foggy, cow-webbed atmosphere. "God" (uncredited) strikes up a well-done ending, too. Like Blaine (Robert Strange) said, "Mingling the blood of man and beast is downright sacrilege!" <br /><br />**** The Mad Monster (1942) Sam Newfield ~ George Zucco, Johnny Downs, Anna Nagel
First of all, I have to say that I am not generally a big fan of werewolf movies in general. It's not that I don't like them, just that I don't like them a lot. There are some that I have enjoyed...Werewolf of London (1935, Stuart Walker), An American Werewolf in London (1981, John Landis)...and some that I have thought were okay but nothing special...The Wolf Man (1941, George Waggner), The Howling (1981, Joe Dante), Dog Soldiers (2002, Neil Marshall) are some examples...but overall, the werewolf sub-genre is not my favorite. But I had this one on one of those 50 movie sets so I thought I'd give it a watch and see how it was.<br /><br />Spoilers follow...<br /><br />The Mad Monster is a werewolf tale, but the werewolf is primarily used as a vehicle for revenge by a mad scientist, Dr. Lorenzo Cameron (George Zucco). Dr. Cameron has discovered a way to transform human beings into beasts, specifically wolves, but was ridiculed and ostracized by the greater scientific community. Forced out of a prestigious position, he goes mad and plots revenge on those who mocked him in an old country mansion, where he lives with his daughter Lenora (the lovely Anne Nagel) and his assistant Petro (Glenn Strange) of limited mental abilities. Using his serum, Dr. Cameron transforms Petro into a werewolf and sends him off to kill his old rivals. Eventually, though, the werewolf Petro gets out of control and both the mad doctor and his creation are killed.<br /><br />The movie also plays out somewhat as a murder/crime drama, with Lenora's journalist suitor (Johnny Downs) investigating the doctor's strange behavior and the rash of murders. The story seems to borrow many elements from other big pictures that came before it. There are reminders of Frankenstein (1931, James Whale) in the creation of a monster which runs amok, and the creature killing an innocent child. Visions of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931, Rouben Mamoulian or the 1941, Victor Fleming version) and The Wolf Man (1941, George Waggner) also come to mind. And that is one of the problems with this movie in my view-it comes across as a mediocre melding of some great films. It doesn't add much to the genre.<br /><br />True, there are some redeeming qualities. George Zucco's performance was convincing, and the scene showing Dr. Lorenzo talking to his visions/hallucinations of his tormentors works well for me in showing his insanity. There is some reasonable character build up, at least in the case of his character. But Glenn Strange's character is not at all convincing, and seems to have this comedic quality-whether intentional or not, I'm not sure-that just doesn't fit into the movie as a whole.<br /><br />I seemed to like it more than most IMDb users based on my rating of 4/10, but it was still a below average film. Perhaps worth a view if you are a fan of early werewolf movies or a big fan of the 1930's and 1940's horror films, but unlikely to appeal to you if you are not.
There are so many holes in the plot, it makes you wonder if they knew they had an audience for this and just threw it together. I don't know much about George Zucco, but I've seen him in two movies. Obviously, he has been cast as the loving father, mad scientist, vampire guy. He looks so ordinary. I'm surprised that he ended up in the genre. This is the typical, "I will create monsters that can be used to fight as an army." By transferring wolf blood (or is it coyote) to his hired hand, he turns him into a werewolf. Glen Strange, who was one of Karloff's successor's as the Frankenstein monster, plays the kindly, lovable hired man who is victimized because he trusts the mad doctor. At first the scientist is able to control when Petro (his name) can be transformed. But, like the invisible man, suddenly he starts morphing on his own and becomes a liability. There is a little love story of the daughter and a reporter with kind of a high pitched voice (Golly Miss Brooks). She wants to leave but her father, the doctor, won't allow that. He is also driven by a group of his peers who mocked his research before and now he is going to have satisfaction. The way he plot to embarrass or kill them is pretty far fetched and depends a lot on Petro and the guys sitting around waiting to be attacked. It's not a very good movie. The strong point is atmosphere of the woods as people and monsters lurk around the Spanish moss. Once again, the townsfolk are a bunch of morons, who look like they escaped from a bad western. One thing that stayed with me was that a little girl is the first victim and that seems unusual for a film of this era. There's also a pipe smoking old lady who knows about werewolves but nobody listens to her.
Pretty bad PRC cheapie which I rarely bother to watch over again, and it's no wonder -- it's slow and creaky and dull as a butter knife. Mad doctor George Zucco is at it again, turning a dimwitted farmhand in overalls (Glenn Strange) into a wolf-man. Unfortunately, the makeup is virtually non-existent, consisting only of a beard and dimestore fangs for the most part. If it were not for Zucco and Strange's presence, along with the cute Anne Nagel, this would be completely unwatchable. Strange, who would go on to play Frankenstein's monster for Unuiversal in two years, does a Lenny impression from "Of Mice and Men", it seems.<br /><br />*1/2 (of Four)
For reasons I cannot begin to fathom, Dr. Lorenzo Cameron (George Zucco) begins injecting wolf's blood into his dim-witted handyman, Petro (Glenn Strange). The result – Petro is transformed into a hideous (as hideous as someone with a bad wig and pointy teeth can be) killer beast. Dr. Cameron uses Petro to get his revenge against those in the scientific community who scoffed at and ridiculed his ideas (and why wouldn't they, Dr. Cameron's nuttier than a fruitcake).<br /><br />Overall, The Mad Monster is one dull and poorly made Poverty Row thriller. There's really only one positive I can come up with to write about in The Mad Monster. George Zucco can be fun to watch as he plays the mad scientist about as well as anyone. His Dr. Cameron is a regular loony. He has no qualms about killing; he has entire conversations with people who aren't there; and, as with most mad scientists, he messes in "God's domain" (actually, I'm not sure anyone accuses him of this, but it fits). But beyond Zucco, there's nothing here to recommend. Everything else from the monster effects to the supporting cast to the music is plain old bad. There are far better examples of Poverty Row horror from the 1940s than The Mad Monster.
George Zucco was a fine actor, often playing gimlet-eyed villains with a lascivious intensity. However even he couldn't save this dull and flat-footed B flick.<br /><br />Zucco plays the usual mad scientist, Dr. Lorenzo Cameron, who believes that wolf's blood, injected into humans, can create an invincible army of wolf men who can win the World War II (go figure!) Experimenting on Pedro the handyman(Glenn Strange) Zucco creates a werewolf that looks rather like the ones Dave Allen used to play in his comedy sketches! Pedro is obviously based on Lennie from Of Mice And Men, and you almost keep expecting him to say "Duh, okay, George!" There's one startling moment when the werewolf kills a child by reaching in through the window and grabbing it, but for the most part this is a routine and pedestrian - very pedestrian - 77 minute tread through all the old clichés that are done far better in other movies.We also get the revenge motif from the Devil Bat worked in, in itself a borrowing from Son Of Frankenstein!<br /><br />Zucco is wasted, and you only have to see him in films such as Adventures Of Sherlock Holmes, The Mummy's Hand and Dr. Renault's Secret to see how wasted. A few atmospheric swamp scenes are all it has to offer, really. And the scene where Zucco demonstrates his wolf-man technique to those who doubted him (again shades of Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde) is unintentionally hilarious.<br /><br />Not one of the better 40s B movies.
Not to be confused with the 1943 George Zucco movie "The Mad Ghoul," "The Mad Monster" is a film that Zucco appeared in the year before. In this fairly paint-by-numbers affair, Zucco perfects a way to turn his dim-witted handyman, Petro, into a wolf/man hybrid by means of wolf's blood injections, and then wastes little time in sending the transformed doofus to slay the former colleagues who had scoffed at his experiments. It is a very simple plot, really, and an extremely low-budget production. Glenn Strange, who plays the man/wolf here, would soon achieve greater fame playing the Franky monster in films such as "House of Frankenstein" (1944) and "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" (1948). The makeup job on him here is pretty lame, and only succeeds in making him look like a hippy with bad teeth (like the one in 1957's "Teenage Monster"). The sets in this film, in addition, are fairly nonexistent, and the denouement is abrupt and unconvincing. I have given the movie a very generous 4 stars, in part because I have an abiding love for 1940s horror films, but truth to tell, most objective viewers would probably deem it laughable crap, and I suppose it is. It's certainly no well-crafted Universal affair or Val Lewton masterpiece, that's for sure! Still, Zucco is always fun to watch, even in undemanding piffle such as this. If you can spare 72 minutes of your life, I suppose you could do worse than "The Mad Monster" (not TOO much worse, of course!). Oh...one other thing. This DVD is from Alpha Video, and you know what that means: fuzzy images, lousy sound (indeed, the worst sound of any Alpha Video DVD I've encountered so far) and no extras. You've been warned!
The Mad Monster starts in Dr. Lorenzo Cameron's (George Zucco) laboratory as he perfects his discovery of how to turn a human being into a vicious wolf like monster by injecting animal blood into a human subject who happens to be his dim-witted servant Petro (Glenn Strange), apparently he plans to put the serum at the disposal of the war department who will use it to create an unstoppable army of these monsters, the ultimate soldier! However, first things first as Dr. Cameron has his sights set on some sweet revenge on the people who dismissed his experiments, forced him to resign & subjected him to public ridicule. Dr. Cameron puts his plan into action & uses his monstrous creation to murder Professor Blaine (Robert Strange), in an unfortunate turn of events Dr. Cameron is unable to control the beast & is spotted by a local farmer Jed Harper (Eddie Holden) who spreads the news like wildfire, in another unfortunate coincidence a reporter named Tom Gregory (Johnny Downs) gets wind of the story & starts to investigate, he starts to suspect Dr. Cameron & since Gregory is going out with his daughter Lenora (Ann Nagel) he has plenty of opportunity to sniff around...<br /><br />Directed by Sam Newfield this is really low budget stuff from the 40's, even worse it's dull unoriginal low budget stuff. The script by Fred Myton drags the extremely thin premise out to almost 77 minutes which is far too long, there is no variety in the story & it's basically the same thing over & over. The character's are dull clichés, the mad scientist who conducts pointless experiments that create a monster, the fragile pretty daughter, the reporter who plays the hero & by pure coincidence happens to both be investigating the mysterious deaths said mad scientist is responsible for & is romantically involved with his daughter, the dumb servant, stupid idiotic police & stereotypical shotgun wielding farmers who are always accused of being drunk. This was probably clichéd even back in 1942! The film plods along at a fairly slow pace & director Newfield never manages to maintain or generate much in the way of excitement or atmosphere which is a bad thing. Technically the film isn't great, obviously the budget was minuscule & the mad monster itself looks lame resembling an old homeless wino who hasn't shaved for a few weeks & has had a pair of plastic joke shop fangs placed in his mouth. The black and white cinematography is basic & static like most films from this period while the good Dr. Cameron's laboratory consists of a couch & a table with a few sorry pieces of scientific equipment on top. The acting is stiff & wooden with Petro looking like he's on dope throughout the entire film, Zucco as the mad scientist doesn't convince & is forgettable. The Mad Monster is a pretty lame horror film, there is very little here to entertain although at least I made it through to the end in a single sitting which when I think about it is a bit of an achievement in itself!
As I sit and think about Poison for the Fairies, I realize that I may not being fair with the film. My rating of 3/10 may have more to do with my disappointment with the film than its actual quality or entertainment value. Based on the plot description, reviews on IMDb, and the 7.6 IMDb rating, I would sure that I had stumbled on a little known gem. Sadly, it just didn't do much for me. For whatever reason, Poison for the Fairies all but put me to sleep.<br /><br />Poison for the Fairies is the story of two young girls in 1965 Mexico City. One of the girls, Veronica, is a compulsive liar and tells her friend that she, Veronica, is a witch. The other girl, Flavia, is so gullible that she believes and is frightened by everything her friend tells her. That's really about it. In reality, nothing much happens and the film drags on and on as Veronica attempts to terrorize and dominate Flavia. One commenter on IMDb described it as "the scariest film in 80's Mexican cinema". My comment – if that's the case, there must not have been many horror films made in Mexico in the 80s. Another commenter wrote, "Watch it if you wanna get scared." My comment – are you sure we're talking about the same movie? My opinion is diametrically opposed to these examples I've given. To me, it was dull, uninspired, and poorly acted. The scene framing is especially annoying as director Carlos Enrique Taboada doesn't ever show the faces of any of the other characters. Veronica and Flavia carry-on long, drawn-out conversations with members of their families and their teacher, but we never actually see these peoples' faces. It's an annoying gimmick.
Two little girls strike a friendship. One tries to convince the other she's a witch. The other is a pushover who bends to the would be witch's will. On and on the movie drags with the pointless interaction between the two little girls, with many a dramatic cut away as they pose "shocking" questions. You know, the kind sweet little children shouldn't ask, such as, "How do you make a deal with the devil"? Oooh... creepy.<br /><br />In the end, the pushover is sick of being controlled by her witchy friend. Her belief that her friend is a witch leads to a tragic end. But by the time it comes, you won't care in the least.<br /><br />I can imagine this film may have been frightening to a very religious 1960s Mexican moviegoer, but it doesn't even hold up as a charming relic. It merely drags on. It is boring. It is pointless. It is not to be watched.<br /><br />There are many here who have a lot of good things to say about it, based on their knowledge of the director's other works and, of course, that common denominator everyone says about pointless films: "Ah, the cinematography is wonderful!" Those reviewers probably have a point. But for the ones who found this movie with no prior knowledge, who don't care about its "photography," its "atmosphere" or its...whatever else it has -- for these viewers, then, who just want a *good* movie that will entertain them for an hour and a half, do yourselves a favour, folks: <br /><br />Skip it.
Seymour Cassel gives a great performance, a tour de force. His acting as supposed washed up beach stud Duke Slusarski will always have a place in my heart. The film is centered around a nerd who just came to the beach in hopes of honoring his dead brother's dreams. What he gets is lame surf hijinks. Guys cheating, guys fighting, and guys getting drunk going to watch surf documentaries with the whole town of LA on a Friday night. Duke takes the nerd in and tries to teach him how playing volleyball is like touching a woman. Next time my woman talks back I will pretend I'm spiking the ball. <br /><br />Back to Seymour Cassel. The end of the movie turns into a good drama, since the first half of the film really had no point. Duke plays a wonderful game of volleyball, the best he's played in over ten years. The way the scene is shot is beautiful. You can feel the heart this man has for the game and the love of being on the beach. Those five minutes will go down as one of my favorites of all time. 3/10 Bad to Fair, the rest of the movie was lame.
As Jennifer Denuccio used to say on Square Pegs, "Gag me out the door." I would definitely vote this movie on IMDB's Worst movie list.<br /><br />Dennis Christopher plays T.T., a guy from Chicago who goes to California peddling his brother's jazz records. He is supposed to be a barney placed in the locals-only surfing community. But he acts more like he is new to civilization (just try to get through his sex scene without squirming). There are also the on-going adventures of the rest of the local population that the viewer must endure. That of Duke (Seymour Cassell), the volleyball expert who tries to get T.T. to act like a normal human being, the obnoxious drunk surfers who cheat on their girlfriends, and the guy who makes a bet with another that he can live in car for sixth months.<br /><br />California Dreaming is just a big old mess. It starts out like a typical seventies romp, complete with bad 70s music (even though this movie came out one year shy of the 80s). And Dennis Christopher comes off as the most irritable loser, it makes the movie hard to watch (keep your finger on the fast forward button). Even if this movie was supposed to be about the surfer culture, the surf scenes are almost total garbage. The people at the surf contest look as though they can't keep from falling asleep.<br /><br />I guess the only cool thing is seeing Tanya Roberts outside of her role as Midge on the sitcom "That's 70s show." And Cassell wasn't bad, he was just in a bad movie.
i've heard a lot about the inventive camera-work and direction in this movie. i thought both were a mess<br /><br />also some truly terrible acting. the main 'heroine' in the movie is irritating beyond belief and has absolutely nothing useful to contribute in any situation. everything she does or says is stupid, and she generally just seems to mess peoples lives up. if she could fight, i might forgive her<br /><br />overall all the women in this movie are stereotypical 'broads' in need of a man to save them. and all the men in this movie are muscle bound dim wits capable of saving no one<br /><br />this is a poor movie, and i urge you to avoid it. watch something like 'the sword of doom' instead, i hear its much better than this confusing mess of a film.
This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. It's supposed to be a remake or update of "The One-armed Swordsman", by Chang Cheh. The ham-fisted direction and crappy fight choreography mean that the fight scenes aren't even worth watching. The script tries desperately hard to seem serious, but is full of cliches like, "And I knew then that nothing would ever be the same again..." or "If only I'd known what a heavy price I would have to pay." Ugh! And who is that girl who plays Sing? Someone find her and have her eliminated!! She's awful. If you like Chinese martial arts movies, you'd be better off with Lau Gar Leung. This stinks.
I've watched hundreds of kung fu movies and I've heard some good thing about this movie, so I decided to give it a try. What I saw was one of the worst displays of movie making I've ever seen.<br /><br />I can't help but feel like the director want to have every muscle guy in Hong Kong in this movie. Everyone overacts to the point of stupidity. Even Conan the Barbarian had some civility. This movie just has half-evolved men screaming in every scene and stupid women who has no self-respect. The narrator's character should've be killed for sucking so much...she really didn't deserve to live til the end. The entire movie was a melodramatic mess, with horrible acting, bad directing and bad action. They should've just rename this movie to 'The Stupid One-Armed Caveman with a Blade" Here's a question...why do some director use quick cuts for some action movies? Answer: To can hide the deficiencies of the actors. Nearly every scene was close up and quickly cut without any kind of flow. The movie tried so hard to show intensity, but it became almost laughable. Please stay away from this movie it you have any kind of taste in kung-fu movies...or any taste in movies.
This is among one of many USA attempts of remaking a old classic British TV show, that's more famous than this one. From what I see none of you haven't mentioned or even acknowledged that you knew there was a TV 50's-60's called "Secret Agent Man" The original Secret Agent Man starred the great Patrick McGoohan (The Prisoner,Braveheart,Ice Station Zebra,The Phantom, etc) a man who was tapped to be the first James Bond, but he turned it down because McGoohan was a very devout man and he considered James Bond's bed hopping and violent ways to be against his values.<br /><br />This show was done in black and white, and it's a pity for those who haven't seen it,you are missing out on a lot. The character Mr. McGoohan played in "Secret Agent Man" was named Drake, and after he finished with that show he went on to the do the very popular though at times bizarre and controversial TV series called "The Prisoner". The character he played in "The Prisoner" was that of a agent who's identity is not revealed is kidnapped and transported to a island where he does not know where he is or who it was that is responsible for kidnapping him. What he does know is that his captors want to know the reasons behind his resignation from the British Secret Service, and on this island the populace don't have names but they are referred to by numbers and Patricks character is assigned a number which is "6" It was argued that his Prisoner character was in fact the same character he played in Secret Agent Man but McGoohan himself disputed this.<br /><br />Ofourse there is the unmistakable famous theme song that the original Secret Agent Man spawned. It was written by Johnny Rivers a famous 50's and 60's pop musician and from what I read some of you are actually think that the song comes from THIS version of the show. You're very wrong about that. It was Johnny's and it comes from the original TV series so let me help to set the facts straight. To those of you who complained about the name of the show being stupid, well in England, it was actually called "Danger Man" and in the US it was retitled "Secret Agent Man" For such a supposedly stupid name the show did well enough when it was first aired.<br /><br />Granted this current show has little to do with the original, no such main character named Drake in this one, and I guess they did their best to make this show their version of "Secret Agent Man". But it does use the redone version of the original theme song so that does tell you that this show was indeed meant to be a redone albeit however inferior redone version of the original series.
I have read several reviews that ask the question, "Why was this film made"? I myself found that question looming in my mind as the hour and twenty minute feature seemed to drag near the middle, only to give off the sensation that it was picking up steam at the end, when in actuality it was doing nothing of the sort. So, "Why was this film made"? I think that is a great question for those watching Heftig og begeistret to ask themselves. This reviewer is proud of director Knut Erik Jensen for giving us this powerful image of hope, brotherhood, and inspiration with this all male choir, but I do not think that Jensen did enough to bring a gripping story to the table. Let me pose this question to you, "Do audience members need more in a documentary than just a straight forward story to maintain interest"? My answer is yes, and this is where Jensen failed. Heftig og begeistret was a good documentary, but it was far from great. Jensen did a horrible job with the story and dedication of the subjects. It was great to hear the songs, but over time, those songs seemed dull, overwhelming, and a bit precocious. From the opening scene where our men are singing their hearts out in a blinding snow, I knew that I was hooked, but as the film developed I lost interest. Why? Jensen never took us, the audience members, to the next level. He kept the playing field level and ultimately hurt the overall tone of the film. Was this a movie about the music or about the men in the choir? The world may never know.<br /><br />Again, I would like to state that Jensen did a phenomenal job of finding an interesting story about this group of men who have definitely seen hard times and how they coped with that through music, but it was as if the all male choir were a bunch of the most boring men ever created. Jensen gave us the music superbly, but it was the characters, the subjects, that I knew nothing about by the end of the film. In the mix we had a 97 year old man who still had his driver's license, we had a large man in a tub singing classic American songs, we had old men who were once heartthrobs in their youth, we had some tension between the youth of the choir and the veteran singers, and we even had an ex-drug addict that had only been clean for eleven years. Did Jensen develop these interesting stories at all? Nope, he left them on the table. It was obvious that these singers were willing to talk further about it (see the political man who missed his political days), but Jensen seemed to clear away from those heartfelt moments and head straight back into interesting places that he could have the choir sing. To me, the music was defined at the beginning of the film, I wanted to be introduced and hear the stories of these individual men. They were all captivating, yet Jensen seemed to ignore them completely.<br /><br />By ignoring the major subjects of this documentary, Jensen became unsuccessful in creating any sort of tension towards the end. Without giving the ending away, I felt like Jensen was coloring in the lines. Instead of being bold outside the lines, he chose to create no moment of sympathy, emotion, nervousness, or sadness. Jensen took our subjects from point A to point B to point C without asking us to become involved in any way shape or form. I can see how national sentiment had made this film into a huge success in Norway, but for everyone else watching (i.e. ME) more was necessarily needed. I wanted to feel for these guys. I wanted to know if they were going to do well as they traveled, or just find themselves loved in their own city. There was no story, mostly in part to no development of the subjects. When you watch modern documentaries (oddly, this film was made in 2001), you want it to play out similar to any Hollywood feature film. You want suspense, realism, and drama, alas, with Heftig og begeistret you get nothing of the sort.<br /><br />Overall, I must ask the question again, "Why was this film made"? My final answer Alex, is that Jensen wanted to show how troubling times and a changing economy can still produce happiness in even the coldest places of Earth. I think that Jensen wanted to show human dedication and how something as simple as singing can unite a population. With that said, Jensen demonstrated that perfectly in this film, but he did not create a good documentary. When you make a film of this nature, I feel that you must look within the group, examine the choir participants and hear each one of their stories to bring about an ending that will grip your heart. The only thing that this film gripped was my attention span as it attempted to leave the room at rocket speed. Again, I do not want to sound negative about this film because the music was excellent and the men singing did bring about a feeling of honesty, but I needed more. With documentaries becoming a bigger staple of the film community, one expects a bit more than what Heftig og begeistret handed to us. I want to see reality and people, not just another song and dance routine! <br /><br />Grade: ** out of *****
Heftig og Begeistret (Intense and Enthusiastic) is a documentary-like story of a male choir up in Berlevåg in the very northern part of Norway, where the weather is cold and hostile, the days are dark during the winter and the towns are faced with young people moving to the more populated parts in the south of Norway, where the climate is warmer and there are more opportunities.<br /><br />The most beautiful part of this movie is the humans themselves. The people in the choir, who are aged from 30 to 95, all have unique, colorful lives and are very enjoyable beings. They are characterised by the harsh climate and the recession of the North and have adapted to the way of living required. Throughout the movie, we learn a bit about many people in the choir and we follow them through songs, some events in a church and on the harbour, and in the end, a trip to Murmansk.<br /><br />The outside environment filmed in the movie is very beautiful and characterised by the Norwegian nature. The scenography is also natural and taken directly from the choir and from the peoples lives that we meet. Thei r livingrooms, the bathroom, the kettle on the oven; there is nothing artificial about this movie, not the people, not the environment, not their music and not their feelings. Everything is as real as can be.<br /><br />It all loses out though when it comes to giving a story. It is very beautiful and real, but why do we see it? Is it because of the songs? Is it because of the nature? Or is it simply just to see a story about Berlevåg Mens-Choir, about their life and some of the trips they have. The message, if there is any, is that this small society copes with life through such social events like the choir. The choir have kept the people together for many many years.<br /><br />It is all nice, but being as popular as it has been, seen by almost 200.000 in Norway, there is something wrong. There is no beginning or end to it. Nobody gains or loses anything, nobody reveals any message or tries to convince the audience of that this is good or that life up there is great. Why was this movie made?<br /><br />I am sorry. It is a nice movie about good people, but compared to the average European, Scandinavian or Norwegian movie - this does not deserve a 9 out of 10. It is closer to 4 out of 10, and that is what I will give it.<br /><br />If you see this movie in a theater, you should expect the average age on the audience to be around 55-60. It has reported to be consistently high in all theaters. Maybe this is also the reason for it receiving such very high praise in the news and good grades also on the IMDB: It is a movie about elders, for elders. It is a movie of "I regret nothing in my life", and a story saying that living in a small town like Berlevåg, might be a nice life too.
Creepy facemasks and slasher movies have gone together like cheese and chives throughout the lengthy lifespan of the cycle. People often assume that it was John Carpenter that started the trend, but as is the case with many of the genre's clichés - the Italians did it first. Movies like Eyeball, Torso and Blood and Black Lace were the originators of a hooded maniac in a murder mystery. There were also a couple of American pre-Halloween slashers that warrant a mention. Classroom Massacre, Keep my Grave Open and Savage Weekend clearly pre-date 1978, whilst The Town that Dreaded Sundown is widely regarded as one of the first teen-kill movies. <br /><br />Carpenter's seminal flick may not have been the maiden masked nightmare, but it certainly started the competitive race between directors to unveil the spookiest disguise for their bogeymen. Over the years we've seen some memorable contenders, but my favourites would have to be: My Bloody Valentine's maniacal miner, The Prowler's sadistic soldier and Wicked Games' copper-faced assassin. I'm also keen on many of the killer clowns that have made an appearance throughout the category. The final scene in The House on Sorority Row has to be listed as one of the best and The Clown of Midnight also ranks highly amongst the greatest madmen's costumes.<br /><br />A leather mask was probably the last type to be used in a slasher movie, probably because they are widely linked with sexual perversion, which of course doesn't exactly make for a scary disguise. But in later years both Blackout and this obscurity decided that fear could certainly be incorporated with a gimp suit. Here's how the later of the two fared… <br /><br />The screen lights up with the rush of blue sirens, as cops race to the scene of a hostage situation. It seems that a stressed-out gentleman has possibly had enough of being cast as an extra in cruddy low-brow turkeys, so he's decided to hold his wife and kid at gunpoint. Detective Shine (David Clover) manages to wrestle with the gunman, but unluckily for him he looses the fight to grab a loose pistol and it looks like it's the end of the road for the grey haired officer. Fortunately he is saved in the nick of time by some precision marksmanship from Lisa Ryder (Donna Adams), the California Police Department's hottest female law-enforcer.<br /><br />Her heroic encounter earns the brunette a promotion to Detective first class, and its a feat that is heavily envied by her male counterparts. Meanwhile a leather-clad maniac is jollying around town slaughtering hookers and dumping their bloody corpses on street corners. Ryder and Shine are put on the case of the murderous gimp and their first call of questioning is a sleazy back street photographer called Michael Walker (John Mandell). Lisa is such a top notch inspector that normal Police regulation doesn't seem to apply to her, so before long she's dating the cameraman even though he's suspect numero uno. When the bodies continue to pile up around the city, she decides to go undercover in an attempt to flush out the S & M madman… <br /><br />If anything, Zipperface effortlessly sums up all that went wrong with the slasher genre towards the end of its rein. What started as a great stepping-stone for up and coming filmmakers and thespians had been reduced to a sewer of cinema faeces by movies with flat direction, zero suspense or shocks and talentless mediocre actors. The boom years of early eighties splatter flicks managed to conceal their lack of strong dramatic line-ups with gooey special effects and exciting directorial flourishes. Unfortunately, by this point in the cycle titles like Rush Week, Deadly Dreams and The Majorettes had seemed to be produced in a conspiracy to put the category where many of the aforementioned feature's characters ended up. In an early grave.<br /><br />Donna Adams doesn't even vaguely convince as an officer of the law and her inexplicably idiotic behaviour - which includes doing a striptease for a top suspect in a nationwide murder investigation - is more mind numbingly pathetic than you might ever expect it to be. Mansour Pourmand couldn't direct traffic and the wide majority of the cast members would struggle to get a second reading for a radio commercial. I searched and searched, but found nothing here of merit or note.<br /><br />On the plus side, if you manage to keep the TV turned on until the end then you may be fairly surprised by the killer's identity. To be honest though, I doubt that by that time you'll even care. And another plus point? Well, erm.... the disc is perfectly symmetrical, which means that you could use it as a matt to place your cup of tea upon?? Aside from that there's really no other reason to go out and buy Zipperface. Bad bad bad and not in a good way, this is 90 minutes of my life that I could have spent more constructively by plucking my chest-hair. Abysmal.
Wow! This is the movie that should be shown on TV at Two in the morning on Cinemax for all those insomniacs (lord knows they'd probably pass out from boredom watching this movie) Terrible acting, the killer is quite far from scary, I've seen clowns at carnivals that were scarier. Lot's of unnecessary 'skin' in this film, pseudo-porn scenes which are just horrible in more ways than a million, a gawdy soap opera style script which really hurt the movie and the director really had no flair for whatever genre he was trying to create with this film. I could see a group of teenagers with their parents camcorders doing better work than this. I don't think there is a part of me that could recommend this film to anyone...
The first thing you should know about "Zipperface" is that it was shot on video, so it has that peculiar "home-video-ish" look that is terribly distracting and makes it hard to take this seriously as a "real" film. And "Zipperface" indeed looks as if a bunch of amateurs got together for an attempt at a "real" serial-killer thriller. It's not quite that, but it's not as bad as it looks, either. Having a woman as one of the two detectives on the case puts a spin on the exploitation genre. Dona Adams gives an appealingly amateurish performance in the role - her obvious inexperience in front of the camera somehow works for her. Plus, she puts up a GREAT fight against the killer at the end. The red herrings appear ludicrous at first, but ultimately they work - I guessed the killer INcorrectly. And you have to wonder if perhaps Tarantino had seen the Zipperface guy when he came up with the idea of "The Gimp" for "Pulp Fiction". (*1/2)
Zipperface is the kind of experience one waits an entire lifetime to avoid! Mansour Pormand ranks as one of the worst film directors of all time! If, however, you love bad films, see this at all costs!
The series does not start as it means to go on. Although it's first two seasons are crammed with incredibly average episodes, as well as numerous duds, afterwards the pace picks up and one of the finest space operas is born. The first ever episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation is remarkable for two things: it's hugely enjoyable introductions to all of the main cast, and Marina Sirtis' peculiar accent which would later disappear. Seeing how it all began is very satisfying, and viewed in mind of the rest of the series, rather moving actually. Otherwise it is a very mediocre episode featuring Q, and some giant jellyfish. That's right.
I have been a rabid Star Trek fan since 1966. Still am. One thing I learned from Star Trek is that the special effects are secondary to the characters. Encounter At Farpoint fails in its mission.<br /><br />Superbly produced.<br /><br />POORLY directed, written, acted. D.C. Fontana really blew this one. This episode is so embarrassing the master tape should be burned.<br /><br />The first half of the first season didn't fare much better.
First of all, even IMDb is slacking with this movie, as the list of cast is VERY "gappy". Even main characters are missing from it like Buddy for example.<br /><br />Now back to the movie. I love watching movies, but this one tortured me throughout the whole 82 or however many minutes. It was HORRID. Probably the worst movie I have ever seen. And the reason why it bothers me so much, is because I was quite excited about seeing it beforehand.<br /><br />The plot line itself is good. It could have been a great film if done properly and with careful casting. Golden Brooks was a HUGE disappointment. I now see that the only role she can be good in is the loud, fun-loving, energetic sexy chick she plays on Girlfriends. Melodramatic roles are not for her at all. She basically killed her character, Rachel.<br /><br />I love some of the cast, like Deborah Cox, Mel Jackson and Darrin Dewitt Henson, but even they couldn't save this catastrophic movie. Of course it is only my personal opinion that I can not stand Hill Harper as a man, and he didn't help me get to like him more here either.<br /><br />Golden Brooks' voice bothered me so much that I actually had to force myself to finish watching the movie. It seemed like she whispered throughout the whole joint. The director I won't even waste board-space on, he did such a bad job. The editing, photography/camera focus and just about everything about this movie was SAD. Not to mention the dialogs! Absolutely unreal and many times straight hilarious (when it was supposed to make you cry and search deep within yourself). <br /><br />As I said, it could have been a very nice movie, but it was seriously messed up. I would NOT recommend it to anyone, unless they are cinematography major and want to see a 'What not to do' example for their future work.<br /><br />Have a great day, Everyone!!!
I caught this on HBO under its category of "Guilty Pleasures", and I would agree that I felt guilty (and pleasured) watching it. One, it's trash, and really raunchy trash. Two, the plot is slow and predictable and once you learn "who did it", you think, "So what?". However, I must admit to being enough of a male chauvinist pig to want to sit through what is obviously a poor movie, if for no other reason than to see Peta Wilson get completely naked a number of times. Do I feel dirty for having watched it? Yes. Am I sorry I watched it? No. So, there's the contradiction between being a lover of good movies and a lover of the female anatomy, even when in a poor movie. Sigh!
I have read the 28 most recent comments by various people regarding this movie and was surprised that no one mentioned the fact that the first victim, shown on the bed with the "missing eyelids", as the camera pans up and away from her face, blinks! Yes, BLINKS! I recorded it as it came on HBO this past weekend and when I saw this I literally had to replay it several times, focusing on one eye at a time to make sure that I was not seeing things! Of course, after that, it was hard to take the movie seriously although there were a few interesting and intense scenes with Julian Sands. Very disappointed and give it a 4 mostly due to the fact that the 1st victim blinks in one of the last frames as the camera pulls away from the body/face. Too bad.
This film tried, but ultimately it was a waste of talent. It tried to hard to be "sexy." I'm not putting down the works of such actresses as Ellen Barkin and Peta Wilson (who will find something besides TV's "Le Femme Nikita" worthy of her talents.) I just didn't find, even in Ms. Wilson's so-called near-seduction scene with Mrs. Barkin any real emotion, even though I know the thespians tried very hard to make the scene work. If the sexual elements of Wilson's disturbed sex victim didn't touch our heart (which it didn't even by an ending it didn't deserve), neither did the murder element of the plot. Perhaps it was the script or perhaps the direction, but I didn't feel for anyone in this movie, and without this feeling, a movie doesn't work for me. If you are interested in a movie about lesbianism, there are a least two films on either side of the specturum to check out: 1.) The gulity pleasure of "Bound" which works well in a noir setting; and 2.) The more honest, and touching story of a lesbian growing up in Hell's Kitchen called "All Over Me." It's a well-defined indie from the mid-90's that handles that coming-of-age issue with feeling, not forced sexuality. Both would be a better rental than "Mercy" which has next to nothing.
I got about halfway through this movie and was very disappointed. It was just flat out boring and completely unrealistic. I can get past being unrealistic in a lot of movies, but not when it's supposed to be a crime drama thing. The evidence collection and interview processes were just plain oddball. I started fast forwarding to see how it ended. And then got bored with that and just turned it off and returned it. The main character, played by Ellen Barkin, just wasn't believable at all. Peta Wilson acted very well in this film, but her character was way out there and there wasn't anyone for her acting talents to play off of that made it work.
...than you easily spot the biggest fault of the movie. What was the motive? The details of the murders were used, but never explained. I guess the team got too much into the atmosphere, which is great, but the story is definitely lacking. There is no thread to follow. I guess if that was done properly, the movie would've lasted a bit longer, but it would've been worth it, at least for me.<br /><br />Casting is very good, I loved Wilson as the vulnerable Vicky.<br /><br />Not much more to say, really. But I really wish they've concentrated a bit more on the less obvious.<br /><br />
Mercy the movie, actually starts out as a somewhat decent film, and ellen barkin does give a strong performance. But if you have read the book and actually got to know the characters and cared who done it the movie just does not compare. It is always hard to brink a book onto film and unfortunatley this one ends up failing...... 3 out of 10
This one is a bit more stylish than the average erotic thriller and Peta Wilson is a very sexy presence but it plays like they lost a few pages of script somewhere. Subplots come in and out of nowhere, the connections between some of the characters are murky and the killer's motivation is unclear to say the least. Maybe they could get away with this in a porn version, but here some more clarification is needed.
As much as I love Ellen Barkin (who is really underrated) I have to boo this movie. If you can't tell who did it AND why in the first half hour you obviously have never seen a psycho-sexual thriller or have never watched 20/20. It's like the filmmakers and actors didn't care that they way they were shooting it and they way they were playing the characters would be a dead giveaway.<br /><br />Overall, this movie serves to turn-on the dirty perverts who like to mix violence and sex. Not a fun movie to sit through, although if you like Ellen Barkin it's nice to see her place a tough lady.
This contains some spoiler information, but the movie is not worth watching anyway...<br /><br />Why Ellen Barkin and Peta Wilson agreed to be a part of this debacle by writer-director Damian Harris is beyond me. The story is full of unrealistic police investigating techniques, which includes going to a party with a suspect and inviting that suspect over to your house and getting intimate with them. The tale also features a male psychiatrist who seems to have nothing but female clients - and he sleeps with them all.<br /><br />Even more over-the-top is the notion that the female victims to a horrendous S/M crime belong to a large, yet secret, group of S/M lesbian executives.<br /><br />Full of bad editing and continuity errors, the film is sterile in all of its ritzy locations - including Barkin's detective salary apartment. And the lame dialogue is fit to put one to sleep. <br /><br />Damian is a bad writer and a bad director. He tried and failed miserably to create a noiresque atmosphere at times. Furthermore, he couldn't get Ellen Barkin to give 110%. I firmly believe she realized the film was pathetic and gave up trying. <br /><br />Standouts were Peta Wilson, who wasted time studying with a Dominatrix for the part. The highly under-rated character actor, Marshall Bell gave his absolute best as always.<br /><br />And since Damian couldn't deliver on any level, it was hard to feel emotion for any of the characters. <br /><br />Most importantly, he doesn't know much about the real world of BDSM and chose to create the typical "Hollywood Reality" of gorgeous men and women who are perverted and dangerous.<br /><br />Save your time, money and braincells and pass this one by.
<br /><br />Very slow, plodding movie with a confusing story line. The movie's only hope of keeping the audience interested is the gratuitous nudity thrown in at regular intervals. Ellen Barkin is miscast and her looks do not hold up when she is on screen with the much-younger Peta Wilson. Not sure what this movie was about.
Let's get right to the heart of the matter...This is a terrible movie. The story is confusing, the supporting cast is laughable and the lead Actors look like they were forced to be in it. The story asks us to believe there is a underground lesbian sex cult where members are being murdered by their psychiatrist who just happens to be a transvestite. Ellen Barkin investigates the crimes and develops a crush on Peta Wilson whose job it seems is to be the cult recruiter. The sex scenes are equivalent to bad porn and when Barkin and Wilson kiss, Poor Ellen looks like she's in pain. Barkin's Talent is totally wasted in this B-grade sexploitation piece of junk and I hope she gave her agent the pink slip after landing her in this film.
This was a sordid and dreary mess. I needed a shower when it was over. It goes something like this- some socialites are murdered and a woman homicide detective is assigned to the case. She discovers that the victims belonged to an underground lesbian society, and she befriends an associate of the group who may have relevant information. Since the detective is an attractive woman, of course she is horny and intrigued (which reveals much about Hollywood and its psychosis about women). What's surprising is that none of this is very sexy or interesting, just depressing and yucky. Ellen Barkin gives a respectable performance as the lead detective, and Julian Sands provides unintentional laughs as a cross-dressing psychiatrist, which is why it escapes a one-star rating.
"The James Dean Story" is introduced as "A different kind of motion picture," explaining, "The presence of the leading character in this film has been made possible by the use of existing motion picture material, tape recordings of his voice and by means of a new technique - dynamic exploration of the still photograph." The only "tape recordings of his voice" noteworthy is one short recording Mr. Dean make while visiting his family in Indiana; he wanted to record any family recollections of his great-grandfather Cal Dean, intrigued because he played a similarly named "Cal" in "East of Eden". Dean asks if Cal Dean was interested in art, and learns the relative was an auctioneer. James Dean was interested in art and had warm relationship with his family, obviously. That's the only 100% accurate revelation in this documentary. James Dean was interested in art and had warm relationship with his family.<br /><br />An amazing "screen test"/"outtake" from "East of Eden" appears near the film's end. It's a black and white scene between Dean (as Cal Trask) and co-star Richard Davalos (as Aron Trask). Dean is at his mesmerizing best. If this scene appeared only here, and no "East of Eden" film was completed, this documentary would be an essential, high rated film. But the scene, a perfect "10" in isolation, should be considered an "East of Eden" extra. Dean's "Traffic Safety Film" is also worth seeing.<br /><br />There are the expected interviews with family and friends. My favorites were the guy (Lew Bracker) going through a box of stuff Dean left with him, and Dean's family. There wasn't enough from Aunt Ortense and the letter from Dean to his little cousin was very nice. More reading of Dean's letters would have been welcome. Dean's unidentified writer friend seemed to have a better thesis for the film; filmmakers might have considered developing it as a main focus.<br /><br />Robert Altman's direction of Martin Gabel's reading of Stewart Stern's script is dreadful. What were they thinking? Perhaps, filmmakers can be forgiven due to the closeness of Dean's passing. Don't expect "The James Dean Story" at all. This movie is more about Dean's effect on people (both the fans and filmmakers) than the man. It is very clearly an early piece of the James Dean myth-making "legend". Tommy Sands sings "Let Me Be Loved". The narrative refers to Dean as "He" with a god-like air. The shots of Dean's family seeming to "know" the moment he dies are truly wretched.<br /><br />** The James Dean Story (8/13/57) Robert Altman ~ James Dean, Martin Gabel, Richard Davalos
A coming-of-age story about a teenager rebelling against the church and her minister father in a small Norwegian village. The countryside setting is picturesque but the story is rather pretentious and plodding, with much of the film devoted to quoting scriptures. It's like watching a religious propaganda movie. Theisen, who has made only one other movie, is pretty good as the sensitive young protagonist, as are Sundquist as her strict father and Riise as a woman that Theisen is fascinated with. The film aims to be fresh and charming but feels rather stale and tired. Director and co-writer Nesheim, who has worked mostly in TV, is not up to the task.
Without doubt, one of the worst films ever made. Sluggish and without structure, tension or story, the film coasts on the thin premise of "putting together a show". Conflicts are resolved within two or three seconds of their inception and dialogue is random and incidental. Everything is put together in a slapdash order and often "Stepping Out" feels more like a deleted scenes reel than an actual movie. The film seems to exist merely as a showcase for gaudy and totally random Liza musical numbers. Shelly Winters can be seen in the far superior octo-epic "Tentacles", and the REAL Liza can be found in the Showtime release of "Queer Duck: The Movie".
I was sitting at home and flipping channels when I ran across what potentially sounded like an interesting film. I like Destruction type movies and decided to watch it. I don't know why but I ended up watching it the whole 2 hours. We have seen this type of movie I don't know how many times.<br /><br />Back in 1998 - 2000 there were dozen of films that dealt with global destruction of some sort. The best one on my list so far is Deep Impact which was more believable than this one. Here are my problems with this film: 1) cheap special effects, like something out of the old computer. 2) no background information or explanation on weather patterns. If you are going to make a movie about weather, at least have some decency to entertain the viewer with technical details. 3) How come only 2 or 3 people figure out that the storm is converging on Chicago... no more experts left in the field? 4) where are some interesting characters? I truly don't care for anyone except maybe the pregnant woman. I felt that there was no character development. 5) no thought provoking moment what so ever and factually incorrect theme. And this is only the first part of the film. I bet the conclusion will show us few destruction scenes and a search and rescue operation just like it has been done many times before. And judging by the special effects in the first part of the movie, I can only imagine what we are to expect. Of course, at the end, the main characters will survive and life will go on... how original
I hope that Matt Dorff's original script for this was much better (there are signs of it - dialogue that should happen well before big f/x scenes (to introduce characters) that would make sense much earlier, is jammed in later in the time-line; perhaps the original script was for a longer running-time. But maybe not -- in any case, this reeks. Every character is uninteresting, and *everybody* speaks expository passages as if they are speaking the word of god. There are characters that are entirely expository -- Dianne Wiest's "Secretary Abbot" is just awful, explaining things to her assistant (and incidentally us), in endless speeches that NO ONE would say to anyone, ever, in real life (when she isn't explaining things to her assistant that she already knows, her assistant explains things to HER that SHE already knows._ There are characters who are entirely one-dimensional -- the evil power company guy; the pilot who will just NOT SHUT UP about his personal life and concentrate on his job. The "well-meaning" power-company superdooperuber hacker-guy who can crash<br /><br />*everything* in Chicago (including the phones) -- and then gives the oh-no-what-have-I- done speech (but not leave himself a back door?). The crusading reporter who abandons her principles at the drop of a hat? The power-company shift supervisor who ABANDONS HIS POST in the middle of the worst crisis in Chicago since the Fire -- with no consequences? Hospitals ABANDONED by the doctors and nurses during the crisis (I'm not kidding, that's in the movie.) <br /><br />Oh yeah, and it's filled with Hollywood morality clichés -- generally women are good, men are evil, unless influenced by a woman (the ultimate is the punk with the gun -- deprived of a woman's influence, he literally goes insane); an evil stupid act (like what the reporter did with hacker-bozo) is all right, so long as you 'mean well'. Evil men die, capitalist evil men die as horribly as possible, everybody else lives (well, except Randy Quaid). And did I hear someone say that the nuclear electrical power generating stations had to shut down because there wasn't electricity to run the safety systems (think about that one)?<br /><br />There is one ray of sunshine (if you'll pardon the expression) -- Randy Quaid basically plays his character from "Independence Day" (you know -- "Hello boys - I'm baaaack!") -- this time as a storm chaser with an infinite-range SUV and superdooper batteries for his camcorders. Nevertheless, they kill him -- mostly, it seems, so that the audience will appreciate that tornados are pretty dangerous things (kinda shallow, that.)<br /><br />Give this one a pass.
A wasted effort. On the surface it's a typical disaster movie: we're involved in the lives of a few people who get caught up in the Big Event. However, the script is so awful and there's so much explaining of the characters' background within the dialogue that we feel we're being treated like morons. Even Sesame Street didn't explain the origins of Mr Snuffleupagus or how Mr Hooper died: we can work it out. Someone thought that entering 'Enron' into the script would give it currency when discussing power companies. The acting is by and large bland, with the exception of the older performers (Randy Quaid, Brian Dennehy), and after the first hour, I couldn't care less about who the storms took out.<br /><br />But maybe there are the special effects to watch. Sadly, no. Even on a 20-year-old TV set I could see one tractor and trailer were computer-generated—badly. Maybe there are budgetary limitations, so I can forgive that one. Footage of a plane trying to land looked pretty real, but I kept telling myself I had seen that before. This site confirms it: it was from an earlier film, Nowhere to Land.<br /><br />So in summary, the only good bits are from another film, and when you see the best action sequences compressed into a 30-second network promo, it makes Category 6 look quite good. My advice: rely on your network to do some good 30-second clips, watch them, and save yourself two nights.
If you thought Day after tomorrow was implausible, wait till you see this.<br /><br />Okay so the premise of most disaster films is usually a 1 in billion event occurring, compounded by other circumstances. In this case, the even is the joining of two huge storm systems. Fair enough so far. Oh but hold up, no, the "event" is the sabotage and subsequent destruction of the power grid.<br /><br />Next throw in loads of human interest elements - in this case a cheating husband, a psychotic gun-wielding boyfriend, a rebellious daughter, a hacker with a point to prove, a senator trying to push an agenda, a reporter trying to stand up against "the man", and a pregnant women stuck in an elevator.<br /><br />Finally add a handful of taster events to add excitement.<br /><br />Jeez if the director tried to fit in any more meaningless plot lines, there would have been no time less for the actual disaster, which, given the pitiful state of the computer graphics, was almost certainly the intention.<br /><br />Jeez, if you can't even model a truck convincingly, you really should not be taking on twisters, exploding power stations, Las Vegas getting ripped apart, or destroyed oil stations.<br /><br />In case you didn't already gather how appalling this movie is, let me just add that all three bad guys get killed in separate, and wholly ungratifying, implausible manners, that stunk more of moralising that good film-making.<br /><br />I'm have no problem with first month film students writing jaded, hackneyed, cliché-soaked scripts, but for god's sake, that doesn't mean anyone has to make them into movies!<br /><br />It manages to make the abysmally implausible 10.0 Apocalypse look not quite so dreadful. Avoid them both.
Anyone who complains about Peter Jackson making movies too long should sit through this CBS "event". There's about 45 minutes of story padded by 2 hours of unnecessary subplots, featuring bland by-the-book TV drama clichés. Bad science is a staple for crappy weather disaster movies, so I'm not going to complain about that. Silly science can be fun to watch if it's executed in an amusing fashion. What kills this movie is it's 10 subplots... all of which could be excised without destroying what is supposed to be the central plot. The one character that is entertaining to watch in Category 6 is Tornado Tommy, despite being a very annoying stereotype.<br /><br />Note that I also didn't bother commenting on special effects. Their quality should come as no surprise.<br /><br />Not recommended.
I expected this movie was originally supposed to show before the election. CBS's last shot at throwing a dig at Bush. This movie was just awful yet I'm still watching it. **Minor Spoiler** I think CBS got the same people who "provided" the memo's to do the semi cut in half sequence. What is with the bad boyfriend storyline? Can the acting be more contrived or the dialog more like a Ed Wood movie. Who ever came up with this script please do us a favor stop writing. If you want to see decent B grade disaster movies then see Earthquake, Flood etc. Avoid this mess of a movie. Hint to CBS avoid showing us this crap. Give us re-runs of CSI instead. Better acting and more believable.
This movie is something horrible. I was laughing all the time. I was forced to stop in some scenes because my mom thought it's not polite to laugh when people are dying, but in this movie, even death looks ridiculous. Especially when Tornado Tommy is sucked into one tornado.<br /><br />Explosions of cars thrown onto buildings by the forces of wind look like ones from the old school side scroller game called R-Type. Dialogues are very bad and I am interested how they managed to persuade some of the actors to play in this movie. It is simply amazing how such bad movie can make it into the TV.<br /><br />Only real reason to watch this movie is to have some fun of nonsense and absurdity.
This movie has to be the worst film I have seen. There is a reason it was made to be a MOW (Movie of the week). The continuity was all wrong (palm trees in a Chicago setting even though it was filmed in Toronto, Canada), the effects were left to be desired for the year of 2004. HELLO. "Lord of the Rings" had better CGI than that. But I guess they also had the money for it. The budget will for sure affect the outcome but anyone that calls this MOW more than a 2 needs to go back to Film and TV school. Next time remember that care and time make a classic not rushing for a tornado box office or TV smash hit.<br /><br />Also, I know networks can reuse footage from old networks or affiliates but using 80's footage for 2004? I have a hard time buying that.
Contains Major Spoilers, on the off chance you would actually care about the story line.<br /><br />OK, we have storms that destroy a city and a computer hacker who clobbers the power grid.<br /><br />Predictable schlock from the start, and if that weren't enough, the 5 second action bumps between the movie and the commercials kill what little suspense there might have been. For example: will they make it to the airport in time? Things look dim as we go to a commercial…and the action shot before the ad shows them bouncing around inside the plane! Well, I guess they're gonna make it after all…but then again, they had to because they're good guys.<br /><br />The acting wasn't any too impressive (exception and welcome relief: Randy Quaid as Tornado Tommy) , the effects were kinda lame, the bad guys got it, and the good guys came through. The real disaster of this movie was the script, especially the ending. Not only did they wrap things up happily as quickly as a soap opera given 24 hours notice of a cancellation, but they glorified the hacker as well-intentioned. So he caused a bazillion deaths…he meant well. And, of course, an uplifting final TV report about people coming together. Barf. It was everything I expected from the commercials, and I'm glad I wasted my time watching it. It will make great conversation at the lunch table tomorrow.<br /><br />Is CBS insulting us by making this? Sure…but we watched it, didn't we? Did you count many ads there were for home backup generators during this pig?<br /><br />Here's hoping for the next Plan 9 from Outer Space (which gets better with each viewing). This isn't it.<br /><br />1 star.
What i hate most in this garbage is the arrogant attitude of the film makers and network execs who foist this nonsense on the public because they really think the audience is so stupid, so undeserving, so tasteless as to deserve these kind of cons. There is an inherent entertainment is seeing disaster movies and with the magic of today's CGI effects artists are given powerful tools to explore what before was denied them. With that allure we sat down to watch some mayhem and destruction. Well, guess what, the only mayhem we saw was in the ads touting next Wednesday's episode. What a let down! But wait, there was even a bigger one. The script itself was the bigger disaster! And then there was the direction and the flaccid acting by everyone involved in this turkey. But we knew this before right?! We knew that effects alone do not an entertainment make, but yet the network bozos who Okayed this TV movie didn't care about that because in their mantra is the everlasting line "never underestimate how stupid the audience are". These guys must actually live by this motto, and I am so fed up of it. No wonder the audience has abandoned US drama in droves and pitched their camp in reality shows. at least in those programs no one is trying to make it look like anything different from what it is: intellectual pornography. Well, Category 6 is worse than that because it assumes to be different and "original". Yes this was a disaster movie alright but the disasters are not what they advertised!
The only reason I know this film exists is because I wanted to see what Nancy McKeon had been up to since The Facts of Life ended. When I searched her name, up came this relatively new TV movie. After much investigation I managed to locate a copy & was thoroughly disappointed with what I viewed. D Grade acting, poor script, terrible FX - it was like watching a toned down, more stupefied version of Day After Tomorrow that went for 3 hours. Despite the long running time the characters remain fairly under-developed, we do not care about them in the slightest & in most cases are longing for their demise. Combine that with terrible lighting & cinematography & you have a real disaster of a film. How they con-viced so many "name" actors (i.e Dianne Weist, Randy Quaid, Brian Dennehy) to appear in such trash is mind-blowing. In summary - I want those 3 hours of my life back!!!
This one was truly awful. Watching with fascinated horror, I kept on asking "why have they done this?" That is, taken all the scenarios out of "The Day after Tomorrow", "The Perfect Storm" and "Twister" and remixing them in a three-hour miniseries, directed by long-time junk TV director Dick Lowry, with every disaster movie cliché known to man and not an ounce of real suspense. Many of the cast were unknown Canadians and location filming was done in Canada, Winnepeg doubling for Chicago, so no doubt tax breaks had something to do with it. Although some ambitious special effects were attempted, the execution is so poor no decent spectacle is achieved. The actors may be a competent lot; the script is so bad no-one had a chance to show it, except perhaps for Randy Quaid as Tommy the Tornado chaser, who went right over the top and was quite amusing.<br /><br />Believe it or not, the producers have since made another one of these Canadian disaster turkeys called "Category 7 – the End of the World" which was very tastefully shown on CBS in the US a few weeks after Hurricane Katrina. How could the network of Ed Murrow and Walter Cronkite do such a thing? In prime time? PT Barnum "nobody ever went broke underestimating public taste" is proved right once more.
The first two hours of the televised version are full of character and plot exposition -- after an early brief sequence of Las Vegas being hit by tornadoes, the action doesn't really start until the second two hours. Still, some character relationships don't become clear until the second part. The actors turn in competent performances, but nothing special (however, better than those in "Aftershock: Earthquake in New York"). An exception is Randy Quaid, whose character is superfluous and incredibly annoying. The plot is a pretty standard mix of parts of "Independence Day", "Speed", "The Day After Tomorrow", "Earthquake", "The Towering Inferno" and several other films. You can predict what will happen next, and come close to predicting the dialog, word for word. The special effects are unbelievably bad. Despite the effects in "Twister", the tornadoes in this film seem less realistic than the one in "The Wizard of Oz" and other effects were obviously done for less money than such series as "CSI" and "Cold Case" spend on the totality of a single episode. If you have to see a made-for-TV disaster film, see "The Day After", "Asteroid", or "Special Bulletin" instead -- you'll get better plots, acting, and effects.
What is this!! its so bad. The animation looks so terrible , it looks like a ps1 type game. The actors are awful, they just cannot act to save their lives. I sat through all of this film an then at the end I was annoyed when I realised I had wasted 3 hours of my life. I've not heard of this film, did it ever actually come out in the cinema or did it go straight to DVD? A girl got shot?! What is up with that, it was just a stupid film. They totally copied 'The Day After Tomorrow'. Its got to be one of the worst films i have ever seen. I would definitely recommend to people to not waste their time with this. You could spend your time watching 'The Day After Tomorrow', its a lot better. Well thats what I think of the film. Actually why have I wasted my time writing about it, ah dam!! Its really annoying me, its wasted 3 hours and 10 minutes now.
I think "category 6: day of destruction" was very unrealistic. The digital effects where like a children's cartoon. <br /><br />The actors didn't act realistically, for example, when the girl was shot she acted like she got tomato sauce splatted on her. <br /><br />The movie was boring but I watched it because it was on. <br /><br />The only interesting character was Tornado Tommy, he was funny!<br /><br />Please keep the special effects real.<br /><br />I liked the comment: "What did we do to p.i.s.s-off Mother Nature?"<br /><br />I don't know what else to write to fill up the 10 lines. What else can I say the movie is so boring, I think my comment will be equally boring.
I can't believe I actually spent almost three hours of my life watching this. This must be one of the most unbelievable, predictable and cheesy television movies I have seen in a long time. I was hoping for some good special effects and action, instead I spent the entire time rolling my eyes and yelling "OH COME ON!!!", at the screen. The dialog is shallow and obvious, the acting strained at times and as the story moves along, isn't it just funny how EVERYTHING happens at the same time... Not to mention the obvious and nauseating ending... Now I've seen more than my share of disaster movies, I am a big fan actually, and think that often they can pull off completely unrealistic stuff as long as it's done in a fun way, but this is definitely not it. This is just an insult to intelligent viewers everywhere. What were they thinking when they made this movie?????
What a mess--and I'm not referring to the "destruction" in the title. I could go on about the hackneyed plot, the lousy effects, the (actually notable) cast grimacing as they deliver the worst lines of their careers, etc. I'll just say there weren't any palm trees in Chicago the last time I checked, and leave it at that.<br /><br />Hmmm...need ten lines to get this posted on IMDb.. OK, well, I think a DVD release with outtakes could be interesting. Maybe Dennehy will reveal what favor got called in for him to appear in this thing. Maybe Dianne Weist will show us the bag of money it must have taken to get her involved. Maybe CBS execs will apologize...
This made for TV film is about every cliché you can come up with for a disaster movie. The only problem is it isn't very well done.<br /><br />My brain is still insulted from the scenes in which Brian Dennehy is supposedly looking at a computer monitor looking for weather pattern data and showing on that monitor are stock footage scenes of weather turmoil ala The Weather Channels commercials. Why would watching local news footage of a washed out side-street give insight to global weather patterns? You got me.<br /><br />Also interspersed through out the first two hours are some of the worst CGI effects known to man. Watch for the semi truck and the airplane that look like they were rendered on a Commodore 64.<br /><br />All the foreshadowing in this "movie" is done with the subtlety of a sledgehammer, the dialog is forced and I can't think of a likable character that I want to survive the second half.<br /><br />The character I hate the most is the stupid wife who's husband is cheating. Maybe if she lifted a finger at anytime during the show instead of being a helpless woman who stands in the the same 10 square feet of the kitchen all day her husband wouldn't be sleeping with the PR rep for a rival energy company. She is so helpless, in fact, I want to put her out of her and my misery. I hope everyone in this "movie" dies in the second half.
There have been some great television movies in that past. Epics such as "Roots" and "Lonesome Dove" come to mind. Category 6: Day of Destruction will not be remembered for advancing the cause of made-for-TV movies. A laughably bad story, surpassed only by the horrible screenplay, Cat6DD, as I like to call it, inspires more sympathy for the actors involved than terror in nature that the movie was supposed to bring out. That sound you hear during the movie is supposed to be the sound of wind, but instead it's actually the careers of Randy Quaid, Brian Dennehy, and Thomas Gibson (Greg, of the Dharma & Greg duo) plummeting faster than houses and trucks and cows can fly away from one of the 15 tornadoes we see in the first 5 minutes of the movie. The movie was advertised as "nature gone amok," instead we get a lame story about how 15 different weather systems conspire to produce 150 degree days in Chicago, then a blizzard the next day from a hurricane that was in the Gulf of Mexico that combined with a storm system from Canada but actually had it's origins in a jet stream changed by global warming.... ENOUGH!! It didn't matter what the story was, the acting was terrible, the words the actors said were dumb, and 13 scientists throughout the country had coronaries after hearing the dribble that came out of the movie. I didn't care what happened to any of the characters, the special effects were sub-par, even for made-for-TV standards, and the story lines were pointless. All in all, I really really dislikes this "TV event."
I wish I had read the comments on IMDb before I saw this movie. The first 1 hour was OK, though it did make me wonder why everything was centered at Chicago and why no one reported any weather anomaly from outside US. Isolated acts of nature (of this magnitude) are unthinkable. But beyond the first 60 minutes, the movie just drags on like a never-ending story. The screenplay is horrible. As for the actors, very poor choice. Only the people hired to run in panic stick to their roles. But I do have to agree that this movie has got some good 'special effects'. If you rented it on a DVD and would want to watch the movie, despite the reviews, then play it on maximum speed your player would allow!
Well to start off I was like, wow this is new, so when is the film starting, and out of this in between stuff. But it never ended. The film is just one big in between! And after 10 minutes of waiting for something to actually happen, apart from water splashing around, I just started getting angry! There is nothing in this documentry and nothing will be learned. Completely BORING and RUBBISH!
CRYSTAL VOYAGER is a strange documentary about an eccentric surfer living in Australia. An American by birth George Greenough has surfed and photographed himself, friends and recently, dolphins, in Australia for 35 years, all using various re invented cameras which he either straps on his back, board or boat. In the mid 70s he teamed up with Surf Mag editor and budding film maker David Elfick to create this visually interesting tale about this life and photography. The 75 minute feature CRYSTAL VOYAGER is the result. Even in the 70s audiences were a bit puzzled by this film, neither surf-ing movie nor surf movie, because George swims about on a children's zippy board, not a real surfboard.... it offset the tedious droning of George (occasionally so dry or droll that it was actually funny.. like almost setting himself on fire or falling over something) with a spectacular 'you are there' power glide through a wave that ran for 23 minutes all set to Pink Floyd music. In 1974 when the Sydney Opera house opened, it also contained a cinema. Crystal Voyager was booked in there as an arty-sporty OZ pic and by default became a hit: as the 'opera house tickets' cost far more than a movie ticket, audiences flocked to see this film as an excuse to 'have been to the Sydney Opera House'...so the film did record business as a low budget attraction to locals and tourists who wanted to tell neighbors that they had seen a show 'there'. This created this myth that the film was a huge crowd puller and the reputation spread. As a result it was teamed with the fantasy cartoon FANTASTIC PLANET and had a trippy run through the UK and Europe as a double feature. I ran it at a coastal cinema in the 70s and the crowd was rather nonplussed about it all. Recently George has re emerged Lord Of The Flies style with another well photographed sea adventure called DOLPHIN GLIDE that offers viewers a dive and swim with the wild dolphins of Byron Bay. It is an eccentric 20 min short with an even more eccentric 20 min 'how George did it' short. Each were met with a collective yawn by both the media and the pubic in January 2005.... all of which makes CRYSTAL VOYAGER a 'you had to have been there' fluke all those years ago. However at a special Oz Surf night at an outdoor cinema last year 2000 people turned up....but then 2000 turn up every night to see anything there during this summer season of films.....so the damned thing fluked another box office binge. How many actually enjoyed it is very much open to debate. Again they were more than likely just plain puzzled by this mad film with an astonishing reputation. Elfick however, since 1975, has gone onto a stellar career as a major producer and director of many lauded Australian and international films. Look up NO WORRIES or STARSTRUCK or UNDERCOVER or RABBIT PROOF FENCE or LOVE IN LIMBO for clear and present applause at his achievements. George, however, is still floating around out there somewhere droning away and looking for something else to film, or drop a camera on.
Although it's been hailed as a comedy-drama I found "Crooklyn" to be mostly depressing. It's hard to imagine how Spike Lee could look back affectionately on so much chaos, petty cruelty, irresponsibility and mean-spiritedness.
The Texas Revolution of 1835 to 1836, including the periods preceding and immediately following, is depicted in this mediocre 3-hour made-for-television film, whose only redeeming value is bringing light and paying homage to Stephen F. Austin, the so-called "Father of Texas" whose life story had long been overshadowed by that of the legendary Sam Houston. The rest of the film is simply the usual "Santa Anna is a tyrant" storyline and with a weak attempt to show the Mexican perspective with a fictional Hispanic character displaying stereotypical Latin machismo. Combined with short low-budget battle scenes, such as the Alamao and San Jacinto, this film is recommended only for real history buffs who who do not come from Mexico. To its credit, the Mexican uniforms look accurate and the romantic subplot (another love triangle) doesn't take up too much screen time. Overall, this movie depicts the violent secession movement by Texas' Anglo-Saxon racial minority to be a positive and just revolution against Mexican tyranny as personified by the general Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, the so-called "Napoleon of the West".
I rented this movie to get an easy, entertained view of the history of Texas. I got a headache instead. The depiction of history in this movie is so comical that even mad TV would not have done a better job.
I should have realized that any two-video set being sold for only $6 would be bad. I even read the reviews before watching this film, and that still didn't sway me. I loved the book, and I knew it couldn't be as bad as people said.<br /><br />Yeah, it is.<br /><br />A patchwork of film, video, and what appears to be stock footage combine to make a three-hour tour of one chapter of James A. Michener's epic novel. Well, the time period covered was one chapter, but I don't remember many of the situations actually occurring in the book. The packaging on my copy of the movie gives Maria Conchita Alonso top billing - though it turns out that she is only in one speaking scene. On the second tape.<br /><br />The actors are to be commended for playing their roles well, despite a smarmy, overwrought script. They are to be insulted, though, for accepting the roles in the first place.
This junk bore as much resemblance to the novel as a pickle slice does to a cucumber. The film makers took the Alamo section out of the book, made it into a movie, and said it was based on the book. Hah! Wonder what they did to induce Mr. Michener to endorse this piece of fluff? It was just another Davy Crockett, flintlock rifle, Santa Ana, 13 days of glory collection of poppycock. I almost started rooting for the mexicans, just to get the damn thing to end. And what was that scene where Stacey Keach was trying to get James Bowie to let him look at the knife? The sexual innuendos he used were juvenile and unnecessary. They could have used the film they wasted on that silliness to put in some real dialogue. This show was an embarrassment to Hollywood. Or can those clowns be embarrassed?
This movie is supposed to take place in Milford NJ. I know the house that it is based on as well as the person. As you see at the end of themovie, she was killed in the world trade center incident. I know that, because I was one of the police officers that helped with the identification of her remains. (She was the only one in our area lost). The nudity in the movie went a bit far. I am not a prude but the actors could have filmed the scene with the two woman without actually showing the whole thing. This movie is in poor taste and I cannot see how her family would give there blessing to it. This is an insult to the person whom it is based on.
This straight to video cheap flick is based on a true story. I don't doubt it. Doesn't mean it's particularly interesting (unless you are one of the main characters who actually lived though this experience). A young woman named Angela buys a great, big old country home really really cheap. Well, as we all know from watching Horror movies, when you buy a big house cheap it usually means it's haunted in some way, shape or form. In fact, the second the house is being handed over to Angela the wise guy kid who lived in the house up to now takes a moment to "introduce" Angela to one of the ghosts! Nice guy, huh? Angela gets in touch with a psychic and a paranormal expert and tells them that her house is haunted and invites them to come over and see the ghosts for themselves. They come to a party and sure enough there are ghosts walking around, sitting on the couch, hanging in the garage and trying to seduce people in the bathroom. A few friends sleep over the night of the party, see the ghosts and vow never to come back in the house again. (Check out the girl who deadpans "I'm so scared. I'm so scared." totally emotionless. If she was so scared why didn't she get up, turn the knob and leave?!) The ghosts don't really do anything menacing aside from show up (And there is no blurriness or aura about them. They look just like regular people). They steal celery from the kitchen, move chairs around a la POLTERGEIST and one bisexual female ghost seduces Angela, who, get this, doesn't seem to mind! This scene plays like the kind of soft-core porn you see on the SPICE channel. (Ummm...not that I'd KNOW! Hahaha). The actresses aren't your typical porn stars though. They should hit the beach and the gym more. When Angela'ss NOT making love to the dead she gets mad at them and stands alone in a room screaming "Why won't you leave?! This is MY house! Get out!" They don't leave. I couldn't help but think of all the times I've heard psychic Sylvia Brown on TV saying that if you have a ghost in your house you should calmly rationalize with the ghost and say "Look, you're dead. It's time to cross over to the other side. In other words, get out!" According to Sylvia Brown, as long as your not hostile and nasty about it, they'll leave! This movie looks like it cost about $50 to make. It has a really cheap feel, and bad acting. I could have made this movie with 5 friends and a camcorder.
I think the best way for me to review this title is to split it into its pros and cons.<br /><br />PROS: ~ they turn into wolves rather than plastic/cartoony monsters. ~ the chase of the wolves through the forest ~ "Cash Machine" by Hard-Fi being played<br /><br />CONS: ~ some parts of the script makes you cringe (for example the terrible part where the woman escapes the 'games' of the "Fortunate Five" boys, and there's about half an hour of "Dear cousin" and a round robin of "Yes, see, we know Gabriel's law") ~ the diving transformation is ridiculous ~ the obvious and ridiculous ending ~ Aiden being told thousands of times to leave, and then goes "if you cared about me you would have left me" ~ the obvious characters ~ the unnecessary parcour ~ the completely unnecessary slashing of the arm by Aiden ~ cringey speeches by Gabriel<br /><br />You see what I mean.<br /><br />I adore werewolf films, and I tried watching this a few times to see if I'd like it better but it just made it worse. I think I'll just read the book and see how I get on.<br /><br />Don't bother with this unless you have a 12 year old brother or sister into spooky things. Anyone over that age may suffer and want their hour and a half back.
I read the book after seeing the movie and didn't care for it, finding it somewhat trashy; but trashy books often make good movies, and this one certainly could have. The story of a teen girl's exploration of her attractive power over boys, which she finds as irresistibly stimulating as it is doubtfully controllable, and which has an even tighter grip on her than it would on a normal girl because it affects her through her werewolfry--this story would have an obvious appeal to the young audience for which movies are made: an appeal of one kind to girls, and of another kind to boys: and I don't understand how the movie makers could be blind to that and turn the story into one with little appeal to anybody.<br /><br />To begin with, take the title (which is the best thing about the book): it's drawn from a Hesse quotation, also used as an epigraph, about a person running in fear and tasting both blood and chocolate in his mouth, one tasting as bad as the other. This is a wonderful metaphor for the heroine's state: torn between her human and wolf sides, savoring each but equally fearful of both. The movie dispenses with the epigraph, and instead introduces the character working in her aunt's chocolate shop! I can understand how the book's title might have suggested to the movie makers the erotically charged chocolates of "Like Water for Chocolate," and led them to want to link the same symbol to werewolves. But they didn't; so why is it in the movie? In the book the characters are in high school--or in and out, as with the Five, a teen gang who favor black jeans and T-shirts, and fall somewhere between being the heroine's nemeses and her pet peeves. In the movie they've become decadent twenty-something clubgoers. In the book the heroine is 16, just of an age to be discovering how her sexuality operates on the boy she wants, as well as on herself; she's the one who initiates the contact, then steps back, re-initiates, and so on. In the movie she's no longer a girl but a woman, and the guy is no longer a high school poet on the fringe of campus life but a fugitive from the law (and a comic book artist, to boot), it's he who comes on to her, in a manner as unattractive as that of her wormy cousin. She initially puts him off, but then gives in, as he's confident she will: hey, you know you want it. I would have thought a female director would have taken the chance the book offered to show a female protagonist in an uncompliant, proactive role; but no.<br /><br />In the book the heroine's clan is driven from their home because of the Five's delinquent behavior; in the movie it's because she went for a run(!). She's a great runner, prone to kicking off from building walls, and both she and her clanmates scale buildings in a trice; very like heroes of martial arts movies and very unlike wolves, or anything resembling them. In the book they don't turn into actual wolves, but things bigger than wolves; in the movie they're just ordinary wolves. In the book they metamorphose in "Howling" style, with crunching of spines; this is one of the things that make the heroine aware of the pain her body brings her, as well as the pleasure. In the movie the werewolves have become magical acrobats, taking great swan dives and transforming in mid-air, shimmering yellow like Tinker-Bell; it looks cool, means nothing.<br /><br />In the book the clan is a slightly white-trashy family that has relocated from West Virginia to Maryland. In the movie they live in Bucharest but all talk in different accents, none Romanian. In the book nearly the whole pack want to lead normal lives and agree that to insure that--and indeed, their survival--one necessity is to keep their true nature secret from humans. And so the characters keep saying in the movie; yet the head of the clan is some kind of underground boss--but apparently not a crime boss, since he despises criminals--and has a standing deal with the police, who supply him with "meat" for the pack. This seems a big exception to the rule of keeping humans from knowing; but maybe the police are considered safe because of their known tolerance for eccentricity and cult murder.<br /><br />At the end of the book the heroine learns she can't be something she's not when, in her effort to live a divided life, she gets stuck between the human and animal states, unable to be all one thing or the other. Her boyfriend isn't sure or strong enough to accept her for what she is, the pack can't risk having him around, and the two are forced to separate. In the movie she rescues him like Lassie, and they drive off to Paris (why Paris?), in an ending that's smiley-faced but not really happy, since the conflicts between their natures--between _her_ natures--remain unresolved.<br /><br />But the difference in the movie that hampers enjoyment the most is that whereas the book characters behave conventionally, within the realm of young adult novels, those in the movie for some reason have been made as annoying as possible. Every other line is a threat or some other kind of oneupsmanship: you'll be sorry; you don't belong here; you won't get rid of me; I gave you your chance; etc. I prefer to steer clear of people who deal in that way.<br /><br />There have been many good vampire movies, never a good werewolf movie. Had this one stuck to the book, it might have been the first.<br /><br />But no.
The movie blood and chocolate is NOTHING like the book. The plot has totally changed and whoever chose the cast needed to read the book. First the girl is not an introvert Aden is. Vivian was the one that chased Aden. Her mother was to have survived and be the one after Gabriel. Astrid was the one that did all the murders along with Ralf an ex of Vivian's. Gabriel is not old. He is old looking. And Aden DID NOT get Vivian in the end, Gabriel did. The title came from Vivian comparing kisses from Aden (sweet like chocolate) and Gabriel(delicious like blood). She picked blood because it promised more and he understood her more. That reminds me, Gabriel is not against humans like in the movie. He just avoids intimacy with them because they hurt him in the past. Really the book is sooooooo much better than the movie. But if you want o see running, a dating montage, and a lot of jumping. Then this is the movie to see.
The best thing about this movie for me was that Bryan Dick played Rafe and made me -melt-. Rafe and all his gorgeousness made the movie worth sitting through, even though I itched to get up and scream. I have never seen a hotter man. <br /><br />-ahem- But that's not the point.<br /><br />The title? That is indeed what it is. They took the beautiful story written by Annette Curtis Klause and threw it out. I will, in all my anal-retentive glory, point out what was missing, what has changed, and all else wrong with the movie.<br /><br />Sit tight and here goes:<br /><br />-Apparently, RAFE is son of ASTRID and GABRIEL, and apparently, ULF is no longer ASTRID'S child, like in the book. AND, as I recall from the book, RAFE and ASTRID were LOVERS.<br /><br />-ASTRID is apparently BLOND, as opposed to the notably RED HAIR described in the book. I believe the book said that she looked more like a FOX than a WOLF. And the movie also shows that ASTRID is VIVIAN'S aunt.<br /><br />-WHERE DID AXEL GO? <br /><br />-VIVIAN is 19. In the book she was 16. <br /><br />-VIVIAN and AIDEN meet IN HIGH SCHOOL which they both attend in the book. VIVIAN goes to see AIDEN because of his poem 'Wolf Change'. But, according to the movie, AIDEN beat up his dad, escaped, and now lives in Romania, and draws Graphic Novels. This made me go 'What the F**K.' <br /><br />-There is no 'Kelly' in the movie. WHERE WAS THE KELLY IN THE MOVIE. The KELLY in the book, however, hated VIVIAN. And she also dated AIDEN after they broke up. Vivian even gets tipsy in the book and trashed her room.<br /><br />-GABRIEL bears a striking resemblance to a Columbian Drug Lord in the movie. And he sort of sounds like one too. His acting was very good, but his appearance threw me off.<br /><br />-VIVIAN had NO parents in the movie. Her father and mother and 2 other siblings died in the movie. Yet in the book, when she comes home one night, her MOTHER, ESME is sitting on the couch, after fighting with ASTRID over GABRIEL. And VIVIAN has no siblings. Only her father died in the book.<br /><br />-AIDEN accepts VIVAN for what she is. This REALLY got me. He kills RAFE in the creepy church, confronts VIVIAN, and she saves him from the others wolves, except AIDEN shoots her, so they saunter off to find medicine, and then they try to leave the city together. WTF?! In the book, AIDEN freaks out when she turns into a wolf, and cries like a chick, throws stuff at her, and so she panics, and jumps out the window. Then he makes up a story that he tried to break up with her, and she threw a chair out of the window. That doesn't sound accepting to me.<br /><br />-AIDEN wants her to runaway with him. In the book, he wants nothing to do with VIVAN after she turns for him. Nor does he lovingly hold her face and say she can control it. He cries like a woman because he is SCARED of her. <br /><br />And the final indignation...the one that nearly gave my three best friends and I HEART ATTACKS IN OUR SEATS:<br /><br />-In the movie, AIDEN and VIVIAN run away together, and VIVAN has killed GABRIEL. As in she SHOOTS him. GABRIEL dies. In the *BOOK* not only does VIVIAN not kill GABRIEL, I do believe they END UP TOGETHER. As in, she doesn't end up with AIDEN, she ends up with GABRIEL. WHAT THE HELL.<br /><br />Small things were noticed too: Ulf's red hair which he gets from Astrid has been changed to brown in the movie, and Vivian works at a chocolate shop. <br /><br />A horrible shock; I am ashamed. The book really wasn't hard to follow. If Disney can use a random H!School, why couldn't the directer have found a random H!School? <br /><br />*sigh* I was really looking forward to this movie, I loved the book, it's sad that it didn't follow it one bit. I give it a 2, only because (as the top of this review states) Rafe (played by Bryan Dick) was dead sexy, and Agnes Bruckner did a wonderful job. AND, they kept the poem from Steppenwolf <br /><br />With love,<br /><br />Caitlin
This movie was boring. Very much like Underworld, only even less interesting. It's not much of a werewolf movie and no where near a horror film. The lead couple were boring. I totally didn't care about Vivian and Aiden. And there was so little character development that I didn't care about any character in the film. The plot was paper thin. The transformations were basically nil. I did like the wolves themselves, might as well have have done a wolf documentary, I would have liked that better. I wouldn't recommend this movie. I didn't find it fun or interesting. It just drags and everyone in it is a boring drag. This movie could win an award for how not to make a werewolf film.
There were only two redeeming features about this movie; the beauty of Bucharest and its architecture, and the way they depicted the transformation from human form to wolf form. Forget about the plot or storyline from the book - they're completely absent from this movie. In fact, about the only things carried over from the book are the names of the main players. Even then you'll barely recognize the characterizations. If the film makers had made a good movie, even though unrelated to the book, I wouldn't have been so disappointed. Unfortunately, they did not. The plot and storyline are typical of low budget horror flicks, the acting is wooden, and the directorial efforts mundane. Oh yes, the way the loup garou bow to their leader is pure hoke. I suppose a nod of recognition is due for the animal handlers. The wolves were beautiful animals and well managed in their roles.
The only reason i didn't delete this movie after 20 min is because we already wasted 20 minutes on it...<br /><br />the only and i repeat the ONLY effect that they used is a weird kapoera (from India?) jump on a half meter wall/trash cans, i mean, effects doesn't make a movie but... sheesh.... me and my friend hoped the entire movie for some real effect (a huge wolf?! something!?>!?!) but noooooooooooooooo... all we got is a jump! on a 0.5 meter wall + they used pharmacy's ..... and they found guns?! in the pharmacy?! i mean what the hell? oh i forgot, there was another effect- contact lances as green eyes! every 10 min we shouted "the only thing that can save the movie from the disgrace is a giant wolf who kills them all!!! besides that the script was so awful that you don't know who you would like to die first. you actually pray (and i mean PRAY!) that the "good?!" guy will die, hopefully in the beginning.<br /><br />make yourself a favour and send letters to delete the movie from every archives in the world.
My first impression when I read the synopsis for the upcoming movie was that it was going to be very, very different from the book. The movie trailer said that the movie is supposed to take place when Vivian is 19 years old after her parents were killed in a fire in America. She meets Aiden, an aspiring graphic novelist. Working in a chocolate shop in the day, she must accept that she will never be normal, because every full moon, she becomes a loup-garou--a thought-to-be mythical creature that can be closely compared to a werewolf.<br /><br />Most of the little changes didn't sound too bad to me, even though I am a fan of the book with the shared titled by Annette Curtis Klause. I knew it would be different, but I wanted to see it to support the book, thinking that an age change, a setting change, and a few little occupation changes wouldn't impact the storyline as a whole enough to make me want to tear my eyes out of their sockets and leave myself bleeding on the movie theatre ground.<br /><br />The movie unnecessarily killed off many important characters, one being Esme, Vivan's mother, right off the bat in the fire that was supposed to have killed her father. I pushed that aside and ventured forth into the movie, weary and slightly annoyed. Running through Romania, the camera angles were decent, the scenery was beautiful, and the music was... interesting... but it left me with the impression of, "Why does Vivian look like that, and why is she wearing a hoodie?" Jumping to later parts of the movie, I must say that I am surprised that the screenplay writers seemed to support incest in a way and rather than sticking to the character relationship from the book between Vivian and Rafe, the leader of The Five now became her cousin through her (surprise!) Aunt Astrid, who, in the novel, was the bitter and hated rival of Vivan's mother, and, might I add, no way related to either of them.<br /><br />To top off character distortions, Gabriel had somehow become the leader of the pack and obsessed over Vivian being his mate so they could fulfill some nonexistent prophecy. Not only did his physical appearance take a complete 180 from the description in the book, he was, apparently, also the father of Rafe. Yes, that's right, it's a nice little incestuous knot of wolfies all bundled up tight.<br /><br />Little things that irked me were scenes like the forest hunts. There was a red-head that stood out from the rest of the crowd, the one who "kissed their enemy" before their prey was set free to run and be hunted. Why was she there? Why did she look like Astrid? I suppose my mind is not vast enough to understand why such a character had to exist in the movie without any explanation as to WHY she existed other than to kiss pretty victims.<br /><br />I loved how the Amoeba was completely cut out of the movie. I loved how legally entwined Aiden's past was, what between the supposedly dramatic scene where he was telling Vivian about how his father wanted him to learn self-defense, and then beat his father up "in self-defense" to make him seem like such a tragic character.<br /><br />Character 180s are a lot of fun when they are completely unnecessary. At the end of the movie, I felt as if some person skimmed over the novel, scribbled down half the list of character names, drew a few connections here and there, mentioned that Gabriel was a bit of a jerk, Vivian fell in love with Aiden, he fears her when he finds out she is a loup-garou of the legends, and "somebody" is "killed by a silver bullet" and there is some sort of happy ending because Vivian finally feels accepted by somebody who loves her for who she is.<br /><br />I gave this movie a 2/10 because the camera shots were relatively decent, and the casting could have been worse, but as far as directing goes, why do the loup-garous leap into the air in human form as if they want to fly (with their arched backs and penchant to leap from high places), shimmer briefly, and then fall onto the ground as wolves? The only aspects of this movie that even had me watch it through to the very-sordid, sorry ending were the wolves, the beautiful scenery, and the eye-candy boys.<br /><br />All-together, I must say that in order to enjoy this film at all, one must be ready for misconceptions, strange happenings that are not always explained, incestuous innuendos, and have either not liked the book, or have not read the book.
OK, to start with, this movie was not at all like the book. I read the book when I was 13 and since then it has always been my favorite. When I'm waiting for a different book to come out, this is the book I turn to to fill in the time. I have 3 copies for god's sake. anyways, I knew this was not going to be anything like the book but come on! They could have done a little better than this. I mean seriously if I wanted to watch American werewolf in Paris or London than I would watch those movies. They took a perfectly good story and twisted it around into a copy of a story that has been told over and over again and quite frankly I'm tired of watching it. I mean hello the best part of the whole f*****g (sorry) story is she ends up with Gabriel. He doesn't die. What was that about? And he's old in this movie. Gabriel is supposed to be only 24 not 44 da** it. Awww. And Astrid who the he** came up with the idea of Astrid being Vivian's Aunt no no no no. Astrid and Vivian hate each other. Awwww. Anyways yeah that was my little rant seriously pi**ed off. hope this helped.
From the makers of Underworld, we have, by far, the worst werewolf movie I have ever seen. It is basically a reconstructed version of Underworld, yet lacking vampires (not a big deal), cool effects (a BIG deal), and generally just about everything that can possibly be done right to produce a decent film dealing with lycanthropy (the biggest deal of them all!). A twenty-something lycanthrope chocolate maker named Vivian is currently residing in Romania ever since her family was hunted down and executed in front of her years ago in America for being werewolves. There, she belongs to a small society (or pack) of werewolves and is apparently chosen to unwillingly wed the pack leader, Gabriel, whose son - some toad with a British accent - takes it upon himself to hunt outside of the pack. They have apparently been discovered in other countries prior and want to remain settled in Romania by avoiding negative attention, so of course, such activity is considered forbidden. Vivian ends up falling in love with an American artist who is oblivious to her involvement with the group of blood-thirsty predators. When they end up discovering the secret relationship, things get messy when someone is killed and the human is forced to participate in a deadly tradition in which he is set loose in the woods and is hunted - giving the pack a chance to transform into their "wolfy" selves. All this really consists of is a big leap before they light up and land as a wolf. Very cheezy effects. The entire movie is like a tamed down Underworld with some drippy, romantic montages and very little action. Watching this in the theater, I could not wait for it to end. A devastatingly boring disappointment. Avoid!
***MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS****<br /><br />I was super excited to go see Blood and Chocolate with my friends. I couldn't wait because the book is one of my favorites. But as soon as the movie started, I couldn't believe how different it was. At first I was like, okay, so both of her parents are dead...maybe it'll be okay. But then came the rest of the movie. By the time it was over I was furious. Nothing was correct but their names and the fact that Vivian fell in love with Aiden. By the end of the book, Gabriel was my all time favorite...and then the movie goes and turns him into a complete heartless idiot?! The movie also showed the shifters, or werewolves, as these vile, evil creatures were as the book shows them as just wanting to fit in and keep their pack safe. They would never kill humans for the fun of it.<br /><br />If they wanted to make a movie like they did, they should have given it a different title and named the characters different. Because then I would go out and watch it again and buy it, but when I think about it all I can see is the bad. You couldn't pay me to go see it again or buy it.
I'm going to talk about this movie from two different perspectives here. First is from the view of if someone sees the movie and never read (and may not ever read) the book. The second is from someone who has.<br /><br />(Movie without book) From a movie standpoint, it was an okay movie. Nowhere near as good as either of the Underworlds but much better than UltraViolet. And I'm not just talking plot line either. The visual effects were iffy in many of the parts, though the wolf transformation was very nice. The characters has very little development and Vivian didn't even seem to truly care that her "love" was killing off what was left of her species. Some of the other characters could have had more air-time, like The Five. The plot was way to similar to Underworld for my tastes.<br /><br />(Movie WITH book) As many have stated, other than the title, character names and a few minor parts, the movie and the book are nothing alike. In the movie, Gabriel was a lot older and was the father of Rafe (thus Astrid was once his mate). In the book, Gab was about 24, never mated with anyone since wolves mate for life (Astrid is trying to win his affection) and Astrid was the mother of Ulf, not Rafe. Another important thing is the location. The book took place in Riverview, Maryland. Also, why they moved from West Virginia is very different. The movie has it being Vivian's fault and her entire family was killed due to it. In the book, the original leader of The Five, named Axel, killed a girl from their school. Hunters tracked down the wolves and killed many of them (Viv's father included), forcing them to move. Also, Viv's mom, Esme was a major character.<br /><br />One thing from the book that would have made the movie better would have been the "bitch's dance". For those who don't know, it's the ordeal where all the bitches (females of the pack) fight to see who is the one to be the mate of the new leader (since earlier there was a fight for the males). Vivian won it, trying to save her mother from Astrid (who is a horrid evil woman in the book) and thus was supposed to mate with Gab. There was no prophecy! Anyway, if you've read the book and you liked the book, I highly suggest NOT seeing this film.
I never read the book. Now I don't really want to. I had no clue what this movie was about when I walked into the theatre. I still don't really know what point it was supposed to get across, but I do know that a good two hours was wasted from my life. Two precious hours I can never get back.<br /><br />The storyline was so predictable, it's laughable. Werewolves...or something...a very Romeo and Juliet type plot. I predicted the endig within five minutes into the movie. And I was correct.<br /><br />The acting isn't horrible. The only two cool characters in the movie were the British cousin guy and the Rambo-graphic-novel duder. The other characters are too...the dialogue is very bland and predictable.<br /><br />The absolute WORST part of the movie is the transformations between the "humans" and the "wolves." If you wanted something kick-ass like Van Helsings, you're gonna be really upset. Imagine ballerina's, a bright light, then a wolf. Yep...that's about it.<br /><br />Just avoid this movie. Period. Especially if you've read the book, because you'll just wanna punch babies.
When HULK hit theaters in 2003, it wasn't long before DVDs of the old Incredible Hulk TV show popped up in an attempt to cash in on the craze. We saw a similar occurrence a year prior when Spider-Man cartoons appeared on DVD to coincide with that hero's big screen debut. Companies leap at the opportunity to ride on the financial coattails of a hot brand.<br /><br />So the fact that this picture never surfaced on the shelves of Wal-Mart as its featured heroes clobbered the box office in the summer of 2005 says a lot. I guess everyone involved would just rather forget. To be fair, THE FANTASTIC FOUR is not as bad as everyone says. Let me rephrase that. It's not as unentertaining as all of its negative reviews might suggest.<br /><br />Veteran television actor Alex Hyde-White (no, you don't remember any of his roles) leads the way as Reed Richards, the brilliant scientist who, along with his crew, gains bizarre powers after an outer space mishap. He's left with the ability to stretch and contort his body to outrageous lengths. His future wife, Sue Storm (Rebecca Staab), can suddenly turn invisible, while her brother, Johnny (Jay Underwood), may now ignite himself at will. Then there's poor Ben Grimm (Michael Bailey Smith), the lovable lug whose body morphs into a mass of craggy, orange rock.<br /><br />Just as the friends are becoming accustomed to all of this, they are called upon to rescue the world from certain chaos. It seems Reed's old colleague Victor von Doom (Joseph Culp) is living up to his name, and that villainous Jeweler (Ian Trigger) isn't exactly helping old ladies cross the street, either. Can our heroes save the day? Of course they can; like any superhero movie, it's just a question of how and when.<br /><br />What's striking about THE FANTASTIC FOUR is how amateurish it is in virtually every aspect. The dialog is so lame and tired it sounds like it was written by a junior high drama class. The acting is so unpolished it makes a third-rate afternoon soap opera look like Shakespeare. The special effects are surprisingly good considering the minuscule budget, but there are still some positively embarrassing moments. When The Human Torch fully ignites his body, for instance, the entire movie briefly turns into a cartoon. I can just hear that production meeting. "Oh, no one will notice. They'll be too intrigued by the action!" I mean really, a cartoon? At least give me a mannequin on fire held up by a string! Prior to that, the scene in which the foursome come to on earth after their spaceship crashes is pure teens-in-the-backyard fare. The crew simply found a field and lit a vaguely-spaceship-like object on fire. That's the only remnant of such a major disaster?<br /><br />Of course there wasn't a whole lot to work with in the script. There is a fairly coherent story here, but it's all so simplified. When Reed and Ben decide to go into outer space, they simply drop by the Storms' house and ask if they'd care to join them. Is it really that easy? Don't these sort of things require, oh, I don't know, years of training and expertise? Not in the world of these writers, who seemed to be inspired by the underrated genius on display in FULL HOUSE reruns. But as bad as that may be, nothing can compare to how painfully clichéd Dr. Doom is. He was pulled right out of those awful superhero cartoons from the 1960s, right down to the evil laugh and slamming his clenched fist down on the table to punctuate his remarks. No comic book, least of all Fantastic Four, has ever featured a villain so obscenely one dimensional.<br /><br />Ultimately, THE FANTASTIC FOUR is saved from being a complete turkey because it's just so damn innocent. You can tell the people involved, as little talent or experience as they had, really tried. They didn't know the final result would be so embarrassing. They were under the impression that this was their big break, that people would flock to the theaters. It bears repeating that they had virtually no money to work with (and I'm sure half of that was eaten up by the cool Thing costume). All things considered, they did well, and for its many flaws, the finished product is a fair amount of fun for comic book fans.
I am almost a two decade old human who's been reading comics most of my life. I'm not a huge fan of the Fantastic Four, but I'm fairly familiar with them. In 1994, Roger Corman (B-movie legend) produced the first, I think, feature length Fantastic Four film. The result was such pure schlock that it was never given a release. Still, copies exist, mostly on the net and at conventions. If you're looking for a laugh and can find a copy do yourself a favor and check this thing out.<br /><br />The film basically retells the FF's origin and an encounter with Doctor Doom and a villain named The Jeweler, essentially the Mole Man with a penchant for petty larceny. As is the case with these comic book movies, everything has to tie into everything, so the FF play a vital role in Dr. Doom's creation, and he and the Jeweler play a vital role in theirs.<br /><br />First, I'd just like to mention that despite everything that went bad in this movie, I actually sort of liked the guy that played Doom. He doesn't get many decent lines, but when he does he hits them. The armor looks pretty good too.<br /><br />As for the rest...it's a dirty, dirty mess. Bad plots, bad acting, bad effects, bad everything basically. Boos especially to Jay Underwood, bringing new meaning to the word overacting as Johnny Storm. He's not overacting, he's ultracting.<br /><br />As for the FF, well they all sort of look right, and Sue's played by a very attractive actress, but they just don't seem like a real team. For one thing they have no reason for Sue and Johnny to go into space. In an early section Ben and Reed go to visit the two, Johnny's like 8 and Sue's about 12. It only stands to make their eventual romantic pairing a helluva lot creepier. The Thing costume looks more reptilian than anything else, not very rocky, and the only time the Human Torch is really a Human Torch he looks like the Silver Surfer tinted red.<br /><br />I could type for hours, but I think the scene that best sums it up is a climactic encounter featuring the aforementioned not-so-Human Torch. He's racing a laser beam, and he eventually destroys it with a punch. Yes, a punch. A laser beam. With a punch. Then he flies around and goes "Yippeee!" a whole lot, whereupon the camera tilts down and he flies back TOWARD EARTH. Evidently Reed the intellectual forgot to inform Johnny that fire doesn't exist in the vacuum of space. This and many other scenes operate like Looney Toones, if the character doesn't know they are over a cliff, they don't fall.<br /><br />I laughed, I cried, I was glad it was never released.
I gave this a 2, and it only avoided a 1 because of the occasional unintentional laugh. The film is excruciatingly boring, and incredibly cheap. It's even worse if you know anything at all about the Fantastic Four.
Admittedly, when the chance to see this horribly infamous legend of a movie, my expectations were pretty low. They weren't low enough. Scholckmaster Roger Corman somehow came into ownership of the rights to produce the Marvel comic book characters sometime in the late 80's or early 90's, and handed it off to Oley Sassone, whose directorial work has largely been in campy TV series such as 'Hercules' and 'Viper'. With a supposed total budget of 1.5 million dollars, it was produced, shot and briefly released on video and then sent to the wasteland of forgotten film. There it should have remained. However, like a banana peel in a vaudeville act, this "Fantastic Four" sits out in the ether waiting to cause a pratfall for those rare people unlucky and foolish enough to step on it. <br /><br />If you have ever heard of these comic book characters, you know what to expect. The people who made this were very true to the source material, and that is the only thing for which they deserve any credit in this fiasco. This presents the origins of the heroic group that develop superhuman powers when the shielding on their experimental spacecraft fails to protect them from cosmic radiation. Reed Richards (Alex Hyde-White) develops the ability to stretch his body and becomes 'Mr. Fantastic'. His girlfriend, Sue Storm (Rebecca Staab) can become invisible, and her brother, Johnny (Jay Underwood) can spontaneously cause fire to erupt from his body. Finally, Ben Grimm ('credited' to both Michael Bailey-Smith and Carl Ciafarlio) receives superhuman strength when his skin mutates to a rock-like hyde and is then referred to as The Thing. There is a prologue that sets up a former classmate of Reed's, Victor von Doom (Joseph Culp) to become their enemy, Dr. Doom, who orchestrates the sabotage of the Fantastic Four's space flight as an act of revenge for injuries he blames on Reed. There is the set-up, then the discovery of the powers, the revelation of the villain and ultimately a climactic fight. There are more details to the poorly-written script, but they are negligible.<br /><br />This is a movie that was made simply because the creators (I use that in the technical sense of the word. There isn't a whole lot of creative imagination at work here.) had the legal rights to do so. The plot will be undoubtedly mirrored in the anticipated big-budget release set to be directed by Tim Story in 2005, but tackling a massive special effects project like this without a comparable budget or qualified actors qualifies as an act of cinematic insanity. What special effects exist are mostly hand drawn or simple camera tricks that have existed since the days of the original 'The Great Train Robbery'. When half of the climactic fight reverts to full-on hand animation, you're almost relieved to be watching a cartoon instead of the poor actors who were damned to be in this project. There is very little consistency of style in this mess as well. Most scenes are either shot flat in available light or wild primary colors, and the only dressed sets are the obvious sci-fi pieces. There is camera-work, but it is mostly just keeping the characters centered on the screen and minimal information flowing to the audience. Editing includes leaving in extra lines and using obvious wipes (at one point there is even a transition using the center of a number 4). Editing spins are even used to supplement the poor special effects when The Thing transforms. The one scene where morphing technology was put to use was shocking only because it was such a positive jump up in quality.<br /><br />Limited camera work is not unforgivable. In 'Clerks', only the most basic camera movements are used and there is almost no style. It worked for that film because it was about people whose lives had no style, and it was consistent. Kevin Smith never let his reach exceed his grasp. 'The Blair Witch Project' caused some audiences to suffer motion sickness from the jerky hand-held stuff that put that pseudo-documentary together. When all was said and done, it was an effective work about the terror of getting lost and being consumed by a frightening situation. There is no sense of story or theme here on either a spoken or visual level. With this 'Fantastic Four', you never get more than an accidental laugh at the fact that the film makers and performers seem to be actually trying to rival other comic book movies with this poorly budgeted entry. <br /><br />Any film involves a great deal of time and work. It just so sad that so much of both was poured into a project like this. If you're one of the people who were involved with this, it was most likely done as a stepping stone on the road of a (hopefully improved) film career. Everyone knows about taking jobs to make the most of what appears to be an opportunity. For those who are curious about watching this movie, my advice is to only do so with a group of friends (so you can all point and say "you watched it, too") who have been forewarned about the experience (so nobody gets hurt from the shock), and maybe you can come up with a drinking game to ease the pain between the accidental laughs.<br /><br />1 out of 10
Whether or not this adaptation of the Marvel comic was made – and shelved – so its production company could retain the copyright to the characters, it doesn't change the fact that it's utter rubbish. The Dr. Doom and (especially) Thing costumes are surprisingly good, but everything else suffers from a deficit of either cash or talent. Director Oley Sassone can't even point a camera at stuff without including such howlers as a blind woman's POV, the dialogue is absolutely dismal, the team's costumes don't fit properly, and the effects are appalling: the Human Torch seems to be drawn onto the film with felt tip pens, while Mr. Fantastic's powers are brought to life using a bendy blue stick with a glove on the end. Joseph Culp compensates for having to wear a mask by wildly waving his arms about, Jay Underwood is incredibly annoying, the rest of the cast hit various levels of terrible, and while it's hard not to feel sorry for all these guys who thought this movie would get a release, it's equally difficult to imagine any of them believing it was actually any good.
this is the worst movie i have ever seen in my entire life .period.this movie goes beyond ridiculous,it is like the director wants to get his ass sued by the actors for wrongfully misrepresenting their roles as the fantastic four,i believe the movie should have been released in comic book stores in order for the only how u should say it,desperate geeks who cant get enough cheesiness and want to see more and more crap movies.in conclusion to my paradox statements and thesis,i do believe this movie has had great disadvantages to the futures of the cast's contributors,with the exception of jay underwood's character,in which i do believe it was his best performance,considering roles such as the not quite human movies in which the story is told in a way that he has no character.he cant act,and people have made good decisions to not go see his movies,this is why he is most likely not going to be any huge roles,unless he sparks his career in a most rare,but interesting way.
I have always loved bad creations, rhetorical criticism and my film professor validated that for me in college. This is not as bad as The Star Wars Holiday Special, there is nothing bottom of the lunchbox than that mistake. This The Fantastic Four film, complete with the I-have-no-idea-why-hes-excessively-tweaking-his-fingers Doctor Doom, is high on the list of colossal mistakes. Doom's dialogue "Kill him!...Let him go!" is classic as it is staggering in its hilarity. The editing is good, and the director of photography isn't half-bad...those are the up-sides. I cannot, however, subject all my friends to watch in its entirety, but if I can get the chance I show them the "can Jonny and Sue come to outer space with us!" scene I do. I also include the final scene scene, where Redd Richards in his FF outfit for some reason, alongside his bride Sue in her wedding dress, get into the limo...the payoff is the extendo arm in farewell as they drive away. Most people are in complete disbelief that something like this exists.
Without a doubt this is the WORSE comicbook movie every made. PERIOD!! Yes, it's worse then Dolph Lundgren's (1989) Punisher. Yup.. worse then the 1979 & 1991 Captain America movies. Oh yeah, it's even WORSE then Christopher Reed scripted Superman IV: Quest for Peace movie. Sheeshh.. that movie was so bad that the guy who played Nuclear Man only starred in one other film and it was only on T.V. =oP<br /><br />This movie is "D" quality. I had a chance to watch it on the SciFi channel back in 1997. I had heard it was pretty bad, but had nothing else to do that night so I figured I check it out. What a waste of an hour and a half. I would have been better off watching reruns of Different Strokes. Besides having the lamest special effects and worse acting I've ever seen, the whole script was just awful and not well directed at all. Thankfully a NEW Fantastic Four movie is being done and hopefully this version will do the heroes justice. I was hoping for a New SPAWN movie in the future, but it has yet to materialize. <br /><br />Do not rent this movie. If you happen to see it being televised on cable, check it out. Be warned though, you'll most like be flipping the channel after the first 15 mins.
This is truly awful, the feeblest attempt at a comics adaptation ever committed to film. Every possible thing about this movie that could be bad, is. Music, acting, lighting, sets, "special" effects... about the only positives I can find are that Sue looks cute in her blue tights and that the Thing make-up is almost passable (face only). That's it. Zip. Don't bother tracking down that bootleg copy; it's really not worth your time. Even the aborted "Captain America" movie from the early 90's is far less excruciating than squirming in your seat while you try to endure this mess.
Drifting around on bootlegs, sometimes thought an urban comic book legend, the first FF movie is pretty much as bad as everyone fears. I guess Marvel Comics now pretends it doesn't exist, what with the 2005 version out in theaters earlier this year. But it's out there, a reminder and the last of the first wave of bad, low budget Marvel super-hero adaptations (Captain America, Punisher, most of the TV movies). 'Low budget' is too easy a description for this FF pic. Due to basically no funds, showing the powers of the super foursome was limited to very quick shots (Mr.Fantastic), quasi-animation (Torch), and fades (Invisible Girl-the easiest to do). The Thing suit was not bad and probably half the budget; the face part was especially almost convincing. The acting? Alex Hyde-White as Reed is pretty good; the other 3 are OK, tho Jay as Johnny acts like a spaz at times to sort of show off his 'fiery' temper. The dialog is comic-book style, and it's the supporting cast which ends up floundering trying to make it work. Dr.Doom is way over melodramatic and unintentionally comical, and his two main henchmen are a case study of how not to act or write dialog.<br /><br />The plot? Not too good. It was quite faithful to the origin story of the FF (more so than the later big budget version), and even though the non-budget, again, restricted showing, for example, the actual crash landing, it kept the essential ingredients of how they discovered their powers in an isolated area - it's the best part of the picture, tho you have to wait a full half-hour for it. I also found the music odd in places; when the 4 are bathed in those cosmic rays, a kind of church choir is heard, as if it's a religious experience. The rest of it, however, is hopeless. Even with no budget, the story could have done without the Jeweler character (resembling the Mole Man villain of the books); it spends way too much time with him and his underground gang, as well as the blind Alicia. These sections are a waste of celluloid and very boring. The climactic struggle with Doom & his men starts fine, but degenerates into an awful mess as the Torch races a laser beam (cool animation but belonging in a cartoon). Fans can have a laugh at the bad FF FX and witless storyline, if they don't get depressed & outraged first.
Yes! this movie was just bad in every way in things like cast,effects,boredom,excitement,and of course,being fantastic and we all know the four heroes in this one were a bit more colourful compared to the new ones but it still has to go,A fantastic bore like this really was just silly trash which i knew nobody would like when i saw it,i mean surely with that budget about 3 or 4 GOOD movies could have been made but no. I am just glad that the new version made this year totally showed everyone how the fantastic four should have been made with good story,great cast like Jessica Alba one of my favourite actresses otherwise it would have been totally forgotten but thankfully no. The new one was excellent when i saw it with my mates at the cinema but this old fantastic bore has gotta go.
As long as you keep in mind that the production of this movie was a copyright ploy, and not intended as a serious release, it is actually surprising how not absolutely horrible it is. I even liked the theme music.<br /><br />And if ever a flick cried out for a treatment by Joel (or Mike) and the MST3K Bots, this is it! Watch this with a bunch of smart-ass wise-crackers, and you're in for a good time. Have a brew, butter up some large pretzels, and enjoy.<br /><br />Of course, obtaining a copy requires buying a bootleg or downloading it as shareware, but if you're here on the IMDb, then you're most likely savvy enough to do so. Good luck.<br /><br />And look for my favorite part....where Dr. Doom informs the FF that they have 12 hours to comply with his wishes....and he actually gestures the number "12" with his finger while doing so....it's like "Evil Sesame Street"....hoo boy.<br /><br />...and of course Mrs. Storm declaring "Just look at you....the Fanstastic Four" is just so heartwarming....you'll laugh, you'll cry.....<br /><br />So if you love schlocky Sci-Fi, this one's Fantastic For you!
I am a chess player and I wanted to like this film. Trouble is, the content could have been fitted in a 30-minute documentary.<br /><br />There were lots of shots of corridors being walked down and Kasparov gazing out in the hall where he won the World Championship. There were other shots of Kasparov being walked round the site of the 1997 match and being told where he sat and where Deep Blue was located. This just looked like filler.<br /><br />Also, I didn't find it interesting to see in detail where Deep Blue was now and seeing an IBM techie trying, unsuccessfully to 'open' it. What would we have seen of interest inside anyway - a little grandmaster?<br /><br />Also, the recent match against Karpov. I no longer follow professional chess enough to know when and where this was. It would have been nice to have been told: was this a one-off 'just for the money'? Was it part of the world championship cycle? What was the final score? The nub of the film was the play in game two. Could/would IBM let Kasparov see 'inside' the machine? That's where the focus should have been.
I'm writing this note as a chess player as well as as a movie viewer. I watched the 1997 Kasparov-Deep Blue games on the Internet. I know something about the issues that were raised. Other chess players will come along and want to know whether this movie is worth seeing/buying, and I'm talking largely to them. However, I'll try not to ignore those who aren't "into chess".<br /><br />This movie is about the 1997 match between Garry Kasparov and the custom-built computer "Deep Blue". However, the first image you see in the movie is not of Kasparov, or of the computer, but of "THE TURK". This is an "automaton" which was built in Europe at the turn of the 18th-19th century and played winning chess against all comers. I put the word "automaton" in quotes because it was, as everyone now knows, a fake. There was a man inside it.<br /><br />If you don't like seeing "THE TURK", then you won't be able to stand the movie, because "THE TURK" has as much screen time as Kasparov, maybe more, both in modern footage and in b/w footage from some old movie. The reappearance of "THE TURK" every few seconds underscores Kasparov's charge that "Deep Blue" had human assistance - that it was (to some degree) a fake computer, that IBM cheated, that there was "a man inside it" working behind the scenes to help it win. Not only does Kasparov believe this, but the filmmakers seem to believe it too. And so this is not really much of a movie about chess games or about programming chess computers. It is a propaganda piece about a big corporation supposedly misusing a helpless grandmaster. Really it is a lot like a "negative campaign ad", as it is chock full of ominous music and evocative camera work and spooky sound effects and innuendos ("we never found out what was behind that locked door") and the ever-present "TURK".<br /><br />Now, most people in the chess community are pretty much convinced that IBM did not cheat and that this was Garry's paranoia at work. To start with, in order for a human to help "Deep Blue" beat Kasparov, it would seem that you would need a human who was better than "Deep Blue" AND better than Kasparov. Since there was no such person, the whole idea is a bit suspect from the start. Furthermore, by the time this movie was made, there were computer programs that could run on your PC that could beat strong grandmasters. Today, much more than in 1997, we take it for granted that a computer can do things you might not expect. And we are less likely to take it as a monumental human tragedy that a computer beat a guy in chess. (And in fact, the bottom line is that Kasparov beat himself with two bad mistakes, including resigning game 2 in a drawn position.) <br /><br />As for the chess games, you actually see very little of them. There are a few comments from masters and commentators that tell briefly how they went, but really you don't get to see hardly any of the strategy or tactics at all. Naturally as a chess player I take this as a major shortcoming, but I think that non-players are being cheated too. Imagine a baseball movie, for example, where you don't hardly get to see any of the game - just a commentator telling you that "in Game Four, the White Sox defeated the Astros with such and such a score." Nobody would make a movie like that. But here, for example, we are told that Kasparov made a bad blunder in the opening of the decisive game 6, but we aren't shown the position on the screen, or told why it was a blunder, or what he should have done instead, or anything. We just see a few seconds of Kasparov holding his head in his hands, and then more atmospheric sound effects and camera work.<br /><br />(Since I saw this on DVD, let me warn chess players about the DVD as well. The jacket promises you that the Extras include the games "with analysis". Is this grandmaster analysis, which people like us might find interesting? NO! It is the automated computer voice synthesizer analysis from some version of Chessmaster, that tells you when a piece is attacked and a pawn gets isolated and that you are in the "Caro-Kann Defense, Main Line". Blahhhh.) <br /><br />Someone might then come along and say, "Well, clearly this movie is meant to dramatize the match for the non-player, and so it's unfair to be impatient with it." But actually it doesn't do a very good job of reaching out to the non-player either - it skates over some points that a true novice would really want to have explained. For example it says that Kasparov could have gotten "perpetual check" in the second game, but it doesn't explain what that is (or show what it would have looked like on the board, which would have been interesting). It flashes back to the Kasparov-Karpov matches but doesn't explain why there were two of them or who organized them etc. I didn't need this information myself, but I'm familiar with it. If you don't already have chess experience, there are places where you are going to be confused, and this is just a defect in the film.<br /><br />Ultimately I can't recommend the movie, which, like "THE TURK" itself, is not what it purports to be (a documentary) but more of a stage illusion.
What Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine does best is to delve into Garry Kasparov's psyche during the 1997 competition against IBM's Deep Blue. You see him becoming more and more paranoid, and increasingly unravelled, all because in the second game, Deep Blue made a move that seemed too human for his preconceived notion of chess computers. Kasparov thought then, and still does, that IBM cheated.<br /><br />Game Over tries to seem unbiased, but it is clear that the director thinks that IBM cheated. However, they give no real evidence to support the cheating claim, only intimations that IBM's security surrounding the computer room was because IBM really had grandmasters hidden in there overriding the computer on certain key occasions, and Kasparov's assertion that the computer didn't play like a computer usually does at one point in game two. In game two, Kasparov played a game that was designed to trick the computer, attempting to sacrifice a pawn in a situation where previous computer chess programs would have taken the pawn, leading to the computer's eventual loss. Deep Blue didn't take the bait, and Kasparov was so rattled because the computer seemed to play like a human that he didn't even see that he could have played Deep Blue to a draw and ended up resigning. That game psyched him out so much that he was unable to recover, and after playing games 3,4, and 5 to draws, lost game 6 horribly.<br /><br />The question of whether IBM cheated all comes down to that single move in game two, where the Deep Blue made the move that any human would make but that had, up to that point, tripped up computers. Joel Benjamin, a chess grandmaster on IBM's programming team explained in the documentary that they knew that chess computers always got tripped up in that situation, and consequently spent a lot of time and effort programming Deep Blue so that it wouldn't make the mistake that other computers do. If you believe Benjamin's assertion, then the case is clear, IBM did not cheat. Unfortunately, the director quickly moved on and never mentioned IBM's explanation for the rest of the movie, preferring to cut between shots of the chess playing hoax of the 19th century, The Turk, and shots of Deep Blue, hinting that Deep Blue was really controlled by a human as well. As someone who has an understanding of programming, the explanation by IBM makes perfect sense--if you knew what you were doing, it would not be terribly difficult to put something in the code so that, if thus and so conditions are reached, then do thus and so--in other words, tell the computer what to do if a situation like the one that Kasparov created in game 2 ever happened. This isn't cheating, it's doing a good job of programming a chess computer.<br /><br />In the end, it's eminently clear that the director thinks that IBM cheated, and the repeated comments about IBM's stock rising 15% the day that Deep Blue won suggest the idea that IBM cheated to pump its stock price (Kasparov even compares IBM and Deep Blue to Enron). However, there is plenty of outside opinion, within both the chess and computer science communities, that Deep Blue won fair and square and that Kasparov lost because he simply couldn't get past his view of computers as "dumb machines" and got psyched out by a machine that didn't seem so dumb after all. I just wish that the director had let us see the alternative opinion.<br /><br />
i was disappointed in this documentary.i thought it would be about the second chess match between Grandmaster Garry Kasporov and Deep Blue the supercomputer designed by IBM computer experts to beat any human chess player.Kasparov was and still is,considered the greatest chess player ever.the movie takes us back to 1997 where Kasporov had agreed to have a rematch with "deep Blue" after defeating it 1 year earlier.but instead of focusing on the game,it focuses more on what happens before and after.there are snippets of the game,but not very many.much of the film centers around Kasporov's paranoid obsession that the match was rigged as part of some conspiracy theory and that he lost the match unfairly.the movie also includes interviews with people who are not interesting in any way.they even chat with the manager of the building where the match took place.who cares?i also found it very dry and slow.ultimately this movie was unsatisfying.this is just my opinion,of course.if you like conspiracy theories,this movie might interest you.for people not into chess or conspiracy theories,this movie would probably have no value.i am a chess fan,and i only stuck it out because of that.i give"Game Over:Kasparov and the Machine" 4/10
Being an admitted chess addict, I was excited to see a documentary about the 1997 rematch between Garry Kasparov and IBM's Deep Blue supercomputer. I was hoping to see an in depth look at the match and a lot of what Kasparov had to say. Boy was I wrong and misguided by a mile. This documentary is a lot like many modern documentaries - there is a lot of flash but no real substance. After watching it, I am sad to say, I felt like I wasted my time. One of the most annoying aspects about the documentary is that it does not stay at one place for a decent period of time. It has the typical MTV type editing, where the camera shows different images and quick sound bites from people every five seconds. It is very sad that film-making has been watered down to the attention span of a 10-year old child.<br /><br />I understand it is difficult to make a film about chess, but that does not mean one should make it flashy. 'Game Over' did have a couple of interesting ideas though. It brought up the idea whether computers can think like human beings or not; whether computers have advanced to a unique new level. This is what Kasparov thought after the match, but this film does not go deep enough with this idea. Also, this film tries to bring in a bizarre theory. It tries to imply the paranoid that a human being was making the moves along with the help of the computer. Kasparov had suspicions about this, but still to this day there is no evidence. Towards the end of the film, it tries to imply the bizarre that maybe Anatoly Karpov might have been the human being who was secretly making the moves with the aid of Deep Blue. Interesting to think about, but I don't know how plausible or realistic it is. I still would not recommend this movie though, not even for chess addicts.
This documentary was neither professionally nor objectively made. The whole thing played out like a conspiracy theory by IBM to win the match in question just to make some money. Garry Kasparov has an ego problem. He was puffed up before the match and when he lost, he didn't like it. I remember playing chess against computers back in the 80s and it wasn't too difficult to win. As time went on, I started to lose and didn't like it. Today, I simply don't play against computers anymore because they're just too good. Not only that, the games are uninteresting and lack the appeal of human games, where both sides are more likely to err and open the game to exciting possibilities. This documentary keeps showing us images of The Turk which is an ancient chess playing automaton that was really controlled by a human being. From the start until the end we are lead to believe that IBM short of literally hid a human GM in the back of their cupboard-sized computer. I'm a computer scientist and take offense at the notion that just because Garry lost, IBM must have cheated. I know how computers play chess. It's not magic and it's no mystery. They can be trained, have huge amounts of chess knowledge and they most certainly see positions and possibilities in unprecedented detail compared to humans. It's really no surprise that Deep Blue won. Perhaps at the time it was. If it happened today, given the ever-increasing processing power of machines; people would hardly blink. If a machine couldn't at least draw with a GM today, people would think the program was weak.
Kasparov vs. Deep Blue is no doubt a fascinating story, but I don't think you'd know it by watching this movie. I think it focuses too much on the conspiracy theory that IBM cheated...and what does this theory hinge upon? The idea that at one point the computer made a move that "looked human". I am not a chess grandmaster or a computer scientist. And while I don't doubt that the move looked human, to me it doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibility that the most powerful chess-playing computer ever created could make a surprising move...or that such a machine could beat even a genius like Kasparov. The movie gets way too much mileage out of this theory, and not enough out of the personalities of the people involved...that could have made it a much more interesting story. The direction also relies way too much on the conceits of a pointlessly whispered narration, and the imagery of an 18th century chess-playing machine that looks like one of those animatronic gypsy fortunetellers you see at the carnival. Also the story was slowed down by many empty shots of Kasparov revisiting "the scene of the crime". I don't doubt that Kasparov and the chess community found IBM's behavior vexing, but I don't think it's any different than you would find from any other big corporation. At the end of the movie, you are left with the feeling that Kasparov is a huge crybaby and the Deep Blue programmers are either victims or cheats. I think if the filmmaker wanted the viewer to believe the conspiracy theory (which he almost certainly did), he should have presented a lot more evidence. In fact, more evidence would have been a good idea in the first place. The whole thing left me with a sour taste in my mouth.
This episode sucks.<br /><br />Over the past few years I have watched all episodes of "Next Generation" and "Voyager" and am now watching "Enterprise".<br /><br />I am thoroughly enjoying this series. Until this episode. I stared at the screen in horror at the destruction of character and entertainment. It is more like an attempt at slapstick.<br /><br />It does not build the characters but throws them out on a limb - and leaves the audience gasping. It does little to build the series.<br /><br />Why this was ever allowed to go to air amazes me. Was it the writing? Was it the directing? Was it the producer? We'll probably never know.<br /><br />But one bad apple isn't bad I suppose. I say that hoping it is only one.
Where on earth do I start with the mess that is Darkhunters? Firstly the script is one of the worst to ever find its way onto a cinema or TV screen and can only be described as a poorly judged Stephen King rip-off. At one point the supposedly fearsome darkhunter Jack claims that Carol, the girl who is helping the man he is pursuing, is as annoying as "a gherkin in a burger". I would be laughing if I was making it up-BUT I'M NOT! Just as ludicrous is how Carol originally came to have the power to see how people die. A cat gave it to her when she was holding it during an auto accident she had as a kid. WHAT????????<br /><br />Secondly, for a horror movie, it has no sense of tension or threat whatsoever. This may not be helped by the fact that all the action happens during stark, broad daylight. Not very atmospheric at all.<br /><br />Thirdly the acting is truly awful, Pinion proves again that he needs to be speaking in his native tongue to be even remotely believable. Jeff Fahey is obviously on auto-pilot but how can blame him as he runs through a woe-ful Humphry Bogart impersonation as Barlow (Marlowe-Barlow? We get the joke it just isn't funny). Credit should go to Susan Paterno, an actress I was not aware of, she does her best with the awful part she has and puts the other, more experienced actors to shame.<br /><br />At no point is it even explained how the HUMAN character can understand what Van Husen's character is saying to her. She obviously has some sort of degree in screwy alien languages.<br /><br />On the plus side one moment is well done, the car crash involving Susan. The sfx are throughly believable and if it weren't for the hilarious storyline reason for this to occur it would have been applauded.<br /><br />All I can say about darkhunters is that British horror will never recover from its interminable slump if movies like this continue to be made and shown. Avoid this movie like the plague, although the plague would be a lot more scary.<br /><br />Darkhunters 0/5<br /><br />p.s. the insinuations in other reviews that the film remains too intelligent for some are honestly hilarious. It is a weak defence when some claim "you didn't like it because you didn't understand it". The letters after my name make a fool of you not me.
This has got to be one of the worst films I have ever seen! The cast is an international one - Australian-pretending-to-be-British, stage American and a character with an English name sporting an unrecognizable "European" accent. What passable efforts in acting from this motley crew are totally undermined by a plot and script of especial inanity. So short were the shoestrings of this film's budget and the overall production values are so low that it would have no trouble winning a cinematic limbo competition. In the last twenty or so years we have seen horror films and stalk'n slash thrillers of extraordinary (though not necessarily "high") quality which have been made on no budget at all. Recent examples include the poorly made but totally scary "Blair Witch Project" and of course - the most recent - that low-budget winner, SAW, featuring practically unknown leads (Gary Elwes is just someone you don't remember even if you have seen him before). In DARKHUNTERS, it is shocking to find a known character actor, Dominique Pinon and Hollywood has-been Jeff Fahey struggling valiantly to save the film. It is embarrassing to see the once handsome leading man (Fahey) in corny makeup uttering bizarrely bad lines. I would have rated this film 0 out of 10 had that been possible!
Well, I'll begin with this: I love horror-movies, not even the worst plot or the most insanely terrible acting will ruin the experience as long as there is a certain amount of gore and suspense present. Second; this is the worst movie of all times. It even beats Mean Guns, and the attack of the killer tomatoes. And for that I pay it homage.<br /><br />However, the involuntary humor was only funny until half the movie had passed, after which point everything was so so sad. To my great surprise, the reviews where somewhat divided; and you guys who rated this piece of C-movie-crap from 7 and up; I KNOW YOU'RE JOKING! GOOD ONE!! HAHAHA! Because if there is any reason in the world, and we have just an tiny bit of the same notion of what quality is; you can't be for real.<br /><br />Everything worth to be mentioned about the contents has already been summed pretty good up, so I'll leave it. <br /><br />MINOR SPOILER ALERT<br /><br />But the scene where the cloaked rubber mask guy drags the woman back and forth through the dog-kennel for ten minutes, with o so terrible music score and the mind blowing dialog between the two, really does it for me.
<br /><br />Spoilers<br /><br />I'm going to be as kind as I can about this film (some people, including directors!, can get quite upset when reviewers speak their mind) so...<br /><br />There is a nice car accident and the opening credits look good and... that's it; everything else bites the big one. All the acting is appalling, the script is embarrassing, the special effects look like they were done by school children on cheap computers. All in all this film has serious bowling shoe tendencies.<br /><br />As a horror film it's not very scary and if it supposed to a "thinking man's" horror film well it succeeded on some level, I kept thinking that the end of this film is an awfully long way away. It may actually be an ironic look at bad horror films and I'm missing the point but I somehow doubt it.<br /><br />This is a complete car phone warehouse of a film and I could not recommend it to anyone, and it does pain me to say this as I eagerly await the resurrection of British Horror.<br /><br />If you don't agree with this review, that fine, it's just my own opinion, and I'm sure someone out there will love it (the director's Mum for instance).
OK, it was a "risky" move to rent this flick, but I thought I had nothing to lose.Well, I was wrong. This is, next to "Bloodsurf", the worst "horrormovie" I have ever seen. Crappy actors, crappy technical output, crappy story and so on. The soundtrack though, isn't to bad. That is why I give it a 2 on the vote and not just a 1. And of course the cats are a positive surprise. By far the superior actors in this movie..... Do not rent or buy it. Stay away from it and hope that this horrible, horrible film will vanish to some obscure existence and not become a "cult classic". It most definitely do not deserve any recognition.
From the dire special effects onwards I was absolutely gob smacked at how bad anyone can make a film. Lets put it this way, I have absolutely no directing experience whatsoever and for the first time ever when watching a film I thought 'I can do better than that! whilst sat watching this pap. The acting in this film was terrible, I suppose the best actor was the guy from Lawnmower Man but the French guy from Aliens3 was so wooden I wondered how he got the former job in the first place. The storyline was mediocre and I suppose, like most films, If the rest had been done well it would have stood up. I don't usually write reviews here but after seeing a couple of people gave this film a good rating (must be cast/crew) I felt I had to say my piece to save anyone from accidentally hiring it or wasting their money on buying this cack.
OK the box look interesting, the opening have great music and its kinda original, to that its all OK. But when the movie start...well its not my first videoville movie, i watched Ghost Lake, and its very similar of this movie except its ever worse here. The story at first sounded interesting but the whole movie look like a movie shot by a bunch of university student, with specials effect that me laugh, the blood look like a mix of red and white paint, the fire effect on the demon face look like it was done with a program i could buy at my local computer shop. All the movie is shot in day(very great for a movie supposed to be horror) and there like no gore(1 scene only and it look so home-made and not credible) and near no blood(it can be considered a great thing considering the look of the blood show) and 1 demon for the whole movie. The story is going nowhere , it give you the impression that it never start, there so much useless scene done only to give the movie the average duration time(when the demon search the guy in the dogs thing for about 4 minutes...) Way too much slow-mo things. Well lets just say this movie is a Z-series one and a very poor one. All cool idea lost themselves and you get a cheesy movie. It bored my all long and I'm not the guy who get bored very easily with horror movie, man i even like house of the dead and alone in the dark from Uwe Boll and you probably know the name for being one of the worst director but here it look too much like some guys wanting to make a movie for fun. Plus for us french speaker(tough i understand English i prefer to watch movie in my native language) there the usual videoville bad translation. In normal movie you can barely see its not the actor speaking(you have to check on lips etc) here you just have to listen to it and you know it. Very cheesy
This film is truly pathetic in every conceivable department. awful, awful, awful. It's only around eighty minutes long, but believe me you'll feel like you're watching an Andy Warhol film (then again twenty hours in the life of the empire state building would surely be far more interesting).<br /><br />Where to start... the putrid script, the disgusting cinematography, the so bad its bad acting, the spectacularly dismal effects, dreadful music, or just the wafer thin plot that thouroughly resembles a sieve. This film is an incoherent shambles<br /><br />A particularly noteworthy scene takes place outside a cafe when Dominic Pinon decides to shoot a cat, cue the waitress watching through the cafe window who comments with an average English accent "God damn". To right that woman. God damn this horrendous monstrosity.<br /><br />Everyone involved should be thouroughly ashamed of themselves. Let us hope that the director never finds the funding to work again.
Horrible acting with the worst special f/x I've ever bore witness too. It's bad enough I wasted $3 to watch this crummy pile of crap, but it's the hour and a half time I lost that I could've been doing anything else like getting a root canal or volunteering for jury duty. Getting drunk couldn't even help this video.<br /><br />To put it bluntly, I sincerely believe I actually lost a few IQ points during the course of watching this idiotic piece of mind-numbing "work"! Perhaps I should have followed my own advice this time. Never expect a decent film if it's written, directed and produced by the same person, and never EVER expect anything of value from Jeff Fahey.
I just watched this today on TV. It was on ABC's Sunday Afternoon Movie.<br /><br />This wasn't a very good movie, but for a low budget independent film like this, it was okay. There is some suspense in it, but there are so many bad qualities that really bring the movie down. The script is pretty lame, and the plot elements aren't very realistic, such as the way a 911 operator would laugh and hang up when someone is reporting a murder. I don't know what the writer was thinking when they came up with that idea, but it isn't very realistic.<br /><br />I thought this movie was going to be a good suspense thriller, because there were a few scenes that seemed like they would lead to something good, but unfortunately, they never did. There were a few plot elements that have been used in other movies similar to this, and in the end, didn't prove to be very creative.<br /><br />If there is something good about this movie, it is the cast. Every actor in this movie did good with what they had to work with. The terribly underrated actress Elizabeth Pena was great in this movie. She is very sexy, and has an incredibly sexy voice. However, if you want to see a movie of hers that is really good, watch the excellent animated movie The Incredibles. In that movie, she put her sexy voice to good use.<br /><br />What can I say, this movie isn't really worth your time, but the actors were good. Unfortunately, they were all wasted on this movie, which is a real shame. This movie tried to be a good suspense thriller, but in the end, it fell flat. If you want to see a good movie that is similar to this, but much better, see The Hitcher. If you want to see something with the cast members of this movie, watch any of their other movies. You can real easily pass on this movie if you ever get the chance to see it.
The first half of this film held some promise as it seemed like the film was going to be a low-key character psychodrama like THE MINUS MAN but then the whole thing collapses into cliche and the viewer slowly loses all interest. There's a decent cast here but the film is lifeless and the talent completely wasted.
When the Legends Die is a powerful, moving story of an orphaned Ute Indian who goes on to become Tom Black Bull, a champion bronc rider. Raised in the old ways, Tom is given a white man's name and must adopt the language and ways of the white man to live in that world. Bitter about the role he has been forced into, Tom finds fulfillment doing one thing, busting horses, riding them to death, in the rodeo. The movie has Richard Widmark in the role of Red, the man who befriends Tom and acts as his manager. Red is a drunk who eventually dies in the story, which is about where the movie ends. The real story is completely ignored, the dark side of Tom Black Bull who develops a reputation as a killer of horses in the rodeo arenas. Oh well, you should read the book, this movie doesn't come close to doing the story justice.
Enjoy the opening credits. They're the best thing about this second-rate but inoffensive time-killer which features passable performances from the likes of Eric Roberts and Martin Kove. The main part, however, goes to newcomer Tommy Lee Thomas who looks a bit diminutive for this kind of action but who, nevertheless, occasionally manages to project a banty-rooster kind of belligerence. The first time we see him he's bare-chested, sweaty, and engaged in that favorite "beefcake" activity -- chopping wood. After this he has seven more scenes without his shirt including one in which he's hanged by his wrists and zapped with electricity a la Mel Gibson in "Lethal Weapon." He could use a better script, however, since the manner in which he exposes the truth about corruption and violence inside the prison is never very convincing. There's also talk about millions of dollars which apparently is tied in with this investigation but which is never explained. There are a few pluses, though. Sending "John Woodrow" undercover as "John Wilson" is an amusing play on a presidential name, and co-star Jody (Ross) Nolan shows promise as an inmate who, early in the proceedings, is shown hanged by his wrists and getting punched by a burly guard. One final note: the movie's low budget is painfully responsible for the lack of "extras." Despite the impressive size of the prison, it only seems to hold about 12 inmates! (Note: the cast credits at the end aren't too helpful. For the record, the burly, bald-headed guard who uses Jody Nolan as a punching bag is played by Bill Fishback, and the young, fair-haired guard who administers electric shocks to Tommy Lee Thomas is played by Marc Chenail.)
2001 wasn't perhaps Eric Roberts best year. Both Raptor and this came out. Watched Raptor a while ago and really thought it sucked and being Erics worst. But that had it´s share moment of fun and D-standard. This one doesn't have a thing.<br /><br />Tommy Lee Thomas is the name of the probably worst actor in these days. The story lacks any punch and the whole thing feels even slower than a snail breaking in curves.<br /><br />The two thing that stands out are Martin Kove and Eric Roberts. You could argue about their effort being good or what but compared to the rest they are above all criticism.<br /><br />I say thank you Roberts see you next time (and hopefully a better one).
Eric Roberts "stars" in this Tommy Lee Thomas debut prison film. He plays the leader of a corrupt ring of guards. Though evil by most people's standards, his character is the kind of guy who is nice enough to give you supporting wires while you hang chained to the ceiling as he tortures you with "Lethal Weapon" electric prods.<br /><br />The movie has an intricate plot about prison corruption that makes absolutely no sense. Thomas has Clint Eastwood's squinter eyes, Dolph Lundgren's one-liners, the acting abilities of JCVD and the body of the tiniest guy you knew in school who took steroids after graduation.<br /><br />Martin "Cobra Kai" Kove's career shares this low point with Roberts, in the film it is difficult to tell if Kove's character is supposed to be drunk for the entire movie or if Kove just came that way. I couldn't blame him if he did.<br /><br />Fortunately for all involved, this movie has a "so bad that it's good" quality that can be fun IF YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BETTER TO DO.
Worst movie ever seen. Worst acting too. I cannot imagine a movie worse then this. Nothing to see. No acting at all.T hey (actors) should look for another job. I cant't understand who was stupid enough to actually put money into this movie.<br /><br />I'm sorry for Eric Roberts. Must be tough...I cannot imagine how HUUUGE his mortgage must be to justify taking the job!<br /><br />The ladies in the movie...perhaps they better stick to XXX.<br /><br />As for the LEADING MAN...what a lead! He better be put on a lead and stay there! I can see him being more successful at barking rather than acting. <br /><br />Overall rating: Do NOt rent...DO NOT BUY!
"In the sweltering summer of 1958, the Deuces, a gang of Brooklyn toughs, find their turf threatened when the leader of a rival gang, the Vipers, is released from prison. Leon (Stephen Dorff), the Deuces' leader, tries to guide his boys through bloody brawls to keep the Vipers out. But when his brother (Brad Renfro) falls into a sultry - and dangerous - relationship with Annie (Fairuza Balk), the sister of a Viper, and his own girlfriend is brutally attacked, Leon and his gang are plunged into an all-out war to save his brother, his girl - and his neighborhood!" according to the DVD sleeve description. This is definitely no "Basketball Diaries".<br /><br />Think of it as "West Side Story" getting hit over the head with baseball bats and steel pipes, stickball having left Brooklyn with the Dodgers. "Deuces Wild" has some cool Hollywood sets, 1950s cars and soundtrack songs; and, much of it is nicely photographed by John A. Alonzo. The story and direction never get beyond these strengths, which enables the film to peak during its opening minutes, and proceed downhill. The cast looks good when you read the credits, but translates into an ageing, flabby mess of phony pompadours, blood, and Brylcreem… and one fright wig. A sense of sadness and regret permeates the production.<br /><br />*** Deuces Wild (5/3/02) Scott Kalvert ~ Stephen Dorff, Brad Renfro, Fairuza Balk, Frankie Muniz
In a nutshell the movie is about a gang war in the 1950's. Leon, the leader of the Deuces, starts the gang after his brother OD's on "junk". He vows to protect the neighborhood. The leader of the rival gang is just getting out of prison and wants revenge.<br /><br />The movie didn't really do it for me. The "Good Guys" weren't any more good than the "Bad Guys". Very little was shown to suggest that the Deuces really cared for the community. I suppose the writers were going for realism here, but I just didn't care which side won. None of the characters were likable, or even capable of drawing my sympathy.<br /><br />On the plus side the courtship between Annie and Bobby had some snappy dialog, and the acting overall was well done.
Worst pile of drivel to date! Everyone involved with this production should be ashamed of themselves. Not one single element of the movie was anything slightly like an original idea. A first grader telling you a story about nap time is more entertaining.
Wow, I was really disappointed. I wasn't really planning on seeing this movie in the theater, and I wish I stuck to that plan. It really should be a made-for-tv movie. I was kind of excited to see it, as I'm a big fan of Fairuza Balk, but this movie didn't do her justice. Infact I'm a little disappointed with the acting all around. What a horrible cover up of Fairuza Balk's tattoos, it bothered me every time I saw her shoulder. <br /><br />There was no flow to the movie, it was very hard to get into it. One scene we get angry, hyped up, we want blood, the anticipation rises, just then the director takes us to another scene to show the love between Annie and Bobby. It would have been more enjoyable to follow if it was broken up into three sectional sunday paper comic strip.<br /><br />There was also little logic behind the characters chosen to play some parts. The gangster leaders were scrawny guys, not very believable. Matt Dillon head of a mobster organization? Come on, give me a break. There was just no intimidation there. <br /><br />The soundtrack.. wow. I think this is one of the worst musical scores I've ever heard. What awful guitar solos, my god. The sound of my teeth grinding was more pleasing to my friends, I'm sure. <br /><br />Anyhow, there is one positive comment I'd like to make about the movie. The settings were nicely done. I liked the colours, a good job conveying that time period.
Maybe it was the fact that I saw Spider-man the day before I saw Duces Wild, but I do not think that there can be any excuse for this movie being as bad as it was. The cast was there to do it, but it seemed as if once they found them selves with a decent cast they had to try and make them fit into the movie. The only problem was that they did not fit. I did not like any of the characters and the story was sketchy at best. I left wondering why i spent my money on this movie.
Imagine every stereotypical, overacted cliche from every movie and TV show set on the streets of Brooklyn between 1930 and 1980. Populate it with a cast of interchangeable caricatures instead of actual characters. Throw in a mix of "period" music and wailing electric guitars during the "rumble" scenes. Then pass the time trying to figure out (or care) which of the Deuces is going to be killed in the (anti)climactic final rumble.<br /><br />I'll give this movie points for not being just another romantic comedy, teen slasher, explosive action movie, teen sex comedy, kiddie musical, or Oscar-nomination vehicle. But bringing something new or interesting to the street-gang tragedy genre might've been nice.
Wow! i think they made this movie to torture people. there are no words for how much i hated this film. I could have been cleaning my room instead. i love bad melodrama as much as the next person but....come on!
It was awful plain and simple. What was their message? Where was the movie going with this? It has all the ingredients of a sub-B grade movie. From plotless storyline the bad acting to the cheesey slow-mo cinematography. I'd sooner watch a movie I've already seen like Goodfellas, A Bronx Tale, even Grease. There are NO likeable characters. In the end you just want everyone to die already. Save 2 hours of your life and skip this one.
This is by far the most vapid, idiotic, insanely stupid show that has EVER been on the air, and this is coming from someone who remembers "San Pedro Beach Bums".<br /><br />My wife loves watching reality shows--and there was one episode of this drivel where the wannabes had to develop a "walk". The end result was straight out of Monty Python's "Ministry of Silly Walks" sketch. I couldn't laugh hard enough.<br /><br />And then there's the ubiquitous Ms. Banks (as in laughing all the way to the...). She has to be the most annoying self-important woman on TV since Rosie O'Donnell left "The View". As if modeling was doing great things for mankind. Please. I've never found her attractive, and I don't find her intelligent now that she has the temerity to open her mouth.<br /><br />Someone needs to tell these human clothes hangers to eat a healthy diet and actually look like real women.
Tyra Banks needs to teach these girls that it's not all about being beautiful on the outside. The inside counts for something too. A lot of the past winners have looked semi decent but are horribly cruel and starting trouble for the other girls. I see Tyra less involved with the girls in every season. About the only thing worth watching Top Model for is Mr. Jay Manuel. Recently, Tyra had a contestant who was a pre-op transsexual. I felt that she should have done more to encourage her. It was obvious that she had insecurities about her original anatomy showing through her feminine look. Tyra should have given her tips or perhaps she could have sent resident Trannie Ms. Jay to help the girl out. Instead, the contestant was met with harsh criticism and not enough positive criticism. It's a shame because I truly enjoyed the first 3 seasons. There's a reason why Project Runway has all 4 seasons out on DVD and Top Model only has 1 season on DVD. It's called taste. Top Model seriously needs a lot of revamping an some more humanity.
In watching this off and on for a few seasons, two things come to mind: One - wondering what kind of girl wants to be a "model" and two - run to the nearest ice cream store and have a low fat sundae.<br /><br />I tried to be a fan because I liked the idea of this reality show competition. No other "famous" model thought of this, and it is very admirable for Tyra Banks to do so. But as the series goes on and on I've come to the conclusion that this is a sorry lot of folks trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Women shouldn't watch this, teens should stay clear of it unless they're doing book reports on the subject.<br /><br />Many women try out for slots to compete for "Americas Next Top Model". They live together, cat fight together, cry together, get put through pointless modeling shoots with pointless modeling people and fashionatas and get eliminated and almost all of them claim, "You will see me again". Heck, I'm trying to see what happened to the ones that DID win, actually.<br /><br />This is the dream of some girls, and good for them. In watching this I hope the other girls that see this and run like Hades the other way - like to college.<br /><br />I just happened to watch more of this recent season because of the "ploy" of full figured models joining the group. That even made me think more of this as a sorry lot of folks. The "full figured models" were no more than average sized ladies competing with what I think is the thinnest group of models they ever chose - so of course that would make them look even fatter - a "ploy" fashionatas use all the time. Bad, bad, Tyra and crew.<br /><br />But to be fair, "Americas Next Top Model" is not about "full figured" models, it's about projecting an imagined image a beauty that can be mass marketed and sold as the ultimate in beauty - and this show is just looking for the next fresh piece of meat to add to the mix. Hence the name of the show. Hence the sorry lot of judges, photographers, associations. Hence Tyra and her consistent "this was me" plugs every camera angle you can get. But then again, that IS the one thing I like about this show - the ex-model giving others who wouldn't have the chance -- a chance to enter the doors. But after that...everything else is status quo for that industry which is why there are no surprises or week to week interest in the program.
Tyra & the rest of the modeling world needs to know that real women like myself and my daughter don't care to see all the ridiculous modeling to sell something. Weird locations, too much makeup & too much skin is not necessary. Sex does not always sell when you are selling to women. The same goes for the horse stomping runway walk that looks unnatural. People come in all shapes & sizes & they need to have that on the show. My daughter has a 36" inseam, is tall & slender & a size 5, I am more average at a size 12. We would like to see both- I can not picture how something would look on me when a size 2 is wearing it, it will not fit the same way on me. I do not buy magazines anymore because they are one sided on this matter. We would really love the show to consider women of all sizes. Thank you.
I would like to comment on how the girls are chosen. why is that their are always more white women chosen then their are black women. every episode their is always more white women then black one's. as if to say white women are better looking then black women. I would like for once see more black women then white. and it not just your show it's like that in a lot of shows always more white's. but i would have thought since you as the head honcho of the show you would see this yourself and have more black women on your show. but you are just like the rest trying to act like you are so fair and nice. you are just a big fony hypocrite.
How could anyone who liked the previous JP movies even stand to sit through this 1 hour of drivel? There are so many stupid things about this film it's mind boggling!! I remember when i went to see JP as a kid it was my favorite movie and franchise, the acting, the SFX the Music, the direction! all fantastic, JP2 in my opinion was OK pretty much the same apart from some really stupid moments (like the gymnast girl kicking a raptor..please!) but on a whole a watchable and reasonable cinematic experience.<br /><br />But the the third one has no point!! It's supposed to be a sequel that Carry's on from JP2 and yet it magically includes brand new things to the franchise that would have been impossible to miss on the previous 2 films! for example: 1) The "new" mega Spinosaurus - Seriously, what the hell!! This thing follows them everywhere they go, they cannot escape it's presence and yet in The lost world (the same island) do you see it once? do you hear it? does anyone even MENTION it? NO! Its ridiculous!. The star character in the previous 2 movies was, and always will be the T-Rex so what does the d(urr)irector "Joe Johnston" go and do? Kill it off! as soon as you see the huge T-Rex in all its awesome roaring glory it gets killed and you never see it again - a new Dino on the town is the excuse.. where did it come from!!?? not a single explanation! and don't get me started on the whole satellite-phone-in-the-Dino-belly thing! 2)Just when you start to get over how stupid the Spinosaurus is you see the Raptors, Aside from their new "Punk" Haircuts they seem pretty credible! *Phew* they will make this movie watchable right?... WRONG! now they speak to each other!! and the excuse for them speaking in this film and not in the First and second are...wait for it... Evolution! - yes the process of millions of years in just a few months from when the second movie ended, amazing! surly they should have grown opposable thumbs and created tools by now!! OK i am not going to say anymore about the plot because it's getting up my nose, so i will close on this: Jurassic Park is a classic, JP3 is a lousy sucker punch to any of the original fans of the series, my favorite franchise was well and truly dead after watching this Monstrosity (no pun intended) Avoid this movie like the plague
When i went to see this i thought, i liked the first two and thought that they were very suspenseful so this one should be good also. WRONG! There was NO suspense and they don't explain about the new dinosaurs! When i was done watching this i had lost all respect for Steven Spielberg and Michael Crichton but then it turned out that it wasn't directed by Spielberg or written by Michael Crichton! This movie was going through "the motions." i thought that this movie had absolutely no plot and i thought that no one should waste their money to see it.
You could have put the characters on the island for any reason at all and had the same movie. The first one had an original story, the second stole one from King Kong, and in the end (I hope) of this trilogy the story seemed to have been bypassed altogether. Drop some people on an island full of dinosaurs and watch them run for their lives. That was about all there was to it. The special effects were decent but not worth 8 dollars. If you have a discount theatre in your local area, wait and see it for a buck. I wouldn't even bother renting it. That would be too much money for this unthrilling thriller.
This would probably be a good film to see....provided you've already seen every other film in existence, and thoroughly explored the bellybuttons of yourself and those around you. God, this movie was unbelievably insipid, with some of the worst (or is it nonexistent) writing ever captured on film. There is no saving grace to this film; even the animatronics are kind of lame, and it's just a complete waste of time and money.<br /><br />Run. Fast. It's beyond horrible.<br /><br />
It's clear that for this film they wanted to have the story line driven by the characters. But immediately the story line causes you to dislike the new main characters. The fly-over of the island and dinosaurs below lacked any impact at all and almost looked like a cartoon. The all action entrance to the island is merely a rehash of parts from JP 1 and 2. The story-line is predictable to the point of annoyance and it's entirely unsatisfying end left me feeling cheated. This gave me with no option but to award the film 3/10!
(A possible minor spoiler) The first "Jurassic Park" was an effective, but silly film that did it's job and was actually pretty good. The sequel "The Lost World" had a few decent moments, but those were ruined by the lame end portion of the film which had a T-Rex running amok in San Diego. Now in "Jurassic Park III," what little story there was in the first one and the sequel, has been thrown out the window and replaced by a mere 90 minutes of basically non-stop action, which would have worked had the film not been so poorly done.<br /><br />Sam Neill is back as Dr. Grant, who is given a proposition by a couple (William H. Macy & Tea Leoni) to come with them to an island to help them find their son, who's been lost for over 2 months. But of course this island just happens to be populated by dinosaurs and of course the plane the are on just happens to crash leaving them stranded with a bunch of dinos after them.<br /><br />This one was obviously intended as a thrill ride, with no real story whatsoever, but even on that level the movie doesn't deliver. Director Joe Johnston ("Jumanji") somehow managed to take what little magic was left in the "Jurassic" movies and squeeze the life right out of it.<br /><br /> The dinos look okay, though by now they're just standard fair and not very scary. The bottom line is it's not a very good film, even as a thrill ride. * out of 4 stars.
To summarize, my group of friends and I spent about 45 minutes outside the theater sharing our favorites gaffes, plot inconsistencies, untied loose ends, and other ridiculous aspects of this movie. I found the story trite to the point of inconsequential and the plot lines as underdeveloped as the dino embryos still locked in the shaving cream canister from Jurassic Park 1. The editing was poor and none of the characters engendered any sort of sympathy or feeling. In short, this movie lacked any of the suspense and thrill that the first movie provided from a story standpoint<br /><br />Even the new dinosaurs were few and far between (although I really enjoyed the pterodactyls.) We got several brief shots of the new species and only 2 really were involved in the action.<br /><br />As a scientist and former childhood paleontologist, the lack of any real scientific content (not that it had to be realistic, but logically formed i.e. how they built the dinos in #1 and malcom's chaos ramblings) was disappointing as well.<br /><br />In short, the movie seemed to be nothing more than an excuse to trot dinos back on the scene to make some money. I hope that movie-goers don't fall for this trap again (although I did apparently)
I had been looking forward to this movie since Lost World came out. It didn't bother me that Lost World wasn't as intellectual as the original, and here, I was just hoping for a good monster movie. It was all about "Dinosaurs eat people." However, it was disappointing even on that level.<br /><br />For starters, there were not enough people to eat, and while I'll keep it a secret how many people get eaten, it was not enough. Also, while there was no shortage of variety in the dinosaur community, there were not nearly "enough" dinosaurs. And many dinosaurs, like the spikey-back-and-has-a-club-on-its-tail-osaurus, just made cameos and didn't do much considering how cool they are.<br /><br />(START SPOILERS) Then there were the Pterodactyls. The figures I've read put their body weight at about 15 pounds, while the movie made them look closer to 300. Worse, they didn't get to eat anybody, or even splatter them on the rocks by dropping them from high up. There was no ending to the movie, either, it was just, all of the sudden, credits. (END SPOILERS) I'm left wondering if the edition I saw was missing 40 minutes of film.<br /><br />My only conclusion can be that they taught the Pterodactyls to stick their long beaks stealthily into your pockets and get your $7. Go rent the Carnosaur series; at least you won't be disappointed.
Number 1 was really great summer popcorn fun. It was the modern Jaws.<br /><br />Number 2 is best summed up by Jeff Goldblum in the movie about being the stupidest idea in the history of stupid ideas (or something like that).<br /><br />Number 3 is the obituary notice...JP has achieved all it ever will. <br /><br />Once they realized they had no fresh ideas they should have just let sleeping dinos lie.<br /><br />That said. Movie is ok if you don't mind knowing you already have seen it before.<br /><br />
How sad it is when a film as wonderful as "Jurassic Park" slowly nosedives into hackneyed and mediocre territory throughout its franchise. The newest sequel, Jurassic Park III, has given no thought to characters, a story, or pretty much a script, and instead relies on non-stop dinosaur action, which is neither thrilling nor very interesting to watch. The dinosaurs seemed to look incredibly fake compared to the 1993 technology, after 7 years of CGI advancements, it only gives you more of the feeling that the film was pumped out for the summer relying only on its name. The introduction of a pterodactyl does not a great movie make.<br /><br />Go see "Shrek" again.<br /><br />
This movie was perhaps the biggest waste of 2 hours of my life. From the opening 10 minutes, I was ready to leave. The cliches there slapping you in the face, and the plot was not only predictably stupid, but full of more holes than swiss cheese. I am considering suing for that lost 2 hours, and $6.25 along with the fact that I am now stupider for watching this waste of film. The T-Rex's must be flipping in their graves, so to speak.
Did people expect "Jurassic Park 3" to be full of surprises? Not one moment of it is worth it. Many elements could easily scare people out of the movies...and it's not the dinos! Tea Leoni...I think she's a great actress, but I'm sorry to say that this time she reached the bottom line. I wonder if she happened to strain a vocal chord while shooting the movie....Laura Dern...she's ok, but why not be more noticeable in the movie, maybe exchange smart dialogs with Sam Neil. Alessandro Nivola - "have you ever heard of something called facial expression? Fellings, emotions..."..he's got to work harder on that! Sam Neil, no big deal. The soundtrack...got to change that record, or you get tired of it. My applause goes to William H. Macy, a talented actor who I've never seen playing a bad role....unfortunately he can't save the movie, nor can the well computer-created dinosaurs.
JP3 lacks the Spielberg touch. It's an all-out assault on the senses featuring "in your face" dinosaurs. Watching this film was a bit like a roller coaster ride from hell. <br /><br />The script is lame; it simultaneously asks and then leaves too many questions unanswered. Also, we don't really get to appreciate the humans in the film for all they're worth. For example, William H. Macy is too great a talent to have to compete with dino-thugs for our attention. And Laura Dern was especially sympathetic in JP1; in this film, she's barely a blip on the radar screen.<br /><br />The whole JP3 experience was t o o m u c h. Too much noise, too many surprises, too many characters dying off, too much predictable, gratuitous violence. <br /><br />Word to the wise: vote yourself off this island.<br /><br />(I rated it a 3 for special effects; I took off the other 7 points for having absolutely no originality.)
<br /><br />JURASSIC PARK III *___ Adventure <br /><br />Sam Nell (The Dish), William Macy (Happy Texas, Fargo), TZ(a Leoni (Family Man)<br /><br />A better title would be: ESCAPE FROM THE ISLAND OF REALLY MEAN DINOSAURS. But then no one would need to see the film. In this sequel, a rag-tag group pays a visit to the island of dinosaurs to rescue the teenage victim of a hang-gliding accident.<br /><br />ACCESS HOLLYWOOD reports JP3 began filming without a completed script. That explains why the film seems to have little or no purpose other than to demonstrate state-of-the-art special effects. Sure, there are a few clever scenes and some moderately funny bits, but no meaningful plot line to tie them together. The dinosaur puppets and animation in JP3 are very good to excellent, and more numerous than ever. But the overall film experience can not hold a candle to the original JURASSIC PARK or even JP2.<br /><br />JP3 is a mercifully short 90 minutes -- the last 10 minutes of which is credits. Even at that, I found myself frequently checking my wristwatch. The audience I saw it with left the theater in silence.<br /><br />A better bet: see the movie LEGALLY BLONDE.<br /><br />Dave
Although coming after three Star Wars, Krull & countless others, this movie would look outdated in the 1950s... 1 SFX mostly consist of 1970s videogames effects such as bolts etc; annoying after a short while. You also get a SFX creature that looks like a poor man's version of some tier-IV Harryhausen monster.<br /><br />2 sets are mainly ruins in the countryside, with papier-mache temples and miniature cities or abodes that makes 1950s Japanese monster movies look like flawless perfection.<br /><br />3 Plot is paper extra-thin...Hercules must find Zeus' seven golden thunderbolts stolen by conspiring gods & zombie tyrants.<br /><br />4 action mainly consists in retarded, muscled-up Hercules ( check the variety of facial expressions ) wrestling cheap 1970s videogames effects.<br /><br />5 acting award goes to Milly Carlucci (third Carlucci show-biz sister with Anna & Gabriella ), which says all.<br /><br />6 SFX make other tier-II Italian salad bowl movies such as L'UMANOIDE & STAR CRASH look like masterpieces.<br /><br />Well, considering that Ferrigno's main acting exploit consisted in impersonating a retarded green monster, wearing a whig and green espadrillas, we ought to be lenient.<br /><br />Watch it & forget about it.
From the fertile imagination which brought you the irresistible HERCULES (1983), comes its even more preposterous (read goofier) sequel: right off the bat, we get another unwieldy "beginning of time" prologue which even contrives to completely contradict these same events as set up in the first film!; a condensed montage of highlights from same is soon followed by a SUPERMAN-like scrolling credits sequence. Narrative-wise, here we have four rebellious gods who steal Zeus' seven all-important (but poorly animated) thunderbolts – a crime which, for one thing, sets the moon careening on a collision course with Planet Earth! Faster than you can say "nepotism", Zeus (once again played as a white-haired bearded man by the relatively young Claudio Cassinelli) sends his champion – who has now rightfully taken his place among the elite thanks to, one presumes, the almighty tasks performed in the first film – to find his blooming thunderbolts and avert the calamities in store.<br /><br />No sooner has Hercules (Lou Ferrigno – as if you didn't know) touched the earthly surface that he comes in contact with two attractive damsels (Milly Carlucci and Sonia Viviani) in need of his getting them out of distress!; the former (who would go on to become an Italian TV personality) seemingly has the ability to talk with the Little People(!) – which look uncannily like the tiny sisters from GODZILLA VS. MOTHRA (1964)!! Just so they can swindle as much unutilzed footage from the first film as is humanly possible, the divine quartet of villains resurrect good ol' King Minos (William Berger again) from his skeletal slumber and pit him once more against his eternal enemy. Typically, Hercules is made to encounter a number of potentially deadly foes including a Gorgon – an awfully underproduced sequence which ought to have led to a surefire plagiarism suit had the film-makers behind the much superior CLASH OF THE TITANS (1981) bothered to watch this flick (complete with the same "reflection in a shield" come-uppance and preceded by the muscleman letting the audience in on his tactics before executing them as if to show us how clever he is)!! And just to make it crystal clear that he wears his influences on his sleeve, Cozzi has Hercules and Minos turn into a cosmic version of "King Kong vs. Godzilla" for one of their battles and later still, King Kong gets to grips with a large snake, an encounter lifted straight out of the classic 1933 original. I swear it: this is the whole truth and nothing but the truth! <br /><br />As had been the case with the first film, the cast is full of old reliables like the afore-mentioned Berger, Cassinelli and Venantino Venantini (as a sorcerer with a truly bad hair day) and up-and-coming starlets – not just Carlucci but also Maria Rosaria Omaggio (as a younger Hera!), Serena Grandi, Pamela Prati and, once again, Eva Robbins (whose costume here easily outcamps her appearance in the first film); for what it's worth, Pino Donaggio's score for this one is recycled from musical cues featured in his soundtrack for the previous film. If you have stuck with this review so far, you must have realized by now that this is one of those movies that is so unbelievably bad that a reviewer is forced to choose which course to take: either dismiss it in one unflattering sentence or spend an undeserving amount of time dissecting its flaws. I'm sure I've left out some of its ineptitudes but I wouldn't forgive myself if I failed to mention the single greatest laugh-out loud instance in the whole movie which almost made me fall off my chair (yes, it even surpassed the afore-mentioned animated titanic duel for me), namely the décor of the rebellious gods' lair which is in the shape of a giant marble…kettle!!<br /><br />At this stage, one might well wonder why I gave this film (and its predecessor) a rating instead of a (not entirely unjustified) BOMB; in the past, I've had various protracted online discussions on whether one's star rating of any particular film should reflect the overall artistic quality or its sheer entertainment value… but these are two instances where I deemed it necessary to be consciously influenced by the latter in settling on my final rating. I don't know: maybe it's because I'm in a "sword-and-sandal" state-of-mind at the moment (with some 10 more respectable examples scheduled for the coming days!) but, after all, uncharacteristically for me, I decided to add these two films to my DVD collection simply based on the fun I had with them in this recent revisit – and that alone must count for something, no?
Looking for a REAL super bad movie? If you wanna have great fun, don't hesitate and check this one!<br /><br />Ferrigno is incredibly bad but is also the best of this mediocrity.<br /><br />
The Adventures of Hercules has to be one of the lamest excuses for a movie I've yet run across. You would have to look far and wide to find anything that approaches the level of ineptness on display in this movie. Acting – Bad. Editing – Bad. Direction – Bad. Special Effects – Bad and Laughable. Plot – Bad. Lighting – Bad. Cinematography – Bad. Costume Design – Bad and Silly. Everything Else – Bad. Watching The Adventures of Hercules is about as enjoyable as a root canal. Even for a fan of bad movies, it's a real endurance test. This is one for either masochists or Lou Ferrigno completists (if any exist).<br /><br />Eight things I learned from watching The Adventures of Hercules: <br /><br />1. If you don't have the budget for real special effects, rotoscope a scene from the previous movie. It will look great - trust me.<br /><br />2. When on a quest to recover Zeus' thunderbolts, take time for frequent stops to oil-up you body. It worked for Ferrigno and his two Amazon companions.<br /><br />3. Any sword fight, use of magic, and just about all other day to day activities in ancient Greece created a sound very similar to a game of Pac Man or Asteroids.<br /><br />4. Some of the ancient Greek gods dressed like extras from Star Wars.<br /><br />5. If you need to pad your crappy movie's runtime, extend the title sequence by adding Star Trek style credits and throw in some overly grandiose music. It also helps if you've got a previous movie to pull scenes from.<br /><br />6. Fight scenes move along much smoother if the bad guys attack Hercules one at a time.<br /><br />7. William Berger did anything for money.<br /><br />8. I didn't think it was possible, but The Adventures of Hercules makes the first film, Hercules (1983), look like an Academy Award winner.
Aya! If you are looking for special effects that are 10-20 years before its time, this is it. The glowing lightning bolts, fireballs, etc. look like they came from a cheesy 70's sci-fi flick. And yes, Hercules really grows; he's not being pushed on a cart closer to the camera!
Producers Golan and Globus should have been ashamed to release this piece of trash publicly. I know this is gonna sound cliched, but compared to this, the first "Hercules" of 1983 looks like a mature and exciting epic! This "sequel" is moronic, cheap, unredeemable, childish, phony, inept and BADLY ACTED. A landmark in bad cinema, and one of the few, few movies I've seen that REALLY deserve the lowest possible rating: no stars!
When at the very start of the film Paleontologist Donald Sutherland arrives at the Argyle family's house and it comes out he is the undeniable alibi for one of the members executed for murdering his mother two years ago your sensation is that you are about to watch a top thriller; an innocent man has been convicted and a killer is still around. But as the film runs along your disappointment increases inevitably.<br /><br />"Ordeal by Innocence" is a dull and at times even boring film that doesn't raise at any moment. Nothing interesting happens all along and even the final revealing of the facts lacks surprise and intensity (wether you guessed or not).<br /><br />Donald Sutherland, Cristopher Plummer, Faye Dunaway and Sarah Miles (far from her good performance in "Ryan's Daughter") just pass through their roles and not very enthusiastically either.<br /><br />You won't miss much if you skip this one.
This is indeed one of the weakest films based on Agatha Christie's work, a lifeless, muddled mystery that clearly lacks the grace (and the budget!) of its predecessors ("Death On The Nile", "Evil Under The Sun") and Donald Sutherland is a pale shadow of Peter Ustinov as far as screen detectives go (of course, he is playing a character much less interesting than Poirot). The film manages to coast as far as it does on the strength of Christie's plot alone (all her plots have a certain amount of inherent interest), but the direction is hopelessly flat. (*1/2)
This film is on my list of worst movies ever made. The story is disconnected and it is difficult to understand what is going on or the reason for the characters' actions. All films need to have an inner logic, and this film just doesn't have it - the story doesn't make any sense. <br /><br />To see Faye Dunaway, Christopher Plummer and Diana Quick wasting their talents in this movie is a crime. Faye Dunaway is the lucky one, because she plays the victim and gets killed early in the film. On the other hand, Donald Sutherland must be an amazing actor because he manages to look good in spite of bad directing and bad writing; his performance is believable and he manages to stay in character in spite of everything. <br /><br />If Dame Agatha Christie were alive she would die laughing! The movie is that bad!
I have never seen so much talent and money used to produce anything so bad in my entire life! As stated in other commentaries, a who's who of talent, such as, Christopher Plummer, Faye Dunaway, Donald Sutherland, and many more were thrown together in a film that is not recognizable as an Agatha Christie story. I keep thinking of how it could be with the same cast, done the right way. <br /><br />The film has even less intimacy than the Christopher Reeves 'Superman' movies. The large cast makes the slick production even less effective than in those films, because there is not enough time to get to know anyone. Dave Brubeck's progressive jazz soundtrack had me wondering if the wrong video was in the the case from the rental store. The music became more and more offensive as the plot progressed. It's hard to say whether the soundtrack or the annoying technique of repeating information from earlier scenes, was more offensive. From someone who has seen most Christie films (that's what attracted me to this, it was one of the few I hadn't seen) miss this one. It is not an Agatha Christie movie. Golan-Globus are better suited to producing flicks about big time wrestling, rather than the snug atmosphere of English mystery.
Donald Sutherland, an American paleontologist visiting England, picks up a hitch hiker one evening. Two years later, having discovered the man's address book in his car, he returns the book to the man's opulent home, only to find that the man's been hanged for murder. Nobody in or out of the family seems to care that the hitch hiker could not have committed the murder (of his own stepmother) because he was in Sutherland's car at the time of the crime.<br /><br />Sutherland is the man's alibi but he's turned up too late. Out of a sense of guilt, he tracks down the real murderer.<br /><br />Agatha Christie's mysteries usually involve a number of diverse people, all of them with one or another motive for the crime, all of them suspect, and a puzzle that depends on the construction of a strict time line. There is often, not always, a sidekick with whom the investigator can talk things over.<br /><br />Because of the anfractuosity of the situation, due care must be taken to explain each element of the mystery to the reader or viewer. Redundancy is perfectly okay. We have to keep the characters and the time lines straight. Christie's movies are of the rare kind in which the use of famous faces in subordinate characters is actually useful. (Jacqueline de Bellefort? Oh, yes, that's Mia Farrow.) But this version of "Ordeal by Innocence" is a Golan-Globus production, with all that implies in the way of production values, a thoughtfully prepared script, and skill behind the camera.<br /><br />The first few minutes, in which Sutherland discovers that an innocent man has been hanged, are fine. After that, everything is flung at the viewer in disjointed scraps, often in sudden flashbacks or in confusing voiceovers that tell us nothing. The script has a slapdash quality, as if thrown together by two hacks overnight. Few of the faces are familiar and that doesn't help at all. Everyone drops remarks about everyone else and the names become a hopeless jumble. The musical score consists of four instruments doing irritating atonal jazz riffs. Some nudity is thrown in to wake up the dozers in the audience. If Dame Agatha were alive, she'd be among the viewers who needed to be shaken awake.<br /><br />Dullsville.
Nightkill stars Robert Mitchum as a world-weary private eye probing the case of a missing industrialist (Mike Connors). He is hired by Jaclyn Smith, the anxious wife of the missing man. What Jaclyn fails to inform Mitchum is that she knows full well her husband's whereabouts. After all, she was the one who helped her lover James Franciscus dispose of her wealthy hubby.<br /><br />What more would expect from a rotten slasher film with Robert Mitchum? Mannix goes western, monkeys are abused, models lean against classic cars, and Smith is constantly upstaged by Sybil Danning until a giallo style wrap-up brings the whole sorry mess to a bitter end. This is BAD cinema. And this movie is sooooo poor. It makes it look like Halloween mixed up with Trick Or Treats. Avoid this.<br /><br />Rated R for Graphic Violence, Nudity and Sexual Situations.
Filmed in Arizona by a mostly-foreign crew, "Nightkill" is one of the clumsiest crime dramas I have ever seen. Robert Mitchum (in a cowboy hat) trails recently-widowed Jaclyn Smith around, hoping to figure out if she had a hand in her husband's death. Jaclyn's wardrobe is of the Dale Evans variety and her dog is named "Cowboy"...seems as if somebody sure bought into the American myth that all westerners talk and dress like descendants of John Wayne! Screenplay by Joan Andre and John Case may have worked better if approached as parody; this mystery thriller just plays tame, with director Ted Post asleep at the controls. Don't be drawn in by the video box art of Jaclyn screaming while taking a shower. She does indeed take a shower in this film, but it is not revealing (nor does it further the murky plot one iota). NO STARS from ****
Veteran TV director Ted Post treats us to a plodding, confused and ultimately pointless story lifted from Column B of the Harold Robbins Big Book Of Plots. Set against a smoggy Phoenix skyline, post-Charlies Angles Jaclyn Smith takes a star turn as "the woman whose eyes are mysteriously shadowed at all times" while JFK impersonator James Franciscus lounges around the fringes. <br /><br />Mannix goes western, monkeys are abused, models lean against classic cars, and Smith is constantly upstaged by Sybil Danning until a giallo style wrap-up brings the whole sorry mess to a bitter end.<br /><br />Oh yeah, and Bob Mitchum is in there too. Somewhere.
The Bridge At Remagen contains some of the most preposterous war time screenplay I've ever seen. Aside from the acting, which is wooden, no tank commander attacks with his tanks parked in nice neat rows, up the middle of roads, and with troops bunched all together with their arms not at the ready. The constant suicidal behavior set off my "tilt switch" so often I found it impossible to enjoy the movie. Apparently the screen writers and director have never been through actual warfare and never bothered to bring in an expert who had. This movie is the very antithesis of the excellent detail in Saving Private Ryan. Unless you are under 7 years old, I recommend watching something else.<br /><br />GB
CAUTION SPOILER: At the end of the movie it is announced that the bridge collapsed just a few days after it was captured. The impression is that the attack was all for nothing. In reality, taking the bridge at Remagen was the last important victory for the Western Allies. It was the crossing of the Rhine that the Allies had been trying to achieve for six months. Because the Remagen Bridge was taken, the war ended in just a few weeks.<br /><br />The bridge only need to last for a day after it was captured. This was enough time for the Americans to send combat engineers and a large protective force to the other side, and they could then start building a series of pontoon bridges. The taking of the bridge was a complete success, and meant the that the end of the war was near, and would not last through the summer. Contrary to the cynical nature of the film, the victory was heralded with elation by the troops who did it. They knew how vital the battle was.<br /><br />This film has little to do with real history. It was more a reflection of the cynical nature of the time in which it was produced.
This is a family movie that was broadcast on my local ITV station at 1.00 am a couple of nights ago . This might be a strange decision on the part of the schedulers but THE REAL HOWARD SPITZ is a rather strange film , strange in the way it doesn't want to upset its audience . Come on there's nothing kids like more than sadism and that's why Roald Dahl was such a popular author for children . It also explains why DOCTOR WHO was such a successful show across the world . In this screenplay you're just dying for pulp fiction author to do something nasty to the kids but this doesn't happen . I'm not advocating child abuse but to see Howard Spitz lose his rag at the little ones would have made the movie rather better . Can you imagine how much worse KINDERGARTEN COP would have been if the producers had gone all PC ? I mean if you're making a movie centered around a children's author who hates children shouldn't the story show and not tell ? <br /><br />Much of the problem lies with director Vadim Jean and you do get the feeling he doesn't know how to handle the material which is bad news for the movie . As someone previously noted the soundtrack is haphazard and Kelsey Grammar is very wooden . I guess he was trying to play it dead pan just like in that show he's famous for but it fails to work here and there's many scenes with quiet ridiculous camera angles which seem unintentional but which are very distracting . But at the end of the day the main problem remains that the potential is ruined because no one wanted to offend the audiences sensibilities
I had to see this on the British Airways plane. It was terribly bad acting and a dumb story. Not even a kid would enjoy this. Something to switch off if possible.
From time to time it's very advisable for the aristocracy to watch some silent film about the harsh life of the common people in order to remind themselves of the privileges and the comfortable life that they have enjoyed since the beginning of mankind or even before… in comparison with the complicated and hard work that common people have to endure everyday since the aristocrats rule the world.<br /><br />And that's what happens in "The Love Light", the first film directed by Dame France Marion who will be famous afterwards in the silent and talkie world thanks overall to her work as a screenwriter; better for her, certainly, because her career as a film director doesn't impress this German count.<br /><br />The film tells the story of Dame Angela Carlotti ( Dame Mary Pickford ) a merry Italian girl who lives surrounded by a "picturesque squalor" ( an important difference of opinion between upper and low classes; aristocrats prefers to live surrounded by "picturesque luxury"… ); she has two brothers and a secret admirer but all she gives him in return is indifference. Destiny begins to work hard and pretty soon war is declared and Dame Angela's two brothers enlist and in the next reel both are dead. But destiny is even crueller and Dame Angela meanwhile falls in love with… a German!! And to make things worse, she doesn't know that her Teutonic sweetie is a spy and that the light signals that she sends to him every night from the lighthouse she maintains thinking that is a love signal, don't mean "Ich Liebe Dich" but "Sink Any Damn Italian Boat At Sea"…<br /><br />Fortunately for Dame Angela, pretty soon her sweetie German spy will be found by the neighbours in her house in which she was hiding him ( a not strange fact, indeed, because it is not an easy task for a German to go unnoticed… ) but the German spy will prefer to die before being captured by those Italians.<br /><br />From that German love, a half-Teutonic baby will born ( the wicked Destiny at full speed… ) but a greedy neighbour who has a particular idea of motherhood will carry away her son with the consent of a Catholic nun who has taken the Council of Trent to extremes… a fact that will put Dame Angela at the verge of insanity.<br /><br />But meanwhile Dame Angela's secret admirer has returned from the war and you can think that finally Dame Angela's sorrowful life will improve; a tremendous mistake because Destiny has in store for her that the returned soldier is blind. But as they say in Germany, it may be a blessing in disguise and finally Dame Angela will recover her son and will start a new life with her blind sweetie in a poor Italian village in what it is supposed to be a happy ending for the common people.<br /><br />As this German count said before, it was much better for Dame Frances Marion that she continued her career as a screenwriter, because as can be seen in "The Love Light", she had a lot of imagination to invent incredible stories, ja wohl!… but a completely different subject is to direct films and her silent debut lacks emotion and rhythm in spite of the effort of Dame Pickford to involve the audience with her many disgraces. The nonexistent film narrative causes indifference in the spectator making this the kind of film where only Dame Pickford herself provides the interest and not her circumstances.<br /><br />And now, if you'll allow me, I must temporarily take my leave because this German Count must send Morse signals from the Schloss north tower to one of his Teutonic rich heiress.
What if someone made a horror movie that was completely devoid of plot?<br /><br />Well, I think it would probably end up a little bit like this one. I don't think I've ever seen a move was so steady it its slide from hackneyed (at the beginning) to complete crap (by the end). I only stuck with it, because I kept thinking it couldn't possibly get worse. Well, up until the very end, "Necrophagus"/"Graveyard of Horror" proved me wrong.<br /><br />Who would have suspected that a movie with an undead lizard-man, evil grave-robbing cultists, and mad scientists tossed in for no discernible reason could suck this bad? One would think there'd at least be some humor value... but not here.
The English translation of the title on the DVD version of this film is "Graveyard of Horrors," but I think that must be an error. It should have been called "Graveyard of Horribles." Horrible acting, horrible editing, horrible story, and horrible music all make this a horrible film best left in a horrible graveyard.<br /><br />Horrible.
This failed exercise in satire or commentary on the human condition easily earned a place as one of the 10 worst movies I've ever seen. I'm seriously considering buying a copy, if I can find one dirt cheap, to chase away unwanted company. It's honestly that bad. I view it as some kind of anti-personnel weapon. If you're the kind of person who just has to see a train wreck to witness the carnage, then this movie is a gem. Just to be fair, Kelsey Grammar's character has 1 line that almost works, but doesn't quite. Other than that everything in this movie strives to be insightful, but misses the mark by approximately the distance between earth and the nearest pair of colliding galaxies. I usually can appreciate a book or movie where the protagonist suffers from some sort of existential angst, but the angst presented here is so unbelievable and over the top, and the movie doesn't even address the nonsense it presents in any valuable way. If you are familiar with the term "word vomit" then you may get some picture of the cinematrocity. Oh, and the narrative structure is ill conceived, pretentious and amateurish. It has failed on both style and substance. If you really hate someone, invite them over for a double feature of this movie and "The Terror of Tiny Town," an all midget western from the 1930's and put them in restraints with their eyes forced open "A Clockwork Orange" style. But that probably violates some provision in the Geneva Conventions.
This is one of those strange, self-important, self-indulgent movies which tries too hard to be profound. It isn't. Instead, it spouts cliches that try to pass for Profundity. Typical is the scene where Peter (Kelsey Grammer) explains to protagonist and best friend Adam (Dwier Brown) how man starts life breast feeding, then moves on to sucking the breast of his girlfriend, and finally his wife, thus concluding ultimately that life sucks. So deep. We are treated to a variety of characters who offer their perspective of life, the universe, etc. during Adam's travels through the Mojave Desert on foot. (He abruptly leaves L.A. the day of his wedding and his family, friends, and fiance assume he's dead when his car was found in a military test range smashed by a rocket.) Some characters are more entertaining than others. The best by far is an escapee from a mental hospital who only speaks through the voices of others. The actor, James Kevin Ward, does some great impressions, including Nicholson, Popeye, and several characters from the original Star Trek. But once the interesting characters leave the screen, we're stuck with Adam again and his pursuit of the profound. It's a long trip, which drags in many places. In fact, it's the longest hour and a half movie I've ever seen. And the finale hardly makes it seem worth while, at all.<br /><br />I discovered this movie playing on HBO one day by waking up too early and clicking on the TV. That'll learn me. Next time I'll try harder to sleep in.
I saw this movie yesterday and thought it was awful; it was pointless and just plain stupid. the supposed plot concerned a prospective bridegroom too caught up in the problems of the world to relate to his bride and the other people in his life. He disappears on his wedding day (in a tux no less) and hooks up with an assortment of weirdos.<br /><br />We saw it with a bus-load of people on the way down to Atlantic City and everyone agreed that it was a terrible movie. It was trying to be profound but it wasn't; it was stupid and offensive. If I wasn't on a bus I would have walked out on the movie. Anyone considering seeing the movie or renting or buying the video you have been forewarned.
If you took all the stock elements of a Shrek movie (grumpy ogre, annoying donkey, cute kitty, obligatory dance number, etc.), put them in a blender and condensed it to 20 minutes, you'd have this mess. Painful to watch; I may have laughed once. The story and dialogue are rushed beyond comprehension, with the voice actors sounding like they phoned in their lines. The final reworked rendition of "The Christmas Story" poem felt like it was written by a committee in five minutes. And boy, a little Eddie Murphy goes a long way. With its desperate attempt to be hip and current, this show will be long outdated and forgotten while classics like "The Grinch…" will remain timeless. A sad waste of effort by all involved, a veritable "jumping of the shark" for the Shrek franchise.
While the premise of the film sounded unique and intriguing after watching the first 5 minutes of the film I could have stopped there and gone on with my life. She does get some interesting comments and reactions from her subjects, but not really enough to add to the validity of the film.<br /><br />I also felt she went a bit overboard with many things. If a guy said a filthy comment, grabbed her, or made some disgusting gesture to her, I would say go for it, bring him down, he's a pig. What bothered me though is she would walk around in revealing clothes and be surprised when guys would look at her and give them hell about it.<br /><br />I think somehow she forgot that being attracted to other people is a part of human sexuality and a big part of who we all are. Guys will look at beautiful women, especially when they dress provocatively, just like women will look at men when they are wearing a tight tank or no shirt at all.<br /><br />Some women may hate me for this, but I hope not. I have much respect for women. I was raised by one. I also come from a Spanish family and we are very matriarchal. My grandmother was the center of my family for years, but I don't really feel this did anything to help women's rights and from what the filmmaker even said herself, some women were offended by her project.
I love ghost stories and I will sit through a movie til it's end, even if I'm not really enjoying it. I rarely feel like I wasted my time... BUT, this adaptation of the Bell Witch story was horrible! <br /><br />It wasn't scary in the least bit. What is with the comic relief moments? The dialog was tedious. Acting inconsistent The movie was WAY too long and some scenes were unnecessarily drawn out in my open. (Like the birthday party)<br /><br />The only good think I can think about mentioning is the costumes and props were well done.<br /><br />I am curious about other adaptation, but until then, I will stick to reading about the story.
BELL WITCH HAUNTING (aka THE HAUNT) is an American horror movie supposedly based on real events that took place during the period 1817 to 1821.<br /><br />This is not to be confused with BELL WITCH: THE MOVIE, a movie starring Betsy Palmer based on the same events. However, I can say that I wish I had seen this other movie instead of the one I saw! I enjoyed Betsy Palmer's chilling performance in Friday THE 13TH. As such, I believe that even on a bad day, she'd pull off a better performance than anyone involved in the travesty known as THE HAUNT.<br /><br />With regard to my heading, this movie is not painful to watch because the content is disturbing. It is painful to watch because it is just downright boring.<br /><br />Reading the positive reviews for this movie, I could only identify three possibilities. The first possibility - these authors were involved in the production in some way. The second possibility - the authors whilst not directly involved were paid to write positive reviews after production was completed. The final possibility - none of these authors has seen a sufficient number of horror movies and therefore is inexperienced with the concepts that successful attempts utilise.<br /><br />The setting for the plot is Robertson County, Tennessee. James Johnston receives a visit from two journalists eager to hear the story of the Bell Witch. The story is told as a series of flashbacks. A series of supernatural events begin happening at the home of John Bell and his family. It soon transpires that a vengeful spirit is behind it all.<br /><br />On the surface the plot appears to be a standard poltergeist affair, albeit one based on real events.<br /><br />Where execution of the brilliant concept is concerned however, just about everything that could go wrong does go wrong. And then some!<br /><br />First, the acting. The acting is almost uniformly terrible right across the board. This factor does the most damage to the production, undermining any possible credibility of belief or interest on the part of the viewer. The voice of the vengeful spirit sounds more like a teenage girl experiencing teenage angst rather than a powerful demonic force expressing malevolent intent. I almost laughed when I heard some of her lines. Unfortunately, this voice began to become very annoying very quickly! I may not have been alive in the 1800s, but I find it incredibly hard to believe that any young woman alive at that time would speak in the way that this "ghost" does!<br /><br />Second, the direction. The direction is haphazard and very uneven. Some scenes show promise but potential is squandered by the clearly inexperienced director. Nothing is done with the camera, with sound or with lighting to add intensity to the scenes intended to be scary. The atmosphere is equally flat. A vengeful spirit is supposedly behind supernatural occurrences. Yet the effects are so incredibly inept that no one who has seen a proper horror movie would buy into them. I'll give one example. In one scene, the spirit attacks someone. See the scene for yourself. It's almost funny - almost.<br /><br />Third, the script. Whilst it may be the case that the events shown are faithful to accounts of real occurrences, it cannot be denied that most scenes are incredibly flat and boring. Scenes as short as two minutes feel much longer thanks to the poor dialogue - dialogue that fails to add depth to the characters or story. This movie is far too reliant on conversations to advance the story. Whilst this style was also the case with British movies from the British horror heyday of the 1960s and 1970s, it cannot be denied that the dialogue exchanges were always interesting to watch in these more professional earlier works. Peter Cushing for example could read a telephone directory and still hold attention of the viewers. The same cannot be said of the actors in THE HAUNT.<br /><br />Finally, the humour. The ill-guided attempts at humour in this movie are excruciating. An obese boy is the butt of many jokes. One particularly awful scene sees the said boy going to the outside toilet. This scene should never have been included - but it is and complete with sound effects in case you fail to understand what he is doing!<br /><br />The only positive points about the movie are the location and the costumes. The decision to shoot the picture near the original location helped add some authenticity. The costumes were also well chosen.<br /><br />Overall, THE HAUNT is an appalling movie. It is not even in the "so bad it's good" league. It is instead just boring. I advise everyone to save their money and avoid this movie like the plague. Don't even bother seeing it for free!<br /><br />I have never seen the other movie about the Bell Witch. But it really couldn't be any worse than THE HAUNT. Could it? I'll give this other movie a chance if I can track it down.<br /><br />In the meantime, I would advise everyone on here to check out some proper horror movies about ghosts and haunting. THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE, THE CHANGELING, RINGU, THE GRUDGE (Japanese original) and ONE MISSED CALL (Japanese original) are good places to start.
The filmmaker stayed true to the most accurate account of the story published in 1894 which includes an 1846 manuscript by Richard Williams Bell (son of John and Lucy Bell and younger brother of Betsy Bell) titled "Our Family Trouble." To knowledge this is the only eyewitness account ever penned. The filmmaker should be credited for accuracy but there is little to say about the production and acting quality. The acting was theatrical and the sound and picture quality was extremely poor. It appears that the filmmaker simply shot scenes of the reported events that took place without incorporating or weaving them into a flowing plot or story line. If you must know the story, read about it, its much more gripping and conclusive.
I am not understanding why people are praising this movie. I didn't like it at all. I watch it with several people. None of them cared for it either. First of all. It is just plain that another low budget studio is trying to cash in on a big name story. The actual filming looks like a live TV interview. The makeup is bad. When you watch the movie along with the DVD extras. You will see there is a lot of enthusiasm from the people who participated in it. There is no talent. There are facts that do appear in the book. The facts are distorted by the invention of comedy and skits added to it. I have read several books and have watched several shows on this story. What I have always caught from all the material on this is that it was a serious horror story. I really wish someone could really do a good film on this one. It has always fascinated me. The bad acting really ruined the story. The little boys situation really hammed it up even more. When you watch this movie. The little boy and his problem is the thing you and your friends will remember and laugh about. It didn't make any sense why his brothers were laughing at what had happened to him. It was like the witch was supposed to be so threatening but it was OK to throw baby brother to her. It is a whopping tale with him and his little problem. I can't still get over the little girl saying "Mom said tobacco will rot your teeth." Frank Fox's statement and facial expression is so bad. The scene out in the yard with him getting food is pretty stupid to. The sound from parts of it seems to be from the movie psycho. Also, The girl hovering over the bed and her little "Bladder control problem" are from The Exorcist. This movie is lacking from the talent of creativity. We put the movie in for a couple of minutes and knew right away it was a bummer. I also noticed that their was defects in the film quality. Parts of it looked like what a person might film on a Home video camera. I noticed a lot of the people in the credits had many multiple jobs. This is probably how this movie was put together. Someone said I like this story. I will get all my friends and make a movie about with a video camera and a computer. Doesn't matter if we don't know how to act. As long as we get it on film and say it is good. We got the family together and prepared food. Then sat down and watched this failed attempt to make a movie.
I wanted to like this movie. I really, really did. I was so excited when I saw the preview, which scared the hell out of me. But when I saw the actual film, I was disappointed. The acting is stilted, and the attempts at comedy are woefully out of place and forced. And I'm sorry, but a boy being chased by a turd in a bedpan is not funny or scary, it's just stupid. I grew up on the Bell Witch legend, so I know quite a bit about it. A lot of facts in the movie are right on target, but this film should have been much better. The entire birthday party scene, for example, lasts about fifteen minutes, adds nothing to the plot or the story, and should have been left on the cutting room floor. A more heavy-handed editor might have been able to get a decent film out of this mess.<br /><br />Please understand, I'm not in any way, shape or form involved with the other Bell Witch movie, and I'm not trying to "attack" this IMDb listing. I'm just telling it like it is.
In addition to the fact that this is just an abysmally made film (imagine giving a camcorder to the average high school drama club) the people who think that there is anything "real" about this legend need to grow up. This is the 21st century. Guess what: ghosts don't exist. Most people learn that from their mother when they're about 5 years old. You guys seriously need to grow up.<br /><br />The fact that a fraud was perpetrated nearly 2 centuries ago does not make it any less a fraud. The fact that a large number of inbred hillbillies from Tennessee believe it doesn't do it either. Go to college. Or at least finish high school.
Are you kidding me? This is quite possibly the worst, amateur movie I've ever seen. The casting was horrible, the acting was worse than horrible and I'm sorry, the guy at the picnic speed loading his plate full of food was somewhere near pointless and the demonic turd and chamber pot chasing Drew around was nothing more than comical. When I herd about the Bell Witch, I wanted to believe. I read some literature on it and thought it sounded like it was possible a plausible story. But this movie just destroyed that. Ric White (Director, Writer, Lead Actor, etc) takes himself a bit too seriously and I think he gives himself a little more credit than he deserves....Do yourself a favor....skip this one.
If anyone tells you this picture is just terrific they probably have something to do with either making it or profiting from it. This film is a real loser and it copies situations from big budget horror movies and not to mention soundtracks to. I wouldn't recommend this one to my worst enemy. It is a low budget movie with amateur actors. It looks like it was filmed for a film contest. The acting is terrible and it wouldn't surprise me if the script was written by a Hee Haw script writer. My family laughed at it. A Grade ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ all the way. You won't be scared by this one. Here is one little taste of the terrible elements of this film. When the guy gets his toe stomped by Ric White's stupid portrayal of the Reverend James Johnston walking cane. The guys reactions are like if he had an amputation with no pain killer. Watch the DVD extras after you watch the movie. When you see Ric White and others talk so seriously about the movie you will laugh till your stomach hurts. How people will stretch the truth and what they will do to earn a dishonest buck. Don't get fooled like we did and buy this failure.
I saw this movie with my girlfriend. It was a total disaster. You can really see it was cheaply made. Badly scripted and with very bad acting. I have read several versions of the book by different authors and also listened to one version on audio book. We couldn't take the movie seriously because of the lacking elements it should have contained. The experience of watching this was like The Blair Witch visits Green Acres. Then there were parts that were vulgar. They show this little boy using a bed pan and they actually show the contents of it. The witch throws the contents of it on the boy and the whole family laughs. I thought it was nasty and very strange. I really can't understand why someone would think that would be entertaining. It shows another scene where Dr. Mize arrives and Betsy Bell is urinating in her dress on the steps of their house in front of her mother and brothers. Instead of the mother leading her off it is the brother. How sick? The little boy in the first scene of the many scenes dealing with how your body disposes of wastes begs for toilet paper and goes to the out house and makes these sickening faces of joy with sound effects. I think they should have left all of that out. The makeup on the Reverend James Johnston as a older man didn't really make you assume he was older. It made you think he was dipped in fish batter. The blood on Joshua Gardner when he falls from the ladder is even worse. The John Bell death scene looks like they got out flour and tried to do something with it to make him look as a serious sick man. To me to much sickening comedy with bathroom problems and inexperienced people involved was the downfall of this picture. These people would do better if they film commercials for local TV Stations for bathroom products. They chose a good subject and were unable to produce it in a correct manner. I rate this film Capital F minus.
Thank God I didn't buy this movie myself! I borrowed it from a friend who bought it out of sheer curiosity and of course after viewing it feel they should be reimbursed! This has got to be one of THE worse movies I've EVER seen! I do realize they couldn't have had much of a budget but I swear I could make a better movie than this staring my pets! The acting was horrible, so was the editing, the dialogue, EVERYTHING! It was so bad that it was seriously making me angry as I watched it! I'm looking forward to the REAL movie about this story coming out soon so that people curious about it don't have to stoop to watch this joke!
I walked into a book store in Brentwood, Tennessee. I am not going to say the name because I am a dedicated customer. I have been satisfied with every item I purchased there before this one. On display in the front of the store was The Bell Witch Haunting. (Might I mention this is the only store I have seen it for sale in.) I had heard about the story somewhere and remembered it was supposed to have really happened for real. I was very excited and couldn't wait to watch it. I had great expectations for it. I couldn't believe what I seen when I viewed it. It didn't look like a real movie. It looked like a home video. I was under the impression it was suppose to be a horror movie. I mean the movie was suppose to be about a witch haunting you know. This is no horror movie. You will not jump out of your seat watching this movie. I gave the movie all the chances in the world to get better as it went along. I swear I did. It never did get any better. There were several scenes of this little kid getting poop and pee thrown on him. I didn't find that entertaining at all. I watched the whole movie with disbelief that the store would actually sell this to me. I guess that is how bad this economy has got. I have this to say to the cast and crew. Do not show this film as material to get other film jobs. Don't do it. I mean that sincerely. I commend you for trying. For people who have bought this. I say this. Don't sell your copy to someone. They could get very upset. Have a nice day everyone.
All the criticisms of this movie are quite valid! It is pretty boring, and filled with all kinds of pointless ridiculous stuff. A couple exchanging nods over their "good grub." A medium shot of a desk as a phone rings until someone finally comes, sits down, and answers it at a pretty leisurely pace. Quadruple-takes or more when people look at things. Solitary banjo-tuning and playing, taking a break for a beer. Telling a joke to a fawn, about a big-mouthed frog trying to learn what to feed its babies, complete with many big-mouthed expressions (which are needed for the weak punchline). The sharing of cucumber and cream cheese sandwiches on oatmeal bread, which to the squeamish become unpalatable when there's talk of people burned in a fire. Lots of seemingly stock-footage close-up shots of animals, birds, insects, and spiders in the woods.<br /><br />The movie starts with a forest fire, then at least a couple decades later some people in those same woods get killed by an axe. The killer evidently wasn't too satisfied by the axe he stole, and kills other people with other weapons of opportunity or his bare hands.<br /><br />If it's true that the movie in the version available on the out-of-print videotape is cut, perhaps if there's a lot of footage that was cut, it deserves another look on DVD. Otherwise, it's simply not very interesting, and would probably try the patience of even the most hardcore outdoors-slasher fan.
The prey has an interesting history, unless you remember the ads for it in newspapers in June of 1984 you might have caught it on the Movie channel back in summer 85, but little else is remembered. The plot is your basic killer in the woods again. But ironically this was filmed before Friday the 13th. The prey was actually shot sometime in 1978 according to one of the actors in an interview years later. But released for about a week at some drive ins, (yes Jim, namans drive in showed this in June of 84). But it has a dated look to it. Maybe they released it so later on to cash in on all the other terror films the market was flooded with by 1984. Now on the story, it has some kind of back story, a forest fire back in the 1940's leaves a lot of Gypsies burned to death. But one of their children survive (our monster) so flash forward to present day which would be 1978, we have an older middle age couple camping only to be dispatched by the Monster. The tag line for this picture claims ITS NOT HUMAN, AND ITS GOT AN AXE, but an Axe was only used in these first two killings. Now we have a bunch of teenagers who look like they in their mid 20's camping. We all know they are the Prey, and the monster knocks them of one by one. For an 80 minute movie it seems longer. We also have a lot of wildlife footage to fill in voids for the 80 mins. Overall for being out into an 80-'s horror movie it looks way more 70's than ever. Hey the Prey had potential to be a good horror killer in the woods movie but falls a little short.. It does however feature a pretty scary cool looking monster at the end, and we have to wait till the last 2 minutes to see him. Side note, the monster has gone on to star in the Addams family movies in the 1990's..
Rented 3 bad movies to watch with my friends in my dorm room.<br /><br />Leprechaun 4, Jack Frost and The Prey.<br /><br />I picked up Jack and Lep 4 because they are well known bad movies I have never seen.<br /><br />I picked this movie out because it matched the "How to find a bad movie" guide on badmovies.org, No real description, no pics of the movie on the back, and I had never heard of it, had to be a winner :)<br /><br />(SPOILERS, but this movie is so awful it doesn't matter :P)<br /><br />This is a TRUE bad movie, Lep 4 and Jack Frost are dumb on purpose, this is dumb despite the best efforts of the cast and crew.<br /><br />This "movie" starts out much like Evil Dead, even the actors look similar and have the same style of dress. Unlike Evil Dead it never gains any speed at all. For a "slasher" movie it is pretty bland, in 80 minutes 6 people get killed, but these are spread apart so far it becomes quickly boring.<br /><br />The director threw in a lot of boring shots on animals hunting, obviously to go along with the whole "Prey" theme but they do nothing to advance the story and are quite boring. The gore is horrible. All these extra shots were to make up for lack of a script and story.<br /><br />The last 5 minutes of the movie are shot mostly in slow motion, yet another way to add length to this. The "climax" is such a total joke, its hard to laugh at it is so bad. The back of the box says "The ending will shock and haunt you." Yes it will, it will shock you that someone could put such a bad "plot twist" on film and "haunt" you because you won't believe you paid to watch this crap.<br /><br />Also the tagline is "Its not human, and it's got an axe!" One person is killed with an axe in the whole movie and it is off screen.<br /><br />A true 1 out of 10. I LOVE laughing at bad movies, but this one is so bad that it even lacks campy qualities. No bad movie night is compete without a true character building flick :P
Foolish hikers go camping in the Utah mountains only to run into a murderous, disfigured gypsy. <br /><br />The Prey is a pretty run of the mill slasher film, that mostly suffers from a lack of imagination. The victim characters are all-too-familiar idiot teens which means one doesn't really care about them, we just wonder when they will die! Not to mention it has one too many cheesy moments and is padded with endless, unnecessary nature footage. However it does have a few moments of interest to slasher fans, the occasional touch of spooky atmosphere, and a decent music score by Don Peake. Still, it's business as usual for dead-camper movies.<br /><br />There are much better films in this vein, but over all The Prey may be watchable enough for die-hard slasher fans. Although one might be more rewarded to watch Just Before Dawn (1981), Wrong Turn (2003), or even The Final Terror (1983) again.<br /><br />* 1/2 out of ****
Even by the lowered standards of '80s slasher movies, this one stinks. The usual gaggle of oversexed teens heads for a "forbidden" part of forest, which burned in the 1940s and apparently left a sole angry survivor. Fast forward (actually, you'll want to fast-forward through much of this mess) to the present day, where a couple of campers are butchered; the teens follow in their wake, while a semi-concerned park ranger (a sleepwalking Jackie Coogan) and his healthier cohort (who spins a lot of time tuning his banjo) succeed partially in steering our attention from yards of run-of-the-mill nature-footage padding. Finally, more killings--but nothing you haven't seen a zillion times before. If you want to see the kids butchered, opt for SLEEPAWAY CAMP or the first FRIDAY THE 13TH over this
Supercraptastic slasher fare, which feels overly long at 80 minutes. Years ago, a bunch of "gypsies" who lived in the caves of a mountain, were burned up in a forest fire. Years later, campers are going missing from the area of the fire. A bunch of horny kids are, of course, en route to this area for a debaucherous camping trip of there own. Despite an ominous welcome from the forest ranger (Jackson Bostwick) the kids troop up to the mountain any way. Before long, the kids start to get picked off by the monster, who remains unseen to the very end of the movie, probably because the makeup was so embarrassingly bad. No surprises to speak of: they get killed in the exact order that the formula for these movies dictates, leaving the "final girl" to fend for herself, although in a refreshingly downbeat denouement, the final girl ends up imprisoned and impregnated by the monster.<br /><br />The story itself couldn't hold the weight of feature length, so it was padded out by seemingly endless shots of wildlife and insects, which were obviously shot for another film and inserted here haphazardously as a means of making the movie long enough for a video release. On the plus side, the wildlife footage is rather nice. Also among the highlights are Bostwick talking to a baby deer, a decent rock-climbing death sequence, OK gore, and the Great Jackie Coogan in his final film role, as the bumbling local sheriff. This is a far cry from Charlie Chaplin, but it was still nice to see him. This is for slasher completists only.
Oh yeah, this one is definitely a strong contender to win the questionable award of "worst 80's slasher ever made". "The Prey" has got everything you usually want to avoid in a horror flick: a routine, derivative plot that you've seen a thousand times before (and better), insufferable characters and terrible performances, a complete lack of gore and suspense, fuzzy photography and unoriginal locations and – most irritating of all – the largest amount of pointless padding footage you've ever encountered in your life (and that's not an exaggeration but a guarantee!). Apart from the seemingly endless amount of National Geographic stock footage, which I'll expand upon later, this film is shameless enough to include a complete banjo interlude (!) and two occasions where characters tell dillydally jokes that aren't even remotely funny! The set-up is as rudimentary as it gets, with the intro showing images of a devastating forest fire with OTT voice-over human screams. Fast forward nearly forty years later, when an elderly couple out camping in that same area get axe-whacked by something that breathes heavily off-screen. This ought to be enough information for you to derive that someone survived the fire all these years ago and remained prowling around ever since. Enter three intolerable twenty something couples heading up to the danger zone with exclusively sex on their minds, unaware of course they are sitting ducks for the stalking and panting killer. "The Prey" is an irredeemable boring film. Apparently it was shot in 1978 already, but nobody wanted to distribute it up until 1984 and it isn't too hard to see why. In case you would filter out all the content that is actually relevant, this would only be a short movie with a running time of 30 minutes; possibly even less. There's an unimaginably large of nature and wildlife footage, sometimes of animals that I think don't even live in that type of area, and they seem to go on forever. The only thing missing, in fact, is the typical National Geographic narration providing educational information regarding the animals' habits. Animals in their own natural biotope are undeniably nice to look at, but not in a supposedly vile and cheesy 80's slasher movie, for crying out loud. The last fifteen minutes are finally somewhat worthwhile, with some potent killing sequences and fine make-up effects on the monster (who turns out to be Lurch from "The Addams Family" movies), but still silliness overrules – the scene with the vultures is too stupid – and the final shot is just laugh-out-loud retarded. As mentioned above, "The Prey" easily makes my own personal list of worst 80's slashers, alongside "Appointment with Fear", "Berserker", "Deadly Games", "Don't Go in the Woods", "Hollow Gate", "The Stay Awake" and "Curfew".
Uhhh ... so, did they even have writers for this? Maybe I'm picky, but I like a little dialog with my movies. And, as far as slasher films go, just a sliver of character development will suffice.<br /><br />Unfortunately, The Prey provides neither—and if you think I'm being hyperbolic, you'll just have to see it for yourself. Scene after scene, we just get actors standing around, looking forlorn and awkward, abandoned by any sense of a script. Outside of calling out each other's names when they get separated in the woods (natch), the only instances where these people say something substantive is when one character explains the constellation Orion (clearly plagiarized from Funk & Wagnalls; scintillating slasher fare, no?) and another rehashes an old campfire tale that doesn't even have anything to do with the plot (wait, what IS the plot?) At other times, The Prey actually has the gall to film its characters with the boom mic just far away enough so that we can't exactly hear what they're saying. So we get entire scenes wherein the actors are murmuring! Deliberately! Seriously, I've seen more dialog in a silent film. It's as if the filmmakers sat down at a bar somewhere in Rancho Cucamonga in the heyday of the '80s slasher craze and one looked at the other and said, "Hey, I gotta really sweet idea for a gory decapitation gag. Let's somehow pad an entire feature around it." And ... well, they did. <br /><br />To be fair, The Prey probably had some sort of writer on board. I mean, somebody had to jot down the scene sequence and label the dailies. However, I am fully convinced that this film did not have an editor of any kind whatsoever. There are glaring pauses, boring tableaux, and zero sense of pacing throughout. The filmmakers don't have anything else in the "script" to film, so they fill out the running time with exhaustive taxonomies of the flora and fauna that inhabit the forest in which our wild and crazy teens are getting sliced and diced. These critters are all filmed in straightforward, noontime daylight in a completely reserved fashion and with no attempt at atmospheric photography. If it feels like a science film, that's because it is. I'm pretty sure this is all nature show stock footage—all that's missing is a stuffy narration from some National Geographic alderman.<br /><br />More exciting footage that was graciously spared from the cutting room floor: a scene in which two men discuss cucumber and cream cheese sandwiches, and another scene wherein a supporting character strums away on a banjo for what feels like an entire minute-and-a- half! A minute-and-a-half! That's a lot of banjoing to commit to celluloid to begin with, let alone insert into the final cut of the film! Way to go, guys! Brevity and concision are the real victims of this slaughterfest.<br /><br />Admittedly, the film picks up quite a bit of steam (comparatively) in the last 25 minutes, into which much of the carnage is condensed and where a rip-off of Béla Bartók's "Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta" cuts in. Vaudeville great Jackie Coogan makes a fun appearance as a tubby, bumbly park ranger (this was his last role, if you can believe it). And there are some nice gory moments, including a splattery neck tearing and the aforementioned decapitation. The make-up used for the killer (Carel Struycken, aka "Lurch" from the Addams Family movies) is also quite effective, and makes him look like a strange hybrid of young Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger. Plus, if you love wacky, straight-outta-left-field endings, you need to check out how they wrap this puppy up. You'll do a spit take, I promise.<br /><br />Usually, I love films that are on this level of ineptitude, but the first three-quarters of The Prey are just so interminably boring that they pretty much spoil the rest. Overall, this is a largely pallid and tedious affair, and, while it ain't all bad, it should really only be seen by debilitated slasher completists. Why do we do this to ourselves, anyway?
Everything everyone has said already pretty much rings true when it comes to 'The Prey'. Endless nature footage, bad acting - Aside from these elements, this is a watchable film for slasher fans that in some cases, is considered a cult classic.<br /><br />Jackson Bostwick and Jackie Coogan play pretty well off each other. There's also a three minute banjo solo that shows off Bostwick's skill behind the instrument. Not too bad if I do say so myself.<br /><br />The last ten minutes of the 'film' are its saving grace. The ending still haunts me to this day. This can also sport a short lived plus in that an early John Carl Bucheler does the special effects. Some may know him from films like 'Troll' and 'Friday the 13th part 7 - He directed both these films) All in all, this isn't a movie everyone will find something redeeming in. In fact, on a Hollywood level, this can rank right up there with one of the businesses most amateurish efforts, but for that handful (yet very loyal) of slasher movie fans in the world, even the bad acting and atrocious nature footage can be forgiven.
1980 was certainly a year for bad backwoods slasher movies. "Friday The 13th" and "The Burning" may have been the best ones but there were like always a couple of stinkers not far behind like "Don't Go Into The Woods Alone" and this one. But in all fairness "The Prey" is nowhere near as bad as "Don't Go Into The Woods" but it's still not great either. One thing is that it's just boring and acting isn't very good but much better than "DGITW" and this movie actually has some attractive looking females to look at, all three of the female leads were stunning. One thing what is up with all that pointless wildlife footage it just seemed pointless and it looked as the director used that to just used that to fill up some time space.<br /><br />So, what was there to like about this movie? Well, there were a few laugh out loud cheese moments- I couldn't contain a fit of giggles when the final girl did a bizarre type of backwards moon-walk to get away from the kille and there were a few good kill scenes- my favourites being the girl suffocated to death with the sleeping bag; and the phoney looking.<br /><br />All in all The Prey is dumb, boring and the killer I didn't find scary at all, this movie could have been a whole lot better.
I think that would have been a more appropriate title for this film, since it is padded to hell and back with stock footage of various bugs and animals. I recently found The Prey in its original VHS 'big box' form and was very excited. I just LOVE finding old slasher films on VHS because the cover artwork is fantastic. Usually though, it turns out that the film itself is less than fantastic. The Prey is one of those films.<br /><br />To be fair, it started off OK, with the killer stalking the cliché teenagers in the woods. The heartbeat sounds used are a great effect that make you tense as you watch. This film is basically a big fat cliché, and when the "campfire stories" section rolls in, the film takes a new direction and spends almost half of the running time on the back-story of the killer. I actually thought this was quite an original idea. However, the back-story ends abruptly and shows us some stock-footage of a burning woodland (the lack of budget really starts to show now). After this, we are returned to the dumb teenagers being picked off in the woods. The killer himself isn't shown until the end, which is a shame because he actually makes an effective looking killer. Sort of like Cropsy from The Burning, but better. As for gore, there isn't too much, although there's an OK face squishing moment at the end. <br /><br />Overall, I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone other than slasher completists - it really is a big mess.
Sure, most of the slasher films of the 1980's were not worth the<br /><br />celluloid they were filmed on, but this video nightmare may well be<br /><br />the dullest produced.<br /><br />Six horny pot smoking students decide to go camping. Of course,<br /><br />and you know this already, they begin getting killed one by one by a<br /><br />mysterious stranger. The climax has a hunky forest ranger trying to<br /><br />get to the teens in time before the last cute girl becomes buzzard<br /><br />bait.<br /><br />John Carl Buechler, my least favorite B-movie guy, did the lousy<br /><br />makeup effects here. The cast features Carel Struycken, of "The<br /><br />Witches of Eastwick" and the Addams family movies. Sadly, he<br /><br />does not pop up until the very end of the film, and is covered in<br /><br />burn makeup, rendering him unrecognizable. Steve Bond (anyone<br /><br />remember him?) is here in an early role as a victim.<br /><br />Brown's direction, and the script he cowrote, both smell like the<br /><br />presents brown bears leave in the woods. He pads the film with<br /><br />so much stock wilderness footage, I thought I accidentally rented a<br /><br />special episode of Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom. Much of the<br /><br />cast sits around the campfire and eats, then walk, and sit and eat<br /><br />again. The forest ranger is involved in the strangest scene ever put<br /><br />in a slasher film: he tells a joke about a wide mouthed frog to a<br /><br />baby deer. Jackie Coogan, who must have forgot he once worked<br /><br />with the legends of silent cinema, has two scenes, and is involved<br /><br />in the second strangest scene ever put in a slasher film: he and<br /><br />the hunky forest ranger have a conversation about cucumber and<br /><br />cream cheese sandwiches on oatmeal bread...yeah.<br /><br />There is not one minute of suspense here. The killer, a forest fire<br /><br />survivor looking for a mate, watches the students from behind<br /><br />trees. We know it is the killer because the film makers have<br /><br />dubbed in a heart beat sound effect that helpfully serves to wake<br /><br />the viewer up every few minutes. Skip this pile of pine sap and rent<br /><br />"Halloween," instead.<br /><br />This is rated (R) for physical violence, mild gun violence, gore,<br /><br />some profanity, brief female nudity, mild sexual content, sexual<br /><br />references, and drug abuse.
This is truly, without exaggerating, one of the worst Slasher movies ever made. I know, it came out in the 80's following a tendency started by "Friday the 13th". "The Prey" copies the fore-mentioned movie in many aspects. The woods setting, the killer, the dumb teens, the gore, etc.<br /><br />But "The Prey" is as bad as you might expect. I didn't even remember about it if it wasn't for coincidence.<br /><br />Well, the killer is in fact human so don't expect a supernatural killer in the likes of Jason. The situations rather boring and lack of tension, gore, violence, etc. It just does not works for a slasher flick.<br /><br />The acting is simply horrid. The score is horrible! a combination of boring instruments with cheesy 80's tunes?! I won't even mention the technical aspects of the movie because believe me, it seems that it cost only 20 dollars.<br /><br />Please avoid this one like the plague. It's one of the worst movies I've ever seen, and that's something to say. Thank God it seems to have vanished from earth.
The best thing about "The Prey" is the tag line..."It's not human and it's got an axe"! The movie itself is a padded stinkaroo....endless insect and wildlife shots make the viewer wanna die! No slasher fan will like this garbage.....Watch "Friday the 13th" again and burn any copy of this film you find! <br /><br />It also rates as one of the 25 worst films ever made!
New York family is the last in their neighborhood to get a television set, which nearly ruins David Niven's marriage to Mitzi Gaynor. Bedroom comedy that rarely ventures into the bedroom(and nothing sexy happens there anyway). Gaynor as an actress has about as much range as an oven--she turns on, she turns off. Film's sole compensation is a supporting performance by perky Patty Duke, pre-"Miracle Worker", as Niven's daughter. She's delightful; "Happy Anniversary" is not. * from ****
Many people are standing in front of the house n some women are crying... Men standing in close groups and speaking in hushed up tone... a couple of guys come in and they are discussing how sexy the daughter might look today... soon u will know someone in the house has died... The dead person's wife is worried about preparing food for so many people, her friend sitting beside her gives an idea of making the matters easy by preparing simple roti sabji... One of the dead person's son is speaking with someone over the mobile, Daughter is busy with her makeup... her mother suggests her to wear salwar kameej, but the daughter is more interested in looking good when so many people will be visiting their house and hence prefers jeans and T shirt over salwar kameez... another son asks her mom to finish all the kriyas and also indicates to her that he should not be expected to come early from the office... Then the camera slowly focuses on the dead person... the white cloth covering the face is displaced slightly due to the wind, revealing the face ... Its Anupam Kher... suddenly alarm rings and he gets up from the bed... Is it his dream or a flash back? U won't get an answer until the end of the movie...Well, This is wat comedy is for the director Dibakar Banerjee!!!!! Later u find out this scene has nothing to do with the actual movie and hence making everything obvious that the still described earlier was a dream. Is this a film comedy? Well it is supposed to belong to that category... But it actually does not!!! there is nothing that can be remotely associated with comedy in the movie!!! More over the director gives the message that no one will get justice from Police!!! so everyone must cheat the cheats!!!! or forget about Justice!!!! Music by Bapi-Tutul & Dhruv Dhalla is OK... Nothing much to tell about other sectors... Bad script destroys everything... not even Anupam Kher's performance succeeds in making it at least a paisa vasool...
Earth has been destroyed in a nuclear holocaust. Well, parts of the Earth, because somewhere in Italy, a band of purebred survivors--those without radioactive contamination--are holed up in a massive mansion surrounded by lush grounds, waiting for the next opportunity to go hunting for those with polluted blood. The Final Executioner is the story of one of their would be victims, Alan (William Mang, who looks, not surprisingly, a lot like Kurt Russell), and his efforts to take down the legally sanctioned hunters, who are led by Edra (Marina Costa) and Erasmus (Harrison Muller Jr. ). Alan has been trained to kill by former NYPD cop Sam (Woody Strode) who mostly hangs around giving his pupil moral support and mooching for tinned meat. Strode is by far the best thing about the film, though he doesn't look at all well and only appears for about a third of the running time. As for the story, it's a blending of elements from better films and stories, including Ten Little Indians, The Most Dangerous Game, and Escape From New York. The Final Executioner moves along at a fair pace and provides reasonable entertainment for less discriminate action fans.
At the bottom end of the apocalypse movie scale is this piece of pish called 'The Final Executioner'.. at least where I come from. A bloke is trained by an ex-cop to seek vengeance on those that killed his woman and friends in cold blood.. and that's about it. Lots of fake explosions and repetitive shootings ensue. Has one of the weirdest array of costumes I've seen in a film for a while, and a massive fortress which is apparently only run by 7 people. GREAT job on the dubbing too guys(!) Best moment: when our hero loses a swordfight and is about to be skewered through the neck, he just gets out his gun and BANG! Why not do that earlier? It's a mystery. As is why anyone would want to sit through this in the first place. I'm still puzzling over that one myself now.. 2/10
Here's a decidedly average Italian post apocalyptic take on the hunting/killing humans for sport theme ala The Most Dangerous Game, Turkey Shoot, Gymkata and The Running Man.<br /><br />Certainly the film reviewed here is nowhere near as much fun as the other listed entries and is furthermore dragged down by poor voice over work, generally bland action sequences, a number of entirely tasteless scenes such as a prolonged rape sequence and some truly stupid and illogical points throughout.<br /><br />Take for example towards the end of the film, when our hero manages to infiltrate the compound of the villains. He initially kills a sentry and leaves him in his jeep. Upon discovery of the said corpse, the villains response? (bearing in mind that our hero has come to brutally murder them all) – They resolve to wait until the next morning to look for the culprit (!!!!!!!!!!)<br /><br />However, I suppose to be fair the film remains nonetheless about watchable if you can suspend your disbelief during such stupid scenes and does benefit immensely by the presence of the always excellent Woody Strode (even if his screen time is very limited)<br /><br />Not a classic by any stretch of the imagination but still just about worthy of a watch for Italian B-Movie enthusiasts.
This film is absolutely appalling and awful. It's not low budget, it's a no budget film that makes Ed Wood's movies look like art. The acting is abysmal but sets and props are worse then anything I have ever seen. An ordinary subway train is used to transport people to the evil zone of killer mutants, Woddy Strode has one bullet and the fight scenes are shot in a disused gravel pit. There is sadism as you would expect from an 80s Italian video nasty. No talent was used to make this film. And the female love interest has a huge bhind- Italian taste maybe. Even for 80s Italian standards this film is pretty damn awful but I guess it came out at a time when there weren't so many films available on video or viewers weren't really discerning. This piece of crap has no entertainment value whatsoever and it's not even funny, just boring and extremely cheap. It's actually and insult to the most stupid audience. I just wonder how on earth an actor like Woody Strode ended up ia a turkey like this?
A big disappointment for what was touted as an incredible film. Incredibly bad. Very pretentious. It would be nice if just once someone would create a high profile role for a young woman that was not a prostitute. <br /><br />We don't really learn anything about this character, except that he seems to be a hopeless alcoholic. We don't know why. Nicholas Cage turns in an excellent performance as usual, but I feel that this role and this script let him down. And how, after not being able to perform for the whole film, can he have an erection on his deathbed? Really terrible and I felt like I needed a bath.
So tell me - what serious boozer drinks Budweiser? How many suicidally-obsessed drinkers house a fully stocked and barely touched range of drinks in their lonely motel room that a millionaire playboy's bachelor-pad bar would be proud to boast? And what kind of an alcoholic tends to drink with the bottle held about 8 inches from his hungry mouth so that the contents generally spill all over his face? Not to mention wasting good whisky by dousing your girlfriend's tits with it, just so the cinema audience can get a good eyeful of Elisabeth Shue's assets.<br /><br />Cage seems to be portraying the most attention-seeking look-at-me alcoholic ever to have graced the screen while Shue looks more like a Berkely preppy slumming it for a summer than some seasoned street-walker. She is humiliated and subjugated as often as possible in this revolting movie with beatings, skin lacerations, anal rape and graphic verbal abuse - all of it completely implausible and included apparently only to convey a sense of her horribly demeaned state and offer the male viewers an astonishingly clichéd sentimental sexual fantasy of the 'tart-with-a-heart'.<br /><br />Still - I did watch it to the end, by which time I was actually laughing out loud as Shue's tough street hooker chopped carrots in the kitchen wanly, pathetically smiling while Cage - all eyes popping and shaking like like a man operating a road drill in an earthquake - grimaced and mugged his way through the final half-hour...
Cage plays a drunk and gets high critically praise. Elizabeth Shue Actually has to do a love seen with the most unattractive and overrated piece of dung flesh in Hollywood. I literally vomited while watching this film. Of course I had the flu, but that does not mean this film did not contribute to the vomit in the kamode. <br /><br />Why can't Nick Cage play something he can really pull off like a bad actor. Nick Cage who be brilliant in a role as a bad actor. Heck nobody could do it better.<br /><br />The search begins for Nick's contract with Lucifer or was it Lou Cipher from "Night Train To Terror".
Wealthy horse ranchers in Buenos Aires have a long-standing no-trading policy with the Crawfords of Manhattan, but what happens when the mustachioed Latin son falls for a certain Crawford with bright eyes, blonde hair, and some perky moves on the dance floor? 20th Century-Fox musical has a glossy veneer yet seems a bit tatty around the edges. It is very heavy on the frenetic, gymnastic-like dancing, exceedingly thin on story. Betty Grable (an eleventh hour replacement for Alice Faye) gives it a boost, even though she's paired with leaden Don Ameche (in tan make-up and slick hair). Also good: Charlotte Greenwood as Betty's pithy aunt, a limousine driver who's constantly asleep on the job, and Carmen Miranda playing herself (who else?). The stock shots of Argentina far outclass the action filmed on the Fox backlot, and some of the supporting performances are quite awful. By the time of the big horserace finale, most viewers will have had enough. *1/2 from ****
"Tokyo Eyes" tells of a 17 year old Japanese girl who falls in like with a man being hunted by her big bro who is a cop. This lame flick is about 50% filler and 50% talk, talk, and more talk. You'll get to see the less than stellar cast of three as they talk on the bus, talk and play video games, talk and get a haircut, talk and walk and walk and talk, talk on cell phones, hang out and talk, etc. as you read subtitles waiting for something to happen. The thin wisp of a story is not sufficient to support a film with low end production value, a meager cast, and no action, no romance, no sex or nudity, no heavy drama...just incessant yadayadayada'ing. (C-)
Being a long-time fan of Japanese film, I expected more than this. I can't really be bothered to write to much, as this movie is just so poor. The story might be the cutest romantic little something ever, pity I couldn't stand the awful acting, the mess they called pacing, and the standard "quirky" Japanese story. If you've noticed how many Japanese movies use characters, plots and twists that seem too "different", forcedly so, then steer clear of this movie. Seriously, a 12-year old could have told you how this movie was going to move along, and that's not a good thing in my book.<br /><br />Fans of "Beat" Takeshi: his part in this movie is not really more than a cameo, and unless you're a rabid fan, you don't need to suffer through this waste of film.<br /><br />2/10
This German horror film has to be one of the weirdest I have seen.<br /><br />I was not aware of any connection between child abuse and vampirism, but this is supposed based upon a true character.<br /><br />Our hero is deaf and mute as a result of repeated beatings at the hands of his father. he also has a doll fetish, but I cannot figure out where that came from. His co-workers find out and tease him terribly.<br /><br />During the day a mild-manner accountant, and at night he breaks into cemeteries and funeral homes and drinks the blood of dead girls. They are all attractive, of course, else we wouldn't care about the fact that he usually tears their clothing down to the waist. He graduates eventually to actually killing, and that is what gets him caught.<br /><br />Like I said, a very strange movie that is dark and very slow as Werner Pochath never talks and just spends his time drinking blood.
A funny thing happened to me while watching "Mosquito": on the one hand, the hero is a deaf-mute and the director is totally unable to make us understand why he does what he does (mutilating mannequins...er, excuse me, corpses) through his images. On the other hand, the English version at least is very badly dubbed. So I found myself wishing there had been both more AND less dialogue at the same time! This film is stupid (funny how this guy has access to every graveyard and mortuary in his town) and lurid (where would we be in a 70s exploitationer without our gratuitous lesbian scene?). Not to mention the "romantic" aspect (oh, how sweet!)...Miss it. (*)
Brass pictures (movies is not a fitting word for them) really are somewhat brassy. Their alluring visual qualities are reminiscent of expensive high class TV commercials. But unfortunately Brass pictures are feature films with the pretense of wanting to entertain viewers for over two hours! In this they fail miserably, their undeniable, but rather soft and flabby than steamy, erotic qualities non withstanding.<br /><br />Senso '45 is a remake of a film by Luchino Visconti with the same title and Alida Valli and Farley Granger in the lead. The original tells a story of senseless love and lust in and around Venice during the Italian wars of independence. Brass moved the action from the 19th into the 20th century, 1945 to be exact, so there are Mussolini murals, men in black shirts, German uniforms or the tattered garb of the partisans. But it is just window dressing, the historic context is completely negligible.<br /><br />Anna Galiena plays the attractive aristocratic woman who falls for the amoral SS guy who always puts on too much lipstick. She is an attractive, versatile, well trained Italian actress and clearly above the material. Her wide range of facial expressions (signalling boredom, loathing, delight, fear, hate ... and ecstasy) are the best reason to watch this picture and worth two stars. She endures this basically trashy stuff with an astonishing amount of dignity. I wish some really good parts come along for her. She really deserves it.
Not even the Beatles could write songs everyone liked, and although Walter Hill is no mop-top he's second to none when it comes to thought provoking action movies. The nineties came and social platforms were changing in music and film, the emergence of the Rapper turned movie star was in full swing, the acting took a back seat to each man's overpowering regional accent and transparent acting. This was one of the many ice-t movies i saw as a kid and loved, only to watch them later and cringe. Bill Paxton and William Sadler are firemen with basic lives until a burning building tenant about to go up in flames hands over a map with gold implications. I hand it to Walter for quickly and neatly setting up the main characters and location. But i fault everyone involved for turning out Lame-o performances. Ice-t and cube must have been red hot at this time, and while I've enjoyed both their careers as rappers, in my opinion they fell flat in this movie. It's about ninety minutes of one guy ridiculously turning his back on the other guy to the point you find yourself locked in multiple states of disbelief. Now this is a movie, its not a documentary so i wont waste my time recounting all the stupid plot twists in this movie, but there were many, and they led nowhere. I got the feeling watching this that everyone on set was sord of confused and just playing things off the cuff. There are two things i still enjoy about it, one involves a scene with a needle and the other is Sadler's huge 45 pistol. Bottom line this movie is like domino's pizza. Yeah ill eat it if I'm hungry and i don't feel like cooking, But I'm well aware it tastes like crap. 3 stars, meh.
First of all I hate those moronic rappers, who could'nt act if they had a gun pressed against their foreheads. All they do is curse and shoot each other and acting like cliché'e version of gangsters.<br /><br />The movie doesn't take more than five minutes to explain what is going on before we're already at the warehouse There is not a single sympathetic character in this movie, except for the homeless guy, who is also the only one with half a brain.<br /><br />Bill Paxton and William Sadler are both hill billies and Sadlers character is just as much a villain as the gangsters. I did'nt like him right from the start.<br /><br />The movie is filled with pointless violence and Walter Hills specialty: people falling through windows with glass flying everywhere. There is pretty much no plot and it is a big problem when you root for no-one. Everybody dies, except from Paxton and the homeless guy and everybody get what they deserve.<br /><br />The only two black people that can act is the homeless guy and the junkie but they're actors by profession, not annoying ugly brain dead rappers.<br /><br />Stay away from this crap and watch 48 hours 1 and 2 instead. At lest they have characters you care about, a sense of humor and nothing but real actors in the cast.
This is an example of why the majority of action films are the same. Generic and boring, there's really nothing worth watching here. A complete waste of the then barely-tapped talents of Ice-T and Ice Cube, who've each proven many times over that they are capable of acting, and acting well. Don't bother with this one, go see New Jack City, Ricochet or watch New York Undercover for Ice-T, or Boyz n the Hood, Higher Learning or Friday for Ice Cube and see the real deal. Ice-T's horribly cliched dialogue alone makes this film grate at the teeth, and I'm still wondering what the heck Bill Paxton was doing in this film? And why the heck does he always play the exact same character? From Aliens onward, every film I've seen with Bill Paxton has him playing the exact same irritating character, and at least in Aliens his character died, which made it somewhat gratifying...<br /><br />Overall, this is second-rate action trash. There are countless better films to see, and if you really want to see this one, watch Judgement Night, which is practically a carbon copy but has better acting and a better script. The only thing that made this at all worth watching was a decent hand on the camera - the cinematography was almost refreshing, which comes close to making up for the horrible film itself - but not quite. 4/10.
When all we have anymore is pretty much reality TV shows with people making fools of themselves for whatever reason be it too fat or can't sing or cook worth a damn than I know Hollywood has run out of original ideas. I can not recall a time when anything original or intelligent came out on TV in the last 15 years. What is our obsession with watching bums make fools of themselves? I would have thought these types of programs would have run full circle but every year they come up with something new that is more strange then the one before. OK so people in this one need to lose weight...most Americans need to lose weight. I just think we all to some degree enjoy watching people humiliated. Maybe it makes us feel better when we see someone else looking like a jerk. I don't know but I just wish something intelligent would come out that did not insult your intelligence.
I occasionally let my kids watch this garbage so they will understand just how pathetic the show's "contestants" are. They are pathetic not because they are fat, but because they whore their dignity for a few minutes of fame and fortune.<br /><br />For anyone to appear on National TV and blubber, sniffle, and whine about being fat (entirely their own fault) is nauseating. What does this say about us as a nation? Does it suggest that your lifestyle choices, and the consequences of them, aren't our responsibility? <br /><br />"The Biggest Loser" is an appropriate title, but it has nothing to do with one's weight.<br /><br />Absolute trash.
Awful, awful, awful times a hundred still doesn't begin to describe how crappy "Biggest Loser" is. Picture this: take two fat couples with nothing interesting to say, humiliate them, and let them work to lose weight, all on prime time television. Am I the only one who thinks that this isn't something people with IQs in the 3-digit area WANT TO WATCH? Everything drags on forever, with the lumps of lard whining on about how losing weight is going to mean so much for them and their lives. Does anyone care? Do they think we care? Do they care if we care? Probably not. I think I'll videotape myself doing crunches and sell it to some major television corporation. If this passes for television, then so can my workouts!
This is one dreary, inert, self-important bore. When the only thing that suddenly gives a film life is a hanging, you know the venture is botched. Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Truman Capote as a narcissistic, tic-ridden, self-indulgent, cartoon-voiced, insect-like caricature. Why he is this way is never explained and we get scant background information. The script focuses on Capote's writing of 'In Cold Blood' and his attachment to the damaged brothers who murdered a family of four. The acclaimed writer of 'To Kill A Mockingbird', Harper Lee (Catherine Keener), accompanies Capote in his initial inquires into the crime, and her presence immediately suggests a far more interesting subject for a biopic. Unfortunately, Lee is quickly sidelined in favor of endless scenes of Capote bemoaning his pained existence. Watching him is like watching Dr. Smith from 'Lost in Space' complain about his "delicate back" to anybody who will listen for two hours. The difference, however, is that Smith was fun to watch while Capote is not. The film's precious self-importance kills it, as does director Bennett Miller's reluctance to add any kind of shading. Like the morose piano score, the film is a one note wonder, providing no contrast, no emotional coloring, and no intimate drama. If Capote really was this irritating, why make a film about him and expect audiences to watch it? Though the supporting roles are well performed (Chris Cooper is his usual stalwart self), they serve such little dramatic purpose because, ultimately, it's all about Capote(!) Director Bennett and screenwriter Dan Futterman fail to emotionally engage their intended audience because they were clearly overwhelmed by the cultural baggage of Capote's "legend". Their product is stillborn Oscar bait...and is more evidence that one great genre pic has more "truth" in it than a dozen piles of oh-so-sincere crap like this.
many people said this was a great movie with Hoffman delivering a great performance. i went from suspended disbelief, to fidgety boredom, to almost walking out. there is no there there.<br /><br />Hoffman does go all out. he is committed to the performance. but sometimes him playing an affected man looks just like affected actor chewing on the scenery.<br /><br />no characters in the movie other than capote are much more than placeholders - nell, jack, perry, shawn, the sheriff are all one-dimensional.<br /><br />yes the film shows the manipulative, preening, dishonest sides of capote. it shows them so many times i started to wonder why -- do the filmmakers think we need to have everything spelled out? and again? and again? it refers often to capote's genius but does not show it. it shows him surrounded by fans and flatterers but never convinces us why.<br /><br />but my goal is not to deconstruct the film. i am sure others will have other interpretations. for me, this was a two-hour movie that felt like five.
In this film, we're invited to observe the descent into a moral and emotional funk of someone who isn't likable to start with. What was the point of making the film, then? To show that it would have been better not to have had IN COLD BLOOD - a book I admire, incidentally - in order to have kept our hero's integrity intact? Hardly. He behaves at the party at the start of the film exactly in the same way he behaves after his triumphant reading from the book, so his degradation is a matter of degree. Are we supposed to care enough about Capote to take seriously his claim that he and murderer Perry Smith are kindred spirits, with the former having had all the breaks while the latter had none? Mr Capote's plight didn't touch me at all, I'm afraid, so if that was the central idea it was wasted on me. But even if I could fathom why the filmmakers visited this pointless project on us, the clunky storytelling would still have bored me as it did. Hoffman gives a bravura performance to no emotional effect, while Keener and Cooper are so warm and interesting that I was yearning for more of them. Dreary beyond belief.
As I read the script on-line, I thought "Capote" needed a trim. Having just seen it on PPV, I can tell you it wasn't trimmed, it was butchered like that poor family! Example: in the script, Truman dubs Shawn "Adorable One"; here, he is "Mr. Shawn".<br /><br />Bad enough the amateurs behind this movie de-flame Capote and bash his circle (are we to really believe they thought so little of Nelle, they mangled her little opus like an obnoxious in-joke?), they turn Perry Smith into this oh-so-sensitive victim, even as he's shown dispatching the Clutters. It's one thing to fudge the facts, it's another to drop the ball: the executions were carried out between 12:45-1:19 AM, April 14; Truman is shown at the prison 22 HOURS LATER!<br /><br />I was totally underwhelmed by the "acting". Keener doesn't even try to sound like an Alabama native. The way Cooper kept shouting "Alvin!", I was waiting for the Chimpmunks to show up! Hoffman gives us not the charming gadfly, but a pathetic suck-up who sees an horrific act as his ticket to the big time. When Hoffman whines about being "tortured" by the endless appeals, I wanted to give him a shotgun so he could do us both a favor and blow his brains out!
Some describe CALIGULIA as "the" most controversial film of its era. While this is debatable, it is certainly one of the most embarrassing: virtually every big name associated with the film made an effort to distance themselves from it. Author Gore Vidal actually sued (with mixed results) to have his name removed from the film, and when the stars saw the film their reactions varied from loudly voiced disgust to strategic silence. What they wanted, of course, was for it to go away.<br /><br />For a while it looked like it might. CALIGULA was a major box-office and critical flop (producer Guccione had to rent theatres in order to get it screened at all), and although the film was released on VHS to the home market so many censorship issues were raised that it was re-edited, and the edited version was the only one widely available for more than a decade. But now CALIGULIA is on DVD, available in both edited "R" and original "Unrated" versions. And no doubt John Gielgud is glad he didn't live to see it happen.<br /><br />The only way to describe CALIGULIA is to say it is something like DEEP THROAT meets David Lynch's DUNE by way of Fellini having an off day. Vidal's script fell into the hands of Penthouse publisher Bob Guccione, who used Vidal's reputation to bankroll the project and lure the big name stars--and then threw out most of Vidal's script and brought in soft-porn director Tinto Brass. Then, when Guccione felt Brass' work wasn't explicit enough, he and Giancarlo Lui photographed hardcore material on the sly.<br /><br />Viewers watching the edited version may wonder what all the fuss is about, but those viewing the original cut will quickly realize that it leaves absolutely nothing to the imagination. There is a tremendous amount of nudity, and that remains in the edited version, but the original comes complete with XXX scenes: there is very explicit gay, lesbian, and straight sex, kinky sex, and a grand orgy complete with dancing Roman guards thrown in for good measure. The film is also incredibly violent and bloody, with rape, torture, and mutilation the order of the day. In one particularly disturbing scene, a man is slowly stabbed to death, a woman urinates on his corpse, and his genitals are cut off and thrown to the dogs.<br /><br />In a documentary that accompanies the DVD release, Guccione states he wanted the film to reflect the reality of pagan Rome. If so, he missed the mark. We know very little about Caligula--and what little we know is questionable at best. That aside, orgies and casual sex were not a commonplace of Roman society, where adultery was an offense punishable by death. And certainly ancient Rome NEVER looked like the strange, slightly Oriental, oddly space-age sets and costumes offered by the designers.<br /><br />On the plus side, those sets and costumes are often fantastically beautiful, and although the cinematography is commonplace it at least does them justice; the score is also very, very good. The most successful member of the cast is Helen Mirren, who manages to engage our interests and sympathies as the Empress Caesonia; Gielgud and O'Toole also escape in reasonably good form. The same cannot be said for McDowell, but in justice to him he doesn't have much to work with.<br /><br />The movie does possess a dark fascination, but ultimately it is an oddity, more interesting for its design and flat-out weirdness than for content. Some of the bodies on display (including McDowell's and Mirren's) are extremely beautiful, and some of the sex scenes work very well as pornography... but then again, some of them are so distasteful they might drive you to abstinence, and the bloody and grotesque nature of the film undercuts its eroticism. If you're up to it, it is worth seeing once, but once is likely to be enough.<br /><br />Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
It's rare to see film that strikes out in every aspect but "Caligula" surely must hold this title. I'm not sure what is more horrendous; the violence, the sexual perverseness, the acting or the plot (or severe lack thereof).<br /><br />The two and a half hours basically follows the ascension of the infamous Roman Caesar "Caligula" to to throne in 37AD and shows the atrocities and perverseness he supposedly committed whilst in power. The acting is lifeless and dull - but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Obviously knowing that this film was severely lacking of anything legitimately interesting, the directors decided to throw in as much nudity and orgy scenes as was conceivably possible. But don't be fooled, these scenes don't ease or take focus away from the hideousness of this film. The camera work is shoddy, dialog is laughable in fact you'd have to congratulate Malcolm McDowell (playing Caligula) for keeping a straight face through such farcical lines. And then there's the violence....<br /><br />If you are about to see the film be prepared. Some atrocities are committed in the film (not just through the writing) but through disgusting violent acts which are of little point or purpose other than to repulse the viewer. This is only objective this movie achieved. One must wonder how the makers of this film thought that bestiality, necrophilia and castration (just to name a few) would be appealing to anyone. When it belatedly ends after two and a half hours you take nothing from this film other than some disturbing images and the knowledge that you may have witnessed the worst film ever.<br /><br />You've been warned
I saw this film at the tender age of 18 with a group of friends. Its reputation had preceded it, and though all my friends were also of legal age, I alone had the courage to enter the video store and actually rent it. We gathered at a house where the parents had left town for the weekend. Though we sat in close proximity to each other, we did not speak or otherwise acknowledge each other's presence. As it turned out, the film both merited and did not merit the anticipatory shame we felt. It did not disappoint in terms of sheer gratuitous content, but it disappointed in every other way.<br /><br />Caligula attempts to transcend genres by combining a historical epic with a brazen porn flick. It fails miserably in its ambition, subjecting the audience to the worst of both worlds. The film's obvious selling point is its pornographic aspect, and it does indeed provide far more than its share of real, graphic sex. But in setting this sex in the context of Caligula's depraved reign, it dignifies the act even less than the average adult movie. Sex without context might at least be physically pleasurable for the consenting adults involved, but pleasure and perhaps even consent are largely absent from the world of Caligula. In it, sex at best serves as an idle pastime and at worst as an instrument of sadistic domination. In the present day, it is somewhat common to hear words like "sin" and "depravity" used facetiously to describe acts which are enjoyable yet considered taboo according to certain moral or religious perspectives. Caligula takes the viewer beyond the facetiousness by depicting true depravity and demonstrating that no joy or pleasure comes from it.<br /><br />The historical portions not only fail to meaningfully contextualize the sex, they fail to entertain, enlighten, intrigue, or interest the viewer in any way. They only provide lengthy stretches of unremitting tedium. Rarely has a film proved so boring. The sex, after the initial shock and astonishment fades, only contributes to the overall monotony of the picture.<br /><br />Rarely do discussions of this film involve its violence. While many films more violent than Caligula have been made, few can rival it in terms of the shock value of its violence. Apparenly, unrelenting barbarity as well as hyper-depraved sexuality characterized Caligula's emperorship. The violence is even less for the faint of heart than the sex.<br /><br />A review like this will likely generate as much curiosity as it quells. I understand why someone would want to see this film; after all, I myself succumbed to the same curiosity. I simply hope that my review, by plainly describing its lack of redeeming value, will at least give potential viewers the knowledge to make an informed decision about whether to see it or not. My high school criminal justice teacher described police work as "hours of boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terror." This statement perfectly describes Caligula. You have been warned.
It's a rare sensation to come across a film so embarrassing that you feel an urge to turn away from the screen. But when you see a noble actor like Sir John Gielgud surrounded by naked, copulating couples that's just what you'll want to do. Add to that Peter O'Toole as syphilis-ridden emperor Tiberius and Malcolm McDowell sticking his finger up a male victim's anus, and you begin to appreciate that Caligula is solely of interest to addicts of sick/outrageous films.<br /><br />The film charts the life of notorious Roman emperor Caligula (McDowell), a highly disturbed individual whose story is told through a series of sexual encounters, decapitations, betrayals, murders, incestuous relationships and lesbian sex scenes.<br /><br />Although Caligula was totally mad in real life, and probably did succumb to his base instincts more often than not, the film is still inexcusable filth. The sex in the film isn't used as one aspect in a multi-layered story - the sex IS the story. After a while, all the nudity, hip thrusting and nipple sucking becomes tedious due to sheer repetition. The performances are totally undisciplined, particularly McDowell who throws caution to the wind and gives a performance that is all wild-eyed posturing. O'Toole seems to be treating the script with the contempt it deserves (surely he's in it purely for the money?!). Rumours abound that additional pornographic scenes were added without the director's consent during post production, but in truth there isn't a single minute in Caligula that is dignified or well-made. It is doubtful that this amount of time, talent and money will ever be thrown at a porno film again, so in that sense Caligula is a one-of-a-kind experience... on the other hand, it's so monumentally awful that perhaps the fact it is "one-of-a-kind" is a blessing in disguise.
I'm currently slogging through Gibbon's 'Fall and Decline of the Roman Empire , so I've had all things Roman on my mind. I'm not very far into it yet, maybe two hundred plus pages, but it is amazing just how many of these Roman emperors were killed. I believe I've read through maybe 15 emperors so far and only Antonius, Trajan, and Hadrian haven't been killed or at least suspected of having been killed. I have also been fascinated by the mad excesses of many of these princes of Rome. Not the least practitioner of these was Caligula. This brings me to reviewing this film. I'm thinking of the film on a historical basis as far as I understand it from Gibbon's explanation of Rome,as well as other research from some good web sites and some fiction novels dealings with the period.<br /><br />My point is I do not think that this film is what it is thought to be by many of it's proponents. I do not think the depravity shown with the sex and horrendous violence of this film qualify it as accurate. The general ideas of the film seem accurate. Caligula is raised on an island ,exiled with his family and in content fear of being murdered by the increasingly mad, suspicious and strange emperor Tiberius. He grows up paranoid and afraid and can never shake the cutesy nickname given him by his guards, Little Boots, this helps him grow up feeling abused and powerless. He is handed the empire after Tiberius dies, the senate hoping he will steer away from the informer squads which brought death by whim of the former delusionally paranoid tyrant, and lead Rome away from the madness that dictator had settled it into. Caligula begins as a decent if hands-off emperor, but gets sick, almost dies, and comes back from the brink of feverous death a true monster. His perversities with his sisters do begin here, if not before. He does have Macro killed and many others who were his originally supporters. The acts of madness seemed not to be the murders of Caligula as much as his new thinking of himself as a living God. Him seen talking to the statue of Jupiter as an equal doomed him. His violent mad excesses would have doomed him anyway, and three years seems to have been quite a decent run for the successors of Tiberius. Well the film basically sticks to these lines while it manages to be coherent, which is not common through it's entirety, it does so while trying to shock the audience at all turns, in every single scene the film begs you to be disgusted by the depravity of ancient Rome. The shocking scenes are what this film is built entirely upon and where it entirely fails. It is just too much to see successive rulers have man after man murdered, raped, tortured for no reason but fancy. The depictions of the violence are possibly, but not probably, accurate. Murder certainly was the order of the day in Imperial Rome, torture beforehand was rote. But the director's visions of these deaths and the bored amusement of their protagonists, while the bystanders watch with nonchalance, I just don't see it having gone down exactly like that. The death machine, the beheader, is certainly something like you've never seen in movies, and something once seen you shall probably never forget, even as I, you wish you could. The wine drinking while the penis is roped off is the same, once you've seen this shame it is yours forever. These things strike me the director's and that porn magnate's fantasies. They sprung from their sick imaginations and not from any proved record.<br /><br />The acting is pretty good. I actually think Mcdowell is the weakest link here. Mirren is always something to behold, and here in her youthful years she is formidable and beautiful. The portrayals of Nerva and Tiberius are done very well by their respected actors. The film could have done so much better story telling, it is such a failure that way its just a whole other layer of what a shame this thing was. For example it could have given opinion on how and why Caligula went mad, or shown that he was mad, paranoid before his illness and that fever then broke the mental restraint he had possessed previously. It could have shown the weakness of Claudius and the miracle it was he survived Caligula. It could have these and many other things but it stuck to it's sad nightmares.<br /><br />Finally about the sex. It is porn. It shows these sex acts being done all over the palaces by many people. Male on male, female on female, male on female. It is passionless, disgusting sex. Sex that if your point is to get off on it, I seriously doubt you could. Both Tiberius and Caligula may have been sex addicts, and orgies may have been common enough but the visions in this film seem to recall more a Greek time than a Roman. I don't think that kind of acceptance of homosexuality or orgies right out in the open were common until the the strange, depraved reign of Elgabalus, and he was killed for it.<br /><br />This film should probably never be watched, if your curious about it , let it go. It is something, as I said earlier, if you do watch this you will unfortunately retain it's sick visions in your minds eye for years to come. I don't think its an accurate historical picture in particular, even if it is historical in whole.
Incomprehensibly dreadful mishmash of the probably most notorious of all Roman emperors who went insane, leaving infamous party orgies and ruthless killings in his path... I know there are several versions of this, and this is based on the 102 min' one that I watched - but I can't fathom how that possibly can make any difference to lift the rest of this movie out of the muck!<br /><br />I'd heard for long about the alleged "shocking" content of sex/nudity (which honestly there isn't much of here at all - and boring when there is) and blood, but beware - it's the technical production amateurishness that well and truly shocks here: Everything looks plain and simply like a junior film school flunk project! Camera-work is hopelessly inept, full of strange zooms, failed framing and confusing pans (to and from what mostly looks like a huge theater stage!) complete with a grainy, cheapish photo quality. Lighting and color schemes are terrible and uneven - is it day or night? Are they in- or outside? Have they changed scenes? Who is, or is meant to be in the shot? Editing is the final sin here, making a confusing mess of everything with randomly jumpy cutaways, continuity flaws and random transitions that destroy any chance of momentum, story progression - and involvement. There is potentially interesting dialog and an equally interesting true historical story... but these faults distract so much it's tragic.<br /><br />A story with SO many possibilities to be great is just one gargantuan, burnt (and Fellini-like) turkey that's only good for a few gobble-laughs and Peter O'Toole, who makes a most memorable Tiberius. Oh yes, which brings us to the big-name actors. I'd like to line them all up one by one and just ask: Who did you get free access to bonk in the orgies to be a part of this? There, I've wasted enough lines on one of the truly worst films of all time - period!<br /><br />1 out of 10 from Ozjeppe
As an ancient movie fan, I had heard much about the controversial movie CALIGULA assessed ambiguously as one of the most realistic epics by some and as one of the most disgusting porn movies by others. I decided to see it in the entire uncut version to evaluate it myself hoping to find something positive that would make justice to the many accusations towards the film. I sat down in my chair one autumn evening and started to watch. The beginning quotation from the New Testament shocked me a bit and raised the first controversy in me...why to entail a sentence from the Gospel by Mark in the movie about pagan Rome? But the prelude pastoral scene with a young half naked couple (Caligula and Drusilla) running hopelessly through meadows seemed quite sentimental. The music which sounded memorably whilst the credits also provoked me in the positive sense. Yet, the negative feelings raised in me quite soon, particularly at the death of Tiberius. The cruelty seemed very intense and sexuality exaggerated. However, it was not that horrific to the middle. During the second half of the film, I felt as if I watched no historical epic but an extremely disgusting porn. In the end, I said to myself "This is one of the movies that one may really hate" ... I am aware that a movie may be controversial but I had never expected that CALIGULA would go that far in removing all limits of taste. I hate this film due to many reasons, but particularly one.<br /><br />CALIGULA does not serve a purpose of an ancient epic (which it claims to be), but Bob Guccione, the director and the founder of Penthouse pornographic magazine, aims at combining film art with porn. That is, I think, the most serious matter the film may be accused of. Movie is an art that should be reigned by taste, by message, by some feeling of epic grandeur whereas this movie kills all limits of good taste. CALIGULA shows the most bestial side of human being in the most wicked, decadent manner. Some scenes are so disgusting that I don't think there are any people whose psyches will not be affected by them. Some say that the Rome under Caligula's reign was so brutal. Yes, it is true. Corruption bloomed at that time, various sexual deviances were preferable to Roman citizens. Yet, I do not think that it is right to focus on these deviations so strictly and make it constitute an emphasis of an ancient epic. I believe that it rather proves the bizarre psyches of the producers and their strange tendencies... <br /><br />HUGE HISTORICAL MISTAKES: The screenplay by Gore Vidal is notorious for inaccuracies. It is noticeable, for instance, with the figure of Proculus (Donato Placido), a historic Roman senator. Yet, the film shows him as a simple soldier on whom Caligula forces his most decadent ways of tortures and rapes. Moreover, Livia was not Proculus wife raped by Caesar on her wedding. What lies behind changing the stories of historical characters into the stories filled with unbelievable vulgarity and violence? Another example of historical travesty is the figure of Caesonia portrayed by Helen Mirren. She is presented as Caligula's wife together with Drusilla, his sister. In fact, Caligula married Caesonia long after the death of his sister. The sexual abuse on his new wife in the temple is a hilarious scene with no historical bases. I also hated the moment with the killing machine - a pure imagination of the director that has nothing to do with historical facts. <br /><br />TECHNICAL ASPECT AND CAST: From the technical point of view, the film is nothing special. The cinematography cannot boast to be exceptionally fine and the sets together with costumes are as well nothing outstanding. Yet, the only strong point of the movie are the performances, particularly the one by Malcolm McDowall as Caligula. He does a perfect job in the main role portraying madness and cruelty of the emperor. McDowall raises the value of the film. If everything bothers you in CALIGULA, you may at least admire his performance. I also fancied Helen Mirren as Caesonia and Teresa Ann Savoy as Drusilla (yet the film is based on a gossip by Suetonius that Caligula made love to his sister). Sir John Gielgud as Nerva and Peter O'Toole as old Tiberius are also memorable. O'Toole does his finest piece of acting in the Capri Grotto sequence portraying the decadence and the exhaust of the old emperor. Yes, I admit that THE ONLY THING I like about CALIGULA are the performances. Therefore, I don't rate the movie 1/10.<br /><br />LAME CONTINUITY: The historical inaccuracy of the film also goes in pairs with poor continuity. Let us analyze just the beginning: Caligula comes to Capri Grotto where he sees the awful pleasures of old Tiberius. Then, after about 15 minutes, the action moves to Rome where a black bird near Drusilla and Caligula's bed constitutes a bad omen. And immediately the characters are again in Capri where Nerva (John Gielgud) is dying...? <br /><br />All in all, I don't recommend to see CALIGULA to anyone. If you want to know the story, read Robert Graves' gorgeous novel I, CLAUDIUS and CLAUDIUS THE GOD or watch Herbert Wise's mini series with the magnificent performance by Derek Jacobi. CALIGULA is a sick film the most serious crime of which is the destruction of art. It is, in its most part, a porn movie that should never be called an epic.<br /><br />There are movies that are truly artistic and sharpen people's taste of beauty,<br /><br />there are movies that are average entertainment; yet they have something to offer,<br /><br />there are movies that show extreme violence; yet they still convey some moral,<br /><br />there are, however, movies that show sickness and decadence for their own sake and consequently harm people's minds,<br /><br />CALIGULA unfortunately belongs to the latest group
I found the movie at my local video store and I was surprised to see it on DVD. I had heard about the explicit sex scenes, gruesome violence, and the notorious debauchery. I sat and watched and I began laughing! The set decorations and art direction was cheap and fake; the nudity was sardonic and incredibly unsexy; the story was poorly written and it was just a parade of incredibly beautiful and talented actors being held hostage to quote the worst dialogue ever written! The incestuous relationship between Caligola (Malcolm McDowell) and his serenely beautiful sister Drusilla (Theresa Ann Savoy, a vulnerable beauty) can't be taken seriously...it's not even shocking or repulsive! Peter O'Toole and John Geilgud were obviously held hostage during the making of this film luckily they die in the first thirty minutes of the film. The cinematography was a joke and I was even more amused when they used a quote from the Bible! The book of Mark no less. If you are looking for shock value, this movie will disappoint you. If you are looking for camp cult value, you will be even more disappointed. I know I was. I have seen shocking and this is two hours of your life you will never have back.
Although its plot is taken from the history of ancient Rome, 'Caligula' is not made in the style of sword-and-sandal epics like 'Spartacus' or 'Gladiator'. (That style of movie-making was out of favour in the late seventies). Rather, it more closely resembles a cross between a soft-core porn movie and a video nasty. At least, the shortened 150 minute version does. I have never seen the full 210 minute version, but to judge from the descriptions of it on this page, it would seem closer to a cross between a hard-core porn movie and a video nasty. <br /><br />As one would expect from a film produced by the publisher of 'Penthouse', there is much naked flesh to be seen, and the film lovingly catalogues Caligula's sexual perversions, including his incestuous affair with his sister Drusilla. What is perhaps unexpected from the publisher of a magazine so closely associated with the heterosexual male lifestyle is that there is as much male flesh as female on display and distinctly homoerotic overtones to many scenes. The obsession with sex is balanced by an equal obsession with violence, as though Bob Guccione, Gore Vidal and Tinto Brass were trying to kill two taboos with one stone. (It is a remarkable coincidence that the director of such a brazen film should be called 'Brass' and the scriptwriter of such a gory one should be called 'Gore'). Characters are put to death or mutilated in a variety of sadistic ways, and there is a charming scene of homosexual rape. <br /><br />The Emperor Caligula and his predecessor Tiberius were certainly known for their debauched lifestyles, so the film's concentration on sex and violence is not necessarily historically inaccurate. I do, however, question whether such a concentration is necessary to help us understand this period in Roman history. Both 'The Fall of the Roman Empire' and 'Gladiator' were set during the reign of Commodus, an Emperor quite as cruel and licentious as Caligula. In neither case did the filmmakers find it necessary to turn their film into a mixture of 'Up Pompeii!', 'Emmanuelle' and 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre', and both those films are artistically far better than 'Caligula'.<br /><br />The acting in the film is not particularly bad, with a few exceptions such as the horribly wooden Teresa Ann Savoy as Drusilla. Malcolm McDowell makes a suitably insane Caligula. (Suitable, that is, in the context of this film. The real Caligula was doubtless both cruel and eccentric, but historians have debated whether he was actually mentally ill). The great mystery is exactly why so many distinguished British actors should have agreed to take part in such a trashy production. In the case of Helen Mirren (the only Dame of the British Empire with a past as a porn star) it was probably connected to her rather regrettable tendency to alternate between the highbrow and the sleazy, but heaven alone knows what Peter O'Toole and John Gielgud thought they were doing. Unlike some other famous stage actors, such as Laurence Olivier and Richard Burton, Gielgud did not always look completely at home in the cinema, but here he gives a dignified interpretation of the role of Nerva, a decent and honourable Senator of the old school. Unfortunately, in the context of this film any attempt at dignity is as out of place as a pearl on a dunghill. <br /><br />Guccione clearly succeeded in his ambition for this film to become something of a cult classic of decadence. (Whether Brass and Vidal had quite the same ambition for the film is open to question). The film does not, however, succeed upon any other level, either as art cinema or as a study of the politics of dictatorship. Even seen as erotica it is second-rate. 4/10
I've seen several stage and film adaptations of Alice in Wonderland and this one has to take the cake as the absolute worst. My family bought the DVD unsuspectingly and couldn't even make it through the first half. I later went back and forced myself to watch the whole thing (it had been a Christmas gift to me) and was just appalled.<br /><br />The only redeeming factor (and it's hardly redeeming enough to save the whole show) is Mark Lin-Baker playing the Mock Turtle with a Yiddish accent. It's one of the few moments in the piece that has some real charm and can be taken somewhat seriously. Other than that, the songs are half-songs, the melodies are half-melodies and even Meryl Streep cannot make this direction look good.
Sammi Cheng & Andy Lau are coupled yet again in their 3rd film -- YESTERDAY ONCE MORE -- directed by HK's actioneer Johnnie To...fans of To's action films will be disappointed to find not a single gun was used in the filming...furthermore, fans of Cheng & Lau's previous films, NEEDING YOU & LOVE ON A DIET, will also be disappointed to find that YESTERDAY is no where near as funny or endearing...<br /><br />Mr. & Mrs. To (Lau & Cheng) are a divorced couple...both affluent HK citizens...both incredibly mischievous...both just happened to be professional thieves -- 'two birds of the same feather'....A couple years earlier, they divorced over an inability to find middle ground on splitting the loot...Now she's remarrying...to the son of a rich heiress -- a total momma's boy (Carl Ng) through & through...The soon-to-be mother-in-law (Jenny Woo) is suspicious of Mrs. To's past & thinks she's only marrying her son for the family jewels -- the heiress' priceless ruby necklace...<br /><br />The necklace is stolen...is it Mrs. To's materialistic eye that gets the best of her?... or is it her ex-husband, Mr. To's way of sabotaging the marriage to steal the jewels for himself?...<br /><br />This is not a movie about two pple falling in love or rekindling a love...its about two pple who have always been in love but have somehow been to foolish to realize it...they let pride & greed overwhelm them...<br /><br />Overall: YESTERDAY is one part caper/heist film & one part homage to classic Hollywood glamour from its golden years -- i.e. Cary Grant & Grace Kelly's TO CATCH A THIEF...Johnnie To is riding too heavily on Cheng/Lau's chemistry from their previous films...hoping Cheng/Lau's immense popularity & fan base will be enough justification for this third film....I think Sammi Cheng is one of the most likable/charming entertainers working t'day...& Lau is definitely the Tom Cruise of Asian cinema...<br /><br />I really enjoyed their first two films & consider the Cheng/Lau pairing comparable to those classic Hollywood couples of the 40's & 50's...but YESTERDAY falls very short of expectations...terrible writing, ridiculous situations, product placements galore, & all the subplots & supporting characters were unnecessary...come to think of it...this film was unnecessary...unless you just love celebrity watching...
"The Racketeer" stars Carol (deprived of the "e" that usually appeared at the end of her first name) Lombard as a woman thrown out of society because she left her husband for a concert violinist (Roland Drew) who has since become a down-and-out alcoholic, and torn between her love for him and the interest of New York crime kingpin Robert Armstrong (top-billed). It's virtually a compendium of what was wrong with the earliest talkies: stiff direction, immobile cameras, stagy acting and ridiculously slow-paced delivery of lines. At the time the sound crews were telling the directors to have their actors speak every line s-l-o-w-l-y and not to start speaking their own line until after the previous actor had finished theirs. Done about five years later, this could have been an interesting movie, but director Howard Higgin faithfully follows his sound recorder's dictates and systematically undercuts the talents we know Lombard and Armstrong had from watching their later movies. "The Racketeer" was made in 1929, a year that despite the transition problems from silent to sound nonetheless gave us some legitimate masterpieces — Vidor's "Hallelujah!," Mamoulian's "Applause," Wyler's "Hell's Heroes," Capra's "Ladies of Leisure" — all from directors with strong enough wills to tell the soundboard dictators to get stuffed and let their actors talk and act naturalistically. Too bad Howard Higgin wasn't that strong; as it is, watching a naturally rapid-paced actor like Armstrong slog through the part in the ridiculous way he's been told to speak, one can't help but wonder where that 50-foot gorilla is when Armstrong needs him.
Time has not been kind to this film from the transition days of sound from silent. The plot has a gangster falling for a socialite who wants to help the down on his luck violinist she loves. There are of course complications. The problem with the film for me is that it hasn't aged well. Performances are all over the place with some emotional scenes seeming so over the top as to be laughable. One late exchange where Carol Lombard throws someone out of her room had me howling with its sing song delivery. There are other times when the film becomes static, a sign of the limitations of the microphones. Its not a bad film, its just that the technical limitations of the film get in the way of real enjoyment. Normally I'm forgiving, but this time out I just couldn't go with the flow (Then again the copy I saw was absolutely horrible). Worth a shot in a forgiving mood (and to be reminded that Robert Armstrong actually did more than play Carl Denham in King Kong)
Carole Lombard stars in this transition period film. This film is a typical example of a very early "talkie" (First practical sound film was "The Jazz Singer", 1927). Overall, the acting in this film tends to be extremely broad and very melodramatic.<br /><br />The viewer may easily note that the actors are still "acting" for a silent film, and this combined with the overly pronounced, overly earnest dialog (It seems most likely a diction-elocution-drama coach was employed extensively to teach the "silent" actors to speak lines), creates some rather comical scenes which were not at all intended to be comical.<br /><br />Carole Lombard's later great acting ability is all but unrecognizable underneath all the broad gestures, melodrama, and eager earnestness.<br /><br />Mainly interesting as an historical curiosity of the period, and for it's completely unintended comedy-camp value.
Wow, was this version of THE RACKETEER tough to watch! While none of the other reviews have mentioned this, the public domain version I watched was seriously flawed. The sound track was off by about 10 seconds--meaning the dialog and action never came close to matching. So, you'd hear something occur well before you saw it--a very confusing proposition! The worst is where you hear a gun shot and only later doe the guy get hit and slump to his death in a taxi.<br /><br />While this seriously marred the film, it also made concentrating on the dialog easier--and showed the serious shortcomings of it as well. The dialog was simply awful--often delivered with almost no inflection or feeling. As one review said, it was like watching a high school play. Part of this is understandable, as sound was a new medium, but this film's dialog was bad even compared to other 1929 films--really bad. And, like many of these early sound films, the film was just too talky--with sappy and overly melodramatic language and just not much action. And you'd THINK with a title like "The Racketeer" that there would be some action!! However, it's really a sappy romance--with very little action.<br /><br />The film finds Carol Lombard straddled with an alcoholic musician. She herself ends up stealing to try to take care of him--and the crook, Robert Armstrong, comes to her assistance. When Armstrong catches her cheating at cards, he covers for her and then helps the drunk brother to get on his feet--and naturally he falls for her in the process. The problem is that once the drunk sobers up, he, too, wants Lombard and she needs to choose between them. Wow...a recovering drunk or a mobster...talk about a couple great prospects! Overall, it's a bit hard to rate considering the lousy print I saw. However, even if you ignore this, the film has a lot of problems due to its poor use of dialog and excessively talky nature. And...it was sappy too boot.
I think my summary says it all. This MTV-ish answer to the classic Candid Camera TV show features a Gen X (or is that Gen Y) type putting in false choppers and wearing various hats and wigs and glasses, and setting people up in fairly outlandish although often not very interesting situations. Example: Kennedy has a guy invite his parents to his "wedding." Kennedy is the bride, done up in a full bridal gown and long wig. The "joke" is that the parents immediately understand their son is marrying a man who claims to no longer have his "bits and pieces." Problem is, this schtick goes on way too long, obviously to fill out time. And Kennedy is about as funny as a dead cod lying in the sun. Candid Camera would have run three or four scenarios in the time it took Kennedy to get through this one, running around, constantly asking "Do I look fat?" I recognize the show was not made for me. It was made for 12-year-old pinheads who think JACKASS is the height of comedy today. So let them laugh. Thank God the show was short-lived.
I am the sort of person who never, ever watches animated movies, but I make an exception for Thumbelina and the Swan Princess. Being absolutely in love with the first installment of the series, I bought this and sat down to watch it with a very biased mind, determined to love it because I'd spent money buying it. I finished the movie, and all I can think is THE HORROR!!! I wanted to like it, I really did. I tried very, VERY hard to like it. But I couldn't enjoy a second of this grueling film. The songs made me feel like ripping my ears out of my head. The dialogue was so lame I felt myself twitching with frustration and irritation every time someone opened his or her mouth. The villain was laughable and I felt myself wanting Derek and Odette to die in the end... and I was absolutely in love with them from the first film.<br /><br />I am going to try repress the memory of this movie, because it almost destroyed the first one for me. There is one song in the movie in which there are a series of flashbacks to the first film. The difference in animation between the two is made very obvious, and I began yearning for the first one and wishing I'd never set eyes on the third.<br /><br />Do yourself and favor and don't waste your time.
I had to rent a couple of movies for my little cousin for New Year's and she picked out The Swan Princess: The Mystery of the Enchanted Kingdom and The Little Mermaid 2 and we just watched both films, while she's sleeping, I figured I could get a couple comments in. :) While this is a very cheesy cartoon, it really wasn't that bad. You have to admit that for children, these plots are new to them and it could be a great introduction of these stories to them.<br /><br />Odette finds out that Derek has been secretly keeping the magic secrets of Rosthoe and she tells Derek to destroy them immediately, but him being a guy, typically he does not do so and tells her that no on could achieve the magics without his help. When a witch named Zelda gets her hands on them, she finds out that Derek tore off the last words of a spell she wants to use to destroy everything, and she kidnaps Odette in order to retrieve this information.<br /><br />The Swan Princess: The Mystery of the Enchanted Kingdom is silly and predictable, but for the kids I would honestly say it's a go. It's so rare we have these clean cut cartoons now a days, so I'm going to cut the film some slack. It was just weird seeing all the voices change all of a sudden, I grew up with the first one, so I guess it was just stuck in my head.<br /><br />4/10
I loved the first movie, the second one was okay, disappointed John Cleese wasn't jean bob anymore as hes my favorite character. But the third one...what happened to the animation??? it looks low budget like a sat morning cartoon! except for the flashback which was taken from the first movie. They really should have stopped after number 2, this just makes the rest look bad!! Derek's voice has changed but its not as recognizable as jean bob..Rogers also looks very strange. I also don't understand where Rothbart came from. I thought he died! This movie made me want to turn it off, as much as i love the first one, i was very disappointed with this installment. They will never beat the original!:)
Also titled--> The Magical Castle--> This one is a stretch. Why bother? Why create another rockbart and then add another story line that has nearly nothing to do with the play nor swan lake. Only some girlfriend of rockbart, the stolen book of forbidden arts and the original characters (not voices remain). Stripped to to its bares this is a continuation by a thread. Next thing you know some bird will have memorized the "forbidden arts" and Swan Princess 4: the magical bird will be born. Thankfully though the chapters are supposedly closed and this will beginning but bad ended trilogy will come to a close.
HOW MANY MOVIES ARE THERE GOING TO BE IN WHICH AGAINST ALL ODDS, A RAGTAG TEAM BEATS THE BIG GUYS WITH ALL THE MONEY?!!!!!!!! There's nothing new in "The Big Green". If anything, you want them to lose. Steve Guttenberg used to have such a good resume ("The Boys from Brazil", "Police Academy", "Cocoon"). Why, OH WHY, did he have to do these sorts of movies during the 1990s and beyond?! So, just avoid this movie. There are plenty of good movies out there, so there's no reason to waste your time and money on this junk. Obviously, the "green" on their minds was money, because there's no creativity here. At least in recent years, Disney has produced some clever movies with Pixar.
This is one of the most unoriginal, cliche-ridden movies I have ever seen. Even if you didn't like this film's antecedents, 'The Bad News Bears' and 'The Mighty Ducks,' they are bound to have done a better job than this one. From the moment the new teacher greets her class and they tell her, "Don't bother with us, we're all losers," you can see everything that's coming twenty miles away for the rest of the film. <br /><br />All the usual suspects are here. Besides the spunky teacher, we have a group of what are supposed to be endearingly bratty kids (they're brats, yes, but no so endearing), a slow-witted small town sheriff that they love to torment, an arrogant head coach of the winning rival team, etc., ad nauseum. Only Olivia d'Abo as the new teacher displays any likabilty. I never cared much for Steve Guttenberg before and his performance as the sheriff doesn't change things. Jay O. Sanders is a capable actor but his character, the rival coach, leaves him nothing to work with. Let's hope that writer/director Holly Goldberg Sloan comes up with something better next time out.
Nothing more than a soccer knock-off of The Mighty Ducks, this film proved to be annoying in most aspects. This was one of those times where you're parents ask you to take your younger siblings just so they don't have to deal with them for a few hours. To say the least, my younger sisters liked it, but it proved to be too much like the far superior Mighty Ducks. Oh well, at least Olivia d'Abo was hot and Steve Guttenberg still had a job at that point in time.
Take a cliché story and insert Steve Guttenberg.Need i say anymore?This truly is as bad as you would expect. Sheriff Tom Palmer(Guttenberg)and Anna Montgormery attempt to transform a group of useless,inept kids into a winning soccer team.Lacking originality and direction from the offset it's quite a struggle to maintain any form of interest in this film. Despite my reservations about Guttenbergs acting ability i can safely say that the acting of the rival teams coach is actually worse than Guttenbergs.Previously unimaginable i thought. This type of story of underdogs battling all the way to the top has been done before and better every time than this so called 'film'
This movie appears to have made for the sole purpose of annoying me. Everything I hate about films is present: fake sentimentality, extreme corniness, bad child actors and more feature abundantly. That's ignoring the fact that it depicts the extreme ignorance of American sports fans, with many of the cast professing that a football is shaped like a lemon. What?! That's a Rugby ball. The story follows a group of no hopers that get a new teacher that they like (who, coincidently, teaches the class in a short skirt) and gets them interested in football. Naturally, they're all rubbish (don't forget, they're no hopers) except for one kid who has moved from El Paso. Blah Blah, etc etc and the kids still don't become good footballers, but good heart ensues and the no hopers are turned into a bunch of well-rounded kids. Hell, even the adults start to come round; drunks are turned into caring parents, illegal immigrants are let off the hook...groan.<br /><br />This movie stars Steve Guttenberg. Now, before you go rushing off down your local video store to grab yourself a copy, hold up a minute. Guttenberg is rubbish. No, no; come on let's face it, how did this guy ever get to be in a movie? I have absolutely no idea, and there is nothing in this movie to give me an idea. Olivia d'Abo stars along side Steve and doesn't impress either. She merely seems to be going through the motions and looking nice while doing it. Although I have no problems with the latter part; her performance does the movie no credit. The child actors that make up the rest of the cast are just as bad as you would expect from a movie like this. Most of them are disgusting and/or annoying and it doesn't make for pleasant viewing at all. There's a goat in the film who plays the mascot and he does a good job; but you wouldn't see a movie for a goat, so don't bother seeing this movie.
Walt was particularly fond of quality. So how come the producers at Disney would release such a terribly edited, roughly acted (even for family fare!) mess of a movie? THE BIG GREEN had a good concept. And, since it is Disney, you know how the movie is going to turn out obviously. But THE BIG GREEN is horrible. The jokes are lame. And Steve Guttenburg, still alive, pulls in another terrible performance on his resume.<br /><br />Kids with too much time on their hands in small town Elma are offered an opportunity by their new teacher to play soccer. The kids don't know a thing though. And, gracious for us, we get to see Steve Guttenburg try to hit on the teacher from beginning to end.<br /><br />The speed up camera work does not work. THE BIG GREEN is full of speeding the pace of characters to move the movie along. Kids are not idiots. They will catch on if you give them enough of a hint without showing all that garbage. Guttenburg, for once in his life, should have turned down an offer to join this movie. Also the pretty Olivia d'Abo should have called this one off too. THE BIG GREEN can be known as 'The Big Bomb.'
Now I'm a big animation fan -- love Svankmeyer and usually am into all applications of stop motion so I had high hopes for this one. Then I came on IMDb and paused --- I'm always real suspicious of films with a bimodal distribution of votes on IMDb. Here we've got another --- a bunch of 10s (shill anyone) and then some real low ones. I'm also suspicious of 10s with the word "visionary" in them. <br /><br />Sure there are visionaries but this character isn't one of them. Despite my misgivings, I saw this film and have to side with the ones. The stop motion animation was okay but the plots were banal and overall it seemed amateurish. Treat yourself to the real deal get some Svankmeyer and leave this also ran on the shelf.
I found the first bit of stop motion animation intriguing and the mostly live action short with the girl going about in whatever country it was kept my interest, but the other 11 odd shorts really didn't pique my interest or make me think of anything at all. The music and 8mm footage all seemed to be so random that it all just seemed random. I would not recommend this to any one unless you get to see it free.<br /><br />As for the music being so in step that didn't come across either. I rented the DVD because I thought it was all stop motion animation or SMA mixed with live action and only the first short was SMA, the second had a little stop motion mixed with mostly live action. There was paper cut-out stuff in one, and the rest was outdoor shots from an 8mm camera with the music bed. Just didn't have any meaning to it I could see.
Over the GW is a near failure of a debut feature, and not because it's not without trying...Actually, it is. It's a shamble all the more because it's writer/director/technical everyman Nick Gaglia went through the same rehab cult that he depicts in the film. Sometimes a first time filmmaker, full of the vigor that comes with getting a thumbs up or two from fellow film students, goes headlong into style that is way too disjointed, unsure, and dramatically frustrating that the personal side of the story, the extremely personal side, gets smudged in the purpose of telling a good story. Gaglia, who was 13 when put into a horrid program that basically tortured and brainwashed their "patients" with crazy group scare tactics, psychological mind-f*** sessions that could go on for days, and attitudes from the rehab leaders that would make most Nazis cringe, escaped finally when he was 15. I'm glad he got out, though it might help if he now goes into a real rehab for his film-making skills, if only for a couple of days, to learn things like, say, structure, proper lighting, fluid camera movement, subtlety with actors, and other basics that are perpetually lost here.<br /><br />It's all the more frustrating because Gaglia is dealing with a subject that should be shown more to the public (there was recently a Newsweek article referring to a similar AA cult-rehab). Many times one wonders if certain personal character studies might work better as documentaries as opposed to narrative dramas. This is an ever-nagging sensation throughout Over the GW, where it almost feels like Gaglia wants to tell the truth but doesn't know how to communicate it properly through his characters. The character that one would think is closest to him, Bronx teen Tony Serra (Gallagher), who is taken by his mother to a rehab in New Jersey, would be closest to Gaglia, is actually much more of a one-dimensional being, where there is very little back-story (we see a brief freak-out, in black and white, in his old home) and little connection to his mother (Moriarty), who has more potential that is never tapped aside from a cold stone who passes her kids off to another. But there is a story to go with his two-year crisis, I guess.<br /><br />Right off the bat things get rough (a nude cavity search in the first five minutes), and soon it's clear that instead of medical care it's more like a cross between anger management and some bizarre religious sect, where the head doctor Hiller (Insinnia) is a total over-controlling loon. But soon Tony's sister Sofia (Donohue) gets thrown in to the program, and as opposed to Tony's repeated moments of outrage and supposed non-compliance, she goes head-on through the whacked-out three step program and once released becoming a runaway. At times there are bits in this fractured nightmare, where there's one woman, a 22 year old mother who has been in the program a year and a half finds she's become a prisoner not allowed to leave, and when the father of the main siblings comes and pays an enraged visit to Hiller when Sofia finally returns to them, that do contain some raw power, very brief glimpses of Gaglia being able to at least garner some leverage in pure melodrama.<br /><br />But these are moments few and far between. It's not just the unsuccessful characters, who are mostly reduced to stereotypes that veer into being like hysterical D.A.R.E. rip-offs (maybe some of them, like an angry black youth, the passive-aggressive counselors, or even Serra's older sister who is ratted out by the siblings as having taken a hit off a joint and almost thrown into the program, would resonate more if there was more time given to develop any of them). It's that Gaglia is so unfocused in his multiple roles on his tiny $30,000 budget that not one side of whatever potential talent he has can come through. He over-uses tints, mostly with a shade that looks urine-coated), he jiggles his hand-held DVX camera as if it's supposed to be intense ala City of God, occasionally a character will just shoot into frame randomly, his choices of music are like the worst selections possible from pseudo-indie soft-rockers, and there's even inane fake interview scenes with Nicholas Serra (inspiration ?) and Krakowsky that feel about as false as possible.<br /><br />Could Gaglia just not get any interviews with the real victims he was with and resort to would-be artistically cathartic plan B? Bottom line, no matter how much from-the-heart true life stories may appeal to you, don't bother seeing it in the theater, or even on rental, unless you love a final scene with two kids staring off into the digital-hued Hudson river sunset with the final words reading: Dedicated to the Kids. Oy.
By Randolph Scott standards of the 1950s, this is a disappointing and heavy-handed star western. Two or three of the characters could be dispensed with, while two or three other characters could be given more prominence. (The humour needs to be completely rewritten.) De Toth handles the action well - as always - but his grasp of the overall narrative is weak.
This formulaic film (hero's girlfriend marries the villain) just didn't move along fast enough given some of the circumstances of the story. Scott seems too old in this one, and too many times his character turns away from decisive action, deflating the scenes. He responds to the deaths of some of his hands weakly; he escapes from Knox's gang by hiding in a full rain barrel; his escape to the high country and pursuit by John Russell seem superfluous, as does much of the film. The plot could have been tightened. <br /><br />High points of the film: seeing "Tennessee" Ernie Ford without a mustache singing "Man in the Saddle"; Alfonso Bedoya's too brief scenes as a cook; the color photography of the high country, and the fight scene there with John Russell.
ALERT: This review contains major SPOILERS. Do not read on if you plan to see this film.<br /><br />Judging from the amount of votes this got (my vote was the fifth one) very few people know or care who Mimi Lesseos is. Well, back in the late 1980s, professional wrestling was pretty decent. An all-woman's federation called the Ladies Professional Wrestling Association opened. It was a great league, and Mimi Lesseos was one of the names on the roster. I always thought she was one of the best people the LPWA had in terms of ring skill and acting ability. Unfortunately, the LPWA closed down in the early 90s, so it only seemed natural for someone with as much talent as Mimi to start an acting career, right? But surely there was an alternative to stuff like this? This movie is really bad. As it was going along, I kept comparing it to an underrated movie called `Survivor Quest,' only this film lacks everything that made `Survivor Quest' enjoyable.<br /><br />As I started the tape, I went to fast forward through the preview to get to the meat of the tape. At first, I wasn't paying much attention, but then I realized that the preview was for a movie starring Mimi Lesseos. `Oh,' I thought, `here's another movie featuring Mimi to look for.' But as the preview dragged on, I became aware that is was a preview for….'Beyond Fear!' You know you're in trouble when the only preview at the beginning features the movie you are about to watch! The plot of this thing is pretty standard. Lesseos plays an ex-kickboxer that is living with the guilt of injuring an opponent/friend, so she focuses herself on her second career which she shares with her friend Sammy: being a wilderness guide. On this particular occasion, she gets a troop of three couples. Two of the couples are just there to take up space. You think that one couple, a Caucasian husband and a Korean wife, will be explored, as an issue appears between them halfway through the film, but it is ignored in favor of repeated jokes about bears in the woods, which consistently scares the Korean wife. The joke is funny the first time you hear it, but it certainly isn't by the ninth time they do it. The third couple is just painful to watch: it consists of Mr. and Mrs. Page. They trade insults back and forth, and Mr. Page uses his video camera for the art of voyeurism when he's not busy playing cruel jokes on his portly wife….just like your typical American couple! Before the hike, Mr. Page is spying on two stupid guys and their prostitute. One of them accidentally kills the prostitute and finds out Mr. Page taped it. So begins the peril, as the two guys track the group on their trip, and we wait….and wait….and wait….and wait for them to finally do something. When they do, it's a fiasco.<br /><br />You can't blame the cast. They try as hard as they can with the material they have to work with. The main culprit is director Robert F. Lyons, who needs to go back to playing bit parts and stay out of the director's chair. Lyons starts and stops scenes in such a sloppy, sudden matter that you start to think he was suffering from dyspepsia throughout the entire shoot. There's even one incompetent moment when a broad daylight scene with the thugs is slipped between some nighttime scenes. Then there is the sound department. The music and background noise completely overpower the dialogue so that you have to move your ear right next to your television's speaker. Don't bump your head on the screen! It isn't worth it to hear the poorly written lines. Speaking of poor writing, Lesseos gets some of the credit there as co-writer. The few interesting developments between characters are often abandoned for shots of the thugs or bad practical jokes. Early on, Lesseos knocks out a thug with a switchblade knife, so not once do you think they are in any danger from the two stupid thugs. When the crooks finally get their rear ends kicked by Lesseos in a well done and long fight, our cast all have a huge laugh together, despite the fact that one of them has been shot and is bleeding everywhere. Yes, everyone is happy in the end. Everyone except the poor souls witnessing the film, wishing for the good old glory days when Mimi performed in the wrestling ring. Zantara's score: 4 out of 10
I really should give this stinker more credit that 1 star, because the film has so many eye-rolling lines that it's almost worth the price of the rental. <br /><br />The acting, if you want to call it that, is so stilted and contrived that it makes Ed Wood's actors appear life like. "Sammy," the lone black character, must be Mimi's husband in real life because he appears in her other films, but he has zero acting ability. His lines are priceless due to his absurd delivery, though I suspect the intention was to create a sympathetic character. His old man make up in her other turkey ("Pushed To The Limit") is no-budget, junior high school quality, with cotton ball eyebrows and white spray painted hair.<br /><br />I cannot fathom anyone actually buying this video, unless people like to throw their own Mystery Science Theater parties and need a copy of something like this on hand. It really is Beyond Fear-- it's actually Beyond Funny.
Mind you, it's not supposed to be, but it is. As a wee tot, I watched this movie in the theatre (Being a huge wrestling and Hulk Hogan fan). All I remember from the night is we were the only ones in the theater, and that I didn't really like it very much. I blacked the rest out, and for good reason.<br /><br />A poor film on par with the greats like "Gymkata" and "The Pumaman," "No Holds Barred" is a movie set in the high stakes world of pro wrestling. Well maybe the stakes aren't all that high...and quite frankly I feel dirty just calling these people "professionals" at anything. And really, except for the first scene, there's no wrestling to speak of. So I guess movie is about the marginally low stakes world of amateurish beating-the-c***-out-of-people. Sounds good, right?<br /><br />Hulk Hogan plays Rip, the champion of the WWF (Never let it be said that Hulk Hogan was typecast, this and movies like Thunder in Paradise showed how he challenged himself with deep roles that really pushed the limits of his talents). Essentially he's playing himself, but with a wardrobe that's more black and blue than the Hulkster's red and yellow. He also has this hand gesture he does. It's kinda like the ozzy devil sign people make at rock concerts, except you stick your thumb in the air, and you curl your index finger in. My friend claimed that it was supposed to look like an "R." Try and see for yourself. If that looks like an "R," well, then, Mars needs women. But anyway.<br /><br />Kurt Fuller, with his overacting detector obviously on the fritz, plays a TV exec with his slightly homoerotic heart set on getting Rip, who's evidentally bigger than Elvis, on his network. He won't have any of it (And exits the office with a triumphant hand gesture to no one but the camera), and so the movie follows Fuller trying to boost ratings and get back at Rip. He does so when he creates his brilliantly titled "Battle of the Tough Guys." Marketing genius, this guy.<br /><br />From the numerous hand gestures, to the rather idiotic fight scenes (All played as if wrestling is very real and deadly serious) to the overacting, to the far too frequent shots of Hulk in nothing but undies, this movie has everything you'd ever want in a dumb movie. It's frivolous, not too taxing on the mind, violent, and includes the phrase "What's that smell?" "DOOKIE!" "Dookie?"<br /><br />A classic for all time.
A new wrestling show paves way for the most feared wrestler ever imaginable, the giant Zeus. Network President Brell does everything in his power to draw WWF champion Rip into the squared circle to face off against Zeus for the championship of the 'Battle of the Tough Guys'. But Zeus is unlike any competitor Rip has ever faced.<br /><br />Normally I would give Hogan some leeway as a wrestler crossing over into a movie role, however this film didn't ask the Hulkster to make very much of a stretch, it simply asked Hogan to play himself, which he failed at miserably. 'Tiny' Lister made a good effort as the mighty Zeus, but even his work left the film lacking something, namely acting!<br /><br />Watch this movie, if you so desire, with a grain of salt and a sense of humor, otherwise you will probably have to turn it off a little over ten minutes in.
Hulk Hogan stars as a champion wrestler (A real acting stretch...) named Rip, who is forced to defend his honor, his title and his girlfriend from a greedy corporation that wanted him to sign for their network (Because wrestling sells!) however when Rip declines, the network gets a circuit fighting championship called (and i'm totally serious) "Battle of the tough guys" who's champion Zeus (Played by Tiny Lister Jr) maybe the deadliest man alive. Rip refuses to fight, until his brother is attacked and put in a hospital. No Holds Barred is pretty much what I expected from Vince McMahon production starring the least versatile actor in the action genre (Hogan) it is basically lots of unintentional humor, tons of awkward sequences, a couple okay action sequences and tons of stupidity. In other words it's not unlike wrestling itself, so I give it a fair rating mainly because anyone renting this knows what they're getting. The movie is cheap but well made enough for what it is and really wrestling fans will probably enjoy this. I myself found this to be ultimately hilarious. They're are moments of such absurdity that you only chuckle to yourself. (Such as the way Hogan jumps 20 feet in the air after being stuck in a limo, how he forces a guy to crap himself and of course the way Hogan recites from his cuecard. (I.E:"I'm not going to be around when this check clears!") No Holds Barred is a lot of fun, true, though it's mainly because of how ridiculous it is. Fans of camp should really enjoy this clever clinker.<br /><br />* * out of 4-(Fair)
Being a wrestling fan, movies about wrestling generally suck (Backyard Dogs, Bodyslam, Jesse Ventura story) but this one isn't the worst I've ever seen. Yes its bad but its better than some of the others I've mentioned.<br /><br />Hulk Hogan stars as basically himself and for some reason, a rival network wants to beat him up because he doesn't want to be on that network. Let me explain it so everyone can understand....picture USA Network having Rip...and TNT will go to any lengths to get him.<br /><br />Does this make sense...no? Well don't feel bad because it doesn't make sense. Nor does it make sense to have a legit ex con have a REAL fight with Rip at the end of the movie.<br /><br />None of this movie makes much sense but compared to other wrestling movies and later Hogan films its not so bad.<br /><br />4 out of 10
In 1989 here in NZ wrestling was somewhat of a mega-hype phenom, and who was steering starship at the pinnacle was the orange goblin himself, HULK HOGAN (one of my uber-heroes at this time), so it seems obvious to me now why I adored this movie in 1989-90 when it came out here. HULK HOGAN A.K.A Terry Bollea is a shockingly bad actor and Zeus A.K.A Tiny Lister is worse!!! The story line follows a standard WWE (then WWF) circa 88-91 story line culminating in the standard good guy beat down, hulk up and then get beaten down again story line only to follow that the good guy calls on all his inner strength( gained from eating vitamins, saying prayers etc etc ) to mount the epic come back..... Pretty standard formula here. Worth watching if only for reminiscing your youth!!!!
Ignoring Rocky 3, this is easily Hulk Hogan's best film, and it still rates as one of the worst films ever. Hulk Hogan essentially plays Hulk Hogan, bringing his wrestling buddies in for a film, with all the cliches to go along with it - the crooked promoter, the unstoppable monster, the injured kid, the sexy woman and... "dookie".
No Holds Barred is a movie that should in no way ever be taken seriously. It sucks hardcore as a serious movie. Look at it more in the way that you should Plan 9 From Outer Space. They are one in the same in that they are both so bad they are funny. The funny moments in No Holds Barred are usually the ones that aren't supposed to be. When Rip (played by Hulk Hogan as only he can play them) grabs the limo driver out of the front after his first meeting with Brell (Kurt Fuller) hilarity ensues and it is one part of the movie that every person should see. It might be the funniest scene ever, I swear.<br /><br />Anyway, how someone thought this movie would make money I'll never know and that person should probably be beaten into submission. I hope they at least got fired. This movie earns a 1 out of 5 on my scale and that one is just for the unintentionally funny parts.
I worked on this atrocity ten years ago. Luckily for me, no one knows it because I didn't make the final cut. And when I saw the movie in the theaters, I was glad! My agents were driven nuts by the (apparently first-time) filmmakers, rewriting the script daily and changing their arrangements with the agencies just as often. They later told me that, once back in California (we shot in Atlanta), these "professionals" had 4 1/2 hours worth of footage! Even edited down to 90 minutes, it's at least twice as long as it needs to be. I found Hulk Hogan surprisingly charming, but otherwise -- what a waste of film!
I remember when they made a big deal about this when it was coming out. They showed clips every week on WWF TV and everyone was excited. It debuted opening weekend at number two behind Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Then it did a nosedive. Critics HATED this film. I don't remember seeing one good review. Everyone agreed it was bad and sometimes grotesque. I didn't know they meant back then but now I do since the movie makes references to gay bars, women getting slapped hard and nearly raped and a disgusting looking bar restroom with overflowing urinals lol. When I was younger, I didnt care for that. It was Hulkamania, brother!!!<br /><br />Now I find this pretty bad, but still fun to watch once in a while when its paired with Bodyslam (which has a better storyline). First off, Hulk Hogan's acting skills just aren't great. he is one dimensional like the character he plays in the wrestling ring. And actually, Rip and Hulk are not to far off from each other. Kurt Fuller is a good actor, but he is not good at playing the bad guy. He is better at comedy and nervous drama characters. He is just not believable as Brell. There isn't much character development in this film and the ones that suffer are the characters of Randy, Rip's brother and Charlie the trainer (In wrestling its unheard of a trainer escourting a wrestler to the ring lol). Tiny Lister plays Zeus the way its supposed to be played, so there isnt any problem there. Joan Severence is passable and for all you softcore hounds, she does have a lingerie scene lol. By the end, you figure, what's the point?<br /><br />For this one (as with other wrestling films or films that feature wrestlers as the main star), turn your brain off. You'll enjoy it more if you do.
No Holds Barred is that movie that when you were nine or ten was the coolest movie this side of arnold schwarzenegger. But then when you grow up and watch it you feel embarrassed that you were so gullible to have liked it. You feel cheated, embarrassed, and stupid. If you have a little brother and you show him this and he tells you it's gay, give him a high five and take him to the strip bar for his eleventh birthday.
A thinly veiled attempt to push Hulkamania to the film going non-wrestling fan. What could be worse than Hogan in the movies? Bad actors in the wrestling ring, and this film produced both, as Tiny Lester made his way to the WWE that summer in the mother of all promotional blunders. See the dictionary under Oops. As a card carrying member of the stupid kids of the world paid to see this in theaters and when I came out I immediately checked into H.A. - Hulkamaniacs Annoynimous. I am proud to say I have been off the Hulk for 17 years now and have never had a craving since. Since this was made to bring in more fans to the juggernaut that was the WWE in Hogans hey day one has to wonder if there weren't more fans like me who turned to other past times that did not poison ones mind like this offense to celluloid did, such as huffing gas or Russian Roulette.
Hulk Hogan plays Rip a professional wrestler who has a big heart but is pushed to the limit when his girlfriend(Joan Severence) is kidnapped by thugs who are forcing him to take on another wrestler(Tiny Lister Jr.)Bottom of the barrel actioner is such a failure that even Hogan looks ashamed to be in it, and with the evidence portrayed, he should be.
Hulk Hogan and Zeus are horrible wrestlers and horrible actors. Hogan for some reason was popular enough to get a movie deal I'll never know why. If not for vince Mcmahon's money this stupid film would have never been made. Maybe someday someone will make a good movie about pro wrestling. No Holds Barred is not that movie.
... in search of the cheesiest "so bad it's good" movie, I've repeatedly laughed at the first fifteen minutes of various films, only to be left disappointed and bored at the end. Not this time!!! My eyes teared up, my belly and my cheeks ached from laughing so hard throughout the movie. Sure, Hulk Hogan is a subpar actor and the plot is utterly predictable, but everyone dives into this movie knowing all this - all anyone wants to see when renting this is Hogan breaking out a can of whoopass, with a bunch of "YEAH BROTHER"s and "WHATCHUGONNADO"s flying from his infamously goateed mouth. And while the Hulkster on the screen pales a bit in comparison to the Hulkster in the ring, seekers of the ultimate cheese will certainly not be disappointed by this backhand gem of a flick. A laugh riot.
This movie changed my life! Hogan's performance was nothing short of incredible, and I still haven't recovered from his exclusion from the 1990 Oscar nominations. And as brightly as the Hulkster shines in this movie, you can't discount the brilliant writing and direction that vaults this masterpiece in to the highest strata of achievement in film. If you haven't seen this movie, drop what your doing right now and get yourself a copy. I guarantee it will blow your mind. And if you don't like it, then I just have one question for you.... Watcha gonna do when the 24 inch pythons and Hulkamania runs wild on you!!!!
I watched Gomeda on movie theater at my city. My friend took away me and I was really curious what would be it looked like. Well, I must say This movie was not a horror,may be we can say that is 'Fantsastic experimentation'...OK here I go anyway... But there was a lot of shooting,acting,dramatic,theatrical and storytelling problems.I can understand because of director is very young and Gomeda is his first feature film.OK Directing of this film was not pretty bad,I see.Unfortunately, due to the restraints placed on the film by its extremely low budget, the visuals are often as murky as the storyline.And there is no powerful Gothic scenes.As a horror movie it really fails, no scares at all and it is quite muddled and boring. Some people say 'Gomeda' is an art movie, but I could not see a laughable,terrible and breoken off art movie like that.So, how can we say it is an art movie!Just funny!
One of the worst films I have ever seen! After watching it i walk out like, what happened? I am confused to this day, can someone explain that movie to me please? both the acting and picture quality are so bad ,you'll think you're watching someone's school project made with a home camcorder. First,I can not believe that how some people could give 10 star to this movie.Because,.it's unbelievably bad movie! This movie isn't scary at all! There is even no Typical horror clichés,too. The plot and acting of This movie was terrible. It's not,fantastic,surrealistic or horror,It's just hideously bad Turkish feature film.And finally there were a lot of unnecessary scenes and unnecessary characters. When I watch 'Gomeda' I fell into so hopeless,so sad for young Turkish movie maker.Please,please don't make 'cinema' like this!
Unfortunately, I went to this movie for entertainment purposes based on the limited information I had seen on Fandango. Since I am a sci-fi buff the notion of a movie about UFOs interested me.<br /><br />Instead, this movie quickly revealed itself as an evangelical Christian propaganda flick. Appropriate for an audience of like-minded individuals but very un-Christian like to exploit the movie mall scene and preach to an unsuspecting audience, especially considering the costs of tickets and concessions. Shame on you! At least the Da Vinci Code did not hold back its wild-eyed craziness.<br /><br />So, this B-grade movie (and I am being kind) production will be appreciated in those churches with similar beliefs, probably shown to Wednesday and Sunday evening youth groups. But if you are a mainline Christian or non-Christian you will not be comfortable.
Calling this a "Sunday School" movie might be generous, because, even as a Christian, I found the religious message so one-dimensional that I wouldn't want to see it at my church. The message is, "Read your Bible, go to church and sign up for fire insurance, so you won't get left behind at the rapture." There was no love. I guess when you get right down to it, I don't believe in the god portrayed in this film. The guy who was supposed to have all of the spiritual answers came across like Count Dracula.<br /><br />Aside from the spiritual/religious element, the script was tedious--saying the same thing over and over. That might have been to make up for some of the acting, which was unable to deliver a convincing line the first time, so they just said the same thing over and over.<br /><br />I did enjoy the final scenes. I thought it made a point without hitting someone over the head or stooping to a Sunday School formula. The movie wasn't all bad, just most of it.<br /><br />I am in favor of more clean movies that are well-done and that present truth in a non-preachy way. This wasn't one of those, I am sorry to say. I took my family to this film, wanting to support that kind of movie. Now I'd like my money back.
This movie was terrible. It is not something that people should have to pay to see. It looks like some Christian group made it to convert people. I don't understand why it was released to theaters and not to TV.<br /><br />It started out like an old fashioned B movie sci-fi film from the 50s, but quickly changed. About 30 minutes into the movie the characters start talking about "God" and "Do you believe in Jesus?" It quickly moves into pure religion territory.<br /><br />I thought I was going to a Sci-Fi movie. The film has poor acting; bad camera angles and is amateurish.<br /><br />AVOID IT!
How awful is it? Let me count the ways: 1) It is a bait-and-switch movie that starts out being about a UFO investigation, then turns into a high-pressure sales job for Christianity. C'mon! If the makers of this movie felt so strongly about their message, why disguise it? It annoys non-believers and pushes fence-sitters in the opposite direction. 2) It's not even a good sales pitch! If the characters in this flick asked me to go to church with them, I'd run like Hell in the opposite direction. They're scary! 3) The acting is terrible. They all behave as if they were in an educational film about etiquette in the workplace. 4) The cinematography is home-movie bad. Wait, actually its not even that good. 5) Script bad, bad, bad. All dialogue, no action. Like a tennis match, they bounce back and forth between the "talking head" close ups. 6) Direction... what direction? Oh, there must have been a director there somewhere. I challenge you to figure out where.<br /><br />Believe it or not, I have some positive comments about this movie. The editing seemed professional, but couldn't make a difference. A good edit of bad material is still a bad movie. The opening theme music was actually very good! Very scary and UFO-ish. Too bad the movie wasn't about UFOs.<br /><br />If you can't tell already, here's the bottom line. I wasted my money seeing this movie, and it made me angry. If they had not disguised what this movie was really about, I could say it was my fault.
This movie was poorly conceived, poorly written and poorly acted. All of the characters were two-dimensional. It was a real amateur attempt. The movie was fundamentalist Christian propaganda. The Christian characters are holier-than-thou and they are without a shred of compassion for the skeptic or the undecided characters. The movie was a real "gotcha" for both the skeptic character and myself as a viewer, putting us in a very uncomfortable situation. I complained to the theater management and was given a free pass to another movie. I remember another movie on a similar subject, "The Rapture," starring Mimi Rogers, that was much better and professionally done. I think I'll watch "The Rapture" again. If you attend "Unidentified" and don't like it, don't say I haven't warned you.
This movie should have come with a disclaimer that it was akin to the Left Behind series. I did not know it would be a Bible-thumping movie. I expected it to truly be a movie about UFOs and alien abduction for entertainment's sake. As previous reviewer comments, it would be fine to show at a church, but not at a public theater, at least not without the consumer's prior knowledge of what the premise of the movie is about. I felt deceived out of my $$ spent for this movie, as nothing in the summary refers to its religious overtones. If you go to church, it'll probably be shown there for free some time. Other than the cover-up of its true subject matter, the movie was fine as far as acting and script were concerned. But I have to say I walked out an hour into the movie when I saw what direction it was headed and that I was not going to be entertained, but preached to.
Christian Propaganda...Lots of fear mongering...<br /><br />This is not SciFi, this is ChriFi (Christian fiction).The movie started out OK but took a sharp Christian right turn. From then on it was all about god, jc, the holy bible and the devil . The ufo's are really just demonic deception to fool people in to believing that there is other intelligent life in the universe. Satan's idea is to trick you in to thinking that there could be more to life than what is in the bible.<br /><br />The abductions could be used to explain away the rapture. The people left behind would believe it was a mass alien abduction, instead of god taking all the Christians to heaven. No reason to repent if its aliens. The deeper message in the movie is that if you don't believe in god and have jc in your life than you believe in nothing and your life has no purpose.
I just happened to stumble to this film and checked IMDb for more information: Score 6,7, well... not so bad. Genre: scifi...good I like scifi. So I got the movie and I was looking forward to have a relaxing Sunday evening watching it. But but...NO.<br /><br />As in summary, this isn't a movie at all. It is a religious advertisement, including: preatching about Jesus, god, devil, end of the world etc. Movie starts with a epic abduction story: Driving at night, car stops, bright light and so on... Well, actually that was the film. Last of this ..ummm... frankly I don't know what to call it...was dialogue about end of the world and last judgement. Quite a same stuff what these TV-preachers tell you, but they are "good" at it.<br /><br />Honestly, if you wan't to see a scifi movie or something with UFOs, please stay far away from this "thing". It has nothing to do with them. If you want to hear some cuckoo head's opinion what the bible has to say and what you should do. Then go ahead and watch this "thing", but I still prefer going to the church at Sunday.<br /><br />This is complete bull. (and evangelical Christian propaganda, as another users said= Well... I should have red another users comments before I got the movie. <br /><br />(27% of voters have rated this "thing" as 10. Yeah, right. Please, go somewhere else to do your propaganda)
I thought I was going to see a UFO movie. Instead, I saw a movie that was trying to make the audience (me) make the decision to accept Christ in my life, or risk going to Hell. The whole UFO thing was one big red herring!!! The acting in it was pretty pathetic. In fact, it looked as though some people from an Evangelic Church just got got together and decided they wanted to make a movie. All the characters talked as though they were in church conversing with other church members. It wasn't real-life dialog at all. I wish I had read some reviews before seeing this movie so I wouldn't have wasted my money on it. If, on the other hand, you are into the whole church scene in a big way, and want to see a demonstration of how to push your views (no matter how limiting) onto other people, then by all means, go see it.
After a good start, it turned out to be the worst piece of holier than thou propaganda i've ever seen. This movie is an open insult designed to make you feel bad about not reading the "holy bible".<br /><br />To resume the...OK let's call it a plot... Basically alien don't abduct people (that we already know..). No, in fact its demonic forces abducting people which are in new age stuff or witchcraft, or read porno magazine (as one protagonist does).<br /><br />It's complete with the little emotional piano music when the lead character realize he must blindly follow Christ to be saved.<br /><br />a quote sums it all , imagine a subtle piano music in the background : "You can't let others, even those you love, stop you from following the Lord.."<br /><br />and we are supposed to live in an enlightened age...still work to do. Boycott this piece of crap
This movie was a major bait and switch. I rented it because of Rebecca St. James, a popular Christian singer. I have met her and wondered what she would be doing in a UFO movie. Well.......<br /><br />I think that she starred in this movie to help out a friend, or a friend of a friend. My first clue that this movie wasn't what it was supposed to be was when I witnessed the special effects of the UFO encounters. Cheesy! As the movie progressed, I noticed how plastic the actors were. It was funny how almost everyone in the movie wore solid colors. (There are a few exceptions).<br /><br />Rebecca was verrryyy disappointing. She is always found in the house and doesn't show the realistic facial expressions of one whose husband has return to the fold. Doesn't she ever leave the house? <br /><br />I had to turn off the movie several times in order to finish it. I hope that Rebecca doesn't believe the message of this movie - believe in what we believe or suffer and go to hell. Jesus spread a message of love and hope. His message inspired others to change OUT OF LOVE, NOT FEAR.
This is the worst movie I have seen to date. 85 minutes of utterly bad acting,(half the cast seem to be suffering from Asperger's syndrome) ghastly wigs, strange make-up (including tide lines around wig areas) and holier than thou characters with holier than thou dialogue that makes you want to puke. One comical aspect of this film, if you have the patience to watch it, is the sheer overwhelming number of costume changes the unfortunate cast appear in from scene to scene - was this film backed by a catalogue manufacturer of desperately dodgy pastel casual wear? Were the cast paid in clothes for their efforts? They certainly did not deserve paying with anything else! This appalling effort of a film delivers a rambling plot in the first half, blending into an equally confused arch Christian biblefest in the latter. The entire cast and production team should be burnt at the stake, or at the very least crucified!
Im warning you people out there, this is just a waste of your time. I am being honest when I'm saying that this is the worst movie I've ever seen. Its just a move about Christian propaganda! Don't throw away your life, don't see it!<br /><br />I think they made the movie so more people will believe in Jesus or something, but it works in the opposite way. The actors are all newbies, the story is just fuzzy!<br /><br />I think this movie is a work of the devil. <br /><br />This movie is just not worth seeing, so please take my advice and don't!
My mom and I, rented this movie. I mean, we love those type of Sci-Fi flicks, whether they be big Hollywood flicks or Indy flicks.<br /><br />But oh, we were fooled!! Two journalists are investigating a UFO abduction in a small city in Texas. Halfway through, all the sudden things get all christain on us. My mom and I believe in god and Jesus and the Devil, but the way this movie was preaching it, made it annoying. All I really have to say, is that we are Christian, but even we like to have fun. So don't blame christians as a whole, just blame the christians who need to suck the fun out of this movie.<br /><br />In fact you can clearly understand the directors stance on UFO's, and that is that he believes it is all demonic. Now, i could say some words, but I will not. All I will say is, that DO NOT WATCH this movie, unless you feel like being preached. In fact many times it states that we must be perfect in order to enter heaven. Well, last time I checked, the only perfect person died on a cross.
Movies about U.F.O.'s are always a nice way to kill some time, so on a rainy Sunday evening I picked up this flick, expecting what can be expected from a direct-to-DVD U.F.O. mystery.<br /><br />Boy, was I wrong! At about halfway in the movie it becomes very apparent that the U.F.O. theme is just a deceptive way of attracting unsuspecting viewers to this Christian propaganda. And this is not just a Christan movie from an average Christian. No, this is Christianity of the extremist fundamentalist kind. The scary kind.<br /><br />In the end of this movie, the non-believing lead is tricked by their colleagues using a practical joke in thinking that the Rapture has started (which is believed by Christians to be the happening in the end of time where true believers are going to heaven and non-believers are left behind).<br /><br />When the joke is explained, it is suggested that it is always better to become a true believer, 'just in case we Christians are right'. Now that's a lamest excuse ever to become a Christian if you ask me!<br /><br />This movie still tries to convert non-believers using scare tactics. "Believe in God or you will go to Hell!" is the message here. Simple, but quite offensive, really. Especially because this movie is being sold as something completely different.<br /><br />Now let's assume you're a Christian fundamentalist yourself and you're not likely to be offended by the themes in this movie, is this a good movie? I'm afraid it isn't. No actually I'm lying: I'm GLAD it isn't! The acting is horrible, the pacing is horrible, the plot is horrible, especially the ending is laughably bad. As soon as the movie starts, you immediately sense that this is going to be worse than you expected, and you will be right.<br /><br />In the first half hour, it seems to at least attempt to set up a passable U.F.O. mystery, but then suddenly they bring in this Count Dracula look-alike that starts babbling about the devil. At first you just think this dude is just a crazy maniac, but as it turns out, he actually represents the real views of the makers of this movie. As soon as you start realizing this, you know how this is going to end up. But actually it ends up worse.<br /><br />Avoid.
I happened across this movie while channel-surfing and it seemed to be yet another poorly- made Christian film about The End Times (which I find rather entertaining because they take themselves so seriously). To be fair, I only saw the last 30 minutes, so I missed the part about UFOs and the Sci-Fi stuff. But it was long enough for me to categorize it as an embarrassing and appalling representation of the Christian faith, as well as a rather pathetic film in any artistic sense.<br /><br />As a film, the script was terrible, the acting was mediocre, and the pacing was poor. The cinematography and direction were sub-par: no interesting visuals, no layered plot line, no creativity. Don't just blame it on the budget- films can still be interesting without special effects. This wasn't. Christian films cannot excuse their mediocrity and unoriginality in the artistic sphere just because of their message. And the message here was hardly "Christian."<br /><br />**Disclaimer: The rest of this comment is targeted towards Christians**<br /><br />First off, it is unethical in any business to bait-and-switch your customers. I don't like being told I can win a free iPod only to realize I have to spend $300 at participating stores first. Nonchristians don't like being told they're watching a Sci-Fi film and then get bombarded with Christian propaganda that has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. Hidden agendas don't win you any friends, much less converts. <br /><br />Secondly, you should not use overt threats to convince people your beliefs are true. The actors who represented Christians came off as callous, smug bullies when dealing with the skeptical "unbeliever"-- they even go so far as to stage the rapture in order to scare him into believing. Representational dialogue: "Turn to Jesus- OR GO TO HELL!" "Fine, don't believe me- BUT YOU'LL BE SORRY!" "The day you die, I can guarantee you'll wish you paid more attention to this Jesus stuff- WHEN YOU LAND IN THE BELLY OF HELL!" OK, I may be exaggerating, but it certainly came off in the same manner. If you think this is a "clear message for Christ," you're wrong. I don't recall Jesus using threats and coercion. And I don't think people can make an authentic decision to believe in him out of fear. So Christians, please don't use this as a "witnessing tool" for your "unsaved" friends. It is heavy-handed, offensive, and inaccurate in portraying a true Christian message.<br /><br />Thirdly, the theology was bad. Apart from characterizing Jesus as a means of hell-insurance, it gave no room for debate or discussion and didn't attempt to engage the issue of whether UFOs or alien life could exist. Instead, it offered one pat answer: "UFOs are the devil's scheme to deceive people when the rapture happens," which is neither biblical nor widely-accepted by most Christians. As the Bible doesn't mention UFOs or aliens, you can't use it as a source to draw conclusions one way or the other. The rapture isn't necessarily even a widely-accepted, sound biblical concept, though nowadays most evangelical Christians seem to believe it because of a popular book series. If you do your research (as so many of the supportive reviewers are suggesting), the idea of two comings of Christ (the first as the rapture) is a relatively new phenomena in Church tradition, popularized by some traveling evangelists around the turn of the 20th century. The majority of orthodox Christians will probably find this film's message to be a pretty big stretch that rests on a lot of unsupported presuppositions.<br /><br />Basically, this film misses the mark both as a worthwhile piece of entertainment and as an accurate representation of Christianity and its beliefs. I wouldn't recommend it.
Wow... just... wow. There are a lot of reviews on this movie already but I wanted to add some comments of my own. I agree with most reviewers who have said this movie has terrible acting, writing, and directing - whoo boy does it ever. However, I think there is some other problems here.<br /><br />1. Why is Christian belief and the allowance for extraterrestrial life mutually exclusive? The film acts as though you just can't be a Christian and also allow for the possibility? Why? They ever-so-briefly touch on this in the film (i.e. "The Bible doesn't say there is aliens." "Well, the Bible doesn't say there isn't.), but the actual rebuttal is never answered. The Bible really doesn't say there isn't. So how about dealing with the question instead of dismissing it out of hand? Or better yet, acknowledge that this is an infinite universe we live in and if we believe in an infinite God there is the possibility that he made some other life somewhere and has his own plans for them.<br /><br />2. How come the ONLY two explanations for the abductions that are valid are demons and hoax? What about sleep paralysis and night terrors which have been linked to abduction experiences? What if it's something else entirely? Too bad the film makers already have their minds made up.<br /><br />3. The film makers claim that all who have had abduction experiences have had ties to the occult. That's a pretty big claim to make without any factual evidence to present. I'm not necessarily arguing that they don't, but if you're going to say something so asinine you'd better have the facts to back it up.<br /><br />4. Why does the other reporter (not the Greasy Haired Blonde Guy, the other one) always have his hands in his pockets? It's hard to take someone seriously when they're constantly playing pocket pool.<br /><br />I WISH this had been an exploration of Christian faith and UFO phenomena, but unfortunately the film makers were too concerned with their "Faith Message" to care much about make a thought provoking movie. As a Christian myself, this saddens me.
The only reason I gave this movie a 2 and not a 1 was because for some reason I felt compelled to finish it out! Basically, I wanted to see if there were going to be any aliens, any UFO's, anything at all suggested by the title of the movie, the cover of the movie and the beginning of the movie! I was very disappointed to see religion being thrown into the mix the way that it was. This could have been used to the movie's advantage, but I felt, instead, that the movie was trying to send subliminal messages to me! Finally, how big was this cast's wardrobe!? I became so distracted by the number of different, and extremely bright, shirts each character had on in every new scene that I began to wonder if this movie wasn't really supposed to be classified under "poor comedy".<br /><br />toe thumbs down!
This is the third movie in a month I have watched that did not go the way I expected. The first two being The Black Dahlia and Hollywoodland, neither of which gave any new ideas of who committed the crimes.<br /><br />I have always had a fascination with UFOs and was so excited to see a new movie on the subject of UFO investigation that was not a comedy. But after about 30 minutes, it all went horribly wrong.<br /><br />I could have stood for the acting, the camera angles, the stereotypes if only there was a good story about chasing UFOs, but none here. I am not saying there was anything wrong with the subject matter, but Netflix pushed this movie as a UFO skeptic and a UFO believer investigating multiple sitings.<br /><br />I stopped watching about half way thru. Can't believe I wasted that much time with this one. Please don't make the same mistake I did.
Supposedly, a movie about a magazine sending journalists to investigate reports of UFOs with one being more or less tolerant or agnostic about the whole affair and the other an Aussie, a hardened skeptic who laughs at the UFO nonsense. It's all a crock, some kind of money making racket.<br /><br />Turns out this movie is actually a deceit, and a trap to actually promulgate Christian teachings and the Christian explanation of UFOs, one I've heard before. This is an ad hoc explanation that is itself not at all biblical but invented by certain modern theologians who can fit anything and everything into their mythology. The paranormal? It's real, just demonic, unless it takes place in a Christian context, then of course, it is of God. Simple, if it isn't of God, it's the of the Devil, stupid! So I suppose since Beethoven's 9th symphony wasn't inspired by God, it must have been written under demonic influence. Or so would the logic lead ad absurdum.<br /><br />We are informed that since the Bible does not tell of life on other planets in the Universe, therefore there is none (a version of the Ad Ignorantium fallacy) and that God created the Universe so huge, so grand to show us his almighty power. I think of Carl Sagan's remark that if God created such a huge Universe and stuck life only on Earth it'd have been a tremendous waste of space.<br /><br />So what are UFOs? They are Demonic activity and concern the soon to be earthshaking Christian event, the rupture...I mean Rapture. Before the tribulation, the true Christians will disappear from the face of the earth en masse causing mass panic, confusion, car and plane crashes...whatever. Therefore Satan knowing this is sending his demons to basically create an illusion of alien spacecraft and alien abduction which can then be used to explain away this otherwise inexplicable event. All part of Satan's plan which will of course keep people from looking to God or Jesus and fall for the lies of the AntiChrist.<br /><br />This ad hoc explanation also typifies theological mishmash by explaining away one mystery with another, in opposition to the scientific method of explaining the unknown, the strange, and the mysterious in as much as possible, first by the known, if not solely by the known.<br /><br />It's like jumping straight to an alien abduction whenever a child is missing and unaccounted for. I think I'd look first at more mundane explanations like the child has run away, gotten lost, or been kidnapped for ransom or abducted by a predatory pedophile before invoking aliens, or the supernatural or Satan or some such.<br /><br />This kind of deceit or trap on the part of fundamentalists is nothing new, as young people are often lured to Free Rock Concerts, that may start out with something innocuous then suddenly switch to overt Christian music, followed by a sermon and an altar call. This kind of blatant deception one might think would be more Satan's ballgame. But maybe because the Christian faith is soon to be in its death throes, these guys feel that anything goes, any deception or trickery or scare tactics are acceptable to try to keep the faith alive, which is facing serious opposition from both secularists as well as competing faiths like Islam, the world's fastest growing religion which may well replace Christianity, as Islam is far more cohesive and unified, and logically more tenable than Christian fundamentalism. Although this should offer little advantage to mankind, as it would be replacing one intolerant thought system with another.<br /><br />And of course the movie ends more or less with a variant of Pascal's wager. The atheistic Aussie who is skeptical about just about everything is told. Well, if you are right about there being no afterlife and death is nothing but rotting in the grave, no worry...but what if you're wrong?<br /><br />Basically, statements implying that reality is going to conform to nothing but an atheistic viewpoint or Christian fantasy, is a false dilemma or Black and White fallacy. Even if the atheists are wrong would not necessarily make Christianity correct by default, nor if Christianity turns out to be full of holes in its theology, that the materialistic atheists are therefore correct by default.<br /><br />For all we know, Native American spirituality might turn out to be the best description of ultimate reality and we might all of use have wished we treated the Earth and its creatures a wee bit better.<br /><br />This movie should be stamped right on the box: Caution: Contains religious Propaganda and not meant for informative or entertainment purposes.
First of all, i have nothing against Christianity. i believe, every person has the right to believe what he or she chooses. But i cannot imagine how dumb a person has to be to believe this! What a waste of believers' money. They'd better use it to feed some starving families in the third world countries. I don't want to talk about talk acting or plot of this "movie", because I couldn't find any of those in this. Story's simple - two reporters, one (A) is atheist, the other (B) for some sake has abandoned religion. B regains his confidence in religion and teaches A a lesson - believe in Christ or go to hell. This message appears after like ten minutes and keeps repeating to the end of the movie. People, do not believe the rating of this "movie", read reviews first. I didn't and wasted an hour of my life :( PS: Why is it classified as sci-fi? Because of those few weird sounds and a bit of bright light from the sky? PPS: U.F.O. = Satan's evil doings? That's a new one :)
My wife spotted this film on the aisle at a local video store. From the cover it looked like a science-fiction film, but upon turning it over my wife saw Rebecca St. James was in the film, realized it was a Christian movie, and suggested we watch it. We are conservative evangelicals but we also know that "Christian" films have a poor reputation in the mainstream. Nevertheless, we decided to give it a screening.<br /><br />To be fair, there were a few things I liked about the film. The musical score - much of which was orchestrated - was quite good. The cinematography was also pretty good considering it was a lower-budget movie.<br /><br />Unfortunately, any virtue in this film's production work was lost on a regrettable script. The film begins with an interesting premise - UFO abductions - but by midway through the feature the storyline veers wildly into an evangelistic crusade spearheaded by the movie's two main characters... which then veers wildly into a treatise on the Rapture. At least the Frank Peretti-inspired "The Visitation" (which was itself a deeply flawed film) had an endgame that tied together the movie's premise. "Unidentified" ends nowhere even close to where it started, which is a huge letdown.<br /><br />As for the acting? The supporting acting ranges from decent to awful. (Rebecca St. James plays a bit part and is passable.) For their part, a few of the main characters are manned capably enough. Sadly, their talents are wasted on characters so one-dimensional in their personalities so as to be unbelievable. The "protagonists" are anything but; you know it's bad when two Christian viewers find the most vocal Christian character in the film to be the most annoying.<br /><br />A final note on the evangelistic tone of this movie, which will be of more interest to Christian than non-Christian readers. In a word, it is embarrassing. Other Christian films like Carmen's "The Champion" and Peretti's "The Hangman's Curse" have managed to communicate a genuinely uncompromising portrait of the Christian faith without sounding preachy or oppressive. This film, by contrast, is a sledgehammer that feels so heavy-handed and lacking in tact that a non-Christian would have a hard time taking it seriously.<br /><br />I do believe that the filmmaker's heart is in the right place, and I applaud efforts to create good Christian film. Unfortunately, this is not one of them. If your church is looking for a screening of a good Christian film, consider "Mercy Streets," the aforementioned "The Champion," or (if you're Pentecostal) Robert Duvall's provocative "The Apostle." <br /><br />As for "Unidentified?" Rent it if you must, but screen it before you show it to a non-Christian or a larger audience.
This movie starts really good.<br /><br />After half of the movie it wraps to a religious Christian crap.<br /><br />Some really Christian with psycho problems are talking about good and believe in Christ - or you go to hell.<br /><br />Don't watch it - it's pure propaganda and its pure wrong ...<br /><br />This movie starts really good.<br /><br />After half of the movie it wraps to a religious Christian crap.<br /><br />Some really Christian with psycho problems are talking about good and believe in Christ - or you go to hell.<br /><br />Don't watch it - it's pure propaganda and its pure wrong ...
This movie is nothing more than Christian propaganda. It started off like a good sci-fi movie and then works a syrupy sweet Christian theme into the story which is totally unrelated. I had to turn it off half way through because I felt tricked into renting it. The catholic church has officially announced that aliens do NOT contradict belief in God.<br /><br />The movie is slightly entertaining despite this but the dialog is unbelievable, writing and acting is mostly rubbish and all in all, this movie is mostly a stinker to be avoided.<br /><br />There was obviously some research done into the phenomenon by the filmmakers, but then you quickly realize that it is only for the purpose to debunk and inject their own paranoid religious views into a valid interesting subject. If you are a zealous religious fanatic who believes in demons and angels , you will love this movie.
OK, this movie, was the worst display I have seen in years. The actors weren't to bad (I figured it was a b-movie so they were doing b-movie acting). Anyways, I watched this movie, thinking, OH COOL a UFO Sci-Fi movie. WRONG. It was just an excuse for radical Christians to push a message onto people. The last scene was extremely messed up. That is a horrible thing to do to a person to make them believe in something. What someone believe in is a matter of opinion. This movie just shows how corrupted religion is, especially Christianity.<br /><br />If you want to watch a b-movie, this ain't. If you want to watch a movie that is TRYING to brainwash the masses. Well this is the pick of the litter. go right for it. If you are going to convey a message, do it, don't force it. Ridiculous, that people would abuse the media to such a degree. Especially, Christians.
As you can read the only good comment about this movie is made by someone who actually watch it AT HIS CHURCH ! <br /><br />Anyway, movie had a good B movie sci-fi beginning, everything was there to make a good entertaining , easy to watch movie, then everything felt in this religious Jesus-will-save-everyone brainwashing mode.<br /><br />story start with 2 main characters, 2 reporters but it fast give the first role to that Jesus freak who is there to save everyone's soul with this con-descendant attitude.<br /><br />In a few words: this movie goes from entertaining to brainwashing in about 30 minutes<br /><br />Waste of time, waste of money... AVOID IT
This movie was the biggest piece of garbage I've seen in a long time.<br /><br />It's marketed as as Sci-Fi when in fact it's nothing more than a Christian recruiting tool.<br /><br />It tells you quite a bit about the state of the Christian church, when they have to resort to deception just to get you to listen to their sales pitch. But then again what do you expect from an organization that would go through such great lengths to help protect such an enormous amount of child molesters in their organization.<br /><br />Religion is full of nothing but sexual deviants, hypocrites, and war mongers. Let's not forget, our bumbling former President actually came out and said that "God told him" to invade Iraq. And nobody questioned if he was hearing voices, or seeing things? <br /><br />Anyway, going of the subject here. No this movie has nothing to do with UFOs whatsoever, it's nothing more than a religious production.
Like a lot of the comments above me, also I though this was the average scifi movie, but unfortunately it was not. I found it rather patronizing, and indeed, preaching.<br /><br />But that is not the only comment. The scenes are very 'artificial' (not as in scifi, as I will explain a in a few moments). (The next sentence is a small spoiler.) The movie more or less represents a discussion between two groups. The physical setting of a discussion typically involves two or three men standing next to each other, the middle one typically speaking. In the worst case, the other party is represented by one person.<br /><br />Also the interviews the reporters have are very artificial, sometimes even unprofessional. For example sometimes the discussion is between the reporters (I mean, from a point of the interviewed, 'akward'). Moreover the interview persons always stay calm, they say everything without normal emotions. I.e. you cannot tell whether they lie or not, are mad or not. They show almost nothing.<br /><br />This is also very unprofessional, the 'Christian' reporters always believe everything they are told by the people they interview.<br /><br />Bottom line:<br /><br />All conversations contain:<br /><br />- facts<br /><br />- pro/con arguments<br /><br />There are no lies. Nobody lies. (The next sentence is a spoiler, ignore if you still plan to see the movie) The only lie happening is to demonstrate how 'bad' non-believers are.<br /><br />This makes me conclude that the movie is a B-movie. It is very similar to 'Plan 9 from Outer Space' (from the 50's), but this movie also has an annoying, wrong set discussion about aliens and Christian belief.<br /><br />NOTE: I have no intention to insult Christians, people who believe in aliens or whomever else. This is a thought I have about the movie, not about people.<br /><br />Moreover I would like to note that I don't know whether the actors are bad or were just given terrible scripts.
This is without doubt the worst movie i have ever seen. And believe me, I have seen a lot of movies. The unbelievable twist the movie makes - going from an extremely bad "Alien lifeforms inhabit earth" movie with sickening bad acting, to a film that tries to spread an Archchristian "Judgement day is at hand, seek Jesus or though shall burn for all eternity in the fiery debts of hell" message - left me stunned after being tormented for 85 minutes. Even religious Christians must be ashamed or furious by watching their beliefs being posted like this. I didn't know what to do with myself when I watched the horrible acting that could have been performed by 7-year-olds. Simply disgusting. I am not a Christian nor very religious. But if I had been, I would no longer be afraid of Hell. Rich Christiano has shown be something much, much worse.
A antique shop-owner in NYC, played by Joanne Whalley(Valerie Alston)gets put on a US District Court jury, on a trial of a known Mafioso Armand Asante(Rusty Pirone), and most of this very slow-paced film revolves around attempts of Pirone attempting to get Whalley to acquit him of murder, by threatening to kill her son, and herself. Much action ensues, involving gruesome mob-rub outs, interspread with Willam Hurt as the go-between. Much of this silly, disjointed mess surrounds Hurt and Asante's obsession with Whalley, courtroom scenes that we've all seen time and again, and an ending that is unbelievable. 3/10 is probably going easy on this waste of time.
Two years after this movie was made, "The Juror" came out. Don't waste your time on this one. See "The Juror" instead. "The Juror" is essentially the same story as "Trial By Jury," with better acting, better directing and a far more gripping aura about it. William Hurt was not believable as a cop-gone-bad, and Armand Assante couldn't be more unlike a mob boss if they had dressed him in a clown outfit. You didn't become involved enough with Joann Whalley's character to be that upset by what was happening to her. Also, the way in which she interacted with the jury wasn't compelling or interesting in any way. Kathleen Quinlan's role as a hooker/killer wasn't fleshed out enough and quite frankly was unnecessary for to the plot.
It´s long time that I and my wife didn´t see such a boring thriller. It´s definitively NOT a gripping story and it is paced so slowly that we nearly fell asleep. This could be instead a very low budget TV crime series. There are some ridiculous scenes like the one where mafia boss Pirano wants to see the jury lady in a red clothes or another mafioso cannot stop to think about her and so on. Okay perhaps this should have been a romantic thriller but believe me you really don´t miss anything. We gave 4/10.
This review is for the UK DVD three-disc box set. Disc one is called Caught in the Act and contains Model Behavior, Chasing Jamie and Fast and Curious. Disc two is called Bedroom Fantasies and contains Blue Plate Special, Falling in Lust Again and Love Potion No. 10. The final disc is called Anything Goes and contains Chatroom, She's the Boss and Legally Yours. Why the other four episodes in the series are not included is a mystery because there is surely enough room on the discs for a lot more material.<br /><br />Each episode opens with the hotel manager Chloe (Lauren Hayes) reading a letter from a satisfied customer. We then get to see the story unfolding as the guests check into the hotel. Blue Plate Special is the exception because this story is from a waitress. The writers should be given credit for coming up with a good variety of story lines. For instance, Model Behavior is about two models vying for the attention of the photo crew; Falling in Lust Again is about a man and woman who parted and rekindle their love when they meet up again at the hotel; She's the Boss is about a put-upon male secretary/dogsbody who shows that he is more of a man than his female boss realised - much to her pleasure. All the episodes lead up to lots of nudity and sex.<br /><br />It should come as no surprise that all the characters in this hotel are beautiful women and handsome hunks. Even the geeky secretaries get transformed when they remove their spectacles and let their hair down. The sex action is plentiful but to me seems too frantic and false. The camera work could also have done with a bit of moderation, spending too much time close up and so moving about to capture everything, and as usual we get loud music during the sex action. Finally, the end credits mention the Palm Canopy Hotel, Singer Island, Florida although my map of Florida shows no Singer Island. The scenery certainly looks more like Florida than Utah or Las Vegas that some people have mentioned. This is quite a good effort and it is a pity that the second series is still awaiting a UK DVD release. 4 stars.
Watching this film today I got the feeling this thing was missing about 10 to 15 minutes or so from the beginning of the story. John Wayne rides up on this trading post/saloon out in the middle of nowhere to meet with the owner about some robberies. All he sees is the signs of a massacre, some dead bodies, signs of a fight and no one alive in sight. That's because the owner's daughter is hidden in a secret room, the kind you find in old English murder mysteries.<br /><br />The reason you find those hidden rooms in those kind of stories is that they were formerly priestholes. Catholic families clinging to the old faith in 16th century England built these things to hide those on the run from royal authorities because of their faith. Not something you see in westerns, but a good gimmick.<br /><br />Unfortunately because of bad editing or writing or both we never know exactly what brought Wayne to this place exactly. But this was a B western and not even a good one at that.<br /><br />Gabby Hayes is in this and he's clean shaven and playing a mute part of the time. An unusual circumstance for the garrulous Gabby.<br /><br />If you want to bother and find out what happens and see a whiskerless Gabby Hayes then see this film.
Randy Bowers (John Wayne) comes upon the Half Way House at just the right time to take a break from the trail, and discovers a slew of dead bodies inside, among them a man he was supposed to deliver a message to - Ed Rogers, proprietor of the establishment. He's observed by the dead man's niece Sally (Alberta Vaughn), from behind a hidden room, where she remained unobserved during the carnage.<br /><br />"Randy Rides Alone" was directed by Harry Fraser. He uses a filming technique here as in other of his films, where he fast forwards the action from one location to another, usually involving a rider on a horse. It's pretty well done and appears quite innovative in these 1930's era Lone Star Westerns.<br /><br />Pre-Gabby George Hayes is on hand, sans whiskers, and this is the first time I've seen him as a villain. In fact it took a few scenes to realize it was him in a dual role, first as hunchbacked businessman "Matt the Mute", communicating via pencil and paper, only to turn into Marvin Black, leader of a gang of outlaws. Black's gang was responsible for the murders at Half Way House, in an attempt to coerce Sally into selling out to Matt/Marvin. Another staple player is here as well, Yakima Canutt as a Black henchman named Spike. Interestingly, Yakima portrayed a villain named Sam Black in another Fraser/Wayne oater, "Neath the Arizona Skies".<br /><br />There's a fair amount of time-killing horseback riding back and forth between Black's Gang and the Sheriff's posse, as John Wayne's character maneuvers to expose the bad guys. In the end, he saves the day by securing Sally Rogers' thirty thousand dollars, at the expense of destroying the Half Way House, where he exchanges some sticks of dynamite for the loot in a safe. Greedy Marvin Black attempts to open it with his six-shooter, and the explosion is a fitting end for the villain. In his best "Aw shucks" attitude, John Wayne falls under the spell of the pretty Sally Rogers, and alas, Randy rides alone no more!
John Wayne is without a doubt one of the most popular and loved actors of all time. His career stretched over forty years, and within that time he starred in films such as "Angel and the Badman", "The Green Berets", "Sands of Iwo Jima", "Rio Bravo", "North to Alaska", and "The Undefeated".<br /><br />The film's listed above are hailed as some of his best, unlike this 1934 effort "Randy Rides Alone", which has been pretty much forgotten about as time's gone on, which is unsurprising, as it's nothing memorable apart from its very short running time of just 53 minutes.<br /><br />A young John Wayne plays Randy Bowers, who for reasons never really explained, arrives at a saloon in the middle of nowhere and finds that everyone inside has been killed. While looking around, a posse arrives and finds Randy there and they arrest him, accusing him of being a gang member and demand to know where the rest of his gang is. He is put in jail accused of the murders. Sally Rogers, whose uncle owned the saloon and was murdered, arrives at the jail to see Randy in order to clarify that he was one of the gang members ( She was hiding in a secret room when the shooting took place ). Sally doesn't believe that Randy is a killer, and doesn't recognise him, so while the sheriff is out, she slips him the keys and Randy escapes. While running away from the sheriff and his posse, Randy conveniently stumbles into the gang's hideout in a cave who were responsible for the murders. Randy sets out to clear his name, and also to bring the gang to justice.<br /><br />"Randy Rides Alone" can be a fun film to watch, especially if you're a John Wayne fan. But at the same time it has far too many flaws that are impossible to ignore. The film is also extremely dated, as you would expect; we have the terrible camera shooting which makes everyone look like they are moving in super-fast motion, and the dialogue is terrible. The acting isn't great either, and Wayne's character is very wooden and he, along with the rest of the cast, look like wooden puppets who are being conducted by someone ( In this case it's by director Harry Fraser ). Harry Fraser is at the helm, and does a good enough job but the story is paper-thin. One can't help but feel that about ten minutes is missing from the start of the film as Randy just arrives out of nowhere at the saloon and is looking to meet someone. An explanation on why Randy was there is giving later on, which turns out to be something like he is a P.I who was sent to investigate the claims that someone is trying to take over the town. To be honest I didn't really pick it up, most of the time I was hoping for the movie to end.<br /><br />But that being said, I didn't find this film to be completely terrible. I enjoyed some of it and found it to be quite fun at times. But it really isn't a great film, and isn't really worth watching or tracking down.<br /><br />Overall, "Randy Rides Alone" is incredibly dated and is a tiresome Western with very few redeeming qualities. Can be fun but overall it isn't a great movie and is certainly one of Wayne's weaker outings.
There were many 'spooky' westerns made in the 30s and early 40s, and although this has a strong beginning, it isn't one. Randy Bowers (John Wayne) stopping at a 'Halfway House' saloon, finds it to be full of dead bodies, the bartender's corpse draped over the bar holding a gun, eyes watching Randy from behind holes cut through eyes in a picture, and a player piano playing "The Loveliest Night of the Year." <br /><br />It was the result of a robbery by the Marvin Black gang, to get Ed Rogers' $30,000. Randy is an investigator who "works alone," who wastes little time in getting arrested, escaping (with Ed's daughter Sally's help) and literally landing in the midst of the Black gang's hideout behind a waterfall. It all moves along fairly quickly. Only one too many chases after Randy slow it down.<br /><br />We even get George Hayes, clean shaven and playing two parts-- Marvin Black, the vilest villain, as well as the Good Citizen, Matt the Mute, who communicates via handwritten messages. Having him play two opposite roles was a good idea, but the writing down of messages thing gets old real fast, even for him, as he finally gives up doing it near the end saying to Sally, "Ah, I'm fed up with this!" You can find George playing a vile, vile, double crossing villain in the serial "The Lost City" (1934).<br /><br />I think this is the only 'Lone Star' film in which the title relates to, or is mentioned in the film! Sally offers her hand to Randy and says, "He's not alone anymore!" Then cut to their arms around each other as they look out facing a lake. Sally's running off with Randy seems too abrupt and not sufficiently prepared for. Too much time spent on horseback escaping the sheriff.<br /><br />Not that bad considering everything, but not that great either. I'd really give it a 4 and a half.
Most of Wayne's B westerns are kind of fun in a naive way, but this one really stinks. The editing is terrible, and the direction and pacing is completely lethargic. Most of the cast stands around waiting for the mute guy to write down his thoughts on a pad of paper, and I was bored. Sorry, Duke, but this gets a 1.
I had seen this movie when I was a boy (Before WWII) and was surprised that the local library had a copy. Saw it again after some sixty years and forgot how bad it was. This is an example of a movie that was not a "A" movie. No editing, poor script, weak acting and not much directing. Should not even be as high as a "B" Had a laugh at how jaded I've become over the years. Seems to me I thought it was good when I originally saw it.
Okay, now I know where all those boring cop/homicide TV shows came from. I do believe they can be traced back to this movie. "Scene Of The Crime" feels more like a TV episode, or an episode of a serial. Complete with stock characters and situations - the hotshot cop who clashes with his superiors... the aging cop who doesn't want a desk job, despite failing eyesight... the reckless rookie... the double-crossing dame, etc.<br /><br />I like many of the actors here, and they do a good job, but overall I found this movie dull as I'm not a fan of the genre. I kept tuning out when they were discussing the case ...something about bookies and informers. And oh yeah, there was a stripper, played by the previously wholesome Gloria DeHaven. What I want to know is: Why did she keep calling Van Johnson "Uncle Wiggly"? Wasn't Uncle Wiggly a rabbit? A character from a children's book? What the heck does that have to do with anything? I guess I just don't get tough-guy Film Noir-ish kinda jargon.<br /><br />In fact, much of the dialogue made me mutter "nobody talks like that!" However, I could relate to one scene where the cop's wife (Arlene Dahl), who worries every time he goes to work, realizes that maybe she shouldn't have made her husband the center of her life. Yeah, I know that feeling of loving someone so much, being so dependent on them, that there's a constant fear for their safety. So there are moments of truth in this film, underneath the stylized dialogue and atmosphere which is trying so self-consciously to be gritty and REAL, that it actually seems unreal to me.<br /><br />A little background: this movie was made when Dore Schary took over MGM from Louis B. Mayer, and began to put an end to the wholesome musicals that made MGM so great. Dore Schary was determined to bring more "realism" to movies. I kinda hate Dore Schary. Maybe we can blame him for all the pretentious, bleak movies being made today, wallowing in the ugly "truths" about life, focusing on (and, in my opinion, helping to perpetuate) the worst of humanity rather than the best. No longer uplifting us the way classic movies were designed to do - providing a necessary distraction during the Great Depression and World War II.<br /><br />Well, damn it, we still need that kind of distraction today! There's still plenty of depression and plenty of war. And what are people turning to nowadays when they want to escape? Trashy, brain-deadening Reality TV. Thanks a lot, Dore!
This one's a doozy. Dating from 1949, Scene of the Crime often plays more like a Coen Bros. movie set in the 1940's and filmed in black and white, except that the writer's ear for pastiche here isn't quite so well-tuned -- maybe this can be seen instead as the forerunner to Oscar-baiting schlock like Road to Perdition. Frankly, it's a wonder that this film isn't considered a classic by film professors and critics everywhere, considering how much it offers in term of overly articulated mannerist thrills cloaked in false significance ( much like the grandaddy of all such "fake art" films, Citizen Kane, or anything by Murnau. ) <br /><br />MGM is usually a studio that can do no wrong in my eyes, and I think any story, any atmosphere, even "gritty realism," can only benefit from grotesque overaestheticization. You could say I'm a disciple of the Minnelli school. But it takes a certain light touch to write mannered tough-guy dialogue of the Dashiell Hammett stripe, a willingness, perhaps, to let maybe one or two scenes pass without a line like "Careful, Mr. Wiggly, or you'll have thirteen fish to fry and no little wormies to catch them with." I made most of that up -- "Mr. Wiggly," unfortunately, made the cut -- but believe me, the dialogue is just that loonily inflated and riddled with non sequiturs. Even the lead cop's wife played by Arlene Dahl speaks like she has a moon-shaped scar under one eye and the Christian name Rocco. By the time Van Johnson turns in his badge with the line, "I'm sick to death of death and homicide," you'll wonder how the writer's fixation with ornate literary devices -- in this case, zeugma -- could ever have been misconstrued as "street." <br /><br />For those who have outgrown The Naked Gun series, this is the funniest cops-n-robbers film going.
There are a whole lot of movies, primarily from the 80s, that are so terrible that you can't help but love them. The Last Slumber Party is one of those. I hate this movie so much, but it still remains one of the most watched movies in my collection. I have watched it countless times and get a huge laugh out of it every time. It is the prime example of how in the 80s, ANY movie could get released.<br /><br />Our killers name is Maniac Randles. (Scary, huh?) Randles is an escaped psychopathic killer running around in doctor's scrubs and a doctor's jacket hacking off people with a scalpel as he goes along. He ends up coming across a house of girls that are having a slumber party. One of the girls is the daughter of the doctor that tried to operate on Randle's, and Randle's ended up pulling him down in some kind of sexual position. (lol just watch the movie to know what I am talking about.) Now I know what you must be thinking at this point: This must be another cheesy low budget hack and slash flick like Slumber Party Massacre, or Valentine's Day Massacre, right? NO! This movie is HORRIBLE! First off, the quality of the film changes off and on throughout the film. Sometimes it will look like it could have been filmed this year, but other times it is so grainy and blurry that it isn't even watchable. The funny thing is that certain specific camera angles will be blurry and grainy, and other specific camera angles will be clear and perfect, which is absolutely ridiculous and proves that they did not care at all.<br /><br />The director played the killer (as if that wasn't funny enough) but because of the fact that he wasn't talented enough to act and direct at the same time, he just filmed one shot of him walking toward the camera with his scalpel, and then just replayed that clip over and over every time someone is killed.<br /><br />The characters in this movie are completely ridiculous and unlikable, and these people who are suppose to be ages 16-18 look more like they are 25-45. I know that slasher films commonly use adults as teenagers, but I have never seen a movie where it was THIS obvious. My guess is that the reason none of them are still in the film industry today is because they have all died of old age... Or maybe it was just because this movie was so horrible that they never wanted to show their faces again, and that is a good thing because I highly doubt that they could have gotten into any more movies even if they tried. All I can do is hope that Tyler will one day make THE LAST SLUMBER PARTY 2: THE FINAL CONFLICT and have all of the original actors return. I'm sure everyone would love that.<br /><br />The movie was directed by Stephen Tyler, (No, not the singer) who never went on to direct again, and it was released by B&S (which I am sure stands for bull and ****) Productions. Bull&S only released one more film, "Forever Evil," which was pretty awful, but not near as bad as Last Slumber Party.<br /><br />A horrible, horrible, horrible film... Highly recommended.
oh well... its funny. should have been a sadistic comedy, a lot of horror movies lack common sense,but i think a retarded caveman would weasel his way around this situation. Don't really expect Hitchcock or anything close to this. this is a good one for friends,but i wouldn't recommend it for anything else.this movie lacks all the substance of a true horror movie,the suspense,the shock,and good characters. the killer failed to be the unstoppable force that i expected him to be,and he seemed to be the average angry "D" student able to outsmart only stupid people. and the really funny thing is the horrible acting and the lack of emotion of the so called "victims"<br /><br />3/10 just expect this one in the daily funnies.
O boy, was this really bad.<br /><br />I saw this on videotape.<br /><br />In scenes that had soundtrack music, it was hard to hear the dialog. When people were on the telephone, it was hard to hear the person on the other end. It appeared that at least two different kinds of film or video stock were used, because the colors and focus sometimes shifted drastically between edits. And there were a lot of out of focus shots that didn't seem intentional.<br /><br />One indicator of the budget (one of many) was when a news report comes on TV. There is just a "news flash" title card badly superimposed with a video effect onto a TV screen, and a voice-over by a newscaster. They couldn't shoot footage of a newscaster, and then actually show it on the TV?<br /><br />The movie starts off with a killer wearing surgical scrubs and mask, wielding a scalpel. Supposedly he's a paranoid schizophrenic who escapes from the hospital to avoid having a lobotomy performed on him.<br /><br />Students are let out of school for a break, and three young women decide to have a slumber party. Three guys decide to crash the party, and a geek named Science decides to crash it too. The slumber party is pretty boring, and the guys just keep showing up randomly wearing masks, taking the masks off, and then disappearing. The mother and father (the surgeon who was to do the lobotomy) of one of the girls keep showing up too. The killer knocks slices people's throats without anyone really noticing. The apparent lead of the movie more or less sleepwalks through the movie. Perhaps that was bad acting, or maybe it was intentional, since much of the movie is a nightmare, and some of it a nightmare within a nightmare.<br /><br />The ending is really horrible too.<br /><br />The best thing about the movie is the cheesy United Home Video VHS box art, which was revived for the DVD release (a double feature with Terror at Tenkiller). I honestly can't tell if it is a photo, or a painting, or a combination of both. The women pictured on the cover are not in the movie, and the clothing they're wearing is way more revealing than anything the women in the movie wore. The throat slicing on the cover is scarier than the ones in the movie - where people tend to affect a goofy pop-eyed look. For that matter, that's what the killer has most of the time: head cocked, and eyes bugging out, mugging for the camera. Frequently the scalpel was held up close to the camera in focus, while the killer's mask-covered face was in close-up but out of focus in the background.
my friend and i rented this one a few nights ago. and, i must say, this is the single best movie i have ever seen. i mean, woah! "dude, we better get some brew before this joint closes" and "dude, linda's not wearin' a bra again." what poetry! woah! and it's such a wonderfuly original movie, too. i mean, you don't usually find a slasher film where every single murder is exactly the same. i mean, exactly! now that's originality. and almost all the transitions between scenes are these great close-ups of the psycho in the ER scrubs. how cool! the acting is so wonderful to. the dad was just brilliant. must have studied REAL DADS before filming. and how many movies do you find that just don't make any sense? not many. but this is one of those gems. i mean, how cool is it that one guy waited outside for like six hours to pull a prank, while his friends were both inside? that's really cool. overall i'd say this is the single greatest film of the genre, nay, in the world! *****
I got this on a double feature DVD called "Scream Theater" and it's no doubt one of the most terrible movies I've ever seen. And I've seen some really bad ones. School's out, and of three girls (who if they're teenagers I'd eat my hat) are talking about "non-stop party", so of course they all go to the house of the girl whose parents are the most strict for a slumber party. Meanwhile, a psychotic has escaped the local bug-house where one girl's father works & is on the loose with sharp objects and wearing green scrubs, and sporting wide-open eyes...I guess that's to show he's bonkers. Of course since he has a bone to pick with that particular doctor off he goes to his house, the location of which is apparently common knowledge. In the meantime, some dumb-jock types are slamming down beers and out to scare the girls, and of course the loony shows up too and starts cutting throats. And that's about it, as the heavy metal music chugs along in the background. Or, maybe that's not it, but really, that's all you need to know. Unless you spend your time perpetually stoned or drunk, you'll find little of interest here, and even if you are wasted most of the time, you'll still probably find your intelligence insulted. 1 out of 10.
I'm not even going to comment on what piece of trash this film is since that has already been established. However, watching this with my friends we all laughed out loud when the lead girl made a Shelley Hack reference while on the phone. We sat there trying to figure out why the writer would throw her into the mix. We can only assume he had a Charlie's Angels fixation at one time. Based on that reference, we assumed this film must have been made around her Charlie's Angels run in 1979 or 1980, but from what I've read here it was made around 1987. You sure couldn't tell that from the poor production values. It seems as though it was made by a college student for a film class. And while by no means would I expect a low-budget trash fest like this to be politically correct, the rednecks in this film sure did like to direct derogatory gay remarks to each other. Even so I'd still only rank this as the 2nd worst horror film ever made, second only to "Nail Gun Massacre."
I love cheesy horror movies, I think dead alive and bad taste are great and I think slumber party massacre II (not even related to this movie) are hilarious. But this movie absolutely stank, I didn't laugh, I didn't even enjoy it.. you can see all kinds of mistakes that aren't even campy. The best take of the scene where the woman leans out the window is the one where she smacks her head on the sill? Give me a break.<br /><br />Don't rent this thinking it's related to the slumber party massacre series. It's awful and I don't even have a clue how it got any distribution. Rent it with a fake name and burn it, do everyone else the favor.
So one day I was in the video store looking for a movie. I came across this and rented it because it was a film I hadn't seen or even heard of.<br /><br />Now I like slasher movies in general, but this is just abysmal, not even good for laughs. Besides being ultra ultra cheap and containing all slasher film cliches and terrible acting it has the most incompetent and inept direction I have ever come across. Now sometimes the aforementioned traits can be present in a film and some enjoyment can still be had, but not here. Painful example of home-made horror.
I thought Godzilla 2000 was the worst movie ever until I saw this monstrosity. My friends and I went to our local blockbuster and spent about an hour and a half looking for a movie. We could not find one since we have seen almost every movie created. We decided to look in the low budget horror section. We looked for the most attractive cover featuring scantily clad women. We finally decided on Last Slumber Party, THE. Whoops, we made a mistake. It seems as though this movie was filmed with the cheapest camera that could be found in K-Mart. The actors were picked up at a Salvation Army, and as for Steven Tyler. We will just leave that to the imagination. The plot of this movie was ridiculous. SPOILER ALERT While watching the movie there is absolutely no closure at all. Then come to find out all the events were just a dream. This movie should also have been about 30 minutes. If all the camera zooms on still shots, and scans of walls were taken out, it would have been much shorter. All I can say is I'm glad there wasnt a sequel.
I would most definitely have to say that this is the most terrible movie I have ever seen. It's not just the actors that are bad, but also the fact that the camera person taped the wall and the clocks for about 5 minutes at a time. Anyone that likes this must be crazy! THIS MOVIE IS A WASTE OF TIME
Now I've seen it all. Just when I thought it couldn't get any more pathetic and cheesy than "Woodchipper Massacre," just when I thought dialogue and acting couldn't get worse than "Nail Gun Massacre," just when I thought "Don't Go In The Woods" would retain its title as Lousiest Slasher Film Ever, along comes "THE LAST SLUMBER PARTY!" Somehow, this cheap, wretched manure manages to avoid lewdness, but it remains terrible! I couldn't believe my eyes--for once I can't complain about excessive (or in this case, any) nudity in a slasher film, but it still managed to make me crimson with embarrassment for renting it. Never before have I seen such horrible acting, dialect, direction, writing,....I could go on forever with this list! Here's a quick run-down:<br /><br />A mental patient somehow escapes from the loony bin, dresses up like a surgeon, somehow finds out where his doctor lives, and breaks in while the doctor's daughter is having friends over for the night. Then begins the most stupid killing spree (ripped off from other movies such as "Slumber Party Massacre" and Halloween") this side of the universe. The characters have negative IQs, which suggests they are not human. Then again, I guess they are not, since they have the tendency to bleed Kool-Aid when they get cut, as the slasher likes to show use when he holds up his scapel to the camera in WAY too many scenes. It is only 80 minutes...how many times must we look at that scapel like that before it consumes the whole movie?...which I suppose wouldn't be all that bad of an idea in this case! There is one moment where I thought maybe, just maybe, the director would make it interesting (a second killer was added), but alas! It was not to be! And then to insult even further, there is a stupid super cop-out sub-ending and an even stupider final conclusion. That probably doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but I would hate to give away the dumbest few scenes in movie history to those two or three fools (like me) dumb enough to rent this sewage.<br /><br />I sure hope that, by writing this, I have saved 80 minutes of someone's life. I get on my hands and knees to beg anyone still thinking about renting this: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DON'T! This is a fan of the slasher genre talking; I know what is good for you! The only real victims in this rattlebrained, asinine nonsense are the poor morons that have sat through the whole toilet tank! Zanatos's score...since there is no negative point scale, I have to give it a 1, but a below-average 1 at that. Avoid it at all costs....please!!!!
In my opinion of this movie the entire video portion of this movie was absolute trash!!!! However the soundtrack that was used contained the music of a great heavy metal rock band, I recognized the music as being a band called Firstryke and the album was "Just a Nightmare" and it was very well written!! and I am curious to see what the rest of you movie buffs out there think of it, if can remember back that far I would appreciate the feed back, I collect old movie, and obscure movie sound tracks. It is a very time consuming hobby but is very rewarding. I have seen this bands music being sold in Germany on the net for around fifty dollars per album. Not to bad Hugh?
While it would be easy and accurate to go into why 'Reba' is at its heart indicative of many 'family-oriented sitcoms' in the way it rips off from other better sitcoms, the real truth is that the show is repetitive, full of stereotypes from funnier and more groundbreaking shows, and the lead star is completely out of her element. While I'm sure Ms. McIntire can sing and has a fan base that supports that, being in a sitcom shooting out zingers and calling her the next Lucille Ball is far, far removed from reality.<br /><br />Reba herself has no presence which is needed here to establish the fact that she is cast as the put-upon woman of which her entire family is centered. Yet after watching a few episodes there is no real connection to the character. I could care less about her adventures because her whole character seems to be MIA. Reba McIntire has no screen presence, and to make a show around her seems very short-sighted and indicative of most 'family-oriented' programming: to push a sitcom full of men-stupid/women-do-everything stereotypes that appeal to nobody but those who can't afford cable.<br /><br />The show is a waste of time. The only good thing is that it at least has better production values than your standard PAX ripoff....just.
This show is made for persons with IQ lower than 80. The jokes in the show are so lame. If you are on a deserted island and you do not have anything to do you will be better than to watch this garbage.... You will hate their accent their behavior and all the stupid jokes and pranks they try to perform...It really pisses me of that viewers gave Reba 6.7 on their voting...Sure i knew there are some people with IQ lower than 80 but what i did not know that there are so many of them! So people if you got to read this I hope that you will never ever download or buy this peace of garbage... I know it is not the place for his but i wish to recommend one much better mini-series 'Scrubs'
Does anyone else think that "Reba" is basically a ripoff of "Roseanne"? Just look at the characters from the two families, Connors (Roseanne) and Harts (Reba) ; the blonde bombshell elder daughter (Becky Connor and Cheyenne Hart) who's married to a moron (Mark Healy and Van Montgomery), the sarcastic brunette younger daughter (Darlene Connor and Kyra Hart), the little brother (DJ Connor and Jake Hart), and the quirky relative (Jackie Connor and Barbara-Jean Booker Hart). <br /><br />And then, of course, there is the biggest similarity, Reba Hart and Roseanne Connor. "Reba" tried to copy the sarcastic and tough-love style mom without giving her the same lovable qualities as Roseanne had. Or, perhaps, they made her *too* lovable, for Reba Hart seems to waver between being mean and scary (hence Van's line to his wife Cheyenne "I'm not afraid of you, I'm afraid of your mother!") and being sweet and caring with little transition in between. Roseanne at least managed to get it across that she was being cruel to be kind, since she was always mean and sarcastic and, whenever she tried to open up, it was hard for her. As inconsistent as Reba's character is, it's hard for her to be believable. <br /><br />But even if the characters weren't completely ripped off of "Roseanne", nothing could've saved the show from being sub-par in the plot area. The writers try to give the show substance but they really can't lay off the corny jokes long enough to give any impact. And you'd better believe the jokes are corny; it's as if they were written by a twelve-year-old who thinks that any joke is hilarious. While occasionally they come out with something that's funny (I don't pretend that I didn't laugh at a few episodes) these gems are too few and far between to make "Reba" witty. <br /><br />Overall, "Reba" is a very mediocre show with obvious ripoffs of "Roseanne", sub-par plots and sub-sub-par humor, and (let's face it) terrible acting. The show might be a bit better, actually, if they replaced all the actors, especially Reba herself, who is more community- theater quality than prime-time sitcom quality. <br /><br />I give it a 3 out of 10 just to be fair to the good jokes that make it in.
I pretty much liked every character on this show from the start except Reba herself. She comes off as an holier than thou type and quite frankly a big Bully. And that stinks because she is in every scene and every episode. In the later seasons Van becomes unlikeable too,like a spoof of his former self. and Kyra walks around sneering and being miserable.The first 3 to 4 seasons are pretty good if you overlook Reba. Towards the end its pretty bleak.. In basically every episode Barbara jean Is walking around being dumb,Reba is being mean to her,but poor Ole Barbara jean desperately wants Reba to like her which results in Barabara jean telling Reba how awesome she is in every episode. I think it is pretty clear to see Reba has self esteem issues and wants to be seen as this all forgiving saint. Its really a shame too because other than her the show had such potential.
this really is an "okay" series.. everyone in it is pretty good. but i just can't take Reba. she's trying to be funny but she just isn't and then she got a stupid accent!! if they took her out of the show i would love to see it every day..<br /><br />i have been watching the show in 10 min now and as i said before, Reba IS destroying the show. however the 20 year old guy (dont know his name) but he's soooo funny, and he's really saving it all..<br /><br />so here's the recipe to get a great show. kick Reba of it and then put the 20 year old guy into the lead role.<br /><br />i really hope someone out there agrees with me and thinks (like me) that they should kick Reba of the show and put someone else in the lead role
Reba sucks. It sucks hard. It's about this awful country singer attempting comedy. They might as well call this show "Generic", because that's what it is. It's dumb and generic. Reba, you're not funny, and I'm glad your retarded show was cancelled because you suck, and so does Brock, Barbra Jean, the red-headed teenager, that jockey guy, and the 12 year old who got knocked up. You all suck, and none of you are funny. Oh, and I heard a rumor that Reba is actually a gay devil-worshipper who idolizes Hitler and tortures animals. And she puts subliminal messages on her show and in her "music" in hopes to make children kill their parents and kill themselves! But it was just a rumor. Anyway, this is the worst show ever, Reba is gay, I do not like her, I think The Office is better than this show, and this show sucks.
Reba is , without a doubt , one of the worst "comedy" series ever. I wonder how come there are people writing good comments on "Reba" ... You watch "Friends" , "Married Wtih Children" , "Fraizer" if you laugh at that , you can never laugh at the stupid jokes and the ridiculous accent of the singer who is trying to make her way in comedy and obviously having no chance whatsoever. The actors/actresses beside Reba are OK so I feel bad for them stucking in a so-called comedy show with the least funnies person in the world (Reba).To sum up , I suggest this TV Show to see how low comedy can get and appreciate the ones that can make you laugh
Reba is a very dumb show. You can predict pretty much anything that's about to happen. Barbra Jean is just too stupid. It's like she's not even a character. A show like this should at least have SOMEONE who resembles a real-life person. I guess Barbra Jean represents a retarded person. Keira or whatever her name is, Reba, Brock, they're all stupid! Keira is like the smartest person on the show, and she's still stupid. EVERYONE IS STUPID! That's my opinion on Reba. Since I have said all I can say about this show, I'll just take up the next few lines of text by saying what I am currently saying right now and do it until there's 10 lines. There. Reba gets 2/10.
My parents may enjoy this show, but I fail to find the humor in it. What is so funny about a dentist husband impregnating his hygienist assistant and the oldest daughter getting impregnated by the captain of the high school football team? Absolutely nothing! It's a shock to me sometimes what people think constitutes humor nowadays. Blame that on shows like "The Dating Game" and "The Newlywed Game" bringing the issue of sex to the forefront in the mid-1960s. Sure, the series has its touching moments, still that's no excuse for the content that otherwise went into this series. This is nothing like the family-oriented days of "I Love Lucy" some five decades before. <br /><br />An answer I would have to why this series plays on the Lifetime cable channel is because that channel's brass think women can relate to Reba's character! I absolutely dislike the character of Reba Hart's daughter, Kyra. She is best described as a ditsy and bitter teenager! Funny, I wonder if the actress who played Kyra; Scarlett Pomers, is like that in real life away from acting. Who plays the blockhead ex-husband dentist, Christopher Rich, is not much better. Barbara Jean, played by Melissa Peterman, is ditsy in herself! The characters of Van and Cheyenne are also very annoying.<br /><br />Something else that baffles me is why the dingbat-of-a-series creator, Allison M. Gibson, decided to set the series in where I live 25 miles away from; Houston, Texas! Reba McEntire isn't even from this state, she's an Oklahoman! Why is it during one season or more they decided to make the incidental music sound like a pig snorting? What I mean by that is where we hear this baritone saxophone being played with drums accompanying it, but the melodies are basically tuneless!
Oh f*cking hell, where should I start... First of all; this show is just another stupid American non-funny so called comedy which has pathetic acting and very very poor humor. The American way of laughing-track business makes the whole thing even worse. How come I can hear laughter, yet there's nothing funny happening? Pretty stupid, eh? This show is only for those American people who haven't ever heard that there are far more funnier, better and wittier comedies - not only in Great Brittain, but also in America (The Simpsons for example). I simply can't understand what is so good about "Reba" that it has lasted for long a while in television. It has nothing new to offer, it underestimates the (possible) viewers in so many ways and it simply isn't funny at all. I could have lived with the fact that there are so bad shows as "Reba", but why the hell they had to run it here in Finland. If I see few seconds of this horrible show the rest of the day is ruined for me. Take my word and believe me - this show sucks ass even more than these kind of American "comedies" usually does. This is simply horrible. Do yourself a favor; don't ever watch this peace of sh*t. <br /><br />Well I leave the commenting for those who now this language better. Thanks for your (possible) interest.
Ik know it is impossible to keep all details of a book in a movie. But this movie has changed nearly everything without any reason. Furthermore many changes have made the story illogical. A few examples: 1) in the movie "Paul Renauld" really meets Poriot before he dies (in the book Poirot only gets a letter), telling him he is afraid to be killed. This is completely stupid because if Renaulds plan would have succeeded, Poirot would have known that the dead man would not have been Renauld.(Poirot was in the morgue when Mrs Renauld identified the victim). 2) The movie has "combined" two persons into one! "Cinderella" has been removed by the movie. The girl Hastings falls in love with and the ex-girlfriend of Jack Renauld are one person in the movie! Why for god's sake? 3)Hastings finds the victims cause he is such a bad golf player. Totally unfunny and stupid. 4) The movie tells secrets much too early (for example at the very beginning). So you know things you shouldn't know. 5) The murderer gets shot at the end by a person who doesn't exists in the book. Perhaps because the person ("cinderella") who stops the murderer does not exists in the movie. 6)The book is very complex. The movie takes only about 90 minutes. Sure it is difficult to include all the necessary details but it is impossible if you include stupid things which were not in the book and have no meaning (e.g. bicycle race).
Imagine yourself trapped inside a museum of the dark middle Ages and a resurrected vampire and his maniacal sidekick are chasing you. Where is the absolute last place you want to hide? I'd say inside the uncanny Virgin of Nuremberg torture device, because there's a good risk you'll get brutally spiked to death. And yet, the elderly lady in this film stupidly runs into her spiked coffin. "The Vampire's Coffin" is a rather disappointing sequel, as director Fernando Méndez doesn't re-create the Gothic atmosphere of the 1957-original but puts the emphasis on comical situations and dialogs. No more ominous castles with eerie cobwebs and dark vaults, but confused doctors and clumsy assistants that provoke laughs instead of frights. The story opens inside Count de Lavud's final resting place, where an eminent doctor and a hired assistant steal the coffin in order to examine the corpse at a private clinic. Naturally the wooden stake gets removed from his heart, and the vampire count comes to live again, immediately enslaving the petty thief to do his dirty work. The vampire has his eye on a beautiful female patient at the clinic, and it's up to Dr. Enrique Saldívar to rescue her soul and to destroy the bloodsucker. "The Vampire's Coffin" uses a limited amount of locations and there's very little action. The whole film would actually be pretty boring if it weren't for a handful of memorable sequences and decent acting performances. The photography is amazing, though, with the sublime use of shadows and darkness. This is most notably during the scene in which Count de Lavud stalks a young woman through the deserted streets of little town at night. It's the only truly worthwhile scene of the whole film, the rest is fairly mediocre and déjà-vu.
Describing this film is a difficult task. On the one hand, it's an over-the-top vampire spookfest, complete with cobwebs, eerie music, a hypnotic medallion, and of course a coffin with a creaky lid.<br /><br />On the other hand, this is one of the silliest scripts this side of Edward D. Wood, Jr. Produced by the same people who gave us "The Bloody Vampire," "Invasion of the Vampires," and this film's predecessor, the modestly-titled "The Vampire," the movie sticks close to the lack of logic that characterizes the other films.<br /><br />As I mentioned, this film is a sequel to "The Vampire," which I have not seen. But no matter...it's real easy to imagine what happened. Dr. Enrique, played by Abel "The Brainiac" Salazar, is befuddled when the well-intentioned but misguided Dr. Marion brings back the staked body of his vampiric enemy, Count Karol de Lavud (I suppose there is a rule somewhere that all vampires must be Counts of some sort). Dr. Marion complains that all important doctors throughout history have had to resort to some sort of grave robbing in order to advance their medical studies, and he hopes to use the vampire's corpse to study such phenomena as the vampire's lack of a normal reflection (at which point he holds a mirror up to the vampire and instead of no reflection, we see the vampire's skeleton. ???).<br /><br />Enrique is not pleased, and seems determined to pass off the events of the first film as mere fantasy and superstition. "This man was no vampire...I'll admit that he liked to drink a little blood, but that's all!" he states. Also confusing matters is the fragile Martha, a part-time nurse and part-time showgirl (!) who happens to be Enrique's object of affection. Martha narrowly escaped de Lavud's clutches in the first film, and apparently Enrique has spent a great deal of time "healing her mind" and getting her to think that everything that she experienced was not real.<br /><br />OK, so if you were the scriptwriter for this film, you would need a way to get someone dumb enough to pull the stake out of the vampire, right? Well, how about the greedy con man who helped Marion steal the coffin? After getting a glimpse de Lavud's body, he sets his sights on the expensive-looking brooch that the Count is wearing, and he conveniently returns to steal it when the doctors aren't looking. But darn it...he can't remove the brooch because of the stake, so...you guessed it. De Lavud is on the loose again, this time with the shady con as his human henchman.<br /><br />OK, so of course the vampire is after Martha again, and meanwhile the doctors are really confused about what they believe. At first they are determined to prove that there is no such thing as a real vampire, then by the end of the film they are trying to get the police to put an all-points bulletin out for "a man who is dead but still alive!".<br /><br />You can probably imagine the rest of the plot from here, but the filmmakers do throw in a few pleasing twists. One of the sets for the movie is a spooky wax museum (is there any other kind in these types of films?), complete with a fully-equipped torture chamber...with REAL torture and execution equipment. The movie has a very keen sense of style, and not just in the campy cobwebs. One effectively creepy sequence has de Lavud chasing a victim down a seemingly endless series of streets and alleyways, following their progress alongside vague buildings with no doors while lighting the scene like a German expressionist nightmare ("The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" seems to be an influence).<br /><br />But the rest of the film is juvenile, particularly in the film's climax. The special effects are quite crude, even for the year that this was made, and the climactic fight with de Lavud in bat form is laughable enough...but the director feels the need to ask us to believe that Martha would faint and collapse directly over top of a guillotine, positioned so that her head was in the perfect location to be chopped off by the blade, which is in danger of falling because the restraining rope has suddenly begun to fray RIGHT AT THAT VERY MINUTE! What an unfortunate coincidence! To make matters worse, he cuts away from the fraying rope to scenes of Enrique trying to dodge the swooping rubber bat, basically standing still and waving his arms around. It's definitely an Ed Wood moment if ever there was one, especially when Martha seems to revive on her own and rises groggily to her feet just as the blade slams down. Whew! What a relief! In terms of kookiness, "The Vampire's Coffin" does not have the lunacy factor of "The Bloody Vampire" or "Invasion of the Vampires", but fans of these types of old horror films will appreciate the atmospheric photography, and the fact that the director manages to wring some real chills from this material has to "Count" for something (haw haw).
Natalie Wood portrays Courtney Patterson, a polio disabled songwriter who attempts to avoid being victimized as a result of involvement in her first love affair, with her partner being attorney Marcus Simon, played tepidly by Wood's real-life husband, Robert Wagner. The film is cut heavily, but the majority of the remaining scenes shows a very weak hand from the director who permits Wagner to consistently somnambulate, laying waste to a solid and nuanced performance from Wood, who also proffers a fine soprano. The script is somewhat trite but the persistent nature of Wagner's dramatic shortcoming is unfortunately in place throughout, as he is given a free hand to impose his desultory stare at Wood, which must be discouraging to an actress. The progression of their relationship is erratically presented and this, coupled with choppy editing, leads the viewer to be less than assured as to what is transpiring, motivation being almost completely ignored in the writing. Although largely undistinguished, the cinematography shines during one brief scene when Wood is placed in a patio and, following the sound of a closing door, remains at the center while the camera's eye steadily pulls away demonstrating her helplessness and frailty. More controlled direction would have allowed the performers, even the limp Wagner, to scale their acting along the lines of an engaging relationship; as it was released, there is, for the most part, an immense lack of commitment.
THE AFFAIR is a very bad TV movie from the 1970s starring the then-husband-wife team of Robert Wagner and Natalie Wood as hesitant lovers. She has polio and leads a reclusive existence as a pop song writer. He's an ambitious lawyer who is very outgoing and absolutely smitten with her. Their affair, such as it is, is doomed from the start, and she knows it, but goes along with it anyway. Two things to watch for if you are trapped into watching this: Wood's Jane Fonda hairdo that is never mussed, no matter what, and a tune she sings early in this dreadful flick. She sings it for four or five or six minutes, so you know it's classic padding between commercials. It also is one of the worst songs ever written, and the woman doing Wood's singing voice should have been shot and put out of her misery. Also, keep an eye out for all the peasant tops and dresses. By comparison, Wagner looks relatively timeless, with close-cropped hair and sporting a series of classic suits.
This is what Disney Channel shows to kids who are dumber than posts. It suits them well. It's not funny, the acting is the worst I've seen in many years, there are more stereotypes than there are actors, and everything about this show makes you groan and roll your eyes. Wanna know why? Not only is this show a waste of airtime, the lead "actress" Selena Gomez looks like a pig. Jake T. Austin's character needs some Ritalin. David Henrie's character needs to visit a strip club and get wasted. Also, the writer of the show is inconsistent. In one episode, the security guard is called "sir" by one character and referred to as a woman by all else. <br /><br />Hello? It's called proofreading and editing. Do it sometime, Disney. <br /><br />Has anyone seen the promo for the new "four part bloodsucking saga"? Disney wanted their own version of the Twilight vs. Harry Potter thing. Except a million times lamer. The Wizards of Waverly Place Movie?? Think about it for a minute. Family goes away on vacation and 16 year old daughter wants independence from parents. SAME PLOT from The Proud Family Movie etc...<br /><br />What's worse is all the Emmies and ALMA'S it got. And most of the audience are some-what age's 4-13 (And no life teenagers). how many more years? before selena gomez is showing her tits?<br /><br />and Disney shows are all crap..hack writers..hack shows..destroying the minds and wallets of today's youth..
I have no idea why people are so crazy about the show. It is so boring. The jokes are not even close to what we usually say funny. It's like, Alex say something that is not funny nor interesting and then suddenly there's a laughing sound background. My friend and I just looked at each other with blank look as if we asked each other, "What's so funny?!!". Seriously, every time we watched that show, you wouldn't hear any laughing or coughing. Just a blank look. So we stop watching it. I am personally a fan of sitcoms, so I tried to watch the show. But the show us such a disappointment. This show might be one of the worst comedy sitcom ever...
If you wondered whether Disney could broadcast a show with a character more spoiled than Paris, more shallow than Britney, more vapid than Jessica and more narcissistic than THE GIRLS NEXT DOOR, wonder no more. The amazing thing is Selena Gomez is, apparently, supposed to be the heroine. She's also supposed to be an outcast from the spoiled, shallow, vapid, narcissistic "popular" girls at school, which is no more believable here than it was for Hilary Duff in LIZZIE McGUIRE. Plots range from recycled BEWITCHED & I DREAM OF JEANNIE to "parodies" of HARRY POTTER. The older boy alternates between being a magical genius and being unable to master the complexities of his own shoelaces. The younger boy is just another of the smart-mouth "wisecracking" brats who have multiplied on TV like cockroaches in New York (and with the same appeal). The dad is the stereotypical dumb TV dad, and the mom... well, she's not totally awful. But all pales beside the hideous, loathsome, and yet horribly fascinating (like a bad car accident) spectacle of Ms. Lopez' smug, self-satisfied, snotty performance . And, again, she's the HEROINE.
You might think that a show about regular teens with superpowers would be interesting, but it's far from that. Take the concept for example: the main character(s) have a big secret that they hide from they're peers. It's just like Hannah Montana and That's So Raven. Next, the acting is just average. Selena Gomez seems to be half asleep through many scenes. Lastly, the jokes are either cliché or boring. If they're not using they're colorful, yet strange dialog to make us "laugh", they are throwing various props around the room. I really wish this show would use more original and entertaining material. In conclusion, Wisards of Waverly Place is a disappointment.
For a series that was inspired by Kolchak, it's ironic that The X Files first attempt at a vampire episode should land squarely on it's ass. 3 has always puzzled me and - at the risk of sounding like the dreadful Hans Keller - I've often wondered if I'm missing the point. The story feels like a jigsaw that has pieces that don't match the box, and the result is you spending a cosy evening by the fire trying to match sky that is really sea. This incomplete feeling remains no matter how many times you revisit the episode and no matter how much attention you give it. I know that this review puts me in danger of being dragged to Whitby by teenage vampires who'll drink my blood while listening to Busted, but that's a risk I'm willing to take. I've always been a werewolf man myself.
I enjoyed the prequels, and found the relationship between Tucker and Chan previously hilarious. RH3, however, was a re-hash of the first two without the charm or humor. I think I may have laughed once - and it was during the NGs. Tucker was exceedingly annoying in this film, and his character didn't seem to have any purpose other than to bungle everything up in the most irritating way possible. Chan is always likable, but he seemed tired in this film. I was able to predict EVERYTHING - who the villain was, who the girl was, (SPOILER ALERT) who the good-guy-turned-bad-guy was, etc. I hope to see more movies from Tucker and Chan in their separate endeavors, but not in any more Rush Hour sequels. It's just too tired. I recommend a rental, but not a purchase.
When naïve young Eddie Hatch, a window dresser at Savory's Department Store, falls for a statue of Venus and gives her a chaste kiss, Venus steps off her pedestal and gives Eddie more than he bargained for. This creaking example of what Hollywood can do to a Broadway musical manages to emphasize the inane story and eliminate most of the first-rate songs. The purpose was to make a safe, popular movie without too much investment while capitalizing on Ava Gardner's upward mobility to super stardom. Robert Walker as Eddie gets lost in a thankless role. Eddie's not just naive, but dithering and hapless. Gardner is gorgeous, but the only things that give the movie any life are Olga San Juan as Eddie's loving but jealous girl friend, Tom Conway as the suave owner of Savory's and Eve Arden as Savory's long time, wise cracking secretary. It's a role Arden could play in her sleep, and she's good at it. <br /><br />The musical opened on Broadway in 1943 and made Mary Martin a big-time star. The only point of a musical, however, is to have music. Since One Touch of Venus was intended to be a social satire of sorts, Kurt Weill, composing, and Ogden Nash writing the lyrics, came up with a series of stylish, witty songs and one masterpiece. Without the satire, or the clever songs or Martin (or an equivalent showstopper), the movie becomes just a weak comedy fantasy where much of the comedy is predictable and the fantasy is worked to death. <br /><br />Not only did the producers of the movie toss out almost all the Weill/Nash songs, they brought in the movie's music director, Ann Ronell, to write new lyrics for one of the songs that survived, turning sharp observation into lovey-dovey romance. Ronell was no hack; she wrote Willow Weep for Me. Wonder what she thought about while she replaced or tweaked Ogden Nash's clever work. <br /><br />The one bright spot in the movie is that Weill/Nash masterpiece. "Speak Low" is as great a love song as anyone ever wrote. It's given one of those ultra-professional and lifeless treatments by Eileen Wilson dubbing Gardner. Dick Haymes contributes a chorus. <br /><br />As for Ann Ronell, she was one of the few women in Hollywood to become a major music director, as well as composer and lyric writer. Yours for a Song: The Women of Tin Pan Alley is a fascinating documentary of some of the women who made it in the business, including Ronell, Kay Swift, Dorothy Fields and Dana Suess. And for those who would like to hear what little of the Weill/Nash score was recorded by the original Broadway cast, you might be able to track down the CD, One Touch Of Venus (1943 Original Cast) / Lute Song (1946 Original Cast). The music is paired with Lute Song, another Broadway show that starred Martin.
I'll never understand why when a studio like Universal buys a musical it then butchers it when bringing it to screen. My first thought when seeing Ava Gardner and Robert Walker were starring I would be seeing something from MGM which did musicals best at that time. Boy was I wrong and disappointed.<br /><br />One Touch Of Venus which starred Mary Martin, Kenny Baker, and John Boles on Broadway ran for 567 performances in the 1943-1945 season and Gardner, Walker, and Tom Conway play the roles that Martin, Baker, and Boles did on stage. The Kurt Weill-Ogden Nash musical with book by Nash and S.J. Perelman was a comeback vehicle for Mary Martin who reestablished herself as the Queen of Broadway after a disappointing venture in Hollywood. <br /><br />Look at the names that went into this show. Given who was responsible for the book I expected to see some sparkling wit in this production. Instead I got a rather pedestrian screenplay, it was like all the wit was drained out of it. Doing her best to make up for it is Eve Arden playing her usual girl Friday role with Tom Conway, but it's even too much for Eve.<br /><br />The story concerns department store window dresser Robert Walker who kisses a very valuable statue of Venus who springs to life in the person of Ava Gardner. Of course when the statue goes missing, Conway yells for the law and is suspicious of Walker, the last person to be with the statue. <br /><br />The rest of the film is Walker dealing with Gardner and what will happen to both of them. For reasons I don't understand, Ava was of course dubbed by Eileen Wilson and Walker sings only a couple of lines. The singing is carried by Dick Haymes and Olga San Juan playing Walker's friends and coworkers. Of course on Broadway the songs were done by singers Mary Martin and Kenny Baker. You would kind of think that Haymes would be playing Walker's role at least. It was awkward to say the least.<br /><br />Only three songs survived from the score, Don't Look Now, But My Heart Is Showing, That's Him, and the incomparable Speak Low. Haymes's silken baritone is shown to best advantage in Speak Low which was sung as a duet by Martin and Baker on Broadway. For some reason the lyrics of one of the greatest men of verse of the last century, Ogden Nash, were done over by Ann Ronnell. I suspect the infamous Code was at work here.<br /><br />In Lee Server's biography of Ava Gardner he makes mention of a brief fling Ava had with Robert Walker when she had had a spat with her current man, Howard Duff. When Duff and Gardner reunited, Walker took it badly and didn't speak at all to Gardner off camera. I'm sure the fact that both of them were not in their best work didn't help matters either.<br /><br />Hopefully some repertoire company will do One Touch Of Venus and you'll get to see it the way, Weill, Nash, and Perelman wrote it.
This is, arguably, the worst of the major Ava Gardner films. Yes, she is gorgeous. But that can wear thin over time, especially after the corny and predictable movie ending.<br /><br />In this turkey, Robert Walker has to pretend that he's Eddie Bracken (which surely embarrassed him). Olga San Juan plays the Jane Powell (golly, gee) part. Dick Haymes plays a sort of dim sidekick (!), and Eve Arden plays Helen Broderick (and a host of other wise-cracking female semi-comedians). Yes, the film contains a major popular song, "Speak Low." But check out the other, entirely forgettable, pieces. Dick Haymes sings very well, of course, and so does the uncredited vocalist dubbing for Ava.<br /><br />The sets are cheap, the script is filled with clichés and failed humor, and Tom Conway looks as though he has been battling with liquor (as indeed he was). In short, if you want to see Ava in her prime, buy a photo and stay well clear of this movie.
I cant go for long describing this tittle, simply because I do not feel strong about it. I read a few comments and I see that only proud and patriotic Frenchmen seem to like it, that's all I can say...<br /><br />Boring Long Sometimes even stupid...<br /><br />p.s. 7.4 out of 10, the viewers must be going crazy<br /><br />I cant go for long describing this tittle, simply because I do not feel strong about it. I read a few comments and I see that only proud and patriotic Frenchmen seem to like it, that's all I can say...<br /><br />Boring Long Sometimes even stupid...<br /><br />p.s. 7.4 out of 10, the viewers must be going crazy
This movie really is that bad, and I'm normally a sucker for bad movies, but this was too much. Seeing this is like OD'ing on pure SUCK. Now, you may think you've seen the bottom of the barrel. You may have waded through every title from Full Moon and Troma, all the movies of Edward D. Wood Jr, Uwe Boll, Albert Pyun and direct to DVD-flicks from faded men-of-action. You may even have seen Death Tunnel, Ghost Lake and a vast array of the movies that MST3K covered, but in their original form. But you do not know truly awful film-making until you have seen Darkhunters. And if you haven't, you shouldn't. Don't bother. Not only is this movie amazingly poorly written, directed, shot, edited, acted and splattered in crude, cheap aftereffects. First of all, it's a pretentious mess. But not good, Greenaway or Lynch-style pretentious or hilariously messy in an Ittenbach or early Waters sort of fashion. It's the kind of pretentiousness that comes when someone incredibly stupid thinks they've come up with something incredibly smart. Sort of like M. Night Shaymalan (sp?), only that man seems like a freakin' messiah when compared to this trainwreck (and this coming from a rampant Shaymalan hater). It's also boring. Not heavy going-type boring, which is okay, if the movie awards your patience. Darkhunters does no such thing. It's boring in a "Oh my fu(king God, if I see another shot of a cat set to an obnoxious audio cue I am going to fu(king kill myself!"-kind of way.<br /><br />Btw. anyone who claims to like this film is a boldfaced liar and anyone who claims this film is complex or deep knows what their mother is like in bed.
First of all, I really can't understand how some people "enjoyed" this movie. It's the worst thing I have ever seen. Even the actors seem to be bored...and I think that says it all!<br /><br />However, I have to give my applause to the opening credits creators - that team seems to have a really good future. That's why I recommend the big studios to watch ONLY the opening credits, and one or two special effects sequences (if they're watched outside this movie, it almost looks like a good movie).<br /><br />Better luck (or judgment) next time for the producers of this, this... this "thing!".
Hm. Where do I start? I usually ignore whatever rating IMDb has when looking up a movie because I think I might like it anyway or whatever and I should at least give it a chance, but this time I wish I'd paid attention.<br /><br />I know some people liked it, and I'm not trying to say that they shouldn't. It was semi-amusing at some parts. But if you're like me and you don't like watching cats prancing around in the undergrowth for 20 minutes, random fast motion cloud scenes, dogs barking in cages for another 20 minutes set to 'thrilling' music, and close-ups of faces while people are speaking, then you might want to avoid this movie. The actors were either positively wooden or way over the top, and the film quality was awful, fuzzy and grainy and bland and not in an artistic way at all. And I know that we were supposed to think that Carol was not just a crazy maniac with a gun shooting innocent people with this weird religious psychosis going on, but... well, she doesn't really convince me otherwise. In fact, I ended up really disliking her crazy character. And what was up with the souls in space? I understand this is a fantasy movie, but come on.<br /><br />I will say, the angel at the end was freaking creepy. It was the creepiest thing in the whole movie, WAY more creepy than the Darth Maul lava-face demon. I give them props for that scene, it was good. But not good enough to actually see the movie. And the opening credits were great, but don't be fooled! I would've rather they used whatever money went into those credits to make the movie better.<br /><br />Bah. I wish I hadn't bought this for even the $2 that I paid for it, I could have bought a candy bar instead. :/
This is truly one of the most awful movies of all time. It's dull, ponderous, badly acted, and teeth crawlingly pretentious.<br /><br />I watched for about an hour waiting for some kind of drama to unfold, before realising there wasn't any. The shot on a shoe string budget was particularly painful. These have to be the worst day for night shots since Plan Nine from Outer Space.<br /><br />The only barely redeeming feature is the ludicrous 'demons' wandering around the countryside with a plastic cat basket. How scary is that? And I did like the moggys used as extras, I suppose they are least cheap. Though it did seem a bit obvious that they had been enticed into camera by the careful placement of some tuna.<br /><br />This film is so dreadful, it should have a public health warning. There was a queue at my local video store when I took it back, of people demanding their money back. I kid you not!
It's hard and I didn't expect it... But it's really the worst film, me and my wife saw. Awful dialogs that extend incomprehensibly through time without any apparent reason except to fill time. The storytelling doesn't follow a comprehensive intelligibly way… everything is a mess. The action and the dialogs appear at jumps. The thing that disappointed me most was to see Dominique Pinon one of my French favorite actors involved in this… uh… I don't even know how to describe it without being polite… The rest of the actors where at the most poor. Susan Paterno made a terrible interpretation of her character, making a flat inexpressive performance. Poor special effects. I don't think that it was a complete waste of film but it's close to… If I'm to say I would advise everyone not to see this movie. I think it would be a complete waste of time. Sincerely I never though I would say something like that about a movie but… there's always a first time.
At what point does a film become so bad it's good? Compelling in it's awfulness, Darkhunters stands out as a shining example of c**p cinematography and for that alone, probably deserves some kind of award.<br /><br />The plot revolves around the age old battle of Heaven and Hell for the unclaimed souls of the recently dead. In the case of Darkhunters, the representatives of good and evil manifest themselves variously as a herd of cats, a hooded Grim Reaper figure with a face of flickering flames similar to a coal effect electric fire, a Philip Marlowe-a-like with a seriously bad manicure and a female psychologist who appears to be on day-release from Kwik-Save.<br /><br />The protagonists are competing for the soul of a newly dead teacher who spends most of the film running around a foggy field and bizarrely, a boarding kennels in an attempt to evade his pursuers.<br /><br />The plot is spread thinner than a dieter's sandwich with no character development or attempt to build suspense. The acting is laughable, comparable to a school play - although that would be an insult to many educational establishments. And the dialogue .......... oh, how my sides ached! With the unclaimed souls of the dead being described as "life's unwanted gherkins" by the flame-glow demon, you wonder whether Hell really is a McDonalds.<br /><br />But is is bizarrely compelling, you find yourself watching just to see how bad it can get - at just over 80 minutes, it's worth the time spent for the unintentional giggles.
It's a shame. There's an interesting idea here, but it gets completely lost in a confusion of Commodore 64 style computer effects and bad storytelling. The plot, such as it is, concerns a bounty hunter of souls. It should be a fairly straightforward hunter/hunted kind of story, but the director and/or the writer seem like they forgot what the movie was supposed to be when they were about three days into shooting. Things aren't helped by the fact that the main baddie looks like he's wearing a cheap Darth Maul mask, which they tried to disguise with flowing CG colors. Not much to recommend here, even the title seems to propel it into obscurity.
I don't even understand what they tried to accomplish with this movie, i mean really. You got this guy running from a bunch of cats, because he's dead, but in order to be really dead this girl has to shoot them? And they leave a corpse even though normal people can't see them because their dead? The script already has a hole in it the size of Nebraska, then you have the main character played by Susan Paterno who just drones up her lines in a monotone, boring voice and with so little emotion on her face she might as well have starred as a female terminator robot. It's absolutely horrendous and I don't even understand how I managed to see it all the way to the end of the movie. The end being just as stupid as the entire movie mind you, and with absolutely no reward in it for the viewer what so ever. They might as well have called this movie "the little movie that could choo-choo ka-choo."
Hey guys and girls! Don't ever rent, or may God forbid, buy this piece of garbage. I have rarely seen a film in any genre as bad as this one. The acting is actually worse than me and my friends did when we were 7 and in the 1.grade had to act in front of all parents and siblings. In fact, we would have been taken up to evaluation for the Oscars, if we were to be compared to the actors in Darkhunters. The story is terrible, the makeup is terrible, the filming is terrible, the set is terrible, the directing is terrible, etc. I can't actually find ANYTHING worth the money spent to see this film.. Maybe except all the cats, which my girlfriend thought were kind of cute. Please, use your money on other things than on this film.... I couldn't even see the last 15-20 minutes of the film, it was that terrible.. If anyone really liked this film, I would REALLY like to hear from you, and I will try to see if I can get you some counseling at a psychiatrist's office near you..<br /><br />0 out of 10, actually below if possible.. Not worth the DVD or tape it is on..
This one and the one prior "Toulon's Revenge" and the next one seem to be completely different from the first two movies where the puppets were not so nice. It is basically choose your series, the first two go together and paint the puppets as killers, while the next three are a series of them being the good guys. This one plays out to much like some cheesy television series episode to be as good as part three was and I never really had the urge to try and watch part five of the series. Basically, a kid gets the puppets while some strange dark lord or something sends his evil puppets out to kill, this dark lord looks like some sort of enemy from one of those live action Japanese shows like Ultraman. The movie is over before you know it though so it has to get credit for not inflicting you with a very painful to watch movie. Just to many plot holes and things in it for it to be considered an okay movie. You do get to see the guy who played Toulon in the last movie though then you have a very anti-climatic battle and wham the movie is over before it really begins.
This film has some flaws, and most of those flaws are a lack of anything happening. Possibly the greatest film to show the direness within Fly-Over Country, "Rolling Kansas" is a film in which nothing happens and you don't care about anybody. Like life, it starts, it moves, and then it ends. A few attempts at humor are made, but everything falls very flat. The occasional cameo just reminds the viewer that they could be wasting their life doing something besides watching this movie and the one rock song they bought and used at every single instance.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and go see a good movie. This is free and repeatedly frequently on Comedy Central because nobody went to see it, nobody wants to see it, and it's marginally better than dead air. Not to damn with faint praise, but the movie's one rock song is worth listening to. Too bad the movie isn't worth watching.
This movie is retarded a cheap movie that tries to be a stoner movie because the characters are looking for pot but none of them are smokers just a bunch of garbage Thomas Hayden church should not direct anymore especially this movie which is a waste of film. People who liked this movie gave good comments but from all the people on here some are just retarded and don't watch movies so they think that any bad movie is good the actors suck and the movie sucks balls.<br /><br />I think that many people are going to be upset because this movie tries to make itself look like the ultimate weed movie when it is just the worst movie about weed that I have ever seen I hope that people will stop the director from directing crap like this even weed cannot make this movie funny or entertaining .
Every time I see a film like this I get sick to my stomach. When I watch a movie I like to see what I see in everyday life. As I go through my day I see blacks, whites, Asians, Latinos etc...How do you cast a film and don't even think of the possibility that other ethnic groups will walk past you? I'm sure they didn't do it on purpose but pay attention. I don't care if it takes place in Kansas or South Central. All I saw was one token black. This was typical in the 80's. Hey! it's 2007, with all the rappers, singers and athletes working as actors Thomas Haden Church could have paid more attention to his cast. Aren't actors supposed to be more liberal?
...Or better yet, watch Fandango if you want to see a really intelligent and funny male college age road flick. Rolling Kansas sounded promising (in fact the program guide gave it 2.5 out of 4 stars which usually means it's fairly watchable) but I pretty much fast-forwarded through it. Usually road trip movies have great music, but I can't even recall whether there was music. The only high point was a small role with Rip Torn as a wise old hitchhiker/guru. Otherwise the jokes and timing missed all along the way. The four main characters are unknown actors and I don't remember seeing any of them in another movie. (Oh, yeah, I see that Thos. Hayden Church was in it, but he's in everything, good, bad or indifferent). This movie is about as funny as watching someone else stoned when you're not.
This movie was extremely disappointing, I thought it would be another 'marijuana comedy' but don't be mislead, it's not at all. There are barely any weed-related jokes that come to mind, I don't even think they smoke any weed in this movie. The marijuana field is merely a plot device.<br /><br />My impression after seeing this film was that four friends were bored one summer and decided to write up a script full of (their idea of) witty dialog and make a movie. The product is bland dialog supported by mediocre acting, to say this movie has no 'hook' is a huge understatement. Don't waste your time or money.
I mean, nothing happens, 5 dumb kids go to Oklahoma to find a magical forest of marijuana... this could've been fun, if it hadn't been for the 5 worst actors in the world. And the dialogs weren't even half an inch of fun. The only thing that I almost showed my teeth of, was when the dumb cops stopped the teenagers in either Oklahoma or Kansas... The plot could have been fun, had it not been for abysmal interpretation. If you even think about watching this piece-of-crap movie, don't. How dumb is it, that the guy gets away from the cops by telling them he's gay, like his friend did (just that he wasn't pretending...) and there's that dumb hick joke about the several meanings to the word "gay". I'm laughing my hair off.......NOT....... Anyway... WORST MOVIE I'VE EVER SEEN!!
Yes, I admire the independent spirit of it all, but it's like Road Trip with a bad cast and no budget.<br /><br />I chuckle when I watch American comedies, I don't laugh. This movie made me laugh, but only because of the abundantly obvious attempts to simulate high-budget American high school/pot-flicks.<br /><br />If you want good independent American comedy with pot-references, go watch Kevin Smith or Richard Linklater flicks or something. Don't waste your time on this piece of sh't movie.<br /><br />I mean, how can you take these comments seriously when most people are complaining about the characters not smoking pot!<br /><br />And by the way: in Norway it's called "Dude, Where's My Pot"!
I've read the positive comments on this movie. I assume people who were in this movie must've come to this site to give it some good press because this was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I always watch the whole film despite the quality or lack there of which explains why I watched this whole movie, but I don't think I laughed even once during the duration of this film. The jokes were mostly very bad, but when the jokes had some promise, the delivery was off. If you liked it, maybe you should lay off the buds because you need to preserve the 5 or 6 brain cells you have left. This movie had a poor script, bad acting, poor directing, weak plot... nothing of virtue and was not entertaining. If you haven't seen this movie, don't.
Cruddy, innocent..no smoking, drinking or bikers, but Jeremy Slate (good actor) and Jocelyn Lane (good actress) make this moronically feasible for a bad biker flick, post-biker (exploit) time. They knew it, we knew it...Adam Roarke and Slate are wasted..but they lived on.<br /><br />A 3 out of 10. Best performance = Jocelyn Lane. Lane is the ONLY really to catch the final exploit biker film after RUN, ANGEL, RUN (which also has good actors - like Don Stroud, etc.). It was over. They knew it. They were trying to make a living. But, Jocelyn Lane (from two Elvis bad flicks, TICKLE ME and something bad one) in yellow and leather is the modern hot chick with J. Slate fighting for honor. It's worth seeing, but it sucks. But check it out. Well worth non-biker, non-smoker, non-boozing, "biker" types with hot chicks.
Some people say this show was good in it's early years! I disagree with all of 'em. The show is just plain stupid and pathetic. My mum hates it, I hate it, my dad hates it, I don't know about my sister but oh well. Here some reasons why:<br /><br />1. THE CHARACTERS: Babies being used as grown up style characters are stupid. The babies are just precocious and annoying. The grown ups and adults are dumb and unappealing. The worst character is that Angelica Pickles (she really does it in for your ear drums when you had a long, hard and miserable day at the office) and also that Kimi Finster who appears later on; she is too over optimistic and a pain in the butt. She can't decided whither she is French or Japanese: it doesn't matter know; you are a American Citizen know and that's that! Oh, what am I talking about, all the characters from this show suck!<br /><br />2. THE STORIES: The stories are unoriginal and dumb. The make it like the babies go off on a great adventure, yeah to the back yard shed. In one episode, that little goofy brat, Tommy Pickles the Leader broke in to a television's control room and literally almost destroyed it. Don't give kids any idea to smash up normal T.V Station's control rooms (they pay a awful lot of money for them in real life). I can imagine what the broadcasters must of felt like airing this episode, they will probably start staring at their machines throughout the day scared that a baby will brake in. Sad!<br /><br />3. OVER RATED!: The show has been dragging on for years now and people are still making up stories and new series and spin-offs for this. Get off! The Simpsons have been going for nearly the same amount of time as this but they are much better and funnier than babies. The show is just plain over rated! People, where is your common sense!<br /><br />Anyway, I surprised T.V Stations across the world want to air this series even off today. The show is utter junk and should have never been produced. The two movies for this cartoons sucked just the same! 2/10
I'm a fan of this generally excellent though sometimes rather dull show but Season 3 has taken some terrible plot directions. The episode HERO is an example of what I mean.<br /><br />The story as it eventually unravels is that the Cylons deliberately allow Bulldog - a pilot captured several years earlier during a black ops mission - to escape, steal a Cylon ship and get back to Galactica. The plan is that when Bulldog gets back he will figure out that Adama left him to his fate and be so enraged that he will kill Adama, which he very nearly does.<br /><br />Now the problem is this - the Cylons set it up so that Bulldog thinks he has escaped by himself. This means that Bulldog gets off the Cylon ship with no assistance. So he kills a Cylon and walks out of his holding cell - that much we see. Then, we must suppose that he walks to the flight hangar, manages to get into a Cylon fighter ship and learn how to operate it, takes off and flies back to Galactica. Just like that.<br /><br />Now Starbuck managed to get one of them working in Season One, which was barely believable in itself, but she only had to fly it visually out of orbit before making contact with Galactica. Bulldog has to programme his ship so that it makes several jumps through hyperspace and manages to catch up with Galactica somewhere thousands of light years away, in an unknown direction. How does he manage to programme a ship that contains completely alien technology? Cylons connect to their computers by touch, there are no visual consoles or keyboards. And having managed that miraculous feat, how does he then know where Galactica is, bearing in mind that Galactica took off some 3 years before and is trying ever since to evade the Cylons - it does not leave beacons behind? Even allowing for the suspension of disbelief that must apply to any sci-fi show, this episode still absolutely no sense whatsoever.
There is something about this show that keeps me watching and hoping for the future of it. In the writing, the jokes are few and far between, and the story lines are a bore, so I figure it must be the physical comedy and the visuals.<br /><br />I do enjoy the camera movement, set dressing, and wardrobe. It's amusingly highly contrasted against the dullness that reigns. And I'm pretty sure every time I have laughed it was because of John or Molly's physical comedy. The two of them make a sickeningly cute couple that make me laugh and want to puke at the same time.<br /><br />So here I go ready to sit down to Kath & Kim one more time tonight to see what path this production will go down (or up as the case may be, looking forward positively).
Me being from Australia and loving the series, I wasn't expecting much from the American version of Kath and Kim but I thought I'd watch the first episode to see if it was really that bad.<br /><br />Well,whats there to say. Its nothing special.Selma Blair is OK as Kim and actually had a few good lines, Molly Shannon is not a good Kath though. The good thing about Jane Turner's Kath is that when she speaks with all her funny accents (such as when she says Yumor or Noice) it sounds like its just the natural way that she speaks, but when Shannon has a go at the accent, its clear that she is acting and trying to be the same as Turner. And the show really misses Sharon or some one else to give us something to laugh about, because the Kal and Craig characters in this version are really not funny.<br /><br />So far only the first episode has aired and it is clearly not up to the standards of the Aussie version, although if it was a stand alone television show with a different name, not being compared to the Aussie version it would perhaps be viewed as being a little bit better. But if there is nothing else to do on a Sunday night (or Thursday night in America) then you cant do much harm in watching it, or better put on some of the Aussie version if you've got it.
I watched the first episode and I found it to be a very wooden performance.<br /><br />I have watched the original from it's early days on Big Girls Blouse to the last series on Channel seven. Kath and Kim was a great Mocumentary and it's humor is something that most people get.<br /><br />However in this American version I found it to be dull, Molly Shannon is to fashionable to be Kath Day, Kath's wardrobe is supposed to be stuck in the 80s with her frizzy perm. While Selma Blair's figure hugging clothes isn't as good as what the original Kimmy wore. I also found that Selma seemed to be puffing her belly out a lot, she is obviously a (Australian) size 12 where Kim should be (Australian) a size 16/18.<br /><br />The exchanges from Molly and Selma is obviously so scripted and there is pauses where there shouldn't be pauses or the pauses are a bit long, as someone suggested there could be a laughter track in there during those pauses. It's like Molly and Shannon are not used to each other, there is no Mother/Daughter chemistry.<br /><br />Phil was okay he had the eccentric air around him like Kel. However Craig was to handsome and not the sweet plain humble Brett from the Aussie version.<br /><br />I found watching this was like watching a very bad stage play. The acting was pretty much wooden and the exaggeration of Selma's expressions wore the funny off after ten minutes. Especially her sulking scenes.<br /><br />To sum up, I find this show to be a waste of time, the script obviously has been dumbed down for Americans which most on the board say they prefer the original. If NBC wanted to show Kath and Kim why not pay the producers the money to screen the original.<br /><br />All I can add is Magda you are one smart cookie for not letting the producers use your character of Sharon.
The best thing I can say about the American version is that Jane Turner and Gina Reilly must be raking in the money for this crap. Yes, the American rip-off was shown for about two episodes in Australia but didn't rate; probably by curious viewers who were wondering how bad it would be. Answer: DEPLORABLE, a complete waste of time. The actors are relatively unknown and they don't take readily to the nuances of the Australian-written script. Bad luck for them as they are doomed to plummet with this turkey. My advice to USA viewers is DON'T.<br /><br />Americans should be best advised to find DVD's of the ORIGINAL VERSION on eBay, but be aware that some DVDs are in a different 'zone format' to those issued in the USA. Otherwise, some DVD players will operate discs from both/all zones.
It isn't TOO bad, but ultimately it lacks the quality that the Australian series has.<br /><br />The jokes are few and far between, the actors are attractive (they shouldn't be), the film makers think far too much about the cinematography (it's supposed to look like a home video) and it's just like a serious version of Kath and Kim... it's stupid.<br /><br />It's too normal to be Kath and Kim. Kath and Kim are supposed to be two curvy, middle-aged women who think they are hot and wear ridiculous clothes. There are no "Look at me Kimmy!" jokes. The fat friend of Kim is not fat at all and she's not even slightly stupid. She's a stereotypical black/Latino chick.<br /><br />It's just not as stupid or funny as the Australian series. It doesn't compare. Nothing is the same. I admit, this show is pretty funny at times, but it is NOT anything like the Aussie series. I was looking forward to an American take on a bogan family. They failed. It's supposed to be REALLY stupid and hilarious, but the actors don't act stupid! To me, this is just a typical American TV show. It's a let down if you want it to be anything like the Aussie show.<br /><br />2 Stars because it is an OKAY show, just nothing like what it should be.
The original Australian Kath & Kim is brilliant. Why do American producers need to remake & ruin yet another classic show? Remember the original version of "The Office" with Ricky Gervais, It was an absolute masterpiece, and there was no need to remake it. The producers said that the British humour from "The Office" and the Australian humour from "Kath & Kim" would not translate to an American audience......... WHAT??? So basically they are saying that Americans are too dumb and stupid to understand the jokes, so they need to remake the shows with over-the-top childish gags, so that the Americans can understand the humour. The original Australian version of Kath & Kim is fantastic and very funny. Avoid the American version like the plague!!
I've tried watching it twice, though I haven't been able to make through either episode. For me, it's basically just not funny. I can tell where I'm suppose to laugh, but I can't. I've never seen the original, so I'm not comparing. I also love comedies, including off-the-wall comedies like Married...With Children and Family Guy, but this show just doesn't' do it for me. The jokes are lame and flat, and the acting is mostly annoying. The commercials made it look interesting, but it isn't. They're trying too hard to be different, and tying to force the humor. That style usually doesn't work too well. I don't think this show finishes the season. Of course, I could be wrong.
Need I say more? The reason the GOOD Australian version of Kath and Kim was, as mentioned, good, was because of it's hilariously funny originality. The reason this new American-ised version is so terrible is because a lot of it is taken straight from the original. Not to mention the unfaithfulness to the characters. Kath is meant to be a dag. Kim is meant to be fat. Kel (or Phil as they have dubbed him) is meant to be pathetic. Brett (or Craig) is meant to be a loser, not a person who acts like he's on heroin and finishes every sentence with 'dude'. Thank God Szubanski didn't sell her rights to Sharon, she'd probably end up being a tall thin blonde who Kim likes.<br /><br />Kath and Kim are MOTHER AND DAUGHTER. They are not meant to look 2 years apart. And they are not meant to giggle like school girls. This show is a disgrace to even share the same title as the Australian version. America: get your own television shows.
Hard to believe - but it is! I shouldn't be surprised. Commercials try to show how unique and "funny" a show can be. Yet not only didn't the commercials announcing this new show have the slightest iota of humor to me, I've not spoken with anyone who found the commercials amusing, either.<br /><br />I don't recall ever seeing a pilot so devoid of cleverness, cuteness or humor. The characters were insufferable for the most part. Especially Selma Blair's (which is astonishing she would agree to be in a fecal sample of a show like this). The few moments where the characters were slightly redeemable were considerably hackneyed and trite.<br /><br />Rare is the show with no redeemable qualities at all. And this is not one of them. Kath and Kim has exactly ONE redeeming quality - and that's Selma Blair. Despite wearing repugnant outfits and acting like a pitiful, whiny stupid excuse for a young woman who seems like a cross between Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian, Selma is still nice to look at.<br /><br />But if you want to look at Selma, go rent Hellboy. You'll at least maintain a modicum of respect for her instead of searing this abominable character into your brain to associate with her.<br /><br />All in all, Kath and Kim is a waste and truly epitomizes the worst that TV is or ever has been. It sets a new low.
I watched this film mistakenly thinking that it was that other radio station zombie flick. The shonky production values and low-rent cast soon gave away that this was another one of the those cheap sci-fi channel style knock offs.<br /><br />The central performance from Bill Moseley is initially quite engaging as the dubious radio shock jock but as the film goes on becomes less and less convincing as he is actually required to act. The rest of the cast have little to do other than look concerned and have no depth whatsoever.<br /><br />The cinematography is dull, flat and completely uninspired, like so many of these kind of films. It doesn't even manage a decent bit of convincing gore, the zombie make up is literally pathetic apart from one notable exception towards the end of the film.<br /><br />The film tries to inject originality and a message into it's concoction of half baked and ripped off ideas by somehow equating this outbreak with intolerance towards Islam and the war on terror. This is woefully handled with all the intellectual clout of a 6 year old. As the characters and seemingly the writers are unable to distinguish the difference between race and religion - describing all people of a certain skin colour as "muslims." Most notably one character is revealed to be Muslim by skin colour alone. At the same time the "muslim" terrorists who cause the outbreak are the usual psychopathic stereotype. <br /><br />Presumably the far far superior Pontypool had a similar budget as Dead Air yet shines everywhere where this film fails miserably.
The idea behind Dead Silence is great: zombie outbreak takes place during an edgy paranoia radio talk show. There was so much going for this film. Unfortunately, as soon as the zombies made their appearance, all was lost.<br /><br />The film is ridiculous and only those with a passion for cheesy, b-flick horror will enjoy it. The zombies were soooo stupid! They ran around flailing their arms. They looked like a bunch of people putting on a haunted house for elementary students.<br /><br />I know this is a brief review, but I just don't see the need to invest much into this. It's a dumb movie. You've been warned.
Corben Bernsen directed horror film about a chemical weapon being released in a sporting event and turning everyone in to insane monsters. We watch as the staff at a radio station takes reports.<br /><br />Its has moments but mostly it plays like a Lifetime horror movie with breasts and blood. There are some really good ideas here, but they just don't work. Actually the film's ideas are better handled in a film called Pontypool which pretty much works all the way through and builds tension by not showing us anything. This shows us stuff and it just seems cheap. Given the choice I'd watch Pontypool again rather than watch this film again.
Stealing is a crime, and these guys, Kenny Yakkel and Corbin Bernsen look like their going to get away with it. I haven't even seen this film, but not only do i know it sucks, but the fact that it steals the story of another film, or 2 films for that matter, is such bull crap (and if IMDb would allow profanity much more than just bull crap) that I become filled with rage and feel as though I should just throw myself out the window and just end it all. O.k that's a little much but stealing is worse.<br /><br />Ever seen Pontypool? It was this awesome little zombie film made in 2008, this radio host goes into work, and then this zombie attack happens. We only see what's going on inside the radio station, and the only guess we have on what's happening on the outside are the occasional calls from their eye in the sky Ken Loney (easily the funniest moment in the film in my mind) and the BBC calling in for an update on the situation. From all the reviews I've read, and from the conversation I had with my friend (who has seen this film and Pontypool) this film was exactly like it in the story, with minor tweaks here and there. So throw originality and creativity out the window. As for the Zombies, or the infected, whatever you want to call them. They are the exact same thing, just because they got infected does not change the fact that they walk around mindlessly, and have a never ending quench for flesh. They are Zombies. ZOMBIES!!<br /><br />ZOMBIES!!! Okay one to many, but back to this crappy movie. The Zombies from what I've heard are a lot like the ones in 28 Days Later, another better movie, with their insane rage and even more insane quench of flesh. This is where Zombie movies define themselves, story does not matter in a zombie movie (as long as your not taking the idea of another film). Sure a zombie movie can be enhanced by the story, as is the case with Pontypool, but the zombies have to be, in a way, original. 28 Days Later started the insane raging Zombie. Pontypool I can't even begin to explain those guys without ruining the film. The Evil Dead, I think all i have to do is just type the name again because, come on it's The Evil Dead. Romero is the master, and he went through all different types of zombies, from the painted face zombies in Dawn of the Dead to raging zombies in Diary of the Dead, and he did each one with his own unique style.<br /><br />So, after talking about other great zombie movies, I think it's about time I explain why I hate this movie without even seeing it. This movie down right steals the original story outline to Pontypool which i think is called plagiarism and is illegal in this country and many people get kicked out of school for doing this very thing, yet in Hollywood it's allowed, and apparently approved of. This is not the only film that takes the outline of another movie, and just tries to tell it differently. The 90's is like the worst period for movies ever, sure it had some gems but what decade doesn't, and it's because all the movies were the exact same. My favorite, the crime movie with a twist so big that you'll never guess it till the very end. They force feed you one suspect, make it seem impossible that it's not anybody else but him, then, bam, all this time it was this guy, you just had to look at the scenes where he wasn't there and then when he would mysteriously show up out of the blue, say "hey guys, what did i miss?" OH! DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING DID YA! Well, I'll leave a cliché as my closing statement. This is one film you'll surely want to miss.
Far from combining the best bits of Pontypool and 28 days this managed to ignore them. Whilst shamelessly copying them. (if that makes sense?) Pontypool was different and got progressively tenser, this just stinks. The Radio DJ, "we must stay on air" spends effectively no time on air. He sits on his bottom and watches the TV for news. This is by far the worst excuse for a zombie movie ever. Is there a single person in the USA or indeed the world who doesn't know what a zombie is? Or ever heard of the word "zombie"? Well, by the 50th minute this bunch of misfits are still calling the zombies, "the infected ones" or the ones with "rabies'. The word "Zombie" might make a guest appearance later, I could care less. Maybe there's a copyright where you have to pay to use certain words? Like the Bluetooth earphone is called "the ear-thingy" I kid you not! To finish, no plot + no acting = no-one cares. A waste of time, a shameless, poorly executed rip-off.
I attended a screening of this movie. It was wrought with clichés and very unfunny jokes and set ups. I think the other comments were by people who must've worked on the movie or been family members of the cast. I'm amazed this movie cost $3-$4 million without any real stars. Where did the budget go? It obviously didn't go to writers for re-writes. Nice thought to bank on the success of Big Fat Greek Wedding, but a major miss. There was little or any spark between the main characters and the inciting incident was a bit flimsy at best. The direction was uninspired and looked like a student film.<br /><br />I don't even know what it means Everybody Wants to Italian. Is that a real saying. I've never heard it.
I am currently 22 years old, and remember seeing this movie in the theatres when it first came out. You heard me right, I was 5 years old, and yet I can still distinctly remember what I saw that afternoon so many years ago. Was it a mystical trip through the fantastic world of Mark Twain's creativity?... No, on the other hand, it was a quite creepy film about Mark Twain's dark, depressed, and in fact suicidal side. One scene that still bothers me was a particularly strange scene in which Mark Twain is playing the organ at his own funeral.<br /><br />Would an adult enjoy this film? Well, this movie quite possibly features some interesting viewpoints that a person with a working knowledge of Mark Twain's writing might enjoy; but trust me on this, "Adventures" is NOT the film you want to use to introduce your young children to Mark Twain.
Despite a small handful of nicely executed scenes, this entry (the fourth) feels tired. Toshiharu Ikeda, who directed the superb MERMAID LEGEND and the seminal Japanese splatter film, EVIL DEAD TRAP, shows little enthusiasm for the stale premise.<br /><br />A miscreant becomes obsessed with an outwardly conservative woman who reluctantly appeared in a porno photo shoot. Predictable stalking, harassing, assault and rape ensues.<br /><br />The staple of roman porno is sex. And sex mixed with violence. Both potentially exciting subjects, to be sure, but not when so little effort is made to make them fresh. A masturbation scene in which a woman forces pencils up her opening (via condom) is too little kink to late.<br /><br />The series' rain motif continues and the film's final scene brings relief.
This forth film in the "Angel Guts" saga, which at only a few minutes above an hour (it just feels much longer) , is also the shortest, which is perhaps just as well as it's also the most uninvolving of the series.Nami, a department store clerk, is interested in another part time job. Her fellow worker at the department store introduces her to modeling for a porn mag called 'red porno'. But when her other employers found out about her naughty pictures they decide to fire her. And she gets some unwanted admirer. Oh yea and she likes to masturbate ..ALOT. Using various household items. The wall to wall sexcapades masks a lack of discernible plot and pushes this one far too much into exploitation territory, not unsurprising though given that the Director of this one is Toshiharu Ikeda ("Evil Dead Trap", "Beautiful Prey"). Perhaps his sensibilities just weren't suited for an Angel Guts film.<br /><br />My Grade: D <br /><br />DVD Extras: Commentary by Jasper Sharp; Bio/Filmographies; a 36 minute interview with Toshiharu Ikeda; Original Sleeve art; and Trailers for this and 4 other Angel Guts Films (High School Co Ed, Red Classroom, Red Vertigo, & Red Porno) all available in Artsmagik's Box-set, but for some reason the 6th film "Angel Guts: Red Flash" is not in the set
I hafta watch crap like this all the way through to see if there are any redeemable qualities whatsoever to justify including it in my clients' video libraries. Don't you watch this, not even a minute of it, unless someone has a gun to your head. You will, as I did, moan & groan at least 500 times, and pray that one of the one- dimensional characters, all played by really bad actors, would turn and shoot you dead.<br /><br />Even if you are the biggest Sandra Bullock fan in the world, it is not worth even watching the two or three short scenes in which she appears.<br /><br />I want to kick the asses of the sleazy marketing people who put Sandra's huge picture on the face of this DVD box and have them thrown in jail for mugging me or something like that. I really wish I had the chance to read a review of this film before I bought it.<br /><br />Please, give me a call, and I will pay you $10 to remove this movie immediately from my inventory before it stinks up the whole place! (just kidding--please don't call)
I won't go into detail about why this movie deserves an awful rating, plenty of other people have already done that. Suffice it to say that out of the over 400 movies that I've owned on DVD, this is the ONLY one that I got rid of- it was so worthless that I couldn't see ever wanting to watch ANY of it again.<br /><br />However, I do have a comment on the ridiculously high average rating of 2.9 (as of 3-15-06). While skimming through the 4 pages of reviews I saw no rating higher than 3 stars. Looking at the voting history, 78% of users rated the movie as 4 stars or less. It looks to me like a few people are stuffing the ballot box to keep this movie off of the IMDb "bottom 100" list. It would be interesting to see how many of the 30 users who rated this movie as 10 stars (none of who wrote a review of the movie) are actual active users.<br /><br />Don't be fooled, this movie isn't worth your time.
If you have ever shopped at Wal-Mart, then you probably know about the $5 DVD bin that sits by the electronics department. Well, that is where I found this movie. However, I was tricked! You see, the cover of this particular DVD had a big picture of Sandy Bullock on it and even listed her name as a "headliner". I picked it up thinking, "Wow, I didn't know Sandra Bullock did this movie?!?!" So I was pumped to go home and watch a cool Sandra Bullock movie. Much to my surprise, Ms. Bullock had a small role.....very small role. She plays the girlfriend of the son of the CIA agent. Talk about supporting actress. She may have had no more than 2 lines in the movie. Besides being deceived of this being a Bullock flick, I looked past that and I continued to watch an "action-packed" film. Negative! At one point, for special effects, a gun was taped to the camera. You gotta watch it to laugh at what horrible really is.
But certainly a serious contender for one of the worst 10 of all time.<br /><br />I got this DVD cheap, with Sandra Bullock as headliner on the case. This is false advertising - she's on-screen for almost 10 minutes of the movie.<br /><br />On the other hand, there was no other selling point for this movie - the dialog was horrible, the editing was apparently done by someone who was strung out on Quaaludes, the directing was ... well, let's just say that my 14-yo daughter could do better, but I hope she never sees such faint praise from me. It's possible that the family cat could have done better.<br /><br />Sandra does a creditable job for a first film, in the short time she's on-screen - and that's the only redeeming quality of this film. Stupid story, poorly written, and transferred to film as only a 7th-grade Media class should be able to do.<br /><br />In short, this is dreck.
This movie is from the 80s, but it looks like it was made in the stone age. The effects are way too cheesy. My copy has Sandra Bullock on the cover, which was why I bought the movie. She was in the movie for about 5 minutes of total screentime. She would most likely deny all involvement.<br /><br />In short, there is no part of this movie worth seeing, except to laugh at how bad it sucks. Rent this to see the worst film ever made, bar none.
I had a bad feeling when I saw the cheap title work. It only took a couple of scenes to confirm that this movie is a real stinker! The only enjoyment I got out of this was to laugh at the technical flaws (example - the background "car sounds" audio just disappears during the scene with Danny and Dog in Dog's car). Production shows a total lack of imagination (example - slow motion machine gun fire repeats many times). Sandra Bullock plays essentially a bit part, completely unnecessary to the plot. To say that this movie actually HAS a plot is doing more justice to the writing than it deserves. The antique computer hardware is kind of interesting. This film was released in 1982 (not 1987 as the IMDb database indicates) and then current "high tech" was an amber screen on a 4.8 MHz IBM PC with floppy drives. Maybe the PC was the real star of the movie... at least it was interesting.<br /><br />We got this on DVD for a couple of bucks in the bargain bin at WalMart. As the other reviewer notes, we paid too much!
Notable only as the acting debut of future big-time Hollywood starlet, Sandra Bullock, this ludicrous action flick is so full of holes that one might easily suspect termite infestation. The storyline is incomprehensible and very poorly thought out. The production values stink of cheese. In fact, a total LACK of production values would have been better...at least the film might have seemed grittier that way. The ADR is laughably bad and omni-present in the film. It's debatable as to whether or not ANY of the dialogue tracks from the actual shoot were used.<br /><br />The performances are, for the most part, horrible, though there are a few exceptions. In those exceptions, however, the performances are undermined by the fact that the director was obviously giving the actors poor direction and making them act completely out of character at times. (i.e. characters going from passive to panicked in the blink of an eye. Bad Direction.) Also, the constant "weapon sound effects" (magazines being loaded, slides being cocked, etc.) are completely overused and, more often than not, totally out of sync with the on-screen actions. Add to this cheesy "Bad Guy" vocal distortion for the lead villain (mainly so that you KNOW he's the villain in this incomprehensible mess of a film), and you have a recipe for disaster.<br /><br />The situations in the film go well beyond standard "suspension of disbelief" and become downright laughable. One lead character spends a good portion of the film tied to a chair before he DECIDES to use the butterfly knife tucked in his sock in order to free himself. So, my questions are...why didn't he do this sooner, and why does he even HAVE the butterfly knife. He wasn't searched? RIGHT. This is one of a hundred examples of completely ludicrous situations which have somehow been crammed into this 90-minute package.<br /><br />In whole, "The Hangmen" plays like an unbearably bad R-rated TV movie from the '80s. If not for the subsequent success of Sandra Bullock, this would have NEVER found its way to DVD. But it has, so my only advice is to steer clear. Watching this film may actually impair your IQ.
Sandra Bullock is my favorite actress..... But this movie was so horrible, I couldn't help but chuckle throughout the movie in disbelief that I was actually watching something so crappy. Ha ha. The audio editing is horrible, They try too hard to come up with creative camera angles. Because they're just weird and stupid. The script sucked. Acting was horrible, storyline not very good. Very unrealistic, even for a movie. But it is a 20 year old movie..... so I'll give it a bonus point for that. And yeah, the music was terrible. But we all got to start somewhere. And submitting these things is such a hassle..... 10 line minimum... bother. Well now I know why I couldn't find this movie in the movie store.... I had to purchase it offline to see it... good thing it was only $.58 cents.... even though shipping was $2.59. Oh well.... I don't recommend anyone wasting their time and money seeing this film...
This movie is #1 in the list of worst movies I have ever seen, with "Lessons for an Assassin" on the #2 spot.<br /><br />The acting is lousy (sorry, Sandra Bullock, but even your performance was horrible!), the music score could have come from a bad x-rated movie and the story was downright ridiculous. It had this in common with a typical action movie: the dialogues were short and consisted mainly of one-syllable words. But contrary to the average action movie, there was no real action in this one. Boring.<br /><br />The only reason I continued watching it was in the hopes that at one point, there would be at least one interesting scene in this movie ...<br /><br />Thumbs down on this one.
What can I say after I say the one line summary. Sandra does a credible job but what with the bad direction and story line it can't save it. Way too much pre occupation with guns. How can the Hollywood types rant about the need for gun control in our society and spend so much time and film footage focused on guns?? It's just worse than expected.
This movie is soo bad that I've wasted way to much time already talking about it. Soo bad...really... ...BAD... and I'm not even that critical... ..I'm almost ashamed to admit to having seen it... Sandra's few minutes show you how far she's really made it... I mean really anything next to this is really Oscar worthy for her... I suppose the only way for her to look at it is there's no way but up after this one...I suppose she had to start somewhere... but really...soo bad... ...awful really... bad is too good a word for this s**t ....but I don't want to get mean now... but really how can u not after wasting 90 minutes... 90 minutes of my life that I'll never get back... 90 minutes I could have spent doing something better...like sitting on my butt and staring into space..that would have been time better spent... (walks away shaking head)
I LOVE Sandra Bullock-She's one of my all-time favorite actresses-but this is a movie that she should have paid a long time ago to be trash-canned. I realize that it's almost 20 years old-but my dead grandmother can act better than these people did. Beware-it's not even worth the $ 5.50 WalMart rack...You know that when the acting stinks this bad that it's not even worth a couple of bucks-the sound quality is horrendous-there's no closed captioning to even hear the hideous dialog, and it looks as if it were filmed on a $ 1.98 budget. I thought that I'd like to see Sandra in an early role to see how she evolved as an actress-but YIKES is too kind a word to use...
I give it a 2 - I reserve a 1 rating for Guy Ritchie and Woody Allen films. We don't even remember what this movie was about. The only thing we recall is one gunshot scene where the actors drop to the ground, roll to the other side of a hallway or something and then get back up shooting. It was like watching 80-year-olds with 2 broken legs trying to perform the 'stunts'. Also, when the characters were driving in a truck, the engine noise (or radio? can't recall) would vanish entirely when the actors were talking.<br /><br />And, like others, we bought it because of the Sandra Bullock front cover. very sad, very bad.
I walked into Blockbuster, itchin' to watch some good old fashion action movies. So i browsed around the action section until this movie caught my attention because the cover had in big bold letter SANDRA BULLOCK. An action movie with Sandra Bullock in it and it's rated R!? YAY! Although I will admit i prefer her in a comedy but if this is anything like 'Speed' then i was sold. Sadly Sandra really is not in this movie, her role is minor: "Panicky kidnapped girlfriend" (She is in fifth place on the actors listing for Jeebus shakes!) Apparently this was her first movie role (and after watching this movie, i figured as much) Sandra is the only living human in this movie, everyone else might as well be a Zombie in a B-Horror Flick. This movie deceived me saying Sandra was the lead . . . i fell for it like Biff from 'Back to the Future' when Marty yells "WHAT'S THAT . . .!!!" God, i wish i watched that instead of this.<br /><br />Sandra is the only bright side of this movie, every time she is on camera it is like she is picking up shock paddles and yelling "CLEAR!" to get this movies going but it flat lines no matter how hard she tries. More on Sandra later . . . <br /><br />The Movie is dull. Very Dull. Think of the Dullest moment in your life then imagine living through that moment for 110 minutes (for me, it is this movie). This movie even somehow makes Gun Fights and Bullet time effects boring, so boring that Elephant Tranquilizers are put to shame. And this movie's idea of Bullet Time is a close up of an AK in slow motion which mocks you as the caps spitting out of it represent each second of your life as it slowly ticks away. And I knew i was watching a bad movie because i found myself fast forwarding "THROUGH-THE-ACTION!" The plot? . . . there was a plot? Music? . . . even by 80s muck standards is Bad but at least it's the one thing that kept me awake. Acting? Sandra Bullock was good and . . . ummm . . . moving on. Is it any good since it IS rated R? No, unless R stands for Ridicules-snooze-fest.<br /><br />And it is really 80s Cliché when a movie opens with an overhead view of a city (rocking guitar licks or power ballet) and ends with a gun fight in a grim factory complete with steel walkways and assorted pipes. Both of which this movie satisfies. At least this movie establishes what era it's from which was unnecessary since Sandra's hair was screaming "1980s!!!!" And a movie gets really ham fisted when you watch an assassin stripper kill a nerd in the bathroom and stuff his body in a box, which you respond to sadly saying: "that is probably the most action that poor sap ever got." Another Hammy moment is at the beginning when some-Secret-Agent-Dude caps a crowd of people and apparently this movie thinks people jump into the air and fall to the ground when they die. All that scene needed was the Mario death ditty or maybe Contra sound effects but Nintendo might have sued.<br /><br />And it is sad when the main action hero of this movie rips off other BETTER movie icons. Before the big gun scene, Da hero is found standing in a boxing ring ('Rocky' anyone?), sporting a leather fedora (not 'Indiana Jones' too) with an ominous spotlights behind him (Terminator the 2nd before owning T-1000) What is really REALLY sad is that people on Youtube or Dailymotion can film better quality videos (with a crappy webcam no less) then this movie. I'm serious, most Rant videos recorded with bad audio and blurry picture are more entertaining then this movie. I cannot even call this movie by it's given name for it's very name bring back horrid memories of watching this cruel and unusual punishment (a freaking violation against human rights!) The only bright speck in this dark abysmal abyss is Sandra's career started taking off thanks to this movie. But oh Sandra . . . why did you have to be in such a nightmare? The paycheck better been worth it. The DVD also graces you with a little back story on Sandra as an extra, seen how she is the only one from this movie who end up being a house hold name. Which explains why this movie uses her name as bait for unsuspecting movie buffs, Crafty little critter.<br /><br />I don't have much experience with bad films but i know BAD when i see it. I could bounce back from 'Mazes and Monsters' with a good old campy Bruce Willis Comedy. But not even Bruce could cheer me up after this movie. I have yet to see any Ed Wood or Uwe Boll but I think I'm amped for them now. For i can't even fathom a movie worse then . . . "GAG" . . . 'Hangmen' . . .
WAIT until you've watched most of all other films ever released, wait a year, then watch this when you're ready for something with such low production values it that will not challenge anybody's imagination.<br /><br />I agree that whoever rated this movie as a ten-star production has to be doing it to skew the data. Anything above 8 would be odd.<br /><br />Nice to see the very young Sandy Bullock in her poofy hair for the short time she was featured, though she overdid the New Yorker accent but other times her southern (Virginia & NC) accent did sneak through. Ancient history for this accomplished actress who has grown so much since this film.<br /><br />The DVD I rented had two bonus features, a mini-bio section that only featured Sandra's bio - taken verbatim from IMDb. It also had a Trivia Quiz as a bonus - 3 questions. Hope you get them all right!
The DVD version we bought had Sandra Bullock on the cover, but we've discovered it was a picture of her from another movie. Unfortunately, she is in this movie very little. You can, however, see how far she has come.<br /><br />The one other bright spot in the movie, besides her very small part, were a few of the location scenes, shot in NYC and New Jersey in the 1980s.<br /><br />The sound is terrible. Sometimes the background noise is so loud that the dialog is difficult to hear. Sometimes the dialog has been redone without any background noises at all, which is disconcerting. For example, sometimes when they are in the car, the noises from the car are too loud, and then suddenly there is absolutely no extra noise at all. The director is fond of close-ups on faces, and then it's clear that the movie has been over-dubbed because the words don't match the lip movements. Through most of the movie, the voices sound like the people are speaking into a tin can.<br /><br />Background music, when there is music, is distracting instead of adding to the movie.<br /><br />The direction is laughable. Goofy camera angles and sound effects make the movie look like a joke, especially during times when there is supposed to be tension, like in the middle of gun battles. The writing is terrible. There are some subplots that make no sense, and most of the characters come off looking very stupid because there is no explanation at all to their motivations. The writer/director tries to explain some of the relationships between the men that were together in Vietnam, but none of it makes sense. These top assassins and former soldiers don't seem to be able to see other people's shadows or hear other people moving. The actors go from calm to panic and back to calm again without any warning. It's simply a combination of bad directing and bad writing.<br /><br />The production values are so bad that at first, we thought we had stumbled on someone's student film that just happened to have Sandra Bullock in it. If you like laughing at really poorly done student films, then this movie is for you. Otherwise, avoid this movie.
I checked this out for free at the library, and I still feel ripped off. Yes, Sandra Bullock is actually in it, but only in five scenes totaling up to barely 5 minutes, and even those are fairly painful to watch. The rest of the movie is so bad that you'll spend most of the time hoping it will end soon, but only if you're one of those people who have to finish a movie once they start it. Everyone else will just turn it off. Don't worry, you aren't going to miss anything. Bullock's lines (assuming that you were tricked into watching this because her name is plastered on the case) are essentially just parroting of other characters lines, like this dialog:<br /><br />Lisa (Bullock) - "Danny, please tell me what is going on."<br /><br />Danny - "I don't know." <br /><br />Lisa - "Whaddaya mean you don't know?" <br /><br />Danny - "I don't know - it's something to do with my Dad." <br /><br />Lisa - "Whaddaya mean your Dad?" <br /><br />Danny - "I don't know - he ****ed up or something." <br /><br />Lisa - "Why am I here?" <br /><br />Danny - "I'm sorry Lisa. I don't know." <br /><br />(moments later) Danny - "Some army buddies of my Dad . . . " <br /><br />Lisa - "Whaddaya mean army buddies?"<br /><br />See what I mean? <br /><br />Bottom line - Just say no.
I saw this one remastered on DVD. It had a big picture of Sandra on it and said "Starring Sandra...." and made it seem like she had a big part in it. Not so. She's barely in it. She does what she can with the script, but that's not much. <br /><br />The sound was awful. By that I mean things didn't go together. Shots would be fired and the number of shots didn't correspond to the sound. People talking in a car while it's moving and the shot is from outside the windshield but there's no motor noise, road noise, or any other sound. Kind of weird.<br /><br />Score was awful. It sounded like the same few notes over and over. Dialog really awful. <br /><br />Acting was awful, I couldn't believe any of it. Fight scenes were like a Batman comic without the "BIFF", and "BAM". They were really lame. The shooting scenes, I mean with firearms, were laughable, literally. I fast-forwarded through a lot of this movie. Even then, it was too long.
I watched 5% of this movie tonight and you may tell me that I need to see the whole movie to understand it, but frankly I don't think so.<br /><br />What the hell is the story in this movie? I saw a lot of people running around in a factory, shooting at everything around them.<br /><br />Where to start? Okay..<br /><br />1) They were shooting around the place as if it was the Terminator or something they were trying to kill. The entire place is made of metal, but not a single bullet sparked on the metallic surfaces.<br /><br />2) No ricochet. Metal vs metal is bound to cause ricochets, but apparently no one got hit by a stray bullet.<br /><br />3) Magic bullets? In one scene a bad-guy is standing right in front of a good-guy when another good-guy pops out behind the bad-guy and pumps him full of metal. You see the bullets exit his chest as it explodes in a bloody mist, but the good-guy right in front of him doesn't get hurt at all! 4) After having just splattered a human being all over the wall, the two good-guys tell each other some jokes and they laugh and look like teenagers playing with soft-guns.<br /><br />5) Sound? At one point the good-guys cut a wire and an alarm goes off (who the hell cuts a wire just to set off an alarm?). The lady screams out "Alarm in sector blah blah" and the bad-guy boss says "Okay.. this.. is.. not.. a.. drill.. blah blah" in a very, very amateur kinda way. Ooh, we're getting ambushed by terrorists, this isn't a drill, but I'm gonna sound like I don't give crap.<br /><br />6) Focus!! First you see the bad-guys load up on weapons. For some reason the same guy gets the same Uzi twice. Deja vu or loop of scenes? You literally see every single bad-guy receive the same kind of weapon and they lock and load the same way. The weapons dealer pops in the clip and the bad-guy extra no. XX locks and loads. When they started opening fire you HAD to see the barrel flashes. Boooring!! 7) Actors or dummies? One of the presumed good-guys throw down a smoke grenade for some reason and of course the bad-guys are suddenly inside the smoke because they're smoke-blind or something so they don't see it coming. They cough and moan as if it was Anthrax in the grenade. Then a semi-boss bad-guy arrives and he doesn't even cough when he enters the smoke, he just pushes the other bad-guys away and they suddenly realize that the smoke isn't Anthrax anyway.<br /><br />8) B flick? I think yeah! A guy sliding down a metal pipe wielding a Uzi in his right hand shooting away at someone in his eye height apparently. I'd like to see a guy fire a Uzi with one hand and I'd like to see him go get his hand afterwards. Extra bloody gore mess in a B flick kinda way. Small *pops* and a red hole with a torn shirt indicates that this guy is dead. Though the first bullet hit his heart the good-guy who is a super trained green berets still feel the urge to empty his clip into the dead guy.<br /><br />9) One of these mentioned trained soldiers jump out from his hide with an empty clip! How stupid can you be!? Always check your clip before facing an unknown amount of enemies! 10) Boring scenes. Like the barrel flash scenes and the lock and load scenes, the movie is filled with time wasting scenes of people running around in an apparently empty building. Cut to the action if you're going for a B flick movie, please.<br /><br />My two cents on this movie.
I don't know how this DVD made its way into my collection - my wife suggested it was one of these "3 for £20" deals at a high street store. The thing isn't worth 66p, let alone £6.66! Having invested heavily in it, I felt duty-bound to watch it to the end, just to make sure it was equally bad all the way through - and it was.<br /><br />The dialog was awful, the story line was impenetrable (I still don't understand what the hell was going on, despite having read the synopsis), the camera work was disjointed and hopeless, the acting was wooden (not helped by the dialogue).<br /><br />In fact there were no redeeming features - no, not even the lovely Sandra Bullock, on whose glittering subsequent career this pile of dross has probably been sold. She should get her agent to buy up all the rights to it and then bury it ASAP.<br /><br />As a final amusing example of the director's ineptitude, there was a scene where the young lead is conversing with his father's ex-army sidekick while driving. This was the clearest bit of dialogue in the film - no engine noise whatsoever! I look forward to the engine-damping technology eventually making its way across the pond into British cars!
My first warning should have been that this dvd was on sale for $5.00. But since it featured Sandra Bullock, who I generally like, I bought it. My disappointment with the film began almost immediately. The dialogues are slow and stiff. The color is distorted. I kept adjusting the volume to hear the conversations. The acting is amateurish. Even the killing scenes are a failure. Twice, dead people moved their legs. When my cash-deficient daughter offered me a dollar to turn off the movie, I immediately and joyfully complied. This is an amazingly bad movie. Tomorrow I am giving this dvd away at the company white elephant Christmas party.
I broke my own rule buying this movie from the $5.88 bin at Walmart. Basically, if a movie has a big star in it, and you've never heard of it before, it's usually for a reason. Well in the case of this movie, the reason is because it SUCKED! They plaster Sandra Bullock's photo and name all over the cover of the DVD as bait, and it reeled this little fishie right on in. I was thinking of donating the disc to charity, or giving it to the library, but I don't think I would want to subject anyone else in the world to this movie. Worst lines: "What do you mean army buddies?" "What do you mean your dad?"
This film stinks more than limburger cheese! If you find this at a garage sale, LEAVE IT THERE! I love Sandra Bullock and yet HATE THIS MOVIE... Although ashamed, I do own a copy, and the studio has changed the cover to play on the fact that Sandra Bullock is in this at all. They play it up to be "A Sandra Bullock Movie". She only has a small part in the whole movie and she does her best with that, but she is young and had not learned her talent yet. Well everyone has to start somewhere...
The DVD release of this movie hopes you will buy this movie on the name and face of Sandra Bullock. Her picture (from years after this film) basically is the cover art... and the back cover art... and the inside cover art... the same picture. Her name is prominently shown on the front cover, all 4 edges and the disk itself. She is the first name in the list of stars. Her biography is printed inside the case. This film must revolve around her character, right? WRONG! It is her first movie and she plays a minor role. After watching the movie, every role seems like a minor role. The character Dog actually displays some personality. Less than an hour after watching it, I don't even remember the names of many characters.<br /><br />Maybe if I watched it several more times, I could actually figure out the plot, but I don't think it would be worth the effort.<br /><br />Oh, wait, I just remembered a funny bit! Shoot-em-up video game fans will get a kick out of the "Doom-cam". Looks just like a first-person shooter game. Hands and gun pointing out in front of the camera.<br /><br />I am generally not a person to be critical of movies, but this may be the worst movie I have ever seen. I kept expecting some silhouettes to walk across the screen, sit down and start making fun of it.<br /><br />I'm just glad that the money we spent on this (used) went to charity.
We also found this movie on the discount rack and made the mistake of purchasing it because Sandra Bullock was featured on the cover. The cinematography was terrible and the back of the DVD box told more about the plot than the movie itself. Oh and I love the Uzi cam....NOT.<br /><br />
Found this film in a DVD discount rack for $10. It wasn't worth it. Some of the camera work and dialog look and sound as if it were done by a film student. Sandra's performance was somewhat credible, but the film was predictable and the action was spotty and dragged.<br /><br />One thing that I will give them, however. Unlike most action films, people in this film actually ran out of ammo and scavanged dead bodies for new weapons and ammunition.
The prior comments are way to generous. This movie is a waste of electricity and plastic. On the other hand, I have had a great deal of fun giving it to friends to watch and describing it beforehand as "beyond belief!" "no words can express how I feel about this" "This movie will move you" As expected, the friends took these nondescript comments as enthusiastic endorsements. They were wrong. The sadistic pleasure I had foisting this on people was well worth the $5 I paid for the movie. On the other hand, one (former) friend says I owe him 90 minutes of his life back. I particularly enjoyed the "gun's eye view" of parts of the movie. Truly awesome in it's absurdity.
Oh boy! Oh boy! On the cover of worn out VHS has a picture of Sandra Bullock and her name written on top. I think only reason they had chance to sell the movie in nineties, was because of Sandra Bullock's name. Bullock's fans don't have to disappoint. Sandra is only thing to watch in this movie and her performance is the only you can call acting. Rest of the movie… It's fun to watch in first fifteen minutes because it's bad but after that it's going worse. Much worse. Directing is awful. Acting is awful. Script is awful. Dialog is awful. Action is awful. Music is quite good actually. Typical score for eighties action movies. This movie is so bad that it goes close to anything Andy Sidaris has ever produced. It's so bad that there isn't proper word to describe this poor attempt to be a movie. But still, there was Sandra Bullock. And super cool (sarcasm) Jake LaMotta who tried to be Marlon Brando. <br /><br />I think they can now bring the film out on DVD. It could be cool! And they should write on the cover: ACADEMY AWARD WINNER SANDRA BULLOCk IN HANGMEN<br /><br />1 out of 10
Don't worry when looking at the cover of the DVD, Sandra Bullock only appears at most 5 minutes in total in this cult classic. The entertainment value here is very high. <br /><br />To name but a few of the many highlights that should be paid attention to:<br /><br />- The doubled evil voices of the chief bad guys - The special gun cam - The weird masks and outfits of the hit killers - The showy ways to catch a bullet and hit the ground - The abundance of bottom-up shots - The spacey scene in which Bullock falls unconscious on the street - The over-cliché Italian mob guy Moe (LaMotta) - The cheap synthesizer background music - The mesmerizing overdone gun fetishism<br /><br />And last but not least: the super corny fist-fight scenes. Wish there would have been more of those...<br /><br />Extra point for the successful attempt at making me laugh out loud.
Wow, there are no words to describe how bad this movie truly is. I usually pride myself on being able to enjoy any movie no matter how bad, but this was just too much. I would only suggest watching this movie as a torture device. If you can get past the terrible plot and dialogue by watching it on mute, the even more terrible camera work and shoddy special effects make this movie a real horror. If your thinking about watching this because your a Sandra Bullock fan, don't even bother as she has less than ten minutes of screen time, and her acting is absolutely atrocious. Not to mention the rest of the cast, which could be replaced with baboons who would do a better job, at least then we wouldn't have to listen to the terrible dialogue.
I love this show. I watched every episode last year. I bought the DVDs. And I tune into to watch tonight and I see for some reason you have retooled this great show. And you have taken what made it work and ruined it. You took one of the best aspects of the show away which was the 4 friends. Sam, Sully, Lizzy and Piper. I love the other characters as well, but they are good in small dozes like Derek, Darcy and even Sully. It is like the show lost some of its family and everyone else is trying to hard to fill in. It is overdose. While things are funny in small dozes when you are exposed to it all the time it goes from funny to annoying. I was so looking forward to the return of this show. So please bring back the charm. Even if you could not fit Piper into the show at least bring Lizzy back. But I loved those girls. They brought the fun. The show was about Sam trying to live his business life and handle his personal life and friends as well. That was the charm. And that great dog as well.<br /><br />I hope the network (FOX) forced the writers to do this and the writers did not willingly do this to the show. I will give the show a couple more episodes before I give up, but tonight's episodes were bad. I made a big deal out of the show returning tonight and had people over and I felt like a fool, because no one was laughing except 2-3 times. I apologized to them and said I don't know what happened. And about 10 minutes into the episode I realized they were not going to show Piper or Lizzy and this was no longer a must see TV comedy.
I am very open minded. I watch all kinds of programs to the end...good or bad...just to give them a chance and learn from the good aspects and bad ones. This show had potential to be good. But my god, what were the writers, casting director, and director thinking? The cast of actors are terrible...with the slightest exception of Meryl (Mimi Rogers), and Darcy (Joy Osmanski) being given occasional good lines with the best execution of the lot.<br /><br />The rest of the cast kill the show. It is the same story line in every episode. Sam has plans to do something. His boss disrupts these plans by assigning him ridiculous work projects. Then the foolish ways Sam tries to accommodate both in a manner that is primarily stupid and lacks any real intelligent humor. This is EVERY episode. It gets very tiring.<br /><br />Season 2, they ditch the eye candy. The 2 "hot" girls in the show get written out (yet the brother stays? explain that casting cut to me please). I can see why they wrote them out...they had no substantial role...but they didn't add anyone better to replace them.<br /><br />The cocky Derek Tricolli character is given a continuous appearance in season 2. His acting (along with everyone else's) resembles many poor sitcoms from the 80's...might have been funny then...but painful now.<br /><br />the show could have been so much better with a few good writers and some people who had any talent to execute them. This show lacks everything. Production quality is the only good aspect of the show. It is great in that regard...unfortunately the content is painfully sad.<br /><br />My god. FOX, was there really nothing better to choose from? I'm sticking with shows like "It's always Sunny in Philadelphia" or "30 Rock" for now. The bar should be set by programs like these that actually assume the audience are intelligent and aren't continually drooling on themselves using all their brain power on continuing to breathe.
The first season was great - good mix of the job and the brother and friends at home. it was actually a pretty funny show.<br /><br />Now it shows up again and the brother and the two hot chicks are gone -- and the whole thing revolves around the airline company. Even the old man who runs the company has gone downhill - way too over the top, where before it was perfect.<br /><br />That and no more Sarah Mason - one of the best looking girls in Hollywood.<br /><br />This is what happens when you let some execs get their hands on a show. You can almost see the meeting "the old man is funny, lets focus on him, make him way over the top and make it all about the airline.. it'll be a nutty version of the office!" Anyhow, no hot chicks, no watch.
Fox is pretty lame. They cancel the wrong shows. It's bizarre that they would cancel a well-written program like "Arrested Development" and yet they keep this show and "War at Home". I feel that Fox loved that they broke barriers with the then-edgy "Married with Children", but now it's just getting ridiculous. "The Loop" is a pointless and boring watch, and their edgy jokes just fall flat. In order for edgy comedy to work you have to keep the jokes coming. "Family Guy" and "The Simpons" work because there is a constant flow of jokes. Fox needs to pull their heads out of their rectal cavities and quit letting their relatives write this mediocre tripe. I mean, if you're going to invest money into making something entertaining, make it entertaining. Also, stop using "no-named" actors. It's great to have up-and-comers, but you need to anchor a show with a noted celebrity. Duh, Fox.
Upon a recommendation from a friend and my admiration of Philip Baker Hall I rented the first season disc of the Loop.It's a typical TV comedy with all the clichés that the genre employs with the "wacky" scheming brother (Sully), "ditzy" blonde (Lizzy), token unrequited love interest (Piper), sarcastic Asian helper (Darcy, which reminded me of Arliss, as if ANYone needed to be reminded of THAT show). The plot deals with various bad luck (usually by Sully) that befalls Sam that puts his job at the airplane in jeopardy, only to have him save the day, with 'hilarious hijinks' ensuing in the middle. I didn't descibe a certain episode. I described them ALL to a T. Therein lies the problem as what seems like it might even be passable entertainment at first just gets uselessly stale when watching episodes in a row and growing bored beyond belief at the endless repetition. Sully will do something 'wacky', Mimi Rogers will say something overtly sexual, Russ will tell about his gay son, Darcy will do her impersonation of Sandra Oh on Arliss blah blah blah blah blah. The only positive is the lack of an annoying laugh track. But don't let that fool you into thinking it's any good. Go watch a far better comedy. Arrested Development, Always Sunny in Phillidelphia, two name two off the top of my head. Surprised that this one is still on the air. OH that's right Fox only cancels the good shows, i forgot. Needless to say I don't trust my friend's taste in shows anymore.<br /><br />My Grade: D+
This movie starts off on the wrong foot and never really gets it going. The first scene shows a Life Flight helicopter landing and just outside the window you can distinctly see mountains in the background. For those of you who might not ever have been to Houston there is no elevation change. The city sits just above sea level and a 5 ft. incline is considered a big hill. To go along with that scenery, any shots outside of the hospital immediately tell the viewer that they are not in Houston. The trees are all missing leaves or are pine trees, neither of which Houston has very much of. Even the hospital itself, on the outside, is very unbelievable. Memorial Hermann Hospital is one of the top hospitals in the United States and sits smack dab in the middle of the Medical District just miles from downtown Houston, yet every outside shot of the hospital makes it appear that the hospital is out in the suburbs or even the countryside.<br /><br />It is obvious that whoever was in charge of the actual tropical storm part of the movie skimped out because the numerous shots of radar are all wrong. The first radar image in the movie is that of Hurrican Hugo hitting South Carolina. We later see Kris Kristofferson leaving his job and one of his assistants tells him that Alison is moving back south across Houston yet the radar image he shows has Alison clearly moving north off of the Gulf of Mexico into Houston...probably the initial landfall of Alison.<br /><br />As for the acting, it isn't all that bad. JoBeth Williams, Kris Kristofferson and Rick Schroder all do a decent job considering that this is a straight-to-TV movie. The plot of the story is decent and the fact that it is based on a true story makes it a bit more entertaining. My one problem with the acting is the portrayal of Houstonians with big thick Southern accents...the actors all sound like they are from Birmingham, Alabama and not Houston, Texas.<br /><br />The movie gets its point across and to the general audience it does exactly what it is meant to: entertain. If you are looking for a factual account of what happened to the city of Houston in June of 2001 then you will be disappointed. One thing to keep in mind before viewing this movie is that it is based solely on the evacuation of Memorial Hermann Hospital and not on Tropical Storm Alison and the impact on Houston metro itself. If you are looking for a factual account of Tropical Storm Alison's impact on Houston metro might I suggest watching The Weather Channel's Storm Stories for Tropical Storm Alison.<br /><br />*1/2 out of *****
I work at Memorial Hermann Hospital (TMC) and was also working at Texas Children's Hospital, Women's Hospital, and West Houston, during Allison. First the shots of the hospital are sadly suburban. The Texas Medical Center has a daytime population density similar to Wall Street!! There are huge skyscraper professional buildings and hospitals. TCH was the largest Children's Hospital before it doubled in size, TWICE! Methodist, with its 1500 beds is one of the largest hospital in world. The Texas Medical Center skyline is bigger than that of Memphis. Yet, the best pics Hollywood could muster are that of some dinky hospital in the middle of nowhere (besides the real pic of the hospital taken decades ago). Also, they combined several real-life characters and portrayed them all in one (super-nurse). I actually know the Medical Technologist(s) working in the blood bank. Two where actually working at the time but the movie shows only one pregnant MT. There was a pregnant MT, and another MT that took the precious patient antibody rolodex (research "alloantibodies" for more info). I will not mention their names (privacy). There was no nurse in the real life lab scene. Hollywood combined these two techs (most likely to save time and money). In the movie, military helicopters (true) had to transfer the our babies (NICU and PICU) to UTMB all the way to Galveston! Why you may ask, when we have the largest children's hospital just down the street? Because Texas Children's Hospital refused to take them. You read right, they REFUSED!!! Being employed by them, I was ashamed. Needless-to-say, I'm no longer affiliated with that facility. Any other comments would be repetitive to the ones already posted by the people that who actually live here, or lived through the experience.
In the European TV industry, movies like this one are called "stickers". TV stations buy them and air them because when they wanted to buy broadcast rights to, let's say, Titanic, some not-really-blockbusters were a part of the deal.<br /><br />14 Hours is a story of a hospital, its employees and patients who have to face the worst flood slash storm ever. Unfortunately almost from every scene or shot one can tell that is was a low-budget film.<br /><br />Newborn babies are very obviously not real, there is no background action and probably the worst thing is the doctor-acting. The actors are not believable in their roles: their lines, when spoken, sound way too memorized, as if this was a read-out camera test.
Without a doubt, the biggest waste of film of the year. This movie is poorly structured, sadistic, cruel and filled with unlikable characters. On top of that, and maybe the worst crime, it's uninteresting and vastly predictable. As soon as Bill Pullman's character doodled on the photo changing the word from "evidence" to "violence," I had the entire plot figured out. There are no surprises and there is no compelling reason to watch this trash. The only redeeming feature for me is that I saw this thing for free on my HDNet cable and didn't waste any money. I would truly be angry if I had paid to see it in a theatre.<br /><br />Anyone that labels this thing a thriller really needs to get out more. An awful, awful film in every way that matters.
I do not know what today's movie goers expect, but after 68 years of movie watching.. (Well maybe I didn't watch many movies in the first 9 - 10 years, so make that 58 years of movie watching) I expect to be entertained, not bored to tears, assaulted by continuous profanity (every other word) and idiotic scenes of violence that are presented in with no other purpose in mind but to show blood splattering and body parts being mangled. Surveillance is one of those movies that was made by people who have NO imagination, little if any talent, a total inability to tie scenes together and an unreasonable trait of letting a scene go on and on, long after the purpose for it has elapsed. That anyone would ever think that this was a worthwhile movie, when it is nothing more that Hollywood garbage is beyond me. As a combat veteran I have seen violence, blood and gore, in many forms, and movies like We were soldiers is about as violent as a movie can get, but it has redeeming value. Surveillance must have been dreamed up by persons in a drug induced stupor, with no writing ability, no directorial training, no experience in film editing, and a total lack of contact with reality. Just a stupid movie of two serial killers posing as FBI agents, setting up a scenario to kill some stupid foul mouth cops, etc.. A high priced piece of garbage that only an idiot could like...
This must be the worst thriller I have seen in a long long time. The directing, the acting and the adaptation of the story leave what could probably have been a good plot into a meaningless waste of time. Within a few minutes of watching the film it was easy to figure out the whole plot and then there are more obvious clues very early on leaving no mystery. I guessed this within the first few minutes and I kept hoping I was wrong and much to my dismay I was not.<br /><br />The film starts off with two FBI agents who drive to a remote town to investigate a murderous spree which has left three witnesses, a young girl, a drug addict and a cop. They are interviewed under surveillance cameras separately and each tells their account of the day. Each has something to hide about themselves and the day unfolds as they tell their accounts. This part is probably the saving grace and if developed could have made this film better.<br /><br />Spoiler: The whole story ends in the FBI agents being the actual killers and the young girl is the only one who has figured this out and so left unhurt by them.<br /><br />Why do they go through the whole charade of interviewing three witnesses and bonding with the young girl if their idea had been to kill them in the first place? How did they get away with pretending to be FBI agents (when you discover that real FBI agents had been killed and their badges were found on them)? How did they know how to set up and use the surveillance cameras?<br /><br />Bill Pullman and Julia Ormond are so unconvincing from the beginning to the end. Maybe the idea is to develop their characters for the revelation at the end. Come on, they both look ridiculous, stupid and not sinister in the least. The character of the young girl is also wasted potential. There is no meaning to her actions and no meaning to whom she prefers to bond with in her ordeal. She does not appear distressed, but rather detached which again is not explained. <br /><br />Awful film on the whole.
Sorry for all you guys that are not family with the Lynches.<br /><br />My sister in law asked me how you can make just a disturbing movie. I told her that if the daughter and her father would not do these movie, they would have instead to go around and kill and cut people in pieces.<br /><br />After every Lnych movie I tell myself, again one and a half hour lost of my life. But next time I will check the director's or producers name.<br /><br />So, you don't want to be angry at yourself and loose time, don't watch it. But if you think that you need to kill someone, watch it, this is probably a better medicine than to spend your whole life in a prison for mentally insane.
The film's executive producer is none other than that messenger of peace thru transcendental meditation, David Lynch, the director's father. I wonder what David's guru, His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, would have thought of this production. The hypocrisy here is as repugnant as is the film itself. It's a safe bet that Samuel L. Dieteman, Phoenix serial killer and devotee of recreational violence, would have loved every minute of it.<br /><br />I doubt if many would fault this film for its cinematic craft; on that level it's quite good. But on a moral level, it's the most disheartening movie I've ever seen.<br /><br />SPOILER COMING<br /><br />I guess it's the phoniness of the thing that saddens me the most. Morally-numb Generation Xers learn a craft and a little post-modern aesthetic theory at art school or film school and then get involved in the arts-and-entertainment industry; and here's the result: a film which wallows in human suffering, injustice and carnage, much of which is witnessed by a nine-year old who sees her entire family brutally murdered by a couple of recreational-violence killers who, at the end, ride off into the sunset.<br /><br />NO MORE SPOILERS COMING<br /><br />For whom are films like this produced? Narurally, sadists are going to adore this - why wouldn't they? But who else? As I noted above, there's some really good film craft here, but good craft can be applied to any subject matter. Why apply it to stuff like this? Also, the movie is very suspenseful, but that's not because of the graphicness & grossness of the violence; it's suspenseful because it's well-directed & well-acted. I'm sure the ghost of Alfred Hitchcock could explain this much better than I can.<br /><br />So what has been put before us here? And above all, why? <br /><br />Yes, our world can be an ugly, dirty, even evil place, but shouldn't we dissent when an "artist" makes it her/his business to rub our faces in it? Or worse still, to stick it in the faces of those nine-year olds who will, one way or another, end up seeing this on home DVD? <br /><br />I hope that people will see to it that this film is not seen by their kids. Yeah, I know - dream on, bernon...
I must say, when I saw this film at a 6.5 on this site, I figured it was well worth a view. I was sorely disappointed. From nearly the opening scene, it is obvious the two supposed FBI agents are, in fact, the killers. Could they have made it any more obvious? If that is the intended "twist" in this film, that's pretty sad. While Pullman and Ormond are excellent actors, even their talent is no match for a reprehensibly bad script. Pullman adeptly acts the part of a sociopathic killer... and that's the problem. There is no switch from "I'm playing FBI guy!" to "I just killed 12 people and boy, are my arms tired." You can't blame the actors... the story fails in far more ways than one.<br /><br />From the onset of the film, however, I was certain I was wrong, that no director/writer would ever be so blatantly obvious about a plot "twist." Ormond and Pullman must just be acting strangely in order to divert the viewer's attention from the real killers, I thought... which gave the film's makers far too much credit. I should have followed my instincts and turned off the movie before it even made it past the 15-minute mark.<br /><br />To Lynch's credit, she did manage to interject many things that make a good film: sex, violence, humor, and well-trained actors. Too bad they were in the wrong configuration. Hopefully Pell James can recover from this role... I found her performance particularly impressive, as the stunning drug addict-turned would-be savior. She should have rewritten the role so the "crack whore" would win.<br /><br />Those people who have compared this film to Natural Born Killers, take note: Tarantino made the characters of Mickey and Mallory reprehensible, yet sympathetic. The artistry of that film far overpowers the gore, and this is not seen once in Surveillance. Surveillance only wishes it were Natural Born Killers... in fact, it has wet dreams about being even a fraction of what that film was. Folks who haven't seen Surveillance... stick to something with a little more intelligence. Like Camp Rock.
I went to the cinema to watch a preview of this film without knowing anything about it. Recognizing Jennifer Lynch's name and seeing the 18 certificate I realised it might be disturbing. In actuality I found the film a farce. I found myself giggling in disbelief through parts of it. The acting is atrocious- Bill Pullman and his ridiculous twitching face. I do almost pity the actors though as the script offers them no chance of any believable character interaction. After some shocking incident, (there is plenty to "try" and shock the viewer in this film), 2 characters are seen sharing a beer and talking about the weather. Everything was overstated, or thought it was being clever when really it was obvious! The performance from the little girl character named Stephanie was the best thing about the film. Quiet and intense. I really could not recommend this film to anyone. Its violent without point, ridiculous characters, bad acting, bad script and plain silly.
Significant Spoilers! <br /><br />This is a sick, disturbing movie... just like the sick, twisted director, Jennifer Chambers Lynch who also wrote it. I don't even know why I gave this movie a rating of 2. It is not the fault of the actors for sure. The cast certainly portrayed their roles well. It is the way this movie was written and the way the characters were written which was the benchmark of a truly sick mind.<br /><br />I do know that I will never, ever watch another movie which has been written or directed by Jennifer Chambers Lynch. She is a sick, twisted, foul-mouthed, foul-thinking deviant. She looks, speaks and sounds like some biker chick with her brain fried on drugs, who spent 20 years doing hard time. You can clearly see what kind of person she is by watching her on the DVD special features section of "Surveillance: The Watched are Watching." You can see and hear her for yourself. She was every bit as bad as I had envisioned from the writing of this movie.<br /><br />I'm not shocked by bad language, although this director certainly talks like a sailor. This goes far beyond simple bad language; worse than any p0rn film. The level of implied sado-violence and perversion she incorporates into every character she writes are of the genre which is even illegal by p0rn standards. This perverse, disturbing thinking is clearly apparent in her own personality and things she says. Another reviewer found the description I was seeking. This is a snuff film.<br /><br />Be sure to listen to her narration on the deleted scenes and alternate ending. This director/writer is truly a sick person. I can't believe anyone would put her in charge of a movie, much less pay her for it. You can be assured that I will never, ever watch another movie she has been affiliated with. In the thousands of movies I have watched and collected, there are only a couple directors and writers which have merited this kind of boycott. She is offensive beyond anyone I have ever seen connected with filming a movie before. There have been some bad directors and writers, but none could compare to her sick, twisted mind.<br /><br />When I saw this movie, which was just one murder rampage after another. Once it got past the hotel murder... then the sick cops shooting at and brutalizing drivers for kicks... the vacation family with the bad parents (who had no business being in the presence of children)... followed by the drug addicts.... the movie then proceeded to the (even more) twisted, deviant serial killers.<br /><br />As I saw the serial killers reveal themselves, I began to wonder what kind of truly sick mind wrote this movie. Those were my actual thoughts as I watched this movie. I fully intended to find out what writer had such a sick mind... because that writer seriously needs to be committed for long-term psychiatric treatment. To my surprise, it turned out to be the director. When I saw and heard what she had to say on the DVD, I realized my assessment of the writer was right on the nose. On the DVD, she was indeed the sick, twisted person I had envisioned writing such a disturbing film.<br /><br />While the little girl, (Stephanie) Ryan Simpkins, truly stole the show... I can't believe that her real-life parents would have tolerated this sick, foul-mouthed, director to be anywhere near their daughter.<br /><br />This movie is disturbing, sick, offensive, twisted and the director-writer needs some serious treatment in a mental facility.<br /><br />As far as the ending of the movie goes... the alternate ending, should have been the outcome of this horrific ordeal. There was no point and no benefit to the film or the story or the flow of the film by the death of the other character. I'm stunned that any studio actually distributed the movie. The trailer was completely misleading. The only reason the movie got the audience it did was due to the clever wordsmithing and creative depiction on the trailer. That trailer is not representative of the movie you will see.<br /><br />Other than the child... every character in this movie was a sick, murderous, twisted, perverse, violent sex freak and their characters are mirrored the mind of the writer-director who created them. But if you watch it carefully, even the parents of the vacationing family; the sick cops taking pot shots; the serial killers posing in alternate roles; cops in the station; and even the station dispatcher... every single one of these character roles incorporated a sexually, twisted, violent pervert. I'm not too sure about some of the actors after watching them talk about the filming of the movie and the Canadian town in the Special Features section of the DVD.<br /><br />This writer-director has such a personal mental deviation that no matter what she writes, every character role contains those same carbon copy stamps. The only character which did not have these deviant tendencies was the child. Watch closely and you will see this in every character. Then listen to the director-writer talk on the DVD Special Features section and you will understand what I'm telling you about her mental state and psychological issues. She wouldn't be tolerated in too many decent homes if she were not from a Hollywood film making family.<br /><br />Fortunately, Jennifer Chambers Lynch does not have much of a filmography... less than a handful of things. Since she carbon copies those disturbing traits in all of her character roles, I don't think we'll have to see many movies written or directed by her unless her dad, director David Lynch helps her out. I'd recommend staying away from any movie she is involved with... and I'm not too sure her dad's films would be any better.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor. Avoid anything written or directed by Jennifer Chambers Lynch.
This movie was *good* relatively during the first parts of it.<br /><br />We have a story, from 3 points of view. So let's find some clues and complete the story.<br /><br />Oh wait...none of that stuff matters because the FBI guys are the bad guys! Though that was a great twist...it was almost a terrible twist. I immediately downgraded the film from a 7 maybe 8 to 3 based on the last 10-15 minutes of it.<br /><br />Does anyone else not see why the twist is so bad? Yes, it's a good shock. But it is bad because it has absolutely nothing to do with the preceding hour and twenty minutes. There's no connection to the killers.<br /><br />The killers are in about all of 5 minutes of this movie (as killers) and the two FBI agents are only in 15 minutes of the previous hour and twenty.<br /><br />We get it...surveillance...Oh, the Killers are voyeurs. WHICH MAKES NO SENSE, because they were only described in limited terms as just being psychopaths. And the hour and twenty minutes of surveillance we are watching of the 3 stories goes out the window as everyone is dead in 5 minutes.<br /><br />All of this makes the ending even more ridiculous. Oh, they killed a bunch of FBI agents in the beginning...what FBI agents sleep together? All in the same room. To be found and murdered by amateurs and then impersonated by people who know nothing about being FBI agents? A cop 3 feet away apparently can't hit either one with a standard police issue pistol that can shoot several shots. I hate movies that try to make you feel like this could be real when they make absurd leaps they think we will believe.<br /><br />The other thing is the movie ends about 10-15 minutes after they are revealed as the killers with a girl standing in the field somewhere...
I am not sure who recommended Surveillance to me, but I think I have an idea: one of the "Fat Guys At the Movies." The person said they were astonished by how great it was and said it was one of the goriest/disturbing movies. (I'm paraphrasing and doing this only by memory, so forgive me if I misquoted.) At any rate, I made the decision to watch it. So I take full blame for my own miscalculation in watching one of the most horrible, predictable and STUPID movies I've ever seen. Strange, I doubt I've ever called a movie "stupid" but that was the first word that came to mind about one-third in and stayed in my mind until the end.<br /><br />Where to begin? Unbelievable premise and reactions, incredibly brain-dead characters (could blame the writing or the actors, or I'll just blame both) and enormously bad acting. I'd sooner believe Bill Pullman as President of the USA than a FBI agent here. (Of course, there's a reason for that, and I'll partially go into that.) And to top it off, if you can't figure the so-called shocking "twist" in the first 5 minutes, then you must have arrived late to the theatre or came into the room to watch it late. Don't worry, they'll tell you the "twist" every five minutes thereafter.<br /><br />There's been some serial killer(s) on the loose in the most depressing town in the county, or world. But there's more to the story! Some dumbass and corrupt cops like to blow out tires for their own amusement. Could there possibly be more? Oh, yeah, there's a family, well maybe not, but there are four humans, one boy, one girl and an adult couple. The girl says she sees things with much less conviction than Cole sees dead people in The Sixth Sense. There's gotta be more to this than what I mentioned! That's what makes a movie interesting! Adding as many subplots that may/may not be developed is the way to go! Okay, then I'll continue. We have goofy FBI agents that made me laugh. A pair of giggling druggies who's shocked at first their dealer OD's but then resorts to robbery. A gosh-tooting great-guy cop who must've been put in for comic relief who's always battling an angry/suspicious cop. And finally, (poor, poor) Michael Ironside who didn't just phone his performance in, he barely text it in.<br /><br />None of these work. They're all told in various forms of presence tense or flashbacks, and believe me, you'll lose all sense of caring after the first of many subplots begin. In addition, the reaction some of these characters are the most shocking of all. I guess I'm referring mostly to the cops, but mainly the girl who did or did not just lose her family and barely blinks.<br /><br />This stupid, stupid movie stinks. It's barely gory as the person that recommended it said it was, unless his exposure has been limited to Goosebumps stories. And what's with the title? Surveillance? Oh, I get it; it's because it was used in 1/50 subplots just to film interviews. Since that's so random, it might as well been called COP CAR, BULLET or COFFEE. Just stay away from this horrid mess.
This is a snuff movie. I'm shocked it is even considered to be in the IMDb library. And, Bill, Julia, and all other "professional" actors involved should be ashamed to be part of this sick flick. I thought I was going to view a somewhat classic horror film with a creative end that writers like to invent....that usually make no sense when writing a horror film, but as a viewer, we try to rationalize and understand. This ending was not creative. It was sick and has all the earmarks of a snuff movie. I am shocked it was edited to this ending, and more shocked that it will be out for distribution by the end of June 2009. It should not be shown in a theater. It is harmful to innocent minds on many levels....watch the movie, the ending, and you will understand this statement. Plus, included in the plot is a sweet little girl "not yet 9" her character says. She is not in the snuff ending, but she is an integral part of the movie. Why do directors feel they need to shock with a sick flick in order to get recognition? The director is in the wrong line of work if she thinks this is an art film.
After a very scary, crude opening which gives you that creepy "Chainsaw massacre"-feeling, everything falls apart.<br /><br />SPOILER ALERT: As soon as the two FBI-officers start jabbing, you know they are the real killers. Anyone who have seen enough of these "fooled-ya"-movies can figure this out.<br /><br />This movie is mader with one thing in mind: To depict brutal murders. Why, then, is not the little girl tortured and murdered as well? Will this be next for us movie-goers? The torture and abuse of children? Whats wrong with you people? Lynch is truly has a disgusting, ugly mind.
This P.of S. was highly recommended to me by two friends that have great<br /><br />(similar to mine) taste in films and have seen more than anyone I know.<br /><br />I have no idea what they saw in this movie. Sadistic,cruel and repulsive is fine in an entertaining movie,but this is a windbag effort trying to pass itself off as highbrow lowbrow movie making.Or is it lowbrow highbrow?<br /><br />The ancient generation gap cliché "no redeeming social value" comes to mind. Bill Pullman is trying,maybe a little to hard,and except for the kid the rest of the acting seems self-conscious and kinda lame.<br /><br />Save yourself from this and watch a double feature of "In Cold Blood" and "The Hitcher".<br /><br />As somebody said, this would never have been made if Jennifer Lynch was not the overrated David Lynch's daughter.
If you find the depiction of violent murders and wanton police brutality expressed in a plot less film with glacial pacing entertaining, then you're bound to enjoy Surveillance. This film was garbage for both the mind and spirit. The notion that this is a "thriller" is comical; that would imply some kind of tension and twists. You kept waiting for the story to actually finish "starting". It never rises above a glorification of weak-minded violent criminals and individuals from all walks of life. Picture all of the violence of "No Country for Old Men" without any kind of chase or sympathetic characters. Thrill-killers run amok. The acting is good, mostly, but the script is a pile. Don't bother, and tell your friends to don't bother.
There is a growing trend in the media to vilify and ridicule men. One sees it in television adverts and program plots. Cheaters is a prime example, they could find plenty of female cheaters yet the vast majority shown are men, why? The prime threat to any government's power resides in the male population, they're less likely to abide by authority and are more of a physical combat threat. A way to reduce the threat is to emasculate men in society via the media. Other examples of psychological propaganda are crime dramas full of self righteous cops including big-jawed aggressive women accusing everyone they question trampling their rights and making those men feel like scum. In Australia many top male sports stars have been arrested recently for dubious assaults and drinking charges, another example of the government controlling the male populous by arresting their heroes and asserting dominance. Cheaters, aside from the political machinations is an invasion of privacy and a violation of rights, furthermore most of these women assault the men! If it were round the other way the men would be in jail!! If it were an honest show they would be finding women cheaters, because they don't normally get caught due to the fact that their male lovers are quite happy to get in no strings attached and get out without rocking the boat. Men's mistresses want the men to themselves and want to own and control the men and thus get the men caught anyway.
I'm not bothered by the sleazy hosts, nor am I bothered by the cynical, self-righteous stance the makers of this crap take.<br /><br />What I AM bothered about is that the vast majority of the episodes are fake. I wouldn't even be surprised if ALL of the episodes were staged. Hence this isn't a reality show but something far worse even than Oprah: garbage television with zero comma zero appeal. Like daily TV soap opera but with more action and fighting and less plot.<br /><br />The premise would have turned out great - if only it had been executed without cheating the viewer. If only this idea were free of all the legal complications/trappings that would most certainly ensue due to what would happen with real people, and what is eventually aired. Hence the only way to create this """reality show""" was to get some rather desperate actors and make them improvise (and what pitiful and unconvincing improvisation it is most of the time!). Shouldn't this be obvious to anyone who finished grade school? Most reviews I read here don't even mention that any of this is fake, let alone that all of it might be. Wishful thinking or just boundless naivety? <br /><br />The actors hired in this pathetic show are the kind of bottom-of-the-barrel unemployed actors who are miserably waiting on tables, waiting eagerly for a call from a talk show (or this crap), which is when they finally get a chance to make several hundred bucks. I even recognized one actress (in the role of "cheater") that I saw years earlier in "The Jerry Springer Show". And I only saw 6-7 episodes of "Cheaters". How many more of these loser actors are there that appeared in Springer and "Cheaters" that I don't even know about?<br /><br />However, to compare "Cheaters" with Springer isn't fair to the latter. The Springer show is not all fake; a bulk of the episodes are unstaged - hence often highly entertaining. There is no value to be found in "Cheaters", unless you're a struggling actor and want to get tips on how NOT to act in front of the camera.<br /><br />The producers use various (very cheap, transparent) tricks to create the illusion of realness, to give their footage that elusive documentary feel. But it's all in vein. In the end, the more intelligent train-wreck-seeking viewer is left with absolutely squat. "Professional wrestling" has more credibility than this.
I think cheaters needs to be off the air and end the reality show once and for all i don't care what anyone says you can attack me or agree with me but its times like this that the show is just spewing out propaganda and the host of Cheaters Joey Greco is a little bastard who wants to think that showing people on camera is effective and unawares no it just will show disgusting he is also the wiretapping and following of people by "cheaters spy's" is illegal and a federal offense we are living in a police state like the Soviet union and Nazi Germany rolled into one i am happy that there is poor reviews on this trash this needs to end soon or we are going to lose our liberties as a nation no wonder our country is going to hell its because of this and other filth shows i liked the older shows better from the 1950s-1980s i hope you all agree with me on that thank you infowarrior
The show is at least partially Faked (So is not reality, just pretending to be reality), which makes me believe at least anyone without face blurred out is a Fake episode.<br /><br />Proof in the episode where he pretends to be stabbed There is already camera crew on the boat, before he gets there, can been seen as his boat approaches.<br /><br />The actors playing "ambulance officers" didn't remove his shirt or expose the wound in anyway so they work on it, which would never happen in reality.<br /><br />They also parked the ambulance in the car park and did not drive up to the Emergency entrance (Which does not make any sense, unless its fake and they would not be allowed to go there)
First Off, I am a huge fan of Robert Blake, always have been.<br /><br />This movie came on Movieplex last night 10/13, and the title interested me & of course the star. But after watching it I was left more confused than I was before it started.... There are some good scenes, and I thought they would lead somewhere, but they didn't, it turned out to be an "anti-cop" "anti-buddy" "anti-hippie", pretty much "anti-everything movie", with an extremely confusing plot that also went nowhere.<br /><br />Robert Blake is great as the lead, well as great as someone could be with this bad movie, I am still a huge fan of Mr. Blake and love his acting even in crap like this...But this drug induced 70's tripe, well... better stay away from this one...And, that ending, what a pisser.
I always wanted to see ELECTRA GLIDE IN BLUE for a very long time. I've always been intrigued by the title, the star and the desert but for some (now pretty clear) reason, this film is never shown on TV or I've happen to miss it if it's ever shown. Well, after watching the DVD, I now know why the movie is rarely shown: it's because it's not that good. In fact, I'd say it's pretty much of a mess.<br /><br />ELECTRA GLIDE IN BLUE was made by a first time director and it shows. The film is mainly a series of vignettes with absolutely nothing holding it together. More like a collection of short movies haphazardly strung together. The movie can be boiled down to this: intro (murder); cop and girlfriend together; intro credits; cops going to work; crazy guy tells story; cop finds dead body; cop and chief and girlfriend at bar; chase scene; etc. The scenes just don't flow together. They're very distinctively independent from each other and because of this the characterization is weak, borderline amateurish. The scene at the bar with the girlfriend, the scene at the farm with the hippies, the scene with Big John and the Chief yelling at each other were cringe worthy. I almost stopped the film during those (awful) moments.<br /><br />The film-maker's lack of experience is in evidence throughout the film. The style, like the 1970s, is all over the map. The intro credit scene makes the movie look like a commercial for law enforcement. Then it tries to be a buddy film (Big John and Zipper) then a murder mystery; then a melodramatic love story; etc. A film doesn't have to have one particular style in order to be successful but I'm afraid the style in ELECTRA GLIDE IN BLUE was confused. You can clearly see that the director had no idea what he was doing or where he was going with it.<br /><br />The film is not a complete disaster. While the content of ELECTRA GLIDE IN BLUE is almost amateurish, the look of it is extremely (and deceptively) professional. The cinematography is stunning. Every frame is worthy of an exhibition at an art gallery. Or, because the first (and last) time director was involved in the music business, worthy of an album cover. The beautiful look of the film gives more credence to the finish product than it really deserves. And thanks to Robert Blake's acting (of a really badly written character), the film maintains a certain level of realism, even though nothing else makes much sense. What's remarkable about the look and composition of the film is that it's been copied and duplicated a million times over. The intro credits reminded me of something like TOP GUN, which was made 13 years later. Scenes of Johnny dressing up, with his clothes on the bed, reminded me of American Gigolo. Strangely enough, ELECTRA GLIDE IN BLUE has a very contemporary feel to it, due to the stunning visuals, even if the story and the philosophy behind it are hopelessly outdated.<br /><br />So, ELECTRA GLIDE IN BLUE is, on one hand, a remarkably underrated and overlooked film because it obviously influenced a lot of future filmmakers out there when it comes to the look and composition. Very few films can claim to have achieved this and legendary cinematographer Conrad Hall should take full credit. But, on the other hand, EGIB is also deservedly forgotten because the poor characters, confusing story, and muddled direction, none of which are worth of remembering.
"Electra Glide in Blue" is a slow moving B-flick in which Blake plays a desert motorcycle cop who wants to be a homicide detective and becomes embroiled in a murder investigation. A mediocre film at best, "EG in B" features some members of the band Chicago, a whiff of action, some philosophizing, and lots and lots of boring dramatic filler. Not worth the time.
I watched this movie a couple of weeks ago and must say: I was not impressed, not at all. I do side with the other posters when it comes to the fine performances, but some good performances do not make a good movie.<br /><br />On the discussion board, I found a review by an anonymous poster that captured some of the main points. It says: "'Deed Poll' is a movie that raises many questions but hardly answers even a few; a movie that is disturbing and above every attempt at categorizing; an experiment and a very conventional sexual drama despite some shocking scenes. The brilliant acting of Barbara Kowa and André Schneider, the partly very impressive editing and the good camera work (Steffen Ritter) make up for gross plot holes and some technical slips (especially in sound). However, the boredom the audiences have to deal with for 40 minutes remains." Unfortunately, this is true. I wasn't intrigued by the story at all. The protagonists are cold, ambition-less people. They do a lot of drugs and have a lot of (incestuous) sex. So what? For many times, the direction seemed to be virtually non-existent, not to mention the technical aspect: the poor sound quality was enormously disturbing.<br /><br />What's the point of the movie? What's the message behind it all? The anonymous reviewer said: "Somehow Biermann failed to make a clear point and so the movie remains hanging in mid-air without a message. Thus the boredom I blame on the movie. The movie is reserved and emotionless, cold, almost neutral and it doesn't take long to see the flaws: for long stretches the characters of Sean and Ivy are not credible (they clearly have difficulties with the English pronunciation), the character of the mute brother is not developed very well. Some moments are very promising though - in the scene where the call boy is skinned (the one and only true love scene) an intensity is reached that one would love to see the whole movie long. As a spectator one has to regret the chances given away." Again, I must agree. I did like the final scene, especially because of the beautifully captured faces of Gianni Meurer and André Schneider, but it was nothing compared to the boredom I had to suffer for the first thirty minutes. (The sex scenes, though, were aesthetically staged and perfectly edited.)<br /><br />All in all, "Deed Poll" was not my cup of tea - a good, controversial idea wasted -, but it was a interesting to see how a movie can be made with practically no money. Maybe if they had a bigger budget and a more experienced director, this would have become a better movie.
it's hard to make a negative statement here after all this raving about how great deed poll is, how wonderful the actors did and so on and so on. i did not like the film. it's crappy!<br /><br />there are orgies, they have taboo sex (gay sex, bi sex, oral sex, rape, anal sex, masturbation, brother-sister-sex, brother-brother-sex, sex on drugs, sex without drugs, sex, sex, sex seems to rule their world. i guess the director is desperately in need of a getting laid.) the story is just dirty and shameful. i wonder what made those people get up with this story. and above all: who cares?<br /><br />the technical stuff didn't satisfy me as well. the sound is poor, so is the editing and the "direction" is absent. the actors are admittedly fine, but guess what! it's their job! their job is to act! no need to jump off your seats if an actor did a decent job. do you applause when a bus driver brings you home safely? see?<br /><br />i gave it 2/10 because after all this thing had something that i can't put in words. b movie charm? camp fun? nudity? i don't know.
Not even Emeril Lagasse cooking can save this disjointed, overheaded idiotic nonsense, starring emeril lagasse as a TV chef from the food channel,who with help of the crew to try to make the show better, poor plot and stupid script throw this show down the drain, Robert Urich wasted in the poorly supporting role and sadly this was his last one ever(R.I.P.), <br /><br />This is the worst show of 2001 and it will be on the list of the worst shows of this decade.<br /><br />I Feel Very Sorry for Emeril Lagasse for making this sitcom, he even said himself it stunk.<br /><br />It's hard to believe that they are the same producers of designing women that did this mess.<br /><br />TV Review: 1 Star
I know my summary sounds very harsh, but this film has very limited appeal. The average Joe out there would have a hard time sticking with this film. The entire film consists of animated loggers doing their jobs and dancing on floating logs. This is all done with very splashy and artsy colors and the film might be great to show to patrons in an art museum. However, unless you really love this sort of art or are a Canadian who loves films about your native land, then this is probably going to be next to impossible to finish. I have a rather high tolerance for this sort of thing and even I had to force myself to watch after a couple minutes. I can respect the work that went into it, but it's just not compelling.
We found this movie nearly impossible to watch. With such a super cast, it's a shame that the writing and direction were so awful. The excruciating pace at which the story was told was maddening. The flash-backs were clumsy. The characters were one-dimensional. The heavy-handed metaphors -- the river, the cat -- were repeated way too often. <br /><br />The movie Nobody's Fool, based on another novel by Russo, was infinitely better, probably because it was more tightly written and directed. <br /><br />The photography in Empire Falls was lovely. Too bad it wasn't a travelogue.<br /><br />I read the novel and enjoyed the writing style but had some quibbles with the novel itself. I would give the novel 4 out of 5 stars. Perhaps the screenwriters and director were so awed by the novel's reputation they felt they had to include every darn thing in their movie. This was supposed to be a television movie, guys, not Books on Tape.
I'm relieved the later reviews have turned sour - reading all the positive feedback, I was starting to worry that my understanding of movies (and life) was completely different than everyone else's in the world. Everything in this movie rang false to me...the characters, the dialogue, the manipulative soundtrack, the corny narration, all of it. As each scene unfolded I kept thinking, "People don't act like this." It's relentlessly heavy-handed and maudlin. In a way I think the movie bullies you into liking it, or pretending to like it, because it's Serious and about Real People and confronts Issues. But man, it really did not work for me.
Put simply, this mini-series was terrible. Let me count the ways. 1. Absurd plotting. 2. Over-acting. 3. Scattershot approach to characters. 4. Annoying narration. 5. Inability to create viewer interest.<br /><br />This film can't even pass the "Soap Opera for Dummies" test. I'm sorry I have not read this award-winning novel, so I am judging it only as a film, but it really stinks. Imagine going to a party where they show you dozens of appetizers. You look at the wide variety and want to taste them, but suddenly they are withdrawn, and you wonder where they went. That's like this film, with way too many characters introduced and never drawn out. There are enough stories and characters in this film to create a 20 episode series, yet we are given less than four hours to digest it all.<br /><br />There are more facial expressions and reaction shots of Ed Harris than you'll find on 10,000 monkeys. The pace is extraordinarily slow. <br /><br />Dennis Farina and Helen Hunt are so far over-the-top that their characters are not believable. Joanne Woodward's character is one-dimensional. <br /><br />The persistent river metaphor becomes trite.<br /><br />And, probably the most absurd part of the film--the cat. This evil and vengeful cat who follows the hero around to scratch him and his seat covers--well, come on now---it's not even good Stephen King!<br /><br />Probably the most interesting character in the film, and one who is not drawn well, is John Voss, the disturbed boy whose final act of desperation accounts for the only plot device that works in this film.<br /><br />Just about everyone in this film is unbelievable.<br /><br />To sum up, there's little here to inspire. The drama is poor melodrama. It's just a terrible effort.
Wow. What can I say? I was born in 1960. I love bad TV movies. Love them. I get involved. The works. I want to get involved. I'm spending time watching the thing. I watched the emmys last night on TV. How in the infinite world was the Empire Falls (excellent name)TV movie up for any awards? It truly had wonderful talent. Of course. And they tried admirably. But how can ANYONE pretend that was an OK (tv for goodness sakes) screenplay? OK direction? You know, I wish everyone the best. Really. But I thought it was totally mind-bending that Hollywood was placing this very very bad film up for so many honors. Awards? For me it was sort of a wake-up call that Hollywood is such a small insular community. Being cynical is not really my thing. But wow. --xptyngi
Despite the all-star cast, this attempt at epic fails. It comes across as a set of flat cartoon stereotypes strung together by an all too, too clever social commentary. <br /><br />It's as if with every bit of dialogue and introduction to a new character the writer peeks out and says "Isn't that clever? Am I not smart? Isn't that biting social commentary?" And,sadly, the answer is always "Ummmm...no." Wearying self-absorbing stuff that is more like soap opera (in the worst sense of the term) than a movie...and an obvious attempt at television immortality. Thankfully, it died young. Empire Falls falls flat.
Typically elaborately crafted HBO production with a first-rate cast, a rich small-town atmosphere and some nice narrative vignettes, graced by above average production values.<br /><br />But, and that's a huge 'but', the various subplots, peopled with some likable, mostly annoying caricatures, are paper-thin and go and and on in dull stretches for over three long hours.<br /><br />The often silly story veers uneasily between melodrama, without being entertaining enough, and personal drama, without being profound at all.<br /><br />A shame, because some scenes really shine. Two or three, that is.<br /><br />4 out of 10 grubby Paul Newmans
Everything that made the original so much fun seems to absent here. This is simply a "run of the mill demons on the loose wrecking havoc" slasher, but without the passion that graced the original.<br /><br />There's nothing new in the story, in fact it seems like they ignore the first one altogether. Here, the demons run loose in a high security apartment building and, naturally, kill most of the residents in grisly fashion. The makeup effects actually seem less convincing here than the first time around. Although the actors weren't exactly brilliant in Demons, in Demons 2 they're actually a lot worse. You don't care about these characters, AT ALL. The plot is nonexistent, the music poor (apart from one Simon Boswell song), it's not scary in the least; it's just not that good.<br /><br />Easily the worst film Dario Argento has been involved with and Lamberto Bava's also (Bava has a cameo in this film, not a very funny one).<br /><br />Maybe 3 is too high a rating, but at least I could watch it all and didn't think of stopping midway. My advice; Stick to the original.
When the word "presents" finds its way into a title, preceded by a famous name, the work is usually immediately dismissible. For some reason, people who are capable of creating good art don't seem to be able to see it in others. However, I've always been willing to give the second installment of the Demons trilogy a try. For one thing, the soundtracks are absolutely to die for. Most American directors would have sacrificed small animals to line up the kind of talent on the soundtrack of Demons 2. For another, well, two words: Asia Argento. (Of course, she was eleven when this film was made, and a number of years away from her seeming decision that she would style her acting after early Helen Mirren: steamy looks and little clothing.) As well, Lamberto Bava comes from one of Italy's finest dynasties in that odd horror sub genre known as Giallo (he's the son of Mario Bava, who may well have invented the genre in the sixties). And the original Demons is an absolute must-see for fans of eighties B-horror films. So how bad can this be, right? Well, bad. The demons continue their assault on Italian media, as the movie opens in a modern Italian high-rise where many people going about their lives have their televisions on in the background. They're all watching a kind of combination news report/mater video of some investigative reporter types trying to get proof of the events of the first film (which would seem to put the time frame of this one no more than a few days after the first film). Through the usual horror-film extra inability to concentrate, the reporters manage to bring a demon back to life, and he comes through the TV screen to start the plague anew.<br /><br />Yeah. It's that bad. About the only thing good one can say about the film is that the soundtrack (when you're not being buffeted about by the likes of The Smiths, The Cult, Gene Loves Jezebel, etc.) is stunning. It comes from the keyboard of Simon Boswell, who got his start as a part of the Argento Dynasty and has since gone on to score such films as Lord of Illusions and Hackers.<br /><br />Makes a half-decent free rental if you're planning on drinking heavily, but it's certainly nowhere near the fun the original was. Cronenberg's wonderfully funny high-rise-nasty-creature romp, Shivers (aka They Came From Within), is a whole lot better.
Please, why on Earth did Bava had to add insult to injury making this pathetic piece of follow up crap?<br /><br />To begin with we, "the viewers" at home are treated to a narration from some unknown ding-bat informing us of the aftermath events of the previous episode indicating mankind's triumph over the demons, (yeah right).<br /><br />I can tell you "right now" that this doesn't in anyway what-so-ever have anything to do with Demons as this is a completely new story with a different backdrop altogether. Bava as usual, makes a casual appearance that doesn't even seem to fit into the main context of the story at all. Acting in this one beyond appalling and the whole concept about the demons appearing through a TV set, Oh God I'm not going to go on. Go see for yourself.<br /><br />As usual you'll be treated to laughable dubbing, crap scenarios that don't make any sense and above all un-answered questions. How typical of a sequel that dished out the first batch of crap.<br /><br />Overall if you're one of those DVD Argentophile collector's, then maybe you'll wanna give this a go otherwise avoid like the plague, it's no way near the first, so you may wanna avoid like the plague.
(Spoilers more than likely... nothing really important you couldn't have figured out yourselves) Yeah, it's really weird. I rented it at a Blockbuster for the reason it had absolutely NO description of the movie on the back of the box, only a list of the bands that had songs in it. But after that, I had a dikens of a time finding it, even here on IMDB. I kept confusing it with "Night of the Demons," but, you know, they're basically the same thing. <br /><br />The parts I loved most about this movie was the whole thing in the garage. That black gym guy was hilarious the way he screamed ALL the time. Even when screaming wasn't really necessary, he'd let out a "LISTEN UP NOW!! BLOCK THE DOOR WITH CARS!!!!" and so, they'd run cars head on into other cars. But, then he got balls and shafted by a zombie with a broom stick I believe it was. The other part that kinda caught my attention was the part with the crash outside the building with the guys that they girl didn't want to come over... To what significant aspect of the movie did that give us? What was it? Why was it there? Why did the movie end with a guy breaking the TV's in a studio? I saw that there was a zombie running towards the screen, but he was kinda far away. I mean, he could have just turned the TV off. Yes, this movie was shot on a whim and yes, I hated it. Good day...
This film SUCKS!! It looks like they just chose to place scenes together at random. Good gore, but little plot. Sally whines and complains about everything till she becomes a demon. I figured that she had PMS. It sure seemed that way. The dubbing in this film is horrible. One scene the woman was talking and a few seconds before we hear any audio. I knew at that moment my suspicions were correct that it was not from the US. I tried to follow along but got lost about half way through it and found it very hard to believe, even for a horror film. Some good characters, but not many. Not worth wasting one's time.
The films use of blue-black and vibrant skin tones to create a noir-ish feel to this movie unfortunately do not work. In fact its quite irritating as it obscures the demon characters and reduces them to one dimensional beings.<br /><br />At least the original had an hysterical energy and the gore set-pieces were quite stunning. Black gore is hardly frightening, nor is the main female demon at all frightening in her attempts to snarl and growl at the screen in her best camp Lugosi style.<br /><br />The narrative is grossly disjointed and if you could imagine 'Naked Lunch' directed by Russ Meyer you may appreciate the attempt to be William Burroughs-esque. Otherwise give this film a wide girth. Bava and Argento fans - once again - are bitterly disappointed.
Saw this last night and being a fan of the first Demons, I had hoped that the sequel would have the same fun, spooky spirit of it's predecessor. This is unfortunately not the case. The set-up is similar as the first, in which a horde of flesh-eating demons burst forth into reality by being released from a horror movie being played... (The first had been a movie theater, this one takes place in an apartment building and on TV.) Once the demons are released, madness and mass carnage ensues. That's pretty much it as far as plot development goes. It worked nicely in the first part because of the ghoulish make-up FX, fast pace and unpredictability. The sequel, however, doesn't cut it. The first problem seems to be that there are way too many characters who we don't really care about one way or another. If they were annoying or idiots, then there would at least be some kind of gratification when they are inevitably butchered/demonized/eaten alive...but these people are just kind of there waiting to be slaughtered. Plus, the fact that most of the characters are in different parts of the apartment building (and out of it), they are constantly cutting back and forth between them, which kept pulling me out of the story. There are some amusing bits, courtesy of the splatter FX and campiness. Such as a constant flow of dripping blood eating through one floor's construction after another as if it were alien acid... The first demon possession of a crabby birthday girl leads to the destruction of her entire party, and a creepy demon child clawing his way into the room of a tenant who is pregnant with child. However, that sequence parlays into a ridiculous-looking rubber demon baby puppet thing that bursts from the chest of the human child that constantly flies across the room at its intended victim. I got a couple of chuckles out of that scene, but I don't think that was Bava's intention. The scene probably would've worked better if they just kept the child demon around to attack the woman, but hey... Other little things like the over-zealous acting of most of the characters and the bad dubbing don't help matters. In summation, I managed to see the unrated version on DVD, and can't imagine having to sit all the way through the previously only available R rated version, because the make-up FX and gore were the only thing I got out of it. Also notable is an early role of producer Argento's future hottie daughter, Asia. In fact, she probably gives the best performance of the whole cast and she's barely on screen. Argento/Bava fan's might want to check it out just to see it, but will probably find themselves looking at their watch, like I did. Gore fans might get a kick out of some of the fx, but will be laughing themselves out of their chairs at the most goofy-looking evil baby puppet since Little Selwyn from Dead/Alive. You could do worse, but it certainly doesn't live up to the original.
Everything about this movie was bad, the acting was bad and the plot was bad. And were is all the blood and gore that was in "Demons" which is a good movie and it was not scary at all. My Brother said that this movie was bad but I had to give it a chance since the first movie was very good. When the movie was over I understand why my brother thought this movie was bad. The only plus in this movie was the music by "The Smiths" and "The Cult", but this is a movie and the music soundtrack is not the most important thing. And I saw that it has been released four sequels after this film, I haven't seen none of them but can they be as awful as this one, I have no plans to see them but maybe I will see them some time.
Before I really slag this film off, I just want to say I absolutely loved it. <br /><br />Firstly, how many times in the film did the characters use the phrase "You're Right."? I'm sure i was counting in the hundreds before I gave up and started watching the film again.<br /><br />Secondly, what the hell is with those blue monkey things? OK, so the Dansen family led very private lives and had one brown eye one blue eye, but since when does that transform people into subterranean carnivorous blue zombie-creatures?<br /><br />and finally, 'Old faithful here will protect me' hahaha :)
I just finished up this unofficial adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft's "The Lurking Fear" that was shot in Louisiana. Outside of a few changes (names, setting), this follows the short story point by point for the first 70 minutes but then tries to inject its own "twist" ending that you could see coming from a mile away. Either way, it is a much better adaptation than Full Moon's THE LURKING FEAR. Too bad it is a terrible film. Director David McCormick shoots the thing with all the flair of an industrial short. I swear I counted maybe two camera movements. The creature design is cheap (we're talking store bought masks here) but shot in a dark manner (intentional or not) where they are somewhat creepy. The most impressive thing in the picture is the abandoned mansion but McCormick fails to exploit that as well. File this one under good adaptation, poor execution.
This is probably the worst film I have ever seen; it makes Plan 9 from Outer Space look wonderful. The acting is wooden, the plot silly and the SFX non-existent. The only good thing about it is the fact that it is not a long film. The scenery is sometimes quite pretty, assuming you like trees, if that helps any!
The girls might be prettier if you're their accompanist or a $#!+-faced onlooker. What I'm sayin' is that it'll take special circumstances for a non-whince reaction to this effort. The delivery of many lines appears to be distractingly unnatural for some actors. Lighting seems to be a problem, too, although failing eyesight may have accounted for my frequent squinting. And if you view this film, be open-minded enough to accept elements that no zoo or circus would reject: They are the above and below-ground creatures who feasted on dozens of campers near an empty Louisiana mansion. That's the discovery of a trio who is dispatched from their printed media to investigate the deaths. Then, two of THEM disappear, and the survivor is part of another threesome who take up the hunt. Eureka! I just realized what one of those aforementioned "special circumstances" would be - unconsciousness.
I saw this film before two weeks. It's kitsch, boring and totally unintelligible for people, that haven't read the original book. There are many fact mistakes too... actors plays rather poor, you must laugh even in the sad moments. It was a totally waste of time.
I don't really know why so many persons love this movie: maybe it's funny, OK, but it has totally ruined one of the best novels ever written. As the author himself said, this movie has betrayed the book: not only the story is violently cut to about 1/3, but all the symbols, all the complexity, everything is lost in a very 80's-fashioned fantasy/adventure film for kids. Today we have effects, directors, a new attention to books: I hope that someone (Tim Burton, Peter Jackson, Hayao Miyazaki...) someday will direct the REAL Neverending story. A great dead writer, a wonderful book and many literature lovers deserve it.
Way back at the dawn of human civilization cavemen sat around and made lame jokes, hit each other over the heads with what ever they could grab, and women were never seen and apparently at one time had tails. These cavemen lived in a geographically diverse region with a cockatoo, a camel, a monkey - but no women. This film tells of the "hilarious" misadventures of seven(or so) cavemen - having burned their land with the new discovery of fire - moving on by water to a new land where they find this woman with the extra appendage. Along the way we get such "great" moments of comedy like a fat cavemen swallowing a frog that keeps croaking in his stomach. A monkey throwing rocks at their heads. A man swallowing a mouse to get the frog in his stomach. The obligatory "gay" caveman. The list could go on and on. This movie is the very definition of cinematic dreck. I was bored from the onset and it only got worse as the cavemen bobbled around hitting each other, making poor jokes such as puns on the word perch, hitting each other, and mauling poor Seta Berger who looks like she lost a bet to a producer to appear in this nonsense. She is indeed one of two bright spots in this film. She isn't much of an actress so you have to guess why she is an ass-et? The other "bright" spot is the music. As soon as I heard the score, I said to myself that it sounded very familiar. I had never heard the actual score but the music was unmistakably that of Ennio Morricone. It's a nice score and the best thing in an otherwise crude, boring, lewd, unimaginative, and ridiculous film essentially about a group of Moes finding a woman for the first time and, first wanting to eat her like some animal, being taught what she could do. Awwwwh! Sorry, I'm stifling a yawn as I relive the plot! The end of the film has some 100 or so mostly naked women on screen with all the erotic feel of pulling a scab off your knee. This movie was painful to sit through and offers nothing of any real merit whatsoever. The fact that it spawned a sequel doesn't surprise me as it offers that one thing which will prick viewer interest - tail.
I readily admit that I watch a lot of really bad movies. But there are very few that I can think of that are quite as bad as When Women Had Tails. It's a stinker of epic proportions. What should have been a sexy comedy about a group of cavemen discovering a woman for the first time is instead a dull, lifeless affair without a single laugh to be had. The comedy is extremely weak. I suppose if you think bashing someone in the head is funny, you might find a laugh or two. The guys in this movie make the Three Stooges look like high art. And there's just not enough of a plot to hold the thing together. It seems to drag on and on and on.<br /><br />Well, you may be asking yourself, "If it's as bad as you say, why haven't you rated it lower than a 3/10?" Good question! And I've got two answers. First, the movie is not without its curiosity value. I do find a bit of interest in an Italian spoof of movies like One Million Years B.C. with Raquel Welch. I'll give When Women Had Tails a point for its historic "value". The other two points are for the mere presence of Senta Berger. I know it's not much of an explanation or reasoning for a rating, but what are you going to do? It's the best I can come up with.
Is it possible for a movie to get any worse than this? There's a bunch of apes wandering about, mumbling b******, acting supposedly silly and we are supposed to laugh? There is no plot here to keep you going in the first place. Even when the women finally show up, there is no sign of improvement; the most expected things happen and by the time the film is over, you might be far asleep. Beware: this is not a trashy cult movie, this is trash -period! I can't believe there's even a sequel to this!<br /><br />1
Yesterday I watched this tv production, and I was very disappointed.<br /><br />I didn't have big expectations when it was a tv production, but the complete movie was pain with no ending. I felt it lasted for 3 hours, but it was just me who was bored to death. Every minute was a long struggle and I really fought hard to stay away from the "turn off"-switch.<br /><br />The movie is about a doctor (Dr. Verghese) who gets a lot of AIDS-patients, and most of them die during the movie. It is hard for Verghese to live with, so his family gets punished with his frustrations. However this movie has problems showing both sides, it mostly focuses on his conversations with the patients, and sometimes we see flicks from his home, but we don't get much. The difficulties to show more than one part of Verghese's life doesn't get any better with the poor acting from Naveen Andrews, a man I (hopefully) can't see in any good future movies.<br /><br />I believe it got 7,6 because of the subject (taboo?), but I'm sure that there are better movies about this subject on the market. Stay away from this movie, it does not deserve more than 3/10.<br /><br />
Dorothy Stratten is the only reason to watch this unfunny sci-fi spoof, and her appearance is a disappointment. Though she has the title role, her screentime is limited, and she only speaks a few lines of dialogue. If you're not a Stratten fan, pass this one up.
... what a porn movie would look like if you took out the sex and just left in the bad dialog, cheap sets and bad acting, you would have Galaxina.<br /><br />This film came out when the Original Star Wars proved there was a market for Science Fiction. This in turn lead to some gems such as Alien and a revitalized Star Trek. Unfortunately, it also led to some bad movies, and this was obviously one of them. (I say obviously, because I hadn't even heard of this film until a few days ago.I missed it when it came out in 1980.) <br /><br />Here's the underlying problem. Dorothy Stratton couldn't act, so for most of the movie, they didn't even let her try. I understand her tragic death has given this film an undeserved cult status, but for the life of me I can't understand why.<br /><br />Clearly, the movie tried to Spoof Star Wars, Star Trek and Aliens, but they clearly don't understand than when you spoof something, it has to be FUNNY! This movie wasn't, or at least, the comic timing on jokes that could have been funny weren't. Science Fiction is ripe for parody, as Spaceballs and Galaxy Quest proved. This movie, however, did it poorly.
For connoisseurs of bad movies, Galaxina is a true gem. With truly horrid dialog, acting, and directing, it's no choice for people seeking a proper movie. But as one of the most unintentionally hilarious movies of its genre, it's priceless for a good laugh. In particular, the scenes involving the Harley Davidson-worshiping motorcycle cult are especially good, and many other scenes present an opportunity for a cheap laugh.<br /><br />Sadly, the scenes with Dorothy Stratten really fail to deliver, but since she's playing an android, I suppose one can excuse her for wooden acting.<br /><br />Bad movie-lovers, don't pass this one up!
This picture hit the movie screens on June 6th 1980, starring Stephen Macht as Sergeant Thor, Avery Schreiber as Captain Comelius Butt, J.D. Hinton as Buzz and starring Playmate of the year Dorothy Stratton. The picture starts with the police infinity roaming space looking for I guess criminals. There ship is suddenly attacked by an unknown space ship. Enters Sergeant Thor and his partner Buzz as they try to figure out who the unknown ship belongs to. When failing they call on Captain Comelius who instructs his crew to fight back. Enters the gorgeous Dorothy Stratton, who plays the role of Galaxina who is man made robot. An now a few thoughts on this picture. This movie was plan stupid and it's one of the reasons that I don't get into Sci-Fi. If you're into Sci-Fi you would have notice that the laser sound effects were borrowed from an early Sci-fi movie titled Battlestar Galactica which aired in theaters in 1978. Many of the door sounds that you hear in this movie came from another Sci-Fi movie that aired back in 1966 titled Star Trek. Now for the reason that I bought this movie, Dorothy Stratton. She is gorgeous in her one piece suit. I think her talents were wasted in this picture and she should have never been involved in such garbage. Connie Sellecca was also considered for the role and her talents would have been wasted also. On the picture alone I give this movie 1 weasel star and on Dorothy Stratton I give her 10 weasel stars even though she didn't deserve to be put into a trash movie like this. If you like pictures like this you can get the DVD version on Amazon.com
I have yet to watch STARCRASH (1979) - that notoriously cheesy Italian take on STAR WARS (1977) - but it can't be much worse than this misbegotten piece of junk which, suffice it to say, makes Mel Brooks' so-so SPACEBALLS (1987) look like a veritable work of art! In fact, the main reason why GALAXINA is remembered at all nowadays is because of the tragic fate which befell its leading lady - Playboy centerfold Dorothy Stratten who was killed by her insanely jealous estranged husband - before the film had even had its official premiere! <br /><br />Although Statten (who subsequently had two biopics made about her wherein she was portrayed by Jamie Lee Curtis and Mariel Hemingway) plays the title role, for the first half of the film she is reduced to being propped up in a chair ostensibly driving a spaceship on a 27-year journey to some planet or other; in fact, Galaxina is an all-purpose android who also serves the wacky crew their snacks, gets them all hot under the collar and even goes scouting for the Blue Star (cue choral music) once they land! Having said that, Statten certainly looks luminous in her white attire and, even if her role hardly demands much exertion of any acting talent she might possess, it's not exactly demeaning either.<br /><br />Still, it's ironic that for a film which bears her name, she is overshadowed by the campy and would-be zany antics of her fellow crew members, especially the annoying Captain Cornelius Butt (which gives you the idea of the level of comedy on display here), a long-eared, wing-sporting colored guy, a pot-smoking, proverb-quoting old Chinaman and, best of all (relatively speaking) a foul-mouthed, rock-eating, hairy alien creature they hold prisoner. The villain of the piece is a metal-clad non-entity who does, however, have the best laugh in the film when, upon hearing the choral music following his every mention of the Blue Star, exclaims, "What is this s**t?" There is little point in listing the sci-fi classics which are mauled by this stinker in its ludicrous attempts at spoofing the genre since they are not only lame but obvious; incredibly enough, a chest-busting but ultimately benign alien is apparently played by diminutive Hollywood veteran, Angelo Rossitto!<br /><br />For what it's worth, then, the scenes shot on the planet they visit (which looks more like a Western set than a planetary landscape) have a yellowish, sun-like hue and its inhabitants are 'human gourmets' (delicacies on their menu include Skin and Tonic, Scotsman on the Rocks, Thigh Pies, Baked Alaskan, etc), not to mention a motorcycle gang who serve their own particular deity (the Harley Davidson) and when our heroes escape on the back of it, they dare not shoot at them for fear of hitting their "Lord". God(awful) indeed...
I've seen worse films. This is bad but at least doesn't try to be good so it deserves a brief round of applause. It rest firmly in the realms of the low-budget B-movie sci-fi genre.<br /><br />It is a rubbish film but in a nice way and is certainly worth buying if it's in the bargain bin at your local supermarket. Awfully charming rather than just plain awful.<br /><br />The highlight for me is when Galaxina's lover goes to rescue her. Upon turning up she exclaims "Bunnyfluff!" which draws sniggers from his co-pilot.<br /><br />Sit back, get drunk, enjoy!
I'm not a movie snob. I've liked lots of movies that critics hate, and I've hated movies that critics love. However, I have to agree with critics here--"Galaxina" is just substandard. Clearly intended to be a comedy, it only has a few scattered laughs. "Galaxina" has poor photography; it has poor special effects; it has some pretty poor acting; and the production values...well, the sets might as well have been made of cardboard.<br /><br />"Galaxina" tells the story of a spaceship whose crew is looking for a magical object called "The Blue Star". After a long voyage (and some very unconvincing space battles), the crew arrives at its destination, a sort of wild west alien world. There's a painfully unfunny cantina scene (clearly designed to be a spoof of the famous "Star Wars" scene), a chase involving space bikers, and a final getaway.<br /><br />The cast tries, but can't breathe life into this turkey. Stephen Macht and Avery Schreiber have done better work in other movies. James David Hinton is pretty good as a member of the spaceship's crew. The late Dorothy Stratten stars as the robot of title, and while she looks great, her role doesn't give her much of a chance to act.<br /><br />You might catch this film to see Dorothy Stratten. However, if you're looking for a good movie, you'll probably want to skip this one.
This is not the worst movie I've ever seen. I did not feel like I wanted to remove my eyeballs forcibly after watching Galaxina. It just is not good. The jokes are almost funny, but fall short. All of them. The few gags that come close are beat back down by repeating them over and over. The production values are, well, non-existent. The sound is bad, the lighting is bad, ... it just seems cheaply made; overly so. The dialog ... well, often it is missing - many awkward silences; they are all just standing around, and it seems like someone should be saying something. The film even seems ambivalent about what it wants to be - it is not always clear that it was intended as a comedy - like maybe that developed after shooting started. It feels like someone's film project that they threw together the night before it was due, and if they had put two weeks into it, it could have been good.<br /><br />And I'm easy to please. I thought "Mom and Dad Save the World" was a hoot. I like "Pluto Nash". "Mystery Men" is one of my favorite movies. "Spaced Invaders" is well nigh unto a classic. This turkey just doesn't do it. "Space Truckers" was more believable.<br /><br />Avery Schreiber, who can be very funny, tries too hard. His part calls for a straightman, and he plays it leaning toward sitcom. Dorothy Stratten is OK in her role, but not particularly noteworthy.<br /><br />Oh, yeah, the "My watch is always slow." line was funny. I'll give this movie all the kudos it can get, it needs it.<br /><br />The space vehicle models are not bad, but they are few and are not used effectively. The space scenes are vague. No sweeping passes, no close up detailed fly-bys, not even appropriate action scenes when they dock. (The Infinity does crash land very oddly at one point.) The flight dynamics are terrible; worse than anything you've seen, they're jerky, not smooth. The initial battle is stilted and static; even though the two ships have just shown that they can maneuver in their jerky fashion, they trade (slow) shots at close range in a manner that is more reminiscent of a 16th century sea battle, except not as exciting.<br /><br />The aliens - imagine if all of Star Wars was the cantina scene. That many rubber masks could get dull rather rapidly, no? A few are used as sight gags that work OK the first time, but not the fifth.<br /><br />Mercifully, if you attempt to watch Galaxina, you are likely to fall asleep. (I got busy doing something else and missed the last ten minutes, and did not feel like it was worth replaying it. If that doesn't say "It sucked", I don't know what does.) Sadly, there is a lot of potential, and this could easily have been a good movie. It would be easy to remake this and have a decent film.<br /><br />MadKaugh
The odd thing about Galaxina is not that it is supremely bad, although it is. The odd thing is that in spite of being supremely bad, it is not funny. Supremely bad movies have their own particular brand of unintended humor--the secret of their success, you might say. But Galaxina is quite uniquely different--it is MST3K's worst nightmare, a bad movie in which the intentional *and* the unintentional humor alike fall flat.<br /><br />It is easy enough to figure out why the intentional jokes fail--and the reasons are quite varied. Sometimes it's a timing question; sometimes it's a good idea badly worked out (the human restaurant *could* have been hilarious, but it wasn't); sometimes it feels like there was some mixup in the cutting room, with the punchline ending up on the floor; and sometimes the jokes are just bad jokes. Bad movies get their laughs from such unintentional snafus. It's harder to figure out why Galaxina doesn't get any laughs on that count. Something is subtly wrong with the unintentional humor in this movie, just as something is wrong (not at all subtly) with the intentional humor. It is a supremely bad movie whose very badness is not the redeeming quality it usually is. It's absolutely unique in my experience.
If ever there was a film that can be considered a missed opportunity then that film is Galaxina. What could possibly be wrong in basing a sci-fi film around a sexy statuesque female android? Surely such a film could never be a complete waste of time? Well, sadly this movie is pretty close to useless. There are a number of faults with this production it has to be said, however, there are two basic problems that entirely destroy the whole enterprise. Firstly, this is a comedy with no funny bits at all, or at the very least a film where the potentially amusing aspects are presented in an incredibly unamusing way. Secondly, the title character is woefully underused. This may be because Dorothy Stratten was not really an actress but if so it was a terrible decision as she is still easily the best thing about the film. I don't think she really needed to be a great thespian to pull off the role of a sexy android to be perfectly honest. Anyway, what we are left with is a whole lot of mind-numbing comedy relief, which often is made up of hopeless spoof-type gags of the big sci-fi hits of the time such as Alien, Star Wars and 2001. It's badly written and not funny at all, and it doesn't even really have a plot to propel things along. The story basically is about a police space-cruiser that is sent to get a rock. That's it! Steven Spielberg once said that a high-concept movie was one whose plot line could be described in one sentence. What he didn't define was what you call a movie that can be described in less than a sentence - pointless maybe?<br /><br />This seemed like a sure-fire winner to me but it failed miserably. It seems to have been an attempt to spoof Star Wars and combine it with adult comedy situations. All it does actually achieve is to leave you cold and a little irritated that it wasn't close to what it should've been. A Barbarella for the 80's this ain't.<br /><br />Shortly after this film was finished Dorothy Stratten was murdered in an appallingly violent and horrific way. And for that reason Galaxina has derived a considerable amount of it's cult interest. I just think it's a great shame that Dorothy didn't have a better film left to immortalise her.
How can ANYBODY give this anything higher than a '1'?<br /><br />I thought "Manos, the Hands of Fate" would forever be the worst movie ever to impinge itself upon my optic nerve. Indeed, I didn't think anything COULD be worse.<br /><br />I was wrong. "Galaxina" is that rare movie where EVERY SINGLE ELEMENT of it is achingly, agonizingly, blindingly bad. How often have you watched a movie and commented, "Who the hell LIT this thing?" From lighting to soundtrack to effects to script to acting to cinematography to . . . well, EVERYTHING, this movie is absolutely unendurable. It's so bad, I couldn't even tell for some time if it was the worst comedy or the worst drama I'd ever seen.<br /><br />It's too bad even to be laughable. I'd sooner eat a platefull of broken glass than sit through it again.
I am giving this movie Vampire Assassins a "2" rating mainly because it had no sex or nudity. Other than that, I am not sure why it was ever made. It was more like a training exercise in how to make a movie with a very limited budget. The characters Derek and Slovak were the best actors. They were followed closely by the "biker-Dude" with the Pleather pants and silver belt. He was OK too. Most of the movie was filmed in some kind of distribution warehouse. If you got tired of watching the kung-fu kick boxing stunts, you can check out the packages of Scott tissue, Windex and other cleaning products. You will have a lot of time to do this, trust me. I almost started to make a list. The dialogue and kung-fu stunts were extremely slow. They talked slow, fought slow, etc. I don't know why. At least with the extra-slow delivery of the actors lines, you could hear everything very distinctly. I am trying hard to find good stuff to say about this movie. We watched it all the way to the end to see if got any better, but it didn't. We never could decide if the actors really knew martial arts or were just acting like they knew martial arts. You can watch yourself and decide. My favorite line was something like (vampire speaking:) "what are you looking at?" other man responding: "your bad dental work."
When the budget doesn't allow for a Cadillac or Packard or Lincoln or Imperial hearse we are talking cheep cheep. That's bird language for cheap cheap.<br /><br />What is in the hair of the forty year old teen boy? The guy who looks like a cement head who tries a couple of times to run over John Agar and provides the only scare in the movie by how close he comes. His hair looks like a shoe. A patent leather shoe. He is a shoe head.<br /><br />The nurse woman needs immediate emergency hair washing. She has lacquer in her blond locks that would ignite if the production company had been able to afford lights.<br /><br />The monster? The music was scarier. I would try to run from the music. The monster probably had better hair than the rest of the cast. Put some lipstick on that monster and you've got Divine's older sister.<br /><br />The camera work and editing and plot provided a buffer to prepare the audience for the bad music throughout.<br /><br />Hello Mr. Agar? We're thinking of doing a sequel to Night Fright and... Mr. Agar? Agar? Tom Willett
Mixing small town sheriffs, high-school students, fake rock music, and some weirdo who kills for, well, no reason in particular, this film is essentially a re-make of "The Giant Gila Monster" - except without the gila monster, of course.<br /><br />Now, anyone who has actually seen "Giant Gila Monster", knows that it is one of the worst made films of all time, frequently so slow, it's not even funny. And I can't believe that by 1967, "Giant Gila Monster" had earned such a reputation that young directors were just dying to get to work on a sequel, let alone a remake. So will someone please explain to me why this film was made?! The dance sequence, by the way, is historically interesting, although about three years out of date; but even that's spoiled, since it goes on... and on... and... on....
Imagine what it must have been like for John Agar. One of Hollywood's handsome leading men. Married to Shirley Temple for five years. He finds himself doing movies like this. I remember him in "Tarantula" where he wasn't half bad. Unfortunately, there is nothing to recommend this film. The monster is dumb uninteresting and incompetent. The police are boring. The teenagers are boring. The plot is stupid. People run around. There are events that do nothing to advance the plot. There's dancing that goes on and on, and then there is no attack. There is some idiotic love triangle that no one could care the least about. It isn't even campy or outrageous. It's just no worth anything. Agar might as well have been a post. He's given nothing to do.
There is one adjective that describes everything about this film - acting, plot, effects, continuity, etc. - and that word is poor. The government wants to asses the effects of space travel on certain organisms but the capsule crashes and a mutant something-or-other (looks like a guy in an ape suit with the top of a football helmet over his face) wreaks havoc around the accident scene, which includes a favorite place for the window-fogging, partying set. Therefore, some young people - as well as a law enforcement officer - are among the creature's victims. You gotta be extremely unparticular about how you spend your time - or rich, if you spend any money - to view this epic.
This one isn't even lively enough to be fun. Something is out there, ripping people off (off-screen) after a spaceship crash (off-screen) while government executives investigates (off-screen) and bad actors says stupid lines (on-screen), including a guy who looks like Jim Carrey with a hangover. The "monster", when it finally is shown, looks like an extra from "Robot Monster", but there ain't enough monster fu anyway.<br /><br />Fortunately, it's pretty short. Skip it, unless you want to get bored out of your skull by this
I am a fan of bad horror films of the 1950s and 60s--films so ridiculous and silly that they are good for a laugh. So, because of this it's natural that I'd choose this film--especially because with John Agar in it, it was practically guaranteed to be bad. Sadly, while it was a bad film, it was the worst type of bad film--dull beyond belief and unfunny. At least with stupid and over-the-top bad films, you can laugh at the atrocious monsters and terrible direction and acting. Here, you never really see that much of the monster (mostly due to the darkness of the print) and the acting, while bad, is more low energy bad...listless and dull.<br /><br />The film begins with some young adults going to Satan's Hollow to neck. Well, considering the name of the place, it's not surprising when they are later found chewed to pieces! Duh...don't go necking at Satan's Hollow!! Well, there are reports of some sort of crashing object from the sky, so what do the teens go? Yep, throw a dance party--a very, very, very slow dance party where the kids almost dance in slow motion. So it's up to the Sheriff (Agar) and his men to ensure that the teens can dance in peace without fear of mastication.<br /><br />As for the monster, it's some guy in a gorilla suit with a silly mask--a bit like the monster in ROBOT MONSTER. Not exactly original and not exactly high tech. To make it worse, it makes snorting noises and moves very, very slowly--so slow that even the most corpulent teen could easily outrun it! How it manages to kill repeatedly is beyond me.<br /><br />Overall, too dull to like--even if you are a fan of lousy cinema.
Okay it is terribly, and I mean terribly, easy to pick apart this film. C'mmon what do you expect with the title, synopsis, and actors in leads such as Carol Gilley, Ralph Baker Jr., Dorothy Davis, Bill Thurman, and, my personal favourite, Roger Ready. Yes, B star John Agar is here as a sheriff out to rid the Texan landscape of a robot-like ape from a NASA experiment gone awry. The movie has dreadful performances, dreadful scenery, dreadful special effects, and dreadful lighting. I really cannot find much good to say about it other than as bad films go you could do a lot worse as far as finding something dreadful to sit through. It is bearably short and has many moments of unintended humor. Missed cues, lighting faux pas, off-screen terror, an unbelievably inane score, and of course John Agar trying his level best to be the core of the film with an earnest performance amidst this muck. The beginning is the hardest part to sit through as it seems like it takes forever for these two teens to get their comeuppance for traveling in the woods down the Texas back roads where great ape soon will reek his vengeance in his own terrible way...Yeah right! Night Fright! Bah!
What? - that was it? The town sheriff (John Agar) blows up the mutant gorilla with a stick of dynamite hidden in a mannequin? Did I just write that? Did I just see that? <br /><br />With instrumentals by The Wildcats, "Night Fright" is one flick that never deserved to be made as late as 1967. The heyday of the gorilla was well over, and anyone other than Ray Corrigan in an ape suit is just asking for trouble. Remake this in black and white and set the story about thirty years earlier and you'd have at least a 4.0 rating on the IMDb. But sadly, this one never should have stood a chance of seeing the light of day. Oops, there's another quirk - you can never tell if it's day or night in the story, since they seem interchangeable with one another.<br /><br />I'll give you this though, a couple of the early malt shop scenes looked like they could have gone on the air as Coke commercials. Thinking about it now, those were probably the best looking and best lit scenes of the picture; Coca Cola must have paid for them. Had they seen the completed movie, they might have been better served to prevent it's release.
This movie was painfully awful. Most of the movie consisted of people running in the woods, walking thru the woods, or dancing in the woods. More than half, at least. Then two kids who discover two 'horribly mutilated bodies' in the woods, return to the woods the very next night for a romantic walk. ????? There is no time continuity. its day, its night, its day, its really really night, its dusk, its pitch black, its day. All the woods scenes go on like this until you think you will lose your mind. really bad. The sheriff discovers a five foot claw print embedded in the dirt of the woods and theorizes that a super large alligator may have learned to walk upright. Really a silly movie with no real motivation written in for the characters. Might be entertaining for young kids, as an alternative to really graphic stuff.
This cheap and rubbish film is about a NASA test rocket that is sent into space with a cargo of animals. It vanishes for a while then unexpectedly returns, crash landing in a forest, unleashing a vicious mutant creature.<br /><br />Like many films of this type, Night Fright, features dumb teenagers boogieing on down to 60's surf music before being killed. None of the murders, however, are even remotely memorable, as we don't really see anything. One thing we do see, however, is that one of the teenagers appears to be about 40 years old and sports a quite impressively silly haircut.<br /><br />For a creature feature to work, it really has to present its monster to the viewer properly. In this film, however, we only get the briefest glimpses of the monster. It seems to sort of resemble the alien from Robot Monster. But I'm not sure; as the photography was so dark I simply couldn't make out what the hell was going on a lot of the time. Although, my gut feeling was that I probably wasn't missing very much.
When a rocket from a government experiment on the effects of cosmic rays on animals crashes in a small Texas town, people start to die. The county sheriff tries to investigate but is hampered in his efforts by other government officials. It turns out that there is a mutant space gorilla on the loose killing teenagers in the woods.<br /><br />I like low budget science fiction and horror movies. I like monster movies. So I thought that there would be a good chance that I would like this movie. Sadly, I didn't.<br /><br />I don't mind the bad acting, the corny dialog, the atrocious musical score or the giant plot holes that this movie has. There are a lot of movies that have the same problems that I have seen and enjoyed in a so bad it's good kind of way.<br /><br />But where others of that type and Night Fright differ is that Night Fright just has terrible pacing. And it drags on because of that. There are scenes that just go on and on without anything happening-the searching the woods for clues is just people walking in the forest for a long time; there are several seemingly endless dancing teens at a party in the woods...but nothing interesting is going on. If these scenes were shorter, the movie might not have been as boring (though I don't think simply cutting those scenes would save this one).<br /><br />I have now given this movie three viewings to make sure that I gave it a chance before slamming it in this review. Sadly, it has gotten worse with each watch. There won't be a fourth.
"A Texas community is beset with a rash of mysterious killings involving some of the students from the local college. The sheriff investigating the death discovers the startling identity of the killer responsible for the murders. A NASA experiment involving cosmic rays has mutated an ape and turned it into an unstoppable killing machine with a thirst for blood," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />Or, could the creature really be a mutated alligator returning from a space-bound "Noah's Ark"? <br /><br />A long opening, with laughably straight 1960s couple Ralph Baker Jr. (as Chris) and Dorothy Davis (as Judy), suggests "Night Fright" might be a joyously bad movie; but, don't get your hopes up. After some innocent cavorting, the attractive collegiates discover another couple has encountered a monster; naturally, the creature is hell-bent on terrorizing young romantics. Sheriff John Agar (as Clint Crawford) isn't trusted by the younger set; but, he really wants to help.<br /><br />Mr. Agar was a friend of my aunt; he spoke about very few movies, and this wasn't one of them.
Okay, When I bought this flick I though this gotta be the ultimate b-movie, space monkey landing to the Earth and starts right away to kill people! <br /><br />Well, It was almost everything what I expected, typical low-budget scifi movie from the 60's. Acting has to be the worst I've ever seen, especially the girl playing the lead role and the girl that played the waitress made me laughing my ass off. <br /><br />So why 'Night Fright' doesn't fall in to category 'so bad that it's good'? Reason why is that some of the scenes were just too long and boring. For example the scene were the police officers are searching clues in the woods it was just minutes of walking without purpose. And then the grand finale, the people's waiting for the monster about 5 minutes and when the space monkey appears it get wack'd in 20 second, end of film.<br /><br />Yeah, 'Night Fright' is boring, but it got couple of funny moments. I can recommend this movie to all who liked films like 'Zontar, the Thing from Venus' or 'Curse of the Swamp Creature'.<br /><br />I give 'Night Fright' 4 Space Monkey slaps out of 10..<br /><br />-Rob Gruesome-
Rivalry between brothers leads to main story line. Navy Commander Chuck Prescott(Marshall Thompson)has developed the Y12 aircraft to test how far man can go up in the atmosphere. His brother, Lt. Dan Prescott(Bill Edwards), seems to be the best test pilot around and is chosen to go up in the Y12. Dan of course has a problem with taking orders and is also an over confident dare devil. <br /><br />On Dan's second flight, he hits over the 300 miles up comfort zone and his craft passes through a meteor dust storm. Returning to earth, Dan becomes a monster that resembles 200 pounds of bad asphalt. He also has a demanding craving for blood, whether it be from farm animals or fellow human beings.<br /><br />Short runtime of an hour and seventeen minutes; black & white with near stoic acting...typical of low budget sci-fi.<br /><br />Rounding out the cast is Marla Landi, Robert Ayers and Carl Jaffe. Noteworthy trivia: about two months after this film was released; the Russians put the real first man in space.
Lame rip-off of THE QUATERMASS XPERIMENT (1955): the first half is deadly dull, even dreary - but the latter stages improve considerably with the scenes involving the rampaging 'monster'. In the accompanying featurette (a rather dry affair at a mere 9 minutes, when compared to the ones created for the other titles in Criterion's "Monsters & Madmen" set), director Day - who admits to not being a fan of the sci-fi genre - tries to justify the film's shortcomings by saying that he had a zero-budget to work with (where all the outer space scenes were composed of stock footage!)...and I'd have been inclined to be more lenient with the film had I not recently watched CALTIKI, THE IMMORTAL MONSTER (1959) - a similar (and similarly threadbare) but far more stylish venture from Italy! <br /><br />Bill Edwards as the cocky but unlucky astronaut - obsessed with achieving the titular feat - is positively boring at first, but he eventually manages to garner audience sympathy when his physical features are deformed and the character develops a taste for blood! Marshall Thompson as his commanding officer and elder brother is O.K. as a leaner Glenn Ford type; he had previously starred in FIEND WITHOUT A FACE (1958), another (and more successful) Richard Gordon-produced sci-fi which, incidentally, is also available on DVD through Criterion. Italian starlet Marla Landi, struggling with the English language, makes for an inadequate female lead; even her input in the featurette proves to be of little lasting value! <br /><br />The Audio Commentary is yet another enjoyable Tom Weaver/Richard Gordon track where, among many things, the fact that FIRST MAN INTO SPACE was intended as a double-feature with CORRIDORS OF BLOOD (1958) is brought up - but it was eventually put out as a standalone release, so as to exploit the topical news value of the current space race; it's also mentioned that the monster dialogue was actually dubbed by Bonar Colleano (who, tragically, died in a traffic accident prior to the film's release!). Weaver even recalls a couple of anecdotes from the time when he was involved in the production of the DVD featurette shot by, of all people, ex-cult-ish film-maker Norman J. Warren: Landi, who by then had become a lady of title, was still ready to help out in carrying the equipment necessary to film the interview down several flights of stairs!; Edwards was supposed to have contributed to the featurette but, once in London, he proved reluctant to co-operate with Weaver - eventually, the latter learned that the actor had been recently diagnosed with cancer and, in fact, he died in 2002!
Sheltered young woman, home-schooled and possibly quite gifted, harbors a disturbed, overly-emotional side which comes to the surface after her absentee father pays her mother a visit, asking for a divorce. Directed by celebrated cinematographer William A. Fraker, this ill-titled psychological thriller falls into the trap that most films helmed by directors of photography find themselves in: each shot is composed for the utmost style, but at the sacrifice of fluid pacing and a tight, gripping narrative. Fraker (and his cinematographer, László Kovács) are very fond of gauzy whites and golden tones, giving the picture a burnished, tableaux feel. The mansion at the center of the action looks like a funeral parlor, and Fraker paces the wheezing yarn just like a funeral. Robert Shaw and Sally Kellerman (as Shaw's fiancée), two of the most interesting actors of the 1970s, manage to cut through the plastic overlay and are quite compelling despite the jagged editing (which turns their scenes into little bits of half-realized business). Sondra Locke, another interesting screen personality, seems cast for her resemblance to Catherine Deneuve in "Repulsion". Pale and saucer-eyed, with imposingly thick and long hair, Locke is a curious human puzzle, and she's initially quite intimidating and dangerous; however, this role is so old-hat that Locke can find nothing fresh to bring out of the deep freeze, and she flounders. Fraker allows Locke's freak-out scenes to go on and on, while Shaw (looking terrifically debonair) is put in the impossible position of playing touchy-feely daddy to her. All of this nonsense might be worth slogging through if the screenplay had been peppered with a modicum of tangibility (or, at the very least, some dry wit or humorous relief). As it is, Lewis John Carlino and Edward Hume's limp script, adapted from Stanton Forbes' novel "Go To Thy Deathbed", strands the viewer early on, and only the charisma of the players gets us to the finish line. *1/2 from ****
First I must confess that A Separate Peace is my favorite book. So of course, I have some bias against any attempt at adapting it for a feature film or television movie. But as I began to watch this film, I was more than willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. The original version from the early 1970s, though shot at Phillips Exeter Academy where the book's author attended school, and though it stayed as faithful as it could to the book, lacked any real depth of feeling and failed to capture the essence of the characters. The original seemed to simply go through the motions. Reading the trivia about the movie, you discover that it was cast mostly with non-actors. Thus, the original has an amateurish feel to it and it ultimately fails.<br /><br />This new version, though I will grant that it captures the look of the period better than the original, seems to have thrown the book out all together. Scenes are rearranged, characters imposed where they don't belong, characters created that were not in the book, and no attempt was made to delve into the deeper conflicts that make the book so compelling. And the cardinal sin of all: the tree is not treated as the vital, almost central character it is in the book. This is an inexcusable oversight on the part of the film makers. How could they downplay the role of the tree? Why was it not introduced immediately? Why the Dead Poet-esque beginning? And what in God's name was up with Gene's accent? This film is, to be blunt, garbage. A Separate Peace should not be a difficult book to adapt for the stage or screen. John Knowles wrote it in a perfectly fine, linear style. The film makers should have trusted the story as it was already written; make changes, sure; embellish here and there, sure; take some mild dramatic license, sure. But destroy one of the pearls of American literature in the process? What were they thinking? In their corruption of the story line, they cut any possibility of suspense or drama. The whole movie falls flat and fails miserably.<br /><br />If you are a high school or college student assigned to read this book and you are thinking of skimping and just watching the movie...don't even think about it. This film will be of no help to you.<br /><br />Alas, we shall have to wait even longer before a version of this story comes to the screen that truly does it justice.
I saw this DVD on sale and bought it without a second thought, despite not even having known it was out since this is one of my favorite books of all time. As soon as I got home I raced to watch it only to find myself utterly disappointed. While it is true that this film is somewhat based on the book, the similarities end there. The characters are changed (ie Finny seems more a pompous jerk than anything else whereas Gene seems to be somewhat of a hillbilly), scenes are misplaced or altogether changed (ie. Lepper), many characters are missing and famous lines/thought are missing. The movie does attempt to portray some feeling that the previous one lacked but it is done in a lackluster way that makes for a flat boring movie. It is the depth of character and feeling that makes the book such a classic and this movie takes those things and utterly destroys them in its rewriting.
John Knowles modern masterpiece, A Separate Peace, are one of many subtle, and subtly is the watch word, themes of love, hate, jealously, denial and regret. The 1972 version does attempt to address this style and what the book is - A love story with war looming in the background. <br /><br />The 2004 version does not use subtly at all but overtness in the portrayal of the story. What is staring you in the face when you read the novel - is a love story, and yes maybe it is arguable, a gay love story. In the novel and 1972 film version there are sexual undertones everywhere in the writings and dialog.In the 2004 Showtime film version these tensions were omitted and the actors were in there late twenties playing teenagers which caused for mature acting taking away from any tenderness or hesitation of innocence in youth.<br /><br />I did not like this remake for more reasons. The hair that broke the camels' back was that Phineas was given a surname on the letters he received from the draft boards! Finny is a character that does not have nor needs a last name. John Knowles did that intentionally.<br /><br />Though I accept the 1972 version the acting was at times a little amateurish, so what, it attempted to be sincere to the novel by shooting on location at Phillips Exeter Academy that The Devon Acedemy was based on; which also the writer John Knowles attended as a student.<br /><br />The directors and producers took all teenage Exeter students, with exception of Parker Stevenson whom attended The Brooks School, to play in a Paramount Film! Class act by preppies compared to this Canadian College shot, played with adult actors, politically correct, platonic version. No - Veto on this sham try again. The 1972 film version with John Heyl and Parker Stevenson was the real deal for A Separate Peace on the screen. The Showtime 2004 film made for cable version was not.
This movie was not very well directed. they almost totally disregarded the book.I guess they were trying 2 save time. the only upside 2 me was that the actor who played finny was cute. Some of the dialog between the main characters appeared a little gay which was not the case in the book. Major parts of the book were once again chopped out.You lost the over all effect it was not as haunting as the book and left me lacking severely. Also the strong language although it was brief was very unnecessary. Also i was surprised ( not pleasantly) by a new character that was no where in the book.One of my favorite characters (leper) was poorly interpreted and portrayed. He seemed more sinister in the movie than the real leper was in the book. Over all disappointing.
I rented this film courtesy of Netflix, thinking I would receive the 1972 version. I sat clueless, watching this new version, thinking: Gee, the production values were spectacular! I was convinced the soundtrack had a slightly 70s' sound to it. I was even more convinced that this was a 70s film when it occurred to me (almost every five seconds) that the one thing that was missing between Gene and Finney was an intense hug, a loaded stare, a passionate kiss.<br /><br />I'm sorry, although John Knowles himself has indicated that this was not a homosexual relationship, it is painfully obvious that yes, that's exactly what it was. When people (usually adolescents) of the same sex have "intense" friendships, it means that those longings for love, togetherness, the desire to express oneself sexually, are all spilling over. These boys needed to connect, but they were never allowed to.<br /><br />Also, despite a spirited performance by Toby Moore, I never felt any of the emotions were real. I never connected to either of the boys, for the very reason their relationship was not truly honest.<br /><br />People want to live in a fantasy and think that because this took place in the 1940s that these boys couldn't have had these sexual feelings for each other. But I say they did -- at least in the book they did, and in this movie, Finney had them, almost painfully, for Gene. The "intensity" that John Knowles suggests existed between them was a closet homosexuality, a hero worship, an idolatry -- that would, under normal circumstances, be expressed in a sexual way. Even if these boys were repressing it, it should have been crystal clear, but this movie doesn't even really hint at it. <br /><br />Lastly, there is an unbelievably bizarre moment when Finney, who has broken his leg, is playfully jumped on by all the other boys during a ball game. Unless they were just a bunch of nincompoops, they would know they could not possibly throw their bodies against him. Obviously this bone-shattering moment was lost on both the director and the producer.
I really don't know if this was supposed to be science fiction or horror. It was confusing to say the least. What really upset me, however, was the lack of story development between the characters.<br /><br />The Sheriff's (Bruce Boxleitner) 17-year-old daughter (Clara Bryant) is stuck with him for the summer, and they don't spend 30 seconds on screen together at any one time.<br /><br />The hot Native American (Jennifer Lee Wiggins) apparently has the hots for the Sheriff, but they don't spend any time together either.<br /><br />The hot secretary (Kristen Honey) ends up dead and she had more acting ability than the other two put together.<br /><br />The bad developer vs. the Native Americans is an overused story, but I personally like evil developers getting theirs as I live in Florida.<br /><br />The only reason I stayed with this was the creature. It was original. I have never seen anything like it and I am a sucker for new creatures.
In Sweet Water, the ambitious entrepreneur Dick Krantz (Jim Storm) is constructing a resort in the middle of the desert under the protest of the Katonahs. When three workers find some Indian relics and bones in a ditch in the site, they accidentally release the giant skeleton like creature known as Bone Eater and their bones are devoured by the monster. The half-breed Sheriff Steve Evans (Bruce Boxleitner) a.k.a. Running Wolf is in charge of the investigation of the disappearance of the workers, being pressed by Krantz to arrest the protesters. But the Bone Eater attacks and kills other locals, while Chief Storm Cloud (Michael Horse) seeks an ancient Tomahawk capable of destroying the evil creature.<br /><br />"Bone Eater" is a lame and silly movie, with one of the most ridiculous screenplay I have ever seen. The characters and situation are not well-developed and things happen without any further consequences. The conclusion is probably the worse part in this flick, with the typical white North American Bruce Boxleitner dressed like an Indian (in the story, his grandfather was an Indian), cutting his own wrist (why? And where is the blood later?) and clumsily throwing the axe in the chest of the Bone Eater, destroying the monster and my last hope of any improvement in the story. My last question: if the Bone Eater eats bones, what happens to the flesh and clothes of his victims? My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "O Devorador de Ossos" ("The Bone Eater")
....OK, small-town, clueless sheriff? Check. Sheriff's hot daughter? Check? Ne'er-do-well boyfriend of sheriff's hot daughter, whom sheriff hates? Check. Corporate land developer who greedily puts profit over people? Check. Developer's rank-and-file accidentally unleashing a primordial monster, then being pressured to cover it up? Check. Natives warning of mass death and destruction if things are not returned back to the way they were? Check. Amateurish CGI special effects that could have been produced by a Commodore 64 computer? Check. Seriously, virtually all the clichés of your typical Sci-Fi Original movie have been lumped into a classic, so-bad-it's-good movie. The only one that's missing is the scientist/expert trying to impart his knowledge; there is a paleontologist with three students who get ambushed my The Bone Eater fairly early in the movie, but they are basically extras in the movie. And I can honestly say that I predicted virtually all of this; right down to who survives and who doesn't (though I have to say I got the actual death time of one of the characters wrong by about an hour). I swear I could have done this movie myself if they gave me all the characters. Despite all this, the movie is fun to watch, if for no other reason than to play MST3K with your friends. If you're up for some mindless fun, it's a great movie to watch, which is why I give this movie a surprisingly respectable 4, even though for all intents and purposes it deserves a much, much lower rating. But then again you wouldn't tune in to a SciFi Original movie if you were looking for a movie with an actual plot, substantive characters or good special effects, would you?
Bone Eater is set in a small desert town in Alabama where property developer Dick Krantz (Jim Storm) is financing the building of a huge resort. Late one night three of his workers Riley (Timothy Starks), Hansen (Adrian Alvarado) & Miller (Paul Rae) are digging foundations in the desert when they unearth what looks like a tomahawk axe, unfortunately for them an ancient Native American demon called the bone eater comes along & kills them. Local Sheriff Steve Evans (Bruce Boxleitner) soon has Krantz breathing down his neck as the construction of his resort grinds to a halt, Sheriff Evans also has to deal with the bone eater demon as it kills anyone it comes across...<br /><br />You know I consider myself a fairly big fan of the horror & sci-fi genre, I certainly don't think my opinion is worth more than anyone else's (unlike many here on the IMDb...) but please believe me when I say that Bone Eater is the worst Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' I have ever seen & it's up against some damned strong competition. As a horror & sci-fi fan there are two names that when involved with a film send shudders down my spine in anticipation of how bad it will turn out, those names are Jesus 'I have no talent' Franco who had nothing to do with Bone Eater & Jim Wynorski who directed the absolute disaster that is Bone Eater. In fact Bone Eater is so bad Wynorski hid under the pseudonym Bob Robertson, when a director as bad as Wynorski hides under a pseudonym you know the film must be bad. Where do I even start? Bone Eater is quite simply the worst film I have seen this year & is so bad it's untrue, the story is awful, the script is sloppy (at one point Sheriff Evans tells Kia to meet him at the hospital but when they meet there later he acts surprised & says 'what are you doing here?', at one point Sheriff Evans triumphantly claims that we are in the twentieth century & that ancient Native American demons are nonsense although actually we are in the twenty first century now, there's a part when a woman tells in flashback the story where three men awaken the Bone Eater & it kills them but since it killed all three of them how did anyone else know about it for it to be passed down in legend?) & at times it gets more than a little bit embarrassing. The character's are horrible clichés, the small town Sheriff who saves the day, his daughter becomes involved which adds some personal motivation & as for the Native Americans there's an old wise man, a young hot head who hates 'white man' & a young woman who is the voice of reason between the two who have names like Storm Cloud & Black Hawk. The film is as boring as hell, nothing happens, the story is awful, it's full of plot holes & lapses in any sort of logic, the set-pieces are terrible, there's no horror or gore or suspense or mystery & Bone Eater is just the sort of film that makes you lose the will to live.<br /><br />Bone Eater has some of the worst CGI computer effects I've seen in a while, from the daft looking stiff moving bone eater creature itself which is just a selection of bones magically held together to a motorbike jumping a large gap to an awful CGI truck crashing over the edge of a cliff to a van being tossed to one side by the bone eater. Whenever the bone eater needs to get some speed up he causes a large horse to form from the sand & dust & rides it! In principal this is actually quite a neat idea but it looks awful & the scenes even have cheesy cowboy music on the soundtrack! There is one pointless scene at the end when Sheriff Evans cuts his own arm (why?) & it bleeds but apart from that there isn't a single drop of blood in the thing, whenever the bone eater kills someone they usually just disappear in a cloud of dust, boring. The hilariously goofy climatic showdown between Sheriff Evans & the bone eater has to be seen to be believed, Sheriff Evans goes native on horseback complete with tribal war paint on his face while the bone eater also rides his dust horse & they have a sort of jousting contest which is just to bad to describe properly.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $700,000 Bone Eater is filmed in a very bland, forgettable & flat way, there's no sense of style here at all. The majority of the film takes place in bright sunlight & if you watch it on a decent telly then the desert scenery is quite nice on occasion. There are several veteran 'known' actors really slumming it here, Boxleitner plays exactly the same role as in the similarly themed but much better 'Creature Feature' Snakehead Terror (2004), William Katt will obviously put his name to any crap as long as he gets paid while ex Star Trek man Walter Koenig must be really desperate to agree to appear in this.<br /><br />Bone Eater is a truly atrocious 'Creature Feature', there's really not much more you can say about it other than to steer well clear of it. The worst film ever to appear on the Sci-Fi Channel & that's saying something, isn't it?
Yes, thats that i felt after i completed watching this movie. The acting is below-average and the special effects are horrible. In fact, the worst i have ever seen. It is a very low budget movie. There is no way this movie will can scare you, it has no creepy or scary moments. Mr. bone eater was more of a funny creature for me. It could have been much better but oh well they didn't had a big budget. The movie fails to convince you that you are watching a horror movie, lol. I would name this movie The Time Eater (waster). I am sure you would have a lot of better movies/etc to watch. Still watch it if: 1. you have nothing else to watch. 2. you get to watch it for free. Not worth renting at all.
With the exception of the fine rack on Clara Evans...this show was pretty bad...so why did I watch it? Too much coffee, and had to relax before hitting the sack. Watching BB change into his lamest Big Chief outfit, was amusing at best, downright laughable at worst.<br /><br />I could have made a better Skeltor and special effects on my Dell.<br /><br />Boxlietner has seen better days, this guy is a year younger than me, and he's looking more and more like the Scarecrow from his TV series days back in the early 1980....the women eye candy need to go back to acting school, although Evans size 40 and playing a 17 year old(she's in her early 20s was a stretch)....the Sci-Fi Channel has done better that this...but for us folks that don't get out to the bars much anymore, I guess we have to take what we can get...after all anything that gets you away form CNN, MSNBC, and Fox coverage of Election 2008 these day is a good thing.
Now before I tell you the synopsis this is a non-spoiler review. Bone Eater hits its mark for being the worst movie of the year. I don't know how these movies even get onto DVD. If I saw this in theaters I would get extremely upset. Bone Eater is about these people who dig up an ancient burial ground and find some bones. It's the 'Bone eater' and the more bones he eats the more powerful he gets.<br /><br />First of all I thought okay well the DVD artwork looks creepy and it sounds creepy. When I rented it and looked at the DVD label it looked scary. But then when I played it in I could agree on one thing- the title 'Bone Eater' is better than the movie itself. Tell me what's more stupid? A bone eater that just attacks by throwing a bone ate you and you disappear? Don't worry that's not a spoiler you see that happen in the first 5 minutes. Or is it more stupid that 'Bone Eater' has a horse? You know what I think is the stupidest? The whole movie.<br /><br />The CGI is awful. Yeah I thought the idea of 'Bone eater' was creepy but once you see the actual thing you think this is some kind of action movie or just a cruel, mean joke. The film felt longer than Titanic and this was half an hour. Once the film actually has its moments of suspense it just stops. I admit the acting was not the best but actually decent and that the violence wasn't over-the-top but everything else is a stinker.<br /><br />Overall Bone eater is a film you can skip. If you like interesting movies with great creatures, great CGI, and suspense 'Bone Eater' is a film to skip. If you like bad movies no matter how cheesy they are then 'Bone Eater' will satisfy.
Another Indian legend you never heard of before is let loose. As the name implies, this is a vengeful wraith who likes to absorb the skeletons of people while they're still using them. As usual, ancient burial grounds (can you say, "Poltergeist?") have been disturbed by clichéd greedy land developers building stuff.<br /><br />The CGI, if it had been better, might have made the effect more treacherous looking, but they skimped on the budget, and it shows--to comical effect. The unleashed creature probably should have been kept off stage during its first several killings-that might have added some mystery or impending doom atmosphere-but the inept director decided to show us in the first five minutes what it looks like, and it wasn't impressive. The deaths are just poorly done, again with shoddy CGI. I guess ancient spirits always kill by using cheap special effects. As for the "victims," they look they're going to laugh any moment while they do goofy screams. It's always obvious who's going to get it: a character with only a few lines shows up, strange noises are heard, CGI dots fly, exit character. Repeat (several times).<br /><br />Still, there's a few chase scenes featuring the monster that actually made this thing watchable. Unfortunately, the director seems to be using these as a device to fall back on (so it's used too often) when he can't think of anything else for his characters to do. Overall, it's pretty silly, but I've seen worse. This flick is cheap, but it's oddly fun to watch.
All I can do is laugh. Wow. I like Jim Wynorski's movies, I really do. I mean, Chopping Mall is a classic. But this, what happened to this guy? He used to make funny horror movies, that tried to be good. But this was hardly even funny...I mean, I guess it was, because I laughed. The villain is incredible. I mean, horrible CGI. It looks...terrible. And the movie has no gore, and no nudity as redeeming qualities. It is rated PG-13. A movie named "Bone Eater" you know won't be a blockbuster movie, you know it probably won't have a smart script. A movie like this may rely on gore...but no. It doesn't rely on anything really, it's just...crap. Check it out if you want to laugh, though. But don't expect a good movie. I hope Jim Wynorski goes back to movies like Chopping Mall and Ghoulies IV, because this and Komodo Vs. Cobra ain't cutting it.
well I'd probably agree with all the bad comments about this movie cos honestly i thought it was such a piece of crap i mean the actors had done a terrible acting job and the script was all terrible. Although the special effects wasn't a bit bad but i think the should have thought a lot harder than that. I mean how did Clara Bryant get successfully put into this film i mean she'd do a lot better if she looked a bit further and that goes the same with Kristen honey, i mean her character dies and she doesn't bother to try and defend herself i mean it's gotta be a total joke. She should at least do a lot better than what she an do like become a soldier or more of a heroine or something along the lines of bravery. But the point is the actors did a complete soulless lousy job and so did the director and the writer who made this film. they should've went into film school to think up some better ideas and i hope everyone agrees with my methods cos they are probably thinking the same thing.
Bad, bad, and did I mention bad? Aside from the comical monster terrorizing the workers the funniest part of the movie was when surveyors are in the desert and one comments that they have an hour of daylight left, but you can clearly see by their shadows, and the bright sky, that it's probably only 2 or 2:30 in the afternoon. Talk about consistency. READ THE SCRIPT director!<br /><br />The only cool part of this movie, besides the rack on Clara Bryant of course (as another reviewer mentioned), is the phantom skeleton horse that the Bone Eater rides on. That thing was pretty cool as it chased the surveyors on their motorcycles.
Construction workers disrupt the Native American burial ground of a large, hulking skeletal monster which disintegrates it's victims with it's touch, breath, or bone sword! The head honcho over the resort project, Krantz(Jim Storm)orders his construction crew to keep their skeletal findings secret for much would halt the continuing development if the nearby Katona tribe caught wind that remains were being dug up and disturbed. An aging Bruce Boxleitner, likable as always, stars as half-breed Sheriff Evans trying to keep peace between the Katonas and Krantz's crew. The peace was strained, at best, but with that skeletal monster running rampant making it's victims vanish without a trace, soon Krantz wants answers to why members of his crew are missing..Evans begins losing citizens as well. Evans is warned by Katona Chief Storm Cloud(Michael Horse)that an ancient demon, the Bone Eater, has been loosened and can only be stopped with a sacred war axe(..the axe was removed by a worker who found it's remains with the weapon lunged inside)now in the back seat of his daughter Kelly's(Clara Bryant, who wears tight jeans and shirts to reveal how daddy's girl has grown into quite a striking lady)boyfriend's truck. Evans must somehow defeat the demon if the killing will stop..and this must occur before the Eclipse or it's power will become too strong for anyone to vanquish.<br /><br />A solid cast, floundering in an embarrassing horror outing. The CGI, isn't very good, although the monster could've been quite threatening if done with a better budget. It rides a horse made from dust chasing after it's prey, for Petesake! Some cameo appearances include BUCK ROGERS Gil Gerard as Evan's deputy Big Jim, STAR TREK's Walter Koenig as a coroner, & HOUSE's William Katt, as a Country Doctor attending to the wounds of Evan's deputy. None of these cameos last longer than one minute or so..sad, really. Adoni Maropis, impresses in an underwritten role as a brooding Katona, Johnny Black Hawk, who wishes to use the Bone Eater to drive the white man off his tribe's land. Jennifer Lee Wiggins portrays Kaya, a tasty dish of a Katona female whose against Black Hawk's hatred for the white man and wishes for Evans to follow his Indian blood regarding putting an end to the Bone Eating monster. This might be worth sitting through if just to see Boxleitner dressed in war paint and Indian garb. I felt for the actor, to be honest, as Bruce tries to keep a straight-face in such a terrible movie. In yet another over-worked and tiresome cliché, Bruce's sheriff has an estranged relationship with his daughter, whose 17, hot, and wanting to date the "bad boy"..although this winds up being an underwritten sub-plot as is most of the plot concerning the killing skeleton and many of the poorly developed characters.
I agree with all the comments posted so far: This movie was a waste of time and energy, for viewers as well as those who made it. Terrible CGI, awful script, stupid plot and hey, the setting is Alabama but it looks like California. But the worst thing has got to be the Native American angle on this, which pulls in every stereotype you can think of, from the chief surrounded by smoke, the angry warrior, people speaking without using contractions ("Do not do this thing!"), Native American pipes playing in thin air, etc. It just shows such a lack of respect and understanding that I was tearing out my hair. A Native American with any ounce of self-respect would have tossed their TV out the window at this trash. So in closing, I'd say this movie is pretty much an offense to everyone.
While trying to build a major mall or complex or something like that, a wealthy landowner ignores ancient Native American artifacts buried on the land, and unleashes the Bone Eater...a creature who goes around and kills people in search of his fallen friends or something like that.<br /><br />Indeed this movie had to be a Sci-Fi Channel original. If it wasn't, then the director should never direct anything again. The effects in the film is laughable at best, and the Bone Eater monster is nothing but a CGI-animated being added into the frames at a later date. The actors don't even look all that frightened when they see the thing (probably because they really don't, and they're just terrible actors). It's a great comedy, though, even if it's supposed to be pure horror.
As other posters have commented this was a very very bad movie (keeping it kid friendly) FX was low class, they should of spent the $1 on a coke. As is typical with these D movies most victims die and leave a mystery except for one lucky soul and of course the lead. Hope the money was worth it for Boxleitner, really really big step down from Babylon 5. Nice to see what happened to Buck Rogers but damn this was low even for him. ' It was so bad and on the older actors you could even seem to tell that they thought it was bad also. Don't Watch.<br /><br />*****Warning Spoiler Below****<br /><br />This thing chased down everyone it was after and yet Boxlietner got away... that was pure BS. And the ending? How in the hell did the kids end up right there with him? That was just too much stupidity.
A great cast, a fantastic CGI monster and a brilliant script. If this film had had any of those things then it might not have been amongst the worst films I've ever wasted an hour and a half on. Infinite chimpanzees with infinite typewriters have not yet written the complete works of Shakespeare but along the way this has appeared in their waste-paper bin and somehow it got made into a movie. You can tell the the actors regret signing those contracts with every word they mutter directly into camera. The CGI is amateurish in the extreme and they might have created more tension of the cast had been attacked with the Sinclair Spectrum it was created on. I wanted to like this film, it has nice cameo appearances by Gil Gerard and Walter Koenig so I expected a fun horror movie that didn't take itself too seriously. It actually does try to take itself seriously but is about as much fun as trip to the dentist. Do yourself a favour. Don't watch this movie, you'll only encourage them to make more.
If you're like me and you occasionally enjoy watching terrible movies (I guess it's kind of like slowing down at a car crash), you can't do better than this! The plot is inane, the special effects are hilarious and the acting is some of the worst you'll ever see! 4 THUMBS DOWN! WOOOHOOOOOOOO!!! Seriously, I have no idea how the director and the "actors" can sleep at night! It's painful, and yet hysterically funny, to watch and I highly recommend it for those who want to punish themselves for something. If you can watch this crap without wincing, you're a better man than I'll ever be! I wonder if the producer of this garbage had any idea what he was getting himself (and his money) into!
I used to think that it couldn't get worse that "Army of the Dead" but this load of crap makes the afore mentioned movie look like "The Godfather"!! The special effects are HORRIBLE (Makes the original Nintendo graphics look like HDTV). When it comes the acting, put it this way, I went to a play with my 6 year old niece in it and she gave an Oscar worthy performance, when compared to these D-List (and that's being kind about it) actors and actresses. So basically, if I had a gun to my head and head to chose between watching this movie again or chopping my own arm off with a dull knife, that's a tough choice!! You know what, who needs two arms anyways??
This movie was beyond awful, it was a pimple on the a*s of the movie industry. I know that every movie can't be a hit or for that matter even average, but the responsible parties that got together for this epic dud, should have been able to see that they had a ticking time bomb on their hands. I can't help but think that the cast would get together in between scenes and console each other for being in such a massive heap of dung. I can hear it now, "You getting' paid?" "Nope, you?" I understand that this flick was more than likely made on a shoe string budget but even with that taken into account, it still could've been better. You wait for the appearance of a monster/creature and when you finally see it, it's a big yawn.I'm so mad at myself for spending a 1.07 on this stinker!!!
I knew five minutes after the monster made his appearance where his was going. But when I saw the beginning credits, I said "oh my god, Bruce Boxlightner, Walter Koenig (from Star Trek). Gil Gerard (from Buck Rogers, and he's almost unrecognizable), then I saw John Callahan who used to star on my favorite Soap, All My Childen. Put on a few pounds but he can still act. Then there was Veronica Hamill. too bad I didn't sick around to see her in the film. I bailed out 20 minutes into he film. It was THAT bad. Never did see William Katt (from Perry Mason, and The Greates American Hero).<br /><br />All these stars and one lousy film. I hope hey got their paycheck.<br /><br />Bad Bad Bad
Sorry, after watching the credits, I thought this would at least be a decent homage to retiring SF actors.<br /><br />Boy was I wrong.<br /><br />The direction and story telling in this POS are terrible. I have never been so insulted by a production.<br /><br />I have great respect and love for many of the actors in this "film" but have to say they were conned.<br /><br />If you haven't seen this debacle yet, do yourself a favor and stay away. These are not only two hours you won't get back, but they will also ruin your respect for some actors you may once have enjoyed.
Sci-Fi channel thinks this IS Sci-Fi; it's a shame. Big Bugs, Snakes, Mythical Beasties, on and on, they persist.<br /><br />Some one at Universal had the brains to include BattleStar Galactica (the new, good one) and Firefly for a brief moment in their line up. I know they know they difference between total garbage and extremely high quality sci-fi.<br /><br />A few years back they were on about how they were going all high and mighty, making productions that were not just for us mere, lame-o Trekkies. Thanks so much, Sci-Fi! You know, you make movies so bad, even Trekkies won't watch them, so you achieved your goal! Fire Serpent, Ice Spiders, Manticore, Larva etc.and a vast unrelenting crap-storm later, and they're still churning out just faster than the latest flu virus! How they do it is beyond my ken. Why they do it, I just don't know. How they can ignore these reviews, comments, blogs and e-mails, I don't know either, but it's clear they don't think much of their audience or care about our opinions! They seem to think this is what sci-fi fans want! You would think one or two good productions with some sense would creep through when whoever green lights this junk is on vacation. At least they're employing the collection of Misfit Toys; many of the sci-fi movie of the week actors were in Science Fiction shows once and now need the cash. Love you folks, and hope you get some better work!
I thought i could see something good but... I am tired after seeing this movie, i don't know what i hated the most: the script, the acting, the FX or the music. Try to picture the worst Power Rangers episode and would still be to kind. I've seen better FX in FPS Games( The touch with the bone sword or his breath that is making the people disappear in a green smoke is touch of genius) and the music seems to come from a spaghetti western. I did liked how the women in the car was screaming, when the "monster" was walking around the car (even if she's looking in the wrong way). So give your self a break and don't watch this thing, at least call somebody up to see a horror movie with you, trust me you will end up playing monopoly for some kicks.
I'm not really sure where to begin. From start to finish, bad, stinky bad, like stepping into a port-a-john on a 100 degree day. If you force yourself to watch this as I did, keep some Vicodin handy for the pain. I will never understand how flicks this bad make it past the cutting room without the entire reel ending up on the floor. The movie is a cross between Gumby rides Pokey, meets the terminator, meets Wally Beaver playing cowboys and Indians without the cowboys. I've seen better animation in the original cut of the Blob. You will get more entertainment from watching Gone with the Wind while suffering from the puke and poops. Bad acting and hokey lines will have you squirming and wishing you had rented Peewee's big Top or watched every episode of Gilligan's Island back to back. UGH..I'm going to go slit my wrist now.
the plot of this movie revolves around this submarine builder who's a real bastard and he wants to launch his new sub that can travel thousands of feet deep. unfortunately, he can't. oh yeah, and he's haunted by the memories of his mom and dad getting eaten by a megalodon when he was a child. the guy meets some scientist whos pretty hot, and they and this crew of about a hundred people set out on the main character's submarine to kill the same megalodon that killed his parents.now, the shark in this movie is a really fake looking CGI shark. basically this is sorta like Shark Attack 3, except more depressing. if you don't get what i mean, listen. the film's opening credits show "home movies" of the main character when he was a child with his parents before they got killed, and there's really sad and depressing piano music playing in the background. you would expect to see a shark or something, and you do. a brief shadow of the CGI shark floats around every few seconds but that's just it. also, i don't remember one happy facial expression at all throughout the film's entire runtime, a majority of the film takes place in the dark depths of the abyss, where the story gets even more dull, and all the characters (the shark too) die in the end. I was thinking Sabato would manage to kill the shark and manage to save himself and the girl, but no, they all die, and the film ends with the shark, all blown up, and the submarine (with Sabato's crushed and burned body in it) sinking into the abyss. if you're a happy person and you don't enjoy being depressed, then avoid this movie. if you're the opposite, then congratulations, you found your movie.
At last, a film to rival 'El Padrino' and 'Darkness Falls' in terms of sheer and utter dullness. This is actually the first film I've ever given 1 out of 10 for on IMDb, and with good reason.<br /><br />For one, the cast is nothing special. That's usually not a problem for me except that the only character that's in anyways interesting or different from all the rest is Grand L. Bush's Harrington. Secondly, the production values a substandard - television sci-fi such as 'Stargate' has more convincing sets, and all of the underwater scenes NOT handled by the SFX teams are filmed on dry sets with 'falling particles' that aren't very convincing. This film is literally 'drydocked'. The worst part though is that this film is BORING. For the first 45 minutes, I felt as if we were going round and round in circles: "It's a prehistoric shark." "Bullsh*t." "No really." "Bullsh*t." "I'm not making this up." "Bullsh*t." "There it is now!" "I didn't see anything." "Let me guess?" "Yup. Bullsh*t." After then it picks up ever so slightly for about twenty minutes or so. Then we're back to the dialog run-around. Dialog is not a bad thing, but that's all this film has. Characters talking. That too, is not a bad thing, except this film isn't very good at it. The dialog is often contrived and clichéd, and is not very interesting to listen to. I don't see any point slandering the special effects; this film has worse qualities.<br /><br />The sets are small and unrealistic. The acting is sub-par. The script - oh Lord, the script - is worse than a garbage of sci-fi television has to dredge up. It makes you wonder where the budget of this film is or was.<br /><br />Yet another awful, awful addition to the 'Megaloadon' (there's about four) series of films. Bring on Steve Alten, please...
I was enticed into watching Shark Hunter by the comments posted on IMDB. The movie was bad but the shark was cool blah blah blah. So I rented it. Bad idea. This movie was bad on so many levels that I'm glad that I had the option to fast forward. The shark itself is ok. It's appearance is decent and it is the only thing saving this movie from getting a 1, (I gave it a 2). The acting is incredibly bad and the dialogue is just as deplorable. I wasn't expecting much but I was continually surprised by this suckfest. Antonio Sabato Jr. is some kind of biologist or scientist or something, I wasn't really paying attention. He goes down with the expendable crew of this submarine to find out what happened to this underwater station that the shark took out of course. By the way, all the scenes that show someone working underwater are not underwater. First of all, if they are just going down to find out what happened to this station, what's with all the huge tranquilizer darts and the harpoons and stuff. Are these things that you normally carry with you when investigating a accident. The shark theory was advanced by Antonio while on the way so it not like they went in knowing what they were up against. Antonio and this young college student, horrible actress by the way, just jump to the controls of the sub when the sub is in trouble. What is with that? Unless everyone is getting some kind of sub training before leaving high school I find this a little silly. The director seems to think that if crew members are working in the background then it is a good idea to put someone welding in the background. Metal crafting is very important when your on a sub I guess. Anyway I could go on but I've said too much already. Bottom Line: Go to your local video store, rent this video and then destroy it. Then send email asking IMDB to remove all record of this movie from their site. All memory and evidence of this movie must be destroyed. We can do it if we work together.
Hey what a great idea to open a film - show someone`s home movie . Drama schools must be full of idiots ! , there they are taking drama lessons hoping to become the next big thing in Hollywood when all you have to do is send a home movie to a studio . Hey I think I`ll send in the video of my wedding and call it THE GREATEST ROMANCE EVER SEEN or send in a tape of my honeymoon and call it THE GREATEST SEX EVER SEEN . Oh hold on I`m not married and I`ve never been on honeymoon ! Not to worry I`ll send in a video of someone elses wedding/honeymoon <br /><br />!!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!!<br /><br />You`d think with an opening like that SHARK HUNTER could only improve wouldn`t you ? As shocking as it may seem the home movie is the best directed , best written and best acted part of the film , alas it`s all downhill from here as the family go to sea ( In reality a fog shrouded swimming pool ) in a three foot yacht where mom and dad get eaten by a CGI fin and their son Spencer swears revenge against the fin . Cut forward to the present day and the French are using an underwater research base for oil exploration . Only thing is - And it`s so obvious you can`t fail to notice this - it`s not filmed underwater !!! , the director hasn`t made any attempt whatsoever to even use the unconvincing technique of shooting the scene through a fish tank . The underwater research base is blown up by the shark ( Maybe it`s hired by Greenpeace ? ) killing everyone inside and Spencer now a grown man is hired to hunt down the shark that killed his parents and a bunch of Frenchmen . What else happens ? No idea because I decided to watch something else <br /><br />No hard feelings if any of the cast and crew are reading this and I do hope Matt Codd becomes a big fish in Hollywood . You think you know about sharks Matt ? You ain`t seen nothing yet
a really awful movie about a 30 meters long shark. bad story bad discussions bad characters bad plot even a confusing ending a complete. a waist of time in my point of view I thought it was a TV movie, but then I saw it was not I cant imagine having paid to see this load of crap please avoid this movie at any cost. even if u liked jaws, which I averagely did, don't see it even if you have interests in paleontology, don't see it even if you like corny movies with corny actors, corny plots during corny TV time, do humanity a favor and do not, I repeat, DO NOT pollute your mind with this ridiculous excuse for a sci-fi animal thriller still, some people gave it a ten ranting... don't know if they were serious or not (but sincerely expect they weren't)
this is one of the worst movies ever There is a scene where they are supposed to be underwater and they are literally walking on land and they added bubbles! The shark is boring and is just this big slow computer generated silly thing. Antonio Sabato is horrible, I mean even worse than normal. How does this guy work? The directing is the worst and there is nothing redeemable in the entire films. I love shark movies and this one just disappoints. I've seen this studios movies before and everything they do has some star on their way down doing bad work. I'd rather see an unknown actor who cares about making a good story.
this could have been good,but sadly,its too inplausible,anthony sabato jr has a grudge...PLEASE!I wanted to like it,love shark movies ,someone should have asked my opinion before they wrote this.ha!ha! the shark is cool but the story lacks...alot!
Now out of all the shark movies I've seen, this one takes the cake! The plot of the movie was good, but the excitement factor sort of took a nosedive afterwards. Antonio Sobato, Jr. does an excellent role as a son who seeks the shark who killed his father. A megaldon is one of the biggest sharks of all and the most dangerous one as well. The view of the shark was indeed scary in some angles, but the effects were a blur, and the scenes were a little weak in some places. With the mini-sub's weapons there, that would take out a whole school of sharks there. It was great that the son would get the exact revenge on that monstrosity, although it would indeed cost him his life as well. Like they say revenge has it's price, but was it worth it? That answer could go on and on, and this movie was a major letdown. The beginning was fine, and at the end, it went like the Titanic. 1 OUT OF 5 STARS!
The recent release of "Mad Dog Morgan" on Troma DVD is disappointing.This appears to be a censored print for television viewing. Some of the more violent scenes have been edited and portions of the colorful language have been removed. Anyone who viewed the film uncut will be mad as hell at this toxic DVD version. "Mad Dog Morgan" deserves to be released on DVD in the original theatrical cut. However, even as released on DVD, the film is still one of the better depictions of bushranger life in nineteenth century Australia. After having toured the Old Melbourne Gaol, with death masks of convicts on display, it is "Mad Dog Morgan" that comes to mind.
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. There is not a shred of historical accuracy, in fact reality is reversed. Just one example: Morgan preyed on the few ethnic Chinese he encountered. The acting is over the top, the script is a poorly written lie. I have never seen worse fake beards.<br /><br />Hopper arrived in Australia and reportedly only would make the film if the script was totally rewritten so he could be a hero. Since the script was ten made up on the fly, the may explain how bad it is and how disjointed the movie is.<br /><br />Any movie about Ned Kelly is a lot better than this film.
In the mid 1800s, Irishman Dennis Hopper (as Daniel Morgan) emigrates to Australia, seeking a share of the continent's gold. Instead, Mr. Hopper finds himself branded, and thrown in a torturous prison; there, he is gang-raped. Upon release, Hopper hooks up with aborigine David Gulpilil (as Billy), with whom he seeks revenge upon sadistic Bill Hunter (as Sergeant Smith), Jack Thompson (as Detective Mainwaring), and others. Eventually, vengeance becomes heroism; Hopper is admired and assisted by the common people, and hunted by corrupt and powerful authorities. Hopper's "scarcely human" performance certainly fits the disjointed feel of the film. Mr. Gulpilil heads up a strong supporting cast. The personnel involved in "Mad Dog Morgan" make it not only worth a look, but also a huge disappointment. <br /><br />*** Mad Dog Morgan (1976) Philippe Mora ~ Dennis Hopper, David Gulpilil, Bill Hunter
Similar story line, done many times before, and this was no improvement.<br /><br />15 minutes into this, and you should pretty much be able to turn it off - the ending was deja vu all over again.<br /><br />The only morals I could see out of this are: - stupidity + criminals do not equal success - if he screwed you before, he's gonna do it again
Have you ever read a book, then seen the movie, and wonder-How did they screw it up so bad? This is one of those. The book by Huffaker, "Nobody Likes a Drunken Indian" was great, riotously funny...this movie is not. It seems as though nobody cared enough to move the direction along so we CARED about the characters. This movie, which touches on some real concerns about Indians, makes you wonder why we haven't seen more comedies about the holocaust, or slavery. Not well done.
The recent DVD release of Good Humor Man labels the film as comedy. It's hardly a comedy, rather a dull indie film about a group of losers. Supposedly set in the 70s, there is scant attention paid to period details, with overly muted color correction taking its place. The monotonous soundtrack only serves to accentuate the repetitiveness of the film (perhaps that is the point, but it does not add to the enjoyment of the viewing experience.) Apprarently the clique of losers only like to hang out at one location, the bleachers. It seems like the packaging of the film as a comedy is meant to deceive people into renting or buying this film, which is a complete waste of time.
The acting made you feel like you were watching a kindergarten play. The story is full of holes and gaps and skips around so you have no idea as to what just happened. Half the scenes are pointless. There is not an inkling of character development. The score/soundtrack consists of about three songs one in particular is played in about 70% of the scenes. I'm glad I only rented the movie yet I still feel cheated. Avoid this movie at all costs unless you want to see some decent actors give horrible performances. It seems like the bulk of the budget was spent on putting a few name brand actors in this less than bad film. This movie is equivalent to visiting a strip club, it tries to get you excited and interested but just as you think something is going to happen your thrown into some unrelated scene and left trying to figure out how you arrived there.
I disagree in calling this a stoner movie just because weed also makes an appearance. I can't imagine this as even approaching "stoner classic." That would be like calling Singles a "grunge film." The movie definitely plods along with a murky plot. At times I wondered if the script had either been dropped and shuffled or if they lost it entirely and just tried to wing it. Watching this movie reminded me of watching children play-acting and making the story up as they go along.<br /><br />The characters are wooden, the dialog is taxed, and the whole story seems to be completely disconnected. Who got killed? When? What? And this is how you act when your friend overdoses? Complete lack of emotion and utter disconnect from reality.<br /><br />As for the droning guitar soundtrack that accompanies each scene: enough! It was like watching the opening menu screen where the same track loops endlessly in the background, neither moving forward or back.<br /><br />I kept watching and hoping that the plot would somehow fall in to order, the acting and dialog would improve or something, somehow would focus this mess in to a coherent movie. After 112 minutes, it never happened.
When I think of a 1970s-period film, this is not what I think of. I don't want a monotonous, one-song Robin Trower soundtrack; I want a soundtrack punctuated with the top-40 bubblegum songs of the day that epitomized the '70s. The generic karaoke-style disco music during the prom scene was especially annoying. The acting (if you can call it that) was very wooden, and seemed just read from script in monotone. The film quality and camera work was horrid; the dialog murky, the script seemed thrown together without much thought and the plot was thin if not nonexistent. I can't believe people are giving it the high ratings I've read here. Basically a forgettable, poor attempt at recreating a beloved era of the past. Two stars is all I can come up with. Sorry, guys.
I saw this on a screener DVD a couple months before it was released.<br /><br />I liked the main characters and the overall story but some scenes are pretty sloppy and confusing. The sets were fitting but a few just looked like left overs from Freaks & Geeks or reminded me of a cell phone commercial shot in a middle class home. Definitely not what the DVD cover claims, "Destined to be the next stoner classic", hardly.<br /><br />Wardrobe and hairstyles are done well and yes, there are some really pretty girls in this, always nice to see a good looking cast.<br /><br />Almost every scene contained guitar that just droned on and on. Sound design was a bit poor. I think less would have been best.
Plodding, maybe that should have been the title. Bad dialogue delivered at a snail's pace. All the characters are single dimension with the exception of one. Unfortunately, that character has some of the worst lines and does not seem to fit into this cliché ridden two- hour drag. Having grown up in the seventies, this film is seriously lacking in detail, atmosphere and authenticity. Surprisingly, this was produced by Kelsey Grammar, someone who should recognize sharp dialogue and a consistent narrative in a script. Cameron Richardson is about the only element that lights up this film. Robin Trower's music is also a welcomed addition.
After seeing the DVD release of the Blues Brothers, and their mention of "Wired" on Belushi's bio, my boyfriend and I were hungry for more information on John Belushi. I had heard of "Wired" but didn't know too much about it and found it way in the back of the local rental store. I understand that Dan Akroyd was really p***ed over this movie and I thought it was because it didn't portray them in a good light. But that had nothing to do with it.<br /><br />The movie starts out okay, until they wheel in John's body to the morgue. When he wakes up on the autopsy table, and decides to run for it, then begins the utter tastelessness of this movie. John is subjected to viewing his life and all of the turmoil he created with "Angel," a Puerto Rican cab driver with a wicked sense of humor -- subjecting him to criticism and attempting to try to get him to cross over.<br /><br />The two actors who portray John and Dan look nothing even remotely close to the real actors, (let alone anyone else related for that matter, i.e., Lorne Michaels,) making it difficult to really try to concentrate on them and how they were in real life... but that is the tip of the iceberg.<br /><br />I believe this was supposed to be an "artsy" film -- John constantly being tormented by drugs (i.e., the powdered soap in the bathroom being cocaine,) in such a way that was also difficult to follow. The flashbacks are choppy, also making it difficult to understand.<br /><br />Probably the most tasteless scene was when John is (literally,) forced to undergo his autopsy and is in pain while they remove his heart to weigh it, saying that it was abnormally large due to drug use, obesity, yeah, we get the point without the grotesque portrayal.<br /><br />There are very few other actors we know of in the movie, (where's Carrie Fisher for instance? They were incredibly close. And Jim Belushi would have been a great person to show,) it looks VERY cheaply made, (we felt it looked as if the graphics were from the early 80s or late 70s,) it felt as if it was filmed in about a week and all in all, didn't show the side to John at all. I felt I knew a little bit more about him from watching episodes of Saturday Night Live.<br /><br />On one last note, Bob Woodward comes across narcissistic by placing himself in the movie, arguing with John about writing his life story. For someone who was supposed to be very highbrow, concerning the bust on Nixon, his calibur of person could match any writer in the National Enquirer, and therefore losing my interest in any of his work from this point forward.<br /><br />SKIP THIS MOVIE. If you want to see more on John, watch his movies, see clips of Dan Akroyd talking about him or hope someone has the taste to make another movie on John that goes along the lines of "Man on the Moon," which is ultimately what we were expecting. I guess this was a "moral" kind of movie -- you know, don't do drugs, but I guess the creators of this film didn't understand that his death made a number of people (like Carrie Fisher,) stop doing drugs altogether for that reason.
Any film school student could made a film 1,000 times better than piece of garbage. As someone who had read the book, I expected even a straight re-telling of the book would make this a fair film. There was a chance that a talented director could go beyond Woodward's narrative and make a great film.<br /><br />Well the director did go beyond Woodward's narrative. He added a hip Hispanic angel named Velasquez that was not in the book. He had Bob Woodward interview the dead Belushi in an exchange in the morgue. The film had all the insight of someone stoned on PCP staring at his navel.<br /><br />If this is a spoiler to you, you will thank me for it because it is absolutely the worst movie ever made.
Journalist Bob Woodward's blistering, scattershot and sometimes suspect account of actor John Belushi's rise and fall becomes a wholly misjudged movie, a nebulous "fantasy" directed by Larry Peerce as if he were doing something edgy and vital. Michael Chiklis (years before his breakthrough on "The Shield") is put in the unenviable position of portraying Belushi, taking a post-mortem trip through his life, recreating those "Saturday Night Live" skits which are now part of TV history. It's like watching someone try to out-Lucy Lucille Ball--it can't be done. The reason why there was such sorrow at Belushi's death was because he was one of a kind. Chiklis makes a commendable attempt at looking the part, and he's funny in an early scene trying to escape from the morgue. Still, it's an uphill venture and no actor--no matter how talented--could have saved it. * from ****
and I have seen a lot of films. I saw this in the theatre in 1989 and to this day I remember the sickening urge to walk out. If you like John Belushi, respect his talent, or even the sanctity of the cinema-- this film has nothing to offer you. It is mostly a pathetic showcase for the writer of Belushi's biography, Bob Woodward. As we see the progression of Belushi's life pass on the screen, Woodward actually shows up in the film like a ghost character. The most offensive scene occurs when Belushi is dying, looks up from his deathbed to see the author standing above him and he weakly utters "Breathe for me, Woodward." There are too many terrible things to mention them all, the least of which is the opening that has Belushi jumping out of his body bag in the morgue and getting into a taxi driven by a guy named "Angel." I'll leave it at that.
This movie narrate the story of John Belushi,based of his biography `Wired' , wrote by Bob Woodward.All of movie is narrate on flashback without a chronological order , where after the death of John Belushi we see one angel accompany Belushi during few points of his life.Michael Chicklis in the character of John Belushi is enough credible , but entirely devoid of the devastate force of Belushi ,and his play stay only a pale animation.The director,on more,not succeed to give continuate on the story , that for who not knows the book is very confused. But the worse is that they have featured Bob Woodward that spoke with Belushi before he died. For this negative points the movie is only a would-be attempt to narrate the controversial story of John Belushi. My rate is 4.
"Wired" would have to rate as one of the ten worst films I have ever seen. The writing and direction show a stunning lack of imagination and I'm sure that most of the actors still cringe whenever anyone mentions this film.<br /><br />It fails to work either as a tribute to Belushi's unique talent, or as an accurate account of his short life. <br /><br />A pointless mess with no redeeming features.
This could have been a good biopic, but what a mess! I had this film when I was a theater manager. When I put the film together, and watched it, I thought I had some reels out of order. As it turned out I didn't, and if I did, nobody would have noticed. I couldn't figure out what's going on! Everybody who walked out pretty much felt the same way!
I saw this film in the movie theater. I was taking classes at the Second City Chicago and of course the buzz of this movie was intense. It is a Woodward film about one of Second City's Native sons.<br /><br />Everyone knew about Johns history. Everyone knew how he died. Some even knew that the lore did not make him out to be particularly friendly towards women in improv or comedy.<br /><br />But hey. the man led his life and he was loved intensely by the people who were in his world, and lore also states that he treated all of his close friends with love and respect.<br /><br />This movie. Well. Forget the idea of poor Michael Chilklis (who is a really great actor) being in a really astonishingly bad film, and really only relegated to doing an impersonation of the man.<br /><br />Forget the idea that they could not get the rights to any of Belushi's work...and all the SNL scenes never happened that they portrayed in the movie.<br /><br />Screw the idea that half of the historical information in the film did not even follow Bob Woodwards work. Kinda saying "Okay...we are about to mess with Belushi...now lets go after Woodward too..." They also decided to take the premise of It's a Wonderful Life and turn it into It's a Horrible Life on Crack.<br /><br />Is he a guardian angel or the devil? Is the pinball machine the devil's assistant electronic device...how many different endings can you tack onto to a movie? It is one of those movies after it is over...you look at the person you are with and in stunned disbelief go "What the hell was that?!" In some circles this movie has become a kinda cult classic. But for good reason.<br /><br />A good cult classic you sit around the screen and make fun of (or throw out snappy one liners) to the screen. A cult film is never good. And most people would never watch them in any serious context.<br /><br />If you want to watch some classic bad late 80's fair stoned? Rent Wired. If you want to know about John Belushi...you can get more information off of the walls of Second City Chicago than this movie.
It's reassuring to see that other IMDb reviewers have had the good sense to pan this disappointing film, at the risk of blaspheming against the great Vadim, Malle and Fellini.<br /><br />These directors may be talented & artistic in their own right; however in attempting to pass off this hodgepodge of attempted eroticism and 60s chic as *in any way* related to Edgar Allen Poe's stories, they exposed themselves as frauds. Either (A) they didn't bother to read the Poe stories, or (B) they read them but were so transfixed by their own egotistical agenda that they didn't pay Poe any mind.<br /><br />Imagine if Metallica plugged in their guitars, cranked the amps up to 11 and moshed out 3 chords claiming it to be Beethoven's 9th Symphony. That's the feeling you'll get after sitting through this film. If you're a Vadim/Malle/Fellini fan (Metallica), you'll dig it. If you're a Beethoven fan (Poe), you'll puke.<br /><br />METZERGENSTEIN...<br /><br />Here we begin with a bizarre porno version of Poe. OK, "porno" may be a bit extreme haha, but at the very least you have to call it a Barbarella version (including, I don't doubt, some of Jane's outfits coming directly from the set of that scifi romp). Vadim falls into old clichés of his own: the girl lying on a bed being pleasured by some man whilst from the pillow-cam we see the apathy in her eyes; the general lassitude and ennui of a woman who finds no satisfaction in hedonism. Cute stuff, but "Metzergenstein" ain't the place for it. And in addition to the Barbarella outfits and irrelevant erotic themes, Jane Fonda's awful American accent and unconvincing performance as a European countess made this the worst casting since Julia Roberts in that lousy version of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde.<br /><br />WILLIAM Wilson...<br /><br />Here's a great Poe story about the madness that claims a man when he realizes that he is no longer unique in the world. If you really want to see a fantastic visual interpretation of this theme, go watch Star Trek episode #27 "The Alternative Factor". But here, Malle glazes over that central theme and instead focuses on... any guesses...? yup, eroticism, sadism and debauchery. Ho hum. Brigitte Bardot's role is a complete fabrication to accomplish that end, and once again the director distorts a classic Poe story into a masturbatory catharsis of his own unrequited sexual issues. Do it on your own time, Malle. I thought we're here on Poe's dime.<br /><br />TOBY DAMMIT....<br /><br />The absolute worst of the three and possibly the worst film I've seen since "Staying Alive". At least Fellini showed some tact in changing the title, but his departure from the original plot, theme and humour of the story is so vast, I wonder if he just picked this reel out of his private collection of home movies, stamped "Edgar Allen Poe story" on it and submitted it to this collection. I strained very hard to find any thread of familiarity with Poe's works, but there was absolutely none.<br /><br />The original Poe story ("Never Bet the Devil Your Head") is a short and hilarious dark fable about a man who constantly exclaims "I'll bet the devil my head..." On a foggy morning, the devil takes him up on his offer. The result is the sickest and silliest thing you've ever read. This was Poe, the comedian, at his finest (yes, Poe wrote many comedies. Also check out "A Predicament" and "Devil in the Belfry" if you want a taste of his witty, satirical works).<br /><br />This Fellini version? It's bland, soulless, and not funny at all (unless you consider it funny to see a drunk stumbling over himself for 45 minutes). Here Fellini's egotistical rant is about an artist struggling with the hypocrisy, pretense and mediocrity of cinema. Most of it is set at an awards ceremony where Fellini beats us over the head with sarcasm, cynicism and that classic "sour grapes" attitude that we find in all Fellini films dealing with cinema. Note the sarcastic jabs at "the critics", a recurring theme in Fellini's films. For someone who considered himself above the critics, Fellini sure spent a lot of time talking about them. At any rate, I feel like Fellini just took some outtakes from 8 1/2, spliced them together and sold it as a Poe story. Worst "adaptation" ever.<br /><br />I think I put more effort into typing this review than any of the three directors put into making a Poe movie.
What is it about the French? First, they (apparently) like Jerry Lewis a lot more than the US does. Second, they (seem) to like Edgar Allan Poe's work more than just about anyone else does. It's got to be the "Beaudelaire effect".<br /><br />Don't get me wrong...I'm a Poe fan myself. But this trilogy manages to make three of Poe's below-average stories into...well, I'm not sure what they're made into.<br /><br />"Toby Dammit" is a fine Fellini film, but it has nothing to do with Poe's story, at least in terms of theme. It's enjoyable on the first viewing. Terence Stamp does a good job with an interesting role. However, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Poe or spirits of the dead.<br /><br />"Metzergenstein" is a big mess. How did Vadim's films get produced? It's just awful...not even up to amateur film school standards. Depending on the DVD menu you have, try to skip it and save your time.<br /><br />"William Wilson" is actually the segment that is most faithful to Poe's work. It does not have much style, though, even if it includes the strangest snowball fight I think that I have ever seen on film. (It looks like the boys are throwing tissues, or maybe handkerchiefs, that have been rolled up into balls.) <br /><br />My advice is to skip "Metzergenstein", watch "William Wilson", and then, if you're a Fellini fan (I'm not) keep "Toby Dammit" on while you cook dinner or make a snack.
I'm pretty sure Poe would have considered this a travesty. The first two stories are decent, nothing spectacular. And then there's Toby Dammit. What on earth was Fellini thinking? It's a rambling, random, dull piece, with little to recommend it. One should feel frustrated at the lack of backstory or conclusion, but there's only relief that it's over.
"Yesterday" as a movie, is hard to rate. The cinematography is excellent and deserves a 9/10. The story is gritty and real and does not compromise. But the translation of the story to the screen through the actors did not match the camera work.<br /><br />As a person who was born and raised in Central Africa, I appreciated the authenticity of the film's look and the honest depiction of daily life for the Zulu. But this and the camera work are not enough to recommend the average viewer should see this film. It takes an appreciation of true cinema and not just a love of movies to see the purpose and strength of "Yesterday". <br /><br />Unlike the 1980 film "The Gods Must be Crazy", which was a comic look at one African culture encountering modern technology, "Yesterday" has no intention of appealing to any crossover audience. The movie simply is not fit for the common western mind - and I doubt it was intended for the western mind. The scenes are long and slow, the editing is not paced for a 60mph+ instant gratification world. The dialog is not cleaver or witty, it is real. Movies about health crises do not make the best entertainment and this movie is not entertainment, it is education.<br /><br />This movie is best viewed by those who know, appreciate and love the way of life and the culture in sub-Sarah Africa. If you lack a broad enough world-view to understand other cultures, especially African cultures, should skip this film. Do not waste you time with it. Go see "Talladega Nights" or "Larry the Cable Guy" instead for your cross culture viewing.<br /><br />I give it a 4 for most who might want to see the movie but have no accurate understanding of African cultures. For the viewers with an appreciation for films about the human experience anywhere in the world, I would give it a 7.
I am sitting here writing this review and the movie's not even over yet. In fact, I just checked, and there are 45 more minutes to go. But no matter, there's no need to see it through to the end. I'll just write this review and laugh as the film plays in the background and stumbles onward to some kind of presumably horrible conclusion which I don't care to ever see or know.<br /><br />What accounts for my hostility to this movie? The characters are not believable. The plot is not believable. The pretentiousness of the movie is sickening. Basically, every element of the movie rings false. Buscemi obviously thought he had something to add to the dozens of movies which have already explored the well-worn themes of dysfunctional families and the apparent meaninglessness of life. However, Buscemi was badly mistaken, because this movie contains nothing new. It tries very hard to be depressing, but fortunately no one can really be depressed by it, because it's obvious that no people like this exist in the entire world.<br /><br />What IS depressing however is the knowledge that somehow this film was voted several undeserved awards. Disgusting!!!! Bottom line: stay away from this worthless film at all costs.
I like Steve Buscemi. I like his work very much, both as an actor and a director. You could say that I am -into- Steve Buscemi. A Steve Buscemi freak. I lurv Steve Buscemi.<br /><br />I remember when I first saw Buscemi's full length directorial debut, "Trees Lounge." I enjoyed the movie, although it wasn't as good as it could have been. It was -almost- there. It -almost- scratched that itch, the itch of wanting to see "small" movies about "small" people in "small" bars that are in "small" towns. It was close enough to where I would say that it was a very good movie - one that with a few tweaks could have been great. But that's OK. I like the movie and I've watched it more than once.<br /><br />But this review is not about Trees Lounge. It's about "Lonesome Jim." When I saw the description of the movie and then I saw who's movie it was, I was excited at the prospect of finally seeing the movie that I knew that Trees Lounge could have been. But what I actually experienced was not unlike that of leaving one of those smalltown bars with a belly full of cheap whiskey and an armful of cheap floozy, heading back to your apartment with a mushy brain full of exciting prospects that inevitably disintegrate into the reality of alcohol-induced impotence and headspinning regurgitation.<br /><br />In other words, this movie left me flat and unrequited and sorry that I wasted the time and the money that it took me to get to that state - the film equivalent of waking up next to that cheap floozy the next morning, or if you happen to be the floozy, waking up next to that stinking and farting and unshaven imbecile. The film had all of the substance of a stale white bread sandwich (with store brand white bread, no less) and the emotion of a cadaver. I am not sure what the point of this film was, and since it was supposed to have some sort of a point and was not an exercise in abstract surrealism that can get by without one then this lack of a point is a sin of omission. Sorta like those new cars that don't come with ashtrays anymore although there are millions of people who smoke and buy new cars (I'm not one of them, but hey, I can sympathize). Overall it was a boring film about boring people doing boring things and had none of the grit and believability that can carry and save such a film. I mean, Trees Lounge was about boring people doing boring things, but it was interesting. <br /><br />I blame a lot of this on Affleck. Why do people keep casting these Affleck turds? They suck the life out of anything that they are connected with. One Affleck was in one decent film (and wasn't even the reason why the film was decent) and all of the sudden every butthole named Affleck is stinking up as many films as they possibly can. And Liv Tyler is no better. Being the daughter of a rock star does not necessarily make an actress. She is as lifeless as Affleck. These people simply do not rise from the flat page of the script. People pay to see films and they deserve to see actors and actresses with a bit of charisma - these two duds together don't have the spark of the old guy who hands out shopping carts at Wal Mart. I always thought that Steve Buscemi was the type of guy who would rise above this type of pablum, but oh Steve you let us down. This film makes me want to stuff you into another wood chipper.
Whilst this is most definitely a well crafted piece of film-making, it's thoroughly without any entertainment value whatsoever.<br /><br />If you're depressed already, this film will send you over the edge.<br /><br />If you're feeling somewhat depressed, this film will be just one more thing in your life to feel bitter about. You'll feel that it's just your luck to have chosen to watch a movie that turns out to be a complete waste of time.<br /><br />Otherwise you might be able to make it through this film unscathed (I didn't, BTW), safe in the knowledge that your life is so much better than Jim's. Then again you might consider that you have been fooling yourself, and that are in fact in a much worse situation than you'd previously realized. You might feel a bit annoyed at Jim for bringing this to your attention. You may want to slap him around a bit with a wet fish. <br /><br />The sad truth is, much as I wanted to like this movie... I hated it. It took rather a long miserable road down the path of oblivion and then suddenly, for no reason whatsoever, looked back at itself and then stopped.<br /><br />Jim does not have an epiphany, at least not one that is conveyed on screen. Jim has a miserable life and a miserable set of options. He discovers nothing that one can relate to and fails to make any significant progress on his journey of self-discovery. <br /><br />Of course no-one alive could write a happy ending to this movie. As others have said it's no Hollywood tale, it's gritty and it's real. It's well made. Life is quite a struggle at times. If anyone were to know "the answer", they do well to shout it from the rooftops.<br /><br />Still, I feel cheated because this movie pretends to have something to say. You feel that it's going to say something, that if you just suffer through a little more of it, it'll have something to say. It'll make you stop and think. <br /><br />It doesn't.<br /><br />Again, I do submit that this is a well crafted film. And therefore may be of value to a film student with a penchant for e.g. lighting techniques of the use of colour palettes. <br /><br />For the rest of us, it's utterly miss-able.
The only time I seem to trawl through IMDb comments is when I've seen a duff film. I guess I'm looking to find reassurance that it's not just me. For me, then, Lonesome Jim was a duff film packed with unbelievable characters in unbelievable situations which limped on lamely and boringly towards a cop-out hackneyed conclusion. So I check out what other people have to say and feel a bit like Jim, out on a limb, alienated, as page after page of multiple star ratings and plaudits leave me doubting my critical faculties. Yet maybe I should check the settings for the comments presentation, since after a while the gushing dies down and I'm relieved to see appreciations that mirror my own. I feel vindicated. It IS a rubbish film, it DOESN'T hang together and it DOES constitute a wasted evening sitting through it. Praise be to kindred spirits.
I was attracted to this film by its offbeat, low-key, 'real life' story line. That is, a twenty-something guy flops in the Big Apple and comes back home to live with his parents and even more floppy brother. It just might have worked but there's a problem. And that problem's name is Casey Affleck. <br /><br />Casey Affleck is nearly catatonic in this film. His acting mantra must be "exert as little effort as possible at all times". Or "why speak when you can mutter?" Or maybe "put yourself into a coma as soon as the camera rolls". Lips moving when speaking? Barely. Facial expressions? None. Muscles in face? Atrophied. Something? Nothing. ANYthing? Zip.
Lonesome Jim is kind of like a romantic dark comedy about a dysfunctional family whose two boys are total losers. Both boys around 30, living at home, with absolutely nothing going for them. I live in the Midwest and I can't name one family like this. I picked it up because I kind of like Buscemi acting humor. Now I realize I need to have a counteracting agent to that humor to make it work. The acting and camera work and editing was fine. The first 15 minutes got you set, and the last 15 minutes helped prevent the film from being totally depressing Jerry Springer trailer trash type of story. The female members of my family were begging me to turn it off, but I prevailed under the premise that there had to be a turning point near the end, and we watched the entire movie. The male family members, as expected, simply walked out after the first 30 minutes.
Olivia D'Abo in a wet T-shirt is the only thing this movie has going for it. Other than that, this Canadian production about a man taking out a vicious band of hillbillies is not worth anybody's time. The writing is bad, the acting is poor and the direction is sub-standard.
A family (A teenage boy, his mother and a stepdad), sick of city life, decides to move to the mountains to get away from it all and have a fresh start. However, their idyll is shattered by three brothers and their domineering father, who don't take kindly to newcomers on their patch. While having objects thrown through their window and being threatened in the street is just the start, the youth decides to make things even worse by having a relationship with the terrible trio's sister. With the law unwilling to do anything about it and the violence escalating rapidly, the lad decides to take matters into his own hands..<br /><br />Veering wildly between hilarity and nastiness, this is one of the oddest exploitation movies ever made. At first, you can have a chuckle at some of the hammy acting and ludicrous dialogue given to the characters, especially the overwrought bad guys. But then, you get completely unnecessary scenes like a mother being raped while her son is forced to watch, or the thug's sister getting herself beaten up by her siblings for daring to sleep with our young hero. In fact, the whole view of women in the movie, which seems to be that they're pathetic creatures who scream a lot and can't defend themselves, is pretty despicable. But of course, there's the obligatory nude scene, which this time involves a young lady diving into a pool bra-less under a very thin T-shirt. Who cares about plot consistency when you have some willing young starlets ready to shed her togs. Right?!<br /><br />The climax centres on the teenager, who up until now hasn't been able to sneeze without jumping, suddenly morphing into a Rambo clone and blowing off his assailants left, right and centre to save his stepfather who is being held hostage by the gang. It's completely implausible but hey, so is everything else in this film.. so at least you can't accuse it of not being consistent. So, rather than attempting to find logic in a place where the word doesn't exist, check out the IMDb pages for Janet Laine Green, Dehl Berti, Stephen Hunter, Jonathan Crombie.. etc. Notice a pattern emerging here? Their careers all hit dead ends. Why? Sit through this, and all will become clear. Remember kids, if you want to get ahead in this business, hire a decent agent and ALWAYS read the scripts they offer you. Please.. 3/10
Are you kidding me? The music was SO LOUD in this show I could often not even hear the dialog. And the music was nothing great. Anyone know what Jake's mother said when he walked in the door??? And the mushroom cloud looked pretty close to have so little instant devastation. Anyone research the effects of nuclear fallout before writing this one. I felt like a bunch of sit com actors were sent on location and didn't know what to do with dramatic dialog. And what does a Kansas teen know about shopping in Soho....couldn't we have had a better line here? Was bored to tears and only kept awake by the jarring blare of the over-mixed way to loud music.
This is a slick little movie well worth your time to find and see.<br /><br />It really speaks to all those mundane choices we all make every day and (like an H.G. Welles Story I can't quite recall) may live to want back.<br /><br />Keep in mind that this is a SHORT (very short). It starts out slowly but just as you begin to think it has become boring =bang= it's over. And, believe me, the 'punch line' is one you will remember.<br /><br />I'm not sure if the producers are going to make it available for purchase - or available on the web but either way you'd be happy you took the time to get hold of a copy - of that I am sure.
whomever thought of having sequels to Iron Eagle must be shot. In this case once was enough. Iron Eagle was a good movie to watch. Even though it is unrealistic, it is still entertaining. Iron Eagle II has a senseless plot and can be used to as a cure to insomnia. I didn't even bother to watch Iron Eagle III, but from looking at the R rating, I assume it's more violent than the past 2 movies. Well, Iron Eagle IV is probably the most inane sequel. Lou Gossett Jr. returns as the always delightful "Chappy" Sinclair. Another Jason returns to fill the role of Doug Masters (Canadian Jason Cadieux, who looks just like Jason Gedrick from the first Iron Eagle). But wait(Here comes a possible spoiler).....Wasn't Doug killed in Iron Eagle II? The writers must've been desprate for a story so they revived Doug Masters by saying he was a prisoner of the Russians. This movie was the cheapest done of all the Iron Eagle films. Why do movie makers find it neccessary to make sequels to unappealing movies? (ex. Police Academy movies). I have always liked Gossett Jr.'s work in these films. He was the only one holding this turkey together. Let's hope this was the last of the Iron Eagle sequels. let it rest in peace.
Louis Gossett Jr returns to the well one more time as Chappy Sinclair who goes to Doug Masters (Played by Jason Cadieux who is in for Jason Gedrick who wisely declined) to teach a new band of recruits however this time they discover corrupt air force pilots who deal in toxic waste. This is a series that just keeps getting worse with each subsequent entry, this one however doesn't have any of the zip or even the action to make this even worth seeing on cable. Iron Eagle IV is directed with such indifference that the dogfights come off as if we were watching a playstation 2 game played by two lobotomized teenagers. It is horrendous to watch and Gossett Jr who has made his share of turkeys seems to have bottomed out here. And I saw Cover-Up, Firewalker, Aces:Iron Eagle III, Toy Soldiers and Jaws 3D. What is mysterious about Louis Gossett Jr is that he seems to be like Christopher Walken in his quest to do anything as long as he's working. As I look at his post Oscar win. Some of his better movies include Iron Eagle, The Punisher and The Principal. Considering that the latter two movies have him co-starring with Dolph Lundgren and James Belushi it is indeed something to say that three guilty pleasure action flicks are in the running for his better work. Of course Enemy Mine and Diggstown remain his best post-Oscar win work.<br /><br />* out of 4-(Bad)
And obviously I didn't see it! <br /><br />But looking at the cast and seeing that Doug Masters is back from the dead, I know now to avoid this like the plague! I hate it when Hollywood, producers, writers, directors or all of the above think that audiences are stupid that they're not going to catch continuity errors. A supposedly dead Doug Masters returning is a big giant one, won't you say?<br /><br />And I can't believe that someone like Louis Gossett, Jr. would return for something like that.<br /><br />Did Jason Gedrick really decline this? Well, I hate to say it, but even if he took the role again, it would have still had that same continuity error. I bet (if he really turned it down), he must have been incredulous seeing that his character died in the second film.<br /><br />I'll probably catch it by accident on a late night air on some channel, but no way am I going to rent this or buy the DVD!
It's another variation on the oft-told tale of two people getting married and having to share their brood of kids. WITH SIX YOU GET EGG ROLL is directed by Howard Morris (from television) and it shows, because it's the kind of tale that plays like a half-hour situation comedy padded out to feature film length--but with a scarcity of laughs, or to put it differently, only the number of laughs that would have been possible within the half-hour limits of a TV show.<br /><br />DORIS DAY decided to call it quits after this film--and it's rather easy to see why. Even the presence of some fairly reliable actors in the cast doesn't help. BRIAN KEITH, BARBARA HERSHEY, PAT CARROLL and ALICE GHOSTLEY do their best, but the script is the real problem and should have been left untouched for the big screen.<br /><br />Nothing much can be said in favor of it. Skip it and see Miss Day in any number of her more worthwhile films.
This sickly sweet and laboriously paced 5-reeler is definitely not among Harold Lloyd's better films. Gags are sparse and mostly uninspired. Saccharine melodrama is abundant. The setup takes forever, as Lloyd, the unconventional, but impossibly kindly, country doctor makes his rounds, bringing a little sunshine into the lives of children, the elderly, and puppies. It's like a 1922 version of Patch Adams. Ugh. 4/10.
Stanley Kubrick, a director who I hold in the highest of esteems for his masterpieces (Clockwork Orange, 2001, The Killing, the Shining, Dr. Strangelove, etc) took the film out of circulation, leaving it to be found by only the hardcore fans and completists. After seeing the film for myself, I could see why. At the age of 24, Kubrick had already honed his craft of still photography for LOOK magazine, and had done a few short documentaries. Like many first-time filmmakers that came in the decades after him, his ambition for Fear and Desire was, in short, to just go and make a film, cheaply, more than likely to see if he could do it. On that level, he was successful. However, the film itself definitely is not.<br /><br />I can't really say that the film is a failure because there was something I did like about it throughout. Even as the film's story went on the wayside, and the actors (whom Kubrick didn't have any idea how to direct, not being a man of the theater), his knack for producing and capturing some great images gets its seeds in this film. At times, there are some shots of close-ups and quick-shots in suspense/action scenes that are eye-catching. Unfortunately, this is all the good I can really say of the film. Although there are a couple of 'name' actors in the film (Frank Slivera, who also appeared in Killer's Kiss, and Paul Mazursky, a director in his own right), the performances overall are dull and very routine.<br /><br />In fact, that is the film's main demise for me; whenever I watch any Kubrick film, even his early film noirs Killer's Kiss and the Killing, I can tell who made it, as his style by then became distinct, which would continue as he evolved as an artist. It wasn't 'artsy' like I might have pictured (which is usually the case with first-time directors like Scorsese and Spielberg), but watching this film not only did it feel like it wasn't Kubrick, it felt like a lot of the time I was watching some B (or even C) grade movie by a director that time forgot- not quite 'Ed Wood' bad, but close. The music is as standard as can be, the fades are pedestrian, and the plot seems to not really hold that much attention.<br /><br />In short, as others have said and which I can agree, this is a "doodle pad" of a future ground-breaker, who shows some shots and a few edits that grab some attention (the best scene overall being when the soldiers take the dumb girl hostage), but not enough to really recommend except to those, like myself, who end up seeing everything by Kubrick (or, perhaps, have to see every ultra-low budget war film ever made), if only out of curiosity.
Fear and Desire is of interest mainly to Kubrick obsessives, who can plumb this pretentious clap trap for signs of his still-to-come greatness. Kubrick was right in seeking to ensure that the film was not screened or available on legitimate video. He considered it embarrassing and amateurish, and he was correct in his evaluation. This is a weak and tedious film--at 68 minutes it still seems longer than "Barry Lyndon"!--it nevertheless is of historical interest, and has its genuine absorbing moments. It's a difficult film to find (only "unofficial" copies are in circulation), though perhaps this may change if Kubrick's estate relents and has it released on video. Recommended only for Kubrick enthusiasts.
Kubrick may have been the greatest director of all times. He may have made more classics than anyone else. He may have been a perfectionist. But man, was his first attempt ever bad!<br /><br />Kubrick had good reason to try to make this film dissappear from the map: it looks like an Ed Wood film. It has strange narration, cheap shots, bad dialogue, ominous music reminiscent of your 50s sci-fi/horror flick, and what looks like relatives of the cast of "Reefer Madness" going insane for no reason.<br /><br />Sure, you can see an undeveloped Kubrick in there. It is a psychological/horror study of war. The characters became dehumanized and insane. There are people playing more than one role. There are constant shots of the faces and particular facial expressions of different people. And there are a few interesting shots around there. But really, this is a mess.<br /><br />Of course, I am not discouraging you from watching it. If you get a hold of it, you are joining a select group of myself and a few thousand people world wide who have had access to it.
A group of young filmmakers with virtually no budget set out to make something clever and original -- and while there is a bit of originality and some skilled drawing in this slacker puppet show take on "Dante's Inferno," there is nothing especially clever. Dante's "Divine Comedy" was a brilliant piece of social commentary. This film is a vaguely moralistic student film with pretensions to High Art.<br /><br />I suspect those who loved this film were those readily amused by the sophomoric pokes at some icons of the political and/or religious right, and that those who hated it took offense at seeing their favored icons poked. Be that as it may, few of those pokes actually rose to the level of satire.<br /><br />The high point of the movie is a sudden outbreak of "Schoolhouse Rock" on the subject of lobbying and the "revolving door." It's really a shame that the entire film couldn't have been a musical. That would have stripped away a great deal of the annoying film school pretentiousness and added a far stronger element of fun.
I was surprised to discover Michael Moore or Bill Maher wasn't involved with this "movie". An American leftist laundry list of axes to grind, with a distinct sparseness of democrats in Hell. Mao Zedong and Karl Marx didn't make an appearance in Hell, but Ronald Reagan is in the same room with Hitler? Perhaps we'll have to wait for these California spin doctors to butcher Paradiso for them to show all of their pet ideologue political figures.<br /><br />Cheap shots at religion, right-wing politicians, corporations and their lobbyists, Fox News, even SUVs. All the radical leftist talking points were too completely covered - while conspicuously omitting references to wrongdoing from the "other side of the aisle" - to not have been a conscious effort. The singular exception I noticed, in the hour and a half, is JFK has to have sex with Marilyn Monroe for eternity: The token inclusion in these propaganda pieces in a pathetic attempt at appearing non-partisan.
This demented left-wing wipe-out trivializes Dante's great work, distorts the genius of the author out of all recognition, inserts hateful ideology, incompetent satire and moronic political commentary in every imaginable place, and itself deserves a place in the Eighth Circle, Tenth Bolgia with the rest of the falsifiers. Sandow Birk has reserved himself a spot next to it.<br /><br />Stocking Hell with Republican political figures, Fox News helicopters and Christian conservatives is a work of literary sacrilege, to say nothing of extreme liberal bias. It is, however, unoriginal, tedious and trite. Nothing in Birk's unworthy and heretical revision is in the least relevant to the original text or is in any way entertaining, humorous or enlightening, despite his smug pretension to the contrary. <br /><br />I could have eaten a reel of video tape and PUKED a better movie. I regret the two hours of my life that I lost watching this insult to the very concept of poetry. Calliope will weep forever.
Dante would of been mortified, if he knew that his masterpiece was being ACTED OUT PUPPETS!!! Also the actors who played the puppets are sell outs. Due to the fact that playing a puppet is not acting it is just basically doing nothing. No one really will care who the puppet was. people only care who played a major role in like an actual movie. this is just annoying how you could mock such an amazing man and his belief, by this dumb little movie. This should be a crime and.... I cant believe you would ruin a book like that. I thought the movie was absolutely ridiculous and should be destroyed!!!! It totally ruins what your suppose to be getting from reading it. Your just making it a big joke.
Documentaries about fans are always mishmashes, and never worth seeing through, but I found this one, made by some of the fans themselves, more than usually unenlightening. As a veteran of the original Tolkien craze, forty years ago, I'd hoped for more than the obvious--which doesn't always equate to the true. If there's anyone living who doesn't already know the nature of a fandom, any fandom, from having been or known a fan, he won't discover it here. Between irrelevancies, platitudes (to which the actors from the films are particularly prone), and acting out (by fans making the most--if not the best--of their one shot at fame), I could glean little of the special appeal of LOTR, the special emotional responses it evokes, and the range of the special creative forms those responses can take. In addition, the film is rather lazy: it slights some facts that could have been got across with little effort, e.g. what the exact legal loophole was (the wording of a copyright notice) that permitted the books' unauthorized publication in the U.S. (Speaking of which: I take strong exception to the film's dismissal of the covers on that edition as "irrelevant" and "psychedelic," which they were not. They were the work of Jack Gaughan, a very able sf illustrator of the period, and some fans, including me, found them more apt, and more attractive, than the covers on the rival set.)
I just rented Blackwater Valley Exorcism because the cover and pictures looked terrifying, and I don't normally watch movies that are automatically released onto DVD, but this looked so interesting and scary! I was very much in the mood for a good scary film and to me, possession is one of the scariest subjects to watch or learn about. Just look at The Exorcist or The Exorcism of Emily Rose, both terrific movies that made break-throughs not only horror wise, but story as well.<br /><br />Blackwater Valley Exorcism is about a girl, Isabelle, who from the get go is automatically possessed, so we can't even tell what kind of a person she was to begin with. But a former wife beater turned priest is on the case with a gardener...? I know... I know. Then they go into several other stories with the priest and Isabella's sister, and the priest hit the sister and messed around with Isabelle? I'm not sure, then we get into a story with Isabelle's dad and his questioning of his wife's faithfulness to him.<br /><br />I mean, the story just goes into too many directions and wasn't well developed at all. Not to mention that the exorcism didn't seem authentic at all and more of a just scare your pants off type of a film, which I didn't like at all because I couldn't take it seriously. Whoever directed and wrote this clearly had no idea where to go or how to direct the story well, so I wouldn't really recommend this.<br /><br />2/10
The movie started very well..so far Isabelle's exorcism could be believed....but later, gosh!!! I didn't know if it was a horror movie, a drama one or a Must Not See one! The possessed creature attacking the sheriff had no connection at all with the movie....the make up!! well it looked pretty real at beginning, but at the end, last part of movie, the make up (especially teeth and eyes) was very exaggerated. If you want a good "EXorcism" movie watch "The Exorcism of Emily Rose".<br /><br />Together with "Hard Candy" (Totally boring, pathetic plot and ending), these two movies are the worst I've seen from Lionsgate!! But well the movie company has given horror movie fans excellent films, but with this one, you will wish you never rent it!! Exorcism movie fans, just stay with two "The Exorcist" and "Emily Rose's Exorcism"
I'm not sure if this is a comedy or not, but I found it pretty comical. Isobel is possessed by the devil. Somehow a perverted priest and the gardener are gonna' fix that. Part exorcism and part soap opera, you'll at least get some laughs. There's the paranoid jealous dad, satanic sister, Valley of the Dolls mother, and then the cowboy boyfriend; all there to help the skirt chasing priest fight the demons from dear Isobel. It sometimes felt like a Jerry Springer episode, but I actually paid to see this. Instead of the cool head-twisting, sailor cursing, and crucifix humping that Regan did in The Exorcist; you get a lot of Isobel bouncing on her bed like it's a trampoline, hiding in her closet, and jumping from a hay-loft. Yeah, it's Chuck E. Cheese gone wild. So, if you want to watch a quote unquote horror film that is worth a few laughs while you wait for the predictable ending ... this is your movie.
This movie was probably one of the worst movies I've seen in a very long time. A friend of mine grabbed it off the shelf at the video rental store, and all but forced me to watch it, an action we both deeply regret. Ehh... Where to start? The writing, the acting, the quality? All of it, sucked. <br /><br />Quite possibly some of the worst writing ever displayed in a movie. The dialog was worse than I thought it could ever be in the movies. Blatant dialog, such as "how ya doing?"..."not that great, doc" (directly after an attempted exorcism of a man's daughter and then his wife's attempted suicide. Of course he's not that great.) was, at some points, kind of funny. If not horribly written, planned out, and obvious. The general plot of the movie, the writing and the way it worked, HORRIBLE. It was like the writers could come up with nothing better to do then write a bunch of crappy dialog and throw in as many sex and nudity scenes as they randomly could. The only almost good sex scene (between the preacher and the tattooed & Peirced girl) was filmed with such poor quality that it looked more like a cheap porno than a feature film. Oh yeah, and they never actually got the deed done.<br /><br />The acting? Horrible. x100. I think the only good actor was the short Spanish guy who played Miguel, Del Zamora. And his part was written horribly. The worst acting? Arguably Paul Kappellas, whose acting combined with shitty music, a gun, and a half naked bluish white girl running around in the woods made the movie almost unbearable to sit through. He even screwed up his own death scene, one that should have been easy to nail. Although, most everybody else's acting was horrible as well.<br /><br />The lack of characters also added to the overall suck level of the movie. There were just enough characters so that almost half of the characters died, that same amount of people became possessed at one point, and then the remaining characters couldn't be counted on one hand. Like... 50 thumbs down.<br /><br />P.S. What IS it with the climax of exorcism movies happening in a stable, anyways?
A girl named Isobel becomes possessed by a demon. The local priest (who formerly dated Isobel's sister) must try to save her, but the bigger problems are with the family's suspicions of each other rather than the demon in their daughter.<br /><br />This film is directed by Ethan Wiley, the writer of "House" and the writer/director of "House II". I loved the first film and liked the second one even better, so you would think this would be a winner. Alas, this one looks like it was thrown together by first-year film students. Dawson Leery could have done better. I have thought about blaming new writer Ellary Eddy, especially because the idea is hardly original (are they trying to cash in on the fans of "The Exorcism of Emily Rose"?), but Wiley should have been able to do his magic.<br /><br />Also, you'd like to think veteran horror stars Jeffrey Combs and James Russo would help this film. Russo (playing the bishop) barely shows up, and Combs has a great role as a sheriff... for the five minutes he's on screen (but I love the mustache). So, no help here.<br /><br />After seeing "The Exorcist", all other exorcism films must be compared to the classic by default, no? And the demonic possession in this film was not scary in the least. No head-spinning or paranormal activity at all. Just a girl with a deep voice and runny makeup. All the "demonic" stuff was centered around the father accusing everyone of sleeping with his wife. As another reviewer wrote, "you get a lot of Isobel bouncing on her bed like it's a trampoline, hiding in her closet, and jumping from a hay-loft. Yeah, it's Chuck E. Cheese gone wild." That sadly sums up the extent of the "evil" in this movie.<br /><br />If you want to watch a movie about family members who invent accusations and yell at each other while the possessed daughter sits in another room off-camera, this is the movie for you. But, if you don't mind my saying so, you have a horrible taste in film if this is what you're seeking.<br /><br />The plot seems to focus on the father accusing a cowboy of sleeping with his wife (who didn't, but did sleep with his daughter) and of the veterinarian of sleeping with his wife (who might have, but denies it). And then you have a gardener who attacks the possessed girl with a crucifix and tells the family to call an exorcist, but once the priest arrives the gardener declares he does not believe in God. What was all the Bible-quoting you were doing five minutes ago?<br /><br />A horrible exorcism movie. Horribler examples of what Combs and Russo are capable of. And such a sad display of directing after the "House" series of films became classic. I would like to pretend Wiley had no part in making this shamefully derivative and unoriginal, uninspired film. The power of Christ compels you to avoid this movie as if viewing it were a cardinal sin.
OK, I normally don't add comments on movies, but I finally watched a movie that was so utterly full of bullsh*t and riddled with incompetence that I just had to warn people about. Blackwater Valley Exorcist is loosely about a wife-beating/pederast/priest and this podunk family of horse freaks, and to make a long story short the youngest daughter who was molested by the priest but in love with the hillbilly ranch hand gets possessed. Along with a heroic god shunning Mexican gardener who once participated in a exorcism, the wife-beating/ pederast/priest manage to save the day, but not before the possessing demon is able to jump over to a hooker who the town sheriff made blow him. All in all this movie is the biggest pile of useless (I could get very descriptive with this part but why waste my energy on this movie)sh*t I've ever seen. Any and all persons associated with the making of this movie should be sterilized so that they cannot pollute the earth with their useless spawn.
Even worse then the incredibly boring "the Exorcism of Emily Rose". It started off decently, and right up until the mom said to the dad, "See I knew she was possessed", in an I told you so voice. It was a terrible line, spoken badly and it foreshadowed the rapid demise of this amazingly bad movie. Every family member has an issue from the past with the priest. The dad starts to accuse everyone of either liking his wife, or actually having an affair with her, culminating with him killing his buddy, then himself in the obvious instant lucidity after he realizes his friend hadn't slept with his wife after all. People are dying, others are coming under possession, and by this point most viewers don't even care anymore. Except for their employee Miguel, none of the characters in this movie was actually likable, making it hard to care, about any of them. The acting was terrible and the writing even worse. Glad I saw it for free; although I feel that for a movie this bad someone owes me money for the time I lost.
I have to agree with the previous reviewer. Although the Kristin Erikson did a great job of playing the possessed girl, I seriously don't think that Isabelle, the character she was playing, was possessed. I have seen people have psychotic breaks due to sexual abuse, and they never made it clear whether or not the father had actually abused her or not. I also had to watch some parts of it over again, to make it clear as to what the letter said, what the characters' names were, and I'm still not clear on a few things that happened, whether they were real or not. I'm trying to find the "original" story that it was based on, to compare facts, but I can't seem to find anything about it online.<br /><br />It wasn't a bad movie, but some of the dialogue was incredibly cheesy. Special effects wise, the movie wasn't bad for a Grade B, pretty much, and those possession scenes made it all worth while... that is, if you have nothing better to do. LOL
This movie had very few moments of real drama. After the opening minutes the film descended in a spiral that didn't quite take us to hell and back - viewing was pure purgatory to say the least. The acting was more horrendous than the subject matter of the film and at times I couldn't stop laughing. The continuity between some of the scenes was dire - characters disappeared from scenes without explanation only to be replaced by other characters who minutes earlier had been some where else. Surely this was a spoof of The Exorcist. The collection plate at the church must have been full of copper the day Mr Russo signed up for this one. Do I speak Latin? Et tu Brutus.
Blackwater Valley Exorcism is set on a small town ranch where teenager Isabelle (Kristin Erickson) is found wandering around covered in dog's blood. Her parents Ely (Randy Colton) & Blanche (Leslie Fleming-Mitchell) own the ranch & are deeply worried about their daughter, recently she has not been herself & is considered a danger to herself & other's. Ranch hand & ex-priest Miguel (Del Zamora) recognises Isabelle's symptoms as a possible case of possession & when she starts to speak ancient Latin in a strange voice he becomes convinced of it. Blanche calls priest Jacob (Cameron Daddo) who is her other daughter Claire's (Madison Taylor) ex husband to see Isabelle, he confirms Miguel's suspicions & accepts the job of performing the exorcism that will hopefully banish the demon inside Isabelle & an innocent girl free...<br /><br />Directed by Ethan Wiley I was sat there in my house in front of my telly watching Blackwater Valley Exorcism & I kept asking the same question over & over again, why do I do it. Why do I keep sitting through all these awful low budget horror films that look like they were shot on a camcorder? Right lets honest about this, Blackwater Valley Exorcism is a complete total & utter unashamed rip-off of The Exorcist (1973) & you literally tick off the major plot points that the two share. There's the possessed teenage girl who starts to get very horny & suggest inappropriate things, the demon that uses past misdemeanour's against other's, the worried parents, the way that the possessed girl is shunned by doctor's, the priest with a troubled past & the possessed girl is tied to her bed amongst other things. I suppose where Blackwater Valley Exorcism is different (other than it's total crap) is that it tries to give all the character's some screen time & tries to get across how the situation is affecting them but it's so badly written & acted it just ends up being boring. The film starts with Isabelle already possessed so we never knew what she was like as a normal person so we never really care about her or what is happening to her either, the rest of the character's are poorly written & fleshed out. At times I wondered whether Blackwater Valley exorcism was a spoof, there's a silly scene in which a vet tries to sedate the possessed Isabelle with horse tranquilisers & after he states that she needs a 'little prick' he enters her room with a huge needle hidden behind his back! There are a few scenes in which people are punched accompanied by a silly comedy sound effect. The film has an uneven tone as a result as it goes between silly spoof & serious horror drama, or it did in my opinion at least.<br /><br />According to some text before the opening credits Blackwater Valley Exorcism was based on 'Actual Events', yeah right actual events from 1973 that happened in a film called The Exorcist... This piece of text also states that the exorcism scenes were supervised by a real priest. There isn't even any decent gore or exploitation to liven things up, there's a scene of a cut arm, there's a dead dog, someone is stabbed with a crucifix & that's about it. There's surprisingly no bad language in it either despite the demon trying to be offencive. I would imagine the only reason Blackwater Valley Exorcism has an adult rating is because of one very brief scene in which a pair of breast's are seen. One pair of naked female breast's is not worth the time watching this or the money you might spend on it. There is zero scares, no atmosphere & a really amateurish feel to the whole film too.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $1,000,000 I must say that I am wondering where all the money went, the film looks ugly & cheap throughout. There are no special effects to speak of & the production values are rock bottom. The acting is very poor from all involved, genre favourite Jeffrey Combs gets near top billing during the opening credits but has nothing more than a cameo in what amounts to about five minutes of screen time. Even he must have feared how bad this was going to be has he hides behind a moustache & a terrible accent, he is better than this.<br /><br />Blackwater Valley Exorcism is a complete rip-off of The Exorcist without anything that made that film such a classic & the makers are thirty five years too late anyway. A total turkey from start to finish.
As the metaphoric flies fled this steaming watery stool of a film i found myself longing to join them.<br /><br />From the opening sentences, you quickly gather that the actors are talentless. The script editor was probably dead and the director should be. To be honest I didn't manage to finish this film because about twenty dismal minutes in the sight of the main actress scuttling across the floor like a Shetland pony that has been shot in the ass was too much for me to stomach.<br /><br />I have never, and I mean never, seen a film as sweaty as this one and I watch tons of crap films.<br /><br />Turd.
While watching BLACKWATER VALLEY EXORCISM, I encountered scenarios and dialog so incredibly bad that I was convinced that this was supposed to be a comedy. A few choice bits of dialog worthy of a belly laugh: "I ate a rabbit." "I TOLD you she was possessed!" "Are you telling me the Devil is in my daughter?!"<br /><br />There are many, many more, but you must discover these for yourself - if you dare.<br /><br />The story goes off into all sorts of directions and things happen that probably shouldn't and everyone seems to be a perv or psycho of some sort (even the Priest). And I haven't even gotten to the bad acting. Most notable in this area is the fellow playing Isabelle's father. The director must have just told him to act like he's got a stick up his @$$ because that's the general impression one gets.<br /><br />I don't really want to steer anyone away from BLACKWATER VALLEY EXORCISM because there is entertainment value to be had...for all the wrong reasons, but if you're looking for a decent horror movie that makes sense and is actually scary...well, run don't walk.
Let me tell you something...this movie exceeds all of the Troma laugh and gore movies hands down as it ACTUALLY TRIES TO COME ACROSS AS A SERIOUS MOVIE. From the terrible acting... "I knew it, I knew she was possessed!"...to the priest accepting sexual favors and getting into showers with naked teenagers...this piece of dung takes the cake. I am at a loss trying to compare this to another movie equally as bad. This may just be in a class all its own. The kicker is that supposedly some Cardinal oversaw production to make sure it was true to the actual situation. I did not know that people from Backwoods USA act like utter imbeciles. I am not sure if I am upset for renting it or have stumbled across a jewel of comedy. This was a very guilty pleasure...so awful that I watched with hands over my eyes half the time (while I wasn't laughing so hard I was crying). The ending simply made no sense whatsoever, pulling the whole thing together perfectly. If you want to watch something so awful its funny, here is your movie. If you want a scary movie on exorcism....move on.
This movie just seemed to lack direction. The plot developed so many twists in such a short amount of time that it seemed to lose any semblance of what the true storyline was. There was a lot of wasted dialogue and just seemed like the writing was rushed and a little too wandering. The exorcism scenes and possession story began to take a back seat to the character's back stories (which were a little weak to begin with).<br /><br />All in all, I would say skip it unless you have rented out the rest of the horror section at your local video store and you have a jones for a movie you haven't seen before. You're much better off just watching The Exorcist or The Exorcism of Emily Rose.
Blackwater Valley Exorcism is a movie about a possessed young girl. Do I need to describe any more of the plot to you? The Exorcist and The Exorcism of Emily Rose are two terrific terrifying movies. Classics (IMO). Blackwater Valley Exorcism (BVE) is not. Not by a long shot. It's certainly not as terrible as a low budget copy of The Exorcist could have been. From start to finish it has the feel of a "made for Sci-Fi channel" production. It's one of those movies that will probably be spoofed and ridiculed on Mystery Science Theater 3000 (or a similar show).<br /><br />The make up and effects were absolutely laughable. The acting was horrendously bad. There was not a single performance that didn't lead to me rolling my eyes or giggling. Oh, except maybe for Jeffery (Re-Animator) Combs as the sheriff. The script wasn't THAT terrible but it certainly wasn't anything special.<br /><br />It seems like through most of the movie everyone is more focused on who is sleeping with who than they are with the demon possessed girl in the other room. Oh, there was something I learned from this movie. Apparently if your teenage daughter is possessed by a demon then all you have to do is lock them in the room. C'mon. And if your daughter is possessed don't worry too much because all it does it make them talk in funny voices, eat rabbits, try to stare you down, and put fog machines in their bed. Other than that there is nothing to worry about. Apparently she was possessed with a low budget D-List demon.<br /><br />There was none of the ghastly deeds done by A-List demons like crucifix intercourse, painful body distortions, or even projectile vomiting.<br /><br />Totally laughable movie. Not worth even a discount rental.<br /><br />2 out of 10.
While this movie did have a few scary moments (great use of music and film angles to build suspense), it's obvious director Ethan Wiley and scriptwriter Ellary Eddy didn't waste any time researching their subject matter; which also makes me question their claim that the exorcism scenes were overseen by a genuine Catholic bishop.<br /><br />Amongst the many inconsistencies: <br /><br />* Jacob the Roman Catholic priest, when we first meet him outside the church, is wearing an academic robe over his clericals rather than the typical alb, chasuble or surplice. Academic robes are commonly worn by Protestant ministers in liturgical denominations, not Roman Catholic priests. <br /><br />* Jacob the priest quotes some obscure and disturbing scripture about the angels taking up weapons. He attributes it to St. Paul. This verse is not from St. Paul's writings, neither is it in the Bible. I can't even find it in the Gnostic scriptures. <br /><br />* Jacob tells his bishop he doesn't believe in demon possession and turns down the request to study exorcism but does a complete 180 (later that same day?) within minutes of talking to possessed Isabelle. Sure, it's possible; but a little unrealistic. See Father Damien as a priest/psychologist in the original THE EXORCIST for a bit more realistic portrayal of a skeptic-turned-believer. <br /><br />* Miguel, the former priest turned farmhand, is the first to try an exorcism on Isabelle. He quotes scripture, and she quotes back. He says "I see you know Psalm 65" - she corrects him "that's Psalm 67" - they're both wrong. <br /><br />* Miguel, the former priest who just got done performing an exorcism - making the sign of the cross, calling on the name of Christ, applying holy water, etc. - tells Jacob he doesn't believe in church and he doesn't believe in God. (Maybe he's just conflicted?) Jacob enlists him to put on home-made vestments and have another go at it anyway. <br /><br />* Miguel, the former ROMAN CATHOLIC priest, crosses himself backwards (or Eastern Orthodox-style). As an Hispanic Roman Catholic who USED to be a priest, he should've crossed himself forehead to sternum, left-side to right side of chest.<br /><br />I had to read into the little side stories to get the notion Satan was messing with the whole family, not just Isabelle; but even in the end it was hard to say for sure if anyone was really guilty of the images in their heads or if it was all demonic trickery (except for the sheriff - it's pretty clear he was guilty).<br /><br />On the positive side: Isabelle was CREEPY - in my opinion she was the best part of the whole movie and I liked the plot twist with Claire.<br /><br />I'm just not sure if the movie was meant to be serious or a spoof.<br /><br />Listening to the running commentary with Cameron Daddo and Ethan Wiley, I'm inclined to believe it was a joke.
A by-the-numbers exorcism exercise with a disappointing non-allegiance and usage of the term 'blackwater.' The cinematography appears right out of basic cable MOW land which removes any semblance of swampy, murky atmosphere from the proceedings. In addition, there's not nearly enough gore, sex or attractive young things to satiate the majority of the film's targeted viewers. That being said, the lead actress who plays the possessed has a sexy olive-skinned presence. What else needs to be said about this non-winner? Don't rent unless you've got a thing for middle-aged adults bemoaning their past and rants with clichéd priests, shrinks, hispanic stablemen all regretting their past actions.
Is the Cannes controversy-meter remarkably esoteric, or is that we Americans are so callous and cynical that we never bother to read between the lines anymore? Be that as it may, with plenty of careful analyzing, "Falscher Bekenner" at no point seems to live up to the hyped controversy it supposedly brought to Cannes in 2005, a puzzlingly drab and aimless movie that rather lives up to it's glum American re-title ("Low Profile").<br /><br />Building on familiar themes of Bourgeoise angst and subsequent sexual liberation (kind of), admittedly it's a film not without it's surface-level interests. It starts out with a grabber, as a haunting shot of a desolate off-the-highway road focuses in on a teenage drifter, who ultimately walks by a totaled car, where supposedly a brutal hit-and-run has left the driver dead in a gory mess. Stunned, he does nothing but pick up a scrap of the remaining engine.<br /><br />Just out of school, the drifter turns out to be Armin Steebe, a product of the German suburbs with minimal ambition. Persisentily pressured by his caring but somewhat nagging parents to find a good job, he endures interview after interview with every haughty interviewer along with it, every one with the same fruitless outcome. Getting mighty sick of it, his aforementioned highway encounter soon provokes his first act of rebellion: claiming responsibility for the crime which he did not commit.<br /><br />Pretending to fill out more applications and going to more and more bizarre job interviews by sunrise, he partakes in roadside sexual fantasies and petty vandalism way after sundown. As the days get shorter and the nights get much hotter, as he goes on living in his suburban neighborhood as if he's doing nothing out of the ordinary.<br /><br />If you seem confused about what exactly is going on, don't worry about being the only one: this is about as far and coherent as the story gets. The plot seems simple enough, and perhaps due to it's seemingly direct purposes that's why "Falscher Bekenner" becomes pointlessly convoluted, becoming enamored with endless false conclusions, dreamlike situations and graphic sex scenes to try and enlighten a story lacking clear logic to an already vague argument (supposedly the soul-numbing effects of the modern suburban wasteland, or something about youth's fascination with crime. Hey, it could even be a coming-out movie.) at hand. It spends a lot of time creating numerous symbols, both tangible and surrealistically allegorical, but they don't seem to be really symbolizing anything of interest. <br /><br />The most fatal flaw, however, is how the filmmakers paint all it's characters in a rough shade of vanilla. There's hardly any distinguishable traits to help understand their purpose, and how the secondary characters (especially the confused relationship between Armin and his rather normal- perhaps too normal- family) catalyze the already under-developed lead character's "plight" never comes into focus. How are we supposed to identify with this young almost-adult's rebellion, with little sense of the world he's living in or the prominent figures around him that help comprise it? <br /><br />Many people drop in and out of the movie (including Armin's sort-of girlfriend Katja, and a strange, affluent visitor who for some reason finds pleasure in watching the protagonist eat brownies) and seem to exist for no reason whatsoever. They ultimately just seem like prolonged padding to an already thin story with pointless subplots that continue to prove the movie is drawing a total blank about where to go next.<br /><br />And even a movie that supposedly toys with reality (especially with Armin's nightly exploits), it ends with a literal, almost moralizing head-scratcher that seems to halt questions to a "story" that does little but put it's viewer in a state of pointlessly exhausted perplexion.<br /><br />Without any color, it's impossible to shade anything vital in.
I have to differ from the other comments posted. Amid sporadic funny moments, there are a lot of actors trying too hard to be funny. The strain shows. I watched this with two friends on another friend's recommendation- none of us were thrilled.
Formulaic to the max. Neither title reflects the serial's actual content, "Fighting Nazis in Morocco," (actually, the Iverson ranch). The plot is just to fill in the lulls between fistfights. The packaging claims over 40 'fistic encounters' in 15 chapters. That's at least three a chapter! Aside from seeing Duncan Renaldo cast as a Spanish accented Frenchman, watching how much furniture is overturned, smashed, thrown, burned or blown up is what this serial is really all about. When the protagonists start fighting, you can bet that everything in the room will be in it, too. So, kudos to the fight choreographer, who is the real star of this serial! <br /><br />Two positive notes: the characters do sometimes lose their hats during the fights, and best of all, we have the girl side kick (often a journalist, as she is here) actually participating in the mayhem, mostly by shooting and killing the bad guys. Yet to come is Linda Stirling killing the main villain in "Manhunt of Mystery Island" (1945). On the negative side, there are just too many jump out of the way escapes-- before the slab falls, before the car goes over the cliff, before the speedboat explodes, before the building explodes, before the truck hits you, etc. etc.<br /><br />It is claimed that this serial partially 'inspired' George Lucas to make the first Indiana Jones film, but that is more by implied concept than because of the actual story or the serial's development.<br /><br />Rod Cameron 'shines' as a moving rock, a role he played in all his films. Other than watching all the furniture getting smashed, there's nothing really going on here, compared to other serials that have fewer fights, more story, better actors and more developed characters.<br /><br />I give it a 3 for all the furniture smashing.
I just saw this at the Castro Theatre in San Francisco and had trouble staying awake during this incredibly repetitive, unenlightening little film. It is a 75 minutes film that felt like 175 minutes and has about 20 minutes of modestly engaging material. It's not bad in any offensive way, it just repeats things that have been said many, many times over and more interestingly and provocatively. With only a couple of exceptions, the interviews drone on and on and on, making little emotional contact or context to the whole topic. It's more like a "how to" guide for something that can't be done anymore. I was alive during the era but felt little connection or nostalgia for what was presented.
This movie should be retitled: Sex in the 70s In a Part of New York City called Greenwich Village and Chelsea.<br /><br />This movie does little to talk about sex in the 70s except focus on the hypersexual environments of public and private sex spaces in New York City. I doubt that the Manhole bar was symbolic of actual sex in the 70s and that kind of sex is much more prevalent in the film.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, the time period looks like a blast. And it's rather important to document the scene to which the film refers. But as far as calling this film Sex in the 70s, the title is a bit misleading. Technically it's no Oscar Nominee, but the rawness of it feels appropriate for the subject.<br /><br />Overall, an "eh."
Being a gay man who lived through the time period examined in this tedious documentary, I was eager to see how the subject matter was handled. Unfortunately, the film makers wasted what could have been an energetic and insightful opportunity to shed some light on our collective gay history. This film only concerns itself with the period within New York City, ignoring the rest of the country. While I spent a fair amount of time in NYC at that time, I can assure you that there was a gay life outside Manhattan! The men interviewed here are the same "A-list" queens who thought they were better than anyone else during the 70s, and here they are again, waxing nostalgic and still throwing attitude. The film should have at least tried to cover larger topics, such as race, ageism, the burgeoning gay "caste system" based on wealth, body image, and the rise of the "clones", discrimination of sub-groups within the community, and the ability to grow a decent mustache (which was very important in the 70s!). Alas, we have none of this presented, and the recollections of those interviewed are no different than my own memories. If you were there in that decade, you'll enjoy the archival photos and grainy home-movies of the bars and discos we haunted. If you weren't there, this film will undoubtedly seem dull. It should have been so much more, but sadly, it's not. Two stars for jogging my memory...I still miss going to the Anvil!
I absolutely love the first three movies, they were great! I once caught Part 5 on VHS 10 years ago, and I was disappointed. But perhaps that was because I never saw the fourth one, because they were shot back-to-back. but after finally viewing a copy today, I have to say it was no way better than number 5. My expectations weren't high to begin with, but this is cheap direct-to-video stuff, not even a horror movie, it's PG-13. The acting was not convincing, the story was rather dumb without any excitement and there were not many effects. But the main problem is that there were no kills or any gore (the annoying kid who gets killed in his car was supposed to be the highlight, but come on..)<br /><br />Surprisingly, both Parts 4 and 5 were directed by Sequel-director Jeff Burr who gave us the excellent Stepfather II and Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III. I liked Puppet Master: The Legacy, even if it was nothing else than a tribute with the best scenes from all movies.<br /><br />Overall, Puppet Master is very much like the Hellraiser Series: A great trilogy but forget the rest..
***SLIGHT SPOILERS*** This installment of the Full Moon franchise changes the storyline a bit and implements some new elements. First off a new puppet master is established. Secondly, the puppets turn good in this sequel. Finally, It introduces some scifi/fantasy elements as well.<br /><br />A new tenant of the infamous hotel by the bay, his girlfriend, her psychic friend, and that psychics boyfriend, stumble upon Andre Toulon's puppet trunk. They also learn about some demon from another dimension that holds Toulon responsible for stealing the secret to animating the unliving. So Sutekh (the demon) sends the totems, a bunch of craven little creatures that look like ear-less gremlins. Then it's up to the puppet troupe to take care of the inter-dimensional threat that's trying to kill there new friends.<br /><br />Like most low budget movies this film is rife with continuity problems. How did the puppets get put back in the trunk? How come nobody remembers the last rasche of killngs in the hotel? Who bought the hotel? Why would a contractor by a building with a history of mass murders? All this and many more questions, will not be answered...ever.<br /><br />The real suprise of this movie is the acting. It's actually pretty good. The actors take it with a enthusiasm unusual especially for a bunch of Full Moon nonames. Teresa Hill was especially impressive as the shy, nervous, psychic Lauren. Chandra West (Susie) was also a pleasant suprise also. Gordon Hill was a tolerable protagonist. But Cameron was far too annoying to stomach. Thank the norse god he dies before halfway through.<br /><br />The puppets are there usual animated selves. With some improvements as well. There emotions (especially Jester's) are much more human due to the sounds that have been given to them. Blade's hisses, Pinhead's grunts, and Six-Shooter's snicker have all been improved and sound much better. The stop-motion animation is only average at best, especially the totems. They just don't seem to move as fluidly as the previous installment in the series. Also the Sutekh costume is absolutely awefull. How are we supposed to afraid of a creature so humorous looking.<br /><br />The story seems a bit juvinile for the series. I think Charlie Band was looking to focus in on a younger demographic. The violence being toned down in this movie also seems to speak the same. Gore fans will be disappointed.<br /><br />I think the above is the main problem this movie can't really stick with many people. It doesn't have the violence for gorewhores. The language is a little cleaner. Yet it's too violent and harsh for the wee ones. Which is why the movie gets low ratings. I have to say that the common reviews are mostly fair.
I'm a big fan of the demonic puppets. Looking at the surface of this one, it looks pretty good! You've got Decapitron, the puppets, and a new villain in THE TOTEM! Unfortunately, the little punk that's doing this project to animate, inanimate objects, can't act. He stinks! His girlfriend is worse. If they were left out, it would probably be cool, BLADE VS. THE TOTEM. I'd watch that for 2 hours. But instead, the puppets role is down played, and the whole movie suffered because of it. The mystical Skull guy who created the totem is corny at best, and Decapitrons appearance is long awaited, short, and really quite disappointing. You'd be better off watching the first one again.
A severe backwards step for the puppets in this mainly dull and tedious outing. Guy Rolfe, so fantastic as Andre Toulon in part three barely features this time and Richard Band's fantastical them tune appears with the puppets a fair few minutes in to the film. For the start of the movie we are introduced to the caretaker of Bodega Bay Inn (Gordon Currie) and some youth friends of his (many of the cast are Canadian and are all very good in unfortunately rather undemanding roles - Teresa Hill is quite yummy). Totems, minions of the Egyptian God Sutek want the secret of animation life back and the puppets (when they surface) act with a previously unseen cleverness to attempt to destroy the ugly and very computer game looking Totems. The Totems merely complicate the series and distract from the things that previously made the series so unique - they don't share the weird beauty of the puppets and thus don't really fit in. Top scene is Pinhead using a rag to clean blood from Tunnelers drill bit, classic and about the goriest this film goes. The fifth film was filmed concurrently with this one so expect similar sections of mediocre and a Toulon performance that seems to have been filmed in a different era (or even galaxy). Guy Rolfe deserved better and series fans certainly do. Grrrrrrr.
So I decided to watch the entire Puppet Master series, and had just watched parts 1-3, which I thought were ALL excellent. They had a unique charm to them, and a certain intelligence that I really appreciated. About a year ago, I even saw Puppet Master Vs. Demonic Toys, which of course was bad, but still a terrific guilty pleasure and fun to watch.<br /><br />From the very beginning of this film, I knew it was in trouble. The cheesy Power Rangers-style Egyptian skull villain who watches the Puppets 'Rita Repulsa-style' through his pyramid glass came straight out of left field! All of the additions to this franchise in this story were completely absurd! Suddenly we have a grand assortment of all kinds of new and random characters and plots that are a far cry from the first three films. I seriously doubt that when the first Puppet Master was being penned, the writers had visions of someday seeing an Egyptian Power Rangers villain, totem monsters, annoying twenty-somethings who seriously can't act (and are supposed to be brilliant scientists but never say anything intelligent), and a lame "Decapitron" puppet who's head can morph into the ghost of Toulon.<br /><br />Another thing that greatly disappointed me in this film was that it completely ignores what happened in the last entry (Part II, since III was a prequel). Suddenly, the puppets are back at Bodega Bay Inn, back in their case (minus Blade), and Toulon for some reason is willing to help his puppets again (he betrays them in part II for his love of Elsa). This isn't explained AT ALL...and so with that, and all of this other junk thrown in, I was no longer amused.<br /><br />I'm a huge fan of ridiculous B movies, a connoisseur if you will. I even collect laser discs of rare B movies you can't find on DVD, and so it takes a lot for me to say that this was one of the most absurd movies I have ever seen in my life. I still love those puppets, the original ones, Blade, Tunneler, Pinhead, Jester and the rest, and if they had only stuck with what they had rather than trying to fix something that wasn't broken, well, the series might still be alive and in good health. That being said, even though the reviews aren't so great, I'm really interested in checking out Puppet Master Retro, sounds like an interesting one that pays great tribute to the original themes.
When I borrowed this movie, I wasn't expecting a high-quality performance, but this was just sad.<br /><br />Most of the acting was so unbelievably bad that you couldn't easily get into this movie if you tried. There's nothing quite like seeing a kid announce things like "Oh no! My Dad is invisible!" or "I wonder what this does?" in the same monotone that one might announce traffic advisories over the radio with. There are some good actors, but they are wasted on smaller parts.<br /><br />The story is decent, though it would be fairly easy to guess, considering that there aren't too many real plot changes. Lots of holes, too. For example, the Dad is invisible, and the inventor figures out what part is needed to make him visible again. So the boy goes and steals the part from an electronics store. Couldn't he just ask his Dad for the cash?<br /><br />This shows up in the Comedy category, but most of the comedy in this movie was fairly dumb, like the Invisible Dad taking off his clothes while invisible and then almost reappearing naked during a meeting, or walking around with his head covered at all times. Funny at first, but it gets old.<br /><br />2/5, because it is watchable, and it's one of those movies that are funny in their own way... like the monotone recitation of lines.
This movie made me want to bang my head against the wall. It is hard to compare such badness as this to anything, but some say that watching this movie is similar to bleeding from under your fingernails. And that comment comes from the writer's cousin. This movie was so flipping bad, it made "Hulk" (The second worst movie ever) look like "The Departed" (One of the greatest movies in cinematic history). If you like boring family movies with predictable plot lines, then you will absolutely love this movie. If you have a brain, then you definitely will not. When I rented this movie, I actually fell asleep while watching it. The next day, I finished it from where I left off, and it was the worst decision of my life.
Well the name in the summary should tell you everything. FRED OLEN RAY - the modern King of low budget flicks, be it for TV or direct to video (I doubt he produces for the silver screen anymore - with the death of drive-in B-movie double features and all).<br /><br />Creator of such cult(?) classics, like Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers and Dinosaur Island....<br /><br />Well I kind of like this guys stuff. Its mostly entertaining (in a distinctly cheesy, campy and especially cheap kind of way) and if he's one thing, he's a pro - something you can't say for all guys in the movie biz.<br /><br />But this one flick here is among the weaker ones in his oevre. Insipid acting, an uninspired script and lame jokes conspire to make your brain go numb in a matter of minutes. If you are out for real F.O.R. goodness (or rather badness), look out for the above mentioned ones, and generally his stuff from the 70s and 80s (I think he lost a bit of his edge lately).
Sometimes you get exactly what you expect. A film produced and by and as a vehicle for a rock band in the middle of a comeback is not to be expected to rank high in artistic merit- and in this case it certainly doesn't. In fact, as expected, the soundtrack is a much better investment than the movie itself, which like the 70's rock and roll lifestyle it attempts to portray, is characterized by excess, drugs, and over-the-top antics, but unfortunately is not nearly as much fun. Utilizing a script by Carl Dupre horrible enough to make a fellow screenwriter cringe, and wasting the talents of Edward Furlong, the sole highlight of this rock and roll period piece gone wrong is the music, most notably the elaborate recreating of a 1978 KISS concert.
Now this is a bad movie if I've ever seen one. In one of film's greatest years, 1999, Detroit Rock City contends with Runaway Bride and Wild Wild West for the bottom spot in a barrel of junkies. The plot is masterful. Four scrawny high school youngsters finally have their chance at seeing the hard rock theatrics of KISS for…the third year in a row. So when their tickets are toiled by an ultra-religious, chain-smoking mom, the pals scramble themselves in getting to Detroit, and I'm sure you can figure out the rest.<br /><br />Well, not exactly; the movie does go to extreme measures in explaining how the four band members (no, not Gene, Paul, Ace and Peter) go about getting these tickets: losing your virginity in a confessional; saving a smoked-out bimbo and your mom's Volvo (from the Soprano's Steve Schirripa, nonetheless); preventing a robbery in the midst of botching one for a 12-year-old's debt; and of course, stripping down to your bare essentials for MC Ron Jeremy after shuttling a full blender with bourbon-leftovers. Sounds funny, doesn't it? Perhaps Detroit Rock City does have a point with all this tomfoolery in how extreme sometimes these fans can go. And we do understand this movie is a comedy; it is supposed to be filled with slapstick. But does Detroit Rock City aim to the proper audience? It is rated R, meaning the only way prepubescent adolescents-the audience as I see it, to which many will eventually hail this one a classic-will voyeur is through illegal terms.<br /><br />Detroit Rock City also fails at giving itself the late-1970's touch. The camera's texture quality is way too clear and way too bright, missing the necessary flair from films like This is Spinal Tap and Sid & Nancy. This would've allowed audiences to feel `more at home' with the times. Simply costuming kids into pre-90's grunge-wear and settling others into `disco infernos' does not do the trick. Environment does mean something you know; I doubt Detroit looked this glamorous in '78. If there's anything positive coming from this movie it's the kick-ass soundtrack of hard late-70 to early-80's rock. Van Halen, AC/DC, you name it, it's all here. Of course we can't forget KISS, the band aptly subjected throughout.<br /><br />What the film noticeably fails to manage are questions concerning why the Knights of Satin's Service (it's really just KISS) were so frowned upon by moms around the nation. Sure, the loud rock and devilish makeup might be a part of that; encouragements for youth to explore themselves and have a good time might be fair reasons as well. But, what is KISS saying in the music we hear throughout the film towards this highly rebellious group? What separates these anthems of `rock[ing] and roll[ing] all night and partying everyday' from the rest of the music? Most likely, these questions will remain in a music communication class and not in the films that should answer them, simply because it is KISS and they rock and we must do everything in our God-forgiven power to see them.<br /><br />1.5/5 stars
I picked this movie up because it sounded like a pretty decent flick, and I've always been a fan of Foreign films. However, for someone who likes movies, I was surprised at how much I hate, hate, HATED this movie.<br /><br />Although it does aim to expose the lives of young, lowerclass men in Lima, and to an extent it does succeeed, the characters are hopelessly shallow and the audience winds up having absolutely no feelings whatsoever for them.<br /><br />Although the story chiefly revolves around M, he rarely ever speaks, and his dialouge is, at best, amazingly dry and dull.<br /><br />*** Warning: Some small spoilers ***<br /><br />Basically, the story revolves around a young man named M who has been searching for jobs, but without success (He does gain employment twice, but quits because they're "not for him", when you're poor, the last option you have is to be picky). Some amount of time is spent with his friends, who's idea of "fun" is to rape a little 14 year old, steal crappy tires off a piece of shit car for a dime sack of weed, and several other slightly retarded activities.<br /><br />M's friend comesup with a plan to make $25,000 a piece and move to the US by running Cocaine to Miami. When the drug lord gives them a job, we're treated to an extremely lame scene of the three friends buying clothes at the mall with some music playing in the background. We see them trying different clothes on like little girls given $200 to shop, get there hair cut, and then strutting off looking like slick gangsters (one character, Carlos, will from this point on wear sunglasses ALWAYS... even at night).The day before they leave, the leader of the group leaves to speak with the drug lord, leaving M and his friend to be dumb. They party up, take several samples of the drugs they're suppose to run, and break into thier old school, acting like animals and smashing everything in sight.<br /><br />The movie ends when M tries calling his girlfriend, who hangs up on him. The friends then proceed to set the pay phone on fire, which brings out a bunch of kids and some old man with gun. M and Carlos' friend in charge of the drug run shows up on his motorcycle and wants them to leave with him now. Then he takes off by himself, and gets shot by that old man. The police show up and arrest M and his friends (but not the man who shot the guy) and cover thier dead friend up with newspapers as music plays and it fades to credits.<br /><br />**** End Spoiler ****<br /><br />I even watched this movie a second time, hoping to see some subtle, redeeming factor for it, but I did not. A complete waste of 102 minutes. Although I must give it credit for being straightforward and not shying away from disturbing elements, the casting, acting, and overall direction still leaves much, much, much to be desired.<br /><br />IMHO, if you're interested in a movie that explores the issues this one was suppose to, go rent City of God (Cidade de Deus) instead. Avoid this trash at all costs! You have been warned!!
I watched this movie which I really thought had a promising beginning but then it just led me to feel disappointed in the end. The problem I think with this film was that the director was trying a bit to hard to make this film weird and original. There were too many flashbacks and too many bad "effects" which got me annoyed through the film. I love Debbie Harry and Isaac Hayes but they disappointed me in this film, they could of done much better. This film seemed promising in the beginning, dragging in the middle and then disappointing in the end. The film could never beat Stanley Kubrick's geniousness when it comes to controversial matters, weirdness and originality in movies.
The worst movie i've seen in years (and i've seen a lot of movies). Acting is terrible, there is no plot whatsoever, there is no point whatsoever, i felt robbed after i rented this movie. they recommended it to me mind you! a disgrace for terrible movies! stay away from this terrible piece of c**p. save your money !
There are movies that are leaders, and movies that are followers.<br /><br />"Meatballs" was a leader. And here's one of its followers.<br /><br />"Party Camp" is about as interchangeable as any of its brethern who plumbed the depths that "Meatballs" (the original) had so successfully mined. Of course, that one had Bill Murray. So, what does "Party Camp" have?<br /><br />I'm glad you asked that question.<br /><br />Jewel Sheperd has made these flicks her bread and butter, and what a side dish SHE provides! Even as an innocent (wink, wink) girlfriend to a rich twerp (Cribb), she provides that sultry steam she gives to all her parts. And yes, guys, she shows (if you know what I mean and I think you do). My gosh, that smile of hers could melt through titanium.<br /><br />What? Oh yeah, the movie. Nothing special as I said; every cheap joke is aimed for and hit (at about crotch-level). And eternal teen Jayne is good for a laugh or two. But instead of a sense of humor there's just nudity, lame sex jokes, more, nudity, a soft-core dream sequence, a sex symbol nurse simply for (CLOTHED!) leering purposes, even more nudity....<br /><br />Hmmm... Maybe it's a good idea Bill Murray WASN'T in this.<br /><br />Two stars. For Jewel, naturally. Plenty of "Camp", but not much of a "Party".
I love these awful 80's summer camp movies. The best part about "Party Camp" is the fact that it literally has no plot. It simply drops a weak batch of "characters" into a location and then things occasionally happen. The cliches here are limitless (SPOILERS): the nerds vs. the jocks, the secret camera in the girls locker room, the hikers happening upon a nudist colony, the contest at the conclusion, the secretly horny camp administrators, and the embarrassingly foolish sexual innuendo littered throughout. The only cliche missing is the presence of Corey Feldman. This movie will make you laugh, but never intentionally. I repeat, NEVER. A final note, be prepared to bust a gut watching the nonsense that is the "dramatic" scene where Jerry Riviera and D.A. share a beer late at night, spilling their guts to each other. The dialogue literally makes no sense, and the acting belongs on a high-school stage. It's a classic.
Young writers, young auteur, young cast, busload of producers, what could go wrong? Everything. Even lame is too good a description, that suggests that three of four legs were functioning, when actually, none of them were. Barely enough recycled plotline for a 48 and a half minute television hour, gratingly stretched to ninety minutes. The audience was talking back to the screen, so bad was the story. Dirty cops steal drugs from the evidence locker. How many thousands of times has this been done on television? Bad cops frame good cops. Again, how many times? There was not an original shred in this entire concoction. Giovanni Ribisi made a valiant effort to prop up the lack of script, drawing the only laughs of the entire movie. And the thought of he and Claire Danes working from a real script with a grown-up director and photographed by an actual cinematographer intrigues me. Note to screenwriters: Buy one of those story generators. It can't possibly be as bad as ripping off bad television. Note to auteur: There are shots available to you other than closeups. Even the lovely and interesting face of Claire Danes eventually grows tiresome in closeup. Note to cinematographer: Apprentice yourself to a professional for a few years--you have much to learn. Note to color timer at the lab: At least try to persuade the auteur and the cinematographer that they don't know what they're talking about. Note to Claire: I hope this paid for your new condo. It's time to get some professional management and start actually reading the scripts before signing on.
I'm not one of those folks who bemoans everytime a film based on an old TV show comes out. Rather, I usually run out and see it (If I had watched the show) and try to get nostalgic. But if anyone feels like running down films based on old shows, this is exhibit A (So you can actually say something more than just "McHale's Navy"). "Mod Squad" is dreary, tiring, and lethargic. At least the original series was angst riddled long before anyone knew teens could be so glum, making it groundbreaking. This is just tedious. Claire Danes is nice to look at, but does nothing else but mood swing and sneak around spying on the baddies. Giovanni Ribisi's acting extent in this flick is that Droopy the Dog look for an hour and forty five minutes. And Omar Epps looks like he wants to flee the set, but the script's chlostraphobia has trapped him. Sure, the production is nice, with the now seemingly obligitory "rave" nightclub opening action sequence and shootouts galore. Oh, and the kids yell and get mad at each other and their superiors a lot too. It's kind of like deciding to use the Scooby Doo Mystery Machine to go on a family vacation to Hollywood with your teenage kids who you and your spouse know need heavy therapy and prescription drugs. I really wanted to like this movie, and there were promising moments, but the next scene would suck the life out of it. You can knock another Spelling remake, "Charlie's Angels", all you want, but at least that film knew it wanted to have fun with itself. "The Mod Squad" makes you wonder where the inspiration from the original series went.
I must preface this comment with a sort of admission: I suppose I just have a soft spot for the original 60s-70s TV series. I think the filmmakers here blew it from the get-go as far as casting: in a supposed remake, audiences would look for reflections of the hip, athletic Linc (Clarence Williams III), or the cool, with-it Michael Cole, and so forth. Instead, we get Giovanni Ribisi as a poor-little-white rich boy who comes off as just pathetic, like he is in all his roles (in the office I used to work in, I amused myself once by creating a fake movie poster, casting various actors as members of the office staff; guess who I cast as the dorky son of the company President?). Danes does OK as the new Julie, but none of the characters have much to do, as the story just sort of sits there, mired in conventionality. So it's quite forgettable, besides. What was I talking about?
The mod squad gets started 'after' the formation of the 'Mod Squad' without even bothering to develop any of the characters or show us why anyone is doing what they are doing.<br /><br />Moreover, most of the events in the movie seem ancillary to the plot. Without even a smack of character development, the plot meanders from Gen-X club scenes to action scenes and back again.<br /><br />
So, it's Friday night and you want to go watch a movie...all you want is something entertaining, not too artsy, or anything that might require a long night of philosophical discussions. So, you pay $10 to watch the Mod Squad. The trailer to this movie should have tipped me off, but come on...it's three of Hollywood's most beautiful people--eye candy. But that's about it...a string of moving Prada ads. And what did Hollywood producers forget? A plot. Why are these kids running around the streets after some unknown enemy? Where are they? But, don't worry, after a while, you'll just stop caring. I was on the verge of walking out of this movie, because I thought sitting in my room and staring at the wall might have been more productive (and free), but by that time, it was over (90 minutes--it's only saving grace). So, still willing to waste $10? Go, get yourself a nice hot meal.
This may just be the worst movie of all time. Never have I seen such horrible film making before in my life. Its so bad I think I want to go watch Barney instead. I advise everyone who reads this to write a petition to get this movie off of our film history so we can never hear from it again. I give it 1 out of 10.
Pure crap, decent cinematography... I liked some of colors. Other than that, this was one of the worst movies I ever saw. Boring, lifeless, not once did I find myself interested in any of the characters. I kept waiting for a real plot to form and the movie to pick up the pace. Nothing ever happened! I think they spent too much time working on hair and wardrobe that they forgot there was a movie being made at the time.
Being a fan of the series I thought, how bad can the movie be? Well I got my answer. Some movies should never be made. Why call it a remake of the series when the only similarities are that there are three main characters. The Pete character in the series wasn't a whiney little baby as portrayed in the movie. The only good thing in this movie besides the music and that Clare Danes is pretty was that it was short. What's with that dance scene??? The only reason I didn't walk out of this film was because it was so bad it got funny. Maybe that was the plan! It's really bad when a cheap 60's TV show is better then a 90's 20 million dollar film. El Mariachi cost only $7000 and is a much better film. Don't even waste your money when it comes out on tape, it's not even worth renting.
OK, Number one-this "film" is a "90's" version of a crappy show from the 70's that no one remembers! Number two-As soon as the movie started, I was confused, it was like I walked in halfway through the movie! There was no plot! it was very annoying! Horrible wardrobe! Call me crazy, but It's just not believable to me that little skinny Omar Epps can chase down a big grown man, without a gun, and scare him into talking! It's a ridiculous "plot". I'm sorry, but to me, kids these days can't even put their pants on one leg at a time, let alone catch some "evil, underground, killers". I walked out of the theater and demanded and got my money back! I do not reccomend this movie to anyone over 12 years old!
This is an astonishingly bad action film. I'd say its primary flaw is that it's BORING. Arghh! Funky wardrobes, retro chic set design, and decent cinematography cannot prevent this flick from being a snoozer. Mod Squad's second (major) flaw is its lack of character development--underscored by the actors' lack of talent. I tend to like Claire Danes's work so I was quite surprised by her non-existent performance in this film. Giovanni Ribisi is woefully miscast: how could his cotton-mouthed, bumbling acting style possibly fit into an ACTION flick? As for Omar Epps, well, he needs to take a few acting lesson to learn how to emote. The man had the same facial expression for the entire film! My suggestion is to save yourself a few bucks and wait to see this turkey on cable.
I really wanted to like this movie, but I just couldn't. It had the potential to be a really cool, hip remake of a cool show, but that's where it fell apart. It was too hip, too cool. First of all, all the cool lines and scenes were showcased in the preview trailers, which I'd seen lots of times. And the editing was very disjointed, so that the scenes didn't seem to flow together and they all seemed out of place. Claire Danes, who I love as an actress failed to make this her break through to the beyond high school acting roles. The only bright spot was Giovanni Ribisi as Pete. His slightly stupid, yet actually smart style was funny and refreshing. Overall though, I'd recommend just watching the previews instead of seeing the movie and wishing it was more.
I thought this movie was horrible. I was bored and had to use all the self control I have to not scream at the screen. Mod Squad was beyond cheesy, beyond cliche, and utterly predictable.
**Possible Spoilers** Three young people on the wrong side of the law are given a chance to turn their lives around and become useful members of society by becoming undercover cops in `The Mod Squad,' a resurrection of the hit television series of the ‘60's, directed by Scott Silver. Given their less than stellar backgrounds, and because of who they are and the people they know, Julie Barnes (Claire Danes), Pete Cochran (Giovanni Ribisi) and Lincoln Hayes (Omar Epps) can go places other cops can't, so they are tapped by Captain Adam Greer (Dennis Farina) to infiltrate a seedy night spot suspected of being a front for a prostitution ring. For a start, Julie gets a job there as a waitress, while Pete and Linc just `hang out' to find out what they may. Julie quickly becomes reacquainted with an old boyfriend, Billy Waites (Josh Brolin), who turns out to be involved with drugs, which are tied in to the shady dealings going down at the bar. Before it's over, the `squad' is in it up to their necks, while also running afoul of a bunch of wrong cops who are also involved with the drugs, and consequently tied in with their investigation. From the beginning of the movie, there is a sense that you are coming in late; as if it's presupposed that you know what's going on as far as the origin and workings of the squad. All you get here are brief mug-shot bios of the three that give you nothing more than a glimpse into their past; there's nothing about how this all actually came about. The thinking was probably that by doing it this way it would lead into the story quicker, get things moving along. While this is true to a certain extent, some added background would have made the texture of the story a bit more interesting; the way it was done here merely depreciates the credibility of the entire proceedings. The plot is marginal to begin with, and any time spent on character development would have been well worth the while. What's delivered, and quite unimaginatively at that, is a less than compelling story filled with one dimensional characters. The performances are satisfactory, but the actors get no help from the script, nor apparently from Silver; Danes, Ribisi and Epps come close to fleshing out Julie, Pete and Linc, but given the time allotted them, combined with the lack of support, they still fall way short of giving these people life. Farina, a good actor who deserves better than what he gets here, comes off as nothing more than a caricature of the `good cop.' There's a feeling that everything was given the once-over in this film; some detail and nuance would have driven the stock up considerably on this one. The supporting cast includes Richard Jenkins (Detective Mothershed), Steve Harris (Briggs), Larry Brandenburg (Eckford), Lionel Mark Smith (Lanier) and Sam McMurray (Tricky). It's a shame to see the acting talent involved here wasted like this; a lot more thought and planning should have gone into the making of this movie. As it is, it comes across as ill-conceived and poorly executed. Danes, Ribisi and Epps are like Major Leaguers who got stuck playing for all the marbles at the local sandlot; instead of getting a shot at the title, they all got hung out to dry. Like Terry says in `On The Waterfront,' `You was my brother, Charlie, you shoulda been looking out for me.' Well, it's obvious that there was no Charlie to look out for them here, and after `The Mod Squad,' they can all just hope for something better to come along the next time. I rate this one 1/10.
This movie had great production values, good lighting, costumes, set, cinematography and acting. But someone, somewhere, took the script, and replaced all the dialogue with grade-school level barely literate writing. I felt my IQ dropping points any time any character spoke.<br /><br />Did they do this on purpose? Was this just an accident of Brain Dead Studio Executives? At this point, we don't know.<br /><br />All I know is, this movie was one great mistake from beginning to end. We don't even get to see how the Squad became cops, so instead of any character development, we get what feels like a bad TV-movie leftover from the 60's. Or whenever.<br /><br />Find the screenwriters, beat them with a sock full of quarters. Everyone else, nice work, but read your scripts next time.<br /><br />3/10
I heard what people were saying, but I ignored them. Being rushed at Blockbuster I grabbed copy of this movie and ran out. <br /><br />45 minutes into I was fighting to stay awake. There is some attempt to keep the film interesting, but it was just bad. A chase of some sort takes place, but it was long and drawn out - the perfect time to make a snack. By the time this movie was over I didn't care how ended, I just wanted it to end. Walking in and out of my room checking to see if it was over.<br /><br />The entire movie is a cliche', the characters and their relationships. The plot twists are predictable, as well as the ending. The actors made the best out of really terrible roles. All can say is: their clothes were nice, but the movie, it was just bad.
I was actually looking forward to this movie. The commercials made it look real cool and action packed. And I heard that Claire Daines' character was arrested for assault so I thought that maybe she would kick a lot of ass and that would be cool. BUT NOOOOOOOO!!. Their was hardly any action at all and the character were all kinda bland. The only saving grace was Omar Epps and even he didn't help this movie much.
There is nothing at all redeeming about this film. It is very bad and not in such a way that it is even remotely funny. Horrible plot, acting, and writing and incredibly cheap production values to boot. This film makes "The Jackal" look like a work of art.
The DVD sleeve explains the premise: "Three problem teens are headed for jail," and are "set to do time until Captain Greer offers them a deal to work for him - undercover." The film opens with definitions of the words "Mod" and "Squad", so you won't have to look them up in the dictionary. For a visual definition of "Cool", search for photographs of the original threesome: Michael Cole (as Pete Cochran), Clarence Williams III (as Linc Hayes), and Peggy Lipton (as Julie Barnes). <br /><br />One black. One white. One blonde. Once they defined cool.<br /><br />The three who make up Scott Silver's version of Aaron Spelling's "The Mod Squad" are twentysomethings: Claire Danes (as Julie Barnes), Giovanni Ribisi (as Pete Cochran), and Omar Epps (as Linc Hayes). They aren't able to do much with the material given. Mr. Ribisi's portrayal is the most "far out", meaning he digresses most from the original characterization. Ms. Danes romances Josh Brolin (as Billy Waites), who looks like he could be in a re-make of "Marcus Welby, MD". You won't believe hefty Michael Lerner dancing with Mr. Epps' "Linc". He explains, "I'm not a fairy, I just like to dance!" and requests, "Spin me!" <br /><br />*** The Mod Squad (1999) Scott Silver ~ Claire Danes, Giovanni Ribisi, Omar Epps
I watched this movie for the first time the other day and was bored to tears. I guess I just was looking for some flashback to the wonderful series that I remembered. I watched The Mod Squad television show religiously back in the day and it was fantastic. It was action packed and the relationship the 3 had with Greer was endearing. There wasn't any of that here. When Greer was murdered you get the idea that these 3 could have cared less. The actor who portrayed Pete is a really good actor but they wrote his part like he was mentally challenged. Pete in the television series was quiet and serious but had a funny side also. They had this guy acting like he was either on drugs on the time, drunk or just plain ignorant. I wouldn't recommend this movie at all. Especially if you were a fan of the TV series. It will be a complete letdown.
The movie was slow, the dialogue between actors/actresses felt "flat" and basically there was no development of the characters in the story.<br /><br />Omar Epps skulks around with a mad look on his face the entire time, pouting and basically looking annoyed with everybody. Danes has no on-screen magic, and Ribisi's character is a goober that nobody would want to hang out with even if they were paid to do so.<br /><br />Throw in the weird scene where Epps has to dance with an old man, and you have what quite possibly COULD BE the worst movie in cinema history.<br /><br />I watched it on satellite (thank goodness I didn't pay for it), and wished I hadn't.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and go sort your underwear and socks drawer if you need something to do but are tempted to watch this movie when/if it comes on your TV. Awful movie if you ask me, and I generally have something good to say about just about any movie out there.
I was not old enough to really appreciate the original Mod Squad, but I knew everyone thought it was cool. I have some of the "books" that were written based on the series in my screen-to-print collection, and they're pretty light duty, so I didn't expect much from the movie. That's a good thing, because this movie was bad on a long leash. <br /><br />I admire the risk in creating a movie that is so completely true to the 1960's hit. The movie audience, though, has gained sophistication in 30 years. At least, I think so. I certainly expect something more than an hour and a half of the original Mod Squad concept, with (now old) car chases, (now considered poor) camera work, (tinny sounding) soundtrack and (poor) script and all, on the big screen. In the 1960s, we didn't care as much because we had minimal expectations. An integrated police team of young people wearing something besides suits was enough. It was that, another thrilling episode of "Ironsides" or "Password."<br /><br />Rating this "episode" against usual theatre releases, the story was...well, I'm not sure I should even say because I'm not sure there was one. Drugs are bad? Whatever. The script was silly. When the characters are exchanging dialog and advancing the plot with lines like "I overheard him say so on the phone," and "I think I got a plan," we really are in trouble. No wonder the acting was dreadful: no one knew how to say such idiotic lines.<br /><br />If I were Claire Danes, I'd be going after my agent with a flame-thrower right now. (Actually, I think everyone in and watching the film has a right to seek retribution.)<br /><br />And where was the Mod in that Squad? I realize these kids just got out of juvenile hall, but no one had a velvet suit? "Mod" only meant young and integrated? What happened to white go-go boots? Perhaps the costume department was going for gritty, but all they got was dirty and dingy.<br /><br />Since the movie was completely true to the original series, and required special behavior from the actors, cameramen, stunt men, etc., we should appreciate it more. Unfortunately, I still don't like it. If I wanted to watch 60's crime drama, I'd buy DVDs. No thanks.
The Mod Squad isn't a movie, it's a void. That's the most fascinating thing about it and the thing that kept me watching – I'd never seen a film that offered absolutely nothing before. It's a film without any reason to exist whatsoever, seemingly consciously designed to appeal to no-one as if made purely as a contractual obligation to someone the studio really dislike. There is no plot, there is no characterisation, there are no set piece action scenes, there aren't even any scenes as such, just a progression of increasingly empty shots projected at 24 frames per second. I'm not talking about empty as in dumb summer blockbuster but empty as in "We haven't got the pages yet so just point the camera at something and stop when you've got 90 minutes worth." It makes you appreciate the 'artistic achievements' of Charlie's Angels and S.W.A.T. that much more. What it does offer is far too much of Giovanni Ribisi at his most tediously execrable doing his bastard son of a thousand morons impersonating Marlon Brando method acting routine, Michael Lerner dancing with Omar Epps and… no, that's it. Oh, Clare Danes has a nice smile in one shot. And Dennis Farina has the sense to get killed off early. Genuinely the most utterly pointless film ever made, it's like L'Humanite without the jokes but, you know, for kids.
I had the misfortune to watch this last night on the BBC, I expect I may have been the only viewer. From the beginning there was something quite wrong about the movie, after a few minutes of viewing i managed to work out what it was. THE MOVIE WAS BAD! Not bad in a good way like Wolfpack or a Seagal film just plain old shoddy bad.<br /><br />Why was this made into a movie? I've seen a few episodes of the TV series and thought it was alright but I only saw repeats of that because they made this.<br /><br />I spent most of the film trying to work out what the story was and by the end I was none the wiser. I seem to remember at some point a character, maybe Farina's mentions that the Mod Squad can get in to places regular cops can't. The 'place' turns out to be a 'club', one of the toughest places to get into, maybe it was student night? I lost track of the plot at this point or maybe there was no plot and the movie was just chopped together from various leftovers from other TV series remakes.<br /><br />Was it an action comedy? I don't remember any laughs.<br /><br />Overall this movie lacked the real scene stealing power of someone like Seymour Hoffman as the bad guy. With him Ribisi would have had somebody to bounce off.
This is one of the most boring films I've ever seen. The three main cast members just didn't seem to click well. Giovanni Ribisi's character was quite annoying. For some reason, he seems to like repeating what he says. If he was the "Rain Man", it would've been fine, but he's not.<br /><br />3 out of 10.
This one is a poor attempt at spinning the old "cons turn good" yarn, which we have seen so many times before. It actually reminded me of the American series 'The Players', although nowhere near as good. Omar Epps is totally unconvincing as the hard man of the bunch, as is Ribisi, who's attempt at being the funny guy gets lost along the way. Danes performance was decent though, and you can see from this performance, why she was cast in Terminator 4.<br /><br />The MOD Squad is a film which lies in a kind of grey area between serious thriller and comedy. At times it takes itself serious but other times it tries to be humorous but fails miserably. The film has a kind of half-finished feel about - as if it was stretched to the 90 minute mark.<br /><br />You'l be disappointed.
one day someone said lets redo the mod squad we can make it hip cool and all that YO!it'll make a mint then they actually made it and as you are watching it you can hear your spleen cringe in agony as it twists and binds into a knot from the pure horror of it all any movie ever made has something on this id rather meet wayne newton and sing karaoke with him in a gay bar in idaho and drink a virgin bloody mary than ever watch this again may god have mercy on my soul
i expected this movie to be absolutely god awful. Like "What Dreams May Come" or "The Truman Show" or something. Well they were selling it off for £3.99 in my local HMV and it had Giovanni Ribisi on the cover, you know you cant help but love him, and so my friends dared me to buy it. and i was sure it was going to be trash. maybe thats the only reason i could sit through this movie, because my standards were never that high.
It's not unusual that Hollywood likes to pump out crappy films. Occasionally, a handful of good films come out of them while the majority just sucks major ass. It's also not surprising that those bad films are retreads of old TV series'. Occasionally a surprise pops up with "The Fugitive" (who saw that Best Picture oscar nom coming?), but for every "Fugitive", there's a McHale's Navy or some other wholly unoriginal film devoid of any plot or interest. The Mod Squad, in my opinion, goes into my top ten of truly lousy films, in which Hollywood should get it's sorry ass beaten for producing what could've been a good movie. We're shifted right dab smack in the middle of a story that just doesn't seem to make sense, it wastes the talent, and the dialogue is just bad. We don't actually know who the hell these characters are, and we could give a flying f**k about what they are. Instead, you're expected to automatically know who they are and what they're going to do. There's one particularly bad riff, about the "I'm too old for this s**t" line, that's just plain stupid. Something my friend verbally noted when we were clamoring for the movie to just end. It's just an insult to Hollywood cinema. Grade: F-
When a loser teen is bitten by an insect, he becomes the superhero Dragonfly...<br /><br />Superhero Movie is the latest spoof movie to hit the screens. Sadly however, despite the presence of David Zucker (who was involved with Airplane!, Top Secret and The Naked Gun movies) it still suffers from the fault most recent spoofs have...mainly it's more dumb than fun! The fault mainly lies with the gags. It's simply not funny enough. Some of the jokes do work, such as the nail gun scene, but other parts simply fall flat. The X-men spoof for example, or the whole farting sequence. Blazing Saddles this isn't! One of the key things about the best spoof movies, like Airplane is that although the dialog is extremely funny, the cast for the most part play is completely straight. This makes it even funnier. Even when there is simple dialog in the foreground, there may well be funny things happening behind the cast. Again funny. The other key thing is that they all have a plot of sorts, to hang the gags on.<br /><br />The recent trend seems to be to take scenes from various movies, THEN try and spoof them. As a result the so-called plot of these movies very rarely exist. Another flaw these movies have, is that some of the scenes were actually funny in the original versions, and in most cases even funnier than the spoof scene! The cast try to get into the spirit required, but with a lot of unfunny dialog and scenes, it's hard to get worked up about it.<br /><br />As recent spoof movies go, it's not as bad as Epic Movie, Date Movie, or the awful Meet The Spartans, but considering that some people involved here have made good, funny movies in the past, it's nowhere near good enough.
It's not fair. I was really expecting this to be a hilarious, entertaining movie. I mean, I like Drake Bell from Drake and Josh, and Leslie Neilson is nothing to be sneezed at since his earliest classics, Airplane and the Naked Gun. However, After seeing Superhero movie, I'm glad I didn't even have to pay for it. It just wouldn't have been anywhere near the 9$ per ticket. More like a dollar and a few pennies. Because that would sum up for the hour and a few minutes. And as disappointing as this film was I'm glad the running time was that short, if not shorter. I just cant believe how incredibly vulgar, unnecessary, and above all, STUPID, some of the scenes were! And above that, I've seen better acting from a wooden dummy(without the ventriloquist). It's as if Craig Mazin purposefully wanted to make a film that deserves its 3.7, if not lower, and even try to be worse than "Meet the Spartans". Very disappointing indeed.
The movie starts with a Spiderman spoof which is your introduction to Rick Riker (played by Drake Bell of "Drake & Josh" fame, personally I'd have given the movie to Josh who is much funnier) and the "Rick Punchers" joke is lifted right out of Airplane so the writers were obviously already scraping the barrel for ideas for this film. Rick's class is on a science trip to The Amalgamated Genetics lab and this is where we get to meet the 1st star name in the film, Brent Spiner (Data in Star Trek TNG) playing Dr Strom. Rick is bitten by a genetically modified dragonfly which is where his powers come from.<br /><br />We meet our next big star names at Rick's home, his Aunt Lucille (Marion Ross of Happy Days fame) & Uncle Albert (Leslie Nielson of Airplane, Police Squad & Naked Gun fame). And we're introduced to Carlson on the Amalgamated Board of Directors (Dan Castellaneta from The Simpsons) who is then very promptly killed. We're told Rick has slept for 5 days & get some cheap, crappy sexually orientated scenes designed to get the teen male audience paying attention. The Stephen Hawking lookalike's scene is painful to watch and is really a bad idea that doesn't work and isn't remotely funny.<br /><br />We get another Spiderman spoof (Rick catching the girl and all the planets) but the movie should end right there as Jill was hit in the head by a falling bowling ball which would have broken her skull and killed her stone dead. You get to see Rick's 1st powers emerge (gripping ability & speed) then his 1st rescue which goes very wrong. We also get an incest reference which is in very poor taste indeed. We get a flashback and a Batman spoof in which we discover Rick is solely responsible for the death of his parents. Spoofing Spiderman again Ricks Uncle is shot with Jeffrey Tambor (from Hellboy) playing the Hospital Doctor. We then get an X-men spoof (done very badly as Patrick Stewart is about as white as they come), Barry Bonds is played by yet another lookalike.<br /><br />We meet Invisible Girl (played by Pamela Anderson looking stunning in her costume!). Ricks 1st outing in his costume (once he fixes his ability to see & breath through it) is another Batman spoof. The Tom Cruise Youtube interview clip is played by yet another lookalike (and not a very good one at that). There are lots of modern references like Youtube, Facebook & Wikipedia all showing that the movie is set in modern day. There's a very weak gay joke (never a good idea to do those either) when Jill is helping Aunt Lucille make Thanksgiving dinner and the pissing scene isn't very funny, just infantile.<br /><br />The Aunt farting scene isn't particularly funny, just incredibly childish. Anyone finding it funny must have a mental age of about 12. She's killed and then we have a really bad necrophilia joke (is there no topic these people won't try to use to get a cheap laugh out of?) at her funeral, and the even worse cremation joke.<br /><br />We get the 2 worst lookalikes in the whole movie (Prince Charles & Nelson Mandela) at the awards ceremony and if you didn't already know how infantile or stupidly lowbrow this movie is Landers wins the "Douchebag Of The Year" award. Landers is revealed as The Hourglass (in a really bad scene where the same girl manages to run past Jill twice in the same direction).<br /><br />Obviously The Hourglass is foiled, Jill is rescued from certain death and the only funny scene in the whole movie is the final one.
Superhero Movie (2008) is the most recent in the long line over "parody" movie movies which I despise so much. I wish this movie could be the death of the genre, but I know that it isn't awful enough to put the final nail in the coffin.<br /><br />If Meet the Spartans is considered the bottom of the barrel as far as Hollywood movies go, than Superhero Movie is probably near the top. Unfortunately Meet the Spartans was actually miles below the barrel, and this movie just barely makes it in.<br /><br />Superhero Movie has a decent cast of C-list celebs. It's got Drake Bell (the kid from Disney's Drake and Josh), Leslie Nielson (Airplane!), Tracy Morgan (SNL and 30 Rock), and a few others scattered throughout. Although it has the star power to light a 40-watt bulb, the movie fails to utilize any humor.<br /><br />This movie is about 80 minutes long, most of which is dedicated to following the Spiderman plot, and not one single joke is funny. I didn't laugh or chuckle or smirk the entire time.<br /><br />Don't see this movie. Don't even think about it. For the love of cinema, just skip it and maybe they wont come out with another one.<br /><br />...oh, who am I kidding? They'll probably come out with another one by fall.
Here's a spoof that's guaranteed to entertain folks in the IQ range of Homer Simpson. It's a cheap shot at every great Superhero, notably Spiderman and Batman. But it doesn't end there; it gets progressively worse until it disintegrates into a pathetic ensemble of slapstick trollop by the truckload.<br /><br />For those interested in the plot, you've only to watch Spiderman while under the influence of some heavy narcotic. What you get is Dragonfly Man – a boy wonder, who loves the girl next door, suddenly inheriting some stupendous super-powers.<br /><br />The rest of the script is as predictable as waking up in the morning and brushing your teeth, but don't' take my word for it! For kids, this is somewhat amusing; for adults it's a great film to drop the kids off for.
I happened to rent this movie with my sister in hopes of watching a great entertaining movie, that was humorous, however my expectations were let down. This movie was beyond disgusting and revolting for a PG-13 movie, this should have been rated R for the many mature references that went on in this movie. I wouldn't recommend allowing a 13 year old teen see this.<br /><br />Even if no one under the age of 17 is watching this movie, beware of a truly stupid movie, there's no humor in the movie, just a bunch of disgusting sexual references including a small touch of pedophilia, something that shouldn't even be joked about. <br /><br />I would like to know what happened to PG-13 movies, that were actually safe for actual a 13 year old? This is beyond a deplorable movie and should be re-rated.
Scary Movie 1-4, Epic Movie, Date Movie, Meet the Spartans, Not another Teen Movie and Another Gay Movie. Making "Superhero Movie" the eleventh in a series that single handily ruined the parody genre. Now I'll admit it I have a soft spot for classics such as Airplane and The Naked Gun but you know you've milked a franchise so bad when you can see the gags a mile off. In fact the only thing that might really temp you into going to see this disaster is the incredibly funny but massive sell-out Leslie Neilson.<br /><br />You can tell he needs the money, wither that or he intends to go down with the ship like a good Capitan would. In no way is he bringing down this genre but hell he's not helping it. But if I feel sorry for anybody in this film its decent actor Drake Bell who is put through an immense amount of embarrassment. The people who are put through the largest amount of torture by far however is the audience forced to sit through 90 minutes of laughless bile no funnier than herpes.<br /><br />After spoofing disaster films in Airplane!, police shows in The Naked Gun, and Hollywood horrors in Scary Movie 3 and 4, producer David Zucker sets his satirical sights on the superhero genre with this anarchic comedy lampooning everything from Spider-Man to X-Men and Superman Returns.<br /><br />Shortly after being bitten by a genetically altered dragonfly, high-school outcast Rick Riker (Drake Bell) begins to experience a startling transformation. Now Rick's skin is as strong as steel, and he possesses the strength of ten men. Determined to use his newfound powers to fight crime, Rick creates a special costume and assumes the identity of The Dragonfly -- a fearless crime fighter dedicated to keeping the streets safe for law-abiding citizens.<br /><br />But every superhero needs a nemesis, and after Lou Landers (Christopher McDonald) is caught in the middle of an experiment gone horribly awry, he develops the power to leech the life force out of anyone he meets and becomes the villainous Hourglass. Intent on achieving immortality, the Hourglass attempts to gather as much life force as possible as the noble Dragonfly sets out to take down his archenemy and realize his destiny as a true hero. Craig Mazin writes and directs this low-flying spoof.<br /><br />featuring Tracy Morgan, Pamela Anderson, Leslie Nielsen, Marion Ross, Jeffrey Tambor, and Regina Hall.<br /><br />Hell Superhero Movie may earn some merit in the fact that it's a hell of a lot better than Meet the Spartans and Epic Movie. But with great responsibility comes one of the worst outings of 2008 to date. Laughless but a little less irritating than Meet the Spartans. And in the same sense much more forgettable than meet the Spartans. But maybe that's a good reason. There are still some of us trying to scrape away the stain that was Meet the Spartans from our memory.<br /><br />My final verdict? Avoid, unless you're one of thoses people who enjoy such car crash cinema. As bad as Date Movie and Scary Movie 2 but not quite as bad as Meet the Spartans or Epic Movie. Super Villain.
I went to see this movie with my boyfriend last night. I'm 20 years old and this movie was way too much for ME. I couldn't imagine taking a teenager, preteen, or (especially) a child to this movie. It was crude and offensive. I was totally misled by its PG-13 rating and the previews that I had seen for it. I had originally seen previews for it on Nickelodeon, and I thought that it looked pretty cute (maybe I just don't remember the preview correctly) . Plus, Drake Bell (the movie's main character) stars on a Nickelodeon television show that targets preteens and young teenagers. I really didn't think that the movie's content would be as risky as it was. I should have done more research about it before I went. However, I'm hoping that parents will read up on this movie before they take their kids to see it just because it has Drake Bell in it.<br /><br />Seriously, do NOT take your kids or teenagers to see this movie. The rating should have been R. There are tons of sexual references, drug references, and disturbing events throughout the movie. Examples: Drake Bell gets attacked by sexually charged animals, several scenes that involve men grabbing women's breasts, lots of profanity, Drake Bell uses a bong to smoke vanilla frosting (or something like that), people get stabbed, hit, and hurt in the movie, and an elderly lady and her dog get shredded. There are tons of other offensive and disgusting scenes throughout the movie. It was really demeaning to women in general. The movie is by the people that made the Scary Movie series, so that should tell you something right there. Please remember that seeing movies like this can give kids and teenagers all kinds of wrong ideas about sex, drugs, and violence. Most children and teenagers can't decipher between spoofs or comedy and reality.<br /><br />I do have a sense of humor. I also know that the humor that was in this film is typical of its genre. But I find the possibility of children and teenagers going to see this movie HORRIFYING.<br /><br />As for the overall quality of the movie, I didn't think it was that original or funny. It dragged in parts and some of the humor was just forced and painful. The acting wasn't TOO bad, considering how bad the script was. If you're an adult or older teen looking for a funny movie, skip this one or rent it.
This film was the worst film I have ever seen. It was a complete waste of money. If I had not been in the cinema was my two young cousins (who also thought it was disappointing, but not as terrible as I thought), I would have left the cinema. There were two points in the film that I almost laughed, but the rest of it was either boring, ridiculous or painful. I thought it would be a spoof on all superhero movies (which I love), but in fact it was mainly based on Spiderman, with a few oblique references to other superhero movies such as Fantastic Four and Batman. I really cannot think of one good thing to say about this film. Do not waste your money with this film-there are many other better films out there!
I took my 14 year old to see this movie. We left after 15 or 20 minutes. It was absolutely awful! This movie should be rated R at the least. I am not that strict with movies but, this was just too much. It was a waste of money. I thought it would contain some comedy and I knew the comedy would probably be crude but, this was WAY beyond crude. I was sitting there watching and reading (a certain subtitle at the beginning of the movie was what really got me) and I could not believe how crudely sexual it was. I could not believe that it would be OK for a 13 year old to read and see this content. I don't understand how the rating system works.??
This was the stupidest movie I have ever seen in my life. It is a complete waste of money and time. I went to see this movie with my friends and when the movie was over not a single person in the movie theater- not that there was a lot of people there to see this terrible movie- said "wow what a good movie." Someone actually walked out! It was absolutely terrible! It was disgusting and I hated every minute of it. My friend was putting her head in my shoulder towards the end because after the scene with Rick on the ceiling peeing, she had had enough. It was not funny at all. Believe me I went with 11 other girls and not one of my friends liked it. It was ridiculous! I've seen many movies but this was absolutely the worst! I mean a scene in the movie is with an old man making out with a dead person in a coffin. I just can't make up these things.
And so it started with "Shreik" a send up of horror films, then we had Scary Movie, a genuinely good attempt at a new kind of genre, the illustrious send up. however....now we have: Scary Movie* Scary Movie 2 Scary Movie 3 Scary Movie 4* Date Movie Meet The Spartans Not Another Team movie* plus many more (genuinely funny movies marked with *)<br /><br />and.....Super hero movie.... it seems the people that make these movies cannot yet grasp what makes the send-ups funny. using the rip-offs from other movies in a funny way is all well and good if done properly, but not many producers seem to know how to do that. Scary movie(1) did it well, the following sequels were then horrendous as the tried to over play the franchise, but it was redeemed by Scary Movie 4. Not another teen movie was good because it used the spoofs well...and to its credit i am sick of teen movies. however, this movie plays like a bad version of all of these. it relies on slap stick the would make even the 3 stooges cringe, violating the image of Stephen hawking, and then when people begin to get bored (and the producers knew when this would be) we are treated to Pamela Anderson in a skin tight suit. to conclude, spoofs should be about making a homage-like mock-up of an original movie with an original storyline, not plastering random take offs of legitimate film onto the storyline of a real film. <br /><br />...i shudder at the thought of "SCI-FI MOVIE" and get my seppuku knife ready
I thought this would be funny. I did. I don't know what happened. But I think a lot of the problem unfortunately falls with the casting. I don't know who this kid is, he could be a very nice person but he wasn't right for this movie. And the supporting cast was great which only makes it more obvious. For example there would be a scene with him and his love interest and your mind just starts to wander off but then Keith David starts speaking, or Leslie Nielsen, or Marion Ross, and it's like someone turned a light on and suddenly you can pay attention again and you think it might not be that bad. But when they get back to the main characters the lights go out again. <br /><br />The spoofing material available in the superhero genre is plentiful so the fact that most of the jokes were basically a fart, makes you wonder who wrote this thing. I mean it had a couple of funny bits, as I do remember laughing a couple of times, but right now I don't remember why and it was only a few days ago.<br /><br />Really I'm giving it a take it or leave it rating but I think most people should just leave it.
Went with some friends and one of my friends mom, thinking it would be a good way to start off the spring break, but the movie turned out awful. We all agree it shouldn't have been PG-13. More like R material. Lots of sexual dialog, cussing and referring to boy and girl parts (below the waist). Not worth the time or money. Strongly urge you not to go, or rent it when it comes out. If you do end up going, don't take smaller children. Not the type of movie to see with the family! If curious about the content, check out the content advisory section on the Superhero Movie page on IMDb. Most of the content that was meant to be funny was extremely crude. Especially when they make fun of Steven Hawking.
This movie is funny if you're the gentleman who was sitting about three rows behind me (repeating every punchline, laughing when there were no gags on-screen, and issuing a gravelly "haaaa" at every scene involving a computer or mobile device).<br /><br />For everyone else, it's a mean-spirited, bungled "comedy." The movie strictly follows the formula of the later "Scary Movie" films, as well as "Epic Movie" and "Meet the Spartans," though without the flood of heartless pop culture references that made the latter two so irritating. Still, the lampooning of intellectual and peacemaking figures the world over makes it clear that the film knows its audience: people who envy brainpower. "Superhero Movie" is particularly and consistently nasty to Stephen Hawking, introducing him as a sex-starved druggie and using his disability as a vehicle for slapstick.<br /><br />The plot is based on "Spider-Man," with "Batman Begins" and "X-Men" thrown in just to deliver some physical comedy. Much of the movie is slapstick, but not in any invigorating or interesting way. The longest-running gag is a fart joke, and early on the scriptwriters seem to believe that having the main character get thrown in conspicuous piles of fake animal poo automatically enlivens an otherwise uninspired rehash of the spider bite scene from "Spider-Man." Perhaps the only redeeming feature of this feature is the energy in it, notably absent in other recent parodies. The filmmakers act as though they're doing something new, and the audience can feel the influence in the way the actors bounce around the screen. An extremely abbreviated length (about an hour and fifteen minutes) and the zest of the presentation makes "Superhero Movie" tolerable rather than horrifying.
This movie is somehow showing 6.2 stars, It seems inconceivable that the director has that many relations. I am at a loss to explain this.<br /><br />Avoid this movie at all costs. You have only a certain number of hours on the Earth, don't waste 1&1/2 of them on this retarded steaming heap of Guano!!!<br /><br />There is no story as apparently the director "wrote" (and I'm guessing with a blunt orange crayon) the next day's script at the completion of the day's shooting. The "story" has been called whimsical, no it is aimless, there is maybe enough "story" to fill a commercial. Don't you hate ads?<br /><br />Now while both leads can act they obviously decided not to here. And similarly the writer/director can actually both write and direct as evidenced by his next work "Toy Love" <br /><br />So to recap, even if you get this movie for free, even if you're paid to watch it avoid it.<br /><br />To paraphrase Monty Python's Search for the holy Grail, "Run flee!"
It is terrible! It is like somebody gave a kid a faulty video camera and $30 and told them to make a film. Even then you'd get a better and more professional film than this. The story is so dumb you can say there isn't one. I don't think the guy who made this knew what to do at all -- watching foreign art movies all day long isn't enough to make somebody an instant director. The acting is very bad, really kindergarten level and the writing is just plain awful. The only scene I didn't hate was the one with the caravan accident but even that only means it was just slightly less horrible than the rest of the film. How do people get finance for this stuff? I don't mind alternative films but shouldn't they at least not be a big steaming pile of cow manure? I would call 'Price of Milk' amateurish if it wasn't an insult to amateurs. This would not even be a good film if you were drunk or drugged!
I was more entertained by watching my wife almost pull her hair out in frustration through most of this movie. I thought something that would tie it all together would be just around the corner of the dairy barn any minute. So I cheated, grabbed the remote, and was relieved to find out it was ending in merely 20 minutes. I should have turned the channel. Cute, it had potential, but yuck!
From hardly alien sounding lasers, to an elementary school style shuttle crash, "Nightbeast" is better classified as a farcical mix of fake blood and bare chest. The almost pornographic style of the film seems to be a failed attempt to recover from a lack of cohesive or effective story. The acting however is not nearly as beastly, many of the young, aspiring, actors admirably showcase a hidden talent. Particularly Don Leifert and Jamie Zemarel, who shed a well needed shard of light on this otherwise terrible film. Nightbeast would have never shown up on set had he known the terrible movie making talent of this small Maryland town.
An hulking alien beastie crash-lands on Earth and soon wrecks havoc upon the populace first using his laser ray gun to dissolve into dust almost every human he catches sight off (that is when his aim isn't terribly off) and later his bare claws with which he likes to rip out and eat human spleen! <br /><br />All in all, it's pretty silly stuff. I do have to give it some points for being somewhat fun at times. I actually enjoyed the mindless ray gun battle at the beginning and some of the later over the top gore effects. However it doesn't help when the monster provides the movie's only truly entertaining moments and he isn't on screen for a large portion of the film's running time. The acting throughout this is just plain awful and amateurish and our lead hero Sheriff Cinder is much too unattractive to be bagging the film's hottest chick. I also have to take off points for blatantly copying THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD (1951) on several occasions. When the monster isn't on a rampage, NIGHTBEAST is far too dull and eventually his attacks become so repetitive and predictable even they become less fun. Watch this one back to back with the 1951 THING and see the difference characterization, attention to plot and detail and creating suspense makes to a monster on the loose movie.
After the opening credits over a black sheet of paper with spots of white paint sprayed onto it, oh OK I'll be generous and call it a star field, we witness an alien spacecraft crashing into a meteorite and being forced to land on earth. A terrible looking model spacecraft lands on a terrible looking model field. Three nearby campers investigate. From the burning spacecraft a reptile like looking alien, the 'Nightbeast' emerges, OK so I lied it's a guy in a dodgy rubber monster mask and silver spacesuit. The campers are quickly killed by the Nighbeast's laser gun which shoots awful special effects at people. The towns Sheriff Jack Cinder (Tom Griffith) is informed. He alerts his deputy Lisa Kent (Karin Kardian) and gathers a posse of men together to investigate. Meanwhile the Nightbeast has killed an unlucky motorist who stopped on the side of the road for a leak. His two annoying kids run for help. They approach a house, inside two young people are kissing, the girl says "someones running towards the house". The guy gets up to take a look and is attacked and gutted by the Nightbeast, it kills the girl as well. Then it manages to kill the two kids with his laser, maybe the Nightbeast ain't so bad after all. Once the Sheriff and his men arrive at the scene they have a gun/laser battle with the Nightbeast. After possibly the most unexciting gun fight in film history only the Sheriff, his deputy and a local man Jamie Lambert (Jamie Zemarel) survive. But the Nightbeast is still alive, bullets seem to have no effect on it. The next day the Sheriff visits the towns Mayor, Bert Wicker (Richard Dyszel) and his girlfriend Mary Jane (Eleanor Herman) to get permission to evacuate everyone in the town. He refuses saying a party he is holding for the Governor (Richard Ruxton) cannot be cancelled, and that he doesn't want to create a panic situation. The Sheriff evacuates the town anyway. Two doctors, Steven Price (George Stover) and Ruth Sherman (Anne Firth) are attacked by the Nightbeast before they can leave. However, they manage to scare the Nightbeast away and survive. Together with the Sheriff his deputy and Jamie they decide to stay behind and fight the alien. Written and directed by Don Dohler this has to be an amateur film, made with family and friends, look at the credits and see how many Dohler's are involved. For that reason I should probably cut it some slack but that still doesn't stop it, or excuse it from being a throughly awful film in every department. It has no story or purpose, things just happen to waste time, whats with Drago (Don Leifert) strangling his ex girlfriend Suzie (Monica Neff)? This and many more scenes add nothing to the film. The script has no logic either, why does the Nightbeast stick around the town once it's been supposedly evacuated? The special effects are embarrassingly bad, just look at the effect when the Nightbeast shoots someone with his laser, a computer effect an 80's spectrum would be ashamed of. There's not really much blood or gore in it, a ripped open stomach, a severed arm and a decapitation but they all look predictably poor. Credit where it's due, the Nightbeast itself looks alright for the most part. There's a sex scene between the Sheriff and his deputy which has to be seen to be believed, music that even a porno would be embarrassed about and two really ugly naked people make this a difficult sequence to watch. Less than stellar acting, photography, music, lighting and editing make it a real chore to sit through. And the worse thing about this film? It commits the mortal sin of being boring and not fun in the slightest. Sorry Don mate, but don't give up the day job! Definitely one to avoid.
OK, when I say "wow," I mean, "Jesus, please help me." I have an old VHS copy that was printed before Troma got a copy of the title. The movie is about an alien crash landing on Earth to terrorize us with a gun that blasts people into oblivion. WATCH OUT!!! And by that, I mean watch out for those special effects. There is an amazing number of mistakes. The acting is terrible, but I'd say the only one putting forth any effort would be the Sheriff. The film itself is really grainy and poorly lighted. In one particular scene, it is day outside and then the shot shows the Night Beast shooting his gun with night behind him. Then it shows day again. *Shakes head* I usually like low-budget horror films, but I had to force myself to finish it because I never watch a movie without finishing it. The only accomplishment this film achieved was an alien that wasn't stereotypical. So for that, and ONLY for that... I give it a 3 out of 10.<br /><br />Don't watch this movie if you've had a bad day. You'll be even more depressed at the failed attempt this movie makes.
If you want to truly experience the magic (?) of Don Dohler, then check out "Alien Factor" or maybe "Fiend", but not this. Alien Factor is actually rather imaginative considering the low budget and it's fairly creepy, but "Nightbeast", which I guess is sort of an updating of Alien Factor, is just plain dumb. Actors sleepwalk through their roles, especially Mr. Monotone sheriff, and the monster is some dumb Halloween-mask kind of thing instead of the wildly imaginative (but kind of stupid) looking critters from Alien Factor. A spaceship crashes on Earth and there's a critter inside, of course, who runs around vaporizing people. And ripping off arms, etc. And he has a cool ray gun that he uses to vaporize people too, until it gets shot out of his hand. And that's really about it. "Alien Factor" beats this mess hands down, if you really want to see a good Don Dohler movie, check that out instead. And RIP Don Dohler, 12/2/06.
I have been an avid Jane Austen fan for many years. I had never seen this adaptation, so when I had heard of it, I came here and read all the excellent reviews. On that basis I eagerly ordered it from Netflix. What a cruel disappointment! They have taken one of the most subtle and bright comic novels and made it dull. Each character seems to have been dealt a single facial expression, a single tone upon which to base their flat characters. Although this adaptation seems to have used every word that Jane Austen wrote, they appear to have been passed around to characters in a random fashion. Even though it was done as a miniseries, this adaptation manages to confuse and feel as rushed as if it had been done as a movie of the week.<br /><br />Mr. Bennett too harsh, Mrs. Bennet just a chattering chipmunk, Mr. Darcy as lifeless as a nutcracker, the Bennett girls almost indistinguishable and Mr. Wickham a man who no one would look twice at - hardly the appealing cad! I'm quite put out!
Perhaps if only to laugh at the way my favorite of Jane Austen's works has been portrayed. Perhaps I am too severe on this adaptation, but I'm afraid I am biased to the A&E version. I have a hard time imagining Mr. Darcy portrayed by anyone other than Colin Firth.<br /><br />The characters seemed shallow, and often dialogue forced. Lizzy seemed to lack the real feeling that is so evident in the book. Her fancy for Wickham was overplayed, and then her sudden like for Darcy was not believable.<br /><br />Darcy was portrayed tolerably well, I will grant him. He managed to maintain the aloofness that is required, but I felt he did not project the feeling and inner struggle that makes his character so delightful, especially in the proposal scene.<br /><br />Mr. and Mrs. Bennet were also played well, but seemed lacking in many ways. The mean temper of Mrs. Bennet was not completely captured in her performance.<br /><br />Mr. Collins' was a good portrayal. Very much in line with the book.<br /><br />I will refrain from commenting on Lady Catherine except to say that she is possibly the worst portrayal in the entire film.<br /><br />Other problems I saw were the few liberties they took with the order of events such as Darcy being present at the first meeting with Lady C., and also that Miss Lucas and Sir William did not join Lizzy on her visit to the Collins'.<br /><br />The choreography was dreadful during the dancing scenes. The scene where Lizzy and Darcy dance loses much of its intensity because one cannot get past the feeling that they look akward on the ballroom floor. At least this BBC version left out the dialogue between Lizzy, Darcy and Sir William when he commends the two on their dancing, as they performed very ill indeed.<br /><br />There were occasional moments that it kept me interested, but overall I find this version to be a disappointment. I would not advise this film unless you're like me, and you are excessively diverted by such follies.<br /><br />
As a professional poker dealer for over 25 years I found this movie very hard to watch. Too unreal. It seems the producers of this movie either had done little or no research or just didn't care. The card tricks are something you never would see performed in a real poker game. Common sense right? Plus it was full of film cuts and such during the tricks. Who couldn't do that? The cheating was amateur stuff. Palming, marked cards, etc. Would you sit in a high limit game where they use opened deck cards? Would you sit in a game where the players push their chips into the middle of a pot (constantly), mixing them in then just verbalizing how much they bet? C'MON ! I gave it a 4 because the twists and turns might be interesting to some people but for those who know how to play the game it will be pretty painful. Next time they should use real players and get some insight on how to do it right. OUCH!!!
"Shade" tries hard to be another "Sting", substituting poker for horse racing as the means by which to bring down an enemy, but it fails miserably.<br /><br />I watched the whole thing and still never could quite understand why the young kid wanted to double-cross his partner. Was it because his partner stole his girl? Is there a woman in the world who is worth going to that much trouble over? If there is, it certainly wasn't this shrew. She had no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and really now, did she actually have a special room set up so that a surgeon could remove the kidney from whoever tried to pick her up in a bar? Dina Merrill makes a short appearance as a rich woman who hosts, of all things, pay-the-rent poker parties at her palatial home. And then the players say things like, "I'll see your thousand and raise you another five thousand." Give me a break. You can't call ("see") and raise, you do one or the other. Any kid playing for nickels and dimes at the kitchen table knows this; you'd think grown men playing for stakes this high -- or at least the knuckleheads who wrote the script -- would know it too.<br /><br />One of the other posters mentioned how no high-limit poker game would allow players to actually deal their own cards and I agree. You don't allow two of the best-known car cheats into a game where the buy-in is $250,000 and then let them deal to each other. That's not poker; that's just seeing which one can cheat better. And I'd like to know what person in his right mind would buy in to a game in which two of the best-known card cheats are playing and expect that he might have a chance at winning? And most of all, what Mafia boss would run such a game? Every time Melanie Griffith came on the screen I was so mesmerized by those gigantic fluorescent red lips of hers that I completely lost the storyline, and seeing her and Stallone together was more like a public service announcement for plastic surgery gone wrong than a love connection. Stallone mentions that she used to be a grifter before she bought the restaurant she now runs, but we don't know what kind of grifter she was and we never see her working with Stallone in their younger days so we are left to wonder, if we even care that much.<br /><br />Jamie Foxx is the best character in the whole movie, but he gets killed off right off the bat and we're left with cardboard cut-outs who all sound like they're reading their lines off a teleprompter just off-camera.<br /><br />The ending makes no sense either. The kid gets his cut from the game and just walks down the street with a briefcase full of money and his partner is nowhere to be seen? The Mafia isn't watching every move he makes? Everyone else just shrugs their shoulders and quietly accepts the loss of millions of dollars without trying to recoup any of it? I don't think so.<br /><br />Most of all, this movie does a great injustice to professional poker players all over the world, insinuating that the only way to win is by palming cards and playing with "juiced" decks. And why is it they're always palming kings and aces? Sometimes you need a three or a nine to fill a straight or full house.<br /><br />The best parts of the whole film are the sleight-of-hand tricks during the beginning and ending credits; everything in between is ridiculous.
What a cast...and what a waste of it. Seriously, when a movie has Gabriel Byrne, Jamie Foxx, Thandie Newton, Stuart Townsend, Hal Holbrook, Melanie Griffith and Sylvester Stallone in it you would expect some quality. The movie is however one big mess with a unlikely story that can't seem to stop putting twist and turns in it. Yeah, I think that they thought they were really being clever with all of it.<br /><br />The story is not only messy and unlikely, it also isn't exactly terribly original. It uses elements from earlier and much better poker game based movies. But to me it were really the many pointless twist and turns in the movie that did it. It made the story such an unlikely one to watch. On top of that the script remains filled with a lot of holes silly poker game errors and things that just don't make an awful lot of sense. Why would any one above all things want to play against a card player that is known as the best cheater in the game. This is what the movie is about and builds up to but just didn't ever made a lot of sense to me.<br /><br />Despite that the movie has a great cast, it still feels as if most actors were miscast in their roles. I don't know what it is about Stuart Townsend. He is a good actor but in most roles he plays he always feels out of place. Perhaps it are his looks, I don't known. This basically also was the reason why he got replaced in "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring". Also Thandie Newton isn't much good and actually quite annoying in her 'strong' female role. And what was the point of having Melanie Griffith in this? Oh, I guess I could go on about the movie its casting and could complaining even some more about the way too limited screen time the Jamie Foxx character gets but I guess you get my point by now.<br /><br />Damian Nieman just isn't much of an original writer/director and on top of that he also doesn't handle his own material very well. Scenes often feel disjointed, it tries to put in way too many characters and everything about the movie is shallow and in a way predictable. On top of that the movie features some bad editing at times, which also doesn't help to make this movie look like one seamless whole. The movie was also one major box office bomb and no wonder that Damian Nieman hasn't made a movie ever since.<br /><br />A too big mess to make you enjoy this movie.<br /><br />4/10
How did so many talented or at least charismatic actors wind up in this baloney? Nothing is very good about this movie but the worst things probably are the screenplay and the directing.<br /><br />Apparently this is director Damian Niemans heart-piece as he's both written and directed it (and acted in as well). He's a card magician himself and seems to have named characters in homage of other famous magicians. This was his first feature film as far as I know, and chances are it's his last.<br /><br />It's hard to point to exactly what makes it so poor – but I'd say the story and character's are not believable (the screenplay) and the directing doesn't give it any boost (the director). Plus – the poker scenes are bad in the worst Hollywood manner (super-hands, Hollywood rules)! The supposed twists in the movie are either totally predictable or totally unbelievable. They just end up tying a knot to a story that at best can be described as "a few decent scenes"!
As a fan of C.J.'s earlier movie, Latter Days, I really wanted to like this film.<br /><br />The nicest thing I can say, however, is that it's NOT an awful film. There are some good performances, and a few funny scenes. In particular, Tori Spelling has a couple of great scenes where she's talking to her fiancé's ex-boyfriend.<br /><br />Overall, though, it's pretty week. The script falls back on weird coincidences and clichéd movie moments way too often. (The main character went to Stanford on a golf scholarship, and his high school buddy doesn't even know that he plays the game?) <br /><br />Most of the time, this movie had no idea where it was going or what it was trying to say. There are a lot of scenes that are mildly cute, but ultimately turn out to be a waste of time. And you could easily cut half the characters from the film without losing anything.<br /><br />Still, for all it's faults, I would have to say that this is one of the better gay films of recent years. Which says a lot about how bad most gay films are.<br /><br />I'm hoping C.J.'s next film will be better.
This is an oft-used line, but it really sums up this movie..."If this is the current state of gay cinema, then we're in real trouble". I saw this film at SIFF because of the high IMDb rating (7.6) and if there was ever a case of vote stacking on IMDb, then this is it. Just watch the number fall over the release weeks of the film.<br /><br />Easy plot...Boy finds out his high school ex (boyfriend) is getting married to a female friend of theirs so he goes back to his old hometown (still carrying a 10 year old torch) to see what happened.<br /><br />First off, I liked "Latter Days", the director's last feature, despite its cookie cutter characters and plot contrivances, but you're supposed to become a better director with each subsequent release. I don't know how you get horrible supporting performances out of so many TV veterans (Robert Foxworth, Joanna Cassidy, Tori Spelling), but somehow he managed to. The writing was Lifetime Network quality (way back when they were REALLY bad) and the situations were unbelievable AND uncomfortably hard to watch. I kept reaching for a non-existent remote control to fast forward, but ultimately made myself stay to the end, hoping for a decent ending. Ugh...no. Even the gratuitous male nudity that popped up during the movie was so blatantly gratuitous that it seemed to be there to keep people in their seats. <br /><br />To be fair...the 2 leads, especially in the gratuitous nude scenes, were gorgeous. There was also a real sweetness between them during their rekindling friendship as they uncovered how they went separate ways. And the film looked great...good quality and color saturation for an independent film.<br /><br />How is it that network TV can give week after week of great, entertaining weekly episodes (Like "Ugly Betty", "Desp. Housewives", etc.), but so many feature releases in similar genres can be as bad as this?
Wow, Kiss the Bride wasn't that bad, but it wasn't that good either. It sure was no "Later Day Saints." The movie sags in the center...perhaps cutting out about 30 minutes would have made a more enjoyable film. But the film gets bogged down again and again by annoying subplots and throw away scenes - the whole gold outing sequence comes to mind.<br /><br />Even though "Kiss" was made for theatrical release, it looks and sounds more like a made for TV movie. Every scene is lighted like a department store. So many characters are so throw away.<br /><br />And dear Tori is actually a pleasant surprise. She steals every scene she appears in.<br /><br />One scene really annoyed me. It was the rehearsal dinner in this larger room with scores of tables - all decorated. But only 5 or 6 people in a room for 250! Where did everyone go.<br /><br />Gay cinema has sunk to a new low...but not as low as the horrible films being produced and shown on the Here! Channel.
What can I say? This was one awful movie to watch. I am normally not very critical of gay cinema in general, due to the fact that most are usually low-budget, but this really pushed me up the wall. I mean, is this was has happened to gay cinema? Haven't gay producers and directors learned anything from Gus Van Saints and Ang Lee's films?. Just having to sit through the entire movie was like being in a dentist's chair and having my wisdom teeth extracted. I kept on praying for moments where I would feel any sort of connection with any of the characters, but that never happened. Most of the characters performances were just not very convincing. It was like watching one of those badly produced made-for-TV movie specials on a local access TV stations. I cannot tell u how greatly disappointed It was seeing this film after being a big fan of Tori Spellings other works and the directors last work on "Latter day saints." It was definitely not worth the wait. Definitely, a few hours of my life I will never get back and will certainly not be purchasing it on DVD.
There were nice characters in here, played by pleasant-looking actors and actresses, plus it had a famous band and some famous dancers.....yet the film just didn't work. By the time this was almost over, I was bored to death. The dialog was dumb, the humor (mainly Milton Berle's) was downright stupid and the music was just not up my alley.<br /><br />I've never been a big-band fan, anyway, and if I hear "In The Mood" one more time I'll puke.<br /><br />This was my first look at famous skater-actor Sonja Henie and I have no complaints about her. Almost part of the problem, at least with the humor, is that it's so dated it isn't funny anymore. Berle, Phil Silvers, Bob Hope, Red Skeleton, Abbot & Costello, etc. etc. were hilarious to the crowds in the 40s and 50s but humor changes, and what was funny back then is not today.
This series and Elon Gold were being HYPED as "the next big thing" in sitcoms for NBC. Well, they weren't. Dennis Farina was terribly miscast as the father in-law. He just seemed so uncomfortable and out of place here. The term, "Private 'convo' time!" was supposed to become the "Dyno-mite!" catch phrase of the 21st Century. Well, it wasn't. People were asking then, as they still are today (When his name comes up.), "Who the hell is Elon Gold?" I saw him on an episode of "The Mentalist" this evening. I mentioned his name, and my girlfriend asked, "Who?" Not funny. Total waste of airtime. NBC had really HIGH hopes for this show, but it just fell flat.
I knew this was headed for disaster after looking at the clock within 7 minutes of air time. The story line: Two people get married. They move into the wife's parents home. And husband doesn't get along with father-in-law-and if you haven't seen this plot before you probably have not watched TV for the last 15 years or so.
The Toxic Avenger, Part II starts with the startling revelation that after the Toxic Aveneger (John Altamura who was apparently fired during production & replaced with Ron Fazio) had rid his home town Tromaville of evil it actually became a nice place to live. This meant that Toxie had no use as a superhero anymore & now suffers from depression & a feeling of utter uselessness (just like directors Lloyd Kaufman & Michael Herz should feel like after producing this), Toxie now works as a concierge at the 'Tromaville centre for the blind'. It's not long before trouble rears it's ugly head though, an evil chemical producing company called Apocalypse Inc. plans to take over Tromaville for some stupid insignificant reason or other but to do so they need to get rid of Toxie. After the evil chairman's (Rick Collins) first plan fails he bribes Toxie's psychiatrist (Erika Schickel) to tell him to go to Japan & see his Father. Leaving his girlfriend Claire (Phoebe Legere), his Mother (Jessica Dublin) & his home behind Toxie heads for Tokyo, Japan. Once there Toxie sets about finding his Father & a woman named Masami (Mayako Katsuragi) helps him in his quest. Meanwhile back in Tromaville Apocalypse Inc. move in for the kill & without Toxie the citizens are powerless to defend themselves. Toxie eventually finds Big Mac Bunko (Rikiya Yasuoka) whom he has been lead to believe is his Father, however Big Mac is all part of Apocalypse Inc. plans to destroy Toxie once & for all...<br /><br />Produced & directed by Lloyd Kaufman & Michael Herz this follow up to the successful The Toxic Avenger (1985) basically proves the first film was a complete fluke, a lucky accident to combine the right blend of bad taste comedy, outrageous violence & so-bad-it's-good film-making, The Toxic Avenger, Part II is a load of crap in comparison. The script by by Kaufman, Phil Rivio & Gay Partington Terry with a load of 'additional material' credits does not contain one single funny moment during it's entire 102 (uncut director's cut) duration. The visual gags are terrible, Toxie walking through Tokyo with a wig & glasses to blend in for instance, or a scene where he heats up a bath with a bad guy in it & as he cooks Toxie throws in a load of vegetable's & spaghetti, a scene where he sticks electrical wires up a woman's nose, sticks an antenna in her head & a microphone in her mouth to which a Japanese radio announcer talks into, a bit where a Japanese bad guy has his nose burnt into the shape of a fish, a bit where Toxie grabs a swordfish head & uses it as a weapon, or the embarrassingly bad overacting & stupid idiotic facial expressions, a guy who literary has a fish for a head & gets turned literary into sushi, the awful comedy music & sound effects & the whole film in general is a pale imitation of what made the original mildly amusing & memorable. The bad taste gags aren't there this time round & the silly childish juvenile humour of the first is also missing, it just feels like a real step back from the original & lets not forget this is Troma here so that is most definitely a bad thing. There are a few gory fights & some serious gore & violence, at least in the supposedly uncut 102 minute version I saw, crushed heads with the bodies spurting out blood, smashed faces, intestines, roses poked in someones eyes & thorns wrapped around their throat, ripped off ears, severed arms & a very graphic & gory scene of a man being chopped to pieces. Unfortunately the special effects by Pericles Lewnes aren't particularly convincing & come mostly within the first twenty or so minutes. The acting is of embarrassing proportions as I've already mentioned. Action wise there is an ultra cheap looking car chase at the end & a few unexciting, lacklustre fights utilising cardboard ninja throwing stars at one point. Horror wise there is nothing a few gory set pieces apart. Comedy wise this is very unfunny. In fact The Toxic Avenger, Part II sucks on all levels really & to top it all off it's atrociously made as well, most of the cast appear to be people plucked from the nearest street corner, continuity is none existent, cinematography is basic point & shoot & the special effects are anything but. One or two gory scenes apart this is total crap plain & simple, do yourself a favour watch the original again instead.
The Toxic Avenger... <br /><br />The idea of this movie is that a person that the common population would call this person a looser and then after being thrown into a barrel of toxic waste, mutated into a superhero that is completely disfigured sounded OK even for 1985. This movie is listed as a horror... I even have read of a cult following with this series.... <br /><br />Now this movie even given when it was made was so bad that I couldn't stop watching... the acting is horrible even for an independent film that I think was to be the horror part of this movie...<br /><br />drug dealing, sumo, Godzilla entrance.... I'm all for movies that promote anti-drugs... heck I even like Godzilla and well sumo... I'm not into it but even still I think that the heights of sumo would love to give this movie the 1000 hand slap and ground salt into the eyes of the people that made this movie... <br /><br />Personally I am almost ready to write to the film company that made this and ask them for the 87mins or so of my life back.<br /><br />To me 1 out of 10 is too high it's too bad that there isn't a 0 (zero) or even negative integers to place on a movie here.<br /><br />In other words this movie is J-U-N-K...... would rather watch paint dry and deal with explosive diarrhea then have to watch this movie ever again... I would be the first person that would use not only the packaging of this movie as kindling but I would be up for a good'ol movie and script burning.
This is the worst of the toxie series by far. The acting in Tokyo is horrible and you can understand them about half the time. The major problem with this film is all the sudden changes from the original. Like there's a different girl friend of toxie's in this one or it might be the same character just with a different name and played by a different chick. Why is this film made like a Disney movie. After about fifteen minutes it starts getting good with the gore and all. There's 2 awesome killings then the movie goes straight to poop. After the films 20 minutes are up the film is bearly entertainment. H*LL IT'S BEARLY WATCHABLE. Well unless your drunk then don't watch this film. YOU'VE BEEN WARNED.
Gone is the wonderful campiness of the original. In place is a c-grade action no-brainer, wich is not all bad, but pales in comparison to the original. All the meaningless sex and violence is gone, and replaced with crappy jokes and unexplained plot pointers. See it, but don't expect the thrills of the first.
the first toxie film was dark, gory, and hillarious. This film is un-gory battles to cheezy jazz music, no real gore at all, and the worst toxie mask I have ever seen! His deep voice is now a light, happy voice, characters from part 1 reappear by actors that look NOTHING like them (Claire, Mom Junko), characters names change (Claire or Sara?). It is lacking all the brutal violence, dark humor, and political incorrectness of the first film. If it weren't for nudity, this movie could have been rated PG. Really lame. I am a HUGE fan of part 1 though, just cant stand this one.
The Toxic Avenger, hideously deformed creature of super-human size and strength is back in this sequel that gets mostly everything wrong. Toxie goes to Japan to find his father at the suggestion of his psychiatrist, whom is in cahoots with an evil corporation who just want the avenger gone to get a stranglehold on Tromaville in his absence. With new actors for Toxie and his girlfriend, who has a different name in this one, a much less grim, much more comical tone, and a plot line that can't hold a candle to the original. Even with the totally uncut version that one can only get if you buy the Tox Box DVD set, the gore is the only thing going for this one. And if you happen upon ANY other version forget about getting any enjoyment from this one at all. While the first one is a low budget classic, this simply is not.<br /><br />My Grade: D+ <br /><br />Eye Candy: Erika Schickel has a very quick nip slip; Phoebe Legere goes topless; one villianess gets fully nude; and a few extras in a bath house scene show various amounts of skin <br /><br />Tox Box unrated director's cut DVD Extras: Intro and Commentary by director Lloyd Kaufman; Second commentary with director Lloyd Kaufman, Troma editors Gabriel Friedman and Brian McNulty; Toxie on Japenese TV; Interview with Fangoria managing editor Michael Gingold; Interview by Videohound's Mike Mayo; the same damn Radiation March that's on EVERY Troma DVD; Clip from Lisa Gaye; "Toxie 15 Years Later" mockumentary; 2 PSAs; Troma Intelligence Test; Troma Studio Building Tour; Ad for Lloyd Kaufman's autobiography; Stills gallery; Theatrical trailer; and trailers for: "Toxic Avenger", "Toxic Avenger 3", "Def by Temptation", "Class of Nuke 'Em High", "Sgt. Kabukiman N.Y.P.D.", "Tromeo and Juliet", "Bloodsucking Freaks", & "Surf Nazis Must Die"
I enjoyed the first "Toxic Avenger," but the sequel just didn't work. There are some funny gags in the opening, involving members of the home for the blind, but past that point I was simply bored. The sequel is also filled with much quirky, low-brow humor. Only this time it's not funny! Much of the gags revolve around crusty Japanese stereotypes. Almost every Japanese character seems to be chopping fish. Does everyone in Japan chop fish? The Troma films are known for being more than a little irreverent, but if you're gonna use humor involving racial stereotypes, at least make it funny. I can't laugh if I'm handed the same crap I've seen a million times before! One thing I have to give credit for is the gratuitous nudity. There's even more gratuitous nudity than in the first. But altogether I was very disappointed, and the film ends with a tedious chase scene which had me huffing and puffing, dying for the movie to fade to black. At least there's one hilarious line from the film which had me bawling with laughter. After the villain says a line from Shakespeare to one of the local citizens, the citizen (an elderly woman) responds by saying, "F**k you--that's from David Mamet."<br /><br />My score: 3 (out of 10)
Oh dear! What can I say about Half Past Dead? I was really disappointed in it. I was thinking....A Steven Seagal movie! Cool! We'll get to see him kick people and flip people and break bones. We might even get to see him have a stick fight with somebody! Excellent!<br /><br />However, I was in for a rude awakening. This film can be summed up as follows:<br /><br />Take an episode of the A-Team, remove the lovable and roguish characters such as Murdoch, Hannibal, Mr T and Face. Then get a writer/director to pen a plot even Ed Wood would be ashamed of and who's too big a fan of The Matrix and John Woo movies for his own good. Throw in a bunch of people with really bad acting ability and who don't have real names. Finally, add in a main star who's getting saggy around the midriff and doesn't appear to be able to do his own stunts anymore. <br /><br />The result? Half Past Dead. An action movie so ridiculous that it at least made me smile right the way through. The plot holes are stupendously, glaringly large - for example, prisoners who, when the jail is invaded, fight the invaders rather than attempting to escape. Or how about the prison itself, which has an armoury that contains heavy machineguns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers? You also have a helicopter (bearing a striking resemblance to a Huey) with some kind of video game machinegun mounted in the nose.<br /><br />Then there's Seagal himself. I like the guy. He CAN fight. He's even witty in a way that Jean-Claude Van Damme will never be. But all through the movie I kept hoping for that one great, defining fight scene. Never happened. Instead we got people firing guns a lot and not hitting a whole Hell of a lot. I mean, when someone runs down a narrow corridor and you fire a sub-machinegun at them, there isn't a whole lot of places the bullets can go other than down the corridor and into the target. Yet somehow they miss? Even the A-Team would cringe at this foolishness. And then when it gets to any kind of one-on-one physical stuff, we get treated to a shabby Matrix rip-off, without the benefit of bullet-time. People getting kicked twenty feet through the air and sundry other ludicrous acrobatic nonsense.<br /><br />C'mon Steven, you're better than this. Your career can't be over. Say it ain't so!<br /><br />This is instantly forgettable (except I'm forcing myself to remember for the purposes of this review) and if you watch it, try to find it amusing in an A-Team kind of way. But I doubt it'll be high on anyone's "re-watchable" list. Out for Justice this ain't. More like Out to Lunch.
Yeah, a long time ago it turned into a tourist attraction. Now it's a prison again. Kind of. Well, it's more like an airport mixed together with a junior high school but there are lots of guys running around wearing orange jumpsuits, so I guess in that way it's like a prison. Not really though. When Sasha, Steven Seagal's character, is being admitted into prison, he's standing shackled in line and wanders over to a different line so he can talk to his friend, like he's in line for the security check at the airport. Then before too long he and his friend are throwing punches, smacking around a couple of security guards.<br /><br />Let me tell you something. You assault a corrections officer in a federal prison, they'll shoot you on the spot. Ja Rule would have been shot about 30 times before he threw his second punch. Oh, and there are guys wearing beanies and bandanas and whatnot. In prison. Federal prison.<br /><br />You can't dress like that at most high schools in America.<br /><br />Speaking of Ja Rule, I have to say that the person who probably enjoyed his performance more than anyone else on earth, including Ja Rule himself, had to have been 50 Cent. Just before I watched this movie I saw one of those shows on TV about the greatest celebrity feuds ever, and like number 7 or 8 was this rivalry between 50 Cent, who had lived the thug life for real, and Ja Rule. Who had not. Every time I saw Ja Rule on screen the only thing I could picture was 50 Cent laughing his ass off. Ja Rule looks like a rowdy 9-year-old every time he appears on screen.<br /><br />Anyway, getting back to the plot. It's funny. Sasha is an FBI agent working undercover and he agrees to let himself be sentenced to prison so he can get behind the criminal organization. He's sentenced to five years, and that old line between determination and stupidity instantly vanishes. Nothing else in the movie matters after that, it becomes a meaningless string of action sequences, most of which aren't even well choreographed.<br /><br />Oh, how about this, a helicopter crashes through the roof of "New Alcatraz" at one point, accidentally freeing all of the inmates. And what do they do? They all run out of their cells and play basketball in the middle of the cell block. Without so much as a basket. They had a ball, but it doesn't matter. The scene is so stupid they might as well have been playing hopscotch.<br /><br />So some guy is being sentenced to be the first person ever to be executed in Alcatraz's state of the art execution chamber, evidently not for stealing $200 million dollars in gold, but for not telling where it was hidden once he was caught.<br /><br />Hey, good thinking, people. If you can't get information out of someone, kill them. That's a great way to learn the truth! So some gang breaks into the prison planning to stop the execution and get the location of the $200 million for themselves.<br /><br />Oh and the $200 million is in gold bricks. I doubt they thought ahead to how difficult it would be to turn that into exchangeable currency.<br /><br />There's also the issue of the warden at the prison. He's some tough-talking vato who thinks he's a hardcore chollo from the barrio, which reminds me of a joke. I saw this comedian once talking about people in California who talk all tough calling each other ese and homes and all kinds of other such nonsense. These people go to Mexico, the comedian says, and they're like, "Oh my god! People LIVE there? That's like, a total shack!"<br /><br />The best is when the United States Supreme Court Justice arrives and this guy tells her that her men can't carry their guns inside his prison, "I don't care if she IS a United States Supreme Court Justice!"<br /><br />This woman could squish him like a grape and he thinks he's in charge. Ha.<br /><br />And by the way, the Supreme Court Justice that gets taken as a hostage in the movie tells the bad guy that she is 53. That's a year younger than Steven Seagal. I just thought that was funny.<br /><br />The only good scene in the movie is the one in the prison where Ja Rule is getting slapped around the prison like a sack of cotton balls by this little Asian woman. That was the funniest thing I've seen in a movie in a long, long time.<br /><br />You know, I work for the company that produced this film (which I why I watched it), and I still don't have a single positive thing to say about it, except, of course, for that one scene with Ja Rule getting spanked by that Asian woman.<br /><br />So read my review of Malena and you will see how strongly I sometimes disagree with professional film critics like Roger Ebert, but in his review of this movie Ebert wrote something that I agreed with as much as anything else he's ever written:<br /><br />"I imagine the flywheels at the MPAA congratulating each other on a good day's work as they rated 'Half Past Dead' PG-13, after giving the anti-gun movie 'Bowling for Columbine' an R."<br /><br />Way to go, guys.
The best thing about the movie is the name, as it both describes the plot and the acting. At least they cannot say they didn't warn you... Kind of like the button labeled, "Don't push this".<br /><br />Segal must have run out of things that move like planes, trains, and ships but the plot remains the same. Under cover guy who fights slowly, but still beats like 40 mercenary types and doesn't even blink when doing so. What amazes me is that Segal is now as big as a barn and the bad guys still cannot hit him in a hallway with a machine gun and 50 clips of ammo. Where do all these bullets actually go to? The only redeeming feature of this movie is watching Nia Peeples pound Ja Rule (real name Jeffrey Atkins doesn't quite sound so punk) into the floor. I could spend days watching that woman kick her foot over her shoulder like that... especially wearing an outfit like that! It was just a bonus watching Jeffy get is *ss kicked, and fun hoping one of those kicks actually landed. Sorry, it's just time we get stupid wannabe tough guy can't act rappers out of the movies. PLEEEEEASE! Who came up with idea anyway? I'd lay odds it was the person who decided that Cameron Diaz and Drew Barrymore would pass as witty athletic Angels.<br /><br />The only surprising twist in this movie is that they don't do the politically correct thing and have Jeffy come in and save the day. No doubt if Snoop (otherwise known by his momma as Calvin Broadus which again doesn't sound so cool when you refer to him as Cal) had been in the movie, he'd throw some signs down on her and probably saved Segal's life or something.
As if the world needed another Seagal movie. Add a bunch of actors who, well... are not really actors, a bunch of heavy metal music to compliment the rap and of course, a hot looking crazy chick in leather with no hips, and we prevent ourselves from being half past budget. Why, oh why do people sabotage themselves by participating in such films?<br /><br />FBI capture two buddies and send them to "New Alcatraz," where the prison's first inmate to be executed has unexpected guests.<br /><br />First rate acting all around, particularly any scene involving tragedy for the good guys. Seriously though, the director did try, and pulled a modern, hard edge for the movie the best he could. Be he went to the well too often and HALF PAST DEAD gets boring too soon. What else can you do when the inmates just hang around talking while the hostages continually ask what makes the main bad guy motivated? A mindless action flick that amounts to little, if not "a-ight."
My Take: Steven Seagal is obviously too boring to be a lead in an action thriller, even a totally dull one. <br /><br />Remember Steven Seagal? You don't? Don't worry, there's not much to catch up on. After starring in admittedly enjoyable crowd-pleasing films like UNDER SIEGE and EXECUTIVE DECISION, Seagal hits the low grounds of the bad movie abyss. Now, he stars in low-budgeted B-level action vehicles, some of which are made-for-TV "Movie of the Week" entries that lost their way to the big screen. HALF PAST DEAD is among these, shall we say, dead action movies. A loud and lousy action film, sloppily directed and lazily written (and worse, badly acted). This is one of those bad movies that I don't need to watch until the ending to know it's bad. I didn't have the guts to have all my braincells die while wasting my time with this. It it this kind of bad films in which you realize, those other films you hate are not bad after all.<br /><br />The plot (and the locale) is completely lifted from a similar picture, Michael Bay's THE ROCK, although similar may not be the word to describe it. Both movies are summer movies, and not meant to be taken so seriously. But in comparison, even THE ROCK (which isn't much in the writing department as much as the lights and sounds) has better characters, a more compelling plot, better action sequences and overall, a more entertaining atmosphere. Although there are action scenes in HALF PAST DEAD, none of them are exciting. All of which are sometimes tedious and predictable.<br /><br />Although predictability seemed to be a welcome asset in summer action films, predictability has never tasted more sour in ones that aren't fun, and HALF PAST DEAD is never really fun, a lot of times it's just a pain in the head (hearing the bad rap music repeat over and over again throughout this film makes me yearn for an aspirin every second I hear them). The acting is horrendously mediocre, the plot is derivative, with no compelling or appealing characters whatsoever. Seagal's character, an undercover agent sent to Alcatraz to stop a criminal mastermind (Morris Chestnut), a very boring villain, is nothing to get excited about. Seagal's character is also provided with a sidekick (played by rap star Ja Rule) and a bunch of amigo inmates, and there's no chemistry going on here.<br /><br />If starring in a series of other forgotten action vehicles (what were those films again?) killed of Seagal's career for good, HALF PAST DEAD is overkill. And audiences be warned: you're invited to feel the pain. Advice: avoid it at all costs.<br /><br />Rating: 0 out of 5.
This is, for different reasons, a very very bad action movie. First of all, Seagal is terribly out of shape. He looks old and fat, plays like he has to fulfill an annoying obligation and his fight scenes require creative editing or plain replacement. Secondly, his opponent is a very weak villain. This is about a smart and mean masterbrain and Chestnut does not deliver. So what about the action ? Well, the two parties permanently shoot at each other in different locations of the Alcatraz jail. They shoot wild and bad, because compared to the amount of required ammunition, the bodycount is rather low. There is nothing to save this movie. There is not a single good line and not a single good joke. The little psychological interlude with 49er One and judge McPherson is ridiculous. So what does it have? Well, the usual Bell helicopters, silhouettes moving in blue light and slow motion, doors riddled with bullets and 1000 Watt lights shining through the holes, characters jumping through the air while shooting, loads of weapons coming from nowhere, a long black coat containing a bold black guy and a thin wooden box containing 25 tons of gold. The pain continues to the very last take, a hopeless approach to lighten up the closing credits. Californian beachboy Don Michael Paul was writing and directing. At least this mountain of boredom comes from just one simple mind.
(spoiler warning) I seem to keep giving this guy his last chance. Strange how an action hero who once was keeps attracting an audience. Anyway, this movie is about a character (Seagal) being kind of a mysterious rough-neck hero. That's it.<br /><br />Next.
I saw this movie yesterday, and like most allrdy wrote "i also expected a Steven movie", god i love this guy just because his fighting style is unique and very humerous. In had a little doubts cause i read that "Ja Rule" was playing in it, but i thought hopefully they give him a smal role, so i don't get irritations by watching him. And offcourse the opposite happend, goooooooooooooooooooood steven what the heck were you thinking going to join a sry *** crew like this. Steven was broke and needed cash? bah =( what a big dissapointment. If you like Steven movie, pleaseee skip this one its pure drama, you only get a few special effects that made me vote 3/10. But the "acting?" of ja rule screws up the whole movie aswel for his buddy kurupt with his irritating hood talk.<br /><br />My beer went from tasting fresh to water we do the dishes in. The story didn't had any "good" about it. To me it felt like a 3 year old produced it.<br /><br />Hopefully Steven makes me happy again in a future movie. People this isn't even worth renting simpel as that.<br /><br />To bad and pitty :-)
Steven Segal's movie career is a tribute to horrible cinema. I have been tragically bored with every one of them as soon as I realized that they were even more unrealistic than Jean Claude VanDamme's. Has anyone else ever noticed that he never gets hit?! I mean, give me something to root for...a hard fought battle with a bad guy who's scary. TWENTY YEARS and he's still filming the same fight scenes. Fight scenes can often distract you from the fact that your hero cannot act. The boring choreography of a Segal film places his painful lack of acting skill in sharp relief. Worse yet, he's woefully out of shape. Just what we need, a fat stiff who THINKS he's a leading man. There's not one iota of redeeming cinematic value in all this movies ninety or so minutes. Do NOT watch this unless you feel like throwing away an hour and a half of your life.
Half Past Dead was unlike any Steven Segal film I've ever seen. Very little of Segal, himself in action and I agree with the last review I read, Nia Peeples steals the show.<br /><br />I saw nothing really new here, just the same old stuff from other flicks changed around a little. The best action scenes were Nia's as she once again kicked butt. It was interesting seeing her as the bad guy after watching her for two seasons on Walker, Texas Ranger, still kicking butt, but for the good guys.<br /><br />
Every now and then some amateur will come out with a tired piece of action film making. this one is just so wrong I don't think i even need to comment about the plot, acting, script, camera work. because it have none!! If putting a muscle guy in cool leather jacket walking in slow-mo and throw in a funky rap song is the main ingredient of making a great action movie, then sayonara action movie!!
Steven Segal has done some awful films, but this is probably one of the best since his career took a dive about ten years ago. The cast is better than usual, and while the story and the plot are a total joke, at least most of the action scenes look pretty good.<br /><br />The plot is probably one of the worst in film history. Someone is being executed because he stole some money? Some Mercenary types kidnap a Supreme Court Justice? Their goal is to exchange the Judge for the prisoner so they can find out where he has the money? Meanwhile the Execution chamber is full of trap doors and false floors and looks like a set from one of the Cirque Du Soleil Circus Shows.<br /><br />Then there is the issue of the prison. Here, the Warden is a Homie, played by Tony Plana. The prisoners all have their gang colors and signs, and the guards are there to serve the meals and keep the prison clean. Nothing like a bunch of prisoners fighting and beating up some guards while the Warden is watching. What happens? The Warden gives them a stern talking to. He might punish them next time.<br /><br />There are a lot of moments in this movie that are good for laughs. However, Nia Peeples looks pretty good, and Ja Rule tries to be an action hero. Lots of fun watching the prisoners all "do the right thing" and get armed so that they can free the Supreme Court Justice from her captors. Regardless of how bad Half Past Dead may be, when you watch it keep in mind that it is easily the best movie that Steven Segal has starred in since Under Siege in 1992.
Seagal fans beware- He does no action scenes until almost an hour into this mess. Instead, Seagal RUNS AWAY from numerous fights, letting Ja Rule convincingly lose every battle. Actually, Ja Rule could be an up and coming action star, but Hollywood needs to let him at least hit puberty (which should happen in a few more years...) Also, what sort of commando/terrorist wears a bare-midriff outfit? The chick in this atrocity looks like a backup singer for Christina Aguilera.Back to Seagal- When he finally does cut loose, it's his stunt double (HEAVILY PADDED to resemble the bloated Seagal) doing a lot of the work & taking the falls. I don't remember any aikido, either. It's just your standard kicks & punches you'd see in any straight-to-video martial arts turkey. Not even "so-bad-it's-funny", either. Just plain dull...
I really tried to like this film about a doctor who has the possibility of a new life with a young woman if he can comes to terms with the death of his wife. I suppose this was to play like a quirky light romantic comedy but the theme is a little uncomfortable for me.<br /><br />But putting that aside, I found the dialog was too much like a stage play despite being based on a novel and also,the mediocre acting was embarrassing to watch especially by the young lead Vincent Spano.<br /><br />I have been sort of trying to catch up on all the eighties movies I missed during that decade. It has been my pet peeve that eighties nostalgia buffs seem to focus on the same core canon of films usually featuring the brat pack actors and actresses and neglecting the other films like Creator that have fallen through the cracks. But in the case of this feature I have to say I can understand it. Not all of these eighties films were magical and Creator is proof of this.
This movie is at times a wild 80s college sex comedy, others a sweet romantic one... Then it has moments of serious drama and then sprinkles in dashes of science fiction... It is so uneven its almost ridiculous.<br /><br />But I would hardly rank it as one of the worst films I've ever seen except of course for the fact that they casted Peter O'Toole.<br /><br />There is absolutely nothing for him to work with here. Poor dialog, poor performances to work off of, poor everything... And yet he's fantastic... There is not one good thing about his part and yet he makes it work if only on pure charm alone.<br /><br />The fact that he was so able to achieve so much with so little shines a spotlight on how greatly everyone else in this film failed, making it seem even worse than I suppose it actually is...<br /><br />If any other actor was in O'Toole's role, I would have forgotten this movie as crap and never thought of it again, but a fine performance by Peter O'Toole despite all odds ensures that I'll remember this film for a long time to come... If only as a film that, maybe, could have been good if anyone involved in it was nearly half as good as Peter O'Toole.
This movie was disappointing. After 15 years, when it was brought back to mind from reviewing some info about Mariel Hemingway, all the regrets I felt about the movie came rolling back. While I remember Peter O'Toole, I was entirely oblivious to the fact that the female "lead" (okay, - she was little more than an object for discussion in the storyline) was Ms. Hemingway. I saw this movie back in the days when I wrote movie reviews, and warned people off it, as the stories just didn't work, and fifteen years of my subconscious trying to sort things out still hasn't made sense of the flow of the ideas.<br /><br />Part of this may have to do with the fact that it looked like, after the original movie (whatever it was about) was filmed, an editor came in and tried to piece together something out of it. I don't know if this had been a project of a previous studio boss, and so was sabotaged to discredit him or her by the successor, or this was a disaster from the original screenplay that attempts to salvage were unsuccessful. The theatrical version just didn't work.
I thought the this film had an interesting name and just might have proved thought provoking, but was I wrong. This film was boring, especially in the beginning and the middle parts. I cannot comment on the ending because I just couldn't stand watching the whole film. The premise of signing a student researcher just because he walks into your lab makes no sense. This student had an interesting type of moving robot in his apartment and sadly enough this non living thing is more interesting than the characters in this film. So if you are having trouble with sleep then I recommend that you rent this film.
What I wouldn't do to give this film a re-write. Extra disappointing due to the great beginning, Solo Dios Sabe degenerates into a mess of superstitious bull after the halfway point and ends on a note so ludicrous, soppy and melodramatic I couldn't believe I was watching the same movie I started with. The film had numerous elements in its favor, such as chemistry between Diego Luna and Alice Braga so palpable I thought the screen would start sparking, a great soundtrack, and beautiful locations. Instead of ending with the heavy-handed religious mumbo jumbo, the film should have kept the focus on being a frothy road movie with maybe some undertones about fate and superstition vs. logic peppered through. I understand the director's entire intent with the film was to make it about religion, but the fact is that it just didn't work, and he threw away so much great stuff from the beginning by doing so.
THE worst movie I've ever seen, and I've seen allot. Acting is horrible, plot is awful, idea is terrible, and no research was done what's so ever! Ok, I admit, `Air Bud' was a pretty good movie, but not `Soccer Dog'. This "dog" is smaller than my cat! How can he possibly play soccer? Even for 10 years old kids it won't be a problem to kick the ball hard enough to brake the stupid dog in half! It's horrible, don't watch this movie.
OK, we were going along with the stereotypical bad orphanage experience and explaining to our son, adopted from Russia, that this was over-the-top acting and dramatization, so we could get to the dog playing soccer (since he plays soccer). But the last scene, in which the dog goes back to his original owner put my son over the edge and he cried for 15-20 minutes, "he's been replaced!!!!" This from an elementary child. I DO NOT recommend this movie to any family that has an adopted child; it displays adoption, orphanages and adults badly--and in the end, even though they win the game--the dog that the boy bonded with has to leave--and this is too much. PLEASE be wary if you have any adopted children, and beware families with biological children, because the impression of children who are adopted is not positive and paints a stereotype that is unhealthy and nasty. (The dog is cute, but not enough to save our family's reaction to this movie....)
Even my five year old was bored.<br /><br />Very predictable, and overacted. This movie couldn't make up it's mind as to whether it was slapstick, or wry commentary on the state of "pee -wee" sports.<br /><br />Characters were underdeveloped, could have done more with the connection between father and son both coming from an orphanage.<br /><br />Did not like the reference regarding the goalie slipping the laxative to his teammate...very mean spirited for a kid's movie.<br /><br />Typical "Mafia" behavior was boring and stereotypical.<br /><br />The dog, however, was so darn cute!!!!
This stinker is in mystifyingly frequent rotation on one channel here, and I've found myself watching in horror again and again. The script is like something one would come up with friends over several too many drinks, and the production values match admirably.<br /><br />It's meant to be a children's movie, but features a grotesque (and poorly explained) kidnapping scene; the star dog has a lack of star quality equaled only by the other actors; and it in general has the look of being filmed in someone's backyard (the climactic soccer game features no more than three dozen extras sadly cheering in the background).<br /><br />It even all wraps up with a budget-ran-out voice-over sequence when the story, to one's relief, simply stops. The high-raters here must be either the producers - or the majority of the extras from the soccer game!
A blatant rip-off of "Air Bud", this movie is REALLY about parents worrying too much about parenting. All the foibles of the characters (eg; adult coaches who dont know the game) are taken to the extreme- so much so that they are totally unbelievable, not funny.<br /><br />There is no semblance of reality here, folks and you'll not develop sympathy for ANY of the characters.<br /><br />The best thing about the movie is the good looking kits (uniforms) of the opposing team in the first game the dog plays. Perhaps chosen because the setting is supposedly near Arlington Heights, IL, the home of the Columbus Crew's franchise player, Brian McBride.
What can be said about a movie about a cross dressing gangster? Not that much. With the average indie style film-making, this film has the timing all wrong. Editing is just awful. As far as the gangster story, it might have been pulled off if the gangsters didn't lack character. Everyone just seemed to be there for some sort of punch line. None of which were funny. The usual suspects in this film are the hooker with the heart of gold, the dying mafia father that wishes his son would make his business legit, the best friend with the "zany" one-liners. But the main character, the gangster that likes to dress up like a girl. Only his motivation for dressing up like a girl is that he got mugged by a woman? Weird. The ending of the movie had to be the nail in the coffin. It was anti-climatic to say the least. I mean I understand how indie filmmakers don't have the equipment for a proper shot out, but they might as well been using water guns. Overall, I would say the hype leading up to it, (red carpet premiere in Vancouver), it was a disappointment.
There are some great Canadian films. There are some crappy ones. Last night, I watched one of the crappy ones. It wasn't the typical Canadian film where it tried to be so different by being arty. This film tried to be some type of Hollywood gangster movie. It was terrible.<br /><br />From the beginning I had a sense that it would be a bad movie. It had some of the cheesiest dialouge a movie can have. There was this voice over for one scene and then it never returned. That always bugs me, when filmmakers just use voice over when they can't think of another creative way to tell a story.<br /><br />I know being in the Canadian film industry, I should support my fellow brothers, but this movie is junk. The premise is something like a Soprano's episode only not realistic. Some banker's mafia boss dad is on his death bed and orders the son to make the business legit. Not so original. And the workers complain about it, but they just take the fact that they will soon be out of jobs like nothing. To make it legit they use extortion. Irony. But not the good kind. Then some freak show girl who had an awful Elvis wig and birthmark that covered half of her face robs the main character and kinda rapes him. Anyways, this guy for whatever reason now likes to dress up as girls. Then this banker hooks up with a hooker, when he has a beautiful future wife at home. But he falls for the hooker because the hooker dresses like a man and puts make-up on him. She blackmails him with some photos of him wearing bra and panties. Yet, he still loves her. He also has no reason to leave his fiancé, but he does in order to be with the hooker.<br /><br />For a movie about organize crime and sexual fetish, there was neither action nor sex. It was like a late night Cinemax porn movie without the good stuff. The would-be sex scenes weren't hot or sexy. It was all too amateurish. The movie had nothing going for it, just the lame plot.<br /><br />I don't think it was the actor's fault. I think they had a terrible script to work with. What stuck out the most was the ridiculous characters. The bad guy's name was Uncle Bunny or something. But the name wasn't important. It was they all were cliché. The dialouge was laughable throughout the movie, and fellow movie-goers laughed aloud at some of the movies "serious" moments. Then, the worst of it all. It had to be the cheapest ending. If you can ever remember playing shoot out as a kid with either imaginary guns or toy guns. That was basically the ending of the movie. But I was more than happy it ended, and I had to warn my fellow Canadians to not waste time or money watching this film.
Everyone knows that late night movies aren't Oscar contenders. Fine. I mean I'll admit that I was a bit tipsy and bored and figured I'd get to some skin-a-max. It's pretty bad when the info on the TV guide channel makes fun of the movie in the description. It even gave it half a star. To be fair, I did sit throw the whole thing cause man it was soooooooooo bad. I couldn't stop laughing. I mean the words coming out of these people mouth and how they were trying to be serious. Most of the time I think the people on the screen were trying their hardest to not to laugh. In fact I think in one scene they did laugh. Anyways the movie didn't make sense. It was like that one Sopranos episode with the fat gay guy. Only the Sopranos is great show. But it was terrible, I mean, no nudity, just sex scenes out of the 90's. You know the kind that use shadows and silhouettes instead of flesh. I gave it a two cause this flick makes for a good drinking game movie. I mean with all the cheese, it helps to get the wine out. If its late at night, and all that is on TV is this and that Tony Little guy and his exercise bike, then I suggest Tony Little.
In a world full of films -- like "You Got Served" -- that blow your mind with its vast amounts of errors, you'd never figure that there would be worse films... until now. Ron Hall's "Vampire Assassins" does more than cheese you off. It KNOWS that you are mad at it. First: there are no assassins in this movie. In fact, there's only one good guy fighting in the whole movie. Second: The location... is basically one location: some jackass's house (or basement. It's up to you.). Third: The special effects (bluntly stated) can kiss my ass. Fourth: The acting beats "Plan 9 from Outer Space" in the worst-acting-ever category. Ron Hall can't act to save his life. Finally (and definitely not the smallest problem): THE EDITING. The person who edited this film better hope that I never find him. The cuts and shots are HORRENDOUS!!!! Other issues: Lighting (virtually none), the fact that the guy on the cover isn't even in the movie, and the fact that this film exists.<br /><br />To sum this film up, let us just say that I tortured the DVD copy before taking it back to Hollywood Video (don't worry! I used the MVP membership, so it was free!). NEVER SEE THIS FILM!!!!
Ron Hall pulls a triple threat as he writes, directs and stars in 'Vampire Assassins'. Derek Washington (Hall) is your clichéd cop-on-a-mission who finds himself up to his neck in some nasty vampire action. Tossing away his badge he searches for the last vampire slayer (no not Buffy!) to take back the streets and vanquish the bloodsuckers back to the grave.<br /><br />'Vampire Assassins' is a horrible film. It rips off so many other films (can you say Blade?) that it never even attempts to establish it's own identity. The script is non existent. The action is horrible. Who says a micro-budget stimulates creativity? There is nothing even remotely interesting here. You will get nothing out of this except a headache. Stay away at all costs.
I've spent a year deployed in Iraq, and amongst the hundreds of movies I've seen here was this little gem called Vampire Assassin. Judging from the cover (African-American with corn-rows with a curved blade, leather coat and the demeanor of a badass), I expected a Blade rip-off. Fair enough.<br /><br />So I pop it in and observed a borderlined overweight African-American with no blade, no cornrows and, well, nothing at all really except...I don't know. If you've read any of these other reviews, you get the gist of the flick. It sucks. Bad. Really bad.<br /><br />I don't know if it was the Highlander-esquire lightning after killing an immortal vampire, or the karate-kick sound effects for camera zooms, or the twenty dollar budget on props, or the "ok, we have 90 minutes to film this before we're caught filming in a Johnson & Johnson parking lot," or the martial arts that is as exciting and fast-paced as two old people having sex, or the 7th grade acting talent, or the eccentric Asian Master who's either senial or on acid, or what, but the movie manages to force you to question your existence. And that's awesome.<br /><br />Not many movies can be so bad that your head will explode like Scanners. If you heckle (or MST3K) with your friends, this is the flick for you. I've seen it three times already, and I think it might've caused permanent damage on my psyche. If you STILL don't have any clue as to the quality of the film, people were trying to give it away for free and no one would take it. Not even by force.<br /><br />Long story short, watch it. Either as masochistic pleasure or punishment. It will rock your skull (and for the most part, for all the wrong reasons).
A dark, yet humorous tale involving a cop who has a first hand experience with vampires and decides he must quit his job to pursue these evil beings.Most of the film contained questionable acting,plot, props, and filming. The fight scenes were as hokey as a middle schooler's rendition of a WWII battle. The lines delivered were spoken as if the actors had no motivation for being there. The props were bad because they did not even look like they could function in the slightest amount. the majority of the film appeared to be shot in someones basement (in some scenes you could see the rafters overhead in a scene that was not supposed to look like that of a basement). The plot had no motivation to move forward or go backwards, it just appeared to stand still at times with no reason for some characters actions. I felt at times the sounds effects were out of place for this horror type genre and more of a cartoon series. It is similar to the movie Blade, in that he is an African American vampire hunter. However, that is where all similarities end, and the movie looks closer to a Saturday Night Live spoof.
I rented this movie expecting it to suck, and it didn't let me down. I rented it with some friends as a joke. But, what we got was worse than anyone could ever imagine.<br /><br />It starts off sucking before you even take it out of the box. It looks like a Blade rip-off and the guy on the cover is nowhere to be found in the movie. Its called vampire Assassin, but isn't an assassin someone who kills for hire? Well this guy kills the of his own volition, so that doesn't make him an assassin.<br /><br />Then, when you actually put the disk in it gets worst. First off the menu animation is lame. But, when you actually start the movie every thing from the set design to the lighting (or lack thereof) is terrible. You know a movie is bad when the credits even suck. The acting is Laughable. The action is childish. The writing is elementary. And the directing is the worst>
It's 2005, my friends...a time of amazing special effects and an age of technology. So, why can't we see a movie that's a little more thought out than this cheesy low-budget film. I've seen a lot of low-budget movies that rock my socks off, but this one...it's almost as if it's trying to be horrible. Just...don't...watch it. I can look past lack of special effects and computer generated scenes if the acting itself was at least good. I feel like a small child produced this entire movie. There's not even an original plot line. Vampire Assassins, in itself is one big plot hole with an attempt to mock itself. Can someone tell me if, perhaps, this was designed as a comedy movie and I just didn't know it? It makes me wonder, what does the sequel have in store for us who so loved the first installment?
i don't really know where to start here.just imagine a movie that is so bad in every way from the acting to the props to the story that it makes you angry. This is one of the worst movies that i have ever seen and that is saying a lot because i have seen some bad ones. when i saw this movie i knew it was a blade knock off, but i thought that hey its got kung fu and vampires, a combination that i thought could not fail. That is until i popped this into my DVD player. How Ron hall managed to mess up something as cool as vampires and martial arts is beyond me. first the acting. i didn't expect to much here to begin with because its an action movie and a B one at that, but the acting here is so bad i couldn't help but be bothered by it. expressions and vocal tones were way out of place, there was absolutely no emotion in almost the entire film and when there was it was so laughable it thought i was watching Mad TV.for example that girly man scream Derek lets out when he has to kill master kao who should have never been born in the first place. all in all I've seen better acting at elementary school plays.then there is the action. not even sub par compared to the things that have been done in action cinema as of late. but still the action was not a total let down as Ron hall does seem to posses some martial arts skills. but even the skill he does have is over shadowed by the stupid things he does, for instance the part of the movie where he starts spinning and then the camera changes. i almost ripped a pillow in half.and the fight scene where his prison buddy fights off vampires by swinging his arms at them. WOW.OR how about the part in the jail where Derek all of a sudden knows magic and can preform chants that make tap water holy water. and as far as the props go. the guns look like walmart toys, the teeth were stolen from Halloween costumes, and words cant describe how bad the CG graphics are. i could go on for hours about all the things wrong with this movie and trust me this is just the tip of the iceberg. its only getting a 2 because it made me laugh. even though i was laughing at how badly the movie was done, a laugh is a laugh. i would say steer clear of vampire assassin unless you want to laugh at a horrible movie or are planning on getting tortured for long periods of time and want to practice
This movie actually almost made me cry.<br /><br />For starters the fake teeth. Then you spot a nice plastic or drawn set. To make it even more boring all the action is followed by a bright light flash. Then the talking: sound levels are so different, sometimes too hard, then too soft, never exactly good like in good movies. Also, it echoes so much that i think they had one microphone on the entire set. And to make matters worse, EVER heard of stereo? If the camera switches, the sound always stays centered. The actors talk like they are reading from a board staged behind the camera. And the zooming into another scene, how terrible childish.<br /><br />The music is so badly chosen that it never adds something. It only destroys any accidentally created excitement.<br /><br />To finish it up, the fighting scenes... my 3 year old niece would make a better fighting scene.<br /><br />This movie is not even good for a laugh, it's just that bad...
Do NOT avoid this movie. Simply because it is so bad that it is absolutely hilarious. It possibly is the worst movie I have ever seen but it was so bad that my friends and I were able to laugh at every single moment of this film. At times we actually debated whether it was this bad on purpose but we're pretty sure that it is not. Characters appear out of nowhere as if they have already been established, the scenery changes mid scene to this warehouse constantly, and the Vampire Assassin ends up having around 6 climactic fights with enemies before finally getting to the head vampire. You will also be able to enjoy the one and only face of the Vampire Assassin as he never changes his expression despite his obvious attempts to. So if you want to watch a movie that will make you laugh histerically then I suggest this one as long as you go in with an open mind. Don't expect a good movie, expect the worst... and it will be even worse than that. I seriously want to buy this movie and place it atop my comedy movie selection. Right next to Anchorman.
As I said, sometimes low budget is good. You get to see a good movie without a lot of the extra BS that can hide an otherwise piece of crap. Well...this was that piece of crap. If anything, I thought it had humor, unfortunately the humor was unintentional. The only half-witted acting came from Bill Smith and his part was cut out (that's a joke). There was never a Bill Smith, nor was there anyone cast who could act. Even Gerald Okamura sucked, and he's been cast in nearly 40 movies. The fight scenes were comical and made me feel like I could kick all their $%#@#$. The sound was horrible, as if all sound was recorded on the set. My 10 year old could have written a better script...BTW, my 10 year old fell asleep...no kidding. I give a B+ to editing for cutting the movie to only 90 minutes...60 minutes would have been an A+.
I hope the people who made this movies read these comments. The choreography was horrid, the plot was nill, and the actors where so low budget power rangers appears 5 star to this junk.<br /><br />The fight scenes where so slow you could actually see the actors waiting for each other to perform the next move. Camera cut-aways and poor lighting could not cover up the cheap effects. The lightning was just plain stupid. The weapons looked like something out of a final fantasy game, and the dual bow and arrow was just dull as anything I have ever seen.<br /><br />Next movie you decide to make try investing in some wireless mics, better script and try actually spending some time on your stunts.<br /><br />Honestly there are shows on t.v. that play ever night and are thrown together in a few hours that look better than this one.<br /><br />Stick to martial arts (unless its as poor as your acting) then take up quilting.
This movie has got to go down in the history of bad movies as the worst one I've ever seen. It wasn't even a bad b movie...I would have rated it at as a z. The special effects were ridiculous...err if you could even call them special effects. I think the reviewer before hit the nail on the head...it was the box that sold the movie, while the cover art was great and the synopsis intriguing (which both is why I rented it) it was a waste of not only time but money as well. I didn't last long. I took it back to the store and switched it out for another movie I believe my local video store took it off the shelf because they had SOOOO many complaints about this horrible movie. My 6 year old could have done a better job filming it/writing the script!
This movie was pathetically awful. The sound was terrible, the action was ridiculous and the effects were nauseating. If you have a life don't see this movie, cause you will want to kill yourself. This movie totally rips off Blade (which is undoubtedly a really good movie...or trilogy I should say).<br /><br />I don't care who the actors are, this movie is just horrible. I watched 10 minutes of it and had to come to my computer and comment on how absolutely just bad this movie is. I actually don't know why my family is still watching it...oh wait, yes I do. They are laughing almost non-stop at the stupid action, dialogue and acting.
OK, normally I am fascinated by Z movies. Some of the actors, directors, writers, etc. in those movies have a shred of talent. They want to get that talent out so unfortunately for them, they have to associate with crappy people to make their films. But some Z films do have at least one thing that may be noteworthy about them.<br /><br />Not here.<br /><br />As soon as I saw it I thought...'Wow, a Blade knock-off.' Believe me, if this movie could have lived up to that label that would have made it a better movie.<br /><br />Instead I was subjected to some of the most horrible acting I have ever seen in my life. Master Kao was bad, so bad that I believe some of my neurons in my brain exploded trying to comprehend his acting. I am still trying to make sense of his enunciation and why he would raise his voice in speaking certain words...to add dramatic effect I'm sure...but it was for no apparent reason. Simply mind boggling.<br /><br />Oh and then there is the black guy in the purple cape near the end of the movie. Purple cape guy fights the hero for about 30 seconds, but he is so bad that it actually looked like he was scared of fighting.<br /><br />The main hero and the main villain did decent jobs. The main hero (Derek Washington) seemed like he actually knew martial arts.
If you came here, it's because you've already seen this film and were curious what others had to say about it.<br /><br />I feel for you, I *really* do. And I profusely apologize as a Canadian (because that's what we do) that this film ever had to cross your eyes, if only for a moment. I hear there is no cure for the retinal bleeding reported out of every dozen cases.<br /><br />I, like everyone else, rented this movie believing it to be some stupid B-movie ripoff of Blade. I thought, "sure I could use a good laugh at a stupid movie." I'll give the creators of this film ONE positive comment about their 'creation': Thanks for removing the REC XX/XX/XX from the bottom right-hand corner of the screen. I can see how that would have been a distraction from seeing this movie.<br /><br />And for the record, I *saw* the movie, but did not watch it. The dialogue was incoherent and most of the scenes took place in my grandmother's trailer, I swear to God.<br /><br />You know what? I'm not writing anymore about this. It's just too painful.
So, this is the WORST movie you will probably ever see. It's up there with "Crossbones" and "Southern Comfort", but if your a bad movie fan like I am, this atrocity of a film will be the most fun you've had in years. WHY does the camera make old-school kung fu noises when it zooms? WHY does that random guy stuff a nascar commemorative plate in his bag? And who is he anyway? WHY do the vampires shoot lightning after they die? What is this? Highlander? Dracula McCloud? Who cares! Just laugh at it. This movie has no continuity, no plot, no anything, really. Ron Hall's range of emotions are always off. He looks happy when he should be sad, angry when he should be confused. The rest of the cast couldn't act their way out of a paper bag. The special ("Short bus" kinda special) effects are randomly placed, and never needed. Most scenes are lit with a desk lamp, if they are lit at all. Mel Novak has the AUDACITY to look off-camera for his line, and it's not even edited out. They just keep on filming. In fact, half of this movie isn't even on film at all. It's 1/2 film, 1/2 sony hand-cam. For most of the film it seems that they left their boom mike at home. This movie doesn't just have a few plot holes, it's a mine field of confusion and mental pain! But OH do I love it! Thank you Ron Hall, for this cinematic abomination. I went out and bought it, cause it's just so damn funny. ($1.99 on Amazon, and I had it rush delivered!)<br /><br />"I have weapons! I have weapons! I have WEAPONS!"
I don't normally give movies a "1." Although I am a HEARTLESS critic, I try to find anything that makes the movie worthwhile (that is to say, watchable). The main thing I look for is a coherent plot. If it has that alone, I can watch it! Let me start by saying, this doesn't even deserve to be called a movie, this is more like an elementary school project...gone horribly wrong! And I've seen every Sci-Fi movie special that was ever made.<br /><br />Many times I've read professional critic reviews that say crap like "This played like a Made-for-TV...(etc, etc)" and I kept saying "Oh come on, I wish they'd think of a REAL criticism." Well this is worse...much worse! This is truly the worst "thing" I've seen that's lasted the length of a movie (if I DID consider it a movie it would be my new worst movie of all time), and I've seen every movie Uwe Boll made! This movie makes Uwe Boll look like Francis Ford Coppola! :) I'd rather watch Jaws the Revenge all day then see this one more time...even 5 minutes of it...there was one good scene and it was the END! ;-P OK enough bashing the works of Ron Hall, now for the serious criticism.<br /><br />The script is poorly written, the dialog is delivered in a wooden manner, the effects are cheesier than those in a Power Rangers show, and don't even get me started on the screen zoom-in transitions (ugh). Someone actually watched this thing, edited it, and then said, "ok release it"? I would have rather burned this than release it! In closing all I can say is "Thank goodness DVD and VHS players have a Stop and Eject feature!" My advice...don't rent it, if you do, you'll be glad you have stop and eject too! :)
A friend of mine showed me this film yesterday, and I was really amazed that someone could make a movie this terrible! <br /><br />Mix the most awful, clichéd dialog, with the most wooden acting you've ever seen, with the cheesiest special effects know to man, and you get this magnificent beast!<br /><br />'Vampire Assassins' is funnier than most comedies I've seen, it really is awful! <br /><br />I was in stitches during the scene where the ex cop/vampire assassin character is having coffee with the internet journalist. Just watch it and you'll see what I mean!<br /><br />I honestly can't believe that someone made this with serious intentions.<br /><br />Tragic, but a really good laugh. It has to be seen to be believed.
I wasn't able to last ten minutes on the this terrible film. In and age of DV cameras, it looks to have been shot on VHS without aid of any color correction or microphone.<br /><br />As a filmmaker myself, I know the constraints of indy film-making and, even keeping those things in mind, I'm amazed films can be made this poorly.<br /><br />The only praise I can offer is that this film got distribution as I've seen considerably better films still seeking modest domestic or international release. I'm guessing the box is what sold it...it does have good box art, but it all goes downhill from there.<br /><br />Side note: It seems the director has 11 friends since no one on the this planet would give this film a "10".
Incredibly, "Vampire Assassin" is significantly worse than such atrocities as "Tequila Body Shots" and "Zombie Nation" - and those movies are TERRIBLE. Writer/director/star Ron Hall is devoid of both charisma and acting ability, and is also clearly incapable of the most basic directorial concepts. Possibly the worst camera-work, editing, lighting, sound, visual effects, music and fight choreography I have ever seen in a movie. Rarely do two shots cut together, nor can you see much in the beyond-dim lighting. The terrible dialogue is spoken extremely slowly by a supremely untalented cast, stretching the movie to a near-deadly 87 minutes. This is a truly laughable embarrassment for everyone involved. Obviously, aficionados of terrible film-making will want to see this, but it's very hard to sit through no matter how experienced a bad-movie viewer you are. The fact that Ron Hall thought this was actually releasable is astounding. If you are a movie director, and you actually think it's OK for the opening credits of your movie to include a few frames of the words SLUG before the title appears, left over from your rough edit - and you apparently can't muster the energy to edit those frames out - then your standards are obviously so low as to be insulting. I am astounded that Lions Gate/Maple agreed to release this movie on DVD. In spite of Rudy Ray Moore's very brief cameo, this movie is a work of supreme self-indulgence on Ron Hall's part - he clearly thinks he is a formidable actor, and must also believe he possesses superior writing and directing skills - but the movie is so unbelievably inept that it's hard to believe he'd actually want people to see it for fear of being brutally excoriated like I'm doing right now. A jaw-dropping, insanely terrible movie. I'm not kidding.
I watched this as part of a vampire movie marathon with research intent, otherwise there is no way I'd have watched it all the way through. The first scene wherein a bunch of vampires in very bad wigs seemingly get electrocuted by various slow moving weapons wielded by an even slower moving Van Helsing wannabe... in black and white... with a voice over, sets the pace for the entire rest of the film. The fight scenes look ridiculous, the dialouge would be funny if the acting wasn't so bad, what passes for plot doesn't make sense, and the production values bite (from the pleather knock off of Spike's coat worn by the hero to the cheesy cheap magician's cape their lead vamp swooshes around).<br /><br />I've seen some bad movies (check out The Magic Sword with B. Rathbone, or the Raven with a very young Jack N.), but this one gets my vote for worst of all times.
Low-budget murder mystery about a Public Defender trying to clear his client of a murder the man had been convicted of 12 years previously. Complicating things is the fact that he escaped custody after his conviction, but the PD believes the man to be innocent of the murder and works to find the real killer. Gig Young as the PD is okay, and James Anderson as the convicted killer is actually pretty good, but the picture as a whole just rambles along with little suspense, and despite some good character actors in the cast, the performances are generally below par. Director George Archainbaud was apparently more at home making westerns--he was churning out Gene Autry's TV series at Columbia at around this time--but even if he had tried to inject any liveliness into this picture, the hack script would have defeated his attempts. Average at best, the film climaxes with a courtroom scene that's straight out of an episode of "Perry Mason" and is just as predictable.
Some people thought this was funny because they loved the political issues discussed in this piece. I, however, am so tired of the state of the two party system in our country that I can't stomach propaganda from either side. I was hoping for a horror show, but got "cute" zombies and partisan bull crap. I watch my horror films to be scared. This didn't even attempt to be scary. Also, this doesn't have the wit of Romero in his political/cultural satire laced in his movies...this was a blatant, no-imagination story that was hard for me to stomach (for the wrong reasons). On the bright side, if you hate Bush...you'll love this (I'm not condoning hate or Bush with this statement)
I disagree 100% with the reviewer who disagreed 100% with the reviewer who gave this short movie an "F" grade. Cashing in heavily on political propaganda only obscures Joe Dante's lack of ability to pull another Howling out of his bag of tricks. The Masters of Horror series was a phenomenal collection of truly horrifying tales, save for this episode.<br /><br />Despite gaining acclaim from those who wish to promote it's political slant, "Homecoming" is the least effective episode of MOH season one. Unlike the rest of the series, Dante's entry is a parody of the genre, falling short of both horror and humor in it's ham-fisted delivery of a hackneyed political point.<br /><br />Dante can really only be blamed for pulling this stinker off the shelf, as it wasn't his creation. The zombie sub-genre is very popular this decade, and among the crop of predictable George Romero tributes and vacuous fantasies are a number of works designed to push political or (ir)religeous messages. Such works are not written by or intended for true horror fans. Maybe Dante really isn't a a Master of Horror, either. What has he been up to since The Howling, after all?<br /><br />If you want a lame anti-war zombie flick with a few pop culture references passed off as humor, Homecoming may be just your thing. If you are a horror fan looking for something Masterful, pick up... most any other episode of the series. My personal favorite was Dario Argento's "Jenifer," based loosely on a classic comic short by the team of Bruce Jones and Berni Wrightson -- truly creepy.
There are places for political commentary in film, but "Masters of Horror" is not one of them. I get enough of this stuff from Newsweek and every other editorial in the newspaper. Now I've got to watch this in horror movies? C'mon! All I wanted was a good zombie schlock film, not another "Bush is bad!" rant. If Joe Dante wants to express his politics, let him go on Air America. And if you must insist on making a "message" film, be a little more sly about it. This had all the insinuation of being slapped in the face with a dead fish.<br /><br />By the way Joe, do you really want the left-wing voting block to be associated with brain-dead zombies? Might want to think about that before making another political horror movie (God help us).
The last sentence of this review is a major spoiler.<br /><br />I have enjoyed Joe Dante's work since Piranha. He's done a great deal of different genre parodies that were both funny and honest.<br /><br />But this is pure crap. This is the kind of satire - in line with Thank You For Smoking - that is so literal and direct that it leaves nothing a) to be laughed at and b) to leave the audience to think about.<br /><br />It's a shame, because the plot and the material is so rich, timely and ripe for intelligent commentary.<br /><br />By the way, there is absolutely no reason for the main character to shoot the Ann Coulter character at the end of the film. It's just flat out ridiculous.
I was looking forward to Dante's contribution to this excellent horror anthology series from Showtime, but this was easily the worst of the bunch. It's really too bad. Part of this may be due to the poor, if odd, choice of source materials. Why Joe didn't just write an original, I have no idea. Instead, we get this soapbox episode where the "message" overwhelms the script, the characters, the staging, everything, and by the end I was just wondering whether it could get any worse, and I won't spoil it...but it ended up getting worse. What a stinker by such a talented creative team. Skip this one and buy the John Carpenter one instead. It manages to balance all of the elements: horror, humor, character, vision, and it's fun. Homecoming is about as fun as having a bear take a dump on you while you sleep.
Dear Mr Dante, <br /><br />Dude, seriously... the title of the show is "Masters of Horror". And be that as it may, it is supposed to be an opportunity to show of your horror chops, to show the world why you deserve to be called a "master" of the genre. Appearantly you misunderstood the exercise. Appearantly you thought it was your opportunity (or worse, your duty) to educate the American public on your political beliefs. And your attempt comes off as disgusting, overbearing, and above all preachy.<br /><br />The only reason ANYONE marked your short as a high score is because their political views match yours and they are the type of people that don't mind having that sort of politics shoved down their throat.<br /><br />I, on the other hand, don't give a damn what you believe, they believe, or I believe... I just want such obvious (not subtle) and unfunny (not satire) messages out of my horror. And while there were certainly other "Masters of Horror" that were big time disappointments or where I was just generally confused why that director (william malone?) would be considered a genre "master"... yours fails far beyond the rest for just missing the entire point of the series.<br /><br />So next time... can you please just keep your preachy politics to yourself?
I can appreciate satire that goes against my own views but it must be witty and well-placed. This film is...how can I possibly explain it. It does not make the slightest attempt at subtlety, much less intelligence. In fact, it's hardly even horror. Dead soldiers come to life but they're not interested in brains, only in voting booths. Why? Cue a never-ending stream of the most idiotic, banal, bloated windbag ravings of "bad president, bad conservatives, bad Republicans." What a self-indulgent, schmaltzy, cornball piece of hog manure this was.<br /><br />Even if they agree with the episode's "points," only the stupidest of liberals would say they enjoyed watching it. Then again, assigning a degree of stupidity to the crazed, angry, hostile, anti-social and anti-anything-halfway-normal liberal spectrum is a tall task in itself.<br /><br />Avoid like a liberal convention.
I had enjoyed the Masters of Horror Series until I came upon this infantile dung heap. <br /><br />This anti-Bush propaganda piece masquerading as a horror film comes off like an episode of the original Batman done by Michael Moore. Political satire should be clever, this however, pulls a ten on the simpleton scale with all the style and credibility of an L. Ron Hubbard film.<br /><br />In its campy, inane way, it accuses the Republicans of stealing elections, going to war for absolutely no reason and treating servicemen and women as mere cannon fodder. It even takes a swipe at the Second Amendment and religion. All that was missing was Caesar Romero as the President cackling in glee about how he orchestrated 9/11.<br /><br />I guess the ending was supposed to be the "we support our troops" moment, but I think they would be more offended than pleased with the entire endeavor.<br /><br />I'm sure the Hollywood elites are sitting in their Malbu mansions patting each other on the backs for this "pithy" work while the misinformed anti-war drones hail it as genius. <br /><br />Time to get fitted with new tinfoil hats kids.
---------SPOILER ALERT----------------------------<br /><br />This was the worst of the series, it is horror disguised as political satire and it is as subtle as a sledge hammer, not very scary and not very insightful. Did Micheal Moore have anything to do with this piece of Garbage.?<br /><br />I'm really sick of Hollywood using entertainment as a political campaign against George Bush and constantly repeating the same talking points over and over again. This movie wants to be DeathDream, but unlike that movie which subtly poignantly tackled the problems soldiers who came back from Vietnam by clever making the main character come back as a blood craving zombie and slowly built on this theme: it was a true horror film that was also good social commentary, because it didn't get sanctimonious, exploitave and preachy.<br /><br />I guess Joe Dante, thought this was trying to make a horror film to scare Republicans, conservatives and Libertarians and me being the last in that list found this film to be totally ridiculous, manipulative and exploitave all at the same time and I don't mean the good type of exploitative, that you often find in the " drive-in" type movies, I mean exploitative in the most sickening and vile manner: using the deaths of our soldiers as a manipulative political statement disguised as a horror film. <br /><br />This film assumes that all the soldiers who died in Iraq, would vote against a conservative president if they would come back to life as zombies, which is a flawed premise, because as I recall for the most part and going by George Romero's rules; zombies are mindless, flesh eating creatures, operating on pure impulse and even though the zombie Andy, in DeathDream could talk, he couldn't really hold a conversation and he was driven by his addiction to human blood. Okay, zombies are mindless creatures driven by impulse and not intellect and obviously they are dead, so why would dead people be allowed to vote in the first place? My interpretation of this film is that the only war a liberal democrat could win is by having mindless, dead people vote for him, I guess they meant to say the people that vote for presidents like George Bush are the mindless zombies, while the real mindless zombies, are actually the ones making the intellectually sounds decisions. Yeah, whatever. Dawn of the Dead tackled this idea much better, but user the idea of mindless consumerism. This film isn't Dawn of the Dead by any stretched of the imagination.<br /><br />The film addresses the issue while the soldiers are alive that a majority of them voted for a Bush like president, but after they die they would vote for a liberal anti-war democrat after they are zombies, who are normally considered brain dead creatures and laughably has them destruct after they vote.<br /><br />If you are gonna make a zombie movie Mr. Dante and invoke George Romero's name in it, you better have mindless zombies that like ripping people apart and eating their intestines, not zombies that vote. I also like how the zombies just go "evil" conservatives who support the war.<br /><br />If you want a good movie with social commentary skip this poorly made, preachy piece of junk and watch DeathDream instead.<br /><br />The worst of the Master of Horror Series hands down.
I disagree with Dante portraying the Democrat-supporting zombies as creatures with an average IQ of 23. I do believe their behaviour should reflect a lower IQ than that, something in the order of a Pelosi IQ... A single-digit figure, please.<br /><br />The MOH series is quite uneven, and this is the very worst episode. Dante, yet another mindless Hollywood liberal (or an apolitical nerd who sucks up to the Leftist establishment in order to re-kindle his pitiful career?), must have finally realized that his directorial pursuits had been stuck in a low gear for nearly two decades now, hence came up with this cringe-inducing, unsubtle, left-wing "satire" of the Bush administration, Republicans, and capitalism. Perhaps he felt he hadn't been overtly political before. He wouldn't exactly be the first no-talent to use asinine political propaganda to further his career, when all else fails. The maker of turds such as "Piranha", "The Howling", and "Matinee", Dante has been as useful a contributor to the horror genre as Adolf Hitler had been to world peace.<br /><br />TH uses lowest-common-denominator humour, cheap and predictable gags which even the bluest of all blue-collar union members wouldn't have trouble understanding. Or have you ever seen a clever, subtle, intelligent liberal satire? Populist manure has the basest of all messages, hence the language and manner in which this message is communicated has to be as simple and basic as Sean Penn's name. And what better people to send this message to the popcorn-munching sheep than a couple of cocaine-sniffing Tinseltown losers who've all fallen so low that they're forced to write for TV...<br /><br />I don't want political propaganda, either Left or Right, in any type of movie. But placing it in horror - of all genres - is a testament to the endless stupidity that reigns so supreme among Hollywood's anti-intelligentsia. So vapid was Dante that he even failed to notice the hilarious suggestion that zombies would vote Democrat... (That's what you get for finishing a movie school: not a source of wisdom or useful knowledge by any stretch of the imagination.)
Homecoming; what a HUGE disappointment!! After reading the plot summary (the dead coming back to vote - AGAINST George W. Bush!!!!!) I couldn't wait to see this. It started off interesting and it immediately caught my attention. Unfortunately, though, it slowly descended into a boring political satire that I didn't need to see (I can just watch some good old Aussie comedy for that!). There was pretty much only one or two scenes of horror and they weren't even that scary. I couldn't believe this came from Joe Dante, who could easily have pulled it off with an equal balance of thrills and satire.<br /><br />The worst episode so far.<br /><br />2/5.
The only reason I gave this episode of "Masters of Horror" a 2 instead of a 1 is because the two lead actors are good, and it wasn't shot on VHS. The story, the dialog, and the plot are ridiculous. <br /><br />Talking / Driving zombies who come back to vote and sway the political tide against the war! Give me a break! What next, zombies who come back to go skydiving? Maybe zombies who come back to host QVC shows? <br /><br />I never supported the Iraq war, but I do support the courage and sacrifice of the men and women of our armed forces; and "Homecoming" was disrespectful in that it mocks the TRUE horror of war. <br /><br />With zombies being mass produced in today's market... this is the SPAM of zombie-related entertainment. How "Homecoming" made it onto "Masters of Horror" is beyond me.
Okay, it features one lovely blink-and-you-miss-it-joke (when the dead are rising from their tombs, the names of the old time "horror" directors like Jacques Tournier and Jean Yarborough are featured in the tombstones) and the smashing of morally bankrupt Repu/con/rightist villains is on-target: whorish skanks preaching morals etc. But why these soldiers are anti-Republicans? Because they have gone to the war, most of them should be Republicans, right? Why they don't go to killing the enemies who killed them or something? Why they ALL want to vote against the Republicans? Why this story has made of a movie? Questions never answered...
Just a few words: it's a good thing George A Romero is still among us cause if he were dead, he would be forced to rise from grave to vote against the people who made this 'political satire' And the saddest thing of all is that I actually agree with these people's sentiments. Yeah there's zombies in it and they do have a good reason to come back from beyond the grave: to vote. Oh, and one of them finishes off The Doctor from Startrek Voyager. That's about as scary as it will get, people. If you are looking for a horror-movie I suggest you keep on looking. And if you are looking for a witty political satire you're also in the wrong place and not just because this series is called Masters of Horror. But don't let me hold you back: maybe you see something I've missed. Though chances are you'll be wasting your time with it just as I have. Let's just say I prefer my Zombie-movies with the zombies standing in frónt of the camera.
I think this movie lacks so much of substance, it is even not worth a discussion.<br /><br />In the first, the package is really disgusting. Especially the stereotype filming and photographing. Surely, Joe Dante's cinematic stile was appropriate and interesting in "Gremlins" and "Small Soldiers", I mean the imaginative and visual pretty story telling of a Spielberg-wunderkind (I really loved these movies), but in "Homecoming" it was a completely failure. Attacks of toy soldiers and hairy creatures is simply not comparable with zombie-invasions (dead, stinky, rotten beings trying to kill the living - without any logical reason, just because they hate them). <br /><br />Zombie flicks are characteristic in plain, direct, unconventional and brutal cinematography. Nothing to be seen in Joe Dante's debut. Another point is the annoying content: really stupid dialogs between the two main characters, a gruesome exploitation of the "elder brother dies and leaves the younger traumatized" and bad acting. And, by the way "Homecoming" is neither scary, nor gory - and even less entertaining. You see, it is even not a horror movie.<br /><br />Zombie movies in the decade of their birth - it the end of 60s/ start of the 70s - used to be revolutionary, provocative (espicially through its gruesome, explicit content) and of subtle social critic. THE ORIGINAL Zombie film was actually a midnight-movie named "Night of the Living Dead" (1968). This one was a low budget movie that covered so many controversial themes, it's hard to name them all: a visual style of Hitchcock/Raimi, the American lifestyle of the 70s, political aloofness, the upcoming breakthrough of the human rights of black people and the even more upcoming racism as a result on the side of the conservative Americans (remember the shooting of the black main character in the end of the movie).<br /><br />If you are interested in the creativity of midnight movies and want to learn more about the most important ones, I recommend you "Midnight Movies: From the Margin to the Mainstream ".<br /><br />So steer clear of "Homecoming" and even so of Romero's "Land of the Dead".
I can get over the political parody; even if this was SUPPOSE to be a "Masters of Horror" flick.<br /><br />But, what I can't get over is the blatant usage of our war heroes (and their sacrifice) as pawns in some washed up horror maker's political statement.<br /><br />To me it was purely insulting to desecrate Arlington, and our heroes. I have family at Arlington. The idea that this guy (Dante) would even portray the Arlington graves being disturbed just makes me want to puke.<br /><br />I'm done with Dante, and done with MOH.
" While sporadically engrossing (including a few effectively tender moments) and humorous, the sledgehammer-obvious satire 'Homecoming' hinges on comes off as forced and ultimately unfulfilling. With material like this, timing is everything (Michael Moore knew to release "Fahrenheit 9/11" before the 2004 elections), and the real tragedy of Dante's film is that it didn't come out 2 years ago, when its message would have carried an energy that would have energized the dissidents further. In 2006, mockery of the well-settled Bush Administration hardly seems as controversially compelling (or imperiled) as it did then."<br /><br />frankly anyone that could be convinced of anything by a ham fisted zombie flick has questionable intelligence. <br /><br />and if you didn't notice, michael moore didn't exactly help to defeat bush.<br /><br />there was nothing engrossing about this film. i just felt disgust at how blatant and frankly stupid the film was, it was painful to watch. if you are going to do something like this you need a bit of wit. sadly this has none. a poorly done satire actually has the opposite of its intended effect. as they say, with friends like these who needs enemies.
Detective Sergent Vince De Carlo (James Luisi) and company are on the case of a vicious Serial Killer/Rapist. Can Psychologist Carol (Susan Sullivan) help, or will she become the killer's next victim? And what is with the killer's hilarious White Dude Afro? <br /><br />Inspired by the case of serial killer Ted Bundy, "Killer's Delight" aka "The Dark Ride" is a rather dull Serial Killer tale from 1978 that doesn't offer much. If anything, it's more of a police procedural flick than a horror movie, as much of the violence occurs off camera. Sure, we get mutilated bodies, but we don't get a whole lot in the exploitation department-especially considering that they are from the aftermath, and not during the crime. Those hoping for the likes of "The Toolbox Murders" or "Maniac" will be very disappointed.<br /><br />Fortunately, there is an impressive scene involving a woman trying to escape the killer that get's the tone right, and is quite suspenseful to boot. Also, John Karlen is quite effective as the killer, though his hilarious hairstyle (white guys with Afros are always worth a chuckle) is more than a bit distracting.<br /><br />"The Dark Ride" is too routine and mediocre to really warrant a recommendation, as it lacks the proper exploitation elements, and is dated even by the standards of the time. Those looking for a better example should probably turn to "Don't Go In The House" and a few others instead, as this just doesn't cut it.
A killer (John Karlen) with a penchant for really bad disguises (afro wig on a white dude?) cruises around in his van looking for victims. Detective DeCarlo (James Luisi) is on the case and finds the killer rather easily by just hanging out by the local pool and looking for anyone looking weird (again, the afro wig comes into play). Tracking the killer to his home, DeCarlo decides to set up a risky sting involving a female police psychologist.<br /><br />Inspired by the crimes of Ted Bundy before he was caught, KILLER'S DELIGHT is a pretty predictable and cheap serial killer flick. Director Jeremy Hoenack has no idea how to pace a film or even make it suspenseful. He does know how to show lots of close ups of the killer wringing his hands though! The only thing this really has going for it is the captured 70s atmosphere (look out for the bathroom wallpaper). Well, that and a downbeat ending. The Media Blasters/Shriek Show DVD has lots of nice stuff though including an audio commentary by Hoenack and Karlen, plus video interviews, trailers and an alternate opening.
I rented this film out of the local video store one day, you know, the kind of movie with box art that just reaches out and tells you to 'rent me'. Well, if you see this dull film in your video store, walk on by. Fight the urge, rent a porno, because this film is BOOOoooorrrring. Despite the interesting opening, the film lapses into repetitive murders and a hardboiled cop stumbling around, dealing with the usual problems (wife, bastard of a boss, etc). Wondering if the fast forward function on your VCR works? Rent this film and put your concerns to the test.
There is no "fun" poking fun at the desperate plight of illegal immigrants! Or the desperate plight of head-shop owners, for that matter! That the richer-than-God Brian Glazer didn't see the irony of having the "heroes" do exactly what the villain does - rob honest, hardworking people of their life savings - doesn't surprise me! Hell, how do you think he got to be richer than God?!<br /><br />In this alleged satire about greed, these mental midgets reveal their own hypocrisy: the McMansions, the McToys, the McChildren, the McIllegals who are paid peanuts to take care of the McMansions, the McToys, and the McChildren! But the main problem (aside from the revolting bigotry) is the premise: as the former executive of a now-infamous company, Dick would be the Big Scalp for every corporate headhunter in the country! No soup kitchens for him! And, raking in high six-figures, you'd think he wouldn't be caught dead around a Gore/Lieberman poster!
Dick and Jane Harper (Jim Carrey, Téa Leoni) wind up on the unemployment line when the corporation Dick works for is caught in a corruption scandal, and after desperately and unsuccessfully trying to find jobs, the duo turns to crime in order to get them out of poverty.<br /><br />I've always been a fan of Jim Carrey. It's been awhile since he has made a straight up comedy. The last one was Bruce Almighty which was pretty good. He has proved that he can do serious dramas but comedy is his real element. Fun with Dick and Jane proves that he still has it. Even though the film was funny, it was still kind of disappointing. It wasn't as funny as I thought it would be. It's worth watching once though unlike most of Carrey's movies, it doesn't have a good repeat value. Part of the problem is the script. I was surprised the script was weak since this is the same guy that made The Forty Year Old Virgin. Some of the jokes just fall flat and other times they seem to be trying too hard. If Jim Carrey wasn't in it, than the film would have been a lot worse.<br /><br />Next to Jim Carrey is Téa Leoni. She's an okay actress but she just isn't very funny. She doesn't match up well with Carrey and she seemed to be phoning in her performance. They should have gone with someone else. The supporting cast includes Alec Baldwin, Richard Jenkins and Aaron Michael Jenkins. The latter plays Billy Harper and he actually gives a decent performance. He wasn't as annoying as most child stars are. Alec Baldwin was okay and Richard Jenkins tried too hard to be funny. To be honest, I'm a little bias here. The film altogether was pretty average but I liked it more because of Jim Carrey's performance. Fans of Jim Carrey should enjoy it but that's about it. In the end, Fun with Dick and Jane is a fun way to spend 90 minutes but its not very memorable. Rating 6/10
See Dick work.<br /><br />See Jane work.<br /><br />Dick and Jane are married.<br /><br />They are successful.<br /><br />They have a son. <br /><br />They have a nice house.<br /><br />They have a Latino housekeeper.<br /><br />The housekeeper teaches Spanish to the son.<br /><br />The son speaks Spanish.<br /><br />Ha-ha.<br /><br />See Dick get promoted.<br /><br />The pompous CEO is a crook.<br /><br />See Dick take the fall for the pompous CEO.<br /><br />Jane quits her job.<br /><br />Oops.<br /><br />See Dick and Jane out of work.<br /><br />Dick & Jane turn to crime.<br /><br />As a plot device, they decide to rob the CEO.<br /><br />See the robbery get botched.<br /><br />See Dick & Jane fund the company's pension plan with the money from the robbery.<br /><br />Yay. See the end credits.<br /><br />Okay, so you've got the plot. Beyond that, Dick and Jane careens from one scene to the next. One barely connecting with the last one or the next one. The whole thing is terribly episodic in nature. <br /><br />Jim Carrey didn't bother to bring his "A" material, he just seems bored and slightly ashamed of the whole thing. But heck, when you're getting paid $20 million plus, why bother. Tea Leoni is frantic. I guess I would be frantic not to get blamed for this flop.<br /><br />There's just something sort of off about Dick & Jane. Carrey and Leoni aren't funny and have little chemistry. The script isn't funny. And it's not well-plotted.<br /><br />But it may be bigger than that. The reality of Dick and Jane is, perhaps, a little too real. Maybe it's just not funny for people to lose their jobs in an Enron-like situation, when real-life still lacks a happy ending.
Jim Carrey is a particular brand of humour and I personally think he's a great actor (Eternal Sunshine, for example).<br /><br />However, this movie is presumably intended to be nothing more than a Jim Carrey vehicle, so be aware straight off that if you don't think his style of comedy is funny, you will sit stony-faced throughout this film, as it has NOTHING else to recommend it.<br /><br />Even if you do like Carrey's comedy, I am not sure you will find this film amusing. I went to see it on a Saturday night at 10:30pm and the audience was definitely ready to laugh. They giggled throughout the trailers, which weren't particularly funny, but when it came to the film, stony silence. I think it raised about five genuine laughs.<br /><br />The problem with the movie is it doesn't know what it wants to be. It can't make up its mind whether it's going for slapstick or serious. If it were stupid throughout it could be forgiven but (I'm guessing) it's also trying to make a point about the relationship between the two central characters.<br /><br />The strong point of the film is the hold-ups, and there was plenty of potential here. But these didn't start until about halfway through and remained largely undeveloped. Meanwhile, you have to sit through the first excruciating 40 minutes as the couple's life deteriorates.<br /><br />Four separate groups walked out of this film while I was there, and if my flatmate hadn't asked me to keep away from the house (his girlfriend having just returned from a month-long vacation!), I would have done the same. And in my entire 25 years of movie going, I have done that just once before.
Oh my lord, what were they thinking about with this one. It not only is frantically unfunny, but worse, a very good original was trashed in the bargain. Jane Fonda, believe it or not, actually turned in the performance of her life in that one. Even better than where she plays the whore in the other so called performance of her life. Maybe she is just flat good as a crook. Any other time, wow, what a waste of time. But she and Segal team up beautifully, so if you even remotely got a glimpse of anything funny in this baby, catch the anvil upon which it got beaten into a pulp from.<br /><br />Because very very very little of that one remains, to this ones horror. Nothing in this baby is remotely funny except for maybe a couple of moments when Dick and Jane are bulging lipped up as lepers and cant kiss..... and uhh........oh my lord, that's it? Well, looks like it. <br /><br />It truly is that bad a film.
A satire about greed and money, what? There is more greed in the intentions behind this fiasco than in any of the themes they pathetically try to make fun of. Jim Carrey's reign was certainly short lived. He is an unbearable presence on the screen. The insincerity of his portrayal is nothing short of creepy. He produced this, this "masterpiece" as well, so he can't blame anyone here. "The number one comedy in America" shout the desperate TV adds. Of course, Jim Carrey was suppose to guarantee full houses but the game is over. If I sound angry is because I am. I spent a sunny afternoon in California, plus, between tickets, parking, flat Cokes etc, almost 45 bucks on this thing, starring and produced by Mr Carry. Not anymore, do you hear? Not anymore.
What a terrible misfire. Not only the title but the idea is the same as that Jane Fonda, George Segal vehicle of a few decades ago. Why? I wonder, someone with the clout of Jim Carrey will, not only star, but also produce this tired, ugly, pointless excuse for a comedy. He could be taking comedy to a whole new level, instead, he goes for what he may assume is safe territory. Money, money, grosses, Christmas. But I'm sure this uncomfortable mess will have very short legs. I call it uncomfortable because that's how I felt. Aware as I was of the desperate attempts tried out on the screen to be funny. And failing, miserably. It could have been an outrageous, politically incorrect, mirror comedy of the post Enron days but no, that would be pointing too high, too risky. What a shame!
I thought the movie was sub-par. The acting was good but not great, the story was funny but did not come out that way. The director dropped the ball on this movie. It was not James (jim) or Tea. IMHO it was the music that killed it. There is a scene where things go down hill and Jonny Cash music is playing - man was that depressing (not funny) killed my mood. After that the movie could not recover. The deportation scene had potential funny situation, good acting good set up - I even smirked but the music again was unsuited to the scene. The music kept me from being pulled in to the movie.<br /><br />I say it had potential but was poorly done, i would even say rushed into final production. Kind of reminiscent of the prequel to the exorcist: the beginning. The theater release was good, I though so after watching it, but the movie release exorcist:dominion was a helluva lot better. Same story just different director. Same should be done here.
Part of the movie's low rating is the emphasis on unemployment and the suffering we have to endure. While this is good for drama, in comedy, we know the pains it need not be emphasized. As a result Fun with Dick and Jane is not an appropriate title and I was just plain disappointed failing to see any fun with Dick and Jane. It is true that this is a copy from the movie of the same name, but it fails on the execution and the title was not appropriate for the story line.<br /><br />However, if the movie was retitled to be "The Art of the Steal" and the emphasis on bungling slapstick comedy more takes on the robbery and the plans to steal (stupidly of course) would have given the movie a major boost. While, at the same time the movie should show the CEO at least in the beginning to be a crook, so it will be easier to project the pains to someone responsible early on and just leave it at that. The movie suffers a viewpoint issue and with that in mind, a comedy cannot work if the viewpoint is not done properly. A scheming husband character who is that of a Wile E. Coyote on the Road Runner would be more funny, including the slapstick comedy. But in this case, a steal instead of the capture of the bird with complicate contraptions would be extremely funny here. I mean you can make many of these and put them in the movie. But since the viewpoint was done wrongly, the robbery part had to be limited.<br /><br />You will enjoy the movie the first 15 minutes (during Jim Carrey's great rise), but to make the problems they had to faced to be more comical since it is a comedy, that is the part that needs a major overhaul. It can be funnier, if problems were faced more like John Travolta's Civil Action during the downfall. That movie was a serious one but the problems they faced were somewhat comical.
As a big Jim Carey fan I took my seat in the cinema with optimism. After all, Fun With Dick And Jane appeared to have all the raw materials to make this another Carey success. After the opening five minutes of good humour it seemed that this film would provide but it went wrong as soon as the plot kicked in. The idea that a charming, charismatic, top V.I.P employee could suddenly find himself turning up to work in his nearest supermarket is just so hard to believe and then to get your head round the fact that this guy has also become a master criminal is virtually impossible. The actors seem confused with the situation as well. Of course, the stereotypical, rich, uncaring head of the operation doesn't struggle one bit to pull off his one dimensional character but for Carey and others around him the job is a whole lot harder. One minute Dick is seen as a cocky office pro, obsessed with possessions, the next minute he's a bumbling mess who can barely string two words together, and ultimately he becomes a petty thief who is able, quite happily, to put a gun to another man's head. Jane is equally confused with her role and her character never really gets going. <br /><br />The idea behind the story is such a good one and it is a shame that this film has not managed to make it work. The odd moment of laugh out loud comedy can be found but it is usually more physical humour than anything witty or clever. Carey tries his best in parts to save a sinking ship but his comic talent can never flourish in a character that has so many gaping holes to his personality. Carey shines when he is presented with a strong, daring character (Man on the Moon, The Truman Show, Ace Ventura) which this film never presented him with, despite its best efforts.
Unfortunately this is not as good as any of the other films that Jim Carrey (producing and starring) and Brian Grazer have worked on together, but bits of it are definitely worth a look for laughs. Basically Dick Harper (Carrey) thinks he is being promoted to a better job. That's until the company of Dynocorpe sinks and closes down. Now Dick and his wife Jane (Téa Leoni), and their son of course, are in trouble with money. No matter what they try, they can't raise the kind of money they really want. So they start robbing a few places. And then they decide to rob the guy that set Dick up, his ex-boss Jack McAllister (Alec Baldwin). I think the most laughable bits are when Carrey's in the elevator singing "I Believe I Can Fly" and the bit when he ties up someone in a robbery, and is speaking with a voice changer (he sounds like a crap robot). Okay!
This movie was, perhaps, one of the most unoriginal and unfunny films I've seen in a long, long while. To be fair, I was not expecting some revolutionary comic formula, but I was anticipating to at least be entertained. With such low expectations, how could I manage to be disappointed? <br /><br />Jim Carrey, possibly my favorite actor (not sarcasm), did little more than tread water in this film. He seems to have temporarily returned to his funny-face-making roots and created a character no different from his Fletcher Reede from Liar Liar. This new character, Dick Harper (a.k.a. Fletcher 2.0) is a poorly rendered and miserably written whelp. If you find yourself smiling while watching this pitiful and essentially boring character, it is most likely because Carrey is trying so hard to bring a third dimension to him. Carrey's outlandish posing becomes humorously awkward--and, ultimately, sad.<br /><br />Tea Leoni as Jane does little more than provide the Abbott to Carrey's Costello. I typically find Tea Leoni refreshing and underused, but not in this case. Jane Harper could have been easily played by any actress from age thirty to forty-five, and it is in that non-specificity that the character of Jane becomes uninteresting to watch. She simply has no defining trait other than her following of the movie's general theme, which seems to be that... Wait, no, this movie has no theme. Unless you count "Big Business Is Evil" as a theme. I thought that was more of a given.<br /><br />Richard Jenkins and Alec Baldwin both deliver believable (though tired) supporting performances, but neither man seems truly invested in the role they're playing. It's very clear that Alec Baldwin was putting about as much effort into playing his role as the sinister C.E.O. as he puts into eating a sandwich (which he seems to be doing a lot of lately).<br /><br />Slight tangent, but has Alec Baldwin played any roles in the past few years that hasn't required him to be a powerful jerk in a suit? <br /><br />Anyway, take my advice if you haven't already witnessed the horror for yourself: save your money. This is the one to catch on HBO in a few months. Dick and Jane are present, but there's no fun to be had.
I would give this a zero if they had that rating. Fun was no fun at all. I grew tired of the movie about ten minutes into but endured to the end thinking it had to get better - it did not. The others I watched this movie with also agreed. The acting was annoying. I am tired of Jim Carey's over the top ham acting. The supporting cast was no better. While this movie was a statement of corporate greed and the plight of the worker who gets stepped on when a large company goes under, the vehicle for this would have been better served another way. I actually disliked the leading characters (Dick and Jane) so much that their antics were never funny but pathetic. I am trying to recall one scene where I or anyone I was with laughed and cannot. A worthless movie and a total waste of time.
I was looking forward to seeing this movie, unfortunately I should have listened to my daughters advice. This should have been a spoof, but it took on a realism that corporations had a lot to answer for.<br /><br />Jim Carrey after all the work he has done is still Jim Carrey and his comedy does not get any better, his co star was not able to back him up. Their son in the movie was invisible.<br /><br />The life of crime was a blink, and that was the missing link of the movie. The film showed 2 or 3 robberies and they were richer than before, that where it lost it for me.<br /><br />I did laugh in some parts butthrough the whole not good enough, AlecBaldwin I felt was there to add some weight to the film. His character was not strong enough. There were just too many gaps to make this a smart and tight movie.
Can't liberals like Alec Baldwin get it through their heads that they lost the elections of 2000 and 2004? The ridiculous. lame swipes at WalMart, non-union workers, George W Bush and the stock market not to mention the intentional GWB accent that Balwin's character uses in the film just makes him look silly and bitter on screen. As the credits roll the sour grapes continue as "Special Thanks" are given to Ken Lay, and other CEOs from Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, and IMClone. Let me clue you in to something - if you put all your money into one company's stock YOU'RE AN IDIOT. We don't need this excuse for a movie to tell us that. What a waste of Jim Carrey's talent - from the trailer I expected a completely different movie - what I got was a 90 minute DNC commercial on how to scare people into not investing for their own future, keep them stupid, and keep them dependent on government. No wonder Hollywood is in trouble and can't make a decent movie anymore - maybe you guys could get an original idea and put it on screen for once...although I shouldn't be surprised since Jane Fonda was cast in the original.
Fun With Dick and Jane failed to entertain on so many levels. There were loose ends with the writing, for example, it seems as though one of the major conflicts was the indictment of Jim Carrey's character DIck Harper, but the writers never follow up that particular conflict. Basically the story is weak and mostly unfunny, but Carrey saves a few scenes with his physical humor, but honestly, Jim Carrey wasn't very funny in this movie, and Tea Leone might as well have been there just for her appearance because she wasn't funny either. This is just another example of Hollywood banking off franchise actors with a lousy unoriginal story.
Maybe it's just that it was made in 1997, or maybe whoever managed to get this up to a 7 has a soft spot for kids with AIDS. But really people, the maniacal laughter & mayhem during the withdrawal scene? Did you not see that coming? I'm surprised there was no baby crawling across the ceiling and sickboy addressing the camera. The acting was fine, sure. But to me this is just one example of a movie from a time when situations and subject matter could pass for cinematic language. Things happen, but that's it. There's no glue or motive that can be detected on screen, allowing the subject matter to use pre-existing emotional connections to furthur the plot, without the script doing it like it's supposed to.
For three quarters of an hour, the story gradually develops towards a pivotal point of some sort. Although it is overburdened with scenes that just seem to be intended to dull the viewer and lure him away from the actual plot, there is something happening. It is not much and it certainly is not obvious. The combination of palace impressions and story-driving scenes do not add any depth or insight to the whole cast of characters. In fact, they keep them sterile as there is no character development at all. Everybody just remains spinning and centered around their own cliché and role - the cute, kinda headstrong girl; the fighting überwoman, the snobby aristocrat. The male lead does not seem to have any distinction at all, he is a shallow presence, which, actually, doesn't even matter as he is only there because the storyboard required him to - it seemed like he was on vacation and got caught up. When the point comes of turning the corner in terms of what happening, the movie first snaps completely blank for a couple of minutes and then becomes ridiculous. It solves - or better, dissolves - itself with a by-the-book Deus Ex Machina, more clichés and some of the most crude plot devices and choices I have ever seen. It's history, alright. First the movie's a drama though it's supposed to be comedic, and then it turns into a farce. The protagonists do what they are expected to do, and there are no surprises. The first set of somewhat serious antagonists however gets replaced by a couple that literally was just bored. Maybe that was some kind of nod towards the audience.<br /><br />This movie does not get any bonus from me for underlying philosophical meaning (since there is none) nor for its technical realization. The animation and editing is fair and so's the sound mixing; but it is by no means outstanding or even above the average Japanese productions of the late 1980's. In fact, the visual treats seem static, un-inspired and un-original.<br /><br />Worst of all - it totally fails to entertain, even if you don't bother with characters and all that stuff. There's too little going on here, and the rest is corny at best. Get a real Ghibli instead, have a feast with it and keep your fingers off this one.
This has to be one of the worst movies ever to come out of the Sci-Fi Channel. Here is how the movie starts, Women are the only humans on this planet due to the fact that in the not to distant future chemical warfare is A OK as long as it only targets soldiers (In case your wondering, Men) However the virus back fires (Big shock)and all the men on earth slowly die. Then all of male kind is condemned to die when the madam president is shot and killed by a man. now we are taken around 60 to 70 years from now, two female scientists are working on cloning a female baby and one of them says "Hey, why don't we bring men back?" The other one says no the world is not ready for that, but promptly ignores her and thus a man walks the Eath again.<br /><br />First off, this movie assumes that all men who are not genetically altered are blood thirsty monsters. Secondly, the writer forgot to mention that present day soldiers are a good mix of Male and Female officers so there is no real reason to have a virus like that. This is the biggest waist of time you can find. This movie managed to insult my intellect not only by the bad story, but with the Lifetime style acting. Avoid this movie at all costs.<br /><br />I give this a 1 out of 10 but only because I could go no lower.
The makers ask for a huge suspension of disbelief, you grant them it in the hope that given a little time they'll convince you it's possible. Alas, with TV movies it seems as though they specifically set out to make cheap Cosmo questionnaire films. With a small budget and big claims you should spend every penny on the details to convince the audience. Not here though. The film gets a few points for the good performance the two leading ladies give against the odds, but unfortunately it's not enough to save the day. oh, and the less said about the ending the better. Happy Film-Viewing Everyone !
Warning: This could spoil your movie. Watch it, see if you agree.<br /><br /> To think that we as humans can not learn from the past. The futuristic society portrayed glamorized what Hitler believed, obliterate a race of people (in this case men) for the benefit of society. It made me sick to my stomach. Also the plausibility of a Y bomb is insane. Even in war our instinct for self-preservation will prevent the extinction of humanity. We made mistakes in the past ie: Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki in '45 but because of that we avoided a bigger mistake in '63 during the Cuban Missile Crisis
It's a male bashing bonanza. I saw this on Sci-Fi a while ago, and the idea seemed interesting. It could have been a good movie, and the plot itself I don't see as male bashing, but certain specific references to men get really annoying. I might still watch the movie again though because it does at least try to redeem itself by hinting that maybe the women in the movie aren't really as non-violent as they claim, but it still doesn't compensate for the really tiring male-bashing. I mean, I can understand a little, it's part of the movie's plot, but come on, it gets really tiring after awhile. Not only that, but to assume that the majority of women in the world would accept becoming homosexual that easily and that the few remaining heterosexuals would be such a minority as to go "in the closet". It's just too unbelievable. There are far too many women out there with cultural or religious restrictions that would balk at this it is totally implausible. I mean I know its sci-fi, and I love sci-fi, but the best sci-fi has at least a hint of it being possible, and this is too implausible. The phrase "Truth is stranger than fiction" came about because fiction has to at least seem plausible to be welcomed, but truth isn't always. This movie is not that. Other than that, the movie does have some good acting and the eventual morals of the story, that something like what happened was wrong, do redeem it a little, but not enough.
This movie is awful beyond belief. It's a low-budget, badly written, piece of pointless garbage. But the Saturday afternoon I stumbled across it on TV still sticks in my mind as one of the most entertaining I've ever spent in front of the television. The badness of this movie is epic -- maybe not Ed Wood epic, but close. The premise is hysterical (men are banned for being too dangerous and imprisoned in -- haw! -- football stadiums), the pseudo-dyke culture is laughably bizarre (there's an underground sex trade with women who dress up like men to service "deviants") and the "last man" of the title is a pitiful reincarnation of Rocky from Rocky Horror Picture Show. I didn't get to see the end of it, which I have to assume was so dripping with syrupy "what have we all learned from this?" nonsense it would bring on an urge to brush the teeth, but everything in the first two-thirds was so memorably bad, even if the last third turned out to be a pale imitation of the rest, it's still worthwhile for anyone who gets a kick out of campy, stupid, brainless sci-fi B-flicks.
... but had to see just how bad it could get. The plotline was thin to begin with, but it just kept getting worse. A female genetic engineering grad student uses her research on accelerated mitosis to artificially create a male, because a biological weapon used in WW3 killed off 97% of the worldwide male population. The surviving men are either high prices gigolos in back alley clubs, or crazed lunatics in run down football stadiums plotting to overthrow the 'Lesbian Conspiracy'. The entire process resembled the microwaving of a large bowl of jello. Press a few buttons and ding you get a baby. Not only that, but he will age to mid 20's in a month, and then begin to age normally (how convenient). Eventually poor Adam gets bored with the secluded cabin in the woods where his creator had raised him and steals her car to 'see the city'.<br /><br />This begins 90 minutes of unlikely chases, convenient plot twists, and several subplots that we never see resolved. As Adam quickly learns, what men did survive are treated as outcasts/criminals, because they are dangerous beasts that cannot help there genetic predisposition to violence. The propaganda machines have been in full swing, scaring women into believing all men are rapists and murderers. This has led to lesbianism being the norm, the fall of Christianity, female only reproduction via cloning, and oh yeah world peace among other implied results. All of which seem unlikely given that only ~30 years had elapsed since the war. Adam stumbles from one bad situation to the next, all the while being genetically programmed to be non-violent and unable to really do much on his own behalf. With the FBI on his trail, madams looking for fresh meat, and his creator trying to recapture him (for herself it seems), he learns that violence is not limited to the male species after all.<br /><br />All in all, I would not recommend this movie.<br /><br />I did however enjoy Veronica Cartwrights portrayal of the 'love to hate her' Director of the FBI, and Julie Bowen didn't do bad as Hope the 'closet hetero' geneticist either.
They used footage of some real protest spliced with some woman talking about a society with no men to make it seem like these people were cheering for the 'gendercide' of men. The funny thing is, you can see a man cheering on his own death in the background.<br /><br />OK, the plot. Some lady says there should be a society with no men, and the crowd in front of her (which contains some men) think its a great idea. So then all the men are killed or something. So there are no more.<br /><br />Then this blonde scientist creates a man, but removes some chromosomes so he can't be violent. The male grows very quickly and soon is a full grown man. Not long after, he takes the blonde's' Volkswagen beetle and drives into the city where he's discovered. Now you would think the lone man in a city full of lesbians would be the happiest guy ever but no way. The police chase him.<br /><br />I didn't watch the rest but it probably ends up that they've got to race against the clock and some people, or something bad will probably happen. Somehow the man ends up in a stadium with some other men who want him to lead the rebellion. These brave warriors hiding in a stadium might have had some sort of plan which laid out the details of how they'd single handedly get rid of a planet full of women, but I didn't watch. And neither should you.<br /><br />If you're up late and channel surfing and this happens to come on, don't watch. Watch anything but this. You'll find those ads for Bowflex or the ones with women in bathing suits asking you to 'pick up the phone to meet women just like these' in your area will be more satisfying entertainment.<br /><br />(Oh yeah, there's this funny thing when they're pulling in with their cars. I don't know what they did, it looks like they drove in real slow and careful but then tried to speed up the film to compensate but it just looks really weird.) <br /><br />The blonde girl was kind of cute and I'm feeling generous, so... 2/10.
The plot - in the future when nearly all men have been killed by a Y-chromosome-targeting virus, a (hot) female genetic engineer 'creates' a man in a chem lab - is intriguing. Despite the somewhat promising premise, the movie falls flat in nearly every regard. The dialogue is laughable. The characters are paper thin. The exploration of a single-gender world is shallow. The worst part of the entire movie is the Asian detective who delivers lines so cheesy and contrived that you'll want to vomit.<br /><br />I can't imagine how on earth this trash got produced. Most of the movie is male bashing. "All men are violent." "All men rape women." "Men are only animals." All of the women - even the 'closet hetero cases' - seem to display anger toward-, fear of-, and hatred for men. If you want to see a sci-fi film something along the lines of this movie's premise, you'd do best to look elsewhere.
I don't think this can legally qualify as "film." The plot was so flimsy, the dialogue so shallow, and the lines so terrible that I couldn't believe that someone actually wrote the lines down, said, "Holy sh*t! This is a masterpiece" and then actually pitched it to a producer. I, for one, am still dumbfounded and will forever remember this film as the mark of the degeneracy of intelligence in America -- that, and "Crossroads," of course.
Pure schlock from beginning to end. The average 12 year old might find that it has an interesting take on discrimination. Otherwise, it's a pure camp-fest endurance test. Like one of those so-so episodes of Star Trek The Next Generation that thinks it has Something Important To Say.<br /><br />You'll see every plot twist a mile off in this by-the-numbers romp. However, it's worth seeing for its portrayal of drag-king prostitutes, a brothel where young women pay old men to have sex with them (how's that for role reversal), and lesbian soap operas. The ghost of Valerie Solanis lives!
All I ever heard while being raised was equality of the sexes, and here we have a film that not only exemplifies imbalance, but continues through with a whole concept that one sex is better. All the while watching I was hoping for that redeeming quality to make the viewer feel as though there is hope for the future, and there wasn't. I'll admit to not finishing the film, I had to turn it off at the part where the old man whore told the genetic man Adam that it was ok to be a whore and get, and I quote, "More tail than any man in the past time." I know not finishing it is a bad review on myself, but it is the responsibility of the writer and crew to develope a story that will keep a viewer interested, and they failed. This film betrays all true female nature qualities of the mother figure and the need for balance. Instead it exemplifies what America ran by lesbian natzis would be like,and I'm not against lesbians. Thank you Mr. Director! Someone please give me a redeeming quality... wait I have it! There's no sequel!
This movie stunk. There is not much more to it. The final fight looked like Walker taking on my grandmother, not some supernatural demon with the strength of ten men. I found the commercials more interesting. The plot twists and jokes could be seen coming a mile away. The only redeeming quality of this film was that it ended. Avoid this at all costs...unless you enjoy bad Chuck Norris movies.
This is a god awful Norris film, with one of the most annoying performances ever in Calvin Levels and a weak script. The characters were terrible, and it has hardly any action,plus even Chuck Norris stinks in this!. Christopher Neame is very weak as the main villain, and the story was not very interesting plus Norris seemed bored with the whole thing and i don't blame him as i was too!. Calvin levels gives one of the most annoying performances in a movie ever, i couldn't stand as i was tempted to rip the tape out of my VCR, plus Norris and Levels had no chemistry together!. If your looking for some great martial art moves from Norris don't go near this, however if you want a movie with an uninteresting story, hardly any action and bad acting look further!. This is a god awful Norris film, with one of the most annoying performances ever from Calvin levels, Avoid it like the plague!. The Direction is incredibly bad. Aaron Norris does an incredibly bad job here, with no suspense or thrills bland camera work, and keeping the film at a dull pace!. There is a little bit of blood and violence. We get 2 gory impaling's,ripped out heart, exploding body and a few gunshot wounds. The Acting is really bad. Chuck Norris is not AMAZING as he usually is here and seemed very bored here, his one liners are flat, and his acting wasn't that great and i am a huge Norris Fan, this is his absolute worst! (Norris still Rules!).Calvin Levels is INCREDIBLY annoying here, his whiny wimpy performance severely grated me, i was so hoping for him to get it good!, but sadly he didn't. Christopher Neame is pretty weak as the main villain, his voice was cool, but he over acted big time!. Sheree J. Wilson is beautiful and did okay with what she had to do. Rest of the cast are terrible. Overall Please avoid this it's not worth the torture, even if you are a huge Norris fan (like me). BOMB out of 5
For the most part, I considered this movie unworthy of a comment, but the last 10 minutes prompted me to write one. You see, right then we learn (SPOILERS...if they can be called that) that the Devil's emissary has no chance of properly preparing the domination of the world by his master, because he is not skilled at martial arts! "Prosatanos" has been lying in a hole for centuries, waiting for "human greed" to release him, only to be defeated in a simple one-on-one match against 54-year-old former karate champion Chuck Norris! Imagine what would have happened to him if he had taken on Jackie Chan... (*1/2)
Norris plays a Chicago cop who stumbles upon a devil's apprentice? who wants to, well, create Armegeddon. He eventually kills the creature by, get this, throwing a solid gold 24 inch spike, not very sharp, about twenty feet, hard enough to penetrate the chest. Unlikely? So is the rest of the movie. Much of it consists of CN and his sidekick driving cars and talking nonsense. The Israeli (or Arab) kid is there ostensibly to humanize CN. OK. Doesn't work, makes no sense, and advances the plot, so-called, not one bit. Also, no cops ever every get invited out of the country to be interviewed by other cops. It is ridiculous as a premise. The whole thing is bad. Unfortunately, it's not so bad as to be entertainingly bad or campy. Just plain bad. But--one can see how Norris was trying to find his way to the successful Walker: Texas Ranger series.
This piece of Crap is actually the BOMB, as in Bottom of the Barrel. I can't figure out which is worst; Norris' dull portrayal of anonymity (not a great trait in an action protagonist) or Christopher Neame's hysterical overacting. This film doesn't deliver on any level what so ever. The action sequences are tame, the plot is paper thin, and the scenes that are supposed to be horrific look like a cliché from the fifties. You can't just fill a room with smoke and men in rubber suits, and expect the audience to scream in terror.<br /><br />Visually the film does nothing for me. It actually looks like an unfortunate mix between a cheap porn flick and a Miami Vice rip-off with a little sprinkling of hell-spawn. No, wait. That should have been hell-yawn.
I concur with the other users comment. Hard to believe that this movie actually came out in 1994 because it screams mid 80's. I think it is dubbed because the sound and the picture don't always match up. If anyone can truly say this is a good movie, they need to be locked up. It is so sad how money has so much power over people that they will do anything to get it. I feel I lost intelligence from watching this. I used to have a little respect for Chuck Norris before I watched this but now I just feel bad. I bought this as part of a 3 movie pack for $9.99 and I can honestly say I would have been better off literally throwing the money away. Forgive me Jesus.
This is the worst film I have ever seen, so bad it is astonishing. I am glad that I have never seen that black sidekick in any other film: OK, it wasn't his fault that someone gave him those lines, but he could have refused the role, and tried to learn how to act instead. How did anyone get the money to put this film together. Is there some corporation in Hollywood that deals with trash for male college students with no brain? "Oh yeah, they will love this one: it's got no believable plot, some kungfu movements, Chuck Norris, a black sidekick with bad corny lines, a sweet little Israeli (or is he an Arab, or does anyone care?) boy pickpocket, and the devil." Brilliant, and many thanks to all concerned for enriching the human race.
This film is bad. Not so bad it is good. Just bad. It is however hilariously bad. I watched it out of some morbid curiosity and never intend to watch it nor any other Chuck Norris film ever again. If you have to choose between this film and death, you should happily choose this film, however, as it is is a masterclass in terrible film making (hence the hilarity).<br /><br />It is a constant depression to me, as I grind away at my desk job, that some people get to be involved in movie-making and decided to produce things such as this.<br /><br />1 out of 10. Still better than "Starship Troopers" however.
Odious Chuck Norris decided to put one final nail in the coffin<br /><br />containing his film career before going to the safe world of CBS<br /><br />Saturday night carnage with this hysterically bad supernatural<br /><br />actioner.<br /><br />For such a dumb movie this thing sure is plotty. Norris is Chicago<br /><br />cop Frank Shatter. First off, what kind of last name is "Shatter"?<br /><br />Have you ever met any Shatters? Genforum.com has no listing for<br /><br />the last name Shatter, which opens up any half clever viewer to<br /><br />replace the "a" in Shatter with an "i." He and his partner, Calvin<br /><br />Jackson, do the same old buddy cop routine you have seen<br /><br />before: make funny with the pimps, and make their captain mad.<br /><br />Jackson, looking like the theoretical love child of Whoopi Goldberg<br /><br />and Rick James, quickly wears on the nerves with his constant<br /><br />complaining and Eddie Murphy-patented facial expressions.<br /><br />Shatter and Calvin become involved with an emissary of Satan,<br /><br />whom we are introduced to in the too long opening scenes.<br /><br />Prosatano is a demon who is locked in a crypt by King Richard the<br /><br />Lionhearted. The demon's scepter, from which he gets his power,<br /><br />is busted into nine pieces and hid in nine different parts of the<br /><br />world by holy men. In 1951, some grave robbers accidentally let<br /><br />Prosatano out and he begins collecting the nine pieces. He<br /><br />disguises himself as an antiquities professor named Lockley and<br /><br />always happens to be giving a lecture where a holy man is killed<br /><br />and a piece of the scepter is taken.<br /><br />Norris brings in his "Walker: Texas Blunder" cohort Sheree Wilson,<br /><br />who plays Lockley's assistant. She helps Norris with his<br /><br />investigation, they make goo goo eyes at each other, and our<br /><br />intrepid investigators travel to Israel after a rabbi is killed in<br /><br />Chicago. While in Israel, Calvin is given even more to complain<br /><br />about: the heat, the lack of restaurant accomodations, the lousy<br /><br />drivers, and the fact that he is missing the Chicago Bulls playoff<br /><br />games. Norris even manages to work a cute Israeli kid into this<br /><br />nightmare. Bezi steals Calvin's wallet, and hangs around the men,<br /><br />leading them around Israel and not arousing any sort of<br /><br />appropriate suspicion.<br /><br />Eventually, Lockley (Prosatano) assembles all of the scepter<br /><br />pieces, but needs the blood of royalty to complete the ceremony<br /><br />and call up the devil. Where to find royal blood? Well, Sheree's<br /><br />father is a duke! She has an American accent but she is the<br /><br />screenwriters' convenient method of forcing this monstrosity<br /><br />toward its inevitable conclusion. Sure, this minion of Satan may<br /><br />have killed countless hundreds over the years, but how is he<br /><br />gonna do against a good old fashioned American butt kickin'?<br /><br />After Prosatano has been vanquished, killed by his own scepter (I<br /><br />envied him, he did not have to watch Bezi steal Calvin's wallet<br /><br />again), we are treated to an awful coda involving a bearded man<br /><br />who has been watching Shutter, I mean Shatter, and Calvin on<br /><br />their quest. You see, it was foretold...somewhere...that two<br /><br />warriors from the west would defeat Prosatano. The silent<br /><br />bearded man who watched over the couple was none other than<br /><br />Jesus...I kid you not. He is listed as "Prophet" in the end credits,<br /><br />but you and even your pets will recognize the subtle Christian<br /><br />reference the film makers are trying to exhibit here.<br /><br />Like in "I Use a Walker: Texas Ranger," Norris is aging and cannot<br /><br />get into his fight scenes too much anymore. He kicks a lot, and<br /><br />people fly over furniture in slow motion, and then Norris gives all of<br /><br />his line readings in that monotone voice of his. Oh, what a real<br /><br />director might be able to fashion out of him! His brother, Aaron,<br /><br />who has directed him in other films as well, has no sense of story<br /><br />or momentum. Scenes are thrown in for ego's sake, not to<br /><br />entertain. The scenes when the dynamic duo first meet Bezi drag<br /><br />on and on, and then Bezi is not all that important to the rest of the<br /><br />film.<br /><br />The film was shot on location in Israel, which means the<br /><br />Americans could insult the Israelis in person. There is not one<br /><br />likeable Israeli character here. The Israeli police captain is a jerk.<br /><br />The cops' driver does not know English, and Calvin convinces him<br /><br />that the word "sh*tty" is a compliment. Nothing funnier than<br /><br />mocking those stupid foreigners on their home turf, especially<br /><br />when all this racist humor is coming from an American minority<br /><br />who would have been more than offended if the tables were turned<br /><br />and the Israeli cop was mocking the African-American cop in<br /><br />Chicago.<br /><br />This film is badly written, badly acted, and badly directed. It does<br /><br />not work as action, cop drama, or even horror. It just shows that<br /><br />the now defunct Cannon Studios was willing to throw their money<br /><br />into anything, no matter how badly it was planned. "Hellbound" is<br /><br />surely a most adequate title. I disliked this movie intensely.<br /><br />This is rated (R) for physical violence, gun violence, strong<br /><br />profanity, some sexual references, and some adult situations.<br /><br />
I was so looking forward to watching the documentary self-immolation of the mastermind behind Boondock Saints, one of the most aggravating and pointless movies I've ever seen. But the makers of "Overnight" - buddies (ex?) of the mastermind in question - also need to learn how to make a movie. Various unsavoury remarks, yelling obscenities into the phone, and enjoying his alcohol do indeed make Mr. Duffy look like a putz. But it doesn't shed any insight into why the guy got a contract in the first place, what his creative process or vision is - what's Boondock Saints even about? How hard is it to meet Patrick Swayze? What are these strange institutional machinations in which our disgusting heroes are caught? Because the film doesn't try to answer these questions in any coherent way, it doesn't end up having dippity-doo to say about Hollywood either. So who cares?
never before have i seen such a tale of such talentless hangers on been so ungrateful that their golden goose has failed to lay. these spunk monkeys are parasites and bad examples of friends. i felt sorry for troy as he tried to hook up all of his friends with Hollywood gigs, but as soon as things turned sour, they all left troy hanging. overnight was a contrived effort of self indulgent retribution on a man who was going up against the forces of Hollywood to retain story integrity. The simple premise of Overnight is to try an communicate the message, "look at this guy, he blew it all", when in fact he has a strong underground following, dealt with harsh blows from friends and executives all in the name of getting a project done in the way he envisioned it. Quite frankly the only productive par that any of these guys played in the overall execution of the Boondock Saints shoot culminated as nothing more than extra bodies in the first bar room scene, after that all they did was whine why they weren't a bigger deal based on the clambering of their rancid efforts on top of troys shoulders. (the 2nd half of this was written by Adam j farina)
my friends and i watched this movie last night. it was pretty incredible. by all means, this was probably the worst movie i have ever seen. at first, it was tolerable. it stunk of BAD IMPROV but it was pretty friggin hilarious, despite the scenes being too long & drawn out and the terrible quality (i read $400 budget above... sounds about right) of the film itself.<br /><br />the biggest problem came from the lack of a script; with a background in improv, i know how hard it can be to keep scenes short & efficient. what happened in this film was that the actors were left to improvise the scenes and they didn't know when to stop, they just kept going for ages on stupid topics. at first i thought this was because the movie was short and they needed long, useless scenes to flesh it out. as the movie progressed, i realized it was just a really bad movie.<br /><br />there were a lot of parts where i could see that the film maker had a really good idea for a shot but not the resources (or talent!?) to pull it off effectively. a lot of the scenes were taken from a single shot (cause, you know, improv) for what felt like a really long time. so boring! if you can stand to put up with and hour and a half of terrible improv, watch it. it's really funny at parts but also really stupid and annoying. the acting ranges from alright to absolutely terrible. it seemed like the only good parts were the parts that really had nothing to do with the main plot; the ballsy kid who swore lots, the barbershop, etc etc.<br /><br />but yeah. painfully bad. like, i was literally hurting. after an hour or so, my friends and i just got bored and left.
Given the budget and the inexperience of everyone involved, Livin' tha Life could have been worse. Jamal wants to be Chris Tucker (whom I've always found very annoying), as a previous commentator has noted, but Peanut (Edward D. Smith), while some of his (over)reactions go on way too long (a director's problem), has some comparatively subtle and funny moments, such as when he is trying to instruct Jamal on the proper method of smoking a joint with a buddy. Throughout, he is usually more poised and self-possessed than Jamal, which could have been the germ of a nice exploration of the contrasts in the relationship but wasn't developed very far.<br /><br />But the inexperience of the writer/director/cinematographer/etc. is no excuse for his inattention. Has he ever seen a movie? Faces are important! Has he ever heard of a closeup? Even Ed Wood could do a closeup. I don't think it's much of a budget issue. I could only give a general description of what any of the actors look like, and not just because of no closeups, but the lighting ...! Lights for outdoor shooting may cost too much, but you can make a reflector with pieces of paper! That would have required moving the camera closer to keep the reflector out of the shot, helping to solve the closeup problem at the same time. If that's too technical you can turn the actors around so they are not in shadow, or you can expose for the shadows, and if it hadn't been shot in L.A. I'd say take advantage of cloudy days. It goes without saying that the movies this one steals from are all, with the possible exception of Weekend at Bernie's, better than this one, but Livin' tha Life would have left a much better impression if it hadn't made the viewer squint all the way through just to catch a glimpse of whatever the human element might have been.<br /><br />P.S. The scene in the barbershop is just stupid.
I have NEVER EVER seen such a bad movie before. The scene where they shoot some guy.. The pistol don`t even shoot. Damn that is baad. The scene with the boy is even not that good. no script, not any good sound, not anything good to say about this movie..
If, like me, you actively seek out the rarest and weirdest (and often most awful) that world cinema has to offer, then you should look no further than the supernatural horror output of Hong Kong in the early 80s. Often mixing bizarre black magic with kung fu and silly comedy, and usually packed with plenty of creepy crawlies (snakes, worms, eels, centipedes etc.), these movies are about as bizarre as it gets.<br /><br />Succubare is definitely a case in point: featuring a mountain tribe whose women keep their men from straying by casting nasty spells over them (that, should they leave, cause them to fill up with writhing creatures and die an agonising death), some so-so martial arts, and lots of real life animal killing (much of which is perpetrated by a geek who has absolutely no bearing on the story), this film is just plain strange.<br /><br />A prolonged scene in which the tribeswomen hunt for snakes and insects, casually throwing the creatures into the baskets on their backs, is quite fascinating; a tribal feast that sees a poor ox bashed on the head and then torn apart is totally disgusting; and the moments that show worms crawling in open wounds and being vomited onto the floor will have the squeamish losing their appetite for a while.<br /><br />However, it's the live animal munching that really qualifies Succubare for legendary status amongst fans of out-there movie-making. It's thoroughly vile to watch and yet strangely compelling: the geek chomps on a snake, woofs down a fat, juicy toad (nasty!), and hungrily devours a mouse (biting off its head and then shoving the rest in afterwards).<br /><br />Not a great movie (hell, it's not really even a mediocre movie), Succubare is recommended only to people who think they've seen it all. This one gets 4 out of 10 from me, which is probably more than it deserves, but I begrudgingly respect it for being able to make me feel slightly ill.
The animal-eating (geek) scenes were not as bad as you would think. After having watched Mondo Cane and Mondo Magic, these scenes are average. The grossest one was when the guy ate the head off the mouse. But they were so fast and few that they didn't bother me.<br /><br />Otherwise, the film was just sort of interesting. I always like hearing the silly voice-overs. They never sound like what you think the actor/actress would sound like in real life. I liked the bright colors worn by the princesses. The shots of weird looking bugs were cool too. The youngest princess looked REALLY young, almost 14 or something. The fight scenes were not as long and boring as most fight scenes, so that was good.<br /><br />3/10.
I was permanently scarred by this terrible film.<br /><br />The main action of the movie is nothing special. It seems there's a tribe of snake-worshipping people in a remote mountain region of Northern China, where women rather than men are the leaders and decision makers. I suppose among some men, this is enough to make "Succubare" a horror movie... Anyway, occasionally Chinese men would wander into the village, take a fancy to the local girls, seduce them and then abandon them. Unfortunately for the men, the women had put them under a spell, derived from snake venom, which would make them die horribly in 100 days -- their bellies swollen like a pregnant woman's with live worms and snakes -- if they did not return.<br /><br />Forget the cover of the US video. This has nothing to do with vampires, though there is one inept blood-drinking scene. The title itself is only marginally appropriate: "Succubare" is the Latin verb meaning "to lie beneath", and it's the root of the word Succubus, a female demon who would seduce men in their sleep. Actually, it's the MEN who are the seducers here.<br /><br />But it's not the main action of this ludicrous film that's so objectionable. It's the little side-incidents. I'll overlook the slaughter and butchery of an ox that's performed on-screen. The participants seem very experienced, as though this is an unpleasant duty they actually do in real life; and I'm sure they really ate the animal afterwards... though I resent having the act thrust in my face as "entertainment".<br /><br />What I WISH I could overlook (or HAD overlooked) are the numerous, totally extraneous shots of an unidentified man, who from time to time interrupts the story by eating living animals. He starts the movie by tearing apart a live snake with his teeth. In the course of the movie, he devours a bug, a lizard, a toad (I had to leave the room after this), and a whole mouse (I stopped watching at this point, and lost my appetite for days). Let me stress that this was totally unexpected, and had nothing to do with the movie... unless it's a cynical reference to love as it's portrayed in the film: a blind, selfish, predatory survival mechanism that tears apart the helpless... but then again, I'm probably just rationalizing to get the vileness out of my head...
Following a 19th century gun dual that goes awry, a charming young woman becomes a vampire. Not only does she become one of the undead, she uses her goth, temptress persona to sustain her talents as a cold blooded assassin. This is a low grade B feature that should have went straight to video. The violence is vicious and gory, but actually quite mild. The story line is so weak and dialogue so haphazard it is hard to work up much interest. Eileen Daly is the lead character Lilith Silver. Also in the cast are Mark Caven, Kevin Howarth, and Isabel Brook.
I was all ready to hate this but it turned out to be surprisingly tolerable - though the MTV-style of film-making (shot on DV, to boot) is quite an eye-sore! I liked the script's self-mocking style, as well as its central idea of having the female vampire lead doubling as a contract killer. As to the cast, Eileen Daly (best known as the 'star' of those horrid "Redemption" intros) has an undeniable screen presence - and is quite sensual, despite her age; however, Christopher Adamson's hammy chief villain is obnoxious. David Warbeck has a brief role as a doctor (dubbed "The Horror-Movie Man"!) who conducts the autopsy on one of the vampire's victims; the film seems to have taken quite a long time to shoot as Warbeck died in 1997! There's plenty of nudity and violence on hand, but not much sense alas (especially since its subplot involving a secret society of vampires infiltrating the power structures is barely developed); the film is also overlong for its purpose, and eventually slips into tedium during the last half-hour.
The movie Razor Blade Smile has an interesting title as well as leading role. Now most may not like this movie for the plot and acting was a little cheap, but that is the appeal of a movie like Razor Blade Smile. In a way it was suppose to be bad movie. <br /><br />However, if you watch this movie all the way through the end you'll see it is as I said a cheap vampire flick with a little humor. (Also how they manipulated colours in a few scenes is very interesting.) <br /><br />So in conclusion this movie is a type you rent and laugh at with your friends and enjoy it for what it is. For no movie is throughly bad. <br /><br />As Lilith Silver says: "Humans just don't smile enough..."
Sure it is a new take on vampires. Who cares. I would rather the old take if it is entertaining. This was not entertaining. It was a dull story, poorly acted, with annoying cinematography. Save your money, don't even watch it on video.
As main "character" Lillith Silver likes to point out - "you know f**k all about vampires". It is evident that this statement was aimed at the cast and crew, who create an exceedingly bad image of everyone's favourite bloodsucking undead. According to the misguided director, Vampires are all caked in white foundation and crammed into latex similar to a piece of meat in shrink wrap. With fangs resembling Bannana's and a bad case of asthma our main character Lillith creates a slapstick caricature of the "modern day" Vampire.<br /><br />The plot consists of a 9 year old boys' playstation collection jotted down on a piece of paper, then blended together to concoct this horrible tale. Lillith our pale protagonist is a Vampire Bounty hunter who makes a living from snubbing out members of everyone's favourite cult, the Illuminati! Rather than incorporate the classic assassin methodology of stealth and precision however, Lillith waltzes in through an open window and then proceeds to chomp her targets necks before shooting them point blank with a handgun (that apparently doesn't leave bullet holes thanks to the shoddy continuity). PC Plod is then assigned to solve the murders, he comes to the grizzly, yet strikingly obvious conclusion that Lillith is actually a Vampire and proceeds to hunt her down armed with the usual vampire dispatching tools including a cross, garlic and a sharpened piece of wood. Meanwhile, Lillith, who has gotten into the habit of bonking her boss, is distraught when an old nemesis kidknaps him and demands a Ransom to be delivered personally. As you may imagine, this doesn't go according to plan. I'm not going to put myself through the pain of the following scenes however, so I'll skip to the end. Lillith and her "nemesis" have a showdown, and after Lillith obtains victory it is then revealed, with all the extravagance of someone being told they have cancer, that the two are century old lovers and the whole plot was some kind of twisted game. Yes, that kick in the balls was the actual ending of the film. In my eyes, this joke of a conclusion is the icing on the latex clad cake, and seals this film in the "Never ever watch this" vault.<br /><br />As far as cinematic techniques go, the film merely doesn't bother creating any style. The director tries to rescue his disasterpiece from the brink, by throwing in some close ups and a few multi-angular shots, this however is not the saving grace the film needed.<br /><br />You may be screaming "but this is a B movie, its meant to be crap!". I however do not take pity. I have seen some cracking B movies, such as evil dead 2, and Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter, and therefore this disgrace cannot hide behind excuses. The budget was low, This is obvious by the lack of location and good actors. Maybe however if the director was more creative and spent less money on paying for makeup and fake blood, he could have done something decent with this sickening attempt. The seedy sex scenes are not beneficial in any way and merely served to give me a few chuckles at the obscene acting skills throughout. Half the budget must have been paid to the female cast merely for getting their tops off for lesbian romps. If I wanted to watch a vampire porno, I would have bought Muffy The Vampire Layer.<br /><br />The cast are bad, the story is worse and the effects are cripplingly fake. This film had some potential, however its seedy undertone and embarrassing portrayal of a classic horror character merely served to be its downfall.<br /><br />If you want a laugh with a few friends, I recommend you watch this mockery. If you are looking for a more serious Vampire action flick, try Blade or Underworld to sooth your raging bloodlust.
Just as the whole cast and crew knows f*** all about film making.<br /><br />This film concerns the adventures and predicaments of a modern day cockney vampire assassin, and an age old spat with her seemingly jaded vampire lover. That plot in itself reeks of clichés and promises of boredom when on as small a scale a film as this, and that's exactly what you get.<br /><br />First off let me say that I by no means dismiss films because they are B movies, in fact some of my favourite films are B movies such as Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter, but this one misses the mark by a mile.<br /><br />Anyone with any knowledge of small budget films will know that the acting is rarely gripping and emotional, but Razor Blade Smile creates a whole new dimension of hamming it up on screen. Some of the so called acting is just indescribably bad, with characters spewing cheesy one liners that fall flat, and discourse expressing about as much emotion and conviction as the terminator after a couple of horse tranquillisers.<br /><br />A vast portion of the film is also taken up by the vampiric characters, the protagonist in particular, unnecessarily flapping their mouths, showing off their ridiculously large vampire teeth and exhaling very loudly. It literally must happen in almost every scene at least once, and quickly became annoying and pointless, as if that many looks of slack jawed supposedly scary vampire faces were used to merely fill a little bit of time and pad out the rest of this turd sandwich of a film.<br /><br />Contrary to what some of the other reviewers believe on here, I feel this film (the director in particular) is really trying to take this film seriously in many parts. The sheer number of overly dramatic action shots and extreme close-ups seems to indicate to me that the director really wanted people to feel this film and make it legitimate to its genre and not spoof it, and he fails miserably. The attempts at supposedly tasteful sex scenes come out as comic and silly and the action sequences are sometimes just plain stupid.<br /><br />Also the ending of this film was one of the weakest and most pathetic conclusions I have seen to a film, B movie or not. When films such as this force you to sit through hours of themselves only to be rewarded with a "oh it was all a game" ending it is actually sickening. It the conclusion to the "plot" feels like an afterthought of the director that he figured out on the last day of shooting because they had run to the end of their shoestring budget.<br /><br />But I have not rated this film as one star despite the overwhelming crappiness, and this is because of the only plus point I can really give this film. Intentionally or not, it was funny. I am fairly sure the parts I found humorous were not intended to be, and I found most of the efforts at genuine gags to be fruitless, but when watched with friends it is a good film to take the mickey out of.
I will not even make any more comments about this movie. Instead I will make a recommendation for all you Euro-horror fans: If you want to see an enjoyable low-budget Vampire flick, check out Nattens engel (1998). It has everything Razor Blade Smile lacks: acting, nice locations, terrific score, and less hissing vampires...
I had no expectations when seeing the movie because I was seeing it with a bunch of friends and had no idea what it was. Some parts were silly and some parts were lame, but overall the movie was worth watching. I like goth looking women; this movie has plenty of it. The fangs do look really lame though.
<br /><br />12 Grand is the cost of a new car. A new car that Jake West now needs to escape the hordes of angry villagers desperate for his blood. Some may say this film could attract "So bad it's good" status. In my Opinion it is the proud owner of the "So bad it's Bad" label.
I laughed at the movie! The script, the acting please don't we deserve better? But now the filming, some of the camera angles were interesting. I did enjoy the film, but it's not to be taken seriously though. I liked it. If it had a new cast and scriptwritter it would be better than all right. It's worth a look!
Well, some people might go to see this to watch a trashy rubber and pvc clad bisexual vampire assassin kicking some ass. If that's what you want, and you wear a cloak, file your teeth to points and think that the name Lilith Silver is cool, you'll see a fine film.<br /><br />If, like most people, an assassin dressed in gleaming, creaking rubber with HUGE cleavage, thick makeup and bad fangs makes you laugh, then this is one of the best comedies you'll see. I laughed so hard I nearly cried. Ridiculous acting, dialogue and plotting help to make this a better spoof than Dracula, Dead and Loving It could be...<br /><br />It tries to be cool and goth, and all it succeeds in doing is making each scene hilarious. Even the tacked-on lesbian scene is funny (how *did* she get those boots off that quickly? They were laced up to *here*...)<br /><br />Don't see it if you like good films. See it if you like terrible films and want to laugh until you fall over.... It isn't good, it's just bad.
Frank Tashlin's 'Censored' is a so-so Private Snafu short which aims to teach the importance of the Censor in stopping military secrets from leaking out. Snafu attempts to get word out to his girlfriend that he's to be stationed in the South Pacific but the Censor foils each attempt he makes to send the letter. These early scenes are the best, with the unseen Censor plucking the letter out of the sky with long mechanical arms, nets and even a specially employed eagle! The second half of the cartoon, in which Snafu manages to send the letter with the aid of Technical Fairy, First Class (who is actually teaching him a lesson), is less funny and climaxes with a disappointing only-a-dream finale. The main point of interest in this part of the cartoon is the appearance of Snafu's extremely scantily clad girlfriend who is even seen bare-breasted, albeit with strategically placed limbs at all times! Aimed at the military, the Snafu shorts were often characterised by a heightened bawdiness but these scenes, crowbarred in as they may be, are by far the most erotic I've come across in any of these shorts thus far. Despite all this, I prefer the Snafu shorts that go for the jugular a little more, usually resulting in the death of the main character. For great examples of this, seek out Tashlin's 'The Goldbrick' or Chuck Jones's 'Spies'. 'Censored' is fairly weak by comparison.
Ego. Seems it's the only reason this movie was made. This movie is so wrong in so many ways that it's below one's dignity to write much about it. Every character was only good at self praise and lead actors (i use this term liberally as has the director) emote in the likeness of stone. the little story, if that, fails on the basic aspects such as logic, feeling and drama. Direction leaves much to be desired. blatant flaws are all over the place (character motives aren't defined, prospective husbands are found overnight, broken car windows mend themselves among other things)<br /><br />Let's face it, Himesh can't act. neither, it seems, can Hansika Motwani. In her defense, she's still a chubby child who looks older than she is thanks to tonnes of make-up. Raj Babbar Overacts and makes his little presence as fake as possible. Darshan Jariwala laughs a bit too much. The actor who plays Himesh's friend is the only natural. <br /><br />a few questions do come to mind: how can such a film cost Rs.500,000,000?? where did the money go??? granted that one chase sequence was moderately well shot and Mallika Sherawat was paid an obscene Rs.15,000,000 for her 15 minute appearance and 2 songs. but the sheer stupidity of the film boggles the mind. (including 3 Mumbai auto rickshaws that show up and jump on a police car)<br /><br />the good: Himesh shows courage by allowing the film to make fun of his nasal voice and trademark "topi." Let's give the Devil his due: Himesh, as usual gives good music.<br /><br />The bad: Direction, Story, Himesh's singing is still hard to ignore<br /><br />The Ugly: Dialogs and everything else!!!<br /><br />Final Word: Painful in every sense of the word! watch this movie only if you loved Subhash Ghai's "Yaadein"
I have to hold my hand up and say that I was one of the first (and probably the last!!!) to see this film. Where do I start, it's a complete mess. The main attraction of course was the soundtrack. Which goes without saying is brilliant - it's what Himesh does best. But as they say, don't give up your day job - HR definitely shouldn't.<br /><br />HR's acting is plain and simply awful. Even if the film had a plot, the thing that baffles you most is why this man is up on screen and what the hell is doing there. Two words of advice to HR - give up acting and secondly, use chapstick.<br /><br />HR has no screen presence, no acting skills and the female lead looks just a little too young for him. As for Malika Sherawat - just the same old Bollywood vamp crap. <br /><br />You can package the product as much as you want, but if there's no substance it won't hold. Don't waste your money...
First things first, how can someone with his creativity on the right side believe in a movie like this. I saw this movie and after end of couple of hours was left scratching my head, what exactly is director trying to say.<br /><br />If its a thriller, there are no thrills, if its action, there is no action barring a chase sequence, there is no Drama, and the much touted love story, it actually never takes off. No passion, emotion nothing is there.<br /><br />Actually I never expected wonders from the movie, however after the bumper opening it took, I thought of giving it a chance. I have no problems with Himesh Reshamiya whatsoever, and I am not one of the guys who will bash him at every given opportunity. I went in with an Open mind and came out with a closed one.<br /><br />Let's not put the blame of Himesh Reshamiya, he is just a Debutant Actor. But direction, screenplay, writing, makeup, everything has gone for a toss.<br /><br />Himesh is very stiff and would take a lot of time to come up the curve. He can do the don kind of roles. Hansika is just a kid, and it shows on screen with her baby fat and the way she walks.<br /><br />The only actor who was good was the friend of Himesh in the movie, I don't know his name, but he looks promising.<br /><br />Watch it at your own risk, not even good to watch it for a time pass viewing.<br /><br />** Strongly recommend to avoid this Movie.**
one of the most awaited movie!i thought himesh will do a bit of acting but Alas all my hope went wrong..given that the heroine is 15 yrs old!!!!omg!!what did they thought before considering the actress..may be its because no boby wants to work with HR(as he is called in the film,(human resource as many people wrote in mazagines!)nevertheless it was a disappointment.i hope the producer doesn't make himself bankrupt by making a part 2 of this as this news is roaming around...the story was predictable one with himesh showing his generosity character throughout the movie which i doubt very well.<br /><br />anyways..the movie is good from those people's angle who thinks himesh cant do anything wrong. >>4 out of 10<<
If you feel Reshammiya as the singer is too much of a pain to watch on TV, try watching him in the movie for 2 hours straight. His face is bland all throughout the movie, and it is very comical to see him act the demanding and intense scenes. This is way far from a real love story (Get the spelling right, Reshammiya - it is not luv or reeal), and is complete with him doing a Mithun da dance, auto rickshaw fight scenes, Himesh getting imprisoned, Himesh accused of murder, he fleeing from prison etc ... If you want a good laugh, there is nothing like this one, especially the scenes where he howls in Mehbooba. If you despise the nasal twangs, and want to know out of curiosity what two hours of Reshammiya can do to you, then don't miss this movie.<br /><br />I couldn't stop laughing from the beginning till the very end. The only saving grace that this movie has are the cinematography, locations, and a couple of the songs. Even then, until you are a die hard Reshammiya fan, avoid this movie at all costs.
Whoever filled this stupid idea of acting and producing a movie in Himesh's head, which is always hidden under a cap, covering almost half of his face all the time ? Only hope this is first and the last as well, for God's sake ! From Assalam Valekum to Gayatri Mantra, Himesh has tried every thing, to create an aura of his so-called singing talent, which is nothing but atrocious pronunciations of words like Tanhaiyya, which completely kill the beauty of the terms, so commonly used for love songs. Why does Himesh not smile ? Simple, because he does not use close Up toothpaste ! Now there this friend of his, tailing him around every where, and this number one lawyer in the town, who has to herself sexily wiggle and try to seduce Himesh, of all the handsome German people she might have met earlier, perhaps the male lawyers on this part of the world might be cursing their fate, for destined to deal with the stiff, unattractive lot, every day ! The action scenes are so funnily shot, like the event planner attacked by the thief, autos riding over the cars, so on and so forth. The father of the bride seems to be in a great hurry to get rid of his daughter by marrying her off, that he flies to and fro around. Most hypocrite, he praises HR for distributing love among people of the world, as if they were sweets , and on his back, coolly gives a lecture to his daughter on these show business men. when Himesh is proved innocent, he again unceremoniously dumps the other guy, as if it's a game of musical chair ! i didn't get to se the poor guy's face even, did you ? Hansika in the role of Ria, looks as if she is in need of an eye check up, for strain in her eyes ! The fellow in the role of a friend is good, who has acted quite naturally, and should be in better movies, like Sharman Joshi, for example. Child artist in Trishu's brief appearance is sweet, but wasted. It seems today's young generation has gone nuts , since they prefer this kind of mockery of lyrics and musical scores , and associate gossip with it, for example, if you sing ek bar aaja, the ghost would come. this is a weird taste in music, and rather funny. i am surprised, how such classic lyricists like Gulzar , have opted for Himesh of all the people, to give music. There is story in Panchtantra , that a crow attachés so many feathers of a peacock, to look beautiful, and appeal to the birds; but the feathers fall off ultimately, and the real dark crow is revealed ! Hope Himesh takes a hint, and refrains from manufacturing such meaningless stuff, and wasting precious money, which he has earned by taxing his short nose so much ! His friend does tell him, if your nose is cut, how will you sing ? Thanks for showing us Germany, Himesh, at a reasonable cost of renting the DVD ! and correct those spelling mistakes, will you ? an extra e in movie, and no e in love ! There is also a famous number from the old film Sholey, Mehbooba, on which Mallika Sherawat wiggles, once again, but this time with Himesh, winking at her, and conveniently, Ria , his so-called real love, and his new bride is not around ! Now that was very clever, Himesh ! At least one thing in this movie which you have done smartly, to justify Sherawat's presence . But doesn't she look a bit washed down ?
I have been watching movies from i think last 10 years , and I must say that i never felt that bad, which I felt after watching this extra large bore movie, it was bad, very Bad. There were songs & songs. Nobody should watch this movie. The director has shown Germans speaking English which is so rubbish. Germans does not speak English. & in one scene there was a white girl who asked Himesh for autograph. (Obv that he must have gave some money to her) In the promo they have shown prepare for Laughing riot. But i could say there was only one scene where that Himesh was laughing for no reason may be he thinks he's funny. Hansika is very good. she is like an angel. But too young only 16 yrs old. If you have plenty of time and don't know what to do then you should watch this movie or else its waste of money
Agreed this movie is well shot,but it just makes no sense and no use as to how they made 2 hours seem like 3 just over a small love story,<br /><br />this could have been an episode of the bold and the beautiful or the o.c,in short please don't watch this movie because there is a song every 5 minutes just to wake you up from you're sleep,i gave this movie 1/10 cause that was the lowest,and no this is not based completely on a true story,more than half of it is made up.I repeat the direction of photography is 7 or 8 out of 10,but the movie is just a little too much,the actor's nasal voice just makes me want to go blow my nose.Unless you are a real him mesh fan this movie is a huge no-no.
In Bollywood it isn't rare that worthless films become hits, good films flopping and good actors not making it big<br /><br />AKS is such a movie<br /><br />Himesh after a music director and singer tried acting Hell man, just because his songs became a hit that means next he becomes an actor<br /><br />The producers were sure the film will work perhaps, the songs were a hit too and of course Himesh did his cheap publicity as usual<br /><br />The film tells such a poor story, such poor direction, such poor acting it makes you cringe<br /><br />Indian rickshaws in Germany, Stunts by Himesh and lot of stupidity Himesh's cap is intact even when he is in the car which somersaults<br /><br />Direction is poor Music is saving grace though most songs sound the same<br /><br />Himesh tries hard but sadly his emotive scenes are a joke, lacks expressions, he is best suited for his music director and some singing He cuts a sorry picture Hansika is awful Malika is okay Sachin Khedekar is okay, Darshan Jhariwala hams
As a nice anecdote to one of the above comments: In was in Mumbai about two weeks before the release of this movie, I was approached -being white- to dub some of the lines of this movie in a recording studio.<br /><br />While I speak German as well, i was kindly asked to do all dubbing scenes in English, otherwise it would be too confusing for the Indian audience... So therefore, all Germans in this movie actually speak English! funny enough i did multiple characters, so if you would want to actually spoil some time by watching the movie again, listen carefully; <br /><br />all non-Indian characters are only done by 4 voices! . . . .
( HR is what Himesh is called in the movie, I think he likes it too. ) It's amazing how intelligent people, talented even fall in to the same trap.<br /><br />I really like Reshamiya. It's amazing what he has done. No one in recent years has come back from the wilderness and made a mark for himself.<br /><br />And I truly expected a great film ( What with the budget of 50 Cr and the cute actress ). As intense as Reshamiya is I thought, he would excel at a sentimental and an emotional role. Ironically he is depicted the same but for what care? Sheer incompetence, carelessness, awful acting, banal background music, insensitive direction make it a real pain.<br /><br />Blunders rule. ( Ex. How can German Police issue public instructions on a loud speaker in English? They communicate among themselves in English!) Unfortunately this incompetence has become the standard in main line Bollywood. There are some excellent directors but many a bad ones too. The worse thing is that the majority just doesn't care.<br /><br />Songs are the only saving grace...<br /><br />Please don't repeat this HR and find yourself a good director ( low budget.. No problem).<br /><br />The villain should really have shaved his head instead of the wig you know... after all it's a 50Cr movie.
This movie has to be the worst film of 2007, it was just really bad and i don't think i have ever seen a film that is just so bad, i mean the don't make really bad Hollywood films do they?? Hamish really should stick to singing instead of acting cause he just can't act at all, god he was just so bad, i mean he was that bad in the film that he made Mallika Sherawat look like a better actress than him, as for her performance, she plays the same role in every movie, god it is just so boring watching her, i mean what do men see in this woman?, yeah she has a god body but where is that talent???? i have not seen it yet and at this rate i don't think that i ever will.<br /><br />Anyway Hamish falls in love with Ria now this 15 year old girl can act, my god she was the best actor in the film and she does not look 15 at all, to me she looks about 21, but her performance was brilliant in the film. bless her she was really good, i hope to see more of her in the future. So Ria falls in love with Himash, but her father wants her to marry someone else, a typical bollywood film anyways there is a hiccup (can only happen in a bollywood film) and the both get married in the end.<br /><br />Well i would give th music 10/10 it was superb, that made the movie a hit, the songs were truly amazing and brilliant. anyways the only thing that i can say is to go and buy the music and not watch the film.
I do not like Himesh Reshamiya. I do not like his singing too. But his songs are a craze in India, especially among commoners. Now when he ventured to become an actor – that was a big joke! What guts he has to reap as much as he can in his prime time. I did never want to see this movie. But one thing changed it. The movie becoming a super-duper hit! After 2 weeks, Aap Ka Saroor has raked box office collection of 14 crores – compared to Apne that has collected 7 crores in the same 2 weeks. If I can sit through Apne and Rajnikant's absurd Sivaji – I should give this movie also a try to understand what stuff this movie has got that made it such a big hit? The story is about the real life singer Himesh Reshamiya (HR) who has gone to Germany for a concert and falls in love with Riya (Hansika Motwani). A German lawyer Ruby (Mallika Sherawat) loves Himesh. Now Himesh is arrested for a murder. The mission of Himesh (in last 40 minutes) after he runs away from jail is to prove himself innocent and find the real murderer.<br /><br />Let me say that Himesh has nothing in him to become a hero. He tries hard but fails miserably. He is pathetic. I was thinking what could have made the movie click so much? Let me find something positive.<br /><br />First, the saving grace of the movie is the script till the point Himesh runs away from the jail. (But after that the movie nose dives into unbearable stupid limits) Second, the songs of the movie are good, catchy, crowd puller numbers. Third, Mallika Sherawat – she looks gorgeous and acts well too, as the second lady. I can imagine fans of Mallika coming to see the movie just for her. Fourth, the cinematography of the movie is pleasing – especially the German locales, are a treat to watch for the eye. Fifth, the major portion of the story is a love story between Himesh and Riya – with clichéd dialogues that would probably connect to young crowd. Sixth, the Director Prashant Chadha has done a decent job in covering the pathetic acting skills of Himesh as much as possible with shots that don't need Himesh to act much.<br /><br />The heroine Hansika Motwani looks like a small budget film heroine. Raj Babbar is wasted in a small role. Overall the movie is a below average.<br /><br />I was thinking throughout the movie – what if the same movie script was done with Salmaan as the main lead. I think it would have had been a much better affair. May be then I would have given the movie 6 out of 10. But now… (Stars 4.5 out of 10)
The pace of this movie is quite slow. It takes about 70 minutes to get Katie to China (which we know that she will) and leaves 30 minutes to wrap things up. The storyline is so predictable that you know everything after about 5 minutes. Nothing surprises you. I guess that the movie is a coming of age movie but the movie is full of stereotypes that are quite over the top:<br /><br />Katie - A beauty that realizes that looks, boys and shopping isn't everything. She realizes that she can "feel" and "see the real world". Touching.<br /><br />The mother - high strung, nervous, screaming mother (wow very innovative) that need taking care of by a strong man.<br /><br />The father - patient and always understanding and takes care of the incapable woman.<br /><br />The boyfriend that only wants to get into her pants.<br /><br />The comedian clown Chinese guy that doesn't know how to speak English properly and made a laughing stock. Thought Hollywood dropped those characters in the mid fifties.<br /><br />The nurse that at times knows everything how to get around in China that in the next moment is a carbon copy of The mother i.e. a woman who cant handle the situation or knows anything.<br /><br />The deformed Chinese girl that with the help of us westerns get help and become a beautiful girl. Because in China (a third world country according to the film) don't have anything and hence needs our charity. Gah, wake up and smell what you are shoveling.<br /><br />Sure that there are some poverty in China but the portrayal of the aid from western countries (read USA) is so shallow and happy ending-ish that it is sad and revolting. Shanghai (where the movie is set) is the most expanding and evolving city in the world at the moment.<br /><br />The Chinese father that is so nice and goodhearted that in the end has one wish ... to be a cowboy with a white hat ...<br /><br />The teacher (Sean Astin) that has this really heart ripping story (not) that he tells without feel. Why Sean? WHY!?<br /><br />Etc etc. It is difficult to actually finding a "real" person in the entire movie.<br /><br />This is nothing but a feel good movie for Americans below age 15. If you want to learn anything about the world watch e.g. Hotel Rwanda instead. For a better life story or coming of age movie I suggest you watch the Italian "Cinema Paradiso" that won the best foreign film academy reward some years back.<br /><br />The only nice thing in the movie were the small town sceneries that truly capture some (not all) of the beautiful Chinese country side. I have been there and seen some of it.
Two redeeming qualities of this film were the cinemaphotography and a storyline that was hard to resist. However, the script, the direction, and some scenes, were just awful. I kept asking myself why such a good cast would have produced such a bad movie. My only conclusion was that these actors must believe in the charity which underlies the plot of the movie, but knew the movie was filled with flaws.<br /><br />This film could have been so much better, and reached a larger audience accordingly. What makes me think this is that with all of the problems of the film, some scenes being painfully bad to watch, I still wanted to see how the obvious conclusion would resolve itself.
...without anything to walk away with. This movie starts with scenes in China with the finding of a newborn. While this is not a new concept, I wasn't going to give up right there. Then there is a flash forward to adolescence. The man's wife and biological child are fed up with the father who has neglected them. While this did not seem culturally accurate, and the movie made no move to develop these characters or the purpose for the adopted father's devotion, I pressed on.<br /><br />Next, we're in Malibu where we are bombarded by poorly constructed classroom interaction and terribly low-budget (fill in the blank: acting/camera work/lighting).<br /><br />I won't give away any more of the plot, because I suppose the synopsis is accurate: the movie is meant to show how a Malibu girl who (though she seems to innately have the compassion and interest to help others when she immediately asks her teacher about the trip to China) is spoiled and inconsiderate, finds herself as being a healer and helper of both body and spirit.<br /><br />Lame. LAME, LAME, LAME.<br /><br />Now I, admittedly, am a harsh critic, so maybe take one of those LAME's away and you'll be on the mark.
The story line of a man's love for an innocent baby he finds with a malformed face and on the opposite side of the world a shallow self centered "valley girl" who shares a birth date with her and ends up making a big difference in both of there lives. What a great and worthy story line. But in this telling the screen writing and/or directing and/or editing is so poor as to take most of the joy out of the story. Linda Hamilton's character goes from understanding mom to wicked witch and back faster than a speeding bullet, and for what purpose? Conflict, conflict, conflict, at the drop of a hat. Katie (The California Girl) and her boyfriend, Katie's Mom and everybody, including the poor lady at the airport check-in counter, Lin's adopted father, who is the nicest, most considerate man alive, and his wife and biological son, all in constant conflict. I really wanted to enjoy a heartwarming story, but the only thing that made me SMILE was when all the hate and fighting were over. There were too many unexplained or illogical events, many of which don't add to the story. My wife and I kept looking at each other and asking ourselves how such a good cast and what should be a great story, could be crapped up so badly.
The characterization in this movie is among the worst I've ever encountered. The dialogue is trite and cliché to the point of extreme distraction. None of the issues the characters face are developed at all--they're merely surface details intended to get a point across without having to actually come up with believable dialogue to support said point. Also, the depiction of the Chinese characters leaves a bit to be desired--I find it hard to believe that the Chinese father learns flawless English from a book(or so it is implied in one scene) so he can teach it to his daughter. Etc.<br /><br />The Smile Train is a great organization and it's a nice idea, to make a heartstring-tugging film about the impact a program like this can have on kids' lives, but overall, I found this movie to be more frustrating than anything.
This movie is terrible, it was so difficult to believe that Katie became a heartfelt teenager with the power to save the pity Chinese people, the movie didn't show any convincing argument to prove that. And the rest of the plot didn't make any effort to show us more than a cheap common sense... <br /><br />The plot is ridiculous and the only thing we can extract from it is that it demonstrate how arrogant a human can be. Katie must have inherited her arrogance from her mother, the most annoying character I have seen for a long time. <br /><br />The acting and scenery were OK, but the plot ruins everything, full of cheap clichés and hypocritical scenes, I expect not to see this movie again in my life. Skip this one!
Not to be confused with Michael Ritchie's nasty 1975 beauty pageant spoof, this "Smile" is a down-turned example of those good intentions paving the road to hell.<br /><br />The film parallels two stories: an impoverished Chinese father sacrifices his wife and son to raise a facially-deformed orphan named Ling (Yi Ding), and a TV-spawned Malibu family act out "Gidget Get Birth Control." Katie (Mika Booram, the third Olsen twin) plays a spoiled, self-absorbed high schooler distanced from reality. Her teacher (Sean Astin) paves the way for a school trip to China aimed at showing students how to work with deformed children.<br /><br />The film uses deformity as a means of suspense by treating Ling like the Frankenstein monster. Kramer continually masks her deformity through hats, hoods and camera placement. This approach exploits the freak show quality inherent in the material. She may be uncomfortable with the way society views her and Kramer's answer is to cover her up until the big reveal. Why disturb your audience with such unpleasantness? We see her face briefly at the end and only minutes before closing-credit snapshots of her after surgery disclose a swan beneath the harelip. It is not good enough to give the girl a reason to live; what is imperative is Ling being equally as hot and popular as Katie.<br /><br />Funding for the film came from a trust established by the late Roy Rogers and Dale Evans. They envisioned a heritage of quality family films. Give me "Son of Paleface" any day.
I just purchased this movie because I love to donate to Operation Smile, the charity on which the movie was based...but I found the writing of the movie to be very strange. It t does not really focus so much on Operation Smile or similar organizations like The Smile Train and their Herculean efforts to relieve the suffering of children born with facial deformities in third world countries. No, it concentrates on an American teenage volunteer, Katie, whose "over-privileged" life in Malibu, California, includes a mother who brings her to a doctor so that she'll have birth control pills in her before she sleeps with her boyfriend. What is this birth control nonsense supposed to do, titillate the audience? It's 2005. I'd be more surprised if in 2005 a Malibu teen wasn't on birth control, and even if she is, so what and who cares? Contrasting Katie is the character of Lin in China, a girl with a facial deformity who missed last year's chance to get an operation and this year does not want to have one. Neither character is written in such a way that the audience can really identify with, let alone understand the motivations of, either girl. On the other hand, the actors do an adequate job of trying to play the bad hand they were dealt by whoever wrote this ridiculous script. The best performance was by the gentleman playing Lin's father although much of his dialogue is in Chinese and subtitled. Operation Smile deserved to be honored by a much better movie than this!
Never mind the serious logic gaps, never mind the achingly cliche character portrayals, never mind the haphazard writing, and you might like this movie. The main character Alyssa was supposed to be endearing, the heroine who you root for to be saved,(or in this case, save herself) But instead she merely grates, and makes one wonder, are all pro ballerinas really that stupid? Her busybody mother was obviously only necessary to further propagate the illusion that ballet companies are evil monsters ready to snatch your poor, innocent, young girl from your grasp, with an ever present, biting artistic director/villain. And the cliche's! Not only does she become anorexic, bulemic, an over the counter junkie, and a pathological liar, but all in the course of a few months. It's like the writer read every horror story he could dig up about ballet and decided to see how much he could cram into two hours, (with commercials).<br /><br />Believe it or not, but I am a dancer. This "uprising" or "resurgence" of anorexia and bulemia that is happening is nonexistent at all of the dance schools I have attended. In fact, the teachers are so scared to even suggest that a girl might stand a better chance a few pounds lighter, most of the dancers in my classes would be actually considered minorly overweight. I'm not saying eating disorders never occur, but not to the extent as it was portrayed in the movie.<br /><br />Another annoying problem this movie had was the means-to-an-end writing style. Her on again off again boyfriend probably had all of half an hour total screen time, all in the first half. The other supporting characters were merely props, decorations to further the story. Given the right dialogue, this would have been a very intricate mind study of a psycological problem. As it is, it turns into a one woman show, and Kimberly McCullough doesn't have the chutzpah to pull it off.<br /><br />To a non dancer, this movie would be a supposed "insight" into what really goes one behind closed doors at a ballet company. To a dancer, this is a very insulting movie, which portrays ballerinas as stupid and parents as pushy and ill informed. Those adjectives more correctly describe the people who got this on the air in the first place. 3/10
Rarely seen a movie that deviates so much from the original premise and still remains (more or less) acceptable…Bloodline is a rather short (which is a good thing in this case) escapade that focuses on the mysterious Hellraiser box. Who wanted it to be made and how it cast a spell on the entire bloodline of the man who eventually created it. We're introduced to 3 generations of the Merchant family (all played by Bruce Ramsey); one in 18th century Paris, one in the present day and the last one in a future galaxy far, far away… Opinions on this storyline may differ a lot…either you think it's very idiotic and far-fetched or…original and dared. The initial atmosphere and setting by Clive Barker has completely vanished, yet the morbid surrounding remains and several sequences are still very creepy and unsettling. Hellraiser: Bloodline contains quite a lot of exquisite slaughtering and the charismatic presence of Pinhead (Doug Bradley) still is an extra horror-value. Pinhead – accompanied by a pet puppy this time – still knows how to kill…too bad he talks too much and his vicious speeches tend to get boring quickly. Best aspects in this production are the newly introduced `cenobites' and the occult Parisian portrait. Giant turn-offs are the weak script, the absence of the typical macabre humor and the lack of references to Barker's initial masterpiece. <br /><br />Although not highly memorable itself, Bloodline stands as the last watchable Hellraiser film. After this sequel, the series went downhill completely. So far, 2 more sequels came out (2 more are still in process) and neither of those is worth seeing. Hellraiser:Bloodline suffered from a lot of production difficulties and the director eventually preferred to be credited as Alan Smithee…Meaning he doesn't want to be remembered as the director of it. Who could blame him?
The Joe Cool Review - Hellraiser: Bloodline<br /><br />Starring: Bruce Ramsay as Phillip L'Merchant/John Merchant/Dr. Paul Merchant, Valentina Vargas as Angelique and Doug Bradley as Pinhead<br /><br />Plot: This follows a timeline of the lineage of the Merchant bloodline, which started with Phillip L'Merchant, who created the box that opens the doorway to Hell. Starting with the 18th century to present time when Pinhead first meets Merchant and tries to sever the bloodline..(he's the only one who can stop Pinhead, you see) and finally in the future, in space, where Paul Merchant has finally figured out how to send Pinhead to hell for good.<br /><br />Openers: This is a movie hated so much by the people who made it, they declared fictional director Alan Smithee would be the credited director. They only pull Smithee out of the woodwork when they really think they've made a terrible movie, such as classics as The Birds II: Land's End or Bloodsucking Pharaohs in Pittsburgh. No I didn't make that up. How did I like it? You're reading this so I'm sure that's what you want to know.<br /><br />The Good: This movie isn't as bad as you've been led to believe. Oh I'm not going to sugar-coat it. This movie was filled with so much potential and ended up being a disaster, but it does have some positives. Cooler cenobites this time around for starters, such as the twins and the demon Angelique. Pinhead is still in a main role, and still has good lines("Pain has a face, allow me to show it to you") and it's somewhat entertaining throughout. Gorehounds will love the movie because of it's endless supply. There is also some continuity with the rest of the series, although you'll have to look hard to see it. The Chatterer Dog is awesome.<br /><br />The Bad: But for a story about Hell vs the cursed Merchant bloodline that could close the gateway forever, it was really complicated and held together with duct tape. Nothing was really explored to it's full potential and there were some really stupid things included. Pinhead kidnaps a kid and holds him for ransom! Random deaths just to feature more blood(not always a bad thing, but not for the sake of the story). Pinhead is at his worst here, he rants and rants and rants even when he's about to die! For the very smart demon that he used to be, he's been reduced to nothing more than a Bond villain, at best. If Hellraiser fans ever needed a reason why he was moved back into a cameo like role, this is it. Bloodline ruined it for us all.<br /><br />The Ugly: Gore is always mentioned here. This one has skin ripping, drilling, hook impaling, beheadings, and more goodies. The Chatterer Dog, while awesome, reeks of bad special effects during the chase scenes.<br /><br />Final Verdict: This movie had the potential for something great, even Hellbound levels of greatness. But all of that was wasted. Who knows exactly what went down to produce this crap, but we can only blame Alan Smithee.<br /><br />Compared to the rest: This movie is the worst of the Hellraiser series. For completists only.<br /><br />Rating: 1/2* of *****
After the failure of "Hellraiser III: Hell On Earth," the chapter that served as a kind of 'death blow' to the franchise, another embarrassing cheapo cash-in did not come as a surprise. An abysmal attempt to explain every single mystery of Pinhead and the puzzle box, covering literally centuries of history, in a film that runs UNDER 90 minutes... On display is sub-par to wretched acting, sup-par to wretched B-movie special effects, and a ludicrous and insulting attempt at dark humour, while STILL attempting to keep the whole project completely serious. I'm wondering, how many freaking directors did this thing have? Poor Pinhead has SO MUCH screen time, that every bit of mystery and menace that this iconic character possessed, is completely lost. After an hour of hearing long-winded speeches and dramatic posturing, we simply want to tell the guy to shut up! mildly entertaining in spots, especially in the first segment, this mess begins to look and feel like a cheap, ugly made for TV splatter flick after a while, and ends in the most ridiculous way imaginable: Pinhead, along with his pet Cenobite dog, killing a bunch of idiots... in outer space! I'm sorry, but any true fan of the first two films in the series, that gave this abortion of a film more than 3 stars, should be ashamed. On a side note, the film that follows; "Hellraiser: Inferno" is actually a surprisingly intelligent, and stylishly-made film-noir piece, that brilliantly reinstates 'Pinhead' as a master of illusion and cruelty, and brings back the concept of the inherent evil in human kind, that was the centerpiece of the original film, and the whole point of the story. For any serious horror fan, see Hellraiser I & II, skip the lousy III & this one, and continue with 'Inferno.' You won't miss a thing by skipping this garbage...
By the time the Hellraiser franchise was reaching it's forth film the premise was wearing a bit thin. Dr. Paul Merchant (Bruce Ramsey) is a scientist in the future, whom while prisoner regales his captor of the story of how his ancestors (all played by Ramsey) had first built the evil Lament Configuration puzzle-box that sets evil upon the world and how his bloodline had subsequent dealing with said box. The film is a awash with lack of continuity in regards to the other films and lack of coherency in this one. Yes, this could be due to a combination of rewrites, massive cuts in the original version of the film, or what have you. But I'm reviewing the film as is, and not what it was or could have been. And as it is now it's a mess. Sure the franchise will go on indefinitely with direct to DVD sequels, but this one was pretty much a death-nail to it's chances of getting a new one released theatrically ever again.<br /><br />My Grade: D-
In the XXII century an architect by the name of Merchant (Bruce Ramsay) commandeers a space station, which he personally designed. As can be predicted a special force is sent to retake the expensive station and put Merchant into custody. Upon arrival they find him partaking in a weird ritual with the use of a mysterious cubical. During interrogation he reveals that they must let him finish, what he has started or else the hell he has released will bathe in blood... In order to convince the officers holding him captive he reminisces about his heritage, about the toymaker who built the box and about the reasons as to why he is here in space...<br /><br />The movie that is essentially the same to Hellraiser, that The Quickening was to Highlander. Something to be ignored and forgotten, as so it won't influence the lore of Hellraiser to much. By far the most trashy of the franchise with a much more low-grade feel to it than its predecessors (who let's face it were B or C class films).<br /><br />Acting at times seems to be influenced by a mid-budget porn-flick with wooden unbelievable performances, that actually have you thinking: So when are they going to undress and start with the intercourse? Surprisingly not much sex in the movie, albeit the introduction of the seductress-demon Angelique (a totally superfluous character that unnecessarily messes with what we know of the world of Hellraiser) offers ample opportunities for the love-making.<br /><br />Basically the movie consists of three abruptly pasted together separate short stories (one in the future, one in the present and one in the past) which lack focus and are rushed along in amateurish fashion. The end result is extremely poor, basically underlined by the fact you have no interest into what happens to any of the characters in the film.<br /><br />Some decent gore in the flick, but apart from that an utter failure.
There's lots of ketchup but not a whole lot of sense in the supposedly explanatory third sequel, which piles on the naff visuals to no effect. Good old Alan Smithee directed this one, in which various members of the same family (all played, poorly, by Bruce Ramsay) are terrorised by Pinhead (Doug Bradley, wheeled out of mothballs for the umpteenth time). Peter Atkins tries to imbue his script with poetic touches but doesn't seem to realise that his dialogue is as deep and meaningful as a plate of sick. The incoherent plot fails to adequately fill the movie's meagre running time, although this may have more to do with studio interference than anything the filmmakers intended.
Hellraiser: Bloodline is only a so-so film. I believe it's the fourth installment in the Hellraiser series.<br /><br />I missed the beginning, and all I remember from there was some topless women and a box-shape thing on a computer screen. But, using my wit and intelligence, (and the Info Button) I soon found out that the villain (Pinhead) was released from Pandora's Box, which, I believe is a gateway straight to Hell.<br /><br />So, anyways, Pinhead somehow comes out of the box and terrorizes the "Toymaker's" family. And, that's about it. Oh, and not to mention the random tortures of various people that cross his path. Yawn.<br /><br />What mainly happens in this film is that Pinhead captures the kid, and then unleashes the dog on his wife, and then kills a random person. Then he husband comes along, blah, blah, blah. Who cares? Why it fails is because Hellraiser: Bloodline is too corny to be scary. Look at Pinhead's minion of creatures: a cheesy dog that looks like it's been turned inside out, two men whose heads and bodies are connected together, (Siamese twins in a horror film?) and some person who is supposed to be a princess of some sort. (I haven't seen the previous films.) Now look at the main villain. His name is Pinhead. Isn't that the name you call somebody when they're stupid? He has pins in his head and hooks coming out of his fingers, and he has blue skin. I suppose he would make a decent villain if he didn't have such a corny name, and a corny speech. Somewhere in the film, two cops approach him and say "Don't make us put some pain on you!" Pinhead replies "Pain? How dare you use that word! I AM pain…" blah, blah, blah, blah blah. It sounds a bit cliché if you ask me.<br /><br />Don't forget the final half of the movie. The characters (and audience) get to experience more torture when Pinhead attacks some futuristic asylum. Some person who we don't recognize (Maybe he was in the previous films. I don't remember him in the beginning of the movie.) This scene is basically one thing played over and over again: <br /><br />A guard goes to inspect a mysterious noise.<br /><br />Some other guard: "Oh no! He's down. I will go check on him…by myself!"<br /><br />After he dies the same thing happens again.<br /><br />(SPOILERS) Here's the thing I didn't get. In the film Pinhead is supposedly sent to Oblivion at the end. So, how does he come back for another four films? Are they prequels? Why hasn't he died in the previous ones? Geez. The makers need to come up with an idea for a different series. (END OF SPOILERS) Hellraiser: Bloodline is gory and full of torture scenes, but has little thrill or scare value. Just forget it. Bad special effects with bad…everything else make this more of a snooze-fest than a good horror.<br /><br />Good: Well…some people may enjoy the topless women in the beginning. Plus, Pinhead's voice is pretty cool. I suppose if you like ultra-violence, you might like this too.<br /><br />Bad: None of the reasons above make this a very good film. The corniness and repetitiveness are pretty bad. And, who names their villain Pinhead?<br /><br />Feel free to send me a Private Message regarding this comment.
Some sort of accolades must be given to `Hellraiser: Bloodline'. It's actually out Full-Mooned Full Moon. It bears all the marks of, say, your `Demonic Toys' or `Puppet Master' series, without their dopey, uh, charm? Full Moon can get away with silly product because they know it's silly. These Hellraiser things, man, do they ever take themselves seriously. This increasingly stupid franchise (though not nearly as stupid as I am for having watched it) once made up for its low budgets by being stylish. Now it's just ish.
Hellraiser: Bloodline is where the sequel mediocrity of the Hellraiser series well and truly sets in. Gone is the imagination and invention of the first two movies. Gone is the ethos of Pinhead and his minions. Gone are the sick desires of humans. In fact everything that once made Hellraiser so original has been trashed by this mess of a picture.<br /><br />All that is left is that basic premise of Christian mythology that there is a Hell with evil Demons. What happened to the evil that men do? This watered down excuse for a Hellraiser movie is padded out with endless Psycho Babble, so that Pinhead becomes a nonsense spouting philosopher and not the harbinger of doom as he is meant to be. <br /><br />The film uses the most basic of film formulas with characters separating and getting individually killed. Pinhead is not Alien. The link between the box and the 'demons' or 'Hell' is never established it just arrives at a sacrifice and sits on a sideboard.<br /><br />The lead female Character is called 'Rimmer' and the producers obviously think it really funny because everyone keep saying her name. Really the film should have been retitled to give it that characters name.<br /><br />Shame on you Kevin Yagher and Alan Smithee.
It's true, no one really expects anything from sequels. But even by that low standard this is a terrible film.<br /><br />Essentially an anthology movie, this fourth installment in the Hellraiser saga tries to be an origins story and a wind-up to the entire series at the same time. An ambitious idea. But none of the cast is given enough screen time to do anything with their characters and rookie director Yagher abandoned the film rather than give in to studio meddling. The result is a steaming pile of mediocrity that even fanboys have trouble defending. Unless you're an "Alan Smithee" fan, avoid this one.
***SPOILERS!*** I sometimes wonder what makes sequel-makers think that they have to explain (and therefore destroy) the mysteries behind iconic Horror films. The original "Hellraiser" of 1987 was an absolute masterpiece and probably one of the scariest films ever made. The 1988 sequel "Hellbound" was also a fantastic Horror film, though I personally didn't like how the viewer got background information on the Cenobites, some of the all-time creepiest Horror-villains in the original. The third part, "Hell on Earth" (1992) was already quite a mess, whose makers obviously thought it necessary to add a dose of humor to the formerly incomparably creepy lead-cenobite Pinhead (a typical 90s stupidity) and therefore destroyed most of his scariness. This fourth part "Hellraiser: Bloodline" (1996) is slightly more atmospheric than the third one, but it lowers this quality by inventing even more silly and completely unnecessary 'background information' about the cenobites and the opening of the gates to hell.<br /><br />Seriously - did we need to know how the mysterious puzzle boxes that open the gates to hell are being made? I think not, and that is not the only mystery about the cenobites that is stupidly destroyed in this film. The setting of "Bloodline" goes back and forth in three different periods. The film begins in a 22nd century space-station, when scientist Dr. Merchant (Bruce Ramsay) attempts to close the gates to hell forever. When government soldiers disrupt his mission he has to explain his reasons. In 18th century Paris, Merchant's ancestor was a toymaker assigned to build a puzzle box by an aristocrat obsessed with the occult. An evoked demon, the princess of hell, took over the body of the beautiful Angelique (Valentina Vargas). Since the only person capable of destroying the gateway to hell is the one who built it, the bloodline of the toymaker would be cursed and his ancestors infested by cenobites throughout the ages... The film, which takes place in the 18th century, the present, and the 22nd century, really is quite a mess. I admit that the part set in the 18th century has a creepy atmosphere and is by far the best part of the film, but its also its smallest part. The parts set in the present and in the future are quite weak, and filled with stupid and unworthy elements. The film's undoubtedly strong points are the terrific make-up and gore-effects, the absolutely ravishing Valentina Varagas as the she-demon, and Pinhead (Doug Bradley), who, in spite of having lost some of his creepiness, still is a menacing villain. It is an almost offensive idea for "Hellraiser" fans, however, that Pinhead is supposed be defeated by a ridiculous light-show. Overall, "Bloodline" is not a complete disaster, but it sure is an unworthy sequel to a series that began so brilliantly. Even director Kevin Yagher was obviously embarrassed about it, as he preferred to be credited as Alan Smithee. Overall, this is only recommendable to hardcore Pinhead-fanatics, and most of them are probably going to be angered by another diminution of their favorite demon's creepiness. All others are well-advised to stick with the brilliant first, and excellent second part of the "Hellraiser" franchise and skip all the others. The makeup effects in "Bloodline" are creepy as hell, but almost everything else is disappointing. My rating: 3.5/10
this fourth installment of the series is the last to get a theatrical release,though it feels like a direct to video movie.it's OK,i guess,but nothing special.the acting is the worst of seen in the series up to this point.and like the third movie,there isn't much in the way of imagination.also,the sentence "directed by Alan Smithee" is never a good thing.Smithee is the pseudonym directors use when they want nothing to do with the movie.anyway,its an acceptable movie in the Hellraiser series,but not much more than that.it's a slight drop in quality from number three,and a huge drop from the first two.for me,Hellraiser IV:Bloodline is a 4.5/10
this movie is so bad and Hellraiser part 1 to 3 are so great. Nothing is good Bloodline... a lot of gore but without meaning and the majority of time without originality. the movie is about the past, the present (1996) and the future of the puzzle box. The creator of the box and his offspring fight against some demon but nothing link up seriously the 3 stories. Pinhead is in the movie...but it isn't Pinhead, he is just a boring bad guy who kidnap kids and kill bird, and the worse...he talk too much. A thing that I really didn't understand is why the dog from hell????? He can't be a cenobites because he had nothing human. Why the dog can be killed by the pressure if the other creature from hell can receive bullets without problems????? Bloodline is incoherent with the movie series in many ways. For example Pinhead and Angelique are old friend in this movie but it's impossible that Pinhead met Angelique because Pinhead is just a soldier from the First World War and Angelique is an old demon and she live in Paris since sometimes like 200 years.
When I first saw this movie in the theater I was so angry. It completely blew in my opinion. I didn't see it for a decade then decided what the hell, let's see. I'm watching all hellraiser movies now to see where it went wrong. My guess is it was with sequel 5 that was the first to implement the whole "i am in a dream omg i see weird stuff, oh noes what is happening, oh its a dream, oh its not a dream, oh wait i see something spooky, oh never mind"-sucky storyline. Those sequels don't even require the box to be opened, or stick to the rules from the first 4 movies that if you saw pinhead you are pretty much screwed and dead. The first 3 hellraisers sticked to this storyline which made it so scary in the first place. Nothing fantasy, nothing weird, the box got opened boom they came. Kirstey was the only one that could bargain her way out of it, first because of uncle Frank. Then because she had information about the cenobites. This movie at least attempts to stick to all that, even though it was a bad story it was still somewhat hellraiser. No I'm pretty sure part 5 was the first part to completely and utterly destroy the hellraiser series. Now they are remaking 1, and I don't even think I will watch it. Oh who am I kidding I probably will and probably will be disappointed.... again.
I just saw this on TCM tonight and was shocked at the over-acting by Jean Arthur. Her bugging her eyes out in surprise and just generally over-doing everything was not in the same style as Dietrich and Art Lund. Dietrich was marvelous in her restraint and comic timing. She being the best thing in this movie. The Wilder gags were flat and frankly more like something a freshman in college would write trying to "get away" w/being wicked,witty and dirty, but just sounded boring and not funny at all. It seemed the humor was being pushed too hard to be funny. The ending was totally contrived. <br /><br />SPOILER AHEAD: Never for a moment did I believe that Art Lund suddenly fell outta love w/Dietrich and then was suddenly madly in love w/Arthur. Oh, Billy. Get real! 3 out of 10.
How could a film dealing with illegal Mexican immigrants being robbed and beaten over the border be dull? Well, "Border Incident" is.<br /><br />No wonder that song and dance man George Murphy's career ended not long after this terrible film came out. Politics was certainly a way out for this future senator who dies a horrible death in this slowly paced film. The film stereotypes the typical Mexican migrant farmer worker as dimwitted and awfully dull.<br /><br />The film only picks up in intensity once the identities of Murphy and Ricardo Montalban have been discovered as federal agents for the U.S. and Mexico respectively.<br /><br />Disappointing at best, we see similar problems in our very own society today.
Great subject matter, director, and cast somehow adds up to a truly abysmal film, told in that flat, semi-documentary style that was so popular around the time this film was made. (And hello, this is NOT a film-noir!) The lackluster, overly complicated, over-populated story has no arc, no focus point, little excitement, and staggers from one scene to the next with no discernible purpose, other than as a valentine to the supposed and highly doubtful cooperation between the American and Mexican governments on the issue of illegal immigration. <br /><br />The scene that made me HATE this film is when Montalban and Mitchell make a daring escape from their captors, race to presumably save Montalban's injured partner from being murdered by a goon with a gun driving a piece of farm machinery, Montalban says something like, "quick - we must try to save him," but instead of doing so they lie on their stomachs and watch in agony for about 5 (!) minutes of screen time as the machine bears down on Murphy and FINALLY runs him over (or so we assume - the machine simply stops, another goon detects the presence of the two "rescuers" and shoots at them as they run off again.) Scene over. The whole thing is so horribly filmed and utterly anticlimatic. There's nothing worse than a protagonist (ostensibly, Montalban, though he's off screen for over half the film) who doesn't even try. Jeez, Ricardo, do SOMETHING!<br /><br />I know it's Anthony Mann, but hell, not ALL of his films are classics, people. How bad does an old movie have to be around here to get anything lower than a 6 rating?
I watched this film because I thought it would be a classic Amy Adams movie. Wow, this movie is so bad on so many levels it staggers the imagination. It is poorly constructed for one, also the script and the acting is just awful. But hey even Johnny Depp has a slew of bad films under his belt. The upside of this movie would be Amy singing, and even on that score I believe better songs could have been chosen. Amy is of course beautiful to see and if you are a die-hard fan of hers you will probably watch this title no matter what, just don't expect too much. I wish I could have found more to like but it was just painful to watch. I recommend Sunshine Cleaning or Doubt.
I would say this is a background movie. Play it the background as your tending to busy work (laundry, checking email, etc). I thought this was a film that was done before Amy Adams became successful after Enchanted. Wrong! It was done in 2009! The screenplay/script is pretty awful. I love musicals but the singing is just average and doesn't move the plot along. Ughh. It almost seems like it's a made for TV movie based on the cinematography. Am I watching a TV show? <br /><br />Even the secretary breaks out into song. What the f@#$ is going on?! Actually she seemed to have the best voice. Amy Adams was so great in Enchanted. Lead actor is average. Disappointed for sure. This movie would have been good for lifetime, but that's about it. :(
Having endured this film last night, I turned off the DVD player with a sense of deserving a medal for having the stamina to see it through to the end. Throughout the film I felt that I was watching the storyline fillers that you get in a high budget porn movie. the acting was stiff and taut, camera work appalling, and the locations and sets were so poor it felt like they had borrowed them from the local High School "Amateur Dramatic's Society".<br /><br />The only saving grace for this movie was that it had Amy Adams and Harriet Sansom Harris in its credits, other than that it was pure dribble.
I am a huge Amy Adams fan and have been for many years. I am also a big fan of musicals. With that said this is not a good movie on any level. It is quite dull and the acting overall is very very poor. Amy Adams is awkward to watch act with Scott G. Anderson due to the fact that she is in another league when it comes to acting. All the performances come off as very amateur. The music performances are pleasant, but nothing special. <br /><br />Scott G. Anderson is just an bad actor! I assumed he was put in this movie because he has a great voice, but it's just not the case. He has an average voice and sings on key, but that's about it.<br /><br />I guess I can see why Amy Adams did this movie with the singing element I just wish she had not. I could rant about other poor elements of this movie, but I'll leave it at that.
I rented this movie because it supposedly takes place in a jazz club -- you know, those hip, cool places you might stumble upon late on a Saturday night. Well, there's not one ounce of "cool" in this ridiculous movie. The score is goofy, the original songs are awful, both lead actors' singing is continually off-key (to be kind) and unprofessional at best, the plot is no more complex than "boy meets girl," the acting is laughable, and the only decent cinematic moments are the stock footage scenes. The jazz club scenes feature sophomoric dialog smothered by overly-busy organ music. This Joey de Francesco should keep his day job (unless his day job is helping with movie scores). Is it possible to not only get my four dollars back, but have my therapy sessions paid for as well? This movie, interestingly enough, is so bad, you might want to watch it. Sort of like driving by a bad accident -- you just have to look at least once. Just get the ear plugs ready!
About the movie itself, there are ample comments. <br /><br />I just wanted to say something about the German version, which I have seen recently on TV. It is heavily cut. From 103 to 76 minutes! It is usual that the most bloody scenes are cut for German TV. I understand the reasons for that, but this movie was something else. They did not only cut "gore-shots" - they have cut entire sequences, sparing only glimpses. Like: "WE have to attack THEM" - one 5 second shot of explosions in the camp - protagonist running away.<br /><br />When the assault on the island begins, it isn't even possible anymore to follow the storyline. All the cuts create something that amounts to a string of erratic, disconnected scenes that don't make any sense anymore.<br /><br />I could not stand to watch the end after spending 60 minutes on this nonsense.<br /><br />I think I would have given the original 7/10 The German version is worth only 1/10<br /><br />Get it on DVD (and check the runtime first) or forget about it.
In what attempts to be a positive story, Dolph Lundgren leads a group of mercenaries to take over a tropical island that looks a lot like paradise so that the men who hired his team can mine it for...bird droppings. Actually, the nitrogen gas that exudes from the muck on this island is what they are after.<br /><br />There was only one good thing about this movie -- the island location in which it was filmed was beautiful. Otherwise, the story drowns itself leaving the actors with nothing to work with. Result: A lot of violence, a lot of language, lots of blood, and a few shots of women topless. If you want pointless violence (sorry, the storyline can't even give the violence a point, though it tries) then this is the movie for you.<br /><br />Parents: be warned that this movie is full of violence and blood, driving the R rating.
Big spoiler right here: this film is B!A!D! But enjoy, it's good bad.<br /><br />Bugged is the kind of film you can't believe exists, with dialog, plotting, and direction so ineptly handled that Uncle Ned's Carlsbad Cavern home video looks like an IMAX experience. Since it's a Troma flick, there's plenty of gross-out gore on tap, but its even sillier than usual.<br /><br />Most of the production money seems to have gone into buying soda and sandwiches for cast and crew. The brilliant dialog is best summed up in the immortal, "%@#$! What was that?" which is second only to the oft screamed, "Now what?"<br /><br />Any knowledge of how people act in a desperate situation is alien to Ronald Armstrong, the writer/director. When one of the friends is found being eaten alive by a grasshopper/termite/chiapet thing, Armstrong has the survivors immediately making time with cute, but dumb-as-a-doorknob, "Divine." While she's being hit on, Divine is cooking up a big steaming pot of a rat-poison/oatmeal mixture on the stove, stirring, smiling, stirring, smiling, never falling over dead from the fumes!<br /><br />The killer bugs are as frightening as piñatas, which they too closely resemble. The effects used to move them include dragging them across tile floors real fast with their legs dragging behind.<br /><br />The highlight for the film would probably have been the house blowing up, but they were either out of cash or never had any, so instead of seeing even a miniature go up in flames, they simply let the screen go black (eat you heart out ILM).<br /><br />The cast is virtually all black. How can the NAACP consistently censor something truly funny like Amos and Andy (which depicts characters certainly no less similiar than those on 99% of all white comedy shows), but says nary a peep about something like Bugged. Oh well, it's best they don't know about how demeaning this film is to all involved (as it would be if it were played by any single ethnic group, frankly). Before they put the kabosh on Bugged, get some friends together and get ready for the Plan 9 of Bug Exterminator movies.
I received this movie as a birthday gift because all of my friends know I'm a big fan of low budget Horror flicks. Kaufman Studios have always made the cheesy gory flicks that delivered. I loved to watch their films at home on rainy nights with my family...until I saw Bugged...WHAT HAPPENED?<br /><br />This Movie started out with a pretty good concept about mutating bugs and even added some slick comedy but overall the writing is just bad and that was mistake number one. Ronald K. Armstrong should learn to first be a better writer before becoming a filmmaker. After reading the Credits we discover he gave himself the most important role in the film!?! two words Mr. Director "Acting Lessons" OK? Mr. Armstrong joins the ranks of other writer/directors who cast themselves in their own movies and that's mistake number two. <br /><br />The only thing that I believed saved this film was the artistic camera work and the musical score, (let's hear it for the crew!) The cast of other actors who in the beginning of this production seemed a bit cold, really warmed up toward the middle and end of this production. Everyone pulled together and helped to pull this film off. Ronald Armstrong may lack the talent to ever become a decent Director or Actor but, I'll say this of him-He seems to know how to organize people to get them all to come together and pull his productions off.<br /><br />This film, I have to say can be an inspiration to any young filmmaker who dreams of making their own movie because if Mr. Armstrong was able to pull this off, Any one else can too. If you get a chance to see this film, watch it for the sake of getting inspired to do "Better" in the future. Hollywood needs bigger and better Horror Flicks to keep this genre coming back from it's grave.
Okay, it's a movie for children, and it's not one of those movies that adults will enjoy as well. However, there are some unintentionally funny moments, most of them involving holes in the story. For example, the kid needs a computer part to bring his dad back to normal, and he doesn't have the money. So, does he ask his father for the dough? Nope, he STEALS IT and gets caught. Kids, if I'm ever turned invisible, I'll advance your allowance, ok? Also, while this kid is at the police station (no doubt about to be charged with criminally lame acting), his beautiful blond teacher comes in, announces who she is and where she works, then BUSTS THE CHILD OUT OF THE SLAM IN FRONT OF THE COPS! To make matters worse, instead of making a quick getaway, they then SIT IN THE PARKING LOT OF THE POLICE STATION AND LAUGH ABOUT THEIR ACHIEVEMENT. You know, I hate to pick, but the kid DID steal something and ought to face the consequences, but maybe being in this movie is punishment enough. Y'all avoid it!
First of all, just let me say this... Ghost Story....hello!?!<br /><br />If any of the other people who trashed this movie from beginning to end realized this fact, their reviews would have been very different. The fact that characters kept disappearing whenever the protagonist turned back to look, should have been a dead giveaway. This movie was not billed as a ghost story when you went to rent it in the video store, not even a hint, and that is the BIGGEST mistake that was made by the studio who marketed it. It was deliberate on their part not to market it as a ghost story in order to confuse you like the main character is confused as you try to make sense of it. The problem in this is that they lost too many viewers; the ghosts appeared "too human and real" without any of the usual telltale signs, imagery or special effects that Hollywood usually uses to let you know you are now seeing a ghost...and that, is what they were trying to do. The main character does not know she is seeing ghosts and neither does the viewer. Now do you get it? As long as you understand that the main character is seeing ghosts, then you'll understand the movie and not be so irritated by what is perceived as major oversights in continuity or plot flaws.<br /><br />I admit, this being said, it still was not a good movie, just not as bad a just about everyone else made it out to be. Just understand, if you plan on watching this movie, everything you see, "ain't" always what what you think it is. 4 out of 10 for acting, 3 for originality, 5 for plot and 5 for scare factor, though there was some gore and spooky moments. Still not a good movie, just way misunderstood.
Definitely the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life. I can't find anything positive to say about this movie (if this production is even worthy of that word). <br /><br />This production is not even the standard of a low budget porn-movie!<br /><br />My question is simply: why did someone look at the script and think "Hey I'm gonna make a movie out of this"?<br /><br />At the end of the movie I wasn't even hoping that "Nicole" was going to make it…. She was really that annoying!<br /><br />So for your own sake, do not watch this movie... unless you want to waste 85 minutes of your life...
Quentin Tarantino once said that to succeed in the film industry you had to make your own Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs. Writer/actor/director Larry Bishop seems to have taken that advice a little too literally with Hell Ride and concocted a messy homage that borrows much too heavily in its visuals, music, camera-work, and time-altering storytelling. But to properly mimic a Tarantino film, one has to have a knack for constructing creative conversations; unfortunately Hell Ride's primary derailing element is its atrocious ramblings and vulgar monologues that only work to disgust and confuse the audience while simultaneously invoking pity for the actors just for being involved.<br /><br />The anti-hero protagonist biker gang, The Victors, consists of several weathered vigilantes who bring their own brand of bloodthirsty justice to the lawless roads. The leader, Pistolero (Larry Bishop), is hell-bent on revenge and putting out fires. The Gent (Michael Madsen) just tries to balance his chaotic, psychotic symphony of life with putting lead into anyone who crosses his boss, and Comanche (Eric Balfour) follows with a fierce loyalty and a mysterious past.<br /><br />On the villainous front, Deuce (David Carradine) is the mastermind who orchestrates from afar, though not quite far enough, and Billy Wings (Vinnie Jones) spits venom and lewd explanations for his tattoos while toting a harpoon gun and a general disdain for life. While these characters might sound interesting on paper, once they're forced to rant horrendously ill-conceived dialogue all traces of cool disappear faster than the funding should for Bishop's next film.<br /><br />While Hell Ride is riddled with imperfections and missed opportunities, the main facet of its undoing lies in the poorly devised conversations. And because Bishop's main influences are the talky films of Tarantino, there are a lot of them. The first twenty minutes of the movie are nearly unintelligible and would probably make as much sense muted. By the time Pistolero's main squeeze is introduced and certain phrases are overused to the point of nausea, you'll pray for both death and the ability to turn the sound off. Even Dennis Hopper has trouble remaining cool while spouting off such goofy dialogue.<br /><br />Have you ever repeated a word or phrase to yourself so many times that it just doesn't sound right or even make sense anymore? Bishop starts there and then keeps the madness going until you envy the characters on screen getting their heads cut off. And when the dialogue finally takes a break, we're treated to interspersed shots of nude female oil wrestling and throats being slashed. I'm not sure what effect Bishop hoped to attain, but I doubt he found it.<br /><br />Hell Ride wants to pay homage to Quentin Tarantino films, Robert Rodriguez films, and every movie that idolizes the violent and devil-may-care attitudes of bikers. But while its intentions may be noble, the horrendously cringe-worthy dialogue and the hyper-stylized timeline-mangling editing prevents the audience from becoming invested with the generic tough-guy characters. By the time we figure out the mystery behind the characters' motives (and it may be awhile before you even realize there's a mystery to be solved), it's just too hard to care anymore. And while everyone on screen is clearly having fun, they've entirely neglected to translate any of that entertainment to the audience.<br /><br />- Joel Massie
Or that's what the filmmakers would like you to believe, anyway.<br /><br />This movie tries sooo hard to be cool it's ridiculous. Everything, from the look of the film, the cinematography, the editing, the dialogue and the acting, is geared in super cool mode from the get go. Just to make sure that no one misses how cool this film is, there's a soundtrack of really cool rock n roll tunes and a twangy western-surf-tex mex guitar playing constantly throughout the film. As a final reminder of how frickin cool this movie is, all the actors have been instructed to speak in a hoarse voice, because, as we all know, that's badass.<br /><br />The plot (if there indeed is one) seems pretty straightforward. But as someone else already pointed out, the director and star of the film, seems fiercely determined not to tell that story, instead focusing on a plethora of naked babes and dialogue that's supposed to be badass, but grows tired surprisingly quick (did they have an contest to see how many times they could cram the words "pussy" and "f*ck" and its derivatives in an 80 minute film?).<br /><br />This movie was absolutely horrible.
Tarentino should be ashamed to be involved with this awful film. The acting, directing and script are all third-rate - with the entire film playing out like an excuse for writer/director/star Larry Bishop to get laid. The only reason it was made at all is most likely due to his association with QT. The plot of the film is pretty flimsy, and basically tries to survive on not-so-obscure references to older B-movies and some cameos from guys like David Carradine, Dennis Hopper, and Vinnie Jones. Each one is listless in their performance, particularly Hopper who is in full-on paycheck mode at this point in his career. The saving grace, if there is one, is that the script is so laughably bad that it can be entertaining. Bishop tries so hard to get that trademark Tarentino banter and just fails miserably, which can be pretty humorous at times and grating at others. I'd only check this one out if you love bad movies...or if you're really into biker films.
Because that's what Hell Ride pretty much is. Larry Bishop and Tarantino partying on the Weinstein's money with the promise to deliver a movie sometime down the line. I'm all for fake boobage and booze as much as the next guy but did we really need the movie? Really there's nothing worse than the reheated second-hand leftovers of an old trend. And I'm not even talking about 70's grindhouse cinema because Hell Ride has none of the raw and unpolished feel of the era it purports to pay homage to. No, this is slick and glossy MTV Hollywood through and through. The old trend I'm talking about is the self-consciously pseudo-hip quirky cinematic world where Tarantino meets Guy Ritchie and Robert Rodriguez. All three guys were at least talented and found success for a reason. Hell Ride is just a second-hand copy, fickle and uninspired, polished to the max when it should be raw, the "supercool" aspect coming off forced and silly.<br /><br />There's no reason for example why such a simple and utterly inane story has to be told in convoluted, back-and-forth in time fashion. It's just a post-Tarantino quirk. There's also no reason why the dialogues have to be so mind-numbingly pointless, people flapping their gums while saying NOTHING: at least when Travolta was talking about cheeseburgers in Pulp Fiction it felt fresh. Dialogues here amount to little more than pseudo-macho posturing. There's also no reason why a grating rock'n'roll guitar has to twangle aimlessly over the entire movie. Perhaps the lowest Hell Ride hits is when it tries to be quasi-existential. There's a hilarious dream/illusion scene in the desert where Bishop eats peyote and sees colours. I was half-expecting an old Indian to come out and offer nuggets of wisdom.<br /><br />The only saving grace of this abysmal turd is the boobage and Vinnie Jones' monologue about his wings tattooes (and maybe some of the desert exterior shots). Lots of boobage and hot scantily clad babes. Now that's something I can get behind but a movie they don't make. Everything else is just an empty shell, an imitation of other infinitely more talented imitators.
Director/lead Larry Bishop tried way, way too hard with Hell Ride. The movie wants to be edgy, witty, provocative, outlandish, biting all of this, seemingly in a Quentin Tarantino/Rob Zombie style. But it's not edgy. The references seem forced. The dialog tries to be clever and fails. The humor is never funny. Nice try setting a gritty tone but we'd have to care about the characters or the story for it to remotely succeed.<br /><br />What you're left with are cool Harleys and pretty girls surrounding a bunch of tired, old and out of shape "bad boys" in what looks like an attempt to do a modernized Sergio Leone western. If this movie can make newer generations interested in 60s and 70s films, kudos for it. But on its own, it is rather boring and irrelevant. I do believe there is a place for style over substance. But this movie is not it.
I have had more boring stretches of 80 minutes in my life, but none are coming to mind right now. Hell Ride is based on the retro cult 70s theme that Tarantino brought back, and did right, in movies like Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. The problem with Hell Ride is, unlike PF and RD, the story is garbage and so is character development. How many movies does Bishop think he can blatantly steal from? The brief case in Pulp Fiction, the air gun in No Country, etc. etc. Speaking of Bishop what the hell is he doing acting in this movie? I couldn't help but laugh at those scenes where he's standing with his pelvis trusted out, desperately trying to seem like some hardened biker. Nothing in this movie is believable. And why Dennis Hopper? Did they really need the Easy Rider motif too? I blame Larry Bishop, for his horrible plot and dialogue, not to mention his failed attempt at the leading role. Don't bother watching this movie, it's a waste of time.
Larry Bishop directs, writes, and leads this soft core porn, plot less biker movie about nothing to do with anything. To call this one of the worst movies of 2008 is being kind to the garbage that I spent money on while in theaters. Its one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I felt sorry for the girls mostly, who probably think they're in the making of a feature film, when in all reality they're making a porno. They walk on the set for four days, say some sexual lines to disgusting old men -- thirty years older than them -- then take off their cloths, and run around naked for the four days they're on set. I can only assume this was Larry Bishops only way to get laid. You see shot after shot directly on a girls asses. Shot after shot of Bishop walking up to some random chick and grabbing her most intimate parts, as if he were shaking her hand. How this crap was even funded is beyond me. Why Tarantino has his name on it is beyond me, but he's been slowly fading away since 1994, so I can't say I was surprised.<br /><br />After 15 minutes, you get that awful feeling that only horrible (and I mean horrible) movies give you. When you see it in theaters, the pain you feel is amplified. After 15 minutes, I wanted to cry for being so stupid, and wasting, not only my time, but my hard earned ten dollars. There isn't one redeeming quality, or one moment in the movie that creates any kind of reaction or shows any kind of inclination that these people had any idea of what they are doing. If you don't see naked women all that often, then I guess this movie would be for you. If you're eleven-years-old, you will probably like it. You can't even laugh at it, because every idiot making it was laughing about the crap they were making. The acting is awful, the writing is awful, the production is awful, and the directing is awful. It's not even worth your time renting it to see the car crash. Stay away, stay very far away. You shouldn't even be reading these reviews. I shouldn't even be writing one.
This film is so bad it's hilarious. I watched Hell Ride half thinking it was a comedy, although I couldn't quite work out if they were actually taking the p*ss, or if this really was a serious attempt at making something decent. I notice it isn't listed here as a comedy so they must be serious! It's basically seems to be about a gang of pensioners who ride round on motorcycles shooting at each other and exchanging the most hilariously bad dialogue you can imagine. One scene inexplicably has two characters smashing bottles over each others heads, then showing each other 'get out of jail free' cards that they've made! Also check out Vinnie Jones' accent, where the hell is he meant to be from?!? Oh and there's a load of naked girls in it too, who for some unfathomable reason seem to want nothing more than to have none stop sex with these leathery skinned b*stards! The guy who wrote and directed it - a Pee Wee Herman lookalike with a Greeshan 2000'd beard and an orange sunbed tan - has for some reason cast himself in the lead role, maybe this is part of the joke, I don't know. Actually, the more I think about it the more I'm sure this film is a p*ss take. It's produced by Quentin Tarantino and it's possible he's released this in humour as a bit of a laugh. It is a total rip off of Tarantino's style, but just done really really badly. It is very amusing though, and I guess either way it could go down as a cult classic, either from being an amusing parody of the Tarantino/Rodriguez style, or something that is very very unintentionally funny. Has to be seen to be believed.
When a movie called Hell Ride comes out you expect a certain amount of biker cliché. With character names like "Pistolero", "Comanche" and "The Gent" I braced myself for the worse and was punch in the face by just that. The dialogue, soundtrack and shooting style are standard for biker movies. Dusty desert blurred from the heat as bikes coming tearing down the road while "CC Rider" plays and they talk about sex and violence. Yawn! The three leads were just ridiculous and unbelievable. Seeing old men like Bishop and Madsen (in a freaking ruffled shirt) riding down a dusty strip of desert highway reminded me of two men trying desperately to relive their youth. Poor Eric Balfour tried his best but with such poor material it got lost. Even an appearance by Dennis Hopper in full Easy Rider swing, couldn't save it. And let's talk about the store bought tans shall we? Many have compared this to Tarantino's work. It is not even close. What makes Tarantino's work so brilliant is he knows it's over the top so he just goes balls out and takes it as far over the top as possible. Bishop took this film so seriously that it became nothing more than a poor copy of the exploitation genre.
That's what I kept asking myself while watching this film. I mean the amount of nudity and sex was one thing but another part of the movie which gave its genre to the adult industry was its lack of storyline. Really I just wanted to get up and leave during the whole movie, but I persisted. I persisted in the hope that maybe the storyline would get better, that there might be a good twist at the end. However I couldn't have been more wrong. In the end I persisted because I figured I could write a bad review for it if anything after watching it. <br /><br />I mean don't get me wrong there is nothing wrong with beautiful, sexy and vibrant women, but when the director only shows that along with a shitty story thinking it's what the viewer wants to see, it insults us all. To think we are all so shallow to only want to see burlesque from rep ratable, big movie industry players is preposterous. My advice: hire a different movie.
The worse film i have every seen. Like the other honest reviewers, it is just an excuse for getting naked birds with their juggs out. Don't get wrong, naked women isn't a bad thing but there is another film genre for that. <br /><br />Boyfriends beware. I sold this to my girlfriend as a classic bike gang fest (due to reviews) to be greeted with every other scene full of naked women gyrating about the place. Slap in the chops for me.<br /><br />What makes me laugh the most is all the dogey bike dives they went to in the film were full of models with the works cosmetically - what biker bars have these? They are usually slightly haggard with tattoos and far saggier juggs! Completely unrealistic.The acting is terrible, loads of pointless swearing and a complete waste of time storyline.<br /><br />Did anyone check out Vinnie Jones's attempt at an American accent? Its as embarrassing as his football skills.<br /><br />Avoid like the plague. The only reason you would watch this film is if you are a young lad who cant access p@rn and have nicked it from their parents movie collection for a few pervy kicks!
Larry Bishop is 60-years old, dirty and not good-looking YET in this movie he's like a drug towards the women in their twenty's.<br /><br />A lot of movies have been claimed to be sexist but if any movie deserves that title it's this one.<br /><br />I can't even count how many boobs there were shown in this movie, probably more then hours Larry Bishop spend writing the script.<br /><br />The script is ridiculous, Bishop and his gang argue, bike, party, have sex, kill people and the next day they argue, bike, party, have sex, kill people and the third day, well you get the idea.<br /><br />I like ERIC BALFOUR and considering what he had to work with, he did pretty good as Comanche.<br /><br />Unfortunately this movie is about Larry Bishop's character Pistolero who is so one-dimensional it's not even funny.<br /><br />He's also a horrible actor, and apparently he never intended to do the lead himself but everybody he asked said no so what was he to do? Once he realized he was gonna do the lead himself, he probably did a re-write of the script so that he could touch up more ladies.<br /><br />Although visually it's kind of good-looking, at least the biker-scenes and Eric Balfour isn't half-bad this movie is just a big mess.<br /><br />I hope to never see Larry Bishop in front of the camera again.
Okay, so writer/director Larry Bishop obviously has some important connections and knows the right people in Hollywood in order to produce his own film and fill up the cast with eye-catching names. Good for him! Now what he really still needs is inspiration and talent in order to come up with an actually worthwhile scenario rather than the overly pretentious and wannabe convoluted crap he penned down here. "Hell Ride" isn't a movie; it's a hectic and hopelessly inept fan-boy endeavor to bring homage to the notorious biker-flicks of the 60's and to the recently revived Grindhouse cinema formula in general. With "Hell Ride", Larry Bishop embarrassingly fails in his set-up and there are many obvious reasons for this. He hasn't got a story to tell – or at least not a very interesting one – but gravely tries to cover this up through numerous redundant plot twists, loads of gratuitous and very women-unfriendly sleaze, overlong and piteous dialogs aspiring to be cool and giant amounts of senseless violence. The plot looks complex but can actually be summarized in one sentence. The ancient vendetta between two rivaling biker gangs flares up again with the arrival of a new member; a boy who may or not be the long lost son of a double-crossing wench that got executed back in 1976. That's it, seriously! All the rest, going from betraying gang members over to the recruitment of old timer members over to toying with his nymphomaniac informant girl, is all completely pointless and confusing padding material. Another major problem in "Hell Ride" is Larry Bishop's very own tremendous and seemingly insatiable ego. He definitely shouldn't have rewarded himself with the role of tough and relentless gang leader, as that only comes across as incredibly pretentious and narrow-minded; especially when there are so many other and more experienced stars in the movie. Granted, Bishop starred in a couple of genuine 60's biker exploitation movies (like "The Savage Seven" and "Angel Unchained"), but that was a long time ago and he honestly isn't any good as an actor. Maybe it simply was Bishop's life-long dream to play a character that always outsmarts his enemies and for which every hot babe sexually craves, and just wrote a whole screenplay around it. The veterans in the cast, like Dennis Hopper and Michael Madsen, don't really bother to leave a plausible impression and I can't say I blame them. This whole production is lame and pathetic and I can't bring myself to recommending it to anyone, regardless of many beautiful babes parade around with bare breasts and naked butts.
This is easily one of the worst movies I've seen in a long long time (and I've recently seen Starship Troopers 2!!!). I could find nothing to redeem this film. The acting, which is probably the best aspect of the film, is fair at best. Michael Madsen hams it up in his standard character persona. Denis Hopper doesn't seem to know what he's supposed to be. Vinnie Jones accent is bizarre. One positive thing is that Leonor Valera looks fantastic. Her acting is pretty poor but I doubt that's why shes there.<br /><br />The dialogue is truly appalling. It is quite simply rubbish. I don't know who signed off on this but they really need to get professional help next time round.<br /><br />This film is the reason IMDBs rating system should be able to include zero stars out of ten. Avoid at all costs.
This movie makes "Glitter" look like "Schindler's List." Tarantino and the Weinsteins really need to consider more carefully before putting their names on a product. Green-lighting a P.O.S. like this, regardless of the friendships involved, is just bad business. Larry Bishop needs to be kept away from a movie camera at all costs. Writer/director/producer/actor Bishop shows that his skills are inadequate for any of those jobs. A vanity project gone south, "Hell Ride" allows usually good actors to chew the scenery... at least when the camera isn't centered on Bishop's feeble attempts to steal every scene he's in. (Which is virtually EVERY SCENE!) My final three words on "Hell Ride" are STINK, STANK, STUNK.
This film Oh my god this film is so poor , I'm amazed I managed to watch it all ..<br /><br />First off Id like to say that Vinny Jones should only play a London thug period that's it end of story ..<br /><br />Pisttolero is so unconvincing its almost comedy.. Banging in Dennis hopper and David Carradine did not save this film .. in fact I think its a total comedy and as a comedy it deserves its 1 star..<br /><br />Avoid at all costs .. Vinny Oh my god I thought I saw it all when he played that Irish Tinker :P<br /><br />I think the average viewer will realize that this film is maybe just a never will be type of film.. I cant see how anybody could actually fall this crap
This is my first "awful" rating ever on IMDb and I couldn't think of a more deserving film to honor it with. I hoped for entertaining trash and found trash of the saddest, dullest kind. I found a film which no one can possibly have cared a bit about, including its creator.<br /><br />"Hell Ride", directed, written by and starring Larry "Friend of QT" Bishop, has a simple plot about a hidden treasure and a trio of keys, two bands of bikers and a gruesome murder in 1976 which has yet to be avenged. Larry seems fiercely determined not to tell this story, focusing instead of putting his swaying, strangely grimacing main character into situations where he can fondle women who pretend to like it. He also has a dialog containing enough horrible fire puns/metaphors to put one off the word "fire" for life.<br /><br />Dennis Hopper escapes complete humiliation, others are not so lucky. Sometimes they hit the road on their bikes, making one feel even more sorry for Michael Madsen, since his high handles seems to add insult to the injury of having to appear in this film. There is plenty of silicon-enhanced nudity, but fairly little action and no humor whatsoever, making one wonder just what kind of an audience they had in mind.<br /><br />My guess is that most people who watch this film, including fans of trashy 60s biker movies, will feel cheated. Do yourself a favor and revisit the real stuff instead.
Once upon a time Quentin Tarantino was a relatively successful filmmaker.<br /><br />Now, unfortunately, he not only makes terrible films, but puts his names to ones like this.<br /><br />A supposedly cool retro flashback to biker movies of the 60s and 70s, this plumbs new depths.<br /><br />Believe you me, I enjoy it when a blouse falls off in a film more than the next man but even I felt kind of sleazy watching this. To use a word I never thought I would, its msysoginistic (you see, I can't even spell it.) The plot (in the vaguest sense of the term) is as incomprehensible as Vinnie Jones' accent, the fact his terrible acting does not stand our particularly is as damning a testament as one can think of.<br /><br />This is just terrible. Shocking. It almost made me cry. In horror.
I would not recommend it whatsoever. It was like getting stuck in the middle row of a theater, so I couldn't leave, and watching a part porn movie (except they didn't take their clothes off - it was the body language and definitely the language). I have to say I was embarrassed. Filming was very low budget, no good dialogue. Yuck. Actors stunk except The two best characters who got killed off (?) and they were David Carradine and Dennis Hopper. It did smack of Kill Bill and that old movie with the two guys who ride the dessert on their chopppers. You know what I mean. blablabla. The filming was grainy and just a very low quality. There was nobody in that theater that liked this movie, and the people around me were younger and tattooed.
Larry Bishop, the Writer/Actor/Director, focuses too heavily on the camera, music, and visuals. The film resorts to meaningless ramblings and vulgar monologues, which seem to have no purpose other than boring and irritating the audience. The actors experience a bumpy ride, from the film's start to finish, and are caught in one terrible smoke screen. The hell with the ride. The film is a bomb.<br /><br />The Victors are presented as weathered vigilantes, who seek their own form of justice for what they see as lawlessness. They are bikers, anti-heroes, and protagonists. Pistolero, played by Larry Bishop, is the revengeful leader of the pack. The Gent (Michael Madsen) is trapped in his own crossfire of chaos and psychosis. <br /><br />Comanche (Eric Balfour) is loyal, but mysterious. Deuce, performed by David Carradine, should have passed on the ride, and so should the ticket-buyers (if you decide to see the film, you'll be sorry, but you'll find out why). Billy Wings (Vinnie Jones) is a lewd and venomous character, completely filled with disdain.<br /><br />What puzzles me is how this film, with all of its continual ramblings and vulgarity, ever got anybody to invest in a ride that absolutely goes nowhere. Ticket-buyers, take my advice: don't pay for the ride. Please don't make the same mistake as the investors.<br /><br />The first fifteen minutes, or so, of the movie is confusing and unintelligible. The dialog, which rapidly turn into meaningless monologues, doesn't make any sense. The entire film is hell bent on going nowhere. Poor Dennis Hopper is caught in the middle of a real mess. He, too, should have passed on the ride. There are decapitated heads, slashed throats, and nude females wrestling. It is clear that Bishop doesn't know where he is going with the film. He gets entirely lost. But, by the end of the ride, you just won't give a damn. Mama Mia! Stay home. And, by all means, don't take the ride. I rate this film a 1 out of 10, but this movie is so awful it deserves a zero.
This movie is juxtaposition of various super bad tough guy biker characters, loosely connected but with no real storyline. Some of the scenes are nicely filmed. If they took the same cast and crew, and made a movie called the Gent who was the coolest character in the film and came up with an interesting and continuous story maybe it could be decent. As it is, prepare for a lame series of tough guy character intros, all of whom do nothing but ride bikes around the desert all day and cause trouble while all staying never getting sunburned and keeping their hair and clothes perfect and never needing to look for a home or money, etc. There was a sort of background story about the characters pasts various people that were killed and a treasure that was probably supposed to be the plot.
There are a lot of 'bad' films out there. Tune in to Channel 5 every night of the week and you might just be treated to a daily, shocking effort from one filmmaker or another. There are possibly films that have caused me more pain - were harder to sit through - than this, but in terms of writing, acting, direction, cinematography and the bare basics of cinema Inbetweeners is a truly, truly appalling effort and should be avoided at all costs. The only laugh it gave me was in the behind the scenes documentary on the DVD, in which the film's geeky director Darren Fisher explains how it was his script that attracted the 'talent' to the project! Never underestimate the power of self-delusion.<br /><br />Darren Fisher - Britain's answer to Edward D. Wood Jr.!
This is possibility the worst and most disappointing film I have ever seen. I've spent four years at two universities and know that there must be a good film to be made about the experience. This isn't it. The "acting" is god awful and the plot non-existent.<br /><br />Here are a few incidents from my one year in halls of residence.<br /><br />1) A posh lad that unknowingly got off with a transvestite. 2) The best friend pairing of two girls - one with huge breasts and the other with the nickname "the brick". 3) A couple that shag too loudly. 4) The lad who gets all the girls 5) The lad from Northern Ireland who is very difficult to understand. 6) McDonalds in bed 7) Curry every night for a week 8) Student bashing, couple of my mates ended up in hospital 9) The discarded joint that started a fire. 10) The flood 11) The lad who wakes up on his floor to find that every item of furniture has be taken from his room.<br /><br />And if I can come up with that list in 5 minutes and from real life, I'm sure a couple of script writers can do better, a lot better.<br /><br />And for a film named after a Sleeper song, where is the Britpop soundtrack?
Well, I have been to a British University, in fact I went to the one in this very film, and it was nothing like that. This is a horrible, badly made and acted film. Worst thing is, it could have been really good, if they bothered to spend more that 12p on it, in fact if it really wanted to represent true British Students it should off acted like one and took out a 15 thousand pound loan. It says nothing about Uni life, where was the bush diving, the tea drinking till 4am, the endless chats about group dynamics??? Where was the diversity and fun? Maybe I'm just being romantic, but I don't remember Fresher's Week being that awful, and I'm teetotal. And in the end the question still remains...a bed or a wardrobe?
A very bad film, an amalgam of clichés and historical inaccuracies. A few examples: in an early scene Soviet infantry are attacked by the Germans; instead of staying in their trenches to shoot at them, they advance into open ground to fight them,contrary to all infantry tactics; Kate, one of the central characters, is supposedly the daughter of a White Russian and obsessed with her Russianness, yet she does not speak Russian; a guilt-stricken German airman attacks an anti-aircraft gun- the gun, however, does not fire shrapnel shells but scores a direct hit on his 'plane, which doesn't look much like a German 'plane of WWII. In fairness, when they could escape the preposterous plot and the consequent absurdities there are some genuinely powerful moments- the depiction of people slowly starving to death is convincingly done and moving, but these only show up the rest of it even more. A film to be avoided.
Hi! I'm Sheena, an African (yet white!) jungle tribal princess who possesses the incredible ability to transform into the cheapest, unscariest monster in the world (think 60s Star Trek aliens) by rolling seductively in mud! When I first found myself in this horrible position, I took the only logical action: I made myself a torn-apart jungle bikini in which to perform my badly-acted antics. I enjoy romance novels and tearing apart the occasional unimpressive African warlord. And I would be remiss if I did not mention my (white, of course) sidekick Mr. Cutter, an American ex-military man who seems to have fled the U.S. after his divorce. Can you say "ducking alimony"? Anyway, he provides the occasional distraction from my difficult life. I mean, how many idiot blonds do you know who are also an endangered species of flesh-rending monster? Despite my many hardships (acting is so hard! *whine*), I haven't given up, and after much soul-searching, I have finally discovered my role in life: to terrorize insomniatic late-night television viewers who are so unfortunate as to not have cable or satellite.
Publicity for this film suggests that it is shocking and sensational. Well, we opera lovers see some strange sights in opera houses so we are not shocked by the Duke of Mantua urinating during his reprise of La Donna è Mobile, nor is it sensational to see Gilda sing Caro Nome in the bath. It is just crass and boring. What stands out about this film is its lack of imagination. Director Corina Van Eijk sets the Duke's palace in a seedy swimming pool. In fact, he is not the Duke, he is just a character named Duka, so it's difficult to see why he has lots of hangers-on and his own jester, Rigoletto. Rigoletto lives in a council flat that is furnished with the orange sofa and decorated in the spotted wallpaper that is de rigeur among avant-garde directors.The Duke's, sorry Duka's heavies ride around on motor scooters (Yawn). <br /><br />Concepts imposed on an opera like this can produce unexpected, and unintentional humour. What can we make of the fact that Gilda has a maid, even though she lives in a council flat.? When the call goes out that Monterone is being taken to prison we see him being marched out of the swimming pool by two attendants in pink shorts. One imagines that he is going to be charged with urinating in a public swimming pool.<br /><br />It was common for opera films to be lip-synced 20 years ago but there is just no excuse for it today. A dubbed opera is like soft porn. You don't believe in what is happening because the performers are not making enough effort. The actress in Gilda's role does not seem to have learned her lines properly. She barely moves her lips when she is supposed to be singing. When she sings Caro Nome in the bath she lies back with her legs slightly parted. It is difficult to tell which orifice the sound is supposed to be emanating from. The Duke, later caps this by singing while engaging in cunnilingus with Maddalena, giving a new meaning to the phrase yodelling in the canyon.<br /><br />The ambiance of the sound never seems right with the orchestra sometimes sounding as though it is being played through a transistor radio. Fairly slow, rumpity-tumpity tempi are preferred so that the overall effect is of a karaoke in your local pub.<br /><br />This is a film of a production by Opera Spanga. Spanga is a village in Friesland in the Netherlands. They normally perform in a tent in a field. If I had been watching this performance in a tent in a field in Friesland I would have been fairly indulgent. By filming this production and giving it a worldwide audience, the villagers also hold themselves open to worldwide ridicule.
Rigoletto is Verdi's masterpiece, full of drama, emotion and powerful, memorable music. The maestro must have rolled in his grave when this bawdy travesty of his work was released with its needless frontal nudity and cheap copulating and its portrayal of the naive but principalled Gilda as a horny ditz. Opera certainly can be adapted to cinema --- look at Zeferelli's magnificent La Traviata --- but when a work is as superb as Rigoletto, it doesn't need cheap gimmicks. It might even have been acceptable if the dubbed in music had been good but it is a mediocre rendering of the libretto with second rate sound quality at that.
As I mentioned in other comments, I became a real big fan of David Bradley ever since I saw him in "American Ninja 3". The guy is great doing martial arts, has some kind of charisma and is a cool looking dude on screen. Sadfully, he went to the DTV department ever since his debut and has remained as one of the king of TV movies until 2001 where he apparently stopped making movies. Now, one thing is watching Cyborg Cop or Hard Justice which are crappy clichéd movies but real fun to watch (coz they're entertainingly bad if that has any sort of meaning) but another thing is watching a tasteless piece of boredom like Total Reality. I mean, this and Crisis are the two biggest pieces of horse-dung this guy ever did. I wouldn't recommend this not even to the biggest Bradly hardcore fans. If I had known this and Crisis were going to be so f*****g crap, I wouldn't have spent the 3 or 4 euros they cost me. Total Reality is just as boring as Crisis although funnily, it starts promising. A group of military prisoners in the future are given a chance to stop some kind of disaster in the past (I'm sorry, I didn't really pay much attention to this atrociousness) and they only have 24 hours to get back or something like that. If they don't, they're stranded there forever. The poor director who oversaw this, "tries" some humorous (?) clichés like the convicts arriving on Earth and not knowing what a truck is for example (wow, hilarious...). The movie follows up with David Bradley teaming up with some Earth girl for the rest of the flick. This bored me so much that I had to force myself to watch it in like 3 or 4 installments to at least make use of the 4 or 5 euros it cost me. That's coz every time I tried, I fell asleep. And if you get a movie with David Bradley with just one crappy 10-second fight scene in it, then that's the final touch which would contribute to you throwing it off a hundred foot cliff so as never to see it again. I wish I could meet the "director" of this pile of poo on the street and I swear to God I'd ask him back for mi 5 euros. I'd also love to meet David Bradley to ask him why in God's name did he choose to star in this poor excuse for a movie. Don't even bother with this film, I mean it from the bottom of my heart, not renting borrowing it and specially not buying it.
don't buy this film for comedy value like I did, I didnt find it one bit funny, but so f****** miserable and lame it's unbelievable. I gave it to a friend for christmas which was pretty funny (on my side) I recently heard that he watched it and told me what an a**ehole I am!<br /><br />There is nothing more frustrating than watching an over-lit, over dramatic, poorly scored scene in which the camera is sat there on a tripod and doesn't move... the film work is truely pathetic, and I can only say DONT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!
There is no reason to watch this film.<br /><br />Why? Many reasons. First up, the acting is awful. There is hardly a line that isn't misread - but that is hardly surprising given the banality, stupidity, and repetitiveness of the dialogue the actors are asked to mouth. It is awfully written. One of the most annoying things about the script is that the writers only seem to know one way of keeping their characters talking after a certain point and that is to have them repeat the most important words of the previous character's line.<br /><br />"Repeat?" <br /><br />"Yes, they repeat it. For the whole movie." <br /><br />"The whole movie?" <br /><br />"Yes, the whole movie." <br /><br />Etc. <br /><br />In movies like this you generally know who the bad guys are and what they are after. (All the good guys usually have to do is stop the bad guys. Setting up a good "Mwahahaha! with X in my grasp I will rule the Universe!" villain is the first stop in any cheapo SF plot) but in this turkey? - you tell me.<br /><br />As I understand it our "heros" are a bunch of mass murderers sent into the past on a Dirty Dozen type mission. They are sent by a fascistic totalitarian state to stop some other mass murderers from altering the course of history. The new history would not include the rise of totalitarianism, and a war that kills 30 billion people and leaves the Earth a dead planet (we know all this because this movie has one of those handy long on-screen situation reports just before the action starts, telling you who is who and what is what. It's an indication of who the producers think their target audience will be, that it is narrated as well as appearing on screen - just to save the audience from taxing their brains too much by doing a lot of reading.) So just who are we supposed to be rooting for here? I guess we are asked to believe our hero undertakes some sort of journey from totalitarianism to love, peace, and understanding while shooting loads of people - but that doesn't work as an arc because we are shown he is a decent(ish) human being right at the start when he tries to rescue all the civilians aboard the rebel station.<br /><br />I guess the makers were aiming at some sort of deeper than normal complexity in this film but they just ended up with an unholy mess with more plot holes and logical inconsistencies than a dozen or so of your average crap SF movies.<br /><br />The opening credits were nice.
This film is striking only in its banality and use of cliches. Sadly it was obvious throughout up until the ending. But don't be mistaken into thinking that it ended strongly. Only a little unexpectedly, though nothing worth watching the thing through for.<br /><br />From the taciturn and wronged hero, to the Germanic baddy, to the expendable team, the characters were entirely wooden and obvious. The two FBI agents Smith and Wesson (geddit?) gave some hope of humour, but that came to nothing.<br /><br />I am a big science fiction fan but it is hard to find any redeeming quality in this film. A turkey!<br /><br />
I rented this movie for about $1.50 - the most complete waste of money (and time) I have ever spent. It's LAME! I couldn't believe how they could come up with something like this.<br /><br />The plot... there is no plot. Everything you'd expect to happen, it does, only in a worse way. The acting was horrible. My dog could've done better. The special effects have no effect whatsoever - except inducing complete disbelief. And the cheesy lines.... I mean, why even bother? <br /><br />The only credit I can give this piece of sh*t are the opening scenes. They were actually quite pretty. And one of the reasons why I decided to rent this. The graphics shown there are probably the best and most realistic CG of the entire film.<br /><br />Total Reality gets 1 out of 10 for not being able to mark it lower.
This is a strong recommendation to anyone who reads this review who has never seen the film Total Reality, don't waste your time and money renting this poor excuse for a film. This is, without peer, the single worst movie that I have ever seen in my life. I had nightmares of this movie ever since I saw it. The acting was terrible, and any amateur film maker could make a more decent film. The film blatently rips off far superior sci-fi films, such as TimeCop or Total Recall (where the title seems to have been derived from). I'm sorry, but I just think that there is more entertainment value in watching the side of a cardboard box for two hours. If you already have seen this movie, I feel sorry for you for going through what I did.
Ben Affleck, about to be married, is shaken up by a plane accident and gets involved with one of the other passengers (Sandra Bullock, forcing herself to act insane). Who is to blame for this inept, ugly morass? It is so badly edited, when I looked in the credits it wasn't to read the editor's name--it was to see if the person actually took the credit! Rife with clichés, contrivances, and Sandra Bullock in raccoon eye-makeup, the movie doesn't even concern itself with creating chemistry between the two main characters. Laughs are non-existent: the scene in the gay bar with Affleck might have gotten a big laugh if it weren't so stupid (the bar patrons--a big rowdy bunch of them!--shout for Affleck to strip and start digging out their cash). It's not supposed to have any significance other than getting Ben to loosen up a little, but the direction of the whole scene is wrong-headed, and the outcome is unseen because the idiot editor cuts away...or was that all the film he had? It's a small moment but it's typical of this film, an amateurish piece of pop-goods that wants to be an edgy modern comedy but doesn't have any guts. It is tailor-made for the bottom shelf at your video store. * from ****
This movie seems as if someone had a cute idea for a movie, thought of two or three funny possibilities, hired a good cast, then turned the whole thing over to a really bad screenwriter and even worse director. The director filmed a screwball romantic comedy as if it were a dark, artsy film---weird camera angles, blue filtered shots, lingering, close up looks at raindrops. Steve Zahn was good, as always. Ben Affleck was charming, sweet, almost shy; he was perfect for a romantic comedy. Sandra Bullock struggled along valiantly with a character who was supposed to be zany, but whose wackiness consisted of things like madly kissing a husband she hated, abandoning her child, going on carnival rides, offering to strip for money, and bumming a ride with a fellow airline passenger. The script had very few funny lines; there was no physical comedy; it was boring. It introduced potentially funny situations, then cut them off before they could develop. To top it all off, the "twist" at the end was a slap in the face to anyone expecting a fun romantic comedy. If you saw the trailer for the movie and liked it, as I did, my advice is: don't go to the movie. It will only spoil a nice trailer.
This is one of the worst Sandra Bullock movie since Speed 2 But not quite that bad. I really lost it with those out of the blue not so "special effect". Guys, If you're an insomniac go with your girl to see this movie. I give it three sleepies!
There were some decent moments in this film, and a couple of times where it was pretty funny. However, this didn't make up for the fact that overall, this was a tremendously boring movie. There was NO chemistry between Ben Affleck and Sandra Bullock in this film, and I couldn't understand why he would consider even leaving his wife-to-be for this chick that he supposedly was knocked out by. There was better chemistry between him and Liv Tyler in Armageddon. Hell, there was better chemistry between Sly and Sandra in Demolition Man.<br /><br />There were several moments in the movie that just didn't need to be there and were excruciatingly slow moving.<br /><br />This was a poor remake of "My Best Friends Wedding". Wait until it's been out for a year and a half on video and rent it in the .49 cent bin if you've got nothing else to do on a rainy Sunday afternoon, and you can't think of any better movies to rent.
It seems on the surface to be a romantic _planes, trains and automobiles_ but at times tried for something more, where it failed miserably. Some may like the nontraditional ending, but the attempts at "deep insight" into the world of marriage flopped around not really going anywhere.<br /><br />But if you were interested by the story, the movie tried other methods to distract you. The unnecessary special effects, of which the falling rain was the most obvious, served to do nothing but annoy. The camera-work is erratic at best.<br /><br />One note of caution, however. My movie experience as a whole was less than satisfying, sitting in the first row with a group of young'uns around...
This was by far one of the worst movies Sandra Bullock has starred in. Ben Affleck should stay behind the camera and continue writing scripts. This is definitely his forte and acting is not. I actually lasted 54 minutes into this movie before I was so bored with it I felt compelled to leave the theater. It's a bore from beginning to, well 54 minutes into the film anyway. The premise of "Guess what happened to me on the way to the ...." has been done over and over to death. Somehow there just doesn't seem to be anything funny, or romantic about people cheating on each other. Parents should be aware that this may not be a suitable film for your teenage children especially impressionable ones that may view Sandra as a hero. There is a scene where the writers/producers/directors thought it would be nice to show how "acceptable" it is to smoke a joint .... while driving .... and then have no consequences at all when caught. I'm no prude, and I smoked my share when I was younger but I guarantee you I won't take my teenagers to see it and they're solid A & B students. If you want to see a good Sandra Bullock movie, rent "The Net" or "Hope Floats" which I believe are two of her best works.
Possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. Pathetic in almost every way.<br /><br />I threw the DVD straight in the bin - I didn't even think it was fair to give it to the local thrift shop.<br /><br />The effects are beyond a joke. The dam control room looks like cardboard. The water looks way out of scale with the backgrounds - nothing works.<br /><br />Then there is the limp plot - about as much depth as a Scooby Doo cartoon.<br /><br />I couldn't wait for them all to drown.
Killer Flood: The Day the Damn Broke: 1/10: Finally a movie whose title is spoiler proof. Even by the low standards of disaster movies, excuse me allow me to correct myself, even by the low standards of made for TV disaster movies this is truly awful. Where do I begin? <br /><br />The dam modeler may have once seen a photo of a dam but I doubt it. Most dams, especially large ones that generate electricity have oh I don't know a power plant nearby, some sluice gates for water to run through, heck even a high tension electrical wire or two. <br /><br />The dam is also somewhat understaffed. Two, count them, two employees staff the entire dam, all three shifts. And the employees were apparently imported from a clichéd ridden world war two film, as they heroically and rather needlessly have long eulogized death scenes complete with photos of grandchildrenn floating by. Heck one of them manages to get shot by the dam itself in a way that defies description. <br /><br />The special effects consist of flowing water superimposed on photo's of the town in a method that makes a sixties Godzilla film look like the Matrix. A three-year-old drawing with a blue crayon on the film stock would have yielded better results. Since the disaster money shots are worthless how is the rest of the film? <br /><br />Needless to say the script and acting follow the special effects lead. This is no diamond in the rough. This is the rough. So is it a guilty pleasure? Killer Flood is awful enough to generate some laughs and the film itself has that earnest incompetence that makes a good cult classic, but bad disaster films need to age like a fine wine. (Avalanche, The Swarm, Meteor) It is also doubtful that Michelle Green hiding from the flood in a dumpster with a golden retriever will ever match the great Henry Fonda being pelted by raisins that are supposed to be killer bees. Check back with me in 2024.
What a dreadful movie. The effects were poor, especially by todays standards, but that was forgivable. What was unforgivable was the terrible rehashing of every flood/dam breaks disaster movie ever made into this piece of trash. The acting was awful and I mean AWFUL. The point in the story where Michelle Green stops to rescue a dog from the approaching torrent was hilarious. They see the water approaching and run for their lives. (By the way they had to find a very old fat dog so as to not make Ms Green look to unfit). They manage to outpace the water for some time before taking refuge. What speed! Later, a speeding car is not fast enough to escape the torrent. God, she and that dog did run fast! If you want to watch a good movie about a dam breaking - this isn't it. Porchlight Entertainment turn out some good family films but this time they just missed the mark.
This is one of those made-for-TV B movies that is so awful it kind of endears.<br /><br />Bad acting, predictable script and cheesy special effects that were pretty much some of the cheapest tat seen make you have to keep watching to see if it gets any better.<br /><br />It doesn't!
Even a awful 1 is to much for this film, everything form start to finish made you cringe. I don't think it would be possible to cram more overly clichéd moments, into one piece of mind numbingly numbingly waste of film.<br /><br />Prisoner cell block H meets Thunderbirds, hell even Virgil's expressions were more life like than his son.<br /><br />I haven't even finished watching this and I'm on here now.... Oh no, the cheesy clapping of 3 actors and a backdrop done by a child with adobe premiere. This truly is the end of my "I've started so I'll finish watching it" phase.<br /><br />Oh joy, the credits have come to rescue me. (and relax)
the director of this movie must have been mentally ill or even high ... when he accepted to direct this movie... ... i'd rather stare at my ceiling for 5 hours straight instead of being ... punished to watch that stupid movie ... my parents make me watch it as punishment...... ... Don't WATCH IT !!! the director of this movie must have been mentally ill or even high ... when he accepted to direct this movie... ... i'd rather stare at my ceiling for 5 hours straight instead of being ... punished to watch that stupid movie ... my parents make me watch it as punishment...... ... Don't WATCH IT !!! the director of this movie must have been mentally ill or even high ... when he accepted to direct this movie... ... i'd rather stare at my ceiling for 5 hours straight instead of being ... punished to watch that stupid movie ... my parents make me watch it as punishment...... ... Don't WATCH IT !!!
when i first saw this movie i was literally rolling around on the floor laughing (especially when they were getting chased by the water, and when the guy drove through peoples gardens, i mean would it hurt to drive around the washing line?) the special effects! this movie clearly didn't have a big budget. either that or the guy left his toddler in charge of the controls. the water coming out of the damn looked like a close up of a can of beer that had fizzed up. what were the actors thinking? did they actually believe that it was a good movie? or did they just really need the money? not that they would've earned a lot. when i first saw this, i was like 'god, how old is this?' when i looked on the info about it and saw that it was made in 2003, i thought my TV was broken.<br /><br />this really is a disaster movie, in more ways than one.
This movie doesn't even have the saving grace of being so bad that its good. It is truly appalling. Its closer to a tongue-in-cheek parody than a disaster movie, but alas they were serious. Made for TV, but not worthy of even that. It contains every cliché and cheesy plot moment you can imagine. Oh will he save the town from the flood? Will his wife admit that she still loves him? Will they escape before the flood drowns them? I cant explain how bad this is. Awful predictable plot that makes you wince it is so cheesy. Bad Effects (although to be fair I have seen worse super-imposed bubbling water). Bad script. Woeful acting. Hideous. So bad in fact that you probably should get drunk and watch it.
Why can't there be better TV movies made I was at a loose end today and watched this film on a satellite channel in the UK. What a terrible waste of my time it was . Poor sets, Poor acting & Oh my god what a terrible flood . Blimey that woman can even outrun a torrent of water too!.<br /><br />I really wish that people would make TV movies using better effects, better or at least more believable plots & far better acting. Killer Flood is well up there with poor acting. A few bits of ham couldn't act any worse.<br /><br />1 final thing I really agree with the comment about the dog, but I believe it would of already scarpered in real life!
Right... so you have a dam, tons of water (that seems to flow really really slowly) and a small town that happens to be right underneath the dams path of destruction. Throw in a profiteering glutton, an apparently mentally unstable and disgruntled architect and his son, and then to spice things up you add a weak plot and bad acting. All in all, when you have a look at this film from a paying customers point of view... I would feel extremely peeved off if this was a pay-per-view film. If you want a laugh... then you really need to watch this film.
i though this film was okay.i din't think it was great.it was a bit too slow for my taste.lots of drama,but not very much action until close to the end of the film.this movie was basically a dramatic film,with the payoff,if you can call it that,not until near the end.to me,the scenes of the dam bursting and the water flooding the town,were okay,but much too brief.the film itself is done okay,the acting is decent,but it just didn't do it for me,in the long run.think it had something to do with the fact that there was very little suspense or tension built through the whole movie.at least that's what i think.the other factor is that i had just recently watched '10.5' and its sequel '10.5:Apocalypse'.these are 2 big budget "event movies,which,in my opinion, are a very hard act to follow,in terms of special effects and scenes of destruction.as a result,i have to rate Killer Flood:the Day the Damn Broke at 4/10
I went to see this movie to kill some time. I remember Cole Hauser in "Tigerland", and although his acting is wooden, he does portray a tough "leader" character. Same here. This movie was about a bunch of young, hot scientists and divers exploring a cave in Romania that one has to dive to see. The beginning scene was very interesting, with a bunch of Romanian or Russian men exploring the cave in search of booty. Flash forward 30 years, and we have a team of divers called in by some scientist and his crew to explore some cave for some unknown scientific purpose. <br /><br />There is a lot of clichéd, useless talk. The women are too hot for their jobs, let's face it. I hate to watch the lips of these women talk about the guys while drinking beer at the pre-cave exploration party. I mean it was like we were at some bar with frat and sorority types talking about the opposite sex--not a group of scientists and divers. Every character had ZERO personality, with perhaps exception of the scientist, who at least wasn't one of the young and beautiful people. So, the acting, although workmanlike, was not inspiring. <br /><br />The dialog was pretty bad. At one point in the movie, Cole Hauser ("Jack"), the lead diver--his irises morph into the Cingular wireless symbol, and stay like that. We are led to believe that, since he was scratched by one of these monsters, that he is turning into one of them. Fair enough. But first of all, nobody says the obvious thing to him: "What is up with your EYES, dude??" No. Everybody just talked about how he's "changed" and that he should not be the leader of the group anymore. And then this guy says, "you see how he's not HUMAN". Huh? If they really believed he was a friggin' monster, then why not act like it? Instead, the group splits in two--those who go with Jack, and those who go their separate ways, I guess thinking him to be a monster. It makes no sense.<br /><br />The best scene in the movie was this blonde diver woman crawls up a cave wall, and gets attacked by this goblin. Her scream really sucked--but she fought like hell to dispatch the goblin.<br /><br />The photography was fine when the camera was STILL. But any action sequences, the director found it useful to confuse the hell out of us by flashing bubbles, flashlights, dark space, god knows what. I wish they would just show us a scene straight once in awhile. Just because you move the camera all over the place doesn't make the movie any SCARIER, folks. <br /><br />This movie could have been a lot better if the following changes had been made:<br /><br />1. every actor was replaced by someone who looked real. Let Cole Hauser be the lead, it's OK to let him be the good-looking one. I'm getting tired of seeing 20-something supermodel scientists. Give me a break, people!<br /><br />2. The cinematographer was fired, and replaced by one who just pointed the camera and sat still. This could be the director's fault, I don't know. Jumpy camera (as in Constant Gardener) is getting old, folks.<br /><br />3. We got to see the goblins actually devour the people. How bout some gore? There's not much else in this movie. We barely got to see the creatures--I felt a little ripped off about that. <br /><br />4. The ending was pretty lame. During the denouement, the sexy British scientist has a secret...guess what that is? It's a bit canned. The ending would have been better if they all died instead of the Black guy (Morris Chestnut), who seemed to breathe a little sympathy into his character just by his worried expressions. All the other actors had NO expression.<br /><br />I gave it a 4 out of 10, because after all, the acting was without noticeable errors, and the concept was fairly original. I'd like to see Cole do more military roles--he's good at it.
The scariest thing about this horror movie is that the end alludes to a sequel. 'The Cave' is really a disappointing action movie. A team of cave and undersea researchers go to Romania (one of these inexpensive places to make a movie, for now at least) and following a destroyed church enter in a cave that proves to be a realm of underground monsters. Or are they daemons? The movie never decides if it wants to be action, science fiction, or horror, it is a mix of all without salt or fun, and acted in a wooden manner. The best thing about the movie is the cinematography, but even the dark landscape of the cave becomes soon boring, because the film lacks pace and the characters are simply not interesting. Waste of time.
How unfortunate, yet also fortunate, that two films about pot-holing -The Cave and The Descent - should arrive at much the same time. Sadly for The Descent its release in the UK on 7th of July coincided with the very day of the London underground tube/metro terrorist atrocity that killed almost 60 and injured hundreds - not a particularly good night/weekend to pop out to the cinema, especially to see a scary-as-sheesh film about likable women being trapped in a deep, dark, claustrophobic underground caving system. The two movies have virtually the same elements - a half dozen or so characters, lost in a previously unexplored caving system, with no-one outside aware they are trapped down there. Lots of water, caverns, danger... then ultimately some vicious human-like or human-derived creatures determined to prey upon them. Where the two are so different is that The Cave is unreal, entirely unbelievable, more Alien-esquire sci-fi fantasy adventure than horror, or drama. The comparatively minuscule-budgeted British film (filmed in southern England though set in the Appalachians) is five-pair-of-pants terrifying, a heart-stopping shocker so stomach turning that people walk out of screenings early in shock. It knocks off the girls in any old order - you genuinely have no idea what to expect next - surely not her! The Descent is also lit in naturalistic manner, making it all the more scary, unlike the laughably lit Cave which resembles a giant magical Christmas Santa's grotto, with cathedral-sized room after room dazzling in gloriously blue light from... who knows where, while the cavers torches are employed exclusively in artistically lighting up the granite-jawed heroes (each more puppet-like than any Team America / Gerry Anderson / Thunderbirds creation). Fantastic amounts of equipment are carried too, yet despite this the impossibly deep-voiced actors clearly forgot to pack any sense of impending danger, drama, or anything worthy of a horror film - it's strictly PG rated. And in this instance the actors peg out in exactly the order that everyone expects them to - i quickly wrote a list after being introduced to each character, only getting Piper Perabo out of sequence. The Cave script is entirely by-numbers, unlike Shakespeare a room full of chimpanzees would eventually write it in under a week... Take a typical exchange between the 'good buddy' white and black leads that goes; "how many times have we been in this situation before bud?" - "too many" (replies Morris Chesnut). I swear, you could hear my suburban London audience gasp at the obviousness. The scariest thing about The Cave is that at the end there's a clear opening for 'the sequel' - 'The Cave 2: Overground' or whatever. Be afraid, be very afraid... Or instead catch The Descent and be truly afraid, very very very afraid. RR
I rented this film from Blockbust because of the Cover and Title! Sounded intriguing!! This movie suffered because of the writing, it needed more suspense. The "monsters" needed more face time. We needed them to have some sort of special power and definitely more "Oh Sh--" moments. The photography didn't bother me except for the scene where a re-breather blows up. There were too many close ups. But other than that the movie seemed to drag and the heroes didn't really work for their freedom. Overall, I would say everyone put in a lot of time even the writers. But this movie is definitely a below average rent.<br /><br />There are definitely better picks. I would recommend Anacondas 1 or 2 over this pick.
Mixed group of "experts" (explorers, divers and scientists) venture a mile underground and go another 2.4 miles underwater to a spot even more remote, where they find salamanders, giant albino moles (??) and some big, razor-fanged, winged, computer generated creatures lurking about. The cave is sealed off by a rockslide and then the monsters attack and start killing everyone off as they search for an exit. And that's all she wrote with this low-aiming effort that even fails to combine action, science fiction and horror on the most elementary of levels. Imagine if someone gave the folks at the Sci-Fi Channel 30 million dollars to make a monster movie. That's precisely what THE CAVE is like; almost startling in its ineptitude at times, full of clichés and almost entirely dependent on the special effects to entertain. The only difference is they had more money to build sets, more money to polish up the monsters and more money to hire supposedly professional actors who give awful performances anyway. Otherwise, it's business as usual. Some of these movies are still fun to watch. This one is not and there are loads of reasons why: <br /><br />1.) It takes itself far too seriously and has no sense of humor whatsoever. So you get a completely unoriginal and predictable movie that doesn't even recognize how unoriginal and predictable it is. <br /><br />2.) The opening sequence serves no purpose whatsoever other than killing a few minutes and adding to the redundancy.<br /><br />3.) Unoriginal looking CGI creatures are not impressing anyone in this day and age. <br /><br />4.) Utilizing shakycam and quick-cut editing for your horror scenes is simply lazy, unimaginative film-making. And why further obscure the action by making things too dark AND adding annoying distractions, such as fire and explosion of bubbles? It makes these scenes not only difficult to see, but also impossible to enjoy even on a no-brainer action level.<br /><br />5.) Even though it wants you take to it seriously, the script is full of clichés, the dialogue is awful and there's no attempt whatsoever at characterization. Casting 25-year-old-looking model types in roles as brilliant scientists and gruff veteran explorers might provide some eye candy but it completely kills the credibility of a movie that otherwise plays out completely straight. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.<br /><br />6.) There were two exceptions to the model rule, as they did decide to cast an old guy and an average looking Joe. These were the first two characters killed off. <br /><br />7.) For a little diversity, they also squeezed in a black guy and a Chinese guy. Strangely, neither are given much of a voice in this film and basically stand in the background as whitey discusses what their next move will be. Insulting. <br /><br />8.) Furthermore, how many movies have to be made where a black character sacrifices his life at the very end just to ensure Hot White Female Lead and Hot White Male Lead end up together at the end? Ugh. Give me a break already.<br /><br />9.) Much of the acting was HORRIBLE. Cole Hauser's performance was completely laughable. The other male lead looked like he just walked off the set of a Soap Opera and coasted by using the patented dimpled-smile-makes-all-the-ladies-swoon technique, which is the PG-13 gender-switch equivalent to my-large-breasts-make-all-the-guys-swoon technique often used by ladies in R-rated films. Either way, his performance was completely phoned in. Daniel Dae Kim (from the TV series "Lost") and Piper Perabo also stunk up the room with their stilted and monotone line delivery.<br /><br />10.) Was the ending a joke? Absolutely terrible. Please God, we do not need a sequel to this garbage.<br /><br />So basically I wouldn't bother with this one, unless you've never seen a monster movie before or if you're just really desperate and the only other thing on is "The Simple Life." The sets were good, the blue-tinted photography is OK and a few of the actors (Lena Headey, Marcel Iures...) tried their best, so I decided to boost the rating up one notch to a "2."
I think that most people would agree with me if I were to say that the movie Alien pretty much set the bar for atmosphere. I've seen quite a few movies match that bar but none have ever exceeded Alien's eerie tunnels and darkened halls. The Cave is a film that tries very hard to reset the bar. I believe the trailer even mentioned something about being as scary as Alien yet not once throughout the movie did I ever feel even the slightest bit scared, or thrilled for that matter.<br /><br />So now that we got the ball of negativity rolling I might as well explain why the Cave's main hook (the atmosphere in case you weren't paying attention) fizzled into a waste of my time. I'll say right now that most of the sets were gorgeous and nicely lit but what we hear and what we know is there tend to ruin what we see. The music for one is terrible. We either get corny rock music or over exaggerated haunted house music. Okay maybe that's pushing it a bit but I couldn't bear it. The many underwater scenes were bad enough (it's a well-known fact that underwater scenes are always boring as hell) I didn't need rock music blaring in my ears while they were simply swimming through a cave. This actually produced a lot of unintentional laughter that was then amplified by the following watercraft crash scene.<br /><br />Anyway as I already mentioned, it wasn't just the music that killed the atmosphere, heck no. The creatures hiding amongst the darkness are supposed to invoke horror. I'm supposed to be worried that they are going to appear and merely a glimpse of them is supposed to make my blood turn cold. The Cave does wisely take a page from the alien handbook by not showing the entire creature for very long and leading up to the reveal with only glimpses but it just doesn't work because the creatures are so lame. I guess it would be rude to spoil the specifics but they are basically the aliens with wings.<br /><br />I guess you get the point by now. Atmosphere ruined. Yet I know plenty of people who will still see a movie if it's exciting. I'd like to say that about the Cave but I'd be lying. This movie is slow to get to the action and once we get there we sort of wonder when the thing is going to finally call it a day. We've seen all this done better before with the exception of a few neat scenes (the guy impaled on stalactites, the eel and the rapids) so you really don't get any thrills from watching people running from uninspired alien knockoffs in endless tunnels.<br /><br />Ah but no the pain doesn't end there. We must also take the characters and acting into account. Well I can't remember a single line of dialogue other than "run!" and the only character's name I can remember is Jack but that's only because it's placed in almost every other line near the end of the movie. Perhaps the actors were capable but the script didn't allow them to do anything other then run and argue. They had almost no background and whenever somebody died they simply shrugged it off. It's pretty sad when you consider that the CGI eel puts on the best performance in the film.<br /><br />Speaking of CGI; there's plenty of it, most of which is terrible. I do commend them on using suits (at least I THINK they were suits) but nothing truly meshes with the environment and as a result most of the effects end up looking pretty hokey.<br /><br />So I guess to wrap it up, the Cave is bad and has very little going for it. Had the film been a SciFi channel premiere movie or low budget direct to video release I might have a bit more love for it but this film was a theatrical release. With more wit and talent this might have been a frighteningly fun movie but as it stands this film is about as scary as going into the basement and that's not very good.<br /><br />My review from Frider Waves: http://friderwaves.com/index.php?page=cave
The mission to see the movie "The Cave" was a dream of a friend of mine after witnessing the highly dramatic trailer, full of flashes of a creature lurking in a cave, some young cave divers, and not much else. It's too bad that the movie didn't change much more than the trailer did.<br /><br />The immediate allure of a movie like this is the creature. What's he going to look like? Why does he live in a cave? How is this one supposed to be different from the other creatures we've been shown in movies like Alien and Predator and the Relic? The cave "demons" do not look far from the skeletal creature in Alien: Resurrection and even has the sight of Predator. Shame that's a total ripoff...<br /><br />Well, let's look at the plot: very confusing and jumps to more and more totally improbable twists as a team of cave divers is sent to find a cave and its dwellers in the Carpathian Mountains. The casting was very much clear that we want young, hip, tough chicks, chiseled guys, and the girls who have brains also have to be hot. We also have to have one of every racial background in case the audience thinks that the film-makers are biased to a certain viewpoint. Totally been done, and I'm totally tired of it.<br /><br />The other main problem was the ending, as if to say there might be a sequel. Plase shoot me if there is one. The tagged on ending made me wretch.<br /><br />I gave this movie 3/10 stars. The points that it did get were more or less appreciation points towards the creature-builders for their high-quality job spent on the costuming and design for the monsters who dwell within, even when they looked totally ripped off. And there's an interesting (yet labored) documentary on the DVD on underwater cave diving. Go check it out only if you love new creations of monsters and creatures, but be warned that you've probably seen this movie before, and it was better the first time.
Dire! Dismal! Awful! Laughable! Disappointing!<br /><br />Right, your trapped in "The Cave" with several "hard" Men and a Woman or two, your being systematically killed by "Something" and you STILL don't get to hear ANY naughty Grown Up words!!! A 15 Cert' here in England, and you could tell!<br /><br />The Egos of the "Macho Men" was just too much, pass the bucket I'm going to be sick.<br /><br />This movie should never be exposed to daylight and ironically, be kept in the darkest, deepest hole in the ground and be forgotten forever. I have a feeling that this description isn't the first time to pop its his head from a hole in the ground.<br /><br />Just like the film The Cube, it looked like a good concept but was just let down at the last post by, well its self.<br /><br />This Comment contains Spoilers alright, its called The Cave.<br /><br />Thanks Bruce.
Its perhaps unfair of me to comment on this film , because , for the first time ever , I switched off a movie because it was so bad. I can watch anything , but this movie was so very boring. I was bored before I put on the DVD and thought this might be a laughable action horror/ action movie to lighten the mood. It is not even that , it is a device which increases the level of boredom by the power of 100. Had to switch it off after 45 minutes because all that had happened in that time was some people had been scuba diving , and a big mole had been discovered. Seriously , this movie is not worth the time, even if you can enjoy a bad movie like i can , avoid this film like the plague.Worst thing I have seen in years.
Some sciencey people go down in a cave for some reason and there's some sort of creature that's killing them.<br /><br />I usually give a more detailed plot, but I wasn't paying too much attention to this. Overall, it was dull and the only time you'll be really paying attention is during the action scenes, which the director did wonderful on.<br /><br />The acting is alright, but the characters are so dull and forgettable they blend in your mind. You'll forget who lived and who died for 2 reasons: 1. The kills are boring 2. The characters are boring.<br /><br />The ending might have shocked me more if I knew who was who.<br /><br />So you're looking for a creatures-in-cave movie? Check out The Descent instead.
"The Cave" got released more or less simultaneously with the English film "The Descent", directed by Neil Marshall. Both movies share a similar premise; only "The Cave" is dreadfully unoriginal, unexciting and incompetent compared to the splendid horror adventure that is "The Descent". It feels like Neil Marshall realized that the basic story was too poor and instantly added ingenious ideas, depth and a personalized style, whereas "The Cave"-director Bruce Hunt simply went for the most rudimentary elaboration of the screenplay that was thrown on his desk. The result is an unbelievably mediocre film that features every single horror cliché you can think of and in which most of the violence happens off-screen. And we all hate that, don't we? The story introduces a clique of insufferable cave-divers that become trapped in a completely undiscovered Romanian underground ecosystem. Hideous winged creatures, that also happen to be parasites, soon attack them and escape seems impossible due to a landslide. The first half hour is still mildly entertaining if you keep yourself busy with spotting all the clichés and listening to the cheesy textbook dialogs, but the whole thing just gets too dire. None of the events are even slightly plausible and it looks like the entire cast is competing with each other to deliver the WORST performance. I've seen better special effects in anonymous B-movies already, the filming locations aren't used to the fullest and the ending downright sucks! Very much NOT recommended!
I can't help but forget that incredible scene in Alien, when the extra terrestrial burst out of one of the men's chest. Or even in Predator when the invisible monster snuck upon the bewildered soldiers and cut them to pieces. Both these movies expressed fascinating ideas on the run-of-the-mill creature feature. Back track to the era of cheesy B-movies and watch big men in phony suits parading around killing people in small towns. Now recognize that the two movies above revolutionized this genre. The Cave does nothing to improve on it. It tries nothing new, and worst of all, The Cave doesn't even have good gore. Shame on them, shame on them all. <br /><br />Parading around in sexy spandex are the one-dimensional characters of The Cave. All of which seem to not care when they witness the death of their colleagues. They just stroll along, unbeknownst to the evil creature lurking in the darkness. The plot is very easy to understand. So you got the two brothers, the black guy and the sexy female scientist. The rest (by the rest I mean all of those meet grisly demises) are even more unexciting then the others. We have the Korean assistant, the risky outdoor chick, a Russian scientist and two divers, both lacking a sense of emotion and are stupid enough to wander off by themselves. This movie exceeds to be extremely clichéd, since everybody but the black guy, one of the brothers and the female scientist meet an end. It also seems only Americans can survive the terror, since the Russian and the Korean die. Don't be offended if I give away details. There's no real surprise anyway.<br /><br />To be straight forward they find this cave. They go in the cave. They get stuck in the cave. They start dying in the cave. One of them gets infected in the cave. More die in the cave. They get out of the cave; only to discover that one of them has a parasite that will turn them into a ghastly monster, which really doesn't seem to bother them. That's the simplicity of the lackluster plot. It doesn't even try to be original. It even has the part where they decide their leader isn't capable and split up. We have just seen this way to many times before.<br /><br />I know in a movie like this, people don't care about the performances but it's worth mentioning how bad they were. Everyone is just so dreary. Cole Hauser was especially unsophisticated and don't get me started on Eddie Cibrian, who is frequently a lot better. Morris Chestnut is hands down the best thing in the movie. His performance is actually decent. He portrays the guy who calms everybody down. All the other actors are average at best. In a show like this, that's really not a bad thing.<br /><br />Now to the reason we go to this genre of film; the action, of course. Well, to my regret, the action was dull. The death scenes are all boring, hell the whole movie was. There is barely any blood at all. It's either they disappear and found later or they are attack and die without a bruise. Seeing the Koreans man's death was the only exciting action I could find. <br /><br />It's pretty amazing. The bad things over shadow most of the things that are good. A good example is to say the special effects were well done, which they were. The only thing wrong is that since everything takes place in a cave, it's going to be dark. I found it extremely hard to distinguish between the cave walls and the monsters. So it was pretty hard to even see the creatures. Although I liked the special effects, there was nothing original about the monsters. They all resembled each other and they weren't frightening at all.<br /><br />The Cave marks the directorial debut for Bruce Hunt. I don't see what he was trying to accomplish by making this film. He obviously made a huge mistake. Almost everything about this movie stunk like a stink bomb. A stink bomb is probably even more pleasurable than watching this mess again. Only the most forgiving moviegoer will find this forgivable. I gave up all hope in the middle of the film when I heard the phrase "what the hell was that", for the third time.
The movie "The Cave" has got to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. There was no plot, no story-line, and the lighting was terrible. For most of the movie, I was unable to make sense of the scenery as it was being highlighted by flashlights. The persistent 'grey' spaces throughout the movie were irksome. The only scene that really came through clearly was in the cavern lit by what appeared to be a bad simulation of the conditions to be found in Hell. All in all, the movie was not really worth watching. If the producers cannot come up with something better than this, they should find another occupation. The underwater scenes were particularly awful, being mostly made up of bubbles and flashlights, with the occasional look at the actors. In summation, a really awful movie with bad lighting, extraneous flashes throughout.
I totally agree. This is "Pitch Black underground" and a well worn plot. The best scenes I thought were the divers exploring the caves, going through impossible subterranean passageways, some of them were heart pounding. The scenery was great. Had they dispensed with the staple "alien" toothy CGI badboys entirely the movie would have been much better. All they would have had to do is never show any monsters at all but have everyone wondering, and follow Jack's descent into madness, and this might have been a top rate hitchcock-style thriller, maybe award material. The acting isn't bad. But those rubber bats just reduce it to standard fare.
Take your video camera, turn out all the lights in your house and film people running around with flashlights for an hour and a half and you've got the basic idea of what this film looks like. It is very irritating to watch this kind of movie. To be fair, there are scenes of daylight at the very beginning and very end of the movie. I like scary movies and creature features but this one just didn't do a thing for me. So sorry. I really tried to like it. There didn't seem to be much of a plot other than we've got to find a way out of here. Didn't learn too much about any of the characters so it didn't matter if we lost one or two along the way. This isn't the worst movie in the world. "Open Water" holds that title for now.
That's how I was when I walked (staggered) out of this "film". I couldn't leave, because it was at a film festival and the cinema was full of people. I was stuck in the middle. Trapped.<br /><br />The tiny fragment of original footage which attempted to bind this film together features some of the worst acting ever to grace the big screen. The daughter was a stand out performance - stand out in the bad sense.<br /><br />Thge cinematography was hideous, consisting of disjointed framing and some of the oddest lighting I've witnessed.<br /><br />As for the stock footage... well at first one...<br /><br />Wait.<br /><br />Why am I reviewing this film? Why do I acknowledge its existence? Please, don't watch it. Do something useful with two hours of your life and go watch some paint dry.
OK, I saw this film through Mystery Science Theater 3000, but I did see the movie, so I figured I would leave a comment on it. I just love once again how Joe gets stuck with the crummy roles while his brother and nephew's are just getting the Oscar winning roles left and right. Soultaker is technically what you would call the movie that was meant to be good. It seemed like the director and actors just took this movie extremely seriously and had very cheesy effects, a story that didn't make much sense, and not to mention pretty crummy acting abilities. This is one of my favorite MST3K episodes, simple because a lot of what they mention is what we are thinking throughout the film and I'll explain why in a moment.<br /><br />Natalie and Zach are a couple who broke up and are now trying to work things over. But since Zach is in upper lower class and Natalie is in middle class, it just ain't gonna work. But on the way home, they and Zach's friends get into a car accident and now the angel of death/Soultaker is after them to meet his quota of soultaking. But also it seems like he's had some kind of other life relationship with Natalie and just can't seem to move on. So now Natalie and Zach must race against the ever appearing five million times a minute clock to save their souls and lives.<br /><br />Well, I guess Zeppelin was wrong when he sang that there was a stairway to Heaven, I wonder if Black Sabbith was wrong too, lol. Basically there are a lot of plot holes in this movies, like no one can see the characters and they can't be killed, yet somehow they can still press buttons and open doors? The Angel of Death had a very strange face and was a bit distracting from the story itself. Soultaker was just a lousy film that was rushed and makes you just feel so bad for Joe, the under-appreciated Sheen/Estovez brother.<br /><br />2/10
OK, I read the director's comment about this movie (featured as the 'frontmost comment'), and I have to admit that I can identify with his position.<br /><br />Micheal, I hope your career recovered from this particular setback and you went on to other, better things. I've seen this movie in the MST3K form. Even with all the chopped continuity and snotty remarks being tossed out by the robots, I saw a potentially decent movie with an ambitious set of ideas trying to struggle out from under the limited budget and limited actors available to it. And this is one of those films ("Mitchell" is another) where the MST3K crew took a lot of cheap shots at the lead character even when she actually deserved better. You know they had some unfair fun at the actress' expense because it made for a livelier episode.<br /><br />IMO, the fact that the movie actually tried to be ABOUT something, and had a few decent, effective moments here and there, should keep it out of the 'Bottom 100' ("Tangents/Time Chasers" is another movie with a plot and a heart that doesn't deserve to be there either).<br /><br />But it is still not a very good movie. I don't blame the writer/lead actress for being who she is. It's just that her acting and writing skills needed a few more years to mature before she could pull off a vanity project such as this or carry a feature film. The writing and characterization is amateurish and slapdash, and the dialog is often barely up to ABC Afterschool Special standards. The cast sincerely gives it their best effort, and the acting in general is definitely head-and-shoulders above abortions like "Future War" or "Space Mutiny", but there aren't any really professional level performances here, with the exception of 'Big Joe' Estevez, who is hammy but suitably intense. I never saw the full original cut, but MST's sampling of "Soultaker" was representative enough to make these facts plain.<br /><br />Oh, and the film has Robert Z'Dar in it. That is, IMO, a real 'Kiss Of Death' for any movie that hopes to be taken seriously. Yes, he's big and scary looking in his role, but I just hate the guy as an actor. (In real life, I wish him well and hope he is financially comfortable).<br /><br />There were little things I liked about the film. For instance, the camaraderie between the male lead and his dead buddy added some warmth and humor to the movie and made it a lot more watchable. The idea of an elevator in the hospital that opened its doors to the Afterlife was an inspired way to invoke some spooky vibes without springing for special effects, and I respected whoever worked that into the script in attempt to keep the budget manageable. It didn't really work, but it might have with just a little more tweaking.<br /><br />So anyway, Mr. Rissi, better luck with your other projects - your involvement with this misfire wouldn't keep me from watching something else you did if the 'buzz' was good. And Ms. Miller has nothing to be ashamed of - she was young and ambitious, and the movie wasn't THAT bad.
Okay, to be fair this movie did have an interesting concept. Given a few script rewrites, some decent actors and a budget, this might have been a fairly decent cult flick instead of the MST3K fodder it turned out to be.<br /><br />Still, it was better than "Armageddon."
Now I did watch this when it first came out on VHS, and all my friends and I thought it was a pretty good movie, but then again, we were teenagers. But honestly, not that good of a movie in retrospect. Sort of a hair metal, Dokken version of Carnival of Souls. But a bad movie does not exactly mean it is unwatchable; however, this one seems to lack the charm a lot of the regular Mst3k fodder usually contains. But if it was on cable, and I was bored and drinking beer--sure, I'd watch it again. But then again, I've watched Howling VII about five times now, so maybe you really shouldn't be listening to me.<br /><br />Anyone else think it kind of sad that the director supposedly commented on his own movie? And why did he feel the urge to use caps lock so much?
When a movie's claim to fame is that Martin Sheen's younger, less known brother stars in it, you know it's not gonna' be a real good one. "Soultaker" is a low budget, silly film about a group of 20-something year olds being pursued by an angel of death. It's a stupid movie, but it is pretty entertaining, and even somehow slightly likable in it's stupidity.<br /><br />The plot in the film is very small, and it's stretched about as far as it possibly can be. Joe Estevez isn't much of an actor, so luckily for the audience, he has very few lines and his role in mostly just him walking. This movie really feels like it was trying to be a horror/fantasy franchise, considering it has the same plot layout as a slasher. 4 characters, each dies one at a time...will any live? Who really cares. Though it sounds like I hated this, I didn't. I just didn't like it very well, but I was interested through most of it, so I guess that counts for something.<br /><br />My rating: * 1/2 out of ****. 90 mins. PG-13 for language, violence and nudity.
The film Soultaker is essentially an older form Final Destination in which several car wrecked teens have their souls separated from their bodies and must cheat death who is chasing them... The film has its moments, and its concepts, the idea of disoriented souls being separated from their bodies is a pretty nifty idea... If this movie were remade with a few good actors/actresses and some awesome special effects it could turn out to be extremely awesome... As for the actual film, I recommend watching the MST3K version, the pure version might be too boring to sit through, unless you love bad movies staring Martin Sheen's brother...
Soultaker was written by and starred Vivian Schilling. It also starred Joe Estevez, Gregg Thomsen, and Robert D'Zar as the Angel of Death.<br /><br />The story begins with introduction to Soultaker, played by Joe Estevez. We quickly learn what Soultaker's role will be in this movie.<br /><br />Next the college aged young people are getting ready for a summer festival, aptly named "Summerfest". In this film, the battle of the classes is omni-present throughout the film. The girls come from a wealthy class, and the guys come from roughly middle or lower class. The class roles seem to play a role in the film for some reason which isn't really clear or pertinent to the story.<br /><br />At Summerfest we learn more about the apparent class struggles of why Zach isn't encouraged to date Natalie. Soultaker makes an appearance as well, with apparently his boss the Angel of Death. Here D'Zar's character points out who is to die and who's souls are to be taken. It's revealed as well, that Soultaker will have a character conflict regarding Natalie, and how he deals with her because of someone in his past.<br /><br />Meanwhile Natalie is ditched by her ride to Summerfest, and Zach convinces her to ride home with them. During the ride home, Soultaker takes an active role causing them to wreck horribly at high speeds.<br /><br />The rest of the story surrounds the Soultaker collecting the souls of the dead passengers, and Zach and Natalie trying to outwit him to return to their bodies so they can continue to live. The class and character conflicts lay in the story, but are really never brought to the forefront or resolved.<br /><br />There's an attempt towards the end to drag out some of the drama, there's a lot of chasing and running which does tend to be really boring. It's not really acceptable, and it would've been nice had this been dealt with differently, somehow to maybe increase the drama but not bore the audience.<br /><br />The story and acting are decent. The soundtrack is OK, and even the production values are good.<br /><br />Robert D'Zar in his brief on screen appearances does a nice job as the Angel of Death. Joe Estevez does OK, however sometimes his role acting a bit flat. Vivian is pretty and does a decent job as Natalie, although perhaps over acting a bit in a few scenes.<br /><br />This may sound odd, but this movie definitely could've benefited from some pointless nudity. Vivian teases us a bit but that wasn't enough.<br /><br />In my opinion this was a pretty serious attempt at making a movie. The results, it's worth watching. Just don't expect a perfect production.<br /><br />3/10
The plot of this movie is dangerously thin and the only "star power" if we can call it that consists of Joe Estevez. I don't know what is more shocking. The fact that this movie was made or the fact that some people actually gave good comments about it. If you ever see the cover of the video you'll be able to read them. Someone even went as far as saying that the actress/writer could be the leading lady of the 90's. Yeah! And Joe Estevez could have more money than his brother Martin. If you want to check it out anyways I highly recommend watching the MTS version of it. At least you'll laugh a lot without going insane.
But at least this movie got what it deserved - to be sent to the Satellite of Love to be ridiculed on by Mike, Tom Servo, and Crow T. Robot from Pearl Forrester on "Mystery Science Theater 3000!" "Soultaker" is one of those long lost, forgotten movies that are so bad you'll be guaranteed to have nightmares or depression later on in life. Even though the movie is not that old, it's still a very forgotten type of movie. If it had never been for the intelligent minds at "Mystery Science Theater 3000," the movie would not only seem like it was never made, but the movie wouldn't be very enjoyable by us moviegoers.<br /><br />In real life: this movie is really bad. In the Satellite of Love: this movie is excellent!
It's the Sooooouullltakaaaa!<br /><br />Wow. What a skin peeling bad movie. Honestly, this is one of my favorite episodes of MST3K.... Just some things to point out...<br /><br />1) The incestuous lesbian mother-daughter exchange was weird. I do need counseling now.<br /><br />2) There is no God, there is just Dude.. I love that quote from Crow.<br /><br />3) Whatever did happen to the Nuns that took the bus home, will we ever know? I have a horrible emptiness in my stomach.<br /><br />4) Lastly, don't watch this movie un-MSTied... It has Joe Estevez as the main star.. Yikes..<br /><br />1/10 for un-MSTied 8/10 for MSTied.
This crock of doodoo won a award? They must have been desperate for giving out an award for something. This movie reeks of teeny bopper stuff and it made me sick. Thankfully I watched it alongside MST3K's Mike and the bots so it made it bearable. Horrid acting, unsettling mother/daughter moment, silly premise, if you want a bad movie here it is. Be warned though watch it with Mike and the bots or you will suffer.<br /><br />1 out of 10. I still can't believe it won an award, and the director is defending this *&&^$$#$^&& piece of ^%^%$^$#%@$#@ movie!
First off, I've read the comments by the director further down and I'd like to thank him for offering his opinion. I've always wondered what the makers of the films lambasted on MST3K felt about their works being shredded (not to mention how Best Brains acquired the rights). Rissi's comments make me curious, however, as to how much Sci-Fi could have cut the film to make it seem different (now I'm thinking I might rent it from NetFlix). Of course, I've never seen the uncut, non-MST3K version of this film but even having seen it on MST3K, I never thought of it as a bad film or something unwatchable (though I did think it was a pretty funny MST3K episode); certainly not, as Pearl describes it, "skin-peelinging awful"; not after seeing the likes of "Future War" and "Hobgoblins." <br /><br />As far as cutting the film, it's been done before on MST3K, at least once. Case in point: the Joe Don Baker flick, Mitchell, in which the subplot involving John Saxon's character is cut in the MST3K version, yet Joel and the Bots comment on Saxon's absence after his appearance in the beginning of the movie. If I may submit a criticism of MST3K, if you need to cut the film for time considerations, fine, but be fair to the film being cut (even if it is a film as lousy as Mitchell). Of course, such criticism is rather pointless what with the show being over, but I think that aspect of the show was kind of unfair. But anyway, if it's the case with Soultaker, it gets my sympathies. <br /><br />Still, I maintain that it's an enjoyable MST3K episode though the movie itself, even the version that's been "hacked" in MST3K, is no where near terrible. <br /><br />As a final note, in a weird coincidence or perhaps a case of Synchronicity, I happened to watch The Hudsucker Proxy the day Soultaker aired and wouldn't you know it, the guy who played Vivian Schelling's father had a bit part in that movie; one of his three other credited roles, actually. I thought that was kind of weird.
that got destroyed quickly by the poor quality acting, cinematography, numerous pointless scenes and a terrible villain. Well let's see Joe Estevez is bad (as usual) but he isn't the only casting problem, writer Vivian Schilling is no great actress, in fact, well she sucks. Her script isn't so bad, it's just bad directed. In fact if the direction had been better and if better actors had been cast, this could have been a really good film.<br /><br /> But alas, with all of these problems "Soultaker" fails to be even kind of passable as a horror movie, plus the pacing is just awful too.<br /><br /> The MST crew had some fun with this one but it definitely wasn't one of their better efforts. 5 for that, nothing for the original.
Seems to me that Joe Estevez spends most of his time hidden under the shadow of his rather successful brother and appearing in really bad movies. Joe spends most his time walking around dressed in black and looking quite moody. He takes orders from a puffy faced angel of death, who you might recognize as the puffy faced villain from Tango & Cash and as the puffy faced cyborg from Future War. Well, Joe and Puffy have a job to do and it involves taking some souls of some kids in a big car being driven by a dumb galloot who questions Led Zeppelin. Well, the car crashes and the chase is on. The lucky kids to escape Joe look like Tonya Harding and Rick Springfield. They're chased around town, break things and Tonya gets leered at by her mom while she's undressing for a bath. The action winds up at a hospital where we learn that heaven is an elevator ride away. In the end, some green lights flash, Joe shouts and Puffy vanishes without a trace. Wish I could say the same for this movie. Watch it from the relative safety of MST.
First of all, since I'm one of the people who never saw the MST3K chopped up version of this movie, I can't comment on that.<br /><br />However, I DID see the original version of this movie on the Sci-Fi Channel and I thought it was just as good as anything else on that Channel. In fact, I thought it was one of their better offerings.<br /><br />I've noticed in perusing the comments here that the people who write in detail about SOULTAKER with a modicum of intelligence, thoughtfulness and maturity tend to like at least a FEW things about this movie and rightly so. In it's original cut, most reasonable people I think would probably rate it at least 4 or 5 stars out of 10. Five is average to me and I think this movie is about average for a Sci Fi pic.<br /><br />In contrast to the above, I've also noticed that the reviewers who seem immature, dull and flip and as a result come off as boneheads from where I stand, are the same ones who can't find anything good about this movie and basically trash it without cause based MOSTLY on seeing it chopped up and fricasseed on MST3K. Or if they have seen both cuts it seems they were greatly prejudiced by the MST3K viewing to begin with.
I have seen both the MST3K version and the uncut version. I rather enjoyed it. Either way, it wasn't that bad of a movie. Sure it moved a bit slow at times. I liked it.<br /><br />As far as MST3K goes, they only did the movies they could get the rights for. Not all the movies they ripped apart where bad movies, it was just so easy to make fun of them. Take SoulTaker for example.<br /><br />Joe Estevez and Robert Z'Dar's characters where so inanimate and boringly silly I couldn't help but laugh. I couldn't take them seriously. It really created a unique feeling though.<br /><br />Vivian Schilling did an excellent job with the script. A world better than 95% of the garbage in the theatres today. Her role was played well. Not too screamy not to masculine but just right. The camera really likes her in this movie. I would have casted her in that role after ready the script.<br /><br />Anyways, this movie deserves a bit more credit than it is given. Please watch the uncut version if you see the MST3K. It deserves that much.
The Camals Are Coming is a rather disappointing British comedy from 1934. I purchased this because I like desert adventures and states on the box that it is a drama. It certainly isn't.<br /><br />It is about a couple who head for Egypt to capture some desert drug smugglers.<br /><br />This would have been much better if it had been done as a drama instead of a comedy, which lets it down a lot. It is quite silly in parts. Depsite this, there are some good action and location scenes.<br /><br />The cast is lead by Jack Hulbert with Anna Lee as the love interest.<br /><br />One viewing is enough for this movie. Overall, a disappointment.<br /><br />Rating: 2 stars out of 5.
Abysmal pulp adventure exploitation in the jungle woman genre. Lousy audio thankfully obscures the dumb dialog. And it's awfully talky for a movie about people who don't speak English. There's no adventure to be found here; it's a jungle adventure with cliffhangers and one wild animal attack that happens in flashback.<br /><br />Three pale-face dopes wander the African wilderness and encounter warring man-hungry tribes of Amazons. These wild women have advanced out of the Stone Age only so far as to invent makeup, shoes, and underarm hair removal technology. Despite their desperation for "hus-bahnd," the ladies insist that they will fight the men and burn the weaker ones.<br /><br />The only thing of interest, as if there were any question, is the assortment of young women clad in animal skins cleverly designed like the bathing suits of 1951. Plenty of wrestling and bad dancing mixed with stripless 1950s stripper moves. No nudity or appreciable violence. On the other hand, you may be humming the catchy native song for days.
The plot has something about white hunters captured by a tribe of white women in the African jungle/ plains.Its a turkey and the some. What it really is is wildly mismatched footage from early sound and silent films mixed with badly shot recent(to the release) footage of men on a safari. There are scenes of a man in a gorilla suit, south seas natives at sea (used to represent people in the middle of Africa), women in bikini's, horrible narration and a guy in a loin cloth with make up all over his body (racially insensitive I think so). This is a movie to sit and make fun of- but only with lots of alcoholic drinks and witty friends. At any other time this is going to be a chore to get through. Its a bad bad bad movie. Beyond that I'm speechless
This story is about a safari in Africa that meets some guy named Trent--who convinces them to look for a tribe of white babes. Naturally, they turn out to be amazon warriors and capture the men. The rest is pretty predictable.<br /><br />This movie has everything you'd expect in a bargain basement movie about Africa--the substantial use of often irrelevant stock footage, film of animals that are NOT native to the continent (such as Orangutans, Moose, Coatamundis and Ground Hogs),a white actor in dark makeup playing a native, bad acting (particularly from Trent--a handsome man with the personality of balsa wood), comic relief (sounding like Chico Marx), a guy dressed up in a gorilla suit and bikini-clad white women with perms who are supposedly fierce jungle warriors--like a tribe of angry female Tarzans. By the look of it, my assumption is that the movie was made for under $49.95--including developing costs and paying for rental of the gorilla suit! But, what I didn't expect was an IMDb score of 4.9. This is poor, but not that poor considering that this is a schlock production in every possible sense and there is no conceivable reason why the film is rated that high! Now I am NOT saying the film isn't worth seeing--it's campy and stupid enough to make enjoyable viewing--particularly with friends. Just don't expect anything resembling a professionally made or competent film.<br /><br />Finally, here's a smattering of the dialog from this jungle classic:<br /><br />"Oolama like strong white man. Oolama want strong white man..."<br /><br />"oonga-bunga" <br /><br />"me-te-tonga....no,....keeel ('kill') man"
This movie, although well shot and superbly acted, was awful. I felt as if I was watching a car accident--sure I kept watching but I really wanted to turn my head. The plot leaves little to be desired, was extremely disjointed, and the ending was abysmal. Although, it did fit the tone of the movie, I was hoping for something to improve this movie. I still don't understand what the references to rabies and the child get bit by the fox at the beginning of the movie. Fifteen minutes of plot that really didn't do much. It's really sad to see a movie with fine actors and a beautiful set wasted on such an awful, awful, story. There's not much more to say about this movie. Save yourself the time and watch c-span. It'll be more uplifting.
I'll have to admit that I'm at a disadvantage here; when I learn more about a film from other reviewers than from watching it myself, then that's a problem. Although the plot of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" seems generally straightforward, the movie allows too many cryptic elements to get in the way of what could have been a satisfying mystery. By the time we get to the scene where a witchy looking woman establishes the secrecy of "the first degree of the seven fold ray", I didn't know whether to laugh or rewind to see if I missed something.<br /><br />In retrospect, the cryptic note retrieved by Mr. Lawrence (Leslie Banks) from the handle of a shaving brush was a craftily written message, leading to a dentist named Barbor, and eventually to the Albert Hall, a place, not a person as indicated by "A. Hall". But for all the intrigue, it's never made clear why the assassination target was being eliminated. Okay, so Louis Bernard was killed because he knew of a plot to assassinate a diplomat named Ropa, but why was Ropa a target? Come to think of it, why was the note even written and secured in the shaving brush? Did Bernard have to refer to it every now and then to remind himself what was going to happen?<br /><br />With it's disjointed scenes, "The Man Who Knew Too Much" is hard to follow and a bit disorienting, however I'll give Alfred Hitchcock credit for this early effort. For perspective, I'll have to watch some of his other work of the same era, though this movie certainly can't hold a candle to his later works like "Psycho" or "North by Northwest".
All through his career Hitchcock did great films; this was not one of them.<br /><br />A man knows too much, his daughter is kidnapped to secure his silence, and in the denouement all is resolved to the accompaniment of gunfire and rooftop drama.<br /><br />Anyone who has seen 1930s Fritz Lang films- 'M' comes to mind- will know how far this urban narrative of crime and conscience falls short of what had already been done in that genre at that time. There is an altogether amateurish air about much of the staging and acting which subverts any sense of menace, darkness, and depravity that Hitchcock might have been seeking to instil.<br /><br />What it is worth watching out for, however, is the sequence associated with the shooting at the Albert Hall. Once that kicks off it is as if the film has been given a blood transfusion. The camerawork is lively, the cuts are interesting, and the way that everything combines to a climax is masterly. Here you can see the future master: Hitchcock effortlessly orchestrate all the resources to impressive and memorable effect: when the scream comes you really feel as well as hear it.
I think the manuscript of this movie was written on the piece of toilet-paper. No respect whatsoever to many important details which intrinsically make the movie. For example, the names of some Serbian terrorists (that I remember) are Caradan Maldic, Ivanic Loyvek and Leo Hasse. What kind of names are that? Certainly not Serbian! By the way, Caradan Maldic!!! What a name, I laughed for days thinking about it. Probably an implication on Karadzic and Mladic. Secondly, there have never been any cases of terrorism done by Serbians. A journalist like the main character ought to have known that. Thirdly, the actors playing Serbian terrorists are not even Serbs nor do they speak Serbo-croatian. All this aside, this movie is solidly acted but the story is paper-thin and full of holes. At times it makes no sense whatsoever!!!
Jeremy Irons and Forrest Whitaker are good actors. But this movie was badly written. First of all, during the hijack scene, Irons sits too comfortably in his chair...he appears to be READING something, and rather calmly too! Perhaps the director shot the actor in between takes? Also, the violence at the hijacking was a big letdown. Slow-mo, bullets flying--how his wife and daughter get killed is just not that interesting and the tension is lost. His grieving afterward wasted another 10 minutes. Then he decided to "get revenge" and talk to all his industry journalist friends and ambassadors (he's a journalist for the stuffy Economist rag) and lo and behold, they actually give him tips on where to find the bad guys! How do they know? But what really made me turn the movie off halfway through was when Irons finds his way into a warehouse where baddies are hanging out--BUT NOT THE BADDIES WHO KILLED HIS WIFE--and blows them away anyway. so he's just a murderer. he gets away and, well...I shut it off. I mean I couldn't figure out how his friends knew anything, and also I thought he was after the remaining 2 guys in custody who were the original hijackers. Instead he's going after their friends, I guess, or anyone who hangs out in warehouses and leaves automatic weapons laying around. The suspense was just totally conventional and the dialog was lame ("it's OK son, crying helps," he says to his son. Son says "no it doesn't" and father says "You're right..it doesn't.")Irons takes on questionable roles--like that one dragon movie he did. He was excellent in Brideshead Revisited, which is a completely different animal than this lukewarm thriller.
I can't believe some of the scores this film is getting on the IMDb website! Have I been issued with the Special Edition naff version? Edited by Dewhurst, produced by Bernard Matthews, this film should be housed in Battersea. I'm sorry for all the UK-centric references but if you're elsewhere and you've got no toenails to cut or you haven't got a beer mat collection to catalogue then this film might just be worth 90 mins of your remaining lifespan (as long as you haven't got any paint to watch drying). The plot has more holes than a pair of fishnet stockings and the direction and editing is astonishingly ham fisted. What on earth is Irons doing in this film?
The bearings of western-style Feminism on the various subcultures of India have hitherto remained largely non-existent, the two entities belonging to alien realms and threatening (in the name of tradition) never to coincide. Art imitates life (or so the claim goes) and popular Hindi cinema is no exception, reflecting an underlying misogyny which, regrettably, forms the foundation of much of the collective Indian culture. But why? What is it about the female gender that has rendered it so hateful to the culture that women are routinely subject to the most unimaginable horrors, including rape, murder, infanticide, imposed illiteracy, infidelity, and the subjugation of spirit that goes under the name of 'dowry'? Rajkumar Santoshi's latest offering, "Lajja", asks the same plaintive question, linking the atrocities committed against women through three separate chapters/episodes which comprise the journey of shame endured by its protagonist, Vaidehi (Manisha Koirala).<br /><br />Direction on Santoshi's part is not up to par with the level the story demands. He fails to achieve the necessary sensitivity in depicting the saga of sadness and confronts the issue of misogyny from the side, instead of head-on. Santoshi has recently said that he did not make the film for an international film festival, but rather for the masses of his country. Regrettably, the tackiness shows, and the film too often delves into the action-blood-gore genre that Santoshi specializes in. The film suffers from its jerky, episodic pace and its ending is rather too contrived.<br /><br />The female cast is given much kinder and more rounded characterizations than their male counterparts. The protagonist is played sensitively by the luminescently beautiful Manisha Koirala who proves in Lajja that she is one of our time's more competent leading ladies, and given a proper role and set up, emerges with a truly commendable performance. One wonders how brilliantly she may have shone had the film been made by a director with the appropriate creative intention and appreciation of the issue at hand. Mahima Choudhary puts in a laudable performance and continues to show that she is an untapped talent. Cast as Janki, Madhuri Dixit performs with a never-before-seen fervor and felicity for what truly deserves the name of 'acting.' The role of a street smart performer who finds solace in alcohol and the promise of an unborn child stands as the greatest risk in her cannon of song-n-dance roles which have maintained her marquee status over the past decade. Which leaves the final and most disturbing performance in this would-be feminist saga, that of the ceaselessly talented Rekha. Lajja is Manisha Koirala's film, there can be no doubt about that, but it is Rekha who dominates the proceedings in a performance that digs into your bones and sends echoes of terror through the vestibules of your heart. Rekha dazzles as Ramdulari, foregoing vanity and complacency to deliver a performance that is so replete with authenticity and ingenuity that emotional nudity becomes the mantra of this portion of the film. Comparisons are indeed odious, especially when rendered opposite one of the world's great leading ladies, but in the gracious presence of this reigning screen legend the others fade in her shadow.<br /><br />"Lajja" has none of the sophistication of proto-feminist dramas like "Zubeidaa", "Pinjar", or even the Hell-Queen celebration "Laadla": it fulfills its feministic goals in two early moments:the loud tirade in which Mahima berates her in-laws for their abuse of her father who has committed no other crime than given birth to a girl. She erupts, leaving the wedding procession in shambles. Seeing her father devastated, she begins to weep, blaming herself for the chaotic destruction in front of her. She bemoans, "Why did I say anything? I have ruined everything! It is all my fault!" Her grandmother, witnessing silently the abuse she bore, comforts her by saying, "Why are you crying? There is no reason for you to be crying. You are not at fault for anything. The fault is mine. The fault is of every woman who came before you, because if we had had the courage to say in our day what you have said today, there would have been no need for you to say anything today." In this scene the importance of the Feminist Legacy is laid plainly in sight through words.<br /><br />The other, more subtle moment comes very early in the film when Vaidehi (Manisha) has fled from her abusive husband to the refuge of her parents' home in India. To viewers of western societies, it may seem perfectly reasonable (indeed, natural) that any abused woman would seek the protective guardianship of her parents; this, however, is a societal taboo in many eastern cultures, India among them. Once a woman has been married, the identity she assumes is that of her husband and his personal assets (family, business, children, etc.) For her to turn her back on these responsibilities is a grave social sin, one which truly has no equivalent for the western woman. She is thereafter regarded as tainted and as 'damaged goods', one whose value has been nullified entirely by her own actions and her refusal to submit to the role she has been given. She is not so much an individual as she is an emblem of familial honor. Her father rebukes her for her actions, concerned that his familial honor will be tarnished irreparably by the daughter he had already transferred to another man. His primary concern is that of the impending marriage of Vaidehi's younger sister, a prospect made far less likely with a divorced elder daughter in the same household. He tells her in no uncertain that she must return to the man to whom she lawfully belongs, however violent and sadistic he may be. He levies against her the age old adage that, "The honor of every home lies in the hands of its daughter." Quietly and pensively, she replies, "Yes, the honor of every home lies in the hands of its daughter. But there is no honor for the daughter herself."
The core message is strong, the cast has given it their best shot, the packaging is excellent, but the screenplay is seriously over-dramatized and every cliche in the book on women's suffering in India has been over-used to the max.
In case you dear readers never heard, this movie was the main inspiration for last year's Samuel L. Jackson-Eugene Levy clunker The Man. This 80s-drenched buddy action-comedy pairs short 'n stubbly Billy Crystal and the late Ethiopian Shim-Shammer Gregory Hines together as some witty Chi-town cops who don't play by the rules. That's pretty much the extent of the movie. Interest is somewhat peaked by Hines' line delivery that is spookily similar to Will Smith's and by cameos of now-more-famous actors like Memento's Joe Pantoliano and "NYPD Blue's" Jimmy Smits. My favorite scene is, I dunno, the car chase on the tracks, I guess. Basically, I just view this movie as a major helping hand in the demolition of action buddy flicks. Well, this and Lethal Weapon 4... and Rush Hour 2... and The Man...
Sometimes there's a film so bad that you just keep watching in awe. This is one of those films. Of course I can't help that I'm biased. I'm from Chicago so I watched the scenes closely for accuracy and I don't find Billy Crystal funny at all. And I can't stand all that English style photography(Tony Scott etc) with the smoke machine working overtime and all the flourecent, soft lighting. I suppose we're supposed to believe that Billy Crystal is really from Chicago because he wears a Cubs jersey. Oh and the plot. If you really think about it, these guys should be locked up, not the bad guys, since they're more dangerous. And of course there's the cliché of the cops on the verge of retiring. But the funniest scene is the climax where the good and bad guys machine gun other to death in The Thompson Center(A state building!) Of course it's a cool building, but it's the equivalent of making a huge drug deal at the White house.
If you are home on a weekend, very bored and lack the will to move, with absolutely nothing better to do with your life for the next couple of hours you could enjoy making fun of this movie. The acting and script and general movie making of this film isn't actually all that bad, which is why it makes it possible to actually sit through this. This is defitnly a movie they would show in high school health class to teach the dangers of pre-marital sex. Or they could also show it to teach the dangers of very lame music - that 'rock' band Brian Austin Green is in is really terrible, I think thats a much greater threat to society than unwed parents.
I rented this movie because the cover was cool looking, the first 15 minutes of the movie are okay and somehow interesting, but once the young woman and her little sister go on their trip everything goes to hell and the movie becomes boring.
Yawn, that is my reaction to this film. I was really hoping this would have been a good modern day slasher but it doesn't even fall into the category of slashers. Instead, it tries to be something it isn't, which is a psychological thriller, and it fails so miserably at this. Even the title "Freak" suggests that this might be interesting. Match this with the cover art on the DVD and you think "OK, maybe I will give this one a try". Not worth the time.<br /><br />The story actually starts up a bit interesting with a poor deformed child with bandages wrapped around his head being chained up by his fat Mother. She yells at him and probably beats him since in one scene we see her actually slap him for no reason. After all this, he decides he has had enough and smashes her face in with (I believe) a rock. Present day, he is now in insane asylum and is being transfered. On his way he breaks out of the van he is in and escapes. Introduce also the 2 leads characters, a little girl and her older sister. They are moving and hit the road. So most of the movie is them riding around in the car talking amongst themselves. But, the bandaged "Freak" is now on the loose and is about go on a rampage of grueling murder! (This is me being totally sarcastic)<br /><br />I can't believe how boring this movie turned out to be. The budget was on the smallest ever with absolutely no special effects and the dialog I could just care less about. This is one of those movie where the packaging is better then the flick itself. And to compare this to Halloween?! Rubbish! I am not even a fan of the the Halloween series (except the 3rd one) but Halloween is far superior than this. At least with Halloween we have a great score and some genuinely creepy moments. With this, there is virtually no music except some piano here and there and there is nothing creepy about this movie. Maybe this movie would have fared better if it had a solid score because even the worst of movies are tolerable if the music is good.<br /><br />Well, that is just my opinion on the movie. I thought it was just a complete waist of time and money. But, since the movie has over a 4/10 rating on IMDb, there must be people that like this movie. I am not one of those people. 2/10
The title, although singular, will undoubtedly remind real horror fans of Tod Browning's immortal classic about a troop of circus freaks and how they were misunderstood by the outside world. I can assure you, however, that this "thing" has absolutely nothing to do with "Freaks" or even with the art of professional film-making in general. This movie was recommended to me, supposedly because it's raw, disturbing and thought provoking despite the low budget production values. Yeah right… The person who recommended it to me may now consider himself to be my personal foe! The low budget factor is correct, but that about sums it up. "Freak" is dreadfully slow, poorly made and every character that gets introduced is downright insufferable…and that includes the freak too. Two siblings on their way to a new life encounter a deformed mental patient who escaped from the transport truck to another hospital and heads back to the house where he killed his mother at age 9. This could have been an interesting slasher with good isolated filming locations but, instead, Tyler Sharpe decided to make it boring and pointless family drama. The lead actress' attempts to look emotionally devastated are pretty laughable and the total lack of suspense and action can hardly be blamed to the limited budget. Total failure!
I seem to be disagreeing with a lot of folks here. but I really did not find this movie as scintillating as the reviews I read claimed. It was no doubt a touching story and the partition background provided the scope for an epic. but, the movie was a let down. specially for neone who has seen 'gadar'. inspite of the lead being played by sunny deol and the incessant songs, I must say gadar is the better of the two. the story being virtually the same. partition failed to create any depth in its characters as well as the scenes that were supposed to hav an impact. over looking kristin kruek's accent and the smallvile image, which in itself wasn't an easy job. the characters just did not seem too real. not that I am criticizing the acting by any of the lead. it just did not work. the atmosphere was well drawn up, but the movie really lacked in substance. not that I am die hard rambo fan, but some action cud have seen the movie through, or some character development. it all seemed like a rush to the finish. and the ending only added to the viewers dissatisfaction.<br /><br />nonetheles, I must say that it was at least a good effort in seemingly unfamiliar territory by the director. and if U haven't seen gadar, then u mite even like it.
As we are well aware, movies are not set out to be a direct incorporation of history, but it is a disgrace when a movie is made which has absolutely little to no correlation. I wish the director and/or the screen writer had done his/her research in this topic. All this movie does is create a forum for hate between people, while causing a rift that should not be there. This movie portrayed the Sikhs and Muslims in a very negative manor, while making the third group (Hindus) look as if they were non existent in the brutal killings of the people of both nations. The inaccuracies, coupled with the sear disregard for one's faith as portrayed by 'Gian Singh' was a disgrace to the highest format. Though on a more positive note, the actors did a great job in acting in their roles. Both Kristen K and Neve C played their rolls exceptionally. I hope those that watch this movie do not see or use it as a template for the actual historical event.
I tried watching this movie, but I didn't make it past the first 15 minutes. It's a terrible disappointment, considering the cast, but I can't look past the fact that the dialogue is in English and some of the actors pretending to be Indian are not even close (read: Kristin Kreuk). Considering that India alone has 1/6th of the world's population and one of the biggest movie industries, I don't think it would have been hard for the film-makers to have found an excellent Indian actress to play the part. And I don't say so because of some blind patriotism, but because it's absolutely and totally absurd for a non-Indian to play the role of an Indian/Pakistani. Now some people say that 'as long as she's convincing who cares?' but my point is exactly that she's NOT convincing and never can be - not due to her acting skills, but due to her ethnicity. For example, however good an actor Tom Hanks may be, he'll never be able to play an Australian Aborigine!<br /><br />But that is still minor to the biggest faux pas the film-makers made: having the dialogue in English. It totally destroys the mood, as well as any semblance of authenticity. Had the same movie been made in native languages (Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi) with English subtitles, this may have been an excellent movie. Unfortunately, as things stand, I would not recommend anyone seeing it, apart from film students who want to study "What not to do" in movies.
I am not quite sure I agree with the director of this version of The Scarlet Pimpernel. I imagined Sir Percy Blakeney a very calm, seemingly lazy aristocrat. This particular Sir Percy Blakeney appears to be teeming with overwhelming energy and volatility. I did not appreciate the Houdini, James Bond, Mission Impossible style escapes that Sir Percy engineered either. In the previous versions, wit was the tool for escape, not technology. Neither were the characters of Marguerite and Chauvelin adequately portrayed. There seemed to be little energy or chemistry in the interaction between the characters.<br /><br />I do not wish to assign any blame, for perhaps the reason for my dislike of this movie might simply be a matter of difference in interpretation. Had the director's interpretation coincided with mine, perhaps I might not have been irritated by what seemed to me bad character portrayals.<br /><br />I much preferred the version from 1982. Anthony Andrews was quite efficient as the imperturbable, calm fop. So were Jane Seymour and Ian McKellen. In my opinion, the style of this period piece seems to have been lost with this latest adaption. I recommend sticking with the previous versions, either the one from 1934 or the one from 1982.<br /><br />
Having read the books and seen the 1982 Anthony Andrews/Jane<br /><br />Seymour version, I have to say that this is not good at all.<br /><br />According to the books, Percy is supposed to be a seemingly<br /><br />foppish aristocrat when he's being Percy, and witty and clever<br /><br />when he's being the Pimpernel, but here he just looks bored as<br /><br />Percy and mean as the Pimpernel. Marguerite is supposed to be<br /><br />the most beautiful woman in Europe, not a tired and frumpy-looking matron (she looks middle-aged, probably due to<br /><br />bad make-up). Richard E. Grant has done much better things, and<br /><br />Elizabeth McGovern's acting is uninspired and flat. The wit and<br /><br />dash of the books and the Andrews/Seymour film is here replaced<br /><br />by brawn and flashy editing that just don't make the cut. <br /><br /> I might add that to a person who hasn't seen any previous version<br /><br />or read the book, it would probably look ok.
Before I start to tear apart this movie, mark you--I LOVE THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL. That story is one of the best romantic adventures ever written. The movie staring Jane Grey is very good and the musical on Broadway is the hottest thing there. So, I thought when I heard that this film was coming out that it would be great since it was a BBC film.<br /><br />To my surprise, it was a weak, totally stupid story that UTTERLY failed in capturing the gorgeous tale.<br /><br />There were no exciting escapes with daring disguises. There was no deep love that made your heart flutter as Percy left the room and Marguerite sighed as her husband was leaving her again.<br /><br />All it had was a confusing plot and a lot of out-of-the-blue sex and violence.<br /><br />Sink me! What a horrible movie!<br /><br />
I don't know why they even kept the name. How they could call the series 'The Scarlet Pimpernel' after they deviated from the novels so much, I wouldn't have a clue. The character names are the only things they kept, and even then they changed a few of those, and mixed them up, and changed Percy's relationships with them. Admittedly, I only watched about two hours at the most of it, but that was enough for me to realize that the series was nothing like Baroness Orzcy had portrayed her characters, and probably would have been rolling around in her grave when it was filming and airing. Poor lady. I hope that when the next person wants to make a movie/series of the book they don't ruin it as completely as this series did.
I have read almost all the books by now, and have seen the musical production in two different languages. I absolutely adored everything that I have been acquainted previously. But lately I've been running out of resources to sustain my fancy. I still have couple of books left, but they are either in transit or they are the sequels which I am not in a hurry to read. So an idea dawned on me - Sink me! There are movies which I have not watched! Thus, I must watch them immediately.<br /><br />The first five minutes of these series were... acceptable. In fact, I quite enjoyed the variation of the reason for the denunciation, however different it had seemed. It went all downhill from there, though. Chauvelin was too... foppish? And, I daresay, too old for this role. Not nearly that dark and dashing figure with his dreadful either-or. (And what was that with random bed scene featuring him? It was way too creepy - wasn't his only love the Madame Guillotine, and his only interest - his job, and his only obsession - Sir Percy?) Marguerite... Prettiest woman in France? Cleverest woman in Europe? I think not. Although, whatever compelled her to break into the study of Sir Percy I haven't the faintest idea. And whatever my Lord Tony has done to deserve this death? Yes, every member of the League did pledge his life to Sir Percy, but he would have never endangered any of them nor would have run away like a coward when his dear friend faces mortal danger. And if by any means he had to mourn his companion, he would have done that, mourn, not just move on as if nothing had happened. Which brings me to another point, Sir Percy. His portrayal was most dreadful. He was neither a lazy fop, nor a gallant and elusive hero who is a master of transformations. Nor did he care too much about cravats (his pronunciation of that word alone made my ears bleed) And with his own hands he had never killed anyone. So what was that with him randomly walking around and slaughtering people?<br /><br />The costumes were just too flashy for that time period as well. This is post-revolutionary France we are talking about! Not pre-revolutionary. People in dresses like that stand out in a crowd quite easily. It was all just... gah!<br /><br />Although, I must admit, after I watched other parts my opinion did change slightly. Watching it as a separate work, independent of Scarlet Pimpernel series, it was tolerable. Just your other average hero in the mask. But for what they tried to pass it, it is still miserable.
The screen writers for this mini-series should have been sentenced to the guillotine themselves. They butchered a very fun story and squandered the talents of Richard E. Grant. The only thing the writers kept from the original books was the name. All of the characters were totally altered and the story was not the same. I strongly suggest watching another version of the Scarlet Pimpernel. Any other version is better than this one.
I have read each and every one of Baroness Orczy's Scarlet Pimpernel books. Counting this one, I have seen 3 pimpernel movies. The one with Jane Seymour and Anthony Andrews i preferred greatly to this. It goes out of its way for violence and action, occasionally completely violating the spirit of the book. I don't expect movies to stick directly to plots, i gave up being that idealistic long ago, but if an excellent movie of a book has already been made, don't remake it with a tv movie that includes excellent actors and nice costumes, but a barely decent script. Sticking with the 80's version....Rahne
As someone who has read all of Baroness Orczy's books and seen most of the movies based on them, I must say that the 1980's version, with Anthony Andrews and Jane Seymour, was better than this. It was better written and stuck more to the spirit of the story than this one, which seemed to go out of its way to involve people getting shot. This new adaptation is less light-hearted, yet does not have as much depth, either. Although there is some good acting, the actors did not have much to work with. Nice costumes, though.
This is by far the most repulsive and atrocious version of The Scarlet Pimpernel ever to be devised. As a Pimpernel fan, I was sincerely offended by what they did to the characters--but this atrocity is not worth watching, even if you aren't familiar with the story.<br /><br />Percy Blakeney, for example, would never stab people in the back just to get down a hallway. Chauvelin would never have a string of women in his bed. Marguerite never had an affair with Chauvelin, nor Armand with Minette, whoever the heck she is. Chauvelin would not randomly shoot Tony in the head. Chauvelin's name is not, nor has it ever been, Paul. They have completely eradicated any reference to the Pimpernel's disguises, replacing them instead with James Bond-esque gadgets and gizmos.<br /><br />As to the film itself... The makeup is horrifying. The women look like clowns. Elizabeth McGovern's beauty mark wanders around her face at random. The poor, pitiable actors have no script to work with, so it's not really their fault that their characters are as thin as wet tissue paper. The dialogue... oh, the dialogue. The dialogue is unbearable. And whoever is responsible for all those little captions at the bottom of the screen should be forced to watch this movie as penance. (I counted 13 location captions in the first half-hour before I gave up. As if we can't figure out that the body of water between England and France is the English Channel.)<br /><br />The film--if I can bring myself to call it that, since it's really just videotape with a filter--is absolutely without redeeming value. Do not waste your time and brain cells on this rancid drivel--instead, go watch the 1982 Anthony Andrews/Jane Seymour version, or the 1934 Leslie Howard film, or indeed ANYTHING but this one.
Back in college I studied marketing and, even though I missed a whole lot of classes and never really paid any attention, I will always remember the main and most essential principle of marketing, namely: it's not what you sell; it's HOW you sell it! This principle fully applies to "The Devil's Triangle", as it's basically a beautifully wrapped and enticing yet empty package. Writer/director Richard Winer knew exactly that he had to divert the viewer's attention away from the major inaccuracies, so he threw in some elements that never fail when it comes to providing a creepy atmosphere, like the sinister voice of narrator Vincent Price and the oddball music of King Crimson. And I'm guessing Richard Winer's dirty little tricks worked very efficiently, as there was a huge Bermuda Triangle hype going on during the mid-70's and literally every movie production – whether it was an inaccurate documentary or a sleazy exploitation flick – covering the topic earned big money at the box office. "The Devil's Triangle" overwhelms you with data that is unstructured and often irrelevant, but the severe dramatization of the facts and of course the intimidating stark voice of the almighty Vincent Price generates an ambiance of fright and creepiness. The narration constantly jumps back and forward in time and covers a massive amount of "strange occurrences" and "mysterious vanishings" of ships and airplanes in the Bermuda Triangle throughout a period of nearly one whole century, but the reports remain extremely vague at all times and the eloquent Mr. Price invariably ends every chapter with the sinister words "… just another unsolved mystery of the Devil's Triangle…". After a couple of cases the whole formula simply becomes laughable and almost pathetic, but I guess it caused genuine mass hysteria back in 1974. The documentary expands a little more on the most notorious Bermuda Triangle mysteries, like the five planes of military Flight 19 that inexplicably disappeared all at once and the peculiar case of the vessel USS Cyclops, but still even in these chapters only a minimum of serviceable information is given. The cameras never at one point go underwater to explore the depths of the Bermuda area, for example, and the testimonies of the supposedly real-life witnesses of the dramas suspiciously look like staged acting scenes. If you're looking for an informative and objective documentary on the Bermuda Triangle, I certainly wouldn't recommend this movie, but in case you want to sit back and listen to Vincent Price's hypnotizing voice for nearly a full hour, this is your chance!
I saw this turkey in the theater, but I had a good time. The special effects aren't worthy of a grade school production. A toy boat, representing a freighter, moving at speedboat velocity on flat waters while wind driven fog blows in the opposite direction. The red and blue flood lamps add that extra dramatic touch. Whatever cache Vincent Price was supposed to bring as narrator is completely overshadowed by dreadful production work. Calling this a documentary is like calling Britney Spears a musician. About 20 minutes into this, something struck me as very funny. Maybe it was Price's overly dramatic intonation of the oft-used line "They vanished into the Devil's Triangle! [cut to black; next story] Once I started laughing, my friends joined in. Next time Vinny said the crucial line, someone in the back yelled out: "Good!" After that, it got almost as many laughs as a Marx Brothers film. Nobody stayed for the dreadfully serious second feature "Chariots of the Gods."
Though it's better than most made-for-TV movies, "Buried Alive" is nothing more than a run-of-the-mill revenge tale. There are so many plot holes in this one, it makes you wonder why the screenwriters didn't go through a series of re-writes. The ending has a nice twist to it, but it's hardly believable.<br /><br />The acting by Jennifer Jason Leigh is terrific, as always, but Tim Matheson hams it up with cheesy one-liners that reminds one of Jack Nicholson in "The Shining". Don't bother with this one.
It beats me how anyone can rate this film very highly. It is no understatement to call it far fetched. How the guy managed in such a short space of time to construct a wooden maze of underground rooms is quite ridiculous or maybe he was the greatest carpenter since Jesus. The obese sheriff played by Hoyt Axton looked like a refugee from the Jerry Springer show and I found the blonde female lead Jennifer Jason Leigh rather plain. We have an expression here in the U.K. 'mutton done up as lamb' which suits her perfectly. It wasn't all bad however, I enjoyed it immensely when the end credits rolled and 'The End' came up was quite brilliant for this hotch potch of a T.V. movie which if it had been a cinematic release would have been put on video and in discount stores in no time at all.
Filmmaker Bryan Forbes, who once displayed a light, sardonic touch with beguiling material such as "Whistle Down the Wind" and the original "Stepford Wives", completely bottoms out here. Not only is his direction inept, he also sloppily adapted Sidney Sheldon's early novel; the results are atrocious. Roger Moore plays a psychiatrist framed for the murder of one of his patients; Rod Steiger, chewing the scenery, is a hot-under-the-collar cop (it's easily his most embarrassing performance). The only actor here to exhibit some life is Elliott Gould, who knows a thing or two about enlivening a bum script. Bland, choppy, and produced on the cheap. NO STARS from ****
Although this series and the mini film in particular were very important at the time of release, I feel that the series as a whole was actually fairly poorly written with a weak cast. The issues at heart are extremely well portrayed yet it is difficult to relate and understand the problems within the film when the acting and script isn't convincing enough (especially when looking at the mini film).<br /><br />I also don't believe that this mini film or series has stood the test of time as now many of the scenes are quite laughable. The issues are still crucial but Boys From The Blackstuff cannot fully aid the cause of understanding the problems in Britain in the 1980s.
How anyone can praise this crude film version after seeing the marvelous WATERLOO BRIDGE with Vivien Leigh and Robert Taylor, is beyond comprehension.<br /><br />MAE CLARKE's Myra is a far cry from the role as played by VIVIEN LEIGH in the remake. She plays a common American girl with a Brooklyn accent and the "Yeah" responses are a bit jarring when one is expecting a less coarse character. DOUGLASS MONTGOMERY (billed in final credits as KENT DOUGLASS) is wildly improbable as a soldier smitten with her no matter how many times she lets him down. BETTE DAVIS has a nothing role in a bit part.<br /><br />Their melodramatic confrontations during the last twenty minutes of the film are beyond belief (extravagant bits of overacting)--even given the fact that this is a cruder version of the story when sound was only a few years old and silent acting was still the rage.<br /><br />Just awful. And it ends abruptly with Clarke losing her life during a bombing on the bridge. The End.<br /><br />It has none of the beautifully shaded performances in the MGM remake of 1940, including a sterling supporting cast. Instead, this one is mounted with low-budget production values (and I mean a shoe-string budget) with no subtlety at all. And there's no pre-code braveness in the scene where Myra tells the aristocratic lady why she must not marry her son, Roy. She simply says, "I picked him up on Waterloo Bridge." Explanation over. Nothing bold there.<br /><br />Summing up: For once, the original is not the best version by any means. VIVIEN LEIGH and ROBERT TAYLOR have never been surpassed as Myra and Roy in the tender, exquisitely acted 1940 film classic.
Without saying how it ended, it is sufficient to say that the whole thing degenerates from about five minutes before the end. If the standard had been maintained throughout, the movie would be worth a seven.<br /><br />One wonders in a way why a woman was added to the cast. (Well - not really!) The premise is a good one The situation the victims find themselves in is pretty terrifying and it's rather well done, but you get the impression the makers of the film lost interest towards the end, or as a previous contributor said, they changed writers and handed over to someone else.
"Opposing Force [1986]" wasn't as good as "Dr. Strangelove" and it wasn't as good as "The Bridge on the River Kwai". Heck, it wasn't even as good as "G.I. Jane", which is pretty sad.<br /><br />The film revolves around a basic ethical problem: In a simulated prisoner-of-war situation, how far can you go before you start breaking the law? What exactly IS the law in such a situation? How can you simulate the torture of someone without actually torturing someone? Can you intentionally inflict pain? How about breaking bones? Mock executions? Sexual abuse? Severe blood loss? Real guns with bullets? Death? Somewhere between these is a really fuzzy line dividing "acceptable" from "atrocious".<br /><br />Now, what could you do if you found yourself in such a training program and the lines between simulation and reality begin to vanish? What could you do? This movie attempts to portray this dilemma.<br /><br />I found it interesting to see the types of tactics used in "resistance training". I have a brother who went through the USAF's POW training program. According to him, it was pretty close to the mark technically.<br /><br />The film has a fairly good premise, but it doesn't have a particularly good story. I wondered if it might be based on some actual event, but it became pretty apparent that it wasn't when the explosions started. They must have changed scriptwriters three quarters into the film, because it takes a real extreme turn and devolves into a somewhat pointless shoot-em-up with lots of distracting explosions. <br /><br />I found it to have a rather unsatisfying ending; again, kind of pointless. I'm left wondering what the point of the whole thing was - I'm beginning to suspect there simply wasn't one. It could have been much better with just a little more story to go along with the fireworks.
What we know of Caravaggio suggests a strutting brawler with a healthy sense of entitlement who lived amongst whores and thieves and hustlers and put them on canvas. His works' themes were sex, death, redemption, above all, finding the sacred within the profane. He lived at a time where homosexuality carried a death sentence and political intrigue normally involved fatalities in a society defined by the maxim "strangling the boy for the purity of his scream".<br /><br />You can't fault Derek Jarman for his cinematography, nor his recreations of Caravaggio's paintings and you certainly can't accuse the man of shying away from the homosexuality. But frankly, Jarman never strays beyond 80s caricature. Italian patronage becomes the 80s London art scene complete with pretty waiters and calculators. Sean Bean is a sexy bit of Northern rough oiling his motorbike. Tilda Swinton performs a transformation worthy of a Mills and Boons ("Why, Miss Lena, without that gypsy headscarf, you're beautiful..."). Jarman provides Caravaggio with a particularly trite motive for the murder which left him exiled.<br /><br />This could have been a visually stunning treatment of a man whose life was dangerous, exciting, violent and decadent but who nonetheless elevated the lives of ordinary people to the status of Renaissance masterpieces, looked on by Emperors and Kings. Instead, what you get is Pierre et Gilles do Italy. The pretty bodies of young boys are shown to perfection, but never the men who inhabit them. Jarman appears to satirise the London art scene, showing it shallow and pretentious. To use Caravaggio and Renaissance Italy to make the point is to use a silk purse to make a pig's ear. In fairness, this film remains visually stunning, but ultimately as two dimensional as the paintings it describes.
I went to see this film last night at the National Film Theatre in London, as a birthday treat. It was the the first time I've seen it, and I think it has now overtaken the dreadful "Twister" as the worst film I have ever seen. Disjointed for no reason, self indulgent and full of imagery that oscillates from the crass and obvious to the obscure and unintelligible, not particularly beautifully or grimily shot, I really don't understand why this is considered classic, gay or otherwise. I normally enjoy films that push boundaries or even films that are hard to watch because of their length or unusual cinematography. But this was truly, truly awful.
I found this film completely and utterly incomprehensible. I knew some of he facts about Caravagggio, but here they were twisted and puzzling. The images were weirdly interesting but I was looking more for a biographical and/or critical accounting of Caravaggio's life and works, not an LSD type drug trip. The dialogue was very confusing and jumping back and forth in time via the use of trains, calculators, typewriters and cigarettes was extremely distracting. Had it been labelled an "artsy film" I wouldn't have purchased the DVD; now I have a DVD that I'll never watch again and who would buy it? I prefer mainstream films not those that require translation or elucidation. Thumbs down on this one for me!
One reviewer says of those who might not like this film that "it will only be appreciated by film goers who weary of film as diversion". This, I feel, is rather unfair to those of us who find it boring.<br /><br />I have not become weary or disillusioned with film or with film makers, but found this tedious and self indulgent. But then, it's true, I'm not too big into deep meaningfulness. I feel that it may have great meaning for those in the know, you know.<br /><br />It is very slow and it spends a long time in trying to make its individual points, using imagery, indeed, to do so. But in such days as these, it seems possible that a film like this might be the kind of thing that you'd come across in one of those dark and daunting booths in modern art galleries, rather than on the screen of a popular cinema setting.
John Madden's cinematic interpretation of Edith Wharton's Ethan Frome falls short of doing justice to a great literary piece. While the story is maintained the elements that give the novella its soul are skewered and all in all lost in the film. Madden fails to convey the innocence, and overall tragedy of Ethan and Mattie's relationship instead transforming it into a morality tale. The mark is missed and the point lost in added details and poor dialog. Zeena (Zenobia) in the book is almost completely the antagonist, the books least sympathetic figure, where in the movie she can be almost pitied though it's a stretch you kind of feel bad for this sick woman who is being cheated on. The book more accurately describes Zeena's tyrannical control of the house and of Ethan. The movie just ticked me off. The addition of the fox was pointless, as well as the scene with Mattie trying to kill herself. It was just poorly interpreted and done. Film mistakes: Ethan's elusiveness in the church dance scene, interactions with Denis Eady, addition of love scene, fox scene, store scene, saying his plans allowed, lack of displays of Ethan's inner emotions and thoughts, introduction of the priest instead of nameless engineer, let on to much that Zeena knows about the growing relationship where in novel reader never knows what Zeena is thinking or aware of. Just too many flaws and poor directing decisions.
Director John Madden, of Shakespeare in Love fame, gives us another pretty bad film in Ethan Frome. The plot centers around a new reverend coming into the town of Starkfield where he learns the story of the local crippled man Ethan Frome's sick wife and one-time romantic tryst with the maid. Adapted by Richard Nelson from Pulitzer Prize-winning author Edith Wharton's novel, this film isn't interesting in the least thanks to an abysmally weak script and poor direction that turns scenes that are supposed to be poignant into laughable schmaltz. Still, there are other aspects apart of the film that work - the cinematography is well done, Rachel Portman contributes a lovely score, and while no one is at their best, Liam Neeson, Joan Allen, Patricia Arquette, and Tate Donovan work well in their roles. But overall, Ethan Frome is only marginally worthwhile and is easily forgotten.
I went into this movie with an open mind. I had been too lazy to go to the video store to pick out a movie, and my friend returned with this. I promised him I wouldn't laugh at his choice, but within the first five minutes I told him I would have to take back my promise. We kept watching, just hoping it would get better, but no; a continual mind-rape followed.<br /><br />This "movie" was probably one of the worse ever committed to film, and surely deserves a place on the IMDb Bottom 100. I really don't know how this got distributed. The lighting was poor. I have seen better acting in elementary school plays. There is really nothing positive to say about it.
Yes, it's a SBIF (So Bad It's Funny) classic. With a budget running into the tens of dollars, some of the most abysmal acting you have ever seen, and absolutely NO even remotely frightening moments - not even a nanosecond! Camera work was at the elementary school level - one still shot outside a house was obviously hand-held and jiggled crazily. Blood looked like watered-down cherry Koolaid, someone made a trip to the local butcher shop for the "human" bones, and Miss Witch had the cheapest mask Wal-Mart could provide.<br /><br />Did ANYONE involved look at the final cut and realize what a mess this was? Most of the names in the credits HAVE to be pseudonyms, it would be career suicide to have THIS on your resume. Do yourself a favor and watch Ebert's video of his colonoscopy instead!
This film is terrible - honestly. The acting is terrible, the script made me cringe, the effects are completely lousy (which I usually don't mind for older films, but this was made just two years ago), and everything about it just annoys me. A few friends go out on Halloween into the woods and meet a witch and her cannibal son. Of course, before that it has the cliché "You really believe that? Ha ha ha, it's just a story" routine dragged out for a while. The witch's cannibal son was made a retard (I don't know if it was for comedy or to make it creepy, but this film failed at both). It has minimal gore and no nudity, which made a bad film even worse. Heck, the only good thing about this film is the leg eating scene, and even that could of been better.<br /><br />Honestly, don't even waste your time watching it on cable, and certainly don't consider buying or renting this, else you'll be kicking yourself for wasting time which could of been spent doing something more constructive or entertaining.
The Fanglys is set in a small Texan town called Layton on the eve of Halloween as the townspeople treat it like the second coming of Christ or something, I mean Halloween isn't that important is it? Anyway, Sheriff Pete (Burton Gilliam) has been called out to yet another murder as local boy Ned (co-associate producer John William Galt) has discovered a body in the local woods. Could it be the Fang Lady (Justin Hamilton)? The central character involved in a local legend about a witch who kills teenagers, who knows? Being the fun sort of guy he is Mark (asisstant director & producer Robert Harvey) convinces his missus Kelly (Laurie Reeves) to ride out to a cemetery that his mate Steven (Josh Gobin) found the night before for a Halloween party. The idea of spending the night in a cemetery in the middle of the woods obviously appeals to Kelly & she agrees, along with Steven & a girl he picked up named Camille (Natalie Woods) & their nerdy friend Jerry (Tim Boswell) they all set out for a night of fun, well as much fun as you can expect to have in an isolated cemetery. However they soon discover that the legend of the Fang Lady is far from the bedtime story many make out...<br /><br />Edited, executive produced, written & directed by Christopher Abram The Fanglys is a pretty rubbish attempt at a horror film. The script is very predictable, dull & doesn't deliver any sort of entertainment value whatsoever, in the right hands & with a decent budget The Fanglys could have been an effective horror film but as it is it isn't. It moves along at a fair pace but the on-screen 'action' is so poor that it doesn't matter, I don't quite know what else to say other than The Fanglys is a really bad film & I can't see anyone getting any sort of enjoyment out of it. The dialogue is basic, the character's are clichéd & lifeless while as a whole the film seems a lot longer than the 90 minutes running time. There are a few lame attempts at humour which don't sit that well along side the horror elements & what was that retard keeping in that cage? I'd imagine the budget didn't allow the filmmakers to show it. Oh, if you want to know what happens to Jerry at the end then you'll have too keep watching past the end credits as the lame truth is revealed, assuming you can actually make it that far of course (believe me it takes some doing).<br /><br />Director Abram doesn't do anything special. Abram thinks bathing scenes in neon light is stylish, I can tell him that it isn't when your film is supposed to be set in the woods. There's no atmosphere, scares, tension, excitement or any of the elements that makes a good horror film good. Forget about decent gore, there's a bit when someone eats some skin off an arm & a pitchfork stuck through someones throat.<br /><br />Apparently The Fanglys had a filming budget of $2,837 which makes it one of the lowest budget films ever to have a commercial release, & to be brutally honest it shows. What about the retarded guy & his false joke shop teeth that look ridiculous? The terrible special effects, the camcorder cinematography & the terrible acting from everyone involved that makes it even more of a pain to sit through.<br /><br />The Fanglys is straight-to-video crap, it has no redeeming features whatsoever & it's low IMDb user rating score is fully justified, it's one of those films that within half an hour I was looking at the clock & wishing the thing would just finish.
I had to suffer through this movie three times while I was a zombie extra in the director's new movie After Sundown. The first time that I saw this movie the director was standing next to me and a clearly fake and cheesy looking hand popped out of nowhere and grabbed one of the characters. I could not take it any more I busted out laughing right in front of the guy. The movie has no direction whatsoever and the one thing that could make this movie decent (Female Nudity) was nowhere to be found. I am a fan of low budget horror movies, but this was just too much for me. The worst part was that I had to watch it so many times. Also do not expect the new movie to be any better.
This is one of the most stupid and worthless movies ever. It really does not qualify for movie status. It is VERY cheap (apparently shot on videotape), horribly acted, and just plain rotten. I could not believe how cheap and inept this piece of crap was. It looked like a home video! I mean I believe a guy I know a few houses down must have dug out his video camera and made this crap in 2 or 3 hours. It is that bad. I noticed the name from whence this came…Asylum…and I will NEVER rent anything with that name on it again!!! When you rent a flick, check to see if it is from this "company." One thing is true though--if you like horribly acted, amateur movies, then you might like this loser. It is absolutely boring and terrible!!! You have been warned!!!
Susan inadvertently stumbles onto a drug smuggling ring while her realtor gets a flat tire while driving her to see a house. The leader of said drug ring, Mongo (whom only has one week until retirement) thinking she knows much more than this bubbly blond actually does seeks to make sure she won't tell anyone anything and thus begins one of the more bone headed films that I've sat through.<br /><br />All the actors in this film can't really act in the least. Susan makes a pretty ineffectual hero for most of the movie (she'd never escape multiple times if not for the fact that seemingly every one in the movie wants to have sex with her) and she doesn't take the offensive until the last 20 minutes of the flick. When she does she spouts some generic "I have had enough" line, preach on sister, that very thought ran through my mind multiple times when I was watching this <br /><br />My Grade: D-
If you like really shocking movies this is for you. The acting is the worst I've ever seen and the story line goes no-where. If you come across this film in your video shop don't even consider borrowing it. The chick on the front cover isn't even the one in the movie.I gave this movie 1/10 only because I couldn't vote 0. Avoid it at all costs.
I saw this on cable. Someone had to lose their job for greenlighting this one for air. Just because a movie is made does not mean it has to be shown! Savage Instinct should be shown in ALL film classes. It is the perfect template for how to not make a movie. The editing alone is so jumbled you'll think it was assembled by a team of trained (poorly) monkeys, traveling across unpaved canyon road in the back of a jeep, blindfolded and drunk. The audio is often not legible. Acting? I can't call anything I saw here acting. Reciting? Hmmm. Can't call it that either. Failing? That works. All that being said...IT IS HILARIOUS! I cannot stress enough that there is not one redeemable factor in this "film" other than the hilarity derived from it's own incredible ineptness. Fun, in a strictly masochistic sort of way. Watch it...if you dare.
Bad editing, bad production values, bad continuity, implausible, bad dialogue... this movies is bad, bad, bad. However, if you want a movie to poke fun at (a la MST3000), this is your movie. I wouldn't suggest spending much money on it, but if you do see this movie, make sure it's with plenty of witty, like-minded buddies.
This movie really sucks. This is my second review because its so bad. The girl on the cover is hot but the girl in the movie is not. I cant believe it was rated R there is basiaclly no violence, no sex, no nudity, no swearing nothing. Really crap film.
It seems to be a common thing in the 90's to play with cliches. Some manage to do so with great talent. Hervé Hadmar doesn't. On the paper, the movie looked interesting though: the weak plot could have been saved by great moments of comedy, dark humour, and a very "décalé" style. Director Hadmar, unfortunately, kills his direction with his camera angles and his absolute lack of rhythm. Every joke is embarassing as no one reacts in the theater. The movie is incredibly slow, and the actors seem to be wondering what the hell they're doing in this ridiculous mascarade. What could have been a stylish funny mindless comedy ends up being a cathedral of boredom.
One of the worst movie I have seen in 2009 so far: The story hesitates between a silly thriller or a dumb comedy.<br /><br />As nothings happens, the void is filled with long, boring dialogs that don't make any sense! <br /><br />The cast is famous but doesn't bring any emotions except to fast-forward the play! <br /><br />And it happens in a plush seaside hotel that looks really gloomy. In comparison, the one of the "Shining" is funfair! <br /><br />NB: a lot of users think that it is located in the French Riviera! They are wrong! It isn't the south of France (Nice, Cannes) but totally the opposite: Cabourg & Normandy, to be simple the beaches of the D-Day! That's why the sea is as grey as the sky and there isn't sun!
You know, this is one of those "Emperor's New Clothes" films. It's like, so off the wall and strange that you're SUPPOSED to like it if you're really into film. Well, I think that's a bunch of bologna. Films like this which hide under the cloak of Dada or surrealism make me nuts. Some person has this bad dream, perhaps brought on by eating the aforementioned bologna right before going to bed, remembers most of it (unfortunately) and then puts it on film and we're all supposed to marvel at their creative genius. I have bizarre dreams too, sometimes, that make absolutely no sense but I don't feel the need to put them on film, expose everybody else to them and call it art. Weirdness does not, in of itself, mean something is interesting. True Dada or surrealistic expression has SOME intent and intellectual thought behind it. If other people don't get it, that doesn't make it profound, it just makes it incomprehensible. Bizarreness for bizarreness sake, for me, is not good, let alone great, art. And comparing "Tuvalu" to "Delicatesen" is like comparing "The Godfather I & II" to "The Godfather III"---same genre, NOT in the same league.
Like the other comments says, this might be surprise to those who haven't seen the work of Jeunet & Caro or Emir Kusturica. But have you already seen Delicatessen, there is nothing new it this film. I thought Delicatessen was great when it came out, but this film just arrive too late to be of any interest. I don't think it's a worse film than Delicatessen but it's a bore to see it now, like it probably would be to watch Delicatessen again. There is really no point to the film, nothing that really matter or stays with you. There may be a distant similarity to the films of Kusturica, but he's really in a different league, so you should rather go see his films than waste your time on Tuvalu.
I had a different experience with this movie - it never got charming, or delightful, or funny for me. one big clue that this was not your typical movie was that the label gave no indication of the Ianguage(s) spoken in the film. another was the lack of choices re subtitles.<br /><br />I found the lack of dialogue annoying, especially when accompanied by exaggerated facial expressions as it almost always was. The wildly inconsistent development of the feeble plot was puzzling. Were there characters, or only vague gestures? was there even a plot?<br /><br />on a separate matter, I'm getting prompted to correct the spelling of "dialogue", with the suggested substitute of "dialogue". maybe this movie in its entirety, including the IMDb portion, is designed to puzzle, or amaze, but I'm getting more irked than amused.
I always say, "there's nothing like a good movie". And I must say, this was nothing like a good movie! Drab, dull and tedious. It was like one of those bad dreams that never seem to end, no matter how hard you try to wake up. I don't mind the concept of a film without words, (ie: entering a fantasy or dream world), but there has to be something there to capture your imagination, not just empty images, which is what this film is. There seemed to be no character development and it jumped so fast from scene to scene that it was hard to discern any story. (Was there even a story?) You could tell the actors were trying their best, but unfortunately, poor direction sabotaged all the actors' work. It really seemed like a type of cinematic masturbation...only existing to pleasure the director and nobody else. Big waste of time.
I will commend it in only one respect.. it was innovative. Innovative doesn't mean it's a good film, it means that it can give you an idea of what you can take and implement in your own films.<br /><br />The simple plot is.. well.. simple. I got to the point where I didn't care if they destroy the building or not. If I had to hear that girl's annoying giggle one more time, I swear I would hurl the DVD out the window. And there's also the protagonist. They try to make him lovable, but he's a freakin pervert! Sniffing the girls bra, sneaking peeks at her when she's naked, putting her bra over his eyes when he sleeps, putting her bra on a blow up sex doll (which she takes her panties off while hes asleep and slips them on his doll.. umm)<br /><br />What irritates me even moreso is that crappy tinting. In the photo gallery on the DVD, you can see what the film looked liek before they greyscaled it and put in a color tint (digitally too).. The film looked a LOT better without the effect.. so they sacrificed it being a good film just to be artsy... bah. I could understand using gimmicks like that if the film quality was crap..<br /><br />I think most people who liked this film just liked it because the chick was naked for a good 5 - 10 minutes. This doesn't compare to Delicatessen ( like so many are tryign to do). Delicatessen has characters you can get into and like.. these people here just grunt and giggle.<br /><br />Lastly, I would also liek to point out that this was also tryign to be like a German Impressionistic film liek the old silents. One of the problems with most foreign, especially artsy, films is that thety focus on making an artsy composition and forget about the 'space' of the scene. It results in the audience not really understanding what;s going on because they don't get a sense of the space of the surroundings.<br /><br />Anyway, it's rubbish. The short film on the DVD, Surprise, was a heckuva lot better.
I hated it. I hate self-aware pretentious inanity that masquerades as art. This film is either stupidly inane or inanely stupid. After the first half hour, I fastfowarded through the DVD version, and saw the same juvenile shennanigans over and over and over. I became angered that I had spent hard-earned money for sophomoric clap-trap. Tinting drivel in sepia or blue does not make something a movie, let alone art.
This is the worst film I've seen in a looooong time. It reminded me of a Cirque du Soleil show I saw in Vegas six years ago -- without the athleticisme. By that I mean a few striking, artsy, images appear randomly, without any sustaining framework. The fake sepia tinted film is really tacky. This device is almost never justified and certainly is not in _Tuvalu_. With apologies to Abe Lincoln: you can fool some of the people some of the time.
A few years ago I saw The Scent of Green Papayas by the same director. My feelings about both films are in fact the same: beautifully shot, but terribly slow and boring. I saw this film in a Sneak Preview, and left after half an Hour. Couldn't stand it anymore. How can one make an interesting film about people who are constantly telling each other how happy they are, and how perfect their lives are.........? I had a fantasy about a forgotten American G.I., still wandering around in the Vietnamese jungle, who was not aware the war had ended. How he would suddenly pop up in the film, and would start emptying his M16 at the characters in the movie. The red of their blood would make a beautiful contrast with all the green plants in the film........... So I was not very much gripped by this film! Time to leave!
There's some nice scenery to look at here,if you can keep your eyes open long enough to see any of it.I'm a big fan of slice-of-life movies,but these people are just plain bland.Although there's nothing political here,the entire film can be looked at as a political statement,in that it shows how Communism destroys the individual,making everyone the same bland animal that just spends its life sleeping,eating,and occasionally making love.
This woman is a terrible comedian. She can't crack a joke. She has no real character. This is another example of typical American rubbish, that people laugh at, because they have no idea how to react, so they say to themselves, "well, it's a comedy show," so I'll laugh, I guess.<br /><br />I cannot stand this miserable woman, and her pi$$ poor excuse for comedy. She does not deserve anything but booing.<br /><br />Why can't America dump this kind of turdish delight, and go for something that actually contains humour.<br /><br />She is not funny. Not at all. Why oh why does even ONE person like this idiot?
It's awful.<br /><br />Pretty succinct review I know, but it has been a long time since a film has left me in such a bewildered state - wondering how the hell a film like that gets made.<br /><br />The last time it happened was last years turkey 'Mission to Mars'.<br /><br />Salvatore Coco is an ex-con - trying to better himself through self help videos, endless seminars and betterment courses. He lives by the catchphrases these courses expound.<br /><br />He stumbles across a washed up nightclub singer, played by Nikki Bennett, and has an epiphany; his new career is going to be that of a talent agent - with the singer as his one and only client.<br /><br />Financed by his gospel singing, paraplegic girlfriend, played by Sasha Horler - he sets up shop and tries to relaunch Nikki's career, with disastarous results.<br /><br />'Walk the Talk' is the reason why Australians are so contemptuous of Australian cinema. It is poorly constructed, lame and way wayyy too long (111 minutes for a comedy that should barely have scraped the 80 minute mark).<br /><br />Every scene is too long, and are very repetitive. The audience is not given a character to empathise with; a vital ingredient in a film like this supposedly about an 'underdog' giving it a go.<br /><br />The downbeat and frankly poor ending comes at the end of 30 minutes of the most mind numbing dialogue and scenes that have you crying out for a power failure.<br /><br />This film is a failure on all levels - made worse for Queensland audiences by its liberal and innacurate use of various Gold Coast/Palm Beach location; and its laughable use of Brisbane suburb names like Norman Park and Caboolture.
Time line of the film: * Laugh * Laugh * Laugh * Smirk * Smirk * Yawn * Look at watch * walk out * remember funny parts at the beginning * smirk<br /><br />Unfortunately, this movie has a good concept that it grinds to the ground.
OK, so this film is well acted. It has good direction but the simple fact is that it undermines what all gay and lesbian people have been fighting for all these years. The straight man "deciding to be gay" and the gay man "Deciding to be straight" I did enjoy it up until the last 20 minutes, after that i got really offended. As what usually happens in these films the straight actors play the main parts and the out gay actors play the secondary straight roles. The leads are played by handsome men but don't let that distract you from the fact that this is a a film that leaves you feeling unfulfilled. All the romance and relationships you hope would happen do not. Unless you are a priest that is in which case god bless straight woman who cure our homos.
This movie starts at A and never quite reaches B. Its title promises far more than the film delivers. It's superficial and filled with the usual cliches of a story in which a guy questions his sexuality. The people are agreeable, even the obligatory flamboyant type. The lead (Kevin McKidd) overacts insofar as there's a reason for him to act at all. Simon Callow, playing a horny straight, is always worth watching, and he's by far the only reason to stay with the movie. However, the rubbish about his men's group "meditations" or whatever they are grows extremely tiresome in short order. They seem to have been thrown into the movie's mild mix in a misguided effort to vary the setting and non-stop inaction. The same comment applies to a really odd and unconvincing camping trip. Don't worry about pausing the tape so you can get a snack. Let the thing run; you won't miss anything. Hugo Weaving's character is superfluous. He appears in a sequence with one of the lesser leads and doesn't even meet the rest at all. The outcome of that sequence isn't explained, and Hugo's real estate dealings have nothing to do with the story. The movie is a total disappointment at the end, because there is no resolution. The thing simply fades out and we're sent to the closing credits. This is an interlude with no structure.
I found it hard to care about these characters, who were either annoying or insipid, all living their fabulously hilariously urban lives.<br /><br />The dialogue was excruiciating at times, and at other times the narrative seemed hard to follow - was it me or were entire scenes deleted?<br /><br />It felt like a poor sitcom somehow turned into a film. The stereotypes and jokes about "men's groups" would perhaps have been funny in the early 90s. As it is, this is where much of the humour of the film comes from - and boy, does it get old fast.<br /><br />Apart from the attractive Irish man - this film was a dud. And not even in a "so bad it's good way". The last 20 minutes were particularly painful. Perhaps if you've never met any gay people or never thought about homosexuality before, then this film might have something meaningful to say. Otherwise - darlings, you'd still be better off renting The Boys in The Band or Beautiful Thing.
"Go Fish" garnered Rose Troche rightly or wrongly the reputation of a film maker with much promise.<br /><br />Its then hard to understand how she could turn out a movie made up of stereotypes that one associates with inferior sitcoms. The entire film rings hollow. I cringed the whole way through.<br /><br />Its supposed to be a look into nineties human sexuality. Well not much more here to be learned than from "In and Out". By now most of us actually do know, that there are men who are sexually attracted to women and there men who are sexually attracted to men and there are even men sexually attracted to both sexes. <br /><br />Seldom has this revelation been portrayed on the screen with so little wit and style.<br /><br />Pathetic.
The daytime TV of films. Seldom have I felt so little attachment to characters. Seldom have I been made to cringe by such dire dialogue. Nauseous London thirty-somethings mincing round lurid BBC sets spouting platitudinous mulch. Avoid this film as if it were your grandmother's clunge.
I bought this video on a throw-out table at the video store expecting a good cast in what was touted as an award-winning Brit sex comedy. I guess I should have read the finer print. I rarely write a panning review, but here goes.<br /><br />These actors in gay roles really play games with your memories of a lot of far more worthy films. This comedy was a very cruel joke at the expense of the actors, the theatre-going public and of all the nice films that have contributed to their reputations.<br /><br />I repeat: is the joke about trashing the actors' other highly respectable on-screen personae with this scurrilously trashy flick? Can the reference to the Austen classics 'Pride and Prejudice' and 'Sense and Sensibility' be anything else? How much of a political statement was it to produce this melodrama using these stars? Are we meant to simply take it as a lay-down misere that all actors are gay and thus letting their on-screen roleplay affect our lifestyles is accepting their private homosexual dealings in our faces, too? I'm sorry, but I don't think so. I say NO to this one.
One wonders how FLYNN could have failed so badly as a cinema release in 1997 with Guy Pearce aptly in the lead role. It is not often that the casting of someone so famous is so exactly right. FLYNN was a stumbler at the box office and did not end up on cinema screens in Australia...even after LA CONFIDENTIAL...! From a dazzling nude scene in the first few minutes (presumably by Guy Pearce) FLYNN gets off to a fairly robust and interesting start. Sadly, FLYNN runs out of steam after about the first 35 minutes and with the entrance of hammy Steven Berkoff in a detour to New Guinea, (looking and acting like he wanted the Klaus Kinski role in FITZCARRALDO) the film starts to resemble a tele movie rather than a major cinema biography. Believe it or not, by about the 70 minute make, it is boring and you are glad to see it over. But such promise! Pearce IS Flynn! But the movie caused a mutiny at the box office and unlike The Bounty, sank without trace.
Guy Pearce almost looks like Flynn, and this resemblance is the only one this film can claim. Nowhere in Flynn's autobiography is the Klaus Reicher character mention, the homosexual encounter is speculative fiction, and the movie's claims that Flynn treated native labor badly are groundless. Director Frank Howson hasn't made any memorable films, and I find it lame for him to groundlessly slander Flynn to further his unremarkable career.<br /><br />
I can only think of one reason this movie was released. To capitalize off the upcoming fame of Guy Pearce. This movie has no merit at all and needlessly trashes Errol Flynn's memory. The homosexual encounter was pure speculation. The disdain shown for Flynn in this movie is palpable. An easy way to slander an actor who died years ago. Horrible and embarrassing. Very disappointing. Don't waste your time on this utter trash. Watch My Wicked wicked ways if you want to learn about this fine actor or read his autobiography. This movie is NOT the way.
This film takes a lot of liberties with the known historical facts.Even little things like Flynn licking one stamp after another, when he almost certainly would have used a moistened sponge, is one of the annoying things. Flynn was never tried of manslaughter or murder. He is not known to have caught his mother making love to another man, and is not known to have had an homosexual relationship with anybody, and he did not end up on skid row in Sydney. He did not get his twopenny-halfpenny role in In the Wake of the Bounty by imposture and this role did not turn him into a well-dressed film star. <br /><br />This is just a mediocre film where the name of Errol Flynn has been tacked on just to sell more tickets and more videos.
Even though he only made his debut film in Australia and left for Great Britain and then America to continue his career, Australians will tell you that the greatest film star they ever produced was Errol Flynn. I'm not sure he ever even went back to Australia after his breakout success in Captain Blood. Still I attribute this film to the well known Aussie irreverence for trashing the reputation of one of their own.<br /><br />Part of the problem in telling Errol Flynn's life story was that he told enough tall tales in his life right up to the very end in his memoir, My Wicked Wicked Ways. I could see that a lot of the film was based on that and upon reading between the lines of that book.<br /><br />His mother's infidelity to his father was not written, but could have been inferred in reading My Wicked Wicked Ways. He didn't particularly like the woman, that is clear from a few sources. <br /><br />I wish the film had dealt more with his New Guinea adventures, that to me was the most interesting part of My Wicked Wicked Ways. As for his street fighting in the Depression, I tend to disbelieve that. Even if he had been successful at it, I guarantee that enough of that would have ruined his looks and he would never have had a career as a leading man.<br /><br />Still the folks down under seem to think the atmosphere of Sydney during the Depression was captured well and Guy Pearce is a charismatic Errol Flynn. American audiences know him best as the uptight, but honest Lieutenant Exley in LA Confidential which came out the same year as Flynn.<br /><br />But LA Confidential was a far better film.
I have no idea how accurate the portrayal of Flynn appears in this film but even as a work of fiction it is one of the worst films I have ever seen.<br /><br />The script is all over the place and leaves you wondering how he got from one scene to the next - you are just not given the minimum information needed to keep some continuity and understand his present situation, and it is difficult to understand Flynn's and other characters' motives behind some of their behaviour.<br /><br />Add to that a series of silly and implausible situations and you have film that comes across as one of your dreams that seems to make sense while you are asleep, but when you wake up and you try to remember it, it is just strange, disjointed and totally unrealistic.<br /><br />There are many long, boring musical sections of the film that to me are either bad direction or a bad director trying and failing to be artistic.<br /><br />None of the characters are even likable and the Flynn character comes across as a self serving liar, thug, thief, robber, murderer, bear fist fighter, gigolo and impostor who will do anything and step on anyone to further his own dreams, and somehow, despite all that, great opportunities just seem to miraculously fall into his lap.<br /><br />This film is not entertaining nor satisfying in any way and by all accounts not even historically accurate, so why even watch it? To rub salt into the wound, the DVD had one of the worst transfers I have ever seen, it wasn't even in wide-screen or Dolby 5.1, it had terrible telecine wobble and many, many artifacts from what looked like a film reel that had been gathering dust and scratches somewhere.
Looking at the ratings you would assume this is a classic, but yet again its just another example of poor independent film makers trying to drum up interest in their movie. They aren't even being smart about it 10/10 in the votes? I guess that to buck the curve and offset all the 1/10's it will get. Is this better than any decent zombie movie? No.<br /><br />Acting, corny and rubbish.<br /><br />Sound effects, cheap and nasty, if it wasn't for where the actors looked you wouldn't know where it was coming from.<br /><br />Cinematography. These people act like they have borrowed their dads camera right after watching the matrix. Less is more, but more from this team is absolutely pap.<br /><br />Zombies are rubbish as well. I don't doubt most of these people will never be heard from again, and it will be for good reason. I hope zombies eat their eyes as this was 90 minutes of pap that I wont get back.<br /><br />And falsifying ratings just makes it a million times worse.<br /><br />One reviewer said it was one of the best horror movies he has seen in the last 30 years? I can only assume that his recent cornea transplant was a success then.<br /><br />Watch the trailer as thats a warning as to how bad this film is.
One look at the rating ought to tell you this movie was voted on by shills, in an attempt to artificially boost this film's ratings.<br /><br />This film brings nothing new to the zombie genre. In fact, it is laughably bad (in acting and cinematography) and derivative in its plot. The make-up looks horrible and the zombies look even worse when shot. Lines are stiffly delivered and badly timed, with the exception of the female bounty hunter, who is the only good actor in this mess of a film. The worst offenders are the Italian guy (Hans), Ryn the protagonist, and the lead bad guy. I've seen better delivery from pizza truck with a flat tire. <br /><br />This is a self-proclaimed "zombie western", but about the only thing that makes this a "zombie western" is the fact that people wear cowboy hats and the lead actor's real name is Clint. The protagonist isn't cool and mysterious like a traditional Eastwood hero, and as an anti-hero, he doesn't have the wise-cracking attitude to pull it off either.<br /><br />Don't be fooled by the fake glowing reviews. This is just another B-grade zombie movie that's competently made for the budget it had (it does have some decent lighting), but it reeks of low-budget, first-time directing and bad acting. There are a LOT OF REALLY stupid scenes that make this look really amateurish.
The trailer for this film promised a new twist on the zombie genre: setting it in the Old West. Except it's not the real Old West, of course. It's some sort of Future West, in a world where some apocalypse has, as apocalypses are known to do, killed people and subsequently turned them into zombies. It's zombie virus time again, folks, and you know what that means? Get bitten and become one of them.<br /><br />So, into this dusty and dead-filled world comes a hero. He's a bounty-hunter, getting paid for taking care of zombies. It's not exactly clear who is providing the funds, but it seems a little cottage industry of zombie-hunting has emerged. But, as the trailer tells us, there's a problem. They are running out of zombies. The only way to keep on earning is to infect new towns and cities with the virus.<br /><br />I think that's not a bad idea for a film. But unfortunately it takes a lot more than a good idea and a crowd of people pawing at windows to make a good zombie film. What we actually get is a Clint Eastwood clone (the actor's even called Clint, for crying out loud) and his "hilarious" sidekick, trying to bag zombies while trailing some still-living bad guys to get some big reward. The whole subplot about infecting other towns is only mentioned in passing, over half-way through the film. Instead, there's a lot of western movie clichés, poor zombie make-up and some world-class bad acting. Really bad. The sort that wouldn't even make it onto Hollyoaks. Both hero and villain chomp on cigars, quips are thrown, people get bitten. As the movie lurches to a conclusion, the only thing worth wondering is whether it's going to end with the cliché of the hero being the only man alive, having killed the one he loves, or the cliché of him turning into a zombie in the final frame. (It's the first one, by the way) This film was written and directed by Gerald Nott. It's the only thing he has done and, hopefully, it will be his last. At the start of the film there is a caption that reads "Nott Entertainment". At least they got one thing right.
Produced by Nott Entertainment, this movie is "nott" very good at all. I sat through the first 15 minutes of the film before judging that the acting is bad, the casting is bad and camera work is bad. As I hear that there is a download of this film floating around on the internet, it is "nott" even worth the bandwidth.<br /><br />Up until the time I wrote this review, the average vote for this movie was an 8.5, which prompted me to view it and there was an average high majority of 10's for it, obviously voted on by liars and shills. This movie is "nott" for everyone. Or parents, if you want to punish your kids with this awful film, have them sit through this one for Halloween.
The plot of the movie is pretty simple : a viral outbreak turned the population into flesh-eating zombies. Those who left became "hunters".<br /><br />Well, first of all, this IS NOT the worst zombie movie there is. Among the worst are "Zombiez" and the infamous "Zombie Lake".<br /><br />In fact i think, the idea for "Quick and the Undead" was very good, just executed poorly. Considering the budget they had to work with, this movie looks very good. I wasn't bored at all while watching it. Special Effects were solid, although they did use CGI once (fat zombie getting shot in the head), but everything else (gore, guts) was rather good. Acting is awful however. Our main guy looks like young Clint Eastwood, other "actors" are not even worth mentioning. As far as the plot goes, they didn't work enough on the development of the story.<br /><br />Bad : acting, low-budget. Good : special effects, idea for the movie.<br /><br />Overall, this flick deserves 4/10 from me. It's not as bad as people say. Imagine a ZOMBIE WESTERN, then watch this movie.
The Quick and the Undead is, finally, the first movie to actually render its own storyline null and void. It is, essentially, one gigantic plot hole.<br /><br />Aside from that, the acting was quite bad, character motivations nonexistent or unbelievable and there wasn't a single character worth hanging our hat on. The most interesting cast member (who had great potential to be a dark horse protagonist) got snuffed halfway through the proceedings.<br /><br />What the Quick and the Undead DOES serve as is an excellent example of how to do good color-timing. It looked excellent, when you take into account budget considerations.<br /><br />Unfortunately, it plays out like a guy got his hands on a hundred grand and watched a few westerns (most notably The Good, The Bad and The Ugly) and then just threw a bunch of elements haphazardly into a movie... "you know, they have movies where characters do THIS! Does it fit here? No, but who cares! They do it in other movies so I should do it here!" <br /><br />Maybe a good view for burgeoning cinematographers and colorists (first-year film-schoolers). Otherwise, a must-miss.
This movie was awful, especially considering the work that must have gone into its production. Though it's not as bad as Ax 'Em, it is quite awful. Take into account the obvious rip-offs from Gladiator and Raiders of the Lost Ark, and what do you get? This smorgasbord of awful make-up and wooden acting.<br /><br />The movie starts as most zombie movies nowadays do. A montage of interesting jump-cuts and a radio broadcast of the outbreak at hand. We see our hero (Ryn, quite possibly the worst 'zombie hunter' in modern era; counted about four or five times where he either scratched his head with the barrel of his pistol or looked down the barrel while blowing) cutting off fingers of zombies. We later learn that these fingers are collected for bounties.<br /><br />Well, Ryn seems to be a rebel in his ways of dispensing of zombies; going so far as to purchase chum *gasp* from his French buddy Hans (who isn't really French, speaks with an odd Middle-Eastern accent). As Ryn uses the chum to collect a plentiful bounty from Lost Hills, all hell breaks loose.<br /><br />And cue the awfulness of the movie. The zombies are put together quite poorly. I've seen comments praising their make-up, but it was quite amateur in my opinion. Obvious Halloween adhesives were used to make the zombies' faces and there were points at which one girl looked as if she were donning a clown mask instead of a freshly peeled face. Oy Vey.<br /><br />To sum the next sixty minutes up in a few lines: Ryn is back stabbed by Hans (who made a deal with some other zombie hunters, Blythe being the ringleader), gives him a second chance, gets back stabbed again by Hans, then shoots Hans and gets to Union City where he finds Blythe is poisoning the cities for profit.<br /><br />That's it really in regards to plot. When Ryn reaches Union City all the baddies are gathered around in a house that evidently is so massive it takes Ryn hours to reach the top floor. People die, Ryn lives, and the movie ends with one of those cynical "is he going to kill himself?" scenes.<br /><br />*END SPOILERS* I'm going to have to blame most of this mess on Nott. The direction was awful. EVERY character featured a scowl other than Hans, who was easily the best 'actor' in this group of MacBeth rejects. When they reach Union City, a hoard of zombies attacks the crew and the zombies were obviously given no tips or ideas about how to walk as if your appendages were rotten. One woman is swaying as if she's swimming in mid-air on a Sunday stroll.<br /><br />Some movies are awful. This movie is one of them simply on the grounds of how logic seemed to be abandoned in order to keep a story flowing. Works occasionally, but in this regard (where the story was already in shambles), it doesn't.<br /><br />Avoid it unless you want a decent laugh.
Well, here we have a zombie movie that perhaps isn't even being much of a zombie movie. The entire movie is set in a zombie-plagued near future but yet the movie does very little with this concept. Instead it focuses on a zombie hunter who is trying to get revenge and his money back from a group of other bounty hunters. What good is money anyway when almost the entire world has gone to hell and towns are mostly desolate. And why pay money to people for killing zombies in the first place. As if people would not go on to kill this dangerous threatening monsters when they are not getting paid.<br /><br />Needless to say that the story for "The Quick and the Undead" is far from a tight one. It of course also isn't being filled with the most logical and interesting moments, characters or dialog.<br /><br />Still it's not a completely horrible movie. It certainly ain't as bad as some people try to make you believe it is. It's a rather good looking one, or rather said the movie at least doesn't have a cheap look over it. It's effects may be a bit overused but nevertheless they are quite good looking, as are the make-up effects as well.<br /><br />Still the movie was not what I hoped of it. Its title might suggest that the movie is set in the wild, wild west, during the days of the cowboys but its title is just a misleading one, no doubt picked to cash in on it. I fell for it, expecting this movie to be a combination of a western and a gory zombie-horror-flick.<br /><br />For the fans of the zombie movies this movie will mostly be a disappointment to watch. It of course adds nothing new to the genre but it also doesn't has enough of the genre itself in it to be considered a good one to watch.<br /><br />Not totally unwatchable but also far from a recommendable one.<br /><br />4/10
I'm no director or writer or anything related to a movie. But watching more than 1 movie everyday has given me the idea of what is a good movie or not. So here it is: The quick and the undead is a rip-off of the Quick and the Dead. I was thinking that it could be a little bit of a parody of a cool movie with lots of starts in it. But oh no, I was really in for an very big disappointment.<br /><br />To put it simply the movie sucks. I'm a big fan of gore movies but this one just gives you gore here and there but they are not that consistent.<br /><br />But I have to give them credit in creating gruesome characters which has given me a little bit of squirm.<br /><br />If you're a big fan of zombies, watch this. If you're not...better look for other rob zombie films.
I watched this movie a couple months ago when it first showed up on the shelves of Blockbuster. It is officially the only movie that I've wanted to undo watching. Let me start off by saying that I like "B" Movies. I consider "Ice Pirates" One of the best comedies EVER. I'll also note that I'm a writer and that I've met the director/writer of this cinematic marvel.<br /><br />Evaluating the acting: If I was going to pick a bright spot I'd have to point out that Dion Day had an admirable acting debut with his role in this. For those who don't know, Dion is a boxer not an actor so we'll forgive him his lame death sequence. Why doesn't he fire the shotgun he's holding once? Budget? To highlight the bad acting would take pages so I'll stick to The egotistical lead, Ryn Baskin. Ryn (Which seems like a name chosen from a comic book because it sounded cool) has maximum face time in this movie, probably because he was a producer. His looks are completely fine, but his delivery evokes memories of SNL ripping on soap-operas. I suppose he could only do so much with what was written for him, but part of the blame is definitely his.<br /><br />Special Effects: Not my specialty, but for a low-budget flick I suppose the makeup and gun play was acceptable. It didn't bother me, but it also didn't impress.<br /><br />Writing/Directing: Oscar for best screenplay is not something I can foresee Gerald Nott ever winning. Not only is the plot rudimentary, but the dialog is flat and stilted. I understand stylized hokee-ness, but this was just bad writing. The thing that bothered me most was the theft. Nott stole scenes, shots, and Viggo's facial hair from a slew of other movies. The scene where Russel Crow is walking through the wheat field in Gladiator, Entire sequences from The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, that sort of thing just doesn't cut it with me. I'll choose not to comment on the shooting because I don't know what it takes to establish a good shot etc...<br /><br />Conclusion: Don't rent this movie, don't even pirate it. It's far too bad to waste any time on. The good reviews may be entirely bogus, after meeting Gerry It seems more then likely that he is posting them himself.
New rule. Nobody is allowed to make any more Zombie movies unless they actually come up with an original idea.<br /><br />Sadly, this movie doesn't. They have the premise that Bounty hunters go out and kill Zombies and prove it by cutting off their fingers. Well, problems with that. Most people have ten fingers, why not just collect ten bounties for one Zombie? Why not just kill a regular person and pass that off as a Zombie finger? <br /><br />Not to mention the utter silliness of hunting zombies with a bolt action rifle.<br /><br />I sometimes think films like this are resume fillers for makeup and FX guys. "Hey, this is what I did with ten dollars and some recylced bottles deposit. Imagine what I could do if you gave me a BUDGET!" Do you think anyone goes to drama school or cinema school to star in a Zombie movie? "I went to the School of the Arts. Check me out as the "Tunnel Zombie" in "Quick and the Undead"." His mother must be so proud.<br /><br />These had to be the wimpiest Zombies ever, as a whole crowed of them apparently couldn't push down a wooden door or even break a glass window. No, they had to wait for the bounty hunter to open the door for them...
Unreal !!!!!!!!. After reading the initial reviews posted by alleged reviewers ,I was shocked to find that almost all of the initial reviews, 38 , all rated this film a 10. Upon comparison with other great films, these reviewers felt that the Quick and the Undead is a better film than,The 6th Sense(8.2), Saving Private Ryan(8.4), Lord of the Rings( 8.7),Godfather(9.5), Gladiator(8.1) and Dawn of the Dead ( 7.8) to name a few. Hopefully these shills utilize their next discounted lasik procedure, that they hear of, because it is completely obvious that these reviews have been falsified.<br /><br />I was led to believe that this film featured a unique concept in the genre of Zombie film making. Sadly upon watching the Quick and the Undead , It is obvious that these reviews were generated by people who either were involved in the production, or have a vested interest in the films marketability / financial success. Nothing cements this in my mind more than hearing that a portion of this film was shot in Texas, were, coincidentally allot of the early posting praising the film are from. The Zombie film / Horror B movie culture on a whole is a forgiving group, but this film is sadly beyond any redemption. The characters are recycled,and the plot poor.The film quality was not bad enough to be labeled camcorder,and at least they used a film quality camera . The acting is horrible, the star trying unsuccessfully to come off as a Clint Eastwood wanna be clone. Christ on a Bike !!!!!! Even the lead actor's name is Clint. He was just terrible. The only resemblance to Clint Eastwood, is that the lead is using the "wood" from Eastwood's name in his style of acting. The Zombie makeup was above Halloween party quality , but not applied completely to the full undead cast members. Allot of zombies were not made up on their hands. The plot was so hokey that it had me hoping for a power outage, a blemish on the DVD disk, or that the zombies would turn their attention on the director. Maybe the film has worth to some viewers, but not for my hard earned dollar. Luckily I used my free rental coupon to check out this DVD. Maybe this film will be rescued by Nott entertainment ( aptly named) releasing a special collectors DVD, which will tie up loose flaws, and deliver the promised goods??? Some how , I think NOTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lets just hope that their next release , The Flesh Keeper is truly a "keeper" of a film ..and not a 5th generation recycled version of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Fingers crossed here folks...but only if you care.
This is a entertaingly bad b-movie. Actually it really is much better quality than a lot of b movies. It had a consistent script, decent direction, cinematogrpahy, and I have seen worse acting. The zombies were great, clearly these were Romero zombies, and was really a interesting zombie story. Obviously not Oscar material, and if your not into zombie movies, or b-movies you probably wont enjoy this, but if you are you'll like this movie.<br /><br />The main clint eastwood knockoff western character guy is pretty good, although they never really clearly explain how he can heal himself from gunshots and zombie bites. But if he has more than a line of dialogue that where his bad acting is really evident.<br /><br />It was a good ending to, at least I thought so. Romero should be flattered if he ever saw this.
The production company for this film calls itself 'Nott Entertainment', and that is a surprisingly apt name. This very is very 'Nott' entertaining from start to finish, which is a shame because a mix of zombie movie and western could have been interesting. Every time a low budget zombie movie is released, it will tend to be "for the fans by the fans". I do actually consider myself a fan of zombie movies, but too many more like this one and I'll be re-evaluating my opinion! The film seems to be a rip-off of the half-decent Aussie zombie flick 'Undead', expect instead of just having the lead in a cowboy hat; everyone is wearing one; but this doesn't make a lot of sense because the film is apparently set in modern times. The credits sequence at the start of the movie fools us into believing that we're going to be in for an atmospheric film, but when the movie starts properly; it soon becomes apparent what we're actually in for. Naturally, there's a fair amount of gore and it is actually fairly well done, though the good things I have to say about the film pretty much end there. There's a twist half way through which might have been interesting if the rest of the film was. Overall, this is just another zombie movie in a world with far too many zombie movies. I don't recommend it.
This movie baffled me. I could not get a grip on it. Thought I might be missing something. Glad to see that most of you agree with me. This isn't always the case (see my recent review of RE: Extinction).<br /><br />To expound upon the faults of this film any further would be a glorious waste of time...so I will...<br /><br />They're dressed like cowboys, but it's modern times, right? No? I don't get it??? When I picked up the box, I thought: ZOMBIE WESTERN! COOL! That's how it was presented. Haven't seen that yet. Hope they did a good job.<br /><br />They DIDN'T! They tried to create an iconic character that would spawn a series. They didn't.<br /><br />They tried to make an Aussie indie zombie flick on the caliber (and perhaps riding on the coat tails) of the very well done "UNDEAD". They didn't.<br /><br />Okay, maybe they just wanted to make a confusing, disjointed, mess of film salad that might ultimately be edited into something watchable. They DIDN'T! This is the new number 2 on my list of Worst Zombie Movies Ever. There are really just the two so far, "DAY OF THE DEAD: CONTAGIUM" being the first (not to be confused with "DAY OF THE DEAD", which is one of my favorite zombie movies of all time). If you're gonna make a zombie movie (and I'm not a zombie movie maker, I'm just a connoisseur) make a good one. Flight of the Living Dead is a good example of decent recent zombie filmaking. FYI.<br /><br />If you're really forgiving, you might think, well, didn't they at least throw in something to make us feel like we didn't want our money back? Guess what...THEY DIDN'T!
Down at the Movie Gallery, I saw a flick I just had to see. It looked like a fun low-budget horror/action/western that I could get into. Yeah, I knew it would suck, but I rented it anyway hoping for laughs. Only a few laughs were to be found. This was an extremely stupid movie. It begins with a bounty hunter, our protagonist, who is possibly the weakest main character in the history of film. He looks/acts like he could take on Chuck Norris, but he can't. His dialogue sucks too. Anyway, he goes into a village, shoots some zombies. You could tell they tried to make this longer by putting in these boring scenes where he takes 3-5 minutes to reload or watch some zombies. At least the zombies look cool. So anyway, some people get shot, some zombies die, and in the end, everyone is dead except our main character, who should have died at the beginning when he was shot down by four people.
Wow, I was told this would be a B movie worth watching. I feel that I was misled after seeing this preview event. The plot is a twisted make of several films at best. Even the title is a take on another film if you can give the movie that much credit. I am sorry to say that I was taken to the cleaners. I wouldn't waste your time on this one. This movie appears to be a bunch of wannabes who got together and made a poor idea of a movie on a weekend with a borrowed camera. Being in the entertainment business, I can judge a decent film and this one deserves to be shelved or discarded. My advice, stick to a classic like the 1979 Dawn of the Dead. On a scale of 1 to 10 even a 1 is being nice to producers because this movie BLOWS. (Below Limit Of What Sucks) The producers need to stay with their daytime jobs. If you do view the movie please be honest in your posting, this one seems to have been hyped up and inflated by a few. There are a few who have seen this for what it is and posted correctly. Sorry, but, I have to say this is one to be skipped.
Firstly, I am a huge fan of crap films. B grade is always good for a laugh. Unfortunately this film is just plain bad. I dressed up as a Zombie for a party and my make up looked better than the ones in this film. Especially the big guy at the beginning, it just looked like a kid had drawn on his face with crayons.<br /><br />The acting is so bad I need not comment on why. The effect are also extremely amateurish, with obvious blood tubes firing a straight jet of blood out the back of zombies heads when they get shot. <br /><br />It also seems many people commenting on this movie are trying to boost the rating. Nobody without their finger in the pie would rate this film above a 5/10. Frankly it is disgraceful that people who worked on this film are boosting their own ratings.<br /><br />I suggest everyone avoid this movie, it isn't worth wasting the 90 minutes of your life.<br /><br />Absolutely awful.
After watching this movie on a boring Saturday afternoon, I couldn't quite figure out why so many people liked it. It wasn't "heartwarming" or "clever"; it was merely an amalgam of every other "mismatched people coming together during a holiday and despite their ideological differences learning something about each other" movie ever made.<br /><br />The characters are a stereotype bouillabaisse -- We have the Blacks, the Hispanics, The Jews, The Asians, and the Homosexuals -- and they never do anything except what everyone expects characters in a movie like this to do. The black mother declares that it's "all right, then" when it's mentioned that another black character is at church instead of helping prepare dinner (because all blacks love church), the Hispanics seem only capable of speaking Spanish when the greet each other or make exclamations, the lesbians do nothing but cuddle and kiss (and one of them wears a bandanna. Because all lesbians dress like Ani DiFranco), and the Vietnamese family owns a video store. In L.A. Imagine that.<br /><br />Oh, and the movie is called "What's Cooking" because each ethnic family cooks a different version of what they think Thanksgiving dinner should be! The Black mother wants cornbread and macaroni and cheese, the Hispanics are shown rolling tortillas, the Vietnamese family is deep frying spring rolls; I'm surprised there wasn't a bottle of Manischewitz on the Jewish table. This is all shown via the time-honored tradition of the "musical-montage", where they play the Surfari's "Wipeout", rapidly switching the instruments used in the melody to reflect the respective cultures. Isn't that cute? Anyway, once the director is finished establishing how different everyone is, he attempts to show the inner humanity that we, as all people of every race, religion and culture share, by inventing implausible and overly dramatic conflicts for each of the families to deal with. It would be a plot-killer to mention what each of these conflicts are, but rest assured that they are indeed surprises, that is if you have been sleeping for the first half of the movie. The theme of "disgracing the family" runs pretty strong throughout.<br /><br />All in all, if you're the type of person who enjoys those new-fangled movies that revolve around the stories of unlikely characters intertwining, well, you still won't like this movie. If you like extended montages of food being passed around a table, then you need to put this in your Netflix queue. But if stereotypes and clichés are endearing to you, then make sure you ask for this for Christmas. Or Hanukkah. Or Kwanzaa.
The concept: show 4 families of diverse ethnicities in the Fairfax District of L.A. preparing for the family get-together at Thanksgiving. I loved Soul Food and How to Make an American Quilt {I think there's a law that Alfre Woodard has to be in all these movies) which similarly offered a pastiche of family traditions, and was prepared for a treat. Instead, I felt tricked. They trot out about 40+ characters, and all but two are one-note cliches with no finesse whatsoever. The writers and director should spend a few more years learning about life and learn how loving people of different generations actually do relate. Instead, you have a bunch of a**holes getting together on Turkey Day to act like extra-obnoxious a**holes. Now, to an extent, this is what Thanksgiving is all about. But, not this misguidedly. And why bother having Julianne Marguiles, then giving her absolutely nothing to do. This was a chore to get through, and Mercedes Ruehl is a standout, but I give it a 4/10.
Great premise, poor execution. Cast of great actors is watered down into a poorly written, poorly directed, poorly edited, waste of film. Only redeeming quality is the numerous shots of the food.<br /><br />Joan Chen, Mercedes Ruehl, Kyra Sedgwick, and Alfre Woodard should fire their agents.
The film was half over before I managed to figure out what was going on. It's a dog's breakfast of a movie about four family Thanksgiving dinners. The cliches and stereotypes tumble over each other. When it's all over ten hours later --- well, it seems like ten hours --- you're puzzling over what it was all about. I don't want to see a movie about dinner table squabbling. There is enough of it in my own family. The turkeys looked pretty good. The rest gave me indigestion.
This movie is one of the worst movie i have ever seen in my life! i waste my time on this. I watched this movie completely as i took it a punishment for me. I wonder how Suneel Darshan could make such a movie? it doesn't have any continutity. It feels he just shoot scenes and then joined them in some editing software!!! Music is of course good but the film doesn't need so many unwanted songs. Kangana Ranaut looks fake and I wonder what role does Celina Jaietly has in the movie? Bobby deol is good. at least he can act! Upen Patel needs to take some acting lessons rather than taking off his shirts in almost all the scenes! The end was the most pathetic!<br /><br />I watched Shakalaka Boom Boom after watching "300" (the movie), you guys can really imagine what i felt about this bollywood movie. <br /><br />I really respect bollywood but please directors and producers, get real, not everything is fantasy!
Now, I like the Bollywood films and I'm very glad they have recently gained success in the UK. However, Suneel Darshan's latest effort is a deeply flawed film from start to finish.<br /><br />The idea of a modern-Bollywood take on Amadeus was quite an exciting one, that is until the two supposed 'musicians' appear on the scene looking as if they have never touched a piece of manuscript in their lives. Upen Patel is a very good looking man, and the film plays to his narcissistic sensibilities, but he is never once believable as a modern Mozart. In terms of acting, all he can do is stand there and pout. His expressions, hair and clothes all look the same throughout, including the scene where he is supposedly 'dying', when in fact he appears to have nothing but a slight sniffle. Bobby Deol, playing the Salieri role, does his best to liven up what little wooden script there is but, alas, just comes across as a little bit angry when he is supposed to be fuming with jealousy.<br /><br />Bollywood films are widely renowned for their stunning set-pieces and colour schemes, but Shaklaka looks like a drab BBC drama reproduction. In fact, the closest thing Shakalaka comes to is Hollyoaks, as it blatantly hides a really bad script behind beautiful people looking, well, beautiful. "He has yet to reach mediocrity" - the same could be said for the totally forgetful songs.<br /><br />In short, Darshan's latest offering has no boom, bang, wallop or twang. Instead it merely plods along with its head held low hoping to catch your attention with a soft tap on the shoulder. And that is not good enough at all.
Most people get the luxury of typing in the title of a film, and finding out about the film before watching it but unfortunately I've just never been one of those kind of people. I wouldn't even read the synopsis for fear of spoilers but there are two sides to that because if you ignore such warnings and even give a film a chance after it has flopped in theatres, you're entering at your own risk and might just end up with a bad taste in your mouth which is exactly how I feel about this stupid movie.<br /><br />Honestly, the only thing good about Shakalaka-Crap-Crap are some of it songs (and seriously excluding the title track). Even the ever promising Kangana Renaut's talent (Metro, Gangster, Woh Lamhe) is seriously wasted here as she plays Ruhi, the woman who has captured the attention of both the leading male characters played by Bobby Deol (who plays A.J. a rootless music producer) and Upen Patel (who plays Reggi, an upcoming artist who crosses A.J.'s path). Celina Jaitley provides the right amount of OOMPH required of a socialite who gets jilted by Reggi (whom she helped get his foot in the record industry's door). This doesn't sound like a mix or movie that should include Anupam Kher right? Well, you're wrong because he's in it as Reggi's father (another wasted talent).<br /><br />The film might not have been so bad had their not over-killed the writing behind Deol's character. The moral message was too preachy (revenge had a deadly dark side) and the ending was way too overblown that it will make you wonder why you sat down to such a foolish movie in the first place. Truly, this is the epitome of crap.
This movie lacks in everything. Except Bobby deol, who in his own standards is mediocre, no one in this movie has come close to act in a single scene. Kangana is complete fake in her acting.<br /><br />The great Anupam Kher has a guest appearance and is better in those 2 minutes than bobby in the whole movie. The music does'nt compliment the movie<br /><br />that well. The contrast in Music between Bobby and Upen is not highlighted that well. Great concept gone completely wrong. The movie does'nt have a proper ending. Please don't waste your time as i did on this movie
Shakalaka Boom Boom is a rip off from the movie Amadeus. I personally rate Amadeus as one of my favorites not only because it is about music, which is my favorite subject, but also because it tells us the real story of a musical genius who is not only remembered for the voluminous works of beautiful music he produced during his life-time, but for his own self-destructive nature and his tragic death at a young age of 35, being virtually uncelebrated during his life time because of the politics played by some people, particularly Saliere, the Italian composer, who was jealous of him.<br /><br />Personally, I was shocked to see Shakalaka.., as the director has invariably cut-pasted most of the scenes from the movie Amadeus. I see the worst kind of plagiarism in this movie and am skeptic about the kind of movies Bollywood keeps on churning day by day. The movie is a disaster, the two musicians in the movie don't give you any feeling of being realistic, the film is tasteless, meaningless and total failure on every count. The only person who makes an impact is Bobby Deol, who at least knows how to act. Otherwise, the whole cast looks like a bunch of amateurs.<br /><br />The irony is that while watching the movie, the first screen in the movie says that all characters in this movie are fictitious and that any resemblance with anyone is purely coincidental which is a blatant lie, because all resemblances are very much clear and they are very much intended. I wish I could take Darshan and Co. to court not only for Copyright Infringement, but also for mutilating a beautiful work of art.
Oh, my goodness. I would have never thought it was possible for me to see a thriller worse than Domestic Disturbance this soon, but here it is. Armed with rotten plot, terrible editing, stilted acting, and headache-inducing 'style' (sorry, I have no other words for it), Sanctimony is the kind of movie that almost forces you to re-evaluate an entire genre; that is, this film is so bad that even the thrillers I condemned as complete failures now seem a little better.<br /><br />Now, not only Sanctimony is a terrible film in itself, it also succeeds in the difficult task of ripping off better movies and do a pathetic job with it. Right from the main titles -- nothing but a blatant attempt to reproduce the ones from Se7en -- I was under the impression that something didn't smell quite right. As soon as the movie started with a series of corny, wanna-be hip quick-cuts full of gory images and bombastic colors, I knew where that smell was coming from.<br /><br />It turns out that two policemen, or rather policeman Jim Renart (Michael Paré) and policewoman Dorothy Smith (Jennifer Rubin), are investigating on a murder spree in Vancouver. A serial killer, known as "Monkey Killer" (what a menacing, chilling nickname, uh?) for his working methods, has killed quite a lot of people. You see, this nut apparently works following the proverb "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" and cuts eyes, ears, and tongues out of his victims. So far, six eyes, six ears, and three tongues. In very ingenious fashion, Renart and Smith figure out that the Monkey Killer is probably going to kill other three people... well, because he probably wants to complete the number 666. So suddenly the film focuses on Tom Gerrick (Casper Van Dien), a young, successful, good-looking businessman, with a dreadful temper. And that's where the rip-off of American Psycho kicks in.<br /><br />So we follow the life of the two police officers and the young psychopath, none of which is interesting in the least, until they finally meet. Along the way to that, a disco where Renart barely misses Gerrick unintentionally offers us one of the funniest scenes in recent memory: Renart goes in the back of the disco club, because... well, just because the script tells us it's a suspect place; then, with one single punch in the stomach, Renard gets rid of a big guard who blocks the path, and the guard is never heard of again? Does this scene strike anyone else as completely unrealistic?<br /><br />Anyway, after another murder, Gerrick turns in as a witness, but Smith and especially Renart immediately suspect he might be the killer. In typical Basic Instinct fashion, Smith gets some dates with the young businessman, under the assumption that she might discover his true identity.<br /><br />I won't spoil the ending but it is, quite simply, an embarrassment; there are contradictions, some plot holes, issues that never get resolved, and especially there is one last scene where a brutal mass murder, supposed to be shocking and sad, comes off as such laughably overdone and nonsensical that I frankly can't imagine how anyone could not laugh at it.<br /><br />At 87 minutes, Sanctimony is really pushing it. You never care about one single character, because they are all so flat (not to mention boring) that you know exactly who is who the first time you meet them. You are never pulled into the story, because the scenes are connected through weak plot devices when not downright unnecessary and out of place. The acting ranges from average (Van Dien) to downright atrocious (Rubin, and most of the supporting cast); the music is abysmal generic techno, and the photography is one of the worst I have ever seen. Of course, like every fiasco of the genre, we are provided with a little bit of gratuitous nudity.<br /><br />3/10
My friend & I rented this movie and within the first 5 mins we had no idea what was going on. It felt like it should have been over within the first 15 mins. It was a terrible movie, my little brother could have been a better actor than some of the ones in the movie, and the plot (if you can call it that) was full of holes. Never would I recommend this movie to my worst enemy, yet anybody I actually like.
You may not believe this, but when the credits to this movie rolled, I looked for the director's name. When I saw it, I burned it into my memory and I never forgot it. This movie is beyond terrible. It makes Ed Wood's films look like Orsen Welles. At least B movies are entertaining, this was a soul deadening experience. The quality was so bad, I began to wonder who allowed this to happen.<br /><br />I hear Uwe Boll runs fourteen miles a day. This is because wherever his movies are viewed, the people must run him out of town with flame and pitchfork. The script was terrible, the lighting was like that of a high school football game, and the cinematography was just above the quality of Roger Patterson's Bigfoot video. The acting was executed by people too ashamed of the production to say their lines with any credibility. In the end was a film Alan Smithee wouldn't have put his name on. I learned that day to avoid any movie by this man despite the circumstances. From what I hear, this is not a bad thing to do.
Oh, my. Oh, this is a *really* bad movie. The acting is absolutely atrocious, the script is god-awful, and the photography is simply dreadful.<br /><br />What does make this movie stand out, however, is that you never once care about a single soul-- good guy or bad guy, living, dying or dead-- in the entire 87 minutes. "Oh, s/he died? Huh... Figured they would" was the best reaction I could muster after each murder. Characters are so black-or-white that with the volume turned off, you could still figure out who was who. While the cast's voices had an odd monotone quality throughout, their faces give the impression that you're looking at an old silent movie with a lot of eyebrow waggling, exaggerated frowns and "pensive looks". Each character is a humorless, passionless, one-dimensional one-trick pony; once they fulfill whatever their particular role in this fiasco demanded their creation, they are summarily dismissed.<br /><br />It vaguely made me think of what would happen if Thomas Borch Nielsen (director/writer of "Skyggen", American title: "Webmaster") decided to do a low-budget version of "American Psycho" and got kind of distracted along the way.<br /><br />This isn't a particularly gruesome movie; the cold, passionless cast ensures that. It isn't an offensive movie; the director plays it so safe that no one could possibly find it so. It is, simply and after all, a bad movie.<br /><br />Avoid it. We were not so fortunate and actually paid to watch this bomb on Pay-per-View. As part of my penance, I'm writing this review.<br /><br />Enough said.
Did Uwe Boll seriously just rip off the basic idea and dialogue from Se7en?! Why is it so fekking difficult for this douchebag to be original?! He even mentioned in an interview with Gametrailers that he chooses stuff like games to make into movies because the characters, plots, backstories and so on are already there and ready for him to screw with.<br /><br />Guess it isn't too much of a stretch for him to rip off another movie entirely...<br /><br />I mean, seriously, what the hell...? Here's something I made in Uwe's 'honor'...<br /><br />http://zuucka.deviantart.com/art/Uwe-Boll-is-a-Douchebag-70369862
I went into this movie with low expectations, knowing Uwe Boll's legacy as a film director, and screenplay writer, and I was still disappointed. Uwe Boll finds a way to make each and every movie he is involved in worse and worse. The overall concept wasn't a bad one, a man bored with his life as a stock broker becomes a serial killer. But the problem with the movie is there is no in between, he goes straight from stock broker to serial killer. The film has no-name actors, and I can see why, after watching the movie, I can't see why any actor with a career would want to even be involved in this movie. Anyone who turned it down did their careers a favor. And if you haven't seen it, do yourself a favor and don't.<br /><br />I give Sanctimony a 3 out of 10
Astounding that something like this could find its way to be viewed by the public. I knew it was by Uwe Boll, & I found it in the bargain bin at a store for $2 (still pretty steep, considering) but morbid curiosity led me to view this, and: <br /><br />1). I am fairly sure this is a rip-off of Seven, Silence of the Lambs, and American Psycho, all rolled into one, with dialog that may have been written by preteens.<br /><br />2). Casper Van Dien plays the main character, and he's so absolutely bizarre and creepy that just about anyone would KNOW he must be the crazed serial killer.<br /><br />3). Jennifer Rubin plays the "good cop" that invites a serial killer to her apartment for a home cooked dinner, and what does she get for her trouble? I'll let you guess.<br /><br />4). Michael Pare plays an "intense" cop, who drives a VW Bug, new-style, that is, with a siren on it. A VW Bug...that'll strike fear into criminal's hearts when they see THAT coming.<br /><br />5). Van Dien breaks up with his fiancé, but she still has an "not engaged" party, complete with "not a wedding cake". Imagine everyone's surprise he shows up (he was, of course, invited) and they all get shot.<br /><br />6). Actually, this should have been #1, really. The killer in this is known as "The Monkey Maker". This is, without a doubt, the stupidest killer name anyone could have come up with in a million years. Presumably it has something to do with the "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" saying, complete with monkeys. It's possible that monkeys had something to do with the script, too.<br /><br />7). Oh yeah, and there's a club that Van Dien visits near the beginning of the film. There's bad disco music, I mean, really bad, and a chain-link fenced cage with, uh, gang members beating the crap out of each other with baseball bats? That's what it looked like. And of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg, the really cool stuff (?!) goes on in the basement, where some questionable "actor" talks some woman into signing a confession before she gets shot, this being, I guess, a snuff movie? Not quite sure how this fits in with the rest of the film, and Boll probably wasn't either, so if he wasn't worried, then I won't worry.<br /><br />An incredible piece of non-entertainment that will make you feel like you're watching something from a parallel universe. A parallel universe that's KIND of like ours, but where things are just enough off where they don't seem right. You have entered "The Boll Zone". Exit as quickly as possible, & don't look back.<br /><br />2 out of 10.
The only reason I watched this is because of its stars, CASPAR Van Dien, Micheal Pare & Eric Roberts & catherine Oxenburg * & Jeniffer Rubin, All capable actors & have given good performances in the past,. NOT THIS TIME,, a weak serial killer story, You can guess who the killer is in the first scene. Very contrived in all aspects there is nothing to recommend in this disaster, my rating is *1/2 POOR
My husband wanted to watch this film because the review in the paper said that it was better than Fatal Attraction. Well, not liking either Michael Douglas or Glenn Close, I would have to agree. Not for conventional reasons though.<br /><br />This is one of those films that needs to be watched late at night when you don't want to watch something that really requires thought but don't want to go to bed yet.<br /><br />Yancy Butler is a really enjoyable bad-guy. She is not the best of actresses, in fact she isn't even good but she is perfect for this role in this film. Everyone else in it varies from pine to oak, including the slightly disturbing boy who comes across as a warped Pinocchio.<br /><br />SPOILER: The ending goes a step or two too far, complete with the cliché not quite dead, up with a roar, still gonna get you moment and then there's a shot of Pinocchio with his frozen wooden smirk which makes you wonder if they were going for chilling or just forgot there was botox in the make-up.<br /><br />Regardless, it's a hilarious eighty odd minutes and despite being a bad film, you would have to be lacking the humour gene to not enjoy it somewhat. Don't pay for it but if you're in that kind of apathetic telly mood then this is just right.
The material is poor....the script's dreadful....the acting mediocre at best and the music telegraphs what the scene is supposed to be communicating like a kick in the head.<br /><br />Give this one a miss....even Yancy Butlers not hot enough even in the semi nude scenes to save this tripe.<br /><br />I'm amazed people rave about Yancy Butler.....given what I've seen here and in the couple of other things I've seen her in she hasn't got the depth or presence to be a star...and her off screen behaviour would tend to indicate she knows that as well.<br /><br />Last thing is where was this shot? I don't recognise the externals.
Totally forgettable and almost unwatchable. If you enjoy bad acting, thin plots and predictably weak outcomes, pull up a chair. Of passing interest to see Bridget Fonda look-a-like Suzy Amis.
This film is by far the worst film I have ever seen in my life. A woman "The EX" pretends to be a number of people in order to gain access to her ex-husband. Killing people for no- reason in baths to achieve her goal. The women I don't think ever went to acting college. She just spends the whole film making stupid expressions, and she looks like she is trying her absolute hardest to avoid looking into the camera. Failing on most occasions. She makes friends with her Ex Husband's wife and son, she does this to use them against her husband. At first when you watch this film, you think that the "Ex" wants to kill her ex-husband, maybe because he has treated her in a bad way. But in fact the women is obsessed with the man and wants him back. The two of them used to enjoy rough entertainment (using whips of course). My advice to the general public is do not buy this film, do not rent this film and do not watch it like I did (at 1.15am on FOX)
This is a pretty simplistic romance. Girl finds boy, girl loves boy, girl loses boy, girl finds boy. Colleen Moore is the outstanding ingredient in this recipe, delivering a wonderfully varied dramatic/romantic performance, well deserving of an Oscar nom. Equally fine are the aerial combat special effects.<br /><br />Moore plays a French girl whose mother has turned over their field to a British aerial squadron during WWI. She is the "daughter of the regiment", loved as a little sister. Into this mix comes a fill-in for a downed flyer, Gary Cooper. At first they hate each other, then they love each other, then the entire squadron is sent out on a suicide mission. Cooper returns but crashes in the village and a red cross unit removes him. Moore searches for him, is told at a hospital he is dead, then wanders the streets until he calls from a hospital window and they are reunited.<br /><br />It's a nice little romance, but hardly more than that. Recommended for fans of Ms. Moore and Mr. Cooper
It looks like people involved with this movie are stuffing the ballot box to boost its ratings. The good news that apparently only 18 people have seen it. I suppose that makes me the 19th. I have no involvement with the flick and don't know anyone who did and I'm a long-time IMDb user (check my vote record and reviews over the past seven years), so I promise I'm giving an honest and unbiased opinion. It's coming to you from a 30-year horror fan who has also appeared in a couple of low-budget flicks himself.<br /><br />Aside from a couple of interesting video effects, "Frankensteins Bloody Nightmare" is incoherent, boring, and technically flawed beyond all reason. It was apparently shot on silent stock and the audio then dubbed in; most of it sounds like it was recorded with a tin can and a piece of string, anyhow. More than three quarters of the dialog is inaudible.<br /><br />I watched this from beginning to end and have no idea of what the story was, or even if there was one. It seems like the director is mostly impressing himself with long, panning shots of the corners of table and dead black spaces that do nothing but pad the film out. That would be a problem if one were actually developing a plot and making a film that had some sense of pacing. In this case, though, the rule doesn't apply. It doesn't matter how scenes are shot because they don't add up to a story.<br /><br />Watching this video is an exercise in futility at every level. Whatever people who worked on it are writing and however they're trying to influence the ratings here on IMDb, this is just bad, tedious stuff.<br /><br />That's the honest truth. If you're thinking of spending your money or time on this one, think again. It's easy to find something better because you won't find much worse.<br /><br />And that's the unbiased, unvarnished truth.
This conglomeration fails so miserably on every level that it is difficult to decide what to say. It doesn't merit one line, much less ten, but to adhere to the rules of IMDb, here goes and I probably won't succeed the first time around and have to type some more to make up for this submission to be accepted. LOL<br /><br />If I had seen this schlock during the '70s while I was going through my mushroom phase,I would have still considered it unimaginative and shallow. The most exciting shot for me was the long shot when the elevator door opened and closed.I was on the edge of my seat.<br /><br />One person on here wrote that he had met the creator of this mess, as if that were a red letter day in his life. One can only pray that something far more exciting occurs in that posters life.Get a grip, amigo.
One of the commentators on the subject of Lil' Pimp (dbborroughs of Glen Cove), got it right when he/she stated that the movie is really bad but I take exception when he/she commented on the animation.<br /><br />The animation wasn't bad because of Macromedia Flash. It was bad animation because it was directed wrong. Flash is just a tool. In the right hands, an artist can create animation as full and fluid as any Disney film and, in the wrong hands, it can look as bad as the stuff on the internet, which is where Lil' Pimp originated and should've stayed there.<br /><br />Studios such as Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, Disney, and Warner Bros., create wonderful animation using Flash (i.e., Puffy Ami Yumi, Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, Mucha Lucha, etc.).<br /><br />Lil' Pimp was an ill conceived piece of tripe that was made because Revolution Studios bought Media Tripp and Lil' Pimp was one of the properties included. Roth and company thought they'd make a quick buck exploiting a turd like Lil' Pimp and the sham was perpetuated by it's producer, Amy Pell. The reason for this third trimester abortion of an animated film is that none of the executives at Revolution Studios had the pragmatic brains to sideline Mark Brooks and Peter Gilstrap (they really tried their best but were way in over their heads), and hire real writers, directors and at least a semi-competent producer. They did one thing correctly though, they hired some of the best storyboarders, designers, and animators in LA, but as Lil' Pimp demonstrates, one can buy the best sports car on the floor but if you're a moron, you'll wreck it for sure.
I mean really, really, REALLY high and this movie has a shot at entertainment. I don't mean regular high, i mean the high where reading the phonebook would have you in stitches. otherwise save the time out of your life and go do something more constructive with it, like hitting your head on a brick wall and insulting your own intelligence. A complete waste of talent in some cases (Bernie Mac, John C. McGinley, Tom Kenny, and the master of hams Shatner) and exactly the kind of crap they deserve to make (the myriad of rappers who insist on making movies). Not without it's laughs (again chemical aid is crucial) and certainly not without offending the politically over-sensitive (which I'm always in favor of) but ultimately not worth the time out of your life.
Lil Pimp is the story of a little boy who becomes a pimp. The animation and voice acting were perfect for this type of film.<br /><br />I laughed out loud for the first 20 minutes or so of this movie; mostly at the concept. After that, the joke wore thin. As a 15-20 minute animated short, Lil Pimp would have been a classic. Instead, this movie consists entirely of one joke that lasts far too long.<br /><br />Weathers, voiced by Ludicrous, does have several crude and funny one-liners. Unfortunately, that is all the boy's pet rat is good for as he contributes nothing else to the story. Eventually, I grew as bored with his remarks as I did the rest of this movie.<br /><br />I am a big fan of South Park, and other animation aimed at adults. I also play several online pimp games, so I am partial to stories about pimps. The transition from little boy to lil pimp was brilliant; but after that, both the story and dialog became redundant and predictable.<br /><br />I give this movie a five. It is worth watching for the great concept and voice acting. Just do not expect much else or you will be quite disappointed.
First things first, I am by no means a picky movie watcher. I'm not one of those people who gets movies just to pick apart the flaws and criticize, I, like most other people, watch to be entertained. I'll basically watch any type of movie of, no matter how bad anyone says it is (sometimes a movie's so terribly made and written that it invokes a sort of pity humor which i get a kick out of). With all that aside, lil pimp was simply pathetic. I saw it on TV and just didn't know what I was watching. It was too poorly written and cheesy to be an adult movie, and had way too much sex, innuendo and swearing to be a kid's movie, in fact, I doubt even kids would be amused by it. The humor (pretty generous even calling it that) was so pretentious and campy, I couldn't see how anyone with half a mind could even find it funny. The only thing that made me laugh was how people like Bernie mac and ludicrous could put their name and time onto/into something so hurting. Luda's character was such a cheap ploy for laughs, which fell extremely short of its goal. The plot didn't make any sense whatsoever, the storyline has got to be the worst sequence of events ever put together on screen. I could keep going on, but I want to see what people think of my reaction before I start discussing specific instances of pathetic scenes. All I have to say is it really has to make ya wonder how much time these writers spent on their knees trying ta get it made.<br /><br />J
This movie was extremely boring. I only laughed a few times. I decided to rent it when I noticed William Shatner's name on the cover. It's all about this little kid who gets picked on all the time by his classmates. When wandering the streets looking for old ladies to assist, he meets a prostitute. She takes him to a club called the Playground, where he befriends several pimps. When mayor Tony Gold (Shatner) decides to take over the pimp business, Lil' Pimp must lay down for his homies.<br /><br />The animation isn't very good in this. It looks like it was made with Macromedia, which I'm sure it was. It doesn't suck, it's just the sort of choppy flash animation that people have gotten used to over recent years. The humor in this is not very good, I didn't think any of it was funny.
Although Charlie Chaplin made some great short comedies in the late 1910's, others don't quite make it. Examples like His New Job and Shanghaied come to mind, and I would also The Floorwalker in this category.<br /><br />Charlie gets mistaken for a manager of a department store (and vice versa). This manager tries to steal money from the cash register and make a run for it, and Charlie is just an honest costumer but getting blamed for some missing objects, stolen by other costumers.<br /><br />There aren't many laughs in it, except for the last couple of minutes or so with some great scenes on the escalator. For the rest, quite disappointing.<br /><br />4/10.
Why, oh why, is this trash considered a classic? I've seen higher body counts on episodes of The Simpsons. Virtually nothing happens in this film and much of it's running time is filled with nearly unbearable melodrama straight out of a low-rent soap opera.<br /><br />The Trenton family are going through tough times and when dad is away mommy and little boy go to get the car fixed. But when they get to the ranch they discover that the guard dog has gone mad. The rest of the film is just them sitting in the car while the slobbering St. Bernard circles them over and over.<br /><br />Regarding the kid, I have never, ever seen a more annoying child in a film in my life. And obviously he's completely Aryan since blonde-haired and blue-eyed kids, such as the one prominently featured on packets of Kinder chocolate, are apparently more sympathetic than people with brown eyes and dark hair, like me. All he does is cry and whine. Same goes for mommy. She gets out the car, she gets in the car, she gets out the car, she gets in the car.<br /><br />I know this was made in 1983 but I just sick to death of horror films where the characters make stupid, illogical decisions. If mommy just used some common sense she'd be able to get away from the icky dog.<br /><br />It's very poorly written and there's zero tension. If you want to see a good "bad dog" movie then check out John Lafia's Man's Best Friend. It's funny, inventive, has a better dog, a higher body count and a more involving story. Leave this garbage be.
I am writing this with 10 minutes left before the film finishes. I feel comfortable writing it now, because unfortunately I know exactly how this film is going to end.<br /><br />The premise is simple enough, rabid dog on the loose in a small town, kills people. Great - simple plot for a good fun camp 80s horror.<br /><br />Uhh ..no.<br /><br />The main problem is this is based on a book (Stephen King) and you can tell that is should not have really been adapted to film, at least not with the same plot. Why? Cuz its boring! The first 45 minutes tries to build depth to its main characters and create suspense. It however lasts too long (half the film!) - the characters are unlikeable and we never care for them anyway, and it just about creates zero suspense. The easiest film (according to plot and time) to compare this to it the classic Jaws. Everything that Jaws does right, Cujo does wrong. Jaws created good characters and a genuine feeling of dread. Cujo does neither. Jaws effectively creates a scary, creepy villain in its shark. Cujo has a dirty St Bernard running about growling and jumping, and not a lot else. Jaws is exciting and unpredictable. Cujo is a tireless bore that remains predictable right to the end.<br /><br />Also confusing is the plethora of subplots that just act as boring red herrings to the films main plot.<br /><br />If this film was rewritten for the big screen and had a better director this could have been good. But it wasn't. It was a waste of 90 minutes of my life.<br /><br />People on here are saying this is one of the best King adaptations - Im sorry you could not be more wrong. The Mist is a hundred times better, Thinner is 10 times better and even the one with the cats is twice as good! This in my opinion is one of the worst! The only good thing was the action scenes with the dog looked real, even though they were dull.<br /><br />Films ended now, and it didn't get any better. Avoid.
CUJO is a movie adaptation of a novel of the same name written by Stephen King.<br /><br />I've never read the novel but just scanning the comments page has given me some insight. I noticed a reference to the change in the ending.<br /><br />The plot of the movie is as follows - a St. Bernard dog gets bitten by a rabid bat and goes on a killing spree.<br /><br />The plot sounds quite worn now, having been done in various movies. However it might have been something new when King wrote the novel. Or perhaps King's novel put a twist on the story that was never shown in the movie.<br /><br />Anyway, the first 40 minutes of this movie have nothing at all worth mentioning other than the dog being bitten. Nothing else happens - nothing scary, nothing funny, nothing to add depth to the characters and nothing interesting in any other respect. I found this section difficult to sit through and was constantly shouting at the TV, "come on, get started!". The events that I was seeing on the screen were reminiscent of a TV movie of the drama genre or an extended episode of a TV soap opera. Unfortunately, there was only one family in the movie given any focus so it couldn't even work on a soap opera level. The dog was the best character in the movie, but it didn't get enough screen time in this section. There was nothing to indicate why this dog would go on a killing spree later.<br /><br />After the 40 minute mark point, something finally happened. The dog suddenly transformed from a lovable pet into a vicious killing machine. It began attacking some people. There was also an interesting cat-and-mouse chase when two characters became trapped in a car, unable to leave because the dog would attack them. Even in this overly long second half, the suspense would build up well before dying again. It was just a stop-go situation repeated over and over again until the movie reached its conclusion.<br /><br />Without giving the ending away, I can tell you it was very formulaic and unworthy of a Stephen King story.<br /><br />The suspense scenes when they are on the screen are exciting to watch. Some great camera angles add menace to the dog's vicious nature when he attacks people. This is particularly important because as others have mentioned a St. Bernard dog is nowhere near as scary as, say, a Rottweiler. Unfortunately, the movie fails to utilise suspenseful music to support the images on the screen. The music is far too melodramatic rather than suspenseful. This may fit a TV movie but it looks incredibly out of place in what should be a dark-toned movie presenting a living nightmare to the viewer.<br /><br />This brings me on to a wider problem with this movie - the photography. The camera-work and especially the choice of colours make this seem like a very cheap TV movie one would expect to see as the daytime movie on Channel 5 here in the UK where I am writing this comment from.<br /><br />The top two actors deliver good acting performances that help to breathe life into the movie's dull segments. Dee Wallace and Danny Pintauro should be given credit for doing a great job with the poor material they are given. I could forgive a few brief moments of overacting by paying closer attention to the dialogue, which could not have allowed any other interpretation in my opinion. I won't pass judgement on the other actors because they are given virtually nothing to do.<br /><br />As someone who is a fan of SALEM'S LOT and STEPHEN KING'S IT, both movie adaptations of famous Stephen King novels, I had high expectations for this movie. But it turned out to be a massive disappointment.<br /><br />Overall, I do not recommend fans of Stephen King or horror movies in general to watch CUJO. This is one of those moments where I have to recommend the book rather than the movie. Hopefully it brings the story to life in a way that the movie failed to do.
It takes an eternity for this typically over-simplistic and idiotic Stephen King-based film to finally get out of the starting blocks. About half-an-hour is spent on needless introductions to various boring characters and their irrelevant little personal problems that might excite bored housewives and apathetic pensioners in soapy dramas, but this is supposed to be the horror genre (or so I naively thought). The mutt fails to look all that fearsome, which Leonard Maltin, the notoriously clueless/hopeless and always grinning film critic, would disagree with: he considers Cujo to be "genuinely frightening". (I often do have to wonder if Maltin is genuinely thick - or merely likes to do favors for his Hollywood friends...) It's both illogical and inconsistent the way Wallace survives an attack with only a leg injury. And, naturally, her car breaks down just when she needs it to save her life: this is one of the oldest horror-film clichés; trust King to use it to minimum effect. The premise is imbecilic, too banal, even for a horror film: a rabid mutt attacks a family. Is that it? This sort of thing barely constitutes a 3-minute sub-sub-plot in your average zombie film. I think even Cujo must have sensed that he was starring in a turkey. Mutts have terrible agents... But what I really don't understand is how people can actually throw themselves at the "Cujo" book and read it from cover to cover? These SK fans must be immortal: that's the only explanation, i.e. why they treat time as such a meaningless commodity.<br /><br />Bodycount: 3.
1983 was a bumper year for Stephen King books making it to the big screen. Christine, The Dead Zone and Cujo were all released within a few months of each other. While The Dead Zone was easily the pick of the bunch, Christine and Cujo were both pretty bad, and it's a close-run thing as to which is the lesser of the two. If pushed for an answer I'd say Cujo - marginally - is the weakest.<br /><br />Donna Trenton (Dee Wallace, fresh from success as Elliot's mom in "E.T - The Extra Terrestrial") is a mother whose marriage to husband Vic (Daniel Hugh-Kelly) is hanging by a thread. She's been having an affair with a local worker, and is now dwelling on whether or not to leave her husband. Dragged into the marital heartache is young Tad Trenton (Danny Pintauro), son of Donna and Vic, and a pretty messed-up kid with a chronic phobia of the dark which often leads to severe panic attacks. Donna and Tad take the family car to a nearby mechanics' yard for repairs, but as they arrive their car splutters to a halt. Things get a heck of a lot worse when they discover that the mechanic, Joe Camber (Ed Lauter), isn't there (he has been savagely killed by his pet dog Cujo, a gigantic St. Bernard which was recently bitten and infected by a rabid bat.) Soon, the dog has them trapped in their car and is trying everything to get inside the vehicle to tear apart these two hapless victims. The weather is swelteringly hot; not a living soul knows they're there; the car won't start; and the dog seriously wants their blood......<br /><br />Cujo has potential to be a genuinely taut siege thriller, but it never really clicks into gear. I've read the book and it is quite disappointing - certainly for King - so it's hardly surprising that the film version amounts to so little. On the printed page, King was at least able to generate a degree of tension, but the film is critically hampered by the fact that a St. Bernard simply isn't very scary. The "visualness" of the film medium serves as a constant reminder that Cujo IS a St. Bernard. In the book, it was possible to forget this. In the book, Cujo sometimes almost seemed to assume the guise of a monster. Even with the relatively short running-time of an hour-and-a-half, Cujo becomes a tedious and patience-straining experience, occasionally unintentionally funny and certainly never as suspenseful as it would like to be. They've even omitted the book's cruelly downbeat ending and replaced it with an "all's well that ends well" conclusion so that audiences can go home in a cheerful mood!!! Chalk this one down as yet another inferior King adaptation.
Don't get me wrong, I love Stephen King! And this is a pretty good movie over all. The rabid Cujo is very scary and the movie is suspenseful. But after the first few minutes that poor Donna and her little son Tad were held captive in their Pinto by the rabid St. Bernard, I began to wonder why she didn't do something to help herself.<br /><br />She could have stuck her foot out the door and pushed the car backwards (I mean, it was a Pinto for Pete's sake and they were on a downhill incline) and rolled to safety, but then it would have been a very short movie. When she got the car started, did she pop it into reverse and hope that she could get at least get part way down the driveway? No, she tries to make a three point turn in a car with a bad alternator. She did manage to get out of the car and look around for 45 seconds or so at one point to try and get to a baseball bat that was lying on the ground nearby--what a waste of time! I mean, if you're going to make a run for the bat, do it and at least you'll have something to hit the dog with. But, forget the bat. Were there no tools in the car, like a tire iron or something? I didn't see her looking in the spare tire well of the car. Really, why wait until you're bitten and weak from dehydration and your son is having seizures before you make a stand against the animal?<br /><br />At the end of the movie she was battered and torn, but by God she was still wearing high heels!
<br /><br />Man, I just cant believe this movie. I have watched it entirely (believe me, I have done this !) and the best part was the traillers on the beginning (and I hate traillers!!!!).<br /><br />No plot, no acting, no nothing. I was watching the movie and thinking, "When this is going to start" ? It never started. How people can spend money and time to make such a crap ?<br /><br />The "plot": A Dog gets bitten by a bat and get rabies - Okay, until now no problem, nothing special but OK. Now the rest of the movie will be - the Dog will chase people!!! thats it, nothing else!!! Now add to this some of the worse actings/actors I have ever seem, some completely irrealistic scenes (and some others really idiotic, like the child cant breath and the mother gives him a big and strong hug to see if he gets better), and a very lame ending, thats it, here you have CRAP... ops!.... CUJO.<br /><br />Do your self a favor and make something more worthy, like hiting your head against the wall or play chess with yourself.<br /><br />ZERO out of 10.<br /><br />Gabriel.
Not me.. If it came down to it, I could kick a dog's ass, and that's why this movie doesn't work for me. If it was me against the Alien, or Jason.. Or.. Hell, I dunno.. ANY OTHER HORROR MOVIE ANTAGONIST, then there'd be no contest and I'd have my ass handed to me barring divine intervention. A horror movie works because it puts people in a situation with a creature, person, being, entity, whatever, that is more powerful or resourceful or intelligent than they are, and then people think 'well what if that happened to me', and they get scared - and that's why this is a horrible idea for a story. I can't imagine myself being terrorized by a dog, so I'm not scared.
Cujo is a giant, lovable, gentle and affectionate St. Bernard owned by the Camber family, during the opening sequence Cujo chases a rabbit over fields and through a local wood somewhere in Castle Rock, Maine. The rabbit disappears into a burrow and Cujo sticks his head into the entrance hole. The rabbit vanishes from Cujo's sight, angry Cujo starts to bark and in doing so inadvertently wakes up and annoy a colony of bats, one of which bites him on the nose. Donna Trenton (Dee Wallace-Stone as Dee Wallace) is having an affair with Steve Kemp (Christopher Stone, Dee Wallace's real life husband) which her husband Vic (Daniel Hugh Kelly) who works in advertising, discovers. Obviously their relationship becomes strained. Happily oblivious to all of this is their young son Tad (Danny Pintauro). Joe Camber (Ed Lauter) fixes cars for a living out of his barn on his farmhouse. Joe is planning a guys weekend with one of his friends Gary Pervier (Mills Watson) when his wife Charity (Kaiulani Lee) wins $5,000 on the lottery and decides to take their young boy Brett (Billy Jayne as Billy Jacoby) with her on a trip to see her parents. Arriving at Gary's house to pick him up Joe finds him dead on the floor, he goes into the kitchen to call for help and his dog Cujo who is now rabid attacks and kills him. Donna and Tad drive to the Camber's farmhouse to try and get her car repaired. The place is deserted except for Cujo who is now completely rabid, foaming at the mouth, his fur stained red with blood and maddened by pain. Cujo attacks the car to try and get at Donna and Tad, luckily for them the windows hold firm, at least for the time being anyway. Donna tries to start the car but it has completely broken down, they are both trapped with nothing but the hope that someone will come and rescue them. Cujo lies in wait, ready to attack and kill anyone who crosses his path. Directed by Lewis Teague I thought the film was a bit slow for my tastes. The first half plods along, the second half builds up a head of steam but I still felt it was a little underwhelming and unexciting. The acting is fine by everyone involved, I've no complaints there. Technically the film is OK, photography, music, special effects, editing and it's generally well made. The big problem is the script by Don Carlos Dunaway and Lauren Currier and in particular it's first half, most of which appears to be padding to stretch the run time out. Clocking in at just under the 90 minute mark it felt longer. It's also a little predictable as well. Cujo as a monster never really scared me either, I just don't find slobbering overweight St. Bernards scary I guess. I suppose there's nothing really wrong with it, but I don't think I'd be in a hurry to see it again. Average, not too bad if you can find a copy going cheap or catch it on T.V. for free.
and totally non-scary film. The characters doesn't interest at all, and most of the time is spent in a car. The dog is at best ugly, never really scary. To interest, a more threatening menace would have been needed, at least a few people you care for and evokes some emotions in you. And, not the least, something interesting must happen. Something unexpected. As it is, this film just drags on and on, in what seems like forever. Maybe a Saint Bernhard was not that smart to choose as the Terrible Threat to life and society?<br /><br />In most scary movies/thrillers/mystery, just whatever genre, there must be characters that sparks interest and makes you want to know what happens. Here you really don't care, you just wait for it all to stop, and wondering if it wouldn't be better to see something else. One of the weakest King adaptations.
Certain filmmakers can do no wrong in the eyes of national critics, which is one reason you should never pay attention to them. This film is a perfect example. The critics like director Eric Rohmer.<br /><br />This movie is a boring soap opera about a woman and a teenager ("Pauline") she's taking care of for the summer, and the relationships they have with a few men. It's talk, talk, talk and more talk. <br /><br />For those looking at the cover and hoping to be titillated, there are a few quick nude shots and a couple of swear words but otherwise this is a harmless French morality play. A friend of mine loaned me this tape. He thought he was getting some sexy French film, and was disappointed. I was just as disappointed because it also was so boring. <br /><br />How this gets such great reviews is almost unfathomable.
Being a huge fan of Conte d'ete ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115940/ ) I was expecting to be wowed by another French beach romance with a lot of honesty, realism, and humor. Same director, same actress- what could go wrong? Unfortunately, Pauline a la plange is a huge disappointment. It's very slow and talkative which would be fine if the dialog conveyed insights into the characters, was meaningful, or original. But it comes across as a typical soap opera alternating between irrelevant pillow talk and jealous accusations. The only thing that saves this movie from being a complete disaster is a small amount of character development or at least "character change" with regards to Pauline. The source material is standard fare (sexual awakening during a beach vacation) but it could have been a decent film nevertheless if any of the characters were sufficiently interesting. Unfortunately that's not the case. Event though there are other shortcomings with Rohmer's season cycle, most of his later films are definitely leagues above this one.
Another first: this French movie is my introduction to the world Eric Rohmer. Perhaps I'm a bit hasty when I say that this is probably my last Rohmer movie but I was immediately turned off by the way Rohmer relies on monotonous philosophical conversations that never get to the point. There is a scene in the movie where the characters discuss love that I thought was never going to end. Honestly, no matter how much I tried, I couldn't understand why Rohmer is so highly regarded among cinephiles. He struck me as being one of those obnoxiously petulant people who are filled with hot air. If this is a sample of what his movies are about, I'm not interested. I don't care much for French cinema (usually reflective and speculative to a fault), so maybe I'm biased.
Nothing about this movie is any good. It's a formulaic predictable "romantic comedy" geared to make females force their significant others to watch. In other words, it's a predictable chic flick that is neither comedic or romantic and is extraordinarily forgettable. If you like watching the same thing over and over then this movie will fit just perfect. I was also forced to watch this with my g/f at the time and it's no surprise we are no longer together. I enjoy great movies that are wonderful to watch, while she just wants to see the same thing over and over again just with different actors. Nothing good to say about this movie. The title says it all. 1/10 (one b/c I can't give it a zero.
The cookie-cutter gets to work overtime in this obvious and unoriginal love story. The plot, such as it is, has been done before a trillion times so there is no need to recount any of it. Suffice to say that all 12 year old girls will love this movie while the rest of us will be forced to make a face. Even the soundtrack is awful! Its not that I dislike figure skating, although I don't, its that I dislike cliched, bad movies.
I do not write reviews here often but I can not stand by and let other people suffer through this movie without a least trying to warn them. This movie is horrible and it is not because "I do not know what the director was trying to convey" or "I am too stupid to understand the plot"; this movie is horrible because of poor direction, screen writing and acting. This is the "trifecta" of bad move making and the reason the film was direct to video. It tries to be something like "High Tension", "Hostel" and "TCSM" with the lifting of some of those ideas but it just does not work. I did not have high expectations or even medium ones going into the film but was still very disappointed. It had potential to be very good with a nice setting and good idea for a film but it was wasted.
If only he hadn't bowed to cliché, Mr Shiban could have actually made a good film from this story. It was just different enough to keep you interested, so for the same amount of time, energy and money as was spent on this stinker, we might have had something good instead of eye-rolling.<br /><br />Production-wise, it is as good as one could really expect from a hand-held camcorder, so he gets good marks there. It's really the script that's at fault, as the acting wasn't all that bad, either, considering what the actors had to work with.<br /><br />I thought the days were long gone when we would see someone, finding a radio transceiver they desperately wish to operate, first turn every knob on the thing from end to end, bash it on top 6 or 7 times, and then expect it to work. This story is ruined by a continuous string of stupid moves by all the characters except the bad guy. It's as though we are thought to be too shallow to grasp all the plot devices, so they are all spoon-fed to us to make sure we get them.<br /><br />I don't know about you, but that doesn't work on me. My attention ends up being occupied by the plot holes and over-dramatizations, not the story.<br /><br />So, since I found this to be not so bad in the technical sense, I think Mr. Shiban should try again, only with a proper script next time; then he might give us something worth watching.
I won't spoil it for you. Although you probably could care less if it was spoiled (you'll know what I mean after you watch it) Poor story. B-rated movie quality. Typical horror -stupid situations- rare timing. I should of known, when they try to push a lot of hype in their advertising or even add "quotes". Just tells me that the movie bombed big time. And they are trying to pull in everyone just so they can break even with to cost of making this bomb. I wish I could take back the time I spent watching this. I was stupid and thought that there just had to be something great around the corner. But I kept getting let down. I don't usually waste my time adding comments to any movie. In fact, this is my second post. I just felt maybe I could spare a few of you from wasting money on something that had a bunch of hype on it.
Apparently, in the eyes of some - there aren't enough horror films these days involving young people being chased across a desert by a mysterious, bloodthirsty madman in a truck. I mean, all we have so far is Joy Ride, Wolf Creek, Jeepers Creepers, Monster Man - among others. REST STOP may very well be the worst out of those. It is about a girl and her boyfriend who leave their lives behind to start over together in California. Along the way, they stop at a grimy lavatory so the young lady can relieve herself, but when she returns - she finds that her boyfriend and his car are gone. From there, she learns that the culprit is a guy driving a yellow pickup who proceeds to stalk and terrorize her as she hides in the restrooms. This movie is so unoriginal that it is flat out boring. The acting is annoying, the gore is mild, and the killer, whose identity is not revealed throughout the entire movie, is anything but memorable. Terrible - terrible film...
Young couple on the road, minding their own business and having casual sex in their car during broad daylight. Yet, suddenly, they're being menaced and terrorized by a deranged psychopath in an old and rusty pick-up truck. Hmm, where have I seen this premise before? Oh yeah, now I remember, we've seen this a THOUSAND times before already, and approximately nine hundred and ninety-nine of the other cases were much better than "Rest Stop"! This weak and pitiable new movie is insulting even to the intellect of the most undemanding horror fans, as it doesn't feature a single original twist or memorable gimmick. It's very sadistic and nasty, but every teenkill-slasher flick is sadistic and nasty nowadays, so that's no real surprise anymore, neither. The absolute main problem with this production is the incredibly large amount of dumb plot holes and meaningless sub plots. Writer/director John Shiban damn well realized that the ultra-thin basic storyline nearly wasn't enough to fill a whole movie with, and thus he stuffs up his film like a Thanksgiving turkey with imbecile and nonsensical padding material. Nicole's boyfriend vanishes at an abandoned and filthy rest stop in California. Killing off her character right away wouldn't result in a very long movie and thus she subsequently encounters a motor home family of freaks, suffers from visions (?) in which she talks to the deranged killer's previous victims and she has deeply emotional (and boring) conversations with a police officer who just won't die even though a truck ran over him...twice! The dumb sub plots never lead anywhere and they're definitely the most pathetic and desperate attempts to stretch a movie's length I've ever seen. Instead of all the pointless padding, Shiban should have paid more attention to building up tension and make his lead characters a little more likable. Jaimie Alexander's character Nicole is an annoying and brainless girl, and you won't really care whether she'll survive the ordeal or not. Her boyfriend Jesse as well as the cop are both whining losers and their brutal deaths still weren't painful enough, if you ask me. I counted exactly three sequences, all including torture and gratuitous mutilation, that were gory and exciting enough to bring a sadist smile on my face. That's still way too few for a nowadays horror movie. Basically, "Rest Stop" is simply a miserable attempt to cash in on the success of such films like "Wolf Creek" and "Hostel", but you're better off watching the originals. This was the first film of the new production company called 'Raw Feed'. They're promoting themselves as the new name in great horror, but they'll have to come up with something much better than "Rest Stop" if they want us to believe that.
But it's not. The plot isn't all that bad, the actors aren't all terrible so it should be decent. Instead though despite a good starting point the plot just drags on and suffers from a lot of those "I can't believe he/she is so dumb" moments so often used in horror movies to keep things going. It frustrated me at times watching some of the decision made by the lead character. Also it took way too long to get to the good part of the movie. Anticipation is great but you can't spend over half the movie building it up. A shame too since it got decent exposure upon release and hit right before the big Halloween season. Even so I have a feeling this is going to get at least one sequel, if not more so maybe they'll be able to build on the strong general plot to eventually release something decent.
If you just want gore, and nothing but gore and torture, you've come to the right movie. If you want a at least a sliver of good acting, logic, story, consistencies, or even a good guy ending, go elsewhere.<br /><br />I couldn't help but to think to myself, "Jeeeez, are those people mentally challenged?" Example, after being chased around and seeing other people mutilated, the main actress meets a police officer and spills out her story to the cop with tears and everything and told him about the psychopath that drives in a yellow truck. THe yellow truck pulls up and the officer just walks to it, talks to the guy and the truck drives off without any trouble. The actress comes out and says why didn't you arrest him? And then the truck runs over the police officer... after being rammed the truck stops on the road about 20 feet way just standing there while the actress tries to drag the cop away but he's too heavy. (At the time) At that time the truck backs up and runs over the cops leg twice. The truck then drives off. Why didn't the actress get the gun is beyond me. (WHich later she shoots the cop in the head twice because the psychopath was about to burn him alive) Once through the mouth, which didn't kill him (Duuuumb) and twice to finish the job. *Roll eyes* Right after that, she turns away to escape the bathroom which was going to explode and when she climbs near the roof, she turns around and the cop isn't there anymore... OK...<br /><br />Another example, The main actress meets a trapped woman in the bathroom, she spits out like a gallon of blood on the floor, covering about 1/3s of the room. (Probably more) After the main actress goes outside to grab a towel, she comes back in and everything is gone. :/ They don't explain why everyone keeps disappearing either. Dumb dumb dumb.<br /><br />I like horror/thriller/gore movies, but this one was just way too dumb. I lost brain cells watching this dribble and you shouldn't too.
I've never made one of these before, but this movie was literally so bad I had to say something about it.<br /><br />I'm all for independent film-making as the past year has seen of the worst (in my opinion) of Hollywood's showings, the mainstream just seems to have lost touch with what making good films is all about. That being said movies like this really give independent film a bad reputation.<br /><br />The characters are boring and too stupid to empathize with. The direction is horrible, the plotting is horrible, the plot itself is horrible, stay away, far away. Only one brief scene featuring a female's nude breasts, and even that wasn't worth a second look.<br /><br />The scariest thing about this movie is the idea of ever having to watch it again. I gave it a 2 and not a 1 simply because the actors were visible and the sound was audible - it earns one point for each of those traits.
A young woman, Nicole Carrow (Jaimie Alexander), and her boyfriend, Jess (Joey Mendicino) become targets for a deranged serial killer after stopping for a 'comfort break' at a remote road-side rest-stop.<br /><br />What might have been an effectively scary chiller in more competent hands, turns out to be a confusing, ill-considered mess under the sloppy direction of John Shiban (who also wrote the screenplay). There is a good deal of juicy violence, a brief smattering of nudity, and confident performances from the cast, but the silly script leaves the viewer with so many unanswered questions one cannot help but feel disappointed.<br /><br />On the surface, the film plays out like a standard cliché-ridden 'killer-on-the-loose' movie, but Shiban (an ex-writer for the X-files) throws in some subtle supernatural elements which suggest that his aim was something else entirely: a ghost story, with the rest stop acting as home to a vengeful spectre out to punish sinners.<br /><br />By reading up on the film, checking out viewers' theories here on IMDb, and watching the extras on the DVD, certain plot elements begin to make a little more sense (although, even with the advantage of extra information, there are still many questions left unanswered). In my opinion, any film that requires this much investigation to make itself (only partially) understood is not particularly a good one.
There's something going on in this film directed by X-Files scribe John Shiban that has eluded me. You get that feeling as the film moves that everything is not what it seems, yet I feel the movie fails at giving you enough to go on to truly care afterward. It's about perception. There are characters the heroine Nicole(Jaimie Alexander)meets in the film that she talks to that up and vanish. This might seem like a spoiler, but it's something that really only inherits a wee bit of focus on the filmmakers' part. They seem to be poking fun at us as we watch curious at whether we should trust what Nicole is seeing or not. It never gets a proper answer and I for one was a bit clueless at the point. There comes a time in a film when ambiguity can just be frustrating because the viewer is led on a wild goose chase that ends at a dead end with little explanation at what we just saw..it ultimately feels like an exhausting exercise instead of a thrilling psycho-drama. Now there's nothing wrong with ambiguity itself, but give us something to latch onto or you will evade us. That's how I felt as I watched "Rest Stop." This film is supposedly about a young woman named Nicole who decides to run off to California with lover Jesse(Joey Mendicino)to make it big in Hollywood. They make what is supposed to be a slight detour at a rest stop so that Nicole can pee, but it descends into terror for her when she finds that her Jesse is completely missing. Someone in a crusty, dusty yellow truck is a nut job who seems to be causing a lot of trouble to Nicole and we soon realize that he is behind Jesse's disappearance when things start to occur, signs provided to her if you will, she will have to find a way out of a very difficult situation. Nicole is far from any existing town and with limited resources to defend herself against a maniac who provides her with some strong evidence of how evil he can be.<br /><br />That's the easy part. When a female character comes into play, the film makes a really bizarre leap from logic as we are not sure where she ever came from, how she got there, and more importantly where she goes once Nicole tries to break her free from her supposed prison in the restroom's utilities' cabinet. She meets another, a Police officer in the area(Joey Lawrence), who might seem like her savior, but when he too is a victim of the truck driver startling things occur again that questions if he was ever actually even there to begin with. The truck driver commits torturous acts to Nicole(like holing her up in the restroom and as she tries to untie a wire that the killer has wrapped around the door lock, she receives a nasty bite from him). He then sets fire to the restroom leaving her without a lasting place of refuge from the beast.<br /><br />It's the timing of the truck driver's attacks that has me listless. Perhaps he just likes tormenting her, but he appropriately appears in certain situations where Nicole has time to flee or prepare. It doesn't make much sense, his motives, which propel the film into an illogical idea. Why does he make himself so obvious? Why does he allow her to prepare? It seems, I'm going out on a limb here, that he likes having his quarry believe they can find a way of escape only to stomp that hope out when he comes up with his next grisly attack. Yet, why does Shiban decide to play with the viewer by having Nicole experience odd meetings with people that don't exist? What is Shiban and the writing team trying to say? And, to cap off the film's unhinged weirdness is a family in a RV. They play a small part in the scheme of things as religious bigots themselves, but the film doesn't do enough for the viewer to explain why they should be in this film at all.
This movie has got to be the biggest disappointment I've ever experienced with a film. The acting is horrific, the suspense build up minimal, and the plot overall is ridiculous. I found myself rooting for the victim to just hurry up and become a victim, because she obviously needed to be put out of her misery. Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of how the world works will immediately be disgusted at the leaps we're asked to make in logic, and the so-called suspenseful buildup would be lucky to get a 3 year old to be mildly worried. I'm dismayed that a sequel is planned, because it means they'll be asking us to once again swallow a sub par plot line. If this is an example of Raw Feed's work, I think I'll be avoiding any and all future films by them.
This movie is about a young couple running away to start a new life in LA, who end up being stalked by a psycho at a deserted rest stop. Actually, it's really just about the girl (Nicole), since her boyfriend literally disappears within a few minutes. The movie gets going extremely fast, and early on you wonder how it could possibly stretch its story out to feature length. It isn't long before you realize that the movie does this by simply wasting time with unnecessary scenes that go nowhere.<br /><br />The story is not only paper-thin, but unstructured, stupid, and incoherent. Minutes after the disappearance of her boyfriend and car, Nicole finds a mobile home at the rest stop. She sees the flashing of a camera, and KNOWS that people are inside, but she easily gives up on trying to get their help when no one answers her door knocks. After she is informed by the killer that her boyfriend is in danger, she walks around the rest stop, doing all sorts of stupid and unnecessary things. This includes turning on a TV (and even looking amused when she thinks she's stumbled onto a porno movie, even in this dire situation), sitting around, wandering, and drinking from a bottle of liquor for hours on end. She does all this KNOWING that her boyfriend has been abducted, that the killer is still on the loose and stalking her, and without taking any actions to ensure her immediate safety (she doesn't bother to lock the doors or remain alert). Oh yeah, she tries using a radio to call for help, but why even bother when there's a mobile home with people inside RIGHT THERE at the rest stop? It really seems like the script writer forgot about this important fact while writing this part of the story.<br /><br />There's no sense of entrapment or ever-present danger in this story. The heroine freely wanders in and around the various buildings at the rest stop, and the killer only drives in occasionally to scare her, before driving off again. There's NOTHING stopping Nicole from simply taking off (even if the rest stop is a long way from anywhere else, that's better than sitting around), but she chooses to stay anyway. At one point in the movie, the main character even ACKNOWLEDGES that she can run off, but doesn't.<br /><br />The story doesn't go anywhere, and instead just jumps from pointless segment to pointless segment. Nicole finally gets inside the mobile home, and it turns out that the inhabitants are a family of sheltered, presumably inbred or psychotic religious fanatics. They seem willfully ignorant or uncaring about the killer's actions (but there's no indication that they're connected to him in any way), and then kick Nicole out after several minutes.<br /><br />In the next irrelevant segment, the main character wanders into the bathroom building. She discovers one of the killer's previous victims (a young woman named Tracy), who is still alive and locked in a closet. For some strange reason, Tracy starts vomiting ridiculous amounts of blood. Nicole goes off to fetch a crowbar to pry open the closet door, and when she returns a minute later, both Tracy and her pool of blood have disappeared without any explanation. What was the point? Nicole finds a bulletin board showing many missing persons, and sees that Tracy had disappeared in 1971. So, was Tracy a ghost or something? The writer never bothers explaining.<br /><br />Next, a cop shows up in the middle of the night to man the police office at the rest stop, which had been conveniently left unattended for the entire day so far. Nicole tells him all about what's been going on, and when the killer drives up in his truck outside the office, the cop goes outside to confront him. What does the police officer do, knowing that something is seriously wrong? He goes up and calmly talks to the killer (who Nicole had even pointed out to be the guy who was stalking her), and buys into the killer's lie that he was simply driving through and needed directions. Seriously. The cop then talks to Nicole outside, totally unaware as the pickup truck turns around and runs him over.<br /><br />The cop quickly starts telling Nicole that he's a goner who's "lucky to be breathing" still, yet he strangely doesn't die for quite a while. The two of them do some more pointless talking, and the all-important fact that he has a gun is annoyingly not even mentioned for too long a time. When the two of them finally try to use the gun, Nicole stupidly wastes most of her bullets blindly shooting at a door when the killer was possibly behind it. With two bullets left, the policeman tells Nicole to use one to euthanize him. She fires one into his mouth, and he lays still for a few moments, with a chunk blown out of his head. Then, he suddenly and inexplicably yells out "You missed!" and she has to shoot him again. Completely cheap attempt at shock.<br /><br />Nicole finally confronts the killer…and fails. The movie ends with a scene taking place not long from then, with a woman arriving at the now strangely much more active rest stop. In the bathroom building, she hears Nicole crying for help in the closet (locked in like Tracy was). She gets a policeman to go inside and check it, but he finds an apparently normal and clean closet. The cop leaves, thinking he's been tricked. A battered Nicole is seen coming out from behind some boxes in the closet (she would have been easily spotted if the cop had spent all of 10 seconds looking), apparently too stupid to have said or done anything when the policeman was there. WOW.<br /><br />This movie is apparently the first in a new line of "quality" direct-to-DVD movies, marketed as being too extreme for theaters. In reality, it's just more cliché, B-Movie garbage.
A young couple decides to runaway to sunny California. They never reach their destination as they decide to pull over at the Rest Stop.<br /><br />After a fight with her boyfriend, Nicole Carrow insists on pulling in to a rest stop. When she is ready to leave, she exits the bathroom to find her boyfriend has disappeared with their car, leaving her trapped on the back roads of Texas with only an abandoned camper van to keep her company.<br /><br />Rest Stop is one of those cheap and tacky horror movies that could become a cult classic. Will Rest Stop become a cult classic you may ask? Well the three elements that you need to become a cult classic are gore, sex and artistic merit. Rest stop has bucket loads of gore, and while I do not want to give too much away, it contains oodles of blood-soaked nastiness. This movie has everything from the bad guy running over a cop's legs with his car several times to him making use of a pneumatic drill on a girl's leg. At times, it can be about as bloody as a film can get. It also has a gratuitous and yet somehow quite intimate love scene in the opening minutes of the film. Therefore, the sex is covered. Now the hard one – does it have any artistic merit? You never get to see the bad guy's face – you see glimpses, profiles, shadowy silhouettes. He is a faceless, relentless, monster, which alone scores highly on the artistic merit scale. The movie has very few characters in it apart from the main protagonist – Nicole Carrow (Jaimie Alexander). Since she spends a large part of the film on her own, she cannot reveal her thoughts in the course of a conversation, but must speak them aloud so that we, the audience, know what she is thinking. At times, this can be slightly irritating; however, it is a brave step by the writer (John Shiban) and it does work for the majority of the film. As an audience knows, being completely alone and isolated from civilisation is frightening enough even when you are not being chased by psychotic killers.<br /><br />So, will Rest Stop become a cult classic? It probably will because along the gore, sex and arguable artistic merit, it also has plenty of chills, an interesting and inventive plot and gives rise to a lot of shouting at the screen as the main character does plenty of things you should definitely not do when running from a psychotic killer. (What fun are horror movies if you cannot complain about the stupidity of the victims?)
As horror films go, "Rest Stop", could have been better in many levels. Director/writer John Shiban shows he probably had the best intentions when he started it. Unfortunately, either he was not sure as to what to do with the material, or maybe, he was under pressure to deliver a different movie from what he intended, either by the studio, or the backers. Several endings have been included in the DVD, but unfortunately, the one chosen for the finished product is probably not the best.<br /><br />The idea of a psycho roaming the back roads of a remote part of California presents many possibilities at first. After the disappearance of Jess in the spooky rest stop, things get out of hand. Poor Nicole is left alone to fend for herself all the weirdos she finds along the way.<br /><br />It was clear when one started to hear "Amazing Grace" in the background that there were forces trying to avenge the ways in which Nicole an Jess desecrate their neck of the woods by engaging in careless sex that is not well appreciated by the natives.<br /><br />Watch it at your own risk. There's a lot of gore for the aficionados of the genre.
There are movies that are so bad, they're good. Then there's movies like Rest Stop that should just never have been made because they are just plain dreadful.<br /><br />Bad acting, unlikable characters, predictable plot and a supposedly supernatural twist that adds nothing to the story are all key failures. Some half decent special effects are about the only thing worthy of note. <br /><br />I can't even bring myself to write a plot outline because all I really want to do here is warn you not to waste your time and money on this movie. Do yourself a favour and don't even bother with this film at all. It's 1.5 hours of your life that you will never get back. <br /><br />1/10
I only comment on really very good films and on utter rubbish. My aim is to help people who want to see great films to spend their time - and money - wisely.<br /><br />I also want to stop people wasting their time on garbage, and want to publicize the fact that the director/producer of these garbage films can't get away with it for very long. We will find out who you are and will vote with out feet - and wallets.<br /><br />This film clearly falls into the garbage category.<br /><br />The director and writer is John Shiban. It's always a bad sign when the writer is also the director. Maybe he wants two pay cheques. He shouldn't get any. So remember the name - John SHIBAN. And if you see anything else by him, forget it.<br /><br />I won't say anything about the plot - others have already. I am a little worried by how much the director likes to zoom in to the poor girl's face when she is crying and screaming. These long duration shots are a little worrying and may say something about the state of mind of Mr. Shiban. Maybe he should get psychiatric help.<br /><br />Enough already. It's crap - don't waste your time on it.
This Movie Is Not A Horror Movie. There Is Nothing Scary About It It's More Of A Torture Flick. And It Doesn't Make Sense To Me, There Is A Few Scene's With Disappearing Bodies. For Instance he Woman In The Beginning Of The Movie. That Get Pulled Away Returns For A Scene In The Restroom With Nicole And She And She Completely Disappears. Then She Kills The Police Officer To Put Him Out Of His Misery And He Disappears PLUS Had To Shoot Him In The Head Twice To Kill Him I Don't Think So Especially When You Can See His Head Half Blown Off And Didn't Kill Him? The At The End She Sets The Killer's Truck On Fire. That But He's Not In It. He Is Standing Behind Her. Then It Cuts To The Rest Stop Has Been Completely Remodeled And Some People Are At The Rest Area And A New Girl Comes In And Nicole In Asking For Help Like The First Girl Totally No Sense In This Movie. Save Yourself Some Money And Skip This Movie.
This movie has to rank with "Welcome to the Jungle" and "The Hitcher" and "Dream Catcher" for sheer god-awfulness. You've got the most irritating heroine in gore history who spends most of her time sobbing and wailing and shrieking--all the time in the most horrendous rest stop toilet ever put on film. Why she spends so much time in this ghastly bathroom from hell is never explained. Even when the usual killer truck driver is trying to murder her, she refuses to leave the crapper. When a motorcycle cop comes to her rescue, the killer truck driver runs over the cop's legs while the heroine just looks on. Instead of grabbing his gun for protection, she drags the poor slob into the crapper and locks the door. Then the cop orders her to blow his brains out because of the pain. She does so--while wailing and sobbing and keening--and blows the back of his head off. Then--the cop, still alive, beg her to shoot him again because he's still in pain. He says this while the entire back of his head is all over the floor. The sobbing, wailing heroine shoots him again. The movie goes on and on like this, none of it making any sense. The heroine is so dislikable you really want the killer to off her early on. I saw this flick on the Sci-Fi channel so it didn't cost me anything to watch, but still I did watch, out of sheer fascination as to how a movie could end up so terribly bad.
SPOILER Wolfcreek meets Texas Chainsaw Massacre....if you've seen those, don't waste your time with this one. Typical slasher movie, nothing new here except for the SPOILER "visions" which just add fluff to an already weak plot. I would recommend this movie if you have absolutely nothing to watch and it's either see this movie or stare at a bare wall for 1.5 hrs. The only semi-interesting part SPOILER is when the chick starts drinking in the empty sheriff's office, I say it's interesting because at least she made good use of that liquor instead of stereotypically using it to start a fire to kill the bad guy, although she did go that route towards the end. All in all, lame, bad, and not worth effort.
I cant put it any simpler than that, this is a terrible film. I've worked in the industry and made several (short) films myself, so okay my standard is pretty high but seriously, i absolutely hate this film. I haven't made a comment on IMDb before but i hated this film so much i literally had to come and warn others. It is a piece of sh*t. The writer/director is an idiot who just has no idea how to make/write a good film and has the writing skills of an adolescent teenager. The characters are unrealistic (The lead woman doesn't think of taking the policeman's pistol yet is resourceful enough to improvise a Molotov cocktail? please...) and not even likable, hell i hated her and cheered when she died. I don't understand what the director was trying to do with his demon redneck idea, but it just looked like sloppy writing and convenient bullsh*t with no real thought behind it to me. This is officially the worst movie I've seen ALL YEAR. Congratulations Shiban, you now rank up there with such greats as Micheal Bay in the prestigious "shouldnt be allowed to waste millions of dollars on making a film" club. I hope you read this, i really do. And to the 163 idiots that rated this film 10 out of 10 BWAHHAHAHAHAh oh my god I hope a redneck demon appears conveniently behind you and tortures you.
The only good thing about this movie is, that I now have a movie on the worst ever list. Rest Stop being on the end of the spectrum where I can compare all terrible movies to. Really, this movie is the worst plot, worst directed, throughout the whole movie all I wanted to do is pull out my hair and kick the writer's and anybody who made this movie possible's ass. I am a deployed soldier, and when I spend my precious downtime watching movies like this. These people should feel terrible, they had to of watch this before it came out, and must have been to freaking lazy to redo , after they noticed it freaking sucked. I am so amazed that this great country of ours is letting them make another. Honestly, this is the first time I have ever commented on a movie, I had to let the world know, not to waste their time. Delete this movie from the face of this planet. It makes us humans look retarded.
I have seen a lot of movies. In fact I love B horror movies, they are one of my favorite genres. However this "Garbage" (I refuse to acknowledge that this was given the honor of film) was the worst piece of crap I have ever had the torture of watching. I actually signed up on IMDb purely for the fact that I needed a way to at least voice how awful this "Garbage" was. I have watched "Films" (They at least deserve the honor) done in basements by High School students that were better written and directed. I have nothing but pity for the poor actors in this "Garbage" because they were just trying to earn a pay check. They will now and forever have this stain on their records like a virgin who was raped and given Herpes! If Writer/Director John Shiban has any dignity left at all, after obviously fellating countless people to get this made, he should never allow himself near a camera again and try applying his so called "Gifts" to something more suited for him....Like mopping the floor of a Peep Show!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously, folks...I was getting ready to actually write the Razzie Council and recommend this movie as Razzie Champ for 2007...until I got on IMDb.com and realized its copyright date was 2006 and not 2007. Seriously, though, this movie could have easily been a Razzie Champ. This movie sucked! How in the world this piece of crap was overlooked even for a Razzie nomination in 2006 is beyond me, because it easily could have competed with Basically, It Stinks, Too for the 2006 Razzie Championship.<br /><br />I rented this movie on the recommendation of a female neighbor of mine who told me, "Oh My God, after seeing this movie, it's going to be a long, long time before I ever stop at a rest stop ever again!" I couldn't believe how not scary and awful this movie was! Possible spoilers below, not that you'll be missing out on anything.<br /><br />OK, first of all...the problem...the rest stop itself. Obviously the director of this piece of crap doesn't know the first thing about women. The toilets in that rest stop were on the same level as the one in the movie Trainspotting. I don't claim to know everything there is to know about women, but one thing I do know is that women, for the most part, are total and complete hygiene/neat freaks. Given the choice between taking a crap on either of those toilets and possibly catching something or squatting in the woods, a woman is going to opt for squatting in the woods. I know, because I've gone camping with them before, and they have no problem squatting in the woods. So right there...major plot hole and untruth.<br /><br />Second of all...she comes out of the rest stop, and her boyfriend who drove the car is nowhere to be found, not him nor his car. He just left. She starts screaming his name, wondering where he is. Ummm...hello? You're standing on wet mud...did it ever occur to you to look down for some tire tracks? I mean, his car is gone...it didn't just get up and fly away. And actually, that makes me think...I actually was looking down at her feet, and there weren't any tread marks in the mud. How...exactly...did that happen?<br /><br />Third...the Bible thumping mobile home family with the freak midget in the back taking Polaroid pictures...Wtf!?!?!?? They made absolutely no sense at all, and it's as if the director just threw them in to be weird for the sake of being weird. They made no sense at all and had no place even being in the movie.<br /><br />Fourth...Oh My God, this...I mean, finally...near the end of the movie...she finally sees the escape hatch on the ceiling inside the rest stop. I'm like, "You...dumb...bi**h. You've been locked up in this rest stop for all this time...and you just..now...see...the escape hatch on the ceiling?" I mean...it's like they threw that in just because the killer tossed gasoline on the floor through the window and was getting ready to light a match. So she needs to get to higher ground to avoid being burned, and...oh, look! A perfect reason for her to get to higher ground! An escape hatch on the ceiling! It's like...Why didn't she go through that before? Most people in that situation would have seen that from the moment they were locked in that rest stop and gotten the f**k out of Dodge. When they showed that escape hatch at the end of the movie, I was like, "You have got to be kidding me."<br /><br />Fifth...what was the deal with all the of people she encountered continuing to just disappear? The girl in the broom closet in the rest stop? The dumb cop? Her at the end of the movie when she ended up in the broom closet herself? It was never explained. Personally, when they did this, I thought to myself, "Oh, Christ on a cracker, it's her. She's the killer. Wonderful. She killed all of those people, doesn't remember doing it, and the writers of this movie just ripped off a certain French horror flick that I can't mention on IMDb.com or I'll be blacklisted for giving away the ending (that movie sucked, by the way, too, people)." But it wasn't. She wasn't the killer, and the whole deal with the dead people disappearing was never, ever explained. Oh, for the love of God, people, stay away from this movie! This movie sucked balls, and I have now got a serious bone to pick with my neighbor. It's on the 2 for $1 rack at Family Video, don't even rent it if someone gives it to you for free!
Obviously Raw Feed Video is smarter than all of us who wasted our money renting this flick! They will make millions from video rentals and their low budget investment is going to pay off big, which will finance "Rest Stop II" (unfortunately). I figure they spent a maximum of a few hundred thousand dollars American to hire the actors, rent the rest stop locale and burn a truck and drag a motorcycle along behind the truck for a bit plus pay for the technical stuff. That's it. We should all be as smart as these guys, I won't knock them for having the genius to promote a stinker into good monetary returns. Premise of the movie was good, and it could have been a really adequate horror movie, but it failed by not delivering a clear story line. I am always looking for a gem from the upstart film companies, but I didn't find it here and neither will you. I'm only sorry I wasted $3.99 plus tax to find out.
Continuing in the string of "stalker/slasher" flicks in the vein of "Wolf Creek," "Hostel," "Joy Ride," etc., comes "Rest Stop." The most unoriginal and useless one of them all.<br /><br />We start, reasonably promising, with the violent death of a pretty young girl in a filthy restroom.<br /><br />This is where our interest is lost. We, then, move to the cliché road trip couple, on their way to LA with their eyes on acting stardom. . . which, doing movies like this, they'll never achieve.<br /><br />From the sexual romp in the park, the couple drives, arguing all the way, to a deserted and disgusting rest area for the girl to use the bathroom. Harmless enough until she exits and finds her boyfriend missing and realizes she's being stalked by a lame version of "Joy Ride"'s Rusty Nail. . . only driving around in Mater from "Cars".<br /><br />Honestly, if this had been directed/written/produced/acted by anyone else, it might've been fairly good. But no.<br /><br />Because then comes the ghost story. Yup. . . you guessed it. Plenty of "oh, i'll help you, but wait, you're dead" to "wait is this stalker a person, monster, or ghost?".<br /><br />But wait? Who comes to the rescue to save the girl's life and possibly the movie? That one Lawerence brother. Excellent. We're saved. (sarcasm) Oh wait, no we're not.<br /><br />You know. . . if you want to laugh off a pretty bad, or if you get free rentals like I do, give it a try.<br /><br />If anything, you'll learn how NOT to make a movie.<br /><br />-AP3-
Under no circumstances watch this film. It is terrible for a number of reasons:<br /><br />No plot No structure No direction No acting to speak of No visual style No tension<br /><br />In a word - no.<br /><br />Best thing about it the box and the fact it eventually ends. Who would have thought 85mins could feel so long.<br /><br />Once again: Under no circumstances watch this film. It is terrible.<br /><br />No plot No structure No direction No acting to speak of No visual style No tension<br /><br />In a word - no.<br /><br />Best thing about it the box and the fact it eventually ends. Who would have thought 85mins could feel so long.
<br /><br />It wasn't the worst movie that I have ever seen. However, that is only if I get to count home movies made by 8 year olds. This movie was horrible from start to finish. Nothing about it made it worth watching unless you wanted to show new filmmakers how not to make a film.
OK, so I'am chilling in my room when mom knocks on the door. I open the door and what do I see in her hands? "SLEEPY HOLLOW HIGH". I thinking it has to be an older horror movie, because there's noway anyone could be stupid enough to name a movie that after The blockbuster hit "Sleepy Hollow" starring Johnny Depp. But to my surprise the movie is at least two years older then the original. That alone should have stopped me from putting it into the V.C.R. But no I had to take a chance, I had to believe that this movie could have one small ray of hope. Little did I know that the rays where no where to be seen.<br /><br />Number one, the story line is so ridiculous that it's probably true in some country bumpkin town. Two, the actors seem more like people real life people who just happen to wonder on the set when the director yell cut. Three, just about any movie starring the director is always awful. But the funny thing is that this is yet another movie directed by Kevin Summerfield. I've become to rely on his movie to bring me to the floor with side splitting laughter.<br /><br />Where to start on this movie? I know, let's start with the jogger in the woods. The camera lighting was so bad that I lead to believe that the jogger was standing still and the camera man was running. I love how the woman's stop to eat a candy bar. I mean it's just about dark, or just about light, who could tell with the camera lighting. And she stops running to eat a candy bar, I mean a CANDY BAR WHAT THE HELL. So she ends up being the first victim because of stupidity, and already I'am ready to break the tape, find the director, burn his little hands.<br /><br />Then out of nowhere some guys like trying to fix a car that probably been broken for some years now. Then in come the fake Mack 10 and a very real prostitute, who happen to be part of our main charter cast.<br /><br />The some of the movie is about a group of kids who all get into trouble. And are given the choice to pick up trash in the Sleepy Hollow park or face suspension forever. There sent in the woods with one of the teachers(Mr.E or a.k.a Kevin Summfield) who suppose to watch over them and make sure that all goes accordingly. The funniest thing is how undeveloped the charters really are. I mean what is with the fake Mack 10 dude and who's ever heard of Hacker trying to kill themselves. And some how one of the students has had an affair with the teacher Mr. E, before all of this community service crap had even came up. Yet the school still thought it was a cool idea for them to let him go. Also there's one student named J who purpose in the movie is to keep annoyingly popping up out of no where trying to make the audience jump, when all he really does is add to the cheapness of the film. The sound was so horrible in this movie. I mean there was one seen when two guys are fighting, and the guy punches the other guy in the stomach, and out of the T.V. comes this sound effect that sounds like someone punching a stale wooden box. It began horribly and ended dangerously stupid, even my taste. I will say this though, the music in the back ground made the scenes look some what tolerable. But not that much tolerable. My conclusion is this, if you want to left at yet another movie that Kevin Summfield took serious buy "Sleepy Hollow High.<br /><br />P.S I'am still thinking about shooting myself to remove those images of the fake Mack 10. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Whoa, this is one of the WORST movies I have EVER seen! The packaging for the film is better than the film itself. My girlfriend and I watched it this past weekend, and we only continued to watch it in the hopes that it would get better...it didn't...<br /><br />The picture quality is poor; it looks like it was shot on video and transferred to film. The lighting is not great, which makes it harder to read the actors' facial expressions. The acting itself was cheesy, but I guess it's acceptable for "yet another" teenage horror flick. The sound was a huge problem: sometimes you have to rewind the video because the sound is unclear and/or muffled.<br /><br />It holds no real merit of it's own; trying to ride on the coattails of "Sleepy Hollow." Don't bother with this one.
Great concept, perfect characterizations and voices, but a complete waste of time. A real shame since had it aimed higher, it would probably not have been the bomb it was (is); way too dependent upon scatological humor, for starters. I'm amazed by comments from "educated" reviewers referring to the "good science" behind this piece of puerile trash. Unlike "Finding Nemo," where (with a bit of suspension of disbelief) attention to detail was staggering and the science was as good as the context would allow, "Osmosis Jones" was utter nonsense; don't kid yourself about the science. Humor aimed at eight-year-olds but subject matter suitable more for some unsophisticated teens.
This movie just was not very funny. There's not much else to say, other than that it was kind of embarrassing for Laurence Fishburne and David Hyde Pierce, both of whom deserve much better than this. Also, I don't understand why, after this movie completely and utterly bombed, WB insisted on making it into a TV show.
What a total lump of poopoo this was! You've got to be kidding people! Any positive reviews of this movie are plants or insiders from the movie makers themselves! yuuck! disgusting movie!, not gross digusting but just plain awful!
What a boring movie. While it did have humorous parts, it was just plain boring and lengthy (for a 90 minute movie). I believe that the cause was a lack of action.<br /><br />When I rented this movie, I expected to see white blood cells combat the evil viruses, but no such luck. It was more that the virus was thwarted than defeated.<br /><br />The movie had promise, but since made for little kiddies in mind, it did not meet its potential, in my opinion.
When I was driving home after work, I bought some movies for my four year old twins. I had bought this movie my kids would enjoy. I watched this with my children. My 10 and 17 year old were about to throw up. In this movie ,the dad acts like a tard. My little ones would watch it every day.One day, they threw away all our movies.I SOLD THE Omosis Jones movie on Ebay. My Grade: F++++++++++++++++ I rather be seen on the worst dress list.<br /><br />My kids now hate this dumb movie. If gives the idea that germs can talk to each other. I wonder how the dumb movie sounds in Japenese. I broke the CD in half when I got irritated of seeing it over and over again. No offence but, Brandy & Elena's acting was the best
OK, if you are a fan of Mystery Science Theater 3000 and love to mock movies, then you will have a lot of fun with this. Otherwise, it may really be TOO painful to see.<br /><br />Plot: Obsessed cryptozoologist sneaks a huge crate containing a Chupacabra onto a cruise ship (apparently not having to declare it at customs, or even mention that he's bringing aboard a live animal -"no really, it's research equipment, the air holes are just an accident"). Some dipsticks he hired to lade it open the crate, figuring he paid bunches of money, maybe there's something to steal. Once the WOOD CRATE is open, the Chupacabra breaks through the STEEL BARS inside and goes on a killing rampage.<br /><br />Yeah, whatever.<br /><br />By a stroke of sheer coincidence, a Marshall (I assume a U.S. Marshall, since he was in the gulf war, not just some guy named Marshall) is on board, investigating some money that went missing from the ship's safe. He's posing as an insurance salesman ("Lady, I'm the best insurance you've got..."). Other scintillating characters include the captain (John Rhys-Davies, and sadly his dignity is the first victim of the film), his tae-bo instructor daughter (snicker - Tae-bo), an annoying old stuck-up lady with a tiny dog which should be fed to a cat (guess WHAT eats it...?) and an incredibly unpleasant gigolo who might have been believable in a movie made in 1964, not in anything more recent. Much of the acting was really bad, and the characters were just there so that you can laugh hysterically when they died.<br /><br />Overall - SCREAMINGLY bad. Bad on many levels. BAD BAD BAD. What??? Bullets don't even make Chupacabra flinch, but the Tae-bo bimbo can punch him and scare him away???? Hey Sci-fi Channel, you desperate for scripts or what?
A Cryptozoologist captures a mythical chupacabra on a Caribbean island.To get it back to civilization he bribes his way onto the cargo bay of a large luxury cruise ship with funny and I think the script intended disastrous results.<br /><br />Lets start with the one thing I really did not like about this movie.... The monster really just looked like a guy in a rubber suit.The CGI scenes looked like a different movie. OK thats off my chest now onto all the enjoyable bits about this B movie.<br /><br />The best thing was John Rhys-Davies(his daughter the eye candy a close second.)John was intermittently funny and suave and no matter what the writers made him say, he said it well.Good job given what he had to work with.The Cyptozoologist was over the top and fun to watch too,he had some funny bits.The marines all were OK and make good cannon fodder for the monster as did some of the crew and guests.There are a few pretty funny lines in this movie,and a pretty amusing sub plot involving a thief.<br /><br />The special effects are generally med to low and I swear they reused the same blood spray on the wall scene in about four different parts of the movie. I did like the gore of the legless man.Really since this movie was not scary at all I feel a bit more gore would have gone along way in improving the watch ability of this movie.<br /><br />All in all if you like B monsters this one is worth a visit.
First, and foremost, I take issue to the title of this movie. 'Chupacabra' is not a Spanish word. The name to which they are referring is 'Chupacabras'. I imagine they dropped the 's' because it sounds plural that way, but I assure you, it is singular in Spanish.<br /><br />Next, I thought this movie had been done years ago. It came off as one of those B horror flicks I watched when I was an early teenager at home when my stepdad was out of town. Then it would have been kind of scary.<br /><br />Let's talk about the special effects. The most important 'effect' is the costume used for the Chupacabras. Given that it is the main character, you would think some serious money would have been put into it, but that isn't so. The shape, color, and texture were all goofy like some stupid haunted house at Disney World.<br /><br />There were times when the Chupacabras was walking where no man could walk. His movement were jerky and strange at these times, but moving around on the floor looked like any normal man.<br /><br />Another thing I take issue to is that there is no animal in the world that goes around slaughtering everything it sees with no regard to actually eating it. The Chupacrabas would kill one, then the next, but it never seemed to actually eat the victim. You say, "It's just a movie," and I agree. But the idea is so far out there that it's stupid.<br /><br />What country is Dr. Pena from? He sounds sort of Jamaincan/Hawaiian/British/Something-Else, but I think he's supposed to be Latino. The problem is, his accent is so bad that even a Russian could tell he wasn't Latino.<br /><br />The soldiers fired round after round at this thing, and weren't making a dent, yet the continued to fire. I'm no military man, but don't soldiers, especially the special tactical forces such as this, have to have some wit about them to perform their duties? Wouldn't they figure out that it was a waste of time to shoot and try something new? They didn't. They just kept firing away while the Chupacabras continued to slaughter, and not eat, them.<br /><br />Did they have to kill the little dog? :) Anyway, my vote was 3 for this flick, because it was bad. Why did I watch the whole thing? I'm sure you've done the same on occasion, so don't give me an flack. ;)
Dr. Pena (Giancarlo Esposito), a "crypto-zoologist" (fancy term for one of those self-deluded losers who likes to study extremely rare - read: nonexistent - animals) and his crew of hunters manage to trap a Chupacabra, a big, scaly, elusive fast-moving beast. To get it to the mainland, they smuggle it on a Grecian cruise ship and some idiots open up the crate containing it despite being told specifically not to. I guess the strange growling noises coming from inside weren't a good enough deterrent either. The monster then does the monster thang; running around biting chunks out of various passengers until the ship's captain (John Rhys-Davies), a square-jawed special agent pretending to be an insurance salesman for some reason (Dylan Neal), a squeaky-voiced blonde Tai Bo instructor (Chelan Simmons), a bunch of guys with machine guns and others try to stop it. The main victims (who I think are supposed to be the comic relief but it's hard to tell) are an old rich bitch (Paula Shaw) with a yippy terrier and a snobby effete gold-digger (David Millbern). Apparently the monster can be knocked out with a single tranquilizer dart, but can live through dozens of bullet hits. The Chupacabra design is acceptable (though unoriginal) but the rest of the movie is devoid of suspense, surprise or interest. A boring Sci-Fi Channel "original" movie; they've made dozens of movies just like this with nearly interchangeable characters and plots, but with slight alterations on the creature. Enough already!
Chupacabra: Dark Waters has to rank as one of the most insipidly moronic movies ever made. I had expected at least some passable entertainment because John Rhys Davies was involved, and after seeing this movie, I can honestly say I lowered my opinion of Mr. Davies substantially.<br /><br />Why? The acting is incredibly poor. An excellent actor like Davies should have demanded more from the cast and the director. It was painfully obvious that Mr. Davies was just clock-watching and hoping the check would not bounce. To say that he just showed up would be an understatement. But at least he did show up. The rest of the cast looks like they mailed it in from their respective jobs at the various Los Angeles restaurants where they work as waiters. Talk about a cast of unknowns! This is the kind of cast that never appears in movies again. They act as if they were auditioned while waiting at the unemployment office.<br /><br />What about the special effects? Store bought firecrackers, Styrofoam, a cheap rubber suit and CGI effects that look like they came from my 1980 Atari Game. I have seen some horrible special effects used on Sci-Fi Channel movies, but this stuff looked like cut-and-paste done at the kindergarten by someones' child. I expected Mr. Crabs and Sponge-Bob would show up at the end to battle the Chupacabra. Not to mention that all the accounts of the creature describe it as a small gremlin-like critter. It would have been a good film for a Leprechaun-like character. Instead, we get a gigantic hulking creature that is shown walking with stop-action speeded-up effects that are laughable. The chupacabra is in one place and then it shuffles at super-speed down the hall and it is worth a few laughs just to see this.
Well, the Sci-Fi channel keeps churning these turkeys out... and they seem to get worse every time. When normally good actors like John Rhys-Davies and Giancarlo Espositto come off as rank amateurs, you can imagine how abysmal the REST of the cast in this waste-of-your-time effort is. The only halfway decent thing is the rubber outfit of the creature(which is glimpsed in such quick flashes that you don't really have time to see how phony it really is). The dialogue...the plot...if this "movie"(and I use the term loosely) was food, Jack-In-The-Box would be a gourmet meal compared to this. Watch a re-run of "The Munsters" for the 372nd viewing- your time would be better spent(and a lot scarier as well)!
In general, I prefer horror movies that creep me out so much I'm afraid of everything for the next day or so, not the ones where people act stupid and get killed by an indestructible monster. This is one of those movies. The chupacabra of legend is a dog-faced lizard-skin greenish-gray monster that hops like a kangaroo, has fangs and claws, has a row of sharp spines sticking out from its back, and sucks the blood of livestock. As in many horror movies, good and bad, this movie takes liberty with the legend. It not only attacks humans, but it eats their intestines and has a bulletproof, nearly indestructible constitution. So tell me, how can a hypodermic needle penetrate its skin when bullets can't? And why, when the marines figure out that armor-piercing bullets can hurt it, do they split up so the chupacabra can pick them off one by one? John Rhys-Davies gives a performance that rises above the bad movie, and Chelan Simmons and Dylan Neal deserve credit for their performances, too. Otherwise, the rest of the acting was poor to bad, just like the rest of the movie. My rating is based on Rhys-Davies, Simmons and Neal.
Apparently in early 2005, SciFi Channel threatened to release the incriminating photos they have of John Rhys-Davies and said, "We need you to star in another SciFi Original." The scary thing is, he's actually pretty damn good in this movie. That's really saying something since this is a silly SciFi creature feature; you've gotta put some feeling into it in order to be well-acted. Unfortunately, nobody else does. It's your stereotypical "moster-run-amok" movie on a cruise ship. The cryptozoologist wants to keep the creature alive, the Navy SEALs think they have everything under control but they don't know what they're dealing with and they all end up dead, a girl jumps into the "movie sexpot" role as Rhys-Davies' daughter and the creature mauls about 100 or so shipmates. What this movie has going for it is, it's VERY fast-paced and lively; you're never bored or waiting for another kill. Other than that, though, it does nothing to distinguish itself, and it's silly that this thing crawls all over the ceilings and can't be wounded by Navy SEAL machine guns, but can be karate-kicked into submission by Rhys-Davies' daughter. Kinda went back and forth on giving this bad boy a 5, but for the above silliness I'm giving it a 4.
I found this movie to be a big disappointment, especially considering the cast. The characters are not believable, as are the ridiculous circumstances in which they find themselves. The only part of the film I enjoyed was when the most annoying characters finally get killed. The special effects consist mostly of scenes of gory dead or dying bodies. A typical unimaginative slasher flick.<br /><br />It's hard to believe, make that impossible to believe that a reclusive creature that sneaks up on goats in the middle of the night could be captured by a group of clumsy, noisy idiots. Equally impossible to believe is how they knew exactly were to find it, in spite of the fact the creature has evaded capture, or even photographing.<br /><br />The man that pulls off the impossible in capturing the Chupacabra alive is our one dimensional Dr. Pena (Giancarlo Esposito). The only thing Dr. Pena is more obsessed with than the creature is his dart gun. A dart gun that works were mere bullets fail.<br /><br />The captain of the ship (John Rhys-Davies) is introduced as a 'war veteran'. He employs his military prowess by having his men shoot at the creature, regardless of were on the ship they happen to be. The Navy Seals that show up from nowhere repeat the pattern of shooting at everything.<br /><br />Dylan Neal plays an insurance investigator brought on board the cruise ship to catch a thief. He spends most of the movie tagging along with whomever is trying to kill the creature at the moment.<br /><br />The creature doesn't even closely resemble a Chupacabra. It doesn't behave like one either. Instead of a small, shy, secretive animal that hunts by stealth at night, we get a bulletproof Freddy Kruger, killing everything in sight. A simple search on Google would have been very helpful to the writers and the special effects crew.
Without John Rhys-Davies, I have to admit that this would never even register on my movie-meter. But in spite of that single fact, this is not a bad little thriller, considering the low budget, the low quality effects, the stiff acting and the Sci Fi Channel aspects. The blood effects are very convincing, and the Chupacabra actually looks realistic... regardless of what you think a Chupacabra looks like this is one good-looking Chupacabra.<br /><br />Aside from the positives, this runs kind of like Kolchak: The Night Stalker (Darren McGavin, remember?) meets the Love Boat, but in spite of the ultimate cheese of this work, it still holds something resembling a plot, and actually attempts to gain your respect while making you laugh and roll your eyes.<br /><br />As conflicted as this work is, I still managed to find some enjoyment herein. Maybe you will, too.<br /><br />It rates a 5.2/10 on the Made 4 TV Scale.<br /><br />It rates a 4.1/10 on the Movie Scale from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.
In case you're wondering the buffoonish Loren C*****n of (Cryptozoology Inafame) is a living idiot and any information he's provided is to be tossed out with the trash. The guy simply is a news paper clipper.<br /><br />As for the story line it was was a predictable train wreck, the actors were mechanical, the lighting was awful, and the props/clothing was cheap.<br /><br />Bobcat Goldwait should have starred over the clowns in this film. I was physically ill after seeing ten minutes of it.<br /><br />There are insane/retarded monkeys still in charge of films I see.<br /><br />Dan
I didn't like this movie for so many reasons I can't even say then all.I thought it was poorly made just because of the whole story line. I mean who is gonna believe that they captured the chupacabra and it broke loose on a cruise liner. LAME!!! It was all right for a lame straight to video movie,but not worth spending money on it. I can't believe someone actually gave this movie a ten. But I guess there are people that like this movie. I gave this movie a 2 instead of a 1 just because it was about the chupacabra and it had the guy off of lord of the rings. If you want to see this movie I would stay home and wait till it comes on sci-fi channel. DON'T waste your money on seeing this movie. Believe me.
"Chupacabra Terror" is saved from a '1" by the presence of Canadian cutie Chelan Simmons as the heroine. She is a delight to watch, from the front, back and side. Otherwise, what you have here is your standard monster movie, playing like a low-budget, shipboard version of THE RELIC. John Rhys-Davies plays the captain of the ship on which the monster is being transported. And the very nonscary monster is simply a man in a suit. He does commit about 100 senseless, gory killings, at least, so the body count in this one is pretty awesome. Formulaic, to say the least. I love the moment when Simmons ominously tells someone what chupacabra stands for: Goat eater! Oooohhh...scary!
I watched this movie knowing that it would be awful, but damned if it didn't break new and revolutionary ground in the field of making fecal matter acceptable as entertainment. The plot is Deep Rising with cruddy effects and HORRID acting. The lines in this...well...wow there really is no way to put this movie down because i think the words have yet to be created in the English language. The sad part is that the filmmakers thought they were actually making something good. You won't believe your eyes when you see how many movies they ripped off without even trying to hide it. There are scenes/plot devices straight out of Deep Rising, Alien, Jurassic Park, Predator, Jeepers Creepers, and the list could go on forever. However, unlike any of those movies this one just falls short of celluloid stool. The most incredulous thing about this film, aside from the way it tries to be competent but fails, is that Gimli him-freakin'-self is in it. How the hell can they afford John Rhys-Davies but not decent effects, writing, actors, or sets. Really awful...and not the type of bad that's good.
Just been on sci-fi channel UK, 5th July, its was ****. Shame on JRD! May be he was bored one week ! He cant be skint after LOTR. I suppose he wasn't to blame. Mr Sheppird was. I turned off after 50 minutes, couldn't bear it. The cgi ship was bad and the creature looked like a large 5 foot bat. Who funded this project? I think the whole thing must have cost $250 bucks. Avoid at all costs, don't think about buying the DVD if they release one, I cant imagine they would spend dollars on producing one. Lets hope someone makes a decent Chupra film and a decent BIGFOOT movie. Sasquatch was okay, poor Lance. Its a shame a big studio and direct wont risk it, no more super hero films please!
Chupacabra Terror: 2/10: It was the Navy Seal team that tipped the balance from bad cheesy movie to just bad. Up till then there was a lot of bad movie baggage but the Seals… They are wearing bicycle helmets painted black. You know the ones with air holes that make every adult who wears them look like a complete tool. Of course the bass fishing boat they took to greet the cruise ship might have been another clue (it wouldn't make it across Tampa Bay let alone an ocean)… and their tactics wouldn't pass muster on an 3rd rate XBOX game.<br /><br />Does director John Shepphird have photos of John Rhys-Davies in a compromising position with a Hobbit? Because I can't think of any other reason he would be in this movie. The other actors have a great excuse. They are talentless unattractive hacks that couldn't get hired for an infomercial. The plot is that two men try to smuggle the mythical Chupacabra (Love saying that name) aboard a cruise ship and it gets loose.<br /><br />The sets consist of horrible cruise ship fakery (complete with airshafts the size of a small apartment), the monster killings are bottom of the barrel, there is no nudity, and a lot of really bad actors refuse to finish their death scenes. Of particular annoyance is a gigolo character from a 60's Doris Day movie.<br /><br />The cast bleeds ketchup while the Chupacabra bleeds day green glow in the dark blood. (Why a goat eating Mexican mammal would bleed anything but red is beyond me.)<br /><br />Every B movie has a tipping point that makes it a fun time (Hey it's a lesbian shower scene, OMG that guy just ate is own eyeballs) or not so fun (Did they just call those forty something overweight guys wearing coveralls and bicycle helmets Navy Seals?) Chupacabra falls into the not so fun B movie side with a thud.
Oh my God... where to begin? "Chupacabra Terror" is one of the worst B-Horror movies ever made. This crap makes "Demon Slayer" look like "The Exorcist". Special note: A Horror B-movie needs to have at least one sex scene. Don't expect even a hot girl in this one. With that inexcusable mistake, I should begin with the complete bash.<br /><br />First of all, if you're going to make a Horror monster movie, you should spend big part of the budget in creating a "cool" monster outfit. The monster in this movie looks like a $10 Halloween costume. There is no way the Chupacabras (yes, this is how it is spelled) looks menacing in the movie. It's an actor in a Halloween outfit please!! it looks so cheap it makes me mad. <br /><br />Second, the gore effects are the spinal cord of any direct to video monster Horror movie. Again, the producers decided not to spend for decent gore effects. The blood looks damn fake! Please take a close look at the guy that gets chopped in two. That's probably the best scene in the movie and it lasts for about ten seconds. The ending is a very poor scene that won't leave you satisfied. <br /><br />The acting is the last thing you should expect to have quality in these kind of movies; but in this movie it's beyond terrible. A cast of nobodies with no acting experience make the fool out of themselves for about 85 minutes. Special mention deserves a blonde guy with curly hair that tries to convince SWAT members that he is sick. The coughing he fakes is beyond laughable. He's probably the worst actor ever in a B-Horror movie, no kidding. Also, Captain Peña delivers a terrible performance in the first ten minutes of the flick. <br /><br />The TRUE story behind the Chupacabras is not even told. All you get to know is that the monster sucks goat's blood. Why bother with this piece of crap? Plesae, do not even watch it even if you have the chance. Not even if it airs on cable. <br /><br />I usually support low budget Horror movies because the people involved in them at least try to do something "different" than Hollywood but that doesn't means that Horror fans like me should accept this kind of garbage.
Excerpt from TV GUIDE:<br /><br />This week on THE LOVE BOAT, Captain Stubing has his hands full when a cryptozoologist gets on board with an unexpected cargo! Join the Captain, Isaac, Gopher and Julie in a fun-filled Halloween Special. Guest starring a guy in a really bad lizard suit as the Chupacabra.<br /><br />This is typical, lame Sci-Fi Channel cut-rate fare. The Captain of a cruise ship, played by the once respectable John Rhys-Davies, is in charge of a Carnival cruise along the coast of Mexico. His daughter is along for the ride, and she's earning her keep by being the ship's kickboxing instructor. Pay attention, everyone, that kickboxing will come in handy later! It should be noted that the Captain's daughter is pretty uncoordinated and painful to watch. It would have been good if she might have taken a couple of kickboxing classes before trying to play an instructor in a movie.<br /><br />Captain Stupid and his daughter join Mrs. Thurston Howell from Gilligan's Island, a kooky cryptozoologist and a dark, mysterious stranger on this 90- minute ride into boredom.<br /><br />That's right, I said cryptozoologist. He keeps mentioning that he brought some precious cargo on board that he needs to check out. Needless to say, the box contains a Chupacabra that somebody decides to let out. From this point on, a man in the rubber Chupacabra suit runs around the ship, killing people. Captain Stupid is powerless to stop it. He decides to call in the Marines but telling them that there are a bunch of terrorists on his ship.<br /><br />The Marines respond. They say all that Marine-speak stuff like "Hooya" and "Get Some". But those silly Marines are no match for a Chupacabra. They don't really tell anyone where they're going either, so there's no help in sight. I guess no one will really miss some lame battalion of lost Marines. But don't forget... Captain Stupid's daughter is, thankfully, a Kickboxing instructor. Yay for Little Stupid! She comes in right in the nick of time, she beats up the bloodthirsty Goat Sucker and saves the day. Chupacabra means Goat Sucker. Therefore, Chupacabras suck. But there's no way that Chupacabras suck anywhere near as much as this movie.
This is one of the most horrible 'scary' movies I've seen for awhile. I had to wonder if John Ryhs-Davies was just bored and wanted a distraction to do this movie. Th Chupacabra looked like a cross between the Sleetaks from Land of the Lost and the Creature from the Black Lagoon. Additionally they should have used someone who was a bit smaller as the Chupacabra of legend is much smaller. All in all however the movie was soo bad it was funny. Why couldn't bullets and electrocution stop the Chupacabra but the captain's kick-boxing daughter do OK?? Watch if you are sick at home or feeling down and need a good laugh.
This is another Sci-Fi channel original movie staring Rhys Davies where its hard to decide whats worse, the acting, or the writing/directing/producing (John Sheppherd helms all three.)Basic story: obsessed exobiologist captures chubacabra monster,smuggles it in a cargo container aboard a cruise ship it escapes and the blood bath begins. Clichéd sci fi cast of the sturdy captain with the beautiful daughter, handsome hero and mad scientist. Captian calls in a terrorist alert for the ship (since of course wouldn't believe a monster story.)No dramatic Helicopter drop of the Navy Seals here. Budget only allowed for entire force force of eight seals to arrive in a fiberglass fishing boat and ride a ships wench aboard. Puleeze. Also cheesy computer animation of the ship you could do better on your computer. I also loved when the Seal commander looking thru standard binoculars from ten miles away was able to see three people jump of the ship. If the Sci-Fi channel is going to continue original movies I hope they realize there audience is not kindergarten level and purchase better scripts and directors. If this were direct to video you would find it in the 99 cent bin.
First off let me say that this movie is nothing spectacular. The cast is like the saved by the bell reunion, the monster is a guy in a bad outfit and like always; the military is useless. It would seem that the more training you have and the bigger your gun, the more likely it is that you will die if you're in a cheesy low budget horror movie. Apparently the people in the movie business have little respect for the navy seals, the marines and ninjas, who get it the worst. The plot is thin, a nutcase cryptozoologist by the name of Dr. Peña traps the Chupacabra. He then smuggles it aboard a cruise ship where two members of the crew let it loose. You can do your taxes and watch this movie and not miss a beat. The most noteworthy part that really makes it all worthwhile revolves around the captains daughter. Toward the end she goes all martial arts on the monster and kicks his butt. Let me get this straight, the monster wipes out the entire navy seals unit, while they are using ARMOR PIERCING ammunition!! OK, its a movie it can happen right? But here comes the captains daughter who can't be older than 19 and kicks the crap out of the chupacabra with front and side kicks. It was hilarious. They should get a medal for coming up with that.
Horrible Script, which was apparently directed by...no one? The Marines can't fend off the monster with machine guns, however it backs off when a 15 year old girl karate kicks it in the face a few times. It's supposed to be a luxury liner, but the Fancy Dining Room looks like a Cafeteria in a hospital. It appears that they rented a High School for the summer, and pulled out chairs and stuff to decorate the set with. In the end shot, they are pulled from the water and into a boat and less than 3 seconds later they are apparently about two miles from the ship as it sinks.How do movies like this get made? I guess anyone can be in a film these days. Aaron James, NYC
Seriously, Sci-Fi needs to stop making movies. They're all horrible. And this one had John Rhys-Davies in it, and he couldn't help the movie. Dr. Pena (Giancarlo Esposito) captures the legendary goat eater of Mexico, the chupacabra, and brings it aboard a cruise ship captained by Captain Rudolf (John Rhys-Davies). The creature then escapes and starts killing crew and passengers. Captain Rudolf and the crew then go after the creature, guns ablazin'. But they can't stop it. So they call in the navy. They can't stop it either. Then the thing kills all 5 (or however many of them there are). Then the captain and his daughter along with some other guy, figure out how to kill it. Stay away from this movie. The chupacabra looks incredibly cheesy, the navy men shoot at the slightest movement,throw grenades on the ship, and the acting is horrible. 3/10.
It´s all my fault. They all told me I should avoid seeing this movie because I´m a huge fan of the old TV-series. They were right. While production values are good and the actors themselves (including "don´t look now") Julie Christie aren´t that bad, the whole film displays a cheekiness and self-conciousness that clearly is without any justification. A comparison between the Karloff "Mummy" and "The Mummy Returns 2000" comes to my mind. In fact Belphegore 2000 owes much more to the new Mummy films than to the old series. But then, scripting is terrible, speed there is none and sometimes the film is full of unintentional jokes (The first scene in the tomb looks plain stupid), with cats clearly being thrown when they´re supposed to jump (landing with their backfeet first). Belphegore moves around like a statue on wheels neither impressive nor scary and the psychological drama that unfolded in the old tv series when the heroine had to learn that she´s a villain is completely neglected. This movie is so WASTED (wasted money, wasted actors, wasted blueprint) that it hurts. It´s a below-par Mummy-rip off that´s only good for some laughs but has nothing at all to do with the Greco classic (She has a small role in this movie too - on the graveyard).
I saw this movie only because Sophie Marceau. However, her acting abilities it's no enough to salve this movie. Almost all cast don't play their character well, exception for Sophie and Frederic. The plot could give a rise a better movie if the right pieces was in the right places. I saw several good french movies but this one i don't like.
My blurred childhood memories have kept the echo of the cult serie of Belphégor in the French 60's... so I was eager to see the big screen adaptation. I should have kept my money and gone for a stroll in the Louvre.<br /><br />The idea of the scenario is still very apt and interesting (the fantom of Le Louvre) but the adaptation is ridiculous. The dialogues hesitate permanently between French irony and serious "American business" without achieving neither but not without sounding asinine.<br /><br />Acting leaves somehow to be desired and special effects are meager compared to what one could expect (low budget ?).<br /><br />What is left of all that. Not much outside a few good shots of Paris ... which is seldom a disappointment.<br /><br />Belphégor was worth more than that.<br /><br />
After putting a mummy in a local museum goes through the cat-scan, a metal object in it's brain reacts adversely to the procedure, thus freeing the spirit,or phantom if you will, of the mummy, Belphegor. Due to convenient circumstances, Lisa, who lives close to the museum finds herself possessed by the evil spirit. Soon enough she's stealing the museum's Egyptian treasures out from under their nose. Detective Verlac comes out of retirement to catch the supernatural thief.<br /><br />This is a serviceable enough, if you haven't seen any other incarnations of "Belphégor" before. If you have, I recommend skipping this particular version as it can't help but pale in comparison to the others despite the nice locals and scenery.It plays out like a (slightly) higher budgeted Sci-Fi Original film, and I don't really mean that as a compliment.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Sophie Marceau shows ass & side boob <br /><br />My Grade: C- <br /><br />DVD Extras: none
This was a pretty dull movie, actually. I think the problem with a French horror film, is that the French must be easy to scare or something, because this movie wasn't just that frightening. The special effects with the mummy's ghost looked like they didn't even belong in the film, as though someone put them in during post-production to spice them up, because the actors barely react to them.<br /><br />The plot just kind of meanders, which is the opposite of real storytelling. I guess this was based on a French TV series, where they had to distill it down to a two-hour movie.<br /><br />The plot is that a mummy is brought out of storage in the Louvre, which apparently has such weak security that this girl and her boyfriend can break into it multiple times. (So THAT'S how people keep stealing the Mona Lisa!) The boyfriend and the police officer from the 1960's version of this film get together and try to exorcise the demon.<br /><br />So I'm not sure if this mummy was supposed to be a bad guy or not. He kills two guards during the course of the movie, but he just wants to get to the afterlife.
The movie is apparently based on a popular French horror novel, by Arthur Bernède, from 1927. Not that I had ever heard about it before but Belphégor has been a popular subject before for movies and mini-series. The first movie got released way back in 1927, simultaneously with the novel. Arthur Bernède was a part of a group of writers who wrote and produced films and novels simultaneously. The character Belphégor is one of his best known creations.<br /><br />Once upon a time Sophie Marceau was a promising new European actress who would conquer Hollywood. She has now however dropped back again to movies like this one. Nothing wrong with playing in French quality movies, since it's the country she originates from but this movie is just ridicules.<br /><br />Problem is mostly that the movie relies on its special effects, to make the movie good and scary. Well, horror and special effects never really have been a good combination though, with some exceptions here and there. It's not like the special effects are bad in this one. Especially for an European movie it is simply good but it;s just misplaced, since the movie gave the feeling it could had easily done without its effect. It would had actually made the movie a better and scarier one to watch, no doubt about that really. <br /><br />The movie is just not ever tense or engaging to watch, also since the movie seems to have difficulties picking the right approach. At times the movie picks a light and just less serious approach, while at others it clearly attempts to be a good scary horror movie. This is mostly the reason why the movie just doesn't work out on any level. You can say that the movie is even a bit boring. It all also definitely gets worse toward the ending. After a while you just stop caring about this movie and its story and you start wishing you had decided to watch something else instead.<br /><br />The editing seems totally off. It uses too fast cuts, without much style, while the fast editing was obviously intended to give the movie a good, modern style. Also the time-line is just plain messed up at times, as if some sequences got edited in the wrong order.<br /><br />The musical score is also really annoying and at times doesn't even sounds to fit the movie, as if it all long got scored before the movie finished shooting. I can't believe composer Bruno Coulais is an Oscar nominated composer. The musical score is almost just as annoying as the movie its sound effects.<br /><br />The movie is filled with many characters, which you however just couldn't care less about. It also just seems very unlikely that a woman like Sophie Marceau would ever fall for a man such as Frédéric Diefenthal. The movie also features Julie Christie, which is nice but just doesn't add much to the movie.<br /><br />A horrible watch.<br /><br />3/10
OK, I admit that I still associate Sophie Marceau with La Boum. That was the main reason I went to see this film. But it was so boring, that I nearly felt asleep. Sorry, but her talents as actress are not very convincing. Furthermore, this film was presented as having outstanding special effects and CGI. Yeah, for a B-Movie it is not that bad. After having seen her in "Marquise" some years ago (also a very crappy film), I thought that she would play more convincingly. But La Boum (and may be the James Bond "the world is not enough") seem to be the only good films with her. Is it her "talent", does she have a bad taste when choosing her films or simply bad luck ?
A confusing, senseless script with plot holes the size of the Eiffell Tower. Terrible acting by all involved - no exception! Laughable and cheesy dialogue. Lame attempts at humor and romance. Extremely cheap special effects. All this makes for a giant mess of a film, you'd best avoid.
If you thought this is the french The Mummy and if you're hoping for another "Vidocq"...well look elsewhere. It does have the same kind of story like The Mummy concerning this book of the dead and a soul that needs to find 7 missing pieces that are scattered in the Louvre. I found the movie to be slightly entertaining, boring for the most part. The special effects aren't bad, but it's nothing spectacular as I was expecting big explosions and perhaps the eiffel tower crumbling down until I realized that those kind of scenes were in The Mummy and this is Belhpegor. Apparently based on a french cult tv series, Belphegor could have been so much better. I voted this film a 4/10 only for the beautiful Sophie Marceau...she must be almost 40 and she looks breathtaking!
"An evil spirit takes over a girl and diffuses panic in the Louvre museum" that's all I think, the summary of the movie and the movie itself ! Which I think it's one of the worst French or non French movies ever made in the history of cinema ! <br /><br />Nothing good in here except the music (of the credits only !), some tender moments of (Sophie Marceau), and of course the movie's finale shot.. Not because it ends ages of what seemed to be a countless years we had in watching THAT CRAP but also for being so perfect as one magical C.G.I work that was too good to be true in here ! <br /><br />By the way I want to change the plot summary to be like this "An evil spirit takes over some cinema artists to make lousy movies".. Just like this one for sure.
Even Sophie Marceau's presence and the few (very few) good French gags are unable to save this otherwise slow and boring movie! A disappointment. The story is weak and so is acting. This movie was advertised as the French version of The Mummy, but the Mummy has at least spectacular and enjoyable effects...
With all the potential for a good movie in its gorgeous settings, cast, and cinematography, this film's lacklustre script, leaden pace, and wooden performances produced only a major disappointment. With decent direction, editing, and musical score, this could have been a good movie, perhaps a dark version of Blake Edward's '10', instead of a weepy version of Ron Howard's 'Splash'.
I usually don't categorize a moving as boring. I am not big on action flicks and my senses do not need to be stimulated during a movie. In fact I enjoy a good rational logical dialogue and story line. Unfortunately, this movie has none of those characteristics. Diane Lane is the only saving grace in this movie and even her beauty cannot save it. Terrible overbearing music equals the moronic dialogue and acting. None of the actors actually connect with each other and as a result the movie does not connect with the audience. I guess the scenes where the townspeople are marching somewhere were suppose to add to the story but it seems that they were inserted just to fill space. The scenes appeared choppy and incoherent. There were some nice shots of the ocean and the beach which were beautiful.
I've seen soap operas more intelligent than this movie. Bad characters, bad story and bad acting. It would be a love story between a man and a mermaid. Really awful.
Julie Delpy stars in this horrific film about a sadistic relationship between a father and a daughter in France of the 14th Century. The film attempts to shatter the romantic chivalry image of the heroic medieval knight, by showing a rather dreary image of the period, defined by psychological dysfunction, and violence. <br /><br />The movie opens with a child, François, growing up in the shadow of the Hundred Years' War, told by his father to keep his mother safe and to wait for his return. François takes action when he discovers his mother with a lover in bed. François murders him in the name of defending his father's honour. Like father like son, François grows up, and leaves his family, also to go to the same war. This setting is somewhat of an explanation for the events to come, as on his way home, we already notice that something is wrong with François. The war has not done well with him, he has changed.<br /><br />The daughter, Béatrice de Cortemart (Delpy), awaits her beloved father, to return from captivity of the English. She is pure of heart and she was left to take care of the estate while her father was gone. In her father's absence, Béatrice needs to deal with financial difficulties, which strengthens Béatrice's hope that her father will return to save her. But, upon his return, she notices that he lost the will to enjoy life, and he tortures and humiliates everything around him, even his own daughter. From this points the film depicts various ways how François torments his family. Starting with humiliating his own son, and ending with the rape of his own daughter, Béatrice.<br /><br />Setting the film in the Middle Ages supposed to soften the blow, as the viewer may tell himself, that these kind of violent acts were held in difficult times. And indeed, many films on the topic of Incest, such as Tim Roth's "The War Zone (1999)" which are contemporary were more shocking because of that.<br /><br />Delpy appears in this film in several daring nude scenes. Indeed she appears to be angelic and beautiful.<br /><br />I was annoyed when I saw some animal torture scenes. I believe, and this is not confirmed, that some birds were killed for the making of this film, which really upsets me. The quality of a film drops when real violence is used towards animals. I would hope that this movie will be re-released without those cruelty scenes. Those scenes do not contribute much to the film storyline.<br /><br />Overall, the movie is too long. The script is problematic. We don't get to see François and Béatrice before the war, we don't really get the answer why is he changed to such extreme. I would have pass on this film, however, I have to mention a few scenes that made this film worth watching:<br /><br />* Scenes of a young child being able to murder in cold blood is truly shocking. I saw it first time on "City of God (2002)". Here, François, murders his mother's lover, while his father away at war. Excellent scene and very graphic. * The scenes from Béatrice being raped by her father till she finds out she is pregnant from him are truly shocking and interesting. The scene after the rape, where Delpy burns her cloths and cleans herself. She asks her brother to kick her in the stomach with hopes to have a miscarriage.<br /><br />* The brother humiliation scenes where the father dumps his son's head into the food - humiliating him then ranting about the war. Later, dressing his son with women's cloths.<br /><br />The film won the César (French Oscar) for Best Costume Design, I agree, the costumes here really make the film look authentic for the time period. The movie location is Château de Puivert, a real 12th century castle and a historical monument, located in Aude, South-Central France. Beautiful castle and mountain view, really helps you set into the period of this film. The film also nominated for 3 more César awards, but they were all snatched to the widely successful French film "Au revoir, les enfants" ("Goodbye, Children", 1998).<br /><br />--- Released as "Beatrice" in New York City, March 1987. Only to be screened in France on November 2007. Watched it on YES3 on 3 May 2007, 17:45, at work.
Very odd, this seems like a very average movie to me, if not slightly less. It is brilliantly shot but, together with the performance of R. Lee Ermey, that's about the only redeeming aspect I found in the movie which consists of two separate parts. <br /><br />The first part covers the basic marine-training which, watching it in 2007, comes off like something I've see a zillion times before in dozens of other movies and series and it's not particularly gripping. After 30 minutes I got the idea and wished they could just get on with it. The drill sergeant is about the only believable character while everyone else seem to be just cardboard cut-outs. The general acting is staggeringly haggard and the screenplay is devoid of anything interesting and consists of little more than the Sergeant shouting. The boys make it through their training and end up in Vietnam. Oh, and the fat weirdo shoots the sergeant (what a surprise..), probably in the mistaken belief that it was actually the scriptwriter. <br /><br />So, one hour passed and nothing worthy of note happened. Nothing...<br /><br />Then we have the Vietnam-part.<br /><br />It opens with a bunk-scene where reporters of Stars and Stripes are bored and are making small talk to pass the time. At first I thought they were re-enacting some movie scenes from old films, it sounded pretty bad. But no, they were actually muttering their script lines. Then the camp is besieged. Some 20 Vietcong enter the camp through the main gate. Too bad for them they are being dropped like flies because they simply walk into several manned gun posts with no means of cover. Is that normal behaviour? Were the Vietnamese all suicidal? If so, how come the US didn't win this war during the first two months of engagement? The rest of the movie continues with even more completely illogical war scenes. <br /><br />Furthermore, the whole plot is altogether pointless. None of the characters inspire much sympathy and the story is frankly rather uneventful. It shows little more other than some war-reporters hooking up with a platoon with some guys getting shot because they are disobedient morons and who also seem to think that somehow a gaping hole in a wall will protect you from bullets.<br /><br />What was the message of this movie..that people died in Vietnam? That people are animals in war situations? That if you want to dispose of really dumb people, you send them to a war zone? Or that somehow in Vietnam concrete can actually burn? <br /><br />I'm sorry, but if this movie deserves an 8.3, then Apocalypse Now deserves a 38.3<br /><br />5/10
It's hard to write 10 lines of copy about this so-so film noir. There just isn't a lot to say about it. It is not memorable enough to add to your collection, and I have a considerable amount of noirs.<br /><br />Paul Henreid plays a tough guy in here. He's not one I would think of to play this kind of role, but he's fine with it. He's a fine actor, anyway.<br /><br />Everything, including the cinematography, is okay-but-not memorable. One thing that stood out: the abrupt ending. That was a surprise. It was also a surprise to see this under the heading "Hollow Triumph." I've never seen the film called that. It's always been called "Scar."<br /><br />If you read about a "tense film noir," etc., don't believe it. "Tense" is not an accurate adjective for this film.
Let me start off by saying I love Japanese cinema, literature and culture generally. I've seen many Japanese movies and enjoyed them, but "Portrait of Hell" (aka Jigokuhen) makes itself ridiculous. The two characters who dominate the action -- the "evil lord" in his privileged bubble and the "stubborn, crazy artist" are pure types with zero subtlety or nuance, and all their actions emanate from cartoonish extremes. The film wants to show horrible scenes of violence and raw emotion but many of these scenes are so over the top they actually become laughable and the overall feeling is that of a made-for-TV movie that went off the rails. If this rarely screened movie falls in your hands or comes to your town, spare yourself and give it a pass.
So you have the spoiler warning---but I would argue that you cannot spoil what is already rotten. I assume they changed the name to "The Cavern" just in case "WIthIn"s reputation had preceded it.<br /><br />After paying the cable rental for this movie, I considered saving my household garbage for a month and mailing it to the writer/director. He had his garbage delivered to my home, so I thought it only fair that I return the favor.<br /><br />The movie opens with a suggestion that the scene is in the desert of Kazakhstan. I'm not sure why they picked Kazakhstan; maybe the writer is a fan of the Ali G Show. But they should have just started inside the cave, because the outside was obviously not Kazakhstan. It was the first clue that I was going to hate the movie.<br /><br />The movie has no redeeming qualities, save one: it's consistent. Everything is terrible. The writing, the directing, the acting, the cinematography---every aspect of this film is just bad. And I like bad films, goofy films, B-horror films . . . but this was just plain bad. And stupid. And hackneyed. And predictable. And boring.<br /><br />To get a feel for the film, go into your laundry room with 5 of your friends, and turn off the lights. Put a flashlight (turned on) into your dryer and start it tumbling. Now all of you start screaming and yelling at the top of your lungs. That's it.<br /><br />For a complete re-enactment, have 5 of the 6 people in the laundry room play dead on the floor. Toss Karo syrup on them. Turn the lights back on (stop the dryer). Now have a guy in a gorilla costume enter the room and rape the last person standing.<br /><br />FIN<br /><br />ADDENDUM: Reading through the other comments, many find it remarkable this movie was made on a low budget. That's not remarkable. Making a crap movie on a HUGE budget is remarkable (Waterworld). Making a good movie on a low budget is remarkable (like Blair Witch, which I thoroughly enjoyed). Making a crap movie on a low budget isn't a bit surprising, and you can expect more of the same if these people are still making movies, because I can't imagine anybody would hand them a pile of cash after watching this.<br /><br />Is the low budget an excuse for a terrible film? No, and it's certainly no reason to watch it. Would you eat a dog-dung sandwich just because it was cheap to make?<br /><br />The IMDb rating for this film over time will be interesting to watch. It should trend farther downward, but only if the number of unsuspecting innocent viewers can outpace the movie makers' ability to beg their personal friends to give it 10 stars.
My first post at the IMDb has to (unfortunately) be to warn others not to waste their time with The Cavern! There is no story, no character development, no scares, and no good lighting. It doesn't make any sense. If you enjoy bad acting, people running through small portions of caves, bouncing cameras posed at bad angles, and people screaming while the screen is in complete darkness, you'll love this movie. I could shut the lights off in my house and scream too, and I wouldn't have to pay for the rental. The only thing that scared me was that someone actually made a movie this awful.<br /><br />... one of the worst movies I've ever rented.
The movie goes something like this: Run around, run around, someone killed, lots of freaking out and then one of the group yells to "Pull it together" or "Just calm down!" Repeat this as many times as their are characters left. In between these things, you get to enjoy blank, black screen. These are not quick but rather several seconds long. I kept thinking what a waste of film every time it happened - yes, it does happen more than once if you can believe it.<br /><br />I notice other mentioned "Blair Witch: and it did remind me of that in the way the camera was bouncy. However, this movie takes that to the extreme. Every single time the characters move the camera is bouncing. Sometimes so much that you can't make heads or tales as to what you are looking at. That brings us to lighting. Way too dark in some areas. I get that they are trying to make us feel like we are in a cave, but Helllloo... I'm watching a movie here, it would be nice to be able to see.<br /><br />Then there is the ending. I actually blurted out loud, "Are you kidding me?!" (I was watching alone too). Dumb, dumb. I think the ending was purely the effort of the people who made this disaster to shock us after so much time of boredom with a so called "twist". At this point of the movie you could have seen the "monster" picking his nose and it would be considered a "twist". Truly horrible. You have been warned.
Possibly the worst movie I ever saw. The person who shot this movie probably never learned not to film directly into a shining light. You can't see anything in this movie. It is way to dark. The parts where you can see something the camera is directed straight at a light source so you get big lens flares. So you still can't see. This movie should have been a radio play or something. Some parts of the movie are actually edited upside-down for some kind of crap effect. Low budget movies can be done so much better then this. And low budget is no excuse for this. An editor should have said something when he started editing and saw that you couldn't see anything. Maybe the makers should have spend some of their low budget on a preview monitor so they could see what they shot. The only good thing about this movie being so dark is that you can't see the awful acting. It also covers up the crappy sfx. People at beginner film schools make better movies then this. Movies shot with handy cams look better then this.
The Cavern: 2 out of 10: Blair Witch meets The Cave and gives me a headache.<br /><br />I have something to ask all film schools, could you please teach future directors how to hold a camera steady. Flailing the camera around like Aunt Betty with 12 drinks is headache inducing.<br /><br />Also film is primarily a visual medium directors may want to point their camera's in the general direction of the action. Film also requires light to work. Perhaps a light source should be employed so one can see the action on the screen. I know it is a cave movie but there is absolutely nothing frightening about watching pitch blackness for minutes at a time.<br /><br />For that matter showing the film upside down doesn't indicate confusion on screen it indicates confusion in the editing booth.<br /><br />A last note to the director I'm sure there was a good reason to have a horribly fake CGI campfire. I honestly can't for the life of me think of one.<br /><br />Now on to the screenwriter. Try to make at least one character likable. I'd prefer two or more but one decent person I can root for or care about might help. Also if you are going to have flashbacks make them relevant to the story.<br /><br />If you are going to have a surprise ending it is probably best if it doesn't contradict every single thing that comes before it. And try adding some fancy spelunking terms to a cave movie. You might have wanted to start with spelunking.<br /><br />The Cavern is a pretty bad film, poorly shot with a confusing, improbable and anticlimactic ending.
When I checked out the review for this film after I'd watched it, I was surprised that there were people giving it good ratings.<br /><br />This is a film of bad camera-work. Everything 'frightening' happens off screen, usually accompanied with a closeup of someone yelling "Did you see/hear that?" Well, no, we didn't see that! We can't! And when there weren't any close-ups, the camera was doing something weird like rotating upside down, or shaking back and forth really, really quickly, to either convey action or to make us physically sick.<br /><br />The characters were unlikeable because every two minutes, they started screaming the same thing over and over again. I don't care if that's what it would 'really' be like, I did not rent a scary movie to see reasonable things! I expect unreasonable things, like aliens, demons, or good acting! They were stupid, too- Let's go have intimate relations in a cave! With all of our clothes on! Speaking of which, the ending somewhat contradicts what Domingo said immediately before he died. This bugged me a bit, though not nearly as much as the fact that the ending resulted in a... serious invasion of one girl's privacy.<br /><br />No plot, no climax, no good acting, terrible camera-work. What's left? Oh, right. The ending may have had a 'twist' but generally with horror movies, the twist at the end actually has understandable relevance to what occurred during the film. Sixth Sense does- it explains a lot. Hide and Seek did, too. But the Cavern had a lame twist that served as an 'explanation', if you could call it that as it doesn't. Explain. Anything.<br /><br />Don't see it. Please.
Sometimes you ignore that little voice in your head that says "stay away from this movie". We should all pay more attention to that little voice. This may be the worst movie I've ever had the non-pleasure of sitting through, or it may be the best reason to remember that your DVD player has a fast-forward button. Made on a budget somewhere in the vicinity of $1.99, "The Cavern" is obviously a quick cheapie made to piggyback on the current bunch of scary cave-lots of darkness-claustrophobic spelunkers-unknown menace flicks like "The Cave" and "The Descent". A few years back there was similar rash of look-alike movies that used sea-going vessels instead of caves. All had scary boats/submarines-lots of darkness-claustrophobic adventurers-unknown menaces...same old same old. "The Cavern" is really "The Blair Witch Project" only this time we're lost under the earth and not lost on top of it. Throw in a flashlight with failing batteries, a cow skull with fangs glued on it for a monster, and one of the stupidest "twist" climaxes ever put on film. That being said, let me urge you to listen to me, the little voice in your head. I'm your friend. I want you to have a happy life. Stay away from this movie.
A group of cavers with a sad history take an author on a 'hairy' adventure through an uncharted cave in Kazakhstan. In these times of remakes and sequels and film companies trying to cash in on any winning combination of cinematic components, The Cavern has only one relatively different twist on the previous eight cave movies over the last few years, and that twist seems to be taken from an X-File. I like to give every film the benefit of the doubt, but there were just too many little annoyances for me here. The camera work can give you a headache as they seem to constantly confuse which way is up. Not being a caver, it doesn't really matter to me whether the filming was realistic. There is entirely too much unnecessary PANNICK from supposedly experienced cavers, by the last half you're saying out loud one of two things – oh just shut up and concentrate on saving yourselves, or I hope you all die by the end. It must have been very tiring for these decent actors to make this film. A moderate amount of gore and nothing special in the dialog or characters. While you're pretty confident you know what's going on by the end, the last five minutes explain all the details. But I would have had a better opinion of the movie if they would have left the last minute on the cutting room floor. It just wasn't necessary. I suggest you hit eject immediately after your suspicions are confirmed and save yourself the setup for the sequel. I've long thought that the film industry should share a modified restaurant industry's checkout scheme. You pay for the materials to make the film before you go in, but any profits for the film come from the tips you give when you leave the cinema. I can't blame what I don't like about this film on its low budget.
First let me say that those of you that voted it "10" are only kidding yourselves and trying to get the votes to a respectable level... something that this movie doesn't deserve. (The only movies deserving a 10 IMO are the classics... Godfather, Shawshank, etc. Look at the top rated films of all time for the complete list.) I also noticed that many people gave this a positive vote for being so realistic as far as what it's like inside a cave. Though I would have to agree with them on the surroundings, they simply aren't rating the movie as a whole... they are infatuated by the surroundings but miss the overall review. That would be like me voting a 10 for the movie "From Justin to Kelly" because I think that the beach scenes remind me of what it's like in the Florida Keys... though that may be true, it does not merit the film getting a 10 because the movie as a whole was rancid.<br /><br />I wish I could tell you that something saved this movie, as usually if one thing stinks in a horror flick, something else picks up or makes up for the weakness. (Ex. - Bad actors are overshadowed by a great plot and/or great camera work and scenery.) We started the DVD and it all started out fairly normal. We jokingly started to pick out who would be the first to die... after a brief bit of driving and hiking, they set up camp for the night. At that moment, I keyed in on some things which really made me tune out the rest of the film. Two main problems I had: Bad effects and an even worse story line. The first thing that we all noticed was that the campfires weren't real... you can plainly see the "cgi" or fake flames that they were all sitting at. For a horror film to have such a blatant effect flaw should have told me what I was in for the next hour.<br /><br />Only minutes later, I was shown how poorly written this film was. I don't remember exactly how they arrived at the point, but basically, we find out that the "token Nerd" is writing a book about exploring caves, etc. Another guy in the group wants to tell a story about an experience, but hesitates stating "I don't want this story in your book." The author convinces and coaxes the other that he will not put the story in his book and that he can trust him. (A direct quote: "If I tell you the story, you will definitely want it in your book.") At this point, I was fully expecting a nice 5+ minute story, complete with flashbacks and heartfelt acting. What I got was a short, poorly told (and acted) statement. I say statement because what he ended up telling was about 10 seconds and 5 sentences. I don't remember the exact quotes, but basically he says: "We were in a cave, the cave flooded, a girl died as our friend watched her drown." You may think I am over exaggerating and being really critical, but that isn't far off from a direct quote, line for line, from the movie scene.<br /><br />Over the next 50 minutes or so, the film takes place in the cave and though the lighting is what I would imagine to be like in a cave, I could have really done without the really fuzzy/hazy look to the film, and the camera shaking is just one that I didn't go for. (I have really good vision, and after watching the main parts of the film, I felt like I was legally blind.) I was emotionally detached from this movie, therefore the parts that probably should have been scary weren't. Maybe had I been able to overlook the very slow and poorly acted start to this film, I would have at least been scared, but I don't remember anyone in the dark room even twitching at any of the "action" scenes.<br /><br />The last scene was probably one I will never forget, and that isn't a good thing. Basically, two women are trapped in a room naked. The "monster" comes in to attack/kill the women... he is stopped when he sees a picture of a little boy. A flashback occurs where we find out that the "monster" was injured as a little boy, and spent his entire life in the cave. Cut back to present time, and he takes his "mask" (a large skeleton with what appears to be a deerskin shirt). He glances at the picture and the two women appear to have found the caveman's weakness/soft spot. At that point, he stabs and kills one girl, then proceeds to rape the other woman, rather graphically. After about 30 seconds of watching the camera jiggle and shake as he rapes her, roll the credits, movie's over.<br /><br />Honestly, if I had to do it all over and I wasted money on renting this movie, I could have saved myself an hour and watch the first scene and last scene of this film and still left with the same thoughts about it that I have now.<br /><br />Those of you comparing this to Blair Witch are way off... if any of you had read up on how the director and writer ran the filming of Blair would realize how revolutionary it was... handing each cast member a script the day/night of filming without the other cast members knowing what the other actor was doing is genius.<br /><br />If IMDb would let me, it would get a negative score... I don't understand how anyone in their right mind can recommend this movie.
I can't say if "The Cavern" is a ripoff of "The Cave" because I haven't seen that. I've seen "The Descent" and that's not terrible but it is very hard to watch and so is this one. Hard to watch, as in, there's very little light and lots of fast motion so you're hard pressed to say what you're looking at. There are times when I guess, you're supposed to be scared, judging from the music, but scared of what? Bad camera work? Poor lighting? If that's the case than this should be the scariest movie made. The story is that a bunch of cave explorers go to a cave in Kazakhstan (home of Borat) and make their descent, but something is (of course) in there with them. And what is it? One guy says it's a wolf/bear hybrid, that is, just before he gets ripped apart, but whatever it is, you can't see it. And just when you think (or hope) the film is ending, since the screen goes dark for a bit, you see the two remaining cavers (the two women) wake up somewhere in Betty and Wilma attire and start trying to find their way out of wherever they are. They do drink some water and start eating SOMETHING until they figure out what it is and start puking....and then the mystery of what's in the cave appears, and you'll just be astounded. Maybe, maybe not. Dumb dumb dumb....I think I'm pretty well done with cave movies at this point, 2 out of 10.
Horror films are a curious thing, sometimes they manage to stumble across a formula that works very well, sometimes they try valiantly to tell a worthy story despite time and budget problems, sometimes they're so bad they're actually kinda fun...and sometimes they're "The Cavern".<br /><br />A good horror/suspense film should contain vagaries that keep you guessing, they should allow you to be interested in the characters and their motivations so that you actually have some sort of reaction when they die. However, The Cavern chooses instead to introduce elements that work at first, only to be negated by it's own lackluster storytelling.<br /><br />All the characters are completely forgettable and any actual back story that might make any of them even remotely interesting is blurted out within a 30 second monologue, making it impossible to do anything more than laugh as characters are picked off almost at random and on more than one occasion in the least possibly frightening way.<br /><br />(To spoil a scene a bit, one victim is taken during a complete blackout which might have been a little frightening if the sound effect used to indicate his killing wasn't reminiscent of stirring a pot of too thick Macaroni and Cheese) Add to this formula the camera that work makes me think the director saw one too many Nine Inch Nails videos and an ending which in an attempt to be shocking serves almost no purpose but to annoy and confuse the viewer and you have an almost completely unwatchable horror film that fails on every level.<br /><br />I'll be honest with you, if you want a claustrophobic caving horror movie go watch "The Descent", and I feel weird saying that because I didn't particularly enjoy that movie either.
I love movies...and rarely do I see a movie that I hate...but this was the worst movie I have ever seen, or at least close to it. Any movie that ends with a rape scene is awful. Hands down... I cant believe I wasted 2 hours of my life watching this movie. I'm really mad, I want my money back and my time back. AWFUL! Do not go to see it, the cinematography is awful, the plot is awful, the ending is awful. I didn't know what was going on during half the movie cause I could not see it(and I was watching on a very nice, and big, TV) Rent saw, the hills have eyes, or house of wax...any of those are better if u want something scary.
The person who wrote the summary and rave review for this film is either an idiot or an avid fan of shitty movies. From the beginning, this just spoke of cheap-ass ripoff of "The Descent", a far superior film that definitely does NOT start off slow.<br /><br />From the very first moments of "The Cavern", I was amazed at how bad it was, how uninspired and unoriginal it was, how badly written, badly acted and badly directed it was. This is without a doubt one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life, and that's saying a lot, considering I recently suffered through "Pulse". I can't believe this piece of garbage actually won awards, which just goes to show the quality of marijuana and other illegal drugs is much better in Australia and other countries than in the U.S.<br /><br />The scenes where the group is running from the "creature" are badly directed, especially the retarded "upside-down-camera", intended to show disorientation, but only coming off as a cheap effect which a first-year film student would be suitably berated for by their teacher.<br /><br />Sadly, this "director" will probably go on to make other movies, more than likely of the same low quality as this "film", since I'm sure he hasn't learned from his mistakes, which on this picture were excessive.<br /><br />If I had my way, the entire cast and crew would be sent up the river for life without parole. This film is a crime against humanity.
If it is true that the movie only cost 150K to make, it explains a lot. But, it doesn't explain why it has no real plot. Midway through the movie I honestly didn't care if they made it out or not. I just wanted to finish the movie and go to bed. The ending was really dumb and made me wish I would have just shut the movie off and gone to bed early. Pretty good acting considering there wasn't much to go with. If you enjoy really bad movies with horrible lighting (even for a cave)and bad camera work (even for a cave)... then you'll really like this movie. By the way, if the boy's plane crashed in 1980 when he was about 10 years old or so, how could he have forgotten how to speak, and built up so much anger?? Wouldn't he have wanted to get help from the first people he had seen even if it was 14 years later?
What a shocker. For starters, I couldn't stand the constant screaming and noisy panicking all the time. It didn't make me scared, horrified, or make me sympathetic towards the characters; it was simply annoying. The jerky camera movements were also annoying. The plot was the same as pretty much every other cheap horror. There was a few pathetic attempts to give the characters some depth, but it didn't really work into the rest of the plot. And then there's the ending. I'm still not really sure what to make of it. I guess it was supposed to be clever twist, then shed some light on the situation, but it was just stupid.<br /><br />The case had a couple of those little award winner/nominations symbols on it, so I figured it couldn't be too bad. I was wrong. If you see it, you should probably just leave it on the shelf.
I consented to watching this movie with a group of friends despite my extreme dislike for horror movies. However, it was not the shock of a monster that turned me off this movie, it was the horrendous acting and absolutely disgusting ending. Within, or the Cavern, has no redeeming qualities- it is poorly made, laughably scripted, sickeningly bloody and the inclusion of the gratuitous final scene repulses me. No, it is not my dislike for horror movies that makes me hate this film-I've seen such wonderful teen horrors as "House of Wax", its the fact that the film leaves you with the awful understanding that by renting the video, you are supporting the creators of Within
If I could give this excuse for a film a 0 or negative rating I would. I was stupid enough to pick this DVD up in the shop, read the blurb and think, that sounds quite good, I'll spend £10 and buy it. all I got at the end of it was a £10 coaster. Absolutely awful, I don't even know where to begin. I have no idea why anyone has given this more than 2 stars because I can't think of one good thing to say about it. <br /><br />The plot is basically, 7 people go into an unexplored cave, one of them is a reporter. no-one else knows they are there. When they get in the cave, they can't get out and they get killed off one by one by a monster. There turns out to be no reason for the reporter. One of the characters has some past demons where his ex girlfriend drowns in a cave 2 years ago... there seems to be no relevance or reason for that either, just a rubbish attempt at character building I assume? Anyway, The monster turns out to be a guy that wandered into the cave as a normal little kid and has lived in there all his life. This for no reason makes him superhuman, able to glow, see in the dark, take bullets, breathe underwater, be in 2 places at once and have insane strength (able to move boulders, carry grown men as dead weight, etc). <br /><br />In the end scene there are 2 women left alive, they wake up naked, just covered in some bit of rug or something. They then find a picture of a kid. The Monster then bursts in the door, wrapped in a carpet with some sort of animal skull over his head (says in the directors commentary it was a crow's skull, if so that would be the frekin biggest crow I have seen in my life) and quite literally goes "Raaahhh" like a kiddie on Halloween. I was watching it with my boyfriend and at that point he literally burst out laughing. The guy then sees a picture of himself as a kid and has a flashback to him sitting under a tree with his face all burnt and then getting up and wandering into the cave. That is the extent of the back story to why he mutilates people and it leaves you feeling a bit cheated for a story. The monster then kills one of the women and brutally rapes the other one, cut to end credits. I know the rape scene was designed to be shocking, but as a woman it just made me feel quite ill and was the thing that affected me the most in the whole film. He could have killed her and cut her into pieces and ate her and it would have been less horrific than the rape scene.<br /><br />There are so many things that are left unanswered at the end. Aside from all this, the scenes where there was minutes at a time of just black and nothing else was annoying and the constant nauseating camera angles where it's all upside down and you can't see what's going on wound me up so much at one point I almost turned it off. An absolutely terrible film. You might as well get the money you were going to spend on it and set fire to it, it would be money better spent, as like some clever person posting above me said, once you've watched it, you can't un watch it.
I have recently seen a string of caving movies and this film managed to cobble together all the worst aspects of this kind of film. You get very little appreciation for the caving surrounds or the monster that they face, while the characters are clichéd (spiritual guy, leader with tragedy in recent past etc) and the ending was just weak. It really annoyed me that the director kept shaking the camera or showing almost total darkness to create atmosphere. I have read that this movie gave a real representation of caving and yeah, I imagine that caves are dark. Showing near total blackness for half the film really brought that home. I quite enjoyed "the descent" which, for my money had better acting, showed more tight caving situations, better monsters and had a good ending.<br /><br />****spoiler******<br /><br />The monster turns out to be some guy whose plane crashed and parents were killed, leaving him to grow up in the caves. He seems to have developed super strength and speed, but why is never addressed - maybe the same force that drained their torch batteries caused this but during the film whenever someone is killed you get the impression of something large with claws that tears up each victim (see how much blood splatters the walls!) but in the end its just some dude with a fur draped over him and a mask? I would be willing to overlook this if great heights of suspense were reached but this was hardly the case. Then he starts raping the last remaining caver and roll credits... Almost absurdly bad I thought. Sometimes a film is soo bad you can appreciate it and maybe have a laugh, but this films fails to take itself lightly as well. <br /><br />You watched it, you can't unwatch it!
I am an avid movie watcher and I enjoy a wide variety of films. However, I found NO enjoyment in this movie. It is probably the worst movie I have ever seen. I do not feel that it had much of a storyline, the characters were not likable and the relationship between the characters was dysfunctional at best, and the ending only made me dislike the movie more. It is definitely not in the same category as "The Cave" which was, in my opinion, the best cave movie ever made. Even "The Descent" was better than this movie.<br /><br />It was a waste of the $3.79 rental fee and of my time to watch this. Do yourself a favor and steer clear of this one.
I haven't laughed this much in a long time - or seen a film so ineptly made! Talk about so bad it made me laugh!<br /><br />Firstly, I estimate that for about 40 percent of the film's length, I couldn't tell what was happening, or indeed even what I was seeing. I can only describe the camera work as frenetic meets LSD. There are whole segments, minutes long, where all you can see are blurred flashes and fragments of cave wall, people and various other unidentifiable stuff. I spent half the film asking my teenage daughters what was happening, but they couldn't follow it any better than me.<br /><br />Then there are the "black" moments, when in an effort to scare us (woooooooo) everyone's lights go out and the screen turns pitch black - and I don't just mean for a few seconds. I think the longest lasted almost two minutes. I guess blank film is one way to keep costs down...<br /><br />I suspect the "director" had recently read a book on all the "must-do's" to make a scary movie, and decided to throw them all in - about 20 times each.<br /><br />There are three good things about this film: 1/ It's short at 90 minutes (though still an hour and a half too long!) 2/ All the characters die (after all, it's impossible to care about any of them). 3/ There was one genuinely good scene - when the group are looking up the shaft they came down, after discovering their rope fallen to the bottom (saw THAT coming), a large boulder is pushed across the opening, sealing them in. I WASN'T expecting that, and it was genuinely chilling.<br /><br />And what's with the early campfire scenes with the shot, after shot, after shot panning from behind the camp lights. I swear the director used almost the same shot about 20 times in 5 minutes.<br /><br />And I'm positive that after the first kill, the EXACT same footage of blood on the cave floor is used twice in about 90 seconds.<br /><br />All in all, a CRAP piece of film making. I'll watch almost anything, but this is close to where I'd draw the line.
Monday, October 02, 2006 So I got together with my dad as I always do. We ordered some Japanese take-out, turned off the lights and pushed play. I'm an avid fan of horror movies. However, The Cavern released on DVD this October was most certainly a let down. It seemed promising, meeting all the standard requirements of any horror movie machine: drawn out beginning with antagonistic character present, a cannot be omitted sex scene, and the all too familiar pre-spook (when they spook you unexpectedly but it turns out to be the idiot buddy). Then finally when it got down to the nitty gritty, I was ready for some real gore action. The director, I admit was keen. Of course you would have to be to fill in an entire 81 minutes with people running back and forth in a space about 10ft wide. It all begins when some college bound "cavers" get together for yet another cave dive. They all seem like seasoned pros, very serious and spiritual about the whole cave experience. This time they bring a new-by along, some annoying photographer too blinded by his National Geographic cover to understand the full dangers of cave diving. As they descend deep into what they call "Hell Pit" they soon realize that they are not alone in the chasm of death. I will politely leave out any spoilers if you are naive enough to not heed my advice and avoid wasting your time. Although the atmosphere and background music was spooky; and there was sure a lot of blood and gore, when the moments approached to witness some actual dismemberment it was more like watching porn without the full frontal. The camera work was purposefully dark and sketchy. I guess the director used it for effect. I suppose the thing I like most about the movie were the moving characters. They deserved Acadamy Awards for those touching bickering scenes. I almost shed a tear when they finally "got it"... A tear for joy! If you like dry horror, soft porn, and you hated Braveheart. Then this is the right movie for your next Saturday night.
There seems to have been some money behind this film, but it would be impossible to imagine a film this badly planned and executed if I hadn't actually started watching it.<br /><br />To begin with, once we are in the cavern with the characters (the usual young adult stereotypes we've been meeting in horror films since the early '80s), the film is shot almost entirely in close-up. Since the actors are wearing helmet lights, this means all we see are glaring lights alternating with utter darkness - we never get to see what the characters see; so when they shout out "Look there!" we are left to beg "What?! Where?!". Ultimately the film has a nauseating, confusing strobe-light effect, with no sense to it until we get to the end.<br /><br />And I won't tell you what 'the end' means - but you will recognize it if you've ever seen the old early '60s Arch Hall laugh fest"Eegah!" with Richard Kiel.<br /><br />But what crazy person would ever want to make a variation on a theme like "Eegah!"'s, long remembered as one of the worst films ever made?! But that's what we have here, folks. Except that, unlike "Eegah!", "The Cavern" is not anyone's idea of goofy fun. It is unwatchable. (I ran it at x2 the normal speed, just to get it over with, hoping I would actually be able to see something by the end of the film; but when I did, it was just stupid.) This film did provide me with one satisfying moment, though; since it only cost a couple bucks, after I got it out of the DVD player, I was able to smash it with my own hands - what a relief!
when i sat down to watch this movie i thought that it might be slightly good. but no. it was a OK film, not good, but not bad for most of it but then you get to the ending and it losses all credibility. they should have just left then dead. they did not leave the last bit it did not make any sense. if they had something at they beginning about a plane crash yeah but we didn't so it didn't work. the first bit is OK and i give them credit for that but the rest is just plane bad and unnecessary if you are thinking about going and watching this movie DON"T it is awful go and rent something that is actually worth watching. i give it 2/10
This must be one of the worse movies that I have ever seen. On a par with Blair Witch and just as annoying. The flashing helmet lights made things difficult to see and I think that epileptics should take heed as there are moments with strobing that makes this movie even more annoying. I think if they had been quieter they might have found a way out. Then when you think the geek might come up trumps even he resorts to a nervous breakdown. Oh and when is the guy who is having sex realise that when the girl says she can hear something. She Can Really Hear Something. One of these guys must have at least seen Scream (where they draw your attention to such things) It is also a big let-down when a premise offers so much promise and then someone writes the script. So sorry folks I got this on weekly at the video shop and I would still like my money back.
A virtual carbon copy of The Cave save for a fewer lower budget effects and a slightly different plot. I knew the movie was going downhill when I saw the fake campfire flikering lights clearly reflected in a facial close up of one of the actors. The conflicts between characters and subplots seemed to serve no purpose whatsoever, and added nothing to the film except fewer moments of silence. The acting wasn't as bad as the typical B movie, and there was some believability in their fear, but as professional cavers, they seem to be too psychologically unstable for their chosen profession. Overall not worth wasting $4.50 to rent.
If you are a bit masochistic and like to waste some time you should try this one. I wasted enough time myself watching it, so I will waste no more explaining why it is so awful. Be warned!!! Oh, I see that I have to fill 10 lines or more. Here we go: every year or so some people think it is fun to start shooting a low budget film about the scary monsters of the underground, that hopefully will prove to be some sort of a hit. The Cavern is one of those. I didn't have high expectations about this one but the acting is so bad and the production so poor that I'm seriously thinking of asking for a refund. Phewww ... one more line about a useless movie ... Oh, I'm done.
What a shocker. For starters, I couldn't stand the constant screaming and noisy panicking all the time. It didn't make me scared, horrified, or make me sympathetic towards the characters; it was simply annoying. The jerky camera movements were also annoying. The plot was the same as pretty much every other cheap horror. There was a few pathetic attempts to give the characters some depth, but it didn't really work into the rest of the plot. And then there's the ending. I'm still not really sure what to make of it. I guess it was supposed to be clever twist, then shed some light on the situation, but it was just stupid.<br /><br />The case had a couple of those little award winner/nominations symbols on it, so I figured it couldn't be too bad. I was wrong. If you see it, you should probably just leave it on the shelf.
Audio:<br /><br />Seriously I've never seen a movie with worse audio. There are scenes where people are walking through the grass, and you can hardly hear them over their footsteps. They must be miking their feet. <br /><br />You know how in some movies they forget a line, so they have to dub it in on a shot of the back of someone's head. Here the editors were not that clever. There is actually a scene where Shannon Tweed's character says her line without moving her lips at all!<br /><br />I'm pretty sure for their background sound they played effects loops live while shooting, because in a lot of scenes the sound effects will either be different or be absent whenever the camera changes angles.<br /><br />I could write a lot more on how bad the audio is in this movie.<br /><br />Other Nuggets:<br /><br />In this movie they probably consider the opening credits to be special effects because they seemed so challenging to produce. The main title and the first few names in the opening credits are in white text over a white sky, and they wobble as if they were carefully hand painted on each frame.<br /><br />The reuse of extras in this movie is incredible. There are about 15 rebels in the cast, and yet in any given battle thirty or more of them will be killed. If only the film were high enough quality to distinguish which ones were dying over and over.<br /><br />It's also interesting to note that the rebels are usually killed by explosions that are always between 30 and 200 feet away. There is one scene one scene when some of the rebels are running out of their huts in the rebel base, and one huts shakes as the rebel exits the door. It makes you wonder if the hut will last long enough to encounter the inevitable explosion.<br /><br />There is a blue helicopter that looks as menacing as a pair of running shorts, but somehow is equipped with an infinite supply of missiles. When they show the missiles being shot out of the helicopter's missile bays, the often shoot of in unpredictable directions very closely resembling large bottle rockets. They still manage to hit their targets with ease, which as noted above is always a very safe distance away from the rebels they kill. Note the recycled footage of the pilot pressing the LIVE button to fire the missiles (because it's printed vertically, the first few times we saw it, we read it as the "EVIL" button).<br /><br />Notice how the grenade launcher they use, produces identical explosions to those that are created by the helicopter missiles. It's also fun in many scenes how the actor in the foreground is shooting in a completely different direction than the group of enemy soldiers that he is killing. And frequently, characters shoot a disproportionate number of bullets to the soldiers who are killed (like when a short burst fire kills a large group of enemies).<br /><br />Yes this movie is very very very bad. The plot was thought out almost as well as a 5 year old's soccer game, and the editing is the worst I've ever seen. But honestly, sometimes it's fun spend 90 minutes laughing at a group of adults who sincerely took part in such a terrible movie.
In yet another case of misleading marketing, this film is included in a 10-movie DVD set called "Women Who Kick Butt", but even in its original cover it seems to promise Shannon Tweed in an action role. Actually, during most of the movie Tweed plays the typical whiny and prissy female character who has to be rescued by the male lead, and even when she's trained in jungle warfare she still has to be dragged around by him! There is one female rebel who is a stronger character, but she's mostly kept in the margins of the movie. The male lead is Reb Brown, and he does have some (unintentionally, I think) funny moments (like when he gets electrocuted). The action scenes are badly directed and poorly acted: some of the stuntmen needed a few lessons on "how to get shot and die convincingly". I suppose if you're in the right mood you can find some things in "Firing Line" to laugh at (at one point, we can hear Tweed speaking but her lips are not moving!), but mostly I was just bored. (*)
Found this film for one dollar ($1.00) and the film was a complete waste of time. Reb Brown,(Mark Hardin), played a military adviser in South America and was successful in capturing the leader of rebel soldiers operating out of the dense jungles. However, Mark joins the opposite side after some horrible tortures were inflicted or women and men. In one scene as Mark is having a drink in a hotel bar, his eyes catch the glimpse of sexy long legs Sandra Spencer (Shannon Tweed),"Dead Sexy",01. Mark and Sandra have the extreme hots for each other and even make passionate love on some very hard rocks, with no time for the comforts of a bed. This is a horrible film and not worth wasting the time to even look at IT.
Bottom-of-the-barrel stinker is so bad it's beyond funny. The "plot" is about an American mercenary, played by Reb Brown (in the film he's called a "military adviser" but it's not really clear if he's in the American military or not), helping the army of a Latin-American country fight guerrillas who winds up joining the guerrillas when the government turns on him, imprisons and tortures him. Shannon Tweed is a "sports equipment saleswoman" he picks up in a bar who gets caught up in all the intrigue. That description actually makes the movie sound better than it is, because it's really a stinker of almost Biblical proportions. How bad is it? Well, Shannon Tweed turns in the movie's most professional acting job. If that isn't an indication of just what a 12th-rate piece of junk this turkey is, nothing is From mismatched sound effects to a music score that sounds like it's from a 1940s "Z"-grade horror flick (and may very well be) to the same footage (i.e., armored personnel carriers going down the same jungle trail) reused constantly to some of the most ineptly staged "action" scenes in recent memory, this laugh-a-minute sludgefest has to be seen to be disbelieved. Tweed looks bored, Brown looks hung over, and by the time this thing is finished--if you can last that long; I couldn't--you'll know just how they feel.<br /><br />Although there are a lot of explosions and gunfights, this can't be considered an "action" picture by any stretch of the imagination. It's boring (there's a scene in the back of a truck where everybody just stares at each other for three or four minutes), repetitive (the same "rebels" and "soldiers" being killed over and over), illogical (when a group of rebels is caught in an open field by a government helicopter gunship, instead of breaking for cover they just stand there staring up at it), inept (soldiers and rebels falling "dead" when no gunshots are heard, a gun battle inside a house where combatants standing against walls are machine-gunned but miraculously the walls escape undamaged) predictable (when the "Governor" says to offer a reward for Brown's capture because "someone" might turn him in, you know exactly who that "someone" will be, and it turns out to be exactly who you thought it was) and just downright stupid (pretty much everything else in the picture). Inept, brainless and stupid beyond belief. Don't waste your time.
THE SCREAMING is a very low budget horror movie that was shot on video. It features passable acting, poor lighting, a weak story, and some of the worst monster effects I've ever seen. The plot has a college student being pressured to join a cult by his attractive landlord. The cult is a parody of Scientology with a book similar to Dianetics. This would have been a funny shot at that group were it not for a dumb script and the cheapness of the production. The monster effects look awful and the picture quality makes it feel like you're watching a home video or a public-service announcement. I think anyone who sees this will agree that movies should be shot on film.
Jeff Leroy wanted to makes fun of Scientology so built a horror movie around a cult similar to it. The twist is that instead of frail old L. Ron Hubbard as the cult leader, there's a centuries old space monster who turns his followers into vampires. Our hero is a dirty living college student who is doing research into the occult. His landlord is an attractive blonde who tries to get him to clean up his life with the help of the cult. It doesn't take him long to figure out that she's only after one thing: his blood. "The Screaming" was shot very cheaply on video and I just plain ugly. The space monster (which looks like a giant winged cat that looks perpetually mad and has no skin) is alternately a clay-mation miniature and a large scale animatronics puppet, both of which look awful. The acting and writing are both terrible and the director doesn't even try to disguise the fact that this movie was made for nothing. Avoid this non-scary, pitiful little excuse.
This digital horror film brings us into the Micro-budget film genre where the more blood and chicks in distress the better. The story is weak, the acting is respectable and the special effects, well, they're special alright. A quality horror film for the fans that already know what to expect.
Fortunately, I haven't seen this film in a movie, big screen, just on a small screen on video. I doubt that I would have been able to sit through the film in a cinema and watch all the violence present in the film. After watching the first 30 minutes, I became both disappointed and curious.<br /><br />Disappointed because of the hard to follow story line, the hardly understandable screens, the huge amount of aggression - I still don't know why I had been shown the Daesu (main character) pulling out raw the teeth of another person, his beastliness on women, him cutting out his tongue. And also curious, to see what will the film say as a conclusion, what is the ending summary of all this brutality.<br /><br />Unfortunately, though the movie was not boring, I didn't get any answer to all these cruelty that I had to watch from the beginning to the end. To my opinion, if you want blood and want to laugh, there is Kill Bill 1-2, if you want blood with more meaning, you can take any recent war movie, and if you want an Eastern movie, there are much better titles out there. Afterwards I will take the ratings from the Cannes film festival with more precaution, as while Oldboy got a lot of praise from the jury, it had not much to say to me and had only 4/10 on my scale.<br /><br />I am hungry to see something beautiful, harmonious, with true feelings and a clear message.
By Jove, what an unholy mess! Revenge, incestuous love, mechanical games-like fighting, ceaseless and utterly unnecessary violence, some primitive "music" hammering away at the bewildered victims, big "surprises" (which actually tend to be about as "revelatory" as The National Enquirer's headlines). Add some shoddy camera movements pretending to be stylish and creative and you've already impressed the crowds. This movie's totally undeserved popularity powerfully indicates the very low level pop sub-culture has succeeded not only in achieving in the last decades, but also in imposing as dominant taste on an impotent audience. (For by far deeper insights into human sufferance under mental sickness, without "Oldboy"s vulgar excesses, I recommend an older Dutch/French movie, "The Vanishing".) <br /><br />Well, don't believe there's absolutely nothing good to say about this movie. In fact there is. The (in)famous scene in which the hero (is really a "hero", an abject father who sleeps with his daughter and then attempts to obtain forgetfulness rather than redemption?) eats a live octopus benefits greatly from the vivid presence of the best actor in the entire cast: the octopus itself. Too bad the poor beast, having been eaten, couldn't survive its one and only act in order to obtain yet another worthless diploma, for the "best actor", at the Cannes festival. <br /><br />Which festival, by the way, between Moore's propaganda nonsense and this epitome of worthless if somewhat exotic weirdness, became a festival of the vapid and of the ludicrous.<br /><br />Sic transit gloria mundi!
This movie was awful, plain and simple. It will probably be revered by those who only see "films" and not "movies" and will therefore feel sorry for me for having such a limited understanding of the theatrical brilliance of this film, but I am secure enough in my intellect to say that this boring, self-aggrandizing and painfully drawn-out movie was a waste of two hours and nine dollars.<br /><br />I was suckered into seeing this by the inexplicable good reviews it had been receiving and came out of the theater thinking that those reviews had to have been written by over-excited film students and the aforementioned group of individuals who shun regular movies, perhaps for fear that they may actually enjoy one someday.<br /><br />The storyline is quite a promising one - a man is imprisoned for 15 years, never knowing his captor nor his crime. He is then abruptly released and given just five days to discover the identity and reason of the man who imprisoned him. However, the great concept soon disintegrates into a pathetic joke as Oh Dae-Su runs around beating people up, trying to have sex with a young girl who is attempting to use the toilet and eating a live, writhing squid (presumably for dramatic effect, as there is absolutely no other reason for it). All the while he is trying to figure out this horrible thing he did to earn himself fifteen years in jail, and when he finally finds out it is both ridiculous and a major letdown. His nemesis, a man who supposedly went to school with him when he was a young man, looks like a Banana Republic model twenty years younger than him. Hey, I know prison has been hard on Oh Dae-Su, but is it too much to ask to find an actor that looks a bit closer to his age? Of all the things wrong with this movie, this one seems like the easiest one to fix.<br /><br />And the big secret - the one that kept me in my seat for 90 minutes when I could have been out doing something productive - is some joke of a plot line involving incest and a rumor started in high school. Come on! Throw us a bone here - was that really the best they could do? I sat through stupid dialogue, over-acting, gloomy sets and gratuitous violence for this? (By the way - I'm not at all against violence in a film if it seems to fit the story, but in this case it seems I was forced to watch our hero knock out someone's front teeth and cut off his own tongue with a pair of scissors in order to distract me from figuring out I was wasting my afternoon watching a pretentious piece of garbage).<br /><br />Take my advice - do something else with your time and money. Or take your nine dollars and go see a lowly "movie" - one that you might actually enjoy.
This comment is meant mainly as a warning to the people who might be attracted to the title by its (temporarily)high user rating which I find frankly puzzling. The reasons why I didn't like this title are following:<br /><br />1. The directer must have had some doubts whether to make a Jackie-Chan-type of a flick or a dark Oedipian tragedy. As a result, in terms of genre, the film falls between two stools, as the tragic and comic elements clash and cancel out each other rather than make a harmonious whole.<br /><br />2. The characters' motives and behaviors are incoherent and unconvincing. Psychological truth and logic are sadly missing.<br /><br />3. Absurd casting. I don't blame the actors, for it is a hard thing to create a convincing character by acting alone, if there is scarce logic in the script. However, why is there an apparent age difference of about 15 years between the leading two actors, whose ages in the film can't differ by more than 3-4?<br /><br />4. To me the film was poor entertainment primarily because of point 2. If you can't find a character you could sympathize with it is hard to follow the story with interest. When you finally learn the reason of what happened to the main protagonist, it turns out to make no sense.<br /><br />5. Some films apart from being entertaining are also thought-provoking. Having seen this film, I began to wonder whether the thought the director tried to provoke was not that incestuous relationships could be perfectly wholesome and delightful. I cannot put any other construction on the ending. <br /><br />6. The film is rife with totally unnecessary violence. Violence in a film (and elsewhere) is a good thing, if it serves an important and worthy purpose. Purposes can be different and I don't want to enter into this broad subject. Let me just say I don't object to violence in such films as "Saving Private Ryan", "The Passion of the Christ" or "The Pulp Fiction". In "Oldboy" the scenes of torture and suffering are prolonged and graphic (or aural). What for? I do not know. Personally, I don't derive any satisfaction from watching teeth being extracted with a hammer or hear a man cut off his tongue with scissors and then see him choking on his own blood etc. etc. <br /><br />7. The film reminds me a little of Japanese porno mangas in its fixation on incest and young Asian girls' panties, urinating and the like. It appears there is a minority who actually enjoy this kind of thing. If you're one of them, you might find this film enjoyable.<br /><br />In short, I do not recommend this film either as entertainment or "food for thought". Where it isn't silly, it is disgusting. Don't waste your time.
I am sorry to rain on everybody's parade. Just a little background about me: I like and know a lot about Asian cinema, especially Japanese, Chinese and Indian. Admittedly I am a novice when it comes to South-Korean cinema but, if this is the best of the best, sorry. I just want you to know that I am not at all narrow-minded when it comes to appreciating foreign movies and I do not fit the stereotype of the "dumb American" . . . well, not perfectly.<br /><br />I cannot believe the high praise this piece of nothing is bestowed upon. This is a disgusting *and* ludicrous movie. Hammy acting - everything is badly done and overdone, like begging for the uneducated viewer's attention. Horrible camera-work, with an insistence on meaningless close-ups derived from the MTV aesthetics.<br /><br />The plot is more full of holes than a gigantic piece of Swiss cheese. Nobody expects a thriller to be 100% realistic, and for the sake of entertainment I'd be happy to close my eyes to small unfitting details. But, excuse me, what's happening here that *can* stand even summary scrutiny? This story of an unbelievably intricate and contrite act of revenge is worse than the worst tabloid story one can read in a line at the supermarket. (Don't want to spoil your "enjoyment", if that's the word, so won't go into details of the plot.) The fighting scenes are violent, unbelievable, downright stupid (the main "hero" taking on dozens and dozens of opponents in the same time, after he ONLY trained while imprisoned, punching a wall ! ) The truly "outstanding" features of this movie are two: the lurid and incestuous sex (brother on sister and father on daughter, well, we've evolved since Oedipus, didn't we?) and the graphic violence. The cut off body parts - hands, teeth, tongues - together with industrial quantities of spilled blood (how many tens of thousands of tomatoes had to die for this movie to be made?) have no esthetical function/motivation whatsoever.<br /><br />A feast for the S & M inclined, admittedly, but, even for those, a feast of no merit nor subtlety. Heavens, even Mel Gibson's recent and much-discussed work on an almost similar theme wasn't THAT bad.<br /><br />The invariably good press this pretentious, overblown, overlong piece of gratuitous gore coming from Korean shores obtains makes me wonder what's happening. I don't think of myself as being the ultimate paragon of taste and often I am ready to accept that a movie I didn't enjoy may be better than I was able to perceive. However, I have no scruples whatsoever in calling this one as I see it: bad, bad, bad. No redeeming qualities. My 2c? Find something better to do with your time.
It seems that some viewers assume that the only thing which can make the viewer dislike this movie is the graphic violence. In fact violence, both disturbing and cartoonish, is the last of "Oldboy"'s deep flaws. The characters are unidimensional, underdeveloped, primitive. The "intensity", an obsession and a goal in itself with this director, is served up with the cheapest of means. Let's not confuse a mindless shot of adrenaline with artistic worth. By the end of the movie, it seems that all the cards were exhausted so the script becomes almost inadvertently funny in its efforts to find new levels of "horror", to continue to "shock" an audience which is already numbed by the plethora of dumb soap-opera "revelations" already served up in big bunches. It would be hard to imagine anybody even vaguely familiar with the masterpieces of the last fifty years of Asian cinema being enthralled by this pompous piece of trash. Imagine Homer Simpson hesitating in front of the cinema theater: "should I go in or should I buy five cones of ice-cream for the same money?" Be smart, Homer, go for the ice-cream.
Unbelievable. "Philosophy". "Depth". "Genius". "Masterpiece". People must have seen another "Oldboy" because the one I've seen was a badly written, poorly conceived, over-the-top-acted, sordid piece of "Kraapola" which, even ignoring for a moment the ludicrously violent scenes which makes it unsuitable for the eyes of a child, could barely satisfy the imagination and the thirst for plot consistency of a seven years old.<br /><br />The "depth" of this sorry concoction was exhausted in one little piece of wisdom, "Laugh and the whole world will laugh with you, weep and you'll find yourself alone", the type of boring fortune cookie saying which a great author, be him Shakespeare or, more to the point of IMDb, Kurosawa, would have thrown in the garbage can with no second thoughts. Where this movie should have landed too, if we wouldn't live in an era in which the cheaply shocking and the perversely disgusting are confused with what used to be named once "great art". In short, yuck.<br /><br />2 out of 100. It's not 1 out of 1000 only because of some occasionally expert camera-work. In no way enough to save this infantile failure from worthlessness, though.
Please do not blame Korea for this bad movie. I am in Korea (please excuse bad English). It sadden me to see these movies which make Korea look like obsessed with blood and sex. It sadden me even more to see animal killings and hear Americans say that is how Korea is. We do not eat live animals!! So please stop excusing movie for its crime by saying it is the culture! There is scenes with the man eating live animals and non Koreans think it is normal. No it is disgusting to us too. The director is a misfit, sick individual who has obsession with killing and sex with family members. I wish America and France will stop glorifying this bad man who is laughable in his own country. Please watch ANY OTHER movie from Korea, that will give you ideas of how artistic we really are. This movie is rubbish.
This movie was one of the longest movie watching experiences of my life. While I like how the director, Chan-wook Park, handled the revenge, the move as a whole was TERRIBLE. Oldboy is only billed at 1 hour and 55 minutes long but it feels like it takes at least 3 and a half hours to tell this story. I will say that the English dubbing was done very well and the movie was easily understandable. I felt that some of the scenes were unnecessarily long and a lot of the dialogue repeated itself. Also, if you have an aversion to annoying voices, then avoid hearing Hye-jeong Kang (she plays Mi-do) speak. If you are looking for a movie to kill time and make you feel morally superior to others, then watch away. If you don't want to watch a movie filled with incest, bad dialogue, unnecessary fight scenes, gross torture scenes and confusing flashbacks, then this is not the movie for you.
Oldboy is set in Korea & starts as a drunken Dae-su Oh (Min-Sik Choi) is bailed out of the police station by his friend only to be abducted, Dae-su wakes up & finds himself in a small room which he will be imprisoned in for the next fifteen years. Dae-su is fed & looked after by his unknown captors but is never allowed out of the room, Dae-su begins to train himself to avenge himself after he gets out which he intends to do by scrapping away the cement from the brickwork with a chopstick. However before Dae-su finishes he is gassed & rendered unconscious, when he wakes up Dae-su finds himself free on the roof of a tall building dressed & all moneyed up. Dae-su instantly sets about trying to find out who imprisoned him, after meeting the pretty Mido (Hye-jeong Kang) the two fall in love & together with her help Dae-su finally finds what he is looking for but the truth comes at a price...<br /><br />This South Korean production was co-written & directed by Chan-wook Park & has gotten any number of glowing reviews (the sort that distributors can pick quotes out & plaster them on the video box) & even won the Grand Prize of the Jury at Cannes while it was also nominated for the Golden Palm so surely Oldboy is a true classic? Well not for me it isn't since as I can't understand why it's so liked & I would go as far as to say I pretty much hated it apart from one or two isolated moments. For a start I couldn't get into the story at all, I just didn't like it as I thought it was slow & boring & while many out there would have you believe Oldboy has the bestest most shocking twist ever I thought it was rather plain & not very well executed either. The ending in which Dae-su goes to the New Zealand Alps to be hypnotised feels tagged on as well almost as if the makers wanted some sort of happy ending. At almost two hours I almost fell asleep I was so bored, the violence is tame & it's the thought of what's happening that I would imagine most people have a problem with rather than what is actually shown. In fact Oldboy has a very low body count of about seven & one mild sex scene, it's really not that graphic or memorable. I didn't warm to any of the character's & while I accept Oldboy has an alright concept & premise it fails to deliver & it's one film that I will never understand why so many people seem to like.<br /><br />Based on a Japanese Manga of the same name Oldboy the film looks alright, there's one or two nice visual moments here although while everyone raves about the hallway fight that takes place in one continuous shot I was pretty unimpressed & thought the fight choreography was quite dull. The actual on-screen gore violence amounts to very little, Dae-su eats a live Octopus which is apparently quite normal in Korea anyway, there are some fight scenes, a severed hand, someones teeth are pulled out & there's a bit of blood at the end.<br /><br />The budget was supposedly around the $4,000,000 mark which is actually a fair bit, filmed in South Korea & New Zealand. The acting looks alright but it's hard to tell when actors are speaking a different language.<br /><br />Oldboy is a film that I found an absolute chore to sit through, I don't mind subtitled films or foreign films or paying attention to the plot as I followed the thing perfectly but I just didn't like any of it & it's as simple & straightforward as that. Apparently the second in director Choi-wook Park's revenge trilogy which also includes Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance (2002) & Lady Vengeance (2005).
There's a thin line between being theatrical and being just plain forced. Forced acting. Forced takes. Forced plot. Even forced photography. There's people who say "the movie develops that way because it's from Asia" but I don't see any kind of forced elements on Seven Samurai or Sonatine. There's a thin line between being fiction (and every work of art it is, in it's way, fiction) and being just unlikely.In a more personal way, I just don't feel anything with the movie, it doesn't take me anywhere, and I just can't believe in the fictional world it is proposed. It just doesn't feel right, there's something in it or through that just doesn't click.
*****Classic ****Excellent ***Good **Fair *Tragic<br /><br />Review:<br /><br />Oldboy is not for everyone. It's pervasive violence, its live octopus eating and it's unimaginary story.<br /><br />The film focuses around a man who's been kidnapped and is imprisoned for 15 years, Oh Dae-Su is released, only to find that he must find his captor in 5 days. Now the story though may seem gripping to start with but once watching this bloated and un-original blood fest it develops into a mash of bitter blood and a forceful film.<br /><br />It's directing is on par of average and by no means the standards of what a South Korean thriller should be. Oldboys acting scenes are paralleled with dull humour and a poorly writtern script.<br /><br />Oldboy is occasionlly presented with thin straw performances that one could only feel shameful about.<br /><br />Verdict:<br /><br />Not for everyone but it's scope and vision isn't clear enough to see further than the grey abyss of fog.<br /><br />*Tragic
When one of my friends recommended this to me, raving about how well it was filmed, the underlying themes and the general greatness of the film, I obviously expected an amazing, at least entertaining film.<br /><br />The two hours I spent watching this turned out to be a huge disappointing waste of my time.<br /><br />I understand that this movie is meant to be surreal, but even in surreal movies, there is something which anchors it down, even if it is only in the slightest. This movie, on the other hand, felt forced and fake. A lot of the shots were unnecessary and watching it made me think the director was trying to hard to be artistic.<br /><br />The acting was poor, and the relationships between characters were not nearly developed enough. Maybe that's just me missing something that others could see but I hadn't even realised there was any sort of attraction between Dae su and Migo before they started getting at it like rabbits randomly half way through the film. Then again, maybe this film was just bad.<br /><br />I am not against violence in movies, but in this one, almost all of it was just unnecessary. Throughout all the fight scenes I felt myself cringing at how painfully cliché it all was.<br /><br />And the plot? The word laughable comes to mind. I would be amused if I hadn't wasted two hours of my life following this poorly thought out and ridiculous plot. Despite all the movie's flaws, by the end of it, I was expecting something interesting to conclude it. I won't discuss the ending, because I wouldn't want to "spoil" the movie for those who haven't seen it. Just that the metaphor "Be it a rock or a grain of sand, in water they sink as the same." cannot be used as an explanation for everything.<br /><br />This entire movie was made for shock value and shock value only. I just hope sooner or later people will stop being so pretentious and recognise a bad movie for what it is. I've seen many other great Korean films and it depresses me that people have hailed Oldboy as the best.
... So some people might argue that this can't possible be the worst movie ever made, and no it's not. I have seen movies with weaker plots, worse acting and so on.<br /><br />So why do I hate this movie über alles? Well, it's basically about a man, who gets kidnapped for many years, and when he comes out, he tries to find out who did it and why, to get revenge. The problem I have with this movie has nothing to do with gore or horror, but<br /><br />***MAJOR SPOILERS STOP READING IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW*** <br /><br />our main character basically gets tricked into having sex with his own daughter, and he wants to cut out his own tongue so his enemy won't tell her, because she didn't know. It is so humiliating as he crawls on his knees like a dog in total submission. And why did he deserve this? Because many years ago, he saw a brother and a sister have a tender moment - in the wrong way. He went on and told some people, and as a result she commits suicide. And viola, it's the brother who put our main character through all this just for that. I have wondered: Maybe I hate this movie so much because I think his punishment is way too harsh. Maybe because I feel this movie doesn't condemn incest, but somehow confuses it with love. Maybe it's because I expected something else.<br /><br />***END OF SPOILERS***<br /><br />Believe me, nobody deserves what happens to our main character in the end, and I'm very serious; you know how some movies just go under your skin and stay there? Well, I felt goddamn dirty after watching this movie, and I REALLY wish I'd never seen it. It stayed with me for days, and some might ask: well, isn't that the purpose of a good movie? The ability to affect us in such ways? Yes, it can be, but this movie not only made me sick, it made me feel violated.
Let me get this out of the way before I trash this film: I love Park Chan-Wook's work as a director. While I disagree with the masses saying he's is the best director working in our time, I can't deny that he understands how to use a camera very effectively. I really liked one of his other films, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance. Also, Min-sik Choi's acting was the only thing that allowed me to take this film seriously . . . for 1/5 of the runtime, that is.<br /><br />Now the bad: The plot is simply the oldest cliché used in cinema/literature. I'll never understand how critics can trash a Hollywood blockbuster for being cliché, then hail movies like Oldboy which are just as unoriginal and clichéd if not even more so. Regardless, Oldboy is flat-out one of the most generic, unoriginal movies ever conceived. *Spoilers* Man is held captive, man seeks revenge, man finds out he had sex with a family member, man's life is over. *End spoilers* Simply put, this plot line has been used in everything from Greek plays to modern melodramatic soap operas and countless movies/books in between. It is so melodramatic and unoriginal when the major reveal happens, I laughed out loud. Does that mean I'm a desensitized freak without emotions as some reviews of this film say about people like me? No. What it means overdone plots make people laugh. The Scary Movie franchise proved that, and Oldboy proved it as well. Why can't people think of something that is truly disturbing instead of just spewing out tried clichés masked with fancy camera-work and classical music? That brings up the issue of blood/gore. Simply put, it isn't there. The director is too timid to even point the camera at the screen when something "gory" happens, as if we're watching a children's movie or something. Maybe we were. Anyway, I've heard Oldboy called the "most brutal movie of all time" and "the most disturbing movie ever" but when I watched it I failed to see ANYTHING even remotely gory or disturbing. All the "gore" is off-screen, and even then the violence level is nothing you haven't seen in PG-13 movies like The Dark Knight or Casino Royale before. Why this even got an R-rating confuses me, much less "the most brutal movie of all time". Seriously, I've seen movies that just make Oldboy look cute on every level when it comes to violence/gore.<br /><br />The other huge glaring, cheesy flaw is the main villain. The majority of his screen time he's showing his bare butt off for the audience in comedic American Pie-style, but I'm supposed to think he's oh-so-evil? When he's wearing clothes, his hair is slicked back like a bad Asian mix of the cheesiest James Bond villain mixed with something out of Austin Powers. He talks like a brain-dead teenager recovering from an acid overdose, and his dialogue is so bad it had me laughing yet again. Seriously, Oldboy had me laughing more than any comedy this year . . .<br /><br />In the end, Oldboy is for those of you who sip fine wine, have no sense of humor, and talk about how boring your lives are at dinner parties. It's for those people who are so stuck up in their own ego they forgot how unoriginal they are, and consequently forgot how unoriginal and boring the "films" (never "movies") they enjoy are.<br /><br />To those people all I can say is this: I like "films" and also like "movies". I like thoughtful dramas that actually say something about the human condition, and I also like pointless action movies that thrill me into a coma. But the thing is, for me to like both "films" and "movies", they have to be original. They have to be something I haven't seen so many times I lost count of the number of times the plot has been used. When something isn't original, it's expendable. If it does exactly what everyone else does, it's forgettable and boring. Before you give Oldboy yet another perfect rating because it "touched" you, maybe you should think about something: wouldn't a movie equally as touching, but at the same time original make you think more? I just wish someone other than me would understand this.<br /><br />Overall: Oldboy is forgettable and cheesy.<br /><br />1/10
I have been reading comments on IMDb for some time now. An 8.3 average for this movie just plain gets on my nerves. I don't mean to pull one of those "I just signed up for an account so I can post on this movie" bits..... but, i just did. The only theme you will come away with from this movie is that incest does not deserve to be ridiculed.<br /><br />Now, I realize many 'hoity-toity' film people love this movie; nevertheless, it is crap. The thing that REALLY gets to me is the fact that the director expects you to have sympathy for the 'villain' in the movie. If you do have sexual relations with your sister, you should probably be an outcast from society. Just my personal feelings I guess. Yet, I sat through 2 hours of this *expletive* expecting some really deep reasoning behind Dae-Soo's imprisonment.<br /><br />I tend to like a lot of foreign movies, but this is my first encounter with a Korean flick and it has put them last in line in my book. Oh... i feel better already after a little venting.
A pretentious but - to varying degrees - watchable collection of mostly pointless "stories".<br /><br />But let's start from the top.<br /><br />Kaurismaki: If one ever wondered what Finnish love/romance was like, perhaps this dull little oddity is some indication. Subdued feelings, non-emotions, apathetic faces and a very depressing prospect of moving from Finland to Siberia! I guess the sequel to this story will be "For Our Honeymoon We Move From Siberia to Greenland". Aki obviously had no clue what to write for this little movie, so he just made up some half-assed non-"story" centering around a band he particularly likes (or maybe they're his friends) because we get to watch them and listen to their music more than the two principal characters.<br /><br />Erice: First off, I've never heard of this guy before – and now I know why. Nice black&white photography and pretty much nothing else - unless being bored silly can be considered an asset. But you'd be surprised how many movie-critics and film students love boredom in movies so I hotly recommend Erice's 10-minute snooze-fest to those two groups of humanoids.<br /><br />Herzog: Not a movie but probably a slice out of his documentaries about tribes in South America. This isn't a short film but a report, but considering how dull the first two entries were, Herzog's bit is almost refreshing and does have some interesting moments, and if nothing else fits into the movie's pretentious "time" concept very neatly.<br /><br />Jarmusch: As was to be almost expected, this once-interesting film-maker (with the brain of a peanut; a talented idiot savant) serves us yet another doze of pointlessness. He has become lazy and can't be bothered to write anything interesting, either for his own movies or a collection such as TMO. The only bright side in watching how a dumb veggie actress spends 10 minutes in a trailer is that she is played by the lovely Chloe Sevigny. Otherwise, skip this nonsense. Oh, and btw: I don't believe that any young actress listens to classical music; was Jarmusch trying to be surreal by making Chloe listen to that kind of music? Does Lindsey Lohan perhaps listen to opera? Maybe Drew Barrymore is a jazz fan? Who am I to say they aren't?!<br /><br />Jim Jarmusch is a moron. Oh, right... I already mentioned that...<br /><br />Wenders: Here is the actual shock of the whole movie: Wenders can actually make something good!!!!!? Everything else I've seen from this overrated charlatan has so far been dull and pointless. However, this short little story is done with style(! – atypical) and is the best part of the movie. It leaves one wanting to see more of it, even though the story has a resolution.<br /><br />Spike Lee: Oh, dear Lord… What can I say here? Lee makes anyone seem talented by comparison. Like Herzog, he chooses not a story but submits a report – and a left-wing political propaganda report at that! CNN, but in black and white, and one-sided, of course. Naturally, "We Wuz Robbed", the retarded title of this little sleep-inducer, is about how the poor, gullible and infinitely idealistic Democrats WUZ ROBBED by Bush and his EVIL EVIL team of THIEVES. This is by far the dumbest and dullest entry in this movie, and I had to utilize the fast-forward button so as not to doze off. Spike Lee truly is a product of Affirmative Action. God knows how many really talented (black) directors never had a chance to make movies because this pretentious and talentless little runt keeps getting opportunity after opportunity to make them. And he gets it wrong EVERY TIME! Now that does take some kind of talent, right? <br /><br />Kaige: The Chinese story has a solid premise. It's okay, nothing more.<br /><br />All in all, there are many and far better movies to spend your time on, but if your time isn't that valuable (as is apparently the case with my own) you can check this little film out.<br /><br />"Ten minutes sure can be an eternity in the hands of anti-masters of cinema. Time is precious. Waste it on better movies." - Fedor Miklowitz, 1588
Watched this film with an audience of....5 in total! Had a choice between Lakshya and Asambhav...(realized then I should have gone for Lakshya). A typical plot...India v Pakistan..but just isn't cricket as you have Kashmir in the middle. An Indian super hero goes on a mission to save the President of India from some Pakistani rebels who are involved in a mass drug smuggling racket. I left the film half way as it was simply boring and the plot was confusing and all over the place. The songs were also awful, the film tries to hide the flaws with its special effects but unfortunately they are outdated too.<br /><br />Overall...avoid it if you can, has to be the worst film I've seen this year.
What has Rajiv Rai done to himself? Once a hit director of films like Tridev and Vishwatama is now making one bad film after another. I was initially excited at the thought of Rajiv Rai returning to the action genre but that soon fizzled out. As a Rajiv Rai fan I thought I should at least give it a go but I left after an hour. One reason for me leaving the film so early so the amount of Paki- bashing in the film, this was not in Rai's previous venture.<br /><br />A lot of directors have tried Paki- bashing but I did not expect it from Rajiv Rai Another letdown was the music. Rajiv Rai's have always had good music until now. There is only one good song and that is Tere dekh dekh Ladgayan. The performances are not upto scratch, not even from Rai Loyalist Naseer-Uddin- Shah. Avoidable fare from once my favourite director.
Avoid this film if you are looking for entertainment.<br /><br />It is filled with wannabes trying to be something that they are not and Emraan is just wasted in the role of a tour guide who falls for a newcomer who needs to go to acting school. Seriously, where to they get these people from? Just because you're pretty doesn't mean you can act or should be an actress.<br /><br />Asmit Patel needs to send an apology letter to everyone who accidentally watches him makes a fool of himself in this poor excuse for a film. He plays an insipid wannabe gangster who drugs girls and forces them to fall in love with him and sells them off to the highest bidder.
Taran Adarsh a reputed critic praised such a dubba movie<br /><br />The film has a weird story wherein a lover sells his love to a brothel cos he wants money to save his mother and then also gets forgived for it LOL<br /><br />The movie is crap<br /><br />the entire first half has it's focus on romance, comedy which fails to work The twist shocks but the entire second half is a mess and the climax is clichéd<br /><br />Direction by Aditya Datt is bad Music is typical Himesh<br /><br />Emraan does his serious role well but his wardrobe, his way of walking through songs.etc is similar to his previous films Geeta Bhasra annoys Ashmith Patel fails to convince this actor was good in MURDER only so far and then a downhill Mithun some screen time and he is okay but his breaking down into a song is forced Ranjeet is okay
This movie is an example of small budget,ineffective star cast,weak storyline and poor entertainment. This kind of movies are made for commercial breaks and not for any entertainment of die-hard fans of bollywood movies. I went to this movie because i thought the earlier one gangster was tolerable so this is also. Only thing I appreciate the way new actress put herself in the movie in a very bold way, she very much resembles bollywood actress nandita das. she is good ,sexy and acting well. she definitely go up in her career. our mithunda was all time good at his work .atleast he has some good to the movie. I didn't like imraan for his role must advise him to improve himself now as he has done many movies as new actor and he has been seen as established actor This movie has nothing except the bold scene done by new actress Never try this movie
James Stewart plays Johnny Mason, lawyer. Carole Lombard is Jane Mason, wife. Lucile Watson the mother-in-law Harriet Mason. Johnny sees Jane and quickly marries her. Mother is disappointed. Mother lives with them. Many troubles are ahead. Jane can't cook. Can't set the table. Can't do many things according to mother. The interaction between daughter-in-law and mother are the highlights of this film. Stewart and Lombard are married but just don't have any real magic on screen. Stewart is Stewart. He is good as a timid husband and son but this doesn't carry the film. Can baby Mason build bridges between Jane and Harriet? A believable film for those that are married.
This film doesn't have a very clear picture of what it is or wants to be. There are some good bits when Stewart is on screen and they give him some lines to work with. It works best early on as romantic comedy, but the story keeps heading for more dramatic territory and gets itself lost in the process. By the last fifteen minutes or so, the plot twists are just a series dramatic clichés. <br /><br />The part with the airplane feels like some leftover footage from another film spliced in.<br /><br />The main reason I can think of to watch it is if you want be able to say you've seen all of Jimmy Stewart's films.
When I bought 4 DVDs for £5.oo in a local shop it should have been warning enough that this movie was not up to the usual standard of David Selznick Productions. With a cast containing such names as James Stewart and Carole Lombard I was looking forward to a real treat. As many other commentators have said it is an odd mixture of plot and scenes that doesn't quite convince. HOWEVER, I am so glad that I did view this film as I now have the memorable saying 'Never let the seeds stop you from enjoying the watermelon.' to live by. This should sum up everyone's life. Pick out those seeds or spit them out or swallow them - and then enjoy the watermelon - life itself.
Carole Lombard and James Stewart gamely try to inject some life and meaning into this bizarrely constructed film about the tribulations of a newlywed couple. The scenes play as if they were parceled out among various directors, each with a different goal. Some are Capra-cute, some screwball, some melodramatic, and some surprisingly noir. There's even an extended adventure sequence, when the plot suddenly focuses on a small plane flying through a blizzard. It's hard to say which scenes are the most incongruous, when the film as a whole is so erratic in tone, and the storyline not exactly believable. Only worth watching for film students or fans of the actors--some smaller parts, such as Judge Doolittle and the intrepid pilot, are also very well played.
Extremely formulaic with cosmic-sized logic holes and a pretense at comedy. Aw, poor NYC lawyer! He's just scraping by, and when he gets a reduction in pay he doesn't go out to find another job, though he's one of the most respected lawyers in the area. We see him arguing in court so that others come up and congratulate him on his fiery, winning delivery, but he can't stand up to anyone in his firm. At home, problems are ignored until people storm out of the house.<br /><br />The only character you want to root for is the final maid, who seems an actual human being who uses logic and communication to survive in the world. How laughable that the maid should bring the lawyer and his wife a chicken and wine on New Year's Eve because she feels sorry for them! (The bit's not played for laughs.)<br /><br />Sorry, just too unbelievable and with a **SPOILER** pat, everyone-turns-180-degrees ending. How'd they get top-notch stars for this? If I'd been at the studio I'd have sent this one back for a complete rewrite.
I decided to watch this movie because I'd not seen Carol Lombard before in any movie. I'm sorry it had to be this one because, quite frankly, this is a dog – and even with Jimmy Stewart and Charles Coburn, both of whom were great actors.<br /><br />The problem with the film is simple: it tries to put too much, too quickly, in to a story about a young lawyer (John Manson played by Stewart) who marries Jane (played by Lombard) within an hour of meeting her. What's that cliché? Marry in haste, repent at leisure... <br /><br />In short, the story is a series of episodes that show the couples' worsening financial status, their troubles with John's live-in mother, their struggles to pay the bills, John's diminished status at the office, the arrival of their baby son, John Jnr (unexpected and causing additional friction at home with mother), the couples' angst about their marriage, the baby's sickness which worsens, thus necessitating an heroic flight by a lone pilot (in a fierce storm) to bring a special serum to save the child, and finally John being accepted as a junior partner at the law firm.<br /><br />How many more clichéd situations could the writers include? Maybe Mother dying soon after? There wasn't much comedy; the drama was lacklustre, at best; the dialog was painful to hear. Only the acting of the four main players was adequate.<br /><br />This was the period at the end of the Great Depression with the USA coming out of its long downturn – during which many people experienced all of the events portrayed in the movie.<br /><br />So, it made sense for Selznick to reaffirm good ol' home spun American values of family, relationships, heroism, perseverance, and initiative – all against the backdrop of the "average" American family. Who better to use than Jimmy Stewart and Carol Lombard? <br /><br />And, it should be noted that the film was released in early 1939; so, it was planned in 1938 – soon after the USA began to get production going for the coming World War II. Hence, this sort of film was a great booster for the general public, at that time, many of who would soon have to join England in war. As many here would know, Hollywood and Washington formed an uneasy alliance before, during and after the war.<br /><br />However, I'm glad I saw it – as a piece of disguised socio-political propaganda. But, I'll have to see other Lombard films to gain a better appreciation of her acting range.<br /><br />As another reviewer noted: see this one just to say that you've seen all of Stewart's movies; otherwise, don't bother.
Ineffectual, molly-coddled, self-pitying, lousy provider Jimmy Stewart is having a bad marriage to Carole Lombard. After falling on hard times, he endures a demeaning job, a fault-finding, passive-aggressive, over-bearing live-in mother who is in dire need of an epic smackdown, and an endlessly-crying baby. The movie trowels on failure and squalor to no discernible end. Do you want to watch a couple bicker with his mom for ninety minutes? Many scenes feature a shrieking baby. The movie fails to elucidate why we would want to endure the mother from hell, or why Jimmy Stewart can't grow a pair. Who wanted to see this? Who wanted to see Stewart and Lombard without laughs or charm?<br /><br />It's absolutely depressing and unendurable.
Since I'd bought the DVD, I watched as much of this as I did out of a sense of obligation to my wallet.<br /><br />The plot has Kirk Douglas as a successful first novelist who hired Laraine Day as a secretary, falls in love, and marries her. Complications ensue.<br /><br />Douglas is usually thought of as an intense actor, given to heavily dramatic roles, sometimes hero, sometimes rat. He's not bad in this thoroughly comic part. The problem is that the part isn't particularly comic and neither is anything else.<br /><br />The plot rambles on. A dozen "quirky" characters come and go -- most prominently Keenan Wynn as Douglas's friend who does nothing but make wry comments. Thelma Ritter was better at this sort of thing.<br /><br />Well, if the plot is weak it could still have been rescued by some sparkle in the dialog but there is none to speak of. Some gags are silly. Others don't clear that bar. Here's what I thought of as an amusing line. Douglas has just hired Day and wants to get her down to the beach house and seduce her. Day is disturbed and remarks that she's never heard of a writer working in a beach house. Wynn asks if she liked Douglas's previous book, "Last Year's Love." Yes, of course she did. "Well, most of 'Last Year's Love' was done in the beach house." Ha ha.<br /><br />Nice cast, including support, but a failed comedy. There have been better sitcoms on television.
I'm starting to wonder, after reading some of the opinions here, if I watched the same film as the other reviewers but after checking my facts I am forced to the sad conclusion that I have.<br /><br />This witless wannabee screwball comedy has to be one of the the longest 94 minutes I have spent, and one of the most unfunny things I have seen, for ages. Now don't get me wrong, I love screwball comedies, but this boring, set-bound drivel falls so far short of the dizzy heights of Preston Sturges and Howards Hawks that it doesn't deserve (to mix my metaphors) to be thought of in the same breath as those greats. Writer / Director Charles Martin's dialogue is neither witty, subtle or interesting - and there's so much of it. He doesn't know how to end a scene either, with some ruthless cutting, especially of people exiting rooms and saying goodbye to each other, the pace of film would have been lifted and then the fact that the limited number of characters are doing stupid and motiveless things for no other reason than this is supposed to be a comedy would have been a little less obvious. Characters in this movie fall in and out of love with each other, and move in and out of apartments, at a moment's notice only to move what little plot there is forward. One moment people are desperately yearning for one person, the next they are getting married to someone else - having wooed and been wooed off screen so we know nothing about it until one of the characters tells us - "Oh, they're getting married!" (usually after someone has made a faux-pas or jumped to the wrong conclusion). If we had known that these two characters were in love or supposed to be engaged before hand we, the audience, might have enjoyed the experience of watching someone making a fool of themselves in front of them. As it is the characters just come over looking like selfish, petulant idiots and we have no sympathy for any of them.<br /><br />The sets are limited and the action confined to them in a way that makes the whole thing look like a badly filmed stage play. The only moments of relief from the tedium are Keenan Wynn who looks like he has wandered in from a different movie and has decided to hang around and be slightly funnier than all the unfunny stuff going on around him.<br /><br />Highly avoidable.
... BREAKER MORANT and ROMPER STOMPER . It has also given us watchable films such as BOOTMEN and THE ODD ANGRY SHOT . Unfortunately for everyone involved in this debacle THE WOG BOY won't be joining appearing in either list .<br /><br />I was looking forward to seeing this movie simply because of the politically incorrect title , so politically incorrect that when it was broadcast on BBC 2 late at night the announcer didn't even mention the movie's name so I was expecting something so offensively anachronistic that my jaw was going to drop in disbelief . It did drop in disbelief , I found myself not being able to believe that the financiers thought this was going to be a major international hit <br /><br />The problem lies with the cast and the script . I do know that Australia with its small population doesn't have a large pool of actors so I'll be forgiving for the most part , but this doesn't stop my criticism of Nick Giannopoulos as Steve . For this type of comedy to work you must be impressed with the comic skills of the lead actor and I'm sorry to say but Nick G just doesn't have the skills . I'd never heard of him and seen nothing else he's been in so perhaps he's much better at other performances . Here however he's just plain irritating , unconvincing and I lost count at the number of times he mugged for the camera . The jokes themselves are very flat and predictable and getting back to the script it seems very under developed , I mean who thought a running gag about a female Minster Of Work who's having it off in the back of a limousine was funny to begin with ? You do get the feeling that someone in the production should have been more honest and said " Look mate , this screenplay's not nearly good enough . Go and make it more subtle and structured "<br /><br />I've been harsh and harshness has been called for in this review . I gave the movie four out of ten and it would have only got three if it wasn't for the one genuinely funny sequence where Steve is watching a current affairs show only for himself flashing up on screen and labelled a " Dole blodger " . This shows that the screenwriters were aware of comic timing and social comment . Such a pity that they didn't come with a much better written movie
After seeing the TV commercials for this film I marched to my local cinema expecting a lot of laughs. In the end it was one of the longest 90mins I have ever spent. The Wog Boy really did fail to provide a story line with enough substance to hold my interest and predictable and sometimes tasteless jokes didn't fill this void.<br /><br />A scene where the two 'Wog Boys' dominate the dancefloor of their local nightclub was the only one that impressed me at all. The only character that was worth watching was 'Nathan', played by The Castle's Stephen Curry, his struggle with the opposite sex providing most of the few laughs.<br /><br />A word for this flic is boring. Save yourself the time and just watch the TV commercial as the only laughs are shown on it.
This is the first movie I have watched in ages where I actually ended up fast forwarding through the tedious bits which there are plenty of. Very ordinary movie. I'm glad I missed it at the movies & got a 2 for 1 video deal which included this movie instead.
This totally UNfunny movie is so over the top and pathetic and unrealistic that throughout the whole 90 minutes of utter torture I probably looked at my watch about 70000 times! Lucy Bell is so much higher than this crap and for her to sink this low is quite depressing. I have to admit that the whole audience I was in was laughing hysterically but the majority were Greek or Italian so I guess that this humour will probably make them laugh but not me. All this movie does is make you sick watching all these slackers make excuses for their stupid actions for 90 minutes. God, and I can never get that 90 minutes back!
I really wanted to like this film however after an amusing opening few minutes I hardly cracked a smile. I agree there was no chemistry at all between the two leads and the other characters were cliche ridden. The script totally wasted the talents of Bud Tingwell and Kim Gyngell.<br /><br />It must be said however that there was plenty of laughter around me and even a smattering of applause at the end. Perhaps I just couldn't relate to it enough. I'm just glad I went on cheap tickets.
I'm glad I didn't pay to see 'The Wog Boy'.<br /><br />I sat there hopefully waiting for something original and/or funny to happen.<br /><br />It reminded me very much of those predictable English comedies of the 1970s.<br /><br />I won't bother with a synopsis of the plot, I suggest you do something else for 90 minutes<br /><br />
Humour is a very individual thing and the audience at the sneak preview of The Wog Boy seemed to enjoy it more than I did. I found it an anachronistic affair, more representative of the old fashioned racial humour of the Australian cinema of the 1960s and 1970s. The boy meets girl plot never takes off because of a lack of chemistry between Lucy Bell and Nick Giannopoulos while I found laughs thin on the ground. If you want to spend your money on this, wait until it's on video.
This is another of those films I can remember from when I was a kid and I recently managed to acquire it off ebay - 20 years on, it's nowhere near as good as I remember it being.<br /><br />The story is 'vaguely' kick started, by a 'cosmic event' (there's another extra film-crew member in the credits for 'weak story development') which makes collective ants become super intelligent. Ant species who used to war with each other have ceased rivalries and are now working together. The thing I wanted to know throughout was, TO DO WHAT EXACTLY? You never find out what they want. Nigel Davenport and his sidekick travel out to the desert where bizarre ant activity has been noted, and begin to study the ants from an impregnable igloo shaped laboratory. Probably the most chilling scene in my opinion was when the two scientists visit the giant square in the crops (like a square version of a crop circle) a result of the ants chomping away.<br /><br />This film was not very scary quite simply because you don't know whether to fear the ants or like them. All you know is that the ants want people to leave the area so they can get on with their hijinks - but you don't find out whether they are really baddies. It ain't a sci-fi because the 'cosmic event' explanation is too vague to be properly taken into account. It is deffo more of a chiller. TBH the flares, daft hairstyles, tight shirts with big collars and Nigel Davenports unnaturally big facial hair-do freaked me out more than the ants! Did you notice that there are only six actors listed in the credits? Yup, that right - SIX, and you won't see any other human beings in this film at all. Not even in the distance! This is a plainly obviously low budget film which is a bit watchable because you probably won't have seen one like it. I can't think of any anyway. The filming of the ants is pretty good, they must have done months and months of filming before they had the shots they needed to stick in the film. You may well say to yourself 'how the Hell do they get the ants to do that?' over and over, but it is all quite simple. You will also notice that the film makers sacrificed millions of innocent lickle ants to make the film too, so animal rights peeps STAY AWAY! Good for novelty value, but you may not watch it more than once.
If you really really REALLY enjoy movies featuring ants building dirt-mirrors, eating non-ants, and conquering the world with a voice-over narrative, then this is the movie for you. Basically, a couple of scientists working out of a bio-dome communicate with highly intelligent ants (the most intelligent actors in this film) in an attempt to try to thwart their plans of conquest and extermination. Throughout the movie the two scientists (and a girl they rescued from the ants) use everything at their disposal (computers, green dye, and horrid acting), but to no avail. I guess they just couldn't afford any pesticides because the movie would be over too quickly.<br /><br />The title of the movie "Phase IV" is something of a mystery. This is not a spoiler, but "Phase I" starts right after the opening credits whereas you don't reach "Phase IV" until the end credits roll. Apparently the director knew the movie would be tedious to get through and so placed Phases 1 - 3 throughout the movie as a kind of progress report: "Hang in there buddy! Only 1 more phase until final credits!" As a MST3K episode, this one wasn't very good for two reasons: 1) This one is from the Season 0 on KTMA when they were first starting out so the riffing is not as good as in later seasons; and 2) This movie is so bad not even J&TB can lighten it up. There are one or two Gamera references as they had just finished riffing 5 Gamera movies.<br /><br />The movie does have a trick/surprise ending, but I was so glad to reach the end the effect was lost on me.
Ants are shown in cartoons as being able to carry away chicken legs, watermellons, people, etc. This may be an admirable characteristic because ants carry the film Phase IV. This is not because they want to, but because they have to.<br /><br />The movie opens with a narrator cryptically explaining that some cosmic event has come over the earth, and that a fellow scientist has been working on the effect this disturbance has on the ant population. The movie is broken up in segments; the first part after the cosmic event is Phase I, and so on until the end of the movie, which is Phase IV.<br /><br />What is Phase IV? Who knows? We don't get to see that part; presumably it has something to do with the bonding of one of the scientists studying the ants and a girl who lived in the area. The girl, who looks like a cross between Alicia Silverstone and Liv Tyler, is mad at the ants because they killed her horse, but except for one angry outburst, goes around the biodome with a blank ("Clueless"?) look.<br /><br />These ants are pretty smart; or the scientists are rather dumb. I'll give credit to the ants. Why? Anything that usually ruins my picnics that can then build reflecting towers, blow up trucks, and adapts to poison with the greatest of ease gets my vote for being the smarter species, at least in this movie.<br /><br />Sterno says stomp on this anthill.<br /><br />
To me, this movie was just plain confusing, slow, and uninteresting. Why did the aliens choose to communicate through ants? It makes no sense. The ending was muddled and made no sense whatsoever. In the end, I was hoping that the ants would kill everyone.<br /><br />Avoid this one at all costs. Not even MST3K could save it.
I'd heard this Japanese flick is edgy, creatively interesting, a "cool new thang" on the Asian movie-making scene ... maybe even something as innovative as Hideo Nakata's "Ringu" or Chan-wook Park's "Oldboy", especially the latter.<br /><br />You can imagine my disappointment when, instead, I found the movie disjointed both narratively and cinematically (though not in a way that a film aficionado appreciates), cliché-ridden, even sadly silly instead of funny --- on the whole, a very bad knock- off of the "Pulp Fiction" style.<br /><br />I stopped watching after 30 minutes, when I gave up on it becoming something more than it is.
Let me first state that I REALLY REALLY wanted to like this film. For the most part the actors and actresses looked their parts, and did fairly well in their roles, but the movie lacked any real plot. It seemed so wraped up in seeming 'wacky' that no interesting story ever shone through. Also, the camera work was often sloppy, attempting snatchlike camera work and failing miserably. Most of the time, shots meant to look cool ended up being confusing. Perhaps something was lost during translation, but some of the characters were just... stupid. The crazy pretty boy who sniffs people like a dog? Uhhhhhhh. OK. Overall, a fat stinking 1/10. Not worth your time.
Although I found the acting excellent, and the cinematography beautiful, I was extremely disappointed with the adaptation.<br /><br />One of the significant portions of the novella is the fact that Ethan and Mattie decide to kill themselves, rather than go on. This is never presented in the movie, they show it as if it were a sledding accident.<br /><br />The character changes in Mattie and Zenna are almost non-existent. While in the novella they almost change places, at the end of this adaptation it appears as if they are both invalids.<br /><br />Lastly that Mattie and Ethan consummate their relationship fully nearly destroys the power and poignancy of the finale.<br /><br />The change of the narrator being a preacher was one effective change.<br /><br />Neeson and Arquette are superb in their portrayals. Joan Allen was also wonderful, however her character was much watered down from Whartons novella.<br /><br />I do not expect films to faithfully portray novels, but this one went to far and in the process nearly destroyed the story.<br /><br />Overall, I would not recommend watching this film unless you have read the book as you will come away confused and disappointed.
This is bad movie. There is no denying it as much as I'd like to. Tommy Lee Jones is about as good as he possible can be with the script they gave him, and he had a couple of decent action sequences that felt really out of place due to their acceptable quality.<br /><br />Somewhere along the line someone figured that all of the shortcomings of script could be counteracted if they were to hire every single workhorse actor in the business, unfortunately even truly, deeply talented actors like Goodman, Beatty, Sarsgaard, Gammon, Steenburgen, MacDonald, Pruitt Taylor Vince, and lest we forget Mr. Jones himself can't fix the wooden dialogue, and plot progression that went absolutely nowhere.<br /><br />In fact at one point I looked up, sure that the movie had been running for the past 2 hours only to find that I was 51 minutes into it.<br /><br />Perhaps the most painful point of the movie was the subplot about the ghost confederate soldiers that seem to be of little to no help to the story. Other than slightly detracting from the confusing business at the end with the picture. *if you haven't seen this movie disregard this past statement which may seem tantalizing and know that it is not, you will not understand it any better after having watched the movie.<br /><br />The most interesting thing about this movie may be that it is actually a sequel to the movie "Heaven's Prisoners" starring Alec Baldwin in the same role carried by Tommy Lee Jones in this movie. I may have to watch it now, first to see if it is as bad as In the Electric Mist, and second because I can't seem to (no matter how hard I try) break my man crush on Alec Baldwin.
I have read and enjoyed many of James Lee Burke's Robicheaux mysteries. When I read 'In The Electric Mist With The Confederate Dead' was being filmed and Tommy Lee Jones was playing the lead, I was thrilled. After watching it last night, I ending up turning it off with about twenty minutes left, not wanting to see any more people shot or beaten up. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind blood and gore-I love 'The Untouchables' and 'The Godfather Trilogy'. Perhaps it was just that I had previously seen 'Birth' and 'What Just Happened' before watching this. I know that Burke's books are violent, lyrical, and especially in the case of 'In The Electric Mist', can be like the Cajun swamps he writes about, full of things that are never fully explained. In a book, that's fine. In a film, that's confusing. Many of the previous reviewers are also ardent admirers of Dave Robicheaux, which makes it more understandable that they really liked the movie. Or they are admirers of Bernard Tavernier or both. Even as a fan of all the actors (and especially Vince), I felt it was such a waste of their talents overall-they gave good performances in a film that didn't hold together. Now, I say this, having only seen the USA DVD and hoping that Tavernier's cut will make a huge difference. On the plus side: The soundtrack was wonderful. The scenes at Robicheaux's place were perfect-just as I imagined the bait shop to look like. Mary Steenburgen was excellent as Bootsie, as was Walter Breaux as Batist. If you read the books, you know why Robicheaux is an even-tempered person in the beginning of the film, and then starts whacking people with various instruments. Overall, I wish that they had filmed more of the 'Electric Mist and the Confederate Dead' and left out large portions of Robicheaux's methods of interrogation, explaining Elrod's gifts and his bond to Dave, as well as Dave's to the General. Then I wouldn't be feeling today as I did last night when I turned it off, "What just happened?"
I've read all the Dave Robicheaux novels and consider James Lee Burke to be my favorite contemporary fiction writer. I've also visited New Iberia and much of Acadiana to be able to better visualize the setting in most of these books. Needless to say, I greatly anticipated seeing "In the Electric Mist," especially since I thought Tommy Lee Jones would be terrific as Robicheaux.<br /><br />I was greatly disappointed. The story was very choppy; the interplay with the "ghosts of Confederate dead" was shallow and lost the impact and nobility it added to the book; and Tommy Lee Jones was doleful, expressionless and difficult to understand as DR. The best way to describe this forgettable film is to add my "ditto" to an earlier user comment that this movie was like one of those old made-for-TV movies. I expected Jill St. John or Cameron Mitchell to show up at any time.<br /><br />The location settings were accurate, and the photography at times captured the essence of the steamy bayous, smoky juke joints and eerie above-ground graveyards of South Louisiana. Too bad the story's disjointed presentation and Tommy Lee's sub-par performance interfered with the unique mood and spicy zest of the region.<br /><br />Next to final comment: In the novels, Dave Robicheaux's nickname is "Streak," because of the distinct streak of silver-gray hair on one side of his head. (Similar to how the Sopranos' Paulie Walnuts would appear if he were seen only in profile.) Tommy Lee had no such streak in this film, probably because the editors are James Lee Burke fans and they airbrushed the streak out after witnessing Mr. Jones's poor imitation of Dave Robicheaux.<br /><br />Final comment: While I generally find Alec Baldwin to be pompous and obnoxious in most roles, he was by far a better Robicheaux in "Heaven's Prisoners" than Tommy Lee was in "In the Electric Mist." Also, Heaven's Prisoners is much more interesting and exciting, with uniformly believable performances and more evocative atmosphere than this new movie.<br /><br />"In the Electric Mist" is okay to watch when one feels like "veging out" and there's nothing better on TV. But then, so are infomercials.
This is a disappointing adaptation of the James Lee Burke novel "In the Electric Mist of the Confederate Dead". It is rather poorly acted mainly due to the miscasting of the principal players. Tommy Lee Jones, a normally fine actor, just doesn't capture Burke's "Dave Robicheaux". As Robicheaux's main nemesis, John Goodman does a sloppy job as the "heavy". The guy who plays Robicheaux's actor-buddy doesn't look like a former "A" lister leading man. The rest of the movie is mainly cast with no-name locals who just don't do justice to a big-time novel.<br /><br />The movie and Jones' performance is way too hurried for one thing. Robicheaux in Burke's series of novels, gives one the feeling that he fits well into his environment most of the time, being laid back and slow-moving. This is just like the deep south and southern Louisiana. Then at times Robicheaux is nearly manic in his exertions. Jones just moves at a fast pace through the whole movie. He doesn't vary. Ned Beatty is wasted. Mary Steenburgen is out of place. About the only good thing about this is the setting. On the whole the movie gives one the impression of a TV movie.
If you've ever listened to any of the James Lee Burke books on tape or CD and the reader was Will Patton you may agree with me that Will is the personification of Dave R.<br /><br />Tommy Lee Jones is a native Texan (or so I've heard) and no one portrays a Texan better IMHO, but he's not a Cajun. His delivery is all wrong. I lived in the state for several years and I can still hear the strange patois that a Louisiana accent contains. TLJ doesn't have anything like that.<br /><br />I thought Marry Steenbergen was a good choice for Bootsy, but I missed seeing Cletus (who will be cast in this role? The Rock? Mickey Rourke? whoever, he'll have to be big).<br /><br />Overall, I thought the movie was only a 4 - the plot flopped around like a fish out of water and didn't have the normal interesting, yet non-linear continuity that the book typically has.<br /><br />Hopefully, Hollywood will try another JLB book, "Last Car to Elysican Fields" would be a good choice. We'd get to see some of the best villains from JLB ever.
I have to be honest and admit that this movie did basically nothing for me except baffle me completely. It's burdened with a plot that revolves around the mysterious murders of several young women, which then gets linked to the discovery of a body over 40 years old. The story never really seems to make much sense, especially when Robicheaux (played by Tommy Lee Jones) starts having his conversations with Confederate General John Bell Hood (I never really did figure that out.) Jones was OK in his role, although I thought he was really starting to show his age here. Horribly miscast was John Goodman as Julie "Baby Feet" Balboni, who I guess is supposed to be some sort of local mob figure. I simply didn't think Goodman worked in this role, although I'll admit that just could be because I'm not much of a John Goodman fan. Somewhere in the mix appeared Justina Machado as an FBI agent, although I never really did understand what the FBI was involved in, which could mean simply that my attention kept wandering from the screen. If it was explained, though, I missed it completely. Fortunately, this is a fairly short movie, so you won't waste too much of your life on it. 2/10
I saw this movie last night at the Berlinale as part of the competition. It was billed as the "world premiere" of the movie by the host (though it seems that people here have seen it previously). I have to say, I still don't really know what to make of the movie. I am unfamiliar with the book, purchased the ticket only two hours beforehand and had only limited knowledge of the plot. Not enough, as it seems, as I had problems getting into the movie. The movie is sometimes being narrated by Jones' character but somehow that perspective did not fit for me. And I really cannot say if some of the laughs the movie got were calculated or not. The cuts were abrupt and disruptive, the scenes seemed somehow slapped together and the storytelling did not always make sense right away (even leaving out the supernatural parts) - the actors were really good but could not really save the movie somehow. It was entertaining but sometimes only in the sense that I sat there thinking about technical details of movie making and what went wrong with this one. I still do not know what kind of mood the director intended the movie to have. It was a strange mix of light, dark, supernatural. It sadly did not draw me in at all and I rather watched it with a technical eye. But thinking about what is wrong with a movie while watching it is the best sign that a movie somehow has failed. I would have definitely expected something else with these actors involved...too bad!
Detective Dave Robicheaux is trying to link the murder of a local hooker to New Orleans mobster Julie Balboni. But during his investigation Robicheaux is led into a series of surreal encounters with a troop of Confederate soldiers??, What a awful plot and it was worser than i had expected. it was real slow and had minimal skill in the acting i could not watch through it it was waste of my time. Another FLOP, i would give it under 1 if i could please people don't waste your time its 1:42m of wast-full time. Actor Elrod Sykes and his girlfriend driving under the influence. As Dave takes Elod to the station the actor tells Dave he found some skeletal remains while on the set of a movie he is filming
This is a tedious movie. The real villains are the clunky adaptation (it's embarrassingly easy to tell that the source material was a novel) and witless screenplay.<br /><br />On the credit side, considering the budget was tight due to wartime austerity, the look of the film isn't at all bad. And the performances are, by and large, OK, except for Phyllis Calvert, who is terrific - a miracle considering the potential for winsomeness, a pit into which she most definitely does not fall. Ms Calvert, with a lot less to go on, is as accomplished as Olivia de Havilland in Gone With The Wind.<br /><br />The one absolutely unbearable aspect of The Man in Grey is the dreadfully conceived depiction of a black serving boy. No matter that he's meant to be a sympathetic character. Played badly by a white boy in black-face make-up, it is impossible to by-pass this example of condescending racism.<br /><br />Grim.
Conquerer of Shamballa shows what happens when creators of an Anime fail to understand what their fans want. I as a fan did not want a 1920's Evil Nazi movie. What I would have liked to see is a real final showdown between Ed and Dante, as we don't REALLY know what became of her. I also would have liked to get Ed back to his world much sooner and have him stay there, to finally get a chance to be normal. You know, raise a family with a certain blonde mechanic, that sort of thing. No, instead I got a convoluted plot involving Nazi mystics, Fritz Lang and about ten minutes of Al, a joke of a Cameo by Roy Mustang and only one Armstrong joke, one short joke and no Winry hitting Ed with a wrench. Above all, it just didn't feel like Fullmetal Alchemist to me.
First off, I am critical of this movie because I really had high hopes and instead, this movie sucked.<br /><br />*possible spoilers* (if you haven't seen the TV series) Where to begin??? Well, let's start at the quality. The movie was barely better than the original TV series and the two fight scenes were very nicely crafted. However the CGI was horrid.<br /><br />Then there is the plot holes and questions that still remain after the whole movie is all said and done. This movie does not close off as a successful conclusion to a very broad universe known as FMA and only returns to expand the universe more before leaving us with nothing but our imaginations to decipher what would happen in the future.<br /><br />And then there is the stories biggest fault. Adding WWII and Hitler... WHY ?? The series was perfect... and didn't need Hitler. It didn't even need Germany.<br /><br />Overall the entire movie was sorely lacing in what a true FMA movie could have been and if I were the directors, I'd scrap CoS and make a new, more "ending", ending.
This movie came as a huge disappointment. The anime series ended with a relatively stupid plot twist and the rushed introduction of a pretty lame villain, but I expected Shamballa to tie up all the loose ends. Unfortunately, it didn't. It added more plot holes than it resolved, and confused more than it clarified. The animation and voice acting were great, but with an idiotic plot, dull setting (most of the movie doesn't even take place in dull WWII Earth rather than the Alchemy world), and disappointing ending (Ed is useless for the rest of his days in a world with no alchemy, and he ditches Winry?), it was altogether pretty lackluster. Do yourself a favor-- disregard the last half of the anime as well as this movie, and read the manga.
The plot involves a new, hipper franchise barbershop that is moving across the street from Calvin's barbershop. So, he feels like he has to change and improve his shop by getting newer stuff and such. Sounds real exciting huh. As for the rest of the film, a lot of it involves the same material from the first film. The people that work at Calvin's stand around, talk loud, and mouth off to each other and the customers. Once again Cedric the Entertainer was mildly funny, but it is more like he's doing a stand-up routine than anything to do with the movie. And Calvin is faced with another moral issue involving taking a large sum of money. He's already shown that he will do the right thing in the end.<br /><br />FINAL VERDICT: Nothing new. I don't recommend it unless you thought the first Barbershop was the best thing since sliced bread.
The first movie of this series was well written and original. This show drags on, poorly written gags, boring flashbacks, not the comedy that I expected. Even the young folks found it boring. There are certainly bright moments, historical elements and some good acting, but overall I can only recommend this for DVD/tape at home.
Barbershop 2: Back in Business wasn't as good as it's original but was just as funny. The movie itself lacked little things which the original held which made it much more enjoyable. Back in Business seemed to be just another worthless sequel made to bring in money with a very thin plot. Cedric the Entertainer's terrible excuses for flashbacks ruined the movie and seemed to be a bad way to try and get the audience to adapt more with the character. Overall Barbershop 2: Back in Business was a sequel not needed, without the originals charm, soul & spark.
This movie was completely stale and uninspired. The central premise of this movie was basically a bunch of stereotypical black people sitting around a barbershop exchanging painfully unfunny repartee. I did not laugh one time during the entire movie. I could have sat in any barbershop in America and have heard this banal banter, and maybe have even come out with a decent haircut. I cannot understand why this mess got any favourable reviews, much less why so many people have wasted money on this. None of the characters here were funny or worth caring about. I really didn't care whether the rival barbershop across the street would cause Nappy Cutz to go out of business. Don't waste your money on this one, folks, as that is the only way to get Hollywood to stop churning out these shambolic pieces of rubbish. 1* out of 5
The first film was quite hip and had amusing moments, this film doesn't exactly have the same standard. Calvin Palmer (Ice Cube) is still trying to keep his barbershop going, but this isn't just against stylist Gina (Queen Latifah) with a beauty shop next door, but soon enough a big barbershop chain called Nappy Cutz opening across the street. Calvin, along with co-workers and friends Eddie (Cedric the Entertainer), Jimmy (Sean Patrick Thomas), Terri (Eve) and Isaac Rosenberg (Troy Garity), they are doing everything they can to keep regular customers coming, and ultimately their business running against the competition. Also starring Michael Ealy as Ricky Nash, Leonard Earl Howze as Dinka, Harry Lennix as Quentin Leroux, Robert Wisdom as Alderman Brown, Jazsmin Lewis as Jennifer, Kenan Thompson as Kenard and Bad Company's Garcelle Beauvais-Nilon as Loretta. I didn't like this film as much as the first because of the unnecessary flashbacks about Eddie, and it isn't as witty, I just got bored of it. Okay!
...this one just isn't worth the cost of a movie ticket. What these filmmakers have done cannot properly be called filmmaking; rather, they just chose sixteen students of some diversity (though not quite as much diversity as the reviews have suggested) and set them loose. The results are, to be brutally frank, far more often boring, self-indulgent, overwrought and off-puttingly grainy than truly insightful.<br /><br />There are, of course, moments of recognition and identification of the sort only possible in documentary film, but overall there's not much more truth here than in "Bully" or, for that matter, a decent TV documentary of the same sort. Though full of talk about sex and sexual diversity and racism, the film brings nothing to the table that will be of use to anyone who has thought about any of these issues with any seriousness. And while certain segments serve absolutely no purpose other than to inject a bit of (admittedly welcome) comic relief, most often the five-minute limit keeps up from becoming emotionally involved with any of the students. An interesting idea, but thumbs down for CHAIN CAMERA.
As one of the victims of the whole Enron scandal, my mother forced me to watch this movie with her. How many times can I say awful? The script was so weak, using cliche after cliche. It seems as though the writers pieced this story together with a few articles on Enron. Watching the movie, we honestly were able to complete about half of the one-dimensional characters' lines and thoughts. I realize this was supposedly adapted from a book, but was the book this bad? I don't know what to say. Just terrible. The best thing about the movie? Shannon Elizabeth actually kept her clothes on. Other than that, this movie gets a big fat F.
I just watched this movie last night. Within 30 minutes of the start, I was hoping it would end.<br /><br />It had a promising beginning; the first 10 minutes. The premise of this movie (friendship that goes nowhere after they've spent days (and Years) together in "Separate" beds in hotel rooms) is just not believable. He does kiss her somewhere along the way, and she feels Ohh, so terrible about it. <br /><br />Very little substance to grab your interest. The acting just does not hold up. He is very passive. Regardless of how much of the movie is shown, the viewer never develops any type of a caring connection with the characters on the screen. You learn that her next utterance will be as boring as her previous one. ("Do you have a cigarette ?", He doesn't smoke, He wants her to stop smoking, Doesn't she know this by now.)<br /><br />She calls him in the middle of the night to visit him after a year's absence, she comes in through the door, they don't even hug or kiss or express any type of emotional connection. He doesn't even lean forward to lift her suitcase to help her in. That is not how real people behave, This is not how best pals behave.<br /><br />When he receives her phone call in the middle of the night (she is in town for one day), he shows little interest to see her face, acts more like she will be a burden for the night. At this point they've known each other for two years and he hasn't seen her for a year. Not Believable, not real. <br /><br />Supposedly, he has written a book on Entropy and Enthalpy, yet we never see him write or read or discuss any of his interests in Physics with her, not that she would be able to handle the discussion. We learn that a watermelon in L.A. costs $50, (It wasn't the Silicon Type mind you) he has no problem affording that Fruit. We also learn that the airport shuts down when a few really really fake snow flakes fall off the sky. I'm Sorry but was that in L.A. too?<br /><br />We never see how these two characters survive, we never see them at work. We never see them struggle, They are always on vacation. They have infinite time, they have no worries whatsoever. <br /><br />Nice life. Unreal life. Unreal Characters. Bad Title. Bad Movie.
When this show began it was fairly interesting: we got to see what crab boat fisherman had to go through during the crab-catching season. Soon after, however, it lost focus on the fishing and focused almost entirely on the drama in the lives of the fisherman. Episodes became nothing more than 'the captain doesn't like the new greenhorn' (this one happens way too often), 'someone is injured or sick', 'a fisherman gets word of some problem at home and is frustrated that he is stuck on a boat', repeat. I don't know how people can find the newest seasons watchable, as every episode seems to be essentially the same as those before and after it. This show should be moved to a different channel and renamed to "Crab Boat Drama", or, even better, it would have made a perfect one-time segment on Dirtiest Jobs. <br /><br />Shouldn't the Discovery Channel have learned their lesson after American Choppers?
I was wondering if there was a place or a link that someone can send me or post for me so i can watch this show . it seems to be a missing show i have been looking for years now its about oz and a girl who has to help save it . it was really good . but i found a good oz type thing on the web but i cant find it again or seem to remember a lot of it due to being years and was thinking that this one maybe it and from reading all this it sounds good and maybe the missing show that i really liked please someone help me thanks so much so please anyone that can help me or give me a link that would be so helpful again thank you so much....or if anyone has an oz based good videos please post as well.
The first time I saw this was when I was with a date, and she thought it was an awesome movie. I didn't.<br /><br />The second time I saw this was last night on TV. It still sucks.<br /><br />As a love story this sucks. As having Julia portray a street hooker, this is repulsive. To me she was a librarian with a miniskirt and heels. She had no tough shell to her. She wasn't tortured, anguished, enraged, starving or anything else. Her "HOOKER" character was so flawed, like comparing a cubic zircon to a diamond. The two simply don't fit, no matter what they look like.<br /><br />The ONLY cast I felt was worth watching was the 2 bitchy saleswomen, whom were excellently cast. They did such a fine job that I hated them for the few seconds that they were on screen. They had real definition, for the minor roles. OK, so the movie wasn't entirely trash...the two ignorant saleswomen saved the film.<br /><br />Aside from those two women sales people, the rest of the cast...including the big names was just crap. Either everybody was an ass-kisser or had absolutely no reason to fill any dialog in the movie aside from just complimenting Julia Roberts or kissing ass to Richard Gere.<br /><br />This was a movie about how when you walk around in high-heels and a tight skirt in Beverly Hills, people leer at you and guys who work in hotels gawk as if they just had a baseball bat struck to their face.<br /><br />While in reality, the women who are dressed to the nines in Beverly Hills are hookers and prostitutes to a higher degree, but since they aren't wearing the gaudy Madonna looking jewelry or the patent boots, they can look down on the others who do.<br /><br />The hotel cast was sickeningly sad to watch, and anybody who had any real character had less than a minute of screen time.<br /><br />This is an insult to romantic movies, comedies, dramas and even to prostitutes who face wealthy customers on a daily basis with hopes of having their lives work out perfect.<br /><br />The story is about Julia Roberts being PIMPED (yes PIMPED) by a multimillionaire in a business suit and limousine.<br /><br />She is still owned, still told how to act, how to move, what to wear, what to say, where to go and what to do. He is more controlling than a street pimp, but the folks at Disney/buena vista butter it up to make it easier to swallow.<br /><br />Had Richard Gere been a black man with a gold tooth and an AK-47 at his side instead of an attaché case, this movie would be about how a woman has to struggle to get away from the harshness of prostitution. Same story, different characters will make a very different outlook.<br /><br />Oh yeah, change the white man for a black man or Asian or Spanish, have the land business deal be changed to a deal of weapons or narcotics and the entire concept of romantic comedy is thrown away.<br /><br />As far as I'm concerned, Pretty Woman is still trash, dressed with ribbons and bows.<br /><br />I didn't like it 15 years ago, when I didn't understand it and was led by the Hollywood hype. I hate it now that i can see past the pretty decorations that is called "love".<br /><br />This movie is NOT a romantic comedy. It's a story on how to control a woman as long as you have the means and income to do so.<br /><br />This is an insult to strong women, weak women and women in general, as well as to my television screen.<br /><br />Do I hate it? Yes. Does it suck? Yes Would I recommend it to you? NO...well maybe if I really hated you.<br /><br />Will this review get posted? We'll see.<br /><br />Anywayz, that's all for now.
I have just given a 10 for Thieves Highway, I mention this for two reasons one to prove I'm not a git who only gives bad reviews but 2 because the theme of the film has the same thread namely the falling in love with a woman of the night.<br /><br />We all know pretty Woman is a chick flick but you can't avoid them all, they'll eventually get you. Pretty Woman for me does two things, two terrible horrible ghastly things, firstly it portrays prostitution as a career more akin to that of a dancer, you know with absolutely great friends, leg warmers lots of giggling, borrowing each others make up. You see in the reality of Pretty Woman the prostitute and this is a street walker Prostitute we're talking about here, has a great life, she's healthy happy with only the occasional whimper to explain her predicament. My feeling is this 'happy Hooker' type protagonist is a lot more palatable than an even nearly realistic character, which for me begs the question if you make a movie about a type of person but are too chicken scared to adorn that player with the characteristics familiar to that role then why do it? If I make a film about a chef but don't want him to cook or talk about food or wear a white hat then why make a film about a chef in the first place? By bailing out and turning the hooker into a respectable dancer type the story misses the point completely and consequently never indulges in any of the moral or social questions that it could have, what a cop out, really really lame. <br /><br />Secondly, 'Pretty Woman' insults romance itself, Edward Lewis played by Richard Gere has no clue how to seduce or romance this 'lady' that is without his plastic friend, yep don't leave home without it, especially if you are a moron in a suit who has no imagination. 8 out of 10 of his romantic moments involve splashing cash in one way or another, even when he first meets her it's the Lotus Esprit turbo that does all the work, necklaces here diamonds there limos over there, money money money, where's the charm? where's the charisma, don't mention that attempt at the piano please.<br /><br />Girls who like this film will also be girls who like shopping more than most. Guys who like this film will not even have realized that old Eddy has less charm than a calculator, as they probably don't either so it wont have registered. More importantly anyone who likes this film will hate 'Thieves Highway' a wonderful story of which part is based on the same subject.<br /><br />I'll finish on a song:<br /><br />Pretty woman hangin round the street Pretty woman, the kind I like to treat Pretty woman, I don't believe you You're not the truth No one could spend as much as you Mercy<br /><br />Pretty woman, wont you pardon me Pretty woman, I couldn't help but see Pretty woman, and you look lovely as can be do you lack imagination just like me<br /><br />Pretty woman, shop a while Pretty woman, talk a while Pretty woman, sell your smile to me Pretty woman, yeah, yeah, yeah Pretty woman, look my way Pretty woman, say you'll stay with me..and I'll pay you..I'll treat you right
If a movie can't hold your interest in the first 25 minutes, it's over as far as I'm concerned. This concept that you have to simply deal with a slow first third of a movie and be rewarded later is nonsense. A good movie has to start and end strong. It all seem interesting and some decent shots and lots of promise, but ultimately muddled and irrelevant. There are so many other movies from Asia to watch, many of which I am sure most of you have not seen, that I would really skip this one and look elsewhere. Why exactly does IMDb require a 10 line minimum for reviews? I said my piece and I hope this helps a few of you move on to the next film.
In London, the Venetian Carla Borin (Yuliya Mayarchuk) is searching an apartment to share with her beloved boyfriend Matteo (Jarno Berardi). She meets the lesbian real estate agent Moira (Francesca Nunzi) and rents a large apartment. When the jealous Matteo finds some pictures and letters from her former lover Bernard (Mauro Lorenz) in Venice, he hangs up the phone and the upset and amoral Carla has a brief affair with Moira and intercourse with an acquaintance in a party. When Matteo comes to London, he concludes that his lust for Carla is more important than his jealousy and her behavior.<br /><br />"Transgredire" is another "soft porn" of the sick director Tinto Brass with a shallow and ridiculous story where every situation is a motive to expose the intimate parts of the women in the cast. The amateurish camera exposes the body of the beautiful Yuliya Mayarchuk in every possible angle and her character is abused, touched and licked in every part of her nice body, but without showing explicit penetration. This flick is only recommended to fans of this director and as a voyeur experience seeing Yuliya Mayarchuk naked in erotic situations. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "A Pervertida" ("The Pervert")
I have just caught this Movie on TCM, and can understand why George Murphy went into Politics if this was the best MGM could serve up to him. It is so slow-moving that the attempt to make it a real film-noir effort does not come off. It featured two of my favourite<br /><br />players in Eve Arden (completely wasted) and Dean Stockwell(the best actor in the Film), but what really hit me was that the leading lady Frances Gifford went through some 90 minutes (it seemed longer!) without changing the expression on her face--her fainting scene was comical. John Hodiak played his role OK, but the script let him, and the rest of the cast, down very badly. I gave it 4 stars mainly because of the photography. It would have been on the first half of the Program when double features were the go.
I had to watch this movie for a film class, I suffered the whole time through. I am not Asian but was still greatly offended by this film. The film's basis is racialism, overall minorities (Rex Harrison isn't even Asian!) are depicted in narrow-minded manner. The banning of the film in Thailand illustrates the degree inaccuracy and subjective portrayal of Asians. In addition, there has been critical attention given to Biography of Anna. Many critics argue that Anna added many fictitious events to her story to project herself in a good manner. Some critics of the film and biography have even stated that Anna made up the whole story. An awful film but good for discussion of BioPics as form of meta-narrative fiction rather than a work of non-fiction.
So when Bob and Marion Boxletter see a guy at a hotel, Marion believes it is her long lost brother Brian, but when she approaches him he appears to be someone else just with the exact same face. Marion manages to get his fingerprints and takes it to the police and when the identity is confirmed that it was in fact her brother Brian she and Bob leave for New York after tracing his whereabouts. They get a hold of Brian, but still he doesn't know what they are talking about, but all the couple really want to know is where Brian has their 8 maybe 9 year old son Joey... and even when they see Joey he doesn't know them either. The plot thickens and they find themselves one day thinking that they are someone else as well. Experiments made out on people only to make the perfect assassins yet the question of why they would bother putting Bob and Marion in the same building as each other is beyond me. Personally Gregory Harrison played his 2 parts great, but I have no clue what was wrong with the other actors, they seemed bored and lost. 3 out of 10, a little suspense yes but that's it.
"A lot of the films I've made probably could have worked just as well 50 years ago, and that's just because I have a lot of old-fashion values." - Steven Spielberg<br /><br />Some points..<br /><br />1. Though this film is a loose remake of "A Guy Named Joe", it also borrows heavily from "A Matter of Life and Death" and "Wings of Desire".<br /><br />2. This was Spielberg's second attempt at being Frank Capra. <br /><br />3. Spielberg has often said that he wishes to make a "Frank Capra movie" in the vein of "It's A Wonderful Life" and "Mrs Smith Goes To Washington". Judging from his recent attempts to get a "Harvey" remake off the ground, it seems as though Spielberg still holds this dream, the director rightfully not satisfied with his last 3 ventures into Capracorn.<br /><br />4. Critics at the time bashed "Always", stating that the elaborate action sequences distracted from the film's romance, but that's really not the problem at all. The problem is that "Always" needs a lot more special effects to distract us from the fact that Spielberg can't film any line of dialogue that doesn't end in an exclamation point.<br /><br />5. The film is filled with comedy that just doesn't work. Spielberg's comedic tastes aren't very sophisticated, and seem to be ripped right out of 1950's screwballs and Looney Tune cartoons. These exaggerated antics may work in a cartoon universe, but in a film it just seems like an odd marriage.<br /><br />6. The film's lead couple come across as brother and sister, not lovers. Spielberg's films have always being apprehensive toward sex and intimacy, but this film goes to extreme lengths: she's a wisecracking tomboy and he's a wisecracking old man. They're more irritating than endearing.<br /><br />7. The film contains one good scene, in which John Goodman argues with Holly Hunter, but for the most part the film's characters are too annoying. There's no subtlety, every emotion overplayed, every joke over designed, every sequence filled with unnecessary busyness.<br /><br />8. "Always" and "Hook" taught Spielberg how to con audiences. After their failure (and the twin financial failures of "The Color Purple" and "Empire of the Sun") Spielberg dumped the goofy colour cinematography of "Color Purple" and "Empire of the Sun" in favour for the more desaturated "black and white" worlds of "Schindler's List", "Munich", "Minority Report" and "Saving Private Ryan". From here on, "less light" and "dark cinematography" became equated with "serious topics".<br /><br />9. After the financial success of each "dark film" Spielberg reverts back to his colour cinematography, and falls flat on his face once again. "Amistad" followed "Schindler's List", "AI" followed "Ryan" and "Lincoln" will follow "Munich". These "colour" films are always bashed for being too tacky, sentimental, corny and hokey, but the truth is, if you removed the desaturation, all these "serious" films would feel the same way.<br /><br />10. Since the 70s, Spielberg has tried to differentiate himself from the other brat pack directors (Scorsese, De Palma, Coppola etc), by pretending to be an "optimist" and "humanist". He would himself state this repeatedly during many interviews in the late 70s. The reality, though, is that he is probably the biggest sadist of all these directors, the very form of his films often undermining their content, their very box office performances always proportionate to their dazzling displays of carnage. <br /><br />11. The failure of Spielberg to connect with any of the characters in "Always", and the relish he shows, instead, for filming forest fires, air-planes crashing etc, perfectly encapsulates the rest of his filmography. People running from dinosaurs, sharks, Nazis, tripods, rocks etc...this is what Spielberg delights in. The moment his characters stop to speak, however, everything self-destructs. A film like "Amistad" failed, in other words, because not enough blacks died and too many whites talked.<br /><br />12. The film's flying scenes aren't up to the standard's set several years earlier in the mega-hit "Top Gun". Of course, when your "enemy" is a forest fire, it's hard to make things cinematic.<br /><br />13. Failures like "1941", "Hook", "Always" etc are often more illuminating that Spielberg's more successful films. They reveal the steel skeleton beneath the technique. They show what the amusement park ride looks like when its not working, revealing the vacuum beneath the broken machinery.<br /><br />5/10 – There's one good sequence here (two actors in a room, simply improvising), but this is mostly an annoying picture with a predictable script.<br /><br />Worth one viewing.
This film is replete with sentimentality, unprofessional flying that makes a pilot like me cringe, and irrelevant material. Why introduce Rachel, for instance? She has absolutely nothing to do with the film except to permit her "Follow Me" truck to run wild and crash into Dorinda's fence. That has got to be one of the stupider sequences among many in the film. Another is at the end when the aircraft (was it a B-26 or an A-26? --both designations are used in the film) is left with props whirling and no chocks in place. That serves the plot, of course, but to reveal it would be to commit a dreaded spoiler. As it is, the aircraft would have begun to taxi sans control. The ending (again, avoiding spoilers) involves much too much talk -- as at the beginning of sound films in the 30s with all those final speeches. Here, Dreyfuss just babbles on and on. The ending also incorporates other radical violations of aircraft protocol and a couple of improbabilities/impossibilities that I won't describe. What a dull and disjointed effort!
The worst part of all is the poor scripting, leading to superficial acting.<br /><br />Dreyfuss' character is intensely repetitive and annoying, and Dreyfuss himself has the annoying face to match.<br /><br />Holly Hunter's character is exaggeratedly self-centered, and Hunter herself indulges in serious overacting, as usual.<br /><br />Brad Johnson was wooden. John Goodman made the best of it.<br /><br />Furthermore, the whole death / ghost thing has since been somewhat overdone, and now appears rather lame. <br /><br />Barely watchable only if you like old aeroplanes.
A few yrs ago, I remember reading an essay by a feminist film theorist who briefly mentioned Rosalind Russell. This theorist wrote that the 'strength' of the 'strong women' that Rozzie R. played lay partly in their ability to stand by their man (even when he wasn't worth it).<br /><br />I thought of this essay after watching 'Crimes of Passion'.<br /><br />Kathleen Turner exudes the same strength and style as Russell in her portrayal of prostitute China Blue. She's the object of affection for two men: the loony priest played by Anthony Perkins, and a bland whitebread boy who's marriage is slowly fading. And she won't let either of them have a piece of her until ...<br /><br />I won't give away the ending - but I will say that this is ultimately Bland Whitebread Boy's fantasy. No matter how hard Ken Russell tries, he can't disguise the fact that this movie is basically a 1940s melodrama for the MTV generation. Except its retrogressive class and gender politics make those old black-and-white films look revolutionary by comparison.
Ken Russell directed this weird ( Not very ) erotic thriller and if I hadn't known that I would have staked my life that the director was Brian DePalma . Absolutely everything about CRIMES OF PASSION screams DePalma , from the gaudy cinematography that is lit a little too brightly , to the domestic storyline that turns into a stalk and slash plot , to even the title this screams " Depalma , DePalma , Depalma "<br /><br />Unfortunately since Brian DePalma is increasingly seen as a poor mans Hitchcock over the years Russell should have tried emulating a style of his own . Sure an erotic thriller in the style of TOMMY or BILLION DOLLAR BRAIN would have been bizarre with a capital B but at least it would have been a unique cinematic experience . Stories about prostitutes living a dangerous double life and being stalked by a religious maniac were an all too common sight in the 1980s video market . Oh and Anthony Perkins plays the same role he played in almost every movie he made in the 1980s . Yawn <br /><br />The only thing of any real note to CRIMES OF PASSION is the controversy it caused . I guess the studio were the happiest people to hear this since no publicity is bad publicity , but as for the controversial sex scenes ... What controversial sex scenes ? There aren't any and the only controversy I can think of is of China Blue dominating an on duty policeman with a truncheon . Needless to say he didn't come quietly HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
If you're in the mood to laugh at a truly bad movie (bad in the way only Ken Russell at his worst can be), you must try this one. It succeeds in making you feel like you just landed in a .25 porn-booth, and you can just about smell the urine on the floor. Kathleen Turner struts around in a blond wig, getting her kicks from "pretending" to be a two-bit hooker (she really has a good solid job in the clothing industry and has been hurt so badly by men that this is the only way she can connect), and Tony Perkins plays a hysterical "priest" who is out to maybe murderer her (yet another movie that ends with Tony Perkins in drag). Annie Potts shows up and is not allowed to provide an ounce of her usual wit, which is reason enough to hate this movie. The kinky will love the sex scenes, so rent the UNrated version in the RED box so you can see Turner give a cop a taste of his billy club (I had to pause the VCR until we stopped laughing).
"Crimes of Passion" is a film that is disappointing on most counts. Where should I start from? The plot? It is despairingly simplistic and full of gaps. The direction? Reminds a cheap B-movie. The acting? John Laughlin is utterly terrible in his role as "well-intentioned-husband-of-a-frozen-wife" Bobby, Annie Pots is unconvincing as "frozen-wife" Amy, and it is only Kathleen Turner (above average), and Antony Perkins (excellent) which get passable acting marks. More specifically, Antony Perkins gives a great performance as the pervert reverend Peter Shayne, while Turner manages to portray the roles of sexy China Blue and frail Joanna Crane satisfactorily.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the performances of Turner and Perkins alone are insufficient to help get the film a grade higher than 4/10. Watch it if you want to see Turner in some sensational scenes (although even on this count the film can be easily matched by its competition-"Basic Instinct" for example), otherwise avoid.
I've seen worse, which is a backhanded way of saying how crummy this film was. The plot is ridiculous: a student shoots a police officer and five more take him hostage? In a dimly-lit, smoky New York school -- and somehow this clichéd hostage situation takes 24 hours to resolve? Are you serious? A day-long hostage situation -- with a wounded NYPD officer no less, takes all day? I realize this film was made pre-9/11, but still. I looked at the clock and wondered how they could possibly drag this overdone plot on for another hour and 10 minutes.<br /><br />The acting was mediocre at best all-around, and the characters were seemingly thought up by 7th graders. The child-abuse kid, the pregnant scared girl, the violent gang wannabe, a confused unfortunate victim, the wise-cracking white guy. Please.<br /><br />Trying to make this hostage situation into a mission for "more textbooks" and better school conditions? Please -- this is a weak attempt to justify writing a movie about a kid who shoots a cop. They're confused, ignorant idiots who get involved in a dumb -- far-fetched -- situation. Don't try and paint them, suddenly, as noble, The most laughable is Ziggy, who lives in the school's attic and admires Michaelangelo so much so that he paints these striking scenes on the walls. You've got to be kidding me.<br /><br />The "no racism" signs in the protesting crowd? A black kid shoots a black cop and a black negotiator tries to patch it all up. This is a random message.<br /><br />I understand the overall message, which was poorly portrayed, albeit by some actors who have gone on to respectable careers.<br /><br />This was a joke though the red sniper lasers on the roof? The worst scene was the kid, fake snow falling, dying in the arms of his buddy on the roof, "promise me" etc. How original.<br /><br />The epilogue of "I went to prison but now I'm pre-law at XYZ University" ... a fitting way to end a joke of a movie.
I guess they reward idiocy today because whoever came up with the concept for this movie was not shot on sight.<br /><br />This is a morons delight. The worst stereo-types of every ghetto and high school movie is dragged out twisted around and made even more unbearable. Every character in this movie has a sob story beyond sympathy. Lets pray for a remake where the whole school gets nuked.<br /><br />***Spoiler*** how does a school so run down have the internet in the first place?
I found this movie to be preachy and unrealistic. It tries to be a movie showing kids fighting against the system, but it doesn't even present a positive solution. I guess I didn't feel really for the kids. I totally can understand what their gripes were and I know how poor the state of schools are, but I found their solution and the way the outside dealt with it to be a big bunch of phooey. If this comes on TV, don't waste your time. Watch Short Circuit again for the 235th time.
What are Forest Whitaker and Clifton Collins Jr. doing in this? Light It Up is a ridiculously melodramatic piece on problems in low income area schools. While the topic is one that needs to be addressed, the film uses every cliche in the genre and comes off as a textbook popcorn flick. The characters are cutouts from the inner city version of The Breakfast Club or even The Faculty. Watch this with your children when they turn 13 or 14. With them, it could be an outlet for a lesson on current social problems. For anyone older, it will be nothing more than something to watch and spit on at 4 in the morning, as I did recently on Bravo. Matter of fact, what was this doing on Bravo?
This Movie Was In My Opinion Very Ignorant! There Is Only Foolishness As The Motivation Of The Caracters. The Police Procedure Was Unrealistic. The Caracters Generated No Sympathy From Me,The Story Must Have Been Written As The Movie Was Filmed. Unless You Like Police Bashing Stories Don`t Waste Your Time.<br /><br />
This movie is an obvious rip-off of Underworld USA starring Cliff Robertson. You owe it to yourself to invest a couple of hours and watch the original. I found this one to be disjointed and hard to follow, with a lot of scenes that didn't make much sense. I'm not opposed to violence in movies but this whole thing seemed to be nothing more than an excuse to blow away one person after another, many of whom were only marginally connected with the storyline. With everyone else getting killed, all through the movie I wondered why Frank didn't just blow Johnny's brains out. He certainly could have and Johnny sure didn't act like someone that could be trusted. Another thing that bothers me is the sex scenes; why do these people have sex with their clothes on? Is that supposed to turn us on? Surely they didn't think they had a shot at a PG rating. Nothing in this movie seemed to play out naturally. as if one were watching people in real life, instead it was done in a heavy-handed and shallow manner.
I share the same opinion regarding Underworld as the previous comment.<br /><br />I sat through the 1.5 hours of this movie wondering what this story was all about and more importantly why the author and/or director had made certain decisions for the plot. On the whole I found the movie to be unbalanced, consisting of strange sub-plots which (IMHO) actually had nothing to do with the movie. Furthermore, when writing a thriller I'd say you want your viewers to wonder about the story and not about the way the story is filmed...
This movie is so bad, they wouldn't buy it back at my local used CD/DVD store. I only own it because it came in a box set which I bought for the masterpiece "Deadfall". The store bought back the other two movies I was selling from the four disc set, but they wouldn't buy back Underworld, and those other two movies redefined rank, so what does that say about this movie? So I tried to sell it back to another store, that even bought back budget DVDs that you could buy for a dollar at a local store, but they wouldn't buy back Underworld either. This movie is bad on every level, and is one of those that came out in the post-Tarantino-clone glut of the mid 90's. The only slightly redeemable element is Dennis Leary telling Joe Montegna, that he's a "stinky friend" and calls him "Mister Stinky Friend". That line is so delightfully horrible, that I can't help but quote it at least once a week when describing a stinky friend. But now that I've enlightened you with that quote, you don't have to go thru the pain of watching this movie.
Although the movie was only so so the closed captioning was by far the best I have ever seen! Most of the time the spelling is terrible and the captioning out of sync. I use the closed captioning even though I can hear well but find a lot of actors mumble. Also many times the sound track overrides the dialogue. Thanks!
There are actually some good reasons, why a person should take the risk of going totally insane by watching this show. The breasts are nice, even though some of them aren't that real, but they usually come in pairs, which is good. Watching the beach on your screen is also a very relaxing experience, as it is an ideal place for just taking it easy and not worrying too much about getting eaten by a rubber shark. It's always good to remember, that David Hasselhoff is a god. Not the god, but a god. It's not so much about his acting skills, since there are none, but his chesthair does a lot of talking. Also, there's no KITT hanging out in this series, which is good, since Mr Hasselhoff told in an interview, that he always thought KITT was gay. Naturally that might make him to look like an idiot, but considering the other statements he has made lately, it shouldn't be surprising to anyone.<br /><br />In a nutshell, this is the kind of show, that is totally harmless to people. It gives us a lot to stare at and a lot to laugh at, which is something many intentionally humoristic shows really don't give us. I have to say, it's no wonder that Borat fell in love with Pamela Anderson. I enjoy watching the show. No, it's not a great show, actually it's quite horrible, but I enjoy watching it. It's basically like a B-movie stretched to last for a decade.
This is the first porn I've ever tried to review. It demands a different approach than usual, since the allegory will not reward dissection. "I'm American. I'm a prudish virgin." "We are European. We are cultured and sex-mad." "It is nice when we all screw each other." Lots to talk about! Well, there kind of is in fact, relative to your average 60s topless volleyball number anyway. And the enervating patina of 'class' at least delivers clean, detailed compositions. But what the hell kind of thing is that to say about a porn? OK then: the only scene I really (rhetorically) got off on was the first time Brigitte Maier steps in. There are efforts to toss in a nice variety of race and age while letting no two men anywhere near each other; the one black guy suffers a premature bout of editorial coitus interruptus. And multiple takes or not, one perhaps undescribable-on-IMDb act does look like it was partially simulated by a surgical hose. Still, I stayed awake, and it was eight in the morning...but what does the last shot mean?!
Young Michael Dudikoff like young Lord Greystoke was abandoned in the jungle on a Pacific island as an infant. But instead of being raised by the apes, he fell into the hands of a Japanese soldier who was still living there because he hadn't heard the war was over. And like young Luke Skywalker it turns out he fell into the hands and learned the fighting skills of a Ninja.<br /><br />Good thing because they were separated and the young kid came down with a case of amnesia, but those fighting skills didn't go away. The orphaned kid, now named Joe Armstrong enlists in the Army and gets himself stationed in the Phillipines. Meanwhile his Obi Wan Kenobe played by John Fujioka gets rescued himself and goes to work as a gardener on the estate of planter and terrorist go between Don Stewart using a cheesy accent that seems to vary between French and Spanish.<br /><br />As these things happen everybody meets and Dudikoff both solves the mystery of part of his past and saves the commanding officer's daughter from the bad guys in this Golan-Globus Production. Charles Bronson was getting a bit long in the tooth now and Golan-Globus needed a new star for their action flicks. Michael Dudikoff filled the bill quite nicely and made quite a few films for them including several American Ninja sequels.<br /><br />This film is all action and Dudikoff dispatches bad guys at a record pace. What he doesn't do, Steve James does doing his best Rambo imitation and showing his considerable martial arts skills.<br /><br />The film has enough holes in the plot to drive one of those army vehicles through you see in the story. But that's what the ticket buying public doesn't care about. Dudikoff certainly looks magnificent stripped to his fighting clothes. No wonder so many sequels were made.
I have seen cheesy kung fu fight films. Living in Taiwan they come on in lieu of sitcoms in America. I have seen movies make fun of themselves, but this film belongs in the sad category of fight films that try too hard with awful actors, awful props, and awful music to be taken seriously. I seriously felt pity for the person who composed the music for this movie. How sad it must be to be a composer who has to churn out crap like what I thought should have been titled "Generic Ninja Fight Scene, Op. 1" or "Variations on A Bad Guy Pointing a Gun at a Girl's Head When Backed into a Corner" or the daring "Flight of the Helicopter". Then the fight scenes were over and the credits rolled. Those actually had me in tears laughing. If the "special effects" weren't proof enough that this was low-budget, the fact that only two or three of the crew members, presumably locals which although good for the much-needed Phillipino economy was probably done solely to save money, have ever done anything since this series of movies. They rented equipment, despite making sequels to this movie. That was pretty funny too. The thing that really had me going though, was not the music (which left me half expecting an animated Sargeant Slaughter from G.I. Joe to pop up), but the ending...I suppose this would be a spoiler if there was really a plot to spoil, but when the American Ninja drops the girl into Jackson's arms and then takes off his mask, I wanted to see him jump off the roof and Jackson drop the girl to catch him.<br /><br />I think that would have been the perfect punchline for this joke of a movie.
This review contains a SPOILER---<br /><br />The movie is an American Ninja mysteriously trained in the martial arts. He falls for the Colonel's daughter and turns from the most hated grunt on the post to the "People's hero" at the end of the film. This film is extremely cheesy and very poorly researched. It is good for folks who do not care about plot development or reality. Good for kids under 14. The military errors in this film is comical. I remember during my three years in the military, us privates were not required to salute or call NCO's "Sir", the film does this in various spots. The colonel's hair is way too long on the ears. The Master Sergent's moustache was against military protocol in length. On the post, the Colonel was the only officer around. Not one other officer was shown walking around the post. You had idiot ninjas brandshing swords against troops with m-16's, rather poorly made.<br /><br />Folks this filmed reeked. Michael Dudikoff is not really that bad of an actor he just has lousy scripts. The ninjas were more hilarious than dangerous. Avoid this film
I couldn't stop laughing, I caught this again on late night TV. "I suppose you think you're some kind of hero for bringing my daughter back alive" "No" "Good"<br /><br />haha.
Michael Dudikoff stars as Joe Armstrong a martial artist who fights ninjas who are stealing weapons from the U.S Army, in this entertaining yet admittedly brainless martial arts actioner, which is hampered by too many long pauses without action, but helped by some high energy action setpieces as well as Steve James' performance.
The plot is very basic, but acceptable: A young US soldier, having studied Asian martial arts, puts this to good use in defence of the general's daughter and falls in love with her. Unfortunately, the three main acting parties' (soldier, girl, rebels) combined IQ amounts to 3: One point for the soldier, one for the girl, a large number of Ninja fighters have to share the third point among them to be able to lose against the former two.
This is a great movie for first time ninjas who are dating. If you're trying to impress some cute little ninjette I would highly recommend playing this masterpiece. Its one of those special movies that allows you to miss large sections of it without interfering with the plot.<br /><br />Also I was wondering, where does a Teal ninja hide? Are ninjas color coded like this? Is this normal? If I were attacked by one of these yellow or orange ninjas I would die of laughter before succumbing to his sword.<br /><br />And I finished my black star ninja test the other day, it was multiple choice, It went pretty good. I found there were a lot of questions on how to "sneak" around and look evil. Its all about the eyebrows and the attitude. <br /><br />Basically, the movie could have been better if: 1. There was no color coded ninjas (or the color coded ninjas could combine into a super ninja). 2. Joe died in the first two minutes and Patricia had to avenge him 3. Miscellaneous monkeys were scattered throughout the file 4. Patricia didn't talk and Patricia was replaced with another character 6. The French guy was also a black star ninja 7. Chris Tucker, Whoopi Golderg, and Chris Rock were added as "comic" relief 8. Ninja strengths came from miticlorians.
Ask a thousand people what the greatest unintentional comedy of all time is, and they will almost invariably tell you Battlefield Earth or Plan 9 From Outer Space. They're wrong. American Ninja has those two turkeys beat down for a number of reasons, not the least of which being a script that was quite clearly not thought through. While I fully support the B picture industry for keeping slobs like Michael Dudikoff in work, a little work on the product would have gone a long way.<br /><br />For those who give a rat's posterior, my next few paragraphs will give away significant parts of the plot.<br /><br />First of all, when we are given some background information on the titular hero, we are told his date of birth, next of kin, parents, and so forth, are all unknown. I don't know about you, but I expect the US army to take fact-finding about its personnel a little more seriously. They also manage to screw up the continuity of dates quite effectively, although I don't remember quite which dates were screwed up and when. This is actually one of American Ninja's less obvious flaws.<br /><br />It has been pointed out before, but a common failing of many martial arts films is that when our heroes are confronted by large numbers of antagonists, said antagonists attack one at a time. More recent films such as The Matrix Reloaded defy this convention, but just about every film from the 1980s has the audience screaming, "hey, why don't you attack all at once???". Martial arts films tend to be a lot more impressive when the fights are more extensive than one-on-one.<br /><br />The central premise was originally a joke, but in light of recent events where the US army cannot crush a mob of insurgents simply because they won't delegate to the specialists, it seems strangely ironic. Phillipino renegades are stealing weapons from the US army's local division for sale to wealthy clients. Never mind that such a theft would prompt the army to give the local businessmen responsible, or even believed responsible, an aerial rectal exam, this is a cheesy 1980s action film, after all.<br /><br />By far the funniest part of the film is the climactic battle, however. As Joe and Jackson turn combining posing and fighting into an art form, evil Ninjas start to explode for no readily apparent reason. I agree with one previous commentator in that this film should have been called Ninja Holocaust, because I'm willing to bet a total of at least three hundred evil Ninjas bite it during the film's running time. On top of that, the Black Star Ninja starts fighting with rocket launchers, laser beams, and all sorts of ridiculous implements that are not only poorly thought out, they're flat-out poorly executed. You'll never see a laser beam effect that looks cheaper.<br /><br />What tops it all off is that the film takes itself so damned seriously. During the scene when Joe is meeting up again with his old mentor, I dare the viewer not to laugh at the hideous dialogue. Not that I know any modern practioners of Ninjitsu, but the logical part of my imagination has a hard time believing that they have spoken like this at any time in their history. During this mentoring scene, I half expect the old guy to tell Joe he must prove his manhood by cutting his own head off with a blunt plastic spoon.<br /><br />In all, I gave American Ninja a 1. This is a special score in my system in that it is reserved for the worst, most appalling, most offensive films I've ever seen, or films that make me laugh without even bothering to try. American Ninja is definitely an example of the latter.
For many year I saw this movie as a real movie of ninjas but after study more about this culture I can only think this is just another karate film. A black shinobi and some weapons doesn't make a ninja, it's much more than that. The ninja are the most dangerous warrior of the japan because they are trained in every aspect of life to survive to anything, killing whatever try to stop them. This movie is not a about a ninja warrior just about a clown trying to be something he cannot even understand.
What crack are you smoking? This movie, while gloriously entertaining, is awful! <br /><br />The action scenes are so obviously fake it's kind of sad. The colonel's daughter is painfully irritating. The ninja training camp is so hilarious it is almost not worth mentioning. And when Joe puts the bucket over his head and beat up the other army guy, I just about peed myself. I could go on...<br /><br />Entertaining, arguably so. Good, no. Well made, certainly not.<br /><br />As a commentary on America as empire, it's actually pretty good. Joe as a typical white conqueror isn't all that surprising, especially in the context of mid-1980s American cinema.
This could have been a really good movie if someone would just have known how to finish the film.<br /><br />The story was going along just fine and heading towards that point in every movie like this where the "gray" characters turn "good" and the "bad" guys get their just desserts and *boom* ... it's like they ran out of script and the cast just started to make things up.<br /><br />Which wouldn't have been so bad ... if the cast had just continued with the character development they had already put in place. But such is not the case and the movie soon becomes a goofy mess.<br /><br />My advice is to watch this movie up to about the last 30 minutes ... and then shut it off. At this point, imagine how you think the next 30 minutes will look based on what you have seen so far.<br /><br />Believe me, the ending you come up with will look far better than how this film actually ends. Trust me on this.
Look, this film is terrible... the "plot" involves twins who are neglected by their self-absorbed parents, and left in the care of a succession of nannies and babysitters, all of whom the children drive away by being completely obnoxious. Eventually the kids engineer ex-convict Beverly D'Angelo to be their new nanny, do you care why? And D'Angelo watches a TV talk show about selling children and decides she will try to sell the twins... and, well, oh, you don't want to know. It's all very unpleasant, and not at all funny. In fact the announcer slated this film before it came on the TV channel I was watching! Just don't bother wasting a single moment of your life on this pile of complete trash, y'hear?
Gordon Scott made some good Tarzan movies, but this is not one of them.<br /><br />As I watched it, wincing at the bad, obviously interior sets and the hollow wooden "clonking" sounds as they walked across supposedly dirt trails, and cringing at the bad dialog and worse acting among the supporting cast, I kept thinking, "Sheesh! This is TV show level!" Then I find out it was, indeed, three TV show pilot episodes woven seam-fully into one.<br /><br />It's nice to see Scott get outside (alone), away from the lame sets, in a few of the scenes; and the fights do have some pretty nice moves... but oh, ow, and ouch as to the dialog. And did I mention the acting? Heck, Cheetah (or "Cheta," in this version) was a better actor than most of the humans.<br /><br />And that's not saying much.<br /><br />It is kind of a stitch to see a younger Sherman (i.e. Scatman) Carothers acting as a native. But probably not worth the overall time-investment.
Tarzan, the environmental awareness leader, faces four trappers who by most unorthodox means abduct animals to get them to Zoos. Tarzan has a bland but sexy enough wife with an impeccable hairdo, and a kid. No one should fault Tarzan for being grieved by the vicious actions of the hunters.<br /><br />This Gordon Scott Tarzan flick is one of the silliest, completely and unnecessarily silly; for one reason or another, the team did not find anything charming to sustain the movie, and so it's just some silly rubbish. Tarzan and his family are threatened by a group of evil trappers ,because Tarzan's environmental awareness brought him into open conflict with the evildoers. The kid and the chimpanzee, both belonging to Tarzan, are kidnapped by the malevolent trappers; so Tarzan summons the unleashed animal forces of the jungle to release the kid and the chimp—with Tarzan leading the attack. TARZAN AND THE TRAPPERS is silly, unappealing, quite uninteresting. Maybe as a kid I would have liked it? Now one has to be too mean—as viciously mean as those pathetic trappers punished by Tarzan—to ask a Tarzan flick not to be silly; this I concede. But one is also truly entitled to ask these Tarzan flicks, however silly, to have and to show some gusto—a bit of gusto—even a tiny bit of gusto. Some kick, some excitement, some fun. Now the Gordon Scott Tarzan failure is too silly exactly in the sense of not having any gusto at all, of lacking all excitement. (Yes, I liked the sequence of the jungle beast eating a snake. What beast? Watch the movie, kiddos, now here I just gave you one excuse to do so.) For one reason or another, the villains look somewhat pathetic and elicit mercy rather than virtuous anger.<br /><br />The books leave the impression that Tarzan seemed quite bright in his own way; and if finding a decent bodybuilder or another sportsman to look clever enough for the role might prove a too demanding, next to impossible task, Gordon Scott was anyway too far from meeting that ideal.<br /><br />The wife chides Tarzan for disliking books.<br /><br />The script suggests Tarzan was uneducated, almost illiterate, and adverse to learning; but the book says otherwise, and we know that Tarzan studied much, by himself, using the books of his gone family, before even meeting white people.<br /><br />And I did not like that yell.<br /><br />(It's supposed, dear kiddos, to be a genuine wild yell, not a missed yodeler.)
Gordon Scott with his well coiffed hair, hourglass figure and weird pidgin English has to be the worst of all the Tarzans. As for the other actors in this mess, they're on a par with any 4th grade elementary school drama class. I've seen Used Car Dealers in TV commercials who can act better. They make Clayton Moore look like Laurence Olivier! And where does Jane (the dull Eve Brent) get her lipstick and eyebrow pencils in the jungle? I realize these were made for kids but Wow! The plot line seemed OK but the director should have required more from his actors. I realize even the Weissmuller films have a few flaws but this one seemed so "low budget".
Has this ever happened to you? I go into my local video store and see a few new arrivals in the "film noir" section. I spy a copy of a new arrival of a film I have never seen called NAKED ALIBI. Its from one of those mail order video companies that offers (mostly) "dupey" looking copies of hard to find titles. The description on the box sounds good. The film has players I like (Sterling Hayden, Gloria Grahame, and Gene Barry). So I take it home and watch it. About ten minutes into this film I started having second thoughts. About half way through this film I started to dislike it. By the time the film ended, I not only disliked it, I despised it. The film opens with cops questioning Al Willis on suspicion of robbery. Other than being drunk, the police have nothing on him. When he pushes a cop and demands to be allowed to go home, the cops beat him up. Detective Conroy arrives, lets the cops finish the beating and then announces Willis is in the clear. Willis swears he will get revenge. Later one of the police officers is shot dead. With no evidence other that Willis is "sore" about the beating, Conroy make Willis his sole suspect, despite the fact that his boss names a pair of mobsters as suspects. Conroy arrests him, but for lack evidence Willis is released. The next day two more cops are killed by a bomb. This time Conroy goes to the Bakery that Willis owns and tries to beat a confession out of him. Conroy doesn't know it but a local newsman whose paper has been accusing Conroys department of police brutality snaps a picture of Conroy trying strangle Willis and Conroy is fired. But Conroy continues his pursuit and Willis flees to Mexico where Willis has a mistress. Conroy manages to convince his mistress (who Willis treats rather rough) to help him prove Willis is a killer. What this film lacks is a convincing script. The script looks as if only a rough draft was written and shooting began before a finished script was completed. Things happen, characters personalities change, plot twists occur for no real reason other than that script calls for it. Other than the fact that Willis likes to tip a glass now and than, there is nothing in the early part of the film to make us think that he is a crazy killer that cheats on his wife. He treats his wife, his kid and employees well. Early in the film, one gets the impression that its Conroy is the one whose is a loose cannon. He seems to casually approve of police brutality. Conroy, for no reason is convinced from the very start Willis has criminal past. He seems to operate on the motto of the old Communist Bulgarian secret police; "Everyone is guilty of something, we just have not found out about it yet." Later Conroy shows kindness to Al's mistress and young son, now we are supposed to like him. Sorry! The early impression I got of Conroy stuck with me too long. And he is also a dumb cop. Only after he is fired and goes to Mexico does he run a background check on Willis and discovers that a warrant is out for him issued in Maryland. Why didn't he think of this before? Because this film hadn't used up enough running time. The cast is good. Gene Barry does well considering how poorly conceived his role of Al Willis is. I'm big fan of 40's and 50's crime thrillers but not only did I not think this film was good, it left a bad taste in my mouth (something many modern films do, but older films rarely do).
I went out of my way to get this film, and was fortunate to get it on VHS. Being a big Gloria Grahame fan, it was an excellent addition to my collection. Other than that, I really cannot say a lot to recommend this picture. The plot is predictable (and weak) and the only interesting aspect of the film is watching Sterling Hayden get into deeper trouble with his own department. Ms. Grahame is always fun to watch (if you like her, as I do), but the dubbing of her singing hurts this picture a lot. She works in a dive, so let her use her own voice. It can only lend to the atmosphere. I must agree with an earlier reviewer; the ending borrows heavily from THE BIG HEAT. To the point of detracting from the ending. I have seen worse films with Ms. Grahame (MACAO), but I will never pass the opportunity to see her on screen. If you are having a movie night and looking for a second feature film, this is your movie. Enjoy the picture.
I went to see this on the strength of Albert Finney alone. He's one of my favorite actors and he rarely fails to deliver. I'm not sure if the plot is interesting or just silly: it's about a little boy who is about to be born, but as his mother goes into labor, he refuses to come out! This sends God and the whole human being factory into a crisis and Albert Finney is called out of purgatory to try and convince the boy to change his mind and decide to want to be born. So Finney takes the unborn boy for an adventure in the Big Apple in hopes of showing him all the reasons he should want to live.<br /><br />Despite the ridiculousness of the plot, I could have accepted it if the director had not tried to turn this into your typical Hollywood sentimental moralistic message film. Directorially, the film was rendered unbearable by a horrible soundtrack of the stock sentimental music that Hollywood directors seem incapable of resisting.<br /><br />He further butchered the somewhat unconventional story by giving away its hand at every moment. Whatever twists and turns were in store in the plot were completely given away by the way the story unraveled. It was as if the director assumed the audience is just a bunch of idiots who cannot see the obvious hints coming from a mile away.<br /><br />Even Finney in his performance, though satisfactory, seemed a bit awkward and out of place; and the little boy with curly locks, though he was supposed to be cute, was in fact rather dull. Bridget Fonda seemed intent on trying to duplicate Demi Moore's performance in 'Ghost', shedding tears at a moment's notice.<br /><br />I understand that the film has been unsuccessful thus far at getting distribution in the U.S., which surprises me as I think it has the box office potential to be a modest hit, appealing to both kids and sentimental adults. As far as the quality goes, it's not an awful film, it's just not very good. (4 out of 10)
I went to Crooked Earth to see a piece of New Zealand. What I found was a badly scripted and badly acted echo of the people I know.<br /><br />Great moments between characters – including many of Temuera Morrison and Lawrences Makoares scenes together – were often ruined by long and wordy monologues that the actors were forced to stumble through. Beautiful and ill-fitting phrases rattled away from Lawrence in particular as if he were the new Maori Messiah at his pulpit of beer crates.<br /><br />When watching any film with Maori actors, I've found that I can always pick a half dozen characters that remind me of someone in my life. With Crooked Earth I struggled to find one key character that rung true for the entire two hours. Most – including Wiremu and Peka – wound up saying or doing things that I didn't understand and couldn't connect with. By the end of the movie the writer had succeeded in alienating the audience where the Maori weren't able to relate to it and the Pakeha were therefore given license to dismiss it. My feeling is that the movies message – or at least the main one of several that was being lobbed at the audience – is important enough to avoid using character extremities. Unfortunately, no one who read the script before it was filmed thought to pass this piece of advice on.<br /><br />The soundtrack was invasive, and, as irritating as that horrible `bing-bong' noise that they laced through `Eyes Wide Shut'. The audience was not so subtly auto-cued to laugh, cry or be angry when the music changed. It reminded me of Darth Vader's entrance music in Star Wars: obvious and mildly amusing.<br /><br />I think that there are some people out there that might enjoy this film. It's funny in parts, has a fair amount of action and has some really powerful scenes. Calvin Tuteao and Quentin Hita did bang up jobs as well. As a whole though, I didn't enjoy the experience as much as I know I should have. Barb Wire, Speed 2, The Island of Dr Moreau and Crooked Earth look like they're going to be Tem's quartet of crap.
I mean, come on! This movie had such nice potential but it's like they ran out of money to finish the script and just telegraphed the whole damn rest of the movie about 2/3rds of the way through. Characters start spouting this movies whole reason for existence to other characters who didn't ask for the information on extremely flimsy premises. They also fall into some stereotypical behavior because that must be what's expected in this genre of movie. It's really pretty sad because this movie could have been so much more.<br /><br />I was really hoping this would be a good movie. There was some good acting. Mark Hamill does an excellent job until the movie falls apart, so does Sally Struthers. It was fun to see them working and succeeding at their craft. Majandra Delfino was pretty good for awhile until her lines just became untenable. I felt sad for her that she had to say these lines that just shot the whole movies credibility for any thinking movie goers. Brad Hunt does an excellent job. He really has a surprising range of talent judging from another of his movies I recently saw, Lucky 13. (which was a piece of crap). This guy could be a star if he could pick the right scripts and get lucky with the right director.<br /><br />Almost forgot! The music was so heavy handed you might think this project was handed to some minor film school to be scored. I call this kind of music "Teller Music" because you can just tell what's coming next based on the music. Less is more sometimes.<br /><br />Cut half of the music from this movie, get a good film editor, a small rewrite or two and this would be a very good movie.
The summary was promising but watching the movie was a huge disappointment. Nothing happens in this movie. Plot is linear and without surprise. Normal characters stay normal until end of the film, weird characters stay weird until end of the film. There is even not a single tentative to foul the viewer into thinking that the bad guy is someone else than the most obvious candidate. On the positive side, actors play quite well, and there is a tiny bit of atmosphere in the movie, but much too little to be any significant.<br /><br />People who vote 10 for this movie either didn't see it, or are member of the movie production team ! 4 is well paid.
This show started out okay, but then it turned into a nightmare. The worst part about it was the contestants. Most of them were weirdos. They did stupid things for a living and they also did strange hobbies. In the second season, one guy said he that he talked to his pants. That is sick and repulsive. Also, no one cared about winning money. All they ever wanted to do was make alliances like it was "Survivor" or something. The men were always afraid that the women were going to team up together. The women were the same also. I just couldn't take it anymore. I had to stop watching it. It was truly one of the worst shows ever.
(This review will have some very obvious spoilers, so beware.)<br /><br />A friend brought this over, and we made it through 45 minutes of the movie before we decided that Fast Forward 8x Speed was the only way that this film should be watched. There were points when we were watching the movie at normal speed where I would leave, prepare part of lunch, and return, to find that literally nothing had happened. 2 lines of meaningless dialogue were exchanged. Nothing happened the background, no important facial gestures were made, nothing but mind-numbing awkward silence.<br /><br />This is NOT how to make a thoughtful film, especially when the movie's plot follows all the same basic Hollywood movie tropes. If I told you that Disney was making a film about 4 girls starting a band, and the singer was a French exchange student, what you would expect to be the "conflicts" that arise?<br /><br />The lead singer has to overcome stage fright? Someone has an unspoken crush? The band is late for their performance, and a side-character has to buy them time?<br /><br />*SPOILER ALERT*<br /><br />All of those things happen in this movie.<br /><br />At no point in this film do you have even the slightest fraction of concern that these girls won't be able to accomplish their goal.<br /><br />*THIS ENDS THE SECTION OF SPOILERS*<br /><br />I like Japanese films. I've spent a lot of time in Japan. I work for a Japanese company. Heck, I even know all the bands referenced in the record collections and MDs that they're going through, and I've sung along to the title track with friends at karaoke.<br /><br />This is probably the worst film from Japan I've ever seen. Do not be confused. Though the characters will have points in the movie where they do typical Japanese high school things, this is not a "typical day in the life of" movie. This is "a day in the life of 4 extremely random, heavily-conflicted, awkward Japanese students."<br /><br />There are noticeable problems with the DVD, as well. Viz decided that a great extra would be a producer reading aloud the Wikipedia entry about the Blue Hearts. What a value! In addition, they care so little about the subtitling that the band's name in the subtitles, "Paran Maum" is different than it is in the chapter selection menu, "Paran Marum". In the final auditorium scene, there is a VERY visible reflection/ghosting effect on everything, but this seems to be the fault of the original film.<br /><br />2/10, do NOT view if you do not absolutely love awkward silences.
First separate the story from the film. The story about a second continuing war in heaven is good, very good. Religious themed films aren't the main choice for a lot of people but angels at war is. I really loved the story, and some of the imagery provided to back it up like the field of angels on spikes....awesome imagery. The actual film though was just poor, i can't find any reason for the main character - the priest-cum-cop being in there at all. The lead female also...no reason to be there, the main characters dialogue was just empty, it had no substance, the story could have been told well without them. Now, some sterling performances did feature, Walken, Stoltz and Mortensen pulled off some wingers, though their scenes were mostly with the lifeless leads.<br /><br />One other thing i am not getting from this film is why it features native American rituals to purge the dark soul. The child that carries it is clearly of native American origin but apart from the end scenario there is nothing that connects here with that heritage. The plot concerning the dark soul itself it barely told, odd considering that the dark soul is the driver for the whole premise of the film. The back story of its original owner (the colonel) is briefly touched but not enough to allow understanding as to why its his soul that is the special one.<br /><br />I cannot find a justification for the scrolling scenery shots in this film either, several of the plains around 'chimney rock'. I get the feeling they had a helicopter and wanted to make the most of it as none of the shots have any relevance, nor are they in keeping with the mood -> Horror. The film falls into the sci-fi category more than it does horror. There was no real shock or scare scenes, some mild gore and blood but no fear element.<br /><br />So, aside from 3 roles played damn well this film is a big ole' dud. Unfortunately the dud factor outweighs the good acting factor, just too many weekend actors.
If you'd like a great April Fool's joke, then please by all means show this film to someone. However, it is important that you in no way criticize the film but instead talk about what an artistic triumph it is and how "they just don't make great films like this any more". As your victim watches many disconnected and nonsensical scenes (such as a cute dog getting punted for no apparent reason, a cow standing on the bed, a woman licking a statue's feet or Jesus apparently raping a woman), make lots of comments using words like "brilliance", "juxtaposed" or "transcendent"--all the while acting as if the film actually makes perfect sense and isn't a complete waste of an hour of your life. Also be sure to keep a straight face and feign shock when (and if) they say that they either didn't understand it or thought it had all the artistry of a cow patty. Then, to further mess with them, show them all the comments on IMDb, as nearly all (except for a few trouble-makers like almagz and rooprect) talk glowingly about what genius and artistry this film is! By the time you are done with this little charade, they'll most likely think they are idiots and will make an appointment with a psychologist. <br /><br />This, to me, is the ONLY possible reason to watch this horrid mess of a film!!! That, or you could show it to the prisoners at Guantanamo in order to get them to talk!<br /><br />If you ask me, the famous painting of dogs playing poker or a velvet Elvis painting are superior artistically.
Some movies you'll watch because they touch your soul or challenge you in ways that grow.<br /><br />Some you'll watch because you want to be exposed to adventure or shock outside your experience; these won't directly feed you, but they'll help you situate yourself in a larger world than you otherwise would have. And after all, the hard parts of life are in what you choose not to accept.<br /><br />And then there are movies that do neither of these things, that you will watch out of obligation, or because you have a need for historical context. These are pretty worthless experiences in terms of building a life.<br /><br />The problem is of course that often you don't know which of the three a film will be, going in. You might get some indication from people you trust, but because a life in film is so personal, you really won't know until you go on the blind date.<br /><br />For me, this was pretty worthless. Yes, yes, I know for many Bunuel is the epitome of the sublime and rich. And you should know (if you don't) that among my greatest film experiences are some very strange films, very strange indeed.<br /><br />It isn't that this isn't cinematic, or symbolically deep, or apolitically/politically friendly to the way I think. Its how it gets there that is off base. Its the deviance from real deviance that annoys me.<br /><br />Part of the problem is that this is successful alternative art, which means that it is successful commercial art. Which in turn means that it can be simply explained and the explanation is not only widely acceptable but simply coded in shorthand. Surely all this is true.<br /><br />When the term "surreal" is used, generally it is used incorrectly to denote any film image or world that differs from reality or seems strange. But when it is used correctly, meaning according to consensus theory, it always revolves around Bunuel, and in particular this film and the one he genuinely did with Dali. So because they invented surreal cinema, they define and control the term. That by itself chafes me, and I have my own alternative definition that doesn't come from their philosophy.<br /><br />Its because the philosophy is wholly contrary. It isn't a philosophy at all but a rejection of philosophy, an anti-order. Its packaged anarchy, carefully selecting the things that they use and the things they oppose without clearly differentiating them.<br /><br />So okay: against linearity, against narrative, against history, against religion (an easy one), against deliberate love. But for an illinear linear narrative, for establishing its own history (celebrated by countless film school professors; what else can they do?); for a sort of transcendent "accidental" love.<br /><br />It is its own enemy. If there were a Bunuel alive today as he sold his image, the first thing he would do is attack the church or the surreal.<br /><br />My regular readers know that in nearly all matters cinematic, I cleave to the Spanish and avoid the French. But in the matter of the surreal, I'd like to you consider the reverse: get your surrealism from Alfred Jarry, not Bunuel.<br /><br />Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
A man kicks a dog 2' in the air.<br /><br />A woman kicks a cow out of her bed.<br /><br />A man kicks a violin down the sidewalk.<br /><br />A woman sucks on a statue's toe for 15 seconds.<br /><br />A man kicks a blind man in the stomach.<br /><br />Jesus rapes a young girl.<br /><br />There you have it. I just saved you an hour of your life. Surely there are those to whom this "shocking vanguard of cinematic expression" would appeal. But I found it no different from the puerile, disconnected videos I used to shoot with my friends in the 9th grade. Except we never had a real cow.<br /><br />Having heard endless sermons from beard-stroking art connaisseurs of how this is such an important film, I thought it would be worth my time. Make no mistake, this is crap. If I hear one more person call Buñuel the "father of cinematic Surrealism", I think I'm going to punch someone. If anything, he issued a major step backward from the Surrealist beginnings pioneered by his seniors Fritz Lang (Metropolis), F.W. Murnau (Faust) and Robert Weine (Caligari) 10 years earlier. This made a joke out of the whole thing, as if Buñuel didn't have the confidence to truly embrace the art sans sarcasm, sans l'absurdité. It would take Buñuel another 40 years before he would refine his style into something admirable. Skip the early stuff and hop straight to 1970 if you want to be more impressed by his work.<br /><br />I'm sure he would agree. In 1977, Buñuel himself stated that he would happily burn all the prints of his old movies. In this case I would be happy to pour the lighter fluid.
I'm a big fan of surrealist art, but this film by Bunuel (with some ideas from Dali) left me cold. Bunuel had a life-long grudge against the Catholic church and delighted in trying to offend Catholics in fairly silly ways. This is one of the silliest; almost like what you'd expect from a smart-aleck 18-year-old in film class. The last few minutes of the movie, which have nothing to do with anything else, are a final nose-thumbing at religion.<br /><br />If you read the "scholars" regarding this slow-paced, occasionally amusing film, it's all about how the church and society are guilty of sexual repression. If that is indeed the point, then Bunuel expresses it in the most roundabout fashion possible. The central male character is a nasty brute who loves kicking dogs and knocking blind men down in the street, and who mentally turns billboard ads into strange sexual fantasies. Is this behavior the church's fault (for interrupting his lovemaking), or is he just a jerk? I vote for the latter. I think Bunuel must have had a lot of personal hangups and chose the Catholics as the ones to blame.<br /><br />There are a few moments where you might cry, "Aha! surrealism!": a cow in a bed, a giraffe falling out a window (a poor model), a man shredding a feather pillow, a woman flushing a toilet while we watch pictures of seething lava (or a mud pit...hard to tell in B/W). The rest is forgettable self-indulgence. Unfortunately, Bunuel was still chasing the same bogey-men through the rest of his career (Viridiana, Discreet Charm...). If you're interested in seeing surrealism on the screen, check out Jean Cocteau's early work.
The Man (Gaston Modot) and the Young Girl (Lya Lys) go through the film consumed by passion for each other. They long to be together but their moments together are constantly interrupted. The film is strewn together with imagery and comes to a halt after an hour.........do the lovers find happiness....?..<br /><br />The film starts interestingly with footage of scorpions but you soon realize that its all a pretentious piece of nonsense. It's made as a silent film with occasional dialogue and it has a non-stop soundtrack playing that at one point is so irritating that you will turn the sound down and want to watch it as a silent film. The continuous drum rolls must have driven cinema audiences mad. There are some genuinely funny moments, eg, when the Man kicks a dog and when he knocks over a blind man. Unfortunately, this humour is carried out in the name of art so its just pseudo nonsense. The film is crap.
When something can be anything you want it to be or mean, it's bound to register with someone as being rather special. But just as the shape of a cloud in the sky may appear to one of us or remind us of a battleship, and to another of his aunt's rear, and yet to another absolutely nothing other than a cloud, this does not make this cloud meaningful except for the viewers' interpretation. Anyone who might find throwing a stuffed giraffe out of a window brilliant, or worthwhile for that matter, without relating it in some context, is possibly merely trying to impress us with his or her intellectuality.<br /><br />Submitting to this movie as the dreams of a madman does quite nicely, especially since there is no standard or expectation for what said dreams would be like, and even if we were mad ourselves, this would hardly give us sane reference points for comparison. A love affair with this movie entails the same risk as seriously interpreting Nostradamus. Whatever real meaning was being conveyed at the time might be buried in the private jokes, musings, or provincial minutiae of its day, and to a select few radical intellectuals at that! I did spot a bit of an agenda even with my limited capacity though.<br /><br />The movie is definitely anti-Fascist and to some extent anti-Italian. I noted that although the years 1929-30 were years of great public works and urban renewal in Italy, any indication of this seemed avoided. Furthermore, (avant-guarde academic spinners take note of this for your next class) the very short cropped haired man with the mustache in the party segment near the end is a caricature of Victor Emmanuel III and his tall female companion none other than Queen Helen, formerly Princess of Montenegro. Without an understanding of potential historical relevance, even the apparent irrelevance is beyond the competence of academic or other intellectual poseurs who would bask in irrelevance to impress us.<br /><br />I gladly add my own paint buckets to the defacement of this cinematic joke. But in an adaptation of the famous mot by the little boy; The movie really has no face (to deface). Paint would help it burn though.
OK, it's a piece of historical film making that caused an uproar, shocked people, and was banned. I'll give it that, which is why I gave it a 3 rather than a 1. It may have been ahead of the times, but it's certainly way behind the times now. I am a BIG fan of Salvador Dali and I loved Un Chien Andalou. That short was captivating with one creative scene after another. L'age d'Or was way too long and dull - just a self-indulgent piece of pompous film making created simply as a feeble attempt to try to out-do Un Chien Andalou by creating a full- length movie (and shamelessly leverage Dali's name and fame even though he had little to do with it). Total junk except for a (very) few shots of "shocking scenes" separated by long stretches of boring non-action. A waste of time and money. Both of my thumbs are down, way down. It'll go onto my shelf never to be watched again.
How do I describe the horrors?!!! First, some points: First, this review should be taken with a grain of salt -- I saw this over 20 years ago, when I was a boy, at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City.<br /><br />Secondly, I am giving away some scenes and plot points. However, it does not have much of a plot.<br /><br />Finally, I don't enjoy these type of art films anyway.<br /><br />This film was directed by proto-auteur Luis Bunuel. He was a surrealist and dadaist. These were modernist themes or movements popular critically in the 1920's and early 1930's. Surealism was the school of art that made things hyper-real, yet often had Freudian symbolism. Dadaism is based on what is supposedly the first word made by an infant -- Dada, or father.<br /><br />Made in black and white, it was also made by a band of communists (or as they preferred the term, socialists). Bunuel and his group of fellow film-makers and artistes had been working on a number of symbolic ideas and issues in Spain and France between the world wars.<br /><br />Dadaism and surrealism influenced a lot of artists -- The Police (Doo doo doo da), poet Arthur Rambaud, Edvard Munch (The Scream), Rene Magritte (floating hats in space), Salvador Dali (melting clocks), and even Hitchcock (Psycho). No Norman Rockwell.<br /><br />Here's what I recall most about this film: a girl meets up with a cow; her eye gets slashed by a razor; clownish men cavort in a meadow. There is not, as I said, much of a plot, but then again, that must be the point.<br /><br />This was attacked as porn back then, and would be again today. One of the trade-marks of surrealism is a significant anti-feminism.
The price of a dream - and some dreams can be "too" expensive.<br /><br />Only having viewed the English-translated version, it is perhaps the reason for a low rating from this viewer.<br /><br />It made the overall film poorer than the story material hinted at...<br /><br />...and other comments seem to suggest the subtitled version would be better.<br /><br />But some plot elements remained unexplained, leaving an unfinished feel.<br /><br />It also leaves the thought "is there a series to follow?".<br /><br />A pity there was no more (at this stage at least, anyway).
Fred Astaire is reteamed with Rita Hayworth one year after their big hit for Columbia, "You'll Never Get Rich". That was the movie which put Hayworth on the Hollywood map, yet her performance in this wan romantic musical hardly gives a suggestion why she was so suddenly popular. Down Buenos Aires way, a tyrannical hotel owner demands that his four daughters marry in order of age; one may think film takes place in the 18th century, but no, it's modern-day 1942. Astaire is an ex-hoofer-turned-gambler who goes back to dancing to earn some money, getting mixed up in impersonating a letter-writing admirer to Hayworth's stone-cold society beauty. Fred gazes at Rita with a brotherly smile, but she's so mannequin-like (lip-synching to her songs like a wide-eyed wind-up doll) that all romantic sparks quickly sputter. They do dance together quite comfortably, however, and the Jerome Kern score is unmemorable but not too bad. ** from ****
On the pure theatrical side, Last Stand was great, as the reenactments and soundtrack are very entertaining, but there are better accounts of this battle found elsewhere that, while not as long or as flashy, are far more historically comprehensive.<br /><br />Certain little details, such as the misuse of the word "hoplon" for the Greek hoplite shield and the mispronounciations of various names and words, really ate at me.<br /><br />My guess would be, that because "Last Stand of the 300" was aired the eve of the theatrical release of "300", the History Channel was only trying to ride the coattails of the movie's hype.<br /><br />If you're looking for a depiction that's historically accurate in all respects possible, you'd have better luck elsewhere.
The thesis of Father Brown is that a good dose of Roman Catholicism will solve all of life's problems. A little proselytizing I don't mind, but this gets a bit ridiculous at times.<br /><br />Some fine actors have played Father Brown over the years, Kenneth More and Barnard Hughes are two good examples. Alec Guinness plays him in this film and does all right by him, but you didn't see any great demand for future Father Brown films.<br /><br />I suppose if you are a committed Roman Catholic it all makes perfectly good sense. It's far more important to catch the thief and convert him to your religion than see he's brought to justice. <br /><br />But that's what were asked to accept here. In fact there is a preliminary story before the main action of the film. Guinness in clerical garb is caught trying to put back stolen articles that one of his parishioners Sidney James had heisted during a robbery.<br /><br />That's the story he gives the local cops and of course this is something that James has confided in him so he can't break the confessional. <br /><br />Now on to bigger game. Master thief Flambeau, played by Peter Finch has stolen a cross that is entrusted to Father Brown and was said to belong to St. Augustine back in the day. But Father Brown is more interested in getting Flambeau to go back to his faith than seeing him brought to justice. So he misleads the cops so he can accomplish his mission.<br /><br />I'm sorry but this whole thing was just too much for me to swallow. Father Brown I'd hate to say it was guilty of obstruction and ought to have been arrested. And he was under no obligation not to reveal anything he knew about Flambeau, the man had not come to him as a penitent seeking absolution and spiritual advice.<br /><br />Author G.K. Chesterton, a very noted Catholic lay person in his day, finds all this very reasonable. Carried to his logical conclusion we should replace all police forces with an army of priests.<br /><br />Guinness borrows from his own Reverend Ascoyne D'Ascoyne from Kind Hearts and Coronets and from Barry Fitzgerald in Going My Way to create Father Brown. Granted though Brown is a lot shrewder than the other two. There's also a bit of Colonel Nicholson in this portrayal. In The Bridge on the River Kwai, Guinness also was playing a character who's rather weird interpretation of the rules caused him to lose sight of what was important in the situation Nicholson was in. <br /><br />Father Brown's an entertaining fellow when he's solving mysteries and making the authorities look foolish. We've enjoyed Brother Cadfael do it in a medieval setting and American audiences liked Father Dowling played by Tom Bosley a few years back. <br /><br />This film should have stuck to being entertaining.
There are so very few films where just the title tells you all you need to know about the film. Such a film is I Was A Communist For The FBI. Another example would be I Married A Monster From Outer Space.<br /><br />The really interesting thing about this film is how in heaven's name did this get nominated for an Oscar in the documentary category? It is not a documentary in any sense of the word, it's not even in that hybrid category of docudrama. It's just a rather exploitive film about the work of an FBI undercover agent named Matt Cvetic who infiltrated the Communist Party in Pittsburgh and got active in trying to take over the Steelworker's Union for the Communists and reporting on said activities to his handlers in the FBI.<br /><br />A documentary of that work might have been interesting, but what we got was a film to fit those paranoid times. I found it fascinating that when Cvetic finally broke his cover it was to the House Un-American Activities Committee rather than the trial in New York of the Communist Party leaders. There was a moment in the film where head Communist James Millican tells his followers to start spreading the word that the House Un American Activities Committee was composed of a bunch of right wing yahoos looking to get their names in front of the camera. Now what could have given him that idea? Anyway just connect the dots and no doubt the word their came from J. Edgar Hoover trying to give some credence to HUAC by having an effective undercover come out there rather than at an actual trial. Little thing there called cross examination.<br /><br />Warner Brothers who produced I Was A Communist For The FBI later produced Big Jim McLain which starred John Wayne about a HUAC investigator in Hawaii. HUAC did grab on to credit for the work done by the Honolulu PD in breaking up a Communist spy ring there among the dockworkers. But at least in John Wayne's film nobody claimed it was a documentary.<br /><br />Frank Lovejoy is in the title role as Cvetic and his FBI handlers are Richard Webb and Philip Carey. Dorothy Hart plays a Pittsburgh school teacher who says that there are 30 or so like here in that school system indoctrinating the young among whom is Ron Hagerthy, Lovejoy's son. She has a change of heart about the Communists and Lovejoy has to save her from a homicidal fate planned by his superiors. Ironically Hart left the movies and went to work for all places, the United Nations which as we know has been accused often of being a Communist nest in the USA.<br /><br />Over half a century later and we really have very few objective works on film or in print about the Communist Party of the USA. They were in fact a very active bunch in the labor movement. The real heroes in stopping them were labor organizers like Walter Reuther in the UAW or David Dubinsky in the ILGWU. But since they were people of the left they just don't have the following on the right to be suitable propaganda material.<br /><br />Anyway I Was A Communist For The FBI is an exploitive work based on a real life character and a testament to those paranoid times.
Matt Cvetic is a loyal communist in a Pittsburgh steel mill who works to recruit workers into the party, even though this isolates himself from his son, family, and neighbors. What makes this even more difficult is that Cvetic is actually an FBI agent posing as a Communist in order to obtain information about party activities. The party is trying to create a strike at the mill, whereby the pro-strike movement will lead the workers into a wave of propaganda. Cvetic also has to contend with beautiful Eve Merrick, a party member and teacher at his son's school who finds the fact that Cvetic is a double agent. When Eve learns the ugly truth about the party's real motives, the reds decide she must be liquidated and Cvetic must aid her without endangering himself. The film should have plenty of suspense and double crossing but there is very little in this film but (by today's standards) very cheesy propaganda and little action or thrills. Lovejoy is very good in the main role, but even he and the rest of the cast seem listless. Few surprises here and how did this film receive a Oscar nod for best documentary? Rating, 4.
The most disturbing thing about this film is not that it's a load of hogwash (the CPUSA was never really as much an espionage threat as the movie makes out). The troubling aspect is the way that it whitewashes the wholly unsavory tactics of the FBI and the UnAmerican Activities Committee. Secret informants, gossip turned into accusations, warrantless searches - these are the kind of things secret police thugs like the KGB did, and presumably, what the good patriotic Americans were fighting. Yet the FBI did them and didn't bat an eye. That's the only realistic part of this movie, and they present it with no sense of shame at all. Add to this undermining the Constitution itself by having only Communists invoke the Bill of Rights. The film also makes thinly veiled accusations that the black civil rights movement was communist-inspired, another pack of lies. It's extremely difficult in this day to excuse such outrageous propaganda, even understanding the paranoia of the times, when one realizes how damaging it was to real people then.
A stunningly beautiful Charlotte Lewis stars as a woman who is terrorized by a ghosts who torment her on the phone.Driven to the edge in terror Charlotte is forced to confront this chilling mystery in order to save her sanity and her life.I can't believe that Ruggero Deodato,the director behind "Ultimo Mondo Cannibale","Cannibal Holocaust" and "House on the Edge of the Park" directed this absurd piece of trash.Admittedly the music by Goblin front man Claudio Simonetti is pretty good,but the story is painfully stupid.The script by Franco Ferrini is ridiculous and it makes no sense,the acting is bad and there is absolutely no suspense.The scene in which a prospective rapist of Charlotte Lewis is killed by coins ejected from a subway telephone is more than laughable.Don't waste your time with this piece of crap.There are far better Italian horror movies out there!
I admit, I was taken in by the provocative stills of Charlotte Lewis from this film, as well as a comment on the IMDb message board devoted to her, calling this picture a "great underrated film". And so I got, with great difficulty, my own copy of "Dial Help".<br /><br />What a waste.<br /><br />Nothing but a cheaply-made blood and gore movie with a ridiculous premise which I'm not even going to repeat, with several telegraphed sequences (for instance, when we see Lewis lovingly feeding her fish, we know right away what's going to happen to them later). Not even Lewis, with her beautiful raven hair, large and luminous brown eyes, full and pouty lips, and stunning figure, can save this film. Lewis fans would be better off with "Bare Essentials", "Sketch Artist", or even "Golden Child".
Ring! Ring! Have-been horror directors hotline, how may we help you? Um…yeah…Pronto! I mean hello, my name is Rugge… err, call me by my initials R.D! Okay Mr. R.D, what seems to be the problem? Well the reviews on my latest movie "Dial: Help" were all negative and harsh and, frankly, I myself feel like my career has seen better days as well. Okay Mr. R.D, and why do you suppose that is? Well, I gained fame and a well-deserved cult status thanks to my controversial and shocking movie about savage tribes of cannibals devouring a film crew and another one about relentless thugs terrorizing wealthy people in a house at the edge of the park, for which I borrowed the idea from Wes Craven, but "Dial: Help" revolves on … err… never mind! No no, Mr. R.D, go ahead and tell me what the film is about. Um, it's about a spiritually possessed phone line stalking a sexy model and killing the people surrounding her. Ah, I see. That premise does indeed sound a little silly and not as petrifying as cannibals or rapists, but I suppose there are deeper themes in your film, right? Oh yeah, sure… Um, what do you mean by that? Well, isn't the phone line symbolism for another kind of terror? Or perhaps it's all just happening in the mind of your female heroine? Um, nope… It's just about a phone going berserk and murdering people with the cord, vibrations, electricity or even ordinary coins. Interesting, Mr. R.D, but how do you explain all this supernatural stuff to the viewer at the end of the movie? You see, I figured the slowly unraveling phone-mystery plot wouldn't be that important or relevant, so I just concentrated on processing all possible phone-gimmicks I could think of. Phone gimmicks? What do you mean? You know, like wind blowing through the horn, mind-penetrating dial tones, and turn-tables catapulting into the air! Very original, Mr. R.D, but not exactly horrific and as an experienced director you must know that, in the end, people expect a reasonable clarification of all these events. Oh, but there is! It all has to do with negative and unreleased energy, if I remember correctly! It's all a bit fuzzy, I admit. Hmm… I see. Oh well, as they always say, a good motion picture relies on more elements than just the story. Did you at least process some of your regular trademarks into the film, so that your fans at least recognize your style? I tried! Lord knows I tried, but the murders and bloodshed are simply not shocking anyone! That's a pity indeed, Mr. R.D, but what about sex? Everyone likes a good portion of sleaze and nudity in their horror films and you said yourself the film centered on a sexy fashion model in peril! Yes, but … But what, Mr. R.D? Well, to tell you the truth, we kind of promoted "Dial: Help" as an erotic thriller with revealing shots of Charlotte Lewis on the cover, but in reality there's no sex in the film and Charlotte even refused to go topless. Mr. R.D! Now I'm really disappointed, that's just shamelessly ripping people off and lure them with false promises! I know, I know, and I'm ashamed, but I just wanted everybody to rent "Dial: Help" and love it! Well, to round up I can comfort you by saying that every major director is entitled to a few erroneous decisions without it affecting his/her career immediately, but be more cautious next time and do some research first, okay Mr. R.D? I will; thank you! You're welcome. Tell me, have you got any ideas for upcoming movies already? Yeah, as a matter a fact, I do! I was thinking about making a Giallo with a murderous washing machine! Doesn't that sound fascinating? Hello? Hello?
Well, I was hoping I'd heard wrong about this film as I'm a big fan of Ruggero Deodato and really didn't want to see him slip up; but unfortunately, this Giallo-styled supernatural load of nonsense is just as bad as I'd been lead to believe it would be - and that's pretty terrible! The plot doesn't work at all, as the film attempts to blend murders and a supernatural theme through a telephone and it all feels very forced and silly. Furthermore, the plot doesn't make much sense at all, and you have to ask yourself "what's the point" numerous times throughout the movie. The plot focuses on a young woman living in an apartment block and being terrorised by a telephone. The best thing about the movie is undoubtedly the presence of the beautiful English actress Charlotte Lewis, and unfortunately the good points pretty much stop there. There are a handful of deaths scenes, some of which are gory; but all of which are incredibly stupid, the one that sees someone get killed by coins sticks out especially in that respect. Overall, I really can't recommend this to anyone; non-Deodato fans are unlikely to impressed, and Deodato fans are likely to find the film depressing. Avoid!
This is only the fourth effort I’ve watched from this director (whom I met and found quite genial at the 2004 Venice Film Festival Italian B-movie retrospective) and also, possibly, the worst. As was the case with THE BRONX EXECUTIONER (1989), which preceded it, this is a prime example from the tail end of the Euro-Cult era – prime because it shows the depths to which the previously invigorating style had fallen by this time! <br /><br />Here, in fact, we get a plot revolving around – I’m not kidding, folks – a killer phone! Pretty but bland Charlotte Lewis – in her third film after PIRATES (1986) and THE GOLDEN CHILD (1986) – is a model who, apparently, has just ended an affair; she keeps expecting her architect lover to call her back but, every time the phone rings, all she gets is static accompanied by voices from the beyond (or some such crap). She befriends a new tenant at her apartment block who, conveniently, knows of an authority on paranormal activity (William Berger) – who, hilariously, explains that the negative energy which is unleashed, say, during family arguments can manifest itself via home appliances into a deadly force (I swear I ain’t making this up)! <br /><br />Among the highlights...er...lowpoints of the film are: the grumpy bartender from whose dingy place the heroine calls a couple of times (it seems that the chain-of-events can only be broken by having Lewis go through her paces again, EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962)-style!), the sheer variety of preposterous-looking phones on display, the apparatus of the heroine’s photographer friend sneaking up on her before the kill, the sarcastic cop who greets Lewis on reporting the strange occurrences (“And what’s the toaster up to, I wonder?”), the would-be rapist killed by a barrage of coins shooting out from a telephone booth, and Berger’s own bloody demise (with the phone affecting the pacemaker he’s fitted with and causing the doctor’s heart to explode)! <br /><br />The film’s climax is rather confusing and, apparently, finally sees all the ‘lost souls’ inhabiting a flock of doves and flying out the window of the ‘possessed’ office (a lonelyhearts service!). For what it’s worth, the score – by ex-Goblin Claudio Simonetti no less – is effective enough, despite the inclusion of dated heavy-metal numbers on the soundtrack.
Don't be fooled by the plot out-line as it is described on the cover (at least the Swedish version). The story on this seems rather interesting, with speculative hints. Nothing can be further from the truth. This is the absolute most sad movie experience I've ever had... It is plain and right AWFUL and should not be sold or rented to anyone. If you still think the plot seems intriguing, reflect on this: telephones can move, run and kill people as can also any other electric appliance. It can throw things at you, haunt you and run after you. PLEASE DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE it is a disgrace for the horror genre...
It is truly saddening to see a once-great director such as Deodato delivering such a second-rate giallo such as this. This movie was so terrible it effectively put an end to his movie career. The box lies, this is no "erotic thriller", hell during the film's 97 minute running time, Charlotte Lewis barely shows us one nipple! I thought it would pick up once William Burger showed up (in one of his last roles), but his character is killed off rather abruptly and lamely. This movie fails in pretty much every way. Claudio Simonetti's music is little more than noise, and the plot made very little sense at all. For some reason, Lewis is terrorized by ghosts which attack using phones. (?) By the end, the characters all seem to have forgotten the previous 90 minutes of hell they went through, and casually laugh as they sick the evil spirits on someone else, Lewis's ex-boyfriend. What?!? This movie did little for me besides anger me.... and bore me half to death. For genuine 80's Deodato fun, watch THE BARBARIANS or THE ATLANTIS INTERCEPTORS, let this one rot on the video store shelf. Argento could make a better giallo than this!
Robert Aldrich's brutal, quasi-black comedy "The Grissom Gang", a reworking of the 1948 British film "No Orchids For Miss Blandish", has 1920s heiress Kim Darby kidnapped by a pack of clumsy thieves; soon, that gang is dispatched and poor Kim is then transferred into the clutches of another crooked bunch--third-rate gangster brothers with sweaty, pasty faces and a mother who looks like Buddy Ebsen in drag. At first, Darby (not very plucky, and not very smart) attempts to escape this drooling brood, but they're onto her. Eventually she just gives up trying, and therein lies the trouble with the story. Are we in the audience supposed to sympathize with her? Is her growing concern for the family half-wit supposed to be heartwarming? These are disgusting, cretinous characters, and I wanted to see as little of them as possible. But since the side-stories (the progress of the cops on the case and another one involving floozy-singer Connie Stevens) are rather dull, the director has no choice but to keep foisting those sweaty faces on us. Pretty soon, nervous Darby starts sweating too, although her scene up in the hayloft is sensitively performed and Aldrich's climactic moments are thought-provoking, if disorganized. ** from ****
These days, Asian horror films are among the best in the world, noted for their atmosphere and reflection of contemporary society. This is not one of those films! Instead, "The Record" is a mediocre slasher movie highly derivative of American movies like "I Know What You Did Last Summer" and "Scream". The plot is familiar - 5 teenagers accidently commit a terrible crime, but cover it up swearing to secrecy. One year later, they're being stalked by a knife-wielding maniac (with the decidely unscary disguise of a hospital sterile mask and an orange jumpsuit). It doesn't help that the teenagers are a generally unlikable group (this is one of those movies where the killer's motives seem pretty reasonable) and there are numerous stupid plot setups to keep the story going. The direction of the movie is unsubtle, more influenced by MTV than by current Asian horror films (like "The Ring"). The last third of the movie isn't too bad though, delivering some decent suspense scenes, though there is probably one "twist" too many in the end. 4/10
Stay FAR AWAY from this film. The fact that you're reading reviews tells me you may have already been tainted by the awfulness it carrys. This is a truely horrid movie... so let's get down to the problems. Writing and Direction: It wouldnt surprise me if these were handled by a group of overactive gradeschoolers that watched 'scream' and 'I know what you did last summer' a few too many times. GIANT GAPING plot holes abound; while I can't congratulate them for this movie, its nice knowing they're finally potty trained. Actors(or lack thereof): Only the finest for this film... the finest extras ever to grace a screen, now starring in their speaking role debut! As a disclaimer, I have to note that I am capable of watching and enjoying just about anything. I recognize a good movie when I see it, but I can still giggle and smirk during Bubble Boy (yes folks, its true); so when I say to avoid something, you KNOW I'm not kidding.
This is a rip-off of already crappy hollywood movies like Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer. The story is classic, some high-school students tries a prank on the class' asthmatic misfit but something goes wrong. Terribly wrong. When you watch the movie you know what'll happen before it happens all the time, not good if a movie tries to be scary. The actors are quite ok and the girls are cute (after all, they're asian) so i'll give it two out of five on the mojave'o'meter.
Korea's answer to "I Know What You Did Last Summer" follows a similar story route to its American counterpart: one year after a group of high school friends accidentally kill a classmate, a masked killer begins to pick them off one by one. Who could have possibly seen them that night - or was their 'victim' still alive when they dumped him into the sea?<br /><br />Originality cannot be expected from the teen slasher genre anymore but an effort can still be made to ensure films of this ilke are entertaining and scary. RECORD is neither, churning out badly rehashed scenes from "I Know...", "The House On Sorority Row" and "The Faculty" (among many others) and failing to deliver one decent shock throughout the 95 minutes.<br /><br />Acting is decent from the cast who, as seems to be the norm in Korean cinema, approach an uninspiring script with gusto and an undeserved enthusiasm. Direction is mediocre at best, however; a strange choice of camera angles and the worst killer's costume *EVER* contributing to RECORD's downfall. Most disappointing is the film's ending, where the two 'surprise twists' are that obvious you've earlier dismissed them as being too blatant!<br /><br />RECORD's only saving grace is its bright start - the first act is actually excellent and shows the American counterparts how character development and setting the mood are supposed to be done - but, other than that, this is a very poor movie. Not recommended. <br /><br />** / *****
I have recently found this film on one of my husband's VHS tapes (the blank variety which he uses to record stuff from the telly). The film looks as if it was last shown in the eighties and I don't remember having seen it since. It has not (to my knowledge) been released on DVD or VHS although I shall browse around for a copy.<br /><br />The film tells the story of three young people: two girls, one on the edge of puberty and the other much younger, and a young boy who go to live with their mother's brother and his young, mute Irish wife. His wife also has two brothers who live with them. The children's uncle is an unpleasant control freak who forces his young wife to wear a silver collar whilst she watches a marionette show put on by him and her brothers in his toyshop.<br /><br />The eldest girl and one of the Irishmen (the younger) develop a love for each other whilst they live in the same house. The girl helps her aunt out in the shop whilst her brother helps his uncle to make things in the workshop.<br /><br />There are a lot of very disturbing elements to the film. There is the uncle's treatment of his wife as some kind of dumb (literally) possession (illustrated by the collar) whilst the Irish indulge dancing, drinking and somewhat forbidden love. Interestingly, though, I have seen far more explicit themes played out in other movies made in Hollywood today.<br /><br />Makes you wonder whether the British film industry and the BBC have some kind of hidden agenda going on.<br /><br />Still, despite it not being a children's movie, there are a lot of playful, magic moments in it and the one Irishman does some beautiful paintings.
I don't know which was worse, the viewer's made dopes of, or the stars in this movie who look like dopes. Am I to believe that this woman raised this child for seven years, and never noticed the child was a bit dark ? Am I to believe her mother, her father, and her husband never once said, hmmm this child looks a bit dark ? Am I to believe when the courts ordered the mother to view the adopted parents records, that Lisa Hartman had this wow look on her face, when she told her mother, Christopher is half black ! What ! Was that for real,gee do you think so. So not only did the grandmother, and grandfather look dopey and stupid never once mentioning this, but i guess we were supposed to look surprised and say...hmmmmm omg he is half black ! Totally stupid movie, almost an embarrassment even to watch this !
It purports to be the life of Paul the apostle. It opens with him involved in a loin-cloth wrestling match with a priest. The Pharisees were called that because they "separated" themselves from the Hellenism being forced upon the Jews by their Gentile rulers. The point is that Saul would never have been involved in Greco-Roman wrestling. PERIOD.<br /><br />Then we have the two men (Saul and the Priest, Reuben - a totally extra-biblical fictitious character) shown being washed down in the nude in a Roman style bath house. Again, the Torah, which Saul adhered to religiously, condemned in the strongest possible terms looking upon the nakedness of another man.<br /><br />Reuben is shown being the one that pushes Saul into destroying the church. Again, the text of scripture doesn't matter, for their it is PAUL that says that he laid waste of the church and breathed out threatenings and slaughter against the church.<br /><br />The movie shows Barnabas "sprinkling" Paul - not baptizing (immersing) him, when the Text of Scripture says it was Ananias that did it.<br /><br />Their is no mention of Mark or his turning back so the writers of the script are forced to have Paul and Barnabas argue over Paul's desire to preach in Rome as the basis of their separation.<br /><br />No Silas on Paul's Second and Third Missions; No Timothy... EVER. No Titus; No Apollos... No, NO, NOOOO!!! James is said to have "known Jesus for a long time" rather than it saying, as the Text of Scripture does, that he is Jesus' brother.<br /><br />Why not just call the movie "Frank, the fictitious Apostle?!?!" At least that would be closer to the text of scripture.
Love the TPB's but this was a lame episode. Didn't have the same feel that the series or the movie has. Looked like it was put together in a hurry. I didn't enjoy it at all. The so-called acting was awful. The cast appeared like they knew this was a money-grab of an episode to get to market quickly. I hope we don't have an easter special next because that will be it for me. The writing of this episode was definitely Mike Clattenburg's worst in the history of this show. The direction left a lot to be desired and I almost felt bad for the cast and crew of this weak attempt at a Christmas special. Like I said, I love the TPB's but this one goes to the trash bin.
The whole set-up of this contrived Disney family film (ad-exec gets his teenage daughter a horse because she "wants one more than anything else in the world") is just an excuse to film the big climactic horse-show at the end. All the other ingredients (the ad campaign for the stomach pill, Kurt Russell as a potential boyfriend for the youngster, Lloyd Bochner as a potential rival for Dean Jones over the affections of Diane Baker) are shelved near the end simply to showcase the horse. Over half the picture is padding, and worse: it is whiny and obnoxious. The kid is the ninny-sort who cries on the couch with a dog in her arms, and as usual she gets her way. * from ****
Arnold fans will holler in joy, fans of brainless action will holler in astonishment, and Catholics will just holler.<br /><br />Illogically written by Andrew W. Marlowe and ham-handedly directed by Peter Hyams, *End of Days* gets The Terminator out of his open-backed hospital gown (Arnold Schwarzenegger's return to the big screen after his heart operation), whilst blowing things up in Mysterious Ways and blaspheming Biblical verse to give Catholics something more to whine about.<br /><br />It is 1999 and doom-sayers the world over live in trepidation of their computers going fritz and losing their downloaded porn. Even as the technological stank of Y2K muttons the New York streets, ex-cop turned alcoholic security guard, Jericho Cane (Schwarzenegger, with the perfunctory "dead-wife-and-kid" back-story for Loose Cannon effect), must brave theological waters to save 20-year-old virgin Christine (Robin Tunney) from being conscripted as – wait for it – The Bride of Satan. Dun dah daaaarrrh! Stupidity ensues.<br /><br />For every anti-hero, there is his anti-Christ. Gabriel Byrne is the devil here – and he's out to party like it's 1999, on a mission to impregnate Christine with the Anti-Christ between 11 pm and 12 midnight, December 31, 1999 – ironically, in the hour that all porn will be lost – thereby bringing about the End of Days. Being able to read minds, conjure hallucinations and employ limitless magic, it doesn't occur to Satan to expedite the impregnation process by appearing months in advance and courting Christine as a teen model and then closing the panty raid easily at the appointed time; instead, he appears on December 28th like a Keyser Soze Terminator and wonders why she doesn't welcome him with open thighs… (See above comment re: stupidity.) Here is a movie where nothing makes sense the moment it is uttered, let alone after contemplating its veracity or mythology. A priest (Rod Steiger) tells Jericho that '666' is really '999' upside down with a '1' in front of it. So wait - *Prince* is the Anti-Christ?<br /><br />Satan Soze pursues Jericho and Christine (J and C – get it?) around town, at no point doing anything which would actually precipitate their capture. In one scene, Satan recreates Jericho's wife and child to tempt him into revealing where he hid Christine. But if he can see so deeply into Jericho's mind in recreating his family with enough nuance to inspire nostalgia, why can't he see where Jericho hid Christine not ten minutes ago? <br /><br />Satan can make an assassin talk without a tongue, yet he can't make that assassin unjam a semi-automatic weapon. And when Jericho shoots Satan at point blank range, Satan is courteous enough to open his shirt to reveal the wounds closing, so Jericho won't worry unduly about Satan's health - not sanitary to go about with open bullet wounds… Matter of fact, instead of simply possessing Jericho himself to get close to Christine and rape her, Satan expends so much unnecessary energy on side-projects (crucifying the tongue-less guy, blowing up Jericho's partner (Kevin Pollak) and then saving him, and then blowing him up again, ridiculously battling Jericho when he could snuff him out with the effort of thought) that we wonder whether a more efficient assassin/lover shouldn't be put on the case – say, Antonio Banderas.<br /><br />What I find most precious about *End of Days* is Arnold's valiant attempts at The Method: "sad" means scrunching up his eyes and not blurting out anything in a foreign accent; "depressed" means raising a bottle to his lips and not blurting out anything in a foreign accent; "deathly scared" means widening his eyes and not blurting out anything in a foreign accent. There's definitely a pattern here, if we could only decipher it.<br /><br />In the end, the devil is dispatched not by the holy men whom Catholics pray to for deliverance from apocalypses such as these, but from the atheist Jericho. While the timid men of an impotent god exhort "faith" and quiver in their cells doing nothing about Satan actually walking amongst them, the Prince of Darkness is thwarted by a nullifidian with a big gun and a foreign accent. Which clearly says something that Catholics blindly refuse to hear: that even if the Devil were to exist, those who have been indoctrinated to unconditionally and irrationally fear him would be unable to conjure a belief in his downfall, let alone act towards it. Further, they might not truly WANT him defeated, for only through his contrary polarity does their god's existence become tenable.<br /><br />For it is written in the Book of Revelations: "And the Prince of Darkness shall descendeth upon the Earth without any solid game plan, and impregnate a virgin on a date which won't have any significance until the Gregorian Calendar of the 1500s adopts the day numbering which will put it in sync with the equinoxes and the Anno Domine syntax which will annoy sensible people for millennia, by which time, Christians will have forgotten Christ's actual birth date and appropriated the pagan Saturnalia festival in its stead. And the Prince shall effect a Revolution through tight purple pants and ambiguously-lesbian band members…" I can believe the people being drained of blood and crucified, and the alcoholic built like a Mr. Universe; I can believe that a giant, supernatural monster can't kill a guy armed only with a foreign accent; I can even believe that the devil needs to perform some hokey thirteenth century Celtic Druid ritual as foreplay - but what I cannot believe is the 20-year-old virgin in New York City in 1999.<br /><br />Especially around Prince...
Let's summarize how dumb this movie is with two details : Arnold to Antichrist : "Let's see who is meanest" said with a straight face. And you can tell they were not trying to be funny.<br /><br />How do you think Arnold will battle the evil of all evils?<br /><br />Blessed Water, A crucifix, a priest..nooo! with a bazooka, yes not even Satan expected it they're so clever.<br /><br />After an engaging beginning (which reminds you of Devil's Advocate) it goes nowhere. Somebody get me those two hours of my life back. Don't ever watch it, rent it, lest buy it.<br /><br />
End of Days is one of the worst big-budget action movies I've ever seen. Muddling direction, meandering script loaded with lame dialogues and gaping plot holes, rapid-fire MTV-style editing and poor acting all the way.<br /><br />That's not to say End of Days isn't watchable. The movie kept me interested because I found Ah-nuld's latest action flick laughably stupid for being so inept and silly when it comes to logic. Without the sense of logic the movie dies quicker, which is why End of Days deserved a huge drop of box office reception in its second week after the opening in the U.S.<br /><br />I won't go into the details explaining why End of Days violates the law of movie logic, but here are several problems with this movie:<br /><br />(SPOILER)<br /><br />After the Devil walks out, the restaurant explodes without any trace as to how he did it. No snapping finger, no tampered energy gas to ignite the fire, nothing. How could this happen?<br /><br />Arnold and his annoying sidekick Kevin Pollack somehow magically comes up with the name "Christine York" after examining the phrase "Christ in New York" carved on a victim's body, runs the database on the computer and, viola, Christine York, the only person with the exact name in all of New York City! Beyond my suspension of disbelief. <br /><br />How did the characters who have come in contact with Arnold's character turn against him later in the movie? I laughed out loud when I recognized the good-stepmother-turned-evil-stepmother is the same actress who played a nanny in William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet. Her ironic transition from that film to this was absolutely hilarious if you can imagine.<br /><br />All the mindlessly huge explosions and gunfires. What did you expect in the Arnold Schwarzenegger vehicle?<br /><br />The Devil took a man's body comprising of flesh and blood, yet he's invisible to bullets and explosions by healing through that body. Logically, this is impossible.<br /><br />As the Devil demostrates the illusion in the apartment, Arnold's character runs into the solid Christmas tree that supposedly is an illusion and *falls on it* physically.<br /><br />The Devil is capable of punching the person's brains out and twisting a victim's head 180 degree, yet he could not kill Arnold's character as he always intends to.<br /><br />How the Devil's object of desire's parents died and why evil New Yorkers run after Arnold and the object of desire were never explained at all.<br /><br />In the sequence that's a rip-off of Speed, Arnold and the Devil's object of desire manage to escape the subway train wreck by the short distance inside unscathed. This is beyond my comprehension, since the force would be enough to throw Arnold and the object of desire around violently and die from fatal wounds seconds after impact.<br /><br />Arnold suffers the brutal beating from the mob sanctioned by the Devil and put him on the cross to hang against the wall, yet the Devil forgot to take the time and opportunity to kill him for convenience's sake.<br /><br />At the beginning of the movie, after the Devil took over a man's body, all of a sudden Arnold is his bodyguard??? Is this a coincidence or just an example of bad editing?<br /><br />Arnold's recital of cringe-inducing dialogues in the particularly laughable scenes like "YOU ARE A CHOIRBOY COMPARED TO ME!" are the perfect fodder for MST3K, just as Eraser did with the classic line "You're the luggage!".<br /><br />The whole theory about 666/1999 is downright ludicrous. So are the pseudo-religious babble about the Christian theology involving the end of the world at precisely midnight and the fanatic killers who know the location of the Devil's object of desire. <br /><br />(END SPOILERS)<br /><br />It is highly ironic that End of Days uses the scattered profanities abusing the deity while rambling about Christian theories. The level of violence in the film is excessive and gruesome, and is therefore unnecessary to serve the plot. The director's indulgence of excess is a factor here. He surely doesn't know how to make a coherent action movie from the screenwriter of Air Force One who was only obliged to write the script just for a big sum of money.<br /><br />Hence, End of Days is a worthless film with no redeeming value except for campiness -- Arnold's worst since Hercules in New York. <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />
Throughout watching "End of Days", I got the sense that the film makers were perhaps trying to make this unique to the average Hollywood action film. They failed, of course, but you have to give them credit for trying. Peter Hyams actually tried directing this time, instead of just churning out another flat action film. He attempted to inject atmosphere into the movie by darkening the lights and adding tons of blood. This method can work if used correctly (see "Se7en") but here it just feels like a cheap trick to try and scare us. Hyams is a decent action director, and offers nothing more here than basic shoot outs and fight scenes, except for the lackluster, sub par f/x end "battle". As a photographer, Hyams demonstrates actual ability, displaying some good frame work and movement, but it is nothing above solid work.<br /><br />Screenwriter Andrew Marlowe is the film's greatest enemy. At parts, the script actually shows the makings of good religious thriller, and at times it even shows some quasi-intellectual thought (the Temptation scene between Arnold and Gabriel Byrne), but these small pluses are choked out by a river of negatives. Generic dialogue/characters, gapping plot holes, and convenient plot points that just happen to point all the characters in the right direction are just a few of the standard Hollywood black holes Marlowe's screenplay falls into. The shadow of the good movie it could have been faded very quickly.<br /><br />The film surprisingly has a good cast. Arnold, still possessing that larger than life attitude, tries to play a depressed, on the edge cop with no more than average results. Stick to be the invincible hero Arnie, it's what your good at. Gabriel Byrne is the strong point of the ensemble, bringing a nice air of cynicism to the role of Satan. In a villainous role ripe for overacting, Byrne restrains himself and it adds a bit more menace to the character. Kevin Pollak, as normal, is able to bring at least a few chuckles to the movie, but he's done better. Also look for a stellar small role from Rod Steiger.<br /><br />Hyams looked like he was trying to separate this from the faceless mass of Hollywood action films. He was heading in the right direction, but had neither the script or originality to take it there.<br /><br />4/10
End of Days, starts off pretty well, Arnie plays a down and out cop (a very similar character to Riggs in Lethal weapon) and the story looks like a kind of serial killer action thriller that will be good entertainment.<br /><br />Sadly it fails to deliver, Arnie is as good as we we have come to expect, but as for Gabriel Byrne i expect him to chose his roles more carefully than this. cast as the devil; this is probably the weakest portrayal of the lord of darkness ever.<br /><br />This movie gets a little too daft for me, and the end sequence, aside from being very weak, is visually one of the worst i've seen in recent years, CGI is have been better than this since the early nineties.<br /><br />Quite simply not good enough. 4/10 (Watch it if you have too, but don't expect too much, cause it won't deliver)
I really don't know why I'm writting this. I think most people agree that this movie is bad. Well, let me say this:<br /><br />When I first get done watching some movies, I like them. Then as time goes on, my opinion changes about the movie. this happened with End of Days. I liked it the first time I saw it. I thought it was entertaining. But, a few weeks later, my opinion has changed. So, to resolve this, I watched it again at a friends house. Well, it's bad.<br /><br />I'm a logic person. If I see a logic hole in a movie, I try to ignore it. If I see two, then I start to get annoyed. More than two and I'm p***ed off. End of Days made me p***ed off after my second viewing.<br /><br />First off, the movie is a bit depressing. Everything about it is sad. Everything from Arnold's acting to the movie's colors. But dark looking movies don't bother me, but some thing else did...<br /><br />If Satan can regenerate his wounds, how can you possible kill him in his mortal form? If you shoot him, his skin grows back. If you cut off his head, a new one should pop back up. So question: what's the point of even trying to kill him? I'll tell you why: because this is a stupid movie that has a recycled villain. This isn't the devil my friends. This is a human being reminescent of those Bond villains who give away there entire scheme to the hero.<br /><br />Like I said it's worth a look, but don't see it twice, because it's crap.
What does this movie have? Lots of gunfire and expensive effects. Nothing makes sense on any other level.<br /><br />Watching Arnold cry is seeing acting so bad that it is laughable. The plot is ludicrous.<br /><br />If you think the Devil will be impressed by a bad actor with a machine gun, well, this movie is for you!
I never thought I would absolutly hate an Arnold Schwartzeneggar film, BUT this is is dreadful from the get go. there isnt one redeemable scene in the entire 123 long minutes. an absolute waste of time<br /><br /> thank yu<br /><br /> Jay harris
I was waiting to welcome Arnold Schwarzeneger's return to action after the dismal movies he'd made after "Eraser." "End of Days," however, can be added to the dismal films he's had the misfortune of appearing in.<br /><br />"End of Days" starts well with a gripping action sequence, yet quickly becomes a bore, taking the focus off action and suspense and instead concentrating on the investigation of demonic happenings and the quickly approaching millenium (read "Doomsday"). <br /><br />Performances are stale, special effects so-so, and gore plentiful. Considering myself a die-hard Schwarzenegger fan, I couldn't believe I didn't like this film, but with such an awful, lame script, what could Arnie have done, besides passed on this turkey?<br /><br />3 out of 10<br /><br />
I like Arnold, and I love the subject matter, but this was a very disappointing movie. When I first saw the previews, they were dark and ominous, and Arnold's name wasn't even mentioned. But I recognized him, which led me to believe that he was making a movie that had more of a serious, suspenseful mood. That it wasn't just another Schwarzenegger action vehicle (though I admit, most of his are pretty good!). He had, thus far, avoided movies with any real religious theme. And I was excited. I was wrong. This is just another action, explosion, gun fire movie. And it's a pretty bad one.
To sum it all up, skip End of Days and watch rent Roman Polanski's The Ninth Gate instead. This movie is the perfect stereotypical American movie vs Ninth Gate being the perfect stereotypical European movie.<br /><br />Ninth Gate: Noir-ish, intelligent, nicely scored, atmospheric, excellent acting (Johnny Depp, esp), beautiful scenery, good cinematography, funny one-liners, intellectual, minimal foul language, thought-provoking. The only fault is it that a few people didn't understand the open-ended ending and said the movie was "crappy" because of that and there were a couple of questionable scenes.<br /><br />End of Days: Overly violent, liberal use of foul language, NO musical score except for a poor attempt at a commercial soundtrack that was only heard when Gabriel Byrne stalked around NYC as Satan (but all you could pick out was Korn's Jonathan Davis unintelligible screaming), sex that had nothing to do with the plot, violence, incredibly predictable, violence, and did I mention lots more violence? I guess some of the special effects were good but that's about it.<br /><br />Well, maybe I'm wrong but I thought Ninth Gate was far more interesting, quirky, original, and intelligent. But maybe Americans don't need need that. *dripping with cynicism* Even though I am an American, sometimes I wonder.
One of the worst Arnold movies I've seen. Special effects were terrible. Script was horrible. Hopefully his next movie will be much better like T2, Total Recall, True Lies and Eraser(not as good as the rest). Watch Stigmata if you want to see an apocalyptic future movie. It's much better.
I felt that the film was rushed, and the acting was full of holes. Arnold was good, but the main girl was stupid, and the guy who played the devil was awful. The story was confusing and idiotic. The film had no point, and was unbelievable. The movie is not the worst movie, but is not too far away from it. Overall I was awfully disappointed, it could have been alot better. My score is a 3 out of 10
The plot of this boils down to Ah-nuld versus Satan, and what I remember most about the movie is a lot of explosions, gunfire, blood, noise, and let's not forget that flammable satanic urine. The story is nonsensical, utterly predictable, and so full of holes I couldn't take a bit of it seriously. Stick to "Rosemary's Baby" or "The Exorcist" if you want to see a really good devil movie and....um, well, I can't think of any good "Action" movies at the moment (probably because they're so far-and-few-between), so you're on your own in that category. This flick does get a 3 out of 10 rating from me for its camp value, and for a pretty-good performance by Gabriel Byrne as that old debbil Satan!
this film sucks a big one. so many holes in the plot. if the devil is invincible, why does he require the protection of arnies bodyguards? I couldn't fathom why arnie didn't turn up for work for several days and then suddenly appears, takes their entire armoury and disappears again!! Nice work if you can get it. It's sad that the last 1/2 hour has to result in the standard arnie 'uzi 9mm' finale. Arnies interpretation of a depressed cop is to bow his head and sniff. i thought he had a bad cold for most of the film. Dreadfully scripted, Arnie is called 'buddy', 'dude' etc for 95% of the film and then suddenly we hear him being called by his real name of Jericho Cane (where do they get these names from??). The ending is so twee you'd better get the barf bag ready. Shame that Gladiator pulled off the same ending with 100% more class.<br /><br />
All the hype! All the adds! I was bummed that I missed this on the big screen. Where this film worked was in the little details. In EVERYTHING else it failed. Arnold has done so many better performances in the past few years. I thought the days of Commando and Last Action Hero were gone from our lives. Sadly this film panders to the lowest common denominator and reduces Arnold to a bellowing, grunting, face contorting muscle that just knows how to shoot guns and blow things up. In a cliche last moment (and at one other time), that was predictable from the start, we see a glimmer of the actor that has proven he is more than what he got paid for early in his career. I was unimpressed with the film as it never broke new ground or went anywhere but where you expected it to.
The core issues at play (God & Satan / Good & Evil) can be & should be tremendously compelling (as demonstrated through thousands of works of art/music/literature/film). End of Days, unfortunately, is nothing but a 2Dimensional Cartoon. Byrne's acting ability stands so obviously in sharp contrast to Arnold's corresponding lack of ability and is further underlined by a plot filled with nothing but stereotypes.<br /><br />The single compelling scene occurs at the very beginning with the transformation of the Gabriel Byrne character and his subsequent interaction with his wife? girlfriend? It is both erotically charged & repellent -- modernizing the vampirish themes, the seductive power of evil.
Quite liked Flesh and looking forward to Heat but couldn't help but feel Morrissey grossly exploited most of the "performers" featured here. Stumbling around naked in a narcotic stupor seems to be all Dallesandro was capable of in this feature--a huge and heartbreaking contrast from Flesh. His semi-erection in a few scenes is the only indication that he might be acting; mostly it looks like something he did to buy drugs. Woodlawn is a revelation all right--she is the embodiment of the Lower East Side. But hers is a one woman show--she rarely engages the other performers though, it has to be said, her sex scene with a beer bottle definitely leaves Halle Berry in the shade when it comes to cinematic displays of raw passion. When she pounces on a young, would-be lover it is with the ferocity of a vampire. Two of the female performers, Andrea and Jane, have such annoying voices you'll have to mute the sound to get through their scenes. The fact that several of these performers committed suicide or were murdered a few years after only adds to the air of exploitation. But they were probably desperate to get in front of Morrissey's camera anyway. There probably isn't a worse way to spend a Saturday night but at least it brings a specific time and place vividly to life.
I like underground films when they have something to say, or show, for that matter. I tried hard to like "Trash". I tried to see some artistic achievement, or some interesting representation of New York City life in the early 70's. Or at least being entertained by it? But the movie stinks and can't be called either art or entertainment.<br /><br />"Trash" is basically an excuse to expose Joe Dallesandro's nude body for 2 hours, while he meets other uninteresting, annoying figures (I agree, that's a gorgeous body, but no excuse for a whole movie about it, right?). Holly Woodlawn, as Joe's girlfriend, provides a few good laughs by the end, but then it's too late to save those wasted couple of hours. Lou Reed's classic song "Walk on the Wild Side" is a better portrayal of those people and that time, even if it's more fascinating than they actually were. 1.5/10.
This is absolute drivel, designed to shock and titillate the 60's mindset. The acting is completely wooden, consisting mainly of ad-libbing, which results in the sub standard actors dribbling the first thing they can think of, repetitively. <br /><br />The end result is of a badly written play being read by people who have no idea and couldn't care. The one exception to this is the lead character "Joe" (played by Joe Dallesandro) who spends a lot of the film in a naked stupor (either stoned, or the only one in the piece who can act!) Please don't think I don't "get" Warhol - this is plainly and simply a Stinker that should never have made it out of a film class.
Yes, it's pure trash. It might be interesting for every guy who likes experimental cinema (like me) to see lowlifes babbling and doing nothing for almost two hours, but it gets very painful when you realize you have actually paid for this. Probably, this is one of those films you love to watch for its complete emptiness and nihilism. I accept it though for its shock value, decades before Trainspotting and Pulp Fiction.
From the portrayals of Andy Warhol in the films I Shot Andy Warhol and Basquiat, this is the type of movie I would predict Andy Warhol might make--airy, illogical, snobbish, amoral. The movie's (almost non-existent) plot which is sometimes increduously unbelievable is offset by the movie's rough, real-looking cinematography. The film has a way of being unreal, yet dictating reality to the viewer. The only worthwhile part of the movie is the development of the relationship between Joe and Holly and every thing in it should be viewed as a characterization device. There are a couple of comical scenes that I do admit are funny, but Trash is really just about a character study of unengaging people that is mildly enjoyable if you do not mind watching nudity and i.v. drug use.
I think Trash really sucks. I watched it a couple of weeks ago and I haven't seen that kind of c**p at the cinema since Female Trouble by John Waters and that was even worse. The dialogues, the acting; it really stank, it was so bad it made me want to leave the cinema and ask for my money back. But actually I am glad I saw it, because then I could tell my honest opinion on it. One should see this film, even though it stinks.
This was obviously the worst movie ever made...ketchup was the starring role in this movie and would be the only nominee for an award..cause the plot, actors, and anything related to this farce was absolutely horrible and ridiculous. I could have made a better horror flick in my backyard within two hours with a hand-held camera using grass stuffed dummies as the actors, atleast the acting would have been better! Don't waste your time or money on this one...it's extremely cheesy and horrible!!
I HATE MOVIES THAT END LIKE THIS!!!!<br /><br />This 16mm disaster is full of clichés, stereotypical characters, a generic, over done "plot" and terrible dialog.<br /><br />In this "Movie" we have the Aggressive Black Guy, The Black Guys Girlfriend, The Blonde Bitch, The Possible Lesbian "hacker chick", the Pedophilic teacher...Blah, Blah, Blah....And then the Pumpkin Man.<br /><br />"Do you think someone is taking the legend too far?" This question is asked towards the end of the film. Taking the Tagline of Scream 2 too far.<br /><br />SPOILERS*****Typically I don't go into spoilers but I have to rant....<br /><br />A dream? The whole thing was a Dream!!!!! This is the most sissified way to end a movie. "I don't know how to explain all of this, and we don't have any more money...Let's make the whole thing a dream." This is what the director/producer/actor/FX guy must have been thinking. Yes, the director is the character of Mr. E He did almost everything on this garbage movie. This is such a cope out ending....And what of the principal, okay, so he has been doing all the kidnapping! What did that have to do with the movie? Of course the Black people are killed, the bitchy girl is killed, the teacher that has a past of sexual harassment with students gets killed ( he is main suspect)....YUCK YUCK YUCK!!! This movie gave me heart burn.<br /><br />Pointless, senseless, and made with parents Visa and Mastercards (which tells me it is probably still being paid off), this movie is dumb, boring and just plain stupid....<br /><br />The only thing I liked was the credits. The way they presented the names, etc, in the beginning and at the end. It had a creepy feel to it. Too bad the movie didn't!<br /><br />1 out of 10
This is a horrific re-make of the French movie Ma Vie en Rose (http://imdb.com/title/tt0119590/). The only scenario that I can imagine in which anyone (Sinise?! Bates?! Butler?! What WERE they thinking!?!) agreed to be associated with it is MacLaine seeing the original, being rightly impressed, and enlisting a friend (with no writing credits -- or talent! -- to his name) to translate the themes for American audiences -- whom they both agreed are stupid, stupid, stupid. Then she enlisted other friends to sign up, and they did so as friends -- certainly not on the merits of this pathetically contrived, everything-but-the-kitchen-sink script.<br /><br />I'm not a knee-jerk fan of French film, but Ma Vie en Rose is a subtle, thoughtful, and thought provoking treatment of sensitive cultural issues. I would love to see it get wider exposure among English-speaking audiences -- and if that means an American re-make, so be it. But puh-leeze! a little respect for the issues AND the intelligence of the audience -- and better direction for the actors, who couldn't seem to decide if they were working for Tennessee Williams or Jerry Lewis!
Brainy, cross-dressing little boy finds success on the Spelling Bee circuit despite an unconventional and dysfunctional upbringing. Shirley MacLaine directed and stars as the child's grandmother, and it is always fascinating to see long-time actors getting their chance at directing a film, the material that they're drawn to and the actors they choose to work with. Here, the only person well-cast in "Bruno" is MacLaine. The child actors seem to have been picked for their twinkle and cuteness, and squishy-hearted MacLaine holds their close-ups for excruciatingly long periods; nothing about these cherubs seems natural, not the lines that fall without consciousness out of their mouths or the interaction they have with adults or even each other. As the boy's disgruntled father, poor Gary Sinise hovers around the edges, in mock shame, always with a pained look on his face. Towards the end of the film, MacLaine turns the whole thing into a passel of hugging scenes, and even concludes with the kid hugging the Pope in Rome! Another ungodly treatise from a talented actress-turned-director who, much like Sally Field and her film "Beautiful", cannot seem to stop winking at and nudging the audience. Shirley uses ethnicity for shtick, and childhood innocence as a punchline. The children in this cast roll their eyes, crack wise with mature comments, use big words--but when one mealy-mouthed boy calls our pint-sized hero "gay", MacLaine's granny instructs him to go over and punch the kid out (in front the media!). How's that for progression? * from ****
*****Spoiler or two, not that is matters******<br /><br />Two things stand out about this movie. First is it's been titled both "Bruno" and "The Dress Code," and if you've seen this movie you'll catch the irony in that.<br /><br />Second is it's addressing issues completely off the wall. The adventures of a grade school cross dresser isn't something that there was a crying need for a movie about, nor a topic that I think most people would be interested in. Shirley MacLaine manages to walk around the issues of gender by tying Bruno's desire to wear a dress to religion, which probably opens up an even thornier can of worms--what was she thinking? <br /><br />Yes, there's some humor and it's not directly offensive, but the kind of unsettling feeling in the beginning just keeps on growing. It doesn't do much except repeat the liberal mantra that "different" people should be accepted (or maybe excepted?) no matter what. <br /><br />Which is fine----but in order for people to live in a society everyone has to give a little to get along. Bruno doesn't just want to wear a dress, he wants to show up looking like a miniature Gladys Knight on awards night, and his final costume makes him resemble a Cabbage Patch Cowgirl Doll. Yet all the other kids dress and behave, well, like regular kids. So what gives? If it came down to it we all could declare ourselves special or different and behave any way we felt like, and the result would be total chaos. <br /><br />This accepting of people who are "different" is also pretty narrowly defined, I doubt we will ever see a movie about a kid finding his true self and wanting to wear overalls, hunt geese, and go to tractor pulls, and demanding everyone else just accept him as he is. "Bruno" is one stupid movie, and a complete waste of time.
This movie was terrible. The plot was terrible and unbelievable. I cannot recommend this movie. Where did this movie come from? This movie was not funny and wasted the talent of some great actors and actresses including: Gary Sinise, Kathy Bates, Joey Lauren Adams, and Jennifer Tilly.
First the premise stinks...little boy likes to dress in girls clothes. It reminded me of Norman Bates in PSYCHO or Ed Wood in ED WOOD. The jokes are lame and old, You've seen 'em in a dozen 50's & 60's films. The whole cast is wasted. I bet people signed on just to be in a Shirley MacLaine vehicle. Please, Would somebody tell Shirley she did her best comedy in TWO MULES FOR SISTER SARA. See it...if there's no reruns of Andy Griffith on.
Somehow, this documentary about Miles manages to include very little music and no complete tunes. Though Miles appears in the film, 95% of the interviews are other folks, not Miles. There are huge chronological gaps, many aspects of his life (his childhood prodigy, his drug addiction) are skipped or glossed over, and you'll learn little about what made the man and his contribution to music so groundbreaking. Skip it.
Stunning blonde Natasha Henstridge is the young, not-so-grieving widow in the mansion on the hill, telling her story to a TV reporter in Monroeville, Virginia. And among the community's well-heeled horsey-set, she's suspected of involvement in the death of her older husband. That's James Brolin, trusting as a babe-in-arms. Flashback teledrama made in Canada, based on an article that appeared in Vanity Fair magazine. It must be true! Whatever, it's far more romance than mystery, and a very familiar tale. Leggy Species star Henstridge as a gold-digging hospice nurse? It could happen, I guess. And it's good to see Brolin in a sizeable role after his titchy turn in Antwone Fisher, even if he doesn't make it to the end of the picture. The end of the picture? He doesn't even make it to the beginning of the picture. Which is why flashbacks were invented, of course.
To start this movie was sick. Here your wife is dying and you go strutting around town with this blond chic by your side. Then your wife dies and within 2 months you are together with this chic. Hank (James Brolin) is definitely moving fast throughout this movie. I called him Fast Hank. Fast Hank marries this beautiful lady and before you know it she is having sex with his best friends. The part that gets me is when she is "doing it" in the barn with Kevin and gets caught by another one of Hanks friends. Kevin gets up and leaves, she drops her robe and BAM!! Right into the arms of this other guy and they start "doing it" right then and there. I guess he is finishing up what Kevin started. HOW GROSS!!!! I am like this is lifetime movie??? Its a typical OLD MAN YOUNG WOMAN movie that says you can have my body if I get your money...
I started off being interested somewhat in the movie. It appeared it might be serious drama, dealing with death, grief, and healing, with some realistic human conflict thrown in. Alas, it didn't hold up.<br /><br />I need a movie with somewhat consistent and believable characters. Too many characters in this movie were portrayed as extremely gullible and inconsistent. Look, I know this was not supposed to be Shakespeare, but come on, I need some quality in script and characterization.<br /><br />The acting was alright, the writing not so much. At one point, James Brolin's character is berated for showing up at a picnic under-dressed. He states that ordering him around will not work. His new wife says that if he goes home and changes she will rip his clothes off later. That is a howler. This movie had a few unintentionally funny lines.<br /><br />It was hard to care about Jame's Brolin's character. When he so readily gave his first wife's things to his new wife, even allowing his daughter to be snubbed, I lost most of my sympathy. Who really cares what happens to him. I must confess that I did not finish the movie. If it did a 180 in quality in the last 45 minutes, let me know. It was just unpleasant to watch and so predictable I felt there was no need to finish it.
Alas, it seems that the golden times of stylish Italian cinema have sunk into oblivion. And the recent brainchild of celebrated filmmaker Lamberto Bava is yet another obvious proof to that assumption.<br /><br />I felt lucky to watch many films from this prolific director (like Body Puzzle, Delerium, Macabre and both Demons). Albeit not entirely satisfying they have never been that dull.<br /><br />A suspicion that this new entry to my DVD collection was money thrown to the winds arose shortly in the aftermath of the car crash scene exhibiting an awkward and unlikely position of the body under the flip-over car.<br /><br />And the sense of shallowness grew up in the course of the ponderously narrated chain of events that followed.<br /><br />Dumb dialogs, suspenseless script and a total waste of talents from the international cast. The only character that provided more or less passable performance was the mischievous Mark's son juicing up the entire boredom.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Mario's son job on all accounts could hardly be hailed.<br /><br />I look forward to seeing his Murder House hopefully expected to be an improvement.
"Ghost Son" is Lamberto Bava's best film and, at the same time, also his worst. I suppose that statement requires some slight clarification. It's his best because it's well directed, ambitious, accessible and very stylish, but his worst because it's a dull, unoriginal movie and undeniably a huge letdown to all the real fans of Bava's past efforts. Let's face it: many fans, myself certainly included, wouldn't have been interested in this film judging by the plot, the famous names attached to it and even the boring sounding title. The only motivation here was Lamberto Bava, who brought us large amounts of convoluted Gialli and fun splatter films in the past. "Ghost Son" is a bit of his comeback film, alongside "The Torturer", and although the latter definitely isn't a good film, it at least lives up to his fans' lines of expectations, with excessive amounts of sleaze, blood and sadism. "Ghost Son" is a weak and intolerably soft horror film, even talking in terms of mainstream ghost stories. The emphasis lies too much on sentimentality, and this badly affects the already limited number of horrific & creepily atmospheric moments. The basic premise might feature one or two potentially good ideas, but the film is overall dull and far too clichéd. John Hannah and Laura Harring star as a happy couple, living on a remote ranch in South Africa and breeding horses for a living. The joy and happiness couldn't possibly improve, so naturally something tragic is bound to happen, and it does. Mark dies in a car accident, but the inconsolable Stacey remains at the ranch where she's in constant contact with Mark's spirit. She even gets pregnant with his child, but shortly after baby Martin's birth mysterious events begin to occur. It seems as if Mark's restless and selfish ghost 'possessed' the baby and uses him to encourage Stacy into committing suicide. With all the focus on the couple's relationship, many of the events and sub plots are underdeveloped and/or remains unexplained, like the whole background of the youthful maid Thandi. There's too little action and the only real fright-moments are too obviously borrowed from classic films such as "The Exorcist" and "Rosemary's Baby" (vomiting green goo, self moving furniture…). Purely talking in terms of horrific entertainment "Ghost Son" is a painful misfire, but it has to be said, it's a beautiful and enchanting looking failure. The cinematography is extremely elegant and many camera angles are truly inventive and suggestive. The moody score sometimes even manages to create an ominous atmosphere even though there's nothing of any significance happening on screen. There are several beautiful images of the South African wildlife to admire but, if that interests you, I suppose you're better off watching National Geographic instead. Not much to recommend here. Fans of atmosphere-driven ghost stories have much better options to choose from and die-hard Bava fanatics are advised to (re-)watch "Demons", "Macabre" or "Blade in the Dark".
First of all, I personally adore Demons and Demons 2, I saw them although it was hard to find good horrors without good official movie distributing here in Russia when I was a kid, and that is an unchangeable part of my boyhood. Then I heard nothing about Mr Bava. Then I saw his Ghost Son. Well, it is certainly not a good coming back! Why was the leading character, whom we never really knew to at least like him, in accident in the middle of an empty road? Why do African servants say so dumb and stupid things about human soul? Why is the plot so primitive? Haven't we seen enough ghosts for 100 years of movie production? It is clear that Lamberto Bava has nothing to show us so far. It is a shame.
i just get exited when the movie start(because i saw Juliette lewis name on the screen).the script seemed very complicated first but as the movie continued, it became understandably clear.i concentrated well on it but the result was disappointing.because the object of sex used too much on the film unnecessarily and it seemed to me that the director ignore ones who has tendency upon opposite sex.in my opinion the well prepared script couldn't be embodied.as we look at the cast,the movie promises something in the beginning or i just expected too much... and finally the end...the end is so so much mediocre that i wouldn't expect.the main character Cassandra wants to give message about having baby and how a baby can change a life,in my opinion that scene is the real disaster for the film. all in all the characters are funny and acted beautifully.but only cast can't save a movie.
In a farcical key, Gaudí Afternoons can be taken as a mediocre exercise. Marcia Gay Harden and Judy Davis pivoted a good cast (Juliette Lewis' new-age freaky character has been incredibly taken from reality, I know an American young lady who squawks like her!!) but GA does not show much beyond its overtoned plot.<br /><br />Even though movie-making is all about make believe, there were certain noticeable screenplay inconsistencies. Two samples: you pay 14 euro to enter the chapel where Cassandra and Frankie met, NEVER at 7 am, and you cannot leave a terrace without paying the bill (they'll charge you on the spot if they don't know you) or get off a taxi THAT quickly (you Americans always tip cabbies even though they don't expect to, but the sequences portrayed in the movie were ridiculous). Don't believe me, reader: come over and see for yourself.<br /><br />If you've never been here before you might not care about all this, but good movies should be believable disregarding of your origin. Nobody knows about GA here, and I will make sure that does not change in the future.
I was hoping to like this movie, to settle in for an evening of goofy fun. I like Judy Davis and Juliette Lewis, and the premise seemed off the wall enough to be entertaining.<br /><br />Unfortunately, I found myself dozing over and over again. Judy Davis gave a fine performance, but had very little to work with. Juliette Lewis was fabulous as expected, but had very little to do. The plot was full of "twists" that were just plain silly, and as so often happens in movies of this type, nobody acted the way a real human being would act. And, personally, I thought Marcia Gay Harden was totally miscast.<br /><br />The movie also seemed to shift about midway from a black comedy with touches of farce to a total farce with touches of black comedy. One reviewer here notes that other reviews seem to want this movie to be something different, and therefore decried it. All I can say is that I would have settled for the movie being *something* and sticking with it. This one feels like the director had some grandiose ideas but wasn't able to pull them all off. I give it a 4 out of 10.
Comparing this movie to anything by Almodovar is an insult to Almodovar. The best thing I can say about it is it tries desperately to be like an Almodovar movie and fails miserably. The script is dreadful, the characters are one-dimensional, and the performances are the quality of high-school drama (except Marcia Gay Harden's, which is pretty good, given the material she has to work with). Furthermore, the cinematography does absolutely nothing to convey the whimsical beauty of Gaudi's architecture or the infectious charm of Barcelona. If you enjoy the grit, pathos and dark, quirky comedy of Almodovar's movies, you'll find none of them here. Spend your money on something other than this waste of celluloid.
some funny lines are all what makes this movie bearable. the camera tv-movie-like, the acting poor (julie davis is more than disapointing) and the directing amateurish and / or loveless. but i can understand that no one had fun to realise the overconstructed and trivial script.
Whatever Committee of PC Enforcers is responsible for this movie has achieved something that I never thought possible: to take some truly gifted actors (Davis, Hardin and Taylor) and make you want to insure you never encounter them in an enclosed space, ever. The sentiments that underlie the screenplay are so jejeune and idiotic that it is impossible to understand or imagine what audience would find this picture appealing, much less funny. Architecture students perhaps?<br /><br />Only one scene is visually clever: Marcia Gay Hardin sashaying, all wriggles and rhythm, into a bar manages to exude more style and energy in ten seconds than the whole of the rest of the film added up and multiplied to the tenth power. As for the other members of the cast, they probably won't want to put this one on their resumes.
I gave it a rating of 3 out of 10.<br /><br />And what's sad is, I made a point of looking up the movie schedule for that channel so I wouldn't miss seeing it. I wanted to watch this film because it is based on a book by one of my favorite authors, Barbara Wilson. As a lesbian, I expected to love this film.<br /><br />I don't know how Ms. Wilson felt about the film, but I found it a major disappointment.<br /><br />It should have been intriguing - it was a mystery - set in Spain, and the main character, Cassandra, is a language translator who gets contacted by a mysterious, beautiful woman who offers Cassandra a great deal of money to locate her ex-husband, Ben.<br /><br />There are secrets galore revealed, but for some reason it just didn't matter. It was like, oh, so what. I could not get involved with these characters or come to care about them, or feel for them. I couldn't even identify with these characters.<br /><br />I think a large part of the film's failure was the actress playing the main character. She looked old, tired, worn out, and as dull as dishwater. Her hair was a perpetual mess, her baggy clothes were boring, and she just was not appealing or interesting.<br /><br />The best part of the film was getting to hear a Dean Martin recording, but even that was ruined by the weird make-up worn by the man who was dancing and lip-synching to the song. Believe me - it was nothing like getting to see the suavely handsome Mr. Martin performing it.<br /><br />The ending is so syrupy you'll wish you had some pancakes to go with the syrup.<br /><br />
This film was not all that bad as the story went but the camera work is what makes it difficult to watch. I just don't like that so-called "realistic" camera work that is being done nowadays; you know the type- jumping off center, panning around, etc. What got me particularly irritated about this film though was the new thing that they threw into the mix by shooting a few frames in black and white in each scene. I believe that the film would have been much better if the camera work was shot in the much more conventional way because as it was I couldn't concentrate on it and found myself analyzing the camera work instead. Maybe if more people express dissatisfaction with camera work like this the filmmakers will finally get the hint.
While not as bad as some movies (like the horrible "Atomic Twister"), "Meltdown" still relies upon common misconceptions and inaccuracies about the nuclear power industry to advance its plot. I am currently studying Nuclear Engineering in the pursuit of a Masters Degree, and it was easy to point out flaws that would be obvious to anyone involved with the industry.<br /><br />Riding the false fear that a Chernobyl style meltdown could happen in an American plant, the movie states that any meltdown (even partial, according to one of the guest commentators in the movie) would mean disaster for the area. In fact, a partial meltdown in an American plant, while destroying the core, would not pose any risk to the surrounding area. Three Mile Island experienced a partial meltdown and no radioactive material was released into the environment at all, thanks to the natural stability of the fuel and core design used in this country paired with substantial containment. <br /><br />The security steps shown in the movie were perhaps the part of the movie furthest from the truth. At any important strategic location -- be it power plant, chemical plant, military base, anything -- you will never see personnel responding to an alarm by milling around talking as if it were an unannounced drill. This is especially true at a nuclear plant, where, upon the sounding of the alarm, the reactors would be SCRAMed immediately, shutting them off. SCRAMing can be done with the push of a button in the control room (you do not need to put the core in "shutdown mode" like depicted in the movie), and the chemistry of nuclear fission prevents a core from being brought back up to power within about 9 hours of a SCRAM. So if this scenario played out in real life, the assailants would not be able to cause a significant meltdown. In theory, they could still cause a partial one due to residual heat if they exposed the core immediately, but that would be almost impossible given the numerous backup systems present in a plant -- there are many more than the single backup pumps they speak of in the movie.<br /><br />As for the spent fuel pools, it may be possible to turn the pools into a dirty bomb by blowing them up, but this is far more difficult than simply parking a truck full of explosives near the pools. The fuel is under (approximately) 18 feet of highly purified water. The water cannot become radioactive (no radioactive steam like they speak of in the movie). Particles dissolved in water can, but the water itself cannot; thus the reason for very thorough purification. So the only way to turn a fuel pool into a dirty bomb is to get the fuel out of the water. This is no easy task as water is very heavy, and the pools are below ground with very thick concrete walls. The explosives would have to be in the pool below the fuel (which is securely fastened). And there would have to be a heck of a lot of explosives, as water is *very* hard to move through an explosion. Even if this were to occur, spent fuel is not extremely radioactive, and the explosion would not cause nearly as high a death toll as mentioned in the movie, especially given the small amount of radioactive material that would be spread. <br /><br /> From a basic movie standpoint, I grew somewhat tired of the style used. The constant fading in and out, use of gritty black and white, and fast tracking and panning looked amateurish. The characters were one-dimensional, especially those in the US government. I have some problems with the twist thrown in the movie, but will not discuss it as it would be a major spoiler.<br /><br />Overall, 3/10
Director Jeremiah Checheck who brought us big budget debacles like "The Avengers" and the remake of "Diabolique" has directed this ripoff of the Die Hard concept, done on - what looks like - a Blair Witch budget. <br /><br />A California nuclear reactor is overtaken by Arab terrorists. But - are you ready? - the terrorists aren't Arab; they're really disgruntled American soldiers masquerading as Arabs! We find out that they don't really intend to blow up the reactor just make a statement. We're not sure what the statement is but never mind. So there's really no threat. But then one of the terrorists decides to go it alone and actually blow up the plant because he's kind of crazy. So maybe there is a threat after all. But the army goes in and all the bad guys are killed. So there was no threat. Oh, and a good guy is killed too. Let that be a lesson to everybody.<br /><br />If all of this sounds muddled and kinda of a waste of time then you got the idea of what watching Meltdown is all about.<br /><br />The script never bothers to introduce the characters or to even give any personal details that might flesh them out or emotionally involve the audience. So we're left with one dimensional characters: the-expert-that-nobody-will-listen-to; the-trigger-happy-sergeant; the-slimy-politicians; the-dweeby-Engineers. The story skips from one cliché incident to the next in a formula composite of practically every action movie you've ever seen. But at nearly every turn, just when we think something may be at stake the script flinches and we find out there's actually nothing to worry about.<br /><br />Like Die Hard, there's an police officer who's on the inside, unbenownst to the bad guys. The big twist is that the cop here is....A WOMAN! Oh and she's injured too. But not that bad, just enough to make her wince a couple times. Oh and instead of the walkie talkie that Bruce Willis had this cop has a magic cell phone that works everywhere...even underground! When he's not yelling at everybody else Bruce Greenwood - his jaw made out of granite - tries to soothe her over the walkie talkie. He even makes a joke once but we're afraid his face might crack. After all, this is serious business.<br /><br />But mostly it's scene after scene of people arguing: the Military expert is arguing to wait it out (his reasoning doesn't seem particularly sound but he's supposed to be the smart guy in this movie so okaaaay); the people at the White House argue with him; the army sergeant argues with him too; the nice Pakistani Nuclear Engineer argues with the main terrorist. The dialogue is absolutely B Movie all the way and lines like, "stop the broadcast! STOP THE BROADCAST!!!" may have you in rolling off your sofa as you wonder if the characters are actually referring to this silliness.<br /><br />Maybe to compensate for the lack of production quality the camera-work is kept jittery in that faux documentary 21 Grams style that's supposed to lend immediacy and energy to the scenes but the way it's indiscriminately and amateurishly applied here it's downright annoying; even pretentious. Further attempts to ratchet up the tempo are made with the inclusion of nonsensical black and white footage that's randomly intercut with the main action. But this, too, is pretentious and annoying in that Blair Witch kinda way. In short, the stylistic attempts look very amateurish.<br /><br />The music lives up to the visuals - it's synthy and cheap sounding. Sort of like a porn movie but with less melody and lots more heart beat sounds. The graphic treatment is howlingly bad too: cheesy graphics in huge red font scream out to us "9:28 pm" as though the timeclock actually makes some kind of difference.<br /><br />Meltdown may work as a marketing concept but it's clear that the script was a second thought. FX - part of Fox - put this cheesy production together and dropped several million dollars on it. Now THAT'S what I call a meltdown!
If you thought NBC's 10.5 was stupid, you'll be happy to hear that FX reached into the bowels of made-for-TV hell and squished it's fingers into this pseudo post-9/11 poop. Not only was the plot stupid, it was a complete ripoff of 24 and a bad ripoff at that. The filming style was the now overused "docu-action" look, complete with cuts to grainy B&W "rawcore" footage. I'm not quite sure what that means, but it sure sounds like something the DP said to the director before filming. I don't know what they were going for here but it reminded me of the guy at the office who thinks Powerpoint presentations with "fly-ins" and "animations" are "cool."<br /><br />The story is that 6 "terrorists" take over a nuclear power plant in southern CA. That's right, nuclear power plants, where hundreds of people work, where there's security precautions up the ying-yang. For the sake of reality, they put 2 off-duty CHiPpies in the mix. Because, they'd be able to stop 6 people, right? Six. I mean, even Bruce Willis had to deal with more terrorists over at that stupid Nakatomi building.<br /><br />Leslie Hope (TV's Teri Bauer) plays a CHP officer who has problems talking on the phone after she's shot in her bullet-proof vest. Her voice sounds like a Sally Struther's TV ad, whiny and monotonous. Her character is only a plot device, and after she performs her one small duty, she is promptly disposed of. Yes, Teri Bauer is died! <br /><br />Bruce Greenwood stars as FBI S.A.C. Tom Shea, who continually points out how he punches foreign diplomats in the face. His boss is out, so nobody over at the Dept. of Homeland Security believes his prognosis of the situation. He's the sensible one out of a group of paranoid public officials afraid of taking blame for any type of catastrophe. He's calm, he's strong, he's BORING.<br /><br />There is absolutely nothing redeeming or entertaining about Meltdown - OK, well maybe Teri Bauer getting died was pretty unnecessary and funny - other than that, nothing redeeming.
This was the worst TV movie I had ever seen. The visuals were so dang choppy it made me dizzy. I hated the constant zoom in and zoom out, and the frequent Black and White to Color switch. I also thought that The story didn't make any sense what so ever, and it was another clichéd Action Movie, with a hero a bad guy, and a few hostages. I could make a better movie than that with my own camera, why? I can hold it steady, something the director couldn't do. Over all truly the worst I have ever seen, you thought Disney was bad? I didn't even bother to watch the whole thing because I'm sure I could guess the outcome, and the visual were the worst I have ever seen.
I actually liked certain things about this game. I loved the first person perspective and wish we had had that choice in the first three games. There's nothing like seeing the monsters up close, in your face. The graphics really weren't bad, but I would have liked more things to interact with even though it was just a shooter. The music was fine. The things I hated were: The movement kind of sucked and aiming was a total pain. The story was too lame for words and too much of the same old thing with no originality. The inability to save was awful!!! Some of us do have a life and would like to save to finish the game later. I thought the weapons kind of sucked, too. This game is fun for awhile, but it's nothing like the first three and only good if you just want to shoot stuff. I'd recommend it for the novelty of playing in the first person, but that's about it. Play it at your own risk.
Not much to say other than plenty of Wire-fu and supposed Sholin monks ego-tripping about Kung-fu and caricature Japanese plotting to take over China. All of this would not be so bad if not for the utterly fake Japanese sword fighting. If you watched a Samurai movie or two you can tell that the "Japanese" fighting in the movie is simply the same "Kung-fu" (Really circus acrobats) stunt men doing the same things except with a Japanese sword. However, there are a couple of fun moments such as when a Japanese woman Ninja tears off her clothes in mid-flight to disarm a monk and captures him with a fishing net. Storywise, there seems to be a bit of schizophrenia as far as whether the Japanese should be shown as completely despicable or if there could be exceptions. The "Japanese" protagonist is shown as largely honourable but not beyond unwarranted cruelty such as when he murders a sedated monk so that he may have his duel. Quite disappointing with a very silly ending. Does not for a moment evoke even the semblance of the idea of an epic battle.
This movie is so over-the-top as to be a borderline comedy. Laws of physics are broken. Things explode for no good reason. Great movie to sit down with a six-pack and enjoy. Do not - I repeat DO NOT see this movie sober. You will die horrible death!!!
An obvious cash-in on the *Insert Monster Here* On A Plane gimmick, Flight Of The Living Dead is about what you'd expect it to be. <br /><br />The film has little or no plot, which is what you'd expect from a film of this type. Although, it is fun in parts, I must say. The Zombie-action is particularly entertaining. Once the film picks up, it never stops; the pacing is solid.<br /><br />The practical special effects are pretty good, but the CGI is terrible and distracting. <br /><br />The ending seems to leave the film open to a sequel. Let's hope that doesn't come to fruition. <br /><br />If you're a die-hard fan of the zombie sub-genre of horror films, I'd recommend it to you; it's worth at least one watch. However, if you're just an avid fan of the genre, leave it on the shelf. <br /><br />3/10
This has to be the worst movie i've seen this year.. and i watch a lot of cable. The plot is just ridiculous, the scenes are just thrown at you with no action, no start or ending of any scene.. it's just random idiots with make-up that scream in some plane.. The "special effects" ( Spielberg would laugh his ass off ) are horrible, the yellow eye contact lenses are cute though.. I have to admin that i couldn't bear to watch it to the end. The scene where the great scientist Bennett was holding for dear life by the engine body was too much for me.. I'm sorry for my bad English.. i am from Romania ( and this is my first post ). I had to sign up just to make a comment on this movie because i just can't believe that this is a movie released in 2007.
It's one of the imponderables of low-budget independent film-making that so many with so little in the way of real talent fancy themselves frightmeisters. The paucity of talent evinced by these wonky wannabees is there for all the world to see. Case in point: FLIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (or, as I quickly came to know it, SHITE OF THE LIVING DEAD). There's nothing wrong with paying homage to one's heroes. I've done it many times over the years, myself, in many different ways. In fact, in the xlibris book THE NIGHT RIDERS, co-written with M. Kelley, I dedicate it, in part, to "the six writers whose work inspires me still: Richard Matheson, Harlan Ellison, Shirley Jackson, Edgar Allen Poe, H.P. Lovecraft, and Robert E. Howard." Had it been a motion picture, I would've dedicated it to the directors whose films have inspired me over the years. Very high up on that list would've been George Romero. It's nothing less than a crying shame that the makers of this film weren't truly as inspired by Romero as their title suggests.
I don't understand why some of you (or many) have given this film upward of 8 stars out of 10. Do you understand that there are lower ratings for a reason? Sure, this may be a zombie flick with some splatter, but thats it. I'm not a hater on zombie films, but this was awful. Really, actually, I should call it more like a zombie-soap, because thats how the acting is. Production is... well, okay. Barely an attempt at plot development, awful acting, silly effects, clichés, and an abrupt ending. Go ahead and like zombie movies, but don't ever give this above a 5.0. Honestly though, the only reason you should want to watch this movie is to laugh. Seriously.
..."Flight of the Living Dead" sports production values that belie the substandard script from director Scott "I'm a producer, can'tcha tell?" Thomas and two hacks who shall remain nameless because I feel sorry for them having to attach those no-names to this turkey. Apparently actually shot on film, this direct-to-DVD release has almost nothing going for it that you haven't seen or heard a hundred times already.<br /><br />Despite the presence of a number of recognizable character actors like Richard "Three O'Clock High" Tyson, Erick "Stargate" Avari, and Raymond J. "Little Children" Barry, and a slew of others not so recognizable, "FoLD" is predominantly populated with cardboard, most of which ends up soaked in unconvincing fake blood. There are a few (precious few) gags that work (the umbrella and the zombie trapped in his seat both come to mind), but most of the scripting is pedestrian and comic-book stupid, and I am here to assure you that we're talking pedestrian and stupid. You'll never for a second believe that "FoLD" is anything but a cheap cash-in movie with pretensions of cool. God forbid it ever spawn the sequel its idiotic ending promises.<br /><br />Strictly freebie viewing, depending on how impecunious your local library is, and otherwise suitable for insomniacs and the indiscriminate only.
This movie is really bad, trying to create scientific explanations for zombies always ends up taking away credibility from the history of the movie. There are so many things i could point about the movie that i could almost write a book on how much the movie sucks. For instance, there were like 50 people on the plane, they killed like 100 and they kept coming, apparently the "virus" gives hepatic complications because everybody had yellow eyes, also the virus makes people roar like lions or something, and the virus not only regenerates tissue as it also gives superhuman strength, not to mention that this virus messes up peoples hair. It's also important to notice that if you shoot someone with a pistol (probably only happens on planes) that person is kicked back in the air. Remember that if you are escorting a prisoner on a plane and you loose him, always look inside the drawers and cabinets the size of a bottle, you never know where those bastards are going to hide. And if by any chance you can land a plane full of zombies against a mountain and survive (happens all the time), after watching dozens of people being killed, just walk away from the plane, watching the sunrise and making jokes about dating the flight attendant. :)
I'm a huge fan of zombie movies and this is just a pathetic attempt at one. I find the best features of zombie flicks to be the sense of solidarity and a need to survive. This movie focused more on a "let's just make it gory" view.<br /><br />The movie was full of bad acting and even worse special effects. When the zombies emerge from the floor and take the guy down, there is blood just spraying out of the hole. I wasn't aware that holes in airplane floors bleed so extensively. And the original zombie lady, Kelly or something, displayed the worst acting I have ever seen when she woke up and began feeling sick. I laughed quite hard when she died. Deserved it in every way.<br /><br />I was a little confused as to why Dr. Kelly could talk after becoming a zombie, but then there wasn't anything uttered by another zombie because annoying screams and shrieks. And they seemed to be killing the zombies pretty efficiently by shooting them in the abdomen, yet when Dr. Bennett is expelled from the airplane and into the engine, removing most of his lower half, he is still able to live at the end.<br /><br />I kinda felt that they altered things to make a "good" scene. When one of the bitchy girlfriends (I didn't take the time to learn their names. They played a pointless role) was in the bathroom, she was attacked by a zombie behind the mirror. Was it a two-way mirror to watch Mile-High Clubbers? I've never broken a mirror on an airplane (bad luck and all that) but I doubt there is that much room behind there, with the insanely confined space of the actually bathroom and all.<br /><br />The few redeeming qualities were too little too late, sadly. One thing the movie had going for it was the smoking hot flight attendants, yet they felt the need to kill all but one off. And I will admit that I laughed pretty damn hard when the old lady chomps down on Frank's arm and he says "She's gumming me to death" or something to that degree.<br /><br />Honestly, I'm sad I wasted my nine dollars on this movie. The fact that I bought it underage kinda redeems that but still... It failed on so many levels. Stick with Dawn of the Dead and 28 Days Later.
If you want to waste a small portion of your life sit in front of this predictable zombie film. It fails at the first post by not being scary OR funny. It is a dull grey movie that I guess went straight to video. Hammy and tongue in cheek acting leave a sour taste in the mouth. If you want to watch a poor but still watchable recent zombie film watch Diary of the Dead. Poor special effects, school level script. Zombie films work if they have a moral point or even a political point . This movie has nothing, there is no worthy point that zombification underscores. This is as thrilling and convincing as a Republican Convention, no sorry watching the Republican Convention would be a better example of a Zombie movie.
This review contains spoilers.<br /><br />I was searching through horror movie DVDs on Amazon when I came across Flight Of The Living Dead. I already knew from the name that it was going to be abysmally naff and most probably a rip-off of Snakes On A Plane, but it was selling brand new for 69p so I figured I didn't really have much to lose.<br /><br />The music played over the opening credits didn't fit at all, although I did like the song itself a pop-rock song isn't really suitable to appear on the soundtrack of a zombie horror movie. It started off surprisingly well, the opening scenes weren't too bad, some of the acting was a little cringe-worthy but not as bad as I initially thought it would be.<br /><br />It all goes well until Laura Cayouette (Rocket from Kill Bill: Vol. 2) enters the picture. She is supposed to be playing a scientist. If she is, she's not a very bright one. Luckily she's polished off pretty quickly.<br /><br />I actually physically laughed out loud when the camera panned over the passengers of the plane during some turbulence. There was a nun. Have you ever been on a plane with a nun!? I was surprised she wasn't clutching a crucifix.<br /><br />Finally, after 35 minutes, we get to some zombie action, and use the word 'action' loosely. The special effects are pretty below standard, but that's to be expected from a movie with this budget. Being covered in blood and having yellow contact lenses does not make you look like a zombie though, it makes you look pretty amusing. Using slow motion doesn't work particularly well either. I think this movie is probably guilty of trying to add too much story. Trying to pass off the problem as a variant of the "malaria virus" wasn't an especially good move either considering malaria isn't a virus.<br /><br />The rest of the movie pretty much plays out like any other zombie movie. Most of the characters are killed off and it eventually ends up with a handful of people fighting to stay alive. Possibly the worst part of Flight Of The Living Dead is the utterly inconceivable ending. I know it's a movie about people who come back to life and feast on the living, but the ending was just ridiculous. Rating: ★★
I never really thought about watching this film. I kept seeing it perched on the horror movie shelf in my local video rental shop and never thought much about it. Just your run of the mill, bland zombie flick with a bit of gore and a sex scene. Nothing special, might as well watch Python...oh no wait, that's a terrible film.<br /><br />I only decided to watch it when some of my friends saw it on TV and said it was an awful piece of trash. So, I decided to verify these tales, and only then did I realise how terrible the film hiding behind the bland and uninteresting DVD box cover was.<br /><br />Not that the idea is bad in itself. A plane is a confined area, and would be a real death trap for the people on board should zombies make their appearance...a good premise for a zombie film. But this film took a good setting and crapped all over it with poor acting, unsteady camera work, annoying characters and a terrible score.<br /><br />The characters all have different levels of hatefulness. There are two young couples who are basically friends going on a vacation in France. One couple is composed of a jock and his annoying bitchy girlfriend who is having an affair with Mr Jock's best friend, who came along with his girlfriend who is a blonde psycho. There is also a policeman escorting a con-man (an effeminate and highly annoying con-man). The policeman is probably one of the least irritating characters of the lot. Then there is a bunch of air hostesses who mostly end up as zombie chow...no I didn't watch the whole film, it was just too painful an experience to carry through, almost as bad as watching Cannibal Holocaust. Oh and there's also a golfer on holiday with his wife, some strange air marshal who really does not appear to be important until he's summoned to help deal with the zombie escapees, a trio of scientists who all fall victim to the undead and a couple of pilots. The camera work is often shaky, and although many people don't seem to mind, it can really get on your nerves after a while, like having a small fly buzz constantly around your head. It's small but it's there and it's annoying.<br /><br />The adulterous couple are genuinely annoying. All they do is have sex in the plane's toilets while their spouses aren't looking...in fact all the young adults in this film are insanely annoying. They whine, bitch, argue and have some of the most inane and mind-buggeringly boring dialogue in the movie...yes, it makes you glad to see them die.<br /><br />The score is atrocious. It is so generic and uninspired it kills any kind of suspense a scene could have generated and replaces it with the feeling that someone is scraping a blackboard with their nails and laughing at you. In fact, it sounds like the score from...Python! That film will never stop haunting me.<br /><br />There is also a character that the film makers seemed incredibly intent on having in as many shots as possible. A nun, sitting near the young adults and clutching her Bible who is included in so many shots you start to wonder if she plays any major part in the film...but no she doesn't, so why have her in so many scenes? Was it because the film's creator's original project was a nun porn flick? Nobody will ever know.<br /><br />The zombies look pretty good. Their makeup is good and they are probably far better actors than the living characters, they are far more convincing and likable! The guard responsible for keeping an eye on the scientist's illegal cargo was quite funny. A large crate appears to fall on him, and the camera briefly shows the audience that his leg has been pierced with some kind of sharp object...yet he doesn't scream, wince or moan in pain. He just grunts and squirms in an attempt to get the thing out of his leg...in fact he sounds more like an overweight man trying to scratch his back than a man in pain.<br /><br />Ah well, all in all I give it 1 for the interesting setting and 1 for the zombies.<br /><br />Watch this movie only if you like young adults bickering and throwing things at each other, and sadly, there really isn't anything funny about the whole thing so watching for a laugh would probably fail, unless you're high on some kind of psychoactive drug.
I was looking forward to this based on the reviews on this and the fairly good rating. This was a big disappointment. This doesn't hold a candle to contemporary zombie flicks like Shaun of the dead,day of the dead, land of the dead etc. Horror flicks sometimes take a while to get going, you have to build up the characters so when they snuff it,you feel some empathy etc but even so, there's a full 45 minutes to sit through here even before you sniff a corpse, up to that point,its like watching a bad soap opera, nothing of any interest or relevance happens and if you are going to watch this for the first time,you can honestly start watching after 45 minutes, you won't miss anything plot- wise. When things do get going, its all very sub-par stuff. Some of the kills and make up are done well, others are done very poorly, consistency is lacking here and there are some really shocking continuity errors and some of the most wooden acting i've ever seen.<br /><br />This could all be passable if you really believed this was all taking place on a plane but with guns being fired, firebombs being let off,no pilots in the cockpit in a violent storm yet the plane stays in the air, c'mon, we're not all simpletons.<br /><br />Oh, and does it really take a whole minute for a fighter jet's missile to hit a plane that is a few hundred yards away. I know its a zombie film and you have to stretch things but this film along with the other main defects listed above had zero credibility. One to miss.
"Mararía" really disappointed me. I can't consider it as a bad movie, but the development just seemed too rushed and non-believable for it to evoke any emotions. Dr. Fermín displays some unprecedented bizarre behaviour out of a passion that one can't really understand where it was born from. I mean, how many times does he ever have a conversation with Mararía?? Maybe once? Also, Mararía never appeared to be a real character, instead more like a film stereotype that just needed to be in the movie (...or else another title was needed?). Some of the best acting came from a role that wasn't really important to the story, that of Marcial, the sub-intelligent yet humble drunkard. Of course, the scenery, the cultural tidbits of the Canary Islands, and other "wow" moments were interesting, but the movie fell short of a documentary (in case this was its real intention), and most importantly, as a solid drama.
"You can survive anything". Anything except a dumb horror flick. The director couldn't even decide whether he wanted a demon or just a plain ol' backwoods serial killer. You can't have both. It's like Michael Moore trying to have his cake and eat it too (or in his case 1500 cakes) by making his particular charlatan brand of "docu-comedies": they're supposed to be oh-so hilarious and zany, and yet you're also meant to treat them as truth-based, earth-shattering, hard-hitting documentaries. Some genres cannot be mixed.<br /><br />"Anything can happen to anyone, any time, any place." (Translation: this is the horror genre, so we can do any kind of nonsense we want.) This sounds not so much like something "wise" found on a paper of a Chinese fortune cookie, but more like the credo of every bad horror film director. We get this baloney of a statement served to us early on, sort of as a preparation/justification of the absurd buffoonery to come.<br /><br />"My phone isn't working!" Well, of course it isn't. There is a far greater chance that Sean Penn's brain starts working (after decades of catatonic apathy) than that a horror-film cell-phone does. The single most dreary and predictable horror cliché of the past decade. Why even say it? We KNOW help will never come via a phone-call, so ye horror-making dimwits might as well just not even mention it. The last 50 horror films I saw use this plot device. It's becoming embarrassing.<br /><br />"You always have to expect the unexpected." The final twist was rather surprising, I'll give them that much... However, plenty of nonsense on the way there.<br /><br />Check out the elaborate traps the heroine sets up with the speed of a drugged-up lab rat - in the cold, wet, and almost totally dark conditions. I just love horror-film realism...<br /><br />When a blood-thirsty demon starts trying to be funny (by "shshshing" his victims) then you know your horror-viewing pleasure is in doubt. The less said about the old geezer "cracking wise", the better... Another stupid cliché served by a tired, lazy, uninspired director.<br /><br />What are the odds of being attacked by your husband and then by an eye-hating demon - on the same day? "Expect the unexpected". They might as well have squeezed in an event in which she survives a plane crash, and then another in which she encounters aliens who tried to anal-probe her...<br /><br />The fast-forward button needs a temple or a shrine built in its image.
Incident on and off a Mountain Road is Don Coscarelli's entry in Mick Garris' Masters of Horror series. Coscarelli is famous for being the man behind such cult gems as the Phantasm series and the irresistibly weird Bubba Ho-Tep; but he brings none of the qualities that made those films great to this TV episode. The plot is a run of the mill one that follows the routine idea of an innocent being chased by a madman. This time, it's a young woman driving down a mountain road. After a head on crash, she finds herself being stalked by a white faced maniac. The whole chase sequence is really ridiculous, with the young lady stopping every so often to set traps; only for the maniac to show up seconds later, and this is cut with scenes showing her with her husband - who just happens to have a wealth of information on how escape insane killers; with lines such as "expect the unexpected". The only real highlight for me was the presence of Phantasm's Tall Man, Angus Scrimm. Coscarelli tries his best to implement as much horror imagery as possible; with things such as a rotted corpse of a dead baby - but because it's all so silly on the whole, it's difficult to take this piece seriously. This is the first episode in the series, and the first that I've seen; I really hope they get better.
One Chinese gang attacks and wipes out another gang in the beginning of the film. Unfortunately, the patriarch of the winning family is killed in the process. Oddly, and without any discernible reason, the gang solicits a volunteer to blame the massacre on and he leaves until the police decide to stop investigating. Now how ONE MAN ALONE is the one responsible for about 50 deaths is beyond me, so sending this one guy away just seemed silly, but that's the plot. Later, when this man comes home, betrayals and scheming have occurred--leading to almost one hour and fifteen minutes of non-stop killing.<br /><br />If you are looking for a Chinese martial arts film with much of a plot, then you should probably skip this movie, as its practically non-stop action and practically no plot or character development--even when compared to other martial arts films. I would estimate that 80-90% of the film are fight scenes--endless and reasonably well made fight scenes using knives. Again and again and again, fight scenes! If you want a film with a body count perhaps running into the hundreds as people are slashed, kicked, and slashed, then this is the film for you. The problem was by the end of the film there are literally no people left to kill and the film really lost my interest!! Deep it ain't, but if you want to see excitement and action ONLY, then this film is for you! <br /><br />By the way, this movie is set in contemporary times and no one thinks of shooting the hero until just near the end. And, when they FINALLY do the logical thing, it's too late and the effort is really, really lame! Logical errors like this and the lady's suicide (why???) make this a "turn off your brain" type of film.
Any of Law & Order's, CSI (take your choice of city), and Homicide: Life on the Street's weakest episodes is superior to the strongest episode of Bones.<br /><br />David Boreanaz is stuck in crappy Angel mode, and Emily Deschanel portrays "Bones" too... unrealistically. The actors as a whole have terrible scenes together, be it with forced acting, or just awful lines.<br /><br />The murders become predictable after a while, as the foreshadowing and clues are just too obvious.<br /><br />Music is okay, though really unnecessary at times.<br /><br />All in all, Bones is hardly the show I'd recommend watching during the weekdays as it is a carbon-copy of better shows with unreal characters and ever-dulling stories.<br /><br />Skip this if you can.
I just finished watching one episode(S1-#5 A boy in a bush), so maybe my review is not very fair.<br /><br />But based on that episode, this is a very poor version of CSI, the acting is crap. The main character, Dr whatever her name is, is so fake it actually hurts. I wouldn't cast her to do an add for dog food!<br /><br />The other hurtful thing is David Boreanaz of the "Angel" fame, a good actor, does a great job, but wasted coz of the idiotic acting of that woman.<br /><br />Supporting cast is OK, but all is ruined due to this stupid acting of Emily Deschanel .<br /><br />Very disappointing version of CSI, very sorry to see it appear on the filmography of some of the potential talents involved in it.<br /><br />That woman is really sh#t, at least in that episode. But based on this one view, I will not even invest watching it even if it was shown on an elevator screen.
The first season of Bones is playing in Finland and I can't believe the amount of bullshit that this show puts on - the characters are shallow, poorly directed and clumsy.<br /><br />It's a poor mans' CSI. Or actually, CSI without coherent plot. Although Bones has potential, it fails due to the lacking of the director who hasn't been able to extract the essence of the show from the actors. It's actually sad to see a show throw it all away when it could had been a descent show with just a pinch more thought. From the start you get the feeling how awkward the acting is.<br /><br />Long story short - don't waste your time on Bones.
This is so bad I don't know where to begin.<br /><br />The lead role is a good starting point. It is a supreme Mary Sue character that has few things in common with the original one from the book, who was (a bit) more credible. No, this one is invincible, infallible, indomitable, and insipid even beyond the overinflated standards that this "chicks with swords" era that our medias are spinning out of late. She is a twenty-something top-model, thin as a match yet rich, already a leader in her academic field, a kung-fu master, a natural sniper and seems to have enough authority to naturally trump anyone official like puny FBI agents. She is God.<br /><br />To balance it out, she is supposed to be socially awkward (due to her typically harsh upbringing that transformed her into a "Spock") which gives us some delighted moments where she wonders what is "Star Wars", or "American Idol", but yet when it's really important she can conveniently reveal herself as a top negotiator and diplomat, because she is so superior, ya know. To top it out, she is played by a wooden actress.<br /><br />The more talented Boreanaz serves as a faire-valoir token for this construct, acting as a bumbling comic-relief and house "Watson". In fact, everything in there is a pop-parody of better works like Sherlock Holmes, CSI and X-Files, from which it tries to emulate the sexual tension between main protagonists. It is however cheaper, as this is delivered with all the subtlety of an elbow poke in the ribs, but a million million poor factory girls will doubtlessly buy into it, hence the crazy rating this turkey gets.<br /><br />In fact, the lowest common denominator goes a long way in this sad puppy, resulting in titillating sex details from the legion of sidekicks that aim to pass it out as daring and trendy, while the overall tone of the show carries an obvious neo-conservative view on things.<br /><br />Story-wise, there's not much here to feast upon, as crimes (that always start out with some gruesome remains) are resolved using non-existent technology while the "squints", lovable but so wrong (the women less than the guys) goes on varied theories, all of them futile as the main character has it all from the start, and once it is established she goes out and then punch the guy, typically a real tough hombre, with a spin kick here and a slapper there. The end.
Dude...I liked Buffy and Angel as much as the next sci-fi freak...but this is too much. The worst lead actress EVER!! Not even David "Hot Pants" Boreanaz is able to save this crap. No wonder I NEVER watch Fox — it blows!! We totally gave it a chance, and it continued to suck. We watched four or five painful, agonizing episodes. I want to kill the execs at the network SO BAD! Why is money being spent on this drivel?!?! I don't get it and I don't support it and you should NEVER waste your time watching this show...unless you LIKE it when your EYES BLEED FROM THEIR SOCKETS! <br /><br />Crap. Crap. Crap.
I am a regular reader of Kathy Reichs' Temperance Brennan novels. As such I am extremely surprised she even consulted on this show.<br /><br />It is HORRIBLE by comparison to the books. The Temperance Brennan character is, in the books, a down to earth recovering alcoholic and divorced mom of a college aged daughter. In 'Bones', she is an arrogant (rhymes with rich), who, in typical P C fashion, is not a mother. The emphasis on her assisting staff, complete with lurid details of who has had how many sexual exploits, is totally in contrast with the books.<br /><br />In total deference to the P C movement, she portrays the enemies of the U S as peace lovers (!). Some of the information isn't even correct, for example, having a character from Afghanistan as an active member of an Arab-American friendship group. Since when is an Afghan an Arab?! I'm sure if negative references were made to 'disadvantaged minorities', or women, or GLBT's, the show's producers/writers/directors would have to issue an apology. However, in typical far left fashion, all of the racial slurs go to the highest achieving minority group--Asians, as David Boreanaz' Agent Booth continually refers to Angela Montenegro as a 'squint'.<br /><br />Forget that stuff, and forget this show. After 'The Man in the SUV' episode, I thought I'd try a second episode to see if it got any better. It only got worse! I don't even care if the teenager in question was murdered or committed suicide, and I won't be watching the show ever again.
Ladies and Gentlemen.. Be sad (or be glad !).. We are in the disgusting forensic T.V Series-ERA !! Now count with me and anathematize our Luck :<br /><br />"CSI: Crime Scene Investigation", "CSI: Miami", "CSI: NY", "NCIS", "Crossing Jordan", "Da Vinci's Inquest", EVEN "The Cosby Mysteries" !..Didn't we Already Have ENOUGH ?!<br /><br />From the late 1990 till the late 2000s we've got almost the same sick series about the genius criminologist with a partner (or a team) who go to solve crimes by scrutiny the autopsy ..and what a nauseating mission to do. So you will have for sure lots and lots of repellent scenes where we see clearly, accurately and awfully the most horrific shots in the history of T.V.<br /><br />OH GOD.. Once we had the great days; the good cop (or detective)ERA such as Columbo, Kojak, Magnum, and Simon & Simon. Or the good old Sci-Fi ERA, like The Six Million Dollar Man, The Bionic Woman, Knight Rider. And oh boy we've got also the hot & sexy such :cover up, The Love Boat, Baywatch, even a flop as Thunder in Paradise.<br /><br />All of those were unforgettable, original, had good..real good thoughts, action, women ..Till THE X FILES came.. And then it was the beginning of the misfortune or to be exact : The Catastrophe!<br /><br />X Files Undoubtedly was one of the greatest, but there was a few slight disadvantages, we had have agent Dana Scully (medical doctor and FBI agent) at every episode doing an autopsy ..,and of course her lap (as the series succeed) became part of our living room, so the thirsty-for-money producers loved it with all the physical terror + the exciting hunt for the truth.. Therefore they tried to repeat it in another not too far classification : The Forensic !<br /><br />But it became so ugly, full of deformation, and very cruddy just like BONES. Plus the unsexy present of Emily Deschanel, and bleeder as David Boreanaz (he was much better in angel), and all of these corpses .. To the extent that every time i've watched it I found my self screaming AAAAHHHHHH !! What a terrible gross !!..<br /><br />Cancel it please.. You've canceled before real good shows such as (The Lone Gunmen) or (A Man Called Hawk). Here it's a bad one.. So please.. Little Mercy and enough with the Bones-ERA !!!.. or we'll drop dead ourselves of Nausea and Monotony !!
Thunder Alley finds Fabian banned from NASCAR tracks after causing the death of another driver. Stanley Adams might want to put him on his team of racers, but the other drivers aren't for having him around.<br /><br />Desperate for employment Fabian hooks up with an auto stunt show owner Jan Murray who's paying him peanuts and trying to capitalize on Fabian's bad rep. He's got to take it, but Annette Funicello who's Murray's daughter provides another reason to stick around.<br /><br />The rest of the film is Fabian's struggle to get back to the NASCAR circuit while at the same time juggling both Annette and his current girl friend Diane McBain. Personally, I would have taken McBain, she has it all over Annette.<br /><br />Thunder Alley is helped by location shooting at the southern NASCAR tracks and good film footage of NASCAR racing. Not helped by a rather silly story which delves into the real reason for Fabian's problems and his rather unrealistic recovery from same.<br /><br />Still fans of NASCAR might go for this.
Racing enthusiast Fabian (as Tommy Callahan) smokes, drinks, and suffers blackouts while juggling feelings for alluring brunette Annette Funicello (as Francie Madsen) and blonde mainstay Diane McBain (as Annie Blaine). Complicating matters are Ms. Funicello's boozy race car boyfriend Warren Berlinger (as Eddie Sands), and her father Jan Murray (as Pete Madsen), who encourages the reckless drivers. Funicello's cow-eyed performance is sometimes enjoyable; however, her drunken driving scene is unnerving. "Thunder Alley" provides marginally more NASCAR excitement than its predecessor, "Fireball 500" (1966) *; be warned, it isn't much. A wild party scene, featuring some mild strip tease, is the film's low highlight.
As much as I hated the movie that this series follows I can at least says that Zangief was amusing. The animated series is quite possibly one of the worst things ever produced. The animation is quite often inconsistent, although it does stay consistently bad. The shape of a characters face is even capable of drastically changing in the same shot. The script and voice acting also leave something to be desired since most of the cast seems about as talented as the cast of a third grade drama play. Characters like Cammy and DJ are so forced into stereotypes of their nationalities that episodes containing them are almost physically painful to watch, not that the series isn't painful on a regular basis anyway. Episode plots seem to strive to reach new levels of lame with every turn and are so full of plot holes it amazes me they had time to show commercials. Truthfully, it amazes me anyone wold pay to advertise during the show. In addition to being a bad series it is an even worse adaptation of Street Fighter. Many of the characters maintain the failed adaptations from the movie. Examples include Ken and Ryu being idiot con men (even though Ken is supposed to be rich), Blanka being Guiles friend Charlie, and Chun Li being a reporter. It takes talent to take something as bad as the movie and make it worse.
Stumbled over this film on Amazon.com. Had never heard of its release but the three reviews gave it five stars and rave reviews so being a lover of German movies I bought a copy...<br /><br />Have to say that I was not impressed. The production values are cheap, the story is derivative, the characters are less than engaging and for a comedy it is surprisingly short on laughs.<br /><br />I wanted to like this but I just found it lackluster and dull. Or maybe I expected more of independent German cinema than a gay spin on The Full Monty and a cast of stereotypes.<br /><br />There are bits in the film that make no sense at all, like one of the Leather Bear's trying to get Ecki in a sling --like he'd even look at him twice? Or the vengeful ex-wife turning up at the match but ending up cheering for her estranged gay husband? Bunkum is not the word! Well, at least it explains the movies UK title, I suppose...
When I went to see this movie it was already a forced choice, as my original intent was sold out. what ensuited then was sheer terror, this movie is so bad i could hardly bear it. the story is not worth mention, a gay goalkeeper forms a gay soccer team to play against his old straight team who - on discovering his sexual orientation - gave him a hard time. loaded with unbearably old and overused clichés of gays, the thin plot matches perfectly the inane dialogues... it is absolutely astonishing that actors as dietmar bär or charly hübner waste their talent and time on such nonsense. 1/10
You thought after "Traumschiff Surprise" that German comedy can't get worse? It can. This comedy is yet another attempt at perpetuating stereotypes of gay men masked as a nice comedy. The initial concept (openly gay men in soccer sports) would have been a great opportunity to erase some stereotypes, but... The real intended message of the movie seems to be in what way gay men are oh-so-different from straight men. Absolutely silly, of course. Even gay sex is treated as being of less value than straight sex. This movie only tries to serve straight audiences wanting to laugh about stereotypical gay men. Well, don't waste your time on German comedy movies!
This series, made for Televisión Española (TVE) is basically a series of chapters in the life of an ordinary family in 1968, primarily as seen through the eyes of the youngest son.<br /><br />Based on a background of historical events, such as the May 1968 student uprising in France, the decaying Franco regime, the war in Viet-Nam, the rise of imperialism, and others specifically related to Spanish life at that particular moment, one might regard this series as a simple compilation of characteristic foibles which make themselves so apparent in this kind of entertainment.<br /><br />Generally treated in a lightweight vein though not lacking in certain moments which might be called dramatic, the series would seem to be aimed at people of around fifty who can rember those times, as, it should be stated, anyone younger either chooses to ignore such happenings or is busily occupied in other things.<br /><br />The best thing that can be said of this series is Ana Duato's rôle as mother of three children: she plays the part of the total housewife of the times really well, manifesting that peculiar Spanish penchant, especially noticeable among women, of letting all her thinking and her doings be carried forward by the impetus of her heart, without any resorting to the use of the brain. As we say in Spain, common sense is one of the least common senses. Imanol Arias offers very little, apart from not being his usual stereotyped hard policeman as in other television series. Indeed, as an actor, he should not be trusted in anything which is not a TV series. His resources are too limited; however, his part as father of the working-class household is not at all bad.<br /><br />Not really recommendable for other audiences, even Spanish-speakers in Latin America: the themes are all too parochially related to a specific spot in contemporary Spanish history, such that if the viewer was not living here at that time he will miss most of the references. It is even probable that certain situations which cause a few Spanish smiles would not mean anything to other viewers.
This film has possibly, the worst title for a stooge short ever dreamed up. Somewhat fitting, given the actual fifteen minute content.<br /><br />I can do without any of the "Shemp A.D." stuff, but I will admit to having a few LOL moments from the two-man comedy offered by Moe and Larry in some of the new footage (and kudos to those guys for trying to give it their all, considering the position they were forced into in even making these dogs).<br /><br />Another bright spot to this and the last A.D. debacle "Commotion on the Ocean" is the decided lack of screen time for Joe Palma and the back of his head. No attempts to have him speak or flap his arms like a chicken(see "Hot Stuff"), may be worth an extra rating point.<br /><br />2/10
!!! Spoiler alert!!!<br /><br />The point is, though, that I didn't think this film had an ending TO spoil... I only started watching it in the middle, after Matt had gotten into Sarah's body, but then I became fascinated by the bizarreness of the plot, even for a Channel 5 movie... and couldn't possibly see how Matt wld end up happy. What about his fiancee? At one stage looked like he was gonna get with his best friend, surely icky and wrong... and then the whole 'oggi oggi oggi' thing does NOT WORK as a touching buddy-buddy catchphrase, tis just ridiculous... so was going 'surely he can't just come back to life? and yet how can he live as a woman?' and then the film just got over that by ending and not explaining anything at all!!!!! What's that about??? I was so cross, wasted a whole hour of my life for no reason at all!!! :) but was one of the funniest films I've ever seen, so, swings and roundabouts
I fail to understand why anyone would allow a sub-par director to put drivel like this onto celluloid. This movie has already been made at least two other times that were better than this ("Here Comes Mr. Jordan" - 1941, and "Heaven Can Wait" - 1978). The only saving factor for figure skating fans might have been some nice ice skating done by a professional cast of skaters, but this just does not happen. The closest thing the audience sees to good skating is when Tara Lipinski's character takes a turn on the ice for a just a moment. Others like Nancy Kerrigan and Elvis Stojko are hidden in the background and do not do any figure skating at all. There is not much real emotion shown, and there is not really any reason to tune in to this obviously Made-For-TV Movie. My advice: rent the original.
Nice movie and Nicholle Tom does a fantastic job playing the "guy in the girl's body", she really does it well.<br /><br />A sort of teen version of many other movies, but well done.<br /><br />Well casted, from "Matt" to "Matt2".
it's hard to tell the actors from the non-actors. Bad American movies can be spotted by all the youngsters prefacing every single line of dialog with "You know what?" Bad Canadian movies can be spotted by all the youngsters ending every single line of dialog with "Eh?" Have we learned nothing in a century of filmmaking? Cannot the entire weight of millions of wannabes descending on Hollywood with scripts and reels in hand rescue us from these horrible TV-movies-made-to-order?
A Mexican outlaw (Tomas Milian) steals gold from a stagecoach along with some other Mexicans and Americans. The Americans double-cross the Mexicans and leave them all for dead. The one outlaw survives and looks for revenge in this film that has jack-all to do with the original Django (the distributors only named it "Django Kill..." to squeeze a few more bucks out of more gullible people. What we have here is a slightly below standard western that's too surreal to be that enjoyable. and as such I can't really recommend it to all but the most hardcore Spahetti Western fan.<br /><br />My Grade: D+ <br /><br />Blue Underground DVD Extras: Part of BU's Spaghetti Western Collection. Uncut; "Django Tell" (20 minute documentary); Poster & Stills gallery; Talent Bios for Guilo Questi & Tomas Milian; Theatrical Trailer <br /><br />3 Easter Eggs: Highlight the hidden gun on the extras page for Trailers for "Django", "Run, Man, Run", and "A Man Called Blade"; Highlight the hand on the main menu to get interviews on the formation of a rock group; and a hidden gun in the Language/Subtitles menu leads to the story of how Tomas Milian almost got killed for being anti-communist
I have only seen this movie once, when I was about 14 years old, but I was thrilled that they made a movie about the 45th Division. Being from Oklahoma and especially now that both of my sons are members of the 45th, I would like to see it released on a DVD. I may sound a little bias but the 45th Division sometimes does not get the recognition it deserves today. The History channel always talks about the other infantry divisions when it talks about WW2 and Korea but you rarely hear it mention the 45th. One of the scene that really stood out for me was when the had the Indian Code Talkers at work and the puzzled look on the German soldiers faces when they could not understand this language. I am glad that all of the Native American Code Talkers are getting the recognition they deserve.
It's hard to believe that a movie this bad could actually be released. The dialog was unnatural. Especially poor was the portrayal of the relationship between the boy and his future step-father. I guess you could say that they succeeded in producing awkward dialog, but what was said seemed false and artificial. The suspense just wasn't there. The music was about as bad as it gets. The only reason I watched this movie was because I live in the Death Valley area and was curious about what locations would show up on the screen. Fortunately the movie was on TV and so I didn't waste any money renting this sorry excuse for a film! I honestly believe that most amateurs could put together a more captivating plot than was presented here. It's too bad that the time of an entire film crew was wasted on such trash! I guess the only positive thing I can say about the movie is that some of the scenery was good.
It's boring.<br /><br />It's slow.<br /><br />Where are the nasty and brutal murders? Where is the tension that is supposed to scare us? This is like watching Sesame Street without the funny characters of Ernie and Bert or Grover.<br /><br />It's really lame.<br /><br />Maybe it was the writing...maybe the direction...maybe the acting, maybe the editing, maybe the cinematography, maybe the special effects, maybe the makeup.<br /><br />Maybe all of the above brought this to something barely able to keep your eyes focused on.<br /><br />I wanted to get scared...not bored.<br /><br />This didn't scare me...it didn't even interest me...I had more fun watching the time on the microwave instead of watching this film.<br /><br />Don't bother to buy it..and if you see it on television by some freak chance, there is no need to tuck the kids asleep.
Years ago, I used to watch bad movies deliberately. Somehow I missed this one. No gesture rings true. No facial expression fits the scene or the action. I've never heard such inappropriate music for a film. At the final scene, I was rooting for the car to run over that ridiculous kid - one of the worst child actors ever.<br /><br />Only one name in it I ever heard of - Wilford Brimley. He must've been very hungry to take this part.<br /><br />DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, WATCH THIS MOVIE!!! YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!!!
. . . and that is only if you like the sight of beautiful woman with nice, bouncy jugs running around the so called African jungle. So no problems there for most males out there.<br /><br />I watched it as one of those bundled together package. Forget about the plot which is essentially just a flimsy storyline to get our heroine flashing her jugs on screen at every opportunity possible. Just to give you a sense, our heroine swings from vine to vine and climb on top animals at every chance possible for no good reason at all just to let you see her jugs at all angles. Again, no complaints.<br /><br />The "fight scenes" are laughable and borderline on the pornographic. Our heroine got caught by the baddies at least five times in the movie. On occasions when she has to fight, the "fighting" involves rolling around in the dirt, grunting unconvincingly and basically fighting like kittens. I am surprised no hair pulling is involved. It get so bad that the chief baddie had to remind the "combatants" that "I said, the one that draw first blood wins!" in order to avoid watching anymore stupid fighting.<br /><br />The witch doctor Kuku was a bloody blast. From being a big, cuddly bear in the beginning, he became manic depressive when captured and then, outright psycho. He spent the whole movie muttering lines with no irrelevance.<br /><br />Beside Liana (our heroine)bouncing around topless, you also get to see plenty of other Amazonians as well as one woman who decided to jump naked into the lake to take a swim for no good reasons. Yeah, it is that kind of movie.<br /><br />Watch the beautiful Liane in her bouncy glory. Despite the movie being more than 20 years old, the allure of watching blond women flashing their nice jugs on screen never gets old.
Wow, I swear this has never happened to me before…. I only watched "Golden Temple Amazons" yesterday and already I haven't got the slightest recollection of anything that happened in this film. That's how brilliant this movie is, I guess! By now I only remember being lured into watching it because of the incredibly attractive DVD cover art, showing a torrid drawing of a voluptuous Amazon preparing her bow to fire at an unspecified target. I often get fooled by appealing DVD covers – especially Jess Franco ones – and I still haven't learned to resist even after literally hundreds of awful experiences. Oh well… After reading the other user-comments, some parts of my memory returned although I still suspect to confuse this film with another Jess Franco masterpiece I watched the day before, namely "Diamonds of the Kilimanjaro" (and, yes, that one had an awesome DVD cover as well).<br /><br />"Golden Temple Amazons" opens with a posse of hot white African Amazons – I am aware of the contradiction but don't blame me – slaughtering the parents of a fragile young girl because they were trespassing the turf with the intention of stealing the golden treasures from the temple. Several years and hormonal changes later, the girl returns to the jungle to get her revenge. She's accompanied by a bunch of sleazy adventurers who are less interested in the act of vengeance but wouldn't mind taking some gold back home. The rudimentary premise is obviously secondary to all the showcasing of ravishing female nudity and gratuitous sleaze. Analía Ivars, Eva Léon and the other nameless Amazons are all regular Franco choices and willingly walk around with their breasts proudly exposed. You better enjoy gazing at all these perfect female curves, as the rest of "Golden Temple Amazons" is a boring and incompetent mess. There's hardly any violence or action and no less than half of the film is pure filler, bits and pieces of National Geographic documentaries edited into the story and that sort of stuff. The awesome DVD cover would definitely be a great addition to your collection, but opening the box is utter pointless.
Trite and tiring, the one-liners almost made me cry. My 4 year old left the room and ended up doing a puzzle. I don't know what age group this was written for, but the writer himself/herself didn't even want credit. As for the song, it's mildly amusing. At least it was a decade ago. There are many Christmas movies to watch. Although I've seen some many more times than this, they are still enjoyable. Whenever this comes on, I try to encourage my child to watch something else. One positive note, that allowed a vote of 2 instead of 1, is that it encourages good moral values. That would have been encouraging, if anyone were watching.
If we really want to get serious and find Osama Bin Laden, then we should take this stinker down to Gitmo and force the detainees to watch it. They'll be singing within minutes. Of course, I'm sure that making them watch this god-awful dreck violates the Geneva Convention in several ways. <br /><br />Look, my 5 year old daughter isn't allowed to watch TV at home. So take her to her grandparents or cousins and she's a little TV zombie. She got up and walked away after about ten minutes. That's how bad this is. <br /><br />You know, when the person responsible for this garbage was a young writer, I bet he or she had dreams of the great American novel. Now they have to look in the mirror every morning with the realization that they wrote what is possibly the worst hour of television in the history of the medium.<br /><br />And we wonder why the rest of the world hates us...
I like a good novelty song. No, I take that back. I love a good novelty song. I absolutely despise GGROBAR on the other hand, and have from the first note I ever heard. When I found out someone had made a cartoon based on it, my head almost exploded. Now that I have seen it because my kids begged me, I wish my head had exploded. It would have saved me from the excruciating misery that was this cr@pfest. First of all, making an hour long show based on a three minute novelty song is a ridiculous idea. To stretch a song like this, which had to pad like crazy just to be that long, into an entire hour, is even more ludicrous. This was poorly written, cheaply animated, poorly acted...the list goes on and on. Dear God, is this ever bad.
Never I have seen a movie so terrible that i've gone insane. It was a HUGE waste of time seeing this crappy film. There are a lot of things i hate about this movie: The songs is so terrible (yet a little bit catchy) i hit my head on the wall(especially from the song 'Grandpa is gonna sue the pants out of Santa' which i hit 10 Times *shrugs*), the character design, and that evil, greedy, and Bitchy cousin Mel.<br /><br />I cannot stand her for one second, she has got to be one of the most bitchiest person i've seen. Even though i kinda like her southern voice. <br /><br />The only bright-side is that Austin Bucks is played by the person who is the voice of Liquid Snake from Metal Gear Solid.<br /><br />I would not recommended to people to watch for the holidays as it was a HUGE disgrace for x-mas.
This is supposedly a story in which a GROWN MAN tells a story about his youth. Yet, you see things like personal computers, e-mails, faxes, etc, which are items used in the late 20th Century and early 21st. <br /><br />So when is this guy supposed to be telling this story - in 2020. Gee, I wonder how advanced we are then. How about telling us that.<br /><br />Also, there are several legal issues which also make no sense. In the courtroom scene, the story falls into the usual pratfalls of surprise evidence, which is inadmissible in any real court of law in this country. Also, Grandma would have to be missing at least seven years in most states before to be declared officially dead.<br /><br />Congratulations Elmo Shropshire. You are now officially a SELLOUT.
Lame, ridiculous and absurd. My 6 year old son talked us into watching this rubbish. Tripe stereotypes and themes not appropriate for children. The antithesis of the commercialism of Christmas is not socialism it's Jesus.
i saw this with my with my kids they love it but i don't she did not get run overfed by a reindeer in the song, but what the heck in this crappy movie she got hit by the sleigh, it's like what the heck why why, when my kids heard the sinked they thought it was good but we they watched this they were like this "daddy why did Granny" thats how my kids say grandma, any way my kids said this "daddy why did grandma get hit by a sleigh" i told them that the movie was crappy they agreed, it's sad why would any one name there dog "Doofas" that's just dumb & when every one dressed in black that looked so so i mean Daphne looked like a dang emo goth girl every one looked like Goths & in the song they found grandma on the ground i think she died in the song, but in this weird crappy movie she was gone i think they should take this show off OK every one would love this i give this a 1 out of 10
Leslie Nielsen is usually someone whose movies I really like (even critically panned flicks like "Dracula: Dead and Loving It" and "Wrongfully Accused"). So the fact that I'm slamming "Mr. Magoo" should show that it's a piece of junk. It casts Nielsen as the myopic title character, something gets planted on him, and he makes a mess of everything. It seems like the combo of Nielsen and director Stanley Tong (behind two of Jackie Chan's movies) would make this one hilarious movie, but it doesn't; it seems like they just have people to do anything, and there's no real humor here.<br /><br />So, the original cartoon with Jim Backus providing the voice was worth seeing, so avoid this movie. Leslie Nielsen has also done much better, so there's no reason to waste your time on this. Also starring Kelly Lynch, Stephen Tobolowsky, Ernie Hudson, Malcolm McDowell and Miguel Ferrer; they probably don't wish to emphasize this hunk of junk in their careers.
Give director Stanley Tong of Jackie Chan's Super Cop and Rumble in the Bronx, and what do you get? You receive a series of kung fu fights and a lack of Magoo-like madness.<br /><br />The limited plot has Magoo (Leslie Nielsen) put into an international plot, where he steals a world-renowned gem. Of course he has no idea what he is doing. In fact, he has no idea that he had the gem.<br /><br />Within thirty minutes you could get very bored watching this. There are some very funny moments though like when he is cooking the chicken. You will wish that you were as nearsighted as Magoo. Its a fun movie to watch but its quite a disaster! You have to love Leslie Nielson because he was made some very funny movies. This isn't his best, but he does a good job playing Magoo. I thought it was a funny film, and it should be recommended to young children because they will probably think that its very funny.
Leslie Nielsen hits rock bottom with this absolutely horrible comedy that is the worst mainstream film that I have ever seen. There is nothing to like about this film, as it is essentially a one-joke film, and the joke isn't all that funny. How many times are we supposed to laugh at an almost blind man making a fool out of himself? That's not funny, that's just pitiful. Nielsen seriously needs to start refusing some of these pathetic scripts, and Stanley Tong needs to stick to making Jackie Chan films, because it doesn't get much worse than this.
This morning, I found myself unexpectedly remembering that this movie existed. I found myself thinking, "Oh yeah, there was a Mr. Magoo movie, wasn't there?" This is more surprising because I remember following the controversy surrounding this movie (advocacy group for the visually impaired said that this movie was demeaning). I even went to see this movie on the day it opened, because I am a fan of both Mr. Magoo, and Mr. Nielson, and thought he would be an excellent choice to play Mr. Magoo. I even remember the opening animated credits, because I thought that they were pretty amusing.<br /><br />After that, though, its all a complete blank. I think its a pretty sad statement about any movie that it is so lame, so bland, and so utterly without merit that you can't remember ANYTHING from it. I understand that Leslie Nielson isn't always known for appearing in first class comedies, but I saw him in "Spy Hard," in "Scary Movie 4," and "Police Squad 3" and none of these were great movies, but I came away at least remembering *something*. Mr. Magoo, though, is a complete blank.<br /><br />I find myself wondering now if all the controversy surrounding the film wasn't actually generated by the studio that produced it, in the hopes of generating at least some small amount of interest in an otherwise totally worthless movie.
This movie had terrible acting, terrible plot, and terrible choice of actors. (Leslie Nielsen...COME ON!!!) The one part I considered slightly funny was the battling FBI/CIA agents, but because the audience was mainly kids they didn't understand that theme.
I left the theater, and I was only 10 years old. That's how bad it sucked. The plot was horrid and the acting was worse. Leslie Nielson should be ashamed of himself and so should the person who made this movie. I was only 10 years old when I went to see this catastrophe with a friend and even at that young, innocent age I did not laugh once at the movie. We (me and my friend) still laugh about how bad the movie was. We ended up going into the 'R' movie my parents were in. Bottom line -- this flick was fricking bad. Mr. Magoo -- more like Mr. Ma-who? This movie could have scarred me for life had I watched the popular cartoon on television as a child but luckily I had never seen it, so i was spared the agony but I will never get back those precious minutes of my life that I wasted.
Only one word can describe MR MAGOO - slapstick. Unfortunately this isn't no AIRPLANE. Looks can decieve, and that's exactly what MR MAGOO does. Based on the old cartoon, Leslie Nielson plays Magoo, a bumbling near blind man whop stumbles upon a pair of jewel thieves. Now he must hunt them down using...blindness basically. And that's all this film plays off. The blindness of MR MAGOO. Now maybe if they had some funny jokes involving this, but pretty much it's just one of those " droopy dumb grin on your face because you're too ashamed to admit you payed to see this" films.<br /><br /> But MR MAGOO isn't as bad as it's hacked up to be. It's at least got some funny jokes, and it's good wholesome fun for the whole family (Nielson tried to make a "NAKED GUN" for families in MAGOO, but it's no where near as good as that). So see it once, you might hate it, you might love it, whatever. I personally didn't hate it, but I sure didn't like it, or even rate it "okay." 2/5 stars for MR MAGOO-<br /><br />JOHN ULMER
After seeing this film I felt sick to my stomach and if I had seen one more minute I would have had to rush to the bathroom and vomit til dawn. A sick film that was NOT funny and was NOT worth the money, any money at all. If anybody ever wants to see this movie don't! Your kids will never forgive you and will claim sickness for a week. So if you value your child's education and want to stimulate your child's mind please don't see this movie. I beg of you, DON'T!
This has got to be the worst movie I haver ever seen Nielson in. This movie just does not have what he needs to be funny. I think the reasons that the Naked Gun and the like movies is that they did not require Nielson to be funny. He just played the roles as straight as he could while all of the comedy that went on was mostly visual. But when you put him in a movie where he has to be funny, he isn't. The movie had only one good part, and this may be considered a spoiler by some, and that the beginning credits were animated. If the whole movie had been animated, it might have been good. I had no intention of seeing this movie when I saw the ads for it, and the only reason I did see it was because the tickets were given to me by someone who won them in a radio contest. This is the first and probably only movie I have ever walked out on. On a scale of 1-10 I give this movie a score of -100.
Horrible Horrible movie, i still can't believe my friend talked me into seeing this! No plot, bad acting, unfunny scenes, and very very stupid dialogue. All i have to say is that this movie is the worst movie i have seen and it's worse than Halloween III which i gave 0 stars too. So i give it 0 stars and a 0 out of 10, well on here a 1, but you get the point.
I enjoyed the Mr. Magoo cartoons I saw while growing up. And I enjoy Leslie Nielson's comic skills. So, I thought, this marriage must produce a funny child.<br /><br />I couldn't have been more wrong.<br /><br />This movie was just awful. I don't recall a single funny moment. This is one of the two or three times (in hundreds of films over the years) I've wanted my money back. You will leave this film dejected because you won't ever have that time back to use in a better way. In a comedy, the plot must draw in the viewer and serve as a framework for gags. This plot does neither. It just kinda lies there, gasping like a beached fish.
I know it's rather unfair to comment on a movie without seeing the complete piece - but I am going to anyway! I waited for a laugh, I tried to give it time. I think 20 minutes is long enough to wait in a comedy for a laugh. My laugh never came, so I gave up.<br /><br />It's stupid humour, not so stupid that you have to laugh, though. It isn't anywhere near that high grade. Let me correct that, it's just *stupid* - not stupid humour. They may have intended for certain scenes to be funny, but they weren't. I suppose, if you were really bored you could somehow blend the movie with a hallucination and end up with a mildly entertaining experience.<br /><br />A very pathetic effort.
Do not see "Mr. Magoo." It is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Leslie Nielson was not funny in it. He has not been funny since the Naked Gun movies. Well it won't take long to figure out that this is not a Naked Gun movie! The movie's plot is ridiculously foolish. Nothing in the entire movie was funny. The first few minutes of the film were animated to look like the old Magoo cartoons. I wish the movie would have stayed that way.
Leslie Nielson is a very talented actor, who made a huge mistake by doing this film. It doesn't even come close to being funny. The best word to describe it is STUPID!
A typical old b&w film. The dialogues are sometimes good, but too often - especially in the second half - they get naive, sometimes awfully naive, occasionally close to the point where they are unintentionally comical. The first third, with its background information on Ladd's Gatsby shown with a series of interesting flashbacks, is the best part of the movie. But once Gatsby moves into his new villa and makes his moves on Betty Field, the film gets overly melodramatic. The ending is yet another cop-out ending; I don't know whether the novel itself contains this dumb, clichéd ending or whether the movie's producer made some changes to it, but I've always considered car-accidents to be a poor way to add drama to the conclusion of a story. I've seen this plot-device a million times (or if it's not a car, then it's a fall from a horse); the writer doesn't know how to end the story but he knows that he wants it to be dramatic, so he adds in a car-accident. Lame. And to make things worse, the accident is outrageously coincidental and preposterous, both plot-wise and time-wise; plot-wise because Field's husband's mistress (Winters) gets killed by Field, and the fact that Winters sort of rushes out from the gas-station into the street as though she'd never noticed in the years that she had lived in it that there was a dangerous road right across her house - and, of course, at the very moment that she comes out she sees Ladd's car and mistakes it for Field's husband's car and then shouts "Over here! I'm here! Run me over and make the ending tragic that way!"; time-wise because Ladd and Field get involved in an accident at the very day when they are preparing to tell Field's husband about their affair. Basically, there is just too much forced and artificial irony in this accident. It also doesn't exactly help this movie how Winters's husband, Da Silva, goes on a revenge mission to kill the guy who ran over his wife; he basically does this by walking around like a zombie, going from car to car looking for scratches, and acting very badly indeed. Both Da Silva's acting and his character's behaviour throughout the film are awful and confusing, respectively.<br /><br />Scott Fitzgerald was upset on a couple of occasions how his novels were adapted for the screen by Hollywood's screenwriters, and - although he was dead long before this movie was done - he might have been right to complain, judging by this film's naive script. Or, maybe his novels are even sillier and more naive than this film, and were actually improved upon by the screen adaptations. Or, the films are pretty much like the novels. I could, of course, read this particular novel to find out, but I just can't be bothered. Fitzgerald's name doesn't exactly inspire me to read any of his books (and I don't mean the way his name sounds.) He was certainly no Heller, Clavell, or Twain. More like Hemingway – a lot of noise about nothing.
Hollywood has churned out yet another garbage that's wildly overhyped and underwhelming on a first-time viewing basis. Hannibal is bad, terrible, inept, lame, droll, idiotic, contrived, laughable and utterly atrocious (no pun intended). Minor spoilers follow...<br /><br />This movie has huge logic holes - more than any Bruckheimer/Bay movie - or for that matter - any movie that exemplify the indulgence of Hollywood exaggeration. It's a slick Hollywood production designed to cash in on Hannibal Lector mania, directed by "so-somber-he-takes-this-way-too-seriously" hack director Ridley Scott and produced by a hack Italian producer with an inflated ego whose credo is "doesn't matter whether film is s**t, money is good".<br /><br />I can't get over the fact that acclaimed screenwriters David Mamet and Steven Zaillian wrote this tripe adapted from a lame and pretentious book by a good-novelist-turned-hack-author Thomas Harris. David and Steven - well-known and immensely talented screenwriters - wasted their effort on a poor screenplay in exchange for fat paychecks. Another factor in the disappointment of this film.<br /><br />There are too many ludicrous scenes to list that are laughable in clunky execution and poor logic e.g. Starling/Pazzi cell-phone in the midst of Lecter pursuit that turns up Inspector Pazzi as the victim. Not to mention laughably bad dialogues delivered by Tony Hopkins with a smirk and Julianne Moore, Ray Liotta and others who cannot act with the straight face. Hopkins gives the true meaning of "scenery-chewing" along with hammy acting by Gary Oldman as a deformed psychopath bent on exacting revenge against Lecter.<br /><br />The gore effect is good, but only serves to repulse rather than provide suspense which is notably absent from Hannibal. The predecessor - Silence of the Lambs - is more believable with tension and suspense. Suspense is what made Silence of the Lamb work as a spectacular mix of psychological horror and thriller, not to mention superbly written and tensely directed. The "brain dinner" sequence is so laughably fake it borders on self-parody.<br /><br />The ending is kinda blatant and idiotic - are we supposed to believe that Lecter is still a menace to society with the last shot establishing his glittering eye glaring at you? Ooh, scary... <br /><br />
I have witnessed some atrocities of cinema. In the past couple of years, it seems producers and directors are bent on making films that drive me closer and closer to insanity. Hannibal was not an exception. I wasn't expecting much, when I went in to see the movie. The book was ridiculous, and the saying, "The Book is always better than the movie" did not assure me at all that this movie would be anything but trash. But what I came to see was a movie that made all other bad movies seem better in comparison.<br /><br /> Usually, when I see a terrible movie, I find myself more amused than anything else. Sadly though, I could not even laugh at the sad excuse for a film that Hannibal is. The movie was filmed with promise, I guess. It had Anthony Hopkins, Julianne Moore, and Gary Oldman. And for directing, there was Ridley Scott. There have been movies with significantly less talent that have been tremendously better. There was so much I would have cut from this film that I doubt anything would have remained. It was pathetic. The storyline was so ludicrous that it seemed like a complete idiot had written it. What's worse is that the book was even crazier, and there were some scenes that were too extreme to be included, which is sad in the case of a movie where<br /><br />***SPOILER AHEAD*** <br /><br />Ray Liotta's brain was being cooked in pieces. That scene more than any other made me want to cry, because it tarnished its predecessor to such a monumental level. Silence of the Lambs was one of my favorite films of all time. But Hannibal was a two hour plus joke. This movie should only be watched, if people want to learn how not to write a good movie.
Synopsis: the sequel to the acclaimed Silence Of The Lambs, Hannibal is a big budget production that totally fails to deliver; not only is it not as clever as its predecessor, it is not even a splatter or suspense or horror movie, just a totally boring time waster. Do not be fooled by the media hype, and particularly the stories about people throwing up in cinema and being mentally scarred for the rest of their lifes because of the brain - eating scene: in the movie it just comes across as laughably bad SFX. Why so many people in this forum are claiming that H is "not all bad" and "worth watching on the big screen", etc., is beyond me; and it is not "so bad it's good" either, it is just plain boring. I normally respect other people's opinion, but in this case I have to say that they clearly can not tell **** from Shine - Ola. Maybe they have fallen prey to the media hype, maybe they have never seen a Ridley Scott movie before and were impressed by his excessive use of back lighting, smoke and the ubiquitous AC fans. H is totally devoid of suspense; instead we get endless scenes of Lecter swanning through an English - speaking Firenze, a totally unconvincing and uninvolving plot with more holes than a fishing net (after seeing H, I actually lay awake half of the night trying to find all the holes in the plot, and when I wrote them down I quickly filled 6 pages in small type before forcing myself to stop). Rather than wasting your time and money on seeing it on the big screen, I would advise you to wait until it comes on TV in a couple of years; and then to go to bed early.<br /><br />1 / 10.<br /><br />Below are a couple of extra bones I have to pick with Hannibal:<br /><br />- H _is_ the sequel to SOTL, despite what some people in this forum are claiming. And even though SOTL was a very tough act to follow, there are sequels which _are_ en par with their predecessors (SOTL itself was the sequel to Michael Mann's "Manhunter", based on Thomas Harris' "Red Dragon", and even though the first episode was a very enjoyable film, SOTL was even better; another example would be the Alien series initiated by H's director Ridley Scott -- so much for the theory of diminishing sequels). In any case, being a sequel is no excuse for a film being utter crap.<br /><br />- This movie has a renowned director, it is based on a novel by the same author as SOTL, the cast is strictly A - list, great cinematography, big budget, first - rate script writers, yadda, yadda, yadda, and the end result is simply a fart in the church. So what went wrong? I think a lot of the blame has to go to the film's producer, Dino DeLaurentiis. Here is my interpretation: DDL produced "Manhunter", which, despite of all its qualities, was a commercial flop. Disappointed, he gave the rights for the Hannibal Lecter character to Orion -- for free, allowing Jonathan Demme to make SOTL, and the rest is cinema history. DDL then had to wait for ten more years (he is now 81) until Thomas Harris finally came up with the sequel novel. I think at this point DDL had lost all interest in making a good movie and was desperate to finally get his slice of the the cake before he pops his cork.<br /><br />- Another aspect that I find thoroughly annoying about this flick is that it is being given so much undeserved hype in the media; I mean, it is boring, yet one of the highest - grossing productions ever, so there is no need to give it free publicity. And while most reviewers harp on about how Dantesque the scenes in Firenze are and why Jodie Foster did not participate, the simple fact that this movie is an utter, utter, UTTER flop goes unmentioned. But there is more: not only is Hannibal being hyped through the roof, it is also being used as a media agenda setter for a plethora of "documentaries" (usually the left - overs from similar productions in the wake of SOTL) about serial killers, cannibalism and profiling. However, not only does H not even pretend to be realistic; Lecter has also ceased to be a serial killer (he now only kills out of necessity, or to help Clarice Starling), profiling is not even mentioned (because we already know HL, so there is no need to create a profile) and there is also no cannibalism: Lecter feeds the drugged - up Paul Krendler his own brain, so that makes it (erm) unaware vivo - auto - cannibalism. Try making a documentary out of that.<br /><br />- Much has been said about the acting: mainly whether Julianne Moore can replace Jodie Foster, and Anthony Hopkins (who plays the lead Hannibal Lecter) is usually given a lot of praise. I think all of these discussions are moot. There are several of my favourite actors in this movie (namely Liotta, Oldman and Moore) but the script simply does not give them anything to work with. Same for Hopkins: there is no development in his character, and he is not being challenged in any way. And by the way, he plays nearly identical characters in all of his movies, only that in H he has to do the odd bit of murder and is getting paid the tidy sum of $ 11 Million to do it.
Hannibal must be the most God-awful movie I have seen in a long time. In fact, I want my money back. What a waste of time. No plot, minimal character development, questionable motives, poor dialogue, sub-standard acting. What else can I say? If you haven't seen it don't bother. I wouldn't even hire out the video and if you happen to come by it on TV... change the channel. The only reason anyone might have to see this movie would be to see whether the gratuitous violence lived up to all the hype (which quite frankly is why they added it). If you want to see some gug eating his own brain, then fast forward to that bit.<br /><br />What was the purpose of this movie? Its like someone just asked 'I wonder what Hannibal is up to these days' and we just went along for the ride. He is free in the beginning and he's free at the end. In between is a lot of self-indulgence on the part of Anthony Hopkins and the film makers. Julianne Moore tries valiantly to inject some life into her Clarice, but they gave her a sub-standard script and as far as I'm concerned she was set up to fail.<br /><br />In my opinion this is just a very very bad story in every sense of the word. The only reason it made so much money was because of the senseless violence they added, which at the end of the day leaves you more with a feeling of contempt than the horror you are supposed to feel.<br /><br />I give it a big fat RASPBERRY!
*Hannibal SPOILERS* Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) is back... for a travesty of a movie! Now he's in Italy, appreciating our food (including people, such as Rinaldo Pazzi (Giancarlo Giannini)), but comes back to the States for Clarice (Julianne Moore) and to even the score with a former victim, Mason Verger (Gary Oldman).<br /><br />Let me tell you, this movie does not deserve to be spoken of along with Silence Of The Lambs and Manhunter, because it's truly, completely, absolutely, totally BAD.<br /><br />I mean, the scene near the end with Ray Liotta's cranium being opened and him forced to eat part of his brain sautéed? WTF? Then, why the HELL was everybody so annoying (including Clarice)? And why did the story keep going nowhere? I suppose that this is the 'teen' chapter of the Hannibal series; terrible, stupid, gory for gore's sake and totally embarrassing.<br /><br />Don't watch it, especially if you love any other of the Hannibal movies (SOTL, Manhunter, Red Dragon, Hannibal Rising).<br /><br />Hannibal: 1/10.
One of the worst theatrical movies of the year, if not all time. Anthony Hopkins belittles himself by even appearing in this joke. I can't believe David Mamet and Ridley Scott's name appear on this travesty. The best career move Jody Foster ever made was turning this one down. Julianne Moore was as emotionless throughout as a female Keanu Reeves. Gary Oldman was of course, his brilliant self. He is a crippled victim of Hannibal and the make-up is so good, I didn't know it was Gary until the final credits. but eaten by trained boars??? Give me a break! Rumor has it that he didn't want his name even mentioned in the credits. And frying and feeding his own brain to Ray Liotta...I was laughing at the absurdity, no make that stupidity of this flick at this point. I haven't seen so many people walk out of a movie since Who's That Girl.<br /><br />Pay someone else to go for you if you must, but miss this one AT ALL COST!!!
I'm a big fan of Thomas Harris,I read all his novels at least 5 times and Hannibal's the book I really love the most.Therefore the movie was my biggest disappointment and I really don't get it why some folks here give it a nine or even a ten.Either their demands are very low or they haven't read the book or both.Even if I hadn't read the book I'd still consider the movie as absolute average and I'd give it a five. The creepy,mysterious atmosphere from the novel doesn't appear one single time in the movie,when I saw it first in the cinema I even fell asleep.Why was Margot Verger, a very important character, totally omitted? Why was Barney shown as a dumb ignorant whose only ambition is to earn money? And most of all, why was the psychological process Starling went through in the end,caused by the drugs Lecter applied to her,descended? Not to speak about the fact that the ending was omitted,too,and totally changed? Well, the reasons why Jodie Foster refused to play Starling again are well known and I accepted it,although like surely many others I'm very disappointed 'cause I identified Starling with her.For stories like Red Dragon,The silence of the lambs or Hannibal that possess such psychological depth, it is very important to identify with a character when they're adapted for the screen,but as the Germans say, that's "snow of yesterday". Ridley Scott did some incredibly good movies but with this one he doesn't live up to his name. Jonathan Demme had exactly the right feeling for the plot, the characters and their relationships towards each other in The silence of the lambs, he should have done Hannibal,too.My only comfort is that I've seen the movie only two times,it's long ago and thank god for that reason I'm able not to see the scenes from the movie when I read the novel. I'm so sorry but I really can't recommend it to anyone.
I completely understand WHY this movie was made. Silence of the Lambs was an incredible film - a gruesome thriller with a superb story and high jump-factor....<br /><br />What I don't understand is why THIS movie was made... and why Anthony Hopkins agreed to reprise his role as Hannibal the Cannibal in this terrible and dissatisfying film.<br /><br />There's no possible way to spoil the movie any further than going to see it could, but for those of you who prefer to waste your money, DON't READ ON. The film is absolutely horrible. It's so bad that the transition from Jodie Foster to Julianne Moore becomes a non-issue. <br /><br />The only way to truly enjoy the film is to set your watch and leave the theatre exactly two hours into the film, because up until that point, it's quite an interesting thriller. The reparte between Moore and Hopkins is comparable to Hopkins and Foster, and the performances by the other characters are pretty good. But literally at the two hour mark, the film degrades into nothing but a cheesy D-grade horror flick...it's sick, and it's stupid and almost like the crew ran out of filming time, and threw together an ending in one day of filming.<br /><br />Initial buzz over the Thomas Harris' book's unsatisfying and bizarre ending led director Ridley Scott to order a re-write... and, honestly, having seen the film AND read the book's finale, I don't know which is worse.<br /><br />Please - don't waste your money OR time on this film, unless you're prepared to leave EXACTLY at the two hour point, because that's the ONLY way you'll feel satisfied about the saga of Clarice Starling and Hannibal Lecter... continuing the mystery that made the first film, and the wait for this one, so great.
Well, 1st off I haven't seen "Silence of the Lambs" yet.... but, I think that I would have become sick if I would have seen it before this piece. Not from the gruesome violence but, from the lack of everything else. Anthony Hopkins was very good as Hannibal and I really believed that he was as psychotic as he played himself off to be but, from the reaction of the audience around me, the film was filled with cliches from "Silence" which left me lost at points where others were laughing at what was on the screen.<br /><br />Now, I heard that the movie would be very gruesome and if the director wanted to gross folks out... he did it... but, only in 2 sequences? I mean, if you want it to be gruesome and I mean, so gruesome that you're going to play the film off of that... you need more than 2 sequences.. I always see it as a film has to either become that cinematic jewel which will ultimatley take you to another place and time or either go over the top (which most of the time is done in bad taste). But, this film left me sitting in my chair and falling asleep at times. <br /><br />Anthony Hopkins and Julianne Moore are the stars of the movie, right? Well, with the exception of Hopkins, I didn't feel that way.. Who cared about the stupid Italian police officer? I definatley didn't. So, really the film is left with a big hole talking about a guy who dies anyway. I mean, come on.. who cares?<br /><br />In a nutshell, the movie is good if you want to see Lector and Starling once again but, if you're going for a really good thriller... you'll jump once and be grossed out maybe twice. Depends on your level.<br /><br />Thinking about how much money this movie will bring in... there will probably be another "Hannibal" made and this movie probably won't be on video until the fall. If you must see it.. wait and save the $3.50 - $4.00 and get it on video. Don't spend the big bucks on this film.
The only reason I didn't fall asleep during this movie is because the seats were not that comfortable. Hannibal is BORING>BORING> BORING and BORING!!! This film is just dreadful, not because of any violence or graphic mutilations. It's actually quite tame in that regard. The story moves at the speed of a lazy snail. I have the feeling that director Ridley Scott just phoned this one in. The actors are all fine they just needed some direction. The music score is also very annoying. It's especially noticeable since so little is going on in the film. It does look good but that's not enough reason to see it. By the way did I mention that it's BORING?<br /><br />
With a little dressing up, this movie could be served for Thanksgiving dinner. Not only is is boring, implausible, historically inaccurate and poorly directed, the best actors were the bit players (mainly because they had so few lines to say). A waste of time, even for war fanatics.
I have to admit I was deceived by the title and the summary on the back of the box. So I popped it in the vcr and kept waiting... and waiting... and waiting for something good to happen. But of course, it never does. The makers of this film should be tied to a chair and made to watch "Saving Private Ryan". Maybe they would learn something.
Ty Cobb is, by far, the most interesting and belligerently insane athlete to ever live. His baseball career was unparalleled in absurd statistics, brilliant strategy, and pure unadulterated violence. Every game he played in was a spectacle in human ability and cruelty. So of course, the film about him deals with none of that, instead focusing on the writing of his biography by author Al Stump. Now this isn't such a horrible idea in theory, as Cobb himself slid even further into paranoid dementia as years progressed and the stories of his crazed outbursts even as a senior are shocking even by today's desensitized standards. But instead of focusing on these events, which I guess was simply too interesting, the film is a pseudo fictionalized road film with clichéd a clichéd plot that will cause any knowledgeable Cobb fan to cry vinegar tears. <br /><br />Tommy Lee Jones does quite well as a crotchety Cobb, but somehow manages to overplay his cartoon supervillainy. Most stories about Cobb are barely believable, but to make him even crazier seems both impossible and unnecessary. Robert Wuhl, portraying the writer Al Stump, is a dark vortex of nonexistent talent. He sucks the life out of every scene, trying to make this film his own Nagasaki. There is a reason we never see him as a leading man anymore (Arliss doesn't count. It's barely a show). Even the played out, inevitable "role reversal" of Cobb and Stump by the end is made even worse by his pure inability to utter words that don't sound like a poor book on tape narration voice. <br /><br />For all the awful writing and bland film-making on display, there is one sequence which stands out as so far superior to the rest of this failure that accepting it's from the same film is near impossible. A hyper stylized flashback sequence displaying Cobb's overpowering psychology and brutal athleticism while actually playing the game of baseball is pure brilliance. The camera moves in bizarre fashion and the whole event seems like a dream due to the unique playing style of the monster Cobb. Every slide, hit, and tackle are rendered even more forceful due to enhanced sound, and Tommy Lee Jones OWNS the intensity of the master player. It makes the viewer drool over the possibilities of a true biopic of Cobb in his prime with the same actor. It's worth watching the film for this incredible few minutes alone, just to see what could have been. <br /><br />I may be slightly unfair to this film due to my own knowledge of Ty Cobb and wanting it to be something it isn't, but to make such boring, neutered movie about this maniac is nonsensical. I'm glad Ron Shelton's career has slid ever since.
Over all, it was a real good movie. Though all the actors, besides Jones, sucked. By the time I was half was through it I was really getting tired of seeing 'Al'. Only change I would have made to it would to have more flash backs, possibly with the real Cobb.
I don't know about the real Cobb but I got the distinct impression that the filmmakers' aim was to try to soften his jagged edges and reputation, not give us a true portrait of the man himself. In the movie, besides a few racist remarks, he's shown to be just another hard-nosed, cantakerous old coot (he's so full of life!) with a heart of gold(more or less). This is also the worst acting I've seen T.L.Jones do(he brings nothing new or subtle to his stereotyped character). He just doesn't flesh out Cobb in a way that pulls me into the movie. Not for one minute did I forget that it was Tommy Lee Jones on the screen pretending to be Ty Cobb. Robert Wuhl didnt impress either. The "comedic" elements in this movie were just distracting and didnt ring true at all. A bloody waste of time, it is
Cobb. It sucked. I learned nothing about the man I had not heard before. The performances were over the top. A scene where Cobb and Al are driving down a snowy road in search of women in Reno has to be one of the worst conceived scenes in recent memory. It's just plain STUPID and unentertaining. The flashback sequences were terrible. And they used the same sequences OVER AND OVER AND OVER again. If I saw the same shot of Cobb fighting with someone at a base one more time, I would have become physically ill. By watching this 'movie', we get to learn NOTHING of what it was like in Cobb's era. We learn nothing about his relationship with his players, nothing about his days as a manager, nothing about his relationship with his family members, other than that `they don't like him'. I thought when I sat down to view this film I would learn SOMETHING about the era of baseball in which Cobb played. Instead, all I got to see was a retread of how Cobb hated everything and everyone, and how they hated him. Boy, what a great movie (sarcasm intended). Cobb is portrayed as a constant liar in the film, so which one of his stories is supposed to be accurate? Who knows? Who cares? No one will after viewing this piece of crap. If you decide to rent this film, make sure the fast forward button on your VCR is working, as you will be tempted to use it repeatedly. Hopefully someday someone will make a GOOD film about Ty Cobb. I liked this film about as much as the people in it liked Cobb, which is to say - I HATED IT. Now I know why I found it in the RENT ONE GET ONE FREE section of the video store. I think I will ask for my fifty cents back from the video clerk, since I can't get back the time I wasted watching this trash. Oh well, what could I have possibly been thinking about a movie that would feature Robert Wuhl.
As someone who loves baseball history, especially the early 20th century in which Cobb was a main figure, along with a ton of colorful characters, I was looking forward to seeing this baseball film. Well, it wasn't a baseball film, which was disappointing. No, it was just a sportswriter's account of being with Cobb in the ballplayer's later years while the two collaborated on a book. Even at that, this could have been a more appealing movie than they made it.<br /><br />Granted Cobb was anything but a nice guy, an extremely talented player but brutal in that he would do anything to beat you....and he was viscous, intimidating and had a lot of demons to fight. He was so hated his own teammates tried to hinder his chances of winning a batting title one year. Nonetheless, this an over-the-top portrayal of the man. It makes him into something almost cartoon-like. <br /><br />Watching and listening to an old man rant, rave and profane for two hours is entertainment? No, it isn't. Some day, I'd love to see a real biopic of Cobb showing him in his ballplaying days and if they want to portray him as an evil guy, so be it, but the way they did it here with just a bitter, blasphemous old man making an ass of himself in front of a reporter is not fun to watch.
I have to admit that in spite of all media promotion and being nominee for Oscar, my expectation from the film was not so high before watching it. And I really found what I expected; a film trying to be likable for both for conservatives and liberals in Turkey, trying being authentic for foreign spectators and enough funny for all. But it should be understood that it is not possible to be favorable for everybody, therefore film stays as average for all.<br /><br />Whole movie is telling a story occurred within 24 hours. To fit the short story in a full movie length, some scenes are added without a connection with the main story. These are mostly the ice-cream selling scenes to the eccentric local people (i.e. goat herdsman, old women etc.), and each of these selling scenes are tried to be interesting to the spectators by skits with comic dialogs. The subject is mentioned as a universal problem: Struggle of a local producer-tradesman against holding companies and monopoly, but this was the interesting subject of twenty years before. Most of the readers will remember the "Hero grocer against supermarket" from Ferhan Sensoy in 1980's. This was the correct story at correct time. Shortly the story is not strong enough and worth to be a movie as by now.<br /><br />Except some gibbers due to local accent, the performance of cast is so successful. The leading role is played by Turan Ozdemir with excessive body language but anyway he is successful too.<br /><br />On the other hand against limited budget, appreciable efforts of director and players are obviously giving a good mood to the film. But this is not resulting a film well enough either to compare with Italian neo-realists or worth to be Oscar nominee.<br /><br />Note: In the real life, normally the Ice-cream seller would stop his own production and be the dealer of one of the competitors of Manda brand.
Although promoted as one of the most sincere Turkish films with an amateur cast, Ice-cream, I Scream is more like a caricature of sincerity.<br /><br />The plot opens with the dream of Ali, a traveling ice-cream salesman in a Western Anatolia town, in which he sees himself becoming successful using the same marketing methods of big ice-cream companies. He dreams of playing in his product's TV commercial with beautiful models in bikinis, dancing around him. As his dream turns into a nightmare, he wakes up with a big erection next to his gargantuan wife, who rejects to make sex with him for 6 years with no apparent reason. Is it because he is not successful in his job? Apparently, because he says he was selling better in the old days when there was no pressure from global ice-cream companies. But this is what he says; we actually don't see him suffer that much: he still sells good, traveling the neighboring villages while his apprentice stays at the shop, selling ice-cream to the people in the town. Ali blames big companies for using sweetening and coloring agents while he is using real "sahlep" (powdered roots of mountain orchids). Ali buys a motorbike with a bank loan to be a traveling vendor, and gives ads to a local TV channel which prefers to broadcast even the news bulletin in local dialect. His wife is not fond of his ways of doing business, they always quarrel, and Ali threatens her that he may do very bad things in a moment of frenzy.<br /><br />In a very successful day, his lousy bike is stolen by the misbehaving little boys of the town. In search of his stolen bike, Ali goes to the police, blames the big companies for the theft, but, of course, nobody takes him seriously. Annoyed by the nagging of his wife, Ali goes to a tavern and becomes drunk. One of his friends at his table, a wannabe socialist of the town, gives a didactic speech and criticizes globalism, and with no real connection, jumps to the subject of global freezing. Ali returns home and decides to kill himself with poison. His wife wakes up and prevents him. An old neighbor takes him to a night walk and advises him about life. According to him, Ali can even sell hot sahlep drink if the world faces with global freezing. When he returns home, suddenly we see that his wife understood his value, treating him like a hero and praising his manhood. Meanwhile, the thief boys got sick eating too much ice-cream. They confess to the doctor that they stole Ali's bike. Ali forgives them and there comes the happy end.<br /><br />Although the plot may look promising in a way, it's the story-telling which makes this film insincere and cheesy. First, the director doesn't show much of an effort to tell the story visually; everything is based on dialogs. And the dialogs never stop to show us that cinema is actually a visual art. Even Ali's troubles are not convincing because we don't see it, we just understand it from his words. The director markets his film as a righteous fight of Ali against big ice-cream companies, but there is nothing in the film about big companies. We don't see their pressure enough. The film actually ridicules Ali for believing that big companies are behind the theft. And when his motorbike is found, it solves every problem: Ali becomes a happy and powerful husband. Not a real criticism of globalism.<br /><br />Second, the film is cheesy because of the crude humor. Maybe the people of that part of Turkey is cursing so much and making so many vulgar jokes in their daily life, but vulgar language and crude humor are not enough to make a film funny. I may have accepted it if they were both vulgar and "clever" but they are not clever jokes at all, they are just cheesy. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe American people may like oriental version of American Pie style humor. But American Pie never had any claim to be a nominee for the Oscars, or to have a political message! If you think that you can laugh by just seeing a man's big erection in his shorts (and we had to endure this joke twice!) or an old villager woman saying "f**k you," then you may find this film funny.
I walk out of very few movie screenings and this movie managed to become one of those that I couldn't bear to watch any longer. As far as the awards it won goes, the ones awarded by Turkish festivals are not credible in my opinion. My only explanation for the Queens festival award was to think that somehow a layer of comedy was "gained in translation" as the subtitles helped distract attention from the horrendous performances.<br /><br />At the beginning of the screening I attended, the presenter briefly talked about the history of Turkish cinema and at one point mentioned that early Turkish cinema was appropriately named "stage cinema" since many of the filmmakers and actors involved were people from the theater scene.<br /><br />Ironically, this movie falls right into that category. English speakers reading subtitles may think that Turkish is a naturally loud language and attribute all the yelling in the movie to that, but observant native commentators will immediately notice that all the actors are performing with exaggerated loud voices. You could attribute this to the amateur nature of all actors, but the biggest source of "yelled-out-dialog" is the main character, played by the only professional actor in the movie. Not surprisingly his background is in theater. My guess is that in response to his loud delivery of lines, all other amateur actors raised their voices as well, hence turning the whole movie into a series of unnatural performances.<br /><br />Put on top of all of this a storyline that develops at a snail's pace, you get an extremely boring movie.<br /><br />I have to say I also have a personal problem with Turkish movies that depict entirely rural life with shallow uneducated characters. Ever since "Zugurt Aga", one of the best Turkish movies ever made, Turkish filmmakers seem to be not able to avoid the appeal of the rural part of the country. This is only interesting in small doses and if it is as beautifully orchestrated with excellent writing and directing as in Zugurt Aga. Most often, however, it is extremely boring and frankly somewhat embarrassing to native "urban" Turks. Rural communities make up a neglected, undereducated part of the country, and while this provides good material for comedy, it comes at a huge cost to Turkey's image.<br /><br />A western audience member whose only exposure to Turkey is this movie will undoubtedly think that Turkey is like Afghanistan. I wish filmmakers would realize this and let go of their passion for the stories of the "rural man" and stay loyal to the majority of the country, who live in cities that put metropolitan areas in Europe to shame.
This very loose retelling of Carmen begins on a high note with a smoldering, sexually-frank dance between Senaglese prisoner "Karmen" and her female prison warden, but the vibrant opening minutes never ignite into any coherent film. One minute Karmen is all sexual predator, the next she is dancing in protest to her unfair government, and then suddenly she is a smuggler on the high seas... Although the film deserves kudos for postulating the first carnivorously bisexual "Karmen," the broad strokes it paints are so vignette-like and unsupported by any narrative coherence that the film comes off as a schizophrenic, undisciplined melange of "Basic-Instinct" meets "Bound" meets an African version of a Bollywood musical.
I gave this 2 stars out of a possible 10.<br /><br />I went into this not realizing what it was - and discovered it is apparently some kind of African musical - since people break into song every few minutes.<br /><br />None of the songs rhyme, most of them aren't really saying anything sensible, and they all have the same non-existent tune - if you could call it a "tune."<br /><br />Karmen is a tall, spectacularly built young woman, with the longest braids I've ever seen. [The actress looks as if she has probably done some modeling.]<br /><br />The film opens in a women's prison, although not like any prison I've ever seen or heard of -- the inmates wear whatever they wish - and seem to be having a party.<br /><br />Karmen does some frantic dancing, and the woman warden of the prison, Angelique,[a magnificently handsome woman]is definitely erotically interested. She and Karmen dance together. Later Karmen visits the warden's room and they make love - unfortunately the scene is not detailed, and is very short, although there is some nudity.<br /><br />Karmen then escapes from the prison and next we see her dancing in front of another group where a man, named Lamine, maybe a Colonel - it was never really clear who he was, watches her. He is with a young woman who dislikes Karmen's seductive dancing and there is a dance-off between the two women.<br /><br />After that the story [such as it is] becomes even more muddled.<br /><br />With Lamine in jail, out of jail, and who knows where.<br /><br />Karmen may be involved with a group of smugglers or thieves.<br /><br />There is more singing. More dancing, and a scene of Angelique obviously suffering from heartbreak.<br /><br />The film muddles its way to a finish, and I heaved a sigh of relief that it had ended.<br /><br /> <br /><br />
For a film made in Senegal, based, I guess loosely on Carmen, the book, by Prosper Merimee, this film doesn't achieve a mere resemblance of the story that has been made famous as an opera and as other films.<br /><br />Ms. Gai as the Karmen of the title is very good to look at. Her fiery dancing smolders the screen, as is the case with her torrid love scene at the beginning of the film.<br /><br />This is a Karmen that aims to please to all genders, but a real Carmen, she is not!<br /><br />We would like to see Ms. Gai in other films in which her talent is better used than here.
For this movie, based off of a TV show, and a serious finale. I thought that it was a lousy way to end off a serious. 'M*A*S*H Goodbye, farewell, and Amen' was pretty good, but not this one. Unless you really love the series (Like myself) skip this movie.<br /><br />I was a loyal fan of the show Even Stevens, but the plot was too gimmicky, and Dave Coulier, man, that guy hasn't done anything good...well, ever. They shouldn't have used Tim Meadows, he's a great actor, but he was too good for the script.<br /><br />I thought the movie was pure cheese. I would give it a 4.5/10
A previous IMDb reviewer has stated that 'Rafter Romance' is a 'rip-off' (that's the other reviewer's term) of a German musical called 'Me By Day, You By Night'. Apparently that reviewer is unaware that *both* of these films have borrowed their premise from 'Box and Cox', an English play written by John Maddison Morton in 1847. This play deals with two tradesmen who rent the same room from an unscrupulous landlady, each man believing himself the sole tenant. Because the two men have different work schedules, the ruse is not discovered straight away. This play was once so popular in Britain that 'to Box and Cox it' became a common term for an arrangement in which two people willingly shared accommodations meant for only one person.<br /><br />The innovation of 'Rafter Romance' (and its predecessor) is that the two tenants are now a man and a woman, who inevitably develop a romance. As is usual in these cornball movies, the guy and the gal detest each other until they fall into each other's arms. Hoo boy.<br /><br />The landlord in this film is played by George Sidney, a character actor who specialised in playing Jewish stereotypes that were meant to be sympathetic. George Sidney was never as annoying as the odious Harry Green (the Jewish equivalent of Stepin Fetchit) but Sidney's depictions of Jewish characters are still exaggerated and embarrassing to watch.<br /><br />The single most notable thing about 'Rafter Romance' is that, to my knowledge, this is the earliest Hollywood film to make reference to Hitler and the rise of Nazism. At one point in this movie, landlord Eckbaum (Sidney) discovers his teenage son Julius engaged in chalking swastikas on the walls. Eckbaum and his son are clearly meant to be Jewish. Admittedly, nobody in Hollywood in 1933 had any real idea of what Hitler was planning for the Jews in Europe ... still, it's surprising to see a film depicting a Jewish teenager who thinks that swastikas are a joke. His father is, quite properly, angered by this display of the Nazi symbol.<br /><br />A very shameful aspect of Hollywood history is the documented fact that all of the major Hollywood studios continued to do business with the Third Reich as late as 1939. Hollywood's leading ladies were medically documented as 'Aryan' so that their films could be distributed in Nazi Germany and Austria. For the same reason, Hollywood's leading men were documented as 'Aryan and uncircumcised'. Except for Darryl Zanuck at Twentieth Century-Fox, all the Hollywood studio executives who colluded in this policy were Jewish ... but clearly had no objection to doing business with Hitler. I'm surprised that 'Rafter Romance' contains a scene depicting swastikas unfavourably, as this sequence would have rendered the film Verboten in Germany and Austria. (Maybe the scene was cut out for German release: it isn't crucial to the movie's plot.) Apart from this, the movie contains nothing notable. Robert Benchley does his usual unfunny befuddled characterisation: I've never understood the appeal of this man. I'll rate 'Rafter Romance' 4 out of 10.
When watching this movie, with it's deterministic cause and effect, wall-to-wall clichés and hackneyed sentiment, can anyone be so naive as to think that this is actually how Barrie's life played out? You watch it in a posture of disagreement. Hollywood biopics aren't based on the individual lives anymore, they're just rewrites of previously successful biopics. If Hollywood made a movie about your life it would be filled with such perfect synchronization that you'd barely recognize your own story. Any personal complexity would be obliterated by some all-explaining, simplistic backstory. Your story would resemble "Rocky" because it's the only life-arc Hollywood knows how to produce anymore. We couldn't leave the audience pondering anything left open-ended as they exit. This movie doesn't trust an audience to figure things out without being led to them. I perceived the captain hook/mother reference eons before the movie literalized it for me. I could see the 25 kids twist coming for days.<br /><br />This is a completely average movie. Not horrible but not great. Hence it's likely to be showered with a few Oscars next year. There's nothing the Academy likes better than congratulating itself for finally noticing patterns put in place over the previous thirty years.<br /><br />From the New Yorker article "Lost Boys" by ANTHONY LANE: <br /><br />"Arthur Llewelyn Davies, also adored his boys, and it may be unfair of "Finding Neverland" to omit him, for streamlining purposes, from the scene; by the time that Johnny Depp meets Kate Winslet, she is already a widow, whereas Arthur was very much alive when Barrie first entered the consciousness—and, little by little, the home—of the Llewellyn Davies family.<br /><br />"Finding Neverland" is a weepie. From the moment that Barrie met George and Jack, and started to ponder the means by which they might be rendered immortal, the story is sad, but the reality is even more dismal: 1907—Arthur Llewellyn Davies dies from cancer of the jaw. 1910—Sylvia dies of lung cancer. The five boys are orphaned; Barrie is made their guardian. 1915—George is killed in the First World War, fighting with his regiment in Flanders. 1921—Michael, an undergraduate at Oxford, is drowned while swimming with a friend. The two bodies, when recovered, are found clinging together.<br /><br />On April 5, 1960, Peter Llewellyn Davies, by then an esteemed publisher, threw himself under a subway train in London. We should not presume to read a mind in torment, but we may note in passing that, if he had lived another month, he would have reached the centenary of Barrie's birth and thus, one imagines, a fresh flurry of interest in "Peter Pan"—"that terrible masterpiece," in the words of Peter Llewellyn Davies.
With some films it is really hard to tell for whom they were made. Huevos de oro seems to aim at the well educated Spanish middle class. There must be many inside jokes in this movie which you will not understand if you are an outsider. This can be pretty annoying.<br /><br />Symbols and references to art and popular culture abound, the movie alludes to the work of Salvador Dalí, Luis Buñuel and the Surrealists in general, a certain infatuation with bidet baths seems to point to Duchamp's ready mades. What's more, the main character has also a knack for karaoke tapes with songs of Julio Iglesias. But why all this is mixed together in a rather pretty but also gratuitous way simply eludes me. I can only guess that it all serves to highlight the vital, impetuous, boorish vulgarity of the main character who the director seems to admire and despise at the same time. How all the really pretty women run after him (the main character, I mean) is slightly disconcerting.<br /><br />The movie has three parts. It starts in the Spanish enclave of Melilla in Africa, where Benito, the main character, does his military service, apparently in the corps of engineers. Then it moves on to the resort town of Benidorm in Spanin where Benito just wants to build the highest skyscraper of the place and become a vulgarized Howard Roark. For the last part a defeated Benito moves to Miami, Florida, presumably in order to start a „new life". But the change of places is not really explained satisfactorily. It is also somehow irritating that there is no character development and that the movie descends into a soap opera modus without being convincingly ironic. It must be said that Javier Bardem acquits himself very well playing the young stud who grows limp and deflated.<br /><br />I purchased this movie because I am interested in townscapes. And Benidorm is a kind of a special place, townscapewise. In this aspect Huevos de oro satisfied me only partially. In Jess Franco's She Killed In Ecstasy (1970) this specific location was used in a more rewarding way.
Thank God I have fast-forward. I think this is a movie about a guy who rises and falls. Whatever: It's a stupid cliché. It doesn't make any difference. There's this guy, javier Bardem, who constructs buildings or something. It doesn't matter. He is handsome, this Javier Bardem. Who cares? I think there is a car wreck but I watched this in fast-forward, so ...who cares? Car wrecks and handsome heroes who struggle back from them smells like a melodrama to me. Javier likes someone , but he marries Maria de Madeiros instead.She is magnificently, poetically beautiful, with a heart-shaped face. Then Javier has an oral-interface with Maribel Verdu, who washes her vulva, beforehand, for some reason. You would think Maribel Verdu, with her hand-washed vulva would be sexy. No, she is not. This is a tedious story about a bunch of people who don't interest me. Javier, Maribel, and Maria have a threesome: How boring. This film is annoying. I think this might be a minor THEME of (some) Spanish-language movies: The rise and predictable fall of a little guy who succeeds against the odds. Let me just clear this up: this is a high-class melodrama or perhaps soap opera. It is not worth your time, except for a laugh.
A bit too much Mediterrenean machismo for me. The cast was beautiful, lovely to watch in all of the romantic scenes. The locale was beautiful with azure skies and azure water. It just was not convincing to me that such an egomaniac crud bent on nothing but his building, could attract so many beautiful, vulnerable, women. Only in the Mediterranean I guess. Certainly in no world I am familiar with. The macho men were really obnoxious, and I found it difficult to believe that the female characters could have anything to to with them for so long. The screenplay, cinematography, directing, etc. was set up to deliver a Class B film, the central effort being on showing scenes of beautiful exposed female breasts. It was aesthetically nice for a while but it could not sustain a very mediocre film.
In this film, there is a loose plot of a man (Bardem) who wishes to obtain financing for his construction business, and marries a woman he does not love (the wide-eyed Maria de Medieros) in the process. He maintains his passionate relationship with his first and true love, and ultimately gets entangled in his own romantic web. He never gives up his juggling act, until the three main characters come face to face. The film results boring, with lots of free sex (well, both girls are really good), all the reactions in the film are absurd, incoherent and of course, too much stupid. None of the characters are believable, which makes the movie a little annoying. Anyway, the acting is surprisingly good for such a bad directed film, which makes it a little interesting, but, if you can, watch another film please!
Director Kinji Fukasaku is perhaps best known, in his homeland at least, for his Japanese gangster films, a series with which this movie shares a number of characteristics. Violence and political intrigue are themes throughout both Shogun's Samurai and Battles Without Honor and Humanity, and both feature a lead character who finds his loyalties challenged by betrayals. Both films also feature a large number of characters who seem to have little purpose but to die, and since so little is done to develop them, their deaths have little impact when they do come. This film has other flaws as well. The makeup, costumes and sound design are distractingly poor, and the battle scenes were substandard as well, inferior to other samurai films of earlier years (Seven Samurai comes to mind). <br /><br />Sonny Chiba plays the Sonny Chiba character in Shogun's Samurai, the no-nonsense master swordsman who strides through the film, scowling menacingly. What a guy; he even gets to wear an eye patch. If you were expecting to see the legendary Toshiro Mifune, you may be disappointed; his appearance amounts to little more than a cameo, and just when it appears that his character might do something interesting, he disappears for good. <br /><br />Overall, the strengths of the film are its story, which is infinitely more comprehensible than those gangster films, and the challenges posed to traditional concepts of good and evil. Two brothers are challenging for the throne of their recently departed father, who may have had some help on his way out. Early on, it looks as if we will be faced with a couple of characters who couldn't be more clearly good and evil; after all, the older brother stammers and has a birthmark, the sure sign of a villain. Eventually, however, it becomes clear that in a winner-takes-all struggle for power, there are no heroes and villains, only winners and losers.
I have seen nearly all the films of Kurosawa and dozens of other Japanese films as well. Compared to these other films, this is a rather average to poor film. The plot features two warring brothers--neither one of which I cared much for--and it is very confusing keeping up with who is allied with who. The music and cinematography is pretty good, but the special effects, at times, are terrible--rubber heads flying off with about the same realism as the average high school play! On top of these complaints, the ending of the movie completely DESTROYS and UNDERMINES the entire picture. It turns out that the end isn't true but was completely "fudged". What's the point of this, then? If you HAVE seen this film, understand that there are MANY better films out there, so don't give up!
"Yagyu ichizoku no inbo" (let's just say "The Shogun's Samurai") is somewhere between horrifically boring and mind-bogglingly painful to watch. As an historical epic, it could have had so many more chances to be a rich saga... but it's really no more than just another cheap '70s action flick with a based-on-real-events story and an eyepatch-sporting Sonny Chiba. Before this movie's halfway point, I was even tempted to commit seppuku! The music is like a thousand dogs in heat wailing in your ears to a tune composed by Ennio Morricone (that's not an insult towards Morricone). The use of zoom lens cinematography is more nauseating than fascinating. And in terms of action, it's really nothing more than a series of brutal attacks and oh-no-they-didn't shocks. What a terrible movie.
If you're in the mood for a really bad porno with no good porn combined with a really bad horror movie, this movie is perfect for you. However, if you breathe air, make sure you spend your time watching anything but this. The acting is crappy. The "plot" is crappy. They try too hard, and the whole time I was waiting for the one good redeeming scene that might make the movie worth watching. Nope. Stick with the scrambled cable.
I see that C. Thomas Howell has appeared in many movies since his heyday in the 80s as an accomplished young actor.<br /><br />I bought this DVD because it was cheap and in part for the internet-related plot and to see how much older C. Thomas Howell is; I do not recall seeing him in any movies since the 1980s.<br /><br />In just a few words: what a very big disappointment. I give some low budget movies a chance, but this one started out lame. Within the first 15 minutes of the movie, this elusive woman is chatting with an Asian guy in a chatroom. They basically stimulate themselves to their own chat, she then insists on meeting the participant in person. She meets him, has sex, ties him up and then murders him in cold blood. The plot then deteriorates further.<br /><br />The plot is thin and flimsy and the acting is very stiff. Do not bother renting it much less purchasing it, even if it is in the $1 DVD bin. I plan to take my copy of the DVD to Goodwill. I am truly amazed that any of the prior reviewers here gave this movie a bad rating.
I see that C. Thomas Howell has appeared in many movies since his heyday in the 80s as an accomplished young actor.<br /><br />I bought this DVD because it was cheap and in part for the internet-related plot and to see how much older C. Thomas Howell is; I do not recall seeing him in any movies since the 1980s.<br /><br />In just a few words: what a very big disappointment. I give some low budget movies a chance, but this one started out lame. Within the first 15 minutes of the movie, this elusive woman is chatting with an Asian guy in a chatroom. They basically stimulate themselves to their own chat, she then insists on meeting the participant in person. She meets him, has sex, ties him up and then murders him in cold blood. The plot then deteriorates further.<br /><br />The plot is thin and flimsy and the acting is very stiff. Do not bother renting it much less purchasing it, even if it is in the $1 DVD bin. I plan to take my copy of the DVD to Goodwill. I am truly amazed that any of the prior reviewers here gave this movie a bad rating.
I see that C. Thomas Howell has appeared in many movies since his heyday in the 80s as an accomplished young actor.<br /><br />I bought this DVD because it was cheap and in part for the internet-related plot and to see how much older C. Thomas Howell is; I do not recall seeing him in any movies since the 1980s.<br /><br />In just a few words: what a very big disappointment. I give some low budget movies a chance, but this one started out lame. Within the first 15 minutes of the movie, this elusive woman is chatting with an Asian guy in a chatroom. They basically stimulate themselves to their own chat, she then insists on meeting the participant in person. She meets him, has sex, ties him up and then murders him in cold blood. The plot then deteriorates further.<br /><br />The plot is thin and flimsy and the acting is very stiff. Do not bother renting it much less purchasing it, even if it is in the $1 DVD bin. I plan to take my copy of the DVD to Goodwill. I am truly amazed that any of the prior reviewers here gave this movie a bad rating.
I have seen this movie last week during the Berlin Film Festival and had medium-high expectations. - The director is Bertrand Tavernier and I was familiar with some of his previous work in French cinema. I actually enjoyed some of his earlier movies. -The cast: Tommy Lee Jones, John Goodman, Peter Sarsgard, Mary Steenburgen... I was looking forward to see all this talent on screen. -I wasn't familiar with the book it's based upon and I hadn't read anything about the movie beforehand but I was told that it was an investigation movie set in the Deep South (we've seen a lot of those in the past, maybe this one's gonna be as good as the others...)<br /><br />2 hours later, the end titles appear: THANK GOD IT WAS OVER!!!! - The plot is beyond comprehension. If you've read the book, you have a significant advantage. There were too many minor characters and there were a lot of useless plot arcs. We didn't understand a thing! - The accents. My God! Tommy Lee Jones' accent is decent but I still have nightmares from Mary Steenburgen's Cajun-French singing... - Poor casting in my opinion. I can't believe old man Tommy Lee Jones can beat the crap out of a linebacker-built goon... And I'm not afraid of John Goodman. - Who were these people?!? We barely understand who all these characters are and what they do. There's a bait shop? Tommy Lee Jones has a girl from Guatemala? Blörg! - The comedic attempts were pathetic. The funniest thing about the movie was probably its "action" and "suspense" scenes. They were horrible. No thrills. Bad acting (Can Tommy Lee Jones make different faces or is he like Derek Zoolander?)... - And then there's the sci-fi stuff. No spoilers but it gets ridiculously and annoyingly weird.<br /><br />I usually don't write any comments on IMDb but I thought the movie was so bad and disappointing that I felt compelled to share my opinion. But that's just me...
Being one of the founding fathers of my regions monkey movie club(this also includes apes/chimps and orangutans) I am reviewing this film from a monkey movie standpoint. Afterall it is a whole summer of monkeys, 100+ days for monkeys to do what they do best, cause mischief, shenanigans, hyjinx, solve human problems and teach us about ourselves.<br /><br />The story is simple enough. In short poor boy needs money for stuff he wants. Luckily there's a few monkeys(chimpanzees) that have a bounty on their head that would get Boba Fett or Dog's(Duane Chapman) blood flowing. As the boy tries to catch the monkeys he learns about himself, his family, his grandpa, the local weirdo, flirts with a girl twice his age and learns the beast way to deal with bullies is to have someone point a shotgun at them.<br /><br />There within lies the problem. So much focus is put on the boy that the chimps just don't get the screen time they deserve. The chimps are not as talented as the chimp(s) that play Jack from the M_P trilogy or the legendary orangutans that play Dunstin or Clyde(1 or 2). So don't watch this movie expecting to find the next big thing in the Chimp genre. The chimps hit some sweet flips which is what the film needed more of. There is an epic scene of the chimps breaking into the poor families house and destroys all the things they worked so hard for. Serious monkey movie enthusiasts will want to rent the film for this scene alone.<br /><br />So in closing this movie is not for the serious monkey movie enthusiast. I wouldn't recommend this movie to families as it encourages a childs rebellion against their parents. I can only recommend this film as a rental for hardcore monkey loving adults and well supervised children.
I am in a movie club at my school and I was forced to sit and watch this utterly dismal film. The film's story is not dismal, but the entire movie itself is exceedingly dismal. The acting was absolutely dreadful. The children were overly whiny. A metal pole could have done a better job. I wanted desperately to fall asleep, but because the television was so loud, I was kept from peace. The monkey's are neither cute, nor are they funny. The drama is laugh-worthy. I cannot remember when I saw a more dreadful film. The story is weak, thin, predictable, and completely fake. The adults try to be good actors, but they just can't seem to break through stereotypes. The girl even appears to want to leave the film via falling off a hill during the movie in order to leave it, I don't blame her. Micheal Anderson should publicly apologize for this film. Not just to me, but to everyone else who was forced to sit through this awful film. In fact, I apologize to you. Even if I had nothing to do with this project, I apologize for this film, because this means at least someone will. This film even surpasses the dismalness of films that of Rob Schneider and the Cheetah Girls. I would even go as far to say that it is even worse that Hilary Duff's collection of films, but that's pushing it. Just please don't see this film, or else you'll be pushed to write a review similar to this one on how awful this film is. I'm very sorry.
When I saw this movie three years ago, I thought it exemplified a lot of the traits found in Singapore art-house movies: slow-moving, with a minimal of plot and dialogue, depending on film composition to make it work.<br /><br />During then, amongst local cineastes, the inability to appreciate "Be With Me" is tantamount to panning "Citizen Kane" or any of Ozu's late films. I've no idea how "Be With Me" reached such hallowed heights in Singapore's cinematic consciousness, but I always felt that Khoo's "12 Storeys" is a better film, even though the latter film does not boast as good a cinematographer as Adrian Tan, Khoo's DP for "Be With Me". "12 Storeys" has a story that better relates to most Singaporeans and has bite too, something that "Be With Me"'s threadbare wistfulness doesn't have.<br /><br />"Be With Me" is basically a barely interlinked trio of narratives strung together into a film by Khoo and his screenwriter Wong Kim Hoh. It deals with a security guard who falls in love with a girl whom he only sees in the distance; two girls in a horoerotic relationship; and the story of deaf-and-blind Teresa Chan.<br /><br />"Be With Me" is very well filmed by Tan, using a Varicam camera. The film compositions are masterful. The film, almost entirely silent, has next to no dialogue. Characters move around, not in a realistic manner, but almost as if they are models under the instruction of a director, almost always looking into the screen and emoting: either loneliness or sadness. Unfortunately the characters don't act against each other. This kind of film has been seen before many times: in Tsai Ming-liang's films, in Khoo's protégé Royston Tan's "4:30" and elsewhere. Sadly, its ultra-slowness (essentially plot less) and use of a lento piano soundtrack simply doesn't appeal to me.<br /><br />To criticize "Be With Me" seems almost to negate the inspirational story behind it, that of Teresa Chan, who is blind and deaf and yet lives a fulfilling life despite all this, yet I'm afraid this film doesn't do anything much to me. I'm willing to applaud Chan's steadfast and courageous march in life and Tan's striking cinematography, but for a better take on the same subject-matter with more meat (without the two other tedious and distracting subplots), try Werner Herzog's "Land of Silence and Darkness" (1971).
'Be With Me' is almost the ultimate wallpaper movie. Just leave it running in the background. chat amongst yourselves and return to it whenever you like and at some point it'll end. <br /><br />Alas, as I watched it alone, and so I felt like I almost watched the world's worst, longest and most drippingly sentimental beer commercial by the time I just about managed to keep my eyes open as the end credits rolled; and I then managed (just a) a few more moments of wakefulness to witness a 'Thank you' to the movie's sponsors - which included Asia Pacific Breweries. Aha! Methought: How surprising is *that* - given all the shots of Tiger beer interspersed throughout this most forgettable washout of a movie? <br /><br />Meanwhile, dialogue spurts between individuals with occasional stabs at depth, but all too usually nothing of any particular advancement to the movie's overall story is said or witnessed. It's as if one could switch off at any moment and return at any later point and you'd really have missed nothing which would have been an unmissable contingency, or part of its plot, as far as the movie's overall progression was concerned. Thus the ultimate "wallpaper movie"!<br /><br />Well I wonder... What movie were those who positively reviewed this one watching? I wonder and continue to wonder... It certainly couldn't have been this arty to the point of artless Singaporean excuse for a camera's rolling. Allegedly, 'Be With Me' is supposed to be woven around the themes of "love, tragedy and redemption". But all I witnessed was boredom, a half baked screenplay with a smattering of gormless text messages, and the only redemption was that which occurred when this utterly useless movie ended. What a wistful waste of time, it ended up being! It was also said that the characters in this movie were fictitious except for Theresa Chan who is a "remarkable woman who has triumphed over adversities..." Well, no disrespect to Ms Chan, but given that she was such a marvellous & amazing character, why at all did the screenplay have to involve the stories of other characters without the most tenuous attempt to connect their lives together? Yet it still proved to be an almost insufferably boring movie whose highlights included the credits rolling. Rather than tying in the fates of all characters, I really felt that the movie ended up attempting the near impossible and evidently fell between stools as far as any viewer engagement could be concerned.<br /><br />I am generally an art-house movie fan and don't usually object to slow pacing (of which here there is no shortage, believe you me!!). I hate such movies as 300, Transformers, Fight Club, but consider, e.g., Eric Rohmer as a great film maker. So I hope that puts my criticism into some perspective. Nonetheless, there was no redeemable feature whatsoever in the entire movie's conception and delivery which could prevent one's eyelids slowly drooping downwards as each minute of 'Be With Me' dripped by. Watch this movie if you need to feel like wasting time. Otherwise your life would be none the richer for having missed it. 3/10
I literally ran to watch it, expecting a film that will make me cry, or touch my heart.<br /><br />What I found was not heart-rending, but a lame exploitation of 1 strong human character.<br /><br />Interwined between a pair of young lesbians and an obese man.<br /><br />In a setting that is substantially devoid of sound not to mention acting of the most common.<br /><br />It was not entirely BAD, as I have seen worst - and I left the cinema $10 poorer but wiser - that a FILM well advertised is not the same as a FILM WELL-MADE.
This movie is about 3 stories put together revolving around 3 separate individuals. One of the worst movie that is available and even better if it is not available.<br /><br />The Good : 2 pretty lesbians actress 1 true and touching story about Theresa Chan<br /><br />The Bad :The main story that revolves around the blind and dear woman Theresa Chan does not need to be told in a movie format and more appropriate in a documentary format. No linkage between the 3 story lines. Minimum DIALOGUE in the film, substituted by SMSs and CHAT programs on PC. No cultural insight by the movie and it makes you forget even before you step out of the cinema.
With actors like Depardieu and Richard it is really a hard task to make a dull movie. But Weber is a master in setting a slow pace and making supposedly funny scenes without any wits and depth. This movie is high on story but low on character. You never get to know any of the characters except for superficial slapstick. Unfortunately Weber has no idea what slapstick is all about. His style could be described at hit and miss. Of course some people laugh when they see someone slip on a banana peel. Weber directs his humor at this lot. It is a shame how bad he uses good talent. Many good french comedians have been wasted away by mediocre directors.
For those of us who are part of the real world of ballet - this film is completely ridiculous. Ivan Kirov was basically a gymnast, not a ballet dancer. Viola Essen at the time was with Ballet Theater, now American Ballet Theater, and a reasonably good dancer, but except for Dame Judith Anderson, the acting is amateurish and Checkov is completely over the top .... embarrassingly so! I saw this film at age 14 and at that time, never having seen a ballet, I was very impressed. However, later in life, long after I had completed my own career as a dancer - I purchased the video tape of it, curious as to what it was like after so many years. I couldn't believe how naive Hollywood could be about the world of ballet. But it was made in the mid 40s, before The Red Shoes or The Turning Point, the latter giving a true picture of the ballet world. The entire cast of Spectre have now passed away ... Ivan Kirov (not his real name)dying at age 79. It was his one and only film, thereafter being kept by a Chicago business man .. so the rumor goes.
I do not find this show at all funny. I actually think it is much worse than any of the other terrible Disney channel sit-coms right now. Charlotte Arnold is an interesting choice to play Sadie, because she can't act. The jokes on this show are terribly unfunny, and it makes it even worse when the only cast member that has a little bit (and I mean little bit) of acting talent is Justin Bradley as Sadie's brother Hal. Jasmine Richards and Michael D'Ascenzo portray Sadie's friends. There both really stupid and just terrible actors. Two words that can really describe this show is terribly corny. It's corny humor that only little girls find funny because their brains have not developed yet. Now I've explained my hatred for the acting and the horrible humor, what's next? The whole premise of the show is a stupid idea. She changed again (not so sciencey an Ben-loving) and suddenly nobody recognizes her? It's moronic. In summation, I hate this show, however little girls who do not have a concept of funny will enjoy it, so I guess that's what they're going for over quality. Although i can say as much as, the first season is clearly better than the second.<br /><br />BOTTOM LINE: JUST DON'T WATCH ANY OF IT.<br /><br />My rating: Awful show. TV G. 30 mins.
The first time I saw a commercial for this show was when my sisters were watching the Kim Possible movie. The commercial showed Sadie and her friend discussing the meaning of the word nothing.It is one of the stupidest commercials I've ever seen. Basically, they go back and forth with lines like "Nothing is a thing, so technically nothing is something,". When I saw that, I figured it would be yet another lame Lizzie Maguire knockoff by Disney. But I had no idea how bad.<br /><br />Fast forward about 3 weeks, when my sister turns on the T.V. Naturally Sadie happened to be on. What I saw had to be one of the most unintentionally funny shows I've ever seen. How'd it go? Something like this:<br /><br />Sadie, a vegetarian tree hugger, has an incredibly unhealthy,obsessive crush on the very monotone and poorly acted acted out Owen. For some reason, her friend Margret decides that Owen needs to be "tested" to see if he is as good as he seems. What exactly do these tests involve? Well, one thing they do is put a cockroach on her notebook. Why? So that she can be squeamish and ask her monotone knight in shining armor to get it off.How is this a test? Because if he squishes it, he's mean and uncaring and doesn't believe that bugs, as Sadie puts it, "are innocent animals too,". THEY SPREAD DISEASE AND PESTILANCE! THEY DESERVE TO BE SQUISHED! But of course, Owen just brushes it out the window, and Sadie is still in love. But that's not all! Margret says he needs to be challenged one more time, on something that "no guy can pass". This one involves shoving scarves down their pants( yes, you read that right)and walking buy him to see if he notices their large butts. Predictably, he doesn't notice, and we see Sadie in her bizarre and strange notebook world. Sadie decides that she wants to be with Owen forever,raise a family with him, and as she puts it, "live like wood ducks with their brood,". That's just plain wrong.<br /><br />Bottom line: This is the strangest, most insane show I've watched. For those who like to make fun of dumb stuff, you'll love it. For anyone else, skip this show.
Naturally Sadie sucks big time, I have no idea what the people were thinking about when they wrote this garbage. This is not funny, its not cute in any way shape or form, its just disturbing and a waste of money. Sadie is such a bad actor. I lost all my brain cells watching this show, it honestly seemed that this show is forced, it was such a huge over hyped pile of crap.<br /><br />This show sucks.<br /><br />Its a waste of time, and money, don't bother watching this garbage. The characters are so stupid and ridiculous. In the first season its just dumb and stupid then when i saw the second season i just couldn't take anymore, it made me want to kill Charlotte Arnold. The second season is juts absolutely a disgrace to Disney This show is also a racist piece of sh**
Every time I by pass this show on TV, I absolutely and truthfully want to claw my eyes out, and rip my ears off.It's so unbelievably horrible.The jokes aren't funny, the acting is completely terrible, and the whole entire show is one major disappointment.I hate Charlotte Arnold's guts, and I just want to punch her in the face or stab her with a knife every time I hear her talk. She is a no talent, low IQ, big waste on society, and I think she would be doing the world a favor if she just shuts the f*ck up and went away for a long time. Please, I say this with all my heart, DO NOT EVEN WATCH ONE EPISODE OF THIS SHOW!!!!!!It's not even worth 30 minutes of your life, and there are thousands of better things to do, including killing yourself, than watch this show for half an hour.
OMG what has Disney done lately..most of their new shows really suck. Suite life of Zach and Cody are pretty good but other shows like Cory in the house, Wizards of Waverly Place suck and are unwatchable.<br /><br />Naturally Sadie is just beyond stupid and dumb. Its about a teenager named Sadie who likes science and grows up and goes through her everyday life. There are her friends Margaret and Rain and her older annoying brother Hal. There all annoying and stupid. Especially Margaret who thinks she's the most popular girl in school and thinks she's soo pretty...its just beyond awful. I hate all the seasons of this show, its just terrible in every way (the first season was better though).<br /><br />If you value your life, you wouldn't watch this crap, its painful and stupid
when this show first came to Disney, i love it started watching all the time. It quickly became one of my favorite Disney shows ever but this show somehow transformed into something that is disturbing and disappointing.<br /><br />I do now find any of the second and third season fun, they seem like a re-watch of some teens shows. I hat that garbage. The first season was very unique because it showed Sadie who loved science and animals and creatures. The first season was very entertaining. I mostly don't like the second season because of Ben. He annoys me and pisses the crap outta me. The plot in the second season also sucks and is just awful
Naturally Sadie is by far the worst show i have ever seen, it is such a piece of sh** and loaded with complete bullsh**. I didn't find any of the gags to be funny or somewhat clever, it was all awful jokes.<br /><br />The acting sucks, many of the characters sucked at acting, Charlotte Arnold (Sadie) is such a terrible actor, the other characters suck too (Magaret, Rain, Hal).<br /><br />The plot isn't unique and creative at all and the show is soo very much predictable. This is one of the worst shows made of all time, it shouldn't have even been made, the idiots who are responsible of writing this garbage should get fired (if they already didn't) The fist season was actually watchable but the second season was just a disaster, its too hard to watch this show, it is beyond awful.
When I first saw this show i thought to my self " What is this!!!!!?" Its one of those shows where there is a perfect fake high school world with stupid problems that are considered "huge". Then there's Sadie. This complete misfit for her friends and well her family. Shes completely obsessed with nature not that thats a bad thing but she compares high school students to animals! like what is that!? also they made her another Lizzie Miguire clone ( yeah because the world definitely needs another one of those!) shes also very perfect like most TV girls are which makes me sick! So please this is a stupid show it makes no sense just skip it unless you liked Lizzie McGuire or any other shows like that.
i think that it was just like Lizzie McGuire except that it was a lot worse than the original. the only thing that is different is that she likes animals and science and all of that geeky stuff. everything else is the same. she likes a guy that she is too nervous to ask out. and later she finds a guy that does like her and she has no clue. i think that people need to quit making that same kind of shows. and another thing that is the same is that it is always thaw the friends are two girls and one guy. don't people think that these things get old and tired and these ideas keep being used over and over and yet they keep using these ideas. but i do know people who watch this show and i know that they like them.
this show is pretty alright and fun to watch, its a great Disney channel shows and sometimes entertaining.<br /><br />I really enjoyed the first season but i hated the second and third seasons. This show has completely changed around. In the first season it was more about science and animals, all that is gone now in the season and third season. Its more about her life and dating. Ever since that gay kid (Ben) came along, this show has sucked. The writers took a perfectly good kid show and changed it to a crappy teen comedy. Disney took a turn for the worse. I cant stand to watch the newest episodes anymore, they're all garbage.
this is an alright show to watch, its not the best nor the worst. I've watched it for a long time and i don't like any of the new stuff. This show has changed into some teen trash and is living much differently. I dislike that crap..i have no IQ why they completely changed the theme of this show. The first season was really enjoyable to watch and is was partly amusing. The 2nd season is just out of this world dumb. I seriously don't know why the writers/directors changed this show up. many more people liked the 1st season better than the 2nd and 3rd. I will only watch the first season of this show from now on, whenever i see a new episode, ill change the f*ckin channel...ya heard me! It gets a 3/10 because i somewhat enjoyed the 1st season but hated the 2nd and 3rd
Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are the most famous comedy duo in history, and deservedly so, so I am happy to see any of their films. Ollie is recovering from a broken leg in hospital, and with nothing else to do, Stan decides to visit him, and take him some boiled eggs and nuts, instead of candy. Chaos begins with Stan curiously pulling Ollie's leg cast string, and manages to push The Doctor (Billy Gilbert) out the window, clinging on to it, getting Ollie strung up to the ceiling. When the situation calms down, Stan gets Ollie's clothes, as the Doctor wants them both to leave, and he also manages to sit on a syringe, accidentally left by the nurse, filled with a sleeping drug, which comes into effect while he is driving (which you can tell is done with a car in front of a large screen. Filled with some likable slapstick and not too bad (although repetitive and a little predictable) classic comedy, it isn't great, but it's a black and white film worth looking at. Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were number 7 on The Comedians' Comedian. Okay!
Frederick Forsyth's books are always so intricately plotted, with twists and turns, and usually a great surprise ending. This adaptation had none of that.<br /><br />So much of what was great in the book (the history of Monk and the betrayed agents; the plot to influence the outcome of the Russian election) were completely missing in this adaptation. Instead, there's this completely new plot about bio-weapons that was a yawner.<br /><br />Forsyth's protagonists always operated in the shadows, forever just slightly beyond the reach of the antagonists. The joys of his books have always been the machinations of carrying out their mission. This film resigned itself to gunfights and car chases early on.<br /><br />Swayze's Monk might as well have hung a sign around his neck saying "I AM A SECRET AGENT" for all the attention that he called to himself during the film. And with all of that attention, the amount of time that it took the bad guys to catch up to him was surprising.<br /><br />Granted there was some energy to this film, which is why I'm giving it a "3" instead of a "1". It was also great to see some underutilized pros like Patrick Bergin, Ben Cross, Michael York, and Barry Morse.<br /><br />I hope that someday, someone will once again do justice to a Forsyth film adaptation like "Day of the Jackal" did.
I had just finished reading the book, and was really looking forward to seeing this TV adaptation which was broadcast on the Hallmark Channel on Monday night (5/30/05). The key to the whole book was the manifesto which was stolen by the man with steel teeth, but I watched for an hour (out of 3 1/2) and I saw the man with the steel teeth but I never saw him steal a manifesto. I saw someone steal some virus but what did that have to do with the book? It's too bad because this film had great production values and a good cast, but isn't the idea of turning a book into a movie (TV or film) to get the people who read the book to be part of the audience. They only kept me for an hour. I thought the premise of the book was great and what did they do but throw out the whole premise. This book had a great McGuffin (to paraphrase Hitchcock) but they ignored it. And it said in the titles that Forsyth was involved in the production. They sure must have paid him a LOT of money.
Such a BS movie. It's just some stupid anti-Russian propaganda, with a completely BS plot, not in any way related to the book. <br /><br />It looks like the production team got more money from the people who ordered the movie, than they will ever be able to get from selling the movie. The plot of the movie includes references to some of the real recent events in Russian and other parts of Eastern Europe, but puts them in such way that has nothing to do with reality. It looks like the movie is a brainwashing instrument, which helps to portray Russia as a place populated by evil people that always dream about killing someone. <br /><br />An of course there are hundreds of stupid mistakes like using the map of USSR instead of Russia when running news reports, showing a crowd with Ukrainian flags and commenting that it's Russian elections, etc. <br /><br />Also there are many bizarre episodes (i.e. a character runs though the Red Square in Moscow and in a second he is in downtown Sophia, Bulgaria).
I recently rented this promising mini series, I didn't even know they had adapted it for television. I was really looking forward to it since the book Icon is one of the best spy thrillers I have ever read. What a disappointment it was. The plot only loosely resembles the one in the book, the characters are completely miscast and there's some appalling acting. A shame really. The story behind Icon is perfect for the silver screen, but I think television budgets just aren't big enough for a decent adaptation of this spectacular book.<br /><br />Forsyth deserves much, much better than this. Avoid and stick to the book, which is a must-read.
I just have watched Icon on DVD and despite being a great book, the movie is a weak substrate from it. Those responsible for the writing should be banished to Siberia. Why they maul the great story with all kind of C-film subploys which are totally irrelevant to the story is totally beyond me.<br /><br />Yet the filmmakers and cast do there best to make something out of it, but at the end the film was not satisfying at all.<br /><br />Can someone please make a decent movie out of this to show how it is done. I'm sure that the crowds will rally for such a masterpiece novel turned into a book, not into a cheap C-movie.
I just finished reading Forsyth's novel 'Icon'. I thought it was one of the most in depth, detailed, and page-turning books I ever read, definitely in my top 10. I acquired a DVD version of the book starring Mr. Swayze. OK, let me first point out that to fit a decent adaptation of the novel into 2.5 hours film time would of been impossible, so I understand the teams reason to sway from the book version and differ. However, when I say "differ" what I really should say is "take the characters from the book, add a few, leave a few out, take away the book's plot, add a modern new plot, add Frederick Forsyth's name in there somewhere". Im not saying this was a bad picture, far from it, some of the effects were top notch and the acting wasn't half bad. The story sucked and didn't rely on logic or reality. Forsyth's novel was so good and real and altered the facts of reality instead of exaggerating them.. This could of been so much more if it had taken its time and been made into say a 10 part series. If you haven't read the book then expect a decent TV movie with a good acting cast, if you have read the book then try and forget it when watching this.
This is the perfect example of how a great book is turned into a poor film. The direction just gives the impression that the film was made up as they went along and Patrick Swaze is so wooden you can almost see the puppet strings on his body.<br /><br />Spy Vs Spy films are not - or should not - be about car chases and shootings, the bad guys in this movies are really bad shots and miss the main characters even when at point blank range.<br /><br />Even the action shots are just a cliché with the usual mounting sidewalks and crashing through tables and chairs - yawn.<br /><br />I got half way through and switched off - completely bored.
the movie is complete disaster. i don't know who write scripts for movies like this one, but i would definitely love to meet one of them and talk to him a little bit. perhaps script writers really don't know sh*t about situation in foreign countries in present or recent past? or they just don't give a damn and write everything that they think it's interesting.<br /><br />a great and everlasting formula with mad dictator + 1 lonely hero (an American of course) might seem like a good idea, but come on?! we had such a tyrant in serbia (milosevic) who did a lot of bad things to it's people, but i simply can't imagine him yelling "shoot them, shoot them" with such a barbaric passion, like in medieval times. maybe they wanted to show how evil he was, but it was a stupid idea. much better impression would be if he just did it in cold blood, like the real monsters do.<br /><br />the list of nonsense is too long, but the funniest thing is: no matter how many national TV stations there are in Russia, Russian president watch American SNN (CNN) news?? OMFG!<br /><br />give me a break!<br /><br />burn this piece of rubish please!<br /><br />AWFUL!
FREDDY FORSYTH has come up with a storyline which will suit the mood of the West's suspicions about Putin's Russia. Forsyth installs a nasty guy as the Ruski president who wants to return the country - not so much to Stalin's Communism but more to Hitlerian Fascism. In fact, his Political Manifesto could have come straight out of Mein Kampf rather than Marx. And, the loon has the latest weapons of biological destruction to achieve the ethnic cleansing pogrom of the Russian Federation. American mercenaries connive with the Russian Prez to realise his fanatical, genocidal dream, but then enter Dirty Dancing's Pat Swayze...and,yep,things get really down and dirty. He's a former US operative-turned-drifter,Jason Monk, who is enlisted by the British Government to see what the Russians are up to. As a corny sidebar, Swayze's character who is no Monk (!)has sired a Russian beauty Elena (played by the gorgeous Marta Kondova) on his previous missions to the former Commie state. Hardman Swayze does a passable job in setting out to defeat the evil Russians. But young unknown actress Marta Kondova steals the flick as his nubile, 18-year-old Russian daughter Elena who helps dad root out the terror threatening her beloved Mother Russia.
I have not seen and heard the original version.<br /><br />I am no Russian, but I am learning right now.<br /><br />I also have no preferences for Russia, Bulgaia, the US etc.<br /><br />But what I have to mention is:<br /><br />In the German synchronisation in the whole film all Russians speak with Russian accent. Americans talk "Hochdeutsch" (without accent)! I have never heard such a stupidity! Besides, this is boring.<br /><br />I hope the original is better.<br /><br />The rest is a simple thriller, not really good ideas. Like a cheap version of a James Bond film.
When I saw that Icon was on TV, I was surprised. I know that the first clue of where it was headed was the fact that it was on the Hallmark Channel - Has to be said - sorry!! I was hopeful when I saw that FF himself was the Exec Producer but very quickly saw that the only real way that the TV movie and the book were similar were in the name and the character names only. The TV plot was a ho-hum to say the least but I concur that in and of itself, the action was worth a 3 stars. In my personal opinion, Mr. Swayze could have portrayed a valid Monk, however I think that in order to do the movie justice, it would have been a far longer movie, and I don't think Hollywood itself would have gone for the plot of discreditation by subterfuge. A case in point is the terrible film version of The Sum of All Fears - need I say more?
I would like to say something different about this movie. I saw comments how beautiful is Russia and the views from Russia have been great. Hey guys this is not Russia it's Bulgaria more specific the capital Sofia. So this is not Russia it's my country. About the movie - well in Bulgaria, maybe except the Grey Zone - all movies from American directors are in one word awful like this one of course. It's a shame that Patrick Swayze has to play in such a low budget movies. Most of the actors are Bulgarians but really this movie has no plot twist has no energy what can i say-weak and boring movie a cliché not more. Hey people remember it's not Russia in reality it's Bulgaria.
Its gonna be hard to make this fill 10 lines.... But ill give it a try (just to prevent others from making the same mistake as i did - to watch this (awful and boring) movie.<br /><br />I like Patrick swayze - he did a excellent performance in films like Ghost - Dirty Dancing - Point Break - North & South (TV series), but in this movie..... ARGH....This movie is so booooooring, the acting is awful - the script sucks - well.. i cant even find ONE good thing, nothing, absolutely NOTHING. I was watching it with 2 other friends and we all agreed that this was one of the most boring films we had ever seen, and the fact that it lasts for more then 3 hours (which we didn't know) - when part 1 was over and it said "to be continued", we almost cried "nooooooooooooo, do we have to watch 90 minutes more of this movie!!!!".<br /><br />Its painful to see this movie: At no time do you get the impression that the actors are Russians, the action scenes are extremely bad. The ONLY good scene is when the truck explodes in the beginning of the movie! The rest is CRAP! GO clean your toilet, instead of watching this movie (and don't come running, crying if you do see this movie - you were pre warned!) Personally i would recommend Patrick Swayze to call his agent and have them recall this movie - its that bad.
along the history of cinema, there's been a few films that deceived the viewer, such as hitchcock's "stage fright", alejandro amenábar's "abre los ojos", David fincher's "the game" and this one "ausentes" ("absent"). to begin with, i don't like this kind of films, i feel like somebody is trying to pull my leg.<br /><br />furthermore, after seeing this film one doesn't know what happened, is such a confusing film. kubrick's "the shining" may be a better or a worse movie, but definitely is more honest than this load of pretentious and dubious situations.<br /><br />technically is fine -nice photography, fair performance and so on, but the script is so poor i wonder what did the producers see to carry on and shoot this crap.<br /><br />and this film remarks the 3 guys that wrote the script (calparsoro, loriga and quiroga) are lost in cinema trying to make a masterpiece -or trying to do something to fulfill their stomachs, awaiting for more personal projects.
'The Shining' has wit, visual flair and an iconic performance by Jack Nicholson. 'Ausentes,' however, has none of these things; although it does borrow from its classic forebear; to wit, a man hacking through a door and a woman running around shrieking while clutching a huge kitchen knife. Unlike Stanley Kubrick's great psychological horror film, 'Ausentes' is a work which resonates with a singular lack of genius. It is magnificently, comically awful; it makes the Spice Girls movie look like a work of vital art. 'Ausentes' is the tale of a family that moves to a gated community in the suburbs. All is to be well with the world. They will live in peace and tranquillity; they will calmly go about their business away from those mean old city streets. But no. Ariadna Gill's character Julia starts getting spooked by those things that insist on going bump in the night, by empty supermarkets and doors that close themselves; and her husband Samuel, played by Jordi Molla, switches in an instant from laid-back family man to wild-eyed permanently unshaven nutter, injecting Julia with a drug to keep her under his sudden cosh. Molla, much respected as an actor, is absolutely dreadful in this. Comic rather than menacing, he simply cannot pull off a threatening expression. He just come across as a barroom slime ball who's had one drink too many. So is there anything to redeem this film? No. The script is clunky, the plot non-existent and the cast without merit. Completely without tension and full of be scared now moments, 'Ausentes' is an exercise in how not to make a psychological thriller. It is ridiculous and overblown, but as one of the most unintentionally hilarious films of recent years it's well worth a watch.
When I first saw the trailer for this film, I really wanted to see it. I thought some of the director's other works were quite good, but I must say I was disappointed. The plot involves a young woman, who lives with a widowed father and two his two sons. They move into a well-guarded community, yet all is not as it seems; a sort of Twin Peaks. The woman begins to see, or not see, things an people. During the first reel, I had a hypothesis, and thought, "this can't be the whole reason?" Well, the ending lived up, or better DOWN, and gave us what I felt was a truly weak final act. The sound mixing and quality is excellent. Saw it in a THX Certified Theatre, and was impressed.. by the audio, and only the audio. The picture is missing substance.
I don't know why all the previous comments are approval of this movie. IT IS , well not by far but...,THE SUCKIEST MOVIE I'VE SEEN LATELY, full of clichés, bad acting, actually no...very bad acting and has a silly plot...If I would have seen it in a cinema I would have walked out after the first 20 minutes. I f you hate somebody , make him/her watch this movie...that's how bad it is. A girl who has an imaginary boy/friend that gives up a relationship with a real one because her imagination is jealous....but i think it figures...she takes after her parents who also have some mental issues...plus the character who is supposed to be I think the laughing stock of it, the thing that should make you laugh, cal's room mate is a serious nut case and just makes me feel sorry for him...and the whole movie
I expected a lot more out of this film. The preview looked interesting so I decided to check it out. Bottom line is that "The Adventures of Sebastian Cole" only had one decent thing: Adrian Grenier.<br /><br />I really like Grenier and found his performance to be very pleasing. The character is designed well, but everything else sort of just drifts along through the duration of the movie. Clark Gregg is really good, but I don't think that his character was explained too well. I mean there's not too much to explain; he wants to become a woman. Still, something was missing. <br /><br />The obvious low budget of the film was nice to see. I enjoyed that the movie was filmed on just a script (a bad one at that) and just a few actors. It was a nice change.<br /><br />While the main idea of the film was actually okay, it became disappointing to see a lot of scenes that had nothing to do with it just thrown in here and there. Like I said, the script looked promising and I must say that I was interested where director Tod Williams was headed, but it was basically a very slow movie with not too good of dialogue.<br /><br />"Sebastian" started to look good towards the end, but again, it fell right back down into a hole. The acting was mostly good, the writing is in need of some work, yet the budget of the film helped it out in the long run.<br /><br />I would recommend this to someone if they wanted to watch a quiet movie with a strong lead character, but other than that I would stay away. Personally, I wouldn't watch it twice.
The Adventures of Sebastian Cole is about a boy named Sebastian (Adrian Grenier) who fancies himself becoming a writer at some point, given he actually puts effort into it. This movie is presumably the years where he gets his material for writing, the adventure years, hence the title and the previous quote. In it we experience the very typical coming of age stories and warnings of loves, drugs, and sex...changes. Yeah, there's a slight twist here that is very interesting, and that is that Sebastian's step dad (Clark Gregg) very early on makes a rough decision to get a sex-change that has a huge impact on Sebastian's family and his relationship with his step-dad.<br /><br />Clark Gregg plays Hank/Henrietta, Sebastian's step-father and is very good in the part, very believable without being over the top, which is a route this film could've taken rather easily. Thankfully they didn't. Adrien Grenier, who I'm only familiar with from Entourage, is also very good in his part as Sebastian, and together, he and Gregg have a great relationship on screen. It's always quite engaging to watch these guys (?) relationship as it develops and is genuinely heartbreaking at times.<br /><br />And that's the best of what this film has to offer. Unfortunately, it brings with it some mediocre camera work, direction, and cinematography. It's not bad, but it's a far cry from being good, or memorable in the slightest. The characters are also thinly written, and it's clear from the get go how most of the arcs will pan out. The only truly fascinating character through and through is Clark Gregg's Hank/Henrietta. I've already said Grenier did well acting-wise, but the character of Sebastian is not only not engaging, but is completely unlikeable. I don't honestly see why anyone in the audience would route for his character in anything he does. He mopes, whines, cheats, lies, and lacks any aspirations other than to be a complete slacker. It'd be different if he was maybe a side-character or comic relief, but to have him as the main focus and to be asked to take the character seriously? Come on.<br /><br />And I don't really hold it against this film, but I just want to say...pick a different song in all these films, Hollywood! No more "Where Is My Mind" by the Pixies, we all know it's a good song, stop using it in every other film!<br /><br />I feel like I could just keep tearing more and more of this film apart, but in all honesty I didn't hate it. I just didn't really care for it, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. The Adventures of Sebastian Cole isn't a bad or boring film, it's just not a very good or engaging one either. It's very uneven and the script could've used quite a bit of work. I guess the point of the film is to be a loose sort of look at the life of a writer before he made it, and it worked...if that writer put out pieces of fiction that I wouldn't want to read.
This should be re-named "Everybody Loves Sebastian". The 1983 rural go-nowhere town high school junior (or senior? - they seemed to flip flop on that one) with weird hair and "Leo-like" good looks has a big plate full of issues. His step-dad announces definite plans to have a sex-change operation, upon which his mom calls the marriage quits; Sebastian is called the "f" word by everyone and their mother, all-the-while "kissing around" with various girls, getting high on Ready-Whip at a supermarket, and saving a "strawberry" prostitute from the clutches of her ruthless pimp.<br /><br />Sebastian's "buddies" make Eddie Haskal look like a choir boy; bad association doesn't get much worse. Sebastian seems to go for "Harold's" suicide attempts record (although he won't admit suicidal tendanccies). For no apparent reason the genius level SAT scoring Sebastian MUST graduate a year early, although he has no clue about the future, nor does he want to attend college (what gives with this nonsense?).<br /><br />This film is a look into a few weeks in the life of someone who is PRETTY MESSED UP. The final scene suggests that things will be alright, although the HOW is left entirely up to the viewer.<br /><br />The makers of this film seem to bank solely on the undisputed appeal of the very attractive male lead. The "story" leaves a lot to be desired. Looking for "what will this gorgeous kid do next...?" doesn't exactly satisfy. The lackluster production values just don't measure up to other films, independent or otherwise. A low budget and weak story need more than a pretty face to carry it through. The "results" of this project are forgettable and an insult to intelligent cinema fans.
I love comedies and I love independent films, but this was much too slow and the humor was extremely regional. I guess It would have been better if the main characters were likeable, but they were just typical gen-x slacker types, just like the people that have been causing trouble in high schools for forty years... I can understand High Praise for a young indie film-maker when it is deserving, but this is an extremely average film.
I saw this movie when it first came to the theaters in 1988 and though I knew it wasn't of award winning caliber...I kinda liked it. It tales the tale of 5 former cub scouts reuniting to take on the one task they never got to finish as kids - which is to climb Mt. Whitehead. Of course now the cub scouts are all grown up and have developed their personalities in a variety of ways, but none too differently than they were as children. Richard Lewis is still neurotic, Richard Belzer is still a playboy, Franklyn Ajaye is still sort of the Dear Abby of the group, and Tim Thomerson is still the surfer dude of the group. Of course the top billed star is Louie Anderson, a "true believer" in everything Cub Scout related. He still lives in the same house with his mother, still goes over the Cub Scout manual daily, is brave, reverent and clean, and is the one who reunites the others for one more grand adventure in Scouting. Compounding their task, however, is the Grunski brothers, two bullies drummed out of the Cub Scouts by the above mentioned. By coincidence they run into their old den and decide to harass them a bit, albeit harmlessly. Not so harmlessly is three escaped convicts, who think Pack 7 is from the FBI and are intent on wiping them out. All in all, the movie still has bits of charm. Observe Richard Lewis trying to get comfortable on a folding cot, for example, and you have a really funny bit going for you. Upon further review, the entire film needed more of that type of observational humor. It doesn't hold up well after all these years but still remains a guilty pleasure.
This is absolutely the worst comedy I have ever seen. It's hard to explain though, because (unless you've seen this) I bet you've never seen a comedy that was not good or bad; it's just there (That's the original part-not good or bad, just there)! <br /><br />Let me say that I have seen every comedian appearing in a main role, and like them all. That's what makes this such a mystery. The supporting leads are actually acting (although the dialog is bad). The only character that is fairly good is the one played by John Goodman. He does a pretty good job with what little dialog he has, and actually has one funny line (I won't spoil the only funny line in the movie, in case you decide to watch anyway. It involves a pancake.) The big mysteries are the main leads. I won't call them characters, because no characters have been developed. This script is so juvenile that they don't even bother to give the leads fictional names. They all just use their own. They don't even seem to be trying to act. It's as though they are all reading out loud to each other from scripts that the local junior high sent to them. I actually wrote a paper like this for my English class when I was thirteen-it wasn't funny either.<br /><br />Bottom line, just don't bother to rent this. It isn't funny. It doesn't even have the kind of bad dialog you can groan to. I just sat there and stared through the whole thing. It was so boring I couldn't even work up any irritation at how bad it was. I can't imagine how this is even getting a rating of 4 here.
Five guys who were in the cub scouts together reunite years later to go camping. Were they run into their childhood nemeses as well as escaped convicts in this supreme unfunny supposed comedy. Most of the cast are content to simply phone it in, and don't really seem to care about the film in the least. The writers were so lazy that the names of the characters are, for the most part, the name of the actors that respectively play them. Richard Lewis's shtick gets really old REALLY quick. Even the late great character actor, Brion James can't save this stinker. (Even though he's one of the few actors in the film that doesn't totally embarrass himself) I hardly cracked a smile, much less had anything that would reasonably be even misconstrued as a laugh. Awful.<br /><br />My Grade:F
This film is not one of those films so bad you get annoyed and mad because it seems to be so up its own arse and yet it completely not funny. It's just that there is nothing of interest in this film. There are no real jokes that make you amused, you just watch for 80 minutes, then turn it off. I bought this on very budget DVD and I'm glad because it's not worth much. This isn't even one of those films that's so bad you can watch it with friends when getting drunk/high and have a good giggle. I didn't hate it like I hate some films, but it is rather boring, and not worth investing any time in.<br /><br />The only people who voted 10 on the votes for this film must have been connected to it somehow because I cannot imagine anyone actually liking this film other than small children passing time
Bad, bad, bad. How do movies like this get made? Badly written, poorly acted; I could go on, but why bother? As an aside, note that the characters' first names are the same as the actors playing them : this is a dead giveaway that no one on the set is even interested enough in their role to bother learning someone else's characters names!
I had heard that this film was stylish and intriguing, but I just found it annoying. It's been a while since I've seen it (and hopefully I won't find out all my memories are wrong and I'm unjustly condemning this movie), but my memory is that the filmmakers tried to portray Leopold and Loeb as victimized by an anti-gay society, and that this somehow caused their horrible crime. I totally disagree with this point of view, and think it's unfair both to homosexuals and to Bobby Franks, the real victim of the story. I can't imagine why anyone would want to claim those two as martyrs. I also thought L&L were portrayed as a bit more sophisticated than they actually were--after all, they were teenagers who lived at home. The film places them in a kind of fantasy world that seems like it should be scored by Morrissey.<br /><br />I just read an interview with one of the filmmakers that implied the film's anachronisms, such as the push-button phones that characters used, were meant "to add Brechtian distance". They certainly do that, but I happened to find it highly irksome.<br /><br />Apparently a number of people found this movie interesting, but I would have preferred a less "stylish" and more realistic examination of the part homosexuality may have played in the Leopold & Loeb case.
Watched the director's cut last night...glad it was free rental, even a dollar would have been too much for me to pay to watch this attempt at "film noir". The anachronisms (modern telephones) were annoying to me, not clever, seeming more like budget constraints than anything else. The "non-traditional" casting I also found distracting. If I have to stop following the story to wonder "what the heck is the black chick/drag queen doing there?" then the storyteller has failed me. Again, not clever in my opinion but annoying and irritating, and very film school final project-ish. And for pete's sake if you are going to shoot in black and white at least use some of the techniques used in old films that take full advantage of not having color. There was no use of nuance in the lighting, no shades of gray, no depth, no texture...just black and just white...boring!
Swoon focuses on Leopold and Loeb's homosexual relationship - a facet of the case that has been mostly (and unjustly) ignored since their trial, even by Leopold himself in his autobiography. But, even in its treatment of this Swoon over does it by far. Worse, it twists, combines, and straight out alters the details of the case which will irritate anyone who knows much about it while at the same time managing to confuse those who are not familiar with it. While it is an interestingly made film, Swoon stinks.<br /><br />1 out of 10 - awful.
I'm desperately trying to stay awake while watching the movie Solomon Kane. I have about a 20 minutes to go. If it gets any better, I will come back here and let you know, but somehow I doubt that will happen. Solomon Kane looks like it is based on the video game Dark Watch, and it sounds like it is based on the video game Legacy of Kane, but unfortunately neither is true. I hear it is based on some comic book or graphic novel or pulp fiction or something else that I have never heard of, but whatever it is based on, there is nothing original in this excruciatingly boring movie. The atmosphere is stolen from the movie 300, which wasn't that great in the first place. The tedious overacting takes itself so seriously that it's nearly hypnotic, and to be clear I mean that in a bad way. The plot is practically non-existent: violent guy trying to be nonviolent meets friendly family, friendly family is murdered, violent guy becomes violent again. All the characters are stereotypes taken from Waterworld or Book of Eli or The Hills Have Eyes or, whatever, just choose another apocalyptic slash fantasy slash wizardry movie that you have seen and there you have it. Someone, somewhere, said, this is how to make a movie: use a blue filter to make everything look mysterious, add plenty of slow motion shots of horse hooves splashing in murky puddles, add snowflakes hovering around while two boring characters are speaking to each other, and oh yes rain pouring down dramatically to distract from the fact that nothing is really happening, and don't forget the black silhouettes walking toward us with fire blazing behind them, and lots of torches burning, and of course blurry fight scenes during which it's not clear what is actually happening because we don't have the budget for the gory special effects so just throw in the sound of metal clanking, and, oh, by the way, don't let any character live long enough for the audience to understand them, relate to them or sympathize with them, and cross fingers, hope that fans of sword and sorcery films will eat it up, even though it is complete doo doo, and go straight to video, do not pass GO . . .
As a big fan of most modern fantasy movies, I was really looking forward to this. I was not familiar with the character, although after hearing some general stories about the style of the comic and good reviews of the movie, I thought I was in for a real treat...<br /><br />From the moment that the lead character started to talk in his forced husky voice, I could tell straight away that I was not going to enjoy this movie. I found the story weak and predictable, the acting poor, the effects were very good for a small budget film, but did nothing for the overall plot.<br /><br />Maybe as a fan of the Comics you may get something more from this, otherwise I would suggest that you skip it and not waste you cinema fare on this boring adventure.
I was looking forward to this flick. Being an old Robert E Howard fan, mainly from a Conan stand-point. <br /><br />I was not expecting a great deal and thought they could not mess it up too much.... Oh dear - how wrong was I....<br /><br />The main flaw was it was fairly dull. It needed to zip along with a nice helping of supernatural goings-on, sword-fights and the like.<br /><br />You got some gore, but everything else was just pretty life-less. The middle section just seemed to involve 40 minutes in a muddy forest with slow plodding horse-drawn carts and even slower dialogue and character development!<br /><br />On the plus side = Costumes and effects were fine, but not enough to keep your interest.<br /><br />I think it would have been better to tone down the gore, up the tempo, and go for a 12A rating. As a Ten Year old boy, I may have liked this movie. Probably about the age I was first reading the Conan stories funny enough. Perhaps that says a lot about my anticipation of the film?<br /><br />Or....... Go really "Art-House" with tone, direction, etc. But that's fairly high-risk as far as Box Office is concerned.<br /><br />Oh well.... Perhaps the next Conan movie will make up for it?
I just went to see this movie with a friend. I quickly looked and read a short synopsis and thought it sounded interesting. We came out the movies not feeling very sure if we liked it not.<br /><br />The acting was good enough and connection with characters was OK. The main character I thought acted a lot like someone like Van Helsing. Yes it was pretty entertaining.<br /><br />But the plot I felt like it was used from other movies. The script was a bit weak, I'm not sure why every time something bad happens, the main character says "Oh my god" every time.<br /><br />The special effects worked well, but (sorry for this spoiler) the main monster at the main climax reminded me a lot of the Balrok out of Lord of the Rings.<br /><br />Overall, the movie was OK but I felt like it's been done already. Go and see buy all means but don't expect too much.
Michael Bassett's film 'Solomon Kane' (based on the character of the same name created by Robert E. Howard) is a disappointing Fantasy Action-Adventure film, that despite having a few scenes of genius falls flat with its awkward pacing, poor characterisation and general dullness. Solomon Kane (James Purefoy) is a mercenary of Queen Elizabeth's army fighting in Africa, where he comes face-to-face with the Devil's Reaper – a demon who collects the Devil's debts i.e. souls – refusing to go to hell just yet, he evades the Reaper and starts a new life in an English monastery. With this new life, Solomon has left-behind his culture of violence and bloodshed and instead now embraces the values of peace and non-values. But once he is expelled from the monastery due to the fear of the Devil's Reaper returning, he must travel back to his home in Devon and along the way he befriends a travelling family of puritans heading to the New World. On their journey through the British counties, the family is attacked, and their daughter Meredith (Rachel Hurd-Wood) is abducted by the evil sorcerer Malachi's army, which is lead on the front lines by the mysterious Masked Rider. Now a man of peace, Solomon must go back to his former life as a man of unrepentant violence and destruction to save Meredith.<br /><br />Despite having great source material to work from, and build upon to create potentially an exciting and enduring medieval action-adventure film, the film fails in three key areas. The pacing of this film is terrible, which may have a lot to do with its incredibly short run time of only one hour and forty minutes (and this is most likely a consequence of the fact that they wish to turn this film into a trilogy). Constantly jumping between of drama and self-characterisation to that of action and muddy bloodshed, somewhat kills the excitement of the action sequences. Instead of keeping the audience on the edge of their seats frothing with the eagle-eyed anticipation, the film instead feels incredibly subdued and, this follows on the next piece of criticism, dull. Despite being touted as an 'action-adventure' film or in some circles an 'action-epic', 'Solomon Kane' is almost most certainly not. The action is mundane and dull, and is generally finished before you have the chance to admire the beauty of a decapitation. Finally, aside from Solomon himself, there is very little characterisation within this film. For example we know little and because of this, care little, about the young woman that Soloman sets out on his journey to save. And I imagine again the filmmaker would refer this criticism to the fact that there is most likely going to be a second film which will hopefully touch upon these aspects that this film surely missed.<br /><br />It isn't an entirely terrible film however. James Purefoy is gives a fantastic performance as Solomon, the mercenary who must decide whether or not to fall back on his conscience or his blade, and how his decisions will impact not just upon himself, but those around him as well. While respect, admiration, and acknowledgement must also go to Bassett and his crew as well, for creating vivid locations that beautifully reflects the period in which they are filming. At times, it is hard not to get carried away with admiring the beauty of the locations, shot composition and mise-en-scene at show here. Which certainly shows that a lot of time and effort has been placed into this film, unfortunately however that is not to say the same for the story and characters at hand. 'Solomon Kane' certainly had the potential to be something more than simply an 'action-epic,' however it seems that once again the lack of any real depth in the story and characters has resulted in Michael Bassett creating nothing more than a one-dimensional look at swordplay during the Medieval period.
Just saw this at the cinema. I haven't read the books. There is nothing new about this film at all. <br /><br />the bad guys seem to die with a couple of slashes no matter how many times our hero has been stabbed with a big sword he keeps on going looking the same (ish)! There are several action scenes but they are very fake. filmmakers seem to be under the impression that whenever they cant be bothered to choreograph a fight scene they just move the camera up close, move fast and turn the music up......... This leaves me feeling conned yet again.<br /><br />I admire them for attempting to tackle a dark storyline without the normal Hollywood cheese but I'm sorry to say the filmmakers have failed miserably. The characters are 2 dimensional. We hardly get to know them or feel for them at all. The lead has a charming farmers accent oo arrr..... though it seems he hasn't got much to say...<br /><br />Don't bother watching this unless you are bored and got it half price from blockbusters....
This movie is called "Solomon Kane". Which it isn't. The main character wears a hat, but that's all he has in common with Robert Howard's character Solomon Kane as known from early pulp magazines and lots of publications ever since these days. It is a fantasy movie, not really that bad and it might easily have passed with a rather good review - if it hadn't been called Solomon Kane. The hero is a newly invented character who definitely is not SK. The story is not Robert Howard, neither.<br /><br />As a fantasy movie it is one more movie following the traditions of the genre: simple story, poor CGI, poor actors, poor directing. Yet it can be fun, you know: 'the cheaper they are, the better they are'. But since it is called Solomon Kane, I cannot accept it. Imagine a Lord-of-the-Rings movie with a hero Bilbo who fights the black sorcerer Saugalf with the help of his dwarf friend Aragorn and the beautiful heroine Shadowfax. And with a final fight where the three use a magical ring to kill the evil sorcerer who has transformed into the dragon Gondorian. Imagine that. This is exactly what this movie has done with Robert Howard's character Solomon Kane.<br /><br />I'd give it a 4 stars review if it was just another horror movie, but since it is called Solomon Kane, I can only rate it 3 stars.
I realize most people don't know who Solomon Kane is and that the film is pitched at that much larger audience. But then why bother to call it "Solomon Kane" in the first place when the name has no marketable value? The characters certainly has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the R.E. Howard character. Except he has a big hat. That's where the resemblance ends.<br /><br />It's always a bad sign when any superhero/fantasy/sci-fi movie lingers over an origin story, but when you invent one whole cloth like this for a character who didn't have one at all, you've already missed the point completely. Kane is no longer even the fanatical Christian warrior of the stories, but rather a formerly bad guy who is trying to save his soul (this part is in the opening scene).<br /><br />With the most basic character elements changed or simply ignored, the use of the name Solomon Kane is simply perplexing. Is it just so they can say "From the creator of Conan" and hope to plug into a budding franchise if the new "Conan" movie gets off the ground? Ignoring the complete departure from the stories, the movie is competent if utterly generic for the first half but then devolves into sheer stupidity in the climactic scene which involves multiple super baddies (think three "boss levels" at the same time), none of whom is the least bit interesting or menacing.<br /><br />If I wasn't a Kane fan who was disappointed that they completely ignored the source material, I'd probably give the film a 3 or 4 instead of a 1. Even for the (majority of) viewers who will come into this knowing nothing about Kane, it's pretty thin gruel.
Is it really possible that so many people in this film believe that the girl is a witch? Just because she has dark hair and wears dark make up she is supposed to be a witch? And I got the impression that the film tries to present her as someone who is "different", someone nobody understands... She is just a teenager and some dumb girl in her high school says she is a witch and everyone believes her. Besides, Brandi is either portrayed very badly or the character itself is made to be so... Fake. She didn't convince me that she is not a witch, not that I would believe it in the first place. Everyone accuses her of being a witch and she acts like she is not entirely sure whether she is a witch or not. And the way they dressed her for the court - I see old ladies every day who wouldn't wear that even if it was the last outfit in the world! Brandi's brother also wasn't very convincing... But, you see, the important thing is, that "she put that bad, bad girl back on to the ground at the end of the film". "She has won the battle, proved to everyone she is different".<br /><br />This is probably one of the worst films I've watched in may life, way too shallow. I only watched it because there was nothing else on the TV at the moment, so I was condemned to this trash. Please, do not waste your time watching this film. When I saw the 7-star rating, I nearly fainted... It doesn't deserve it, compared to some other films which are also rated with 7 stars.
This sequel to the above - and the final entry in the "Kharis" series - is slightly more enjoyable on the whole but it's also more contrived (hell, we even get a singing barmaid/hostess!): Peter Coe is easily the least charismatic of the various Egyptian high priests we've seen during the course of these films, and Martin Kosleck as his henchman seems uninterested in the proceedings; Kurt Katch, then, is saddled with a ridiculous accent as the man who discovers the newly reincarnated Princess Ananka: the latter, in the form of Virginia Christine (later a much-used character actress) gets her most substantial 'role' and, indeed, the sequence of her resurrection from the swamps is a highlight not only of this film but the entire series. Unfortunately, here too, Chaney has precious little to do as once again the emphasis is on Ananka, as I've said; his Mummy (to which he returned most often at Universal - apart, naturally, from his signature role of The Wolf Man!) remains, without a doubt, his least memorable monster for the studio.
Unfortunately, this film is typical of the watering down of a good film by numerous sequels. Universal made several serial monster films in the 1940s, which were pale imitations of the original. The intelligent Egyptologist Imhotep has been replaced by a leg-dragging Frankenstein in mummy wrappings, who exhibits no signs of intelligent life. This film is entertaining in spots but if you have seen The Mummy (1932), you will be disappointed.
The Mummy's Curse is the last in the series of the Kharis mummy films, and it seems that creativity had run somewhat dry by the time they made this one. Kharis and his mate Ananka both end up in the bayous of Louisiana, and on his resurrection, he searches out his beloved princess. How they end up in Louisiana isn't made entirely clear, but with various people trying to find them, the viewer can be assured of some mummy murders.<br /><br />The Mummy's Curse was watchable, but it really wasn't anything special. I had the feeling throughout the movie that I'd seen this before. Quite frankly, apart from the original The Mummy with Boris Karloff, the Mummy movies are not my favorites among the old Universal horrors. They're not bad, but they do get a bit repetitive.<br /><br />There are some great scenes in the movie (the scene with Ananka coming to life in the swamp for instance) but overall this didn't do much for me.<br /><br />It's worth seeing if you want to be completest and see all of the mummy movies, but otherwise you might want to pass on this one.
I'm glad this was the last of the '40's Universal Mummy movies. The movies were all of variating qualities and this movie was definitely one of the lesser ones.<br /><br />Problem is that it's a very slow moving movie, in which basically nothing interesting or exciting is ever happening. Perhaps it would had all been better if the mummy had made his entrance earlier on in the movie. Instead now the movie once again spends its first 20 minutes explaining what had all happened in the previous mummy movies, by also once again using archive footage from this time "The Mummy" from 1932 again, to which this movie is the fourth mummy movie following the 1932 mummy story. The movie just never knows to find the right pace and even though the movie is barely over an hour long, it still feels a bit like a drag.<br /><br />It of course also doesn't help that the movie has a rather simplistic and actually very little interesting story. The movie also feels quite disjointed. The first and second half of the movie don't really connect to each other and they seemed like two separate movies on their own.<br /><br />At least Lon Chaney Jr. is still in it. He once more reprises the role of the mummy Kharis, for the third time. Too bad that he has such limited screen time this time. He gets unfortunately very little interesting to do, which is also a big waste of the mummy character itself. The movie is further more filled with dozens of silly actors who are playing around with silly accents. It seemed so totally unnecessary to me that most of the characters had to speak with such an accent and it actually gets quite distracting and annoying at points.<br /><br />The mummy movies that's least worth seeing.<br /><br />4/10
Not all films made in 1931 are this creaky, and the fact that this was "Best Picture" must have given even greater impetus to the development of television.<br /><br />Typical of all Ferber novels, it isn't possible to bring the entire story to the screen, to say nothing of developing character. Dix -- so stolid in the first third of the movie -- does an about face, but no one knows why and it makes no sense. And what is there about Dunne that makes makes her so stoical? Edna May Oliver's scenes are priceless, as usual.<br /><br />This film has a role to play in the history of cinema, but it is long and boring.
This movie is dated in so many ways, it's sensational. You can either laugh at it or shake your fists in rage.<br /><br />This movie deals with many problems of American history, but with the typical white-male-Christian-American paternalism: The main character is one of those I-can-do-it-all-and-you've-got-to-love-me-for-it-kind-of-guy. He is so pompous and not to be taken serious at any time. What a horrid creature! His wife is a weak little woman for the first part of the movie and a still very weepy, but stronger character in the end. Too bad she still forgives his cocky ways after he's left her for the second time. It's just sad that the character didn't really change at all. Even though she is supposed to portray a strong and independent woman in the end, she is consumed by worry about her adventure-seeking husband. So 2 out of 10 points from the feminists among us (and those are only for the good intentions...)! The problem of Indian suppression is dealt with quite nicely, but there is that patronizing story-telling again. And the fact that all African-American characters are the typical stereotypes makes the movie even more hypocritical. I was so enraged most of the time! So one point (for trying) from the civil rights movement.<br /><br />I know, that the movie was done at a different time. I love old movies and I have a lot of patience with some of those dated point of views. But this was just disgusting!<br /><br />What saves this movie are the parts without the main character. Mr Dix's acting is way over the top and smug. Maybe that's why his character is so disagreeable... I liked Mrs Dunne's performance, even though her character enraged me at times. <br /><br />But I must say the famous land rush scene was incredibly done. And the way that the Oklahoma settlement was portrayed made the movie worthwhile. It's just amazing how civilization rose out of the dirt and dust of the 19th century. And I don't understand the problem some have with that church scene. I thought it was quite funny and amusing. Maybe it wasn't supposed to be, but I liked it. So 9 points for those scenes and the impressive storytelling of the development of the Oklahoma state. That makes about 4 points altogether!
Cimarron was painful to sit through. Although Irene Dunn does a good job with the heavy-handed script, Richard Dix' pompous and overacted role is brutal. The passage of time has not treated the character of Isaiah, as well as other racial and religious notions, well, although the movie is somewhat progressive on the roles of women and the mistreatment of Native Americans. The editing is especially weak. This is, without a doubt, the worst of all the "best" pictures.
Like a lot of films from the early sounds days, Cimarron must be viewed more for historical interest than as compelling entertainment. The hammy acting of lead Richard Dix, nominated for best actor, can be excused as a relic of the silent-film school of acting. However, even giving benefits of the doubt, Cimarron is a badly shaped piece of drama -- a bloated film that moves from unrelated sequence to unrelated sequence with little dramatic impact. Offically, the film is two hours and four minutes; it feels like four hours when you're watching it. There is no reason to waste your time on it unless you want to see every Best Picture winner or have a keen interest in the early sound days. In my opinion, Cimarron is the worst choice for best picture in Academy history and the award should have gone to City Lights or Little Ceasar. Cimarron is barely remembered today, and would have be remembered at all if not for its Oscar win.
The selection of the bloated, boring, and racist "Cimarron" ranks as the worst choice for Best Picture in Oscar history. Poorly acted (particularly by the justly forgotten Richard Dix, whose performance as the self-centered and irresponsible Yancey Cravat ranks as one of the most narcissistic characterizations in screen history) and leadenly paced, the film is truly shocking today because of the racist slant towards its one black character, who is introduced by being shown sleeping in a chandelier.<br /><br />Other comments by IMDb reviewers have dismissed the attitude towards this character as being merely dated, but many films that appeared during this period did NOT depict blacks as shuffling, lazy mental deficients in the manner that this behemoth takes great delight in; so that argument seems weak to say the least. But whether you regard this demeaning characterization as in shockingly bad taste for anyone at any time or merely the forgivable ignorance of a less-educated era, it is very painful to watch with 21st century eyes.<br /><br />But even this might not matter if the film weren't the overlong bore that it is. Voted the Best Picture Oscar at the 1930/31 Academy Awards when such enduring classics as "City Lights," "The Public Enemy," "Dracula," "The Dawn Patrol" and "The Blue Angel" failed to be nominated, "Cimarron" is by far the worst selection to join the Oscar pantheon.
This movie was, of the 67 of 71 best pictures I have seen, by far the worst. First of all, I found the plot line somewhat absurd - the absent husband for 25 years/ still in love/ not even a letter! Give me a break. And why was the guy who was absent for so long coincidentally working on an oil rig next door to the congress-woman's party? This film also exhibited some of the worst stereotyping of African-Americans that I have ever seen. It makes Gone With the Wind (see Prissy) look downright progressive! I have scarcely seen a movie that I disliked this much. UGH!
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** There's not much that can be said about this early-talkie era flick. (I'm hesitant to call "Cimarron" a "film", because I feel that the word is too esoteric.) But what can be said about it...mainly speaks against it.<br /><br />Take, for example, the overuse of portraying Indians as bad folk. In one scene, the little boy of the flick's lead character--an overbearing and over-ambitious family man who wants to set up a newspaper business-- is playing just outside of his father's office. An Indian kneels down in front of the child. "Hello," the boy says to the Indian, in a very polite manner. The Indian gives him a feather, stands up and walks off.<br /><br />Yancy Cravat, Jr. excitedly runs inside the office. "Mommy! Mommy!" he shouts, holding up the Indian's gift. "Look what an Indian gave me!"<br /><br />"How many times do I have to tell you!" she snaps at the boy. "You aren't ever to talk to those filthy Indians!"<br /><br />Yancy Yates, Sr. (Richard Dix) comes across as a man who speaks with a forked tongue. At the start of the story, he seems to have a definite plan for giving his family a better life. But, we soon enough discover, he's no great over achiever--much less a totally good-moral minded man. His slave child, Isaiah (Eugene Jackson) is one tell-tale sign of this.<br /><br />Upon his family's first trek to a Sunday morning church service--one<br /><br />at which, curiously enough, Cravat is to give the sermon--Isaiah tries to come along, dressed up like Cravat, long-tail suit, holster, gun and all. Cravat tells him to go home. "Ya' all doesn't want me to come with ya' ta church?" Isaiah says with a pout.<br /><br />"No!" Cravat corrects him, patting him on the shoulder. "You don't understand! I want you to stay and guard the house. And if anyone at all comes along... you shoot him dead!"<br /><br />The characters--not to mention the actors--in "Cimarron" couldn't<br /><br />act their way out of burlap sacks, despite their obvious efforts. And nothing in the script was any too commendable, either. (Granted: the incomparable Edna May Oliver--notorious for playing the Red Queen in Alice In Wonderland, also released in 1931--actually manages to look good, pulling off her portrayal of a pompous old woman, which is what she's also been best-known for.) But, aside from that, well...<br /><br />Yancy Yates isn't popular in town from the first week he arrives,<br /><br />and one of the outlaws decides to shoot Cravat's white hat off as he and his wife (Irene Dunne) are casually walking by. Despite her anger with the man who fired the bullet, Cravat just takes it completely in stride.<br /><br />Not only was this story not "shooting for realism", but it was very<br /><br />lacking in several key areas: e.g., Cravat's newspaper isn't ever really seen. (Bulletins and posters, yes--but not any newspaper.)<br /><br />Perhaps strangest of all, though: this is set in a small town in<br /><br />Kansas. Yet, for some reason or other, Yancy Cravat is dead-set on<br /><br />calling his paper "The Oklahoma Wig-Wam."<br /><br />Really good westerns have always been very few and far between--the only exceptions being Clint Eastwood's so-called "spaghetti westerns" of the late '60s to early '70s. Cliche westerns, on the other hand, are a dime-a-dozen.<br /><br />If you like cliche westerns, "Cimarron" will do you proud--but, as for me... it did me embarrassment.<br /><br />
I must have been in a good mood to give this shameful, predictable, embarrassing movie even a 3. What's wrong with it? Let's start with the gratuitous sex although I admit the rotational style of bonking was something I had not seen (nor experienced) before. And I guess they also saved a few bucks by showing the same sex scene three times. Then there are the inconsistencies. The "Oakville Tribune" seems to be in a green part of whatever town it was supposed to be. (Hamilton Ontario???) Yet in the scenes on the roof, it appears to be in an industrial area with a steel mill belching smoke and flames. Also, the inside of the building --- the newsroom --- the stairways --- seem much bigger than the outside. SPOILERS HERE Then, when our intrepid reporter finally gets fired, she comes back to the building several times, once after hours. Hardly likely. The ending is also pitifully predictable...the classic bait and switch caper in which the good guy turns out to be the bad guy. But my major objection is the fact this is yet another movie financed with Canadian and Ontario tax credits which is ashamed to set itself in Canada, yet again proving that the Canadian film industry is craven and opportunistic. A country's movies must do more than just provide jobs. They should reflect the culture. It's bad enough that the American studios use Toronto as a stand in for New York. But it is embarrassing and infuriating when Canadian producers (in this case, CanWest Global) do it with help from the federal and provincial governments. In a word... BAH!
The subject matter was good, direction was OK. Mohanlal was efficient in his role as a Major. The acting of the supporting actors was amateurish at best. The casting director and director should be held responsible for this debacle. Hawaldar Jai was terrible, he stood out like a sore thumb with his poor histrionics. He did not look the part nor did he move like a soldier. There was a scene where a satellite feed was required of the skirmish with the militants and they were showing it from a camera angle. Satellite is located hundred of miles in the sky so the only angle is from above.It was quite an embarrassing moment. Audience these days are matured and they recognize when one is trying to pull wool over their eyes. The Director is a Major so the story could be out of his personal experiences. No problem there, but the movie is only as good as its actors and Director. So if Major Ravi is going for any other projects he should pay more attention to the casting.
I've seen this movie n I can say that this is really a bad movie. The director's gone nuts... of course.. he does know a lot about the army, but then he certainly is a cheap guy. There are a lotta technical flaws in the movies as well...<br /><br />Okay... here's my doubt- in the end when they rescue the family (including a girl who was just raped)... why do they leave them there outside their place? I didn't see any ambulance around! There are a lot of aspects in the movie that are real... but then I just wish the Major had narrated/helped/assisted some other good director n made the movie.<br /><br />Mohanlal surely does deserve a better director!
Aaran is one of the movies where you find the loop holes in Indian Cinema. Here is one good example to show how excellent writers, directors and actors succumb to the producers. Here is one of the most wonderful actors, Mohanlal, acting in a movie about a real story in Kashmir. The seriousness of the film is slaughtered with sub standard comic scenes and songs. There is this character, Havaldar Jaykumar, who in reality, is the son of the producer of the film. Hence, he doesn't have a hair cut despite his officer asking him to do so. This kid doesn't know what is acting and he is the "hero" of the movie. God Help Indian Cinema with such producers.<br /><br />This movie is a pathetic display of what happens in Kashmir. A sensible viewer can intuitively understand the constraints of such wonderful writers, actors and directors who want to share their real life experiences. But the unfortunate part is that a movie about the highest ranks in Indian Militia turns out to be a pathetic display that only makes one think that the movie was stupid.<br /><br />We should oust such producers in the film industry and pave way for good cinema.
This movie really left me thinking ... but not about the plot, the direction, the characters, an underlying message, or a clever script. Far from it. I was left wondering what in Sam Hill went wrong behind the scenes. Clearly, something was badly amiss from the beginning.<br /><br />I'm amazed at the positive comments for the movie and for Jodie Foster's performance. From the get-go it was clear that Foster had phoned this one in. One earlier comment even made a favorable mention of her facial expressions. I must have been watching a different movie since Ms Foster (usually a personal favorite) seemed to be totally disinterested.<br /><br />In one of his first scenes with Foster, Fred Ward looks as though he, also, is distracted by her lack of energy and he struggles to deliver his own lines with any enthusiasm. By the time he's called upon to take part in a supposedly desperate search for runaway Foster, Ward also seems to have become embarrassingly half-hearted about the project.<br /><br />In my opinion, Dennis Hopper has always been a uni-dimensional performer, so I wasn't expecting much from him ... and he delivered.<br /><br />Yes, this one left me thinking long after it ended. The fact that Joe Pesci and Charlie Sheen refused to have their names attached to the project suggests that this was a real stinker for everyone involved. But to then learn that the Director preferred to hide behind a pseudonym speaks volumes.<br /><br />But why listen to me? I always think Foster looks ridiculous in a dress, yet she's sensational in lacy underwear.
A young woman, Jodie Foster, is witnessing a mafia murder, reports the killing to the local police, and becomes herself a hit target by the mob operatives. A professional killer, Dennis Hopper, hired by mafia, is stalking her to prepare for the hit, but eventually he falls for her. Then, as a parody of the Stockholm Syndrome that defines a case when an abducted hostage begins to like and cooperate with the kidnapper, Jodie Foster falls for her abductor too, make love, and both prepare for a getaway.<br /><br />Denis Hopper, the actor, tries to align himself with the creative ambitions of Dennis Hopper, the director. The result is disappointing, and fails to keep pace with the artistic level of a great performer as Dennis Hopper is. There is no real thrill and the script is sometimes naive and predictable. The film is saved to some extent by the performance of Jodie Foster who is not at her best, but still shines with her talent, beauty and gift. Of historical interest is the short appearance of Vincent Price, and, in a small act, of Charlie Sawn known from his great part in "Wall Street".<br /><br />If you decide to spend the 116 minutes to see the film, it is not a complete loss; this movie offers easy entertainment, but we would expect much more from the director of "Easy Rider", and the actress who gave us the character of Sarah Tobias in "The Accused".
This movie has it all: it is a thriller, a chase movie, a romance story, a mob tale, a comedy, a road movie... well, in fact it's none of this at all. <br /><br />All the time you are waiting for something interesting to happen, but no, you are still watching the same dull, uninspiring and superficial cliché of a movie with a very bad soundtrack. Even the star cast acting is lacking in credibility. A hit man with his quirks, a girl who's playing hard to get, mob guys acting tough and incapable cops, yawn...<br /><br />I'd recommend not to watch Backtrack. If you want to see a good movie directed by a famous actor, go and see 'The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada' by Tommy Lee Jones. Now, that's what I call worth watching.
I watched this movie recently mainly because I am a Huge fan of Jodie Foster's. I saw this movie was made right between her 2 Oscar award winning performances, so my expectations were fairly high. Unfortunately, I thought the movie was terrible and I'm still left wondering how she was ever persuaded to make this movie. The script is really weak. The story itself may have been somewhat believable if someone like Mel Gibson had played the role of the hit-man. The idea of Jodie running off with Dennis Hopper and his irritating accent was impossible for me to buy into. I did think that Jodie looked great throughout the movie, which was probably the only reason I watched the entire thing. Maybe parading Jodie around with as few clothes on as possible was the only reason the movie was made. I saw a TV biography of Jodie where basically all of her movies were commented on in chronological order, and this movie was the only one never mentioned. After seeing it, I can now see why.
"Catchfire" or "Backtrack" as it is sometimes called, is not very good. That is, it's bad. Jodie Foster had already won an Oscar at this point. Why did she agree to do this? I don't know.<br /><br />The hostage/kidnapper relationship is not believable, even if it is a common psychological phenomenon in real life.<br /><br />Worst of all, this film features a scene where Hopper and Foster ride a boat under the Fremont Bridge (a bridge in Seattle) which means that traffic had to stop so that the bridge could open. I've had to wait for that bridge to go down many times, almost all of them on the bus. It's not a pleasant wait. This film caused unnecessary bridge-waiting and the world is a worse place for it.
Not as bad as 1992's "Nails" (where Hopper plays an "unstable" cop) but pretty bad. How can a movie with such a great cast go so wrong? This film manages to find a way. The story was pretty stupid and Hopper's direction seemed like he had never directed before. All of the long shots in the beginning were bothersome. Lots of meaningless scenes with a lot of meaningless dialogue.
WOW, I'd hate to sound opinionated, but anyone that rated this movie any higher than I just have must have an I.Q. that reaches unimaginably low depths which reach out beyond time and space and connect at planet "Hopper-is-a-retard-for-making-this-movie". WOW this movie STANK. Fred Ward's haircut looks SSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUPPPPPIIIDDD! I actually considered mailing Fred Ward some money in compensation for that miserable haircut he owned in this awful film. Jodie Foster, of course didn't have much to work with but still manages a terrible performance throughout. Joe Pesci, oh my...Joe Pesci (who mysteriously is not cast) plays THE ULTIMATE stereotypical Joe Pesci movie character, complete with mob killing and constant use of the F word. You won't believe your eyes. Dean Stockwell, watching him in this mess made me feel bad for him because I actually thought he was either intoxicated or temporarily retarded throughout the course of the film. Jon Turturro must have been intoxicated himself when he agreed to be in this, along with Vincent Price, Bob Dylan, and Charlie Sheen. I know what you're thinking, GREAT CAST! I know, and it was the WORST great cast film I've ever seen. Dennis Hopper directs and stars, and does equally bad in both areas. How the man could have directed EASY RIDER and then this is FAR beyond my excellent imagination. His OUTRAGEOUSLY bad hit-man character accent is beyond the realms of horrendous, and only is equaled by the hilariously bad ending. They (Hopper and Foster) are the most uninteresting couple I believe that I have ever come across in my exposure to the world of cinema, and you will be cheering for them to lose and then be grandly maddened by the ending. What exactly are the two of them WEARING at that action filled conclusion? I don't know, but I do know that if I ever meet Dennis Hopper, I will make immensely make fun of him for being responsible for this waste of celluloid. Join me! IAN
A rather mild horror movie; if not for a couple of sex scenes, it could easily have been a TV movie. Plot holes abound (one example: why would there be a secret passage from the 18th century leading from the upper floor of a house that was burned to the ground and a new building put ther 200 years later?), cardboard acting, characters doing things that anyone with an IQ bigger than their shoe size wouldn't do...<br /><br />It's got a few fun moments, but overall it's a sub-par film that managed to get Roy Scheider because his bills were due. If you're looking for an extremely formulaic, predictable film that might provide a few laughs, it might be worth watching. If not, then this one's not for you.
This movie was bad and the movies about how some college students stay at a house to get money by renovating it and then they find out that the house has a woman Deamon in it and that there is a portal to hell.In this movie there are heaps of stupid scenes like at the start of the movie how they are cleaning the house and they start to dancing to a cheesy song and some of the Demons at the end of the movie are just some guys in bad costumes trying to make scary sounds and there are some good gore scenes like when the Professor gets his face ripped of.I only hired this movie because i am a big fan of horror movies and its only worth watching if u are a fan of horror movies.The acting in this movie is really bad the only good actor is Roy Scheider from the great movie Jaws and over all this movie has heaps of flaws and my rating is 4 out of 10.
This is the lamest, crappiest, idiotic, stupid movies i ever saw in my entire life... I can't believe there are directors who make these kinds of movies... this movie is a disgrace to horror genre... acting ??? Oh! no !!! i couldn't bear... it's full of anguish... don't ever watch this movie... you'll feel like u are being tortured to eternity... please, save yourself from the horrible fate of watching this movie... if you really want to live, don't watch it... there are very good horror movies... <br /><br />this movie doesn't deserve tat single vote too... but, i hate to vote if I want to post my comments...
I can't figure out what Jon Voight could POSSIBLY have been thinking when he got involved in this tenth-rate, incoherent, pretentious, mind-numbing slop. He helped to write the alleged "script" himself, and he should be damn well ashamed of it. The film (I can't call it a "movie" because it barely moves at all) is rambling, embarrassingly pretentious drivel--sort of like a really bad Oprah Winfrey show, but worse. It meanders senselessly back and forth from medieval times to modern-day Los Angeles, with Voight as a television producer who thinks he is the reincarnation of a medieval prince who must save the kingdom from the machinations of his evil brother, and somehow this gets transferred to modern times where Voight has to save the country from the evil machinations of an oil company executive. If the bizarre casting (Wilfrid Brimley, Frankie Valli (!), Kaye Ballard and Armand Assante, among others) isn't enough to kill it, the stupefyingly inept direction, the washed-out photography (it looks like it was shot with a really cheap 16mm camera), the almost complete lack of editing (scenes either go on and on endlessly or are chopped off in the middle of a sentence), and Voight's embarrassing, apparently stream-of-consciousness "acting" are enough to bury it, which is exactly what should have been done with it. A jaw-dropping experience. Avoid this dog at all costs.
I was told Jon was for awhile on spiritual experiences. I guessed the film will be interesting.In fact isn't at all. Not so much profound for a such subject. "eternity" never-ending life. Experiences after death and "dejavu". The film is not as a comedy but isn't funny at all, at least not express yet. It's so naive. Charming film but naive film. A must to avoid. The Middle ages sequences seems coming directly from fairy tales and it's not the matter at all. Eileen Davidson is so charming and Voight is doing his best. Normal is a co producer and screenwriter of this movie. The film was launched straight on video so i discovered it on a video store. It's a pity 'cause I well know Voight was seriously involved with spirituality and the film isn't so much profound about it.
This movie is so bad it's almost good. Bad story, bad acting, bad music, you name it. O.K., who are the jokers that gave this flick a '10'?
In my opinion, a good documentary - especially one dealing with controversial political issues - should be informative and as unbiased as possible. The point should be revealing the truth. This means, in particular, having among the interviewees experts on the subject and representatives of all sides. This film is a failure in this regard. Most of the interviews included in this film consist of "men off the street" expounding on the question of peace in the Holy Land. The wall itself, the supposed subject of the film, is given no serious treatment at all. For most of the interviews, the interviewer simply waits to be approached and asks general questions such as "what do you think of the wall?" - she does not approach random people near the wall and ask them how they have been directly affected by it. Outside of one interviewee, the Israeli general in charge of the wall's construction, we have no "experts" on the subject to provide us with the wall's context (e.g. how and when the project began, whether it has been successful, which groups are for and which against the project, etc.)<br /><br />Outside of the interviews, a very large portion of the film consists of extended shots of uneventful scenes, such as head-on shots of the wall, construction of the wall, and people getting off a bus. These shots take up far too much time, in my opinion. It's nice to see what the wall looks like, but the 20-30 minutes of head-on filming of the wall (and only the wall) are excessive. Clearly, these shots (accompanied by Arabic music that conveys a sense of mourning) are included for the sole purpose of arousing in viewers feelings of loathing for the wall.
The film-makers went well out of their way to find ONLY the following demographics: Palestinians that have the appearance of peace-loving, solution-seeking good will, Palestinians (particularly older women and families with children) who are especially inconvenienced by the security fence, and Israelis that don't believe in the security fence, sympathize heavily with its alleged effect on Palestinians, and consider it unnecessarily divisive and/or a waste of money. Oh yes, they do put in one member of the Israeli government that does support the fence, but they do what they can to portray him as inhumane and uncaring, and ask him very leading questions that are really statements (e.g. "The wall is bad for the environment...it is destroying everything").<br /><br />I have no problem with any (well, most) of this being presented in the movie. However much I may disagree with the people they interview, their opinions are valid enough for a documentary. HOWEVER: there are at least two sides to the issue of Israel's security fence, and despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of Israelis (and many others) support the construction of the fence and believe it is having an overall positive influence, this "documentary" does not present the opinion of even ONE such person. They even go so far as to interview an Israeli Jew who claims that "all Israelis support the fence" and are thus insane, and then stubbornly refuse to interview even one such "crazy" Israeli. Oh, and to top all this off, they set the tone for the film by interviewing a couple of young Israeli children (truly exceptions to the rule -- I've been there) that are laughing at/about their Arab neighbors from across the fence.<br /><br />A "documentary" is a film that explores an issue and presents a full array of facts, opinions, and perspectives. Unfortunately, this is not a documentary. This is an unabashed PROPAGANDA FILM that very clearly, very pointedly offers a battery of support for only one side of a heavily disputed, emotionally and politically charged issue. It is no more of a documentary than, say, Fahrenheit 9/11.
With a humor that would appeal to an exclusive, small audience, the average viewer will find it pointless and monotonous. When Cartoon Network advertised this show, it was made to look as if it was a major drama or event, complete with a real rain scene and government officials trying to catch the Sheep.<br /><br />When it came out on the air, I was disappointed at how all the characters were so one-dimensional and a totally bland animation. The only thing that put it to anything close to humor were the names of the characters like "Private Public" and "General Specific", a few vague references to cultural aspects, and how Lady Richington pummeled Sheep with her steel wig.<br /><br />Slightly off topic, but I don't see why would Sheep fall in love with that ball of dirty cotton balls called "Swanky." It was hideous!
Irvine Welsh's follow up to Trainspotting hits the screen as three short stories set in Edinburgh, all with a few of Welsh's trade marks, drug culture, depression, the working class and Hibernian football club. Uneasy to watch in places, it is no less than very well written, 2 of the stories having a darkly comic twist to them while the 2nd story a serious (and shockingly realistic) plot to it. Will not appeal to most, including myself to a point, but will no doubt adopt a cult following.
Ah, here it is! A movie, which is said by people to remind me of the epic "Trainspotting". OUCH, was I a fool to believe that, and OUCH, how my buttocks hurt after having forced myself to watch this c**p from beginning to end. After the first 10-15 minutes I just wanted it all to end, or at least they could've put some nudity or action or cool acid house music into it to make it worth the time... But no, when I was through with it, i put it into my CD shelf and I hope I will never have to pick it out again just to show it to some friend who is so anxious to see it that he/she don't want to listen to my warnings.
The stories were pretty weird, not really funny and not really cunning. I'm not sure what the point of the stories was .. The first story was actually mostly sick, the second was just really really pathetic and the third was only weird (the fake baby was actually quite badly made).
This is really one of the worst movies i have seen in a while. It's not funny at all. It simply portrays a lower class Northern British setting. I find it a very sad film at parts, at others cuts are where they shouldn't be. One thing that really annoyed me was the close ups of pointless objects it really slowed down the pace of the movie. I only made it through the movie because i fast forwarded certain sequences towards the end.<br /><br />This movie completely loses the attention of the audience. It's main problem is that it makes multiple reasons for one action, which in turn tends to weaken that action. However if there is one reason for one action it makes it more passionate. All in all this movie is all over the place. I didn't learn enough about the characters to care about them because of the shifting plot lines and stories where as i would have maybe enjoyed exploring the life of one character.<br /><br />For example at the beginning when the guy meets God in the bar, God seems like a cool guy. The movie could've elaborated on that moment and I think it would've been a lot funnier.<br /><br />Anyway, enough if's. Watch it if you want, but I'm warning you this film is crap. I respect the makers for trying to pull it off with such a low budget but they could've done a much better job. I guess it all lies in the camera movement and editing, the acting was decent. But then again, that's just my opinion.
Because I would have never ever seen this movie through to the end. Although there are some, but not many, funny moments in this movie I couldn't understand more than about 15%(the fancy English couple in the 3rd story included) of what people were saying. Three short stories, none with a real point, with just some of the most miserable and lifeless people I could have imagined and a load of foul language. Didn't find it funny, didn't find it amusing, didn't find any sense in it. 4/10
Fairly appalling enterprise suggests Welsh to be an infantile artist, helplessly drawn to the violent milieu he knows best, but unable to resist vacuous elaborations rooted in banal fantasy. The first story is a ham-fisted, meaningless trudge with a B-movie sci-fi premise. The second achieves some poignancy, but only via the outrage-inducing surplus of humiliation visited on its central character. The third and most risible seems to aspire to being a dislocated sequel to Child's Play. The direction is consistently clueless - all whirling sound and fury, a slave to the extreme unpleasantness of the environment; suffocating in an ill-chosen music score and in indifferently flashy acting. This is sheer stupidity masquerading as a guerilla sensibility - as arbitrary and hollow as the abstract images that link the three sections.
I, like many this evening braved the frigid winter and long lines to see what I had anticipated to be one of the best movies of this year. However, I was left sadly wanting in many ways after the credits rolled. But to be fair, there were redeemable qualities (although very few). Let's start with what worked. First, the Lycans: on point in every way – from their terrifying physicality to their sheer ferocity. The action: sublimely visceral – when it did occur. Nighy/Victor and Sheen/Lucian: Perfect. Now, what did not (and there is plenty). This was less a movie and more a collage of sequences (and do not expect to see any supporting characters from the other movies except Raze and Tannis). Profoundly missing was a well written storyline and anything of real substance to bring these pieces of film together. The story seemed to start right in the middle – at the cusp where Lucian had made up his mind to rebel. Therefore, there was no context; no tension; no sense of betrayal – the devices needed to make everything else work. Moreover, it ended at where the climax should have begun (which needed to be after the feud had simmered for a bit). Oh and it was way too short. Purist will also find offense in some liberties taken to certain facts previously revealed in the first two movies…but judge that for yourself. In the end, this movie lingered to long on what should have been brief "background" scenes (e.g. various council scenes), and as a consequence we never really got to know or care about the principal players...or the movie (ouch). -D
First I must say that I enjoyed the first Underworld movie. I was intrigued and curious to learn about Vampires and Lycans and so forth. In this last part (hopefully) of the series I just feel sorry for how pathetic the vampires are. At least in the first part you had the tight leather clothes... now vampires seem like besieged victims of bad pest control problem. They look and act like haughty white pasty humans. <br /><br />Some ideas were neat... the whole thing with human nobles was interesting. Pity the acting was abysmal. The slave thingy too was feasible.<br /><br />Other things just hit me as pathetic. Spoilers now. Castle walls that can be jumped over in a few steps ? Enemies that don't attack during the day ? Big bad ancient vampires that take ages to join combat and then run away from a fledgling lycan leader after a minute or so ? Werewolves that den close to their enemies ? Lycans that raid armouries... for what ? They don't use axes and swords or armor ! A vampire leader so inept he manages to have just about everyone against him ? The romance is so unconvincing its sad.<br /><br />So I don't recommend this film unless you get it online or buy a very cheap movie ticket. Some of the action is good to OK. Certainly the vampires armor and weapons are interesting. Otherwise a very weak script that was badly put together and uses all sorts of inane plot twists.
I can't believe this movie is getting the rating that it is here on IMDb. Of course, I've come to conclude that IMDb is somewhat worthless for actually finding out if a movie is good or not as 99% of films are rated from 6 to 7. It's the conclusion and failure of crowd-sourcing on the internet. For this purpose an average is taken of most people, and unfortunately, most people are simple minded easily entertained fast food lifestyle morons. But I digress. The movie. I really don't want to waste my time writing about it. Let's just say I found it to be tailor made for seemingly two groups of people, young teens, at the age where violent action movies of any sort just hit the spot, and goth types that just love to choke down whatever Gothic vampire fantasy they can get their hands on. If you aren't in one of those categories, you will find this movie absurd. I did enjoy the first Underworld. It was fresh at the time and held a sort of edgy quality. The second was a bit trying in plot, but I did enjoy the direction and cinematography at times. But this whole movie felt like a sci-fi channel production or even a TV series. I found the actors to be over-directed. Their body language stiffened into un-natural idealistic poses that seemed contrived. Lines were spit out like young actors would spit out lines of Shakespeare, reveling in their own egoistic glory at being in such a role, but in doing so, crudely bludgeoning the role. The plot was dry and predictable right from the start. I found myself wishing things to just "move along" as it was so easy to tell what was going to happen. I tried to care at first, but my brain was forced to shut off. By the end climax, I actually caught myself falling asleep. There were so many parts that were inconsistent and didn't make sense that it's not even worth listing them all. If you're a pimple faced teen or a chronic goth, sure, have at it. For the rest of us, forget it, like I'm about to do right now.
There wasn't much thought put into the story line on many fronts. This is a good action movie but that's about it.<br /><br />- The movie states that the lycans were kept to protect the vampires during the day. Yet they are kept in cages and have collars on their necks. So they can't turn into their wolf form or do anything any other slave can't do. How does this protect the vampires during the day? Who are they protecting the vampires from? The uncontrollable lycans? The slaves in human form are nothing more than peasants.<br /><br />- My understanding is that vampires are immortals and don't age. Yet Sonya ages from child to adult. Do they just stop aging at a certain age? I understand that Viktor is old because he was turned (as explained in the second movie). But vampire babies age? Strange.<br /><br />- I didn't realize that vampires needed torches to see at night. Yet we see them carrying torches throughout the movie.<br /><br />- Silver was the only thing that was supposedly able to harm lycan. Yet wooden steaks fired from the huge crossbows kill the lycan too.<br /><br />These are just some of the things that show just a lack of thought put into the story telling.
There are rumours that a fourth Underworld is going to happen. If so, than the third part, which is also a prequel, would be in the middle of the franchise. With prequels that succeed the original movies, you always ask yourself in what order should you watch the movies, so that it makes sense ...<br /><br />In this case, I guess it doesn't matter that much. The third Underworld movie isn't up to par with the other two. They had their obvious flaws too, but this one lacks a few things and it feels like a cash in. It seems like it's not going full throttle, which is a shame, because the actors sure could've used better material to work with.<br /><br />The story is OK, but it's nothing special. A nice movie, but Rhona Mitra couldn't fill the shoes of Beckinsale (yes she plays another character, I mean the void, that Kate B. left) ...
Other than it reassembled the characters from the first film and gave them more backstory. Essentially, Lucian the Lycan (werewolf) fell in love with Sonia the Vampire, a Romeo and Juliet scenario you know is going to end badly if you've seen the first movie. So with absolutely no suspense, we blunder forward with two hours of unremitting CGI and actors with little or no screen presence. All shot in that monotone color that the first movie had because nothing was shot in daylight.<br /><br />Worth your time.. probably not. In fact, the quality has gone down, even the CGI looks like it was done on the cheap, you don't buy for a minute that these are real werewolves.
My mother forced me to watch this movie with her. She apparently will watch anything with a vampire counsel in it. I was bored throughout.<br /><br />At different points, Underworld: Rise Of The Lycans is reminiscent of Spartacus, Battle For The Planet Of The Apes, The Passion Of The Christ, and Mandingo! What it reminds me most of are those Italian sword and sandal pictures of the nineteen-sixties (not the good ones) that spend an inordinate amount of time showing Greek or Roman despots in robes talking and plotting incessantly while you wait impatiently for the muscle man hero and his lover, usually the despots daughter, to do something.<br /><br />This film was in desperate need of some color and suspense. The characters were pretty two-dimensional.<br /><br />The sets looked as if they were constructed entirely of pewter! I wonder how many Civil War Chess Sets were melted down to make this movie.<br /><br />All those wearing fishnet stockings on your arms and black lipstick, feel free to click NO.
To put it simply, this was a pompous piece of canine poopie. Overly stagey and everyone being the total melodramatic drama queen at every single moment. After a while, i was starting to wish that every character in the movie wasn't such a stuffed-up anal retentive.<br /><br />And, this movie has another one of those truly annoying things that has recently come into vogue and shouldn't have: all the scenes are in a sort of washed-out, blue-steel-greyishness. Hmmm, the last time i checked, candles and torches are quite capable of putting a fairly wide spectrum of colors. In fact, the light they put out tends to be more in the warmish, yellowish-orange range of the spectrum. So where's all the blue-steel-grey light coming from?<br /><br />This movie has fancy sets and glitzy cgi fx, but it's still dreck. It's pathetic junk put out for today's movie-goers who are easily placated by pathetic junk.<br /><br />I very much enjoy vampires and werewolves as movie plot devices, but this was a total hack job.<br /><br />Universal Studios' 1941 "The Wolfman" is infinitely superior to this even though its fx is pretty primitive compared to what could be done nowadays.<br /><br />I'm done with this franchise. The first movie was reasonably decent. The second still somewhat entertaining. But this one i couldn't even finish all the way to the end because it was so boring.
"Quit while your ahead" is a phrase they never learn. Typical Hollywood sequel scenario: if the first film was only shocking, the second wasn't, expect the third to be the worst thing to hit the screen this year. Even worse are the prequels, events of which were already explained in detail. If you haven't seen to first two films you will not like this one. It's like starting to watch Lord of the rings or Star Wars with the last trilogy movie. So "stand alone" this film is not.<br /><br />Remember in the first movie about Lucians revenge? Remember the second about the long lost savage brother? Well if you saw those two 5 min moments and paste them together you would get… a 5 min prequel. But the creators ether thought these 5 min were vital historical events or just wanted to give a job to some actors, cast and crew and maybe make some money in the process. "I have a loot of money, I make movies for a living and I'm bored. What will I do? I know! I'll make a movie." So anyway you get this 5 min prequel and you stretch it for 90 min – that's this movie. And you know what will happen to the main "immortal" characters, so there is little suspense. By the way, all the drama of the movie is in those 5 min. The only thing that made my eyebrow rise was mom killing in the begging of the movie. Sick. The rest was Braveheart remix. If you want a comedy, see Braveheart first then this movie.<br /><br />Now I'm going to rant a bit – the movie put me in the mood. Who invented the concept of "vampire vs. werewolf" in the first place? It's older than I am and got old just as fast. And why do vampires look like Goth girls in heat, while werewolves look like psycho bears? Hiding bad films behind cleavage fails. Isn't it about time we got some sane slimmer werewolves with an upright posture? How can their unchangeable werewolves even breed if they rip everybody into shreds? And why with all their powers the vampires didn't rule the world? Blaa, blaa, blaa… What a waste.
The key scene in Rodrigo Garcia's "Nine Lives" comes when Sissy Spacek, hidden away in a hotel room where she is carrying on an affair with Aiden Quinn, find a nature documentary on television, at which point Quinn notes the contrivance of such things--disparate footage is edited into one scene, predators and preys are thrown together in order to capture the moment--all to force connections where none actually exist. Characters in the nine shorts that make up this film occasionally spill over into each others stories, but none of them ever seem to really connect. A woman preparing for a violent confrontation with her abusive father is later seen working in a hospital room where another woman is preparing for a mastectomy. A man who runs into an old girlfriend in a supermarket and sees how his life should have been later hosts, with his current wife, a dinner party for an unhappy couple. Garcia arranges some of his characters in front of each other, but none of the subsequent stories ever really build on what came before.<br /><br />Garcia's first film, the wonderful, overlooked "Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her," also had a short-story structure and overlapping characters, but there were fewer of them and they had a lot more room to breathe and grow. The gimmicky premise of "Nine Lives," that each of its nine stories is told in a single, unbroken take in real time, never allows the film to build up any real dramatic tension or momentum. It's also a fairly visually ugly movie. Interior shots are often murky and hard to watch, while other scenes--particularly one where a girl walks back and forth between rooms to talk to her uncommunicative parents--are rendered annoying by the camera-work. Given that this is Garcia's third film and that he has a respectable history of directing for television, the direction in this film is rather surprisingly amateurish. Like fellow filmmaker-child-of-a-great-writer Rebecca Miller, Garcia (son of Gabriel Garcia Marquez) is focused on the writing and character aspects of his films often to the detriment of the film-making ones.<br /><br />Individual scenes are touching and even affecting. I did like Jason Issacs kissing Robin Wright Penn's pregnant belly. And Joe Mantegna whispering lovingly to his wife as she slips into pre-surgery sedation. And Sissy Spacek stealing a few happy moments away from her life with Aiden Quinn before brought back to it with a phone call from her daughter. But the film (unlike "Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her") feels more like an exercise than actual drama. We are just watching people act.
I'm really surprised seeing all these positive reviews for this movie. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't like 'these kind of movies'.<br /><br />While I very well can enjoy a good mindless Hollywood action blockbuster like Die Hard 4.0, I like the 'dogma' kind of movies, or 'real-life-as-it-is'-movies just as much, IF they are well made.<br /><br />A good example is Festen (1998): no music, no dramatic camera angles, no special fx, no fancy locations. Just a good story combined with excellent acting and the result is an excellent movie.<br /><br />Is Nine Lives devoid of dramatic camera angles, special fx and fancy locations? Yes. Is it a good movie? I'm glad you asked. <br /><br />The answer is: Absolutely not.<br /><br />First of all, everyone is raving about the acting performances. I'm terribly sorry, but you can act all you want, but if the story and the dialogue is not believable, the acting falls on its behind immediately. And that is exactly the case with Nine Lives.<br /><br />Not once did I have the feeling while watching 'Nine Lives' that I was watching real people having a real conversation. I had the feeling I was watching actors trying to come across as 'real characters' while they were were saying things a 'real person' would never say under the circumstances.<br /><br />You can hardly call it a SPOILER, but there are some dialogue excerpts below. If you think that reading ten lines of (ridiculous) dialogue will ruin your movie experience STOP READING HERE. If you want a good laugh, continue reading.<br /><br />The dialogue was often so ridiculous that it was tragical. You want examples? Plenty of those in 'Nine Lives'.<br /><br />EXAMPLE1:<br /><br />Picture this. Couple visits their filthy rich friends in their new mansion. Woman sees this castle of a house and says to her husband:<br /><br />Woman: I could get used to this (meaning the expensive house). Man: Don't. Woman: Why not? It could be. Man: No. They are who they are and we are who we are. Woman: I like the sound of that -- we are who we are.<br /><br />She likes the sound of that? Her man is acting like a jerk, but she likes the sound of that. Then an elderly couple walks past them holding hands. This is what the woman comes up with:<br /><br />Woman: Look! They are like children after school. They lived through so much. Shared everything. I love you.<br /><br />They are like children after school? And then the most overused cliché lines you ever heard? Finishing with 'I love you'? She says this while her man is being a jerk to her? Yes, very logical, very realistic, NOT. If anything, this kind of dialogue made me wanna strangle some of the characters in the movie for saying these horrible, horrible things.<br /><br />EXAMPLE 2:<br /><br />Elderly mom, dad and younger daughter at a funeral. Dad: I didn't realize Andrew was religious. Mom: It's for comfort. Daughter: It's for strength. Mom: Life is fleeting. Dad and daughter BURST OUT LAUGHING. <br /><br />Yeah, this one-liner cracks me up any time, especially at a funeral! Sorry, I must have missed the joke here.<br /><br />And it goes on and on and on....<br /><br />How about the camera work? Don't even go there. 'Boring' would be a compliment. It supposed to come across as 'realistic'; instead, you miss half of the actors facial expressions (the only thing left to watch in this movie), while half the time the camera is aimed at someone's back or side instead of the face.<br /><br />Conclusion? Well, don't say I didn't warn you! It's a good movie to rent if you want to make out with your date or something during the movie, because you won't even care whether the movie is playing or not after the first five minutes.<br /><br />Overrated and more boring than watching grass grow kinda sums it up.
As embarrassing as it is to admit, I was listed as production manager on this film... my very first! As a matter of fact, it was the first feature film for almost everyone who participated. Watch carefully, and you even get to see me in one of the opening scenes, as a soon-to-be-murdered asylum attendant named... "Cely" (my own last name).<br /><br />Originally titled "Hostages" this picture was changed to "Another Son of Sam" by the Producer-Director who wanted to cash in on the serial killer in the news at the time. Nothing could have helped. I don't even think this picture was good enough to be shown on "MST 3K!"<br /><br />The film was shot primarily with a collection of old Mitchell cameras and early Arriflex hand held cameras. Matter of fact, the shot of the helicopter during the hostage siege was filmed with my own WWII era Arri. The picture was filmed entirely in Charlotte and Belmont, North Carolina in the mid seventies. Most of the "Stars" were local TV newscasters, and the rest of the crew were just inexperienced enough or gullible enough to believe former stuntman and Producer-Director, Dave A, Adams' delusions of adequacy.<br /><br />If you enjoy watching this kind of picture, you might love the work of another North Carolinian, the legendary Earl Owensby.<br /><br />
Another Son of Sam is definitely not an Oscar winner. Technically, it's horrible. The acting is not too good either. But there is something about it that makes you want to watch more (sort of like a car wreck). The ridiculous close-ups of the killers eyes are more funny than anything. If you are looking for a scare...this ain't the flick for you. It's very obscure and nearly impossible to find. I'm sure there's a reason for that. For a while, it was titled HOSTAGE. It don't matter what you call it, it's still a poor choice for entertainment. It might be good for a MST3000 party or something. Can you believe they would use such a title as ANOTHER SON OF SAM? If that don't have exploitation written all over it, I'll eat my hat. I remember when this was shot in Belmont, NC. A lot of local personalities were used as talent.
Wow. I just saw Demon Wind a little while ago, and I don't think I'll ever be the same. It has the power to inspire nightmares, but for all the wrong reasons, actually.<br /><br />Never before has humanity seen such a gratuitous change in make-up, for no damn reason. Or, similarly, so much bad zombie (?) makeup that makes you hungry for those Halloween green marshmallows.<br /><br />Or so much naked old lady, for that matter. But then, there was "The Shining."<br /><br />The plot here is so amateurish that it actually almost holds a little bit of charm, as does the dialog. The last shot of the film is just so silly that its beyond description. It's like some drunk college student got together with some pals and decided to throw Bruce Willis type dialog together with (I guess?) teenybopper dialog from some Elm Street film. The result is jarring, and it'd be truly funny if it was intended that way.<br /><br />Ah, what the hey. I'll laugh anyway.<br /><br />Hell, get together with your friends and watch this. But make absolutely sure you're drunk first. Or, you may go insane. Particularly if you're a college film student.<br /><br />Cheers.
I've seen this movie about 6 or 7 times, and it truly gets funnier every time. Perhaps what I enjoy most is the tired character paradigms that the movie offers us: the somber all-American male protagonist, his blonde girlfriend, the theater nerd with glasses, a brunette girl, the antagonistic jock, and brunette girl #2. However, we're then presented with two magician martial arts experts with mullets driving a convertible. If anyone can explain that, please contact me. Among other highlights are Bobby Johnston's portrayal of the jock character, Dell, and his trademark line, "That's why I keep her around." In watching Johnston's performance, it comes as no surprise that his career quickly descended into the realm of soft-core porn. (SPOILER) Also, after multiple viewings, I STILL have absolutely no idea what that big demon at the end says at any point; it's just electronically muffled noises. Oh well, that's probably for the better. And lastly, why are all the demons so slippery? Is wet skin scarier? It certainly didn't help in this film.
In another of the dreadful horror films I seem so masochistically attracted to, we have a bunch of friends stuck in a haunted house slowly being killed one by one thanks to a horde of zombies that spurt yellow blood and have very bad dental problems. The first 45 minutes is all talk however, and considering the young thespians cannot act their way out of a paper bag and are given the most banal dialogue ever to dispassionately recite, this is especially painful to sit through. If you manage to stay awake through that nonsense, things don't get any better.. with bad make-up galore and cheesy, bargain basement (not-so-special) effects. As for the conclusion.. well, what's the betting that the old-timer who warned them against going to the spooky mansion in the first place will turn up and save the day for the last two survivors (a boy and a girl, of course) with his mystical powers? Please.. life is too short for these kind of movies. Donate the time you would otherwise have spent watching this tripe helping out the community, do a couple of shifts in a soup kitchen or something. You'll feel you've actually done something productive with your life, and you won't have put money into the pockets of studios who churn out irredeemable rubbish such as this.<br /><br />Unfortunately, it's already too late for me.. now, where did I put that copy of 'Pumpkinhead'? 1/10
I truly love horror films & try to give every one I see as much credit (or sometimes more) as possible, but this is really pushing the ticket...most of the cast were very like-able but hardly any of them could act at all - but then again think about the writing/dialogue of this mess...some good make-up but absolutely ridiculous special fx. All in all I give it 3 out of 10 - & am having second thoughts about that!!
I swear I didn't mean to! I picked this out only since it looked good on the back! This movie wasn't scary at all and actually was very confusing. The demon wind was only actually used a couple of times and people were killed off pretty cheesily. The one major bright spot was seeing Sherri Bendorf from Slaughterhouse play in it. Seeing what happened to her, however, made up my mind for this little turkey of a film. A 3 out of 10. NEXT!
Demon Wind is about as much fun as breaking your legs. It is definitely an awful example of a film. So awful in fact that I don't even consider it a movie. I describe it more as a thing ... a monstrous thing. A thing that must be stopped at all costs. My friends and I first discovered this ... thing buried under a big box of video tapes at my friend's house. It was a late night and we had nothing better to do so we decided to watch some cheesy horror movies (we unfortunately picked this one.) Well, during the 90 minutes that this thing played we ended up laughing so hard that we almost threw up. The thing is literally pointless in every sense of the word. It's just a cheap, poorly done rip-off of Evil Dead. The whole "story" seems to be nothing more than some guy wanting to knock off his friends by inviting them to an abandoned house and letting demons rip them to pieces. I have a bet that the writers were actually writing the story while it was being filmed. I've seen bad horror movies before (Manos, Troll 2, HOBGOBLINS!!!) (shudder) I would have to say that Demon Wind could definitely contend with any and all of these films on terms of sheer stupidity. Watch it only if you enjoy laughing at stupid films.<br /><br />Fun fact: This film is like a cockroach on steroids! Much like the ouija board, every time we try to get rid of it, it always seems to mysteriously reappear. Kind of scary huh?
You can generally ask two questions concerning 80's low-budget horror films. and this `Demon Wind' in particular. 1. Is it a good film? No.. 2. Is it a fun film?? You bet! Demon Wind is a gruesomely filthy and nauseating tale, filled with cheesy make-up effects and nasty violence. The story is pretty much non-existent and involves a group of young people revealing the horrible secrets of one of the groups' ancestors. Apparently, his grandparents used to live in a devil-worshiping neighborhood, and evil (in the form of demons and fog) still dwells around there. But, I got to hand it to this film.from start to finish, it breathes morbidity! The diabolical undertones, the playful gore and the (relatively) decent acting all together make this film raise high above the mainstream, uninspired 80's slashers for sure. It shows some creativity and guts (literally) where other productions from this decade fall into routine and oblivion more easily. This creators clearly got inspired by the success of `the Evil Dead', and perhaps even Lamberto Bava's `Demons, but what the heck! It's fun and made with lots of enthusiasm. Although.this film does have a pretty high `what the f***'- standard at times. Especially near the end, when flashbacks and laser shows are happily being mixed. And what the hell is the story on those two wannabe magicians? Nonetheless, `Demon Wind' gets my recommendation if your likes aren't too high concerning crap horror!
From 2002 on Dutch cinema finally got better again. This movie is still part- and a schoolbook example of the bad period of Dutch cinema.<br /><br />The story is needlessly told in flashback style. All of the 'present' sequences set in France are completely redundant and add nothing to the story, emotions or power. For some reason European filmmakers often find it necessary to tell the story not chronological. I never understood why, or what the appeal of it is.<br /><br />The story self also isn't exactly the greatest. It isn't always clear were the movie is trying to go to and what it tries to tell. The story of a young unexperienced boy falling in love with a wild young girl, who later turns out to be quite psychotic might sound good enough on paper and even shows some parallels to Paul Verhoeven's "Turks fruit", to which this movie often was compared to before and at the time of its release. However the end result is far from comparable. The story fails to capture the right emotions, which is also due to the unimaginative performances from the actors. The way the story is told also makes the movie far from always interesting or compelling. I lost interest for this movie at about 40 minutes through the movie.<br /><br />At the time this movie was made, both Antonie Kamerling and Angela Schijf were promising rising stars, with great potential and ambitions but both their careers have pretty much dried up by now. Angela Schijf seems to give her family more attention than her career (that is not a bad thing of course), while Antonie Kamerling tried to start a career in Hollywood. He never got any further than playing some small bit parts in 2 Renny Harlin flops. To be honest I'm not surprised. It's not that he is a bad actor and he certainly has got the right looks but his English just isn't good enough, to put it mildly. Just listen to him speaking English in the beginning of this movie and you'll understand what I mean. They are really not bad actors but for some reason it doesn't show in this movie. It's probably also due to the poor dialog. I still kind of liked Beau van Erven Dorens. He's been criticized a lot but his acting seems very natural. He always keeps the characters close to who he self is.<br /><br />It by no means is one of the worst movies ever made but it's not exactly one I would recommend either. Bad and uninteresting storytelling makes this a bad movie.<br /><br />4/10
Yesterday was one of those days we decided to go to the movies. We picked "Ik ook van Jou" more or less at random, but we were interested to see the state of current Dutch filmmaking.<br /><br />The film is based on a book by Ronald Giphart, and I must confess straight away that he is not exactly one of my favorites. The film features actors that are best known in the netherlands for their appearances in soap-operas and/or afternoon talk shows. At least one of them (Kamerling) has done some fairly decent stuff after leaving the soap world. So we decided to give this movie the benefit of the doubt.<br /><br />And what a mistake that was. This movie fails on all fronts. Bad acting (the best performance is actually by a guinea pig, which very convincingly pretends to be dead). Flat, uninteresting story with unexplained and uninteresting sidelines (Why france? Why tell the story to a girl from Uganda?) Mistakes (black people dont have to use sunscreen, as far as I know, and heating systems in the Netherlands do not produce clouds of steam like in New York, even if this looks great on film, people do not wear T-shirts outside on new years eve in northern Europe). There's one funny moment which involves two little dogs, and that's it.<br /><br />So that's what I think, but more importantly, it seemed that none of the people leaving the movie theater afterwards had enjoyed it. I overheard one of them saying that he was extremely disappointed, because he liked the book so much. I did not read the book, but my advice would have to be: read the book, don't see the film.
One of the movies i just DIDN'T want to see. I got it in the sneak-preview, but damn, the acting was very bad! At the end of the movie (i still am surprised i watched the whole movie..) i wondered why i watched the movie.<br /><br />Also here in the netherlands, the writer of this movie (it's filmed from a book of Giphart) thought it was very bad, and was disappointed that his movie came out like this. Next time he wants a role in choosing people for the cast.
This is one of the worst movies I've seen in a while. The acting was just soooo bad. Anthonie Kamerling is usually a fairly good actor, but in this film, he sounded like he was reading his text from a piece of paper. Especially his voice over was extremely wooden. Beau van Erven Dorens was completely over the top as frat boy Fraser, although this probably had more to do with the crappy dialogue. 'Ik ook van jou' is an adaptation of a book, and it seem like the makers of the film forgot that film dialogue follows different rules than literary dialogue. It all sounded way to bookish.<br /><br />Some of the situations were very badly visualized. Example: somewhere at the beginning of the film there is a scene where a canoe goes over in a rapid. This bit is just too incredible to be true. You see an obviously rather shallow bit of river, with a lot of rocks right beneath the surface (hence the rapid). We hear some suspenseful music to warn us that there's danger ahead. A canoe with to girls goes over in that rather shallow rapid. Our hero then dives several meters below the surface to rescue one of the girl. Girl swoons in his arms and utters the words 'You saved me...' Vomit!<br /><br />It actually was so bad, that it became funny. This is sad, because it really wasn't intended. At the intermission I overheard some guy behind me say 'O god, there's another part!' My feelings exactly. What scares me is that the end credits of 'Ik ook van jou' were in English. Does this mean that it will be released abroad? Just when the Netherlands were starting to get a good reputation after films like 'Antonia' (Antonia's line) and 'Karakter' (Character)...
As a fan of author Gipharts lightheaded and humorous books (of which Ik Ook van Jou is not the best one), I was looking forward to see this film. I didn't catch it in cinema though, and after seeing it on to tv I'm terribly happy I resisted buying it on video. Out of a good book, they managed to make one of the worst movies in Dutch film history. All the good parts have been left out, the story is changed, not to its benefits. All humour has been cut out. What's left is a bad-acted, over dramatic, non-consistent film that I do not want to watch again ever.<br /><br />I condolate Giphart with this result, and am happy that Robbert Jan Westdijk did a hell of a better job on Giphart's topper Phileine zegt Sorry. Go see that one!
If this was the best dutch cinema had to offer these years, my worst fears have come true. I have NEVER, even in dutch movies, seen worse acting. I couldn't get myself to watch it for more than 40 minutes, so if that's the cause of me missing the genius, so be it.<br /><br />
Actually I'm still in doubt if there's anything about this movie I like. As for the story: unrealistic and very exaggerated. The acting was too bad in my opinion. Not very likely that Antonie Kamerling will get a Rutger Hauer status. Some folks will expect it anyway. First let him work on his English pronunciation. If you watch the 'trip' to Paris of these actors (DVD-extra) you will most likely want to trow up. Advice to Beau Dorens: stop your acting career, you'll never get there... To the 2 main 'actors': grow up, please. Being generous, I'd give it 4 out of 10.<br /><br />
They said it would be a film greater than Turks Fruit. How dare<br /><br />they? It's not even 10% of this classic. Bad acting. The only character i felt sympathy for was the one<br /><br />played by Angela Schijf. Her acting was the best in the whole film. The story could've been interesting, but it wasn't. Some scenes were very beautiful filmed (lights and camera), (the<br /><br />opening scene for example), but the bad acting made the magic<br /><br />disappear.<br /><br />I really don't understand why so many people voted this film so<br /><br />good.
If you read Errol Flynn's autobiography, My Wicked, Wicked Ways, you will see that this film is full of poetic licence. Not that that makes much of a difference, because Errol Flynn was pretty generous with poetic licence in the autobiography anyway. No need to worry about spoilers, since there is nothing there to spoil.<br /><br />To me it would seem more sensible to use the story about a fictitious Hollywood actor; then you could go out and find a better actor than Duncan Regehr to play him, and you wouldn't have to worry about the audience saying things like: "But he didn't have a moustaches in Captain Blood." Another failing of this film is that it shows Flynn as a two-dimensional character. Flynn was an intelligent man, well educated, well read. This film only concentrates on his funster image.<br /><br />Regehr is a disaster. The rest of the cast struggle with their scripts. Hal Linden is OK as Warner, and Barbara Hershey makes a believable Damita, although Lili Damita herself did not think so.<br /><br />The best thing to do with this film is to forget about it and let it gently slip away to oblivion. So what I am writing this for, I can't imagine.
After watching this film, I thought to myself, they really glossed up Errol Flynn's life! The movie is really nice eye candy. They really got the 1930s and 1940s atmosphere of Hollywood just right. The costumes were great. All the women looked glamorous and all the men looked handsome and debonair.<br /><br />Is this a serious film about Errol Flynn's life? Nah! It's a fun movie based on all the scandalous stuff he did in his life.<br /><br />Why am I critiquing this film? This is a film that had a lot of promise but failed to deliver. Duncan Reagher was really good as Errol Flynn. He was not as good looking as the original, but he made you believe that Flynn was not just a handsome playboy who did not take himself seriously, but as a man who, although gifted with great talent, was kind of disturbed and unhappy inside. Flynn's love life was a disaster considering he had so many failed marriages. He also lost a lot of good friends during his life. He also suffered from unrequited love for the elegant Olivia DeHavilland. The last scene of the film showed Errol kind of begging for Olivia to stay with him and instead she walks away. He is shown in his tux, looking really empty and slowly walking around the pool as he pours his drink into the pool. It was a sad way to end the film but kind of fitting because everyone knows by now how he eventually fell apart from his alcoholism and his dissipated lifestyle.<br /><br />This film could've had much more depth, could've been better well-written. Sure they showed all the scandals but they never showed Errol Flynn's human center. Surprisingly, Duncan Reagher was able to put some emotional depth into the character of Errol Flynn even though the film writing didn't put any depth there.<br /><br />I'll probably never see this film again but I can still remember after viewing this film, "Gosh, this could've been so much more.....!" I give this film a D+.
The recent documentary "The Adventures of Errol Flynn" is an in-depth look at the Ultimate Hollywood Hero. Bogart,Cagney, Wayne and the like were basically blue collar types in their screen images but Flynn was an aristocrat in his style and manner, the younger son out to carve out his own fiefdom for a sword,thunder and romance analogy that ironically he found himself trapped in. If he hadn't been under contract to Warner Bros. he would've of been perfect in the Cary Grant role in Suspicion: the good looking charmer whose 1000 watt smile blinds one to the fact that he's a predator. And he could've starred with his best leading ladies sister Joan Fontaine. That was Flynn's trouble he was the Ultimate Screen Hero until his own habits and bad timing caught up with him. Grant and Flynn in a way are similar but Flynn was the more macho of the two;it is possible to see Grant as Captain Blood but Flynn in The Philadelphia Story Mr. Blanding Builds his Dream House,or Monkey Business,or Operation Petticoat would've turned those roles on their collective ears because he's too damn sure on his feet and the sexual tension he would've brought naturally would've made the story lines wobbly. But this wobbly biography is just a plasticized view of Flynn and his era. There are times when I half expected a laugh track or an audience to go "Ahhh" at some point. It doesn't go deeply into Flynn's life just the screen magazine view. It also doesn't delve into his struggle to be considered more than a derring-doer. Like the cleaned up biographies of Lon Chaney( the father,not the Wolfman,or Lenny"Of Mice and Men) and Buster Keaton done in the '50's this is just a time killing piece of fluff
This movie was disturbing, not because of the subject matter but because of the way it was handled. The extremely overweight mother (Angela) did not even make it on the cover of the video case when most of the rest of the cast did. This is not fair but is a statement in itself. I also notice her picture is missing from IMDb (maybe her own choice) and it looks like this is her only film ever? The language in this movie was crude beyond necessity. Watched with my 10yr old son because it was rated PG in Canada and the language coming out of their mouths was shameful & disgusting. Never did appreciate Shirley Maclain like so many others seem to.<br /><br />LOVE Kathy Bates and always will. Sinese's part was annoying.<br /><br />The little boy Alex is a great little actor. I'll have to see what else he's been up to lately..
This odd little film starts out with the story of Bruno (Alex Linz) in a catholic school who has no friends and gets beat up everyday. He likes to wear dresses and his obese mother Angela who is a dressmaker doesn't think their is anything wrong with what her son likes. Angela complains to Mother Superior (Kathy Bates) but gets ignored and as the two of them walk back to they're car they are harassed by the other kids and are pelted with eggs. Bruno's father Dino (Gary Sinise) is divorced from Angela and is totally disgusted by his son being a sissy and practically disowns him. Bruno meets a new student at school named Shawniqua (Kiami Davael) who is a free spirit and dresses like Annie Oakley with cap pistols. Angela has a heart attack and Bruno's grandmother steps in to take care of him when Dino refuses.<br /><br />The film starts out with a very hard and unsympathetic look at all the characters involved. Angela has a great deal to do with Bruno wearing dresses as she practically encourages him. Dino was told when he was a young boy by his mother that he was a sissy because he liked opera and now he refuses to help Bruno when he needs it. The catholic school that Bruno attends is very unruly and all the kids run rampant and even call Shawniqua the "N" word. Once Shirley MacLaine steps in the film shifts and becomes more family oriented (So to speak). ****SPOILER ALERT**** The ending after the spelling bee is incredibly contrived and "feel good". Hugs and cheers for Bruno as reporters follow him and take his picture for their papers. All the while Shirley MacLaine is acting like the "tough old broad" who snaps at everyone. There is one thing about MacLaine's character in the film that no one has mention in these comments and it has to do with the masculine nature of her. I think the character of Helen might be a lesbian! She's very tough and strong and at one point in the film she shares a shot of whiskey with Bruno and smokes a cigar at the same time. I don't remember anyone in the film mentioning who her husband was or if she was ever married at all! This is why I think her character might be gay. Lots of other good actors appear in the film as well. Joey Lauren Adams, Jennifer Tilly, Brett Butler, Gwen Verdon and Lainie Kazan all should have taken a better look at the script before they signed on. I guess when they heard that MacLaine was directing that it would be an honor to be part of it. Very difficult to feel any remorse or understanding towards any of the characters and the subject matter is probably impossible for most to relate to. The actors are not bad but what exactly was MacLaine aiming for? Tolerance towards a young boy who wants to wear dresses and freedom of expression? We get that in the first 10 minutes, the rest of the time I was trying not to cringe.
What was I thinking when I rented this one? What did the distributor think when he copied the tape and shipped it all the way to Holland? That anyone really wanted to see this s***?!?<br /><br />It's about some astronauts getting into trouble outer space (Apollo 13 flashback, but never even in the shadow of this fine film) and they want to return to home. If you act in such a film, you should be glad that you're gonna drift away from earth as far as possible!<br /><br />This one wants to surf on the small wave of space movies in 1998 (Deep Impact and Armageddon), and this one fails everywhere. Deep Impact and Armageddon weren't perfect either (far from it), but they were at least worth watching once (and maybe one more time when we're all old). They gave some fun. Max Q doesn't. It gives irritation. Okay, okay. It's a TV movie, but does that mean you're allowed to come up with such a mess?<br /><br />If you haven't choked in your own vomit by the end (by all the cheap drama and worthless dialogue) you've must have bored yourself to death with this waste of time.<br /><br />It gets at its worst at the end when the space shuttle lands on... No, I can't 'spoil' this one (IMDb guidelines forbid it). So you have to see for yourself. NO! DON'T SEE IT (sorry), but rent a movie which is worth renting (like Battlefield Earth... just kidding!)<br /><br />Probably the worst one I have ever seen.
Stay away from this movie! It is terrible in every way. Bad acting, a thin recycled plot and the worst ending in film history. Seldom do I watch a movie that makes my adrenaline pump from irritation, in fact the only other movie that immediately springs to mind is another "people in an aircraft in trouble" movie (Airspeed). Please, please don't watch this one as it is utterly and totally pathetic from beginning to end. Helge Iversen
An old high school teacher of mine used to brag that he'd seen every movie EVER made, so one day a friend of mine and I decided to make up a movie called "Pacific Inferno". Later, we got into an argument whether the lead role was played by Carl Weathers or Billy Dee Williams. Our teacher found the argument interesting, so he came up to us and informed us that the lead role in "Pacific Inferno" was played by Jim Brown. We thought he was trapped in a lie, that was until we went to the library and discovered that "Pacific Inferno" was in fact a real movie. This incident forced me to rent the movie... it's horrible. Our made up movie had a better plot than this piece. Weathers and Billy Dee would have been much better in the picture.
Jim Brown stars and produces a tale set in the Philippines just after the Japanese invasion. The story has the Japanese taking several navy men prisoner including some divers, who they use to retrieve the gold that MacArthur had dumped into the Manila bay.<br /><br />It's a messy movie aiming to make a statement about war and racism (The film uses Edwin McCain's War in a not so subtle montage). The performances are just adequate at best. Jim Brown is okay, but he doesn't really show any sort of range in a performance that just has him standing there looking annoyed. The sets are serviceable but seem rather cheap. The film suffers from the outset due to a great deal of stock footage including many of the best known shots from the Japanese attack in Tora! Tora! Tora!. The use of such big budget sequence effectively makes the rest of the film look positively anemic; it also reminds one that there are better films out there one could be watching. For me the film seems to have half a real plot, the retrieval of the silver, and half a plot that is there just to fill time. None of it is particularly exciting even with the explosive finale.<br /><br />Given the choice I'd take a pass.
The best thing about this flick is that it seems like they used a lot of stuff left over from the Pearl Harbor attack in Tora Tora Tora. My favorite was the shot of the P-40 crashing into the row of parked P-40s but filmed from the top of a hangar or crane. Unfortunately it just gets worse from there.<br /><br />There's two black guys and two white guys as American POWs, as well as some Filipinos POWs and Japanese guards. The ranking POW of the Americans is a white naval Lieutenant, which is of course an O-3 in the navy. At any rate, he's in need of a haircut, badly, distractingly badly. Hockey hair does not belong in a WWII movie. Oh, and he's a racist. He doesn't want to share quarters with the 'negros'. Of course in real life, he wouldn't want to share quarters with the white enlisted guy either. I think the Geneva Convention has a clause about officers quarters and enlisted but that wasn't the point here. Oh well, I think plot is secondary to other issues in this flick. He gets put in his place and pretty much spends the rest of the movie as a look out and running the air pump for the divers.<br /><br />But once you get going, it's not a bad story line. The japs want the divers to raise the silver thrown out by the Americans before Corrigador fell. The Filipino resistance wants them to take their time. And the POWs do their best to help. A potentially good story and not that badly done I guess. A bit unbelievable when the POWs use camp made re-breathers to swim between the POW camp and the Filipino village, every night. Maybe I'm not that picky when I know going in that this is not a blockbuster film. I guess that's why it comes on a 20-pack DVD war movie collection for five bucks.<br /><br />The 70s music did not belong in this movie or any WWII movie. It's quite distracting to say the least. The acting was not that bad. Probably better than I could do.<br /><br />Not being a fan of football, at least I found out that Jim Brown is a real person and not somebody Richard Pryor made up. That in itself was worth the 25¢ I paid for this movie.<br /><br />Worth watching on TCM or paying a quarter for. <br /><br />One star for being a war movie, another for being WWII and one more because I'm feeling generous.
If you are in to bad movies for the entertainment of witnessing bad movies, bad acting, bad production etc..aka Mystery Science Theater 3000 quality....you will love Pacific Inferno. Jim Brown will be forever remembered as one of the greatest football players to ever play the game...as an actor he will forever be remembered as one of the greatest football players to ever play the game... I am not sure who Rolf Bayer was...but I am hoping he was 15 or 16 years old when he directed this, perhaps he may have been the next Spielberg in the making...because if he was a grown man directing this...a 15 or 16 year old could have done better.... The basis or plot for the movie probably had some historical merit and maybe even truthfully accurate...but the actual film may be one of worst movies made in American film history...I kept waiting for Lee Marvin, William Holden or Charles Bronson to pop in to somehow save whatever "face" was left of this film. I would have loved to have been at the red carpet, black tie gala for the Hollywood opening when this movie previewed...as this movie had to have many a viewer laughing and cringing under their breath... it is on the dime DVD racks now....look for it for entertainment value...this movie is so bad it is too good to pass up...
Why are there no good reviews? Because this film is hysterically bad.<br /><br />Set in a Japanese prison camp in World War II, we have Jim Brown as the hero who puts up with a hysterically unbelievable racist officer, and just as hysterical is the way the Japanese officers brown nose Jim Brown's character.<br /><br />This is probably the worst film any of these actors ever did. Stereotypes not only abound, but they dominate this film. The sixties-seventies music may be the best thing about the film, maybe because it has nothing to do with the film.<br /><br />This is even difficult to sit back and enjoy as mindless fun. This film is even more racist than the message of racism it tries to deliver. And believe me, I was alive in the seventies, and we thought crap like this was just as stupid then. It was never popular.
Our story: Two U.S. Navy deep sea divers search for silver coins hidden beneath the ocean off the Filipino coast. Our proof: Extremely dull entertainment at its best, with no plot in sight. Jim Brown is completely wasted, provided his help in producing this 70s war turkey. Richard Jaeckel is in his usual form. Don Cornelius and Richard Pryor are among those who gave special thanks in their contributions! BOMBS AWAY!!!
A man in blackface lands in a spaceship and meets a girl who lives in some sort of shack with a monkey. He hooks her up with a telephone, and she teaches him how to Charleston. Then they fly off in the spaceship, leaving the monkey behind. Cringe-inducing blackface aside, this short film makes no sense. I think that's the plot, but I'm not sure by a long shot. You can't tell that this is Renoir at work, despite his characteristic humanism. Good use of slow-motion, though. Can be found on the NY Film Annex's series of Experimental Film videos, No. 18, I believe.
Made with film stock left over from the production of Nana, 1927's Sur un Air de Charleston is described as a holiday film for all concerned, and that's the best way to view it. Jean Renoir seems never to have thought enough of it to even edit the footage together. The plot is a simple reversion of racial stereotypes – in 2028 a black explorer travels to a post-holocaust Paris where a white native girl teaches him the Charleston (naturally he assumes she's a savage whose dancing is a prelude to her eating him before giving in to the seductive beat of 'White Aborigine' music). There are plenty of surreal touches, be it the pet gorilla eating the flowers in Catherine Hessling's hair, the angels the girl telephones (Renoir and producer Pierre Braunberger among them) or the fact that black performer Johnny Huggins plays his part in minstrel blackface while Hessling's dancing ability is almost completely nonexistent, and there are some interesting occasional experiments with slow motion, but there's not really enough to sustain it for two reels. An additional air of surrealism is provided by the fact that this silent musical has absolutely no score at all on Lions Gate's new DVD…
I enjoy science-fiction just as much as the next man… but what the hell was that? Apparently shot over just three days using excess film stock left over from his previous film, 'Nana (1926),' this Jean Renoir short is a bewildering futuristic satire, produced on a budget that couldn't have been much more than zero. In the year 2028, following a great war, Africa has become the most civilised region on Earth, and what was formerly Europe has been designated "Terres Inconnues (Unknown Land)." An African explorer – played by Johnny Huggins, a Black man dressed up as a White man dressed up as a Black man, if you follow me – travels to the ruins of Paris in his spherical aircraft, and lands outside the lair of a Parisian savage (Catherine Hessling, then the director's wife) and her primate companion, perhaps the creepiest ape-man costume I've ever seen. The savage, as part of some bizarre sexual initiation ritual, starts showing the explorer the Charleston dance, which he is delighted to learn himself.<br /><br />It doesn't help the film that Hessling, who was wonderful the following year in Renoir's 'The Little Match Girl (1928),' isn't much of a dancer, though the extensive use of slow-motion adds a touch of surrealism to the ceremony. Furthermore, I'm quite shocked that Renoir would exploit his own wife as such a blatant sexual object – it doesn't come as a surprise to learn of their divorce just three years later! On the plus side, I did like the general sci-fi concept behind the film, and the slyly satiric touch of the reversing the racial roles usually typical in such stories as this. However, why Renoir decided to dress up his Black actor as a minstrel will remain a mystery for all of time. Silly, crude and quite pointless, 'Charleston Parade (1927)' is a cinematic oddity from one of cinema's most respected directors, and is perhaps an effort that he would have liked to forget. The DVD version came without a musical soundtrack, but I compromised with a selection of pieces from Dmitri Shostakovich.
This movie didn't do it for me, an avid SNL fan for the past 14 years. Jamie Gertz' portrayal was OK, but there was something so off-putting about the movie itself. The facts presented in the movie are totally skewed. But Merv Griffin produced it, so that would explain a lot. He was never on SNL, nor had anything to do with it. The points in her life when she was on SNL are backwards. When we first see her on SNL, walking through the studio with Lorne Michaels, the logo on the wall is circa 1988-1989, not 1975. And let's talk about the cast -- who are these people?? I have never heard of a one of them. Truly dissatisfying. This movie shows why TV movies are just that, TV movies.
1st watched 7/29/2001 - 4 out of 10 (Dir-Mark Dindal): Fast-paced, frantic animation effort by Ted Turner's feature animation group plays a lot like tv cartoons and leaves a lot to be desired in the area of likeable characters, but definetly has extremely unlikeable villains. I'm not even sure why the kids would like this movie because there are so many references to old movie stars that kids know very little or nothing about. Mediocre effort at best despite raves on the box comparing it to Disney efforts like Aladdin and Lion King. Don't let this fool you -- there is no comparison in story or quality.
Two years after leaving the small town of Grover's Bend due to encountering the Krites, Brad Brown returns to spend time with his grandmother in time for Easter. Meanwhile the Krite eggs begin to hatch. As they cause trouble in the town, Brown & the townsfolk, as well as the alien bounty hunters who have returned to finish the creatures must fight the bloodthirsty furballs before they wipe out the town.<br /><br />The original Critters was a minor attempt to rip-off the family-horror flick "Gremlins". It became a cult favourite on the video shelves & was successful enough to warrant a sequel. This sequel plays down the horror & makes its entire focus comedy instead. Unfortunately the comedy part is extremely clumsy, as well as childish. The acting is on par with the rest of the film. It is just that the film suffers from a weak script. The visual effects are fairly well done.<br /><br />Grade: D+ Review by M. K. Geist.
What a terrible sequel. The reason I give this film two stars instead of zero because it's a movie that has violence and gore and critters, yet it is planned out poorly. And this god-awful sequel was done by none other than BUM-BUM-BUM-BUM!!!!!!!!! Mick Garris! The bonehead that brought you the remake of The Shining which nearly got Kubrick to nearly roll in his grave when he discovered it was actually made. Garris is also the man that brought you the sad sequel of THE FLY, THE FLY, which was a wonderful movie, but Garris's movie nearly ruined John Getz career. Anyway, if you really want to see the crappy critters trilogy in order, don't. That's the mistake I made, rent the first one or the third one or better yet DON'T STOOP TO THAT LEVEL AT ALL! This movie sucked so bad that I can't believe it, please avoid this crap. Shame on you, Mick!
Some changes for the better (the special effects are more elaborate), some for the worse (Scott Grimes, a likable kid in the original, has turned into an awkward teenager), but generally this sequel is about on a par with the original - which doesn't say much. The PG-13 rating is questionable; although the film is not scary at all, there is some brief but quite explicit gore, and some out-of-place nudity. (*1/2)
OH MY GOD! After having such a promising start, Critters 2 reiterated the Karmic rule of what goes around comes around. Clearly, very few things were thought out when this movie was made, and what was up with Scott Grimes wearing an earing! This should have been the last expedition into the Critters saga, but more garbage was on its way. This was the big reason why I didn't watch Critters 3, and why is every bad film series has to have an episode in space? (Critters, Friday the 13th, Leprechaun in Space, Hellraiser, etc.)
Mickey Rourke is enjoying a renaissance at the moment... and fair play to him. I always liked his image and his acting ability in such fare as Angel Heart and Johnny Handsome. You know what you are going to get with Rourke - mean, moody, dirty. But this film gives you much more - and you don't want most of it.<br /><br />First and foremost - this whole thing just doesn't make sense. Rourke is a hardened IRA killer who after killing a bus-load of schoolchildren flees Ireland for London. He is on the run from the cops and from his own Army comrades. He has also vowed to never kill again. It looks like the bus full of kids finally did it for him.<br /><br />However, when he gets to London he is tracked down by a local mobster (Bates - looking like his eyebrows and hair came straight off a Burton's dummy) to kill his main competitor in turn for £50,000 and a boat trip to the US. Rourke reluctantly agrees to do it but is seen by a priest (Hoskins) and confesses the crime to him in the confessional in order to keep the priest's mouth shut. He figures it is better than killing him.<br /><br />A wealth of things arise here which just don't add up : <br /><br />1. Why pick Rourke to off your competition? As is illustrated by a scene whereby an employee is pinned to a wall by a couple of heavies with what look like awls - these London guys are tough enough anyway to do their own killing.<br /><br />2. Not only that but the Mobster gets a guy to follow Rourke and witness the killing with his own eyes. Why didn't that guy simply kill the competitor and save all the hassle of dealing with Rourke? <br /><br />3.Hoskins sees the murder take place and the police let him go off - without protection, I may add - to take confession? No way.<br /><br />4. Rourke hangs around the church (right next to where he carried out the murder ) immediately after the crime takes place to go to confession. Why aren't the cops checking the place out? <br /><br />5. Rourke hangs around the church and Hoskin's blind niece in particular, for days afterward without anybody bothering him. What? He's on the run and he stays put by the very place where he committed another murder? Stupid.<br /><br />6. The cops actually meet Rourke in the church "fixing" the organ and have no idea who he is. Do they not know he is on the run for the school bus bombing? They don't even check up on him? <br /><br />7. Why get Rourke to kill for you, and then tell him to wait around for a few days to get on the boat? You'd think you'd want to get rid of him immediately. Or kill him. One or the other? <br /><br />8. Why does Bates' brother suddenly decide to rape the blind niece in the midst of all the waiting? Could he not restrain himself for a few days? At least until Rourke has been safely offed to the States? Ridiculous.<br /><br />9. Rourke suddenly has inner turmoil after all his years of killing and wins over the blind niece immediately - even after she knows he is a killer, she still loves him? Again - utterly ludicrous. And besides - she falls in "love" with him in record time - a few days !!!! <br /><br />10. The whole bomb thing at the end is just plain silly from Bates' point of view.<br /><br />11. Things happen in parts of this film that just do not make sense or are simply in there to help the storyline (and I say that in jest) along. Bates' houses Rourke in a whorehouse until the boat is ready to sail and Rourke suddenly displays a moral high ground to respect the whore in the house - but yet will bed a blind girl.<br /><br />12. Rourke asks a henchman on the boat where Bates is - and the henchman practically spurts out the entire movements of his boss in less than 10 seconds. It was embarrassing - the guy was telling Rourke far more than he even asked.<br /><br />13. Hoskin's priest is an ex-army guy and we see him beat up three henchmen behind a pub. Totally uncalled-for and yet another cringe-worthy scene.<br /><br />I'm gonna stop there at unlucky 13 without mentioning Rourke's hair (so falsely red it is laughable), his accent (which to be fair is not too bad sometimes but deteriorates to a barely heard mumble at other times), his clothes, walk, looks to the heavens etc. Nor will I mention the music and the choppy editing style.<br /><br />Oooppps - I have just mentioned them.<br /><br />Overall - a disaster of a film with some obvious religious imagery thrown in (Rourke on the cross, preaching from a pulpit) which would embarrass a first year film student never mind a top star and director.<br /><br />4/10.
Let's get things straight. I was raised Catholic, and in a very religious family, and spent as much time at church and talking to priests as at home. That was useful for two things: to make a convinced Atheist out of me, and to give me deep, insightful knowledge about the Church and its dogmas. And I say: if a Catholic priest witnesses a murder, and clearly sees the face of the killer, he CAN report it to the police, even if the murderer has confessed to him afterwards. He can not reveal what he's told in confession, but he CAN talk about anything he sees outside that, and confession is useless to keep his mouth shut. So, here we have a movie entirely sustained on a lie. And another lie is there's no absolution for murder. According to the Catholic Church, there's absolution for any sin as long as there's sincere repentance. So far, the biggest plot holes in this weak thriller.<br /><br />As people frequently say, this movie would have improved if Bob Hoskins and Alan Bates had switched roles. Hoskins is naturally suitable to play gangsters (I will never lament enough that he lost Al Capone in favor of one of De Niro's weakest performances in "The Untouchables") and Bates' features would have been perfect as the priest with a gray past. But above that, I think the film would have been much better had real-life Ulster native Liam Neeson (back then mostly unknown to big audiences) played Mickey Rourke's part. Not only his face is perfect to play tormented characters, but he'd make us believe the character as real, something Rourke just can't. Back in the 80s, Rourke was not a bad actor (afterwards he seemed to lose his talent along with his looks), but he was one of those performers, like Brad Dourif, who's as good as the director he works with. And as a former IRA terrorist, Rourke's acting comes across more like a pimp. Sad to think that, had this movie been made just some three to six years later (when Neeson achieved moderate celebrity status in 1990 with Sam Raimi's enjoyable "Darkman", and superstardom in 1993 with "Schindler's List", while Rourke became pretty much of a forgotten has-been), Liam and Mickey could have switched parts to greater benefit (Rourke would have been effective in the supporting role of Docherty, but just can't carry this movie along as the lead). Yet another missed opportunity, and yet another film with the potential of being a classic, that became instantly forgettable fare.<br /><br />Ironically enough, the often criticized score (by underrated composer Bill Conti) worked for me. I didn't find it overly-melodramatic, but suitably gritty and beautiful. It reminded me of Howard Shore's score for "The Silence of the Lambs". Here's to Mike Hodges' talent, who made "Get Carter", yes, but don't forget he's the mastermind behind "Flash Gordon" as well...<br /><br />It seems the film was massacred in the cutting room (it shows, as some parts are really choppy and confusing, and others just don't glue) and a Director's Cut is waiting to see the light. OK, but I seriously doubt that will make it a great movie, as we'll still have the bad casting and the false premise there. 4/10.
Jack Higgins' straightforward thriller about a guilt-ridden IRA bomber forced into "one last job" (where have I heard that plot before?) gets a snarky treatment from cult director Mike Hodges. Mickey Rourke, with alarming red hair, confesses all to the priest (Bob Hoskins, of all people) who accidentally witnessed the shooting. The rules of the church keep Father Bob from talking, but then Rourke goes and falls in love with the priest's blind niece. They bond at the church organ. What? Really, that's the plot. Alan Bates is around as the top dog mobster who's calling the shots (literally) and he seems to be the only actor who's on to the jokey tone Hodges is aiming at. Bates is all set to do a sort of U.K. PRIZZI'S HONOR, but no one else, including an effortlessly charismatic Liam Neeson in a supporting role, has been informed.
Mickey Rourke is enjoying a renaissance at the moment... and fair play to him. I always liked his image and his acting ability in such fare as Angel Heart and Johnny Handsome. You know what you are going to get with Rourke - mean, moody, dirty. But this film gives you much more - and you don't want most of it.<br /><br />First and foremost - this whole thing just doesn't make sense. Rourke is a hardened IRA killer who after killing a bus-load of schoolchildren flees Ireland for London. He is on the run from the cops and from his own Army comrades. He has also vowed to never kill again. It looks like the bus full of kids finally did it for him.<br /><br />However, when he gets to London he is tracked down by a local mobster (Bates - looking like his eyebrows and hair came straight off a Burton's dummy) to kill his main competitor in turn for £50,000 and a boat trip to the US. Rourke reluctantly agrees to do it but is seen by a priest (Hoskins) and confesses the crime to him in the confessional in order to keep the priest's mouth shut. He figures it is better than killing him.<br /><br />A wealth of things arise here which just don't add up : 1. Why pick Rourke to off your competition? As is illustrated by a scene whereby an employee is pinned to a wall by a couple of heavies with what look like awls - these London guys are tough enough anyway to do their own killing. 2. Not only that but the Mobster gets a guy to follow Rourke and witness the killing with his own eyes. Why didn't that guy simply kill the competitor and save all the hassle of dealing with Rourke? 3. Hoskins sees the murder take place and the police let him go off - without protection, I may add - to take confession? No way. 4. Rourke hangs around the church (right next to where he carried out the murder ) immediately after the crime takes place to go to confession. Why aren't the cops checking the place out? 5. Rourke hangs around the church and Hoskin's blind niece in particular, for days afterwards without anybody bothering him. What? He's on the run and he stays put by the very place where he committed another murder? Stupid. 6. The cops actually meet Rourke in the church "fixing" the organ and have no idea who he is. Do they not know he is on the run for the school bus bombing? They don't even check up on him? 7. Why get Rourke to kill for you, and then tell him to wait around for a few days to get on the boat? You'd think you'd want to get rid of him immediately. Or kill him. One or the other? 8. Why does Bates' brother suddenly decide to rape the blind niece in the midst of all the waiting? Could he not restrain himself for a few days? At least until Rourke has been safely offed to the States? Ridiculous. 9. Rourke suddenly has inner turmoil after all his years of killing and wins over the blind niece immediately - even after she knows he is a killer, she still loves him? Again - utterly ludicrous. And besides - she falls in "love" with him in record time - a few days !!!! 10. The whole bomb thing at the end is just plain silly from Bates point of view. 11. Things happen in parts of this film that just do not make sense or are simply in there to help the storyline (and I say that in jest) along. Bates' houses Rourke in a whorehouse until the boat is ready to sail and Rourke suddenly displays a moral high ground to respect the whore in the house - but yet will bed a blind girl. 12. Rourke asks a henchman on the boat where Bates is - and the henchman practically spurts out the entire movements of his boss in less than 10 seconds. It was embarrassing - the guy was telling Rourke far more than he even asked. 13. Hoskin's priest is an ex-army guy and we see him beat up three henchmen behind a pub. Totally uncalled-for and yet another cringe-worthy scene.<br /><br />I'm gonna stop there at unlucky 13 without mentioning Rourke's hair (so falsely red it is laughable), his accent (which to be fair is not too bad sometimes but deteriorates to a barely heard mumble at other times), his clothes, walk, looks to the heavens etc. Nor will I mention the music and the choppy editing style.<br /><br />Oooppps - I have just mentioned them.<br /><br />Overall - a disaster of a film with some obvious religious imagery thrown in (Rourke on the cross, preaching from a pulpit) which would embarrass a first year film student never mind a top star and director.<br /><br />4/10.
Mickey Rourke ( who was once a famous movie star ) plays Martin Fallon an IRA terrorist who accidentally blows up a school bus full of children who is so disgusted by his actions decides to leave the IRA and goes on the run in London <br /><br />!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!<br /><br />The movie's opening is rather disturbing as the lives of little children are ended in a fireball . Things like this happened throughout the 1970s and 1980s and into the 1990s in Northern Ireland which gives A PRAYER FOR THE DYING a stark realism . However as soon as Fallon decides he's going to give up violence ( What ? He's a terrorist and he's never blown up innocent passerbys before ? ) realism disappears and clichés and ridiculous plot twists take place . Martin is employed by the London underworld ( Don't they have their own hit men ? )to commit a hit while he wears an IRA " uniform " ( Never knew the provos wore uniforms ) at a cemetery in broad daylight ( Wouldn't an IRA man use a bomb placed under a car ? ) where he's spotted by a priest who recognises him while he was in the SAS . Hands up who thinks I'm lying ? I'm not and we're half way through the running time and there's still several clichés to come <br /><br />This all sounds very silly and it is but what do you expect from a novel by Jack Higgins ? Everything is clichéd , contrived and stereotypical and the bits that aren't are just plain bizarre . The critics slaughtered this movie when it came out , most notably they stated that it might have some potential if the movie had Bob Hoskins playing gangster Jack Meehan and Alan Bates playing the SAS soldier turned priest and for once the critics would have been right . They should also noted the film might have been less dire if Fallon was played by someone who was capable of doing an Irish accent . Rourke might be hunky and macho ( Oh gawd another movie with an IRA uberhunk ) but accents aren't his strong point any more than character acting is . To give you an idea how disappointing PRAYER FOR THE DYING IS the director ended up disowning it which is always a bad sign <br /><br />As a footnote the original release of PRAYER FOR THE DYING in Britain was delayed for several months because of " The Enniskillen bombing " . In November 1987 the Provisional IRA exploded a bomb in the centre of Enniskillen where a Remembrance Day parade which commemorates Britain's war dead was being held . Eleven ( 11 ) people were killed and scores more injured . It wasn't an accident and no one left the IRA because of it
When I was a little girl, I absolutely adored The Swan Princess, it was reliving the same fairy tales of Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, and Cinderella, the princess and her prince who saves the day is always a timeless story that will never die, well, hopefully. But I figured that I would check out the sequels for The Swan Princess to see what they were like and unfortunately, this is the typical cartoon sequel that just disappoints more than entertains. The only character I found still very amusing was the Queen, she was very funny in this movie and had the best part. But with the voice changes, they were noticeable and also bothered me quite a bit, I don't mean to be picky, just it was too weird for me. The story also was just more or less borrowed from the first Swan Princess, just the villain in this movie is following Rothbart's footsteps.<br /><br />Odette and Derek are about to celebrate their one year anniversary, but Derek has been too preoccupied with fighting for his kingdom to keep it safe. With his mother's birthday also coming up, he forgets about that since there is a new villain in town, Clavious, who is hoping to go above and beyond where Rothbart's powers went and kidnaps the Queen on her birthday. But Odette must change back into her swan self in order to help Derek fight him and save his mother.<br /><br />The Swan Princess 2 is of course more than alright for the kids, that I never mind, it's good clean fun for them. The reason why these sequels are disappointing though is because it is usually just for the kids, that is the audience they aim for, but it's more enjoyable when the jokes and story can be enjoyed by everyone. Now there are a few laughs and giggles here and there, but this wasn't as clever in my opinion to the first Swan Princess. I would recommend it for the little one's, but if you're looking for a fun cartoon movie, I'd recommend staying with the first Swan Princess.<br /><br />4/10
I was disappointed with the sequel to the Swan Princess. I can see what they were trying to do with the story, show how married life was going for Odette and Derek but the story wasn't interesting enough to hold my attention and it seemed to cover the same bases as the original.<br /><br />It isn't funny. The only bit I found humorous was when Jean-Bob was turned into a prince and then back into a frog and no-one saw it happen and he was trying to convince them that it really did.<br /><br />The villain is rubbish and the animation isn't as impressive as the first film.<br /><br />The Queen is a very irritating character and instead of cheering with Derek to rescue his mother, you're hoping that the villain puts a spell on her voice box to stop her talking.<br /><br />It is a shame because I really liked the first movie but it didn't live up to my expectations.
the worst sequel I've ever seen. really awful songs which is upsetting considering how fantastic the first films score and story is! also, which ruins the film for me is the fact there is no John Cleese so jean bob might as well not even be in it and the new villains are dreadful. it is really annoying how that old woman type thing cant string a simple sentence together properly without repeating her words over and over and over again. but to be fair Uberta not shutting up is a little bit funny. but the fact it was her 50th birthday: why do they draw her looking like an 80 year old? i was going to give this a 1 but now i think... i might give it a 2. but still the story line is no where near as good as the first film . it is similar without the humour from certain characters. Overall i disliked this film entirely because of the disappointing music, the severe lack of voice talent: having changed the voice of prince Derek and jean bob, the new villains, disappointing storyline the annoying habits of some characters, and the very simple animation.
The plot outline of this movie is similar to the original. Someone gets kidnapped, the prince is incest with saving her, Odet turns into a Swan, the turtle/frog/puffin first the "bad" magician as best they can, and in the end.... Anyways, there is not much new here. With the exception of a lack of well known voice talent. Sorry, no Palance nor Cleese and thus Jean-Bob was a disapointment.
I really enjoyed BG Seasons 1-3 and really couldn't understand those who didn't like it. But I can't defend this nonsense. Spoilers follow.<br /><br />The first problem is that the characters are now doing inexplicably stupid things on a regular basis: <br /><br />So if Starbuck thinks she knows where Earth is why not send her out in a Raptor? Would the Admiral accept the resignation of his third most experienced officer? Would the Quorum elect their newest member, the non-elected Adama Junior? He has about three weeks political experience under his belt, and is the son of a man they distrust. Would Adama send Gaeta AND Halo along with Starbuck leaving himself short of senior officers? Would Adama put a man into having sex with cylon prisoners in charge of the fleet?<br /><br />I just don't buy any of this.<br /><br />Secondly, while I accept there have been miracles and references to god up to the end of season 3, it's now all totally over the top. I started watching BG because I thought it was Sci Fi, not some biblical epic. I expected the characters to continue to behave reasonably intelligently, and wanted some satisfying explanations regarding some of the odder developments in the series. <br /><br />Baltar was the best character in the show, but he now seems to be totally insane. Not illogical considering what he's been through, but very unsatisfying.<br /><br />All the characters appear to be just puppets dancing to an unknown third party's behest (some godlike entity). This isn't good drama, it's annoying and a writing cop out. <br /><br />OK, so what are the good points? Nice battle at the start of 4.1. Some good dramatic scenes (well acted) when viewed in isolation. A good final scene, a nice cliffhanging curve ball of a development.<br /><br />But this isn't Sci Fi, it's turned into Fantasy. I can't imagine how the writers can recover this one.
There's only 2 reasons I watch this show...I invested the time already in previous episodes and Col Tigh. For all you supposed Sci-Fi fans out there who love the new BSG, give me a break! Go read some classic Sci-Fi novels by the true greats or watch some of the milestone films and TV shows from days gone by and you'll see what hacks these BSG writers are. Their only gimmick is "who is the fifth cylon". Poor writing and really, truly no sense of character development. If Adama resigns or tries to take power or cries again or discovers the inner father he should have been one more time...ahhhhh! And Roslin is as annoying a character that's ever been put aboard a starship. Out the airlock with her. I could care less if it's six more months before they conclude. These wannabe writers were out of tricks in season one. If you don't know that, you just don't know writing.
I can't believe this terrible film was made by the same people who made Lepa Sela Lepo Gore. Watch that and skip this. The plot is muddled and the characters are mostly two-dimensional stereotypes. I suspect the editor went on vacation halfway through the film because quick, choppy cuts start to appear that only confuse matters rather than elucidate them. The ending doesn't make sense either.<br /><br />This is predominantly a propaganda film made so Serbs can feel sorry for themselves and vilify America for the NATO bombings of 1999. They do this by perpetuating lies about Serbs being our allies during WWII, claiming the whole world is unjustly against them, and completely ignoring everything said and done by Slobodan Milosevic, like waging war on three neighboring countries. They seem intent on making a political film but only show a few seconds of Milosevic on a TV screen with no sound. A nationalist agenda obviously superseded any consideration of art which was not the case with Lepa Sela.<br /><br />Regrettably, I recommended this film to a teacher when it played last week at the Seattle International Film Festival. He also cited the bad editing and confusing plot, and I had to apologize for the bad advice. You've been warned.
Uh, oh! I just said the this "classic" film has a plot that STINKS! Well, it's true,...so get over it! This film was a vanity project for Joseph P. Kennedy in which his mistress starred and money flowed to make her an even bigger star. Today, only a fragmentary copy exists--one that was retored a few years back. However, even if the film had been in perfect shape, it STILL would have stunk for many reasons. And, without further ado, here are some of my reasons: <br /><br />First, Gloria Swanson, aged 31 plays a girl in a convent school--perhaps aged 16 or 18! Come on--she looks old enough to be the mother of many of the kids.<br /><br />Second, the movie all hinges on the stupid concept of "love at first sight". While some people believe it this, it is ridiculous to believe that a prince would throw away EVERYTHING on a woman he didn't even know! What a lot of hooey! <br /><br />Third, the movie is histrionic and the plot is nuts! After leaving the school, Kelly goes off to East Africa and then becomes "Queen of the Whores"--and later, after the evil queen back in Europe dies (that's convenient), the prince is able to get out of prison, actually finds Kelly and marries her and she then becomes queen of a real honest-to-goodness country! Gimme a break--this is RIDICULOUS, even in the days of silent film this plot was a groaner!<br /><br />So, in summary, this is a poor film with great production values (mistresses need to LOOK good) that is parading around as a classic! There are so many BETTER silent films out there--see them first and avoid this tripe.
Wow! I truly regret watching this picture... Funny, I agreed to see it just for my wife, who endured the torture of seeing it about a half an hour before retiring, while I stayed in front of the TV, but only to feed the the masochistic in me and I because I wanted to know if this movie was so bad in its entirety or if there were some redeemable aspects which might alleviate the feeling I had of being a stupid for watching this **** called Two Girls and a guy...<br /><br />Everything in this picture is wrong, totally wrong... since the initial, absurd, premise of two women stupid enough to stay with their common boyfriend, until the awful, but merciful, end, not forgetting the horrible acting of the three actors... Don't believe the rumors, the junkie's acting is bad and I don't see how Graham has made herself a known name within the movie industry...<br /><br />I wonder why, after the producers saved some bucks with just three actors and an only location, they didn't hire a person to write the script instead of putting a monkey to do it with his ***...<br /><br />At least, I felt a little fine when I destroyed the DVD and threw it to the trash... Anyway, I liked somehow (and just a little) the brunette actress, Natasha something, but that was not enough to beat the incredibly stupid and crazy premise of Face-off (changing faces), so Two Girls and a Guy to the bottom goes... <br /><br />Stay away from this ****!
<br /><br />The author tried to make a Kevin Smith´s style movie , but he definitely failed. The result is a boring film that cannot sustain itself using only the dialogues. Fortunately I had my remote control and could see the tape using the 2X speed.
The most self-indulgent movie I have every had the misfortune to<br /><br />rent. Unwatchable. Much of the movie is obviously improvised,<br /><br />and not well. It looks like Toback took the first take of<br /><br />everything. The movie gets good for a couple of minutes when<br /><br />Robert Downey Jr. shows up, then goes to hell again real<br /><br />quickly.
After an intriguing start, this little drama quickly descends into the ranks of sheer mediocrity. The start of the movie sees two women (Heather Graham and Natasha Gregson Wagner) meet each other while waiting for their boyfriends to get home from their holidays. Natasha Gregson Wagner is a lovely looking actress, and she plays Louise; a cute girl whose beloved boyfriend is an all round entertainer; music, movies you name it, he does it. While she's telling the other girl, Carla (Heather Graham) all about her wonderful boyfriend, it soon becomes apparent that the similarities between their two male friends are too much.... and it's obvious that the two girls are dating the same guy. Oh Dear. Enter Robert Downey Jnr, the sleaze-bag that has two girlfriends while some poor guy somewhere has to go without one. Downey plays the sort of guy that the ladies like, but men find repulsively annoying; he is, basically, a mummy's boy. The worst kind too; on the phone ringing mother all the time, continually showering his girlfriends with ambitious (albeit empty) promises etc. It's enough to make a normal guy sick.<br /><br />The film knowingly rips off superior three-way love triangle films such as Jules et Jim. This film doesn't work though; mostly due to the fact that it's story is so unbelievable. Seriously, if two women had just found that they were dating the same guy...they wouldn't stick around to talk about it. Another reason why it falls down is that it's just so turgid. There's no end of possibilities for the outcome of the situation that this movie presents, especially with the claustrophobia of setting it all in a small apartment; but all the movie does is get lost in masses of dialogue; badly written and poorly delivered dialogue, that is. The film is also massively overacted; it just isn't believable that people would act like they do in this film after finding themselves in this situation. Robert Downey Jnr is one of the many things that is wasted in the film. With Natural Born Killers, he proved that he could give brilliantly entertaining performances, and that is something that this movie could do with. The two females aren't wasted because nobody expected anything from them anyway, but Downey could definitely have been better utilised. Overall? A waste of time. Don't bother, see Jules et Jim or Natural Born Killers instead. That's my advice.
While the prominent and over use of the play-like format is in total operation throughout the film, it is not however this that lets this picture down. Rather it is the unconvincing female performances and rather tedious script that the film so obviously relied on a little too much. With an idea that had potential, the simple plot is diminished still by Graham's failure to truly express the devastation her character so adamantly claims to experience. The use of improvised scenes by all the actors would not be such a bad idea if only the two leading ladies could take advantage of this privilege. As Downey Jr proves as usual what a gifted actor he is, he shadows the two actresses in their scenes together which is constantly noticeable. The pointless yet intense sex scene seems merely to exist in order to prevent the film from being too verbally expressive giving the actors a much deserved break from talking. With an unsatisfying conclusion, Two Girls and a Guy has very little to recommend it other than Downey Jr's formidable if not out of place performance.
The storyline seemed fine, the actors seemed fine, the movie should<br /><br />have been fine. But it sure wasn't - It didn't lead us anywhere, the<br /><br />scenes are weird. Maybe it was meant to create something new, to make<br /><br />us think. That atleast it did: Where is the rest of this film? To me it<br /><br />was waste of money, time, and talent. Someone might want to see this<br /><br />for curiosity, to see if they can figure it out. Other I personally<br /><br />wouldn't recommend this to anyone.
I am being in no way facetious when I say that this movie was worse than any other movie ever made. Worse than "Batman & Robin". Worse than "Manos, Hands of Fate". Seriously, it's that bad. When people tell me that a movie is terrible I use the "Two Girls" scale to figure it out. If the movie is comparable to "Two Girls" then I won't watch it. If it's twice as good, maybe I'll watch it, but only to laugh at the retards who paid somebody to make it, because a movie twice as good as this one would still be a piece of garbage.
At my local video rental store, they have a special place for Two Girls and a Guy. It's a long running joke really. The clerk lets people rent it for free. They value their customers too much to let them waste their hard earned money on it.<br /><br />I was extremely surprised to see that people gave this movie a good review. Maybe someone can explain it to me. (or maybe the positive comments were jokes? Did people involved with the movie write them? Perhaps the mother of the director/writer?)<br /><br />Maybe I've just seen so many good movies that this one fails in comparison.
After sitting through this god-awful 82-minute excuse of a film, and having previously wanted to gouge my eyes out after having watched another James Toback-directed mess called "When Will I Be Loved", I've come to the conclusion that he has the best agent in the world. How else can these horribly written, painfully-directed pieces of trash get made in the first place.<br /><br />I like Robert Downey Jr., but perhaps being in this movie drove him to substance abuse.<br /><br />Heather Graham has to be embarrassed about her zombified performance. Half the time the camera is on her she just is looking off in a daze.<br /><br />Such a crappy script. Prepare yourself for Hollywood name-dropping galore (example: five minute meandering discussions on Denzel Washington's acting....etc.)<br /><br />There's a great character in Joseph Heller's novel Catch-22 named Dunbar. He spends most of the time in the novel shooting skeet, which he abhors. When asked why he shoots skeet all the time if he hates it so much, he replies that it makes time CREEP by, and he'll have a longer life. Well....if you really want to feel time creep by, watch this film! I swear...the 82 minutes will feel longer than a 4 hour David Lean epic. It goes on and on and on and on...<br /><br />I hope I never watch another James Toback film again. If I could give this NO STARS, I would.
This movie is about pathetic, spoiled, ego-driven winers who think they have something interesting to say, performed by pathetic, spoiled, ego-driven winers who think they are interesting. Straight from the coke-filled gutters of New York's arty farty incestuous drama scene.<br /><br />How so many viewers get tricked into making them think this carries any substance remains a mystery to me. Maybe they secretly long to belong too to this overpaid and overestimated 'actor guild' or maybe they have never seen a decent movie?<br /><br />Get out, put your hands in the dirty earth and get a real job. Otherwise, kill your self with a real gun.
The big problem I had with this movie was that Lombard's character is, as another user put it, "unnecessarily cruel". Lombard plays the role of Ann Krausheimer Smith, who believes she is married to David Smith, played well by the sharply dressed yet appropriately bumbling Robert Montgomery. The movie has some funny moments, especially when Montgomery's character goes to great lengths to try to get his "wife" back. Understandably, she is upset because the marriage is technically not legal, but she only finds out three years into it.<br /><br />Lombard's character seems quite cold to her "husband's" sincere attempts to woo her back. While not being highly adept in that effort, Montgomery is nevertheless visibly loving, and yet Lombard is as cool as a pillar of ice. There are almost no clues suggesting any sort of reconciliation between the warring couple for much of the movie, and it is hard to see any sort of comedy- even dark comedy- in that aspect. To some extent, the movie almost suggests a sadistic undertone, with Lombard's character getting a "kick" out of her husband's feeble efforts. While one might consider this another 'Battle of the Sexes' type of movie, the reality is that it is a highly lopsided battle, if that: Montgomery's character, while certainly flawed, is not flawed enough to make it a typical exemplar of the masculine chauvinist/misogynist (an excellent example of that is Michael Douglas in 'War of the Roses'). In fact, the character is largely effeminate, as revealed by not only the sharp dress of Montgomery (which probably owes largely to the perennially sharply dressed actor himself), but also to his discomfort in attempting-but failing- to play the role of a womanizing bachelor. His only major flaw is his vanity, but that fault does not balance out with his partner's excessive cruelty. And there is no suggestion that she is trying to instill any jealousy out of subconscious love. This is what makes it so cruel, and sad. Montgomery's character simply looks weak. In reality, no wife would want a man so weak unless she "wears the pants" in the marriage. But then again, a woman who wears the pants in a marriage would never seek to be so cruel because she has already affirmed that role early on. Hence, the whole theme seems weird. This movie is neither a champion of feminism (Lombard's character does show some signs of the sort of independent-oriented woman of the 60s, but that idea is soon quashed and the character falls back into the 1940s), nor an even-sided battle of the sexes (as Montgomery's character is truly a cipher of masculinity and therefore a lost cause).<br /><br />This movie is, on the surface, a slapstick, but beneath that veneer it is really much darker, with sadistic undertones. All of which makes its resolution appear, well, odd. (Maybe that oddity was the whole point?). In any case, slapstick this movie is not.
"Mr. and Mrs. Smith" is one of the not too well known early American Hitchcock's movie. But if "Lifeboat" (wich unfortunately also belongs to this category) is an underrated masterpiece, not all the movies signed by the master of suspense in that time (the early 40's) are really worth seeing. And to tell the truth, not discovering this film isn't really a lost.<br /><br />"Mr. and Mrs. Smith" is an average and conventional screwball comedy, where it's rather hard to find the Hitchcock's touch. Maybe you can catch a glimpse of his shadow (wich isn't much) in the cruelty that Carole Lombard is sometime capable of (but it's well hidden in an impersonal package), in a vertigo scene where two of the characters are trapped on top of a trade fair attraction, and maybe in the character of the mother. And that's about it ! Even for the Hitchcock fan, there is little to connect with.<br /><br />And for the screwball comedies amateur, there isn't very much more: none of the situation are exaggerated enough for being really funny, and we're far from the masterpieces of Hawks for instance. And if one or two scene are quite amusing, there're not even the funniest in Hitchcock's filmography, who created comical situations in almost all his movies (even "Psycho" could be considered full of very dark humor). So, there is really little to save in this movie, that can without annoying anyone (or maybe only both hardcore fans of Hitchcock and screwball comedy, who are in love with Carole Lombard), stays one of the not too well known early American Hitchcock's movie.
I am astounded that so many people find this film even close to good. Let me make it clear that I am a HUGE Hitchcock fan and went out of my way to own as many of his films on video as I could but this one I felt was so below par not only for Hitch's films - aw heck, I'm being far too nice here. This pictured really sucked. I don't care that Hitch did a favor for the very talented Carole Lombard, but I have seen 50s sitcoms with more cleverness and style than this boring turkey. Chemistry between Lombard and Robert Montgomery? Listne I like mashed potatoes and ice cream but I wouldn't want to taste them together. I have seen better chemistry in chemical spills on th highway than here.<br /><br />If you really love Hitchcock, avoid this film and see any one of his better ones. For crying out loud, the bits Hitch did on the old TV show were funnier than anything this film fails miserably to deliver.
Alfred Hitchcock made this comedy of mis-marriage in 1941 but his heart doesn't appear to be in it. Carole Lombard and Robert Montgomery are the couple who discover they were never legally married and spend the movie bickering their way back to true love. It doesn't have much of a reputation and it is easy to see why. The jokes are familiar from better films but here they don't gel. And the leads are uncharismatic. Lombard's performance is clipped and starchy and it's doubly sad to think she was dead only a year later. Robert Montgomery seems to know he's in a sow's ear and tries his damnest to make a silk purse out of it without much success. The best performance comes from Gene Raymond as 'the other man', (he has a lovely drunk scene). This is one of the few really bad Hitchcock films.
Perhaps the wildest outlier in Alfred Hitchcock's career is this straight-out comedy vehicle by the director, pairing Carole Lombard with Robert Montgomery as a couple who discover a mistake has invalidated their marriage. Where do they really stand with each other?<br /><br />Contrary to what others say, there IS an element of suspense here: The idea that these two miserable people might escape each other, free to inflict their awfulness on some other, undeserving mate.<br /><br />It's funny reading comments here about how miserable Lombard's Ann Smith plays out in this film, because Montgomery's role is as much of a heel. He manhandles Ann, snaps at witnesses, short-shrifts clients - just the kind of lawyer who gives his profession a bad name. Ann is overbearing, too, of course, the kind of wife who holds her husband hostage from work for six days over a petty squabble, bringing up things like what he did in Paris when he was 20 and hadn't even met her yet. "I forgave you that!" she says, as if it was big of her.<br /><br />For David, a revoked marriage is an opportunity to have a little illicit pleasure with his "mistress" before tying the knot for good. For Ann, it's an attempt at premarital sex that must be repelled with a bottle of champagne to the head, followed by expulsion from their apartment and her life.<br /><br />The acorn doesn't seem to fall far from the tree, as Ann's mother is scandalized into apoplexy when she learns what David tried to pull: "Oh my poor baby! Thank Heaven your father is dead!"<br /><br />That's a rare good line in this laughless, unlikeable comedy.<br /><br />You can call this an example of the "remarriage comedy", in which the bonds of matrimony are challenged in order to be reaffirmed. You can also call this an example of what Roger Ebert calls the "idiot plot", in which the storyline depends on the main characters acting like idiots. Hitchcock seems to have a laugh at uptight American morality, but can't really do much more with it than a jokeless scene where an older couple is scandalized by the sound of loud plumbing.<br /><br />Lombard died within a year of this film's release; it was the last film of hers she lived to see. What a shame it couldn't have been something better! She was overbearing in "My Man Godfrey", too, but in such a likable way you didn't just have to go with her, you wanted to. Here she plays for laughs that aren't there while sadistically breaking David's chops again and again. Montgomery rolls his eyes a lot like Groucho, a study in smugitude.<br /><br />The only really decent thing in this movie that lasts more than a few seconds is Gene Raymond as David's law partner Jeff Custer, who makes a play for Ann and acts with honor and decency. Raymond underplays his many reaction shots, and even a drunk scene, all to good effect.<br /><br />***SPOILER***So decent a guy is Jeff that Ann ends up rejecting him for not fighting David after she goads him into a confrontation, calling Custer "a lump of jelly". Jeff exits the scene, leaving Ann and David together for their future murder-suicide. Here's one Custer that managed to escape a massacre!***SPOILER END***
This was Hitchcock's third Hollywood feature, and it appears he was yet to settle into a pattern of consistency, turning from faithful adaptation of classic novel in Rebecca, to espionage thriller in Foreign Correspondent, and now this romantic comedy in the mould of the "screwball" pictures of the 1930s.<br /><br />Hitchcock's formal method, on the other hand, had by now settled into something consistent, so much so that he was unable (or at least unwilling) to deviate from it. It was unwise then for him to step outside his usual genre, and a romantic comedy was particularly inappropriate. In Rebecca it was actually great to see Hitchcock constrained by his producer and the source text, forced to turn his technique to heavy Gothic drama, but for Mr and Mrs Smith there is a huge mismatch between form and content. In other words, Hitchcock was no Ernst Lubitsch.<br /><br />First, let's look at the romantic angle. The best love scenes in Hitchcock films were wild, passionate and slightly dangerous – the "ever fallen in love with someone you shouldn't have?" situation, and he was great at depicting that. This is something that makes a much earlier film, Rich and Strange, one of the few Hitchcock non-thrillers that really works. Hitch is not so good however when it comes to a more gentle and familiar love story. A light, tender touch is required and Hitch doesn't have it.<br /><br />Secondly, take the comedy. Of course, Hitchcock films could be funny – The Lady Vanishes is probably the best example – but only when the jokes were sprinkled throughout the story. The master of suspense simply isn't enough of a comedy director to create a film that has funny bones. He cuts up scenes as he would in a thriller – snappy opposing angles of people talking, inserted close-ups of hands and feet, point-of-view shots – but doesn't allow for comic timing or focus on gags. For example, the business with Carole Lombard's dress bursting at the seems is shown to us with a couple of close-ups, but these are timed more as if he were revealing some crucial plot point, and have no comedic impact. Occasionally Hitchcock's style does roughly coincide with the comedy – for example the arrangement of characters in the scene at the club, where Robert Montgomery tries to make it look as if he is with the attractive, sophisticated woman at the next table – but such moments are few and far between.<br /><br />Even the cast of Mr and Mrs Smith are not up to standard. I'm not sure this was Robert Montgomery's strength lay, and he is boring here. This was of course exactly where "Queen of Screwball" Carole Lombard's strength lay, and yet while she is clearly acting well the scenes are simply not geared to capturing comedy performances. Even Jack Carson, who could be hilarious when he was really allowed to let go before the camera, fails to perk things up at all. Of course, neither of these fine comedy actors is helped by the screenplay, which isn't exactly bursting with laughs in the first place, even if the basic story is a fairly good premise.<br /><br />The only full-on comedy Hitchcock made after this was the Trouble with Harry, and that sort of worked because it played upon his familiar suspensefulness. However it was only when the story could exist independently of the humour, when the basic framework was suspense – as it is in The Lady Vanishes or Family Plot – that Hitchcock was capable of doing comedy well.
I only voted it 2/10 mainly because Hitchcock agreed to direct it.He certainly had an off-day with predictable plot lines, stupid childish characters who are desperately trying to be funny.There were "twee" hygenic, sanitised, emasculated "sex" scenes at a time when the Hollywood Production code was in full force.Lazy male characters in the film who like "soap" characters never do a stroke of work for which they are paid.It always irritates me when food is usually never eaten by actors (one exception was in the eating scene in "Tom Jones" (1963); although copious amounts of drink are consumed - actors have to leave their mouths free for the next line! Carole Lombard certainly fitted Hitchcock's "cool blond" idealised image of a heroine, but what ever possessed him to direct this worthless unfunny script, he should have stuck to his thrillers.It certainly has not worn well over the last 69 years.I couldn't wait for it to end as it gradually irritated me no end.
First: a warning.<br /><br />I recently saw this movie on DVD in the Universal 'Hitchcock Collection' series. The source print looks to be in immaculate condition, but the image is a bit soft, suggesting it might be a second generation copy straight from video. The framing is far too tight, so all the compositions are terrible. Even the title of the movie is cropped. I gather from other IMDb reviews that there is a much better version available.<br /><br />Mr and Mrs Smith is just a footnote to Hitchcock's career.<br /><br />In his lengthy interviews with Francois Truffaut in the Sixties, Hitchcock gave a comprehensive overview of his whole body of work, but all he could say about this picture is that he did it as a favour to Carole Lombard and that he didn't understand the characters so just photographed Norman Krasna's screenplay.<br /><br />In truth, there is not much more that needs to be said.<br /><br />It is a screwball comedy out of the same mould as It Happened One Night, His Girl Friday and Philapdelphia Story. Carole Lombard is a typically feisty wife who learns that her marriage is technically invalid, falls out with with her husband on the flimsiest of pretexts and spends most of the picture being 'adorably' unreasonable.<br /><br />Robert Montgomery does well enough as the put upon husband, but it is hard not to lose patience with him. Long before the end of the movie the audience is saying: "dump the silly cow, she's not worth it."<br /><br />Gene Raymond plays the best friend with whom she becomes engaged. He is supposed to be a courtly, 'old family' Southerner, although this is not obvious from his accent and only really becomes apparent in the drunk scene (which he otherwise plays very well). He is an honourable, generous, teetotal gentleman, so of course he is bullied and patronised by Robert Montgomery and made the butt of many of the jokes - although he is not as badly treated as the similar Ralph Bellamy character in His Girl Friday.<br /><br />This movie feels like it was made by people who only knew of screwball comedies by reputation, but hadn't actually seen one. For example, a good screwball comedy has a strong central idea with a number of on-going comic threads that continually intertwine and overlap. Here, all the comedy elements are just strung out, like beads on a necklace. This is screwball comedy by the numbers.<br /><br />It is the same with the direction. Typically, these comedies race along at an ever increasing pace that rises to near hysteria by the end. Hitchcock doesn't get this. His direction is somewhat lethargic and the picture becomes a stately succession of scenes that all seem slightly over-written (but under-nourished) and slightly too long. He was never a particularly good director of actors so he just lets the cast get on with it. They do OK.<br /><br />Hitchcock had a good sense of humour, which he frequently used in his thrillers, but he had no feel for comedy as a genre. His later Trouble with Harry was also a misfire, for similar reasons to this movie, but at least he was involved in that picture. Here he is just going through the motions.<br /><br />All the people connected with this movie were good solid professionals so it is not especially bad. It just feels a bit derivative, over-familiar, over-long and ultimately rather flat.<br /><br />Mr and Mrs Smith is one for Carole Lombard fans and Hitchcock completists only.
The good things first: I agree with another viewer who said that Gene Raymond has a marvelous drunk scene. He does -- I was tickled to finally get a chance to laugh. And there were other moments I found amusing -- Raymond's parents in the bathroom with the defective plumbing, and the scene in the restaurant with Robert Montgomery trying to make Carole Lombard jealous by mouthing sweet nothings to a stranger. <br /><br />But overall, I was dismayed. I love Carol Lombard and most of Hitchcock. And I understand the restrictions laid on productions by the Hays Code. But this was embarrassing and awful to watch. Of course I knew they'd end up together, this is a romantic comedy after all. But it made no sense, it happened too fast. Plus I can't believe the professions of love when confronted with such hurtful behavior, both physical and confrontational.
Komodo vs. Cobra is not going to set the world on fire. It's not a hallmark of cinema history. What it is is a group of underfunded filmmakers trying to make another movie, make another paycheck, and continue to support themselves and their families. As such I give these efforts a lot of slack. I mean, come on, it has to be hard to be a Russian special effects technician. Not a lot of big budget films getting made there. BUT-- they are a dedicated bunch and more than willing to throw their all into whatever lame American monster flick needs affordable SFX. And I get a kick out of looking for the same locations appear time and again in these flicks. If for some reason you find yourself watching this again, look at the sequence where Pare and company are walking through a "jungle." Look at their feet and you'll see paved walkways. And if you happen to still have a copy of "AI Assault" (shown a week or two earlier also on SciFi), you'll see the folks in there tramping through the same ersatz jungle. Come to think of it, I think the helicopters land in the same clearing in both flicks. I can admire the thriftiness of these films. Every dollar really does show up on the screen! Too bad there just aren't enough dollars......
A group of environmentalists travel to an island to uncover a secret lab that is experimenting on animals. When they arrive, they discover that they are to late. Apparently the government made a scientist test his experiment on a komodo and, yes, you guessed it, a cobra which made them grow very large. I'm not sure that this movie really needed or deserved explaining since it is almost identical to Curse of the Komodo which also sucked. The computer effects are as cartoony as ever an the komodo roars like a dinosaur which really got on my nerves. Like Boa vs. Python, this movie is not worth seeing and is about as much fun to watch as it is to nail your hand to a table. Avoid!
So, Wynorski remakes Curse of the Komodo a second time, this time replacing the interesting characters of the original with a bunch of obnoxious environmentalists / anti-capitalists. And he adds a Cobra. Most of the movie is spent listening to the self-righteous characters prattle on about the evil capitalist pigs, while sandwiched between this cavalcade of condescension are flashbacks to what happened on the island before they got there. DNA experiments were conducted, critters started to grow, people spoke to each other without coming off as being morally superior jerks, etc. Needless to say, it would have been a much better movie if they would have made the flashbacks the movie and forgotten about the sanctimonious do-gooders. Lest I forget, there are a few short scenes scattered here and there where the holier-than-thou posse gets picked off one by one, but they probably comprise less than 2% of the film. The main event pitting our title characters against each other lasts about one minute and is as exciting as watching the previews for the latest Dino-Crisis video game.<br /><br />The acting is pretty bad overall, even for this sort of film. Half the actors seem like they're more concerned with pronouncing every last syllable of every word than speaking their dialog in any sort of believable manner.<br /><br />I actually did make it through to the end, but it's one of those movies I wish I would have recorded and then watched later, because there are plenty of parts that need to be fast forwarded through. Overall, I give this effort one star, it has absolutely none of the elements that make a B-movie fun to watch. It's a sad day indeed when you can say with sincerity that the makers of this movie could have learned a thing or two from watching Boa vs. Python.
As a total movie geek with the fortunate job of video store manager, I tend to watch all sorts of movies, from good to very very bad. This was a movie with so many corn-ball lines, cheesy CGI effects and predictable plot points that I ended up laughing extensively before switching it off after 30-40 minutes. The "creature feature" genre of movies has been putting out some pretty awful stuff in recent years (Godzilla 2000 anyone?), but this movie makes me think the creators weren't even trying. It might be worth checking out just for the "make fun of me" potential (count the gunshots!), but I couldn't in good conscience recommend this movie to anyone.
This is like a zoology textbook, given that its depiction of animals is so accurate. However, here are a few details that appear to have been slightly modified during the transition to film:<br /><br />- Handgun bullets never hit giant Komodo dragons. It doesn't matter how many times you shoot at the Komodo, bullets just won't go near it.<br /><br />- The best way to avoid being eaten by a giant Cobra, or a giant Komodo dragon, is just to stand there. The exception to this rule is if you've been told to stay very still, in which case you should run off, until the Komodo is right next to you, and then you should stand there, expecting defeat.<br /><br />- Minutes of choppy slow motion footage behind the credits really makes for enjoyable watching.<br /><br />- $5,000 is a memory enhancement tool, and an ample substitute for losing your boating license/getting arrested.<br /><br />- Members of elite army units don't see giant Komodo dragons coming until they are within one metre of the over-sized beings. Maybe the computer-generated nature of these dragons has something to do with it.<br /><br />- When filming a news story aiming on exposing illegal animal testing, a reporter and a cameraman with one camera is all the gear and personnel you will need; sound gear, a second camera, microphones etc are all superfluous.<br /><br />- When you hear a loud animal scream, and one person has a gun, he should take it out and point it at the nearest person.<br /><br />- When you take a gun out, the sound of the safety being taken off will be made, even if your finger is nowhere near the safety<br /><br />- Reporters agree to go half-way around the world in order to expose something - without having the faintest idea what they're exposing. Background research and vague knowledge are out of fashion in modern journalism.<br /><br />- Handguns hold at least 52 bullets in one clip, and then more than that in the next clip. Despite that, those with guns claim that they will need more ammo.<br /><br />- Expensive cameras (also, remember that the reporter only has one camera) are regularly left behind without even a moment's hesitation or regret. These cameras amazingly manage to make their way back to the reporter all by themselves.<br /><br />- The blonde girl really is the stupid one.<br /><br />- The same girl that says not to go into a house because a Komodo dragon can easily run right through it, thus making it unsafe, takes a team into a building made of the same material for protection - and nobody says a word about it.<br /><br />- High-tech facilities look like simple offices with high school chemistry sets.<br /><br />- Genetically-modified snakes grow from normal size to 100 feet long in a matter of a day, but don't grow at all in the weeks either side.<br /><br />- The military routinely destroys entire islands when people don't meet contact deadlines.<br /><br />- Men with guns don't necessarily change the direction they're shooting when their target is no longer right in front of them. Instead, they just keep shooting into the air.<br /><br />- The better looking you are, the greater your chance of surviving giant creatures.<br /><br />- Women's intuition is reliable enough to change even the most stubborn of minds.<br /><br />- Any time you're being hunted by giant creatures is a great time to hit on girls half your age.<br /><br />- Animal noises are an appropriate masking noise for 'swearing' at the same volume.<br /><br />- Old Israeli and Russian planes are regularly used by the US Military.
This movie is Hilarious what is better than watching two creatures battle one another? GIANT cgi versions of these beasts which battle! However I do require one of the guns used in the movie. Because apparently they are using cheats. Count the amount of shots they use before having to...oh wait that's right they never have to reload. Regardless count the shots... it's hilarious.<br /><br />The sound effects used in the movie for the Komodo vary from a tiger to an elephant. Oh and did I forget to mention that apparently these GIANT Komodo dragons are stealthy as hell? Because somehow even when the actors are looking in the direction that the beast comes from they are surprised when it appears.<br /><br />Whenever someone dies you can tell its coming because they all brace for it, they put their arms up in the air and cross them to save themselves... it never works.<br /><br />The final gem is that these script writers brains are just a gland full o' knowledge. With "facts" such as both of these creatures being amphibious to comments such as "helpless animals" they are just full of fun facts.
If you're looking for a movie that's fun to watch simply because you can make jokes about the not so great acting, cheesy "special" effects, and typical sci-fi plot...then this is the movie for you! Not at the acting was bad, in fact, a few actors were actually fairly decent. The special effects weren't the greatest (to say the least); the animals looked completely computer animated. There was an annoying squawking to cover up the swearing and there was only one song played over and over again throughout the entire movie. Overall, a good movie if you're looking for something completely cheesy and fun to make fun of. Not a good movie to watch if you're looking for something serious.
Komodo vs. Cobra starts as 'One Planet' environmentalist Jerry Ryan (Ryan McTavish) & his girlfriend Carrie (Renee Talbert) hire Captain Michael Stoddard (executive producer Michael Paré) to take them to an island in the South Pacific, at first Stoddard is reluctant since the island is a top secret military research base but soon changes his mind when a load of cash is offered. Along with TV news reporter Sandra Crescent (Jeri Manthey) they set sail for the island & once ashore find out that the military have been funding illegal DNA genetic experiments which have resulted in huge Komodo Dragon's & King Cobra's that have eaten almost every other living thing there & Stoddard & co are next on the menu...<br /><br />Co-written & directed by the ever awful Jim Wynorski under his Jay Andrews pseudonym this is just plain awful, this is just plain hard to sit through & is even worse than the usual rubbish 'Creature Features' the Sci-Fi Channel have the nerve to air if that's possible. The script is terrible, predictable & utterly boring, some giant monsters of some sort are created by scientists messing around with DNA, a group of people are trapped with said monsters & have to try to escape being eaten. That's it, that's the whole plot of Komodo vs. Cobra, maybe this was trying to rip-off AVP: Alien vs. Predator (2004) with the title but all the 'vs.' bit amounts to is a rubbish thirty second stand-off between the two titular beasts at the very end, boring as hell & surely a big disappointment to anyone hoping to have a full on monster mash. The character's are poor, the dialogue is awful, the pace is slow, the story is predictable & cliché ridden & the whole film just sucks really with a lazy script that states wrongly that both Komodo Dragon's & Cobra's are amphibious which they are not. Hell, Komodo vs. Cobra isn't even worth watching for any unintentional laughs since it's so dull & hardly anything ever happens although the sight of a woman hiding behind the smallest rock on the beach from the Cobra is quite funny for the wrong reasons.<br /><br />How does Wynorski keep getting directing jobs? He is probably consistently the worst director currently working, how can he keep getting fun sounding films set on beautiful locations with half decent casts & still churn out such an awful film? I think this was cut to get a PG or for it's TV showing since every time someone swears it's masked by a Parrot squeak! There's zero gore or violence & the monster scenes are limp, people just sort of stand there, the monsters just sort of stands there too hissing or roaring & that's about it. The CGI computer effects are terrible, this is really poor stuff that just looks horrible.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $450,000 this looks as cheap as it was, the Hawaiian locations are nice to look at but that's about it. The acting is poor from an uninterested looking cast.<br /><br />Komodo vs. Cobra is an absolutely terrible Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' from Jim Wynorski, films don't get much worse than this.
Where do I start? First off, the story sucks. The acting sucks, the effects really suck, I guess I'll start with the story. The story for Komodo vs. Cobra: number one, it doesn't explain how or when the Komodo and the cobra even got there. Or for that matter, how it was created. The acting: TERRIBLE! It seems like the director just pulled a few people from the street (which is probably what he did). And last and definitely the least, the effects: they are so horrible that the komodo doesn't even look like a komodo, just a dinosaur, that looks incredibly unrealistic. The water doesn't even move when the cobra appears. All in all: terrible piece of crap, don't even think about renting it.
Writer & director Jay Andrews, a.k.a. Jim Wynorski, serves up more of his characteristic shlock with a decent cast menaced by grade-Z computer generated reptiles in "Komodo Vs. Cobra," as generic a rip-off of "Mysterious Island" meets "Jurassic Park" as you can imagine. The chief problem with this predictable yarn about monsters dining on mankind is the incredibly phony special effects. The cobra and the Komodo are hilariously awful. However, the graphics people do an okay job of integrating the monsters with their victims, not that any of this is in the least believable. Clearly, "Komodo Vs. Cobra" had a budget that so low that virtually everything non-human in its looks as fake as all get out. This cheesy monster epic takes place on a remote island where the U.S. military conducts top-secret DNA testing on animals. The result is that gigantic Komodos and cobra thrive in this tropical island paradise. As the action opens, the primary scientist is gobbled up by a cobra that likes to swim. After, we are introduced to a group of 'Greenpeace' like environmental protesters and a journalist. Planet One organizer Jerry Ryan (Ryan McTavish of "Hellbent") pays charter boat skipper Jim Stoddard (Michael Pare of CBS-TV's "Houston Knights") five grand with the promise of another five grand if he will take them to this forbidden island. Meanwhile, the U.S. military suspect that something is amiss on the island so they send their own team of men who give eaten by the supersized predators. Our heroes run into the last remaining scientist on the island, Dr. Susan Richardson (Michelle Borth of "Wonderland"), the daughter of the scientist responsible for this insane science project, who tells them that the military is going to target the island for destruction. The title match between the two overgrown predators occurs in the last quarter hour after our heroes, who have been consistently whittled down by the monsters, find a helicopter and take off in time before the military pulverizes the island. There's no tension, suspense, or anything worthwhile in this substandard creature feature. The best thing about this yawner is composer Chuck Cirino's orchestral soundtrack; it gives "Komodo Vs. Cobra" an epic feel. Usually, Jay Andrews writes and directs tolerable drivel, but this ranks far below his low standards. The sexy women fare better at survival than the guys. In one scene, our heroic group fords a river and we don't get to see any wet T-shirts. Drat! There's nothing in the way of memorable dialogue or relationships in this dreck. I think that the military guys do far too much saluting when they get their heads together to conspire. Let's hope that Michael Pare got a good payday out of this garbage. The ending as one of the scientists takes on the characteristics of a lizard comes strictly as an afterthought. It's not so bad it's good, it's just bad.
I just found out before writing this review that "Komodo vs. Cobra" and another movie called "Curse of the Komodo" were both directed by the same guy, Jim Wynorski. That might explain why they are films of nearly identical premises. They both feature a military-governed island, a colonel whose concerned more about covering his tracks than the lives of his employees, people racing to get to a chopper that is conveniently lying in a field somewhere on the island, and giant komodo dragons created through genetic experiments running amok. What differences are there? Well, the intruders on the island are now capitalists wanting to expose the government secret and there's a giant cobra on the island as well, hence the title "Komodo vs. Cobra" even though the conflict between the two monsters is hardly relevant to the 'story.' "Komodo vs. Cobra" is more or less what you'd expect given its title and its channel origin: the Sci-Fi Channel. Although every now and again you will find one that for one reason or another may appeal to you (I liked a movie called "Komodo") I hardly doubt this one will.<br /><br />"Komodo vs. Cobra" is not only a boring film, but it's also one of the least enthusiastic sci-fi flicks I've seen in a long time. In some of these movies, there is an air to them that indicates the filmmakers were giving at least a certain level of effort, but I see very little here. That's indicated again by it just being a rehash of "Curse of the Komodo." The CGI for the monsters look as if they came straight out of a second-rate video game, the cinematography and misc en scene is poor, the acting ranges from passable to poor, the action scenes are dull, and then there are some parts that are, frankly put, unforgivably bad. I see a lot movies where a person will shoot a gun many times without reloading and I can deal with this. But in this movie, where Michael Paré takes a single thirty-eight handgun and fires it approximately fifty times nonstop without reloading once…well, at first I laughed, but even then it just became tiring. That would be the 'action.' A monster appears, people scream, Paré fires nonstop without reloading his gun once throughout the entire picture, and somebody gets eaten.<br /><br />"Komodo vs. Cobra" is a very bad movie. The only thing in the movie that is worth mentioning in a charitable manner is an actress named Michelle Borth, who is not only very beautiful, but a surprisingly strong performer. Even with the trashy dialogue and lack of enthusiasm in the screenplay she was given, Michelle Borth managed to pull off a surprisingly good performance and it just appalls me that an actress as good as her can get stuck in a film as junky as this. She obviously took it for the paycheck, but it won't boost her career any, I'm afraid.
Laughable would be a good term to describe this movie. But, since this movie deserves nothing good said of it, I'll use the term god-awful instead.<br /><br />Centering around the adventures of a bunch of eco-warriors investigating the nefarious doings of the military on a semi-tropical island, the lack of a budget rapidly becomes apparent. Michael Pare (a real actor! But only in the sense that Pinocchio was a real boy...) leads the bunch of fools through a series of monster chase-and-gobble-hapless-victim scenes. There is some vague attempt at pseudo-science to explain the presence of the giant reptiles, but it convinces the viewer about as well as the acting does.<br /><br />As if this doesn't insult the viewer enough, the movie also features what I'll call "Guns of never-ending ammunition". I never saw Mickey Parrot or his female side-kick change clips once during the entire film, yet I can positively report they cap off at least 40 rounds each in any scene where they are required to fire their weapon. Forty rounds may not seem like that many, but we are talking standard handguns here. I figure 15 round clip, tops. And remember, they never change clips, nor even appear to carry any extra ammo.<br /><br />It's dumb-assery like this which consigns movies to the eternal fires of celluloid hell, and rightly so. The third-rate CGI does little to help matters and the acting is best laughed at, else you'll start crying. Why SciFi Channel repeatedly churns out this mush is anyone's guess.<br /><br />My advice....give this one a wide berth...a very wide berth!
I just caught this on Showtime...ewwwwwww, not even fun in a bad movie kind of way. One of the lamest monster flicks I've ever seen. Plus the TV reporter in the movie was that annoying Jerri from a past season of Survivor. The only amusing thing was that the "secret base" was the house from Fantasy Island (and a million other movies and TV shows; the place is located in the L.A. area). I fully expected Mr Roarke and Tattoo to come out and greet the visitors. If Tattoo had gotten eaten by the snake, I might have given this movie a 2, but oh well. Watching people stand there and scream for five minutes while the Komodo or the cobra loomed over them instead of making a run for it was pretty funny, especially because you could really tell that they were just screaming at an empty spot where the computer animators would later paint in the monster. I nearly fell out of my chair, though, when in a flashback scene they brought in either the cobra or the komodo - then normal size - in some indestructible solid steel container with some air holes drilled into it. Wouldn't a wire cage have sufficed? LOL! Guess they couldn't afford to rent a real komodo and cobra. I have to remember I rent Showtime for their series and not their movies.
Another laughably lame and senseless low-budget sci-fi TV presentation… but actually its kind of amusing… kind of… in a passably undemanding way. Am I being soft? I don't know why they come up with these titles. Yes there's a komodo. And yes there's a cobra. However what's the deal with 'versus' in between? Sure they do come to blows… in only two sequences (one recapping an incident and the other being the dodgy climax) and quite boring exchanges I might add. The get-up is the same old routine of a scientific experiment getting out of hand on a secluded island (no dinosaurs about), and some innocent bystanders (environmentalists hoping to expose animal testing) getting caught up in it. This sees a komodo dragon and cobra becoming massive in statue with the government soon wanting to destroy any sort of the evidence (including witnesses) of its existence by blowing up the island. So this leaves the survivors racing against time to find a way off. The prominent staples existed of awful video game CGI, hack script, few dingy sets (although the tropical island setting was easy on the eyes), throwaway characters (but I found the performances faired up), lifelessly tacky thrills (which for some reason kept using the same repetitive shot of the victim just standing there in terror… which implied I'm waiting, please eat me now, I'm not going anywhere and eventually they were swallowed whole… well almost as it seemed to always take a second gulp to finish them off or just save the hassle by stupidly squashing them) and a very hysterical edge with some sort of wretch message amongst the acts of survival. Director Jim Wynorski seems to be on cruise control throughout. Michael Paré has fun with his gruff dialogues and Michelle Borth added much needed sparks. Renee Talbert is there to pout a lot, quite successfully too.
When moviegoers hear two popular villains/characters will be fighting, they flock to the theaters to see how the battle will end. There's Freddy vs. Jason, in which two very popular horror icons try to kill each other. And, more similarly to this, there's Godzilla vs. (Insert Name Here). But the very generic Komodo vs. Python is just a horrible title, and an even worse premise. Obviously, the movie's a D-list picture, but, at least come up with a more compelling name, maybe something that can trick the unsuspecting viewer into watching it. With a name like this, you know what you're getting in to.<br /><br />A group of military men/women, including a 20-something year old sexy scientist woman are left for dead by the military on an island inhabited by a giant komodo dragon. As long as they can make it off the island and to the boat, they'll be fine, but...no...there's a giant python guarding the ocean and the way off. Let's hope all these guys can make it off the island, and that the python and komodo don't verse each other in some sort of horrible special effect battle.<br /><br />Really, this movie is bad in almost every way. The acting is pretty bad, or maybe it's that the special effects are so cheesy, that the acting is unbelievable because no one believes that these people are in any danger with creatures that look like they were made on an early 90s computer. Nonetheless, this movie is actually pretty funny. The creatures are so clunky looking, and the actors really give it their all pretending like they're in danger.<br /><br />I'd like to say that this movie is a steaming pile of sh*squawk!*...but I can't. This PG-13 rated film actually bleeps itself out. Every time a curse word comes, a parrot noise beeps out the word. Even words that can be said on network television. How *squawk*ing cheap that they bleep out words, and with a parrot no less. Eventually these parrot noises got to me and I couldn't help but laugh at the incompetence.<br /><br />This movie is bad, from the silly beginning to the ridiculous Night of the Living Dead style ending, but it's also kind of funny. As a horror movie it fails miserably, as an action movie, it fails slightly less, but still pretty bad, and as a comedy it shines.<br /><br />My rating: * out of ****. 95 mins. PG-13 for some violence and Squawked out cursing.
Nothing will ever top KOMODO with the lovely Jill Hennessey as a shrink (!), but KvC ain't quite as bad as I expected for a SYFY channel quickie. Just make sure to watch it while drunk or stoned, or while trying to go to sleep. The unimaginative title basically says it all: A group of mostly unknown actors converge on an island where a government experiment to grow giant vegetables has gone wrong. Giant creatures that came into contact with the vegetables have taken over the island and eaten everyone. So now the government is preparing to blow up the island, regardless of the people being there. The acting is wonderfully atrocious, especially a mustachioed general right out of THE INCREDIBLE HULK TV series, but this is typical of this kind of made-for-cable schlock. The CGI creatures are TV-level quality, which means you know you're watching cartoon monsters. However, two of the gals in the group are very cute, and worth watching as they run here and there in their tight little outfits. You just want to eat them up!
probably the worst creature feature ever,boa vs python was a million times better then this & that wasn't great either,bad acting,bad effects & guess what the DVD is one of those one with 3 hours of previews before the main menu.probably the least scary movie ever,no blood or violence,people are stupid and keep using pistols when they have no affect on these animals, the only cool part was the radioactive leeches that was pretty cool,i name of the island is just a rip off of Jurassic park boring tiring & not worth even looking at but i suppose the characters stupidity is pretty funny so it would make a good comedy film but definitely not a thriller
I can admit right away that this is one of the worst movies i have seen in my life. And that is not saying a little, because i consider myself to be somewhat of an aficionado when it comes to crappy film. But this is beyond bad. This movie is so awful that there is no fun left in it, it's just bad.<br /><br />Reviewing this is almost impossible. There are no strong points and nothing positive to say. I'll just ramble about a few of the points that sucked. First off, the CGI has to be one of the worst i've seen. I can't believe this movie was made in 2005, the CGI reminds me of something i might have seen in Babylon 5 way back when CGI was new and fresh. It's poor beyond belief. Second, the actors all seem like they belong in the worst kind of daytime soaps. And looking at their resumes i see that i'm correct... Thirdly, being able to breed enormous reptiles is no match to the other technology they invented in this movie: the recoilless pistol with infinite ammo! Seriously, Michael Paré fires 100-200 times without reloading in every other scene... As if that was not enough there are also shape-shifting planes! At first they are regular F-16 fighters, in the next scene they are something else completely, and in the third scene they are F-16 again! If you're buying stock footage, please don't mix it like this! <br /><br />Honestly, there is loads more to say, but i think i'll stop. You all understand what i'm saying. Honestly i didn't think this kind of movie was made any more. It's like something Ed Wood would do. Completely ignorant of quality, not caring how anything looks... It's almost amazing in all it's awfulness. If i could give it 0/10 i would, but 1/10 is the lowest grade. So that's it.
A team of amateur journalists and tree-huggers catches wind of a secret government project, Project Carnivore, on a remote South Pacific island. The scientists there are producing giant-sized corn, but the genes are spreading to other species, creating abnormally large Komodo dragons and a cobra (one that's bullet-proof and swims underwater). With the help of the scientist's daughter, can they escape the island and tell the world? Even if i hadn't seen this film on the Sci-Fi Channel (which, sadly, i did) it would scream "Sci-Fi Channel" with its low production value, weak acting and some of the worst special effects in history. The effects here are comparable to another creature film, "Raptor Island", although not nearly as bad. I would suspect that there must be at least a handful of people that worked on both films, but I haven't bothered to confirm that and probably won't. It will be a sad day when I see either of them films again.<br /><br />Which is not to say it's not enjoyable. I watched it at two in the morning with my sister's boyfriend and I can't speak for him, but I thought it was a pretty good use of time. As bad the whole thing is, it's a fun picture if you like to make fun of movies and the scientist's daughter is attractive enough to carry the film (I believe the actress' name is Michelle Borth). Michael Pare also appears as a ship captain, and his poor choice of roles here actually makes his work on "Furnace" look respectable (even if that movie is intolerably bad).<br /><br />I can't be too hard on this film simply because it was more or less exactly what I thought it would be. Bad effects? Low budget? No-name actors? I didn't have any higher hopes. Yet, this doesn't mean that it's awesome, either. Coming in at par is nothing to be proud of and this one will slowly fade into the distant memory department. For the one fan who likes this film (and calls it "KvC"), hold on to your copy because you'll have a heck of a time getting a replacement.
****SPOILER ALERT**** My boyfriend, some friends, and I rented this movie as part of a marathon of really bad movies. We sort of knew what we were getting into. But the lack of plot, direction, and special effects actually left us hoping for a great (or passable) fight scene between the two main characters... the badly rendered swimming cobra and the super violent giant komodo (that ate people like scooping ice cream)... we sort of get this in the end, but had to be cut short due to possibly budget or time constraints? Its one redeeming quality is that its laughably bad, with many salient details pointed out by other readers. I recommend this movie if your into cutting onions to make yourself cry.
I am currently watching this movie and I have absolutely no hesitation in reviewing it now. The acting is ridiculous. Half the cast must be retired porno actors, and to get kicked off pornos you could imagine the quality of acting.<br /><br />The graphics are unlike anything I have ever seen. I think there are puppet shows with more believability. They can't even afford blanks for the guns they shoot at the pathetic excuse for monsters. Perhaps I should also note how incredibly impressed I am at the number of 'bullets' their pistols can hold. <br /><br />If asked to summarise the movie, I would say that someone had rustled up a group of complete no-hopers at the local county-fair, slapped them on an island, added needlessly intense music and let a 6 year old do the editing.<br /><br />I can honestly not formulate any possible explanation for why this movie was released, recorded on DVD and costs $6 from my local video store for one day. If anything I have received the benefit of knowing that I am a lot smarter than all parties involved in this film.<br /><br />I hate this movie with great intensity. Why? I wish I knew Captain, I wish I knew....
Jim Wynorski strikes again with the very literal minded KOMODO VS. COBRA. No guesswork here. A giant CGI komodo dragon -- it sort of looks like a dog minus fur -- takes on a humongous CGI king cobra, with a bunch of tree huggers and others caught in between. The tree huggers get charter boat captain Michael Pare (who else?) to take them to an off-limits federal island. An experiment by a mad scientist in growing very large veggies has become an experiment in growing very large critters, thank so to our nutty military. Now all that's left on the island are the very large critters and the mad scientist's tiny, shapely daughter. The group runs into her at the old plantation lab, the monsters arrive, and the chase is on. If you watch enough Wynorski/Sci-Fi Channel flicks, you'll recognize some of the sets and locations from many other movies. Acting is nonexistent, as is the plot. At the very least, you can enjoy watching the badly animated compo/dog stomp down on its intended victims just before scarfing them up. The cobra just strikes and swallows. No imagination at all.
I was watching the sci-fi channel when this steaming pile of crap came on. While not as bad as Wynorski's "Curse of the Komodo", this still sucks...BAD. Wynorski uses the same island as in "Curse of the Komodo", as well as the same actors and house. The effects are top notch (suprising) but thats about it........I don't know what else to say about this movie.......oh yeah! As in "Curse of the Komodo", the government gets involved and decides to bomb the island! Also....when i saw this part i laughed hysterically...A KOMANBRA!!! (part man, komodo AND cobra!). Overall this movie is utter crap even on bad movie standards. Just remember if Jim Wynorski had anything to do with a movie....steer clear....to avoid from falling asleep keep repeating "It's almost over..it's almost over...". 0 out of 5.
Bad, bad, movie, so bad it is worth watching. As long as you watch this movie knowing that it is bad and you'll be spending 2 hours of your time watching a bad movie, it's worth it. The special effects are cheesy and the animals look fake and the acting is bad, but watching the faces of the actors as they try to look frightened is just very funny. If your sister is about to be eaten by a giant komodo dragon wouldn't you do a little something to try and save her? If she did get eaten wouldn't you fall on your knees crying your heart out? This guy just sat in a chair and ran his fingers through his hair. How anti-climatic is that? Maybe he was supposed to be in shock or something. He does join his sister in the komodo's belly - oh didn't mean to spoil it for you.
"Scientists at a remote lab experiment on (insert scaly creature here) and create out of control monsters. In the meantime a crack military team/the scientist's daughter/bank robbers find their way to the remote place and are menaced by the giant critters. One by one they're eaten, all during an "exciting" race to not be blown up by the forces who initially created the monsters..." The sad thing is that this sounds like about a dozen movies which have appeared on the Sci-Fi Channel. I have to wonder just what is going on? Sure... I like bimbos and Hollywood-Hunk wannabes be eaten by CGI critters as much as the next person... but where's the plot or originality? Granted, there are times when Sci-Fi Channel Shines. Battlestar Galactica, if a bit dark, can be very good. Writers have continued to pump life into the various Stargate offerings, and the latest BBC import of Doctor Who is surprisingly good.<br /><br />Even in the various "giant animal" movies on Sci-Fi, the animation seems to be getting better all the time. Compare the kommodo in this film to the rather clunky version in the first giant kommodo film on Sci-Fi.<br /><br />But goodness... how about a different plot? Maybe some -different- giant critter? On a whim, I started searching around the internet. Among the litter I found a few interesting stories which might appeal to SF fans and out of work Russian CGI animators at once. I offer http://www.macrophile.com/~arilin/archive/metamorphosis-day to the network with a suggestion that they contact the author for the story rights. (The story contains violent images generally on a par with those of various Sci-Fi channel offerings).<br /><br />The story has subplot, ethical and moral comment on the nature of humanity and ends not on one of those horrible "did they REALLY kill all the monsters???" moments, but rather leaves you guessing completely and in an entirely different mindset.<br /><br />Which is generally what science-fiction is supposed to do, no?
Within the first 5 minutes of this movie I knew I was in for one of those "pick at the faults" kinda movie. The acting was terrible, the script was even worse. Who ever let these people write write such crap for a movie need to be feed the Komodo's themselves. With Russian Mig jets posing as U.S. Air Force jets, and pistols that can miraculously shoot 50 - 60 rounds rapid fire without reloading is poor detail to any story. In one scene komodo are killing special forces troops at night, while in another they are explaining how the komodos and cobras are cold blooded and don't come out night!!!! Also with fantastic special effects available in today's movie industry, they were only average even for this low budget movie.<br /><br />All that being said, I did watch it to the end curious as to what other wonders bad film making could produce. Shame Shame Shame, for producing such rot!!!<br /><br />This movie should have been left on the cutting room floor!!!
imagination must of slipped Jim Wynorski mind when he wrote the script to this one. i don't mind when the animals scenes are almost identical but when the actors repeat lines from other movies is going a little too far. I did enjoy seeing Jay Richardson and Glori Ann Gilbert get eaten. Gloria brings nothing to a movie but her tits (my husbands sentiments). Jerri Manthey should of stayed on survival island her acting is stiff, unbelievable and she just a plain boor. liked the scene where the cobra comes out of the ocean eats the guy then for added flavor destroys the dingy. At least we know the next plot giant snake man slays komodo before becoming daddy to a nest of eggs. Jerri would be great as the mother cobra. sit back with a 6 pact or a couple of joints. it will ease the pain.
28 years before 9/11, there was another 9/11 which represented a key date in the history of Chile, South America and the whole world. This was the date in 1973 when a bloody coup in Chile deposed Salvador Allende the first Marxist president elected democratically anywhere in the world and put an end to the Chilean experiment of a democratic transition from capitalism to socialism. Allende committed suicide when the armed forces attacked the presidential palace.<br /><br />Unfortunately this film is too biased and too nostalgic towards the time of Allende's rule to be an objective rendition of the man and of his place in history. The times were troubled and Allende was a disputed figure in the history of his country and of the whole world. True, he was democratically elected, but his policies plunged Chile into economic crisis. He was deposed by a coup and a right-wing dictatorship followed with repression and flagrant human rights abuses, but he was also an ally of Castro who saw in his policies another way of making revolution. We'll never know if his tentative to build a socialist yet democratic society would have succeeded. The authors of the movie take a completely pro-Allende position, there is no opinion or point of view trying to explain the other side, to answer questions like why did the middle class oppose him, or how his democratic views could go together with supporting or being supported by Castro. The tone of the commentaries is nostalgic and apologetic, almost propagandistic. People who want to get a better understanding of this episode of the history need to wait for a more balanced and objective film or book in the future.
I kind of like JAG. It do have it´s charm but lately it´s to much propaganda in it. For an outsider (a non American) the patriotic feeling can be a bit to much.<br /><br />I don´t like that Rabb and MacKenzie goes from being lawyers (as they were in the early parts of the TV show) to become super heros that stops wars and rescues entire continents. Its almost like watching a recruitment video from the US army.<br /><br />I still watch the show, so it´s not that bad. But i would prefer more episodes when Rabb and MacKenzie investigates military accidents and don´t save the world in the future.
I was so "impressed" with Tim Kincaid's MUTANT HUNT that I gave this one a try. It is the near future, post apocalypse of course. A wandering fighter named Neo (no, not that Neo!) joins a group of similar looking fighters to challenge The Dark One and his underling Valaria. Along the way they encounter mutants, crazed females, sewer worms, a big spider leg and some clunky robots. Oh my! <br /><br />Sadly, ROBOT HOLOCAUST is hardly up (or down) to HUNT's level. Clocking in at a painful 79 minutes (the box says 90), this is one cheap flick. The sets have all the elaborate design of a carnival haunted house and the costumes prove that in the near future everyone will dress like John Travolta in the final dance number of STAYING ALIVE. The atomic wasteland is a combination of rubble filled old buildings and Central Park. The Dark One's headquarters is ominously named The Power Station and looks like, well, a power station. The acting is universally bad except for Angelika Jager as the evil Valaria. Jager is a whole 'nother level of bad. Vit er sick Cherman acczent, she gives a performance so amazingly bad that it becomes the sole reason to recommend this film. She also delivers the film's only nudity in the "pleasure chamber" section of the film. Ed French again supplies the robot effects but they aren't nearly as slimy as his work in MUTANT HUNT.
Cheap, gloriously bad cheese from the 80's, the decade of cheese. I watched this one first uncut and un-MST3K'ed, and it was pretty much laugh out loud funny even without the comments.<br /><br />The plot(such as it is) revolves around a post-apocalyptic world in which the AI robots revolted(sound familiar?) and destroyed pretty much everything, leaving a world in ruins with air so bad no one can breathe it. The few humans that are left act as slaves to an enigmatic being called the Dark One, which seems to be part computer and part organic being. The 'air slaves' work to produce energy for this being in return for breathable air. Every once in a while, the Dark One has the strongest of the air slaves fight to the death, so that no one will rise as a leader in a revolt against the Dark One.<br /><br />Okay, that's the so-called serious stuff. On to the silly stuff, such as the ridiculous quasi-futuristic clothing that everyone sports, including car seat cover 'fur' garments, loin cloths, and spangly stuff and feather boas(worn mostly by the Dark One's henchwoman, a chick with an unrecognizable and almost non-understandable accent). Or the wooden acting and stilted lines sported by all of the so-called 'actors', who's dialog is high on pretension and low on sense. Or the dime store special fx, including pink socks with teeth glued onto them for 'deadly' sewer snakes, a bomb made of strung piano wire and a tin can, and terrible 'mutants' with Halloween rubber masks on.<br /><br />A band of air slaves follow their leader, a mysterious wanderer who has adapted to the air outside, to go to the energy plant to destroy the Dark One. The guy's name is Neo, which explains where the Wachowski brothers got the idea for the Matrix. They meet up with a group of Amazons along the way, with the obligatory fight scene in which the female is bested(of course). Has anyone else ever noticed that in every Amazon movie or t.v. show ever produced, these so-called amazing warriors always get their butts kicked by either men or women? Amazons are just pansies, I guess.<br /><br />This band of determined warriors makes their way through Central Park...errr...the ravaged lands beyond the last standing city(good way to save money on the matte paintings of a destroyed New York City, anyway) and journey into the sewers leading to the Power Station where the Dark One and his go-go girl henchwoman Valeria hang out. Here they vanquish such ferocious beasts as the sock puppet worms, a giant spider no one sees, and the goofy lobster robot who is one of the Dark One's personal guard. <br /><br />The final showdown is pretty sad. One of the slaves, a girl who's father was taken by the Dark One because he'd produced a way for people to breathe the foul air, sees that her father has been 'consumed by the Dark One's true form", which involves him being eaten by a giant avocado until only his head is sticking out. The three remaining adventurers destroy the Dark One by turning off a few switches, and the robot holocaust dies not with a bang but with a whimper. The two humans exchange some amazingly wooden last lines, and that's it. The End.
What a despairing film. Dress actors in furry rags, place in suburban wasteland, set cameras rolling and hope for the best. One can only imagine e the thanks the cast gave when their characters were killed off by sockpuppets, thus sparing them further humiliation in this dullfest. This rivals Monster a go-go as the best cure for insomnia ever made. Oh God - how can I fill up 10 lines explaining how overwhelmingly bored everybody looks in this movie? Whiney crappy plastic bungling robot who annoys everybody both on and off screen, Giant spider reduced to a single giant hairy leg pulled by string, actors desperately trying not to look at the camera while mumbling off dialogs...
In fact it was awful. The main chick in it who gets topless was obviously sleeping with the director at the time. It was shot at some warehouse most likely owned by family or friends. Also they chose not to bother coming up with a story. Sure these are ways to cut cost, but are they smart ways of keeping costs down? No they aren't. At the very least they could have found a middle school student in a "creative writing" course. Those kids may have at least had a lesson about story structure. At the very least, they could have read up on 3 act structure but acting obviously wasn't a priority either. Watching these jerks run around in funny clothing that was stupid by 1980's standards was an embarrassment. The fact that none of these actors committed suicide in humiliation is probably a testament to the limited distribution this film received. Had the actors actually seen the final result of their hard work, there would have been a line of people waiting to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge.<br /><br />I'd give this movie 10/10 stars but it only deserves 1 for being released at all. This movie should be shown to film students everywhere. It's better than 90% of student films I've seen and wow is this movie a piece of shiiiit.
All right, there's no way to sugarcoat this. The plot was ridiculous, the premise was ridiculous, the acting was unconscionable, the effects were laughable and all of the outdoor scenes appear to have been filmed in New York's Central Park. That having been said, there was something about this movie that I couldn't walk away from. Maybe it was the atmosphere, or maybe it was the evil super-vixen or the amazon wenches.<br /><br />Anyway I'm not one to sit on the margins and criticise without pointing out a few redeeming qualities, so here they are.<br /><br />A violent off-shoot of the women's lib movement is portrayed in a wilderness setting (central park, of course), and all of the masochistic young men out there will be very impressed. Furthermore, some of the scenes in which certain characters lose consciousness are amusingly dramatic (you'll note that I write dramatic, rather than convincing).<br /><br />All I can say is that some people like B movies and I'm one of them. If you're one of them too, then give it a go. Cheers, Mr Kincaid. This is one for the ages.
I am not familiar with the producer's other works, but this movie is a piece of crap. <br /><br />I never saw the MST3K version, but I can tell you, Mike and the Bots probably didn't save it. <br /><br />I love a grade-z movie as much as the next bad movie fan, but this was almost unwatchable.<br /><br />There was no credit for who did the voice of "The Dark One". Sounded a bit like Patrick Stewart at times.<br /><br />A group of high school students who found a junk super-8 camera in the trash heap could make a better movie than that.
This movie is really bad. Most of it looks like it was filmed either in a park or a basement. There's a giant spider but all we see of it is one leg. There are some worms that live in a cave that are just cheap sock puppets with cardboard teeth. And the plot is a bunch of post-apocalyptic mumbo jumbo that makes no sense at all. The whole thing is just laughable.
Mystery Science Theater 3000 would have not been able to bring any redeeming quality to a showing of this "gem." <br /><br />This one is like a cheesy pirate copy of 80's porn you could have purchased on VHS from an arcade on 42nd st. before Disney bought the whole smash and closed them all down. <br /><br />But, wait - all the sex scenes have been cut. I challenge anyone to find a worse film. This film could replace water-boarding as a humane method of interrogation. <br /><br />No, I take that back - I would prefer water-boarding. <br /><br />The only credit this movie could earn apart from being the worst movie ever made would be to threaten the middle east into solving its problems under pain of having to watch this movie.
Robot Holocaust is about the lamest, most pathetic attempt at making a post-apocalyptic movie that I've seen. And I thought the Italians were the masters of wretched Mad Max wannabes. Some of those movies like Escape 2000 are positively brilliant in comparison with this piece of poo. The plot is nonsensical – even with a narrator setting up every scene. And boy does it drag. Scene after scene with nothing of any interest happening. The special effects (and I use the word "special" loosely) consist of sock puppets. Yes, that's right – sock puppets! The acting is abysmal. Angelika Jager is in the running for worst performance I've ever seen. Sure, she's French or German or whatever – but man is she bad. I cannot think of a single positive thing to say about the movie. So I'll stop there because ten sentences on this junk is about ten too many.<br /><br />However, and fortunately for me, I saw the MST3K version of Robot Holocaust. Some of the things that made the movie so bad helped make this MST3K episode a winner. For a season one episode, the riffs come fast and furious and hit their mark just about every time. On my MST3K rating scale, I give this episode a 4/5 – seek it out.
Some films are just plain silly beyond explanation. This is one of them. Words cannot do justice to the wooden acting, the stupid plotline, and the ever-predictable outcome. About the only thing that makes this film halfway worth watching are the scantily clad women (and the mute guy for you ladies) in it. The leader of the warrior women and Valeria are quite appealing to the eye. But that's about all this movie has going for it.<br /><br />Some silliness in point: One scene, when they start to journey to the lair of the Dark One, they are walking away from a supposedly destroyed land. But we clearly see a 1980's New York behind them. About 2/3rds of this movie looks like it was filmed in a high school basement. The deadly sock puppets look about as scary as a sesame street monster. I have to agree with Latronic in that many 1950's trash b-movies did a better job than this. About the only one I can think of that didn't was Teenagers from Outer Space.
After watching this movie, I couldn't help but notice the parallels between it and another film called America 3000. Both were very bad mid 1980's post apocalypse disasters on celluloid. Obviously fake sets, wooden acting and stupid monsters are found in both films. About the only difference between the two is that the lead villainess here (played by Angelika Jager) has a very thick accent. Avoid this one unless you're watching the MST3K version. Joel and the bots barely salvage this turkey.
this was made in that beloved age known as the 80s and shot in my hometown of New York City. actually, this has become one of my favorite b sci-fi movies. Oh, sure, it really stinks to high hell, but there's so much to make fun of, laugh, and enjoy that it becomes more tolerable after every viewing.<br /><br />Such as:<br /><br />Try to find the similarities between this and...well, OK, there is nothing similarly bad as this. Well, except Castle of FuManchu.<br /><br />Sock puppets can be dangerous to your health<br /><br />Create supense by describing through voice over rather than showing any imagery<br /><br />Have leading villainess "Valeria" (played wonderfully by Angelika Jager) deliver some of the most riveting lines ever!!<br /><br />Lots of men and women in post apocalyptic fashion (aka leather bikinis, loin cloths, and dead animal fur)<br /><br />Do be horrified by the end!<br /><br /> I'm off to have a salad. Toodles!!
I think I can safely say (without really giving anything away), that this movie had no robots in it. The guys in "robot" costumes didn't act or speak as such, and the evil entity behind the whole "plot" isn't a robot either.<br /><br />The whole thing looks like it was shot in a city park somewhere, with photos dropped in the background when the director needed a custom set. I can't even use words to describe the acting...<br /><br />This couldn't even offer the hilarious ending of "Star Crystal". In short, it is clearly one of the worst sci-fi movies of the 80's and I would be so bold as to say "of all time".
Well, this movie actually did have one redeeming quality. It made up the funniest season one episode of MST3K. I wish Rhino had released this one instead of "The Crawling Hand."
I once lived in the u.p and let me tell you what. I didn't have the foggyest idea what the heck this "bear walk " is. I never heard of it the whole 10 years I was up there. It was really funny in the beginning but went down hill quickly.
Having lived in Michigan's Upper Peninsula (30 miles from Escanaba) in the mid-1990s, I was eager to see this film. It begins promisingly enough, with some superficial understanding of the values and quirks of U.P. life. But Jeff Daniels apparently was not content with a low-key approach that would have been fitting given the place and the people. Instead, he introduces extremely crude humor and some wildly inappropriate mystical/supernatural elements. Although there is a good movie to be made about this practically unknown region of the U.S., this is NOT it.
It is inconceivable to me how ANYONE could have enjoyed or laughed at this movie. I'd say it's the worst movie I've seen in years and I see a lot of them. Maybe I've forgotten junior high? It's also very hard to believe that this is the same Jeff Daniels to did such a brilliant performance of George Washington in The Crossing. Seems like ever since he did Dumber, he's gone into the tank. Can you believe he even wrote and directed this junk?
I went into this movie expecting a thoughtfull piece about how to be accepted in culture and I wound up blowing $8.50 on a 10 minute fart joke and a whole bunch of fake accents. Sorry, Jeff, but if you're going for the whole cult thing, you gotta a while to go.
One of the worst movies I have ever seen. Excruciatingly slow-moving, boring and stupid. Lots of juvenile bathroom-humor, drawn out into painful tedium. I like Jeff Daniels, but he should stick to acting and forget writing. I am amazed this is rated as high as it is. I call it a turkey.
"Escanaba in da Moonlight" is the first showcasing of Jeff Daniels writing and directing talents.<br /><br />I've seen worse debuts but this one isn't that great.<br /><br />"Escanaba in da Moonlight" starts off like as a decent parody of this part of American culture. As we follow Rebuen Soady (Jeff Daniels) on the eve of deer hunting season 1989. He is getting close to the record of oldest Soady to never bag a buck.<br /><br />The film takes places in the upper regions of Michigan and has all the normal cliche characters. But there is a warmth there that tells you, this isn't being mean spirited.<br /><br />Well, Reuben is heading off to The Soady Deer Camp and before his wife (Kimberly Norris Guerrero) gives him a Native American necklace, his lucky hat, and two-forms of liquid you probably don't want to know about.<br /><br />Anyway, she is really the only one who believe in him. He finally gets to the camp where his Dad, Albery Soady (Harve Presnell) is waiting and his brother Remnar (Joey Albright) is soon to show.<br /><br />Okay, let's fast forward this. In here there are some laughs, a few moments when I chuckled a loud. But most of the jokes here are used a few to many times.<br /><br />But the biggest draw back is the spiritual/Native American happenings. Just when you settle in with the characters these strange things occur. But the special effects are so cheap all it is, is a big flash of light and then head quickly bobbing back in forth. <br /><br />And the ending, well it is worthless.<br /><br />The move itself wasn't bad, the quirky character, and fun parody were good. But it should've stayed at that. Instead of having stupid spiritual awakenings that look like rejected scenes from some demon possession movie.<br /><br />I give "Escanaba in da Moonlight" a 4.5 out of 10.
Admittedly, I tuned into this in the hopes of seeing some beefcake shots of James Brolin. Unfortunately, there was only one, early on, and the rest of the movie was very tame, and ultimately made little sense.<br /><br />The story, what there is of it, centers on Nick and Julie Atkins, a couple whose marriage of many years is beginning to grow stale. Nick, a successful businessman is focused on work to the point of neglecting Julie, who tries to fill the void by going back to school. Julie's longing for the passion that she and Nick had early in their marriage begins to take shape in the form of powerful sexual fantasies which block out reality for minutes at a time, causing her to do things like burning breakfast and misplace her husband's papers. At first she fantasizes about her husband, but as the movie progresses, she begins to fantasize about other men, and about encounters with random strangers whom she meets. This culminates in her acting out her fantasies with disastrous consequences for her marriage. Can she and her husband rebuild their relationship? Is it worth saving? <br /><br />This could have been an interesting premise, but the execution is so bland that you wonder why they even bothered. Characters aren't developed. Motives aren't explained. Background information isn't given. No exploration is made of how Julie got to the point where she couldn't control herself, and no explanation is offered as to how she will do so in the future. The end product is a muddled mess which is just as confusing as Julie's fantasies, which are surprisingly underdeveloped.<br /><br />The acting is a mixed bag. Donna Mills as Julie does well with the material she is given, although her continual self pity does become strident after awhile. James Brolin acts as though he is reading his lines from cue cards, and even his anger over his wife's infidelity is hard to buy into, he shows so little passion over the whole issue. The supporting roles are mostly forgettable.<br /><br />Disappointing treatment of what could have been an interesting story. More's the pity, since it doesn't even offer the eye candy it promised.
This unintentionally amusing mid-80s TV movie is based on the premise that sex bomb Donna Mills (in a mostly appalling wardrobe throughout) is a neglected housewife, pining for her sexy past as a cheerleader. She escapes her empty life by fantasising about random sexual encounters with one of the many attractive men she comes across, finally giving into her fantasies and indulging in a bit on the side, although all she really wants is to reignite the flames of passion with her boring husband James Brolin.<br /><br />There are many laughable aspects to this film, Mills' first foray into co-producing (later, following her departure from Knots Landing, she found great success as a trashy TV movie queen starring in mostly issue-of-the-week melodramas through most of the '90s - she usually played a victim of some sort, clearly determined to wash her hands of the wonderfully wicked and entertaining conniver she played for so long on Knots). Funniest are the drawn-out fantasy sequences, filmed as though they are meant to be soft-core porn (wind and smoke machines, backlighting, porno music), but as this is a network TV movie the scenes are all very chaste and ultimately not very sexy at all. The most amusing (and bizarre) scene has Mills taking a walk on the wild side downtown among the spiky-haired punks (complete with Robert Palmer soundtrack). <br /><br />Less laughable is the dreadful dialogue that the cardboard characters are forced to utter (pity poor Cicely Tyson as the mandatory psycho-analyst, or Veronica Cartwright as the mandatory best friend, or even pre-Babs James Brolin with that daytime soap style of clenched fist anger.)<br /><br />Of course, as in all of these sorts of films, we learn that all problems can be solved through psycho-therapy and then the film just becomes silly, as we explore, briefly, the reasons for Mills' "shocking" behaviour (as if it can't just be that she wants a good shag!)<br /><br />Vacuous.
This film actually starts out pretty interesting but for my taste it degenerated far too quickly into a dull and predictable melodrama. None of the performances are particularly interesting and the camera work is just standard TV movie stuff, so there's really no reason for anyone to see this movie unless they are as big of a Jeff Bridges fan as I am I guess.<br /><br />Bridges plays Mike Olson, a young man who announces at a family picnic that he is quitting college to go on the road. His parents believe he is "just acting out" and talk about how "he has no plan". He assures them he does have a plan, and that he needs to discover his true self and his place in the world. So much so in fact that he invites them to go on the road with him and purchases an antique bus to travel in, which he and his father repair in true TV movie father-son bonding fashion. Up until about this point in the film I was somewhat interested in the plot and characters and I wanted to see how his stuck-up mother (Vera Miles) was going to react to life on the road. There's a funny scene early on where the father and son have to convince her to take the trip with them. They show her the inside of the bus and she gradually becomes more and more interested, finally departing in a huff with some kind of talk about curtains versus blinds on the windows. Bridges marvels to his dad (Carl Betz, equipped with radio announcer voice) that she has changed her mind. Dad assures him "electric oven... works every time!".<br /><br />But the movie goes downhill almost as soon as they hit the road. It turns out that Mike's only "plan" is to introduce them to some "friends" of his who turn out to be random people who they meet at a hippie rock festival. As soon as I saw the rock festival I was a bit disappointed... particularly as it became obvious that the entire rest of the film would take place at the festival campground and not actually on the road. But at least I thought there might be a decent band like, well, if they couldn't afford Hendrix or the Stones maybe they would at least have Canned Heat or Little Feat or something like that. No dice -- apparently the only music at this festival is some horrible choral group with orchestra that sounded like a poor imitation of the Fifth Dimension, coupled with an annoying announcer who's supposed to be humorous.<br /><br />Also we are introduced to a set of hippy festivalgoers and their various medical melodramas. Kathy (Renne Jarrett) is a pretty blonde girl with existentialism and nature on her mind, who falls in love with Mike before revealing the fact that she needs kidney dialysis to live and has run off to the festival to die. And 2 other campers are determined to have a baby in their crude tent, introducing the struggle between modern medicine and hippy ignorance (or something like that). All in all the longer this goes on the more painful the film becomes for anyone hoping for any element of surprise or real drama.<br /><br />Basically this movie is a waste of time, although it would probably amuse anyone who is really into the period of time in the late 60s, early 70s and the films from that time. I'd be just as happy if I never see it again though.
This movie purports to show a middle class family's attempt to figure out what is "going down" in the America of the late 1960's. Their trip to a rock festival is as far as their refurbished old bus gets. Without exception, the characters are superficial stereotypes.<br /><br />If you want to know which well-established Hollywood actors were desperate for a paycheck in those days,.. just look at the credits. Sal Mineo, I had forgotten just how badly his career had hit the skids! Thank God, his career rebounded before his untimely death.<br /><br />The writers on this television turkey were clueless. Outside of doing weed, their insights into the "hippie movement" were laughable.
One of the problems with popular culture, especially when discussing the popular culture of the 1970s, is that mass media - especially television - is usually about four years behind 'underground' media, primarily music. Many people think the 'Woodstock Generation" remained important throughout the 1970s; actually, it was all over at Altamont in 1970. By 1972, 'underground' rock or the 'counterculture' had moved east to England and Led Zepplin, Black sabbath, and David Bowie, early metal-heads and the so-called 'glam-rockers,' who were all 'peace and love' - not. Neither, in a darkly different vein, was Charles Manson's 'family.' <br /><br />This obvious pilot for a television show (that, thankfully, was never picked up by the networks) is attempting to come to terms with a culture that was already as withered as yesterday's flowers. The script must have been lying around a few years - by the time it was produced, writer Carlino had already achieved recognition for tough Mafia revenge tales. And the cultural references are all to "Easy Rider" and Woodstock (1969). The music referenced on the soundtrack is actually earlier, 1966/67 - at Woodstock Hendrix, Canned Heat, and Sly and the Family Stone had blasted this kind of folk-pop into oblivion.<br /><br />The movie is about a middle-class family that goes on the road in order to meet hippies. Wow, man, farout, outasight, it's a groovy mind-blowing happening of a bag. However, politics count for nothing - Vietnam? some place in Asia, right? <br /><br />This average (meaning stale and vacuous) TV movie is only redeemed by Jeff Bridges' surprisingly mature performance as the young college drop-out who convinces his parents and grandma to 'discover' (hippie) America. All the rest of the performances are standard TV fair by standard TV actors of the time. The director avails himself of some nice location cinematography, but otherwise the film is a poor way to spend 90 minutes.<br /><br />I knew it was all over when Sal Mineo remarks of a young runaway (who tells the other characters they are not really there): "She's a latent existentialist." Wow, far out, groovy. <br /><br />A couple extra points for being 'so bad it's funny,' but if you don't care about the '70's TV version of the '60's, stay away.
You don't have to spend much time watching this made for TV movie or series pilot or whatever it was intended to be to figure out just what lies in store. The incredibly bad musical score makes its debut from the start. Seriously, if this isn't the worst theme I've ever heard, I certainly can't remember it. While the acting talent is available here, from Jeff Bridges to Carl Betz, Vera Miles, and Sal Mineo, the writing is atrocious and the story is contrived, filled with insipid stereotypes, and an obvious ripoff from Ken Kesey. Why must Hollywood always present tales from the sixties as if the so-called hippies were all unidimensional morons? It's too bad that such an interesting era in our exceptionally conformist social experience is generally depicted by out and out garbage so that the least offensive of the genre is now accepted as reasonably authentic when almost none of it comes even close to the way things really were. The best I've seen to date is a memoir called Looking Back by a guy named Becker, but who else has even heard of it? No one in Hollywood, that's for sure. They're too busy pushing tripe like this groaner of a movie to bother with reality.
Set in the Philipines, Lethal Panther 2 is a dreary early-90s martial-arts action flick which sees a reckless cop hunting down the nasty criminals who killed his wife. A rather cheap looking production with almost no artistic merit, this film relies on the quality and quantity of its action. But whilst there is no shortage of fisticuffs, gun fights and explosions, the quality is just not there. The endless battles are desperately lacking in originality or excitement, with poor editing and mundane direction making this film a real chore to sit through.<br /><br />The usually impressive Yukari Oshima is totally wasted, with her natural athletic ability overshadowed by some excruciatingly bad wire-work. The ballistic action scenes are an unimpressive mixture of 'slow-motion flying-through-the-air-whilst-shooting' heroics, crazy vehicle stunts, and endless bad guys lining up to be shot.<br /><br />With so many better examples of the 'girls and guns' genre now available on DVD, I suggest that you leave this one well alone (unless, like me, you'll endure pretty much any old rubbish in order to be a completist).
Just awful. It's almost unbelievable that, with characters and situations provided by Dashiell Hammett, such a plodding, passionless mishmash could result. But that's television for you -- filler between commercials. The first warning signal sounds from the fussiness of the period re-creation, which screams "1928" in banner type. Flivvers and touring cars, fedoras and waistcoats, cloches and speakeasy jazz (jarringly played) -- with all the attention paid to pointless, arty detail, the important matters get ignored.<br /><br />Like narrative clarity, or plausibility, or competent writing and acting. The plot sets one of Hammett's operatives ("Hamilton Nash" so whether he's called "Ham" or "Nash" we think of "Hammett" or "Dash") investigating a bogus diamond theft. Thus is introduced the young woman who supposedly carries the Dain Curse (the charmless and talentless Nancy Addison, who went back to soaps where she belonged); she belongs to a crackpot religious cult led by Jean Simmons and seems addicted to "drugs" as well; there's also a Mysterious Gaseous Drug which seeps into rooms....<br /><br />But enough. The writing is never more pedestrian than when it reaches for the poetic or high-flown, and the cast parrots it the only way they know how: by grotesquely overacting. Simmons gets treated like minor royalty from Old Hollywood, but the grande-dame treatment doesn't wash. Hector Elizondo for some reason enjoys second billing (after Coburn) for a dispensable part. Other familiar faces drift through, doing little good for their resumes.<br /><br />The actors aren't even photographed to look good; Jason Miller is an especial fright, but extreme close-ups of Coburn are pitiless, too. Coburn probably copped this role because, with mustache, he bears a strong resemblance to Hammett. He needed more guidance than that; nobody has given him the vaguest hint as to how to play his character, or of the story's tone, or of how the different strands of the plot mesh together (they don't, at least not in this telling). So he flashes his big Chesire-cat grin whether called for or not.<br /><br />The Dain Curse is available on videotape, in a variety of lengths. For those foolhardy enough to "see for themselves," the shortest abridgement is the kindest cut of all.
I appeared as an extra and was on location as a journalist covering "The Dain Curse". My involvement was during the segments of this film shot in Jim Thorpe, Pa. (Jim Thorpe was also one of the locations of the 1969 film "The Molly Maguires"). I reported the 'action' in the Emmaus Free Press newspaper where I was editor 1978-80 (the paper ceased publication int he 1990s). I recall the excellent attention to detail of the period costumes, automobiles, etc. The modern asphalted streets of Jim Thorpe were covered with gravel to mimic a 1920s rural town of the south. At the time, I interviewed the producer and spoke briefly with the director during a set change break; I did not get to interview James Coburn which was always a great disappointment to me. As an aside, I appear briefly in one of the street scenes wearing a snap- brim hat and a tweed jacket. The producer asked me to "jump in" and it was a real thrill. I still have a collection of black and white stills I took of the production work for the newspaper. Someday, they may be of interest to film/television historians.--Lou Varricchio
This has to be the most boring movie I ever sat through. It is dreary and drab, has no excitement, the acting by Hulce is terrible as Hulce cannot pull off the proper accent required for this film. The story is stupid and I sure wouldn't recommend this crap for anyone unless you want to die of boredom.
ExCUSE me, but my tongue was TOO in my cheek when we filmed this piece o' poop. As the evil sister with hair that Mommy Dearest would envy, I did my very best to channel Tim Curry in Rocky Horror. I'm sad that this did not come across... Ah well, a friend compared it to a 'rock bottom budget SHOWGIRLS' with a white hot spoon.' I'll have to be content with that. <br /><br />What amazes me is no one mentioned the endless (and dull) wet T-shirt contest. It is seriously the longest wet T-shirt contest in cinema history. And the only one where the contestants were wearing industrial strength cotton-polyester shirts that defied all efforts to get them wet and translucent. <br /><br />And didn't anyone catch the director's cameo as the dude on the payphone interrupted by our hero? With the line 'are we filming yet?" clearly audible? Jeez, this is bad movie heaven for REAL aficionados...
This movie can't decide what it is -- a soft porno or a sf movie. Not enough plot for a real movie, but way too much for a porno.<br /><br />In a galaxy far far away, a good princess (we know she's good because she has long blonde hair, wears a white toga, is polite, and is mooning wistfully about her dying mother when we first see her) inherits the kingdom over her elder sister, who is evil (and we know this because she has dark hair and wears too much makeup, abuses her male sexual slaves, sneers and curls her lip all the time, and talks imperiously about the horrors she'll perpetrate when she's queen). The evil princess gets upset and tries to stage a coup, but the good sister gets away to Earth. Of course, she materializes buck naked in a bar during a wet T-shirt contest. It really goes downhill from there. The acting is ludicrous, the dialog sounds like it was written for a porno, and the general storyline is ridiculous. There's not even enough skin to make happy the sort of person who'd watch this for skin. I love "good" bad movies, and this one's not even enjoyable on a "bad movie" level.
Princess Warrior is a science fiction action movie with a pretty thin plot-essentially on the death of their queen mother two sisters, one evil and one good, fight for control of the throne. The good sister is being beaten so she escapes to Earth where she appears buck naked in a strip club in the middle of a wet t-shirt contest. The rest of the movie is basically one long chase scene, as the evil sister tries to find and kill the younger good sister. But the younger sister is helped by Bob, a good-hearted DJ, and everything is complicated by police involvement and the good sister's ignorance of Earth customs and culture. The older sister catches up to her younger sibling several times but the latter manages to escape and go on the run again. Throughout all of this action, there is a cult of women on the home planet having some kind of a space age séance to bring the good sister back. Sadly a good portion of this film seems to be rather boring car chase scenes as they drive around Los Angeles (and what was that sound effect when the police car crashed???) The film culminates in another physical fight between the sisters with a predictable ending.<br /><br />It seems to borrow elements from Star Wars (the light sabers and the look of the girls' home planet in the opening and subsequent scenes), Dr. Who (the phone booth like means of transportation) and some of the costumes (from the cult on the home planet) could have been taken from Star Trek episodes.<br /><br />Ms. Dana Fredsti (the evil sister in the movie) in another user comment mentioned "the endless (and dull) wet T-shirt contest. It is seriously the longest wet T-shirt contest in cinema history. And the only one where the contestants were wearing industrial strength cotton-polyester shirts that defied all efforts to get them wet and translucent." I couldn't state it any better. The only thing I would add is that the music in this scene is just plain annoying.<br /><br />Most of the acting is pretty over the top, but that seems to suit the whole style of the movie. The actors playing Vinnie and Vito were just too much for me-I just found them annoying. Ms. Fredsti (Curette) seemed to be enjoying herself and not taking the whole thing too seriously, in contrast to Sharon Lee Jones who acted decently but seemed to be taking everything more seriously. All of the police were portrayed as bumbling idiots, presumably to add comic relief, which is a bit unnecessary, given that the whole movie was rather comical.<br /><br />From a ratings perspective, this film had a lot of foul language; some topless women and others scantily clad in thongs, but not enough skin to satisfy those who are looking for nudity; one sex scene that was portrayed in a non-graphic arty dreamlike fashion; and little violence-while there were threats of violence throughout, the scenes of both sword fighting and brawling were exaggerated, and too camp to be "offensive", though it looked like the actors were having a lot of fun with it.<br /><br />I have to wonder who came up with the character names? Ovule (a small egg), Curette (a surgical instrument used for scraping and cleaning), Exzema (suspiciously similar to a disease characterized by scaling skin and pruritus), Bulemia (an eating disorder with binging and purging) and Rickettsia (another disease)? <br /><br />Overall, this is a bad, low budget, campy, sci-fi action movie, but it did keep me entertained, though I might need a few drinks before watching it again.
I know when you buy a used (oops, excuse me, previously viewed)DVD for $5.99 you shouldn't have very high expectations, but even that was a steep price for this poor boxed disc.<br /><br />I will give the producers credit for providing a complex challenge for the viewer . . . to determine which is worst, the acting, the scripting, the camera work, the special effects . . . they all pretty much tie for just plain terrible. Oh, it has the absolutely WORST faked car crash ever used in a motion picture anywhere.<br /><br />Now all this is pretty serious ridicule for a movie fan who proudly features 'Police Academy', 'Naked Gun', 'National Lampoon's Loaded Weapon" and a host of other campy discs in his collection. But, at least those folks know that ones tongue should be planted firmly in ones cheek, the cast of PW, unfortunately use their tongues in an attempt to deliver inane dialogue. And, although it is almost beyond my belief, the movies characters seem to think they might actually be doing something of value. A back room pornographer would be ashamed to release this mess.<br /><br />Oh . . . lucky me bought the worst video ever made at the same time . .."Fraternity Demon" . . . maybe the name should have given me a hint.
I absolutely hated this movie. Even though the movie wanted to transmit some kind of social message, it was done in such a cliché ridden and melodramatic way like a Mexican soap opera.<br /><br />Also the acting was terrible especially Charityn and her son. That's one of the problems with dominican movies, they use celebrities that can't even act just to attract the masses. <br /><br />I'm even more ashamed about the positive reviews here which sadly means Dominicans are just being condescending to what's done here instead of giving honest and critical opinions that will help our film industry base itself on quality.
As a fan of Henriksen (I liked him in the "Millennium" series) and of course Lorenzo "Renegade" Lamas, I had expected at least SOMETHING from this film. Sadly, the plot is predictable, the acting is bad and the computergraphics used for most stunts don't work out. Sometimes it even looks like they've captured some shots from Microsoft Flight Simulator.<br /><br />The cinematography sucks as well. Unnecessary funky camerawork in the beginning only detracts (from the cheesy dialogue) and gives the film a cheap, made-for-video-look. It works in hiphop-movies and Jet Li movies, but seems out of place in this flick.<br /><br />I would have liked this film 10 years ago. I was 11 then.
The only reason any of the hundred or so users watched this movie was because they belong to the crew, were friends to the crew, or were obsessive fans of either Lance Henriksen or Lorenzo Lamas. I personally follow the "cult of Lance", so I was disappointed to see that despite being the headliner, it's in name only. Playing rich criminal Newcastle, Lance is a joy to watch but all of his screen time is relegated to the beginning of the movie. Newcastle sets up a 747 heist which includes Ketchum (Lamas) and a bunch of forgettable characters. The biggest shock to this viewer was that the pre-heist scenes were not all that bad. With the exception of somewhat obnoxious and rather confused looking Aviva Gale, who times every line with the finesse of a grade school play actress, acting was decent all around, and none of the lines really made me cringe.<br /><br />But once the heist occurs, the movie falls asleep. Not only is their plan the most ridiculous thing ever captured on film, but it's dragged out for far too long. This isn't a very deep movie, and you have to fill out your 90 minutes, but these scenes are so boring I nearly nodded off at two in the afternoon. One particular sequence in which we watch each and every one of the characters perform the same task over and over again is especially difficult to get through. The movie's name is "Rapid Exchange", but the exchange is far from rapid - it's overlong and bloated to extremes. Perhaps it would have worked if any of the characters had real personalities, but come on, there's only so much you can ask out of a straight-to-video movie airing of Showtime Extreme.<br /><br />Thankfully, there are several laughs, intentional and unintentional (Lorenzo Lamas is seemingly a master of disguise, which makes for a couple of incredibly bizarre scenarios), and Lance returns in the film's end, albeit for a brief period of time. It's a bad movie, and I probably didn't have to tell you that myself, but it's far from the worst thing I've ever seen. I wouldn't put it too high on the list of Henriksen films, since he's been in some real gems with greater screen time, and either way the movie loses a lot of steam once the heist begins, but the best thing I can say for Rapid Exchange is that the last two films I watched before it were the mainstream Hostage and the overrated, pretentious Crash - and this was better than both.
I found this to be a watchable all be it very predictable movie. There was some good stunt work that gave a fair degree of excitement and suspense to the story. One did however have to suspend ones credulity on a number of occasions for the plot to work. For example despite losing their transfer cable, couplings and harness when the pilot retracted the undercarriage manually, they fortunately found a spare on-board the aircraft complete with Caribbeans. According to the plot drilling a hole in the ceiling of the vault would disable the alarm system in the vault when the system was reactivated (I can't think why), according to Daltry there battery operated drill would be unable to drill through the vault ceiling however they just happened to have a hydraulic drill complete with hoses and fittings to fit the equally convenient take off points in the planes hydraulic system located above the vault. As the plane has a closed hydraulic system it is hard to see how this could be accomplished without affecting the control systems or at least setting hydraulic pressure alarms in the cockpit. Accepting this for the sake of the plot it takes them several minutes to drill a small hole through the top of the vault (tension will they be able to drill through before FED's get there to check the false alarm), yet from the time the vault door closed and before the FED's had walked the few feet to the second security door they had cut a squire hole in the roof of the vault big enough for them to get through. One can accept all theses and other inconsistencies for the sake of a good yarn, however what spoiled the movie for me was when what appears to have been an effort by the script writers to discuses what up to that point was a fairly predictable ending, they killed off the two hero's (If one can refer to crocks as hero's) Ketchum & Brooks one was shot and thrown out of a 747 at 10,000 feet the other wiliest sliding down the cable between the two planes the villain Daltry with one hand manages to unhook the cable carrying the weight of a full grown man with the air pressure of several hundred miles per hour pressing on him, and letting him fall to his death. And yet in the next sequence these two without any kind of explanation (however tenuous or implausible) have miraculously survived the full from 10.000 feet and had time to set up an elaborate scam to get the money. The only comment on there survival was to Sophie that her brother is a bad shot. Don't expect an Oscar nomination for this one.
I did have a good time the first 45 min. or so, but then suddenly it was all down hill. The suspense somewhat started to get thin and the jokes somewhat the same all over. What kept it going were the good actors.<br /><br />But the problem with this film is that it is trying to be cleverly funny,like Tarantino and god is that outdated stuff. Tarantino being a bit overrated sometimes, this movie comes ten years too late. At best it is for teenagers, and I am sure many of them find the character of Johann funny, which he is for the first 30 min. The other problem I have with it is that the story fades away towards the end more and more, thou I tried to find a recovery point. Maybe it didn't recover because the lack of passion comes with the effort of trying to be cleverly funny. Also, like in many movies, sure, good actors who can afford it don't seem to demand a better dialogue, or just turn down the script.
Badly shot, badly edited, clumsy dialogue, flat characters, unsuccessful adaption of a novel. It doesn't really get much worse. Decent acting and good popcorn saved me for this hour and a half - felt more like three hours - of boredom. Occasional good one-liners.<br /><br />David is a dim-witted young man, who has never recovered from losing his brother at an early age. He puts his faith in a Chinese philosophy mumbo jumbo video, although that doesn't seem to help him much in real life. David is a member of a debt-collectors gang, where every member has an IQ below sea level. A lacking script, along with uncreative shooting and even worse editing, make what could have been quite funny incidents of failed debt-collecting look like a amateurish homemade reality show.<br /><br />David rents an apartment from an elementary school teacher, Haraldur, who by dropping a couple of sentences about his own importance convinces David he is dealing with the most dangerous criminal in Iceland. A severely lacking script doesn't offer David anything to base his opinion on. A couple of scenes SHOWING Haraldur doing something that David could have misinterpreted would have done the work. The potentials of film as media, as opposed to the text of the book this film is based on, are not exploited.<br /><br />At first, David's connection with Haraldur raises his status within the debt-collectors gang, but the prevailing paranoia in the criminal world forces David to show where his loyalty lies.<br /><br />The plot of the film is fine, but then it is based on the book. This could have been a much better film. A good screenwriter could have made something of this material. Sadly, that is not the case.<br /><br />The acting is generally good. Pétur Jóhann is excellent and credible as David. Eggert Þorleifsson doesn't get much to work with, but does his best with what little material he has. Ingvar Sigurðsson and Michael Imperioli (in a tiny role) manage alright.<br /><br />Overall opinion: What could have been quite a funny and entertaining film about a dim-witted anti-hero in a debt-collectors gang, becomes a boring, badly-crafted film made after a poor manuscript. Staring at your toes for an hour and a half would be more enjoyable.
Well, I set out with a few friends to see this movie, we went an hour before the show started to get good seats. So as you can probably imagine we where exited to see this movie :). But that excitement soon turned to horror, this movie is a complete failure, it just try's to hard to be funny that its sad, the script is poorly written and relies to heavy on the actors to make up for it...<br /><br />The only good acting in the whole movie was from Stefan C. Schaefer who was great, the plot was weak and even the "funny" scenes felt forced and unnatural, considering that the main actors are some of Iceland's best comedians it's well special...<br /><br />I would not Recommend this movie to any one, because it try's to hard and never really delivers.
What a clunker!<br /><br />It MUST have been made for TV or Cable.<br /><br />Look: forget the screenplay - forget the bunch of forgettable actors. Excuse me? Continuity? The NSA/NIA/whatever or whoever he is (an agent) takes-off in an F16 - is shown in an F18 chucking his guts up and, later, the aircraft shown taxiing is an F4 Phantom! Oooh, wish that I could be so cavalier.<br /><br />Apart from the male actors(!?) The women are WASPS: blue-eyed and long-legged and, eventually, get to cry about the heroes who save them. Even when a solid weld could save most of the cosmo- astro-nauts, the blond drops the welding tool. Duh!<br /><br />As an SF movie one out of ten. As a movie per se: 1/2 (that's a half point). They should have ditched the space station and headed for Mars.<br /><br />Major raspberries.
Admittedly, you can put a model airplane against a black background and call it sci-fi, and thats enough to get me interested, so if you are like that, Black Horizon will at least get you interested before you watch it. The best part of the movie is when they rehash some actual footage of a shuttle launch.<br /><br />The movie plays like the Naked Gun series, spoofing cop dramas with bad clichés and bad acting. Unfortunately, i don't think they meant to be funny, the actors really are made of cardboard, the dialog really does suck, so well just have to laugh at them, and not with them.<br /><br />On a side note, it is rare to see a movie that takes place half in outer space, half on earth, and doesn't mix in the expected extraterrestrials and supernatural events. I really do ache for more realistic drama based on our space endeavors.
The Russian space station 'Avna' with a crew of four Russians and two Americans is threatening to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere in a matter of days. Russia asks for NASA's help in rescuing the stranded crew and NASA scrambles the space shuttle Atlantis. The NSA also have an interest in the 'Prometheus', a prototype microwave power source being tested aboard 'Avna' and organise for one of their men to be placed on the mission.<br /><br />That's the plot. Onto less important things. The space station and the shuttle are the same, blatantly obvious models used in 'Fallout', 'Memorial Day' and 'Dark Breed' (and a handful of other films, I suspect). The model effects are so obvious throughout the entire movie and make the film look very 1960s. The sets are a little better but are far too '80s for what is supposedly a brand new station built by an American company (which later comes in as part of a conspiracy to destroy 'Avna' and the 'Prometheus' and claim the insurance. The script has a few good moments (including Yuri's farewell and the little spiel at the end) but is otherwise fairly bland and sub-standard. The acting is okay; the only real standout performance comes from Alex Veadov who offers up some of the film's better dialogue. Michael Dudikoff is, surprisingly, one of the best parts about this film. Ice-T is Ice-T. 'Nuff said. The film offers a few surprises, though, that I don't wish to spoil.<br /><br />Certainly one of the better low-grade, contemporary-set sci-fi films of the last six years, but not the best. The film is watchable but the special effects and plot will probably put a lot of viewers off. Rent the other 'Stranded' sci-fi film instead.
I knew it was going to be awful but not this awful!!, as it's one of the most boring movies i have ever seen, not a damn thing happens!. All the characters are dull, and the story is stupid and incredibly boring!,plus The ending is especially lame!. The only reason i rented this piece of crap because i am a big fan of Michael Dudikoff, however he is wasted here, and looks extremely bored and shows no emotion what so ever!, plus i cheered out loud when the movie was over!. It's like the movie had no plot and it was all about nothing, and Ice-T is god awful(even though he is OK in some stuff), plus Dudikoff and Yvette Nipar had no chemistry together at all. There's one scene that the director tried to make emotional but he fails miserably as Yvette Nipar didn't really show all that much emotion, however there is a decent Car chase scene, but that's not enough for me to recommend this god awful film!, plus the dialog is atrocious. Avoid this movie like the plague not a damn thing happens, please avoid and trust me on this one you may thank me afterwords. The Direction is horrible!. Fred Olen Ray does a horrible job here, with shoddy camera work, laughably cheap looking set pieces, terrible angles, laughable use of stock footage, and keeping the film at an incredibly dull pace. The Acting is terrible!. Michael Dudikoff is nowhere near his usual amazing self, he looks extremely bored, and shows no emotion what so ever, his character is also extremely dull, as i can't believe he signed on for this piece of garbage, he also had no chemistry with Yvette Nipar(Dudikoff still rules!!!). Ice-T has barely anything to do and also looks bored, and he didn't convince me one bit. Hannes Jaenicke is not very good here, he had somewhat of a wimpy character, i didn't like him. Yvette Nipar is pretty but was really terrible here, she didn't show much emotion, and had no chemistry with Dudikoff, and as a result i didn't give a damn about her character!. Art Hindle,(Owen Marsh),Kathy Harren(Katharine Marsh), and the rest of the cast are bad as well. Overall Please avoid like the plague!, Fred Olen Ray and Steve Lathshaw should be ashamed of themselves!. BOMB out of 5
I rented this movie because I am a huge Dudikoff fan. I figured it couldn't be that bad. Boy was I wrong! At the 15 minute mark , I was begiing the others to let me rip the DVD out and fling it back to the rental store, but they refused. They swore it had to get better.<br /><br />They were wrong! This movie was lacking everything. The actors delivered their lines with as much emotion as a comatose rock! The plot was ridiculous and I was offended that Hollywood assumed people were dumb enough to enjoy it. None of the characters interacted very well with each other. Ice-T gives one of his worst performances here.<br /><br />After watching footage of the wrong plane, bad guys standing up to get shot, and clips being emptied and missing everything, I wanted to scream and bang my head on concrete. The movie hit its plateau of ignorance when the people on the space station used an elevator to travel. Space suits are not needed and there is gravity in space regardless of what real astronauts may say.<br /><br />I didn't finish this movie and hated it. I don't want to finish this movie. This is slow suicide. I could feel my cerebral cortex planning to avenge the torture I put it through.
I really should have learned more about this movie before renting it. It was one of those movies where you keep watching it figuring it's got to get better. Then, when it ends, you feel stupid for having wasted precious time in your life that you can never get back. Ice-T did his bad guy thing and, well, that was the highlight of the evening. The pictures of the shuttle looks like it was done with a little toy inside of a box and the spacewalking scenes were funny because you could see the strings attached to the space suits. The script was lacking and the car chase scene with the guy bleeding and going unconscious was incredible because he drove better than I could have on one of my best days. All in all, I have seen worse but this sure isn't one I'd recommend or want to remember.
Rented this tonite from my local video store. It was titled "Black Horizon." I guess someone felt this was good enough for a 2004 re-release...<br /><br />Micheal Dudikoff is unfortunetly not a ninja in this movie, one of the major flaws of this film right off the bat. Another major flaw would be that Ice-t's action scenes are stolen from other movies, particularly the first scene of his rescue, which is directly from the Wesley Snipes movie "The Art of War," with Ice-T edited in. I hope they paid for that footage.<br /><br />The plot is awful, the special effects had little effort put into them (love those wires holding them in space), the acting is wooden (also love those New York/Russian accents). Ice-T being in the movie is pointless. These guys also forgot the fact that there is no gravity in space, but I guess they weren't worried about it.<br /><br />Micheal Dudikoff should go back to doing what he's "good" at and make American Ninja 6.
Poorly acted, poorly written and poorly directed. Special effects are cheap. Best performance is by Yvette Napir, but that's not saying much. Story is a confusing mess about corporate greed leading to sabotage of a space station and an attempt to rescue those stranded aboard.<br /><br /> There is little suspense and even less action. There's one car chase that's not bad, but the rest of the movie is simply a waste of everyone's time.
Ed Wood rides again. The fact that this movie was made should give any young<br /><br />aspiring film maker hope. Any screenplay you might have thought of using to<br /><br />line a litterbox or a birdcage should now not seem that bad. Do not watch this movie unless you have a healthy stash of Tylenol or Rolaids. Watching this<br /><br />movie made me realize that Boa vs. Python was not that bad after all. It probably would have been better to do this movie in Claymation as at least that way no actor would have had to take credit for being in this film. It is understandable why this director has so many aliases. There is a bright side to watching this movie in that if you can get someone to bring you a bag of chips, then you can eat your way out of the cocoon of cheese that surrounds you enabling you to<br /><br />make your toward your TV set's cocoon of cheese that surrounds it.
Nothing to watch here. It's all been done (and better) before. Who cares about this woman - deficient in every way - as a mother as a wife and as a friend? In one instant when she could have taken the high road - she jumped into re-addiction with both feet and held her breath - for no better a reason than "me, too!" If she wasn't the pretty and young person she portrays on screen - but looked more like the real human wreckage that is represented by our family members, neighbors and friends who really suffer from additions we'd change channels in a nanosecond.<br /><br />This movie starts out at the bottom and goes downhill. Nothing redeeming, no lessons taught - nothing uplifting in any way. None of the main characters even evoke sympathy, let alone empathy. (Well, maybe the snake.) I would have had more fun if I'd shut a door on my hand. Who needs drivel like this?
What is it about drug addiction that so draws first-time filmmakers to offer their own take on the subject? This subject has been done to death. Drug abuse is bad. We get it. Drug addiction is painful to watch. We get that too. But the bleak subject matter doesn't give the filmmaker license to make a sloppy film. Every film need not be Hitchcockian masterpiece of cinematic excellence, or use Orson Wellesian deep focus, but it's still a narrative movie. Verite does not mean pseudo-documentary. Even consumer mini-DV cameras are capable of producing white whites and black blacks, and this filmmaker is just being lazy by shooting no contrast scenes with existing lighting: the subject is bleak enough without artificially forcing it with sloppy cinematography. And even documentary films have a sound mix. Vera Farmiga is very talented, given the right material, but the director obviously over-directed her and sucked all the life out of her performance. Addicts may live in a fog, but they still have emotions, but none of these characters seem to exist off-screen. The supporting players merely delivered their lines without creating real people. Sorry to be so harsh, Debra, but some things are true whether want to believe them or not. I'm sure your next film will be better -- but please, not another drug movie. :)
I saw this one at Sundance, and I can't figure out why it won the directing award. It was painfully slow and literally colorless. It's the type of movie that is only appreciated by film fest snobs who think any movie that a lot of people like must be beneath them.<br /><br />The jury at Sundance this year seemed to be making a conscious effort to reward the underdog, ultra-low-budget films. That's all well and good, but this wandering, dragging mess looks like a home movie. Mini-DV shot in a snow-covered gray winter results in a drab look for a drab movie.<br /><br />Certain motifs (snakes) are beaten to death in spite of the fact that they add nothing to the story and make no sense as symbols.<br /><br />Now, it wasn't all bad. Vera Farmiga is phenomenal in her role as a mother with a drug problem. She will be going places, and she deserves it. Her co-star Hugh Dillon also does a fine job. Frankly, there are many fine moments in this movie, but they just don't fit together very well.
It's not often I give two stars to a horror movie because horror is my favorite genre. A movie can be BAD in that it isn't a masterpiece but can be enjoyable on the basis of unintentional humour, bizarre characters, etc. A case in point are a great number of horror/sci-fiction movies from the 1940s to 1980s era. They are enjoyable for genre-buffs and guilty-pleasure seekers because their "badness" is entertaining. However, this movie has none of the humour or effective gory scenes of the "Piranha" (1978) original. <br /><br />I suppose in 1995 it was the heyday of political correctness so gore on TV was at a minimum. Now in the mid-2000s with the C.S.I. shows, TV's an absolute blood-fest! (Good for us horror fans!)<br /><br />William Katt and Alexandra Paul are no Bradford Dillman and Heather Menzies (the original 1978 stars.) It's not Katt's and Paul's faults but the writers and director who created this tepid turkey. How the main characters interact is the main flaw of this movie. I won't say how because that is part of the plot. <br /><br />This TV movie probably had a bigger budget than the original but flopped as good horror, as can be seen from the user votes here. Stick with the 1978 original if you're in the mood for a killer-fish movie!
Well, i thought the movie was blah 1/10.<br /><br />anyways the best part is the first 5 minutes of the film with the nerd's or whatever girlfriend, this is the part u guys watch out for Tho she had big hooters, i thought is that really a random actor? Heck no, it wasn't it was actually a model by the name of Larissa McComas but u already knew that<br /><br />So, that made sense but that was about it rest of the film (that i saw anyway) didn't care 4, and didn't bother watching the rest of it That's<br /><br />all i needed to C to be satisfied so 2 those of u that just care for that well there u go enjoy
I guess my biggest mistake was to watch this remake of '95 "Piranha" back-to-back with Joe Dante's '78 original. I did the same last week with "The Omen". Curiously enough, watching the remake right after the '76 original, really made me appreciate the 2006 version quite a bit for various reasons.<br /><br />But this approach sort of backfired on the '95 Piranha version. It enhanced the fact that it really is a lesser picture. Basically, the '95 version is more or less the exact same film, as it tells the same story and follows it practically scene-by-scene (only Barabara Steele's character and the military intervention were written out of it). But the cinematography wasn't as good. The acting was worse too. Especially Alexandra Paul (playing Heather Menzies' character) showed me again what a horrible actress she is. Bradford Dillman (from the '78 version) had his Charlton Heston way of acting going, which was amusing, while in the '95 version William Katt does a good job at being William Katt. So I didn't mind him, really. But the whole cast is pretty much inferior and the only worthwhile event was spotting James Karen ("Return of the Living Dead", parts 1 & 2) in a cameo. John Carl Buechler's make-up effects aren't as neat as Rob Bottin's. The musical score had some ring to it, but Pino Donaggio's score was much more memorable in the original. So all these shortcomings really shone through with having just re-watched the original as part of this double bill.<br /><br />Since Scott P. Levy's remake does follow Dante's original, I guess it is entertaining enough to sit through, though it's lacking the wit Dante's original had. But what really made me not like Levy's version very much, is the fact that quite a bit of stock footage from the first film was re-used during the piranha attack scenes. I never like it when filmmakers do this (and I'm not talking about using footage for flashbacks or other valid reasons). I mean, if you don't have the budget (or imagination) to come up with newly shot material, then for Pete's sake, don't do a frickin' remake. But Roger Corman produced this (cheaper) remake, so I guess I shouldn't be all that surprised about the re-use of footage.<br /><br />If you do decide to watch "Piranha", then make sure it's been a while since you've seen the original. You might enjoy this remake a little more then. And oh yes, that cool little stop-motion creature from the original is nowhere to be found in this film, as to be expected. But what's worse, there also isn't any female nudity in this one (the original really had quite some titty-shots going for it, and that blonde girl from the opening-scene even accidentally pulled her underwear a bit down too far when removing her jeans!). Figures, as this '95 version was made for TV.
I think that this was one of the most trite films ever made. No redeeming features at all. Even my 12-year-old son said it was laughable. May be a good candidate for the next generation of "Mystery Science Theatre."
This movie is one of the worst remakes I have ever seen in my life! The acting is laughable and Corman has not improved his piranhas any since 1978. 90% of the special effects are lifted from Piranha (1978), Up From The Depths (1979) and Humanoids From The Deep (1979). It makes Piranha II: The Spawning look like it belongs on the American Film Institute List.
If you can stomach the campiness, this movie should make you laugh out loud several times. It did for me, at least. I'll only mention one of my favorite elements: the "underwater shots" of the "fish" "swimming". The sound which accompanies those shots is great too.<br /><br />One last note: William Katt is actually a pretty decent actor. I hope he gets another day in the sun; watching him as "The Greatest American Hero" was a fun part of my childhood a couple of decades ago, and he hasn't been very visible since. He seemed kind of depressed in this movie. Somebody give him a fun job on a good show, or something.
There are interesting pieces here of and about Bruce Weber's likes and dislikes. Maybe if a professional editor had put it together for Biography, I would have felt more satisfied. Instead, I spent $8 at a film festival on it. For an autobiography, almost nothing is revealed about Bruce Weber, other than he likes to look at photographs, shoot interesting people, especially beautiful teenage boys, and listen to jazz. The director of "Crumb" would have made a much more interesting and cohesive film.
This movie is essentially a "how-to" on how to be a well-connected pedophile. I'm amazed that so many people-- especially other gay men-- have seen this movie and read the book and no one has brought up the fact that if Weber was not an influential photographer, he would be in jail, doing time for child abuse. Poor Peter Johnson. Weber took this poor, naive (although incredibly handsome) teenager whom he found at a training camp for high school wrestlers in the Midwest, brought him to live in his home, and took thousands of homoerotic photos of him, many of them full-frontal nudes, all through Johnson's teenage years. That ain't art. It's child abuse. And what's worse, Weber made lots of money off of it, and poor Johnson is going to have serious "issues" the rest of his life. Weber's lecherous love of the boy is downright creepy, as are his ramblings about famous (and not so famous) people he's known, as he tries to complete Johnson's "education." Creepy, and then just plain boring. The only redeeming thing I can say about the movie is that it is a fascinating study of self-deception. But I can't help but wonder why no one ever considered the effect this was having on "Chop Suey" (Weber's nickname for Johnson) himself.
If you're looking for an accurate portrayal of Che Guevara, the Cuban revolutionary who helped aid Fidel Castro in his bid for power, you'd better read up on Cuban history or even type in his name on a search engine (you ARE on the Internet, after all).<br /><br />But whatever you do, DO NOT WATCH "CHE!". <br /><br />Unless, of course, you just want a good laugh.<br /><br />All the reviewers of the time (and moviegoers) gave "Che!" their vote for worst film of the decade. And no wonder; have you seen this travesty? Its facts are tenuous at best, Sharif is even unconvincing as a corpse and as for Palance's Fidel Catsro imitation.... <br /><br />Like I said, if you want a good laugh.<br /><br />It's like watching a co-production between The Learning Channel and Mad Magazine.<br /><br />One star. <br /><br />I wonder if Palance can do W. C. Fields, too?
35 years after this was made, Castro still reigns. Unfortunately, we're left scratching our heads wondering how the dim-witted maniac played by scenery-chewing Jack Palance made it as far as 1960. I stumbled back across this recently, and was amused at noticing the incomparable Sid Haig and "B" movie favorite Paul (Untouchables) Picerni among the rebels. Fleischer was obviously well past his prime when he directed this foolishness. Some of the lines are classic in a "Did he really say that kind of way?' The other thing I just noticed is that the score and the sound (NOT the dialog) are actually excellent -- the only first-rate elements of the entire production. So, don't watch this to learn anything about history or acting, but if you feel like watching this as a goof, bring the beers and have some fun.
The few scenes that actually attempt a depiction of revolutionary struggle resemble a hirsute Boy Scout troop meandering tentatively between swimming holes. When Sharif or, please God, Palance try their hand at fiery oratory, they sound like Kurtz swallowing a bug. The displays of strategic brilliance incorporate a map of Cuba replete with smiling fishies in the ocean, and a positively Vaudevillian hypothesis on how the Bay of Pigs came to pass. What does that leave us with? One comical dentistry scene; a surfeit of uppity Hollywood peasants who address the camera as though it were a moving train; and, just for kicks, a passel of homoeroticism that is not limited to Castro's manic and unremitting cigar-fellatio. Never trust a Medved, but even a busted clock is right twice a day: this is a HISTORICALLY awful movie.
CHE! is a bad movie and deserves it reputation as an unintentionally funny film. It takes a serious subject and presents it like the Cliff Notes version or Classic Comics because there isn't much emotion or a proper narrative--just episodic segments stitched together with mostly stupid "true stories" relayed by a variety of yutzes.<br /><br />This is a deservedly derided film, as it is poorly written and acted. However, what I have found most interesting about the film is its apparent gay subtext. Instead of Che Guevarra and Fidel Castro working towards a Communist Cuba, they seem to be more of a gay couple--with Che behaving coy and aloof and Fidel as the ardent suitor! Again and again, the film abounds with great lines such as when Fidel implores Che "Cuba needs you....I NEED YOU!!". I am not sure if the studio intended this homosexual undercurrent, but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to recognize it! I am very surprised that the other reviewers didn't point this out. However, if you remember this when you watch the film, it makes viewing much more exciting and even funnier.<br /><br />A final note. In recent years, Che has been very chic--even a fashion statement with hoards of brain-dead teens, who have no idea who he was, wearing shirts emblazoned with his face. Considering he was a cold-blooded killer and nihilist (an odd combination for a doctor), this new reverence for the man is gross. What will they do next, put Hitler or Dr. Mengele on T-shirts and posters?!!? Even Communists with consciences should be appalled by the bloodshed Guevara was responsible for and I find it ironic that people with computers are championing a man who might likely have killed them given half a chance! <br /><br />Considering how stupid and unintentionally funny this movie was, it does nothing to further the message that Guevara was no hero. I would love to see a realistic film done of his life--with the good and the bad but also with dialog and a plot that weren't apparently created by chimps!
You can't really blame the movie maker for glorifying Che because the industry is all about money. Most of the stories you hear about this "freedom fighter" are absolute tripe fabricated by the communist Cuban government after Che's death. Che was a murdering scumbag from day one. Here's a list of the great things Che did for Cuba 1) Executed thousands of innocent Cuban Men, Women, AND CHILDREN to satisfy his lust for power.<br /><br />2) Destroyed Cuba's economy and good standing with the rest of the world. The Cuban peso used to be equal with the American dollar. Now it's basically worthless.<br /><br />3) Continually failed at all things that involved diplomacy, economy, and the military. He never made it past his first year in Medical School, and he was only in one real battle, in which he surrendered with a fully loaded gun.<br /><br />4) He took over the largest estate in Cuba to set up for himself. He had a Yacht, a 60" custom made TV from America, a swimming pool, and a view of the Ocean. So much for shunning the materialist life style.<br /><br />Cuba today is an absolutely destitute country, and you have no one but Che and the Castro brothers to thank for it. If you go to Cuba today you will not be allowed out of the tourist areas. If you did manage to get out of what you're meant to see, you would find slums, beggars, and prostitutes.<br /><br />If you think any of what I'm saying is untrue then go do some studying. Compare Cuban exports from 1950/60 to those of today; talk with people who survived or who had parents in the so called Cuban "revolution" of the 1960's; read all of the reports of murdered innocents; read the reports from people who served under Che and Castro and fled because of what an evil, disgusting human being he was.<br /><br />And please, please, always remember to read or watch EVERYTHING objectively. Stop taking everything at face value and THINK ABOUT IT.
This movie really starts strong. We know that Roberts is an Atlanta hotshot sent to Australia to fix Coke's marketing problems. We also know he is an eccentric genius. Roberts' fine acting convinces us of this rather quickly.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the plot is so flimsy, that whatever fine character development has been achieved, it is negated by voids, inconsistencies, and downright boring film sequences.<br /><br />Usually, I am a sucker for bold and far out plots. Examples which I am fond of include, "Dark Star," "O.C. & Stiggs," and "Popeye." Coupled with the fact that I must admit that this film was well acted, it surprises even myself that I cannot recommend this film.<br /><br />The utter breakdown in this movie occurs about midway through the film. All comedy is instantly lost and the film turns dark. Afterwards, the film plods along. The film's attempt to get the comedy rolling again is not successful. More surprises await the viewer and they are darker still.<br /><br />To be sure, mixing drama with comedy can be a formula for success. However, with this movie, the result is about as successful as "new coke."
At least the jingle by Tim Finn was melodic. Roberts is the his usual inept self. Characters are inconsistent, dull, purposeless. Roberts changes his accent even within one line.
Yes, why? Among the filmmakers that came out in the 80's and 90's Gus Van Sant is one of my idols. There are others, a few. Steven Sodebergh, PT Anderson, Tim Hunter, Danny Boyle, Martin Donovan, Harmony Korine, Wes Anderson. Idiosyncratic, infuriating some times, but consistent, surprising, unpredictable. Their names make me switch on the TV, go to a video store or even buy a ticket and go to a movie theater. Van Sant's "Psycho" however, gives me pause. Why? I wonder. A shot by shot massacre of one of the perennial classics. The color was jarring, the performances, atrocious. What was Vince Vaughn doing? Was it a parody? A bad joke? What the hell was it? Anne Heche as Janet Leigh? Who dressed her? Viggo Mortensen with a cowboy hat. Viggo is a superb actor but in this case he couldn't make us forget John Gavin and if Julianne Moore had been introduced to the world through this performance there wouldn't have been any "The Hours" for her, "The Minutes" maybe. So, here I am, bad mouthing the work of one of my idols. The crashing question remains: Why, Mr. Van Sant? Maybe, in the words of President Clinton, because he could. I'm afraid that's no excuse.
This is, per se, an above average film but why in the name of Bog was it made? It's impossible to treat it as a thing unto itself because it is an almost shot-for-shot remake of an Alfred Hitchcock classic of 1960. You can't watch it without the 1960 film nudging into your consciousness.<br /><br />What does the word "credit" mean? How can we credit Van Sandt and his associates with anything except deciding to use different actors, slightly different sets, and color?<br /><br />Anne Heche is attractive but lacks Janet Leigh's stolid determination to become a respectable middle-class woman. And Heche is younger than Leigh, who brought to her fruitless attempt to marry and settle down, the desperation of a woman facing forty. And Heche doesn't project anxiety the way Leigh did. The scene with the CHP officer looking in her car window illustrates the weakness in the role. In the original, the officer asks, "Is there something wrong?" Leigh: "Of course not. Am I acting as if something were wrong?" The officer hesitates before replying: "Well, frankly, yes." That exchange is omitted from the remake for the simple reason that Heche isn't nervous enough.<br /><br />The worst change, without a doubt, is the substitution of Vince Vaughn for Anthony Perkins. It may not be Vaughn's fault. Who could match Perkins in the role? Perkins is twitchy, bird-like, long-necked, cloaked in an externally charming exterior that masks an inner vacuum. His every move (eating candy corn, with his adam's apple bobbing) and every utterance, the faint laugh, the arid chuckle, is spot on. He just can't be improved upon. Vaughn brings to the role the presence of a short-haired beefy guy who was just discharged as a Lance Corporal from the U. S. Army. To suggest his psychosis all he can do is superimpose a maniacal giggle on top of what appears otherwise a perfectly normal Norman in speech and manner. (Unlike the original Norman, Vaughn doesn't even stumble over the word "fallacy" because it resembles "phallus".) He could be just hanging around the motel waiting to hear about his application for a football scholarship to UCLA.<br /><br />The direction deserves a few comments. I don't see what it adds to the story when we see Norman masturbating while peeping in on Anne Heche. I don't OBJECT to it. I wonder why it's there, just as I wonder why the rest of the movie is there.<br /><br />And, I suppose in order to impress us with how much color adds to the visual experience, Van Sant seems to have missed a bit of Hitchcock's more subtle stuff. Heche is given underwear of all different colors -- green, pink, orange, and -- mango? Is that a color? If so, what the hell color is it? Never mind. The point is that in the original, when the traveling camera first peeks through the window of the Phoenix hotel it captures Janet Leigh in bed wearing a pure white half slip and a white bra. Later, after she has stolen the money, we see her in her underwear again -- this time both her slip and bra are black. Tis a small thing, but Hitch's own.<br /><br />At that, the idea of shooting in color might not have been bad except that the black-and-white shooting of the original was superb. The color and odd lighting effects in this version turn the ordinary, dull, and subliminally ominous motel into something that looks like it belongs in the seedier part of Las Vegas.<br /><br />Most of all, the 1960 film was shocking in more ways than one. I can remember seeing it in a drive-in in San Diego and staring aghast at the screen when it became clear that the central character was actually DEAD -- half-way through the movie! Nothing like it had ever been done before.<br /><br />That murder in the shower, in both movies, was a big improvement over Robert Bloch's original novel, by the way, in which the author writes something like, "The murderer then entered the bathroom and cut off her head with a knife." I'm not making that up. Well, not entirely. Even here, Van Sant's movie gives us excess. There is more blood and more bare flesh. And where Hitchcock closed in first on the blood circling the bathtub drain and dissolved to Marian's blankly open eye, then pulled the camera back slowly to reveal her face, he rotated his camera from a slight tilt to the proper vertical, giving the viewer a sense of not just disbelief at the murder, but a dizzying disbelief. Van Sant doesn't tilt his camera a delicate 10 or 20 degrees as Hitchcock did. He practically twirls it on its axis.<br /><br />It won't do to call this a bow to Hitchcock because it's not. It's a pecuniary plundering of Hitchcock's material (already ripped off in "Psycho" I, II, III, IV, and "Psycho: The Beginning Years", and "Come Into My Parlor: Mrs. Bates' Revenge," and "Hand Me That Knife, Would You?: The TRUE story of Norman Bates.") A rehashing of and grinding away at truly original stuff, a crumenal act if not a criminal one. And that's not to mention the many homages in other films, especially the French, such as the notorious "ocean of boredom" scenes between Marcel Brulee and Jeanne Gateau in the much-admired "La Mere de la Nuit." (Maybe I'd better add that that last sentence is a terrible attempt at a parody of academic critics. And when a chicken's guts grind corn, it's a "crumenal" act. I won't go on except to say these gags, shabby as they are, are more fun than the movie.)<br /><br />So who was it made for? I'd have to guess. Kids who are too young to know about the original and who don't like movies in black and white? Kids who are hoping to see another ordinary slasher movie? Chimpanzees?
I know curiosity killed the cat, but I simply had to see the remake of Psycho, especially after being on such a Hitchcok journey recently and knowing his work. I've watched the original Psycho though since I was a kid, I knew how to respect it and not only that, it was an excellent movie! One of the best, in fact! The first thing I said when I heard about the remake was "How do you remake perfection?". I stuck to that as well, but I think I have a more open mind now and figured maybe it was a way of introducing Psycho to a new generation.<br /><br />But this turned into a total insult and slap to the face of the original Psycho. I know this has been said, but I watched the making of this film, and the director was like "Oh, I just want to update it and shoot each scene shot by shot like the original"... what's the friggin' point?! OK, but I want to judge this movie on it's own, despite it's insulting blows the original. I mean, the acting wasn't up to par, but honestly, it looked like the actors just watched the original and just memorized the lines from there and made it their crappy own.<br /><br />Watching the making of this film, I wanted to slap Anne Hasche, she said "I've never seen the original, I just wanted to work with Gus." Ooh, that made me angry, because frankly, it's not just that, she really sucked in this role as Marian, she wasn't convincing, not to mention her shower scene really was horrible. Vince Vaughn didn't make... let's just put it this way, the film was horribly miscasted. This was a sin against film and on it's own, this was actually a bad movie. It was too much and destroyed what could've been a new introduction for a new generation. But to Gus, leave the film making the one's who KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING!<br /><br />1/10
No matter what other people have said you can't review this movie without comparing it to the original, if it existed on it's own it would be a 2-3 out of 5 film but it is a remake of a 4-5 out of 5 film and so has standards to live up to and we need to see if it reached those standards. If the film was a re-working or, as in Planet of the Apes, a re-imagining of the original you would be able to look at the film in it's own right, only referencing the original. Imagine it this way, if someone took the model in the 'Mona Lisa', posed her in a different way, and painted her you could only compare the framing,concept etc to the original but if someone just repainted her in the position of the original you would have to compare it totally.<br /><br />That said this film doesn't just fail to be as good as the original it fails spectacularly, like it or not the original was one of the best movies ever made, the shower scene will never be forgotten, the remake was meant to be a celebration of Hitchcock but ended up actually degrading him and his master work.<br /><br />The degrading aspects of this picture were Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche. It's nothing to do with wether they acted better or not it's that the relationship between Norman and Marion in the original was really quite innocent, Norman didn't really understand sex, he had hardly any contact with the outside world and when he meets beautiful Marion and watches her change you feel that he is partly doing it from fascination as he doesn't really understand sex and his attraction to her,this makes Norman sympathetic and almost an anti-hero, you are on his side because he doesn't fully understand the world and is constantly fighting with himself and his 'Mother'. In the remake that whole dynamic is gone, I must admit to Janet Leigh not being my type but she is very attractive and you can see that, Anne Heche is really unattractive and so Norman finding 'her' Marion attractive is unbelievable if you add that to Vince Vaughn's Norman masturbating whilst looking at her and you get a Norman that is just waiting for a chance to jack off at any naked woman no matter what she looks like, who you feel absolutely no sympathy for, they further destroy Norman's innocent nature by putting the porno mags in his room. It destroys a character that we have come to like and feel sorry for, it's like re-making 'It's a wonderful life' and having the main character a pimp, totally degrading.<br /><br />The only other character that I had problems with was Rita Wilson as Caroline, Marion's workmate. In the original when Pat Hitchcock says the line 'he must have noticed my wedding ring' it elicits a response of laughter as she is absolutely kidding herself, when Rita says it it just seems plausible as there really isn't any other reason why any man would flirt with Anne Heche over her.<br /><br />I'll admit that I am very biased, the original 'Psycho' is my favorite film of all time, had the film been a reworking, with a different angle, then you could have turned these characters on their heads and it would have been perfectly acceptable.<br /><br />Hitch famously thaught the film would be too gory in colour and made it in black and white to lessen it. This also made the film more atmospheric and frightening in it's own way and it gave it a beauty that could never be captured in colour and it is a sad statement about how movies are de-sensetising the public that people have said how the shower scene was more frightening in colour. (n.b before people think 'he can't spell' remember I'm from England and we spell it colour)<br /><br />A remake should be just that, re made, this is a forgery, a complete copy and a very bad one at that. I could go on comparing but there is no point, almost everything is superior in the original. The only one thing that is better is the performance of Viggo Mortensen as Sam Loomis, John Gavin was very flat in the original (Hitch called him 'The Stiff' behind his back) and Mortensen gives a more believable if less likeable performance. William H. Macy and Julianne Moore are the only other actors that hold up to the originals.<br /><br />Overall a movie that should be labeled 'Expensive Embarrassing Failed Experiment. Only view if comparing to original or if original is unknown to you. But view original too' The movie would have got a 3 out of 5 if it were original or a reworking but as it is 0.5 out of 5 (for Macy, Moore and Mortensen)
Hitchcock's original classic benefited tremendously not only from the performance of, but also the 'look' of Anthony Perkins. He projected a kind of clean-cut innocence: a young teen-idol type of persona. He was not an actor who had portrayed baddies before this; nor was he physically suited to the role of what the public might have imagined a psychopath to look like, especially in the 50's when this ultra-chilling aspect of mental illness (split personality psychosis) was relatively unexplored in film. Which is exactly why the casting of him as Norman Bates was a slice of true Hitchcockian genius. Audiences were taken by surprise to put it mildly.<br /><br />That's why this re-make does not work, even a little bit, in spite of trying to be an exact copy. Whereas Anthony Perkins looked like someone you would never think of as being a serial killer, Vince Vaughn is easily imaginable as one. He lacks the frail look of Perkins and his acting chops are clearly inferior as well, at least in this role (honestly - has there ever been an actor who could convey nervousness as genuinely as Anthony Perkins?). While it was a pointless re-make to begin with, the miscasting of the story's most important character sucks this film down completely.<br /><br />As a side note, I feel that Hollywood's propensity for re-making great movies because 'young' people refuse to watch anything that's not filmed in color not only stinks to high heaven of corporate greed but is exceptionally disrespectful to the original work. As for viewers who can't watch black and white - it's their loss. Hopefully they'll mature sometime in the future and no longer require shiny colours to hold their attention. When they do they'll discover that sometimes black and white works far better. With the background muted, the story and performances are that much more front and center. And in many cases the mood or atmosphere created through black and white cinematography is just not attainable in colour.
I know that the original Psycho was a classic and remaking it was a mistake, ESPECIALLY a shot-by-shot remake. I think that that has been more or less proven by the rest of the comments here. But there's far more wrong with this movie than just that.<br /><br />The first problem is the color. The original film was shot in black and white but, what few people realize is, the original was shot AFTER color film had been invented. The choice of black and white film was partially a budget concern, but it was also a stylistic choice of Hitchcock's. Now, this is not to say that the remake should have been redone in black and white, but the colors of this movie are all too wrong. The most predominant colors in the film are orange and green, particularly on Marion who is not supposed to be a flashy character. The bright colors make it look like a happy movie and, when horrific events take place in these color schemes, it looks like a cartoon more than anything and the audience is inclined to laugh rather than scream.<br /><br />The second problem is the lighting. This is a dark dark tale which should be highlighted by dim lighting, but this remake seemed not only to fail in this but seemed to go in the OPPOSITE direction. Most of the scenes are very brightly lit, even at times when it is illogical to do so because it's at NIGHT!<br /><br />Another obvious problem is Vince Vaughn's performance. Yes, he does pull off Norman Bate's awkwardness and madness quite well, I don't deny him that. But there is one element to the character that he failed to show: the softness. There should be a certain deceptive friendliness to the character, at least at first, which then fades away once we realize the truth about him. Beyond being a character trait of Norman Bates, this is a recognized character trait of ALL PSYCHOPATHS!!!!<br /><br />There are a few good aspects of this film. Some of the performances are great. As I said, Vince Vaughn came very close to pulling off a decent portrayal of Norman Bates. Viggo Mortensen and Juliane Moore were great together and their chemistry was very different from the characters in the original, which was a welcome change. Anne Heche may have been atrocious but, unlike Janet Leigh who was untruthfully advertised as one of the biggest stars of the film, Anne Heche was given last billing in the opening credits.<br /><br />I read on the cover of a copy of the Psycho novel that Gus Van Sant claimed this was not a remake of the Hitchcock film but rather a new adaptation of the original novel. I now wish that I had bought that book and saved the comment because, after seeing this film, that comment is quite possibly the funniest thing I have ever seen. There was no attempt in this film to disguise the fact that it was a rip off of the original, and it would be far more believable if Van Sant had tried to tell us that he was really a three ton ape from the planet Zafroomulax. So many shots were copied exactly without any actual thought as to why Hitchcock had composed the original shot in that way. Such as the scene in which Sam and Lila are talking while their faces are entirely covered in shadow. Hitchcock covered these actors' faces in shadow because he thought they were bad actors and wanted to hide their faces so nobody could see their awful performances, not because of any artistic or stylistic purpose.<br /><br />In other words, my review is about as pointless as the movie itself in that it replicates something that's already been said. Like everyone else here, I reccommend you don't waste your time on this film and get the original.
Well, I have to agree with the critics on this one, who all said "leave it alone." Why they had to make this re-make of the 1960 "Psycho," I don't know. My guess is they wanted to reach a new audience and thought color and modern-day actors were the answer, since those were the main changes. The dialog was the same and the story the same.<br /><br />On one hand, I applaud them for not making this over with a lot of profanity and nudity and making it a sleazy film. Yet, if they were going to keep everything the same, why bother when you weren't going to improve on Tony Perkins, Janet Leigh and the original cast?<br /><br />Did they honestly think Vince Vaughn was going to be as good or better than Perkins? Are you kidding? Ann Heche, with her short mannish-haircut, is going to be better than Leigh? I don't think so!<br /><br />Yes, the colors were pretty in here but it's the black-and-white photography that helped make the 1960 version so creepy to begin with. It's perfect for the story, not a bunch of greens and pinks! Once again, I guess the filmmakers were banking on an audience that never saw the original.<br /><br />This was just a stupid project that never should have gotten off the ground.
The most disposable movie in the history of cinema?This one is a strong contender!Why wasting so much money for such a pointless useless work? The only difference between the HItchcock classic and this poor imitation is color,wide screen and Leila's Walkman!!A movie which's supposed to generate thrills and fear leaves me completely indifferent.<br /><br />No you' re going to tell me it will urge the young generations to see the original?balderdash!This "psycho 1998" is a giant spoiler.<br /><br />They could have done something different,for instance ,by casting an actor closer to Bloch 's Bates ,an obese man.They content themselves with an obnoxious rehash!A pox on it!and long live Alfred Hitchcock!
Let me begin by saying that this remade version of one of the greatest ever created movies "Psycho" (1960) has been nothing but a fine example of poor direction, poor acting and poor cast. The best way to describe this movie is by comparing it step by step, acting by acting and process by process to the original.<br /><br />Alfred Hitchcock, one of the greatest movie directors ever lived, had an intention to shoot the original in black and white despite the availability of color at that time. Okay, people in 1960 may not have been used to bloodshed or horrifying scenes as much as we are today but that didn't prevent people from liking it and getting nominated for 4 Oscars. Gus Van Sant had absolutely no reason to release this in color except that the year was 1998. What should have looked realistic in color did not. After the shower scene Norman washes his hands it is easily comprehendible that whatever was used for blood looked like some kind of red wax. Once he washes off the blood his hand is red in color. <br /><br />About acting, perhaps there couldn't have been a better cast of Janet Leigh and Anthony Perkins in the original. Perkins suited well for Norman and he was incredibly natural when he smiles and talks to the stranger. Hitch wanted a handsome and good actor and it worked just fine. In this version, I personally think Vince Vaughn looked perfect and handsome and strong to play Norman's role, unfortunately his acting was nothing less than terrible. In the motel office where Norman and Marion have the long conversation, he had zero expression on his face and his voice and face never changes throughout. In the original in the same scene when the madhouse is described, we can clearly see the sudden change of expression on Perkins's face and he looks scaringly angry although not aggressively. Vince Vaughn here works out the entire conversation like he's just had his lines by heart. Again, terrible acting. Same is with Anne Heche. In the opening scene in the original, we can see how tensed and nervous Marion (Janet) is when she drives to Phoenix. She was happy in getting the money but at the same time scared for life. That's what I call acting. In the remake, Heche has no signs of fear and she smiles periodically for getting the money. I don't think anyone would be "happy and smiling" when they've just stolen $400000 and the entire state police is behind them. In the shower scene, Janet in the original grips the curtain, turns around and dies after getting stabbed. In the remake, Heche gets stabbed, turns around, then sways the other way, has a foolish expression on her face and manages to die with great effort. Again, terrible acting.<br /><br />There are also some specially introduced changes in this movie from the original that seems to have nothing to do with the plot line and the ongoing situation. In the scene where Arbogast gets murdered, two scenes blink in between the stabs. One with a naked woman and the other with a sheep. Many people including myself aren't exactly sure whether the second scene showed a sheep or a cow or whatever it was. What on earth does a beast or a naked woman have to do with an investigator's murder! The changes were just inappropriate and unnecessary. There are a couple of changes in the ending scene as well. <br /><br />Let me add some (and the only) positive points along with that. I felt Julianne Moore did her job well and played a good character of Lila. And William Macy acted well, that was almost exactly how Arbogast's character should have been played.<br /><br />It is common man's knowledge that the purpose and intention of a movie remake is to make the present generation aware of a movie that has a good classic plot line, and to try and make it look better than the original. And if anything has happened here according to what I just said, it is directly the opposite. Unfortunately many people like me weren't impressed after watching this movie unless we came to know of the existence of an unforgettable original version. <br /><br />Please do not watch this movie, it is nowhere near the original and the original will always remain one of the best ever created movies if not THE best.
First of all,the whole idea of remaking a classic such as "Psycho" is nothing short of ludicrous.A lot of time and effort was wasted here.I am sure they are smart enough to know that they could not improve on the original,so they must have had a tribute to Alfred Hitchcock on their minds.However,the idea that began as a well intentioned tribute, results in being a slap in the face to the horror master.This movie is poorly produced,poorly acted,and unnecessary to begin with.The original classic stands well on it's own,even after 40 years.The event of Hitch returning from the grave and coming after the people responsible for this piece of trash is unlikely,but if I were them,I would sleep with one eye open just in case.Don't waste your time.
Don`t be fooled into thinking that this is a remake as in this years remake of THE TIME MACHINE is based on an earlier film . It`s not because this is a pointless re- film . That is the director has used the original camera script shot for shot similar to the " remake " of THE GET AWAY from a few years ago . The scenes are identical to the original , the dialogue is identical to the original , the camera angles are identical , no attempt whatsoever is made to embellish or restructure the original script ,( But with a director like Van Sant at the helm we should be thankful . He sure ain`t no Hitchcock ) in fact I might even be correct in saying the costumes might be the same because the private eye wears a pork pie hat. Didn`t they go out of fashion in the late 1960s ? <br /><br />Bottom line:Avoid
OK, first of all, who in their right mind would remake Hitchcock and second, who would do it shot for shot? I admit I had no intention of ever watching this movie for that very reason. The original Psycho is one of my favorite films ever and this just seemed like a degrading photocopy of it. I did watch it because my girlfriend wanted to compare it to the original and we both agreed less than five minutes into this crap that it was awful. First, as mentioned, they did it shot for shot. Where's originality? Why remake a movie that is almost perfect EXACTLY the way it was done the first time? Why remake such a movie to begin with? If you ARE going to remake something, remake something that doesn't work and make it BETTER!<br /><br />Second, they used the exact same script from the 1960 version. The dialog no longer works. It works fine and sounds perfect for the 1960 version, but seems odd and stilted coming out of modern actors. Why not update the dialog? Hitch didn't write the script, you could have rewritten. <br /><br />This film had some very good talent and they were wasted by imitation of the original actors. The actor who played the car salesman seemed like he was just playing John Anderson's performance as the car salesman in the original. All the actors seemed like the only direction they were given was be the characters from the original movie. Vince Vaughn may have seemed a little creepier than Anthony Perkins, but in doing so, you loose the sympathy you are supposed to have for Norman. Having Norman masturbate while watching Marion undress was going too far and lost the innocence of the character that I think Tony Perkins captured so well in his performance. Viggo Mortensen's accent was annoying and Rita Wilson was far too old to play Caroline. Her lines came off as someone desperate rather than just young and fun like Patricia Hitchcock's performance. <br /><br />The only good thing I saw about the film was that Gus Van Sant was able to open the movie with the shot Hitch had envisioned. Hitch wanted to open with 1 long shot going over Phoenix but couldn't at the time so he had to settle for a series of shots cross-dissolved together. This film fulfilled that vision with a helicopter shot going into the window of the hotel. After that, though the film became a worthless waste of celluloid. <br /><br />If you are curious about how to destroy a wonderful film, watch this, but do NOT under any circumstances watch this BEFORE you watch the original. This is a faded photocopy of the original and should never have been green-lit. Stick to the master's film, not the imitation.
*some possible spoilers*<br /><br />Of course this film could not be expected to be as good as the original, remakes rarely are. But, this remake of one of Hitchcock's greatest films, Psycho, could have been a lot better. <br /><br />First of all, whoever cast the movie must have been psycho. I mean, Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates! What where they thinking?! Unlike the "harmless", almost childlike Bates that Anthony Perkins was able to portray, Vaughn looks like he would could be a murderer. In efforts to make his Bates seem innocent, Vaughn ends up acting gay. Many of the other actors didn't seem to fit their parts either, including Julianne Moore who just didn't seem to fit in the film. <br /><br />On top of the atrocious casting, the cinematography is notably shabby, despite the fact that they remade the film scene for scene. The one thing they added were random shots of object such as clouds or a nude woman, in between the shots of characters being murdered. These shots seemed to be irrelevant to the plot in anyway, and in turn made no sense.<br /><br />Overall, this Psycho remake, which could been a decent picture, instead turned out to be a complete waste of time.
Not only Why? But "What were they thinking?" This must have been some<br /><br />sort of payback to Gus Van Sant, because this is one of those odd movies<br /><br />that never should have been (re) made. It purports to be Hitchcocks film<br /><br />frame by frame, but without the magic or the tension or the great film<br /><br />making. Rent the original instead, spare yourself.
A horrendous film, ill-conceived and crude. The acting of Anne Heche and Vince Vaughan is so inferior to that of Perkins and Leigh in the original version they have to be seen to be believed. There was no reason to make this picture, which only highlights how accomplished and brilliant Hitchcock was, and how inimitable. Also, there's a creeping, pervasive insensitivity in the film that isn't there in the first film. Hitchcock's Psycho was scary and shocking, but one could genuinely feel for all concerned, even the pitiful Norman Bates. There were moments of pathos, irony and fey humor the remake doesn't have. One of the best things about Hitchcock's film was its incredible and intuitive depth and sense of nuance, of when to cut away and when to show something, on whether to use a close-up or long shot, on whether to make an actor sympathetic and when to make him frightening, and so forth. The remake has none of these qualities and doesn't even try for them. It's an idiotic exercise that I'm amazed even got released.
Van Sant copies Hitchcock's masterpiece shot for shot including some modern facets: a walkman, and nudity from Anne Heche. Unless you have a strong desire to see Ms. Heche naked there is absolutely NO reason to see this film instead of the original. Hitchcock's masterpiece is much better and Van Sant fails to realize that in hiding the nudity and the gore, the original shower scene is all the more terrifying. Ask Janet Leigh about that one. The acting is also much flatter and the technical aspects much less impressive.
What an embarassment...This doesnt do justice to the original with awful acting from everyone in this movie, Hitchcock must be spinning in his grave. The scence where Marion gets killed in the shower is just so uneffective and unoriginal. The only good bit is that they used the same music and its so obvious who kills her in the shower. I rate this movie 3/10
*SPOILERS INCLUDED*<br /><br />Alfred Hitchcock's brilliant and innovative adaptation of Robert Bloch's novel was an amazing film, unlike anything previous. Every shot, every camera angle, every nuance was PERFECT. He didn't just break the rules, he made up a whole set of new ones.<br /><br />Here's the spoiler: there is absolutely nothing new, different, or original about this movie. Gus Van Sant doesn't just pay a homage to Hitch, he rips off every idea, and does so in a less original, more conventional manner. I didn't have anything against Gus Van Sant before I saw this movie. I liked Drugstore Cowboy and I thought My Own Private Idaho was a very interesting film. The question burning in my mind when it comes to the remake of Psycho is, "Why did you do it, Gus?"<br /><br />In my mind, there are only two reasons to do a remake: 1) The original was a good story, but the movie sucked. 2) The original was a good movie, but someone has thought of a fresh, new approach to the material. Neither one of these factors is at all present in the Gus Van Sant version of Psycho. Apart from the fact that it is in color, and there is one scene in which there is a montage of disturbing imagery relating to the title character's possible inner dialogue (which I found unnecessary), there is nothing new here.<br /><br />Furthermore, I found the casting left something to be desired. Anne Heche was okay as Marion, but she lacked a certain vulnerability that Janet Leigh portrayed in the original. I didn't feel as sympathetic towards her character, because the choices she faced seemed far less constrained as a woman in today's society, as opposed to the choices she would have faced as a single woman living in the early 1960's. Vince Vaughn got a few laughs with his rendering of an incredibly naive Norman Bates, but I feel that Anthony Perkins' timing and nervous, haunted look was much more effectively creepy. The only performance that I enjoyed better than the original was the character of Lila Crane, played by Jullianne Moore. She was excellent as usual, and brought a new strength and intelligence to the character.<br /><br />To be fair, there is some beautiful camera work, especially during the famous "bathroom scene" in which Van Sant takes advantage of his use of color to show the murder in vibrant shades of crimson. And yet, during the whole film I had this irritating sense of deju vu. Haven't I seen this somewhere before? Oh wait, I HAVE seen this somewhere before! Nearly every scene seems to be copied shot for shot from the original. One almost gets the feeling the director made this film as a school project. "See, I can make a Hitchcock film, too!"<br /><br />If you haven't already, go see the original. It's held up over the years, and beats this bit of mediocrity, hands down. You won't be disappointed.
A remake of a successful movie can be a tricky business at best; to remake a true classic, especially one that is veritably the definitive film of a director like Alfred Hitchcock, is something else again. And after watching this version of `Psycho,' directed by Gus Van Sant, two things come to mind immediately: What's the point, and what on earth were they thinking? Especially in light of the fact that Van Sant used the same screenplay (by Joseph Stefano, taken from the novel by Robert Bloch) that Hitchcock used. The final result here underscores some of the finer points of the art of filmmaking: First, that a `remake' should be just that; a retooling of the original, rather than a `copy' using new players; and second, that shooting in color, using more blood and being a bit more graphic does little more than detract from the impact of the film. Although this was a noble effort by Van Sant, ironically in the end it suffers from the same flaw with which Norma Bates was afflicted: The `mind' of the film was divided; half was Hitchcock, half Van Sant. And the twain, though met, shall never be bound. Van Sant, even working from the original script, would have been better off making his own film-- all the way through-- rather than attempting to duplicate exactly what Hitchcock did with certain scenes. The opening shot of the movie, for instance, and especially the `shower' scene, arguably one of the most famous scenes in the history of the cinema. Copying Hitchcock, from the shots looking directly into the shower head to the one of the drain, and using the same `skree! skree! skree!' sound effects-- even as homage to Hitchcock-- again, only distracted from the story. And, if you factor in the performance of William H. Macy (as Private Eye Arbogast), you have yet another split in the psyche of the film. Macy is a terrific actor-- one of the best character actors in the business-- and his performance here is excellent; but as good as it is, the attitude and delivery are pure David Mamet (with whom he has worked many times), and seemingly out of context with what Van Sant is doing. So the film winds up with a triple personality disorder: Hitchcock, Van Sant and Mamet. I felt like I was watching `House Of Good Will Psycho Games.' <br /><br />	As far as performances go, Macy's was as solid as they come, and Anne Heche (Marion Crane) did a good job of creating an original character, escaping the trap of attempting an imitation of Janet Leigh. The weak links were Viggo Mortensen (Sam), who made Marion's boyfriend so smarmy and unappealing it made you wonder why she had anything to do with him in the first place; and Vince Vaughn, who--to put it as delicately as possible-- was simply awful as Norman Bates. His whole performance was that of an actor playing a role (and not very convincingly at that); affecting effeminate mannerisms and punctuating his speech with `spontaneous' bursts of maniacal laughter made his Norman more of a caricature than a character, altogether unbelievable and pretentious. It gave the movie the feel of a reenactment of a `True Incident' you would see on a television show; it would have been entirely in keeping with the sensibility of the film to cut away from Norman sitting alone in his parlor to a shot of a sober-faced Peter Graves, intoning, `Such was the mind-set of Norman Bates on that fateful, rainy night when Marion Crane stepped out of her car and into his life--' The supporting cast includes Julianne Moore (Lila), Robert Forster (Dr. Simon), Philip Baker Hall (Sheriff Al Chambers), Anne Haney (Mrs. Chambers), Chad Everett (Tom Cassidy), Rance Howard (Mr. Lowery), Rita Wilson (Caroline), James Remar (Patrolman) and James LeGros (Charlie the Car Dealer). If nothing else, Van Sant's `Psycho' is a curiosity that goes to show that having a good director, a predominantly excellent cast and a script that is a proven commodity does not necessarily insure a success. Granted, todays era of psycho-babble, `American Psycho' and Hannibal Lecter have effectively taken the edge off of a character like Norman Bates somewhat; but there is still a singular intimacy in this particular story of the relationship between Norman, his mother and his victims that will forever remain inherently disturbing and terrifying; but Van Sant is unable to convey that sense of dread, that throat-clenching fear, with this film. If ever there was a movie made that should have been earmarked straight-to-video, this is it. Better still, had it never been born. I rate this one 2/10
This is one of the dumbest ideas for a movie. Remake a classic film shot-by-shot. I hope nobody tries this technique again. In 1998, "Good Will Hunting" director Gus Van Sant tried it by remaking Hitchcock's 1960 classic "Psycho" and failed miserably. What on earth was Van Sant thinking of? This remake doesn't even come close to topping the original. The few changes that were made here were no help. If you want to see "Psycho", the choice is obvious. See the original.<br /><br />* (out of four)
The 1998 version of "Psycho" needed to be set back in the 60's, rather than present day. The headliners would have done a good job with the setting. There were two scenes that just stuck out like a sore thumb. The first one was at the beginning of the movie when Marian Crane (Anne Heche) was sitting at her desk. Her boss took his client into his office because "it was air conditioning." I imagine that the majority of Arizona businesses have air conditioning. The other was the meeting of Lila Crane (Julianne Moore) & Sam Loomis (Viggo Mortensen). Lila sporting the Walkman seemed like an exaggeration to update the movie. The movie did spook a number of the viewers in the theater.
Norm(an)ally I don't mind remakes. There are some pretty good ones out there, BUT this one is a stinker! Considering it was practically scene for scene, it had a good story and great actors. Van Sant copied Al's direction virtually flawlessly, and it added color (I'm not one of those who think it has to be B&W to be classic). It should have been at least a mediocre movie... but it was pee-pee caa-caa! I don't understand how it could have been screwed up so badly. If you must, watch it as a curiosity, but I would suggest that you not bother.
Okay, so Gus Van Sant wanted to remake Psycho in color so that he could bring it into modern audiences, who would probably go into cardiac arrest if they were ever forced to see a movie in black & white, while they conveniently forget that both "Clerks" and "Schindler's List" were filmed in black & white and are great movies.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the same narrow-minded people who wouldn't want to see a great movie just because it's in black & white are the same people who wouldn't like "Psycho" anyway, because it doesn't have a murder or sex scene every two minutes. And the murders are not the grisly blood/guts/gore/bone-snapping that people are used to from having seen "Halloween," "Friday the 13th" and "Nightmare on Elm Street." This is why remaking "Psycho" almost exactly as it was originally was destined to not work, because it's really only of interest to people who are fans of the original. Everyone else is just watching it to tide them over until the next "Scream" sequel comes out, and for that reason, they will be disappointed. "Psycho" relies on suspense and mystery, not blood and guts. (And just so nobody thinks that I must be a senior citizen if I like older movies, let me set the record straight by saying that I am 21.)<br /><br />So if doing the movie in color was all that Van Sant wanted to change, why not just colorize the movie and rerelease it? I mean, what's the point of remaking a movie if you're not going to change *anything*? The least he could have done was to put his own director's spin on it, rather than just copying Hitchcock's - or even better, hired a new writer to adapt a new script from the original "Psycho" book. But it seems that Van Sant couldn't decide whether he wanted to remake "Psycho" *exactly* or not. This should have been an all or nothing project - either remake the movie exactly or do it differently - but as it stands, this movie is about 95% the same, but with a few touches thrown in that don't seem to have any purpose. Such as having Norman masturbate while he spies on Marion undressing. It doesn't serve the plot at all, and the only reason he put it in was because he *could*. He wanted to say, "Hitch couldn't show people masturbating in 1960 so I'm going to do it." Whoopee, big deal, like I'm so shocked at seeing someone masturbate. And what on earth was the point of showing single frame shots of clouds and farm animals spliced into the murder scenes? And then he leaves *out* an important scene, where Lila and Sam meet the Sheriff outside the church.<br /><br />Plus, by using the almost exact same script, the entire movie seems a bit of an anachronism. The opening credits say that the year is 1998. Then what's with Marion's 60-ish looking dress or the parasol she carries with her? Why do Marion and Sam have to have their trysts in a hotel room, when these days nobody would be shocked by what they are doing? Why are there no air conditioners in Marion's office? Why does the Bates Motel have no tv's in the rooms, and apparently no automatic locks on the doors? Why does the Sheriff have to ask the operator to connect him to the Bates motel? This was why using the exact same script was a mistake - just changing a few words here and there was not enough to modernize it. It needed a whole reworking.<br /><br />While Vince Vaughn turned in a good performance as Norman, he just didn't seem right for the part. Part of what made the original "Psycho" so creepy was that Norman had that innocent, boy-next-door quality, so nobody could believe that he was capable of such horrible crimes. With Vince Vaughn playing the part, is anyone really surprised that Norman was a psychopathic killer?<br /><br />That said, I can understand that Gus Van Sant was obviously a fan of the original "Psycho" movie, and wanted this to be a tribute. This isn't a bad movie, but the problem is that this may be some people's only exposure to "Psycho." I really think you should see this movie only if you've seen the original. Since I am a fan of anything to do with "Psycho," I bought a used copy of the remake, which I may watch occasionally. The original movie was a filet mignon, whereas the remake is a hamburger. But even filet mignon would get boring if you had it everyday, so it's nice to have a hamburger once in a while, for a change.
The original "Psycho" (1960) is widely considered as Alfred Hitchcock's best work and certainly, in my opinion, is one of the best movies of all time. The decision to film a shot by shot remake is therefore, a little puzzling.<br /><br />The cast in the original was flawless, so the cast of this remake had a lot to live up to. Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates was not a good choice for the lead. He is too much of a pretty boy hunk and is not very convincing as Bates. I can imagine actors such as Mark Wahlberg or John Turturro doing a much better job in the role. Anne Heche as Marion Crane does a creditable job, but one keeps mentally comparing her to Janet Leigh. Julianne Moore is a much better actress than she shows here and Viggio Mortenson merely walks through his role. The best of this new cast is William H. Macy as the private detective.<br /><br />Although director Gus Van Sant does an acceptable job, he can't build the suspense the way Hitchcock did. And why did he change the scene in the basement of the house? In the original, the atmosphere is dark and damp and closed in, whereas in this version, it takes place in a brightly lit laboratory like setting. And I think the black & white photography of the original has a definite advantage over the color version.<br /><br />Maybe another flaw could be the fact that most moviegoers have seen the original and know what is going to happen and when.<br /><br />All I can say is if it ain't broke, don't fix it.<br /><br />
Honestly, how hard can it be to make a good remake? Obviously pretty hard! I was soooo excited to see this because I loved the original, and my friends go and see it and tell me it really sucks. Well, I finally see it and I was sooo disapointed. Ok, the shower scene was more realistic...that's why I gave it a 3. Otherwise, it did suck. Vince Vaughn does a terrible job playing Norman, he's just too dense or something. I don't know, it was just terrible. Don't see it!
No,no,no. That is my advice to you if you are wanting to see this film. Anthony Perkins is the one and ONLY Norman Bates,as is Janet Leigh in her role as Marion Crane. This just seems like a colorized version of Psycho,with a few mildly different touches thrown in for a more modern appeal. Vaughn is dull as ill Norman,and Viggo Mortenson's Sam Loomis seems too much the cowboy compared to the original. Please folks,do yourself some justice. Don't bother with this. One can only wonder what Mr. Alfred Hitchcock and Mr. Anthony Perkins would be thinking right now.......<br /><br /> * out of ****
The first review I saw of this on IMDB says that Vince Vaughn is a much better actor than Anthony Perkins was in this role. Makes me wonder if he saw the original. It's tough to review Psycho if you don't have the perspective of how revolutionary the movie was in 1960. You have a heroine who isn't very likable and is killed not far into the movie and a villain who is creepy, but makes you feel for him. Add to that some graphic violence and you have a blue print for some of the slasher films of the 80s and 90s.<br /><br />Where does this film go wrong? Let's start with casting. Anne Heche is fine as a Vivian Crane, but as Norman Bates, Vince Vaughn is all wrong. For one thing, he looks far too young. Secondly, he has no idea how to play the roll. His nervous laugh reminds me of Ron Howard trying to play a tough guy on Happy Days. Everything he does screams I DID IT! The original movie, even to those who know everything about it, still makes you feel uneasy about the influence of mother on Norman, and turns her into a real separate character. How about the shower scene. When I finally saw the 1960 movie on a big screen, I was surprised at its power to scare the heck out of me. Bernard Herrman's score becomes incredibly shrill and loud and goes further toward scaring you than Danny Elfman's synth interpretations during the scene. This shower scene merely serves to show us Anne Heche's naked body and some nice color blood. Which brings us to the choice to film in color. Didn't work.<br /><br />There is something about remaking classic films that hardly ever seems to work. Some may see this as a noble experiment, but honestly, if Gus Van Sant had nothing to add to this film, he should have left it alone
Jud Nelson is an aspiring actor who becomes involved with a married couple who enjoy playing sadistic games on other people. The husband gets his jollies by burying people alive. If that isn't bad enough, he has a miniature video camera in each coffin so he can watch his victims suffocate.
Dodgy plot, dodgy script, dodgy almost everything in fact. The most compelling performance is that of Joanna Pacula as Lauren, but even that does not rescue this pointless and nasty film. The director's implicit invitation to viewers is not merely to suspend disbelief but to suspend judgement.<br /><br />Presumably it is intended to be steamy and menacing, but although the film has its erotic moments they are few and far between. This sort of thing has been done better by lots of others. Don't go out of your way to see it.
Totally forgettable movie but an unbelievable soundtrack: I'd give it (soundtrack)a 9 out of 10. I have the CD and the guitar work (Nils Lofgren) is superb! I saw the movie years ago and had to check IMDb to remember what it was about. I obsessed about getting the soundtrack and have since had to replace it. It ranges from blues/soul/ballad to a dose of gospel. All songs written, arranged, produced and performed by Nils Lofgren who is the "other" lead guitarist opposite Steve Van Zandt in the E Street Band. This dude can play! The vocals are handled by Nils (he can't sing very good-too raspy), Bonnie Sheridan (who is a great singer) and Tom Lepson.
It was poorly shot. Looks Like a rush job, last minute casting is obvious. Writing is very weak. Good for stage, not film. I feel bad for Andrew McCarthy. He's a very good actor who has not been getting good roles lately. This role was not for him. Maybe glad it has been picked up yet. On the festival circuit this film shall stay.
Awful in a whole new way, ANYTHING BUT LOVE probably should be seen by movie buffs--if only as a cautionary measure that proves all that can go wrong with a "vanity" production. I am guessing a vanity production, since there is no other reason on god's green earth to cast as talent-free and not particularly attractive non-singer/actress as Isabel Gold in the leading lady role--vied for yet by the likes of "lookers" like Cameron Bancroft and Andrew McCarthy--except that she also helped write this bizarre little movie. Her singing leaves much to be desired, and yet, unbelievable as it is, all the other characters in the film think she's terrific. There are a few moments here of actual charm or humor, but VERY few. Otherwise this is a silly, sad fiasco that veers from paint-by-numbers to paint-by-wrong-numbers. You know how it is when people look at a piece of modern art and someone says, "My kid could do better than that!" Well, this is a movie, the likes of which your--or anyone's--kid might do better.
One would think that with all the lavish care and expense that went into this made-for-TV movie, it would reflect something of the taste and manners of the upper class couple--Wallis Simpson and the Prince of Wales--instead of being a mawkish, unappetizing historical romance.<br /><br />Nor is it helped by the fact that JANE SEYMOUR and ANTHONY ANDREWS give stiff, rather uncomfortable to watch performances in which the events move much too slowly to hold attention.<br /><br />It's hard to understand why a star of OLIVIA DE HAVILLAND's caliber would wish to play the supporting role of Aunt Bessie since the role is so colorless she just about fades out of sight. At this stage in her career, Olivia was appearing in so many "nobility" roles requiring a regal presence but nothing more.<br /><br />A trivial movie best left forgotten among all the made-for-TV movies of that era.
Don't get me wrong. I've got a considerable soft spot for the works of Charles Band, both as producer and director. But you've got to raise an eyebrow when the man who was willing to put his name to "Dollman Vs The Demonic Toys" sticks a pseudonym on anything. As a bit of bad-movie fun, "Head Of The Family" is rather lacking, although it is better acted than you might expect. Jacqueline Lovell is a definite talent who deserves better than these kinds of movies. J.W. Perra is also quite funny as the titular monster, though for such a superintelligent being he does get hoodwinked quite easily. Y'know, I'm nitpicking because the rest of the movie is so sharp and witty of course....<br /><br />And having a lead character called Lance Bogan? Nice one guys. We didn't know you Americans knew that piece of slang!
This movie is awful, just awful. Someone bought it for me as a Christmas present because they knew I liked a good horror flick. I don't think they understood the "Good" part. All I can say is next year this person is getting slipper socks from me. Avoid this movie-- it makes you bitter. Peace.<br /><br />
I saw this film for one reason: the tagline is "Upset the head… and you're dead!" Cracking. It's not surprising that this silly horror comedy runs out of steam before the tape is out of the box, but it wrings a few laughs from its oddball premise and cast of characters: an eagle-eyed human radar, a huge strongman, and a big-breasted sexual magnet are all mind-controlled by a huge head in a chair, who's not happy about his family being blackmailed by a murderous scumbag. This looks like being a promising mixture of ham and cheese before it becomes clear that the characters are one joke wonders and the plot is pretty ordinary if you, erm, ignore the giant head.
Ahh, nuthin' like cheesy, explopitative, semi-porn, masquerading as horror...This one stars Jaqueline Lovell(sometimes Sara St. James), the nubile starlet also seen in "Femalien", "The Erotic House of Wax", and that family favorite "Nude Bowling Party". She is now a fixture in Surrender Cinema's line-up of talentless cuties starring in pointless, soft-porn exploitation flicks. "Head of the Family" actually tries to be a real moovie. A con-man and a tramp try to get said-tramp's husband off-ed. They turn to a large-brained evil genius in a wheelchair, and his family of moronic misfits, who uses mind control to send out zombies to do his nefarious bidding. Said-genius has a giant head, hence the clever title of the film: that's about the extent of the film's humor. But basically, it's an excuse to show off the ample talents of Lovell and Dianne Colazzo (Ernestina). Laced with some of the wierdest dialogue can be herd (what the heck is "plowing oats", anycow??), and just plain stupid, this titular thriller will moost likey appeal to the breast-cownters of Drive-In Theater, but no one else. The MooCow says avoid the devoid, unless yer looking for a rent on cheesy T&A/horror night. :=8P
This movie was not only disappointing to the horror/suspense film lover, it was disappointing to anyone who sees it. WoW. I thought that this film might be funny because the guy with the huge head. However, it was filled with long and drawn out conversation that wasn't needed. There was so much sex that I hate women and men now. This film was not only boring, but there was no substance. Wow. Wow. On to of all this, each scene looks like it was light from a single light bulb, and I think they used the same set for two different lawyers, a restaurant, and an airport. This movie is not for the movie lover who loves bad movies because in the end, it feels likes wasted time. See the movie!<br /><br />-party
No gore, no blood, no gratifying death scenes...dumb dumb dumb dumb. Dear God sitting through this movie made me sick. Sick sick sick. Very boring...extremely boring...<br /><br />Theres not even a humorous aspect to this film! i cant find a good thing to say about it, other than the lead guy had a nice body...I guess. Definitely not worth the fifty cents I paid to rent it.
This movie gives a cinematic example of the word worthless. It's awful, you can forget plot or decent acting, cause it's not there. And with the dismissal of any decent story or acting or even the trait of being mildy frightening then there is usually only one plus left for a horror film. The appeal to those who like soft core porn. This film doesn't even have that. The women show a little skin, but not really anymore than say the Xena show. Except for the main star who is not particularly attractive and has a couple of poor, and I mean poor sex scenes. So in short if you like good movies you have no interest in this film, if you like cheese you still don't have any reason to rent this film, if you like erotica and soft core porn you really have no motive to rent this film, and most importantly if you value your time in the slightest, you cannot do better than to avoid this movie.
Upon completing this infernal piece of trash, a friend and I swore a solemn vow never to again speak of how we had just trashed away the last 90 minutes of our lives. This film is completely pointless, a two dimensional hero and heroin who we can't give a hoot whether or not they survive and some of the lamest villains to ever darken the screen of horror (or any other) genre. To further prove just how absolutely pointless this film was, I would have liked to add a plot synopsis, but I can't write fiction. All and all, the only reason I can think of that anyone would ever want to view this film is if they had just murdered their entire community and is looking for some self afflicted punishment that will haunt you for all following years to come!
This has to be one of the all time greatest horror movies. Charles Band made the best movie of 96' in this little seen gem. Highly realistic and , incredibly stylised- with a visual flair David Fincher would envy, its not hard to see why Band went on to make such classics as 'Killjoy 2: Deliverance From Evil', 'The Regina Pierce Affair', 'Virgins of Sherwood Forest', and 'Timegate: Tales of the Saddle Tramps'.<br /><br />With a highly sophisticated story- a tiny body with a large head controls a family of weirdos who perform experiments on naked women, this movie may be a bit too much for younger viewers and is only for the most educated type of viewer, but for those who see it, Band is able to convey subtle messages about the human condition through his masterpiece. The head is symbolic of the lost love and longing for one's inner self that we all must face at one point or another, and for this reason i was able to engage with this film on a deeply personal level. Although many earlier critics have compared Band's film to Re-animator and other lesser works, this stands head and heels above the rest. It is gorier, but not pointlessly. The gore in this film is well crafted and used to enhance the storyline, rather than to just get a cheap shriek out of the audience. Also, the special effects in this film are absolutely top notch, easily the best work done in a horror film since... well... ever! The work in this film makes Savini's effects look like the work of a blind, limbless hobo.<br /><br />The only problem i have with this film is the copious amounts of full frontal nudity, which were ultimately unnecessary in achieving the composer's goal- to create a timeless epic that would forever go down in history as possibly the greatest film of all time. If it were not for this slight problem i would have given this film a perfect 10.
A couple of friends and myself visited the video shop a few years back and we were in one of those moods to rent some cheesy non seen flicks. My friend grabbed Head of the Family and we were greeted by a head sitting in a wheelchair. Well that set us off laughing and we decided to have a bet to see who would be the one who had to go to the desk and pay for the movie. Well you guessed it, it was me!!!!!!!! I have never been so embarrised in all my life. We got home and put it on and we rolled about the floor laughing for about 45mins because this was the funniest film in the world. I cant remember much about it but one thing i do remember was the blonde girl getting it on with some guy in the back of a shop every 5 mins. That head made me laugh and when i look at other peoples comments aboout this movie it makes me laugh even more. Head of the family is so good and the head is funny and im still laughing ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
I watched this film on the advice of a friend who assured me it was one of the funniest things he'd ever seen. Sadly this person is completely lacking a sense of humour and I was forced to endure two hours of the worst film making I have ever seen. Please do not watch this film. 1/10
I saw this movie on a show that was showing bad B-movies and trying to get you to buy them. It basically was just a long trailer but gave you a really good idea of what the movie was about. After viewing the trailer, I thought I would rent this movie because it looked stupid and generic, but could still be entertaining in a perverse sense. IT'S NOT ENTERTAINING in any sense of the word. The film has two (or should I say four) things going for it and it's not the number of deaths, it's the women. They are hot and naked a lot and Ms. Lovell could be a legit actress, but not in a movie where the emphasis is on T&A and corny dialogs. This isn't even a horror movie or scary, unless you are talking about watching the actors try to act. The production value is pathetic, the acting is worse and the writing is the worst. What was the point in making this movie? To scare people? To rip off "Texas Chainsaw Massacre"? To try and be funny? To show off the women's breasts? To put some guy's head into a retarded outfit, with fake hands and legs? To have a character just say the word "Snow" over and over? To not have any real violence but have enough nudity in an attempt to cover up the fact there is no real plot? To be able to make a sequel to a movie no one has seen or will ever watch? I made a mistake in picking up this movie, don't make this mistake too.<br /><br />STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am not a fan of the original book but was expecting to see a better adaptation than the Natalie Portman movie, which I found awful. This version is even worse.<br /><br />First, there is very little of Ms. Gregory's book in this script. The whole subplot of George Boleyn's sexuality is completely eliminated and in this version George is merely a flunky shuttling between his duty to the Boleyn family and his duty to the King. I thought the title of the book referred to Mary as the lesser-known of the Boleyn sisters, but here it is used to refer to Anne.<br /><br />Second, the script has the characters periodically address the audience as if in confession. Apparently this is intended to give a bit of back story and explain their motives, but it is amateurish in execution.<br /><br />On top of the bad script, the direction is stunningly bad. There are too many shots done with a circling camera which is none-too-steady at best and downright shaky at worst. Several of the speeches are delivered tentatively, as if in a first rehearsal. The production values for Henry's flamboyant court are minimal. The costumes vary: some are copies of historical portraits and others are from some costume designer's fevered imagination. And the King, the source of all power and favors, is often shown ALONE. No fawning courtiers, no servants in the background - where are all the people?? I am accustomed to Hollywood turning history into fantasy, but I expected better from a BBC production. Even based on a flawed book this production is BAD.
i was lucky enough to read the book beforehand and i do know a little about Tudor england.<br /><br />the writing directing and editing of this TV movie for the most part was truly awful. i felt as if i was watching a really bad drama doc about the period rater then a movie.<br /><br />first there were too many cut's between important parts. And leaving out important events which happened at the time, one is henry's fall out with Rome over his desire to divorce Katherine of aragon which led to england's breaking away from Rome and establishing her own church. they barely stuck to the book at all. i'm all for creative freedom but to a limit, especially when your dealing with a well written book as your starter point. in the book Mary give's birth to young Catherine first and then she has young Henry is born. Both their father is Henry's the eight. in the movie they show harry's first then Catherine. And suggest that Catherine father is William Carey.<br /><br />there are too many bad moment's in the movie to write them all.<br /><br />i will however say that Jodhi May and Natascha McElhone portrayal as the Boleyn sisters was probably the best part of the movie.<br /><br />if you haven't read the book and know nothing about Hennry's the 8 court i will recommend to stay away from this movie. And for those who read the book the movie will annoy you for it's lack of details and important plot's.
This movie twists the facts of Anne and Mary's lives into something unrecognizable. To make Mary Boleyn, who in fact was a rather dim and foolish creature, and make her the "good" sister is just silly. It is Anne who was in fact the far more interesting character, and that is why it is her life, and not Mary's, that has been told so often.<br /><br />In response to an earlier review, I fail to see how Anne's life was so "criminal"... to me it's Henry who was the real criminal. Whatever Anne's motives for winning the king and withholding her affections in order to gain a crown and husband has to be taken into context of the time in which these real-life events took place. Anne, in comparison to the majority of most of the courtiers in her time, was a relatively innocent figure. Most modern historians discount or have disproven most of the myths and slanders that this movie perpetuate about her, and I have never heard of anyone who actually believes the rumour than she slept with her brother. This movie is so sensational and false that it is maddening to think that someone, without knowing anything about this period in history, could walk away believing anything this movie has presented as "fact".<br /><br />I won't even get into the weird filming of the movie... but I'm pretty sure that cameras weren't invented in the 16th century, so I don't understand why Anne and Mary are talking to one throughout the movie... it's a really bad plot devise and is jarring and annoying, to put it mildly.<br /><br />Anne of the Thousand Days is not accurate either, but is infinitely more entertaining and at least comes closer to telling the story of one of the most intriguing women of history. Don't even think about renting this.. it's two hours you'll never get back!
This movie was included in the Six Wives of Henry VIII BBC miniseries DVD. I loved those six movies. They were well-acted, well-scripted, and historically accurate. I did actually read Gregory's book and liked it well enough despite it's HUGE historical inaccuracies (I mean the whole fake homosexual angle with George Boleyn in particular), but this movie didn't even mention that. That angle was one of the pivotal points of the book. <br /><br />Above all this movie just leaves me asking "WHY?" Why do we see, as someone else aptly put, "The Real World: Tudor England"? Why are the camera angles so bad in general? <br /><br />Why is the script so bad? I mean, I know it was improv, but come on! The actors at time stutter and stammer over their lines and it's obvious that they're making them up as they go along.<br /><br />Why are the sex scenes so awkward? The way they were done in the book made them at least somewhat interesting. In the movie they're just bad, verging on being absolutely hilarious. At one point, the actress playing Mary Boleyn was having sex with the actor playing Henry VIII. He's thrusting away and she's got this look on her face that says "Hm....I need to go to the store. Is he done yet? Maybe if he finishes I can go pick up some cheese real quick..." It's just bad.<br /><br />Why does Catherine of Aragon play such a small role in this movie? Her refusal to get a divorce was one of the leading causes for the scandal that rocked Christiandom. She's the reason why Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn couldn't get immediately married. Why is she not present here? Over all, this movie is just bad.
I realize a period piece is expensive to make, and that this style of shooting (close framed shots to camera, moving camera, wide aperture shots, washed-out) allows such films to be made for a price. As a style, it has advantages and disadvantages like any other, it allows more period pieces to be made. Like any style it has its detractors and supporters - there are probably even those that believe that this manner of shooting has an artistic basis.<br /><br />If only some of the money saved, could have been spent on the script for whatever style is used, a film needs good writing and good acting.<br /><br />The acting in this film is mostly very good. The writing less so. It is composed of a collection of bits taken from the book and much which is relevant to the plot is left out making for a disjointed collection of scenes with little or no continuity.<br /><br />If you have read the book, do not under any circumstances watch it. If you have not read the book, are easily pleased and have nothing better to do there is no harm in watching it, but be prepared to be disappointed.<br /><br />It could have been so much better.
The Other Boleyn Girl - not to be confused with the book it claims to be based upon. This movie is not even close to a faithful adaptation. I could understand them changing or elaborating on a few things. The book is not perfection, but it was well-written and became very popular. I could understand if the BBC wanted to make this a little more faithful to what actually happened, who Anne Boleyn really was - but it's not even close to being historically accurate either. It's just fluff. Mindless, made-up fluff. A real shame.<br /><br />To begin with, the writer and director seemed to think it was a good idea to setup the story like it was a reality TV show. Seriously. They have the Boleyns sitting in front of the camera, confessing how they REALLY feel about what's happening in their lives. Anne Boleyn sits in a confessional (not the church kind, the Real World kind) and chooses what she wants to tell and what she wants to just sit and smile about. She looks stupid having to use such a modern cinematic device in a film set in the 1500s. It's "The Real World: Tudor England!" <br /><br />Jodhi May is a very good actress and after 'The Aristocrats' and 'A Turn of the Screw' I was becoming a real fan of hers. But she should never have been cast as Anne. Actually I think she would have been a better Mary. Natascha McElhone was a poor choice. She's a good actress, sure, but she has very modern features and does not appear convincing in period costume. (Honestly, I spent the first half of the film trying to figure out if she was "that girl" from 'The Truman Show.' She was.) She's also too old to play the teen-aged Mary so for some unknown reason they made Mary the oldest of the sisters. It makes no sense, I know. It's like the BBC seemed to forget that these people actually lived. They're twisting the story around and making things up left and right. I feel ridiculous having to correct the BBC on historical inaccuracies, but REALLY! <br /><br />Apart from the two sisters the rest of the cast was actually very well chosen. Steven Mackintosh struck me as a brilliant choice for George, and his casting was the real reason I decided to seek out this movie. Big mistake. He does a great job, sure, but he's hardly in this. How can anyone pretend they're adapting The Other Boleyn Girl and hardly mention George Boleyn? That's just absurd. Philip Glenister was another very good casting decision, but yet again, was hardly in the finished product. <br /><br />The real problem with this is the script. There's just no getting around that. It's bad. It's really, really bad. It's too melodramatic and not engaging. Anne is portrayed as an air-head, Mary as the ringleader, and George as the follower. Mary's first husband is hardly mentioned, her relationship with the king is never explained - they simply do not tell the story Phillippa Gregory wrote. The whole thing comes across as a great big waste. I have no desire to see this thing a second time. I guess I'll just have to read the book again and hope that the Natalie Portman version due out next year will be much better.<br /><br />*Note: As of this writing, the only way of obtaining this miniseries in the USA is on the last disc of the miniseries 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII.' That's a great miniseries but can cost $50 to $60 and that's way to much to spend if you're just looking for this piece of garbage.
I can't express enough just how bad this film was. First of all what a waste of some legendary stars although they are quite old and pretty unconvincing. Fred Astaire, well I guess he must have owed some one a big favor as this was his last film role. The script is a mess and the film seems terribly draggy. I imagine maybe if I saw this back when it came out (1981) I might have thought it was decent. However seeing so many actual good horror films, this was one of the worst. The only real convincing anything in this mess was the very young and lovely sort/of creepy Alice Krige. The main young character was trying to act the best he could but was utterly terrible. I wasn't sure how much of it was from his lack of skill or the lack of a comprehend-able script, but either way he was just plain bad. Don't watch unless you want to see a bunch of old guys be somewhat scared.
I must not have seen the same movie as the one the comments refer to here. First, I think they should have serialized Ghost Story if they were going to film it at all. The truncated version they come up with was awful. I felt the performances were mannered and so much was left out of the story that the performances of such masters as Astaire, Douglas, Houseman, and Fairbanks seemed hammy. Alice Krige was superb as Eva, though. Craig Wasson is a good actor but he was only adequate as the protagonist. The decision to cast Patricia Neal and to truncate her role was not a good one. Imagine what Anne Bancroft would have done with that character! I blame the script, which was poor. The production values were dark and the pacing was slow. A disappointing, pedestrian effort.<br /><br />The book is one of the five greatest suspense/horror novels of the 20th century, IMHO. But the movie was disappointing, although a great introduction for Krige.
All that talent.....but when ya have poor direction, and a WEAK screenplay, it doesnt matter WHO is in a movie. Very tired attempt at telling a tale..which was actually interesting in the beginning, but then QUICKLY fell apart toward the end....to bad.
Ghost Story has an interesting feminist revenge tale premise, A-list veteran actors, colorful flashbacks with nifty look-a-like youthful counterparts of the old men. scary staccato music heralding the approaching horrors, atmospheric New England winter weather, and an excellent charismatic actress in the title role. Ghost Story could have been much more effective in black and white and in eliminating some of the more lurid special effects, and to presenting a more cogent screenplay (we should not have to be wondering about why the two trailer-parkish acolytes are in the script) The biggest detriment of the film is Craig Wassan (definitely separated at birth from Bill Maher) who from perhaps editing or just bad acting, is totally ineffective. He seems to "specialize" in wide-eyed, wide-mouthed reaction shots; not a lot of personality here. The revelation however is Alice Krige, pale-faced, enigmatic, terrifying underneath the placid exterior. However, her Eva Galli is creepy even before she meets her fate; I mean, a young woman who says things like "I'd like to take a bite out of you" or "Dance with me, you little toad!" is already not in the land of the living. Ghost Story would have been much better in a low-key, Val Lewton mode. The overdone special effects completely undercut the chill factor.
This is another film I missed out on Italian TV as a kid: notable for its quintet of ageing stars, most of whom had never made a horror film in their life (Fred Astaire, Melvyn Douglas, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., John Houseman and Patricia Neal), it deals with the men’s long-concealed past crime coming back to haunt them. It takes the form of a ghostly dead-ringer for the girl they all loved (Alice Krige) but whom they were forced to dispose of after an unfortunate incident when she humiliated their egos! Fairbanks, who was the one responsible for the deed, has twin sons (Craig Wasson) and so Krige directs her revenge upon them as well. Soon one of the latter, Fairbanks himself and even Douglas and Houseman all wind up dead. Therefore, the remaining Wasson and Astaire decide to confront the ghost at the scene of the crime where they also have to contend with a couple of sinister tramps who somehow do Krige’s bidding! I was looking forward to seeing these veterans on their last legs (Douglas died before the film had even premiered though, by that time, he had already completed another role, while it proved Astaire’s own inauspicious swan-song) but GHOST STORY went through too many changes of mood – while maintaining a sluggish pace throughout and emerging overlong into the bargain – to be anything but a failed curio. Having dollops of sex (including full-frontal nudity from Wasson!) and gruesome make-up effects muddled the waters all the more and marred the old-fashioned elegance inherent in Jack Cardiff’s (another notable of long-standing) cinematography.
This film gives new meaning to the term "uneven", giving us a few intriguing characterizations offset by an awkwardly realized plot that relies on a few well-placed stingers to deliver the majority of the thrills.<br /><br />The plot concerns a group of men who harbor a secret that has caused a curse to be visited on them in the form of a ghostly female apparation that causes death. She also may be seducing their sons.<br /><br />It is quite a spectacle to have all the notable veteran actors together in one film, but unfortunately they're not very convincing, particularly the scene where Melvyn Douglas goes off the deep end begging the others to listen to him. It's no shock then that the actors who play these same characters in their youth are terrible, especially the giggling Ricky. They deliver the worst "gee-aren't-we-all-drunk" scene I've ever watched.<br /><br />The movie has a few saving graces, namely Dick Smith's great ghost makeups (however misplaced they are in this film), and Alice Krige's fascinating performance as Alma/Eva. I've never read the novel that this film was taken from, but I intend to after reading some of the other reviews on this page. You don't have to have read the book, however, to realize that this is only a shadow of the original tale. There is a good story here, but it seems lost somewhere, amid exposition that shows the men having nightmares over and over again and making unsubtle references to the secret they all share. <br /><br />As it stands, it appears as if there was about half an hour of footage removed from this print, particularly near the climax. After all...how is it that Fred Astaire manages to mount an excavation of the pond so quickly? What did Gregory Bate and the kid have to do with Eva? And while we're at it...what the hell was she, anyway? Why did letting her out of the car cause the apparition to disappear? If it was an apparition, how could it have sex with two men and have them not know?<br /><br />These and other questions will never be answered, at least not by this film. Unless some restored footage is discovered somewhere, it will probably forever remain a curiosity with some oozing makeup, bizarre sex scenes and nudity, and a few attractive performances.
This story had a good plot to it about four elderly men that share a deadly secret concerning a young woman that they met 50 years ago. After all this time, the young woman returns to seek revenge on the men. This story occasionally made me nod off during the movie in the middle of tiring elevator music and the ever so consistent thunder storms. But it is well worth the wait in the end when we find out just who the mystery woman is that keeps plaguing the old men in their dreams and interfering in a young man's life. The most of what I liked in this film was the suspense in which the young woman appears to the men just before their deaths. The special effects were something. Every time I heard her call out to them I would think "Not that face again." But it was a good movie, I just wish that the pace was not as slow or the acting not as tiresome. And what I also liked about the movie was the flashback of the 20's, very authentic as well as the costumes being original.
Maybe it's because I read Peter Straub's wonderful book before seeing the film, but I was terribly disappointed by this movie. In my opinion, the filmmakers removed everything that made the story interesting and unique, and replaced it with more common Hollywood-style elements.<br /><br />It's too bad, too, since this movie has a terrific cast, particularly Fred Astaire, Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., Melvyn Douglas, John Houseman, and the then-largely-unknown Alice Krige. They're just not given very much worthwhile to do.<br /><br />In fact, I was all for leaving halfway through, but a friend convinced me to stay to the end, as he was sure it had to get better. He apologised to me during the closing credits.
This movie strayed too far from Straub's novel for me to enjoy. Barely made it to the middle of the film. Besides changing Don Wanderly from Edwards nephew into his son, the removed most of the major scenes and a number of characters that gave the novel so much life. What was left was trash. Straub's version was far superior to this poorly executed film. I don't think casting did all that great a job on picking the Chowder Society members either. Hopefully someone will come along and actually remake this film correctly in my lifetime. I just hate when Hollywood butchers the works of talented authors because they think their version so much better. Makes me sick.
No serious spoilers, but some very minor ones.<br /><br />"Acacia", a Korean contribution to the ever popular Asian horror wave, concerns a husband and wife who decide that they're getting on a bit and decide to adopt a child. The child, who has an usual obsession with the dead tree in the family's garden, eventually disappears when the couple eventually have a child of their own and the aforementioned tree seems to hold a grudge against the family itself.<br /><br />And that's about it. The film moves at a snails pace, clocking in at over 100 minutes with 80 minute material. It is essentially a thin family drama with a creepy tree, and there is very little in the way of scares, just shots of the tree with weird mumbling noises playing over the top. However, the idea of the tree being the child's mother is a pretty original one, but it isn't exactly exploited to its full potential. This sort of separates "Acacia" from much of the new wave it belongs to: films like Ju-On and Ring tend to do the opposite, and milk bland ideas until they are red in the face.<br /><br />The film does begin to get going towards the end; however the realisation of the child's fate and the parent's actions not only dampen the earlier curiosity of the story, but are revealed with such machine gun editing that it's difficult to take in all at once. The final sequence is undoubtedly creepy, however it feels like too little too late.<br /><br />Overall, the film does not feel too much like a Ring cash in, however with the "film renaissance" that Korea is currently going through, I couldn't help but feel this film could have been so much more.
Having just watched Acacia, I find that I have to agree with the negative reviews here. I like Asian, and Korean horror, and I had great expectations for this film. Man, was i disappointed. Watching this, I kept thinking "surely they just do this to catch me off guard later on", and for a while I expected something ingenious to happen. However, I slowly realised that the film really is that bad. It is the cheapest cash in into the Asian horror market I have seen so far. <br /><br />The basic story is perhaps not even that bad, but the way it is filmed it seems like the most laughable plot ever. The tree as a 'scary' device might be okay if used cleverly, but all the filmmaker does is giving us different shots of...yes, a tree, over and over again. He seems to hope that the tree will do all the work for him in terms of tension and build-up, but it just feels like what it is: shots of a tree. For goodness' sake!<br /><br />Slow build-ups can be very effective, and a film that presents the viewer with only few glimpses of what is wrong might deliver good scares, but not Acacia. Sure, we get a glimpse of a child on a tricycle disappearing around a corner, and, yet again, meaningful shots of the tree from above, or underneath, or the side, but these scenes are just not scary. They feel silly, especially because you realise that the director means them to be scary. They simply aren't. <br /><br />Apart from that I agree with some of the other reviewers, that the characters are ridiculous. In particular the one character's 'descent into madness' is laughable. However, what really breaks Acacia is the terrible editing. Its hard to see why scenes were cut together the way they are, but it's bad, and it kills any spark of interrest it might have had. It also makes me feel patronised, because I can see what they are trying to achieve with it, but I cannot believe that they think I would fall for such cheap ploys.<br /><br />There are lots of great Asian ghost films, and lots of bad ones, but this is by far the worst I have seen. They must have been going through the list of 'what to put into ghost movies', and ticked them all off, but in the end they forgot to add the actual movie.
As far as Asian horror goes, I have seen my share of disappointments along with some of the creepiest sh*t imaginable... "Acacia" doesn't really qualify for either of those categories. It had a few moments of tension and was interesting to watch, yet I couldn't help think that there should have been a tad more to this story. The film deals with a childless couple who decide to adopt a kid who appears to have a fascination with trees. He develops a bond with the Acacia tree in their yard and seems to communicate with it. Then, during a fight with his mother involving their new birth child, he storms off after threatening to find his dead mother who is now a tree. When he doesn't come back, the parents send file a report and wait, while the neighbor girl believes he somehow inhabits the Acacia tree. The pacing is rather slow and the ending gets a bit weird, but I have to recommend this as a slightly enjoyable effort, though the story feels a little flat. Hell, I can't really make up my mind on this...
From the acclaim it got I was expecting more from a Korean horror if it's going to be viewed in the same caliber as A Tale of Two Sisters, as some other reviews have stated. This movie isn't in the same caliber except in budget spent on special effects. Think Amytiville horror. With a tree and sparse dialogue.<br /><br />If you're going to have a movie with limited dialogue, the plot line and characters have to carry the film. This film could have been told quite well in a 30 minute short film concept, 2 hours with a lot of staring at trees and terror scenes that make you not only not scared, but detract in a "What the..." sort of way does not a good horror movie make.<br /><br />Those people who are stating that this film gave them lasting impressions must literally have heart attacks when decent horror films lay it in.
I'm a fan of the horror movie, regardless of which hemisphere it comes from. I know what to expect from the West, the East and most horrors in the middle. So I received the DVD of 'Acacia' in the post and looked forward to a slow build of ever increasing tension and scary children with odd, disjointed movements hiding under duvets.<br /><br />The major selling point for this film was that it has a far more linear story line than many of this ilk - you get who the characters are, where they are from and what they do. You get the baseline information (nice couple, can't have children) and realise that the premise is just too normal for something freaky NOT to happen.<br /><br />And then comes the bad. The number one complaint is that the story is OBVIOUS. I got it pretty much the moment the kid hugged the tree. I knew where the film was going and was even able to predict the order of death and for what reason.<br /><br />The editing is shocking and unfortunately, not to the benefit of the film. Even were I still pondering the events, tension isn't allowed to build because the director seems to have gotten a new editing suite for his birthday and wanted to use it as much as possible.<br /><br />And my final gripe is this....the tree was unnecessary. This would have been a perfectly good tale of subtle horror with just the couple breaking down over the death of the child - the titular tree bought nothing new or exciting to the film. So I'll finish where I started - my overall impression was 'Oh.'
Oh how awfully this movie is! I don't know if it is a horror film or a drama, cause the story and the both genres are not established very well! The story is not moving, it is slow, boring, and sleepy from the beginning to end. This movie really bores me! But I really liked the camera work, it is authentic, fresh and clear, the acting is great too, the little boy was the great performer in this movie, but it hasn't made me to jump from my seat. But this movie makes me grab a pillow, lay on the bed and sleep until the credits roll...<br /><br />Boring! Not worth watching! I tell you, this movie sucked!<br /><br />1/10
A moderately interesting start, some pretty scenes in sixteenth-century Japan, and a promising idea. But the execution? The comparison that springs to mind after about fifteen minutes is "Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death." Really. A specialist in "Oriental history" who doesn't speak any Japanese, walks on tatami without removing her shoes, and is generally dumb as celery? Please. This looks like a student film: the sets are risible, the acting (except, perhaps, for the title character) close to wooden, the plot utterly arbitrary. At least "Cannibal Women" was funny! This is best watched with someone who knows something about Japan, just to watch disbelief repeatedly crawl across their face.
Remember those terrible war movies your grandmother forced you to watch 25 or so years ago on your old VHS recorder? "The Fallen" is just a bad executed remake of those movies! The story is terrible, the direction is terrible, the editing is terrible, the music is terrible, and all together make an unbearable nightmare.<br /><br />It is also terribly slow! Very slow! I tried to sleep while watching it but I couldn't do it because I had nightmares of it.<br /><br />Please don't watch this movie! It is THAT bad! Ten lines is a lot so I don't know what else to say.<br /><br />Press the eject button NOW and you wont regret it!
For starters, I once met the director when he was going to WW2 re-enactments with a period movie camera and making videos of the events which looked DARNED good. I really wish he'd kept that up. Because as much as I applaud what he accomplished on a clearly "next to nothing" budget, when I popped out the DVD, I just wondered why I sat through almost two hours of nothing. There's no real plot to speak of, you don't really care what happens to the characters (maybe the Italian troops and some of the Germans), and the ending is yet another "art film" commentary on the futility of war. I could have told someone how it would end once I got through the first ten minutes. I KNEW the Germans would have a few heroically volunteer to fight to the death, I knew most of the Quartmaster GIs would be killed, it was just too darned obvious! And while I'm on the subject, I was shocked to see so much of the Axis side done well, yet the GI side done comically. All the character development was clearly for non-English-speaking roles. The GIs simply got shafted hard in this film. And I can't help but wonder if they even had someone on the set who understood how the US Army works? The phrases, terminology, actions, were clearly written by someone with no knowledge of the American military at all. Had I now known who had directed this film, I'd have sworn it was directed and written by a German...
What on earth was that? My family and I just waisted 2 hours of our life for this piece of rubbish !!! There was no plot, no tension, only a lot of boredom !!! My kids could do better movies with our video-camera.<br /><br />But maybe we just did not get the point of the movie...oh wait, my mum did. She was the only one who liked it for the following reason: "At least a film with no cars screeching..." If you are looking for a war-film with no fighting in it, is still interesting and gripping and has a strong anti-war-message, then you should watch "The Trench".<br /><br />I give this film 3 out of 10 because it is good enough for an afternoon-nap and because I am too nice...
I've rent the movie because i'm very fond on war movies and on the cover picture i've read " better than save private ryan"....mmmmm ...i thought cool! guys....is just a ridiculous movie. Almost fun. Nothing to do with a proper war movie. I want my money back! Why the f...k the peoples lies??????????? F NO SUBTITLES They tried to make everything cooler with the light....but they didn't make it. Sorry about this.....but the movie is awful. The italians are shown as "Mafia e mandolino"<br /><br />The American as stupid farmer The Germans as even more stupid farmer.<br /><br />The actor are ridiculous and unprofessional.<br /><br />Please....please......
I've never written a comment on IMDb before, but this movie was so bad it left me little choice but to warn you not to waste the two hours of your life. As an avid WWII historian, I don't even know where to begin on how historically inaccurate this movie was. Carbines with Korean War bayonet lugs, K98k's missing cleaning rodes and sight hoods, German uniforms that didn't exist, the list could go on forever. Added that it's loaded with flaws, has literally no plot or climax, and acting on par with your local high school theater. The epitome of cheesy. <br /><br />PLEASE...there are too many good WWII movies out there to waste your time on this junk.
First there are some plot holes in this movie. We see in the very beginning a kid dies from playing the game. But who was tied up in the mail truck delivering the package which contains the game? How did the driver place the package into the mailbox when he was lashed to the steering wheel? It is not like he was Mr. Fantastic. Wow that in just the first 15 minutes... The actors are second rate, take the "Bad Guy" played by Patrick Kilpatrick (who?) exactly he has appeared in one episode of everything on TV and some secondary roles in poor movies (like this one). So most of the acting is like TV dramas, I can live with that, but the graphics or special effects are horrible. The disembodied "Game" voice sounds like a poor clone of Hal from "Space Oddessy 2000". What they called Zombies looked more like shadows jumping around like monkeys from "Planet of the Apes". The Aliens had transparent bodies like the shadow zombies. In most cases, the movie was just predictable as it had no hook or hidden agenda going. The story was a good idea but like most good ideas discussed over lunch was never developed beyond that good idea stage.
Well, the first thing I saw after looking at the DVD box was "Best Screenplay" and thought this would be a good rental. WOW, was I mistaken! I'm sure at one time there was a good movie in here, but after the incredibly poor acting and "video game" production values, this ends up looking like Tron's retarded half-brother. The first scene sets up the overall atmosphere of the entire movie. Five minutes into it, you'll be asking yourself, "What the Hell am i watching?", and it will just snowball from there. An awful soundtrack that makes every song sound like Rob Zombie's "Dragula" rounds out this miserable piece of crap into a laughably bad movie. On a side note, #3 most romantic quote in a movie - "I think you're the final destination."
OK, this movie wasn't good at all. Video games aren't what I would brag on if I was over the age of 15. Cool to play games, but writing a comment about video game players may like this movie for that it is, that is strange. Just play a video game, don't make up a sorry story about getting trapped in one. I use my cell phone, I hope I don't loose my girlfriend in that. Grease being the worst ever? OK, Grease has a very well thought out story along with being a musical. Even if you don't like musicals, anyone would say Grease is good. My brother plays video games all the time and he watched 30 minutes and left because it was so awful. I feel asleep.
Hmmm, not a patch on the original from Shaw Brothers. The fighting is average and looks very clunky. The story line is as to be expected from a 70's Kung Fu film, confusing and daft. Stupid voices for women,dubbed in posh English accents for men. i turned this off early and i love martial arts flicks. Get the original, its so much better than this average movie, don't be fooled, i bought the wrong flick what i wanted was the Shaw brothers movie. i have just started commenting, I'm only doing foreign and martial arts films this is just the beginning of my movie collection, i personally own most modern martial arts flicks. Hope you don't waste time watching this one, its for die hard fans of 70's Kung Fu only.
I rented a copy of this one from Netflix -- big mistake. The DVD version titled "The One-Armed Swordsmen" was produced by madmen who thought that the fighting sequences would be appreciated better pasted all together in one big chapter than as part of a consistent, sequential story. Some of the story was left in separate chapters, which you can select from the main menu, but the DVD is still a mess. Don't rent or buy it. Not that there was anything wonderful about the original story, an absurdly complicated piece of nonsense. Much as I liked seeing Wang Yu in his prime again after all these years, this one is an utter waste of time. I've had dish detergents that made a better film than this. What the chopped-up DVD version shows us is that no matter how silly a Chinese script may be, you have to see some sort of story to care about how the fighting sequences turn out.<br /><br />But "The One-Armed Swordsmen" does offer you do the chance to see both Wang and Shaw Brothers stalwart Lo Lieh beating up smirking pretty boy David Chiang -- it's always a pleasure to see that happen. Lo plays a sort of second-string villain here, and serves as a prime example of why some people really need orthodontists. he film is also graced by the participation of Taiwanese actor Chang Yi as the magistrate. <br /><br />Another comment above mentions the obligatory fight-in-the-inn scene (there are two, in fact) where Wang and Chiang are attacked by a pack of comical barbarians using what look like cavemen weapons, making Bruce Lee noises while they fight. None of this makes any sense, but that's okay if you're not expecting any clarity or common sense. It was fun to watch anyway.<br /><br />Another peculiarity of this production is that there are no significant women characters. There are a couple of female roles, but they play no serious role in the action or the plot.<br /><br />If you can find a copy of the original Shaw Brothers One-Armed Swordsman movie, the one which explains why he has only the one arm and why he uses a broken sword, go for it.
this is by far one of the most pretentious films i have ever seen. it is a tight slap on the face of some Indians who speak in English and were looking at the mirror. disgusting. the bubble gum version of the 1970s politics of the north Indian plains. the message - the educated English-speaking Indian tried to save the poor beggars of India in all earnestness. it ignores the fact that the poor beggars are also capable of and are saving themselves on their own.<br /><br />as a love story its okay. the problem is that the love story and character development is based upon a completely fraudulent version of politics.
This film is supposedly about three young idealistic people, two of whom join the Naxalite movement and blah blah. It is really just another film about some beautiful, rich people trying to decide who they should bed next; the peasants and naxalites and the political struggles of the era merely serve as a picturesque backdrop. Literally, as we don't hear the villagers say a word, never mind learn anyone's name, thus they occupy the same 'role' as the 'natives' in old Hollywood films. The movie is also dull, and the story does not actually get us anywhere - except to various bedrooms. We are apparently supposed to admire the artsiness of it all, which merely means no good song and dance routine, which would not have saved the film of course, but might have at least alleviated the boredom.<br /><br />My friend Japna was annoyed at the immorality of the whole story, not the bedroom bit but the whole pointlessness of the story. The message seems to be that ideals are not worth pursuing.
The movie uses random events of historical significance as its backdrop and willy-nilly criss-crosses the lives and time-lines of its 3 central characters. To what purpose, one may ask? The problem with this film is that the script becomes the 'story', not characters or their lives.<br /><br />It starts off with a bunch of rich, aimless college kids (and a couple of not-so-rich too) drawn into the Naxalite movement. Affair, rejection and separation follows. People go their own ways, seemingly. Only till the heroine forces herself upon them. Not once but twice. After a pause in the 'Movement', the next hurdle for these 3 is the Emergency imposed on the country by Indira Gandhi. Lots of political figures roam around for no obvious reason. The sub-plots are too contrived and don't add up to make a logical whole.<br /><br />The movie tries to impose a false pace but never reaches a true rhythm. Barely coherent at times, there is no maturation and growth whatsoever in the arcs of the 3 ex-college buddies. Even after they are presumably married, engaged, settled or whatever, they are ever too eager to just ditch it all and head off to a village to have sex with the ex-lover or ex-flame. What fertile imagination the screen-writer possesses. So many 4-letter words are used without any rhyme or reason that its downright abusive!!<br /><br />Chitrangda Singh has a horrible American accent that she doesn't try to hide. Its hideous hearing her mouth cliché-ridden dialog like 'Whats up? I didn't think you'd come' (this, after the hellish nightmare she's just been thru) or, in the beginning, 'I appreciate your concern but I can take care of myself'. Yikes. What kind of clown wrote the dialogs for this? She invites her friend in to have a cup of 'South Indian' (no less) coffee, wishes someone Good Morning and then is wished Good Night by someone else in the family. Now whats up with THAT?!?<br /><br />The countless uncredited villagers and tribals are the best actors. The editing is really erratic with too many cuts. Obviously trying hard to make a bold statement, Sudhir Misra screwed up big-time on this one.
It would be quite easy to make this movie sound fun: a call girl gets shot in the forehead by a North Korean spy, but survives. The bullet that is embedded in her brain makes her long for knowledge, as well as sex. Unbeknownst to her, she walks away from the shooting with the cloned finger of George W. Bush in her purse, a key which can unlock the power to use nuclear armaments. Just call it a romp, and at least a few people will show up to the theater. I'm not sure how many did go to see this four year old film when it opened in New York this past April, but I sincerely hope not many. It sounds like a light and playful pinku flick, but it has art-house pretensions and is really just incredibly boring. Many pinku films in the past have been successful in their artistic aspirations, but this film's aspirations just make the time that elapses between the sex scenes excruciating. And then the sex scenes aren't even good! I've seen some pretty outrageous stuff in dirty Japanese movies. I've never seen this country produce something with sex this dull. The Spice Channel is more imaginative. The only worthwhile thing in this movie is the body of the lead actress, Emi Kuroda. Otherwise, this is pure torture.
Okay. I really tried to tap into the (so called) silly & surreal humor that this film sets out to be. I'm told that the Japanese version of this film is much shorter than the one shipped to America (go figure!), and has less political references. Apart from all that, I found this sexual/political farce just as boring and pointless as standard porn. The central female lead is easy on the eyes, and could actually act. I would love to see her in a non pink film where she could actually flex her acting muscles (and no,not the ones you're thinking of). It's obvious that Japan can (and does)produce just as much crap as other countries. I couldn't recommend this to anyone, with the distant possibility of someone who has a Jones for Asian porn. Go see a real Japanese film.
My wife and I met doing a professional production of "The Merry Widow" in 1982 -- in English, but a straight translation.<br /><br />Only the very basic skeleton of the original plot is visible in this "adaptation". Most of the characters have been deleted, along with the entire B plot, and all but one of the characters remaining have been renamed. Most of the characters in the movie aren't in the operetta, either. The action has been moved from Paris to, at first, Washington, DC, and then to the fictional country of Pontevedro, which the movie has renamed "Marshovia", and only later to Paris. The net result is that we don't reach the beginning of the original play until about 45 minutes in.<br /><br />And the main source of tension in the plot is deleted, too. In the original, years before, Count Danilo and the heroine were very much in love, but his family refused to allow them to marry because she was poor; it's his broken heart that has rendered him a careless playboy. Now that, as a widow, she's the richest woman in the world, she still loves him, and he still loves her, but his pride won't let him admit it to anyone, even himself, and she must spend three acts playing mind games to break him down. The trope of the aristocrat with money problems who won't admit that he's in love with a rich woman for fear of what people will think supplied the main plots of a substantial fraction of Viennese operettas for decades after the 1906 "Widow". In this movie, they've never met before, which rips out not only the heart of the whole thing, but nearly all the comedy.<br /><br />Lamas does a pretty decent job, though.<br /><br />An interesting musical point is that several times we hear a snippet or so of "Trés Parisien", an extra song written (in English, despite the title) for the London première, which was not, as far as I know, usually found in American productions until the 1980s or so.
I feel terribly sorry! Where the Lubitsch-pic was enchanting, marvelous, full of spirit and elegance, this one here is only - colored! Lana looks like 51 (in fact she was 31 at that time, but obviously depressive) and tries to play a shy and dull girlie. Think of Jeanette McDonald, who gave the role of the widow a double-faced depth by "playing" with Count Danilo. That Lana had to play an operetta although unable to sing - crazy! She only sings one song - the title role of an Lehar-operetta, that is really funny! The only really good thing is the great waltz scene at the end: glamorous! And - after watching this scene - have a look at the introducing waltz scene in "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes"! Any similarities?
This is not exactly what I would call a Mad Max film, after seeing Road Warrior and experiencing the excellence of that film, I felt somewhat disappointed after seeing this. It supposedly started out as some kind of kids in the wilderness film, and was merged with the Mad Max franchise(bad idea). The casting was not exactly the best, I mean come on Tina Turner? One of the main problems with this film is that there are no good villains. No Wez, no Humungus, not even a decent Toecutter! Nothing really even happens, if you are going to plan on seeing this sub par action flick (can it even be called that?) make sure you see Mad Max 2 or Mad Max, or better yet both. Another problem with this film is that there are too many people, even the Thunderdome battle sequence is dull, Max doesn't even kill anyone! The music is bad, the characters are bad (not in the good way) and after seeing this film, it left a very bad taste in my mouth.
Every time I've seen this movie I get the same impression: some parts of it are so amazingly stupid/bad that they crack me up, they aren't intentional, and there are a lot of them; the rest is just plain bad, stupid and/or irrelevant. A movie like Evil Dead gets credit for being bad at it's own expense because it's the intended result-it' stupid and cheesy because Sam Raimi succeeded at what he was trying to do. This movie doesn't have that excuse, it's stupid and cheesy because the filmmakers failed so miserably. The crap result gets heaped on top of the crap writing and crap performances to make it a shame that the lowest rating a movie can be given is one for 'awful.' Watching this movie has the same effect as listening to a Billy Madison essay--"Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it." I should be able to give this movie something around a -5.
Like the previous two 'Mad Max' films, 'Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome' is not exception to the violence and strange plot. Mad Max is in a post-war society where he must destroy master blaster and get the children to 'tomorrow morrow land'. This is generally a warped film with Peter Pan references and Tina Turner, methane-pigs, and odd characters. I got very bored by watching it all, and it offered nothing to me. I did not feel inspired after watching this film; the only decent thing about this film were the extremely-odd characters that got picked off in various ways throughout the film. It's too weird for me, and it was much too dull.
Intelligent summary, isn't it?<br /><br />If Mad Max was something of a simple, straight forward, nothing special but nothing wrong either kinda film, they totally made up for it with it's sequel, The Road Warrior. So, in theory, with a third great film it would've been a great trilogy... now, it's not!<br /><br />Such a huge disappointment Beyond Thunderdome was! It's main premise is pretty cool, with an 'underworld' (think a mix between Metropolis and The Time Machine), but it all isn't carried out with too much conviction. Add the obnoxious Tina Turner and the no good story-line of the people waiting for a plane, and this is just one huge stinker.<br /><br />Maybe they can brighten things up again with part 4 (although that one is just probably gonna be 1 huge budget-explosion kinda thing), because this just isn't right.<br /><br />3/10.
Even allowing for my unabashed love of the first two films in the franchise, and sweeping away any sort of biased leanings I might of had for the character of Max, I just can't bring myself to rate at average this cartoonery waste of space that so nearly soils what had gone before it.<br /><br />Gone is the rugged nasty streak that brought feeling to the character Mad Max Rockatansky, gone is the impacting feeling of desolation in an apocalyptic world, and more crucially, gone is director George Miller's passion for the franchise. The dreadful score matches the cartoon heart of the film, it seems that the makers didn't really know what to do with the amount of cash given to make this third {and thankfully last} instalment. Sure the stunts are spot on {to be expected by now}, and of course Miller manages to paint a barren desert landscape by purely lifting from what he has done before. Yet he clearly struggled for fresh ideas with the action since The Road Warrior's crowning glory of the Petrol Tanker pursuit is replicated here, only he uses a train instead!!.<br /><br />It's just a very poor show that may have seemed like an ambitious turn of events back in the mid 1980s; but when viewing the three films together now, Thunderdome just comes across as a director losing his edgy approach whilst sadly getting caught between the mix of comedy and fantasy action. And the truth is that neither of those genre slants would have worked singularly, in the context of this series, anyway. I give the film 3/10 purely for one real good Thunderdome fight sequence, while the stunt men here deserve some credit at the very least. But this is the third time I have tried to like this film, and as glutton for punishment as I undoubtedly am, I wont be trying again, ever.
I watched all three mad max films in succession for the first time a few days ago and was left bitterly disappointed with the third instalment. it destroys the fine work of the first two films with weak and cheesy action and a story line that turns the apocalyptic Australian wastelands into a comical sand pit one would expect to see in a children's adventure movie. the character of max is unrecognisable from his dark and cynical persona seen in the previous films and changed into a predictable uninteresting saviour that left me feeling betrayed. if you haven't seen this film yet then simply don't. Let the story end with the road warrior and save yourself a very painful hour and a half. (spoiler alert) the other major issue i had with this film that truly left a bitter taste in my mouth was the flying man. we had already seen him in the road warrior where he had helped max and yet when he reappears in thunderdome it looks like the two had never met. whether he was supposed to be a different character or a relative of the road warriors gyro man i do not know. however it was not explained and is a weak element in this overall weak film. 2 out of 10. doesn't get a 1/10 because of the thunderdome fight.
Originally I wrote what was a sarcastic,scathing review of this pathetic piece of dung,but every time I submitted the review I got "this contains a very long word which is not allowed", also words that were not misspelled were judged incorrect. <br /><br />Now the word that was judged too long was never identified.After numerous attempts at eliminating words eventually I got the sneaking suspicion that the IMDb site is politically sensitive and set to reject certain words automatically.Nothing I wrote was obscene or racist in itself.But after eliminating all of the longest words the same message was repeated again and again,also words that weren't judged misspelled were all the sudden considered misspelled!<br /><br />The pc police are everywhere.
This is without question one of the worst movies I have ever seen. However, it is also one of the most unintentionally hilarious. I like to compare it to Plan 9, in that it can be so bad, so awful,so dumb, and such a waste of time that I find myself laughing out loud.<br /><br />One of my biggest problems with it is that it's a complete ripoff of Robin Hood, and let be honest and say that I love Robin Hood with Errol Flynn, and Robin Hood: Men in Tights. But let's face it, from the forbidden love between Peck (who is definitely slumming it. Although in all fairness this was still a good few years before the masterpiece To Kill a Mockingbird) and the female character (who is so forgettable, apparently, that I have forgotten her name.), to the final scene where the good guys dress up as monks to fool the bad guys screams "ROBIN HOOD" all over it.<br /><br />However, I don't think the film isn't worth seeing. On the contrary, I think that this is one of the funniest movies I've seen in years, even if it was unintentional.
This turned out to be more of a women's romance-soap-suspense film than what I hoped it was....simply a tense thriller. Yes, the final 20 minutes were suspenseful but much of the previous 75 bordered on being just plain tedious.<br /><br />Ruter Hauer was a little too subdued, not playing his normal intense character. Natasha Richardson sports somewhat of a dumb look most of the time and her character was very unappealing.<br /><br />The story is so-so. It's not as bad as I'm making out, but it sure isn't anything I'd watch again, and the back of the VHS describing this movie was misleading.
Everything you do in this world should make at least a little bit of sense. Unfortunately very little of "Delusion" makes any sense. Jennifer Rubin is adequate in her role as the main squeeze of hit man Kyle Secor. Secor on the other hand overacts to the point of annoyance. Jim Metzler, the embezzling yuppie is very unbelievable as the novice, revenge seeking, adversary. When Jennifer Rubin gives back the money she has carefully been concealing, all credibility flies out the window, and the guns pointing final showdown between Secor and Metzler is beyond ridiculous. Avoid "Delusion", unless you are delusional enough to believe the misguided positive reviews here. - MERK
"Delusion" is what you experience when you watch this flick and then believe you saw something worthwhile. This flick, which tells of a trio of semi-psycho travelers who are up to no good somewhere in the CA desert, is amateurish and just plain stupid. The film suffers from an awful story, a lousy screenplay, and some terrible direction just to mention a few of the deficits. If the flick has anything at all going for it, it's B-movie diva Rubin's even performance. Don't waste your time on this turkey. (D)
Now I remember what the 'indie' filmmakers were ripping off before Pulp Fiction. It was David Lynch, right?<br /><br />I hunted this thing down to see Kyle Secor. What a waste of a perfectly good Bayliss. It was so painful to watch him, sort of like when someone you love is horribly sick and there's nothing you can do.<br /><br />Nearly every cliche in the book: the desert, the psycho, the quirky mob boss, the biker, Tracy Walker (who fortunately was only in one scene, but I kept expecting him to reappear and say something strange and profound like "If a man wants to know where he's going, he's got to look at where he's been," or some contrived garbage like that). I have a theory as to why so many indies are short on location in the desert. I think it's because they can save money on lighting.<br /><br />If you like to be in pain, find this movie and give it a viewing. If you're a fan of Kyle Secor, watch reruns of Homicide on Court TV. If you want a good, quirky road thriller, check out Wild At Heart.<br /><br />There is a reason that no one has heard of Delusion! My god, what a waste of a good title.
The Hindi remake of Mrs Doubtfire starring and directed by Kamal Hassan is a somewhat shoddy version, and not as good as expected.<br /><br />Kamal Hassan clearly struggles with Hindi dialogs, even after all these years, and cannot handle even one scene effortlessly. The guy has aged and should give it a rest. Hassan doesn't bring anything new to the role or to the character as say, Dustin Hoffman does to Tootsie, or Marathi actor Macchindranath Kambli does to Mavshi's (aunt's) character in "Moruchi Mavshi" (Moru's Auntie, comedy play).<br /><br />What was the kid doing playing with firecrackers when it wasn't Diwali? Most of Chachi's romantic 'cross-connections' -- Vs Amrish, Paresh and then Johny Walker, seem redundant to the main storyline. Tabu's bathing scene was unnecessary. The family is North Indian but must be reminded of Karva Chauth night by a 'Maharashtrian' Chachi. Yeah, right.<br /><br />The fine acting skills of not one but four actors namely Tabu, Om Puri, the late Amrish Puri and Paresh Rawal have been wasted in this film.<br /><br />Watch the original Mrs Doubtfire -- clean, crisp and crackling with fun, quite unlike Chachi 420.
Like most musicals of the era, one must check reality at the door. Broadway MELODY of 1938 is not remotely believable nor plausible, but kind of fun in its strange way. This movie is really just an excuse to execute the talents of the stars. Some scenes just happen as if they were in a review, not a plot driven movie.<br /><br />Judy Garland shines and it's a pity she has so little to do unless much was left on the cutting room floor.<br /><br />One of the most inane happenings are the way Eleanor Powell get a lead role in a Broadway show and Robert Taylor says it's going to be work, work, work from dawn til dusk. Several scenes go by and there's no work, no rehearsals...NOTHING. She needs money to win a horse in an auction. She has no money. Isn't she getting paid while she rehearses? Taylor has to borrow money to help. He's supposed to be a big time producer. He has no money??? Anyway, that's just two elements in this strange story.<br /><br />The musical numbers are quite wonderful which saves this from being a total loss. Broadway MELODY OF 1940 is much better as is Broadway MELODY OF 1936.
All I can do is echo the sentiment already expressed by some of the other commenters. This is CITY OF GOD meets HAPPY DAYS. The bipolarity of the ruthless thug (one minute a ruthless killer, the next minute a Luv's diaper commercial) is completely unconvincing. You can approach it in one of two ways: (1) A gritty, realistic movie turned sappy; or (2) a sappy, ABC-afterschool-special with profanity, violence and animal cruelty. Either way it just don't fly, do it? Why then has it received so much praise? As others have implied, it gets the "conscience vote" from the west. Show us pictures of poverty to contrast against our fluffy, double-wide theatre seats and 44-oz cokes, and we'll applaud in a heartbeat. But--oh--don't forget to candy coat it, because the bitter pill of reality (tantalizing as it is) is hard for us to swallow.<br /><br />I'm terribly disappointed that this film would receive so many awards and accolades, especially when there are far more deserving works of film out there. All I can say is: beware of any film that receives awards (Hollywood Oscars = sweeping, syrupy tripe. Cannes Film Festival = beard-stroking, artless propaganda). To find the real gems, you'll have to work hard at it.
This movie looked like it was rushed to release for some reason. Definitely not a well made movie. So unbelievable. The scenes where the President (Holbrook) were downtown and walking among the people were a farce. There would not be a chance for the common folk to be within 30 yards of the President in that situation in real life. If it wasn't for the blood and profanity, this was shot like a TV movie. It could have been decent if it was done differently. Holbrook's (President) talents were never realized in this movie. Shatner's acting is okay. The production values in this movie leave a lot to be desired. Overall, I think most people would be better off not wasting time to watch this affair.
This movie looked like it was rushed to release for some reason. Definitely not a well made movie. So unbelievable. The scenes where the President (Holbrook) were downtown and walking among the people were a farce. There would not be a chance for the common folk to be within 30 yards of the President in that situation in real life. If it wasn't for the blood and profanity, this was shot like a TV movie. It could have been decent if it was done differently. Holbrook's (President) talents were never realized in this movie. Shatner's acting is okay. The production values in this movie leave a lot to be desired. Overall, I think most people would be better off not wasting time to watch this affair.
This was included on the disk "Shorts: Volume 2"--a rather dull collection of short films. Shorts are among my favorite style of films but somehow the people assembling this second collection had a hard time finding quality content--and it wasn't nearly as good as the first volume or other shorts collections. <br /><br />This short film feels like it's woefully incomplete. There is a story, but so much in unanswered that the viewer, like me, feels a bit left out and unfulfilled.<br /><br />The film begins with a woman, her boyfriend and her Westie (that's a dog, by the way) going to a lonely beach. The lady speaks with an accent that, at times, is a bit difficult to follow. Given that I am hard of hearing, I sure would have loved if it had been closed captioned. Anyway, the boyfriend goes for a swim while she naps. When she awakens, her dog is gone. She panics and makes the guy follow her all about looking for the dog. They spend most of the time arguing and being disagreeable. Then, out of the blue, they stop to have sex. Later, they find the dog--end of story.<br /><br />As far as the characters go, both seemed rather dysfunctional and unlikable. She was a fussy and demanding lady and he seemed to have contempt for her. When you wondered why they were together, their little sex break showed what bond kept them together.<br /><br />Some might like the characterizations--I kept finding the people irritating and unreal--more like caricatures than people you might meet or know. Also, the payoff for all this just isn't worth the wait (unless you want to see the guy naked).
I'm not surprised that this film did well at the Hamptons Film Festival. It is a shallow film that would appeal well to shallow people. Two actors pretending to be actors in a relationship who fight and look for a lost dog. The film is allegedly exploring the dynamics of the relationship, however, the relationship is far too petty to merit any such exploration. This couple has one dimension: they fight, they tease, then they make love and fight some more. There brief moment of tenderness does not reveal any possible reason that these two would be involved with each other given their venomous and volatile relationship. Beautifully shot, excellent score, but without anything of merit in the script or characters, this short is just that.
Do these guys take have a computer kick out these same plots over and over again, only the names, places, and faces are changed to prevent complete boredom. Hubby is handsome and rich, but too busy to pay attention to his gorgeous wife. A situation she constantly tries to remedy. Her friend/neighbor has the same problem so they become interested in each others hubbies--the grass is always greener. Throw in a sexy scheming made who has designs on everybody and you get a lot of stripping and dipping and a salad bowl of an unintelligible plot.<br /><br />The quality of bodies is pretty high here, although not much in the way of "contact", even simulated is shown. Good late night erotica if Jay Leno can't put you to sleep.
Based on the comments made so far, everyone seems to either hate this movie or love it. I think it would be fair to point out that although this is not a GREAT movie, it has its interesting moments. For one thing, it was filmed on location in Colorado (was it Breckinridge or Telluride? I can't remember, but it is in the credits). The location is absolutely stunning and spectacular. It's beautiful, even to me who lived in Colorado for several years.<br /><br />Next, it has Disney's penchant for wonderful character actors. Harry Morgan has never been in better form than when he plays in a Disney movie. He is literally hysterical. Also, remember the wonderful Mary Wickes? Although she has a "bit part" in this movie, she is great, as always. If you don't know who she is, think of the animated Disney version of Hunchback from Notre Dame (she was one of the gargoyles), and she was also the most interesting nun in "Sister Act", as well as the best nun in "The Trouble With Angels." She has always been a great character actress and most character actors never receive the recognition they deserve.<br /><br />In addition to character actors and all-star casts, in the 1960s-1970s Disney may have not had the "greatest" movies, but, if you really watch some of them from beginning to end, you will NOTICE that every movie has some really funny or hysterical moment in it. The entire movie may not be funny, but there is always a comic gem (at least 1 or 2) in every single "live-action" movie Disney ever made. Whether it's Harry Morgan in one of his bellowing tones of voice, or Tim Conway floundering around, or Joe Flynn giving one of his priceless looks of horror, it is all good. The whole film may not be good, but there are ALWAYS hysterical moments in every Disney film from this period that I have ever seen. Disney in this time period always managed to make a person smile, despite the dumbness of the film.<br /><br />Bsed on these comments, I disagree with viewers who say every Disney movie in this time period is awful. That statement it not quite accurate. Rather, it is easier for me to give credit to the funny moments and overlook the weaknesses in the plots.<br /><br />Some live-action Disney movies are true classics (Old Yeller, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Mary Poppins), but for those that aren't, I am able to appreciate them for what they were -- good clean family fun in a time when movies had become vulgar, crude and offensive.
"Snowball Express" from the Disney Studios isn't quite as dated as some of their output from this era. There are no hippies or hot-rodders, just dull-as-dishwater Dean Jones inheriting a ramshackle hotel/ski-resort from a deceased relative. When Jones and family pull into a sleepy Colorado town, the folks who give them directions--looking like extras from "Deliverance"--are curiously vague about the hotel (we expect it to look like a one-room shanty), but actually the accommodations are very nice. Jones' teenage daughter has a sour look on her face throughout (which doesn't prevent one of the local yahoos from leering at her), and of course clumsy pop Dean Jones is a regular stumblebum on the slopes, leading to a lot of pratfalls in the slush. Perhaps this square scenario might've benefited from some magical whimsy, for this script is a frozen stiff. * from ****
This movie was pointless. I can't even call it sci-fi, since that requires more from a movie than merely taking place in space. "Max Q" isn't even set in space for the entire movie. The story/plot is unoriginal, the cast isn't anything to write home about, although it would be strange with a top cast in a mediocre film... Furthermore, it's not particularly exciting or well-told. At least it's evenly balanced in a low quality sort of way, in that nothing or no one stands out. Everything is equally bland. I usually find some quality in "space flicks", even if it's just 90 minutes of semi-lame entertainment bordering on low-budget pathetic, but "Max Q" didn't even give me that satisfaction. All in all , a complete waste of time.
I'm sorry, but this really does feel like a modern day Apollo 13 knock-off. Totally implausible (at least Armageddon FELT like a comic book! This felt like a bad High School film project), acting was about as cliché as one can get, and....landing a space shuttle on an LA freeway? Come on. Seriously. Jerry, what were you thinking? And all the clichés: The pregnant astronaut's wife, the nosy reporter who gets in everyone's way, the stalwart manager with "Go Fever". And it's one thing to twist the laws of physics or politics or whatever to make an entertaining story, but at least make it GOOD! Fact and science were totally butchered for this. The space shuttle doesn't have fuel tanks in it's wings, and even if it did, it couldn't steer by shifting fuel between them (and neither could a DC-10).<br /><br />If you like bad acting, bad storytelling, low realism, and cheesy clichés, this one can't be beat!
This film laboured along with some of the most predictable story lines and shallow characters ever seen. The writer obviously bought the playbook "How to write a space disaster movie" and followed it play by play. In particular, the stereo-typical use of astronauts talking to their loved ones from outer space - putting on a brave show in the face of disaster - has been done time and time again.<br /><br />Max Q appears to have been written in the hope that the producers would throw $50 million at the project. But, judging by the latter half of the film which contained numerous lame attempts at special effects, the producers could only muster $50 thousand. To learn that the film was nominated for a "Special Visual Effects" Emmy has me absolutely gob-smacked.<br /><br />I think a handful of high school students with a pass in Media Studies could have created more believable effects!<br /><br />And the plot holes are too numerous to mention. But I will pick one out as an example. Now, I'm no NASA expert, but surely it's highly implausible that a worker attached to the shuttle simulator would suddenly hold a position of power in the control room when things start to go pear-shaped with the program. Surely there is someone more experienced at Mission Control who the Program Director would call on rather than a twenty-nine year old who has not been in the control room before.<br /><br />The only saving grace for this film is the work of Bill Campbell. He manages to make a good attempt at salvaging something out of the train wreck that is this script.<br /><br />I give this film 2 out of 10, with the above-average work of Bill Campbell in the lead role saving it from a lower mark.
The plot was not good.<br /><br />The special effects weren't.<br /><br />The acting was... not very good at all.<br /><br />Like others, I felt there were numerous holes in the plot that you could fly, well, a space shuttle through.<br /><br />I thought the ending was rather unbelievable.<br /><br />By the way guys, about the "blow torch in space".<br /><br />Blow torches have their own supply of oxygen (Hence the name "Oxy-Acetylene torch"). Two hoses run from the torch: One to an acetylene bottle and one to an oxygen bottle.<br /><br />So a "blow torch" would work just fine in space.
Some famous stories are prone to being moved to another epoch and, as such, becoming an embarrassing TV-movie. Oscar Wilde's Canterville Ghost is one of them. This TV movie for kids is utterly cheap, concerning acting, character work, credibility, directing and even concerning the modest special effects. As often, the question arises: what was this made for?
This is a bad film, as its central message is very muddled and the plot seems like it was the result of merging several disparate scripts. As a result, it often makes absolutely no sense at all and certainly is not a film Miss Dunne or Mr. Huston should have been proud of making. However, the film IS worth watching if you are a fan of "Pre-Code" films because it features an amazingly sleazy plot that strongly says that nice girls DO put out--even if they aren't married and even if their partner IS!! <br /><br />The film begins with Miss Dunne as a social worker assisting troops heading to Europe for WWI. In the process, she meets a scalawag (Bruce Cabot) who eventually convinces her to sleep with him. She becomes pregnant and he then goes on to the next unsuspecting woman. However, Miss Dunne does NOT want him back, as she realizes he's not worth it, but later her baby dies at child birth. While all these very controversial plot elements are used, they are always alluded to--almost like they wanted the adults in the audience to know but hoped that if they phrase it or film it in just the right way, kids in the audience will be clueless (after all, films were not rated and kids might attend any film at this time).<br /><br />Surprisingly, this entire plot involving a stillborn baby and Cabot ends about 1/4 of the way through the film and is never mentioned again or alluded to. It was as if they filmed part of a movie and abandoned it--tacking it on to still another film. In this second phase of the film, Miss Dunne unexpectedly begins working at a women's prison (though we actually never really get to see her doing anything there). What we do see are countless horrible scenes of severe abuse and torture that were probably designed to titillate. And, as a result of all this violence, Miss Dunne goes on a crusade to clean up the prison and becomes a reformer and famous writer.<br /><br />But then, out of the blue, another type of film emerges and the women's prison reform business goes by the wayside. Dunne meets a judge (Walter Huston) who is married but he desperately wants her. Now throughout the film, Dunne is portrayed as a very good girl--even though she did have unmarried sex with Cabot (she was more or less tricked into it). But now, single Irene, who is a tireless reformer and good lady begins sleeping with a married man. He tells her that he and his wife are estranged and are married in name only, but she never thinks to investigate if this is true, and with his assurance, off flies her clothes and they are in the baby making business! BUT, while she's pregnant with his love child, he's indicted for being a crooked judge. He assures her he's innocent, but he's convicted and it sure sounds like he's a scoundrel--using inside information from people that have come before his bench in order to amass a fortune. Then, in the final moments of the film, Miss Dunne tries in vain to get him freed and vows to wait with the child until Huston is released. The film then ends.<br /><br />So, we basically have three separate films AND a bizarre early 30s idea of what a nice girl should be like. I gathered that she should be a strong-minded working girl who instantly becomes an idiot in her personal relationships! This really undoes all the positives about Dunne's character and it's really hard to imagine anyone liking the film. A strong women's rights advocate might easily be offended at how weak-minded and needy she was and religious people might see her as totally amoral or at least morally suspect! With a decent re-write, this could have been a good film or at least interesting as a lewd and salacious film, but it couldn't make up its mind WHAT it wanted to be and was just another dull Pre-Code film.
What can have been on Irene Dunne's mind when she accepted the role in this distasteful account of a woman of negotiable morals? Certainly, the Irene Dunne of the 1940's, whose reputation as a faithful Roman Catholic who publicly abhorred smut, and shunned any film scripts or Hollywood society, that might be even be remotely construed as corrupting public morals--would never have become associated with such a dubious project as this.<br /><br />Perhaps, New York's Cardinal Spellman, in his private audience with her, gave her a good dressing down over this role? That we will likely never know, inasmuch as she never spoke of it in later years, though she did denounce her morally suspect, (though quite successful) 1932 film, "Back Street" as "trash".<br /><br />Certainly by the time she received the distinguished St. Robert Bellarmine Award in 1965 for exemplary public Catholicism, "Ann Vickers" was no longer recalled by the general public.<br /><br />Suffice it to say that "Ann Vickers" works neither as entertainment or social commentary.<br /><br />Miss Dunne's role as an adulterous social worker, who sleeps around, (between reforming prisons and writing a best seller on correctional rehabilitation) doesn't dovetail with her temperament or on screen demeanor, and one keeps suspecting that the whole thing is a kind of tongue in cheek gag, (what else can we think when we witness a montage of Miss Dunne's sympathetic beatific gaze superimposed over a shot of a female prisoner being scourged?) By films end, she has renounced careerism in favor of marriage, (to crusty convict Walter Huston no less--and what kind of lunacy would ever conceive of pairing these two romantically?) <br /><br />Irene Dunne completists will no doubt wish to see this curiosity, if only for the chance to hear her promise to rehabilitate a cocaine addict under her charge: "I'm going to get you off the snow cold turkey" !!! <br /><br />Well, if nothing else such sordid goings on, do present her light years from her usual milieu of operatic trills, furbellowed chiffon and strawberry phosphates--cocaine addiction not being the first subject one associates with the irreproachable Miss Dunne.
I rented this type of "soft core" before, but I can honestly say, I wasn't expecting this to be in the same type as "Rod Steele: You Only Live Until You Die"--which was both sexy AND funny. It had a good script, a sincere leading man, and a sense of purpose. It also has Gabriella Hall who is hot. The reason why I didn't expect this movie, was because the box was missing the "Must be 18 to Rent" Sticker. I was looking for more "cheese" and less "cheesecake."<br /><br />First of all, I think movies shouldn't be allowed to start with "actors" rehearsing for a part at a talent agency (or wherever "actors" rehearse). In this movies seeing the "actors" rehearsing highlights the lack of preparation that went into acting out the real characters in the movie.<br /><br />Okay, having found out that this WAS a soft core movie, I didn't necessarily turn it off and demand my money back. But, the dizzying way the extended video "erotic" scenes are added to what was probably a late night pay-cable release are very annoying and easy to fast-forward through without the sustained quality of, say, Rod Steele. You know they must've had some money, because I think some of it is filmed overseas.<br /><br />I will have to say the main actor trying NOT to spill the invisibility potion on himself is one of the most baffling acting jobs I've ever seen. And, I've seen Torgo from Manos! It may actually have been worth the dollar rental fee (that and Gabriella Hall). Still, there are better corny movies to rent with your friends.
After just viewing the movie, I must say this is one of the worst films I have ever seen. This takes my worst movie award away from Komodo, which is no easy feat. It is neither a porno nor a legitimate film and it gives them both a bad name. The acting, camera-work, plot, script, and sound are all awful. My personal favorite part of the movie is the duck asking the bartender if he has any grapes. Why was a joke such as this put in the film? Was the director thinking; "I need a humorous scene to balance out the great acting so I will use some lame ass joke I read on a Laffy Taffy wrapper." Another retarded part is when Norman spills the invisibility potion on himself as he attempts to keep it from spilling. Why did they even bother to give the film a NC-17 rating, were they hoping to get as large of an audience as possible? At least if it were rated X it would be more sexual and therefore taking the viewers focus away from the overall low quality. I pray for someone who worked on this panty waste of a flick to respond.
i was surprised after watching this piece of crap , if you have seen an episode of TOM and JERRY in which jerry pours some liquid onto him and becomes invisible than you are likely to see the same cartoons with added EROTIC topping a man becoming invisible and doing S*i* is the conclusion of the movie. involving too much sex in a cartoon themed movie doesn't increase its worth :( , and most of all i was surprised when the same cartoon ending was used to show up the Mr.Invisible and that was really awful i must say , flour drops off the rack and our very own Mr.Invisible becomes Visible "watch ZACK and MIRI make a porno" i bet you wont get bored, <br /><br />1/10 from me
One would think that anyone embarking upon a followup to the groundbreaking Naked Civil Servant of 30-plus years ago would at the very least try to honor the original with some kind of inspired vision, but no. Here we have a sort of biopic of one of the most stylish people of the late 20th century that itself boasts no style whatsoever. True, the filmmakers have assembled some outstanding actors - and handed them a chipped mug of drab gruel to work with. Everything in the infrastructure of this film is wrong, starting with the script, which is another one of those TV-movie condensations of great lives wherein every other line is a "famous quote" by the subject and every other scene is an in-your-face introduction to the next pivotal character in the subject's life. We get Swoozie Kurtz as a PR maven who promotes Crisp as a stateside entertainer; Denis O'Hare as the editor of a gay periodical who hires Crisp as film reviewer, becomes somewhat alienated from him when he appears indifferent to the passions of 80's AIDS activists, and then returns to the fold as a compassionate friend of the dying octogenarian; Jonathan Tucker (in a fine performance) as a shy, insecure painter of gay-themed canvases who is befriended by Crisp; and finally Cynthia Nixon as performance artist and Woman-About-Bohemia Penny Arcade who, intrigued by Crisp's persona, offers him a spot in her traveling cabaret act. Nixon is a persuasive and gifted performer but is given no chance by the script to embody the down-to-earth and streetwise Arcade. Crisp spent the last 20 years of his life in a one-room flat in an old tenement building in Manhattan's East Village. He famously said that he never cleaned because "after a few years the dust doesn't get any worse," or something like that. But looking at the depiction of that flat in this film you'd never get the flavor of that dustiness. He frequented a local coffee shop on a busy avenue and would be seen pretty much each day of the week sipping tea and watching the world go by. In this film we get a diner that looks like something on 12th Avenue by the Hudson River. Most of the "streets of New York" scenes have a sterile, unreal look with no sense of the period. <br /><br />The soul of this film is the great John Hurt in the title role. After nearly 35 years he can still grasp the essence of this peculiar post-Edwardian Englishman and put it across to third millennarians. His every line, every gesture is exquisite. In the later scenes he even modulates his vocal projection to suit that of a person whose life is winding down toward death. Crisp wrote shortly before he left this realm that when one grows very, very old one's skin takes on the character of a smelly overcoat that cannot be removed and one longs for death. One senses that feeling in Hurt's performance. So, for him and him alone this film is worth a look.
In this follow up to The Naked Civil Servant we see the final years of Quentin Crisp's life in New York. John Hurt is again Crisp (come on who else could play the part?) and its a role he inhabits to the point of disappearing. For me Hurt is Crisp and I've always found it very hard to take the man himself because Hurt was more him than he was himself. Its masterful performance. His equal is Denis O'Hare as Phillip Steele, Crisp's long time friend and confidant.<br /><br />Unfortunately outside of the performances the film has little to recommend it. To be certain the film gets the details right. Filmed in and around New York the film the film looks and feels like New York and its environs, but dramatically its kind of inert. Its Crisp talking to people being witty,trying to come to terms with the world as it is (he ended up regretting some poorly chosen words concerning AIDS) and dealing with the infirmities that old aged thrust upon him. Quentin the man is always interesting, but his life as portrayed is really not.<br /><br />I am disappointed by the film. I've always admired the man and his unique point of view. I just wish he was better served by this film about his life.
I saw this last night at the Tribeca Film Fest and holy god was it bad.. From the script to the editing to the acting to the cinematography-- none of it worked. Not to mention the set design/costumes were so distractingly wrong for the time period (it spans the years from the late 70s up until 2006 or so). Even John Hurt, who's usually an amazing actor, was so over-the- top ridiculous. Granted, Quinten Crisp is an over-the-top guy to begin with, but Hurt was given nothing to work with here. I don't know much else to say except the audience I saw it with absolutely loved it.. so maybe it's just me. But audiences love anything at film festivals when they're sitting next to the director and all the actors. It's not a very accurate test of how good the movie is or how well it will play. Personally, I thought this movie was terrible. On the other hand, it was so terrible that it was hilarious. Get drunk and give it a shot when it's on HBO in 2 years, if it ever makes it that far.
This must be the most boring film I ever saw. The only positive I can say about it is that thankfully I didn't pay to see it. We were given a free showing in school and everyone in the audience just sat there embarrassed wondering when the fun would start. This piece of junk is a badly filmed, way too long film. The actual idea on why making the movie took about 10 seconds to present. The only ones who can be interested in this film are those who lost their jobs and want to know why. They might find some of the interviews interesting. A different edit might have made an interesting documentary of this, but I doubt it, the interviews shown were not engaging in any way. As it is, it is just a tragedy, both to behold and to be a part of. AVOID THIS FILM AT ANY COST!
Can you people please stop believing everything this man says. Get<br /><br />your facts straight before you start praising this liar. He's not even<br /><br />from Flint. He just says that to keep his "blue collar" look. He's <br /><br />from a rich suburb next to Flint. I mean he went to a private school.<br /><br />His parents paid for him to go to school. Wow, that sure does seem<br /><br />like they suffered a lot from Flint going to the dumps. He was also born in Canada. Oh wait, that makes him a Canadian citizen. I wish he would just move there. Instead he lives here in his 1 million dollar New York apartment. Thats working class right there. I sure can't wait for his DVD set to come out. I want to here him talking about how big corporations are bad. Where will I get those dvds? Oh yeah, at Target and Wal-Mart. The two biggest corporations in America, which were also the only two stores allowed to sell them.
Leni Riefenstahl would be embarrassed by the disgusting propaganda Moore tries to call "humor". That this movie, and Moore's other prevarications, actually attract admirers proves that, alas, it's possible to fool some of the people all of the time.<br /><br />Let's see if we can bait foreigners. Let's see if we can extol obsolete factories. Let's see if we can add to the sum of hatred in the world. Let's see if we can pretend we're funny. Let's see if we can out-isolationist Charles Lindbergh. The only thing Moore lacks in comparison to Lindbergh is a medal from Göring.<br /><br />Admittedly, in this film, Moore had a bit of self-deprecation to his schtick. In this film, Moore mocks Roger Smith, CEO of General Motors, as an aloof, uncaring elitist. Moore could do that in 1989, but now that Moore has surrendered himself to aloof, uncaring elitism, this characterization of Roger Smith has an ironic twinge. Who really wouldn't rather be Roger's buddy than Michael Moore's?
During university, our Philosophy professor, Mr.R, played us "Roger & Me" in its entirety. This was at a time when the obese misfit was still pretty much unknown; a charlatan-in-the-making, a soon-to-be-household-name who was still busy honing his fact-bending skills and still learning how to manipulate the easily impressed, the pathologically paranoid, the mentally ill, the sexually frustrated, the illiterate, the semi-literate, the clueless, and the laughably gullible among ye.<br /><br />As we finished viewing it, I thought: "Yeah, it was somewhat entertaining - in a totally daft Bugs Bunny kind of way - but what an ultra-biased, anti-Capitalist propaganda turkey that has no objectivity whatsoever this is; its sole purpose being to take cheap shots at people and ideas which the film's creator has pet-peeves for. This isn't a documentary by any stretch of the imagination." However, our beloved Marxist professor was absolutely thrilled with R&M, and we ended up not only NOT criticizing any aspects of it, but Mr.R actually spent the remainder of class praising its "qualities". Just so we understand each other, the words "propaganda", "viewer manipulation", "left-wing Extremist", or "selective fact presentation" never exited his perpetually smiling mouth... And just to remind you: this was supposed to be a philosophy class, not INDOCTRINATE YOUR STUDENTS WITH YOUR OWN POLITICAL B.S. course.<br /><br />Anyway, now I get to the really interesting aspect: this professor, Mr.R, is now a highly successful screenwriter in Hollywood. He has written several left-wing scripts with A-grade stars in them.<br /><br />The moral of the story: those are the kind of people for whom all doors are open in Hollywood.<br /><br />Michael Moore is a talentless filmmaker (which he proved beyond a smidgen of a doubt with "Canadian Bacon"), but being a Marxist liberal opens doors to just about anyone. Tinseltown is teeming with rabid pro-Chavez extremists, hence why political brainwashing through simplistic portrayals of reality has been part-and-parcel of the Hollywood experience for many decades now.<br /><br />Embrace this demagogue and you've betrayed your own brain forever.
I was forced to watch this film for my World Reigonal Geography class. This film is what is wrong with America today, instead of figuring out the best way out of hard times or situations we would rather complain about how it is someone else's fault. This film goes through the downfall of Flint, Michigan and blames it 100% on General Motors. In the process of doing so Moore goes to great lengths to make the executives of General Motors out to be villains just because they are doing their job in a capitalist society. Moore films several evictions throughout the film and does not ever even ask once if the person is being evicted because of a GM layoff. Additionally, he never interviews the landlords of the tenants filmed. Moore goes to great lengths to twist historical events to fit his political agenda in this film of pure propaganda.
That this film has such a low IMDb rating is not surprising. In our post-Enron era, do we really need any more reminders of America's obsession with the greed creed? The topic has become so politically charged that a lot of viewers not only are not going to be entertained by movies of this sort, but will respond with barely concealed rage. It was all I could do to sit quietly through this cinematic memo of corporate corruption without extracting the DVD and smashing it into a thousand pieces.<br /><br />What's really irksome with these kinds of films, including "Purpose", is their pretense that behind the glitter, there's some meaningful message that makes the film worthwhile. In "Purpose", I found no such meaningful message. What I did find was a story that idolized the materialistic trappings of capitalistic power and wealth. The two main characters, nauseating in their glibness, do very little actual work. Instead, they party, they play golf, they strut their coolness, they sound "hip" with dialogue straight out of MTV-culture-speak: "rock my world", and "Now get back to partying; that's an order". John is smug, self-important, shallow, and smirks a lot. Robert, who wears funky little glasses, is even worse.<br /><br />The film includes two youthful garage geeks, who look and sound like they're right out of the film "Antitrust" (2001). Stereotypes are played for all they're worth, and in this film also include chic-looking computer equipment, and Barbie doll chicks on hand for those occasions when our can-do future billionaires need some relaxation after all that heavy-duty partying. And with the time-bound images and dialogue that such a story necessitates, can you imagine how dated this film will be in fifteen years?<br /><br />About the best I can do for this waste of cinematic celluloid is to say that it does have some nice aerial views of San Francisco. The film would have been a lot more enjoyable, a lot more entertaining, if they had ditched those odious characters and that repulsive story, and simply flown us viewers around in that little plane for the film's duration.
Computer savvy John Light (as John Elias) goes from Stanford drop-out to successful young Dotcom-era tycoon. But, Mr. Light's sneering success could be short-lived, with partners like ambitious Jeffrey Donovan (as Robert Jennings). Mr. Donovan used to bed down with Light's girlfriend, Megan Dodds (as Lisa Forrester). Donovan wants Light to know that binge drinking and casual sex don't have to end in college. After reading a naughty Internet sex session, Ms. Dodds shines Light on. He may lose is "Digital Dreams" Internet empire, too! Veterans unsuccessfully trying to lending dramatic gravitas include red lollipop-sucking Mia Farrow (as Anna Simmons) and quick-drawing, computer-hating Hal Holbrook (as Tom Walker). Ms. Farrow looks sweet with her lollipops.<br /><br />*** Purpose (2/21/02) Alan Lazar ~ John Light, Jeffrey Donovan, Mia Farrow
Ham-handed homage to honest hacking. Felt good in a soft-core way about equivalent to its mild pornography, until its vapid lack of technical and economic reality, emotional and moral sophistication became apparent.<br /><br />Basically a muddled '90s remake of '85's "Real Genius", with fewer and stupider geniuses, and a cynical bad ending.<br /><br />Perhaps this movie would appeal to someone delighted by the thesis that becoming a billionaire is so easy it's almost accidental. Or perhaps to technical types who like seeing themselves depicted as cool and sexy. Speculating about the reasons someone might like this movie is certainly more interesting than the movie itself. The movies closing credits song is more interesting than the movie itself.
This film tells the true story of escaped black slaves who found their own mountain-top commune as free men in 17th-century Brazil. The story is interesting and edifying. However, this film -- as a film -- is terrible.<br /><br />The soundtrack is not period music or tribal music. It is Afro-Brazilian pop music from the early 1980s. Battle scenes are fought to the sounds of cheesy pop rhythms best left to the disco or bad cops dramas. Admittedly, the lyrics are folk-ish tales of the slaves' heroism. The special effects are absurd. Rather than invoke the mysticism of African religion and atavistic beliefs, they merely make the film look cheap. They are completely unbelievable, and I don't mean merely in a sense of verisimilitude.<br /><br />Life within the commune of Palmares could not have been the way it is portrayed in the film. For this society, as shown in the film, is one-part kibbutz, one-part Afro-pop festival. Moreover, it is almost embarrassing to watch the director play upon the clichés of blacks as talented singers and dancers who simply want to be happy. He portrays daily life as a series of dance parties in which the freed slaves paint themselves bright colors and whirl around to the strains of '80s pop music. On the other hand, they have an abundance of beautiful food, but the viewer hardly sees any work being done. The king inveighs against private property in a hackneyed and clichéd way. When a man complains that people are taking the vegetables that he has grown over many months, the king says, "What comes from the earth belongs to everyone, as the earth belongs to no one. If they need food, they have a right to take yours."<br /><br />I am glad that I learned about this episode in history, but I am relieved that a film with such low production values and that trades upon such worn stereotypes would likely not be made today.
Dreadful, stupidly inane film dealing with corruption at the Louisiana Purchase Lumber Company.<br /><br />Everyone in the state of Louisiana seems to be corrupt and inept. A member of the college's English Department can only sign his name with an X.<br /><br />When it appears that a straight laced Senator (Victor Moore) is coming to the state to investigate, everyone there tries to blame the innocent but foolish Bob Hope character.<br /><br />Is it any wonder that Vera Zorina did not get the part of Maria in 1943's "For Whom the Bell Tolls?"<br /><br />Naturally, the corrupt officials along with Hope try to show pictures of Zorina with Moore so as to ruin him politically. Moore marries the head of the restaurant who he had insulted when he asked for a ham sandwich. He thought the reason that she was upset was because it was a kosher restaurant. This is the extent of humor is this absolute mess of a film.<br /><br />When Hope tries to defend himself in Congress, he does a take-off of James Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." By then the film is too far gone for any good response.<br /><br />The music and lyrics are both absolutely terrible. That song praising Louisiana, sung in various ways, is absolutely terrible. Irving Berlin had something to do with the music of this utterly terrible film?
My wife and I couldn't even finish the film. Truly, it was rather painful.<br /><br />First, the historical accuracy is compromised not so much by the events themselves as the ridiculous one-dimensionality of the characters. For instance, Augustus takes the "burden" of power only with great reluctance. Indeed, he is portrayed as if he's some sort of great humanist and believer in democracy.<br /><br />Second, the camp! My lord, the dialog is horrifically bad. I recall the soap opera my mother watched when I was a child having better dialog than this. The constant exposition and pontificating grates upon the ears like fingernails on chalkboard. Ugh. (Okay, I exaggerate a bit, but the dialog truly is bad.) The HBO series Rome is superior for no other reason than that its characters were at least believable, regardless of their historicity.<br /><br />Rome was also wise enough to know they couldn't stage epic battle scenes. The creators of this film did not. When Caesar attacks Munda, the battle scene is practically farcical.<br /><br />I will grant that the costumes are perfectly good. The sets are fine, though their CGI backdrops can be a bit jarring at times. The sound is bad, though—both in terms of the music, the foley work, and the dubbing of so many of the side characters.<br /><br />Anyway, it's completely not worth renting. As a history major, I was hoping for an alternative approach to Augustus than HBO's Rome, which, I feel, failed to capture his overall "feel" quite as well as they did Caesar or Antony. Instead, I should have just stuck to my reading.
This is a voice of a person, who just finished watching the second season of Rome, almost at one go, and grabbed the opportunity to see "what happened next" - this film conveniently takes off where Rome ends. If you find Rome an abomination, a foul mouthed screw-fest of little historical accuracy, then you might enjoy Imperium: Augustus. But, if you feel Rome is a good thing, if you enjoy the complicated intrigue, the ambiance of decadence and the work of the actors, then Imperium will obviously appear to you as an overly timid, superfluous and tedious soap opera with not many redeeming factors.<br /><br />There are some actors who for my taste look somewhat better than these in Rome. I especially disliked Rome's image of Cleopatra as a drug-soaked sex addict. There must have been a great deal of strength and dignity in that woman, and the actress in Imperium suits the part much better. O'Toole and Rampling are good, and so are some others. But then... If you have come to know - and love - Atia as the super cool bitch, you'll find the depiction of her in Imperium - as a tear-jerking mother goose in an apron - absolutely ridiculous. There are supposed to be some bitchy characters in Imperium, but these actresses rely heavily upon staring at the men and nothing much more. You'll find no interesting female characters in this epic. There's also the painfully comic Maecenas, whom we see as a screeching drag queen, even though there is little historical evidence that he was such (he's once referred to as "being effeminate in his pleasures" in the annals).<br /><br />The interiors are rather meager and rely on clichés upon clichés. Cleopatra's big hall looks like something out of a computer game or a children's play room in an Egyptian theme park. There's a looooooooot of really poor 3D graphics, not up to 2003 standards.<br /><br />The action is presented as a series of flashbacks the aged Augustus is reliving. So we get a quick look at some historical events, some of which are presented well, whereas some are not. An disproportional amount of time is wasted to show Livia as the "eternal flame" of Augustus. This affair doesn't sizzle for even a moment, the dialog is superlame and everything is seasoned with tacky tear-inducing musical score. Whatever amount of reality the show aims to capture, every last shred of it is destroyed by the dry synchronized dubbing (most of the actors are non English speakers).<br /><br />Everything is lukewarm in this epic. True, there are more historical accuracies than in Rome, but dramatically speaking, it's plain boring. The characters lack depth and the dialog sharpness. Camera-work is often reduced to static shots, and lighting offers nothing to please your eye.<br /><br />There's really no-one to love and no-one to hate in Imperium. Regardless of whether you liked or disliked Rome, there are much better films and miniseries around. Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire would be one thing I recommend.
In terms of historical accuracy, this is the absolute worst Roman film I have ever seen. The list not only of errors but of plot ideas that are flat impossible would run longer than the three-hour film, but just to give you an idea...<br /><br />Julius Caesar and Augustus are presented as liberal Democrats, taking the side of "the people" against "the nobles." This is patently absurd. The Caesars were as noble as you could get. Their interest was in consolidating power and stabilizing a country that had been wrecked by 150 years of civil war. There had been reformers, notably the Gracchi brothers, who lived about 100 years earlier, and to some extent advocated for the rights of ordinary citizens.<br /><br />There are several scenes that are utterly ridiculous, if you know anything about the period. "Cleopatra", with Richard Burton, will give you a much better idea of how events unfolded, fanciful though it is.<br /><br />Historical accuracy is one thing. Acting and dialogue are something else, and here this film veers perilously close to being a bad junior high school production. I burst out laughing several times, especially when Julia, the daughter of Augustus, meets a lover. They clutch passionately, as she breathes: "My father..." "Ah, your father, your father.... your father would disapprove." Peter O'Toole is at his worst, forced to gnaw his way through some very pompous and silly lines. The actor who plays Augustus as a young man is such a nebbish --- and the character is written as such --- it's impossible to envision him as the cunning, crafty, Machiavellian politician who created the Roman Empire. Here, he's just a whiner who has to be told what to do most of the time.<br /><br />Charlotte Rampling does manage to emerge from an underwritten role as Livia, Augustus's wife, with dignity. Had she been given a fuller role to play, she might have rescued this production from absurdity.<br /><br />There is some nice photography and battle footage, helped by plenty of standard issue CGI. Oddly, this was made for British TV (and appears to be a British-Italian co-production) but is labeled with an "R" rating.<br /><br />The DVD picture is excellent and the Dolby Digital soundtrack is very nice, although you only notice it during the few action sequences, as the movie is mostly talk.<br /><br />Almost any Roman movie, even "Cleopatra" or "The Fall of the Roman Empire", has more historicity --- to say nothing of compelling drama --- than this bizarre Classics Illustrated, Jr. adaptation. This one gives new meaning to the much-abused phrase, "Based on a true story." In this case they could have said, "Suggested by real events."
For several reasons, this movie is simply awful. Other posters have listed some of this movie's historical errors. Well, I have a layman's knowledge of Roman history and even I found the inaccuracies flagrant. I usually forgive errors in historical movies because I understand that the purpose is to entertain not educate. And shrinking a long saga down to a two hour feature requires some, let's say, historical license. But this movie goes well beyond mere rounding.<br /><br />There's worse. To tell a story from a distant period, the movie uses flashbacks which just make the story more confusing. Unless viewers have some prior knowledge of the period, they will quickly be lost. In addition, the movie was obviously filmed simultaneously in Italian and English with various actors being dubbed later. At times, the actors seem as if they were in completely different movies which were then edited together. In fact, this is not far wrong. The actors were obviously pasted onto a cheesy computer generated ancient Rome.<br /><br />The only reason I give this boring mess any stars is because I always find Peter O'Toole entertaining. But that is no reason to rent it. If you are curious about Roman history, there are much better movies available.
What a stupid waste of money! 30,000 square feet of rebuilt ancient Rome, 2 millions cubic meters of 50 feet tall buildings, 10,000 costumes, 2 years of works, an International Ancient History Committee (sic!), some first class actors and actresses . The final result? An empty TV-movie for a single-digit IQ attendance.
What can I say about this? Such a big Prestige-Production - but in the End? Wasted Time, wasted Money.<br /><br />This work a disaster is historically seen. Only some examples:<br /><br />* Augustus often is named 'Gaius' - his First name (Pronomen). But the old Romans don't used this Name. Correct would be the Surname (Nomen Gentile and Cognomen) or the 'Octavian', 'Caesar', 'Augustus'.<br /><br />* Livia was shown as tyrannic Wife. But this historically wrong.<br /><br />* Iulia was shown as nice young woman - but she wasn't one. Adultery and (maybe?) Prostitution and arrogant behavior was the cause of her banishing.<br /><br />* She wasn't at the dying bed of her Father. She never was allowed to leave her banishing. And she was at this time around 50 years old! Not as young as she was shown. In the same Year Augustus died she committed suicide, because Tiberius stopped giving her a Pension.<br /><br />* Augustus was much more scruplesless then in this Movie shown. But Author and Director seems to believe Augustus' own 'Res Gestae'.<br /><br />What remains? Historically extremely doubtful, bad acting, bad built and equipment - 2 Points out of 10 - one for Peter O'Toole.
Wesley Snipes latest straight to video film is a convoluted mess, horribly reminiscent of Steven Seagal's latest works. The script is horribly written and makes no account for the low budget it is and tries to be too clever for its own good. Sadly too, Snipes has fallen into the trap of having an ADR voice double doing much of his dialogue, and an entire narration that comes every now and again through points in the movie. It's sad to see a guy of Wesley Snipes talent doing garbage like this film, and producing a tired and clearly bored performance, barely bothered to produce his own dialogue. It's become somewhat of a joke with Steven Seagal, the fact he doesn't perform his own dialogue, but it's not something I'd have expected from Snipes. Perhaps it's due to the producer, Andrew Stevens who has worked with Seagal previously, or the director Po-Chi Leong, responsible for Seagal's epically bad Out Of Reach.<br /><br />The plot involves shady government officials, terrorists who coach soccer teams, disks with incriminating evidence on and a hefty chuck of missing money. Oh and biological weapons. Now how they are connected I don't know but what I can tell you is the diabolical script is pretty hard to fathom and like many of these DTV movies, this likes to include one twist too many. The plot is also uninterestingly told, playing out it's cards with people having shady one to ones in offices and dark alleys etc. It's all kind of "lets have a sit down and dish out some plot points for the sad bastards watching this film!" The pace of the movie as such suffers because despite the dullness of the performances and the storyline, the film does have some nice action scenes. As an example of how a DTV film has successfully put across a storyline of a twisting nature, I give you Dolph Lundgren's directorial debut, the Defender. That movie had it's share of twists and over complexity but the movie has a last hour of almost entirely action, with Dolph under siege form terrorists. The plot points are told in the context of action, on the move, while avoiding death. The movie doesn't stop to tell us what's happening, it doesn't break up the pace. As such although the plot was a little convoluted, it was more forgivable cause the action never let up. The Detonator like too many of these films, stops everything to give us a convoluted walk through of who's bad, and who isn't, before inevitably shifting that round in the pulled from the rear end twist at the end. These movies can often suffer with pacing issues.<br /><br />Snipes himself as I mentioned is pretty bland here. At the beginning he's putting on a camp persona as he's undercover with some arms dealers. Initially it seemed as if he was enjoying himself but unfortunately the rest of the movie sees him and his occasional voice double sleepwalking through the role. Snipes only comes alive when he's called upon to kick ass. There's some nice action here though, with some swift and crunching martial arts and some nicely punchy shootouts. The film also features a decent car chase. Silvia Colloca co-star and she's not much of an actress, but she is gorgeous, with a costume that screams "look at my cleavage!" The rest of the cast flit in and out with clichéd and uninteresting roles.<br /><br />Snipes thankfully has better projects lined up from now. He has another team up with Mario Van Peebles, called Hard Luck, then he will do Chasing The Dragon, from the director Chris Nahon, who did Jet Li's Kiss Of The Dragon. Finally Snipes is apparently doing Toussaint, a biographical drama, directed by Danny Glover. The future is suddenly looking brighter for Snipes, but lets remember he was getting extremely well paid for his DTV films, around $7million a movie, possibly more. It's also funny to consider that of all these DTV god's Dolph Lundgren is doing the better films, directing himself, with the enjoyable Defender and the supremely violent and nicely done The Russian Specialist, and what's more he's doing them on a fraction of the budgets of these diabolical offerings from Wesley and Steven Seagal are producing. *1/2
I've seen a few bad action movies in my days, but this one's just plain awful. I feel it's a waste of time to even write this but I'll make it short. Why this movie suck? here are 10 reasons: 1. Very amateurly directed and cut. 2. Bad bad bad acting of the whole cast. 3. Silly dialogs and too many clichés. 4. Too many plot holes, a lot of scenes don't add up. 5. Bad photographing (and a lot of continuity issues). 6. Ridiculously bad performance by the lead female actress. 7. Unreliable action scenes (and not too good, either). 8. Even for a Snipes movie, he shows a big lack of acting materials. 9. Outrageous accents (of all the cast). 10. Last, but not least - too many implausible facts, such as a tournament of soccer in the U.S., CIA needing to do background checks to get new information about their employees, a mattress that is explosion proof and so on. In essence - it's a waste of time, it's not funny, not entertaining, not even as a joke - DON"T WATCH IT!!! Seriously, just don't.
After an undercover mission in Bucharest to disclose an international gang of weapon dealers, the agent Sonni Griffith (Wesley Snipes) is assigned to protect the Romanian Nadia Kaminski (Silvia Colloca), the widow of an accountant of the Romanian Mafia. However, the CIA safe house is broken in by the criminals, and Sonni realizes that the information was leaked from inside the Agency. Alone, trusting only in his friend Michael Shepard (William Hope), Sonni fights to survive and protect Nadia.<br /><br />The career of Wesley Snipes is downhill. I have just seen this flick, and it is another disappointing movie of this actor, whose career is presently very similar to Steven Segal's one. The movie has many explosions, shots and car chase associated to an awful story and horrible acting. First, the Afro-American Wesley Snipes is chased by the police of Bucharest, but they never find a black American man. I have never been in Romania, but I believe there are not many Afro-Americans in this country. His character does not like to bath, wearing the same clothes along many days. There is no chemistry between Sonni and the sexy Silvia Colloca, but she freely has sex, falls in love for him and shares her fortune with him. The boy that performs Nadia's son is horrible. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "O Detonador" ("The Detonator")
Unlike some of the reviews written here, I didn't hate this movie. It is a movie that COULD have been much better than it was. Not Oscar material, true, but much better than it was.<br /><br />I thought the plot had a good hook and through line. Granted, this movie was badly written. And TERRIBLY directed and produced. I mean, how many irrelevant flashbacks can you have? Why were we there? What exactly is the point of the opening sequence? It seems like the producer(s) watched American Beauty a few too many times and thought 'I'll use that in an action movie!' I thought the movie wasn't that badly acted. Wesley Snipes did a credible job, he just ran afoul of some bad direction. And once this movie hit the production room, things just got worse. The main actress, I think, had the same problems. Some of the other acting was suspect, yes, but it was a low-budget flick. Again, I would say it is the director's job to pick that up and correct it.<br /><br />As an overall recommendation, I would agree with the first review I read that this movie is not worth seeing. Or maybe it is worth seeing, if you are a film student and want to see what NOT to do.<br /><br />3/10, and that's giving it praise.
Since Wesley Snipes descended(or Ascended)to the world of DTV action movies the result has been Miss,so-so,and miss.Unstoppible was weak.7 seconds was entertaining.The marksman was the proverbial scraping of the septic tank.<br /><br />And what of The Detonator?We'll anything would be above suffering the Marksman again.But the Detonator holds a small amount of merit that is hampered by a lazy star and Low budget.<br /><br />Sonny Griffith is a not-so-by-the-book Covert op who busts illegal arms dealers in Poland.When his latest assignment ends up a bullet-buffet leaving a pile of bodies;Sonny then is ordered to escort a witness; Nadia (the ever-hot Silvia Colloca) to the US.Trouble is; Sonny is being duped by a traitor in his own organization who is keeping his trail hot for Gangsters with Nuclier Ambitions.<br /><br />Snipes delivers in the action department.He is in half-blade mode here.He actually does well in the first 15 minutes of the Detonator,before descending into pure sleepwalking mode that ruined the Marksman.Colloca does more than look pretty.There is some conviction to her scenes.A lot of the actors look familiar,and have been in the last 3 or 4 Seagal/Snipes movies.Its always good to see Michael Brandon again.<br /><br />The action is telegraphed here.But never boring.Running,car chases,Fights.Director Po-Chih Leong seems to have gotten better after the Seagal farce;Out of Reach.He does a credible job.But is constantly hampered by the low budget.Enough with the eastern Euro-locations.Its cheapening the movie's look.Vancover cannot be that much expensive can it?<br /><br />The Detonator ends just average.It does not have the so-bad its fun aspect of Seagal' Mercenary for Justice. But it is nowhere near as entertaining as Van Damme's Second in command.Nor as thrilling as Dolph's Mechanik.Perhaps Dolph should direct Wesley next eh?<br /><br />Its high time The producers pump a little more money and thought into these DTV titles with the kind of money they are making from them.Its only fair.The result could be a high seller perhaps?<br /><br />Snipes would be advised to try making this one his last DTV action flick.Its sad to see YET another waste of this gifted actor's Talents.
to start off, i'm easily pleased. i'm in no way a real critic, and movies that authentic critics, friends, family, and newspapers may find awful may even be fun for me to watch.<br /><br />not this one however.<br /><br />i got it since it was the newest wesley snipes movie in my DVD-store. i like snipes, but this was a let-down.<br /><br />bad story, bad actors, continuity-glitches, crappy sound, depressing locations, a pseudo- cool snipes, i really had to force myself to finish the movie.<br /><br />they even left some markings in the shots where a car was supposed to come to a stop.<br /><br />and i'm not talking about "small production company/young director/low budget" kind of bad, where you may ignore some mistakes because you feel sympathy.<br /><br />a wanna-be block buster action movie that disappoints like no other in a long time.
The Detonator is set in Bucharest where some sort of ex CIA Government agent named Sonni Griffith (Wesley Snipes) has tracked down a arms dealer named Dimitru (Matthew Leitch), things go wrong though & Dimitru finds out that Sonni is working for the US Government. After a big shoot-out most of Dimitru's men have been killed by Sonni which the local Romanian police force are unhappy about, top man Flint (Michael Brandon) decides to send Sonni back to the US & at the same time protect a woman named Nadia Cominski (Silvia Colloca) who is also being sent back to the US. However it turns out that Nadia is wanted by Dimitru & his football club owning boss Jozef (Tim Dutton) who need her in order to complete a deal for a nerve gas bomb which they intend to set off in Washington killing millions of people...<br /><br />This American & Romanian co-production was directed by Po-Chih Leong & The Detonator confirms beyond any shadow of a doubt that Wesely Snipes has joined the washed up action film stars club who are relegated to making generic action films in Eastern European locations, yep Snipes has joined such luminaries as Jean-Claude Van Damme, Steven Seagal, Dolph Lundgren, Rutger Hauer & Chuck Norris. I give Snipes a bit of credit since he held on a little longer than the rest with the excellent Blade: Trinity (2004) still fresh in a lot of cinema goers minds (every film he has made since has gone straight-to-DVD) but it had to happen sooner or later, like a lot of the names I've mentioned Snipes has lived off the reputation of a few great films & if you look at his career he's been in more bad films that good ones. Like the recent films of JCVD & Seagal The Detonator is pretty awful. The script by Martin Wheeler is as predictable, boring & by-the-numbers as anything out there. The Detonator is the sort of film you expect to see on an obscure cable TV channel playing at 2 O'clock in the morning. The Detonator is chock full of clichés, Snipes is forced into a situation where he has to protect a woman & at first they dislike each other but by the end they are in love, his closest friend at the CIA turns out to be a traitor while the obnoxious by the book boss no-one likes actually turns out to be a pretty decent guy, Snipes character is allowed to run around Bucharest shooting, killing & blowing people up like it doesn't matter & he never gets arrested, the action is dull & forgettable, the bad guy own a football club so there are lots of annoying football terminology & there aren't even any funny one-liners.<br /><br />Director Leong doesn't do anything anything to liven things up, The Detonator looks cheap with a car chase in which the two cars never seem to get over the 30mph mark. OK the action scenes are relatively well staged but they are few & far between & utterly forgettable in a 'bad guy shoots at Snipes & misses, in return Snipes shoots at bad guy & kills him' sort of way. There's a half decent car crash & explosion but very little else. It seems some of The Detonator was shot in a Romanian football stadium, I think I'd rather have watched the game for 90 minutes rather than this film.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $15,000,000 The Detonator is reasonably well made but not that much really happens. Set & filmed in Bucharest in Romania. The acting isn't that great, Snipes just doesn't seem interested & feels like he is just there for the money which I don't blame him for at all.<br /><br />The Detonator is yet another poor clichéd action film starring a has been actor & set in Eastern Europe. Why do Sony keep making these things? Not recommend, there are much better action fare out there.
Let's get one thing straight: I like much of Snipes' work. Unlike his other high-kicking contemporaries (Seagal and Van Damme) he can actually act. This film, however, does little to enhance his reputation; it's not exactly unwatchable - but I am not in any hurry to watch it again either. In fact, if I never saw it again it wouldn't bother me - there are just loads of better films out there to waste my on! It's a pity because with a bit of imagination and and some subtle changes this could have been a worthwhile film. Instead the director has chosen to almost try and bludgeon his audience into submission with too much over-the-top violence and very little characterisation.<br /><br />The biggest problem I have is with Snipes' co-star, Silvia Colloca. It baffles me that the producers of this film went to all the bother of hiring a stunning beautiful (for my money anyway) and talented actress like Miss Colloca and then give her such a pathetic one-dimensional character to play with. If she was hired to simply add a bit of "glamour" to the movie she doesn't even do that very well; there's no nudity in the film and also no sex scene worth mentioning. Strange, really. Given the amount of violence in this film it baffles me why the producers have taken such a conservative attitude to sex and nudity. Are we living in 2007 or in 1957? What the producers of this rubbish (and probably the actors as well) have forgotten is that films are meant to be fantasies. Like most of the inhabitants of this planet my real life is very boring. I would love to be chasing terrorists, be able to handle myself like Mr Snipes and hook up with a beautiful young thing like Miss Colloca. This film satisfies none of those fantasies very well. Which is precisely why I am giving it such a bad review!
I am from Romania ... and for that i apologize if my English is not so good.<br /><br />i just finished watching this movie and i must say that i am extremely disappointed. I always liked Wesley Snipes's movies but this one is terrible. I regret that I spent over 3 hours downloading this film. There are a lot mistakes in the film. For example, the stadium in the film is not Lia Manoliu. The name of the stadium is Ghencea. The name of the soccer team is called Steaua Bucuresti, not Uli.The scoreboard of the stadium is not capable of showing graphical images: video replays, live images etc. It's a simple scoreboard that can only display letters and numbers. The Uli(Seaua) team's opponents are displayed on the scoreboard as Din ( probably from Dinamo Bucuresti - who are Steaua's main rivals in the Romanian soccer championship). The images from the soccer match are from a match between Steaua Bucuresti and Poli Timisoara (my favorite team and my only love - look it up on the internet and you will see why). The police cars in the movie are not properly made. There isn't a single dark-blue police car in Romania! They are all white! The "mistake list" can go on and on and on ... but i will stop here! In short terms this movie is horrible. It does not worth renting it, it does not worth buying a cinema ticket for it, it does not worth downloading it! I honestly feel sorry that Wesley snipes played in this movie. A previous movie of his ... 7 seconds ... also filmed in Romania ... was OK but this is terrible!
OK, ill be brief. This film wasn't just bad it was very very bad, with line4s like " if you deal with the devil you expect to get sh*t on your shoes" you know your in hideous film territory. After watching this film i wanted to kill myself and my entire family, it gave me such a vast feeling of self-loathing I wanted to do murder. don't watch this film. i will kill again. but when I do it will be terribly edited with a pathetic soundtrack and stock shot for hire action sequences and bad shirts.<br /><br />fortunately there is a flipside, its the first action film to feature a three door ford sierra.<br /><br />unfortunately it ends up trashed on its roof :(<br /><br />Ps: Worse than the Marksman
At first sight, I must say already, watch The Contractor, 2007. With Wesley Snipes too. A better action movie and with a more dramatic plot.<br /><br />The Detonator has an horrendous plot focusing in some sort of atomic bomb, set in Romania and with awful directing for an action movie-- there is no thrilling moments and an action movie is turned in to boredom.<br /><br />Really, what you expect Wesley Snipes to do, when awful screenplays like this one are offered to him? Don't blame him, he needs the money.<br /><br />This was the first impression when I saw the movie, 3 years ago. But I won't see it again, no way. Screw it. It sucks. There. I said it.<br /><br />PS: I don't think I ever said "this movie sucks" on a IMDb review. Thank you, Detonator!
Meh, Sums it all up for me really. Boring story, bland dialogue, dull action scenes (HOW do you make something like a fight or a shootout boring? Do you actually have to TRY to do that?), no real characters etc. Just dull. Snipes is a gifted actor and physical performer but none of this has come to the surface in ANY of his DTV work, when the opportunity is there to give the audience a much more superior product than they are used to. Imagine a decent script with a few solid characters that you care about and some damn explosive action, fights, shootouts, etc. How can it be that hard to handle? My personal opinion is that the primary players in the productions simply do not care. There is no evidence of enthusiasm for what they are doing. Look at Snipes in the first 2 Blades, Passenger 57, Rising Sun, New Jack City, Demolition Man etc? Awesome, intense performances complemented by decent (if not always outstanding) scripts, good supporting casts and wicked action.<br /><br />None of that is evident in any of these releases so far which is a tremendous shame. The distributors slap Wesley's face on the cover, knowing the audience will lap them up as they haven't realised yet that they haven't seen him in theatres for nearly 2 years.<br /><br />I'd love to see Snipes work with somebody like Isaac Florentine who really knows how to make the most out of a DTV production, and work with Alpha Stunts who are simply some of the best action guys out there. Together they would all make an awesome team and a Snipes action vehicle we would all be proud of seeing.<br /><br />Detonator sucks. It's not as bad as The Marksman, which chews, but it still really sucks.
Yes it is your typical direct to video action flick. And of course they do their best to change it up a little bit but fail miraculously. Snipes delivers his perfectly bland performance that he always does. Colloca proves that you don't need any talent to star in a film but just sex appeal. The worst part is that it didn't cover my bad movie basics which are: 1 – Cheap looking villains. 2 – Perfectly timed one-liners. 3 – Intense car chases with massive explosions. 4 – The hero hooking up with the hot chick. 5 – Multitudes of nude or scantily clad women for no reason. OK so I lied, it covers those but does so horribly.
It seems that all companies that are enjoy with the taxes taken by Romania for picture,grant the image that disappear since 1994 .They are hardly try to get the oldest car the had founded, but they never take pictures of the Lamorghini,Ferrari,Aston Martin and all new Mercedes that are more the you can find in some important countries.<br /><br />A second problem is that they filmed in some neighborhoods in Bucharest where they had the possibility of clear the streets and put garbages on dressing people with i don't know maybe '90 clothes a making them seem so stupid that you will realize the script was maybe a second hand bought from ebay or worth.<br /><br />I wist for future to keep making movies in US and to make good money there than to give us a little bit and shame our country.I have no reason to believe that someone will understand the message(beyond my English---:sorry)
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I could hardly stay awake. The acting and the plot were horrible. I like B-movies, but this movie has nothing that could make me laugh or think about. OK, there were two or three funny moments at the beginning, so I have to give this movie 2 out of 10. If you really want to watch it, watch the first 10 minutes. After that you will get more and more disappointed while the movie runs.
I like dark humor and non-PC stuff, but not if it is with no purpose but to elevate yourself. Bashing a group of people without any trace of self-irony is crap.<br /><br />There are people who could make concentration camp jokes funny, but whoever made this film unfortunately failed even in the VERY easy task of making fun about Turks in Germany. It is a very easy task, but if your are the Germany equivalent of an inbred redneck (=inbred Southerner from a village where virginity is often lost to farm animals) you certainly will fail at this and also at life. I have heard and seen so many funny stuff about minorities in Germany, but this "movie" (this piece of crap being listed here is an insult to the next worst movie) sucks like the calf the makers of this movie met some years ago.
First of all, let me underline, that Im not a great fan of political correctness. In fact I like satire or dark humor, even if it makes jokes out of minorities. The reason, why Im pretty sure, that this racist piece of work is not worth a look, is that it doesn't make fun of minorities to demonstrate their condition of living, their social circumstances or the way they are treated by society. Moreover it uses every stupid stereotype and prejudice to strengthen xenophobic feelings and reservations. Its really a pity, but not a surprise, that the other comments didn't get that point, cause we all had a cheap laugh. Congratulations.
Any one who writes that this is any good there kid may have worked on it or put money in to this god-awful college experiment. It was lousy, slow, and painful to watch. Running time of only about 84 minutes, it felt like three and half hours. The only person to blame is the director, who knows nothing on how to direct a scene, where to place the camera! 95% of this dreadful movie was shoot by long master shots. Two or three people in the frame talking or yelling forever( or what seems like forever), No close-ups!! No medium shots!!. There are two so-called fight scenes that any filmmaker with a brain would have shoot some close-ups or medium shoots for them. They looked very amateurish. The scenes with the father and son screaming at each other would have worked better if there was a cut away of just the father or just the son acting,or reacting. Tri-C must be very mortified to show this any where. I have seen a bunch of bad movies in my time some of them are fun because they so bad, this is not one of them.
There is a difference between a "film," and a "movie." A film, regardless of quality, is ready for public consumption. A movie is what a group of friends gets together to make over the course of a weekend with a camcorder. In my time as a viewer, I have seen may examples of both.<br /><br />On September 19, I attended a screening of writer/director Jon Satejowski's "Donnybrook." Now having read the script and having seen two different cuts (a rough cut and the "finished" product) of this piece, I can safely say it is a movie. And a student movie, at that. It is, for lack of a better word, competent, which is to say, the director knew how to push record on a camera and capture moving images. The visuals are, for the most part, static and unimpressive, and dialog scenes are reduced to mostly long shots, with little to no close up shots to allow the audience to establish a relationship with the characters. I understand that this is a modestly budgeted film, but some visual flair would have been appreciated, and it would have gone a long way toward keeping the audience interested.<br /><br />Granted, there have been independent pictures that have shown that limited camera work can be over come with well a well written, engrossing story and some sharp dialog. Steven Soderbergh's "sex, lies, and videotape" comes immediately to mind. This movie, however, has neither. The main story is weak and unfocused. If the main plot is Davie trying to mend his relationship with his father, then I feel this movie misses the point. What I got out of it is that Davie's main aspiration is to "change the face of rock 'n' roll." However, we see very little activity on his part to show this. While there is one dream sequence at the beginning, and an impromptu performance of his at the end, all we seem to get are scenes of Davie listening to music or casually strumming a guitar. We are simply told that Davie has played a lot of gigs, but we never see him in full rock out mode. Next time, SHOW don't TELL the audience. Anyone who has taken a creative writing class knows this. Also, Davie doesn't look like someone that would have been big in the glam rock era of the 1970's; he looks like he'd be more comfortable in the early days of rock 'n' roll, posing as James Dean's less talented brother. In the meantime, the rest of the movies events seem to happen at random to rather cliché characters, and story threads, that have little or nothing to do with the slim main story, are brought up and abandoned with alarming frequency (i.e. the subplot involving Terry's father). If I want to see a film with this kind of haphazard construction, I will consider watching "Napolean Dynamite" again, a film I could barely make it through the first time.<br /><br />As for the above mentioned dialog scenes, I guess I should mention that they are few and extremely far between. Is it too much to ask for characters who do speak? I don't think it is. When the characters do speak, it is in short, choppy sentences; collections of oh so insightful questions, angered grunts or wildly over-the-top outbursts. These characters simply do not behave like normal, rational people. Working with material like this, it is easy to understand why there is only one good performance in the film, Al Hudson's, and that's just because he's doing a poor imitation of Sam Elliott for his time on screen. A good director, or at least one who is ready for the challenge of a feature director, would have been able to spot these problems and get the writer and camera people to correct them. However, with Satejowski being so close to the material, he simply doesn't see them, or, if he does, he is unwilling to take the necessary steps to fix them because it'll hurt his creative vision. Being unable or unwilling to deal with criticism in a constructive manner, is the mark of a self-indulgent, misguided fool. Just ask Rob Schneider. <br /><br />In the end, we are left with a poor, high-school-set, knock-off of Zach Braff's amazing "Garden State" combined with the equally amazing "Velvet Goldmine," two films far more worthy of your time.<br /><br />Now before any of the cast or crew come out of the word work to take me to task for this review, allow me to offer this. The best I can do is compliment Mr. Satejowski for having the ambition to make a film of his own and to put it out there for an audience to see. However, the hopes that this movie will be picked up and distributed are simply deluded visions of grandeur. This is a student movie, nothing more, nothing less. If the movie holds any promise (and let's face it, at this point, it isn't going to come from the acting, writing, or directing), it is this: If, IF, the people associated with this film are willing, then, please, learn from this movie, file it away, and use the lessons learned on your next attempt; don't attack your critics, or have friend or family do it for you. If you are able to do this, maybe the next one will be worthy of distribution, worthy of being called a "film."<br /><br />I am your audience, and I am willing to watch.
I go this game and it is alright I guess. I just expected a bit more. The main problem with this is that the hacking is extremely hard, even if you read the instructions you can't get it. Also the graphics aren't as good as Pandora Tomorrow and Double Agent. This game could do with some improvements, it says that if guards are waling in water and you shoot a sticky shocker in the water the guard will fry up but nothing happens. In my opinion this is the worst out of the three. I haven't played the first one but have played Pandora Tomorrow, this and Double agent. This game deserves a 4/10 though. Could do with some improvements.
My brother-in-law and his wife brought the movie over one night to watch on video. This should have given me the first clue that it would be horrible. It was. From the very first frame to the last this movie is terrible. It does not even quite register as a "B" movie. Maybe an N or a P. One of the worst 5 movies I've ever seen. From the rubber raptor-on-a-stick to the still-breathing corpses in the car to the beyond horrible closing lines, this movie isn't worth watching if you've received it for free.<br /><br />Skip this one altogether--unless you want to play Mystery Science Theatre with your friends, it will provide good ammunition.
Roger Corman has enjoyed his shares of cinematic infamy in his illustrious low-budget career, spanning over 300 movies. While few (if any) would call him great, his films' obscure connections to underground culture (via reference, tribute, or influence) have ensured him a warped legacy of sorts. Throughout his career, he has also developed a bad habit of remaking his own films ("Piranha", "Humanoids from the Deep", "The Black Scorpion", etc.), without improving on them in the slightest. "Raptor", "written" and "directed" by "Jay Andrews" (Jim Wynorski, the man behind one of my favorite cinematic guilty pleasures, "Chopping Mall") takes that practice to a disturbing new low regarding Corman's mid-'90s "Carnosaur" trilogy.<br /><br />	Wynorski's credits are in quotes because "Raptor" isn't a tribute to the "Carnosaur" films, and not even a remake. "Raptor" IS the "Carnosaur" films, or at least the film's dinosaur-induced death scenes, haphazardly spliced together with trace elements of the original plot and some newly shot scenes (many of which consist of "dino's eye view" shots in a lame attempt to make the inserted scenes look less obvious). The "new" material was written around the footage, instead of vice versa, and is totally unremarkable, with huge gaps of logic (e.g. two separate teams are sent in by the military simply so footage from parts 2 and 3, where the soldiers had different uniforms, could be included), which is amazing considering how little logic plays into any of the "Carnosaur" films already. The actors' lack of any feeling in their characters (though in fairness, any character dimension is only presented in the script once, maybe twice) brings to mind the terribly wooden acting in 1950's b-films, and it certainly doesn't make anything between the ripped-off attack scenes worth watching. Even more embarrassing for the actors of the new scenes is when there is an obvious discrepancy in the physical build between the new actor and the actor in the original scene. When the only scene evoking any response in a film is the oldest trick in the horror book, the "spring-loaded animal", something is seriously wrong.<br /><br />	As it stands, this is a despicable practice in two b-grade figures (who need not worry about ruining their reputations, because they haven't got one) ripping off their own material, for the cheapest and quickest of dirty tricks, simply because they can (why else would anyone feel possessed to rip off a series meant to be a rip off of the "Jurassic Park" series?). There isn't much more I can say other than that this film carries my very highest recommendations AGAINST viewing; the only good thing about it (besides gazing at Melissa Braselle's navel) is that now I don't have to see any of the "Carnosaur" movies.
So bad, it's entertaining, especially during cocktail hour, and believe me, you'll need a beer, a drink, or whatever to get through this turkey. Where do they get the financial backing for such paint-by-the-numbers "horror" flicks? The fun in this movie is predicting which characters will get eaten and in what order, and trashing the so-called "uniforms" the "military" jokers wear. The raptors, by the way, are not the same raptors we met in "Jurassic Park," but a cousin species. (Sorry, no spoilers here. You'll have to watch it to find out for yourself) Don't expect the plot to make sense, simple as it is, just go along for the ride. You could make it a game... take another drink each time you hear a certain sound... or better yet, every time someone gets crunched by a "raptor." With a little luck, you won't even remember having seen this "C-grade" made-for-TV movie!
The only reason there is a question mark in parenthesis is NOT because I haven't seen every film released in 2001 thus far. It's because this film was only made PARTLY in 2001. The rest of it was stolen from Roger Corman's OTHER dinosaur films, Carnosaur 1-3.<br /><br />I have a confession to make. "Carnosaur 2" is perhaps one of my favorite B-movies. It borrows so much from James Cameron's "Aliens" it's not even funny. But I love it. I can't explain exactly why. It just WORKS for me. I liked the sets, I liked the cinematography, I liked how they borrowed from "Aliens". It's all a bit ironic that Cameron at one point was an understudy of Corman's, with films like "Battle Beyond the Stars" (1980).<br /><br />I own the Carnosaur trilogy on DVD, and the most I can say for part one is that it has moments. The most I can say for the third is that it took me five years to find it watchable.<br /><br />Now we have "Raptor," which does NOT continue that series. Instead, it borrows ENTIRE scenes from the Carnosaur Trilogy and BUILDS a movie around it. And somehow Roger Corman was able to get Eric Roberts and Corbin Bernsen to do it. Now, I'm not saying either Roberts or Bernsen are at any kind of career high. But they were both at one point what could be called RESPECTABLE actors. Not here. Sure, actors react to effects they won't even see while filming all the time. Here, however, they are reacting to mismatched footage from films that are between five and eight years old. There's even a sherrif whose costume was modeled directly after a character in "Carnosaur 1." Apparently it made too much sense to get the original guy back.<br /><br />When "Raptor" was announced I was a wee bit excited. I was however disappointed when Corman said that they'd be using the old dinosaur models from "Carnosaur." Apparently Corman decided after this interview was conducted that he wouldn't even do that. And its not that he couldn't find an FX crew to do it. The script for this was clearly written keeping in mind that the story had to be built around pre-existing stock footage.<br /><br />Don't compare this to Ed Wood. Ed did better than this. At least he only used the stock footage of Bela once, in one film. There are ways of incorporating stock footage into a movie, and "Raptor" takes this frowned-upon technique to a new low. Even if you liked "Carnosaur 3: Primal Species," stay away from "Raptor."
I am a huge Eric Roberts fan, I collect his movies and so far has get to 60. But I´m honest to say that sometimes he really makes awful movies. But hey that´s why I like him - he is entertaining.<br /><br />But this one has to take the price, I can´t stop wonder why. Somehow they managed to get Eric and also Corbin Bernsen to the picture.<br /><br />While Bernsen is plain awful (I really don´t like him), Roberts manage to be the best thing in the movie (and that doesn´t mean much). He practically do it on routine basis.<br /><br />The female lead (Brasselle) looks like a plastic doll and acts like one to. And Tim Abell and his crew looks like action-man plastic dolls and acts like those to.<br /><br />The plot is really embarrasing. I haven´t seen any of the Carnosaur movies so I can´t recall on the footage that has been added from there, but it explains some things. But still there are holes huge as craters in the plot.<br /><br />SPOILERS ALERT<br /><br />The first attacks are located outside the laboratory in the woods nearby. But at the end they blow the whole laboratory in pieces and just relax that everything is over, but they forgot about the ones outside??????<br /><br />When the helicopter pilot is eaten alive I wonder how she couldn´t notice a T-rex climbing into the chopper????<br /><br />The guys in orange overalls is my favourite - what are they doing, out for a jogging round or what??<br /><br />Of course there are a B-movie standard sex-scene with silicon titties involved too. This time it´s Lorissa McComas that greets us. I don´t have any problem with that (she looks awful) but to look at a guy squeezing tits and being on the verge of climax for 8!!!! minutes is just tooo long.<br /><br />Shame on you all (including Eric Roberts) - Now I look forward to watch Con Games (I wonder???)
This film was really terrible.<br /><br />However , it's worth seeing , as it features the worlds most unnecessarily extended sex scene ever. I mean , this thing went on for about 7 - 8 minutes (repeating the same 'moves' over and over), thats almost 10 % of the whole film! I haven't laughed as hard as I laughed at that for a long time.<br /><br />There were some seriously strange and pointless goings on in this film, but the one that I found funniest was when (for no reason whatsoever) a helicopter lands and 5 or 6 guys in orange suits run in to the complex near the end. 2 minutes later they run out again. What the hell was that for?? Also , the tiny white forklift that magically changed into a huge yellow digger was pretty classic. I'm led to beleive that this is because they used footage from the 'carnosaur' trilogy to patch up this absolute donkey. I'm gonna have to see those now!<br /><br />The film is worth watching for a laugh or two , but if you dont find bad movies funny, stay away!
This movie is sad. According to my fellow IMDb users, (*SPOILER*) RAPTOR uses stock footage from the Carnotaur films. Well, since I have not seen the Carnotaur movies, I cannot say. But, I do notice some pretty bad editing and even worse acting. This movie is one big steaming pile of s***. It makes absolutely no sense. Here is this thing that calls itself a PLOT: Mad scientist re-creates raptors. Raptors kill people. Sheriff investigates. *SPOILER* (although I don't know what it is that I'm spoiling) Sheriff catches on to mad doctor's plans. Army guys are sent in and raptors start killing army guys. Raptors. Yeah, right. I could make a clay figure that looks more real. The FX are the cheapest ever used in a movie. There is a lot of gore. Cheap gore. It doesn't even look real. I will agree with another person who rated this movie that the only thing this movie has going for it is the fact that it ends. There are about two seconds of originality in this film. And that only comes from when the sheriff is talking to some tax agent on the phone about his electric bill or something. This idea has been used in about 100,000 other movies with 100,000 different names. Overall, I'm gonna give RAPTOR 1/5 just because it ended.
On the bright side, it ended. That's the only thing this movie has going for it, of course.<br /><br />This is the worst movie I have ever seen, and I've seen some bad ones. This movie is actually so horrible, I went and changed my rating for Children of the Living Dead to a 2 just for not being Raptor.<br /><br />Official one-liner rating: "Come with me to another movie if you want to live."
The worst film ever, with characters from Carnosaur 1-3 inserted merely to fall to the same demise that they had in the first film, so that footage and special effects could be reused.<br /><br />Stay away from this debacle.<br /><br />Corman is ruining his legacy. He made and produced some amazing films - but that era ended with Carnosaur being his last "creative in its badness" film.
<br /><br />**********SPOILER ALERT***************<br /><br />If you happen to like JURASSIC PARK 1, 2, or 3:<br /><br />If you happen to appreciate really bad movies for their sheer entertainment value if not for their quality (case in point-John Carpenter's DARK STAR-highly recommended)<br /><br />If you happen to like movies about dinosaurs in general-<br /><br />THEN STAY AWAY FROM THIS CINEMATIC CRAPSTERPIECE!<br /><br />The shameless use of stock footage from CARNOSAUR 1 & 2 make up most of this miserable attempt at a dino/slasher flick- Take the scene, for instance, where the security guard meets his doom at the jaws of the Alpha T-Rex. For some reason, he drops about 50 pounds and appears 10 years younger. Why is that? Simply because this scene was lifted directly from CARNOSAUR, which was a crummy flick to begin with.<br /><br />The ending was a carbon copy of CARNOSAUR 2, for those unfortunate enough to have sat through that straight-to-video loser. Again, we see Mr. Rex do battle against a bulldozer-which alternates as a forklift truck-through the miracle of -ta-daa!- stock footage from the aforementioned CARNOSAUR 1 & 2. Of course, the ending is exactly the same-the beast falls to his death just as the complex goes up in flames.<br /><br />A real insult to anyone's intelligence.<br /><br />But it's still better than watching the ROSIE O' DONNEL SHOW.<br /><br />Rating: 1/2* out of *****<br /><br />
Oy vey... Jurrasic Park got Corman-ized. As usual the plot is wafer thin, from 1 foot tall dinosaurs that weigh 150 pounds and leave tracks bigger than they are, to inexplicable science which uses lasers to keep the dinosaurs in check and poultry trucks which have chickens loose in cages large enough for big dogs (I've seen chicken trucks they are all in cages the size of shoe boxes). And all that is in the first 15 minutes of this disaster of a film. All the male actors are imbeciles (thinking a grizzly might be loose in the desert, constantly dropping items to give the raptor an easy kill) and the female actors all look like they just came from a modeling shoot for Fredrick's of Hollywood. The raptor itself is the worst thing since the Hobgoblins (from the movie of the same name), it looks like they had a hand puppet version and a plastic model for the "motion" shots. If you want a good movie to sit around and heckle MST3K style, this is gold. If you want competent film making and good acting... don't watch a Roger Corman film. Acting gets a 4 out 10, some of the players upon this stage did try. Story gets a 2 out of 10, it reads like a drunken storytelling session gone bad. Special effects gets a 2 out of 10, I've seen worse, but not many.
This movie is an abortive, stillborn attempt to stitch together several bad movies and make some sort of extra-bad movie. It fails at even this, since there's way too much "plot", and not nearly enough goofy puppets and ridiculous gore. Seriously, the puppets are sweet, and the guys in suits crack me up pretty good. The performances are C-grade at best and lame throughout, with special props to the Spec-Ops guy who spoke some sort of bizarre East Coast/Venusian dialect that was almost impossible to decipher. Not that you really care what he says, as only the curse words are distinct. Cinematographically, it's non-offensive, pretty much what you'd expect from low-rent straight-to-video offal (just like the script). The fact that New Concorde used footage from the "Carnosaur" films IS offensive, and quite confusing. For shame, New Concorde. For shame. "Carnosaur" is one of my favorite terrible movies, and they somehow screwed it up and made it nigh unwatchable. See the "Carnosaur" films if you want to see shoestring dinosaur mayhem.<br /><br />I give it one star because I am so fond of the movies it steals from, and also because the scale doesn't have a zero.
First of all, I would like to clarify that I consider this one of the funniest films I have ever seen. I have watched it almost 10 times just because I've wished to spread the deliciously tasteless innards of this film to other unsuspecting victims. It has the captivating essence of a hand-held camera recording of a distant nephew's seventh birthday. It has all the writing of a WWE match. And most of all, it has the consistency of a face scraped along a sidewalk. This movie is a masterpiece.<br /><br />The film begins with an almost instantaneous mutilation of three, drunken teens in the desert. This scene convinced me that I was onto something big when I picked this film from the DVD rack (being drawn to the box because of the graphic of a velociraptor yelling the word "RAPTOR" on the front of it). The scene contains such treasures as tomato sauce, spaghetti intestines, vain attempts at humour and rubbery dinosaur puppets that repeat throughout the course of the movie. This movie is a masterpiece.<br /><br />The film contains erratic backdrops and prop use that causes one's mind to melt at the thought that someone could just have so little shame when it comes to creating a film. An example is when a truck, in the middle of the night, is parked beside a cliff wall. The very next day, they find it in an open grassy area. The driver couldn't have driven it there since he had his face bitten off by an unnamed bipedal carnivore (I will explain why it's unnamed in a second). So, my only guess is that either the velociraptor drove it, the livestock the driver was transporting did it, or Jim Wynorski doesn't think very highly of his viewers. Hell, in one part they expect me to believe that they are walking down a main street at night when the road doesn't have gutters, the fire hydrant is precariously placed next to a phone booth, and there's only a single street light. Yet, still, I feel compelled to watch and re-watch this film, just so I can find more things that will make me giggle the next time I watch it. This film is a masterpiece.<br /><br />The directing on this film is horrific. Long extended pauses. Strange cuts to characters that weren't even in the general vicinity of the conversation. People discussing things casually while facing the camera (and in turn, making them face the wall). They can't even give the dinosaur a coherent species, flipping between calling it a baby dinosaur and using a rubber velociraptor puppet (distinguished by the intensely long, fat, disproportionate claw). This film is a masterpiece.<br /><br />The editing is prominent on this film. This is not a good thing. I am well aware that the film is a collection of scenes from other films, masterfully crafted into a single piece of crap, but there has to be a limit! Sub plots end as abruptly as they began. Explanations for the sudden disappearance of characters not being limited to, well, not being explained at all! And an ending that felt like driving a muscle car into a brick wall without a seat belt. You just never know what is going to happen because the film doesn't follow a coherent structure. This film is a masterpiece.<br /><br />Now, I'm going to just have to mention a single scene (the greatest one) that occurs near the end. This is a spoiler, but not really. The final scene contains a showdown between tyrannosaurus rex and Sheriff Tanner. It is like the showdown between Sigourney Weaver and the Alien Queen in Aliens, except without all the emotional power/budget/epic battling. It pretty consists of Tanner ramming the dinosaur with a piece of construction machinery. A white bobcat. In a space of several minutes, through a series of sneakily slipped in cuts, the director manages to turn that white bobcat into a yellow forklift/crane looking piece of machinery. Now, as I said, I know that this film is made from scenes from other films, but what two films warrant a showdown with a t-rex in a construction vehicle? This film is a masterpiece.<br /><br />This film gets a 1/10 for quality of film making, but a 10/10 for how much it makes me laugh and enjoy myself.
The biggest and most disconcerting things of the Raptor movie was ending for the Tyransaurus is identical to Carnosaur except kid in the loader was a bit better acted and action then the adult. The similarities to the Carnosaur movies was rather poor choice in plot line. The only thing that approached good was the beginning with the kids in the jeep. Then the plot went down hill from there. Would have been nice if a different plot had been devised, rather then cloning the earlier movies. The raptor movie should have taken lesson from Jurasic park series in various plots. The only movie that has come close to a good dinosaur movie most recently is Aztec Rex. The repeated scenes as if taken from the Carnosaur movies leaves a person thinking of those movies.
The defining scene to this movie is when the fat guy quits,but the evil doctor just gives him one more duty,check on the dinosaurs.Keep in mind that he no longer has this job and so is absolutely not getting paid for this.Also keep in mind it's a goddamn dinosaur and the doctor he's supposed to trust is evil and doesn't like him.But he's still like,yeah okay.That just defined the stupidity in this movie.One Melissa Brasselle proves that seriously anyone can bolt on some breasts and be in movies.I can go ride a mountain-bike between them,but hey aside from that the people of Paraguay are very nice.Eric Roberts gives his absolute worst performance so far,there's no adjective to describe how bored he is throughout.Corbin Bernsen saves what there is to save and you start rooting for him,but they have to stick to the formula of course.And I wonder how much your life sucks when you play like,one of the army guys in this one?How low can your acting career go?The special effects are so embarrassingly bad you expect a sign saying "Studio 3" to get into the frame.It's not even honest pulp,it's all taken from "Carnosaur",which even sucked all by itself.And then I wonder why just anyone is allowed to make a movie.
I bought a DVD collection (9 movies for 10 Euros) where this one was included. It turned out to be the "uncut version" whatever that means. Beside the low average quality and short scenes there was one thing that was really strange - the soft sex scene. It started with a close up of 2 bigger breasts. After around 2 minutes I had an expression on my face which fitted the term "boooooooooooooring!" quite perfectly. 7.5 minutes of not even bouncing concrete like tits (at this point the term breasts is a bad choice) is far beyond from entertainment.<br /><br />The rest of the movie was more like "people aren't /that/ stupid, are they?" <br /><br />Lucky me, the DVD was scratched and I got my money back.
We all know that the world is full of dodgy, rip-off horror films. Some of these can be fun to watch, due to their stupidity, awful effects and iffy dialogue. But Raptor, which could have been in the same league as the equally pointless Carnosaur series, does not even ATTEMPT to have any enjoyment in it. Its so poorly done, it is really unbearable, even if your just watching it with the intentions of having a no-brain day at home. Where do we start? Well... the sets are pretty drab. My old drama group created more realistic stages. The genetics labs look like they are from a university, and it looks equally unbelievable on the outside (Even for cover-up, why would you place yourself near civilisation where people can easily hear the dinosaur roars), whilst the doctors ward just doesn't look believable at all. Next up in the complaints list is the creature effects; well, what can I say? Absolutely pitiful. Also, I think it's worth mentioning, the woman's tits should be mentioned as an effect. Both of the main female characters have so obviously had boob-jobs, and it brings the characters down, being one female is a respected member of police, whilst the other is the sweet, "innocent" daughter of the towns sheriff. The acting, though, is by far the worst tragedy. Eric Roberts can be excused for at least trying a bit to give his role something. Thats where it ends. Corbin Benson should have killed his costume designer for making his lacklustre performance look even more pathetic, whilst the female lead looks SO bored (Though, with this film you could let her off). The other character I'll point out is the daughter, who lets her tits do all the acting in the "raunchy" sex scene (Ten minutes of endless re-run shots of her bouncing on top of some bloke).<br /><br />All in all, and summed up as one. don't bother, just don't.
So I was sick with the flu one Saturday and the silver lining was that SciFi Channel was having a marathon of dinosaur movies that day - the "Carnosaur" trilogy, "Pterodactyl," "Raptor Island." Then I flicked ahead on my cable remote to see which movie SciFi placed in its glamorous, Saturday prime-time slot. Some movie I had never heard of before called "Raptor." I was pretty excited. The movie begins with some teens driving around in a jeep, when they get stalked and killed by a Velociraptor. I was like, "Hmmm, that's odd, that looks almost exactly like a scene in "Carnosaur," except it was in the middle of that movie." Then I sat through some really bad acting and then some guy was suckered into walking into an underground research laboratory where he got eaten by a ferocious T-Rex. Now I'm like, "Wait a second, that was also a scene in "Carnosaur." Then, after I saw some scenes blatantly ripped off from "Carnosaur 2", I figured out just what the hell was going on. So basically, Roger Corman & Co. ripped off scenes from the "Carnosaur" trilogy to use as the action scenes, weaved in a basic "dinosaur-runs-amok" plot, and tried to pass it off as an original movie. Shameful. I don't know who I'm more angry at, Roger Corman or SciFi Channel for trying to pass this off as worthy of the prime-time slot. The only reason why this was worth watching to its conclusion was to pick out the actors/actresses who looked like their counterparts in the "Carnosaur" trilogy and guess which scenes would be lifted next. As much as it pains me, being a dinosaur lover, I have no choice but to give this the lowest possible rating because I feel completely ripped off.
The storyline of this movie is cliché and obviously has been ripped off from Jurassic Park. The filmmakers didn't even try to hide that. It seems as though there was not enough budget to make decent dinosaur-dolls, so instead the viewer sees some robot-like toy-dinos (from a cheap toystore) which move in a very unnatural way. It's funny though, because it's so bad. The acting is almost as unnatural as the dinos are. No one seems really excited to be in this movie (which I totally understand). Especially the last half hour is extremely boring and it's almost impossible to watch it without falling asleep. The one positive comment note I'd like to make about "Raptor" is that it doesn't take a full 90 minutes.
OK, lets get one thing straight, i love dinosaur movies, even the bad ones. So with this in mind lets proceed. "Raptor" is a truly awful film, in fact its not even a film in its own right as it is cobbled together from bits of "Carnosaur", "Carnosaur 2" & "Primal Species - Carnosaur 3". There is some new footage with Eric Roberts as a sheriff and his busty sidekick running around looking confused, frightened or whatever it is there trying to convey (badly) on the emotional scale but then how can they react to something that was filmed several years earlier. The producers (yes Roger Corman i'm talking about you!) even went to the lengths of hiring 2 people from "Carnosaur" to play bit parts so there grisly death scenes can be reused! So this film is the cheapest of the cheap. Watch the 3 original movies, there no Oscar winners but they have some meritt and entertainment value but avoid "Raptor". Oh, it also has the most pointless sex scene that runs for nearly 10 minutes! Do you think they were trying to pad out the running time?
This movie doesn't even deserve a 1/10 This movie was a scam.<br /><br />I swear that at least 30 minutes of the film were DELIBERETLY copied from Carnosaur 1, 2, & 3.The whole movie "Raptor" was based of the movie and that was really a pathetic attempt to be a "Thriller, Action Packed, Dinosaur" copy. I loved that movie series and seeing it be put on a movie that cant even afford or willing COPY it without doing there own models is what America is coming to.I recommend you see the Carnosaur movie FIRST (all of them) and then watch this, and you will know what I mean.<br /><br />- Spencer
I understand that Roger Corman loves to do things on the cheap, but this is just sad. I purchased this flick from the dollar bin at my local video store not a month after watching the original Carnosaur. I was blown away; It was the same damn movie, with just some Corbin Bernesen spliced in! It reminded me of all of those 80s ninja movies that took old Kung Fu movies and spliced in a bunch of white ninjas running doing cartwheels with the word "ninja" written on their headbands (if you haven't seen them, check out "Ninja Terminator", "The Thundering Ninja", "Black Dragon" and "Ninja Warriors"). Thanks Roger Corman; you just made me waste a dollar.
A gut-ripping baby T-Rex is on the loose in a small western town, prompting sheriff Eric Roberts and animal control agent Melissa Brasselle (who walks through her role in a very disinterest fashion) to get to the bottom of things. They discover that a mad scientist (Corbin Bernsen) is, unbeknownst to the government sponsorship, continuing on with a long-abandoned US research project called Operation Jurassic Storm (ha!) by creating an army of dinosaurs in a secluded underground lab facility. Before long, our heroes become trapped inside, the marines are called in, the power goes out and the dinos are set free to make a quick lunch of everyone they can get their claws and jaws on.<br /><br />Despite an often infuriatingly inept script full of plot holes, character inconsistencies and loose ends, this direct-to-video copy of JURASSIC PARK and CARNOSAUR is fairly digestible trash, thanks to good production values, passable FX, the occasional laugh and plenty of brainless action.<br /><br />Someone pointed out that an opening scene in this film was stolen from CARNOSAUR, but anyone used to watching Roger Corman productions knows he allows directors to liberally reuse clips from his early films to save both time and money.<br /><br />Score: 3 out of 10
Why isn't this movie on the bottom 100? Raptor is, without a doubt, the worst movie I have seen in all of my fifteen years of life. I have never before witnessed such a catastrophic mess as this. Absolutely everything about it is awkward and cheaply done.<br /><br />Nobody in the cast gives a somewhat decent performance. The dialogue is utterly incoherent and the humor is anything but humorous. Corbin Bernsen was the most painful part of the whole thing. I can't help cringe when I recall some of his lines, like "In or out? You're worse than a cat!" and "Your lady friend isn't a very good poker player. She's just revealed her hand."<br /><br />The raptors are a joke. Even I could make more realistic dinosaur effects than these filmmakers have shamelessly done. It is an insult to the actual velociraptors, or any dinosaur for that matter. Not only that, but the killing scenes are too gruesome even for me. I don't seriously think these animals would rip their victim to shreds and throw pieces all over the ground just to make everything look gorier. Besides, the blood and guts are all useless when you can see the deaths coming from miles and miles away.<br /><br />I am a big fan of Jurassic Park movies and of dinosaurs. Maybe the filmmakers didn't anticipate anybody with a shred of intelligence or sense to disregard bad filmmaking to stumble upon this movie on HBO late at night, like I did. If I could say one thing to anybody involved in this film, I would have to quote Dr. Alan Grant from the first Jurassic Park...<br /><br />"Just try to show a little respect."
Screen treatment of the comedic Broadway success "The Gay Divorce" (a title which was considered too scandalous for American moviegoers, though it was used in the U.K.) concerns a man and woman (Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers) meeting under embarrassing circumstances while she's in the process of divorcing her spouse; they dance, argue, make up, dance, argue some more and dance some more. Betty Grable is very appealing in a brief bit (singing and dancing in the number "Let's K-nock K-nees" with overtly sissified Edward Everett Horton), but the star-couple looks distressed and unhappy throughout. The surroundings are screwball-sophisticated yet the characters are not more than one-dimensional. *1/2 from ****
Films about the mundane are often the most interesting of all films to me, in the hands of an insightful artist who examines all the twisted little details of the mundane. The French cinema seems to often be very good at this sort of thing, and I love the French cinema.<br /><br />This film was about the mundane. It didn't have a much of a plot. It was just characters who lived in a town, very normal people, and stuff just happened. But it wasn't very interesting stuff, and it wasn't examined very insightfully. The film did capture a bit of a mood, but it wasn't a particularly captivating mood. And while I can't think of much that the film did specifically wrong, it failed on just about every level to do anything right.<br /><br />There were a lot of characters in this film. A lot of them kind of looked alike, so it was hard to figure out who was who, and what were their relations to one another. I don't mind putting some effort into understanding a film, or even watching an especially complex film more than one time to iron out the details, but this one was a puzzle not worth the solving for me.<br /><br />The only good thing I can really say about this film is that the cinematography was pleasant--functional, not brilliant, but pleasant. The camera often captured some nice postcard-type shots. But it rarely found the really interesting little details.<br /><br />I've seen a handful of not-so-good films so far at the Seattle International Film Festival, but this was the only one that failed to get any applause when the credits rolled. I sensed a big collective sigh of relief when the film was finally over. But I suppose there are probably some people out there who would like it.<br /><br />4/10
"The death of a performer at a Broadway stage play brings a theatre critic and a police detective together as an unlikely crime-solving duo. The dead performer's niece becomes not only the object of affection for our critic, but also a prime suspect in this death, and some other murders that occur at the theatre. 'The Phantom Killer' sets his sights upon the young woman as his next victim; so, it is a race against time for our heroes to catch the killer," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />Milton Raison's screenplay puts a little spark in this low-budget mystery whodunit. Helpfully, Dave O'Brien (as Anthony "Tony" Woolrich) does well in the lead role; his skills as an actor appear to be much greater than the productions employing him. O'Brien and cab driving sidekick Frank Jenks (as Egbert "Romeo" Egglehoffer) would have made a fine 1950s TV detective team. Leading lady Kay Aldridge (as Claudia Moore) and the supporting cast are also good. Unfortunately, the story becomes meandering, and anti-climactic.<br /><br />**** The Phantom of 42nd Street (5/2/45) Albert Herman ~ Dave O'Brien, Kay Aldridge, Frank Jenks
This is a semi fictional memoir of an "international man" who have witnessed various political upheavals in recent 30 years.<br /><br />I was hoping that this film would offer unique insight into politics and war. I was also hoping that it would be touching and affecting. However, I was disappointed by this film. "Chico" seemed fragmentary, with the main character, Ricardo, staying in one country for 10 to 20 minutes. As could be expected, no detailed storyline could be elaborated in such time frame. The excuses of him moving to another place were often perfunctorily explained. The result was a disappointing collection of fragmented clips shot in various countries.
"My Blue Heaven" is boring. The plot is insipid; the characterizations and dialogue stink; the musical numbers, while occasionally staged in interesting ways, are not only too often absurd, but also lyrically trite, painfully bright, and emotionally hollow to the core. The leads, Betty Grable and Dan Dailey, are attractive professionals; however, in spite of their every talented effort to uplift the drear and uncompelling material, they fail. David Wayne and Jane Wyatt, for all their demonstrated talent in other projects, are more or less cyphers here.<br /><br />There's really only one reason to watch "My Blue Heaven". One reason...one star: Mitzi Gaynor, in her film debut. Her total screen time is probably less than ten minutes, but so what? Her pert and promising screen personality, her feline beauty, and her exceptional charisma shine through gloriously and make these minutes the most watchable, memorable, and exciting moments in the entire film. If you would value an opportunity to see a tremendous young talent on the rise, then check out Miss Mitzi Gaynor in "My Blue Heaven."<br /><br />Incidentally, I scorn (and would urge you to avoid) Drew Casper's manic, obsessive-compulsive DVD commentary for this film. Wordy, digressive, unduly fastidious, frequently ill-timed with what is playing on the screen, and galloping throughout with an excess of nervous energy, his comments are absolutely indigestible.
...and in this series, I've been reduced to an annoying jock with a gay hairstyle. Remember my friend Marco, who got all the good lines in the books? Well, in this series his one-liners put Mr. Freeze to shame. Remember our uber-evil nemesis Visser Three? He's a bald guy with inane catchphrases. Remember Rachel, "Xena, the Warrior Princess", and Cassie, my sensitive and caring love interest? They've been turned into mindless bimbos by the 10 (!) writers who decided the original characters weren't cool enough for TV. Remember the awesome extra-terrestial Ax, who was cool, intelligent, and really, really liked cinnamon buns? In this series he's the Token Alien with an extremely annoying voice. Remember the witty banter our team had in the books? In this series our dialogue is so dreary and stupid it's obvious the writers were pandering to the lowest common denominator.<br /><br />So forget everything you thought you knew about the Animorphs! It was Cassie who became allergic to morphing, not Rachel, thought-speak is *supposed* to echo, and Visser Three and Ax, rarely, if ever, appeared as Andalites (no, it has nothing to do with the budget!). <br /><br />I'm not crazy. And I'm not lying. The jerks are all around us. And if you're unlucky, one of them might adapt one of your favourite books, or series, or graphic novels, into a really awful TV show. You've been warned.<br /><br />"Finally... television worth watching." ~ (the very bald) Visser Three<br /><br />(r#91)
Ah Animorphs. I loved the book series and eagerly devoured each one in middle school and when I heard that there was a television adaptation, I was very excited.<br /><br />Boy what a let down the final product was. I think for me, this was the moment when Nickelodeon stopped being about cool programming and more generic.<br /><br />So what was wrong with the series? Let me count the ways: 1. The characters were HORRIFICALLY miscast. In the books, the Animorphs were somewhere between 12-14, the television cast were at least 18. I remember being horrified when I first saw the cast photos.<br /><br />2. Horrific acting/bad writing. I dunno which was to blame so I'm lumping into the lumpy mass that it was. Perhaps it was the fact that the accelerated age of the cast hampered the humor that is at least cute coming out of a 13 year old because Marco - not funny. In fact, I don't remember a single comical moment from the group and there were a few. The actors were certainly not helped by the writing which was bland at its best and head smackingly pathetic at its worst.<br /><br />3. My lord they were stingy with the budget. The final result of the Andalites alone should have convinced Viacom to pull the plug...Their heads had clefts that clearly showed which was the helmet.<br /><br />4. Back to the cast - Rachel by far was the biggest let down, far from being the warrior woman in the books, the best equivalent in the TV series was "scarecrow". Also, I know Cassie was an idealist but there is a difference between "idealist" and "idiot".<br /><br />5. One of the worst opening titles ever. Did the music have to be THAT obvious? 6. Answering question 6, "yes" because everything else was dumbed down so why shouldn't the expectedly less intelligent viewers receive a thick as a brick song from a lame rap-rock rip-off or whatever the hell that was.<br /><br />Since then, there have been bigger let downs (Iraq, 2004) but in case I haven't made myself clear - this show sucked and was an abomination to the book series it was supposed to be based from.
I'd liked the Takashi Miike films I'd seen so far, but I found this pretty disappointing. I'd bought it, but I won't be keeping it.<br /><br />I saw it on the Adness DVD, which has just two episodes. In the first, a killer abducts women, cuts the top of their skull off to expose the brain, plants them in the ground up to their chin, and plants a flower in the brain. You can tell that from the DVD box. In the movie, the top of the head is digitally blurred out by TV static. Had you not seen the DVD box, the viewer wouldn't know what people were looking at until later a young cop produced a small model of the body. Oddly, there is also a flash frame later on of the woman's head and it is not censored. Apart from this, I'm not really sure what was going on. Some women get phone calls, and a sketchy animated character cavorts around when that happens. An animated character also appears on TV screens sometimes. It's unclear if anybody sees it.<br /><br />In the second episode, pregnant women are being found cut open and their babies are missing. Again, a cop produces a model of what the corpses are like, which is helpful since again the actual body is censored. There is also a natural birth in the movie, but oddly even that baby and the umbilical cord are censored! According the the DVD box, uncensored versions were not kept when this was originally made. Perhaps even if they had, if they knew they were going to be censored, maybe they didn't bother actually showing anything...? Not sure.<br /><br />If I hear the later episodes are better, maybe I'll look for them. As it is, I won't bother.
Much of the commentary on this board revolves around debating the validity of some comparison to R DOGS made on the DVD cover. Forget about all of that... This film-- er-- home movie is utterly horrendous. How can anyone with a shred of credibility claim this as being 10/10??? There is no plot, none. I couldn't believe that I spent money to rent this (more on that later) and that I had fooled myself into believing that this (based on box cover art and some sort of film fest award blurb) had potential. The only thing I do really remember was that, unbelievably, one of the annoying main characters was supposedly offed with a bullet to the head... and he ends up surviving the wound and making it to the final credits alive. Wow. And looky dere, Killers has a sequel. Double wow.<br /><br />True story -- I actually was in so much denial that I had wasted my money and life force on this rental that I kept the videotape for what must've been six months. I kept telling myself that it never actually happened. The video on top of the TV was an illusion - a mental symbol of my self-loathing. After someone pointed out that is was indeed real and that I needed to get a grip, I decided that I couldn't just leave it there. I thought, "How many others have I denied the suffering of sitting through the viewing of this masterpiece by hoarding Killers all to myself?" I had to do the right thing and return it back to the hell from which it came. <br /><br />So, as I imagine most of the populous of IMDb would do in a similar situation, I mustered up some major courage and drove to the video store... at 2AM. After making sure that no one was around, I got out of my car (still running of course), slipped the movie into the drop box slot, and booked the hell out of there never to return.<br /><br />I guess I expected that some goons from Hollywood Video corporate would come looking for me (the bill must've racked up to something like $1,238.67 by that time) so I moved away from the area. However, coincidently, much like the Killers storyline, nothing ever happened.
...but you can see it from here.<br /><br />I definitely don't understand why anyone would recommend this movie. Not a bit of plot, not suspenseful, not well-made. No point to having made it, really.<br /><br />Completely forgettable in ever way.
This film is an embarrassment. Nothing works on any level. The direction, screenplay, acting , and editing work together to repel your eyes from the screen. Everything is inappropriate and incoherent. At first you can sit there with and groan, wince, and laugh at it, but very shortly the whole effort of watching just becomes too ponderous.
This has got to be one of absolute worst movies I've ever seen in my life. The writing and acting are just pathetic. It ranks right up there with Uncle Sam on the all time worst movies ever made. However, when I see crap like this able to make it to video, it really inspires me to pursue my wild dreams of making films because I know I could do a better job than what the makers of Killers did.
Let's just say that it might be the worst movie I've ever seen. On the front of the box of the movie it says something about it resembling Reservoir Dogs. I fell for it hook, line, and sinker. This is just a warning message to anyone who might read this. It's not even worth renting when you want something to laugh at.
Imagine an exploitive remake of The Defiant Ones with a black chick and a white chick attached to each other. Set the story on some Caribbean island where the drug dealers rule and the revolution has arrived. And have the black woman be from Huggy Bear's stable of ladies and the white woman be a watered down Patty Hearst and you've got Black Mama, White Mama.<br /><br />In those waning days of the drive-in theater this item must have been a big old hit. All the hot buttons of the Seventies are pushed in this one. Even though they both fill out their clothes better and will get a few whistles from the males in the audience no one is ever going to mistake Pam Grier and Margaret Markov for Sidney Poitier and Tony Curtis. All right, Halle Berry and Jamie Lee Curtis.<br /><br />Margaret and Pam are prisoners where the guards and the warden look lasciviously at the new fish arriving. Margaret is a rich girl from the state who took up 'the revolution', whilst Pam's your basic high priced call girl who's been servicing the local drug kingpin and grew tired of it and tried to leave the island.<br /><br />Margaret's fellow revolutionaries ambush the bus transporting them from the women's prison to town, but they get lost in the escape. Both have their different agendas, but like Sid and Tony they can't quite agree on whose agenda comes first. Makes for some interesting times as the police, the drug dealers, and the revolutionaries are all looking for these two illfated chain buddies.<br /><br />Just so you don't get any wrong ideas the head of the revolutionaries and Markov's kanoodling partner is named Ernesto played by Filipino actor Zaldy Zshornack. The whole mess was shot in the Phillipines who were getting their own film industry started.<br /><br />Nice location photography in the Phillipines is all that Black Mama, White Mam has to recommend it. But if you're a fan of really bad black exploitation flicks, this is one for you.
Some of the films produced by Roger Corman's New World film company in the 1970s represent the best kind of B-movie, where the limitations of the genre actually act as a kind of freeing influence on the writers and directors – such classic drive-in films as "Deathrace 2000", "Hollywood Boulevard", "Grand Theft Auto" and "Caged Heat" emerged from this environment. Unfortunately, his former confederates at American International Pictures were running out of steam in the 1970s, particularly in the absence of Jim Nicholson, and they often produced second rate imitations of Corman's films, sometimes featuring his self-made stars. "Black Mama, White Mama" is one of those films. It's basically a cheaper imitation of "The Big Doll House with some of the same stars doing a lot of the same things. Yes, this is a John Ashley co-production (yes, the same John Ashley who was the hilarious Elvis wanna-be in "How to Make a Monster" and paired up with Debbie Walley in "Beach Blanket Bingo") with all the signature marks of his productions – women's prisons where everyone except maybe 2 or 3 lead characters including the inmates and the guards are Filipino actors in mostly non-speaking roles, where we see supermodel-type women taking on the roles of revolutionary militants, and where the primary joy of the film is derived through rudimentary S&M exploitation.<br /><br />The print I saw most recently was horribly light-damaged (good ole Will Viharo described it as "Yellow Mama, Yellow Mama"), but I think even in the best conditions the photography and directing are extremely routine. There's also very little visual value here… Corman must not have had very much to do with the film itself because he was always canny enough to at least give his films some extra production value by filming in free public spaces that would make the film look more impressive. This film doesn't look impressive, it doesn't have an impressive soundtrack, and you just feel embarrassed for anyone who shows a shred of talent. The only remotely interesting performances come from Pam Grier as a feisty whore out to escape the life, Filipino actor Dindo Fernando as her grotesquely self-indulgent pimp, and Sid Haig as a cowboy styled mercenary. The story places Grier and co-star Margaret Markov in a low budget female version of "The Defiant Ones", but does very little with the melodramatic possibilities afforded by that premise. It's basically just an excuse to ensure that the two protagonists can still stop for a good mud wrestling match while they're trying to escape the prison together. This is all in the spirit of good fun, but the film ultimately fails even as exploitation because there's a certain edge and rawness that should be present in such scenes that is instead replaced under this director's hand with a kind of yawning predictability.<br /><br />So the film will have little value for fans of hard-core exploitation value – at least in the version I saw it's no more explicit than "Faster Pussycat, Kill! Kill!" from over a decade earlier, and far less interesting visually and thematically. For those who just enjoy getting a laugh out of "so bad it's good" films, this one might provide some fun but it's not in the upper tier. People would be more advised to seek out "Caged Heat" or some of the others that revel in their own brutality to the point that it becomes camp; this one is more similar to less ambitious efforts like Cirio Santiago's "The Muthers". Sadly, the best thing about this particular film is the title and the presence of Pam Grier, who was better in other films around the same time (particularly Jack Hill's "Coffy"). This film perhaps illustrates a midway point in Miss Grier's journey from Corman secretary to B-movie Queen-For-A-Day, but other than its historical "significance" as such it will have little value even to Grier's big fans because she is given very little to work with here.<br /><br />Worth skipping, unless of course you get to see it in a movie theater with a lot of friends and a lot of beer like I did. And even then its value is questionable.
And you'd be right. Black Mama, White Mama, also known as 'Women in Chains,' is exactly the kind of trashy and crappy b-movie that the premise suggests. Pam Grier has been thrown into a prison on a small island with a lot of other women, and this place seriously makes the summer camp where Martha Stewart is locked up right now look like a maximum-security prison. It's not five minutes into the movie that one of the hottie guards utters the line 'Strip 'em and get 'em wet,' and then we are introduced to a prison life that resembles some college freshman's fantasy of what the inside of a sorority house is like. <br /><br />The prisoners soap and rub and wrestle with each other in the shower like it's a Girls Gone Wild shoot, then they all hang out together in their dorm, openly smoking pot and discussing in a big group what would be the best ways to escape. I've never been to prison myself, but I have a feeling that escape plans are the kind of thing that you want as few people as possible to know about, prisoners or guards or otherwise. The biggest difference between this prison life and some fantasy sorority life is that the women in this movie all wear orange cardigans (and no pants. Go figure) that say PRISON on the back. Must be those generic prison outfits for prisons that can't afford pricey accessories like their prison name or prisoner numbers for their uniforms.<br /><br />And as is to be expected, a prison that can't afford to put prisoner identification on the backs of the uniforms can obviously not expect to be able to find guards that are interested in guarding the prisoners as much as they are in having sex with the prisoners and each other.<br /><br />The conflict of the movie's title refers to the fact that Lee Daniels (Pam Grier) spends much of the time handcuffed to a blonde prisoner named Karen as they are on the run from the cops after escaping from the prison. I won't go into details about how they escape except to say that you might have seen something like it in The Fugitive had they been unable to afford to stage a train wreck, and it leads into the muddled story of the conflicting interests also chasing these two women for different reasons. Karen and Lee both have their own gangs of people each hoping to rescue their respective escaped prisoner, and the cops are after both of them all the while.<br /><br />(spoilers) So Karen is involved with a bunch of hippies that want to Revolutionize Life As They Know It. Meanwhile, Karen just wants to get off the island, something she's been trying to do for years, and isn't it just perfect that they each need to go to completely opposite sides of the island in order to fulfill their goals. So we get this odd couple pairing and, since they are an odd couple, it's not hard to predict that they will hate each other for the vast majority of the film but grow fond of each other by the end.<br /><br />In a movie with so many conflicting interests, especially when those conflicting interests not only propel the two main characters in opposite directions as they pursue their goals, it is not unreasonable to expect that there will be a climactic moment involving the rival gangs at some point in the movie. Not about to leave anyone unsatisfied, they throw in a stupid gang standoff at the end of the movie, where everyone shoots machine guns at each other, killing each other en masse while the two women paddle safely and calmly across the river in a little boat. Nice. <br /><br />Even better, at the end of the movie, after a huge massacre in which lots of people get shot and spurt bright red paint all over the place, the Captain of the police looks over the masses of dead criminals covered in awful, awful special effects, and we learn that he will be a Major before dinner. Not a bad way to end the movie, the criminals all kill each other off and the cops get all the credit, but here is the last line in the film – 'It's better to win, isn't it?' <br /><br />Is THAT why the Captain is going to get promoted to Major? Because he figured that out???
The plot for Black Mama White Mama, revolves around two female inmates, at a women's prison in the Phillipines. One Black, and one White. These two women, are thrown together in the prison. Pam Grier is Lee Daniels Lee is incarcerated in the hellish women's prison, for dancing as a harem girl. <br /><br />Lee's boyfriend owes her part of his profits, from his drug-dealing activities. Lee is mainly interested in breaking out of the prison to get hold of her beau's drug money, so that she can leave the Phillipines and assume a better life. Margaret Markov plays Karen Brent, a white women from a privileged background, who is also a revolutionary. Karen has joined a group of revolutionaries, determined to change the corrupt Phillipino political system. She's captured by Phillipino authorities, and held as a political prisoner.<br /><br />The story-line takes-off, when Karen and Lee break out of the prison they were in together. The two of them also happened to be chained together at the wrist. As they flee, they also fight with each other, because they have different goals to pursue. Naturally, they hate being chained together. But they also realize that they must put aside their differences, to help each other survive while they evade capture.<br /><br />If this film seems very similar to The Big Bird Cage, it's because much of the cast in the two films is the same, as well as their location in the Phillipines. Roger Corman, has always had a consistent stable of actors, that he used in all of his 70s B movies. Besides Pam Grier, Sid Haig, Roberta Collins, Claudia Jennings, Betty Anne Rees, and William Smith, were also among the many actors that were frequently cast, in Corman's AIP films.<br /><br />Like The Big Bird Cage, Black Mama White Mama, relies on too much gory violence to be palatable. Pam Grier conveys her usual tough chick persona in this film, and shows her competence as a female action heroine. Margaret Markov is less effect, in her portrayal of the revolutionary Karen. She just seems to fragile and well-coiffed, to be a dedicated political guerrilla. Except for Sid Haig, as the colorful Ruben, the rest of the cast is forgettable.<br /><br />This film has little entertainment value, unless excessive, heinous acts of violence are your thing. Only the performances by Pam Grier and Sig Haig, make this film worth watching.
This is one heck of a sleazy film. Like so many "women in chains" films, this one is chock full of lesbianism. However, unlike most prior films, which strongly implied this, BLACK MAMA, WHITE MAMA shows an awful lot of skin as a horny female prison guard leers at the women as they shower as well as has sex with one of the inmates. For the early 1970s, this is definitely a soft-core pornographic film--sort of like GIRLS GONE WILD GOES TO PRISON! It's also a bad rip-off of THE DEFIANT ONES, though in this case it's two hot females who hate each other who are chained together when they escape. Whereas the original film is considered a classic, this one can only be considered a classic example of bad taste. That's because there is no subtlety and the movie is just cheap--cheap thrills, cheap writing and very cheap acting.<br /><br />Pam Grier is the "black inmate with an attitude"--a lady who was set up and sent to prison on this hellish island. Margaret Markov is a revolutionary. When they escape, they both can't stand each other and have opposite goals. However, since it is cliché-driven, there's really no surprise in how the film ends--with their both becoming (gag me) friends.
The title pretty much lets you know what you're getting. It's a grade-C howler but not as blatantly funny as I was hoping. Directed by exploitation film specialist Eddie Romero from a story that originally came from Jonathan Demme (long before directing "Silence of the Lambs" and "Philadelphia"), this low-budget 1972 action movie was obviously filmed in the Philippines but set in some anonymous third world country. Playing hooker and small-time drug dealer Lee Daniels, blaxploitation superstar Pam Grier plays the first half of the title role, while long-forgotten Margaret Markov is the other half, Karen Brent, an unlikely Patty Hearst-like political revolutionary looking to partner with her comrades to overthrow the oppressive local government. Naturally antagonistic toward each other, they are in a women's prison camp where they wear inexplicably bright yellow mini-skirts as uniforms. Run by a closeted warden and lecherous matron, the prison is just an excuse for a lengthy shower scene and some half-hearted cat-fighting as Lee and Karen are pitted against each other. Of course, they escape but shackled together a la "The Defiant Ones" and continue the cat-fighting until they attack a couple of nuns to steal their habits.<br /><br />Meanwhile, various groups of unsavory men are in pursuit - the loutish drug lord looking for Lee who stole $40K from him, the rather passive revolutionaries looking for Karen, and the incompetent police (who suffer the humiliation of exposing their privates to the drug lord). Needless to say, everything eventually comes to a head but not before gratuitous nudity by a number of Filipino women, a dog wears Karen's panties and some of the worst of 1970's men's fashion (one beer-bellied revolutionary wears a leather halter top with a straight face). There is a rather sad ending, but what's truly sad is how much of the potential black comedy is missed entirely in this hilariously preposterous exercise. Sadly, Grier is disappointing in this outing because her character is not allowed much to do beyond dealing with all the "jive", while Markov is an Amazonian blonde whom I am convinced is trying desperately to be credible. Since no one displays any talent for acting, the rest of the cast is not worth noting, except balding, bug-eyed Sid Haig, who uses his standard psycho persona as the drug lord. The 2003 DVD contains only the original trailer as an extra.
Pam Grier is the super soul sister of the 1970's, appearing in many blaxploitation films that have recently been discovered and appreciated by a new generation. I can safely say that BLACK MAMA, WHITE MAMA may be the worst Pam Grier movie I've ever seen.<br /><br />Grier is Lee and Margaret Markov is Karen; they are two female prisoners who escaped from prison after Karen's revolutionary friends attacked the paddy wagon. Chained to each other, the film becomes THE DEFIANT ONES for women, but has three separate plots: a fat criminal (Filipino sleaze star Vic Diaz) wants Lee dead, a cowboy bounty hunter (the excellent Sid Haig) searches for the two girls; and Karen's revolutionary friends search for her. The film eventually becomes so convoluted and uninvolved with the two women that the title should have been MEN CHASING WOMEN. Grier, an action star, is not given any chance to participate in any of the many (overlong) action scenes. Markov is excellent as Karen and Grier is OK as Lee, but both are eventually forgotten in the many subplots. One interesting scene has the bounty hunter forcing a police officer and his chief to drop their pants so he can shoot the one with the smallest penis (judged by his whore), but is easily forgotten amidst all the mayhem.<br /><br />BLACK MAMA, WHITE MAMA starts out great as a women-in-prison film complete with lesbian wardens and a shower scene, then completely switches to a chase film. If director Eddie Romero (famous for directing Filipino horror films) had just stuck with the WIP theme, he would have been fine. Instead, BMWM gets real old real fast and the surprise ending just makes the audience wonder why they sat through a 90-minute film for it to end like this! Another problem: where is the film supposed to be set? While some of the accents are Hispanic and cities have Spanish names (Los Robles, etc.), all the natives are obviously Asian! Hmmm... Recommended only for die-hard Grier fans, who even then will be disappointed.
If you find the hopelessly amateurish acting, the uninteresting story, the fake blood and all the mindless shooting bearable, then you may actually have a fairly good time watching this trashy, low-rent exploitation film. You might also want to check out a pretty good catfighting sequence that's offered, although it's not good enough to make the rest of the movie worth sitting through. (**)
The worst part about this film is that it did not have to be so terrible.<br /><br />They had a nice budget, though so do many films; they made it look slick and pretty, and best of all they had the 21st century lesbian-savvy audiences who would embrace a lesbian positive film... and yet the writer and director went out of their way to lift every single redone film bit about lesbian torment and confusion at boarding schools, (you know, the place all lesbian love lives and dies). <br /><br />This is a theme that has been done again and again and AGAIN in film, but something that viewers-if one uses this voting forum as a clue- cannot seem to get enough of.<br /><br />Every element of this story was so over the top, excessively phony and contrived that it was painful to sit through. The lead characters say it all: the crazy, abandoned, genius, rebel lesbian tough girl (well, they took a super pretty femme like Piper Perabo and tried to rough her up, but it didn't stick much) seduces pretty rich girl who is destined to betray her. <br /><br />Watching them every step of the way is character 3, a dopey, well-meaning, wide-eyed, good girl observer. I say 'every step' because she shares her every thought with the audience via the stiffest, most inane monologues.<br /><br />Her lines seem to have been WRITTEN by a fifteen year old, though they are trying oh so, so hard to sound like how a fifteen year old would really, um, you know, well... talk. "Hearing them (make love) with their noises was um, you know, like, well... okay!" she says about her 2 wanton roommates, who roll around in the bed next to her.<br /><br />Later she asks Graham Greene- the accomplished native American actor who is completely wasted in a roll as a gardener (!) "Is it wrong to care what people think?"<br /><br />Sorry, but is she a teenager, or is she age 7?<br /><br />Granted, Piper Perabo (as Polly the tortured dyke) & others do an okay job for the horrible lines they are forced to utter. Perabo has a nice energy level and is obviously very comfortable in front of a camera. She would do well in a decent project, so this is in no way a criticism of the acting.<br /><br />But this story is SHAMELESS in perpetuating every single stereotype about lesbians all rolled into one character. They couldn't stop with her (Polly) being an angry, crazy-passionate, secret genius who finished math problems for the speechless teacher. Oh but that's after she argues with the teacher who dares accuse her of "gabbing".<br /><br />"That's a word THEY (males) use against US (women)!" she says, stomping out of the classroom.<br /><br />Is this ALL the writer could come up with? Or maybe we should ask: Why stop there? <br /><br />Poole and co. went on and made Polly a poetic dark child who communicates with wild hawks by screaming their name in the woods.<br /><br />Cue the slow motion, sci-fi, Xena atmosphere!<br /><br />Then we have her writing to her birth mother... (most lesbians are love-starved orphans, in case you were in the dark).<br /><br />Then we have two teachers (one uptight, one a zany type with loose neck ties) who hover around all of the action (the school looks awfully big for just 2 teachers)... and give dark child/ seductress/bird girl tense looks. Hmmmm. I wonder if something well, you know... um, FUNNY is happening between these TWO TEACHERS??????<br /><br />There is simply no excuse for something this poorly done. Heartbreak happens, but surely the writer and director know that lesbians exist in much more sophisticated times than this schlock.<br /><br />I cannot reveal the ending out of respect to those who force themselves to sit through til the end, but if you are not laughing, I can only guess you are crying. And not for the right reason. And I don't mean the wimpy make out scenes.
If you think it's beautiful to be obsessive about who you are in love with, then I can imagine giving it a good rating... but I cannot imagine that this theme of obsessiveness and having little respect for others (such as the way Paulie treats the teachers who try to help her) is anything you would want to teach your children. Yes, it's also bad the way Victoria treated Paulie, but guess what. That's life. Isn't it a more important lesson to learn how to get past these disappointments and make the best of your life? Or is falling off the roof a better lesson to teach our children? Secondly, when Mary's father didn't show up for the dinner, and Paulie helped Mary release her anger, that Mary even said she wished he were dead... Somehow I don't think this is a good message either that you deal with your disappointments through anger.
Well, that's what this should have been called, anyway. Mainly, due the the ridiculous, ham-fisted use of what can barely be called symbolism by the director. It would not have surprised me to find out that this was A) One of Lea Pool's earliest efforts, and B) at least semi-autobiographical. Turns out A is wrong, although I don;t know about B. I will bet she attended boarding school, though, and had a rather terrible same-sex relationship of SOME kind. This is the message that was beat down our throats by this film, and the short film which preceded it, the name of which I no longer recall.<br /><br />At any rate, the character development was clumsy (Who introduces herself by saying what her name means? Nobody.) the symbols were about as subtle as an all-glass elevator full of teen-age girls losing a cable and plummeting eighty stories. All over a loudspeaker. Honestly, the cry of a falcon when Perabo declared she was a raptor and leapt off the table? That was ridiculous to the point of parody. And it was only one of far too many symbols meant to show even the dumbest of viewers what her point was. And that was that she had a crappy childhood and feels the need to make movies about it, ala Vincent Gallo, instead of seeing a therapist, ala all of us who get on with our lives. There was nothing tender, nothing sweet, and nothing moving about this film. It was poorly enacted trash, and the actors could not save the Brett Ratneresque over the top "HEY THIS IS MY POINT IN THIS MOVIE" use of film techniques, writing, and acting. Sorry, but it was terrible.
Ken Burns' "Baseball" is a decent documentary... it presents a clear origin of the game, a great depiction of baseball's early years and heroes. There's plenty in this movie for any baseball fan... that said, the film has several glaring flaws.<br /><br />18 hours is simply too long for the human attention span. It's clear that Burns stretched his film out to fit his "nine inning" concept. It's not even a tight 18 hours... the pace on every segment is slow, almost morose... the music always nostalgic and wistful. Isn't baseball ever exciting and fun? Why is every player and their accomplishments presented in the form of a tragedy? Talking head after talking head turn every pitch into an emotional heartbreak, yakking about baseball as a metaphor, baseball as Americana, the psychology and theology of baseball... enough! This is syrupy, mawkish drivel. Billy Crystal is here to sell us all the Yankee hokum he's sold us before. Ken Burns uses the National Anthem as the series' theme song, and manages to play "Take Me Out To The Ballgame" so many times you might vomit. We get it, dude.<br /><br />Clearly Burns is a neo-Hollywood faux-liberal, so he spends probably a third of the film on the Negro leagues... these segments are spent chastising whites of yesterday for not being as open-minded as Kenny is today. For shame! He chides baseball for being segregated in the thirties and forties but fails to realize that America was segregated in those times! Burns falls head over heels in love with Buck O'Neil, a former negro-league player, and drools over every piece of footage in which the elderly O'Neil waxes poetic about his playing days. Nonsense...<br /><br />Burns would have been better off with an adult to help him edit his creation down. "Baseball" winds up as mushy, gushy, civil-rights propaganda disguised as Americana. Its clear that Burns is not a baseball fan... otherwise he would know we watch games laughing and cheering, not weeping and reciting soliloquies... are you listening, Mr. Burns? There's no crying in baseball.
A pre-Nerd Robert Carradine, a pre-Automan Desi Arnaz Jr., and an almost pre-pubescent Melanie Griffith take to the road and head for Alaska with romantic dreams of becoming wealthy salmon fishers. Well, their dream is about as exciting as this lackluster youth road movie. They aren't particularly interesting, and the film doesn't exactly have much of a point, beyond `We got together the spawn of some famous people and made a low budget film about their misadventures.' Out of the cannon of 60's and 70's road films and rebel youth films, this one is mediocre, under developed, uninvolving characters, not much wit, not much freshness to the story, which is as bland as the films muddy landscape.<br /><br />But, for those who care- They head to Alaska, and apparently Alaska was like the Wild West in the 70's because everyone carries a gun and is rough and tumble. Robert Carradine says charming things like `I hope we can find a shower, my nuts sure itch.' (And he's the one with Melanie Griffith!) They are quickly robbed and forced to take jobs, and the local bigwig, their employer, puts the moves on Melanie and eventually fires Desi for not being corrupt. That's when they aren't smart and do not leave town, opting instead to eat dog food or go hungry, get beat up by the guys goons, and then take a joyride in the bigwigs car. The final half of the film abandons the evil bigwig as the trio commit a robbery, go on the run, and hatch a kidnapping scheme, and so forth. The film just sort of ends, annoyingly and ambiguously, but seeing as how they didn't bother to have much character development and story in the first place, its rather appropriate. Worth a look if you are really into low budget 70's fare, but ultimately pretty forgettable.
The video box for 'Joyride' says "starring second generation superstars", and one can't help but feel sad. Granted, Melanie Griffith has gone on to bigger and better things...but who cares about the rest of the cast? So with that being the pathetic attention grabber on the box I was foolish enough to purchase the film for a dollar thinking I would be in the land of 'so-bad-they're-good 70's films' Eh, not so much. While so many aimless 70's youth films (or plain ol' 70's films for that matter) tried so hard to say something deep and meaningful, 'Joyride' doesn't even try. It's just aimless. It is devoid of any interest whatsoever. Each character is so poorly conceived that it's no wonder these actors look so listless.<br /><br />In a nutshell the movie is about three 20-somethings who go to Alaska to start a business, but instead get robbed and then have to find work. They get beat up, eat dog food, steal cars, rob banks. It's all very typical but on top of that it's executed in the most mundane way possible. There are no surprises and the flow is so bad, and the actions of the characters so ambiguous that you can miss several scenes and not mind at all.<br /><br />But if you're a fan of Melanie Griffith's breasts - then this is a must-see. That's still not enough to get this above the lowest rating I can give.<br /><br />Best Line: "Jesus, everything is biology with you." * out of ****
I just saw this movie and all I can say is, where are the drive in's these days. This seems like it would have been a great 2nd feature at a drive in in 1977 (maybe playing with one of those Joan Collins movies), but it's only worth watching now if you're feeling nostalgic for the 70's. Silly plot that is full of holes, but it does remind one of the era it was made in. Interesting to see Melanie Griffith so young and Anne Lockhart is quite attractive, though not much of an actress. In fact, there is not much acting going on in this movie at all. It's sort of a Dukes of Hazzard adventure without a twang or a 1969 Dodge charger jumping over stuff in the Woods. But there is a Mecrury Comet jumping over a garbage dump in this one!
I think that a lot of friends of people who acted in this thing must've come on and rated it because I'm telling you, its just awful. The acting is worse than soapopera bad, the effects are like something you'd see out of a 1970 episode of Doctor Who, the story is, well, there is no story. And they keep using the same 2 minute song over and over and over again. And the werewolf? Its like the muppets they used in Wing Commander, the giant cats, remember how bad they looked? The werewolf is that bad. Seriously, the guy who directed this thing is terrible and should never get to direct anything else again, except maybe his son's school play, but even then, he should have to pay the audience to see it. Ghostwolf is nothing but a bad joke.
No one can say I wasn't warned as I have read the reviews (both user & external), but like most of us attracted to horror movies... curiosity got this cat. (Come on, we all scream at the people in the movie not to go into the dark room, but you know that's horror aficionados are always dying to know what's in there even if we know it'll be bad).<br /><br />The bottom line is that this movie left me angry. Not because it pretends to be real (who cares...gimmicks are allowed), or because the actors and dialogue are so lame (is this an unusual event in horror movies?) or even because the movie is so bad (and I am being polite here). What really got me mad is that the film is not only a rip off of BWP, but also a half-hearted lazy rip off at that.<br /><br />I don't believe in sacred cows and if they thought they could outdo BWP then kudos to them, but they didn't even try. The movie was made with little effort or care and that is the most unforgivable sin in horror (or any) movie!
The characters are annoying, immature, and flaky....Madison being the most annoying of all. OOH...a cold spot! Such a dire threat! Any ghost in that house would have fled in self-defense! To make a long story short, this movie is boring. Seeing a chair flying across a room may be creepy, but that's about as intriguing as it gets. I watched it once and when one of my kids wanted to watch it again, I was tempted to take a baseball bat to the TV set rather than watch this rubbish again. If you want a good horror movie or even a passable comedy, this isn't it! The only good part of the whole thing was "the roach scene" and, by the end of the movie, you ended up feeling sorry for the roach!
I was surprised that the makers of this movie actually came out said that this movie was a true story. The majority of the scenes looked fake to me. For instance when the one girl was eating her sandwich and there was a roach in it. While she was eating the sandwich the camera on the opposite side of it showed that there was a roach on it. It's funny how the camera just happened to be filming on the sandwich when the girl was eating it. Another scene is when the gang went to open a clothes closet and a cat flew out of the closet or should I say it was thrown out to give it effect. This movie was not realistic at all. It's highly doubtful that the events that happened were true that evening when the "St. Francisville Experiment" took place. I believe that the house may be haunted, but not on the night this movie was filmed! The ending was amusing when Tim and and other girl were chained down in the some sort of basement. Paul and Madison found them and rescued them! I would rather watch the Blair Witch Project again then have to sit through the St. Francisville Experiment movie again. As I said, if the makers of the movie did not state that this was a true story with true events I may have like it more. Your better off getting more entertainment from the Blair Witch Project (even though this is not a true story either)!!!
Okay they tell you it's real. They don't list any screenwriters or directors, but one viewing of this movie will prove to anyone - It's not real in the way you were hoping for. The speaking rarely sounds like real natural talk...but also down not sound to be scripted. (possibly loosely scripted). To me it sounded much more like they were always trying to ad-lib. (which they almost always did poorly). Therefore, they knew they were making a 'movie', not just collecting real natural footage. So I'm sure these people knew what was going on, knew they had certain spots to look for things that were set up...and they were just told to ad-lib around it all.<br /><br />*************'Major Spoilers'**************** *****************************************<br /><br />Okay, it's so lame. Every item, spot or thing that could be strange or use d as a scare, is magically stumbled upon by these people. Let me list off the ridiculously obviously faked things that happened that I remember:<br /><br />1) Less than 2 minutes of entering the house, they turn a light switch on - the light sparks and a chandelier almost falls on a guy.<br /><br />2) They happen to find an old medical bag with a bloody butcher knife* in it, while exploring the cellar.<br /><br />3) They hear a noise in an armoire, so they open the door slowly - BAM - a cat happens to be in there and jumps straight at the camera while shrieking.<br /><br />4) Then they happen to notice there is a hole in the wall, so let's stick our hand in...wow, they pulled out a doll of a baby wrapped in mummy tape.<br /><br />5) Let's go to the attic, uh-oh it feels 'heavy' up here....BOOM - a chair flies across the room.<br /><br />6) Time to eat. Oh no ! The girl that was scared of bugs had a ROACH in her sandwich ! LOL !....ridiculous.<br /><br />7) Let's get out the Ouija board...oops one of the legs on the planchette fell off the side of the board. That couldn't be because the people were pushing it could it ? (they find out a ghost there is named Charles)<br /><br />8) Wait ! What was that noise in the chimney...CLINK - oh my shackles fell out "I think she* kept people up here".<br /><br />9) Now wimpy girl is going to brave looking up the chimney shaft...oh, what's this she sees something...and is asking people who aren't looking up the chimney what it is. SWISH - It falls off straight at her. (perfect camera shot) She moves just in time. It was more chain.<br /><br />10) Now we have to separate and each 'cleanse' our designated rooms - wouldn't it be something if things started happening one by one to these people now...okay:<br /><br />CHICK #1: Wow, suddenly her room is shaking...but no one elses does.<br /><br />DUDE #1: Actually says to himself "Charles, is that you Charles...it can't be you because you're just a figment of my imagination aren't you Charles". Well guess what, he gets knocked over and dragged across the floor. Another lucky camera shot.<br /><br />CHICK #2: Hears things..try to communicate ...and is standing there getting abrasions or something.<br /><br />DUDE #2: He was in the attic, reached his arm through a hole in the floor and got a splinter....I don't remember what else.<br /><br />11) Dude #2 runs, gets Chick #2...they hear chick and dude #1 screaming...they find them chained to a wall and strapped to a table.(*) They leave. Cut to black. Final text tell us they escaped safely, were treated for minor cuts. They have since had nightmares and insomnia, we also find out the next day a 911 call was made by they name a someone named "Charles".<br /><br />*************'Major Spoilers'**************** ******************over********************<br /><br />Okay, when I first heard this movie was being made, I couldn't wait. I thought it was going to be real. REAL, real. - and more professional, with more professional type people. I love the idea of this type of thing, I'd love to see real haunting footage. Before this movie was released I saw couple reviews of it by people online. They both claimed how fake it was and how stupid the people were.. time passed I forgot about the film....then I realized It was never released at theaters. So I found out it went straight to video, rented it....found that every brutal review was completely true. It's too bad, I really wanted this to be good.<br /><br />Random thought: The house didn't seem to have TVs, radios..kitchen appliances that I recall...which would make me think no one has lived there for a long time. Especially the house is truly known for being haunted...im pretty sure no one lives there. But it looks so clean and tidy...and what was a cat doing there ? The property does not have near by neighbors....<br /><br />All-in-all, you'll only want to rent this if you and your friends wanna sit there and make fun of it...or if you heard about it a long time ago and it intrigued you. (you will will be disappointed if you are expecting a good film...or real film)<br /><br />Random thought: I believe the producer says "The 'footage' you see is real". Well technically it is real footage isn't it ? Real footage of fake hauntings ? Maybe that was his loop hole.<br /><br />I give this this movie one star - strictly on the fact that they told the story of Madame LaLaurie. A real New Orleans story.<br /><br />The best performance was by the guy who teaches the participants about the ghost hunting equipment in the beginning. He was obviously actually real...or a good actor.<br /><br />
The St. Francisville Experiment claims "this ain't no walk in the woods", a direct slap in the face of Blair Witch. Where Blair Witch proved to be a film that overworked the viewer's imagination through simple suggestion, The St. Francisville Experiement overworks the viewer's patience. One must say, however, that this is destined to be a camp classic.<br /><br />Warning: Spoiler is forthcoming!!<br /><br />I viewed this movie in a local theater in which the movie's "paranormal consultant" Troy Taylor spoke about the making of the movie. Should anyone want to see this movie without knowing the forthcoming information, stop reading here. For those of you who can't resist, read on my friends and all shall be told.<br /><br />Mr. Taylor, a writer of rather unintriguing ghost stories which he claims are all true, informed the audience at this video screening that The St. Francisville Experiment was not a documentary. Shock! Amazing! As if we didn't know... He informed us that all of the frightening discoveries the participants made were all staged and prearranged by the film's producers. Matter of fact, he informed us that the last 15 minutes were not even filmed in Louisiana, but rather in California. All four participants were true actors (notice I didn't say good...). One of the participants is actually a special effects technician on ER.<br /><br />What infuriates me about this film is that it proclaims everything is true. It feebly attempts to outdo The Blair Witch Project by claiming it's true whereas Blair Witch was a hoax. The amazing thing is that no one could have belief this film for an instant. Filled with dreadful acting and hilarious lines such as "surround yourself with the white light" and "I love the ghosts", The St. Francisville Experiment belongs at midnight movies everywhere so the crowd can properly heckle, boo, jeer and chant "I love the ghosts!"<br /><br />Talk about false advertising. True stories are not filmed with staged special effects that look as if the neighborhood Boy Scouts troop set up a haunted house. From the bug in the sandwich (ooh...scary...) to the annoying Madison, from the "seance" which is nothing more than the foursome playing on an Oujia Board to the two mice being found under a bed, The St. Francisville Experiement is one embarrassing hoax of a movie. Lion's Gate would be wise to dump this thing into the nearest trash compactor or advertise it as it really should be:<br /><br />"The St. Francisville Experiment: A comedic look at how not to make a movie".
I rented this one by accident. I lifted the video up and looked at the back and thought "shameless Blair Witch rip-off". Then, in a moment of carelessness, I grabbed 'The Francisville Experiment' thinking it was something else. My horror upon arriving home and realizing my mistake was far more terrifying than anything this film had to offer. Boring Characters, bad acting, and a feeling of 'we saw the Blair Witch Project and could do the same' permeate the action to the point where watching on fast forward will lead you straight to the credits. I'm not one to fault film makers for being lazy or desperate, but after this yawn-fest I felt the need to warn everyone: don't waste your time, you have a life.
Ted Nicolaou made a lot of great horror and fantasy films. I am looking for all his films to see. I could not find this one for 3 year, until I unexpectedly found it in youtube. To tell the truth I wanted to see more ghosts and less talks here. It looks like in 1999-2001 Ted had a crisis , maybe in money. His features of this time look more like real low budget thrash z garbage movies. But I do not claim him to be a bad director this time . Everything happens. The ending has some nice creepy details and suspense but the whole film was long dull dialogues .<br /><br />only for real Ted's fans.<br /><br />www.myspace.com/neizvestnostlab
Imagine if you will: four teen students have an assignment to spend the night in a haunted house in St. Francisville, Louisiana to check for the existence of the paranormal. If you watch this in the dark and late at night; you possibly will have the hair on the back of your neck rise a couple of times. Otherwise this mock documentary is a very lazy rip off of BLAIR WITCH PROJECT. What is to be dialogue is very lame and the actors are pleasant looking enough, but seem to lack genuine personality. It seems to take forever before something real spooky even happens. This movie is excellent for 'sleep overs', when you have both eyes barely open and everyone is yakin' and snackin'.
Obviously, someone was looking at catching onto the "Blair Witch" wave.<br /><br />This movie was set up like all the "reality" haunted shows that are popping up on TV lately (and I must admit, I get a kick out of these), but this movie is MUCH cheesier! Probably the first three-quarters of the movie is filled with the "participants" going through the house, WHINING. Give me a break! Spending 10 minutes whining about going up into the attic is not my idea of a good time. Any paranormal happenings are blatant setups. No strings, but too perfectly caught on camera to be real. The "participants" were not very likeable either. Two goofy guys who don't take it seriously, one girl who scares at the drop of a hat, and the quintessential over-played "paranormal" person. Is this becoming the clichéd-"formula" for a ghost movie?<br /><br />I have to admit, the last 15 minutes or so were pure tension. They took every ounce of tension in the movie and stuck it in those 15 minutes. I admit, I spent that time pacing in the kitchen. I really wouldn't recommend this movie to younger viewers, even if it is PG13.<br /><br />If you're looking for some entertainment, if you don't take it seriously, you will get a kick out of this movie. There's tons of situations to make cracks about! If you're looking for an great story-line.. look elsewhere ;)
There is a LOT of repetitive dialogue in this movie about "cold spots" (signaling the presence of a ghost), and characters praying to surround themselves with white light to protect themselves. To recreate the feeling of the movie, I shall repeatedly make references to cold spots throughout this review. I'e seen worse movies than the St. Francisville Experiment, but this may be the most *forgettable* one of all ("it's getting cold!") Basically some 20-somethings spend the night at a haunted house. This is filmed as a supposedly true documentary. It's obviously not real, but the house does contain some cold spots. SPOILERS- (as if you won't be able to predict most of the plot!). Not much happens in this film. We have the time-honored horror cliche of a cat jumping out of hiding near the beginning, as a "practice" scare to warm up the audience. The people wander around with flashlights, occasionally taking a moment to remind the house that they come in peace- that they mean no harm to the spirits (or cold spots) within. Now and then a door will swing shut and startle somebody. Of course , the ouija board makes an appearance. They chat with a ghost named "Charles". A girl eats a sandwich with a cockroach in it. More cold spots. Another door swings shut and some guy goes off about the scuff sound of the door. Scuff, scuff, he says. Oh my god, somebody says. "Surround yourself with white light." I admit there is a good scene in the attic (where a chair is knocked over by a ghost) that really caught me off guard. But aside from some funny bad dialogue, the chair scene (the actual split-second when it is knocked over, nothing immediately before or after that moment) is the only good thing in this movie. However there are still some cold spots in here. Eventually, the movie ends. Nobody dies. No more details necessary. I wasn't a big fan of Blair Witch Project, but it looks like a masterpiece next to the St. Francisville Experiment. You may find yourself not debating whether or not this is a real documentary, but whether or not it was intended to be funny. I still don't know. But whatever it was intended to be, it failed.
This film is a good companion to Blair Witch, because it does so much wrong that BW did right. Like BW, this one pretends to be a documentary of ghostly events, with each member of the team manning his/her own camera. <br /><br />The sense of reality is never there, however. The participants are poorly written clichéd characters and the events that take place are equally clichéd (the cat jumping out of a closet, falling chandelier, etc). Also the stilted dialog and inept improv work by the overly-attractive cast detracts from the docu feel. AND, worst of all, the supposedly participant-held cameras record too many events too perfectly to be even remotely believable. Actually, with some re-editing, this thing could have been a Blair Witch parody. In fact, there is a scene in which the blond historian is eating a sandwich with a huge roach on it that is actually pretty funny as is, reminding me of a similar gross out scene from "Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me." But in the end the event is played straight, with no punchline. It's hard to tell what the intent was with The St Francisville Experiment other than to glom a few stray BW bucks. But it's pretty sad when the only real interest I could find in it was whether the blond historian was going to have her t-shirt tied up off her belly in a particular shot or not.
I just watched this movie with a few friends they said I had to see it but from the beginning i knew it was going to go from bad to worse. So I can only give this movie a 1 because the effects that were used were so poorly used and thought out that anyone can see that there were no "real" ghosts. I feel the worst part was this so called "old haunted house" contained a whole bunch of new items and a few "convieniently placed items" I could have thought up effects that would have looked much better than a chair being flipped over by an unseen ghost (or should i say wire). Then later when they review the tape of the chair flipping it flips in a different way. Uh Oh thats a big continuity error. If this was a truly good movie then they would have caught that and all of the other "old house" items. This movie is like a rip off of house on haunted hill and the Blair witch project all rolled into one poorly thought out and assembled movie. I would be ashamed to put out something with that bad of acting, effects and cheap video shots of the girls chests and how convenient the camera falls when something "paranormal" happens. This movie is an insult to people who are out there actually looking for ghosts and getting real ghost footage on tape.
I realize why people hate this film. And, I hated Blair Witch Project,so go figure? This is about as staged as it gets & yes they do insult your intelligence by trying to make it seem real.I really liked the madame lalaurie storyline though it's more than likely made up. But, the main reason I like this film, is fake or not when the ghosts start attacking & kidnapping them,I get chill-bumps every time & have to look behind me as it feels like something's there with me.i know it's my imagination, but hey more than half of the drivel that is horror in today's cinemas & DVD's doesn't give me goosebumps,so that makes this a creepy delight.Not for everyone, as skeptics will hate it & not for gorehounds as with a PG-13 rating there is no gore. And, the females are very annoying!You'll wish the ghosts would take them off & experiment on them before it's all said & done. ** out of *****.
why oh why did i ever waste my time watching this film? it was given to me on video by a friend and i thought i'll watch it, it can't be that bad surely. firstly the acting is simply appalling and we're supposed to believe this is real? secondly this film is blatantly trying to copy the Blair witch project (yawn) and does so very poorly. so if you want the fright of your life i would suggest that a Simpson's Halloween special would be far scarier. but, if you just wanted to a laugh then maybe the general crapness of this film would suffice. but overall i would avoid this film at all costs or drink a large amount of alcohol before viewing. the best bit? its only about an hour and a half, thank god.
I suppose for 1961 this film was supposed to be " cool " , but looking back now ( 45 years ) it's charm was just as silly as it's entertainment value ! Granted , the special effects do well on T.V. with the Series that started in 1964 , but for the BIG screen ?? I once had a fish tank that was equally as exciting ! I must agree about the Octopus scene near the end where it attached itself to the Seaview. Obviously not well staged...or trained ! Overall , it's pretty bad acting with shoddy special effects and I still do recommend it - for fun laughs sake. This was probably one of Irwin Allen's Biggest films and I think he thought a lot of it . Barabara Eden went on to play " Genie " on T.V. Micheal Ansara was her Husband . Now that is a cool part about this film ! I always enjoyed seeing real life Husband and Wife teams star in the same movie . Neat !
I'm sure that any legitimate submariner would happily ship out on the USOS Seaview (yes, SOS...) Why, you could play full-court basketball in the torpedo room, it's so large. And how 'bout the bay windows in the bow, the better to see giant squids or minefields that appear out of nowhere? Did I mention the colorful mess-cook with the parrot on his shoulder? And the Admiral's stateroom with what appears to be a loft? Big bleeping sub...<br /><br />OK, OK...it's never gonna win any prizes for authenticity. And if the sub is laughable, the plot is even worse. Somehow the Van Allen belts of radiation, hundreds of miles in space, have "caught fire" are going to make global warming look like a weenie roast. Pompous Admiral Nelson (Walter Pidgeon), along with his sidekick Lucius (Peter Lorre, looking suitably uncomfortable) hatch a scheme to put out the fire by firing a missile into its midst.<br /><br />There's plenty of intrigue (sic) along the way, with a born-again survivor (and his little dog, too!) two "dames" who can never leave well enough alone, a passel of "red shirts" who are expendable, and plot holes big enough for Godzilla to walk through. Thrill to the Seaview being chased at what looks like 60 miles per hour by another sub -- no need for advanced sonar when you can follow from 100 feet astern.<br /><br />The movie careens from one cliff-hanger to another; the payoff is so anticlimactic as to be pointless, certainly not worth the 1 hour and 50 minute wait.<br /><br />The technical adviser for this shipwreck must have been a 14-year old boy with a stack of Popular Mechanics magazines. Worth watching, if only to riff upon.
I really wanted to like this movie. Great cast – Walter Pidgeon in a role that reminds us of his iconic "Forbidden Planet," Barbara Eden and Robert Sterling as young lovers, Frankie Avalon as a musically inclined sailor (is a guy on a submarine a sailor?), even Peter Lorre as a scientist with a fondness for sharks. Maybe it's a good kiddie movie but I had trouble staying awake. Lorre was severely underused. I guess he was a red herring, like Pidgeon – you expect him to maybe go nuts and try to throw the hero or his gal in the shark tank. No such luck. By the way, why is there a shark tank on a submarine? It's typical of the movie's lack of ambition. They explain why Lorre is walking the shark back and forth (because we're seeing it) but just expect us to accept the fact that there's a shark on this sub for some reason. "Research?" Yeah, scientists are always doing that research stuff, who can understand them? Of course, if there wasn't a shark, who would kill the evil psychologist lady (Joan Fontaine)? I'm sorry but even kid's movies in the 50s are capable of being less predictable and frankly idiotic (not to mention exploitative).<br /><br />The first 10 or 15 minutes really got my hopes up. Great theme song sung by Frankie Avalon. Pidgeon leading Floyd the Barber (Howard McNear actually, sorry Howie loved ya in "Blue Hawaii") and Joan Fontaine on a guided tour, careful to skip the room with the huge "WARNING" sign on the door, past Peter Lorre with aforementioned sharks, and then we see a full screen shot of Eden shaking her moneymaker to Avalon's impassioned horn playing! The movie quickly goes downstream from there. There's no real explanation for the firestorm threatening the Earth, so there's a distinct lack of dramatic tension and no villain to boot. Instead Pidgeon's character is made into an unconvincing red herring vaguely of the Ahab variety (I guess "The Caine Mutiny" was still fresh in people's minds), and Fontaine's character suddenly turns evil for no reason at the end. Oh, I suppose the reason is that it's a surprise for the audience. And it is kind of surprising, since the only negative thing she's done is to talk bad about the captain's mental health and there's STILL no reason why she did the sabotage after she's revealed to be the villain. Very poorly done and unconvincing. The guy who was the pessimistic bible nut was better – at least his character made sense.<br /><br />So what else could go wrong? Endless, interminable scuba-diving footage. I never understand the appeal of that kind of thing. A giant squid attacks the ship for a minute, just so there's a monster for the theatrical trailer. Maybe that fooled some people into thinking it was going to be a fantasy adventure film, instead of a half-baked suspense movie about military scientists who are never wrong. Yes – perhaps worst of all, it's barely a fantasy movie much less a science fiction movie. It never did anything for my imagination because the whole premise was nothing but another disaster/apocalypse and these characters never experience any feelings of wonder or discovery. I'm through with Irwin Allen. I never liked his later movies anyway, but this one got me by pretending to be Jules Verne when it's really just another formula exercise in disaster escapism. The whole movie is just waiting to see which character will improbably turn evil and die. He always hired an actor/actress with a charming and personable screen persona to play these roles and that's the only element of "surprise" to be found since there's no logic to these characters anyway. What a pathetic waste of time for these actors. George Pal's movies are 100 times better (the only one that was lame was "Atlantis," which, not coincidentally, was the most Allen-esquire), full of wonder and excitement and – think of it! – ideas! Other than a few effects scenes and Barbara Eden, there's nothing worth seeing here in my opinion. I guess it's good fun for those who are into disaster movies, but I think they are a hollow and dull genre of films.
It's hard to work up any enthusiasm for this awful cartoon-like epic that for some reason has become a cult classic. It certainly can't be because of the totally artificial look of the set designs or the limpid acting of an all-star cast. These days it's shown much too frequently on Fox Movie Channel or AMC.<br /><br />It pains me to report that veteran actors like Walter Pigeon and Joan Fontaine are even cast in this muddled science fiction travesty, none of which rings true. It's like watching an expensive budget being spent on a Saturday afternoon kiddie show full of cardboard characters and unconvincing dialog. It's a comic book version of the Jules Verne novel.<br /><br />The maturing Fontaine was still attractive but wears a pained expression on her face, perhaps regretting that she had accepted the role of the psychiatrist before reading the script. She contributes absolutely nothing to her cardboard role but an imperial and uncomfortable presence and looks totally out of place most of the time. Faring no better are Robert Sterling, Barbara Eden and--most of all, Peter Lorre--as well as Frankie Avalon, who gets to sing the title tune which--it's safe to say--did not become anyone's favorite title tune.<br /><br />An awfully frustrating experience to sit through a film like this which wastes an attractive cast and is an insult to almost anyone's intelligence. Totally unconvincing from start to finish. The film, as well as the fantastic submarine, sinks to the bottom of the sea long before the fight with a rubber octopus brings the film to a dreary conclusion.
Irwin Allen, past master of cinematic schlock, pulled out all the stops in VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA. A badly aged Walter Pidgeon, who actually may have been dead when he played this role, is the commander of an atomic submarine that must be the size of the Empire State Building. Every room is gigantic and some even appear to have no ceilings. You could bowl and hold a formal ball simultaneously in some of these rooms. The sub, called the Seaview, is on its maiden run when all hell breaks loose: the Van Allen radiation belt catches fire and the Seaview must launch a missile into the belt by a certain time or the world will go down in global warming flames! Along for the ride are a bunch of truly terrible character actors, many borrowed from TV. This makes them TV hack-tors. The worst is probably that poor man's Stella Stevens, Barbara Eden, as a naval secretary, squeezed into too-tight clothes, sporting high heels and acting like she's appearing in a beach party flick. Maybe that's because Frankie Avalon is also along for the ride. A badly aged Joan Fontaine, almost unrecognizable here, plays a visiting doctor with a big bad secret, but in truth who cares? VOYAGE is a truly bad movie obviously made for small children, but what child is going to sit still for endless shots of a miniature Seaview model moving over and over again from right to left across the screen in what is obviously a studio tank? There is not one scene where we believe these folks are actually aboard a sub. When the Seaview shakes, the actors fling themselves about, sometimes in opposite directions to one another. Just like on the good old STAR TREK TV series, when the bridge shakes. If I remember correctly, not one fish or sea creature is seen -- except for an octopus that momentarily latches onto the sub, a nod to 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA. The octopus, if it was real, was probably about a foot long and it shows. Worse, when folks are standing at the Seaview's glass nose, the ocean they are supposedly watching is obviously a closeup involving an unseen air hose spouting bubbles, probably filmed in a fish tank. You have never seen bigger bubbles in your life. You'd think these bubbles alone would smash the damned sub to pieces. Sadly, a badly aged Peter Lorre is also along for the ride. Near the end, when the missile is entering the flaming belt, Lorre is seen enthusiastically congratulating Pidgeon while everyone else is still waiting for their cue to start shaking hands and embracing one another in victory. A one-take scene if I've ever seen one. What a stinker. It's not even good for a laugh. Stick with SILENT RUNNING.
Only a very small child could overlook the absurdities in this bomb; the first difficulty faced by the submarine "Seaview" is what appear to be chunks of--rock? falling down through the water and crashing into its hull. But it's not rock, they're under the North Pole--it is ICE! Everybody, except possibly hitherto mentioned small children (and even some of them) know that ICE FLOATS.<br /><br />Then, disaster strikes--that darn VAN ALLEN RADIATION BELT around the Earth catches fire! No one knows how this happened, we are told, which is understandable, because it is utterly impossible for radiation to "catch fire", and even if it could, there is NO AIR IN SPACE for it to burn.<br /><br />There is literally no good reason to overlook science concepts basic to 2nd grade school textbooks when making a film; however, Irwin Allen manages to do it again and again; perhaps we are meant to focus on the "people" instead, which is pretty easy, as they are CARDBOARD.<br /><br />The cast tries very hard not to look embarrassed in this ridiculous sub-kiddie romp, much like later episodes of his "Lost in Space" TV series, the concept of which was swiped outright from writer Ib Melchior and then rushed into production.<br /><br />The sub looks pretty good, though, which is why this one gets a "2".
I think Walter Pidgeon was badly miscast in this film. Just not believable in the role. Barbara Eden was beautiful, and acted her part well enough. No one else was at all memorable. <br /><br />I remember the TV series spun off from this movie when I was a small child. I even think I had a plastic "Seaview" that would submerse and was great for playing with in the bathtub. Long time ago.<br /><br />As for some of the other criticism I've read for this film: It's certainly unfair to judge special effects or science knowledge of 4 decades ago by today's standards. The effects were OK for 1961. Not great, but OK. As for the science, that was ludicrous even for 1961. There's no excuse. Also, the sub was awfully roomy. I understand that the navy refused any help at all for this film, so maybe the filmmakers just had no idea.<br /><br />Overall, the film bored me. (And I'm a sci-fi fan.) Can't recommend this one. Grade: D-
Irwin Allen put all his talents behind this one: he's co-screenwriter, producer and director of this cartoonish "epic" about an atomic submarine and its efforts to reduce a ring of radiation circling the Earth. Potentially exciting story fails to take off, despite an eclectic cast. Varied players from Walter Pigeon and Joan Fontaine to Frankie Avalon and Barbara Eden are interestingly intermingled and provide a dash of color, but this soggy sci-fi is pretty cheesy. Good for a few stray laughs, but Allen didn't seem to know the difference between strong, solid adventure and campy nonsense. Later a popular TV series. ** from ****
Jim Varney's first real movie is quite a delight, but don't come in expecting to see Ernest P. Worrel any time soon. I felt the wide array of characters Varney depicted were great, but without being said, the rest of the movie should be put into a mulcher or something. A rather odd beginning for a movie icon.
My website (www.theflickguy.org) lists this pick as the worst movie of all time. Here is an excerpt: <br /><br />"If I were strapped down to a chair and forced to watch this movie over and over again, I couldn't imagine Hell being any worse. Jim Varney plays a three-handed crazy guy bent on destroying the world (apparently starting with cinema). Now let's face it, no one expects a whole lot from a Varney movie, but this agonizing drivel had me dry-heaving for 92 minutes. Not a laugh. Not one. This is not kamp or gitchy, this is not even mindless. It is evil. Do not rent this, it may destroy your DVD player. Do not even buy the VHS from a 29-cent clearance bin to use as a blank tape. It is the worst film of all time. Period. I mean it. Really."
this is one of the stupidest movies ever, not THE stupidest mind you but one of the stupidest. This is 96 1/2 minutes of sleep inducing material. Probably Jim Varney's worst movie ever. The last 30 seconds of the film is the best and funniest part but hardly worth sitting through the whole movie for. On the other hand, if you are a die hard Jim Varney/Ernest fan, then like me, you must add this film to your collection. It does have brief, rare moments of humor, although they are few and far between. The mere fact that this movie is so hard to find makes it a collectors item and a must have for your ernest collection. I was lucky to find this film online at a dirt cheap price a couple years ago. I believe I paid 1.99 plus shipping for it. And it was the only copy I could find anywhere. Even though this is a truly all around horrible movie, it is still a must have if you are a Jim Varney fan and an Ernest movie collector such as I. On a scale of 1 to 10 I give this movie a 2 but thats only because I've never seen a 1 before ;)
I saw this movie when it was first released in 1986. At the time I was young and enjoyed all the normal comedy available, i.e.; Monty Python, Jim Belushi & SNL, Steve Martin, Cheech & Chong, so I believe that my judgment represents most "sane" individuals.<br /><br />The absolute best part of this movie was the trailer played at the beginning of the movie for the new "My Little Pony" movie that was coming out.<br /><br />This movie was so atrocious that it was actually yanked from most theaters before the initial week run was completed.<br /><br />I'm surprised that anyone would waste there corporate money to duplicate this steaming pile of human waste.<br /><br />Don't waste your time or money to rent or watch this "movie".
This movie, which I just discovered at the video store, has apparently sit around for a couple of years without a distributor. It's easy to see why. The story of two friends living in New York searching for their pal from high school who is now living homeless under the boardwalk at Coney Island, has flashes of being a very good film, but ultimately is weighted down by the story focusing on Stan and Daniel, rather than on their homeless friend Richie. Cryer is as usual very good and the film has a nice stark look to it, with the ghostly images of Coney Island. However, writer Cryer and director Richard Schenkman are too busy dealing with the fairly uninteresting lives of Stan and Daniel rather than focusing on Richie. One flashback in a music store, where Richie has a crush on an employee stands out and really shows the viewer where this film could have gone. But in the end, not much. Two many drawn out scenes of annoyance, such as inside the Skeeball building. RATING 4 out of 10.
I kind of like JAG. It do have it´s charm but lately it´s to much propaganda in it. For an outsider (a non American) the patriotic feeling can be a bit to much.<br /><br />I don´t like that Rabb and MacKenzie goes from being lawyers (as they were in the early parts of the TV show) to become super heros that stops wars and rescues entire continents. Its almost like watching a recruitment video from the US army.<br /><br />I still watch the show, so it´s not that bad. But i would prefer more episodes when Rabb and MacKenzie investigates military accidents and don´t save the world in the future.
Watched this piece ONDEMAND because the description was kind of outlandish. This film stinks of cocaine, the opening scene alone must have cost at least five figures in blow to film. This is a racist, homophobic piece of garbage that plods along for a good 1hr and 22mins with absolutely no direction. I am a little confused on how this has good reviews here. I won't bother telling you the plot line because as far as I can tell there is no plot. I'm pretty sure everyone showed up to the set everyday did giant lines, dressed Loretta Switt in plunging necklines to show as much flapjack breastage as possible and yelled action; letting the cast improvise in a cocaine frenzy. Much like real beer this movie nearly caused my liver to fail half way through. Save your money, and watch 'Strange Brew' instead.
Given the subject matter of drug addiction Down to the Bone almost can't help but be a rather depressing film. But depressing doesn't necessarily have to mean bad. Unfortunately in this case it is in fact pretty bad. The film has some good things going for it, most notably the quality performance of Vera Farmiga in the central role of Irene, a working mom struggling with a cocaine addiction. But there isn't enough good here to outweigh the bad. The film's failings lie mainly with the story, which fails to captivate and never really seems to get going. Irene goes to rehab and comes home to a clueless husband who has no idea how to support her attempt to kick her habit. Irene grows close to another recovering addict, a male nurse from her rehab center. Complications ensue. But the story never really sparks to life. It doesn't seem as if the movie is really going anywhere. You can say it's a stark, realistic look at the day-to-day struggles of an addict. Maybe so but in this case it doesn't make for an interesting movie. The whole thing has a very "blah" feel to it. The minimalist cinematography doesn't help matters, adding another layer of drab to the incredibly drab proceedings. And none of the other performances measure up to Farmiga's. Hugh Dillon is OK as Irene's male nurse friend but nobody else in the cast adds anything of value to the proceedings. All in all this movie is a bleak, depressing and rather dull ride.
IF you love movies about fruity dudes who prance around with a top hats and canes while spouting off random line of poetry while stabbing their victims then this is the movie for you!!<br /><br />If you like movies where it looks like the whole thing was shot with a camcorder, and when people get disemboweled their internal organs are made out of baked ziti an marinara sauce this movie is even more for you!! <br /><br />And if you simply love movies where the acting and dialogue sucks so much that it makes you feel dead inside, then for God's sake run to the video store right now and buy this movie right now!!! Hurry go before it sells out!
This homemade horror movie tells the story of a dude who kills people using the motif of stories by Edgar Allan Poe. The local police have bungled the case for a few years, so now the FBI has taken over. They know exactly who the guy is, but apparently no one has thought to swing by his house, because that's where he's hanging out, running around in his vintage clothing and torturing the random locals. So FBI-chick gets kidnapped, which involves her father, the former lead investigator from the local police. To top it all off, a pack of wacky college kids have decided to camp out at the house and smoke a bunch of weed.<br /><br />Mostly, the FBI agent winds up shrieking and running around like a little girl, and not a single one of the burly college boys thinks to just stop and take a swing at the wimpy Poe-boy. Mostly overacted and sometimes underacted, Dead End Road reeks of a low-budget, cast-with-friends production that has silly points too numerous to cover.
Detective Burt Williams has been on the trail of the infamous Poe killer for nearly three years.Burt's daughter Kris Williams,a homicide agent for the FBI along with her partner Sean Michaels take over.Burt reluctantly steps down from the case and retires.For the next seven months the "Poe Killer" continues his murderous rampage until Kris discovers that the killer uses internet chat rooms to seduce his prey.She logs in as Annabel Lee and is quickly captured by Poe killer.It's time for Burt to find the sadist and free his daughter before it's too late.Amateurish and supremely braindead horror flick with no suspense and a bit of nasty gore.The acting is hilariously terrible,the characters are painfully dumb and the killer is not menacing.Still I have seen worse indie horror flicks.3 out of 10.
This was honestly the worst movie i have ever seen. the acting was god awful, the story line also was bad. it was however a good idea. if this movie would have had better cinematics, and a lot better actors, i might of had something better to say. edgar allen poe was a great Gothic writer, and this movie just destroyed it. why do people always have to kill good stories by making bad movies. the only good part was when the killer put the head under the floor with a tape going, that was pretty good. the swinging axe was just horrible, there was absolutely no suspense. and also when the killer is chasing everyone around in the end, he was going from one place to another in just seconds, it makes absolutely no sense.
I bought this movie sight unseen at a sci-fi convention and I got what I deserved for doing something so silly. Simply put this movie is implausible, boring and unwatchable.<br /><br />I was so bored and disgusted with the lack of plot development that I turned it off to watch a repeat of Mythbusters. I understand that this was a very low budget move, or least it looked like a very low budget move, but that does not excuse the horrible acting, terrible plot and even worse camera work. It looks like something a group of college students did in between classes and getting drunk.<br /><br />Maybe if the villain wasn't so laughable and the plot was something that actually could happen in real life with respect to law enforcement it might become so bad it's funny. This movie isn't funny, it's just bad.
You know, I really hate IMDb's censor system, since my entire review is almost gone if you take out the cursing. But here we go. Editing time!<br /><br />Holy moley is this bad. I thought it might be a cool little movie, judging by the plot summary, since yknow I've blindly rented such gems as Frailty and American Nightmare before. But this is just abominal. It's about a killer who uses Edgar Allen Poe's works as reference for his murderous exploits, and the story of a detective who has to stop him. Can't these blithering hacks make a good movie without defiling the grave of a great horror writer? I mean, the kills in here are completely devoid of thought or originality, and the references to Poe are hokey and fake, without enough thought put into them. They're shallow, and they put Poe's work to shame. Full of holes, with awful sequencing. The acting is bad too, reminding me of the abortion that was known in some third world countries as "Fear X", what with all the pausing and un-emotional lines.<br /><br />I realize this is an indie movie, but that's no excuse. I've seen high school kids act better then these morons, and I myself could've come up with better kill scenes and a better plot, given ample time.<br /><br />This has no reason to exist. Avoid at all costs.
How in the world does a thing like this get into my DVD player at home? How does it even get to be packaged and distributed? Are there absolutely zero screenings a movie (and I use that term loosely) have to go through before it's put on a video store's shelf anymore? I'm all for DIY film making but come on! That doesn't entitle me to get a group of my friends and relatives together, a crappy camcorder, an awful story and put it all together to create a heaping pile of crap and call it a movie. And I wish people would quit using the words "Indie" and "Campy" to describe these types of movies. They're not either. In no other profession would something like this be considered acceptable. If someone tried to sell you car that was as bad as this movie, you'd take it back and say it was a lemon. If it was a surgical procedure, you'd be suing the doctor for malpractice. I wish I could get my time and money back after watching this. Shame on the video stores who stock movies like these. They're a rip-off to the public. You want "campy"? Go get any of the Friday the 13th movies (even the LATER ones) or Dead-Alive. At least those don't make you want to kill yourself. It's because of movies like this that make people automatically equate independent with garbage.
What to say about "Dead End Road"...<br /><br />Lets just say that Edgar Allen Poe would have been so ashamed. The acting, writing, effects, and everything in this movie was just horrendous. That doesn't even do justice! This movie was the biggest piece of garbage I have ever had to sit through. That is also why I stopped it about 20 minutes before the ending because personally I didn't care what happened to the characters. I have seen bad but this was definitely the worst. I got hyped up for this because I am a fan of Poe and this was just bad. Just bad. <br /><br />What upsets me more is that you can't rate films with negative numbers.
This is one of the strangest things on TV. It is set in a bizarrely underpopulated Midlands superb called Leatherbridge which seems to be the dullest place in the country. It features a bar with no visible staff or customers, a university with no students, a police station with no criminals and a doctors' surgery with more doctors than patients. The story lines are dire - every episode revolves round a bizarre medical issue acted out by a variety of brummie extras who can never actually act, and for some reason the doctor always ends up round their house solving their problem. Pretty entertaining for its pure comedy value, but I cannot believe that this thing actually masquerades as a serious drama. Bonkers.
I am coming out fighting here because this film was so well shot and so well cast that I am twice as angry about its de-evolution than I would have been with a lesser work. Without revealing too much of the plot, I can only say that part one of my 2 VHS set was an unnerving, unfolding delight of bizarre but plausible plot developments. The lead character was suitably naif-like but also intelligent and very very open. The events that he is rapidly forced to come to terms with are the separation of his parents, the culture shock when his Pakistani roots collide with a complete breakdown of English straitlaced society in the sixties, his father's dubious transformation into the revered Buddha of Suburbia, and the turning of his cousin into a feminist militant as his best friend suddenly becomes an icon of the burgeoning punk movement in the seventies. Among other things.<br /><br />What made me so angry was the amount of detailed work each actor put into creating and establishing their characters in the first part, only to have the whole thing devolve into very bad porn episodes in the second part, far too many to justify plot development, and far too explicit to even seem erotic. My biggest pet peeve is when directors let their private fetishes interfere with the truth of their movie, and this to me was a supreme example.<br /><br />I felt a bit like I'd been invited to a party of very clever, funny strangers, only to have the doors locked and the guests not allowed to interact, and all of us forced to watch bad seventies sexploitation films instead. What an insult to the hard work of these amazing actors! Why not just make a cheeseball flick to begin with? And why cast a great lead character who can actually act, and then cut away from him whenever he is building up to a great performance? I almost felt as if he too was growing tired of the endless sex scenes where all he did was lie there pumping his pelvis for yet another breathy naked actress.<br /><br />Bottom line - Part One is minor genius, Part Two is second tier soap opera perversion. I know the book is quite explicit, but I felt that these fine actors were as exploited in real life as their characters were in the movie, and it made me quite angry and very uncomfortable. Only John Waters can pull off such a dubious degrading of actors and plot and have it seem artistic. My suggestion is to only watch the first part, toss the second in the proverbial rubbish heap, and you will love the Buddha forever. Score A+F=0
Everyone has their choice for "worst movie they've ever seen." Some like to pick on Gigli or Battlefield Earth. Some pick on classics like Plan 9 From Outer Space. Ever since I was 14 I have been very vocal in saying that to me, it is Problem Child 2, and 9 years later, I feel the exact same way. It's not "one of the worst," it's not just an expression. It is THE ACTUAL worst movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />How much farting, pooping, peeing, and puking can you put in a single movie? I don't need to see a dog take a dump that goes up to my waist! Why is it that I'm so hard on this filth? I have nothing against bathroom or gross-out humor. Heck, I like the American Pie movies. Having such an excess of it within 90 minutes is a bad idea, but the true tipping point is to do it with kids! Having little kids call each other sexual names (IMDb won't even let me post that word on here, yet here it is coming out of the mouths of 8 year olds. Think of the irony in that!) and urinate and puke on each other just makes the whole thing feel dirtier. Worst line in the movie: "I guess I should fart in more people's offices." <br /><br />What other film has: urination into lemonade, dynamite sticks exploding toilets, a little boy filming his babysitter having sex and projecting it on the side of the house, and a little girl joking about scratching testicles? <br /><br />However, my absolute favorite moment has to be when the same little girl is on a carnival ride, says: "I'm gonna puke," opens her mouth, and fake looking puke shoots straight out of her open mouth in a perfect 90 degree angle! The puking scene in Scary Movie 2 looked more real than that. <br /><br />I suppose the only redeeming element in the movie is Gilbert Gottfried. You get the impression that he didn't even have a script, but was just being his usual self. Too bad he has to act stupid while pizza gets thrown on him.<br /><br />You know what? Thinking about the movie this much has just made me have to go to the bathroom. Goodbye!
and nothing else.<br /><br />One of my friends bought the Problem Child Tantrum Pack (contains the first two "Problem Child"s in one disc), and we decided to watch the sequel because it was "funnier".<br /><br />There were many funny moments in the movie (the vomit scene, that's all I need to say.), Nippy the dog after eating CHOW DOWN, and numerous others. The movie is nothing but toilet humor, but it's hilarious. Other than the funny moments, though, this movie has little to offer.<br /><br />John Ritter annoys the crap out of me, because it sounds like he's reading out of a book. The man can't act in this one, sorry.<br /><br />Although I can't say if I would find the movie funny now...(we were blown when we watched it), it's a perfect movie for a rainy day...but nothing else. Don't expect Oscar material on this one, guys.
This sequel to Problem Child is just as bad as the first one. It still teaches kids that it's O.K. to be bad. It's impossible for me to recommend this movie to anyone.
I saw this movie in the theatre and it was a terrible movie. The way Michael Oliver who now turn even worse in the sequel is the biggest intolerance I cannot bare. Junior upset his father because he would not go to school which got his father Ben madly insane. Also the Crazy Dance ride operator is not fair to Junior for not letting him go on the ride. And that Lawanda Dumore is as horrible as a serial killer to Junior because she made threatening insults to Junior which is why I cannot tolerate this movie. Even if the movie is re-released back into theatres in the extended version, I still would not see this movie because this movie is not something I can even tolerate. In fact, it stinks!
This was just an awful movie. I've watched it once when I was roughly 12, I am now 19 and I don't think I will ever forget this movie.<br /><br />I still feel sick whenever I think about it, it was just everything horrible that could possibly fit in one movie. I really don't understand what kind of person would enjoy this utter rubbish. It's not enough to simply turn off your mind to enjoy this movie, I can enjoy the dumbest made-for-TV Disney movies as much as the next person, but this is something else completely.<br /><br />Usually I don't like to judge a movie until I have seen it myself, but believe me I am doing you a favour. Do not watch this movie.
Seriously! You've just got to see this movie to understand everything that is wrong with it. It came out during the time period where everybody was trying to make family movies that everyone could enjoy (The little rascals; Mr. Nanny, etc.) yet it lacked any charisma or enthusiasm. Every single character in the movie is driven by rage, with the exception of Trixie's mother, who shows only aggravation and weariness, possibly at the tired cliché's this movie enjoys. <br /><br />To put it simply, the biggest flaw in the film was not the acting, nor the filming, but most notably the writing. The lines we receive are reminiscent of Disney classics, although this film lacks the whole-heartedness IL' Walt managed to pull off. Junior's Dad, (John Ritter) makes you mad without even doing anything, simply because he allows Junior to run around unsupervised, and only gives him a stern warning when he tapes a 200-pound behemoth to a chalk board. <br /><br />Also, Junior's grandfather is particularly excruciating. For those of you who saw the first one, found it nauseating, and thus, did not see the second one, "Big Ben Healy" as he is referred to in this movie, is still a total douche. He basically barges into John Ritter's house uninvited, settles himself in Junior's room, even though he says that he hates Junior, and basically does nothing to accelerate the film's speed, or to support the film in any way. Rather, he ticks off the audience by being a lazy free loader.<br /><br />Finally, we are introduced to a wide variety of new characters, such as the smug, obnoxious, Trixie, who carries dynamite in her backpack, which she first lights, then hands, to Junior, who simply stares wide eyed at. Also, Gilbert Gottfried returns in this film, this time playing the obnoxious principal at Junior's new elementary school. If Gilbert Gottfried ain't enough to get the point across, I will put it simply: This film reeks!<br /><br />2/10 stars, because the actor's convictions shine through the film, even though the script sucks.
"Problem Child 2" was a complete waste of my time. The original film wasn't very good but its a classic compared to this film. The first film went over the top with its scenes of a devilish child wrecking major havoc in the lives of everyone he's around. Here, it goes even further over the top. And one scene in this movie proves that theory. That carnival ride sequence was too much for me to stomach. It's awful. This movie shouldn't have been made.<br /><br />1/2* (out of four)
The only good either of the Problem Child films caused was bringing together Amy Yasbeck and the late John Ritter. Aside from that, the flicks are as demonic as their hero. In this basically unnecessary sequel, freshly separated Ben (Ritter) and his little hellraiser Junior (Michael Oliver, who never needs screen-time ever again) move to a new town infested with willing bachelorettes. Ben eventually picks Lawanda (played by the most underused original SNL-er Laraine Newman), whose Blanche DuBois tendencies don't suit Junior in the least. To add on to Junior's torture, it seems this town already has a little firestarter in younger girl form with Trixie, who coincidentally has a sweet, single mother played by Yasbeck, the same actress who played Junior's first horrible mother-through-adoption. You can see where the plot goes from here. Searching for my favorite scene is like pulling teeth, so I guess I'll go with the "cherry bomb in the toilet" gag that makes Back to the Future's James Tolkan one of the many grown-up victims (that guy's always playing school authority figures). Jack Warden and Gilbert Gottfried return as their parts from the first film, but sadly, there is no appearance from the Bow-tie Klansma- er, I mean Killer (Michael Richards) that made Problem Child all the more fun. On a serious note, I'm sure these films, whether abusive parents saw them or no, did wonders for the red-headed children of America. Let us also salute these proud American flicks for their terrific promoting of adoption. Oh, and dog poop jokes - gotta have dog poop jokes.... Shmucks.
Ten minutes of people spewing gallons of pink vomit. Recurring scenes of enormous piles of dog excrement - need one say more???
Junior and his dad start a new life in a new town. It's the same life because Junior hasn't changed one bit. He is still the same rotten brat as before only he's gotten bigger. This time he has a pal named Trixie and she is only slightly worse. Junior doesn't like his dad dating and messes up every opportunity that he has. Then grandpa moves in and the dog comes along. I thought that the two of them would have made it a good movie but they didn't even become buddies until the end. This is a movie for the most immature people. It has diapers, farts, doggy do do, and toilet humor in it. Only someone under the age of twelve would find this to be super hilarious. I hope when I have a son, he is exactly like Junior.
"Problem Child" was an okay movie, but did it really merit a sequel? I don't think it did. The original movie's only redeeming asset was Gilbert Gottfried, and he wasn't even good in this sequel.<br /><br />I can't really put my finger on why this movie was bad. For starters, it just wasn't funny. Even when I saw this as a nine-year-old, I didn't sympathize with Junior (Michael Oliver) at all. His character came off to me as whiny, self-loathing, and perhaps most importantly, a rebel without a clue. He appeared to hate every woman that his father Ben (John Ritter) dated for the sole sake of hating them. It also doesn't send a good message to kids with divorced parents (who constitute over half children in the U.S. these days) when the one woman Ben decides to (almost) marry is a Southern aristocrat who is vindictive and who happens to hate children as it is.<br /><br />And as cool as I thought it would have been to see original SNL cast mate Laraine Newman come back to the big screen, she couldn't even save this movie. I also found it strange that she was a white Southern débutante whose name was Lawanda. That sounds more like an African-American woman's name. But of course, that has nothing to do with why I disliked this movie.<br /><br />I think the movie didn't work because you had antagonists you were supposed to hate, along with protagonists you weren't supposed to hate. John Ritter's character was supposed to be a good parent who tried desperately to teach his child right from wrong without conforming to authoritative parenting. Instead, he came off not only as a wimpy parent, but also one who was desperate to find a wife in a matter of days, regardless of how well he knew the woman. Did I mention this sends a bad message to children of divorced parents?<br /><br />In a nutshell, the rest of the things that went wrong with this movie included Amy Yasbeck unnecessary and unexplained return to play an entirely different character, that young girl who was even more obnoxious than Junior, completely uncalled for toilet humor, and even more outrageous and outdated homophobic humor (involving the dog catchers). The movie was just a mess, and really doesn't deserve a DVD release if it hasn't been given one already. It should just rot on VHS along with all the other bad, forgettable 90's comedies.
Did the first travesty actually make money? This is another sequel (along the lines of ANOTHER STAKEOUT) that no one asked for. But we've received it anyway. The sequel is like its predecessor, completely brain-dead. It's also pretty disgusting (remember the dinner scene?) To think I almost felt sorry for Ritter, Yasbeck, and Warden. Did they need the money that much?
Whenever someone tries to tell me that they think a movie is the worst ever (and it's usually some movie that's "cool" to hate, like "Manos, the Hands of Fate" or "The Avengers") I ask them, "is that movie a comedy about an orphan who is constantly trying to murder adults? Does anyone utter the line 'I'd rather eat a turd' in that movie?"<br /><br />This movie is WAY too infantile and moronic for adults, and WAY too violent and irresponsible for children. Is there that much money in the Beavis and Butt-head demographic to make a series of movies like this? There is a Problem Child 3, but I haven't seen it. I'd rather eat a turd.
What an awful movie. Full of cliches, perplexing scenes, very bad acting, and an atrotious script. It is hard to believe the same guys that wrote The People vs. Larry Flint and Man on the Moon wrote this garbage. Man, this makes my list of Top 10 Worst Movies of All-Time. Didn't this guy, this director, if you can call him that, realize that the first Problem Child was bad enough? Let alone make a sequel for it!!?? Amazing that piece of trash films like this can be shown to children let alone be released! 1 out of 10 *'s
I am having a hard time finding the words to explain just how much I detested this movie. The historical trial of Henriette Deluzy-Desportes and the Duc de Praslin is a tragic and compelling story that, I feel, had the potential to be a fantastic film, but failed. <br /><br />Although the cinematography certainly had something to say for itself, it in no way could make up for the terrible structure of the film, the badly written script and most of all the horrendously overacted characters. The worst of them were the Duc's children who were so over-the-top-corny and sickeningly fake that it was almost painful to watch.<br /><br />In conclusion, this film left me feeling nothing more than irritated and profoundly disappointed.
this movie was incredibly stupid with meaning what so ever. i fell bad for all the actors and actresses that ruined there career to be in this stupid movie. the entire movie was based on how unrealistic they could make it, to make little like it which made it even stupider. even some of the names were unrealistic. the film is fun to watch which is why it had 2 out of 10 stars. this is probably the 3rd stupidest movie ever made. i got really made after i realized that it had mostly adult actors in it yet in was a kid movie. the most upsetting one was Danny Trejo a horror movie actor who is always dirty. the other actors were pretty much clean as far as i'm concerned.
My kids enjoyed the movie, but I was bored. There were a few good lines and a handful of funny parts, but the plot was pretty lame and relied on the special effects and gadgets to pull it through. Still, it hit the center of the bullseye that it was aiming for: it was good for the kids.
As kids movie it is great. For the family it just sucks. I was truly hoping for something like the Goonies which is a great film for all ages. This movie was just geared too much to the kids with the silly script and characters calling each other little names like booger breath. ??? Alan Cummings was however a delight. And why do people compare Willy Wonka to this movie...just because there is a theme song closely resembling the Willy Wonka song doesnt make this film anything like Willy Wonka.
All the actors in this film seem bored. They are not really interested in their roles and the dialogue is all delivered in monotone. It's a problem because I think the basic idea for the film is really very sound. I suppose it's just bad direction which leaves the actors drifting.
I couldn't help but look at the time every 5 to 10 minutes because I found this movie a total drag. Childish humor, cheap looking sets, cheap looking effects, a plot that makes "Legally blonde" look like "The Usual Suspects" and so many coincidences that I can now officially say that Robert Rodriguez had brain surgery somewhere after 1996. The only thing he left as his trade mark are some cool camera moves, but there's where it ends. OK, so the guy decided to do something new for a change, a children's spy movie. Well if I were 12, I'd feel insulted. The best thing in this movie is the absolutely amazing Carla Gugino that just stole every scene she was in. Sadly, there weren't many. 4/10
Of all the kids movies I have seen over the years this was probably the worst. I took four kids aged from 7 to 11 and none of them liked it.<br /><br />The script seemed to be based on a Willy Wonka style story but it just didn't have anything to it.<br /><br />If you are considering seeing this movie dont waste your time, it is bad.<br /><br />They are making a sequel, so it may be worth watching to see if they can even make a worse movie, but I don't think it is possible.
Wow, what a cheesy movie this is! It starts off looking like it's gonna be a backwoods slasher, with the camera following dogs running through the woods. It then gets a bit boring and follows the story of some girls moving into some house haunted by Indian spirits. We then get plenty of shots of one partially clad girl and another naked girl in the bath. It suddenly gets really cheesy when the "Zombie Indians" arise from the earth and start terrorising the girls. We even get a samurai Indian. <br /><br />This movie starts off pretty boring although I did find the story of the four Indians who buried themselves alive quite interesting. Once the Indian zombies (or whatever you want to call them for they aren't technically zombies) start terrorising the girls is when all the fun begins. This is not a special flick and can't be taken seriously, it's just something fun to watch when you're bored or when you're drinking with friends. I can't help thinking though that it would have worked better as a short story because the first half is tediously boring.
Ladies and gentlemen, allow us to introduce to you …. The Toltecs! This ancient Latin American tribe, even preceding the Aztecs, supposedly had the most malevolent and bloodthirsty sorcerers, yet they get their asses whooped by a couple of college floozies and a one-hundred-and-seven-year old lawman with a whip! But before you get to see this, however, you have to struggle through more than 40 minutes of sheer boredom, infantile pranks and sleazy sequences that don't contain any actual sleaze. In case I haven't made myself entirely clear yet: "The Dark Power" is an indescribably cheesy and inept piece of 80's horror crap that still manages to be amusing because of its sheer and somewhat charming stupidity factor. Writer/director Phil Smoot's intentions were obviously admirable, but he – as well as the rest of the cast & crew – lacked the talent and financial means to deliver something even half-decent. Smoot carefully watched "The Evil Dead" and other similar demonic-themed movies, and somehow must have thought he could pull this off as well. The movie opens with an old Indian guy dying in his isolated countryside house; barely speaking out his last word above a whisper … Toltecs. His grandson promptly rents out house to a bunch of college chicks, including a typically 80's aerobics babe, a cute black girl and a racist redneck gal. Soon they will discover why exactly the old Indian lived like a hermit, as he was actually the guardian of an ancient Toltec burial ground. Toltec sorcerers buried themselves alive, only to emerge again thousands of years later and feed on the flesh of the living. And, honestly, is there any better tasting flesh than that of bimbos? As hinted at before already, the first half of "The Dark Power" is terribly lame and sleep-inducing. The clichéd pranks, the retarded dialogs and the ridiculously overlong footage of Lash LaRue swinging around his whip seem to go on forever. Then, the movie loses its last smidgen of credibility when the Toltec sorcerers emerge from the ground. Instead of menacing, they look like drugged out hard rock stars with imbecile masks and drunken gestures. Exactly ONE gory moment is worth mentioning, when a guy's lips are stretched out over his entire skull, but overall even the carnage aspect of this movie is disappointing. The only remotely worthwhile moments are utterly senseless, like when a 9-year-old kid (named Cletus!) goes joyriding with his uncle's truck or when the vulgar naked chick sips beer in the bathtub after working out. Seriously, unless you get turned on by the sight of a 1940's western veteran swinging around his whip at nothing, I'd advise to skip this film.
Wow... I suspected this one to be bad... But now I find myself just at a loss for words... Honestly, no words of mine can do this movie any justice...<br /><br />I'll try to say something anyway...<br /><br />This truly is one unique gem. One of the worst kind.<br /><br />Lash La Rue - given his background as an actor - doing a whip-fight with a Toltec sorcerer-zombie during the movie's climax...??? A true stroke of genius, without a doubt.<br /><br />It rarely happens that I laugh out loud when watching a movie alone. It happened numerous times with this one.<br /><br />The accents of the actors, man, the accents... And the dialogues I heard them speak... And the acting itself... I just couldn't believe what I was hearing.<br /><br />That fat uncle farting so loudly (when walking up to the house together with his little nephew) for no apparent reason whatsoever...<br /><br />Tits! Yes, there's titties! And female ass! There's even a naked chick in a bathtub sipping a beer...<br /><br />That one "stretch his mouth over his face"-kill was the bomb! A true highlight.<br /><br />The comedy-aspects were just totally bonkers. I just couldn't believe what I was seeing and hearing. For a while I even thought that they were unintentional, shaking my head in disbelief. But about halfway in the movie, I started to get the bigger picture. Guess it took me half a movie to dumb-down half of my brain, to finally get it.<br /><br />I had a really hard time believing this movie... But it's good, really, I think. It had one black chick walking up to a very tiny cupboard, opening it and then saying "Wooow, look at all the storage space!". And she said it like she meant it. I mean, that's good dialogue and good acting, right?<br /><br />Oh, and perhaps needless to say: Lash La Rue's whip-skills suck major ass in THE DARK POWER. It's really sad and pathetic to behold. That's all part of the comedy, of course. Or wait, I might be wrong. No, yes, I'm wrong. Lash La Rue was amazing with the whip! It was the editor's fault. He messed it up, cutting his lashes together and all. Or wait, it might have been the camera operator. He filmed from the wrong angles... Then why didn't Phil Smoot say anything? That's it, it's the director's fault.<br /><br />But it's a good movie.<br /><br />I'm just gonna quit talking about it. I have nothing meaningful to say anyway, except for the fact that I hope my brain will recover from this experience... some time soon.
This film started off really tense when a poor young boy is set upon by a pack of savage dogs. After a tense chase he is saved by said grandpa with magic whip.<br /><br />We are then introduced to a string of annoying house mates, including one tart who is always half dressed. During this stage the film heightens tension with strange "plinky plinky" background noises that had me on the edge of my seat.<br /><br />I stopped paying attention for a while but when I looked back on the screen there where weird creature type things going around grunting and killing. One word of advice if you are ever trapped in your home by some nutter - get some cardboard boxes and a tray.<br /><br />Although we did skip half the film, because it was totally non interesting or memorable, we are now at the stunning conclusion, the last surviving creature thing fights a "Whip Duel" with grandpa and his magic whip. I wont say what happens here, but I can say the whip battle is full of tension, with aerial fights, split level fights and all manner of drama.<br /><br />I am now going to shove this film through the door of a neighbour i don't like.
When a group of dumb kids (including an unlikable. racist bitch) stay at an old house, it awakens four murderous Toltec spirits. Can Lash La Rue save the day? Will you be able to watch until the end due to the horrible comedy on display.<br /><br />"The Dark Power" is the kind of really bad horror/comedy hybrid Troma used to release regularly. Thing is, they didn't. release this. That doesn't excuse the whole thing, as it has a dreadful synthesizer score (including bad attempts at Native American music and even worse "comedy" music), bad make up effects (basically Halloween masks), and atrocious acting (Ok, the fat guy was alright, though everyone else is terrible, and La Rue, a Western movie vet, seems embarrassed to be there-not that I blame him really.)<br /><br />The worst thing though, is the comedy aspects. Sure, dumb teens is one thing, but when the movie keeps talking about the Toltec spirits as if they are the ultimate evil, only for them to turn out to be horribly annoying, bumbling fools, all hope is dashed. Combining horror and comedy takes at least some skill. There is no skill on display here, as it all is just stupid, and not "so dumb it's fun" either. I mean "smoking pot and listening to bad Punk Rock aren't I dumb" dumb.<br /><br />Not even a decent ripped off face and a chick in little clothing can save this disaster. Terrible movie, and not even worth a rental.
A total and utter travesty of a movie.'Dark power'is the kind of film even troma would be embarrassed to release.The script,direction,acting and action sequence's are so dire as to be almost painful to watch and one cant help thinking that it's mere 75 minute running time could have been better spent. The above reviewer must be related to the director as that's the only reason i can see for his/her appraisal of this rubbish,some might call it b-movie fun or 'so bad it's good' just to excuse there enjoyment of it,but when the lead actor ( and most experienced cast member) cant deliver his lines convincingly you know you've got a very,very bad movie.Avoid at all costs.
Glenn Ford, a New York boy who has been saving his cash, thumbs and hobos his way to the Arizona ranch he has bought, where he hopes to find HEAVEN WITH A BARBED WIRE FENCE.<br /><br />A film with a Dalton Trumbo script and story, directed by villain extraordinaire Ricardo Cortez, and starring the frequently twitchy Glenn Ford and the restless Richard Conte just shouldn't be so bloody nice. Though the system -- mostly seen as mean cops and railroad bulls and real estate con men -- is as awful as one might expect from the leftish Mr. Trumbo, every single proletarian is just so sweet and nice and salt of the earth that one feels nausea. It doesn't help that the heroine -- a sweet blonde thing who is an illegal alien refugee fleeing Franco's Spain -- is annoying for reasons of both scripting and acting.<br /><br />So why watch? Richard Conte, in his first role, already has his persona and a pretty good part. And there are some moments of 30s leftist camp that are pretty astonishing. (Did Dalton absolutely have to set a major portion of the movie in the Russian Worker's mission? All that was missing was a portrait of a beaming Joe Stalin!) Also, this is Glenn Ford's first substantive role (though his performance isn't good).<br /><br />Why not watch? Essentially, the movie offers an unconvincing vision, is wedded to a political viewpoint that is risible, and the two leads have made much better movies. Also, the strengths of Dalton Trumbo as a screenwriter are nowhere in evidence. Instead, we get a film that the Coen Brothers Barton Fink could have written in a flash (and avoided that hellish bout with writer's block).
i was one "chosen" to see this movie in a sneak preview.<br /><br />first you should know that this film is based on the video game "far cry", a for its time really good game (2004). second you should know that the regisseur of this flick is the great uwe boll. this is a man, who takes video games (dungeon siege, bloodrayne, postal, etc.) and makes movies out of them (VERY horrible ones....).<br /><br />i still remember when i saw boll's "the king's swords: a dungeon siege tail". there were so horrible mistakes in this film (like 3 scenes playing at the same time, 2 at day-time, and one somehow at night.....)<br /><br />so lets come to "far cry". if you expect cool action, forget it. really cheap tricks and a plastic helicopter are far away from real action. if you expect a cool story, forget it. orientating by the not-so-bad story of the game, this movie is a laugh. the actors' playing makes the movie in a lot of moments funny, but in a no-good way.<br /><br />i had the chance to see this movie for free. so do not do the mistake and pay for this trash. its one of my favorised flicks for the bottom 100.!!!!
Mr. "Uwe Fail" strikes again, transformed a classic game in a cheap piece of crap. Poor acting; Poor Directing; Awful adaptation; I mean, Far-Cry game was awesome, its like a true FPS game, cool weapons and lots lots lots of "point and shoot". In the movie we had nothing compared to the game.. Well we had some of the "point and shoot" thing but... i don't know how to explain, but if you ever watched another "Uwe Fail" movie you will understand. If you don't believe me, go to the website "petition online" and do a check for one named "Stop Uwe Bowl".<br /><br />That movie made my eyes bleed, someone must stop him for once.<br /><br />Don't waste your time.
One of Bolls better attempts. Just shows that if you do something long enough you have to improve just by chance. It is still not good but it is at least watchable which is an improvement over the bloodrayne. The main difference between Bloodrayne and FarCry really is that the story from Farcry wasn't the games strong point whereas Bloodrayne had a strong story and thus Boll had more chance to mess it up.<br /><br />The action in this movie is actually fairly good. Occasionally a touch overdone but in a good way and worth a watch just for that.<br /><br />Acting wise it was pretty decent. Most of the actors are pretty good but you can tell they aren't taking it seriously based on comparisons with other performances. But the lighter mood this gives to the film actually helps.<br /><br />While I think sticking a little bit closer to the story of the game might have made for a slightly better film the changes made are pretty practical and not big enough to make a difference. Especially given the plot of the game was hardly Oscar winning just a vehicle for FPS carnage. Would have liked it set in the Jungle as that was a pretty integral part of the game but Canada doesn't have a great deal of Jungle and it is at least set in a kind of rainforest.<br /><br />Why Boll feels the need to change already professionally scripted and directed game plots I don't know but he does. And until he starts letting the source material speak through his adaptations will always be lacking. Watch the film for a laugh its good for that and maybe for watching during a party as drinking party fodder.
There is only one reason this movie is watchable. Till Schweiger. He is such a good actor the movie isn't completely terrible. Uwe Boll please take up another career. The special effects and action are acceptable. All other aspects were very disappointing. All I can say is that Kevin Smith (An evening with...) talked about Tim Burton not ever reading the Batman comics and it showed. Uwe Boll must not have ever played the video games that he keeps making movies about. If you two ever want to know how it is done go see Andrzej Bartkowiak. Doom was one of the best video games to film adaptations ever. Some people may disagree, but if you watch the movie you can see that the guys at ID had a lot to do with Doom. It doesn't seem like anyone at UBIsoft was even near this production.
I am deeply disturbed by some posts I am reading on the message boards for this movie, people saying it is actually a good movie! Just because this movie is Uwe Boll's best to date does not make it a good movie at all, no way in hell! Far Cry is a clichéd mess full of bad acting, poor direction, and an uninspired story with a shoddy script. This is Boll's first pure action movie, and news flash people, action movies aren't too hard to make because for a basic action flick all you need is explosions and gun battles scattered around a flimsy plot, and hey, Mr. Boll succeeds in doing that. House of the Dead, Alone in the Dark, and Bloodrayne, all horror games adapted into movies by Boll are far worse than this (they have no redeeming qualities). Far Cry boasts two things which make it his best yet: two good leads and a couple of well-done action sequences. Til Schweiger is quite good as Jack Carver, and Emmanuelle Vaugier is a strong female lead. The usually great Udo Kier is passable as the clichéd villain and the supporting cast are pretty damn bad. Towards the end of the film there is a surprisingly tense chase sequence which came as a shock considering Boll was behind the camera.<br /><br />Unfortunately the rest of the movie has an incredibly cheap feel to it, with bad CGI, lame one-liners and clichés around every corner. Oh, and the worst lead up to a sex scene I think I have ever scene. Not only have the two only known each other for six hours, but all it takes is for him to say he kept warm while in the army by spooning his fellow soldiers. He already got her to take his clothes off by merely telling her to. Then he took his off and climbed into bed because he was afraid of hypothermia.<br /><br />Anyway, to summarise, this is a bad movie. It is mindless action movie that can kill 80 minutes if you are totally bored. One could probably do worse than popping this in and watching it, but I'd personally say watch a classic action film like Die Hard or Predator and stay away from this derivative mess.<br /><br />1½/5
I don't really mind the creative ideas interjected in these movies, but seriously. There isn't one coherent part of the game in this movie. That seems to be the trend, buy the rights and then just make a movie that has zero to do with what the fans want. This butchering is almost entertaining because you know you are getting away with hiding behind a lack of skill, and control of money (not yours) that allows you to do this. Play a game, or hire someone to, and please make a real movie, or stand in the boxing ring and have your butt handed to you as you so claim won't happen.<br /><br />wow, 9 lines of text and i was done. had to add blah to bug you, sorry
Uwe Boll slips back in his film-making skills once again to offer up a scifi horror tale of mercenaries and reporters taking on super soldiers on a remote island. An okay cast headed by the excellent Udo Keir is cast adrift by Boll who makes the worst of script that should have worked. The mad scientist being investigated by a reporter has been done to death but this script is amusing enough that the plot should have worked, additionally the effects and super soldier design with their dead lifeless eyes have some degree of creepiness, however Boll somehow manages to film everything in an off handed way. Its as if he couldn't be bothered to actually figure out what would work and instead rattled off stock camera placements and walked away. Additionally the assembly of scenes has no spark or life, I'm guessing that Boll only shot one or two takes and just used what he had. It really stinks. Clearly Boll is in one of his periodic retrograde films where anything he's ever learned about film gets flushed. The last film he made that was this bad was Seed a serial killer movie that is one of the worst films I've ever seen. This isn't that bad, but it is close simply because it should have been better. Then again Udo Keir is good enough that he does make watching his scenes worth the effort and make this a an almost so bad its good film. I'd take a pass unless it's late at night and you're catching it on cable.
I really liked the Far Cry game, nice graphics, good level-design, interesting and clever enemies, above-average length and even a somewhat decent plot. I am not by default against movie spin-offs of games. I thought "DOOM The Movie" was hilarious. But what Uwe Boll has done here, is to take the game and modified every one of its good aspects and turned them into something horrible (well not the length, the movie runs only a merciful 90 min) The characters are even more stereotypical than in the game, which is quite an achievement. The entire plot is told without any twists or mystery. Several blatantly ridiculous scenes tell you every bit of the story. And come on "Genetically Modified Soldiers"? they could have come up with some better name.<br /><br />However, this film should get some award for the most idiotic love scene. I have never seen anything of the like. I could not believe they were trying to be serious "we have to get out of the wet clothes" "I think I'll get hypothermia" (although everybody is wearing T-shirts) "we need to cuddle together for body warmth" "Is that your gun?" But... but ... weren't there people who consciously did this? There must have been a scriptwriter, a director, actors, a gaffer, an electrician, some food guy! Why didn't anyone jump into that scene to stop this evil from happening? Was this film done by ravaging, inhuman, genetically modified film people? I won't start at ranting about how many logical errors, inconsistencies and scriptwriting flaws there were, but even to the die-hard action-fan, this can't be anything but insulting.<br /><br />This film did actually ask for being rated 2 out of 10, so I'll do it that favor. But that leaves me to explain where the second star comes from. Special-effects? Nah. Acting? Not really. References to the game? You wish. Wait! they used the font from the game for the title and the credits. That was neat.<br /><br />If you are looking for a flick for a bad movie night, go for "2012 - Supernova", this one is just - sad.
Clearly this would have had potential in more capable hands, but given Uwe Boll's track record it would have been surprising if there would have been any merit to this farce.<br /><br />The first 5 minutes are classic monster movie madness - even the horrible one-liners delivered by GI Joe type soldiers feel as if they were lifted off another venture into the same genre.<br /><br />You will be doing yourself a favor if you exit the movie at this point. You've already passed all the highlights and you will have spared yourself the suffering of sitting through some of the worst acting in recent history.<br /><br />Next, enter absolute rubbish talent. The leading man has the same amount of charisma that you will find in garden slug.<br /><br />There is an awkward bit of contrived romance thrown in - this feels so wrong that you can only speculate why this scene was conjured up in the first place. Normally the genre uses interludes of romance and nudity to inject some humanity and sympathy into otherwise cardboard cut-out characters - here it backfires on all cylinders.<br /><br />The effects are bad and the action unbelievably boring. Where other classics show originality and imagination in the face of budget restraints - here it just seems like everything was spent on catering.<br /><br />There are in fact no redeeming features here - not even the "it's so bad it is almost good" applies. It's just bad, and in a bad way.<br /><br />Our hero questions the leading starlet about the night they spent together and how she would rate him. She gives him 2 out of 10. I give the whole affair 1 (I'd have gone for 0 if that were possible).<br /><br />Don't waste your time on this dribble, there is plenty of crap cinema out there, which exceeds this ridiculous rumble in the jungle.<br /><br />Oh and finally, the movie has little to nothing at all to do with the popular game Far Cry (at best it is extremely loosely based on it).<br /><br />Horrible, move along!
Sadly this film lives up to about 1% of the hype that the game created in 2004 and leaves a very sour taste in the mouth. For video game enthusiasts, book worms and movie fans alike there is nothing more disappointing then a film that is based on an original concept (whether on paper or gaming console) that does not deliver. And not only that, goes well under the mark. Far Cry the video game released in 2004 created such a cult following that making a movie from the content should have been easy and scores of gamers would have flocked to watch the film. If you are a gamer that has played Far Cry; do not watch this film. Anyone else who hasn't played the game; it'll still seem like a B grade acted / B grade directed movie. Uwe Boll, hang your head in shame...this should've been easy to make into a blockbuster. The storyline of the game was incredible (think Jurassic Park meets Alien) and yet you still managed to take it and mould it into your own terrible recreation of an instant classic. Video game companies be warned - if Uwe Boll comes a knockin', lock the door. Oh & Til Schweiger...I look forward to seeing you make up for yourself in Inglourious Basterds. What were you thinking taking this one on? Sigh.
Not too good a movie. Sure, it contains action, but the effects aren't all that good for a '08 movie. Gunshot effects are downright horrible. Acting is "meh" <br /><br />It is nothing like Far Cry, other than names and the very basics of the story (genetically enhanced super soldiers going amok). The super soldiers are very different, the mercenaries are different, the setting are completely different (tropical island in the pacific in the game, island in northern-ish America in the movie).<br /><br />I loved playing Far Cry. I loved the story and setting. I hated the movie.
Barely came trough the whole movie... Acting is bad, dialogs are even worse. Felt kinda st00pid 4 watching it, but it was named the same as one of my favorite games, so I struggled trough. They even screwed up the sound. At certain parts of the movie the background music is so loud, that i had to turn the volume down. It would be great, if this was a competition about who can screw up more.<br /><br />Oh and PS: I don't know what's this guy "Uwe" capable of creating... I certainly don't think this movie is bad just because he's the director. I checked the list of his work, and this is his first(and probably the last) creation that I've seen.<br /><br />over&out.
I was actually fairly surprised to find out a movie based on the Far Cry game had been created. The story here is not something I would consider to be a strong point in the game universe. No worries though as in typical Boll fashion the story in the movie has very little to do with the game it is based on. Now I understand that certain liberties need to be taken to make a transfer from one form of media to another but it seems like he really just doesn't even try to make a connection. Not only that but the acting and action sequences are so corny it almost makes you feel like the whole project was one big joke. It has been said a million times before but why couldn't someone more talented pick up the video game rights to create a movie????
I am a huge fan of the Farcry Game, HUGE fan. It still holds a place in my top-10 games list of all time! The story line was new, fresh... A truly brilliant foundation to base a movie on... or so i thought...<br /><br />Farcry the Movie is no less than another directors attempt at cashing in on a successful game franchise (see Doom: The Movie, and many more...).<br /><br />The Video Game begins as the player (Jack Carver) awakes in a sea side cave after been shot off his boat by an RPG from an unknown soldier. Jack then finds a communication device where (Harlan Doyle) guides him across islands, shipwrecks, jungles, installations and VOLCANOES, to find his (lady friend?) (Valerie Constantine), all the wile battling mutated super soldiers, and genetically enhanced animals.<br /><br />The Movie plays out very, very differently: 1: There's a needless 30 mins (1/3 of the movie) of "backstory" before we even get to the 'boat blowing up' scene. 2: Jack then walks onto the beach, kills some goons, then drives off... Nothing like the game... 3: There is no communicator with Doyle on the other end... 4: The 'Modified Soldiers' look like albinos with singlets on... And there was no mutated 'monkey-like' creatures jumping out of the bushes. A part of the Farcry game i enjoyed allot... 5: There is no sun filled beach scenes, no aircraft carrier, no communications stations on huge cliffs, LITTLE reference to any in-game contents (characters/items/vehicles), in fact no attempt to follow the story line at all. 6: The climactic Volcano scene from the game is replaced with an old industrial building. 7: There's an Ending scene... where everyone (except Krieger) live happily ever after... WHAT THE!<br /><br />I recommend avoiding this movie at all costs! If you are a Gamer, you will HATE this movie will all your soul. It is a movie clearly intended for males, so girls, stay away... So if your a male, 12-29 years of age, have never played Farcry, and are not disgusted by directors attempts at porting books/games to the cinema... then this is for you...
Being a fan of the game and watching this film made me physically vomit!!<br /><br />It was an awful film, though the story was similar to the games plot. the whole super human soldiers thing. Other than that Jack Carver, an all American man in the game, is played by a germen, unless thats some sort of twisted irony, that is what made me pull a middle finger at my TV screen the second it started. The fact that you can tell its filmed in a forest in the middle in what seemed like the middle of summer, this is uncalled for because the game is set in the tropical rain forest, whereas this looks like the director just looked out his window in the morning and went "thats a good forest."<br /><br />THIS IS A NOTE TO ALL DIRECTORS: If you ever plan to make a film based on a game/book play it, understand it and ask fans about it... don't just play it for an hour and assume you know it!!!
So im not a big fan of Boll's work but then again not many are. I enjoyed his movie Postal (maybe im the only one). Boll apparently bought the rights to use Far Cry long ago even before the game itself was even finsished. <br /><br />People who have enjoyed killing mercs and infiltrating secret research labs located on a tropical island should be warned, that this is not Far Cry... This is something Mr Boll have schemed together along with his legion of schmucks.. Feeling loneley on the set Mr Boll invites three of his countrymen to play with. These players go by the names of Til Schweiger, Udo Kier and Ralf Moeller.<br /><br />Three names that actually have made them selfs pretty big in the movie biz. So the tale goes like this, Jack Carver played by Til Schweiger (yes Carver is German all hail the bratwurst eating dudes!!) However I find that Tils acting in this movie is pretty badass.. People have complained about how he's not really staying true to the whole Carver agenda but we only saw carver in a first person perspective so we don't really know what he looked like when he was kicking a**.. <br /><br />However, the storyline in this film is beyond demented. We see the evil mad scientist Dr. Krieger played by Udo Kier, making Genetically-Mutated-soldiers or GMS as they are called. Performing his top-secret research on an island that reminds me of "SPOILER" Vancouver for some reason. Thats right no palm trees here. Instead we got some nice rich lumberjack-woods. We haven't even gone FAR before I started to CRY (mehehe) I cannot go on any more.. If you wanna stay true to Bolls shenanigans then go and see this movie you will not be disappointed it delivers the true Boll experience, meaning most of it will suck.<br /><br />There are some things worth mentioning that would imply that Boll did a good work on some areas of the film such as some nice boat and fighting scenes. Until the whole cromed/albino GMS squad enters the scene and everything just makes me laugh.. The movie Far Cry reeks of scheisse (that's poop for you simpletons) from a fa,r if you wanna take a wiff go ahead.. BTW Carver gets a very annoying sidekick who makes you wanna shoot him the first three minutes he's on screen.
This was a disgrace to the game FarCry i had much expectations but all ended up in a nightmare. Besides the bad acting the visual effects, stunts the plot even the humor used in the movie was an absolute flop. The movie is not worth watching at all. The funniest part was when the girl comes and kiss Jack in order to give him the key to the cuffs. Guess the she got the keys to handcuffs all the time. I hope some good director will make a remake of this fantastic game into a movie someday. And I they will invest some good cash to get the visual effects right and the scenaries right as well as the ACTING right. But till then don't waste time by trying to watch this movie because it will surely make you go mad specially if you are a FarCry lover.
Completely overlooking the whole movie adaptation of a video game, this is another terrible movie by Mr. Boll. How he continues to be hired to make movies is a constant surprise to me and obviously most of the movie going community.<br /><br />As a whole I will say that this attempt was fractionally better than so many of his previous attempts. Some of the dialog was even half way decent in Far Cry though he still misuses some phrases and in some cases he doesn't even use the phrases correctly.<br /><br />Now besides the fact that Jack Carver is supposed to be American and not German, Til was still entertaining in this role. One exception is the laughably lame lines he uses to get in bed with the girl. And we are supposed to believe that she is ready to have sex with him so casually after such minimal dialog? Emile? Simply there for comic relief I am sure and still lame. Jack's character looks old and tired yet is still capable of the extreme acrobatics needed to avoid one of the altered super soldiers in the lab.<br /><br />Don't watch this one for the Far Cry adaptation. But you might just waste an hour and a half watching it if you have nothing better to do.
Normally I love finding old (and some not-so-old) westerns I haven't seen, to be the entertainment for the evening. It's such a great way to sit back, relax and escape the politics and world problems for a few hours. But this was not to be the case with this version of The Magnificent Seven. The casting and storyline of this series closely follow the Hollywood formula for politically correct entertainment; good old get-your-mind-right, revisionist history, where the 'bad guys' must all be white, male, Confederate (in this case), and preferably Christian (if it can somehow be worked into the script). It's sad, really. The best movies out there, are now and have always been about simply telling a good story up on the big screen - not about forwarding someone's political ideology.
... with a 500$ budget and a bottle of ketchup.<br /><br />If you are a fan of C movies with no talented actors whatsoever, a ridiculous story, cheap effects and lousy camera-work, this film delivers.<br /><br />All others be warned. You could probably make a similar movie with a couple of friends in your backyard and a home camcorder.<br /><br />The film is good for some laughs though. Watch it with some friends and discuss how NOT to make a movie.<br /><br />2/10 for unintentional comedy.<br /><br />Why the hell do you have to write 10 lines? I have seen comments with less lines and writing this is just a lame filler.
Wow! Here comes another straight-to-video scarecrow movie to keep the cinematic masochists happy. If the cheap-looking opening credits don't tell you you're in for quite a ride, then the diabolically tragic "writing" sure will.<br /><br />A diabetic kid gets tied on to a legendary scarecrow as part of his initiation onto the baseball team. Then the scarecrow goes nuts and starts offing people. Need I say more? This movie consists greatly of cheap effects that makes it look like it was edited with iMovie (note that spooky color inversion) and actors who apparently weren't good enough to show up on some late-night Cinemax special. Actually, thats not fair, as the actors didn't have much room to work around the abysmal script. Parts of this movie really seem like parody, especially when one character picks up his guitar and starts playing the worst song ever conceived by humans, with the worst lip-synching ever performed to go along with it. The "gore" here is also a major disappointment. In most B-movies such as this, there is a thick layer of cheap gore FX to make up for what the story and acting lacks. Here, the stuff is so cheap that it's not even fun. This movie actually makes "Jack Frost 2" look like lots of fun in comparison.<br /><br />If you think this movie is the "worst one you've ever seen" then you probably haven't gotten deep into the world of straight-to-video B-horror. Regardless, this movie will cause you a great deal of mental anguish, no matter what your background.
My roommate and I have another friend that works at a local Blockbuster Video. He finds truly awful movies for us and tells us about them. One of them was a "Christmas Horror" film starring former professional wrestler Bill Goldberg as a killer Satna Claus. We didn't watch it immediately, but we didn't think there could be anything worse. Apparently, we were wrong. We were shown this slasher film "starring" Ken Shamrock versus a murderous scarecrow. At first we thought Ken would actually BE the killer scarecrow, and that's why we wanted to watch, but he wasn't, and that made the movie even worse. What absolutely RUINED the movie was the teen drama. If you want to save your brain cells from trying to escape from your head, NEVER EVER WATCH THIS MOVIE.
I cannot believe I let myself rent that piece of garbage! The acting was so poor, my Grandmother could have done better. The punches thrown in the movies were nowhere near the character the Scarecrow was knocking to the floor. The movie became a chore to watch! <br /><br />So this group of baseball jocks decide to go hazing, even after they weren't supposed to in orders form there coach under consequences. So, naturally, they go anyway. They decide to tie a loser to a post with the so called "Scarecrow." When the loser's best friend finds out about this, him and his girlfriend go to rescue him.<br /><br />The kid is found out to have diabetes, and is hospitalized, while the jocks head out to the beach the next day. The scarecrow finds them there and kills them all pretty much.<br /><br />I'm sure you really don't care. Anyway, the Scarecrow ends up having a connection with "Diabetes Boy" and the boy starts to finish off the scarecrows job once the scarecrow is killed. Yes, it is really really cheesy.<br /><br />It thought this movie was full of bull sh*t. Sooner or later the only ones living (naturally) are the boyfriend and girlfriend who are the Main Characters :) The evil is then transfered to the boyfriend, and he kills himself to break the curse so nobody else will be hurt. Touching hey? No, don't waste your hard earned money on this, I give it a score of a one since thats lowest, otherwise, it doesn't even deserve that much.
Jerk hazer Mike(David Zelina playing this college frat man as one major bastard you want to see die right away)and his college cronies leave hypoglycemic diabetic Sam(Caleb Roehrig)hanging on a wooden cross along with this scarecrow which is a legendary ghost story. They get PO'd at Sam who essentially goes into shock and aims a swinging punch at Mike that lands across his girlfriend Patty(Kristina Sheldon)instead so leaving the poor guy hanging is his punishment. Somehow, Sam's soul "emerges" with the inanimate scarecrow who comes from the cross to destroy everyone who left the poor guy there to rot. Mike and the gang send the uninitiated dorks back to bring Sam down but they are the first to receive a swinging blade across their throats. Mike and his posse head for the beach to gulp booze, play volleyball & bicker until the scarecrow arrives to end their little soirée. Sam's substitute brother Jack(Matthew Linhardt)is supposed to look out for him, but decides to sleep with new love-interest Beth(Samantha Aisling)instead. So when he receives a cell-phone message from Mike concerning how they left Sam hanging on the cross while they were off at the beach taking in the sun and sand, Jack is frenzied with fear. Beth's estranged father is a doctor and he agrees to see after Sam's condition after they cut the nearly dead young man down taking him to emergency hospital. Returning to the beach to confront Mike because of his negligence(..not to mention Jack's promise to coach Ramsey, played by UFC fighter Ken Shamrock, regarding no hazing), Jack and Beth will face the same straw-stuffed assassin that is bumping off the others. Coach Ramsey, who was part of a past hazing incident that went awry causing killer-scarecrow-mischief, has to confront some demons himself as he informs the survivors of the group about what they are up against.<br /><br />Babes, boobs, and blood..this flick follows the basic slasher guidelines. Yet, this flick also carries the typical slasher traits of corny characters, acting, dialogue and overall plot. The flick shows signs of it's low budget particularly in the violence as most of the real action takes place off-screen instead of showing it happening up, close & personal. What appears on screen is mostly the aftermath of the killer's vengeance:one fellow holding his guts, another with a stake(holding up the group's volleyball net) plunged through his chest, blood spatter after a woman gets hit over the head presumably with a large rock, one chick laying dead after the scarecrow hit her with the SUV, etc. There is also some dubbing problems where it's clear the sounds of their voices often don't match the movements of their lips..particularly the unintentionally hilarious sequence where Ed(Travis Parker), wannabe rock star, is singing to his buddies a horrible song they all seem quite impressed with.
"Scarecrow Gone Wild: He's the Death of the Party!" Need I say more? Scarecrow gone wild got four out of ten stars from me for one simple reason: aside from the terrible acting, plot holes, cheap special effects, and anti-climactic whistling, it was cinematic gold! I think that this movie could have actually been really good, had the scarecrow turned out to be the baseball coach (as portrayed by the ever-so-brilliant Ken Shamrock). But then again, they would have had to cut those AWESOME "Return of the Jedi" electricity special effects.<br /><br />While watching this movie, my friends and I were convinced that it was in fact written by one of our friends, a stereotypical teen-aged boy. This movie has topless women, miserably fake gore, and dialog that could not have talked its way out of a paper bag, or in this case, a cornfield.<br /><br />If I could ask the filmmaker one thing, it would be this; "How much did you have to pay the teenager that wrote this for you?"
So unfortunately me and my mate watched this!!! It was showing on a Sky channel over here called "Zone Horror" which basically shows crappy B-movie horror films 24/7. It was a boring Friday night, so decided to have a laugh and give this one a look. Apart from the atrocious acting, the awful plot, the dire effects, the shoddy camera work and the brain numbing ridiculousness of it all, it was OK, LOL!!! In all seriousness it was quite a laugh picking holes in it and laughing at the goofy actors. There is a bit of semi-nudity which perked the movie up a bit, unfortunately it was the "uggo" who got topless as my mate calls her :oD If you're bored one evening and this happens to be playing, take a chance, you just might like it :)
I supposed 'Scarecrow Gone Wild' is a dull slasher flick. Yes, it have some good point, but it's a rehash from another flick. The acts is so awful nor the plot. <br /><br />The story goes from a legend about a living scarecrow on the cornfield. When an initiation become a prank and cause the life a boy in jeopardy, the scarecrow comes alive and start a killing frenzy. Sound familiar, right? It's derived from Scream, Friday the13th, Jeepeer Creepers, Children of the Corn, you name it!<br /><br />'Scarecrow Gone Wild' is so below average film. Barely have a scary moment. Even the final scene is laughable! Sadly, we still could enjoy it as our time killer. But I prefer you to watch something else instead. Unless you're a big fan bad and cheesy movies, off course.<br /><br />4/10
The initiation to the local sport team involves taking the newbies out to the corn fields and guess what? There is a scarecrow murdering people there. Only one of the newbies survive but falls into a coma due to diabetes. Meanwhile the scarecrow starts to kill all of the involved people, one by one. Whats the scarecrows secret? Will they find it out before the scarecrow gets them all? This is a low budget movie and it shows. Sound is OK but picture is really corny. The plot/script really sucks and is quite pathetic and non logical. The acting is really bad and sometimes just laughable. Cant really say much about the special effects cause there aren't that many but the few there is ranges from bad to OK(for a low budget that is). There is some nudity and thats probably the only thing worth to watch in the movie(that is if your a horny teenager, if not, skip the movie all together). Another complete waste of time and money so don't see it. Goes for hack'n'slash fans too.
WEll first and for most I'd just like to say that I'm back out of retirement from writing well deserved comments about horrible movies. Only the movie in titled "Scarecrow gone wild" could bring me back, so here I am.<br /><br />With that being said, I like to start off with this comment. OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This movie was really horrible, I mean I know it was going to be bad. But I had no idea that I would be spending 60 minutes out of a possible 90 minute film laughing at what I thought was a horror movie.<br /><br />Let's start with the biggest flaw of the film (to me that is). Ken Shamrock. Now if memory serves me correctly, Shamrock is one of the worlds most dangerous men. Now if memory serves me again, he was also in this stupid movie being a stupid comic relief (or that's how it looked to me). I mean how else do you explain all of his lines. My all time favorite line of his in this so called movie was "It's been a long time coming". OK????????? The funnest thing about that line was that no more then five minutes prior to him say that, he was sitting on the beach talking to the soon to be dead kids about how the dam scarecrow could not be killed. So if he has knowledge of this, why on earth would he start trying to combat it as soon as he sees it (the scarecrow that it). Like I said before, he must have been the comic relief, except I don't think his UFC buddies where laughing.<br /><br />Now that I've finished that well deserved paragraph on to the movie.<br /><br />I'll admit that I can't remember a lot of scenes, and that's not good considering that I just watch the movie no more then fifteen minutes ago. So what I'm going to do is list the top five things wrong with this film 1. Usually when horror movie monster have their own theme music, it's not heard by the victims or even by the monster itself. So why were just about every person involved in this movie able to here this pathetic whistling. I mean I saw the scarecrows face and nothing about it said that he was the whistling type.<br /><br />2. Why on earth were there murders on a beach. I'm sorry, but threw out history beaches are associated with party time and vacation type feelings. But I guess this horror movie thought it was going to be such a success that it would change all of that. Plus was it me or did the beach seem to be the size of someone living room. I mean every time an actor or actress was running around on the beach, it looked as if they were running in the same spot.<br /><br />3. The girl running in the gray sweat pants. That really bother during the duration of this film. I mean she looks so ridiculous. Plus it didn't help any that she looked as though she was the youngest out of the whole group. I mean what was she like twelve or something. There no excuse for someone to be that thin on camera. I mean doesn't the camera add like ten pounds or something, so what was her excuse.<br /><br />4. People trying to get record deals on camera. Just when I thought that this movie could not get any cheesier, out comes the wanna be Gorth Brooks and oh man was he lame. I don't' remember the whole scene, but from what I do remember it was not pretty. This one guy starts singing this song about something that has nothing, and I mean nothing to do with what's going on in the film. The funniest part of the whole happening is how everyone seems to being enjoying this. I mean the only person who doesn't really know how to response to this is the "token black guy". And that's sad because if I'm not mistaken he was the one that encourage this latest addition of American Idoal. But here's where it gets funny. While this guy is all into his new song or whatever. In the far distance we see or villain aka the scarecrow. And boy does he look pi**ed off at this. I mean there's actually a moment where he looks like he's really jealous of this guy. So what does he do about this jealousy, well I'm glad you ask. He wait's for the guy to finish his song, and then he finises the guy. I don't want to give the death scene away, but I can tell you this. If that scene doesn't make you laugh, then nothing on this earth will.<br /><br />5. This movie was way longer then I expected. And it didn't help that they tried to pulled some pathetic twist bulls**t at the end to squeeze another 10 minutes out of this film. I mean I'll admit, I didn't see the twist coming, but that had a lot to do with the fact that I was hoping that the film was over and done with. But no they had to do they twist s**t. Needless to say that when I say that coming, I just turned off the T.V. and said f**k it, there's no way that movie could have gotten any worser. Thanks to my rather fast judgment I can say that I'll never know what was to happen next. But I promise that I do not care!!!!!!!!!!!!! All and all the movie is good for a laugh, but please don't buy it. Just hype it up to one of your friends and watch it on there expanse.
This third installment in the Scarecrow series is by far the best of the lot. I know, I know...but how good is it? Well, let's not be silly. It's still pretty bad, but by comparison to the first two, it's a fine film. Again shot on digital, with decent lighting and good camera work. <br /><br />****SPOILER****<br /><br />When a college baseball team hazes new members, one is left in a diabetic coma. Of course, they abandon him in a cornfield, tied to a scarecrow. In keeping with the legend, the boy's soul is transferred into the body of the scarecrow, which comes to life and wreaks terrible vengeance on, well, pretty much everyone. The co-eds drive to the beach, which is somehow very close to the cornfield. On the sunny beach, they are killed one by one by the whistling scarecrow. <br /><br />Writer/director Brian Katkin does a credible job of bringing some much-needed drama to the film. Unfortunately, the drama leaps over good and lands in common cheese. Much of the acting was fair, but there were some really terrible bits, including an awful piece of poorly done lip-synching. Some plot points were left mostly unresolved, and most were used to get someone alone so they could be slaughtered. Again, better than the previous installments, but still lacking.
So me and my friend are carousing our local movie rental store and are looking for something to pick up to go along with Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, so why not pick up the third installment in the Scarecrow series!?! Keep in mind that this is not just Scarecrow Three; this is, Scarecrow: Gone Wild. Now both of us had seen to the first two Scarecrows so we felt obligated to finish the job. Let's start with the cover of the DVD first. First we notice a picture of Ken Shamrock ("The World's Most Dangerous Man") on the cover. Apparently he was used to market the movie as the "lead actor". By the way, he has the least screen time of any member of the credited class. Next we notice a picture of a very attractive and very scantily clad woman in the middle ground of the cover. I can assure you that she is not in the movie....at all. At the time of rental we assumed that this was to reiterate the fact that the scarecrow was "going wild". In the background we noticed a large carnival on an island out in the ocean. I can also assure you that the carnival is also not in the movie...at all. Looking back me and my friend should have known something was up. I mean really, who the heck puts a carnival on an island. Now on to the actual movie. We start when a young man is inexplicably fused to a scarecrow in the middle of a corn field. Don't ask me how they were fused but think of when Brandon Lee waking up from the dead in The Crow. It's just that stupid. But in the scarecrow's defense, he has "gone wild". Anyhoo, the scarecrow, who now lives vicariously through the young man, takes a trip to his local beach to brutalize those who had done him wrong. Because yes, in the world of The Scarecrow, beaches are conveniently located in the same general vicinity as cornfields. To make a long story short the scarecrow kills all who stand in his path without any warning except for the scarecrow's trademark whistle that signals a slashing. This is however rather impossible to believe because the scarecrow's costume's mouth is clearly sewn shut. Several tracking shots that would make Kubrick roll over in his grave later, and we have one of the worst third installments in a series ever. Well except for maybe the third Matrix. As Joel Siegel would say, "This Scarecrow is wildly bad."
I knew I was in for a LONG 90 minutes when the opening voice over mispronounced the word 'scarecrow' (it sounded like Scare Crew). And sure enough 90 minutes later, after witnessing beyond horrid acting, tedious drama, scarecrow's punches going nowhere near their intended target, but "hitting" it anyway, Ken Shamrock "acting", and the most stupid illogical ending, I've seen in my life (Ok, no, I take that last one back, in about a week). After making it through all that, I openly weeped that I couldn't just go to Lacuna a la Jim Carrey and just erase it completely from my mind. Any thoughts I might have had that Director Brian Katkin might have made an OK film given the right circumstances that I had after watching "Slaughter Studios", are totally and completely gone from my mind now.<br /><br />My Grade: F <br /><br />Eye Candy: Tara Platt and Lisa Robert get topless <br /><br />Where I saw it: Starz on Demand (available until September 22nd, 2005)
I watched the 1st scarecrow movie and didn't bag out that one, though i knew it was b grade it actually had some decent gore and the guy playing the scarecrow was an awesome acrobat and had some good skills going. The effects were better and the costume looked heaps better then this movie.<br /><br />I borrowed this one with an open mind, i am also a fan of ken shamrock (former ufc superfight champ) and was hoping it was a decent movie.<br /><br />Boy was i wrong, the movie sucked, the monster was pathetic in both appearance and in actually being scary, the storyline was SO predictable it was like watching the movie in preview mode, as i already would guess what will happen, the music was so bad, with a horrible lip sync song that made me wanna punch the screen.<br /><br />Overall avoid this crappy movie.<br /><br />Save some money.
1. The Largest Amount of Money Spent was on the package of hot dogs they put on that guy's stomach, the ones that were supposed to be intestines. 2. Ken Shamrock is in it. 3. Ken Shamrock gets destroyed. (he doesn't die which is sad.) 4. It leaves you wanting more... aspirin. 5. The makers of the film are the kind of people who don't care what their monster looks like. "Just give him a $30 mask." "Good enough for me." 6. The Scarecrow RUNS A CHICK OVER. AWESOME. 7. The film-makers don't actually make their actors sing or play the guitar. 8. The Scarecrow uses a volleyball pole as a javelin and impales the dude who doesn't actually play the guitar or sing. 9. The Scarecrow can choke a dude in like 3 seconds. 10. It makes you actually think of all these things and write them down for other people. god what am i doing.
Scarecrow Gone Wild starts as high school teenager Mike (David Zelina) & his mates decide to to give a 'hazing' to wimpish diabetic Sam (Caleb Roehrig) as an initiation of some sort. Mike & his mate decide to take Sam to a corn field, tie him to a cross next to a freaky looking scarecrow & leave him there all night, sounds like fun right? Well, things backfire when Sam goes into a diabetic coma after suffering from a hypo & the vengeful spirit of Sam passes into the scarecrow which comes to life & starts to hunt down the kids responsible for Sam's unfortunate life-threatening predicament. Can Sam's best mate Jack (Matthew Linhardt) & his girlfriend Beth (Samantha Aisling) save the day & Sam's life?<br /><br />Written & directed by Brian Katkin Scarecrow Gone Wild is the third straight-to-video entry in the Scarecrow series & while I haven't seen either of the previous two after seeing Scarecrow Gone Wild I'm certainly in no hurry to change that situation that's for sure. The script actually has an almost decent premise as the wronged soul of Sam seeks revenge & his friends have to keep the real Sam alive somehow but the way it is told is poor & I suppose that basically it's just an irrelevance to the fact that this is a film about a killer scarecrow running around killing people in not very gory or imaginative ways. Having said that there are one or two scenes here which save it from a one star rating, the fart gag in the corn field is funny & something a lot of immature blokes might do (like me), the bit when two guys bury their mate in the sand & then stand over him & pee on him is also rather funny in a laddish juvenile way & a cool bit when some guy starts singing an awful song so the scarecrow throws a pole which impales him! However these OK bits are few & far between & as a whole it's a silly, boring, poorly written teen slasher film with highly annoying character's who irritate. It' also very predictable & has a stupid twist ending which doesn't really feature the scarecrow at all which is a problem as when you watch a film called Scarecrow Gone Wild you expect to see a scarecrow go wild & I have to admit he looks quite cool as horror character's go.<br /><br />Director Katkin does a reasonable job here actually although what on Earth is up with that hospital at the end & all that neon lighting everywhere & the fact there is only one patient there & two members of staff? The cinematography is much better than the usual straight-to-video low budget horror film of late & there's some nice, if totally unrealistic, lighting. The film lacks any real scares or tension & some of the medical terminology used throughout is a bit iffy to say the least & I say that as an insulin dependant diabetic myself. There's not much gore here, there's a couple of scenes where some actor has some fake guts placed on their stomach to represent them being gutted but it looks pretty fake, there's also a burned face & a couple of impalement's but little else. There's a fair amount of naked female breasts on show if that's your thing.<br /><br />Technically Scarecrow Gone Wild is pretty good considering some of the low budget abominations I've sat through recently, unfortunately it's still a poor film overall. The least said about the acting the better.<br /><br />Scarecrow Gone Wild isn't as bad as some of the straight-to-video horror crap that's been turning up recently but having said that it's not that much better & it's still a bad film when all said & done. Not recommended, the two previous entries are Scarecrow (2002) & Scarecrow Slayer (2003) both of which also went straight-to-video.
Another sequel! Why on earth do they keep making these? This has got to be the weakest 'franchise' ever, yet it is still being funded and spawning sequels. SCARECROW GONE WILD - which I only watched so I could officially trash the whole series - brings back the evil straw-man who, again, butchers up some college kids... That's basically it. The acting sucks (as usual), the death scenes are beyond pathetic, and don't be fooled by the title, this thing doesn't have as much nudity as you may think. A couple nice topless girls, but nothing too pants tightening. Let me just conclude my continuous insult (or review) on this movie by saying: if I come across a SCARECROW IN SPACE or a FREDDY VS SCARECROW on the video store shelves, I'm going to be in absolute awe...
This an extremely horrible movie. And if your thinking you've seen another horrible movie, exactly like this one before, you probably have. You probably saw Scarecrow 2 made in 2003. Yes thats what I said, Brian (the director) stole the movie idea. And not only did he steal it, he actually might have been able to make it worse. I bet the even the actors were scared to tell people they were actually in the movie. Also I have to mention that the director was trying to make up for the cheesiness by showing as much tits as possible. Also the kissing scenes were put together like a porn movie. In fact that is probably all that the director has ever seen, and tried to put together a decent movie, which will never work.
This is an excellent example of an entreatingly bad b-movie. There are worse movies than this one (Titanic for example), but this definitely shares the pile of steaming crap movies.<br /><br />OK this was apparently shot in Kansas City, which explains why everyone is so lame. The main guy looks like Steve Guttenberg, and is even more lame than him! I didn't even think that was possible! In fact, him and the main girl in the movie are responsible for the WORST DRAMA EVER! Its not just that there acting was waaaaaaaaay over-dramatic, well actually it was, of course the script was terrible which combines for a deadly one-two punch in bad terrible utterly unwatchable drama.<br /><br />The scarecrow, lets talk about him. The whistling you hear every time he's around is stupid, and obviously dubbed in. Now his costume, I cannot get over that - its a guy wearing burlap sacks and a stupid mask! I simply am dumbfounded, maybe if your 3 years old with brain damage you'd be scared of him/it.<br /><br />One of the characters, the token black guy actually, used the line: "This might be a chance to earn my red wings" when referring to trying to score with one of the girls on her period. Wow, um yea, that is the kind of dialogue you can look forward to.<br /><br />Oh, in the beginning when the scantily clad girl is running through the corn, why is it roped off? I'm pretty sure its not supposed to be evident, just one of the many obvious mistakes made throughout this 'film' Another is the bad dubbing for the musical number (yup thats right), there all at the beach, and the one dorkaziod gets up the courage to sing a song and play guitar for everyone, and its so obviously dubbed its funny. Thankfully, the scarecrow answers all our prayers and throws a spear right through the guy's chest when he's done singing. Overall the gore like that is pretty good, this is one of those films when you rooting for these people to be killed by the killer.<br /><br />OK, there's a scene where the 2 guys bury one of their friends in the sand, then stand up, whip out their peni, and urinate all over the guy in the sand. Who does this? Really, imagine it "Hey, lets bury joe in the sand, then stand up and take out our genitals like its no big deal and pee on him" In fact, this brings up the homo-eroticism in this film, what the hell? A good part of the beginning of this movie is the jocks standing around in there underwear in the locker room and corn field while there doing the hazing. What the hell is with that? Traditionally, in film and real life, jocks get the girls and nerds don't. That really doesn't make sense as all nerds think of is girls and sex, and apparently all jocks think of is sports and being around each other in their underwear, I don't get it.<br /><br />Lets get to the sex. As someone who watched this movie with me put it: "I've never been so disgusted by heterosexual sex in my life" and its true. If you like hot A cup action, or ugly old woman boobs, then this film is for you. I swear, they found a girl with the smallest breasts ever and this is who they get to do the nude scene?? Then the ugly old woman nurse shows her bouncy ones a couple of times, and man, I just didn't want to see that.<br /><br />Now, I have to talk about the timeline continuity to this film, thats what really is just bizarre. It starts in the daytime, then they all head to the cornfield, and within like 2 minutes its instantly dark middle of the night, when they drive off from there saying their going to the beach - its instantly day again, and apparently they stay at the beach until night again, and until day the next day. SO basically these events in the film cover 4 days, without any of the characters needing sleep or anything, its really weird.<br /><br />After the main killings have taken place, it flash forwards to '3 weeks later' and apparently none of these people actually care that they saw their friends brutally murdered! The surviving people literally pop some champaign! And thats when I realized the budget didn't go to the script, directing or acting, it all went to that freakin bottle of champaign.<br /><br />The ending. Stop reading now if you don't want the ending spoiled for you, it truly is enjoyable.<br /><br />OK, so the end takes place in a church, and the scarecrow put his soul inside the diabetes kid body, then he fights with the steve guttenberg lookalike guy, and he fights him with a b-movie version of the power the emperor had in star wars! I'm not kidding, its so stupid! So somehow, in the middle of the fight, the scarecrow's soul jumps bodies into the guttenberg jr. guy, and then with the last amount of will he has of his own, he impales himself on a cross in the church! Its awesome! Some blood, but whats even better is that the cross is obviously cardboard! You can see the bottom move off the ground! Wow, yea have fun watching.
Firstly this has nothing to do with the much better 18 weapons of Kung Fu starring Gordon Liu. I mention this as my Kung Fu Theater presents DVD has a totally misleading picture on the cover, the wrong plot on the back and goes on to mention (no idea why) The Young Hero starring Hwang Jang Lee. Apart from an introduction to the history of the 18 weapons style told by a monk to some children during the opening and the usual mysterious manual that everyone is after, the weapons never really appear again and the fights are all boxing style. The hero is Lee Shao Hwa who I have never heard of before or any of the other actors. The film mentions another director Wu Yuen Ling as well as the one IMDb lists. The other actors are Wang Fu Quen, Wang Wing San, Chen Fei Fei, Wang Ki San, Suen King Kai and Hwa Yue Suen who seem to have sunk without trace after this film. The fights are reasonable and frequent but not great and the 'star' doesn't have much charisma. The twist at the end is just stupid and the film seems to end abruptly as though they got bored with it. The scenery and the training sequences in the river are a little different from usual. Unfortunately the pretty sister gets drowned not the very irritating (though acrobatic) young boy.
I have a friend that works at blockbuster, and he gets 5 free movie rentals a week, so one day as we were scouring the aisles for something interesting, i stumbled across 18 Weapons of Kung Fu, and judging by the box alone, this movie seemed pretty wack, but nonetheless we gave into temptation and rented it -- afterall, it was free.....and thank god it was....this is by far THE WORST movie i have ever seen....the budget must have been a pickle and a piece of string...the plot was ridiculous, the only mention of the "18 weapons" is that there is some book that teaches the ways of the 18 weapons that some bad guy is after -- and thats it! there isnt even any weapon fighting in this movie...that and the action sequences are just flat-out BAD....9 times out of 10 the other guy's punches and kicks come about a foot away from landing on the other guy's, and there are MANY times when the the movie will skip frames (a result of ridiculously poor editing)....the dubbing is as well laughable, and it is hardly even understandable....and we wont even get into the acting...the ending will definitely leave you saying "wtf??", however to be fair i must mention that the fighting techniques used by the actors were somewhat decent, and the old guy is a mad chump....but thats about it...thankfully i didnt have to pay for this movie, but i guess at least now i know exactly how bad a movie can actually be....
This is the ultimate Kung Fu movie! This is the only Kung Fu movie! This is the only Kung Fu movie I have ever seen! I am giving this movie way too much credit! My best guess for the reason for making this movie is that someone wanted to show off someone else's martial arts abilities, but realized that you can't just film a guy fighting another guy and have people watch it, so he put a story behind the fighting... and people still didn't watch it.<br /><br />This movie's story line was onion skin thin. That acting was goofy and stereotypical of any Kung Fu movie. The dubbing was literally the worst I have ever heard. It seemed if you played a small role in this movie, like the fat guy or the two guys trying to catch the main character with a net, it didn't matter who over did your voice. It could have been a dyslexic with a slurred stutter and nobody would have said anything. But beside all of this, the movie makes up for itself with the somewhat awesome fight scenes.<br /><br />The fight scenes were definitely what this movie was all about. But the instigations of the fights were totally absurd! On most all instances, a guy either pops out of the tall grass, or glances at the main character from a distance, and then attacks him. But once the fighting started, things sort of balanced out. There were only two things that really hampered the fighting, though. Those constant "wooshing" sound effects that were added to every swing of a fist or foot or sword, and the poor editing that made 25 percent of the fighting VERY jumpy and choppy. Someone would be in the middle of a back flip and then suddenly be on the ground being kicked, and then instantly be back on their feet blocking a punch. But while the cut and paste editing was more of a nuisance than anything else, it didn't really affect the overall movie.<br /><br />In the end, this was not a great movie, but I wasn't expecting a great movie. A great movie is not something you should expect when you see a box cover like this movie's. All I saw this movie as was a way to pass an hour and a half of boredom. I rarely say that, but this was just one of those movies you have no practical use for, so you watch it whenever you have some free time. Enjoy the movie if you decide to watch it! Good day gentlemen.<br /><br />-Scott-
This movie had all the potential and makings of a great feel good, great love story...the cast is perfect, the visuals work, the original premise works, the characters work....but the story moves from one chess move to the next in a most predictable way...not one character in the movie has any depth or has any depth explained by the director. All we know about Catherine Zeta-Jones character is she is obsessed with her world....nobody is allowed in and nobody challenges her world...that much is obvious....but the remaining characters all have their own dimensions that are really never explored or exposed....Aaron Eckhart's character had so much more to offer to the story but wasn't allowed, Abigail Breslin's character is so easy to understand that her performance comes across somewhat predictable and phony....in the end everything reverts back to the forced turbulent world of Catherine Zeta-Jones which the audience never totally falls for....honestly, her turbulent world is not much more than a portrayal of a selfish, self obsessed, spoiled lady who most people would not have much time or sympathy for in the real world. The director needed to make her a hero and never does....in the end, it is Eckhart's character that ultimately wins because he wins.<br /><br />Not a lousy movie, just a movie that could have been a lot better with more depth of personalities allowed in, explained and exposed.<br /><br />Cheers
Well, i must admit, when i saw the trailer for this movie, i was looking forward to it. I am generally a fan of light hearted romantic comedies and from the trailer, thats the impression i got of this movie. However, i spent most of the movie waiting for the comedy to begin. Although there were a couple of amusing scenes, in general the outlook of the movie was quite depressing.<br /><br />I also found it difficult to fall in love with any of the characters as they all seemed a little underdeveloped, the time which the director could have used exploring the characters taken up by a needless overuse of Opera, making the movie feel dragged out and slow.<br /><br />All in all, although there are some touching scenes, the trailer is quite deceptive and i would only suggest you go watch this if there is really nothing else that tickles your fancy.<br /><br />Not fantastic, and as i have said before; Bland.
Go to the video store and get the original. I do not understand why Hollywood has that need to take a perfect foreign movie and remake it. "Mostly Martha" or "Bella Martha" has a much better cast. Beginning with the heroine Martina Gedeck, who convinced me much more in the role of the work-obsessed perfectionist than the more famous Catherine Zeta Jones, to the Italian cook and the niece suddenly deprived of her mother and forced to live with an aunt, not fit for child-rearing. <br /><br />In many ways, the American version of the movie is a copy of the German original. They just exchanged the actors. However, they also changed the story because it would have been difficult and not very believable to materialize a father for the little girl in an American context. <br /><br />I was thinking about that. Maybe the father could have been Puerto Rican, or Cuban, or Mexican. Well, there are so many "guest workers" in the U.S. Take your pick. But I doubt that any of them would have shown up to shoulder the responsibility as the Italian father did in the original. Therefore, the American movie leaves that part out but keeps the Italian cook. And by doing this the whole story changes. In the original "Martha" is so removed from reality that she thinks it is okay to send her niece off with a complete stranger in a foreign country. <br /><br />The American "Martha" is softer and therefore the movie is sweeter and does not have that edge the German movie has. <br /><br />In the original the "Italian" cook is not so good looking but much more charming , the little girl is more of a brat but much more believable and "Martha" is more representative of a career woman in today's world than the watered down version we are presented in the American version. And the whole opera music in the American version was very annoying. I loved the Italian songs in the original and bought the CD. <br /><br />Hollywood recognized that "Mostly Martha" was a great movie. Maybe the distribution companies should have put it in more theaters or it should have been shown in English without subtitles. In any case, the original is so much better. By the way this reminds me of another remake. "Shall we dance" is one of my favorites in the original Japanese version and totally forgettable in the American version.
Much as I really like Catherine Zeta-Jones, I wondered once again, why remake a good movie? This version lacked the tension and passion of Mostly Martha. It was a clear rip off. Maxime Foerste was more convincing as a hurting child who healed with love. I couldn't believe Abigail Breslin. Martina Gedeck owned this role. Unfortunately Zeta-Jones should have found another one that she could own (she has other roles she does own.). Sergio Castellitto was good as a vulnerable but joyful Italian. Aaron Eckhart seemed passionless in comparison. This version was pleasant but bland.<br /><br />The love between Mario and Martha was perhaps predictable but satisfying. The therapist added an interesting bit of color that didn't seem important. I liked it when at the end he said he'd be back but the movie was over before he returned. I have Mostly Martha at home. Every now and then I revisit it.
There is only one word to define the whole movie, that is: awful. How "Mostly Martha" was remade is awful. The title of the movie is awful. The actors are awful. And the idea of combining good cooking and USA is awful. If you have seen "Bella Martha", well that is the original title and it means "Beautiful Martha", this one is a punch in the stomach. The acting of Ms.Jones is so poor and unnatural that even Jessica Alba, considered one of the worst actresses (http://www.razzies.com/history/05nomActr.asp) would have done better. Not to mention the cook, who would better play a different role. And the little girl... not worth mentioning. Bella Martha was a very nice movie, an authentic one... why was it remade? There was a story.... here they took it out. There is no story... What shall it represent? In one way also this movie was perfect. You know when all ingredients fit together? Well this is the case here. A perfect Crap....
How bad idea was to remake an almost Oscar -worthy film?! MOSTHLY MARTHA is MUCH MORE BETTER, has deepness, finesse and so on and mainly: a wonderful and talented actress in the leading role (Martina Gedeck). It's a joke and ugliness with the handsome Aaron and the whole atmosphere... again a ridiculous effort from Hollywood. There are more and more remake and the films are full with schemes.. Isn't anybody there who can create a good and newly script? Or this is a safety solution to make remake or movies from the well-tried cartoon figures? The films are getting much less interesting nowadays. Oh yes: If you want to see a REALLY good movie watch the original one. It's definitely worth.
There really is only one reason to watch this barely adequate and utterly predictable movie about an uptight chef Kate Armstrong (Catherine Zeta Jones) whose life changes when she inherits her orphaned niece Zoe (Abigail Breslin) after her sister is killed in a car wreck. And that reason is to watch Aaron Eckhart (Nick) who, with his floppy haircut and appealingly laddish attitude, looks good enough to slap between two slices of organic Pannini and eat with an olive oil and balsamic vinaigrette dip and a few finely diced sun dried tomatoes. He reminds me of Sean Bean. The thought that he might take his shirt off really was the only thing that kept me awake until the end. He removed his apron petulantly several times, but to my disappointment, never went further.<br /><br />I can't be too critical because I was watching it on pay per view at home, so it hadn't cost me the price of two movie tickets at least, and I was brought up to be grateful for small mercies. But really, this is Rom Com at its most formulaic. Zeta Jones gives a very flat, monotonous performance, she seemed utterly lacking in passion, (possibly due to the amount of time she apparently spent in the cold store at the restaurant? Thirty takes in there can't have been fun) and her face barely changed expression throughout the whole movie. Abigail Breslin was pretty good as the niece, she's such an appealing little girl that it's quite impossible to criticize her, and anyway I loved her in Little Miss Sunshine. Patricia Clarkson is always good value and I can't really fault her performance as the restaurant owner, because she seemed very underused, given what a good actor she is and how little she had to do here. But the whole thing is just so clichéd, much of the dialog banal, and the outcome so obvious. This is the cinematic equivalent of paint by numbers, and Zeta Jones and Eckhart generate little heat on screen.<br /><br />Nick likes Italian food (doubtless indicating his burning inner passion) and cooks to the sound of Puccini. His appearance in Kate's kitchen at 22 Bleecker (the restaurant's name) predictably ruffles her feathers but his uncanny ability to bond with her niece by cooking pizza and building a Bedouin tent in the living room, brings Kate around and, despite a few stumbles along the way, she ends up giving him her prized possession. No, not her honour. But her recipe for saffron sauce.<br /><br />I'm being very unfair here, aren't I? I mean Rom Com is Rom Com, and we all know what we are letting ourselves in for when we sign up. But does it always have to be so mind numbingly dull?
I am a longtime fan of the original of this movie (Bella Martha/Mostly Martha), and everything that makes that movie great and enjoyable to watch is missing from this one. I miss the slow pace, the build-up of characters and their style in small gestures, the dominance of lights and moods and moves over dialog. I don't think that the story itself is enough. Martha/Kate is more secluded, and Mario/Nick is not a clown. In most of the cases the things that makes one scene great in the original, its is not working in its copy here. The small alterations take away the tension. My opinion is that you should go and see the original. It'll worth the inconvenience of subtitles.
I hesitated seeing this movie, having really enjoyed the original, 'Mostly Martha'. What a disappointment. Catherine Zeta Jones is a good actress but this wasn't her film. The original had poignant moments, perfectly punctuated with an incredible soundtrack. No reservations felt like it never connected. The food, the characters - nothing felt passionate. In Mostly Martha, the food came alive- every scene was filmed in such a way you could taste it with your eyes - the smells, the textures. The food in 'No Reservations' was in the background - rarely did we get a closeup of the preparation; the characters were not real enough to carry the movie without it. It was hard finishing the movie - many of the scenes felt awkward. See the original - it's a truly enjoyable movie; the soundtrack incredible.
Yes, I spelled that right. This movie is so predictable, the actual word needs additional letters to exemplify the predictability. From the moment the principal characters and situation are introduced, it is paint-by-numbers as to where this plot will take us. The foreshadowing was as subtle as a two ton sledgehammer. You could take numerous pieces of dialogue and anticipate the role it would play in the ending.<br /><br />Catherine Zeta-Jones and Aaron Eckhardt did decent jobs in undemanding roles and Abigail Breslin played the cute role admirably. It's just that the movie brought absolutely nothing new to the romantic comedy genre. The romance was tepid and the laughs were weak and few. Sure, it's an OK movie if you have nothing to watch, but you won't miss anything by missing this one.
I recall years back, Michael Douglas wanted his wife, Catherine Zeta-Jones, to be in a romantic film because he felt his wife had all the goods. No doubt she does, but NOT in this film. A colossal waste of time, no story, no character development, no chemistry, nada. This was not the vehicle that we all hoped this film would be, boring and a HUGE disappointment. Didn't even watch the whole film, torture. Catherine Zeta-Jones was obviously trained in how to work a kitchen, move around, present a dish but this wasn't the food network, nothing learned here and once her counterpart appeared, supposedly a romantic interest brewing, where was the chemistry. The poor slob on the second floor of her building trying all the ploys to connect and no character development there. The loss of her sister was poorly played out as who knew there was a closeness. The sister's daughter just was plopped here and there with something that was supposed to draw you in, NOT. Just a waste of movie time. The promoters certainly did their job to put this lack-luster film on all the networks tempting you with all kinds of teasers. Sorry to say, don't spend a dime.
Catherine Zeta-Jones and Aaron Eckhart star in a "romantic" drama about an uptight chef played by Zeta-Jones, who ends up carrying for her niece when her sister is killed in a car crash. While she's out taking care of family matters she's replaced by Eckhart.<br /><br />Unfunny maudlin tale with no chemistry between the leads (she's a dead fish and he's okay, but not much of anything). Watching this I was wondering why anyone would want to see this since Zeta-Jones' character is so unlikable. Come on she's so obsessed with cooking and being the best all she does is cook for her therapist or talk about food. Ugh. I won't use any of the numerous puns that come to mind. I couldn't finish it.
When I saw the trailers for this movie, it looked like a good romantic comedy. I expected some light fluffy fun. Instead, I was bored and a little depressed.<br /><br />Honestly, there was no chemistry between the leads at all, and the movie had little, if anything, that was funny about it. The little girl was adorable - when she cried, I cried - but I thought they might have used someone a little bit younger in the role.<br /><br />Either way, the movie was filled with long, dull silences or swelling opera music. I'm not anti-opera, but I would have preferred them to spend that time letting us get to know the characters, who were all stiff and underdeveloped.<br /><br />I was really disappointed in this movie. The whole time I watched it I kept thinking of how much better it could have been.
I'm really not going to waste my time with in depth analysis, i'm just going to say that i'm extremely disappointed that Catherine Zeta-Jones made the mistake of being in the main role in this absurd, nonsense, in this full of clichés boring to death thoughtless pathetic try in film-making! There is no point in trying to find the positive sides of this movie, because as a whole it is poor in every single way, and the saddest thing is that Zeta-Jones is dragged so uncompromisingly into the clichés, that she has absolutely no chance of showing even 1% of her talent!<br /><br />Avoid this movie even at the opportunity of spending the night at home starring at the wall!!!
I really wanted to love this movie, and not only cause it had Aaron Eckhart in it but I thought the premise would be cool cause I enjoy movies and shows that revolves around chefs. The cinematography was good but besides it being revolved around chefs everything else is just very cliché. Oh and Little Miss Sunshine was very irritating in this movie although Abigail Breslin seems to be a bit irritating in every movie she is in cause she plays a lot of roles where she is whinny. It has some decent flashes of cooking, but food really didn't play a big part in the movie than I expected which was a big disappointment for me. This film had some good potential, the cast was great but they just had very little to work with. I like a good light hearted romantic comedy but this was just bland. And longer than it should be cause it felt way longer than it is. It's not a terrible movie, you just won't miss anything by not watching this movie.<br /><br />4.5/10
I had high hopes for this film when I saw the listing and decided to watch it on TV, uninterrupted by commercial breaks. I've liked Lee Van Cleef in many movies but I'm afraid that having the other characters call him Chris repeatedly doesn't turn him into even a reasonable facsimile of Yul Brenner's Chris.<br /><br />I found this movie to be a complete disappointment - the music sound track tried to impart the magnificence portrayed in the original but it too failed to bring the film up the the standard of the original. The rich textures of the characters in the original were mostly missing from this film. I guess if you haven't seen the original it would be okay. Too many clichés and too little depth to the characters. I missed the humanity and compassion and the three dimensional characters of the original.
The director was probably still in his early learning stages when he tried his hand at westerns. Have a look at the outfits. Everybody looks well-scrubbed, well-brushed, well-dressed and well-ironed as though ready for church. Even the horses look well-groomed and shiny. This is a WESTERN, for crying out loud! It's supposed to look dusty, nasty and sweaty. And then there's the amateurish acting of the females in this bird. The whole lot, a dozen or so, all pretty and well-endowed, were just freshly raped and widowed, but hardly a tear flows. Instead they all look with great interest (if not downright lust) at the newly arrived magnificent seven who they subsequently feed, bandage and comfort with love during their battles with the bandits. The same directing criticism goes for Lee van Cleef, who does a reasonable good acting job. Our Lee, playing the law, just lost his dear wife. But Lee, hard as organic rock, shows no emotion whatsoever and finds himself within days of his spouse's demise in the arms of a juicy widow with whom he, together with her brood, walks off into the future. The cad. And then there's another thing that always kind of bothers me with this type of films: it doesn't matter how many dynamite-induced explosions take place in the middle of a pack of some 50 horses, never mind how many shots are being fired at the rabble on top of them, only the crooks get killed and the nags always go their way rejoicing in one piece. (I know...silly moi...it's just a movie...). It's not the worst western ever made, but prepare for some serious yawning.
I guess I should now comment upon a 4th flick in the MAGNIFICENT SEVEN franchise; the sequels still surprise or amaze me—by their sleaze and deliberate _absurdism. They constitute or forge a 4th way—not classic, not revisionist, not European—but a sleaze Americana, kindred to the violent vigilante '70s movies, absurd trash. This installment too is bombastic sleaze—inexplicably awkward and even somewhat strange.<br /><br />Now what I find disturbing that these sequels not only have their opportunist fans; but that the fans simply do not sense any difference between the original's style and the sequels'.<br /><br />These sequels are not boring or insipid—but bizarre. They are of course very badly written—messy scripts, rubbish lines. It's straight crazy; in this installment each gunman gets several women— Van Cleef's young wife begs him to release a young prisoner; he finally does. The young man resumes his life, shoots Van Cleef, kidnaps the wife, rapes and kills her—then joins a wrongdoer. Van Cleef, who has previously refused to help defending a village, now assembles a small bunch and charges the wrongdoer's hacienda; then the wrongdoers charge the village where Van Cleef has set.<br /><br />I liked the cast.<br /><br />Van Cleef is Chris; Stefanie Powers, pretty active in the '70s screwy westerns, is Van Cleef's darling. Callan, very antipathetic, is Noah, a writer and Chris' sidekick. The rest of the aggressive bunch are Askew (one of the only three survivors), Armendariz, Lucking, Lauter; Rita Rogers is truly hot, fleshy beauty.
I would bet a month's salary "The Magnificent Seven Returns" (MSR) was made-for-TV. Other reviewers attest that MSR was a theatrical movie, and I'll take their word for it. The logical answer must assume it was originally shot for TV, and after a change-of-studio-heart, it was released theatrically instead. Every actor is primarily a TV actor: Mariette Hartley, Michael Callen, Ralfe Waite, Stephanie Powers... TV performers all. Lee Van Cleef split his time between TV and theater screens. Stephanie Powers has only made 3 or 4 "real" movie appearances in the last thirty years of a very prolific television career - proof positive this was shot for TV. Minor players are veteran small-screen actors who can be seen on old reruns of "Gunsmoke", "Wild Wild West," "Streets of San Francisco," and so on.<br /><br />The ho-hum sets are identical to the Universal Studios Tour sets, often seen in old episodic TV. And the editing betrays the one-or-two-takes-hurriedness of TV, with limited camera movements, positioning, cutting, and lighting. The sound track, exclusive of the original Berstein themes, are straight from seventies television. Yep, I'd bet money it was shot for TV.<br /><br />That's an important point in evaluating MSR. Initially I watched MSR on cable assuming it was an old theatrical release. In comparison to the original "Magnificent Seven", it's a joke, a cartoon, an amateurish attempt at movie making. Acting, lighting, writing, settings, action, cinematography, music (exempting the Berstein themes), editing, pacing,...on and on....all pale in comparison to the classic "Magnificent Seven" which is close to the perfect 60's western, and one of the great action movies of all time. <br /><br />However, viewed as an early 70's made-for-TV movie, as I suspect, the film is actually better than average. Those unfortunate enough to live through the 70's as an adult, know what I'm talking about. MSR would have competed against "Alias Smith and Jones" and similarly bland network shows. During the seventies, "Gunsmoke" was a quality show, concentrating on character development rather than action, deemphasizing gun play to two shootouts a week. The first shooting, usually a murder, sets the hour's plot into motion - the second shootout climaxes the episode by killing the guest star, his nemesis, or otherwise resolving the conflict with Marshal Matt Dillon. MSR has more action than a whole season of "Gunsmoke." In this light - in this frame of reference - MSR is passable entertainment, a cut above the TV fare from that decade.
The series finally hits rock-bottom with this lousy fourth installment, which was (thank God) the last one. None of the three sequels did justice to the highly entertaining original, but this particular film is nothing more than a shameless attempt to exploit the name of the "Magnificent Seven" and Bernstein's rousing music theme. The production values resemble those of a made-for-TV movie and the characters are forgettable and indistinguishable: in parts "II" and "III" you couldn't remember their names, here you can't even remember their faces. Lee Van Cleef was an inappropriate choice for the role of Chris, but nobody could have replaced Yul Brynner in our minds anyway. Don't waste your time.
This film is a cash in. A cash in reliant on a rousing theme tune created for an earlier classic. Yul Brynner has long since jumped ship and so have most of the production values. Lee Van Cleef takes over the lead role of Chris. I can't think of any actor who looks less like Brynner than Van Cleef. Hey, he could have at least shaved off his hair and lost the moustache, just for the sake of continuity. Some correctional centres show this movie in order to punish offenders. One step out of line and The Magnificent Seven Ride! is brought to the fore and wielded. They didn't even bother trying to make this movie not look like a TV movie! Abysmal.
Joan Crawford is convincingly disfigured as our story starts, and of course she get fixed up. But she's a bad egg, exploiting one guy, while living out another guy's anti-social philosophy. All of this takes place in Sweden, which is truly bizarre. It causes anything and everything memorable in the visuals, which are freed from having to depict Anytown USA, but it makes a viewer wonder why every remake since is burdened and rendered unspecific by the need to Americanize everything. There is plot, plot, plot so chatty that you could drown in it, and making matters worse is a framing device that adds zilch to the movie. The photography is occasionally nice, with odd angles and miniatures incorporated quite well. But it's overwrought without ever once drawing you in.
In the animated series: <br /><br />Aeon Flux was an amoral rebel that was completely detached from everything and everyone. She was cruel, selfish, loving, unpredictable, witty, caustic, confident, sarcastic, lethal, untamable, ambiguous all at once. The original Aeon had layers upon layers of depth. She almost never allowed her personal emotions to show through. The original plot was deliciously ambiguous and thought provoking. You could never tell what Aeon's motives were. Aeon was a militant anarchist whereas Trevor was a radical idealist, because of this they could never have any semblance of a stable relationship.<br /><br />In the movie:<br /><br />Aeon Flux works for the Monicans and her political motives and personal motives are very clear. She was pretty, loving, vulnerable, easily tamable, emotional and very predictable. The Aeon in the movie had one layer of depth at most. The plot was obvious and contrived. Everything is completely laid out for you from the beginning. There was virtually no conflict between Aeon and Trevor, at least in terms of personal philosophies. The only conflict between them was that they were on different sides.<br /><br />The movie was a horrible disappointment to me. I felt betrayed. They took the idea of one of my favorite animated characters of all time, squeezed all the depth and personality out of her, and pumped her full of Hollywood clichés. The essence of the animated series was completely lost in this movie. <br /><br />The only reason I'm not giving this movie a "1" is because the visuals were incredible. It was neat to see some of the familiar animated scenes like the fly in the eye done with CGI.
It's a bit unnerving when a studio declines to screen a film for the press before it goes into wide release. That many movies suck is no surprise, but when a studio itself admits as much ahead of time, the process of movie-going becomes a passion play of sorts. Consider it an early Christmas gift from Hollywood, then, that "Aeon Flux" isn't nearly the affront to taste and decency one might expect, given the above. Though ultimately overwhelmed by its flaws, it at least has (sort of) an idea with which to toy around. Too bad director Karyn Kusama seems to have little clue how to execute it all.<br /><br />It's the future. There's been a plague. There is a dictatorship, and there are rebels. The latter are known as the Monicans, and far from being a cult of beret or tennis racket worshipers, they're into attempts to overthrow the former, called the Goodchild regime. The regime is occasionally mean to the citizenry, which is more than Aeon Flux (Charlize Theron) and her pals can stand. Through some sort of biochemical virtual reality technology, the Monicans receive orders from their dear leader (Frances McDormand), a mystical priestess-type who appears to have been cross-bred with a carrot. It falls to Aeon to strap on some form-fitting, futuristic spandex get-ups to carry out the High Carrot's orders, which are of course some version of "destroy the regime." Having years earlier watched her sister get liquidated by the Goodchilds, she needs little convincing.<br /><br />Not surprisingly, things get complicated. The Goodchilds might not be quite what they seem, and Aeon herself might have an unexpected history with them. Though occasionally muddled, the film's central conceit (of which I won't reveal more) contains some neat notions about the nature of human existence and survival. There's room for much more examination of which the film doesn't take advantage, but the ideas are there, at least. The big problems of "Aeon Flux" are technical. Kusama has made the baffling decision to film nearly all the action so close that we can rarely follow what's going on. To make matters worse, it's edited in a flurry of jump cuts that leave us completely lost. The result is some serious spacial disorientation that takes over the film. "Aeon Flux"'s aesthetic is one of sleek costume, oddly-angled architecture, and nimble characters. Much of the action occurs in minimalist, open spaces that beg for some unbroken long shots that might convey the grace and athleticism implied by the above. Instead, we get split seconds of flying limbs, breaking glass, and accompanying sound effects.<br /><br />There is a pretty good movie trying to get out of the morass of "Aeon Flux." Put this stuff in the hands of the Wachowski brothers, say, and the results could be quite different. As it is, though, I felt like "Aeon Flux" was willfully pushing me away from a movie I wanted to enjoy. This film is unattuned to its own strengths. Like a novice poker player dealt a royal flush, it somehow finds a way to lose in spite of its potential.
If you're a fan of the original series, do NOT see this movie.<br /><br />I should have been skeptical from the previews when Aeon expresses her motives for murder. In the series Aeon had no family and no motive for her adventures save selfish interests. Obviously the chimp-writer in charge felt the movie needed to cater to the "bad grrl" demographic by making the character deadly, but have a good reason to kill people.<br /><br />You wouldn't have thought it possible, but the movie is more two dimensional than the cartoon. The characters are all portrayed as inherently good with some conflict of interest that eventually gets resolved. All dogs go to heaven, and same for every character that dies in this movie.<br /><br />The selfish,twisted,perverted, dominating personas of Aeon and Trevor are nowhere to be seen. In the end they literally develop into a cutesy couple ala Annie Hall. The only character who remained true to the show was the Relicle, the floating machine in the sky. I suppose if you ever thought "gee, I like Aeon Flux, but I wish it were more like every other faceless good-v-evil sci-fi Hollywood slop out there", then you are in for a treat.<br /><br />They didn't even get the look right. I suppose a black metal bikini was too much to ask for, but the whole setting is wrong. 400 years into the future sure looks like 30 years into the past. Instead of a distinctly urban post-apocalyptic world, the viewer's eyes are offended with a 70's mod-squad frutopia of egg-shaped furniture, wood paneled walls, earth tones, and lots of plants. Bregna was a dystopia, not a utopia.<br /><br />Speaking of Bregna, that's the only city on earth according to the movie. The show is clear that there are two cities, Bregna and Monica, which used to be one. In the movie, the "Monicans" are just Hollywood storybook freedom-fighters. They also have as much technology as the Bregnans, which is not the case from the show.<br /><br />The only possible conclusion is that the real writer for this movie was a high school kid, and that he wrote it the day before it was due to the studio execs, and he's never seen an entire Aeon Flux all the way through. The overwhelming amount of inconsistency with the cartoon is baffling. Beyond using certain names like Aeon Flux, Trevor Goodchild, and Bregna, the movie is nothing like the show.<br /><br />The actual bulk of the movie seems to try to blend the colorful plots of soy-lent green, blade runner, Logan's run, and tomb raider, which came out a dull brown mess.
The MTV sci-fi animated series "Æon Flux" is brought to life with Charlize Theron playing the title character, a freedom fighter who fights oppression in the walled city of Bregna, 400 hundred years into the future. For her latest mission, she has been sent to kill the city's leader Trevor Goodchild (Marton Csokas), but she uncovers secrets along the way.<br /><br />Aeon Flux falls under the category of good premise, mediocre execution. Interesting story yet the film was a little dull. A lot of people are saying that this is one of the worst movies of the year and that's not true at all. It may be a disappointing film but it's an average film at best. I have never seen the cartoon version of the movie so I can't compare the two. It's probably better because they have a chance to explain the story more. The film is not that confusing but it's easy to get lost if you're not familiar with the material. The acting was alright, nothing special. Charlize Theron gives a good performance and seems dedicated to the film. The rest of the cast also give decent performances including Jonny Lee Miller, Frances McDormand and Marton Csokas. There are also more than a few interesting characters in the film including Sithandra, Aeon's friend.<br /><br />The problem with Aeon Flux is that it takes itself too seriously. It carries the same serious tone throughout the entire film and that gets a little tiring. There's no humor and the film becomes a little boring at times. This is the same problem that Elektra had. Because the film is so serious, the dialog sounds cheesy and the serious scenes seem forced. The action scenes are pretty good but that's not what the film is really about so don't go in expecting just an action movie. The twist at the end isn't mind blowing but it's still a nice ending and better than other thrillers that have come out this past year (Hide and Seek). The costumes are little weird but still look nice and interesting. The visuals were are also done well so the film at least looks nice. So, the movie may be a case of style over substance. Interesting to look at but may not hold your attention for a very long time. In the end, it's not the best film out there but it might for a decent rental. Rating 4/10
Right up (or down) there with Toys and Jurassic Park 2 and The Phantom Menace.<br /><br />The premise sounded cool, some of the commercials looked semi-promising, but alas, the entire movie had about 30 seconds of neat shot-ness, and that was shown on the small screen's 30 second slot.<br /><br />If you want amateur writing, second-rate effects, ridiculous costumes, and an all-around snoozefest by all means watch it. The plot is recycled sci-fi fodder. Too bad too, because coming in I thought it would be bad but held out hope. It may be the worst movie I have ever seen, and I have seen a lot. <br /><br />Bottom line - Don't watch it.<br /><br />Unless of course you -liked- any of the above 3 movies.
Critics have started calling it the Oscar Winner club, understandably. What after Halle Berry won it for Monsters Ball then going straight to the diabolical Catwoman. Hilary Swank triumphs in Boys Don't Cry and follows it with The Core. Jamie Foxx takes a nosedive as a pilot in the dull Stealth after scooping a gong for Ray. Now it's seems Hollywood Starlet Charlize Theron craps all over her "Monster" Oscar with this one of the worst Sci-fi spectacles ever made.<br /><br />The film loses its audience interest after a mere 20 minutes meaning the only thing really worth staying for is the fact that despite the film being rubbish Charlize Theron is still an exceptional actress who is clearly making the best of a crude and laughable premise. Not only is Æon Flux ultimately shallow but for an action flick it's also really very dull. It will only really appeal to comic book fans and Horney teenagers who like the idea of Theron running around half naked for 90 minutes. Flux only really succeed in failing.<br /><br />Set against the 2011 virus that kills 99% of the world's populace, and in the last city on Earth, Bregna, the survivors, some four hundred years later, in the year 2415, are continuing to live in the Goodchild dynasty, the name of the scientist who developed its cure.<br /><br />All is not well in this utopia and it is not what lies beyond its high walls that protects its citizens from the never ending jungle but what unspoken, unwritten taboo that holds and binds these unwritten taboo that holds and binds these unfortunates' together that lies within these walls of paranoia, conformity and unquestionable obedience. Filmed in and around Berlin, ironically, this is a story set against a totalitarian state, a walled city, where its peoples are no longer capable of reproducing, and its sinister and most secret plot of how it sustains life.<br /><br />Æon Flux is the assassin that has been assigned by the underground rebels to change the course of Mankind, forever. This is the story of her fight for justice, freedom and revenge.<br /><br />Æon Flux combined lousy narratives, ropy pacing and truly dire effects. Looking more like an unrealistic video game rather than a film. The only thing that is fortunate about the failure is that no sequels are in the works, Flux might just be the beginning and the end of what could have been one of the worst franchises in history, thank god for the lousy box office takings then.<br /><br />My final verdict on this truly lousy feature? There really isn't a story here just Charlize Theron jumping around in a black suit like a grass hopper. The acting is very wooden moronic and emotionless compared to the other cinemas that are out there today. It try's too much to be like an adaption and doesn't really take much from the cartoon which is what I was expecting, the only thing that was done half right that pays tribute to the cartoon was the fly in the eye scene. Avoid at all costs.
While Aeon Flux was mildly entertaining and a slightly better way to spend a Wednesday evening than the pub, i did leave pleased that i had got buy one get one free tickets. knowing nothing about the film as i went in, in fact i didn't even know there was an animated series before i read this site, i was ready for anything, and as some other viewers noted, the trailers showing a well filmed, good looking, and interesting piece of cinema had pulled me in. half way through the film though i was kind of disappointed, it did remind me of the fifth element but i too feel it just lacked the extra bit of depth and left me with the empty feeling. and enough of the pointless and slightly boring gun fights, if you're going to do them, do it with some style, not just loads of explosions and inept guards falling down. personally i'd rather have seen a bit more about the story and the people in the city or got to know more about how the chairman was being undermined, than yet another long and loud gun fight.
I got to know ÆON back in the early 90s via television and I loved it...<br /><br />What did you like about it ? The cranky drawing style ? The flawless artistic action involved ? The absurd and deadpan communication between the characters ? The whole layout of the surrounding future world ? No matter what you loved about it...<br /><br />The Aeon Flux film of late 2005 has nothing of that.<br /><br />Karyn Kusama, the so called "director" of the film, was hopelessly over-strained with transporting the original content to a new film. If you 're not familiar with the original series, you won't understand anything during for the first 60minutes of the film.The story is inscrutable and the vapid characters do not develop during the film.<br /><br />Kusama's attempt to improve the storyline by implementing some rather weak explanatory conversations between the main characters is not only a lame attempt to cover up her flaws as a storyteller , it's simply unworthy of the original ÆON concept.<br /><br />Charlize Theron might be an attractive woman, but she can't impersonate the ÆON character. Although she was attached to strings doing action scenes, her lack of talent for physical motion simply ruins the action sequences in the film. The result is a tremendous amount of hectic picture cuts to cover up the sheer lameness of her physique.<br /><br />Forget about all the rest, it's not worth talking about...<br /><br />I give 1point for Ms.Theron showing her boobs and 1point for the nice architectural photography in the film. That's it.
Laughable.<br /><br />Clichéd.<br /><br />Overdoses on style to compensate for poor writing.<br /><br />Remember when MTV actually used to air music videos and other shows besides Reality Shows? Aeon Flux (2005) is based upon one such show – a cartoon from the mid-90s – featuring a superhuman female protagonist in black latex clothing. Aeon, played by the lovely Charlize Theron in this adaptation, is a cold detached rebel who is as dexterous as a line-dancer and as deadly as a viper-snake. She needs to be, if she expects to kick the asses of the totalitarian government.<br /><br />I love science fiction, but hate the sudden influx of half-assed futuristic dystopian technology-overdosed films like The Island (2005) and Equilibrium (2002) (bottom of the pile). Aeon Flux has all the problems that are present in these films, but amplified. That is, there is nothing original left to show so they compensate for it with the sleek style that Matrix (1999) catalyzed. The special effects are therefore sensational in Aeon Flux which earns it a few points, but scratch the surface and there is literally nothing there.<br /><br />To make matters worse, all performances in this film are atrocious and some actually wound me to watch. Charlize Theron's character Aeon Flux is interwoven with the most cheesy tough-chick schtick and it seems as though the director Karyn Kusama cannot quite decide where to go with her next – should she make her more detached or more emotional? She doesn't know! Let's go both ways! Imagine you take a shotgun, load it chock-full of character developments of different sorts and there fire into a random mess. This is the character of Aeon Flux.<br /><br />The film Aeon Flux puts forward all the 'mandatory' ideas in a dystopian society - individual vs. society, nature vs. science, emotion vs. cold reason, etc. You've seen all of this before, and better done at that. Go read Orwell, Bradbury or Huxley, or even watch Logan's Run (1976) or Blade Runner (1982)... anything! Avoid this viciously uninvolving cheese-fest for as long as you can.<br /><br />3/10
Started watching this but didn't believe in any of the characters. In particular the relationship between the bakery assistant and the waitress just didn't work for me at all. The scenes between the bakery owner and the assistant were nice but the rest was just very slow. It was a very superficial movie and it gave me the feeling that I was watching play rather than a film. The characters were very 'stagey' and the storyline was a lot like a stage farce. By the time the pyromaniac waylaid the assistant I was bored and didn't care what happened next and so I switched off. Glad I didn't pay to see it. Didn't laugh or even smile once. There seems to be a strange tendency for Americans to classify their films as 'comedy' when they are funny peculiar rather than funny ha ha. I have finally learned to avoid what Americans term dark comedies which usually turn out to be gruesome weird and unfunny. Now it looks like I will have to be a bit more discerning when they call a film romantic comedy as well. Maybe comedy means something different when applied to a film rather than a series in America. I don't understand why America can produce amazingly funny comedies like Two and a half men, Will and Grace, King of Queens but can't seem to produce really funny films without resorting to toilet humour. This film wasn't gross or anything. But it wasn't anything at all just one big yawn...
!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!<br /><br />The premise goes like this : A store gets burnt down and assistant Sergio is asked by the father of the man who started the fire to take the wrap to which Sergio agrees .<br /><br />So far so good , but there`s a fair lapse of logic involved Sergio agrees to do this for the sum of 25,000 dollars but why ? Come on guys if you were a good looking white boy would you run the risk of getting a long spell in a tough jail ( A very real possibilty for arson ) for the sake of 25 grand ? I know I wouldn`t , and seeing as you`d have a criminal record no employer would want to touch you with a barge pole so is $25,000 dollars all that much for a life of workfare and welfare cheques ? There`s also something else that seems to have gone without notice from the premise , since Mister Lumpke has told Sergio that his son did the fire he seems unware of the possibility that he may know too much . Wouldn`t alarm bells be ringing in your mind about someone wanting to keep you quite if they told you something ? <br /><br />I guess we`re not suppossed to think about such details since A PYROMANIAC`S LOVE STORY isn`t suppossed to be an intelligent thriller , it`s a light hearted romantic comedy/ chick flick that`s probably best apprieciated as a girls night in . Looking through this comments page it is obvious that the movie has its defenders but as a cynical male I wasn`t too impressed and William Baldwin does go way over the top
Not having any idea what this film was about, but based on the fact that John Leguizamo was appearing in it, we decided to watch it. Well, it turned out not to be the wisest decision. In fact, as another commentary in this forum puts it, we felt embarrassed for the actors that participated in this movie.<br /><br />While the film is by no means horrible, it doesn't make sense at all. The over the top performance by William Baldwin doesn't help the situation either. John Leguizamo is a multi-talented actor who deserved better. The basic problem it seems to be the film was a project that started with good intentions in making a little comedy and the people in charge ran out of ideas along the way. The result is an uneven film.
This was an attempt toward a romantic comedy, and one which did not work. Although the film was cast in an interesting manner, the dismal script betrayed the best efforts of all. The director's fey mannerisms may have succeeded if he had adopted a point of view. It was embarrassing to watch William Baldwin and, in particular, Armin Muller-Stahl.
Not really worth a review, but I suppose it's my duty to warn you all - especially since there are some pretty good reviews of this Canadian bomb floating around out there... Bad acting and a slow moving, absolutely atrociously boring 'coming of age' tale in which 3 boys lives are turned upside down when a man on the run shows up at their clubhouse in the woods. At firs the boys make good with the intruder and at one point even view him as some sort of a role model... However all this changes... and you still won't care. You will recognize Chris Penn, whose biggest cinematic impact is Corky Romano, and a young Devon Sawa, whose career peaked at 'Casper'. I was hoping for a '12 and Holding', 'The War', or 'Lie' and all I got was a waste of time. This film struggles to keep it's audiences attention and never makes an impact or maintains a note of anything remotely interesting.
I just spent the last half an hour reading through the other reviews and I don't know if I want to laugh or cry. There's no way that ADJL is like Harry Potter, Danny Phantom, Fairly OddParents, other then a secret magical world, which has been close to overdone. Also, no way is ADJL anime. Anime is very much a drawing style(and some will say more, such as plot and Japanese origin), either way ADJL is not anime so stop saying it is and if you're looking for something that is like anime, look else where, like Teen Titans and Avatar.<br /><br />ADJL is typical. It's just like all the other Disney shows. An arrogant main character kid who thinks he knows everything and doesn't bother to listen to people who're older than him and continues to make the same mistakes. Best friend sidekicks. Repeative plot with a hint of a twist. And sibling rivalry. Can't they once make a character that has brains and isn't full of himself? Can't they have kids respect their elders? Can't they think of something different with the plot? Can't they have the siblings get along and not hate each other? ADJL is just too generic, because you also have bad guys that get defeated and come back again, and are also complete idiots, that have no background for their hate. C'mon, you'll think that someone who's at least 30 will be able to out-wit a 13 year old.<br /><br />Watching ADJL is like watching nearly anything else on TV these day, same thing over and over again. Nothing special, just new designs characters and one small idea that has been used again and again.
Loosely based on novels by Earl Derr Biggers, 20th Century Fox's Charlie Chan series proved an audience favorite--but when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor the studio feared audiences would turn against its Asian hero. This was a miscalculation: actor Sidney Toler took the role to "poverty row" Monogram Studios, where he continued to portray the character in eleven more films made between 1944 and his death in 1947.<br /><br />20th Century Fox had regarded the Chan films as inexpensive "B" movies, but even so the studio took considerable care with them: the plots were often silly, but the pace was sharp, the dialogue witty, and the casts (which featured the likes of Bela Lugosi and Ray Milland) always expert. The result was a kindly charm which has stood the test of time. Monogram was a different matter: Chan films were "B" movies plain and simple. Little care was taken with scripts or cast and resulting films were flat, mediocre at best, virtually unwatchable at worst.<br /><br />Thanks to an adequate cast and a few interesting plot devices, THE SHANGHAI COBRA is among the best of the Monogram-made Chan films--but even so it barely manages to achieve a consistent mediocrity. In this particularly entry, Chan (Sidney Toler) is called upon to investigate a murderer who kills with what appears to be a cobra-like bite; at the same time, he decides to make certain that a government supply of radium tucked away in a bank vault, of all places, remains secure. Do these two seemingly unrelated plot lines come together? Well... could be! Sidney Toler is always enjoyable as Chan, but most of his Monogram performances seemed "phoned in"--and that is as true of COBRA as it is of any Monogram Chan film. As usual, the really enjoyable performer is Mantan Mooreland. Changing times have led us to look upon Moreland's brand of comedy as demeaning to African-Americans, but he was an expert actor and comic, and taken within the context of what was possible for a black actor in the 1940s his work has tremendous charm and innocence.<br /><br />Fans of the 20th Century Fox series are likely to find Monogram's Chan a significant disappointment and newcomers who like the Monogram films will probably consider them third-rate after encountering the Fox films. Like other Monogram Chan films, THE SHANGHAI COBRA is best left to determined collectors. Four stars, and that's being generous.<br /><br />GFT, Amazon Reviewer
Not one of Monogram's better(not trying to be amusing here either)Chan entries. The Shanghai Cobra has a lot going for it, but, in the end, is just way too confusing and cluttered to be overly satisfying. The film opens with a murderer named the Shanghai Cobra having already struck twice and now is about in a scene at a diner in some way. We have a guy, a girl, and another guy having some implied connection when one guy dies in the streets. Yes, I am simplifying things here for the sake of brevity, for this really is at the core of the problems with this film - it has too much going on without any real, fulfilling explanation. I haven't even gone into the diner cook who has some involvement and a juke box that talks to you and has a screen and everyone doesn't seem to have a problem with that! All this is in the first five minutes or so. Then Chan enters film working for the government and flying out to help a friend. He also has right to check a bank's store of radium and is looking for a man wrapped in bandages that he helped arrest in Shanghai many years earlier. I found the plot very involved as stated earlier. Toler is back as Chan. He is ever affable. Benson Fong and Mantan Moreland are back too. Both do good jobs and are quite amusing. But the convoluted plot just didn't convince me, and much of the film was watched with a weird, questioning glance. This isn't a bad movie not just a very interesting one except for the most devoted of Chan fans.
Admittedly, I am not a fan of the Monogram Chan films. . The plot, involving radium theft from a bank vault, is a bit far fetched and a long way from the atmospheric mysteries that Fox produced. Mantan Moreland and Benson Fong (as No. 3 Son Tommy) provide some laughs as usual. But otherwise there isn't much here. Great title that is wasted.
The Shanghai Cobra starts out like gangbusters, with a rain soaked diner scene straight out of Shack Out on 101 or Gun Crazy (the first one). Unfortunately the film then proceeds to plod its weary way through a standard Chan formula that is only barely enlivened by the always wonderful Mantan Moreland. It's as if director Karlson blew half his budget in the first five minutes, just getting the set up the way he wanted it. Watch the beginning and think about The Phenix City Story.
Jack Lemmon was one of the finest actors that had ever graced the screen. He could effortlessly switch from dramatic roles to comedic with ease, making most of his peers green with envy. While his performance in "Save The Tiger" is Oscar-worthy, I feel it was given to him as he had missed out on his other opportunities to win the award due to other, better roles that had preceded this current one.<br /><br />This is also one of those pretentious movies that comes out to basically showcase the talent of the cast, or in this case, one particular member. It's too bad the screenwriter's output didn't match that of Lemmon's. Don't waste your time with this one.
Jack Lemmon was one of our great actors. His performances in Days Of Wine And Roses, The Apartment, Some Like It Hot, Missing (to name the first ones that come to mind) were all worthy of Best Actor nomination. His only win was for Save The Tiger, and that's a shame. He gets melancholy down to a science, but never brings it into balance with the driver in his character. He actually did a similar character much better toward the end of his career in the one-note Glengarry Glen Ross. <br /><br />As for the movie, wonderful supporting work by Jack Gilford as Lemmon's partner and Thayer David as an arsonist, go for naught because the rest of the script is a muddled jumble of cliched vignettes, angst, neurotic nostalgia, and pointless moralizing. Worth seeing once as a time capsule into 1970's style experimental direction by Avildsen.
This film's premise seems to be that the passing of the World War 2 generation in America, with its apple-pie phoniness and hypocritical morality, was a terrible tragedy. Those awful hippies ruined everything apparently.<br /><br />What holds the film together are the excellent performances - particularly Lemmon's which is truly remarkable. Otherwise we have a boring slice-of-life drama (just over 24 hours of Jack's life) with pretensions.<br /><br />I found it a chore to sit through.
The Canterville Ghost (1996).The director made this too sappy a production. Maybe it's the generation, but I really liked the Charles Laughton version. There is a time and place for "emoting" and this production does not translate very well. Patrick Stewart, reciting Shakespeare was very good, but still inappropriate. Would neither recommend nor watch again. The close-ups and padded text and sub-plots were lost on me. Adding extraneous material and scenes takes away from a truly great work. The screenplay writer should find another profession in which to misplace his talent, maybe afternoon soap operas would be a better venue. Check out the really good version and pass on this one.
There is nothing like an Oscar Wilde comedy, and this movie is nothing like a comedy. The melodrama labors from scene to scene and the comedy is completely absent. In the original story, the humor comes from the Americans who are oblivious to the ghostly traditions of Canterville Chase. The American father even offers some oil to the ghost to quiet the creaking chains. Read the book!
There's a certain irony in a parody of the Gothic genre being turned into a mess of clichés by filmmakers who either had no idea what the story's purpose was, or just didn't care. All of the hallmarks of your average family film are present- rambunctious younger siblings, a grumpy teenager who doesn't want to move, unsympathetic parents who are unable to see the apparition, and of course a romantic subplot. The movie has very little in common with Wilde's original story, which was largely written to poke fun at the melodramatic Gothic novellas that were all the rage at the time. If Wilde saw this version, he'd probably laugh- and then of course, write a parody. One can only hope that the children who watched this bland, mass-produced pap eventually discovered the wit and sparkle of the original version.
I was really excited when I read "The Canterville Ghost" would be shown on TV. However, I was deeply disappointed. I loved the original story written by Oscar Wilde and sadly nothing of that was transferred by the movie.
I watched this movie by accident on TV and it was so unbelievably awful I could not switch it off. Every single piece of wit and intelligence has been removed from the Oscar Wilde story by the inept screenplay writer. It barely matters because the dire acting, clichéd camera-work and cloying music would have ruined anything resembling like a decent script anyway. The worst performance comes from Patrick Stewart who comes across as the most hammy, talentless, minor mock-Shakespearean nincompoop as the ghost. "Get thee out of here!" he screams at one stage while waving his arms like a pantomime villain. A truly terrible film and why wonders why Stewart, who can act when called upon to do so, has soiled his reputation by making worthless pieces of crap like this and the XMen.
As a Genghis Khan "fan" I was looking forward to this movie. After devouring Conn Igguldens epic novels about Genghis and reading up on loads of historic records I feel I know something on the subject and was thrilled to share my knowledge with friends via this movie...<br /><br />That turned out a deception. This movie is practically made up from beginning to end. There are a few things that seem correct but mostly it is pure make believe of the writers. That does not have to be a problem, I like good entertainment just like anyone else unfortunately it is mostly boring. Nothing of the greatness comes forth in this movie.<br /><br />I would NOT recommend this movie if you know anything on the subject.
I watched this film a few nights ago and it was awful! <br /><br />Awfully long - even though they managed to skip through the majority of his life!<br /><br />Awfully boring - the parts they included were long-winded, and for some reason the director chose to cut away from some of the action and left huge parts of the film unexplained! <br /><br />Awfully inaccurate - the whole'mystical' side to this film was a joke, and last time I checked Ghengis Khan wasn't exactly a nice guy! <br /><br />Awfully acted - I found several of the characters hard to believe, they were very two-dimensional and lacked and kind of depth! <br /><br />A saving grace of the film was the cinematography. That is why I gave this film a 2 star-rating rather than the bare minimum! However, if you want to look at something pretty I would recommend buying a picture instead! <br /><br />All in all this film was an awful waste of my time and money! Please do yourself a favour and give this Mongolian turkey a miss!
I was waiting for this movie for a time. In the first day of the air in Turkey, I watched it. It was totally a disappointment for me. I was planning to watch a historical movie, but the one in the screen was a fictional one. First of all, the main character of the movie Cengiz Han, the great conquer was portrayed like a soft, calm, even a loser one. You can not feel the power in the movie. Historically, the war machine he created was conquered ¾ (even more) of the world know in those years. To do that, Cengiz first unite the Asian tribes. However, in the movie, this loser man is in one scene poor-alone man, and in second scene, he is commanding armies. War scenes were incredibly week. In the final battle, the Mongol horseman were using double swords on their sides and cutting the enemy. : ) As a consequences, me and my friends just laugh at that scenes. Mongol army means Mongol archery horseman. You can not see that in the movie. Another ill thing was the use of fantastic elements in the movie. I do not want to go into the scenes which was portrayed Cengiz as a prophet. We can say in the integrity of the movie, it is acceptable. However, the scenes when the old monk saw the future and go to find the wife of Cengiz Khan after Cengiz gave him a mission is really funny. When the monk died in the desert, Cengiz's wife feel this dead and she find the corpse in the continent. We are talking about the Asia… Again we laughed. There are a lot of more things to say but, I don't feel that this movie has value to talk more.
The narrative was clear and concise but overall the film never caught my interest- scenes felt flat and uninspired.. Ghengis khan, historically speaking, had a very interesting/epic life but the film failed to capture that- instead focused on small skirmishes as a youth and a love story I think I've seen disguised in a slew of other films. I never felt sympathy nor empathy for the lead- yes he had to overcome slavery but then seemed to have an easy ride to khan- pillaging, killing and double crossing his way to the top. The one redeeming quality was the photography- the landscapes certainly helped the bleak atmosphere of the film, unfortunately combined with the bleakness of the story- I left unmoved, and disappointed..
The worst film I have seen in the last 12 months. The plot of the story was uninteresting, the movie ended when he became gingesh khan, i always thought there happened something really interesting afterwards. i knew that Mongolia and all the areas where the movie played have beautiful landscapes but the movie didn't profit from that. The jokes where really poor. The narrator, gingesh himself, could have told a bit more about Mongolian history, traditions etc. My co-viewer knew nothing about that at all so he was a bit lost. I was so looking forward to see this film but was really disappointed after all. It was one out of 3 movies I have ever seen in cinema where I considered to leave before the end.
I'm really amazed that this got an 88% on Rotten Tomatoes and a nomination for best foreign film at the Oscars. The 7.3 rating on IMDb... that's not so much of a surprise, seeing the way IMDb users have been voting recently. I just can't get into a film in which the actual facts about its main character have clearly been distorted, and not at all in a way to make the movie artistic, but rather to make it melodramatic and less boring. Which, it turns out, actually makes it very boring for anyone who was expecting to see a serious and credible interpretation of the life of Genghis Khan. The far-fetched and over-dramatized Mongol often echoes the likes of 300, a film that couldn't be happier to be ridiculously inaccurate; but unlike 300, Mongol takes itself seriously. It's stoic seriousness, mixed with the obvious inaccuracies, is what makes it truly the most boring film I've seen this year; possibly the most action or biopic movie I've EVER seen. The characters were pathetically written. Honestly, I doubt Genghis Khan was as boring and passive as shown in this film. Which is funny to me, because if there's anything that I'd think should be changed for the sake of theatricality, it's making a boring person into an interesting person. The romance between Khan and Borte is similarly boring, simple, and stupid. Also, without giving anything away, Mongol contains the single stupidest scene I have seen in a LONG time- where there should be a good 20 minutes of plot development, the film just skips forward without any explanation. It looked like something out of a Saturday Night Live skit that parodies epic action movies with horrible pacing. (Did I mention how seriously Mongol takes itself?) Meanwhile, it drags like no film I've ever seen before. Even now, I could swear it was three hours long. About 45 minutes into it, I checked the time, being pretty certain that it was almost finished. Besides some pretty scenery and quality acting from Asano (naturally), Mongol is honestly just a disaster. It completely failed to entertain me or enlighten me in anyway. I would never give this film a second chance. And not to sound racist or patriotic or whatever, but give me a trashy and mindless American epic over Mongol any day. At least then I know what I'm getting, unlike with Mongol, where the reviews and ratings led me to believe it was actually something worth seeing.<br /><br />The saddest thing about how much I hated Mongol is that I have friends who I know, without a doubt, would simply love it.
This film did not excite me. While on vacation in Turkey I noticed that it was playing at the local cinema and decided to take the chance to go see it. The action sequences in the film are well choreographed, however, the story drags during the middle of the film.<br /><br />One thing that I did not quite follow is how Borte was able to get the money to bribe the guards.<br /><br />The other thing that I did not particularly like was the missing segment of Khan's life. It did not go into detail as to how the bad guys were able to find him and re-imprison him after he had gone missing for so long. <br /><br />Overall, I rate this movie a (4) because I enjoyed the action sequences, but they were too few to justify a higher rating as the dialog left me less than impressed...
For Native Mongolian speakers the film lacked emotion and emphasis. Used too many non Native speakers especially Jamukha. Too many diversions from the actual history. Terrible terrible subtitle!!! I wonder where and who did that subtitle. It was both in English and Thai. I wonder how bad the subtitle was in Thai if the English subtitle was soooo bad! Described the one of the greatest leader's life very uninteresting. There are better films made by Mongolian directors with very low budget from 1980's. Honestly, I'm wondering if the film critics of Academy award is that lenient or what? Only good thing was some good CGI in some fighting scenes only moderately... not over the top CGI
First of all I dunno if I was supposed to use my imagination in this film or the director was trying to save money or low on budget! Here we go....<br /><br />Basically there were so many years and gaps that I don't understand, its like the movie was jumping from 9 years to 20 years to 30 and so much gaps that makes you ask questions how the hell did this happen? and why? I think this is a big flow. Forget the reviews who keeps whining about the history , this movie doesn't have only history facts issues, but also has so many flaws. So most of the people keep saying watch this in cinema you will lose all cinematography like rivers, deserts etc.. thats true they are beautiful thats why I waited for BluRay release 1080p. OK! beautiful scenes but whats the point of that? I turned off the movie after 1 hour and half, I just lost Interest. The movie kept on doing the exact same things jumping in years ( At least Mr. Director put for example, after 2 years after 10 years!) I mean i couldn't watch the movie I lost understanding of whats going on! Anyways i wish i could include spoilers but when u decide to watch this movie, just ask yourself how did this happen? you will know what i mean! Don't watch this movie its a waste of time.
The best part of this DVD is the cover. It goes down hill from there. There was no chemistry between the leads, the kisses looked like something I traded with my grandmother.<br /><br />The sound was so bad that at least I was spared some of the dialoge.
Well Folks, this is another stereotypic portrayla of Gay life however, the additional downside includes poor acting, horrible script, no budget, terrible sound and let us not forget the impossible storyline.<br /><br />It is Christmas in New York City and our story immediatly "focuses" on two male individuals, apparently lovers for some time. One of them has not let his parents (the right wing, religious zealot types) know that he is gay (adding to the impluasability of the story 'cause this guy is as efeminant as gay guys come these days) and his parents are coming to viusit him. They will stay in his New York apartment where he and his lover have just decorated for Christmas.<br /><br />The story continues to develop around the arrival of the parents, who noone will like anyway and - how through only obvious and predictable ways - they come to learn there son is gay. Tears are shed as was my interest in this movie.<br /><br />The cast of charecters, seemed like an intro acting course at the local community theatre. The lovers in this film are mismatched, and there does not appear to be any cohesion to their union.<br /><br />The landlord is flat and her attempt to be humanistic in the situation are undercooked and certainly didnt help move the plot any further.<br /><br />The dragqueen friend who steps to the aid of one of the lovers in his "time of need" is stereotypic and gives a bad name to the unique art of drag.<br /><br />Although some guys night find one of the lovers to have a nice body (again, stereotypic imagery) it does not help this story.<br /><br />Stay away from this film, especially if you are considering a purchase. You'll shoot yourself if you do!
The horrific production doesn't qualify as a "film." It was obviously shot on video tape, and very poorly at that! There is a constant screaching sound for the audio(sounds like a bad microphone), which is so annoying that you sometimes cannot understand what the characters are saying. Badly dubbed-in music will suddenly appear in a scene, and the entire editing of this thing rates about a ZERO!<br /><br />The plot is contrived and ridiculous. A late 20's gay man trying to hide his live-in lover from parents visiting? PLEASE! And the reaction the mother has when she finds a picture of her son kissing his boyfrioend is beyond melodramatic and rolls right into stupid. Talk about a stereotypical view of gay life! The acting is worse than a porno movie, and the direction is very poor!<br /><br />As far as "production" goes, there isn't any!<br /><br />This title is simply a lame videotaped attempt to call itself a "Film." There is no heart and soul to give it even the smallest bit of praise.<br /><br />It's just a stupid waste of time, so avoid it at all costs! BAD ACTING! BAD WRITING! BAD DIRECTING , and the title of "producer" is vanity as this trash probably costed them the price of the videotape they shot it on.<br /><br />This ametuer garbage has no business getting released onto a dvd as it's deceptive to the cunsomer. I cannot stress how horrible this "SUGARPLUM" crap is!<br /><br />
his has to surely be one of the worst gay-themed films of all time. Who told any of the so-called actors that they can act. Bad sound - bad script - gestures so overboard that they defy reality. A nightclub scene with only one actor and dubbed crowd scenes.<br /><br />After seeing other low budget films similarly made I was prepared for something innovative - but not plain pathetic.<br /><br />Parents and friends really should not encourage anyone to make such tripe.<br /><br />And the DVD - No menu access; its worse than a VHS tape. Once you start you have to watch the whole thing through - luckily the fast forward button works - with this film and DVD nothing else does.
This is a joke, right? This can't be a real film? It's not even a real video? Give any Harvey Milk High School kid a video cam and they could make a better movie than this. The film maker's can't be serious... right? Is this satire? Comedy? Drama gone horribly wrong? The script is about as single-minded and dull as is conceivable. Ten monkeys locked in a room with a laptop could come up with a better screenplay. The dialogue isn't clichéd. Clichéd dialogue might elevate this holiday mess to something akin to camp fun - but it doesn't and it isn't. Worst of the worst - a landlady wanders into a dramatic scene in a private apartment dressed a bathrobe carrying a frying pan like something out of a "Honeymooners" episode. Whaaa??? I have seen better acting from middle school drama clubs. One of the leads is an attractive lunk, the other is not. Both can't even manage a convincing kiss. So much for romance. The supporting players are jaw-droppingly over-the-top.<br /><br />Everything is underscored by a nauseating soundtrack and the sound seems to have been recorded in a back room toilet. Most of the dialogue is (mercifully) unintelligible.<br /><br />This stale cinematic fruitcake isn't even worthy of being the next ROCKY HORROR or a gay holiday installment of MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATRE 3000. It's just plain bad. In every way. VISIONS OF SUGARPLUMS will not dance in your head - they will trample your every expectation. Have an eggnog and stare at mindlessly at the neighbor's holiday lights - it will be time better spent.
GOLD RAIDERS (1951)<br /><br />A dull western/comedy feature with the Three Stooges (including Shemp Howard at this point, who I've always enjoyed as the "third Stooge") doing their usual schtick, and directed by the normally dependable Edward Bernds, who also did some of their funniest classic shorts -- so one has to wonder, just what went wrong this time? The most probable answer is that what worked pretty good as a 15-minute two-reeler comes up as too much for a 55-minute feature film. Unlike so many of their classic short subjects, GOLD RAIDERS is not worth revisiting.<br /><br />*1/2 of ****
This is a serious film about black revolutionaries and not really an action film. Billy Dee plays a young man fed up with racism who decides to take things into his own hands. It's fairly gritty and realistic without exploiting the characters but still it's not that interesting either and Billy Dee's character, though maltreated by white authority figures, doesn't really come off as sympathetic. It's also hurt by it's extremely low budget. Still, it's interesting to look at as it's a good depicttion of 1970s social issues.
I must give credit to Billy Dee for trying to pull this off. Knowing this was a blaxploitation film, I started my DVD with a certain expectation. I knew it would be low budget... the acting sub-par... but hoped for a few gems to be sprinkled throughout. If there were any diamonds or gems sprinkled within this film, they were successfully buried under tons and tons of coal... or perhaps overacting. As an actor and filmmaker, I cringed often when potential poignant moments were ruined with atrocious performances. Yet, I must admit, I could not look away. I don't know if this was like a car wreck you can't turn your eyes from, or some mysterious power in the film that kept me there. This film is a good case for an excellent story that was told wrong. If Walter Kronkite were to tell "the Aristocrats" joke, it would be a total flop, although the joke itself is hilarious. Let Dave Chappelle tell it, and we are all rolling on the floor laughing. This film needed a "Chapelle." Now, with that said, if you have the opportunity to purchase this film for the dollar that I did, do it. It is well worth the money. Perhaps I will take another dollar, purchase the rights to this film, and remake it. Who knows... it might not be any better, but it surely can't be any worse.
"The Final Comedown" wants to "say something" about racism and inner-city violence; unfortunately, the message is invalidated by the nonsensical script, the amateurish production, and the heavy-handed polemics. How heavy-handed, you ask? To give you just one example, a black doctor comes out of his hiding place, unarmed, with his hands up in the air, ready to surrender to the police: one of the (all-white) cops says "Don't shoot him, he's a doctor", to which another cop replies: "So what? He's still a n****r", and proceeds to shoot him in cold blood. The cops are portrayed as ignorant, racist killers, even though at the end there are just as many dead people among them as there are among the black people who staged the riot. And this whole event was meant somehow to "sensitize" the white folks to the demeaning treatment of the black folks, when in fact something like this can only breed more hate and violence on both sides. Pamela Jones, as Williams' girlfriend, briefly lights up the screen with her smile and body, particularly in a tender sex scene, and elevates the rating of this movie from 1 to 2 out of 10.
I grew up watching the "Bowery Boys" on the weekends and even at young an age I could tell this was low rent stuff as the name implies. Still it was fun to watch Satch (Hall) get the better of Muggs (Gorcey) after Muggs would beat the crap out him. The East Side Kids stuff were never shown even though it was public domain stuff and probably cheap to run, it was just to low a standard for kids to tune in even though we only had like 5 channels to watch. Enter the year 2005 and I am repossesin about my childhood. I can't find any Bowery Boys on DVD but I found The East Side Kids on disc and also on a public domain website. Thankfully I saved my dough and saw Bowery Blitz on the web for free, and it really really blows. Now I can see there are some Bowery Boys and maybe Monogram bad movie lovers here that gave this melodrama crap a 7 of 10 but c'mon folks, this ain't even trying to be funny. It's an East Side Kids drama, not a comedy so it's no good. The best part was seeing Muggs fight at the end, he reminded me of my grade school days flayling away like a girl when I would get in a fight, it was kinda abusin. Leonard Maltin said in his mini bio that this flick is one of the better ones, so you can just imagine the rest. If you wanna see some halfway decent East Side action see Ghosts on The Loose maybe but the bottom line is usually a comedy team starts out strong in their career and tapers off, these mugs blew chucks early on then slowly picked it up until Hall's antics dominated than they were at best. Still 2nd tier stuff way below the 3 stooges, who they imitate but amusing for those who grew up with them. This feature won't bring back pleasant "Bowery Boys" memories and is best left to Monogram fanatics.
<br /><br />Well, great costumes and a wonderful `feel' for Pre WWII Italy. But what happened here? <br /><br />Great actors...Kristin Scott Thomas, Sean Penn, Anne Bancroft, James Fox, Derek Jacobi ...if you can't get memorable performances out of this `A List' then the problem with this movie must be blamed on pitiful direction and an inadequate script. I rented this on DVD after having liked "Angels & Insects" (1995) also directed by Philip Haas. <br /><br />Yipes! I can hardly believe how dull this thing was. It just dragged on and on and no one was able to save the poor thing. This is not even a good intriguing-foreign-dudes-and-young-things-in- pretty-clothes chick flick!<br /><br />"Tea With Mussolini" Gone Amuck!<br /><br />
Let me be clear. I hate these kinds of movies. I do not like anything where the protagonists are all bourgeoisie English. I find this kind of literature and film awfully pretentious. You will never get me to read a Jane Austen book willingly. That said, the only reason I read W. Somerset Maugham's book and watched the subsequent film was for a class.<br /><br />Mary Panton (Kristin Scott Thomas) is a beautiful English woman living in a borrowed villa in Florence before World War II. One night after dinning with some of her rich royalty related friends, she willingly picks up an Austrian refugee, has sex with him and ditches, and then he kills himself. As the movie gets further and further, you really want to dislike Mary.<br /><br />What a load of crap this movie was. First of all, there were many subplots and characters invented in the movie that weren't even in the book. I doubt very much the late Mr. Maugham would've appreciated them. The characters, though wealthy, were some of the most superficial and self-centered people I have ever seen.<br /><br />The only reason I didn't give it anything less than three stars was because the acting was the only thing redeemable. The always talented Kristin Scott Thomas is perfect for the role of Mary. In fact, I couldn't picture anybody else filling her shoes. Sean Penn and Anne Bancroft also had supporting roles, that were just as good as the lead.<br /><br />Save yourself the pain of watching this movie.
UP AT THE VILLA (2000) **1/2<br /><br />WARNING: YOU MAY FIND SOME SPOILERS AHEAD<br /><br />It's hard to know what is the point in UP AT THE VILLA, a gorgeous but shallow period piece, one of those made with the only objective of earning Oscar nominations for best costume design and art-set direction (one for cinematography and another for score are also welcome). It has the same basic idea of thousands of period pieces produced every year: a good-looking, intelligent woman trying to find love in a strange place to her. She has many difficulties but ultimately finds her happiness in the arms of a man that is not the one that she had an accomplishment with. In this case, our lady is in Florence, some time before World War II. She is an English widow engaged to a rich-but-old man (whom, obviously, she doesn't love). One day she meets another man, who has not a good reputation but for whom she falls in love. Of course there is her friend who will help her for better or worse and a third man- who commits suicide here, in the lady's room, setting up a risky situation for her. Guess how the story ends...?<br /><br />UP AT THE VILLA is not a bad film. I was always quite interested in the story, but never got excited. The problem is not the slow pacing, but the screenplay. Adapted from a novel, it needs something more spicy, exciting, twists and suspense. Every time you think the story will get warm, it gets cooler again. If you think there is a conspiracy involving the mean police chief of Florence, well, there is, but it doesn't change almost anything in the story. It just keeps going and going, till the predictable ending.<br /><br />As I said, UP AT THE VILLA is not bad. If it is a bit bland, it never gets sappy and too sentimental. The acting is half and half, but surely convinces. Kristin Scott Thomas made some really bad choices after THE ENGLISH PATIENT (the saaaaaaappy romantic drama THE HORSE WHISPERER and the dull/irritating RANDOM HEARTS). UP AT THE VILLA is undoubtly better than those pieces and Kristin is also better, but she can do more than that. Sean Penn is good as always, even if his character is a big dude. Anne Bancroft is a terrific actress (THE GRADUATE, my God!), and here she doesn't let her character become ridiculous. Now, the supporting actors are pretty bad (Jeremy Davies is sooooooooooo irritating!).<br /><br />The directing is good, but not audacious. It was interesting to know that the director is the same of ANGELS AND INSECTS (also starring Kristin Scott Thomas), another so-so period drama, but more audacious than this. What matters here are the visuals. Florence is wonderful, the costumes are great, the scenery, the music...<br /><br />In the end, UP AT THE VILLA is an average romantic drama, but of course it could have been much better. It is watchable and interesting, but don't expect a suspense film- it is not! This film kind of fails because it wants to have some mystery, something to behold... However, there is not much to say mainly because of the shallow screenplay. Now, about the Oscar nominations, don't worry- it will probably get them.
Boring as hell and kind of a chick flick.<br /><br />It's the story of a neurotic woman who struggles with the concept of marriage as a business arrangement, the romantic nature of a one night stand, and the uncertainty and pitfalls of true love.<br /><br />Many of the story's motifs are reminiscent of other recent KST movies (e.g. the English Patient), but have far less appeal.<br /><br />After the first half-hour I started checking my watch, wondering if I'd make it home in time to catch Leno on tv.<br /><br />I passed up "Gladiator" to see this!?!
can someone please help me i missed the last view moments and i don't want to pay money to see the whole film again. i got to just where they are in the train carriage and she says 'what about that drink now?' and smiles. what happens after that? is there anymore dialogue or action? surely it doesn't just end there? i was a bit bored in the film and kept hoping it would get better. i love Kristen Scott Thomas does anyone remember the UK TV series she was in about some nuns? i am wanting to know the name. Sean Penn was brilliant Madonna eat your heart out! everybody else in fact the film a bit predictable, it was a 'spot a star cast'. the ending took me by surprise i really thought she had burnt her boats.....if you are a fan of any of the stars its worth watching.
UP AT THE VILLA fooled me into thinking I`d be watching something similar to GOSFORD PARK . The film opens at a ballroom in 1930s Italy which is populated by vulgar Americans and uptight upper class Brits , but in truth UP AT THE VILLA plays out far more like a Merchant -Ivory production which is very bad news because it`s a very slow , and I do mean very slow romantic drama with some of the romance being very unlikely . If you like slow romantic dramas you might like this movie . I didn`t
We've all seen bad movies, well this one takes the cake. I've seen that Junior movie box staring back at many times from my many journeys to the horror section at the local video store, and I was a little interested, it looks like it pays some homage to Texas Chainsaw Massacre, so I thought I'd get it. Mistake! Junior sucks hard, long, and with commitment. In other words it's really bad. Although it does win my award for most creative use of a bikini top. AVOID!!
Heh...I'm surprised this movie still exists in any form, let alone it being available for rent! <br /><br />This flick is one of the many bad slasher flicks that exist only for the T&A and the cheap laughs. The story line crosses a bit of "Texas Chainsaw massacre" with a screwy mamma-centred back story reminiscent of "Psycho", and a bit of the good old women-in-chains, tough-as-nail-ex-con broads tossed in for good measure - in other words, complete unoriginality wrapped up in half naked women spiced with a dash of utter idiocy! Looking on as the director attempts to make the marsh land of Quebec pass off as Southern U.S. bayou land is sad, I tell ya! <br /><br />Funny thing for me is, I was actually at the premier of this flick as, at the time, I was pals with Ratchford, the film's "star". It was painful to watch on as Jeremy sank into his seat whilst the flick unfolded its mangled wings.<br /><br />I'm happy to see that Ratchford, after this sham of a first flick, has grown into one hell of an actor. He can be seen regularly on the Canadian cop drama "Blue Murder", has appeared on "CSI", not to mention his role in the classic Clint Eastwood film "Unforgiven" - we forgive ya, Jeremy! It was a rocky start, but you done good, man! <br /><br />~T.Paul
1st watched 4/30/2009 - 4 out of 10 (Dir-John Waters): Corny Waters-like comedy musical with some funny scenes and good parts but it didn't make a whole worthwhile experience. John Waters directed this music-filled spoof of the fifties scene with Johnny Depp playing the title role. This movie is very similar with what he did with the 60's spoof entitled "Hairspray" but this one is not as effective. Some of the tunes are catchy, some of the characters are interesting in their quirky Waters-like way, and the portrayals are fine although sometimes overdone. The storyline is similar to the movie "Grease", where there is a good group and a bad group. The guy from the bad group, Cry Baby, wow's a girl from the good group. The good girl then joins the bad group but once Cry Baby hurts her -- she falls back to the good group. This just sets up the ending where Cry Baby tries to win her back. Now, one difference that is expected in Water's movies is that the bad group doesn't appear all that bad all the time and the good group acts like they have a pole up their you-know-what. I definitely saw this in Hairspray, as well. The wacky and goofiness isn't really all that much fun in this movie, though and it just leaves us with a feeling like the movie could have been much better. The prime appeal of the Johnny Depp character is that he's able to make one tear roll down his cheek(thus his namesake) at various times and makes the women fall all over the place for him. This is overused and the basic bottom line is that the movie is OK, but not that great.
Waters's contribution to the world of cinema has to be searched with a telescope, and then when/if something is found (by sheer chance and lots of luck) it has to be analyzed with a microscope.<br /><br />And after it has been analyzed it would get discarded into the lab's "rubbish bin for totally useless things". One single atom of that microscope is worth all of his movies combined.<br /><br />CB is etremely campy, and intentionally so. The usual JW stuff: comic-strip dialogue, simplistic plot, moronically cheerful characters, chewing-gum pop, overacting etc. Waters knows that he is incabaple of making a movie of quality, so he hides behind the mask of the "intentionally cheesy film-maker" - which supposedly makes him a special kind of "anti-artist". But in the world of cinema, being an anti-talent often gets mistaken for talent, which is exactly what Waters had hoped for - and eventually got. It's a con act. Charlatans infest the world of cinema and modern pop art; it's a plague.<br /><br />Perhaps we have John Waters to blame for inspiring Baz Luhrman to make all those horrible, dumb turkeys. It's like a virus: one Waters creates five new bad directors, and then these five each create more, and so on. Where will it end? With "Dancer In The Dark"? Can that bomb actually be topped?
This movie was pure genius. John Waters is brilliant. It is hilarious and I am not sick of it even after seeing it about 20 times since I bought it a few months ago. The acting is great, although Ricki Lake could have been better. And Johnny Depp is magnificent. He is such a beautiful man and a very talented actor. And seeing most of Johnny's movies, this is probably my favorite. I give it 9.5/10. Rent it today!
John Waters owes me 2 hours of my life back. I saw a sneak-preview screening of this way back in 1990, and I'm still in pain. Not before or since have I seen such a terrible piece of filmic waste spewed upon the screen. There is nothing positive I can say about this film. Acting--awful; plot--ridiculous; music--atrocious. Following the movie, my friends and I demanded our money back from the manager of the theater. He explained that, since it was a free screening, he couldn't give us anything in return, no matter how much agony we were suffering through. How Johnny Depp's career survived this trainwreck of a movie is anyone's guess.
Maybe I was to young when I saw it. Perhaps I have not grown up with Grease and Elvis movies.<br /><br />I failed to get it. I get "black" comedy (Black Adder etc.). I get irony and spoofs. I don't get this one though.<br /><br />I made it a quest to find out the name of this movie (enlisting the help of people on usenet and the most excellent IMDb Message Boards) so it could be my first 1-pointer. Awful!
This movie was terrible. The acting was lame, but it's hard to tell if someone was acting well since the writing was so bad. This is one of Johnny Depp's worst movies- I highly discourage anyone from watching it.<br /><br />If you must see Cry-Baby though, I recommend muting it and simply ogling at Mr. Depp for and hour and a half.
The plot of "Open Graves" is very simple:it's about a board game called Mamba,where the players die in real life the same way they die in the game.Laughable death scenes include killings via computer generated crabs and snakes.The characters are cardboard and deliberately annoying and there isn't even a tiny bit of suspense.I liked Eliza Dushku in "Wrong Turn",but she is completely wasted and unmemorable here.The climax with CGI-witch coming from the sea is utterly laughable and stupid.The only reason to see "Open Graves" are some interesting camera angles plus sexy Eliza Dushku.If such movies are the future of horror then I seriously give up.Give me any 70's or 80's low-budget horror flick over this modern piece of crap.A generous 3 out of 10.
OK, so I know better than to watch movies on SciFi . . . er, sorry . . . SyFy. Or shifafa. Or whatever it is now. So sue me. I spent my whole Saturday doing advisory-board brainstorming for a nonprofit. I can be forgiven for flopping into my armchair and wanting to watch some movie I'd never seen, rather than read Proust in the original or learn how to play the oud.<br /><br />Which is to say, I didn't deserve Open Graves. Of which I saw none, incidentally. Were there any? Did I fall asleep? Why is it called this?<br /><br />Some icky visuals. Not many scares. As with too many films in modern horror films, no reasons are given--apart from shared humanity--to care about any of these people. Half a point, though, for the legless entrepreneur, who was clichéd but did have one good scene.<br /><br />It all sort of plays like Final Destination delivered via a board game. The game does have an intriguing look to it, and it involves one of my favorite old conundrums. I'll give it that much. The drawback there is that the game possessed more personality than most of the characters.<br /><br />As for the end, if you didn't see it coming, then I think YOU fell asleep. Somewhere back around the dawn of the genre.
I have to say this is better than most SyFy outings, but that isn't saying much.<br /><br />The plot is that someone buys a game that is made from the bones and skin of a dead witch from the Spanish Inquisition (and nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquisition!) He and his friends play the game, only to be interrupted halfway through when the friend who went on the beer run is killed in a way that the game predicted.<br /><br />What then follows are a series of kills that are typical for a movie like this, or any of the Final Destination movies. It has the puzzle at the end and the interesting subplot with the cop who wants the game to bring back his family... but otherwise, it's just a mess.
Think Jumanji but with a death curse. A bunch of surfer dudes get their hands on a game that takes the life of some one who is playing it. Supposedly it was made from the skin of a witch during the Spanish Inquisition and carries a nasty curse. <br /><br />Okay, undemanding and just sort of watchable tale isn't anything you haven't seen before.Frankly its a been there and done that story that hits all the right buttons in such away as to have no real surprises. Far from the worst thing that SyFy has run but certainly its not the best. There are better choices out there but if this is your only choice you won't completely hate it.
Low budget mystery. A shot rattles out of the dark and a woman is seen running from that direction. A young architect Jimmy McMillan(Chick Chandler)discovers a dead body that goes missing. The woman in a hurry, Mary(June Clyde), is linked to the death scene; but it is McMillan that has to try and solve the case to avoid serious suspicion. Suspects are six shop owners in the vicinity of the crime scene. All the atmosphere of Film-Noir; but not quite the real thing. This flick musters just enough to be a decent low budget mystery/drama and is a nice little escape. Other players include: George Meeker, Michael Raffetto, Milton Wallace and Rebel Randall.
Unfortunately a boring flick, and obviously the only way to see it is the butchered bootleg Public Domain version, which is so blurry and dark that at times you have hard time making out where the screen is. The leading actors are a nuisance. The man spends most of his screen time trying to appear nonchalant, charming and sexy, forgetting totally what the film is about and that he is a murder suspect because of some dame who played him for a goose to start with. The dame herself merely walks through the flick, being dignified if she's not busy appearing cute. It's a rather badly written stuff, never interesting or witty. No good camera work, no memorable soundtrack, no glamorous actresses or atmospheric sets. It only scratches the surface of the genre, and nothing happens if you miss this totally missable flick.
Most of the positive comments posted here are as verbose as the movie! It takes a long-winded bore to appreciate a wordy and boring film, one supposes. Some have merely called the film "contemplative", meaning slow and devoid of plot, however, one Dutch reviewer hit the nail on the head: this is an important event turned into a dull film whose tone is set in the very first scene. Here a young couple is being shown an apartment by a Realtor who, predictably, talks non-stop and regardless of what else is going on. So does just about every other character!<br /><br />The only silences in this picture are dream sequences--1930's Soviet propaganda snippets--and they are also its most interesting parts. This tells you something about how watchable the rest of the movie is.<br /><br />The device of filming most of the scenes in extreme closeup--as if one were looking through a crack in the blinds--gets old fast.
I loved so much last Bellocchio's movie, the masterpiece "L'Ora di Religione". It had a great screenplay, great actors (well, have to say Castellitto is so much greater than others), a brillant use of lights for a great cinematography.<br /><br />Well, Buongiorno Notte is a different story. Ridiculous screenplay erupting tons of morals (and we could speak weeks about politics, you know we are italians...). Poor cinematography (it's too simple representing '70s dark years with dark colors and dark lights, do some efforts more peoples!!!!). Bad use of music: what's the point of using psychedelia to represent the tragic rationality of Brigate Rosse?<br /><br />And to all the people who claimed the main prize in Venice, I answer:"Are you nuts????" Maybe the russian film was bad but not as bad as this.<br /><br />I'm down with the P.E. Don't believe the hype!!!!
Friday Night With Jonathan Ross must have those in charge of Ross rubbing their sweaty little palms together. They know the BBC lacks imagination when it comes to talk shows so when they have Jonathan Ross at their disposal they are quite settled to just sit back and let a half wit command this primetime slot.<br /><br />Ross Spends most of the show grooming his ego and smiling about how much the BBC is paying him. The show is a complete copy of many US Chat Shows - Leno, Letterman, Conan O Brian, the list goes on - but he and his team have clearly seen what works on the masses can also be done for the dumb masses in the UK also.<br /><br />The unfortunate situation - he has no competition? Parkinson has gone by the reality is he was never really up to much except grooming a celebs ego. Can't we have someone funnier and slicker on British Screens instead of Jonathan Ross? Once Ross has built up his ego enough he will then proceed to the very boring concept of the stiff celebrities in the green room - so trying to get on with each other. If an A-Lister is present (which is so often the case these days - as there are no other chat shows they can turn to - to promote their latest movie) - he will spend the next hour either flirting with them or trying to be their best friend in the Universe. Sqeamish when he had Ringo Starr on - a man that cares nothing for licking arse - Ross genuinely was begging for his mobile phone number (as common policy on this show is for Jonathan Ross to get everyones number so he can be seen in the right company when not working). Of course Ringo said it how it is - and simply said no I don't like you - dead pan serious.<br /><br />Ross needs to be axed from all Awards and TV shows - the masses will get over it.
Any evening with Jonathan Ross now means to me his wit in first hassling and upsetting with carefully chosen words a 78 year old man by phone and then suggesting he and Russell Brand should house-break and masturbate him while he slept as a way to say sorry for making obscene phone calls to him. Kinky! And illegal. For a really big laugh maybe next time he should try it on someone he knows well, like his Boss? Or a follower of Abu Hamza? Would he be amused if someone did it to one of his daughters?<br /><br />Over all the years I've perhaps seen less than 30 minutes of BBC Star Man Ross's chat show because I find him so loathsome, some of the guests I saw were OK though - probably most of them who ever appeared were OK for all I know. As a chat show it seems pretty poor though – what's so chatty about asking Tory leader David Cameron on this TV programme whether he ever masturbated to photographs of Margaret Thatcher? He chatted up Gwyneth Paltrow by simply asking her if she wanted to f*** him. However, Ross's yob mentality was finally totally exposed with the above revelations, and I thought I'd take the opportunity to warn the few decent folk around the world who might not know just how vile this man is and to steer clear of him and his - unless you think all comedy should be "edgy" ie obscene/vacuous. We're not yet all the same here, although BBC and Channel 4 are jettisoning all standards.<br /><br />In October 2008 Ross with fellow tosser Russell Brand made a series of premeditated sexual obscene phone calls to Andrew Sachs' answer-phone (Manuel from Fawlty Towers), had it broadcast as intended on BBC national radio against Sachs' request and then tried to get Sachs' granddaughter to burn the evidence in case they got prosecuted. A significant number of people over here (probably most of them non BBC license fee payers) found it hilarious and/or that the national scandal had been overblown, but many people apparently still knew right from wrong and 42,851 eventually complained to BBC about the incident. Many unrighteous media fools and others snickered about these 42,851 never having heard the radio programme (and never wanting to) - using their argument they presumably also consider an event such as the Holocaust justified because at the time relatively few people complained to the media, and none of us here now should be horrified by it because we weren't there. The 2 BBC producers initially involved in passing it for broadcast thought it was "very funny and brilliant" comedy and only 2 people complained about Brand's radio programme at the time - which I'm afraid only indicated the moral level his 400,000 weekly listeners had sunk to with the help of BBC expertise. Highly moral BBC tried and failed to use it in mitigation in the later OFCOM investigation. Roll over Aristotle, tell Lord Reith the news! Sachs' agent complained to BBC but was ignored by them until a Tory national newspaper got hold of the story. The penalty for any ordinary pervert doing this would normally be sacking and prosecution, maybe even prison, but while Brand and the Head of BBC Radio 2 were both eventually ordered to resign the multi-millionaire Ross was given a 12 week holiday by BBC's Boss (I suppose that he asked Ross's permission first though if he could dock Ross's pay by £1,500,000, to prevent him from suing) to come back to this programme afresh in 2009 before his contract runs out. All that time to think of more smut and/or more insulting witlessness for his 4,000,000 viewers to admire - but at least he could still chortle his way to the bank as usual to keep his spirits up. Some people think that his position will be untenable and he won't be able to carry on. I think his skin is so thick because the stakes are so high that he will come back unbowed and re-energised with pent up vitriol. (Update 23.01.09: I've just watched the first 5 minutes of his new series - the "most enormous cock-up" - to use his referential phrase - is continuing to allow this sniggering unrepentant law-breaker to take the public's money like this.) But who knows: maybe in the future after the slimy British film & TV industries have comforted him for the moral stance taken by the 42,851 and showered him with awards he will become a Sir for his services to Perversion by the perverts in Government. At the least I hope this pair of edgy deviants sign up with other perverted commercial TV and radio stations and stay there, so I won't be paying for their flouting the law and spouting illegal obscenities in the future. In 2009 OFCOM fined British TV license-fee payers £150,000 for this "sorry" affair - Thanks Ross for offering to pay! Not.<br /><br />To the apologists: Get a life/sense of humour/sense of proportion! It's not the end of the world having a pair of talentless perverts as your heroes and there's far more important things to worry about in this world, like the price of real cheese! To sum up family man Dross: a comedy genius to apparently millions of people (especially himself), merely a nasty obscene phone caller receiving an obscene wage packet from an obscene multimedia company to others. So much for our society of Political Correctness and Respect! As you should've guessed, it doesn't apply to the rich and famous and never will, but only to the poor. To sum up BBC: Stumbling blindly on from Huttongate, Campbellgate, Dykegate, Springergate, Crowngate, Phonegate now Rossgate I hope its next crisis will be Abolitiongate. I also hope anyone who thinks comedy should be always challenging and pushing back boundaries ie offensive aren't challenged or offended by my opinion of this particular law-breaking pervert, his perverted programmes and his current perverted employers.
***Tip: Have It Read To You, Heres How***<br /><br />1) Copy And Paste This To Notepad (NOT WORD) 2) Go To. START>ALL PROGRAMS>ACCESSORIES>ACCESSABILTY>NARRATOR<br /><br />having your testicles ironed.<br /><br />When Jonathan Ross started his career he was on a show call "The Last Resort" now a days he is the first resort to host anything and anything. TV Award Shows that half the time he is up for nominations in, Comic relief, chat shows, quiz shows, game shows, charity shows, Brighton. Just when you at you wits end and think you can find salvation in the wireless the lisping twang of good old J.R. Hits you like a freight train going none stop from Texas to downtown N.Y. That has lost a hour and is trying to make it up.<br /><br />About this show (FNWJR).<br /><br />Its a normal chat show format with J.R. As host and a house band that concisest of four gay men (ha ha ha, ow my aching sides.) and season one had Andy Davis, but he left or was fired to give way to Ross's Ego.<br /><br />Ross will more less use his guests as props and you really don't hear them speak because of his "Its my ball and I'll take it home" attitude, you also see that the bigger the guest the more he is willing to lie and suck up to them, to get in with the big boys (Like the weak kid at school who hangs round with the bully).<br /><br />However when a small reality T.V. Star comes on he'll happily humiliate them, asking personal questions about the past and telling them about their lack of talent to get the laughs. Sometimes he will under estimate the popularity of a guest, say something to belittle them and then when the audience act shocked, he will quickly turn and start making himself the fall guy, the best example of this was when "Life On Mars" star John Simm came on and he said how does someone like you get work, your OK looking but not Hollywood good-looking (Bare in mind the Hugh Jackman and Halle Berry was in the green room, he was really only trying to suck up to them before they were even on the couch). When the audience acted shock Ross quickly said "What, I'm bit light headed from wearing that corset, I don't know what I'm saying". If he don't have any low forms of TV life on he'll just dig at the four gay men on the piano with jokes more out of date than his fashion.<br /><br />Its very much a different story when a Hollywood A-lister or big TV star comes on the show in that he'll tell them stories to humor them. When some actor explains that he was in a support band then Jonathon Ross will say something like "Wow, well he ever I go to see a band i was try to look interested for the support band, to make them feel as though they are wanted" with an underline message being "please like me, I was probably one of the people that cheered you when you was in your band". Top this off with an audience of Ross fans so hooked on every bad old joke and bulling, it really makes for a poor show.<br /><br />Your better off watching US chat shows instead, they are more scripted but not anywhere near as hard to watch.
Childish storyline ripped off of a lame Hollywood movie, terrible acting, cheesy dialogue, and not quite "up-to-par" sex scenes. That's right another great softcore parody! I enjoyed this film greatly! Sure the acting is terrible, but that part of the fun! The storyline is ludicrous, but some things must be sacrificed when the story has to revolve around girl-on-girl sex scenes. And because it's only softcore (no penetration) the sex scenes were a little bland. But it's like the great god of softcore smut Russ Meyers said "who really cares what goes down beneath the waist." I don't know if I'd agree with Mr. Meyers on this one but what the hell... the flick entertained me for an hour and a half. I give it a C+, it would've been a solid B if they coulda cast more of the girls to look like Russ Meyers actresses. VaVoom! VaVoom!~
Sure, this film was retarded. But you expected that the moment you looked at the cover-box. It's a B movie, and on the T&A factor this movie delivered. Truthfully, it was funnier than expected. While it was by no means a work of comedic genius, like "The Party Animal" or "Orgazmo", as far as B movies go it was worth the watch, if you're into that sort of thing anyway.<br /><br />Christians and morally-oriented parental groups, this is soft-core adult entertainment. If you don't want your children watching sexual content and nudity, then you should keep your children away from this film.
I'll preface my review by stating that I am not a fan of the independent 'straight to video' genre that owes a great debt to the grindhouse films of the 60's. I don't own any, I've never rented any, so I might lack the appreciation for these tongue-in-cheek, low-budget stinkers that many other people have.<br /><br />I caught this movie on Cinemax late one Saturday evening with a lady friend. Please don't ask me why I was watching Cinemax late one Saturday evening with a lady friend. We were bored with World Championship Poker. Some atrociously bad acting courtesy of Misty Mundae (and I wish she wouldn't own up to being from Illinois, as we actually turn out some very bright thespians here) caught our attention. Now normally, the aim of some good soft-core porn would be to get you and your partner in the mood. Some good sex, tongue in cheek humor, and who know what could happen? After about 15 minutes, and a scene where the title character seduces a mugging victim, my lady friend said 'if you want to watch the rest of this fine, I am going to bed so I don't have to. Please turn the volume off.' Here is what I gather from the plot: Misty's character is a sexless nerd who gets bitten by a spider and turns into a super-sex kitten with super web slinging powers that don't come from her wrists. There is some sort of evil villainess involved, who didn't look particularly evil or sexy. Spiderbabe saves the day, has sex, M.J. (who is male in this film) constantly gets propositioned by stereotypically bad gay bikers, and somehow the evil villainess gets pushed off a building to her death.<br /><br />What was good about this film? It ended.<br /><br />What was bad about it? Acting to make a third grade pageant look like Oscar winners, a script turned out by people who I picture to be drunken, college-aged sex perverts who wouldn't know what sex is if they took a class taught by Dr. Ruth, special effects that were about as special as someone jumping off a trampoline, humor about as funny as… well, I have yet to encounter anything that is lamer. The sex scenes? If we were watching a video, the only thing those scenes would have turned on is the fast forward button. And the action scenes? Some of my old Atari VCS games had better choreography.<br /><br />Now I know this type of film is supposed to be enjoyed for it's inherent badness. Companies like EI don't set out to make good movies: they have a niche and they target it. My experience as a marketer tells me they are right on the money in servicing their audience. But after my brief exposure to 'Spiderbabe', I for one can say I am not delving into that world again any time soon. Maybe the problem with the filmmakers in this type of genre is this: they spend so much attention to making the films bad, that if they made an effort to try and focus on those things they do very well, they would turn out some very enjoyable 'le bad' Cinema, a la Troma films in the 80's. Sorry folks; the spirit is there, but the effort isn't.<br /><br />Though I have to admit that "Alice in Acidland" intrigues me…
This movie is bad. I saw the rated and the unrated versions. They are terrible!! Now, I know it's suppose to be a low budget, porn spoof of spiderman, but Spiderbabe is just not good at being bad-good. It's not funny! Not funny at all!! I wanted to laugh. I tried to laugh. But this movie let me down. At least the unrated version has lots of nudity to look forward to. And is it me, because Mundae is not a great looking woman. From the waist down she's okay, but on the way up leaves much to be desired. She does look good in that school girl outfit. Please, if you must watch this spiderbabe, rent it first. Rated or unrated, doesn't really make any difference, they're both bad to me!!
This thing, directed by french sensation Patrick Sebastien,is worst than all the turkeys that you may have seen. Forget Independence Day, Kazaam, The patriot, etc... you get the picture, this one's the pits. Sebastien is a TV celebrity in france, (if you need an equivalent, let's say he's Jerry Springer with an I.Q of 13), this is his first movie let's hope it's the last. I hope Troma or someone would distribute this film in the States, so that you guys out there can excperience the French stench at it's worst. Let's cut this short, this is the Masterpiece of S**t.
The director of this movie is a famous french TV presenter, Patrick Sebastien. He likes music and humor for rednecks, and his incredible movie is absolutely in his image. It's the story of a young retarded person, called "Zep" (sic). A night, he sees his sister's SM sexual relation, and decide to do the same thing: he rape the girl who he loves! Zep is placed in a asylum, and his unlucky girlfriend in a clinic. One man will find them. One man will reunite them. This man is a psychologist. This man looks like a Hell's angel. This man is... Patrick Sebastien! With an excessive use of clichés, we'll see how the Absolute Love can break all misunderstandings, and how a humanist doctor can force a victim to fall in love with her rapist. We'll also learn how using sandwiches in order to seduce a girl. Not only Patrick Sebastien thinks that he can do better than one century of psychiatry, but he also impose us a silly left ideology; with the character of the father's girlfriend, a boss, who want to take away the feeble of his girl. Distressing. But it's very pleasant to laugh at Zep (mentally retarded persons are not funny, except in this movie.)
To even say that this film is Sebastien's work at his best just tell you everything you have to know on the man. Sebastien is a pathetic, foolish, not amusing at best, yet highly popular host on french television. If watching any of his shows is just plain torture for any normally constituted human being, his first (ans lets hope only) film proved to be even worst. Sebastien's apology of rape (the victim fall in love with her aggressor) is not only misplaced but plainly unacceptable. I highly suggest you not to bother taking a look at this picture (or any of Sebastien's future features), you would just loose your time...There is something about french television that don't smell right...and this is Patrick Sebastien!!!
If you wish to have a truly traumatic experience, than this awful motion picture (if you may consider to call it that) is for you. A film worse than the postman,sizzle Beach U.S.A, Batman and Robin, Kazaam,fair game...well you get my point.This film directed by French television sensation Patrick Sebastien (Jerry Springer with an I.Q of 25) can truly be considered the worst film ever made. I do hope that Troma or someone in America would distribute it, so that the u.s.a can experience the French stench at it's worth.
One can only sit in utter amazement at this mess of a film and be amused at some of the raves people have bestowed upon it. The biggest problem seems to be the director's inability to make up his mind as to whether it's black comedy, farce or a combination of both. It meanders all over the place in search of direction and has some utterly embarrassing performances that might be better suited to bad sitcom. What a shame to see the talented Dianne Wiest's comic talents squandered and the ever annoying Jane Birkin is so over the top she's more bothersome than usual.<br /><br />Perhaps a lot of the positive criticism is due to the "quirky French" nature of the film - therefore, it's labeled "smart" or "genius." It's neither. Instead it's bad tripe that leaves a rather rancid after-taste. Merchant-Ivory should stick to the serious stuff as they certainly have no comprehension of comedy.
I don't even know where to start. I did not like it. It did not behave like a story and so much was injected into the movie (the pot brownies, the son was gay (?) the murder was justified, what possible reason could there be in the script for Linda aka Penelope to exist) that was never explained. It was all fluid spilled on a table and left dripping off the counter until it all made a big mess on the floor.<br /><br />Why did Vanessa Redgrave make a five second cameo? Why did Diane Wiest use her Bullets over Broadway character without the camp-fun? Why was Jane Birkin in the storyline to begin with. The list is endless. The movie ended and we all looked at each other -- like -- did you understand any of this??<br /><br />I tell ya one thing, if I watched my long lost Dad get murdered I certainly wouldn't be hugging the murderer. Tell ya another thing, if "Bob" broke up with "Bob" what purpose did hiding the son in the closet have? Was Bob going to have sex with Bob in front of the son? How did the murderer contact the son so easily? <br /><br />If this review sounds confused, it is because this was a waste of film, talent and time. What the heck did the dead shrink have to do with anything!!<br /><br />Jezz, this is one of the worst films I have ever seen because it should have/could have been better, stronger and it should have made some kind of sense. Any sense. Instead we are given a watered down "Diva" (the film from the 70s complete with a murder) and tired performances reading boring words from a script that is completely insane.<br /><br />By pass it folks. Or maybe me and the rest of the people who reviewed this film are too stupid to understand it all -- I mean after all it is a french film.
Almost a masterclass in how not to direct a movie. From the misjudged, often incomprehensible script onwards Dr Rey builds on a series of poor decisions that make the film an excruciating viewing experience. Sadly the film never rises beyond a kind of old fashioned, almost misogynistic gay camp in which women are over-wrought, OTT and middle aged and the men are young, vacuous and forever on the hunt for sex. The director was unable to pitch either the tone of the film or the level of the performances.<br /><br />There is certainly a great deal of 'acting' going on. Dianne Wiest slips into a pale impersonation of her Bullets Over Broadway performance and poor old Jane Birkin flounders in her attempt to give a comic performance. Though you have to pity her as there is very little real comedy here. The whole thing feels like a very low rent version of Merchant Ivory's Le Divorce which, to be quite honest, wasn't very good, either.
...out of this movie.<br /><br />Sorry to say, this showed at the Cleveland International Film Festival. Our copy did not have subtitles, so I asked the Festival crew if there was a problem with the print received. "Not so..." I was told. "the director wants it this way". <br /><br />Again, sorry to say, my French is barely high school elective level (more than 3 decades ago). Much of the initial dialog is in French, so I'm sure I missed the nuance and many details in between my understanding of a few key words. <br /><br />I've rated this a "1", primarily because of the irony of a director who once worked doing subtitles refusing to put subtitles into a movie to be seen by an American audience. Excuse me, even if most Americans wouldn't know where Europe was on a map, not even a film festival audience should be assumed to know "the native language" of a given movie. Even if a few of us don't know Finnish, I would still expect subtitles for the few "dolts" who aren't sophisticated enough to have expertise in the 37 different languages presented. I'll put up with this ego from David Lynch, not from Litvack.
I'll give it a two for Denis Leary. He had some good lines, but that's it. What was the point? Where was the script? Who was supposed to act? A movie needs more than this one has to offer. Save the hour and a half to watch your hair grow, or fall out, whatever the case.
Usually I have a lot of luck with these small scale movies. I looked at the cast. Leary, Lovitz, Delpy, Wuhrer, Estevez. How bad could it be? Unfortunately the answer was...pretty bad. I have a hard time remembering a movie that had such poor execution of a plot that had potential.
What a waste of energy and money. What a waste of what talent there was.<br /><br />Emilio Estevez was completely wasted and mostly unused throughout. Jon Lovitz was very mildly amusing but pointless. Harry Dean Stanton - why bother? And was it just me or can Kari Wuhrer barely act in this one.<br /><br />The story was pretty non-existent and really disjointed. One of my biggest problems was the reaction of the characters to the events that transpired. Like the surf "dudes" giving up their lives every time they were threatened in the last half? How about that you NEVER saw them surf once!! The set-up to some scenes took way to long with not enough pay-off to make us give a damn. Nothing in this "movie" felt really true or genuine.<br /><br />The only good things I can say is some (very little) of the scenery was filmed nicely and a few scenes were mildly interesting. Don't see this when there is so many better pointless movies out there.
Hated it with all my being. Worst movie ever. Mentally- scarred. Help me. It was that bad.TRUST ME!!!
Cheesy 80's horror co-starring genre favs Ken Foree and Rosalind Cash along with Brenda Bakke are some of the featured players in this tale about a haunted health club. Goofy dialogue and some nasty gore effects make this movie watchable. Not bad but no great shakes either.<br /><br />Recommended for the bad dialogue and acting. B-movie fans only.<br /><br />B
This is one of the worst anime series I have ever seen. When I watched the manga review in a magazine, I thought it was maybe interesting, but when I got the chapters I realized it was a complete stupidity.<br /><br />OK, the first 2 or 3 chapters are OK, and the series have an standard. But as the plot advances, it becomes totally incoherent. The series tries to show some mystical based upon the Christian mythologies, but it's a total stupidity. It features some demons and stigmata scenes... Totally nonsense. It seems the series tries to seem deeply-thought, complex or mythologically reviewed, but a watcher with a bit of brain and cultural references, will realize soon all those elements used don't have a real sense: THEY ARE PUT THERE ONLY TO IMPRESS THE IGNORANT WATCHERS!!<br /><br />The final chapters are full of totally nonsense elements: battles with cat-eared demons, references to a supposed fight between demons, and demons who controls time (with no apparent reason). The final is totally nonsense; an ignorant watcher will see on it a floating final that gives them a place to meditate; but the truth is this: THE FINAL AND THE COMPLETE SERIES IS A TOTAL INCOHERENT AND INCONGRUENT NONSENSE.
To start out with, the script is immitative and inane. The characters are shallow and formulaic. The plot has arbitrary reversals and non sequitors. Baldwin's direction is terrible -- these actors could do better on their own. The jokes and wisecracks fall flat. The shoot out scenes are clumsy and incredible. Baldwin directs himself as the wise courageous hero but spends most of his time in power struggles with women, particularly with the caricatured repressedwoman in their tunnel team who is always asking for and denying reassurance. The conductor suffer from absurd incompetence, being unable to effectively employ a pistol he has come by.Anomalies: a hooded man bristleing with guns stalks through a railroad car, startling people. The next time we see them they are going about their business sitting in their seats, talking, eating, reading, knitting.In the New York subways folks sometimes come on the train to do some musical or dramatic number --- maybe that's what they thought the "happening" was.
This is perhaps the worst movie I have ever seen, and I have seen well over 300 movies in my lifetime. The acting atrocious, the only bright spot seems to be judging the anatomical prowess of the female castmembers. After watching this movie, it is suggested that the viewer not operate heavy machinery or go driving for a period of at least 24 hours. Also a bottle of Valium would be recommended so you don't feel so bad for the 100 wasted minutes of your life. The plot is nothing original, the dialog excruciating, and even the weapons seem sub-par. Do yourself a favor and go to your local Blockbuster and burn whatever copies they have of this horrid film.
Consider "I Know All" Action hero is lighting a cigarette in the darkness. While tries to hide/seek the Bad guys. (Probably to give a signal light to say here I am coming)<br /><br />That's one of the 100 scenes you can laugh at. (I think the movie should in the Comedy category.)<br /><br />Awful directing, awful script, Bad Acting, Cheap special effects. (They used a tunnel so they can hide there acting in darkness)<br /><br />3 out of 10 (that also for making me laugh looking at those pathetic mistakes)
I haven't reviewed anything on here for quite awhile, but after having the misfortune to sit through this rubbish masquarading as entertainment I had to put forward my thoughts.<br /><br />Normally, however bad something is, there is one redeeming part, whether it is an actor who was okay, a scene that was passable, an attractive cast member, or a general feelgood moment. Unfortunately, that isn't true here, as the film starts of atrociously, with a ridiculous shootout, which was so poor, I thought it was a practice, & two halfwits, otherwise known as the boys in blue chatting beside a school.<br /><br />One of these idiots was Daniel Baldwin, who not only starred in this, but also actually Directed this garbage, & unlike his brothers cannot act for toffee. Not that he was on his own here, as everyone in it seemed to belong to the acting school of a trained chimp.<br /><br />Luckily, certainly for me, I only watched an hour of this masterpiece, as the DVD wouldn't work, & was probably made by the same fools who produced this. So if you have nothing to do but watch paint dry do watch this as it is just as boring, & ideal for getting rid of unwanted guests.
I really like Ryan Reynolds and Hope Davis and I actually had high hopes watching this last night on DVD. Mainly as I try to avoid reviews until I watch something myself and form my own opinion Big mistake! My 2 /10 is for the first segment which in fairness is actually quite decent and if they had made the movie about the characters in section 1 alone it may have risen above the 5/10 mark.Once it moved into TV 'reality show' territory it stank to high heaven. Ryan Reynolds captured the essence of an actor on the edge wonderfully but as a gay TV writer and famous games creator / devoted family man he was definitely less effective. From the blurb on the box I expected a flashback thriller along the lines of 'Memento' - unfortunately this is nowhere near that standard of movie.
First, what is really great about this movie: <br /><br />- Ryan Reynolds, great acting! There are very few actors I really like and for now he is one of them. He has an amazing skill to impersonate characters. <br /><br />- The soundtrack! Very good music played at the right time. <br /><br />- The idea of a nine lost in his own world, incapable of leaving. <br /><br />Still, I give it only a 3 out of 10 for certain flaws: <br /><br />- Horrible second part. It seems that the director was very eager to make something new, but despite of the efforts it was really boring <br /><br />- Very annoying character Melissa. I couldn't stand the scenes with her - i.e. it was constantly annoying. She represents everything that is wrong with American woman. <br /><br />- Terrible explanation of the numbers. The director was so busy with character development, that he completely missed the point of a good story.. excuse me koalas? brr... terrible!<br /><br />This movie had great potential. The filming is nicely done, the music is really good, but nothing more.<br /><br />See it only if you are a fan of Ryan Reynolds, or have a lot of time to spare.
*****SPOILERS*********<br /><br />This movie was truly awful. This woman deceives her employers right from the start and then selfishly proceeds to tear them apart. At the end you see her making a profession out of the trade she'd learned from the father of her "pupil". I put pupil in quotes because the governess never really seems to teach the child anything. She seems to hate her and can't stand being near her. I felt sorry for the little girl who simply wanted to be loved, absent that, it was understandable that she would say and do outrages things just to get attention but the viewer wasn't supposed to sympathize with the little girl, the viewer was supposed to sympathize with the governess who hated her pupil and manipulated and deceived her employers. I just couldn't do it. This was not the story of a self made woman, rather, it was a window into the mind of one who uses others at every opportunity with no other thought for anyone outside of her own family. I couldn't stand the governess! This was a really horrible movie. I only paid one dollar to rent it but even that was too much!
I wanted to like this one - the situation was rich, and the setting unusual and interesting. But the story is swamped with childish female gothic romance elements that are hard to swallow. The director is unfairly prejudiced against the 'goy' characters -- content to let them be grotesque cardboard caricatures -- and inexplicably indulgent towards the homewrecking behavior of the heroine. The potentially interesting power struggle between the inventor and the governess is not really dealt with.<br /><br />Feminist film makers will get more credibility when they stop manipulating situations to throw all the sympathy to the heroine, and start dealing honestly with issues. This movie more closely resembles 'The 7 Pieces of Gold', another earnest failure, more than 'The Piano' - a real tale of passion.
This movie had an excellent premise, and could have been a fascinating look at racism, attitudes to women at work and male female relations in England early last century. However, it simply turned into a soppy love story. But what was worse, is that the love story was totally unbelievable. The acting was for the most part poor, the direction confusing, but most of all the screenplay and the story were non-existent. The only thing I liked about the film was how dark it must have been before electric lighting. I really got a sense of just how little light one candle puts out.
The Governess was, by far, a very pitiful film. I do not use this word loosely, as it honestly was a poor excuse for a movie. I finished watching this feature with only one word on my mind … "why"? Honestly, you could use this question at the end of every scene of this film and it would seem like it fit. There were so many inconsistencies that lead to a lack of development (both in the story and in the characters) which ultimately lead to a very confusing film with actors walking through the motions instead of giving any explanation. Scenes would occur with no foreshadowing, understanding, or drive to a complete ending. It was as if I was watching several different ideas thrown together without really any resolution. Actors were setting events in motion that did not seem to fit their character or really were resolved. This was my biggest issue with this film. The complete and utter lack of structure to this film brought all specks of foundation crumbling down with a genuine "ripple-effect" being felt throughout the rest of the film as a result.<br /><br />Let me explain myself further on this lack of consistency throughout the film. I would liken this film to a bowl of lumpy oatmeal that had a zebra in it. It made no sense nor was there any logic behind it all. Minnie Driver was the worst culprit of this deed. Her character's lines were drawn very fuzzy and nearly transparent. She would do things like talk about sex all the time with her sister, but yet she seemed very open to sexual experiences all the time. She has her first moment of passion in this film, and there is no pain or excitement. It nonchalantly happens, and this just didn't seem to fit the original conversation that we had at the beginning of the film with Rosina and her sister. She is a very intelligent woman that accidentally finds a solution to Wilkinson's problem and suddenly wants full rights to his invention? That was confusing and completely random. Is it not obvious to anyone else that her teaching methods were non-existent. Anyone in their right mind could see that she wasn't teaching Cavendish's daughter anything. The sudden and awkward relationship that randomly forms between Driver and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers nearly had me laughing out loud. I thought maybe I had discovered some magic in this film as Rhys-Meyers literally "poofed" into the scene and suddenly caused some unneeded drama. It felt that the director (or writer) was thinking that the original story was going nowhere fast, so by adding this random character we may be able to advance the plot a bit (or confuse the lesser film enthusiasts). Well, it didn't fool me, I saw that he was nearly a "cut-and-paste" character used to strengthen an already weakened story. Don't get me started on the ending, which had no consistency to the rest of the story. Again using the "cut-and-paste" method, the writer of this film needed a way to just end the story, and this was the only solution they could arrive to. It is sad when actors are forced to do things out of character … but I guess that is the name of the game in Hollywood. Fix until completely broken, or at least salvageable.<br /><br />The remainder of the story was unexciting dribble. There were maybe a handful of neat cinematography moments where you could see that there was one sliver of creativity trying to peak through coupled with some bars of decent, period piece music, but nothing to write to Grandma about. More family structure with some stronger introductions could have strengthened this film a bit more, but as I stated before, by leaving open-ended scenes just lying around the entire film, you will experience a crack in your foundation. What may seem like a sturdy story, will eventually wear down over time, and by the end of this film I felt that the house was crumbling down on top of me. Wilkinson plays his normal self in this film, while Driver apparently did not want to get naked, but everyone else had too (I will have to see a doctor after those images were burned into my eyes … eeewwww). Also, she wore the same dress everyday. That was disgusting and I could smell her through the television. Sex and dirty laundry. Now there is a great film for you! There just seemed to be some potential floating around here, but instead it was just rubbish. Nothing was answered, questions seemed to fall like snow in Alaska, and mediocrity seemed to reign supreme.<br /><br />Overall, this could have been a decent film that combined the powerful themes of science and love together, but instead it was just pitiful. I cannot stress enough the disturbing fact that characters were going through motions without any sort of pre-explanation. I don't need cinematic moments handed to me like a child, but something should have been done to build a foundation. Just remember the oatmeal with a zebra analogy that I used. If you were as confused about that as I was, then you will completely understand the film The Governess, while if you prefer zebras in your oatmeal … then, maybe this film is for you!<br /><br />Grade: * out of *****
THE GOVERNESS is a moody period piece, the meandering story of a Jewish woman who, upon the death of her father, sets out to 1830's Scotland, posing as a Gentile to get work to support her family in London.<br /><br />Rosina - or Mary, as she calls herself in a none too subtle piece of symbolic writing - is a rudderless child, a socialite with dreams of being an actress. She strikes up an alliance with her employer, and by accident solves a crucial problem in his research with photography. Giddy with success, they begin a halting and uncomfortable affair while the eldest son of her paramour falls hopelessly (and inexplicably) in love with her.<br /><br />And like a child, she fails to understand the consequences of her actions - in the end, betraying those she deceived in order to make a life for herself.<br /><br />Many claim this is something of a feminist manifesto, but I disagree. Whether intended or not, this film only resonates with me if I think of it as a cautionary tale. In the end, Rosina's greatest disappointment is the truth - that she lied, happened upon a way to help a man she wanted to be both her father and her lover, and in the end contributed nothing but destruction. As such, the end of the film gives me the impression that nothing she did, no one she used, made her happy - and that is exactly as it should be.<br /><br />Did I need a movie this long and langorous to teach me this lesson? Not at all. On the contrary, had it not been for excellent cinematography, unique score and my hope that she'd get her come-uppance, I wouldn't have stuck with it to the end of the film.<br /><br />Fans of Minnie Driver will likely be disappointed by her uneven performance but may wish to see it anyway; I doubt young female fans of Jonathan Rhys-Meyers will be able to stay awake for the payoff they expect, and I can't help thinking this holds too little cultural detail to be of interest, even to photography buffs. The 3 points I award the film are solely for its visual style and score. On the strength of their other work, I assume the actors' performances are so disappointing because of a poor script and worse directing, but they are, in the end, unremarkable.
Despite strong performances by Minnie Driver and Tom Wilkinson, this film fails to ignite the imagination of the viewer.<br /><br />By the way, what has become of Ms. Driver? She had such a potential in the film industry.<br /><br />This to me was almost like an 1850s version of Yentl without the musical fanfare. With the death of her father, Driver takes a position as a governess to a Christian family, hiding her Jewish identity.<br /><br />While I realize that this is a period peace, it was awfully dull even for 1850 England and Scotland.<br /><br />The lady of the house is most irritating with that sing-song voice of hers. I expected her to refer to Driver as dear at any moment. What kind of name is Mary Blackchurch? I know that Driver is trying to pass herself off as a Christian, but does this name signify all the way?<br /><br />In the interim, Mary finds love with the young charge's father (Wilkinson) and his emotionally unbalanced son.<br /><br />In the end, the only thing that we see accomplished is that Mary has found a profession to provide for her family-photography. Did we really have to be subjected to what was happening throughout the film?<br /><br />The early scenes of Judaism practiced in 19th century England and the cholera epidemic at the end could have been played up more. There is a definite underlying feeling of anti-Semitism by the Wilkinson family but that's never allowed to come out.
If I heard the male lead say "This is madness!" one more time I would have barfed. The film is one big cliche, with fake "grind him under your heel" attitudes. Not one male in this movie has one redeeming quality; reminds me of Soviet-era films with strongly politically-oriented messages. I couldn't even understand WHY there was attraction between the leads, nor could I wait for the ending.
Not good. Mostly because you don't give a damn about what happens to all these people. Some comments : 1. I am tired of seeing governesses who never talk to their pupils, never teach them anything and take a tired and annoyed look whenever the said pupil, who of course has been won over in the space of 4 seconds, says something 2. Fine, so Rosina has a father complex and therefore is attracted to her employer. But Charles is completely different in all aspects from her father - if anything Henry is much closer as a sensual, exalted person 3. How could you ever believe that she would be more attracted to Tom Wilkinson than to Rhys Meyer. 4. Hard to believe, if she had been in fact raised as a deeply religious girl, that she would be so careless about sleeping with a gentile after knowing him for 5 minutes.<br /><br />Some good things about the film : At least she didn't end up pregnant, not knowing who the father was... The whole description of life in the Jewish community in London is good
This movie had potential. If it had been handled differently. What it needed was a different director. That's certain. And perhaps a different leading lady. I just can't understand the Minnie Driver character - or at least how she played it. She was completely unbelievable. I cannot believe she would have liked her performance in this movie either. She was probably abandoned by the director or incapable of delivering what the director was trying to get her to do. I am writing this as I am still watching it. I'm thinking I would have hated to be in her shoes trying to 'act' something I didn't understand. Well, we've just proceeded to the affair she begins with the son (I'm still watching). I'm now beginning to be profoundly embarrassed for everyone involved in this enterprise. If you enjoy watching movies that miss their mark in a big way, then watch this one.
Jane Eyre with full frontal nudity! I was not surprised to see that a woman had had a hand in this awful "woman's picture" and I mean that in the worst possible way. The trouble is, it could have been so good if they had only left out the Jane Eyre stuff and stuck with the vastly more interesting scenes involving the Spanish/Portuguese Jews in early 19th century London. When the sound track music is better than the film, you know you are in trouble. When you fast forward the video because you can't stand the film, just to make sure you don't miss anything, you are in even worse trouble. This film will end up on the romance TV channel where it rightly belongs.
"Hardbodies 2" is harmless, aimless and plot less. I would add "brainless" to that list, but the movie-within-a-movie gimmick, although not done very well, helps it to narrowly escape that label. The scenery has changed from the California beaches to the Greek islands, and the only returning cast members from the first film are Sorrells Pickard (the bearded guy) and Roberta Collins (who at one point falls into a mud pit, bringing back memories of her classic catfight with Pam Grier in "The Big Doll House"). All the other actors are new, but apparently Brad Zutaut is supposed to be playing the same character (Scotty) as Grant Cramer did in "Hardbodies". This sequel lacks the energy and appeal of the first movie, and doesn't come close to matching it in the "hotness" department, either. Of course Brenda Bakke and Fabiana Udenio are both very pretty, but the Teal Roberts - Cindy Silver - Kristi Somers team is unbeatable. "Hardbodies 2" is not the worst of its kind by any means, but if you only want to see one of these movies, the original is the one to get. (*1/2)
<br /><br />This film was produced and released as a successor to a ghastly - although fairly popular - slapstick Californian beach comedy called Hardbodies, but it has little or no connection with the earlier film and is better assessed completely in its own right. It is certainly better than Hardbodies I, and is more closely related to films such as Venus and Summer Lovers which were also filmed during summer in the Greek Islands. The combination of blissful beaches on blue bays with beautiful bare bosoms makes for seductive viewing, but (except for travelogues just designed to help plan your next holiday) even such films require an adequate story line if they are to hold a viewers attention for more than a very few minutes. Venus was underpinned by the legend of the re-incarnation of the goddess, and Summer Lovers had the viability of a "menage a trois" as its theme. In my view both these films were much more successful than Hardbodies II which has a very tenuous story line and depends too much on simplistic semi-slapstick comedy. The use of slapstick quickly becomes tedious, it usually leads to a series of very short self contained cameo sequences that are hard to integrate into an ongoing story line. Mel Brooks achieved this brilliantly with Silent Movie, but few other films have succeeded in the same way, and Hardbodies II unfortunately does not. There is also the problem that the slapstick sequences do not co-habit happily with the idyllic and peaceful scenario in which the film is set. The final airport sequences were no doubt intended to provide a hilarious ending for this film but in my opinion they are an example of the worst type of overplayed slapstick pseudo-comedy. They are also grossly overlong, so I left the cinema with a bad taste left in my mouth. This is a film which could have been much more successful with a stronger story line and with most of its slapstick sequences very heavily pruned. As it was released it certainly does not warrant a viewers rating higher than 3.<br /><br />	There is little memorable in the acting, but the cast does its best within the limitations imposed by a meagre story line and poor direction - it is in these latter areas that the failure arises.<br /><br />
It's just when a band tours, and only has one original member. It's not the same as the classic line up. All new actors playing the main roles of Rag, Scotty, etc, with Ashby as virtually the only returning face from the first movie. And he was of only minor note of the first flick, serving as the only redeemable group of the three guys that Scotty was trying to assist in meeting females. The film is poorly written, featuring the dumbest dialog this side of Armageddon. Even for a T&A movie, this one is a turkey. Not even die hard low budget 80's films fans would want to sit through this movie, which has no plot, and plenty of bad acting. This film would have been better off never being released. Just plain bad.
The '80's were the best of times and worst of times for James Karin, he starred in one of the best cult horror-comedies with "Return of the Living Dead" and a year later he acts in this piece of.... this bad movie. A sequel to Hardbodies (but not really), has a group of fairly unlikeable characters attempting to make a movie in Greece. Through design or sheer laziness the line between the film and the 'film within a film' is not only blurred, but throughly non-existent from scene to scene (which would be confusing if I were just interested in anything happening in the movie in the first place. Unfunny would be too generous a term.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Nana, Fabiana Udenio, and many numerous extras get topless; Brenda Bakke shows some T&A<br /><br />My Grade: F<br /><br />DVD Extras: Just trailers for "Hardbodies", "American High School", "Strike", "Virgin Territory" (comes in a double-feature DVD with the first film, for the masochistic)
Pointless movie about making a movie. No where near the flesh shown in the original, which was quite enjoyable and even had fun music. Not here.<br /><br />It's always fun seeing the Pathmark guy though.
Believe it or not, this was at one time the worst movie I had ever seen. Since that time, I have seen many more movies that are worse (how is it possible??) Therefore, to be fair, I had to give this movie a 2 out of 10. But it was a tough call.
Wow, did this episode start on a STOOOOOPID premise! The Enterprise is chugging along when all of the sudden, Abraham Lincoln is floating around in space and welcomes the Enterprise!!!!!!! Is it just me, or is this a really lame-brained idea?! Lincoln comes aboard and they welcome them. Abe suggests they beam down to some barren planet, where they meet other famous dead folks--both good and evil. It seems that a really cheesy-looking rock monster has assembled a team of GOOD and EVIL people to battle it out for supremacy. The whole thing seems really daffy and inherently unfair, as the GOOD side is saddled with Surak--a Vulcan who makes Gandhi seem like Rambo!! Despite a totally AWFUL premise, the action is pretty good and it's great to see overhead shots of obvious doubles fighting it out in this grudge match. But, don't mistake this for high art or deep sci-fi. The bottom line is that the series was on its last legs as a first-run series and this really looked like they dusted off this turkey and filmed it regardless of the absurdity of the premise.
This film follows the life of a great guitar player, who wants to make it big but acts irresponsibly almost to the point of self destruction.<br /><br />I was expecting the usual Woody Allen witty dialogs, sarcasm and humour, but "Sweet and Lowdown" failed to provide any. The main character, Emmet Ray, is an egocentric, rude, irresponsible and hurtful man. He is so unlikeable, that I do not want to now about him, or care about him. I wonder why a film about him has to be made. The pacing of the story is slow, making the film a terrible bore. Even Sean Penn's great acting fails to revive the film to a watchable level.<br /><br />I like Woody Allen's films a lot, but "Sweet and Lowdown" is a major disappointment.
This is the first Woody Allen film I've found not worth watching. I think Woody has tried many different genres to interest results but this movie just left me irritated and bored. The music is lovely but don't bother watching this hopeless mock-umentary.
Well, I think I've finally seen my last Woody Allen movie! I read the review in the newspaper and went to see this movie with the expectation of having a good Woody Allen experience (as I've had many times in the past). Well, that was not the case. This movie has nothing to offer. Even with the wonderful performance by the talented Sean Penn - this movie failed. One of the features of his other movies is multiple characters - variety, witty dialogue. This movie basically consisted of only one character - very one dimensional. It had almost no laughs. It probably looked good on paper! I think the only thing special was the performance of Samantha Morton. Now I'll be looking for her movies in the future. So, in conclusion, this movie was a major disappointment. >
Woody Allen (who I have to confess at the outset I have never been a big fan of) directed this quasi-documentary about the life of Emmett Ray (Sean Penn), a 1930's jazz guitarist whose star apparently shone for a while, then quickly faded. Penn does a credible job in the role, portraying a complicated and somewhat neurotic man (not unlike Allen himself, which perhaps explains why Woody would be attracted to this project) who can't maintain relationships, and whose twin passions (aside from guitar playing) were shooting rats at the dump and watching trains.<br /><br />There isn't a great deal of consistency to the story. It's narrated in a sense by a series of modern-day jazz "experts" (one of whom is Allen himself), who relate their various theories and interpretations of different events in Ray's life. The end result is a wildly inconsistent account of the life of a fictional man who seems to have been given a fairly interesting life story by his creators, who probably should have done a better job with it. <br /><br />Jazz fans and fans of Woody Allen will probably enjoy this. As for me? The best I can give it is a 3/10.
Once again Woody Allen seems to be completely devoid of any inspiration other than recycling himself. Here we have a mock documentary (like Zelig), the structure of the film is a series of anecdotes (Radio Days, Broadway Danny Rose) set in the 30's (Zelig, Purple Rose, Bullets over Broadway) about a low-life (Deconstructing Harry) who believes being a genius absolves him from being a jerk (ditto). Given this film and Deconstructing Harry, one wonders if this is Allen's justification for his own actions with Mia Farrow's adopted daughter; yes, I was a jerk, but I'm a genius so you gotta love me.<br /><br /> Allen has only produced two good movies in the past ten years; the fine but overpraised Bullets over Broadway, and the excellent but largely ignored Manhattan Murder Mystery. His other efforts range from trifles (New York Stories, Mighty Aphrodite), to edgy yet experimental (Husbands and Wives), to pure drek (Alice, Scenes from a Mall, Shadows and Fog, Celebrity, Deconstructing Harry). His films no longer even try to have a narrative arc, and his humor seems to aim at wryly amusing, not funny. After Deconstructing Harry I stopped seeing his films in theaters; after Sweet and Lowdown I may stop renting them as well.
CAMP BLOOD <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.33:1 (Nu-View 3-D)<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />Whilst hiking in woodland near the deserted Camp Blackwood - site of an unsolved murder ten years earlier - four young city-dwellers are targeted by a masked psychopath who kills their guide (Courtney Harris) and stalks them through the woods with murderous intent...<br /><br />Low-rent time-waster, filmed on camcorder utilizing the Nu-View field sequential 3-D format. There's a plot, at least, but the script adheres closely to an established blueprint (with obvious nods to the likes of "Friday the 13th", "The Burning" and "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre") without adding anything even remotely new or interesting to the formula. Director Brad Sykes - also responsible for similar 3-D efforts like THE ZOMBIE CHRONICLES (2001) and BLOODY TEASE (2002) - cites the early works of George A. Romero and Sam Raimi as key influences on his career, but while those filmmakers challenged the mainstream with their no-budget efforts, Sykes uses video technology merely to imitate his cinematic heroes, resulting in a home movie with delusions of grandeur. Aside from the 3-D format, there is NOTHING here to warrant anyone's attention. Followed by CAMP BLOOD 2 (2000).
Apparently the writer and director of this direct-to-DVD slasher movie is a fan of Friday 13th and other summer camp slashers. This movie has everything - a group of teenagers who want to spend the weekend with fun, alcohol and sex in an abandoned summer camp called "Camp Blood", the old man who warns them not to go there; and of course the crazy killer with the machete who keeps on slashing and hacking at the teenagers without any reason at all... The whole thing could have worked if it had been shot on 35 mm film with acceptable Special Effects. But instead the Special Effects are poorly done. The killer walks around as if he's out on a Sunday afternoon stroll, and the only good things about this movie are the acting of the talented main actress and the sex scene at the beginning. Other than that - dull and forgettable. Jasper P. Morgan
The cover case and the premise that write there is so promising. As slasher maniac I expect much from this. But, what the heck is going on. The movie is awful. The direction, the plot, the suspense and the act of the casts is so amateurish. I even thought that they are using a home video camera to shot it. Lucky that it still manage to deliver some good moments to me that make me have to like it. Thanks for the bad package of so-called "Camp Blood".<br /><br />1/10
WARNING!!! SOME POSSIBLE PLOT SPOILERS, AS IF THAT WAS POSSIBLE!!!<br /><br />Okay, if you haven't figured out the plot yet, I am going to give it to you. Two couples head out to a camping site, but a clown masked killer shows up and causes all sorts of mayhem.<br /><br />Now it is time for me to give these couples some advice.<br /><br />1. Never, ever go to camp dubbed Camp Blood by the locals. 2. Don't have sex or make out in front of the killer. 3. Don't go chasing after the killer if he or she runs away. 4. Don't yell profanity at the killer. 5. Make sure your cellular phone works before you go camping. 6. Everybody needs to bring a sharp or dangerous weapon and carry it on themselves at all times. 7. Wear loose and comfortable clothing and bring a good pair of running shoes. No tight and binding clothing and no high heels or sandals. 8. Wear glasses or contact lenses if you need them so you don't stab the wrong person. 9. Always carry your car keys on you. 10. Put out a camp fire when you go to bed. 11. Watch your step. If you trip on something, your going to break a bone. 12. Check the backseat for uninvited guess. 13. If the killer has you cornered, at least put up a struggle.<br /><br />And guess what? At least one, but usually all four of the main characters breaks all of these common sense rules. They are the dumbest characters ever to grace a film.<br /><br />Now for some brief comments. This slasher film was on a very tight budget. So low four of the 7 or 8 actors play more than one role. The acting, writing, direction, sound, lighting, camera work, plotting, editing, etc. are all bottom of the line. But like the classic film JACK O this works on a sooooooooo bad, it is very entertaining and campy fun level. So rent this and have a good time and laugh. My rating: 5 out of 10.
Its difficult to be too tough on Brad Sykes, a hard-working guy doing what he loves, there is an honesty about him that seems often lacking with other microbudget directors. Check out the minuscule crew credits on Camp Blood, there is none of the usual thanking everyone down to the pizza joint they ate in, its Brad and his buddies and thats it, no pretentious rubbish. Jennifer Ritchkoff isn't your average horror flick heroine, but does well enough for you to hardly notice, Bethany Zolt looks like a star and Joseph Haggerty is so funny it hurts. The Clown is hardly an original horror film bad guy, but the design is good, Shemp Moseley does a decent job of bringing him to life and the image clashes nicely with the rural backdrop. Camp Blood is horror as blue collar and basic as it gets, not a good thing, not a bad thing, just a thing.
I am a fan of slasher movies, especially of Scream 1-3, but this one is just one killing after another. To my astonishment: Part II is far better and you get the whole story of part one summarized! So don't waste time on this one and move right on to part II, you won't regret it cause Part 2 actually has a PLOT and is quite self-ironical. First Part: 1 out of 10 Second Part: 4 out of 10
Camp Blood looked great when I was buying it, but when I watched it boy was I wrong. Its tacky, the acting is outrageous and the quality of the film is shocking. Being a movie fan, I usually find humour from tragic horror, but at times I couldn't even laugh. Maybe Camp Blood 2 will be an improvement.
Idiots go camping and act like idiots before they finally die like idiots, yes Camp Blood (or if you're wanting an awful, badder than bad pun that suits a badder than bad film, "Camp Bloody awful"), is so bad it's actually quite depressing to watch. And it has all the ingredients to be a perfectly bad film... <br /><br />Awful acting-check. Bad script-check. Tacky effects-check no originality whatsoever-double check. <br /><br />It doesn't even attempt to be different, and is riddled with every predicted cliché imaginable. For example, the film opens to a couple having sex in the woods, so of course they end up dead. <br /><br />One of the most disturbing things is that this film actually spawned two sequels, how and why only baffles the mind. <br /><br />Just stay away from this one.
I must first mention that as a group of mates, we often find entertainment in wacthing films which are known to be terrible for comedy value, hence our rental of Camp Blood.<br /><br />Camp Blood was the first film which we'd rented that had been shot on what looks to be a camcorder, and was so rubbish it wans't even funny.<br /><br />The DVD was returned and a refund was demanded, with the added suggestion some sort of quality control is implemented to prevent such utter rubbish being stocked.<br /><br />Don't do what I did, and let the curiosity get the better of you, it's so bad it's not even funny.
1st watched 7/19/2003 - 1 out of 10(Dir-Brad Sykes): Ridiculously lame 3D movie which pretty much follows the plots of many 80's teen slasher flicks. Stupid kids go to a known murderous camp site, become hunted by an unknown masked man, and then we try to figure out who, if anyone, is going to live. We really don't care who's behind the mask but even that's not hard to figure out if you've seen any of these kinds of movies. What a waste of a 3D viewer despite somewhat decent 3D effects.
Camp Blood is an absolutely atrocious slasher film. We're mixing Friday The 13th with the Blair Witch Project and adding....a killer in a clown mask.<br /><br />The budget for this film must have been very low, some of the actors played multiple parts and the camera used produced a picture equal to the colourised version of the original Night Of The Living Dead, which if anybody has watched that version will back me up that it is poor.<br /><br />This film was just so bad. There is nothing in the film even worth watching. The very fact I watched this all the way through stunned me. Just take my advice and don't buy or rent this film. It is appalling.
It's a puzzle to me how this turd of a film ever got distribution.<br /><br />Sure, it's horror and there's a fair share of nudity, but by god, the production value is the lowest I've ever seen, the equipment used is worse than standard home equipment, everything is overlit, giving everything an amateurish look, bringing your thought to America's worst home video's or whatever that show was called..<br /><br />Please people, is it too much to ask that you actually do an effort when you expect to waste 90 minutes of peoples lives watching this? You really should have done some short projects first cause it's obvious you're a bunch of amateurs! 1/10
How to round up every possible cliché and stereotype existing in the genre of horror and then subsequently stuff them into one massively lousy movie? The answer: "Camp Blood". This is amateurish slasher nonsense made on a micro-budget and a little bit too obvious inspired by "Friday the 13th". Four of the most intolerable teenage characters you'll ever see – they're like a combination of ugly, stupid and annoying – go camping and quickly find themselves pursued by a homicidal maniac in a clown suit. Don't even ask me what the killer's motivations were or even who he/she was, because if it did feature in the film, I totally missed it. This is one of the worst movies ever made, with no inspiration or craftsmanship whatsoever. The production values were so pitiable that there are actors playing multiple roles without even bothering to make them unrecognizable. The only half-decent and worthwhile sequence throughout the whole of "Camp Blood" is the opening in which the impressively voluptuous Meredith O'Brien has sex in the woods with her geeky boy scout. Yes, I'm fully aware that this is a totally shallow remark to make, but then again this is a juvenile and retarded film, so who cares?
Yes sure, this is a Friday the 13th rip off but I have no problem with it. It's a good effort, the killings aren't that gory but the acting of one girl carries the movie, what a scream queen, Jennifer Ritchkoff. For a low budget movie the effects are nicely done, okay, sometimes you can guess how it is done. Some people have problems with the use of the camera, I can't see what's wrong with that. It's so strange that so many people dislike this movie, I really enjoyed it. Of course the script isn't original but give me one that is, I mean, so many slashers are made in the woods. maybe it is all predictable but it's a worth see, I have seen a lot worser, I can tell you that
But I can't say how I really feel about this pile of steaming dung. Where to begin. The film quality, there isn't any. I've seen clearer pictures on America's FUNNIEST HOME VIDEOS! The acting is substandard, the gore effects is okay. The clown mask is the best part of this movie, the story is repetitive. The same thing over and over again. At least in a Friday THE 13TH or HALLOWEEN we stick with one main character for the most part. There is no main characters, just victims. Man, now we come to the worst part of all. The final survivor kills the clown and finds out it was one of her friends. Then when the police finally arrive, they don't believe her and she is locked up in a rubber room. What kind of ending do you call that, crap, that's what. In my opinion, there is no excuse for a bad ending in a horror movie, that was just sloppy writing. The excuse, "It has to ending badly, it's a horror movie." or "We need to end it badly to leave it open to a sequel" are just lame excuses and that is all. I must give the CAMP BLOOD the THANKSGIVING TURKEY.
well, what can i say. WHAT THE F**K? There really isn't much to say about this, really. The only way you would like this is if u, like me, like bad bad horror to laugh at.<br /><br />ACTING- VERY UNCONVINCING! Just watch the last scene with the main actresses running! Rip-off of Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE! but in a bad way! Just awful!<br /><br />Gore- Really not believable. In one scene they use one of those knives which have a chunk cut out of them which fit over a body part etc. By using this,with the addition of red ketchup, its supposed 2 look real, although it really doesn't.<br /><br />Plot- predictable 'kids get lost in woods on camping weekend' movie ripped off from Friday the 13th.<br /><br />Killer Quality- scary mask if you're scared of clowns, kinda unbelievable that someone would chose this as their costume however. The director obviously realised all the good costumes had been used in all the other horror-camp movies out there.<br /><br />TOTAL- 3/10 */***** p.s- stay away from CAMP BLOOD II, that one made this look like LORD OF THE RINGS.
Yeah i bought camp blood and it wasted about 86 minutes of my life and 5 pounds of my money on this crap, I mean i didn't expect an amazing movie, judging by the front cover i wasn't really expecting anything great but at least not boobies in the first 3 seconds (I'm not complaining about the boobies..) I'm complaining about what the hell that has to do with anything? this film should have been kept on there hand cam at home as a joke....they suck..why was the blood more brown and turd like that real blood?...cheap i tells ya i mean everyone wasn't in colour they were just tinted yellow, And another thing that made me die laughing at this sad excuse for a film was the fact that they tried to pretend the clown was a woman all the time, although its clearly a flat chested black short haired man...did anyone else notice that the only special effect in this film was a slowed down jump..that was also poor oh and the dissolve effect that you can find on many basic p.c programs such as...powerpoint....this film blows
83 minutes? Nope, this thing is 72 minutes, tops.<br /><br />If you cannot guess the killer in this movie, you had better throw your TV out the window, because you ain't learned nothing in 20+ years of cinematic slasher history.<br /><br />And how come the plain star who never gets naked is always the one you want to get naked?
I only gave this film a 4 because I saw it in 3-d. If you don't see it in 3-d, I give it a 2. This movie is so bad it's not funny. Anyone can make a film like this for a weeks pay. Bad acting,effects and story!!! But it was cool to watch in 3d. Why can't they make good movies in the 3-d format???
I was thrilled by the fresh (pun intended) synopsis of this film and looking forward to watch it. The first few shots introduce some of the characters as well as the main location where the stories take place; the gardening allotments. The movie looks fantastic. Colorful yet simple. Magical yet genuine. Unfortunately, it only takes a few minutes to figure out where the movie will go. We quickly figure out this will be a manipulative, sappy tale illustrating a bunch of jaded people set in their ways confronted by "nice victimized" refugees and that it will have a happy ending where the jaded people realize the error of their ways and accept these people. <br /><br />The characters, particularly the prejudiced ones, are very "comic-booky" in nature. The story focuses mainly on two refugee families. One of them is headed by a single mom played atrociously by Diveen Henry. I am saddened to say that any emotion that might have been felt toward her struggles were defused by what was memorably bad acting.<br /><br />The other story is much more interesting and focuses on a father and his two children. All are scarred by their journey to this country by way of containers, where the wife and mother died but it is the husband who suffers the most. Benedict Wong gives a mind-blowing performance here. At first, his emotions are very subdued but as the story develops, he subtly makes us aware of the inner-struggles of his character. <br /><br />Unfortunately, the rest of the movie is just extremely boring. There were so many possibilities with this movie. There are several characters to keep track of, many of which might have potential but none of it is realized. Even worse, despite this movie being very much not Hollywoodian, some of the main plot threads are solved cheaply in a Hollywood b-grade way. Example:<br /><br />Character A likes character B Character B rejects his advances No problem! Let's have character C declare her love for character A so we can all have a happy ending. Yawn. <br /><br />I liked very much the plot thread of the Asian family. That was well done. Unfortunately, the whole allotment business, the communal aspect of it, the dynamic involving a large cast are all under exploited.<br /><br />What you're left with is a movie that has very little worth.
Empty shortening of John Irving's novel strives for profundity courageously but ends up being absurd. It's a quirky, goofy and bittersweet string of sketches, attempting to explain a man's growth from birth to adulthood and how he deals with the vices of lust and fanaticism that surround him. Garp is born to a formidable unmarried mother, Jenny Fields, played by Glenn Close.(The various stages of Garp's childhood are played by three young actors before Robin Williams takes over as Garp reaches adulthood.) The story follows him through childhood at a boys' prep school, where Jenny is the school nurse, through his high school passions-wrestling,writing,and sex-to marriage with his high school sweetheart, children, marital problems and a writing career. Jenny meanwhile has become a famous feminist , espousing an unorthodox cause. The plot details an abundance of comic and tragicomic episodes and outlandish adventures. Williams gives a cherub-faced performance. This script was not fitting for his wildness and anarchy and thus his talent was wasted. He's like an injured bird sputtering out of control. John Lithgow's role as a father like transsexual, imparting wisdom, also doesn't make sense. This movie was able to attract some reasonable attention in 1982, due to the popularity of Robin Williams and his new entry into movies. Williams had recently shed his Mork and Mindy pursuits and focused more on stand-up comedy and movies. Audiences were confused by this film, especially by its arbitrary and inexplicable ending.
Who the heck is responsible for this terrible mangling of one of my favorite books? This is just terrible. terrible acting, terrible script. The story isn't even close to its old self - and what were they thinking? Robin Williams, for Gosh's sake! This really defies description. Don't see this. Seriously, don't. Not even for laughs. Especially not if you're a fan of the book. This might just be the worst movie adaptation ever - everything is disjointed and scrambled - the characters which are important in order to understand the sequence of events are seriously marginalized, and every potentially interesting location from the book has been changed (example: Vienna - New York) into something profoundly uninteresting.<br /><br />For those who haven't read the book - it's basically a fictional biography about a writer growing up, exploring his writing and so on. His mother writes an autobiography which is hailed (despite her protests) as a sort of feminist manifesto. The book is well-written, engaging, and long. Its prose is simply beautiful.<br /><br />This movie, on the other hand, is about Robin Williams once again telling us to seize the day.
Tediously long dreary cinematic waffle. I couldn't believe how bad this film was. I watched it merely because of the numerous people who gushed about it on this site. Was I watching the same film? The entire episode is one-dimensional. Nothing that happened in Garps' past affected his (or anyone else's) future and no-one was affected by their past. I think it was Socrates who said about plays that if a scene can be removed from a play without having any effect, then it shouldn't be there. Obviously, the director didn't know this rule and, so, stuffed his 'work' with one dire scene after another. Even the plane crashing into the house was unexpected, it wasn't a surprise, but it was unexpected!<br /><br />It is worth mentioning that at the time of writing this (1st Dec 2002), even though many people say it is one of their favourite films, no one has bothered to add a memorable quote. The reason being that there simply aren't any.<br /><br />Don't waste your time watching this, watch a plank warp instead.
I went to see this movie at the theater and paid money thinking it would be at least mildly entertaining. The only thing I enjoyed about it was when Robin Williams crashes into the car at the bottom of the hill, and the end, when he seems to get killed. Glenn Close was obnoxious, and she obviously did not seem old enough to be Garp's mother. A mother like Garp's would have had her kids taken away by the Department of Children and Families. <br /><br />Robin Williams and his glazed donut look of benign goodness is just too sweet and smarmy for me. He has two roles he can play: Funny person or sad, tragic, good-hearted victim. See the Fisher King, Good Morning Vietnam, and all of his so-called "dramatic" roles. It is always the same performance. Put them all together into one long mini-series. Glenn Close is always a cold fish. Remember Fatal Attraction? Would you have an affair with her even on your worst day and if you were single? Did you feel any sparks between her and Michael Douglas?? Have you ever seen Glenn Close warm up any screen?? John Lithgow had the only interesting role. This was back in the day when he used to play serial killers and bad guys, so seeing him as a transsexual was at least funny. Garp is made for all those people who love to see movies about sick, abnormal, dysfunctional people and then claim it is beautiful and profound.
I saw this film when it first came out and hated it. I just saw it again 27 years later. I actually liked some of it... although Robin Williams was totally wrong for the role... What I remember most about hating the film is that it was almost the complete opposite of what I had understood when I read the book. Since I haven't re-read it, I can only give you my impressions from the past - but I am sure of one thing - the film is a paean to family life, whereas in the book, almost ALL traditional institutions - including, and perhaps especially, marriage - are shown to be strait-jackets that we would be well rid of. The only positive in the book is the wondrous nature of children...something that only the very beginning and ending of the film really captures (with that incredibly gorgeous baby floating in the air. Too bad Williams doesn't have a tenth of his charm!) My low mark is therefore from the fact that the film misrepresents the book. As a film on its own it fares better - but only for a few key performances. Mary Beth Hurt is wonderful - I think anyone watching it would fall in love with her. And John Lithgow as an ex football player who has had a sex-change operation is fantastic... he never once camped it up or made the character anything but commendable - and as such his performance had an incredibly integrity. I watched him closely during all of his scenes, and never once was he anything except womanly. Nothing in his performance ever came near the performance of a drag queen... and that made all the difference. In fact, of all the people in the film, his is the only one which is irreproachable. It is worth seeing this film only for his performance.
It's unlikely that anyone except those who adore silent films will appreciate any of the lyrical camera-work and busy (but scratchy) background score that accompanies this 1933 release. Although sound came into general use in 1928, there are no more than fifty words spoken to tell the story of a woman, unhappily married, who deserts her husband for a younger man after a romantic interlude in the woods.<br /><br />The most vividly photographed scene has the jealous husband giving a lift to the young man for a ride into town, proceeding to drive normally until he realizes the man is his wife's lover. In a frenzy of jealousy, he drives at top speed toward a railroad crossing but changes his mind at the last moment, losing his nerve. It's probably the most tension-filled scene in the otherwise decidedly slow-moving and obviously contrived story.<br /><br />HEDY LAMARR is given the sort of close-up treatment lavished on Marlene Dietrich by her discoverer, but her beauty had not yet been refined by the cosmeticians as they were when she was transported to Hollywood. Her performance consists mostly of looking sad and morose while mourning the loss of her marriage with only brief glimpses of a smile when she finds her true love (ARIBERT MOG), the handsome young stud who retrieves her clothes after a nude swim.<br /><br />The swimming scene is very brief, discreetly photographed, and not worth all the heat it apparently generated. The love-making scene, later on, is also artfully photographed with the sort of lyrical photography evident throughout most of the film--artfully so. More is left to the imagination with the use of symbolism--and this is the sort of thing that has others proclaiming the film is some kind of lyrical masterpiece.<br /><br />Not so. It's disappointing, primitively crude in its sound portions (including the laborious symphonic music in the background) and certainly Miss Lamarr is fortunate that Louis B. Mayer saw the film and on the basis of it, gave her a career in Hollywood. He must have seen something in her work that I didn't.<br /><br />It's apparent that this was conceived as a silent film with the camera doing all the work. The jarring "workers" scene at the conclusion goes on for too long and is a jarring intrusion where none is needed. It fails to end the film on the proper note.
This movie really shows its age. The print I saw was terrible due to age, but it is possible that there are better prints out there. However, this was not the major problem with the movie. The problem was that although the film was made in 1933, it was essentially a silent film with only the barest of dialog scattered (only a few sentences) in the film in the most amateur fashion. Sometimes the characters' backs were turned or they were talking with their hands over their faces--all in a pathetic attempt to obscure their lips and "cleaverly" (?) hide the fact that the film was dubbed. Well, its true that this Czech film would need to be dubbed into many languages but to do it this way was really stupid and obvious. It just looked cheap.<br /><br />Overall, the film looked low budget and silly. It's really a shame though, because there was a grain of a good story--a young woman who marries an older man who is either gay and/or has no interest in women. But in the 21st century, few people would really be willing to sit through this archaic mess. EVEN with a few glimpses of the naked (and somewhat chunky) Hedy Lamarr, it isn't worth all the fuss that accompanied the film when it debuted. Even by 1933 standards, this film was a poorly made dud. About the only interesting thing about the film is to see how different Lamarr looked in 1933 compared with the glamorous image Hollywood created when she came to America--she looks like 2 completely different people.<br /><br />It's such an incomplete looking and technically inferior film, I don't see how it has gotten such rave reviews. For technical problems alone, the movie can't rate a 10 or anything near it.
I thought that this movie might be a good spoof, or at least a good independent comedy like Friday. Instead it was more like something someone in high school would make with their parents' camcorder. It wasn't just the low budget that makes this film bad (many great films have been made on a low budget), it is simply a bad movie and it wasn't even bad enough to be good camp. Case in point: for the first ten minutes of the movie nothing happens except the 3 main characters sit in their room smoking dope, put on their makeup, and then answer a phone call. You keep waiting for something to get story moving, but it never comes. The sound was so bad I had to turn the TV up all the way just to almost make out what they were saying (which wasn't interesting anyways). If I pay to rent a movie I will usually suffer through it even when it's bad, but it was all I could do to sit through 20 minutes. It looks like the person before me felt the same way because they didn't rewind the tape and left off about the same place I did. The only reason I gave this a score of 1 is because the rating system doesn't have negative numbers.
"Carlito's Angels" is a spoof of "Charlie's Angels" that is not afraid to spoof even itself at times, however that does not mean that the film is above criticism by the viewers as well - it is amateurish and juvenile (I think "fast-motion" stopped being funny around 1914). The assaulting rap music often drowns out the dialogue, and the film feels longer than it is, even though it runs barely over an hour! The girls themselves are hot & adorable, with wonderful lean bodies, and even though they never get naked, their outfits leave little to the imagination. By checking out their IMDb pages, I found out that one of them (Alessandra Ramos) is actually going through with a film career; I wish her luck, because although this film is bad, she (as well as the other girls) gave it whatever energy it has and I wouldn't mind at all seeing her again on the screen. (*)
The opening scene really got me into watching the movie. However, not more than 5 minutes later, I was already gouging my eyes out. Not only could I not understand a word that was said, the acting could have been better by a group of mentally handicapped. The one highlight of this movie was that there was a punk white midget. However, I didn't quite get the connection on how a white midget was the child of two African Americans. But I guess anything is possible. Also, why the hell was Robin in the movie? I'm not sure that it added anything artistically. Overall, I would strongly recommend you jump off a cliff before you rent this movie.
They prove that the cops, when they can't find the REAL perpetrators, always blame the parents and accuse them of sexual abuse of their kids. These movies always depict the press as a bunch of animals and have the parents coming out of court to feed the press' hunger to humiliate the grief-stricken. Hasn't anybody ever heard of a courthouse back door in these movies? Here, you have a psychic who tells them exactly what happened and WHERE the body can be found, but the police are not told and nobody heeds his findings.<br /><br />The police are portrayed as blockheads who don't know what they are doing and there's always an outside detective, like Ed Asner, who comes in late on the case, believes in the parents and solves the mystery.<br /><br />Also, after the parents are cleared, they don't spit in the faces of the dumb cops who put them in jail, took their kid away and accused them of killing their own child.<br /><br />It looked as if I've see this film MANY times before.
A Chicago couple, Dillon and Dougherty, are falsely accused of killing their daughter. People begin to wonder if they did it. The police investigate and find suspicious evidence. The couple are maligned by the public and accused in the press. The cops speculate that they are Satanists and have ritually murdered their own daughter. They are charged and brought to trial. They are represented by publicity-seeking lawyers who give them bad advice and bill them for $100,000. The evidence presented against them is twisted or hidden by the police. Fabricated intimations of sexual abuse are presented. Their other child is taken away from them and put in a foster home. Dougherty is pregnant and gives birth to find her baby removed. Verdict, she didn't do it but he did. He goes to the slams with a sentence of 45 years.<br /><br />In the last third of the movie, with Dillon in jail and Dougherty wondering what to do next, we see people who have been antagonistic now slowly coming to the couple's defense. Witnesses admit to having lied. Other facts are brought to light that, finally, result in Dillon's release. The killer is never found, though the movie gives us a thorough whacko as a plausible perp.<br /><br />This is a weeper from beginning to end. Nothing seems to go right for the couple. Oh, there are a few happy moment, maybe a party where everyone is glad to be together and tearing up with joy, or some point of evidence in their favor is discovered and people hug one another. But it's never long before someone rushes through the door with more bad news and all the faces are frozen in tragic disbelief. (Usually a fade to block follows.) There isn't necessarily anything wrong with moving tragedies, although I can't imagine what pleasure we get out of seeing people suffer. There's plenty of tragedy in Shakespeare too. I suppose whatever we find interesting about tragic stories lies in the way they're told. "Oh, but I am Fortune's fool!" Romeo cries after killing Juliet's brother. Here we have Dougherty running in her robe through a hospital corridor, screaming, "Where's my baby???" There isn't any ambiguity or irony in the story -- as I'm sure there must have been in the real life events on which it's based. People are either good or bad here. Or else they're bad, then they turn good.<br /><br />The film isn't aimed at exploring human quirkiness, or the way things work out. It's aimed at wrenching tears from the audience. The actors provide first-rate role models. I can't remember the last movie in which I saw so many tears. There are rivulets of tears. Showers of them. Cascades of them. A veritable Niagara of them. A Lake Lacrymose of them.<br /><br />Well, I'll give one example of the efficiency with which the movie is crafted. Dillon and Dougherty hire a Chicago cop who works on the side as a private investigator (Ed Asner). Asner is sympathetic to them but he doesn't really accomplish much. He seems to be in the movie not because of his importance to the case but because he can provide the victimized couple with a kind of philosophy -- "Learn to live with it," which is okay -- and because he suffers from colorectal cancer, so we can watch him take his medicine, double over with pain, and finally pass away.<br /><br />What's frustrating about the movie is that in focusing so intensely on the suffering of the couple, it sidesteps one of the more important issues that it raises -- the function of gossip in regulating private lives.<br /><br />Gossip is a strange thing really. If we call it "gossip" it's bad, but if we call it "public opinion" it sounds acceptable, at the very least. Of course we all have convictions about issues that may or may not be justified. (As I write, Michael Jackson is once again being brought to court accused of molesting a young boy, and I wonder how many of us thrilled at the news and immediately assumed he was a pedophile.) But gossip isn't all bad either. It's like water. When it's properly controlled it's a community asset. We need gossip to keep each other in line. It helps us to maintain public order. But, like water in a flood or a tsunami, it is ruinous to a village when it rages out of control.<br /><br />This is a movie that's okay if you're not looking for too much in the way of insight into human nature. It's done so cleverly that, given its goal, it's hard to argue with it.
Some movies you watch and you say, "Well, that made no sense." And you don't really mean it. You're just saying things were overly complicated or slightly nonsensical.<br /><br />"Bread And Circus" makes no sense at all. And I mean it. And that's not because it's surreal. From the start, it's pretty clear it's a feeble excuse to do splatter special effects. There's no script. There's no plot. There's no story of any kind. One event does not lead to the next -- that's how fundamental the bad writing is here.<br /><br />So what? I mean, there are TONS of movies out there that fall into that category. They want to show you gore, they give you gore. Why even talk about it?<br /><br />Because, in this case, "Bread and Circus" gave me hope. Okay, there are some surreal elements. Vaginas, in the ground -- people crawling out of them. The earth, in space, two legs on either side. These sorts of images are wonderful, fun, odd, crazy. But the movie doesn't do anything with them.<br /><br />Stuff happens, the movie ends, and it's all very unsatisfying. I suspect the script was made up on the fly. Too bad. If there had been a story of ANY kind at all, it would have made for a much more entertaining film.<br /><br />The film is very much like the beautiful car you would love to own. Then you lift up the hood and there's no engine. Just a small man peddling a bicycle.<br /><br />GRR!
MARY, MARY, BLOODY MARY is an OK time killer. It has a uniformly attractive cast, the action is rarely dull. There are a lot of killings. And the production values are not bad. But in the end, it plays like a standard TV episode from the 1970s with some nudity thrown in. The film is the end product of an "author" trying to make a purely commercial film. There's very little depth here and the film spends too much time with chases and action scenes. Except for the scene on the beach with the old man, MMBM is almost devoid of any scares or suspense or dread. The director has very little understanding of the horror genre.<br /><br />It's watchable even though it doesn't leave a lasting impression.
This movie made me so angry!! Here I am thinking that here's a new horror movie, one w/a sense of intelligence & then the movie starts. The scenery, the delivery of lines, the costumes, the fake gore, must I go on? There are porno movies out with better dialog than this. I understand the concept behind indie movies, but my goodness, this wasn't just indie this was a high school book report shot w/a camcorder & the cast are all friends & relatives. This is 1 movie that was doomed from its beginning. Maybe if it was 1982 instead of the new millennium this movie could fly. But it seems to me that someone hung a rock around this albatross's neck & it was sinking at a constant rate of speed.
I'm so glad he wasn't alive to see this. This movie is a debauchery of his work. I agree with the other commenter-- this movie was a terrible disappointment. I'd give it a zero, but am forced to give it a 1.<br /><br />The story was weak, and it reminded me of the days when I was a young teenager trying to write a movie, then looking back on it and realizing how horrible it was. Bad actors, family and friends, and someone stupid enough to fund it was how it was made. It's really amazing how strings can be pulled to get anything done. If this movie was able to make it out to the general public it puts high hopes on other indie film makers who have talent worth a damn who're struggling! This movie made me laugh, but for all the wrong reasons. By all accounts this was seriously not meant to be a comedy. Scary movie is a better play on a horror genre-- this movie just sucks.
First, let me start off by saying this film SOUNDED very interesting: A serial killer copycatting the works of Edgar Allan Poe (who is one of my writers of all time). Sounds cool, right? Yeah, definitely not. Probably the worst film I've ever seen. Ever. And that's not an exaggeration. I've seen a lot of very, very bad movies. This one takes the cake. And I was even prepared for a bad movie before going into it.<br /><br />Perhaps the writer should've studied some law enforcement procedure: If you have the name of the killer, his entire life's history, a criminal record, and HIS ADDRESS, where is the first place you should look? Hmm. . . possibly. . . his house? What?! NO! That's a preposterous idea, Anthony! How could you suggest something so obvious and level-headed rather than going to a bowling alley? *spoilers end* Honestly, sometimes I can forgive a movie if the writing is good but the acting is bad, or vice versa. . . but this just had everything wrong with it you could possibly find.<br /><br />I think my biggest pet peeve was how the police/FBI acted.<br /><br />For example: Black FBI Agent: "Okay, endangered female, just sit here in this car in an empty parking lot while I go inside and look around the potential crime scene where a serial killer is supposed to be. Sound good to you?" Moronic Female FBI Agent: "Yeah, sounds a-okay to me. Go right ahead. I'll be sure to not focus on my surroundings or at least check the perimeter." Black FBI Agent: "Excellent, that's what I would do!" Honestly, if you want to be in law enforcement, rent this movie so you can learn how not to act. . . or if you're a human and want to learn the same.<br /><br />0.5/10: A half-point just for getting a film produced and in stores. Congrats.<br /><br />-AP3-
A low budget may be an excuse for poor acting talent and pathetic looking fake gore. However, it is not an excuse for poor writing. It is a talent to be able to write dialog without making it sound forced and mechanical. The dialog in this movie was on par with most instructional videos shown to fast food staff in training.<br /><br />I also understand that one must make a few exceptions when it comes to acting talent when you only have 20 bucks to spend on it. With that being said, no serious director would have looked at these scenes and said to himself, "that was perfect". I see better character acting on Canadian television.<br /><br />This movie had a paper thin plot, bad acting, poor dialog and holds no intelligent ideas at all. This simply proves to me that some independent films are that way for a reason. If your looking for a quick scare, rent anything else. Even the "Cable Guy" was a scarier film. After watching this film, I think i would have been better off watching a re-run on the X-files.
This may be all you need to know in order to decide whether you want to see this.<br /><br />The movie is bad. Really, really bad. And sometimes it seems to be aware of that and make fun of how bad it is. It aligns cliche after cliche and even manages to grow worse as it goes along with some moments that are bad enough to be hilariously funny.<br /><br />If you can laugh about really poor quality in script writing and production values, you might enjoy it. Otherwise prepare for some serious brain damage.<br /><br />3/10
Adventures in Dinosaur City, though a creative idea, was a nauseatingly atrocious attempt at filmmaking. Being sucked into a TV and into a new world is interesting. Three teens obsessively enthralled with half-animated dinosaurs is not. Don't waste the time or the brain power to see this sure loser. I wouldn't even let my kids watch it.
1st watched 8/7/2004 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Brett Thompson): Silly, juvenile-focused movie about three kids being zapped into their favorite cartoon with their parents experiment. The script left much to be desired in this Hanna-Barbara like rip-off of some Saturday morning 'live-action with people in dinosaur costumes kids show' with some goofy cavemen hanging around. Nothing really to admire about this and nothing much to be said either. I'm just amazed I found this at a Blockbuster video store as bad as it was and the way the stores are ridding themselves of old VHS movies. I guess they couldn't even sell it, so back on the rental rack it went.
This movie was in one word. Terrible. First of all the people who invented that thingie that puts you in the TV, are slightly insane! Secondly, the three teens are so obsessed with the show, it's scary! The movie was stupid, and no effort or thought was put into it!
One of the worst movies I've seen this year. Everything about the film screams "AMATEUR". For a movie set in the 1800's, everybody speaks like it's the 1990's. The acting, particularly the people playing the white slave masters, is horrible. After about an hour into this movie, I walked out. What a waste of time and effort. For a much better film on this subject, see Steven Spielberg's far superior "Amistad."
One of the worst movies I've ever seen!!! Absolutely awful. Poor acting, poor story, there isn't one redeeming quality about this movie to recommend. Amistad is much better. Avoid this movie like the plague!
I had to write a review for this movie based on the ones that are saying gory, non stop action, great movie..<br /><br />These people were obviously watching a different movie. Killpoint honestly sucked from the word go!! I kept waiting and waiting for this film to get better and it was to no avail. Some said this movie was brutal and others said gory but I can't find either of those adjectives actually showing up in this, I mean hell there are so many scenes with people getting shot and there being no blood at all it's not even funny!! I guess the best way to sum this up is it probably should've been rated PG by 1984 standards and now in the year 2010 there is no doubt this would be PG!! Bad, BAD not in the fun cheesy "B" variety movie!!
Essentially plotless action film has two good guys (Fong and Roundtree) pitted against two bad guys (Mitchell and Pierce). Fong is perhaps the most uncharismatic action lead of the 80s, Roundtree's small part is a far cry from his "Shaft" days, and Cameron Mitchell adds another shameful role to his career, one to sit right next to his laughable turn in "The Toolbox Murders" (this man was a respected actor once, now he has come down to wearing flowers in his hair and complaining about people bleeding on his carpet). Only Stack Pierce acts with some dignity. As for the violence, don't worry: most of it is too badly done to offend anyone. (*1/2)
This movie is very violent, yet exciting with original dialog and cool characters. It has one of the most moving stories and is very true to life. The movie start off with action star Leo Fong as a down and out cop who is approaching the end of his career, when he stumbles on to a big case that involves corruption, black mail and murder. This is where the killings start. From start finish Fong delivers in this must see action caper. This movie also co-stars Richard Roundtree.<br /><br />I really enjoyed this film as a child but as I got older I realized that this film is pretty cheesy and not very good. I would not recommend this film and the action is very, very bad.
Tony Curtis and Skip Homier both are wearing black with white trim canvas shoes in the scenes just before and after the swimming pond and the tank being blown up. Must have been too hard on the young stars feet.If the real Marines had been on the mission they would have been wearing boots. IN the first scenes they took off their leggin's just before starting out on their little trip to find the Farmer. When they went to the area where they dug the fox holes Tony and Skip are wearing combat boots, then later when Lovejoy and Curtis run into the Framer and his daughter Tony is wearing the "Tennis Shoes " but hey have been blacken. The movie in about a true story but did they really need the love interest??
A CBS radio program entitled "We the People" assists in finding an American home for Vienna refugee Charles Coburn (as Karl Braun), a skilled surgeon and pool hustler. He arrives with beautiful daughter Sigrid Gurie (as Leni), who is "studying" to become a nurse. Relocated to a small, dusty Midwestern village, they are welcomed at the station by burly John Wayne (as John Phillips) and his uncle Spencer Charters (as 'Nunk' Atterbury), a veterinarian. Ms. Gurie is unhappy in the dustbowl, and wants to leave. Immediately. But, the prospect of romance with Mr. Wayne might change her mind...<br /><br />God answers the citizens' many prayers for rain, but it may not be enough to save the farming town. The entire town is advised to relocate to Oregon. Wayne wants to stay and tough it out. Coburn receives an invitation to work at a top clinic. And, Gurie learns her fiancé, presumed dead, will be arriving to claim her as his wife. She feels duty-bound to accept; but, he has a dark secret... This film does not flatter Wayne, who seems way out of his element. Being paired with Gurie, promoted as another Garbo, doesn't help. They do have a cute scene in Wayne's car ("Jalopy, an Italian car").<br /><br />**** Three Faces West (7/3/40) Bernard Vorhaus ~ John Wayne, Sigrid Gurie, Charles Coburn, Spencer Charters
Mild spoilers below.<br /><br />The prospect of war was clearly on the horizon when TFW was filmed. From the opening scene of European refugees to the final prediction that Naziism will be the death of millions of Germans, this movie is as much a propaganda film as the films made after Pearl Harbor. There isn't a lot of entertainment value here though the footage of the dust bowl is interesting to those of us who aren't old enough to remember it. The rest of the plot is pretty forgettable with the Herr Docktor Coburn - with a pretty bad accent - and daughter assimilating into America with Wayne's help. Other than the dust bowl scenes, the only memorable aspect of the movie is one best viewed with hindsight. Coburn's speech comparing Naziism to a malignancy worse than cancer and describing the (then current) successes as a momentary outburst of energy from a patient right before death were eerily accurate and Varno's Dr. Scherer played accurately to post war newsreel footage of unrepentant Nazis justifying their actions.<br /><br />When viewed from a historical perspective, some aspects of TFW are interesting. If you look at it for entertainment outside of the WWII perspective, you'd have to say this is one of Wayne's less successful efforts.
Shame to see an interesting story diluted into standard "Vietnam made for TV" fare. Usually HBO movies are a substantial cut above TV. Bill Paxton was a pretty good choice for the lead role, but wasn't given much to work with.
I was expecting a lot more of this film than what I actually got. The acting was just awful from everyone and the story was far from impressive. It took a lot of something I don't to even follow what was going because it was so jumpy. An example of the acting is when Paxton's character, Vann, is upset the South Vietnamese colonel for so he throws some of the sand from the "sand map". It was impossible to get any idea of what he was feeling and his actions were robotic. To make things worse, I have no idea how I'm supposed to feel about Vann. He's obviously presented as the protagonist but as soon as he gets to Vietnam he starts an affair with an Vietnamese English teacher. The only thing the movie had going for it was that it wasn't particularly boring. I give it 4 stars out of 10.
It looked cool from the movie sleeve, but after five minutes we weren't sure if it was a homosexual documentary of west side story without any female interest. The film quality was poor, and there was hardly enough gang fighting action to sustain even the drunkest person's interest for long enough to watch the entire film. May god have mercy on the souls of both the actors and the filmmakers responsible for what I can only describe as my new one and only reason why I never will want to see (or trust) an Australian made film again. I have to write more so I will again say that the actors were so bad that I'm positive I could make a better movie with fifteen dollars and a box of Trojans. Please don't see this movie for your own sake.
Let's face it, a truly awful movie, no...I mean a "truly" awful movie, is a rare, strange, and beautiful thing to behold. I admite that there is a special place in my heart for films like Plan 9 From Outer Space, Half Caste, Species, etc. And although I'm giving this film a 1, I highly urge anyone who enjoys a bad film for what it truly is (a bad film) to find a friend, snacks, something to drink, and make the special occasion it deserves out of: Aussie Park Boyz. <br /><br />From the very first moments of the lead actor's side to side eye-rolling performance as he attempts to inject intensity directly into the film without ever looking at a camera (a slice of ham straight out of silent pictures--eat your heart out Rudolph Valentino) to the sudden hey-we're-out-of-film conclusion, you...will...not...stop...laughing. <br /><br />To sum the film up, its a poor man's Warriors down under, complete--and that description alone should be enough, but then comes the wonders of "the spaghetti eating scene", "the 'We've got their tickets; they won't be leaving town now' scene", "It's the Asians! Run!!" and more. The only truly objectionable part is a gratuitously filmed rape. Outside of this, I dare you to watch this film. And I dare you to find evidence of acting, or lines, or direction, or any of those other boring and superfluous elements that so-called critics say a film needs to be judged as good. <br /><br />If this movie doesn't cause fits of uncontrollable laughter before it ends, all I can do is roll my eyes menacingly from side to side at you and shout, "You dog! You dog! You dog!"
For those of you who don't remember movies -- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080120/ -- this came out in '79 ( I guess enough time has gone by so naturally Nunzio figured he could just redo this and say he wrote it - yea, right! ).<br /><br />The acting in this is way overboard - the "tough guys" walk around with their shoulders hunched forward to give the impression they are bigger than they really are, also the "hero' seems to have a passion for snorting, and rolling his eyes in a bug-eyed kind of way to express angst/anger to the celluloid eye.<br /><br />There is a sort of racial message here, from the Sicilian perspective (mind you this is about 3rd generation down the line... the original "wogs" arrived in OZ after the war and during my childhood - yep I'm an Aussie. So the "wogg-iness" has been diluted a lot - they even sound like true-blue Aussies - not a flicker of the "dago accent" anywhere ( there, there's another slang for ya, Nun! )<br /><br />Maori's with sunnies (sunglasses) at 4am - must be cool to be sun-blinded in the middle of the night and it looks like Redfern... this is at this movie's tedious end. Nunzio tried to copy the flavor of the Warriors but, left too many holes in the story. How about coincidences ?<br /><br />The warriors had a gang of baseball guys wielding bats, with white face makeup chase the heroes to a train station and fight them - Nunzios gang get chased on a railway station by a gang of stick wielding guys wearing whitish face masks. The warriors were mistakenly accused of shooting/murdering another gang-member -- Nunzios gang are mistakenly accused of raping the sister of the big Maori gang boss. The warriors are lured into a room by a gang of girls who attack them - Nunzios crowd want to crash at a friends house, which is populated by, yep, a gang of girls -- there are almost too many copies from the Warriors to keep on about here.<br /><br />I am saddened that people don't want to see other moves from OZ because of this tripe - how about Mad Max - Commander and Master of the World? Not all movies are made by actors who are so bad, they have to fund their own movies. <br /><br />As far as the other actors in this show are concerned, they seem to have taken their cue from "the Nun" as they all are as bad as each other - don't bother with this movie! I can't get my money back - so save yours!
Although i watched this film by myself(thankfully), i still felt embarrassed while watching it. I was tricked into renting it by the reviews on the front cover, and the bloody/gritty camera stills on the back-which led me to believe it was some sort of documentary. These actors are laughable throughout the entire film, not convincing at all. The story involves an Italian Australian(?) gang, just fighting other gangs, and then running,fighting,repeat. Supposedly they train extremely hard, which makes them way better than other gangs. For some reason I don't believe that they could actually beat up some of these other guys that are twice their size. I could be wrong... no I'm not wrong, this movie is not enjoyable on any level.The jail montage looked like it was a summer camp, just instead of kids, it was a sausage fest of horrible actors, just hanging out and laughing and trying to look hard. This movie is not worth your time, save your money, or throw it in the garbage, just don't waste it on this movie.
I love watching Australian movies but this steaming pile of crap was just plain embarrassing. The DVD cover looked promising but you know what they say, don't judge a DVD by it's cover. <br /><br />I also noticed that it won Best Actor for an award but the competition must have been really bad because the acting in this film is pathetic. It just seemed that the director thought he had enough talent to direct and act when he should really focus on one part of film-making and get it right before spreading himself too thin. The music was pretty ordinary. The story really didn't go anywhere. It was just a sequence of fights strung together with poor script and cheesy dialogue.<br /><br />I will say this to all aspiring filmmakers though. Watch this film. It will give you hope that your film will win something at some festival.<br /><br />However, good on them for getting in there and having a go. Hope they learned some lessons and their next venture is a little better.
this movie is one that belongs on the cutting room floor. For one, the opening sequence does not put forth the element of 'gang' related subject. If it wasn't supposed to then at least they got that part right. Secondly...whats with all the glancing to the left and then to the right??? they even do it in synchronous style. Nowhere have i witnessed a member from a rival crew walk up to a bar, look for someone, from the outside lookin like he is all that and a bag o chips at a barbie and walk away without even being confronted let alone get 'what for'. I wasted money on the rental price and am glad i did not purchase the DVD itself.<br /><br />If this was made by college( T.A.F.E ) students then at least they gave it the old Aussie try. Better luck next time.
Everything about this movie is awful.<br /><br />You can tell in the first five minutes that this movie is going to be terrible. You can't however, gauge how bad it's going to be.<br /><br />We start the movie with a seemingly endless intro scene aided with gay music and no dialogue. Having the camera move up and down big guys who are trying too hard to look like mentals doesn't provoke the slightest emotion.<br /><br />What then starts seems to be one of two separate stories. The first half of the movie consists of the wogs going around competing in paid, midnight fights with other ethnic groups. The wogs always win of course, because they apparently lift weights and have "respect". It is in these scenes that we first get to see the degree of bad acting, editing, scripting and hatred for the people who funded this film.<br /><br />Eventually the main character and his mate get sent to prison. The entire prison part of the movie is unrelated to what I assume is the plot, and consists of a bunch of fights.<br /><br />Once out of prison(3 years for murder?) The main character and his mate reunite with the wogs. They then go to the "other side of town" and try to lay low, because apparently everyone wants to kill them.<br /><br />soon the wogs get set up for the rape of another gang members girl , and run around town fighting off hordes of different gangs. This point of the movie can be compared to an arcade game, as the wogs simply run around and fight off enemies who seemingly get worse and worse as the movie goes on.<br /><br />Anyway the movie ends with some massive climatic fight scene in which the remaining wogs (the two main characters) take on every gang they've fought so far. Apparently the other gangs don't have a problem uniting to take on the remaining wogs(the skinheads don't mind Asians). After about a million more people get beaten up by the invincible wog brothers the movie ends with the main characters heading home. They don't make it home however, because they are burned to death by the the thousands of angry film critics who storm the set and leave angry letters everywhere.<br /><br />This movie may be more like a computer game then a movie, because that would explain how two guys can take about a million punches to the face from a million different people who the majority of the time are twice their size.<br /><br />There are also tonnes more stupid unexplainable events in this movie, such as an Asian fighting off his own gang and taking a katana to the head just to let the wogs get away.<br /><br />Like someone else mentioned, this movie isn't so bad its funny, it's just so bad.
within about 5 minutes in to the film the first fight scene i was watching i just could help but pointout the lack of tension in the scene the cameras crossing back and forth really shows he had no idea what he was doing, well actually the soundtrack shows that the best. i no its a low budget film and your not going to get top 40 songs but at least get music that goes with the scene that isn't actually that hard acting, well if i saw any i would gladly let you know. the script was so badly written would now surprise me one bit of the guy directing wrote this piece of beep, i will give the person one 10/10 and that was for the DVD cover because if i actually saw "before watching this" in a shop and it was like 10 15 bucks i would have bought it, why well if you look at the front cover this actually well done you flip over to the back and you see that it has actually won awards. now that is a very misleading thing because even in a small film festival i wouldn't ever believe in my life that this would win anything all i can say is "wow if this was the best i wouldn't want to know what the crap in the film festival was like"<br /><br />films that are this bad only have one good use and that is for a aspiring film maker to use as inspiration films like this are better tools then good films, because with good film you almost know off the bat there is a good chance you wont make a film that good, but if you use a film like this you can look at all the things they director or writer did wrong so you wont make the same mistakes, and you have the added plus of looking at this film and saying if a piece of beep like this can get made then there is hope of anyone out there
This film proves a theory I have had for quite some time - in Australia, as long as a film deals with the right topic, it will be a success regardless of how terrible it is. Aussie Park Boyz could not possibly be any worse - the acting is beyond terrible, the plot is basically a poor Warriors knock-off, and the filmmakers clearly have no idea about ethnic gangs in Australia (an Irish gang in twenty-first century Sydney! The last time any Irish gangs were in Australia was about a hundred years ago in the time of the tinkers!) But because it's about ethnic rivalry, one of four topics guaranteed to be a success in Australian cinema (along with struggling families, minority groups, and the biography of a famous Australian) it won multiple academy awards. I've always suspected that Australian critics will lap up any rubbish that deals with these issues, but part of me thought, or at least hoped, that they had their limits. This film proves otherwise. So to all you Australian aspiring film-makers out there, don't bother putting thought into your film or choosing people who can actually act, or even getting your facts right - just write a script about some poor family trying to make ends meet, or someone of a foreign race coming to Australia and having to deal with racial prejudice and stereotypes, or, if you want to take a leaf out of these people's book, some ethnic gang fighting some other ethnic gang that isn't actually plausible in the period the film is set, and your film will win five academy awards regardless of how pathetic it is!
This film follows a very similar storyboard to The Warriors, only with less intensity and rather poor acting which is nothing to write home about.<br /><br />The story in general is not that bad, based around a small Aussie gang who are trying to get out of the city when one of their members is framed for the rape of another gang's girl. They then have to fight their way through the streets whilst they are been hunted down by a number of rival gangs. On could assume that the writers have taken a page out of The Warriors book and re-written it, but as mentioned above - with not nearly as much intensity.<br /><br />The acting as a whole is not very good in my opinion, and it's clearly obvious on many occasions that they are indeed acting... the fight scenes make up for this however but then the poor sound effects that go with them bring it back down.<br /><br />This film has nothing on Once Were Warriors.<br /><br />Low budget, alright story, poor acting, nothing to write home about.
I'm not prone to ranting and my expectations were low to start with, but how did this seem like a good idea? Just because you have a camera, some big ugly friends for actors, and delusions of talent, does not mean that you should go out and make a film. This should have been the cinematic equivalent of singing in the shower, i.e. it should never have seen the light of day. However, somehow this rubbish found a distributor to help it escape the confines of a 3 by 4 foot cubicle. It goes from bad to worse. Talk about low budget, one torture scene consists of a guy getting a mug of coffee thrown over him while he's tied to a chair. Evidently this is very painful because the big baby proceeds to scream in agony....maybe he ordered decaf!! The acting is worse than wooden (I could possibly watch a tree for 30 seconds before becoming completely bored, if you can look at this rubbish for that long you're a better man than I!) and the fight scenes would be at home on a kindergarten play yard. Do not touch this movie, unless you enjoy pain (in which case you should try spilling lukewarm coffee over yourself). I'd like to say it's so bad it's good, but really this is just awful.
This film could have been great- but wasn't. Amongst the cesspool of talentless no-hopers and friends of the film makers who wanted to help out there are some mild inklings of talent. The main star of the film plays a good lead role. He is convincing and has those scary Italian eyes. However, he is teamed up with the worst rejects of actors anyone has ever come across. The opening scenes of the film are among the worst and most embarrassing. It looks like Gay Porno. Fortunately no one stripped off. The rape scene that keeps being mentioned is rubbish. The prison sequence was the best part of the film- although irrelevant. The movies soundtrack (if you can call it that) sounds like a teenage boys first attempt at using cooledit and some sample cds. It is boring, repetitive and extremely lame. In fact the whole film is lame. Get out while you still can!
the reason why i gave this movie a 4 was for a couple reasons, but this movie was not that bad. first off, the editing i found too be pretty poor at times, the script(or what they had of one) was not very good, and if not for Nunzio La Bianca, the acting would have been crap. but all that aside(ha ha i know its like the whole movie) its not that bad for an extremely low ind. , low budget film. If they would have gotten more money, a little better actors(but these ones were intimidating so it was good) and a little more detailed script this movie would be terrific. Somebody has to tell me this guy was influenced A lot by the warriors by Walter hill. i mean this movie is exactly like it. anyone who has seen both those films will agree with me.
I don't understand why this movie was released, it looked like something that you show your mates after you borrowed your mums handycam she bought in 1987. I am Australian and work for a video store in the UK and thought that if an Aussie film made it into our store it can't be all bad... boy was I wrong!<br /><br />If anyone writes a good comment about this movie they are either lying or the makers of the film.<br /><br />The picture was BAD, the sound was HORRIBLE and the acting, oh the acting, it was the WORST acting in the HISTORY OF FILM. <br /><br />It makes me embarrassed and offended that they used the word 'Aussie' in the title because I am proud to be Australian and this movie is seen in other countries and may give people the wrong idea.<br /><br />Please anyone who reads this and has seen this movie, take the time to find other Aussie movies to watch because you could choose any one of them and it would be better than that one.<br /><br />I could have made a better film if I took a camera, filmed my but for an hour, ate the film waited for it to pass through my body then threw what came out at the television... no offence.<br /><br />DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM!!!!!!!!!!
Being a fan of ZaSu Pitts comedies, I thought this one looked like it was worth a try. I was quite disappointed.<br /><br />(The version I saw was on TCM, but consisted only of the Niagara Falls movie; the Miss Polly movie was absent.) The talents of the actors, who give fine performances, is wasted on one of the stupidest stories I have ever had the misfortune of sitting through.<br /><br />Tom Brown (Tom Wilson) surprised me by being the strongest actor in the show, but the spotlight is hogged by Slim Summerville (Sam Sawyer), who, if he has any talent, didn't demonstrate it here.<br /><br />ZaSu Pitts (Elly Sawyer) is great, but doesn't have near big enough a part. The biggest laugh in the movie is when she ends up under Sam under a table.<br /><br />The only one in the movie who has any sense at all is Tom Wilson. Margie (Marjorie Woodworth) is unreasonable in general. While she is physically quite attractive, her personality and attitudes make her completely undesirable. Elly, Sam, and the hotel desk clerk are just complete fools.<br /><br />Sam and Elly give up their honeymoon suite in the crowded hotel for Tom and Margie. But then they take it back. Sam ends up imprisoning Tom and Margie in their room. Most of the movie is them trying to break out, but Sam, using a rifle, always puts them back again.<br /><br />Towards the end comes the worst part. Tom, who is finally about to make good his escape, runs into a minister on a lower floor of the hotel. Now the guy, who, as I said, is the only one in the whole movie who has a head on his shoulders, suddenly, for absolutely no reason at all, decides he has to marry Margie!<br /><br />He drags the minister up to the room he has just escaped from, but Margie doesn't want to marry him. He gives her a kiss, and now, after one kiss, she feels compelled to marry him.<br /><br />Finally, Sam has the nerve to say to Tom, "You deceived me," when practically the only line Tom had to Sam earlier was, "We're not married," to which Sam replied, "You think I'd believe that?" <br /><br />Idiotic.
This appears to be two movies spliced into one. In the first, ZaSu Pitts is a renegade in a small town. She wants to help the romantic life of Marjorie Woodworth. OK: I'd never heard of her before either. But she and Pitts are in both parts of this concoction.<br /><br />Before we know it, Pitts is no longer Miss {Polly. She is Emmie. I had to rewind to see if I'd fallen asleep somewhere. I hadn't. She no longer in a small town but on her way to the title Honeymoon destination.<br /><br />The movie has some cute moments. The first part is better, with roles for what seems to be every third-rate character actress working in Hollywood at the time.<br /><br />And what of Ms. Woolworth? She sounds a little like Betty Hutton. She sounds a little like Marie Wilson. She's pretty, certainly. But she's no comedienne.<br /><br />Pitts often was used in very small roles. Here she has the largest role. She's always fun, though this movie made me wonder if a little of her doesn't go quite a long way. (As a comic. When she was a tragic actress in Von Stroheim silents -- "The Wedding March" and Greed" are the two I have seen -- she was brilliant.)
A genuinely odd, surreal jumble of visual ideas which probably looked extremely puzzling on the printed page; just what drew Robert Redford to the project, one may never know. Sidney J. Furie directs this knockabout journey of an egotistical motorcycle racer taking a milquetoast juvenile under his wing; the kid looks up to this anti-hero, and eventually begins to ape his amorality. Disjointed and off-putting--though for some, the sight of Redford disrobing, about to disrobe, or having been disrobed might be enough to warrant attention. Lauren Hutton gets naked too, however all the sexy flashes are just teasers for the prurient-minded; there simply is no story. Perhaps Furie was making an esoteric comment about feckless wheelers and their flock circa 1970. If true, then this pre-Blank Generation approach backfired, as the film was not a success. *1/2 from ****
PREY <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.37:1<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />A lesbian couple (Sally Faulkner and Glory Annan) living in a remote country house are driven apart by the arrival of a young man (Barry Stokes) who turns out to be a flesh-eating alien, the vanguard of a massive invasion...<br /><br />Despite its shoestring budget and leaden pacing, Norman J. Warren's follow-up to SATAN'S SLAVE (1976) amounts to a great deal more than the sum of its meager parts, thanks to a surprisingly complex script by Max Cuff (apparently, his only writing credit): Faulkner and Annan indulge an obsessive relationship whilst living in isolated splendor within the English countryside (rendered alternately beautiful and ominous by Derek V. Browne's eye-catching cinematography), though Annan's discovery of bloodstained clothing in an upstairs room marks one (or both) of these doe-eyed lovelies as psychologically disturbed, which may explain the absence of their respective families, some of whom appear to have lived in the house at one time or another and 'left' under mysterious circumstances. Stokes' unexpected arrival throws the relationship into disarray, partly because Faulkner has a pathological hatred of men and partly because Annan is attracted to him, creating tensions which result in a climactic whirlwind of violence. There's an extraordinary, multi-layered sequence in which Faulkner attempts to 'emasculate' their clueless visitor by dressing him in women's clothing, though Stokes' alien mentality allows him to rise above the intended mockery.<br /><br />In the early scenes, at least, the relationship between Faulkner and Annan is depicted with uncommon grace and dignity, but this heartfelt sapphic liaison quickly devolves into crowd-pleasing episodes of sex and pulchritude, culminating in an explosion of horror when Annan allows herself to be ravished by Stokes following a violent argument with Faulkner. The closing sequences are (quite literally) gut-wrenching, especially Annan's final scene, which appears to have been clipped for censorship reasons in 1977 and never fully restored (what remains is still pretty vivid, so brace yourselves!). Excellent performances by the three leads, bolstered by Warren's unobtrusive direction, which takes full advantage of the stunning woodland locations, thereby compensating for the film's budgetary shortcomings. Originally released in the US as ALIEN PREY.
OK, this simply is the worst movie ever made. Period. Horrible acting, sets and music. Ok, everything sucks in this movie. I almost forgot! The special effects are "great" also. So if you like bad movies, watch this, it can surely make you laugh!!
Although this has to be the nadir of season six, this schmaltzy episode isn't badly written or acted. It's just that most of us looked to the X-Files for taut, gripping horror/thrillers ending without easy answers and moving toward dark but fathomable conspiracies. Season 6 gave us a stream of tongue-in-cheek comedies that undermined the show's continuity and, frankly, made Simpsons' Halloween Specials look like great thriller TV.<br /><br />In this episode Victoria Jackson of SNL fame plays the long-suffering girlfriend of a man who sets himself up as a rainmaker. However her weatherman boss is the one who truly loves her and Mulder winds up having to provide him dating advice in order to get out of town.<br /><br />There's some playful fun with the chemistry between the agents and some amusing but none-too-sophisticated characterization of Midwestern hicks. It's nothing you'd want to see more than once!<br /><br />It's hard to figure out Season 6. X-Files creator Chris Carter seems bored by the whole 'Syndicate conspiracy' story arc and abandons responsibility to the black comedy writers.
Well, I must say, I initially found this short to be quite average, but having watched it nearly 5 times since (its constantly shown on IFC), I've developed an enjoyment of the simple plot elements and reality of the situations presented. Sofia Coppola contributes a solid addition to the category.
Dictated by thin experience (of both life and industry) and no cash Sofia Coppola's early short is almost by necessity an observational piece set on a high school campus. The cast are rather weak and do not benefit from being shot in b&w (it's difficult to tell the characters apart). The sound editing does little to help a simple story of fickle teenage allegiance.<br /><br />Yet there are one or two things to note. Inamongst the inconsistent editing the high school campus is filmed with a balance of aspirant wide and intimate close-up shots. The editing-to-music also creates an interest and momentum (without descent into the netherworld of the Music Video). Coppola clearly made an attempt to vary the pace of the film. The dramatic turn is cut fast and to-the-point and the second act is almost non-existent; we recognise it's actually been played out in tandem with the first, which is the point of the narrator-on-crutches trope (who is an otherwise curiously appended character in that first act).<br /><br />Despite these notes it's an awkward short. 2/10
Your idol will deceive you in this movie. Stephen Nichols is mis-cast as a young german student still bending under his father's orders although the actor obviously looks near 40 years-old. This makes his relationship (a collection of copulation scenes, basically) to a very young looking girl all the more disturbing. The character's have no dimension and the war depiction serves only as a backdrop for this soft porn wannabe. Nichols, who is one of daytime TV's best performers shows no passion in what is to be the main interest of this movie: watching him have sex over and over with this girl. It's like watching two animals going at it. If you're a fan of this actor's talent in other projects, don't rent this for you will never view him in the same way. If, on the other hand, you want to see Stephen Nichols have an orgasm in front of the camera, you might like it: Stephen will show you his naked butt, lots of tongue work, his groaning range, but not his talent as this character who's obviously just as sex-driven and misjudging as he was for wanting to do such personal things in front of the camera. He may have found it kinky but I didn't - a BIG deception!
I chose to watch this film because I am a Stephen Nichols fan. Unfortunately, I am unhappy with Mr. Nichols' choice to do this movie. The film was slow, badly acted, and included some very graphic sex scenes of Mr. Nichols' character with a very young woman. Watch at your own peril!
There are times when, less than halfway through a movie, I start to wonder what the creators were thinking that made them decide not to burn every reel of footage and instead release a movie that has no real merit of any kind. And I mean any kind. This movie doesn't even hold up as made-for-cable porn. In fact, Heaven's Tears is completely and utterly boring, and at times a bit disturbing in its naivete. The girl, who is, as I recall, eighteen, masturbates while thinking of an older Nazi who hit her with a car--the "bumping into her in the hall as a way of introducing ourselves" syndrome from sitcoms and Robert Zemekis films. Then, on their second or third meeting--get this--he is the shy one, the one who is resistant to the girl's sexual advances, and yet, all she has to say is, "I'm old enough. I'm want to," and he takes her to bed. Then, after sleeping with this girl he hardly knows, he feels completed, as if he could die right there in the bed with her and he'd have lived a full life. It's like "Lolita" without a shred of social and personal commentary.<br /><br />The cinematography is the most boring part of the movie. No interesting angles or originality at all, not even for the sex scenes, which are supposed to be the main draw for these kinds of movies. The masturbation scene is just a camera circling the girl's bed (very fake looking, as if it's on a stage), and it's interspliced with her fantasy of the man taking a shower in a waterfall. The "I am completed" scene is just a close-up of the girl's right side (head down to her breasts) with the guy on top of her, and it's the same shot for the whole time, even though there are repetitious cuts to a fairly unrelated scene of the Nazi's older sister, who has some kind of incestuous crush on him (she's ridiculous and silly, so it doesn't matter). I think the whole thing lasts five to ten minutes, and it's neither enlightening nor arousing.
This is the worst hindi film I have ever seen. It conforms to all the stereotypes of bad Hindi films. The plot is ridiculous, the acting over the top, and Shah Rukh manages to fit in a couple of song sequences even though he is playing the character of a dumb man.
This film would be a great piece of history if in fact it was a real film of the Kennedy assassination. The are far too many mistakes in this film for me to point out. It is a film of the Kennedy assassination, but many of the important facts have been altered. There are missing scenes, and many of the scenes, after the president's limo passes the sign, don't fit in. Both Kennedys move noticeably slower then the other four people in front of them. Next time you watch this film look for things that don't add up, such as the Texas Gov. and his, along with the SS men in the front, lunge forward but you can see that the limo is not stopping or slowing down, in fact is is accelerating. This film is clearly an attempt at a cover up.
I lay the blame for The Comebacks on anyone who enjoyed Date Movie and Epic Movie. You people encouraged the Fox studio to keep on churning out desperate parody films, and now we're faced with what just may be the laziest and most desperate one of them all. The Comebacks barely qualifies as a parody. Heck, it barely qualifies as a movie. This is a comedy in theory, but not in execution. No one, not even the people involved with this mess, could have possibly fooled themselves into thinking they were making a funny movie. Director Tom Brady (The Hot Chick) has made something truly wretched here.<br /><br />The plot, if you can even call it that, centers on a man named Lambeau Fields (David Koechner). Right when I heard his name within the first couple seconds of the film, I knew I was in for a long movie. Funny names are seldom funny, and become even less funny the more you hear them. Lambeau is one of the worst coaches in the world, but he's been given another chance by his best friend, Freddie Wiseman (Carl Weathers), to coach a ragtag high school football team called The Comebacks. Lambeau must not only lead the team to victory, but also teach them the ways of inspirational sports movie clichés. He expects his kids to have poor grades and problems with alcohol, and ridicules them when they don't. When it looks like the team has a chance to play at the big championship Toilet Bowl game (Did 10-year-olds write this script?), Lambeau is shocked to discover that Freddie is the coach of the big rival team that his team will be playing against. Turns out Freddie only encouraged Lambeau to take the coaching job, because he wanted The Comebacks to lose.<br /><br />The Comebacks is a movie so forced and pathetic, I almost had a hard time believing what I was watching. Spoof movies have recently turned into a game of "spot the movie reference", and this continues the tradition. It tries to squeeze in as many references to other sports movies as it can, but it either does absolutely nothing with them, expecting us to just point at the screen and laugh out of familiarity, or it attempts to be funny and falls flat on its face. Some of the films referenced include Field of Dreams, Bend it Like Beckham, Rocky Balboa, Friday Night Lights, Stick It, Radio, Miracle, Remember the Titans, Gridiron Gang, Invincible, and Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story. But wait, wasn't Dodgeball already a parody of inspirational sports movies? So, in other words, we're watching a parody of a parody of inspirational sports movies. If that makes any sense to you, you're just the audience this movie is looking for. Some of these films are referenced in the plot, and some (like the Rocky one) are just thrown in for no reason, because the filmmakers wanted to try to reference as many films as possible. There are some that the movie even feels the need to explain to us in its dialogue, just in case we've missed the obvious reference. You know a movie is in trouble when it has to spell out its own jokes to us.<br /><br />The worst thing is that the screenplay by TV veterans and first time screen writers, Ed Yeager and Joey Gutierrez, doesn't even know the first and most important rule of parody - You have to play it straight. The actors have to pretend they're not in on the joke. The reason why the classic Zucker Brothers movies like Airplane, Top Secret, and The Naked Gun are remembered so fondly is because they cast serious actors like Leslie Nielsen (yes, he was a serious actor before he turned to comedy) and Robert Stack, and then threw them into ridiculous situations. What made it funny is that they acted like they weren't in a comedy, and kept a stone face to the weirdness around them. Those films wouldn't have worked if they played their roles broadly. The Comebacks proves this, as all the actors are forced to play their roles so goofy, it's like they're screaming at us to laugh. David Koechner keeps on flailing his arms, bulging his eyes, and screaming at the top of his lungs to the point he looks like someone who knows he's trapped in a dead-end comedy, and just tries too hard to pretend he's having a good time. The movie also doesn't understand the art of celebrity cameos (also an important factor when it comes to parody films). What kind of cameos do we get in The Comebacks? Andy Dick and Dennis Rodman.<br /><br />By the time the movie throws in an out of nowhere and extremely pointless cast musical number to Journey's "Don't Stop Believing" for absolutely no reason whatsoever, I was just about ready to walk out the theater door. I was the only person at my screening, and the thought of this movie going on its pathetic way to a completely empty house kind of appealed to me. I did sit through the rest of The Comebacks, and I was not rewarded for my efforts. The sad thing is, Fox is not yet done killing the spoof genre. They have a parody of 300 coming out next year called Meet the Spartans. I'd say it can't be much worse than this, but I've seen the trailer, and I wouldn't want to get your hopes up.
Spoof films have come so far since Mel Brooks in 'The Producers' (1968) said "Don't be stupid, be a smartie. Come and join the nazi party". It brought us delightful films, such as 'Young Frankenstein', 'Airplane!', and even 'Naked Gun'. But the good die young. Luckily, the genre managed to make it all the way up to the end of the 90's. And then... the Wayan's Brothers unleashed the apocalypse: 'Scary Movie'. Suddenly the word spoof was an innuendo for crude sex jokes. Most movies claiming to be spoofs since then have followed suit, including 'Scary Movie 2', 'Date Movie' and the film to kill the genre 'Epic Movie'. Sure, there have been some reliefs. There was 'Shaun of the Dead' and 'Hot Fuzz'. Will Ferell has become a vehicle spoofing close to every sport imaginable. Also, the Wayans Brothers quit the 'Scary Movies' and they have been made by the dependable Zucker Brothers. While these films have held some value in the rescue, the genre is tragically doomed to be films only loved by prepubescent males who just discovered what an erection is. People who haven't explored the term 'spoof' and cut and paste movies together for a quick laugh. No heart, no brain, just cheap glue. Sadly, 'The Comebacks' has been added to the list. Dave Koechner (Who starred in 'Anchorman' alongside Ferrell) leads a teams of underdogs to win against a coach (Carl Weathers of 'Happy Gilmore' fame) who got him back into coaching. Koechner has shown promise as a supporting actor, but as a lead in this film, he just sounds scripted. He sounds too much like he's doing a cold read passionately. Also, the jokes about being a washed up coach, who through the course of the movie encourages the team to fail in school and later runs from the police in his underwear, have been done before. Yes, this is a spoof film. But let us remember that even spoofs can have quality. Give the characters dignity and a sort of sophisticated view on modern society. Also, the reliance on stereotypes is not going to get us any more laughs (who knew one movie with jive-talking people could lead to gangster stereotypes (not really, but you see)). While I will admit to laugh at least a few times... it wasn't on par. The football team within itself had a lot of stereotypes, including a Mexican, a cocky jock, a fat guy, the scrawny nerd, and the mentally handicapped aid. Even the only female on the team got reduced to stereotypical female humor, being mostly scantily clad and giving off innuendos. In fact, her character, as well as most of the others, never developed. It's a sad state of affairs for this movie. If only it wasn't so reliant on stupid sex jokes, it could've made something for itself. In fact, this movie will probably be the butt of jokes alongside 'Epic Movie' for time to come. Koechner really deserved better. The script in general was poorly conceived, even naming the championship 'The Toilet Bowl'. So yes. spoof movies are dying. There is a movie called 'Meet the Spartans' (be ahead of the trend, boycott now!) coming out that includes a spoof on Britney Spears' breakdown. So let those kids keep getting erections... but people grow up and lose them. We need sustenance. One day, they will learn to stop spoofing spoofs and restore them. Hopefully, one of the heroes will be 'Get Smart', made by the master Mel Brooks, coming out next year. <br /><br />Rating: 2 out of 5 (Stars)
With so many horrible spoof movies, this is sadly a breath of fresh air to the genre. Compared to classics like Airplane or the Naked Gun, this is awful, but compared to recent spoof movies like Meet the Spartans and Disaster Movie, this is very clever and original. Don't get me wrong, though, this was not a good movie in any way. I laughed a few times, and there are a few inspired gags, but any pop culture reference falls flat on it's face, as does most jokes in the movie.<br /><br />Lambeau Fields (David Koechner) was a bad coach in the past, but now he's brought back to teach college football, and this time he'll do a good job. His wife (Melora Hardin) is feeling distant from him and his daughter is dating a football big shot to spite her father. Spoofs of various recent movies come into play, as do a lot of sight gags and nonstop stupidity.<br /><br />The best parts of the movie are the gags not relying on reference to recent movies. Spoofs of Radio, Rocky, Dodgeball, Friday Night Lights, Invincible and many other sports movies are not funny in the least. It's mainly the smaller gags that get a few laughs, like a bizarre crotch scratching scene, or a chewing tobacco spitting joke. These little throwaway giggles cannot carry the movie, and by the end, it's hard to watch. The last 20 minutes are grueling to sit through.<br /><br />The characters are surprisingly developed for a sports spoof movie, however, I'm sure the characters were built on clichés from the genre. Nonetheless, they're not too bad. David Koechner can pull lead actor in a movie off. Too bad they gave him so much crummy material to work with. Matthew Lawerence has fine comedic timing in a not always so comedic role as a ballet dancing football player with a cross dressing father. Carl Weathers rounds off the cast, once again playing in a sub-par sports movie (Not the Rocky movies...Happy Gilmore!) Overall, this is a goofy comedy. At times, it's funny, but more often than not, it's just very annoying and predictable.<br /><br />My rating: * 1/2 out of ****. 90 mins. PG-13 for language, sexual humor and drug humor.
This movie is a nonsense/spoof comedy, in the lines of The Airplane or Naked Gun, but it doesn't even come close to this two, because it lacks originality and a little more intelligent jokes, rather then just throwing you with the same old easy jokes.<br /><br />You can figure out some references to other movies, from the top of my head I identified Dodgeball and Rocky, so you can have some fun with that, trying to find out what movies are spoofed.<br /><br />The movie also offers you an occasional laugh, but nothing that can cause you injuries, thus nothing really funny.<br /><br />I liked the character IPod in some ways (even though some of the jokes with him are standard comedy 101).<br /><br />I think this movie (and like most of nonsense/spoof comedy) depends on the mood you are in, so if you think you will laugh to any joke watch this movie. If you are in a serious mood forget about this (re)watch The Airplane instead, it will definitely make you laugh
The spoof genre, which has lacked creativity and humor for some time already, gets spat upon yet again by hacks with no talent. No point, no fun, no originality; just a few cheap bucks for the film makers. <br /><br />It takes more than just referencing some recent movies and giving characters double-meaning names to be satire; to make people laugh. Any clod can pick up a cam-corder, and have some bad-acting buddies in cheap costumes imitate somebody. Since the genre being targeted this time is inspirational sports movies, there are a few lame references thrown out to movies of that type: the jokes are so weak the characters actually have to emphasize the references in various ways, to get you to laugh hysterically. It doesn't work.<br /><br />That's not comedy. However, the same old worn out sophomoric "jokes" ripped off from a middle school washroom (done even more blandly than usual) are all here. If that's not enough, there's a running "gag" of a bus running somebody over. So funny, right? Also, one pathetically poor scene does more product placement than Michael Bay; again with the same unfunny results. A musical bit flops miserably. Pity Carl Weathers, once Apollo Creed in the Rocky series, now stuck with roles in swill like this.<br /><br />Lousy beyond words. Watching a snail run the marathon would be less tedious than watching this film is. Probably a lot funnier, too.
When I first saw the previews for this movie on TV I thought that this could be a funny movie. I was wrong. All though I am not totally against movies that make fun of others. Some are actually funny such as the first scary movie. This was one of many that have been made as of late that are not. The humor in this film was anything but funny and was rather dull.<br /><br />I feel the one of the biggest problems is that they poked fun at to many movies such as Varsity Blues, Friday Night Lights, Stick it, etc. And if you are anything like me you try to pick out each movie instead of paying attention to whats going on in this one. Even the adult humor in this movie was dry. Do yourself a favor and save you money and time and rent don't rent this movie
The Comebacks is a spoof on inspirational sports movies, and let me just tell you-it is not a good one. Tom Brady (the director) probably found it hilarious that referencing sports films (from Gridiron Gang, Invincible and even Miracle! to The Longest Yard and Dodgeball-yes Dodgeball!) and tossing in a couple of sex jokes, would be the funniest thing since Airplane! Well, he was wrong. They did such a slipshod job, you'd thought it was written in a week. I have found it that if a director loves the genre, the movie will be good. Obviously, Brady does not love the genre he is spoofing. This movie is a rancid piece of garbage not worth viewing, so don't see it!
Im sorry to myself, you know why. I feel pained from the viewing of this movie. I went to the theater with some friends to see this movie, and still did not give it the satisfaction of watching it in entirety ( i left with about 20 minutes left... hoping to god it might make me at least comfortable for a moment. ) most movies now, even this bad ones... when i watch them, there may be a small part in the movie where I feel some joy at times because of maybe a quirky joke or a good line... this movie on the other hand made me feel uncomfortable and mad at myself the whole time, especially since i wasted money on it. It was poorly written, poorly directed, poorly shot, and definitely poorly acted...<br /><br />please, for the good of humanity, do not see this movie, even if your some guy who wants to say he has seen like every movie ever... just don't...
If it would of had Jack Black listed as the leading actor I would of stayed away from this movie right away. It actually makes some of his movies look good compared to this movie.This movie should of been filmed as a cartoon for ages 3-8 and it would of been a lot better. It is nothing but a bunch of the stupidest skits from other movies put together to make one big mess.The movie looks like it was shot in about one day with no thought at all behind it. There's a few times where it looks like maybe there's gonna be a turning point and the movie well actually have plot to the movie or at least a storyline would develop but the stupid skits inserted just ruin the whole movie.
Sometimes, things should just not be made. And while the set-up seemed good enough, it proceeds to only make the audience gasp in horror. But the problem is, its not another Saw film. Its just so bad you wish you were receiving punishment from Jason Voorhees.<br /><br />I lost track of how many sports movies and spoofs it incorporated into the film. And generally, it flopped in its attempts. True, telling his team they should fail every subject to be true players was somewhat funny at first, but that grew tiring to watch. That and the joke about "Radio" and "IPod".<br /><br />Overall, I can't stand to watch this film again. Even Trantasia is worth more than this. "D-"
There was nothing remotely funny about this movie. It makes fun of various sports movies and clichés but nothing about it is remotely funny. Most of the movies they parody doesn't even fit in with the film and are really only their so they can be in it. Non The main actor was well cast in it but that's really the only good thing about this film. Also the various cameos in it were kind of cool to see but i have no idea why they would waste their time being in this piece of garbage. Thank goodness I only spent $4 on it as this is not something worth spending money on. ONly watch if you have absolutely nothing to do or just want to waste an hour and 30 minutes.
This movie is a terrible attempt at a spoof. Its attempts to parody various sports movies are half-baked and not at all funny.<br /><br />Even things that should be funny - like the female kicker from India who's always wearing traditional dress over her uniform - aren't really funny. The fact that the football team studies and gets good grades which makes the coach mad didn't get any laughs either.<br /><br />The plot of having a traditional loser get one more chance by coaching a loser high school football team really had potential as a spoof. It's a classic and trite sports theme. But alas, the screenplay was too weak for ANY cast to pull it off. And this cast is no exception.<br /><br />There is gratuitous use of women in bikinis and underwear, so it's not all bad from that aspect.<br /><br />But Animal House or Talladega Nights, this is not.
1st movie comment ever! I'll start with saying "Come on! Wasn't THAT bad... was it?"... No it was't that bad actually. I laughed and giggled enough times through the movie so I cannot say with hand on my heart that it was rubbish.<br /><br />It's completely different, this and Epic Movie (Epic Movie sucked bad.. doh!). "How so?" people would ask. I'll tell you how. This movie is not as nearly as pointless, not to mention that the stupid (and I say stupid because it is, but being stupid makes it funny) stuff that happens around and with the characters is actually enjoyable in this movie. Not the best around but hey... what would you expect - look at the poster! Some people said it was stupid, I find that when writing a comment one should be more objective (my own opinion) but yeah, of course it was stupid, it's a movie about "stupid"! Look, I'm not telling you to go and watch the movie now or else you missed the event of the century. What I am telling is that, if you happen to see the movie somewhere, please don't carve your eyes on the opening credits. See what it's all about - who knows, you might like it a bit.<br /><br />I give it 4/10 for not being so bad and making me laugh and some unexpectedly good sex-related jokes.
One would think that since this film has a bad rep that I would be exaggerating when I say I hated this film.But I'm am serious this movie was just so stupid and so unfunny, and such a waste of time.I mean after the first 30, I had a major headache and the smile I had on my face(that was mostly getting ready to laugh) was wearing off.When this film was over I was so glad and because I had good expectations that it would be funny I was extremely disappointed.The acting is not great, the comedy moments are lame and unfunny.Hardly anything is good about this, because I laughed at like maybe 2 parts.Overall this is so boring and I can't tell you how awful this is, I think this could be used as a suicide technique.I mean I don't think for some its even watchable.So my final words on this are, AVOID AT ALL COSTS.
When I first saw the trailer for The Comebacks, it looked absolutely horrible and I had no interest in seeing it, but when it came out on DVD today, I figured since there was nothing else that caught my interest, I would rent it and give it a shot. I watched it tonite and it really wasn't that bad. I think it was immature and stupid at times, but there were a few funny moments that made me laugh. I don't really watch many sports movies, so I wonder maybe if I saw more, maybe this movie would make more sense to me, but it's all good, I still didn't mind so much watching The Comebacks. I admit, these "stupid spoof" movies are lame, but what's the harm in a stupid joke every once in a while? The Comebacks isn't really that bad if you give it a fair chance.<br /><br />Coach Fields is failing in life, family and career both, but when he is offered a chance to bring his career back to life if he can bring a looser football team into the championship. But the team is really really terrible, like beyond terrible. But with a little work and team effort they try to give it their all, even though that might turn into something more sad.<br /><br />The Comebacks over all isn't the worst film I've seen, I think it's good for a couple laughs and giggles. I know that this was stupid, but I couldn't help but laugh when the coach comes in the middle of a fight in the locker room and he's beating the nerd's head against the locker, just him and the nerd in general were so funny together. If you have an open mind and don't take this movie too seriously, I think you'll have a fun time watching it, if you watch it expecting it to be Oscar worthy material, this is not the movie for you.<br /><br />4/10
For the record, I hate spoof movies. Except for Mel Brooks and AIRPLANE! because those are classics and make fun of the clichés, not the actual movies itself. I think that spoof movies are the bottom of the barrel for both comedy and film. I especially hate things created by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, the "geniuses" behind DATE MOVIE, EPIC MOVIE, and MEET THE SPARTANS.<br /><br />I decided to give THE COMEBACKS a look. Since Friedberg and Seltzer had nothing to do with the production, I was as objective as possible. It was just like one of their movies. It was basically every sports movie rolled into one with lame kindergarten jokes, and disturbing images of bodily injury that's supposed to make me laugh and failed.<br /><br />Only someone high would laugh at these jokes. Toilet bowl? Who wrote this? an 11 year old? I was surprised to see that this was the creation of the producers of WEDDING CRASHERS, which was actually pretty decent. But there attempt at the spoof genre was about as funny as a burning orphanage. The only reason that I gave this two stars (when it clearly deserved one) was because Friedberg & Seltzer had nothing to do with this.
Do all spoof films require pure stupidity and a lack of ANY sort of intelligence whatsoever to the humour? Is there even just a single genuinely FUNNY parody film anymore? All I see are zero-quality films that look like a couple stoned high school students got bored one day with a video camera. These movies are not funny, they're not clever, they're not entertaining, they're just useless in every conceivable way.<br /><br />The Comebacks was a movie that tried to hide its hideous level of trash by not calling itself "Sports Movie". It's the same thing, though. There are a few different writers for these films, the Wayans did some, Freidberg and Seltzer did some others, and I'm sure there's another pair. I can't even tell the difference in direction or humour to be honest, it all seems like the same people wrote and directed them. I can't tell if the Comebacks was done by the people who did Scary Movie or the guys who did Epic Movie, or someone else, it's just the same jokes from all the others.<br /><br />If you have ANY shred of taste or value for humour, don't see this movie. If you have self-worth, don't bother seeing it. If you have ANY respect for film making, don't even consider watching it. Don't see it in any broke down, derelict theatre that may still carry it, don't rent it, don't order it on Netflix or Pay-Per-View, don't Redbox it, and don't even watch it for free on OD. Avoid it like the plague.<br /><br />The only conceivable reasons I can see to watch this film are as follows.<br /><br />A. Masochism. If you like torturing yourself, there's very few better ways. B. Seeing a prime example of why to avoid ANYTHING that says "Fox Atomic". C. You're being paid considerably high amounts of cash.<br /><br />I really would not watch the entire thing if someone offered me $100 to do it. It's just mindless, mental collapsing torment.<br /><br />You might as well watch Zohan.
A comedy that spoofs the inspirational sports movies, The Comebacks tells the story of an out-of-luck coach, Lambeau Fields, who takes a rag-tag bunch of college misfits and drives them towards the football championships. In the process, this life-long loser discovers that he is a winner after all by redeeming himself, saving his relationship with his family and friends, and finding that there is indeed, no "I" in "team"!<br /><br />I decided to watch the unrated version for this film. It was thirty minutes longer and I though it may be better than the theatrical release, hearing that people hated this movie. After all, thirty minutes of extra footage can add a whole lot to a movie. Well, I certainly was wrong. It was as bad as the recent "Meet the Spartans" but it was thirty minutes more of torture!<br /><br />Seriously, who makes a close to two hour spoof movie?! A spoof movie is short because if it goes any longer, it would be overkill! Honestly, I love stupid comedies. Heck, I liked "Date Movie," "White Chicks," "Epic Movie," and "Little Man"! I guess when it comes to spoof movies, it is either a hit or miss and this one definitely missed.<br /><br />On the lighter side, from the many jokes in this film, I will say about six or seven made me laugh, even some that made me laugh out loud. But that's not saying much. Following those jokes were more scenes of torture and unfunniness.<br /><br />I can't see how people would say this is not a terrible spoof film. In fact, there is as much product placement in here like Meet the Spartans, there are as many dance sequences, and unfunny jokes. I will say another thing I like about this movie is the songs. They are some very good songs in here. Overall, watch it if you like spoof films. Skip it if you like funny films.
It was only a matter of time that a spoof would be made of sports movies! And there are plenty of movies to be spotted which are made fun off. But the biggest problem I had was the fact that it stays with recognizing movies. The director and writers of "The Comebacks" somehow forget to get creative. While I must admit that I laughed at certain scenes,"The Comebacks" could have been so much funnier. The actors forget to deliver their lines seriously and have a straight face throughout the movie. A spoof demands this and that is the main reason why silly jokes work in movies like this. Because of the failure of the cast to do so the jokes never hit their mark. Some scenes take forever and normally in spoofs that doesn't have to be a problem. Take "Naked Gun" for instance. Their is always something happening on screen. In "The Comebacks" they didn't even bother to let stuff happening in the background. Only a couple of factors make this movie worth watching! It still is fun to spot the movies that are made fun off. And Jermaine Williams as Ipod. His parody on Cuba Gooding Jr. as Radio was hilarious! He seemed to be the only one in the cast to get the idea of what a spoof is about. Not entirely bad!
We arrived at the theater too late to see Rendition, which was our intention, and 'The Comebacks' was the only film that hadn't already started. I had an inkling of how bad a film it was after reading the short blurb at the ticket counter. The theater was empty when we arrived and only two other people entered before the film started.<br /><br />The screenwriters and director threw every imaginable sports cliché at the audience without creating a single laugh, not one during the entire movie. Think of all the football movies that have been made and the millions of dollars schools and fans spend each year on football and you realize how ripe it is to be parodied or lampooned. If you add Texas to the mix,you ought to come up with the sports version of 'Little Miss Sunshine', not a big yawn.<br /><br />The first film that came to mind as we exited the theater was 'Can't Stop the Music' By comparison, this was 'Can't stop the Music' without Bruce Jenner, Valerie Perrine, or the Village People.<br /><br />If the film had a single grace note, it was seeing Matthew Lawrence grown up.
Back in 2002 when Matthew Lawrence did The Hot Chick, I also saw Drumline that day. Drumline wins by default! If The Comebcaks had been released in March (as planned) the same time TMNT was released, TMNT would've won by default! <br /><br />Granted, Matthew Lawrence did a fine job portraying a quarterback. He didn't have to resort to uttering dirty words which is a plus. But when he started playing with his private parts as well as another football players and touching a girl's boob, those were the minuses.<br /><br />But the biggest minus that ticked me off is that every football player got to participate in the mock music video, except Matthew Lawrence (insert The Price Is Right's losing horns)! Another blown musical opportunity for him, just because he's shy about doing music.<br /><br />In the past, Matt has disappointed me many times (Super Human Samurai Syber Squad) where he came so close to having a musical moment, but ended up failing.<br /><br />Sure, Joey had a singing career with two albums to his belt and Andrew's starting a music career of his own. But it's very rare to find a Matt musical moment. The two that stand out would be on Brotherly Love where he played the guitar and sang "Pigeon On Your Car" (Art Atrack), which he wrote by the way, and that romantic Boy Meets World moment when he sang "This Dame" (As Time Goes By).<br /><br />Matt, you've played jocks too long. Why not make a musical comeback. You have a good voice and I miss your musical side.
This is the worst movie I have ever seen. If I wasn't watching it for free, I would have never finished it. The creators of this film should be ashamed of themselves. It seems like this is supposed to be a film in the vein of Scary Movie and Date Movie (a terrible movie, but 10x better than this one), but failed miserably. The only jokes in this movie seem to be based on slapstick. A guy falls down, someone gets hit by a bus, etc. None of the ideas are clever, basically the worst premise for a movie ever. The plot (or lack thereof) is completely retarded. The plot seems to center around the coach and his family, however there are so many other things going on in the movie it is completely ridiculous. Terrible, terrible movie.
RKO was trying to boost its starlet JOAN FONTAINE when they cast her as a flying nurse who is strong-willed enough to make a doctor (JOHN BEAL) come to terms with running away from responsibilities in this little programmer. TCM aired it as a stepping-stone in the career of Joan Fontaine.<br /><br />Fontaine is earnest and does an acceptable job, nothing more, and John Beal is okay as her love interest. But it's obvious that PHILIP HUSTON (who has the appearance and cocky manners of a young James Garner) is the actor who should have shared top billing with Fontaine. Whatever happened to this handsome actor? Why didn't RKO promote him, along with Fontaine? He showed skill as a light comedian.<br /><br />These are the kind of thoughts that went through my head as I watched this rather tepid drama which never quite lives up to the stark promise of its title. The story itself is rather tiresome, only occasionally coming to life because of Fontaine's spirited heroine.<br /><br />She photographs prettily as the nurse and wears her serious expressions skillfully, suggesting that there was more to be tapped at a future date. Beal never did go on to a distinguished career and his performance here shows why. Strictly lackluster.<br /><br />But whatever happened to Philip Huston? Evidence here is that he should have had a worthwhile film career.<br /><br />Trivia note: Watch for Dwight Frye (of "Dracula") as the out of control patient aboard the airplane.
The Ten Steps has basically a reasonably good premise for a scary short but the execution is simply appalling. The dialogue is terrible and the acting is of the kind so regularly witnessed in Irish short films. Really really embarrassingly bad. The girl has to go down the 10 steps of the cellar to change the blown fuse. She telephones her father who is entertaining his boss at dinner. The mother, an "actress" with very questionable acting skills, answers the phone and in a loud scolding voice tells her not to be ringing as Dad is 'trying to impress his boss'. The actress playing the boss's wife very successfully emulates the mother's poor acting when she tells them that their house is haunted. The rest of the film consists of the father coaxing his daughter down the stairs on the telephone. The Ten Steps employs the stock techniques in camera movement, lighting and music that one would expect in a below average horror film. Poor.
This is quite possibly the worst documentary I have ever seen. It looked so amateurish. Chris Hegedus was one of the Directors of The War Room which was a great movie (albeit a little one sided), but it looked beautiful. Startup.com looked like it was shot in some guy's basement. The quality was so pitiful that I couldn't stand watching it. I saw about 30 minutes or so and I had to take it back to Blockbuster and get something else. I can't understand how something so amateurish some from someone like Chris Hegedus. How the hell did this win any awards to begin with??? The War Room definitely deserved an award, as did another great documentary called Ameragosa (both won awards). This documentary looked like it was done by Uncle Joe who also does weddings on the weekends. Shaky, dimly lit, unflattering lighting, bad sound, a 10 year old could make a better film than that guy did.
I didn't care much for this, it seemed too contrived for a documentary. Also, the filmmakers seemed to steer me towards certain characters, and yet I was completely unsympathetic towards the protagonist because of what they chose to show me of him.<br /><br />This movie disappointed me because the story and the people were interesting, yet the movie fell flat because of snappy editing that didn't allow the viewer enough time to understand each scene. The developments in the story were glossed over in lieu of showing the men in boxers or other stuff that was incidental to the tale that they were telling.<br /><br />I'd recommned that you skip this one and just read up on this story.
I'm sure there is a documentary amongst the ruins of this Yawn-fest somewhere, given enough time maybe the producers could find it. I do not connect with any of the characters. This is a problem for a documentary. That disconnection soon festers into a complete animosity bordering on hostility. Although because of the poor story flow, I'm not really sure what is happening to them and what are the consequences of whatever it is they are trying to do. The story and faces jump around so quickly it is very hard to completely understand what is going on. The 3rd founder that takes them for $700K is introduced so late into the film, Khaleil and Tom have to backpaddle (fruitlessly) to explain "oh yeah, this guy created the idea too". And just when I thought I had a slight grasp on who all the tertiary characters were, some crazy woman in ranting about getting a puppy? What's up with that? Also, did Tom really have to give all those awkward speeches to the staff? I can only imagine the boredom they felt when it was really happening. Actually I think I feel for them.
Perhaps it's just the format of this film, a documentary, but I believe that the movie would have been much better served by good actors and more solid dialogue. The fact that the actors are also the business owners is a double-edged sword. They know better than anyone else the emotions and complexities of the business they were in, but, since they are not professional actors, they do a very poor job of conveying those emotions and the documentary suffers. There were some truly memorable scenes in this movie and lots of good lines but they were delivered so poorly that they will fade away with time and the only memory I will have of this documentary is that it had some good scenes which I can't remember. <br /><br />Watch this if you want a first-hand account of the .com bust and see what happened to the 99% of people in the industry who didn't become instant millionares. However, be prepared for some nauseating camera work, poor acting, poor dialogue, and an overall bad movie that epitomizes the era of the Internet boom.
The real problem with this story is that there's not much story to the story. There's hardly any plot to speak of. Widower buys an electric grandma for his kids. One kid resists electric grandma. Then finally accepts her. Then the kids grow up and grandma leaves. Really, very little happens. It's much more of a premise than a story.<br /><br />Moreover, strip it of it's schmaltz, and you have a story that had already done before, and better: The Lonely. Same basic idea: person initially can't accept the love of a robot, because it's just-a-machine, then eventually yields and comes to love the robot. The biggest difference is that The Lonely is much more powerful, as both the protagonist and we, the audience, are shocked abruptly back to reality and forced to remember that in the end the robot really is just a mechanism.<br /><br />I also find the story highly flawed in that the electric grandmother is just *too* perfect. She's not only "human", she's *super-human*. She's *wiser* than a real person, she has no traces of mechanicalness to her at all, and she makes marbles appear out of thin air. It frankly really chafes at credulity to think that she's a machine.
Asmali Konak has arguably become one of the best TV series to come out of Turkey. With its unique cinematography and visual approach to filming, the series has gained a wide following base with rating records continuously broken. Personally I do not agree with singers becoming actors (hence, Ozcan Deniz - the lead actor) but I guess the figures speak for themselves.<br /><br />In relation to the movie, it was disgusting to see how much someone can destroy such a plotline. Years in the making, this movie was able to oversee every descent story that existed within the series. Not only that, the cultural mistakes were unacceptable, with an idiotic scene involving the family members dancing (Greek style) and breaking plates, which does not exists anywhere within the Turkish culture.<br /><br />Some argue the movie should be taken as a stand alone movie not as a continuation of the TV series but this theory has one major fall, the way the movie was marketed was that it will be picking up where the series left off and will conclude the series once and for all. So with that note in mind, me and everyone I know, would have asked for a refund and accepted to stand outside the theatre to warn other victims.
I ordered this movie on the Internet as it is very difficult to get Turkish movies where we live. I've heard so much about the TV series from my friends and practically everyone in Turkey, I was expecting to see a breakthrough in Turkish cinema. What a disappointment.<br /><br />Me and my husband (who is an admirer of any movie with a bit of Turkish landscape and Turkish dialogues in it) only watched it all the way through because we had paid $20 for the DVD. Well, that was a boring way of wasting it.<br /><br />It was confusing, at times overacted, whereas other times underacted. The storyline was not only confusing, but adding a gay man walking with his dog on the beach and using some toilet humor in the script to make it 'Hollywood' didn't also work for me.<br /><br />The American characters were almost too stereotypical that it was neither funny nor realistic and like another user mentioned, the Turkish customs and lifestyle was irrelevant. <br /><br />The camera movements had no significance. Adding a few Dervishes (never seen in them in Kapadokya by the way) and broken plates -Greek style- only made the movie even more confusing. <br /><br />I am ashamed of this movie and all the noise the press has made about it. There are surely worthy movies made by Turkish directors which deserve more attention and respect.<br /><br />I give this movie 1 out of 10.
Negative numbers are not available to convey how bad this movie is! Wooden acting coupled with a story line that has been rehashed dozens of times. Everyone in this movie should attend Overactors Anonymous. You would think an original story could evolve from the general concept. Young men at a prep school are tying to come to grips with the Pearl Harbor bombing. It does raise interesting questions, but the manner in which they are conveyed make it more of a joke. The typical characters were present including the zealous jock and nerd (glasses included). I could not have been more uninterested in the wooden dialog and cliché characters. Upon the completion of the movie, I had to throw the DVD in the trash. Stay far away from this dud! You won't get the 90 minutes of your life back!
If you are an insomniac and you cant get anything to get you to sleep i definitely recommend this movie. If you are renting it for whatever other reason....DONT!....this movie is by far one of the most slow moving turtle motivated movies i have ever seen. The only reason i rented it was because my brother wanted to for some odd and strange reason. I cant even write about this movie anymore...GET IT AWAY FROM ME!!!!!!!!
I am an atheist with little love for certain aspects of Christian fundamentalism.<br /><br />That said, this movie is reprehensible, vile and transparent. It only works on the level of the currently fashionable (and tired) hatred motif of white American Christian fundamentalism. Had this movie been made about a fundamentalist Jewish or Muslim family, or even a black Christian family, the outrage would have been palpable, and the movie would have been roundly panned in ALL circles. As it stands, though, it's "OK" and "artful" because white Christian fundamentalists remain one of the last "acceptable" targets for garbage such as this.<br /><br />And garbage it truly is. If you want to see a quality film of a similar bent, find and watch or review "Badlands." Nothing good was done in "The King" that wasn't done better decades ago in that masterful film.<br /><br />As other reviewers note, the characters are almost completely undeveloped in "The King," the lines are a snooze, the cinematography is lackluster. We've seen the tale of the sociopath done better 100 times. This movie doesn't cut it for thoughtful viewers.
James Marsh's The King is a film that mystifies me. I can't think what its meant to be for. It's a story about a young man called Elvis played by Gael Garcia Bernal who gets an honourable discharge after 3 years Navy service and then goes off to find his biological Father and behaves dishonourably with him and his family. It's all rather sick really. Elvis worms his way into the family by seducing his 16 year old sister Malerie (Pell James). It's rather impossible to identify with anyone in this film from here in Middle England. Preacher Father and bouncy joyful Christian Congregation; I couldn't work out whether the film is meant to be deriding them for their mindless beliefs. Or is the target the happy family and we are meant to think that's unviable. OR is it just saying that some people are lost and just hell bent on destruction. It's shallow. We all know that bad things happen; the interesting bit is to learn why but this film just gratuitously depicts a violence without ever unravelling the thinking that has led to it. "The King" is such a lost opportunity. There are some really interesting questions about honour; the Warrior Code; the changing concepts of valour; honour killings in Indian families and so on. Honour is a very varied concept. But this film just adds nothing to the notion. However, Paul the Projectionist did more than his meagre role suggests. The DVD Projector showed all films in a green-only hue and the only way to repair this was to get it sent to Belgium. He did this through Christmas. I think those postal workers and repairers and Paul went far beyond the call of duty and our reward was this dismal film. But you might see it differently?
This movie was so frustrating. Everything seemed energetic and I was totally prepared to have a good time. I at least thought I'd be able to stand it. But, I was wrong. First, the weird looping? It was like watching "America's Funniest Home Videos". The damn parents. I hated them so much. The stereo-typical Latino family? I need to speak with the person responsible for this. We need to have a talk. That little girl who was always hanging on someone? I just hated her and had to mention it. Now, the final scene transcends, I must say. It's so gloriously bad and full of badness that it is a movie of its own. What crappy dancing. Horrible and beautiful at once.
While killing time on a Saturday morning, "Looking For Lola" came on HBO. I decided to give it a shot even though the description of the movie looked pretty bad. It was even worse than I could imagine. The movie was incredibly unbelievable and there was absolutely no on-screen chemistry between the lead actors that I found myself shaking my head almost every 10 minutes. Between Mike Greenbaum (lead actor) in scenes in which he skips the bill at a fancy restaurant and where Lola (lead actress) allows him to use her boss' house to fool his parents into thinking he's rich, it was almost as bad as him "daydreaming" about people around him doing the macarena (it was HORRIBLE!) and the two actors ultimately falling in love. I kept wanting to change the channel, but I was trying to give it every chance into becoming a cute love story with a few chuckles. It never did. In fact, it became so bad that I decided to finish it just so I can claim that I watched one of the worst films ever made in it's entirety, instead of being criticized for not "giving it a fair chance". The last scene where Lola tries out for a dance part was the culmination of the movie. She comes in late after getting married (even that scene where Mike tells the priest to hurry up and then just snatches the papers away claiming that it's done was in tune with the believability of this movie), and then somehow "convinces" the judges to give her a look. The two male judges are already put-off with how late she is. But after watching her waif around the stage (ok, she dances fine, but not overly impressive), everybody joins in including Lola and Mike's families, other dancers that were there, and *cough* even the judges. Bad, horrible, terrible. It was so bad I had to write a review. Watch at your own risk.
As much as I love the story of David Copperfield, I cannot claim to have enjoyed this movie. It was probably the second worst movie I have ever seen. One problem I see is that the magnitude of the novel asks for a miniseries of several hours, rather than a regular movie. It is just impossible to capture a significant amount of the events that take place in the story in two hours. I dis not enjoy the brooding flashback format. It was disjointed and would be impossible for someone who did not already know the story to fully grasp. Also, I don't think the filmmakers interpreted Copperfield's personality correctly. The idea of him strolling around on a beach moaning about his life seems inconsistent with the proactive, forward-thinking nature Dickens gave him in the novel. Agnes also bothered me. She came across as a ditsy household decoration, rather than a strong woman. Dora was perfect, however. This movie was fraught with problems, and I wait eagerly for someone to make a decent screen version.
One only has to read the cast list and credits to salivate in anticipation of this DAVID COPPERFIELD, but, alas, alas! How so much major acting and directorial talent could have turned one of literature's richest tales into such a monumental BORE, is totally beyond me. It's pretty to look at with lovely photography, particularly the Yarmouth sequences, but, JUST PLAIN DULL!!! No need to go on! Skip it and check out the Selznick or the marvelous BBC mini-series from the 1980's.
This version of David Copperfield is dreadful from start to finish. I knew we were in for a wasted evening's viewing when a rather silly to the point of embarrassment Attenborough and Olivier camp it up as two baddies. It was all downhill after this. Aunt Betsy was adequate but had none of the eccentric flair she was noted for.The worst of the worst was the producer's choice for Uriah. This was the music hall version of this character, previously and admirably played by Roland Young. And what was all this self-absorbed Angst from David. Dickens must have rolled over in his grave to see his favorite child turned into a wimp weeping in his beer.<br /><br />This was one time when Hollywood knew more than jolly old England.
Director Delbert Mann was a much better director than this film indicates. He directed ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, THAT TOUCH OF MINK, and THE LAST DAYS OF PATTON among others. This mediocre, made for television retelling of Dicken's masterpiece is so bad, even those unfamiliar with the often filmed tale, will be unsatisfied.<br /><br />Besides the fact that the movie is available from only two known suppliers (Brentwood and BCI Eclipse LLC) the poor quality of the transfer, and the scratchy and muddied sound track make the task of finding this film on video not worth the effort.<br /><br />I have always believed that if a company is going to put a film on video and charge the public money to buy it, then they should at least have a descent copy of the film and do a good job on the transfer. Unfortunately neither of the two suppliers have such a work ethic and the result is only fit for the bargain bin in the local discount store.<br /><br />The story is told mainly through flashbacks, making the film episodic and talky. Much of the rich detail of the novel is lost in this translation. The characters of Martha, Traddles and others have been cut and the relationship of young David and Steerforth is not explored enough, so we are left wondering why David would hang out with the guy.<br /><br />The relationship between David the boy, and young Agnes is never developed and it is hard to understand why she and David eventually marry. Since Martha is left out, it is a mystery how Dan Peggoty finds his niece. And the absence of Traddles makes David a very lonely fellow.<br /><br />Some have credited this film with doing a good job of abridging the lengthy novel. I disagree, this is at best a hatchet job on the book. Anyone who has seen the 1935 George Cukor version will agree.<br /><br />The performances in that version by Fields as Micawber and Rathbone as Murdstone, are definitely worth the trouble of watching it. And the more recent Masterpiece Theatre version (April 2000) and Hallmark (2000) versions are both outstanding achievements in made for television adaptations of classic novels. Directors Simon Curtis and Peter Medak who are responsible for those films are deserving of the highest praise.<br /><br />My final comment on David COPPERFIELD 1969 is Don't buy it, there are several much better versions of the film available. If it is on television, turn the channel to something else. It is a waste of one hour and twenty minutes of your life. Sorry folks, but I can't praise such an appallingly bad film.
This film brought a whole new meaning to that well-worn phrase 'like watching paint dry' because this was 'like watching paint dry in the middle of a monsoon'.<br /><br />I was attracted to the film by its location on the west coast of Portugal which I have visited. It is a ruggedly beautiful place and the black-and-white introduced a whole new dimension to the beauty. That was the only good thing. The story was appallingly banal and frankly you have to have some story.<br /><br />A film crew runs out of film and the entire crew then have to wait. Well, a wait is a wait. I can wait for a number 15 bus on Princes Street in Edinburgh, I can spend hours on a remote railway station in the middle of nowhere on cold winter's Sunday afternoon. However a wait is boring and yes, this wait was boring too.<br /><br />So the leader goes off to America to remonstrate with the film supplier who castigates him for not making the whole thing in colour. After a number of arguments two blessed bullets ring out from wherever and the eagerly-awaited end finally arrives, and not before time.<br /><br />Yes, I would see this film again if someone arms me with a couple of cans of colour film so that I can hurl them at the screen.
Did someone find the plot somewhere in the film?. Perhaps it is the thing missing in this pretentious exercise of cinema about cinema. It is quite surprising that Gordon says that "A movie without a plot is nothing"... It is possible that characters have more to say that the own Wim Wenders. Was this phrase in the original plot or the actor decided to send a hint to the director?.
I sat (uncomfortably) through this film becoming more and more staggered at just how it got made at all. The script itself makes the acting look embarrassing, and it fundamentally becomes a waste of time for everybody concerned. If you avoid seeing one film this year, make it this one.
That's what I felt like yelling as well as stomping out of the theater, but I restrained myself. Yes the acting was great, no this wasn't the typical hollywood film, but the dialogue just wouldn't end (or get interesting)! And despite all the gabbing, you never get to really know or care about any of the characters. Definitely the most boring film I've seen since Sphere, but I was expecting that one to be boring. I had to sit through it, but please, spare yourself
I watched Hurlyburly as a second choice after Affliction was sold out. I have never seen so many people walk out of a movie. Sean Penn, Kevin Spacey, and Chazz Palminteri can do nothing to save this coke-snorting, endlessly pedantic, bad Mamet-wannabe.
A complete and utter waster of my precious two hours. The entire movie could have been made in less than 60 seconds by simply showing people getting coked up, a car crashing, people getting more coked up, people having sex, people crying, and people getting more coked up. The tagline for this movie should have read "Come see how f*cked up our characters are! They're stoned! They're coke addicts! They're a mess! Who are these people? Do you really care? Does it matter? Just give us your money please, because we sure don't care about anything else!" An absolutely terrible movie. It never went anywhere, you never got to know the characters (they never even said what these people did to earn such a big house and so much money and cars and coke), and it was just downright boring. You might like the movie a little more if you're a stoner yourself, but for the vast majority of us that aren't, this movie is a waste of film and of time.
Acting 10, Script 1. "Hurlyburly" is from that unfortunate postmodern school of theatre that has declared anything resembling a story or plot is forbidden. While people may get away with this on stage, on film it becomes deadly -- or at least deadly dull. We're left with a bunch of great actors spouting dialogue that, while brilliantly written, adds up to nothing. Even worse, every character speaks with the same voice despite their backgrounds. The only attempt to differentiate is to have teen-waif Anna Paquin use the word "ain't."<br /><br />Never mind that the characters are unsympathetic losers to the extreme, the camera work is plain sloppy and (for LA residents) the attention to geography is laughable. (Hint: the view out Sean Penn's front window is about eight miles away from the view out his back window, and you can't drive south through Hollywood and wind up in Glendale pretending to be Burbank.) Okay, suspension of disbelief and all that -- and normally I wouldn't pay attention to little things like that, because they are just vagaries of production. But, the fact that they did stick out so much despite the thespian pyrotechnics on screen says a lot about the weakest element of this enterprise -- the script.<br /><br />In short, skip this one, even on video. Rabe picked the wrong quote from the Scottish Play for his title; Hurlyburly would have been better named "A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." A bit long for the marquee, perhaps -- but at least it would be honest advertising.
I saw Hurlyburly on Broadway and liked it a great deal. I don't know what happened with the film version, because it was dreadful. Perhaps some dialogue that works on stage just sounds incoherent on screen. Anyway, I couldn't wait for this film to be over. The acting is universally over the top. Only Kevin Spacey has it together, and he seems like he knows he's in a bad movie and can't wait to get out.
It's not funny, it's not interesting, it's not well shot, you don't care about the characters, not one single one of them. There's nothing that engages you in the narrative flow, you really could care less what happens. Big, big waste of time and talent.
I watched this movie with no idea what it was about beforehand. I was intrigued for the first whole hour. It was shaping up to be a great thriller. A very talented cast and good dialogue.Then it all fell apart for me at the sight of the first vampire. I couldn't believe my eyes.A great thriller was flushed down the toilet. The rest of the movie from that point was totally awful.<br /><br />I gave it 4 stars for the brilliant beginning alone. I think that's a little generous, but I was entertained for a while. I'm not a fan of vampire or zombie movies at all.If you are, then you may disagree with my opinion.
This was not a good movie!! Why do you people keep saying that? There is a nice little story going on and then some sexy girls and then BAM vampires!!! Why? Why are there vampires? Where did they come from? Also, what the hell?! There are all of these "super human" vampires but George Clooney and three other random guys dominate ALL of them. Quickly too. It's not like there was a long fight scene with lots of struggle. There was just three dudes from the bar killing these vampires like a fat man kills twinkies! The next thing you know, Clooney and the stupid girl are rescued by Cheech and leaves the family-less homeless in the middle of Mexico. End of story. Literally. Oh and the strip club was an Aztec temple which is funny because that would have to be southern Mexico not the border. Why are you people lying and telling people this is a good movie? Do not rent, buy or even watch this movie at a friend's house. You will wish you had that time of your life back.
Just what is the point of this film? It starts off as one film, then changes track, cheating us of a resolution to that film and ends as another movie which is nothing but a pale, pale imitation of so many other schlock-horror flicks you've ever seen. The overall impression is confusion in every respect and a great deal of hubris. Screenplay by Tarantino, direction by Rodriguez, two guys who have previously shown talent, but who now seem to believe their own hype and assume that whatever they do must be good merely because THEY did it. But it doesn't quite work that way. You're only good while you continue doing good things. There are so many questions to ask: Just what are George Clooney and Harvey Keitel doing getting involved in such pointless dreck? Clooney initially makes an intriguing bad guy — utterly ruthless and efficient — and it would have been interesting to see where that was going. But, of course, we never do. And the Clooney of the vampire film changes into a completely different character. That's not clever or witty, that's just bad, bad work. Keitel looks thoroughly ill at ease throughout, and no wonder. Did no one in the studio take a look at the script before this project was given the go-ahead? Tarantino is utterly unpleasant as a murderous sexual deviant (and why did he, as writer, assume we would find the rape, gruesome murder and butchering of an inoffensive hostage funny). On every level — except the technical — this film stinks. Avoid.
What could have been an excellent hostage movie was totally ruined by what apparently looks like a bored director ... there were so many directions that the movie could have taken ... a vampire slash-fest was not one of these!!! The last 45 mins. or so results in the movie being an absolutely ridiculous waste of time. ...and sex machine?? ... you gotta be kidding me! The acting talents of the likes of Juliette Lewis and Harvey Keitel (not to mention George Clooney) are completely wasted in this nonsensical movie. <br /><br />The director... Robert Rodriguez, known for his other gory flicks including el mariachi, desperado, once upon a time in Mexico, and the very recent sin city ... really holds your attention with the well executed first half ... which leads you to believe that you are in for an entertaining time ... but then apparently for no reason, and without any provocation, the madness starts ... there's even feeble attempts at parody and comedy ... truly exasperating!!
I love dissing this movie. My peers always try their best to defend it, probably out of love for Quentin Tarantino or Harvey Keitel, but they'll never convince me that this one should be treasured. Here's some huge reasons why: A: The plot goes from kidnapping road trip movie to vampire-inhabited strip bar slasher flick with no set-up whatsoever. Suddenly something very real turns into something very fake, which is like sitting the audience down to a Thanksgiving feast then exploding it with dynamite. B: That untalented Juliette Lewis is in it. C: Preposterous ideas abound such as actual torso-and-leg guitars, brothers with the last name "Gecko," bad vampire make-up jobs, Cheech Marin playing three characters (?), and a crotch-based gun that only fires when "erect" and belongs to a guy who goes by "Sex Machine." If Robert Rodriguez didn't pathetically try to be so innovative with his violence, I might've had fun with this obvious popcorn flick. The whole project's like he got the ideas by playing with action figures. The only thing even close to being considered my favorite scene is George Clooney's laugh-out-loud cheesy monologue after he kills his blood-sucking, horny-for-children, terrible-acting brother. I swear I think they thought it up right then and there. This movie's out to offend, and ends up offending those who want the offensive. Horrible movie.
WARNING:I advise anyone who has not seen the film yet to not read this comment.<br /><br />When I first started to watch this movie my expectations were it was a vampire movie, that is going to be awesome considering how Rodriguez and Tarantino both helped make the film. I began about 15 minutes into it and already my hopes for this movie were down the drain, which shocked me. First, the story it was going with was not at all appealing in anyway possible, and just flat out boring and uncompelling to the point where I just wanted to turn it off. I was getting more frustrated with this movie as it dragged on, but I guess I had hopes that it would get better.... then when it finally showed vampires it BLEW MY MIND, in a VERY bad way. I thought,"Okay this movie started with some backwash horrible story about these two criminals, then VERY slowly turned into some vampire movie which I thought it was going to be from the beginning, in like, the last 30 minutes?" To add on to that, they try to make the main characters all cool and awesome and mean around the end when they're just not; A bunny would've been more intimidating than these characters! This movie is a horrible piece of crap!!! From Dusk Till dawn disgraced me and left a terrible taste in my mouth, disheartening thoughts in my head, and left my body unable to move from the horrible shock that I just wasted 108 minutes of my life away on a horrendous film. I do not understand how George Clooney, Quentin Tarintino, Cheech Marin and Danny Trejo, all being the good and honorable actors that they are, could take part in this useless filth. In my opinion, From Dusk Till Dawn is one of the worst movies ever made that I have suffered my eyes on. Do not see it, you'll be doing yourelf a GREAT favor...
This film is simply appalling, how the talent involved made this is beyond human belief.Iguess they must have been boozing when they thought of this idea,I feel as if 2 hours of my life have been taken from me.Harvey Kietel will try and distance himself from this rubbish, it should have been a great crime movie but it develops into a gory mess of vampires.I would recommend this film to people who like to sleep through movies ,you wont miss a thing.The humour is set to appeal to the lowest common dominate, movies can uplift us and remind us that life is worth living, this film just depresses you.As DeNiro said in one movie the saddest thing in life is wasted talent this film is a perfect example of this statement.
It's a long time ago I saw this movie and still it's one of the worst I've ever seen. I like lots of kind of movies; sci-fi, action, drama, thrillers and sometimes even horror. Not a combination of two. This could have been a wonderful movie, but they all blew it up. I didn't want to see this movie, but friends of mine insisted to watch it. I didn't know it was such a crap. I loved the first part, in which Clooney and Tarantino drove through Texas, killing everybody on their way (especially the scene with the liquor shooting was excellent), but at its turning point, in the titty twister bar everything changed. Stupid Vampires took over the place and what could have been a perfect gangster movie became a stupid horror movie like 'Nightmare on Elmsteet'. If you like horror, watch a real horror movie. And when you love bloodstolling thrillers don't watch it at all, you will be very disappointed at the end.
Has anyone else noticed that this version is basically a scene-by-scene remake of the 1933 version, with some of the scenes taken out? It makes me think less of a film that does that, showing a definite want of creativity. In all fairness, I tend to be biased in favor of Katharine Hepburn, but this version of the film seems like cinematic plagiarism. The 1933 version was nice and sweet, though a little awkward in presentation and transition at times, and then this version took the script, the music, and even a fair amount of the scene blocking from the earlier version. I don't understand the point of making the film again when the method of remaking it was to basically redo George Cukor's film with everything the same except the people working on it.
After all the hype I had heard about the Jane Austin novel and different film versions of the book I found myself very disappointed with the movie. I had expected a classic drama but that was not the case. First of all let me preface my review with the fact that I love old movies, particularly mysteries and dramas, but not female oriented movies. This probably makes a huge difference, so take my review with a large grain of salt. I thought the acting was a bit over the top, but that is very common in movies of this era. June Allyson was good as Jo but I found every sister to be stereotypical and form driven. There were no surprises or overly dramatic moments. I hate writing negative reviews, but the movie left me very cold. It has always been my intention to read the book, but after this that seem unlikely. The only warming story line was between the old gentlemen and the youngest sister, that was a very welcome bright spot in an otherwise disappointing viewing experience. Again there are others who love this movie, I'm just not one of them.
I watched this movie last night, i'm a huge fan of the book, and i was pretty happy with the version in which Winona Ryder and Susan Sarandon starred. But this one, it's just awful. Oh my God, i don't understand how they dared to ripped apart this classic story and made the characters totally different, starting with the switching of Beth being the younger sister, and making Amy the 3rd one. And Jo interpretation, terrible, Jo was a feminist, intelligent and kinda angry young lady, and the actress portraying Jo in this movie acts like a foolish and very annoying little girl. And what's with the Laurie going to war?. i'm OK with the fact that when a book is made into a movie there has to be some changes made, but not re-write the whole story. very very bad done.
This was the next to last film appearance by Jill Ireland, who died of cancer in 1990 after four decades as a well-known actress and producer. Ireland made quite a few waves in the press when she dropped her then-husband David McCallum in 1967, beginning her long relationship with Charles Bronson. It is a great irony that Bronson, probably the all-time leader in number of deaths rendered on-screen, had one of the most enduring marriages in film history.<br /><br />'Assassination' seems to be a movie that was tucked into Cannon's production schedule for the sake of Bronson and Ireland. Ireland was already suffering from cancer-related illnesses in 1987 and you can almost picture the two actors wanting to do 'just one more, for old times' sake.' 'Assassination' is carelessly done as a whole, showing the lack of polish and dwindling funds that would tank Cannon by 1990. But there's a kind of nostalgia value in seeing the couple together one last time and the film makes you wonder what exactly helps a relationship to survive in the chaos that is Hollywood.<br /><br />Bronson plays Jay Killian, a high-ranking Secret Service agent who is assigned to protect the First Lady, Lara Craig (Ireland). The President's wife has a reputation for being difficult, bossing Service agents around and wanting to do things her own way. That all changes, however, when attempts are made on her life and she must journey with Killian by car, train, motorbike, and believe it or not, dune buggy to escape would-be assassins. There is little surprise here, as Killian believes the murderers are part of an inside job, perhaps arranged by the President himself. On the way, Killian and Mrs. Craig develop an unspoken affection for one another in scenes between Bronson and Ireland that are actually very funny.<br /><br />What really gets me is how this film was promoted upon its release and how it's still made to look as a DVD. The original trailer gives you the feeling that 'Assassination' is another cold-hearted Bronson shoot-'em-up. But a lot of this movie - which was rated PG-13, by the way - is in a comic vein, putting it along the lines of a romantic thriller like Bronson and Ireland's western 'From Noon Till Three.' Even the DVD case shows Bronson with a rocket launcher, ready to blow things up. Which he does, but to a lesser degree than his other '80s potboilers.<br /><br />On the whole, 'Assassination' is late Cannon slop work and doesn't really know what kind of film it wants to be. Besides drifting from actioner to romantic thriller and back again, there are serious mistakes in continuity, property values are bottom-of-the-barrel cheap, and the effects are dreadful; many of the explosions seem like matte work rather than being done on location. Robert Ragland, who had shown good composing skills in earlier films, teamed up with Valentine McCallum on a score that is mostly synthesized and better fit for television.<br /><br />Richard Sale's script has real lulus of dialogue, with the conversations between Bronson and Ireland the only bright spot. There is no explanation as to why the First Lady is called 'One Momma' all of a sudden, nor as to why Ireland is left with her British accent when the character is a Wyoming native. Jan Gan Boyd, playing Killian's main assistant, has a kitten-like personality and is badly miscast as a federal agent. Stephen Elliott (a former Tony Award nominee who died in May 2005), Randy Brooks, Erik Stern (as assassin Bracken), and Michael Ansara (Senator Bunsen) are acceptable in their supporting roles.<br /><br />Incidentally, this was the last film directing gig for Peter Hunt, who broke onto the scene with 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' in 1969 and collaborated with Bronson and Lee Marvin on 'Death Hunt' in 1981. 'Assassination' is available on DVD through MGM Home Entertainment; it is presented in dual widescreen and standard format with three-language subtitles and theatrical trailer.<br /><br />** out of 4
In the twilight years of his career, Charles Bronson forged long-running partnerships with several directors, most notably J. Lee Thompson and Michael Winner. He did two films for one-time Bond director Peter Hunt too - the first being the decent 1981 actioner Death Hunt, the second being this indifferent political chase thriller. Assassination is pretty dull if truth be known, and come the end you'll find yourself longing for something with a bit more passion and pace, like The Wilby Conspiracy for instance (which, plotwise, this film resembles).<br /><br /> Bronson sleepwalks through his role as bodyguard Jay Killian, whose assignment is to protect the American President's wife, Lara Royce Craig (Jill Ireland, real-life wife of Bronson). Killian believes that Mrs Craig has been targetted by assassins; she thinks he's an over-protective, paranoid pessimist. Turns out - surprise, surprise - that Killian was right all along and someone is indeed out to eradicate her. The pair of them go on the run, pursued by the assassins.<br /><br /> Everyone knows that the wife of an American President is known as The First Lady. For some reason, in this film they have renamed her "One Mama"! Quite what the point of this is is anybody's guess, but it's indicative of the film's pointlessness as a whole. Most of the film's performances are lazy, and the script takes a heck of a long time to get to where it's going. If I had to label Assassination within a specific genre, I'd say it is supposed to be a "thriller". I'd say that with some reservations, however, as to say that it's a thriller it has precious few thrills.
Bronson and Ireland, in their last film together, make a likable pair. He is more restrained than usual and she has become a winning actress. But as a thriller the film is totally worthless. Its premise is downright silly and its pace is much too rushed.
I can't believe I sat through this garbage. Palm trees in D.C. (already mentioned), a dummy-as-dead-body bit so obviously artificial that I thought it was SUPPOSED to be a dummy ... until it left a bloodstain ... stilted dialogue, ridiculous plot. I think it's a shame that Jill Ireland's final film before her death was this stinker. Don't waste your time - I wish I hadn't. The only saving grace is that it was on cable, so I didn't waste my money on top of everything.
First off, I'm a huge Bronson fan, have been since the late '70s. I watched every film he made on the big screen since "Love and Bullets", which ironically was the beginning of his end as a big name, Hollywood-blockbuster star.<br /><br />I kept hoping that things would turn around for him, that he would make a really good film in the '80s, but that never happened. And I don't know what he was thinking when he signed with cheapjack studio Cannon and hack director J. Lee Thompson for most of his latter films.<br /><br />"Assasination" gave me some hopes when I saw that Peter Hunt was directing instead of Thompson but those hopes were quickly dashed. First off, the film looks incredibly cheap, like it was made for about 3 mil, minus Bronson's inflated salary (I heard he insisted on 5 mil per picture which is probably more than the rest of the budget for all his Cannon films). The White House scenes were filmed on the VA grounds in West LA - I was taking the bus when they were shooting. Nice job on recreating the white house but did no one think about getting the Palm trees out of the shots? Guess not.<br /><br />Secondly, the supporting cast is really bad. Ireland was dying of cancer and despite this she's not bad but the horrible Asian woman playing Bronson's sidekick was typical of Cannon's talent at the time --non-existent. I would be real curious to learn how she got this role. I can't imagine a worse actress for the part, plus she's a good 40 years younger than Bronson! The story is not that bad and it's something that bigger and better-budgeted studios did later (Eastwood's "In the Line of Fire" and Costner's "Bodyguard" film) but the way it's staged here is really sad. I'm wondering if they could not afford to do more than one or two takes per shot. None of it is believable in the slightest. If Secret Service men really behaved like the keystone cops in this movie we'd have presidents rotating out of office (and out of life) every few months...
Charles Bronson has given the viewers lots of great moments on the screen. But this movie lacks everything that a thriller/action-movie should have. There are a few action scenes in the movie, but they're really crappy. And when the action scenes fail, does the story save the film? Not at all, is my answer to that. The story is even worse than the action scenes. It's very straightforward and boring, and even though I'm a big movie fan, I almost fell asleep several times. I don't know how they came up with a failure like this. A low budget, maybe? Regardless of that, it looked like all the actors had no interest in being in the movie at all. When that happens, the result is really bad.
Secret Service agent Jay Killion (Charles Bronson) has been assigned to protect the President-elect's wife, the new First Lady (Jill Ireland). She is a very difficult woman and Killion has his hands full. She is the victim of numerous assassination attempts, all directed by the President's Chief of Staff, who wants the First Lady dead. This movie insults your intelligence with not only the story line, but also with the lack of realistic locations. For example, in the scene depicting the Inaugural Parade, the First Lady is in a Rolls Royce convertible with agent Killion and without the President. Also, we know what Washington, DC, is like weather wise in January, and not only is everybody "top coat less", you can even see some palm trees in the 70 degree and sunny weather! (Obviously filmed in Hollywood, not Washington, DC). This movie is a joke. It is not worth your time.
Lame. Lame. Lame. Ultralame. Shall I go on? There is one, I repeat *one* funny scene in this entire, drawn-out, anti-amusing Amateur Hour Special of a film: Fares Fares' fat father knocking someone over with his beer gut. That's it. The rest of this shockingly mediocre pile of nothingness consists of the usual trademark bored-looking Swedish "actors" delivering dialogue which goes into one ear and out of the other, a banal story, sloppy direction and, well, little else worth mentioning. Nepotistically cast Fares Fares is as charismatic as a chartered accountant and his nose rivals even that of Adrien Brody in terms of sheer ridiculous hugeness. Torkel Petersson should only work with Lasse Spang Olsen. The rest of the cast is, luckily, easily forgettable, whereas Fares' humongous, titanic nose will forever haunt me in my dreams.<br /><br />Josef Fares helps ruin Swedish cinema. Don't support him and his nonsense. Jalla Jalla is to comedies what Arnold Schwarzenegger is to character acting, Kopps would have been much more respectable if it had been a no-budget Youtube video, and Zozo was simply the most pretentious, pseudo-touching garbage ever unleashed by a Swedish director. Wake up and smell the roses: Swedish movies can be so much better than this, so stop pretending Fares' flicks are worth watching simply because they're "good to be Swedish". Please.
If this movie would have been in English, all critics would have trashed it. The language is extremely bad, the scenes are awfully directed and it's not at all funny. After the movie I thought that this movie could have been written by an 8th grader, at least if you consider the lack of believable characters and the fixation on certain male body parts. (oh, on dogs as well...) The story is just plain nonsense compared to the more mature Vingar av glas that premiered almost at the same time. Of course the public chose Jalla! Jalla! while Vingar av glas got little attention.<br /><br />What was really disturbing for me was the fact that the movie looked really bad. That was probably due to the fact that first time director Josef Fares used really cheap camera equipment and then decided to just play around with it, for fun I suppose. The result, however, is a movie that can easily be split into 12 short films with a new directorial style in each one of them. This was very frustrating. Maybe Josef Fares should have stayed with his short films since that seems to be the only art form he can master.<br /><br />Another disturbing fact is that the story does not hold together. At several times in the middle of the movie, the story has to move on very quickly and the characters then run into one another in a way that is just too unbelievable. <br /><br />And then I have not mentioned the 2-dimensional characters, especially those in the supporting roles. <br /><br />Even though I consider this one of the worst Swedish films of the 90s as well as one of the most overrated, it is kind of understandable that the public liked it. I mean, bad taste has always been the trademark of the masses...<br /><br />I'm more surprised that the critics enjoyed it. They should have known better...<br /><br />Grade 2 of 10<br /><br />
The script is very weak & there is no depth in the characters. The story telling is not the importing thing here. The unnecessary action & Scenes does not really help this one. One of the worst movies in Sweden´s history of films.
The appeal of this film has to be the artsy Euro style, because there's absolutely no substance. A bunch of stuff happens that seems to be going somewhere... but it never gets there.<br /><br />It's difficult to come up with a full 10 lines of commentary, because this film is such a totally empty experience. There's lots of nice photography of a cemetery, some really lame zombie effects, some flashes of what might pass for surrealist humor, and a feeble, existentialist ending. These elements undermine each other. Just when you might be enjoying the creepy mood, there's some silliness with bouncing heads or zombie sex. To keep from screaming with boredom, you clutch at the minimal story line - and it disintegrates into ridiculous illogic. It's like someone took several half-baked B movies and tossed them in a blender.<br /><br />What comes out is mostly a film *about* meaninglessness - and *not* a good one. Clearly, it will impress that category of art-house fan who sees emptiness as indistinguishable from depth. Everyone else should stay well clear of this dreary mess.
I am utterly astonished at how over-rated "Cemetery Man" is among horror fans! Now, I usually welcome movies that blend two or more kinds of genre-styles into one and I love just about every zombie-comedy I have ever seen. To my dismay, this Italian cult-classic really didn't show me a lot to get too pumped up about... It follows the unusual duties of a full-time cemetery care-taker and his retarded, man-child, Curly Joe looking assistant as they seem to primarily dispose of the recently deceased who pop out of the ground seven days after their initial death. He meets a widow whom he "wows" with some grisly grave-yard atmosphere and develops a quick romance, soon having sex with her on her dead husband's grave. The husband's corpse springs alive and bites her, triggering a series of events that seem to consume the rest of the movie. "Cemetery Man" attempts to incorporate every element it can, like horror, romance, comedy, action, and fails entirely in the long-run. It plods along, never able to focus on any aspect long enough to make it interesting for the viewer, such as the paunchy sidekick's relationship with a living severed head, a motorcycle riding zombie launching out of the ground, the main character deciding to gun down random people on the sidewalk, etc. This thing is so convoluted and dull that it's nearly impossible to take it seriously. Sure, it's stylish and often "elegant", but even the most "artsy" kind of films need the right kind of lineage to allow it to make sense. "Cemetery Man" plods along, appearing unable to focus on anything for more than a few minutes which becomes very tiring after a while. People argue that "it's a more sophisticated zombie movie". Frankly, when it comes to zombies, I don't want anything more "sophisticated" than Romero... There's a little bit of gore and nudity - mainly in the scenes where it wants to play "horror movie", but not nearly enough to make up for it's uncompromising lack of structure. Terrible film.
In Michele Soavi's confusing art-house zombie film, Dellamorte Dellamore, Rupert Everett plays Francesco, a caretaker in a cemetery where the dead don't stay buried for long. Aided by his simple assistant, Gnaghi, Francesco deals with the cemetery's zombie problem by either shooting the undead in the head or splitting their skulls with a spade.<br /><br />However, soon after falling for the mysterious beautiful widow of one of his recently interred, Francesco finds himself busier than ever before…<br /><br />Having garnered some particularly favourable comments from some of IMDb's more respected horror officianados, I decided to see what the fuss was all about. I've just finished watching the film, and I can honestly say that I haven't been this disappointed by a horror film for quite some time.<br /><br />With its dreary, muddled pseudo-philosophical plot, and an extremely bland performance from leading man Everett, Dellamorte Dellamore is an irritating and plodding mess that not even some splattery gore (courtesy of Sergio Stivaletti) and welcome gratuitous nudity (from busty Anna Fialchi) can save. I am at a loss to understand the amount of in-depth analysis and discussion that this pretentious bilge has received from its misguided fans.
Dreadful. I hope I can save two hours of your life by warning you away from this. I just finished watching the film, BTW.<br /><br />I love good cross genre films. This isn't one of them. Show me a sci-fi musical, a dramatic farce, or a religious action flick, I'll watch them all. But you cannot just throw epigrammatic quips at a rambling, camp, schlock-horror fest and draw my applause.<br /><br />I love philosophical films. This isn't one of them. Anyone who is amazed at the depths of intellect plumbed in this film hasn't read a good book lately. Or ever. The "thought-provoking" dialogue is trite, at best. Perhaps it lost something in the translation.<br /><br />I love a good horror-comedy. This isn't one of them. Laugh! I thought I'd never start! Squirm? Only when trying to think of a polite way to phrase my feedback of the film to the friend who recommended it.<br /><br />Rupert is incongruously good in the setting of this film, but even he cannot resurrect it. I only wish he had shot the director instead if the zombies.<br /><br />For shame, that the land that gave rise to The Inferno should also give rise to this. Dante would be spinning in his grave.
When this series aired I watched most of it. I think it was supposed to be a long running series in the vein of "The Fugitive" and "The Incredible Hulk" where the protagonist is being chased around the country looking for a solution to his problems. In this case the hero's problem is his progressive aging in reverse. I liked what I saw of these shows. The acting was good especially the sorrowful relationship between the lead character and his wife. Problem is: They cancelled it before it had a chance to end. (either that or I missed the last episodes).<br /><br />They never got a chance to wrap up the story either, knowing it had been cancelled. Poof it was just gone. However, like I said before I might have missed the last episodes. But my proof to the contrary is this: I rented the tape. Where I left off in the series. The lead character's wife dies in a fire started by a chase involving King's famous organization the Shop. While getting away hero is kidnapped. It ends with his friends realizing they have to go save him from the Shop. The end. Last episode. On the video: His wife does not die but escapes the fire with him. Right when he should get nabbed by the Shop, he and his wife share a weird moment then phase out of existence. Abrupt, silly and cheap to the extreme. They just wanted to put this video out and decided to tag on an ending not caring how bad it was. They might as well of just shown some stock footage of the first atomic bomb detonations. Almost Pythonesque.<br /><br />The show did have a cool opening title sequence set to the David Bowie song of the same name
Firstly, this is NOT an adaptation of a Stephen King book, short story, novella, or anything else. From EW's Web site, and their review on the show when it first aired, "...he never writes down to his audience, and he never betrays contempt for his subjects. His first original work for television, Stephen King's ''Golden Years'' (CBS, July 16, 9-11 p.m.), is no exception."<br /><br />The series was apparently going to be (as others have mentioned) an ongoing series, which is why we never saw the ending after the cliffhanger they left us on. But this was never quite made clear to the viewers who were left wondering how it all ends??<br /><br />When the series came out on videotape, it touted itself as having the "never-before-seen ending!" It should have said, "the should-never-be-seen ending!" <br /><br />*** Spoiler ***<br /><br />The very ending was the only significant part changed for the video (though parts of the whole were left out), and that changed ending was what destroyed the story. For example, rather than our two intrepid FBI agents realizing that they were now labeled as bad guys and on the run from the evil Jude Anderson of The Shop (as originally broadcast), Jude simply walks up to them... And they shoot him. Bang, dead, and no real emotion to speak of in the scene. Ditto on the bit with Harlan and his wife going poof. Whereas the original ending left us with a spectacular cliff-hanger, on the video, they simply get out of the cock-a-doodie car.<br /><br />*** End Spoiler ***<br /><br />It was a sad ending to a rather well made mini-series, and makes the video completely not worth buying, or even renting. Sincerely, save your money and your time.
I remember when this show came out. It was originally advertised as a mini-series. At the end of the last episode it said "To Be Continued" to the dismay of all the people who had watched the whole boring beyond words thing. It ended as it was supposed to, so yes, you can blame the series for having no ending. The plan was for there to be another obviously if ratings had been higher, but it was a boring show that way too long, and annoyed people by not ending when it said it would, so they never made any more. Quite a few of the comments blame its cancellation and lack of ending on the viewing public, when the truth is that for this show that is not the case, it ended the way it was actually planned to end, it is just a lousy ending.
Please -- if you haven't attempted to sit through this garbage and are considering viewing this flick/mini-series -- do yourself a favor and find anything else to do. Floss your teeth, start learning to play the cello, beat your dog -- anything you choose will be time better spent than watching this junk. This is not a bad movie that you can get a few chuckles out of -- it simply sucks in every way possible. Just boring from beginning to end.<br /><br />And for those animal lovers out there that feel my comment above is insensitive -- if your dog could speak, he or she would beg for a beating rather than suffer through watching this mess.
I really hated this movie and it's the first movie written by Stephen King that I didn't finish. I was truly disappointed, it was the worst crap I've ever seen. What were you thinking making three hours out of it? It may have a quite good story, but actors? No. Suspense? No. Romance? No. Horror? No. It didn't have anything.<br /><br />It's got this strange, crazy science man with Einstein-hair, the classic thing. Not real at all. And a man keep getting younger all the time. It seems like they just used the name of Stephen King to make a crappy, too long movie with nothing exciting at all.<br /><br />I give this movie "1 (awful)". If they had like -5, I would probably take that instead. It was a total waste of time.
ok, i am really into King's stuff, but this is just dreadful. the whole movie, i am waiting for the main character to do something profound with his new youth and power. i can tolerate the worst of movies, as anything is better than watching a cut movie with commercials in it. but this takes the cake. i gave it a 2, and i would never recommend it to anyone.
I love Stephen Kings work and the book was great but I was very disappointed when I bought this movie on DVD. This was one of the worst B-movies I have ever seen. It feels like they had a tight schedule and only took one shot at every scene even if it turned out to be a bad one. And where did they find the actors.
This is without question the worst screen adaptation of a Stephen King work, if not the WORST MOVIE OF ALL TIME! This is an unbelievably horrible movie. I fell asleep on this stinker several times and I wasn't tired! I would rather shoot myself than sit through it again!
Okay, I guess I'm pretty much a fan of spindled, mutilated, and destroyed Stephen King stories (when they reach the 'Screen') as any of us sad Masochists out here. I KNOW full well that most of them are done poorly. I EXPECT it. I PLAN on it. I humbly allow for it...<br /><br />But, THIS time... GEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ... Okay, so I THINK I saw this thing a number of years ago..., fine. I THOUGHT I remembered that it was pretty good... WRONG... Like I'm saying (granted in a wordy, annoying, roundabout way : ) I really wasn't trying to be snobby or expect much, but what was this thing, a Mini-Series? I have only ONE thing to say: D......R.....A.....W......N O.....U.....T How can you POSSIBLY justify dragging the thing out minute by minute, scene by scene of friggin' ENDLESS, completely MEANINGLESS, and mind numbingly SLOW dialog? I mean EVERY bl**dy scene is two people 'DISCUSSING' how they feel and back and forth and D...R...A...G I...T bl**dy well O...U...T After about an hour and a half, which I THINK is about 1/2 of the running time (I didn't check, sorry : ) I FINALLY got totally fed up! After an hour and a half what had happened OTHER than the original accident...? They were running away while the 'Shop' guy was killing eye doctors, news photographers, and LOTS & LOTS & LOTS of meandering dialog.<br /><br />I'm sorry, I promise that it is not that I have to have non-stop mindless action; I love LOTS of films where not much happens, but in them at least when they DO talk and such MEANINGFUL things are being said and characters are being deepened, thoughts are being conveyed... SOMETHING!!!??? Okay, I admit that the actors in and of themselves were not too bad (except Stephen King, of course : ) I liked the Shop guy, I thought both of the 'older' people were fine. I liked the General and the main woman. It's just if they could have cut out all of the HOURS of filler, that's all I'm saying. I mean, it's SUPPOSED to be a Sci Fi Thriller, sort of..., right? you know what really took the prize when the Shop guy was needlessly making one of his MANY time filling telephone calls, this time he is talking to God knows WHO getting all emotional (for him anyway) and acting like he can't handle it... WTF!!!??? The guy has clearly been shown to be a cold blooded, efficient killer. What the HELL was THAT about??? So, just multiply that by about 500 and that is basically why I finally turned if off about half way through; it was either that or hang myself, I swear! I mean there are other King 'adaptations' out there that are lame, but at least they MOVE ALONG...! Oh well, I guess perhaps if you MAYBE are into the 'story' itself and don't mind crawling along and have the SUPREME & DIVINE patience to wait until the end, it might be worthwhile.<br /><br />But, I sincerely and humbly doubt it...<br /><br />I don't write these things very often, but THIS time I just HAD to or I wouldn't be able to sleep at night (like I did DURING the show! : )
First of all, the nature in the movie is beautiful, and there is a bit of Mongolian music. Well, the horses looked Mongolian and the camels, but that's about all what was Mongolian in it. Oh, Borte is played by a Mongolian actress, albeit a lame performance. But she is pretty, which redeems a bit the lack of performance on her part.<br /><br />But, I totally failed to understand what was the point of this painful-to- watch piece of 1.30 hour fantasy created by Mr.Bodrov. The plot totally lacked any sense of cohesion. There was no logic behind the development of the plot. In fact, there was hardly any story at all, just a number of loosely tied scenes with a bunch of guys in "Mongolian" clothes, speaking some kinda pidgin that is supposed to sound like Mongolian. Most actors were either Japanese, Russian or Chinese, most scenes were shot in China, Kazakhstan or Russia and there were a lot of disturbing pathos about what is it to be a "Mongolian". The dialog is primitive and the scenes with dialog are slow. The battle scenes are laughable. All the supernatural pathos is lame and is obviously there only to make up for the lack of the story.<br /><br />The Japanese actor was like a wooden doll, and looking at him one wouldn't get any idea how this person could become a leader who could unite the nomadic tribes. He looked sleepy, soft, stiff and pitiful for the most part of the movie.<br /><br />And I don't even want to start on the subject of the historical relevance of this piece of cinematic waste. To see Chinggis-khan half of the movie as a slave, to see his two first kids be born from other men, to see his wife selling herself to the Tangut merchant... my blood starts to boil. And where is the beautiful story about the friendship between Temujin and Jamukha? One could make a great movie out of it. Where is the story of the rise of Temujin? Of his childhood, of his relationship with his family, with his brothers, of how he struggled to survive among mighty enemies of his family? where is Van khan, who helped him a lot? where is the depiction of life in the steppe, of the life of the nomads, of their traditions, of their relations with the other nations around them?<br /><br />Where is development of the characters? We totally fail to see what brought Temujin together with Jamukha and what brought them apart and most important, how Temujin became Chinggis-khan, how he, an outcast with no wealth and military power managed to unite the Mongolian tribes and create such an organized and effective war machine that crushed one nation after another and created the largest land empire in history. All this could make several interesting and dramatic stories with complicated plots and deep characters, but unfortunately we didn't see any of it in Bodrov's creation, not even a glimpse.
I went to see this film because it was recommended to my wife and she wanted to go.<br /><br />We were both trying to look at our watches well before the film ended, in order to see how much more we had to endure. Two hours and six minutes long, it is. It's divided roughly equally between battle scenes (about a dozen of them, all more or less interchangeable), and plot development.<br /><br />One would have thought that with the subject being the son of a minor tribal chief who conquers half the world, plotting would have been relatively easy. There's a fair bit of raw material there from which to make a pretty good story. However the writers fluffed it completely. We get no real history. We get instead a Hollywood version of history.<br /><br />What sustains young Temudjin through his long -- almost endless, actually, or so they seem to the viewer -- tribulations? Why, the love of a good woman, of course.<br /><br />How does he get out of prison? Well, an old monk, who recognizes his innate goodness and greatness, sets out across the continent to take to this good woman a talisman that symbolises Temudjin's love for her, dropping dead just close enough to her for her to find him as he lies there, talisman in his hand. And of course she then goes and, having (inexplicably) become rich and powerful, rescues him.<br /><br />How does he escape from the shackles? Well, he goes off to the shrine of the great wolf-god Tengri (or some such name) and Tengri sets him free by magic. Yeah, right.<br /><br />Why does he want to become ruler of the Mongols? The wolf-god again, apparently. Off goes Temudjin to ask for guidance, and -- surprise! surprise! -- he gets it. "Laws," he says to himself. "What the Mongols need are laws. Good, simple ones." Golly, it was impressive.<br /><br />And then finally, how does he win the decisive battle against his rival's more powerful forces? Better tactics, certainly, but also through the aid of the good old wolf-god again, who sends a storm at the height of the battle. All the troops cower as the thunder rolls and the lightning flashes (Mongols are scared of thunder, you see) -- but not our Temudjin. The troops, completely wowed by his bravery, acclaim him king! <br /><br />I don't know what induces people to keep producing this kind of garbage. The funny thing is it's interspersed with all sorts of gritty realism: lots of slurping of milk, dirt and violence. It's as if the producers of this movie wanted to get the trivial things right so that viewers wouldn't notice how infantile some of the big stuff is.<br /><br />There's heaps of violence in graphic close-up: slashings, impalings, spouts of blood, sprays of blood, clouds of blood -- the blood guys had a great time, actually. Despite the realism, it's impossible to take seriously.<br /><br />I must mention the ludicrous CGI final battle scene. How anyone can think these things look realistic is beyond me. They don't. Oh, and it's all shot in the standard Hollywood style -- breathtaking panoramas for the spectacular scenery, and the super-close-up Stedicam stuff for the battle scenes. And the standard Dolby super-sound-effects of whumps and thumps and the constant low-frequency hum to sustain tension.<br /><br />Tedious.<br /><br />Avoid.
Have seen this movie today. Very disappointed and wondered how it could be in the Oscar shortlist. The most sad things are:<br /><br />1. It's very slow. <br /><br />2. How Ghengis-khan, cruel and mighty emperor of Asia can be played by a kind, good actor with warm and lovely eyes - during all the movie except one scene? <br /><br />3. Lot of holes in the plot: there's nothing about how he became the emperor; nothing about where he spend 20 years between his childhood and mature age. We see an ex-slave without money, power, friends or home. Click! - the very next second he's leading the huge army, without any reasons to be a leader. <br /><br />4. The magic of Ghengis-khan arise is kindly explained only by the help of one wolf/god/whoever it was. <br /><br />5. Can a man make love to his wife THAT way after not seeing her for years? <br /><br />6. Is it enough to win the sword fight if you just riding your horse through the enemy lines, sitting there with two swords and everybody around you dies? Does Ridley Scott know that way? <br /><br />7. Why after 20-30 years Khan's mother doesn't look older? <br /><br />8. What is the motivation for the main character? (None. Literally.)<br /><br />Don't waste your time. Really. Cinematographers's work is good; the nature is outstanding - but the movie cannot be made without director and script. The real Ghengis-khan would execute director in a second.<br /><br />Kind regards.
This movie was lacking in a lot of areas. It's about this Elvis type guy who races cars and is approached by these BIKERS from SATANS ANGELS. One of them is named Banjo and they beat up college kids for fun. THey want the Elvis guy to be their "driver". At times, I wanted the folks from MSTK3000 to be quiet because the movie was actually kind of good. Sure, there was violence and a lot of cheesy lines, such as "What kind of beer do you want? A COLD ONE". That was cheesy. The dude who plays Banjo is a great boxer and I was glad to see him do a few fight scenes. Also, the biker named FATS had a NAZI SWASTIKA on his jacket!!! That was pretty bold if I must say so myself.
This movie begins with a man who appears to be some sort of sports driver. He meets up with a gang which contains an arrogant boss, an obvious idiot, a fat boy who never speaks, and a woman who rotates between the three of them. The group which is called Satan's Angels, wants Rod, the driver, as their personal driver. He says no but then says yes after the authorities make him a spy to check on them. They rob a weapon shop in a ridiculously plot-missing scene. The scene involves the woman walking into the store with her long hair in a bun and large circular glasses on. She says she wants protection and wants the shopkeeper to load the gun to show her how. She then takes it from the shopkeeper and shoots him. The other three in the gang (excluding Rod) run into the store. They take everything off the walls and then proceed to play with it like children receiving their toys on Christmas Day.<br /><br />This movie surely wastes no precious screen time with a plot.
Not really all that much to this movie...either a stunt racer or a stock car racer has a flaming car in the beginning of the movie, goes to bar, is approached by a biker gang who ruins his chances with a very lovely lady, offer him a job, he goes back to their place, refuses, the police ask him to accept their ya go!!! What plays out is a very annoying little film that sees the hero not really do all that much and a biker gang that can kill and for some reason the police can not pin a crime on them. I am not sure why the female biker did what she did at the end, but hey it is a bad movie, you always get scenes that make little sense. I am still trying to figure out if I misheard it when they said the hero of the piece was a stunt car driver. They may have said stock car driver because why would a stunt racer be racing and I wouldn't think it would be all that uncommon for a stunt car to crash. The actors are bad, and all the bikers are pretty annoying and the hero is kind of incompetent...really this movie is not full of kicks but it is the pits.
Ah, another movie with motorcycles, hell's angels posse and Steve A-Lame-o as the not-so-cool car driver. This movie does not rely on story but lots of drinking, pot smoking, and lots of moronic acts. Steve's rendition of a dying cat during his "I love what I know" serenade had me vomiting for hours. Bike chick Linda (rrrr) makes out with everyone! Fats did the best acting since he just grunts and makes sounds. I also dare you to try to make out what Banjo is saying. "You messin' wit private stock." This is scriptwriting folks.<br /><br />I liked the ending. What better place to have the climax than a lighthouse! You have to see this to detest it.<br /><br />DIE Jeter, DIE!!!
No that its sick. It's not sick. It made me want to puke because I spent 2 dollars on it. Its boring, Retarded, and annoying. I didn't see the MST3K version, which sucks because I bet the MST3K version was funny. It's sad that people waste money on these kinds of movies. I'm surprised its not on the "100 Worst Movies of All Time List".<br /><br />TromaDude's Rating- 0 outta ***** stars
Recap: A lone swordsman, living in the desert and acting as an agent to other swordsmen, recollects how his life turned out to be as it is. It started with that the woman he loved chose to marry his brother instead, causing him to leave his home town. One of the swordsmen is Huang who is himself in the middle of a complicated love story, where a woman wants to have him killed for having ran away from a promise to marry her younger sister. But the sister wants to hire a swordsman to have Huang protected, and everything is put to an edge when the woman and her sister is really the same person.<br /><br />Comments: I've seen the Redux version released in 2008 of the original that was released in 1994. How the two versions differ I can't say, but the Redux is very heavily stylized in the way of Chinese Wuxia action. That is unfortunate as that style to me seems to have forgotten one of the most important elements of a successful and entertaining movie. A comprehensible story. But true to its style scenery and visual elements seem much more important and much more in focus of writer and director Kar Wai Wong. Therefore there are lots of colorful, very beautiful scenes, that are completely unrelated to the story.<br /><br />The editing and timeline of the story is also mishandled. Much is left out in the scenes, the time line is broken and rearranged in a confusing way. Very slow and calm scenes are suddenly relieved by surprisingly brutal and seemingly unmotivated fights, only to themselves being relieved by something else and unrelated. The result is a confusing and very uninteresting movie.<br /><br />Thanks to these brutal but very few fights, the movie is put into the action genre. The poster and photographs also imply this but could almost be regarded as false marketing. Only a few minutes out of the 90 could be considered as anything like action, the other couldn't be farther away from it. The movie in its entirety is very slow, dull and hence very boring. Not even the rare action filled scenes help since they are so disconnected from the rest of the movie.<br /><br />I might say that I'm not a fan of this Chinese style, since they often seem to be afflicted of these same problems, most importantly that the visual is more important than the story, but Ashes of Time Redux is perhaps the worst example I've seen.<br /><br />3/10
"Ashes of Time" was an audacious project but ended up being a pretentious movie. This film is a good example of how to tell a simple story in a complex manner. The plot of "Ashes of Time" is fairly simple and comes down to two words: "love triangle". Because of those "love triangles" crossing stories, jealousy, hate and love are the main dynamics displayed by the characters. The narrative part is seen through Ou-yang Feng's eyes (Leslie Cheung). Ou-yang Feng lives in the desert, where he acts as middleman to various swordsmen and becomes the tool of Destiny through which vengeance is achieved. Unfortunately "Ashes of Time" fails in telling these simple stories of love and hate. Wong Kar-wai lost himself driven by a desire to make each frame of the film a painting and an aesthetic experience. In fact beside the casting of beautiful actors (men and women) everything else is a failure in this movie. Dialogs are minimalists and not original at all. Picture's quality is very much unequal, the editing is one of the worst ever seen (at least by me) in the "swordplay" genre and finally the filming of the rare sword fight is very confusing and unappealing. Even the attempt of building artistic scenes is not always achieved: the so call erotic "women on a horse" scene is ridiculous, not erotic and useless. Wong Kar-wai wanted to deliver 100 minutes of pure aesthetic experience and forgot that a film is first about how a plot is told. By forgetting that he delivers an awkward movie that doesn't even fulfill its artistic objective.
As I sit back after watching Wong Kar-wai's 1994 movie Ashes of Time – more specifically the 2008 re-edit and re-release with the word 'Redux' slapped on the end of the title – I wonder what went wrong. I wonder why the film just didn't work out at all. I wonder why the movie failed to score any major points in my book. In particular, what was it about the film which dragged it down, and made it the director's worst film of his career?<br /><br />Well it's not too hard to figure out really. Let me just say that it truly is a shame that Kar-wai so abruptly went down this hell-hole of mediocrity and poorness in moviedom, especially considering the fact that in the same year he released Chungking Express, one of his enduring legacies and an absolutely sublime film. So – what went wrong? It would be suitable to consider Ashes of Time as somewhat of an experimental film. Our director essentially places his own inimitable style of film-making and places it in an entirely different setting, mood and atmosphere; what results is a catastrophic film which is all over the place and simply does not work out. Hence, it would be even wiser to call Ashes of Time a failed experiment. Bold, audacious and innovative, but a failure nonetheless.<br /><br />Let me elaborate. Those who have seen the films of Mr. Kar-wai, a Hong Kong-born film auteur who's made his mark on the art-house world since his debut in the late-80's, will know that there is an overriding aesthetic which binds all of his movies together; essentially and frankly speaking, they're all colourful, thought-provoking, amiable, subtly humorous and meaningful evocations of life, love and loss. The same formula is transposed into Ashes of Time; however, the regular setting of Hong Kong is ridden of, and in its stead we're placed into the setting of ancient China, and the land of the legendary martial arts warriors and clansmen.<br /><br />Intertwined into this quasi-adventure/historical caper is the typical Kar-wai love story, this time involving an elegiac hit-man who has moved to the middle of the desert, and is carrying out contract killings. However, I must stop myself there; description of characters is a useless thing to do. Why? Because not a single character in Ashes of Time is worth mentioning or nothing. What a bland cast, and what a waste of talent (the case of Ashes of Time contains nearly all regular Kar-wai collaborators).<br /><br />Not only that, but the film is essentially endless incessant rambling in a horrendous, almost non-existent narrative structure. One of the main reasons why detractors of Ashes of Time berate it is because it seems to possess no plot whatsoever, let alone a semblance or an indication of one. You can definitely see what they're getting at, even from the first two, three minutes, maybe less, of the film. Perhaps it's just the atypical setting of ancient China which is unaccustomed and inappropriate for Kar-wai's typical film-making style. I like to think, however unfortunate it may be, that Mr. Kar-wai just stuffed up big time here.<br /><br />One thing that a reviewer can actually compliment in Ashes of Time, albeit said compliment being starkly isolated, is another director trademark – wonderful, colourful and blissful aesthetics. What joyous colour is composed on-screen, what glorious textures are painted for us, and what breathtaking landscapes and imagery are captured for us throughout the entire movie. We can at least take this as a sign that Wong Kar-wai is still there at heart, and it's just the film which is so atypical, and buries his usually commendable nuance. Although the visuals aren't enough for us to fully absolve Kar-wai for this disastrous venture, they're enough to make the film worthwhile – and at least we don't walk out of the movie in a completely and totally cantankerous mood, now that there's something we can think of nicely.<br /><br />The film is essentially a 'wuxia art' film, following in the style of, say, legendary Japanese filmmaker Akira Kurosawa. However, one thing differentiates Kar-wai's film from Kurosawa's best, and that's that in the Japanese director's films everything gels together and simply works. In Ashes of Time, nothing seems to work. Kar-wai's attempt to make a genuinely profound wuxia film, let alone an intellectual and provocative movie in general terms, is a futile endeavour.<br /><br />Kar-wai claims that making Ashes of Time exhausted him, and that he needed time to clear his head. It must've certainly been a fatiguing effort on his behalf, as his exertions are embodied in the film and transferred to us directly – I mean, just watching the film is an exhausting effort, and now I need time to clear my head of this unpleasant movie-going experience.
Disclaimer: During my ventures into foreign cinema, I have taken a liking to a wide variety of movies that span different genres that include horror, action, drama, comedy, and romance, to name a few. Thus, I have enjoyed the thoughtful, serious tone of dramas as well as the mindless, popcorn fun of action films. With a wide array of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean movies under my belt, I am confident in my ability to recognize bright spots in movies to appreciate and complement. Unfortunately, Ashes of Time has nothing to recognize. It is one of the worst Chinese movies I have ever seen.<br /><br />To start off, this overrated swordplay epic showcases the infamous "slideshow" action sequence throughout, which is nothing more than an ultra-cheap and pathetic form of action choreography. One simply needs to show a series of close-up pictures of grimising faces, swords, legs and/or arms, and then a dead body. Bravissimo! You now have an action sequence for Ashes of Time. The problem lies not only in its poor quality but also in the fact that the scenes are so chaotic and disjointed that the viewer has no idea what the hell is going on.<br /><br />The dramatic element of this film is nonexistent, as it relies on the characters telling the viewer that they love someone or hate someone instead of actually developing and showing such elements on screen, which renders all characters generic and colorless, leaving the viewer completely indifferent to their actions. In fact, the storyline itself is an absolute disaster, introducing way too many characters way too quickly with way too many plot devices. Plot complexities in films can be used very advantageously (i.e., A Tale of Two Sisters), but Ashes of Time becomes exploitative trash when it does nothing more than convolute a very simple plot for no apparently good reason.<br /><br />In fact, this entire movie acts like a series of smokescreens to cover up its deficiencies. Horrible action choreography is covered up by "slideshow" tricks and chaotic camera movements. Non-existent character development is covered up by the characters overtly saying how they feel. And a thoughtless storyline is covered up by confusing the viewer with convolution.<br /><br />As if this weren't bad enough, this movie was extremely boring, seeming more like 150 minutes instead of the actual 95.<br /><br />Rating = A rarely given 0/5 Stars.
The direction by Wong is perhaps the all time worst in film history I've ever seen. This film makes my all time worst film of 2000, Dungeons and Dragons by Courtney Soloman looked like an Oscar winner. The flaws in this movie is beyond explanation. The biggest one is the lack of depth. Every scene does not develop fully as if the editing room doesn't know how to do their job correctly. Its a shame that with such an all-star cast of talents and a famous popular traditional story can be destroyed by this lack of vision.<br /><br />I am so disgusted and hope that some great director like John Woo or Ang Lee, decide to remake this film and do some justice. I'm not even sure if I can rate 0/10??
Your ability to enjoy The Ashes of Time may depend on our expectations before stepping into the theater. Even its most strident supporters seem to agree that audiences can be split right up the middle in their appreciation of this unique film.<br /><br />Unlike most HK actioners, the battle scenes are curiously kept at a distance. When they do happen, they're rendered in a jerky style in which it's difficult to make out exactly what's occurring on screen. The dramatic scenes can be extravagantly beautiful, with the of Maggie Cheung, Brigitte Lin, and a roll-call of HK's top acting talent chewing up the scenery. As with some of Wong Kar-wai's early work, the dialog could be more precise. <br /><br />In short, The Ashes of Time requires a forgiving attitude. Released around the same time as Wong Kar-wai's spectacularly successful Chungking Express, it's clear that the director isn't as confident working with the elements of the martial arts film. Anyone looking for tense action is likely to be disappointed. But those intrigued by the director's aesthetic will likely find this a unique experience at the very least.
The trailers for this movie promised and this movie delivered exactly what was promised: Good campy fun with lots of very good looking naked broads! If you were expecting a major Hollywood movie with major stars, stellar budgets, and MPAA tamed money shots, you will be *very* disappointed.<br /><br />However, if you are a fan of the old "B" movies with unknown, but very good looking young stars that act amazingly well, given the material, some hokey, but surprisingly well done special effects, and very tight naked nubile bodies, this movie is almost heaven!
This is one of those movies where the acting, set location, direction, and effects were so bad you need to rent a copy get 5 or 6 buddies, a keg of beer, sit down and watch it. To borrow from the late Douglas Adams, "Watching this movie will be like having your brains smashed out by a slice of lemon... wrapped around a large gold brick.".<br /><br />What is wrong? Everything. British actors posing as Americans, there have been many that can pull it off like Bob Hoskins but he isn't in this one. It wasn't even necessary to choose North America as a location why not say it took place in England or something? The director seemed to like taking shots of girls tits and asses more than actually coming up with some kind of character motivation. So at this point you drunken buddies will be saying, "ALL RIGHT! Another T&A shot!". There isn't much dialog so feel free to skip off to the kitchen and make those sandwiches. What did I like about this movie? After my friends passed out, I managed to collect $185 off of them and told them they spent it at the strip bar after we finished watching the awful movie.
I've read other hacks' reviews of this movie, and while it certainly isn't the best movie ever made in the sci-fi / horror genre, it isn't THAT bad if you accept it for what it is - low-budget, b-movie fare that (shall we say) "borrows heavily" from the likes of 'Alien' (nasty extraterrestrial monster that cocoons its victims) 'Species' (gorgeous and confused "space girl") and 'Incubus' (the beastie-breeding-with-captive-girls angle). This is one seriously cheesy movie, and the whole thing was obviously done on a shoestring budget, although the alien isn't too bad (I've seen far less convincing men-in-rubber-suits at any rate). None of the acting is Oscar material and the Isle Of Man doesn't really double for Boston Massachussetts very convincingly. The plot is fairly predictable too and the premise that an alien craft would travel squillions of miles and crash land smack bang in the middle of an all-girls college campus - thus conveniently providing a rich source of perfect breeding victims - is utterly laughable. However, the movie does have its suspenseful moments, there's a few helpings of nudity and semi-nudity and the film does feature one of the few movie appearances by the beautiful and tragic model / actress Kadamba Simmons (as the "Space Girl") who, at the age of only 24, was murdered in London by her jealous boyfriend shortly after making this film.
Of all the movies in the history of movies I can't imagine someone sitting down and saying, I want to spend X amount of dollars (or pounds sterling) to remake that flawed classic film called "Breeders." Lots of stories have been turned into films about meteors coming to Earth with something sinister lurking inside. Why not put your money into making a spectacular 3D remake of "It Came from Outer Space" instead? Why look for a dingy nudie flick that existed only for the purpose of showing off a rubbery set of monsters and some naked coeds? Was the script for the 1986 version of "Breeders" so inspiring that these producers felt it had to be done again and this time done correctly? When you come down to it, the only reason this film exists is to show off Britcom cutie pie Samantha Janus. But if you're gonna make a skin flick and exploit Sam Janus in it, you'd better have her more naked than this and naked more often than this if you want to succeed.<br /><br />Meteor lands ... monster escapes ... coeds duff their clothes ... monster eats people ... and another "what if?" ending ensues.<br /><br />Honestly, I never thought I would ever recommend the original "Breeders" over any other film but this would be the one to come in 2nd Place to it.
Dire beyond belief. Obviously set on the Isle of Man masquerading as the US - very badly - and full of cut-rate British actors who can't do American accents. A monster that looks like an unarticulated promotional cut-out for Alien from a movie store, with the most inflexible feet ever seen. Girls in the shower, undressing, catfighting, blah, blah, blah. You get the idea. Don't watch it, run away, hide, AVOID.
It's strange what fate does to some people. While looking in the discount bin at a DVD retailer, I came across a copy of Deadly Instincts. Being a collector of any film that is either sci-fi, horror or featuring alien monsters, I decided to buy it (not to mention the fact that it cost five dollars – a bargain, believe me). After viewing it, I came to the opinion that it was nothing special. But after doing some research on the Internet, I discovered that the film was actually called Breeders & was a remake of the Tim Kincaid horror flick that menaced video stores in the mid-1980s. Which I've already seen. My appreciation of "Deadly Instincts" grew following that discovery.<br /><br />A meteorite crashes on the lawn next to a private girls' college. The sole teacher there, Ashley (played by Todd Jensen – that's right, the guy who gets turned into a cyborg in the cult flick CYBORG COP four years earlier), notices that some of the students are beginning to disappear, while encountering a black-haired woman with a scarred face & wearing a kinky leather outfit. His investigation reveals that an alien creature had hitched a ride on the meteorite & had come to Earth to breed using the local womenfolk. Along with a local detective who believes him to be responsible for the disappearances, Ashley tries to stop the monster.<br /><br />The original BREEDERS, directed by Tim Kincaid (who would leave the genre to make gay porn), was a sci-fi / horror film which was actually a thinly-veiled soft-core porn film designed to take skin flicks to genre fans. It is, in my belief, one of the worst films made in the 1980s. Why anyone would want to remake it is quite a mystery.<br /><br />This remake is actually a better effort than its low-budget source. The film, which takes the basic concept of an alien monster trying to interbreed with human women, eliminates any pornographic elements. In fact, the film is actually very tame. There are no sex scenes, no nudity (even during the shower scene), swearing & violence are kept to a minimal level & there is no gore (which may cheat gorehounds). This makes the remake a film safe for the whole family, that is if the kids aren't scared by alien monsters (which brings me to the film's M 15+ rating, which seems a bit much).<br /><br />Tameness of subject matter aside, the film does have some faults. The script, while featuring some good characterizations, has a number of holes so big you can crash a meteor through.<br /><br />What? You're mad at me for that? Come on, this review needed a bad pun so it will remain interesting.<br /><br />Anyway, the film's setting is one problem the script failed to fix – the film is set in Boston but the buildings don't look like they belong in Boston. Something about the architecture ain't right. Another thing is the college itself, with a rather large building housing about twenty students (all female, of course) & only having one class – art. The only teacher there has a relationship with a student (& so does the janitor!), which somehow escapes the attention of the principal. Not to mention the cops, who are so one-dimensional (& stupid) that the real Boston PD would have a good case if they ever decided to sue. Oh, & the meteor… well the chance that a meteor which is sent from Saturn (check the opening credits) reaches Earth with no onboard propulsion is astronomical. That doesn't include the chances that any passengers in the meteor will survive the landing.<br /><br />As far as the acting goes, Todd Jensen gives a dependable performance as the heroic teacher while the late Kadamba Simmons (who was murdered by her boyfriend shortly before the film came out) cuts a striking figure in that leather outfit, as well as proving she can act. The visual effects are run-of-the-mill, with credits due to the filmmakers for bringing us a cool-looking monster.
Imagine the most cliche ridden b-movie horror plot you can. Add more plot holes than plot. Have it scripted by a 10 year old. Have the acting done by A-Level drama students faking really bad US accents (in the Isle of Man!) Add monster special effects that the lovers of B&W Dr Who shows will appreciate. Result: duff film. Throw in Samantha Janus taking her clothes off (make a point of this on the cover) and you'll probably sell enough copies to make a profit anyway!
After a meteorite lands in "Boston" (really somewhere in the Isle of Man), a hideous, fanged alien monster is released and is on the loose in a local girl's school, causing mayhem and turning the students into zombie-like creatures. This film is apparently a loose (and I stress loose) remake of the 1986 film with the same name, as it features the same monster but a different plot. Both films are terrible, but to the credit of the 1986 version, it was watchable. This isn't. Let's start with all the problems—the acting, especially from the lead professor, was very, very bad. This film is supposed to take place in Boston (we know this because the film makers had the ingenious idea of putting "Boston police" or "Boston gas company" on everything), yet everyone seems to have rather muddled British accents (At least they didn't try using Boston accents, thank God). The script is a big flawed mess. The best example of how dumb the writing is when it's established that you can turn the zombie-students back into humans by removing a necklace containing a piece of the meteorite. Is that what our brave heroes do? No, they run around SHOOTING the zombie-students instead. Nice. Director Paul Matthews, who also wrote/directed the weak 1995 monster movie "Grim", clearly doesn't know how to pace his films. The movie is terribly boring in places. The lighting is awful. The film looks cheap and bland. One of the most disappointing aspects is the lack of notable gore. 99% of the death scenes involve the creature popping out of a dark corner and dragging someone away, while we hear they're "horrified" screams off in the distance. This convention never worked well in the past, and certainly doesn't work here. The visual effects were AWFUL. The CG opening sequence in space looked like it could have been created on Microsoft Slideshow for God's sake! The "explosion" of the Gas tanks at the end was just as awful. Okay, I like to consider myself a fair critic, so I'll give credit where credit's due--the creature effects were actually pretty cool. Gotta love those close-ups of slimy, drooling teeth!<br /><br />To sum the film up, "Breeders" is a terrible, cheaply made horror movie that should be avoided like the Ebola virus. Not recommended.<br /><br />1.5/10.
This was a pathetic movie. The Alien was decent, but the movie itself gave a new meaning to pitiful. The plot is something that's been done over and over again! However, this one does it the worst! The acting was c**p, the scenes were often too dark to get what was going on. No one developed any concern for the main character. The movie was far too slow paced, and the murder scenes that there were were foolishly crafted and ended up looking no more interesting than the rest of the movie. There are some movies which "suck" but can still be enjoyed because of there total outrageousness, but this doesn't even have that!! Whoever made this film thought that they could make something good and they failed miserably. There is nothing this movie has to offer except a headache. Avoid it!
College students (who are actually in their late 20's) on campus in Boston (which looks strangely like the Isle Of Man) are menaced by a fierce monster (assembled during a Blue Peter episode). The new teacher must save the day (Even though he is really... Oh, who cares?)<br /><br />I'll start with the positives... there is a nice shot of Eastenders new gal Samantha Janus's can in the obligatory campus shower scene with her best mate Katy Lawrence. A bit of side trivia: Katy was hired when she arrived at auditions with her sister, just as moral support to her sibling but ended up landing a part. Oh, joy. Picked from obscurity to... flash her pert buttocks in a meaningless scene added for titillation, then getting killed 30 minutes in for her troubles. Her latest (and only other credited role) is as Probationary Nurse #5 in Atonement. I wonder if she snuck a look at Keira Knightly (if extras and stars are allowed to mix) and wondered: where did it all go wrong?!<br /><br />I'll give a few hints Katy: If all the other British cast members are asked to speak with American accents in a doomed attempt at mass-marketing, and the only person who can manage it is the B-movie veteran USA native Todd Jensen, you know you're in trouble. If you look at your wage slip and it'll only just about cover your lunch and your bus ride home, you ain't starring in a movie with a trillion dollar budget. If the premiere is attended by loads of family members of the fourth assistant director and provokes gales of laughter when the Stickyback tape monster rampages through the sewers, it should dawn on you that this isn't exactly Alien. Or even a Critters IV, come to think of it. So Katy, in your next life (I'm a Buddhist, you see) perhaps you'll be a bit more selective in your choice of debut feature rather than impulsively jumping at the first pile of crap that heads your way. Flashing skin in your first movie does not guarantee long lasting success. Unless you're Sylvester Stallone. And he had the script to Rocky to back him up.<br /><br />To all intents and purposes this is as 0/10 a movie as I've ever seen. However, for sheer unintentional laughs and pure camp value, it gets a 1. Well done ;)
Just to let everyone know, this is possibly the WORST movie I have ever seen, and I've seen pretty much everything. If you're thinking of renting it, DON'T!!! It's not worth the cardboard container that it came in....
I was shocked there were 18 pages of good reviews. This has to be one of the worst movies especially considering it was recommended. Must admit that comedies are not my favorite genre, but this movie made it worst in that it tried so hard to be clever that it made me squirm to watch it.<br /><br />The concept of the movie is comparable to audition week on American Idol. You watch because people are so blind to their shortcomings. But we knew this movie didn't have bad actors. So how funny would it be to have good singers try to convince they shouldn't get anywhere near an American Idol tryout? It would be pointless as this movie was.<br /><br />The use of improv is over-rated. We've all been in that setting where a group of friends get on a roll and everyone is cracking up with tears in the their eyes. I feel that is improv. Improv can't be turned on just because the camera is rolling as this film proves. If you like that Drew Carey hosted show of improv, you'll probably like this film.<br /><br />Overall the jokes were poor, the improv was sophomoric, and the over-acting by Guest and company was campy...and those are my compliments of this drivel. If a guy playing a trumpet AND the kettle drum at the same time is funny to you, fine. For me, I prefer more heady stuff like "I Love Lucy" or "Hee-Haw".<br /><br />But remember, I think SNL lost its humor in the 1980's, so maybe you'll like this G-rated humor. I kept waiting for a person to identify himself as the zoo keeper and then tell us there was no zoo in town. That's the humor you can expect.<br /><br />My only wish was that I could give this a minus rating.
Grosse Pointe Blank was really quite a below average film. Its hit man theme is very dry and is more like a romantic comedy than a hit man thriller. The acting is very normal. The performances are extremely embarrassing at times with many characters seeming very 'eccentric' and that really annoyed me. The whole reunion and the 'Wow, I haven't seen you in 10 years!' element is extremely cheesy and many scenes just drag on, especially nearer the end when they are at the actual reunion party and the characters are going through each of their former classmates one by one greeting them. It just all seemed very tacky, pointless and was poorly executed. <br /><br />Dan Akroyd's role as a 'rival' assassin is very sparse. He only seems to appear once at the very beginning and right at the very end in a 'final show down' which is hugely hyped up but doesn't deliver at all.<br /><br />The soundtrack is also very mediocre. The bulk of the songs that are in this film are straight out of the 1980's and with the exception of two or three, are very bad. Hearing duff songs over quite a duff film just adds to the negativity that surrounds this film.<br /><br />I could go on and on about how little things were annoying and were just very bad such as the very few action sequences that came and went very quickly, the lack of character development and how poorly the whole thing was constructed in that department, the way that half the time you forget that Cusak's character is even a hit man at all as the element is so non-existent.<br /><br />Even the way the comedy thinks it's funny; but it isn't. I didn't laugh once during this movie. Sure, maybe I smirked now and again but my only REAL feel good point was when I realised the movie was nearly over!<br /><br />Please, don't waste your time with 'Grosse Pointe Blank' despite the relatively high (but badly incorrect) IMDb rating. I've seen films that are better than this film that have lower rating on this site which tells you that there ARE better films out there. Just don't bother with this one.
It seems at least vaguely possible that this movie provided a bit of inspiration for "The Sopranos," as its main character, Martin Blank (John Cusack) is a hit man who has so many issues from his past and his profession that he's in therapy trying to deal with it all. Everything finally comes to a head at his 10-year high school reunion. The problem was that by the time Blank got to the reunion I had stopped caring. Frankly, I found this movie a drag from start to finish.<br /><br />It had potential. There was a reasonably good cast, headed by Cusack and Dan Aykroyd, playing Grocer, his arch-rival in the hit-man business, along with Minnie Driver as Debi, Blank's high school sweetheart who he stood up on prom night, and a limited role for Alan Arkin as Dr. Oatman, Blank's psychologist. That fairly talented cast never really seemed to come together, though. The drama lacked intensity and the comedy lacked real humour. What I thought had the most potential to be a comedic storyline was Grocer's proposal for a hit man's union, but aside from becoming a bit of a running joke, the idea never really got developed. As for the romance, one wondered why Debi would even think of letting this guy back into her life.<br /><br />There were a handful of chuckles, but nothing really caught me and held me and I spent most of the movie wondering whether this thing was ever going to start to click. It never did - not for me, at least. 2/10
The title doesn't make much sense to me. I'm not sure what door in the movie shouldn't have been opened.<br /><br />The movie starts uneventfully, with a conversation between a man and a woman in a room that looks like a richly furnished train car, complete with the sound of the train traveling. In fact, the man's house is a train car, and he has a cassette of train sounds. The woman leaves, and calls a young woman. The young woman tells her boyfriend, a doctor, that she's been told her grandmother is ill, and she needs to return to her home town. She hasn't been there in thirteen years.<br /><br />Flash back to thirteen years ago. A shadowy figure enters a house. He caresses a sleeping young girl, then goes into another room and stabs the girl's mother. The girl wakes up and enters her mother's room and finds her dead with a knife in her. She screams, and an arm comes out of nowhere and claps a hand over her mouth. She looks up in fear. That early scene in the movie of the killer muffling her scream, and the girl's look is one of the few effective shots in the movie.<br /><br />It doesn't have much going for it in the visuals department. Occasionally there's some strange use of sound, and there's some weird lighting in an attic scene where many of the panes of glass are red and blue.<br /><br />Back to the present day. The young woman arrives in her grandmother's house. An old doctor is there, who she doesn't trust, along with the man from the opening scene "Judge" and Kearn, the town's museum operator. She doesn't trust any of them, and it's true they don't inspire any trust. She's rather crabby throughout the whole movie. She wants to check her grandmother into a hospital. The men in the town want her house, and the museum operator wants the things in it (his museum is already filled with many of the grandmother's things). Inexplicably, the woman wants to keep the house.<br /><br />The young woman starts getting phone calls from a man speaking in a sinister whisper. He makes various threats, and wants her to do things to arouse him. Such scenes recur often. Unfortunately, there are so few characters in the movie, that the possibilities of who it could be are limited. Worse still, we see right from the beginning who is making the phone calls. So, while the young woman doesn't know (even though the caller occasionally drops into his normal voice), the audience always knows: no suspense. Each call rattles her more and more.<br /><br />The ending was unexpected for me, so maybe gets points for not going with the obvious, but I'm not sure I cared for it.
I find it disconcerting that in an era when satisfying and fulfilling spirituality is unknown and we are all scattered across the whole spectrum of possible beliefs, that a charlatan and fraud of Gurdjieff's caliber (as a charlatan, he is exceptional; there is no denying he had a special gift. It's a pity he misused it, though, for the aggrandizement of his wounded ego, feeding on the adulation of unwary sheep who were at his beck and call and in awe of him) can inspire such extreme adherence and credulity. This movie presents an idealized version of Gurdjieff's own largely fictional and fantastic account of his formation and "awakening" (which I would rather describe as his discovery of how much he could sway the minds and wills of certain types of sadly disoriented people). See it, if you dare to have a disagreeable eye-opening about how sadly deprived we are of true religious leaders, to the extent that a clown like Gurdjieff could inspire such devotion - and be careful to have your blood pressure medicine at hand if you are one of those who still hope for a healthy religion to emerge from the ruins of Christianity, as a supreme example of cinematography at the entire service of the premises and pretenses of a dysfunctional cult.
Oh, Yawn. Not another chick flick where the men are all pigs and the women will get even for the abuse they suffered. The only difference is that, in this film, everybody's a pig or has mush for brains. I hated this film for the moral issue of why it's right to send a man to prison for life for a murder he didn't commit. Is that a more immoral act than his abuse and deviousness. This movie shows all the situational ethics of bad writing. I saw it on the CBC's "Best of Britain" series. If this is Britain's best, no wonder the British film industry is in trouble.<br /><br />The only bright spot in this film was David Tennant, He plays his character as so despicable that I'm likely to spit on the next person who speaks with a Scottish accent. Kate Ashfield tries to play the victim but comes off in the end as immorally devious as David Tennant's character. They deserve each other.<br /><br />In the mush for brains category are the parents who see nothing wrong with the obviously psychotic Brendan. English policemen are made out to be so incompetent that they're unfit to give out traffic tickets. The British Policeman's Union should sue the makers of this film for defamation.<br /><br />This film isn't worth the electricity it takes to run your DVD to watch it.
I haven't read the book of this and based on this adaptation, will not bother. I hated every character in this show - Miranda was slutty, selfish and mumbled miserably through the appalling dialogue, her sister was a total wimp, and this was the worst depiction of manic-depression I have ever seen. I have a degree in Psychology, and this was not accurate. In fact, until it was mentioned, I did not realise Troy was supposed to be bipolar - I thought he was a normal, slightly grumpy teenager.<br /><br />The only saving grace in this stupid show was David Tennant, whose brilliantly psychotic performance was the only thing that got me to watch the second half. <br /><br />Clearly the writers and producers of this show have not done any research - Troy's mental problems are not remotely accurate, nor are the forensics involved in the "twist" ending (and if you did not spot that a mile off, you are a big ole dummy!) <br /><br />Utter garbage.
OK, this 'horror' film was meant to be a joke, right? Please tell me it was supposed to be a joke, then I'll understand.<br /><br />A big cawing bird with giant claws - or one claw, anyway - swoops down on unsuspecting folks on the ground and gobbles them up. Mara Corday and Jeff Morrow sufficiently overact in order to keep things interesting, but at least you'll enjoy a hearty snicker when you see the 'monster'. It looks like a cross between a deranged chicken and Mortimer Snerd.<br /><br />Either director Fred Sears just made this picture in a hurry and knew the bird looked utterly ridiculous, or he really thought his film and creature were genuinely frightening. I prefer to think - and hope - it was the former.<br /><br />P.S. The bird needs a haircut.
I love old "monster movies" for the pure camp value. This one does not disappoint if you find that sort of thing amusing.<br /><br />The acting is pure 1950s stilted crap. You do get used to it when you've seen enough of these... the dialogue is very silly and ultimately forgettable. You're just there for the giant bird.<br /><br />The "science" in this movie is hilarious. A monstrous otherworldly avian that can manipulate anti-matter... intent on wreaking havoc and eating people... an alien who has come to Earth to nest. Some of the best scenes in the movie (that don't have the bird in them) include the "scientists" explaining what is going on.<br /><br />A lot has been said about the ridiculous bird marionette. It looks like a new baby bird... bald and ugly with ruffled feathers. It even caws like a hungry, angry fledgling. However, the bird scared the crap out of my three year old, who had big scary bird nightmares for the evening. It's a bit creepy.<br /><br />I was very sad about the scene where they shoot the egg. (Somehow the egg is not protected by an antimatter shield.) But I'm a bird lover, what can I say?
Pilot Mitch MacAfee (Jeff Morrow) sees a UFO while test flying a plane--but nothing shows up on radar. Then planes and ships start disappearing and reports of a UFO increase. It turns out it's a giant monster bird that is attacking and killing. But what is it and why is it here? <br /><br />This has all the right elements for a classic. It has an actually pretty entertaining script--I was never really bored. The acting is good (for a 1950s monster movie). Morrow doesn't overdo the macho hero act and Mara Corday is quite good as the requisite female love interest. She's also strong and takes care of herself--even though she IS off getting food and coffee for everyone all during the movie. The problem here is the monster. Dear God--it's TERRIBLE! It looks like a deranged turkey! It has a long neck, a hilariously stupid BEAK, some teeth, a few strands of hair on its head and claws. And--oh yes--it squawks! Not roaring--squawking! The actors had no idea what it looked like--it was added after production. Actors Morrow and Corday were horrified when they finally saw it in a theatre. Morrow said his audience burst out laughing and he left the theatre quickly before the movie ended! Producer Sam Katzman was responsible for this. He wanted to save money and gave the world the stupidest monster ever. And you can SEE the wires moving it too! This gets 4 stars only because Morrow and Corday are so good and the script is well done. It gets no stars for the pathetic monster--wait till you see it attack what is obviously a toy train! Worth a look if you're a horror fan to see what has to be the stupidest monster ever.
This is almost Ed Wood territory. Yeah, that ridiculous wreck of a flying monster looks like a cross between a turkey buzzard and a bad day at the dentist's office. And that sound effect screech makes fingernails across a blackboard sound like Mozart. And why The Giant Claw when the goofy critter gobbles its victims with a mechanical jaw. We get big close-ups of the ugly chicken foot, but nothing more. I guess the producers thought a more appropriately titled Big Mouth might suggest a Jerry Lewis comedy. And speaking of comedies, all that "anti-matter" gobbledy-gook is funnier than anything in a Lewis movie. I guess the scripters were stuck for a reason why an ordinary duck hunter couldn't take care of a 1950's flying menace, so they concocted a real whopper-- anti-matter from another galaxy. Yup, this fugitive from KFC is supposed to have flown in from another galaxy behind a shield of anti- matter as explained in excruciating detail by one of the film's resident geniuses. In this case, it's Jeff Morrow a pilot who I gather in his off-hours advises Einstein on the secrets of the universe. <br /><br />Unfortunately, it's also Morrow who keeps the ridiculous proceedings out of the bad-movie Hall of Shame since he actually delivers his lines with a straight face. What's more, he even sounds as if he believes them. This is a movie acting triumph of the first order. To heck with the Oscars, Morrow deserves a combat medal for performing above and beyond the call of duty under the most extreme bad movie circumstances. Watch leading lady Corday, then you can gauge his fortitude under fire. She looks like she just woke up inside a bad dream and maybe if she stands stock-still, no one will notice her. I barely did. Oh well, the first time I saw this drive-in disaster was through a beery haze in the back row of what's now a housing development. I should have learned my lesson and broken out another 12-pack this second time around.
Spreading panic from Broadway to Bombay, 1957's The Giant Claw boasts perhaps the ultimate flying monster in movie history. Described by one terrified Quebecois witness as "La Carcagne – she's de devil in de storm with de face of de wolf and de body of de woman with wings, bigger than I can tell," it doesn't say much for Canadian women since when we finally see it in focus it's a cross between an overgrown buzzard, a chickenhawk and Gonzo the Great. But this isn't just any old giant turkey – impervious to rockets, invisible to radar and with a taste for swallowing parachutists whole and pecking away at the United Nations Building, it's an extraterrestrial giant turkey from an anti-matter galaxy millions of miles from Earth that's come here to build a nest: "No other explanation is possible." Luckily for humanity Jeff Morrow, test pilot and "chief cook and bottle washer in a one-man birdwatching society," invents a weapon to disable its impenetrable shield so they can hit it with everything but the kitchen sink – but don't worry: Morris Ankrum's general assures him "We've got kitchen sinks to spare, son." – just in time for a last-minute clinch with co-star Mara Corday. Some of the dialogue has dated rather unfortunately – "I admire your spunk, and you keep climbing on our backs whenever we've messed up" – and strangely enough it's nowhere near as much fun as a film with a giant flying turkey should be, but the beast itself is such a truly memorable creation for all the wrong reasons that it's hard to dislike even if you are liking it for all the wrong reasons. And full marks to the cast for delivering gem after gem of direlogue with a straight face: "Honest to Pete, I'll never call my mother-in-law an old crow again!," "The only trouble is that the last time I talked to a chaplain there wasn't any telephone line to the one and only place where we can get the kind of help we need" and the immortal "There it is now, attacking the United Nations Building!"
This one's as cheesy as they come – the concept of a massive and indestructible extraterrestrial bird is already too loopy for words, but wait till you get a load of the goofy creature as it appears on screen! I tell you I laughed so hard through this thing that I missed out on some of the expository dialogue – then again, the latter is often so heavy on scientific jargon and laws of Physics and such (at which I've never been any good, in spite of my love of sci-fi movies) that it didn't really matter anyway! The bird – first depicted as a mere blurred form whizzing through the skies but subsequently shown in all its dopey glory – is so sublimely silly that it wouldn't be amiss in a Looney Tunes cartoon (witness the series of intermittently-taken photographs that start with the creature in the distance and end on a side-splitting extreme close-up of its face)! <br /><br />Director Sears had fared much better with his other film about UFOs, the fine EARTH VS. THE FLYING SAUCERS (1956) – with special effects provided by a master, Ray Harryhausen (speaking of which, I've just given away my copy of the latter in anticipation of acquiring Columbia's recently-released SE DVD); also, it seems to me that some of the footage illustrating the bird's rampage in New York here were lifted from the destruction of Washington seen in that earlier sci-fi classic! Again, the leads are played by genre regulars – namely Jeff Morrow (from THIS ISLAND EARTH [1955]) and Mara Corday (from TARANTULA [1955]); as with the afore-mentioned FLYING SAUCERS, these titles are highly-regarded and beloved by fans – consequently, they are vastly superior to this lamentable addition to the alien/monster animal cycle prevalent during the sci-fi heyday and beyond (incidentally, other flying menaces were featured in THE FLYING SERPENT [1946], which I haven't watched, and Larry Cohen's tongue-in-cheek updating of same in Q: THE WINGED SERPENT [1982]).<br /><br />Unfortunately, THE GIANT CLAW can't even rise to a decent climax – which is so rushed as to be "a wash-out", to quote a jet pilot from the film itself whose assault with rockets on the bird proves completely ineffective (that is, before Morrow realizes that it's shielded by an invisible barrier and then has to figure out a way how to be able to penetrate it). Ultimately, apart from the intractable (and frankly tedious) technical asides, one gets a feeling of "so bad, it's good" watching this: after all, it only lasts for 74 minutes – and, in any case, the bird is such an unforgettably daft creation as to put a huge smile on your face every time it turns up!
Personally, I have no problem with the acting, nor the script. I do have a problem with the giant bird. It was simply AWFUL. Plain and simple.<br /><br />One's first impulse is the roll around laughing when one sees it. What were they thinking!? Budget be damned. The monster bird was a monstrous joke.<br /><br />Of course, in my opinion if the producers could obtain actors such as Ankrum, Corday and Morrow, then they would have the special effect people come up with a much better beast. Oh well. What is done is done. This will be the case of the eternal joke on them that was unintended.
Largely forgettable monster film from the 50s features truly awful special effects -- the "claw" in question is a giant puppet that would make Jim Henson want to kill himself. I just saw the movie last Thursday and I can't even tell you who was in it. That's a bad sign. I'm told that when the movie premiered audiences laughed it off the screen.... and that was in the 50s when standards in special effects were much lower. Basically I should have walked out of the theater as soon as the words "produced by Sam Katzman" came on the screen if I knew what was good for me, but then I sat through "Harum Scarum" also so I guess I deserve it.
This is one awful movie!! Some people told me that it was not that bad actually but I sure disagree! The monster is amazingly cheap (and funny) looking but this is something we all knew I guess. In addition to that, the dialogs are awful and the writing is just plain terrible.<br /><br />As bad as it is, this movie as the quality of being entertaining. Not always for the good reasons but it's a good "so bad that it's fun" flick.<br /><br />By the way, there's no such thing as "La Castagne". According to a secondary character in the film named Pierre (described in the movie as a French Canadian), there's a legend among French Canadians about a giant bird know as "La Castagne". As a French Canadian myself, I can assure you that I never heard of such a legend. It sure made me laugh though... :))
I wish I could have voted this movie a ten, it's that funny. If they had intended for it to be that funny I would have given it a ten. I have to give it a 1, but it's the funniest darn 1 you'll ever want to watch. See the giant blur flash across the screen! Where did it come from? What is it? It flies, it terrifies, it's electrifying, it's on strings! This bird has real personality. I was about ten when I saw it for the first time, and when Big Bird appeared on Sesame Street, I was sure they were one and the same!
I saw this movie when I was about 12 when it came out. I recall the scariest scene was the big bird eating men dangling helplessly from parachutes right out of the air. The horror. The horror.<br /><br />As a young kid going to these cheesy B films on Saturday afternoons, I still was tired of the formula for these monster type movies that usually included the hero, a beautiful woman who might be the daughter of a professor and a happy resolution when the monster died in the end. I didn't care much for the romantic angle as a 12 year old and the predictable plots. I love them now for the unintentional humor.<br /><br />But, about a year or so later, I saw Psycho when it came out and I loved that the star, Janet Leigh, was bumped off early in the film. I sat up and took notice at that point. Since screenwriters are making up the story, make it up to be as scary as possible and not from a well-worn formula. There are no rules.
The Giant Claw is in fierce competition with films like, 'Robot Monster' and 'Plan 9 From Outer Space' for worst film of all time. A phony looking giant vulture attacks 'Lionel Trains' in this completely unconscious film. The script is so bad that everything the characters say to one another is ridiculous. It's no wonder that this film is a prime target in the movie, "It Came From Hollywood," where this gem is hammered for the line, 'A Bird As Big As A Battleship', with gleeful, endless needling. The line pops up relentlessly through the course of the film, so there's no escaping it. There are several shots from, 'The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms' and 'Earth vs. The Flying Saucers' among other sci-fi films from the 50's to beef up the scraggly vulture's attacks. At one point the big vulture is responsible for a few deaths, so the military puts the entire world under martial law and no one is allowed to go out of their homes. Of course, the huge buzzard is mainly concerned with pursuing the stars of this classic, Jeff Morrow & Mara Corday, wherever they might be. Yet the director is so lame that he doesn't even provide for a few honey shots of pretty Mara in a decent dress and black heels for a little relief from the tedium of this zero star thriller. That's the second time this blunder has been made. In 'Tarantula', Mara Corday struts around in hot dresses for the whole film, but is relegated to pants throughout, 'The Giant Scorpion'. The budget for this film must have been not more than thirty or forty thousand dollars and I doubt whether Morrow or Corday got more than three thousand to make it. It looks like the whole thing was shot right out of somebody's garage.
Before we start, may I say I hope you've already eaten when you're reading this. Why? Because, after I'd seen this film for the first time, the bird's look and sound made me want to eat chicken after the words 'The End' had appeared on the screen. So don't say you weren't warned.<br /><br />Fred Sears might have directed "Earth vs. the Flying Saucers" (an okay film and one of the bigger examples for Tim Burton's "Mars Attacks"), but "The Giant Claw" is not that giant a film. Yes, it's a prehistoric monster that flies in the air, attacks planes and cities and occasionally treats itself to a man on a parachute. The beast is giant except in the scenes where it's considerably smaller, but who needs consistent proportions in a movie? Scary? It could have been, but not if the plot is hopelessly silly and the monster looks like like a puppet that ran away from Sesame Street.
This is a truly terrible sci-fi/horror film from 1957. In fact, despite Ed Wood, Jr.and his dreadful films getting a lot of publicity, this turkey is every bit as bad as the worst of Wood. Now the acting is a bit better than you'd find in the Wood epics (such as PLAN 9 and BRIDE OF THE MONSTER), but the special effects managed to be significantly worse than Wood's! However, bad movie aficionados will be happy to hear that it's so bad that it's still excellent viewing. Like a Wood film, it's great to watch this crap-fest and laugh along with your friends.<br /><br />The film begins with a scientist flying about doing some testing in his jet. However, out of nowhere, a UFO streaks by and his report of this over the radio triggers a panic by the Air Force. However, later, they realized that the UFO didn't appear on the radio and they think the scientist is a nut! But, when soon after this planes start disappearing all over, they realize there must be something to his sighting.<br /><br />So far, the film isn't great but it's watchable. However, by the time the horrible flying monster appears, you know you're watching a turkey. First, through horrid use of stock film and crappy models, airplanes keep changing mid-flight. Some may not be bothered by this, but with airplane lovers like me, seeing an F-80 turning into an F-86 to an F-102 fighter plane made me crazy--especially since the planes look nothing like each other. Second, through "clever" cinematography, all you really see of the monster is a ball of fuzz for half the film! This is frustrating and you hope that when you finally do see it clearly, it will be worth the wait. Well, no such luck!! The "monster" looks less realistic or scary than the duck from Groucho's "You Bet Your Life" TV show!! In fact, it's significantly less realistic than any of the Japanese giant monsters!! In fact, Big Bird from "Sesame Street" is even a bit scarier and realistic!!! It's just god-awful in every way and might just be the dumbest movie monster in history--about as bad (or worse) as the monsters in ROBOT MONSTER or TEENAGERS FROM OUTER SPACE!!! The bottom line is that this is an absolutely dreadful film that sane people won't like. Bad film fans like me (who are a crazy bunch) will probably love it! All others...be afraid,....be VERY afraid!!<br /><br />FYI--You might notice that some clips in this film are from other sci-fi movies!! I am positive the crashing Washington Monument scene was stolen from EARTH VS. THE FLYING SAUCERS but I also saw a couple other scenes that I swear are from other films. What a hack job!
This terrible moovie is fun on many levels - the moost obvious is the lame, fake-looking bird puppet which floats around the cheap sets, without ever flapping it wings (like it was on a string, perhaps?), attacking model trains and toy cars. The "science" is asinine - a masonic atom gun?? And what's up with the enormous amounts of Brylcream in everyone's hair? I guess the 50's were the Slimeball decade! Well, this bird puppet apparently comes from "some god-forsaken anti-matter universe", and it's here to build a nest & lay eggs in New York. Seriously. That they manage to kill the puppet is almost a shame. I give it 1 hoof out of 4 - it's silly and stupid, but moore fun than Armageddon. :=8)
This is one of the most laughably bad films I've ever seen. I cannot believe whoever wrote the review above was serious. Perhaps he was connected with making it. It doesn't have anything going for it. There is no suspense, the acting is dire, the direction hopeless. The music score (?) is three trite notes played ad nauseam. The plot (?) must have taken all of five minutes to write. The dialogue is what a 10-year-old would come up with if asked to do a homework project. The only (slightly) redeeming feature is the actor playing the psycho himself, who grimaces, trembles and gurns magnificently and thus is amusing at times. The only reason you would be on the edge of your seat would be if you were suffering from a weak bladder. Don't waste your time.
Without a shadow of a doubt this is and probably will always be the worst film i have ever had the missfortune to see my whole life. Take 5 wooden actors who got thrown out of acting school because they were so wooden someone sat on them thinking they were a bench.<br /><br />Then add a cheap camcorder. You know the old VHS types that cost £20 on ebay. Add a terrible story line with no effects and yes you have this film. What a shocker it was. They couldn't even save it by having a fit girl in it. She was fat and ugly and was the worst of all. I actually watched it all as i could not believe this crap ever got funded.<br /><br />MISS AT ALL COSTS
San Franpyscho: 1 out of 10: So you want to make a serial killer movie. But your budget is non-existent, your camera equipment is elderly and your stars are Joe Estevez (Martin Sheen's younger brother and a staple in really bad movies) and Todd Bridges from Different Strokes. There are probably ways to pull of at least a watchable film. The Quiroz brothers have no clue.<br /><br />First of all much of the cast seems to have been chosen in a desperate attempt to make Bridges and Estevez look like Oscar caliber thespians. Really how hard is it to play a priest or an overbearing mother? Certainly a city the size of San Francisco has a few professional actors willing to work for a few bucks and a screen credit. Clearly Chris Angelo and Bonnie Steiger who play these roles have other talents such as landscaper or waitress they ought to be fine tuning.<br /><br />Joe Rosete as the killer (yes the serial killer is simply known as "The Killer") is also pretty awful in a mentally ill method kind of way but I am almost willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as his character is written with zero style or personality. A boring almost laughable serial killer is a problem for a serial killer movie.<br /><br />In addition the Quiroz brothers seem to have originally planned this as an ABC Family movie of the week. There is no nudity or violence to speak of and the R rating clearly is for the adult style pacing. This move meanders like an 85 year old woman driving with wraparound sunglasses and her turn signal on. The only occasional horror comes from lighting Estevez's face with a glare that makes it look like his lower jaw was removed.<br /><br />I wasn't expecting a great film when I rented San Franpyscho but I wasn't expecting mind numbing boredom either.
The movie was pretty bad. It's not so much a script problem. It's just that the movie is really boring in terms of pacing. The movie just seems to plod along at a slow, agonizing rate. The story in San Franpsycho is that there's a serial killer on the loose who is killing morally corrupt individuals (maybe I read too much into it, but hey, it's my nature apparently) after The San Franpsycho kills a pair of people under the Golden Gate Bridge we're introduced to one of the main characters of the film: Joe Estevez (brother of Martin Sheen) as a curmudgeony cop named Bill Culp. Bill is currently trying to hunt down the killer (seriously he doesn't have a name, he's just The Killer), and he is trying to coerce a local news reporter named Rita to help him with his investigation, Bill is the stereotypical hard-edged cop and he threatens Rita to throw her in jail for obstruction of justice. Anyway a few scenes pass by and suddenly Rita finds a letter left by the psychopath (He's a cold blooded psychopath!) and she has a change of heart and tells Bill and his partner Joe about it and help them with the investigation.<br /><br />The movie tries to be a taut murder-thriller, but sort of just fails at that. It's much like the movie The Black Dahlia it tries to be tense but it just is unbelievable in terms of that. The movie tries to be serious throughout, but it has scenes like where The Killer masturbates (obviously a fan of gore porn what with lines like: "ooh blood on her" or something to that effect) and Joe Estevez hitting the table going: "He's a cold blooded murderer!" I admit to chuckling more than once at the movie, even though I'm sure it was intended to be a deadly serious movie.<br /><br />One of the only positive points the movie has going for it is the fact that I didn't pay money to see it (huzzah netflix). And it's sad because I could see some good in their movies after watching The Damned. Sure the movie had its fair share of flaws, but it was enjoyable. Sadly though San Franpsycho has nothing going for it. Granted it has an okay script it's nothing too grand, but it could've been interesting. Instead what you get is a murder thriller that fails to thrill or have even vaguely enjoyable deaths. Also the other reviews claim that the movie has "a great twist ending that's shocking" apparently I was watching a different movie because by about the one hour mark I sort of figured out what was going to happen. The ending didn't shock me in the least bit. I would go on insulting this wreck of a movie but I don't think I will. Long story short this movie is a boring uninspired thriller (I use that term loosely) that fails to have the "Hitchcockian thrills" that another reviewer claims to have a predictable ending, bland deaths, acting with all of the emotion of a plank of wood, and a decent soundtrack.<br /><br />I'm sure others will try to defend this with the usual: It was a low budget movie, they did the best they could with such a low budget, and all that other nonsense. But when you get right down to it there was very little that they could've really spent that budget on, there was very little special effects work, the soundtrack sounds like it might've been recycled from Hood of the Living Dead or The Damned, and it's the same damn crew from those two films. This movie really reminds me a lot of another low budget flick that was no good, and it was called Mr. Jingles, the two are about the same quality, they fail to deliver anything close to enjoyment and should fade quickly into obscurity.
go get your camcorder, your little brother, and the disturbing neighbor next door who throws boiling water on raccoons; and you got yourself a film! well, that's what these guys thought anyway. it was so bad i can't even remember the majority of it except for flashbacks comparable to someone who toured in 'Nam. despite the really corny title, the horrible quality, the terrible actors, and the cliché writing, i think this movie isn't the worst i've ever seen. i'm saving that slot for everything with steven seagal, chuck norris and jean-claude van dam. anyhow, if you are out of options when it comes to finding new "horror" films that you haven't seen 1,000 times already, (as i was) and you are debating this one, i would still skip this. it had absolutely no redeeming qualities. this mock serial killer thriller was a weak, puny attempt at an even B film. if they're really lucky it might make the wal-mart $4.50 bin. but, i highly doubt it.
I hope this isn't a portent of things to come. High-definition camcorders are getting cheaper all the time (although I wouldn't swear that's what was used here), so it's open season for all the wannabe Scorseses and Tarantinos.<br /><br />There is no hiding the cheapness of this stinker, and calling it a 'film' would be doing the industry a big disservice. The photography is of a standard you would expect on a family outing to the zoo. I could build me a new house with all the wooden acting. What's remarkable about that is that nobody stands out as the worst. They are all equally terrible. Like a whole bunch of Ben Afflecks. Or Steven Seagals.<br /><br />What hooked me was the title. I'm a sucker for this sort of thing, like Frankenhooker, or Monsturd. Frankenhooker was pretty bad, too, but at least I got some laughs out of it, and the acting was merely bad, not awful. I can't comment on Monsturd as I've yet to get hold of a copy of it.<br /><br />Anyway, I hope the people who made this didn't make any money from it. Else they might be encouraged to try it on again. Please, guys, pawn the camcorder and go back to your regular job.
With David Arquette starring you would immediately think this to be a stupid movie. Well, it is a stupid movie with a horrid script. But the F/X, namely the eight legged freaks, makes this flick a hoot to watch. A tribute, albeit on the silly side, to those great mutant creature features of the 50s. Arquette and Sheriff Sam(Kari Wuhrer)summon help in fighting off the toxic waste induced giant spiders wreaking havoc on their tiny town in Arizona. Also in the cast are Doug E. Doug, Rick Overton, Leon Rippy and the charming Scarlett Johansson.
My expectations were high after seeing the trailer. They were even higher when i saw the movie had the same director as independance day and godzilla. The special effects in independence day were much better then in this movie. The whole movie I was waiting for the spiders to show up. The rest of the storyline was really boring. And when the spiders came, they had a very amateuristic look, like the special effects were from a movie made in the 60's. I didn't watch the whole movie. When it was played for about one hour I switched off my DVD-player. I watch 3 movies almost every night, and I have never walked away from a movie, even if it was that boring. The only thing good in this movie was the pretty sheriff :) That's why I voted 2 instead of 1 :) So don't go see this one, instead you should go out and rent Starship Troopers, it's like the same only 10.000 times better.
I'm not going to say the story of the movie as some people do. I'm pretty sure people who read this will know what the storyline is. I'm also not going to go on and on about everything thats wrong with this movie, because I'll be here for ages if I do. The storyline is typical, and the special effects are below today's standards. This is not a movie you should watch if you are a serious movie buff (as most of us here are) little things will annoy you the whole movie and ruin the experience. If your a casual movie watcher, who likes to have a good time when they are watching a flick, then this movie is perfect for you, lots of fun. It would also be a good movie to take a partner to. Just not for us movie buff's.<br /><br /> 5 out of 10
Eight Legged Freaks is a modern monster movie, like a remake of any of the old 'Attack of the giant [INSERT ANIMAL HERE]'-movies of the 50s, 60s and 70s. Or rather, it should have been more like a remake of the, instead of what is was. So, how is a monster movie done in the year 2002? Well, from the typical opening with some chemical making the spiders grow to huge proportions, they mix movies like Gremlins, Jurassic Park, Starship Troopers and flavor it with some parody like Scary Movie. Gremlins is probably the best comparison, but Eight Legged Freaks was so full of parodies and stupid jokes that it was sometimes more like Scary Movie. It was way too much, at least if you're looking for a monster movie and not just another parody movie filled with jokes.<br /><br />For a movie like this you don't expect much of the acting, and that is just the way it was. The story though was extremely thin, with just a bunch of loosely connected events to show off some action mixed with all of the jokes, leading up to an easily spotted and corny ending.<br /><br />I rate Eight Legged Freaks a 4/10, and that includes the fact that the special effects where pretty good and that the noises the spiders made where hilarious.
Somehow, I really thought that I was going to enjoy this film because I love pictures with mountain climbing and a great mystery in the plot. I must say that the photography was fantastic and there was some scary scenes that captured my attention. I thought that Nicole Eggert,(Diana Pennington),"Thank You, Good Night",'01 played a very convincing role as a young girl who had a tragic loss in her life and meets up with some characters who want her to guide them up the mountain. Marc Singer, "Angel Blade",'02, played a very unconvincing weird guy and over acted in many scenes with a bad temper that looked comical. This film was a big disappointed and not worth watching, unless there is nothing on the TV to ENJOY!!
The limited scenery views were the only saving grace to an otherwise uneventful and boring movie. The acting was borderline absurd which I blame on the script and screenplay. Nicole Eggert didn't look the part, didn't act the part, and was totally unconvincing as a mountain guide. After watching this I was left with the feeling that some friends had some free time and decided to make a movie. It must have been produced on a budget of pocket change. The plot was thin at best and with the low caliber of acting at times it begged the question to be asked, "Why are we doing this?". I managed to sit through the entire movie but also asked myself, "Why?".
So I caught this one afternoon as "What Lies Above" and actually watched it because the beginning was somewhat promising. The heroine, Diana Pennington, is a mountain climbing expert...but that doesn't help her when her fiancé Brian gets hurt on a climb. When she goes off to get help and returns, he disappears from the mountain, never to be seen again.<br /><br />Two years later, Diana is still a climber...but she won't go near Snowman's Pass. That is, until Curt Seaver appears and tells her that he can find the body of her lost fiancé with a new satellite program. She agrees and they take off up the mountain with Curt's two assistants: His "bodyguard" Hugo and the computer whiz Tyler. From the start, you know that there's some ulterior motive going on, but unfortunately the twists aren't good and lead to a laughably bad chase sequence that makes up the last 20 or 30 minutes of the movie.<br /><br />The major disappointments are the red herrings, most of which have supernatural undertones that never come to fruition. The object from the sky that fell into the mountains (which turns out to be not so supernatural), the story of how Snowman's Pass came to be, and the most memorable one of them all: Diana's dream sequence halfway through the movie. But what disappointed me most is where they dropped the ball. The majority of the movie revolves around the search for Brian, that's why I can't for the life of me begin to understand why the mystery of what exactly happened to him and where he was is never solved through the course of the movie. This was the major plot. This was how the movie STARTED! How do you NOT wrap that up?<br /><br />I wouldn't tell too many people to bother with this one...
I caught this film -- under the title of "What Lies Above" -- on Lifetime movie network last night, and just had to comment on it. Designed as a resourceful-woman-in-peril, action adventure yarn, it is so unintentionally funny (thanks in large part to Marc Singer's scenery-chewing hammy performance)that I thought I was watching a cross between "Cliffhanger" and "Home Alone 5." Heroine Nicole Eggert makes her devious but dumb as dirt male pursuers look like the Three Stooges succumbing to her ridiculous makeshift booby traps (somehow she manages to devise a swinging battering ram with rope and a log in a matter of minutes, which temporarily takes out one of the knuckleheads who want to kill her). Worth watching for a hearty laugh.
I saw this on a boring Sunday morning just this morning. Well I was drawn to the fact that it's an outdoor movie.. I was hoping to find some nice sceneries but it the views where just limited.. They just go back and forth in the same spot all over again.. I hate it when they're using this so called hi-tech stuffs like the this Motorola blue-tooth headset they're using to eliminate the use of a walkie talkie it was just so funny.. they look like amateurs. And they where like advertising those badly designed alien-ware Laptops that could link up to a satellite to find people.. I couldn't say more about this TV-movie.. The ending was bad that it looks like they cut it short eliminating the use of rescue helicopters and etc.. */**********
SPOILER ALERT.<br /><br />This movie will spoil your afternoon or "wee small hours of the morning" viewing slot.<br /><br />I like Marc Singer. He has portrayed good characters in the roles I have seen. Until this movie.<br /><br />What starts as a promising movie soon disappears up itself with the disastrous cgi'd background and the extreme close up on the person about to die...<br /><br />Then it gets worse.<br /><br />A lot worse.<br /><br />To describe it as hammy acting would insult pigs. This movie goes to the bottom of the ham barrel and scrapes the acting off there.<br /><br />Apart from Marc Singer's overcooked hamming it up, Mike Dopud stomps and plods around the scenery looking as if he is afraid he might fall on the rocks and his wide-eyed 'manic' bad guy just makes him look like a moron. He isn't menacing at all.<br /><br />George Stults looks like a deer caught in the headlights. He claims to have been threatened by the other two but his character would have been threatened by a cashier offering him "paper or plastic".<br /><br />This is really a vehicle for Nicole Eggert as an independent woman getting her life back despite attracting the wrong sort of man... She was unremarkable.<br /><br />This is not a remake but this is remarkably similar to "Cliffhanger" - seasoned guide, loses someone in a fall, conscience pricked to help out someone else, a missing treasure worth oodles of money and a gang of n'er-do-wells who exploit the guide. Except Cliffhanger was a great vehicle for Stallone and Lithgow. I must admit, Lithgow stole the show.<br /><br />Even the unintentional comedy was poor. There were times when I wasn't sure if they were using a rubber-faced model as a stand-in for Singer as he tried in vain to storm the weather station (no pun intended). Pressing his face to the door post and his clumsy manner in general did nothing to help his character.<br /><br />Avoid.<br /><br />No, seriously, avoid it. Save 96 minutes of your life and do something else more constructive like watching paint dry or grass grow. Or just close your eyes and examine the backs of your eyelids for 90 minutes...
Gotta add a comment to this one!!!<br /><br />First, ironically, one needs to add the "spolier alert" to conform to IMDb's parameters, but there is absolutely nothing here to be "spoiled."<br /><br />There are six characters: the good-looking gal whose the A-list mountain guide in the area of the "climb," and apparently among all guides (including Mt. Everest Sherpas) on the planet; her lost love, who disappeared from the titled pass two years prior, whom the party is purportedly seeking, but never find; her store-owner friend, also a guide, who may be better than a Sherpa but no match for her; the weird lead actor who engages her services, and says they'll find her long-missing love in the bargain; his one associate, a computer hacker with purportedly limitless expertise, of a level sufficient that Gates might seek advice from him; and his other colleague, a bodyguard who apparently has an IQ not even near three digits.<br /><br />There are, of course, nefarious goings-on, and the secret quest of the lead actor is to gain recovery of a satellite which has fallen in the "Pass," and has world-altering and unique data to bring them untold riches. Exactly what is never revealed.<br /><br />Overacting abounds, the script looks like something which might get a C- in a freshman writing class (but an F if submitted at a higher level), and the thespians gnaw every piece of scenery like a horde of beavers.<br /><br />The most interesting aspects of this movie for me was juxtaposing portions with three other flicks or roles I've seen.<br /><br />First, the mysterious, undisclosed secret data makes one recall "The Spanish Prisoner," an A-list/Mamet film, surrounding a valuable corporate "process," never specifically clarified, but better for it. Definitely not so here.<br /><br />Second, the lead biscuit proved perhaps even more resourceful then "Rambo" in dealing quickly when menaced later in the presentation.<br /><br />Third, I remember a Steven Seagal flick (don't recall the title) where he was semi-conscious and abed for about 1/3 of the time, and fully-comatose for another 1/3. Although I've not sought viewing a lot of his work, I've seen enough to have noted that while comatose, he provided the best work he ever has, and most in-line with his laconic persona. In this opus, while awake, the young hacker may have been the most engaging personality on-screen, but while indisposed and incapacitated during the latter portion, and unable to emote, he provided the best acting during this seemingly unending two hours.<br /><br />Take the thin, silly basis for a plot here. Imagine it being compressed into, say, a lbit on SNL, with Gilda Radner, Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Martin Short in the four roles. They could get record laughs with few changes to the dialog here.<br /><br />The most interesting aspect in the last analysis is contemplating what information could have been in the spy satellite to be worth "even billions" to any of many nations, and yet rendered worthless (according to the guru hacker) if simply placed upon the internet, with no apparent consequences thereafter? Even a turkey like this one should have at least a small trace of logic somewhere. This one is totally devoid.
Charlie Chaplin responds to open auditions at Lodestone Studios. Rival Ben Turpin arrives at the same studio, obviously another unemployed comedian! Turpin tries to horn in on Chaplin's action after the studio head hollers, "Next!" Chaplin manages to walk in over Turpin, however. Charlie amusingly manages to botch jobs as an actor and carpenter. In the end, he manages to get a big break, but will a star be born? <br /><br />There are a lot of jokes involving the buttocks. The initial scene involving slapstick from Chaplin and Turpin is a relative highlight. Note that Gloria Swanson is the typist in the far background left on your screen, in the film's opening. Agnes Ayres also appears. <br /><br />*** His New Job (2/1/15) Charles Chaplin ~ Charlie Chaplin, Ben Turpin, Charlotte Mineau
Rabbit Fever is a mockumentary collection of sketches, each one of them focussing on a female personal device that was made popular by a single 1998 episode of Sex and the City (the latter half of 1998, rather than the early episodes which were all directed by women). From opening statistics that make Rabbit Fever sound like a soft porn movie, we are treated to a sea of predictable sketches with real and imaginary characters in a world run amok with women's addiction to solitary pleasure.<br /><br />Men, as Germaine Greer rather arrogantly explains, have invented a gadget for women that makes men superfluous in the bedroom. The Rabbit Vibrator (which some statistics suggest accounts for about a quarter of all vibrator sales) is so called because of little rabbit-like long ears which vibrate to stimulate the clitoris, while rotating pearls inside the shaft stimulate the inside of the vagina. The film interviews characters that attend Rabbits Anonymous to help overcome their 'addiction', as well as known people such as Tom Conti posing as a professor or Richard Branson (amid scenes of rabbits being banned on aircraft) saying he would like to provide free rabbits to his first class air travel passengers and ultimately to all of them.<br /><br />The main weakness of the film is that the idea is not enough to sustain 85 minutes of cinema, the sketches don't have the writing skills of say a Charlotte Church or Ricky Gervais to make them funny enough and, while it might make desultory late night TV, doesn't have a hook to get people to queue up in public at multiplexes to watch masturbation jokes.<br /><br />Lines like, "It's been nearly a week since you used your rabbit - how are you coping?" wear rather thin after five minutes. The film is based on the idea that the mere mention of the word 'rabbit' will get a laugh . . . and another one, and another one. Frantic midnight drives to buy batteries might be amusing in real life, but here they look rather laborious, and the special emergency delivery service outstays its welcome.<br /><br />Strangely the BBFC gave it an 18 certificate in spite of zero violence, hardly any explicit sex, and sexual references that are less 'perverted' than any late night comedy show. The company protested the decision, but the BBFC didn't budge. At first sight this seems overkill on their part and their consumer advice now simply says, "Contains frequent strong sex references." One might think that youngsters would find masturbation jokes funnier than the most desperate of hen night parties, and the topic one worthy of debate; but Rabbit Fever does not even have the saving grace of a balanced approach to its subject matter.<br /><br />The best part is probably The Rabbit Song by Ruocco (who play a band called Thumper in the film). For those who have dozed off and woken up at the end credits, there is a bonus scene at the end of them to reassure them that they haven't missed anything.
Rabbit Fever is one of those film oddities. It's an enjoyable 90 minutes, demands little of the viewer, and delivers as much, and on any terrestrial television channel even in a prime time slot I think that Rabbit Fever would be rather well received. Which makes me wonder why it has been pushed into cinemas.<br /><br />The movie is filmed in the style of a television documentary, and introduces us to 6 women who have am addictive relationship with the Rabbit Vibrator. The film is primarily focused on investigating a supposed addictive quality to the famous sex aid product. The narrative is 100% tongue in cheek throughout.<br /><br />The storyline is strong, an introduction to some well rounded and likable characters, some enjoyable back-story, peripheral characters and situations develops into an engaging story, and pleasing conclusions. Sadly there's nothing that feels clever or new. <br /><br />Rabbit Fever has some sharp moments, a few switches that hint at what the writers are capable of, and all credit to them it's not just 90 minutes of knob gags and innuendo, I could probably watch it with my mother. But there's a laziness about some of the scenes that holds it back, those moments went you are up for it, when you want it to be outrageous, and all you get is a dollop of sit-com.<br /><br />I chuckled, I left the theatre feeling empathy for the characters, but I also left with the bitter thought that someone had taken a 90 minute reel of made for TV, light entertainment and tried to put it into national cinema. <br /><br />I think Rabbit Fever achieves some of what it set out to do, it's a quirky subject, a rounded storyline, a well presented cast and a good diversion for 90 minutes. But there's nothing in this that can justify the extravagance of a movie theatre environment. Quite the opposite - a few commercial breaks would have given the viewer chance to grab a breath of life that Rabbit Fever seems to lack.
I saw this in a preview screening and have to say that this documentary style movie is the biggest load of tripe I have ever seen.<br /><br />Completely unfunny, low budget, boring, rubbish script, terrible acting - The entire audience (young and old) sat through the film comatose without laughing for most of it... there were literally only about 2 places you will laugh in the entire movie<br /><br />Many people left halfway - Can't blame them... I stayed thinking that the film would pick up, however, it never did and I wish I'd left. <br /><br />The humour was really lame and I am surprised that this ever made it on to the big screen. I am not someone who is offended by the adult content of this movie at all - It just wasn't funny. The people who made this movie really don't deserve your money, so please don't pay to see this film.<br /><br />This isn't even funny enough to be shown on TV, let alone cinema...<br /><br />I wanted to give it 0 out of 10, but the system won't allow it...
Not a balanced point of view. The director shouldn't express her opinion as truth. The movie has some criticism of Fujimori but it always gives him and his family the last words. So few critics of Fujimori were provided that it seems the only reason they were included was to be able to say the movie provides both views. But that is not the case.<br /><br />The movie barely shows one of the massacres that Fujimori is accused of. And it gives him credit for the masterminding the murdering of the MRTA insurgents that took the Japanese embassy. It is well documented that the CIA did the planning. There is even pictures of a well known CIA strategist on the site published by Caretas magazine and other newspapers.<br /><br />The fact that such well known information was not used by the director gives us a few possible conclusions: the director is pro-Fujimori and purposely and falsely chooses to give the credit to him; the director does not want viewers to note that the CIA and Fujimori worked together; or it was just out of ignorance since the director is not Peruvian and was not present in Peru at the time the events occurred.<br /><br />The explanation provided by other commentators, that Fujimori is still fairly popular in Peru, does not excuse the lack of accuracy and balanced explanations.<br /><br />Also, the statistics provided in the movie for the actual support of Fujimori were the highest I have ever heard of. Most statistics by major poll agencies are much lower.<br /><br />Another point to mention is that the intelligence that was key in the capture of the leader of Sendero and discover the secret network was done by a police force led by Ketin Vidal and he had complete autonomy from Fujimori and Montesinos.<br /><br />The first government of Fujimori did experience an improvement in overall economic trends (GDP) but this improvement was financed by the privatization of several national industries with contracts that were not beneficial for the country in the long term. Also, the gap between rich an poor continued to increase during Fujimori's regime. In his second term the economy was suffering and there was nothing else to privatize and by the end of Fujimori's second term the economy was about to collapse.<br /><br />In terms of investments in infrastructure of Fujimori's regime, they fallow the paternalistic pattern. They were created to raise support for Fujimori but were not meant to last long. These structures needed continued maintenance but Fujimori did not provide political power for the civilians in order to demand further investment. In fact, Fujimori's regime was able to destroy most forms of political organizing such as unions and grass-roots groups and the increase in informal unorganized labor was immense.<br /><br />Finally, the director chose to spend most of the movie talking to Fujimori instead of citing the cases of massive corruption in favour of Fujimori (the Media, Business Owners, the Military, etc) that were so wide spread it was impossible that Fujimori was not aware of it.
All the pro comments about this movie claim that the movie is balanced. That is their main justification to give a high rate to the movie. But a movie is not balanced when the main perpetrator analyzed is given the last world in every single subject. The director herself admitted to this at the first San Francisco film festival showing. She justified it by saying that she couldn't waste the chance of having access to Fujimori. That might be true but by showing so much of Fujimori's take on the issues makes the movie clearly pro-Fujimori and unbalanced. I dare any of the other commentators to prove this wrong Tips 1: claiming Harvard professors, intellectuals, and Latin American Diplomats agree with you does not help your argument (use logic). Tip 2: disagreeing with the director doesn't help your argument either (The director says she thinks Fujimori is charismatic and patriotic and therefore she portrayed him that way)
I was looking for a documentary of the same journalistic quality as Frontline or "Fog of War" (by Errol Morris). Instead I was appalled by this shallow and naive account of a very complex and disturbing man and his regime: Alberto Fujimori. This movie should be called "The return of Fujimori". The director presumes she made a "perfect" movie because alienates both pro and anti-Fujimori factions when in fact it is a very biased and unprofessional piece of work. <br /><br />The movie has few crucial facts wrong: <br /><br />1) She uses the so called "landslide" election of 1995 in which Fujimori was re-elected with 65% of the vote, as an example of the massive popular support of Fujimori. But we all now know to be the fruit of a very organized electoral fraud.<br /><br />2) The movie states that Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) killed 60,000 people. In fact, the Truth Commission's final report states that there were 69,280 deaths due to political violence in Peru. 33% of those were caused by SL. That leaves the other 67% in the hands of the police, military and other groups. The fact that she uses the same misleading information that Fujimori has been using for 10 years it is another example of how terrible this movie is. <br /><br />For any person with some education on Peruvian politics and history, Fujimori is clearly a consummated manipulator, a delusional character and remorseless egomaniac. His regime was very far from being democratic. He is still a menace to Peruvians. Despite these facts the director lets Fujimori tell the story. Not only on how he wants the camera to be positioned but the narrative and direction of the film seem to be part of his political agenda. He always seems to have the last word. There are no journalistic "cojones", just soft questions and unchallenged remarks. Where is Oriana Fallaci when we need her? The director, when questioned after the screening, didn't hide the fact that she was deeply impressed by Fujimori, his charm and intelligence. Yes, she has been definitely charmed by him, and you can tell by looking at this film. It's obvious she has a very hard time to digest the multitude of facts that point towards his responsibility on the corruption, murder and deception that took place. She assured the gasping audience that Fujimori was really a "patriot" when few moments earlier, one of the leading Peruvian journalists was very adamant in telling us that Fujimori was, above all, a "traitor". She went on to say that despite all the accusations not "a single dollar" was found on any bank account on his name, etc, etc. It was like hearing again the same gang of ruthless thugs that ruled the country for 10 years defending their master. It was a sad moment for journalism.<br /><br />This film makes injustice to history. It is an insult to hundreds of dead people, disappeared or unjustly incarcerated by Fujimori's regime. No wonder she later confessed that all the Peruvian intellectuals she befriended while making the movie felt betrayed by it. Unbiased? The words "oportunistic", "naïve" and "denial" come to my mind instead.
A friend and I went to see this movie. We have opposite opinions about Fujimori but after watching this movie we agree on the following: the easiest way to have an inaccurate documentary is to make it about a foreign country in which you were not present when the events happened, no matter how talented or how much you invest in the film. If you are truly looking to learn about another countries history, watch something made by natives of that country otherwise you won't be able step away from your bubble. And those who try to force their views and opinions about something to which they don't belong are really abusing their power. To make it even worse, the director chose to not talk about the embarrassing involvement of the CIA with Fujimori's regime. She decides to evade dealing with the only subject for witch her country has much to explain to Peruvians. But this is not surprising because, both, the director and the CIA are violating the sovereignty of Peru by trying to affect the democratic processes at very different levels of course.<br /><br />If the director was really interested in helping Peru she would have financed a native to make the documentary. In any case there are numerous Peruvian made documentaries, films and books about the subject. Such include "Ojos Que No Ven", "Dias de Santiago", "Montesinos-Fujimori: Las Dos Caras de la Misma Moneda", "Montesinos: Poderoso Caballero", etc. The director of the "Fall of Fujimori" should spend her time analyzing the numerous problems in her own country or at least the involvement of her country in the matters of other nations.
A friend and I went to see this movie. We have opposite opinions about Fujimori but after watching this movie we agree on the following: the easiest way to have an inaccurate documentary is to make it about a foreign country in which you were not present when the events happened, no matter how talented or how much you invest in the film. If you are truly looking to learn about another countries history, watch something made by natives of that country otherwise you won't be able step away from your bubble. And those who try to force their views and opinions about something to which they don't belong are really abusing their power. To make it even worse, the director chose to not talk about the embarrassing involvement of the CIA with Fujimori's regime. She decides to evade dealing with the only subject for witch her country has much to explain to Peruvians. But this is not surprising because, both, the director and the CIA are violating the sovereignty of Peru by trying to affect the democratic processes at very different levels of course.<br /><br />If the director was really interested in helping Peru she would have financed a native to make the documentary. In any case there are numerous Peruvian made documentaries, films and books about the subject. Such include "Ojos Que No Ven", "Dias de Santiago", "Montesinos-Fujimori: Las Dos Caras de la Misma Moneda", "Montesinos: Poderoso Caballero", etc. The director of the "Fall of Fujimori" should spend her time analyzing the numerous problems in her own country or at least the involvement of her country in the matters of other nations.
For the first forty minutes or so, Luna is a real pleasure to watch. The characters and their situation are interesting and the photography and locations are beautiful to look at. Then Jill Clayburgh discovers her son Matthew Barry is using heroin and the movie starts to unravel and then becomes outright laughable in its sickness.<br /><br />Clayburgh asks him why and when he started using the drug and she nor the audience ever get a straight answer, which would be a bit helpful. He mentions not caring about anything but that's not right because we see clearly in the amazing early scenes that he has a good deal of interest in his mother's singing, baseball, sex, and apparently cared enough to turn down marijuana. This movie is for people who think junior gets into hard drugs because mom and dad were workaholics who missed his piano recital. I think such a dangerous and emotionally volatile drug like heroin was chosen as some sort of intellectual catalyst for the later scenes of incest. There's a lot of discussion about the mother's love for the son but it's really about Bernardo Bertolucci being pretentious. Luna would have been great as a quaint little family drama.<br /><br />How old was Matthew Barry in this movie? I was more concerned over the bizarre things he had to do as an actor for this film than for anything his character was going through. ** out of ****
The movie starts out a bit interested with the son interested in a teenage girl his own age. Clayburgh's timid-appearing husband is killed in car crash as she is getting ready to go to Rome and sing as a diva. Matthew objects but comes along. He connects with the young girl again but this time, Matt is on cocaine. His superb voice, lovely, impetuous mother is in the limelight. She doesn't know how to handle Matt's addiction. The movie drags on in search of a plot. Clayburgh is in the wrong role and Bertolucci may have had his head in the moon while directing the picture. The Moon has great symbolism.<br /><br />Save your time. I am perhaps overly generous with 4*.
11 years after this film was released only 5 people have reviewed it here on IMDb. There is a reason for this utter lack of interest in Across the Moon. It is coherent, but lacks all cinematic virtue. See this film for examples of terrible production in all respects. The opening credits for instance are white letters rising mechanically from a red background. The ending features Michael McKean staring out a prison window saying "There's lots of mysteries out there." followed by a clip montage/music video of all the uplifting moments in the tragically bad movie. Julinana Hatfield. Everything in between is awful. I struggled to find any value in this movie and have come up empty. Though it is hard to believe, even a cameo role from Burgess Meridith (always a crowd pleaser) only disappointed me further. This movie is like a mockery of what is special about movies. On paper the movie is below average. Women living together in a trailer. But what actually was produced was nearly unwatchable. The movie attempts to branch off in many directions but never follows through on any. The unappealing conflict of having their boyfriends in jail is never resolved. No conflict is ever resolved. There really is no conflict. The women attempt to become hookers, but that never happens. Instead they get jobs as a bartender and a shelf stocker. Sound exciting? IT wasn't. IT was stupid. And the bulk of the movie is the two women talking and generating contrived conflict. The women are capable actresses, but the script was beyond poor. Useless. This was a terrible movie, but it is even worst that they borough Burgess Meridith out of his retirement home to make it. Bad from start to finish. Like the lion without teeth, this film has no bite.
This is the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life. Unless you're into masochism, never see it. It was an insufferably long, pointless, eye-harming, depressing movie and will forever top my list of bad movies. Whoever wrote this movie is a sadist. I almost cried at the end, that's how bad it was. I'd like to give it zero stars, but since that's not an option, I give it one.
Director Michael Ritchie and actor Robert Redford's second documentary-style drama, 'The Candidate', is a political satire that still seems fresh and pertinent today. So it's a pity that 'Downhill Racer', made a short time before, seems so dated by contrast. The music is ugly, and the perhaps innovative ski-ing sequences are now standard in televisual coverage of the sport. The world of ski-ing seems strangely amateurish (probably accurately, given the time the movie was made, but it's hard to relate to today's professional world), and the theme of Americans in Europe likewise seems hundrum in an age of ever easier travel. Perhaps the biggest problem is the flat plot, centred on the arrogant but enigmatic hero; unfortunately, it's a dreary performance from Redford, offering us little insight into his cares or motivations. And a character-driven film without much of a character is never a good bet. I expected much, but sadly this is a boring movie.
Rather like Paul Newman and Steve McQueen with their racing car movies this has all the appearance of a "jollies" project for Robert Redford, as he gets to ski up hill and down dale in the Alpine sunshine.<br /><br />The story is as light as powdered snow with Redford's small-town boy David Chappellet (what kind of lead name is that?) who with his eyes on the prize of Olympic glory, gets up the nose of, in no particular order, his coach, father and team-mates. Women are a mere side-show in his insular world as evidenced by a fairly distasteful pick-up scene with an old girlfriend in his hometown and then his selfishly petulant pursuit of, heavens above, a free-thinking, independent woman, played by Camilla Sparv. The ski-ing sequences are fine with some good stunt-work involving numerous bumps and scrapes on the piste but their effectiveness is dimmed by our subsequent familiarity with top TV coverage of skiing events down to the present day. Plus I'm not convinced that the Winter Olympics has the same mass identification with the general public as the summer games so that when Redford eventually wins his gold medal in the final reel, I couldn't really be that excited for him one way or another.<br /><br />Of the actors, Redford, best profile forward, doesn't need to do much and indeed doesn't, while Gene Hackman does better with equally meagre material. Ms Sparv does well as the chief female interest well who treats Redford the way he's doubtless treated every other woman in his chauvinistic way.<br /><br />In truth though, there's a lack of dramatic tension throughout for which the action sequences don't fully compensate and you don't care a fig for any of the leading characters. One of those films where the actors probably enjoyed making it more than the viewers did watching it.
What this film has is its realism , you really do get the feeling screenwriter James Slater has been doing his homework on the subject of downhill skiing while director Michael Ritchie shoots the movie in a fly on the wall documentary style . However the problem is unless you`re a big fan of the sport there`s not a lot in DOWNHILL RACER to grab your attention .<br /><br />Before anyone asks why I watched it , I did so because it featured the great Gene Hackman in an early role but that`s not really a good enough reason for watching
Downhill Racer is essentially, a movie to see only for the terrific skiing sequences. Although there is a story here, Robert Redford's character, a skier trying to make the U.S. Olympic team, is so bland and unsympathetic that you wonder why to care about him at all. Gene Hackman, in an early performance, adds nicely, but this is a film that could be watched with the sound off, and it wouldn't make much of a difference.
A real let down, the novel is such a brilliant stomach churning journey into madness but this made for TV movie style nonsense is turgid and painfully slow. Stick to Mike Hammer. I find it hard to believe that no body has made a brilliant version of this book, Kubrick gushes over it on the cover, he should have taken over the reins on this one. Stacey Keach is too soppy as Lou Ford, and the whole thing has the same production values as that seventies TV spin off, of Planet Of The Apes. I thoroughly recommend that you go out and buy lots of Jim Thompson novels though, actually The Grifters isn't done too badly, thats one of his, starring Jon Cusak.
We get to see who the good guys are. The union. And who the bad guys are, a rich man who steals elections and his spoiled son. The filmmaker forces us to see good from evil. All the characters hate the bad guys so that when watching the film, this can help us along on hating the bad guys. This is the worst kind of film-making - manipulative and childish. The plot centers on a cop who is in-between the good and the bad, and he's stuck in this ugly film. It's boring and pointless. The narration by star Keach is really bad. And a good actor, Don Stroud, overacted to the hilt, playing the guy no one likes, and who we aren't supposed to like. It takes a long time for this bore to take off, and for the title to assert itself; then when it does take off, it crashes a minute later. Boring. One of the worst films ever made.
This movie had the potential to be a decent thriller, but it was hampered by only having about twenty minutes worth of good script, which was mostly used up in the beginning. After that holes started to appear in the story that one could drive a truck through. The movie followed a descending curve from good to ordinary to bad to ludicrous by the time it concluded. It's not recommended.
It might be that the film I saw was entirely different from the one that the others saw, however as the actors are the same I can only think that the cut I saw in Europe differed from the one circulating in the US.<br /><br />Anyway, this was the worst movie that I saw the past five years. (Closely followed by The Waterboy...)<br /><br />Why: Because in my opinion this director has taken elements from every thriller preceding this one, mixed them, put the in the wrong order with the wrong music and published it.<br /><br />(Examples: nothing happends, the music gets scary, and still nothing happends. The "grumpy" officer us grumpy in a way that would let the actor flunk any acting class. There´s a buddy-moment which comes out of nowhere at the end. There´s an inescapable scene and in the next scene all the problems are gone.)<br /><br />If you want to see a smart movie: see Memento. If you want to see a better thriller: see any thriller that comes to mind. If you want to see Patrick Swayze: see Dirty Dancing.
The worst movie I have ever seen. The sound quality was bad, the cutting of the scenes was even worse and above all it was not logic and it had no speed...<br /><br />I first tought: "Oh No, I don't want the trail that proves that poor Patrick was an innocent killer". But this turned out to be even worse. Typically in this American film you get a super-hint or no hints at all. I want very tiny small hints that direct you to the killer. The audience isn't involved. And now, when I don't get any hints at all, you can expect a several 's/he-is-the-killer' sweeps in the end. And that is not all. ah... This is hopeless, lets make an end to it...<br /><br />In one word: Disgusting..<br /><br />
"Love Life" explores a very culturally relevant scenario of a marriage of convenience between a lesbian and a gay man. I found the subject matter compelling, even if the conflict was a bit forced and too easily resolved. For example, Thomas falls for Joe a little too quickly and conveniently for the plot. There are many continuity errors: one other user commented on different cars in the garage, Joe's glasses...the one that got to me the most was the fact Joe's facial hair configuration seemed to change from scene to scene. In the end, I found myself more turned-on by this movie than moved. Stephan D. Gill has a pretty nice body and shows it all quite a few times with pornstar skill and exuberance, and all-too-often acting chops to match. Many times, the movie seems like it is going to go full-on porn. Stephanie Kirchen does a fine job, but her moment of enlightenment at the end was sullied a bit for me, since I was in the mood for a good romp in the shower by the end of this movie.
What to say about this movie? A married couple has more then just each other. After playing around for some time things gets more serious. A difficult choice has to be made: continue the old situation or start all over by following the heart. Guess what happens at the end. <br /><br />This movie seems to be very low budget. But a good story don't have to be expensive. It looks like a play that has been converted to a movie only by using several cheap locations (at least very little other people visible) more than just the stage, in this one the house. From the first minute future developments are clear as water. Nothing unexpected happens. Sometimes you may think watching a soft porn movie, in which case you know in advance that there's no story. <br /><br />I find this movie disappointing so that's explains the vote (4).
There is no way to avoid a comparison between The Cat in the Hat and The Grinch Who Stole Christmas, so let's get that part out of the way. First of all, let me start by saying that I think Grinch was an underrated and unappreciated film. Cat was... well, just awful.<br /><br />Jim Carey was cast because he is a brilliant physical comedian, and fearlessly commits to over the top, outrageous characters. Mike Myers fell back on his old bag of tricks.<br /><br />Why, why, why Mike Myers?? The kids could care less, and the Austin Powers demographic isn't going to spy this film. So, what was the studio thinking?<br /><br />The Cat was also apparently related to Linda Richmond. Can we talk? Why a New York Accent? Not entirely consistent with anything Dr. Seuss has ever written. Myers was even allowed to sneak in his Scottish shtick. I wonder how many different voices the director and the studio tried to edit out of before they just gave in and said "as long as you don't say fahklempt', you can keep the accents." Meyers never seemed to find any sort of comfort, either with the costume, make-up, or dialogue.<br /><br />The jokes, what few there were, were crude and age inappropriate. When Myers picks up a garden hoe and delivers to the camera: "dirty ho", everything but the rim shot was missing, and even that wouldn't have helped.<br /><br />The same folks who created 'Whoville', clearly had a hand in the creation of the town and the houses in 'Cat'. The sets and props were very appealing, giving the viewer a much needed distraction from the bad writing, direction, and Myers.<br /><br />There was some fun to be had with Alec Baldwin and Kelly Preston. Dakota Fanning was the only actor who seemed to be aware she was in a movie based on a Dr. Seuss classic, and stayed true to the genre.<br /><br />Call the SPCA. This Cat should be neutered and never be allowed to reproduce again. Please, please, no sequel.
Don't get me wrong, I assumed this movie would be stupid, I honestly did, I gave it an incredibly low standard to meet. The only reason I even saw it was because there were a bunch of girls going (different story for a different time). As I began watching I noticed something, this film was terrible. Now there are two types of terrible, there's Freddy vs. Jason terrible, where you and your friends sit back and laugh and joke about how terrible it is, and then there is a movie like this. The Cat in The Hat failed to create even a momentary interest in me. As I watched the first bit of it not only was I bored senseless, but I felt as though I had in some way been violated by the horrendousness of said movie. Mike Myers is usually brilliant, I love the majority of his work, but something in this movie didn't click. One of the things that the director/producers/writers/whatevers changed was that they refused to use any of the colors of the original book (red, black, white) on any character but the Cat. Coincidentally or not, they also refused to capture any of the original (and i hate to use this word, but it fits) zaniness of the original. The book was like an Ice Cream Sunday, colorful and delicious, and the movie was about as bland and hard to swallow as sawdust.<br /><br />Avoid this like a leprous prostitute.
Film critics of the world, I apologize. It is your job to give advice to the moviegoing public so that they can wisely choose what to spend money on. But I ignored your advice and I have been deeply hurt. However, my decision to see "The Cat in the Hat" wasn't made haphazardly. You see, three years ago all of you critics said that we should all avoid the "calamity" known as "How the Grinch Stole Christmas". Then some friends of mine took me to see it and it turned out to be a colorful, funny and almost hypnotic yuletide treat. So when the critics unleashed their fury against "The Cat in the Hat", another big budget Seuss update with a big name star in the title role, I thought that it must be the same old song. How wrong I was.<br /><br />For five whole minutes I thought I was in the clear. The opening credits are clever, the kids are charming and the production values are top notch. Then the cat showed up. There are many problems from this point on, but the biggest one was the woeful miscasting of Mike Myers. Where "The Grinch" was saved by the inspired casting of Jim Carrey, "The Cat" was destroyed by Myers. He can be very funny when his energies are applied where they belong, comic sketches. Every movie he's made that was truly funny was really just a feature length comedy sketch, from "Wayne's World" to "Austin Powers". So he tries to do the same thing here, it's just that these comedy sketches are more like the stuff that they stick at the end of SNL, not funny, just painful. Not that the writers helped him out any. After the charming prologue the movie turns into an hour of repulsive bodily humor gags, poorly timed pratfalls and insultingly stunted attempts at hip humor. This movie was the most disheartening cinematic experience I have ever had. Period. So much talent and work went into something so vile. I know that the adult stars of this movie will be relatively unscathed by this mess, I just hope that the wonderful Spencer Breslin and Dakota Fanning will get more chances to show their charms in far better movies. If you are a parent, please avoid this like the plague. With movies like "Elf" and "Brother Bear" currently in theaters, you have far better choices.
Audrey, I know you truly cherish your husband Ted's memory but PLEASE do his legacy justice and heed his wishes. Dr. Seuss refused to license his characters during his lifetime for a very good reason. We beg of you to please stop cashing in on his stories, images, fantasies and characters. They are getting disemboweled by the powers that be of Hollywood and Broadway. The children of tomorrow will be stuck with these histrionic and grotesque interpretations that will forever pollute the loving warmth and innocence of his books.<br /><br />It is indeed your property to do with as you wish. I just wish you would listen to the advice of others for a little while. Save what is left of Dr. Seuss. Thank you.
The only good thing about this unfunny dreck is that I didn't have to pay for it. I saw it for free at college. And if a college student can't find humor in something that was free, it's hopeless.<br /><br />Stale acting and poor jokes cannot be masked by an excellent, yet bewildering set design (that goes out of its way to market Volkswagon Beetles). I don't know what Michaels Myers was doing in this movie, but I have never seen anything more depressing. This was nothing more than a blatant effort to capitalize on the previous success of the Grinch (which has its opponents, but I enjoyed it very much). It's difficult not to sit through this failure and wonder what better projects were passed over to fund it.<br /><br />You want a funny Seuss adaptation? Go with the Grinch.
If you liked the Grinch movie... go watch that again, because this was no where near as good a Seussian movie translation. Mike Myers' Cat is probably the most annoying character to "grace" the screen in recent times. His voice/accent is terrible and he laughs at his own jokes with an awful weasing sound, which is about the only laughing I heard at the theater. Not even the kids liked this one folks, and kids laugh at anything now. Save your money and go see Looney Tunes: Back in Action if you're really looking for a fun holiday family movie.
This movie was physically painful to sit through, maybe because (like many people my age, and younger) I grew up with Dr. Seuss and loved his books - funny, clever, whimsical and subversive at the same time. "The Cat in the Hat" sucks all of the interest and spark out of the story, and Mike Myer's performance as the Cat is mostly bewildering. Why the Borscht Belt accent, the unfunny patter, the inappropriate jokes, the charmless costume? I had to go back and re-read the books to see the real problem: the books are SIMPLE. This movie is OVERBLOWN and way, way too long.<br /><br />You don't expect every kids' movie to be Toy Story or The Iron Giant, but this one set a new low. How could Mike Myers need the money?
From the acting, direction, scriptwriting and art direction this film is just entirely ill conceived and the money would have been better spent on shoes for land mine victims. When did we get so sad that they have to fill a a children's movie with sexual innuendo to keep the parents attention.<br /><br />Dr Suess is rolling in his grave right now, what with the "dirty ho" "S.H.I.T" and fake erection scenes etc etc etc. Its shameful how they trade on the name of Suess to get the parents to bring their kids, throw in the profanities to try for the teens and a few sad parents who won't watch a a film with their child if there is no T & A. Greed greed and more greed.<br /><br />Compare this to the classic children's films and we can get a disturbing view of world is turning into. These guys should stick to making MTV videos. How on earth this movie got >400 votes as a perfect 10 is beyond me. (unless its the directors family)
Well the previews looked funny and I usually don't go to movies on opening night especially with my kids because ......well you never know. Here is a movie that doesn't appeal either to children or adults as the jokes are too perverse for children and falls completely flat for entertainment purposes for adults. I was actually embarrassed to be with my 9 and 6 year old and having to explain to my 6 year old what S H * T spells. Essentially what happens here is a total twisting of Dr. Seuss's classic. It adds an evil and lazy neighbor who wants to marry the children's mother for her money. If that was a subplot, then maybe that would have been fine but it ends up being the major plot around the whole movie and "the cat" plays more of a subplot role in exposing the neighbor to the mom for who he really is. Take my advice and read the book and pass on the movie.
Mean spirited, and down right degrading adaptation to the classic children's tale not only lacks the charm of its forefather but lacks any talent what so ever. Mike Myers should not only be ashamed of himself for his horrible performance that is a clear rip off of what Jim Carrey did but he should give up acting all together. He is so annoying that you would want to beat the crap out of him if you were able to jump right in the film. The sets are ugly and the cinematography is very poor. I have seen a lot of bad film this year, but this not only takes the cake but it is with out a doubt one the worse films ever made.
Inappropriate. The PG rating that this movie gets is yet another huge misstep by the MPAA. Whale Rider gets a PG-13 but this movie gets a PG? Please. Parents don't be fooled, taking an elementary school child to this movie is a huge mistake. There were numerous times I found myself being uncomfortable not just because the humor was inappropriate for kids, but also because it was totally out of the blue and unnecessary.<br /><br />But all that aside, The Cat in the Hat is still a terrible movie. The casting and overall look of the movie are the only saving graces. The beautiful Kelly Preston and the always likeable (or hateable in this case) Alec Baldwin are both good in their roles even though Preston is almost too beautiful for a role like this. The kids are conditioned actors and it shows, especially with Dakota Fanning. Fanning is the only human aspect of the film that kept me watching and not throwing things at the screen.<br /><br />Did I mention there was an oversized talking cat in this movie? Mike Myers is absolutely deplorable. I didn't like him as the voice of Shrek, and I truly believe now that Myers should not be allowed near the realm of children's films ever again. His portrayal of The Cat is a slightly toned down version of Fat Bastard and Austin Powers.<br /><br />In the end, the cat should not have come, he should have stayed away, but he came, even if just for a day, he ruined 82 minutes of my life, 82 minutes of personal anger and strife.<br /><br />The Cat in the Hat may be the worst kids movie ever.
The Cat in the Hat is just a slap in the face film. Mike Myers as The Cat in the Hat is downright not funny and Mike Myers could not have been any worse. This is his worst film he has ever been in. The acting and the story was just terrible. I mean how could they make the most beloved stories by Dr. Seuss be made into film and being one of the worst films of all-time and such a disappointment. I couldn't have seen a more worst film than this besides, maybe Baby Geniuses. But this film is just so bad I can't even describe how badly they made this film. Bo Welch should be fired or the writer should. <br /><br />Hedeen's outlook: 0/10 No Stars F
This movie has made me upset! When I think of Cat in the hat. Im thinking of cat in the hat books. You know, the one from a few years back that parents read to thier children. Well, I though that this movie would be a lot like that! But much to my suprise was nothing like the books! Insted it is more like young adult humor movie. In one part cat is talking to a gardening tool (hoe) cat talks to it like it is his hoe (agin adult humor). the naming of his car I all so though was a little untastful for a kids movie. under the rating you'll find: mild cude humor and some double-entendres. I think in short this means adult humor. I wish I could return this movie! wal-mart said they wouldn't because the movie has been opened. If you are thinking about buying this I suggest that maybe rent before you buy.
Bad. Bad. Bad. Those three lines sum up this crappy little film that can only attract idiot children and their parents to the cinema. and its... #1 Movie in America! What is this country thinking? Mike Myers looking more like Micheal Jackson. Some Chineese lady that falls asleep within 3 minutes. A lame plot with dirty jokes. It's grotesuque and awful. When Green-Eggs and Ham comes out in 2005 I'll be so happy! (not) Eddie Murphy and Tracy Morgan will probably play two hipsters trying to find the lost Green-Eggs and Ham. They'll try to chase Sam-I-Am and that mean guy who are running away with it. (I hope they don't ruin the classic book.) Don't waste time and money by seeing this.
There are plenty of comments already posted saying exactly how I felt about this film so Ill keep it short.<br /><br />"The Grinch" I thought was marvellous - Jim Carrey is a truly talented, physical comedian as well as being a versatile clever actor (in my opinion). Mike Myers on the other hand gets his laughs by being annoying. I used to like him very much in his "Waynes World" and "So I Married an Axe Murderer" days - but Ive never been fond of Austin Powers and "the Cat In The Hat" has just finished me off. <br /><br />This film was horrible - the gags were horrible! inappropriate for children not only in adult content but in the fact that some of them were so dated they havent amused anyone for 50 years! The plot was messy, messy, messy! Its a shame really because the children were very likeable as was "Mom". They probably could have picked a better villain than Alec Baldwin - but he could have pulled it off if it weren't for Myers ugly, revolting over-acted portrayal of the Cat.<br /><br />I mean - did Myers even glance at a script? Was one written? The other actors seemed to have one - but the Cat just seemed to be winging it!<br /><br />On the other hand I would like to mention that the sets and props were marvellous!!! But unfortunately they cant save this film.<br /><br />Poor Dr Seuss - the man was a genius! Dont ruin his reputation by adapting his work in a such a lazy, messy way!!!<br /><br />1/10
Just about everything in this movie is wrong, wrong, wrong. Take Mike Myers, for example. He's reached the point where you realize that his shtick hasn't changed since his SNL days, over ten years ago. He's doing the same cutesy stream-of-consciousness jokes and the same voices. His Cat is painfully unfunny. He tries way to hard. He's some weird Type A comedian, not the cool cat he's supposed to be. The rest of the movie is just as bad. The sets are unbelievably ugly --- and clearly a waste of millions of dollars. (Cardboard cut-outs for the background buildings would have made more sense than constructing an entire neighborhood and main street.) Alec Balwin tries to do a funny Great Santini impression, but he ends up looking and sounding incoherent. There's even an innapropriate cheesecake moment with faux celebrity Paris Hilton --- that sticks in the mind simply because this is supposed to be a Dr. Seuss story. Avoid this movie at all costs, folks. It's not even an interesting train wreck. (I hope they'll make Horton Hears a Who with Robin Williams. Then we'll have the bad-Seuss movie-starring-spasitc- comedian trilogy.)
The sun was not shining, it was too wet to play, so I went to the movies, that cold, cold, wet date day.<br /><br />"The Cat in the Hat" was the name of the flick, and when it was over, my stomach was sick.<br /><br />Mike Myers played the Cat, his humor was lame, and kids needn't see this, the humor was not tame.<br /><br />the film was like drinking milk, from a rabid cow, so it IS fun to have fun, yet the filmmakers didn't know how.<br /><br />This film, in short is atrocious. The acting was bad, the plot was tweaked too much, and the humor was surprisingly very crude.<br /><br />It starts with Conrad and Sally, A rule breaker and a future sheriff. When their Mother has to go to work, she gets Mrs. Kwan to babysit. Possibly the lone funny part in the movie is when Mrs. Kwan is watching a Taiwanese court room, a `la C-SPAN. She soon falls asleep, and here comes the Cat.<br /><br />The film starts to spiral out of control. The Cat came to try to let the kids have some fun. He's got Thing 1 and Thing 2, Who suddenly start trashing the house. He improvises a TV Infomercial, and accidentally slices his tail off. And when the Cat goes full Carmen Miranda, it's not funny. Possibly his only funny disguise is as a hippie activist. And there's a fish who tries warning the kids about the Cat.<br /><br />Too bad he didn't warn us this film was as much fun as sour milk, or chopping your tail off.<br /><br />Soon the kids are outside looking for the family dog, who has the key to a crate on his collar. If the crate is not locked soon, their house will be home to the Cat's universe. Here it gets a little more interesting, but not enough to save the film.<br /><br />The acting, overall, is horrible. Mike Meyers brings his brand of irreverent Austin Powers humor to the Cat, Saying things like "You dirty ho" and imagining himself as a woman for the rest of his life after a whack in the testicles while posing as a pinata. Spencer Breslin is great as the trouble-making Conrad, and Dakota Fanning is cute as Sally, though they alone are not enough to save this horrendous Aortic Dissection waiting to kill John Ritter(accident waiting to happen). Alec Baldwin's slick and slimey Lawrence Quinn is disgusting, ever trying to woo the kids mom, who is played by Kelly Preston. And Sean Hayes is Mr. Humberfloob, Mom's boss, and is also the voice of the fish. The latter three are also bland.<br /><br />Overall, if I were a parent I would not take my kids who are into potty humor, cause there's plenty of it and more. Save your $7.00 and see something else. As the late great Dr. Seuss once said,<br /><br />It is fun to have fun, But you have to know how. Really, Universal, stop! Theodore's already turning over in his grave.<br /><br />Like my Mom always says, "Curiousity killed the Cat".- The Cat In The Hat * out of *****
Well I guess I know the answer to that question. For the MONEY! We have been so bombarded with Cat In The Hat advertising and merchandise that we almost believe there has to be something good about this movie. I admit, I thought the trailers looked bad, but I still had to give it a chance. Well I should have went with my instincts. It was a complete piece Hollywood trash. Once again proving that the average person can be programed into believing anything they say is good, must be good. Aside from the insulting fact that the film is only about 80 minutes long, it obviously started with a moth eaten script. It's chock full of failed attempts at senseless humor, and awful pastel sceneries. It jumps all over the universe with no destination nor direction. This is then compounded with, ............................yes I'll say it, BAD ACTING! I couldn't help but feel like I was watching "Coffee Talk" on SNL every time Mike Myers opened his mouth. Was the Cat intended to be a middle aged Jewish woman? Spencer Breslin and Dakota Fanning were no prize either, but Mr. Myers should disappear under a rock somewhere until he's ready to make another Austin Powers movie. F-, no stars, 0 on a scale of 1-10. Save your money!
When my own child is begging me to leave the opening show of this film, I know it is bad. I wanted to claw my eyes out. I wanted to reach through the screen and slap Mike Myers for sacrificing the last shred of dignity he had. This is one of the few films in my life I have watched and immediately wished to "unwatch", if only it were possible. The other films being 'Troll 2' and 'Fast and Furious', both which are better than this crap in the hat.<br /><br />I may drink myself to sleep tonight in a vain attempt to forget I ever witnessed this blasphemy on the good Seuss name.<br /><br />To Mike Myers, I say stick with Austin or even resurrect Waynes World. Just because it worked for Jim Carrey, doesn't mean Seuss is a success for all Canadians.<br /><br />
Holy cow, what a piece of sh*t this movie is. I didn't how these filmmakers could take a 250 word book and turn it into a movie. I guess they didn't know either! I don't remember any farting or belching in the book, do you?<br /><br />They took this all times childrens classic, added some farting, belching and sexual inuindo, and prostituted it into a KAKA joke. This should give you a good idea of what these hollywood producers think like. I have to say, visually it was interesting, but the brilliant visual story is ruined by toilet humor (if you even think that kind of thing is funny) I DON'T want the kids that I know to think it is.<br /><br />Don't take your kids to see, don't rent the DVD. I hope the ghost of Doctor Suess ghost comes and haunts the people that made this movie.
I was so looking forward to seeing this when it was in production.But it turned out to be the the biggest let down. A far cry from the whimsical world of Dr Seuss. It was vulgar and distasteful I don't think Dr Seuss would have approved.How the Grinch stole Christmas was much better. I understand it had some subtle adult jokes in it but my children have yet to catch on. Whereas The Cat in the Hat screamed vulgarity they caught a lot more than I would have liked.Growing up with Dr Seuss It really bothered me to see how this timeless classic got trashed on the big screen .Lets see what they do with Horton hears a who.I hope this one does Dr Seuss some justice.
I've seen some bad things in my time. A half dead cow trying to get out of waist high mud; a head on collision between two cars; a thousand plates smashing on a kitchen floor; human beings living like animals.<br /><br />But never in my life have I seen anything as bad as The Cat in the Hat.<br /><br />This film is worse than 911, worse than Hitler, worse than Vllad the Impaler, worse than people who put kittens in microwaves.<br /><br />It is the most disturbing film of all time, easy.<br /><br />I used to think it was a joke, some elaborate joke and that Mike Myers was maybe a high cocaine sniffing drug addled betting junkie who lost a bet or something.<br /><br />I shudder
Spend your time any other way, even housework is better than this movie. The jokes aren't funny, the fun rhymes that are Dr. Seus aren't there. A very lousy way to waste an evening. My kids 4-16 laughed a little at the beginning the younger ones got bored with it and left to play Barbies and the older ones left to play ps2 and surf the net. My wife left and did dishes. So I finished it alone. It was the worst "kids" movie I have seen. If you want to watch a fun kids movie watch Shrek 2, that movie is fun for kids and their parents. AVOID THIS MOVIE. It isn't funny, isn't cute, the cat's makeup is about the only good thing in it and you can see that on the disc label.
Dr. Seuss would sure be mad right now if he was alive. Cat in the Hat proves to show how movie productions can take a classic story and turn it into a mindless pile of goop. We have Mike Myers as the infamous Cat in the Hat, big mistake! Myers proves he can't act in this film. He acts like a prissy show girl with a thousand tricks up his sleeve. The kids in this movie are all right, somewhere in between the lines of dull and annoying. The story is just like the original with a couple of tweaks and like most movies based on other stories, never tweak with the original story! Bringing in the evil neighbor Quin was a bad idea. He is a stupid villain that would never get anywhere in life.This movie is like a rejected comic strip from the newspaper if you think about it. The film sure does look tacky! Sure there are a funny adult jokes like where the cat cuts of his tail and the censor goes off before he says a naughty word, mildly funny. At least the Grinch had spunk, and the film was actually good! This film is a cartoonish piece of snot with bright colors and bad mediocre acting. Was Mike Myers even in this movie actually? And another thing, the fish. What is with that stupid fish! First time you see him, he's an actual fish. Next time you see him, he's all animated and talking. But he looks like an animated piece of rubber play dough! This film is a total off target wreck. Good joke, bad joke, bad, bad, bad, good joke! I'm surprised it even had good jokes like the water park ride joke, that was good. So please if you have the choice, watch the Grinch instead of this mess.
No redeeming features, this film is rubbish. Its jokes don't begin to be funny. The humour for children is pathetic, and the attempts to appeal to adults just add a tacky smuttishness to the whole miserable package. Sitting through it with my children just made me uncomfortable about what might be coming next. I couldn't enjoy the film at all. Although my child for whom the DVD was bought enjoyed the fact that she owned a new DVD, neither she nor her sisters expressed much interest in seeing it again, unlike with Monsters inc, Finding Nemo, Jungle Book, Lion King, etc. which all get frequent requests for replays.
Most movies I can sit through easily, even if I do not particularly like the movie. I am the type of person who recognizes great films even if I do not like the genre. This is the first movie I could not stand to watch. Cat in the Hat is the worst movie I have ever seen--and I've seen a lot of movies. The acting is okay (Myers is good as the cat, it's just that he is REALLY annoying). The silly songs the cat sings were boring and monotonous, even for the children in the audience. The plot drags on and on, and viewers must suffer through poor dialogue. The "witty" parental remarks are disgusting, not funny (I remember some awful comment about a garden hoe being compared to, well, a type of person people call a "ho"). Even though the movie is really short, it seemed to last FOREVER. Do not waste your time. I know small kids who hated this movie. If children can't stand it, I do not know how any adults can. I would like to fume more about this film but I do not even feel like wasting anymore time writing this review about it. I HATED IT! So, in summary, do not spend 90 minutes of your life watching this! See a GOOD movie!<br /><br />1/10 stars--the lowest review I have ever given a movie.
An absolutely atrocious adaptation of the wonderful children's book. Crude and inappropriate humor, some scary parts, and a sickening side story about the mom's boyfriend wanting to send the boy away to military school to get him out of the way makes this totally inappropriate for the kids who will most likely want to see it because of the book (3-8) yr olds. Don't waste your money, your time, or your good judgement.
Shame Shame Shame on UA/DW for what you do! <br /><br />I was appalled. <br /><br />Do NOT take kids to see this movie. The humor is totally inappropriate for children - plus they'll be bored and disappointed. Certainly *we all* have read Theo's wonderful children book and certainly we have expectations...but this is pure trash. Dr. Seuss would be ashamed and certainly would've never given his "thumbs up" at such a dastardly attempt to capitalize on a classic.<br /><br />What a pity. <br /><br />Spend your money on the book. If you own a copy, then buy the book and donate it to a Toys for Tots program. This movie is NOT worth a "free" ticket viewing.<br /><br />Stick with the book. The tv cartoon version works well if you want a visual portrayal - save your money...seriously. SAVE your money - it will be on cable by saint patty's day.<br /><br />Shame shame shame on what they do!!
There's only one thing I'm going to say about cat in the hat...as a KIDS movie and a good comedy movie it sucks...I lost track of how many terrible jokes in the movie that not only sucked but weren't exactly kid appropriate. Oh and by the way the way the cat in the hat talked was annoying...as for the plot I completely forgot. Who cares it sucked anyway. i'm not sure why Mike Myers joined but I think the writers were trying to make it sound like him in Austin powers without the swinger talk and it overly succeeded- but so what it was annoying. don't see it-it belongs in the bottom 100.............................. the jokes are so unkiddy it's funny
A fine line up of actors and a seemingly nice plot -- though not original -- promised me a nice evening in front of the TV. I was disappointed. The actors delivered up to standard (Juliette Lewis cuddly as ever; William Hurt solid but in the background; Shelley Duvall convincing as ever) but the story was too thin to keep me engaged to the story and, the twist to the finale was too obvious and too late; there was only one character who was nice to he girl, so guess what?! Then the final after-twist… I do not know what to think of that. The boyfriend and the neighbor? Contract with the Devil, or just to get her to move in? What! The film had a nice idea behind it, but the idea was not worked out in detail. It could have been good, but it was not. Too many loose ends to tie up, Columbo would say.
'The 4th Floor' is a decidedly mediocre film starring Juliette Lewis as a young interior designer with a heck of a problem neighbor. Jane (Lewis) has recently inherited a terrific 5th floor apartment from her grandmother, and per agreement with the landlord, gets a ridiculously low renting rate. Her boyfriend (William Hurt as a creepy weather man) wants her to move in with him, but she wants her own space. So she moves in, and weird stuff starts happening, and because this is a B-grade horror flick, there's a dumb, not-to-be-found-in-reality reason why. As the none-too-intriguing Jane keeps trying to tell others- her boyfriend, the police, coworkers- what's going on, everybody thinks she's losing it. So, of course, she has to face the problem- the lunatic living right below her- alone. Neither scary nor interesting, The movie's single saving grace is Lewis. She's a very fine actress but poorly used here, which is not to say she isn't the best thing about this flick- because she is. She has feral charisma and holds the screen better than a dozen of the silicone bimbos that routinely populate this type of movie. This type of movie, though, is not worthy of her- which is ironic, given that she's probably the only reason anyone would see it.
My wife invited my son and I to watch this on cable TV on a lazy Saturday evening, thinking that it might show an unusual role for Juliette Lewis. On this promise, at least, the movie delivers: her character is ineffectual, adhering to nearly every slasher-type horror movie cliche. As does the movie. A cataloguing of its studied adherence to them would be an exercise in recall of something I hope to quickly forget, so I won't make one. Basically, this is a whodunnit, heavy on the red herrings: everybody appears guilty, rather than just the two one suspects from the beginning. The "rule out the logical and obvious, and what's left is it" rule of bad horror movies works well on this one. The only surprise to have any impact on me was its final snagging of the indeterminate ending cliche: will Jane keep her appointment with her attempted rescuer, who will tell her the (obvious to the audience) identity of the 2nd conspirator, propelling her into another round of hysterical victim-play. Mercifully, I will never know.
Unfortunately, this movie is absolutely terrible. It's not even laughably bad, just plain bad. The actors do their best with what is the cheesiest script ever. How scary can a movie be when the climax actually involves a roomful of millions of styrofoam peanuts?
Dumb excuse for a thriller with absolutely zero chemistry or reason in relationship between Lewis and Hurt (why is she dating a man old enough to be her father anyway?? The suspense is laughable. Lewis is very good, but a script is needed, and there isn't one. My score for this trash: 2 out of 10.
Yep. Those of my generation who grew up watching those old Sunbow cartoons were spoiled. The 80's Joe tune was one of the best cartoons in the history of television. Well written stories, well developed characters. Granted it was nothing more that a glorified toy commercial but it definitely helped carry that toy line. Fast forward almost twenty years later and enter Valor vs. Venom. The animation was average at most. The movement of the characters seemed to jerky and puppet like. The movie felt more like a Small Soldiers sequel than a story about a special military force. Then we have character development or lack there of. Dusty likes to be all Dusty? Slice and Dice like to do things together? What? Did the writers take a writing course on how to develops characters with the depth equivalent of Jar Jar Binks? As for the story. I like a bit of Sci-Fi. But that whole concept of turning soldiers into a mutant army has been done to death in the Joe universe. Mega Monsters or Toxo-zombies anyone? But I give the creators credit for trying to make the fan boys happy by having martial arts action every 10 minutes. I'm not a huge fan of SE and SS but I did like the fight scenes between the two. If you can appreciate VvV for what it is you will enjoy it. I admit to not being able to appreciate VvV as I should. Again everything Joe gets compared to what ways done in the 80's, and honestly nothing will ever compare to the glory days of GI Joe. If you can appreciate VvV for what it is you will enjoy it.
Oh, the horror, the unspeakable horror of this film. If you can even call it a film. This looks like some first-year art school project, hastily cobbled together.<br /><br />The "talents" here will subject you to a painful mix of under- and- overacting, and practically all the scenes were terribly contrived and pretentious.<br /><br />The film in no way reflects Malaysian culture or social conventions - nobody even talks that way over here. I live in Malaysia, BTW.<br /><br />Spinning Gasing seems tailor-made to pick up an award in the foreign film category of some western film festival. And unfortunately, that ploy seems to have worked. Some reviewers would no doubt describe it as "exotic", but a more accurate word would be "atrocious".<br /><br />
To call this film a complete waste of celluloid would be an understatement.<br /><br />The acting was unconvincing to say the least, especially from actor Craig Fong, who couldn't have acted stiffer. As far as story goes...well...what story?! The "film" is nominally about Harry Lee, a Malaysian of Chinese descent who comes back to his home country after flunking out of every course he took and tries to start a band.<br /><br />The film has ever cliche you can think of -- sex, tension among band members and a little bit of racial tension thrown in.<br /><br />The problem is that even with a subject that's been covered adequately by even the most amateurish directors, this movie is all over the place and the whole thing just feels contrived with parts that would make even the most hardened reviewers' hairs stand on end.<br /><br />
This was the first feature film for just about everyone involved, including director Teck Tan, so they deserve credit for pulling it off. But this film was awkward in its direction, preachy in its style, exaggerated in its acting, and overly politically correct. The plot was all over the place, preventing any aspect of it from developing well. Gangsters get involved in the story, though i'm not sure what their presence added to the movie other than making the film even more unrealistic. They could have been completely left out and the film would have been better as a result.<br /><br />The plot is about a young ethnic Chinese Malaysian who returns to his home country after studying in the West. His studies have brought him back with the skills he thinks he needs to fulfill his dream of managing a rock band and taking them to the top of Malaysian charts (a rather juvenile premise). The beginning of the film hints at conflict with his traditional father, but once the gangsters get involved this part of the story is dropped unceremoniously.<br /><br />The film tries to take advantage of Malaysia's wondrously diverse ethnic mix, but unfortunately the manner in which these aspects were put to film either seemed terribly contrived or downright preachy. There is a pretty scene of Malay women doing a beautiful traditional dance on a beach, but the way the vision is integrated into the plot seems forced and unnatural.<br /><br />The acting came off as somewhat amateurish, and the male lead was particularly unconvincing. The female Malay lead was a notable exception leaving the most positive mark. The film also has an openly gay character, and though he is a bit of a caricature, he provides some of the funnier moments in the film. But the movie was just barely a notch above a typical local television soap drama. Sadly, this film, which is not in the least offensive, has been banned in Malaysia. 3/10
I'm very interested in the overwhelmingly positive reviews here. While it had some good features, for the most part I found this movie to be heavy handed, predictable, and, worst of all, not in the least bit scary. The first 30 minutes of the movie were promising, the actress did a nice job in her portrayal, and the world around her was well thought out and meaningful. Unfortunately, from there, the movie entered into a downward spiral. I went into this movie with no clue as to what it would be about-- didn't know anything about the actors, directors, genre, etc. At a certain point, my wife made the comment "is this supposed to be a scary movie?". Well I suppose so, as the boiler-plate "horror movie" score full of squeaking violins and extended vibrato could mean nothing else. There didn't seem to be a whole lot of originality in the movie, the romantic interest was painfully obvious from the first moment, and the second half of the movie descended deep into the realm of the ridiculous. A movie like this walks a dangerously narrow path, and unfortunately there comes a point where the viewer must decide whether to continue walking along that path, or to jump off and simply laugh at the ridiculousness of it all. For the final 30 minutes, I chose the latter.
I'm sorry, but I cannot understand what people were smoking when they wrote how great they thought "Ethan Mao" was. I have seen better acting, character and plot development in pornos! WARNING: I am going to give away a key element to the "plot". After holding his family hostage overnight, Ethan lets his vile, evil, hated step-mom go to the bank - ALONE!!! - to retrieve the piece of his late mom's jewellery which he so desperately wants. Guess what? She calls the cops! Wow ... what a twist! I couldn't see that coming at all.<br /><br />The only good thing about this movie was that it was less than 90 minutes.<br /><br />Pure, unadulterated rubbish!
Saw this at the video store and thought I'd give it a try. Sounded like a good story and the cover looked good. That was it. The characters looked good, and the actor who played "Noel", was the most convincing, though he didn't have any heavy time in the movie. I find it really hard to give a movie a bad rating, but this is one, in a minute number, that gets it my book. As the movie went along I kept wanting it to get better but to no avail. Asthetically, it was good. The sound and lighting was good, but the acting in this film killed it for me. It was like watching a low grade soap opera. I just kept saying, "I can't believe they released this move like this". I paused several times out of sheer unbelief that the acting was that bad. There's so much I want to say but I'll just say this, everything else, for the most part, was good, it was the acting, as a final cut, that really did this film in.
If you and your friends find as much humor and enjoyment from horrible acting, jokes, props, and overall film making as me and my friends, you need to rent this.<br /><br />From simply reading the tag line and seeing how not funny it is, you should assume more not funny, poor quality, great, hilarious content through out. Its a tale of some of kids who defy every law of physics and reality and fly back in time through a modern day big screen TV to a world of dinosaurs who eventually become their friends. Not to mention a hilariously serious scene where T-Rex becomes a father figure for one of the kids. Yeah...<br /><br />It should be in the comedy section but you'll find it with kid movies if you find it at all. So call your friends over, sit back, relax, get ready to laugh, and enjoy. You will be quoting the laughably horrific one liners in this movie for weeks. "Whats with all the ruckus?!"
Okay,I had watched this movie when I was very little and the day that we were cleaning out the closet I see this!I thought,"I have no idea of what this movie was like,"so I went ahead and put it in.OH MY GOD!!!!!This film is so darn bad!I never thought that this film could ever get as close to my least favorite film as it did,but I did laugh,because all the jokes were so corny and ridiculous,not funny!!!!So much stuff in this movie was funny,because it was SO STUPID!!!!This film is not anywhere near good.I would have to say if you want to watch this movie you definitely better not expect anything big and if you've already seen it,trust me,I feel your pain as well!!!!
This movie was sooo bad. It wasn't even funny at all. Not even the sarcastic scenes were funny. Oh man, bad, so bad. Thumbs down. Spoofed, Karate Kid, Teen Wolf, Footloose, Dirty Dancing, Some Kind of Wonderful, Soul Man, and probably another or two. Chris Kattan at his very worst as the high school janitor who is a talented dancer, who runs a dance studio in a warehouse. He has a jealous girlfriend, who breaks her ankle and her dance spot goes to the cute blonde newcomer who Chris has eyes for. I thought the acting was really bad. I like laugh out loud comedies, this was not one. "Not Another Teen Movie" wasn't funny, but had a lot more funny scenes than Totally Awesome. "Scary Movie" is suuuper funny. I always laugh when I watch those, super enjoyable. This movie, not funny.
Oh, dear! This has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen. It's unbelievably repetitive; every scene seems to consist of people being gunned down, running round screaming, or being kicked in the face, which quickly becomes very dull. I wouldn't mind if the combat was even any good, but it isn't; the main character Phillips pushes the various goons over with ridiculous ease, and no matter how often he stands in full view of the Tracker, he never gets hit, even though extras and minor characters are being shot and blown up all around him. I've rarely seen a worse cast of actors (especially Don Wilson, if you can even call him an "actor") but that's not really surprising, given the dialogue they have to work with (sample line: "Computers killed my brother!"). The plot is a sub-par ripoff of the excellent Terminator; the special effects are laughable. Overall, this film is just utterly dreadful. And why does everything explode?
Plot Synopsis: Los Angeles in the future. Crime is kept under control by Core Trackers, android assassins dispatched by the United States Computerized Judicial System to execute the guilty. Secret Service agent Eric Phillips prevents an attack on his boss, Senator Robert Dilly (the man who set up the USCJS), by the Union for Human Rights, a group of anti-machine activists. Dilly attempts to initiate Phillips into his private circle but the SS agent goes on the run after witnessing Dilly murder a UHR agent in cold blood. Dilly sends Core Trackers after him. Phillips joins the UHR group & helps them uncover a conspiracy involving Dilly.<br /><br />"Cyber Tracker" is the first of a number of sci-fi / action hybrids directed by Richard Pepin, co-founder of PM Entertainment, a powerhouse of action films during the 1990s. Other Pepin films include "Hologram Man", "T-Force", "The Silencers" & "Dark Breed". Pepin films typically start with a major action sequence which lasts about 10 minutes before allowing the plot to kick in. The script for this film has a few plot holes – it is never clear what the conspiracy the heroes are trying to stop actually is. As for the acting, Don "The Dragon" Wilson may be tough but cannot act for beans, with little charisma. His co-stars are a lot better. The film's best bet are the action scenes, which throw up some impressive artillery fire, a huge bodycount & not one but three moments where a vehicle flies through the air, flips & hits the ground, exploding. The visual effects border on the cheap side & the musical score is low-key & shrill.
Eric Phillips (Don Wilson) is a secret service agent who prevents the assassination of a senator however along the way he finds a conspiracy and has a tracker on his tail. The tracker by the way is bent on terminating Phillips. The most obvious inspiration for this low budget cheeseball action flick, is of course Robocop and while that film had some imagination and real energy, this just has a real life kickboxing champ running away from a robot. The movie isn't so awful as it is just empty and repetitive. The story is written in clichés and the characters are set up to be cut down by the various gunfire. Don Wilson, as usual, is terrible in the lead role.<br /><br />*1/2 out of 4-(Poor)
CyberTracker is set in Los Angeles sometime in the near future where bodyguard Eric Phillips (co-producer Don 'The Dragon' Wilson) saves senator Robert Dilly (John Aprea) from an assassination attempt by a group known as the UHR, the Union of Human Rights, who are angry at Dilly for spearheading the Computerised Judicial System in which robots called CyberTrackers are sent out to determine & dispense justice on the guilty. Anyway, Eric saves Dilly who is very impressed & decides to see if he can trust Eric in his shady activities like the cold blooded murder of a traitor, being the fine upstanding guy that he is Eric isn't impressed when Dilly kills a woman & he is asked to keep it quiet. Eric escapes & sets out to bring Dilly down, however Dilly has lots of powerful friends & he uses his influence to frame Eric & have his CyberTrackers sent out in pursuit of him...<br /><br />Co-produced & directed by Richard Pepin I think films like CyberTracker give films a bad name, I didn't like it that much at all. The script by Jacobsen Hart is pretty predictable, it doesn't excite, it steals most of it's ideas & theme from other better sci-fi films & the heady mix of martial arts action & sci-fi don't gel that well. There a few fights, some car chases & a couple of shoot outs but it's all rather bland & forgettable. The film lacks imagination considering the film is set in the future & it deals with robots, technology & the way society is run & it's judicial system in particular. Speaking of which the fantastic Robocop (1987) mixed it's violent action & clever social commentary brilliantly but CyberTracker doesn't even try to make any relevant social statement or try to portray any meaningful moral message about law enforcement, the script basically uses the concept to have robots & shoot outs which Robocop did as well but also managed to include a good story. There is very little in CyberTracker that I can say was entertaining & that's what films are about right?<br /><br />Director Pepin does OK but nothing stands out, it's all rather forgettable & it's not particularly exciting. The sci-fi elements are nothing more than the robot side of things & as a whole the film doesn't look that futuristic. The action scenes are alright, there's some exploding cars & some shoot outs but nothing spectacular.<br /><br />Technically CyberTracker is average, for a film supposedly set in the future it already looks dated & the special effects are poor. The acting was bad, I wonder if Don 'The Dragon' Wilson signs cheques with that name?<br /><br />CyberTracker was a waste of my time, there is nothing here original or exciting & the action is instantly forgettable. Poor & that's all that needs to be said, not recommended.
This movie was obviously made with a very low budget, but did they have to make it so obvious? It looked like they made no effort to make the "future" look in the least futuristic. For example, the first scene takes place in an 80's office building and all the cars that get blown up are from the late 70's (I assume they didn't want to blow up cars that cost more than $500). Additionally, its pretty obvious that Don "the Dragon" is driving his personal car during the movie (after all, he did partially fund the film). Finally, they point out at the beginning of the film that all kinds of drugs are now legal in this new "cyberpunk" society. Not only does this never become important in the film, but later when don needs surgery without anesthesia, why doesn't he just go out and get some legal heroin or morphine? The whole movie is sloppy like this and completely anticlimactic since Don easily blows up an "unstoppable" Cybertracker about 25 minutes into the movie. However, if you find this movie cheap or free I'd watch it, the last scene is almost worth putting up with this whole film.
Yet another version of mother of all gangster flicks-the Classic "Godfather" and yet another case of over-hype due to media circus. Sarkar, the 13th Hindi film of Ram Gopal Varma as director is also the weakest in his Underworld trilogy including the other two being the excellent-Satya and Company. The Charisma, the magnetic persona of the two Bachchans playing father-son duo on screen for the first time is definitely a treat to watch out for. Not just strong performances but their perfect chemistry is the biggest scoring point here for which Varma should be applauded. However, the same equation of the duo is missing with the other characters in the film. Reason-the other characters look more like cardboard caricatures esp. the villains represent the typical Bollywood baddies. A character who attracts attention is elder son played by Kaykay but again not able to hold due to half-baked characterization. . The Drama and conflict is brought alive by the excessive use of Close-shots, which brought a claustrophobic effect rightly needed to construct an ambiance. The haunting Score (Amar Mohile) and the sound design (Kunal Mehta, Parikshit Lalwani & Anup Dev), together with dark, murky background overlapped by shinning powerful images (camerawork by Amit Roy) contributes to Visuals so typical of Ramu's style. But there is an overuse of Music though fortunately no songs are there in the film. But can interest of today's "intelligently growing" audience be sustained just on shoulders of two performers and strong Visuals ? I don't think so. Surely, audience "maangey more" and here film fails to deliver. In any adaptation, in order to add a new dimension, the biggest pre-requisite is the Screenplay, which is sluggish here not being crisp at places, and therefore the pace slackens quite often. What finally audience is subjected to is a highly predictable, very commonplace drama with very little surprise elements. Top Stunt director Allan Amin Ghani is also not in his best form. Some scenes which require a different treatment includes- a Minister is talking foul about Sarkar and the son is overhearing; a very amateurish shoot out in the jail on Sarkar, Sarkar Jr. escapes from the clutches of his enemies, a Son easily motivated to kill his own father, a son is secretly entering his father's room to kill him, a police commissioner slapping Sarkar Jr-all this requires a more realistic, hard-hitting approach which is the back-bone to create the required conflict. The dialogues are weak for eg. look at an amateurish line where a CM says to Sarkar Jr. –"Wo jo Police Commissioner tha na usay maine hata diya".. The women folk take on Sarkar's working is completely ignored. The uninterrupted negotiations about criminal activities while Sarkar is with his family also look slightly out of place In fact, the film follows a graph quite similar to Ramu's own production-Ab Tak Chhappan. In depicting the battle between good and evil, the other side of life-the law, police, administration, politics is completely ignored. Certainly, more is expected in content. Here the film definitely falls short and could not rise above an average fare. Dear Ramu, agreed that now you are laughing your way to the bank, you definitely need to take some drastic overhauling measures in your film production factory, before it is too late.
I was expecting a lot from Mr.Amitabh Bachan's role of SARKAR, but am disappointed. Being a Ram Gopal Verma's direction i was not ready for this kind of a movie. Sarkar is supposed to be a strong character, but the movie shows that Amitabh is too dependent on others power rather than his. There is a movie in Tamil called Nayakan based on the theme of GOD FATHER and Kamala Hassan has played the lead. The movie is well directed and the power till the end remains in the hands of Kamala Hassan, not his son. Amitabh Bachan seems to be too helpless in the movie and he just accepts everything instead of changing things. The movie fails to show the strong impact of God Father.
It is disappointing to see as talented an actor as Amitabh Bachchan in such a weak role, especially when he was beyond sensational in BLACK (which I highly recommend). One line in the film states: "Sakar is not a mere man, he is a thought and a philosophy." Director Ram Gopal Varma credits THE GODFATHER as an inspiration for this movie, and perhaps that is the problem. It seems like a badly mangled American movie set in India. The Left Elbow Index considers seven elements of film-making--acting, continuity, plot, character development, dialogue, artistry, and production sets--on a scale from a high of 10 to a low of 1, with 5 given as a average score. The film continuity seems high, an 8, by maintaining a violent tone infused with drama in places, and using justice outside the legal system as motivation. However, there seems to be a lack of emotion connected with the evil of organized crime. The acting rates a 4, it appears too weak, even when someone is being beaten or murdered, it seems hoohum. For example, when one character is shot in the forehead, I found myself wondering if, or when, he was going to fall. He does not, and ala Ronald Reagan he is placed in an automobile, with his bleeding face cradled ala John F. Kennedy. The plot rates a 5 as an example of American-style gangsterism, with a family oriented Robinhood at its head. Character development appears static, and the characters seem like chess pieces on an abandoned chess board, thereby earning a rank of 3. The dialogue seems stilted, and appears to be forced to fit some Bowery pattern of speech--a 4 for dialogue. Production sets look to be below average--a 4. And, artistry is puzzling, with far too many close-ups, too rapid panning, and too many group scenes where the actors seem over rehearsed--a 3. To me, too much camera movement is disruptive. The average of the Left Elbow Index is 4.4, and with a slight deduction based on poor derivatism it moves down to a 4. Two questions continually arise in the film: one, why are so many people eating so often: and, two, does not India have its own brand of organized crime? Do films like this have to be so dependent on Western cultural examples? As much as I like Amitabh Bachchan, I cannot recommend this film.
Dear Mr Ram Gopal Varma, I don't know in which capacity I am writing this letter to you. I am a never-say-he's-finished Amitabh Bachchan fan, having sat through his cock-chasing act in Jaadugar. I also demand some important designation in The Godfather fan club, having watched the Coppola classic more times than you have delivered flops from your Factory. And, of course, I have been a big admirer of yours, right from the time you had Nagarjuna wrapping the cycle chain around his knuckles in Shiva.<br /><br />When you announced Sarkar and called it your take on Godfather, all one wanted to know was the date the first look would be out, the Sunday the promos would go on air, the Friday the film would be released. It was sheer wish fulfillment at work knowing that you, and not someone hovering between the mustard fields of Amritsar and the tulip gardens of Amsterdam, had taken up the task of recreating the Puzo pages on the Bollywood big screen.<br /><br />Your cast couldn't have been more you — working for the first time with the legend, casting Abhishek as his screen-son, giving Kay Kay a role he has deserved for years, bringing back forgotten faces like Supriya Pathak and Rukhsar, and picking complete non-actors like Katrina and Tanishaa to join the list… Before July 1, you had made Sarkar the most-awaited film ever for any Godfather freak who worshiped Bachchan.<br /><br />The opening credits stoked the hope that your stunning sepia-tinted promos on the telly had kindled. But now, you labeled Sarkar your tribute to Godfather instead of the word "inspired" which you had been using all along. Probably you don't want the two creations to be compared but when the medium is the same, then a Kaante would be compared to Reservoir Dogs and a Reservoir Dogs to a City On Fire.<br /><br />Also, when your first and last sequences — the heart of any screenplay treatment — are all about the establishment and the transfer of power, you can't keep the Nagares and the Corleones apart, even if you replace the American mafia moves with Maharashtrian political power play.<br /><br />But you got it wrong, Mr Varma… You wanted to show Amitabh in his 70s avatar, as rustled up by the pens of Salim-Javed. You wanted him to lurk around larger than life. You wanted him to be his own brand(o). Then how could you steal his voice in the name of using silence? How could you keep him rooted to his chair in the hunt for interesting camera angles? How could you leave him stranded without his voice and stature, the two things that have made his B so big? Coppola's Godfather cameraman Gordon Willis masked Brando's eyes throughout the movie because it didn't have the power to match that drawling husky voice or that sudden snap of the fingers. But you tried to repeat the Malik act from your very own Company. But Bachchan is no Ajay Devgan — his forte doesn't lie in the stagnant stare and the suffocating silence. You made the man look like a comatose patient, who's reminded from time to time to look at the cue cards and mouth those predictable one-liners. For that, Agneepath's there, any given Saturday.<br /><br />Which Bachchan fan would go and watch Kay Kay Menon stealing the thunder from under his nose in the scene where Sarkar asks Vishnu to leave his house? Which Amitabh aficionado would go and watch him focus on achaar and carom, in a film that talks about power with a capital P in the promos? We can't handle so much in the name of restraint and understatement! You don't even allow the camera to rest on him for five seconds when he learns that his son wanted to kill him. Give me the old-school camera-only-on-Bachchan style, any given Saturday.<br /><br />Kudos to you, of course, for making an actor out of Abhishek, first in Naach and now in Sarkar. You also allow him to show Mallika Sherawat that he can run as well as his father. Even in the short prison sequence, you really make the Bachchans come out of the text, an opportunity Shaad missed in Bunty Aur Babli. Wish the film could have been more a father-son story rather than a chaotic conflict between caricatures in the name of characters, who pop up like the ad windows on the Internet.<br /><br />You also let the women more into the script than Puzo and Coppola did and again, you deserve all the Brownie points for squeezing them in so effectively. Pathak is a welcome return as the mother in the middle, Tanishaa lovable as the lovelorn girl, Katrina a revelation as Abhishek's confused lover and Rukhsar's silence speaks volumes.<br /><br />But sub-plots do not a classic remake. When your free-flowing camera tries to make every frame look hatke and your loud background score irritates incessantly, we keep getting reminded that we are in a Factory. Well, maybe not a Nino Rota score but Sarkar certainly deserved better than those Govinda, Govinda chants and uncalled-for flute interludes.<br /><br />Mr Varma, some of your Factory directors tell me that you are involved with every project, from overseeing the shooting schedules to supervising the editing sessions. Perhaps, in the middle of all the various storyboards, the Bhiku Matre scream is being muted by the Subhash Nagare silence. Perhaps, you need to bring the shutters down on the factory and work on a single homemade product. Otherwise, your products would remain products, to use and throw, not treasure. And movie buffs like me, for whom there are no hits and flops, only good cinema, would rather choose a film without Factory finish, any given Saturday.
At the beginning of the movie, Ramgopal Verma says that "Sarkar" is his tribute to The Godfather. This one feels more like an insult. It pales terribly in comparison to the Coppola classic. Although no one was expecting Ramgopal Verma to fill Coppola's shoes, the movie did create a lot of expectation and buzz. <br /><br />Amitabh Bachchan plays "Sarkar", a character automatically drawing instant comparisons to Indian political party Shiv Sena's Supremo Bal Thackeray. Abhishek Bachchan plays his son Shankar who returns from abroad and gets caught up in Sarkar's politics at home. Just like Al Pacino in the original Godfather. <br /><br />As most Bollywood fare, incidents and characters are overtly simplistic and devoid of any kind of solid foundation. Quick phone calls and sudden announcements turn the film from one direction to another. Abishek takes to Mumbai's murky underworld politics-crime nexus like a duck takes to water. Amithab Bachchan as Sarkar is supposed to look magnificent and powerful, he just ends up looking old and clueless. Most of his acting is centered around constantly staring at different things around the movie set - the actor in front of him, the floor or in some other random direction. <br /><br />However, Kay Kay performs exceedingly well as the wronged elder son Vishnu. So does Zakir Hussain as Rashid, the Dubai based dope smuggler who wants to gets his footing in Mumbai. This actor has awesome screen presence and can send chills down your spine with just the way he looks. The moment he enters the screen, you want to run and hide under the bed. <br /><br />All its obvious flaws not withstanding, the film did well at the box office. The buzz and the big star cast obviously helping. Also Verma manages to hold your interest albeit mildly towards the later half of the film. He is actually making a sequel to this one which I am sure will be more of the same fare.
What on earth happened to RGV? There are so many things wrong about this movie that one needs to stop and decide where to start- first and worst - the music. Every scene was accompanied with this pretentious background music that was telling you the mood, quite pathetically, I might add. Secondly, the lighting - do we really need such dark scenes where we are wondering if the projector is still working? And finally - if you are going to Indianise the Godfather and Godfather 2 - please realize that a lot of us have seen in. Nayakan was a ripoff of GF1 but better done, and more entertaining. I have seen a similarity in both Company and Sarkar and while RGV's Ab Tak 56 was brilliant, these two movies leave something to be desired. People will not be impressed any more by just corrupt politicians and the lot. Maybe RGV should see Maqbool, which is good enough to be RGV!!
A remake can be successful. An adaptation can be successful. It isn't relevant whether its a remake or an adaptation.<br /><br />A good movie is a good movie and a poor movie is a poor movie, regardless.<br /><br />Sarkar, I am afraid, was a very poor movie. First of all, just by making characters look dangerous, or macho, they don't bring in an aura about them.<br /><br />What was so brilliant about Nagre(Amitabh Bacchan's character) that we should have been in aura of his 'power' and what showed the 'benevolence' of the character? Nothing.<br /><br />This fact was said by a commentator and Amitabh kept giving facial expressions. Now Amitabh can give brilliant facial expressions but why should it mean any thing if there is no history or story to go with it.<br /><br />There wasn't proper charecterisation of the characters who worked under 'sarkar' too. Just because a man had spectacles, why should we assume he is wise. ] The flow of the movie was generally dullbecause scenes from the Godfather were created (like the policeman slapping Abhishek Bacchan), the older brother being killed by Abhishek (like Fredo was killed on instructions of Pacino) but too much was sought to be packed into the movie with too little story and depth to go with it. That was indeed the problem.<br /><br />If you try to pack 3 hours of intricate detail like a Godfather in 2 hours and that too with few dialogues, what you get is a highlights show from a cricket match, never making the full impact watching a full match will make.
I'm a huge Zack Allan fan and was disappointed that he only got one scene in the movie. This was also my favourite scene where he confiscates a character's weapons and directs her to Down Below. Unfortunately unlike Thirdspace & River of Souls, most of the action took place off station. I didn't care much for Garibaldi after the first three seasons and think Sheridan is okay but no Sinclair. I like Lochley but she only had limited screen time. If you like Crusade or space battles you should enjoy it. Personally I can only give it 1/10.
Countenance! Antoine Monot, in a copycat impersonation of Kevin Smith's Silent Bob, keeps asking for it, but writer/director Christian Zübert never listens. Zübert just can't say no to a joke, no matter how cheap. The best thing about this movie is its soundtrack. Of course, Joey Burns of Calexico and the divine Jonathan Richman, understated old-school bard of "There's something about Mary" fame, would grace any small-town dropout story. In visual allure, Stefan (Lukas Gregorowicz) looks cool enough riding his tan six-series BMW two-door, wearing aviator shades, going nowhere. True, he *accidentally* sleeps with his wild-eyed bohemian kid sister (Marie Zielcke), but then, who wouldn't? Thumbs up also to how he goes black-and-white on a liberal dose of that mysterious substance they call zero-zero, but if you're looking for a slightly more serious rendering of what intoxication can do to you, I suggest you check out "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas".
Yeah, what did I expect? I thought this would be a film about young adults at their turning-point in life, something like "Sonnenallee" or "American Pie", which I liked a lot. I wanted to see a funny film, perhaps with an ironic look on idyllic Wuerzburg. And what did I get?<br /><br />Attention, spoilers ahead!<br /><br />This film starts with a lengthy dialogue which gives you a good hint of what will inevitably follow: more lengthy dialogues. Sometimes I thought Moritz Bleibtreu might have forgotten his text and trying to hide that fact by improvising and just repeating what he was saying before. But as I think of Bleibtreu as one of the better german actors, I believe that this effect really was intended. I think the author wanted to show how boring talking to close friends can be - especially when they are stoned. But really, I don't need cinema to be bored by stoned friends' talk. Boring dialogues make up most of this film.<br /><br />But okay, that's one thing. I can cope with that, I have seen nice films with abominable dialogues, just think of Schwarzenegger's life's work. But the next thing is that characters are cheap and flat and that the storyline is as foreseeable as anything. Just one example (SPOILER!!): Why, do you think, does someone take a garden hose to his hemp-plants deep in the forest? To water them? Of course not, usually you don't find water-pipes deep in forests, do you? The only reason this water-hose is there is that a hunter who happens to come by while the two protagonists are harvesting their dope can be drugged, maltreated and finally filled up with three bottles of Jaegermeister. I truly hated this scene, because it's really violent. Usually, I don't mind violence in films - slapstick-comedies are full of it. But in that sort of comedy there is a silent agreement between the film and you that people don't get hurt if they fall on their faces or get beaten with chairs or things like that. But if that happens in a film which is otherwise realistic enough, slapstick-scenes also seem real. In this particular scene in "Lammbock" I really thought that this hunter must be badly injured, if not dead - the final scene really invoked in me the impression that he is left to die there, totally filled up with more booze anyone could handle. And the protagonists just walk away. It would have been otherwise if the author had consistently followed one style; the scene could have been quite funny.<br /><br />Talking about being consistently - that's what I missed most about this film. The whole film seems to be a listing of small episodes that came to the author's mind. Things just happen without a apparent reason - yeah, I know, that's life, but that's not cinema, because cinema is meant to tell a story, not to show boring episodes without any significance. I found myself asking "Where's the point?" all the time. Characters besides the two main ones are not elaborated, you never get to know why the protagonist's sister wants to sleep with his best friend Kai, in fact, she tells you but I could not buy it, not at all. I think she just was there to give Kai an opportunity to act this childish AIDS-test sketch, which you sure have seen a thousand times before, and mostly better. The protagonist's girlfriend you meet once, then she leaves Germany (what you don't even see and the guy doesn't seem to care) and finally it is mentioned in one sentence that she has met someone else in America and splits up with the protagonist. It seemed to me that the author wanted to tie up a few loose ends. He actually didn't, you never really get to know what's so bad about studying law, being daddy's son (daddy fixes everything in the end and serves coffee in the middle of the night, which to my mind made him one of the nicer characters in the whole film) and living in beautiful Wuerzburg. Even the dinner with daddy's layer-friend, which maybe was intended to show how horrible it is to have to live up to dad's expectations, seemed flat, just another nice dinner with the family's friends (except for the trip the guy is on later, but I think showing that eating dope before you dine with parents isn't healthy was not the point of this scene, if there was any). I have experienced far worse dinners in my life than this one and still finished my exams. I couldn't understand one single character in the whole film, they just seemed flat and implausible.<br /><br />All this made it a not-so-good film, but not one I wouldn't watch again on television. It really had a few good scenes (most of them were not new, though, like the one with the nice and understanding policemen), some were really funny, some dialogues were nice and I like Bleibtreu's play, although he repeated his well-known stereotypes again this time. Not good, not abominable, that's what I thought after the film was half over.<br /><br />But then came this incest scene and this I really found repulsive. Incest simply isn't funny. I don't even know if this was intended to be funny, some people in the audience laughed, so it could have been meant this way. This scene spoiled the whole film for me, I couldn't feel sympathy for the protagonist any more - I can't feel sympathy for anyone who f**** a helpless person, to me, this is rape and rape isn't funny. So it might have been a hint of drama or so, but the incest is never again mentioned (although we thought this could have been one reason for the protagonist to leave Germany in the end, but as it is never mentioned again, we don't know.), it is even totally unnecessary. I almost expected the sister to become pregnant in the end, which would just have added the finishing touch to this tasteless story, but not even this final cliche is fulfilled, just as nothing is really solved or thought through to the end in this film. It isn't really funny, it isn't really a drama, it isn't at all a road movie a la Tarantino despite desperate tries on violence, it is definitely not enjoyable.<br /><br />Skip this film. Watch "Final Fantasy", that's also bad, but at least with beautiful pictures and not that tasteless.
Hailing from 1988, Touch Of Death is probably the most frustrating Fulci film I've seen to date, prompting me to join the chorus of horror fans who generalise that his films get worse as you get later into his career. Considering the plot synopsis, I was expecting some bloody bad-natured fun with this one, but for all its bizarre flourishes, it feels tedious even at a running time of just 80 minutes, and suffers from nauseatingly shabby production values and film-making craft (or lack thereof).<br /><br />El Story: A gambling addict widower wines and dines rich (and strange) women he finds via lonely hearts columns before offing them in gruesome fashion - sometimes eating them or feeding them to animals - and stealing their money to keep his debtors at bay. Sure, it's unlikely that just one man would be the host for so much screwed-up pathology all at once (addict, psycho/sociopath, cannibal), but this is Fulci!<br /><br />Touch is actually the cheapest and sparsest looking Fulci film I've seen. There's almost nobody in it, even in the background of shots out on the street, for instance. A newsreader who keeps appearing on the film's televisions to warn the non-existent cast about the maniac's latest doings operates out of the most pathetic TV studio on the planet. He never even gets to look at the camera because has to read all the headlines off misaligned sheets of paper.<br /><br />Some scenes just go on and on with the protagonist muttering to himself about what he's done or what he's about to do, but the acting is nowhere near good enough to sustain this kind of thing, so the main outcome is viewer boredom. The film also looks bland and ugly in general. I've read that it was intended to be an Italian telemovie (did it ever screen in that venue? With the amount of gore involved, it seems unlikely), and it does reek of crappy old telemovie production values.<br /><br />This is also Fulci's first foray into outright black humour, but he's just too graceless a director to make it work. Sometimes conspicuously cheerful or 'wacky' music is used to play against a gruesome scene, for instance while the hero/villain is carving up a dead body in his basement. The effect isn't really chilling or funny or ironic anything that you'd like it to be - it's mostly just hamfisted and crappy.<br /><br />There are of course some redeeming moments of gore (that you'll be waiting for while trying to stay awake), including the eventual murder by oven(!) of a woman who just won't quit life, even after her face has been totally bashed apart with a bloody great club, and a homeless guy who gets a car run back and forth over him about five times. The most outrageous element of Touch, however, is all the physical deformation on the widows courted by the crazy guy. Beards, hairy moles, messy harelips - it's not like he sought out women with these features, it's just the way all lonely hearts widows are, apparently. There are plenty of shots of Mr Crazy secretly grimacing while he's smooching up these women. The black humour of such garish misogyny might have some staying power or resonance if the film wasn't so poorly executed in general. In the end, Touch Of Death just seems like a really lazy, inarticulate mess.
This is just dreadful. I regret every second of the 80 minutes I spent watching this dreck. I think it's supposed to be a comedy, but I don't remember laughing much, except at a few blatant inconsistencies and downright glaring errors.<br /><br />An unattractive middle-aged man called Lester meets up with rich unattractive middle-aged women via lonely hearts ads, and then murders them for the money he needs to feed his gambling addiction. That's the whole plot, and that's really all that happens. Along the way there is an attempt at intrigue when Lester starts to get phone calls from a mysterious stranger who taunts him about knowing his secret, but its so badly implemented, you may not realise what is actually supposed to be happening. The sequences in which Lester murders the rich widows are all quite brutal but also seemingly dressed up as comedies. One sequence has a woman bludgeoned with a wooden pole and then shoved into an oven. It's very cruelly depicted, but it is played out against blaring big-band waltz music, with Lester pulling faces and adopting comedy poses throughout. Another scene has the victim murdered while she constantly sings shrill opera songs...you have to see this to believe it! Actually - you don't have to see it at all, in fact I strongly recommend you avoid this flop. Fulci does not seem to know which hat he is wearing and there's no evidence of any of the flair seen in his earlier career. One sequence stood out to me as particularly wretched: the revelation when Lester suddenly realises that he has no shadow. Fulci seems unable to think up any visual representation of this phenomena on screen, so from this point on he just films the actor as normal, shadow and all!! And thus totally blows the whole angle. Either he had zero budget for effects, or he just didn't care enough to think up any way of showing it. Whatever it was, that should give you a taste of how lame this whole project is. I couldn't even understand most of the film, and there certainly wasn't anything on screen worth looking at half the time. Even the ending was as flat as a pancake. A real dud.
This latter-day Fulci schlocker is a totally abysmal concoction dealing with an incurable gambler (Brett Halsey) who decides Bluebeard-style to pay off his ever-rising debts by seducing some of the ugliest bitches you will ever lay your eyes on and who just happen to be wealthy widows! The Fulci-penned script also contrives to incorporate a few blackly comedic elements - which only result in some unfunny business involving a corpse which won't stay put, an opera singer victim who won't stop singing, etc. - not to mention a doppelganger theme straight out of THE STUDENT OF PRAGUE - although, in this case, the two personas communicate via pre-recorded radio messages!! In the end, I can't say I'm surprised that this film shows no sign of the sophistication of Mario Bava's HATCHET FOR THE HONEYMOON (1970) which it resembles in several ways and that it is content to merely pile up the disgustingly gory (but none-too-convincing) effects of dismembered limbs and squashed or melting faces with which, alas, Fulci had by then become completely associated.
Lucio Fulci was famous for his Italian splatter movies, mostly his undead films like Zombie or The Beyond. Here he directed a black comedy of sorts, but there's just one problem: its nauseating. I say this knowing that I like City of the Walking Dead (which is also gross but not like this). A compulsive gambler gets money for his habit by romancing ugly and deformed rich women then murdering them and stealing their cash. The film makes this plan look that easy. I guess the women were too ugly to go to a bank, so they always had their cash on person. After the upteenth murder I began to suspect what I've always heard about Fulci: he hated women. He must have. At any rate this film stinks, its not funny, and Fulci should have stayed with giallo and supernatural zombie movies. Avoid this film at all costs.
There are certain horror directors for whom I've built up so much respect & admiration over the years, that they can't possibly disappoint me know matter what garbage to decide to put on film. Lucio Fulci is surely one of them, but damned, he's trying to disappoint me with his later efforts! You can easily afford yourself to skip most of the films Fulci directed or produced during the late 80's and simply watch "Cat in the Brain" instead, because that one title gathers and repeats the best and absolute goriest footage of no less than SEVEN other Fulci-flicks, including the sickest murders sequences featuring in "When Alice Broke the Mirror". As a whole, this movie definitely ranks among our director's weakest and most pointless achievements. The script is incoherent as hell, the basic premise is totally implausible and somewhat stupid and there's absolutely no suspense to enjoy. I love the title, but it's actually quite meaningless. There is a character named Alice in the story, but it's only a supportive role and she certainly doesn't break any mirrors. I suppose she could break stuff simply using her voice, as she's an opera singer, but she doesn't. The plot revolves on a middle-aged and gambling-addicted playboy who spends his days seducing wealthy widows and killing them for their money. Lester Parson butchers the ladies (as well as unwelcome witnesses) in gruesome ways, makes steaks out of their juiciest body parts and feeds the remainders to his cat. There's also a silly psychological sub plot in which he thinks his own shadow is responsible for the murders instead of him. The difference between "When Alice Broke the Mirror" and some of Fulci's greatest horror films ("The Beyond", "City of the Living Dead", …") lies in the fact that he totally doesn't bother to create a horrific atmosphere. The characters, Lester included, are colorless and boring and the murders are ordinarily depicted; like it's the most common thing in the world to put a woman's head in a microwave or repeatedly run back and forth over a human body with a car. The lighting is poor, the cinematography super-ugly, the editing clumsy and amateurish and the acting performances are downright miserable. If I didn't know any better, I would think Lucio deliberately made a lousy film in order to protest against all the harsh critics that dislike his repertoire no matter how much spirit and effort he put into it. The obvious element to enjoy here is simply the outrageous gore & bloodshed, because even the attempt to blend in black comedy doesn't work properly. As long as Lester swings around his chainsaw and cuts off women's feet, "When Alice Broke the Mirror" is an undemanding piece of horror entertainment, but other than that, there's isn't a whole lot to recommend.
Lucio Fulci, a director not exactly renowned for his subtlety, ill-advisedly tries his hand at black humour in Touch of Death, a made for TV movie about Lester Parsons (Brett Halsey), a psycho who seduces and murders rich widows in order to pay his gambling debts.<br /><br />Starting off with a wonderfully gory scene in which the lethal lothario disposes of his latest victim via chainsaw, mincing machine and hungry hogs, Touch of Death starts promisingly enough, but Fulci soon loses control of proceedings, introducing a weird sub-plot involving a mysterious copycat killer and some heavy handed 'comedic' scenes. There are several more graphic murders which, in true Fulci fashion, are extremely violent and gruesome, but even the high level of bloodletting doesn't stop this from being one of Fulci's poorer efforts.<br /><br />As I have found with many of his other movies, a comprehensible storyline is not exactly high on the agenda when Lucio is behind the camera. This film has many peculiarities which left me more than little perplexed: why didn't Lester dispose all of his victims using the dismemberment method seen at the beginning? Why are all of his victims either hairy or disfigured? What the hell is that ending all about?<br /><br />Fulci is considered by many to be one of the 'greats' of horror cinema; I don't understand his popularity, finding the majority of the films of his that I have seen so far to be generally lacking both decent narratives and technical proficiency. Touch of Death certainly does nothing to change my opinion.
Back in 1994 the Power Rangers had become a huge franchise and t.v. executives at the USA Network were hoping to get in on the action and came up with the Tattooed Teenage Alien Fighters from Beverly Hills, in which the evil Emporer Gorganus, who looks like he's wearing a home made Darth Vader costume, and his talking bird, that looks like a rubber dog chew toy, come to earth to invade it using giant monsters that look like rejects from a 1970's Godzilla film. Fortunately Nimbar an alien that looks like a giant piece of clear jello recruits four teenagers to defend the earth, Nimbar gives them each a tattoo of a different star constellation that allows them to transform into buffed up superheros who look like dancers from an eighties tech no music video, they could also combined into a giant knight. Forty episodes were made. The USA Network clearly did not have the money to try to adapt a show from Japan like Power Rangers did, and made up this show on their own using the budget of a 1950's scifi film. The fights scenes are generic, the special effects are poor, and some of the sets look like they could fall down. The actors pretty much realized how ridiculous the show was and pretty much ham it up and overact. I can only imagine their shock when the show was cancel led.
I've been surprised by the enthusiastic response to this film. It seemed dull to me, much as I enjoyed looking at Penelope Cruz, and the plot details often poorly worked out. It also seemed like an intensely sexist film: if the gender roles were reversed, almost everyone with any sense would be up in arms complaining the movie is intensely misogynist. It's not just that both the principal males are portrayed as complete jerks and sexual predators, but also that the women are portrayed as almost flawless, forming a utopian community which lacks conflict of any kind and which rests on relentless generosity and good humor. Utopias are notoriously dull and this one turns out to be no exception. But it's also interesting to notice what happens (and here comes the plot giveaway, though it refers to a very early scene) when the teenage daughter kills her father. (1) Her mother rushes to take responsibility for it and(2) the daughter seems to suffer almost no remorse (and in fact her emotional life then disappears from the film). It's not quite a glorified killing, though Aldomovar's camera lingers on the blood in a bloodthirsty way, as though it makes an attractive painting, and then it's soaked up and out of sight without bloodying either daughter or mom, neither materially nor emotionally. Later the film reveals another killing, again by a woman of a man, , and once again it is a killing which the film implicitly endorses.In short, Volver is an ideologically-driven film with an unpleasant and in fact a repugnant ideology, and so I write an ideological critique. But apart from that, it's just not very interesting. It has none of the depth of, say, Aldomovar's Talk to Her, which I loved.
A film by Almodovar- sends a tingle down my spine every time. The capitalized print which opens the Spanish auteur's latest feature instantly induces memories of salacious nuns, gentle necrophiliacs, wisecracking transsexuals…and I haven't even got as far as the infant-terrible's critically reviled early work. And after a beautiful opening montage, with the camera roving across a wind-swept graveyard animated by a hoard of widows feverishly scrubbing tombstones, I thought Pedro had me again under his wicked spell.<br /><br />Yet once my nostalgia had subsided, there was very little to fill its place. For a director who revels in bringing humanity to assassins and rapists, he does a very poor job at finding any emotional depth or endearing quality in his women. Penelope Cruz is Raimunda, a headstrong housewife whose life is complicated by her daughter's accidental killing of her abusive husband. Thankfully she lives in Almodovar's Spain where your friends will quite happily help to dispose of a corpse for the offer of a round of cocktails. Add to the melting-pot the ghost of Raimunda's mother and a host of other eccentrically warm-hearted matriarchs. "Volver" means literally to return, and Pedro does appear to be recycling old material. The sub-plot of incest feels as though it were tacked-on as the obligatory "taboo". Instead of commenting on or subverting the issue, as with his treatment of paedophilia in Bad Education, it feels forced and unconvincing amid the film's chick-flick sentimentality. I suggest Almodovar call his next film Salir (to move on).
One of the first things I noticed that allowed this culture to stand out among the rest was during the wake at Sole's place. An aerial shot is used to show Sole being flowered with kisses by a sea of women. I believed this was a commentary on the closeness that women had for each other of this culture—ones who stuck together across the generations, separations and misunderstandings, and still being able to bond and rely on each other. Also, the film seemed to glorify women as almost flawless individuals. What I mean by flawless is that they did not suffer the consequences for their actions and were treated as if they had no imperfections. An example of this is shortly after Paula accidentally killed her father. Her mother immediately comes to her rescue and takes full responsibility for the act while Paula seems to suffer almost no remorse for what she has done. Again, another example of this is when each daughter (or granddaughter) has had an opportunity to reunite with their supposed "dead" mother (grandmother). Knowing the stresses that this has most likely caused in their family, each one of them still embraces the mother without care for what she has done—that is, killing her husband and his lover. In this light, women are portrayed as ones who not only love each other independent of character acts, but also ones who don't seem bothered in the least by the acts in which their friends/family members perform.<br /><br />Another idea that I thought was intriguing of this culture was in regards to their idea of the supernatural. With the death of Raimunda and Sole's mother and her inexplicable return, the director builds the audience's emotions to believe that this film is going to embody the supernatural. The people depicted in this culture seem very supernatural, that is to say, very eager to believe that life exists beyond the grave. Their aunt, long-time friend Augustina, the prostitute and other people living in the city of La Mancha all believe the rumors of the dead coming back to family members to finish the "unfinished business." I believed this was a mixed reflection of the culture's religious faith (predominantly Catholic) as well as their need to make amends with those who had no chance to be forgiven during mortality. The belief they held in regards to the dead being "alive" was also to give hope to the destitute circumstances they suffered in mortality. When the viewer is exposed to the fact that this film isn't supernatural at all, it's interesting to observe the role the mother continues to play. She's treated as if she still is a ghost (i.e. hiding in small crevices (underneath the bed or inside a car trunk)). I believe the director portrayed the mother this way to heighten the already existent supernatural beliefs the city had adopted. The mother's character seemed to be a metaphor for the city's long-held belief in life after death.
At least for me. I have been following the career of Mr. Almdovar since the beginning and I was not crazy about this film. I think Penelope Cruz was miscast, the type of woman she is portraying does not look that good, she makes the character unbelievable. Also, the singing scene was just weird. I do not get the point and the lip-sync was awful.<br /><br />As Spaniard, another thing that drove me nuts are the accents. Why people coming from the same place have such a different accent? The difference between the two sisters is notable and makes no sense. And the village? are we in 2007 or 1950? I found myself trying to explain to my American husband that many of the things in the movie are "old school", things are not like that anymore.<br /><br />I was expecting more but this time Mr.Almodovar did not deliver, at least for me. I am not saying that Miss Cruz does a bad job, I am saying that she does not belong there, not portraying that character.
Though I have watched Salò, I do not know if excrement tastes tart. If it does, this "film" is accurately titled. So much of roughage, so little substance, this is the celluloid equivalent of celery - only it does not cleanse the palate. It leaves the taste of wasted time in the mind's mouth, and if I could vomit this film and get back that expanse/expense I would. Detention was more exciting. The director should be forced to wear a dunce cap, and the Spirit of Ed Wood Jr. couldn't save this semi-professional projection from certain failure. A waste of time, a waste of mind. **Don't be fooled by the toothsome Dominique Swain: competent eye-candy she was in the Lolita remake, less tragic and savvier than Sue Lyon, though by no means better. However, a previously competent turn of the screw does not make her a skilled crafts-person. You need craft for that, not crap, which is what this film is. The reels belong in the girls' bathroom, flushed till the pipes burst, while director/direct-less Christina Wayne should do 5-10 in study hall. Watch anything else and pass this class, by (bye), forever!
"Tart" is a good illustration of old the Yogi Berra saying: "If you don't know where you are going, you will probably end up someplace else". Writer/Director Christina Waye (in her first feature) has managed to make a $3 Million movie that ends up someplace else. "Tart" is either a coming of age story devoid of characters that a rational person can connect with, a black comedy without any humor, or a sexploitation movie without anything that is particularly sexy.<br /><br />Unlike the standard Swain film, "Tart" actually employed a competent and experienced production designer. Good enough to provide two extremely nice shots: the scene of Swain and Barton taking a bubble bath together and the scene of Swain in the park-featuring a nice montage of the "Alice in Wonderland" sculpture. The symbolism incorporated into these elements supports the possibility that Waye (despite the absence of a linear logic or unity of tone) actually has some visionary talent and aspirations for making a quality film. <br /><br />It is even possible that Waye was trying for a fusion of the somewhat expressionistic "Metropolitan" and the camp classic "Cruel Intentions" which also deal with the Manhattan upper class. There are many camera shots framed by windows and doors yet few tight shots of faces and eyes. The former technique hinting at symbolism and the latter at intentional distancing from the characters and their motivations. "Tart" seemed on the verge of veering into camp territory at least twice and would have been well advised to keep going in that direction. First there was the scene where they try to dump the seemingly deceased Swain into the garbage chute. Then there is the whole bit about her father being Jewish (played to the same extreme as Joel Grey dancing with the Jewish guerrilla in "Cabaret"). <br /><br />In her other films Swain's acting technique is to overwhelm each scene in which she appears (insert scenery chewing here) but in "Tart" she actually shows an ability to restrain herself. This is the best performance of her career. It also provides some clues about her physical deterioration from willowy super cute in "Girl" to hulking lumpy-faced in "Pumpkin". This transformation was about half-complete by the time she made "Tart"; so go the ravages of time. <br /><br />Mischa Barton ("Sixth Sense's" I feel better girl) and Lacey Chabet are excellent in supporting roles. The rest of the cast is simply horrible, although some of the blame for this should go to Waye's script and direction.
The beginning of the movie was confusing and the rest of it was predictable. It was just one of those movies that I came across in my netflix instant queue and I thought it would be interesting to see Brad Renfro and Bijou Phillips team up together again since Bully. Unfortunately "interesting" never happened in this movie. Swain plays an invisible girl at a private school whose best friend is rich and does anything she wants at any time (Phillips). But Swain likes one of the boys (Renfro) from the "in crowd" and eventually starts hanging with them. And, of course, like all other movies things are good (or so you assume since the movie never hints on that things are good) and then things become not so good by hanging with the rich kids.<br /><br />The problem with the movie is that there are absolutely no peaks and valleys. It is just a dead lifeless movie that after you've watched it, you feel you could have done anything better. Some scenes (the ones with Renfro's parents) don't even make sense as to being in the movie because the director and writer didn't follow up on it, at all.<br /><br />All the interesting things that COULD have played out was just completely ignore and this is almost like watching a before they were stars episode (Mischa Barton and Rachel Bison from the OC). <br /><br />The only shining light in this movie, and the reason it doesn't get a ONE rating from me is Phillips. They needed more scenes with her in it. Renfro just look like he brought over a bit of his character from Bully. And, for pete's sake, the Title is BS, change the name.
Basic structure of a story: Beginning, Middle, End.<br /><br />Sometimes this structure is played with, and we get Memento or Irreversible and the story plays backwards. Sometimes it's just not linear, a la Pulp Fiction. Regardless, they all have a beginning, middle and end.<br /><br />This is the first film I have ever seen that doesn't have an end.<br /><br />Beginning: Girl's best friend is expelled.<br /><br />Middle: Girl needs to cope without best friend.<br /><br />End: Non existent.<br /><br />Not that having an end would've saved this film, but at least it would have been complete.<br /><br />It's an exercise in apathy; we get a party-mix of characters, and they all turn out to be duds. Boring, vain, vapid and pallid imitations of people.<br /><br />And here's the action within this film: NOTHING HAPPENS. Nothing at all happens. Mischa Barton tries to talk with a plummy English accent, Dominique Swain whines a lot and Brad Renfro receives a blow job from some old guy. End of movie.<br /><br />By the time the credits rolled, I had a horrible feeling that many prisoners must feel: periods of time, those precious minutes of our life, have just been wasted.<br /><br />The only passable point (and that is a very emphatic ONLY) is Brad Renfro. He acts well. Lacey Chabert I tend to like, but no luck here. Due to good work in other films, I will forgive Mischa Barton this travesty, but I hope all cast members were slapped in the face for their involvement.<br /><br />Please, I implore you. Avoid. Don't fool yourself into thinking "I'll make up my own mind". My sister told me to never see this, and I ignored her, wanting to make up my own mind. That was a bad decision.<br /><br />I have never hated a film. There are many I don't like, but I have never hated a film. Until I saw this.
Eghads, what a bad movie. Tart is perhaps the very worst movie I've seen all year, and I've run across some doozies. There is nothing redeeming about this trash, from the characterization to the direction to the plot. Even the usually brilliant Dominique Swain couldn't save this movie. None of the characters are in the least bit sympathetic, with the possible exception of Eloise (wonderfully portrayed by Lacey Chabert, the only bright spot in this dismal failure).<br /><br />*******Possible Spoilers********<br /><br />The main problem with Tart is that it rambles on without saying anything. It staggers about drunkenly instead of leading us along the path of the story. It also introduces numerous potentially tantalizing details (the hypochondriac brother, the mother's possessions constantly being repossessed, the anti-semitic classmate, the other classmate's murderous father) without successfully exploring a single one of them. And just when I finally thought that there might be some sort of resolution for the characters, the movie crashes to an unexpectedly violent end.<br /><br />I left the movie feeling that it was trying to tell me something, but with the strong impression that the message was forgotten before it could be communicated. This is an obvious first film from a writer/director who really needs to spend much more time working under more established film makers before foisting any more of her work on an unsuspecting public.<br /><br />I gave this film 1 out of 10, and I'm usually very generous, even with bad films.
TART is the worst movie I've seen this year, and that includes both the Affleck/J.Lo bomb GIGLI and the Rob Zombie borefest HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES. I don't know if that's a fair comparison seeing that TART was made two years earlier and probably has a budget half that of even the low-budget 1000 CORPSES. Regardless, all three movies suffer from the same shortcomings: horrible script, horrible acting, horrible direction.<br /><br />*** SPOILERS *** (although I honestly don't think there's anything to spoil)<br /><br />TART is about a group of super-spoiled private school kids. Most of them reside in super-sized apartments along New York's hyper-expensive Park Avenue, thanks to the finances of their neglectful parents. The film showcases the aimless life of one of the students (Cat) as she discards her only true friend (as frivolous a person as she was) in the pursuit of the "good life" with the in-crowd. That, of course, leads to sex, drugs, and music that is substantially worse than rock & roll. Everything is overly dramaticized in the way that truly bad movies usually are. Cat's first sexual experience leads to her being branded a tramp and ostracized by her newly acquired circle of friends; her first encounter with drugs leads to her nearly being dumped down a garbage chute after her cohorts believe her to be dead from an overdose. No heavy-handed messages there, he said sarcastically.<br /><br />That's mainly what the "seen it before 100 times" plot entails. Other minor, and even less interesting, plot details include one friend who steals jewelry and trinkets from all the others, a wild child who lives life on the edge (and finally falls off of it one night in the EAST Hamptons), an anti-Semitic British chick who ends her close friendship with Cat the moment she finds out Cat has a Jewish father, and Cat's strained relationship with her single mother who tries unsuccessfully to get Cat to appreciate the privileged life she has. The thief turns out to be an irredeemable lowlife. The "wild child" is played as a toned down version of one of the Hilton sisters. The British girl disappears from the film after the break-up. The mother/daughter relationship is seen as totally inconsequential until the film's final schmaltzy scene, where she and her beleaguered mother have a reconciliation of sorts. *yawn*<br /><br />*** END SPOILERS ***<br /><br />About the cast and crew.... Dominique Swain came on the scene strong with her role as the underaged seductress in 1997's highly watchable LOLITA and FACE/OFF. Her performances were strong enough to land her on quite a few "ones-to-watch" lists at the time. She was 17 at the time and I hope that they will not be the best roles of her career. If she takes a few more roles like the one she takes in TART, it very well may be.<br /><br />I've only seen Bijou Phillips in one other film (BULLY) and I swear her performance in that one was nearly identical to the one she gave here. I'm not sure if she's incapable of giving varied performances or if it was just a coincidence her roles in the two were so very similar. My guess is that the former is true. I sense this woman possesses very little talent as far as acting is concerned. Here, she is the actress tapped to portray the watered-down Hilton sister. That she gives such a weak performance is amazing considering that she grew up with, and remains friends with, the real-life Hilton sisters. She's essentially playing a version of herself in this film, and doing a damn poor job of it.<br /><br />As for writer/director Christina Wayne... I know nothing of her other than TART was her first, and only, film project to date. With a first effort like this it is no wonder her career in show business was short-lived.
Movie Title - Tart<br /><br />Date of review - 5/26/02<br /><br />Year of movie - 2001<br /><br />Stars - Dominique Swain, Brad Renfro, Bijou Phillips (barely), Melanie Griffith (barely)<br /><br />NeCRo's Rating - 4 skulls out of 10<br /><br />May Contain spoilers<br /><br />Plot<br /><br />An "outcast" Dominique Swain wants to be with the "in" group and so she abandons her real friends and joins them.......much annoying rich people talk occurs. Acting<br /><br />ugh, I guess I got what I wanted in that Dominique was ok, but man, the rest of the cast besides maybe Brad Renfro were bad or at least not interesting or likable at all. I know some could say that the others were good because they made me hate them....trust me....I like unlikable chars but this group is unlikable because they can't convincingly be bad people.<br /><br />It figures that the only other people I got this for were barely even in it and that is Melanie Griffith and Bijou Phillips, but the little time they had they were ok. Melanie spoke maybe 2 lines, but at least Bijou had a good character although small.<br /><br />Violence and Gore<br /><br />My mind was constantly under attack from horrid dialogue and very very annoying characters, that's violence enough!! ok there was one bludgeoning with a rock which was ok.<br /><br />T&A Nudity Factor<br /><br />hahaha, they couldn't even add in any nudity to help spice up this movie, probably because no one would want to bear their body for this crap. If they are going to expose themselves they should do it in a movie where they will be remembered as their character and not for "oh hey I heard she gets naked in this one."<br /><br />Overall View of the movie (review)<br /><br />ok ok I know I pride myself on being the person who can like most if not almost all movies or at least find some good in it. Well this movie is one of the few I really struggled to find anything worth while in. The problem with this movie is that it is so damn annoying. I already have a deep hatred for snobby rich people attitudes and that didn't help either. All this movie really is, is just a bunch of rich people sitting around acting depressed and stupid. I can't stress the annoyance factor enough. This movie tries to rehash the tried and true "In group" plotline which can usually be done ok with little difficulty.<br /><br />Why do I not have a pic from the movie or the box cover? Well I felt this movie didn't deserve that glory so I decided to put a pic of the reason I rented this, and that reason is none other than Dominique Swain. Yes I too was wooed by her in Lolita and thought she was so good that I decided from then on to check her out in any movie in which she acts. At least I keep my promises and yes I have seen the majority of her movies, minus a few hard to find ones. She herself is a great actress and I would defend her actively, but man she chooses some of the crappiest movies to star in. This movie and Smokers are both in the same boat of crappiness, but at least Smokers had a cool idea for a story and even some real good scenes.<br /><br />Also the dvd box tries to fool you into thinking that this movie has stars as well in it by putting Melanie Griffith and Bijou Phillips names on the front of the box. If there's one thing that P****S me off it's a movie that plasters the names of stars on a box to make you think "wow it has ____ I wonder how good ___is in this one I saw ___ in that movie and thought she was great!" only to have the big names in the movie for a total of maybe 10 minutes between the 2. Bijou actually had a part that semi-meant something. Melanie on the other hand, only has 2 lines about.... Granted I don't like Melanie that much, but this is about ethics and not star acting.<br /><br />Out of all this mess though props must go to Brad Renfro for turning in an ok performance along with Dominique. Brad may be one very messed up kid in real life, but at least he can act. So the only reason this movie gets any skulls is because I got what I basically wanted which was Dominique Swain and Brad Renfro. Also I had the added pleasure of seeing underrated actress Bijou Phillips make me like her even more. So even though I was annoyed throughout I still came out with some positives, although this was pretty hard this time.<br /><br />I recommend you to ONLY see this if you've seen Lolita and know how good Dominique is or if you are some offbeat fan of Brad or Bijou. Uber Melanie fans will be sorely depressed. Also if you're a fan of crappy movies like me, please do not assume this be a guilty pleasure because you will feel guilty alright, for the money spent on buying or renting.<br /><br />Some movies are "so bad that they are good" as the saying goes. What they forgot to add was "so bad that they are good (to pass up)."<br /><br />NeCRo
The box to this movie totally misrepresents itself. The cover shows a view of legs & panties in a short skirt. The title is `Tart.' The synopsis on the back of the box made it seem as though Cat, the main character, was an outcast who became one of the popular students, but that popularity lead to a bizarre lifestyle that she could not escape from. Everything that the box built this movie up to was a horrible lie. I expected a sort of crappy, direct-to-video version of `Heathers' targeted at the teenagers of today.<br /><br />Let me tell you what `Tart' was really about. Yes, this really is the plot; so if you don't want to know what happens, stop reading. We have one unlikable, boring rich girl. This unlikable girl's best friend is a skank. The skank gets expelled from school, so the unlikable girl befriends some British girl. This leads to the unlikable girl dating this boring guy, who the box refers to as the `most popular boy in school.' If that guy was the most popular guy in their school, I wish I would have gone to that high school, because I could have kicked the crap out of him. Anyway, as any movie will tell you, the most popular guy in school is invariably a murderer or drug addict or thief, or in this case, all of the above. Anyway, everyone ends up disliking the unlikable main character because she is Jewish. Then the most popular guy in school beats her best friend, the skank, to death with a rock because the skank caught the most popular boy in a homosexual act. The unlikable girl's stoic mother and hypochondriac younger brother are there for her at the end. Oh, and the entire movie is about snotty rich kids and their horrible parents too. Gee, what is wrong with that? That sounds like a fantastic movie! Well, that's what I thought. But you see, there are NO likeable characters in this movie. The main character is boring. The filmmakers made her average, while during the film she keeps spouting off about what a freak she is. The skank is not skanky enough, and has little screen time. The popular guy is nothing to write home about. The popular girls are just your run-of-the-mill rich girls. There are no moral lessons. Cat, the boring main character, is not a freak, does not ever become one of the truly popular girls, and (worst of all) after all the crap she goes through, she thinks she is still too good to befriend the only nice girl, the dorky girl. To be honest, I have no idea why the movie is called Tart. I kept asking, who's the tart? Is she the tart? Are they all tarts? At 94 minutes, theoretically this is not a long movie. But after actually watching this awful waste of a VHS tape, and not knowing who the tart was, I was surprised that the movie was only an hour and a half. The movie felt like it was two hours and some change. After a while, I was hoping the movie would be about pop tarts. At least when you look at a box of pop tarts, you know what to expect.
Just once in a while you see a movie so mind-numbingly awful that you have to comment on it. This was that movie. Poorly scripted, acted and totally unbelievable. It's movies like these that show you how good the banal Hollywood trash usually is!
I only wish that I had the good sense to turn this movie off in the beginning when I knew it was terrible. <br /><br />Instead I gave it the benefit of the doubt and waited for it to get better. <br /><br />Don't make the same mistake I did. <br /><br />The title has nothing to do with the movie. The movie has nothing to do with the real world. The plot has nothing to do with a plot. The acting consists of a guy who wants to be John Cusack, but can't pull it off. The lead is a girl who tries to be Claire Daines. Sadly, she can't pull that off either. They are in love, although god only knows why. And by the end I was hoping that they would all kill each other off just so I could believe none of these kids would ever taint the world again.
As a rule, I try to find as much in films as I possibly can to enjoy them. I made no exceptions with "Tart", doing my very best to appreciate it for what it was. But no effort, no matter how great, could possibly redeem this pitiful excuse for a movie.<br /><br />It failed for a number of reasons. Firstly, the cinematography was directionless and ineffective. Secondly, the script reached depths of 'poor' that took it well and truly beyond the 'so bad it's good' category. Thirdly, the acting left mind-blowing amounts to be desired - it was appalling, it really was. Anyone who saw Mischa Barton (seen here as the remarkably terrible Grace, a character so poorly invented and realised that Ja Ja Binks doesn't seem so bad) as Devon in John Duigan's "Lawn Dogs" will wonder what went wrong between then and now. Perhaps, had she been given a character worth bothering with, and a modicum of direction, she at least might have given this film ONE redeeming feature. Alas, such was not the case. Finally, the film seemed to have no point whatsoever, expressing nothing, achieving nothing. Really, I wonder why Christina Wayne bothered.<br /><br />"Tart" made a feeble attempt to be something, and failed. The result - a film, sadly, so bad that it's just very, very bad. Don't bother - it really isn't worth it.
For the first time in reviewing films, I found myself immediately uninterested in this story. I don't know if it was the way that it was filmed or the story behind the characters, but it felt bland, overused, and completely unoriginal. Within the first thirty minutes, I found myself rather apathetic with all the characters and the story. I felt as if I had seen this structure before, and Tart was providing nothing new to surprise me. After thinking that it may just be my mood, I stopped the film and chose to start it fresh in the morning, but the same feeling persisted. I just didn't care. That is not a good sign. The characters were bland. When I say bland, I literally mean that by watching them develop, you will never have any flavor hit your palate. The story seemed recycled, nearly to the point of plagiarism. Now, I am not saying that Christina Wayne stole this story, but she added nothing fresh to the perspective. The casting was horrid, the underlying symbolism and themes were so far lost that no critic could find them (nor the characters), and the stories were vague and sloppy. You knew nothing about anyone or anything, and instead of pushing more emphasis on the characters, we instead found ourselves with drugs, minor sex, and money pushed into our faces. These are themes we have seen in every film since the dawn of film time, yet somehow could not be creatively captured by Wayne.<br /><br />What immediately pulled me away from this story? It was mainly the characters. I have seen most of Brad Renfro's work, and honestly he needs to redefine himself. Director Larry Clark has defined him, and oddly he cannot get out of that stereotypical character. Within the first twenty minutes of Renfro's screen time I was bored. I knew exactly what he was trying to portray and why. It was spectacular nor impressive, just repetitive. He needed to bring some excitement or suspense to his role, instead of just blandly playing this random socialite. Without a strong character, the final climax of this film comes instead as a letdown. Renfro did not showcase the best of his abilities in this film. While I am on the subject … nobody showcased the best of their abilities. What is going on with Dominique Swain, outside of Lolita, I don't believe she has really emerged as an actress, and following-up with roles such as Cat Storm doesn't help. Bijou Phillips was the only actress that I witnessed actually try to bring something remarkable to the screen, sadly due to everyone else's horrid acting, she was lost. Rambling here and there, and honestly nearly forgotten about during the second act. Melanie Griffith was a pointless cast and most of this film's budget probably went to her TWO scenes that she was in. Maybe the rest of it went to the random guy from The Kids in the Hall, who desperately needs to place himself far away from this project.<br /><br />My biggest problem, outside of the acting, was the pacing of this film. Nothing, and this is hard for me to say, but nothing gelled together. There were so many sub-stories happening throughout the course of the film that no actual substance was formed. The robberies, the teenage "angst and woe", the wealthy socialites learning how horrible real life is, the random Kids in the Hall guy, and even the ending just felt rushed and horribly edited together. With this shoddy craftsmanship the whole story never really formed any true shape. Family structures were never defined, characters were never given any emotion, and all we are left with are bits and pieces of honest leftovers. Wayne did not complete the task at hand.<br /><br />While I hate to put the entire burden on the director, with this film I am left with little choice. With a horrid title that just screamed the complete opposite of what this film was about, with amateurish directional ability the cast pretty much was able to give every emotion in every scenes, leaving us with disgusting acting and poor developments, and with vague storytelling it is hard to place any "good" behind Tart. This was a film I had heard nothing about, and after viewing it I can see why. All Wayne has done with this film is random take excerpts from other films that have done a better job of defining all the elements above and cut all together to make the film Tart. It is hard for me to say this, but Wayne ruined this film. While I don't believe there was much to fully take from the story, any remaining elements of excitement were drained as Wayne took the helm. While most of the time you can credit some of the story, perhaps strong acting, or even the music, in Tart you can credit nothing. From the opening sequence until the end, I felt like I was swimming through very lumpy oatmeal. No consistency, no strength.<br /><br />Overall, this film is a waste of your time. If you are searching for some deep symbolic elements or possibly some banter on our society, you will not find it in this film. While I know that was what Wayne was attempting to show, the final product seems like it was edited on an Etch-a-Sketch. It was an embarrassing film to sit through, and encourage nobody to pick it up. Wayne threw to the wind all the teachings of her Columbia University education and destroyed two hours of my life. Avoid at all costs! <br /><br />Grade: * out of *****
SPOILERS!<br /><br />I gave this film 2 out of 10 for 2 scenes that I will never forget.....by the way, my husband rented this surprising non-blow 'em up almost chick looking flick...but I guessed why when I saw the cover....girls in school uniforms....duh....lol....ah well, men if ya can't beat 'em join 'em.....;-)<br /><br />Bijou Philips, one of my favorites on the indie screen...too cute......not only gets into bestiality (her toy dog is the best lesbian in town according to her bubbly outrageous character)..that would be the first worthwhile scene..<br /><br />Then she enters a restroom in a lovely gown & goes into a stall....after a bit she gets up, goes out to the party she & the pathetically sad 'Cat' character are at,& hands a shiny silver ice bucket to the host of the party...the host looks in her precious silver ice bucket and says, "oh my god it's poo."<br /><br />I love Bijou Phillips myself for her creativity and unusual movie choices, this would definitely be one of them....and um, I would rent it for the poo scene if I were you.....I am not a big poo jokes fan, but it definitely puts the 'party people' in their place (they didn't look like they were having a good time anyway.....lol)...You will never forget these two scenes...hmm, but is that what we want in our databanks?....Maybe you shouldn't follow my advice at all....lol<br /><br />Dominique Swain is kind of squirrelly & sad in her confusing nonsensical role in 'Tart'. I don't know, I can't decide if I like her because she is so into indie films?? Indie films are awesome & all but couldn't she pick a few good ones? I am going to check out a few more of her movies and reserve judgment.... but this one was, (pardon the reference to beasts) a dog.....
It was so disjointed - it seemed to jump from place to place - and the "thief" was obvious. It was a poor man's (not to mention high school) "Less than Zero". I would pass on this movie as it has very little to add. So many issues are left unresolved, and that's okay - but the fact that it jumps around to the point where you wonder what's exactly going on is terrible. The voice-over is needed because the movie doesn't work on its own. Avoid this movie, and watch something else about rich teen angst. I'm sure there are plenty of others to watch. Don't waste your time on this.
Why do people make bad movies? Didn't anyone working on the picture know that what they were making had no point? There is something about this picture that threw me off, besides the fact that I found this "movie" to be unrealistic, pathetic, and POORLY ACTED. I admire them for the try, but the "actors" in the movie at times seem to be trying to hard and no single character has substance or says anything mildly intelligent. This movie deserves zero stars. But I did not have that option, so it gets a 1.
"Tart" is a pathetic attempt at film making which wanders around and among a bunch of Manhattan teens exploring all the usual teen preppie stuff...sex, drugs, and classical music almost completely without story, focus, or purpose. Griffith is in the film for about 2 minutes while Swain dutifully works her way through another in her long list of dog flicks. Nothing in this films works and Wayne should consider getting a real job. Not recommended for anyone. PU! Ugh! (D)
I'm not even going to waste more time describing how bad this movie is. Bottom line: It was horribly acted, had enormous plot holes and went absolutely NOWHERE. The only good thing about it was the description my digital cable gave for the movie: "A married man with a struggling business has a fling with his secretary." Huh?? Wrong movie apparently, although it may have made things slightly more interesting if any of the description were true.<br /><br />--Shelly
I wish they would just make a special section in the video rental stores for movies like this. The section would read: "Movies for lonely older men who like to watch young girls being naughty and wearing fetish clothes" I guess dominique swain, after lolita nd now this, is establishing herself as the queen of the dirty old man genre.
This film has recently been televised by Turner Classic Movies. It may have been considered racy in its time, and may have made money, but even the most die-hard Jane Russell fan will find it hard to sit through this dreck.<br /><br />There are many movie musicals from the 1950s which can withstand the test of time, even though dated by current standards, but which can still be enjoyed because of good music or dancing or an amusing plot. "The French Line", however, fails at all of these aspects.<br /><br />It doesn't matter that Russell was a fine singer when she is given lousy vocal material. The entire cast is dragged down by a boring, trite plot and dialogue.<br /><br />It's not even worth recording and skipping through to only the musical numbers--they're crummy.
Jane Russell was an underrated comedienne and singer (see SON OF PALEFACE and GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES), but you'd never guess it from her display here. A real stinker, produced by Howard Hughes in his all-too-successful effort to kill off RKO Radio Pictures.<br /><br />The movie kills its first opportunity to show off sexy Jane when it places her in a bubble bath and then has her chastely singing "I'll Be Switched (If I Ain't Gettin' Hitched)"--and it's all downhill from there. In her autobiography, Russell apologized for the movie's number "Lookin' for Trouble" because it was supposedly so risque--nowadays you could show it on The Disney Channel. (By the way, said autobiography has a jaw-dropping photo of Russell in a bikini, far sexier than anything
The first Shiloh film was enjoyable by adults as well as children. This one starts with about an hour of filler where not much happens, with stilted dialogue; only in the last act is there any significant action that really moves the plot along. The dog is still cute, though, and young kids may enjoy it.
This is an adaptation of an Edith Wharton work, whose writing is amazing. Sadly, this movie never shakes the feeling that these 20th century movie people don't grasp the 19th century repression and desperation Wharton's work depicts. Ward and Dalton aren't so bad, but Alicia Witt's wooden performance made me wince. She was supposed to be playing the restless element of the story, but she stood like a stick the whole movie long, and I never believed a word out of her mouth. When she asks Sela Ward "Why can't I move you?" near the end of the film, I couldn't help but answer: "That's what I've been wondering for the last hour and a half!!!"
Slow-moving ponderous movie with terrible acting on the whole - but lovely locations & clothes to admire, and, of course, Timothy Dalton, who does a compelling job, as always. I wanted to laugh out loud at the voice-overs - so silly!! But Dalton is always worth watching, even in bad movies, a wonderful actor, older now, but still very handsome and masculine. This movie is worth viewing only to see him....and he seems like he wandered into a bad dime romance novel, poor fellow. Your time would be better spent watching Mr. Dalton in 1970's "Wuthering Heights" or the early 1980's BBC version of "Jane Eyre". Poor Sela Ward, so lovely, but so wooden.... surely she's been better in other movies.
Return to Sender, a.k.a. Convicted, is almost imperfect. The one good thing about this particular film was that I was never bored. That being said, the reviews that hail this movie as a low-budget success may not have watched the same movie that I saw.<br /><br />Rather than write a review and tell you what happens and what works and doesn't work, I will simply comment that nothing works. There are plot holes in this movie that you can drive a semi through. The acting in the film is not very good, although that may be a result of a script so poorly worded that it could have been ghost written by George Lucas. There was no need for exceptional sets or costumes for this particular movie and everything seemed appropriate. Did I mention that there were some plot holes? By the end of the movie, you are wondering how a blind guy can be such a good shot with a shotgun, why Kelly Preston trusts Aidan Quinn, why she would fall asleep the night before her client is supposed to be killed, how Aidan Quinn can drive 400 miles in such a short time with a car that keeps breaking down during the rest of the movie, why Aidan Quinn didn't by a fifth instead of a bunch of nips, etc.<br /><br />With all that being said, this is certainly a B-movie, and a terrible one at that. The unfortunate thing is that it just isn't bad enough to be good. If you value your time, please let this serve as a public service message to stay away from this one.
This was pretty bad - from bad acting, bad technical details, bad camera shots, and bad audio (even though I was watching a DVD, sometimes I couldn't hear what they were saying, sometimes it was blowing my speakers, even within the same conversation). The plot was predictable, and the characters consisted of mostly unbelievable neurotics, bi-polars, and caricatures. Character development was awful... the bratty little sister (why was she even written into the script?), the nagging mom (again - what purpose?) the whiny girlfriend (why didn't he dump her long ago?), the 'dark suits' gang (how original - couldn't think of a better name I guess), the drug dealer's hot girlfriend (gotta have a hot Latina if your going to have LA gangs I guess, but really...), etc etc Can't believe I watched the whole thing.
Don't get fooled by the 'awards' and the comment below. This is just 1 poor movie. The way George Katt played his character (the soft gangster) makes it very annoying to watch. The conversation in the opening scene is a dramatic display of this. De in the rest of the film the character's head seems to be somewhere else. His emotions don't match with the things that happen in the film.The things he says as a voice-over doesn't add anything to the film. It just makes Zeus an even more spineless character with is head in the clouds.<br /><br />The story and the film was put together with a total lack of fantasy. All parts of the film were poorly stolen from other modern directors. Let's hope Jon Rosten will use his own style and ideas for his future films.
Wow, this movie really sucked down below the normal scale of dull, boring, and unimaginative films I've seen recently. The acting was poor and robotic. The story was so bland you could have summed it up with a simple 5-minute short. Audio was so poor and dirty it was hard to even listen to; perhaps it was unedited from the camera it was shot off of? I'm not sure which movie the 3 glowing reviewers were commenting on, but it wasn't this one. Perhaps the director had his hand in seeing that his film received a good review, at least before the real reviews started to show up.<br /><br />Save your time or you'll just be wasting your time and money on this film. Absolute suckage!
This movie was terrible not only was the plot weak, but the acting was unbelievable bad, and at times pathetic. Very unrealistic dialogs people in real life don't talk like this and there is no emotion or feeling in anything said very monotone except for the almost indistinguishable whispering that constantly occurs. Even the editing is bad the cuts are terrible. The camera work was sloppy and shaky on close ups even sways back and forth during conversations. There is nothing positive about this movie and George Katts needs to be working on heavy machinery or anything where he doesn't have to converse with other humans because he clearly doesn't know how to. How did this movie win/ get nominated for awards oh my god!!
Everyone's already commented on the obvious fact that the first few comments were obviously from people who either had a stake in the film or had friends/family who had a stake in the film, and that's okay - if I'd made a movie, all of my family and friends would be in there complimenting it, too. In all honesty, there are some good things along with the bad things in this movie. Unfortunately, the bad things far outweigh the good. Good: The overall plot was mildly interesting. The music was overall pretty good. Several of the songs (when you could hear them) were actually pretty cool. The only musical issues I had were: #1) the first suspense scene with some sort of quiet instrumental (it really seemed to take away from the suspense), #2) the song being played when the lead characters went to an outdoor party at a friend's house and #3) the songs that were good were too quiet, especially when a heavy metal song was playing in the background while Danny Trejo hung a man (sounded like a pretty cool song, but it should have ripped out across the scene when Danny Trejo got froggy). Now for the completely bad stuff: The script was atrocious. I mean, HORRIBLE. I've seen smoother dialogue in a Star Wars movie. Advice to the writer from a part-time writer and full-time movie buff: When you write dialogue, ask yourself, "Is this something that people would actually say?" Honestly, the script was laughable. I want to slam the acting, but with that kind of writing, it's hard to know if they have talent or not. The mildly interesting plot was seriously hampered by the crappy dialogue. I know it was low-budget, but words don't cost money - if you have a good script, even semi-competent actors can pull it off. This movie didn't seem to have either, but hopefully the director will get a second shot at making a better film.
My mom brought me this movie on a DVD. A guy in a rental recommended it. But in fact, this might be the worst movie I've ever seen. You know, I didn't expect much from this film, but it didn't have a good story, it wasn't even funny and it was senseless. I was looking forward to see Christine Lakin in this movie because I loved Step by step. Even she was a huge disappointment. The story was completely unreal. One of the party guys is dead (he wasn't dead in fact, he woke up later), the house looks like there exploded a bomb and there are 2 guys who have 3 hours to handle everything. But then there comes a homosexual, policeman... There is a total mess till the end and the guys managed to tide up and everything in like 15 minutes??? Come on, just be realistic at least. Waste of money. Really...
I could crap a better movie. This is a waste of time and money. it makes me sick that movies like these are actually getting made and the people making them actually think they're good. I happen to like teen comedies, when they're done well. This movie, however, takes this genre to a new low. With movies like this, people think it's actually okay to make this filth and ask unsuspecting people to pay money to sit through it. It's sadism.
This has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. I can't believe people actually a) write scripts like this b) have a budget to make a film c) actually expect it to be successful. Words can't even describe how horrible this film is. I enjoy my fair share of teen movies, but this didn't even come close to being funny. In fact, it was funny for the sole reason that it was so horrible. I can probably count one (maybe two) parts in the film where I even managed to squeeze out a chuckle (other than the laughs regarding how bad it was).<br /><br />Renting this was one of the biggest mistakes I've ever made. Its been a day since I've seen the film, and I'm still in shock regarding how horrible it was. Avoid at all costs.<br /><br />2/10
If you liked William Hickey in "Prizzi's Honor", he resurrects his character, as Don Anthony in "Mob Boss". This is a very weak "Godfather" satire with few laughs. Stuart Whitman looks perplexed as to what he's doing in this schlock-fest? Morgan Fairchild's performance is one of the better efforts in the movie, and that alone is not a good sign for sure. Eddie Deezen vacillates between "Three Stooges" slapstick and a bad Woody Allen imitation. Fatally flawed, "Mob Boss" is so derivative that boredom quickly overcomes comedy and the film drags on with car chases, hidden weapons in a restaurant bathroom, and numerous other nonsense. - MERK
Ever once in a while I run into a movie that is so embarrassingly bad I wonder why movies exist. This is one of them. This is a terrible attempt to parody The Godfather with annoying cartoon sounds, and bad dialogue. Eddie Deezen is just plain annoying as Tony, an annoying twit who upon his father, Don (William Hickey)'s request, takes over the family business. Tony, as I said, is an annoying little twit. This makes the whole movie a complete mess. The movie is terribly daffy. It's too cartoonish. The main point I'm trying to make is that you can't make a parody of an acclaimed drama like The Godfather with so much cartoonishness. It doesn't work that way. Believe it or not, you have to take a parody of a dramatic movie seriously. If you don't take it seriously, it will feel too much like a parody. The thing about doing a parody is that you can't seem too much like you're doing a parody. You have to make it seem like you're taking the movie at least a little bit seriously. It also feels like they're just mocking Woody Allen, and that's what makes this movie absolutely terrible.
That's about the only redeeming quality in a movie that otherwise insults the viewer's intelligence by losing track of time, plot, and reason for being produced.<br /><br />Plus, how that guy with the glasses ever got a gig in Hollywood is beyond me.
I recently had to watch this for a project in a Sociology class and thought it was absolutely the worst movie I have ever had to sit through. It was like bad a bad cinemax movie with all the "good bits" taken out. Bad acting, the fake documentary set up, nonsensical plot, and rudderless direction all combine to make a terrible, terrible film.<br /><br />The female characters are basically only there to be sex objects. Consider this exchange: "He's hot." "He has a girlfriend." "Do you have a girlfriend?" "No." *girl takes boys hand and leads him behind some bushes. boy comes out and sits next to other boy, girl saunters off* "Did you hit that?" "No, I didn't want to take my pants off." "You're stupid." Another girl shows up when the boys are going to Beverly Hills, gets in the trunk with one of the boys, and when they get pulled over by a cop, you see the car bobbing up and down.<br /><br />A homosexual pervert, a trigger-happy Clint Eastwood look alike, and what seems to be a luchador mask all add to the inanity. One of the boys gets caught by a cop, no one cares. One of the boys gets shot, no one cares.<br /><br />Someone said the dialogue was mostly improvised, and it shows. Just awful. I would never recommend this film to anyone.
Look, don't get me wrong I love independent films but COME ON! I could barely sit through it without wanting to kill myself. the director had absolutely no talent and he turned something that could have been OK to a F***ing Nightmare. I am a punk enthusiast myself and even the music sucked. the acting was crap.<br /><br />I am usually a bleeding heart for these low budget films but this one, this one didn't even try. Please don't waste your precious time and money. I am sorry to be so harsh but come on! it dragged on and and on and on. Remember when the kids got into that party with the weird cupcakes and the watermelon martinis? how did they just blend in? It made me frustrated how they could just go anywhere they wanted and get into trouble and have sex and a "meaningful conversation" with whoever they wanted. I know im blathering but my mind is just buzzing with everything I hated about this film.
I've never been a big Larry Clark fan, but somehow, I've been dragged to almost every single one of his movies. Now, I like independent films, and I grew up very much into punk rock, and I'd like to say that this film is disappointing to both audiences. Not every punk song incorporates "Oi!" into its choruses, as they do in this particular film.<br /><br />But the real problem with this film is that it switches moods every fifteen minutes or so and lacks any kind of cohesion. Clark has made his living pretending that his fictionalized stories are "how kids really are," and as such, you'll allow him ten minute scenes of stupid dialog that go nowhere, because that's the cinema verite feel he's going for. However, when he shoots a ridiculous death scene (pick any of them, save for the opening drive-by), the over-stylized attempts at what I assume is intended to be black humor are completely out of context, ridiculously shot (in most cases, far worse than a student film) and absolutely ludicrous in terms of the story. John Cassavettes and "Date Movie" make poor bedfellows, as the forays into the latter style take you out of any kind of reality to remind you that you're watching a movie - a really, really bad one at that.
Larry Clark is not renowned for his talents as a writer or a director, but he has made some undeniably important films. Kids, Bully, and to a lesser extent Ken Park all achieve their intended purpose: shock, revulsion, and even disgust. These films are uncompromising in their content and use their controversial nature to expose very serious problems in modern youth. Kids exposed us to the proliferation of A.I.D.S. and sexual promiscuity among the young. Bully touched upon similar issues. Ken Park dealt somewhat ham-handedly with sexual abuse and suburban ennui. Irrefutably, all of these films exposed something horrifying and left a bad taste in your mouth.<br /><br />Wassup Rockers is about a group of poor Hispanic skateboarders from South-Central Las Angeles who go to arbitrarily go to Beverly Hills to skate. That's it.<br /><br />Wassup Rockers is nothing.<br /><br />It has no substance. It has an essentially nonexistent narrative. And, like Kids, it features a cast of first-time actors who were drawn out of the films setting. However, unlike Kids, none of them have any semblance of talent. There is better acting in porn. This film features, without a doubt, the most terrible performances I've ever seen in a feature film. One can respect Larry Clark to exposing these young men to the film-making process, but these kids are absolutely cringe-worthy, folks. Might I add that apparently these gents also produced the soundtrack, which features some of the most dismally inept garage punk you'll ever hear- my advice is to pop a couple of migraine pills before you enter the theater, or you'll regret it afterward.<br /><br />But then again, it's not like they had much of a script to work with. Every line that is uttered is a contrived, pathetically-delivered, and irritating beyond all measure. The story itself is ludicrous. It starts out reasonably enough, but soon slips quite unexpectedly into sheer absurdity. This begins of course with a capricious sexcapade with a pair of rich white girls, followed by a series of clichéd National Lampoonish encounters, characters being killed off for no reason, and finally resulting in a ridiculous anti-climax. Shots go on much longer than they need to. Be prepared to watch people fall of skateboards for about fifteen minutes straight, overlong, lingering shots of characters doing nothing or skateboarding down streets. But then again, with the script at a scant 32 pages they need as much useless filler as possible. Perhaps Wassup Rockers would have worked better as a short film.<br /><br />Anyways, I could go on like this. This is the worst film Larry Clark has made yet. For those of you who are interested in seeing a Clark movie if only for his shocking pederast antics, look elsewhere. This is by far the tamest film he's made yet, and it's also the worst. It's flat out horrible. Like, Uwe Boll horrible. Definitely the worst one I saw at the festival.<br /><br />1/10
There's nothing to say except I want my time back that this movie took from me. I'm not racist against Latinos. Hell, I'm half Brazilian. I loved the movie Kids. It doesn't make any sense. These kids just go around and do nothing. They're not even good at skating. The whole time I'm just waiting for something, anything, to happen! but it doesn't. NOTHING happens the whole movie. Did I mention they suck at skating. I might make a movie called beat up rockers, and the whole premise will be about kicking the sh*t out of poser moron punks like these kids. I'm not even going to get into it, this movie sucks. Please do yourself a favor and burn this movie if you come in contact with it so some other poor soul won't make the same mistake.
It starts out like a very serious social commentary which quickly makes one think of other Clark movies like Kids, Bully, etc. But then just as quickly, it unravels into a direction-less mess. Who is the main character? Is this a serious film or some Gregg Araki-esquire over the top goofy film? Is this a skate documentary with moments of dialog inserted? I have no clue. I found myself watching the clock and wonder when this turd was going to end. I kept thinking there would be some big shocker culmination which never came. I cut a good 20 minutes out of the movie by fast forwarding through the pointless skate scenes. Yes, it illustrates the changing landscape between the have's have not's. I got it way back in the beginning. Kids and Bully was done in such a way that I actually felt like I was observing the realities of that group of friends. Wassup felt very staged, poorly constructed and ever worse acting. Teenage Caveman, which Larry didn't write but did direct, was terrible. But at least it felt like it was suppose to be a terrible movie that didn't take itself seriously. Wassup Rockers was just plain bad.
Pick a stereotype, any stereotype (whether racial, sexual, cultural, etc.), and I bet you'll find it in Wassup Rockers. Do you think that all Hispanic teenage boys are stupid, hairy, inarticulate, and dirty troublemakers? Are Hispanic girls sex-crazed, easy, ass-baring sluts? Do Black people all want to start fights and carry guns? Do all gay people throw themed parties with pink drinks and ask young boys to model for them? Are all White teenage girls rich, stuck-up princesses who are bored with White teenage boys and are looking for something a little more dangerous? If you answered "yes" to any of the previous questions, you, my friend, are a bigot, and you will LOVE Wassup Rockers.<br /><br />Director Larry Clark likes to shock his audiences (I was 15 years old the first time I saw Kids and I think that's why I'm still a virgin), but Wassup Rockers isn't shocking… it's just bad. He tries to be edgy and realistic with his minimal dialog and body-hair close-ups, but these characters and this story are completely unrealistic.<br /><br />Simply put, Wassup Rockers is a teenage boy's fantasy. What 14-year-old boy doesn't want to be a skater who gets in trouble, crashes parties, drinks 40s, and is told by the hot, rich, White girl that his uncircumcised penis "looks dangerous?" Besides that demographic, I really don't know who's going to enjoy this film.
**Possible Spoilers Ahead**<br /><br />Whenever fans of bad movies congregate for more than a few minutes, a name that invariably comes up is that of Larry Buchanan. This amazing director has given us remakes of other turkeys (ZONTAR THE THING FROM VENUS), cheap-jack crime dramas like A BULLET FOR PRETTY BOY, and tawdry conspiracy flicks like DOWN ON US and GOODBYE NORMA JEAN. THE LOCH NESS HORROR is a humdinger to say the least. Overlooking the fact that Loch Ness is extremely long and narrow, Larry filmed this howler on a wide and round California lake. Early on, the film boasts some dazzling (for the budget) underwater photography and creates some atmosphere in spite of itself. Then it degenerates into windy dialogue uttered by no-name actors with lapsing Scottish accents, not to mention a soundtrack that will do nothing for the much-maligned bagpipe. At one point, campers sing "You Take The High Road, I'll Take The Low Road," just to throw in one more Scottish cliche. If Scottish people ever decide to jump on the Political Correctness bandwagon they'll sue Larry Buchanan over this film, his surname notwithstanding. The monster looks like a giant papier-mache puppet and it makes the dragon in Beanie & Cecil look terrifying by comparison. In one unforgettable scene Nessie takes to land and, to evade some patrolling soldiers, the fifty-foot long critter tries to hide behind a tree-and the soldiers don't see it! THE LOCH NESS HORROR is a true mind-boggler that must be seen-several times--to be believed.
Something strange is happening in Loch Ness. The water is crystal clear, nor cold. A giant robotic plastic monster emerges and kills Scots! What is this movie?! First, I love reading stories about Nessie, sea monsters in general. When i saw this for sale, i thought it was a cheap rip off of jaws. No. It was terrible! The story was pointless, acting was 100% garbage, the only up side was the cool mechanical Nessie they used. It was full of inaccuracy, wrong locations, and bad everything. Not worth your while, just leave it on the shelf (or garbage can) you found it on. On second note, This film was shot in Cailifornia, not Loch Ness, a major diss to Nessie fans.
OMG, another bad film by Larry Buchanan. That guy did not learn to stop, did he? First, he gives us zero budget sci-fi movies and lies about famous dead people, and now he is exploiting the Loch Ness Monster as being vicious.<br /><br />The "plot" is basically about some southerners of the USA pretending to be Scottish camping out at Loch Ness. Alas, out on the fishing hole, oops, I mean lake of Loch Ness, there is a killer inflatable monster that clams itself to be Nessie, going out of its way to kill people for no apparent reason.<br /><br />I am surprised that the crew of MST3K never heard of this movie. Yes, it is that bad too.
I think this is one of those few movies that I want to rate it as low as possible just to pay it a compliment.<br /><br />I haven't seen this movie in about 25 years, so I really can't say that much about it. It still seems to be very hard to find on video. But I remember my brother and I stumbled upon it somewhere in the toxic brew of late night UHF channel television of the mid 1980s when I was about 10 years old. So I've never actually seen the beginning of the movie, but I saw most of it. The first thing I remember is this couple is sneaking out of a campsite and they're rowing to an island to make out, and then they get attacked by an insane Scotsman in a kilt with an axe! They manage to escape from him but get attacked by the Loch Ness Monster, which in this movie is just a head and a neck with no body. The eyes and the mouth of the monster don't even move, it looks like a piñata.<br /><br />I mean I had just literally never seen anything on this magnitude before and it totally blew my mind. I had seen some bad movies on TV in the early 80s but I had never seen something so totally inept and so casually and thoughtlessly constructed that it seemed like the people who made it spent less time and effort on it than we did watching it. I had already seen some of the Troma films and that type of thing that tries to deliberately be "campy", but this was the pure and real stuff and it was my first encounter with truly great bad film-making. This movie was like the last gasp of the drive-in era and I caught a whiff of it just in time. Actually when we were watching it, we couldn't figure out if it was made in the 50s or the 70s. Turns out it came out just a few years before I saw it.<br /><br />Later I came into contact with Mystery Science Theater and found out about a lot of the old B movies and serials, but I had already seen it in this movie. The movie is so funny that I had never even laughed that hard at the Monty Python crew or Bill Murray or any comedian. After seeing this movie I was always trying to search for the "good bad" movies and I got a lot of my friends into it. But this movie was and basically is an impossible one to find. I never really found out what it even was or who Larry Buchanan was until the 1990s when IMDb took off and the internet took off and information started getting passed around. But this movie still needs to be discovered by a lot of others who might appreciate its transcendentally bad qualities. Look for it.
What can I say about a movie as bad as this? The people who made this movie, didn't even try to make the monster in it look realistic. You never see more than its head, and the head is just a giant puppet that has little movement except for when it opens it mouth to roar. And the sound they used for the roaring is the best part. At many points in the movie it sounds exactly like a TIE fighter flying over! I couldn't believe that when I first heard it and had to rewind several times to make it sink in. Other than the terrible looking monster and the noises it makes, there isn't much more to this film except for a few corny attack scenes and the crazy Scotsman attacking the kids trying to have an intimate moment in his castle. Still, it's watchable if you like this sort of trash. I know I do....
A few buddies and myself have the strange hobby of seeking out really horrendous and utterly obscure (for a good reason) horror flicks and then subsequently watching them under the influence of mind-broadening consumer goods like alcohol and/or soft drugs. Surely a lot of people do this, but they watch movies like the "Godzilla" remake, whereas we torment our eyes and brains with stuff like "The Loch Ness Horror". And, eureka, this is a prototypic bad movie! We open traditionally, with bag pipes music during the opening credits. This is, of course, to emphasize extra to us dumb viewers that the story is supposed to take place in the Scottish highlights and not in director Larry Buchanan's birthplace Texas. For that exact same reason, the cast members are seemingly also instructed to overact tremendously and talk with talk with atrocious accents. The American marine biologist Prof. George Sanderson arrives in Loch Ness with some brand new and highly sophisticated sonar equipment to track down the whereabouts of the legendary monster in the lake. Meanwhile, there are many other parties hanging around the lake, like a group of kids on a Science Camp (what a boring way to spend your vacation), retired army generals looking for a Luftwaffe plane that crashed in the lake during WWII and a bunch of thieves and failed scientists that are steeling the monster's egg. You would think that these numerous sub plots bring some diversity and excitement in the plot, but unfortunately that's not the case. "Loch Ness Horror" is an overall boring flick with only a couple of noteworthy elements. The monster itself, for example, is a delightfully cheesy creation with cute eyes and a smoky breath. His teeth also glow in the dark, which is quite useful when you're dumb enough to go out on a boat ride in the middle of the night. Near the end of the film, the remaining cast members were more interested in the lost Luftwaffe plane than in the monster, so it was about time to wrap it up. "Loch Ness Horror" is carefully recommended in case you're a fan of bad B-movies from the 80's, but be advised that it contains an overload of senseless dialogs and a bizarrely rushed ending that makes it look as if the film suddenly ran out of budget.
I completely forgot that I'd seen this within a couple of days, which is pretty revealing in itself. The umpteenth version of Gaston 'Phantom of the Opera' Leroux's locked-door country-house mystery, I had heard that it was an engaging and witty update. So it appeared from the likable title sequence and a few neat touches in the opening scene, but the film very quickly ground to a halt and became vaguely tedious and wholly unsatisfying.<br /><br />As a mystery the major problem is that it is fundamentally unsolvable by the audience: like the worst Agatha Christies, it depends on a character appearing in the final act with a wealth of background information that we have not been privy to. As a film, be it comedy or thriller, the crucial problem is that characterisation is almost non-existent. With the exception of the killer, everyone is a face-value version of the typical suspects in the typical country-house murder story - reporter, endangered heiress, suspicious fiancé, scatterbrained scientist father (a surprisingly poor Michel Lonsdale), etc. There's no depth and little of interest, and the frequently over-ripe or misjudged performances don't help. You frankly don't care about anyone in it, so there's no jeopardy or suspense. Only Claude Rich and, in the last reel, Pierre Arditi get anything to work with, and only in the last reel does the film get close to a sense of resonance that is too fleeting to be really effective.<br /><br />For the rest, we get endless exposition and a couple of ineffective would-be comic set pieces (a promising one with a photographer trapped inside a grandfather clock is just too poorly thought through to pay off), with Dennis Podalydes reduced to Irving the Explainer for the last third of the picture. I'm not fond of country-house movies or Agatha Christie style whodunits, so those who are might cit it a lot more slack, but I found it a poor show. As Rich says when the mystery is revealed, "It's all rather something of a disappointment."
Oh dear! Oh dear! Oh dear!<br /><br />To think that films such as this were made, and probably enjoyed by thousands at drive-ins really boggles the mind. How innocent we were in those days.<br /><br />To put it bluntly, this film is crap. The hero is so wet you can hear his squishy damp footsteps in every scene. My Lord, but he's just one of a whole slew of awful, awful actors that appear in this turkey. No wonder MST3K picked it. The story, such as it is, centres around a stock car driver (who is so incompetent, you really believe it is the actor driving the car) that he gives up and "gets in with the wrong crowd" Oooooh! Scary stuff. However, the wrong crowd turn out to be the biker equivalent of The Three Stooges and their "hand-me round" slut of a biker chick. As an example of how lame this whole thing is, the writers obviously wracked their brains to come up with a frightening name for the biker gang - if four people can be called a gang, that is. The result? The gang is called Satan's Angels! I kid you not.<br /><br />Such dire acting and dialogue, along with ridiculous scenes, make for a wonderful beer and chips movie. But otherwise its just the worst kind of rubbish.<br /><br />As I said. Once, this may have been considered good. But today it just makes you laugh (and cringe) with every minute that goes by. Avoid it except for a good laugh. And make sure you're more than half-drunk too!
Legendary pop star Steve Alaimo ("Don't Let the Sun Catch You Crying") stars as an unlikable stock car racer whose career has hit the skids (ha ha) because he constantly crashes his car (or as he laments, "I'm tired of being run down by every grease monkey that gets behind the wheel"). He falls into a bad crowd of humorously inept Nazi bikers, improbably named Jeeter, Banjo, Fats, and, er, Linda. Fats is the most likable of the bunch; he took a surfboard to the back of the skull and now only communicates through grunts, sort of a Harley Davidson Leatherface.<br /><br />Anyway, Steve is fooled by the cops into catching the dastardly crooks in the middle of one of their bank robberies. The gang only robs banks for "kicks, man". I guess they give the money to charity. Steve fails constantly, the bikers get greasier, and the whole thing never comes off as daring because it's so dull. This movie looks like it was filmed through a grease-soaked paper towel. Not since "Necromantic" has a movie so trampled my soul.<br /><br />The guy who played Fats went on to direct "Deranged", the Ed Gein biopic starring Robert Blossom.<br /><br />Anyway, in summary: Wild Rebels: Hilarious on MST3K, dreadful everywhere else.
Wild Rebels is fun in a bad way, but also frustrating due to the actual good, or at least workable, elements in the story. It deals with a race car driver (Steve Alaimo) who gets mixed up in a group of bikers called Satan's Angels, who hang around a lot until they decide to rob a bank. Meanwhile Alaimo also gets recruited by the cops to report back to them what the Angels are up to and where they'll rob next. It's not even that the film is really too 'dated', though it does of course carry the significantly crude and stupid music in the film (from the band on stage in one scene, to Alaimo "performing" if you could call that drek that, to the regular generic score). <br /><br />It's just that there's not more care taken by the filmmaker into putting a little more logic, direction, and better actors for the parts. As it is I didn't have a major disliking towards the film, as I did with the Hellcats, but it almost left me a little indifferent to it all, too. What could come through as being unpredictable only comes through with stupid things like the name of the Florida town ('Citrusville' ho-ho). So it's not completely un-worthy then of its Mystery Science Theater 3000 status as of late. The commentary is good on the movie, even if once or twice I almost wanted to hear what the characters on screen were saying in case it might have some worth. Wild Rebels might be more of a good time if you've got a six-pack and low expectations, but as it is I wouldn't watch it again.
This is basically your run of the mill violent biker flick complete with nifty slangs, crashes, and music. OK, so just slangs and crashes. It's a slight notch above much of the other fare featured on MST3K but it's still the equivalent of driving a nail into your kneecap: slow and painful. To give away plot would exhaust my energy so I'll just say you're better off skipping this one.
I just caught "Wild Rebels" on one of the "Mystery Science Theatre 3000" archive compilations, and this movie was so bad even the MST3K crew couldn't make it entertaining. There are some MST3K "targets" that were films whose concepts were so dippy they couldn't possibly have been good movies (like "The Green Slime"), and others whose basic premises could have been made into genuinely entertaining films if their filmmakers hadn't bobbled them in the execution. "Wild Rebels" is a film whose basic premise DID make a good movie three years earlier, when Don Siegel directed his remake of "The Killers" at Universal. Both films are about a failed racing driver who's seduced by a femme fatale into driving the getaway car in a robbery masterminded by the woman's boyfriend -- only in "The Killers" the driver was John Cassavetes, the woman was Angie Dickinson and the criminal mastermind (cast wildly but successfully against type in what turned out to be his final film) was Ronald Reagan. Steve Alaimo, Bobbie Byers and Willie Pastrano are quite a comedown! But what REALLY makes "Wild Rebels" an awful movie is the direction by William Grefé (note the accent over the final "e," present in his on-screen credit), which has absolutely no sense of pace whatsoever and seems to let every shot run at least half again as long as it needs to to make its dramatic point. It's only a pity that someone didn't do a mocking commentary on this movie now (in 2009); the comparison between Steve Alaimo's hairdo and Rod Blagojevich's would have been irresistible!
If you decide to watch Wild Rebels, don't expect anything deep and meaningful. If you're looking for a film that explores the relationships and structure of a motorcycle gang, Wild Rebels is the wrong movie. If you're looking for an expose on the breakdown of the American educational system and the problem of juvenile delinquency, Wild Rebels is the wrong movie. If you're looking for a movie that examines how undermanned rural police departments are when facing a well-financed, well-organized gang, Wild Rebels is the wrong movie. But if you're looking for an absurd movie filled with scene after scene of unintentional humor, horrendous acting, a paper-thin plot, and community theater style production values, Wild Rebels is the right movie.<br /><br />Wild Rebels is the story of a down-on-his-luck stock-car driver named Rod Tillman (Steve Alaimo). After a fiery crash (which Rod walks away from completely unscathed despite having only a cotton pants and a London Fog style jacket for protection), Rod decides to give it up. With no plan for his future other than to wander aimless through the back-roads of the South, he stumbles on the Satan's Angels motorcycle gang (a gang being three of the stupidest guys to ever zip up a leather jacket and a woman they seem to share). This group of hoodlums spends their time terrorizing a rural town in Florida by committing such atrocities as stealing a newspaper from a neighbor's mailbox. These bumbling idiots need someone to act as their driver during some larger crimes they have planned. Apparently, these three Einsteins can only drive vehicles with two tires, not four. So they recruit Rod to perform feats of daring that only an experienced stunt driver would be capable of like keeping the car in the middle of a gravel road during a low-speed chase. Eventually, they hold-up a bank, get into the aforementioned low-speed chase, and have the lamest gun battle with the police ever put on film. I could go on forever, but you get the idea.<br /><br />I hate the term "so bad it's good", but that seems to aptly describe Wild Rebels.
"Wild Rebels" was probably a fun second film at a drive in movie triple feature 40 years ago. It hasn't aged very well, but it was never meant to age well; it was obviously intended to be disposable, forgettable fun from its inception. Taken on that level, it's a good example of the biker flick genre.<br /><br />Several elements help distinguish it from the dozens of similar films being churned out at the same time. The 'hero', 'Rod Tillman' (Steve Alaimo) comes off as somewhat of an unimpressive 'Everyman' - he's not especially brave, tough, talented, or handsome (although he does win a fight with a tough biker gang member halfway into the film, and the girl gang member chooses to help him over her fellow gang member at the end of the film). The soundtrack is quite well done, featuring a nice 'Ventures' style bass/drum riff that keeps things moving and saxophones and brass charts that pep things up quite a bit. And although the script is pretty shallow, all the actors inhabit their cardboard characters convincingly and with a fair amount of energy.<br /><br />There are plenty of careless technical gaffes: terrible 'day-for-night' scenes that occur in broad daylight, squealing tires in a swamp, fire sirens mistakenly stuck on the soundtrack instead of police sirens, a bank sign made of duct tape on a ceiling tile, a Luger that sounds like a Winchester 30-06, shotgun blasts that cut down people 100 yards away, a detective killing a biker on a 3rd floor landing from the ground with a revolver with a 2 inch barrel.<br /><br />There are a whole bunch of goofy story elements : Linda (the girl gang member) disables a bank guard with a drug-filled syringe, the final shootout takes place inside a lighthouse (!), police roadblocks don't actually block roads, the police apparently never heard of ducking, and the police detectives apparently never heard of planting bugs or having their undercover guy wearing a wire.<br /><br />But the plot chugs along, the cameraman knows what he is doing, the pacing in most scenes is pretty good, and there are some nice, zippy one liners and dialog exchanges here and there that keep the energy level up. (My favorite: "Man, you're messing with private stock! (ie, Linda)" So no, don't seek this one out or anything, but if a copy of the MST version should fall in your hands, you should have some good, shallow fun watching it. Vastly superior to "Five the Hard Way" or "The Hellcats" or even 'Girl In Gold Boots' (three other MST covered counter culture movies).
Probably the biggest thing about Wild Rebels that hurts it the most is the hero. He's got LOSER written all over him, but that doesn't stop him from "getting the girl." Probably one of the world's worst race drivers imaginable, he decides to stop racing after he crashes his car. Well, his new job is racing still, as a bunch of biker types pick him to drive their getaway car as they commit crimes. There's nothing really to endear you to Rod, even the situation he's thrown into is pretty stupid. In the end, at the lighthouse scene, you'll wish that Rod gets killed with all the bikers. Get this: He's shot twice, once in the arm and once in the leg, and still manages to crawl up the stairs a little. If only Jeeter had better aim...<br /><br />Avoid this one unless you're watching the MST3K version.